Laserfiche WebLink
~ ~ .01/14/1999 08:06 970527 <br />i~^~ <br />1 <br />~: <br />1/13/99 <br />toe Dudash I <br />Environmental Prote~don Specialist <br />1313 Sherman St. Rom 215 <br />Denver, Co. 80203 i <br />RICHURD RUDIH • <br />Re: Technical Rev}sions No,s 1,6,&30 <br />and all others pertaining. to Bowie longwall expansion <br />As stated in included Imemos titled; <br />III IIIIIIIIIIIII III <br />999 <br />"Item 2" "...If Bowie Resources plans to install the longwall equipment and <br />increase production a~ stated in the prospectus, we must analyze the <br />socioeconomic impacts of the additional production" <br />"Item 3" `.`...The BL 's decision was based on ati environmental assessment <br />(EA.), which anal environmental impacts based on a projected mining. <br />rate of 1.5 to 2 tons per, year. Newly discovered evidence shows the <br />actual rate will be s' cantly.;higher, i.e., 4 to 6 million tons per year. <br />Because the newly d covered;evidence shows the BLM's EA is <br />fundamentally flawe the BLM requests the vacation of its decision to grant <br />the lease and remand or futdter analysts of the environmental impacts of <br />mining at a higher te." <br />I <br />"Item 4" "...During next year, the residents of the North Fork are going <br />to have an incredtbie pottunity to determine the social, economic and <br />environmental future f the North Fork,"... <br />The BLM clearly is stating the need for further in depth attalysis if Bowie <br />plans any major in es in production. These same issues, socioeconomic, <br />and environmental th are being analyzed by the BLM at tbe Federal level <br />should also be applie to the State decision malting process now. For these <br />reasons I think it pre and obstructive to the process to allow Bowie to <br />develop any longwall accompanying infra structure at this time. <br />Sincerely yovn, <br />Richard Rudin ----- >pny emphasis in bold <br />