My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
REV99834
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Revision
>
REV99834
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/25/2016 3:23:39 AM
Creation date
11/22/2007 12:31:06 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981035
IBM Index Class Name
Revision
Doc Date
1/14/1994
Doc Name
NATIONAL KING COAL INC PN C-81-035 PERMIT REVISION-04
From
DMG
To
HARRY RANNEY
Type & Sequence
PR4
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
4
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
? ~` • • <br />cover and production for these vegetation types (should be <br />available from SCS). The reason this information would be helpful <br />is that standards have been established that are considerably lower <br />than those for the introduced pasture type but this is the only <br />vegetation type with cover and production data. Also, on page <br />2.04.10-1 near the end of the second paragraph it states" The <br />fourth most extensive community is the introduced pasture. It is <br />this community which has been MOST AFFECTED by prior mining <br />operations." If this is the case, we should be requiring the <br />operator to return the disturbed area to introduced pasture which <br />has considerably higher standards than what is currently approved. <br />As you can see this is a little confusing but may be cleared up by <br />determining more precisely what was present before mining began and <br />obtaining SCS range site data showing the typical cover and <br />production of those other disturbed vegetation types. To help <br />clarify this please request the following information: <br />1. Range Site descriptions of the mountain shrub, P-J and douglas <br />fir types showing typical cover and production figures. <br />2. A breakdown of the vegetation types pre-disturbance( I know this <br />will be difficult to obtain but the best guesstimate will help) <br />including acreages of each area with an accompanying map. <br />Based on the information we receive the success standards may have <br />to be re-evaluated. In other words if the pasture is the most <br />affected vegetation type it should dictate the bulk of the success <br />standards. <br />Reclamation Plan 2.05.4 <br />In the previous permit application the operator indicated that the <br />entire backfilled and regraded area would be covered with 4 inches <br />of topsoil. In the current document they indicate that 9 inches <br />will be placed over the entire area. I think this is great but <br />where did 5 inches of extra material come from and is it suitable. <br />I am guessing that some of the extra material is coming from <br />reclaiming 2 less acres (6.25 versus 8) and maybe some is coming <br />from the borrow area. We need to define where the resource is, how <br />much there is how good is it, etc., etc.. It appears to me that <br />maybe this hasn't been exactly defined in the past but we should <br />clear it up now. <br />Also, it mentions in the text that they will NOT need to revegetate <br />the area where the topsoil is stored. This is incorrect. They will <br />be required to reclaim this area and any other area they disturb <br />inside their permit area even if it benefits reclaiming the rest of <br />the mine. You may want to check into this but I suspect they will <br />be held to the same success standards as any other disturbed area <br />if it is inside their permit area. This may also increase their <br />actual disturbed acres. <br />The seed mix currently looks okay, but based on additional <br />information received, we may re-examine it. We might want to <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.