2015-05-11_REPORT - C1996083

• Permit No: C1996083
• IBM Index Class Name: Report
• Doc Date: 5/11/2015
• From: J.E. Stover & Associates, Inc
• To: DRMS
• Annual Report Year: 2013
• Permit Index Doc Type: Hydrology Report
• Email Name: JDM
• Email Name: DIH
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

J. E. STOVER & ASSOCIATES, INC.
2352 NORTH 7T" STREEET, UNIT B
GRAND JUNCTION, COLORADO 81501
PHONE: [phone], FAX: [phone]
MINE ENGINEERING
MINE RECLAMATION
May 11, 2015
Jason Musick
Division of Reclamation, Mining & Safety
1313 Sherman St., Room 215
Denver, CO 80203
Re: Bowie Resources, LLC, Bowie No. 2 Mine
2013 Annual Hydrology Report Review
Permit C- 1996 -083
Dear Mr. Musick:
CIVIL ENGINEERING
CONST. MANAGEMENT
DRMS' letter dated April 13, 2015 transmitted its 2013 annual hydrology report review. On behalf of
Bowie Resources, LLC, (BRL), following are its responses to the DRMS' comments and concerns.
1. DRMS - Figure No. 81, B Gulch -lo, includes lab data for a Jun 17, 2013 monitoring event, but the
corresponding field data indicates "No Flow ". Please provide clarification on the discrepancy.
BRL - The lab data entered for this point should have been entered for C- Gulch -lo for the same
day. The lab data was removed from Figure No. 81. Revised Figure No. 81 is attached.
2. Figure 88, C- Gulch -Lo, includes a flow value of 5 gpm on June 17, 2013. No lab results were
presented for that sample date. Please provide lab data for C- Gulch -Lo on June 17, 2013 or
clarify as to why an analysis was not conducted.
BRL - The lab data from Figure No. 81 was added to C- Gulch -lo, Figure No. 88. Revised Figure
No. 88 is attached.
3. Figures 109 and 110 (Fire Mountain Canal) have carry -over notes from the 2012 AHR that should
not have appeared in the 2013 report. Please remove the comments regarding 2012 forgotten
samples and flow shutoffs from the 2013 report.
BRL - The comments were removed from the reports. Revised figures 109 and 110 are attached.
4. Data from DH -49 (Figure 141) shows several constituents (chloride, bicarbonate, conductivity,
TDS, sulfate and sodium) much higher than baseline conditions. BRL does not mention this trend
in their summary of groundwater monitoring. Please provide a discussion of the monitoring
results of DH -49 to include a possible explanation of this trend of overall water quality
degradation, and whether monitoring results align with the predicted impacts to the hydrologic
balance.