Laserfiche WebLink
NUCLA PR NO. 2 <br /> change prime farmland designation. Therefore, unless Peabody can <br /> provide additional rationale supported by the SCS , the Division <br /> believes the Bar X soil symbolized by D70B must be considered as <br /> prime farmland thus falling within the criteria of Rules 2.04. 12, <br /> 2.06.6 and 4.25. Please modify the application document <br /> accordingly. <br /> Response: <br /> Pages 9-5-2, 9-5-21, and 9-5-28 within Attachment 9-5 were revised to <br /> indicate that the disturbed phase of the Barx series (map unit D70B) <br /> satisfies the criteria for prime farmland according to the publication <br /> "Important Farmland Inventory-Colorado" (SCS , October 1982) . Exhibits <br /> 9-3 and 9-6 were also revised to delineate the prime farmland area <br /> within map unit D70B. Additionally, minor editorial corrections were <br /> made on pages 9-5-25, 9-5-33, 9-5-41, 9-5-49, 9-5-52 through 9-5-63, <br /> 9-5-81 , 9-5-82, 9-5-100, and 9-5-101. <br /> Comment: <br /> 2. Page 9-5-27 references some pH discrepancies on samples run at two <br /> different locations. The Division is concerned about this 0.3 pH <br /> discrepancy primarily since a change to the first lift/second lift <br /> suitability interpretation has occurred. If archived samples still <br /> exist, Peabody should rerun the pH evaluation to try and resolve <br /> this concern. Also, Peabody should address the cubic yard <br /> differences occurring to the two lifts because of this pH <br /> discrepancy. <br /> Response: <br /> The 0.3 unit pH discrepancy on samples analyzed at two different <br /> laboratory locations will not change the first lift/second lift <br /> suitability interpretations or handling plans within the projected Nucla <br /> East disturbance area. Barx site 7 (3 samples) , Mivida site 9 (1 <br /> sample) , and Bowdish site 40 (1 sample) , which occur outside of the <br /> disturbance area, are the only locations affected by the pH discrepancy. <br /> Page 9-5-27 was revised to clarify the impact of this 0.3 unit pH <br /> discrepancy upon first lift/second lift topsoil suitability <br /> interpretations. <br /> Comment: <br /> 3. Please justify your threshold suitability levels of Table 9-5-2 and <br /> explain why these values differ from values in Table 9-4-2 of the <br /> approved Nucla Mine permit revised 3/6/87. <br /> Response: <br /> The threshold suitability levels presented in Table 9-5-2 were selected <br /> 9 <br />