My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2011-04-12_APPLICATION CORRESPONDENCE - C2010088
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Application Correspondence
>
Coal
>
C2010088
>
2011-04-12_APPLICATION CORRESPONDENCE - C2010088
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 4:32:32 PM
Creation date
4/12/2011 3:02:27 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C2010088
IBM Index Class Name
APPLICATION CORRESPONDENCE
Doc Date
4/12/2011
Doc Name
Adequacy Responses # 1
From
J.E. Stover & Associates, Inc
To
DRMS
Email Name
MPB
SB1
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
46
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Mike Boulay -12- April 11, 2011 <br />Survey mapping for the area of the proposed permit, the dominant soil type within <br />the native greasewood community is Skumpah Silt Loam 0-2% slopes, with a small <br />acreage of Sagers Silty Clay Loam Saline 0-2% slopes located along the northwest <br />boundary of the previously disturbed area, to the east of Reed Wash. A significant <br />portion of the irrigated runoff wetlands between Reed Wash and Loma Drain are <br />mapped as Cojam Loam 0-2% slopes on the Web Soil Survey mapping. These <br />areas all appear to have been mapped as Billings Loam to Silty Clay Loam in the <br />baseline soil survey (although there is some apparent disparity between map and <br />text of the report with respect to the Irrigated Wetland areas). Narrow bands of <br />Torrifluvents were mapped along the riparian area within the incised Reed Wash <br />drainage (and apparently within the Loma Drain riparian zone as well, although this <br />is not entirely clear from the report narrative). <br />Please revise the Soils baseline map and report, as well as related narrative <br />in Section 2.04.9, to reflect use of the current NRCS soil survey for initial <br />map unit boundaries for the lands subject to the site specific baseline soil <br />survey, or provide explanation and justification for use of the earlier NRCS <br />survey as the basis for initial soil mapping. Similarly, for those lands within <br />the permit area that were not subject to site specific baseline soil survey <br />(lands not proposed for surface disturbance), please revise the map to <br />reflect the current NRCS soil survey mapping, unless justification for use of <br />the earlier NRCS soil survey can be provided. Please verify that the site <br />specific baseline survey extended far enough to the west to include the <br />margins of the Irrigated Wetlands vegetation type that would be crossed by <br />the rail spur, and please delineate the boundary of the detailed baseline <br />survey area on Map 6. <br />CAM: The baseline soil survey used for the Fruita Loadout project was a new, <br />detailed Order 1-2 soil survey completed in 2010 by James Nyenhuis, Certified <br />Professional Soil Scientist (ARCPACS #2753). The previous 1978 NRCS soil <br />survey of Mesa County was used for background information (literature review) but <br />the actual completed survey for the project was a new, stand-alone soil survey with <br />three soil description/sample sites at representative locations. Neither the 1978 <br />soil survey, nor the newer revised (on line) Web Soil Survey, had any soil <br />description or sample sites on the project area. The revised (on line) survey was <br />not available at the time of the 2010 field work, and a recent review of it questions <br />whether any actual field work was completed on the Fruita Loadout area. Both <br />Skumpah silt loam (Map Unit BcA) and Sagers silty clay loam (Map Unit BcS), <br />dominant soils on the project area based on the Web Soil Survey, were mapped <br />across both native lands and the previously disturbed "Land Farms" area in the <br />same delineations. If the Web Soil Survey can't distinguish between obviously <br />disturbed land and native land, then the mapping probably was done from the <br />office and not on the ground. The Billings loam to silty clay loam soil, which was <br />site-specifically mapped on the ground for the current survey, was previously <br />mapped on the area during the 1978 NRCS survey, and it was also mapped on the
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.