Laserfiche WebLink
<br />e) The reclamation plan for Rienau No. 2 should be transferred from the <br />increased production volume into Chapter M. This plan should <br />reflect all changes from revisions and stipulations and should <br />include as-built topographic maps. <br />f) The revegetation plan in the permit calls for shrub plantings. The <br />operator should discuss the reason for not planting these shrubs to <br />date, and submit a time frame for planting. <br />g) The reclamation plan for Northern No. 1 should include a discussion <br />of the reestablished channel. This plan should contain a narrative, <br />design specifications, and as-built drawings. <br />h) The reclamation plans should be revised to reflect the retention of <br />certain facilities as per MR-04. <br />i) The PAR responses in Appendix A should be incorporated into the <br />narratives of this chapter. <br />7. Chapter 0 - Wildlife <br />a) Chapter 0 discusses a wildlife mitigation (habitat enhancement) <br />plan. Was this plan ever implemented, and if so was there any <br />evidence of success? <br />8. Increased Production Modification <br />Based on Division records, the plan to increase production at the Rienau <br />No. 2 mine was never approved. Therefore, I would like to delete the <br />majority of this volume; retaining only the necessary and relevant <br />sections. <br />a) The reclamation plan should be removed and inserted into Chapter t4 <br />of the permit. Some rewriting may be necessary to improve the <br />clarity of this narrative. The reclamation cost estimates should <br />also be included in this section or elsewhere as appropriate. As we <br />have discussed in the past, it would be extremely helpful to the <br />Division if you could also provide your actual reclamation costs. <br />This would help the Division to assemble a reclamation cost database <br />which could then be used adjust our bonding calculations, and to <br />assure that we are being fair to the operators in those <br />calculations. Therefore, if you could provide these costs it would <br />be greatly appreciated. <br />b) The increased production volume contains 42 cross-sections of the <br />Rienau No. 2 surface disturbance. This seems to be quite <br />excessive. I would encourage a reduction in these figures, possibly <br />to three or four sections which are matched to the as-huilt <br />topography. <br />4 <br />