Laserfiche WebLink
-2- <br />5. No ground water monitoring wells have been installed in water bearing <br />units above the coal to date, and therefore, water quality and quantity in <br />these units have not been assessed. The lithologic logs show water in some <br />sandstone most of which are located at a considerable distance above the "E" <br />seam. Other water bearing units could not be located, since these core holes <br />were drilled with water. As a result, mapping of seeps into the present mine, <br />measurements of seep flows, and seep water quality would suffice for ground <br />water monitoring. Ho~•~ever, bedrock monitoring wells may be required at a <br />later date if significant aquifers are documented in permits of other mines in <br />the area. <br />2.04.7(2) Surface 4Jater Information <br />c•~` <br />ephemeral gulches draining ' >r ti <br />1. It is stated on page 2.04-29 that two of the <br />the permit area were sampled during snowmelt and <br />The analyses were apparently not included in the <br />should be submitted. <br />2.04.7(3) Alternative 4later Suonly Information <br />thunderstorm runnoff in 1980. 5~ b~Q <br />application. This information k~. . <br />~,'' <br />Comments on this section are pending consultation with the State Engineer. <br />2.04.9 Soils Resource Information <br />1. 2.04.9(1)(a) requires a description and sampling of soil horizons in <br />sufficient detail to determine depths to which identified materials should be <br />salvaged. Apparently, Map 2.04.9 was prepared at the level of an order III <br />soil survey, which is entirely adequate for the majority of the permit area, <br />but does not provide sufficient detail to determine salvage depths for the <br />proposed air intake shaft disturbance. At least one representative sample <br />should be taken from within the proposed disturbance area to more accurately <br />describe the volume and suitability (i.e. rock) of the soil to be salvaged. The <br />sample should be subjected to appropriate physical and chemical analyses, includ- <br />ing texture, per cent rock content, pH, EC and SAR. The revised quantity estimate <br />and proposed salvage depth should be provided to the Division before site <br />preparation for the intake shaft begins. <br />2. On page 2.04-40 it is stated that the SCS estimates an increase in production <br />from 450/acre in a normal year to approximately 2000 pounds per acre after <br />reclamation. Is this figure specifically herbaceous production? It appears to <br />conflict with the 1500-3000/acre pre-disturbance productivity figure estimated in <br />the report by Dean Leukonen of the SCS in Appendix XUI-3. Please clarify. <br />2.04.20 4.15 Vegetation Information <br />1. It is not clear from the application how the vegetation study completed by <br />Beak Consultants will relate to the ultimate determination of reve9etation success. <br />4.15.7(1) requires consistency in sampling method in comparisons between reclaimed <br />and undisturbed areas. <br />2. Two reference areas are proposed, but it is not stated that sampling was <br />carried out within the proposed reference areas. If so, the sampling scheme and <br />data should be presented. If not, a plan for sampling within the proposed <br />reference areas, along with a discusssion of how reference area data will be <br />compared to the vegetation type represented should be submittted. Sampling <br />methods must be consistent in all comparisons between vegetation types on the <br />permit area and their respective reference areas. <br />The vegetation sampling r~,n~hn~r,,;{ P ;r ,. ~~~~:, ~ + <br />