Laserfiche WebLink
meat or forage would prefer a high quality forage base for grazing over an ecological diverse <br />plant community any day, and all of the pre- mining land use data confirm this fact. <br />I also have problems with the approach the DRMS is suggesting in light of the requirements of <br />Rule 4.15.8(2) which specifically states that the "vegetation on the reclaimed area" ... <br />shall consist of species which support the approved post mining land use." Instead of <br />balancing the relative contributions of the "vegetative cover and herbaceous production, <br />species diversity and woody plant density on the reclaimed surface" along with the importance <br />of the "approved post mining land use ", the DRMS seems to ignore this important consideration <br />with respect to the proposed Revegetation Success Criteria standards and says instead that <br />each parameter must be addressed separately. I find no regulatory basis for this <br />interpretation. <br />The proposed standards the DRMS has previously suggested of 60 percent maximum relative cover <br />and with a minimum of at 5 percent relative cover of a perennial forb, are totally contrary <br />to Rule <br />4.15.7(2)(d)(iii) which require that proposed revegetation success standards for "species <br />diversity....." be based upon "pre- mining data" <br />and page 13 of the Vegetation Guideline which recommends that species diversity standards be <br />developed based upon "pre- mining data" for the proposed revegetated areas. Rule 4.15.8(2) <br />states that "species diversity" on "the reclaimed surface shall be at least equal to ... <br />the ... species diversity... or living plants on the approved reference area..." The DRMS <br />position regarding the presence of a "monoculture" <br />is furthermore, totally contrary to Rule 4.15.8(5) which establishes the final bond release <br />criteria for "species diversity" as being based upon techniques "which may include, but are <br />not be limited to, diversity indices, and or comparisons of species composition (based upon <br />cover or production) between the reclaimed area and the undisturbed vegetation. Instead, the <br />DRMS suggests the same standards they have used by way of unwritten policy for the past 30 <br />years and ignores any comparison of "pre- mining" or "reference area" data and then suggests <br />that the values they have pulled out of the air are "achievable." The DRMS position relies <br />only upon the "species composition" approach and ignores the other approaches allowed by this <br />regulation. <br />By way of the maximum contribution of single species, which the DRMS states that we suggested <br />as 60 percent, we offer the following. Our precise comment was as the DRMS suggests latter <br />on was that "Kent is going to check the data to determine if these suggestions are possible." <br />Examination of the available data from the NH1 Mine site, Dryland Reclamation, reveals that <br />the maximum contribution of a single species was 58.37 percent. Reclamation monitoring of <br />the reclaimed Dryland Pasture at the existing NH2 Mine in 2007 was 90.57 percent and in 2008 <br />was 71.13 percent. Given these data, which yield an average maximum value of a single <br />species of 73.36 percent, it is difficult to accept the proposed 60 percent limitation being <br />suggested by the DRMS for a single species. <br />Lastly, we take exception with the DRMS position wherein they have suggested that they must <br />approve a "species composition" "species diversity standard" or they will have to impose a <br />permit condition to address this issue is interesting. Having personally worked on various <br />mines, which do not have a "species diversity" standard, we find the DRMS position misleading <br />and contrary to Rule 415.8(5). The suggestion that the DRMS must have a "species diversity" <br />standard based only upon "species composition" data is contrary to their regulations. A <br />careful examination of your files will reveal that the DRMS has approved numerous mine <br />permits without a "species diversity" <br />standard, for other mines where they were proposing Dryland Pasture as the proposed post - <br />mining land use. Personally, it is my opinion that the proposed 75 percent desirable forage <br />production diversity standard is consistent with the DRMS regulations and various other <br />permit approvals your office has made in the past and does not require further modification. <br />Approval of this proposed "forage quality diversity" standard will result in all of the <br />2 <br />