Laserfiche WebLink
<br />letters specify Sacar bluebunch. Why does Table 04.2 differ from the other <br />documents? <br />b) The approved mix specifies use of "Travois" alfalfa cultivar. Seed tags and <br />certification letters indicate "Ranger" and "Ladak" alfalfa cultivars were seeded. <br />The renewal findings document indicates that "Travois" alfalfa was selected <br />because of its less aggressive tendencies, in comparison to other alfalfa varieties. <br />Why were cultivars other than the approved "Travois" seeded? <br />c) Seed tag and certification letters indicate that streambank wheatgrass was <br />included in the seed mix, but this species is not included in the approved seedmix, <br />and is not listed in Table 04.2 of the report. Please explain this discrepancy. <br />d) Rocky mountain penstemon is included in the approved seedmix, and is listed in <br />Table 04.2 and the two certification letters. However, it is not listed on the seed <br />tag provided. Please explain this discrepancy. <br />e) Table 04.2 lists a yarrow species (Achi//ea nigrescens), with which we are <br />unfamiliar, and which differs from the approved species, western yarrow (A. <br />/anu/osa). Certification letters and the seed tag appear to indicate western yarrow <br />(A. /anu/osal was seeded. Please explain this apparent discrepancy. <br />f) For a number of species (slender wheatgrass, orchardgrass, basin wildrye, Canada <br />bluegrass, Palmer penstemon, tailcup lupine) the cultivar (or species, in the case of <br />lupine) specified in the approved seed mix does not correspond to the cultivar <br />indicated on the seed tag. Please address the reason that the specified cultivars <br />were not used. <br />g) A note on Table 04.2 lists four shrub species for which seed was separately <br />added to the mix. No seed tags or other documentation was provided for the shrub <br />species. Please explain why such documentation was not provided, and ensure that <br />appropriate documentation is provided in future annual reclamation reports. <br />2004 Annual Revegetation Report <br />As is typically the case, the annual revegetation report is thorough, detailed and <br />informative, and appears to fully comply with permit requirements. The sampled areas were <br />seeded in 2002, so it is too early to draw meaningful conclusions regarding the potential for <br />the areas to ultimately meet the applicable success standards. The area is dominated by <br />annual weedy species, but this is expected for a second year stand, and the annual <br />component typically fades as the slower developing seeded perennials become established. <br />A few things to keep an eye on as the stand develops include the low initial shrub presence, <br />and the significant presence of noxious species including Canada thistle, houndstongue, and <br />bull thistle. The follow-up sampling conducted in two to four years wilt provide insight <br />regarding successional trends. <br />I noticed one apparent mistake that should be corrected. On Map 1, 2004 Revegetation <br />Monitoring Locations, the legend identifies the delineated sampled area as "1997 <br />Reclamation". Presumably, this is actually the 2002 reclamation. Please submit an <br />appropriately amended version of the map. <br />