REV95944 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

G81-013: TR-37 7. Dudash 2 C. The Rangeland mix contains a relatively high proportion of Smooth brome at 1.5 lbs PLS/acre. This is 14.4% of the seed mix. I have copied a page from the Guidelines to forward on to the operator regarding the proportion of seeding rate for smooth brome for their information. No change is required but once again for helping achieve their success standards, Basin may want to keep these seeding proportions in mind. Please be reminded that Smooth brome grass is a highly competitive introduced species. D. Although the Division is not requiring shrub seed be included in the seed mix, of note is the fact that there is a complete absence of shrub species in the seed mix. 2. I am a little uncomfortable leaving the resolution of designating an AVF reference area until such time as reclamation takes place, proposed page 2.05-26. Designation of AVF reference area now will help ensure that the appropriate portions of Rule 4.15.7(3) can be met. This may be an item the Division may want to stipulate again to allow for vegetation analyses in 1995 since we are already into winter months. AVF production figures were requested in a memo during permit renewal, but I was unable to find if these were submitted. 3. Land use designation of "irrigated rangeland" does not agree with the Division's definitions of land-use in Rule 1.04(71). Does Basin actually propose this be pastureland? Which seed mix will be used on the "irrigated rangeland"? 4. The revegetation success criteria on page 2.05-26 have been revised as requested by the Division. Due to the relatively high proportion of smooth brome in Table 21 seed mix, 14.4%, inclusion of an upper limit per one species should be included in the species diversity standard as well to avoid the potential for dominance of a monoculture. This upper limit may be based on information found in Exhibit 13, by Range site descriptions, or other valid data. 5. Revision of sampling parameters listed on revised page 2.05-24 is acceptable as requested by the Division. 6. Proposed page 2.05-25(b) (Revised 9/2/94) has incorporated the changes requested by the Division and is appropriate. Proposed page 2.05-26(c) (Revised 4/15/94) is fine. 7. The proposed statistical analysis on pages 2.05-26(d), 2.05-26(e), and 2.05-27 appear to be in conformance with Rule 4.15.8 and do not disagree with Vegetation Success Guidelines developed by the Division. These statistical revisions are acceptable.