Laserfiche WebLink
The Division sent its first adequacy review letter on July 26, 2001. BRL responded to the <br />Division's concerns in a submittal dated August 23, 2001. In that submittal, BRL requested that a <br />second de-gas hole and its associated road be included in PR-O5. The Division sent another <br />adequacy review letter on September 14, 2001. BRL responded to the Division's second <br />adequacy review letter in a submittal dated September 19, 2001. A review of the Applicant <br />Violator System (AVS) resulted in Stipulation No. 12 being attached [o the PR-OS decision to <br />approve the revision with conditions. Stipulations numbers 7 and 8, plus additional AVS <br />concerns associated with PR-O5, were combined into Stipulation number 12. Stipulations <br />numbers 7 and 8 were, then, terminated. A final response by BRL, in a letter dated September <br />25, 2001, resolved all issues. <br />The Division requested, and the Office of Surface Mining confirmed, that the activities proposed <br />in Permit Revision No. 5 did constitute a federal mine plan change requiring Secretarial <br />approval. The secretarial approval was granted after the proposed decision to approve by the <br />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 incomplete 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 and the public notice of completeness was published four times. <br />The Division received adequacy review responses from several governmental agencies, <br />including the Colorado Historical Society, the U.S. Fish Bc Wildlife Service (USF&WS} and the <br />U.S.D.A.-Forest Service. <br />In a letter dated September 20, 2001, the Division formally requested that OSM enter into <br />Section 7 consultation with the USF&WS concerning the water depletion estimate and the <br />Windy Gap Process. The USF&WS responded in a letter dated October 23, 2001 that the water <br />depletion fee for this project was waived because the project's average annual depletion of 20.3 <br />acre-feet was less than the 100 acre-feet minimum required for the levying of the fee. <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 />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 sent a second adequacy review letter, dated November 14, 2001. BRL's responses, <br />in a submittal dated November 19, 2001, resolved the concerns that the Division had. However, <br />8 <br />