Laserfiche WebLink
At the end of the first day and all of the second day of the inspection, only Al Weaver and Rob Zuber <br />were present. They inspected wells and exploration drill holes as well as the road spur to MW -NW. <br />Seven sealed boreholes (SR -6, SR -9, SR -45, SR -47, SR -48, SR -49, and SR -52) and three sealed <br />wells were inspected (MW -16, MW -23, and MW -NW). Also MW -65 was located; it has not been <br />reclaimed. <br />Several comments and written objections regarding the bond release application were received by the <br />Division. <br />In an e-mail dated January 26, 2016, Kenneth and Kathleen Warnock of Las Cruces LTD (adjacent <br />landowner) opposed the bond release due to excessive erosion and sediment leaving the mine area. The <br />Division believes that the road and roadside ditch are not the responsibility of EFCI but are the <br />responsibility of Fremont County. Other significant areas contributing sediment to the Warnock <br />property include historical mining areas and the GEC property; neither are EFCI responsibility. <br />The following comments were received from Dr. W.D. Corley, surface owner (some of these were <br />communicated by Dr. Corley during the inspection). <br />Corley Comment #1 <br />In an e-mail of February 3, 2016, Dr. Corley identified issues related to his domestic well, which was <br />constructed by an EFCI contractor. He stated that the water is not potable (other correspondence indicated <br />that the issues are iron and manganese) and does not meet CDPHE drinking water standards. He also <br />indicated that EFCI has not met their obligation to construct a pipeline from this new well to the Corley <br />Ranch house. <br />Responses to Comment #1 <br />These issues have been resolved. <br />Corley Comment #2 <br />During the SL -04 inspection, it was determined that the road to MW -65 is eroding in several places, and <br />the Corley family only uses ATVs on this road (rather than trucks or cars). Dr. Corley indicated that <br />Dorchester tore up the road by using it when the ground was muddy. They then repaired it with plant <br />reject material rather than gravel. Per Dr. Corley, this material did not last long on the surface. <br />Response to Comment #2 <br />This issue has been resolved. <br />Corley Comment #3 <br />During the SL -04 inspection, Dr. Corley pointed out erosion issues at the mine site. Per Dr. Corley, the <br />road cut along the haul road to the RDA is a significant source of sediment. Runoff from this road <br />drains to Pond 5. On the pipeline corridor from Pond 3 to the facilities area there is an erosion <br />feature that is 1.5 to 2 feet deep. <br />Response to Comment #3 <br />These issues have been resolved. <br />Southfield Mine C-1981-014 Page 3 of 12 August 22, 2016 <br />SL -04 <br />