Laserfiche WebLink
_, <br />.~ =i <br />STATE OF COLLII IIIIIIIIIIIII III <br />MINED LAND RECLAMATION DIVISION <br />Department of Natural Resources <br />1313 Sherman St., Room 215 <br />Denver, CO 80203 <br />303 866-3567 <br />FnX 303 8328106 <br />OF CO(O <br />'~F' ~P9 <br />ye 0 <br />t ~er~n3' <br />~ X876 ~ <br />Roy Romer, <br />Gwemor <br />Michael B Long, <br />Drv~sion Director <br />MEMO <br />September 11, 1992 <br />To: Cathy Begej <br />From: Tony Waldron ~~ <br />RE: 1991 Annual Reclamation Report for the Southfield Mine File # <br />C-81-014 <br />Per your request, I have reviewed the 1991 Annual Reclamation <br />Report for the Southfield Mine. To begin with I have a couple of <br />general comments about the report. <br />Vegetation data is generally collected during the late spring/early <br />summer in an attempt to sample the cover at it's optimum vegetative <br />growth stage which is usually right at the flowering stage. Since <br />the plants are starting to flower or have flowered it also helps <br />with identification of the various reclamation species. This data <br />was apparently collected in mid-november of 1991 which is very late <br />in the season for data collection. At this time of the year most if <br />not all of that years growth is basically standing dead litter. It <br />would be somewhat difficult to separate out this years growth from <br />last years litter. All the forbs would be dried out and most leaves <br />gone. Identification of the various species would be very difficult <br />since most seed heads would have dropped their seeds and the leaves <br />would also be dried down. Since a reference area is being utilized <br />the same problems would apply there as well( one might argue that <br />since a reference area is being utilized conditions would be equal <br />in both areas as long as they were sampled at the same time). Also, <br />a true estimation of cover would not be obtained since the plants <br />would have dried down. Basically, it is just a bad time to sample. <br />As for the report, the data is somewhat meaningless given when it <br />was collected. If the operator were intending to use this data for <br />seeking bond release or pond removal or some such activity the <br />Division would probably refuse to accept it. Since this is just <br />annual monitoring, it is not a huge problem although the data is <br />probably not accurate . <br />The report presents the methodologies, results, discussion, <br />conclusions, and recommendations. Besides the issue of when the <br />data was collected there are two areas where the author takes <br />