Laserfiche WebLink
NUCLA PR NO. 2 <br /> after reviewing numerous topsoil suitability guidelines and literature <br /> references from Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, North Dakota , and New Mexico <br /> and after consulting the Division as specified on pages 9-5-8 and <br /> 9-5-16. The threshold suitability level for pH, SAR, and particle size <br /> was expanded to incorporate the range of values previously presented in <br /> Table 9-4-2 of the approved Nucla Mine permit 3/6/87. Page 9-5-17 <br /> (Table 9-5-2) was revised to incorporate these changes. <br /> Comment: <br /> 4. In the response letter from Peabody to the Division of May 29, <br /> 1987, Peabody committed to sample fertility parameters on possible <br /> prime farmland soils one year prior to disturbance since these <br /> soil 's fertility parameters varied substantially from year to year. <br /> In the event that the Bar X soil symbolized by D70B is indeed found <br /> to be prime farmland, please be sure to include this commitment in <br /> the permit application. <br /> Response: <br /> The commitment to sample fertility parameters on prime farmland soils <br /> prior to disturbance is included within the Maintenance and Testing <br /> Procedures section of Tab 21, Minesoil Reconstruction. Page 21-32 was <br /> revised to incorporate the Division's recommendation. <br /> Tab 10 - Vegetation Baseline Studies <br /> Comment: <br /> 1. On page 10-36 of Addendum 10-3, it states "Succulents were also <br /> included in the (woody plant) density calculations." The Division <br /> does not believe succulents are woody plants necessitating <br /> inclusion in the density measurements. Please modify this section <br /> deleting succulents from consideration as a woody plant. <br /> Response: <br /> Page 10-36 of Addendum 10-3 has been modified as requested. Additional <br /> modifications were made to Table 13 (page 10-38) and Appendix Table 2-16 <br /> (page 10-2-21) in order to maintain consistency in other areas of the <br /> text which were affected by this change. Revised pages are included in <br /> this response package. <br /> Comment: <br /> 2. No actual cropland data were collected since the various landowners <br /> left their fields fallow in 1987. While not a fault of Peabody, it <br /> does cause a problem in that no actual baseline information was <br /> obtained. The estimations , utilizing SCS information, do not <br /> satisfy the requirements of the regulations. For the irrigated <br /> cropland areas within the proposed permit area, Peabody must obtain <br /> 10 <br />