My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
GENERAL46734
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
General Documents
>
GENERAL46734
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 8:20:59 PM
Creation date
11/23/2007 2:52:37 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981020
IBM Index Class Name
General Documents
Doc Date
2/14/1997
From
BLM
To
SALT CREEK MINING CO
Permit Index Doc Type
GENERAL CORRESPONDENCE
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.
/
2
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
<br />~, <br /> z <br />Sor,u: of the information given in Section 2 of the existing Munger Canyon Plan <br />.nay no lung~r be accurate and should be updated to reflect more cvrren;: mininr• <br />criteria and development projections given in recently approved adjacent <br />McClane Canyon mine plan. <br />a. The annual long range production rate is prnjectod at 84"7,000 tone <br />over a 30 year mine lii`e. Given the new recove~,.:.le reserve total o~ <br />over 37 million tone, the production, se. aencing, and mine life should <br />be mode consistent urith the new reserve figures. <br />b. The minimum interburden criteria fur mu~tiple seam mining is st at cd <br />as 40 feet, but the McClane Canyon criteria is given as 50 feet. Unless <br />the 40 foot criteria can ju..tified by geologic coedit ions specific to <br />the Munger Canyon mine plan area, you •+ill have to adept one consistent <br />criteria for both McClane and Munger. <br />c. There are references (Pages 2-1,7,8,9, r< 13) in the original Munger <br />Canyon mine plan discussing the 7;rClane graben in relation to Munger <br />Canyon mine development, which will h~.ve `n be upd~.t ed or deleted to <br />reflect the current McClane development plane. <br />d. Page 2-14 estimates overall recovery at 54 percent; however, the new <br />reserve total uses 50 percent recovery. Again, given the proximity and <br />geologic similar itiea of the McClane and Munger mine areas, i~~ will be <br />necessary to make this criteria consistent or justify the basic fo~- the <br />difference. <br />As Y/E: e:cplained ir't our letter dated Jul 30, 1991, which in part addressed the <br />Id~Clar.o Canyon R2P2 submittal format, it is no longer acceptable to this <br />offices to receive R2P2's in ot}ier than stand-alone type documen:.s. Thoreiore <br />the intnr,natio,i contained within the existing DILRD mine plan relevant to the <br />ii2 P2 will need to be assembled into a separate do rument, preferably or.gani~•;d <br />in a fashion similar t.u that which you sr.Umittad for the McClane Canyon R~P2. <br />If you have questions r.~gaiding this matter, please contest Bruce Powler ur 6:d <br />G ir:u eves of my sleet ~t 293-6561. <br />Sincerely yonre,j <br />~ ~ ~~ - - <br />r <br />I T_.a cry ~I.•POrter <br />Acting Hrea Manager <br />rc: <br />~s Susan ;;orrison <br />1•,ined Land Reclamation Division <br />1313 Slre rman Street, Room 215 <br />~c:nvcr, Colorado 80203 <br />Rick Holb~oolc <br />ULDIRE Wcotern Service Ceni:er <br />6rookc Tower <br />1C20 1Sth Street <br />Denver, Colorado 80203 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.