ENFORCE32867 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Y~~ The Division contends that the disturbance associated with movement of the dragline from the Seneca II Mine to the Yoast Mine is surface mining related activity and the disturbance related to this activity should be reclaimed. 2. Peabody contends that public roads are excluded from the definition of roads as defined in Rule 1.04(111). They also contend that the purpose of the activity on RCR 27a was transportation of a piece of mining equipment, and the activity of improving the road was not necessary to the coal mining operations. The Division agrees with Peabody that the road is indeed a public road owned and maintained by Routt County. The Division never previously required the road to be permitted because it falls under the defmition of a public road. The disturbance associated with movement of the dragline involved a cut of roughly 1000 feet long, 20 feet wide and 30 feet high. This "improvement" to the County Road was done by Seneca Coal Company for the sole purpose of moving the dragline from one mine to another. The cut in the hill side was the only major disturbance to RCR 27a and the remaining portion of the road was unaffected. 3. The violation abatement steps require that Seneca permit and provide a reclamation plan for RCR 27a. Upon further review of Peabody's comments and the Rules and Regulations, it appears that the RCR 27a should not be permitted. The only change to the county road was the cut noted above. The alignment of the road, base construction and the fill slopes were not modified. RCR 27a has never been permitted and has existed in its general configuration for roughly 28 years. It would not be advantageous to permit the entire road for one small area of disturbance, especially since Seneca Coal Co. will no longer be mining coal from the Seneca II Mine. This cut, however, is disturbance associated with coal mining related activity. It was conducted outside the permit area and should be reclaimed as a part of the NOV abatement. 4. I recommend that NOV C-96-017 be vacated and a new violation be issued. This process would detach the public road issue from the permitting and reclamation aspect while ensuring that the disturbed area be reclaimed in accordance with the Rules. Modifying the NOV at this point in time is not a good alternative because the nature of the violation has changed, and the appeal process has progressed beyond the assessment conference stage. I recommend the new NOV be written for; Nature of the Violation Failure to conduct mining operations within the permit area. Implementing a revision prior to DMG approval. Portion of the Operation to which this Notice Applies Cut 1000 feet long, 20 feet high and 30 feet high adjacent to RCR 27a, and the work next to RCR 27 in TR-03.