Laserfiche WebLink
for the subsequent year(s). The acres seeded should only be reported once, for the <br />purpose of cumulative land status tracking. However, the nature, location and <br />acreage of any remedial reseeding or planting conducted during the year should be <br />described in the report narrative, and the location of such remedial work should be <br />delineated on the reclamation map. Please amend the report narrative and the <br />reclamation map as appropriate to describe and delineate any such remedial seeding <br />or planting performed in 2004. <br />6. On the Reclamation Map Photo, there is a Topsoil Removed/Upgraded land status <br />category, indicated by a blue bar pattern. Obviously, the entire length of the Wadge <br />Pits and associated spoil in the South Extension area fit this category, as well as the <br />active pit and spoil areas associated with the Wolf Creek mining block. However, <br />the pattern is applied to only a portion of the active Wolf Creek pit and spoils area <br />on the map. Please amend the map as appropriate. <br />7. 2.04.13(1)(e) requires documentation and maps addressing species, location and <br />number of acres of vegetation planted during the year. We believe a number of <br />clarifications are warranted with regard to the seeding/planting documentation. <br />a) Seed tag and certification letter documentation included in the report indicates <br />that Seedmix 1 herbaceous components and quantities were in general conformance <br />with the approved seedmix. However, there are some unexplained discrepancies. <br />Arrowleaf balsamroot and blue flax were not listed in the documentation. VNS <br />Palmer penstemon was provided, rather than the specified Cedar cultivar. Sundial <br />lupine (apparently L. perennisl with a California origin, was substituted for the <br />permit specified Tailcup lupine. Please amend the report to address the unexplained <br />species absences and substitutions. The native silverleaf lupine (L. argenteus) was <br />documented in the permit baseline data, and would be an appropriate substitute for <br />tailcup lupine (if not available in a given year), as would the native silky lupine (L. <br />sericeus-. <br />b) Note 2, to Seedmix 1 (Table 04.2), states that chokecherrry, serviceberry, <br />mountain snowberry, and antelope bitterbrush seed was added to the mix separately <br />/no seed tagsl. We note that chokecherry and serviceberry are no longer ihcluded in <br />Seedmix t, and that mountain big sagebrush is included in Seedmix 1. Please <br />amend the report to clarify which shrub species were seeded as components of <br />Seedmix 1, and the method and rate of shrub seeding. Include an explanation for <br />any departures from the approved shrub component of Seedmix 1. We assume the <br />shrub seed used for seeding was obtained from a commercial source. If so, there <br />would have been seedtags or other documentation provided, showing the type and <br />quantity of seed. Please submit the documentation for 2004 if available, and ensure <br />that such documentation is retained and included in the Annual Reclamation Report <br />in future years. <br />c) Report narrative indicates that shrub sites in "A", "B", and "D" Pit areas were <br />seeded with Seedmix 6. Seedmix 6 contains five shrub species and three forb <br />species (arrowleaf balsamroot, Rocky Mountain penstemon, and tailcup lupinel• No <br />seedtags, invoices, or other documentation was provided to demonstrate the <br />purchase of Seedmix 6 species either pre-mixed, or as separate components. Please <br />amend the report to address whether the complete mix was seeded in the <br />concentrated shrub seeding areas, with an explanation of any departures or <br />substitutions. Please submit seedtag or comparable documentation for Seedmix 6 <br />