REP48689

• Permit No: C1996083
• IBM Index Class Name: Report
• Doc Date: 2/20/2007
• Doc Name: 2005 AHR Review Letter
• From: DRMS
• To: Bowie Resources, LLC
• Annual Report Year: 2005
• Permit Index Doc Type: Hydrology Report
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

STATE OF COLORADO
DIVISION OF RECLAMATION, MINING AND SAFETY
Department of Natural Resources
1313 Sherman St., Room 215
Denver, Colorado 80203 C O L D RA D O
DIVISION O F
Phone: [phone] RECLAMATION
FAX: [phone] M I N I N G
St-
SAFETY
February 20, 2007
Bill Owens
Mr. William A. Bear cOVef°°r
Bowie Resources LLC Russell George
Ezecutive Director
P
Box 483
O
.
. Ronald W. Cattany
Paonia, Colorado 81428 Division Director
Natural Resource Trustee
RE: Bowie No. 2 Mine, Permit No. C-96-083, Bowie Resources LLC
2005 Annual Report, Adequacy Review
Dear Mr. Beaz:
The Colorado Division of Minerals and Geology (Division) has finished its review of the Bowie
Resources LLC (BRL) submittal of the 2005 Annual Report and has the following comments and
questions.
2005 Annual HydroloQV Re 3~ort (AHR)
In general, the 2005 annual hydrology report was well organized. The Division finds it is very
helpful to have the history of the monitoring process in the report. The frequency and timing of
sampling required by the hydrology monitoring program, with only very minor exceptions, was
followed. Even though there was a steady increase in the annual precipitation from the drought
conditions over the last three yeazs, a fair number of sites were dry or did not have enough flow
to initiate full suite sampling.
The Division is in agreement with BRL's conclusion that mining at the Bowie No. 2 Mine has
not adversely impacted the hydrologic regime of the area. The Division has the following
questions:
The footnote on Figure 32 for the Terror Creek spring 18 states that the point has not been
influenced by mining. However, examination of Map 9, Hydrologic Monitoring Location
Map, shows that mining has occurred under spring 18. Also, the report figures for the
other springs in the immediate area, springs 5-16, S-4 and S-4A, have footnotes that state
they have been influenced by mining. Please explain why the 2005 hydrologic monitoring
of spring 5-18 should not be operational, rather than baseline.
2. Chlorine is included in the surface water list 2 on page T2-1 of the 2005 AHR. However,
chlorine was not sampled, nor is it mentioned in the surface water list 2 on page 2.05-85
of the permit application. Please revise list 2 in future AHRs to exclude sampling for
chlorine.
Office of Office of
Mined Land Reclamation Active and InaRive Mines