My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2008-05-28_REVISION - C1981019
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Revision
>
Coal
>
C1981019
>
2008-05-28_REVISION - C1981019
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 3:32:07 PM
Creation date
5/28/2008 1:30:07 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981019
IBM Index Class Name
REVISION
Doc Date
5/28/2008
Doc Name
Adequacy Response
From
Colowyo Coal Company
To
DRMS
Type & Sequence
TR72
Email Name
JRS
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
26
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Revegetation [(2.05.4(2)(e) and 4.151 <br />In Items 5 through 18 below, the Division identifies a number of concerns with specific sections of Rule 2 <br />application narrative. Portions of Rule 4 application narrative will likely need to be updated to correspond to <br />amended Rule 2 narrative sections, in the response submittal to this adequacy review. The Division has <br />identified additional adequacy concerns specific to Section 4.15 amended sections in Items 23 through 30. <br />Supplemental Introduction in amended Section 2.05.4 <br />5. The Division concurs that the wildlife habitat/sagebrush steppe enhancement efforts should be focused <br />primarily on the more gentle terrain, estimated to comprise approximately 20% to 40% of the post-2008 <br />reclaimed landscape. However, the Division believes that the woody plant density standards proposed, <br />and the acreage to which such standards would apply, are too low. This determination is based on <br />consideration of the large acreage of relatively low diversity grassland habitat that has been established <br />at Colowyo in the past, and the understanding that wildlife habitat would be strongly emphasized in the <br />remaining areas of the original permit and the South Taylor expansion. With use of the amended <br />seedmixes, it is expected that a modest sagebrush/snowberry component would become established <br />within the grassland/erosion control targeted slopes, as typically is the case with use of similar native <br />dominated seedmixes at other mines in northwest Colorado. Use of the "banded seeding approach" with <br />occasional strips of the "Sagebrush Steppe" mix included within larger patches of the "Grassland" mix <br />could be utilized to enhance diversity and woody plant establishment on the slopes, without significantly <br />increasing erosion potential, if warranted. <br />Based on the plan presented, consideration of results that could reasonably be expected, and following <br />discussion with Jon Wangnild of CDOW, the Division requests the woody plant density standard for <br />post-2007 reclaimed areas at Colowyo be stated as follows: <br />• A standard of at least 500 live woody plant stems per acre and at least 250 live big sagebrush <br />plants per acre will apply on "Sagebrush Steppe/Wildlife Habitat Targeted Areas". "Sagebrush <br />Steppe/Wildlife Habitat Targeted Areas" will comprise a minimum 20% of the acreage of post- <br />2008 reclamation. <br />• A standard of at least 150 live woody plant stems per acre will be apply on "Grassland" targeted <br />areas of the post-2008 reclamation. <br />• A standard of at least 250 live woody plant stems per acre will apply on at least 3% of the pre- <br />2008 reclaimed surface. <br />Please revise all appropriate sections of the narrative within revised sections 2.05.4 and 4.15 to <br />incorporate the above stated woody plant density standard commitments. <br />Colowyo's Response: <br />First, Colowyo does not believe that "compensation "for previous Division approved procedures <br />that have largely failed should be part of the new program that is designed to target specific land uses in <br />the post-mining reclamation. This new reclamation should be goal driven and should target specific <br />land uses without regard to "compensation "for past efforts. Furthermore, these new procedures must <br />still be proven and care must be taken to set mandatory success criteria at minimally acceptable and
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.