My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
REP10268
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Report
>
REP10268
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 11:39:45 PM
Creation date
11/27/2007 12:22:06 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1980005
IBM Index Class Name
Report
Doc Date
4/16/1991
Doc Name
1990 REVEGETATION MONITORING REPORT
Permit Index Doc Type
REVEG MONITORING REPORT
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.
/
38
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
PQ~y <br />PEABODY COAL COMPANY <br />Westsm Divlslon <br />DECEIVED <br />APR 1 6 1991 <br />Mined Land <br />Reclamation Division <br />April 11, 1991 <br />Mr. Dan Mathews <br />Colorado Mined Land <br />1313 Sherman Street, <br />Denver, CO 80203 <br />Dear Dan: <br />Reclamation Division <br />Room 215 <br />1300 South Vale <br />Flepsufl, Anzana 86001 <br />~6oz~ naszs3 <br />Please find enclosed three (3) copies of the 1990 <br />Revegetation Monitoring Report for the Seneca II <br />Mine. The Scope of Work and monitoring plan were <br />developed by me, while field studies were conducted <br />by ESCO Associates, Inc., Dr. David Buckner being <br />the principal investigator. Since 1987, the basis <br />and approach of the revegetation monitoring program <br />has been consistent. in addition, Dr. Buckner has <br />carried out the field studies since 1987. I <br />believe this consistency in the monitoring program <br />has resulted in reports that contain information <br />that is highly accurate, having a greater utility <br />than simply reporting monitoring data. <br />Dr. Buckner and I have spent considerable time in <br />analyzing and discussing the data presented in the <br />1987-1990 revegetation monitoring reports. I feel <br />that this analysis has provided some insight as to <br />what is a reasonable level of successional <br />development in reclaimed plant communities in an <br />extended liability time frame. This analysis also <br />considers the ecology of adjacent native plant <br />communities and how this compares to the ecology of <br />the reclaimed plant communities. The analysis <br />presented in the 1987-1990 Seneca II annual reports <br />weighed heavily in the development of the revised <br />revegetation plan for the Seneca II-W Mine <br />currently under review. ,In particular, the revised{ <br />woody plant density standards pre5e~d'°in the <br />revised Seneca II=W °plan reflect analysis:cont~ained <br />.in-~~h''~ "T9`8'7.'"~99b~"G"~Seneca II annual reports: ~ `I <br />s'tYU:i~3'y'" e"~ o rage you to review these reports., <br />paying particular attention'"•`to "°the "'d`iscussion <br />sections. I realiz~ a f~`~ie"~.review. t„$~ fne~:..r.,e.~ated <br />to the Seneca II'-W permit are short,' but I feel <br />that~»a~re'view of the Seneca II annual reports <br />:~ <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.