Laserfiche WebLink
"original" mine permit boundary). In a letter of July 17, 2000 associated with Permit <br />Renewal No. 3 (RN-3), the SHPO noted that, since the renewal "will involve no changes <br />to the permitted mining boundaries, we fmd that there will be no effect to cultural <br />resources". There has been no expansion of the permit boundary since the approval of <br />PR-2, in 1999. The SHPO's "No Effect" fmding was most recently confirmed in <br />their letter of June 2, 2005, in response to the Division's Permit Revision No. 5 <br />(PR-5) Notification Letter. <br />6. For this surface mining operation, private mineral estate has been severed from private <br />surface estate. Documentation specified by Rule 2.03.6(2) is provided in Appendix 3-3 <br />and Appendix 3-4 of the pemut application package, as revised in PR-4 (2.07.6(2)(f)). <br />7. On the basis of evidence submitted by the applicant and received from other state and <br />federal agencies as a result of the Section 34-33-114(3) compliance review requited by the <br />Colorado Surface Coal Mining Reclamation Act, the Division Fmds that Seneca Coal <br />Company does not own or control any operations which are currently in violation of any <br />law, rule, or regulation of the United States, or any State law, rule, or regulation, or any <br />provision of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act or the Colorado Surface <br />Coal Mining Reclamation Act (2.07.6(2)(g)(i)). <br />8. Seneca Coal Company does not control and has not controlled mining operations with a <br />demonstrated pattern of willful violations of the Act of such nature, duration, and with <br />such resulting irreparable damage to the environment as to indicate an intent not to <br />comply with the provisions of the Act (2.07.6(2)(h)). <br />9. The Division Fmds that surface coal mining and reclamation operations to be performed <br />under this permit will not be inconsistent with other such operations anticipated to be <br />performed in areas adjacent to the permit area (2.07.6(2)(1)). <br />10. The estimated reclamation liability for mining operations was calculated by the Division <br />for PR-5. Based on relevant permit maps and on-site investigation, the Division <br />determined that the °worst case disturbance" occurred in August 2004. The <br />estimated liability amount necessary to reclaim the worst case disturbance is <br />$9,517,212.00, based on reclamation plea information and standard cost and <br />equipment production references used by the Division. The Division currently holds <br />acceptable surety bonds for the Seneca II-W Mine, in the amount of $9,707,373.00. <br />As such, Seneca Coal Company has complied with the reclamation performance <br />bond submittal requirements of Rule 3 (2.07.6(2)Q)). <br />II. The Division has made a negative determination for the presence of prime farmland <br />within the permit area. The decision was based on the evidence provided by the Soil <br />Conservation Service (now Natural Resources Conservation Service) that there are no <br />Seneca [I-W Findings Document 22 June l2, 2000 <br />Permi[ Renewal No. 5 <br />