2014-03-06_REVISION - C1996083 ‎(3)‎

• Permit No: C1996083
• IBM Index Class Name: Revision
• Doc Date: 3/6/2014
• Doc Name: 2nd Adequacy Review
• From: DRMS
• To: Bowie Resources, LLC
• Type & Sequence: TR84
• Email Name: SLB
• Email Name: SB1
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

Bowie No. 2 Mine C1996083 Technical Revision No. 84- Second Adequacy Review
20. Response accepted. BRL revised paragraph 2 of page 9 of Volume XI as suggested.
21. This item will be addressed under Technical Revision No. 77.
Page 3 of 15
22. Response accepted. BRL provided appropriate designs for alternate sediment control measures on the
topsoil stockpiles.
23. Response accepted. BRL revised page App. B -2, and the design information as requested.
24. BRL revised the table on page Volume XI, App. B -2 as requested, however we have identified a few minor
omissions in the table that should be corrected. Please revise the table as follows:
a. Please provide the bottom with for Ditch J9 (3.0').
b. Please note the 9" rip rap on ditches J18 and J19.
There are a couple of inconsistencies between page Volume XI, App. B -2 and other pages or maps. Please
correct the following:
a. The table on App. B -2 indicates that the 6% section of the east clean water diversion is a V- Ditch. The
design information on page B -67 is for a trapezoidal ditch with a bottom width of 0.0'. Please provide a
revised design on page a -67 using the triangular ditch utility so that the ditch type in the heading is
consistent with the table.
b. For Culvert J2, the App. B -2 table and the design on page B -30 both indicate that the culvert will be a 24"
diameter pipe. Map 22J indicates that the minimum size will be 30 ". Please revise Map 22J to indicate
that the minimum size required is 24 ". BRL can retain the 30" proposed pipe by adding a note that a 30"
pipe will be installed.
25. Response accepted. BRL provided supporting calculations for the 24" double barrel configuration proposed
for Culvert J9 as requested.
26. Response accepted. BRL revised page App. B -7 as requested.
27. Response accepted. BRL revised the design information as requested.
28. Response accepted. BRL revised the design information as requested.
29. Response accepted. BRL revised the design information as requested.
30. BRL provided the design information as requested. The previously submitted East Clean Water Diversion
designs included an add -on table to indicate how the flow value was derived for each segment of the ditch.
The table identified the source and flow of all areas contributing to the ditch. Please revise pages 8 -67, 8 -72,
and a -73 to retain the previously proposed flow derivation information that explained the total flow value
used for each of the East Clean Water Diversion segment designs.
a. New Item — The flow value used for the 1% segment of the East Clean Water ditch appears to be in error.
The Sedcad run on page B -74 indicates that the flow for the watersheds draining directly to the ditch will
CIRCES Cost Estimating Soffi are