Laserfiche WebLink
show a complete polygon. The northern boundary is open. Also this map shows two land <br />uses within the polygon; REC and WET, with no delineations within the area. Please define <br />the limits of the reclaimed lands versus the "wet" lands on the map. <br />Response - These map errors have been corrected and Map 2.04.9-1 has been revised <br />2.04.10 - Vegetation Information <br />1. The diversity standard Proposed in PAP Sec. 2.04. 10 p. 4 is unclear. Please elaborate on the <br />proposed diversity standard stated as "The reclaimed plant community shall be composed of <br />at least the dominant species comprising at least 5% of the relative plant cover." <br />Response -As per Kent Crofts' discussion with Janet Binns, the second paragraph under <br />the heading Species Diversity in page 4 which starts with the wording: "As described in the <br />proposed NHN...."has been deleted and replaced with the following paragraph: <br />As described in Permit Section 2. 05.4(2) (e) Revegetation, the species diversity standard <br />being proposed for the various reclaimed plant communities at the NHNMine are the <br />same as currently approved for the NH2 Mine. The proposed standards for species <br />diversity to be used at the time offinal reclamation for the NHN Mine are found in that <br />section. <br />2. In Section 2.04. 10 (pages 1, 7, and 9-18), the operator states that there are seven (7) major <br />vegetation communities comprising >5% of the proposed mine area or >10 acres, but then <br />only describes six (6) major vegetation communities. Please bring this section into <br />agreement. Are there seven major communities, or are there six? If there are seven, please <br />include a description of the seventh. <br />Response - There are only six major plant communities located within the proposed NHN <br />Mine Area and the relevant PAP pages which indicate there are seven have been revised. <br />3. In Section 2.04. 10 p.1 I of the PAP, litter measured on the big sagebrush vegetation type is <br />reported as 33.4724.67%. The Division is unsure what the litter value is meant to be. Please <br />correct and resubmit this page of the application. <br />Response - The correct litter value is 33.47 percent and text in Section 2.04. 10 page 11 <br />has been modified. <br />4. Please resubmit Table 2.04.10-9: Irrigated Pasture Cover page 49; Part of this table was <br />obstructed during PAP compilation. Please resubmit Appendix Table 2.04.10-9 so all of the <br />data is legible. <br />Response - Section 2.0410 has been revised and is being resubmitted. The re-submittal <br />includes Appendix Table 2.04.10-9. <br />Response to First Adequacy Review Page 23