Laserfiche WebLink
-2- <br />Question No. I (continued) <br />Under Rule 2.05.5(2)(a), reclamation pleas for underground mines arc required to provide <br />information pertaining to 'the proposed use following reclamation of the land to be affected by all <br />surface ooeratioos and facilities within the permit arcs' (emphasis added), not 'of We land within the <br />permit area'. In other words, maps submitted pursuant l0 2.05.5(2)(c) and 2. I0.1(3) don't have to <br />identify the post-mining land rues of all land within a permit boundary, only the post-mining land <br />uses of the reclaimed surface disturbances. <br />In We case of underground mines where the surface disturbance area and permit errs an small and <br />relatively equal, apost-mining land use map probably would have a permit boundary on it. In We <br />case of the Golden Eagle Mine, however, the surface disturbance area is approximately 59 acres, sad <br />the permit arcs is approximately 9,068 acres. Maps identifying the Goldw Eagle permit boundary oa <br />a aiagle map arc prepared st a 1' = 1,000' scale. At this scale, We surface disturlunce arena arc too <br />small to have their various post-mining land uses ideaGfied. The current approved post-mining land <br />trse map is prepared at a 1' = 7A0' taste, which better identifies the various proposed uses. This <br />M ~ man is being updated as Dart of ouf_nwiew W include the surface disturbances associated with various <br />airahafta sad degas wells_ attd their t~ ~_ <br />'Ihe next question, concerning Mr. Krassa'e commwta is Paragraph No. 5, asked who did We CIIIA, who <br />reviewed the CHIA, and was the CHIA right? <br />Initial assessmwts of the PHC and CHIA were done by Kent Gorham end myself. this involved a <br />review of the CHIA approved with the 1989 permit revision that addressed longwall mining noAh of <br />the Purgatoire River, and the PHC submitted with the 1994 permit renewal application. Following <br />the initial assessment, it was determined that the 1994 PHC for Goldin Eagle needed add <br />S T t P information before the remaining CHIA work could be completed. pen av initial of the addrhoml <br />ydro~ logic data roqursted in Stipulation No. 67, the remaining CFII:A will be completed by Kent and <br />myself. Dave Berry has requested We opportunity to review the CHIA work due to the overlying <br />landowner's concerns. <br />the next question peAainod to Mr. Krassa's comments in Paragraph No. 6, regarding whether the operator <br />has or needs additioml hydrologic data from the Rancho Escondido area. <br />Baseline ground water information for longwall mining on the noNt side of the Purgatoirc River was <br />provided with the 1989 permit revision. This data was derived from one water well within the permit <br />area and six water wells outside the permit arcs These seven wells are within one mile of current <br />mining. <br />Additional water monitoring wells have be ienproposed by Basin Besources Basin has discussed with <br />Raton West the possib' 'ty of using existing wells within the Rancho Escondido arcs. Basin has also <br />discussed using existing exploration wells outside of the Rancho Escondido area, but within the permit <br />~ie °' area, as well as drilling new holes avithin the permit area. As the operator has yet to finalize the <br />/rl (Z these new monitoring plans, it is not clear what the need for them is. However, as Basin has <br />proposed them, it would appear they would be used to further monitor any potential drawdowa in <br />groundwater levels between the mine and Rancho Escondido, as well as further monitor nay potential <br />changes in groundwater chemistry. <br />The next question requested we ask Mr. Ktassa for evidence verifying his comments in Paragraph No. 7 that <br />several maps ate incorrectly plotted. <br />At the February 23, 1994 meeting, Mr. Carl Gerity, representing Raton West, presented evidence <br />that a discrepancy existed in the plotting of surface sad underground features on a couple of maps. <br />Ia a letter dated February 24, 1994, Mr. Desautel, representing the operator, stated Wet We section <br />M R comers on one map have been misplotted, and that We operator was iavrstigating We [natter. We <br />have bew informed by telephone that We.operazor has discovered We plotting error and will be <br />submitting a corrected map soon. <br />