Laserfiche WebLink
<br />6 <br /> <br />Please note that additional discharge of manganese into the North Fork would <br />likely violate existing state water quality classifications for that river. <br />Manganese levels in mine water discharges that have been observed at the <br />Sanborn Creek Mine are probably similar to levels that could be expected in any <br />Bowie No. 2 Mine discharge. Both mines are operating in similar geologic strata. <br />Mine discharges at the Sanborn Creek Mine typically have dissolved manganese <br />contents of less than 0.01 mg/L. The receiving stream standard for the segment <br />of the North Fork receiving discharges from both of these mines is 0.05 mg/I of <br />dissolved manganese. Consequently, the DMG does not anticipate any impact <br />on water uses due to contributions of manganese from Bowie No. 2 Mine water <br />discharges. Potential impacts related to manganese in coal stockpile leachate <br />are discussed in BRL's most recent technical adequacy responses. The DMG <br />agrees with BRL's assessment that there will be no significant impacts as a result <br />of leachate from the proposed coal stockpile. <br />In summary, the DMG believes that the PR-03 submittal presented by BRL is in <br />compliance with the requirements of the coal mining regulations regarding <br />probable hydrologic consequences, with the exception of (WHATEVER <br />QUESTIONS JOE STILL HAS) items 6, 7 in the DMG's September 24, 1999 <br />adequacy letter to BRL. The company's responses to those questions are still <br />being reviewed. <br />In addition to WSERC's comments about PR-03, page 2 of your October 3, 1999 <br />letter included a, "notice of intent to challenge, appeal, contest, sue in court or <br />take any other means necessary to protect our community's safety and quality of <br />life". The notice is apparently based on WSERC's belief that the DMG is wrong <br />in its assertion that DMG has no jurisdiction over local transportation issues that <br />may be affected by coal haulage trucks. Although the intended effect of he <br />notice is unclear, the Division believes that such notice is premature because the <br />Division has not yet issued its proposed decision concerning the permit revision. <br />In any event, we have forwarded your letter to our attorney in the Attorney <br />General's office. <br />