Laserfiche WebLink
C-1981-008 <br />PR-06 <br />July 23, 2010 <br />Page 26 of 31 <br />67B. Please refine Map 2.04.9-2 to portray the limits of the active pit, of those areas partially <br />backfilled, and the limits (only the easternmost 20.05 acres) across which "Bench 1 substitute <br />subsoil" had already been placed to grade. The delineation of "those areas that require topsoil <br />replacement" is unnecessary. <br />68-74. Resolved. <br />74a. On revised Map 2.05.4-5, the postmining contours are difficult to read, due to the small font <br />size. Please use a larger font for the post-mining elevation contour labels. <br />Section 2 - Additional Items from Informal Conference <br />75. The Division requested NRCS documentation that the proposed fertilization plan for the <br />planned postmining land uses and for the prime farmland, is in accordance with normal <br />husbandry practices in the region. Fertility assessment and fertilizer application plans were <br />revised within amended soil and seedbed preparation sections of the application, and the <br />amended sections were reviewed noted to be appropriate by NRCS. Item Resolved. <br />76. The Division requested that the version of Table 2.04.9-2 (a baseline study soil suitability table <br />that originated with Permit Revision No. 5, in 1999), be restored to its original form. The table <br />was revised as requested. Item Resolved. <br />76A. In 76A, B, and C, the Division requested numerous clarifying and substantive changes to Table <br />2.05.4(2)(d)-1, and further requested that the table be split into two separate tables (d)-IA and <br />(d)-1B. The requested table modifications were submitted by WFC. Subsequent to submittal of <br />the amended tables, the Division has concluded that certain additional modifications are <br />warranted, to further clarify requirements applicable to specific locations and substrate intervals. <br />Please see the amended tables attached to this letter. Please make corresponding changes to the <br />versions of the tables submitted with the WFC responses to this letter. We will provide copies <br />of the recommended table revisions to NRCS for their review and comment, and will advise you <br />of any further modifications based on NRCS input. <br />76B.-C. See Comment 76A, above. <br />76D. The narrative that follows Tables (d)-IA and (d)-IB, in Subsection 4.0, is actually footnotes to <br />the tables, but the material is not labeled as such in the amended submittal. We believe that <br />portions of the footnotes are no longer applicable. Please refer to the footnotes attached with <br />the subject gables in the attachment to this letter, and revise the table footnotes in accordance <br />with the attachment. Please provide additional detail regarding the specific methods employed <br />,by Walsh Environmental in 2008 (which will be used for ongoing sampling) for estimation of <br />rock fragment percentage. Describe both the gravel component estimate procedure using the <br />sieve and pan method, and the cobble/stone/boulder component estimate procedure using chart <br />assisted visual estimate of the percentage of rock fragments exposed in one wall of a soil pit. <br />Clarify that the two separate component percentages are summed to obtain the total estimated <br />rock fragment percentage for each sample location. Include sufficient detail to ensure that the <br />same procedures could be repeated by different samplers in the future.