My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
APPCOR11919
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Application Correspondence
>
1000
>
APPCOR11919
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 6:32:12 PM
Creation date
11/19/2007 2:25:26 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981071
IBM Index Class Name
Application Correspondence
From
OSM
To
DNR
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.
/
5
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
~~ a <br />Unite~States Department of the I• rior <br />OFFICE OF SURFACE h1INING <br />Reclamation and Enforcement <br />111200KSTO\1'IiRS <br />1020 I STIi S I~RCI:~I~ <br />llENVGR. COLORS\I)O 802(1'_ <br />OFFICE OF'1'HE REGIONAL D1RI~;CTOR <br />t1r. Hamlet J. Barry <br />Director, Mined Land Reclamation <br />Department of Natural Resources <br />1313 Sherman Street <br />Denver, Colorado 80203 <br />Dear Ptr. Barry: <br />;' r _ i .. <br />'. I:~ <br />III III III IIIIIII III <br />J <br />This is to confirm that we, in cooperation with your staff, have, to date, <br />identified the following deficiencies in Energy Fuels Corporation (EFC) <br />application listed below. Some of these deficiencies are of such a nature <br />[hat if information is not immediately forthcoming from EFC adr]ressing these <br />concerns the tentative deadline for the TA will have to be changed. It is our <br />understanding that EFC is working toward satisfyi.np, these deficiencies. <br />1. Range site descriptions - The range sites should also include in the <br />physiographic description the elavational range and the degree of slope. <br />Included within the description the soils-vegetation relationships should be <br />discussed. The acreage to be affected within each range stte description <br />should be presented in a table. <br />2. Soils Information a) There arz incongrui[es within the topsoil volume <br />tables and redistribution maps. For example, the volumes of topsoil to be <br />removed for year 1981 do not agree in tables 94, 95 and map 1f42. <br />b) Further clarification of the subsoil salvage plan is needed. The areas <br />and amounts of subsoil that are proposed be salvaged for redistribution. This <br />can be handled in the form of a table. All information must be provided in a <br />manner that facilitates quantitative review of the calculations. <br />c) The nature of the soil material to be stockpiled is not clear. A furCher <br />discussion on the source, handling and redistribution, including timing, of <br />this material would be beneficial. <br />3. Refer to page 780-3. It is no[ clear how long redistributed topsoil will <br />remain in place before it is seeded. In view of the fact that topsoil removal <br />is proposed to be conducted during the winter months, the applicant should <br />give a more detailed topsoil salvage for these months and then a topsoil <br />salvage plan tl~a[ will be used after this period. <br />4. Refer to page 780-94. The discussion in paragraph 3 confl.ic[s with prior <br />statements (page 779-183) concerning sage grouse strutting grounds. Ptap 27 <br />indicates strutting grounds exist in section 13 while the narrative locates <br />the strutting grounds in section 18. <br />~..:.r..~Yiai;W7G::w......:..ii::4.i~..::cl.L .....<......~. .. - _ _ .r.-..,,..ae'. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.