2010-12-29_REVISION - M1977227

• Permit No: M1977227
• IBM Index Class Name: REVISION
• Doc Date: 12/29/2010
• Doc Name: TR adequacy review letter ‎(TR-02)‎
• From: DRMS
• To: MWCA, Inc.
• Type & Sequence: TR2
• Email Name: RCO
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

STATE OF COLORADO'5.,,,
DIVISION OF RECLAMATION, MINING AND SAFETY
Department of Natural Resources
1313 Sherman St., Room 215
Denver, Colorado 80203
Phone: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
December 29, 2010
Paul Glader
MWCA, Inc.
6500 Mineral Drive, Suite 200
Coeur d'Alene, ID 83815-9408
JAN 03 2011
Di sWA at ReclammWon,
MINIM AIM Sa€ %f
COLORADO
D IV IS I ON Of
RECLAMATION
MINING
SAFETY
Bill Ritter, Jr.
Governor
Mike King
Executive Director
Loretta E. Pirleda
Director
Re: Mesita Hill Pit, Permit M-1977-, Technical Revision TR-2, Technical Adequacy Review Letter.
Dear Mr. Glader,
This office received the technical revision submittal for the permitted site named above, on December 14,
2010. The revision materials were found complete on December 15, 2010, at which time the 30-day
technical review period began. The technical revision is to modify the details of the Exhibit E -
Reclamation Plan and Exhibit F - Reclamation Map, and to add a noxious weed control plan to the permit.
This letter discusses several issues and questions that arose during the Division's review. Some of the
questions are included below so that the Division may estimate changes in the required bond amount.
Please address or respond to each item that is listed below:
The concrete pad structure at the northern terminus of the access road currently still exists. Does
the structure also include the walls that form the separate product bins? If so, please describe how
they will be reclaimed.
2. The revision states that the concrete pad will remain until the stockpiles of fines are sold. If the
fines are not sold, however, will the pad be broken and buried or left intact?
3. After the concrete pad is broken, the plan is to cap it in-place with onsite material. Since the
footprint of the pad will be revegetated, it is important to create a suitable seedbed, specifically, a
sufficient rooting depth. It is the Division's experience that smaller pieces of rubble will allow less
depth of capping material. Please describe the approximate size of the rubble pieces and/or burial
depth being proposed.
4. Though not specifically identified in the technical revision materials, our files reflect that the
overhead electric power lines and poles that extend into the site do not belong to MWCA, but in fact
are the property of the local electric association. If this is not the case, please identify the owner of
the structure, and whether any of it will be removed.
Office of Office of
Mined Land Reclamation Denver • Grand Junction Durango Active and Inactive Mines