Laserfiche WebLink
We note that on the currently approved 2/7/2000 version of Map 2.04.10-1, there <br />is a notation within IH mapped area in the southwest portion of the Morgan <br />property stating "IH Sample Site Morgan Grass Hay". This would appear to be <br />the field described in narrative as having been planned for renovation, but which <br />did not occur in 1999, and our assumption is that this is the Morgan "Field 2" <br />listed on Table 2.04.10-18. If this is the case, and if the field were subsequently <br />renovated, it would appear that an IPH designation would be appropriate if it were <br />renovated to Irrigated Hay Pastureland or that an IC designation would be <br />appropriate if the field were renovated to Irrigated Alfalfa Hay Cropland. <br />Please review and clarify the premining land use/ vegetation type <br />designations for the Morgan property as described in subsection 6.3, in light <br />of the concerns identified. Please provide amended mapping as warranted, <br />and revised narrative to explain and support the proposed premine land <br />use/vegetation type designations. <br />7. Notation at the bottom of Table 2.04.10-18 indicates that "Morgan Fields 1 and 2 <br />have now been changed to Irrigated Cropland since the 98E soils have been <br />reclassified in this area as prime farmland soils". If "Morgan Field 2" does <br />correspond to the location of the "Grass Hay Sample Site" notation on the <br />currently approved version of Map 2.04.10-1 (2/7/2000), the notation at the <br />bottom of Table 2.04.10-18 is not correct. <br />Please provide clarification regarding the location and boundaries of Morgan <br />Fields 1, 2, and 3, and revise the Table 2.04.10-18 notation if warranted. <br />8. The Disturbed Area Boundary indicated on the 2/7/2000 version of Map 2.04.10- <br />1 does not correspond to the proposed disturbance boundary indicated on PR-6 <br />Maps 2.04.3 and 2.04.10, which show the disturbed area essentially coinciding <br />with the southern permit boundary through the Morgan property, and <br />encompassing a significantly larger area than indicated on the 2000 map. <br />Please explain this apparent discrepancy. Was the disturbed area boundary <br />expanded at some point between 2000 and the present, but the disturbance <br />boundary on certain maps including 2.04.10-1 was not revised, or is there <br />some other explanation? <br />Rule 2.04.12 Prime Farmland Investigation <br />9. Sub-section 6.0 of Section 2.04.3 of the application addresses "Prime Farmlands <br />and Prime Farmland Soils within the Pre-Mine New Horizon Permit Area". <br />Under numbered Paragraph (1) of the sub-section, WFC describes a 4.68 acre <br />parcel of 98A soil (Begay Fine Sandy Loam) "on the very north edge of the <br />western WFC property, near the floodplain of Tuttle Draw". The paragraph <br />indicates that the area was determined to be "prime farmland soil" by the NRCS, <br />but explains that because the area is so small, WFC has shifted the available water <br />4