2012-06-04_REVISION - C1981014 (2)

Home Browse Search

Magpie Creek Diversion and corresponding Phase I Bond Release, but now take the position that they must have a north facing RA. EFCI is in complete agreement with the CDRMS with respect to their comment that "the proposed Portal Reference Area appears that it would reasonably represent southeasterly slope aspects of this community." However, we submit that this site, also possesses sufficient north facing slopes to address this concern for the Southfield Mine Portal reclamation area. Map 28, Post - Mining Topography Map shows virtually the complete elimination of all major north facing reclaimed slopes on the Vento Property, and most of the Corley Property as well. This map shows that most of the remaining reclaimed areas, approved with the Southfield Mine Portal Phase I Bond Release correspond to east and southeast facing slopes, with very few north facing slope areas, the only viable alternative available for determining the suitable of the revegetation success of these east and southeast facing slopes is to use an RA that represents this aspect and this is not accomplished by the currently approved RA. EFCI submits that the reasoning suggested by the CDRMS clearly mandates that there can be only one suitable RA for the Southfield Mine Portal Area and this is the proposed Portal RA site and not the currently approved RA site, which EFCI believes, is the proposed RA site described in TR39. Concern: 5. Please incorporate both PPJ reference areas in to the reclamation success reference area requirements. Response: After a careful review of the CDRMS comments, the Southfield Mine Permit, the CDRMS regulations and Vegetation Guideline, EFCI sees virtually no reason to have two references areas for the Southfield Mine Portal Area. Rule 4.15.7(3)(iii) specifically states that the "selection of a separate reference area representative of each plant community present in the area to be disturbed is not required." The Vegetation Guideline states on page 9 that "reference areas shall be selected to be representative of each plant community within the area to be disturbed." Since the regulations so clearly state that it is not necessary to have a "separate reference area representative of each plant community present in the area to be disturbed," EFCI believes that the suggestion that there be two reference areas for a single plant community is contrary to the Division's regulations. A careful examination of the pre -1980 aerial photographs very clearly documents that all of the area disturbed between 1954 and 1980 was not representative of the vegetation conditions associated with the currently approved RA, but instead is significantly closer to the vegetation structure and texture of the proposed RA. Rule 1.04(108) 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) 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) requires that the RA must be located in a configuration that "eliminate[s] edge effect." Rule 4.15.7(3)(f) requires that reference areas "receive the "same management" as the revegetation area. EFCI submits that the currently approved Portal B RA fails to satisfy any of these criteria, while the proposed RA more closely complies with these requirements. Even if EFCI were to determine the exact percentage of north and northeast versus south and 8