Laserfiche WebLink
Sixth Adequacy Letter, Amended CN -01 <br />May Day Idaho Mine Complex, M- 1981 -185 <br />Please correct the inconsistencies regarding the affected land acreages. Please <br />eliminate contradictory information within the text of the application, between the text <br />and the maps of the application, and between the maps of the application. Please <br />ensure all application materials consistently describe the same affected land acreages <br />and affected land boundaries. Pursuant to Rule 1.1(6), the submittal constitutes an <br />amendment to CN -01. Please complete the filing process for this second amendment to <br />CN -01, as previously required for the first amendment to CN -01. <br />Alternately, if the Applicant did not intend to expand the boundary of affected lands, <br />please correct the application to reflect no increase in affected lands as of the first <br />amendment, filed April 27, 2011. The Applicant has indicated the removal of the <br />exploration drill pads and associated access roads, resulting in 15.8 acres decrease in <br />affected lands. Therefore, the acreages of each of the areas of affected lands must not <br />exceed the acreages provided in Exhibit A of the April 27 filing, totaling not more than <br />31.8 acres. <br />3. During a meeting with the Applicant on August 30, 2011, the Applicant submitted <br />Attachment 2, Response to Fifth Adequacy. A revised Attachment 2, Response to Fifth <br />Adequacy was submitted on September 9, 2011. The revised Attachment 2 contains <br />numerous errors and as such, does not comply with the requirements of Rule 1.4.1(3). <br />a. The acreage values provided in the fourth data column, dated June 6, 2011, contain <br />errors in acreage for May Day 1 and Idaho, which carry through to the erroneous <br />totals at 54.1 acres and 44.1 acres. The correct total acreage for the June submittal <br />is 47.6 acres. There were no changes in acreage for the June submittal and the data <br />in the fourth column should be identical to the acreages provided in the second and <br />third columns, dated April 18 and April 27, 2011. <br />b. The acreage values provided in the fifth data column, dated August 8, 2011, contain <br />errors in acreage for May Day East, Base of Operations, and the New Access Road, <br />which carry through to the erroneous totals at 43.23 acres and 33.54 acres. The <br />correct total acreage for the August submittal is 44.23 acres. <br />c. The acreage values provided in the sixth data column, dated September 8, 2011, are <br />supported only by Figure C -4 and conflict with the acreage values provided in Exhibit <br />A and Exhibit E, also submitted on September 9, 2011 (see comments under <br />adequacy issue number 2, above). <br />d. Footnote number 7 on Attachment 2 is in error. The acreage for the May Day 1 was <br />represented as 3.5 acres and not 13.5 acres. <br />e. Footnote number 8 on Attachment 2 is in error. As depicted on the application <br />maps, the configuration of the boundary of affected lands for the May Day 1 has <br />changed since the amendment to CN -01, filed April 27, 2011. <br />f. Footnote number 11 on Attachment 2 is in error. As depicted on the application <br />maps, the configuration of the boundary of affected lands for the May Day 2 has <br />changed since the amendment to CN -01, filed April 27, 2011. <br />g. Footnote number 12 on Attachment 2 is in error. As depicted on the application <br />maps, the configuration of the boundary of affected lands for the May Day 3 (Lamb) <br />has changed since the amendment to CN -01, filed April 27, 2011. <br />4 <br />