2008-10-02_REVISION - C1996083 ‎(3)‎

• Permit No: C1996083
• IBM Index Class Name: Revision
• Doc Date: 10/2/2008
• Doc Name: 8th Adequacy Review
• From: DRMS
• To: Bowie Resources, LLC
• Type & Sequence: PR10
• Email Name: JJD
• 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
Phone: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
October 2, 2008
Mr. William A. Bear
COLORADO
D IV IS I ON OF
RECLAMATION
MINING
SAFETY
Bill Ritter, Jr.
Bowie Resources LLC Governor
P.O. Box 483 Harris D. Sherman
Paonia, Colorado 81428 Executive Director
Ronald W. Cattany
RE: Bowie No. 2 Mine, Permit No. C-1996-083, Bowie Resources LLC Division Director
Permit Revision No. 10, Expand B-Seam Mine Plan to the North, Eighth Adequacy Revie&ral Resource Trustee
Dear Mr. Bear:
The Colorado Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety (Division) has finished its review of the Bowie
Resources' submittal dated September 26, 2008, which was a response to item number two of the
Division's adequacy review letter dated September 22, 2008. The following are the Division's comments:
2A. BRL did a good job with the revised text explaining the difficulties in drilling a deep down
gradient well. However, the Division has two significant concerns with the adequacy of the
response as follows:
In the Division's letter to BRL, it is clearly stated that both the Upper and Lower Perched
Water Zones be shown in cross-section. BRL only provided a cross-section for the Lower
Perched Aquifer. The reason the Division asked for both is because the rule requires it. Rule
2.04.7(1)(a)(i) states that "...each aquifer above, within and,..." Each aquifer above the coal
seam could be impacted by subsidence etc... Since BRL has identified the Upper Perched
Water Zone and it overlies the area to be mined, it should be shown in Cross-Section as well.
2. BRL showed a cross section/fence diagram for the Lower Perched Water Zone which is
acceptable. BRL also updated Map 11, which shows Piezometric Single Point Elevations from
which the cross-section was extrapolated. If one compares the approved Map 11 (from TR-47)
with the revised Map 1 I (proposed) the data has changed. The single point elevations don't
match the previously approved map, and there are significant differences. Please explain.
If you have any questions, please call me.
Sincerely,
I
J seph J. D L
ash
11
nvironmental Protection Specialist
cc: Jim Stover P.E. (J.E. Stover & Associates)
c:\word\bowie2\pr l Oadeq 8
Office of
Office of
Mined Land Reclamation Denver • Grand Junction • Durango Active and Inactive Mines