Laserfiche WebLink
Jerry Nettleton, MCM <br />Page 10 <br />August 6, 2014 <br />b. DRMS Response: <br />i. Revised Map 29 does not depict the cross - sections that are discussed in this <br />section of the permit and the contour lines do not show adequate detail to depict <br />the post mine topography. Also, the legend does not cover all the symbols used <br />to depict features on the map. Please see the adequacy review section Rule <br />2.05.4 — Reclamation Plan above, specifically Item #1. <br />ii. This revised section indicates the No. 9 portal and the No. 5 portal areas have <br />been reclaimed, however the volumes to be backfilled for these areas reported on <br />revised Table 63 have not changed from the currently approved Table. It does <br />not appear these volume account for the reclamation that occurred. Please clarify <br />this discrepancy and make the appropriate revisions to Table 63. <br />c. MCM Response #2: Please refer to previous response relative to Map 29. Table 63 has <br />been revised to clarify that backfilling of certain areas has been completed, and noted the <br />corresponding volumes, and the revised table is included with these responses. <br />d. DRMS Response #2: <br />L Revised Map M29a has been submitted, there is an orange cross hatch symbol <br />overlaying portions of the area. It is unclear what this symbol is depicting. <br />Please add a description of this layer in the legend of the map. <br />ii. The Division did not receive a copy of revised Table 63. Item #14(b)(ii) is still <br />outstanding and will need to be addressed. <br />20. Permit page 2.05 -32 contains the Williams Fork Mines' "Noxious Weed Management Plan ". One of <br />the problems noted on the site in recent inspections is the Russian Knapweed infestation. The weed <br />management plan contains very little information regarding this noxious weed. There are also <br />scattered patches of hounds tongue on the site, mostly along the east side of the haul road and refuse <br />piles. There is no individual mention of the hounds tongue in the weed management plan, with the <br />exception of a statement that spraying for white top also addresses hounds tongue. Finally, based on <br />the weed spraying requirements of the past few years, it seems as though MCM may need to spray for <br />noxious weeds on multiple occasions in order to control them. Please review and amend the <br />Noxious Weed Management Plan to include more detailed information regarding the Russian <br />Knapweed infestation that has been noted at the Williams Fork Mines and the Williams Fork Strip <br />Pit and the houndstongue that has been observed on the site. Please also amend the plan to <br />include more specific detail regarding the timing of the weed spraying and the need for multiple <br />weed spraying during a given season. <br />a. MCM responded to both items 20 and 21 below. <br />21. Permit page 2.05 -32a discusses the weed identification, mapping and tracking activities that are <br />associated with the noxious weed management plan. The text gives little detail regarding the method <br />of weed mapping and tracking. Currently, MCM provides some weed mapping and spraying detail <br />on their annual reclamation report map (Reclamation and Building Demolition Map). This map <br />