Laserfiche WebLink
(ii) Raton West believed Basin's permit should be revised to limit Basin's access to <br />exploration. The Division disagreed, believing that it and the Board are statutorily <br />prevented from adjudicating property rights. <br />(iii) Raton West believed Basin's permit should describe all proposed surface disturbances. <br />___ The Division agreed.. Basin revised_its~ost-M;o;n~Land_Use-Map. -- - <br />(iv) Raton West believed Basin should install a groundwater monitoring well in the area <br />north of the Purgatoire River. The Division agreed. Basin submitted anine-well <br />monitoring program that included wells north of the Purgatoire River. <br />(v) Raton West believed an information exchange system should be developed between <br />Basin, Raton West, and Las Animas County, and that the system should be made part <br />of the permit. The Division disagreed, believing that agreements reached between <br />landowners, counties and operators would not be within the jurisdiction of the State to <br />enforce. <br />(vi) Raton West believed the subsidence control.plan proposed by Basin should be more <br />specific. The Division disagreed, believing the plan as proposed by Basin met regula- <br />tory requirements. <br />(vii) Raton West believed the map identifying surface ownership should be updated to <br />include recent land purchases. The Division agreed. Basin revised its surface owner- <br />ship map. <br />(viii) Raton West believed the Post-Mining Land Use Map should be revised to include <br />surface disturbances north of the Purgatoire River. The Division agreed. Basin <br />revised its Post-Mining Land Use Map No. 2. <br />(ix) Raton West believed that the Division's determination regarding anticipated hydrologic <br />impacts associated with the proposed mining operation should be revised until the <br />results of groundwater monitoring associated with the operation were reviewed. The <br />Division disagreed, stating that (1) it agreed with the operator's determination of <br />probable hydrologic consequences, (2) the regulations require groundwater monitoring <br />for the purposes of verifying the determination, and (3) if the monitoring indicated the <br />determination was incorrect, the Division would take whatever actions necessary to <br />ensure regulatory compliance at that time. <br />(x) Raton West requested Basin convert some coal exploration drill holes into monitoring <br />wells. The Division agreed. Basin agreed to do so as part of its groundwater moni- <br />toring program. <br />(xi) Raton West identified a surveying error in one of Basin's maps. Basin submitted a <br />revised Mine Program Map. <br />(xii) Raton West believed that Basin should periodically disclose its coal seam extraction <br />thickness, for the purpose of confirming subsidence calculations. Basin agreed, and <br />incorporated language into its permit requiring reporting of extracted thickness greater <br />than that described in its subsidence prediction calculations. <br />