Laserfiche WebLink
<br />elsewhere should not be approved just because it is cost <br />efficient for MCC. <br />2. This response is inadequate. MCC should specify that the pre- <br />existing road will be reclaimed aster approved reclamation <br />procedures defined in their permit, if this is their intent. <br />If not, MCC should clarify their intent and provide specific <br />details of their plans. <br />3. Does this mean that MCC has opted to dispose of shrub material <br />cleared from the disturbed areas rather than utilize it? <br />4. No response required. <br />5. Response acceptable. <br />6. It is my understanding that for two years the Division has <br />been requesting MCC to place the approved amount of cover <br />material and topsoil on the west side of the Lower Refuse Pile <br />pursuant to Rule 4.13. If this is the case, MCC should be <br />required to have that pile ready for direct haul topsoil from <br />the storage bench construction before the bench construction <br />is allowed to begin. I do not think that this is an <br />unreasonable or unwarranted request. Stockpiling of topsoil <br />from the storage bench construction should only be allowed if <br />an excess remains after covering the Lower Refuse Pile with <br />the approved depth of topsoil required by the permit and no <br />other areas of the mine require topsoiling at that time. <br />7. No response required. <br />cc. David Berry <br />sss/jdd <br />M:\oss\shucy2.memo <br />