Laserfiche WebLink
2 <br />$161,994 of the original $288,000 bond was released as a result of the Phase I bond release <br />Board Order. A maximum of $82,806 may be released when the site qualifies for Phase II <br />bond release. This would leave 15% of the original bond, or $43,200. At the time of Phase <br />II release, the Division would remove the tasks in question here, as well as revegetation <br />costs, from its cost estimate. The cost of remaining work at that time would need to be less <br />than $43,200. <br />If NCIG wishes to include an estimate of the cost of work remaining to be done at the Coal <br />Ridge Mine in the permit, they should submit an estimate as part of TR-13. In order to <br />keep the Division's Coal Ridge cost estimate consistent with estimates for other mines, our <br />estimate will remain as is. <br />Revegetation (Items 6 and 8 require response from operator) <br />Item 3. The application has been appropriately amended to address irrigation of the <br />designated irrigated hayland portion of the reclaimed area. <br />Item 4. The application has been appropriately amended to include a noxious weed control <br />plan. <br />Item 5. The plan continues to state that grazing will not be allowed until one year after <br />seeding and will be managed to promote the postmining land use. The DMG will carefully <br />document in our inspection reports the intensity, timing, and duration of livestock grazing. <br />This careful documentation will also apply for the vegetation composition and appearance <br />for the next few years growth. This is appropriate in order to evaluate whether grazing is <br />interfering with the establishment of vegetation. <br />Item 6. Although the amended application contains an appropriate plan for vegetation <br />sampling for success demonstration within the designated irrigated hayland portion of the <br />reclaimed area, no specific reference field or technical standard for success comparison has <br />been proposed. The application merely states on page 4-62, that "until the opportunity <br />presents itself to design a technical standard upon which to base a success comparison, the <br />reclaimed community will be evaluated for success by comparing its production with that of <br />similar undisturbed areas within the permit that are near the reclaimed areas". Therefore, <br />The application will need to be amended to include a commitment to identify the specific <br />reference area or other standard to be used for comparisons of revegetation success for the <br />cropland area, pursuant to Rule 4.15.7(2)(d). The August 15, 1996 letter from Matthew <br />Hayes to Jim Stover indicates that the "standard will be addressed...prior to December 15, <br />1996." A commitment to this effect should be included in the application text. <br />Item 7. The application has been appropriately amended to clarify that success comparison <br />for the rangeland portion of the reclaimed area will be based on herbaceous production and <br />total vegetation cover. <br />