Laserfiche WebLink
issues that were presented in that first adequacy review letter. In addition, the Division conducted <br />an Applicant Violator System (AVS) check. Violations that were in the computer system were <br />covered under Stipulation Number 12. BRL responded to the remaining initial adequacy review <br />issues in a submittal dated October 23, 2001. <br />The Division's second adequacy review letter, dated November I4, 2001, summarized the <br />progress in resolving the Division's adequacy review concems. Most of the questions had been <br />answered satisfactorily by BRL, although several issues still remained. Also, the Division had <br />several additional questions concerning some of BRL's adequacy responses. BRL's responses, in <br />a submittal dated November 19, 2001, resolved the concems that the Division had. However, <br />concems of several other agencies still needed to be resolved. This was summarized in the <br />Division's third adequacy review letter, dated November 21, 2001. <br />In a submittal dated December 6, 2001, BRL changed the proposed plan so that the new railroad <br />track would be located to the south of the present tracks, instead of to the north. In addition, the <br />conveyor belt line would not go through the Tenor Creek Loadout property, but would be <br />situated to the east of it. With this revised construction proposal, the sediment control <br />configuration also changed, including an increase in the number of small azea exemptions and <br />the addition of a second sediment pond. The Division determined that the revised changes could <br />be handled in Permit Revision No. 6. <br />The original waiver of the water depletion fee from the USF&WS remained in effect because the <br />revised construction project resulted in a slight decrease in the water depletion estimate as <br />compared to the original estimate. OSM informed the Division that Permit Revision No. 6 would <br />not require a mine plan decision. <br />The revised construction plan resulted in fiuther adequacy review questions. These questions <br />were contained in an adequacy review letter dated December 26, 2001. BRL responded in <br />submittals dated December 31, 2001, January 4, 2002, January 7, 2002 and January 9, 2002. In <br />the submittal dated January 9, 2002, BRL presented the CDOT permit for the overhead conveyor <br />over Old State Highway 133 and the CDOT approval for the proposed disturbance within 100 <br />feet of the highway right-of--way. <br />BRL requested, and received, an approved Substitute Water SnppIy Plan (SWSP) from the <br />CDWR. The plan, described in a letter from the CDWR dated December 26, 200Y, covers the <br />revised construction proposal. <br />A computer check of the AVS for the proposed decision resulted in a conditional issue. There <br />were no updates to the AVS since the original AVS check. Therefore, Stipulation No. 12 did not <br />have to be modified. <br />The Division proposed a decision to approve with conditions Permit Revision No. 6 on January <br />14, 2002. Stipulation No. 13 was attached to that proposed decision. The stipulation requires the <br />submittal of the revised NPDES permit, the CDOT temporary construction access road permit <br />and the Delta County road use permit for County Road 4365. <br />9 <br />