Laserfiche WebLink
C -1981 -008 <br />PR -06 AR #5 <br />August 25, 2010 <br />Page 25 of 26 <br />advisory boards or commissions, and also to address control of other weed species if such <br />species threaten the development of desired vegetation or pose a risk of spread to nearby areas. <br />The weed list provided on revised page 2.05.4(2)(e) -69 does not appear to include all of the <br />species addressed by the San Miguel and West End Montrose County lists. The Division <br />requests that the table be revised and presented as shown on the attachment to this letter. <br />We have the following additional requests, with respect to the amended weed control plan. In <br />the paragraph that follows the noxious weed table in Subsection 9.0, please include a statement <br />to the effect that if weedy species other than the noxious species listed become established to the <br />point that revegetation success is jeopardized or such species pose a risk of spread to adjacent <br />undisturbed areas, appropriate control measures will be implemented. In addition, please restore <br />the language that was deleted from the paragraph, which states that CSU extension service <br />recommendations regarding herbicides and application rates for particular species will be <br />followed, and that all herbicide application will be conducted in conformance with herbicide <br />product labels. <br />Finally, please delete the noxious weed list table in 4.0 of Section 2.04.10, and <br />replace it with a reference to the table in Subsection 9.0 of Section 2.05.4(2)(e). <br />David A. Berry Letter dated May 18, 2010 <br />1. WFC has acknowledged that the Morgan Property is prime farmlands and will be reclaimed to <br />cropland. Some details, as discussed in this letter, remain outstanding before full compliance <br />with Rule 2.06.6 and 4.25 can be demonstrated. <br />2. Previously resolved. <br />3. Previously resolved. <br />4. Please refer to question 39A. <br />Please see question 36. Item Resolved <br />6. Consistency has continued to improve with the August 11, 2010 response to Adequacy Review <br />#4. <br />7. Several adequacy questions remain pending. <br />8. WFC has communicated with the various landowners as seen in Attachments 2.05.4(2)(e) -6, <br />2.05.4(2)(e) -8 and 2.05.4(2)(e) -10 included with the May 25, 2010 response. As stated in Mr. <br />Berry's August 20, 2010 letter to Lance Wade, the Division continues to encourage WFC to <br />pursue landowner resolution to the extent possible. Where WFC is proposing changes to the <br />permit application in response to landowner requests, please summarize the landowner request, <br />along with WFC's proposed revision to the permit application in response to the request. Please <br />provide specific reference to the Section and subsection of the proposed application where any <br />such changes may have been made. This will aid in documenting the on -going efforts WFC is <br />making to consult with the landowner. <br />