Laserfiche WebLink
<br />As a result, the volumes of coal and overburden exca- <br />vated and overburden backfilled shown on Table 2 of <br />Addendum II could not be verified. The successful <br />achievement of the proposed post mining contours, which <br />is dependent on these volumes, could therefore not be <br />verified. While it may be possible for the regulatory <br />authorities to roughly calculate these volumes using the <br />information supplied within the April, 1981 permit <br />application and Addendums I and II to this submittal <br />(ie, isopach maps, structure maps, highwall slopes, <br />gross pit limits), it is the responsibility of the <br />applicant to provide the information to prove that min- <br />ing and reclamation can be successfully accomplished. <br />2. Re-establishing the Overburden Quality. <br />The applicant has not demonstrated the following: that <br />postmining overburden quality will be comparable to pre- <br />mining overburden quality to at least the average root- <br />.~ ing depth below ground level; or, that failing to re- <br />= t, establish postmining overburden quality to premining <br />~ levels will not prevent vegetation from being success- <br />fully established on the reclaimed mining disturbance <br />areas. <br />3. Achieving the proposed reclamation schedule. <br />Because annual pit limits showing top, bottom and bottom <br />elevations, and volumetric calculations were not in- <br />cluded in the April, 1981 permit application or Addenda <br />I and II, the volumes given on Table 2 and the areas <br />given Table 1, both of Addendum II could not be veri- <br />fied. Also, irreconcilable problems found with these <br />tables during the TEA phase of the permit application <br />review process (see the Backfilling and Grading portion <br />of Section III of this TEA) cast some doubt on the <br />accuracy of these tables. <br />-61- <br />