2012-06-04_REVISION - C1981014 (2)

Home Browse Search

historic mining features. However, after a careful examination of this site, it was determined that there was a suitable area of undisturbed vegetation which would serve as a suitable reference area site. The boundaries of this proposed reference area were delineated by walking the vegetation boundaries of the proposed reference area with our GPS unit." EFCI submits that the detailed on -site mapping of this site with a GPS unit with sub -meter accuracy is significantly more accurate than the two aerial photographs "NAIP2011 and EPA false -color infrared LandSAT 9/5/1978" aerial photograph examined by the Division. EFCI believes that the six full days of field sampling of this site are significantly more accurate in delineating the extent of the disturbance boundaries, than are the two small scale aerial photographs examined by the Division. We find the 1978 aerial photograph, which the CDRMS places such emphasis on, of such a small scale as to render it next to impossible to support the Divisions' claims that "a portion on the north east side of the proposed Proposed [sic] Portal Reference Area was previously disturbed by mining activities." As mentioned, all previously disturbed areas were excluded from the footprint of proposed Portal Reference Area. Furthermore, when the footprint of the Proposed Portal Reference Area is superimposed onto the 2011 aerial submitted by the Division, it can be clearly observed that there are no areas "previously disturbed by mining activities" within the footprint of this proposed RA. Examination of the more detailed August 2009 NRCS aerial photograph which is enclosed at a scale of 1 inch equals 200 feet as "Southfield Mine Portal Area - Vegetation Disturbance Area" shows that the concerns raised by the Division are unfounded. Thus, there is no need to "adjust the boundaries of the proposed reference area to exclude previously disturbed area, and adjust the data summary by removal of data collected within the excluded area" as there was no data collected within any previously disturbed areas. Concern: 2. Please provide copies of the raw sampling data from the 2008 Proposed Reference area sampling. Response: As are mentioned in the text of TR -39, "prior to commencing the field sampling and during the preparation of this baseline sampling effort" we contacted Ms. Janet Binns, for the CDRMS regarding the proposed vegetation sampling scheme, including the need "to submit copies of the raw field data sheets ... " In the initial telephone call made on the morning of 25 September 2008, and as are mentioned in the narrative "during the consultation meetings held with the DRMS for various other projects, IME has consistently been directed not to submit copies of the raw field data sheets ... " EFCI requests clarification from the CDRMS as to why their polices have been changed for this project and why it is now necessary to submit this data that the Division has long said need not be submitted. Concern: 3. Exhibit 11 Keenan study refers to "Permit Area Figure 1". The Division was unable to located Exhibit 11- Figure 1. Since this figure shows pre - permit "baseline' vegetation types, it is pertinent to the permit record. Please provide a copy of the referenced Exhibit 11- Figure 1 if possible. Response: EFCI has been unable for several years to locate the original Keenan "Permit Area Figure 1" map. However, a close examination of Map 16, Permit Area Vegetation Map, clearly 2