2012-06-04_REVISION - C1981014 (2)

Home Browse Search

Without actual soils data, The Division does not agree that Plot B reference area is atypical of the soil or vegetation mapping units. Response: EFCI requests that the Division revisit the information in the approved Permit and the "clarifying" information that has been submitted in TR39 for this concern. The Division's comment that Map 14 -Mine Areas Soils which according to the CDRMS shows "the entire portal area as `Dumps and Pits" is erroneous. Examination of this map as well as the on -line version of the NRCS soils mapping on this specific site clearly shows that nearly half of the currently disturbed mine portal area was undisturbed at the time the SCS completed their soil survey of this site, which is shown on their mapping as well as on Map 14 -Mine Area Soils. The CDRMS comment that since "both the approved Portal Reference Area (Plot B) and the proposed Portal Reference Area are within both these soil and vegetation mapping units ... " they do "not agree that Plot B reference area is atypical of the soil or vegetation mapping units." demonstrates a lack of understanding of both their regulations, permit soils mapping requirements as well as NRCS soils mapping definitions. In TR -39, EFCI used the NRCS definitions found in the 1995 Fremont County Soil Survey to differentiate between the two major soils series and two inclusions comprising Soils Mapping Unit Complex 121. The CDRMS completely ignores the discussion provided about the differences in plant composition, forage production as well as rock fragment content and instead suggests that since these areas are mapped within the same complex they must be the same soil type. EFCI requests that the Division provide a written discussion addressing the very obvious differences in the two distinct soils types found with the currently approved Plot B reference area in light of the Regulations found in Rule 1.04(108) which requires that "reference areas must be representative of geology, soil, slope, and vegetation in the permit area, as determined by premining inventories." Rule 4.15.7(3)(a) which requires that "reference areas shall be selected to be representative of each plant community, as defined in 2.04.10, present within the area to be disturbed ... " Rule 4.15.7(3)(e) which requires that they be located in a configuration that "eliminate[s] edge effect." Rule 4.15.7(3)(f) which requires that reference areas "receive the "same management" as the revegetation area. EFCI also requests that the Division provide written documentation clarifying the confusing terminology they use to describe the PPJ plant community, wherein they call it a "vegetation complex mapping unit" in light of Rule 2.04.10 which requires that plant communities shall be delineated based upon "the basis of visually dominant perennial species." The Vegetation Guideline states that "vegetation type delineation should be based on existing, visually dominant species rather than potential plant communities(e.g. SCS Range Sites)." EFCI submits that the PPJ "vegetation complex mapping unit' as prepared and which has been accepted by the CDRMS since 1980 is contrary to their regulations and Vegetation Guideline and the term "plant community" as used in Rule 4.15.7. The Division did not follow their regulations in 1980, albeit during the Interim Period, in accepting this map and corresponding RA this error has been perpetuated by the Division in virtually every mid -term and permit renewal since that time. EFCI submits that the Division should have corrected this "vegetation complex mapping unit" mistake which is significantly more generalized than the "SCS Range Sites," which they specifically disallow and instead use an RA that corresponds to a specific "plant community" 4