APPCOR12198 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

4. On Page 9-65 the applicant states that the representative profile description for the Nihill series occurred at sample point MC3 which, based on the Zocation given, does not occur in the area within Figure 4.7-1. The figure indicates, however, that the Nihill series was sampled and described at sample point MUB. What is the reason for this discrepancy? 5. Do the depths given for the grab samples for disturbed areas represent the actual depths of the fill at those points? Will these soils be left in place and revegetated during reclamation? 6. The sample point For the description of the Rentsac soil (actually described as an inclusion of the Torriorthent - Rork Outcrop Complex - TRDE) is designated (page 4-81) MUB. Figure 9.7-1 shows this point within the area mapped as Nihill. What is the reason for this discrepancy and how does it affect the data in Table 3.3-1? What soil does the data for MU8 in Table 9.7.6 represent? 7. On Figure 4.7-1 what is the soil HzAB in section 29 directly south of unit GU and why hasn't it been described or sampled? Also, why is there no profile description for the Torriorthent-Rock Outcrop (TRDE) complex? The profile description given is for the Rentsac soil which is alledgedly similar to Lithic Torriorthents which comprise 300 of the unit. What about the "moderately deep and deep, loamy skeletal and sandy-skeletal Torriorthents" which comprise 95q of the unit? 8. Not all samples or soil series are represented in Table 4.7-2 even though data is given in Table 4.7-6. Why is this? which soil types will be affected by surface operations and to what extent? 9. The map of topsoil stripping depths (figure 9.7-2) indicates circled numbers (in inches) which are obviously stripping depths. It is not clear, however, what the sources of this information are as the points do not entirely correspond with the sample point locations given in Figure 4.7-1. Are these point specific data? If so, their source should be identified on Figure 9.7-2 in the Legend. 2.04.10 Vegetation Information ~! Page 4-115 under Agricultural indicates the presence of an old hayfield. Is/ it a possible historically irrigated hayfield. Y Sample adequacy for the vegetation communities was inappropriately determined using an incorrect confidence level For the "t" statistic. MLRD personnel recalculated adequacy using the appropriate statistic at 90~ using a two-tailed test to determine that sample adequacy was not met for production in any of the affected and reference areas for any community. The Division requests that the applicant supply sufficient documentation or explanation to prove that sample size is adequate. If this request cannot be satisfied, these areas will have to be resampled till adequacy is attained. 2.09.11 Fish and Wildlife Resource Information The fish and wildlife inventory (Section 9.6) in the application is identical to that given for the McClane Canyon application. Because of the lack of any appropriate locational reference with respect to the survey (i.e., (5)