|
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.
<br />When BRL submitted Permit Revision Nos. 2 and 3, the operator was responding to the Division's
<br />adequacy questions from the previously withdrawn Technical Revision Nos. 6 and 7. Permit Revision No.
<br />2 was submitted on May 5, 1999, and called complete on May 14, 1999. Permit Revision No. 3 was
<br />submitted on May 17, 1999 and called complete on May 27, 1999. Completeness letters were mailed to
<br />the same agencies and organizations that had received completeness letters for Technical Revision Nos. 6
<br />and 7. The Division received several comment letters, both from governmental agencies and from the
<br />public.
|