My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PERMFILE58063
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Permit File
>
600000
>
PERMFILE58063
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 11:00:23 PM
Creation date
11/20/2007 5:40:59 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1980005
IBM Index Class Name
Permit File
Doc Date
12/11/2001
Section_Exhibit Name
TAB 15 PERMIT RENEWAL, 1986
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.
/
122
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
C ' has generally been used as the mulch because of problems in obtaining • <br />weed free grain straw in the area. The discussion on mulching in the <br />approved mine permit is correct. <br />2.05.4 Reclamation Plan <br />5. There appears to be a discrepancy regarding fertilizing at Seneca <br />II. The original application (Page 13-9) specifies fertilizers <br />will be applied per soil test results: whereas, the Wolf Creek <br />permit revision application specifies "...fertilizer applications <br />are not planned at this time". The Division believes it is <br />imperative to continue sampling recently retopsoiled areas to <br />ensure sufficient nutrients are available for emerging seedlings. <br />The discussion in the Wolf Creek application implies no soil <br />sampling for nutrients occurs. This should be modified to <br />reflect commitments made in the original application. <br />RESPONSE: <br />A written commitment to sample recently replaced topsoil for soil <br />fertility is included in Tab 9, Attachment 9-4, page 9-37 of this <br />submittal package. <br />C 2.05.4 Reclamation Plan • <br />6. Page 13-"c9 of the original application discusses the six noxieus <br />weeds found at Seneca II and action to be implemented if noxious <br />weeds are found on reclaimed areas. A review of Appendix 13-2 of <br />the renewal application (specifically Page 114) specifies that <br />Canadian Thistle "...can become a major problem". Peabody Coal <br />should specify the measures to be implemented and the associated <br />time frames to address this concern. <br />RESPONSE: <br />PCC will contact the Routt County Weed Control District <br />representatives in the early spring of 1987 to develop and coordinate <br />a control program for Canadian thistle. The best time far chemical <br />control of this species is in early to mid-summer when the plant is <br />reaching a maximum growth stage and flowers are in the bud to early <br />bloom stage. The plant is then at a low carbohydrate reserve stage <br />and susceptible to severe stress or death if an effective and complete <br />herbicide application is made. Effective herbicides include both <br />selective broad-leaf types or non-selective burn-down or systemic <br />types. The type of herbicide selected will be based on <br />recommendations by the Routt County Weed Control District and/or Routt <br />County Extension agent. Application will be carried out through the <br />District resources, ifi available, or through a properly licensed and • <br />~~ certified appli,;ator trom the area. These applications will be made <br />during the optimum .season in 1987. Because of the aggressive habit <br />22 Revised 8/27/86 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.