REV104078 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Page 8 of 20 84. Original Comment: MCC has determined that "structures" refer to buildings (page 2.05-93). The Division has along-established precedence of "structures" being defined as anything that is man-made. This would include buildings, cabins, sheds, barns, stockponds, roads, power lines, water lines, gas or oil Zines, water wells, vent fans, towers, swimming pools, tanks, reservoirs, etc. Map 67, Man Made Structures in the Coal Lease Area, shows very little in terms of information of value, especially for South of the Divide. Please submit a detailed map at an appropriate scale of all structures in the current and proposed permit area. (Rule 2.0 5.6 (6) (a) (i i) (B)) MCC Response: MCC conducted a baseline natural resources survey which includes stock ponds and conducted the baseline surveys for the Lower Cow Camp. The manmade structures were included in Exhibit 32B and roads on Map 67 of the Permit Document. The reason that the map shows very little in terms of structures is because much of what the Division is suggesting does not exist in the South of Divide area. Hopefully, with the addition of aerial photographs of the South of Divide area in Exhibit 32B, the Division can see that there are no powerlines, waterlines, gas or oil lines, towers, swimming pools, or tanks in the area. New Comment: MCC responded that "structures were included in Exhibit 32B and roads on Map 67 of the Permit Document. " Map 67 shows Minnesota Reservoir as the only structure in the SOD azea. Drawings lA and 1B of Exhibit 32B show stock ponds (which qualify as structures) and other renewable resource lands. Neither of these drawings meet the certification criteria of Rule 2.10.3(2). A cabin and Cow Camp are referred to but do not appeaz to be included on the map. The permit application document should cleazly identify each structure (man-made feature), provide a brief description, and be shown on a map that meets the standards of Rule 2.10. The original DMG comment stands. 85. Response accepted. 86. Original Comment: The applicant does commendable job of presenting information in the order requested by the Rules. However, given the multiple mining areas, multiple coal seams, and the numerous potential consequences to the various structures and renewable resource lands, it is somewhat difficult to determine whether all subsidence consequences, mitigation, and monitoring is adequate and meets the requirements of the Rules. The DMG respec fully suggests that some type of summary and/or table be included under the subsidence section that clearly describes each type of structure or renewable resource, the worst possible consequence of subsidence for each, the subsidence control or mitigation proposed, and the monitoring necessary for each. DMG is willing to discuss any other ideas MCC has to bring this important information into focus. MCC Response: MCC has included a natural resource survey with inventory. New Comment: The original question stands. MCC's response refers to a natural resources survey. The DMG response is that a summary discussion and table should be provided to cleazly describe each