REP33909 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Kent Gorham July 14, 1994 Page 3 required by 2.05.6{6)(e)(i) and 2.05.6(6)(e)(i)(D) reasonably infers consideration of site specific factors such as planned mining methods (2.05.6(6)(e)(i){A), local geologic properties (2.05.6(6)(e){i)(B), local mining experience (2.05.6(6)(e)(i)(C)), site-specific predicted angle-of-draw (2.05.6(6)(e)(i)(E)), and the extent of the proposed mine workings (2.05.6(6)(e)(i)(F)(ii)). With these factors taken into account, the subsidence survey conducted for Orchard Valley determines that no material damage or diminution of reasonably foreseeable use will occur to either structures or renewable resource lands. Here again, a potential source of seemingly contradictory language in the permit document is encountered. The initial affirmative generalized determination of potential material damage required at 2.05.6(6)(b)(i) is followed by the more specific negative determination derived from consideration of detailed plans and site specific characteristics as specified on Volume 1, page 2.05-155. COVCC maintains these findings are not contradictory and are justified in each instance after considering the relevant factors as specified in the regulations. In Orchard Valley's case, the latter determination described above then triggers the requirement of Rule 2.05.6(6)(e)(iii) calling for a subsidence monitoring program designed to determine the accuracy of the aforementioned prediction. The subsidence monitoring program required by this rule is non-specific and does not, as presented in the regulations, require adherence to the requirements of Rule 2.05.6(6)(c). Rule 2.05.6(6)(e)(iii) is the source of the subsidence monitoring requirements originally included >n the Orchard Valley permit doctumttt. The intent of the subsidence monitoring undertaken was and is to verify the accuracy of the subsidence prediction required by Rule 2.05.6{6)(e){i)(D). While the required subsidence monitoring at Rule 2.05.6(6)(e)(iii) is non- specific and does not, as presented in the regulations, require adherence to the requirements of Rule 2.05.6(6)(c), the text regarding the subsidence monitoring program originally indicated in the permit did in fact suggest conformance to the Rule 2.05.6(6)(c) specifications as noted on Volume 1, page 2.05-144. This text was at least partially inconsistent and contradictory in that Rule 2.05.6(6)(c)(i)(B), to which the reader was referred for specific information, presumably regarding the monitoring program, specified monitoring at less than a quarterly frequency while Rule 2.05.6(6)(c)(i)(D) specified quarterly monitoring. This contradictory language was rectified during the PR-3 process with the text at Rule 2.05.6(6)(c)(i)(D) modified to reestablish consistency within the permit docimient. This noted discrepancy in the permit text at Rule 2.05.6(6)(c)(i)(D) was believed to be an oversight which should have been corrected with the approval of TR-6. The original permit language did, on page 2.05-144, accurately and explicitly docwnent the intent and purpose of the proposed subsidence monitoring and further indicated that monitoring would continue until the operator and the Division agreed that it was no longer required. Regardless of past apparent errors or inconsistencies within the COVCC permit text, three points are evident. First, the subsidence monitoring requirement applicable to Orchard Valley stems from Rule 2.05.6(6)(e)(iii) rather than Rule 2.05.6(6)(c). Second, the requirements of Rule 2.05.6(6)(c) are not necessarily and clearly applicable to monitoring conducted urx3er Rule 2.05.6(6){e)(iii). Third, the Division has in the past supported this interpretation as evidenced by the approval of previous subsidence