GENERAL45645

• Permit No: C1981044
• IBM Index Class Name: General Documents
• Doc Date: 2/28/1994
• Doc Name: PROPOSED DESISION & FINDINGS OF COMPLIANCE FOR RN2
• Permit Index Doc Type: FINDINGS
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

does not own or control any operations which are currently in violation of
any law, rule, or regulation of the United States, or an}• State law, rule, or
regulation, or any provision of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation
Act or the Colorado Surface Coal Mining Reclamation Act (2.07.6(2)(g)(i)).
The operator does not control and hoe not controlled mining operations with a
demonstrated pattern of willful violations of the Act of such nature,
duration, and with such resulting irreparable damage to the environment as to
indicate an intent not to comply with the provisions of the Act
12 .07.6(2)(h)).
Pursuant to Rule 2.07.6(2)(1), the Division finds that the Eagle No. 5 and
No. 6 Mines will not be inconsistent with other operations anticipated to be
performed in areas adjacent to the proposed permit area. Therefore, the
application is in compliance with the requirements of this section for the
Eagle No. 5, SA and 6 Mines.
The Trapper Mine is adjacent to the Eagle Mines No. 5, SA and 6. The Trapper
Mine has finished extracting coal from the Colt Pit, located above the
proposed fiagle No. 6 Mine's underground workings in T6N, R91W, Section 32.
The seams being mined are stratigraphically separated by +in excess of 1,000
feet. Trapper Mine completed surface mining in the Colt ]?it prior to any
mining occurring within the Eagle No. 6 Mine in areas which could potentially
cause subsidence disruption of the etratigraphic section to be mined within
the surface pit. Backfilling, grading, topsoiling, and seeding of the Colt
Pit occurred during the fall of 1993. The underground workings of the fiagle
No. 6 Mine progressed into TSN, R91W, Section 5, during the fall of 1993.
10. The Division currently holds a bond of $3,202,822.00 in the form of three
Corporate Sureties. The Division estimated the coat o£ reclamation to be
$3,202,822.00 in October 1993. This bond is adequate to cover estimated
liability for reclamation on the permitted operation.
The above bond amount reflects the Division's projection of reclamation coats
for worst-case disturbance which will occur during the proposed permit term.
it also reflects 100 percent bond release from reclamatior.~ work completed by
the operator in 1990 at the Craig Town Loadout area of the mine. This
release was approved by the Division during previous permit terms
(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 a letter from the
Soil Conservation Service dated February 2, 1982. Although, soil types 03B,
and fine sandy loam 0-56 ie found adjacent to the Williams Fork River, this
area is not considered prime farmland designation. Approximately 50 percent
of the 03B soil was disturbed prior to the enactment of SMCRA and is
considered an industrial Bite. Therefore, no areas designated se prime
farmland are found within the Sagle Mines permit area (2.07.6(2)(k)).
12. Based on information provided in the application, the Division has determined
that three alluvial valley floors exist within the permit or adjacent area.
The alluvial valley floors are known as Williams Fork alluvial valley floor,
Yampa River/Big Bottom alluvial valley floor, and Yampa River/Round Bottom
alluvial valley floor. The Williams Fork alluvial valley ~Eloor will be
affected by development of mains for the No. 6 Mine (2.07.6(2) and
2.06.8(3)(C)). No development ie currently proposed for tlae Yampa River/Big
Bottom or Yampa River/Round Bottom alluvial valley floors. For additional
specific findings concerning these alluvial valley floors, please see Section
B.XI.
12