Laserfiche WebLink
Stipulation No. 24 <br />The elevated conveyor over old state highway 133 and the Fire Mountain Canal that is proposed in <br />Technical Revision No. 45 cannot be constructed until Bowie Resources LLC has secured the necessary <br />permits from the Colorado Department of Transportation and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. <br />SUMMARY <br />The Review Process <br />The Bowie No. 2 Mine permit application was submitted by Bowie Resources Limited on February 13, <br />1996. The permit application was deemed complete on February 23, 1996, and the required agency <br />notification letters were sent by the Division. Comments were received from the Colorado Division of <br />Wildlife, the Colorado State Engineers' Office, the United States Army Corps of Engineers, the United <br />States Office of Surface Mining, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, the Colorado State Historic <br />Preservation Office, and the Colorado Department of Transportation. <br />The Division sent adequacy letters to Bowie Resources Limited on May 31, 1996, June 21, 1996, August <br />9 1996, November 18, 1996, November 20, 1996, December 27, 1996, January 29, 1997, February 18, <br />1997 and February 19, 1997. All Division adequacy letters were answered by BRL. With the exception of <br />those issues which were stipulated with the approval, all technical and procedural issues were resolved. <br />The permit was issued on April 4, 1997, with an expiration date of April 4, 2002. <br />The original proposal to construct facilities in support of a longwall was submitted by BRL in Technical <br />Revision No. 6. This revision was submitted on December 7, 1998 and proposed to construct a downhill <br />conveyor, a coal stockpile and coal haul truck loading system and relocation of pond B. BRL proposed <br />converting to longwall in a December 11, 1998 submittal of Technical Revision No. 7, at a rate of 5 <br />million tons per year. Both technical revisions were called complete on December 16, 1998. The Division <br />received comments from several governmental agencies. The comments concerned impacts to wildlife, <br />water rights, water depletion and protection of archaeological areas of importance. <br />Public comment letters were received from individuals, citizen groups and businesses. The Division also <br />received many telephone calls from the public. The positive comments centered on benefits to the <br />community and the quality of the coal to be mined. The negative comments involved the need to combine <br />the revisions into one revision, delay the revision decisions until the Environmental Impact Statement was <br />finished and impacts to the environment 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, with the <br />understanding that the proposed changes would be resubmitted in one permit revision. The proposed <br />decisions to withdraw Technical Revisions Nos. 6 and 7 were made on February 17, 1999. <br />The Division sent letters to all of the commenters, informing them of this change in proceedings and that <br />their comments on Technical Revisions Nos. 6 and 7 would be carried over to the new submittal. <br />However, BRL decided later to submit two separate permit revisions; Permit Revision No. 2, involving <br />longwall mining at the current rate of 2 million tons per year and Permit Revision No. 3, involving <br />associated facilities and an increase in production to 5 million tons per year.