2014-10-20_PERMIT FILE - M2014045

• Permit No: M2014045
• IBM Index Class Name: Permit File
• Doc Date: 10/20/2014
• Doc Name: Second Adequacy Review
• From: DRMS
• To: Mineral Mountain Gold, LLC
• Email Name: TC1
• Email Name: TAK
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

Mr. Lance Barker
October 20, 2014
Page 2
Applicant that the Division has determined that this Operation has the reasonable potential to
be a Designated Mining Operation.
a. The Applicant shall notify the Division within 30 days of this letter if they concur with this
designation (pursuant to Rule 7.2.3(1)) or whether they dispute the designation (pursuant to
Rule 7.2.4(1)).
i. If the Applicant concurs with the DMO status,the Applicant shall:
a) Within sixty (60) days file a demonstration that the existing permit application
for the operation contains the necessary elements of an Environmental Protection
Plan, Rule 6.4.21. This showing by the Applicant shall satisfy the applicable
portions of Sections 34-32-116 and 116.5, C.R.S. 1984, as amended, and the
applicable portions of Rules 3, 6 and 7. Upon notice that the existing permit
application does not contain the elements of an Environmental Protection Plan,
the Applicant shall either:
1) Within one hundred eighty (180) days submit an Environmental Protection
Plan to the Division;or
2) Within thirty(30)days request a period longer than one hundred and eighty
(180) days, not to exceed one (1) year, to file such plan based on a
demonstration satisfactory to the Division that additional time is needed to
prepare an Environmental Protection Plan.
b) If an Applicant so notified agrees, the Applicant shall amend the application in
accordance with Section 7.2 of the Rules.
ii. If the Applicant disagrees with the DMO status,the Applicant shall appeal, in writing,
to the Division within 30 days of this notice, setting forth the specific reasons for the
Applicant's disagreement. The Applicant's appeal shall include all factual evidence to
support its arguments.
6.3.1 EXHIBIT A—Legal Description
4. Related to Comment 1 above—The response is adequate.
6.3.3 EXHIBIT C—Mining Plan
5. Temporary Structures—The response is adequate.
6. Parag_raph 1(f)—Please provide clarification as to:
a. The Moose claim number—The response is adequate, indicating the claim#is MS9672.
b. Shaft location—The response is adequate,
C. Tunnel portal vs. adit—The response is adequate,
d. Justification for the 4.4-acre limit on seeding and finishing—The Division apologizes for
the confusing comment. The response is helpful, but due to the present approach of
mAminitc1l_telleft-2014-045 mineral mtn prjl2ar-20oct14m-14-45.docx