GENERAL36676

• Permit No: C1980007
• IBM Index Class Name: General Documents
• Doc Date: 3/16/2006
• Doc Name: Final EIS & Record of Decision for the Dry Fork Lease 2nd Half
• From: US Forest Service
• To: DMG
• Permit Index Doc Type: Other Permits
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

Response to Comments Chapter 8
,
Comment 3: Paee S-3
-Paragraph 2, The paragraph describes that new equipment and systems will be used to extract the Dry Fork reserve. A ,
2-3 reader could take this [o mean that new equipment and systems will specifically be bought and used for this extraction. That
is not correct. MCC requests this information be clarified to reflect that E Seam tongalt mad coat handling systems, in place ,
at the time, will likely be used for this extractfon. ,
Comment A; Paee Sri .
-Paragraph 5. The paragraph contains 9 sentences. MCC requests thal the 6ib, Ph and 8'h sentence ojthis paragraph be
2-4 onrired. The injmroration is specrdative and provides an impression ojsornething that is not currently planned fVithovt a ,
plan how can the activities be scheduled? Thls injornratfon is better explained in Section l.8.1. The 7'h sentence appears
1
again, at least in Section 1.8.1, and is requested to be omitted there as weft _
•
Comment 5: Pa eP S-4
2-5 -Paragraph continued form previous page. ".... below one per cent to enstre..." This should be revised to stare ".... before .
certain levels to ensure... " to reflect a mare accurate representation ojthe requirements. ,
Comment 6: Paee S-4 .
2-6 -Paragraph 2, second sentence. "...that could be reasonably anticipated includes exploration,........._" MCC requests this
be revised to smte: (hat could be reasonably mnicipated indndes, bat is not limited to, exploration ............... .

Comment 7: Pa eg_S_5
•The two paragraphs describing Alternative C: No Subsidence of Deep Creek. Although this paragraph is accurately written, ,
the perception of an unformed reader might be to simply agree, thinking who wouldn't and why wouldn't we all went to
2-7 disallow Deep Creek to subside. MCC regarests the description of this alternative be further qualified and insert the message .
that Deep Creek has been undermined by 6Yest Elk and That subsidence has occurred with »o observable or negative impacts. •
This message also needs (o be inserted in Section 2.6. This subject is alluded to later in the doa+ment but is important to
include at this point early on. •
Comment 8: Page S-7
-The initial bullet point under Alternative B of the Topography, Geology and Soils discussion points out that 7 to 14 feet of
2-$ ~ subsidence could occur in the lease tract. MCC suggests that this same bullet point be included in the Alternative C
description that follows. •
Cotttrttent 9: Pa eg S-7
•The discussion of Water Resources impacts form subsidence in Alternative B and Alternative C is absence of any discussion •
2-9 of mining that has already occurred under Deep Creek. MCC suggests some discussron ojthis mining under Deep Creek in
this section as it direc(!y applies to the discussion topic. •
Comment 10: Page ~ 10 •
2-10 ~ -The discussion under Social and Economic Resources mentions impacts of S 175 tnilliom and $140 million respectively for .
Alternatives B and C. MCC requests an explanation ojhow those figr+res were determined to ensure they are as acn+rate
l as possible far this analysis. •
r
2-11 i Comment 1l: Paee 2-8
• Section 2.g.1 is initiated by the sentence stating "The Agency's preferred alternative is..."MCC requests clarification is

111
referred to
de in thi
entence
to what a
en
or a
enciu
are bein •
g
ry,
g
,
g
.
ma
s s
as

I Comment 12: Page 2-9
2-12 -Table 2-2 under the Alternative B column states that up [0 14 feet of subsidence could occur. Although this is accurate, •
1 MCC requests this be clarifred that The /4 jeer amount is related to multi-seam mining. .

P O Box 391 a 3179 Highway 133 o Samersct. CO BI434 •
[phone]
•
•

8-6 Dry Fork Lease-by-Application FE/S •
~ ~
\i