Laserfiche WebLink
Stipulations numbers 7 and 8 were, then, terminated. A final response by BRL, in a letter dated <br />September 25, 2001, resolved all issues. <br />The Division requested, and the Office of Surface Mining confirmed, that the activities proposed in <br />Permit Revision No. 5 did constitute a federal mine plan change requiring Secretarial approval. The <br />secretarial approval was granted after the proposed decision to approve by the Division. <br />BRL applied for Permit Revision No. 6 in a submittal received at the Division on August 10, 2001. The <br />submittal addressed the construction of the unit train loadout and an increase in the coal production rate <br />from 5 million tons per year to six million tons per year. The permit area would be increased by 71 acres, <br />all on private land. The disturbed area would increase by 34 acres with new ponds J and K. The submittal <br />was first called incomplete but, then, was called complete on August 14, 2001. Completeness letters were <br />sent and the public notice of completeness was published four times. The Division received adequacy <br />review responses from several governmental agencies, including the Colorado Historical Society, the U.S. <br />Fish & Wildlife Service (USF&WS) and the U.S.D.A.-Forest Service. <br />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.