2016-11-08_PERMIT FILE - M2016030

Home Browse Search

M-2016-030,Response to Adequacy Letter 8 November 2016 Page 2 of 10 The Applicant has reviewed referral letters forwarded from the Division of Water Resources and the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers and does not find it necessary to make changes to the 112 application. There are no Waters of the United States in the affected area, as the subject property is at the fringe of the alluvial resource and is without direct surface water connection to any Waters of the United States. Also, intense prior use (for agriculture/feedlot) has significantly degraded vegetative conditions and no trace of isolated Waters of the United States are found in the affected area. Thus, no notification or permit within the jurisdiction of the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers is anticipated. In existing materials, the Applicant has accounted for water rights considerations, as documented in the Division of Water Resources referral letter. Specifically, in Exhibits G and M, the 112 application discusses plans to obtain a gravel well permit, including state review of a plan for replacement water (i.e., a substitute water supply plan (SWSP), prior to its use of groundwater. The Applicant has also acknowledged that the proposed operation will not detain stormwater for more than 72 hours before its release to the stream system. 4. The Division received a letter of objection from Anadarko Petroleum Company. The letter was forwarded to the Operator on October 14,2016. Please address the comments noted on the letter and make any changes to the application as needed. The Applicant has reviewed the objection letter from Anadarko Petroleum Company. While it is the Applicant's preference to resolve this objection directly with Anadarko, and we have taken steps to do so, we do not believe the outcome of that process will require any changes to the application materials. Please note that the objector has not requested any specific changes to the 112 application. The Division's transmittal of the objection letter, dated October 14, 2016, asks that Brannan inform the Division how the Applicant intends to address any jurisdictional issues (i.e., issues under the Construction Materials Act, within the jurisdiction of the Mined Land Reclamation Board). As you are aware from our brief phone conversation on this topic, I have spoken and exchanged email with a representative of this Objector and therefore agree with their statement that we (Brannan and Anadarko) have been in discussions, though no agreement has been reached to date. As the Applicant/Operator under the reclamation statutes, we have no particular objection to exploration and production of oil and gas resources on the subject property. Ideally, Brannan intends to address Anadarko's concerns by entering into a mutually acceptable surface use agreement. As a matter of record, the Applicant demurs on the question of whether Anadarko's letter presents a jurisdictional issue under the Construction Materials Act. For the following reasons, responding to specific comments offered by the Objector in its support, the Applicant submits that there is no jurisdictional issue to be resolved through the DRMS adequacy review process or a hearing before the Mined Land Reclamation Board: - Anadarko cites coal resources as a basis for its objection. The commercial feasibility of recovering any coal located over 700 feet below the ground surface is dubious, as there have been no operational coal mines in the general vicinity for decades, statewide coal production is declining presently, and the economic conditions necessary to support coal extraction are not reasonably foreseeable in this location. In any event, the M-2016-030 application represents a temporary use of the site and will not at any time result in obstruction of access to the coal resource.