GENERAL55221 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

A computer check of the AVS for the permit renewal proposed decision resulted in a conditional issue. There were no updates to the AVS since the original AVS check. Therefore, Stipulation No. 12 did not have to be modified but was still in effect for this permit renewal. All of the adequacy issues were resolved, except for the concurrence by the Colorado Division of Wildlife concerning the woody plant stem density standazd for the reclaimed azeas. Because this issue may take some time to resolve, Stipulation No. 14 was attached to this proposed decision. The pages and maps that were revised in Permit Renewal No. 1 were placed into the permit application through Minor Revision No. 21. This minor revision was approved on May 7, 2002. The application for Permit Revision No. 7, dated February 27, 2003, was received at the Division on February 28, 2003. The submittal was called complete on March ] 0, 2003. Completeness letters were sent on Mazch 11, 2003 and the completeness public notice was published. Only one comment letter, from the Colorado Historical Society, was received at the Division concerning Permit Revision No. 7. The Division conducted an Applicant Violator System (AVS) check on May 6, 2003. The system and Office of Surface Mining recommendations were for a conditional issue. The Division sent its preliminary adequacy review letter on April 14, 2003. BRL submitted its preliminary adequacy review responses in a submittal dated April 24, 2003. Additional information was sent by BRL in a submittal dated May 1, 2003. The Division sent its final adequacy letter to BRL on May 7, 2003. The Division included the reclamation cost estimate in the amount of $370,186.00 for the activities proposed in Permit Revision No. 7. BRL responded on May 12, 2003. All outstanding issues were resolved. The application for Permit Revision No. 8, dated February 27, 2003, was submitted by BRL on February 28, 2003. The permit revision was called complete on March 10, 2003. Letters of completeness were mailed to the appropriate federal, state, county and local government agencies, water user associations and environmental organizations. The public notice that informed the public of the submittal was published four times in the Delta County Independent, in the March 12, 19, 26 and Apri12, 2003 editions. The Division sent BRL its preliminary adequacy review questions in a letter dated April 10, 2003. BRL responded to the Division's adequacy questions in a submittal dated July 22, 2003 and received at the Division on July 24, 2003. All but two of the Division's concerns were answered satisfactorily to the Division in BRL's responses. The Division sent a second adequacy review letter, dated September 15, 2003. BRL replied with their second response letter, dated September 17, 2003. All of the Division's concerns were resolved with that second response letter from BRL. The Division received one comment letter for Permit Revision No. 8. In a letter dated April 21, 2003, the United States Department of Agriculture- Forest Service (USDA-FS) expressed concerns about the effects of subsidence in the Sheep Corral drainage. BRL responded to the 10