2013-09-03_REVISION - C1981014 (2)

Home Browse Search

Tena Gallagher, K2T 400 Cliffside Dr. Danville, CA 94526 -4810 Janet Binns Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety 1313 Sherman St. Room 215 Denver, CO 90203 FAXED to 303 832 -8106 on Tuesday, September 3, 2013 at 2:35 pm PDT RE: Energy Fuels TR 40 Dear Janet and Board, The basic question that I need to ask is that it seems that Energy Fuels is required to monitor the water and this seems to be the basic foundation: Mining Effects on Water: •GW recharge to mined area —Meet Water Quality Standards /bond release •Surface Water —Meet Water Quality Standards, effluent limitations, bond release, NPDES Permit release. •Improve Water Quality through increased riparian buffers *Improve Water Quality through natural stream restoration *Improve permeability of disturbed areas I have attached the letter and charts for two of the wells that I snail mailed to the Division over a year ago. No one has been able to figure out what has happened to Newlin Creek that used to run through the property and could have gone underground into the mine workings. What can be done to confirm this and since the City of Florence owns the water rights to it, what are the consequences? Above, one of the goals is: "Improve Water Quality through natural stream restoration." Please work to make this happen. In the 2008 Hydrology Report review dated June 30 2009, Kent Gorham, Environmental Protection Specialist III states: "At this time well NMWW remains dry and is not recording the flooding of the workings It could be concluded that the water has yet to reach the elevation of the screened interval of this well Continued monitoring is necessary to validate the prediction that mine flooding will eventually result in recovery of the local ground water level Water levels for 2008 indicate no changes due to mining activities. And in the following paragraph, "Until water is measured in NMWW completed in the mine workings no conclusion regarding ground water quality can be made Continued monitoring in accordance with the approved plan may provide more definitive information in the future Field data regarding conductivity and pH indicate no change in general surface water quality." Also as I understand it, it is a monitoring well as are several others that are on our property. It doesn't seem that they are properly permitted when my sister, Linda Saunders, checked with the Colorado Division of Water Resources in Pueblo. We are not sure for how long a piece of wood blocked the ability to check for water depths for MWNW. Since there have been drought conditions, it could have been for quite a while. But a larger concern is that the whole well casing is damaged below 354' to 380'. And it needs to be repaired or replaced ASAP. So just getting the wood piece out will not solve much. According to Janet Binns in her May 15, 2012 Inspection Report, "Rehabilitation of MW -NW is necessary to meet the approved water monitoring plan." There was a well MW10 near where MWNW is presently. In 2001, there was water at 150 ft. Where has the water disappeared to? Since there has been a drought and the water monitoring doesn't seem to be collecting water during the bi- annual visits, is it possible to consider changing the months that the monitoring is being done? In the future, if we decide to allow livestock grazing, we have to have a well that will meet the standards for humans and animals. Our father grazed cattle on the property and is probably the most viable alternative that we have following reclamation except that the largest concentration of vegetation is currently rabbit brush.