My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2003-02-14_REVISION - M1977342
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Revision
>
Minerals
>
M1977342
>
2003-02-14_REVISION - M1977342
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/15/2021 5:44:32 PM
Creation date
11/21/2007 6:09:14 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1977342
IBM Index Class Name
Revision
Doc Date
2/14/2003
Doc Name
Fax of selected AM4 and TR12 documents to Grand County Officials
From
DMG
To
Grand County Officials
Type & Sequence
AM4
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.
/
48
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
and accidents, increased bankruptcies of junior and mid-level mining companies <br />in the 1990s, resulting in defaults of reclamation and closure bonds, have caused <br />most insurance carriers to Cancel policies and exit that specific market. In <br />addition, the long-term time frame associated with most mine recamation <br />obligations have caused surety interests to become wary and hesitant to <br />underwrite obligations extending beyond five years. Even large, active, well <br />Capitalized corporations such as PDC must now seek multiple and complex <br />venues, including collateralization of land and water assets, to fulfill ever- <br />increasing reclamation and closure FW requirements at state and federal levels. <br />Thus, this TR seeks to Garify and better define several areas in the Permit that <br />require formal revision in order to reduce the total FW and the significant <br />associated carrying costs. Henderson also has determined that a number of <br />other areas in the DMG estimated FW require clamcation and may result in <br />specific decreases and, possibly, several increases in the total. These <br />Gasifications do not fall within the definition of a TR and will be submitted to DMG <br />under separate cover. <br />3.0 THE TECHNICAL REVISION <br />As noted in Section 1.0, Henderson believes that there are several specific areas <br />to be addressed in TR-12. Each will be discussed separately in the order <br />presented. <br />• Reduction of Buffer Area Disturbance <br />• Structural Demolition - On Site Disposal <br />• Structures to Remain <br />• Tree and Shrub Planting <br />• Mine Water Treatment and Portal Plug <br />• Mobilization/Demobilization <br />3.1 Reduction of Buffer Area Disturbance <br />Buffer areas were established within the affected land area when the original <br />Permit was written to allow for facility expansions and disturbances in the future <br />without the need for a Permit amendment or TR. Buffers were not speafrcally <br />delineated, but estimated amounts were established generically for purposes of <br />FW determination. These areas were covered under the FW by an amount $1053 <br />per acre for reclamation. In the 25 years since the original Permit was approved, <br />3 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.