REP39428 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Mike Boulay Divuion of Declamation, Mining and Safety Page 2 Sites Shrub Component, Meric/Diparian, and Upland/Ephemeral The reed tag provided for the Upland Sites/Ephemeral Drainages looks dare to the approved Seed Mix # fA, except that it doer not include Blue Flax andAntelope Bitterbnrrh. A reed tag mar provided for Seed Mix #2, but the narrative of the repmt doer not mention whether this mix mar used in any of the reeled anar. The reed tags for concentrated shrub and upland shrub reeding do not match the approved Seed Mix No. S for roncentrated shrub areas, and they aLra include numerous forb . pecier. IY/ere all of there mixer used? Ifro, in what rombinationr and in which anas7 Response: These aze simply the seed tags we were able to save; these aze the mixes we used. Our approved mix in the permit allows Eor some variation based on availability. The actual combinations aze lost to memory so we plan to see how it looks next yeaz. 3. Looking at the reed tags submitted it appears that SCC has included (orbs in the shrub ronnntration mix (ar darcrcrred with Dan Madhemr of DDMSJ but SCC did not change the approved reed mix in the permit application package. Pkare submit a minor revision to the permit to update Seed Mix No. 5 to include the fort specie previously agreed upon with DDMS. Response: The flexibility written into our narrative in the permit allows for some additions. These are native spears and aze included in other approved mixes. If there is a specific species of concern we will add it to the appropriate mix in a revision if necessary. 4. The reed tags are somewhat illegible, given the quality of the cagy provided, and there rr also information miming on the bottom of the rhmb reeding krtr (bulk lbr, PLS Ibr) so we were not able to verify the rower reeding rater for each rpecier. In reviewing the Upland/Ephemeral tag (as noted above, it war found to be .similar to Setd Mix #lA), it seems that the ratio of species it not ronsirtent with the approved mix, although this may be due to our inability to clearly nod the percentages ofpure reed Pkare review the reed tags and provide documentation that the reed mrxer used wen ronrirtent with the approved mix, and provide details of the reeding rate and lomtion(r) when there mixer wen used Response: The seeding rates vary according to many factors, so the virtual ratio, rate, and locations aze impossible to pinpoint to this degree. SCC prefers to use vegetation monitoring to establish results of the seeding. S. The kxt of the ARD, on page 3, voter that 18,200 seedlings wen planted at Yoast, the locations being shown on an attached map. The map notation shows 20.5 acres of shrub plots. The average seedlings per ain, then, would be 887.8. All of the approved planting lirtr (Table 22-8 of the approved permit application package) call for a minimum of 4000 seedlings per acv. Please explain why the seedlings were planted at lens than the approved rote. The species mhos planted an also inronrirtent with the approved planting lirt,• this deviation rhoxGl be explained ar well. Response: We only planted 4.55 acres with tublings. The remaining 15.95 acres were planted with the concentrated shrub mix, and more tublings aze planned Eor 2006 plantiag season. Once we do vegetation monitoring we will determnie if additional planting will be required in these sites. The spears ratios aze a result of availability from the nursery. 6. ADR Tables 05.2, 05.3, and 054, Seed Mix Nor. 1, 2, and 6, respectively, do mot match the approved reed mixer from Tables 22- 2, 22-3, and 22-7 in the approved permit application package for the Yoart Mine. Pkare verify that the reed mixer from which SCC it working are the ones previously approved by the Division. Response: The seed tags should verify the actual seeds and ratios planted. The annual and final vegetation sampling should determine how the plantings aze growing.