2009-11-10_REVISION - M1981185

• Permit No: M1981185
• IBM Index Class Name: REVISION
• Doc Date: 11/10/2009
• Doc Name: Returned mail
• From: USPS
• To: DRMS
• 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
Colorado 80203
Denver
F ??1 Y Q?i
COLORADO
,
Phone: [phone] i S o N
RECLAMATION
FAX: [phone] NOV 10 2009 MINING

October 1
, 2009 Divilo, n of Reclamation, SAFETY
Mining and Safety
Bill Ritter, Jr.
Mike Clements Mike Clements Governor
Wildcat Mining Corporation Wildcat Mining Corporation Harris D. Sherman
3643 Baker Street 108 Linda Court Executive Director

San Diego, CA 92117 Durango, CO 81301 Ronald W. Cattany
Division Director
Natural Resource Trustee
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-1981-185.
Dear Mr. Clements:
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 21s, 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