Laserfiche WebLink
G91-M: TR-05 H.Rannev 2 <br /> C. Revised page 2.05-26 (September 1994) proposes that the maximum number of <br /> production plots to be collected...will be agreed upon at the time a Phase III survey <br /> is carried out. The Division is in general agreement with this approach, yet the <br /> operator is reminded that a meeting between the Division and the operator should <br /> ensue in regards to this "maximum" prior to the collection of the data. <br /> D. Revised page 2.05-26 (September 1994) has a contradictory statement <br /> regarding collection of woody plant density data. Paragraph 2 states that no woody <br /> plant density data will be collected for success standard comparison. This is <br /> consistent with statements on approved page 2.05-28. Yet, paragraph 3 states that <br /> "data will be collected for cover, production and woody plant density." This third <br /> paragraph should be revised to avoid this contradiction. <br /> E. Due to a revised mining plan and additional baseline data collected in 1992, the <br /> Hamilton mine has been approved to utilize two different sagebrush reference areas <br /> as delineated on Drawing 113. Revised page 2.05-26i (September 1994) has been <br /> submitted to define how the reference areas will be applied to revegetation success <br /> analyses. One comment the Division feels the operator need clarify is that, "SREF-A <br /> and SREF-B will receive equal numbers of cover, production, and woody plant <br /> density samples not in proportion to their size." Sampling to adequacy independent <br /> of each other would be more appropriate. The operator should revise this or define <br /> why adequacy sampling would not be required. <br /> F. Revised page 2.05-27 (September 1994) has added Paragraph 4. This new <br /> paragraph is in agreement with approved page 2.05-28 (September 1991) and is <br /> acceptable. <br /> G. Approved page 2.05-28 (September 1991) has the operator's commitment to a <br /> diversity standard. The wording of this diversity standard could be interpreted in <br /> several ways. To avoid dispute at bond release the Division suggests the diversity <br /> standard be more clearly defined. Please have the operator include wording to <br /> clarify this standard, one way is to include the wording "each species" exhibiting <br /> greater that 3% and less than 40 % relative cover. <br /> Attached to the back of the soils and vegetation information you provided to me are some <br /> hydrology modelling pages, pg. 9-33a and 9-34a. I did not review these two pages and just <br /> wanted to make you aware of their inclusion to make sure the appropriate specialist has <br /> reviewed them. <br /> Harry, I apologize for my delay in responding to you on this revision. If you need me to <br /> explain anything further or you have additional questions, please ask. <br /> m:\coalVhb\c91078TR.05 <br /> cc: Public File <br />