My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1999-05-14_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1981017
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
General Documents
>
Coal
>
C1981017
>
1999-05-14_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1981017
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/19/2021 7:45:20 PM
Creation date
6/13/2012 9:06:04 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981017
IBM Index Class Name
GENERAL DOCUMENTS
Doc Date
5/14/1999
Doc Name
Bid Documents (IMP)
Permit Index Doc Type
General Correspondence
Media Type
D
Archive
No
Tags
DRMS Re-OCR
Description:
Signifies Re-OCR Process Performed
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
53
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
GLA Comment No. 6 <br /> Response: I disagree with the GLA assertion that the soil crusts should not <br /> be broken prior to seeding. If GLA had sufficient experience, it would realize <br /> that a soil crust prevents broadcast seed from achieving the contact with fine <br /> soil particles necessary for any reasonably high chance of eventual germination. <br /> The soil crust that must be attended to prior to seeding may form overnight <br /> after the surface has been wetted. In no way does the presence of sufficient <br /> soil crusting to deter good seed/soil intermixing comprise evidence of lack of <br /> disturbance for decades or even years. <br /> GLA Comment No. 7 <br /> Response: I disagree that there is any requirement to prove reclaimability of <br /> the steep slopes at Coal Basin. During permitting, if so large a fraction of the <br /> site was determined by MCR or DMG to be "unreclaimable" the permit would <br /> not have been issued. The approved reclamation plan included the stabilization <br /> of the oversteepened fills and cuts that MCR had subsequently been granted <br /> permission to leave in lieu of spending the very substantial money that would <br /> have been required to return Approximate Original Contour. Apparently GLA <br /> (and by implication MCR) believes that despite the grant of this huge economic <br /> benefit, the costs of revegetating the steep slopes they abandoned are <br /> excessive and the spoil from road and work area benches should be allowed to <br /> erode to the bottom of the slope. Besides the blatant conflict with the letter <br /> and intent of applicable state and federal coal mining reclamation law, it is not <br /> clear to me that the construction and environmental costs of placing sufficiently <br /> large catchments below all these slopes would not -be larger and perhaps much <br /> larger than the projected revegetation costs. This basically sounds like the <br /> argument of a coal company prior to the passage of SMCRA of 1977 when the <br /> 17 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.