Laserfiche WebLink
e. With regard to the fourth issue, Raton West stated that: <br />(i) Because Section 4.20.2 of the Board's Regulations did not have a limitation on how <br />early Basin could notify landowners of upcoming undermining, the possibility of land- <br />owners receiving notice two years prior to undermining could occur. Raton West <br />believed that this was not timely enough, and asked that the Board require Basin to <br />notify landowners no earlier than eight to twelve months prior to undermining. <br />4. The Division provided the following evidence in response to Raton West's presentation: <br />a. With regard to the request by Raton West that the Board not approve renewal of the permit <br />until Basin had posted with Raton West and other landowners the bonds described in C.R.S. <br />34-48-106, the Division, through its representative from the State Attorney General's Office, <br />stated that the Board had authority to regulate coal mining activities only under the Colorado <br />Surface Coal Mining Reclamation Act, 34-33-101 et seq., as described at 34-33-105, <br />"Jurisdiction of Division and Board." As such, the Board does not have the authority to <br />enforce 34-48-106, as that Statute lies within a different State Article. <br />b. With regard to the request by Raton West that the Board should not renew the permit, but <br />should rather issue a new permit, for the Golden Eagle Mine, the Division provided to the <br />Board a January 21, 1994 memorandum from the State Attorney General's Office to the <br />Division that states that neither the Colorado Surface Coal Mining Reclamation Act nor the <br />Board's Regulations provide any specific sanctions for a permittee's failure to comply with <br />the 180-day requirement for submittal of an application to renew a permit, other than requir- <br />ing the permittee to cease operations if the permit had not been renewed by the permit <br />expiration date and the Board had not granted temporary relief pursuant to C.R.S. <br />34-33-119('n to allow operations to continue. The memorandum further stated that "because <br />there is no explicit sanction to permit renewal for failure to meet the 180-day requirement, <br />it appears that DMG, andlor the MLRB, can still process the renewal application and, if all <br />other statutory and regulatory conditions have been met, issue the permit renewal to Basin." <br />c. With regard to Raton West's request that the wording of the Division's Proposed Decision <br />be revised to reflect that the Division's review of the permittee's determination of the <br />probable hydrologic consequences cannot be conclusive until the results of the water monitor- <br />ing program were evaluated, the Division stated that: <br />(i) All applicants are required by Section 2.05.6(3)(b)(iii) to submit a determination of the <br />probable hydrologic consequences of the proposed mining operations as part of the <br />permit application, and that Basin has done this; <br />(ii) All applicants are required by 2.05.6(3)(b)(iv) to submit a plan for obtaining water <br />monitoring data and for how this data will be used to determine the impact of the <br />proposed operations on the hydrologic balance, and that Basin has done this; <br />(iii) All applicants are required by 2.05.6(3)(a)(ii) to ensure the protection of the rights of <br />present, not future, users of surface and ground water, and that Basin has done this; <br />(iv) As stated at this Hearing by Raton West, there are no water wells, and thus no present <br />users of water, within properties owned by Raton West; <br />7 <br />