My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2018-01-12_REPORT - C1996083
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Report
>
Coal
>
C1996083
>
2018-01-12_REPORT - C1996083
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/16/2018 1:42:41 PM
Creation date
1/16/2018 12:28:41 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1996083
IBM Index Class Name
Report
Doc Date
1/12/2018
Doc Name
Annual Hydrology Report Adequacy Review Response
From
J.E. Stover & Associates, Inc
To
DRMS
Permit Index Doc Type
Hydrology Report
Email Name
CCW
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
2
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
J. E. STOVER & ASSOCIATES, INC. <br />2352 NORTH 7TH STREET, UNIT B <br />GRAND JUNCTION, COLORADO 81501 <br />PHONE: (970) 245-4101, FAX: (970) 242-7908 <br />MINE ENGINEERING CIVIL ENGINEERING <br />MINE RECLAMATION CONST. MANAGEMENT <br />January 3, 2018 <br />Clayton Wein <br />Division of Reclamation, Mining & Safety <br />1313 Sherman St., Room 215 <br />Denver, CO 80203 RECEIVED <br />Re: Bowie Resources, LLC, Bowie No. 2 Mine JAN 1 2018 <br />Annual Hydrology Report <br />Adequacy Response #1 Division of &essafety <br />on, <br />i <br />Mining <br />Dear Mr. Wein: <br />DRMS' letter dated November 8, 2017 transmitted its adequacy review for the referenced <br />adequacy response. On behalf of Bowie Resources LLC, following are its responses to the DRMS' <br />comment and concerns. <br />1. DRMS: Rule 4.05.13(4) -The Division requires that the AHR include a written <br />interpretation of the data and analytical results to be tabulated on a site by <br />site basis. Please include in the 2017 AHR, the Maximum allowable Colorado <br />Water Quality and Control Commission (CWQCC) standards for all surface <br />and groundwater monitoring locations. The information can be included <br />on the monitoring location spreadsheets, next to the baseline data. This <br />will help illustrate the written narrative in the report detailing whether or <br />not mining related impacts have occurred. <br />BRL: We do not agree that this comparison is required. What is the point of <br />obtaining a years' worth of baseline data if the benchmark for comparison is <br />the State Water Quality Standard? <br />2. DRMS: During the review of the 2016 AHR it was observed that several monitoring <br />locations had recorded flows with no corresponding laboratory data. Please explain in <br />detail the reasoning for laboratory data not being conducted or included in the <br />2016AHR. Chart provided by DRMS and shown below; <br />Monitoring Point <br />Mising lab Data <br />Missing or Incorrect month <br />D34-14 <br />FMC -Low <br />No 2nd Quarter <br />�,, ,•.rw,,, ., .„y <br />No May or July Monitoring <br />FMC -Up <br />is No May Monitoring <br />Free -Up <br />DH-67blw <br />AW -8 <br />No 2nd Quarter <br />lNo 2nd &4th Quarters <br />INo 2nd Quarter <br />AW -9 <br />lNo 4th Quarter <br />” ` <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.