2010-06-28_REVISION - M1981185

• Permit No: M1981185
• IBM Index Class Name: REVISION
• Doc Date: 6/28/2010
• Doc Name: Response to preliminary adequacy issues for AM-01
• From: Wildcat Mining Corporation ‎(Greenberg Traurig)‎
• To: DRMS
• Type & Sequence: AM1
• Email Name: WHE
• Email Name: SSS
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

Wally Erickson
June 28, 2010
Page 2
apparently addressed under a different permit application (Idaho Mine, M-
2010-003). La Plata County has indicated that the permit may be in direct
contradiction with the requirements of Chapter 82 of the La Plata County Code.
Pursuant to C.R.S. 34-32-115(4) (c) (I), no part of the proposed mining
operation may be contrary to the laws or regulations of this state or the United
States, including but not limited to all federal, state, and local permits, licenses,
and approvals, as applicable to the specific operation. Please resolve the
possible conflict with the La Plata County Land Use Code.
Response to Adequacy Issue No. 1: Wildcat Mining Corporation is committed to
meeting all federal, state and local regulatory requirements. By letter dated May 21, 2010,
La Plata County clarified its April 26, 2010 comments and explained that Chapter 82 of the
La Plata County Code requires only that "in order to receive approval for a land use permit
for a mining or milling project, adequate proof of water and access must be provided. See
Letter from E. Aune, La Plata County, to DBMS, at 1 (May 21, 2010). Because Wildcat
Mining presents adequate proof of water and access for both the May Day Mine and the
Idaho Mine, it satisfies Chapter 82 of the La Plata County Code.
First, Wildcat Mining is the operator and applicant for both the May Day Mine and
the Idaho Mine. Wildcat Mining is also the owner of the land on which the access road
proposed for the May Day Mine and Idaho Mine is located. The May Day Mine has an
access agreement in place to use the access road. Additionally, Wildcat Mining is in the
process of applying for a Special Use Permit from the United States Forest Service ("Forest
Service") to obtain alternate access to the May Day Mine via a Forest Service road. Both
the access agreement and the Special Use Permit each separately provide adequate proof of
access sufficient to satisfy Chapter 82 of the La Plata County Code.
Second, the State Engineer has granted Wildcat Mining water rights which can be
applied at both the May Day Mine and the Idaho Mine. Although the augmentation pond
and the storage pond are planned to be located on the Idaho Mine site, Wildcat Mining has
presented with its application to amend the May Day Mine permit a copy of the decree
adjudicating Wildcat Mining's water rights. This information provides adequate proof of
Wildcat Mining's water rights sufficient to satisfy Chapter 82 of the La Plata County Code.
2. La Plata County also noted a potential for confusion resulting from the
division of one 112 operation into two interdependent 110(2) operations.
The operation proposed at the May Day Mine appears to be dependent
upon the plans proposed at the Idaho Mine. If fact, AM-01 acknowledges
the interrelatedness of the two operations by describing various features as
the "Mayday-Idaho Mining complex, " and the "Mayday-Idaho mine
diversion, " and the "Mayday-Idaho Wildcat Augmentation Ponds" (page
four of Exhibit Q. Additional examples of interrelatedness include:
• Support facilities for the May Day Mine, which are proposed to be
permitted under the Idaho Mine, are described in Exhibit B, Attachment