Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Mr. Kent Gorham <br />July 14, 1994 <br />Page 5 <br />retreat mining. However, additional surveying is anticipated and has been <br />approved to occur on an annual basis only. The quarterly requirement <br />referenced by the Division is again specified only in Rule 2.05.6(6)(c) <br />which is, as previously detailed, arguably not applicable in this <br />instance. Annual surveys coupled with owner-accompanied building <br />inspections and the commitment to ir~spec-t and survey as soon as possible <br />follaaing the identification of a concern by the owner or occupant are <br />sufficient to detect adverse impacts and repair them in a timely fashion. <br />It is unnecessary to docimient the potential development and progress of <br />subsidence on a quarterly basis. It is necessary to protect privately <br />owned structures and the LnVCC subsidence monitoring and repair program <br />included in the permit doc~~t achieves that goal. <br />o Ponds and springs within the permit area have not previously been formally <br />treated as structures within the context of the 2.05.6(6) regulations. An <br />accurate inventory of these features is available elsewhere in the permit <br />document but they are not specifically identified as structures within the <br />permit docwnent for the purposes of Rule 2.05.6(6). The requested <br />surveying of ponds and springs as presented by the Division would first, <br />under the regulations, require the underlying interpretation that ponds <br />and springs are in fact structures subject to the inventory requiremeSts <br />of 2.05.6(6) (a) , and second require the provisions of Rule 2.06.6(6) (c) to <br />be found applicable. OOVCC does not find these interpretations to be <br />supported within the regulations. <br />Eluther, DOVCC believes it is inappropriate to suggest that subsidence <br />monitoring be conducted at all ponds and springs within the affected area <br />without regard to the degree of subsidence anticipated especially in light <br />of the extensive hydrology monitoring routinely conducted. More <br />specifically, it is inappropriate to discount the findings of the data- <br />verified subsidence survey which indicate that only those surface water <br />features located within areas of less than 800 feet of overburden are at <br />significant risk of being disrupted. ~VCC believes that surface water <br />resources within the permit area are adequately protected by virtue of the <br />buffer zones limiting mining within areas of less than 800 feet of cover <br />a~ sufficient measures, in the form of hydrology monitoring requirements, <br />exist within the permit docwnP..nt to ensure continued protection and repair <br />of resources located outside of these zones. <br />The 2.05.6(6)(b) regulations direct the operator to either conduct a <br />detailed subsidence investigation in advance of mining or demonstrate that <br />the investigation is unwarranted by providing subsidence survey data <br />during mining to continually substantiate this conclusion. The <br />regulations elsewhere provide the operator with the flexibility to design <br />an appropriate monitoring program to verify predictions developed in the <br />detailed subsidence investigation. In the alternative, specific, <br />periodic, and continual monitoring is mandated if the detailed subsidence <br />investigation is not conducted. In this fashion, the regulations ensure <br />that material damage or diminution is detected even in the event a <br />thorough and complete investigation is not undertaken in advance. The <br />advantage to conducting a thorough and complete investigation (i.e. <br />subsidence survey) in advance is that once predictions are verified in <br />