2008-05-13_REVISION - C1996083

• Permit No: C1996083
• IBM Index Class Name: REVISION
• Doc Date: 5/13/2008
• Doc Name: Adequacy Response
• From: J.E. Stover & Associates Inc
• To: DRMS
• Type & Sequence: PR10
• Email Name: JJD
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

J J Dudash - 2 - May 12, 2008
BRL added language to page 2.05-75ii to fortify the statement that the Rollins
Sandstone will not be impacted by the mine workings. Therefore, a point of
compliance and additional down gradient monitoring well should not be
required for the Rollins Sandstone.
3. Response presented in letter dated January 30, 2008.
4. Response presented in letter dated January 30, 2008.
5. DRMS letter dated June 6, 2007 states the Division has no further concerns.
6. Response presented in letter dated January 30, 2008.
7. DRMS letter dated June 6, 2007 states the Division has no further concerns.
8. DRMS letter dated June 6, 2007 states the Division has no further concerns.
9. DRMS letter dated June 6, 2007 states the Division has no further concerns.
10. DRMS letter dated June 6, 2007 states the Division has no further concerns.
11. DRMS letter dated June 6, 2007 states the Division has no further concerns.
12. DRMS letter dated June 6, 2007 states the Division has no further concerns.
13. Response presented in letter dated January 30, 2008.
14. DRMS letter dated June 6, 2007 states the Division has no further concerns.
15. Response presented in letter dated January 30, 2008.
16. DRMS letter dated June 6, 2007 states the Division has no further concerns.
17. DRMS letter dated June 6, 2007 states the Division has no further concerns.
18. DRMS letter dated June 6, 2007 states the Division has no further concerns.
19. DRMS letter dated June 6, 2007 states the Division has no further concerns.
20. DRMS letter dated June 6, 2007 states the Division has no further concerns.
21. DRMS letter dated June 6, 2007 states the Division has no further concerns.
22. DRMS letter dated June 6, 2007 states the Division has no further concerns.
23. Response presented in letter dated January 30, 2008.
24. Response presented in letter dated January 30, 2008.
25. Please refer to the discussion added to Volume IIIA, Exhibit 18, Seismic
Monitoring Summary Statement for a discussion of BRL's plan to show that
mining can occur closer than one mile to the Bruce Park dams.
26. BRL believes the new quarterly reports (3~d and 4th quarter 2007) prepared by
URS are in a format acceptable to the DRMS.
27. Please refer to the discussion added to Volume IIIA, Exhibit 18, Seismic
Monitoring Summary Statement.
28. DRMS letter dated June 6, 2007 states the Division has no further concerns.
29. Response presented in May 5, 2007 letter.
30. DRMS letter dated June 6, 2007 states the Division has no further concerns.
31.
a. Please refer to the discussion added to Volume IIIA, Exhibit 18, Seismic
Monitoring Summary Statement.
b. The Colorado Division of Water Resources letter dated June 4, 2007,
stated their approval of the permit revision is contingent upon
development and implementation of a comprehensive threshold
monitoring program for the landslide. Please refer to the Geotechnical
Monitoring Plan for the Bruce Park landslide presented in Volume IIIA,
Tab 20. The landslide was added to the subsidence section of the
permit.