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]

After about 8 hours of pure computer torture I think I have the Decision Notice in digital format.....
Sure would have been nice to receive it electronically..... <_<

Anyway here is the decision.....
Quentin and Anita's responses will follow in seperate posts.

CP of the MRT

Decision Notice And Finding of No Significant Impact

Dreamtime Mine


USDA Forest Service
Pike and San Isabel National Forests
Comanche and Cimarron National Grasslands
South Park Ranger District
Teller County, Colorado


INTRODUCTION. The environmental assessment (EA) that discusses the proposed activities, alternatives and environmental impacts associated with the Dreamtime Mine is available hr review at the South Bark Ranger District Office 3Th Highway 285. Box 219. Fairplav. CO 80440. telephone 719-836-2031.

This document describes my decision and rationale regarding the Dreamtime Mine proposal on the South Park Ranger District of the Pike and San Isabel National Forests. It also describes my findings with respect to the need to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA.) The decision and finding are based on the EA of the proposed activities and alternatives for the Dreamtime Mine. and the goals and objectives stated in the amended Land and Resource Management Plan for the Pike and San Isabel National Forests and Comanche and Cimarron National Grasslands (forest Plan.)

BACKGROUND. The Crystal Creek mining area near Lake George and Florissant, Colorado has produced crystals and mineral specimens for a century or more, many of them museum quality specimens. Individuals have established more than 100 unpatented claims on the National Forest segment of the Crystal Creek area, and approximately 40 mining operations have been authorized. Mining also occurs on nearby private land within the Crystal Creek area. Individual mining claims on National Forest System land are 20 acres in size.

The federal General Mining Law of 1872 is the basic authority for individuals to establish unpatented mining claims in the Crystal Creek area. While the Forest Service is required to respond to mining proposals, under other federal laws and Chapter 36 of the Code of Federal Regulations. Subpart 228A, the agencv is also charged with insuring that surface impacts from proposed mining operations are mitigated on National Forest System lands.

.As a matter of agency policy, the Forest Service does not require or conduct a validity examination prior to reviewing and approving a mining proposal. As part of the EA
process, the Forest Service prepared a Surface Use Determination (SUD) report that determined quartz crystals along with the other mineral specimens found in the Crystal

Creek area are not common variety materials/minerals. Therefore, mining proposals in
the Crystal Creek area, including the Dreamtime project, are processed under the 1872
Mining Law as locatable or hardrock mining operations in accordance with Forest
Service regulations in 36 CFR 228.

The operator located the Dreamtime mining claim in 1998 and has conducted mining activities there for the past five years. In 2002, he submitted a proposed Plan of Operations and modified the proposal in 2003. The EA evaluates the proposed action, alternatives and impacts, and lists management requirements and mitigation measures for protection of surface resources on National Forest System lands.

DECISION AND RATIONALE. It is my decision to implement Alternative 3 with modifications to address specific concerns of the Forest Service and the operator This modification of Alternative 3 provides the best option for allowing mining to proceed on the Dreamtime unpatented mining claim, while protecting surface resources on National Forest System lands and reducing reclamation bonding costs, which is a critical concern for the operator. This decision will allow the operator to conduct mechanized and hand tool crystal mining operations. The operator will be authorized to stay overnight on the mining claim for a maximum of 60 nights per year, in accordance with Teller County regulations. The operator will not be authorized to construct any permanent structures such as work center buildings, storage or equipment sheds.

A Surface Use Determination (SÜD) report prepared by the Forest Service documents in greater detail specific actions and facilities determined to be incident to and necessary for this mining operation. Long term overnight stays on the mining claim and construction of permanent structures were determined to not he necessary for this mining operation. The SÜD served as the basis for operational differences between Alternative 2, the proposed action, and Alternative 3.

I will approve the plan of operations far a period of five years, until December 31, 2009. At that time if the operator requests. the Forest Service will perform a NEPA compliance review and may extend the plan of operations for an additional five years if the operation is consistent with NEPA requirements at that time. At the end of 10 years, a full scale NEPA analysis will need to be conducted again, even if the mining operation is virtually the same.

The operator will be allowed to park a trailer with no cooking and/or sanitary facilities on the mining claim for storage, and to use as office space and emergency shelter. The trailer must have wheels attached at all times. The operator will be required to remove the storage trailer if there is any break in on-site mining activity for more than 60 days. Visitors and guests will be allowed to camp on the mining claim for up to 14 day’s under the Forest’s special order 03—05. The operator will be required to remove human waste from the mining claim for disposal in an approved facility in accordance with state and local regulations. No potable water system or sewage system  will he authorized.




The operator will he authorized to construct and use a mineral specimen washing station, and to use water from a local spring provided he obtains a water right from the State of Colorado and any additional required permits from the any federal, state or local agencies regarding the use and discharge of that water.

The operator will be required to comply with management requirements and mitigation measures that will minimize adverse environmental impacts to National Forest surface resources. These measures are based on forest Service regulations, policies, laws for environmental protection. Colorado and Teller County regulations, and will he included in the plan of operations prior to approval by the Forest Service authorized officer.

The Forest Service will monitor the Dreamtime mining operations for compliance with the management requirements and mitigation measures, and will perform a minimum of two site inspections per year. Inspection findings will be made available to the State of Colorado and to Teller County. If the operator is not in compliance with any aspect of the plan of operations, the Forest Service will take administrative and/or legal action against him.

The operator may cut and remove timber needed to conduct mining operations, with Forest Service approval. Cut trees will be limbed, slash treated by lopping and scattering, and the entire tree length will he removed to Forest Service approved locations. Timber not needed for mining purposes will he disposed of through Forest Service firewood permit procedures.

The operator will be authorized to construct a fence no more than 200 feet from active or proposed dig sites as identified in this NEPA process to promote public safety and provide a measure of protection to the claimant’s operations. This “perimeter fence” will be constructed of either standard sheep fence mounted on metal t-posts or three strands of barbless wire mounted on metal t-posts. The fence will be constructed to Forest Service fencing standards. In addition, individual dig sites will he fenced or flagged with caution tape, chicken wire, snow fence or other material approved by the Forest Service, to provide a further measure of public safety. Fencing adjacent to digs may be removed temporarily when the operator is on site, but must he replaced anytime the operator is not onsite. Fencing along the exterior mining claim boundaries or at locations more than 200 feet from dig sites will not he authorized. The operator will be allowed to install limited information and warning signs with language and locations approved by the Forest Service.

The Forest Service will provide the operator with a recommended reclamation seed mix. The operator may submit modifications to that seed mix for Forest Service review and approval. Reclamation of disturbed areas, including pits and spoils, roads, compacted or heavily used sites, will he accepted when new vegetation has reached at least 50 percent of ground cover compared with adjacent sites and has grown at least two growing seasons. If the operator uses mulching material, he must provide written proof that the mulch is certified weed—free material, lf the operator observes noxious weeds on the claim, he will inform the Forest Service and he may be authorized to eradicate them.




Forest Service regulations require the operator to provide a suitable reclamation bond in an amount sufficient to perform required actions to restore the land to a productive state, in the event the operator is unable to perform those requirements. A Memorandum of Understanding between the Forest Service ‘s Rocky Mountain Region and the Colorado Division of Minerals and Geology allows both agencies to share reclamation bonding for a mining operation. When State required-bonding is not adequate to cover all estimated reclamation costs, the Forest Service can require additional bonding from the operator. Currently, the State of Colorado holds a reclamation bond of $2,000 on this mining operation. As the operator completes reclamation activities, the Forest Service may release part of the bond. If the approved plan of operations is modified or supplemented, adjustments to the reclamation bond may be necessary.

Acceptable bond forms include cash, certified or cashier’s check, hank draft, postal money order, irrevocable letter of credit. corporate surety, negotiable securities, and assignment of savings accounts or certificates of deposit.

The value of the reclamation bond is not necessarily the operator’s cost to perform the required reclamation activities. If the mining operator could not complete the necessary reclamation, the Forest Service would contract the required reclamation. The Forest Service is required to use Davis-Bacon Act contract wage rates in developing estimates for this type of work, as required by the Federal Acquisition Regulations, FAR 22.4.

The Forest Service will remove duplicate contract preparation and monitoring costs from the initial bond calculations. These activities will he funded out the 19% indirect funds received, therefore monitoring inspections of the mining operation will still be done.

The Forest Service will remove hazardous materials bonding costs of S 1,000 from the reclamation bond. The operator will required to comply with all state and federal regulations for hazardous materials storage, handling and cleanup. The operator will be required to use spill pads while fueling mechanized equipment, use a secondary containment system for all onsite hazardous materials, label all containers of fuels and other materials, remove an existing blue barrel containing unknown materials, and prepare a spill containment plan fir Forest Service approval. These requirements will he included in the approved operating plan.

The anticipated reclamation bond for the modified Alternative 3 is $15,595. Approximately 85% of the bond is associated with the costs to contract earthwork to fill and reclaim mining pits. The operator may propose changes in his operation, or in the specific methods of calculating the reclamation bond, for review and possible approval by the Forest Service. Adjustments to the reclamation bond must he approved by the Forest Service authorized officer, if the Forest Service has to use the bond to complete reclamation activities and the bond amount is not adequate to cover all costs, the Forest Service will send a bill hr collection to the operator for the balance.





An assessment of 19%, will be added to direct bond costs to cover Forest Service overhead, monitoring and other indirect and support costs to perform the contract reclamation work, as directed by the Federal Financial Reporting Standards established by the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board and F A R 22.4 At this time 19% is $2,490.

The operator will be required to comply with all federal, state and county regulations. If the operator violates any federal, state or county regulations, he will be in noncompliance with the Forest Service-approval operating plan, and appropriate administrative and/or legal action will he taken at that time. Teller County has authority to enforce building and sanitation regulations and to require a conditional use permit for this mining operation. The State of Colorado has authority to require mining permits, water rights, water discharge permits and reclamation bonding beyond the amount required by the Forest Service for this operation.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED.

Alternative 1, No Action. The no action alternative serves the baseline for the rest of the analysis. This alternative would allow the operator to mine using only hand tools with no permanent structures. The operator would continue to file an annual Notice of Intent (NOI) describing the work he plans to complete. The authorized officer would annually determine if a plan of operations would he required. Leave No Trace practices (catholes) would continue for disposal of human waste. Permanent trailer use would not he authorized and would be subject to Forest Service occupancy and use restrictions (Order No. 03-05) which is a 14 day stay limit.

No reclamation bond would he required for this alternative and there would he no termination date for the mining operations. Under the NOI process, mitigation measures would not he required. The Forest Service would require the operator to comply with all federal, state and county regulations.

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

The operator would he authorized to install limited signing and fencing to keep other National Forest visitors at a safe distance from potentially hazardous dig sites. Gray water and human waste would be collected in the travel trailer or in tanks mounted on a small trailer and connected to the travel trailer, an periodically removed from the



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

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

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

• The operator would contact the State of Colorado to determine if a water discharge permit would be required to wash minerals and dispose of the resulting effluent on site.

• The operator would obtain any necessary permits from the State of Colorado, Division of Minerals and Geology.

• The operator would obtain any necessary permits from Teller County that could include building permits, conditional use permits and other permits.

• The operator would obtain any licenses and pay any taxes due to the state and county for mineral sales and for structures placed on the National Forest.

A reclamation bond, in addition to that held by the State, would be required for this alternative. The mining operation could he approved for a period of five years, with renewal for another five years. Mitigation measures identified under Appendix B of the EA would apply to this alternative. The Forest Service would require the operator to comply with all federal, state and county regulations.


Alternative 3, Modified Action. Under this alternative, mining operations would be the same as under Alternative 2, including use of mechanized equipment. Modifications were derived from the Surface Use Determination (SÜD) report. This report recommends mining operations that are necessary and/or reasonably incident to the mining activities occurring under the U.S.  mining laws.

The operator would be allowed to stay overnight on the mining claim for 60 days. No permanent structures, facilities or water sewer systems would he approved. The equipment shed would not be constructed. The A-flame structure would not be reconstructed. The operator could have a trailer with wheels attached for temporary storage of tools and equipment. office space. and to use as temporary shelter.

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

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

A reclamation bond, in addition to that held by the State, would be required for this alternative. The mining operation could be approved for a period of five years, with renewal for another five years. Mitigation measures identified under Appendix B of the EA would apply to this alternative. The Forest Service would require the operator to comply with all federal, state and county regulations.


Alternative 4, Combination of Travel Trailer and Tent Camping on the Mining Claim (Dropped from further consideration.)

Under this alternative, the operator would be allowed to stay overnight in a travel trailer for up to 60 days a year, as allowed by Teller County. and the same as under Alternative 3. In addition, he would be allowed to stay the remaining 305 nights of the year in a tent. Mining operations would he the same as he has proposed in Alternative 2. This alternative considers unlimited overnight stays but does not require potable water and sewer systems. Therefore, it was contrary to Teller County regulations and was dropped from further analysis in the EA.


“””””Chart here””””””


PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT.  Scoping comments were sought from the public, agencies and organizations from June 17 to July 14. 2003. Comments were received from 46 individuals, organizations and agencies in the form of letters, faxes and emails through November 5, 2003.

Specific public involvement activities for this project included the following:

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

When it was completed, the EA was mailed to all parties who commented during the initial scoping period that provided their name and return mailing address as well as to key contacts, for a total mailing of 70 mailings. In addition, a legal notice was posted in the December 12, 2003 Fairplay Flume soliciting comments on the EA for a 30-day period At the end of that comment period. 23 responses were received by fax, mail and email.

An issue disposition document has been completed and is in the project file. This document describes how public comments from the initial scoping period as well as comments on the EA have been addressed. The issue disposition can he obtained from the South Park Ranger District.

FINDINGS. The decision to implement Alternative 3 with modifications is consistent with the amended Forest Plan and the National Forest Management .Act (NFMA). Management requirements for watershed, soils, Wildlife, fire and fuels, heritage and land resources will protect National Forest surface resources in the area.


The project complies with requirements of the Clean Water Act of 1972, Safe Drinking ‘Water Act of 1977 and all substantive and procedural requirements of Federal, State and local government bodies with respect to provision of public water systems (36 CFR219.23).

The Forest Service is required to identify, protect. interpret, and manage significant cultural resources on National Forest System lands. Planning for these resources is governed by requirements of Federal laws pertaining to historic preservation (36 CFR 219.24). A letter of concurrence for heritage resource clearance for the Dreamtime project area has been received from the Colorado State Historic Preservation Office
(SHPO).

The Forest Service is required to provide habitats necessary to support viable populations of Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive (TES) species and other wildlife according to the National Forest Management Act (36 CFR 219.19). Determinations of effects and viability to TES species and for management indicator species (MIS) in the project area were made by the District wildlife biologist. No TES species are known to occur in the area. The Biological Evaluation and Wildlife Specialist report are located in the project file.

The following Management Indicator Species (MIS) were chosen for the Dreamtime Mine Operation. Abert’s squirrel (Sciurus aberti). Three—toed woodpecker (Picoides tridactylus). Wild Turkey (Melegris gallopavo) and Mountain Bluebird (Sialia currucoides). The population trends for the Abets squirrel. Mountain bluebird, and Wild Turkey are stable to increasing throughout Colorado, and are  well distributed throughout suitable habitats in the state (Fitzgerald et al. 1994, Kingery 1998). The trend monitoring data for the Three-toed Woodpecker is sparse for Colorado and the reported declining trend is not reliable (Rvke. Wagner 2002). This species is also a sensitive species so it was analyzed through the Biological Evaluation process. The project will affect approximately one acre of land disturbance and could remove approximately 20 live or dead trees  which the MIS could utilize for nesting, cavity nesting, roosting, and/or foraging. Because of the small amount of disturbance, there will likely be no decline in trend over the planning area for these MIS. There is no efficient way to monitor the effects of such a small impact across the broader landscape.

Northern goshawk. a sensitive species, will not be adversely impacted by mining activities on the Dreamtime mining claim. No birds are known to nest in the area. The Forest Service will monitor the project area for goshawk nesting activity, and should goshawks establish an active nest on National Forest System lands within 600 feet of active mining operations, goshawk mitigation practices will be implemented at that time. These mitigation measures will restrict mechanized mining activities during critical time periods.



FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. I have determined that the Dreamtime
project is not a major federal action and will not significantly affect the quality of the human environment. Therefore, an environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required. This determination is based on the following factors, substantiated in the EA and project record.

1. Beneficial and adverse impacts were considered and there will be few localized, short-term adverse effects.

2. Public health and safety will not be adversely affected.

3. The project complies with all federal, state and local law requirements. Government agencies were consulted on the project and had no serious objections to implementing the project.

4. The decision to implement Alternative 3 with modifications complies with the goals. Objectives, and direction contained in the amended Forest Plan, Record of Decision and Final Environmental Impact Statement.

5. There are no unique characteristics about this geographic area found elsewhere on the South Park Ranger District or Pike and San Isabel National Forests. There are no prime farmlands, wetlands, floodplains, wild and scenic rivers or ecologically critical areas that would be affected. There will be no significant adverse impacts to minority groups, civil rights, women, consumers or environmental justice.

6. The effects on quality of the human environment are not likely to he highly controversial. Extensive public involvement, including consultation with county, state and federal agencies has not revealed any controversial effects. The environmental assessment was reviewed by the public for 30 days.

7. The effects are typical far this type of project. Effects are not highly uncertain and do not involve unique or unknown risks. Mitigation measures that the agency has successfully used before will he effective in holding environmental effects at or below expectations.

8. The decision to allow mining and limited overnight stays does not establish any future precedent for other actions that may have a significant effect. Future actions will he evaluated through the NE.PA process and will stand on their own as to environmental effects.

9. Cumulative effects of past, present and foreseeable future projects have been considered and evaluated and do not substantially add to the effects described for the selected alternative. With the exception of routine maintenance activities, all known connected actions associated with the selected activities likely to occur in the future have been identified in the assessment and the direct, indirect and cumulative effects disclosed. They do not create any significant impacts.


10. The action will not adversely affect districts, sites, highways, structures or objects listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. Cultural resources will he adequately protected by mitigation measures and other requirements.

11. A biological assessment and evaluation was completed to evaluate effects on TES species. The actions will not adversely affect any endangered or threatened species or their critical habitat. While the actions may adversely impact individual members of a sensitive species or management indicator species, the action is not likely to result in a loss of viability within the planning area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing, nor a loss of species viability rangewide.

I have determined that this proposal does not meet the criteria for categorical exclusion from documentation, commonly called a categorical exclusion or CE.  The Forest Service Environmental Policies and Procedures Handbook. FSH 1909.15, lists nine categories of actions that may he excluded from documentation in an EA or ElS. Category 8 includes short term, one year or less, mineral investigations and incidental support activities. The scope of the Dreamtime proposal exceeds both the investigation, or prospecting, and one-year criteria. Therefore a CE may not he used for this project.


ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW

This decision is subject to appeal under 36 CFR 215 or 251 Subpart C. Appeals filed by the public in general must he filed under Part 215 while appeals filed by the mining operator may be filed under either Part 215 or Part 251 Subpart C. Appeals must meet the content and other requirements of the regulation under which the appeal is submitted.

Appeals made under Part 215 including attachments, must he in writing and filed via regular mail, fax, e-mail, hand-delivery, express delivery, or messenger service with the Appeal Deciding Officer (215.8) within 45 days following the date of publication of a legal notice of this decision in the Fairplay Flume published in Bailey, CO. The publication date of the legal notice in the newspaper of record is the exclusive means for calculating the time to file an appeal (215.15 (a)). Those wishing to appeal should not rely upon dates or timeframe information provided by any other source. For appeals under 36 CFR 215, only those individuals or organizations who submitted substantive comments during the comment period may file an appeal.

Appeals made under Part 251 must be made within 45 days of the date on the notice of the written decision being appealed (251.88), Content requirements for such appeals are provided in § 251.90.

Appeals submitted as electronic attachments must be provided in one of the following formats: Microsoft Word (.doc), text (.txt), or Rich Text Format (.rtf). For electronically mailed appeals, the sender should normally receive an automated electronic acknowledgment from the agency as conformation of receipt. If the sender does not receive an automated acknowledgment of the receipt of the comments, it is the sender’s responsibility to ensure timely receipt by other means.

The officer making this decision is willing to meet with the applicant to hear and discuss any concerns or issues related to this decision.

Appeals under 36CFR 251 must he filed with: USDA-Forest Service, Forest Supervisor.
PSICC, Attn: Appeals. 2840 Kachina Drive Pueblo, CO 81008. Fax: 719-553-1440.
Email: appeals-rocky-mountain-pike-san-isabel@fs.fed.us.

Appeals under 36 CFR 215 must he filed with: USDA-Forest Service, Attn: Appeal
Deciding Officer. P.O. Box 25127, Lakewood, CO, 80225-25127. Fax 303-275-5134.
Email: appeals-rocky-mountain-regional-office@fs.fed.us.

If no appeal is filed, implementation of this decision may occur on, but not before, the fifth day from the close of the appeal filing period.





SARA MAYBEN      Date 02/17/04
District Ranger