Laserfiche WebLink
Colorado Division of Reclamation Mining and Safety <br />To: Tom Kaldenbach <br />From: Janet Bi <br />Date: 3/1/ 10 i <br />Re: Veget 'on s ling f r potential bond release application at the West Elk Mine <br />Comments: I met with Mike Savage of Savage and Savage Environmental on February 26, 2010. Mike wanted to <br />discuss vegetation sampling scenarios for a potential Phase II and III bond release application for the <br />West Elk Mine. <br />The areas under consideration are small noncontiguous areas consisting primarily of degas vent pads, <br />light use roads, and other support area locations. The initial determination would be to discern which <br />disturbances were permitted as NOI permits, versus permitted as small disturbances within the West <br />Elk permit. <br />Mike wanted direction from the Division on what we would expect for sampling these small areas and <br />how to achieve adequacy. The VTF previously discussed this type of a scenario. Small disconnected <br />reclaimed areas can be sampled by including all of these areas within the sampling universe. If the <br />sampler is using a randomly distributed sampling scheme, a grid would be overlain over the sampling <br />universe. Transect start point coordinates would be randomly selected with a random number <br />generator. Each point would have an equal probability of being chosen. However, those points not <br />falling within a reclaimed area would be eliminated. One would continue to generate coordinates until <br />there are sufficient transects to achieve adequacy within the reclaimed areas to be evaluated (15 <br />minimum to 30 transects). This also means that potentially some small areas may not have transects <br />land in them and would not be quantitatively sampled. However, the Division would still conduct a <br />visual inspection on all areas being considered for bond release, so if areas appeared visually to be <br />unable to meet bond release criterion, the Division could make that discretionary call. <br />We also discussed methods of sampling for woody plant density. Mike didn't have any specific <br />concerns, but I thought he may want to consider that if the small areas are difficult to place a 25M <br />transect within the disturbed area boundary, he may want to look at changing the shape of his woody <br />plant density quadrat; maybe use a square instead of a narrow "belt transect". <br />Mike began describing the three reference areas he believed were applicable to the reclaimed areas at <br />the West Elk Mine; Meadow, Mixed mountain shrub/Oak Brush, and Aspen. He believed that a <br />Douglas Fir community was a minor community comprised of less than 40 acres, and did not have a <br />separate reference area. Mike also brought up a reclamation study area located above the portals. This <br />had been an ongoing evaluation that had been sampled years ago to demonstrate what expected <br />reclaimed community may develop. The area was to be sampled in a wet year (higher than average <br />precipitation), a dry year (lower than average precipitation), and a normal year (average precipitation). <br />The final sampling had not occurred. Mike questioned whether we would still accept the previous <br />sampled data for this location, and would it be acceptable to try to sample it for the "normal" year data. <br />Not knowing anymore about this proposed area, I thought I needed to find out more about it, but it is <br />currently not approved to be the reclamation success standard. <br />Mike wanted to follow up with a meeting with Tom Kaldenbach to discuss sedimentology <br />demonstrations for these small disconnected areas.