Laserfiche WebLink
Binns, Janet <br />From: Belka, Christine [cbelka @osmre.gov] <br />Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2011 9:08 AM <br />To: Binns, Janet <br />Subject: RE: Edna <br />Thanks again, <br />Christine <br />From: Binns, Janet [Janet.Binns @state.co.us] <br />Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2011 8:48 AM <br />To: Belka, Christine <br />Subject: RE: Edna <br />Hi Christine, <br />1 <br />c t c 80 -0 01 <br />5L 11 <br />r�aX- <br />031'A/ N ti CS Ccvw\ <br />Ok, thank you Janet. I agree with you, but had told Lori I would pass her comments on. Her main concern seems to be <br />that invasive species in the pre -law area will continue to proliferate out onto other / permanent program lands. She <br />recognizes the non - topsoiled area as a prime location for weed species and is concerned that infestations will take hold. I <br />did say we can't hold pre -law areas to permanent program standards, but that wasn't a very well- received answer. We <br />don't have jurisdiction to require what it appears she wants so I don't see much cause for concern. <br />Thank you for the update. Actually, I am a bit shocked that NRCS continues to have concerns after I specifically asked if <br />people had questions or concerns before the end of the inspection, and she did not voice anything. Did she specifically <br />state what her concern is? More weeds than the surrounding non -mined lands? General land management? If she gave <br />you specifics, that would be helpful to me. A general "there are still weeds ", doesn't help me much, since eradication of <br />list B & C species is not required by DRMS or Colorado Agricultural Service; Noxious weed law. <br />DRMS has not instructed Chevron to conduct additional vegetation sampling. We find the data previously submitted by <br />Chevron meets the requirement and demonstrates that the noxious weeds contribute less than 3% relative cover on the <br />site. I did instruct Chevron to continue with the weed control they were currently doing (implementing their approved <br />weed management plan), and provide DRMS documentation of their efforts this summer; i.e. where they sprayed, which <br />species they sprayed for, which chemicals they used, and when they sprayed. Chevron & Habitat Management did <br />commit to spraying Whitetop & Houndstongue patches in the West Ridge area. As to your comment that Chevron <br />should control weeds on areas that they are not responsible for (your comment "it would be in their best interest to <br />control weed sources adjacent to the areas they are responsible for "), I inherently have a problem with suggesting that. I <br />think there are legal issues with spraying chemicals on land you do not have permission to do so, and property that has <br />been phase III bond released already is the responsibility of the land- owner. Chevron did say they would spray the large <br />patch of whitetop under the powerline that is adjacent to the String -of- pearls rock check dams. Tom Maniotis, the <br />landowner gave them verbal permission to do so. I am fine with operator & landowners coming to agreements, but I am <br />hesitant, as the state representative, to tell the operator to do something that is not supported by the state law or the <br />approved permit. <br />I have been out of the office a lot. I am writing up my Follow -up bond release inspection report and will send a copy to <br />all participants once I have it finalized. Thank you for letting me know that NRCS still has concerns <br />