Laserfiche WebLink
The issues ofground waterpoints ofcompliance underRule 4.05.13(1) and down gradientground water <br />baseline monitoring under Rule 2.04.7(1) will be dealt with in PR-10. However, the plan that is <br />approved in PR-10 will need to be applicable to the mine plan proposed in PR-11 as well. <br />The Division has no further concerns. The issues of ground water points of compliance and down <br />gradient ground water baseline monitoring that were resolved in PR-10 are also applicable in PR-11. In <br />PR-10, BRL was able to demonstrate that water quality in the B-seam and aquifers above the B-seam <br />does not change significantly from south to north. Also, the Rollins Sandstone that lies below the B-seam <br />does not need to be monitored since that aquifer would not likely be impacted by mining. <br />4. Rule 2.04.7(3) requires alternate water supply information if contamination, diminution or <br />interruption of a surface water source may result from the effects of mining. This issue will be <br />dealt with in PR-10. <br />The Division has no further concerns. This issue was resolved in PR-10. As explained in Section <br />2.05.6(6), a copy of which was provided in the PR-11 submittal dated November 25, 2008, an <br />alternate water supply plan is not needed for the Bruce Park Dam and saddle dam since the mine <br />plan is designed to prevent material damage. However, an alternate water supply plan is needed for <br />the case involving the Bruce Park landslide. The alternate water supply information is contained <br />on revised page 2.04-37 of PR-10. <br />Rule 2.05 <br />5. The Division has reviewed the mine plan change first proposed in PR-10 and, then, revised <br />further in PR-11. The change in panel orientation between PR-10 and PR-11 will result in a <br />different manifestation ofsubsidence impacts. However, the application materials adequately <br />address these impacts and the orientation does not significantly change any of the predictions or <br />result in new concerns regarding impacts or mitigation. The Division does not have any new <br />issues as a result of PR-11 with regard to subsidence and surface impacts associated with <br />subsidence that have not already been presented within PR-10. <br />No response was needed since the Division had concluded that subsidence and surface impact <br />predictions would not change with the change in mine plan from PR-10 to PR-11. <br />6. Please update the Probable Hydrologic Consequences section 2.05.6(3) of the permit application <br />to include a discussion of the hydrologic impacts of the operations proposed in PR-11. <br />BRL stated that the PHC is being updated in Technical Revision No. 57 and that the updates <br />should be applicable to PR-11 as well. However, TR-57 may not be approved before the proposed <br />decision for PR-11 is made. Please provide an updated PHC for PR-11 that is specific to the issues <br />in PR-11. <br />7. In the review of PR-10, the Division requested that BRL develop a mine water inflow monitoring <br />program, per Rule 2.05.6(3)(b)(iv), since the PR-10 mine plan proposed limited extraction <br />beneath a portion of Hubbard Creek. However, in PR-11, no such limited extraction beneath <br />Hubbard Creek is proposed. Therefore, no mine water inflow monitoring program is needed. <br />2