Laserfiche WebLink
<br />9 <br />an 8foot-diameter culvert plus 4 foot of overlying fill. This accounts for 3% of the overall <br />elevation change in the valley. The length of the watershed is approximately 7,900 feet long. <br />The 675-foot long culvert comprises 8.5% of the overall valley length. Since the bottom of <br />the culvert has been installed at the level of the natural drainage bottom, the culvert would <br />not significantly alter the gradient of the stream flow. The "approximate original contour" <br />variance would only apply to the overlying fill surface above the culvert. <br />This small variance in topography complies with Rule 2.06.5(2)(a) and (b) by improving the <br />post-mining land use for purposes of agricultural cattle grazing. The post-mining land use <br />of rangeland is not considered an alternate use; thus, the conditions of Rule 2.06.5(2)(c) are <br />met. Since the permanent stream channel does not significantly alter the hydrologic function <br />of Starkville Gulch and run-off from the disturbed area is routed to the sediment pond, the <br />requirements of Rule 2.06.5(2)(d) are fulfilled. Rule 4.27.4(4) allows for variance from <br />approximate original contours with the request of the landowner. Written copies of this <br />request can be found in the landowner, Mr. A.J. Iuppa's letter dated April 30, 1982, which <br />requests;'contours to be not as steep as original were." A letter from Mr. Iuppa dated July <br />27, 1994 requests the retention of the eight foot diameter diversion culvert. This request <br />complies with Rule 2.06.5(2)(e). The Division finds the backfilled and graded slopes in <br />compliance with Rule 4.14.2(1) and the definition of Rule 1.04(13). <br />One sediment pond has been constructed on the mine site. The landowner has requested <br />that the pond remain as a permanent structure. Energy Fuels Mining Company, however, <br />has yet to supply the Division demonstrations required by Rules 3.03.1(3)(c), 4.05.2(2), 4.05.9 <br />and 4.05.17 that are necessary for the Division to approve the pond as a permanent <br />structure. As such, the Division does not propose to approve the pond as a permanent <br />structure at this time. <br />Eliminated from this finding are the north-facing slope at the former office/parking area, <br />the 20° slope adjacent to the lower catchment basin /check dam, and the section of 2h:ly <br />slope at the southern edge of the former substation area. These slopes exceeded the <br />approved 3h:ly final grade. <br />At the time of the March 8, 1995 inspection, the backfilled and regraded slopes had been <br />in place since the Spring of 1994. They had not been seeded, though had been contour <br />chiselled. Though some small (3-4 inches deep or less) rills were present on the Portal No. <br />1 backfilled slope area, these were not in excess of the amount of erosion allowed by Rule <br />4.14.6. <br />