Laserfiche WebLink
<br />lildlife.--U}• July 1N, 1980, energy Fuels ^u~t suhmit statistically valid <br />vegetation inCorma[ion, including production, cover, and diversit}', <br />associaCed with the elk calving ground soil types. Two months after [his <br />submission, the company must submit detailed descriptions of . <br />methodologies ;ind criteria used in establishing new calving areas and a <br />monitoring program to evaluate the success of techniques to re-establish <br />calving areas. Six months after approval, the company must submit a <br />narrative (including a man of watering area locations in relation to e14: <br />calving grounds) of techniques and devices to be used to establish the <br />necessary watering areas for elk. IC any adverse impacts to fish or <br />cildlife are discovered through [he prupased monitoring programs, Energy <br />Fuels must take appropriate measures to mitigate the impac~s in consu'.ta- <br />tion wish the rzgula[ory authority and F1: 5. <br />Cultural resources.--within 90 da:•s after a;~~roval of the mine plan, <br />Energ}• Fuels muse submit completed 12ational Register of Y.istoric Places <br />nomination forms for sites SRT32 (scatter r,C flakes and tools) and .5RT192 <br />Foidel Canyon School). l2i[hin 120 days after approval, the company must <br />submit a preservation plan for Foidel Cam on School and a•i[hin 60 days <br />after approval, [he company must fence the historic grave. Energy Fuels <br />must also report any cultural resources discovered Burin; mining that <br />were previously unidentified. <br />Fot further details on ttie special stipulations, see the attached '_ist to ;pis <br />recocvnendation package. <br />Alternatives to the proposed action are disapprn~•a'. (alternative 2) and no <br />action (alternative 3). Both of these alternatives would preclude e::pansinn <br />of the existing mining operation, which would preclude am• en:•ironmental <br />impacts from occurring in the area of the proposed expansion. <br />Alternative '_ <br />The disapproval alternative could be chosen if the proposed action would cause <br />significant, adverse impacts, i.e., irreparable li;irm [o the environment. Os'1 <br />has identified a potential loss and/or displacement of elk in the permit area <br />that would ensue from the destruction of a unique ecological community. This <br />impact would be a significant impact in the local area but apt in the regional <br />area. (See the impact anal}•ses in the fish and wildlife and vegetation <br />sections o: this EA, as well as the BLM regional and site specific EIS (FES <br />77-1 ), for further details. OS?1 did not identify other significant impacts <br />that would ensue from the operation of Che mine. <br />OS"1 has no[ recommended disapproval of [he mining and reclamation ;,lam based <br />on Che above conclusions and pertinent analyse. Disapproval of the minim, <br />2nd reclamation plan could he chosen, should she decisienmaLer disa,:ree i[h <br />- , - <br />