APPCOR10022 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

-^- February 5, 1930. ':his approval was completed within the state's mandatory time period. The Routt County Cor..missioners lr.^.ve not yet approved the application and the !4LR approval was continue^t upon Routt Count}•'s approval. Conversations with the P.outt County Regional Planning Commission indicated that a recommendation for approval of the application occurred at the planning commission's month l hearing on February 7, 1980 and based on [his recommendation it is anticipated that the Rout: County Commissioners will approve the application at their next meetin} scheduled for Februar}• 25, 19S0. The proposed modification involves an extension of Wining activities southwest from the presently mined area. The operation would involve the extraction of coal primarily from the 4.adge seam and, where economicall~• feasible, from the overlying Lennox seam. The area scheduled for mining is outside the mining boundaries preciousl:: approved by the Department. Energy Fuels is requesting variances from contemporaneous reclamation in '_' areas,~a portlor. of the mine associated with the initi;,'_ boxcut, because of s!~oil Irnndling and safety problems and a portion of the mine where a pronosed underground portal wouid be located. The first variance is justified from an efficienc:• and safety standpoint, therefore OS'1 recommends the variance be granted. . The second variance to leave open a portion of hi~liwall is not justified at :his time because :he applicant has not su'o~ittcd a plan for deep cining nu: made a definite commitment to move forward with deep :Wining. Ther•_`ore this variance is not granted. Special stipulation `rte specificall? addresses this issue. OSP; prepared an environme~~tal assessment (E:1) a}iich also addresses the icportant impacts of the proposed mining operation. Th^_ proposed oneration would destroy an e:~isting ell; calving ground. The applicant proposes to relocate this calving ground onto propert}' adjacent to the permit area owned b}• Energy Fuels Corporation. OSF4's analysis snows that successful revocation of the e14; herd may not be possible as the reestablishment of the vegetati':e community may be a difficult task. The particular soils, vegetation and water movement in the area appears to be a unique phenomena. It ;: as determined that the destruction of the e14: calving ground would have no significant impact on the elk population in the area, but ma;' have a possible significant impact on the elk herd wintering in the immediate vicinity of the pronosed operation. Tile significant impacts on the elk population as well as other adverse impacts that could ensue from the proposed operation lr,•tve been assessed in the "Northwest Colorado environmental Statement." That impact statement consists of three volumes: a Regional Analysis volume, a Site Specific volume and a Supplemer•tal Gnyironmental report. The site specific analysis volume addresses the Energy Fuels Corporation t4ining ^nd keclairation Flac for tl,e Energ}• Fuels /~1 and>''' mines along, with the propnscd er.[ension of tl~e "1 mine into the Eckman Park area. DS1~1 does~noC believe that another ElS is necessary' because OS)4 has not identified any significant i-pacts that acre not already identified and evaluated in the previous EIS.