2014-08-06_REVISION - C1981044 (2)

Home Browse Search

d. DRMS Response #2: i. The Division did not receive a revised Table 59. This item remain outstanding. Please address item 10(b)(i) above. ii. Item #10(b)(ii) is considered resolved. 14. Permit page 2.05 -24 includes a section on Backfilling and Grading that references Map 29, which shows the areas to be backfilled and graded, and Table 63, which gives backfill volumes. Based on the recent reclamation at the site and the anticipated future reclamation, please review Map 29 and Table 63 and update them accordingly. This updating should be done in conjunction with the creation of the detailed reclamation plan requested in question 12 above. a. MCM Response: The referenced Permit backfilling and grading map and table have been reviewed, revised, and updated, as appropriate, to reflect recent site reclamation activities. Copies of the revised map and table accompany these responses for replacement in the PAP. b. DRMS Response: i. Revised Map 29 does not depict the cross - sections that are discussed in this section of the permit and the contour lines do not show adequate detail to depict the post mine topography. Also, the legend does not cover all the symbols used to depict features on the map. Please see the adequacy review section Rule 2.05.4 — Reclamation Plan above, specifically Item #1. ii. This revised section indicates the No. 9 portal and the No. 5 portal areas have been reclaimed, however the volumes to be backfilled for these areas reported on revised Table 63 have not changed from the currently approved Table. It does not appear these volume account for the reclamation that occurred. Please clarify this discrepancy and make the appropriate revisions to Table 63. c. MCM Response #2: Please refer to previous response relative to Map 29. Table 63 has been revised to clarify that backfilling of certain areas has been completed, and noted the corresponding volumes, and the revised table is included with these responses. d. DRMS Response #2: i. Revised Map M29a has been submitted, there is an orange cross hatch symbol overlaying portions of the area. It is unclear what this symbol is depicting. Please add a description of this layer in the legend of the map. ii. The Division did not receive a copy of revised Table 63. Item #14(b)(ii) is still outstanding and will need to be addressed. 20. Permit page 2.05 -32 contains the Williams Fork Mines' "Noxious Weed Management Plan ". One of the problems noted on the site in recent inspections is the Russian Knapweed infestation. The weed management plan contains very little information regarding this noxious weed. There are also scattered patches of hounds tongue on the site, mostly along the east side of the haul road and refuse piles. There is no individual mention of the hounds tongue in the weed management plan, with the exception of a statement that spraying for white top also addresses hounds tongue. Finally, based on the weed spraying requirements of the past few years, it seems as though MCM may need to spray for noxious weeds on multiple occasions in order to control them. Please review and amend the Noxious Weed Management Plan to include more detailed information regarding the Russian Knapweed infestation that has been noted at the Williams Fork Mines and the Williams Fork Strip