Laserfiche WebLink
31. "Has Energy Fuels requested a Phase 2 Bond Release? When will that occur and how much money will be <br />released and how much will remain ?" <br />Answer: This concern is not specific to TR39. <br />Energy Fuels has not applied for Phase II Bond Release. Energy Fuels may apply for Phase II bond release <br />at any time. Rule 3.03.1(2) determines the amount of bond eligible for release. However, in accordance <br />with Rule 3.03.1(3)(d), the Division conducts a reclamation cost estimate of remaining approved <br />reclamation requirements during the bond release review, and verifies that adequate bond remain to <br />assure that the approved reclamation plan can be completed. <br />32. "Who carries the Bond Insurance if they default? Who gets the bond insurance if they default ?" <br />Answer: This concern is not specific to TR39. <br />The Colorado Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety (Division) would be the recipient of the bond if <br />permit revocation were to occur. <br />33. "Although there are 5 revegetation area on the Vento Property, why is the reveg report for all Vento <br />Revegetation? Why is there not a separate one for the Portal Area? <br />Answer: This concern is not specific to TR39. <br />This is a question regarding the interim sampling vegetation monitoring report. The consultant chose to lump <br />all Vento property sampling together. These 5 areas received the same seed mix, and were similar enough in <br />reclamation, and a comprised a logical management unit, that the consultant felt it appropriate to sample as <br />one unit. The Division does not disagree with the consultant's choice to sample all the Vento property as one <br />unit for the purpose of the interim monitoring. <br />34. "Does any of the random transects done in 2006 or 2010 -cover a count of the portal area ?" <br />Answer: This concern is not specific to TR39. <br />This is a question regarding the interim sampling vegetation monitoring report. Review of Map 1 from the <br />2010 vegetation monitoring report clearly show that transects V -2 and V -3 fell within the portal area. The <br />transects were located randomly, as such there is not an even distribution of transects throughout the <br />sampling area. This is normal for random sampling. <br />35. "When will Kent compare the reference area for the portal woodland reference area and the grassland <br />reference area ?" <br />Answer: This concern is not specific to TR39. The Division believes Ms. Saunders is becoming confused <br />between the interim monitoring that is used by the operator and the Division to evaluate revegetation <br />trends, and bond release sampling. The interim monitoring sampling does not meet the requirements for <br />bond release sampling and will not be used for that purpose. <br />36. "We want to compare both the original and new proposed EF portal reference areas. I have identified where <br />I think the reference areas are, but I need you to confirm it on a map. The original reference area is intact <br />and undisturbed. I see know [sic] need for a new reference area." <br />Answer: The Ponderosa - pinyon - juniper reference area (PPJ, Reference Plot "B ") is shown on map 16. Janet <br />met with Ms. Saunders on the Southfield mine site on August 4, 2011. We found the NW corner of the PPJ <br />