Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Mike Boulay <br />Divirion of Minemis and Geology <br />Page 3 <br />because of its less aggrersive tendencies, in comparison to other alfalfa varieties Wlty were cultiwets other than the <br />approved `Travois"seeded. <br />c) Seed tags and cert~cation ktterr indicate that streambank wheatgrarr war included in the seedmix, but thin rpecxer is not <br />included in the approved seedmix, 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 it listed in Table 04.2 and the two certification <br />ktterr. However, it it not listed on the reed tag provided Please explain this apparent discrepancy. <br />e) Table 04.2 lists ayam~w rpecies (Achillea nigrercenr), with which we are unfamiliar, and which differr firm the approved <br />specier, werternyarrow (A. lanulasa . Certification letterr and the seed tab appear to indicate westernyarrow (A. <br />lanulosa was needed Please explain this discrepancy. <br />~ Fora numberofrpecies (sknderwhatgrau, orchardgraa, basin wildrye, Canada bluegrarr, Palmerpenstemon, taikup <br />lupine) the cultivar (or rpecies, in the care of lupine) specifred in the approved reed mix doer not ca»rrpond to the cultivar <br />indicated on the seed tag. P/ease address the reason that the speci&ed cultivate were not used. <br />gJ A note on Table 04.2 brtf four shnrb specier for which reed was repamtefy added to the mix. No reed rage or other <br />documentation war provided for the rhrab rpecier. P/ease explain why such documentation was not <br />provided, and ensure that appropriate documentation is provided in future annual rec/amatlon <br />reports. <br />Response: <br />a) This table was copied from previous ARR's and the changes overlooked. SCC will replace the current Table <br />04.2 with an updated table to match the updated table in PR-02. <br />b) Seed avai]abiliry was the main reason. In addition, the cultivas listed aze the recommended cultivazs and <br />this does not indicate that others cannot be used if the recommended one is not available. <br />c) Streambank wheatgrass is included in the seedmix proposed in PR-02 and is approved in the II-W seedmix. <br />SCC is trying to achieve some consistency in the approved seedmixes between mines. <br />d) We cannot explain this discrepancy; it appears that the ereor occurred with the seed supplier when the mix <br />was bagged. Many of these problems stem from the fact that we have similar seedmixes and labels for all <br />mines but slightly different spedes and amounts. Our agriculture technicians look for "upland", "shrub", <br />"mesic", or "stockpile" labels and inadvertently mix bags between the mines. SCC is working to achieve <br />consistenry between the seedtnixes for the overall Seneca operations. <br />e) Again, the cultivats listed are "recommended" cultivazs. <br />The "specified" cttltivars are recommended ot~ly. The seedmixes contain the cultivats available at the time <br />of the orders. <br />g) This documentation will be provided for Euture reports. <br />Member 27.2005 AdegLacv Commentr Regarding the 2004 Annua! ReveBetation Re~rt <br />The Annual Revegetation Report is thorough, detailed and informative, and appearr to fully comply with permit requirements. <br />The rampled areas were .needed in 2002, so it it too early to draw meanin~ul conclusionr regarding the potential for the areas to <br />ultimately meet the applitabk succerr ttandardr. The area it dominated by annual weedy species, but thin it expected for a <br />secondyear stand, and the annual component typically fader as the slower developing needed perennialr became ertab!uhed A <br />few things to keep an eye on as the stand develops include the low initial shrub presence, and the sign cant presence of noxious <br />weeds including Canada thistle, houndstongue, and bull thistle. The follow-up sampling conducted in two to fouryears will <br />provide insight regarding succecrional tnndr. <br />