My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
REP15667
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Report
>
REP15667
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 11:45:08 PM
Creation date
11/27/2007 1:41:52 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1982057
IBM Index Class Name
Report
Doc Date
11/22/2004
Doc Name
2003 ARR & 2003 Wildlife Responses to Adequacy/2003 Revised ARR Form
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.
/
7
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
3. The Wied Control narrative on page 4 doer rear reference the whitetop rpraying of rtockpiler along the Tie Acrorr Haul Road <br />indicated in notationr on the 2003 Weed Spray Map. There arear may need to be re-treated thir rpring. Alto, the weed <br />control narrative doer not include reru/tr of the annual qualitative monitoring dercnbed in the permit to evaluate progrerr, <br />ident~ arear requiring retreatment, and to identify new areru of ertablirbed weedr requiring ronlrol. <br />Please include appropriate narrative evaluation and mapping to assess effectiveness of treatments <br />conduced prior to 2003, and to identify treatment areas, target species, and methods ro be <br />employed in 2004. Backpack orATVmounted sprayers may be needed to access patches of <br />Canada thistle and houndsrongue along drainages, oldguUyrepait azeas, and otherlocations in <br />the interior ofredamation blocks. Table22-8 ofthe permit should be amended to include Telar, if <br />it wit/ continue ro fie used for whitetop control. Potential usefulness ofcommercially available <br />Insects that key on Canada thistle should be assessed. <br />Response: The new weed management plan, required by Routt Co. weed district, spedfies apre-treatment <br />walkover inspection prior to the treatment season. The 2004 walkover was a dismal failure since the person <br />SCC hired did not know the difference between Curly Cup gumweed and Dalmation toadflax and other <br />problems. Therefore, the 2004 evaluation and map are not reliable information. The 2005 evaluation and <br />subsequent treatment will be better; SCC plans to hue ESCO Associates or a weed expert with a good <br />reputation. Telar and/or Escort aze used in conjunction with other treatments of Plateau, Banvel, Tordon, 2,4- <br />D. and additional chemicals labeled for use on rangeland species. The comprehensive weed management plan <br />for all three (3) Seneca pemuts will be submitted before the 2005 spring control season. This plan addresses <br />the application of these chemicals along with other cultural controls. <br />4. We have the fallowing questions regarding the 2003 Reclamation Map: <br />a)It war ourunderrtanding that all arear of toproil rerpread at the `D"Pit area in 2003 wen reeler!, but thin it mat clear <br />from the map. Bared on the color code, it would appear that the `%5.3 acre future throb plat rite"war toproikd but not <br />reeled Our recollection it that it war drill reeled with upland Seedmix 1, while the romewhat rteeper doper fuRher Wert <br />were extenrivedy roughened and broadcart reeled with Seedmix 7. Permit map 22-1 appearr to depict arear of concentrated <br />throb reeding and concentrated reediing planting along drainager and !err rteeply doping arear within the `D"Pit area, but <br />not on the rteep highwall reduction dope. Narrative on page 4 indicater that a new throb plot rite near the north ride of <br />`D"Pit war mu8hened and reeled with the `ihrub mix S': <br />Please provide some additional narrative to clarify the type and extent ofrevegetation activity <br />completed in the "D"Pit Area m 2003, mduding the location and extent ofany areas seeded <br />with the shmb mix (Mlx 6m the approved permit). Also, please address why the proposed <br />shrub plot area on the map includes the steep south facing slopes that ate not specified for <br />shmb planttitg areas on Map 22-1. The map cold be interpreted to indicate that the entire 15 <br />acre area would be seeded/p/anted with shmbs only, but we assume that the intent is that <br />scattered smaller shrub areas afore acre or so would be developed within the lazget area, as <br />described in the approved permit. If the entire area has already been seeded with Seedntix 1, <br />whatmeasures will be taken to suppressgrass competition within the areas ofconcentrated <br />shrub seeding/planting. <br />Response: The area was xe-contoured, re-roughened, and re-planted during the 2004 season. This work will <br />be clearly depicted in our 2005 ARR. Since this area was almost totally reseeded in 2004 the value of the actual <br />work done in 2003 is debatable. During 2004 SCC planted approximately 9000 tublings, regraded several large <br />rills, xevegetated with the Shrub and mesic tnix. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.