Laserfiche WebLink
the Division, BRL decided later to submit two separate permit revisions; Permit Revision No. 2, <br />involving longwall mining at the current rate of 2 million tons per year and Permit Revision No. <br />3, involving associated facilities and an increase in production to 5 million tons per year. <br />Permit Revision No. 2, which is the subject of this findings document, was submitted on May 5, <br />1999 and called complete on May 14, 1999. Completeness letters were mailed to the same <br />agencies and organizations that had received completeness letters for Technical Revision No. 7. <br />The public notice announcing the content and completeness of Permit Revision No. 2 was <br />published for four consecutive weeks, beginning on May 26, 1999. The Division received several <br />comment letters, both from govemmental agencies and from the public. <br />When BRL submitted Permit Revision No. 2, they responded to the Division's adequacy <br />questions from the previously withdrawn Technical Revision No. 7. The Division sent its first <br />adequacy letter for Permit Revision No. 2 on June 18, 1999. BRL responded to those adequacy <br />questions in letters dated July 6, 1999 and August 12, 1999. <br />In several letters dated July 16, 1999, the Division received further comments from members of <br />the public. In addition to raising concerns similar to their concerns raised in Technical Revisions <br />Nos. 6 and 7, there were questions about the effects of subsidence, mining through a fault and <br />water rights. Also, there were several requests for an informal conference and a request to place <br />the BRL permit revision material in a location closer to the mine area, rather than in Delta. The <br />Division scheduled an informal conference for August 5, 1999, in which the Division would <br />discuss the mine plan revisions proposed by BRL, answer questions posed by the public and take <br />additional comments. On July 19, 1999, the Division sent letters to these commenters who had <br />requested the informal conference, and informed several govemmental agencies as well, of the <br />date and purpose of the scheduled informal conference. In addition, the public notice that <br />announced the date and purpose of the informal conference was published on July 21 and July <br />28, 1999. Also, the Division placed copies of Permit Revision No. 2, Permit Revision No. 3, <br />copies of the Division's adequacy questions and BRL's responses to those questions and <br />pertinent sections of the Bowie No. 2 approved permit application in the Paonia library. <br />The informal conference was held on August 5, 1999. The Division discussed the content of <br />Permit Revisions Nos. 2 and 3 and the company's responses to the Division's adequacy review <br />of Permit Revision No. 2. The company did not have time to respond formally to the Division's <br />adequacy review of Permit Revision No. 3. The Division also answered questions and received <br />additional comments from the public concerning the proposed changes to BRL's mine plans. <br />The Division also received two letters from the public after the informal conference. Concerns <br />with subsidence impacts, surface and groundwater impacts to water rights and water resources <br />and the separation in the submittal of the various mine plan revisions. <br />BRL answered all of the Division's adequacy questions for Permit Revision No. 2. The Division <br />believes that, for those issues that are within the jurisdiction of the Division, all of the public <br />concerns have been dealt with in an appropriate manner. The details of the adequacy concerns <br />and all of the correspondence letters are available in the Denver office.of the Division. <br />5 <br />