PERMFILE61025 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

~ ~ • and to Ms. Chiappone that I was satisfied at this time with the bond amount you proposed in your application. Hopefully this paperwork has been prepared and sent to Ms. Chiappone by now. She must review the two warranties to determine their adequacy before a permit is issued to you. I will begin to calculate the required bond amount, based now on your original submittal and responses received here yesterday. It appears that the bond should be set for disturbance of the entire site, with slopes during mining of 3:1, topsoil and overburden to be replaced at an average depth of six inches each, no permanent structures to remove, and revegetation of the entire site (except for the minor road areas). If any significant increase over your figures is needed, I will attach my supporting paperwork to this letter. Because the entire site is not disturbed at this time, any necessary additional bond can be added at a later date. Ms. Eastin stated that the published notice would run on 7/10/98, which makes the end of the 10- day public comment period 7/20/98. No decision to approve or deny your application may be made before that 10-dav neriod has expired. Any adverse public corrunent (objections) received by 4:00 p.m. on 7/20/98 could delay the decision, i.e., if an issue over which this Division has jurisdiction is being contested it must be dealt with, and approval may not be able to occur on 7(20(98. Objections over non jurisdictional issues, and objections received after the public comment period has expired, will not delay the decision. You have stated to me your interest in securing approval of the application and receiving issuance of the permit at the earliest date possible. I will attempt to review all materials which I receive in a timely manner, but cannot be expected to provide immediate reviews of materials sent to this office at the last minute. As you know, there is a statuted 30-day review period for 110 permit applications, and I feel that the review process has progressed quite well so far. I will be out of the office on annual leave for the early part of the week of 7/20/98, and will not be available to either receive and handle any public comments, nor will I be able to communicate my decision on this application to the Denver office. I will attempt, however, without burdening my co-workers, to inform them about my tentative decision on this application and see if there may be a possibility of them communicating this to Denver in my absence, if there are no objections received before 4:00 p.m. on 7/20/98. I am not promising that this is possible, but will try to arrange this simply as a courtesy to you. (Please remember, though, this office has been encouraging you to submit this application to replace Mr. Popejoy's for three years now.) When Ms. Chiappone in the Denver office has received the decision to approve the application (either through a co-worker during my absence, or through me no sooner than 7/24/98), and the warranties are adequate and complete, she will issue the permit. I was asked by Gary Tuttle of Tuttle Applegate in a phone conversation last week, if it would be permissible to allow Gunnison County to setup and begin crushing material in the pit, before the new permit is issued. I stated that it probably would be alright, but only if the following conditions are adhered to: 1) that all activity is to remain within the boundaries of the present 11 ] permit (which are the same as your permit boundaries), 2) that no material is to be sold or exported from the site (since that is not allowed under a 111 permit), 3) that once your permit is