Laserfiche WebLink
assertion of economic hardship allowed virtually no reclamation of coal mine <br /> disturbances to pass as standard operating procedure for so many years. <br /> General Responses to Savage & Savage Memorandum of 21 July 1998. <br /> 1 believe that the observations of Mr. Savage are generally accurate to the <br /> extent that they acknowledge the restrictions that severe environmental <br /> conditions place on the short term development of seeded species. It is <br /> necessary to realize that revegetation of most high altitude sites in Colorado <br /> will be a slow process and judging results after one or two years with the <br /> expectations of lower elevations is not consistent with the rates at which <br /> biological processes can proceed. Evidence from the test plots gathered in <br /> 1987 and 1989, along with my qualitative observations of the Mine No. 4 in <br /> 1998, show that vegetation cover has been able to develop on steep slopes on <br /> the site. I believe that the presence of this cover, even though it may amount <br /> to only 20 to 40 %, is an important part of the long-term stabilization of this <br /> site. <br /> Mr. Savage asserts that revegetation will not be successful on certain outslope <br /> locations and erosion should be dealt with by placement of sediment traps at <br /> the base of the slope. I disagree. It would seem to me that results to date <br /> give good promise of eventual success and that, in any case, the elapsed one <br /> to three years are definitely insufficient to draw such conclusions. Especially I <br /> disagree that erosion of any major portion of a coal mine permitted after <br /> SMCRA should be addressed by a rationalization of giving up on revegetation <br /> and confining consequent sedment production to a system of catchments. <br /> It is certainly true that since topsoil was not salvaged, and the default plant <br /> growth media are of very low quality, in no way would this have relieved MCR <br /> 18 <br />