Laserfiche WebLink
combined into Stipulation number 12. Stipulations numbers 7 and 8 were, then, terminated. A <br />final response by BRL, in a letter dated and received on September 25, 2001, resolved all issues. <br />The Division sent a final letter, dated September 25, 2001, summazizing the successful resolution <br />of all of the adequacy issues. <br />The Division requested that the Office of Surface Mining (OSM) make a determination as to <br />whether Pemrit Revision No. 5 constituted a federal mine plan change requiring Secretarial <br />approval. In their response, OSM confirmed that the activities proposed in Permit Revision No. 5 <br />do constitute a federal mine plan change requiring Secretarial approval. The secretarial approval <br />was granted after the proposed decision to approve by the Division. <br />The details of the adequacy concerns and al] of the correspondence letters aze available in the <br />Denver office of the Division. <br />BRL applied for Permit Revision No. 6 in a submittal dated August 8, 2001 and received at the <br />Division on August 10; 2001. The submittal was called incorriplete on July 23, 2001. With the <br />submittal of the two missing items, PR-06 was called complete on August 14, 2001. <br />Completeness letters were sent to the appropriate govemmental agencies and to local water user <br />and environmental organizations on the same day. The public notice of completeness was <br />published four times, August 15, 22, 29 and September 5, 2001, in the Delta County <br />Independent. <br />The Division received adequacy review responses from several governmental agencies. In a <br />letter dated August 23, 2001, the Colorado Historical Society (CHS) determined that no <br />historical sites eligible to the National Register will be disturbed by the proposed operations. <br />In a letter dated September 20, 2001, the Division formally requested that OSM enter into <br />Section 7 consultation with the USF&WS conceming the water depletion estimate and the <br />Windy Gap Process. OSM sent a letter to the USF&WS requesting the consultation in a letter <br />dated September 24, 2001. The USF&WS responded in a letter dated October 23, 2001 that the <br />water depletion fee for this project was waived. The waiver was granted because the project's <br />average annual depletion of 20.3 acre-feet is less than the 100 acre-feet minimum required for <br />the levying of the fee. <br />The USDA-FS commented, in a letter dated August 28, 200?, that the construction of the train <br />loadout, although not on National Forest lands, was required in the approval of the Iron Point <br />Tract federal lease. The Forest Service had no specific comments on the project. <br />The Colorado Division of Water Resources (CDWR), in a letter dated August 23, 2001, stated <br />that a plan of water augmentation was needed for the storage capacity and evaporation of water <br />in the proposed sedimentation pond. <br />The Division did not receive any public comments concerning this permit revision. <br />The Division's first adequacy review questions were sent to the operator in a letter dated October <br />11, 2001. In a letter dated October 16, 2001, BRL sent responses to the reclamation cost estimate <br />8 <br />