Colorado Prospectors Uniting, Justice Needed Options

[The Kid]

: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).

[CP]

Okay, that was all the EA.
Now the following is his response letter.
The names have been edited out since this letter is not yet a public document.

Please take the time to review this situation and respond to the Ranger District office listed within the time frame.

You can use this letter as a template for your own or start from scratch, but use the information provided or other valid info to state your reasons for your disagreements.

And when your'e finished, post yours in the response thread if you feel like inputing some more info.


Now The Response Letter:

USDA Forest Service December 17,2003
South Park Ranger District
District Ranger (Name Edited), 4 pages
320 HWY 285
P.O. Box 219
Fairplay, Co1o, 80440


Dear (Name Edited),

Why does it seem like the Forest Service is attempting to prevent legitimate and well-planned Prospecting operations on the Dreamtime claim, and also attempting (nay, causing) undue hardship on a bona-fide prospector (myse1f)? Because it is quite obvious that they are. This EA must be a joke! But I know that it is not. I’m sure you and your department are quite serious about preventing my lawful and well-planed activities on the Dreamtime claim. Though some findings in the EA seem preposterous and even funny sometimes, I don’t find it so laughable. After all, this is my Iivelihood and property we’re talking about

Before I go into detail about the harmful effects Alternative 3 would have on my operations, I want to take a moment to speak about the lies perpetrated by the Forest Service in the EA. These are serious transgressions and are obviously intended to defame my character. That sort of a crime is called libel, and when perpetrated against a citizen by the government is, in my opinion, a capitol sort of crime.

On page one of the EA, it is stated that, in 1999, the Forest service modified my plan of operations, which they insist, even though the document was submitted on a plan of operations form (with the correct 0MB number for a plan of operations, not a notice of intent), is considered a Notice of Intent.
They accomplished this modification by simply changing the plan and trying to force me to sign it. I did not sign the new and altered document, instead keeping a firm grip on the original document signed by me. At 36 CFR. It is quite clear that the Forest Service may not just modify, a plan of operations at their whim. There is quite the process involved with modifying a plan of operations due to unforeseen impacts to the environment, none of which was done in this case. They simply modified the plan to get what they wanted and tried to get me to sign it.

In the EA, it is stated that they modified my Notice of Intent. There is no provision whatsoever at 36CFR228 for modifying a Notice of Intent due to unforeseen effects. According to 36CFR228, the Forest Service may determine that a plan of operations is required if significant disturbance to resources is occurring or will occur due to the operations proposed in the Notice of intent. So how does the Forest Service modify a Notice of Intent? Impossible (under current law)!

Furthermore, the Forest Service contends that, also in mid-1999, I refused to place a bond. At that time the Forest Service had not even requested that I post a bond. At 36CFR228, there is no provision whatsoever to require a bond to be posted with a Notice of Intent A bond only need be placed to cover for significant disturbance of surface resources, which would require the submission oft Plan of Operations, not merely a Notice of Intent. There is no doubt in my mind this “oversight” is deliberate and intended to defame my character in order to build public sentiment against me.

Also in the EA. It is stated that I am in noncompliance with the state because I do not have a Plan of Operations to Conduct Mining Activities with the Department of Minerals and Geology. Why would I be required to have a Mining permit when my proposal is for prospecting, making the proper document to file with the state a Notice of Intent to conduct Prospecting and the required bond, which I have held with the DMG since curly 2000? On page 2 of the EA, it says that I propose to: “explore for geologic deposits that may produce crystals and associated specimens including...” “Use mechanized equipment to remove overburden and open up potential or promising dig sites”. “Use band tools to excavate quartz and pegmatite veins, seeking small underground packets that could produce specimen-grade crystals and minerals” So, my proposal is obviously to conduct prospecting operations. Though I am quite sure the statement that I am in non-compliance with the state is also meant to defame my character and build public sentiment against me, it is even nastier than that. According to Teller County officials, anyone required to have a Mining Permit with the DMG would also be required to obtain a Conditional Use Permit with Teller County. This requirement does not pertain to someone holding a Prospecting Bond with the DMG. On the one hand, the Forest Service will not allow permanent structures on my claim because they consider me to be prospecting, but insist that I will still be required to obtain a Mining Permit from the state. Obviously their intent is to allow me the minimal amount of rights they can, while costing me the maximum amount possible! Why? So that they can prevent my legitimate and well-planned mineral related activities and cause me undue hardship in order to convince me that my claim is not prudent. I am not convinced! Of course my claim is prudent! I’ve supported myself from the minerals I have found prospecting my claim for five years, now. During most of that time all the work was done by hand! Sound prudent? That’s because it is.

I have held a Notice of Intent to Conduct Prospecting (and required bond) on the Dreamtime claim with the DMG since January 2000. On October 1st, 2003, (Name Edited), of the DMG, conducted an inspection of my claim, and determined that my Notice of Intent and current bond were adequate to cover my operation, although I was found to have one more dig open than specified in my Notice of Intent. I immediately filled the dig in question, although I was given the option to submit another NOI, which included the extra dig. Point is, where does the Forest Service get the authority to override state authority and demand that a claimant post documents with a state agency which has already determined that such documents are not necessary under state law? I’ll tell you where. In La-la Land, where the Forest Service officials create and change the law with no due process whatsoever in order to prevent lawful mineral related activities and cause undue hardship on bona fide prospectors and miners.

In alternative 1, I would not have to submit any plan of operations, would not be required to post a bond, and would be able to maintain a travel trailer on site for 14 out of 30 days (l70days a year), just like anyone from the general public. However, in alternative 3, where I would be required to have a plan and place a 20,000 bond, I would only be allowed to maintain the trailer (this trailer was deemed reasonably incident and necessary to my operations in the Surface Use Determination Report conducted on my claim) for 60 days out of the year. So, under the Forest Service’s proposal, the general public could camp on my claim in their travel trailers for 170 days of the year, Whereas I would only be allowed to maintain the trailer on site for my mining for 60 days a year, giving the general public more rights to occupancy of my claim than 1 would be allowed! How could the public be allowed to occupy my claim for almost 3 times as much as I could?

As their excuse for the 60 day a year limit, they use a Teller County Law that only allows property owners to camp on their land for 60 days out of the year. I have requested proof of authority to apply county law to my operations, and have received nothing in response. Even if Teller County did have jurisdiction, their law only prohibits camping for more than 60 days a year, not maintaining a storage and processing facility. Many people have travel trailers parked on their land year round. Though county law only permits them to camp in the trailers for 60 days a year, they are still allowed to keep the trailers on their land year round. Furthermore, I am not camping. I am prospecting/mining.

In the Surface Use Determination Report, the examiner, (Name Edited), determined that it was reasonably incident and necessary to maintain a travel trailer on site for storage of minerals and equipment, preliminary processing and display of minerals, and occasional overnight stays. This is the only accommodations for these activities that (Name Edited), found necessary to my operations. I have proposed to work the claim on a full-time and year-round basis, as I have for the past 5 years. By limiting the presence of the trailer to 60 days out of the year. Where does the Forest Service get the authority to limit my operations to 2 months a year? You know where. La-la Land!

According to the Forest Service Manual, a travel trailer is not a structure and is actually considered a vehicle (that’s why you register a travel trailer with the DMV). As such it is covered under the statutory right to access and does not require a plan of operations or a bond.




What about the use of the spring for rinsing of minerals? Let’s get one thing straight. I do not want to haul dirt and mud off-site. I only wish to remove valuable specimens, not ordinary dirt and mud! That would most certainly not be prudent. This preliminary rinsing of specimens does not release anything toxic into the ground or cause any sort of sedimentation or erosion problems (see EA). The Forest Service claims that cumulative effects to water quality and soils, even over 20 or more years, and without any mitigation whatsoever, to be minimal. In appendix C, under water treatment, it is stated that no bond would be required to mitigate for water quality, because the operation does not create any toxic mine tailings. Also, under Environmental, health and safety mitigation, it is determined that no mitigation would be required because the operation does not create any impacts from toxic materials. So, why is it that, in alternative 3, the Forest Service proposes not letting me use the water from the spring? On both the Federal and State level, mining is considered the highest beneficial use for water. Any member of the public can use the wiser in the Forest to rinse the mud off of mineral specimens. There are no impacts to speak of from the use of the spring for rinsing of minerals, so what are they trying to protect? Obviously another attempt to prevent my lawful mineral related activities and cause me undue hardship.

In the bond calculation included with the EA, the Forest Service determines that l would be required to place a bond in the amount of $l1,149 just to fill and contour defunct digs which would not exceed one acre at any given time. The Colorado State Division of Minerals and Geology requires $2000 for the same reclamation. Why the discrepancy? Is the Forest Service really that much more inefficient? So much more inefficient that it would cost them over 5 times as much to do the same work? In Colorado there is a Memorandum of Understanding between the Forest Service and the Division of Minerals and Geology, which says that double bonding is not necessary. The bond may be held with either the Forest Service or the DMG. I currently have a $2000 bond with the DMG. This bond ensures cleanup in the case I abandon ship. Since they are the holder’s of the bond, it is obvious that the DMG would be the responsible party. So, my digs are already covered by a bond. Where does free Forest Service derive the authority to demand another bond, especially one which is over 5 times the amount deemed necessary by the agency responsible for reclamation of the digs if I skip town?

Recently, last year, a neighboring claimant, (Name Edited), was given authorization to create two digs equaling just less than one acre. His bond calculation, the whole thing, not just filling of the digs, was determined at $1875. His plan called for the very same activities that my current proposal does. Another area claimant, (Name Edited), is currently working under a $6000 bond held with the DMG and obviously determined to be adequate by the Forest Service (as he is working with their approval). (Name Edited), is allowed to cause up to 3 acres of disturbance under that bond, and approval of his plan was obtained only about 3 months ago. I propose to disturb less than one acre and given a $20,249 bond? What is wrong with this picture?

Not only is the Forest Service throwing an unreasonable price for the reclamation of my digs, they tack on $1,650 for long term monitoring (inspections), $2,000 for contract preparation (?), and a 19% calculated indirect costs and agency overhead charge equaling $3,999. No one I know of has ever been forced to directly pay for their own personal regulation. This cannot be constitutional! It is most certainly unprecedented. Tax money is supposed to pay Forest Service salaries, not me personally! Though my operation is of a smaller scale than others in the area, my bond calculation exceeds the highest one in the area by about $14,000!

Imagine that. I am expected to put up $20,249 for a prospecting operation which will only disturb less than one acre at any given time, in the hopes that I will find something worth the investment. Insanity! Moreover, that bond amount would not even allow me to operate for more than, 2 months out of the year. nor would it allow me to use water from the spring to rinse minerals in order to decide which minerals warrant further processing (keep in mind that the FS has determined that this rinsing would have negligible effects to water quality or surface resources)! Even more, all cumulative effects of mining in the Crystal Creek area are expected to be minimal without any mitigation whatsoever. Who are they protecting by throwing such a huge bond amount at me? Do you think it might have anything to do with the 19%? The higher the bond, the more they get in the 19%. You don’t suppose they might like to take the huge bond amount, then arrange for me to have an “accident” and then keep the bond, knowing full well that it won’t take anywhere near that amount to clean up the site? I don’t like it and it scares me.



These proposed limitations and bond calculation are directly designed to prevent my lawful mineral related activities, cause me (a bone fide prospector/miner) undue hardship, and eventually run me (and all the rest of us bone fide prospectors/miners) out of the woods!

I chose alternative 2 but find the bond amount to be extremely excessive, unprecedented, and unfair. If the Forest Service insists on sticking me with alternative 3, it will be considered a taking under the 5th amendment to the Constitution for the United States of America. rest assured, if I am stuck with alternative 3, there will be litigation, and I’m quite sure I won’t be alone on this one.

Supplemental letter to follow.

Respectfully.



Quentin Howard Good



CC:

The Honorable Ben Nighthorse Campbell
212 N. Wahsatch Street. Suite #203
Colorado Springs, Colorado 80903

The Honorable Wayne Allard
111 S. Tejon Street, Suite #300
Colorado Springs, Colorado 80903

The Honorable Joel Hefley
5th District, Colorado
2372 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515-0605

Lois Van Hoover
Independent Miner’s Association
3151 Lanewood
Eagle, Idaho 83616

Mountain States Legal Foundation
2596 S Lewis Way
Lakewood, Colorado 80228