Laserfiche WebLink
In a letter dated September 20, 2001, the Division formally requested that OSM enter into Section 7 <br />consultation with the USF&WS concerning the water depletion estimate and the Windy Gap Process. <br />The USF&WS responded in a letter dated October 23, 2001 that the water depletion fee for this project <br />was waived because the project's average annual depletion of 20.3 acre-feet was less than the 100 acre- <br />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 that a plan <br />of water augmentation was needed for the storage capacity and evaporation of water in the proposed <br />sedimentation pond. 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 11, <br />2001. In a letter dated October 16, 2001, BRL sent responses to the reclamation cost estimate issues that <br />were presented in that first adequacy review letter. In addition, the Division conducted an Applicant <br />Violator System (AVS) check. Violations that were in the computer system were covered under <br />Stipulation Number 12. BRL responded to the remaining initial adequacy review issues in a submittal <br />dated October 23, 2001. <br />The Division sent a second adequacy review letter, dated November 14, 2001. BRL's responses, in a <br />submittal dated November 19, 2001, resolved the concerns that the Division had. However, concerns of <br />several other agencies still needed to be resolved. This was summarized in the Division's third adequacy <br />review letter, dated November 21, 2001. <br />In a submittal dated December 6, 2001, BRL changed the proposed plan so that the new railroad track <br />would be located to the south of the present tracks, instead of to the north. In addition, the conveyor belt <br />line would not go through the Terror Creek Loadout property, but would be situated to the east of it. With <br />this revised construction proposal, the sediment control configuration also changed, including an increase <br />in the number of small area exemptions and the addition of a second sediment pond. The Division <br />determined that the revised changes could 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 revised <br />construction project resulted in a slight decrease in the water depletion estimate as compared to the <br />original estimate. OSM informed the Division that Permit Revision No. 6 would not require a mine plan <br />decision. <br />The revised construction plan resulted in further adequacy review questions. These questions were <br />contained in an adequacy review letter dated December 26, 2001. BRL responded in submittals dated <br />December 31, 2001, January 4, 2002, January 7, 2002 and January 9, 2002. BRL requested, and received, <br />an approved Substitute Water Supply Plan (SWSP) from the CDWR. <br />A computer check of the AVS for the proposed decision resulted in a conditional issue. There were no <br />updates to the AVS since the original AVS check. Therefore, Stipulation No. 12 did not have to be <br />modified. <br />The Division proposed a decision to approve Permit Revision No. 6 with conditions on January 14, 2002. <br />Stipulation No. 13 was attached to that proposed decision. The stipulation required the submittal of the <br />revised NPDES permit, the CDOT temporary construction access road permit and the Delta County road <br />use permit for County Road 4365. With no requests for a formal hearing, Permit Revision No. 6 was final <br />on February 13, 2002. <br />On July 2, 2001, the Division sent a letter to BRL that informed the operator that a complete submittal for <br />a permit renewal was due by October 6, 2001. The current permit was due to expire on April 4, 2002.