Laserfiche WebLink
FEB-02-99 10 :39 AM ESGO_ASSOEIATES 303 499 4276 P. 02 <br /> that would have been required to return Approximate Original Contour. <br /> Apparently GL.A (and by implication MCR) believes that despite the grant of this <br /> huge economic benefit, the costs of revegetating the steep slopes they were <br /> allowed to abandon are excessive and the spoil from road and work area <br /> branches should be allowed to erode to the bottom of the slope_ Besides the <br /> blatant conflict with the letter and intent of appiicable state and federal coal <br /> mining reclamation law, it is not clear to me that the construction and <br /> environmental costs of placing sufficiently large catchments below all these <br /> slopes would not be larger and perhaps much larger than the projected <br /> revegetation costs. <br /> General Responses to Savage & Savage Memorandum of 21 July 1996. <br /> i 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 /> 9 <br />