2009-07-30_REVISION - C1981008 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

smooth Brame, which dominated the site early in the liability period, appears to have died aut? Alfalfa also appears to have largely disappeared, and perennial grasses other than Russian wildrye are miner components, The extent to which the irrigation practices may have contributed to the relatively pear stand observed is unknown, but at a minimum it seems likely that the irriga#ion migh# have enhanced the grown of smoo#h biome earl?r ire the liability period, at #?re expense of mare draught adapted species. ? . Narrative in the second paragraph of p. 22-? D of the NH?? permit application package {PAP}, indicates that the upland sagebrush reference area in the vicinity of mining areas ? and is the only reference area that exists for the Nucla Mine. This statement is apparently outdated; a reference area an airport property was approved in ?aaa to replace the sagebrush reference area. Pieces amend the page ??-1 a text to clarify that the sagebrush reference area has been replaced in by a reference area on the NuelalNaturita airport property. ?, Narrative on p. ?- ? ? through 2?-? 5 of the NH- ? PAP, and Exhibit ??-2 on p. 2?-? ? are also outdated, as the reference area lacatian has been relocated from the area described {BLM property west of the airports to inside the forked airport praperky. Please amend the text and Exhibit as appropriate. ?. Table 2?- an p? ??-? 7, and text an page ?Z-?, of the NH-? PAP indicates that a species diversity standard of three perennial grasses, with each providing at least 3°la relative cover, applies to the NH•? dryland pasture areas. This conflicts with narrative on page 2 of the Division's March 18, ?gD Proposed Decision and Findings of compliance {?99? findings document}, which states that species diversity standards do not apply #a dryland pasture reclamation. Please address the discrepancy. if the Divisson approved a waiver of the diversity standard, please reference the applicable revision action and amend the fable ?-? accordingly. 4. vile Hate that Table ??-5 indicates that the cover standard applicable to Nl?-? dryland pasture reclaimed areas is "D°lo of the live perennial cover of dryland pasture reference area". VU would paint cut that applicable regulations in 4.15.5 da not specify that caner success demonstration necessarily be based solely an perennial vegetation. Narrative under Item 3, paragraph ?, p.1 ?, of the Division's April 1995 bond release guideline dacur?ent, addresses the extent to which annual and biennial species ray be allowed #o contribute toward demonstrations of success, the allowable relative cover and production can?ribution of annual and brer?nial species sliacrld riot exceed ?? percenf, ar the relative caner and productforr of such species In fhe associated reference area or standard, whichever is f?Jgher. Ar?r?r?al ar biennial cover orpmductior? i? excess of phis threshold should be deleted ?rarrr fire reclaimed area data prior to success corrfparison, An acceptable al#emafive rs to delete all arrr?uallbierrnral cover arrd prad?ctlorr from ,both reference area and reclaimed area data prior to success comparison. 1NF? may wish to consider proposing an amendrr?ent to the specified criteria, to allow far inclusion of an annual?biennial componentforsuccess demanstratian. ?, The sample Techniques and Design section of the NH-? PAP, p• ??-?? through ??-?5, is somewhat outdated, containing outdated references to data collection in 1999 and ?gQO and the sagebrush reference area, and also reference to sample adequacy and hypothesis tasting formulas in the 1995 guidelines document. specific sampling timeframes mentioned may be overly restrictive; June through September sampling window would allow sufficient flexibility to caardinate sampling with growing conditions in a given year, sections of the guideline addressing statistical methods have been