2011-06-02_APPLICATION CORRESPONDENCE - C2010089 (14)

Home Browse Search

• • • Statistical Analysis of Data. As required by the Division's regulations in Section 4.15.10, a minimum of 15 cover transects and 30 production transects were collected from each vegetation type sampled. Therefore, all of the data collected in this evaluation were analyzed for sample adequacy in order to determine whether the Division's requirements for sample size had been satisfied. The existing DRMS regulations require that shrub density be sampled to sample adequacy and that a minimum of at least 30 shrub density transects be sampled on each site. However, on 30 July 2006, OSM issued revised regulations regarding the issue of shrub density revegetation success standards, eliminating the need to sample shrub density. Thus, the requirement to sample shrub density has been deleted on the federal level and the DRMS has applied to change their regulation accordingly, but to date, no approval has been issued for this requested change in the state program. Given this regulatory contradiction, during permit consultation meetings, Ms. Sandy Brown and Mr. Dan Mathews, directed WFC to sample only 15 transects for shrub density and said that it was not necessary to achieve sample adequacy for this parameter. The sample adequacy formula contained in the regulations was used, wherein a precision of 0.10 was used for cover and production and 0.15 for shrub density. On all of the proposed mine Intensively Managed Irrigated Pasture area sampled, all of the field data were analyzed in terms of "total plant cover" to determine whether sample adequacy was achieved prior to leaving the site being sampled. For production on this area, a minimum of 30 samples were collected and the green plant weight data analyzed to determine whether sample adequacy had been achieved. Relative to shrub density, a minimum of 15 samples were collected and the data analyzed to determine whether sample adequacy had been achieved During the consultation meetings held with the DRMS, WFC was informed that if was not necessary to submit copies of the raw field data sheets, but that this information should be kept in our files in the event that the DRMS determined that they needed to review this information. NOXIOUS WEEDS. Historically, the CDRMS has issued various lists, reported to contain the offical noxious weed list with respect to the CDRMS regulations, for example Appendix B of the "Guidelines with Land Use and Vegetation Requirements of the Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Board for Coal Mining" issued in June of 1988, the undated "Guideline for the Management of Noxious Weeds on Coal Mine Permit Areas," reports to contain a list of "noxious weeds for the purposes of this guideline and the Coal Regulations." The CDRMS regulations at 1.04 (78) state that "noxious weeds" means species that have been included on official State or county lists of noxious weeds. In a consultation meeting with Ms. Laurie Mingen, the Montrose County Weed Supervisor, we requested the "official Montrose County noxious weed list" and were informed that there was no current list and our being given a handwritten list that was constituted the "offical list." Examination of the website of the Colorado Department of Agriculture website at http: //www.ag.state.co.us/NoxiousWeeds/counties/Montrose.html on 18 June 2009, resulted in our obtaining a different list. In a letter received from the CDRMS dated 23 July 2010, relative to the current NH2 Mine permit renewal efforts, WFC was informed that relative noxious weeds they were to include "all species that are currently listed as noxious weeds by Montrose County" as well as "other applicable weed control districts or advisory boards or commissions." To standardize the issue of noxious weeds, in this report and associated Permit Application, the