My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2016-06-27_REVISION - C1982056
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Revision
>
Coal
>
C1982056
>
2016-06-27_REVISION - C1982056
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 6:24:21 PM
Creation date
7/11/2016 7:28:01 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1982056
IBM Index Class Name
Revision
Doc Date
6/27/2016
Doc Name
Cost Estimate Discussion
From
Twentymile Coal, LLC
To
DRMS
Type & Sequence
MR299
Email Name
JLE
DIH
JDM
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.
/
5
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
7/11/2016 State.co.us Executive Branch Mail - Fwd: MR299; Cost Estimate; Foidel Creek Mine, C-1982-056 <br />Twentymile Coal, LLC <br />29515 RCR27 <br />Oak Creek, Colorado 80467 <br />970.870.2712 <br />jnettleton@peabodyenergy.com <br />Pb <br />�uu q <br />From: Musick - DNR, Jason[mailto:jason.musick@state.co.us] <br />Sent: Monday, June 27, 2016 3:25 PM <br />To: Nettleton, Jerry <br />Cc: Ebert - DNR, Jared <br />Subject: Re: MR299; Cost Estimate; Foidel Creek Mine, C-1982-056 <br />Good afternoon Jerry, <br />After a review of the information associated with MR -228 and the MR -299 submittal, it appears that the MR -228 <br />estimate should have included costs associated with the backfilling, regrading, and re -vegetation of the 10RT <br />pipeline. It might have been the case in 2008, that the Division did not include costs for this activity or the estimate <br />was completed in error. However, the Division must bond for all disturbances regardless of when they will be <br />reclaimed. I understand that the pipeline will be backfilled, regraded, and re -vegetated concurrently with the <br />installation; but this does not omit the disturbance from requiring bond in the very unlikely event that reclamation is <br />not completed as required, the area requires re -seeding, or reclamation does not occur concurrently with installation. <br />Please let me know if you have any questions or comments. <br />Thanks, <br />Jason <br />On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 10:40 AM, Nettleton, Jerry <JNettleton@peabodyenergy.com> wrote: <br />Jason — <br />In response to Jared's comment, reclamation of the existing pipeline corridor was previously addressed in <br />conjunction with MR08-228 (see attached), where we noted that reclamation (backfilling and grading) would occur <br />concurrently in conjunction with pipeline installation, and that revegetation of the pipeline corridor would occur <br />immediately after completion of pipeline installation (which has occurred). We would have a similar situation with <br />installation of the second pipeline within the existing pipeline corridor, therefore the only additions, in terms of <br />reclamation costs, would be cutting -off and capping the additional pipeline, and hauling -off the additional riser. <br />With these modifications to the cost estimate, we should be good! Thanks for your help with this - <br />hftps:Hm ai I . googl e. com /m ai I/u/0/?ui = 2&i k=e29129fcb5&view= pt&search= i nbox&th=155daOd432fdf6fa&si m I=155daOd432fdf6fa 2/5 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.