Division weighs plan-submittal changes, wildlife consultations and revegetation/pond-slope standards

Division staff and industry representatives discussed several related technical topics in the draft rule language — spill prevention plans, revegetation application rates, and pond/shoreline slope requirements — and how those requirements align with existing board policy and other agencies.

On spill prevention, Elliot and Jeff (Division staff) said the Division does not intend to require duplicative submittals of full SPCC plans when plans already exist. Jeff said the board has a policy that currently “does not want plans submitted” and that the Division will reconcile the redline to instead require applicants to reference the existence and location of a plan, not resubmit the entire SPCC. The Division said it will coordinate language with the board policy to avoid inconsistent requirements.

On revegetation, the draft retains an industry-standard approach that broadcast seeding normally requires double the seeding rate used for drill seeding. The Division signaled limited willingness to accept language that lets applicants stabilize broadcast seedbeds (for example, by raking or using tackifiers) when soil roughening is not possible; staff said they are “in agreement on that language” that stabilizing after broadcasting is an acceptable option to reduce seed loss.

On pond and pit slopes, the Division said the draft draws language from existing small-permit (1-10 acre) sections and applies comparable slope expectations to larger (1-12) permits to achieve consistency: generally 3:1 for pond slopes with shallower slopes where public access or swimming areas are proposed (a 5:1 requirement was cited for swim areas). Stakeholders asked for flexibility given site-specific constraints (natural topography, infeasible excavation), and staff noted existing rule language in Rule 3.1.5.7 that allows the Division or the board to approve departures in specific circumstances. Staff said they will review the language for consistency and discuss exceptions when a natural pond feature or existing topography makes excavation to a shallower slope infeasible.

Staff emphasized that wildlife concerns remain important. The Division requires consultation with Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) in pre-permitting stages when wildlife impacts are possible; staff noted the agency “relies heavily” on CPW expertise for issues like seasonal closures, critical winter habitat and migratory corridors, and that those consultations are often done before formal application to speed review.

Ending: Staff said they will refine rule language to avoid duplicative SPCC submittals, clarify acceptable stabilization practices after broadcast seeding, and reconcile slope language with Rule 3 and board policy; stakeholders requested follow-up meetings on these technical topics.