Laserfiche WebLink
US FS co+'te_.%POAdcnuL?/ <br />U?S <br />USDA Forest Service <br />San Juan National Forest <br />Columbine Ranger District <br />http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/sanjuan <br />CN-o I elat7? /??n_? <br />M^o Duy .T <br />Columbine Public Lands Office <br />367 Pearl Street <br />P.O. Box 439 USDI Bureau of Land Management <br />Bayfield, CO 81122 San Juan Center <br />Ph (970) 884-2512 Fax (970) 884-2428 Columbine Field Office <br />hftp://www.co.blm.gov/ <br />Q t - ?, /. <br />A4? 3 4?10 <br />??11 <br />Mr. George Robinson ? on go F/e/c/ <br />Project Manager ng C? O ce <br />555 DTC Parkway, Suite a-4000 afety an <br />Greenwood Village, CO 80111 <br />Dear Mr. Robinson: <br />File Code: 2700 <br />Date: March 16, 2011 <br />RECEIVED <br />APR 18 20 111 <br />Division of keciamation, <br />Mining and Safety <br />This letter is in regard to the proposal you submitted on behalf of Wildcat Mining Corporation on <br />February 9, 2011 and the follow-up meeting with the State of Colorado and La Plata County. <br />Again, I appreciate your efforts setting up the meeting with all of the parties involved in the <br />permitting processes. <br />As we discussed during our meeting, the Forest Service has reviewed the proposal and evaluated <br />it under our first and second level screening criteria found at 36 CFR 251.54. This information <br />provided by the applicant is reviewed to determine whether I can accept any proposal as a formal <br />application. After completing the screening process, the following information from Wildcat <br />Mining Corporation is lacking on their proposal: <br />1) An adequate demonstration of why non-National Forest System lands could not be used. <br />2) An adequate and definitive description of how the road will be used, including proposed <br />improvements and what "grading" would entail. The route is far too steep and erosive for snow <br />removal. <br />Wildcat Mining did not submit the necessary information for us to conclude that access to their <br />property could not be accommodated through improving or using the road across private lands. <br />Thus, the proposal does not meet the minimum screening criteria under 36 CFR 251.54 (e)(i). <br />The screening regulations for proposals were implemented so that the party submitting a <br />proposal does not incur increasing costs and additional study requirements when it is apparent <br />that this is not in the public interest or is inconsistent and incompatible with the purposes for <br />which the lands are managed. I am returning with this letter your proposal as per the <br />requirements at 36 CFR 251.54 (e)(2). <br />Denial of unsolicited proposals is not subject to administrative appeal under 36 CFR part 215 or <br />part 251, subpart C, and does not constitute a proposed action pursuant to 36 CFR 251.54(e)(6) <br />and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. As per the screening criteria 251.54(ix)(2), <br />I am returning the proposal to you with this letter. <br />FS--6200-12a