My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2008-12-11_REVISION - C1981019
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Revision
>
Coal
>
C1981019
>
2008-12-11_REVISION - C1981019
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 3:38:53 PM
Creation date
12/15/2008 9:34:45 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981019
IBM Index Class Name
REVISION
Doc Date
12/11/2008
Doc Name
Wildlife Issues
From
DRMS
To
Colorado Division of Wildlife
Type & Sequence
TR72
Email Name
SB1
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.
/
3
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
Colowyo Mine <br />TR-72 <br />December 11, 2008 <br />3 <br />and be able to count up to 20% of the saltbrush in their standard. A review of some of <br />the Colowyo vegetation monitoring reports in past ARR's shows that there is very little <br />saltbrush on site (although there are very few shrubs in general). Their reference areas <br />(both the sagebrush and mountain shrub areas) have no saltbrush. <br />This issue remains outstanding. DRMS believes our proposed standard is reasonable. However, <br />since DOW must also approve shrub density or `stocking levels' we would like to discuss this <br />with you. <br />No. 10. This question addresses the Colowyo seed mixes. DRMS suggested removing the <br />fourwing saltbrush from the approved mix and adding additional native forbs. Colowyo has <br />declined to remove saltbrush, stating that they have good results with this species. They again <br />reiterate their desire to count up to 20% of the saltbrush for the woody plant density (as stated <br />above). DRMS has also recommended adding one or two additional native forb species to the <br />mix. Again, Colowyo has declined, stating that they have not had success with any of these <br />species. Consideration of the seed mix for sagebrush steppe and wildlife habitat is warranted and <br />we would like to consult with DOW on this issue as well. <br />No. 13. This question addresses the request to establish a limited number of aspen/tall shrub <br />communities, mainly in South Taylor to provide important wildlife habitat. Colowyo has <br />provided a long answer explaining why they do not want to do this. Please refer to the DRMS <br />question 13. and Colowyo's response to the question in the attached letters. Again, DOW's <br />expertise and approval is needed to resolve this question. <br />No. 14. This question suggests elk fencing for various shrub communities. Colowyo's response <br />is similar to question 13 above. <br />These four questions address the key issues that remain unresolved in TR-72. I suggest that <br />DRMS and DOW representatives schedule a preliminary meeting to review the correspondence <br />and then schedule a joint meeting with Colowyo. We are available to meet in January, in <br />Meeker or Grand Junction. Please contact me so we can schedule a mutually agreeable date and <br />place. <br />Sincerely, <br />-A- <br />Sandra L. Brown <br />Sr. Environmental Protection Specialist <br />Attachments - DOW March 7, 2008 letter <br />DRMS June 26, 2008 letter <br />Colowyo Coal letter dated July 28, 2008 <br />C. Brad Petch, DOW w/attachments <br />Jim Stark, DRMS w/t attachments <br />Dan Mathews, DRMS w/t attachments
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.