REV90490 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

II. The topsoil replacement paragraph at the top of page (d)-I8, with the headine. 1999, should be further clarified. Three replacement depth categories are listed, but it is not clear how these replacement depth zones will relate to the postmine land use areas depicted on N1ap 2.05.4-4. It would seem logical that a defined. uniform depth would be replaced on the irrigated hayfand area. with separate uniform replacement depths for irrigated pastureland, and dryland pasture, respectively. Multiple topsoil depth "blocks" might be appropriate within the irrigated pasture type, based on pre-mine soil type distribution and land use, but it is not char from the narrative that this would be the case. The detailed soil depth replacement information provided on Map 2.05.4-4 for previously approved portions of the New Horizon 2 permit area should be extended to identify planned replacement depth (and lift types) for reclamation blocks within the proposed expansion area. 12. In the paragraph referenced in the previous item, narrative indicates that a 30 inch depth would be salvaged from map units 986. 98C, and 98H (7 inches from lift I and 12 inches from lift 2). Note that the total depth would be 19 inches, rather than 30 inches. Please amend text as appropriate. 13. The final sentence in the first paragraph on page (d)-18 states that soil units lacking suitable topsoil will be covered to a replacement depth of 13 inches...This would seem to be illogical from an operational and land management perspective. Unless justification for replacing variable topsoil thicknesses within individual management units is provided, the plan should be amended [o provide for uniform replacement thickness within logical management blocks for each land use type. 14. Table 2.05.4.2(d)-5 Topsoil Balance-1999, should be amended as necessary to demonstrate a balance between estimated soil availability by map unit, and proposed replacement depths for defined postmine land use management blocks. Various yardage figures in the current table appear to be erroneous. For example, Lift I estimated recovered yardage for Map Units 98A, 98E, and''/x 98F is listed as 24,326 yards. The correct figure would be 243,265 yards. In the next column, estimated replacement yardage is 642.774, which is apparently erroneous, since [he last column indicates an estimated surplus of 491 yards. Please ensure [hat yardage figures in [he amended table are correct. I5. The paragraph at the top of page (d)-18 implies that all soil salvage and replacement would be two lift operation, as does Table 2.05.4.2(d)-5. As indicated previously, various text sections and tables are contradictory with respect to which soil types (if any) will be salvaged by single lift operation, and which postmine land use blocks (if any) will be reclaimed with a single topsoil lift operation. Text and table will need to be revised as appropriate. 2.04.10 Veeetation Information 16. Data sheets providing individual transect and quadrat data for cover, production and woody plant density for the various affected vegetation types and reference areas should be provided, to allow for verification of statistical summary information. 17. Sampled and harvested pasture and hayland fields referenced in the narrative should be delineated on Map 2.04.!0-I. Sample observation locations within the various vegetation types should also be identified on the map. Reference area locations should be depicted on Map 2.04.10-1, or other appropriate maps. 18. An [mgated Cropland (IC) unit is depicted on Map 2.04.10-1, but this vegetation land use type is not indicated in the text or tables pertaining to the 1999 study area. It would appear that the Zf acre Morgan irrigated alfalfa hay Field described on page 2.04.10-59, under Irrigated Hayland Type, may have been mapped as Irrigated Cropland. This discrepancy needs to be addressed, and the application amended as appropriate.