Laserfiche WebLink
.~ <br />r,- <br />C-81-008: TR-28 adequacy responses. Ham Rannev 2 <br />1.77 acres of rangeland will receive 12 inches of soil instead of the 18 inches <br />proposed in October. While none of these proposals cause me great concern, I <br />compared the baseline vegetation map, 2.04.10-1 (dated 3/10/89) and found that the <br />proposed "no topsoil replacement facilities area" (5.77 acres) agrees with the <br />February 7, 1996 proposal. Do you have any concern with this additiona14.65 acres <br />left untopsoiled? I suppose the real deciding factor for the facilities area is, will the <br />facilities be left as permanent? Also you may want to look at the two additional <br />Swale locations and confirm that they are compatible with drainage patterns. From <br />a general perspective these Swale changes appear reasonable. <br />6) The Division's concern regarding the reduction of designated Prime Farmland has <br />not been resolved. Western Fuels stated they aze collecting information but, have <br />not provided their response to the Division yet. We will need to Stip this concern <br />(see your January 11, 1996 letter to Mr. Gubka). Apart of the stipulation should <br />mention that the 6.73 acres of Prime Farmland depicted on map 2.05.4-4 is not the <br />approved acreage until the reduction in prime farmland stipulation has been <br />complied with. <br />If you need further explanation, come talk to me. <br />m:\coal\jhb\C81008TR.28c <br />