2014-10-01_REVISION - C1981044 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

63 have not changed from the currently approved Table. It does not appear these volumes 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 29A 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. Response: The cross -hatch indicates mine disturbance areas, some of which have been partially reclaimed. The solid shading indicates mine disturbance areas which have been reclaimed, as noted in the legend. Given the previous comment requesting that postmining land uses also be shown on this map, some modifications have been made to the map to reflect all of the requested designations. and the revised map accompanies these responses. The revised Table 63 accompanies these respo ith the bac ;volun te4 pn that work ; mplet4 . hp 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 Pit and the houndstongue that has been observed on the site. Please also amend the plan to include more specific detail regarding the timing of the weed spraying and the need for multiple weed spraying during a given season. a. MCM responded to both items 20 and 21 below. 21. Permit page 2.05 -32a discusses the weed identification, mapping and tracking activities that are associated with the noxious weed management plan. The text gives little detail regarding the method of weed mapping and tracking. Currently, MCM provides some weed mapping and spraying detail on their annual reclamation report map (Reclamation and Building Demolition Map). This map provides unconnected information and the multiple colors and layers create problems in reading the map. Please update the noxious weed management plan to include more detail regarding how MCM performs their noxious weed mapping and tracking programs at the Williams Fork Mines and the Williams Fork Strip Pit, including whether point or area features are mapped, what constitutes a weed patch for mapping purposes, etc. Please add a commitment to the permit to include a separate weed tracking map in the Annual Reclamation Report. This map should show the weed species encountered, their location, the method of treatment and the initial year they were seen at that location. The weed tracking layers can then be removed from the Reclamation and Building Demolition Map currently included in the ARR (although this map, with the reclamation information, will need to remain).