2002-05-09_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1996083

Home Browse Search

The USDA-FS commented, in a letter dated August 28, 2001, that the construction of the train loadout, although not on National Forest lands, was required in the approval of the Iron Point Tract federal lease. The Forest Service had no specific comments on the project. The Colorado Division of Water Resources (CDWR), in a letter dated August 23, 2001, stated that a plan of water augmentation was needed for the storage capacity and evaporation of water in the proposed sedimentation pond. The Division did not receive any public comments concerning this permit revision. The Division's first adequacy review questions were sent to the operator in a letter dated October 11, 2001. In a letter dated October 16, 2001, BRL sent responses to the reclamation cost estimate issues that were presented in that first adequacy review letter. In addition, the Division conducted an Applicant Violator System (AVS) check. Violations that were in the computer system were covered under Stipulation Number 12. BRL responded to the remaining initial adequacy review issues in a submittal dated October 23, 2001. The Division's second adequacy review letter, dated November 14, 2001, summarized the progress in resolving the Division's adequacy review concerns. Most of the questions had been answered satisfactorily by BRL, although several issues still remained. Also, the Division had several additional questions conceming some of BRL's adequacy responses. BRL's responses, in a submittal dated November 19, 2001, resolved the concems that the Division had. However, concerns of several other agencies still needed to be resolved. This was summarized in the Division's third adequacy review letter, dated November 21, 2001. In a submittal dated December 6, 2001, BRL changed the proposed plan so that the new railroad track would be located to the south of the present tracks, instead of to the north. In addition, the conveyor belt line would not go through the Terror Creek Loadout property, but would be situated to the east of it. With this revised construction proposal, the sediment control configuration also changed, including an increase in the number of small area exemptions and the addition of a second sediment pond. The Division determined that the revised changes could be handled in Permit Revision No. 6. The original waiver of the water depletion fee from the USF&WS remained in effect because the revised construction project resulted in a slight decrease in the water depletion estimate as compared to the original estimate. OSM informed the Division that Permit Revision No. 6 would not require a mine plan decision. The revised construction plan resulted in further adequacy review questions. These questions were contained in an adequacy review letter dated December 26, 2001. BRL responded in submittals dated December 31, 2001, January 4, 2002, January 7, 2002 and January 9, 2002. In the submittal dated January 9, 2002, BRL presented the CDOT permit for the overhead conveyor over Old State Highway 133 and the CDOT approval for the proposed disturbance within 100 feet of the highway right-of--way. BRL requested, and received, an approved Substitute Water Supply Plan (SWSP) from the CDWR. The plan, described in a letter from the CDWR dated December 26, 2001, covers the revised construction proposal. 9