Laserfiche WebLink
<br />AREA CAN BE FEASIBLY ACCOMPLISHED WITHOUT INDUCING MASS <br />MOVEMENTS. THIS DEMONSTRATION WILL BE ACCOMPLISHED <br />THROUGH THE USE OF APPROPRIATE GEOLOGIC, GEOTECHNICAL <br />AND HYDROLOGIC INVESTIGATIONS. THE MINE PLAN AND THE <br />MINING METHOD ARE TO BE ANALYZED TO QUANTIFY THE <br />RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE EXTRACTION OF THE WADGE SEAM <br />COAL, THE STABILITY OF THE HIGHWALL AND UP SLOPE AREAS, <br />AND THE STABILITY OF THE POST-MINING BACKFILL. <br />NO DISTURBANCE OF THE MOFFAT AREA SHALL TAKE PLACE PRIOR <br />TO THE DIVISION REISSUING WRITTEN FINDINGS IN ACCORDANCE <br />WITH RULE 2.07.6(2) THAT SURFACE COAL MINING AND <br />RECLAMATION OPERATIONS CAN BE FEASIBLY ACCOMPLISHED." <br />From May, 1984 through early 19 B7 the Division's position was that P 8 M <br />needed to demonstrate that mining could be conducted and reclamation achieved <br />in a stable configuration. Following the West Ridge landslide of Christmas <br />Eve, 1986, the Division issued an NOY to P & M for impacts outside the permit <br />boundary. This NOV became the object of a protracted litigation, which ended <br />in the court's upholding the Division's issuance of the NOV. As a result of <br />this turn of events it appears the Division personnel involved with the Edna <br />exchange became overly focused upon the NOV primary issue, "impacts outside <br />the permit boundary", to the detriment of other issues in the November 19, <br />1987 Settlement Agreement Stipulation #4 negotiation. <br />All letters from the Division to P & M dated prior to August of 1987 present a <br />position consistent with the earlier (May, 1984 through July, 1987) Division <br />position. On August 12, 1987, a new logical approach, which represents a <br />significant departure, is presented in a letter to P & M. This letter was one <br />of the series of letters exchanged regarding the drafting of the Settlement <br />Agreement. In regard to the status of Stipulation #4 that letter states: <br />"The outstanding Division concern with respect to <br />Stipulation 4 was whether the mechanism precipitating the <br />December 24, 1986 West Ridge landslide would be likely to <br />occur in the Moffat Area and whether such an occurrence <br />would result in off-site damage or endangerment of mine <br />personnel." <br />The August 12, 1987 letter goes on to define a specific portion of the Moffat <br />Area which the Division believes might represent an off-site hazard if failure <br />occurred. Shortly after the issuance of this letter, P & M responded to this <br />statement with the resubmittal of the report entitled "Impacts on Stability of <br />the Moffat Area", by Waste, Water and Land, Inc., dated December 16, 1986 <br />(eight days before the West Ridge landslide). Handwritten notes made by a <br />Division representative during a meeting on September 8, 1987, state "Off-site <br />impact @ E side of Moffat Area Projected to daylight, therefore should not be <br />a problem. Division prelim, doesn't have problem w/ P & M analysis. ** MLR <br />will look at again." In an October 23, 1987 letter to the Division from John <br />Miller, P & M's attorney, Mr. Miller states: "7. Stipulation No. 4 will not <br />be included in the Permit Renewal." Handwritten notes taken by a Division <br />staff member, during a meeting on October 30, 1987, observe: "#4 MLR will <br />redraft findings." I find no further reference to consideration of <br />Stipulation #4. <br />