Laserfiche WebLink
February 11, 1999 <br /> MEMO <br /> TO: David Buckner <br /> FROM: Steve Renner <br /> RE: Draft Report: Comments on Revegetation at the Coal Basin Mine <br /> Myself, Jim McArdle, Dave Bucknam and Cheryl Linden have all reviewed the draft report, and <br /> provide the following comments. We would like to see the next draft modified to reflect these <br /> comments to the extent that you are able to do so. <br /> General <br /> All of the reviewers concurred with your findings. Everyone expressed the desire that the report <br /> contain a greater degree of substantiation for your conclusions, in order that your findings, and <br /> thus the report, are more definitive. We are relying on the breadth of your experience to validate <br /> your findings. More substance regarding the basis for your conclusions(in the context of your <br /> high altitude and highly disturbed site revegetation experiences), given site specific conditions at <br /> Coal Basin, would go a long way toward completing the report. <br /> A brief summarization of the"Lewicki Report" comment preceding your rebuttal would provide <br /> clarity and context to your comments <br /> A more exhaustive rebuttal of the"Savage Report" would be helpful. Particularly given his <br /> observations regarding the lack of growth at Mine 4. As we observed during our site visit, growth <br /> of species seeded in 1997 is occurring. Perhaps Savages' timing for site evaluation was <br /> inappropriate. <br /> Perhaps we should visit by phone in order that I can clarify a number of misleading statements and <br /> assumptions made in both reports. <br /> Inclusion of the cover estimates and species identification work which Dan Mathews did would <br /> help to substantiate your comments. I sent this report to you only last week, so obviously it was <br /> not ready in time for your use previously. <br />