GENERAL33452 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

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. [n 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. BRL requested, and received, an approved Substitute Water Supply Plan (SWSP) from the CDWR. A computer check of the AVS for the 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. The Division proposed a decision to approve Permit Revision No. 6 with conditions on January 14, 2002. Stipulation No. 13 was attached to that proposed decision. The stipulation required the submittal of the revised NPDES permit, the CDOT temporary construction access road permit and the Delta County road use permit for County Road 4365. With no requests for a formal heazing, Permit Revision No. 6 was final on February 13, 2002. On July 2, 2001, the Division sent a letter to BRL that informed the operator that a complete submittal for a permit renewal was due by October 6, 2001. The current permit was due to expire on April 4, 2002. BRL did submit a permit renewal package on September 24, 2001. On October 2, 2001, the Division called the submittal complete. Completeness letters were mailed and the completeness public notice was published. Only the Colorado Historical Society responded to the permit renewal, stating that the agency had no concerns with the renewal. The Division sent its adequacy review questions in a letter dated December 5, 2001. BRL sent its responses in a submittal dated April 2, 2002. The Division reviewed BRL's responses and sent out a second adequacy review letter, dated April 12, 2002. BRL sent a final response submittal dated April 22, 2002. 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 standard for the reclaimed areas. Because this issue may take some time to resolve, Stipulation No. 14 was attached to this proposed decision.