Laserfiche WebLink
10. The reclamation bond liability has been estimated to be $6,553,139.00. The bond amount <br />referenced above reflects the Division's projection of reclamation costs for worst-case <br />disturbance which will occur during the proposed permit term. The Division is in <br />possession of a reclamation bond in the form of a letter of credit for $5,000,000.00 and a <br />corporate surety in the amount of $225,000.00. BRL has submitted a new bond corporate <br />surety to cover the reclamation liability costs of Permit Revision No. 6. However, the <br />Division will have to approve the new bond corporate surety before Permit Revision No. <br />6 can be issued. <br />11. The Division has made a negative determination for the presence of prime farmland <br />within the disturbed area. Soil types indicative of prime farmland do occur in the permit <br />azea; however, these soil types either will not be disturbed by the Bowie No. 2 Mine or <br />occur on slopes greater than 6 percent and, therefore, are not considered prime farmland, <br />according to Rule 2.04.12(2)(b). The decision was based on information presented in <br />Section 2.04.12 of the Bowie No. 2 Mine permit application and upon a letter dated June <br />6, 1996 from the Natural Resource Conservation Service (Volume III, Exhibit 14, Bowie <br />No. 2 Mine permit application document) that demonstrates that no prime farmland <br />mapping units are found within the permit area (2.07.6(2)(k)). <br />12. Based on information provided the application, the Division has determined that an <br />alluvial valley floor exists within the adjacent area. The alluvial valley floor exists <br />outside the permit area, is along the North Fork of the Gunnison River and will not be <br />affected by the Bowie No. 2 Mine (2.07.6(2) and 2.06.8(3)(C)). <br />For additional specific findings concerning this alluvial valley floor, refer to Section B, <br />XVII. <br />13. The Division hereby approves the post-mining land use of the operation. It was <br />determined that the proposed post-mining land use of rangeland and wildlife habitat, <br />pastureland, cropland and industrial meets the requirements of Rule 4.16 for the permit <br />area (2.07.6(2)(1)). <br />14. Specific approvals have been granted or aze proposed. These approvals aze addressed in <br />the following section, Section B (2.07.6(2)(m)). <br />15. In consultation with the Colorado Division of Wildlife and the United Stales Fish and <br />Wildlife Service, the Division found that the activities proposed by the applicant would <br />not affect the continued existence of endangered or threatened species or result in the <br />destruction or adverse modification of their critical habitats (2.07.6(2)(n)), provided that <br />appropriate mitigation efforts are performed.. Letters from both agencies aze presented in <br />Volume III, Exhibit 9 of the permit application document. <br />In a letter dated October 23, 2001, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service stated that the <br />proposed operations in Permit Revision No.6 would not impact threatened or endangered <br />species, since the revision would not increase the production rate or the water depletion <br />estimate that had been established in Permit Revision No. 3. Based on the water depletion <br />23 <br />