ENFORCE28133

• Permit No: C1981020
• IBM Index Class Name: Enforcement
• Doc Date: 4/18/2005
• Doc Name: Letter Regarding Violation
• From: J.E. Stover & Associates Inc
• To: DMG
• Violation No.: CV2005004
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

MINE ENGINEERING
MINE RECLAMATION
April 15, 2005
J. E. STOVER & ASSOCIATES, INC
2768 COMPASS DRIVE, SUITE 101
GRAND JUNCTION, COLORADO 81506
PHONE: [phone], FAX [phone]
Dan Mathews
Division of Minerals and Geology
101 South 3rd Street Suite 301
Grand Junction, CO 81501
Re: Central Appalachia Mining, LLC
Munger %anyon Mine - ~ -
NOV CV-2005-004
Permit No. C~1-020
Dear Mr. Mathews:
't`~81a s
CIVIL ENGINEERING
CONST. MANAGEMENT
The reference NOV was written for failure to install CMP-3 at the coal mine waste disposal area and
for placing large rock in an area where topsoil had not been salvaged.
Whit regard to CMP-3, the sediment pond has excess capacity (PAP page 2-13 and pond
certification). The sediment pond has a water capacity in excess of 0.5 A-F. The required water
capacity of the pond is 0.32 A-F. Run-off generated by the 7.4 acre upland area and diverted into
CMP-3 is 0.08 A-F (CN 73, 1.5"precipitation). The sediment pond can handle the run-off from the
7.4 acre upland area and still have about 0.1 A-F excess capacity.
CMP-3 was designed to handle the flow form the 100-year event from the upland area and the flow
from Ditch Segment "C" (Appendix M, page M(vii)-37). The 100-year event for the upland area was
used to satisfy rule 4.09.2(7), "Surface Runoff from the fill surface shall be diverted to stabilized
channels off the fill which will safely pass the runoff from a 100-year, 24-hour precipitation event".
Until Ditch Segment "C" is constructed, CMP-3 is not required.
With regard to placing large rock in an area :where topsoil had not been salvaged, the DMG notes
the topsoil has not been lost and that recovery of the soil with minimal loss should still be feasible.
When evaluating the fact and severity of the notice of violation, please consider that both items in
the NOV were paperwork failures. Both issues could have been taken care of with a letter in lieu of
a notice of violation and I know that similar issues are frequently handled in that manner.
Sincerely,
J. E. St~ .E.
Consulting Engineer