Laserfiche WebLink
May Day /Idaho Mine — Comments to Selected Work Plans Responses September 9, 2011, <br />Exhibit D <br />Page 2 <br />September 27, 2011 <br />Adequacy Issue No. 3: <br />a. The new Attachment D -2, Figure D -2 (dated 9/7/2011) and the provided narrative are <br />considered adequate for the response to Adequacy Issue No. 3a. <br />b. This has not been corrected on the revised drawing (Attachment D -2, Figure D -2 (dated <br />9/7/2011). The south diversion ditch in the plan view flowing north towards the sediment <br />basin still appears to flow uphill, gaining five feet in elevation. Please revise the grading <br />plan to demonstrate positive drainage to the sediment basin. <br />Attachment D -3, Little Deadwood Gulch May Day No. 2 Drainage Control <br />Adequacy Issue No. 4: The applicant has committed to resolving this adequacy issue. <br />However, they have not committed to addressing this adequacy issue in a TR or AM. Please <br />provide a written commitment to resolve this work plan adequacy issue via the TR or AM <br />process. The response to this adequacy issue presented in the subject response letter shall be <br />included in the revised Work Plan. <br />Adequacy Issue No. 5: <br />a. The riprap specification included in the `BMP #12 Rip Rap" does not include density or <br />shape specifications, and conflicts with the applicant's commitment to use Section 506 of <br />CDOT's Standard Specifications. For example, the `BMP #12 Rip Rap" specification <br />states dmax = 1.5 d50; CDOT's specification is 1.67 d __drnax <_2 d Please provide a <br />complete, and only one riprap specification to avoid conflicting requirements. <br />b. The applicant has committed to resolving this adequacy issue. However, they have not <br />committed to addressing this adequacy issue in a TR or AM. Please provide a written <br />commitment to resolve this work plan adequacy issue via the TR or AM process. The <br />four bulleted responses to this adequacy issue presented in the subject response letter (pp. <br />4 -5) shall be included in the revised Work Plan. <br />Adequacy Issue No. 6: The applicant has committed to resolving this adequacy issue. <br />However, they have not committed to addressing this adequacy issue in a TR or AM. Please <br />provide a written commitment to resolve this work plan adequacy issue via the TR or AM <br />process. The response to this adequacy issue presented in the subject response letter shall be <br />included in the revised Work Plan. <br />Adequacy Issue No. 7: The applicant has committed to resolving this adequacy issue. <br />However, they have not committed to addressing this adequacy issue in a TR or AM. Please <br />provide a written commitment to resolve this work plan adequacy issue via the TR or AM <br />process. Responses 7a, 7b and 7c to this adequacy issue presented in the subject response letter <br />shall be included in the revised Work Plan. <br />Adequacy Issue No. 8: The applicant has committed to resolving this adequacy issue. <br />However, they have not committed to addressing this adequacy issue in a TR or AM. Please <br />provide a written commitment to resolve this work plan adequacy issue via the TR or AM <br />process. The bulleted response to this adequacy issue presented in the subject response letter <br />shall be included in the revised Work Plan. <br />Adequacy Issue No. 9: The applicant has committed to resolving this adequacy issue. <br />However, they have not committed to addressing this adequacy issue in a TR or AM. Please <br />provide a written commitment to resolve this work plan adequacy issue via the TR or AM <br />c: \pegleg \my documents -2 \my documents \correspondence, minerals, 2011\may day cnl, 6, tac, exhd, <br />27sepl l.docx <br />