Laserfiche WebLink
2. Rule 4.16.1(1) requires that "all areas affected by surface coal mining operations shall be <br />restored in a timely manner to conditions that. are capable of supporting the uses which they <br />were capable of supporting before any mining; or (2) to higher or better uses achievable <br />under criteria and procedures of 4.16. Please provide an account of how changing the post- <br />mining land use from irrigated pasture to dryland pasture meets the requirement of Rule <br />4.16. <br />Response - WFC takes exception with the current position of the DRMS being suggested <br />herein, when they suggest that the conversion of an irrigated pasture to a dryland pasture <br />constitutes a change in land use that must be documented in accordance with the <br />alternative land use regulations found in Rule 4.16. Nowhere in the regulations can we <br />find any definitions to differentiate between dryland or irrigated pasture as are currently <br />being used by the DRMS. We find only the definition of Pastureland in Rule 1.04(71) <br />which states that "`Pastureland' means land which is used for the production of adapted, <br />domesticated forage plants for livestock grazing, or occasional hay production. <br />Pastureland maintenance entails cultural inputs such as seeding, irrigation, fertilization, <br />brush control and pest control." <br />Irrigation as used in the Regulations is only one of several "cultural inputs" and not a <br />distinguishing characteristic which can be used to differentiate between one land use or <br />another. Application of the logic currently being applied by the DRMS in their review of <br />this permit application would mean that usage of a different seed mixture, different <br />fertilizer application rates or formulation, the mowing of woody plants, the spraying of <br />noxious weeds or insects would all be viewed as changes in land use which would have to <br />be addressed in accordance with the alternative land use section of Rule 4.16.3. <br />Application of their criteria would mean that there would be absolutely no end to the <br />DRMS involvement in the management of lands, located within the permit area which <br />would never be affected by the mining or reclamation operations as virtually any change <br />in "cultural inputs" used in the management process would be viewed by the DRMS as a <br />change in land use, which would have to be approved by the DRMS. We find no <br />regulatory basis for the DRMS requesting that this information be submitted However at <br />the end of Permit Section 2.05.5 Post Mining Land Use, narrative has been added which <br />addresses the regulatory requirements of Rule 4.16. <br />3. During a meeting on February 15, 2008, between Division personnel, WFC personnel, WFC <br />consultants, and local NRCS representatives regarding a neighboring mine to the proposed <br />NHN mine, an approach was discussed for lands that may have been irrigated prior to <br />mining, but for which water rights are not available or are insufficient, would be to restore <br />lands to an "improved/irrigable" status. The concept is these lands would be seeded to <br />dryland species and subject to dryland pasture success criteria, but grading, soil handling, <br />and provision of irrigation infrastructure would be specified, such that the post-mine owner <br />could apply some level of irrigation management with whatever water is available, <br />Response to First Adequacy Review Page 44