Laserfiche WebLink
Page 2 of 3 <br /> The information provided by me, regarding 2 : 1 <br /> slopes (as cited ,by Mr. West as a reason to not <br /> allow negotiation on the calculations) was NOT a <br /> commitment to do 2 : 1 slopes, nor a change to <br /> the reclamation plan as approved by the MLRB. <br /> It was simply a statement that if the post- <br /> mining land use was changed from industrial <br /> use, that I would have no problem with <br /> changing the slope to 2 : 1 or flatter. However, <br /> the land use for after reclamation remains <br /> industrial, and the reclamation plan has not <br /> been changed from what was approved by the <br /> MLRB. I believe that slopes of 1 : 1 or 112: 1 are <br /> what was approved for reclamation and that <br /> reclamation cost estimates should reflect that. <br /> Some of the other concerns with the calculated <br /> bond amount are : <br /> 1 . Does not reflect areas already at final grade. <br /> This includes work done by the contractor, <br /> CrossFire, since Mr. West was last on-site. <br /> 2. Requires an unusual and expensive seed mix <br /> which is neither in the original approved <br /> application nor recommended by NRCS. I have <br /> contacted the NRCS and been given their most <br /> recent recommendations for that revegetation, <br /> in light of site conditions and the proposed post- <br /> reclamation use. <br /> 3. Assumes shifting of large quantities of backfill <br /> and soil materials which do not make sense. I <br /> need to better understand Mr. West's reasoning <br /> on this, so that I can better address these. <br /> 4. Cost for .demolition and burial of the scale <br /> and scale house. The scale and scalehouse <br /> Vi d/IM 6 <br />