Laserfiche WebLink
The above bond amount reflects the Division's projection of Reclamation costs for worst- <br />case disturbance which could occur during the proposed permit term upon resumption of <br />operations. It also reflects 100 percent bond release from Reclamation work completed by <br />the operator in 1990 at the Craig Town Loadout azea of the mine. This release was <br />approved by the Division during previous permit terms (2.07.6(2)(j)). <br />11. The Division has made a negative determination for the presence of prime farmland within <br />the permit azea. The decision was based on a letter from the Soil Conservation Service <br />dated February 2, 1982. Although soil types 03B and fine sandy loam 0-56 aze found <br />adjacent to the Williams Fork River, this azea is not considered prime farmland. <br />Approximately 50 percent of the 03B soil was disturbed prior to the enactment of SMCRA <br />and is considered an industrial site. Therefore, no azeas designated as prime farmland aze <br />found within the Eagle Mines pernut area (2.07.6(2)(k)). <br />12. Based on information provided in the application, the Division has determined that three <br />alluvial valley floors exist within the permit or adjacent area. The alluvial valley floors aze <br />known as Williams Fork alluvial valley floor, Yampa RiverBig Bottom alluvial valley <br />floor, and Yampa River/Round Bottom alluvial valley floor. The Williams Fork alluvial <br />valley floor will be affected by development of mains for the No. 6 Mine (2.07.6(2) and <br />2.06.8(3)(C)). No development is currently proposed for the Yampa RiverBig Bottom or <br />Yampa River/Round Bottom alluvial valley floors. For additional specific findings <br />concerning these alluvial valley floors, please see Section B.XI. <br />13. The Division hereby approves the post-mining land use of the operation. It was <br />determined that rangeland/wildlife, pastureland, and cropland meet the requirements of <br />Rule 4.16 for the permit azea (2.07.6(2)(1)). <br />14. Specific approvals have been granted or are proposed. These approvals aze addressed in <br />the following section, Section B (2.07.6(2)(m)). <br />15. The Division finds that the activities proposed by the applicant would not affect the <br />continued existence of endangered or threatened species or result in the destruction or <br />adverse modification of their critical habitats. Due to the proximity of golden eagle nests <br />within the permit azea as identified by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Division <br />previously attached Stipulation No. 4 to the permit. This stipulation imposed seasonal <br />limitations on surface disturbances neaz the nests. This stipulation was withdrawn during <br />the review of Permit Renewal RN-03 as its requirements were incorporated into Section <br />4.18 of the permit (2.07.6(2)(n)). <br />16. The Division has contacted the Office of Surface Mining, Reclamation Fees Branch. The <br />ApplicantNiolator System was checked on March 17, 2003 and again on December 10 , <br />2003. The operator was current in the payment of Reclamation fees as required by 30 CFR <br />Chapter VII, subchapter R (2.07.6(2)(0)). <br />15 <br />