REV97156 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

One of the main concerns with longwall is increased subsidence and the entire issue is sidestepped by saying it was covered in the original mine plan. The subsidence section of the Bowie No. 2 Mine permit was revised earlier this year via Technical Revision No. 8, which included a discussion of subsidence projections for longwall mining. As your comment implies, subsidence above longwall mining is typically of a greater magnitude than subsidence above conventional mining. BRL's choice to discuss subsidence impacts greater than what might be expected to result from conventional mining in the mine permit is not prohibited by the coal mining regulations. Now that longwall mining is being proposed, the Division feels that the potential subsidence impacts expected to result from longwall mining are already adequately discussed in the permit. Was mining multiple seams included in the analysis? The Bowie No. 2 Mine permit indicates that mining of the B-2 coal seam may be proposed at some time in the future. The approved operating plans at this time include mining of the D seam only. No other mining is presently approved. Therefore, the subsidence sections of the permit only address impacts expected to result from removal of the D seam. The documents dealing with subsidence were not made available to us at the Paonia library for public review. The Regulations of the Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Board for Coal Mining require that mine operators place a copy of proposed permit revisions in a public office where they will be available for public review. Since the subsidence section of the Bowie permit was not revised in PR-02 or PR-03, BRL is not required to place that portion of the permit in the Paonia library. The entire approved mine permit is available for public review at the Bowie mine office and at the Division's office. The permit was also available in the Delta County Clerk and Recorder's office prior to the time the Division directed BRL to send permitting material to the Paonia library for the public's convenience. I am not certain if that copy is still in the Clerk and Recorder's office at this time. In summary, the Division feels the BRL has addressed the issues which you presented in your letter adequately to comply with the applicable law and regulations. BRL and the Division are currently working to resolve the final details with the two remaining issues from the Division's June 18, 1999 preliminary adequacy review letter to the company. Those issues are the revision of the mine's water depletion estimate and clarification of ownership information in the permit. Once those issues are adequately resolved, we anticipate that a proposed decision will be issued by this office in a matter of days.