Laserfiche WebLink
2-24-95 <br /> Memo to files <br /> I have been talking with Mike Long, Jim McArdle and Jim Herron <br /> yesterday and with Mike Long today regarding the use of topsoil <br /> on the mine bench outslopes. McArdle would like to see soil <br /> applied in order to enhance revegetation potential. Herron says <br /> that little will stick on the slopes, but even that would be <br /> helpful. Suggests targeting islands of soil on the outslopes. <br /> Further suggests targeting Mines 1 and 3 . Long doesn't want to go <br /> to court asking for $450,000 more in funds which are not required <br /> by the permit. I trend to agree that this is not a very defensible <br /> position. Unlike the Dutch Creek diversion, actual damage as a <br /> result of not topsoiling is hard to prove, given IMS studies <br /> stating that the slopes may be revegetated as is with certain <br /> modifications. Mike suggests cutting down to $150,0009 (Mines 1 <br /> and 2 only) . Subsequently, I found in the Findings that the State <br /> determined that it was infeasible to place topsoil on the <br /> outslopes. I told Mike of this, and suggested that it further <br /> weakened our position, as we now have to argue against the Findings <br /> and Mid-Continent. I suggested that at this point we not pursue <br /> cost estimates for outslope topsoiling further. Mike agreed that <br /> this course of action made sense, given the potential legal <br /> problems and further site disturbances which would be caused by <br /> constructing borrow pits on site. <br />