Laserfiche WebLink
~,-.,SEP 05 '96 01~52PM PERBODY WSTN SENECR MINE P.5 <br />Ms, Erica Crosby <br />September 4: 1996 <br />Page 4 <br />Then when you telephoned me in the afternoon on August 29, you said <br />that the Division was issuing a violation for the work done on RCR <br />27k. The Division felt that this work should have been included in <br />a zevisioa and added to our permit area. On Friday morning August <br />51~, Roy Karo and I had a telephone discussion with Larry, about the <br />ci:.cumetances surrounding this violation. You arrived at the <br />minesit® and issued NOV Na. C-96-017. <br />The nature ox the NOv included: <br />Failure to conduct mining operations within the permit ar®a <br />(RCR 27A). <br />This road has never been in the permit area and at numerous times <br />since I have been at Seneca, over the last two years it has always <br />been 3iscusssd, but the end result is that it was not necessary to <br />include it. <br />2. Implementing revisions prior to approval (RCR Z7). <br />The fill worn alongside RCR 27 has been done within our easement <br />area, with the approval of the appropriate Routt county officials, <br />and. i9 similar tc thc~ extra safety lanes at the intersection of RCR <br />'7 a.l]d Yoast Haul Road ~'A°. Those extra lanes are not in the permit <br />srea, yet the Division haft no problem with us constructing them per <br />RGlitt County specifications. <br />1°silure to provide apscificatioaa and geotechaical analysis oa <br />the road cut (RCR 27A) and failure to provide a realamatioa <br />plaA (RCR 27A). <br />Thin ix~ a county road which we have utilized and maintained for <br />twenty-eight years. zt has never been included in the permit area. <br />lKx. Paul Dral;er did not request road specifications, geotechnical <br />analysis, or a reclamation plan, on the widening being done to RCR <br />W7A, He has vrorked with us over the years and was confident that <br />th~• waack done cn RGR 27A would be exceptional and that after the <br />drayline deadheads past RCR 27A, the road itself will be left in <br />better condition. <br />The preceding information provides a history of the circumstances <br />involving this deadhead project and the issuing of the violation. <br />Again, please review this violation quickly so we can have a <br />conference to discuss Nov Nos. C-96-015, C-96-016, and C-95-017 as <br />soon as possible. Please contact me if you or any other members of <br />the division have any questions regarding this information. <br /> <br />