2011-04-19_REVISION - C1981019 ‎(2)‎

• Permit No: C1981019
• IBM Index Class Name: REVISION
• Doc Date: 4/19/2011
• Doc Name: Adequacy Review
• From: Brock Bowles
• To: Janet Binns
• Type & Sequence: PR3
• Email Name: JHB
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

1. Item Resolved.
2. Item Resolved.
3. Page 69, Minor Vegetation Communities and Other Designations - In this section five
minor communities are described: improved pasture, sage grouse target habitat reference
area, cultivated cropland, disturbed areas and wetlands. In contrast the introduction on page
57, describes 4 minor communities types. The explanation provided by Colowyo for not
including the sage grouse reference area as a minor community is that "the sage grouse
habitat target reference area was only established should the need arise to obtain habitat
related parameters" and should be considered as an "other designation." Please fix the text
of the `Minor Vegetation Communities and Other Designations' section so it is clear which
communities are considered the `minor communities' and which are considered `other
communities.' Also, clarify the purpose of a paragraph about noxious weeds in this section.
The formatting suggests that it is considered a minor plant community.
4. Item Resolved.
Exhibit 10, Item 6 - Baseline Vegetation Survey, May 2006
1. The response letter submitted by Colowyo lists the corrections to the 5 discrepancies listed
for Exhibit 10, Item 6, but the exhibit was not included in the response package. Please
submit a copy of Exhibit 10, Item 6 for the Division to review.
Rule 2.04.11 Fish & Wildlife Resources Information
1. As per Rule 2.04.11(2), the applicant shall contact the Division to determine what fish and
wildlife resources information will be required. While it appears that a thorough
fish/wildlife study and report of the Collom Permit Area are included in the permit, there is
not a discussion in the text about a pre-study meeting with the Division to determine the
required data for the study. The Division feels that Colowyo's response is adequate,
however, please incorporate. into the permit text that the Division deferred to CDOW for
creating a scope of work. Also include CDOW's letter approving Cedar Creek's scope of
work for the Collom Expansion Area.
2. Item Resolved.
Rule 2.05.4(2)(e) Reclamation Plan
1. Item Resolved.
2. Page 108, third paragraph - The Division is not proposing an "additional" target to the
PMT as suggested in Colowyo's response. The graph on Map 19D documents the PMT
with a slope less than 10% will be 37%. The permit text needs to accurately reflect this
standard set by Colow o. The commitment to "attempt in earnest on approximately 20%
(or more) of the reclaimed landscape, with the goal of achieving success on at least one-half