Laserfiche WebLink
. . <br />iii iiiiiiiiiiiuiii <br />999 <br /> STATE OF COLORADO <br />DIVISION OF MINERALS AND GEOLOGY <br />Deparlmenl of Nalu ral ReSUUrces <br />1313 Sherman 51.. Room 21 5 <br /> <br />Denver, Colorado 80?03 II~~~~ <br />Phone: 13031 866-3567 <br />FA,I <br />170 3) 83?-8106 <br />. DEPARTMENT OF <br />DATE: September 12, 1996 ~,$Q~~$ <br /> <br />TO: <br />Erica Crosby Roy Romer <br />eovemor <br /> lames 5. Lochhead <br /> <br />FROM: <br />Larry Routten E~ecuove Director <br /> , <br />Michael B. Long <br /> Division Dueaor <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 />October 19 Meetin <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 the proposed rule change was being withdrawn, 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 />