Laserfiche WebLink
Response to June 21, 2016 Letter from Tim Cazier <br />By C. A. Braun —,July 26, 2016 <br />Application Deficiencies <br />Comment 1: Please clarifi' if you intended to have the project name be identical to the company name <br />listed in Application Item No. 1.3. <br />Response: The name is shown on the permit as was intended. As far as the permitee is concerned, <br />the name of the project does not mean much and is only included the for the benefit of DRMS. If it works <br />for you, it will be fine with the applicant if you remove "LLC" from the project name. <br />Comment 2: Application Item No. 1.6, page 2 - Only the "Private" land ownership bo.r is checked. As <br />you recall when establishing land ownervhipforthe Mineral Mountain Project (M-2014-045), several <br />"slivers" of federal land administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) exist in the area <br />described by the two maps included in the application. Please verify the BLM was noticed and correct <br />!tent L6 in the application. <br />Response: Yes the BLM land in the area was noticed, along with other private lands that are owned <br />by others. My review of Section 1.7 found that I made an entry mistake. In I.7.11 of the application, I <br />inserted the words "Minerex Claims", assuming the section referred to patented private claims. After <br />reviewing your comments, this assumption appears to be incorrect, and those words should be deleted <br />from the application. In contrast, the statement in Section 1.7.E of the application clearly states "Not <br />applicable -Private Land Only". It is not the intention to of the applicant to perform any surface <br />disturbing work on unpatented claims nor does he have any current intentions of staking any new claims. <br />Comment 3: In order to be consistent with Comment I above, please either complete Item 7.A. or <br />describe Trow you will avoid prospecting on federal lands in the NOI area and show that these areas are <br />excluded on the NO! maps. <br />Response: Based on my review, the total combined area of those scattered BLM wedges represent a <br />little more than one percent of the area depicted on the map, thus does not represent any significant area. <br />Next, these small areas showed no mineral potential to the persons doing the early prospecting so as to <br />warrant effort to bring them to patent. Now in 2016 there is no evidence that any new gold has grown on <br />these parcels, thus, they are still not interesting to the small prospector. With no gold, there is no reason <br />to prospect, and the prospector would avoid them naturally for just that reason. They can also be avoided <br />by the prospector keeping good track of where his property is and where he is on it. A note has been <br />added to the Location Map stating that "Prospecting will only occur on properties on which the <br />prospector has ownership rights." <br />Comment 4: Please provide a list on Minere.r claims on which prospecting is planned. <br />Response: I assume that you are actually requesting a list of Minerex properties. A list of their <br />properties is included. Note that the inadvertent misuse of this information could seriously impact the <br />prospector, so DRMS is to treat this list as contidentiall information. <br />