Laserfiche WebLink
f <br />28. Since the Hughes cabin is mentioned in Section 2.05.6(6)(a)(ii)(A) on revised permit page 2.05- <br />103, please include a discussion of the cabin in Section 2.05.6(6)(b)(i)(C) and describe any <br />potential effects, if any, on it from subsidence. <br />The Division has no further concerns. A discussion was added to page 2.05-107 of the December <br />28, 2006 submittal. <br />29. In PR-10, BRL is proposing to longwall undermine Dove Gulch and Dove Cave. The Division's <br />regulations do not necessarily prohibit these actions, although certain protection or mitigation <br />measures may be needed. However, the stipulations on Federal Coal Lease COC 61209 may <br />prohibit such actions. If the USDA-Forest Service does not approve the proposed actions, then <br />BRL does not have the right to enter and longwall undermine those two areas. In this case, the <br />Division would not be able to approve PR-10 as written. The Division will need documentation <br />that the USDA-Forest Service approves of these changes. <br />The Division has no further concerns. In a letter to the Division dated February 22, 2007, the <br />Forest Service approved with conditions the undermining of Dove Gulch and Dove Cave. In that <br />same letter, the Forest Service requested additional text changes. BRL responded in their May 7, <br />2007 submittal with the requested text changes. The Division sent BRL's May 7, 2007 letter to the <br />Forest Service in a letter dated July 27, 2007. The Division sent a letter dated April 14, 2008 to the <br />Forest Service, requesting an update on the resolution of the Forest Service issues. In a response <br />dated April 18, 2008, the Forest Service stated that BRL's responses to their concerns are adequate <br />and that, provided the PR-10 application is not further modified, they concur with the approval of <br />PR-10. A copy of the USDA-Forest Service letter is attached. <br />30. On revised page 2.05-110, the last sentence reads in part "...subsidence does affect... ". This <br />should be revised to state "subsidence does not affect... ". <br />The Division has no further concerns. The sentence in question was moved to page 2.05-111 and <br />this page was revised in the December 28, 2006 submittal. <br />Agency Responses <br />31. In Technical Revision No. 22 (TR-22), BRL proposed to incorporate a geotechnical data report <br />and a seismic monitoring plan into the Bowie No. 2 permit application. Because of outstanding <br />adequacy issues, TR-22 was withdrawn on August 18, 2003. However, two unresolved issues from <br />TR-22 are still relevant to the adequacy review for PR-10. <br />A. In TR-22, the Division requested that a demonstration be made that the modified <br />earthquake-generated seismic signal used in the Bruce Park dam seismic analysis <br />reasonably approximates a seismic signal generated from longwall mining at the Bowie <br />No. 2 Mine. Please provide such a demonstration. <br />The Division has no further concerns. In the May 12, 2008 submittal, BRL added an <br />appropriate discussion to Exhibit 18. <br />B. In the TR-22 review, the Division received a letter from the Colorado Division of Water <br />9