Laserfiche WebLink
Rule 2.08.3(3) After this review, the Division may, for good cause shown, by order, require <br />reasonable revision or modification of the permit provisions to ensure compliance with the Act <br />and these Rules. <br />The Division requires revision as appropriate. <br />Rule 2.08.3(4) Copies of the decision of the Division shall be sent to the permittee. <br />Copies will be provided to the permittee. <br />Rule 2.08.3(5) Any order of the Division requiring revision or modification of permits shall be <br />based upon written findings and shall be subject to administrative and judicial review. <br />The request for revision is part of the written findings. <br />Rule 2.10 MAPS AND PLANS <br />On Maps 23 and 23B, add an identifier for the structural contours (on what seam? top? <br />bottom?) <br />On Map 23, clarify (see east end of Panel 17-Right) and extend the projection of the <br />subsidence boundary for the current 5-year permit. <br />RULE 3 PERFORMANCE BOND REQUIREMENTS <br />The permit is in compliance with this rule pending confirmation by a current reclamation cost <br />estimate. See the history included in the Midterm Review Findings. <br />Rule 3.02.1(7). The TCC bond for permit C-1982-056 is sufficient to cover reclamation costs as <br />currently estimated. A review is currently underway as part of this midterm review, and a <br />recapitulation is being prepared. The PAP currently includes revision estimates by both the TCC <br />and the Division. Insertion of the recapitulated version of the reclamation estimate into the PAP <br />would be appropriate. <br />Rule 3.02.2(4). A reclamation cost estimate needs to be completed to validate adequacy. <br />Rule 3.03 RELEASE DF PERFORMANCE BONDS <br />There have been no bond releases. <br />The permit (PAP) has no sequential response to Rule 4. <br />Rule 4.02.1(2) Be of uniform design throughout the operation that can be easily seen and read; <br />2005 Midterm Review, C-1982-056, November 17, 2005, Page 11 of 14 Pages <br />