Laserfiche WebLink
Y <br />INTERNAL MEMO <br />TO: Tom Kaldenbach 28 Sep 2005 <br />FROM: Jim Burnell <br />SUBJ: PR-10 Responses (South of Divide) <br />Following are my comments on the MCC responses to remaining open comments on PR- <br />10. <br />Al. The table of potential impacts is exactly what was needed. There aze several entries, <br />though, that require some discussion and/or clarification. <br />(a) Number 4, "Man-made Structures," the Minnesota Reservoir monitoring is <br />proposed as a survey. While this is appropriate at a longer interval, the Division <br />feels that there should be a least weekly visual inspections during the period of <br />mining and subsidence in the panels nearest the dam. If that occurs when snow <br />cover does not allow it, visual inspections should commence as soon as possible <br />afrer melt-off. <br />(b) The "Threshold of Impact" for streams as "significant loss" should be <br />clarified. <br />(c) The "Threshold of Impact" for wetlands (Item #2) as "significant vegetation <br />damage" should be better defined. This is clearly more difficult to quantify than <br />water loss, but should be discussed and agreed upon between MCC and the <br />Division. <br />(d) "Threshold of Impact" for both "Renewable Resources" and "Alluvial Valley <br />Floors" (Numbers 5 & 6) also need to be agreed upon as in (c) above. <br />2. Response accepted. <br />38. The Division requested that MCC resume monitoring this season; MCC's response <br />referred to the old text. The Division maintains the request to resume monitoring on <br />those sites where it had been suspended. <br />42. (Joint JRB and KAG). JRB says response accepted. <br />