2012-06-20_PERMIT FILE - C2010089A (7)

Home Browse Search

values are 2.042 for plant cover and 1.986 for forage production. This comparison documents that the total plant cover between these two sites is statistically different, while forage production is statistically similar. One obvious explanation for these differences is the fact that upon examination of Appendix Table 2.04.10 -9, Irrigated Pasture - Plant Cover, it can be readily seen that the "total plant cover" value is 39.20 percent and the "allowable cover value," which takes into consideration the requirements of Section 4.15.7, which requires that annuals and noxious weeds be excluded from the final revegetation success calculation is only 17.70 percent. Applying the same logic to the pre- mining vegetation comparison, means that if the DRMS requires that annual and noxious weed cover is applied to the pre- mining comparison, they would be requiring that reclaimed lands must be reclaimed to a lower ecological condition than that associated with the approved reference area, 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 where 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 Dryland Pasture predisturbance areas the "allowable plant cover" value equals 17.70 percent (Appendix Table 2.04.10 -9, Irrigated Pasture - Plant Cover). Upon comparing the "total allowable cover" on the proposed Dryland Pasture predisturbance areas with the "total plant cover" value on the existing Dryland Pasture Reference Area, which contains significantly fewer annuals and no noxious weeds, it can be determined that the calculated t value for "total allowable plant cover" was determined to be equal 0.1583, which means that these cover values are statistically equal. 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. Based upon this comparison, WFC feels justified in proposing to use the existing Dryland Pasture Reference Area as a success standard for the Dryland Pasture predisturbance area since it is already the approved revegetation success standard of the Dryland Pasture predisturbance area at the NH2 Mine. Intensively Managed Irrigated Pasture. Disturbance to all lands corresponding to the Intensively Managed Irrigated Pasture vegetation type (IMIP) are shown on Map 2.04.10 -1, Permit Area Vegetation Map. This vegetation type is found only on lands owned and managed by the Garvey & Co. and differs from regular irrigated pasture for the reasons previous described. The owners of this land desire that these areas be reclaimed to a similar condition following mining and reclamation. Extensive investigations into numerous other similar Intensively Managed Irrigated Pasture sites in the existing NH2 Mine area, reveals several potential similar sites, but upon consultation with the owners, it was determined that none were willing to cooperate with WFC by allowing them to dictate on how they had to manage their lands, when they could cut hay and or place cattle on them. After this extensive investigation and following discussions with Ms. Sandy Brown of the DRMS, wherein we inquired about the feasibility of using a "Historic Record" method of Section 2.04.10 Page 33 November 2011