2013-08-26_REPORT - C1996083

• Permit No: C1996083
• IBM Index Class Name: Report
• Doc Date: 8/26/2013
• Doc Name: Gob Pile 3 Certification Adequacy Review
• From: DRMS
• To: Bowie Resources, LLC
• Permit Index Doc Type: Roads
• Email Name: BFB
• Email Name: SB1
• Email Name: MLT
• 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]
August 26, 2013
William A. Bear
Bowie Resources, LLC
P.O. Box 483
Paonia, CO 81428
Re: Bowie No. 2 Mine (Permit No. C- 1996 -083)
Gob Pile #3 Haul Road Certification
Adequacy Review
Dear Mr. Bear:
COLORADO
ID IV I S I O N O F
RECLAMATION
MINING
SAFETY
John W. Hickenlooper
Governor
Mike King
Executive Director
Loretta E. Pineda
Director
The Division has completed a preliminary adequacy review of the certification report submitted by
Bowie Resources, LLC (BRL) for the Gob Pile #3 haul road at the Bowie No. 2 Mine. We have the
following comments and questions regarding the report.
1. In the first paragraph, the stationing of the road is given as 0 +00, which it is on the Plan and
Profile provided. However, this stationing differs from what was used on Map 16, the approved
design. Please insert a note of clarification for the reviewer following 0 +00, such as "this
equates to Station 4+ on Map 16 ".
2. The third paragraph addresses compaction of the subgrade materials and the road base. The
Buckhorn test sheets represent different levels of compaction and different test methods than
what is shown in the certification. The certification should be revised to show the following:
For Subgrade (native soil), the test method is ASTM D 698, ASTM D4718 Method A, and
compaction was required to be > 95 %.
For Class 6 Road Base, the test method is ASTM D1557 Method C, and compaction was
required to be > 95 %.
3. The fourth paragraph addressed compaction of the asphalt pavement. Please modify the text
to read "...achieved the required 92% to 96% of the theoretical maximum density attained in
laboratory tests in accordance with Colorado Procedure 51 (CP -51)."
4. The sixth paragraph states that fill was not required to the south of the canal bridge, and that
this section or road received -6" of road base. In this situation, common practice would be to
scarify, add moisture if necessary, and recompact the in -situ soils in order to ensure the stability
of the roadbed. Was this work done prior to placement of the road base?
5. The seventh paragraph says the permitted width of the haul road was 30 feet. We are unable to
find this number in any of the permit documents listed above. Rather, it seems that 20 to 24
Office of Office of
Mined Land Reclamation Denver • Grand Junction • Durango Active and Inactive Mines