REV91728 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

BRL conducted baseline geotechnical investigations on the Bruce Park Dam and environs in 2000 and 2001. Further, BRL commissioned amining-induced seismicity study for the Bruce Park dam that was submitted to the Division and the GMUG in 2002. The GMUG acknowledges BRLs efforts to fulfill stipulation (J)(B) by conducting these studies, however the following questions remain: 1) In the seismicity study, assumptions for calculating peak particle velocity were based on a distance of 0.75 km (just less than 0.5 miles) between mining and the dam. BRLs PR-10 proposal projects the extent of subsidence associated with panel B13 to extend to about 1,490 feet (0.28 miles) of the dam. We request BRL provide additional information on the distance between the closest panel margins and the dam, and clarify if the seismicity report distance of 0.75 km was related to the edge of expected subsidence or to actual panel location. We would also clarification on whether there would be cumulative weakening effects on the dam from a series of low magnitude events in the area (see item 2 below). 2) The GMUG acknowledges BRLs efforts to install the seismic monitoring system as required in this stipulation. However, the PR-10 package does not Include results of this monitoring. We request that BRL provide the data available to date so that potential risk to the dam can be evaluated based on actual data and expected magnitude of mining- induced seismic events and frequency pertinent to the local area. 3) It is unclear if the geotechnical and seismicity studies and seismic monitoring system had been developed in cooperation with the State Engineer's O~ce as required in the stipulation. We request that BRL provide information on whether this has been fulfilled. Pertaining to federal coal lease stipulation (f)(C), we need to point out that the Bruce Park dam and reservoir are facilities under special use permit with the Forest Service, and hence are subject toprotections of the stipulation. We would like to review and discuss any contingency and mitigation plans. The GMUG is also dealing with similar issues elsewhere on the forest. Further, we have heard from the special use permittee that they have specific concerns related to this PR, therefore we will need the opportunity to discuss the concerns with the special use permittee, BRL, the State Engineer's Office and the Division. We have also identified the following comments in the revised text pages: Page 2.04-32, discussion on Dove Gulch. The GMUG disagrees that Dove Gulch is an ephemeral drainage, based on our specialists knowledge of the area, this drainage is best described as intermittent. We request this change be made in BRLs permit. Page 2.05-104, Section (b)(i)(A): The pre-mining land use for the national forest system lands in BRLs permit are described in the GMUG Land and Resource Management Plan as managed for `wildlife habitat management for one or more Forest Service management indicator species (MIS). Semi-primitive -non motorized, semi-primitive motorized, and roaded natural recreation opportunities aze provided. Livestock grazing and vegetation treatments are allowable.' We appreciate this change being made to BRLs permit.