2009-07-30_REVISION - C1981008 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

substar?tiaiiy repraced by recent regu?atior? amendments, specifically new Rule 4. ? ?. ? ? . Please amend the section to clarify sampling plans and statistical methods far future demonstrations of revegetation success, and to ensure that sampling plans and statistical formulas comply with applicable provisions of 4.?5,? ?. New Horizon ? Site Dscri tion and Land Use lnfcrmation Section x.04. 6. Rule 2.04.??}?a} requires a map and supporting narrative describing the pre-mining land uses in the permit area, ire accordance wi?fr the land use ca?egor#es estab{isi?ed irr t1?e land use defir??t}on irr Rule ?.?4. Narrative and tables in Section 2.94,3 of the application, as well as Map 2,94.0-? and narrative in the Vegetatiion and hand Use ?vervr'ew of Section 2.04.19 seem to use vegetation types and land use categories somewhat interchangeably, which leads to same confusion. Based an our interpretation of the permit information end site observetians, primary pre- mine land uses pursuant to the land Lase categories in Rule x.04 X71} would include "cropland", "Pastureland",and "Rangeland". Vegetation types within the ?rapland land use category would include irrigated grain crops and irrigated hayland alfalfa hay and grass hay sub-types. Vegetation types within the Pastureland land use category would include irrigated and dryland forage plantings ?e.g. irrigated pasture and dryland pasture. Some lands currently designated "irrigated pastureland" in the permit, may best fit in the "Cropland'° land use category, while other areas with the same current designation might best fit the "Pastureland" land use category. Proper designation would depend on the level of management, and whether the land is used for hay production on a relatively regular basis, or only "occasionally'", if at ell. The "Rangeland" land use category would include the various sagebrush vegetation types and the pinyanl juniper community. Small weedy waste areas that have developed at field corners, low spots, stack concentration areas, etc., would logically be included within the dominant adjacent land use category. Simiiarly, the Swale vegetation type that has developed within the Pastureland and roptand land use areas, should be included within the respective land use category ?Pasturelar?d or ?ropland?. Please submit a preminin? land use map, delineating land use categories in accordance with Rule 1.D4?7??, and corresponding amended narrative and tables far inclusion in ectian 2.?4.?. New_ Horizon ? Vegetation 1 nfQrmatian Section 2,04, ? ?? ?. ?n page 2.a4. ? a-89, there is discussion of the fact that a new dryland pasture reference area was established in 200, immediately adjacent to the former dryland pasture?rangeland ?cambined? reference area, because of the number of shrubs in the combined reference area. Attachment 2?04,1D-3 presents the results of the 200b sampling of the new dryland pasture reference area and comparison of the 20D5 data for the new area to the 1999 data far the cor?bined reference area The data indicate that shrub cover was somewhat higher in the combined area compared to the new dryland reference area, but in both areas shrub cover was relatively law {? .?°1o and 3.3°l?, respectively. The shrub cover may have increased in fihe combined area since 1999, but this was not documented. Total perennial cover and herbaceous production levels for the two areas were quite similar between sampling years, however perennial fortis were the dominant life form in the new dryland area in 200, whereas perennial grasses were dominant in the combined reference area in ? 999. Perennial grass production in the combined reference area in 1899 eras 424 pounds per acre, cornparad to 32.E pounds per acre in the new reference area in 2905. It is not clear whether the reversal with respect to relative dor?inance by grasses ?'I999 combined} and fortis ??a9? new dryland}