Laserfiche WebLink
III IIIIIIIIIIIII III ~ <br />999 <br />DIVISION OF MINERALS AND GEOLOGY <br />Department of Natural Rewurces <br />U13 Sherman 51.. Room 215 <br />Denver, Colorado 80207 <br />Phone: 13071 866-1567 <br />FA%: IJOA flJ2-8106 <br />April 8,1997 <br />Mr. Michael G. Altavilla <br />Seneca Coal Company <br />P.O. Drawer D <br />Hayden, CO 81639 <br />RE: Yoast Mine (C-94-082); Seneca Coal Company <br />NOV C-96-018; Assessment Conference & Request to Vacate <br />Dear Mr. Altavilla, <br />II~~~ <br />DEPARTMENT OI <br />NATURAI <br />RESOURCE` <br />Roy Romer <br />Governor <br />lames 5 Lochhead <br />Executive Duecrar <br />Michael B. Long <br />Division Director <br />On February 19, 1997, an assessment conference was held at the Division's office for NOV C-96- <br />018issued to Seneca Coal Company. The violation was issued for failure to conduct mining <br />operations within the permit area and implementing a revision prior to DMG approval. The <br />assessment officer recommended to me that NOV C-96-018 be vacated. I have decided not to <br />accept that recommendation. Rather, I am upholding the violation, for reasons indicated in this <br />letter, and offering the enclosed settlement agreement. <br />The assessment officer recommended vacation for the following four reasons; <br />a) Rule 1.04 (111) defines "roads" and specifically excludes public roads, ramps, and <br />routes of travel from the definition of a road. <br />b) The County Planning Commission, County Commissioners, County Engineer and the <br />Transportation Director gave prior approval of all road work on an existing public road, <br />within the right-of--way (ROW), to safely facilitate the transport of equipment. <br />c) There is a prior history of Seneca Coal Company improving county roads by <br />resurfacing, repairing, widening etc. under the direction of the county to facilitate traffic <br />and for public safety, and <br />STATE OF COLORADO <br />• <br />d) The work adjacent to Routt County Road 27 was within the right of way, therefore it <br />was not required to be part of the plans submitted in technical revision number 3. <br />