Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />In concert, the above regulations provide the following framework for <br />considering a road retention request. Rule 4.14.2 presents the general ideal <br />for reclamation of any mined area: "Postmining final graded slopes ... shall <br />approximate the general nature of the premining topography." Rule <br />4.03.1 (1)(f) requires that all haul roads be reclaimed unless retention of the <br />road is approved as part of the postmining land use, the road complies with <br />all applicable performance standards, and the landowner requests that the road <br />be retained. Rule 4.03.1(7) presents the requirements for reclamation of a <br />road. In doing so it presents a detailed selection of design criteria to be <br />considered in reclaiming a road, equally applicable to partial decommissioning <br />of a retained road. Finally, Rule 2.05.5 presents the framework for <br />considering any proposed change in postmining land use. Among other <br />requirements, each plan which proposes a change in land use shall contain a <br />detailed narrative of ". the consideration which has been given to making <br />all of the proposed surface coal mining and reclamation operations consistent <br />with surface owner plans and programs." <br />In other words, mined areas are supposed to be reclaimed to approximate the <br />general nature of the premining landscape. A road may be retained with the <br />concurrence of the land owner, if it can be demonstrated to be compatible with <br />the approved postmining_Iand use. In order fora road to be considered <br />compatible with the postmining land use it must be consistent with the surface <br />owner's land use plans. <br />C-YVCC Proposal <br />C-YVCC is requesting that 11 miles of the haul and access roads within the <br />Eckman Park mined area be retained as a portion of the reclaimed landscape. <br />The application states: "The system would use roads constructed during <br />mining. The roads would be narrowed to approximately 15 - 20 feet. Where <br />roadfills have been constructed the fill would remain in its original <br />configuration. However, the roa rowed to 15 <br />- 20 fe inion, the text and map contained in the revision <br />scat' are extremely brief and small scale and provide inadequate detail <br />with which to determine the aoalicant's actual proposed decommissioning plan. <br />Nay field examination determined that approximately 10 3/4 miles of the 11 <br />miles of the road system proposed for permanent retention will consist of 50 <br />to 55 foot wide haul roads constructed near final grade on the postanined <br />topography. In general, cross slopes do not exceed 5 percent. In these <br />situations the tracking surface could be reduced to 20 feet and the standard 11 <br />cut and fill cross sectio reduced to a corres on in width without reat n.o~ ('~~"7 <br />effort. ~• n compliance with Rule 4.03.1 (7 )(v & (vi); fil s opes s all be a~p <br />~~or reduced and shaped to conform the site to adjacent terrain and to <br />meet natural-drainage restoration standards, and cut slopes shall be shaped to <br />blend with the natural contour. <br />My examination of the application map and inspection in the field also <br />determined that two segments of road embankment appear to be incompatible with <br />the proposed post~nining ranching land use. The first embankment, located <br />immediately north of Excess Spoil Pile No. 1, exceeds 40 feet in height and <br />has a top width in excess of 50 feet. The second embankment, located towards <br />the northwestern boundary of the permit area exceeds 80 feet in height with a <br />top surface width in excess of 50 feet. As such, these two landforms do not <br />approximate the general nature of the premining landscape. Therefore, the <br />