APPCOR11982

• Permit No: C1996083
• IBM Index Class Name: Application Correspondence
• Doc Date: 6/21/1996
• Doc Name: BOWIE RESOURSES LTD BOWIE 2 MINE PN C-96-083
• From: JE STOVER & ASSOCIATES
• To: DMG
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

David Berry -15- June 20, 1996
permit area because they are well outside of the projected
angle of draw of the mine workings." The preceding statement
was added to the enclosed revised page 2.04-36. Because of
this revision pages 2.04-36 - 40i were revised and are
enclosed.
62. The DMG states that rules 2.04.7(2)(a) and (b) require surface
water quantity data for streams in the permit area and
adjacent area. The DMG requests flow data for Terror Creek.
Over one year ago, on April 7, 1995, BRL representatives met
with the DMG to solicit the DMG's guidance regarding the
baseline water monitoring program for the proposed permit and
adjacent areas. The DMG approved a water monitoring program
that did not include monitoring either Hubbard Creek or Terror
Creek. Please refer to a letter dated April 11, 1995, from J.
E. Stover b Associates to the DMG, which documents the subject
meeting.
63. The DMG states that rules 2.04.7(2)(a) and (b) requires
specific water quality data for those streams receiving
discharges from affected areas within the permit areas. The
DMG requests surface water quality data for both Hubbard Creek
and Terror Creek. For a response see item 62 above.
63a. The DMG asks how BRL will prevent coal deposition on otherwise
undisturbed ground beneath all conveyors. The only conveyor
which traverses over undisturbed ground is the lower 750 feet
of the downhill conveyor. This section of conveyor will be
constructed in a tube or a pan will be installed under the
conveyor truss to catch dribble. The detail design of this
aspect of the conveyor has not been completed. However,
addressing coal deposition is one of the detail design
parameters.
64. The DMG asked BRL to review the topsoil salvage plan and
determine if it follows the recommended salvage plan in the
soils report and in section 2.04.9. Page 2.05-33 was revised
to indicate that only the A and B horizon would be salvaged.
Enclosed is revised page 2.05-33. The gob pile design
presented in Volume IV does not indicate a deficiency in cover
material. Therefore, the DMG's comment regarding the soils C-
Horizon being suitable for use as cover material on the refuse
pile is moot.
65. BRL did not discuss the gob pile topsoil stockpile on page
2.05-33. A discussion of this stockpile has been added to
this section. Enclosed are revised pages 2.05-33 & 34.
66. The full extent of the coverfill stockpile is not shown on Map
15-1. Please refer to Volume IV, Map 95266-01 b 02 to see the
complete extent of the stockpile.