2009-01-26_REPORT - C1981033

• Permit No: C1981033
• IBM Index Class Name: REPORT
• Doc Date: 1/26/2009
• Doc Name: 2008 AHR Review Letter
• From: DRMS
• To: Bear Coal Company
• Annual Report Year: 2008
• Permit Index Doc Type: Hydrology Report
• 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]
January 26, 2009
COLORADO
D I V I S 10 N O F
RECLAMATION
MINING
SAFETY
Mr. Daniel E. Bear Bill Ritter, Jr.
Bear Coal Company Governor
P.O. Box 1754 Harris D. Sherman
Paonia, Colorado 81428 Executive Director
Ronald W. Cattany
Permit No. C-81-033, Bear Coal Company
RE: Bear No. 3 Mine Division Director
, Natural Resource Trustee
2008 Annual Hydrology Report, Adequacy Review
Dear Mr. Bear:
The Colorado Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety (Division) has finished its adequacy review of
the Bear No. 3 Mine 2008 Annual Hydrology Report (AHR) submitted by the Bear Coal Company (BCC).
The Division has two requests. Please provide revised AHR pages that list the method of analysis (total,
total dissolved, total recoverable etc.) for each of the chemical constituents sampled in the report. Also, it
appears that the laboratory analysis for the North Fork of the Gunnison River for August 11, 2008, found
on page 4, is actually the August 2007 analysis from the 2007 AHR. Please provide the correct page 4.
All of the required sampling parameters and frequency of sampling were followed. The hydrologic
sampling results that are presented in the 2008 AHR are generally consistent with results submitted in
earlier AHRs. The concentration of cadmium in the North Fork of the Gunnison River was lower than the
apparently anomalous reading from the 2007 AHR. However, future AHR results may reveal if a trend
ultimately exists. The probable hydrologic consequences prediction of the effect of the mine on river water
total dissolved solids was very close to the observed sampling results.
The difference in conductivity in the upgradient alluvial well AA-3, when compared to that in the
downgradient AA-1, was similar as in previous years. Increases in most of the concentrations of chemical
constituents for the full suite analyses also were evident at AA-1, since AA-1 is located at the former coal
stockpile area and is on the downgradient end of the mine. The pond discharge data continue to show that
iron in the hillside spring water was being successively treated by the hillside spring water treatment pond,
although the total dissolved solids increased.
If you have any questions, please let me know.
Sincerely,
Jos J. wash
Environme'ital Protection Specialist
cc: Jim Stover (J.E. Stover & Associates)
Bill Bear (Bowie Resources LLC)
c:\word\bear3\2008ahradeq 1
Office of Office of
Mined Land Reclamation Denver • Grand Junction • Durango Active and Inactive Mines