Laserfiche WebLink
use plan is not implemented. SCC declined this request. After further <br />consideration, we have determined that the request was not warranted. DRMS <br />will maintain a copy of the current reclamation plan on file, and should it become <br />necessary in the future, SCC would be directed to submit necessary revision to <br />restore the current Fish and Wildlife Habitat reclamation plan. <br />Item Resolved. <br />2.05.4(2)(c) and 4.14 Backfilline and Gradine <br />13. DRMS requested that SCC prepare a request for variance from approximate <br />original contour reclamation requirements for the mine bench/access road portion <br />of the mine azea, in accordance with the provisions of 2.06.5 and 4.27.4, for <br />inclusion in the revision application. DRMS requested that the specific area for <br />which the variance is requested be delineated on the Postmine Topographic Map, <br />and that each of the specific provisions of 2.06.5 and 4.27.4 be addressed. <br />SCC response noted that Exhibit 6C (Postmine Topographic Map) had been <br />amended to delineate the AOC variance request boundary, that the AOC variance <br />request was included as new Appendix 14-9, and that a letter from the landowner <br />requesting the AOC variance was provided as new appendix page A14-5-31. <br />We have a concern regarding the AOC Variance Boundary line as delineated on <br />amended Exhibit 6C. A steep rock slope extending from the northeast comer of <br />the highwall to the northwest, directly behind the migrant worker housing and <br />shop building, was not included within the AOC Variance Boundary. It appeazs, <br />from assessment of photos and permit exhibits and figures, that the slope <br />(extending up to an elevation of between 4880' and 4890') has been steepened by <br />excavation associated with mine bench construction. As such, retention of the <br />slope in its current state would likely not constitute approximate original contour. <br />A portion of the slope is depicted on Figure 14-14, with the notation "steep rock <br />face not considered highwall". We believe it is correct to conclude that the slope <br />in question is not a highwall. It also would appear that further backfilling and <br />grading of the slope would not be consistent with retention of the facilities as <br />proposed. Given the very steep gradient and nature of the material along much of <br />the slope (inter-bedded sandstone, shale, and thin coal stringer), revegetation <br />would not be warranted or practicable on most sections of the slope. <br />Because the slope was appazently disturbed and steepened by mine bench <br />construction, exclusion of the slope from the "Industrial/Commercial" land use <br />boundazy on Exhibits 63 and 6C, and from the "Disturbed Area" and "AOC <br />Variance" boundaries on Exhibit 6C, would appear to be inappropriate. Please <br />consider and address these concerns, and submit revised disturbance, land <br />use, and AOC Variance boundaries as appropriate. Also, please clarify in <br />appropriate text or exhibits if any portion of the slope would be subject to <br />