Laserfiche WebLink
Phil Jensen <br />• 9 Oct 97 <br />Page 2 of 18 Pages <br />land surface at the exploratory drill sites by Northern Minerals Company is complete and <br />satisfactory.". The statement does not specifically identify satisfaction with roads to the <br />exploratory drill sites. Therefore, there is potential that some road reclamation work is <br />appropriate to these permits, and reseazch of the files and evaluation of information therein is <br />ongoing with regazds to the concern you raised during the site inspection of August 14, 1997. <br />Our findings will be provided to you under a sepazate letter upon completion of this review. In <br />this regard, we suggest a site inspection of those roads you would like to see reclaimed so that <br />the review of these exploration permit files is specific to your concems. I will call you to arrange <br />such a site visit should you wish to pursue this recommendation. Enron Coal Company would be <br />invited to accompany the Division and you on such a special inspection. <br />The subject Phase II/III bond release applies directly to vegetation issues, and there is a lot of <br />information on weeds in the Permit and files. We have completed a comprehensive review of <br />this issue. Enclosure 2 records the observations made during the inspection. Enclosure 3 <br />outlines the review of the permit records and bond. In summary, we conclude that Enron had <br />conducted an adequate weed control program. There aze some weeds on the site, but the <br />concentration and types of weeds aze within the pazameters of the permit and within regulatory <br />limits associated with bond release. <br />• The permit documents Enron's weed control work. The concentrations of weeds in reclaimed <br />areas designated for "rangeland" aze below pre-disturbance concentrations. Vegetation criteria <br />for those reclaimed aeeas designated as "recreation" do not address weeds. A conclusion of our <br />review is that invasion of weeds into low-use gravel road and hazdstand aeeas will likely <br />continue, and that an ongoing control program is inherent to this type of land use. A Rio Blanco <br />County Weed Control letter (November 16, 1990) suggests that Leafy spurge was introduced into <br />the azea much eazlier (in the late 1800's and early 1900's) than Enron activities. <br />Please review the information provided herein; and of course, the entire permit file is available <br />for your review (on file in the Meeker County Court House and here in the Division's Denver <br />offices). We believe that the Division has adequately addressed your concems as they regazd the <br />Phase II/III bond release associated with Permit C-81-032. If you believe that recourse is still <br />warranted, there aze still options available to you to pursue these issues further. Enclosed as <br />Enclosure 3 is an extract of Rules applicable to release of bonds. In this case, the process has <br />reached the stages outlined in Section 3.03.2(3), Objection to Requested Release. Your on-site <br />comments and your letters constituted "comments upon the requested release" [middle of Section <br />3.03.2(3)]. The time period to request an informal conference has expired (closed September 13, <br />1997, 30 days afrer the August 14, 1997 inspection). You may still request a public hearing <br />before the Mined Land Reclamation Board. The Division will issue notice of a proposed <br />decision [see Rule 3.03.2(5)(a)] in the near future. You will be sent a copy of this notice, and the <br />notice will be published in the Craig Daily News. The notice will include provisions for <br />• requesting such a public hearing. If you wish such a public hearing, your request for one must be <br /> <br />