Laserfiche WebLink
.. ,. <br />3. Several questions were raised relative to the calculation of hourly production <br />rates, both with respect to efficiency corrections, and the proper correction <br />for swell. <br />4. Several items were left out of the original calculations, including the cost of <br />revegetating areas beneath topsoil stockpiles, reseeding costs for previously <br />reclaimed areas, and rough grading and building removal costs for the office and <br />shop area. <br />5. Topsoil wlume figures given for Pit p2 incorrectly omitted the volume of topsoil <br />to be redistributed over areas "Q" and "R" as shown on Map 32a. <br />Kerr Coal submitted revised reclartetion cost estimates which satisfactorily resolved <br />these issues. However, there was a remaining problem with the estimates due to a <br />failure to adjust hourly operating costs for increases in the price of diesel fuel. MLR <br />and Kerz Coal representatives computed the appropriate adjustment, on the assumption <br />that fuel costs have increased from SOfi to 90fi per gallon. With the inclusion of this <br />correction, the total bond for the mine site has been set at 54,290,800. <br />The tipple is presently bonded at 533,000, and will continue to be bonded at this level. <br />Since reclamation cost estimates have been submitted only for the first bonding <br />increment, the following stipulation is necessary for permit approval: <br />NO LATER THAN 90 DAYS PRIOR TO THE SCHEDULED COMMENCEMENT OF OPERATIONS ON THE SECOND <br />BONDING INCREMENT (RS SHOWN ON MAP 4b) KERR COAL MUST SUBMIT DETAILED WORST CASE RECLAM- <br />ATION COST ESTIh1ATE5 TD THE DIVSSION FOR REVIEW. ANY REQUIRED ADDITIONAL BOND AMOUNT <br />PIUST BE SUBMITTED AND APPROVED PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF OPERATIONS ON THAT INCREMENT. <br />A SIMILAR PROCEDURE SHALL BE FOLLOWED FOR ANY SUBSEQUENT INCREMENTS. <br />XXI Sealing of Drilled Holes and Underground Openings (2.05.4(2](9], 4.07) <br />XXII Subsidence (2,05.6(6]3.]0) <br />XXIII Special Categories of Mining (other than AVF and Prime Farmlands) (2.06, 4.22, 4.23, <br />4.26, 9.27, 4.28, 4.29) <br />XXIV Miscellaneous Compliance (2.05.6(5], 4.02, 4.12, 4.19, 4.21, 4.28, 4.30) <br />No problems were identified with respect to the requirements of anu of these sections. <br />The proposed operation is in compliance. <br />XXV Operations on Lands Subject to Limitations or Prohibitions (2.03.7, 2.10) <br />The proposed operation is in compliance with the requirements of these sections and <br />2.07.6(2)(d) for the following reasons: <br />1. The permit area of the proposed operation is not within: <br />a. an area designated unsuitable for mining; <br />b. an area under study for designation as unsuitable for surface <br />coal mining; <br />c. on any Lands subject~to prohibitions or limitations; <br />d. within 300 feet from any occupied dwelling. <br />2. The proposed operation did require the relocation of County Road 13E. <br />However, the Divisior. has found that the interests of the public end <br />affected landowners will be protected from the proposed mining opera tion.s. <br />This finding is based on the following facts: <br />a. the applicant has obtained the necessary approval of the road <br />relocation by the Jackson County Commissioners; <br />b. Notice of a Public Hearing was posted in the Jackson County Star, <br />a local newspape_*; <br />-26- <br />