Laserfiche WebLink
e <br />ESPEY, HUSTON & ASSOCIATES, INC. <br />U <br />Section 808.14 (b) -Requires forfeiture of bond beyond amount necessazy <br />to implement and complete reclamation plan. Section has been remanded since <br />Section 509 of the Act fails to provide any basis for forfeiture beyond the amount <br />necessary to implement and complete a reclamation plan. <br />Section 785.19 (d) (2) (iii) (iv) -Requires monitoring for one year period <br />at site of alluvial valley floor to gather hydrologic data. This section is remanded to <br />make clear that "water quality analyses describing seasonal vaziations over at least <br />one full year" need only require an analysis from data collected over a shorter <br />period of time or extrapolations for existing data. <br />Section 785.19 (e) (2) - Requires a test for alluvial valley floor small <br />acreage exemption regarding negligible impact of the farmer's production. The <br />court directed the Secretary to revise this regulation to allow mining on an alluvial <br />valley floor that results in a negligible impact on the fazm's produciton. <br />C, <br />Section 785.19 (e) (1) (ii) - Regazds negligible fazmland interruption and <br />undeveloped range lands as exclusions to alluvial valley floor hydrologic protection <br />requirements. The Secretary has been requested to revise the regulation to allow <br />negligible fazmlaad interruption and undeveloped range lands as exclusions to the <br />hydrology requirements of Section 510 (b) (5) (B) of the Act. <br />Section 816.115, 817.115, 823.11 (c), 15 (b) 15 (c) -Requires actual use of <br />land for growing or farming for last two geazs of bond liability. The court finds the <br />Act fails to provide statutroy support for requiring coal operators to engage in <br />fazming. Instead, the statutory enactments direct the operator to demonstrate <br />capability of prime fazmlands to support pre-mining productivity. <br />Section 816.116 (b) and 817.116 (b) -Dictates responsibility for success- <br />ful revegetation dependent upon vegetation reaching 90 percent of natural cover in <br />area. The court ruled that these regulations were without support in either the Act <br />• or the legislative history. <br />A-7 <br />