2010-05-14_REVISION - C1996083 (2)

Home Browse Search

If the Division's correlations are correct, please include the abbreviations within the Stratigraphy text so that the map may be more easily interpreted. 9. Concerning the fault discussion in the first paragraph on revised page 2.04-17 of Section 2.04.6(3)(a), if the central faults are normal faults that dip to the northeast, would not the down side be on the north side of the fault, not the south side? Please explain or revise appropriately. 10. Please update the geology discussion in Section 2.04.6(3)(a) of revised page 2.04-17 to include the discussion of faulting in the new west district that is found on pages 18 and 19 of Section 2.04 of the Bowie No. 1 Mine permit application. 11. Subsection 3 a iu A & B on page 2.04-20 should be modified to include Ma 08A for drill hole logs, etc. 12. The Division understands that the coal seam that was mined at the Bowie No. 1 Mine had been incorrectly labeled as the D-2 coal seam, whereas it actually is the B-2 coal seam. Please revise the discussion in the first paragraph on revised page 2.04-22 of Section 2.04.6(3)(a) accordingly. 13. Because the proposed new mining district is quite a distance west of the current Bowie No. 2 Mine area, please incorporate the Bowie No. 1 Mine acid, toxic and alkalinity forming chemical analyses and discussion in Section 2.04.6 for the B-2 coal seam (designated incorrectly as the D-2 coal seam) and the strata immediately above and below the B-2 coal seam into the Bowie No. 2 Mine permit application in Section 2.04.6(3). Section 2.04.7 Hydrology Description 14. Please update the Method of Study history discussion that starts on revised page 2.04-28 of Section 2.04.7 to include the corresponding information found in Section 2.04.7 of the Bowie No. 1 permit application. 15. The baseline water monitoring data presented in PR-12 do not correspond with the baseline data currently in the approved permit applications for the Bowie No. 1 Mine and the Bowie No. 2 Mine. First, the data are presented as summaries, rather than as individual monitoring results. The Division had requested summaries of baseline data for the annual hydrology reports to aid in the adequacy review of the reports. The baseline data in the permit applications should be the original monitoring data. Even as summaries, however, the PR-12 baseline data appear to be summaries of monitoring results from the beginning of monitoring up to 2009, whereas the currently approved baseline data ends at some activation date, as shown in the annual hydrology review data sheets. Since the baseline water monitoring data for the currently approved permit area is already in Exhibit 3 of Volume III, BRL only needs to transfer the relevant baseline data from the Bowie No. 1 permit application over to the Bowie No. 2 permit application. 16. On revised page 2.04-32 BRL describes one down gradient monitoring well for the western mining district located in the Terror Creek drainage (TC-03-03) and that they propose to install an additional down gradient monitoring well (2010-1) during 2010. Existing well TC-03-03 monitors the sandstone above the B-Upper Seam. BRL has not identified what the completion zone will be for the 2010-1 well. Please add to page 2.04-32 a brief discussion of what zones will be monitored with each of these