Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Robett F. T. ICrassa -5- Mareh 24, 1994 <br />surface activities. This is because these disturbed areas are the only areas for which <br />the post-mining land uses are required to be identified. <br />Rule 2.05.5(2)(a) states that reclamation plans for underground mining operations <br />"shall contain a detailed narrative of the proposed use following reclamation of the <br />land to be affected by all surface operations and facilities within the permit area" <br />(emphasis added), not 'the land within the permit area". This makes sense, in that <br />operators arie required to reclaim to a proposed post-mining land use only those lands <br />they disturb. Areas not disturbed by surface operations or facilities have no need to <br />be reclaimed, as they were never disturbed in the fast place. As such, those surface <br />areas within the permit boundary of an underground mining operation. that will not be <br />disturbed by surface operations or facilities do not have to have their post-mining land <br />uses identified on the post-mining land use map. <br />~ R We have asked the operator to add to the post-mining land use map any areas <br />associated with surface operations and facilities that are not currently identified on this <br />map. When this revised map is submitted, we will notify you. <br />5. When Basin Resotmoes applied in 1489 to mine in the area north of the <br />Purgatoire River, impacts to the regional hydrology from longwall mining operations <br />were reviewed and approved by the Division at that time. The current proposed <br />permit renewal application, though changing the location and orientation of proposed <br />underground operations, does not propose additional mining beyond that approved in <br />1989. As such, the impacts to the regional hydrology expected to oceur from <br />operations described in the Ienerval-application-are noE expected to exceed those <br />discussed and approved in the 1989 application. <br />~ R As part of the current renewal application, Basin Resources is developing a <br />cR hydrologic monitoring program to verify the operator's conclusions regarding <br />~ l ~ hydrologic impacts. Once the operator has submitted this plan, we will review it for <br />technical and regulatory adequacy. We will inform Raton West of the submittal as <br />soon as it is received. <br />6. It was our understanding from the February 23, 1994 meeting held between the <br />Division, Raton West and Basin Resources that Raton West and Basin were to discuss <br />~ ~ Basin's proposed water monitoring plans, and discuss the possibility of new <br />exploration wells being drilled and converted to monitoring wells. It was also our <br />understanding that Raton West was to discuss with Basin the possibility of Raton West <br />allowing Basin to use existing wells on Raton West property for monitoring purposes: <br />Please let us lmow We status of this. <br />7. It is our understanding that Basin Resources has found the map plotting error you <br />~ R brought to their attention at the February 23, 1994 meeting, and that they are making <br />