My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
REP16340
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Report
>
REP16340
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 11:45:40 PM
Creation date
11/27/2007 1:51:08 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1982057
IBM Index Class Name
Report
Doc Date
1/14/1999
Doc Name
SENECA II W 1997 ANNUAL RECLAMATION REPORT REVIEW PN C-82-057
From
DMG
To
MIKE BOULAY
Permit Index Doc Type
ANNUAL RECLAMATION 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.
Page 1 of 1
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
iii iiiiiiiiiiiu iii <br />STATE OF COLORADO <br />DIVISION OF MINERALS AND GEOLOGY <br />Deparlmenl of Natural Resources <br />1313 Sherman SL. Room 215 <br />Denver, Colorado AO'03 <br />Phone: 130]1 abb-7567 <br />FAx: (3031 832~a1 U6 <br />DATE: January 14, 1999 <br />TO: Mike Boulay <br />FROM: Dan Mathews ~~ <br />RE: Seneca II-W 1997 Annnual Reclamation Report Review <br />Permit No. C-82-057 <br />~~~~~ <br />DEPARTMENT OF <br />NATURAL <br />RESOURCES <br />Roy Romer <br />Governor <br />lames 5. Lochhead <br />E>ec Wive Director <br />Michael B Long <br />Dinsion Dueuor <br />Mike, a couple months back, you gave me several Seneca II-W 1997 annual report documents to review, <br />including Annual Reclamation Report, dated March, 1998; 1997 Reclamation Studies and Shmb <br />Establishment Monitoring at Seneca II and Seneca II-W Mines, dated January 28, 1998; and 1997 <br />Revegetation Monitoring Report, dated April, 1998. From review of my files, it is apparent that I have <br />already reviewed these annual reports in association with the most recent ntid-term permit review. Please <br />refer to my memo to you dated June 23, 1998. I identified some concems with the annual report <br />information in that memo, and 1 assume these concems were incorporated into a ntid-temt adequacy review <br />fetter. If we have received a response to the identified concerns, please forward a copy to nte. If we have <br />not received a response, the operator should be reminded to address the concems in association with 1998 <br />annual report submittal. <br />One item of note which I did not mention in my 6/23/98 memo, is that the operator has initiated long term <br />studies on woody plant establishment plots 95 W-I, 96W-I, and 97 W-I. 1997 was the first year of cover <br />and woody plant density data collection on 95W-1, as it was replanted in late 1996. 1997 was also the first <br />year of data collection for 97 W-I, and was the second year of data collection for 96 W-I. Items of note for <br />95 W-I were infestation of Canada thistle and high percentage of browsed shrub transplants. Some <br />volunteer snowberry and rose were present. 96-I had relatively high survival of planted species, and low <br />cover of noxious weeds. Browse percentage was high, though not as high as 95W-I. 97W-I had been <br />planted only recently. Presence of several volunteer native shrub species was noted. <br />Peabody consistently performs thorough and well thought out revege[ation monitoring a[ their Routt <br />County mines, and has incorporated monitoring as a component of the reclamation process. Their efforts <br />are commendable. <br />Cc: Larry Routten <br />DanswordUtt iscm ine~2w97anrp.mem <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.