Laserfiche WebLink
SUMMARY <br />The Review Process <br />Bowie Resources originally proposed converting to longwall in a December 11, 1998 submittal <br />of Technical Revision No. 7, at a rate of 5 million tons per year. In Technical Revision No. 6, <br />submitted on December 7, 1998, Bowie Resources had requested approval to construct the <br />facilities in support of the longwall; a downhill conveyor, a coal stockpile and coal haul truck <br />loading system and relocation of pond B. Both technical revisions were called complete on <br />December 16, 1998 and the appropriate public notices were published. The Division sent <br />completeness letters to the appropriate federal, state, county and local governmental agencies, <br />county planning commissions, water conservancy districts and water suppliers. The Division <br />received comments back from some of these agencies. The comments concerned impacts to <br />wildlife, water rights, water depletion and protection of archaeological areas of importance. <br />The Division received dozens of comment letters from the public as well as from the previously <br />mentioned organizations. Public comment letters were received from individuals, citizen groups <br />and businesses. The Division also received many telephone calls from the public. The positive <br />comments that the Division received generally centered around several topics; 1) coal mining <br />was good for the community, 2) the area needed the jobs, 3) the area needed the tax revenue <br />generated by coal mining, 4) the coal that is to be mined has low sulfur and, therefore, is cleaner <br />burning and 5) if done correctly, coal mining could be a responsible industry. <br />The negative comments also consisted of several general topics: 1) all of the Bowie Resources <br />revisions which involve the change to longwall mining, construction of the associated facilities <br />and an increase in production, including the Bowie No. 1 Mine Technical Revision No. 31 that <br />proposed to increase production at the train loadout to 3 million tons per year, should be <br />combined, 2) Division action on the revisions, which involve the change to longwall mining, <br />construction of the associated facilities and an increase in production at the Bowie No. 2 Mine <br />and the Bowie No. I train loadout, should be deferred until the Environmental Impact Statement <br />process is finished, 3) impacts to the environment, such as water quality and quantity <br />degradation, decreased air quality, negative impacts to area wildlife and increased surface <br />disturbance, 4) impacts to the society, such as increased noise and light pollution, increased truck <br />traffic and decreased highway safety. <br />The Division sent its adequacy letters for Technical Revisions Nos. 6 and 7 on February 8, 1999. <br />Before BRL could respond to the adequacy questions, BRL met with Division personnel to <br />discuss the status of these revisions. After a request from the Division, BRL withdrew Technical <br />Revisions Nos. 6 and 7, with the understanding that the proposed changes would be resubmitted <br />in one permit revision. The proposed decision to withdraw Technical Revisions Nos. 6 and 7 was <br />made on February 17, 1999. <br />The Division sent letters to all of the commenters, informing them of this change in proceedings <br />and that their comments on Technical Revisions Nos. 6 and 7 would be carried over to the new <br />submittal. The public notice, announcing the withdrawal of the revisions, was published on <br />February 24, 1999 and stated the change in proceedings. However, in spite of the agreement with <br />a <br />