Laserfiche WebLink
. <br /> <br />Me/Re:FMC-Revw Soil 8 Yeg Bsln Data - 3 - June 12, 1986 <br />A. The applicant originally specified that topsoiling would occur <br />except when slopes were steeper than 2h:ly. The applicant's <br />July 1st response revised this to topsoiling slopes except those <br />steeper than 1.5h:1v. On these slopes steeper than 1.5h:1v, the <br />Division's original PAP, concerns pertaining to chemical and <br />physical analysis of the projected plant medium is still required. <br />The medium should be analyzed per the suite identified in the <br />original PAR. <br />B. The applicant specified slopes would be topsoiled except the mine <br />bench outslopes because "It is not feasible to place topsoil over <br />this material (sandstone and shale rock)". Please specify why <br />topsoiling cannot occur. <br />C. The map depicting all non-topsoiled areas as requested in the <br />Division's original PAR is still needed. <br />If the Division concurs with the applicant's response to 6. B. <br />above, then the focus will switch back to the chemical and physical <br />nature of the material composing this slope. The Division agrees <br />with the applicant's response of "Since the mine bench outslopes <br />are not yet constructed, chemical and physical samples of the <br />material forming them is not particularly meaningful at this point <br />in time". However, the Division's concern is still valid; <br />therefore, the applicant should commit to chemical and physical <br />analysis of the bench outslope material during construction and <br />submit these data and support text to the Division. Only after <br />receiving these actual data and report can the Division make a <br />valid determination pertaining to the need or lack of need to <br />topsoil this outslope area. <br />7. The Division attempted to correlate the soils maps (Figure 2.04.9-1, <br />four sheets) with the Fruita Mine Complex, Figure E-1. This review was <br />difficult at best due to the differences in scale (1" = 500 feet (') <br />for Figure 2.04.9-1 verses 1" = 2000' for Figure E-1) and due to no <br />section lines depicted on the soils map. This review did reveal, <br />however, that there appears to be some areas depicted on Figure E-1 to <br />be disturbed (e. g., railroad spur corridor, Northern lease access road <br />corridor, southern portion of Tract 4) that were not sampled by the <br />intensive (Order 2) soil survey. The applicant should check the <br />accuracy of both of these figures and submit the additional soil <br />information if there are areas proposed to be disturbed but not <br />surveyed and depicted on Figure 2.04.9-1. <br />2.04.10 Vegetation Information <br />The applicant should modify the discussion on page 6 of the Baseline <br />Vegetation Survey to reflect current regulations pertaining to sample <br />adequacy. Rule 4.15.8(3) has been modified to 90% of the cover with <br />90% statistical confidence for both cover and production for all <br />vege a ion communities. <br />