My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
APPCOR10914
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Application Correspondence
>
1000
>
APPCOR10914
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 6:31:28 PM
Creation date
11/19/2007 2:15:48 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1982057
IBM Index Class Name
Application Correspondence
Doc Date
4/6/1983
Doc Name
SENECA II W PERMIT REVIEW VEGETATION FN C-057-82
From
MLRD
To
SENECA COALS LIMITED
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
2
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
<br />for. Vern Pfannenstiel -2- April 6, 1983 <br />• With reyards to the post-mining land use questions raised by the <br />completeness letter, it was agreed that a discussion of recommended <br />post-liability management of the reclaimed lands would be acceptable, and <br />would be included in the application. <br />You indicated that affected landowners would be contacted regarding <br />the reclamation plan and the post-mining land use, and their written <br />comments would be included in the application. <br />Adequacy Issues <br />A nwnber of adequacy issues, most of which had been noted in the <br />February 10, 1983 letter, were discussed briefly. The most urgent <br />concern is that t-test comparisons recently submitted by ERT verify that <br />vegetation cover values in aspen and sagebrush reference and affected <br />areas are not statistically equivalent (based upon the t-test <br />evaluation). You have subsequently indicated that, rather than resample <br />vegetative cover this summer and establish new reference areas, the <br />company would propose to utilize reference area data as success <br />standards, even if t-test results indicate that production and cover <br />values are higher than for affected areas. I suggested that you submit a <br />letter clarifying this request. <br />It was agreed that a wheat reference area was not appropriate, and <br />that the reclamation success standard far Wheatland would be based on <br />individual farm production levels over several years, or a combination of <br />individual farm records and county averayes, if necessary. <br />The remaining issues we discussed are of less immediate concern and <br />can generally be resolved by further explanation or modification of maps <br />or text in the application. <br />If you have any questions, or feel that this letter does not adequately <br />reflect our discussion, please let me know. <br />Sincerely, <br />~~ <br />Dan T. Mathews <br />Reclamation Specialist <br />UTM/mmt <br />cc: Jim Herron <br />Doc. No. 2166 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.