Laserfiche WebLink
STATF, OF COLORADO <br />DIVISION OF MINERALS AND GEOLOGY <br />Depar~menl of Ndl ural Resource> <br />131 3 Sherman 51.. Room ? 15 J <br /> <br />Denver, Coloradu 80?03 I~~ <br /> <br />Phune: 13031 866 J Sfi 7 I <br />FAX: (3031 BJ?-8106 <br /> DEPARTMENT OF <br /> NATURAL <br />DATE: September 12, 1996 RESOURCES <br /> <br />TO: <br />Erica Crosby Roy Ramer <br />eovemor <br /> lames 5. Lochhead <br />FROM: Larry Routten~( Executive Director <br /> f ~ Michael B. Long <br /> Division Direcor <br />RE: Yoast Mine (C-94-082) <br /> NOV C-96-017 <br />Here is a summary of my recollection of events leading up to issuance of NOV C-96-017, <br />particularly regarding the points mentioned in Mike Altavilla's letter to you dated <br />September 4, 1996. <br />S <br />October. 199 Meeting <br />Susan Burgmaier and I did meet with Chuck McCulloh and Scott Williams last October to <br />discuss the dragline move. They had a list of questions from Mike Altavilla, which is still <br />in the Yoast file. The question about permitting Road 27a is on that list. I do not <br />specifically recall discussing that question at the October meeting. I am certain that I have <br />never told anyone that a road could be widened by 20-30 feet in order to move mining <br />equipment from one mine site to another without including plans for that road work in a <br />mine permit. Follwoing the October, 1995 meeting, I did not have a conversation with <br />anyone regarding widening Road 27a until after the work had been done. <br />Miscellaneous Discussions <br />Seneca personnel have discussed the status of Road 27a at various meetings during the past <br />year in my presence. Those discussions were in regard to a proposed rule change dealing <br />with a regulatory exemption for permitting public roads. On those occasions, I (and other <br />DMG staff) told Seneca personnel that Road 27a was a public road and did not need to be <br />included in the Seneca II permit because, <br />1. the proposed rule change was being withdrawn, <br />2. the road was a previously existing public road which had not been significantly <br />modified for purposes of coal mining and, <br />3. there was a significant amount of public use of the road which was not related <br />to coal mining. <br />