Laserfiche WebLink
Subject: Re: Southfield vegetation comparisons <br />To: "George Patterson" < efcoal ggmail.com <br />Date: Monday, May 28, 2012, 6:26 PM <br />George, <br />I guess that I am unaware of the purpose of the reference area then if the reclamation requirements will not <br />change. I assume then that you mean that such parameters such as species diversity, amount of production, and <br />percentage of cover are specified in your permit and that the reference area will not affect those requirements. <br />Could you send us a copy of the reclamation requirements and perhaps a map of the locations of the current <br />and the proposed areas, please? <br />Doug <br />- -- On Mon, 5/28/12, George Patterson < efcoaI(a - ' 1 ,-mail com wrote: <br />From: George Patterson < efcoal gmail.com <br />Subject: Re: Southfield vegetation comparisons <br />To: "W D Corley, Jr." < aiic a att.net <br />Date: Monday, May 28, 2012, 5:50 PM <br />Doug, <br />Our consultant, having handled all of the veg studies for Energy Fuels for over 30 years, has said the <br />current (old) Reference Area is too unlike the approved requirements for the reclaimed areas to meet the <br />required criteria. The slope aspect (direction) is different, soils are different and recently acquired <br />photos show that the majority of the old RA has been predisturbed - - only 0.2 acre is shown to be <br />undisturbed. The reclaim requirements remain the same. I don't know how the 'trees' fit into the <br />calculations, I assume they don't count directly( ?) because the reclamation requirement is for grasses & <br />shrubs which is more akin to the 'proposed' area on the north side of the Portal Area. The proposed RA <br />area also slopes easterly like the portals area and has more soils types like the portal area according to <br />the consultant. Extensive study shows it's the only remaing spot that has not been predisturbed around <br />the perimeter of the Portals /Facilities Area. <br />George P <br />On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 9:06 AM, W D Corley, Jr. < alic@att.net > wrote: <br />George, <br />I think the only information that we have had about your request to switch the reference area was in your email <br />on Sept. 10, 2011. What are the practical effects of relocation of the RA? Would the new RA increase your <br />reclamation requirements, keep them the same, or reduce the requirements? Would it change the actual type of <br />revegetation required such as fewer trees? Does the portal area now meet the revegetation standards of the old <br />RA? <br />Doug <br />5/26/12, George Patterson < efeoal(tigniaiL com wrote: <br />From: George Patterson < efcoalggmail.com > <br />Subject: Southfield vegetation comparisons <br />To: "Dr. Corley" < aiic a att.net <br />