My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2008-06-15_REVISION - C1981019
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Revision
>
Coal
>
C1981019
>
2008-06-15_REVISION - C1981019
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 3:33:01 PM
Creation date
7/9/2009 1:59:10 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981019
IBM Index Class Name
REVISION
Doc Date
6/15/2008
Doc Name
Review & Comments Letter (Memo)
From
Dan Mathews
To
Jim Stark
Type & Sequence
TR72
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.
/
4
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
,,?V <br />and upper slopes, mid slopes, and toe-slopes/drainage bottoms). Favorable aspect as well as <br />slope position would be an important consideration for thick soil placement areas appropriate <br />for aspen/chokecherry conducive sites (which likely would be limited to north aspects and <br />drainages in the South Taylor area). The extent of variation that can be achieved in the <br />original permit area will be somewhat limited, due to the limited soil resource available. <br />More dramatic variation will be achievable (and will need to be reflected in the plan) in the <br />South Taylor Area, where the projected average soil thickness is approximately 2.5 times <br />greater. <br />Please provide a detailed topsoil replacement plan with commitments, in accordance <br />with the above recommendations. <br />4. The Division had requested inclusion of a special handling strategy for use of sandstone or <br />scoria overburden materials, as an additional shrub establishment/diversity enhancement <br />measure. The operator declined to include the requested modification. Because it is likely <br />that a well defined plan committing to significant variation in topsoil replacement thickness <br />will accomplish sufficient substrate variability across the landscape, the Division will not <br />require special handling of select overburden material at this time. Pending submittal of an <br />acceptable soil replacement plan as requested in Item 4, we will consider this Item Resolved. <br />Revegetation R2.05.4(2)(e) and 4.151 <br />Supplemental Introduction in amended Section 2.05.4 <br />The Division had requested the operator to revise their initially proposed woody plant density <br />standards to conform with the following: <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", and such <br />areas will comprise a minimum 20% of the acreage of post-2008 reclamation. <br />• A standard of at least 150 live woody plant stems per acre will apply on "Grassland" targeted <br />areas of 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 />The operator countered with: <br />• Minimum 250 acres of Sagebrush Steppe (core areas and ecotone); standard of 375 <br />stems per acre on core areas, 200 per acre on ecotone (200 and 100 per acre <br />respectively, if documentation of "positive recruitment"). At least one half of the <br />totals would be "sagebrush species". <br />• A standard of 0 stems per acre on grazingland areas. <br />• A standard of at least 150 stems per acre on at least 3% of the pre-2008 reclaimed <br />surface. <br />4
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.