2012-02-16_APPLICATION CORRESPONDENCE - C2010089

Home Browse Search

Hernandez, Alysha From: Bowles, Brock Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2012 10:28 AM To: Hernandez, Alysha Subject: FW: Dryland Pasture Species Diversity Standard Alysha, Please scan this document in New Horizon North (C- 2010 -089). Brock Bowles Environmental Protection Specialist Colorado Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety 1313 Sherman Street, Room 215 Denver, CO 80203 303 - 866 -3567 ext. 8142 - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Kent Crofts [mailto:kent @imeyampa.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2012 12:29 PM To: Bowles, Brock; Murari Shrestha; David Anderson Subject: Dryland Pasture Species Diversity Standard Brock: I have completed my review of the baseline predisturbance vegetation types that will be reclaimed as Dryland Pasture for the proposed NHN Mine, as we discussed in our telephone call of 13 January 2012. I have also reviewed your e -mail of the same date and offer the following. I have carefully reviewed the NHN vegetation data for the existing Dryland Pasture, Reclaimed Dryland Pasture as well as Sagebrush Vegetation types. I have also examined the existing Dryland Pasture Reclamation monitoring data data collected at the NH2 Mine and offer the following comments. Your Comment # 1. It was and remains my opinion that the proposed 75 percent desirable forage quality diversity standard is doable. However, I do not agree with the DRMS position, that the remaining 25 percent must be quantified. In every permitting action I have ever been involved with in with the DRMS is the past 34 years, this is the first time that I have every seen the DRMS take the position that the Permit must also quantify what the remaining species, which do not contribute toward the Species Diversity standard or in this case, the Forage Quality diversity standard must consist of. I frankly can see no reason for such a position. Your Comment # 2. I take exception with your statement that a "monoculture" would satisfy this proposed requirement. The DRMS seems to be confused that the type of reclamation being proposed is Dryland Pasture, with Pastureland being defined in Rule 1.04.71(f) as consisting of "land which is used for the production of adapted, domesticated forage plants for livestock grazing or occasional hay production." An ecologically diverse plant community is not required to satisfy this definition. Application of the DRMS position that a "monoculture" be eliminated are totally contrary to this definition and the requirements of Rule 4.01.1(3) which requires that reclamation of all affected lands" shall be to "higher of better uses." By requiring such levels of species diversity the DRMS is requiring that the reclamation be performed to a "weak herbaceous understory or poor condition ..... dominated by weedy annuals or other undesirable species..." and the recommendation that the species diversity standard "would not be based on pre -mine comparison of poor condition...." areas. (Vegetation Guideline pages 11 and 14). Any rancher or farmer, who is trying to produce red 1