Laserfiche WebLink
Fifth Adequacy Letter, Amended CN -01 <br />May Day Idaho Mine Complex, M- 1981 -185 <br />source of the Applicant's legal right to enter. If Figure D -1 is incorrect, please submit <br />a correct Figure D -1. <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, please revise all <br />other maps of the application to reflect a consistent boundary and describe the <br />source of the Applicant's legal right to enter. If Figure 0 -1 is incorrect, please submit <br />a correct Figure 0 -1. <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. Please submit a correct Figure C - 3. <br />5. The reclamation maps must illustrate and clarify the reclamation plan; conflict between <br />the reclamation maps and the reclamation plan is not acceptable. On several previous <br />occasions, the Division made Wildcat aware of numerous contradictions, which must be <br />removed from the application. Unfortunately, significant inconsistencies persist within <br />the application, specifically addressing the final configuration of affected lands. <br />Examples of conflict between the reclamation plan and reclamation maps, and /or <br />inadequacies of the reclamation maps, include the following: <br />• Figure F -1, May Day 1 Reclamation Topography, indicates a 55 foot highwall at <br />0.8H:1V and a 60 foot highwall at 0.6H:1V. The near vertical slopes are in <br />conflict with Exhibit 6.5, which indicates all highwalls will be reduced to 2H:1V. <br />Additionally, as noted earlier, Figure F -1 locates affected lands outside of the <br />boundary of affected lands and clarifies that such lands will not be reclaimed. <br />• Figure F -2, Mayday East Pre - Application Topography, is presented as a <br />reclamation map but, as stated in its title, does not show the final topography of <br />the reclaimed lands. Therefore, there appears to be no reclamation map for the <br />May Day East affected land. <br />• Figure F -5, May Day 3 Reclamation Topography, indicates a 40 foot highwall at <br />1.5H:1V, which is in conflict with the 2H:1V permit condition imposed in Exhibit <br />6.5. <br />4 <br />