Laserfiche WebLink
Hernandez, Alysha <br />From: Brown, Sandy <br />Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 10:04 AM <br />To: Hernandez, Alysha; Cramer, Johanna <br />Cc: Talvitie, Marcia <br />Subject: FW: Honeywood Veg Study <br />Please include a copy of this email string in the Hamilton Mine, SL2 file. <br />Thanks, <br />Sandy <br />From: Talvitie, Marcia <br />Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 10:00 AM <br />To: 'jestover @bresnan.net' <br />Cc: Brown, Sandy; Mathews, Dan <br />Subject: Honeywood Veg Study <br />Jim, <br />We (Dan, Sandy and I) have exchanged some emails internally regarding the upcoming veg sampling. A condensation of <br />our discussion is provided below. Please review, and call me to discuss. <br />Marcia <br />Marcia L. Talvitie, P.E. <br />Environmental Protection Specialist <br />Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety <br />Durango Field Office <br />691 County Road 233, Suite A 2 <br />Durango, Colorado 81301 <br />Tel: (970) 247 -1184 <br />Fax: (970) 247 -6104 <br />From: Mathews, Dan <br />Sent: Friday, July 09, 2010 8:56 AM <br />To: Talvitie, Marcia <br />Cc: Brown, Sandy <br />Subject: RE: Honeywood Veg Study <br />You raise a good point Marcia. The traditional approach to reference areas is set forth in Rule 4.15.7(3)(a), in which <br />reference areas are established to be representative of each identified premining vegetation community. At the time <br />the Hamilton reference areas were approved, that would have been the only option available under the regulations. <br />Some years ago, Rule 4.15.7(3)(b)(iii) was incorporated, to allow for an alternative reference area approach that would <br />allow for selection of reference areas based on representation of desired postmining vegetation community structure. <br />For Hamilton, it would seem logical that a case could be made for dropping the sagebrush reference areas and using <br />only the grassland reference area, pursuant to 4.15.7(3)(b)(iii). That option would be available to the operator and <br />would seem to be appropriate, and would certainly simplify the statistics of revegetation success demonstration (would <br />alleviate the need for the acreage weighting calculations associated with the multiple reference areas). Since the <br />currently approved approach is the traditional (4.15.7(3)(a)) approach, use of the (b)(iii) approach would require <br />approval of a technical revision. Probably would be appropriate for us to point out the availability of this option in the <br />letter. <br />Dan <br />