Laserfiche WebLink
May Day /Idaho Mine — Comments to Selected Work Plans Responses September 9, 2011, <br />Exhibit D <br />Page 4 <br />September 27, 2011 <br />(labeled "DD ") shown on the revised Attachment D -6, Figure D -2 appears to collect <br />runoff from the facility area (warehouse, office, access roads, etc) and diverts it to the <br />north, crossing the access road west of the augmentation pond and routing it uphill <br />towards the crest of the pond. Furthermore, the reference drawing does not show any <br />catch basin. Please provide the location of the catch basin. (Note the proximity of the <br />Forest Service Boundary may impact the location of some BMPs.) <br />c. Please show ditch "DD" draining to the catch basin instead of the augmentation pond <br />crest and ensure its alignment promotes positive drainage. <br />d. The augmentation pond will contain potentially impacted water. As such, stormwater <br />cannot be allowed to mix with the water in the pond. Please demonstrate how run -on <br />from the hill on the east side of the pond will be diverted away from the pond. <br />Adequacy Issue No. 13: The response is inadequate. The applicant references Attachment 8 for <br />a general description for the installation of the keyway and liner. Attachment 8 includes no <br />description, only a photo from Flickr® photo sharing website titled "12 -31 -08 Pond dam <br />keyway" with this comment underneath: "This is all trial and error. I know what needs to be <br />done, but ... ". There is no mention of a liner. Furthermore, the "trial and error" comment does <br />not instill confidence in the DRMS engineering staff that the applicant can properly design and <br />install the keyway and liner for the augmentation pond. Please provide the previously requested <br />conceptual detail. This would typically include a conceptual drawing showing extents of the <br />liner, materials to be used, keyway locations and cross section, typical anchor trenches, etc. <br />Adequacy Issue No. 14: 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 10 bulleted responses to this adequacy issue presented in the subject response letter <br />shall be included in the revised Work Plan. <br />a. The first open bullet references Figure 6.5 -1 for six test boring locations. The correct <br />reference is Figure 6.5 -4. <br />b. The last line of this response indicates the applicant will delete the first sentence in the <br />second to last paragraph on page 8 of Exhibit 6.5 due to an erroneous reference to slopes <br />steeper than 1:1. The last sentence of this same paragraph also discusses 1:1 slopes and <br />shall also be deleted. <br />Adequacy Issue No. 15: 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. <br />Adequacy Issue No. 16: The response is inadequate. The soil in the existing pond is previously <br />disturbed. Therefore, it is not necessarily correctly categorized by the soil survey. This soil <br />currently demonstrates a capability to support vegetation. As such, DRMS requires this soil be <br />stockpiled for future reclamation activities. <br />Adequacy Issue No. 17: 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 />27sep 1 l .docx <br />