Laserfiche WebLink
that Seneca Coal Company does not own or control any operations which are currently in <br />violation of any law, rule, or regulation of the United States, or any State law, rule, or <br />regulation, or any provision of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act or the <br />Colorado Surface Coal Mining Reclamation Act [incompliance with Rule 2.07.6(2)(g)(h)]. <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 such <br />resulting irreparable damage to the environment as to indicate an intent not to comply with <br />the provisions of the Act. (2.07.6(2)(h)). <br />9. The Division finds 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 azeas adjacent to the permit area. (2.07.6(2)(1)). <br />10. The Division currently holds a performance bond (Seaboazd Surety Company No. 329873) in <br />the amount of $5,200,000.00. This bond remains in force for the 2005-2010-permit term. <br />The above bond amount exceeds the Division's projection ofreclamation costs for maximum <br />reclamation requirements, which would occur during the proposed permit term. The cost <br />estimate for bond liability has not been revised as a result of the renewal application. The <br />latest reclamation cost estimate of October 4, 2004 prepazed for Technical Revision No. 25 <br />remains in effect. The Division estimates the reclamation liability for mining operations in <br />this permit term to be $5,128,121.00. The amount of performance bond reflects the <br />Division's projection of reclamation costs for the worst-case disturbance that will occur <br />during this permit term. It reflects no bond release for reclamation work completed <br />(2.07.6(2)(j)). <br />11. The Division has made a negative determination for the presence of prime farmland within <br />the permit area. The decision was based on a copy of a Soi- Conservation Service list of <br />prime farmland in the vicinity of the mine, dated September 9, 1992, that demonstrates that <br />no prime farmland mapping units aze found within the permit azea. (2.07.6(2)(k)). <br />12. The Division has made a negative determination for the existence of alluvial valley floors <br />within the permit area or adjacent areas in the Grassy Creek watershed. This determination is <br />based on information provided by the applicant who demonstrates that poor water quality as <br />well as the limited size and isolation of two potentially subirrigated fields precludes those <br />fields from meeting the regulatory criteria of an alluvial valley floor. These fields aze located <br />in Armand Draw and Scotchmans Gulch. (2.07.6(2) and 2.06.8(3)(C)). <br />The Division has determined there are alluvial valley floors in the Sage Creek watershed. <br />However, the Division finds that impacts of proposed mining operations will not be <br />significant. The proposed mining operations will not interrupt, discontinue, or preclude <br />agricultural activities in the Sage Creek watershed. For additional specific findings <br />concerning alluvial valley floors please see Section B, X. <br />Yoast Mine 20 August 3, 2005 <br />