My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
REP52684
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Report
>
REP52684
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/25/2016 12:57:12 AM
Creation date
11/27/2007 1:25:48 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981028
IBM Index Class Name
Report
Doc Date
9/14/1995
Doc Name
1994 AHR & ARR report review letter
From
DMG
To
COORS ENERGY CO
Annual Report Year
1994
Permit Index Doc Type
HYDROLOGY 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.
/
2
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 IIIIIIIIIIIII III <br /> STATE OF COLORADO <br />DIVISION OF MINERALS AND GEOLOGY <br />Depanmem ni Ndlural Rcsuorci•s <br />1713 Sherman 51 . Room ? 7 5 yy <br /> <br />Denver, Colorado 80203 I <br />~~ <br /> <br />Phone: 13031 866-7567 II <br />FAX:13031831-8106 <br /> DEPARTMENT OF <br /> NATURAL <br /> RESOURCES <br />September 14, 1995 <br /> Roy Romer <br />Coors Energy Company c°"e`n°' <br />Attn: Donald MacDonald Tames S. LOChhead <br /> <br />P.O. Box 467 E.ecwive Director <br />Golden Colorado 80402 <br />, Mic hael B. LOng <br />Di.-i sion Director <br />RE: Keenesburg Strip Mine, File No. C-81-028, 1994 Annual Hydrology <br />and Reclamation Report <br />Dear Mr. MacDonald: <br />The Division has completed its review of the 1994 Annual Hydrology <br />and Reclamation Report. Overall, the report is well organized and <br />contains the required information. There are a couple of items <br />mentioned in the report and during our review that are discussed in <br />more detail below. <br />Vegetation Monitoring <br />This section is well organized and provides a good evaluation of <br />the revegetation efforts at the mine to date. One observation <br />noted that none of the existing revegetated areas or the reference <br />area met the success standard for species diversity, although the <br />reclaimed areas were closer than the reference area. The comment <br />suggested that perhaps the standard is unfair given that the <br />reference area doesn't even come close to meeting the standard. <br />This is a valid comment and the Division would be willing to review <br />the standard with the possibility of changing it to more accurately <br />reflect the actual range conditions surrounding the mine and <br />included in the reference area. Since 1994 was an extremely dry <br />year we want to wait until the 1995 data is in to evaluate if there <br />is a noticeable change in the species composition due to the <br />unusually wet conditions experienced in 1995. If this data still <br />shows a lack of diversity, especially in the reference area, then <br />the Division would entertain a revision to modify the success <br />standard for species diversity. <br />Water Quality <br />The Division has no comments with respect to the data collected and <br />submitted with the report. One general comment is that during the <br />review we were unable to locate the hydrology monitoring plan in <br />the permit application and, therefore, were unable to determine if <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.