Laserfiche WebLink
New Horizon C1981-008: SL12 2 March 9, 2011 <br />the pastures been grazed by domestic animals? If they have been managed appropriately <br />for the post-mining land use, the operator needs to describe when grazing occurred and <br />what the stocking rate was. (3.03.1(2)(b) and Rule 3.03.2(1)(e)) <br />4. Operator's response is acceptable. <br />5. The Division's May 26, 2010 letter specifically asked, "Please provide a narrative summary with <br />the reclamation and management history of the parcels included in the phase II release request." <br />There is no discussion regarding irrigation of the Irrigated Pasture. How often was it irrigated? <br />How was it irrigated, flood irrigation, side roll, etc.? Was the pasture cut? Was the hay <br />removed? Was the pasture grazed? If it was grazed, what were the stocking rates? Land <br />management involves more than just seeding and doing nothing more. The Division needs <br />additional information regarding how was the reclaimed irrigated pasture managed? <br />Management methods should make it clear why this parcel is considered Irrigated pasture and <br />not a different post-mining land use as defined by Rule 1.04(71). <br />6. Topsoil sampling points, measured replacement thickness, and year topsoil was replaced are <br />shown on revised Map R-1 (Dated 9/29/2010) and revised Map R-2 (dated 8/25/2010). The table <br />found on page 30 of the August 2010 revised pages titled, "Phase 2 Area-Topsoil Thickness <br />Sample Points Table" documents the measures topsoil replacement thickness in conjunction with <br />the sample points shown on Maps R-1 and R-2. This response is acceptable. <br />PHASE III Concerns <br />126.1 acres Irrigated pasture, seeded 1998 <br />23.8 acres Drylnd pasture, seeded 1998 <br />The Irrigated swale land type was combined with irrigated pasture PMLU area as approved in section <br />2.04.5(2)(e) of the permit. <br />Vegetation was sampled for Irrigated pasture, irrigated pasture reference area, dryland pasture, and <br />dryland pasture reference area in 2007 and 2008 <br />7. No response from WF-C was required. This item is acceptable. <br />8. Please have WF-C explain why the value of "Total Desirable Cover" for the Irrigated Pasture <br />Reclaimed Area sampled in 2007 different on page 32 of the SL-12 20Aug10 revised page <br />(submitted August 30, 2010) than Table 1, on page 10, in the Bio-Logic vegetation sampling <br />report? Page 32 of the Application states this value, "total desirable cover" as 88.3%, yet Table <br />in the Bio-Logic report documents this value as 87.1 % cover. Please explain the discrepancy. <br />a) Pages requested in the Division's May 26, 2010 preliminary adequacy letter were revised and <br />resubmitted. The resubmitted pages were renumbered, which addressed this item.