Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
Colorado Prospector - Gem and mineral prospecting and mining forums _ Fight For Your Rights! _ Prospectors Uniting-Q & A
Posted by: ColoradoProspector Dec 20 2003, 03:50 AM
Since the EA postings took up so much space, we locked the topic and started this thread for the responses so the EA and associated posts do not become buried in all the questions and comments that are sure to follow. :D
YOUR RESPONSE TO THE FOREST SERVICE IS VERY IMPORTANT!
but if you have comments or questions please post them here.
We have not yet finished entering his response letter, but we will try to get it in tomorrow.
Posted by: ColoradoProspector Dec 20 2003, 02:03 PM
Okay,
The response letter that The Kid wrote and sent is now posted.
Please place all comments, questions, and further input here.
THANK YOU! For your input.
Now is the time for all good men/women to come to the aid of their fellow countrymen/women! ;) :P
I think this may be the first digital presentation of an EA for the publics comments..... Lets just give them a taste of the POWER OF THE PEOPLE! B)
CP of the MRT
Posted by: Quilomene John Dec 21 2003, 12:07 PM
Hey all, Although Quentin's case looks good to my non-lawyer self, I can't be sure a judge would see it the same way. I would worry some arcane legal concept would influence a decision a jury would never deliver! Unfortunatly, a jury trial does not seem to be an option.
I thought about this all last night and did come up with an idea for an option. Quentin could SELL his claim. Selling his private claim to a corporation, (that he is an officer of) would do the same thing as having an investor, assuming the papers are drawn up accordingly. The Corp would need to file a new NOI and most likely a new POO. These would be clear and uncontested by the Forest Service.
Additional land could be claimed (max 5 acres) for a millsite. I'm not a lawyer, but I would guess that equipment used in mineral exrtaction could be stored in a mill which stores equipment for processing those same minerals.
Like I said before I'm not a lawyer and this isn't to be considered legal advice, just friendly advice. It is frustrating the Miners Response Team is such a fledgling operation that hasn't the resources to assist Quentin, other than with written comments. That and prayers that an honest judge hears the case! QJ
Posted by: Redpaw Dec 26 2003, 09:21 PM
Don't think that this issue is being ignored, as I am currently involved in a couple of POW-WOW's with variuos people who have some influence.
One of the Main Concerns is....This fire has already burned bright and hot for quite some time, there are already people who have got involved and are currently fighting for these two gentlemen and it has reached the stage of just smoke on the Horizon.
The efforts needed now become apparent that the letters and phonecalls come in promoting a favorable attitude for these people in this area to reduce the potential of a fire erupting again, even though the fire was started by one of them in real life and in the courtroom.
What has not been burned to the ground, is the future effort to educate others from this experience so that these issues are not allowed to be ignited. We have to work with these agencies to better understand just how screwed up they have become and make sure that the bad apples in each Gov Group is weeded out of the system.
We would like some info on just exactly what is going to happen after the responses are submitted?, what actions are these two guys looking at next?. Will it ever come to a reasonable solution?.
Monday is a great day for the phonecalls and letters to be starting to get written out. I personally will be calling the service and putting forth a series of questions that we have thought might pertain to some of these issues.
The fire is simmering right now and it could easily be put out if just common sense was originally put forth towards a proper solution. Both sides have erred in their actions and usually the small scale miner is the loser by previous cases. It will be our future intent to make sure that after the responses are recieved that we continue to follow-up with this and see an end to harassment of miners in these parts.
I nor others are going to side with the FS for any reason as they have clearly shown in this case that they have followed and promoted dishonesty towards the defendants in this case. Yet the defendant himself has gone about learning about what it takes to live, work and mine for a living without following the rules FIRST, that were established...... thus adding to the fire that is still burning.
We are working to get a solution and are trading emails between us, throwing different viepoints around and yet we all know that both sides were at fault from the very beginning. Butting heads with the Government whether intentional or not is usually a no-win situation because we do not have the individual resources as a person to fight what the GOV can just throw money at...and make you go away.
To be Continued......
Posted by: Jesse Dec 27 2003, 02:06 PM
I think a few things need to be clarified concerning these issues that I have presented here. First, I'll be the first to admit that I have made a few mistakes in dealing with forest service, but that still does not give the forest service a licence to break every rule in the book. I believe that the real issue is to completly stop all small miners from doing what they love. The forest service will stop at nothing to make this happen. I also believe that this could be settled in civil court with a favorable outcome to us. This is why the forest service has chosen not to pursue these cases in civil court, but rather press criminal charges. As most of us probably know the current criminal justice system is a very bad joke and therefore limits our chances of winning in criminal court. Let alone the undeniable ignorance of mining law throughout the criminal courts. The mistakes that I have made should not deny me my rights to continue propecting and mining. The mistakes made were not dire enough to constitute criminal charges!!!
I truly believe monetary can be sought after and won in civil action. I am currently talking with an investor who had offered his help and financial resources. This is my plan. I want to engage a class action law suit and an injuction against further encrachments by the forest service. When the totality of this case comes out it will shock people. Any help or advice offered is greatly appreciated. I think this is the only way to get a favorable outcome.
I have just received my SUD from the forest service and hope to post it. The public scoping will be coming shortly thereafter.
Jesse.
Posted by: ColoradoProspector Dec 28 2003, 08:45 PM
I have a start here for us to work with.
Please don't print this out and send it off or send this electronically yet.
I wanted to get this in here and see what some other folks thought could be added, done better, or structured differently before anyone sends their response.
I have never written a response to an EA and I'm sure it can be improved.
The deadline as I read it will be 11:59pm on Jan. 13th 2004, so we still have a little over two weeks to work on this.
This is what I have so far, and writing isn't my fortieth, but I am trying.
District Ranger Sarah Mayben
Re. Dreamtime mine
South Park Ranger District
P.O.Box 219 Fairplay, Co. 80440
I have read the entire Environmental Assessment for the Dreamtime mine.
I would like to start by saying as a voting, taxpaying, U.S. citizen, I find this document to be very disturbing!
It is very apparent that the Forest Service is trying to implement unreasonable restrictions, and cause undue hardship to this miner. In addition your staff in the South Park Ranger District seem to believe that they have much more authority than given them with their positions.
I will begin my comments by stating that I understand the Forest Service is under the Secretary of Agriculture, and the Bureau of Land Management is under the Department of the Interior.
Further more it is the federal governments view that these activities shall be “fostered and encouraged” by the Forest Service.
Also the Forest Service has entered into agreements with other agencies as to the procedures concerning mining activities.
The Forest Service Manual as I understand it is a handbook so to speak for Forest Service employees to use while executing their appointed duties.
From this point forward the Forest Service Manual will be referred to as the FSM.
The following quotes are evidence to the above statements.
“[CITE: 30USC21a]
TITLE 30--MINERAL LANDS AND MINING
CHAPTER 2--MINERAL LANDS AND REGULATIONS IN GENERAL
Sec. 21a. National mining and minerals policy; ``minerals''
defined; execution of policy under other authorized programs
The Congress declares that it is the continuing policy of the
Federal Government in the national interest to foster and encourage
private enterprise in (1) the development of economically sound and
stable domestic mining, minerals, metal and mineral reclamation
industries, (2) the orderly and economic development of domestic mineral
resources, reserves, and reclamation of metals and minerals to help
assure satisfaction of industrial, security and environmental needs, (3)
mining, mineral, and metallurgical research, including the use and
recycling of scrap to promote the wise and efficient use of our natural
and reclaimable mineral resources, and (4) the study and development of
methods for the disposal, control, and reclamation of mineral waste
products, and the reclamation of mined land, so as to lessen any adverse
impact of mineral extraction and processing upon the physical
environment that may result from mining or mineral activities.
For the purpose of this section ``minerals'' shall include all
minerals and mineral fuels including oil, gas, coal, oil shale and
uranium.
It shall be the responsibility of the Secretary of the Interior to
carry out this policy when exercising his authority under such programs
as may be authorized by law other than this section. “
“FSM2801.3- Interagency Agreements.
The Forest Service has entered into interagency agreements with agencies within the Department of the Interior to establish cooperation and coordination in the management of federally owned minerals within National Forests System lands. The principal agreements include:
1. A May 18, 1957, agreement with the Bureau of Land Management describing work procedures for land applications or mining claims (including patents).
7. A June 19, 1984, agreement with the Bureau of Land Management describing
policies and procedures for licenses, permits, and leases.
The full text of these agreements appears in FSM1530.
FSM2810.1- Authority. In addition to the laws, regulations, and cooperative agreements listed in FSM 2801, the following authorities bear directly on the administration of mining claims on National Forest Lands:
1. A May 18, 1957, agreement with the Bureau of Land Management concerning work procedures for land applications or mining claims (including patents).
2. Title 43 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 3000, Minerals Management.
3. Title 43 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 1800, Public Administrative Procedures.
4. Title 36 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 228, Subpart A - Locatable Minerals.
FSM2840.1 - Authority. Laws and regulations cited in FSM 2801 provide surface management and mineral management authorities. The following regulations give Forest Officers specific authorities for reclamation:
1. Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 228, Subpart A, Section 228.8 - Requirements for environmental protection. These regulations set forth the rules and provisions to minimize adverse environmental impacts on surface resources resulting from locatable mineral activities.
2. Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 228, Subpart C, Section 228.47 - General terms and conditions of contracts and permits. These regulations set forth the requirements for reclamation and other provisions on areas disturbed by pit and quarry operations.
Other authorities for mineral management and reclamation are granted to and held by the Department of the Interior. These authorities represent the context within which Forest Service authorities must be carried out. Forest Officers must be familiar with or comply with certain provisions of these rules:
1. Title 30, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 700-999 - Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement. These regulations set forth the rules and procedures for the administration of the coal program.
2. Title 43, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 3100 - Oil and gas leasing. These regulations set forth rules and provisions for onshore oil and gas leasing.
3. Title 43, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 3200 - Geothermal resource leasing. These regulations establish requirements for developing and utilizing geothermal resources.
4. Title 43, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 3400 - Coal management. These regulations set forth rules and provisions governing management and disposal of coal.
5. Title 43, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 3500 - Leasing of non-fuel, solid leasable minerals. These regulations provide for solid leasable mineral activities other than coal and oil shale. “
36CFR228.1 Purpose.
It is the purpose of these regulations 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 (30 U.S.C. 21-54), 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
surface 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.
The BLM and the CDMG are in total agreement, yet the Forest Service states this miner is in violation while he has the necessary and I might add “average” bond with the CDMG, so how can he be required to place a second and completely unreasonable bond with the Forest Service for the same piece of ground.
It seems apparent to this citizen that the Forest Service has no authority to require a bond unless the Forest Service shows a need for protection of a “surface resource”.
FSM2860.2 - Objectives.
1. To encourage and facilitate the collection of information
about energy and mineral resources and other geologic aspects of
the National Forest System.
2. To provide the opportunity for recreational collection of
mineral and fossil materials.
3. To respond to prospecting and collecting proposals within
established timeframes.
2860.3 - Policy.
1. Jurisdiction. Ensure that proposed activities for
prospecting and collecting fall within the jurisdiction of the
Forest Service
(FSM 2861). Except for common variety mineral activities, which
are solely within Forest Service jurisdiction (FSM 2850), do not
authorize prospecting or collecting activities that are likely to
result in gathering direct information on the presence of a
mineral resource.
2. Interagency Consultation. The responsible Forest Officer
shall consult with the U.S. Department of the Interior if there
is a question as to whether or not a proposed activity will
likely provide direct information on the presence of a mineral
resource other than a common variety mineral or if the activity
potentially conflicts with the rights of the holder of a U.S.
Department of the Interior lease, license, or permit.
3. Fees. Do not charge fees for:
a. Exploration or prospecting conducted by a Government
agency or a nonprofit entity.
b. Exploration or prospecting conducted by a lessee,
licensee, permittee or operator in an area and for
activity covered by a lease, permit, or license issued by
the U.S. Department of the Interior.
4. Records. Maintain a record of applications and
authorizations serialized by Region, Forest, District, type of
action, and fiscal year.
5. Bonding. Except for government-conducted exploration,
require a bond if the proposed activity will involve significant
surface disturb-
ance or has the potential to adversely affect subsurface
resources.
FSM 6560 sets forth bonding requirements.
2860.4 - Responsibility.
2860.4a - Deputy Chief, National Forest System. It is the
responsibility of the Deputy Chief to establish standard permit
stipulations and fee bases for common, system-wide mineral
prospecting activities such as seismic prospecting.
2860.4b - Regional Foresters. Regional Foresters shall establish
time-frames for review and disposition of applications and shall
maintain necessary serialized records. Recordkeeping may be
redelegated as necessary to ensure that each organizational level
obtains data and maintains records sufficient for carrying out
its responsibilities. The Regional Forester may issue Forest
Service exploration licenses and may redelegate that authority to
the Forest Supervisor.
2860.4c - Forest Supervisors. Forest Supervisors may authorize
exploration and collecting activities and may redelegate that
authority to the District Ranger. Recordkeeping may be
redelegated as necessary to ensure that each organizational level
obtains data and maintains records sufficient for carrying out it
responsibilities.
2860.4d - District Rangers. District Rangers shall review and
evaluate exploration and collecting activities, then make
recommendations to the Forest Supervisor or authorize the
activity if delegated to do so.
2860.5 - Definitions.
1. Prospecting - Delineation of an area in which exploration
would follow by gathering indirect evidence of mineral or energy
resources. Indirect data gathering techniques include, but are
not limited to: conducting geophysical or geochemical surveys,
sampling outcrops, geologic mapping, and drilling holes to gather
general geologic or stratigraphic information.
2. Exploration - Establishing the location, size, grade, or
reserves of a mineral or energy resource by gathering direct
evidence of the resource. Direct data gathering techniques may
include drilling holes, digging pits, and driving adits and
drifts to sample, or test, a known or suspected zone of interest.
2861 - DETERMINING FOREST SERVICE JURISDICTION. In responding to
requests for permission to prospect for minerals or to collect
mineral or fossil samples, the first step is to determine whether
the proposed activity falls within Forest Service jurisdiction.
2861.1 - General Criteria. The Forest Service authorizes various
methods of preliminary prospecting and mineral sample collection
on National Forest System lands if no other authority exists, and
if the activity does not conflict with the rights of: A holder
of a mining claim; a holder of a U.S. Department of the Interior
(USDI) lease, permit, or license; or the owner of reserved or
outstanding minerals. A separate authorization is not required
for activities authorized by the General Mining Laws (FSM 2810);
activities authorized by USDI (FSM 2820); or land use activity
conducted pursuant to reserved and outstanding mineral rights
(FSM 2830).
2861.2 - Allowable Activities Under Forest Service Jurisdiction.
Allowable activities include, but are not limited to, surface
mapping, blasting, excavation, sampling, and collecting with hand
tools or hand-carried motorized equipment; seismic, gravity, heat
flow, resistivity, and other geophysical surveys; and geochemical
surveys, such as stream sediment sampling.
Forest Officers may authorize drilling for such purposes as:
1. Gathering data on geothermal temperature gradients or
ground water conditions.
2. Conducting engineering studies and gathering general
stratigraphic information.
3. Gathering direct information on the presence and
character of a common variety mineral.
4. Placing a seismic charge.
Core drilling is allowable if it is the most efficient method of
advancing a temperature gradient or stratigraphic test hole, and
if precautions are taken to prevent coring in known or suspected
zones of mineral deposits.
Forest Officers may authorize trenching to aid in surface mapping
or indirect mineral-related surveys, but not for penetration of
suspected mineral deposits. Forest Officers may authorize
geophysical logging of drill holes, if precautions are taken to
prevent logging of known or suspected zones of mineral deposits.
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.
FSM2817.02 - 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.
FSM2817.03 - 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 principal key to the protection of
environmental quality in the National Forest System. Face-to-
face dialog with operators is encouraged.
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 mineral operations.
FSM2814.24 - 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.
I am also completely baffled as to why the CDMG can reclaim an acre for $2,000, yet the Forest Service wants over $20,000 for the same reclamation of the same piece of ground. Is there some explanation of not only the double bonding of the same ground, but as to the extremely excessive amount?
As I understand it, there is another claimant down the valley with a 3-acre disturbance and has only a $6,000 bond on Forest Service land.
Again what is the justification of the excessive amount?! And why is the state bond not acceptable since the CDMG and BLM are in total agreement on the guidelines.
I fail to see what “Forest Service objectives or resources” are being protected by the ludicrous alternatives put forth in this EA.
Quoting EA pg 7-
No Action Alternative: Alternative 1
This alternative would allow the operator to mine using hand tools only, with no permanent residency and no permanent structures. The operator would continue to file a Notice of Intent (NOI) annually describing the work he plans to do. 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 be authorized and is subject to Forest Service occupancy and use restrictions (Order No.
03-05).
No reclamation bond would be required for this alternative and there would be no termination date for the mining operations. Mitigation measures identified under Appendix B of this EA would apply to this alternative. The Forest Service would require the operator to comply with all federal, state arid county regulations.
The no action alternative is the status quo for the rest of the analysis The current situation as described above would continue.
End quote.
I could go to any piece of Forest Service land and I have the right to conduct the types of activities described in alternative #1 without filing anything! Why would this be an alternative for a proposed Plan of Operations?
Quoting EA pg 8-
Proposed Action: Alternative 2
Under this alternative, the operator would be allowed to conduct mining operations, subject to management requirements and mitigation measures identified by the Forest Service’s authorized officer. The operator would also be allowed to live on the mining claim in a travel trailer. The operator would reconstruct the A-frame and use as a work center. The operator would construct an equipment shed to store mechanized equipment and supplies. The operator would be 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 be authorized to use water from the spring to wash minerals and dispose of effluent on site but would be required to obtain a water right and a discharge permit from the state.
There would be limited signing and fence construction 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, and 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 be 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 be consistent with Teller County building and sanitation code requirements and with Colorado Division of Minerals and Geology permitting requirements. Therefore, management requirements have been identified that will bring the operation into compliance with state and county regulations. Those management requirements include the following:
• The operator will obtain a state water right in his name to use the spring for mining purposes only.
• The operator will obtain a state water discharge permit to use water to wash minerals and dispose of effluent on, site.
• The operator will obtain a mining permit from the State of Colorado, Division of Minerals and Geology.
• The operator will obtain a conditional use permit and all necessary building permits from Teller
County The operator would need to install a septic system and a potable water system, including either a well or a cistern.
• The operator will obtain any required business licenses to sell minerals on the claim, and pay all taxes due to the state and county for mineral sales and for structures placed on the National Forest.
End quote.
Alternative #2-
Has the highest bond amount and does allow the most activity, but I have yet to find where any law, policy, or regulation gives the Forest Service the right to double bond with such an excessive amount.
The requirement for a water discharge permit is quite baffling also.
Why would you require this miner to have a permit to rinse dirt off a rock he has just dug up 50’ away. Does the Forest Service have some mystical power that keeps the rain from rinsing the dirt on OUR land?
Is there some unknown lethal chemical attached to the gems in this area?
I THINK NOT!
Seems that this is another unreasonable restriction put forth by the Forest Service, which is not delegated to enforce the water quality, as it is the responsibility of the state.
Quoting EA pg 8-
The operator would be authorized to use water from the spring to wash minerals and dispose of effluent on site but would be required to obtain a water right and a discharge permit from the state.
End quote.
Clearly the Forest Service understands it’s the states duty to regulate and enforce the water rights issues. Why would this be present for alternative #2, especially when you take into account the Forest services conditions for a well or sistern.(See previous quote above.)
Wouldn’t this miner then be able to use his well for the mineral rinsing?
Quoting EA pg 8-
The operator will obtain any required business licenses to sell minerals on the claim, and pay all taxes due to the state and county for mineral sales and for structures placed on the National Forest.
End quote.
Forest Service has no authority to enforce any county regulations or federal tax laws.
Why is this present in this document?
This miner is not asking to build a house on his claim, only simple storage facilities, yet the Forest Service has made a septic system, and well conditions of alternative #2 ultimately just costing the miner and the tax payers more money.
Why would the Forest Service put this requirement in…….seems to be yet another “unreasonable restriction”. Installing such systems are very costly and usually intended to be permanent.
Is this how the Forest Service justifies the excessive amount of the bond? The Forest Service seems to be the ones who are proposing all the activities that would make the reclamation work so expensive.
Quoting EA pgs 9,10-
Proposed Action w/ SUD Modifications: Alternative 3
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 report that recommends mining operations that are and are not necessary or reasonably incident to the mining activities occurring under the U.S. mining laws.
The operator would not be allowed permanent residency on the ruining claim. No permanent structures. facilities or water/ sewer systems would be approved. The equipment shed would not be constructed. The A-frame structure would not be allowed in this alternative.
The operator could have a travel trailer with wheels attached for temporary storage of tools and equipment, office space, and to use as temporary shelter, but would not be allowed to reside in the trailer.
Page 9 of 32
This limited residency would be consistent with Teller County regulations. The operator would be allowed to stay overnight in the self- contained travel trailer and/or tents for a maximum of 60 days during a 365 day period, which is the upper limit allowed by Teller County regulations. The operator would be required to remove the trailer to haul off gray water and sewage to an approved dump station off the National Forest. When operator reaches 60 days use of the travel trailer or tent, operator would be required to live off the National Forest for the remainder of 305 days. The travel trailer would not be allowed to park on the mining claim for more than 60 days per 365 day period.
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 disposed of off the National Forest at an approved disposal facility. The operator could also choose to wash all minerals offsite with no use of water on the mining claim. The operator would not be required to install a septic system or a potable water system. A state water right and water discharge permit would not be required under this alternative.
Operator would be required to obtain a state mining permit, a county conditional use permit, any county-mandated permits or licenses to sell minerals onsite, and to pay any business taxes owed.
Alternatives Considered, but Eliminated from Detailed Study
Combination of Travel Trailer and Tent Camping on the Mining Claim
Under this alternative, the operator would be allowed to use 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 live in a tent for the remaining 305 days of the year. Mining operations would be the same as he has proposed in
Alternative 2. This alternative involves year round residency but does not require potable water and sewer systems. Therefore it is contrary to Teller County regulations, and will be dropped from further analysis in this environmental assessment.
Page 10 of 32
End quote.
Alternative #3-
Marking of claim corners is a federal requirement from the Department of the Interior as is the claim marker.
The Forest Service does not authorize this!
The fencing of open digs so that some one doesn’t inadvertently fall into one seems to be an activity that would be “reasonably incident to mining”.
Fences are easy to erect and disassemble, and re-erect again with out any surface disturbance.
“60 day maximum during 365 day period”.
I’m still wondering why the Forest Service is trying to implement camping regulations on a full time miner.
We have a statutory right to enter upon Forest Service land any and all days of the year.
“36CFR228.1 Purpose.
It is the purpose of these regulations 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 (30 U.S.C. 21-54), 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
surface 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.”
No where, can I find a regulation, law, or policy that dictates dates the forests may be utilized or giving the authority to restrict this type of lawful entry to the South Park Ranger District.
There is no requirement for well or septic in alternative #3, yet the bond is listed at $20,249, for a one-acre disturbance. ABSURD!
The average in the area is $2,000/acre, for this type of activity. What is going to cost so much to reclaim this one special acre?
The Northern Goshawk- page 23 of this EA.
As this is written the Forest Service is apparently concerned that there maybe in the future some Goshawk activity in the area and suggests a 30 acre perimeter for the nest.
Unless the Forest Service follows the proper procedures they are not allowed to just write their own regulations to close an area.
There have not been any notices that this area is closed to the public to give the Goshawks the 30 acre buffer from human activity, seems the Goshawks of the Crystal Peaks area are only sensitive to mining activity.
Or is this yet another “unreasonable condition” put forth to prevent the lawful activities of this miner. I’m afraid it is obvious to all it is the later.
Remember, we are talking about an inactive nest, that may or may not be a Goshawk nest, and may or may not be used in the future.
The condition as written would mean if this miner spent 2 months planning and organizing a mechanical dig, then a Goshawk shows the day before the dig, and this miner is then suppose to not dig from March to September.
What a coincidence, just happens to be all the seasons of favorable weather. Seems very “unreasonable” to this citizen.
It would be apparent to most that if the bird was hanging around just north and decided to nest on the claim, obviously the activity isn’t bothering it. But lets just remember……not active nest since 1999, and may, by chance be used in the future.
The Forest Service “objectives” seem to be very vague as written here. What is obvious is the Forest Service doesn’t want this miner in the forest.
The Forest Service is not authorized to prevent mining!
Quoting EA pg 5-
The Forest Service will attempt to minimize and/or repair adverse environmental impacts. This should be accomplished by imposition of reasonable conditions or mitigation measures which do not materially interfere with such operations.
FSM 2817.02
End quote.
All 3 alternatives as written are not acceptable for any scale of mining.
The Forest Service or the County do not have the authority to restrict occupancy as these precident setting cases show was just determined recently,
USA V. LEX/WAGGENER
USA V. SHUMWAY
FSM2813.13 - Surface Rights. Surface rights depend to some degree
on the status of the claim on July 23, 1955, and on subsequent
actions under 30 U.S.C. 613-614.
2813.13a - Claims Which Are Verified as Being Valid Prior to July
23, 1955. Such claims on which rights have not been waived and
which otherwise do not come under the terms of 30 U.S.C. 612,
carry the following rights under the General Mining Laws:
1. Right to exclusive possession and occupancy for mining
purposes, including control of the surface. Permission must be
obtained from the claimant to cross the claim with a road. The
Forest Service must obtain claimant's permission to harvest
timber from the claim, except for removal of dead or diseased
trees which constitute a menace to the Forest.
2. Right to cut timber on the claim to use for mining
purposes and to provide clearance required to conduct mineral
operations.
3. Right to remove timber for conversion to lumber to be
used for mining purposes, provided that the same species and
substantially equivalent volume is returned for use on the claim
or group of claims from which it was cut.
4. Right to sell or otherwise dispose of timber required to
be cut in conducting actual mining of the mineral deposits or for
clearing for surface facilities needed for mining or processing
of the mineral, provided that the rate of cutting is with equal
pace to the actual mining or need of surface facilities.
5. Right to cut timber from a millsite for building milling
or mining facilities on the millsite.
2813.13b - Claims Validated Subsequent to Act of 1955. Such
claims which otherwise come under 30 U.S.C. 612 carry the same
surface rights as above, except for the following modifications:
1. Right to occupancy and use necessary for prospecting,
mining, and processing, but not the exclusive right to the
surface. Lands containing such claims are subject to the rights
of the United States to manage and dispose of the vegetative
resources, to manage other resources except locatable minerals,
and to the right of the United States, its permittees and
licensees, to use so much of the surface area necessary for such
purposes and for access to adjacent lands.
As I read through the appendix, and found the calculations for the earth moving, I found even more disturbing information that has either been simply overlooked or is yet another obviously “unreasonable” implementation of conditions to prevent this miner from conducting his “lawful mining” activities.
Quoting EA pg 30,31
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.
End quote.
Has the Forest Service lost all sense of rationality?What about the categorical exclusion that has been used on every other small scale operation in the area?
Has the Bacon Davis been used and quoted here as an attempt to lump this miner into a category that would be used for large scale mining.
Yet another unreasonable condition set forth by the Forest Service to cause undue hardship to this bona fide miner.
This is a small scale operation and according to
36CFR215.2
Categorically excluded (CE)--Proposed actions, which do not
individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment and for which neither an environmental impact statement
(EIS) nor an environmental assessment (EA) is required (40 CFR 1508.4;
FSH 1909.15, Chapter 30).
Quoting EA pg 18
Alternative 1 (No Action) –
Without mitigation, ground disturbance from mining could lead to excessive amounts of bare ground and higher erosion potential.
Even over the next 20 years the long-term cumulative effects would be minimal for the above mentioned activities even without proper mitigation.
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.
Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) -
. 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) –
. 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.
As this citizen interoperates these statements it seems apparent that a categorical exclusion should have been given. Why has the Forest Service wasted my tax dollars on an unnecessary environmental assessment?!
As I try to imagine a piece of heavy equipment thundering through the same one acre for over two weeks straight. I must say it seems to me that this equipment would cause the damage it was there to repair, not the miner.
Quoting EA pg 31-
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
End quote.
Long term monitoring, transportation cost estimates, and reclamation contract preparation and administration, all list cost to the miner contained in the bond to pay for mileage, wages, administering costs (more wages). Is the Forest Service only paying it’s employees some days and not others so we the public are now being required to pay individually for OUR public servants. Funny I was under the impression that these positions are full time and already paid by OUR TAXES!
Why would this single miner be required to pay for public servants wages?
Isn’t the Forest Service supposed to monitor this area in general any way?
And why were all the mileage figures done from the district office in Fairplay rather than the ranger station in Lake George, which is within 5 miles of the Dreamtime?
The following quotes demonstrate once again the Forest Service directive’s are not consistent with this Environmental Assessment.
FSM2817.02 - 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.
FSM2817.03 - 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 principal key to the protection of
environmental quality in the National Forest System. Face-to-
face dialog with operators is encouraged.
In closing I will state that it seems very evident by the Forest Service publishing the ludicrous document,
1.) the Forest Service has done an unnecessary environmental assessment.
2.) The Forest Service has implemented unreasonable conditions on this bona fide miner.
3.) The Forest Service has not acted in good faith towards fostering and encouraging this miner.
Furthermore this citizen strongly recommends that the Forest Service decline the attempt to impose any of the three alternatives on this or any small scale miner, but rather the Forest Service should have and should now grant the categorical exclusion in this situation.
Thank you for your time
Posted by: Gat-Wa. Dec 29 2003, 06:39 AM
Looks good dan and i know its not dun my first question is your intro were you state that you are us citizen a voter a tax payer and so on shouldnt you say your state your oucupation are you a prospector and maybey how long . allso in reading the EA report one point is being made Quitin is saying he is a prospector not a miner saying he is small time not big time is this a point of consideration? also i see in your responce that there is no mention of the FSs conduct in sneek inspecktions insdents or the fact that that the other miners? (prospectors?)in the area are prewarned of such inspecktions seams prjadus to me or even some favrtisim going on. another one i dont see in your reply some kind of mention of the FS person that lied change doucuments and found to be by the judge unadmissable or just a lier or what ever ill read back on that to find the adzact judges comment.
Gat
ps sorry about the spelling but my spell checker is still sleeping grin
Posted by: Redpaw Dec 29 2003, 05:12 PM
CP,
I have written out just a few comments that should be looked at and possibly re-written into the rebuttal letter for us to mail. It is always better to include the original text followed by a rebuttal comment when including this into your letter.
EXCUSE ANY TYPOS, I was in a hurry so the rest of you deal with it. CP knows what to do !!
adding to the rebuttal letter...Page 3 of 32
Decisions to be Made:
The District Ranger will decide whether or not to implement the proposals or another alternative to the proposed actions Management requirements and mitigation measures would be implemented to assure compliance with the Forest Plan standards and guidelines, as well as regulations and requirements of state and county government agencies. Given the purpose and need, and the Forest Service legal framework concerning locatable minerals, the District Ranger will make the following decisions:
It can be shown that the District Ranger has a Bias against this miner which is evident in the files obtained in the FOIA files. This District Ranger and other personnel ( name them here ) using the resources of the Forestry Department has proceeded to violate Forestry Department guidelines.State the words "failing to show Good Faith"
( Can it be shown that the rest of Page 3 ( determinations and conditions to be met ) is being met with the same conditions on other mining Claims or is the "Operator" being made an example of? )
page 4 of 32
These requirements include but are not limited to state water rights permit, state water discharge permit, county conditional use permit and all necessary building permits. These conditions will be identified in the Decision Document and included in the approved P1533 of Operations. If the operator does not comply with these conditions, he will be in noncompliance with Forest Service regulations and appropriate action will be taken at that time.
How did the Forest Service ever come into being an enforcing agency for Water Rights?, are those not granted along with the claim in Colorado? Do other Mining Companies have to have Water Rights permits?
How did the Forest Service conclude it is in charge of building permits?, did they not use the shelter provided during their "un-expected inspections" if the shelters were so unsafe, why did Forestry Personnel enter them?. Conflict of Statements by FS. State the words "failing to show Good Faith" ....also state the current conditions of all building on the claim as to their condition and place of manufacturing ie...travel trailer ( stating meets housing authority conditions )
The Forest Service will attempt to minimize, prevent, mitigate and/or repair adverse environmental impacts on National Forest System lands, 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 or mitigation measures which do not materially interfere with such operations (Forest Service Manual 281 702).
The operator has already shown good faith with his reclamation activities ( name the dates required that show reclamation from the operator ) and witnesses ( name all present that helped with the reclamation ) have deemed the FS service is using unfair measures and interferring with the Operations of a mining Claim, while the operator is conducting lawful mining activities.
The Forest Service will conduct a timely review of proposed operations and continue to ensure proposed activities are required for and reasonably incidental to prospecting, mining or processing operations.
Show the dates for the FS failing to fulfill its own guidelines and bylaws with the dates ( permits submitted and then finally approved ) State the words "failing to show Good Faith" also include the dates of Unexpected visits to which the operator was forceably restrained against his civil rights.
Page 5 of 32
The proposed mining operation is in Management Area 2A, which has an emphasis for Semi-primitive motorized recreation. Mining is generally compatible with the overall management emphasis for this area. Standards and guidelines in the Forest Plan require reclamation of disturbed lands after mining (111-53).
Their own statements of "mining is generally compatible" shows they truly know that mining is not detructive based on neighboring claims and past mining documents that have been previously approved by FS personnel. State that the FS is previously requiring of reclamation before mining is complete therefor hampering the operators right to lawfully mine.
Show that the local activity made by motorized activities ( ATV's ) have no bonding requirements to operate in FS lands nor on roads ( try to include a picture or two of destructive damage left by ATV's not following FS guidelines ). also make a remark that claimants powered tools/machinery stays within his area of mining and not roaming the countryside like "semi-primitive" motorized recreation does.
Occupancy and use restrictions apply to the Dreamtime unpatented 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 60 day period within 3 miles of a previous campsite.
Apply the appropriate "Lex Waggoner & Shumway" ruling here, stating basically they have no jurisdiction regarding mining Claimant rights to habitate on a mining claim.
The Dreamtime Mine operation is a long term mining proposal. The Forest Service could approve the proposed mining operation for five years, with possible renewal of this plan of operations for another five years. At the end of the first five years of approved operations, the Forest Service would need to conduct a new National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review to determine if the plan of operations is still consistent with environmental regulations in place at that time. Proposed mining operations would be conducted year around. The operator asserts that a mine life of 20 years or more is possible.
Show the various previous mining claim lifes of mining claims in the areas surrounding mining claim as far back as you can, try to include how often those were previous inspected and approved. ( your looking for bias here against the operator, VS. other approved mining claims in the general area that are currently operated.
Public Involvement
The Proposed Actions were provided to the public and to other agencies and organizations for comment during a scoping period that ran from June 17 to July 14, 2003. Specific public involvement activities for this project included the following:
Four legal notices published in the local newspaper, the Park County Republican/Fairplay Plume between June 13 and July 4, 2003.
• A Forest Service news release that was published June 27 9003 in the Park County
Republican/Fairplay 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 50 individuals, agencies and elected officials on June 17 and June 30, 2003./i]
Highlight the negativity that was published in the paper showing undue "fostering and encouraging towards mining by their own statements"...again showing BAD Faith. get a list of the scoping letter recipients to see if they were mostly mailed to GREEN agencies ( looking for bias here )
[i]In response to these public involvement actions, some 46 individuals, organizations and agencies responded with comments in the form of letters, faxes and emails. These comments were received between June 16 and November 5, 2003. In addition, District staff responded to several telephone calls from interested individuals, some of whom may have provided written comments.
ask why the general public was involved as to the validity of a mining claimants right to mine, and why was the FS using these tactics to mis-inform the public to actual conditions at said claim. if anyone was to file a claim or have a permit approved it would generally not include the public
Page 6 of 32
The discussion of environmental consequences in Chapter 3 focuses on the Proposed Actions and briefly discusses other surface resources such as water, soils, wildlife, social/economics, range, fire/fuels, visuals. recreation, and heritage resources. The planning team determined that other surface resource issues were insignificant because they would result in little or no environmental impact from the Proposed Actions with application of management requirements (Appendix A) and mitigation measures (Appendix B). Issues scoped internally and from the public did not identify any key issues
state here that the team hired, had failed to see anything wrong with the Mining Activities or the Affected Area and yet the FS has continued to prevent rather than approve mining claim.Cite the findings here.
Federal. State and County Permits and Licenses
The Forest Service will require the operator to comply with all, Federal, State and County laws, regulations, and policies for all mining activities. This includes acquiring a mining permit from CO DMG and a conditional use permit from Teller County. Failure to follow this requirement would result in the operator being in noncompliance with any approved Plan of Operations.
show dates of permits applied for and failure to recieve approval within guideline as per Agency
The operator would obtain a water right for use of the spring. The beneficial use can only be identified as mining. If other beneficial uses are identified the Forest Service will appeal those requested rights in water court.
ask how " if the general public were to hike into the area and get a drink" would they have to have a permit to do this.
ask how "if you had a radiator hose break down and as a member of the general public you needed water would you have to have a permit before using said water to refill a radiator first?
The operator will be required to obtain a State water discharge permit from the Water Quality Control Division of the State Health Department if discharging effluent from mineral washing is approved in the plan of operations.
Where is the permit allowing it to rain on a hillside? where is the common sense here?
To be continued on page 7 shortly, hope this helps?
Posted by: Redpaw Dec 30 2003, 01:32 PM
sorry I can't give a little more time into this right now, I am in a hurry again...Look it over and use what you can for replies to the EA....
Alternatives Discussion
No Action Alternative: Alternative 1
This alternative would allow the operator to mine using hand tools only, with no permanent residency and no permanent structures. The operator would continue to file a Notice of Intent (NOI) annually describing the work he plans to do. The authorized officer would annually determine if a plan of operations would be required. Leave No Trace practices (catholes) would continue for disposal of human waste. Permanent trailer use would not be authorized and is subject to Forest Service occupancy and use restrictions (Order No.
03-05).
No reclamation bond would be required for this alternative and there would be no termination date for the mining operations. Mitigation measures identified under Appendix B of this EA would apply to this alternative. The Forest Service would require the operator to comply with all federal, state arid county regulations.
How is it that the FS can require a NOI for the use of Handtools?, When I can file for a mining Claim in any Western State and not file a NOI. Why is this an alternative when it is in direct violation of the Mining Laws of 1872 and amendments.
Page 8 of 32 Alternative 2
Under this alternative, the operator would be allowed to conduct mining operations, subject to management requirements and mitigation measures identified by the Forest Service’s authorized officer. The operator would also be allowed to live on the mining claim in a travel trailer. The operator would reconstruct the A-frame and use as a work center. The operator would construct an equipment shed to store mechanized equipment and supplies. The operator would be 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.
This is how it should have been all along, Who woke up and had some coffee that morning?
The operator would be authorized to use water from the spring to wash minerals and dispose of effluent on site but would be required to obtain a water right and a discharge permit from the state.
Where does the FS get the authority to have a Mining Claimant attain a Water Right, Where does the FS determine it has the right to enforce of County Agencies rules and regulations?...Would I need a permit to get a drink of water?. What if I wanted to take a sample for testing in a lab?, would I be required to get a permit?
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 be hauled to the site, or the operator would use the spring on the mining claim as a source of drinking water.
Why does the FS feel it needs to clarify the rights of any citizen as per camping in the Forest?, why do I feel they are trying to dissuade visitors to this area?
The operator will obtain a conditional use permit and all necessary building permits from Teller
County The operator would need to install a septic system and a potable water system, including either a well or a cistern
In all the other previous charges against the operator, it was evident that the FS wanted no structures placed upon FS lands, Charges and Violations were previously implied against the operator and now the FS wants A well?, A septic system?....Why would the FS identify these as necessary when no other mining claim is required to do so?.
The operator will obtain any required business licenses to sell minerals on the claim, and pay all taxes due to the state and county for mineral sales and for structures placed on the National Forest.
WHAT?!....I see the big picture now.....It has all be come apparent that it boils down to "their share of the pie".....( this is outta hand )
I have a claim that I Dredge in Oregon and if I was to pick a nugget outta my dredge and sell it to a total stranger standing right there for a $20.00 or a beer that is my right to do so and I cannot be taxed upon this PERIOD.
Alternative 3
The operator would not be allowed permanent residency on the running claim. No permanent structures. facilities or water/ sewer systems would be approved. The equipment shed would not be constructed. The A-frame structure would not be allowed in this alternative.
Direct violation of Lex Waggoner and Shumway Case, Why does the FS feel it is in charge of a State Resource ( Water Rights )
The operator could have a travel trailer with wheels attached for temporary storage of tools and equipment, office space, and to use as temporary shelter, but would not be allowed to reside in the trailer.
But it would be perfectly fine for him to sleep in a Lean-to or a tent and be deprived of any kind of shelter afforded to his liking?...ridiculous.
This limited residency would be consistent with Teller County regulations. The operator would be allowed to stay overnight in the self- contained travel trailer and/or tents for a maximum of 60 days during a 365 day period, which is the upper limit allowed by Teller County regulations. The operator would be required to remove the trailer to haul off gray water and sewage to an approved dump station off the National Forest. When operator reaches 60 days use of the travel trailer or tent, operator would be required to live off the National Forest for the remainder of 305 days. The travel trailer would not be allowed to park on the mining claim for more than 60 days per 365 day period.
How does a county regulation override a federal legislation regarding occupancy of a mining claim? How does the FS justify the 60 day limit? why no other occupancy for 305 more days?
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 disposed of off the National Forest at an approved disposal facility. The operator could also choose to wash all minerals offsite with no use of water on the mining claim. The operator would not be required to install a septic system or a potable water system. A state water right and water discharge permit would not be required under this alternative.
How does the state not pull its' hair out everytime it rains in the mountains and knowing that Mother Nature did not file her permits?...How is it that this miner could take a crystal home and wash it in his front yard hose be any differnet than washing it in the hills?. What if a hiker just wandered over and washed his dirty hands in the spring?, would he need a permit to do this?
Okay Colorado, you can quit joking with me and tell me straight up front that this is all a bad joke your playing on all of us. If this was an episode on the "South Park Cartoon" show I would not get up for a week from laughing at the stupidity of our Government Agencies. I am thinking at this point your miners need to file civil and criminal actions against the agencies involved....Seriously.
How is it that anyone from any agency feels this is the right thing to do?, he needs a jury of miners to hear these atrocities imposed upon a miner for it really to sink in.
Walks away shaking his head in disbelief.......
RP
Posted by: ColoradoProspector Dec 30 2003, 11:54 PM
Okay, found the posting of the Lex/Waggener ruling.
http://www.grantgg.com/~eoma/news.shtml
Haven't been able to find it yet on the courts website, but I'll keep looking.
Hope this helps Jesse.
CP
Posted by: ColoradoProspector Jan 1 2004, 11:27 PM
WHEW! okay, got draft 2 in there.
I'm just re-doing the first response so we don't have a heap to dig through here.
Great suggestions guys!
Didn't get the "not showing good faith" in there yet Redpaw....where do you think we should utilize that to be most effective?
Now just a note here.....I thought we should keep the response on topic with the EA, then we can use the history for ammo at a later date. 
Have found some interesting tid bits in the Forest Service Manual.....as you will see. 
Yep Gat, there will be some personal info that each individual who responds will want to add.
What else can we stoke the fire with here!?
CP
Posted by: ColoradoProspector Jan 1 2004, 11:33 PM
This one is another post for Jesse,
Just one more tid bit for the court room.... Hope it helps.
Found this in the FSM
2813.13 - Surface Rights. Surface rights depend to some degree
on the status of the claim on July 23, 1955, and on subsequent
actions under 30 U.S.C. 613-614.
2813.13a - Claims Which Are Verified as Being Valid Prior to July
23, 1955. Such claims on which rights have not been waived and
which otherwise do not come under the terms of 30 U.S.C. 612,
carry the following rights under the General Mining Laws:
1. Right to exclusive possession and occupancy for mining
purposes, including control of the surface. Permission must be
obtained from the claimant to cross the claim with a road. The
Forest Service must obtain claimant's permission to harvest
timber from the claim, except for removal of dead or diseased
trees which constitute a menace to the Forest.
2. Right to cut timber on the claim to use for mining
purposes and to provide clearance required to conduct mineral
operations.
3. Right to remove timber for conversion to lumber to be
used for mining purposes, provided that the same species and
substantially equivalent volume is returned for use on the claim
or group of claims from which it was cut.
4. Right to sell or otherwise dispose of timber required to
be cut in conducting actual mining of the mineral deposits or for
clearing for surface facilities needed for mining or processing
of the mineral, provided that the rate of cutting is with equal
pace to the actual mining or need of surface facilities.
5. Right to cut timber from a millsite for building milling
or mining facilities on the millsite.
2813.13b - Claims Validated Subsequent to Act of 1955. Such
claims which otherwise come under 30 U.S.C. 612 carry the same
surface rights as above, except for the following modifications:
1. Right to occupancy and use necessary for prospecting,
mining, and processing, but not the exclusive right to the
surface. Lands containing such claims are subject to the rights
of the United States to manage and dispose of the vegetative
resources, to manage other resources except locatable minerals,
and to the right of the United States, its permittees and
licensees, to use so much of the surface area necessary for such
purposes and for access to adjacent lands.
Good luck Jesse! Sorry I can't get down there.
CP
Posted by: Redpaw Jan 2 2004, 12:44 AM
The Lex/Waggoner verdict upon appeal is damning when it comes to Quinten & Jesse Case. They should appeal any decision made against them.
NOI and its implied intent, will be the downfall of the FS.
Read the L/W appeal again till it sinks in. Notice how the appeal is directly tied to the Shumway ruling? and how many times it is referenced.
I'm going after the full version of the Shumway and Waggoner verdict to add it to the MRT site. It will be one to study for alot of people.
I'll redo my reply mentioned above, and will re-word and correct a few omissions I had to leave out due to my being in a hurry.
Shortly...
RP
Posted by: Jesse Jan 2 2004, 02:04 PM
Well, wish me luck folks my trial starts on Monday January 5th 2004. I had a motions hearing on wednesday, it didn't go to well, but I think I have a judge that will at least give me a chance. Love the Lex-Waggener case, I have told my lawyer to look for it and I have read it. 
Anyone who wishes to go to the trial it will be held in Denver.
901 19th street
room 3, 4th floor
Judge Schaffer
9am Monday January 5th (possibly Tuesday)
I was as shocked as anybody at the short time frames. Thanks cp and redpaw for all the help. All I can do now is hit where it hurts and hope for the best.
Jesse
Posted by: Redpaw Jan 3 2004, 12:33 PM
In 36CFR 228.5 gives the 5 options the District Ranger may use for any given plan. Now the important part is in between each of these options is the word or. The word or in between each option gives the indication that one of the five options may be chosen, once that is done the district ranger must approve the plan
Jesse, I know that your about to get into a scrapyard brawl come Monday, I just thought I would highlight some of your statements you NEED to argue for your defense. Things will get a little skewed in the courtroom, and facts are easy to forget.
In these above/below paragraph, You need to have correct timeframes of when these actions were accepted or rejected/switched. You need to show how they kept changing their minds in direct conflict of policy, thus showing bad faith towards their own guidelines. Finally have the date of when the district ranger should have had the plan approved and/or if he ever did...at the same time showing you were well within compliance the whole time.
The district ranger does not have the option to choose one then another and another and so on. On my plan of operations the district ranger had a maximum of 90 days to approve. I have had a plan submitted for nearly 2 years. I even had the plan submiited before the new charges were filed. Forest service manual 2817 also states that the forest service cannot file criminal charges until they have made resonable attempts to secure an operating plan[/i]
The paragraphs above are your winning case if you have the ability to show what you claim, Timeframes are the issue, default by failure on their part must be shown.
I have had mining property seized by the forest service without due process of the law. I have had vandalism destroy $10,000 worth of specimens in the middle of January within days of a forest service inspection.
This won't even see the light of day in court but may enforce the descision of the fencing in the judges eyes. If the fence issue comes up, submit the police/sheriff/trooper reportshowing just cause for protection of mining property protection.
Tim Garcia a Forest Service Mineral Specialist on several occasions and Mr. Garcia had made it clear to Mr. Uecker that the OLD MINING LAW DID NOT APPLY". Now which old obscure mining law was I quoting that day None other than the General Mining Laws of 1872 as ammended! According to numerous forest service officials I have no rights under these laws!
Submit these documents as evidence in your effort to show collusion towards you denial of proper permits. Show how they conspired to withhold your rights to due process.
Jesse, How many people do you have going to court with you?, can anyone jot down notes while events are happening?........
sorry we walked into your brushfire so late in the game but atleast we are trying to offer up some help, if any of this helps you?. We are with you JESSE, Stand Tall and Nail with the FACTS.
RP of the MRT
Posted by: Mrs.CP Jan 5 2004, 09:31 AM
We tried to find some people to show for court today,
but there wasnt enough plan time. Don't you just love how they do that? <_<
Redpaws right...Just stick to the facts, and remember.....
Even if were not in the court room with you, were behind you. ;)
Good luck Jesse. :)
Denise
Posted by: Jesse Jan 6 2004, 01:18 PM
Well, folks I'm still alive! If I lose this case it won't be because my lawyer didn't argue the pertinent facts. He argued them superbly. I think I have a real chance at winning this thing. We have some notes that we'll post later about how it proceeded in the court room. The judge is going to make a written memoranda after he receives the post trial briefs from both counsel. I should have my decision sometime in february. I will try to get the date posted earlier this time if anybody would want to go and hear the decision. I'll tell you I felt pretty damn good coming out of that court room, and the pale I want to throw up look on Sara Mayben's face was priceless.
Jesse
Posted by: Redpaw Jan 6 2004, 02:04 PM
PRICELESS
:D :D :D :D
We are proud of your Legal defense and of you Jesse, I am waiting patiently to read the court transcripts of the case for future use to help other Miners.
Your a fine Man!!
RP
Posted by: Mrs.CP Jan 6 2004, 02:34 PM
Thats great Jesse...Dan will be glad to hear it. :D
So far so good!
;)
Keep up the good work.
Posted by: Quilomene John Jan 6 2004, 02:47 PM
Whew, That's great Jesse! I'd trust those courtroom feelings, the judge holds all the cards so he doesn't need a poker face. Now the waiting game begins. QJ ;)
Posted by: ColoradoProspector Jan 7 2004, 06:16 AM
SWEEEEEET!
Wish I could have been there for that. ^_^ Yes, definately tell us when the decision will be!
Glad to hear it went well.
Wer'e all anxious to hear what happened so let us know.
CP
Posted by: Gat-Wa. Jan 7 2004, 07:37 AM
Dang that makes me feel better Jesse i was so bummed out that i could not make it to your court hearring, I will be there for the decision if at all possible.
Also if you can get the transcripts of the hearring i would like to read them.
Gat.
Posted by: Johnny Jan 9 2004, 12:37 PM
Howdy Jesse,
You have a lot of good folks behind you... wish we were in a position to be there to show our support... but know that we are with you on all this and your story has been spread to a lot of other good folks that are wishing you well and keeping you in their prayers! :)
We wish you nothing but the best!
Happy trails,
Johnny
www.Foxpeak.net
Posted by: Anita Jan 9 2004, 03:44 PM
January 9, 2004
South Park Ranger District
PO Box 219
320 Highway 285
Fairplay, CO 80440 12 page document
CERTIFIED MAIL # 7003 1010 0001 9065 2263
Dear Ranger Mayben,
I am writing you this letter concerning the publication of the Dreamtime Mine Environmental Assessment. I am disappointed that your office did not send me a copy of the documents. However, I do hope that my comments are considered. As I read the EA I became increasingly dismayed at the Forest Service’s obvious and blatant attempts to continue to frustrate mining laws and their interpretations in a continuing effort to delay Quentin’s mining operation and even “put enough conditions on the approval that he might decide to do something else.” These words were a suggestion from Ken Marler, previously the Special Uses and Minerals Forester. Where is the “fostering” and “encouraging” spirit prescribed by the Forest Service Minerals Program Policy?
Quentin submitted his Notice of Intent to the Forest Service on June 24, 2002. The Forest service did not respond in the required timeframes to his Notice. I read a memo from Megen Kabele to Mr. Gill, Assistant U.S. Attorney stating that she knew she had missed the deadline and seeking his advice.
On October 3, 2002, Quentin submitted a detailed 40-page Plan of Operations to the South Park Ranger District. The District concocted numerous excuses for delaying the processing of the plan, including that there was insufficient information, too many legal references, changes that needed to be made, and a battery of environmental standards and examinations that needed to be completed. You delayed the meeting at the Dreamtime claim for months based on the unavailability of Ronald Baer, who never showed up for the meeting anyway. Then, when Quentin began to make concessions in an effort to cooperate and help get things moving in a productive direction, the Forest Service treated this as a new proposal, and justified their stalling by suggesting that Quentin had modified his proposal and therefore delayed the process himself. You and I both know that many of the changes Quentin requested to be implemented were discussed at the Dreamtime meeting. During that meeting, he asked you specifically if the timeframes for processing his plan would be effected if he were to submit the changes that you requested he make and you told him that the timeframes would not be changed. I have this on videotape.
Later that day, Quentin asked you to project the time when you believed he could expect his plan of operations to be approved. You listed several processes and procedures and ultimately calculated that even if the very worst circumstances were present (Sierra Club letters) and the lengthiest delays considered, Quentin should have a decision by mid-September. You have tried to hide behind NEPA timeframes. However, I am familiar with those as well. In the most extreme case, where an endangered species is involved, the longest assessment period is 180 days. This is nine months after a plan is submitted. Your office may claim that Quentin’s proposal did not meet the requirements found at 36 CFR 228.4, but this would be very difficult for you to prove in court, being that the document was professionally prepared by a technical writer and contained several maps, charts and diagrams. Ultimately, your desire to see material removed from the document implies that it contained too much information.
Before I go into my review of the EA, I would also like to state my dissatisfaction over my last Freedom of Information Act request wherein I asked for ALL public comments gathered in connection with the scoping and public notice. In the EA, I read, “In addition, District Staff responded to several telephone calls from interested individuals, some of whom may have provided written comments.” In the FOIA response I received from the Forest Service, there were no telephone call records, which I know that your office is required to keep. This is a further violation of the regulations and I will address it at a later time. You told Quentin on video that you would send him a copy of the EA prior to publishing it. You have failed to keep your word yet again.
At Quentin’s last court appearance you told the Magistrate that the Forest Service would make a decision on the plan by December 12, 2003. At that time, you seemed to imply that certain aspects of his plan had already been determined. This smells like an outcome based decision and is illegal. As you stated yourself, numerous times, the process will determine what the decision will be. How can you have made decisions then, despite the fact that that process is not yet finished and no official decision has been made? Quentin is scheduled for another status hearing in mid-January. What will your excuse to the judge be then?
We are all wondering why your office has been so inefficient in this matter for over five years now. Why should it take so long to process a minimal impact plan? Why are the rules and regulations not being followed by the Forest Service? I have asked this question numerous times and been ignored. Now I am asking you pursuant to FOIA 5 USC 552, as amended, Why are the regulations prescribed by the Forest Service Manual, and the Minerals Program Policy being ignored by the South Park Ranger District? I am asking with regard to FSM Title 1100 and 2800 specifically. There are steps that are clearly outlined in FSM for dealing with occupancy, processing plans, working with claimants, etc. None of them are being followed in this case. Why? There must be a reason. Who is responsible for decisions that direct Forest Service officials to ignore their own manuals? I would request that I be notified in advance of any fees associated with the processing of this request prior to it being addressed and that if any part of this request is denied, the Forest Service provide reasons for denying the requested information.
In Baker v. the USDA (Civ. No. 94-0160-E-BLW, Idaho, 1996), Judge Winmill confirms, “…It is a well established rule that an agency is bound to follow the regulations it issues…” and United States v. Nixon, 418 US 683 (1974); 1 Davis & Pierce, Administrative Law Treatise, 6.5 at p. 251 (3rd Ed. 1994) (‘The idea that legislative rules are binding on the issuing agency is deeply embedded.’) Those under the agency’s jurisdiction have a right to insist that the agency adhere to its own rules. See City of Santa Clara v. Andrus, 572 F. 2d 660 at n.5 (9th Cir.), cert. Denied, 439 US 859 (1978). “The Forest Service regulations provide a clear 4-step procedure for modifying or halting work on mining claims after the Plan of Operations has been approved. There is no provision in those regulations allowing the Forest Service to simply withdraw its approval of a Plan…”
On page 3 of the EA you quote, “Forest Service authority with regard to locatable minerals on reserved public domain land is generally non-discretionary. This means that the Forest Service cannot prohibit the discovery or development of minerals, but it can regulate surface disturbance caused by these operations.”
I will keep this statement in mind as I write this paper. Interestingly, the EA indicates that there is no significant surface disturbance for the Forest Service to regulate in this case under any alternative:
“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.” (Emphasis added) Pg. 17
“Mining is generally compatible with the overall management emphasis for this area.” Pg. 6
“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… Even under this alternative which calls for increased activity, over the next twenty years the long-term cumulative effects would be minimal for the above mentioned activities even less with proper mitigation.” Pg.18
In fact, the EA goes on at length to describe how there would be no effect to vegetative resources (pg. 20), no effect to threatened, endangered and sensitive plants (pg. 20), no effect on timbering (pg. 21), no effect on heritage resources (pg. 21), negligible effects to the Hayman Fire impacts (pg. 21), no effect on wildlife species or their populations (pg.22), no effect on threatened, endangered or sensitive wildlife (pg. 22) and only potential impacts to the Goshawk, which has never been seen nesting on the Dreamtime claim.
Certainly, the claimant cannot agree to future mitigation measures for a species that has not yet been discovered nesting on his claim. Mitigation measures for the goshawk should not even be discussed until an active nest is located. For Mr. Reynolds to believe that he could possibly foresee realistic mitigation measures for the species when its environment has not yet been assessed is overzealous and assumptive. It is unreasonable for the Forest Service to incorporate mitigation on the Dreamtime operating plan for a species that has not even been detected there.
Further, the EA states, “The planning team determined that other surface resource issues were insignificant because they would result in little or no environmental impact…” (Pg. 7). Concerning the historic mining activities in the area it is stated, “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.” (Pg. 24) Also, the current activity in the area is negligible.
With these findings in mind, where is the Forest Service deriving its jurisdiction to regulate this operation? How can the Forest Service require Quentin to perform mitigation measures in circumstances where there are no significant effects to the environment? The Forest Service is charged with the responsibility of ensuring the wise management of surface resources, thereby protecting public lands from undue degradation. It is not the job of the Forest Service to waste taxpayer dollars in the over- administration and unnecessary regulation of mining claims. Nor is it their objective under the Department of the Interior to prohibit legitimate mining activities or cause undue hardship to claimants by denying them access, exploration methods or incidental occupation of their claims.
It is the responsibility of the Forest service to “ensure the uniform application of resource protection and reclamation standards for mineral-related exploration and development projects,” in accordance with the minerals program policy. This applies to bonds as well. In this case the Forest Service has been completely arbitrary and capricious in their bond calculation. The figures given are outrageous and unprecedented. You are out of compliance with FSM 2843 which instructs the Forest Service to avoid excessive bonding. This is again emphasized in FSM 2817.23, “The authorized officer must be fair, reasonable and consistent in reviewing plans of operations and in 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 a manner compatible with reasonable and logical mining operations and not the management of mineral resources.” (Emphasis added).
In the EA, the Forest Service calculates that it will take 88.7 hours to complete the reclamation work with a backhoe. Recently, Quentin, others and myself completed extensive reclamation work at the site using only primitive hand tools. This was accomplished in days and would easily have been accomplished in mere hours with the assistance of mechanized equipment. Given the rate of our work, it may have taken two weeks to reclaim an entire acre by hand with limited help. When the Forest Service came out to inspect the reclamation, Jeff Hyatt commented on video that other area miners would be held to the new standard demonstrated at the Dreamtime claim, whether the work was done by hand or with a machine.
For it to take more than two weeks for this work to be done with modern equipment is absolutely ludicrous! Were you planning on hiring a monkey to do the driving? Surely any experienced backhoe driver would tell you that it would only take a few days to clean up an acre of disturbance with a machine. And who is getting paid $119/hr? It is a well known fact that George Quist charges an average of $65/hr for his services. The forest service is only willing acknowledge a $16/ hr rate for Hayman Fire victims to clean up their land. I have spoken to many area claimants and know for a fact that the amount prescribed in the bond calculation is unprecedented. Big timers like Brian Lees and Joe Doris operate for much less. In fact, there seems to be no standard for the Forest Service. In the past, I learned that claimants could expect to pay about $900 per acre bond for reclamation costs.
The State of Colorado Division of Minerals and Geology charges a uniform $2000 per acre bond to mining claimants all across the state. There is no chance of unfair bonding here. Quentin has held a bond with the DMG for years. The Forest Service is well aware of this. This bond covers one acre of disturbance and can be renewed or transferred to another acre once the reclamation has been completed. This one-acre limit is synonymous with the 1 acre at a time disturbance proposed in Quentin’s operating plan. In court, Quentin argued that 36 CFR 228.8h covered his operations. This regulation states that, “Certification or other approval issued by State agencies or other federal agencies of compliance with laws and regulations relating to mining operations will be accepted as compliance with similar or parallel requirements of these regulations.” Ultimately, the government asserted that the regulation only applied to reclamation.
Well, if that is true, than it is entirely unreasonable for the government to require duplicate bonding for the same one acre disturbance, and the state bond should suffice as meeting similar or parallel reclamation requirements. In fact, the government asserted repeatedly that the only involvement the State had with Quentin’s operation was the reclamation aspect. I find this to be a fundamentally uneducated opinion. But if that is what the government testifies to, then I suppose it must honor its interpretation of the law just as it was delivered to the judge. Therefore, it should stand that Quentin has complied with 36 CFR 228.8h by submitting his reclamation bond to the State. In the EA the Forest service demands that the bonds be held by their agency. When asked at the Blue on Black meeting in June, whether or not any bonds could be placed with the State, you said that they could be. You seem to have change your mind. Why? So long as the reclamation is covered, what does it matter? How many bonds will the Forest Service try to collect?
The operator did not refuse to post a bond, as suggested in the EA. This paints a picture of someone who is unwilling to cooperate and is completely unfair. How dare the Forest Service attempt to besmirch his name further. The truth of the matter is, the Forest Service illegally modified his operating plan and wrote the words “will be determined” in the space where the bond calculation would have been. How you could misconstrue this to suggest that he had refused to place the bond is beyond my comprehension and only adds to my concern over your continuing defamation of character.
It is interesting that the Forest Service calculated bonds, which would apparently be necessary to the DMG and the county. Where do you derive the jurisdiction to do this? How can you include these amounts in your bond? You cannot accept money for the State or the County. Furthermore, where are you deriving the authority to speak to Quentin on behalf of these agencies?
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…” (Pg. 19) but isn’t that exactly what you are doing when you inform the public that Quentin’s operation is not in compliance with either State or County regulations? And where do you derive your expertise in this matter? At Jason Uecker’s trial, you admitted that you don’t really even know how the county defines a travel trailer. How dare you make slanderous remarks that would further mislead the public into thinking that Quentin is breaking laws! He has not been contacted by either the State or the County concerning his mining claim in relation to this Plan of Operations.
In fact, Quentin recently met with the State and was not informed of the need to submit an operating plan or even a new notice of intent. Who are you to make that determination? It seems clear to me that you are meddling where you shouldn’t be, and interfering with legitimate mining activities. It sure seems strange to me that under alternative #1 there is no county involvement. This suggests that they only derive jurisdiction when there are structures involved. A travel trailer, with the wheels left on, is a vehicle, not a structure. The county may have jurisdiction over the structures in their county, but they do not have the jurisdiction over occupancy rights on mining claims. Occupancy is a statutory right. Are you trying to imply that Teller County Land Use Regulations preempt the Mining Law? If so, where is your proof? In fact, I have not seen any codified law or other reference from the Forest Service concerning its MOU with the county. We have asked you to provide this information numerous times so that we could become familiar with the requirements of the regulations. You have provided us with nothing.
The indication that I got when I read the letter from Jean Garren was that she was in cahoots with your office in an unofficial attempt to find another way to eject Quentin from his claim. I later heard from a county worker that he was told that the Forest Service was asking the county to help them find a way to get rid of Quentin’s A-frame once and for all. There was even a rumor about town that someone from the Lake George workcenter suggested bulldozing the cabin while Quentin was in court. This demeanor is unprofessional and should be discouraged. Yet, I am privy to numerous instances where Forest Service employees bad-mouth miners and attempt to pit them against one another.
Other area miners, like Joe Doris, are not subject to uncontrolled and preposterous bonding. Perhaps this is so he has enough money left over to employ Steve and George Quist, whose mining interests always seem to be met without undue grief, hardship and expense. I am beginning to suspect that there is a reason underlying all of this that can only be expressed by stating blatantly that you have a serious conflict of interest here. Mr. Doris can disturb up to three acres at a time! WOW! Yet, he has no outrageous bond. Your figures are inconsistent!
But wait, there’s more! You propose to charge Quentin $9.00/lb for seed. Those affected by the Hayman Fire are only reimbursed $1.50/lb for their seed. The Forest Service would require him to use 60 pounds per acre, where others are instructed to use only 12 pounds per acre. The Dreamtime claim also lies within the burn perimeter. Why should Quentin use five times more (and more expensive types) than everyone else?
You propose a $2000 reclamation contract preparation and administration fee. What is the justification for this? Has anyone ever paid these fees? The measures proposed in Quentin’s operating plan should be sufficient for an area where no significant effect from mining activities is likely to occur. Beside this, you have already acknowledged that he has a reclamation plan with the State. Why would you bother wasting his money developing another version of the reclamation proposal which adds absolutely nothing to the quality of environmental protection? This in unreasonable and unnecessary and causes undue hardship.
As for the long term monitoring, are you kidding? Doesn’t Todd Phillipe get paid a salary? Quentin was not advertising for employees at this time. And are you seriously thinking you can get away with charging a fee for him to drive from Fairplay to Lake George? Taxpayers have already footed the bill so that the Forest Service could operate its workcenter out of Lake George. Just because the Forest Service doesn’t assign its employees to work at the locations where they are the most needed is no reason for Quentin or anyone else to have to pay for their lack of organization. In the EA, the Forest Service reports that there are nearly 40 claimants in the area. Yet, if they were all required to pay Todd for his services, this would generate an extra $48,000 annually for the Forest Service. If Todd visited numerous claims and inspected them on the same day, imagine how much he could bring in for the Forest Service every time he goes out to the Crystal Creek area! It would be a whole lot more than his services really cost, to be sure. That’s a lot of money to pay for someone who barely has any experience in his field as a salary, let alone bonus bucks for mileage. And that does not consider that many area claimants hold multiple locations. Would they be required to pay this fee for each claim? This would equal some $100,000! This is not a pizza delivery service. Quentin will not be tipping his Forest Service driver. Or is the government implying that it is now accepting $1200 compliance bribes? Sorry, we are not interested.
Whatever spiffed up services you may think Todd can provide, we will settle for him to simply do his job as required by law and to conduct mining inspections in accordance with his job responsibilities at 36 CFR 228.7 (a) which states that “Forest officers shall periodically inspect operations to determine if the operator is complying with the regulations in this part and an approved plan of operations.” This is required of the Forest Service by law, and it is their public responsibility. Where do you derive the authority to bill claimants for this federally mandated obligation? We taxpayers have already paid, and will continue to pay for it. Monitoring activities are not discretional. If they were, then the Forest Service would not have had such difficulty in the past notifying Quentin that it is inspection time, since he is allegedly supposed to be paying for it.
The value of the land itself at fair market price is not even $20,000, thanks to Ms. Barton’s efforts. How can you possibly justify a bond calculated higher than the actual value of the land itself? You cannot. Not reasonably. In my review of the bond calculation, there is gross negligence in the determination of fees.
Take away the ridiculous reclamation bond, $11,149, as reclamation of that same acre is covered by the State, and the amount is reduced to $13,895. Take away Todd’s petty cash, reduce the amount required for reseeding, and the useless preparation of an identical contract at $2000 and we arrive at a figure of roughly $10,000. But even this figure is too high. Where does the District derive authority to charge $1000 for hazard site materials clean-up when it admits that no toxic material impacts are anticipated? As if suggesting that Quentin pay Todd’s salary was not a stretch, now will he be buying SUV’s and paying holiday bonuses to Forest Service employees too?
In fact, Todd Phillipe visited the Dreamtime claim at least a dozen times in 2003, according to my records. One time he came out to let Quentin know that he would be getting a letter in the mail soon. Does this type of visit justify spending $300 in taxpayer money? I think not. If Quentin were required to pay Todd for each of the instances he came out last year, he would already be out $4000. And what did Todd do in return for this pay? In what way did his presence on the claim merit those valuable taxpayer dollars or benefit the public or the claimant? You tell me, you sent him.
The truth is, it would not cost much to hire a 4-man crew to disassemble the A-frame, salvaging most of the materials, which are worth substantially more than $4000. The structure was built with eventual disassembly in mind, and therefore came apart like a kit. It would cost even less to bulldoze the structure and burn everything, as the Forest Service suggests. To do so would be foolish, when there are thousands of dollars in building materials which could at least be donated to abandoned mine safety programs throughout the state. With the help of a few friends, Quentin took the A-frame down without complications and salvaged all of the building materials.
There is no reason for the Forest Service to charge a bond for the trailers, as they are considered vehicles when the wheels are left on, as preferred by the District. According to 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 landing fields for aircraft. It refers also to modes of transport, such as any type of wheeled or tracked vehicle, whether used on or off roads; to any type of aircraft and boat; and to saddle and pack animals…” (Emphasis added). If an airplane is considered a vehicle which can be used to access a claim, and an airstrip can be made to accommodate it, then surely a trailer meets the vehicle definition and is a much more reasonable and affordable vehicle at that. The trailers will contain valuable mining equipment and mineral specimens and are not likely to be abandoned. If they were abandoned, the value of their contents would greatly outweigh the expense of towing them to a new location. With the FSM definition of “any type of wheeled or tracked vehicle” to describe the claimant’s right to access his minerals under 36 CFR 228, I wonder where you got the idea that you had the discretionary power to deny the use of a backhoe on the claim (as noted at pg. 4 of the EA)
The bond for a septic tank is not reasonable. I question why the Forest Service would consider a septic tank as a reasonable alternative when in the EA it was determined that cathole use did not cause a significant disturbance. Surely, putting in an unnecessary septic facility would only cause more significant disturbance than it would prevent.
I believe that the bond calculation prepared by the Forest Service must be reduced and reevaluated in a more realistic light. The Forest Service must take into consideration the Memorandum of Understanding it has with the State which specifies, “the purpose of this memorandum is to eliminate duplication of reclamation bonding requirements for the use and reclamation of National Forest System lands incident to land-disturbing mineral exploration and mining operations.” But the bond is not the only consideration I am skeptical about. I have serious concerns about what the Forest Service calls “alternatives” to this operating plan.
Alternative number one is to take no action. How can this be considered reasonable? According to FSM 2814.24, “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.” To suggest that no action provides reasonable operating plan provisions is absurd. In this scheme, Quentin would be instantly out of compliance for using mechanized equipment, which is at the heart of his operating plan, and has been a contention with your agency for nearly five years.
In fact, alternative one does not even acknowledge the needs of the claimant. The Mining and Minerals Policy Act states, “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.” To ignore the needs and concerns of the customer is not acceptable. How many office hours did you waste concocting this alternative? Sorry, option one is not an option for the Forest Service and therefore the claimant should not even consider it to be a reasonable alternative to his proposal. Besides, alternative one leaves safety risks to the public. Therefore, it should not even be acceptable to the Forest Service, who is supposed to represent the interest of the public.
Throughout the course of the processing of his plan, Quentin has made his concerns over theft and vandalism at his site clear to the Forest Service. His concern is shared by many area miners. Instances of theft and vandalism are not rare. As I recall, there have been numerous reports within the mining community by individuals including Joe Doris, Jeff Self, Tim Hillsten and James Delabar just in the last year. More aggressive instances of this occurred in the past on Mr. Hayward’s private property just outside the forest boundary. The current frustrated neighbor, Mrs. Krabbenhoft, would be constantly bombarded by forest visitors if Quentin was not fenced in along her property line. In a way, he serves as a superficial buffer to her. I have often heard her son yelling disgruntled orders at persons who were parked along his property searching for minerals. Instead of being annoyed by one person, they would be mobbed by hundreds. Then, another claimant would just move in and they would have a new problem every few years.
On page 16 of the EA the Forest Service states, “Some theft of crystals and 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.” On the first page, the Forest Service also states, “the Crystal Creek mining area is renowned source for a variety of minerals that are sold as specimens to mineral collectors and mineral dealers… it is estimated that 100 or more unpatented mining claims currently exist in the area, and new mining claims are staked every year.” Later, these comments are followed by, “an exact count of current or past claim numbers is not available because claims are constantly being relinquished and new claims filed.”
Apparently, the Forest Service is acknowledging that mining is a competitive industry. To date, I must attest that the best security measure available to Quentin is his presence at his site. Since he works the job full time and year round, he has literally met hundreds of forest visitors who would be digging on his claim if he weren’t there to prevent it. Among local collectors, his claim is known for its fine world-class specimens. Because a vast majority of visitors to the area are there for the mineral collecting, Quentin has a vested interest in protecting his claim from regular invasions. Through over five years of continuing full-time occupancy, Quentin has established a “presence” at his claim. This is the strongest deterrent. Mineral Trespass is a serious crime! In fact, it is a felony.
Other security aspects at the Dreamtime include the need for fencing and signage. The Forest Service does not seem very concerned about public safety at the site. I assure you, Quentin is very concerned about this issue. Mining is intrinsically hazardous. To add to this hazard by not taking proper safety precautions is illogical and irresponsible. Further, it is not in accordance with 36 CFR 228.9 which states, “During all operations operator shall maintain his structures, equipment, and other facilities in a safe, neat and workmanlike manner. Hazardous sites or conditions resulting from operations shall be marked by signs, fenced, or otherwise identified to protect the public in accordance with Federal and State laws and regulations.” It seems more of an ethical responsibility and is further supported by federal law that the Forest Service approves these necessary security items based solely on the need for public safety.
In the EA, the Forest Service states, “the operator asserts that a mine life of twenty years or more is possible.” Actually, this statement was made by John Neubert, a Forest Service mineral examiner. Regardless, if the statement is to be considered true, then wouldn’t it be reasonable for the operator to request some form of proprietary security as well? After all, there are many exposed areas on the claim where the operator may not be able to mine for up to fifteen years from now. Even if he does not mine the minerals today, he still owns them tomorrow. Does he not have the right to protect minerals on his claim which he intends to mine in the future from current theft and vandalism?
According to 36 CFR 228.6, “Information and data to be withheld from public examination may include, but is not limited to, known or estimated outline of the mineral deposits and their location, attitude, extent, outcrops, and content, and the known or planned location of exploration pits, drill holes, excavations pertaining to location and entry pursuant to the United States mining laws, and other commercial information which relates to competitive rights of the operator.” (Emphasis added)
Currently, the fenced “operative area” represents less than half of the claim. The other portion of the claim has remained generally unrestricted to public access the entire time Quentin has mined his claim. Forest Service road 201 crosses the Dreamtime claim, and therefore, every visitor to the forest actually passes through the claim. The recent addition of a Forest Service designated parking lot adjacent to the claim will ultimately increase foot traffic in the area. For the Forest Service to suggest that Quentin might unfairly deny public access across his claim is not accurate. Obviously, the public accesses his claim frequently. Quentin’s main concern is for his planned mining operations, within the fenced portion of his claim. He maintains his right to prevent theft and vandalism on his entire claim, beyond the boundaries of the fence, but he generally only restricts access to the active operations on his claim. It is within his right to do so, as the presence of any person in his area constitutes a material interference with his operations. Visits to the site are always controlled. Persons who do not have proper knowledge of the digs and their dangers are never authorized by Quentin to access the fenced part of the claim, unless otherwise authorized by law to do so, as he has a great deal of responsibility in regard to public safety. Furthermore, this is the only way to address concerns about proprietary aspects of the operations, as described above.
The fence is not located more than 200 feet from any of the dangerous or active pits. John Neubert recently testified in Jason Uecker’s trial that this distance from open workings seemed reasonable. I concur. I do not believe, however, that the estimate given by the Forest Service for the removal of the fence is accurate. Most of your costs are grossly exaggerated. In this case, I believe it would only take one worker half a day to complete the removal of the fence. After all, this is not a wood fence, merely a few strands of non-barbed wire. During the Dreamtime meeting, you agreed to the wording which could be used on the signs. This is recorded on the video. Why should there be any changes here?
Another big concern I have with the EA is the issue of Quentin’s occupancy on the claim. Although the occupancy of the Dreamtime claim is comparable to that of the Topaz Mountain Gem Mine, the Forest Service is attempting to apply camping regulations to a mining claimant in one instance and not the other.
Ironically, as a member of the general public, I have the right to camp on the Pike National Forest for 14 out of every 30 days. This technically gives me the right to occupy the forest legally for up to 168 days a year, given that I move from site to site and do not camp within a specified distance from the previous location. Ken Marler once wrote, “we need to keep in mind that the owner of a mining claim has more rights than the general public…”
Why is the forest service not taking this into account? Quentin is only asking to obtain approval for about half a year of occupancy. He has a statutory right to occupy and access his claim. The county regulations obviously apply only to buildings, as indicated by the lack of their authority in alternative one. Yet, the Forest Service insists that Quentin cannot occupy his claim for more than 60 days at a time. How can this be? Did the county somehow negate the claimant’s statutory right to access? That right is not limited to a number of days per year, nor seasonal conditions, nor weekly or daily timeframes. In fact, that right is valid 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Certainly, it is the responsibility of the Forest Service to mitigate potential environmental impacts through operating plan provisions, but only where such impacts actually exist and they pose a significant disturbance to surface resources. According to the EA, there are no effects to the environment from this proposed operation. I question why the Forest Service has not yet given Quentin a Categorical Exclusion. At the very least, he should be working with a backhoe by now. According to FSM 2817.23, “pending approval of the plan, the authorized officer must approve any operation which will meet the environmental protection requirements of the regulations and which must be completed in order for the operator to comply with federal and State laws.” (Emphasis added)
The truth is that Quentin’s operation has and will continue to cause negligible or no effects at all to the environment. Five years of occupancy have not caused irreparable damage to surface resources and have not proved to be a significant disturbance. It seems to me that the suggestions of Ms. Garren and the Forest Service only increase the overall burden of the operator needlessly and without any benefit to the environment at all. In fact, the addition of permanent facilities seems to cause more of a disturbance than it prevents. Therefore, it cannot be reasonable to insist that Quentin construct permanent facilities.
Strangely, even though Quentin proposed to occupy the self-contained travel trailer, and that option would have sufficed in alternative three without the construction of waste facilities, the Forest Service continued to treat the A-frame as though it would be used for residential occupancy in alternative two. The reason Quentin changed his plan to include the travel trailer for occupancy concerns is because he felt that it was determined during the Dreamtime meeting that the use of the cabin for occupancy would require too much mitigation from the county. Therefore, it seems wasteful that the Forest Service spent so much time developing alternative two. Why would the A-frame need to meet occupancy requirements if it was not being used for such purposes?
A travel trailer is considered a vehicle by the DMV, and most certainly meets the definition, “any type of wheeled or tracked vehicle”. As such, there are no restrictions on its use to access mining claims. The Forest Service initially approved an operating plan for Quentin stating that the trailer could be used when the mine was being actively worked. The District referred to this plan as a notice of intent, which implies to me that an operating plan was not required to authorize the use of the trailer for mining purposes. Where does the Forest Service derive its alleged authority to approve or deny vehicle access to a mining claim? Where does the Forest Service derive its alleged authority to deny the occupancy of trailers on mining claims? Where does the Forest Service derive its alleged authority to require bonds for trailers?
Occupancy and use restrictions DO NOT apply to the owner of a mining claim who is exercising his statutory right to access or occupy his valid mining claim for legitimate mining purposes. They do not apply to occupancy which is conducted in accordance with an approved operating plan. They do apply to public visitors in the Pike National Forest. According to FSM 2813.14, “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.” According to alternative two, the use and occupancy restrictions would not be imposed. This implies that the imposition of the restrictions is discretionary here. Use and occupancy restrictions only apply to those who do not have rights otherwise to occupy the forest. Occupancy of a mining claim for operational purposes is a lawful mineral activity and cannot be prevented by the application of special use rules and regulations.
A recent case concerning use and occupancy may help clarify your rights and obligations in this matter. In CR. S-01-559LKK appelle v. ORDER Ronald O. Lex and Kenneth Waggener appellants in the 9th US District Court of Appeals, California, the judge determined in his decision that trailers being used for mining purposes including occupancy did not require either a plan of operations or a notice of intent. The judge also determined that the claimants were mining and not camping, and therefore were not subject to the 14 day camping restriction imposed wrongfully by the Forest Service. Further, the judge determined that bonds cannot be required for travel trailers used in mining operations.
According to 36 CFR 251.50, “All uses of National Forest System lands, improvements, and resources, except those authorized by the regulations governing disposal of timber and special forest products, such as greens, mushrooms and medicinal plants (part 223), minerals (part 228), and grazing of livestock (part 222), are designated ‘special uses’…” Hence, mining is not a special use and has its own body of regulation found at 36 CFR 228. This regulatory scheme also includes the direction of the Forest Service Manual title 2800. In every instance, occupancy is described as a statutory right. According to the Minerals Program Policy, the Forest Service should, “Plan and provide for access to and occupancy of National Forest System lands for mineral resource activities…” How does applying camping regulations to a mining operation provide for the occupancy of the claim?
In the EA, the Forest Service seems primarily concerned with the comments of Teller County and others who may be instrumental in preventing the mining operation. Where are the provisions which would allow Quentin to maintain his business at the claim continuosly? I was dismayed when the Forest Service failed to acknowledge the many comments in support of the operations, wherein the operator had been described as a responsible miner and good steward of the land. I hope this is not the case in the decision. Remember, it is your job to mitigate environmental impacts, not to regulate mining operations otherwise. This determination should be based on available facts rather than speculative opinions.
During Quentin’s trial, prosecuting attorney George Gill stated, “what Quentin Good is complaining about is an administrative problem. It’s strictly a civil matter. He has to- however painful it is, and if anyone’s ever dealt with an administrative remedy, and I dealt with that for five years on the civil side, it is extraordinary. It’s tough. And still, the requirement, so that the government is at the behest of one individual after another, they have to exhaust their administrative remedies. They have to jump through those hoops, and that’s the way Congress wanted it, and that’s the way it still is. If this defendant doesn’t like it, then he has to go through the process…” (?!)
Well, according to the Forest Service’s latest misinterpretation of the facts, Quentin never had an approved operating plan and was therefore never qualified for an appeal. Let me ask you this… how can a reasonable man exercise administrative rights and remedies if he is never even given the acknowledgement that he has those rights to begin with? It seems to me like the government never even gave him a chance to be heard, the very least they could have afforded him in the spirit of cooperation. How can a reasonable man have submitted three separate operating plans over the course of 5 years and still be out of compliance with the regulations which prescribe that he must have an operating plan simply because the Forest Service refuses to acknowledge valid operations? The Forest Service cannot reasonably delay the processing of this plan any further. I made this statement when I replied to the first round of public comments—BACK IN JULY! A decision must be made. From the court hearings it could easily be construed that the decision has already been made (perhaps even years ago). I urge you to consider the opinions of those of us who SUPPORT the operations at the claim, and other small prospecting and mining operations. If you do not, you can count on our appeal of your decision!
As a supporter of the operation, I have personally observed the following facts related to the development of future improvements at the site and believe that that these facts may help you in reaching a more practical bond calculation.
The DMG developed a $2000/acre standard for its reclamation activities. The use of this bond to cover the activities proposed in the Dreamtime Plan of Operations would ensure that the Forest Service was making every effort to avoid duplicate bonding. This would also be compatible with the objectives of the Memorandum of Understanding between the State and the Forest Service, as well as 36 CFR 228.8(h) as defined by the government at Quentin’s trial.
None of the other figures in the bond calculation are reasonable. Trailers do not require the placement of a bond. Items which are determined not to cause a significant disturbance to surface resources are not even required to be covered by an operating plan, according to 36 CFR 228.4 (1) (v). Since there were no reported effects to the environment anticipated as a result of the proposed actions, there should not be any additional costs associated with this proposal.
During the trial, the judge argued that it would be wasteful for Quentin to remove the A-frame if the Forest Service would ultimately decide to allow the structure at a later time. So why is the approval of the structure even a consideration here? You told the judge that the A-frame would never be approved. It seems a waste of time for you to have developed yet another unrealistic alternative. Further, it would be unreasonable for you to approve the A-frame retrospectively, especially when Quentin already made so many reasonable attempts to secure the structure in an operating plan. All figures related to the cost of removing this structure should be stricken from the bond calculation.
An equipment shed is not unreasonable in the case of a twenty year operation. Because the effects of having a shed on the site are negligible there is no reason that the construction of a shed for storage of mining equipment and supplies should not be approved. The bond, however, should not be in excess of the actual value of the shed. The surface area disturbed by the temporary placement of a storage shed is minimal, and the cost of reseeding such a small area must be inconsequential. The Forest Service calculated the bond amount for removing the proposed shed at $339.00 (Pg. 30) This seems like a reasonable figure to me. I am sure that Quentin would find this amount to be acceptable.
The use of a travel trailer on the Dreamtime claim during periods of active mining was already approved indefinitely in the Plan of Operations signed by District Ranger Donald Cosby in May of 1999. The District later modified this plan in an unusual and illegitimate manner. Having serious concerns about the status of his plan with the Forest Service, Quentin later rescinded his signature. In my review of the SUD conducted on Walter Rubeck’s claim, I noted that Ron Baer made the statement, “Mr. Rubeck’s use of the mobile home and travel trailer has been approved in the past as temporary occupancy; it would be unreasonable to not allow that temporary use to continue.” Is this not true at the Dreamtime claim as well?
The use of a trailer for occupational concerns would alleviate the claimant from unnecessary bonding related to the reclamation of alternatives like a septic system. Further, it would allow operations to continue without material interference resulting from sudden changes in long-term activities. The contention here is not the length of time that the trailer itself can remain at the site, because the presence of the trailer poses no discernable threat to the environment whatsoever, and the right to access the claim is statutory. The contention is the amount of time Quentin would be allowed to “occupy” the trailer.
I have many questions for the Forest Service regarding this matter. I hope they are all addressed in your decision. Can you cite the laws which suggest that miners are subject to camping regulations? Can you cite the guidelines you used to determine that Teller County has jurisdiction over the length of occupancy on mining claims located within the Pike National Forest? Can you explain why a claimant who does not propose occupancy has more rights to be in the forest than one who proposes occupancy in an operating plan? Can you tell me where you derived the authority to deny the use of mechanized equipment on mining claims? Can you cite a law which allows you to act as a mediator for the State or the County in matters related to bonding? How does your authority to regulate surface uses apply to operations which are determined not to pose a significant impact to environmental features, and therefore cannot be considered significant disturbance, undue degradation, or irreparable damage?
Although Quentin never posted a bond with your agency because he had already posted the required reclamation paperwork with the DMG, he did receive a bond calculation for activities at the Dreamtime claim from the Forest Service. The calculation came in the form of a revision to one of Quentin’s previous proposals. This calculation included the reclamation of up to ¾ acre of surface disturbance, the removal of the tractor, if stored on-site, the removal of the trailer, the removal of any temporary fencing, closing non-system roads and revegetation. A copy of this bond calculation is on file with your office. The amount requested in the bond calculation was $2436 including administrative costs.
The calculation is broken down in the following way:
Removal of tractor and travel trailer $200 each $400
Clean-up/disposal of trailer site 8 hours @ $10/hr $80
Mine Workings (adits, dumps, pit, etc.)
Dozer operator- fill and re-contour 15 hours @ $22/hr $330
Dozer equipment use 15 hours @ $10/hr $150
Dozer mobilization 4 hours @ $32/hr (2 days, 1-way) $128
FS laborer mobilization 5 hours @ $10/hr $50
Dozer rip access road 3 hours @ $32/hr $96
Prepare site for seeding 3 hours @ $10/hr $30
Seed and fertilizer on access road 3 hours @ $32/hr $96
Seed and fertilizer on mining pits 4 hours @ $10/hr $40
Seed 40 lb/ac X ¾ acre @ $20/lb $600
Removal of temporary fencing 3 hours @ $10/hr $30
20% mineral administration fee $406
Your current bond calculation is ten times this estimate! What is the reason for the discrepancy? Interestingly, you testified in court that it would cost the government $8000 to clean up the A-frame, remove the trailer, reclaim the excavations and remaining surface disturbance. At that time, the government was still going by Ms. Kabele’s mistaken estimate that three-quarters of and acre had been disturbed. In alternative three, there is no removal of the A-frame to consider. Why is the reclamation amount so much greater today than it was in court just a few months ago? I was appalled at the amount you suggested to the court anyway.
In the EA, you state that, “All trees must be designated for removal prior to excavation of prospect pits and must receive Forest Service approval.” In the August 13, 2000 revision, the Forest Service tells Quentin that the need for him to notify them before felling trees is due to the goshawk mitigation. Since that mitigation has been cancelled, why is Quentin still being asked to comply with this request?
I would suggest that where no effect to environmental impacts can be anticipated, no mitigation or bonding should be required. I thought that mining a prudent claim was meant to make its owner wealthy, not the Forest Service. If all of the fees associated with this small, limited impact operation were expected from all other operators, they would accumulate into the hundreds of thousands of dollars very quickly. However, this Ranger District has in no way demonstrated its ability to properly manage funds for mitigation measures, including those before the fire, and does not warrant the excessive amounts for reclamation and management suggested in the bond calculation. Federal employees are generously paid for their positions, and miners should not be burdened with any further costs associated with their official duties.
Further, I believe that the imposition of unfair bond requirements to this operation is not consistent with activities that are currently approved by your office for other area miners. Quentin should not have to pay more than they do. Proposing occupancy of a mining claim in an operating plan is supposed to open the door to that statutory right, not to limit you to less time in the forest than every other person out there!
In my best understanding, the Forest Service may be justified to ask the claimant to furnish an additional $339 to ensure the proper removal of the equipment shed. This bond amount could be posted with the Forest Service, or the State, in addition to the $2000 bond Quentin currently holds with them.
Sincerely,
Anita Kuhn
PO Box 201
Lake George, Colorado
80827
Posted by: Redpaw Jan 9 2004, 04:47 PM
ALL HAIL ANITA KUHN
ALL HAIL ANITA KUHN
ALL HAIL ANITA KUHN
ALL HAIL ANITA KUHN
ALL HAIL ANITA KUHN
I can only one day hope to ever have the precise sensical approach that Anita has displayed, It should never have had to come to all this mistrust and abuse from a Agency paid for by US.
My Utmost Respect for Anita is something that I have till I hit the grave, common citizens should never have to be subjected to harrassment of this type.
I bow down and graciously remove my hat in her efforts to see this through with a just ruling in favor of a MINER.
Please, I ask of you...teach me to teach others to be this effective against a monster we have created, I want to be this powerful too as I am just learning how to walk through the mine feilds before me.
RP of the MRT
Posted by: Quilomene John Jan 9 2004, 09:52 PM
Wow,
I'd love to be a fly on the wall when that letter lands on the District Ranger's desk.
My hat is off to you Anita, reading that is like witnessing the systematic neutralization of a formerly unbeaten sports team. The juggernaut is going to fall!
I can't help but think of the District Ranger like a man who sees his kid's football in the driveway and steps out of the car to kick the offerding toy away, as he delivers the kick, somewhat too forcefully due to emotion, the sinking realization dawns on him that it wasn't a football but a hornets nest!!! QJ
Posted by: ColoradoProspector Jan 12 2004, 09:56 AM
Okay, it's D-day. 
All responses must be submitted by 5 pm today. (Dec has 31 days)
Which means sent electronically, or post marked today for snail mail, or hand delivered by 5 pm at the district office, (get a time stamp in this situation).
I have sent mine electronically and will post as soon as I receive the confirmation so you know it works, or we will have to send them snail mail.
Now just copy and paste the response into word or works so it will be in the proper format.
then send it to:
comments-rocky-mountain-pike-san-isabel-south-park@fs.fed.us
Make sure you put "Dreamtime Mine" for the title! (subject)
The final response draft is now posted and again it is over the old draft(post #6 in this thread) but this time all changes have been highlighted with red so you don't have to go through the whole thing again. :D
There is one sentence that was removed that was in between the highlighted areas....
reads.... (Guess the extra 2/3 of the time will be needed to dig up the area under the spoil piles and refill them.)
And the first highlighted area will replace where I misinterperated the earthmoving calculations....oops, sorry.
Now we have the highlighted part there instead and then the closing is an addition.
WHOOOOHOOOO!!!! Just got the confirmation! So sending electronically works and you receive a confirmation as proof of your submission. YES!
Don't forget to sign your name to the document and up front in the opener if your'e a miner, state that there.
Put mine in right after US citizen "and gold miner".
Okay everyone,
TODAY IS THE DAYwe can stand up and be heard.....Let's let them hear our voice today, and for many many too come.
THANK YOU! To everyone who has input their suggestions, ideas and criticisms, they were all very useful.
Please take the time to post if you have responded to this EA.
We would like to have some idea of how many responses they receive.
THANK YOU! THANK YOU! THANK YOU! TO ALL!
CP of the MRT
B)
Posted by: Pink Jan 12 2004, 10:47 AM
Our heart goes out to you jesse and hope all goes well we have had our own scapes with the Fs and how we can do things but we also found there is such a thing as a grandfaters clause her in wyoming that pretty much makes the Fs look like a fool and some of the things they try to pull mute. Just know you are not alone and we will do what we can to help and have had our fair share of trouble with road closures and unbearable stupid laws that they are trying to put into our books and we are not going to take it either. But after reading all that is going on makes me wounder how safe it is to bring our GPAA group to colorado for a week of mining if you have that many restrictions and laws. You ever heard of the kid that sold horse fertilizer he got taxed at both ends and still got screwed over how much he actually made and the law is doing the same to us. Y a know they say mining is a dying hobbie well make ya wonder why doesn't it and we still have trouble with the game and fish and forrest service trying to combine thier laws and its up to us to keep them straight.
Posted by: The Kid Jan 13 2004, 09:39 PM
Hey Everyone,
Thanks to all who sent in comments in regard to the EA of the Dreamtime cliam. I have a status hearing tomorrow at the Federal Courthouse in Denver at 4:00. This will be just to show where I'm at (or more like where the F.S. is at) in regard to my plan of operations. The F.S. had indicated that there would be a decision on the plan by January 12, but that has not happened. We'll have to see what happens. Thanks again, and I'll keep you posted.
The Kid
Posted by: Redpaw Jan 14 2004, 08:36 PM
Anyone hear from The Kid?, I'd like to hear that he is celebrating right about now.
Posted by: ColoradoProspector Jan 15 2004, 12:05 AM
Met with the Kid and Anita this evening after the hearing.
Not time to celebrate just yet but they said the judge is starting to act like he notices something stinks......... ;) :P
The Kid has a decision hearing on the 24th I believe.... <_< I'll have to verify that one.
CP
Posted by: Redpaw Feb 4 2004, 03:01 PM
I'd like to apologize for being so busy with the Oregon Beach issue as to not ask the Question...."What is happening with this issue?"
Jesse, Quinten, CP talk to us, and let us know what is happening to this issue. I may be busy and 1700 miles away but I care and I want to know what is the standpoint of the actions so far.
*Ding *Dinnnng - next Fight
Posted by: Mrs.CP Feb 6 2004, 12:06 PM
Ok...For starters.............Never apologize for being busy helping fight for our rights!!! :) ;)
Is it ok if I talk to you Redpaw....
Dan left this morning to go to Quinten's hearing. It started at 10am. He told me as soon as he hears something, he will let me know. He promised to get pics, and I will post them as soon as he gets back here. ;)
I wish them luck, and hopefully they brought their appatite......Because.......
GREEN AGENDA is What's for Dinner ....hehehehe
Right Redpaw. :D :D
Posted by: Redpaw Feb 6 2004, 01:24 PM
YEAH DAN, !!
Standing up for another MINER :D , and hopefully getting pictures.
Yes Denise, it is always okay for you to talk to me inplace of someone else, any news or comments are always welcome. B)
Green Agenda was so thick last night at the meeting that they wanted the parks and rec to hand cultivate the european beach grass from the beach !, and then recommended that no equipment be used whatsoever.....So your asking what was my comment to that?
I stated ( feeling they are screwing me too for shovels ) that I wanted to see the TRIPLING of HAND CULTIVATION in acreage for Beach Grass removal.
:D :D :D I fell on the floor when they were forced to write that comment on the large tablet as a comment. Mess with me and I get OBNOXIOUS in ideas.
I can't wait to hear about Quinten, I want I want I want !! 
:D :D :D I'm like a 3 year old drunk on lollipop buzz.
Posted by: ColoradoProspector Feb 7 2004, 09:09 AM
YES!
The MRT had a very positive influence on Quentin's "meeting" ...... ;) B)
We were under the impression that this would be the meeting to hear the FS decision....... <_< Turns out that this was a meeting to negotiate with Quentin as to what the decision should be! B) ;) :P
So we sat there and hammered out the details concerning the alternatives concerning the EA.
I have to take off for a bit, will be back shortly to tell the whole story.
Here is a pic of the MRT members that were present.
From left to right is me, then Quentin, Anita, and Brian.
Be back later...... sorry guys.
CP of the MRT
|
Posted by: Quilomene John Feb 7 2004, 12:02 PM
Right On,
That's GREAT NEWS! You all still have to be vigilant, as I'm sure you will be. It is a good feeling to know that the USFS knows somebody is watchin' them! QJ :D
Posted by: Redpaw Feb 7 2004, 12:03 PM
Damn FINE LOOKING GROUP !!
I'd be Proud to stand with you anyday.
The sun is out today for the first time in a long time here in Oregon, I'm gone for the day....
Tips Hat, bids adieu....
RP
Posted by: ColoradoProspector Feb 8 2004, 03:19 PM
Okay, sorry I didn't get back in here yesterday but ended up working all day. <_<
We had a great day at Quentin's meeting.
I was a bit late because it was a three hour ride and it started at 10 am.
When I arrived at the meeting and entered the one room at the Lake George Community Center, Quentin stood up and held up both his arms and announced, "This is Dan Schaefer from the MRT." That wasn't quite what I had in mind but ........ :D
Actually, Quentin and Anita told me afterwards that the meeting was VERY heated before I arrived.
There were 6 FS employees seated around a long table with Quetin, Anita, and Brian sitting on one side.
As I joined the table, I plopped my happy self in an open chair right next to Sarah Mayben (District Ranger) and Ron Baer (one of the two FS Mineral Officers for the state). :P ;) :D
I just listened at first because I missed the first 40 mins. As I listened, I quickly figured out that this was a negotiation between Quentin and the FS as to the 3 alternatives put forth in the EA, not a decision notice. :o 
Over the next 3 hours or so the alternatives were discussed.
The first positve effect the MRT had was that the meeting from this point was very civil.
I don't know if that was it, but I did announce shortly after I arrived that "I am here representing a group of small scale miners from across the country who are concerned with what is going on in this district." :P
At any rate we pretty much breezed over #1 as it seemed ridiculous to even address it, at which point Quentin stated that of all three of the alternatives he would like to review #3.
I would like to say at this point that the FS was listening and taking our input as miners to modify the alternatives. VERY REFRESHING!
I have talked with Ron on the phone several times and he has always been very upfront with me and he said he used to prospect for gold himself.
As the different pieces of #3 were discussed, there were several concessions in Quentin's favor.
Removed or altered in the bond amount
1. Hazmat will be removed.
2. Contract prep will be removed
3. Long term monitering costs will be removed
4. Earth moving estimates will be adjusted to local rates that Quentin must demonstrate by local bid
5. Goshawk mitigation will be removed and the Goshawk mitigation will be re-evaluated "if" and "when" a Goshawk shows up on "public land" only ( private land is close to the area also)
6. Seed amount per acre to be ruduced and miner may choose seed mix and the FS will analyze seed samples at no cost.
7. Well and septic will be removed.
Doh! Dang it! A skier locked their keys in the car, back shortly.......... 
Sorry folks..........CP <_<
To be continued......... :P
Posted by: ColoradoProspector Feb 8 2004, 08:57 PM
On with the story…..
All the alterations were great but…… <_<
There were some comments made that have me concerned, Sarah kept saying that she was afraid of what the Sierra Club might do after her decision. She brought this statement up two or three times while she talked about the signage on the claim and how to deal with human waste at the claim. So my comment was “So what you’re telling us is that you’re willing to overlook Quentin’s statutory right to develop his minerals because you are worried the Sierra Club will sue the FS. That is unreasonable to this miner!”
That comment didn’t come up again….. :)
I also made the comment that the FS is directed to foster and encourage in a fair and unbiased manner and that the best way to achieve this is to secure the willingness of small scale miners to work with the FS. Then I explained that the great majority of small scale miners want to and are willing to comply, but have difficulty trying to determine how to, and when they question the FS they are often mislead!
Then I brought up the fact that this is a perfect opportunity for the FS to work with and educate the general public as I reminded them of the MRT and our determination to educate the public. I said we have a lot of attention focused here!….
Another comment of concern is that Sarah alleges that all or some of the prior approvals on plans has been given in error….. <_<
For what period she didn’t specify but it sounded like several years at least…….
The reasoning behind this comment is, apparently any proposed plan of operation that is submitted for more than one year must have an environmental assessment (EA) which includes using Bacon Davis estimates. Nepa requires the EA and the Fair Labor Standards Act dictates the use of the Bacon Davis cost estimates.
I am inclined to believe the FS on this, they usually know those kind of regs…. <_<
So what we learned is that for small scale miners, you don’t want to file a Plan of Operation for more than one year at a time……. :D
The FS also stated on the record that the water rights are the claimants and the only regulation is on the discharge of the water used into the stream, and that is by the state….. YEAH!!!!! :D B)
The FS also stated on record they have no authority to enforce any county or state regulation but only that they may find the miner in non-compliance with the approved plan.
The first decision notice should come soon. At that point we the citizens may appeal under 215. Quentin will be able to submit changes he wants for the last time and then the final decision notice will be released and then Quentin may appeal under 251.
We the citizens have 45 days to appeal the first decision notice and then there is another 45 days for Quentin’s appeal after the final notice.(I think I got this right) 
After the meeting Sarah Mayben, Ron Baer, and John Nuebert (performed the SUD) all walked over and introduced themselves to me and thanked me for coming. (Hope I spelled their names right) :D
I didn’t get the names of the other three FS employees that were present, but I’m sure Quentin will let us know who they were.
That is pretty much it.
Quentin and Anita felt the MRT’s presence was very positive and helped to keep the meeting on a civil tone. :D
As we sat around and discussed the proceedings after ward Quentin said this is the nicest the FS has treated him in the 5+ years he has been dealing with them……. :) ;)
Time will tell just how much changes in the end, but we will be waiting and watching…… :)
CP of the MRT
Thank you Redpaw! We are damn proud to have you standing with us! :D ;) You're the one taking the pic right!? :P
Posted by: ColoradoProspector Feb 8 2004, 09:39 PM
Oh yea, forgot to say that I gave Sarah, Ron and John a personal invite to the rally..... ;) :)
CP
Posted by: Quilomene John Feb 21 2004, 07:50 PM
Hey all,
I just received my" Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact for the Dreamtime Mining Operation"!
Overall it looks pretty good, especially when compared to where this was heading a couple of months ago. The limited overnight stays, and the reclamation bond ammount still seem to be problem areas, and might require an appeal of those requirements.
Lets kick this around and present a unified front should such appeal become a necessity! QJ ;)
Posted by: Redpaw Feb 22 2004, 02:04 AM
Does that mean that mine will be here tomorrow?.....I haven't seen a thing from them since submitting my response.
Posted by: Quilomene John Feb 22 2004, 11:06 AM
Hey all,
I slept on the Decision Notice, and these possible appeal worthy questions come to mind:
1. Is the reclamation bond consistent with the per acre bond fees Logging Companies are required to post?
2. Are the reclamation standards the same for surface disturbance due to Logging as for other mines in the District? And is this same standard applied to the Dreamtime Mine?
3. The limitation to "No more than 60 overnight stays per year" is inconsistent with
U.S. Case Law (Lex-Waggoner, and Shumway etc)
4. What limitations are commonly imposed on watchmen staying overnight on Logging Operations pertaining to Forest Service Timber Sales?
5. Since the mine is adjacent to a National Forest "Mainline" Road, will any future Goshawk Nesting Activity within 600 ft. of said road necessitate closure to mechanized activity during "Critical Time Periods"?
These questions come to mind, so I figured posting them would spark some thought and discussion!.....QJ <_<
Posted by: ColoradoProspector Feb 22 2004, 03:15 PM
Haven't received mine yet........ <_<
Did get to talk with Quentin a bit about the notice.
Don't know about #1 yet.
On #2- The FS is claiming that they have been doing the approvals wrong for some unspecified period....(Quentin is the first miner to have the Bacon Davis estimates used for this level of activity!)
Now this gets into the conflict of intrests thing...... Sarah Mayben is now forbiden to make any decision on certain claims as she is related to the owners or friends with the owners of certain claims.
Quentin tells me that these just happen to be the same people who currently have those approved plans to operate now, that have apparently been given in error..... 
:(
How many, who, and when I don't know..... sorry
Quentin should be in soon to post some more info.....
#3- Think you are exactly right on that one too John.
#4- Don't know on this one either....
#5- They didn't keep their word on this one.... Sarah told us all at the meeting that she would put in the wording..."ON PUBLIC LAND ONLY!"
(There is private land next to the Dreamtime claim.)
She will be called on that one, that wording needs to be included.....very important!
Don't think they can close that road if the Goshawk nest within the 600'.
We could argue that the road obviously doesn't bother it if it nests there while the road is used daily..... :)
The earth moving will still be adjusted also...Quentin just needs to submit the local estimates.
Thanks for the your thoughts John, GOOD ONES!
Who knows something about the logging...... :)
And why didn't I get mine dang it! <_<
Adding to list for phone calls on the morrow....
CP
Posted by: Quilomene John Feb 23 2004, 09:54 PM
Hey all,
I was wondering if anyone else had received their "Notice of Decision" packet from District Ranger Mayben?
I got to thinking that I responded via snail mail due to irregularities in the E-mail situation at the time. I wonder if electronic submissions do not get the same reply procedure?
It is hard to brainstorm some appeal questions if we don't all have notices! Not
paranoid yet, but keeping my options open........QJ <_<
Posted by: ColoradoProspector Feb 24 2004, 05:46 PM
Just called the FS office to inquire as to the responses for electronic submissions.
Course Todd was in a meeting and I had to leave a message... <_<
I'll let ya know what I find out...... :)
Amazing thing was..... I just said I was inquiring about responses to public notices submitted electronically and I made no mention of any specific public comment period or any specific proposals.
I was immediately asked "Does this have to do with the Dreamtime?" :o :D :P
I replied "Why yes, as a matter of fact, it does!" :P :D
That is when I got sent to a message box....... <_< <_<
CP
Posted by: Quilomene John Feb 24 2004, 07:54 PM
Hey all,
It's starting to get a little fishy......I think I'll make a few copies of the Decision Notice and cover letter tomorrow, just to be on the safe side! A personal message with your address will get a copy mailed to you, if you all don't get one tomorrow.
I don't have a scanner, or I would have posted it.
It is probably a requirement that the U.S.Forest Service send a notice to Jesse but I don't know that for a fact. I'll be reading the U.S. F.S. Manual to see if any guidlines or requirements for informing stakeholders as to Decision Notices are listed. Either way, we all need to disect this alternative plan and make a timely appeal if warrented! QJ
Posted by: Redpaw Feb 24 2004, 09:20 PM
I recieved the Response today in the mail, I'm currently looking it over and I'm not overall pleased with their decisions....
If quinten is happy then great....I'll shut up then. but if he wants to appeal some of this I will stand again.
Let me finish reading this and make a reply shortly,
Posted by: ColoradoProspector Feb 24 2004, 10:11 PM
Oh yes! The appeal should be pursued.....
From what Quentin was telling me, he is not satisfied with the desicion notice.
I would also like to mention that he has a hard time getting access to a computer.
Hopefully he will be in soon to post his future plans on this.
One of us will try to get a copy over the next couple days and get it posted here.
CP
Posted by: Redpaw Feb 24 2004, 11:33 PM
I'm a little busy to re-type the document but I don't like some of the issues they have decided towards a 60 day limit for staying on the claim.
Nor the Tent scenario
Nor the Water right
Nor the Bond Amount
and, and, and,
Appeal has to be made for common damn sense, they also had a few tricky sentences in there that made my eyes and ears perk up...
He can stay on the claim but cannot cook, use water or have storage? ( page 2 last paragraph ) Does that mean he has to grow a garden ? and use a Rain collector?....
A 15,595 dollar Bond?.....What the heck is Quinten doing that he is not telling us?, I'm just kidding :D
They stabbed him hard in the back on this, but thats just my opinion and I think Civil Action at this point is necessary.
Posted by: Redpaw Feb 25 2004, 11:13 PM
RED ALERT
RED ALERT
I just got off the phone with a fellow MRT member as we were looking over the Decision Notice, I happened to notice this Statement.
Get out your Decision Notice and put some pillows around you ( for when you hit the ground ) so you don't break anything.
Go to the Third page from the end of the Decision Notice.
Top of Page should say: Finding of No Significanat Impact.
Now read #5 Statement and pay attention to the very last sentence.
WHAT IS THAT???? WHAT DID THAT SAY????.....EXCUSE ME, but I think there is something wrong with AMERICA when the Forest service has to consider all these other issues when making a decision for a simple mining claim....
CIVIL RIGHTS??.....OH PLEASE for who?
WOMEN??...........What about Quintens? Is she not a woman? Where is her right to Mine?
CONSUMERS?...... What is there a concession stand around the corner?
Environmental Justice?........Are the Rocks Offended??
Oh I get it....Quinten is not a minority transgendered person holding a civil office position, working a concession stand selling Moss juice.
OUTRAGED ! ( and Laughing hysterically )
All through the document they claim they can't find a thing wrong with his mining proposal and yet they sure stuck it to him for the MAX.
Sara Mayben is a criminal to the People.
Colorado Forest Service is a JOKE.
I am APPEALING with or without Quinten, just because I can.
Aaaaaaaaaaarrrrggggghhh !!......
Posted by: ColoradoProspector Feb 26 2004, 11:43 AM
Heard back from Todd at the FS office yesterday.
He said, "Did you leave an address for the decision notice to be sent?"
I said "Well I assumed that since I submitted electronically that I would receive it electronically!" <_< He repllied with "Oh, well I guess I could of done that." :( Thanks for trying to save another tree there pal! <_<
So anyone who did submit through the e-mail and didn't get a copy of the decision should call this number and ask for Todd..... 719-836-2031 ;)
Talked with Quentin last night for a bit.........
He is trying to communicate with Sarah in an attempt to avoid the appeal.
Unfortunately it seems that Sarah wants him to have to appeal. Takes more time.... and is just yet another unreasonable time frame delay tactic (illegal) by the FS!
Quentin is not at all happy with the decision, make no mistake.
He is still trying to work with the FS, and they are still refusing to cooperate... What a shock eh!?
LET IT BE KNOWN TO ALL, THAT THE SOUTH PARK RANGER FOREST DISTRICT WAS PUBLICALLY INVITED BY THE PUBLIC (VIA THE MRT) TO WORK WITH THE PUBLIC TO EDUCATE THE PUBLIC!
Now time will always tell the truth! But so far I don't see the "Fostering and Encouraging" either.
Sorry but I'm still waiting for my copy...... I will know more details when I get to see the dang thing! ;)
CP
Posted by: Quilomene John Feb 26 2004, 10:47 PM
Hey all,
I made two copies of the "Notice of Decesion" I'm just waiting for an e-mail or personal message containing the address so I can send them to you. QJ
Posted by: Quilomene John Mar 3 2004, 08:59 AM
Hey all,
Here is an appeal of a USFS Decision written by Greenies (presumably an attorney)....http://www.oregonwaters.org/Steamboatappealweb.htm
We should read this and follow the format to submit a professional looking appeal, QJ B)
Posted by: Jesse Mar 3 2004, 02:34 PM
Hello, to all the hard working and generous folks who spend their time helpling miners from Colorado and all over the country. All you people deserve an award for your efforts. :D
Sorry i have not been able to write lately, trying to poke some holes in other areas of our corrupt and shamefull government. Not an easy task, but i'm always up for a challenge.
I still have no EA from the Fs hmmmm, sure makes you wonder what the hell is taking so long!
Well folks its D-Day. a decision on my case will be delivered:
March 22nd at 2:30pm
901 19th Street
4th floor, room 3
Judge Schaffer
Denver Colorado
Anybody who can or wants to be there is welcome to be. It should be interesting.
I was able to copy the trial transcripts onto CD but i havent been able to figure out how to post them on this site yet. Computer illiterate? yup. any way i'll keep trying.
jesse
Posted by: ColoradoProspector Mar 4 2004, 12:49 PM
JESSE! HOWDY STRANGER! :o
Just give ol' Todd a call and he'll be happy to send a pulp copy to you.
Maybe we should suggest some computer classes instead of environmental education for our fs employees . Then maybe they could send an electronic response right after they created it on the pc :o ........ May leave a couple more pines standing in Pike National Forest.... :P
We will cerainly try to be there on March 22nd.
QJ, I was reading through some of that appeal you posted, :o WHOA! Scarey reading there..... ;) but yet it's an example of how to write your appeal. Thank you
I hope it helps folks to compose a meaningful response.
Here is the link to the appeal QJ is refering to.http://www.oregonwaters.org/Steamboatappealweb.htm
Keep in mind this was written to appeal AGAINST a mining company.
CP
Posted by: Jesse Mar 10 2004, 02:34 PM
Howdy folks,
I FINALLY have an EA! I might need some help getting it posted, I do have a computer but am still learning all the ins and outs. I would like to get as many people to comment as possible, so if anybody can help me post it, i would be very grateful. I also have a scanner, i'm just having trouble getting it on the site.
Any way it should be pretty easy comment as it seems to be the same nonsense that was in Quentin;s EA and maybe a little extra.
I;m working on it.
jesse
Posted by: Coalbunny Mar 12 2004, 04:03 AM
Right on Jesse! Can't say that I can help you much if any, but I have you, your claims and you're missus in my prayers!
Posted by: Quilomene John Mar 12 2004, 12:13 PM
Coalbunny Carl,
For a good starting project you could write to District Ranger Mayben and request a copy of the Notice of Decision on the Blue on Black Mine.
Read it over, and you can send in comments to the District Ranger's Office. After this weekend we will be posting comments and discussing the USFS position.
Here's the address:
District Ranger Sarah Mayben
Re. Blue on Black mine
South Park Ranger District
P.O.Box 219 Fairplay, Co. 80440
Before you know it you will be swatting the beehive all on your own and reporting back! LOL.................QJ
Posted by: ColoradoProspector Mar 13 2004, 06:52 PM
Okay,
Got the Dreamtime Decision Notice posted......WHEW!
Quentin and Anita asked me to post their responses also so I put them all in the pinned/locked topic originally started for the Dreamtime EA posting and we can discuss what to do in this one..... :D
Jesse, we'll try to get yours in here too.
Give me a call.
Carl, all the stuff I just posted should give you a real good idea what will be coming up in Jesse's EA. I haven't seen Jesse's yet, but I bet it's real close.
Now if anyone didn't get to respond during the public scoping period you CAN STILL COMMENT.
You must enter your comments now within someone's appeal that did comment.
CP
Posted by: Jesse Mar 17 2004, 04:46 AM
Hey, the EA is posted! I'm starting to get the hang of this and i got a little help from the kid. I Started a new thread for it so it wouldn't take up all the space here. Lets tell Mrs. Mayben exactly what we really think of her. Comments have to be in thirty days from march 5th. Sorry I didn't get it posted faster. personally, I hope to take mayben down a notch or two and let her know her attempt to assume powers that no authority has granted her to assume, WILL NOT BE TOLERATED Lets remember her only authority is to protect surface resources, not to regulate mining.
Wish me luck on monday, I'm probably gonna need it.
Jesse
Posted by: Quilomene John Mar 17 2004, 09:38 PM
Hey all,
I found this site while doing some preliminary claim research. It would come in handy when asking the U.S. Forest Service questions regarding projects, bonding requirements, and reclaimation projects.
Here it is: http://www.fs.fed.us/im/foia/
An interesting request might be to ask District Ranger Mayben for all information received by her office pertaining to the Lex-Waggener case NO. CR-01-559 LKK. This would show she should know that miners can camp incident to mining on their claims, longer than 60 days, in trailers, with cooking facilities, etc.
Since this decision applies to all Federal lands open to mineral entry under the 1872 Mining Law, you would think the USFS would inform their District Rangers of the case and their responsibilities and obligations under the law! I'm betting they did and it got ignored! QJ <_<
Posted by: Quilomene John Mar 17 2004, 10:01 PM
Hey all,
I know I posted this before here but with a dead link so it bears repeating. This is an appeal filed by GREENIES..............!!!! It is presumably written by an attorney, and as such it is a well written, appeal. We would do well to read and LEARN from this. It attacks provisions of the plan by citing case law and also points out potential pitfalls for us to avoid.
http://www.oregonwaters.org/Steamboatappealweb.htm
I think appeals written using this format would carry far more weight with a judge than emotional appeals short on case law references. QJ ;)
Posted by: Quilomene John Apr 3 2004, 12:24 PM
Hey all,
It's getting down to Crunch Time! Does anybody have a draft appeal they can post? This seems to be cooling off when it is supposed to be heating up!
My appeal will be in the mail, but the electronic posters could share their information. I'm particularily concerned with the disparity in bonding requirements. Is this a public admission that District Ranger Mayben, has been derelict in her responsibility, or simply mistaken as to the correct bond ammount?
Hope to see some posts over the weekend...........QJ :(
Posted by: Mrs.CP Apr 3 2004, 12:36 PM
Im still working on mine QJ, there are so many issues to address.........Im just trying to find the right words.
(words that don't need editing). <_< :o ^_^
Posted by: Mrs.CP Apr 3 2004, 01:15 PM
Im quite fond of Anitas appeal letter!...... Her's is also a great example of questions to ask, and regs to quote. Just DON"T copy and paste her appeal, just use hers to give you some ideas. ;) :) Every appeal should be unique. You can find hers in the pinned thread called "Colorado Prospectors Uniting".
Back to work I go.......... ^_^ :)
Posted by: Coalbunny Apr 3 2004, 02:53 PM
Gentlemen, ma'am, something that I feel you guys have overlooked I feel would help you guys a lot- PUSH.
Pray
Until
Something
Happens
In the end, HE is the reason why we are here doing this, and in the end He will make the ultimate decision.
:)
Carl
Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)