Laserfiche WebLink
l7. !n the table on proposed revised page 2.0~-73, a TD.S vah[e of !-l8 is aced fur the <br />combined flow. However. i[ appears [hat the value should be I61. if you agree, please <br />revise this table. <br />18. The Division is in the process of reviewing the information presented on proposed <br />revised page 3.0~-i3, concerning [he probable hydrologic bnpucts (PHC) of the Bowie <br />No. 2 [1~line on the Nor[h Fork of the Gtmnison River. The Division will ttse this <br />information, as well us other infornurtion, in its review ofthe cumulative hydrologic <br />impact assessment (CHIA) of all of the mining on the North Fork of the Gunnison River. <br />19. On proposed revised page 2.O~t-36, it fs sta[ed that the source of water for the Fire <br />Mountain Canal is the North Fork of the Gunnison. However, field inspection shotivs thn[ <br />overflow water from the Deer Trail Ditch flows into the Fire [Luntain Canctl, at the <br />point where the Terror Creek Loadout extracts its water from the Deer Trail Ditch. also, <br />f eld inspection shows that some surface runoff from areas above the Fire Nlotcntain <br />Canal can enter the canal. If you agree, please revise page 2.0~-36 to reflec! this. <br />20. Since the Fire tLtountain Canal receives overflow water from the Deer Trail Ditch, there <br />is a possibility that the water in the Fire Mountain Canal could be affected by mining <br />operations. The Division believes that there should be upper and lower hydrologic <br />monitoring stations for the Fire Mountain Canal. Please propose two such monitoring <br />station locations, or explain why Bowie does not believe it is necessary to monitor the <br />Fire Mountain Canal water. <br />21. On proposed revised page 2.O.i-1, it is stated that the maximum anticipated production is <br />5 million tons per year (presumably in [he year 2000). However, on proposed revised <br />Map 14, "Mine Plan ", the second year production (presumably the year 2000), is stated <br />as being 2,6=J.i,000 tons. Further, on proposed revised page 4 ofTechnical Revision No. <br />30 for the Bowie No. 1 N1ine, the anticipated tonnage at the Loadout for the year 2000 is <br />stated as being 4 million tons. Please reconcile these differences. <br />22. Because the abandoned mine workings are expected to fll with groundwater, the <br />potential exists for future migration ojmine inflow water to off-site areas down gradient <br />ojthe mined out panels. On page 2.0~-72 and 2.05-74 ojthe revised text, Bowie <br />Resources Limited (BRL) very briefly addresses the potential for off-site migration of <br />grotmdwnler from the abandoned workings. BRL states that the only potential impact <br />the mine will have on groundwater is to intercept it in the underground workings, and the <br />abandoned mine workings would not be expected to [ransmit water ro the surrounding <br />strata. BRL further indicates that there are no data for permeability or transmissiviry of <br />[he saturated portions of the cool bearing member ojthe Mesaverde Formation available <br />within the permit area. <br />Although the saturated portions of the cool bearing member ojthe rL/esnverde Formation <br />6 <br />