PERMFILE112219

• Permit No: M2000144
• IBM Index Class Name: Permit File
• Doc Date: 2/15/2001
• Doc Name: NORTH LA POUDRE RESOURCE 112 ADEQUACY REVIEW FN M-2000-144
• From: DMG
• To: HALL IRWIN CORP
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

• • III Illllllllllll Ill
STAT E OF COLORADO
DIVISION OF MINERALS AND GEOLOGY
Department of Naturel Resources
t 37 3 Sherman 51., Room 215
Denver, Colorado 80203
Phone: [phone]:
FAx: [phone]
February 15, 2001
DIVISION OF
MINERALS
GEOLOGY
REC LAM A710N
MINING•SAFET7
811 Owens
Jeff Gregg cOVe'"°r
Hall-Irwin Commoration
Y Greg E. Walther
Ezeculive Oveclor
3026 4th Avenue M.<nael s. L°ng
Greeley, CO 80631 D~msion Director
RE: Notth La Poudre Resource, 1 l2 Adequacy Review, File No. M-2000-144
Dear Mr. Gregg:
Listed below are final adequacy review comments on the above-captioned Regulaz 112 Application. The
decision date for your application is scheduled for February 20, 2001. (February 19, 2001 is a State
Holiday). Therefore, I would appreciate a response from you on or before 1:00 P.M., February 20, 2001.
Please be advised that your application may be deemed inadequate and may be denied on February 20,
2001 unless the following adequacy review items ate addressed [o the satisfaction of the Division.
6.4.4 EXHIBIT D -Mining Plan
1. The applicant has outlined the criteria for the maximum disturbance to be expected and a corresponding
reclamation cost in the February 12, 2001 adequacy response. Under these criteria, Phase 1 will be
partially reclaimed and Phase 2 will be partially disturbed. Also, the applicant has specified that there will
be a total of 2 acres of stockpiles and haul road disturbance. The Division notes, upon review of the mine
plan and mine plan maps, that the potential exists for a greater disturbance than these criteria during the
life of the operation. As a precaution, the Division wishes to advise the applicant that any disturbances
greater than these found during future site inspections will be considered to be a violation of the mine
plan and may be subject to enforcement actions. Because of the short timeframes involved during the
mining of Phases I and 2, an altemative would be For the applicant to be bonded for disturbance of the
entire operation, ie: Phase 1 and 2, and 8 acres of stockpiles and haul road disturbance. This altemative
would allow the applicant greater flexibility in the sequencing of mining and reclamation and will reduce
the potential for a compliance issue. Please comment.
2. The applicant states that Hall-Irwin will sell any excess overburden. It appears that 167,787 cubic yards
of overburden will the total volume needed for backfilling purposes during a maximum disturbance
scenario. Upon review of the mine plan and mine plan maps, it appears that up to 253,725 cubic yards of
overburden will be generated during the life of the operation. Therefore, there will be an excess of
overburden. The Division prefers that all overburden generated be bonded for reclamation; however, the
Division will accept a commitment from the applicant [hat the maximum volume of overburden stockpiled
on site at any one time will be 167,787 cubic yards. Please respond.