2023-12-26_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1981044

Home Browse Search

Page 15 of 27 5. For the surface mining portion of this operation,private mineral estate has been severed from private surface estate;therefore,the documentation specified by Rule 2.03.6(2)has been provided in descriptions of lease numbers, sublease agreements,warranty deeds, and quit claim deeds in the permit pages. (2.07.6(2)(fl). 6. On the basis of evidence submitted by the applicant and received from other state and federal agencies as a result of the Section 34-33-114(3) compliance review required by the Colorado Surface Coal Mining Reclamation Act,the Division finds the owners and controllers of the mining operation, does not own or control any operations which are currently in violation of any law, rule, or regulation of the United States, or any State law, rule, or regulation, or any provision of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act or the Colorado Surface Coal Mining Reclamation Act(2.07.6(2)(g)). 7. The applicant and all persons who own or control the applicant do not control and has not controlled mining operations with a demonstrated pattern of willful violations of the Act of such nature, duration, and with such resulting irreparable damage to the environment as to indicate an intent not to comply with the provisions of the Act(2.07.6(2)(h)). 8. Pursuant to Rule 2.07.6(2)(1),the Division finds that the Williams Fork Mines will not be inconsistent with other operations anticipated to be performed in areas adjacent to the permit area. 9. The Division currently holds a bond of$1,708,602.00. The Division estimated the cost of reclamation to be $1,968,445. The current amount of bond held is not adequate and MCM will need to submit additional bond in the amount of$259,843. The RN8 revised cost estimate is attached. The applicant must submit additional performance bond required under Rule 3,prior to the issuance of the permit in accordance with Rule (2.07.6(2)(j)). 10. The Division has made a negative determination for the presence of prime farmland within the permit area. The decision was based on a letter from the Soil Conservation Service dated February 2, 1982. Although soil types 03B and fine sandy loam 0-56 are found adjacent to the Williams Fork River,this area is not considered prime farmland. Approximately 50 percent of the 03B soil was disturbed prior to the enactment of SMCRA and is considered an industrial site. Therefore,no areas designated as prime farmland are found within the Williams Fork Mines permit area(2.07.6(2)(k)). 11. Based on information provided in the application,the Division has determined that three alluvial valley floors exist within the permit or adjacent area. The alluvial valley floors are known as Williams Fork alluvial valley floor,Yampa River/Big Bottom alluvial valley floor, and Yampa River/Round Bottom alluvial valley floor(2.07.6(2)and 2.06.8(3)(C)). No impacts to the river or the alluvial valley floor were observed over the course of mining operations. No development is currently proposed for the Yampa River/Big Bottom or Yampa River/Round Bottom alluvial valley floors. For additional specific findings concerning these alluvial valley floors,please see Section B XI of this findings. 12. The Division approved the post-mining land use of the operation. It was determined that rangeland/wildlife,pastureland, and cropland meet the requirements of Rule 4.16 for the permit area Williams Fork Mines Prepared by: R ReiRey M.S. GISP C1981044 December 2023