My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2014-06-11_REVISION - C1981044
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Revision
>
Coal
>
C1981044
>
2014-06-11_REVISION - C1981044
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 5:44:43 PM
Creation date
6/17/2014 7:26:50 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981044
IBM Index Class Name
Revision
Doc Date
6/11/2014
Doc Name
Adequacy Review
From
DRMS
To
Moffat County Mining, LLC
Type & Sequence
TR36
Email Name
JLE
SB1
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
29
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Jerry M. Nettleton <br />Page 5 <br />June 11, 2014 <br />Rule 3.02.2 — Determination of Bond Amount <br />1) The Division has performed a cost estimate for Renewal 46. The cost estimate for <br />Renewal 46 increases the liability for the Williams Fork Mines to $3,991,706.13 (see <br />attached cost estimate) solely due to cost increases. The Division's cost estimate is <br />consistent with previous cost estimates for the permit approved by both the Division and <br />MCM. The Division respectfully requests a response from MCM with any questions <br />regarding the cost estimate, an estimate from MCM, or acceptance of the Division's <br />estimate. If MCM wishes to use the Division's cost estimate for Renewal 46, please <br />submit a copy of the estimate to the Division from MCM. <br />a. MCM Response: MCM has identified some minor areas of concern, as well as <br />some omissions from the updated reclamation cost estimate. These are <br />summarized in a separate response, and will be discussed with the Division, in <br />order to develop a final reclamation cost estimate. <br />b. DRMS Response: See the last section of this letter for a response to MCM <br />Bond Review Comments memorandum included with the TR36 cover letter. <br />4.0 -5.13 — Surface and Ground Water Monitorine: <br />1) Revised Map 411 does not depict stream water quality monitoring site Y -1 or the North <br />Spring (Lippard Spring No. 1). Please add these features to this map and submit a <br />revised copy. <br />Miscellaneous <br />1) Item resolved <br />Mid -Term 46; Adequacy Review Issues <br />It has come to the Division's attention that adequacy items were resolved in the Williams Fork <br />Mines' Midterm 46, but the revised pages and maps related to Midterm 46 were never received <br />by the Division. Please submit all revised pages and maps addressed by Midterm #6 from the <br />following comments from the adequacy response letter received by the Division on September <br />30, 2011: <br />• Comments 2 -11 <br />• Comments 13 and 14 <br />• Comments 16 -21 <br />• Comments 23 and 24 <br />• Comment 29 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.