Laserfiche WebLink
5. Conceptual Work Plans <br />Staff Notes for Adequacy 5, CN -01 <br />May Day Idaho Mine Complex, M- 1981 -185 <br />d. Figure D -1, Environmental Protection Plan, delineated a permit boundary and <br />boundary of affected lands which is different from all other maps of the application. <br />Figure D -1 also delineated affected lands located outside of the permit boundary <br />and on lands owned by Doyle E. Huckabay and the United States of America. The <br />application did not demonstrate a legal right to enter lands owned by Doyle E. <br />Huckabay or the United States of America. Pursuant to Rule 6.4.14, the application <br />is required to describe the source of the Applicant's legal right to enter and initiate a <br />mining operation on the affected lands. If Figure D -1 is correct in its delineation of <br />the boundary of affected lands, the absence of a legal right to enter constitutes <br />grounds for denial of CN -01. <br />e. Figure 0 -1, Owners of Record of Affected Land (Surface Area) and Owners of <br />Substance to be Mined, indicated portions of the affected lands associated with the <br />May Day 3 area to be located outside the permit boundary and on lands owned by <br />Liberty Communication. The application did not demonstrate a legal right to enter <br />lands owned by Liberty Communication. Pursuant to Rule 6.4.14, the application is <br />required to describe the source of the Applicant's legal right to enter and initiate a <br />mining operation on the affected lands. If Figure 0 -1 is correct in its delineation of <br />the boundary of affected lands, the absence of a legal right to enter constitutes <br />grounds for denial of CN -01. <br />f. Figure C -3, Existing Topography, displays numerous and substantial mapping errors. <br />The data layer(s) overlaying the topographic base map have shifted several hundred <br />feet to the east. No part of the operation is properly located in relationship to <br />topography. Additionally, the contour lines show the natural pre- mining <br />topography, prior to the commencement of historic mining activities, and fail to <br />show any of the existing highwalls, mine benches, and access roads. At 5 -foot <br />contour interval, such mine features should be readily apparent. Figure C -3 does not <br />accurately display the existing topography. <br />Given the Cease and Desist Orders, Wildcat is somewhat limited to conceptual plans for <br />stabilization of the New Access Road, repair of the collapsed portal at May Day 1, <br />identifying appropriate underground locations for tailings disposal, ground water <br />monitoring wells, construction of a new mill facility or retro- fitting the existing facility to <br />DMO standards, etc. Several of the work plans discuss the need to future investigations <br />before finalizing a specific plan. However, conceptual plans must clarify steps through <br />the process. No design /plan may be implemented without DRMS review and approval. <br />Therefore, an approvable work plan, which is conceptual in nature, must commit to <br />submitting the new geotechnical information, with revised design /plan if warranted, for <br />DRMS review and approval through either the Technical Revision or Amendment <br />process. The application must use the specific term "Technical Revision" or <br />3 <br />