Laserfiche WebLink
underground mine subsidence) had the potential to submzrge cultural/historical sites that could zxist alon_ the <br />banks of Fish Creek within the area oFtlte N~ID. The SHPO subs-equen[ly informed Twentymile Coal <br />Company m ~~lay, 2000 that cultural andior historic rewurce survey iniorna[ion did not exist for certain <br />portwns of the FR-0~ area where subsidence-related inundation was espectzd, and that such information was <br />necessary to determine whether any possible cultural/historic resources could be affected by the inundation. <br />Twentymile Coal Company subsequently contracted with an archaeological consultant to conduct a <br />cultural/historic resource survey for areas within the PR-Oi NMD area that would be subject to inundation <br />from Fish Creek. This survey was conducted in June, 2000, with the results being provided to Twentymile <br />Coal Company, who subsequently provided the results [o SHPO and [he Division in June, 2000. The survey <br />indicated that a historic cabin and corral existed within the area of possible inundation. This cabin is located in <br />the SW '/. of the SW '/. of the SE '/. of Section 16, TSN, R86W, on property owned by Twentymile Coal <br />Company. Twentymile Coal Company's archaeological consultant recommended, however, that the building <br />not be considered eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. This recommendation was <br />followed by the SHPO, as documented in letters from the SHPO to [he Division dated June 13, 2000 and June <br />16, 2000. <br />Foidel Creek is solely an underground operation, therefore the documentation required by Rule 2.03.6(2) is not <br />required (2.07.6(2)(f)). <br />8. On the basis of evidence submitted by the applicant and received from other state and federal agencies as a <br />result of the Section 34-33-114(3) compliance review required by the Colorado Surface Coal Mining <br />Reclamation Act, the Division finds that Twentymile Coal Company does not own or control any operations <br />which are currently in 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 Colorado Surface Coal <br />Mining Reclamation Act (2.07.6(2)(g)(I)). <br />9. Twentymile Coal Company does not control and has not controlled mining operations with a demonstrated <br />pattern of willful violations of the Act of such nature, duration, and with such resulting irreparable damage to <br />the environment as to indicate an intent not to comply with the provisions of the Act (2.07.6(2)(h)). The <br />Applicant Violator System was queried on December 10, 1999 and May 25, 2000. The result of both queries <br />was the operator has no outstanding violations. The system recommendation is "issue" the permit. <br />10. The Division finds that surface coal mining and reclamation operations to be performed under this permit will <br />not be inconsistent with other such operations anticipated to be performed in areas adjacent to the permit area, <br />(2.07.6(2)(1)). <br />l 1. No new or additional performance bond is required as a result of this permit renewal. The Division holds a <br />band in the amount of $7,1 18,370 which [he Division estimates is sufficient to reclaim all disturbances <br />associated with this permit. The above bond amount reflects the Division's projection of reclamation costs for <br />worst-case disturbance which will occur during the proposed permit term (1998-2003) (2.07.6.(2)(j)). <br />Twentymile Coal Company does not propose any new surface disturbance with this permit revision. <br />12. The Division has made a negative determination for [he presence of prime farmland within the permit area. <br />The decision was based on the publication "imponan[ Farmlands Inventory of Colorado" USDA, Natural <br />Resource Conservation Service (formerly SCS), Denver, Colorado, October 1982. It states that no prime <br />farmland mapping units are found within [he permit area or within Routt county. The local office of the <br />NRCS confirmed this finding in a letter dated September 24, 1984. This letter can be found in Exhibit 24 <br />(2.07.6(2)(k)). <br />C:WHB\C82056\PROS\PR05 FINDINGS 62800.doc <br />18 <br />