ColoradoProspector   CP Club Membership Info.

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Arkansas River Mining Claims, Managing agencies plan to expand on "relinquished" claims
ASTROBLEME
post Apr 2 2017, 04:25 PM
Post #1


Rock Bar!
****

Group: Members
Posts: 480
Joined: 16-October 08
From: Central Colorado
Member No.: 6,813



Hello Everyone... especially owners of Mountain Robber #3 and Music Man mining claims,

badday.gif I was wishing it was just an April Fools Joke but this is serious business for owners of Arkansas River mining claims. A public notice in the local paper on April 1st 2017 advises that comments on an Environmental Assessment are due by May 1. Please take some time to look at the plan and make sure you take advantage of the opportunity to make appropriate comments. The agencies involved expect impacts of free camping access to be spread throughout the Arkansas Headwaters Recreation Area, so I'd suggest you review the plan if you have any mining claims between Leadville and Pueblo Reservoir. Here's the link to their proposal;

Salida East Recreation Site

Most of the public lands in the upper Arkansas River basin are being managed under leases between the U. S. Bureau of Land Management and the Colorado Parks and Wildlife agencies. This is a beneficial arrangement in most cases but over the past few years, I've seen an erosion of rights for those that aren't vigilant on proposals being put forth on/near their claim holdings. Before I retired from my scientist/researcher position with Colorado Department of Natural Resources, I was in far too many meetings where government staff expressed opposition to mining interests where miners weren't even part of the proceedings. I could rarely give input to clarify mineral interests due to my limited authority over those matters and that was further complicated by staff not understanding the law and having previously formed strong personal opinions. The opposition ideology is getting a push back...the pendulum is moving the other way now! When mineral claim owners assert their rights as input is allowed, they certainly get the agencies attention and can sufficiently protect their interests. emoticon-object-018.gif

If you download the Salida East Recreation Site Environmental Assessment take a look at page 13. Their plan clearly states "If mining claims on adjacent BLM lands are relinquished and no longer encumbered BLM could consider adding these areas to the R&PP lease per CPW's initial request (figure 3)." Well folks...there is no figure 3 published in that EA. I'm paying close attention as I've went around this same tree many times while protecting my mining claims. In 2008, the records of my mining claim relinquishment across the site for their proposed area for development was archived. Shortly thereafter, they accelerated building roads, pullouts, boat ramps and other enticements for the public to use. Now they claim too much public use and too many problems. They think those issues can be resolved by intense management and charging the public for what they already have access to. bleh.gif

I've never been one to sleep on my rights and have posted my comment letter below. My hope is that you will be inspired and take similar action to assert you're opinions.

Sincerely,

ASTROBLEME

Attached Image


--------------------
Annual Dues Paying Member Since 2008

Tonko Mining Company

"Some day this crater is going to be a greatly talked about place, and if the above credit is due, as is certainly the case, I would like to have it generally known for the sake of the children." Daniel Moreau Barringer 2/1/1912 in a letter about the Barringer Meteorite Crater, Arizona USA
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Clay Diggins
post Apr 2 2017, 07:36 PM
Post #2


Shovel Buster!
***

Group: Members
Posts: 75
Joined: 23-September 14
Member No.: 118,169



Why would you assume that CPW could close the area to mineral entry?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ASTROBLEME
post Apr 3 2017, 12:01 AM
Post #3


Rock Bar!
****

Group: Members
Posts: 480
Joined: 16-October 08
From: Central Colorado
Member No.: 6,813



QUOTE (Clay Diggins @ Apr 2 2017, 09:36 PM) *
Why would you assume that CPW could close the area to mineral entry?

This has been the procedure since the Royal Gorge Resource Management Plan was approved in May of 1996. Please read the downloadable Environmental Assessment available in the link I provided. On page 7 under the heading "Decision Language: 1-85" you'll see that the site will be closed to mineral entry and closed to mineral materials development if the lease is granted. In fact, that land parcel has already be segregated for this planning process...meaning that no new mining claims will be authorized as of the date that BLM withdrew the area from mineral entry so that this planning process could begin.

ASTROBLEME


--------------------
Annual Dues Paying Member Since 2008

Tonko Mining Company

"Some day this crater is going to be a greatly talked about place, and if the above credit is due, as is certainly the case, I would like to have it generally known for the sake of the children." Daniel Moreau Barringer 2/1/1912 in a letter about the Barringer Meteorite Crater, Arizona USA
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Clay Diggins
post Apr 3 2017, 08:18 AM
Post #4


Shovel Buster!
***

Group: Members
Posts: 75
Joined: 23-September 14
Member No.: 118,169



I did read the draft and I do understand the closure terms. I was asking because you indicate in your letter that you wish to "prevent CPW Management from closing the area to mineral entry and likewise preventing mineral development now and into the future".

I agree with your position on the "No Action" alternative but it's important to understand that only the Department of Interior, the President or Congress can close an area to mineral entry. My point being that CPW is the wrong party to address on the closure issue.

It would help the impact of your letter if you address the correct parties when commenting on the issues. Clarity is important in this process as non responsive comments are generally ignored.

I've had some luck in blocking these sort of proposals and I've found that raising substantive issues of law and due process can be the most effective tactic. I'm not seeing due process in the EA in regards to mineral lands. There is no proper assessment and the analysis is boilerplate. Piss poor assessment work leads to potential due process complaints. You mention that soft spot in the EA but you don't seem to use the words "due process". Without the direct allegation it's easy for them to brush off your comment.

Your letter might be more effective if you address those two points. Good Luck!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ASTROBLEME
post Apr 3 2017, 09:53 AM
Post #5


Rock Bar!
****

Group: Members
Posts: 480
Joined: 16-October 08
From: Central Colorado
Member No.: 6,813



For those interested, this is how "due process" works in the Arkansas Headwaters Recreation Area.

The Recreation and Public Purposes Act, passed by Congress on June 14, 1926 (44 Stat. 741), as amended ( 43 U.S.C. 869-869-4), requires the Secretary of the Interior, in the exercise of his discretion, to make a determination that land is to be used for an established or definitely proposed project. BLM is under the Secretary of Interior and they commonly use this Act to close lands to mineral entry on behalf on CPW's request. This is all legal under the Arkansas River Cooperative Management Agreement that was approved on October 27, 1989. This cooperative process between BLM and CPW has been further supported by the Resource Management Plan that was approved in May of 1996.

Most importantly, this is the first time that I've seen the mention of intent in the planning process to expand even further onto adjacent lands that are being held under unpatented mining claims... once those claims are relinquished. BLM just publishes another Real Estate Action and the process to withdraw mineral entry begins again as an amendment to the lease already held by CPW.

Just trying to inspire folks holding unpatented mining claims in the Arkansas River Headwaters Recreation Area to protect their interests. There aren't many staff in either agency that supports the rights of mineral claim holders.

ASTROBLEME


--------------------
Annual Dues Paying Member Since 2008

Tonko Mining Company

"Some day this crater is going to be a greatly talked about place, and if the above credit is due, as is certainly the case, I would like to have it generally known for the sake of the children." Daniel Moreau Barringer 2/1/1912 in a letter about the Barringer Meteorite Crater, Arizona USA
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MikeS
post Apr 3 2017, 03:17 PM
Post #6


Rock Bar!
****

Group: Members
Posts: 890
Joined: 9-January 14
From: Denver, CO
Member No.: 116,265



Thanks very much for this information Johnny! I am sure several prospectors and claim holders that use that area can benefit from this post. Thanks for the heads up! smiley-cool14.gif


--------------------
Proud Colorado Prospector Club Member
Level 2
Joined the Club on 9/14/14
Referral Code: MS450
Core Team
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

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

 



Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 23rd November 2017 - 01:10 PM