2013-07-17_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1981014 ‎(2)‎

• Permit No: C1981014
• IBM Index Class Name: General Documents
• Doc Date: 7/17/2013
• Doc Name: Response to Linda Saunders e-mail dated 7/15/2013
• From: DRMS
• To: Linda Saunders
• Email Name: JHB
• Email Name: DIH
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

34
Page of
July 19, 2013
6. Did the DMRS pull a sample from Well 23 for testing when you were there with George?

DRMS response: On June 24, 2013, the Division conducted an inspection if the Southfield Mine with a
focus on observing EFCI’s semi-annual water monitoring program. The Division did not collect water
samples from any of the wells. EFCI collected water samples in accordance with their approved plan
(Exhibit 25).

7. When will the test results be available?

DRMS response: Please contact EFCI regarding the water sampling results. The Division reviews the
groundwater results quarterly. EFCI is required to submit the groundwater results to the Division in the
Annual Hydrology Report (Rule 4.05.13(4)(c)).

We will have a response to the Mike's report shortly.

No response from the Division is needed at this time.

8. Revegetation: You used 24.4 acres for the Vento Property Reclamation vegetation sampling example. I
know that the refuse pile is 38+acres+Pond 3+the portal area.

DRMS response: I have previously provided the 2010 revegetation monitoring report to you. On page
1 of EFCI’s 2010 revegetation monitoring report, dated May 2, 2011, the report states, “The Vento
Reclamation area consists of approximately 24.4 acres”, “The Corley Reclamation area consists of
approximately 13 acres”.

The 24.4 acres that the Division used to illustrate how reclamation standards would be applied were
based on the information in the 2010 revegetation monitoring report. As I stated several times in the
example, the values were used for illustration only.

9. If EF can meet the standards with the original intended reference area why are they changing it now?

DRMS response: The Division has previously answered this question. This question should be
directed to EFCI.

10. Was EF deficient in warm season grasses in their 2010 sampling?

DRMS response: As the Division has explained previously, the 2010 vegetation sampling at the
Southfield Mine was conducted as interim monitoring and was not intended to determine vegetation
success. I have previously provided the 2010 revegetation monitoring report to you. The information
may be found in the vegetation report for you to evaluate.

11. EF needs to revegetate the waterline and parking lot.
DRMS response: The Vento Group had previously requested the parking lot to remain, MR46,
approved October 1, 2002 (Map 28 and Map 33). Subsequent to that request, EFCI was approved to