My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
REV08739
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Revision
>
REV08739
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/25/2016 1:09:17 AM
Creation date
11/21/2007 9:56:33 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1980004
IBM Index Class Name
Revision
Doc Date
10/23/1998
Doc Name
MEMO MCCLANE CANYON MINE PN C-80-004 MID TERM PERMIT REVIEW
From
DMG
To
DAVID BERRY
Type & Sequence
MT4
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 />;r <br />~~ iii iiiiiiiiniiiiii <br />999 <br />STATE OF COLORADO <br />DIVISION OF MINERALS AND GEOLOGY <br />Department of Natural Resources <br />1713 Sherman 51., Room 215 <br />Denver, Colorado 80203 <br />Phone. (707) 866-3567 <br />FA%: (3031 832-8106 <br />MEMORANDUM <br />TO: David Berry <br />FROM: Dan Mathews ~~ <br />DATE: October 23, 1998 <br />SUBJECT: McClane Canyon Mine (Permit No. C-80-004) <br />Mid-term Permit Review <br />I noticed today that the Mid-term date for McClane is January 4, 1999. Which is rapidly <br />approaching. <br />II~ <br />DEPARTMENT OF <br />NATURAL <br />RESOURCES <br />Roy Romer <br />Governor <br />lames 5. Lochhead <br />Executive Director <br />Michael e. LOng <br />Divivon Direcor <br />There is not much happening at McClane, and not much has changed since the last permit <br />renewal. About 50,000 tons of coal was mined early in 1997, but not since, and the mine has <br />been officially in temporary cessation for several months now. <br />I think we did a pretty thorough review last renewal, and so I am not anticipating the need for <br />much review assistance. Issues for which I am requesting assistance are as follows: <br />Reclamation Cost Estimate Review <br />2. Hydrology/PHC type issues <br />Mike Boulay had a few questions based on his AHR review, and he indicated that <br />it might be appropriate [o consider updating the PHC. I would like to have Mike <br />follow up on this, and pursue it through the mid-term review rather than as an <br />AHR review issue.* <br />Ditto for groundwater analytical requirements. <br />Postmine Drainage Channel Design. This issue was stipulated in the renewal approval, <br />and designs were submitted within TR-09. Several review iterations later, the revision <br />has not yet been approved, and I am awaiting further design modifications from Walters. <br />I have recently requested that the responses/amended designs be submitted by mid- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.