1993-09-20_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1981017 (2)

Home Browse Search

reclamation law. The areas of contention are steep(often angle of repose)slopes,below mine portal benches, and roadways, which were constructed half a century ago, prior to any reclamation laws. DMG has contended, based on a legal opinion of their own attorney (1982), and commitments by MCR to study reclamation of these areas (a good faith gesture, not a legal commitment), that reclamation, understood to mean revegetation, of these areas is required. MCR has contended that the areas remained unaffected throughout the life of the mine, and as such, reclamation was not required. Evidence supports this conclusion. DMG cited MCR for affecting these pre-law areas in 1993, and when DMG inspectors could provide no evidence of MCR affecting these areas, the conference officer vacated the citation. In 1991,DMG staff referred to the road and portal outslopes as "pre-law" disturbances in the mid-term review(page 8, DMG 02432), Unapproved Reclamation Measures In their ongoing reclamation of Coal Basin,DMG continues to employ reclamation measures which were not approved in the reclamation plan, and are of questionable value at this site. In 1995, during the reclamation of the Sutey Refuse Pile, Mr. Savage prepared a critique of the proposed revegetation measures proposed by DMG. In addition to concerns regarding redundancy of sediment control measures and adequacy of designed structures,significant concerns were voiced regarding changes to the approved seed mix, seed rates which were from six to twenty times the federally recommended rates,the use of expensive native seed,the use of weed promoting fertilizer, and employing hay as a soil builder. The comments were largely ignored, and the same measures were employed in subsequent projects. Without any analysis of the necessity or prudence of such a measure,DMG has collected native seed from the mine site, at great expense, to incorporate into revegetation measures. Further, DMG has employed another agency, at further expense, to cultivate this seed. Neither of these measures is contemplated in the approved reclamation plan, and represents a grave misappropriation of funds. COST EFFECTIVE BIDS FOR RECLAMATION In conducting reclamation at Coal Basin,DMG has accepted bids that are consistently far higher than bids provided to MCR. Further, DMG has consistently accepted bids which are far in excess of the costs projected by their admittedly conservative cost estimating program. Additionally, DMG has accepted bids where there was only one bidder (PKA-8-400). These practices have consistently escalated the cost of reclamation at Coal Basin. See Example#1 at the end of this summary. Reclamation bid packages for projects at Coal Basin have consistently specified equipment and measures to be undertaken. While it is necessary to specify the scope of the work to be undertaken, and the designs of structures, DMG consistently caused the costs of reclamation to increase by specifying the equipment to be used in the projects. 2