2012-05-14_REVISION - C1981019 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Post-mining land use –Rangeland and wildlife habitat. 4.Permit page 2.05-20 and 2.05-21 appear to duplicate the same information. Please consolidate this discussion. 5.Page 2.05-23 states that that the wildlife PMLU is targeted for at least 20% of the Post- 2008 reclamation, “with the goal of achieving success on at least ½ of this acreage”. CCC’s goal should be achieve reclamation success on 100% of the lands reclaimed. Please explain how achieving reclamation success on 50% of a reclaimed community meets the requirements of Rules 4.15.1(1), 4.15.1(2), 4.15.8(1), and Section 34-33- 120(2)(s) of the Act. CCC states that success criteria of only meeting reclamation success criteria on 50% of the Post-2008 acreage established to Sagebrush steppe is also stated on page 4.15-29. Since the cover and production criteria are already depressed for the reclaimed Sagebrush steppe community. If the reclaimed Sagebrush steppe community fails to meet the reclamation success criteria on ½ of the reclaimed are, would CCC use the grazingland success criteria to determine reclamation success on those portions of the logical management unit that fail to meet Sagebrush steppe criteria? 6.Page 2.05-26 states, “At the appropriate time post TR-72 approval (by August 2012, a re- evaluation will be conducted to resolve any issues involving pre and post mining land uses, AVF status, reclamation plan, and AVF restoration of the essential hydrologic functions for the Gossard Loadout area.” (TR-82 rev. 9/28/09) Has this re-evaluation occurred? If so, this statement needs to be revised to reflect that these issues have been re-evaluated. If not, RN6 is an appropriate time to re-evaluate these concerns. P. 2.05-28 Topsoil balances in the ARR. Section 11-commitment: CCC has met the commitment of documenting topsoil stockpile volumes and topsoil balances in Section 11 of the Annual Report for 2010 and 2011 in accordance with the permit commitment. No response is required form CCC. 7.On permit page 2.05-40 (TR-82 rev. 9/28/09), CCC makes the declaration, “Given the significant and nearly ubiquitous failures regarding the establishment of shrubs, the only technique for use at the Colowyo mine that holds any reasonable promise for success is direct seeding. Therefore, all previous shrub-metrics indicated for use at the Colowyo mine are hereby remanded.” This declaration is counter to the approvals achieved between CCC, DRMS and P&W (formerly DOW) with TR84 (approved 7/15/2011) and the subsequent installation of the tall shrub/aspen study plots. Please remove this statement on pages 2.05-40 and 41 to minimize conflict with permit commitments approved in permit section 4.15. RECLAMATION COST ESTIMATE: CCC updated the Reclamation Cost Estimate (RCE) during TR81 (approved 6/29/2011). 2