Laserfiche WebLink
floors exist along Trout Creek on the western permit boundary, and along Oak <br />Creek east of the permit boundary. Only the Trout Creek alluvial valley floor is <br />affected, resulting in possible water quality impacts [Rules 2.07.6(2) and <br />2.06.8(3)(C)]. <br />For additional specific findings concerning alluvial valley floors, please see <br />Section B, Part VIII of this document. <br />13. The Division has previously approved the post-mining land use of the operation. It <br />was determined that a restoration to rangeland and wildlife habitat meets the <br />requirements of Rule 4.16 for the permit area [Rule 2.07.6(2)(1)]. Post-mining <br />commercial and agricultural land-uses for the Oak Creek facilities azea also meet <br />the requirements of Rule 4.16. <br />14. The Division has contacted the Office of Surface Mining, Reclamation Fees <br />Branch. As of this time, Pittsburg & Midway, the operator, is current in the <br />payment of reclamation fees required by 30 CFR Chapter VII, subchapter R. [Rule <br />2.07.6(2)(0)]. <br />15. The Division finds that the activities proposed by the applicant would not affect <br />the continued existence of endangered or threatened species or result in the <br />destruction or adverse modification of their critical habitats [Rule 2.07.6(2)(n)]. <br />16. Specific approvals under Rule 4 have been granted or are proposed. These <br />approvals are addressed in the following section, Section B [Rule 2.07.6(2)(m)]. <br />SECTION B -Findings and Specific Approvals Required by Rule 4 <br />I. Roads -Rule 4.03 <br />A. Haul Roads. All haul roads have been reclaimed completely or to the <br />criteria established for permanent retention, and have been previously approved <br />for Phase I bond release. <br />The applicant made a demonstration, based on site specific <br />precipitation rates, percent of grade, and soil properties, that use of <br />alternative specifications for culvert and bridge sizing will not <br />result in increased erosion. Along selected segments of the haul <br />road in the Moffat Area, the spacing of culverts was not in <br />compliance with Rule 4.03.1(4)(e)(vi). Avariance was granted <br />based on the following findings: <br />a) Stable road embankments were designed; <br />b) Culverts were located in azeas of preferred or existing <br />drainage; <br />C-1980-001 Permit Renewal 5 Findings Page 19 of 33 Pages <br />