REV97270 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

9. The Division finds that surface coal mining and reclamation operations to be performed under this permit will not be inconsistent with other such operations anticipated to be performed in areas adjacent to the permit area (2.07.6(2)(1)). 10. The current performance bond amount held by the Division for the McClane Canyon Mine is a $309, 256.00 corporate surety. This amount corresponds with the Division's reclamation cost estimate prepared pursuant to Permit Renewal No. 6 and TR-l5, and reflects the Division's estimate of reclamation costs for the worst-case disturbance that will occur during the proposed permit term (ending July 6, 2011). The applicant has submitted a fully adequate reclamation bond that meets the applicable requirements of Rule 3 (2.07.6(2)(j)). 11. The Division has made a negative determination for the presence of prime farmland within the permit area. The decision was based on soil survey and land use information in the permit application document indicating that land in the permit area has not been historically used as cropland. No lands in the permit area are surface irrigated, and alluvial water along East Salt Creek in the vicinity of the mine exhibits high salinity levels which would preclude production of crops dependent on subirrigation. A December 1980, letter from the Soil Conservation Service in Appendix L of the application confirms that no prime farmlands had been identified within the proposed surface disturbance area (2.07.6(2)(k)). l2. Based on information provided in the application the Division has determined that an alluvial valley floor (AVF) exists within the permit and adjacent area. The alluvial valley floor is known as East Salt Creek, and a portion of the AVF has been affected by office facility construction (2.07.6(2) and 2.06.8(3)(c)). For additional specific findings concerning this alluvial valley floor, please see Section B, XI. 13. The Division hereby approves the post-mining land use of the operation. It was determined that mngeland/wildlife land uses meet the requirements of Rule 4.16 for the permit area (2.07.6(2)(1)). 14. Specific approvals required under Rule 4 are addressed in section B (2.07.6(2)(m)). 15. The Division finds that the activities proposed by the applicant would not affect the continued existence of endangered or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of their critical habitats (2.07.6(2)(n)). Both the Colorado Division of Wildlife (DOW), and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) were notified of Permit Renewal No. 6, and concerns were specifically solicited with respect to potential effects of the operation on endangered or threatened species of plants or animals. Responses were received from both agencies, and information was provided by the operator to address the identified concerns. During the course of the RN-06/TR-15 review, OSM prepared a Biological Assessment addressing the potential effects of the operation on federally listed (threatened and endangered) and candidate species. OSM also initiated formal consultation with the USFWS, due to the adverse effects ofwater depletions to the upper Colorado River on the endangered fish species that reside in the river (Colorado pikeminnow, humpback chub, razorback sucker, and bonytail). In a memorandum dated June 16, 2006 "Comments on the Biological Assessment for McClane Canyon Mine, Permit No. C- 1980-004, and Munger Canyon Mine, Permit C-81-020", USFWS indicated concurrence with the OSM Biological Assessment regarding potential impacts to the Mexican spotted owl, Canada lynx, Uinta Basin hookless cactus, DeBeque phacelia, and Parachute penstemon ("no effect"). USFWS also indicated concurrence with the OSM Biological Assessment determination for the bald eagle and yellow-billed cuckoo ("may affect, but not likely to adversely affect"). 11