Laserfiche WebLink
ApR! 3, ?00? <br />Page i <br />It vas agreed that the BLM would identify which wells they would like to further investigate and <br />provide information on the nature of testing work desired and that IvfWII would check on <br />associated testing costs as the basis for any BLM decision to commit the required funds. Henry <br />Austin noted that there is the potential that Small Operator Assistance (SOAP) funds might be <br />available through the CDMG for testing. It was also noted that existing ground water monitoring <br />wells would remain until bond release in compliance with the terms of the CDMG Permit, that any <br />boreholes not developed for water supply would be sealed and reclaimed, and that Kerr would <br />anticipate transferring any boreholes to be developed as wells for stock watering use to the BLM <br />Q. Nettleton). <br />Schedule <br />There has been some conflicting information relative to the target date for completion of the <br />borehole reclamation project but conversations between MWH, the BLM, and CDMG have <br />resolved this issue, with agreement on a target completion date of August 72, 2002. The meeting <br />participants concurred on this date. <br />Responsibilities for Borehole Closure and Reclamation <br />It was noted that Linda Gross's letter of March 1, 2002 clearly outlined responsibilities for <br />borehole reclamation and closure for the majority of the identified boreholes. John Morrone <br />noted some uncertainty relative to boreholes DH-5 and DH-6 (drilled by USGS but used? by Ketr <br />for monitoring). MWH is to review background documentation to determine whether or not Ken <br />ever used these boreholes for ground water monitoring. There ate also 6 to S boreholes for which <br />ownership and responsibility aze not clearly deFmed at this time. Jerry Nettleton noted that the <br />borehole reclamation plan includes a field reconnaissance effort to mark the boreholes for <br />reclamation and closure and to try- to identify ownership and responsibility for these remaining <br />boreholes. Both the BLM and CDMG expressed interest in participating in this field effort. <br />D1WI-I noted that they would mark the boreholes and then coordinate with the BL,M and CDMG <br />to inspect the unknown boreholes and try to determine ownership based on location and any <br />common completion chazacteristics. <br />Borehole Closure Methods <br />A concern was noted that the borehole closure methods proposed by Kerr in the January 2002 and <br />earner submittals (based on CDMG and Colorado State Engineer requirements) are substantially <br />different from the closure requirements indicated in Linda Gross's letter of Mazch ], 2002. ]ohn <br />Morrone indicated that the closure requirements included in the D4arch 2002 letter re Elect <br />stipulations included in the original coal exploration license as follows: <br />fj) A.r .roan ar prartira/after camp/etian of each do// ba/e, the /irenree rho// candilion each dri!! ho% by <br />plxggixg mid rapping it in romp/ianre with the rtandardr and proerdurcr prernibed by the U.S. <br />Geological Survey (See Exhibi! ':9 "[o thir license for a Spica! tin!! hale abandonment). <br />John provided all meeting participants with the following relevant documents, with respect to <br />borehole closure requirements, and briefly summarized each document and its relevance: <br />• Timetable outlining the history and sequence of activities relative to the exploration <br />license, coal lease, inspection of boreholes, and subsequent correspondence. <br />