Laserfiche WebLink
each tunnel, and breached the block walls so that the tunnels would drain directly into the pipes. <br /> This drainage was routed through a drainage ditch to a pre-existing sediment pond. Division <br /> contractors also demolished and disposed of a significant amount of concrete foundations and <br /> footers, and accomplished partial backfilling of the highwall. Construction of drainage ditches <br /> and containment berms was accomplished. Part of the area was topsoiled, and the entire 7 acre <br /> area was revegetated. The cost of this project was $67,979. The cost could have been less had <br /> the drainage from the Rock Tunnel been properly accommodated during construction of the <br /> concrete block walls by Mid-Continent in the early 1990's. The Lamp house, which is a point of <br /> contention in the current litigation, was not demolished because its future use, if any, was not yet <br /> defined. <br /> Roads E, F, G <br /> This project was accomplished in 1996 by the Division. About Nine miles of haul roads, <br /> comprising about 51 acres, were reclaimed for a cost of$88,995. The reclamation concept was <br /> forwarded to the Division by Mid-Continent and its consultants in the early 1990's. The U. S. <br /> Forest Service, which manages the land upon which the vast majority of these roads are situated, <br /> helped to develop the reclamation concept, and agreed with the plan implemented by the <br /> Division. In accomplishing reclamation, all but one of the road culverts were removed, and <br /> drainage dips were constructed at a rate of approximately 3:1 (dips constructed to culverts <br /> removed). The road was graded so that water would drain toward the outside edge of the road, <br /> rather than to the inside margin of the road as it did during the active life of the mine. Finally, <br /> the road surfaces were ripped by heavy machinery in order to encourage infiltration of water, and <br /> to promote revegetation potential. The roads were then revegetated according to standard <br /> practices. <br /> Mine 4 Revegetation <br /> The permit clearly specifies that the mine bench outslopes are to be revegetated to a specific <br /> standard. The permit suggests that a certain type of netting be utilized during the revegetation <br /> process in order to promote successful revegetation. However, correct placement of the netting <br /> is critical if it is to be even marginally useful. Correct placement of the netting would require <br /> scouring of rock from the mine bench outslopes, and hand placement of the net. Removing the <br /> rock would be extremely labor intensive and cost prohibitive. In one test conducted by others at <br /> Coal Basin, netting was observed to blow off the outslope,probably as a result of improper <br /> installation. <br /> In the fall of 1995, an independent contractor provided a free demonstration of what is essentially <br /> a liquid applied erosion control blanket, which bonds to the soil surface. The demonstration took <br /> place on a small portion of the Mine 4 mine bench outslope. This material, which is used in <br /> steep slope and high altitude environments, dries to form a protective coating over the soil <br /> surface, while allowing underlying seeds to germinate and plants to push through it. Observation <br /> of the demonstration plot in 1996 indicated that the technique had a reasonable chance of <br /> successfully accomplishing the mine bench outslope revegetation goals. <br /> In 1997, the Division undertook revegetation of the Mine 4 mine bench outslope. Use of the <br /> spray on erosion control blanket was specified, as was `traditional' revegetation techniques. In <br /> 8 <br />