Colorado Prospectors Uniting, Justice Needed |
Colorado Prospectors Uniting, Justice Needed |
Dec 15 2003, 02:04 PM
Post
#1
|
|
Diggin' In! Group: Members Posts: 3 Joined: 15-December 03 Member No.: 52 |
:D Hello everyone. I found out about this forum from the owners of ColoradoProspector.com. I own a mining claim in Colorado in the Crystal Peak area. I have supported myself from this claim for the past five years, despite the Forest Service's best attempts to run me out of business and of my claim. Though I am a responsible miner who comes with endorsements from the Colorado School of Mines, numerous teachers and professors, numerous other claim holders in the Crystal Peak area and other parts of Colorado, Idaho, and New Mexico, and numerous residents in the Crystal Peak area. Despite my numerous endorsements and my obviously environmentally responsible manner of prospecting on my claim, the Forest Service insists that I am a menace and has attempted to drive me off my claim and out of business for the past five years. Every attempt becomes more and more harmful to my operations, and to all of our abilities to carry out the intent of the 1872 mining law. In the course of the last five years I've had the Forest Service illegally modify my plan of operations without my participation (in order to deny me my right to occupy my claim in accordance of the 1872 mining law, as amended), put me in handcuffs during inspections of my claim (the first time I was quoting the Shumway opinion from the 9th circuit, and they told me that they would not release me until I shut up, denying me my right to free speech, and the second time I asked an officer to accompany me to my travel trailer to get my camera so that I could document those present for the inspection. When they refused to accompany me to get the camera, I started walking in the direction of my trailer, at which point three officers came after me, tackled me, pulled my thumb and shoulder out of joint, pepper sprayed my dog, and put me in handcuffs. Once again they told me to shut up, because I was of course being quite vocal about my rights. Present for this transgression was Dr. Douglas Abraham, Professor of Theoretical Physics at Oxford universities in England. When Dr. Abraham also became vocal and indignant, they demanded his ID. When they found out who he was, they promptly released me and went away. Neither time was I arrested or ticketed, though I insisted, angrily, that they do one or the other.), denied me the ability to use mechanized equipment on my claim by making it impossible to comply with unreasonable amendments, forced me to remove my workshop and storage facility without proper due process (FSM 2818), forced me to fill in currently active digs without proper due process (as prescribed at 36 CFR 228), produced a Surface Use Determination Report which denied me rights which are currently being excercised by others in the area (one such individual's SUD was prepared 3 months before mine, and is directly contradictory to mine, though it is for a very similar operation), and released an Environmental Assessment to the public which declares me to be out of compliance with State law (the Forest Service contends that I need to have a mining permit from the State. This is preposterous, as my Notice of Intent to Conduct Prospecting, and concurrent reclamation bond-$2000-was deemed adequate by the Colorado Division of Minerals and Geology on October 1st, 2003. Nothing about my operation has changed since then, except that I was forced to remove my storage and processing facility. If I wasn't in compliance with the state, I'm quite sure they would have let me know following the inspection on October 1st.) and declared that I had refused to place a bond with the Forest Service (at the supposed time that I refused to place the bond the Forest Service had not even asked for one!). This is an obvious illegal attempt to build public sentiment against me. Also, in the EA, the Forest Service declares that my bond amount would be over $20,000 for an operation which would only allow me to have necessary equipment and storage facilities on site for 60 days out of the year, would not allow me to use the spring located on my claim for preliminary rinsing of minerals (rinsing of these pematite specimen minerals does not release anything toxic into the environment, and the FS agrees, yet they still don't want me to use the spring), and includes the use of a backhoe or excavator to cause less than 1 acre of disturbance at any given time (again, such excavation does not release anything toxic into the environment, and the FS states that, even without mitigation, the operation will have negligible affects on surface resources and water quality).
|
|
|
Dec 20 2003, 02:17 AM
Post
#2
|
|
Master Mucker! Group: Admin Posts: 4,149 Joined: 7-October 03 From: Colorado Member No.: 3 |
This plan included every aspect of Quentin’s operation and clearly outlined
Quentin’s justification for occupancy of the site. Security of the mine is essential to the success of the operations. In a locality that is as world-renowned and written about in many gem-hunters guides, it is necessary to take reasonable measures to secure the site. When the business day reaches an end at the office, the personnel simply lock the doors and shut off the lights and worry no further about the security of their jobs. The Dreamtime is a hard-rock mining claim with open pits and trenches that are easily accessible by the public. There is no lock on the door or alarm system to initiate. Because the area of active mining operations is dangerous, it is necessary for Quentin to provide adequate fences and signage to protect and inform the public. Moreover, it is necessary for a watchman to be present at the site during active operations to ensure public safety and secure the site from theft and vandalism. The area is most frequented by rock hounds, mineral collectors, and claimholders who would be happy to invade the claim if no one was present to prevent it. Mining is a competitive industry and instances of theft are not unusual. Keep in mind that anyone can camp in the forest for up to half a year. Quentin was simply asking for permission to do so at his mining claim on a year-round basis, as operations required. His occupancy of the A-frame was minimalist in comfort and accommodations, providing only essential operational components. Even his personal mineral collection is stored off site, since it is not for sale and is not currently used in the mining operations. This is strictly incidental occupancy. The plan also proposed the construction of a shed to house a backhoe on-site. The Workcenter, trailers, signs, fence, mechanized operations, and reclamation measures were all clearly outlined in his proposal. The plan was 40 pages long. Typically, the standard form is only 9 pages long. Quentin did his best to be as definitive as he could and to include every foreseeable need for his operation. I was very skeptical about the intentions of the Forest Service concerning the processing of any plan related to Quentin‘s operations. Through his attorney, Quentin secured the “discovery” files provided by the prosecution. Upon review of all of the documents, I noted several discrepancies. I discussed my concerns with Quentin and he became quite alarmed. This was the first time he realized that the operating plan he had refused to sign with the Forest Service was currently considered the active plan in his administrative file. He was further dismayed when he learned of the comments of Mr. Marler, and of the effort by Ms. Kabele to “undermine” his operations by unfairly portraying him. 18. THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT Shortly thereafter, Quentin received a copy of the Freedom of Information Act requested response from his attorney. Suddenly, everything became confused. The request was meant to cover all plans of operations submitted to the District within the last five years, and of course the response included a copy of Quentin’s plan. This plan was unlike any other that Quentin had seen before. This plan had the words “authorized plan” written on the front of it, and on the spaces provided for the Forest Service evaluation appeared the modified version of his plan. However, the critical sentence that had been added to the plan, “trailer is not authorized...” had been “whited out”. On October 25, 2002 Quentin filed an affidavit with the Court stating, “It is evident to me that the January 16, 1999 Plan of Operations I submitted and signed in agreement was intentionally altered for reasons I do not comprehend. It is likewise evident that an attempt was made by Forest Service officials to have me sign an altered version of the original plan in a most unusual manner. Lastly, the Plan of Operations record submitted to the court by the Forest Service is different than the record I obtained through FOIA action and the original plan that was duly signed by both myself and the District Ranger.” Because Quentin felt that his file was subject to alteration, he feared what other relevant facts may have been changed, and so his attorney filed a motion for “complete discovery” with the prosecution. Originally, the Forest Service provided some 250+ pages of discovery. Upon this second request, the Forest Service furnished 900 pages of information. While I reviewed the accumulating files, Quentin pursued his operating plan and continued his correspondence with Ms. Van Hoover. 19. PROCESSING THE PLAN On the 18th of October, Quentin received a letter from the District Ranger requesting additional information in order to begin processing his operating plan. He responded on November 26, 2002 with the best answers he could provide. In his conversations with Ms. Van Hoover, Quentin learned that it could take up to nine months to process his operating plan. Considering that his operations are relatively small compared to historic mining operations in the area, Quentin assumed that it would not take the full nine months to process his plan. He was anxious to expedite the process. Once the Forest Service brought official charges against him, he decided to cease his mechanized operations pending the outcome of the trial. This decision is a very costly one. Mechanized equipment is exponentially more efficient for mining operations than hand digging with a pick, shovel and five gallon utility bucket. The District Ranger stated in a letter dated January 29, 2003 that she would not be able to begin processing Quentin’s plan until his operating plan had undergone a lengthy NEPA process. Because the flowering season in the area does not begin until May, she said the necessary Rare Plant Evaluation could not take place until then. She further stated, “the 30-day time frame contained in 36 CFR 228.5 (a) for the processing of plans of operation is no longer valid and has been superseded by the new 36 CFR 215 appeal regulations brought about by the passing of P.L. 102.381, Section 322. Processing a plan of operations may take 120 days or longer with breaks in time, which might occur because of weather or seasonal needs.” The District Ranger originally agreed to meet with Quentin in February. However, Ms. Mayben later wrote, “Ron Baer and I are not available to meet with you... the next available date that Ron and I have is March 19th.” Due to a blizzard that week, the meeting was rescheduled. Quentin was upset that the processing of his plan had not yet begun. Nearly five months had passed since he submitted the plan, and no action to approve the plan had been taken. On March 14, 2003, Quentin filed an appeal with the Forest Supervisor, Mr. Robert Leaverton stating that, “this appeal deals with several decisions contained in a single letter signed by Ms. Sara Mayben... though I have identified numerous decisions contained in the one letter, each and every decision is only part of what I see as an overall decision to impermissibly stall processing of my plan of operations and, in effect, severely hinder my ability to work and profit from my claim... Each and every allegation set forth in this action regarding Forest Service interpretation of applicable laws and regulations encompasses individual and/or agency attempt(s) to frustrate mining laws...” Mr. Leaverton responded by dismissing Quentin’s appeal without a decision on its merits based on the fact that “you must have an authorized plan or an authorized officer’s proposal to authorize a plan,” in order to qualify for an appeal. Mr. Leaverton then “encourages” Quentin to continue working with Ms. Mayben. Quentin was not surprised when the Forest Service refused to review his appeal, and so he had prepared a second level appeal. Regional Forester Mr. Rick Cables received his appeal on April 15, 2003. Mr. Cables responded by simply stating, “At this time, I am unable to comment on your appeal.” Mr. George Gill, attorney for the prosecution, often stated that Quentin needed to follow through with all administrative remedies before he began working under his proposals, and that the justice he sought could be achieved in this manner. It appears that his counsel was incorrect, as Mr. Cables must decide to either review or dismiss any appeal he receives, and his statement indicated no decision at all. 20. THE TRIAL In April Quentin went to trial with the Forest Service. At this point they had amended the charges to include the A-frame Workcenter and had dropped the charge of violation the terms of an approved operating plan. The final charges were presented as an amendment to the second amended information, demonstrating the difficulty the Forest Service was having pinning down what offenses were actually committed. Quentin and many witnesses for the defense testified to the facts related to mechanized operations at the claim. Because Quentin believed he had operated in good faith and within the parameters of his Notice of Intent, he had hoped that the judge would understand that he had no intention of ever breaking the law. Also, he hoped that the judge would realize that the Forest Service was unwilling to cooperate with him on approving his operations which were already approved by the DMG for reasons which were arbitrary and capricious and not based on sound law and administrative procedures. Quentin never ran away from his troubles with the Forest Service. He wrote many letters, asked numerous questions, and always responded to their decisions or actions. As can be seen from their correspondences, the Forest Service often evaded or outright ignored many of Quentin's questions, comments, or suggestions. Quentin hoped that the facts would demonstrate that he always had an intention of mining his claim, which in itself is readily compliant with the purpose of the mining regulations, and that he was responsible for his activities by placing the proper bond amount with the correct agency and had in fact made several attempts to propose an operating plan. He was currently seeking authorization for his operations and was still having some difficulty making any meaningful progress with that proposal, as the Forest Service seemed to be hoping that the judge's order would negate the need for them to do their job and actually make a decision on Quentin's plan based on their own administrative remedies and policies. They were stalling the decision, at least in delaying the initiation of the NEPA process. The DMG testified that Quentin was, at the time in question, in compliance with the terms of his Notice of Intent and the conditions and requirements of his bond. They had given Quentin authorization to begin mechanized digging on the Dreamtime claim. Douglas Collyer testified to his mining relationship with the State, and how the Forest Service handed their authority over his claims to the State. Ms. Kabele was questioned about the altered operating plans. To everyone’s surprise, Ms. Kabele admitted that she had altered the document that appeared to be “whited out”. She stated that she knew she was responsible for the alteration because the corrections were made with sticky-tape, which she commonly used instead of white out. When asked why she altered the documents she stated that she knew that the administrative file did not match the copy Quentin had received in the mail and that she wanted the office file to accurately reflect what he had in his files. Concerning her behavior Judge Boland wrote, “in view of her leading role in the prosecution of the charges against Mr. Good, I do not understand why Ms. Kabele would be assigned to or assume the task of gathering documents in connection with Mr. Good’s FOIA request. In any event, her actions in altering at least one of the documents submitted to the FOIA compliance officer evidences her willingness to act improperly, deceive, and alter evidence in connection with this prosecution. I find Ms. Kabele’s testimony untrustworthy in view of her actions obliterating crucial portions of the Operating Plan contained in the files of the Forest Service”. During the trial, several Forest Service employees demonstrated their lack of knowledge concerning mining laws and regulations and made many contradictory statements. One of their strongest arguments was that although many of the activities Quentin had been charged with were commonly accepted means of mining and he had reasonable justifications for occupying his claim, he had failed to obtain proper authorization from the Forest Service before commencing his operations. The prosecuting attorney for the United States, Mr. George Gill, was careful to specify that Quentin was not being charged with the occupancy of his mining claim, and Ms. Mayben further told the court that Quentin would not be in trouble if he had occupied his claim in a tent! Basically, I interpreted this to imply that so long as Quentin was denied the basic comforts of having a roof which could handle a snow-load, warmth in the winter, protection from bears, wildcats, and thieves and other basic human “luxuries” it would be okay for him to continue to work his chosen profession. 21. THE DECISION Even though Quentin had applied for Forest Service authorization and, as can be seen from the inner-office memos concerning his plan, they had no desire to approve the operation, he was still found guilty of three charges of damaging United States property by digging with mechanized equipment without an approved operating plan, and the charge for constructing and maintaining the Workcenter without an approved operating plan. The Forest Service wanted the Court to order Quentin to remove the A-frame, trailer, signs and fence in less than one month with a deferred jail sentence and four years of supervised probation. The judge sentenced Quentin to one year of probation, and ordered that he remove the A-frame and reclaim all but two of the mechanized digs at the claim site within six months. He added that he would not make a ruling on the trailer, signs and fence, as Quentin had not been charged with any offenses related to them. Because Quentin has a current proposal that includes the Workcenter, his attorney asked the judge if the order would stand if Quentin’s plan could be approved. The judge stated that he would not make Quentin remove the cabin only to put it back. The Forest Service was not happy with the judge’s decision. They requested that the court reconsider the sentencing, as they felt Quentin’s punishment was not severe enough. Keep in mind that the type of crime Quentin was charged with is considered a “petty misdemeanor” and he was therefore not entitled to a speedy trial or a trial by jury. The judge ruled that the intent of the person charged is not a consideration and good faith is not applicable. Basically this type of crime is comparable to making too much noise in the forest while camping. The Forest Service’s vindictiveness made itself clear to me when they made a second attempt to reopen the sentencing through the judge with whom Quentin filed his appeal of Judge Boland’s decision. The Forest Service was ultimately denied re-sentencing. Quentin bases the main body of his appeal of Judge Boland’s decision on the fact that he believes that the Forest Service did not act reasonably, as the judge suggested, and that they failed to obtain a search warrant to collect evidence related to his prosecution. Further, he believes that “good faith” does apply to mining operations, and that operating plans cannot be rescinded or unauthorized. The court will hear the appeal in the near future. 22. A MEETING OF THE MINES Ms. Mayben contacted Quentin in May and proposed that they reschedule the previously delayed meeting for June 5, 2003. Quentin notified Mr. Cables that he intended to work with Ms. Mayben and wrote her an additional letter detailing even more information about his operation. The Forest Service assumed that this was Quentin’s consent to drop his second-level appeal. He quickly corrected their misinterpretation in another letter in which he requested that the appeal be reviewed. On June 5, 2003, the Forest Service visited the claim and toured the proposed operation sites. Due to rainy conditions, the bulk of the meeting took place inside of the Workcenter. Ms. Mayben was accompanied by several co-workers including Mr. David Crumley, who was there as an advisor; Mr. John Neubert, who was training to be a mineral examiner; Mr. Jeff Hyatt, Lands Administrator; and Todd Phillipe, Minerals Administrator. Ron Baer, who was supposed to be at the meeting, and whose presence was used by Ms. Mayben to delay the meeting, did not attend. I was present as a witness for Quentin, along with Jason Uecker, James Delabar and Brian House. Mr. Crumley had made questionable comments in the past so I video taped the meeting in order to ensure that all statements were recorded and that any decisions made by the District Ranger were documented. During the meeting, Mr. Crumley made the statement that 43 CFR 3715 does not apply to the National Forests because BLM regulations only apply to public lands, and the National Forest is not considered public land. He then later stated that the federal government is the sovereign of the National Forests. I’m not sure what he meant by this, and I have spoken to environmental attorneys concerning his statements. They all agree that Mr. Crumley was mistaken. The Forest Service requested additional information about the plan, re-asking many questions which Quentin had already answered. The most important issues for Quentin were those concerned with the approval of the Workcenter. Ms. Mayben said that the Forest Service, particularly Mineral Examiner Ron Baer, would need to conduct a “Surface Use Determination” on the proposed occupancy in order to decide whether or not the structures would be allowed to remain on the claim. Quentin asked what criteria would be used to determine whether or not he would be able to keep the structure. Unfortunately, the Forest Service could not answer his questions. The Forest Service Manual contains a section at chapter 2818 entitled “Occupancy on Mining Claims,” which specifies the proper action to take concerning occupancy issues. In order for structure to be authorized under an operating plan, claimants must be able to show a reasonable necessity resulting from planned prospecting, exploration or mining activities. The term “reasonably incident” has become another source of tension. The Forest Service has not produced any references to the standards they go by when deciding what is “reasonably incidental” to mining operations. When asked, Mr. Crumley stated that the standards would be whatever “we decide”. In contrast, the Bureau of Land Management has specific regulations that define the term “reasonably incidental” and specifies the qualifications for occupancy under 43 CFR 3715. However, Ms. Mayben simply stated that the protocols outlined at FSM 2818 and 43 CFR 3715 would not apply to Quentin’s case, though she could not reveal why when asked. Other topics covered during the meeting included the use of legal terms and definitions in Quentin’s operating plan. In order to expedite the processing of the plan, Quentin incorporated legal terms and definitions derived from the Forest Service Manual and BLM regulations. According to 36 CFR 251.90 (6) appeal regulations the claimant is instructed to include “specific references to any law, regulation or policy that the appellant believes to be violated and the reason for such allegation...” The use of legal terms in Quentin’s plan was intended to clarify his proposal and avoid unnecessary review based on misinterpretation of facts. Ms. Mayben claimed that she could not authorize a plan that included those definitions, and that in order to continue processing Quentin’s plan, all legal definitions would need to be removed from the document. Ms. Mayben mentioned several different timeframes throughout the meeting. Even in her lengthiest estimate of the amount of time remaining before she would issue her decision, she allowed enough time for the decision to be made so that Quentin could comply with the court order. On the video tape of the meeting, she estimated a decision by no longer than mid- September, considering the longest possible delays. Her statements were misleading, as that decision has not been made to this day. Later that day, Ms. Mayben made the statement, “You may think you got lucky when the judge decided not to included the trailer, fence and signs in the court decision, but now I have been informed to tell you that you have fifteen days to remove them or you will be further charged with violations.” I found this comment to contain some hint of vindictiveness. The statement, “You may think you got lucky...” was a bit antagonistic, insinuating that somehow Quentin felt he was victorious in court. Whether or not she intended it, Ms. Mayben was adding insult to injury. Quentin in no way felt “lucky”, as his appeal of Judge Boland’s decision, and the loss of the A-frame now weighs heavily on his mind. They continued to argue for some time. Quentin asked Ms. Mayben why she could not simply give him temporary approval for the trailer, signs, and fence until the decision on his operating plan was made. She told him that she did not have the authority to partially approve his plan and insisted that it was not her decision to charge Quentin, but the advice and guidance of her attorney and Ron Baer. Strangely, earlier that day, Quentin was asked by Ms. Mayben to show on a map where his current sings and fence were located as well as what he proposed in addition. She also told him to indicate what type of fencing would be used “in the interim”. Why would she tell him to write this information down and provide it to her office if it was her intention that the items be immediately removed? Was this just to antagonize him, or was she simply asking Quentin to provide information that would later be used against him in court? Quentin could not understand why the Forest Service wished to continue the difficulties between them. He was following through with the administrative process and his trailer was currently approved under an authorized operating plan. The Forest Service had not yet completed the Surface Use Determination, which would resolve the issue of whether or not it was “reasonably incidental” to the mining operations and could be approved under his newest operating plan. Later during the meeting, I asked Ms. Mayben whether or not Quentin would be authorized to bring in mechanized equipment to reclaim the digs as ordered by Judge Boland. Ms. Mayben stated that Quentin would not be permitted to use equipment until his operating plan was approved. Mr. Crumley suggested that the reclamation could be accomplished without equipment, demonstrating his overwhelming faith in unrealistic achievements of super-human strength. As far as I know, the Forest Service is obligated to approve all reclamation activities, and their refusal to do so is in direct contradiction with their own directives. 23. MR. WALTER RUBECK Mr. Walter Rubeck, previously mentioned, has been occupying his topaz claim in the area for some twenty years. When asked why Mr. Rubeck was allowed to occupy his claim Ms. Mayben responded by stating that Mr. Rubeck was allowed to occupy his claim because he is old and his operations are only seasonal. As I understand it, “the US Department of Agriculture prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, AGE, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, and marital or family status.” Just because Mr. Rubeck is elderly is no reason to grant him occupancy of his mining claim, and I believe he would be deeply offended by the comment of Ms. Mayben as he has worked hard to earn his rights. The fact that Quentin’s operation is year-round should only serve to necessitate his need for structures beyond the needs of seasonal miners like Mr. Rubeck. I found the comment to be insensitive and perhaps prejudicial. Mineral Examiner Ron Baer completed a Surface Use Determination on Mr. Rubeck's claim which determined that his multiple trailers, signs, fence, several large tents, mobile home, water usage, equipment, security, display showroom, office and occupancy were all reasonably incidental to his mining operations. Mr. Rubeck's claim is approximately 5 miles from Quentin's claim, as the crow flies. It is less than 3 miles away from the Stagestop Campground, where Mr. Rubeck stores his residential trailer during his off-season. His operation differs from Quentin's in that it is on a placer claim and relies heavily on the use of water to extract and process the minerals. During cold months when needed water easily freezes, his operations are not productive.Therefore his operation is seasonal, although he maintains the right to year-round occupancy of his claim. In the SUD preformed on Mr. Rubeck’s claim Mr. Baer stated, “While the mining claims are located within the commuting distance of Lake George, Colorado where a couple private trailer parks exist that could accommodate his mobile home and trailers, Mr. Rubeck would not likely be able to conduct his business or sell his gems from these trailer parks as he works his deposit. In addition, any location for the trailers away from the claims would not provide security needed for public safety around his open workings, where recreational hiking is high, during periods of mining operations. Mr. Rubeck’s age and physical abilities also play a role in how he conducts his operations and the need for the mobile home.” He also stated, “The use of his mobile home as an office for business and gem sales is an integral part of his operation. While there may be alternative locations for the mobile home, conducting mine business and selling his produced minerals from the mining claims is a legitimate use that could not be conducted from a private trailer/mobile home park in the immediate area. He would not be able to receive the number of customers that have historically visited his mine site, which, in turn, would result in economic impact to his operation. Additionally, Mr. Rubeck’s use of the mobile home and travel trailer has been approved in the past as temporary occupancy; it would be unreasonable to not allow that temporary use to continue.” Mr. Rubeck has been given authorization in an approved operating plan signed by District Ranger Sara Mayben to continue mining his topaz claim. Mr. Rubeck is a hard-working gentleman who is determined although he is frail. I am proud to call him a friend and I firmly believe that his operations at the topaz mine are completely legitimate despite his age or his physical condition. Though he is my friend, and I care tremendously for his health and well being, I do not believe that he should be given an advantage over other area claimants. Because Mr. Baer seemed to be reasonable and comprehensive in his evaluation of Mr. Rubeck's proposals, Quentin was hopeful that there would be consistency in the evaluation of his operating plan, and that the examiner would give reasonable consideration to all of the items he had proposed. 24. THE NEPA PROCESS Shortly after the June meeting, Ms. Mayben sent Quentin a letter stating, “Ron Baer will not be available to complete the Surface Use Determination report until November. We cannot complete the environmental assessment and send it out to the public until that report is completed.” Quentin was disheartened. Now the Forest Service seemed to be stalling the processing of his plan intentionally. What reason would they have to do this? Quentin immediately appealed the decisions that he must remove his necessary storage facilities, his security (fence), and his only current method of notifying the public of his operations (signs). Shortly thereafter, on July 1, 2003, Mr. Leaverton dismissed Quentin’s appeal without a decision on its merits again stating that Quentin was not qualified for an appeal. On July 8, 2003, Quentin submitted his second-level appeal of Mr. Leaverton’s decision to Mr. Cables. Because Quentin anticipated that Mr. Cables would again dismiss his appeal, he asked Mr. Cables to “please provide any and all information regarding judicial review and redress of grievances.” After the meeting, the Forest Service published Quentin’s proposal in local newspapers as part of the public comment process required by the NEPA analysis. They also sent out a “scoping letter” describing the proposed operations in greater detail to persons whom they claimed had previously requested the information. During this time, many members of the public had the opportunity to express their support of the proposed operations and since all of the persons who responded on Quentin’s behalf had been to the site and witnessed the operations first-hand, it was my hope that their opinions would be heavily considered in the decision-making process. I did as much rallying for support as I could in my spare moments. The month of July was filled with visits from the Forest Service. They conducted a wildlife survey on the claim, followed by visits from the hydrologist, botanist and zone archaeologist who also conducted surveys. I wondered why these surveys had not been conducted at any time during the past nine months. These surveys were partially videotaped, and many witnesses participated on behalf of the Dreamtime claim. The Forest Service invited Jean Garren from the county planning department to participate in the meeting. While Ms. Garren strayed from the group, distracting everyone, she made numerous comments that tended to indicate that she had predetermined that all of the operations at the claim were illegal and that it was her intent to assist the Forest Service in preventing the activities Quentin had proposed. She entered into the “curtilage” of the Workcenter and, using the Forest Service's digital camera, shot several photos of the underside of the Workcenter and the travel trailer located nearby. She was asked several times to respect the privacy of the miners and not to stray from the group as we were trying to document the events and could not be everywhere all at once. Furthermore, she was acting in disregard to 36 CFR 228.6 which states, "Information and data to be withheld from public examination may include, but is not limited to, known or estimated outline of the mineral deposits and their location, attitude, extent, outcrops and content, and the known or planned location of exploration pits, drill holes, excavations pertaining to location and entry pursuant to the United States mining laws, and other commercial information which relates to competitive rights of the operator." When I asked her what her business was on the claim that day, Ms. Garren stated that she was just along for the ride. This indicated to me that she was not acting in any official capacity, and therefore should be considered a visitor from the general public. Quentin has the right to privacy, especially with regard to his structures and deposits. The county derives its jurisdiction over mining claims from the State. Because the State feels that a Notice of Intent is sufficient to cover Quentin's proposed activities, he is not required to file a plan of operations with them. Persons who are required to file a plan of operations with the State of Colorado Division of Minerals and Geology are then subject to applicable county codes and regulations. Otherwise, the jurisdiction remains with the land management agency, in this case, the Forest Service. On July 18th, geologist Mr. John Neubert was accompanied by Mr. Dersch, now a qualified Mineral Examiner, to the site in order to conduct the Surface Use Determination. Again, we videotaped the event. Mr. Dersch, Ms. Kabele’s mentor, had suggested the original amendments to Quentin's second proposed operating plan, imposing unreasonable restrictions and limiting his operation to seasonal activity. Quentin wrote Ms. Mayben a letter requesting that he be sent a copy of the SUD as soon as it was prepared. 25. THE PUBLIC COMMENTS At a local restaurant, a neighbor who works for the County mentioned that he had heard that the Forest Service was trying to get the County to help "get rid of Quentin's cabin and kick him out of the forest once and for all." Another person told me that Forest Service employees were overheard talking about bulldozing a small cabin in the woods when the guy is out of town. Remarks like this do not surprise me. A friend and local miner, Bodie Packham told Quentin that he had asked Todd Phillipe about leaving his pop-up camper in the forest for more than fourteen days. Mr. Phillipe was not aware that Mr. Packham is a friend of ours and proceeded to tell him that the Forest Service would not allow anyone to maintain a camper in the forest because Quentin Good mined illegally and ruined it for everyone else. I could hardly believe it at first, but later I was approached by another miner, Brad Pilsky, who recounted a similar story. This is very distressing. Many people do not understand the extent of their rights under the 1872 Mining Law, and thanks to the efforts of Mr. Phillipe, they may never understand them. Each person is allowed the benefit of administrative process. If a mining claimant has a proposal that he believes may be significant, and he seeks direction from the Forest Service, he should be told to submit his proposal in the form of a notice of intent to be reviewed by the Ranger District. Whether or not he likes it, Mr. Phillipe does not have the arbitrary decision making power to simply mislead us! His response to the inquiry of my friend is preposterous. It is like saying because that guy got a speeding ticket, we will not be issuing any more drivers’ licenses to the rest of you. In my opinion, Mr. Phillipe’s comments defame Quentin’s character and are an effort to pit other claimants against him. The Ute Pass Courier, a local newspaper printed an article entitled, "Neighbors don't dig year-round mining" concerning Quentin's proposed operations. The neighbors in question live just outside the forest boundary and just on the opposite side of Quentin's fence. They moved to the area a few years ago, and seem determined to open a hunter/outfitters guide service next door. They hate mining and are very vocal about it. The Forest Service received five negative comments about Quentin's operating plan from relatives of this neighbor. Mostly, the neighbor was complaining that claimants don't have to pay property taxes for National Forest lands and should be required to get fuel wood permits. The comments were not detrimental to the Ranger's obligation to approve operating plans. Ms. Mayben stated, "If people contact us and say, 'I don't like what he's doing and I want you to stop it', we don't have the ability to do that." Because Quentin was concerned that the Forest Service would simply disregard comments in favor of his operations, I submitted a Freedom of Information Act request for all public comments received concerning Quentin's operation. When I received their response to my request, I was dismayed to discover that several of the letters written on behalf of the mining operations Quentin proposed were missing. Brian House sent one of the letters via facsimile from King Soopers, and he provided me with a copy of the receipt stating that the Forest Service had received the transmission. Two other letters were from Dean and Dillon Wallace, brothers who visit the claim regularly. Dillon Wallace spent several weeks composing his letter to the Forest Service and researched mining law extensively in his response to their solicitation for comment. Another letter was given to me by Paula Willette who owns claims nearby and says she faxed her letter to Jeff Hyatt. Jim and Alicia Joy asked me if their letter was helpful. Since the Forest Service claims they never received it, I guess the answer is no. I am certain that the Forest Service received at least some of these letters. On July 17th I had a conversation with Mr. Phillipe at the claim site wherein he stated, "some of the people who wrote in said that Quentin was following his dreams... they seem to think that the law is in support of him." It is interesting to note that the comment Mr. Phillipe is referring to was made by Dillon Wallace thus, "I see a man trying to truly live the American Dream..." No other comment in any other letter made any reference of any kind to dreams. Mr. Phillipe's comments must have been in regard to this letter. I wrote to the Supervisor, Mr. Robert Leaverton concerning the missing letters. In his response he states, "All requested public comments in our files were copied and provided with the response to your request. None were withheld. If you would like to discuss the letters you claim are missing from the file, please contact Sara Mayben..." I suppose he thinks that talking to Ms. Mayben will help. After all, the files vanished from her office. Why would these letters be omitted? The answer is clear. Each of the letters extensively details the need for security on the claim. If the public does not acknowledge Quentin's needs for security, then it is easier for the District to ignore them in their decision-making.I have sent copies of those letters to Ms. Mayben and requested that she consider them in her decision. The Forest Service continues to blame the stalling of Quentin’s operating plan on him, stating that the delays were caused by his failure to provide necessary information. Considering that the approval of his operating plan is imperative to the success of his operations and his compliance with Judge Boland’s decision, does it seem likely that Quentin would intentionally stall the processing of his own plan? The Forest Service has long blamed claimants for their own agency's inability to adequately process operating plans in a timely manner without causing undue hardship to legitimate miners. 26. THE SURFACE USE DETERMINATION Mr. Neubert finally completed the Surface Use Determination for the Dreamtime Lode Mining Claim on October 7, 2003. This was more than one year after Quentin submitted his operating plan. In the report, Mr. Neubert states, "Although procedural and legal controversies, and mutual misunderstandings between Mr. Good and Forest personnel remain to some extent, my perception of the situation follows. After the original document (Plan of Operations/Notice of Intent) was approved in May 1999 by the District and later signed by the claimant, District personnel reconsidered the long-term use of a trailer because of residency issues in this part of the Forest. In June 1999, the District revised the Plan by de-authorizing the trailer use and requiring Mr. Good to post a reclamation bond. Mr. Good refused to sign the revised document, and instead submitted a proposed modified Plan of Operations in July 1999. In the modified Plan, Mr. Good requested to use small, mechanized equipment such as a backhoe or similar machinery to excavate small pits on his claim. he also requested to park a camper trailer on the claim for 'tool and mineral storage and shelter'. District and Supervisor's Office personnel reviewed this modified plan and suggested several changes. Seasonal limitations for mining were requested because of winter access problems, and machinery usage was limited to certain times of the operating season because of a goshawk nest on the claim. Structures, including a trailer, were not authorized. Letters were exchanged between Mr. Good and the Forest Service regarding his modified Plan of Operations, but no meaningful progress was made." I can say, without hesitation, that thanks to the conclusions of Mr. Neubert's report no meaningful progress continues to be made. Despite the fact that Quentin's operations have grown (at least to a point where he has successfully been convicted for them) the Forest Service continues to treat the operation as they did nearly five years ago. Among other comments which seemed to fly in theface of rationality, Mr. Neubert stated, "Security of the claim should not be a major concern..." This perception is at best an uneducated one. The Crystal Creek area, wherein Quentin's claim is located, is world famous. In the two short years I have been around, I have met over a hundred people who came to visit due to the minerals found at this locality. There are numerous books and guides that give directions to the precise location of the Dreamtime claim. Because it is located right inside the forest boundary, it is easily accessible to the general public. Quentin did not invite many of the persons I have met on the claim, and if he were not present to prevent it, I am certain that he would be robbed on a constant basis. One of Quentin's investors, Dennis O’Rourke, has proposed to purchase a backhoe to be stored on-site. He wrote a letter to the District expressing his concern for the security and storage of the machine. With regard to this, Mr. Neubert stated, "if he acquires a backhoe it could be covered with a tarp or stored under a tree when not in use." Do you think that Mr. O'Rourke, who is proposing to spend thousands of dollars on this equipment, will be satisfied? Of course not. Would you park your brand new car in the National Forest and leave it there unguarded overnight on a regular basis? Moreover, what do you think the difference would be to insure a backhoe being stored in a shed verses under a tree? There are numerous other flaws with Mr. Neubert's evaluation. Based on the above conclusion, I hope you get an impression of the tone of the rest of the report. Perhaps the most significant findings in the SUD were related to the structures and occupancy of the claim. Concerning the Workcenter he stated, "the A-frame is also used for storage of some of the specimens and for storage of hand tools and small processing equipment," along with residential uses. Among the considerations listed on the SUD for determining the reasonable necessity for occupancy were the age and health of the operator. But this seems to be in conflict with the non-discriminatory policy of the US Department of Agriculture, who neither advantages nor disadvantages individuals on an arbitrary basis in all of its programs and activities, including the Minerals Program. In the Forest Service Manual at chapter 2818.1 it is stated that, "the necessity for structures in regard to mineral activities depends upon several factors: (1) The stage of mineral activities, (2) the expected size and life of the operations, (3) the remoteness of the site, (4) the amount and kind of equipment requiring protection and storage, etc." The regulation stipulates four specific considerations for the necessity of structures based upon the examination of the operating plan. Mr. Neubert is calling for stipulations based upon the condition of the operator. How is the condition of the operator related to surface use? Where did Mr. Neubert derive these other considerations (age and physical condition of the operator)? Mr. Neubert concluded that, " Mr. Good asserts that he operates his mine virtually year round... a mine life of twenty years is not unreasonable." He also stated, "Mr. Good has conducted a variety of activities associated with exploration, mining, processing, and marketing of mineral specimens from the claim since 1998." Yet, contrary to these determinations, Mr. Neubert stated, "The size of Mr. Good's operation does not justify full-time residency or the presence of permanent structures such as the A-frame or a proposed equipment shed." Basically, the SUD concluded that an 18ft. self-contained travel trailer, which Quentin proposed to use for occupancy concerns (sleeping, meal preparation, etc.) would be adequate for storage of the equipment that is currently being stored in the 26 ft. travel trailer and in the Workcenter, as well as to display the specimens, provide office space for client interaction and record storage and to provide temporary shelter for guests and visitors to the claim. Of course, no one would be allowed to occupy the trailer at night, as Lake George is only five miles away! What Mr. Neubert recommends is that Quentin somehow shrinks over 2000 sq. ft. of proposed storage space into an 18ft. trailer. In order to accommodate Mr. Neubert's perception, Quentin would need to rent a home in Lake George, hire a security officer to patrol the claim at night and protect the backhoe, trailer and digs, rent a retail space to display minerals and conduct sales, and hire at least one employee to run the retail store. In the SUD, he states, "From this review and meetings with Mr. Good, it was determined that he is actively mining, processing and marketing mineral specimens produced from the claim." Basically, Mr. Neubert is proposing to turn a profitable business into an expensive hobby by putting an end to these legitimate and incidental activities that would support a twenty-year operation. Ultimately, Mr. Neubert stated with regard to security, "adjoining claimants and landowners in this area 'keep an eye on things' when strangers are observed. Would these be the same neighbors who "don't dig year round mining"? I'm sure they would love to have the responsibility for looking after Quentin's claims dumped on them when he is away. And what about the other claimants? Recently Jeff Self, who owns a nearby claim, reported that someone had been digging on his claim with a backhoe and he wanted the Forest Service to do something about it. He suspected a rival claimant of the unlawful activity. The Forest Service said they could do nothing to help Mr. Self and insisted that he himself would be responsible for the reclamation work that needed to be done in relation to this incident. When I asked Ranger Mayben what claimants could do to protect themselves from such trespass she stated that theft was just one of the risks of the mining industry. What happened to suggesting signs or a fence? Later, Mr. Self and his wife, Donna were monitoring their claim with a camera and discovered the suspected rival claimant digging on another part of the National Forest without permission or a bond. Donna took photos of the rebel in action. When Mr. Self presented his case and evidence to the Forest Service, Ms. Mayben told him that there was nothing her office could do about it. Can you believe it? Quentin is convicted of digging on his own claim with a backhoe without authorization and damaging United States property even though he has a $2000 reclamation bond in place with the DMG and the District Ranger can do nothing to stop other unauthorized activities in the National Forest? I recently discussed this scenario with Mr. Phillipe and he stated that the rogue digger claimed he did not know he was not digging on his own claim. That seems very unlikely. The Crystal Creek area has a history of claim location and boundary disputes. Rival locators and over-staking is common in the area where the Dreamtime claim is located. One could easily say that the rival claimants pose a threat to each other. If Quentin were to leave the claim, he would very likely return to find another claimant working his digs. Recently, the Forest Service impounded a camper located on the claim of James Delabar, adjacent to the Dreamtime claim. Immediately thereafter, Quentin discovered another miner raiding Mr. Delabar's digs. When asked why he was doing this, the man replied, "The guy just packed up and left. His camper is gone. He must have abandoned his claim." Obviously, the presence of a structure on Mr. Delabar's claim served as a deterrent to criminal activity, and helped to secure his operations in his absence. Mr. Neubert later suggested in the SUD that Quentin could use police tape to surround his dangerous pits. Is this a mining claim or a crime scene? I didn't realize that police tape was readily available at Wal-Mart for public purchase. 27. THE REDEMPTION Some good things came out of the SUD as well. For instance, Mr. Neubert concluded, "A travel trailer is suitable for tool storage, preliminary specimen cleaning and grading, and occasional overnight stays." Also, "Minerals could be stored in the travel trailer, or could be stored off-site in a more secure location." And finally, "Use of a travel trailer for temporary shelter, storage of tools and minerals, and office space would be necessary and reasonably incident to the mining operations. Full-time residency of the claim is not necessary due to the proximity of accommodations nearby." As for the security on-site, Mr. Neubert was informed about past theft on the claim. Approximately 1/2 of the claim is fenced off from public access. The fence surrounds the immediate area of operations and the campsite. The other half of the claim has remained unrestricted to public access since Quentin staked the claim. Mr. Neubert states, "Currently, a wire fence and warning signs act as deterrents to the public who might accidentally fall into one of the pits." He eventually concluded, "Use of a fence to discourage entry to the active part of the claim is reasonably incident to mining... Signage could be used on the perimeter of the claim to advise the public where the claim boundary is, and that unauthorized people could not collect minerals." According to House Bill Report (SHB 1380), the offense of mineral trespassing is created. A person commits the crime of mineral trespass by: (1) Entering and intentionally disturbing, removing, or attempting to remove any minerals at a posted mining claim; tampering with or disturbing any mining equipment at a posted mining claim; or defacing any landmarks or other markers at a posted mining claim; or (2) intentionally interfering with, stopping, or causing the stopping of a lawful small scale mining operation that is in full compliance with the law. The Senate would not have allowed Mineral Trespass to become a Class C Felony if the government did not take the crime seriously. Yet, Mr. Neubert does not seem to take it very seriously. Security on mining claims IS a major concern, despite his opinion. On July 21, 2003, the Central Violations Bureau issued Quentin summons to appear before the court on August 13th, 2003 on three new charges for the trailer, signs and fence. Mr. Neubert had not completed the SUD until 3 months later. Quentin pled “not guilty” to these charges, as he will to any additional crimes he is charged with by the USDA Forest Service. With respect to the findings of the SUD, it is apparent that he made the correct choice. I cannot even imagine why the Forest Service would pursue pressing charges due to the presence of the signs and fence on Quentin's claim, as 36 CFR 228.9 requires that, "During all operations operator shall maintain his structures, equipment, and other facilities in a safe, neat and workmanlike manner. Hazardous sites or conditions resulting from operations shall be marked by signs, fenced or otherwise identified to protect the public in accordance with federal and State laws and regulations.” Parallel requirements are found at 43 CFR 3802.4-5 for operations under BLM jurisdiction and at 36 CFR 9.41under the National Park Service. Quentin requested that these new charges be tried before Magistrate Boland because he is already familiar with the case. I hope that Judge Boland decides not to pursue the charges further. After all, how could someone be convicted of such crimes? If Quentin had not put up signs and a fence, the Forest Service would likely be charging him with endangering public safety or something else. During the preliminary hearing, it was suggested that the prosecution might dismiss the charges if Quentin would agree to remove the trailer, signs and fence. When Judge Boland asked the prosecutor what security measures would be left for the defense, Mr. Gill stated that Quentin could simply rebury the specimens before he left the site and then dig them up again when it is time to show them to clients. The Judge had read the SUD and understood that the trailer, signs, and fence were all considered to be reasonably incidental to the mining. He asked why it would be necessary for Quentin to remove them only to bring them back later, suggesting that to do so would be wasteful. Mr. Gill stated that it was the intention of the Forest Service to make an example out of Quentin. As I understand it, one of the stipulations of a petty misdemeanor offense is that a person who is convicted will not suffer wrongfully from public besmirching of his or her character. To the miners of the area, many of whom are our friends, public safety is more important than humiliating Quentin. They can understand why Quentin is willing to face these charges. He is scheduled for trial in mid December. 28. RECLAMATION DAY During the first week of October, Quentin received a visit from his Probation Officer, James Murphy. Mr. Murphy was there to discuss the inevitable reclamation of the machine digs and the potential removal of the Workcenter. "They won't be satisfied until you're living in the trailer park in Lake George," he said, stating his opinion of the Forest Service's intentions. Quentin was very dismayed. He wanted to demonstrate his respect for the court decision to Mr. Murphy. The plan was that the Forest Service would come out in a week to document the areas that needed to be reclaimed and then schedule a time when Quentin could bring in a backhoe to complete the work with Forest service supervision. Seeing how upset Quentin felt at the idea of renting a backhoe to do reclamation work instead of investing that money into excavations, Brian House, James Delabar and myself offered to assist Quentin in hand-filling and reclaiming all of the digs ordered in the Magistrate's decision. For the following week, we worked painstakingly on the reclamation. One after another, we filled the pits. Other friends showed up and volunteered to help. We carefully replaced the overburden, which made the reclamation almost invisible. Five minutes before the meeting with the Forest Service, Quentin, Jason and I finished the final reclamation. Indeed, it seemed an incredible feat of superhuman strength. But it was accomplished with the help of many individuals. With a backhoe, the work could have been completed in mere hours. We had asked Jason to videotape the meeting for us, and he filmed it in its entirety. David Crumley, Todd Phillipe and Jeff Hyatt toured the reclamation sites and checked them off one by one. Mr. Crumley had difficulty identifying the areas that we reclaimed, affirming that we had done a great job. He seemed unimpressed that we had accomplished this great task by hand. The others seemed very impressed. In fact, Mr. Hyatt commented to the effect that the other miners in the area would now be held to this higher standard of reclamation, whether it is done by hand or not. At the end of the meeting, Quentin directly asked the Forest Service if he had complied with all of the reclamation requirements set forth in the Judge's order. The three Forest Service personnel agreed that the reclamations were acceptable and Mr. Phillipe said that he would be sending Quentin a letter affirming this. Although the reclamations were acknowledged as accepted before the court, Quentin has not yet received that letter from Mr. Phillipe. 29. THE WAITING GAME Quentin wrote a letter to Ms. Mayben, contesting the findings of the SUD. He is currently awaiting the results of the Environmental Assessment, overdue September 16th, which the Forest Service will publish in the South Park Republican and Fairplay Flume. Once the Environmental Assessment is published, the Forest Service will request another round of public comments. Then the District Ranger will issue her decision. There is a 45-day appeal timeframe following the decision, and Quentin will have to wait during this period to begin work even if Ms. Mayben approves mechanized operations. It is my hope that the remainder of this process will not be unjustly delayed or further hindered by the Forest Service. They had already effectively stalled the decision making process until well beyond the court deadline for the removal of the Workcenter. Again, it is a tactic that they use to avoid making a decision, thereby obligating the Magistrate to do so for them. This completely circumvents the administrative processes outlined in the laws and regulations governing mining operations. For it to take over a year to process an application for a small-scale operation that has been active for over five years and is similar to other operations in the District is completely unreasonable. When the Forest Service unjustly delays large-scale operations, the owners usually have the capitol to bring lawsuits to recover their losses. Typically, their businesses are not “shut down” for years at a time. Quentin proved that his reclamation work would be satisfactory a long time ago. This is tried and true, yet the Forest Service gives it no acknowledgment. Remember that it is not their job to regulate mining, only the effects the mining has on the National Forest. Quentin has no desire to lose further profits due to unreasonable delays with the Forest Service. This is part of the reason he decided to invest his bond money with the State, as approval for mechanized digging operations would exponentially increase his ability to profit from his mine. For the Forest Service to excuse their negligence by continuing to blame Quentin for processing delays is ridiculous and irrational. 30. BREAKING THE CHAIN OF COMMAND I believe the Forest Service has acted in violation of numerous laws and regulations. First, they have failed to follow the directives outlined in their own Forest Service Manual at Title 1100. These are the directives which state the purpose of their role in surface resource management. These directives instruct the Forest Service to follow the regulations prescribed by the Forest Service Manual and Handbook. Further, the Forest Service is not following the procedures outlined at FSM 2800 particularly: FSM 2814.24 “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.” FSM 2817.02 “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.” FSM 2817.03 “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 principle key to the protection of environmental quality in the National Forest System... 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 mining operations... Do not rely on the regulations at 36 CFR Part 228, Subpart A concerning operating plans as a means of solving existing trespass and unauthorized occupancy problems (FSM 2818) on lands clearly open to location under the 1872 mining law.” FSM 2817.23 “Review and Approval of Plans... Consistent with the objectives in FSM 2817.02, negotiations may be needed to effect changes in the proposed operations in order to avoid unnecessary surface resource damage but without undue interference with the proposed operation.” FSM 2813.14 “Rights of Access to Claim. The right of reasonable access for purposes of prospecting, locating and mining is provided by statute. Such access must be in accordance with the rules and regulations of the Forest Service. However, the rules and regulations may not be applied so as to prevent lawful mineral activities or to cause undue hardship on bona fide prospectors and miners.” -------------------- CP-Owner/Administrator
www.ColoradoProspector.com IF YOU USE IT, THE GROUND PRODUCED IT! MINERS MAKE "IT" HAPPEN!! |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 20th May 2024 - 09:51 AM |