Laserfiche WebLink
Permit Revision Adequacy Comment Response <br />November 30, 2004 <br />Page 16 of 24 <br />• DMG is willing to discuss any other ideas MCC has to bring this important information into <br />focus. <br />MCC Response: MCC has included a natural resource survey with inventory. <br />87. The applicant makes mention of an agreement to monitor water resources above the area to be <br />mined (Exhibit 19C, and noted on page 2.04.80). Please include this monitoring in the <br />monitoring plan and indicate that the results will be included in the Annual Hydrology Report. <br />MCC Response: MCC updated the text to include the monitoring. <br />88. On page 2.05-90, third paragraph from the end should read "(and Fiv,,,ure 1 ofExhibit 60B)". <br />There is no Map 1 in Exhibit 60B. <br />MCC Response: MCC made changes and ensured that there is a Map 1 in Exhibit 60B. <br />89. On page 2.05-94, middle of the page, it states "...associated mitigation measures will focus on <br />returned (sic) disturbed area to a capability and land use(s) which existed prior to mining." <br />What are these mitigation measures? Any mitigation measures should be cleazly stated in the <br />permit text. <br />MCC Response: Mitigation measures are clearly stated in the revised text. <br />~90. On page 2.05-97, last sentence, text states "...due to the lack of structures and limited human <br />activity within the permit area..." Please review this statement and revise if necessary, given <br />the Division's understanding of structures as man-made features such as roads, power lines, <br />buildings, tanks, water wells, etc. This also pertains to previous text and interpretation of <br />structures as only buildings identified buildings in the SOD azea. Please amend the text. <br />MCC Response: MCC has revisited this statement and still believes it is appropriate. <br />The text was amended to include man-made structures and roads. See response to No. 84 <br />above. <br />91. On page 2.05-100, middle of the page, the text states "The areas with overburden less than 400 <br />feet include the western reaches of longwall panels E2 -ES. The minimum overburden thickness <br />above mining in the South of Divide permit revision area is 400 feet." These two sentences aze <br />contradictory. Please correct as necessary. <br />MCC Response: MCC revised text. <br />92. On page 2.04-61, proposed text states "overburden is typically greater than 1000 feet for the B <br />and E seam in Apache Rocks and SOD." However, E seam overburden is less than 1000 feet in <br />much of the SOD, which is extremely critical with regazd to potential impacts. Please correct <br />this important information. <br />MCC Response: This was changed back to 600 feet in the text. <br />