My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2019-04-03_REVISION - C1981038 (5)
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Revision
>
Coal
>
C1981038
>
2019-04-03_REVISION - C1981038 (5)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/8/2019 6:53:56 AM
Creation date
4/4/2019 12:22:19 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981038
IBM Index Class Name
Revision
Doc Date
4/3/2019
Doc Name
Adequacy Review Response #3
From
DRMS
To
Bowie Resources, LLC
Type & Sequence
TR64
Email Name
JHB
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.
/
4
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
<br /> <br />1313 Sherman Street, Room 215, Denver, CO 80203 P 303.866.3567 F 303.832.8106 http://mining.state.co.us <br />Jared S. Polis , Governor | Dan Gibbs , Executive Director | Virginia Brannon, Director <br />1313 Sherman Street, Room 215 <br />Denver, CO 80203 <br /> <br /> Basil . Bear <br />Bowie Resources, LLC <br />P.O. Box 483 <br />Paonia, CO 81428 <br /> <br />April 3, 2019 <br /> <br />Re: Bowie No. 1 Mine, Permit No. C1981038, TR64 Adequacy concerns No. 3 <br /> <br />Dear Mr. Bear: <br /> <br />The Division has reviewed Bowie Resources, LLC (BRL) responses to the Division’s second <br />adequacy letter, dated December 6, 2018. BRL’s responses were received on March 19, 2019. <br /> <br />Three adequacy concerns were identified in the Division’s December 6, 2018, adequacy letter. <br />The adequacy concerns are repeated here in italics, with the Division’s review of BRL’s <br />response. <br /> <br />1. The Division understands that Bowie Resources has reconsidered the East Roatcap <br />Creek channel reconstruction and is no longer planni ng to armor the channel with <br />riprap. However, we still require that reconstructed channels be designed, per Rule <br />4.05.4, which applies to both channel diversions and stream channel reconstruction. (We <br />regret that this was not clearer in our preliminary ad equacy review, but we were <br />addressing the plan for a riprapped channel.) Please provide SEDCAD modeling results <br />and a design drawing. Alternatively, Bowie Resources may provide another type of <br />analysis to show that the reconstructed channel will likely r emain stable during large <br />runoff events. For example, calculations could be done with a simpler model or models <br />than SEDCAD. The Division is available to discuss the details of a proposed alternative <br />analysis. <br /> <br />It appears that some of the materials provided in the response are applicable to riprap <br />channels but not to the type of channel that is planned for East Roatcap Creek. These <br />include the nomograph, Figure II-C-1, and the spreadsheet calculation for riprap size. <br />Please explain how these are applicable, or do not include as part of any documentation <br />for this creek. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.