REV08206

• Permit No: C1981032
• IBM Index Class Name: Revision
• Doc Date: 6/21/1993
• From: OSM
• To: ENRON CORP
• Type & Sequence: SL1
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

S
Mr. Terence Thorn 2
Colorado requires that a mine meet a vegetative cover standazd prior to Phase II bond
release. DMG was fully aware of AFO's concerns regarding the averaging of sepazate
and isolated areas for the purpose of attaining the required percentage of cover. In
addition, Colorado's sampling results for two of the three areas showed that the areas
did not meet the standards by a wide margin, and Colorado did not inspect the third
area to verify reclamation success.
DMG disputes AFO's nonconcurrence and has pursued a number of avenues to obtain
its reversal. To clarify technical issues raised by Colorado, I made provisions for
review by OSM's Western Support Center (WSC). Based on the questions raised at the
March 23, 1993, meeting between DMG and OSM, WSC provided guidance (copy
attached) on two points: (1) the conditions under which sepazate areas tnay be
combined, and (2) requirements for State validation of operator's results. AFO agrees
with the guidelines presented on these two points, however, this does not resolve the
five bond release issues previously listed herein.
The "precedent" described in your letter does not parallel the Meeker situation. A
Phase II bond release was proposed for the Canadian Strip Mine. AFO would not
concur on a portion of that release for several reasons; however, the major concern was
that the required percent of cover had not been attained for a clearly defined portion of
the disturbed area. DMG eventually agreed and revised the proposed decision document
to delete the disputed area from the bond release approval. The company appealed
DMG's decision to the State Mined Land Reclamation Boazd, who upheld DMG's
position. WSC was contacted to review a completely utuelated issue -proper
documentation for the retention of a permanent impoundment.
In reviewing this matter, I have determined that the WSC report does not change the
current AFO position of nonconcurrence, nor is AFO in disagreement about compiance
with 30 CFR 800.40(c) as stated on page five of your letter. Although the data
currently available to OSM does not demonstrate a basis for concurrence in accordance
with Celorade's established regcirements for determining acceptability for Phase II bond
release, the State is being given the opportunity to present new fmdings based on the
technical guidance prepazed by WSC. In addition, the State still needs to provide
documentation of findings regarding contributions of suspended solids and approval for
a change to the postmining land use.
Although you report that vegetative growth is better this year, we cannot evaluate the
current situation without sampling data. One option you have is to obtain new data.
As to the timeliness of AFO's response, the State was first notified of concerns at the
time of the October 17, 1992, inspection. Discussion continued with the State up to
January 25, 1993, the date of AFO's letter of nonconcturence. The main reason for
delay in getting this letter out was the need to obtain additional information from the