|
SUMMARY
<br />The Review Process
<br />The Bowie No. 2 Mine perntit application was submitted by Bowie Resources, LLC on February
<br />13, 1996. The permit application was deemed complete on February 23, 1996, and the required
<br />agency notification letters were sent by the Division. Comments were received from the
<br />Colorado Division of Wildlife, the Colorado State Engineers' Office, the United States Army
<br />Corps of Engineers, the United States Office of Surface Mining, the United States Fish and
<br />Wildlife Service, the Colorado State Historic Preservation Office, and the Colorado Department
<br />of Transportation.
<br />The Division sent adequacy letters to Bowie Resources, LLC on May 31, 1996, June 21, 1996,
<br />August 9 1996, November 18, 1996, November 20, 1996, December 27, 1996, January 29, 1997,
<br />February 18, 1997 and February 19, 1997. All Division adequacy letters were answered by BRL.
<br />With the exception of those issues which were stipulated with the approval, all technical and
<br />procedural issues were resolved. The permit was issued on Apri14, 1997, with an expiration date
<br />of April 4, 2002.
<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 proposed converting to longwall in a December I1, 1998
<br />submittal of Technical Revision No. 7, at a rate of 5 million tons per yeaz. Both technical
<br />revisions were called complete on December 16, 1998. The Division received comments from
<br />several governmental agencies. The comments concerned impacts to wildlife, water rights, water
<br />depletion and protection of archaeological areas of importance.
<br />Public comment letters were received from individuals, citizen groups and businesses. The
<br />Division also received many telephone calls from the public. The positive comments centered
<br />around benefits to the community and the quality of the coal to be mined. The negative
<br />comments involved the need to combine the revisions into one revision, delay the revision
<br />decisions until the Environmental Impact Statement was finished and impacts to the environment
<br />and to society.
<br />The Division sent its adequacy letters for Technical Revisions Nos. 6 and 7 on February 8, 1999.
<br />However, after a request from the Division, BRL withdrew Technical Revisions Nos. 6 and 7,
<br />with the understanding that the proposed changes would be resubmitted in one permit revision.
<br />The proposed decisions to withdraw Technical Revisions Nos. 6 and 7 were made on February
<br />17, 1999.
<br />The Division sent letters to al] 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 [o the new
<br />submittal. However, BRL decided later to submit two separate permit revisions; Permit Revision
<br />No. 2, involving longwall mining at the current rate of 2 million tons per yeaz and Permit
<br />5
<br />
|