Laserfiche WebLink
We respectfully disagree. Our client is a neighbor of this mining operation, as are many <br />other concerned residents, and consider 87.3 acres of land and mineral rights to be a <br />substantial amount. <br />Therefore, we believe that the Division may have erred in these determination and that <br />this submittal by GCC (including TRs 23, 24, 25 and 26) is more properly reviewed as a <br />Permit Revision.3 <br />We ask the Division to review this matter and determine that a Permit Revision is <br />required. The Coal Rules state as follows: <br />"2.08.4 Revisions to a Permit <br />(1) General requirements. A permit revision shall be obtained: <br />(d) For any extensions to the area to be covered by a permit, except <br />for incidental boundary revisions." [emphasis added]. <br />We do not think that an addition of almost 90 acres is an "incidental boundary revision." <br />Technical Revision 24 (TR -24) was submitted on May 5, 2015 and called complete, after <br />additional submittals, on May 15, 2015. TR -24 remains under review at the present <br />time. The Technical Revision as submitted contained substantial and previously <br />undocumented and perhaps irreconcilable changes in the permitted acreage (see La <br />Plata County comment letter dated June 11, 2015 and comments in the DRMS June 14, <br />2015 Adequacy Review letter) and surface and coal ownership. <br />Additionally, the Midterm Review required changes in control of surface water flows <br />and monitoring of surface and groundwater flows. This has required additional <br />modifications to the permit in the form of other technical revisions dealing with surface <br />water controls (TR -25) and groundwater monitoring (TR -26). Such measures (especially <br />in the collection of baseline surface and ground water quality) should have been done <br />prior to approval of mining at the King Coal II Mine, since provisions for baseline <br />monitoring are contained in these revisions. For true baseline conditions, surface and <br />groundwater parameters must be obtained for at least five quarters prior to the <br />commencement of mining, not after mining has started. <br />These modifications outlined in TRs 25 and 26 should not be split out from TR -24 and TR <br />23 because this results in a "piecemeal" approach to regulation that obviates the <br />'At the last local land use hearing on this project, the room was packed. The only <br />credible explanation for the paucity of public comment on these TRs is that no one knew <br />about them, which is precisely what happens when the TR process is used, or misused. <br />