Laserfiche WebLink
Response to CN-01 Third Adequacy Issues - June 6, 2011 <br />Adequacy Issue #31 <br />The application identifies at least nine permanent man-made structures located within 200 feet of <br />the permit boundary. According to the application these structures include County Road 124, a <br />bridge at La Plata River, an overhead power line owned by La Plata Electric Association, an <br />underground telephone line owned by Qwest Communications, three water wells (O'Donnell, <br />Fagerlin and Linden), two fence lines, and pre-existing access roads. <br />Pursuant to Rule 6.4.20, the Applicant shall provide information sufficient to demonstrate that <br />the stability of any structures located within 200 feet of the permit boundary will not be <br />adversely affected. If the Office determines that such information is inadequate to demonstrate <br />that the operation will not adversely affect the stability of any significant, valuable and <br />permanent man-made structure, the Applicant shall either: <br />(a) Provide a notarized agreement between the Applicant and the person(s) having an <br />interest in the structure, that the Applicant is to provide compensation for any <br />damage to the structure; or <br />(b) Where such an agreement cannot be reached, the Applicant shall provide an <br />appropriate engineering evaluation that demonstrates that such structure shall not <br />be damaged by activities occurring at the mining operation; or <br />(c) When such structure is a utility, the Applicant may supply a notarized letter, on <br />utility letterhead, from the owner(s) of the utility that the mining and reclamation <br />activities, as proposed, will have "no negative effect" on their utility. <br />The damage compensation agreements prepared by the Applicant reference a different operation <br />by name and permit number. Therefore, the compensation agreements appear to be not <br />applicable to the May Day Idaho Mine Complex, M-1981-185. Please submit compensation <br />agreements which correctly identify the appropriate operation by name and permit number. <br />The Applicant's commitment to place spill clean-up kits at various locations does not appear to <br />provide the engineering evaluation that demonstrates that the domestic wells located within 200 <br />feet of the boundary of affected lands shall not be damaged by activities occurring at the mining <br />operation (Rule 6.4.20(b)). <br />The Division does not agree with the Applicant's characterization of the neighbor's domestic <br />wells being not valuable. <br />Response #31 <br />Wildcat Minim has attempted to reach out to adjacent landowners to enter into a Damage <br />Compensation Agreement. As of Mav 9.2011. Mr. and Mrc_ l indpn anti Mr --1 Mr- T <br />wno nave not entered into an agreement with the <br />Revised <br />6/6/2011 <br />24 <br />