Laserfiche WebLink
Wally Erickson <br />June 28, 2010 <br />Page 4 <br />With regard to enforcement, DRMS has in the past year taken enforcement against <br />Wildcat Mining for alleged violations of the Mined Land Reclamation Act (the "Act") at <br />both the May Day Mine and the Idaho Mine for activities which were alleged to have <br />occurred on or in connection with one mine or the other. Wildcat Mining submits that there <br />is no better evidence that, in fact, while it may be difficult, it is not impossible for DRMS to <br />understand and identify to which mine any potential violation may relate. In addition, the <br />risk of potentially erroneous enforcement at either the May Day Mine or the Idaho Mine <br />arising from operations in close proximity to each other at separately permitted mines is one <br />that Wildcat Mining understands and chooses to bear. DRMS has instructed Wildcat <br />Mining that it would consider, and that under the Act it could approve, separate Section <br />110(2) permits for the May Day Mine and the Idaho Mine. Wildcat Mining believed this <br />would be the most efficient path to permitting the mines, and for this reason has submitted <br />separate Section 110(2) permit applications for the May Day Mine and the Idaho Mine. <br />Notwithstanding the foregoing, in light of the concerns raised by DRMS, Wildcat <br />Mining is presently evaluating the possibility of submitting an application to convert its <br />Section 110(2) permit for the May Day Mine into a Section 112 permit. <br />3. Prior to submitting the application to the Division of Reclamation, Mining and <br />Safety, the Applicant was to post a notice at the mine entrance in accordance <br />with the requirements of Rule 1.6.2(1)(b), and provide an affidavit that such <br />notice had been posted. The Applicant provided the affidavit and the Office <br />accepted the affidavit as representation that the appropriate notice had <br />been posted. However, during a recent site inspection the Office observed <br />that the posted notice contained incorrect information. Therefore, the notice is <br />in error and a correct notice must be re- posted in accordance with the <br />requirements of Rule 1.62(1)(b). The Applicant must provide anew affidavit <br />that the corrected notice has been posted. <br />Response to Adequacy Issue No. 3: All public notices have been provided in <br />accordance with regulations. <br />Attached is the affidavit showing corrected notice in Attachment 3. <br />EXHIBIT B SITE DESCRIPTION RULE 6.3.2 <br />4. The application indicates that mill tailings will be piped to undisclosed locations in <br />the underground workings for disposal. The application affirms that the <br />underground workings are flooded. Therefore, the mine pool, a man-made aquifer, <br />might receive drainage directly from the affected land. Pursuant to Rule 6.3.2(c), <br />please describe the underground workings and mine pool, detailing the extent of <br />flooding and elevation of the water table. Please submit plans for a comprehensive <br />spring and seep survey, as necessary to reasonably locate, characterize and monitor <br />all potential discharges from the mine pool to surface.