Laserfiche WebLink
documentation showing how their recommendations regarding the continued usage of this site <br />are compatible with Rule 4.15.7(4)c, which requires that reference areas be "representative of a <br />specific ecological site based upon soil, elevation, and topographic characteristics" when <br />significant portions of this site have previously been disturbed. EFCI believes that the Divisions' <br />approach to the issue of previous disturbance are grossly inconsistent. <br />Concern: (iii) The permittee will propose sample methodology and data compilation that meets <br />Rule 4.15.11. <br />Response: As are stated in the ending paragraph of TR39, "all of the revegetation success <br />standards and methodology are currently found in the Southfield Mine permit and no changes to <br />any revegetation success criteria are proposed in connection with this proposal to move the <br />Portal Reference Area." Since the Division has already approved all of the proposed <br />revegetation success standards and methodology, there is no reason to response to this concern. <br />Concern: Landowners' concerns. <br />Response: EFCI recognizes land owner concerns, however, Rule 4.01.1(9) requires that the <br />Division ensure that any entity "conducting surface coal mining and reclamation operations to <br />insure that society and the environment are protected from the adverse effects of such operations <br />and that the rights of surface landowners and other persons with a legal interest in the land or <br />appurtenances thereto are fully protected." We ask that the Division provide EFCI with a <br />detailed written explanation of how changing of a reference area from one site to another, will <br />result in any "adverse effects" or consequences to the landowner and as to why the <br />documentation submitted by the Permittee seems not to be fully evaluated while the comments <br />submitted by the Landowner appear to be given more importance. <br />Examination of the Regulations, reveals dozens of references to the fact that permit applications <br />must be prepared by "qualified" professionals. Page 1 of the Vegetation Guideline suggests that <br />"vegetation and revegetation programs should be planned and overseen by qualified individuals <br />with training in vegetation ecology, range science, or closely related fields." Page 5 of the <br />Vegetation Guideline states that "vegetation sampling programs should be designed and <br />overseen by qualified individuals with appropriate training." EFCI asks that the Division <br />provide them with the written reference in their regulations wherein the CDRMS is required to <br />incorporate all of the concerns of an uninformed landowner about the consequences of an action <br />such as is being proposed herein. Please explain why the Permittee is held to one standard, and <br />the CDRMS in virtually, every permit document they review, in nearly every adequacy review <br />they send out requires that the Applicant use only "qualified trained professionals" in the specific <br />discipline they are working with, while the Division uses a totally different standard in <br />requesting or honoring comments and concerns submitted by a landowner. What qualifies them <br />to comment on issues not involving "adverse effects" and what is their technical area of <br />expertise? What qualifications do they have in evaluating the highly technical details of a <br />request such as this? <br />Two landowners own lands which will be affected by this proposed action. According to the <br />10 <br />