My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2013-07-01_REVISION - C1981014
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Revision
>
Coal
>
C1981014
>
2013-07-01_REVISION - C1981014
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 5:22:06 PM
Creation date
7/1/2013 2:00:17 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981014
IBM Index Class Name
REVISION
Doc Date
7/1/2013
Doc Name
Response to Questions received from Ms. Saunders on June 25, 2013 (Emailed & Mailed)
From
DRMS
To
Linda Saunders
Type & Sequence
TR39
Email Name
JHB
DIH
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
9
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Page 3 of 5 <br />July 1, 2013 <br />Rabbitbrush was recommended for inclusion in the reclamation seed mix by Colorado Division of <br />Parks and Wildlife (formerly Colorado Division of Wildlife). The DRMS did not recommend that <br />Rabbitbrush be included in the seed mix. As such Rabbitbrush was not included in the approved <br />seed mix and the Rabbitbrush observed on the reclaimed areas established as volunteer species. <br />The Division previously provided a response regarding Rabbitbrush to the Vento Group. On July <br />21, 2011, I provided an e-mail to Linda Saunders with an attachment: Natural Resource <br />Conservation Service (MRCS) plant guide for Rubber Rabbitbrush. Once again, although it may <br />not be an ideal forage species, it is not considered a noxious species and therefore, the Division <br />does not require that mine operators control it. <br />4) Please explain why the DMRS would consider the change in reference area in Year 10 of a 10 year <br />reclamation period. <br />Answer: As discussed previously, during our meeting with the Vento Group on January 9, 2012, Rule <br />3.02.3(2)(b) defines the minimum period of reclamation liability. "In areas where annual average <br />precipitation is twenty -six (26) inches or less, the minimum period of liability shall continue for ten <br />years." The climatological section of the permit (2.04.8) defines the normal annual precipitation in the <br />Southfield Mine area as 12.9 inches. <br />Please understand that the permittee is not eligible to apply for final reclamation bond release until a <br />minimum of 10 years have passed since the last "augmented seeding, fertilizing, irrigation or other is <br />required or conducted on the site. However, Rule 4.15.7(5) allows for activities that may be <br />considered "normal husbandry practices" without re- initiating the 10 -year liability period. Limited <br />repair of rills and gullies, weed control, management of pasture land, and limited interseeding on <br />rangeland or wildlife habitat are all considered normal husbandry practices. <br />A reclaimed mine must still meet the required reclamation success criteria before the Division can <br />approved reclamation bond release. Even though a mine site may have achieved the minimum liability <br />time period, the operator must still provide sufficient data to demonstrate that the reclamation success <br />criteria have been met. <br />Janet Binns met with Linda Saunders at the mine site on Thursday August 4, 2011. The Division <br />answered this question to Linda at that time: <br />"Reference Area Change -How can the Division of Mining change a reference area in year 8 of a 10 <br />year revegetation period? The reference area is the standard of comparison. If you change the <br />reference area, how do you know where you are and if you meet the revegetation standard. Or do we <br />start over with Year 1." (Received: August 3, 2011, 10:29 pm via e -mail) <br />Answer: Reclamation success evaluations can be made using comparison to one or more reference <br />areas, Rule 4.15.7(2)(d)(i). Operators may also propose evaluation of revegetation success with <br />comparison to a standard. A revegetation standard may also be based on premining data, approved <br />technical documents, historic record. <br />An operator may propose a change to a reference area for several reasons. Degradation of the <br />approved reference area may result in the reference area becoming a poor candidate for success <br />comparison. A change in ownership and land use of the reference area may make it necessary to <br />establish a new reference area. Additional information may be provided regarding the pre - mining <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.