Laserfiche WebLink
9. The Division accepts this response at this time. <br />10. Acceptable response. <br />11. This response is acceptable and the issue was addressed satisfactorily by <br />TR-07. <br />12. - 16. <br />The Division's preliminary review of the vegetation responses suggests <br />that the vegetation material was reformatted from the permit revision <br />into the current structure of the permit application without due <br />consideration to the CMLRD adequacy questions prepared for the permit <br />revision. Thus, the Division asks Kerr to respond to the November 16, <br />1989, adequacy letter, questions 40-99, and to modify the narrative <br />accordingly. <br />17. Acceptable response. <br />18. The Division accepts the response to question 18. Approval of this <br />technical revision will include a termination notice for Stipulation R2. <br />Miscellaneous Questions <br />Given the magnitude and breadth of the modifications within the mid-term, <br />responses to the following questions are required. <br />19. In updating the permit, references to the sagegrouse fertilization <br />program were dropped, as appropriate. Page 780-46aa included a reference <br />to that program in the small game mammal section, which should also be <br />eliminated for consistency sake. <br />20. The Division's copy of the permit application includes a page number <br />780-65fff, dated November 24, 1980. A significant portion of the page is <br />devoted to a fencing and grazing p1 an. The mid-term submittal includes a <br />page 780-65ff, dated November 20, 1980, whidr covers only a continued <br />discussion on smooth brome from the previous page. Please maintain the <br />discussion on fencing and grazing or give some explanation for dropping <br />this section. <br />21. Please specify the actual year in Table 53, rather than years 1, 2, and <br />3. Also, it would help all of our bookkeeping if the revision date of <br />all of the tables were included. <br />/ern <br />8857E <br />-6- <br />