My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
APPCOR10975
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Application Correspondence
>
1000
>
APPCOR10975
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 6:31:30 PM
Creation date
11/19/2007 2:16:13 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981071
IBM Index Class Name
Application Correspondence
Doc Date
1/2/1980
Doc Name
MEMO ENERGY FUELS CORP ECKMAN PARK APPLICATION
From
MLR
To
KEITH KIRK MIKE MCCARTHY
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.
/
9
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 />Page 2 <br />Keith Kirk, Mike P1cCarthy <br />January 2, 1980 <br /> <br />3. The first sentence on page 779-243 requires clarification. I believe <br />the intent is to describe the effect of mining on the elk habitat. <br />4. Page 779-243 refers to a study(?) documenting that pregnant elk would <br />continue to use historical calving grounds not disturbed by mining. <br />EFC should submit this documentation. <br />5. Further support of EFC's contention that the impact on elk will not be <br />significant due to lost calving grounds. <br />6. Page 779-246 indicates that mining will be approximately 1,600 feet <br />closer to an active eagle nest in section 12. What is the possible <br />impact, if any, on the nesting habitats of the eagle? <br />C. Baseline Surface and Groundwater Information - Please refer to the comments <br />of Jerry Zimpfer and Dave Holm. <br />D. Reclamation Plan - The majority of the concerns associated with this section <br />were presented in my memo of December 26, 1979. Listed below are additional <br />concerns or further explanation of the concerns raised in the memo. <br />1. On page 780-111 the narrative refers to Energy dll and the topsoil and <br />subsoil removal plan for this section of the mine. The topsoil is <br />referred to as the first 6" of material and the subsoil as any material <br />below the 6" level. Please discuss how this corresponds with the base- <br />line soils information and the topsoil salvage table given on Map If29. <br />The same discussion should be given for Eckman Park. <br />2. Based on discussions with EFC representatives, it was decided to use <br />the wood chip mulch as a contigency plan. EFC will have to review all <br />applicable sections of the application and make the required changes in <br />the narrative. <br />3. Page 780-118 indicates that a native grass hay may be used as mulch. <br />The applicant should make sure that the supplier of the native grass <br />hay furnishes hay that is free of weedy species: Some of the native <br />grass hay contain large amounts of weedy species, and these species <br />may give problems to the applicant during the revegetation attempts. <br />E. Excess Spoil <br />1. As stated in the previous memo, EFC must submit overburden volume cal- <br />culations to substantiate the need to create two permanent overburden <br />stockpiles. The calculations should address the following: a) volume <br />of overburden, b) volume of coal, and c) volume of pit to be filled. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.