Laserfiche WebLink
Rule 2.05.3 — Operation Plan — Permit Area <br />1) Under the revised "General Description of Exploration and Development Drilling Practices" <br />section contained on revised pages 2.05 -1 and 2, the applicant removed the seed -mix to be used for <br />the drill sites. Also removed from this section was a discussion about providing the Division proof <br />of compliance after abandoning drill holes and the list of information to be provided. Please add <br />this information back to this section. <br />2) Under the "Longwall Mining" section of revised page 2.05 -4, after the paragraph discussing the <br />development of the North Mains rock ramp to the "H" seam, there is a statement that appears to <br />be out of place. The statement indicates, "Although there are no present plans to mine in this area, <br />MCM reserves its options under existing "grandfathering ". Please clarify this statement and/or <br />otherwise revise this page as necessary. <br />3) Similarly, under the "Mining in Big Bottom" section; a statement indicates MCM reserves the <br />option under existing "grandfathered" rights to underground mine in this area. Please explain <br />this statement. <br />4) Revised Page 2.05 -16 indicates a number of roads will be left in place after reclamation to support <br />the post mining land use. The currently approved Map 29 clearly delineates which roads will <br />remain after reclamation. The revised Map 29 does not delineate which roads will remain after <br />reclamation. In accordance with Rule 4.03.1(1)(f) and 4.03.2(1)(g) requires that all haul and <br />access road be reclaimed unless they will be used in accordance with the post mine land use and <br />the landowner requests to the Division in writing that the road or certain parts be left in place for <br />future use. For each road intended to be left in place, please provide the Division with written <br />approval from the landowner(s) or commit to supplying this information prior to bond release. <br />This information should be added as a new exhibit to the permit and cited properly on the revised <br />page. <br />a. MCM Responses to item 1 through 4: Pages 2.05 -1 and 2.05 -2 have been revised to <br />include the previously provided information on seed -mix and proof of compliance. Page <br />2.05 -4 has been revised to clarify the statement on "grandfathered" rights, and MCM's <br />intent re: potential future mining. Page 2.05 -16 has been revised to clarify approvals for <br />postmining retention of roads, and reference both Maps 29 and 29a. All revised materials <br />are included with these responses. <br />b. DRMS Response: <br />i. Item #1 is resolved <br />ii. Item #2 is resolved <br />iii. Item #3 is resolved <br />iv. Item #4. Revised page 2.05 -16 indicates that MCM will provide documentation <br />from the State of their concurrence with permanent retention of these roads. <br />According to this paragraph, the roads intended to be left in place are primarily <br />located on lands owned by MCM or State land, but not exclusively. Please revise <br />this statement to indicate the prior to seeking bond release, documentation for road <br />retention required by Rule 4.03.10)(f) and 4.03.2(l)(g) will be submitted to the <br />Division and included in the permit through a revision. This will need to include <br />concurrence from any landowner who own land which the intended roads are <br />located. <br />Response: The referenced text section has been revised to' addre <br />requirements of Rule 4.03 and to be inclusive of any affected landowners. <br />