My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
REV99632
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Revision
>
REV99632
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/25/2016 3:23:29 AM
Creation date
11/22/2007 12:28:54 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1982057
IBM Index Class Name
Revision
Doc Date
3/14/2006
Doc Name
Adequacy Review Letter/Cost Estimate
From
DMG
To
Seneca Coal Company
Type & Sequence
PR5
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.
/
37
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
18. Seneca Coal Company's comprehensive weed management plan required by <br />Routt County was properly incorporated into the II-W permit via revised Tab <br />22 text and new Appendix 22-5. Item Resolved. <br />19. The concern identified in this item appears to have been adequately addressed <br />by revision of Exhibit 22-1, which eliminates the shrub establishment area on <br />the steep south facing slopes of the "D" Pit final highwall area. The response <br />commits to proper renovation in accordance with the approved weed control <br />plan, and commits to proper documentation of reseeding associated with weed <br />control, in the appropriate Annual Reclamation Reports. Item Resolved. <br />20. Considering the blocks of undisturbed aspen and mountain shrub habitat to be <br />retained within the immediate vicinity of reclamation in the II-W North and <br />South Mine Areas (which under the previously approved plan would have <br />been disturbed), proposed modifications to woody planting areas depicted on <br />amended Exhibit 22-1 appear to be acceptable. Item Resolved. <br />21. Under the revised revegetation plan as depicted on amended Exhibit 22-1, all <br />five aspen planting areas (including the RMRS test plots) and both "aspen <br />farm" areas will be enclosed with elk proof fencing. Two of the five upland <br />shrub planting areas in the South Area will be elk fenced, however none of the <br />13 upland shrub planting areas in the original (North Mine) area will be <br />fenced. We believe elk fencing of additional upland shrub planting areas <br />would be prudent, and would be likely to enhance growth and survival of <br />planted tall shrub species. At a minimum, please revise the plan to specify <br />elk fencing of the recently planted upland shrub site at the upper end of <br />the 006-SEI watershed in the "A" Pit area, and the planned upland shrub <br />site at the upper end of the 005-E1 watershed in the "D" Pit area. <br />New Items <br />22. Seeding method narrative for the Yoast permit was recently amended to <br />specify that sagebrush seed would be broadcast or dribble seeded, with <br />minimal soil coverage. Based on II-W permit seeding method narrative in the <br />first paragraph of page 29, Tab 22, we assume that sagebrush seed would be <br />included in the "small seed" component of the mix, and as such would in <br />effect be dribbled on the soil surface when seeded from the drill. Please <br />confirm this assumption, or amend the text to clarify that sagebrush seed <br />will be broadcast or dribble seeded. <br />23. Please amend Seedmix No. 1 (Table 22-1) to correspond to the recent <br />Yoast PR-Z changes regarding species/variety specifications for <br />Idaho/sheep fescue, and bluebunch/Snake river wheatgrass, for the same <br />reasons noted in the PR-2 review. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.