REV99944 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

18. Item Resolved. 19. Item Resolved. 20. Item Resolved. 21. Table 2.04.9-6 was revised to list Sample Consol-5 in Map Unit ND, and Sample Consol-6 in Map Unit TA. Map Unit ND was added to Soil Unit Descriptions on Map SB. Location of map units was clarified as requested. Please amend Table 2.04.9-8 listing of Sample Consol-6, to be consistent with amended Table 2.04.9-6. 22. Table 2.04.9-6 "limitation" listing for the 11"-18" horizon of Unit WRD Sample Consol- 21 was properly removed; however the Avg. Estimated Salvage Depth is still listed as 11 inches on the amended table. No limitations are listed above 18" depth, and no reason is given for the 11" projection. Also, on Table 2.04.9-7, the average salvage depth is listed as 18". Avg. Salvage Depth should be consistent on both tables, and should reflect the listed limitations or supplemental justification for the salvage depth listed. Please amend Table 2.04.9-6 to reflect appropriate Avg. Salvage Depth for Map Unit WRD. 23. Colowyo did not comply with this request, for acceptable reasons. Item Resolved. Rule 2.04.10 Vegetation Information & Rule 4.15.7 jsections relevant to reference azea comnarisonsl Lower Wilson Area 24. a) For reasons explained in the response, requested mapping detail was not provided. Presumably, the table reference is to the former Table 2.04.10-20, which is now (as revised by February submittal) Table 2.04.10-8. This table lists only study area acreages for the various vegetation types. Presumably, disturbed acreages would be a subset of the study area acreages. Please clarify, and provide an updated version of the table with the currently envisioned disturbed area acreages listed. b) The 1985 Consolidation Coal Company (CCC) study did include aspen as a sampled type, and did include a reference area. This 1985 report, prepared by Hamer Associates from study they conducted in 1984, was included as new Exhibit 10-Item 5 in the amended Section 2.04.10, which also includes summary information on the study. Item Resolved. c) The operator's proposal to address success criteria for the Lower Wilson area in the context of a revision to incorporate more sophisticated reclamation planning