Laserfiche WebLink
Please give consideration to the concerns we have identified and the information <br />provided, and develop an amended, detailed irrigation schedule to be applied to <br />dryland pasture areas at New l"lorizan, with justification based vn recommendation <br />from recagniaed authorities or applicable research far the irrigation plan proposed. <br />12. Table ?.?5.4{?}{e}-? acreage figures for various pre-mine and post-mine vegetation type <br />categar?es shows an increase in irrigated acreage of 7? acres fallowing reclamation. <br />Please address the question of whether sufficient irriga#iQn water is available and <br />water rights sufficient tv allovu for the increased acreage of irrigated agricultural <br />lands praposed. <br />? 3, On page 2.?5.4??}{e}-? 7, production standard of ? .84 tans per acre is specified for <br />irrigated ha?rland. On page x.0.4{2?{e?-24, a production standard of 1.50 tons per acre <br />is specified for irrigated pasture, Based on the estimates given by local farmers upon <br />which the standards are based, it would seem that the higher standard would more <br />specifically apply to irrigated alfa#fa hayland, and the lower standard to irrigated grass <br />hayland ar irrigated pasture. Please address this minor discrepancy, and amend the <br />narrative as appropriate. <br />?4, The production sampling procedure described in item 4 on pages ?.D5.4{?}{e}?? 8 ,20, <br />and ?4 "...air dried for 96 hours to sirr?ulate field hay dr}ring..." would seem to lack <br />desirable precision, given the extent to which temperature and humidity could impact the <br />samples. Oven drying to a constant weight a described in section 2.Q4.1 a of the <br />application with respect to baseline Bete collection, is recommended. Please address <br />this concern and amend the items as approprrate. <br />1 ?, The sample adequacy formula listed in Item 5 an pages ? B, 20, and ?2 is a formula listed <br />in the ? 995 DMO guidelines. This formula is more stringent than required by rule <br />changes recently approved by the Mined Land Reclamation Board. Please review the <br />methods applicable to demonstrations of sample adequacy and revegetatian <br />success fvr cover and productivity in Rule 4.15,E 1 ??}, and amend the items a <br />appropriate. <br />?6. In Item fi on pages 18 and ?D, an optional total harvest production measurement <br />approach is referenced. Please provide additional detail on the method to be used <br />to quantify production per acre using the fatal harvest method. Please refer to the <br />methodology descrip#ions provided for baseline total harvest dacurnentativn an <br />pages ?.04.?l0-19 ar?d ?.04.10??3, and provide comparable detail. Note that the total <br />harvest method would entail direct comparison of the reclairr?ed area production to <br />90??? of the standard, with no allowance far a stetiticat confidence interval. <br />? ?. Design approaches and methods far sarr?pling of vegetation cover, and statistical <br />comparisons for statistically valid demonstrations of success far cover, with respect to <br />irrigated pasture and dryland pasture reclamation areas, are not specifically addressed in <br />the application. Please amend the text tv include ptans addressing cover sampling <br />and statistically valid demonstrations of success far cover, in compliance with <br />Rules 4?15.7??}fib} and ?c} and 4,1511. The reference to use of procedures in the <br />1995 guidelines document, an page ?5 should be deleted, as certain information in <br />that document, including sample adequacy formulas and hypothesis testing <br />approaches, is now outdated. <br />18. The mid-summer sampling timeframe mentioned may be overly restrictive; a dune <br />through September sampling window would allow uf?cient flexibility to coordinate <br />sampling with growing conditions in a given year, Please consider amending the <br />narrative as appropriate. <br />