Laserfiche WebLink
SUMMARY <br />The Review Process <br />The original proposal to construct facilities in support of a longwall was submitted by BRL in <br />Technical Revision No. 6. Technical Revision No. 6 was submitted on December 7, 1998 and <br />proposed to construct a downhill conveyor, a coal stockpile and coal haul truck loading system <br />and relocation of pond B. BRL originally proposed converting to longwall in a December 11, <br />1998 submittal of Technical Revision No. 7, at a rate of 5 million tons per year. Both technical <br />revisions were called complete on December l6, 1998 and the appropriate public notices were <br />published. Because a portion of the facilities proposed in Technical Revision No. 6 would be <br />located within 100 feet of the right-of--way of Old State Highway 133, the completeness <br />publication for Technical Revision No. 6 announced the opportunity for members of the public <br />to request an informal conference in order to discuss whether the interests of the public and <br />affected landowners would be protected. The Division had a sepazate public notice published on <br />January 6, 1999, announcing the same opportunity for an informal conference. The Division <br />sent completeness letters to the appropriate federal, state, county and local govetnmental <br />agencies, county planning commissions, water conservancy districts and water suppliers. The <br />Division received comments back from some of these agencies. The comments concerned <br />impacts to wildlife, water rights, water depletion and protection of archaeological azeas of <br />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 azea 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 [0 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. 1 train loadout, should be deferred until the Enviromnental 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. Afrer 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 />a <br />