Laserfiche WebLink
Bowie Resources, LLC <br />Page 2 <br />04/13/2015 <br />2. Figure 88, C- Gulch -lo, includes a flow value of 5 gpm on June 17, 2013. No lab results <br />were presented for that sample date. Please provide lab data for C- Gulch -lo on June <br />17, 2013 or clarify as to why an analysis was not conducted. <br />3. Figures 109 and 110 (Fire Mountain Canal) have carry-over notes from the 2012 AHR <br />that should not have appeared in the 2013 report. Please remove the comments <br />regarding 2012 forgotten samples and flow sutoffs from the 2013 report. <br />4. Data from DH -49 (Figure 141) shows several constituents (chloride, bicarbonate, <br />conductivity, TDS, sulfate and sodium) much higher than baseline conditions. BRL does <br />not mention this trend in their summary of groundwater monitoring. Please provide a <br />discussion of the monitoring results of DH -49 to include a possible explanation of this <br />trend of overall water quality degradation, and whether monitoring results align with <br />the predicted impacts to the hydrologic balance. <br />5. The summary on page 4 of the report states that alluvial well monitoring during the <br />2013 sampling season provides results consistent with baseline infromation provided in <br />the permit application, showing no adverse impact to groundwater intercepting wells <br />AW -16 and AW -17. Based on the data, it would appear that there are several instances <br />where monitoring data indicates degradation over baseline values at wells AW -1, AW- <br />3, AW -5, AW -6, AW -7, AW -11, AW -12, and AW -14. While this degradation is consistent <br />with the predictions of impacts to the hydrologic balance in the approved permit <br />application, the sampling data does show a departure from baseline that should be <br />illustrated as such. Please revise the discussion of the aluvial well monitoring to <br />include a comparison of the 2013 monitoring results to baseline conditions. <br />6. Page 2.05 -127 of the approved permit application package states that the small area <br />exemptions shown on Map 20 will be monitored quarterly, and that BRL will use its best <br />efforts to obtain samples. To date, starting with the 1997 AHR, no samples have been <br />collected at any of the small area exemption sites. Please provide information on the <br />efforts BRL has made to sample these sites, including a discussion of how BRL <br />determines when samples should be obtained. <br />