Laserfiche WebLink
David Berry -22- June 20, 1996 <br />permit requirements. The DMG would like BRL to commit to <br />performing an annual full suite water quality analysis for <br />each pond's discharge. BRL will not commit to performing the <br />annual full suite water quality analysis. <br />86. The hydrologic monitoring plan is presented on page 2.05-72. <br />The DMG asks why there are no surface water monitoring <br />stations on either Hubbard Creek or Terror Creek. Over one <br />year ago, on April 7, 1995, BRL representatives met with the <br />DMG to solicit the DMG's guidance regarding the baseline water <br />monitoring program for the proposed permit and adjacent areas. <br />The DMG approved a water monitoring program that did not <br />include monitoring either Hubbard Creek or Terror Creek. <br />Please refer to a letter dated April 11, 1995, from J. E. <br />Stover & Associates to the DMG, which documents the subject <br />meeting. Hubbard Creek is located immediately east and <br />northeast of the Permit Area. Terror Creek is located west of <br />the proposed permit area. Neither of these perennial streams <br />are considered to be adjacent to the permit area because they <br />are well outside of the projected angle of draw of the mine <br />workings. Further, runoff from the proposed disturbed area <br />does not flow into to either Hubbard Creek or Terror Creek. <br />87. The DMG notes it would be appropriate to visually inspect <br />known historic and modern landslides, during the periods <br />immediately following retreat extraction in their immediate <br />proximity. Revised page 2.05-91 is enclosed which makes the <br />requested commitment. <br />88. Revised page 2.05-89 is enclosed. The page was revised to <br />clarify the proposed method to prevent near subcrop subsidence <br />impacts, including chimney collapse and cantilever failure. <br />89. Revised page 2.05-91 is enclosed. The page was revised to <br />expand the visual inspection requirement of the permit area to <br />include an evaluation of each rejuvenated or new landslide to <br />determine what the apparent cause of the modern movement might <br />be. Pages 2.05-89 through 93 were revised in this section and <br />are enclosed. <br />90. As requested, enclosed is a copy of the T. Brooks 1983 report. <br />1.2 MINING SCHEDULE AND RATE OF SUBSIDENCE <br />Paragraph 1: The DMG notes it is important to anticipate the <br />possible subsidence implications of faults within <br />the mine plan area. <br />BRL postulates that the initial rate of subsidence <br />could be accelerated by the effect of a fault in <br />the mine. Anew section 1.8 is added to exhibit 15 <br />to address this issue. <br />