Laserfiche WebLink
999 <br /> STATE OF COLORADO <br /> MINED LAND RECLAMATION DIVISION <br /> Department of Natural Resources <br /> 1313 Sherman St., Room 215 <br /> Denver,CO 80203 <br /> 303 866-3567 'raie' <br /> FAX 303 832-8106 <br /> Roy Romer, <br /> Governor <br /> Fred R.Banta. <br /> Division D:rector <br /> DATE: March 9, 1990 <br /> TO: Cathy Begej <br /> FROM: Carl Mount <br /> RE: 1989 Vegetation Sampling Report, Rockcastle Coal Company , <br /> Grassy Gap Mine, File No. C-81-039 <br /> I have reviewed the 1989 Vegetation Sampling Report compiled by IMS, Inc. and <br /> submitted to Rockcastle Coal Company (RCC ) and CMLRD. <br /> The report is complete and concise and contains all the information that is <br /> necessary to support a Phase II bond release request. The information <br /> submitted consists of raw data from plant cover and production sampling, <br /> values for sample adequacy, a summary of statistics used and summary tables <br /> for cover and production values of each pit area by plant species. A <br /> reasonable and accurate write up explains exactly what was done and the <br /> results of the sample analyses. The sampling methods and results sections are <br /> well thought out and backed up by the numbers presented. The discussion <br /> section generally has good suggestions but misses or does not address some <br /> points as follows: <br /> 1 . It is stated that the light grazing of the area did not significantly <br /> li compromise the sampling effort. It should be pointed out that all <br /> 17,j0d i grazing on the site, from direct inspection observations, was done by <br /> sheep. In general , sheep selectively prefer to eat forbs over grasses. <br /> VV4 This could have significantly affected the forb cover values obtained <br /> �{j7 later in the year. Because of this, the recommendation that grazing <br /> 6t exclosures be used in the future is a good one. However, it should be <br /> reiterated to RCC that the permit states that they will exclude grazing <br /> on reclaimed areas. If they follow their permit commitments in this <br /> regard, grazing exclosures will not be needed. <br /> 2. It states in the discussion that "The success criteria for species <br /> diversity is rather arbitrary, and perhaps not entirely realistic." The <br /> 4,3 P ' � o permit states that for any area to be considered successfully reclaimed, <br /> -k(( .5 '> 3/L there must be at least four perennial grass species and one perennial <br /> Pfe6044 forb species comprising 3% relative importance (importance equals cover <br /> 6ilrl, in this case) each , with no one species comprising more than 40% relativeo <br /> [cover] . None of the reclaimed pits meets this criterion but the <br /> reference area fits it quite well (see Table 2 - Summary of Vegetation <br /> oU Nt(d 0 5fu"u Cover Data ). Since this is the case, and because most reclaimed areas <br /> , - Aq,1°/balmost meet the criterion (all are lacking the forb component required) , <br /> {tl cC�C•( I feel that the Division should keep the present success criteria in <br /> place. � (, <br /> All tYt� >A fefkale. Q <br /> �,i5 y�calc� <br />