Laserfiche WebLink
Based on the thickness of the mollic epipedon (dark surface horizon) in these soil types, <br />salvage of the lighter colored, gravelly or clayey subsoils of these types may not be <br />warranted or desirable, particularly given the generally good quality spoil material that is <br />anticipated. From calculations we performed, limiting salvage to the "lift 1" (loamy, dark <br />colored surface horizon) of the 7 soil types listed here would result in an over-all average <br />replacement thickness of approximately 20 inches, which is more consistent with past <br />practices at Colowyo, would be sufficient to meet reclamation and postmine land use <br />objectives, and would minimize "dilution" of the desirable qualities of the surface soil <br />with the generally less desirable qualities of the subsoil. Our calculations based on <br />salvaging only the "lift 1" materials from the specified soil types are presented on <br />the attached "Topsoil Block" tables, which correspond to Table 2.04.9-7 of the <br />application. <br />We recommend that the salvage plan be modified as described for the specified <br />upland soil types, and that Tables 2.04.9-6, 2.04.9-6A, and 2.04.9-7 be modified <br />accordingly. Please revise the text in Section 2.05.4(2)(d) to specify an average, <br />uniform replacement thickuess, that reflects the information presented in the tables. <br />21. Table 2.04.9-8 listing of Sample Consol-6, was properly updated to be consistent with <br />amended Table 2.04.9-6. Response Accented. <br />22. Table 2.04.9-6 was properly amended to reflect average salvage thickness for Map Unit <br />WRD, consistent with other tables. Response Acceuted. <br />Rule 2.04.10 Vegetation Information & Rule 4.15.7 (sections relevant to reference area <br />comparisonsl <br />Lower Wilson Area <br />24. a) The Division requested an updated version of Table 2.04.10-8, with the <br />cun•ently envisioned disturbed area acreages listed. The properly updated Table was <br />provided. Response Accepted. <br />25. The Division had made several requests concerning updates to various text sections and <br />tables to replace information from the 1999 study with information from the 1985 study, <br />and to provide clarification regarding cover sampling methods. The requested text and <br />table updates were provided as requested. We note however, that Figures 2.04.10-8 and <br />2.04.10-10 depict production data from the 1999 Greystone study. Use of the production <br />data for comparison purposes in the table is appropriate, but the study should be cited and <br />a brief description provided in the application text, perhaps under General Vegetation <br />Information-Permit Revision Area, near the beginning of Section 2.04.10 Vegetation <br />Information. Please amend the application to include reference to the 1999 <br />Greystone study as appropriate. <br />27. The Division requested that nanrative in Section 4.15.8 "Revegetation Success Criteria", <br />be revised to correspond to the reference azea selection narrative of amended Section <br />