Laserfiche WebLink
<br />me who told them so. My rationale was that the improvements to RCR 27 did not <br />constitute mining operations, since this was not done to remove coal, or haul equipment, <br />etc. for mine development. I viewed this much the same as when SCC has been required <br />to pave portions of RCR 27 as a condition of their special use permit. This differs from <br />the vndemng of RCR 27a because it was not done to facilitate rrumng; widening the road <br />to move a dragline is directly related to mining and therefore should be considered a <br />mining activity. <br />4. One other point I believe is of interest is the confusion Mike Altavilla had over some <br />tentative designs for earthwork associated with the dra~line move. You came to me after <br />you received the revision application for the draglme move, and asked me what I <br />remembered about our meeting. You were concerned that the application lacked detail <br />regarding earthwork to be done in the drainage where the dragline would cross under the <br />power line. I showed you some cross sections of proposed cut and fill that I was given <br />dunng the October 1995 meeting with SCC. You mentioned these had not been included <br />in the application. Later, in passing, you mentioned that Mike Altavilla indicated to you <br />that he had never seen the cross sections generated by SCC. This indicates to me that <br />there was definitely potential for miscommunication on SCC's part regarding the outcome <br />of our October 1995 meeting. <br />s~n~o9o696.we <br />c : (,a~ R~-~ec~ <br />Etip Crosby 2 September 6, 1996 <br />