Laserfiche WebLink
Comment 5: In order to be consistent with Comments I and 2 above,please either complete Items T E <br /> and F, or describe how you will avoid prospecting on federal lands in the NOI area and show that these <br /> areas are excluded on the NOI maps. <br /> Response: The answer to this comment seems rather obvious. I cannot think of one instance where <br /> is it okay to trespass on someone else's property,be it the back yard of my next-door neighbor,the <br /> farmer's wheat field down the road, or on someone's mining claim. If I found you trespassing on my <br /> property, I would detain you and hold you for the sheriff, and you would likely provide the same service <br /> for me. In this way, we keep each other honest. The same goes to people living in Teller County. The <br /> State Statues are quite clear the penalty of trespass, and additional regulation by DRMS would be <br /> redundant. It is up to the prospector to know that he is working on his own property, and there seems to <br /> have never been any problem with him trespassing on his neighbors in all the years previous. The area <br /> has an abundant supply of survey points so that anyone should easily be able to figure out on whose <br /> property they might be on. In this area,even if the prospector should happen to find himself lost,the <br /> chance of him being on his neighbor's private property is far greater than public lands because the area of <br /> the private property exceeds public lands by a factor of nearly 100 to one. <br /> Comment 6: The Division is aware of your intent to replace NOI P-1986-023 with this application, <br /> despite no "orders"from the Division directing you to do so. If the existing disturbance is not included in <br /> the new NOI reclamation liability, the Division will not be able to release P-1986-023(assuming that is <br /> the intent of this application) until all reclamation is completed for the areas disturbed under that NOI. <br /> Response: If you are really saying that Mr. Barker can go forward on the old NOI, let's stop this <br /> process right now and use the existing one. DRMS can give Mr. Barker his money back, and he can <br /> move forward with his prospecting. Taking a step back to previous conversations between us(Art Braun <br /> and Tim Cazier)prior to submission of the current NOI, you had indicated that a new NOI was necessary <br /> and that inclusion of the original NOI(P-1986-023) area would make the process easier, in that the <br /> bonding could simply be transferred across to the new NOI. <br /> Comment 6a: As such,please confirm that the proposed one-acre disturbance for this new NOI <br /> includes existing disturbance created as part of the prospecting done under P-1986-023. <br /> Response 6a: Neither Lance Barker nor Art Braun were part of the work performed back more than 20 <br /> years ago so we have no first-hand knowledge of what occurred back then with Texas Gulf. The bonding <br /> was supposed to be for backhoe trenches, 10-foot drill roads, and holes, and the records show that a notice <br /> was issued by Mined Land Reclamation stating that all work had been done except the establishment of <br /> grass. Based on my inspection of the property, it appears that any old roads that might have been used to <br /> drill have all grassed over. I also know that the Texas Gulf drilling identified an area that is reported to <br /> have been mined, located within the currently 110 permitted mining area. As a result, any reclamation <br /> that might still need to be done would have already been folded into this new mining permit. I know of <br /> no Texas Gulf roads or pads outside of the mine permit area. An addendum was found in the record from <br /> 1991 discussing performing additional drilling along existing roads and additional short roads. Little <br /> surface evidence has been found showing that this drilling had occurred and once again,roads that are not <br /> being actively used have mostly grassed over. <br /> Based on what we can see in the area and regarding the property, it is not certain how much drilling had <br /> ever even occurred under this NOI, and since the there is little evidence of drill holes, and the roads that <br /> are not currently being used by the permitted mine or property owner for access, have grass covering <br /> them, it must be concluded that no reclamation remains to be performed under this NOI. Thus, it is my <br /> recommendation that if DRMS decides that a new NOI is indeed needed,then the entire bond money <br />