2012-06-04_REVISION - C1981014 (2)

Home Browse Search

locating the southeast and northeast corner post of the reference area, the Division disagrees that the approved reference area extends into the previously reclaimed roadway." We call your attention to the enclosed 1954, 1962 and 1970 aerial photographs and ask that the CDRMS provide a written explanation of the straight lines in the vegetation boundaries in the entire northern third of this reference area. What are the distinct white lines shown so clearly on the 1954 aerial photograph and which can so easily be observed in the field as elevational differences in the soil, if they are not disturbance boundaries? Please explain why the footprint of disturbance associated with the Portal RA area of the 1954 photograph when compared with the other disturbance areas of Vento Mine, has the exact photographic texture as do the shading in the northern third of the currently approved Portal Reference Area. We would ask the Division to interpret the very light straight line, corresponding to an obvious road running across the entire corner of this area as well as an area entirely cleared of vegetation in the upper one third of the approved RA. This is obviously disturbance which reduces the size of the "undisturbed" area to approximately 0.2 acres of the current RA. If the CDRMS has inspected this site and determined that this is not disturbance, then EFCI would ask what specific criterion was the Division looking for? EFCI submits that nearly the entire northern one third of this RA was disturbed by mining prior to 1954 and asks the Division to clarify the discrepancies between these aerial photographs, our own field inspection of the site and the conclusions reached by the Division that this site was not previously disturbed. Either the CDRMS performed only a superficial examination in their "walking the site." Perhaps they were looking at a different area, or did not realize what they we seeing. The comments by the Division suggesting that this site does not extend into a "previously disturbed reclaimed roadway" are totally erroneous and inconsistent with what we see in the field and so clearly evident on the aerial photographs and casts serious doubt on the accuracy of their comments and conclusions regarding this site. Concern: The Division agrees that using a reference area exhibiting only one slope aspect in the vegetation community, Ponderosa - Pinyon - Juniper Woodland, described as a vegetation type "characterized by dense stands of ponderosa on north facing slopes and dominant stands of one - seeded juniper on east and south facing slopes," does not thoroughly represent the pre- mining vegetation type. Response: Again the comments by the CDRMS regarding the need to "represent the pre- mining vegetation type" are contrary with their regulations, Vegetation Guideline and approved Southfield Mine Permit reclamation plan. Rule 4.14.2 contains the general grading requirements, which require that "post- mining final graded slopes need not be uniform but shall approximate the general nature of the pre- mining topography ... " Rule 2.05.4 contains the specifics of the Reclamation Plan, requiring that the Permit contain "postmining contour maps and appropriate cross sections ... " The Division is mistaken in suggesting that the "pre- mining vegetation types" or "slopes" or "aspects" drive the direction of the reclamation plan and the corresponding revegetation success criteria and corresponding reference areas. The details which drive the revegetation success criteria have very little to do with "pre- mining" conditions as are so often referenced by the Division, but instead are driven by the Reclamation Plan and specifically Map 28, Post - Mining Topography Map. While Rule 2.10.3(1) specifically requires 6