Laserfiche WebLink
Binns, Janet <br />From: Tennyson, Thomas A (CCC) [Tony.Tennyson@riotinto.com] <br />Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2011 1:55 PM <br />To: Binns, Janet REC EiVED <br />Subject: RE: MR109 completeness <br />Attachments: MR-109 RevisionApp.pdf JUN Q 8 2011 <br />uivisio 1 of Recite aVon, <br />Janet, Mining and Safety <br />Please see attached revised revision application capturing the 1.5 acres of disturbance. <br />I know you have mentioned additional text, but CCC does not agree that we need to be including text sections for small <br />facilities changes like what we have proposed under MR-109. We prefer to keep small facility changes to the appropriate <br />maps only. Should there be a large scale facilities change sure that would warrant some text discussion. However, for <br />extremely minor facilities changes we do not feel it is necessary to include a new section of text. <br />The reclamation cost estimate you have provided CCC does accept. <br />I appreciate your swift attention to this MR. Have a wonderful afternoon Janet! <br />Tony Tennyson <br />Environmental Engineer <br />Colowyo Coal Company <br />5731 State Highway 13, Meeker CO 81641 <br />T: 970.824.1532 F: 970.824.1598 <br />thomas.tennysonariotinto.com <br />www.riotinto.com <br />This email is confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify us immediately and delete this <br />message from your system without first printing or copying it. Any personal data in this email (including any attachments) must be handled in <br />accordance with the Rio Tinto Group Data Protection Policy and all applicable data protection laws. <br />A Please consider the environment before printing this email. <br />From: Binns, Janet [mailto:Janet.Binns(abstate.co.usl <br />Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2011 11:26 AM <br />To: Tennyson, Thomas A (CCC) <br />Subject: MR109 completeness <br />Importance: High <br />Hi Tony, <br />I have reviewed MR109. And while I would prefer to see a mention of the proposed repeater in the text, I believe that <br />CCC's general discussion of ancillary facilities does cover the text portions. 2 items that do need to be addressed though <br />are the proposed 1.5 acre additional disturbance. I recognize that in the grand scope of the permit area it is <br />inconsequential, However, We keep track of the approved disturbance acreage, so w should try to maintain the <br />accounting. The application form you submitted had 0 acres as proposed change in disturbed area. Please update this <br />field to 1.5 acres, to be in agreement with your cover letter. <br />Also, you did not provide me with a reclamation cost estimate for the additional disturbance. So I prepared one. I <br />assumed 6" topsoil (having no better information provided, I made an assumption, knowing the topsoil on that location <br />is thin), and used a 50 ft. antenna height demo cost from R.S. Means (2011 Site work and landscape cost). The main cost