REP21171 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

~: iii iiiiiiiiniiiiii 999 INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: B1'RON WALKER FROM: JANET B SUBJECT: KEENE URGMIN ,C- _8, 1998fu~lNLJALRECLAhWTIONREI'ORT DATE: 08/05/99 CC: DAN HEIL~IANDEZ This memo serves to follow up on my memo to you dated May 3, 1999. Coors Energy Corp provided responses to the Division's Annual Reclamation Report Review on June 23, 1999. / Map VSL99 has been revised to clearly indicate that specific areas seeded initially in 1995, were interseeded during 1998. Revised text page 124 provides a description of the modified seed mix used for the limited interseeding. This response addresses my concern. No additional information required from Coors Energy Company X I had noted that the maps originally submitted by Coors Energy Company in February did not make it clear where backfilling and grading had occurred, nor was it clear which locations had received topsoil application. Coors Energy Company revised Drawing EFSM99,to show8.1 acres with green diagonal shading and 12.9 acres with red diagonal shading. The shading designation is not defined in a legend. The red shaded area is described as "covered with 6' of spoil". The 12.9 red shaded area agrees with the description found on report page 124 as the area of A pit that had been backfilled and covered with 6 feet of spoil material. A portion of the green shaded azea, 3.5 acres at the west side of A pit agree with the description found on report page 124 of 3.5 acres that were covered with 2 feet of "topsand" material. This delineation addresses my request to have Coors Energy Company show on a map which areas had been backfilled and graded and had received topsoil application in 1998. Unfortunately, the additional 4.6 acres of green shaded area are slated to receive topsoil in 1999, based on CEC's description on page 124. So, this map does not clarify which areas have received topsoil in 1998 from areas scheduled to receive_ topsoil in subsequent years. This does not exactly address the Division's original concern. / Drawing ESFM99 indicated that a small (blue shaded) area remains in A pit to complete ash disposal. This accounts for the 2,600 BCY discrepancy I had noted in my May 3, 1999 memo. / Coors Energy Company indicated in their June 23, 1999 responses that they may consider submitting a revision regarding their reclamation success standard pertaining to species composition and lifeform. This was not an issue that required a response. A response is at the operator's discretion. The Division has no problem with the operator's response.