GENERAL44563

• Permit No: C1981013
• IBM Index Class Name: General Documents
• Doc Date: 5/24/1995
• Doc Name: COMMENTS CONTAINED IN ANN TATUMS LETTER OF MAY 11 1995
• From: DMG
• To: SUSAN MCCANNON
• Permit Index Doc Type: GENERAL CORRESPONDENCE
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

iii iiiiiiiiniu iii
STATE OF COLORADO
DIVISION OF MINERALS AND GEOLOGY
Depanmeni of Natural Resources
U I l Sherman SL, Room 215
Denver, ColoraAo 80203
Phone: [phone]
FAX [phone]:-BIUG
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
RE:
May 24, 1995
Susan McCannon
Jim Pendleton
Comments C~io a~fied in Ann Tatum's
Letter of May 11, 1995
I~~~~
DEPARTMENT OF
NATURAL
RESOURCES
Roy Romer
Governor
lames S Lochhead
Exccueve Director
Michael e. Long
D~msion Direcb~
In response to your request of Friday, May 12th, I have completed a review of
Mrs. Tatum's.Letter to you, dated May 11th. Within the letter Mrs. Tatum
includes several requests for clarification of technical information, several
characterizations of my earlier comments, and several opinions regarding my
professionalism and motivation. I will respond to Mrs. Tatum's requests for
technical clarification. I will also correct several of Mrs. Tatum's
mischaracterizations of my earlier statements. I choose not to respond to any of
Mrs. Tatum's expressed opinions regarding my professionalism or motivation.
(1) Mrs. Tatum continues to request a copy of the U.S. Bureau of Mines report
concerning subsidence research at the Allen Mine. I have not been able to
locate such a report within the Division's files. I conclude that Carl Gerity is
correct in his assumption that the Woodward-Clyde report, prepared for the
Department of Energy, is the report I recalled. The Woodward-Clyde report
does reference the U.S. Bureau of Mines assumption of the project, following
the DOE's cancellation of the project because of budgetary constraints.
(21 Mrs. Tatum asserts that I had read the referenced report and that I had
stated that the study "limited" the angle of draw to "25-27%". I offer the
following to clarify my earlier statements, which are contrary to Mrs.
Tatum's characterization. In my memo of February 14, 1995, I stated;
"Following my examination of the Tatum structure on February 1, 1994, I
presented a 30 minute summary of my preliminary opinion. At that time I
had only completed an examination of the structure and its immediate
surroundings. Therefore, my comments dealt primarily with what the