REV89424 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Dan Mathews Division of Minerals and Geology Page 2 The Seneca Coal Company road retention request form it somewhat conjuring. Apparently, there have been a number of tmnsactionr that have occurred subsequent to Gregg Kitchen s signed retention request of~anuary 12, 2004, for SCC. The request indicates SCC ownership of Segments of Haul Raad `G"in Sections 9 and 1 Q but Permit Map Exhibit 3-1 indicates that the owner of the referenced regmentr is apparently Salt River Agriculturallmprovement and Power District. The letter from Xeel EnergyJSalt River Project indicates that they an the rurfate owner of the subject regmentt of Hau! Aoad `G': Alto, the SCC letter indicates SCC it the owner of the MEHR and Oi! We11I{oad segments, which an now apparently designated ar County Road 53-C (indlcaded inyour cover letter). Permit Map Exhibit 3-1 indicates that David and Kathleen Smith are the owners of the parcel through which most of the MEHR porter, rather than SCC. Please prepaze an updated Seneca Coal Company road retortion request that reflects current pertnit azea surface ownership and county road rights-of--way, to eliminate appazent contradictions and confusion. Also, please clarify the relationship among Xcel Energy, Salt River Project, and Salt River Agricultural Improvement and Power District. Response: Item Resolved The road retention requertr included in thin minor revision application appear to addrerr all of the proposed permit area permanent roads, with the exception of the segment of Road `Z'; in the earl half of Section 2G (Ricks property). Please confirm if[hatis the case, or darilylfnot. Response: Item Resolved NE[~REVIEIYtITEMS There appears to be tome mnfurion regarding made referred to ar `ranch roads"among various sections of approved perntit text, mope, and retention requests from Seneca Caal mmpany and Lira Ricky in the mart recent MR-6lrubmittal DBMS acknowledges contributing to this mnfusion, betaure of contradictory regulatory pmvirionr relating to retention of light use roads for the pastmining land ure. Some of the "ranch roads"ident~ed in the permit and retention requests bad originally been clarrified ar `light ure roads"in the permit, but were at tome point re-designated as `ranch roads"by SCC, bared in part an DRMS indication that `light ure roads"could not be retained as permanent structures. We have reconsidered that determination and have come to the conclusion that, although the regulations lack clarity, language in the introductory paragraph of Rule 4.03.3(7) doer allow for retention of light ure made for the postmining land ure ar approved by the Division. Ingeneral, light ure roads can be retained where they: (a) replace similar roads that existed in the tame appmxxmate lacationr prior to mining and are requested as permanent by the landowner, (b) if not in replacement of premining roads, they are shown to be nererrary and appropriate for the portmining land ure and an requested as pernanent by the landowner,• and (c) comply with performance standards of Rule 4.03.3. The term "ranch road" is not defined by regulation, but our interpretation it that al! of the road segments identified ar "ranch road"in various permit materials would fit the definition of "light use road': In light ofthe preceding discussion, we believe certain clarifications and permit modifications are warranted. First; the Rec/amation section of the I,igbt Use Road permit narrative oa page 3B of Tab Z3 may need to be amended to be consistent with the SCC and Ricks permanent retention requests for specific ranch road segments. Current narrative indicates the ranch roads wou/d be I1!/y reclaimed, but that the landowner(s) would likely reestablish comparable roads in the same locations. Please amend the narrative to clarity that designated ranch roads are in fact light use roads under DRMS regulations, provide justification for retention otspecific mad segments ro be