Laserfiche WebLink
Elk Creek Mine (C-1981-022) <br />Section VI - Identified Issues and Required Revisions <br />MT- 7 <br />The Division has identified the following issues during the course of this review, which should be <br />addressed through a Technical Revision: <br />The revegetation plan is described in general terms in Exhibit 2.05-E6. On page H-8 of the <br />Exhibit, under the heading Revegetated Area Sampling Design, the first paragraph concludes <br />with the following sentence: "The methodology in coordination with DMG prior to the beginning <br />of sampling", which is presumably a typographical error, and should read: "The methodology <br />will be determined in coordination with DMG prior to the beginning of sampling". The sentence <br />should be deleted and replaced with a detailed plan of the sampling methodology. The plan <br />should: <br />a. Define vegetation reference areas in the text and on a map. These should be sufficient to <br />account for at least the identified dominant vegetation communities (Juniper Woodland <br />and Mountain Shrub), and the topographic variation found within the permit area. This <br />could potentially be achieved by multiple defined reference areas for each community at <br />a range of representative elevations, or by an extended reference area. <br />b. Quantify the disturbed acres by vegetation community type (given that the currently <br />approved revegetation plan cites the weighted average method described in Rule <br />4.15.7(4)(b)) <br />c. State the success criteria for vegetative cover, herbaceous productivity, species diversity, <br />and woody plant density, in accordance with Rules 4.15.7 and 4.15.8. <br />2. In Exhibit 2.05-E6, on page H-8, the third paragraph contains an incorrect reference to Rule <br />3.15.7(4)(b) which should be corrected. <br />3. Discrepancies appear to have crept into Exhibit 2.03-E4. In the laserfiche version the fourth page <br />of the table of contents (TOC) appears not to have been updated with MR -72, and the two items <br />that are missing from the TOC are also missing from the Exhibit itself (USDA, Forest Service <br />temporary use permit 7730-3; and Union Pacific Railroad Company crossing permits). <br />The Exhibit and the TOC should be updated with those two permits. <br />4. The Division does not have an adequate copy of Map 2.05-M4, Sheet 1 of 6, in either paper or <br />electronic form. The version on file shows that it was issued with PR -04, then updated with MR - <br />63 and again with RN -06, but the print quality does not allow all the features on the map to be <br />identified. <br />A good quality copy of the map should be submitted. <br />5. Map 2.05-M4, sheet 3 of 6, raises several issues: <br />a. The same ditch is labelled as both Ditch D3 Lower and Ditch D4 <br />b. The map does not identify a culvert found in Ditch D6, north of the location of the rock <br />dust tanks <br />c. Culvert DBa appears to be significantly longer than is shown on the map, and discharges <br />to the south of where it is shown. <br />Page 13 of 14 <br />