Laserfiche WebLink
Southfield Mine, C1981 -014 <br />September 18, 2011 <br />Janet H. Binns <br />Compilation of Correspondence from Landowners regarding TR39, from June 22, 2011 - September 11, 2011. <br />Questions from Landowner; Linda Saunders <br />Received: September 11, 2011, via e -mail: <br />"2010 Vegetation report. Vento Plant Density Table 5,that is Corley's plant density report. Please send <br />the Vento plant density report. " <br />Answer: This question is not applicable to the review of TR39. However, further investigation of the <br />data finds that Table 5 was mislabeled. This data agrees with the 2010 vegetation report text discussion <br />of the Vento Reclamation Shrub Density. The consultant confirmed that this Table had been mislabeled <br />and will resubmit the table correctly labeled. <br />"The new reference area is on a disturbed hillside and is a different state of succession compared to the <br />original." <br />Answer: The proposed Ponderosa - Pinyon- Juniper reference area is located on a north - northeast slope. <br />The operator carefully delineated the proposed reference area boundary to exclude all areas that had <br />been previously disturbed. No previously disturbed area is included in the proposed reference area. <br />Observation of the approved PPJ reference area (Plot "B ") and the proposed PPJ reference area does not <br />appear that they of different successional stage. However, the approved PPJ area is primarily north <br />facing and has more developed soils than the proposed PPJ area. NRCS (formerly SCS) had mapped the <br />permit area as Gravel Breaks and Loamy foothills (1979 letter from Dean Loukenen, date, Permit Exhibit <br />11). The approved grassland reference area (Plot A) is representative of the Loamy foothill range <br />description. The proposed PPJ reference area appears to be more representative of the gravel breaks <br />range description than the previously approved PPJ reference site. <br />3. "Why did Kent not survey the original to compare in 2011 and really have a basis for a decision ?" <br />Answer: TR39 application did not state why the approved PPJ reference area was not re- sampled at the <br />same time the proposed PPJ reference area was sampled in 2008. The applicant used the approved <br />baseline data from the approved PPJ reference area for comparison. This approach is acceptable to the <br />Division. <br />4. "In his 2006 report he states in the Conclusion p. 13, "However, for thos [sic] portions of the Vento <br />Reclamation located in the vicinity of the old mine portal shrub density was obviously not achieved and <br />cannot probably be restored to the Mine Portal Reference shrub density value." Yet shrub density was <br />achieved for the Loadout Reclamation. Kent mentioned that interseeding could be done without starting <br />the clock again. Why was this not done ?" <br />