Laserfiche WebLink
approved standard, the Division retains the woody plant density at 1000 stems per <br />acre. <br />12.b) Please refer to the response for ll.b). <br />12.c) The Division requested clarification of the cropland reclamation productivity <br />standadd, as the permit pages 5-33 and 5-34 contained slightly different performance <br />standazds. In a letter submitted on behaff of Oakridge Energy, Inc., dated June 18, <br />1996, it was proposed that the cropland productivity standadd be measured in a <br />biomass yield per acre. This would be reported in pounds per acre. The Division <br />considers this appropriate. This change will allow for more flexibility of the crop <br />species grown. The use of the conversion of 1 bushel of wheat equal to 60 lbs. is <br />appropriate too. (This conversion is substantiated in The Western Fertilizer <br />Handbook 6th ed., produced by Soil Improvement Committee California Fertilizer <br />Association.) This conversion would result in a standard of 1170 pounds of biomass <br />yield per acre for the cropland post-mining land use designation. A revised page 5- <br />34 was submitted October 2, 1996 reflecting this text change. Bushel yield is in line <br />with the La Plata SCS soil survey for non-irrigated wheat production (p.163). <br />The operator states that there is a letter from the landowner addressing Rules <br />4.15.7(2)(d)(v) and 4.15.9, to provide several yeazs data for establishing cropland <br />productivity values. I was unable to locate this letter. Please direct the Division to <br />where it is in the permit, or provide a copy to the Division. Please explain how <br />many years the Historic productivity standard is based upon. <br />13.a) OEI's response is acceptable. <br />13.b) Please refer to Goff Engineering and Surveying's report on the stability of the <br />sandstone slope and terraces, dated August 19, 1996. This portion of the <br />reclamation plan will need to be revised to assure stability. <br />14) A typo was noted on page 5-33, incorrectly referencing Table 5-7. This page has <br />been corrected to reflect the table as 'Table 5-6". This correction satisfies the <br />Division's comment. <br />15) The Division specifically requested that map 5-5 be revised to reflect the post-mining <br />revegetation distribution. Map 5-5 was not submitted with the revision. <br />Additionally, since the Mountain Shrub reference azea has appazently been altered <br />by a golf course, what reference area or comparison standard will be used to <br />determine reclamation success? Please have OEI submit an updated Map 5-5 clearly <br />delineating the post-mining reclamation communities and containing an appropriate <br />map legend. Please have OEI address how they will determine revegetation success <br />now that the Mountain Shrub reference area has been altered. <br />1~ Typo on page 5-19, regarding topsoil depth, has been corrected as requested. <br />