Laserfiche WebLink
Reve. etation ?(2.05.4(2?(e, an?51 <br />The ]division requested certain n?odif?cations to the ?Qady plant density standard <br />far past-?ODB reclaimed wildlife focuslsagebrush steppe areas to include: ? <br />minimum 45a acres of sagebrush steppe score areas and ecotone, based on ??°/o <br />success on the as approximate} acres ofpotential sagebrush steppe areas <br />indicated on 1VIap 44. A. minimum standard of X75 sterns per acre on core areas, <br />2?0 per acre an ecotone ono allowance for "positive recruitment"}. .t least % of <br />the s1?-ubs on care areas and ecotone areas will be big sagebrush ??rtemisia <br />tridentata}, and na more than ??°/o ofthe countable shrubs wi11 be fourwin <br />saltbush. sagebrush steppe core areas shall comprise at least X25 acres of the <br />post-?a?S reclaimed landscape. These changes were accepted by alowyo and <br />incorporated into the appropriate sections of the amended application, with the <br />caveat that the minimum acreages listed for sagebrush steppe total and core areas <br />would be reconsidered and reduced as appropriate, if future mine plan changes <br />result in reduced disturbance to native habitat. <br />The Div?sron concurs that suoh ad?ustn?ent would llkely be warranted, however <br />we Hate that such a change to the approved standard would reed to be addressed <br />through a technical revision to the approved permit, and would require Division <br />of wildlife review ar?d approval. <br />Based on acre table amended narrative on a es x.05-?? 4.1?-15 and 4.15- <br />?? the Division considers this item to be resolved. <br />131I4. ? the January Z9, aa9 adequaoy letter, the D1vis?on summarized previous <br />DQwIDRN1 requests regarding requirement, justification, and approaches fvr <br />inclusion of a limited acreage of t11 shrub and aspen establislunent areas in future <br />areas to be disturbed. Disturbance to date has impacted mountain shrub habitats <br />and proposed future disturbance in the youth Taylor mining area will disturb <br />aspen woodland as well as mountain shrub habitats both areas also disturb big <br />sagebrush habitat, which 1s the primary focus ofw?ldl?fe habitat revegetat?on <br />efforts}. The letter included the fallowing specific request: <br />?'?ease review previo?cs fetters ?o ??S ar?d ?? ? ?e??din his n?a??er, <br />andprovide detai?edp?ans far the estab?ish?nent of both thick soil <br />(as?er?Ic?k?cl?er??yls?rvic?berry etc.} p?a?ti?? sits and thi?Iracky soz? <br />(serviceherry, ?itterbrush, etc.} p?antin? sites. ?n our Most recent n?eetin <br />with ?Ol?staff; ion YYani?d indicated that provision of a ?at?ger nn??er of <br />s??at?er tali shr?? and aspen p?antin sites wau?d be accepta??e, in lieu o <br />the two relative ?arep?antin areas that ??YYhad requested in their ?4pri? <br />?O?S fetter. phis wo??d also ?e acceptable to DDS. <br />4