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]

Management Requirements
Management requirements have been incorporated into the proposed actions to meet federal, state and county regulations and permit requirements, and be in compliance with Forest Plan policy and regulations. These requirements can be found in Appendix A.


Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures have been incorporated into the proposed action to meet the needs of the management indicator species (MIS), threatened, endangered and sensitive (TES) species and be in compliance with the Forest Plan to avoid, minimize, rectify, reduce, eliminate, and/or compensate for adverse impacts of the proposed activities and can be found in Appendix B.


Monitoring
Monitoring requirements would also be performed to ensure mining operations and reclamation are completed as planned, and that unexpected resource effects have not occurred. These can be found in Appendix B.

Page 14 of 32




CHAPTER 3. KFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES.

Introduction

The affected environment is a brief description of the past and existing environment that could be affected by the proposed Mining operation.

The environmental consequences section describes what would result from implementation of the various alternatives. It is the scientific analytical basis for the comparison of the alternatives) and presents the effects of implementing the alternatives in terms of environmental changes.

Three types of effects are discussed: direct effects, indirect effects and cumulative effects. Direct effects are caused by the action and occur at the same time and place. Indirect effects are caused by the action but occur later in time or are farther removed by distance and are still reasonably foreseeable. Cumulative effects are the effects on the environment resulting from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past. present and reasonably foreseeable future actions.

Public Safety and Access

Affected Environment: Public use of the 20-acre Dreamtime claim is limited, but use is much more widespread in the larger Crystal Creek area surrounding the claim. Forest System Road (FSR) 201 provides public access to the Crystal Creek area, and is located on the far west side of the mining claim. The existing Dreamtime dig sites are concentrated on two or three acres within the middle of the claim. There are three pits still open, two with steep walls several feet deep, and therefore potentially dangerous to the general public who might wander into the area. These pits are not uniformly marked, flagged or fenced. The remainder of the 20 acre claim is not affected by roads, parking areas, structures or dig sites, and there are no hazards to public use of the area.

Prior to the Hayman Fire in 2002, there was widespread use of the area by hunters, motorized recreationists, firewood cutters, crystal miners and others. Since road closures were established immediately following the fire, public use has been limited to miners and a few others with valid access permits. When currently closed roads are reopened, public use will increase again.

The operator allows dogs to run loose on the mining claim, and a few Forest visitors have reported threatening behavior by dogs in the immediate vicinity of the Dreamtime claim.

Under federal law, the public has a right to cross and use the surface of unpatented mining claims as long as they do not interfere with mining operations.


Alternative 1 (No Action)
Pits currently open but not fenced would continue to present a small safety risk to people walking across , the mining claim. Under this alternative the operator would continue to mine under a Notice of Intent (NOI).
Until a new Notice of Intent is received from the operator or a Plan of Operations is authorized there would be a minimal risk to public safety.

Page 15 of 32




Alternative 2 (Proposed Action)
Mitigation measures implemented with this alternative would improve public safety above current levels.
While the number of open pits would increase from the current three to a maximum of five, pits would be flagged or fenced, thereby maintaining or increasing the level of public safety. In addition, the full time presence of mining personnel on the claim combined with warning signs and fences would warn Forest visitors of potential hazards Dogs on the mining claim could act to reduce public use for some Forest visitors, particularly those few traveling on foot.

Alternative 3 (Proposed Action w/ modifications)
Effects would be similar to those under Alternative 2. Because mining personnel would stay on the claim overnight for a maximum of 60 days dining a 365 day period, there would be a reduced human presence that could result in a slight perceived increase in public access in the minds of some Forest visitors. As in the other alternatives, the largest number of Forest visitors would pass by the claim on FSR 201.



Security of Mining Claim. Minerals and Equipment

Affected Environment: The operator currently provides full time Site security by living on the mining claim. He has installed one large sign, at least two small ”no trespassing” type signs, and a section of wire fence to discourage public access and use in the vicinity of his active operations. These signs and fence have not been authorized by the Forest Service (a current violation of 36 CFR 261), but they are part of the operator’s proposed mining operation. Some theft of crystals and other mineral specimens occurs in the area, according to reports made to the Forest Service by the operator and other miners. Preventing theft of minerals and vandalism to personal property and improvements are major concerns of the operator.

Alternative 1 (No Action)
Residency would be limited to the Pike National Forest’s 14-day camping policy. This is common practice for a majority of the claimants mining in the Crystal Creek area, where they move in for a short period of time (3-4 days), prospect for and extract minerals, reclaim the dig locations, and move out taking all their mineral specimens, equipment and vehicles with them.

Under this alternative security would he provided during the times the operator was living or camping on the mining claim During the rest of the time there are adequate accommodations available within 5 miles of the Dreamtime mining claim in the vicinity of Lake George, Colorado where the operator can store mineral specimens and equipment. The no action has no or little effect to the security issue since mineral specimens and equipment could be stored elsewhere off the mining claim.


Alternative 2 (Proposed Action)
Implementing this alternative with full time residency on the mining claim in compliance with Teller County codes would maintain a relatively high level of security. However, this does not guarantee the prevention of theft of minerals and vandalism to personal property.

Alternative 3 (Proposed Action w/ modifications)
Residency would be limited to a maximum of 60 days during a 365 day period under this alternative. Security would be provided during these times, same as under Alternative 1. This alternative has no or little effect to the security issue since mineral specimens and equipment could he stored elsewhere off the mining Claim.

Page 16 of 32




Water Quality and Soils
Affected Environment: Crystal Creek is located about a quarter mile east of the Dreamtime unpatented mining claim. Crystal Creek originates on private land less than one mile southeast of the claim. It is a small perennial stream that runs north and then west into the South Platte River, which is four miles from the project area. There are no perennial streams, but there are several intermittent or ephemeral drainages through the claim, running north to Crystal Creek. There is a spring (wet seep) that has been partially developed with a. garden hose and has been used for washing minerals. Riparian vegetation does exist at the spring Runoff from, the spring disappears back under ground approximately 50 feet downstream.

Soils on the Dreamtime unpatented mining claim and in the general vicinity are derived from coarse decomposed granite of the Pikes Peak batholiths. The site drains to the north at an average slope of 10 to 15 percent, with some short sections of steeper side slopes on dry side drainages that run into Crystal Creek. There is little topsoil development in these soils located on slopes and ridges, but some topsoil is present in low lying areas. Soils show little evidence of mass movement or erosion.

Bare ground is exposed on three-tenths mile of nonsystem roads crossing the Dreamtime claim, and by spoils from mining pits and trenches. The surface area currently exposed is approximately one-half acre. One-tenth mile of road provides access to the “developed” portion of the mining claim consisting of the trailer
site, parking area and dig sites. Another two-tenths of a mile of nonsystem road is on the northeast side of the mining claim, and is not used for mining purposes on the Dreamtime claim, but does provide access to adjacent claims. Approximately one-tenth mile of Forest System Road (FSR) 201 crosses the northwest corner of the Dreamtime claim. FSR 201 has existing erosion control structures including rolling dips and lead out ditches.

Since 1999, the operator has disposed of human waste by using Leave No Trace sanitation practices, specifically catholes, in the vicinity of the trailer and parking area, and near the individual dig sites and pits.
Gray water has been disposed of by dumping on the ground.

Alternative 1 (No Action)
Continued uncontrolled use of catholes for waste disposal and dumping of gray water on the ground could affect water quality, potentially leading to downstream surface and ground water quality violations. Without mitigation, ground disturbance from mining could lead to excessive aniounts of bare ground and higher erosion potential.

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.

Cumulative Effects
This project would affect very little of the total watershed due to the scale of the project and size of the watersheds. Within the entire Crystal Creek area (5,000 acres) there is approximately 40 claimants mining. Most are mining on less than an acre of ground. Currently less than 1% of the area is being mined to its potential? Even over the next 20 years the long-term cumulative effects would be minimal for the above mentioned activities even without proper mitigation.

Page 17 of 32




Alternative 2 (Proposed Action)
Soil erosion on nonsystem roads would be held to a minimum with construction of waterbars or rolling dips. With proper storage and containment of fuels, oil and other potentially hazardous materials, there should be no impact on soils or water quality. With required construction of a septic system, there would be little chance of water contamination. Cleaning and washing of minerals at the work area below the spring could result in small amounts of sediment being placed on the ground. Use of mechanized equipment for excavating pits for crystal mining or for constructing facilities such as the storage shed could cause localized compaction and soil displacement. Construction of a water well or cistern water supply system, and a waste water treatment system could cause localized but temporary soil compaction and soil disturbance.

Cumulative Effects
Cumulatively, no more than 15% of the claim would be allowed to be disturbed at any one time. This would include the existing disturbance as well as the new disturbance. This project would affect approximately 6% of the surface area of the mining claim. Within the entire Crystal Creek area (5,000 acres) there is approximately 40 claimants mining Most are mining on less than an acre of ground. At the moment less than 1% of the area is being mined to its potential. 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)
Mining, road maintenance and hazardous materials impacts to soil and water would be the same as under Alternative 2. Impacts to soils and water from construction of new facilities including the equipment shed and Aframe; potable water system and septic system would be eliminated under this alternative. There would be no water quality impacts at the spring or wash, station site with hauling water for washing minerals in a self contained system and disposing of effluent off of the National Forest.

Cumulative Effects
Cumulatively, no more than 15% of the claim should be disturbed at any one time. This would include the existing disturbance as well as the new disturbance. 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.



Compliance with State and County Regulations
Affected Environment: The current mining operation, which began in 1999. is not in compliance with CO DMG or Teller County regulations. Known deficiencies include the following: No state mining permit, no state water right or water discharge permit, no county building permits for structures or wastewater treatment no county conditional use permit, no county required potable water system or wastewater treatment system. In addition, the operator may be liable for obtaining business licenses and for payment of business taxes and/or taxes on personal property placed on the National Forest.

Alternative 1 (No Action)
Under this alternative, the mining operation would continue as it has since 1999. The Forest Service would require the operator to comply with all federal, state and county regulations. However, with this level of’ operation. it is not anticipated that the operator would be required to get additional permits from the state or County.

Page 18 of 32




Alternative 2 (Proposed Action)
This alternative includes specific management requirements that would bring the mining operation into compliance with state and county regulations. The Forest Service would not enforce state or county regulations, but would require the operator to comply with state and county requirements including permits, licenses, payment of any taxes due and construction of required improvements.

Alternative 3 (Proposed Action w/ modifications)
Under this alternative, the operator would not be required to install potable water or septic systems, or obtain a state water right or water discharge permit. He would be required to comply with all other federal, state and county requirements. Gray water and sewage would be removed from the National Forest by hauling the travel trailer to an approved dump station when tanks fill.



Economics
Affected Environment: The operator states that the Dreamtime mine is their sole income source. Although mineral specimens are not a major component of the immediate local or regional economy and have little effect in terms of economics efficiency, they are important to certain individuals and collectors. Forest Service national policy regarding economics of mining operations is to not question the validity of a mineral discovery prior to processing and approving a proposed plan of operations. However, the Forest Service can and in this case did conduct a Surface Use Determination (SUD) to validate the requests in the operator’s proposed Plan of Operations and determine whether the proposed activities are necessary for mining operations or are reasonably incident to the mining activity taking place under the U.S. mining laws. These would include the need for permanent structures and residency on the claim.

This section of the EA displays total estimated costs of management and reclamation bonding. For a detailed breakdown of management and reclamation bonding costs, see Appendix C.

Alternative 1 (No Action)
No management costs and no reclamation bond would be required. The operator would still be required to reclaim his hand dig sites and use the appropriate seed mix though this cost would be minor in comparison to Alternative 2 and 3.

Alternative 2 (Proposed Action)
Estimated management costs $36,344 and reclamation bond of $25,044. Costs could be reduced by $5500 by installing a cistern instead of a water well to provide potable water. Of the total management cost, just over $23,000 is due to State and County required permits and facilities.

Alternative 3 (Proposed Action w/ modifications)
Estimated management costs $17,908 and reclamation bond of $20,249. Of the total management cost, just under $2000 is due to State and County required permits.

If the total disturbed area is reduced, this action will reduce reclamation bonding costs.
In addition to these costs, off-Forest housing in the Lake George area would cost the operator an additional $500 a month or $6,000 a year. compared to living on the mining claim.

Page 19 of 32




Vegetation and noxious weeds
Affected Environment: This area is dry montane forest. Vegetation consists of a variety of understory grasses and shrubs, and an open overstory of ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir and aspen, with a few blue spruce trees. There is one small area below the spring that supports riparian species including willows, sedges and One obligate riparian species, American brooklime. During a plant survey in July 2003, it was determined are no known occurrences of any federally listed plant species in or near the project area. The same survey found no noxious weeds on the mining claim, but horehound, a non native species, is locally abundant. On portions of the claim burned by the Hayman Fire, there is an increased risk of weeds becoming established. The operator has used other non-native species, including crested wheatgrass, an aggressive non-native plant species, in past reclamation activities.

Alternative I (No action)
No effect to the vegetation from mining activities but soil disturbance from mining, road use, cathole sanitation practices and dumping gray water on the ground could all contribute to habitat for weeds.

Alternative 2 (Proposed Action)
No effect to the vegetation from mining activities. But soil disturbance from mining, facility construction, road use and reclamation could all contribute to habitat for weeds.

Alternative 3 (Proposed Action w/ modifications)
Effect to the vegetation and noxious weeds would be the same as under alternative1.


Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Species- Plants
Affected Environment: (The federally listed species, penland alpine fen mustard, occurs on portions of the Pike National Forest, but does not occur in this area or in montane forests with. granite soils. Another species, Ute lady’s-tresses, occurs just outside the Pike National Forest and was not observed in the project area. None of the Regional Forester Sensitive Plant Species have known occurrences in the project area including the following: pale moonwort, reflected moonwort, narrow-leafed moonwort, front range cinquefoil and dwarf raspberry. Other species of interest, western moonwort and yellow lady’s-slipper, have no known occurrences in the project area.

Alternative l,2 and 3
Because none of the species of concern occur in the area, there would be no effect on threatened, endangered or Sensitive plants in any of the alternatives.

Page 20 of 32




Timber Management and Forest Products
Affected Environment: The area has not been harvested for commercial forest products in approximately 50 years. Recent product removal is limited to small amounts of fuelwood, Christmas trees and live transplants. This activity has been restricted in the Crystal Creek area since the Hayman road closures were implemented in summer 2002. Under the 1872 mining law, miners are allowed to cut and use timber at no charge, provided that use is incident to the mining operation. Court cases have determined that this includes use of firewood on the claim.

Alternative 1,2 and 3
Mining operations would have no effect on availability of forest products to the general public in any of the alternatives.


Hayman Fire Impacts
Affected Environment: The Hayman Fire of 2002 burned lightly over the Dreamtime unpatented mining claim. Some nearby areas off the claim, mostly one to five acres in size, burned hot enough to kill the overstory ponderosa pine and Douglas fir trees. The area is already recovering from the fire with new understory vegetation growth, including aspen, wildflowers and shrubs. Horehound, a non-native plant, is locally abundant in severely burned areas near the project site. Portions of the area that burned at high intensity are at risk of invasion by weeds; however, no noxious weeds were noted on the Dreamtime claim during a botanical survey conducted in June 2003. There has been little if any fire-induced erosion in the immediate area, with only a small amount of deposition and ash in the drainage bottoms, and no evidence of down cutting of stream channels in this area resulting from the fire.

Alternative 1, 2 and 3
Impacts from mining, when added to those caused by the Hayman Fire, would be negligible in all the alternatives.




Affected Environment: Cultural resources on the Dreamtime were surveyed in 2003. The survey area included the immediate sites proposed for digging and fence construction, but did not include the entire 20 acres covered by the Dreamtime claim. The survey yielded three historic sites on the Dreamtime unpatented mining claim: (1) a peeled log spring box in poor condition; (2) a. possible historic two track road trace that was brushed-in during Hayman. Fire post-fire restoration activities; and (3) a historic structure foundation that was dug into a hill slope. These sites have been recommended as not eligible for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). No prehistoric sites were found during the 2003 cultural resource survey. The State Office of Archeology and Historic Preservation (OAHP/SHPO) has Concurred with the Forest Service recommendation.

Alternative 1.2 and 3
With implementation of standard heritage resource protection measures there would be no effect on this resource from mining in any of the alternatives.

Page 21 of 32