Laserfiche WebLink
J. E. STOVER & ASSOCIATES, INC. <br />2352 North 71h Street, Unit B <br />GRAND JUNCTION, COLORADO 81501 <br />PHONE: (970) 245-4101, FAX 242-7908 <br />MINE ENGINEERING <br />MINE RECLAMATION <br />wr' <br />August 13, 2009 AUG 17 Z0 <br />,,???+d?d?eturr. <br />p?vis«?; c and Sslew <br />Mr. Michael Boulay <br />Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety <br />1313 Sherman Street, Rm 215 <br />Denver, CO 80203 <br />Re: Snowcap Coal Company, Inc. <br />2008 Annual Hydrology Report, Adequacy Response <br />Permit No. C-1981-041 <br />Dear Mr. Boulay: <br />CIVIL ENGINEERING <br />CONST. MANAGEMENT <br />The DRMS's letter dated August 10, 2009 transmitted it adequacy comments regarding <br />Snowcap's 2008 Annual Hydrology Report. Following are Snowcap's responses to the DRMS's <br />comments and concerns: <br />1. On page 4 and on data page GC-17 it is described that the majority of the <br />nested piezometers at the Cameo Refuse Disposal Areas were restricted <br />anywhere from 10' to 32.5' depth during fourth quarter monitoring. Could <br />this indicate that movement has occurred or that there is instability at <br />either the CRDA-1 or CRDA-2 piles? Please modify the AHR text to include <br />an explanation for the restrictions and indicate whether this presents a <br />stability concern. <br />SCC - The statement on page 4 of Snowcap's 2008 Annual Hydrology report is <br />accurate. Twenty two of the thirty piezometers were restricted at the time of the <br />4t' quarter monitoring. When the 2008 report was submitted, Snowcap did not <br />have sufficient data to try and explain these unusual restrictions. However, <br />subsequent monitoring on October 29, 2008 only had ten restricted, March 18, <br />2009 had one restricted and May 19, 2009 there were none restricted. Snowcap <br />will more fully address this issue in the 2009 Annual Hydrology report. Enclosed <br />is revised page 4 of Snowcap's 2008 Annual Hydrology Report stating this issue <br />will be addressed in next year's report. <br />2. Some minor discrepancies were noted regarding active versus inactive <br />CDPS discharge monitoring points. CDPS discharge points are described <br />in the AHR text on page 3 and shown on the 2008 AHR Monitoring Location <br />Map for both active and inactive discharge points. Discharge point 015 is <br />described in text but is not shown on the Monitoring Location Map. Please <br />add discharge point 015 to map.