Laserfiche WebLink
New Horizon C1981-008: SL12 2 March 9, 2011 <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 />See comment from No. 3. c) above. The operator supplied this information on revised pages 14- <br />15 of the application. <br />PHASE III Concerns <br />8. Please have WF-C explain why the value of "Total Desirable Cover "for the Irrigated <br />Pasture Reclaimed Area sampled in 2007 different on page 32 of the SL-12 20Aug10 <br />revised page (submitted August 30, 2010) than Table 1, on page 10, in the Bio-Logic <br />vegetation sampling report? Page 32 of the Application states this value, "total <br />desirable cover" as 88.3%, yet Table in the Bio-Logic report documents this value as <br />87.1 % cover. Please explain the discrepancy. <br />WF-C's response brought these two tables into agreement with one another. This <br />response is acceptable. <br />9. The Division's May 26, 2010 preliminary adequacy requested a "narrative summary of <br />the reclamation and management history of the parcels included in the Phase III release <br />request, including narrative addressing achievement of the approved post-mining land <br />uses. <br />WF-C provided a description of the reclamation history but chose not to include any <br />discussion of the management history. Was the Irrigated Pasture grazed? Was there any <br />irrigation conducted? If so, what method of irrigation was employed? How often was it <br />irrigated? How much water was applied? Was the pasture cut for hay? How was the <br />Dryland pasture managed? Was the pasture interseeded during the liability period? <br />Was there any fertilization on either the reclaimed areas or the reference areas? WF-C <br />did include a very brief discussion regarding noxious weed management. Please provide <br />the Division with a narrative of the management of the two reclamation blocks; Irrigated <br />pasture and Dryland pasture. Were the reclaimed areas managed in accordance with the <br />approved permit and WF-C needs to describe how they were managed. Please, also, <br />include information, as approved in the permit, regarding the reclamation standards. <br />Section 2.05.4(2)(e) of the permit defines the reclamation success requirements. Please <br />include this detail in the application. <br />WF-C provided the requested narrative on page 33 of the application in the March 17, <br />2011 response. This response was acceptable. <br />This concludes my review of the New Horizon Mine SL12 Adequacy concerns. The concerns <br />that I had identified in my March 9, 2011 Memo to you have all been adequately respolved.