2011-06-02_APPLICATION CORRESPONDENCE - C2010089 (12)

Home Browse Search

• • Unfortunately this comparison of total cover does not take into consideration the requirements of Section 4.15.7, which requires that annuals and noxious weeds cannot be counted toward the final revegetation success. Applying the same logic to the pre - mining comparison, means that if the DRMS requires that annual and noxious weed cover is applied to the pre - mining comparison, it would require that lands must be reclaimed to a lower ecological condition, which is contrary to the regulations, that require that all lands be reclaimed to a higher or more productive condition. The Division's Guidelines for Compliance with Land Use and Vegetation Requirements for Coal Mining, acknowledges this contradiction on page 11 wherein it states that in vegetation types dominated by "dense woody cover and a weak herbaceous understory or poor condition rangeland dominated by weedy annuals or other undesirable species a `modified' reference area ... might be appropriate." Upon subtracting the annual and weedy species component from the Big Sagebrush predisturbance areas, the "allowable plant cover" value for this vegetation type can be determined to equal 18.60 percent (Appendix Table 2.04.10 -6, Big Sagebrush - Plant Cover). Upon comparing the "total allowable cover on the proposed Big Sagebrush predisturbance areas, with the total plant cover value on the existing Dryland Pasture Reference Area, which contains significantly fewer annuals and no noxious weeds, the calculated t value for "allowable plant cover" was determined to be equal 0.4287, which means that since the t value is lower than the t value of 2.042, it can be concluded that the Big Sagebrush predisturbance area and the Dryland Pasture Reference Area are equal in terms of "allowable plant cover." This comparison and accompanying discussion, documents that it is inappropriate to compare these areas with respect to total plant cover since it involves comparing a very poor ecological condition site to one in higher condition which is contrary to the DRMS regulations, which requires that the mined areas be reclaimed to a higher use. Based upon this comparison, WFC feels justified in proposing to use the existing Dryland Pasture Reference Area since it is already the approved revegetation success standard of the Big Sagebrush vegetation type at the NH2 Mine. Irrigated Pasture. Disturbance to all lands corresponding to the Irrigated Pasture vegetation type (IP) shown on Map 2.04.10 -1, Permit Area Vegetation Map will be reclaimed according to the desires of the existing land owners. Mr. George Glasier, owner of the Glasier property has stipulated in his lease with WFC that WFC will only be getting his land and not the water associated with this tract. This condition essentially requires that all of irrigated pasture areas on his land must be reclaimed as dryland pasture, since he has transferred his water rights to his Silver Hawk property located on the San Miguel River near the Tri -State power plant. Mr. Thomas Meehan has made similar requests of WFC relative to the irrigated pasture portions on his property. The Garvey Brothers have stipulated in their lease with WFC, that all of the existing land uses and hence corresponding vegetation types on their property must be reclaimed Section 2.04.10 Page 31 April 2011