2011-10-11_REVISION - M1981185

• Permit No: M1981185
• IBM Index Class Name: REVISION
• Doc Date: 10/11/2011
• Doc Name: Response to 6th adequacy letter to CN-01
• From: GreenbergTraurig for Wildcat Mining Corporation
• To: DRMS
• Type & Sequence: CN1
• Email Name: WHE
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

Mr. Wallace H. Erickson
Response to Sixth Adequacy
October 11, 2011
Page 2
requested be modified and re- submitted as part of this response, or which could not easily
be explained in a written response to your letter and the four attached memoranda.
Adequacy Issue No. 1.
Pursuant to Rule 1.4.1(3), all information submitted in an application must be
accurate and complete, and acknowledged as such by the signature of an authorized agent
on the application form.
The application form received on September 9, 2011, was not properly completed
by the Notary. The Notary failed to identify the individual who signed the application.
The Division received a correct application form with the amendment to CN -01,
filed April 27, 2011. However, the previously accepted form was replaced on August 9,
2011, and again on September 9, 2011. Please re- submit the form previously accepted
with the amendment, filed April 27, 2011, or submit a new form properly executed in
accordance with the requirements of Rule 1.4.1(3).
Response to Adequacy Issue No. 1.
In Response to Adequacy Issue No. 1, Wildcat incorporates by reference the
application form previously accepted by DRMS with Wildcat's amendment to CN -01,
filed April 27, 2011, a copy of which is located in DRMS' records. Wildcat withdraws
the incorrect forms filed on August 9 and September 9, 2011.
Adequacy Issue No. 2.
As of the amendment to CN -01, filed April 27, 2011, affected lands included 47.6
acres. In a subsequent submittal to CN -01, received on August 9, 2011, the Applicant
removed 15.8 acres of lands not previously affected by the mining operation. Therefore,
there should have been a corresponding reduction in the affected land acreage, totaling
31.8 acres. However, the August submittal indicated 44.23 acres affected lands,
representing a reduction of only 3.37 acres. Therefore, the Applicant had added 12.43
acres to the boundary of affected lands. As shown in Table 1, the increase occurred
primarily with an expansion of the affected land boundaries for the New Access Road and
Pre - existing Roads.
DEN 97,629,117x1 10 -11 -11
GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP to ATTORNEYS AT LAW ® WWW.GTLAW.COM