Laserfiche WebLink
<br />• Wildlife.--By July 14, 1980, Energy Fuels must submit statistically valid <br />vegetation information, including production, cover, and diversity, <br />associated with the elk calving ground soil types. Two months after this <br />submission, the company must submit detailed descriptions of <br />methodologies and 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 map of watering area locations in relation to elk <br />calving grounds) of techniques and devices to be used to establish the <br />necessary watering areas for elk. If any adverse impacts to fish or <br />wildlife are discovered through the proposed monitoring programs, Energy <br />Fuels must take appropriate measures to mitigate the impacts in consulta- <br />tion with the regulatory authority and FWS. <br />Cultural resources. -Within 90 days after approval of the mine plan, <br />Energy Fuels must submit completed National Register of Historic Places <br />nomination forms for sites SRT32 (scatter of flakes and tools) and SRT192 <br />Foidel Canyon School). Within 120 days after approval, the company must <br />submit a preservation plan for Foidel Canyon School and within 60 days <br />after approval, the company must fence the historic grave. Energy Fuels <br />must also report any cultural resources discovered during mining that <br />were previously unidentified. <br />For further details on the special stipulations, see the attached list to this <br />recommendation package. <br />• Alternatives to the proposed action are disapproval (alternative 2) and no <br />action (alternative 3). Both of these alternatives would preclude expansion <br />of the existing mining operation, which would preclude any environmental <br />impacts from occurring in the area of the proposed expansion. <br />Alternative 2 <br />The disapproval alternative could be chosen if the proposed action would cause <br />significant, adverse impacts, i.e., irreparable harm to the environment. OSM <br />has identified a potential toes 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 not in the regional <br />area. (See the impact analyses in the fish and wildlife and vegetation <br />sections of this EA, as well ae the BLM regional and site specific EIS (FES <br />77-1); for further details. OSM did not identify other significant impacts <br />that would ensue from the operation of the mine. <br />OSM has not recommended disapproval of <br />on the above conclusions and pertinent <br />and reclamation plan could be chosen, <br />the mining and reclamation plan based <br />analyses. Disapproval of the mining <br />should the decisionmaker disagree with <br /> <br />- 5 - <br />