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
inexpensive mulch may provide to the ultimate success of at least some plants is <br /> important. An alternative to achieve more lasting and uniform mulch cover that was <br /> explored by DMG was the use of bonded fiber matrix which was critcized by GLA in the <br /> Mine#4 Downslope Comment No. 4. <br /> GLA Comment No. 6 <br /> Response: I disagree with the GLA assertion that the soil crusts should not be roekn <br /> prior to seeding. If GLA had sufficient experience, it would realize that a soil crust <br /> prevents broadcast seed from achieving the contact with fine soil particles necessary <br /> for any reasonably high chance of eventual germination. The soil crust that must be <br /> attended to prior to seeding may form overnight after the surface has been wetted. In <br /> no way does the presence of sufficient soil crusting to deter good seed/soil intermixing <br /> comprise evidence of lack of disturbance for decades or even years. <br /> GLA Comment No. 7 <br /> Response: I disagree that there is any requirement to prove reclaimability of the steep <br /> slopes at Coal Basin. During permitting, if so large a fraction of the site was <br /> determined by MCR or DMG to be "unreclaimable" the permit would not have been <br /> issued. The approved reclamation plan included the stabilization of the oversteepened <br /> fills and cuts that MCR had subsequently been granted permission to leave in lieu of <br /> spending the very substantial money that would have been required to return <br /> Approximate Original Contour. Apparently GLA (and by implication MCR) believes that <br /> despite the(grant of this huge economic benefit, the costs of revegetating the steep <br /> slopes the e#t abandon re dxcessive and the spoil from road and work <br /> -- - - n <br /> area benches should be allowed to erode to the bottom of the slope. Besides the <br /> blatant conflict with the letter and intent of applicable state and federal coal mining <br /> reclamation law, it is not clear to me that the construction and environmental costs of <br /> placing sufficiently large catchments below all these slopes would not be larger and <br /> perhaps much larger than the projected revegetation costs. This basically sounds like <br /> the argument of a coal company prior to the passage of SMCRA of 1977 when the <br /> assertion of economic hardship allowed virtually no reclamation of coal mine <br /> disturbances to pass as standard operating procedure for so many years. <br /> 13 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.