Laserfiche WebLink
Comment 4. <br /> RESPONSE: <br /> Peabody is encouraged to find that the Division is interested in <br /> proposed hydrologic monitoring of post-law reclamation. Since any <br /> monitoring of reclamation would ultimately be used for proving <br /> reclamation success and eventual bond release, Peabody feels that <br /> interest in such proposed monitoring would be to the Division 's benefit. <br /> Prior to finalizing any proposed monitoring strategy on post-law <br /> reclamation, Peabody will contact the Division for input. <br /> Tab 9 - Soils <br /> The Soils comments and corresponding responses were discussed with Mr. <br /> Peter O'Connor, CMLRD, on February 25, 1987. <br /> Comment 1. <br /> RESPONSE: <br /> The 3.95 acres of additional disturbance for the Permit Revision <br /> occurred because the following two areas were included for topsoil <br /> replacement: <br /> 1. First, 2.00 acres of nontopsoiled, seeded, regraded spoil <br /> located in Mine Areas 2 and 3 (see Exhibit 12-1 , Operation Plan and <br /> Exhibit 9-4, Soil Types and Topsoil Salvage Depths for Scraper Pit <br /> Area) were included in this category. <br /> 2. Second, 1.95 acres of pre-law spoil piles and pits associated <br /> with Mine Areas 4 and 5 (north and east of old shop area) were also <br /> included in this category. Inclusion of this area was required in <br /> order to achieve the proposed post-mine contours shown on Exhibit <br /> 12-5, Postmining Topography. <br /> The current disturbed land category shown in revised Table 9-3-2 was <br /> changed from 63.76 to 49.06 acres in response to soils question No. 2. <br /> First, suitable topsoil substitutes (i .e. , spoil or overburden) will be <br /> 11 <br />