2010-11-30_APPLICATION CORRESPONDENCE - C2010088 (2)

Home Browse Search

Corey Heaps CAM- Colorado, LLC November 30, 2010 Page 10 26. Rule 2.04.10(3) requires a vegetation map to include sufficient adjacent areas to allow evaluation of vegetation as important habitat for fish and wildlife. In Exhibit 5 "Vegetation Information ", narrative indicates that the vegetation boundaries of all lands within one half mile of the proposed permit area are shown on Map 4, "Adjacent Area Vegetation Map ". However, this is not the case; Map 4 is a large scale (1" = 300') map, which includes very limited areas to the north and west of the main body of the permit area. Please include a map of an appropriate scale (perhaps 1:12000) that depicts the regional vegetation communities within % mile of the main body of the permit area (as referenced in Exhibit 5). 27. On page 2 and 3 of Exhibit 5, the procedure for ensuring random location coordinates for each sample transect is described. Based on the approach described, our assumption is that transects would be numbered in accordance with the sequence selected, and, if 30 transects were run for a particular parameter within a delineated sampling unit, transccts 1 through 30 would be sampled, to maintain the random selection. This was not the case for cover and woody plant density sampling within the Greasewood Reference Area, in which data was recorded for a total of 36 transects, including Transects 1 through 24, 29, 33, 37, 39, 40, 42, 44, and 46 through 50. Please provide an explanation for inclusion within the appropriate section of Exhibit 5, demonstrating that the transect selection process was unbiased, and explaining why cover data was not obtained from sequentially numbered transects to meet sample adequacy. 28. The first paragraph on page 5 of Exhibit 5, under "Statistical Analysis of Data ", notes that it was agreed that woody plant density would not be required to be sampled to statistical adequacy, but rather would be sampled in association with each cover transect. This is correct, as it was the Division's determination that a representative sample sufficient to characterize woody plant density within the affected and reference area stands could be obtained in this manner. Given the fact that disturbance to previously undisturbed habitat would be limited to a very narrow disturbance corridor (the proposed rail spur) restricted primarily to the greasewood vegetation type, it was concluded that more intensive sampling of woody plant density would not be warranted. However, the discussion in the subject paragraph related to OSM revised regulations regarding woody plant density standards and corresponding DRMS proposed rule changes is not correct, and should be omitted or amended. The referenced 2006 OSM rule change eliminated the rule that had required that 80% of woody plants used for success demonstration must have been in place for 60% of the liability period; it did not eliminate requirements for woody plant stocking or density. OSM rules have for many years required a woody plant stocking or density requirement for wildlife habitat and certain other postmining land uses, but not for grazing land postmining land use. The Division has submitted an informal program amendment to OSM and will initiate rulemaking this year, which includes changes to be consistent with the OSM rules in this respect. Please revise the narrative as appropriate.