REP24753 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

iii iiiiiiiiiiiii iii 999 INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: KENT GORHAM FROM: JANETB S(/ SUBJECT: RATON EI~\M E .~ DATE: 11/26/1999 CC: DAN FIERNANDEZ I have re-evaluated Energy Fuels Mining Company's 1998 Annual Reclamation Report. 1 have also gone back through my Annual Reclamation Report memo regarding EFMC's 1998 Annual Reclamation report. My memo, dated 4/29/99, states: Sanipling of the plant gro~v[h media on the non-topsoiled area was conducted in 1998 with the samples sent to a lab for analysis. The 1998 Annual Reclamation Report Map did not show where the samples were collected. No one chemical parameter measured as toxic to vegetation. The analytical laboratory did provide fertilizer recommendations and rates. Fertility levels could be improved via fertilizer additions. The percent gravel in the plant growth media (spoil) material was relatively high from 22-44%ofthe sample. Colorado State University, Soil, Water, and Plant Testing Lab recommended fertilizer of 40 lbs. N per acre, 60 lbs. P205 per acre, and 40 lbs. KZO per acre. Elaborating on the coarse fragments in the "topsoil substitute" material: Wyoming Topsoil Suitability Guidelines define "topsoil" material containing greater than 35%coarse fragments as "unsuitable" and 25-35% coazse fragments as "mazginal" for use as plant growth material. EFMC collected seven "topsoil substitute" samples from the backfilled Mine 2 slope. Three samples of the seven contained greater than 35%coarse material. The "topsoil substitute" material in these location would be considered "Unsuitable" based on [Ire Wyoming guideline criteria. Three of the remaining samples were in the "marginal" category with percent gravel (coazse material) measured at 31 %, 33%, and 34%. Only one sample, R1917, would be considered "suitable" with regards to percent coarse material with a measured value of 22%. The operator has not provided a map locating the specific sample collection locations. The Division requested this information in 1998 when the consultant was on site collecting the samples, and again in the Division's letter to EFMC dated May 4, 1999. A general location map was provided, however, the Division continues to request a specific sample location map