|
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.
<br />BRL did submit a permit renewal package on September 24, 2001. On October 2, 2001, the Division
<br />called the submittal complete. Completeness letters were mailed and the completeness public notice was
<br />published. Only the Colorado Historical Society responded to the permit renewal, stating that the agency
<br />had no concerns with the renewal.
<br />The Division sent its adequacy review questions in a letter dated December 5, 2001. BRL sent its
<br />responses in a submittal dated April 2, 2002. The Division reviewed BRL's responses and sent out a
<br />second adequacy review letter, dated April 12, 2002. BRL sent a final response submittal dated April 22,
<br />2002.
|