ColoradoProspector   CP Club Membership Info.

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

2 Pages V  < 1 2  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Colorado Prospectors Uniting, Justice Needed
CP
post Dec 20 2003, 03:20 AM
Post #16


Master Mucker!
*****

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



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


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

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


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CP
post Dec 20 2003, 03:27 AM
Post #17


Master Mucker!
*****

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



Wildlife
Affected Environment: Wildlife is an important part of the Dreamtime environment. In 2003, a biological evaluation was completed for this project, with emphasis on (1) species listed Or proposed to be listed as endangered or threatened by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and (2) species listed as sensitive by the Regional Forester of the U. S. Forest Service. Several site visits to this claim and nearby minting claims have been made since 1996. Mammal sightings and sign include elk, deer, Abert’s squirrel, least chipmunk, beaver, coyote and mountain cottontail. Bird sightings include mountain chickadee, American robin, common raven, Steller’s jay, black-billed magpie, white-breasted nuthatch, Clark’s nutcracker, tree sparrow and western bluebird.

There have been no reports of animals falling into mining pits. The low-flow spring on the mining claim may provide limited water to individual animals. There are other water sources in the area, particularly along Crystal Creek which lies a quarter mile east of the spring.

The Crystal Creek mining area is part of Unit 511, established for hunting of big game by the Colorado Division of Wildlife. Unit 511 covers approximately 450 square miles or 288,000 acres in eastern Park, northern Teller and northwest El Paso Counties. Approximately 60 percent of the unit is National Forest System land. The unit extends from US 24 north to the Douglas and Jefferson county lines and from the South Platte River east to 1-25. The Dreamtime unpatented mining claim occupies approximately 0.00007 percent of Unit 511, and the larger Crystal Creek area approximately 2 percent of Unit 511.

Alternative 1, 2 and 3
Because mining activities would occur during the fawning, calving, and nesting season, this could affect the fawning, calving, and nesting success of birds and mammals utilizing the nearby habitat- Mining operations may also remove some of the cover/habitat at the site but due to the relatively small disturbance from the mining operation, there would be no effect on wildlife species or their populations.



Threatened. Endangered or Sensitive Species - Wildlife

Affected Environment: A review of research records and sensitive species lists shows that habitat in the project area could be suitable for some of the sensitive species listed here: pygmy nuthatch, flammulated owl, northern goshawk, golden-crowned kinglet, three-toed woodpecker, olive-sided flycatcher, fox sparrow, northern leopard frog, tiger salamander and Townsend’s big-eared bat.

A1ternative 1, 2 and 3
The Hayman fire created acres of snags, which could provide foraging habitat for the olive-sided flycatcher and three-toed woodpecker, nesting habitat for the flammulated owl; and roosting habitat for the Townsend’s big-eared bat. Therefore, the removal of snags on the 20 acre mining claim would have a minimal effect on these species.

Pygmy nuthatch and golden-crowned kinglet, species dependent upon live trees, could be impacted by the removal of the occasional live tree near an active mining pit.

The removal of 10 trees or more over a five year period across the 20 acre mining claim is very minor.

Their would be no effect to sensitive species listed here: pygmy nuthatch, flammulated owl. golden-crowned kinglet. three-toed woodpecker, olive-sided flycatcher, fox sparrow, northern leopard frog, tiger salamander and Townsend’s big-eared bat. There would be no adverse impact to bat habitat because the current arid proposed mining pits are small and shallow and do not provide bat habitat. And therefore, these pits can be reclaimed at the end of mining operations with no adverse impact on possible bat roasting sites.

Page 22 of 32



Northern Goshawk
Affected Environment: Northern goshawk is a bird species of special interest in this area. The goshawk is on the Regional Forester sensitive species list. In 1999, an active goshawk nest was found on the Dreamtime claim, and two juveniles were observed near the nest tree. Since then, no goshawk activity has been observed at or near this nest site. Annual goshawk surveys have been made every summer, including one in 2003, which failed to show any nesting activity. Quentin Good has said he has seen goshawks perching and observing his mining operations He believes these birds nest on private land north of his mining claim.

In 2003, Forest Service bio1ogists analyzed northern goshawk habitat conditions on 6,000 acres surrounding the Dreamtime claim, using aerial photos, Hayman burn severity maps and new structural stage polygons derived from integrated resource inventory (IRI).

Because most of the surrounding forest was unburned or lightly burned, the biologists concluded the area on and near the Dreamtime claim could still be suitable goshawk habitat. Habitat modeling indicates this area contains a capability index of 66% even after the Hayman Fire. The Forest Plan standard is to maintain an index value of 40% or greater.

After the 1999 nest discovery, several mitigation measures were implemented to protect nesting goshawks; these measures were applied only during 1999 because no nesting activity was observed in following years. Specific mitigation measures include the following:

• No heavy equipment operations between May 1 and August 31.
• Heavy equipment operations restricted to two days a week between April 1-April30 and September 1-September 15.
• Hand tool operations may occur during any of these periods.
• All trees proposed for cutting or that might fall due to mining activity must have prior approval from the South Park District wildlife biologist.

Dr. Richard Reynolds with the Forest Service’s Rocky Mountain Research Station has proposed stronger goshawk mitigation measures, should active nests be found in the future. He believes goshawk territory is still likely to he suitable and is probably still occupied by goshawks but the birds may have chosen an alternate nest due to the level of human activity near the Dreamtime nest. Dr. Reynolds recommends the following measures be applied on 30 acres surrounding active nests:

• No heavy equipment use from March 1 to September 30
• No hand tool mining from March 1 to September 30.
• No residency on the mining claim from March 1 to September 30.

Alternative 1, 2 and 3
The following non-active nest mitigations would be applied to all alternatives. Once the nest becomes active
Dr. Reynolds mitigations would be implemented. With these mitigations in place the proposed mining
operations would have no impact on northern goshawks.

Page 23 of 32




Historic Mining Activity and Reclamation
Affected Environment: The Dreamtime claim, along with surrounding National Forest land and nearby private land, have all been mined for crystals and minerals for 100 years or more. Nearly all of this mining activity has been done with hand tools. The extent of reclamation work associated with past mining is variable, and many digs have become revegetated naturally over time. There are hundreds if not thousands of historic diggings in the Crystal Creek mining area. Nearly all of them are small and shallow and do not pose a risk to public safety, wildlife movement, soil erosion or water quality.

Alternative 1,2 and 3
The extent of past mining disturbances that have not been reclaimed is probably much less than one percent of the area. Therefore additional disturbance from the proposed Dreamtime mining operation would be negligible.


Current Mining Activity and Reclamation
Affected Environment: The Dreamtime claim is just one of 100 or more mining claims on National Forest land in the approximately 5,000-acre Crystal Creek area. An exact count of current or past claim numbers is not available because claims are constantly being relinquished and new claims filed. There are approximately 40 active unpatented mining claims in the Crystal Creek area, based on Notices of Intent and Plans of Operation filed with the Forest Service. Most of the other mining operations involve small, shallow digs with hand tools and/or use of mechanized equipment for short seasonal periods of time. This work is
generally conducted on weekends during the summer months. Most of the claimants live within a half-day drive of the area, and sometimes camp for a few days on their claims during favorable weather. None of the other mining claimants in the Crystal Creek area live on their unpatented mining claims for periods greater than 60 days.

Even after a century of mining, the Crystal Creek area is a world class producer of quartz crystals and associated minerals. Discoveries have been made recently, including the 2002 discovery of a four foot smoky quartz crystal on the Godsend claim, one-half mile from the Dreamtime unpatented mining claim. Current operators are required to perform reclamation work of their claims. Reclamation bonds are collected for operations covered under a Plan of Operations, but typically not for mining activities covered by a Notice of Intent with insignificant impacts.

Alternative 1.2 and 3
Following reclamation, soil disturbance and other impacts from the proposed Dreamtime mining operations would have negligible impact on the larger Crystal Creek mining area.

Page 24 of 32





Appendix A

Management Requirements
Several management requirements focus on compliance with Federal, State and County regulations. The operator would be responsible for obtaining any necessary permits to comply with all county, state and federal code requirements concerning the construction and habitation of structures, water, health and sanitation. Permit requirements and fees are listed below:

County:

• County conditional use permit) fee is $1078.

• County septic system installation fee is $200.

• County building permit fee is $50 for equipment shed.

• County building permit fee is $1100 for a 500 square foot A-frame.

Teller County would require the operator to provide a potable water source, a permanent power source and a permanent wastewater treatment system when he resides on the mining claim for more than 60 days a year. County regulations do not allow outhouses or portable toilets.

County regulations prohibit dumping gray water on the ground, and prohibit attaching a travel trailer’s waste water lines to a temporary tank for periodic removal from the site.
The A-frame structure and the equipment shed would require building permits from Teller County. The operator would be responsible for applying for these permits. The cost for two permits is $100. Because of their sizes, the A-frame and equipment shed would require permanent foundations. Estimated contractor cost to construct a cinder block foundation under the A-frame is $2200, and $1000 for an equipment shed.

The operator under Alternative 2 would be required to install a county-approved septic system that would involve the following estimated costs: testing and engineering/design $1500, import fine material to decrease percolation rate $1000, install septic tank and drain field $5500. At the end of mining activity, the tank could be collapsed and backfi1led at an estimated cost of $1,500.

State:

• State “110” mining permit application fee is $875 plus $225 annual fee. State surface water right application fee is $136

• State water discharge permit annual fee is $750.

Prior to using water from the spring, the operator would need to obtain a Colorado State water right in his name for mining use only. At the end of mining activity, the water right would no longer be used for the intended purpose, and would be abandoned. The Forest Service would appeal any action taken by the operator to change the beneficial use from mining to any other use.

Prior to using water from the spring for washing minerals and discharging effluent, the operator would need
to obtain a Colorado State water discharge permit.

Federal:
Prior to approval of any plan of operation, the operator would be required to post a reclamation bond with the Forest Service. The bond would be used by the Forest Service to reclaim any disturbances and remove
any improvements in the event the operator is unable to do so. The cash value of a bond for Alternative 2 is estimated at $25,044 based on contract costs to perform the required work, inc1uding Forest Service administrative costs of 19 percent. Cash value of the bond for Alternative 3 would be $20,244

Page 25 of 32






Appendix B

Mitigation Measures
The following measures are designed to avoid, minimize, rectify, reduce, eliminate, and/or compensate for adverse impacts of the proposed mining operation.



Physical Elements of the Environment

Soils:

Limit temporary roads and other soil disturbances to the minimum feasible number, width, and total length consistent with the purpose of specific operations.

The combined area of roads, open pits, spoil piles, and other sail disturbances will be less than 15 % of the claim area. No more than 15 % of the claim area maybe disturbed at any given time from the Forest Service Watershed Conservation Practices Handbook, FSH 2509.25.

Non-system roads utilized through mining operations will be reclaimed to near-natural conditions immediately after the operations are complete.

Avoid operations during periods of heavy rain or when soils are wet.

The operator would be required to reclaim mining pits by filling with excavated material, recontouring, replacing topsoil and seeding with a Forest Service approved seed mix.

Heritage:

Identify significant cultural resources and insure that they are protected from adverse impacts through project avoidance, or the design of a protection plan that would insure the safety of these sites.

Known cultural resource sites determined to be eligible for the National Register by the Colorado Office of
Archeological and Historic Preservation (OAHP/SHPO) would be flagged and avoided during mining
Operations.

If a previously unknown site is discovered by either the operator or the Forest Service, mining operations that could impact the new site would immediately stop until the site is evaluated by the Forest Service and any needed mitigation measures developed

If additional digging sites are proposed under this plan of operations, beyond those already surveyed for cultural resources, they need to be surveyed before the Forest Service approves mining at these locations. If a water supply or wastewater system is required, the Forest Service would conduct a cultural resource survey prior to the operator constructing the facilities.

Page 26 of 32





Biological Elements of the Environment

Fire:

All internal combustion engines including but not limited to generators, vehicles, mechanized mining equipment and power tools, would be fitted with an approved spark arresting device or muffler in good working order.

The operator will provide and maintain hand tools for fire suppression in the event of a wildland or structure fire.


Terrestrial Wildlife, Sensitive, Threatened & Endangered Species Habitat:

If the nearby known goshawk nest should become active, or if new nests become active, standard goshawk mitigation measures would be implemented to protect birds from human-caused impacts. This would prohibit use of mechanized equipment between March 1 and September 30 of each calendar year, but the operator would be allowed to continue with hand digging operations during this period.

Water Quality and Riparian:
Best management practices will include the following specific recommendations from the Forest Service Watershed Conservation Practices Handbook, FSH 2509.25:

Limit roads and other disturbed sites to the minimum feasible number, width, and total length consistent with the purpose of specific operations, local topography, and climate.
Stabilize and maintain roads and other disturbed sites during and after construction to control erosion. Reclaim roads and other disturbed sites when use ends, as needed, to prevent resource damage.

Manage land treatments to limit the sum of severely burned and detrimentally compacted, eroded, and displaced land to no more than 15% of any land unit.

Mark the presence of seeps and springs and avoid damaging their normal flow during management operations

Maintain a 100 foot buffer on both sides of the spring. No equipment would be allowed within the buffer.
The operator will install at his expense a county-approved septic system, and county-approved potable water system or cistern if residency is authorized

No sanitation facilities, catholes, dumping of gray water or washing would be allowed within 100 feet of the spring and the wet drainage below the spring, or in any perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral drainage.

Any fuels, antifreeze solvents or potential hazardous materials must be properly stored to contain any leaks, and will be placed at least 100 feet away from the spring and any perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral drainages.

Timber:

All trees must be designated for removal prior to excavation of prospect pits and must receive Forest Service approval. Trees would he limbed, bucked, cut and stacked as directed by the Forest Service. The operator would be required to purchase a firewood permit to use any cut trees that are not needed in mining operations.

Page 27 of 32




Use and Occupancy of the Forest

Range:

Reclamation seed mixes would include only native species, and would exclude crested wheatgrass, smooth brome and yellow sweet clover, which are all potentially invasive species. The operator will use the South
Park District’s dry/lower elevation seed mix. The operator will seed 1.5 acres, which includes one acre of mining disturbance and another estimated 0.5 acre of road, parking area and high-use sites in the vicinity of the A-frame, equipment shed, and the travel trailer, if authorized.


Recreation:

Any warning or safety signs authorized by the Forest Service and installed by the operator will include text approved by the Forest Service, to avoid public confusion that the surface of the mining claim right be private property or closed to public use.

The operator will be required to fence individual mining pits to promote public safety with fencing material approved by the Forest Service.

Any other fences authorized by the Forest Service and installed by the operator will be placed in locations approved by the Forest Service in order to minimize impacts on the public and wildlife, while providing for public safety near dig sites.

Page 28 of 32




Monitoring Activities
The Forest Service will monitor all mining operations throughout project implementation to ensure compliance with county, state, federal laws, regulations and permits as well as this EA, Forest LMP standards and guidelines, and all other relevant direction.

The following specific monitoring requirements will also be performed by the Forest Service to ensure project design and implementation is completed as planned, and that unexpected resource effects have not occurred.


Physical Elements of the Environment
Monitor all disturbed sites annually for erosion. Document amount and type of erosion occurring.


Biological Elements of the Environment
Monitor disturbed Sites annually for noxious weeds.

Monitor the area annually to determine if goshawks are using the existing nest site or have constructed new nests.

Ensure only authorized trees have been cut down.


Use and Occupancy of the Forest
Ensure any warning or safety signs authorized by the Forest Service, have been installed by the operator

Ensure use of heavy equipment occurs only in areas approved by the Forest Service.

Page 29 of 32



Appendix C

Reclamation Bond Estimates
The Forest Service has estimated costs for reclamation practices on the Dreamtime mining claim, with separate estimates for A1ternative 2 and Alternative 3. In the event the operator is unable to perform required reclamation the Forest Service would use the bond to complete specific reclamation tasks through contracting procedures. Reclamation tasks are based on Forest Service national minerals administration Categories. These ca1culations for estimated reclamation Costs are based on sealed bid or in some cases negotiated bid contracts in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) for completion of work based on specific Forest Service directives and practices. Current Davis-Bacon schedules have been used for labor rates and equipment costs. In some cases bid-tabs (costs from Forest Service contracts which have been awarded in the general area) have been used. These costs are not intended to equate to what it might cost an operator who is renting equipment and doing their own work. Equipment costs are estimated for smallest suitable equipment such as a tractor or small front-end loader. Long term monitoring costs listed in the Environmental Assessment (EA) and Forest Service administrative costs are included in the bond estimate. The agency’s current administrative assessment rate of 19% (percent) is set nationally each year, and includes indirect support costs that must be added to all direct project costs.

Interim operation and maintenance

None anticipated =50

Hazardous materials site cleanup.

Estimate for analysis of material, including inventory, sampling and removal of any abandoned or spilled materials $1000.

Water treatment

Surface water impacted by toxic mine tailings, none anticipate = $0

Disposal of Structures, equipment and materials

Contract towing of travel trailer and one abandoned vehicle (estimated):

2 hours each item @ $125/hour for contract costs = $450 (based on local contractor costs for tow truck).

Contract demolition, removal and disposal of equipment shed materials by piling and burning wood on site, and hauling any metal and concrete to the Teller County landfill:
2 laborers for 1 day @14.91/hr x 16 hours = $239 + $50 mileage +$50 dump fees = $339.

Contract removal of fences and miscellaneous supplies and small equipment:

2 laborers for 2 days @ 14.91/hr x 32 hrs = $477 plus $100 ($50x2) mileage plus $50 dump fees = $627.

Collapse and backfill septic tank (estimate) =$1500.

Cap water well in accordance with State requirements or remove cistern (estimated) $1500.

Earthwork

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

Page 30 of 32




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

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

Revegetation
Estimate 1.0 acre in pits and spoil piles, plus 0.5 acre disturbed by access road, parking area, equipment shed and septic system.
South Park District Dry! Low Elevation seed mix which has an application rate of 40 lb/ac applied by broadcast method x 1.5 acres =60 lbs seed x $9.00/lb = $540 for seed. No fertilizer anticipated.
Labor for seeding and raking, 2 laborers for 1 day @ 14.91/hr x 16 hrs = $239 plus $50 mileage $289 labor and travel from Fairplay.

Environmental, health and safety mitigation

Mitigate impacts from toxic materials (none anticipated), and reclamation of open pits. =$0

Long term monitoring

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

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

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

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


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


Reclamation Contract Preparation and Administration

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

Page 31 of 32
Attached thumbnail(s)
Attached Image

 


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

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


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CP
post Dec 20 2003, 01:40 PM
Post #18


Master Mucker!
*****

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



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


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

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


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CP
post Mar 13 2004, 05:30 PM
Post #19


Master Mucker!
*****

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



After about 8 hours of pure computer torture I think I have the Decision Notice in digital format..... wacko.gif blink.gif wacko.gif
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

QUOTE
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

mad.gif mad.gif ph34r.gif


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

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


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CP
post Mar 13 2004, 05:52 PM
Post #20


Master Mucker!
*****

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



Here is Quentin's initial response to the decision..... :)

QUOTE
USDA Forest Service February 25, 2004
South Park Ranger District
District Ranger Sara Mayben
320 HWY 285, P.O. Box 219
Fairplay, Colorado 80440



Dear Ranger Mayben,

This is a letter regarding the Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact for the Dreamtime mining claim (XXXXXXXX). Though I see that some of my concerns I had about the Environmental Assessment conducted for this project have been addressed in the Decision Notice and FONSI, some crucial concerns have not been addressed to my satisfaction, and there are some items of concern that have presented themselves since reading these latest documents. Though I assume we can work out any problems with a meeting and further negotiations, I do not want to let my appeal timeframes slip by in the case this proves not to be true. Therefore, I request a meeting with you at your first possible opportunity to discuss these concerns.

In the case a meeting cannot be held within 30 days of the public notice of this decision, and all concerns resolved, I will appeal the Decision under the provisions of 36CFR251 Subpart C. Listed below are my concerns.

1.“The operator will be authorized to stay overnight on the mining claim a maximum of 60 nights per year, in accordance with Teller County regulations.” On the comparison chart in the Decision Notice, under the heading “Security” you see “overnight stays”. Obviously, the ability to stay overnight promotes security of the operation. How could overnight security be limited to 60 nights a year? My proposed operations are year-round, a lot more than 60 days. What if a bank, or other place of business where valuables are kept could only maintain a security guard overnight for 60 nights out of the year? Is the Forest Service willing to accept liability for the remaining 305 nights a year? If so, I request it in writing.

If I am to be regulated in the same manner, under the same regulations, as someone who camps on private property within Teller County, then you must be saying my mining claim, including the ground upon which I would camp is my private property. Therefore, to stay more than 60 days a year on that property without a certificate of occupancy would be in violation of the county regulations. If my mining claim (including the surface which, of course, would be where I would camp at) is private property within Teller County and Is the property referred to in the camping regulations, why was I told I would not be allowed to post signs saying, “Private Property” or “No Trespassing”, and if my mining claim is really within either the A-1 or Residential zones, why have I been denied the right to construct permanent structures, even residential, as any other owner of property within the A-1 and Residential zones within Teller County? Furthermore, if my mining claim is the property referred to in the 60 day camping regulations, then I have no obligation to submit a plan of operations with the Forest Service for the activities proposed, just like any other owner of property within the A-1 and Residential zones. The Forest Service only has authority to require Plans of Operations from operators conducting mineral-related activities on Forest System lands, not private property. When asked, an official at the Teller County Assessor’s office said that the 60 day camping limit did not apply to the National Forest, since Teller County only had jurisdiction over private property. She showed us that it only applied to the white areas on their map and did not apply to the green areas, which were National Forest.

2. “The operator will not be authorized to construct any permanent structures such as work center buildings, storage, or equipment sheds.” How is it that the Forest Service has decided that I must get a Mining Permit with the State of Colorado, and yet they insist that my current stage of activity does not warrant permanent, mining related structures? As far as I could find, the Forest Service recognizes three stages of mineral related activity. They are prospecting, exploration, and mining. When asked what stage the operations at the Dreamtime were at, John Neubert, author of the recent SUD conducted on the Dreamtime claim, stated that he felt I was “mining”, and yet, due to the “stage of operations” at the claim, no permanent structures should be approved. The Forest service recognizes no higher stage for mineral related activities than “mining”. If it is truly the Forest Service’s stance that I am mining, then they must have evidence that I have identified a valuable deposit and that deposit is the object of my proposed activities. In that case I request that I receive a copy of any and all documents held by the Forest Service which show this, and I demand that my permanent structures are approved, as there is no higher stage for mineral activities than “mining”.

Furthermore, though there is nothing in the law which allows the Forest Service to deny someone who has made a valuable discovery under the 1872 mining law the right to place permanent, mining related structures on their claim, there is also nothing in the law to say that tool and equipment storage facilities may not be approved for operations which are preliminary to lull-fledged mining/processing. I will be allowed to have tools and equipment (including a backhoe and/or other mechanized excavating equipment!) on site 365 days a year but I won’t be allowed to secure them or protect them against the elements? Rubbish! An insurance policy on equipment which was not allowed to be protected from theft, vandalism, and the elements, in the National Forest, would be outrageous! If the Forest Service insists on denying me the ability to place permanent, mineral related structures on my claim, then I insist that I am provided any and all documentation held by the Forest Service which indicates that I have not made a valuable discovery on the claim, and that the requirement to obtain a Mining Permit with the State of Colorado be stricken from the decision, as the State of Colorado may only require a Mining Permit for operations where the operator has already found a valuable deposit and that deposit is the object of the proposed or continuing activities.

3. “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.” I will be allowed to stay on the claim overnight 60 nights a year, but I’m not allowed to have cooking or sanitation facilities? I would be allowed to stay overnight at the claim site, but I would not be able to wash my hands or enjoy a hot meal if I did, whereas any ordinary camper, who is allowed to stay 14 out of every 30 days, would be allowed to eat hot food and wash their hands? I don’t think the Forest Service should be requiring me to observe rules that deny me the comfort or sanitation that the general public is allowed without any permit whatsoever.

Even if the Teller County 60 day camping restriction did apply to my operation, there is nothing in the law that says that a property owner in the A-i and Residential zones may not maintain a travel- trailer on their land year round. It merely says they may not camp more than 60 days a year in that trailer. No property owner in the A-i and Residential zones is made to remove their trailer from their property, or remove the cooking and sanitation facilities when they are not camping in it. It allows someone to maintain a trailer with cooking and sanitation facilities indefinitely, but they may not camp in it for more than 60 days a year. I respectfully request that this restriction be removed from the decision.

4. “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.” In the meeting held on February 6”’, 2004 to discuss concerns with the EA, John Neubert, author of the recent SUD conducted on the Dreamtime claim, stated that if I was not living there, then I would be just like the public and have to observe “Leave No Trace” guidelines. Why on earth would I be required to remove human waste if I am not allowed to have toiletry in the trailer? Why would I be required to purchase expensive facilities or services when Mr. Neubert said if I wasn’t living there I would be just like the public and would have to follow “Leave No Trace” guidelines? Why would someone who didn’t even have a mining claim be able to make a “pit stop” in the woods 365 days a year, while the owner of a mining claim would be required to observe some other, more restrictive rules? Visits to the site are by invitation only, except to accommodate licensees or permitees, and officers of the United States, and only where such accomodation would not endanger or materially interfere with mineral related activities, as specified by the Multiple Use Act of 1955,so I cannot be required to maintain “public” facilities.

5. “No potable water system or sewage system will be authorized.” I’m sure this has nothing to do with drinking water. If there is to be some limitation as to how much drinkable water I may have on site, I contest that limitation. Hard work out of doors at 9000 feet can require large amounts of potable (drinking quality) water.

6. “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 be included in the plan of operations prior to approval by the Forest Service authorized officer.” This statement is ambiguous and causes me particular concern. I need to know exactly what management and mitigation measures are referred to before my appeal period has expired, so that I may appeal any that I might feel are unreasonable.

7. “The operator will be authorized to cut and remove timber needed to conduct mining operations, with Forest Service approval.” I have already specified the areas where trees may be removed. It has already been determined that I will be able to dig with mechanized equipment in the areas surveyed in the process of preparing the EA, and it is a logical conclusion that trees within those areas are at risk. It would be unreasonable to require me to obtain some sort of secondary approval of each individual tree, costing me unnecessary delays and the government (and in the end, taxpayers) unnecessary administrative costs.

8. “Cut trees will be limbed, slash treated by lopping and scattering, and the entire tree length be removed to Forest Service approved locations.” What locations? I need to know before my appeal period ends so I may appeal if I find these locations unreasonable.

9. “The operator will be allowed to install limited information and warning signs with language and locations approved by the Forest Service.” It is very important that I am allowed signage which indicates that my perimeter fence is not like a grazing fence that anyone may cross at any time. The fence is being approved under the heading “Security”. I need signage which allows me to prosecute someone for violating my right to security of my equipment, digs, and other proprietary aspects of my operation. I know that I could not criminally prosecute someone who did not willingly and knowingly violate my rights. During the meeting between the Forest Service and myself on February 6th, 2004, Certified Mineral Examiner Ronald Baer suggested wording such as “Private Mining Claim, Proprietary Area”. At that same meeting you suggested, “Private Mining Claim, Contact Claimant for Access.” I was somewhat upset that you suggested last summer that I could post, “Private Mining Claim, Restricted Area”, and then in February of this year you decided that wording would not work. I still would like to use that wording, except to add the word “Danger”. If that wording will still not work for you, I suggest, ‘Private Mining Claim, Proprietary Area.” The wording, “Contact Claimant For Access” seems to indicate that I must allow anyone who contacts me access, including my competitors or potential competitors, even if they do not hold a permit or license to conduct some sort of non-mining activity on the claim. I could spend a lot of time dealing with these people and providing for their access which I am not required by law to allow. This time and energy spent and the violation of my proprietary rights by my competitors would constitute endangering and materially interfering. This will not work for me. I reiterate; I must be allowed to post signage and information sufficient to prosecute someone for violating my right to security of my operations, including the proprietary aspects. I would also like to post the Mineral Trespass Law at the perimeter fence. A bluff will not suffice. I need to be allowed to take actual preventive security measures, not just symbolic ones.

10. “The anticipated reclamation bond for the modified alternative 3 is $15,595.” $11,149 of that is for the reclamation of pits and trenches, which is already covered by a bond with the State of Colorado. I object to the double bonding. What is inadequate about the bond held with the State? It covers the very same amount of disturbance on the very same piece of ground. How could it be possible that, in their computations of finances required to clean up a 1-acre disturbance, that they underestimated the costs by $13,595? I cannot believe that they are that inept. In the meeting held between the Forest Service and myself on February 6th, 2004, you told me that if I could get estimates from local contractors which indicated that the reclamation would take less time than the preposterous 88.7 hours used to compute the current bond estimate, you would adjust the bond amount to reflect the lesser time. That’s something, but I still don’t see why you would feel that the bond required by the State of Colorado is not adequate. If I were to abandon the operation, the state would be obligated to clean up the mess because they hold a bond, posted by me, to be used exclusively for that purpose. I hereby invoke the provision that is 36CFR228.8(h). Under this provision, my “certification or approval” of bonding requirements by the State of Colorado must be accepted by the Forest Service as “meeting parallel or similar requirements”. I have been told numerous times, by your agency, that 36CFR228.8(h) only applies “to reclamation” or “to bonding”. Let’s apply it, then.

At 36CFR228.1 The stated purpose of the regulations is, “to set forth rules and procedures through which use of the surface of National Forest System lands in connection with operations authorized by the United States mining laws(3OUSC21-54), which confer a statutory right to enter upon the public lands to search for minerals, shall be conducted so as to minimize adverse environmental impacts on National Forest System resources. It is not the purpose of these regulations to provide for the management of mineral resources; the responsibility for managing such resources is in the Secretary of the Interior.” How could the Forest Service bond me for something that is already bonded? Protection of the surface resources has been assured by the State of Colorado, unless they do not reclaim it to Forest Service standards. Is there any instance of State of Colorado reclamation on Forest Service land that didn’t meet the local Forest Service standards for reclamation?

Furthermore, no one who currently holds a Plan of Operations in the Crystal Creek area has been required to post such a high bond, though some of those Plans of Operations cover an equal or higher amount of disturbance to surface resources. The Forest Service is required to be consistent in their application of bond amounts. If I must post a higher bond than my competitors, then I demand that they are not allowed to work until my bond amount and theirs are consistent, or I demand that I be allowed to work under a bond amount consistent with theirs until such time as the other operators in the Crystal Creek area are required to post an amount consistent with mine. Anything else gives them a competitive edge over me, and would amount to a taking under the 5th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.

11. “Teller County has authority to enforce building and sanitation regulations and to require a conditional use permit for this mining operation.” How do you apply county building codes to an operation where structures were denied? How does a Teller County conditional use permit apply to the National Forest? In September of 2003, I sent you a letter asking you to provide me with statutes, regulations, and policies which authorize the application of county codes to a mining operation conducted in the National Forest. At the meeting between the Forest Service and myself, held on February 6th you were asked to provide authority for county involvement in my operations, including statutory and regulatory authority. At the meeting you said you would provide that information. I have not been provided with that information. I am beginning to assume that I will have to wait until after my appeal period has expired before I will get this information, if I ever receive it at all. If I do not receive this information before my appeal period ends I will appeal the decision. I will not agree to anything that is not backed up by statutory and regulatory authority.

12. “The State of Colorado has the authority to require mining permits...” In a recent inspection (October 1,2003) conducted on my claim by an officer from the Colorado State Division of Minerals and Geology, I was told that I may at some point be required to have a Mining Permit. He said that if the Division had reason to believe that I had exceeded my Notice of Intent, I may & required to attend a hearing, where I would be able to present my case. He said that, at that hearing, it could be decided that I would be required to submit a Plan of Operations and acquire a Mining Permit with the agency. He also said that I would be allowed to continue work under my Notice of Intent while the mining plan was being processed. In the inspection report he referred to my operation as prospecting, and found my prospecting bond adequate, though he said that if I were to make more than 3 significant disturbances at a time I would be required to submit a new Notice of Intent  which covered the extra holes. In fact, at that time, he determined that I had l more significant disturbance than specified in my Notice of Intent and that I needed to either fill I of the holes or submit another Notice of Intent which included the extra hole. I filled the hole and I am in complete compliance.

I have not been requested to attend any sort of hearing before the Mined Land Reclamation Board. Nor have I received any indication from the Division of Minerals and Geology that my Notice of Intent is not adequate to cover my operations proposed to the Forest Service, except that I may only maintain 3 significant disturbances at any given time without submitting a new Notice of Intent which includes .any extra disturbances. I request the requirement that I must have a Mining Permit with the State of Colorado be stricken from the decision at this time. Of course, if the Division of Minerals and geology ever require me to have said permit through the process explained to me during the inspection, I will obtain said permit.


I look forward to meeting with you to discuss these issues. If you expect there to be legal controversy at this meeting; that is, if my requests, demands, or concerns cannot be met, I respectfully request that Ronald Baer- Mineral Examiner is present at the meeting to explain how these requests, demands, and concerns cannot be granted by law.



Thank You,
Quentin Howard Good
Owner/Operator-Dreamtime mining claim (xxxxxx)
P.O. Box 201
Lake George, Colorado 80827


Cc; The Honorable Ben Nighthorse Campbell Lois Van Hoover
212 N. Wahsatch Street, Suite #203 Independent Miner’s Association
Colorado Springs, Colorado 80903 3151 Lanewood
Eagle, Idaho 83616
The Honorable Wayne Allard
111 5. Tejon Street, Suite #300 Mountain States Legal Foundation
Colorado Springs, Colorado 80903 2596 S. Lewis Way
Lakewood, Colorado 80228
The Honorable Joel Hefley
5th District, Colorado
2372 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515-0605


K, theres good stuff to use in this one, just remember to write your own personal take with the information.......DON'T JUST COPY AND PASTE!
We want them to address each and every appeal with YOUR personal concerns......can't look like a form letter or it won't even be viewed.

CP of the MRT


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

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


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CP
post Mar 13 2004, 06:20 PM
Post #21


Master Mucker!
*****

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



And now Anita's "POWER" appeal letter!
TIS' REALLY GOOD TOO!

QUOTE
USDA Forest Service March 9, 2004
Attn: Appeal Deciding Officer 15 page document
P0 Box 25127
Lakewood, CO. CERTIFIED MAIL # 7003 1010 0001 9065 5097
80225-25127
Fax: 303-275-5134
Email: appeals-rocky-mountain-regional-office@fs.fed.us
Appeal Deadline: April 5, 2004 Decision Publication: February 19, 2004, Fairplay Flume



Dear Sir,

I am writing you this letter concerning the publication of the Dreamtime Mine Decision Notice and FONSI mailed from your office on February 18, 2004. I am a respondent to the public “scoping” process originally initiated by District Ranger Sara Mayben on June 14, 2003 concerning the notice of Quentin Good’s proposed plan of operations, submitted October 3, 2002. I followed my initial comments with a second letter to the Forest Service during their request for public comments concerning the Environmental Assessment of Mr. Good’s claim, which was received by the South Park Ranger District on January 9,2004.

This letter is my formal appeal under 36 CFR 215:

In my previous letters I stated numerous concerns about the processing of Mr. Good’s operating plan, including the calculation of his bond amount and the imposition of laws and regulations on his operating plan. When Mr. Good submitted his original operating plan, it included a table entitled “Rights and Obligations,” concerning Forest Service/claimant rights and obligations derived directly from the Forest Service Manual 2813 & 2814. During a meeting at the Dreamtime mining claim in June 2003, Ms. Mayben requested (on video) that Mr. Good remove the table from the operating plan because she was not authorized to approve an operating plan with such legal references without consulting the 0MB, a process she claimed could take years. Yet, in the Decision Notice sent by Ms. Mayben on February 17, 2004 she states:

“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 non-compliance with the Forest Service-approved operating plan, and appropriate administrative and/or legal action will be taken at that time. Teller County has authority to enforce building and sanitation regulations and to require a conditional use permit for this 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.” She later states, “The operator would be 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.”



How many agencies is the Forest service attempting to represent here? I object to the addition of these and related statements to the official decision and do not feel it is legal for the Forest Service to require Mr. Good to sign a plan with such language written into it. If the Forest Service would not accept Mr. Good’s “rights and obligations” table, which reflects their own policies, where does the Ranger derive the authority to make the above statement? In fact, I object to any reference to the State or County in this operating plan. The 0MB requires no such statements, nor are they allowed without consultation, according to Ms. Mayben. Further, FSM 2855 states, “...A plan has no special format; its complexity and length may vary with the scope of the proposed operation and with the anticipated environmental impacts. The only requirement is that the plan must include the information specified at 36 CFR 228.56...”

As I stated in my letter dated January 9, 2004:

“Ron Baer also stated in court and under penalty of perjury, ‘There’s no requirement to check with the State. We cannot hold up essentially an approval of an Operating Plan because the operator has not, you know, got his permits in line with the State.’ Further, in the EA it is stated, ‘The Forest Service would not enforce State or county regulations...”’

I must ask again, where is the Forest Service deriving its authority to require mining claimants to consent to such terms? Have any other claimants in the area been warned like this by the District? During a meeting I attended on February 6, 2004 concerning the proposed operations, Ms. Mayben again promised me she would provide the regulatory provision which allows her to impose county regulations to this operation. She was initially asked to provide this information on June 6, 2003 and then I asked her again in both of my comment letters. The last time I asked her the question, I asked pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act and she still has not provided a response despite my numerous requests.

The particular regulation the Forest Service is referring to when it insists that Mr. Good must follow county regulations is one that they claim would limit the legal occupancy of the mining claim to only 60 days per year. But where does the county derive jurisdiction over the length of stay on a mining claim located within the National Forest? In fact, the District received a letter from Jean Garren, of the Teller County Planning Department wherein she blatantly states: “Lake George is in Park County rather than in Teller County.”

I recently accompanied Mr. Good and Jason Uecker to the Teller County Planning Department in Woodland Park. While there, we inquired about the imposition of county camping regulations for designated A-1 and residential zones within the boundaries of the National Forest. The person we spoke with seemed perplexed by our question. She told us that the county did not have jurisdiction on National Forest land and that the 60-day camping policy only applied to private property located within the zoned portions of Teller County. She instructed us to consult the Forest Service in order to determine the length a person may camp in the forest.

Is incidental occupancy of a mining claim synonymous with camping? I think not. Or is the Forest Service acknowledging Mr. Good’s status as a private property owner within the National Forest zoned for residential occupancy? If so, why is Mr. Good denied the “residence” part of the equation? Where is the MOU or other agreement between the Forest Service and the county stating that county camping regulations supercede statutory rights related to claim occupancy?

Ironically, the Forest Service makes mention of Occupancy and Use Restrictions (Order No. 03-05). How can these apply to anyone proposing occupancy of a mining claim in an operating plan? The order actually allows ANY member of the public to camp at a single site more than 60 days per year WITHOUT any permits or prior authorization. Alternative One allows Mr. Good his minimum access to the claim as a member of the general public. In the Environmental Assessment of the proposal, Ms. Mayben states:

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

Doing the math, this allows ANYONE to camp at a single site for 85 days/nights per year! How many taxpayer dollars did the District spend to prohibit this activity for Mr. Good? I consider this a complete waste of my money and extremely negligent on the part of the Forest Service.

So the Forest Service is actually proposing to ALLOW Mr. Good to stay on his claim overnight? I ask, where does the Forest Service get the notion it has the option to deny such limited use in the first place? Why go through the extensive operating plan process to authorize a use which does not even parallel the rights of the general public? Certainly, the Forest Service would not want to mislead the public by an implication that stays of 60 days would actually require approval, or that persons could expect to be charged with violations of county regulations for exercising their right to camp for 85 (not 60) days per year at one site.

If the Forest service insists that Mr. Good cannot occupy his claim for periods greater than 60 days per year, then the Forest Service is not actually authorizing anything since he already has the right to such limited claim access without approval! I object to the implication that Mr. Good requires approval for this duration of occupancy and request that all references to “approving occupancy” of Mr. Good’s claim be removed from the decision.

In the Decision Notice Ms. Mayben states: “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 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 FACILITIES!?**?! In fact, Ms. Garren wrote; “...There is no environmental health regulation prohibiting the use of a self contained trailer...” I myself can access Mr. Good’s claim, with his permission, and camp for 85 days with a fully equipped RV or travel trailer, and may use catholes. In fact, in the EA Ms. Mayben made the determination that the ~se of catholes in the area in general (the Crystal Creek mining area) would cause no significant impacts to the environment. Obviously campers are being allowed more rights to access than the claimant is, and this is not in accordance with the laws, regulations, directives and policies which govern mining activities on National Forest System Lands.

Why would Mr. Good be forced to take measures to remove human waste that the general public can leave behind in catholes when the Forest Service is not even authorized to require Mr. Good to have approval for this activity? And are you saying that if you catch him cooking a hotdog on a propane stove he will be out of compliance with his operating plan?

Let me remind you- YOU ARE NOT LAWMAKERS! It is not your job to prohibit legitimate prospecting operations. This is just what your agency has done in this case. For instance, Mr. Nuebert’s Surface Use Determination (SUD) indicated that the structures (the A-frame, fences, signs and trailer) were in fact being used for mining- related purposes, (storage of equipment, display and shelter of specimens, office space, etc.).

Yet, contrary to this, Mr. Neubert determined that the A-frame and proposed storage shed would not be reasonably incident to the operations. I have a videotape of the contents of the A-frame. Forest Service officials attended a meeting within the structure and were well aware of the “incidental” use of the structure. Mr. Neubert stated that the operation could likely last 20 years. Contrary to this, he indicated that he did not believe that the stage of the operations and long-term plan Mr. Good had developed warranted the placement of his structures, which Mr. Neubert described as permanent, despite their temporary nature. Mr. Neubert stated (on video) that due to a lack of regional direction on the matter, BLM 3715 regulations would be used as a “guideline” in determining what was reasonably incidental to the operations with respect to structures and surface use.

He seems to have abandoned the regulations at 43 CFR 3715.1-3, which clearly indicate that the operations at the mining claim, as proposed by the claimant, were in fact harmonious with the intent of the mining law. The Forest Service Manual (FSM 2818 particularly) focuses on the issue of occupancy on mining claims with an entire section on the subject. This section also covers unauthorized occupancy with very detailed directives on how to proceed when there is a concern that a structure or occupancy of a mining claim is not actually related to mining activities. Since the Forest Service successfully convicted Mr. Good of working his claim as proposed in his operating plans and Notice of Intent held with the State of Colorado, there can be no doubt that he has been actively engaged in legitimate activities for over five years now and that the occupancy of his claim was an inherent part of the continuing development of his operations.

Incidentally, although the SUD was conducted at the site on July 18, 2003, Mr. Neubert did not complete the report until mid-October, nearly three months later, an unreasonable delay for Mr. Good. This was followed months later (more delays) by an EA which was prepared with the consideration that Teller County planning residential camping regulations were applicable to the National Forest, on a mining claim located within Lake George, where Teller county officials do not claim jurisdiction. The Ranger provided no law of any kind or reference to any statute or code that would indicate where she determined these regulations were applicable to Mr. Good’s proposal. The analysis of Alternative #2 was prepared with improper information, according to the letter from Ms. Garren.

By avoiding and ignoring the administrative processes outlined in the Forest Service Manual as well as the timeframes outlined at 36 CFR 228.5 (5)(b), the agency did in fact prohibit a legitimate mining activity!!!

There is also the problem that this “decision” was outcome-based, as opposed to the outcome being decision-based. The Forest Service had clearly predetermined which outcome they would prefer and discriminatorily and arbitrarily manifested the desired outcome. This is evidenced by many of Ms. Mayben’s definitive statements before Magistrate Boland concerning decisions being made about Mr. Good’s plan, prior to the issuance of the SUD, the EA and this Decision Notice. In my last letter I implied that the Forest Service may be in “cahoots” with Ms. Garren,, and was shocked to read the following statement from the Teller County official:

“‘Decisions to be Made.’ It is not clear that all of these items are decisions to be made; it appears that some of them are decisions that have already been made...”

What the? I have accused the Forest Service of violating numerous laws, regulations, policies and directives in my previous letters and have already stated my reasons for believing that I am correct in my perception of the situation. I have cited extensive case law and have participated in Congressional Inquiries regarding this matter. I wish for all of this information to be incorporated into this appeal.

I seek the following changes to be made to the Decision Document:

1. Remove all statements concerning the claimant’s compliance with Teller County and State regulations from the document. They are not required or mandated statements. No other claimants are required to agree to such terms, as these conditions do not fall under the category of surface resource protection. The Forest Service is not delegated the authority to enforce County or State regulations. The claimant has notified the State of his prospecting operations and has had permission from the State to conduct his operations since February 2000. His operation does not even require a County permit, as apparently Teller won’t officially accept jurisdiction (per Ms. Garren’s letter), and under current Teller County Land Use Regulations, a conditional use permit (CUP) is only required for activities occurring on private property, zoned or subdivided in Teller County. In an earlier letter, Ms. Garren stated:

“If a State permit is required, Teller County is within its jurisdiction to require, as we have in the past, issuance of its own mining permit...”

But the State has not required Mr. Good to submit and permit beyond his simple Notice of Intent and Reclamation Bond. In fact, the Forest service has not even allowed Mr. Good to conduct operations under his Notice of Intent with the State without undue grief and prosecution. Ms. Garren specifies that the CA-l0 Camping in the Al and Residential Zone Districts apply to “private property”.

Both the State and the County have notification processes wherein mining claimants are made aware of their need to comply with SPECIFIED regulations. They will notify Mr. Good of the status of his relationship with them, and they will take what enforcement provisions are necessary to ensure his operations comply with their regulations.

As a resident of Teller County and of the State of Colorado, Mr. Good is naturally obligated to follow the law. He does not need to enter into such a contract with the Forest Service, as they have no judicial authority in this matter!

2. Remove the additional bond requirement from Mr. Good’s approval. Mr. Good
has held a bond with the Division of Minerals and Geology (DMG), who has primary responsibility over the reclamation of his proposed disturbance site. Mr. Good has no history of failing to reclaim the disturbances caused by his operations to an excellent standard, and the Ranger personally assured me at the February 6, 2004 meeting that she did not feel he was a risk in matters of skipping out on his reclamation responsibilities.

I have continuously expressed my concerns about the bonding, especially the excessive estimate of the time needed to reclaim the disturbances with earthmoving equipment. In what way is this one burned acre more difficult to reclaim than the DMG assesses? In what way is it worth the $15,000 the Forest Service was last seeking as a bond? One acre, with scalded surface resources is not worth much in the adjacent Indian Creek Subdivision, according to recent market analysis findings. The claimant would be better served if he purchased the acre from the Forest Service. That alternative would certainly be more economically practical for him. For $15,000 he could afford the entire 22 acre claim!!!!

The imposition of the Bacon-Davis schedule to this operation is not consistent with the operations approved by Ranger Mayben for other area claimants. This gives Mr. Good’s competitors a marked advantage. When I learned that there were apparent conflicts of interest with the Ranger and her official responsibilities with regard to personal friends, family and associates who held claims in the area, I was curious enough to investigate a bit more. Turns out, the only persons within the Crystal Creek mining area with current approved operations are all tied to Ms. Mayben. None of them have Bacon- Davis figures applied to their bonds.

During the February 6,2004 meeting Ms. Mayben stated that she had made “mistakes” approving all of those operations, and that technically none of the operators were compliant with the regulations, though they were sheltered from liability because she had approved their operations. Those mistakes have been giving Mr. Good’s competitors an edge for years already, as each operator was given an illegitimate Categorical Exclusion allowing them to mine with mechanized equipment (according to Ms. Mayben), while Mr. Good was not allowed to do so. The State has already permitted him to commence operations under his prospecting permit, but the Forest Service only charged him with damaging US property when he began working.

My point is, Mr. Good has already incurred costs and damages related to the inconsistent treatment of his proposals, to now impose unprecedented bond requirements while these other operators continue to operate under their significantly more affordable bonds and accumulate inventory which will only add to the unfair treatment and undue hardship endured by this individual.

The economy fluctuates. The simple laws of supply and demand apply. You are preventing Mr. Good from prospering by allowing others to set the market for his mineral estate. Other claimants mine their claims with machinery, increasing their production and the overall efficiency of their operations, greatly reducing their comparative overhead. It costs them a lot less to produce an Amazonite pocket and perform the subsequent reclamation than it has cost him. Why should this trend continue? Others can market the specimens for an equivalent value, but because you arbitrarily increased the cost for Mr. Good to produce his inventory his venture is ultimately less profitable.

The Forest Service completely ignored the fact that Mr. Dennis O’Rourke commented that he was an investor for the operation and was contemplating purchasing a backhoe with specific consideration and regard to continuous reclamation activities at the site. This would greatly reduce the burden of the operator. However, Mr. Neubert suggested that parking the machine under a tarp would be an adequate security measure. I’m not sure Mr. O’Rourke’s insurance company would agree with him. The presence of equipment on site would greatly reduce reclamation costs for the operator as well.

If Mr. Good can provide estimates or bids from local contractors which reflect that it will take less time to complete the reclamation at a lower cost, the Forest Service should accept them, but only AFTER the agency has demonstrated that the bond held with the DMG is inadequate and has formally stated their reason for believing so. What surface resource needs such special protection on this one burned acre? According to the EA and resultant FONSI, there are no special mitigation requirements for Mr. Good’s proposal.

In fact, all of the wrongfully imposed bureaucratic processing of this operating plan and improper administration of the regulations turned out to be fruitless for the Forest Service. The EA determined no significant impacts associated with Mr. Good’s original proposal, and therefore it should be approved without unreasonable mitigation and bond requirements. In accordance with the MOU between the Forest Service and the State of Colorado signed in 1981, the bond currently held by Mr. Good meets the requirements of 36 CFR 228.51, 36 CFR 228.8(h), and FSM 6506.

3. Acknowledge claimant’s rights to proprietary security. Even in the capacity of performing official responsibilities, Forest Service employees should be discouraged from “materially interfering” with the operations at the Dreamtime mining claim. This can best be addressed by notifying the claimant in advance of routine inspections so that a representative can be present to make sure that specimens are not destroyed and that proprietary aspects can remain undisclosed and protected. According to FSM 2817.22 “...Access to, interpretation, and evaluation of necessary information identified as proprietary and secret by the operator should be on a need-to-know basis insofar as Forest Service personnel are concerned...” Proprietary concerns of the operator are justified in an area well-known for its mineral history, both in his records and at his operation site. Any activity that Mr. Good proposed with respect to his right to protect proprietary information concerning his operations should be approved by the Forest Service, as it has been determined that there are no significant environmental impacts associated with his proposal.

4. Approve Mr. Good’s proposal. Nothing in Mr. Good’s proposal is unreasonable or causes unnecessary or undue degradation to surface resources located within National Forest system lands. Nothing in Mr. Good’s proposal is unlawful as suggested by Ranger Mayben’s EA.
A careful reevaluation of the findings of Mr. Neubert’s SUI) will reveal numerous contradictory and irreconcilable statements. Rusty Dersch, who reviewed Mr. Neubert’s report, also reviewed a report authored by Mr. Baer for the neighboring Topaz Mountain Gem Mine. I am surprised that he did not note the blatant inconsistencies between the two evaluations. I request that the Forest Service provide a comparative analysis explaining the apparent differences between the two SUDs.

5. Remove statements concerning the approval of “occupancy” on the mining claim. If the Forest Service is going to “approve” occupancy, then it should be under the year-round term proposed by the operator, which is consistent with the intent of the mining laws. Otherwise, as previously mentioned the occupancy does not require any type of approval or permit from the Forest Service whatsoever and is certainly not required to be a part of this agreement.

6. Publish a retraction of misleading remarks made by the District Ranger. One of the stipulations of a petty misdemeanor offense is that in being found guilty of having committed such an offense one’s reputation will not be publicly besmirched. The charges brought against Mr. Good by the Forest Service were all petty misdemeanor offenses. Yet, I am privy to numerous instances where Forest Service officials have participated both privately and publicly in the “besmirching” of Mr. Good’s reputation. I have already detailed some of these instances in my previous correspondences with the Forest Service and Congressional representatives. However, I recently received direct evidence confirming my fear that Mr. Good would suffer from improper public scrutiny resulting from the Forest Service’s campaign to ruin him financially. Sadly, one respondent wrote a letter to the District commenting, “...Because a reclamation bond was requested in 1999, but refused to be signed by the operator of the Dreamtime Mine, that operator has demonstrated unwillingness to work with legal authorities...” The problem with his opinion is that this individual was generally misinformed.

I discussed this briefly in my last letter to the Forest Service. The facts indicate that no such request was made and denied. Mr. Good always had a bond sufficient to cover his operations in place with the DMG. When I confronted Ranger Mayben at the February 6, 2004 meeting concerning the defamation of Mr. Good’s character (her statement in the EA that Mr. Good was currently out of compliance with both State and County regulations), she apologized and assured me that it would not happen again.

Unfortunately, her apology did not fall on the ears of the person who made the for-mentioned comment. Also, Ranger Mayben stated in the EA that Mr. Good’s proposal under Alternative #2 was not in compliance with State or County regulations, although she has continuously failed to cite which specific State or County regulations she is referring to and how those regulations can be applied to National Forest System Lands. Mr. Good has suffered from defamation of his character numerous times throughout the course of the public “scoping” process due widely to the Forest Service’s creative reinterpretation of facts. This type of character assassination does not promote a healthy business reputation for Mr. Good within his local community, and could cost him potential clients and investors.

Mr. Good is highly respected and greatly appreciated by many groups and organizations throughout the mining community, including the esteemed Colorado School of Mines. Misinformation about Mr. Good’s intentions with his mining claim can be damaging to such beneficial associations. At the very least, a retraction and apology should be sent to those individuals who participated in the public comment process.

According to FSM 2819, “No adjudicative power has been given to the Forest Service. Thus statements about validity, occupancy, and use are statements of belief and not formal determinations.” (Emphasis added)

7. Finally, I believe that the Forest Service has failed to acknowledge not only several of the comments I made during the public involvement process, but also numerous comments made by various individuals who also participated in that process, and spoke about important issues like on-site security and the need for structures related to such operations.

The Forest Service, and particular officials have violated various provisions of ALL of the Statutory Laws, Federal Regulations, Policies, Acts, Court Decisions and Directives for reasons listed throughout my correspondences with the agency both directly, and through Congressional involvement including the following:

FSM (Forest Service Manual) Title 1100- Directive System
FSH (Forest Service Handbook) Title 1109.12- Directive Preparation Handbook

“Is Manual or Handbook direction more binding on employees? The words used to issue direction, not whether the direction is located in the Manual or Handbook component of the Directive System, determine how binding the direction is on Forest Service employees. The use of the helping verbs “must” and “shall” or imperative mood (where the subject “you” is understood) convey mandatory compliance; “ought” and “should” convey required compliance, except for justifiable reasons; and “may” and “can” convey optional compliance. In general, the Manual contains more significant policy and standards governing Forest Service programs, and thus the consequence of not complying with Manual direction is generally more serious than non-compliance with Handbooks. However, procedural direction in a number of handbooks is often equally important.”

FSH Title 2800: Minerals and Geology, Specifically sections (with emphasis added):

• 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. The statutory right of the public to prospect, develop and mine valuable minerals and to obtain a patent shall be fully honored and protected. Proprietary information relating to those rights and obtained through the administration of the agency’s mineral regulations shall be protected to the full extent authorized by 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... The authorized officer must be fair, reasonable, and consistent in reviewing plans of operations and determining the need for and amount of bonds required for reclamation purposes. Furthermore, the authorized officer shall bear in mind that the Forest Service function is the management and protection of surface resources in am manner compatible with reasonable and logical mining operations and not the management of mineral resources… Within 30 days after receipt of a plan of operations which meets the requirements of 36 CFR 228 Subpart A, the authorized officer shall review the plan, prepare an environmental analysis according to the instructions in FSM 1950... pending approval of the plan the authorized officer must approve any operation which will meet the environmental requirements of the regulations and which must be completed in order for the operator to comply with Federal and State laws.”

• 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.”

• FSM 2817.3(5)(b)(2) “Criminal Action. In cases where unnecessary and unreasonable damage is occurring and where reasonable attempts fail to obtain an operating plan or to secure compliance with an approved operating plan, the operator may be cited for violations...”

• FSM 2818 “One of the most difficult problems of the Forest Service in regard to minerals is that of unauthorized residential occupancy of mining claims. The problem rises primarily out of(1) imprecision in the law regarding occupancy, (2) historical laxity of the Government in taking action against suspected unauthorized occupancy and (3) the difficulty in legally determining intent, which is at the heart of the issue. .. In order for structures, including residences, to be authorized under the United States mining laws and laws requiring the management of surface resources, two conditions must be met. First, the structure must be reasonably necessary for use in prospecting, mining or processing of locatable mineral resources and second, the structure must be covered by an approved operating plan...

• FSM 2818.1 “Actions Under 1872 Act Use Regulations... A tool-storage structure may be a reasonable necessity if the plan of operations is for a long period of active exploration or development, and it is inconvenient to transport tools to and from the claim. . . When it appears that residential occupancy is--or will be-- an issue on an unpatented mining claim, the District Ranger shall take timely action to inform the claimant in writing of(1) rights regarding use and occupancy, (2) the requirements of 36 CFR 228 Subpart A, and (3) the Forest Service responsibility for surface resource management and protection... The claimant will be encouraged to demonstrate the facts, reasons and purpose for use or occupancy. The Forest Service will make a diligent effort to resolve differences through agreement and will document all communications and actions relative to the above requirements.”

• FSM 2818.3 “Use of Validity Determinations. Historically, residential occupancies which appeared to be unauthorized under the mining laws have been resolved through he use of validity determinations by the Department if the Interior. Although the regulations in 36 CFR 228 Subpart A (available since 1974) are believed to be the best tool --ultimately-- for preventing unauthorized uses, it is unlikely that the validity test procedure can be avoided in resolving existing trespass so long as the present mining laws are in operation... While, in fact, a claimant with a valid discovery does not have more surface rights than one without a valid discovery, judges have tended to depend heavily on validity findings because of the implications of good faith of the claimant.”

• FSM 2817.25 “:Access, as used in 36 CFR 228 Subpart A, is limited to operations under the 1872 mining law and refers to means of ingress and egress, such as roads, trails, bridges, tramways and landings for aircraft. It refers also to modes of transport, such as any type of wheeled or tracked vehicle, whether used on or off roads.. .(4). . .Evaluations of proposals for construction, reconstruction or restoration of roads should include possible alternatives.., a different means of access, or other modes of transport may in some situations prove less damaging to surface resources and still serve the intended purpose as well or better without adding unbearable or unjustifiable economic burdens on the operator.”

• FSM 2817.3 (5) “Noncompliance.., where the operator fails to take prompt action to comply and the noncompliance is unnecessarily or unreasonably causing loss or damage to surface resources the authorized officer must take prompt noncompliance action. For direction to resolve unauthorized residential occupancy on mining claims see FSM 2818.”

• FSM 2811.4 “. ..Although the statutes require the discovery of a valuable mineral deposit prior to the location of a claim, the courts and Department of Interior have recognized a right of possession, in the absence of the discovery required by statute, if the claimant is diligently prospecting. The Forest Service recognizes this principal and will not discourage or unduly hamper these activities. Rather the Forest Service should aid the legitimate activities of a prospector making bona fide efforts to obtain a discovery on a good prospect...”
• FSM 2846 “Cooperative Agreements. Where more than one agency, Federal and/or State, has jurisdiction over a mineral operation, the role of each agency should be defined in a cooperative agreement. The cooperative agreement becomes the primary basis for avoiding multiple and excessive bonding and eliminating conflicting reclamation requirements.”


• FSM 2861.1 “General Criteria... A separate authorization is not required for activities authorized by the General Mining Laws (FSM 2810)...”

• FSM 2861.2 “Allowable activities under Forest Service jurisdiction... The authorized officer shall  select the least complicated instrument for authorizing a prospecting or collecting activity commensurate with the potential impact of the authorized activity on other resources. The instrument may include a phone call, a letter, standard permit and application forms for commonly occurring activities, or a special use permit.”

In addition to violating the prescribed regulations of the Forest Service Manual, I feel that the Forest Service has violated the NEPA Timeframes and Guidelines, 1955 Multiple Use Act (30 U.S.C 612), for materially interfering with legitimate activities, the General Mining Law of 1872, as amended (30 U.S.C. 21-54) for failing to recognize Mr.Good’s statutory right to use and occupancy, 43 CFR 3715 occupancy guidelines, the Organic Act of 1897, (16 U.S.C. 479) and the Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, which was adopted into regulations as the Forest Service Minerals and Mining Program Policy and states:

“The Federal Government’s policy for minerals resource management is expressed in the Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, ‘foster and encourage private enterprise in the development of economically sound and stable industries, and in the orderly and economic development of domestic resources...”

Among the objectives of this policy, the following seem relevant:

• “Coordinate and cooperate with other Federal and State agencies having authority and expertise in mineral-related activities.”

• “Maintain an effective professional, technical, and managerial workforce that is knowledgeable of (a) the geologic characteristics of mineral deposits (b) the techniques of mineral exploration and development, © the principles of ecosystem management, and (d) mineral laws, regulations, policy and guidance.”

• “Process mineral applications, operating plans, leases, licenses, permits and other use authorizations efficiently and in a timely manner. Deal with applicants and operators in accordance with the principles of customer service.”

• “Plan and provide for access to and occupancy of National Forest System lands for mineral resource activities, consistent with overall management objectives and the rights granted through statutes, leases, licenses and permits. Eliminate or prevent occupancy that is not reasonably incident to and required for the mineral operation.”

• “Ensure the uniform application of resource protection and reclamation standards for mineral-related exploration and development projects.”

Further, the Forest Service has violated many provisions of 36 CFR Part 228, Subpart A for violating timeframes specified for responding to claimant requests and applications; 36 CFR 228. 8 (4) for requiring the operator to submit a plan of operations, as well as 36 CFR 228.8 (h) for not accepting Mr. Good’s State approval for his operations as meeting “similar and parallel” requirements to Forest Service regulations; and for ignoring 36 CFR 228.9 because operators are required to maintain fences and signs in order to notify and protect the public from potential dangers inherent to the operations. According to 36 CFR 228.4 (e) (3): “Lacking such determination that unforeseen significant disturbance of surface resources is occurring or probable and that the disturbance can be minimized using reasonable means, no operators shall be required to submit a proposed modification of an approved plan of operations. Operations may continue in accordance with the approved plan, until a modified pain is approved.. . “The Forest Service did not follow the provisions given at 36 CFR 228 for requesting a modification to Mr. Good’s original operating plan.

Also, when Forest Service Officers made decisions effecting the operations on the Dreamtime claim, all proposed amendments should have been presented with appeal regulations as prescribed in 36 CFR 228.14 and 36 CFR 251.84a, and legal paperwork should have included the appropriate 0MB control numbers, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act.

Also, the Forest Service is in violation of the Administrative Procedures Act 5 USC 706 (2) (a) because many of their actions and decisions are arbitrary and capricious and are an abuse of discretion and have no basis in fact and also no basis in law. Further, 5 USC 702, “A person suffering legal wrong because of agency action, or adversely affected or aggrieved by agency (405 US 727,733) action within the meaning of a relevant statute, is entitled to judicial review thereof.”

Also, the Surface Resource Act has been violated, as the “dominant and primary use” of the land with the claimant. See 30 U.S.C. 612.

The following Caselaw is also relevant to this decision:

• US v Schumway (No. 96-16480 D.C. No. CV-95-00024-SMM OPINION)
• Baker v. USDA (Civ. No. 94-0 160-E-BLW, Idaho, 1996)
• CR- S-01-559LKK appelle v. ORDER Ronald 0. Lex and Kenneth Wagoner 9th US District Court of Appeals, CA
• US v. Curtis/Nevada Mines, Inc., 61 F.2d 1277, 1281 (9th Cir. 1980)
• Wilber v. US ex rel. Krushnic, 280 US 306 (1930)
• Davis v. Nelson 329 F.2d 840 (9th Cir. 1964)
• US v. Richardson 599 F.2d 290 (9th Cir.1979)
• Marbury v. Madison 1 Cranch 137, 163 (1803)
• US v. Weiss 642 F.2d (9111 Cir. 1981)
• US v. Craig CR-82-8-H (April 16, 1984 Montana)
• US v. Williamson and Lapine Pumice, 45 IBLA 264 (1980)
• US v. North American Transportation and Trading Co., 253 US 330 (1920)
• US v. Sprague 321 F. Supp. 625 (CD Cal. 1970), affd 478 F2d 43
• US v. Rinninell 182 F 675 (ND Idaho 1910)


Taken altogether, it seems that individuals within the agency are also in violation of the Federal Code of Ethics (5 CFR 2635). 18 USC 1001 has been violated by misrepresentations made by the Forest Service and especially by Ms. Megen Kabele’s admitted tampering with administrative files as, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States knowingly falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme or device a material fact, or makes any false, fictitious or fraudulent statements or representations, or makes or uses any false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or entry, will be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than 5 years or both. The Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 (18 USC 3571 et seq) authorizes fines for Class A Misdemeanors of up to $100,000 for individuals and $200,000 for organizations.

The First and Fifth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution have been violated for prohibiting freedom of speech and bypassing due process of law, for preventing Mr. Good from legitimately working the occupation of his choice without undue prosecution (a taking), for discriminating against him for being too young to occupy his mining claim, and for harassment.

Submittal of this appeal will be supplemented with an additional Table entitled “Contradictory Statements Comparison” which will soon follow. Thank You. Please respond to my appeal at the following address:


Anita Kuhn
P0 BOX 201
Lake George, CO
80827

CC: Mountain States Legal Foundation, Miner’s Response Team


WOW! Now there is some great stuff in Anita's for us to use, but once again......
DON'T JUST COPY AND PASTE!....... Use the info here to pen your own appeal,
we want all of them to be addressed as we all will have some different points.

If you didn't get to submit a comment during the public scoping period you may still comment, but you must do it through some one elses appeal rights. (you can include your comment now with someones appeal)

CP of the MRT


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

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


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

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

 



Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 28th March 2024 - 04:40 PM