ColoradoProspector   CP Club Membership Info.

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

5 Pages V   1 2 3 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Prospectors Uniting-Q & A, Thoughts/input for the discussion.
CP
post Dec 20 2003, 03:50 AM
Post #1


Master Mucker!
*****

Group: Admin
Posts: 4,149
Joined: 7-October 03
From: Colorado
Member No.: 3



Since the EA postings took up so much space, we locked the topic and started this thread for the responses so the EA and associated posts do not become buried in all the questions and comments that are sure to follow. :D

YOUR RESPONSE TO THE FOREST SERVICE IS VERY IMPORTANT!

but if you have comments or questions please post them here.

We have not yet finished entering his response letter, but we will try to get it in tomorrow.


--------------------
CP-Owner/Administrator
www.ColoradoProspector.com

IF YOU USE IT, THE GROUND PRODUCED IT!
MINERS MAKE "IT" HAPPEN!!


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CP
post Dec 20 2003, 02:03 PM
Post #2


Master Mucker!
*****

Group: Admin
Posts: 4,149
Joined: 7-October 03
From: Colorado
Member No.: 3



Okay,

The response letter that The Kid wrote and sent is now posted.
Please place all comments, questions, and further input here.

THANK YOU! For your input.

Now is the time for all good men/women to come to the aid of their fellow countrymen/women! ;) :P

I think this may be the first digital presentation of an EA for the publics comments..... Lets just give them a taste of the POWER OF THE PEOPLE! B)

CP of the MRT


--------------------
CP-Owner/Administrator
www.ColoradoProspector.com

IF YOU USE IT, THE GROUND PRODUCED IT!
MINERS MAKE "IT" HAPPEN!!


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Quilomene John
post Dec 21 2003, 12:07 PM
Post #3


Shovel Buster!
***

Group: Members
Posts: 114
Joined: 28-November 03
Member No.: 24



Hey all, Although Quentin's case looks good to my non-lawyer self, I can't be sure a judge would see it the same way. I would worry some arcane legal concept would influence a decision a jury would never deliver! Unfortunatly, a jury trial does not seem to be an option.

I thought about this all last night and did come up with an idea for an option. Quentin could SELL his claim. Selling his private claim to a corporation, (that he is an officer of) would do the same thing as having an investor, assuming the papers are drawn up accordingly. The Corp would need to file a new NOI and most likely a new POO. These would be clear and uncontested by the Forest Service.

Additional land could be claimed (max 5 acres) for a millsite. I'm not a lawyer, but I would guess that equipment used in mineral exrtaction could be stored in a mill which stores equipment for processing those same minerals.

Like I said before I'm not a lawyer and this isn't to be considered legal advice, just friendly advice. It is frustrating the Miners Response Team is such a fledgling operation that hasn't the resources to assist Quentin, other than with written comments. That and prayers that an honest judge hears the case! QJ


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Redpaw
post Dec 26 2003, 09:21 PM
Post #4


Rock Bar!
****

Group: Members
Posts: 715
Joined: 28-October 03
From: The 45th Parallel in Oregon
Member No.: 16



Don't think that this issue is being ignored, as I am currently involved in a couple of POW-WOW's with variuos people who have some influence.

One of the Main Concerns is....This fire has already burned bright and hot for quite some time, there are already people who have got involved and are currently fighting for these two gentlemen and it has reached the stage of just smoke on the Horizon.

The efforts needed now become apparent that the letters and phonecalls come in promoting a favorable attitude for these people in this area to reduce the potential of a fire erupting again, even though the fire was started by one of them in real life and in the courtroom.

What has not been burned to the ground, is the future effort to educate others from this experience so that these issues are not allowed to be ignited. We have to work with these agencies to better understand just how screwed up they have become and make sure that the bad apples in each Gov Group is weeded out of the system.

We would like some info on just exactly what is going to happen after the responses are submitted?, what actions are these two guys looking at next?. Will it ever come to a reasonable solution?.

Monday is a great day for the phonecalls and letters to be starting to get written out. I personally will be calling the service and putting forth a series of questions that we have thought might pertain to some of these issues.

The fire is simmering right now and it could easily be put out if just common sense was originally put forth towards a proper solution. Both sides have erred in their actions and usually the small scale miner is the loser by previous cases. It will be our future intent to make sure that after the responses are recieved that we continue to follow-up with this and see an end to harassment of miners in these parts.

I nor others are going to side with the FS for any reason as they have clearly shown in this case that they have followed and promoted dishonesty towards the defendants in this case. Yet the defendant himself has gone about learning about what it takes to live, work and mine for a living without following the rules FIRST, that were established...... thus adding to the fire that is still burning.

We are working to get a solution and are trading emails between us, throwing different viepoints around and yet we all know that both sides were at fault from the very beginning. Butting heads with the Government whether intentional or not is usually a no-win situation because we do not have the individual resources as a person to fight what the GOV can just throw money at...and make you go away.

To be Continued......


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jesse
post Dec 27 2003, 02:06 PM
Post #5


Diggin' In!
**

Group: Members
Posts: 10
Joined: 15-December 03
Member No.: 51



I think a few things need to be clarified concerning these issues that I have presented here. First, I'll be the first to admit that I have made a few mistakes in dealing with forest service, but that still does not give the forest service a licence to break every rule in the book. I believe that the real issue is to completly stop all small miners from doing what they love. The forest service will stop at nothing to make this happen. I also believe that this could be settled in civil court with a favorable outcome to us. This is why the forest service has chosen not to pursue these cases in civil court, but rather press criminal charges. As most of us probably know the current criminal justice system is a very bad joke and therefore limits our chances of winning in criminal court. Let alone the undeniable ignorance of mining law throughout the criminal courts. The mistakes that I have made should not deny me my rights to continue propecting and mining. The mistakes made were not dire enough to constitute criminal charges!!!

I truly believe monetary can be sought after and won in civil action. I am currently talking with an investor who had offered his help and financial resources. This is my plan. I want to engage a class action law suit and an injuction against further encrachments by the forest service. When the totality of this case comes out it will shock people. Any help or advice offered is greatly appreciated. I think this is the only way to get a favorable outcome.

I have just received my SUD from the forest service and hope to post it. The public scoping will be coming shortly thereafter.

Jesse.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CP
post Dec 28 2003, 08:45 PM
Post #6


Master Mucker!
*****

Group: Admin
Posts: 4,149
Joined: 7-October 03
From: Colorado
Member No.: 3



I have a start here for us to work with.
Please don't print this out and send it off or send this electronically yet.
I wanted to get this in here and see what some other folks thought could be added, done better, or structured differently before anyone sends their response.
I have never written a response to an EA and I'm sure it can be improved.
The deadline as I read it will be 11:59pm on Jan. 13th 2004, so we still have a little over two weeks to work on this.

This is what I have so far, and writing isn't my fortieth, but I am trying.

District Ranger Sarah Mayben
Re. Dreamtime mine
South Park Ranger District
P.O.Box 219 Fairplay, Co. 80440



I have read the entire Environmental Assessment for the Dreamtime mine.

I would like to start by saying as a voting, taxpaying, U.S. citizen, I find this document to be very disturbing!

It is very apparent that the Forest Service is trying to implement unreasonable restrictions, and cause undue hardship to this miner. In addition your staff in the South Park Ranger District seem to believe that they have much more authority than given them with their positions.

I will begin my comments by stating that I understand the Forest Service is under the Secretary of Agriculture, and the Bureau of Land Management is under the Department of the Interior.
Further more it is the federal governments view that these activities shall be “fostered and encouraged” by the Forest Service.
Also the Forest Service has entered into agreements with other agencies as to the procedures concerning mining activities.

The Forest Service Manual as I understand it is a handbook so to speak for Forest Service employees to use while executing their appointed duties.
From this point forward the Forest Service Manual will be referred to as the FSM.


The following quotes are evidence to the above statements.


“[CITE: 30USC21a]


TITLE 30--MINERAL LANDS AND MINING

CHAPTER 2--MINERAL LANDS AND REGULATIONS IN GENERAL

Sec. 21a. National mining and minerals policy; ``minerals''
defined; execution of policy under other authorized programs

The Congress declares that it is the continuing policy of the
Federal Government in the national interest to foster and encourage
private enterprise in (1) the development of economically sound and
stable domestic mining, minerals, metal and mineral reclamation
industries, (2) the orderly and economic development of domestic mineral
resources, reserves, and reclamation of metals and minerals to help
assure satisfaction of industrial, security and environmental needs, (3)
mining, mineral, and metallurgical research, including the use and
recycling of scrap to promote the wise and efficient use of our natural
and reclaimable mineral resources, and (4) the study and development of
methods for the disposal, control, and reclamation of mineral waste
products, and the reclamation of mined land, so as to lessen any adverse
impact of mineral extraction and processing upon the physical
environment that may result from mining or mineral activities.
For the purpose of this section ``minerals'' shall include all
minerals and mineral fuels including oil, gas, coal, oil shale and
uranium.
It shall be the responsibility of the Secretary of the Interior to
carry out this policy when exercising his authority under such programs
as may be authorized by law other than this section. “

“FSM2801.3- Interagency Agreements.
The Forest Service has entered into interagency agreements with agencies within the Department of the Interior to establish cooperation and coordination in the management of federally owned minerals within National Forests System lands. The principal agreements include:
1. A May 18, 1957, agreement with the Bureau of Land Management describing work procedures for land applications or mining claims (including patents).
7. A June 19, 1984, agreement with the Bureau of Land Management describing
policies and procedures for licenses, permits, and leases.

The full text of these agreements appears in FSM1530.






FSM2810.1- Authority. In addition to the laws, regulations, and cooperative agreements listed in FSM 2801, the following authorities bear directly on the administration of mining claims on National Forest Lands:

1. A May 18, 1957, agreement with the Bureau of Land Management concerning work procedures for land applications or mining claims (including patents).

2. Title 43 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 3000, Minerals Management.

3. Title 43 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 1800, Public Administrative Procedures.

4. Title 36 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 228, Subpart A - Locatable Minerals.



FSM2840.1 - Authority. Laws and regulations cited in FSM 2801 provide surface management and mineral management authorities. The following regulations give Forest Officers specific authorities for reclamation:

1. Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 228, Subpart A, Section 228.8 - Requirements for environmental protection. These regulations set forth the rules and provisions to minimize adverse environmental impacts on surface resources resulting from locatable mineral activities.

2. Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 228, Subpart C, Section 228.47 - General terms and conditions of contracts and permits. These regulations set forth the requirements for reclamation and other provisions on areas disturbed by pit and quarry operations.

Other authorities for mineral management and reclamation are granted to and held by the Department of the Interior. These authorities represent the context within which Forest Service authorities must be carried out. Forest Officers must be familiar with or comply with certain provisions of these rules:

1. Title 30, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 700-999 - Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement. These regulations set forth the rules and procedures for the administration of the coal program.

2. Title 43, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 3100 - Oil and gas leasing. These regulations set forth rules and provisions for onshore oil and gas leasing.

3. Title 43, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 3200 - Geothermal resource leasing. These regulations establish requirements for developing and utilizing geothermal resources.


4. Title 43, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 3400 - Coal management. These regulations set forth rules and provisions governing management and disposal of coal.

5. Title 43, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 3500 - Leasing of non-fuel, solid leasable minerals. These regulations provide for solid leasable mineral activities other than coal and oil shale. “




36CFR228.1 Purpose.

It is the purpose of these regulations to set forth rules and
procedures through which use of the surface of National Forest System
lands in connection with operations authorized by the United States
mining laws (30 U.S.C. 21-54), which confer a statutory right to enter
upon the public lands to search for minerals, shall be conducted so as
to minimize adverse environmental impacts on National Forest System
surface resources. It is not the purpose of these regulations to provide for the management of mineral resources; the responsibility for managing such resources is in the Secretary of the Interior.


The BLM and the CDMG are in total agreement, yet the Forest Service states this miner is in violation while he has the necessary and I might add “average” bond with the CDMG, so how can he be required to place a second and completely unreasonable bond with the Forest Service for the same piece of ground.
It seems apparent to this citizen that the Forest Service has no authority to require a bond unless the Forest Service shows a need for protection of a “surface resource”.



FSM2860.2 - Objectives.

1. To encourage and facilitate the collection of information
about energy and mineral resources and other geologic aspects of
the National Forest System.

2. To provide the opportunity for recreational collection of
mineral and fossil materials.

3. To respond to prospecting and collecting proposals within
established timeframes.

2860.3 - Policy.

1. Jurisdiction. Ensure that proposed activities for
prospecting and collecting fall within the jurisdiction of the
Forest Service

(FSM 2861). Except for common variety mineral activities, which
are solely within Forest Service jurisdiction (FSM 2850), do not
authorize prospecting or collecting activities that are likely to
result in gathering direct information on the presence of a
mineral resource.

2. Interagency Consultation. The responsible Forest Officer
shall consult with the U.S. Department of the Interior if there
is a question as to whether or not a proposed activity will
likely provide direct information on the presence of a mineral
resource other than a common variety mineral or if the activity
potentially conflicts with the rights of the holder of a U.S.
Department of the Interior lease, license, or permit.

3. Fees. Do not charge fees for:

a. Exploration or prospecting conducted by a Government
agency or a nonprofit entity.

b. Exploration or prospecting conducted by a lessee,
licensee, permittee or operator in an area and for
activity covered by a lease, permit, or license issued by
the U.S. Department of the Interior.

4. Records. Maintain a record of applications and
authorizations serialized by Region, Forest, District, type of
action, and fiscal year.

5. Bonding. Except for government-conducted exploration,
require a bond if the proposed activity will involve significant
surface disturb-
ance or has the potential to adversely affect subsurface
resources.
FSM 6560 sets forth bonding requirements.

2860.4 - Responsibility.

2860.4a - Deputy Chief, National Forest System. It is the
responsibility of the Deputy Chief to establish standard permit
stipulations and fee bases for common, system-wide mineral
prospecting activities such as seismic prospecting.

2860.4b - Regional Foresters. Regional Foresters shall establish
time-frames for review and disposition of applications and shall
maintain necessary serialized records. Recordkeeping may be
redelegated as necessary to ensure that each organizational level
obtains data and maintains records sufficient for carrying out
its responsibilities. The Regional Forester may issue Forest
Service exploration licenses and may redelegate that authority to
the Forest Supervisor.

2860.4c - Forest Supervisors. Forest Supervisors may authorize
exploration and collecting activities and may redelegate that
authority to the District Ranger. Recordkeeping may be
redelegated as necessary to ensure that each organizational level
obtains data and maintains records sufficient for carrying out it
responsibilities.

2860.4d - District Rangers. District Rangers shall review and
evaluate exploration and collecting activities, then make
recommendations to the Forest Supervisor or authorize the
activity if delegated to do so.

2860.5 - Definitions.

1. Prospecting - Delineation of an area in which exploration
would follow by gathering indirect evidence of mineral or energy
resources. Indirect data gathering techniques include, but are
not limited to: conducting geophysical or geochemical surveys,
sampling outcrops, geologic mapping, and drilling holes to gather
general geologic or stratigraphic information.

2. Exploration - Establishing the location, size, grade, or
reserves of a mineral or energy resource by gathering direct
evidence of the resource. Direct data gathering techniques may
include drilling holes, digging pits, and driving adits and
drifts to sample, or test, a known or suspected zone of interest.

2861 - DETERMINING FOREST SERVICE JURISDICTION. In responding to
requests for permission to prospect for minerals or to collect
mineral or fossil samples, the first step is to determine whether
the proposed activity falls within Forest Service jurisdiction.

2861.1 - General Criteria. The Forest Service authorizes various
methods of preliminary prospecting and mineral sample collection
on National Forest System lands if no other authority exists, and
if the activity does not conflict with the rights of: A holder
of a mining claim; a holder of a U.S. Department of the Interior
(USDI) lease, permit, or license; or the owner of reserved or
outstanding minerals. A separate authorization is not required
for activities authorized by the General Mining Laws (FSM 2810);
activities authorized by USDI (FSM 2820); or land use activity
conducted pursuant to reserved and outstanding mineral rights
(FSM 2830).

2861.2 - Allowable Activities Under Forest Service Jurisdiction.
Allowable activities include, but are not limited to, surface
mapping, blasting, excavation, sampling, and collecting with hand
tools or hand-carried motorized equipment; seismic, gravity, heat
flow, resistivity, and other geophysical surveys; and geochemical
surveys, such as stream sediment sampling.

Forest Officers may authorize drilling for such purposes as:

1. Gathering data on geothermal temperature gradients or
ground water conditions.

2. Conducting engineering studies and gathering general
stratigraphic information.

3. Gathering direct information on the presence and
character of a common variety mineral.

4. Placing a seismic charge.

Core drilling is allowable if it is the most efficient method of
advancing a temperature gradient or stratigraphic test hole, and
if precautions are taken to prevent coring in known or suspected
zones of mineral deposits.

Forest Officers may authorize trenching to aid in surface mapping
or indirect mineral-related surveys, but not for penetration of
suspected mineral deposits. Forest Officers may authorize
geophysical logging of drill holes, if precautions are taken to
prevent logging of known or suspected zones of mineral deposits.

The authorized officer shall select the least complicated
instrument for authorizing a prospecting or collecting activity
commensurate with the potential impact of the authorized activity
on other resources. The instrument may include a phone call, a
letter, standard permit and application forms for commonly
occurring activities, or a special use permit.




FSM2817.02 - Objectives. In managing the use of the surface and
surface resources, the Forest Service should attempt to minimize
or prevent, mitigate, and repair adverse environmental impacts on
National Forest System surface and cultural resources as a result
of lawful prospecting, exploration, mining, and mineral
processing operations, as well as activities reasonably incident
to such uses. This should be accomplished by imposition of
reasonable conditions which do not materially interfere with such
operations.

FSM2817.03 - Policy. The primary means for obtaining protection of
surface resources should be by securing the willing cooperation
of prospectors and miners. The willingness of the majority of
prospectors and miners to comply with regulations, reasonably
administered, is a principal key to the protection of
environmental quality in the National Forest System. Face-to-
face dialog with operators is encouraged.



The regulations at 36 CFR Part 228, Subpart A shall be
administered in a fair, reasonable, and consistent manner and not
as a means of inhibiting or interfering with legitimate, well-
planned mineral operations.
FSM2814.24 - Provide Reasonable Alternatives. Forest officers
should provide bona fide prospectors and miners reasonable
alternative access routes, exploration methods, special use
permits, and operating plan provisions in order that they may
carry out necessary mineral associated activities without
violation of laws and regulations.




I am also completely baffled as to why the CDMG can reclaim an acre for $2,000, yet the Forest Service wants over $20,000 for the same reclamation of the same piece of ground. Is there some explanation of not only the double bonding of the same ground, but as to the extremely excessive amount?
As I understand it, there is another claimant down the valley with a 3-acre disturbance and has only a $6,000 bond on Forest Service land.
Again what is the justification of the excessive amount?! And why is the state bond not acceptable since the CDMG and BLM are in total agreement on the guidelines.
I fail to see what “Forest Service objectives or resources” are being protected by the ludicrous alternatives put forth in this EA.



Quoting EA pg 7-

No Action Alternative: Alternative 1
This alternative would allow the operator to mine using hand tools only, with no permanent residency and no permanent structures. The operator would continue to file a Notice of Intent (NOI) annually describing the work he plans to do. The authorized officer would annually determine if a plan of operations would he required. Leave No Trace practices (catholes) would continue for disposal of human waste. Permanent trailer use would not be authorized and is subject to Forest Service occupancy and use restrictions (Order No.
03-05).
No reclamation bond would be required for this alternative and there would be no termination date for the mining operations. Mitigation measures identified under Appendix B of this EA would apply to this alternative. The Forest Service would require the operator to comply with all federal, state arid county regulations.

The no action alternative is the status quo for the rest of the analysis The current situation as described above would continue.

End quote.


I could go to any piece of Forest Service land and I have the right to conduct the types of activities described in alternative #1 without filing anything! Why would this be an alternative for a proposed Plan of Operations?


Quoting EA pg 8-

Proposed Action: Alternative 2
Under this alternative, the operator would be allowed to conduct mining operations, subject to management requirements and mitigation measures identified by the Forest Service’s authorized officer. The operator would also be allowed to live on the mining claim in a travel trailer. The operator would reconstruct the A-frame and use as a work center. The operator would construct an equipment shed to store mechanized equipment and supplies. The operator would be authorized to use mechanized equipment to dig pits and
complete reclamation. The operator would be required to perform a variety of annual and end-of-mining reclamation measures. The operator would be authorized to use water from the spring to wash minerals and dispose of effluent on site but would be required to obtain a water right and a discharge permit from the state.

There would be limited signing and fence construction to keep other National Forest visitors at a safe distance from potentially hazardous dig sites. Gray water and human waste would be collected in the travel trailer or in tanks mounted on a small trailer and connected to the travel trailer, and periodically removed from the National Forest to an approved dump site. Guests, visitors and volunteers would be allowed to camp for short periods and would use catholes for disposal of human waste. Drinking water for permanent residents and visitors would be hauled to the site, or the operator would use the spring on the mining claim as a source of drinking water.

Implementation of this alternative as proposed by the operator would not be consistent with Teller County building and sanitation code requirements and with Colorado Division of Minerals and Geology permitting requirements. Therefore, management requirements have been identified that will bring the operation into compliance with state and county regulations. Those management requirements include the following:

• The operator will obtain a state water right in his name to use the spring for mining purposes only.

• The operator will obtain a state water discharge permit to use water to wash minerals and dispose of effluent on, site.

• The operator will obtain a mining permit from the State of Colorado, Division of Minerals and Geology.

• The operator will obtain a conditional use permit and all necessary building permits from Teller
County The operator would need to install a septic system and a potable water system, including either a well or a cistern.

• The operator will obtain any required business licenses to sell minerals on the claim, and pay all taxes due to the state and county for mineral sales and for structures placed on the National Forest.

End quote.

Alternative #2-
Has the highest bond amount and does allow the most activity, but I have yet to find where any law, policy, or regulation gives the Forest Service the right to double bond with such an excessive amount.
The requirement for a water discharge permit is quite baffling also.
Why would you require this miner to have a permit to rinse dirt off a rock he has just dug up 50’ away. Does the Forest Service have some mystical power that keeps the rain from rinsing the dirt on OUR land?
Is there some unknown lethal chemical attached to the gems in this area?
I THINK NOT!
Seems that this is another unreasonable restriction put forth by the Forest Service, which is not delegated to enforce the water quality, as it is the responsibility of the state.




Quoting EA pg 8-
The operator would be authorized to use water from the spring to wash minerals and dispose of effluent on site but would be required to obtain a water right and a discharge permit from the state.
End quote.

Clearly the Forest Service understands it’s the states duty to regulate and enforce the water rights issues. Why would this be present for alternative #2, especially when you take into account the Forest services conditions for a well or sistern.(See previous quote above.)
Wouldn’t this miner then be able to use his well for the mineral rinsing?


Quoting EA pg 8-
The operator will obtain any required business licenses to sell minerals on the claim, and pay all taxes due to the state and county for mineral sales and for structures placed on the National Forest.
End quote.

Forest Service has no authority to enforce any county regulations or federal tax laws.
Why is this present in this document?


This miner is not asking to build a house on his claim, only simple storage facilities, yet the Forest Service has made a septic system, and well conditions of alternative #2 ultimately just costing the miner and the tax payers more money.
Why would the Forest Service put this requirement in…….seems to be yet another “unreasonable restriction”. Installing such systems are very costly and usually intended to be permanent.
Is this how the Forest Service justifies the excessive amount of the bond? The Forest Service seems to be the ones who are proposing all the activities that would make the reclamation work so expensive.




Quoting EA pgs 9,10-

Proposed Action w/ SUD Modifications: Alternative 3

Under this alternative, mining operations would be the same as under Alternative 2, including use of mechanized equipment. Modifications were derived from the Surface Use Determination report that recommends mining operations that are and are not necessary or reasonably incident to the mining activities occurring under the U.S. mining laws.

The operator would not be allowed permanent residency on the ruining claim. No permanent structures. facilities or water/ sewer systems would be approved. The equipment shed would not be constructed. The A-frame structure would not be allowed in this alternative.

The operator could have a travel trailer with wheels attached for temporary storage of tools and equipment, office space, and to use as temporary shelter, but would not be allowed to reside in the trailer.

Page 9 of 32



This limited residency would be consistent with Teller County regulations. The operator would be allowed to stay overnight in the self- contained travel trailer and/or tents for a maximum of 60 days during a 365 day period, which is the upper limit allowed by Teller County regulations. The operator would be required to remove the trailer to haul off gray water and sewage to an approved dump station off the National Forest. When operator reaches 60 days use of the travel trailer or tent, operator would be required to live off the National Forest for the remainder of 305 days. The travel trailer would not be allowed to park on the mining claim for more than 60 days per 365 day period.
The operator would not be allowed to use the spring and would be required to bring in water for washing minerals on site. Washing minerals would be done in a self contained system. The effluent would be disposed of off the National Forest at an approved disposal facility. The operator could also choose to wash all minerals offsite with no use of water on the mining claim. The operator would not be required to install a septic system or a potable water system. A state water right and water discharge permit would not be required under this alternative.

Operator would be required to obtain a state mining permit, a county conditional use permit, any county-mandated permits or licenses to sell minerals onsite, and to pay any business taxes owed.


Alternatives Considered, but Eliminated from Detailed Study
Combination of Travel Trailer and Tent Camping on the Mining Claim

Under this alternative, the operator would be allowed to use a travel trailer for up to 60 days a year, as allowed by Teller County, and the same as under Alternative 3. In addition, he would be allowed to live in a tent for the remaining 305 days of the year. Mining operations would be the same as he has proposed in
Alternative 2. This alternative involves year round residency but does not require potable water and sewer systems. Therefore it is contrary to Teller County regulations, and will be dropped from further analysis in this environmental assessment.

Page 10 of 32
End quote.


Alternative #3-
Marking of claim corners is a federal requirement from the Department of the Interior as is the claim marker.
The Forest Service does not authorize this!
The fencing of open digs so that some one doesn’t inadvertently fall into one seems to be an activity that would be “reasonably incident to mining”.
Fences are easy to erect and disassemble, and re-erect again with out any surface disturbance.
“60 day maximum during 365 day period”.
I’m still wondering why the Forest Service is trying to implement camping regulations on a full time miner.
We have a statutory right to enter upon Forest Service land any and all days of the year.


“36CFR228.1 Purpose.

It is the purpose of these regulations to set forth rules and
procedures through which use of the surface of National Forest System
lands in connection with operations authorized by the United States
mining laws (30 U.S.C. 21-54), which confer a statutory right to enter
upon the public lands to search for minerals, shall be conducted so as
to minimize adverse environmental impacts on National Forest System
surface resources. It is not the purpose of these regulations to provide for the management of mineral resources; the responsibility for managing such resources is in the Secretary of the Interior.”

No where, can I find a regulation, law, or policy that dictates dates the forests may be utilized or giving the authority to restrict this type of lawful entry to the South Park Ranger District.

There is no requirement for well or septic in alternative #3, yet the bond is listed at $20,249, for a one-acre disturbance. ABSURD!
The average in the area is $2,000/acre, for this type of activity. What is going to cost so much to reclaim this one special acre?





The Northern Goshawk- page 23 of this EA.
As this is written the Forest Service is apparently concerned that there maybe in the future some Goshawk activity in the area and suggests a 30 acre perimeter for the nest.
Unless the Forest Service follows the proper procedures they are not allowed to just write their own regulations to close an area.
There have not been any notices that this area is closed to the public to give the Goshawks the 30 acre buffer from human activity, seems the Goshawks of the Crystal Peaks area are only sensitive to mining activity.
Or is this yet another “unreasonable condition” put forth to prevent the lawful activities of this miner. I’m afraid it is obvious to all it is the later.
Remember, we are talking about an inactive nest, that may or may not be a Goshawk nest, and may or may not be used in the future.
The condition as written would mean if this miner spent 2 months planning and organizing a mechanical dig, then a Goshawk shows the day before the dig, and this miner is then suppose to not dig from March to September.
What a coincidence, just happens to be all the seasons of favorable weather. Seems very “unreasonable” to this citizen.
It would be apparent to most that if the bird was hanging around just north and decided to nest on the claim, obviously the activity isn’t bothering it. But lets just remember……not active nest since 1999, and may, by chance be used in the future.



The Forest Service “objectives” seem to be very vague as written here. What is obvious is the Forest Service doesn’t want this miner in the forest.
The Forest Service is not authorized to prevent mining!


Quoting EA pg 5-
The Forest Service will attempt to minimize and/or repair adverse environmental impacts. This should be accomplished by imposition of reasonable conditions or mitigation measures which do not materially interfere with such operations.
FSM 2817.02
End quote.


All 3 alternatives as written are not acceptable for any scale of mining.

The Forest Service or the County do not have the authority to restrict occupancy as these precident setting cases show was just determined recently,
USA V. LEX/WAGGENER
USA V. SHUMWAY


FSM2813.13 - Surface Rights. Surface rights depend to some degree
on the status of the claim on July 23, 1955, and on subsequent
actions under 30 U.S.C. 613-614.

2813.13a - Claims Which Are Verified as Being Valid Prior to July
23, 1955. Such claims on which rights have not been waived and
which otherwise do not come under the terms of 30 U.S.C. 612,
carry the following rights under the General Mining Laws:

1. Right to exclusive possession and occupancy for mining
purposes, including control of the surface. Permission must be
obtained from the claimant to cross the claim with a road. The
Forest Service must obtain claimant's permission to harvest
timber from the claim, except for removal of dead or diseased
trees which constitute a menace to the Forest.

2. Right to cut timber on the claim to use for mining
purposes and to provide clearance required to conduct mineral
operations.

3. Right to remove timber for conversion to lumber to be
used for mining purposes, provided that the same species and
substantially equivalent volume is returned for use on the claim
or group of claims from which it was cut.

4. Right to sell or otherwise dispose of timber required to
be cut in conducting actual mining of the mineral deposits or for
clearing for surface facilities needed for mining or processing
of the mineral, provided that the rate of cutting is with equal
pace to the actual mining or need of surface facilities.

5. Right to cut timber from a millsite for building milling
or mining facilities on the millsite.

2813.13b - Claims Validated Subsequent to Act of 1955. Such
claims which otherwise come under 30 U.S.C. 612 carry the same
surface rights as above, except for the following modifications:

1. Right to occupancy and use necessary for prospecting,
mining, and processing, but not the exclusive right to the
surface. Lands containing such claims are subject to the rights
of the United States to manage and dispose of the vegetative
resources, to manage other resources except locatable minerals,
and to the right of the United States, its permittees and
licensees, to use so much of the surface area necessary for such
purposes and for access to adjacent lands.


As I read through the appendix, and found the calculations for the earth moving, I found even more disturbing information that has either been simply overlooked or is yet another obviously “unreasonable” implementation of conditions to prevent this miner from conducting his “lawful mining” activities.

Quoting EA pg 30,31
Earthwork

One (1) acre of disturbance, estimate 1/3 acre for 5 pits and 2/3 acre in spoil piles, estimate pits to be an average of 15 feet in depth:

Page 30 of 32




Surface area for one (1) acre = 43560 square feet /3 =14,520 square feet of surface area in pits x average 15 foot depth /27 cubic feet/ cubic yard = 8067 cubic yards of excavated material x 1.10 swell factor (volume increases when material excavated from its in place location)= 8873 cubic yards of loose material.

Estimate backhoe or small excavator with 100 cubic yard/hour production capacity = 88.7 hours x
$119.50/hr (includes equipment and operator) = $10,600 to backfill pits, recontour slopes and spread topsoil plus 1 laborer for 4 hours x $14.91/hr = $60.
Equipment to scarify and recontour 0.1 mile of non-system road, parking area and associated high use sites (estimate 0.5 acre area), 2 hours x $119.50/br $239.
Mobilization move-in/move-out costs, 2 hours at $125/hr truck and operator = $250.
Total earthwork costs $11,149.
End quote.


Has the Forest Service lost all sense of rationality?What about the categorical exclusion that has been used on every other small scale operation in the area?
Has the Bacon Davis been used and quoted here as an attempt to lump this miner into a category that would be used for large scale mining.
Yet another unreasonable condition set forth by the Forest Service to cause undue hardship to this bona fide miner.

This is a small scale operation and according to


36CFR215.2
Categorically excluded (CE)--Proposed actions, which do not
individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment and for which neither an environmental impact statement
(EIS) nor an environmental assessment (EA) is required (40 CFR 1508.4;
FSH 1909.15, Chapter 30).

Quoting EA pg 18
Alternative 1 (No Action) –
Without mitigation, ground disturbance from mining could lead to excessive amounts of bare ground and higher erosion potential.
Even over the next 20 years the long-term cumulative effects would be minimal for the above mentioned activities even without proper mitigation.

Continued use of nonsystem roads without drainage control could lead to erosion and resource damage.
However, there is still a minimal effect directly and indirectly to water quality and soils.

Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) -
. Even under this alternative which calls for increased activity, over the next 20 years the long-term cumulative effects would be minimal for the above mentioned activities even less with proper mitigation.
Alternative 3 (Proposed Action w/ modifications) –
. This project would affect very little of the total watershed due to the scale of the project and size of the watersheds. The effects would be similar to alternative 1 or even less with the proper mitigation in place.

As this citizen interoperates these statements it seems apparent that a categorical exclusion should have been given. Why has the Forest Service wasted my tax dollars on an unnecessary environmental assessment?!


As I try to imagine a piece of heavy equipment thundering through the same one acre for over two weeks straight. I must say it seems to me that this equipment would cause the damage it was there to repair, not the miner.


Quoting EA pg 31-
Long term monitoring

Travel from South Park District Office, Fairplay, CO, 100 miles round trip.

Forest Service minerals administrator, 2 days a year for 2 years to monitor revegetation Success and general site conditions, $250/day x 4 days = $ 1000, plus mileage of $200($50x4days). = $1200.

Travel from South Park District Office, Fairplay, CO. 100 miles round trip.

Range technician, 1 day @ $150 for 2 years (beginning second year after reclamation) to monitor noxious weeds = $300, plus mileage $100 ($50x2 days) = $450.


Transportation Cost Estimates
Based on Forest Service monthly FOR rates and mileage rates for a class 237 4x4 pickup and a class 240 4x4 pickup ($183 and $209 per month) and mileage rates of 0.17 and 0.23.


Reclamation Contract Preparation and Administration

Travel from Supervisor’s Office, Pueblo, CO, 180 miles round trip.
Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) 3 days to prepare contract plus 3 days to administer contract: 6 days @ $250/ day plus mileage from Pueblo @ $50/day for 3 days = $1650. Contracting Officer (CO) 1 day to final contract @ $350/ day= $350. Total = $2000.

Page 31 of 32
End quote.


Long term monitoring, transportation cost estimates, and reclamation contract preparation and administration, all list cost to the miner contained in the bond to pay for mileage, wages, administering costs (more wages). Is the Forest Service only paying it’s employees some days and not others so we the public are now being required to pay individually for OUR public servants. Funny I was under the impression that these positions are full time and already paid by OUR TAXES!
Why would this single miner be required to pay for public servants wages?
Isn’t the Forest Service supposed to monitor this area in general any way?
And why were all the mileage figures done from the district office in Fairplay rather than the ranger station in Lake George, which is within 5 miles of the Dreamtime?

The following quotes demonstrate once again the Forest Service directive’s are not consistent with this Environmental Assessment.




FSM2817.02 - Objectives. In managing the use of the surface and
surface resources, the Forest Service should attempt to minimize
or prevent, mitigate, and repair adverse environmental impacts on
National Forest System surface and cultural resources as a result
of lawful prospecting, exploration, mining, and mineral
processing operations, as well as activities reasonably incident
to such uses. This should be accomplished by imposition of
reasonable conditions which do not materially interfere with such
operations.

FSM2817.03 - Policy. The primary means for obtaining protection of
surface resources should be by securing the willing cooperation
of prospectors and miners. The willingness of the majority of
prospectors and miners to comply with regulations, reasonably
administered, is a principal key to the protection of
environmental quality in the National Forest System. Face-to-
face dialog with operators is encouraged.



In closing I will state that it seems very evident by the Forest Service publishing the ludicrous document,
1.) the Forest Service has done an unnecessary environmental assessment.
2.) The Forest Service has implemented unreasonable conditions on this bona fide miner.
3.) The Forest Service has not acted in good faith towards fostering and encouraging this miner.

Furthermore this citizen strongly recommends that the Forest Service decline the attempt to impose any of the three alternatives on this or any small scale miner, but rather the Forest Service should have and should now grant the categorical exclusion in this situation.

Thank you for your time



This post has been edited by ColoradoProspector: Jan 12 2004, 09:21 AM


--------------------
CP-Owner/Administrator
www.ColoradoProspector.com

IF YOU USE IT, THE GROUND PRODUCED IT!
MINERS MAKE "IT" HAPPEN!!


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Gat-Wa.
post Dec 29 2003, 06:39 AM
Post #7


Rock Bar!
****

Group: Members
Posts: 470
Joined: 8-October 03
From: 2415 Stove Prairie Rd Bellvue Co. 80512
Member No.: 8



Looks good dan and i know its not dun my first question is your intro were you state that you are us citizen a voter a tax payer and so on shouldnt you say your state your oucupation are you a prospector and maybey how long . allso in reading the EA report one point is being made Quitin is saying he is a prospector not a miner saying he is small time not big time is this a point of consideration? also i see in your responce that there is no mention of the FSs conduct in sneek inspecktions insdents or the fact that that the other miners? (prospectors?)in the area are prewarned of such inspecktions seams prjadus to me or even some favrtisim going on. another one i dont see in your reply some kind of mention of the FS person that lied change doucuments and found to be by the judge unadmissable or just a lier or what ever ill read back on that to find the adzact judges comment.
Gat
ps sorry about the spelling but my spell checker is still sleeping grin
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Redpaw
post Dec 29 2003, 05:12 PM
Post #8


Rock Bar!
****

Group: Members
Posts: 715
Joined: 28-October 03
From: The 45th Parallel in Oregon
Member No.: 16



CP,
I have written out just a few comments that should be looked at and possibly re-written into the rebuttal letter for us to mail. It is always better to include the original text followed by a rebuttal comment when including this into your letter.

EXCUSE ANY TYPOS, I was in a hurry so the rest of you deal with it. CP knows what to do !!

adding to the rebuttal letter...Page 3 of 32

Decisions to be Made:
The District Ranger will decide whether or not to implement the proposals or another alternative to the proposed actions Management requirements and mitigation measures would be implemented to assure compliance with the Forest Plan standards and guidelines, as well as regulations and requirements of state and county government agencies. Given the purpose and need, and the Forest Service legal framework concerning locatable minerals, the District Ranger will make the following decisions:


It can be shown that the District Ranger has a Bias against this miner which is evident in the files obtained in the FOIA files. This District Ranger and other personnel ( name them here ) using the resources of the Forestry Department has proceeded to violate Forestry Department guidelines.State the words "failing to show Good Faith"

( Can it be shown that the rest of Page 3 ( determinations and conditions to be met ) is being met with the same conditions on other mining Claims or is the "Operator" being made an example of? )

page 4 of 32

These requirements include but are not limited to state water rights permit, state water discharge permit, county conditional use permit and all necessary building permits. These conditions will be identified in the Decision Document and included in the approved P1533 of Operations. If the operator does not comply with these conditions, he will be in noncompliance with Forest Service regulations and appropriate action will be taken at that time.

How did the Forest Service ever come into being an enforcing agency for Water Rights?, are those not granted along with the claim in Colorado? Do other Mining Companies have to have Water Rights permits?

How did the Forest Service conclude it is in charge of building permits?, did they not use the shelter provided during their "un-expected inspections" if the shelters were so unsafe, why did Forestry Personnel enter them?. Conflict of Statements by FS. State the words "failing to show Good Faith" ....also state the current conditions of all building on the claim as to their condition and place of manufacturing ie...travel trailer ( stating meets housing authority conditions )

The Forest Service will attempt to minimize, prevent, mitigate and/or repair adverse environmental impacts on National Forest System lands, surface and cultural resources as a result of lawful prospecting, exploration, mining and mineral processing operations, as well as activities reasonably incident to such uses. This should be accomplished by imposition of reasonable conditions or mitigation measures which do not materially interfere with such operations (Forest Service Manual 281 702).

The operator has already shown good faith with his reclamation activities ( name the dates required that show reclamation from the operator ) and witnesses ( name all present that helped with the reclamation ) have deemed the FS service is using unfair measures and interferring with the Operations of a mining Claim, while the operator is conducting lawful mining activities.

The Forest Service will conduct a timely review of proposed operations and continue to ensure proposed activities are required for and reasonably incidental to prospecting, mining or processing operations.

Show the dates for the FS failing to fulfill its own guidelines and bylaws with the dates ( permits submitted and then finally approved ) State the words "failing to show Good Faith" also include the dates of Unexpected visits to which the operator was forceably restrained against his civil rights.

Page 5 of 32

The proposed mining operation is in Management Area 2A, which has an emphasis for Semi-primitive motorized recreation. Mining is generally compatible with the overall management emphasis for this area. Standards and guidelines in the Forest Plan require reclamation of disturbed lands after mining (111-53).

Their own statements of "mining is generally compatible" shows they truly know that mining is not detructive based on neighboring claims and past mining documents that have been previously approved by FS personnel. State that the FS is previously requiring of reclamation before mining is complete therefor hampering the operators right to lawfully mine.
Show that the local activity made by motorized activities ( ATV's ) have no bonding requirements to operate in FS lands nor on roads ( try to include a picture or two of destructive damage left by ATV's not following FS guidelines ). also make a remark that claimants powered tools/machinery stays within his area of mining and not roaming the countryside like "semi-primitive" motorized recreation does.


Occupancy and use restrictions apply to the Dreamtime unpatented mining claim. The policy prohibits camping on the Forest more than 28 days within a continuous 60 day period on the entire Pike National Forest, where not otherwise restricted, and occupying any campsite for more than 14 days during this 60 day period within 3 miles of a previous campsite.

Apply the appropriate "Lex Waggoner & Shumway" ruling here, stating basically they have no jurisdiction regarding mining Claimant rights to habitate on a mining claim.

The Dreamtime Mine operation is a long term mining proposal. The Forest Service could approve the proposed mining operation for five years, with possible renewal of this plan of operations for another five years. At the end of the first five years of approved operations, the Forest Service would need to conduct a new National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review to determine if the plan of operations is still consistent with environmental regulations in place at that time. Proposed mining operations would be conducted year around. The operator asserts that a mine life of 20 years or more is possible.

Show the various previous mining claim lifes of mining claims in the areas surrounding mining claim as far back as you can, try to include how often those were previous inspected and approved. ( your looking for bias here against the operator, VS. other approved mining claims in the general area that are currently operated.

Public Involvement
The Proposed Actions were provided to the public and to other agencies and organizations for comment during a scoping period that ran from June 17 to July 14, 2003. Specific public involvement activities for this project included the following:

Four legal notices published in the local newspaper, the Park County Republican/Fairplay Plume between June 13 and July 4, 2003.
• A Forest Service news release that was published June 27 9003 in the Park County
Republican/Fairplay Flume.
• A more detailed news story published July 9, 2003 in the Ute Pass Courier in Woodland Park. CO, featuring an interview with District Ranger Sara Mayben.
• A scoping letter and request for comments was mailed to 50 individuals, agencies and elected officials on June 17 and June 30, 2003./i]

Highlight the negativity that was published in the paper showing undue "fostering and encouraging towards mining by their own statements"...again showing BAD Faith. get a list of the scoping letter recipients to see if they were mostly mailed to GREEN agencies ( looking for bias here )

[i]In response to these public involvement actions, some 46 individuals, organizations and agencies responded with comments in the form of letters, faxes and emails. These comments were received between June 16 and November 5, 2003. In addition, District staff responded to several telephone calls from interested individuals, some of whom may have provided written comments.


ask why the general public was involved as to the validity of a mining claimants right to mine, and why was the FS using these tactics to mis-inform the public to actual conditions at said claim. if anyone was to file a claim or have a permit approved it would generally not include the public

Page 6 of 32

The discussion of environmental consequences in Chapter 3 focuses on the Proposed Actions and briefly discusses other surface resources such as water, soils, wildlife, social/economics, range, fire/fuels, visuals. recreation, and heritage resources. The planning team determined that other surface resource issues were insignificant because they would result in little or no environmental impact from the Proposed Actions with application of management requirements (Appendix A) and mitigation measures (Appendix B). Issues scoped internally and from the public did not identify any key issues

state here that the team hired, had failed to see anything wrong with the Mining Activities or the Affected Area and yet the FS has continued to prevent rather than approve mining claim.Cite the findings here.

Federal. State and County Permits and Licenses
The Forest Service will require the operator to comply with all, Federal, State and County laws, regulations, and policies for all mining activities. This includes acquiring a mining permit from CO DMG and a conditional use permit from Teller County. Failure to follow this requirement would result in the operator being in noncompliance with any approved Plan of Operations.


show dates of permits applied for and failure to recieve approval within guideline as per Agency

The operator would obtain a water right for use of the spring. The beneficial use can only be identified as mining. If other beneficial uses are identified the Forest Service will appeal those requested rights in water court.

ask how " if the general public were to hike into the area and get a drink" would they have to have a permit to do this.
ask how "if you had a radiator hose break down and as a member of the general public you needed water would you have to have a permit before using said water to refill a radiator first?


The operator will be required to obtain a State water discharge permit from the Water Quality Control Division of the State Health Department if discharging effluent from mineral washing is approved in the plan of operations.

Where is the permit allowing it to rain on a hillside? where is the common sense here?


To be continued on page 7 shortly, hope this helps?


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Redpaw
post Dec 30 2003, 01:32 PM
Post #9


Rock Bar!
****

Group: Members
Posts: 715
Joined: 28-October 03
From: The 45th Parallel in Oregon
Member No.: 16



sorry I can't give a little more time into this right now, I am in a hurry again...Look it over and use what you can for replies to the EA....


Alternatives Discussion

No Action Alternative: Alternative 1

This alternative would allow the operator to mine using hand tools only, with no permanent residency and no permanent structures. The operator would continue to file a Notice of Intent (NOI) annually describing the work he plans to do. The authorized officer would annually determine if a plan of operations would be required. Leave No Trace practices (catholes) would continue for disposal of human waste. Permanent trailer use would not be authorized and is subject to Forest Service occupancy and use restrictions (Order No.
03-05).
No reclamation bond would be required for this alternative and there would be no termination date for the mining operations. Mitigation measures identified under Appendix B of this EA would apply to this alternative. The Forest Service would require the operator to comply with all federal, state arid county regulations.


How is it that the FS can require a NOI for the use of Handtools?, When I can file for a mining Claim in any Western State and not file a NOI. Why is this an alternative when it is in direct violation of the Mining Laws of 1872 and amendments.


Page 8 of 32 Alternative 2

Under this alternative, the operator would be allowed to conduct mining operations, subject to management requirements and mitigation measures identified by the Forest Service’s authorized officer. The operator would also be allowed to live on the mining claim in a travel trailer. The operator would reconstruct the A-frame and use as a work center. The operator would construct an equipment shed to store mechanized equipment and supplies. The operator would be authorized to use mechanized equipment to dig pits and
complete reclamation. The operator would be required to perform a variety of annual and end-of-mining reclamation measures.


This is how it should have been all along, Who woke up and had some coffee that morning?


The operator would be authorized to use water from the spring to wash minerals and dispose of effluent on site but would be required to obtain a water right and a discharge permit from the state.

Where does the FS get the authority to have a Mining Claimant attain a Water Right, Where does the FS determine it has the right to enforce of County Agencies rules and regulations?...Would I need a permit to get a drink of water?. What if I wanted to take a sample for testing in a lab?, would I be required to get a permit?

Guests, visitors and volunteers would be allowed to camp for short periods and would use catholes for disposal of human waste. Drinking water for permanent residents and visitors would be hauled to the site, or the operator would use the spring on the mining claim as a source of drinking water.

Why does the FS feel it needs to clarify the rights of any citizen as per camping in the Forest?, why do I feel they are trying to dissuade visitors to this area?

The operator will obtain a conditional use permit and all necessary building permits from Teller
County The operator would need to install a septic system and a potable water system, including either a well or a cistern


In all the other previous charges against the operator, it was evident that the FS wanted no structures placed upon FS lands, Charges and Violations were previously implied against the operator and now the FS wants A well?, A septic system?....Why would the FS identify these as necessary when no other mining claim is required to do so?.

The operator will obtain any required business licenses to sell minerals on the claim, and pay all taxes due to the state and county for mineral sales and for structures placed on the National Forest.

WHAT?!....I see the big picture now.....It has all be come apparent that it boils down to "their share of the pie".....( this is outta hand )
I have a claim that I Dredge in Oregon and if I was to pick a nugget outta my dredge and sell it to a total stranger standing right there for a $20.00 or a beer that is my right to do so and I cannot be taxed upon this PERIOD.



Alternative 3

The operator would not be allowed permanent residency on the running claim. No permanent structures. facilities or water/ sewer systems would be approved. The equipment shed would not be constructed. The A-frame structure would not be allowed in this alternative.

Direct violation of Lex Waggoner and Shumway Case, Why does the FS feel it is in charge of a State Resource ( Water Rights )

The operator could have a travel trailer with wheels attached for temporary storage of tools and equipment, office space, and to use as temporary shelter, but would not be allowed to reside in the trailer.

But it would be perfectly fine for him to sleep in a Lean-to or a tent and be deprived of any kind of shelter afforded to his liking?...ridiculous.

This limited residency would be consistent with Teller County regulations. The operator would be allowed to stay overnight in the self- contained travel trailer and/or tents for a maximum of 60 days during a 365 day period, which is the upper limit allowed by Teller County regulations. The operator would be required to remove the trailer to haul off gray water and sewage to an approved dump station off the National Forest. When operator reaches 60 days use of the travel trailer or tent, operator would be required to live off the National Forest for the remainder of 305 days. The travel trailer would not be allowed to park on the mining claim for more than 60 days per 365 day period.

How does a county regulation override a federal legislation regarding occupancy of a mining claim? How does the FS justify the 60 day limit? why no other occupancy for 305 more days?

The operator would not be allowed to use the spring and would be required to bring in water for washing minerals on site. Washing minerals would be done in a self contained system. The effluent would be disposed of off the National Forest at an approved disposal facility. The operator could also choose to wash all minerals offsite with no use of water on the mining claim. The operator would not be required to install a septic system or a potable water system. A state water right and water discharge permit would not be required under this alternative.

How does the state not pull its' hair out everytime it rains in the mountains and knowing that Mother Nature did not file her permits?...How is it that this miner could take a crystal home and wash it in his front yard hose be any differnet than washing it in the hills?. What if a hiker just wandered over and washed his dirty hands in the spring?, would he need a permit to do this?

Okay Colorado, you can quit joking with me and tell me straight up front that this is all a bad joke your playing on all of us. If this was an episode on the "South Park Cartoon" show I would not get up for a week from laughing at the stupidity of our Government Agencies. I am thinking at this point your miners need to file civil and criminal actions against the agencies involved....Seriously.

How is it that anyone from any agency feels this is the right thing to do?, he needs a jury of miners to hear these atrocities imposed upon a miner for it really to sink in.

Walks away shaking his head in disbelief.......

RP


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CP
post Dec 30 2003, 11:54 PM
Post #10


Master Mucker!
*****

Group: Admin
Posts: 4,149
Joined: 7-October 03
From: Colorado
Member No.: 3



Okay, found the posting of the Lex/Waggener ruling.
Eastern Oregon Mining Association

Haven't been able to find it yet on the courts website, but I'll keep looking.
Hope this helps Jesse.

CP


--------------------
CP-Owner/Administrator
www.ColoradoProspector.com

IF YOU USE IT, THE GROUND PRODUCED IT!
MINERS MAKE "IT" HAPPEN!!


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CP
post Jan 1 2004, 11:27 PM
Post #11


Master Mucker!
*****

Group: Admin
Posts: 4,149
Joined: 7-October 03
From: Colorado
Member No.: 3



WHEW! okay, got draft 2 in there.
I'm just re-doing the first response so we don't have a heap to dig through here.
Great suggestions guys!
Didn't get the "not showing good faith" in there yet Redpaw....where do you think we should utilize that to be most effective?

Now just a note here.....I thought we should keep the response on topic with the EA, then we can use the history for ammo at a later date. ph34r.gif

Have found some interesting tid bits in the Forest Service Manual.....as you will see. laugh.gif

Yep Gat, there will be some personal info that each individual who responds will want to add.

What else can we stoke the fire with here!?

CP


--------------------
CP-Owner/Administrator
www.ColoradoProspector.com

IF YOU USE IT, THE GROUND PRODUCED IT!
MINERS MAKE "IT" HAPPEN!!


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CP
post Jan 1 2004, 11:33 PM
Post #12


Master Mucker!
*****

Group: Admin
Posts: 4,149
Joined: 7-October 03
From: Colorado
Member No.: 3



This one is another post for Jesse,
Just one more tid bit for the court room.... Hope it helps.

Found this in the FSM


2813.13 - Surface Rights. Surface rights depend to some degree
on the status of the claim on July 23, 1955, and on subsequent
actions under 30 U.S.C. 613-614.

2813.13a - Claims Which Are Verified as Being Valid Prior to July
23, 1955. Such claims on which rights have not been waived and
which otherwise do not come under the terms of 30 U.S.C. 612,
carry the following rights under the General Mining Laws:

1. Right to exclusive possession and occupancy for mining
purposes, including control of the surface. Permission must be
obtained from the claimant to cross the claim with a road. The
Forest Service must obtain claimant's permission to harvest
timber from the claim, except for removal of dead or diseased
trees which constitute a menace to the Forest.

2. Right to cut timber on the claim to use for mining
purposes and to provide clearance required to conduct mineral
operations.

3. Right to remove timber for conversion to lumber to be
used for mining purposes, provided that the same species and
substantially equivalent volume is returned for use on the claim
or group of claims from which it was cut.

4. Right to sell or otherwise dispose of timber required to
be cut in conducting actual mining of the mineral deposits or for
clearing for surface facilities needed for mining or processing
of the mineral, provided that the rate of cutting is with equal
pace to the actual mining or need of surface facilities.

5. Right to cut timber from a millsite for building milling
or mining facilities on the millsite.

2813.13b - Claims Validated Subsequent to Act of 1955. Such
claims which otherwise come under 30 U.S.C. 612 carry the same
surface rights as above, except for the following modifications:

1. Right to occupancy and use necessary for prospecting,
mining, and processing, but not the exclusive right to the
surface. Lands containing such claims are subject to the rights
of the United States to manage and dispose of the vegetative
resources, to manage other resources except locatable minerals,
and to the right of the United States, its permittees and
licensees, to use so much of the surface area necessary for such
purposes and for access to adjacent lands.

Good luck Jesse! Sorry I can't get down there.

CP


--------------------
CP-Owner/Administrator
www.ColoradoProspector.com

IF YOU USE IT, THE GROUND PRODUCED IT!
MINERS MAKE "IT" HAPPEN!!


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Redpaw
post Jan 2 2004, 12:44 AM
Post #13


Rock Bar!
****

Group: Members
Posts: 715
Joined: 28-October 03
From: The 45th Parallel in Oregon
Member No.: 16



The Lex/Waggoner verdict upon appeal is damning when it comes to Quinten & Jesse Case. They should appeal any decision made against them.

NOI and its implied intent, will be the downfall of the FS.

Read the L/W appeal again till it sinks in. Notice how the appeal is directly tied to the Shumway ruling? and how many times it is referenced.

I'm going after the full version of the Shumway and Waggoner verdict to add it to the MRT site. It will be one to study for alot of people.

I'll redo my reply mentioned above, and will re-word and correct a few omissions I had to leave out due to my being in a hurry.

Shortly...

RP


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jesse
post Jan 2 2004, 02:04 PM
Post #14


Diggin' In!
**

Group: Members
Posts: 10
Joined: 15-December 03
Member No.: 51



Well, wish me luck folks my trial starts on Monday January 5th 2004. I had a motions hearing on wednesday, it didn't go to well, but I think I have a judge that will at least give me a chance. Love the Lex-Waggener case, I have told my lawyer to look for it and I have read it. unsure.gif Anyone who wishes to go to the trial it will be held in Denver.

901 19th street
room 3, 4th floor
Judge Schaffer
9am Monday January 5th (possibly Tuesday)

I was as shocked as anybody at the short time frames. Thanks cp and redpaw for all the help. All I can do now is hit where it hurts and hope for the best.



Jesse
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Redpaw
post Jan 3 2004, 12:33 PM
Post #15


Rock Bar!
****

Group: Members
Posts: 715
Joined: 28-October 03
From: The 45th Parallel in Oregon
Member No.: 16



In 36CFR 228.5 gives the 5 options the District Ranger may use for any given plan. Now the important part is in between each of these options is the word or. The word or in between each option gives the indication that one of the five options may be chosen, once that is done the district ranger must approve the plan

Jesse, I know that your about to get into a scrapyard brawl come Monday, I just thought I would highlight some of your statements you NEED to argue for your defense. Things will get a little skewed in the courtroom, and facts are easy to forget.

In these above/below paragraph, You need to have correct timeframes of when these actions were accepted or rejected/switched. You need to show how they kept changing their minds in direct conflict of policy, thus showing bad faith towards their own guidelines. Finally have the date of when the district ranger should have had the plan approved and/or if he ever did...at the same time showing you were well within compliance the whole time.


The district ranger does not have the option to choose one then another and another and so on. On my plan of operations the district ranger had a maximum of 90 days to approve. I have had a plan submitted for nearly 2 years. I even had the plan submiited before the new charges were filed. Forest service manual 2817 also states that the forest service cannot file criminal charges until they have made resonable attempts to secure an operating plan[/i]

The paragraphs above are your winning case if you have the ability to show what you claim, Timeframes are the issue, default by failure on their part must be shown.


I have had mining property seized by the forest service without due process of the law. I have had vandalism destroy $10,000 worth of specimens in the middle of January within days of a forest service inspection.

This won't even see the light of day in court but may enforce the descision of the fencing in the judges eyes. If the fence issue comes up, submit the police/sheriff/trooper reportshowing just cause for protection of mining property protection.

Tim Garcia a Forest Service Mineral Specialist on several occasions and Mr. Garcia had made it clear to Mr. Uecker that the OLD MINING LAW DID NOT APPLY". Now which old obscure mining law was I quoting that day None other than the General Mining Laws of 1872 as ammended! According to numerous forest service officials I have no rights under these laws!

Submit these documents as evidence in your effort to show collusion towards you denial of proper permits. Show how they conspired to withhold your rights to due process.

Jesse, How many people do you have going to court with you?, can anyone jot down notes while events are happening?........

sorry we walked into your brushfire so late in the game but atleast we are trying to offer up some help, if any of this helps you?. We are with you JESSE, Stand Tall and Nail with the FACTS.

RP of the MRT


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

5 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
3 User(s) are reading this topic (3 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 28th March 2024 - 04:09 AM