Laserfiche WebLink
Summary <br />The Review Process <br />Submittal of Application <br />On November 13, 1992, the Division received an application for Permit Revision No. 3 from <br />P&M. The revision requested retention of the Center Ridge and West Ridge ponds on a <br />permanent basis, and declassification of a portion of Oak Creek as an alluvial valley floor, <br />as defined by Rule 1.04(10). The revision was deemed incomplete on November 14, 1992. <br />The operator applied again on November 18, 1992, and that application was deemed <br />complete on November 19, 1993. <br />P&M published a notice of the application in The Steamboat Pilot, on December 3, 1992 <br />and December 10, 1992. The Division informed P&M that, as required by Rule 2.07.3(2), <br />the revision must be published once weekly for four consecutive weeks. P&M published the <br />notice again February 18 through March 4, 1993. <br />Comments and Objections <br />On November 24, 1992, the Division requested compliance information from other states <br />in which P&M operates. The State of Kentucky informed the Division that P&M was not <br />permit blocked, but had outstanding problems which required conditioning of the permit in <br />Kentucky. No other comments regarding compliance were received. <br />On December 7, 1992, a representative of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service <br />(USFWS) telephoned the Division for clarification of P&M's request to declassify Oak <br />Creek. The inquirer had no comments nor were objections made to the request. <br />On December 28, 1992, the Division received written comments from a representative of <br />Civil Design Consultants, Incorporated, an engineering and planning firm located in <br />Steamboat Springs, Colorado. The representative stressed the importance of maintaining <br />high water quality standards in Oak Creek, but did not have objections to the proposal. The <br />Division responded to the comments on January 15, 1993. The response included a <br />summary of mine related disturbance and the hydrologic control structures in place in the <br />Oak Creek drainage, and of the water quality and quantity standards with which P&M must <br />comply. No additional comments or objections were made by Civil Design Consultants, <br />Incorporated. <br />On December 28, 1992, the Division received written comments from the USFWS. The <br />letter stated that the USFWS would not object to retention of the ponds provided the <br />shorelines were revegetated, and that a 75% success standard was achieved. The letter did <br />state, however, that the USFWS did not favor declassification of Oak Creek as an alluvial <br />na me 4 Permu erosion o.3 <br />