2014-09-09_REVISION - C1996083 (3)

Home Browse Search

Susan Burgmaier -5- September 2, 2014 streams. This information will be helpful to the Division and BRL in maintaining compliance with Rule 4.05.18 and the specific requirements set forth by the USFS and BLM. Accordingly, we are asking BRL to update the specified maps to depict the stream buffer zones required by Rule 4.05.18. BRL - Stream buffer zones were added to Map 09. The 15 series maps do not show any drainages that would require stream buffer zones. 28. BRL provided the information, as requested. The proposed monitoring frequency for stations WT -1 through WT -17 is acceptable. It is not clear, however, why BRL has placed stations WT -1 through WT -11 over the entries between Panels 24 and 26 as opposed to placing the stations over the longwall panels where subsidence is likely to occur. Please explain the reasoning behind the proposed location of subsidence monitoring stations WT-1 through WT- 11. BRL - There are no locations where the stream is over the center of the panels on the west side of the mains. WT1 to WT10 are nearly centered in the east west direction between the mains and the bleeder entries. The location of the subsidence monuments were also selected based on areas with the least tree canopy so survey equipment could communicate with satellites. There will be subsidence over the pillar line. 29. Issue resolved; BRL revised page 2.05 -108 as requested. 30. Issue resolved; BRL provided the requested discussion. 31. The Division indicated that weekly flow monitoring on the West Fork of Terror Creek would be required as each panel passes beneath the creek. BRL revised pages 2.05 -126 and 2.05 -169 to indicate that flow conditions on the West Fork of Terror Creek would be monitored with real time data, except that monthly monitoring would replace the real time data in freezing or high flow conditions. The Division agrees that monthly monitoring would suffice during freezing conditions, but believes that during active undermining, flow should be observed at least weekly to ensure that BRL is able to quickly resolve any issues resulting in diminution of quantity to users of water in the creek. Please revise page 2.05 -126 to include a commitment to weekly monitoring, when real time data is not available, of field parameters on the West Fork of Terror Creek as the longwall in Panels 21, 23, 24, 25, and 26 passes beneath the creek. BRL - The commitment requested was added to page 2.05 -126. 32. Issue resolved; however, the text on page 2.05 -127, first paragraph, should be revised to clarify that quarterly monitoring was required until Technical Revision No. 59 was approved. There is conflicting information in the paragraph. BRL - Page 2.05 -127 was revised to clarify quarterly monitoring of the culverts was required until TR -59 was approved.