Laserfiche WebLink
7. Section 2.03. 10 of the permit has been updated to the current status of "other permits ". <br />Copies of replacement pages are enclosed. <br />8. A more complete description of the pre- operation condition of the portal area is <br />required by Rule 2.04.10(4). A condition of each community type or portion therefore, <br />shall be discussed if significant differences exist within a type (Pre- operation disturbance <br />constitutes a significant difference.) Page 2.04.10 -4 in the PAP states that "all these areas <br />had been disturbed prior to the initial vegetation work commenced at the site." A more <br />thorough discussion could alleviate confusion in the future. <br />Response: The CDRMS may be confused regarding the term "condition" as found in Rule <br />2.04.10(4) which requires that "current condition shall be discussed for each community type or <br />portion thereof if significant differences exist within a type." The Vegetation Guideline clarifies <br />this terminology on page 1 where it says that "information regarding ... condition can <br />generally be derived from the site specific soil and vegetation data, supplemented by Soil <br />Conservation Service (SCS) soil survey information and range site descriptions." The <br />Vegetation Guideline further clarifies this term on page 3 where it states that "a poor condition <br />range designation based upon criteria." The NRCS has typically used the terms "range condition <br />class" or "ecological condition class" to describe the term "condition." They had historically <br />used the classes of "excellent, good, fair and poor" to describe the "condition" of a range site or <br />vegetation type. This information is found in the two attachments to Permit Exhibit 11 - <br />VEGETATION INFORMATION. Specifically, the two reports by Dean Loukanen, <br />corresponding to pages 2 -98 to 2 -90 of Exhibit 11 dated July 15, 1980 and May 15, 1979 address <br />the pre- operation condition of these vegetation types and cannot be addressed as suggested by <br />the CDRMS. Disturbed sites, do not have a "condition class" and thus cannot be addressed as <br />the CDRMS is requesting. The pre - mining disturbance areas for the Portal Area are clearly <br />marked on Map 16, Mine Area Vegetation Map. <br />The CDRMS suggestion that "Pre- operation disturbance constitutes a significant difference" is <br />totally contrary to Rule 2.04.10(4) which requires that "each plant community type" shall be <br />addressed ... "if significant differences exist within a type." Ecologically, it is impossible to <br />assume as the CDRMS has done that "condition" of a previously disturbed area can be <br />accomplished by comparing it across different plant communities. Their suggestion that a "more <br />thorough discussion could alleviate confusion in the future" cannot be addressed, because there <br />is no "condition" associated with a disturbed area. The "confusion" mentioned by the CDRMS <br />seems from the fact that they do not understand what the term "condition" found in Rule <br />2.04.10(4) means. EFCI has clearly addressed this regulation and their efforts to do so have been <br />accepted by the CDRMS for nearly 34 years and no further discussion is necessary. <br />9. EFCI needs to correct the discussion of page 2.04.10 -5 in the PAP regarding the pre - <br />operation vegetation cover for Plot B reference area. As previously pointed out by the <br />Division, the cover value reported by EFCI for the 1980 cover data for Plot B should read <br />11.39 percent not 19.1 percent. <br />Response: The CDRMS is misled about who and when this error was discovered. It was not <br />discovered by the CDRMS as suggested but rather by EFCI's consultant during the review of <br />this information in connection with TR -39. <br />EFCI will change the text on Permit page 2.04.10 -5 and replace the current 19.1 % value with <br />11.39%. Revised page 2.04.10 -5 enclosed. <br />