My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
REV97036
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Revision
>
REV97036
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/25/2016 3:21:31 AM
Creation date
11/22/2007 12:05:26 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1980004
IBM Index Class Name
Revision
Doc Date
10/24/2005
Doc Name
Review Memo
From
Mike Boulay
To
Dan Mathews
Type & Sequence
TR14
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
Page 1 of 1
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
STATE OF COLORADO <br />DIVISION OF MINERALS AND GEOLOGY <br />Department of Natural Resources <br />1313 Sherman St., Room 215 <br />Denver, Colorado 80203 <br />Phone: (303) 866-3567 <br />fAX: (303) 832$106 <br />INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM <br />DIVISION OF MINERALS AND GEOLOGY <br />TO: Dan Mathews <br />FROM: Mike Boulay X111 <br />DATE: October 24, 2005 <br />SUBJECT: McClane Canyon Mine (Permit No. C-1980-004) <br />Technical Revision No. 14 (TR-14) <br />COLORADO <br />DIVISION O F <br />MIN SRALS <br />GEOLOGY <br />REC LAMATION•ry1NING <br />SAFETY•SCIENCE <br />Bill Owens <br />Governor <br />Russell George <br />Executive Director <br />Ronald W. Cattany <br />Division Director <br />Natural Resource Tmstee <br />I have reviewed TR-14 for McClane Canyon Mine regarding changes in the drainage control <br />plan. The design for the new proposed culvert "P" is adequate. The culvert capacity was derived <br />from the Handbook of Steel Drainage & Highway Construction. I checked the design capacity <br />with the given peak discharge and other information provided in the revision and determine that a <br />48 inch culvert will be adequate for culvert "P". Central Appalachia Mining proposes to plug <br />and abandon culvert "F" in place. It would be preferable to remove and dispose the culvert, but <br />given the site conditions and problematic location of the culvert I am recommending that we <br />accept the proposal to plug the culvert and redirect the flow to the sediment pond. The operator <br />has included drainage basin D-5 above culvert "F" into the hydrologic pazameters and peak flow <br />calculations and indicates that the existing capacity of the sediment pond is adequate. <br />I have the following comment concerning performance bond liability. <br />The operator has indicated on the Application Form that there is no bond increase <br />associated with this revision. However, Central Appalachia Mining proposes a new 48- <br />inch culvert and proposes plugging and abandoning culvert "F" in place. The reclamation <br />cost estimate should be reviewed and adjusted if necessary. <br />C: Sandy Brown <br />Office of Office of Colorado <br />Mined Land Reclamation Active and Inactive Mines GEnlogical Survey <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.