2014-06-17_REVISION - C1981014 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

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