GENERAL36786 - 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 azeas 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 $300,000.00 corporate surety. The Division's reclamation cost estimate prepared pursuant to Permit Renewal No. 5, projects a total reclamation cost of $265,431.00. This amount reflects the Division's estimate of reclamation costs for the worst-case disturbance that will occur during the proposed permit term. 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 azea has not been historically used as cropland. No lands in the permit area aze 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 azea (2.07.6(2)(k)). 12. 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 fmdings 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 rangeland/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 fords 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. O5, and concerns were specifically solicited with respect to potential effects of the operation on endangered or threatened species of plants or animals. No response was received from either wildlife agency. In association with previous permitting actions, USFWS had raised concerns regarding potential impacts of water depletion associated with the operation on endangered fish species of the Colorado River. In 1992, USFWS determined that the project was not likely to jeopazdize the continued existence of the endangered fishes if the company made a contribution to the Recovery Implementation Program for Endangered Fishes of the Upper Colorado River Basin. GVCC made the recommended one time payment of $41.93 ($11.98 per acre foot of projected annual depletion) on November 16, 1992. In a letter of January 11, 2000 from Richard P. Krueger of the USFWS to Sandy Vana-Miller of OSM, USFWS clarified that, pursuant to a 1997 USFWS biological opinion, depletion fees are no longer required for annual depletions of 100 acre feet or less (see Appendix P of the approved permit application). Based on a revised water consumption estimate of January 24, 2002, prepazed in association with TR-11 and RN-OS (Appendix P), the McClane Canyon operation would result in a maximum water loss of 13.39 acre feet per yeaz, at a projected coal production level 11