Laserfiche WebLink
Roy Karo Tp Jay James/Consultants/Peabody <br />• Peabody 08/25/2005 01:23 PM cc <br />bcc <br />Subject Fw: Seneca II-W Annual Reclamation RepoA <br />Roy A. Karo <br />Reclamation Manager <br />Seneca Coal/ PeabodyEnergy <br />970-846-3648 cell <br />970-276-5217 office <br />-- Forwarded by Roy Karo/SEN/Peabody on 08/25/2005 01:22 PM - <br />"Brown, Sandy" <br />"" <sand brown state.co.us> <br />y' ~O To "Mathews, Dan" <daniel.mathews@state.co.us> <br />08/25/2005 12:08 PM cc Roy Karo/SEN/Peabody@PeabodyEnergy <br />Subject Seneca II-W Annual Reclamation Report <br />Dan, <br />Z talked to Roy Karo today regarding the spoil sampling at the Seneca II-W <br />Mine. According to Roy, some of the spoil samples may have been missed <br />according to the plan in their approved permit. Zn their permit, SCC also <br />commits to intensive deep ripping where spoil samples indicate unsuitable <br />shale and clay strata. Roy assures me that all regraded areas at the mine <br />are ripped. SCC uses either a motor grader with shanks one foot long or a <br />dozer with -3 foot shanks. This being the case, it appears that even though <br />SCC did not sample the spoil at the intensity they committed to in their <br />permit, the approved mitigation plan (ripping) was implemented on all areas. <br />SCC does rip as a standard practice. He feels the crucial test is whether <br />or not the revegetation is successful. There are no areas where a high clay <br />content appears to have prevented revegetation from becoming established. <br />Given this, I suggest we accept SCC's August 12, 2005 response to your July <br />29, 2005 letter. <br />Sandy <br />• <br />