Laserfiche WebLink
<br />C. 12/26/79 Memorandum from Rick Mills to M. S. Mc <br />12/26/79 Memo, p. 1, #1 <br />"1. Bonding - At this time the merits of EFC's bond <br />computations cannot be addressed. Until the excess <br />spoil question is resolved the costs cannot be adequately <br />assessed. However, the bonding question can be addressed <br />in a general manner to give EFC a chance to evaluate <br />its bonding options. EFC should be aware that the <br />state is receptive to the floating bond concept. If <br />EFC wishes to use this method of bonding, they would <br />have to establish disturbance categories and then <br />indicate the amount of acreage within each category. <br />The cost per acre between the various categories would <br />be significant, thus allowing for a more realistic bond <br />amount. For example, the most costly category would be <br />when the coal had been extracted from an area and a <br />large pit remains to be reclaimed, the other end of the <br />spectrum would be in the category in which seeding only <br />has to be done to complete the reclamation activities <br />carried out by EFC. i would welcome your comments on <br />this idea." <br />See pp. 29(a), 805.1(a), 760-139(a)-(K) <br />12/26/79 Memo, p. 1, #2(a)(1) <br />"2. Section 779.19-(1) The applicant should describe <br />in more detail the methodologies used by the various <br />parties conducting the vegetation surveys. For example, <br />how were the quadrats choosen in the Dames and Moore <br />study. In the Forest Service study, how many transects <br />were run, number of quadrats/transect, and how the <br />location of the transects were chosen. In the BLM <br />study, a further explanation of the methods used is <br />required." <br />See pp. 779-100(a), 779-125(a)-(j) [excluding (c)] <br />