|
"Revegetation of mined lands is an essential aspect of the reclamation process since it assures:
<br />(1) The surface stability and erosion control of the regraded areas; (2) appropriate water
<br />retention desirable on the mine site; (3) the long range productivity of the land; (4) the diversity
<br />of species capable of sustaining pre- mining land uses, and (5) aesthetic value."
<br />From this reasoning, the revegetation success parameters were developed. Evaluation of vegetation
<br />cover satisfies points 1 and 2, evaluation of vegetation production addresses point 3, and species
<br />composition criteria address points 4 and 5.
<br />The State statute does not contain language specifically addressing revegetation in the Legislative
<br />declaration, however the requirements of Rule 4.15.1(2)(b) appear to be clear; "The vegetation cover
<br />shall be capable of stabilizing the soil surface to achieve erosion control equal to pre- mining levels."
<br />The primary intent of establishing "vegetation cover ", as CEC understands the language of the federal
<br />and state coal statutes and regulations [House Report No. 95 -218, CRS 34- 33- 120(2)(f), and CDRMS Rule
<br />4.15.1(2)(d)], is to ensure that the reestablished vegetation will provide surface stability and erosion
<br />control on the reclaimed surfaces. Therefore, any reasonable vegetation that provides the required
<br />cover will, by its very presence, achieve this goal.
<br />CEC can find no caveats in the statutes or regulations that exempt certain categories, species, or life
<br />forms of plants from inclusion in evaluations of revegetation success with regard to vegetation cover.
<br />Further, in its review of the quarterly reports on vegetation, CEC believes the Division has missed the
<br />intended emphasis of the statements by CEC that, "no pests, noxious weeds, or diseases were identified
<br />during the 2010 inspections that negatively impact on the revegetation efforts ". While, to be sure,
<br />there are scattered weed plants (including thistles, mustards, bindweed, cheatgrass, kochia, goatheads,
<br />and a few others), some pests (kangaroo rats, pocket gophers, mice, voles, and numerous insects) that
<br />devour desired vegetation, and the possibility of an isolated disease spot or two someplace on the
<br />property (though none have been found to date), these are isolated, reasonably controllable, and none
<br />have been determined to "negatively impact on the revegetation efforts ".
<br />CEC also believes the Division has misunderstood or misinterpreted the State's goal for List C species,
<br />which has been stated as follows:
<br />"List C weed species are species for which the Commissioner, in consultation with the State
<br />noxious weed advisory committee, local governments, and other interested parties, will develop
<br />and implement state noxious weed management plans designed to support the efforts of local
<br />governing bodies to facilitate more effective integrated weed management on private and
<br />public lands. The goal of such plans will not be (emphasis added) to stop the continued spread
<br />of these species but to provide additional education, research, and biological control resources
<br />to jurisdictions that choose to require management of List C species." (Colorado Dept. of
<br />Agriculture, Noxious Weed Management web page)
<br />Weld County, for its part, recommends weed control efforts (which CEC has been, and is currently
<br />pursuing, as the Division well knows) for "suppression ", but there are no requirements for either the
<br />control or the eradication of its List C species.
<br />
|