Laserfiche WebLink
e. On March 16, 1994, the Division received a written request from a representative of Raton <br />West for a formal public hearing. The request was received during the associated public <br />comment period in a timely manner. <br />f. The Division scheduled a formal public hearing for April 28, 1994. All parties that had <br />submitted comments were properly notified. The public notice announcing the hearing was <br />published on April 4, 1994. <br />g. The five issues contained in the March 16, 1994 letter from Raton West were: <br />(1) Construction of new roads for the purposes of access to exploration <br />drill sites could cause irreparable damage and unnecessary environ- <br />mental harm; <br />(2) Rather than building new roads, existing subdivision roads should be <br />used; <br />(3) Drill hole sites should be relocated from the proposed locations, so <br />that access to those sites could be accomplished via existing roads; <br />(4) Drill holes that are located on Raton West property should be <br />reclaimed upon completion of dolling; and <br />(5) Basin does not have the right to enter Raton West property to access <br />droll sites that are located on adjacent property. <br />h. With regard to issues 1 through 4, the Division was satisfied with the proposed plans for <br />minimizing surface disturbances and for reclaiming drill holes. <br />Item 5 was not within the jurisdiction of the Division or the Board to consider. The <br />Division stated that the operator had complied with Rule 2.03.6(1) by identifying and <br />describing its right-of--entry documents. The Division also stated that Rule 2.03.6(3) and <br />Section 34-33-110(2)(j) of the Act prevent the Board or Division from adjudicating property <br />rights disputes. <br />2. Basin presented evidence and/or testimony that: <br />a. Raton West had stated that it would not allow Basin access across lot 3C/14 in order to drill <br />exploration hole NM-25, located on a different parcel of land. Basin argued that lot 3C/14 <br />was no longer owned by Raton West and that Raton West had no right to speak for the <br />owners of lot 3C/14. <br />b. Although Basin was willing to relocate drill holes where necessary to minimize environmen- <br />tal damage, it had the right to enter and the right to drill wherever it chose within the permit <br />area, as long as it complied with Rule 2.03.6(1). Basin asserted that it had complied with <br />Rule 2.03.6(1). Basin also stated that it was willing to work with the Board and Division <br />on environmental issues, but that property rights issues belonged in civil court and were not <br />matters for the Board to consider with regard to the Division's proposed decision regarding <br />Technical Revision TR-28. <br /> <br />