Laserfiche WebLink
southeast facing slopes, this approach would be contrary and inconsistent with the Vegetation <br />Guideline regarding the issue of sampling of major and minor plant communities. Therein on <br />page 3 it states "the Division generally requires quantitative sampling only within major <br />vegetation communities. Quantitative sampling and reference areas (or other success <br />standards) are not usually required for minor plant communities (those communities whose <br />aggregate area occupies less than 5 % of the permit area or less than 10 acres, whichever is <br />smaller)." Examination of the Southfield Mine Portal Vegetation Disturbance Map, reveals that <br />there are a total of 859,838 SF (19.74 acres) of reclamation associated with this area. A minor <br />plant community in this area would be one which corresponds to an area less than 42,991 SF or <br />0.98 acres. Examination of Map 28, Post - Mining Topography Map, or the as built maps used in <br />the 2010 Annual Revegetation Monitoring Report, clearly document that it is very unlikely that <br />there are north facing slope areas approaching this size. Thus, the CDRMS suggestion that the <br />currently approved Portal RA be sampled, are contrary to all of their long standing polices. <br />Concern: (I) Ideally the reference areas representing both aspects would be of similar sizes to <br />avoid bias. <br />Response: As pointed out, since there are very few north or northeast facing slopes associated <br />with the approved Phase I bond release area and associated reclamation, it is impossible to <br />establish a RA to represent a condition that does not exist in the corresponding reclamation. <br />EFCI submits that the proposed Portal RA, which contains a small portion corresponding to a <br />north facing slopes will be more than adequate to address this portion of the reclamation <br />corresponding to the very small area corresponding to the north and northeast facing slopes. <br />The CDRMS suggestion that the two "reference areas representing both aspects would be of <br />similar sizes to avoid bias" is contrary and inconsistent with Rule 4.15.7(4)(b) and (d) which <br />requires "comparisons of weighted averages between reference areas and revegetated areas" <br />based upon "the relative area" occupied by each plant community. Rather than "avoiding bias" <br />as suggested by the CDRMS, application of this approach would significantly increase the bias <br />by inflating the contribution of north and northeast facing slopes. EFCI finds the suggestion of <br />the CDRMS totally unacceptable, since it would inflate the contribution of the vegetation <br />characteristics of the north facing slopes and render the ultimate revegetation success criteria <br />"inappropriate and unattainable" contrary to the requirements of page 11 of the Vegetation <br />Guideline. <br />Concern: (ii) Previously disturbed areas should be excluded from both reference areas. <br />Response: EFCI is in complete agreement with this suggestion. The Division claims, there are <br />areas "previously disturbed by mining" associated with the Proposed Portal RA when there are <br />none and although we observed in the field and on aerial photos, extensive disturbance <br />associated with the currently approved Portal RA, the Division "disagrees" with our <br />observations. Disturbed areas are not included in the "proposed" RA, however, there is <br />extensive disturbance associated with the currently approved RA. <br />With respect to this discrepancy, EFCI requests that the Division provide EFCI with written <br />9 <br />