Laserfiche WebLink
<br />The applicant had provided adequate baseline vegetation information for the <br />original haul road location. Given the last minute change in location due to <br />public comment the Division met with the applicant to discuss the need for any <br />additional vegetation information for the new proposed alignment. Based on <br />this discussion, it was determined that a minimal amount of sampling would <br />have to be performed to verify the comparability of the new location in <br />relation to the original location. <br />No additional vegetative communities were proposed to be disturbed by the <br />relocation, and the additional sampling was to verify the population <br />homogeneity. Subsequent site inspections by the Division indicated visually <br />that the vegetative communities were the same. Based on the baseline data <br />submitted by the applicant, the Division had sufficient information to make a <br />positive determination pertaining to reclamability of the site. The applicant <br />did provide verification of comparability for the small area involved in the <br />haul road relocation. <br />During the course of the original permit review, a number of concerns arose <br />regarding the control of reference areas and reference area comparability. <br />The applicant proposed, in meetings with the Division, an extended reference <br />area concept. This discussion and the extended use of the proposed reference <br />area concept has been discussed and clarified in the original adequacy review <br />responses (Volume 1). In short, the applicant will utilize all undisturbed <br />vegetation communities (representing those to be disturbed by mining) within <br />the permit area as components of "extended reference areas". The components <br />of the extended reference areas will be represented by a minimum of 10 acres <br />of undisturbed aspen community, 60 acres of sage/grassland community, and <br />40 acres of mixed brush community. <br />With regard to the reclamation plan, a number of concerns were identified <br />during the original permit review concerning seed mixes and a revegetation <br />monitoring plan. These issues were not adequately clarified in the <br />resubmitted permit application and have not been clarified to date. <br />Therefore, original stipulations 8A and B are reaffirmed as follows: <br />Stipulation No. 8 <br />THE FOLLOWING ASPECTS OF THE SENECA II-W MINE REVEGETATION PLAN WILL BE <br />IMPLEMENTED OR MODIFIED AS STATED BELOW: <br />A. THE USE OF ALFALFA AND PUBESCENT WHEATGRASS WILL NOT BE ALLOWED UNTIL <br />SUCH TIME AS THE APPLICANT DEMONSTRATES THROUGH SITE SPECIFIC DATA <br />BASED ON SIMILAR SEEDING RATES AND METHODS THAT THESE SPECIES ARE <br />BOTH DESIRABLE AND NECESSARY. <br />THE APPLICANT WILL SUBMIT AND HAVE APPROVED ALL SUPPLEMENTAL SHRUB <br />AND FORB COMPONENTS OF THE SEED MIXES (SPECIES AND RATES). <br />Stipulation SC (see Appendix C) was resolved via Peabody submitting a <br />satisfactory vegetation monitoring plan. This plan was approved on July 15, <br />1986. <br />-43- <br />