2014-06-05_REVISION - C1982057 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Roy Karo June 5, 2014 Page 2 3. The Division asked SCC to recalculate the acreage of the exclusion areas discussed in items 1 and 2 above. SCC response: The areas excluded by items No. 1 & 2 account for 4.7 acres. The total area that will be removed from the original SL5 application totals 54.4 acres. SCC requests total Phase II bond release of 805.1 acres. SCC's response is acceptable. 4. SCC initially submitted an incorrect revegetation monitoring report for Attachment E. SCC submitted the correct revegetation monitoring report on August 2, 2013. The Revegetation Success section of the SL5 bond release application needs to be revised based on the correct revegetation monitoring report results and as a result of SCC response to this adequacy review. SCC response: The Revegetation Success section in the SL5 application has been revised. The correct data set was submitted April 5, 2010. SCC provided revised 2009 vegetation sampling summary on April 3, 2014, with the 2005 -11 excluded are transect that fell within the removed. Statistical sample adequacy was still achieved with this transect data removed. SCC submitted a corrected Table 1, Table 2, Table 9, Table 10, and Table 11. This response is adequate. 5. In the September 4, 2013 Par, the Division requested that SCC recalculate the acreage weighted ratio of the bond release block. SCC's response was recalculation of the acreage percentages for each Bond Release Block (BRB) is unnecessary and unwarranted for large blocks that include several community types prior to disturbance. Recalculating the acreage weighting percentage for each bond release application would make little difference in the weighted standard. This recalculation may be appropriate for small parcels that fall within only one or two of the pre- mining communities, but not necessary for a larger block like the SL5 BRB. DRMS concurs. This response is acceptable. The Division finds SCC applied the acreage weighted values consistently with the pre- mining ratios shown on Tab 22, page 45, in the Seneca II West permit. 6. After initial review, the Division noted that SCC located in the southern extension extended reference area had not been sampled. The Division believes the sampling conducted in each vegetation type in the northern extended reference area is likely representative of the same vegetation types found in the extended reference area in the South Extension Area. However, SCC should be aware of this permit requirement for future bond release applications, and ensure that the Southern extended reference area is sampled concurrently with reclaimed parcels located in the southern expansion area. SCC response: Concurs with Division's statement that vegetation types in the northern ERA are likely representative of the same vegetation types fund in the Southern ERA. DRMS did not require any action at this time, but more of a notice for future sampling. This response is acceptable.