Laserfiche WebLink
pQ_y RECEIVED III IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII <br />APR 1 6 1991 <br />PEABODY COAL COMPANY <br />Weetem Divlelon <br />Mined Land <br />Reclamation Division <br />1300 Sauth Vele <br />FlagStaX, Arizona 66001 <br />(602) 774-5253 <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 />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 presented in the <br />revised Seneca II-W plan reflect analysis contained <br />in the 1987-1990 Seneca II annual reports. I <br />strongly encourage you to review these reports, <br />paying particular attention to the discussion <br />sections. I realize the review time frames related <br />to the Seneca II-W permit are short, but I feel <br />that a review of the Seneca II annual reports <br />