REP46466 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

The Settlement Agreement, executed November 19, 1987 states: "P & M has prepared and submitted to the Division appropriate geologic, geotechnical and hydrologic investigations demonstrating that surface coal mining and reclamation operations in the Moffat Area can be feasibly accomplished without inducing mass movements. The Division agrees to reissue written findings, in accordance with Rule 2.07.6(2) of the Rules, that surface coal mining and reclamation operations can be feasibly accomplished in the Moffat Area. The Division further agrees that this stipulation has been satisfied and Stipulation No. 4 will not be included in the Permit Renewal." In my opinion, changing assignments of Coal Program personnel resulted in an unfortunate lack of continuity and understanding of the history of the Moffat Area controversy. The staff assigned to this negotiation mistakenly applied the logic which had prevailed in the contemporaneous West Ridge landslide NOv litigation to the detriment of the larger Moffat Area permit consideration. P & M representatives, with the benefit of longer direct involvement with these issues, seized upon the opportunity to obtain a favorably vague settlement agreement wording concerning Stipulation No. 4. Recommendation Throughout the Division's dealings with P & M regarding the numerous landslide related report submittals, the Division has presented a consistent position. I recommend that we respond to P & M's letter of August 18, 1989, with a restatement of that position. Briefly summarized I believe that our position has been, is, and should continue to be as follows. (1) P & M's analy tical reports have collectively presented a comprehensive analysis of the most probable phenomena involved in the occurrence of the South-of-Shop and West Ridge landslides. Waste, Water and Land, Inc.'s analytical conclusions are considered prudent by the Division, whit the condition that the mitigative methodology and stability monitoring recommendations included in their reports are adhered with by P & M in future mining at the Edna Mine. (2) The Division has consistently presented this opinion throughout its involvement with P & M regarding this issue, since May of 1984. (3) The Settlement Agreement recognition that Stipulation No. 4 had been satisfied, did not intend to deviate from our position, which had been consistently and clearly expressed throughout the preceding three and one half years. By recognizing that Stipulation No. 4 had been satisfied, the Division merely recognized that no additional stability analyses were necessary.