|
On March 22, 1994, Technical Revision No. 24 was approved. In this TR, hydrologic monitoring of
<br />selected sites was either eliminated, temporarily discontinued or reduced in frequency. It was
<br />demonstrated that these sites were either located where there were no anticipated impacts from mining or
<br />where reduced monitoring frequency would not compromise an ability to determine hydrologic impacts.
<br />Hydrologic monitoring of some sites may be reinstated in the future should a change in the mine plan
<br />warrant it.
<br />On September 26, 1994, Technical Revision No. 25 was approved. A modification of the north end of the
<br />West Ridge Waste Pile, to increase the storage volume of the pile, was approved.
<br />On December 8, 1994, the Division received an application for a transfer of permit and succession of
<br />operator. With the approval on January 24, 1995, permit C-81-038 was transferred from Cyprus Orchard
<br />Valley Coal Corporation to Bowie Resources Limited.
<br />The operator for the Bowie No. 1 Mine was changed in Minor Revision No. 99, from Bruin Mining
<br />Company to Sherpa Paonia, Inc. MR-99 was approved with conditions on January 21, 1997. Stipulation
<br />No. 52 was attached to MR-99 and approved the transfer conditional upon the continued compliance with
<br />a settlement agreement that had been linked to the operator. Stipulation No. 52 was terminated on April
<br />25, 1997. With Technical Revision No. 28, the operator changed from Sherpa Paonia to Bowie Resources
<br />Limited.
<br />On October 17, 1997, BRL submitted an application for Permit Renewal No. 3. The Division sent three
<br />adequacy review letters during the review process. With the acceptability of the responses sent by BRL,
<br />the Division proposed a decision on December 14, 1999 to approve with stipulations the Permit Renewal
<br />No. 3 application. The proposed decision became final on January 21, 2000. Because BRL had secured
<br />the right of successive renewal, the permit renewal issuance date was back-dated to April 20, 1998.
<br />On July 22, 2002, the Division sent the required notice to the applicant that a complete permit renewal
<br />application needed to be submitted by October 22, 2002. BRL submitted the renewal package for Permit
<br />Renewal No. 4 on September 13, 2002. The renewal package was called complete on September 25,
<br />2002, thereby securing BRL's right of successive renewal. Notification letters were sent out on the same
<br />day to the appropriate local, state and federal agencies, local associations and other interested parties. The
<br />public notice was published in the Delta County Independent on October 2, 9, 16 and 23, 2003.
<br />The Division sent out adequacy review letters dated November 27, 2002, December 26, 2002, February
<br />20, 2003, April 11, 2003, April 23, 2003 and April 30, 2003. BRL responded with submittals dated
<br />January 23, 2003, March 17, 2003, March 28, 2003 and May 15, 2003. With all questions satisfactorily
<br />answered, the Division proposed a decision on December 30, 2003 to approve with one modified
<br />stipulation (Stipulation No. 54) Permit Renewal No. 4. In this proposed decision, the Division raised the
<br />reclamation cost estimate from $6,475,166.00 to $7,719,033.00.
<br />The proposed decision was published in the Delta County Independent on January 7 and 14, 2004. On
<br />January 20, 2004, the Division received a letter from the operator, dated January 16, 2004, in which BRL
<br />requested a formal hearing to object to the Division's reclamation cost estimate for Permit Renewal No. 4
<br />However, BRL also requested that the formal hearing be delayed 60 to 90 days so that they could work
<br />with the Division in resolving what BRL believed was an excessive reclamation cost estimate.
<br />BRL submitted a Reclamation Estimate Comparison binder, dated January 29, 2004, to the Division on
<br />February 2, 2004 as support for BRL's contention of an excessive reclamation cost estimate. The Division
<br />reviewed BRL's information and prepared an adequacy response letter dated February 18, 2004 to BR-L.
<br />The operator responded in two letters dated February 20, 2004 and February 24, 2004. The Division sent
<br />an additional adequacy review letter dated March 4, 2004. In a final letter to BRL, dated March 10, 2004,
<br />7
|