Laserfiche WebLink
Permit Revision Adequacy Comment Response <br />November 30, 2004 <br />Page 10 of 24 <br />~_ MCC Response: MCC added wild turkey to the table. <br />51. The US Forest Service has requested the addition of the sharp-shinned hawk (Accipeter <br />striatus) on page 2.04-169 and the boareal toad (Bufo boreas boreas) on page 2.04-171. <br />MCC Response: MCC added the hawk to the table. <br />52. The last sentence on page 2.04-171 should read "No designated lynx habitat key linkage areas <br />have been mapped in the vicinity of the lease area. <br />MCC Response: This correction was made to the text. <br />53. On page 2.04-175, please check the status of the tiger salamander. <br />MCC Response: The USFS was contacted and they claim the tiger salamander is no <br />longer on their sensitive list. <br />2.05.2 Operations Plan <br />,~4. Rule 2.05.2(1) requires inclusion of an estimate of annual production. MCC provides an <br />estimate of recoverable reserves in Table 28, but not the required information. Please include a <br />table showing an estimate of annual production. <br />MCC Response: MCC included a table with the proposed production with employment <br />figures by year. <br />55. On pages 2.05-4 to 2.05-6, MCC discusses proposed mining in both the B and E seams. The <br />mine plan maps, Maps 51 and 52, show that the current plan includes mining in two seams in <br />the same area - in sections 28 and 29 just north of the Minnesota Reservoir. The Division <br />requests that MCC include a discussion of the plans for 2-seam mining and discuss any special <br />considerations involved with this operation plan, mining the overlying E-seam after the B- <br />seam has been extracted. Also, MCC frequently refers to panel designations in the E-seam. <br />Please add those panel designations to Map 51, the E-Seam Mine Plan map. <br />MCC Response: MCC has included panel designations on Map 51. <br />2.05.6(3) Protection of Hydrologic Balance <br />56. There is no mention of potential for water quality impact or mitigation from erosion of slide <br />escarpments or ground disturbed by subsidence as required by Rule 2.05.6(3)(a)(i) . Please <br />address the potential impact of subsidence-enhanced erosion. For example, mitigation might <br />