Laserfiche WebLink
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM <br />TO: MARQA TALVITE <br />FROM: JANET BINNS <br />SUBJECT: NEW HORIZr N TH-1PP CATION ADEQUACY REVIEW <br />DATE: 12/15/2010 (\ <br />CG DAN HERNANDEZ, SANDY BROWN <br />I have reviewed the New Horizon North permit application, Permit number C2010-089, for <br />compliance with Rules 2.04.3, 2.04.9, 2.04.10, 2.04.12, 2.05.4(2)(d), 2.05.4(2)(e), and 2.05.5. I have <br />worded my adequacy concerns to the operator so you may forward them without additional editing. <br />Adequacy concerns follow: <br />1. The post-mining land use map also shows pre-mining land uses. While having both pre-and <br />post-mining land uses displayed on one map would appear to provide a good comparison of the <br />land use changes, the map as submitted is very confusing. Please remove the premining land use <br />data from Map 2.05.4-post mining land use, and resubmit it clearly showing the proposed post- <br />mining land use. <br />2. On Map 2.04.3-1 the legend, grazing land and pastureland, does not agree with text <br />description in the PAP sec. 2.04.3 p 4-6, "PL-rec" versus "GL-rec" etc. Please bring map <br />and text definitions into agreement with one another. <br />3. In Section 2.04.10 p.11 of the PAP, litter meas6red 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 />4. In section 2.04.5 the operator states that there are 7 major vegetation communities comprising <br />>5% of the proposed mine area or > 10 acres, but then only describes six vegetation <br />communities. Please bring this section into agreement. Are there seven major communities or <br />are there six major communities? If there are seven, please include a description of the seventh. <br />5. Map 2.04.9-1 does not show the limits of the mapping unit labeled "existing <br />reclamation/disturbance boundary". The boundary for the "REC" mapping unit on this map <br />does not show a complete polygon. The northern boundary is open. Also this map shows two <br />land 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 />6. With the PAP, submitted September 22, 2010, WF-C provided 2 year of data for the Intensively <br />Managed Irrigated Pasture (IMIP) though 3 years are required in accordance with Rule <br />4.15.7(2)(d)(v). Although there is a commitment in the PAP (Appendix 2.04.10-A) to sample the <br />IMIP property in 2011 to obtain a third growing season of data. The Division considers that this <br />commitment should be included as a stipulation to the permit.