Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Wallace H. Erickson <br />Response to Sixth Adequacy <br />October 11, 2011 <br />Page 21 <br />interception of ground water in drill holes, Wildcat will perform airlift or pump recovery <br />tests to obtain water production data. <br />Response to Adequacy Issue No. 13.c. <br />Wildcat will begin collecting ground water data from monitoring wells <br />immediately following well development, and will conclude well development within <br />five days of completion of the wells. <br />Response to Adequacy Issue No. 13.d. <br />Wildcat is submitting a revised Attachment D -6, Figure D -2 depicting the location <br />of the diversion ditch and catch basin. See Ex. 7. <br />Adequacy Issue No. 14. <br />The application identifies at least nine permanent man-made structures located <br />within 200 feet of the permit boundary, as follows: County Road 124, a bridge at La Plata <br />River, an overhead power line owned by La Plata Electric Association, an underground <br />telephone line owned by Qwest Communications, two fence lines (Vaught and Olsen), <br />three water wells (O'Donnell, Fagerlin and Linden), and pre- existing access roads. <br />Pursuant to Rule 6.4.20, the Applicant shall provide information sufficient to <br />demonstrate that the stability of any structures located within 200 feet of the permit <br />boundary will not be adversely affected. If the Office determines that such information is <br />inadequate to demonstrate that the operation will not adversely affect the stability of any <br />significant, valuable and permanent man -made structure, the Applicant shall either: <br />a. Provide a notarized agreement between the Applicant and the person(s) <br />having an interest in the structure, that the Applicant is to provide compensation for any <br />damage to the structure; or <br />b. Where such an agreement cannot be reached, the Applicant shall provide <br />an appropriate engineering evaluation that demonstrates that such structure shall not be <br />damaged by activities occurring at the mining operation; or <br />c. When such structure is a utility, the Applicant may supply a notarized <br />letter, on utility letterhead, from the owner(s) of the utility that the mining and <br />reclamation activities, as proposed, will have "no negative effect" on their utility. <br />The damage compensation agreements prepared by the Applicant reference a <br />different operation by name and permit number. Therefore, the compensation agreements <br />are not acceptable, as they were not executed for the May Day Idaho Mine Complex, <br />Permit No. M -1981 -185. The application does not satisfy the requirements of Rule <br />6.4.20(a). <br />DEN 97,629,117v1 10 -11 -11 <br />GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP to ATTORNEYS AT LAW a WWW.GTLAW.COM <br />