[at-l] Appalachian Mountain Top Removal

[RoksnRoots at aol.com (RoksnRoots@aol.com)]

In a message dated 3/4/2006 9:15:25 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
jim.bullard@gmail.com writes:
*
*
*
It is *more* expensive because they'd have to truck the topsoil twice,
once to "store" it and again for reclamation. What constitutes *too*
expensive is subjective and considering the current strong demand for
coal I suspect they could do it if they were motivated to. OTOH, it
would mean raising the price of coal. That would contribute to
inflation, something politicians are loath to do.
*
*
*


          ***    Methinks once government gets a chance to place everything 
under the umbrella of 'energy resource' it relaxes otherwise stricter 
regulations that would apply elsewhere.

      The trick here is that the mountain top removal regulations DO have 
moderate restoration requirements that these companies already follow. The 
article said they are required to bring the land back to rolling hills-type natural 
conditions. However the problem I outlined prevents them from restoring the 
mines to previous conditions. What results is a grassy type landscape planted 
with non-native grasses interspersed with quick-growing trees (trash trees).

           The article included a local proposition to recreate a commercial 
forest from the remains. They were also proposing saving the topsoil - but I 
would imagine any "commercial" forest in these plans would be mono-culture 
pine. 

        Since the company is required to do some restoration it isn't too far 
out of the realm of possibility that it at least make the soil reachable. It 
makes no sense to permanently bury the soil as they currently do. I assure you 
the planning here involves moving the soil to the nearest dump at the least 
costly route. There's no doubt this doesn't jibe with any kind of sincere 
government restoration requirements. This sounds more like lobby shortcuts rather 
than sound planning.

    
        What is interesting here is the possibility of a wide wilderness 
corridor being made from the remains. Since the area is totally devastated it is 
off the radar as far as a "Project"-type wilderness corridor. But just the 
opposite is true since the land is large enough to be reclaimed with preset 
borders without any civilized development within. I'm talking true wild trail 
corridor with 5 mile width designed as a wilderness path. With the right commitment 
a path could be established in the middle of that wasteland with the main 
design being remote detachment and deliberate lack of services and access. A 
buffer of 1 to 10 miles could be made surrounding it. There's serious possibilities 
there after a real resoiling plan was enacted.

          But back in the real world we see we can't even get the AT 
protected let alone establish a deep wilderness in these mountain top mine wastelands. 
Shame since the land is dynamited anyway it would be like a blank canvas for 
weird summits with man-made boulder fields, pinnacles, gorges, and oddities, 
as well as waterfalls and neat path features.






*