My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
REP13326
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Report
>
REP13326
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 11:43:40 PM
Creation date
11/27/2007 1:10:51 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1982057
IBM Index Class Name
Report
Doc Date
11/15/2005
Doc Name
2004 ARR Response Letter
From
Seneca Coal Company
To
DMG
Permit Index Doc Type
Annual Reclamation Report
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.
/
23
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
Mr. Dan Mathewr <br />Diairiox ofMixeralrAnd Geotogy <br />Page 3 <br />• a) Seed tag and mtifraztion letter documentation included in the report indiatter that Scedmix 1 henhattour mmponenu and <br />quantities were in genera! conformance with the approved reedmrx. However, there ate some unexplained dirtrtpancier. <br />Arrowleaf balramroot and blue flax were not listed in the documentation. VNS Palmer penrtemon war provided, rather <br />than the rpecifred Cedar arltdvar. Sundial lupine (apparently L e nit with a California origin, war rubrtltuted for the <br />permit rpecified Tailcrrp lupine. Please amend the report to address the unexplained species absences <br />and substitutions. The native silvedeaflupine ry air enteusi was documented in the permit <br />baseline data, and would be an appropriate substitute fat tai/cup lupine (ifnot available in a <br />given year), as would the native si/kylupine (L. seticeus . <br />Response: The seed tags reflect what was actually planted. The seed company, based on species available at <br />the time of delivery, made the substitutions. The cultivazs listed for seed mixes are recommended cultivars and <br />this does not indicate that others cannot be used/substituted if the recommended ones aze not available. The <br />other recommendations will be considered fat 2005 and future seeding. <br />b) Note 2, to Seedmix 1 (lob)e 04.2), rtater that chokecherry, rerviceberry, mountain rnowberry, and antelope bittetbrurh <br />reed war added to the mix repamtely (no reed tags). lY/e note that chokecherry and renriceberry ate no longer included in <br />Seedmix 1, and that mountain big ragebrurh a included in Scedmrx 1. Please amend the report to clarify <br />which shmb species were seeded as components ofSeedrnix 1, and the method and rate of <br />shrub seeding Include an explanation fat any departures tram the approved shrub component <br />ofSeedmix 1, lie assume the shrub seed used for seeding was obtained from a comrnertaa/ <br />source. Ifso, there would have been seed rags or other documentation provided, showing the <br />type and quantity o£seed. Please submit the documentation for2004r'favailable, and ensure <br />that such documentation is retained and included m the Annual Reclamation Report m future <br />years. <br />Response: Serviceberry, chokecherry, antelope bitterbrush, and mountain snowberty were added by hand at <br />approximately 5 lbs. of each per 100 Ibs. of Seedmix #1. The shrub seed was obtained from Granite Seed of <br />Lehi, Utah. No documentation is available, if we can Snd anything SCC will provide it. <br />c) Report narrative indicater that rhrub rites in `A'; `B'; and `D"Pit arear were needed with Seedmix 6. Seedmix 6 <br />containr five shrub pecier and three fart rpecier (anrowleaf balramroat, Rocky Mountain penrtemon, and tailcup lupine). <br />No reed tags, invoicer, or other documentation war provided to demonrtmte the punhare of Seedmix 6 rpecier eitherpre- <br />mixed, or ar reparate componentr. Please amend the report to address whether the complete mix was <br />seeded in the concentrated shrub seeding areas, with an explanation ofany departures or <br />substitutions. Please submit seed tag o~ comparable documentation for Seedmix 6 or <br />individual rnmponents ifavailable, and ensure that such documentation is retained and <br />included m the Annual Reclamation Report m future years. <br />Response: The seed mix was as listed. This was a combination of Seedmix #61e& over from the previous year <br />and the shrub sepazates as discussed above. No documentation is available. <br />d) Report narrative addrerrer the number and .rpecier of shrub reedlingr and 1 gallon aspen raplingr planted within three <br />woody plant ertablzrhment areas (one each in the `!i"Pit, `B"Pit, and `D"Pit attar. Please provide additional <br />information including acreage ofthe individual planting areas, fencingifinstalled, and <br />type/size/source ofseedlings and aspen saplings, (i.e. 10" containerized tubelinngs grown from <br />site collected seed, treated with mycorrhiza/inoculantPrepared from Seneca Soils, etc.). <br />Response: Exact data is not available; the ones that survive aze the important ones. The spedes and list of <br />• numbers of each aze accurate. The "Pond" aspen site has all of the 1-gallon aspens and is the only one fenced. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.