2009-10-01_REVISION - M1981185

• Permit No: M1981185
• IBM Index Class Name: REVISION
• Doc Date: 10/1/2009
• Doc Name: Inappropriate content for a TR
• From: DRMS
• To: Wildcat Mining Corporation
• Type & Sequence: TR1
• Email Name: WHE
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

STATE OF COLORADO
DIVISION OF RECLAMATION, MINING AND SAFETY
Department of Natural Resources
1313 Sherman St., Room 215
Denver, Colorado 80203
Phone: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
October 1, 2009
Mike Clements
Wildcat Mining Corporation
3643 Baker Street
San Diego, CA 92117
Mike Clements
Wildcat Mining Corporation
108 Linda Court
Durango, CO 81301
RE: Inappropriate Method for Submittal of an Application,
Incomplete Application for the Purposes of Filing,
Inappropriate Content for a Technical Revision,
May Day Mine; Permit No. M-1981-18S.,
Dear Mr. Clements:
COLORADO
D I V I S ION OF
RECLAMATION
MINING
SAFETY
Bill Ritter, Jr.
Governor
Harris D. Sherman
Executive Director
Ronald W. Cattany
Division Director
Natural Resource Trustee
-rR -01 /1111?
Snc.vMrle+e -
On September 21, 2009, [e-mail] received an email from [e-mail]
with an attached Portable Document Format (".pdf") file. The ".pdf" file contained 74 pages of
documents which propose to incorporate a mill facility at the May Day Mine through the Technical
Revision process. The proposed revision in the ".pdf" file was not signed by the Permittee. On that same
day, September 21St, the Division received copy of page three of the revision by facsimile transmission.
The faxed copy of page three appears to bear the signature of the Permittee.
The Division does not consider the email and facsimile transmissions to constitute an official submittal of
the proposed revision. The Division routinely receives electronic transmission as a preview of the official
submittal. However, the official submittal is delivered to the Office on paper and signed by the Permittee.
If the Permittee desires to revise the permit please do so by submitting an official request, on paper and
signed by the Permittee.
As a courtesy to the Permittee, the Division has completed a preliminary and abbreviated review of the
un-official submittal and offers the following observations.
The proposal appears conceptual in nature and is lacking detailed plans and demonstrations required
under the Act and Rules. Please review the requirements of Rules 6.1.2, 6.2.1, 6.3.1, 6.3.2, 6.3.3, 6.3.4,
6.3.5, 6.3.6 and 6.5, and revise the proposal accordingly. When proposing new structures, the proposal
should include a map which shows the locations of such structures, in accordance with Rules 6.2.1(2),
6.3.3(1)(e), (m), 6.3.3(2)(d), and 6.3.5. Additionally, when proposing new structures, such structures must
be described in accordance with the requirements of Rule 6.3.3. The proposal must address how such
structures, and their associated affected lands, will be reclaimed in accordance with Rules 6.3.4 and 6.3.5.
Pursuant to Rule 6.3.4(2), the proposal must address the cost of reclamation. Pursuant to Rules 6.3.2,
6.3.3 and 6.3.4, the proposal must demonstrate compliance with the performance standards of Rule 3.1.
Office of Office of
Mined Land Reclamation Denver • Grand Junction • Durango Active and Inactive Mines
R- sC;FWF- D
OCT 0 5 2009
Division of Reclamation,
Mining and Safety