My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
APPCOR10255
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Application Correspondence
>
1000
>
APPCOR10255
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 6:26:40 PM
Creation date
11/19/2007 2:09:17 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981071
IBM Index Class Name
Application Correspondence
Doc Date
10/27/1983
Doc Name
STATUS OF PN 79-177
From
MLRD
To
COLO YAMPA COAL CO
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
21
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />-9- <br />mulch plots and a direct haul topsoil areas that have not been seeded. A <br />list of such projects, describing them and the results thus far, is <br />requested by the Division. <br />A review of last year's report raises a couple of questions. First in <br />Table 2, Area 1 is identified to be released from bond and outside of the <br />current permit boundary. The Division realizes this area was not <br />included in the initial bond calculations, but it is considered to be <br />within the permit boundary. During the bond re-evaluation Area 1 should <br />be included because the area is not stabilized by vegetation and further <br />seeding or other stabilizing practices may be required. The question on <br />the permit boundary needs to be addressed. Area 1 is shown within the <br />permit boundary on all maps. The second question on the annual report <br />deals with the sample locations. It would be helpful if CYCC would <br />identify where the vegetation and soil samples were taken in each area. <br />Stipulations 8 and 10 shall remain in effect. All other vegetation <br />stipulations have been adequately addressed. <br />With the stipulations, this section is in compliance with the Colorado <br />permanent program. <br />X. Fish and Wildlife -Rules 2.04.11, 2.05.6(2), 4.18 <br />There are no substantive differences between the Federal and State <br />programs in this section. There was one wildlife stipulation attached to <br />the State permit and five OSM stipulations. The state stipulation <br />required the following. <br />3. Representatives from Energy Fuels Corporation, Colorado <br />Division of Wildlife, Mined Land Reclamation Division, and Office <br />of Surface Mining will meet at the site during the spring of 1980 <br />to discuss the impacts of mining on the sage grouse lek identified <br />in the permit. A joint agreement will be arrived at to mitigate <br />any negative impacts on the lek as a result of EFC's mining <br />activities. These mitigative measures will become part of EFC's <br />permit. <br />The OSi~1 attached five wildlife stipulations to their approval package as <br />follows: <br />3. The applicant shall provide, by July 14, 1980, statistically <br />valid vegetative information associated with the soil type of the <br />elk calving ground, (soil type x8D0. The information must include <br />production, cover, and diversity of the area. A dissimilarity <br />statistical analysis shall be performed to demonstrate differences <br />between the aspen communities in other soil types in the mine plan. <br />area and communities on soil type 8D in the mine plan area. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.