Laserfiche WebLink
46. In the last two paragraphs on revised page 2.05-118 and in the first two paragraphs on revised page <br />2.05-119, the monitoring schedules state that a full suite sample will be taken quarterly and a full suite <br />sample from list I will be taken semi-annually. Please clarify. <br />This issue is resolved. Pages 2.05-118 and 2.05-119 were revised in the June 1, 2010 submittal to <br />reflect the correct monitoring schedule. <br />47. Please explain why BRL is proposing to terminate hydrologic monitoring of well TC-03-01(R), as <br />shown on revised pages 2.05-117 and 2.05-124. <br />This issue is resolved. BRL explained that the well monitored the Rollins and that aquifer is isolated <br />from the effects of mining. <br />48. Please explain why the text concerning hydrologic monitoring for culverts C-1 through C-4 is being <br />deleted on revised pages 2.05-119 and 2.05-124. These four culvert locations still appear on Map 9. <br />This issue is resolved. Culverts C1 through C-4 will continue to be monitored, as shown on revised <br />pages 2.05-119 and 2.05-124 of the June 1, 2010 submittal. <br />49. As shown on the list of water monitoring stations starting on revised page 2.05-120, BRL is proposing <br />to terminate hydrologic monitoring at certain ponds and springs which have decreed water rights or <br />are of high value and that are managed by the USDA-Forest Service. Do any of the federal coal leases <br />require BRL to perform hydrologic monitoring of any of these sites, regardless of whether or not the <br />sites are undermined? <br />This issue is resolved. In their June 1, 2010 submittal, BRL stated that the decreed water rights only <br />need to be monitored if they could potentially be impacted by mining. <br />50. There are several designations for ponds and springs shown on Map 9 which are not on the list of <br />water monitoring sites starting on revised page 2.05-120. The sites located west of Steven's Gulch are <br />ponds 11-8, 12-5 and 12-7, spring 1-8 and pond/spring 28, 29 and 1-10. In addition, there are springs <br />5-2 and 6-7 along the West Fork of Terror Creek. Should these sites be removed from Map 9 or were <br />they inadvertently left off of the list of monitoring sites? <br />This issue is resolved. The referenced ponds and springs are meant to be inactive since they are out of the <br />influence of the proposed mining. Map 9 was revised in the June 1, 2010 submittal. <br />51. A major concern in reviewing the proposed western mine plan area with regard to potential groundwater <br />impacts is that none of the monitoring wells associated with, the Bowie No. I mine plan area have been <br />incorporated into the Hydrologic Monitoring Plan for the new expanded Bowie No. 2 permit area as <br />described on page 2.05-117. The proposed plan includes monitoring wells located at the Terror Creek <br />mains and one proposed well down gradient from a portion of the proposed new disturbance. There are <br />essentially no wells included in the hydrologic monitoring plan that would be either directly up gradient <br />or down gradient from the new disturbance associated with the western mine plan proposal. There <br />appears to be numerous inactive wells from the Bowie No. 1 permit area that would be suitable <br />monitoring wells for the new western mine plan area. In addition, several surface water and groundwater <br />monitoring sites are listed in Tables 1, 3 and 4B in Volume 4 of the Bowie No. I Mine permit application <br />along with the footnote that monitoring would be reactivated if mining occurred in the eastpart of the <br />Bowie No. I Mine. Please address this and modem the Hydrologic Monitoring Plan accordingly. <br />10