2014-04-23_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1981014

Home Browse Search

Inspection Report, Rehabilitation of MW NW is necessary to meet the approved water monitoring plan In May, 2013 Kent Gortham and Janet Bums determined that there was a blockage in MWNW and they cited EFCI and fined EFCI for non - compliance and indicated that it needed to be repaired or replaced in a timely manner. Energy Fuels requested TR -40: removal of monitoring well MW -NW from the approved water monitoring program and on Ocotber 7, 2013, the Division found the elimination of monitoring well MW- NW still allows EF's ground water monitoring program to meet the requirements. We, the land owners, requested a board hearing regarding this issue with a certified letter in August 18, 2013. Then on November 7, 2013, Dave Berry rescinds this decision. This issue has not been resolved to our satisfaction. Sec 2.05.6 VII a plan for the restoration of the approximate recharge capacity of the permit area in accordance with 4.05.12(3) to determine the adverse effects: Does this include depleting an alluvial aquifer and no longer having water available for any future use? The determination of the probable hydrologic consequences required by 2.05.6(3)(b)(IV) indicates the adverse impacts on or off the proposed permit area may occur to the hydrologic balance. Has any use of our property been denied to us? What does this mean to the other property owners along CR15 who rely on well water? Lack of reclamation. Most of the shrub plantings failed because they were damaged by wildlife, EF was not required to replant and /or to stake the shrubs or to water them to help them get through limited water in the initial years. There is now very little diversity in the reclaimed area besides rabbit brush and tridens grass which were not in the seed mix originally planted. These two invasive plants have compromised the desirable species that were planted. Of the 1800 seedlings that were planted, approximately 10% survived according to our calculations. We have been concerned about the plantings on our property since the very beginning. Since May 27, 2011, EFCI has been trying to move the original portal reference area established in 1980 so that the possibility that they might have enough grasses and diversity to pass the Division's reclamation standards through TR39. In an email from Linda Saunders, 7/28/2011 Landowner Questions Reference Area and 2010 Reveg Results (Emailed) she states that according to your 1995 guidelines, the functionality or future use of the land by the property needs to be considered. In 2003 we filed a grazing plan with the Soil Conservation Service. Linda met twice with Rick Romano, Natural Resource and Conservation Service and evaluated the vegetation at the portal, refuse pile and pond. At that time we needed the rabbit brush and silver sagebrush knocked down and the new growth treated with a herbicide before reseeded of more beneficial plants could be done. The grasses can't compete with the taller shrubs that are not edible. According to Species: Chrysothamnus nauseosus by Tirmenstein, D. 1999, "Rubber rabbitbrush is, in general, considered of little value to all classes of livestock although some subspecies receive at least light use by livestock during the winter months. Rubber rabbitbrush is of little importance to larger mammals" and are not desirable for grazing. In the 2010 Revegetation Report, Kent Gorham notes that the herbaceous production was not achieved at the Vento area and that the rabbitbrush population increased from 26.67% in 2006 to 53.33% in 2010. In TR 39 over our objections, the Division agreed to modify the reference area on December 3, 2013. Also we do not have a clear vision of the erosion potential on the steep sides of the 43 acre refuge pile. It seems that several of the past years' revegetation reports have noted lack of warm climate grasses but we have not seen any action taken by DMG to recommend how to remediate this situation. 6. Coal pillars. Our family planned to leave the pillars in place to help the stability of the mine workings. In 2013 when George Patterson provided the final closure map, we determined that Energy Fuels had pulled all of the pillars except under the refuge pile. We do not believe that we were compensated for their removal. 7. The reclamation plan was for ten years. EFCI has never been fined for not complying to that time table. Drill holes. Over the past year, Linda Saunders has requested a complete list of the drill holes, drill core sample information and their locations from George Patterson. Our understanding is that Energy Fuels will need to fill each one before final reclamation but we would appreciate having them identified as soon as possible, following up on our request to Janet Bums on July 1, 2013.