Laserfiche WebLink
Hernandez, Alysha <br />From: Binns, Janet <br />Sent: Monday, June 04, 2012 8:56 AM <br />To: DRMS - Coal -Admin <br />Subject: Southfield C1981014 TR39 <br />Please scan as: <br />Southfield Mine C1981014 <br />TR39 <br />Landowner Dr Corley concerns <br />From: W D Corley, Jr. [mailto:ajjc @att.net] <br />Sent: Friday, June 01, 2012 7:42 AM <br />To: George Patterson <br />Cc: Binns, Janet <br />Subject: Re: Fw: Re: Southfield vegetation comparisons <br />George, <br />I was not suggesting that the 0.2 acres be used as the only reference area. I was just asking if that portion had <br />been sampled alone to see if it is similar to the rest of the old RA. <br />Here is my view of the proposal. Dorchester and Energy have committed to revegetation by comparing to the <br />permitted RA. Now at nearly the end of the ten year period Energy has learned that the reclamation vegetation <br />will not meet the standard of the RA. Therefore, Energy has looked for another RA for which the revegetation <br />will compare favorably. All the reasons you have given for switching the RA may be valid, but it still is a <br />matter of trying to match the RA to the existing reclamation vegetation instead of matching the reclamation <br />vegetation to the RA. You state that the new RA has been sampled. What would have happened if the new RA <br />would have increased the veg standard even more than the old RA? It does not seem scientific to search for and <br />delineate a new area when the desired limiting sampling values are already known. Randomness is eliminated, <br />and randomness would seem to be the basis for true statistical analysis. We would object to switching to the <br />new reference area. <br />Doug <br />- -- On Thu, 5/31/12, George Patterson <efcoal G&gmail com> wrote: <br />From: George Patterson <efcoal @gmail.com> <br />Subject: Re: Fw: Re: Southfield vegetation comparisons <br />To: "W D Corley, Jr." <ajj c@att. net> <br />Date: Thursday, May 31, 2012, 9:52 PM <br />Doug, <br />I don't know that detailed breakdown of parameters. That detail is best explained by the consultant. <br />There are other comparisons such as soil types and aspect (direction) of slopes as well which do not <br />compare to the reclaimed ground. The size of the undisturbed area of the old RA is insignificant. The <br />DRMS recommends a minimum of 3 acres for RA's. Yes, the veg on the proposed RA was sampled. <br />George P <br />On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 5:57 PM, W D Corley, Jr. < aiic @att.net wrote: <br />George, <br />