Laserfiche WebLink
` ~ • ~ rlll III III III IIII III <br />Memorandum <br />T0: Brian Munson <br />FROM: Susan Mowry <br />RE: McClane review for adequacy <br />DATE: June 18, 1981 <br />The comments below are questions and concerns regarding PAR items that do not <br />seem to be adequately addressed in the applicants responses. <br />1. On the first question under 2.03.3 what report are you specifically speaking <br />of? <br />2. Figure 2.1-3 gives chronological order and time necessary for each of the <br />mining phases. but no specific starting and termination dates as you requested <br />in 2.03.8. Check this out to see if you think it is adequate. <br />3. None of the questions or concerns of 2.04.3 have been addressed. They did <br />not clear up the map discrepancy or submit a narrative on land capability and <br />productivity. <br />4. In 2.04.4 number one, concise legal descriptions of the inventoried areas were <br />given in the first two reports in the cultural section but not in the third <br />report. <br />5. In question 2.04.4 number four, why is just a portion of the permit area shown <br />on map 2.2-1, also by using 3 maps namely map 2.2-1 fig. 3 and fig. 4 in the <br />report, one can determine the relationship of the cultural resources to the <br />disturbed areas, if that is clearly defined as you requested I'll eat my hat. <br />How important it is, that's up to you. <br />6. There is a brief discussion of potential impacts and mitigation measures at <br />the end of the section on the inventory records. I was unable to tell if <br />these were adequate or if you wanted more detail. <br />7. In the climate section (2.04.8) most of your questions have not been answered. <br />For instance, table 4.5-1 does not give monthly and annual mean for precipitation <br />(it does give it for temperature), and the data in the table isn't based on <br />10 years of data. <br />I can't figure out what is going on with this wind rose situation. Figure 4.6-1 <br />says its from the Munger Mine site but the text on page 4-92 refers to it as <br />being for Grand Junction. They do not give any period of record or rationale <br />or. limitations. You better check it out. <br />The applicant has also had difficulty with their onsite data collection station. <br />Because of these problems they are thinking of moving it (sounds like a good <br />idea). Anyway, because of this they have not given its location on a map and <br />do not have a complete site specific data set to present in their application. <br />So, what to do? It's up to you. <br />