REP22368

• Permit No: C1981025
• IBM Index Class Name: Report
• Doc Date: 4/4/2001
• Doc Name: 2000 ANNUAL RECLAMATION REPORT PN C-81-025
• From: DMG
• To: MINREC INC
• Permit Index Doc Type: ANNUAL RECLAMATION REPORT
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

iiiiiiiiiiuiiuiii
999
STATE OF COLORADO
DIVISION OF MINERALS AND GEOLOGY
Deparlmem of Natural Resources
1313 Sherman SI., Room 215
Denver, Colorado 80203
Phone: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
April 4, 2001
James E. Stover P. E.
MINREC, INC.
2768 Compass Drive, Suite 101
Grand ]unction, Colorado 81506
Subject: 2000 Annual Reclamation Report Permit No. C-81-025
Dear Mr. Stover:
DIVISION OF
MINERALS
GEOLOGY
RECLAMATION
MINING•SAFETY
[sill Owens 1
Governor t
Greg E Watcher
Execulrve Director ,
Michael B. Long
Division Director
Thank you for the revisions (letter of March 28) to the subject report. The Division of Minerals and
Geology (Division) has no more comments or questions whit regard to the report.
Revisions to the subject report indicate that retention of Sediment Pond 9 (Pond 9) is now a planned
[in lieu of a possible (PAP, page 4-iii)] course of action. Ponds P-9 and the Refuse Pile
Sedimentation Ponds (Refuse Pond) could be removed and the sites reclaimed [Permit Application
Package (PAP), page 4-ii (June 1998)]. Wording of the PAP [page 4-19 (10-14-94)] recognizes a
verbal expression by the landowner to retain both ponds for stock water storage. Wording also
indicates that the ponds will not be immediately reclaimed until the issue is resolved with the
Division (page 4-19). Map D- l6 (Final Reclamation East End of Mine Site) indicates retention of
the Refuse Pond. Wording on page 4-66h (6-10-93) is that mine seepage water may be directed to
Pond P-9 or the Refuse Pond to assist in the water treatment process. The Division Reclamation Cost
Estimate of March 3, 1998 carries reclamation of the ponds as Tasks I-1 (Refuse Pond) and I-2 (Pond
9). Our discussions by telephone this morning indicate a current concept course of action is [o retain
one or both Pond 9 and the Refuse Pond as dual purpose (either/or/and) water treatment/stocktyater
storage (see Rule 4.05.9), and that clarification and declaration in the PAP will be addressed in the
current response to the midterm review.
Please cal] me if you have any questions or comments.
Yours truly,
~ ~i/
Byron G. Walker
Environmental Protection Specialist
CC: Dan Hernandez
Files: 2000 ARR, C-81-025; C:\WPDOCSWorthThompson\arrrvw001n4.doc