Laserfiche WebLink
Greg Lewicki <br />From: Mathews, Dan [Daniel. Mathews@state.co.us] <br />Sent: Friday, December 07, 2007 2:35 PM <br />To: rgubka@wfcnucla.org; greg@lewicki.biz <br />Subject: FW: Landowner Letters <br />Ross and Greg, <br />This is the synopsis of the landowner letter question that I presented to Sandy. We discussed it further, and ended up <br />agreeing that the landowner letter would be required for TR-56, but not for TR-55. <br />Let me know if you have any questions. <br />Dan <br />From: Mathews, Dan <br />Sent: Friday, December 07, 2007 1:25 PM <br />To: Brown, Sandy <br />Subject: Landowner Letters <br />Sandy, <br />I am in the midst of reviewing the New Horizon TR-55, and have had some discussions with both Greg Lewicki and Ross <br />Gubka on some of the issues and concerns. I need your input on one question that has come up. In TR-55, the main <br />focus is to change the success standard for Irrigated Pasture from the current standard based on writtenield estimates <br />from farmers in an adjacent161 a permit area to a reference area based stand-ard. TR-5?5 als"o-add sses various other <br />revegetabon issues inc u mg s a s ica procedures and a dryland pastured change to include a component of <br />native grass and shrubs. There is a planned TR-56 to be submitted shortly, which will address the conversion of areas <br />previously planned for irrigated pasture postmining to dryland pasture postmining, due to water rights issues and resultant <br />lack of water to support the irrigate pasture use. Originally, all of this was going to be addressed in a single TR, since the <br />issues all came out of the midterm review from a year or so ago. We had discussed early on (Ross, Greg and myself) <br />that affected landowners would need to be notified of the proposed changes to the success standards, seedmix, and land <br />use (irrigated pasture to dryland pasture). <br />Now that the decision has been made to break the issues into two separate revisions, Ross has indicated his strong <br />preference that the landowner notification letter be required only for the TR-56 irrigated pasture to dryland pasture <br />conversion issue, and that landowner notifications not be required for the TR-55 success standard/seedmix change <br />issues. Ross's reasoning is that he wants to limit the amount of letters to landowners to avoid needlessly stirring things up <br />if not absolutely required; he assumes the TR-56 will rile some of the landowner's, which is i think the main reason he <br />separated it out from TR-55. <br />The bottom line is, Ross agrees to providing landowner letters for TR-56. Rule 2.05.5(1)(b) requires landowner comments <br />on the proposed use of land following reclamation. In the past we have accepted proof of appropriate notification to <br />landowners as sufficient to comply with that requirement. Greg has said they will provide a draft copy of the letter to us <br />prior to sending it out, to ensure that we are in agreement with the wording of the letter. I think the change from irrigated <br />pasture to dryland pasture is a significant change "in the use of the land following reclamation", and should trigger the <br />requirement of 2.05.5(1)(b) regarding landowner notification. <br />Whether the cited rule would apply for a change in reclamation success standards or a seedmix change is not clear cut; <br />typically we do not require landowner notification for these types of changes, although in this case some of the <br />landowners might have more of a vested interest in the standard than is typically the case, since the current standard is <br />based in large part on information they provided. _Ross says that he has discussed the endin than a to a reference <br />area for irrigated pasture and the reasons for it with e a ected landowners _and they are ok w1b3t. _He also says that,