Laserfiche WebLink
Superficially, future reclamation may not look all that different, but underneath that <br />superficial character will be a far more sophisticated reclamation that will help to at least maintain <br />the current condition of the landscape. The ultimate goal will be to implement some improvement <br />in the prairie character more toward what was naturally there before intensive grazing and military <br />training so severely affected this land. <br />Structure of Amendment -This amendment utilizes some structural differences when compared <br />to the usual new or amendment application. The general format set forth in the rules is closely <br />followed, but in some areas the treatment differs somewhat from the usual approach. <br />First, the exhibits in this application completely replace the former permit exhibits. In other <br />words, this amendment is a complete redraft of the permit. This is needed for three primary <br />reasons. First, the permit is an old permit and some of the older provisions are simply not suitable <br />for addressing the current situation. Second, the permit has undergone some changes over the <br />years. These changes have created considerable complexity and potentially confusing or even <br />conflicting permit requirements. And third, the new lease from the State Land Board requires some <br />changes in the reclamation approach on unreclaimed land within the current operation. No major <br />changes, other than continued weed control, will be made to land that has already been released <br />from bond, but all currently disturbed land needs to be reclaimed in accordance with the new plan. <br />Exhibits D (Mining Plan) and E (Reclamation Plan) use a somewhat different structure than <br />that normally seen in these exhibits. The overall categories required in these plans will be followed, <br />but the treatment of the plan in each category will use a different approach. <br />First, each requirement is presented as a separate item. These requirement statements are <br />followed by a separately headed discussion of that requirement. The discussion contains the <br />rationale for that requirement.The advantage of this approach is that it makes it much easier for the <br />operator, and the reviewer, to determine what is supposed to happen. In most permit applications <br />the requirement and the discussion tend to be blended. Although the more common approach <br />usually works nicely, it makes it more difficult to follow and distinguish [he required action from <br />the reasons to take the action. Experience has shown that permit compliance is usually higher if the <br />actions required are well distinguished from the reasons for taking the action. Both are important, <br />to be sure, but for the person actually doing the work, stating the requirements separate from the <br />rationale makes implementing the action with minimal confusion easier and can result in fewer <br />mistakes. <br />One other change in the Exhibit D (Mining Plan) format is to start with a discussion of the <br />nature of the deposit to be mined. Normally, that is placed at the end of Exhibit D. By placing the <br />-iv- <br />