2007-07-30_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1981041

Home Browse Search

Appendix 15-i 6f the amended permit application Pursuant to Rule 4.16.3(2), the Division finds that additional specific flans or demonstrations are not required to show the feasibility of the proposed alternative use. Commercial use ofthe property and facilities by PP[ since 2005, including various facility upgrades and n}odifications, installation of a new septic system, and approval of a minor site plan application by Mesa County, is sufficient to demonstrate the (feasibility of the alternative use. i; Pursuaut to Rule 4.16.3(3), the Division finds that the proposed use will not present actual or probable hazazdrto public health or safety nor will it pose actual or probable threat of water flow diminution or pollution contrary to State or Federal laws, Rules or Red;ulations. Pursuaut to Rule 4.16.3(4), the Division finds that the use shall not itivolve unreasonable delays in reclamation. ' Pursuant to Rule 4.16.3(5), the Division finds that necessary approval of measures to prevent or mitigate adverse; effects on fish, wildlife, and related environmental values and threatened or endangered plans has been obtained from the Division and appropriate State and Federal fish and wildlife management agencies. The Division consulted with Office o ~ Surface Mining and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service during the PR-3 permitting process to ensure that potential impacts to threatened and endangered species were properly addressed. The Colorado Division of W ildlife was provided notice of the land use change proposed in PR-3, but did not pn~vide comments or objections to the proposal. I Rule 2.05.5(2)(6) requires that the reclamation plan be accompanied by a copy of comments concerning the proposed use by the legal or equitable owner ofrecord ~ifthe surface ofthe proposed permit area and the State and local government agencies that would have to... authorize the use of the land following reclamation. The permit application was updati;d during PR-3 to include documentation of compliance with this provision. Specifically, as noted previously, Appendix 15-1 includes an approval letter from the Mesa County Department of Planning and Development for a minor site plan tb allow upgrades to existing facilities at the site, to accommodate the proposed commercial use under existing county zoning. Additionally, nevv page A14-5-32 was included in Appendix 14-5, which is a surface landowner's consent pursuant to 2.05.5(2)(6), signed by Nelson L. Kidder, Vice?•President of Snowcap Coal Company, Ina (SCC), one of the two land owners affected by the land °use change. The other landowner affected by the PR-3 land use change is Rudy Fontanari. SCC provided amended pages A'14-5-34 through A14-5-36, which include a copy of a detailed letter addressed to Mr. Fontanazi, explaining the proposed changes and requesting his comment, a drawing depicting the areas to be affected by the proposed changes, including delineation of ~;he small area owned by Mr. Fontanari, and a copy of a certified mail return receipt for the letter and drawing. The land owned by Mr. Fontanari within the South Portal area is limited to a segment of Access Road 1 located within a "non-active use" portion of the alternative land use area, immediately adjacent to "active use" areas of the lower facilities and Access Road lA, which are owned by SCC.~ As such, the road will be regraded and seeded as originally proposed. Any impacts to Mr. Fontanazi's property would be indirect, resulting~from active use of the adjacent facilities and road for,commercial purposes. Mr. Fontanari has notl provided comments to Snowcap Coal Company or',the Division regarding the proposed land use change. Given the situation described, the Division has determined that the documentation provided is adequate to address the requirement of 2.0515(2)(6). I Permit Revision No. 3 ~~ Permit No. C-1981-041 July 30, 2007 Page 48