Record of Freeman's Correspondence with Forest Service:

An examination of the disparity between the Forest Service's stated purpose and their permitting of destruction of Nation Forests by hardrock mining--

Purpose of Forest Service from their Website: www.fs.fed.us/aboutus/chief/index.shtml

Welcome to the web site of the U.S. Forest Service Chief's Office! In case you're new to the Forest Service, our purpose is twofold:

(1) to make sure that America's forests and grasslands are in the healthiest condition they can be; and (2) to see to it that you have lots of opportunities to use, enjoy, and care for the lands and waters that sustain us all.

Our focus at the Forest Service is on the ground—on the places where you live, work, and play. Above all, we're dedicated to keeping everyone on the ground safe and secure. Our goal is to serve our communities, both rural and urban. One way is to work with partners for healthy, resilient forests and rangelands on federal, state, and private lands. Healthy lands support the outdoor activities of millions of Americans each year, a service we proudly provide on the National Forest System. A central concern for all Americans is sustainable land management. We owe it to ourselves and to future generations to protect our communities, properties, and wildland resources from catastrophic fire and other threats.

You own your national forests and grasslands, and we are here to serve you. As you browse our website, please think of ways we can better serve you and let us know.

____________

To: Tom Tidwell, Chief, U.S.D.A. Forest Service
From: Nancy Freeman, P. O. Box 934, Green Valley, AZ 85622
Date: December 16, 2010

Subject: Request for accounting of current projects supporting conservation, health and diversity of trees in Forest Service lands in Arizona

Dear Mr. Tidwell,

Some of Arizona's most unusual forest habitats, including groves of special and unusual trees, are targeted to be destroyed in National Forest lands. This planned and permitted devastation brings to the forefront an important topic for consideration: Why were the National Forests created?

The Forest Service website states that the agency's purpose is twofold:

(1) to make sure that America 's forests and grasslands are in the healthiest condition they can be; and (2) to see to it that you [the public] have lots of opportunities to use, enjoy, and care for the lands and waters that sustain us all.

As a resident of Arizona, I would like to receive the facts and figures for the accomplishment of these goals in Arizona. For the most part, Arizona is an arid, desert region; therefore, it cannot be managed with the same methods as forests in Vermont and Washington states, for example. Although principally a desert, there are also some large stands of significant trees here. How healthy are these trees? How stable is the environment of these trees? What are the special trees that we have here? I would like to see an inventory of the oaks, elms, cottonwoods, ashes, walnuts, sycamores, birches, aspens, firs, spruces and any other significant trees by region.

Since Arizona is not a lush forest suitable for logging, the forests here were set aside for special purposes. The Tonto Forest was set aside for watershed. The North Kaibab Ranger District was part of the lands included in the Grand Canyon Forest and Game Reserve created by Theodore Roosevelt in 1906. The game preserve was “set a side for the protection of game animals and birds.” This jewel—the North Rim of the Grand Canyon —is the only region in Arizona with deciduous maple, aspen, birch and oak trees scattered among the tall Ponderosa pines and the Engelmann spruce of heights of 100 ft. What is currently being done to protect the “game animals and birds” and their unique habitat?

In southeastern Arizona, the Coronado Forest was set aside “for yet another resource, recreation.” Quoting from the Coronado Forest website:

Roads such as the Swift Trail out of Safford and the Control Road and Catalina Highway from Tucson were built to provide access to the new recreation areas. Campgrounds, picnic areas and trails were added by the Depression-era Civilian Conservation Corps in the 1930's. Today, the cool forests and magnificent scenery of the Coronado National Forest 's five Ranger Districts continue to attract visitors in numbers that have grown to the point that they threaten to overcrowd some of the very attractions that drew them. The history of this exceptional area is, of course, still unfolding. With such an illustrious and colorful past it seems assured that its future will be notable as well. (1)

This recreational use is more important today than ever, for there is a growing concern for the loss of natural places and how that loss will affect our children. This critical issue has been highlighted in the best-selling book, The Last Child in the Woods by Richard Louv. Currently, several universities are conducting studies on the link between connection to nature and human mental health.

I would like to receive a report on what the Forest Service personnel in the Tucson office of the Coronado National Forest have been doing to promote and increase such interaction with nature, especially by our children, to fulfill their stated mission of “urban recreation.”

What is the status of the forest watersheds in Arizona that provide water for a growing population and significant habitat for many unique animals and birds plus outdoor recreation, camping, hunting and fishing? How many trees have been lost in the past twenty years? What percentage of the forest is this number? For what reasons were they lost? To fire? Development? Lowered water table? How much has the water table been lowered? What caused the lowering of the water table? Infringement on water supply from development? New water users? Mining operations? Power/energy facilities? Cattle grazing? Bark beetle is not a reason, for bark beetles only attack weak trees, as in weak from a lowered water table. When I lived in Sedona, the County Agent diagnosed the pinon pine in our yard with bark beetles. His remedy, “water it.” That tree is alive and thriving 15 years later. These are questions that must be answered and addressed if we are to continue to have viable forest lands in Arizona. In their summary of goals, the Arizona Bureau of Land Management has listed “Sustainability of Public Lands” as their first goal with water the consideration. (2)

Two proposed mining projects would take out large oak groves in the Coronado and the Tonto forests in areas specifically set aside for recreation. In addition to the Coronado region, the Oak Flat campground was protected by two U.S. Presidents for recreation due to its unique natural beauty. Further, the damage to be accomplished to the environment on the North Rim of the Grand Canyon due to numerous proposed uranium mines is impossible to fathom.

As stated in a recent (2008) EPA report, uranium mining makes a region unfit for human recreation and harmful to water, forest and its wildlife. Following is a quote from EPA's Technical Report on Technologically Enhanced Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials from Uranium Mining.

Most abandoned uranium mines are likely to have elevated radium and uranium concentrations, and possibly elevated levels of other contaminants such as arsenic. An analysis of the location of uranium mine records indicates that many are on federal lands, so a primary exposure scenario pertains to short-term recreational activities, including short-term occupation. (3)

Please note that if uranium mines can be easily reclaimed, why do thousands remain un-remediated after some 40 years? There are not even clear records of how many old uranium mines exist—with estimates from 4,000 to 10,000; the majority (up to 7,000) on federal lands with the U.S. Department of the Interior and U.S. Forest Service the two primary land management agencies. (4)

When mining permits are written, is an inventory taken of the number of trees to be destroyed in our public forests, including the species and level of rarity in Arizona and the Southwest? Is the loss of watershed, trees, and recreational areas calculated? Is the percentage of loss calculated for that individual forest and for the state forests as a whole?

How will the continued loss of trees change the rainfall patterns in Arizona? Regional authorities decry that we are in a drought. Is it a drought or a permanent degeneration of the rainfall patterns due to continual deforestation and lowering of the water table by non-natural means of development and industry? There's a current theory and evidence that the drought that caused the demise of the Chaco Canyon culture in the Southwest was due to deforestation. The National Park Service is attempting to reestablish vegetation typical of the Chaco Canyon culture, but they are finding it impossible because of soil degradation.

What is the value of a forest? What is the value of an oak grove with trees that are centuries-year old? Environmentalists are accused of pitting jobs against the value of the forest ecosystem. When our forests are gone and our metals reserves are depleted, what will a few jobs have been worth?

Thank you for your time and consideration.
___________________________________________________

REFERENCES:

(1) Coronado National Forest website: http://prdp2fs.ess.usda.gov/main/coronado/learning/history-culture

(2) Bureau of Land Management Arizona Strategic Goals Summary , page 3: www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/az/pdfs.Par.71896.File.dat/Strat-Goals-2010.pdf

(3) Technical Report on Technologically Enhanced Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials from Uranium Mining, Volume 2: Investigation of Potential Health, Geographic, And Environmental Issues of Abandoned Uranium Mines, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Office of Radiation and Indoor Air, Radiation Protection Division (6608J), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue ; Washington , DC 20460; 202-564-4355 www.epa.gov/radiation/docs/tenorm/402-r-08-005-volii/402-r-08-005-v2.pdf , Page 7-1

(4) Ibid.; Table 2-4, page 2-7.

Link to this letter: http://www.mining-law-reform.info/Plea.htm

___________________

From: Joel Holtrop, Deputy Chief, Forest Service
United States Department of Agriculture
To: Nancy Freeman
Date: March 24, 2011

Dear Ms. Freeman,

Thank you for your letter of December 16, 2010, regarding the conservation health and diversity of National Forests in Arizona. We apologize for the delayed response.

It is obvious you have great interest in the mission of the U.S. Forest Service and how this mission is carried out. As you have discovered on our many web-sites we have a multiple-use agency whose mission is to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the Nation's forests and grasslands to meet the needs of present and future generations.

Your letter goes into much detail, seeking information about the National Forests in Arizona. This letter will address some of the questions raised in your letter and direct you to those National Forests in Arizona where you can receive more information.

You asked about game animals and birds in and around the north rim of the Grand Canyon. Here, the Kaibab National Forests takes its charge of the Grand Canyon Game Preserve very seriously. The Forest strives to have habitat available at the appropriate spatial, temporal, compositional and structural levels for a variety of vertebrate species. Specifically, wildlife biologists work in an integrative fashion with other resource specialists to provide adequate opportunities for breeding, feeding, nesting and other critical life cycle needs of various wildlife species. An emphasis is placed on the protection of key habitats that contain threatened, endangered, and/or sensitive species of plants and animals. Each year, a number of projects are conducted that aid wildlife. Large wildlife projects in 2010 included the North Kaibab Ranger District bat survey, a weeklong study focusing on the Allen's lappet-browed bat, and the North Creek habitat restoration project, which restored 29 failing dams that create pools in the shallow creek where trout can live during the winter or during periods of low water flows.

In regard to mining and minerals on some of Arizona's National Forests, the Forest service policy is to administer its minerals program to provide commodities for current and future generations commensurate with the need to sustain the long-term health and biological diversity of ecosystems. Accordingly, the Forest Service strives to ensure that exploration, development, and production of mineral and energy resources are conducted in an environmentally sensitive manner and that these activities are integrated with the planning and management of other resources using the principles of ecosystem management.

The impact on resources and other vegetation are considered in the approval process for mines and permits. There are no specific requirements for an inventory except where products are sold and removed from the site as part of the mitigation. An exception would be for Threatened and Endangered plant spies. Individual pants would be addressed as required in Biological Assessment Evaluations and mitigation requirements.

As for uranium mining near the Grand Canyon, the Forest Service is a cooperating agency in the preparation of an Environment Impact Statement (EIS) addressing the potential effects of withdrawing Federal lands locatable mineral exploration and mining near the Grand Canyon in Arizona. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is the lead agency. The draft EIS has been released in February. We hope you will take time to review this document and provide you comments as the EIS will be an important factor in the future of uranium mining near the Grand Canyon. Additional information is available online at: http://www.blm.gov/az/st/en/html

The North Kaibab Ranger District, except for a very small portion is already withdrawn from mineral entry under the Mining Law as part of the Game Preserve, which was created by President Roosevelt in 1906. No uranium mining will occur on these National Forest System lands. Other areas on the north rim of the Grand Canyon are administered by the BLM's Arizona Strip office. These lands are currently being considered for withdrawal under the North Arizona Proposed Withdrawal, for which BLM Draft Environmental Impact Statement comment period concludes on April 4, 2011.

In regards to the proposed mining projects on the Tonto National Forest, there are currently no plans to remove any of the oak trees in Oak Flat campground area as part of the Resolution Copper exploratory studies. The area is withdrawn from mineral entry and no mining activity can occur within the area. Congress is considering legislation (S.409/H.R.2509, 111 th Congress) to transfer this area to the Company in exchange for land in the San Pedro Watershed and other locations.

We hope you find the above information useful. If you would like additional information on the forests mentioned in your letter, please contact the Public Affairs Officers and they will be able to assist you.

Kaibab National Forest, Jackie Banks, 928-635-8314
Coconino National Forest, Brady Smith, 928-527-3490
Tonto National Forest, Paige Rockett, 602-225-5290
Coronado National Forest, Heidi Schewel, 520-388-8343

Thank you for your interest in these National Forests.

Link to scan of this letter: http://www.mining-law-reform.info/FS-Reply.htm
__________________________________

To: Tom Tidwell, Chief, U.S.D.A. Forest Service
From: Nancy Freeman
Date:  January 5, 2012
Subject: Trees destined for destruction in the Coronado National Forest and Multi-use purpose of the Forest Service

Dear Chief Tidwell,

An official Forest Service stated in a letter, dated March 24, 2011 [ FS-Re ply ] that the Forest Service does not inventory trees in the National Forest (unless they are intended for harvesting). Therefore, I have taken on the task to conduct a count myself. It was not easy to do so as a single, retired person with limited income. However, I was determined that you, as the Chief of the Forest Service, understand the incredible trees in Santa Rita section of the Coronado National Forest. With the aid of a 3' by 4' ortho-photo map, and two high school science clubs, we have obtained some data as to the number and the varieties of trees that would be destroyed by the Canadian Augusta Resource mining company in the region of the Rosemont Junction.

From the ortho-photo map, divided into squares, and carefully counted with a slotted ruler, I have ascertained that 33,000 mature trees would be destroyed on Forest Service land. [ See Map ] Many of these are century-plus oaks. Some 10,000 trees are located on patented land. The private land of Rosemont Ranch of around 300 acres is also included in the count, as there are stands of huge oaks there that were photographed in 1900, so we know their age is well over a century.

The whole region is ribbons of washes that are lined with stands of Emory oaks, desert willows, Arizona walnuts and hackberries. High school students from the Science Clubs in Sahuarita, AZ and Vail, AZ completed a tree counts and identified the species of trees on several 50 yard sections for 10 yards on each side of a wash. Their reports verified the incredible biodiversity in the region. They found specimens of all sizes—seedlings to monoliths, indicating that the ecosystem is healthy and continuing to rejuvenate itself.

Vail High School Tree Count

Sahuarita High School Tree Count

I have been told that the National Forest was created specifically to be used for exploitation of natural resources: timber and minerals. I was told by an official in the Tucson, AZ Forest Service office, that the National Forest was not created for conservation, as was the National Park System. If this is true, why does Chief Tidwell state in his words to the public [ www.fs.fed.us/aboutus/chief/ ]:

“ our purpose is twofold ”:

•  to make sure that America 's forests and grasslands are in the healthiest condition they can be; and

•  to see to it that you [the public] have lots of opportunities to use, enjoy, and care for the lands and waters that sustain us all.

Our focus at the Forest Service is on the ground—on the places where you live, work, and play. Above all, we're dedicated to keeping everyone on the ground safe and secure. Our goal is to serve our communities, both rural and urban. One way is to work with partners for healthy, resilient forests and rangelands on federal, state, and private lands. Healthy lands support the outdoor activities of millions of Americans each year, a service we proudly provide on the National Forest System. A central concern for all Americans is sustainable land management. We owe it to ourselves and to future generations to protect our communities, properties, and wildland resources from catastrophic fire and other threats. [Emphasis mine]

I consider hardrock mining a threat!

Chino mine pit and leach operation

Sierrita mine “rock garden”

I recall the first time I met a Forest Service geologist in the Tucson, Arizona office. Beverly Everson recounted to me how terrible it was that a group of hobbyist gold diggers had dug up a tree (in the Prescott National Forest) in their pursuit of gold. So a few hobbyist destroying a tree can be prosecuted under the Forest Regulation. And why would there be regulations with penalties for destroying trees if conserving them were not the desirable goal? And what is the regulation? Does it allow mining companies to destroy thousands of trees, while prosecuting citizens for destroying one or two trees?

In the letter from Joel Holtrop [ FS-Reply.htm ], he stated:

As you have discovered on our websites, we are a multiple-use agency whose mission is to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the nation's forests and grasslands to meet the needs of present and future generations.

And from the webpage of the Coronado National Forest headquarters website:
[ http://www.fs.usda.gov/main/coronado/about-forest ]

MISSION STATEMENT: Our Forest mission is to sustain the unique biodiversity of the sky island ecosystems and provide a variety of high quality visitor opportunities and services within the capabilities of these ecosystems. We promote the use of prescribed fire as an important tool in maintaining healthy ecosystems. We will continue to enhance our organizational effectiveness and community partnerships.

VISION: The sky islands of the Coronado National Forest are healthy ecosystems with an abundant and diverse flora and fauna. They provide an array of high quality outdoor recreation opportunities with an emphasis on enhancing visitor understanding and enjoyment of the Forest 's special natural and cultural resources. Rural communities and urban residents collaborate with the Forest Service. Our employees are highly valued as conservation leaders.

PRIORITIES

•  Biological diversity

•  Quality outdoor recreation opportunities

•  Fire protection and management

•  Public relations and collaboration

•  Organizational effectiveness

_______________________________

In his letter, Mr. Holtrop [March 24, 2011] mentioned that I have a "great interest in the mission of the U.S. Forest Service and how this mission is carried out." After additional research, I am even more interested and have many more doubts. For example, I have reviewed the Acts that created the forest reserves and the Forest Service.

1897: Organic Act created Forest Reserve to secure water and timber for the U.S. They did a good job of choosing the most suitable properties. In Arizona and New Mexico , the Reserves comprised 14% of the land, while delivering 40% of the water needed for urban centers. Therefore, most of the “reserves” are in the dry West.

1905: The Forest Reserves were transferred to a National Forest system under the Agriculture Secretary because of the focus of management of trees and water. The Agriculture Department had no knowledge of, or dealings with, mining--and the Organic Act had specified that no lands valuable for mining would be included in the National Forests.

1960: Multiple Use/Sustained Yield Act  (MUSY) was created to maintain the forest for sustained yield management for all forest products and services. This act was intended to alleviate the pressure for a single-use purpose. Five uses were identified for the forest reserves: 1) Water; 2) Wood; 3) Wildlife; 4) Grazing; 5) Recreation. 6) Added in 1976: Wilderness

1976: National Forest Management Act (NFMA) mandated public participation in developing a National Forest Plan. A Forest Plan is in existence for the Coronado National Forest and it does not include mining at all.

Frankly, I don't see a single word about the National Forest being created for exploitation of natural resources—not even in its multiple-use categories. In short, why are you, as the Chief, and other Forest Service officials misleading the public by stating one thing publicly and doing another in actuality?

DISTRIBUTION LIST:

Secretary of Agriculture
U.S.D.A. Associate Chief
Forest Service Deputy Chief
EPA, District 9
Coronado National Forest officials
Arizona Congresspersons
Arizona Bureau of Land Management
Arizona Geological Survey
Arizona Native American Tribes
Cienega Watershed Partnership
U.S. Senate Public Lands and Forests sub-committee
U.S. House of Representatives Natural Parks, Forests, and Public Lands Sub-Committee

Link to letter: www.mining-law-reform.info/Second-FS-Letter.htm

[Note: I did not receive a reply to this letter.]

______________________________

To: Secretary USDA Tom Vilsack and FS Chief Tom Tidwell

From: Nancy Freeman, P. O. Box 934, Green Valley, AZ 85622

Date: March 5, 2012

Subject: New Forest Planning Rule

Dear Sirs,

I was happy to learn of the rewrite of the National Forest planning rule. The greater emphasis on protection, restoration and water preservation rather than commodity exploitation is most welcome and consistent with the Organic and Multiple Use and Sustained Yield Acts. However, I am concerned and frustrated because there is a gigantic oversight in the new rules. They do not include the problems caused by mining in on public National Forests. They deal with the logging industry and the devastation it causes, the lack of sustainability, and the impact on watershed and wildlife, but eliminates the impacts of mining on these very issues. Hardrock, pit mining causes even greater devastation than logging; a devastation that cannot be replanted or recovered, especially in the Southwest where the rain is sparse and the topsoil is poor.

And I do know about mining pollution. I spent six years of my life getting clean water in my community from the local Sierrita copper mine that was polluting our public wells with sulfates. Radioactive chemicals also exist in the plume, but they had not reached the public wells yet. When that project was going well, I thought I could take a break—but no, the Forest Service began enabling another mining project in the region that will take our public lands and turn them into toxic waste dumps with a big jewel of a toxic pit in the middle of the forest. My first report on the proposed Rosemont mine in the Coronado Forest was in February, 2007. So I have spent 10 years of my life—without any pay—getting clean water for my community, then trying to prevent others to have to go through what I did to obtain clean drinking water. And of course to have an adequate water supply, which is a prevalent issue in the Southwest.

The history of the formation and development of the National Forests reserves is replete with the need to preserve the forests for a healthy environment and water supply, as well as habitat for wildlife and recreational uses. A Forest Planning Rule that purports to protect, conserve forests, and even contemplates spending money to restore forests and watersheds while ignoring the irreversible destruction of hardrock, pit mining on thousands of acres of “forest reserves” cannot be valid and will not be upheld in a court of law.

In a lawsuit in 2003, Judge Henry H. Kennedy, Jr., U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia, ruled that the Bureau of Land Management has the authority to and must prevent substantial damage to public lands under the undue or unnecessary degradation (UUD) standard of the Federal Lands Management and Policy Act (FLPMA).

“The court finds that the Solicitor [of the Interior Department] misconstrued the clear mandate of FLPMA. FLPMA, by its plain terms, vests the Secretary of the Interior with the authority–and indeed the obligation–to disapprove of an otherwise permissible mining operation because the operation, though necessary for mining, would unduly harm or degrade the public land.”  [Page 20 of court opinion]

The Forest Service comes under that same Management Act. The FS personnel tout their multi-use mandate, but I can't find a single allusion to covering the forest with toxic pit lakes, waste rock and slurry, all with toxic heavy metals, as one of the “uses” called out for our forest reserves. The actions of the Forest Service in permitting mining will affect an entire region in ways that EIS's and EA's do not address. The residents of the region of the proposed Rosemont mine on Coronado National Forest reserves listed 145 effects of the proposed mine on the local citizens and environment.

If a Planning Rule is passed without stopping this destruction, the Forest Service will have to change their mission statement to:

Except where there are minerals available to be sold on the International Market by foreign corporations who will destroy thousands of acres of century-old trees while creating huge toxic lakes and waste piles laced with heavy metals and processing chemicals to pollute the watershed, wild life habitat and recreation sites, the mission of the USDA Forest Service is to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the Nation's forests and grasslands to meet the needs of present and future generations.

Further, the Forest Service (FS) will have to remove their “For a healthy environment, keep your forests green” signs throughout the Southwest. They represent a hypocritical double-speak—enjoining the public to protect the forests while the FS permits their destruction.

Sign in the Coronado National Forest

I do understand that the persons writing the new Forest Planning Rule know nothing about mining —or they would not be ignoring it. (This ignorance is good example of why National Forests should be withdrawn from mining.) To get an idea of the devastation, I implore you to take a glimpse of photos from our local mine on private land: Photos of Sierrita mine, Pima County, AZ.

And please check out the report sent to Congresspersons Grijalva and Giffords in regard to withdrawing the local Tucson, Arizona mountains from mining because of the multiple ramifications to the environment and community. True, this is a local situation, but the issues are the same at every hardrock, pit mine.

And take a look at the old growth oak trees that are destined to be destroyed by mining in Arizona: Save our old-growth oak trees

The costs, liabilities and consequences of mining are many, as delineated below. However, a major fallacy needs to be cleared up: The continual allusions to the 1872 mining law as if written in stone. Good—because the 1872 mining law only covers surface mining of following mineral veins. It did not include crushing and milling bedrock of only 2% and less mineral (0.47% in the case of Rosemont operations in mining. Further, the mining law specifically states that the miner can “patent” 5 acres of land to serve for the facilities. In a case in Arizona, the mining company plans to 3,500 acres of “unpatented” forest land for their 90 patented claims. According to the 1872 mining law, they are entitled to a total of 450 “patented” acres. The law also states that the miners must be American citizens. So to tout the 1872 mining law is to give an excuse, not a reason.

Bottom Line: First, I want to know how these scenarios—mentioned above and detailed below—fit into the “purpose and need for action,” enumerated in the first chapter of the planning rule.* Second, I want to know how these scenarios fit into Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack's “vision” of the future of our forests.**

•  CHAPTER 1. PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION: Levels of Planning

The Forest Service strategic plan contains the following goals:

•  Restore, sustain, and enhance the nation's forests and grasslands,

•  Provide and sustain benefits to the American people,

•  Conserve open space,

•  Sustain and enhance outdoor recreation opportunities,

•  Maintain basic management capabilities of the Forest Service,•  Engage urban America with Forest Service programs, and

•  Provide science-based applications and tools for sustainable natural resources management. (Page 3)

**PLANNING RULE HISTORY

On August 14, 2009, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack outlined his vision for the future of our nation's forests, setting forth a new direction for conservation, management, and restoration of NFS lands. Secretary Vilsack stated that, “It is time for a change in the way we view and manage America 's forestlands with an eye towards the future. This will require a new approach that engages the American people and stakeholders in conserving and restoring both our National Forests and our privately-owned forests.” (Page 7)

There are many reasons why mining should be elimated from our National Forests: Comments made by Freeman on regarding the New Forest Planning Rule; March 5, 2012.

"The conditions of the forests and the wasteful manner in which their destruction is taking place give cause for serious apprehension." — U.S. President Chester A. Arthur in 1882

____________________

Dear Friends--Is anything happening with 1872 reform campaign? 

I am working on a new effort--Save the National Forests from non-sustainable mining.

Here's my point... the National Forests were created separately for other purposes; ie. There is no legal standing that they should be subjected to hardrock mining.

I think BLM land and NFS lands should be treated separately. It's a no-brainer. What does hardrock mining have to do with Agriculture.

I've been doing research on the subject and am putting together a Blog-- www.celebrate-earth.com with all the documents. It's a work in progress of course--and I'm having to learn a new website software--which has I am totally against the mining companies paying any amount to destroy land in our National Forests.

BLM land and Forest Reserves are two different categories. Treating them as the same is how the Forest Reserves got on the "search and destroy" list.

So I am concentrating on eliminating hard rock mining in the National Forests. I have been corresponding with the D.C. National Forest Service office for 2 years now... first to get them to address mining in their new Forest Rule--which they  did not.

I just sent them a strong letter, asking them to establish the legal basis for their permitting of destroying trees in our National Forests--and I sent a copy of the letter to President Obama. I will be sending a copy of the correspondence to Congress Natural Resource Committees. I have the reasons why the 1872 mining law does not apply ready, but I cannot find a copy of the Organic Act of 1897 anywhere to see if it mentions mining, or "mineral development" as it is referred to.been more of a challenge than I imagined. But it will be place to gather information.

Here's another important--besides treating FS and BLM differently--those reform bills in Congress are trash.

They will open the National Forests to more destruction because of the justification that the public is getting a royalty--and the destruction of our Forests. What is that worth?

Again, we have to separate the agencies. NFS personnel know nothing about mining--whereas BLM has some experts. Note the comments that the DOI rep gave on the Rosemont project. Head and shoulders above anything that FS could produce.... Upchurch and Everson, and all the other staff too, has never seen a mine before. Everson went out for a tour of Sierrita and suddenly touted herself as an expert. Is there any way we can force the FS to change their motto from "Caring for the land and serving the people" to "Caring for my job and serving foreign corporations."
________________________________

To: Coronado National Forest and U.S. Forest Service officials
Submitted by: Nancy Freeman
Date: January 18, 2012

We have several administrative issues with the local Forest Service's handling of the proposed Augusta Resource Corp./Rosemont Copper Mine project:

1) Adherence to 1872 mining law; 2) Personnel Issues; 3) Circumvention of Forest Plan Revision; 4) Infractions of Travel Plan Management Rules; 5) Circumvention of Conservation Projects in place by other Government agencies 

Issue One) Adherence to the 1872 mining law

The local “Foresters” claim they are obligated to follow the rules of the 1872 Mining Law, which they must have never read, and truth is, the law is hard to find. With all the devastation to our public lands being accomplished by the Government because of the 1872 Mining Law, one would think that the mining law would be posted on a Government website. An ameteur gold prospector site is the only place it can be found.

From the following, it is clear that the 1872 Mining Law does not enable this Augusta Resource Corp./Rosemont Copper Mine project and it is fallacious to insinuate that it does.

The 1872 mining states:

Claimants are to be citizens of United States :

CHAP. CL. II --- As Act to promote the Development of the mining Resources of the Untied States.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all valuable mineral deposits in lands belonging to the United States, both surveyed and unsurveyed, are hereby declared to be free and open to exploration and purchase, and the lands in which they are found to occupation and purchase, by citizens of the United States and those who have declared their intention to become such, under regulations prescribed by law, and according to the local customs or rules of miners, in the several mining-districts, so far as the same are applicable and not inconsistent with the laws of the United States .

The size of the claim is limited:

Sec.2. That mining-claims upon veins or lodes of quarts or other rock in place bearing gold, silver, cinnabar, lead, tin, copper, or other valuable deposits heretofore located, shall be governed as to length along the vein or lode by the customs, regulations, and laws in force at the date of their location. A mining-claim located after the passage of this act, whether located by one or more persons, may equal, but not exceed, one thousand five hundred feet in length along the vein or lode; but no location of a mining-claim shall be made until the discovery of the vein or lode within the limits of the claim located. No claim shall exceed more than three hundred feet on each side of the Middle of the vein at the surface, nor shall any claim be limited by any mining regulation to less then twenty five feet on each side of the middle of the vein at the surface, except where adverse rights existing at the passage of this act shall render such limitation necessary. The end-lines of each claim shall be paralleled to each other.

The non-mineral land that is used for milling, etc. can be patented, but it is not to exceed five acres per claim.

FORTY-SECOND CONGRESS. Sess. II Ch. 152. 1872. 96

Sec. 15. That where non-mineral land not contiguous to the vein or lode is used or occupied by the proprietor of such vein or lode for mining or milling purposes , such non-adjacent surface ground may be embraced and included in an application for a patent for such vein or lode, and the same may be patented therewith , subject to the same preliminary requirements as to survey and notice as are applicable under this act to veins or lodes : Provided, That no location hereafter made of such non-adjacent land shall exceed five acres , and payment for the same must be made at the same rate as fixed by this act for the superficies of the lode. The owner of a quartz-mill or reduction-works, not owning a mine in connection therewith, may also receive a patent for his mill-site, as provided in this section.

Source: http://goldplacer.com/1872MiningLaw.htm

The General Mining Law of 1872, as amended (30 USC 29 and 43 CFR 3860, provides the successful mining claimant the right to patent (acquire absolute title to the land) mining claims or sites if they meet the statutory requirements. To meet this requirement, the successful claimant must:

•  For mining claims, demonstrate a physical exposure of a valuable (commercial) mineral deposit (the discovery) as defined by meeting the Department's Prudent Man Rule and Marketability Test.

•  For mill sites, show proper use or occupancy for uses to support a mining operation and be located on non-mineral land.

•  Have clear title to the mining claim (lode or placer) or mill site.

•  Have assessment work and/or maintenance fees current and performed at least $500 worth of improvements (not labor) for each claim (not required for mill sites).

•  Meet the requirements of the Department's regulations for mineral patenting as shown in the Code of Federal Regulations at 43 CFR 3861, 3862, 3863, and 3864.

•  Pay the required processing fees and purchase price for the land applied for. www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/info/regulations/mining_claims.html

From the 1872 Mining Law, we find four discrepancies with the current Augusta Resource Corp./Rosemont Copper Mine project:

1) Augusta Resource Directors and stockholders are not U. S. Citizens.

2) It is clear that the mining claim for the individual prospector is limited.

3) Land intended for milling, etc. is to be patented.

4) Patented land intended for milling, etc. should not exceed five acres.

In addition, the BLM website outlines statutory regulations that would nullify any permitting of the Augusta Resource Corp./Rosemont Copper Mine Mine project.

1) The company does not have clear title to the mill site. It is required by 1872 mining law that the land be patented by purchase.

2) The company must have done assessment work and/or maintenance fees of at least $500 for the life of the claim. Therefore, these claims were null and void at the time of their purchase from ASARCO. The records that show that Augusta Resource Corp./Rosemont Copper Mine has fulfilled this obligation on all their claims must be shown—except for 5 acres allowed for mill sites.

3) The company has not paid the required processing fees and purchase price for the land they have applied for to be used as waste and tailings dumps.

Issue Two: Personnel Issues

The appointment of a Forest Supervisor of the Coronado National Forest who knows nothing about mining is a questionable matter. What is the wisdom of putting a forester with no mining experience into the middle of a DEIS process? Who made the decision? What were their motives? Mr. Upchurch has been involved in lawsuits throughout is career:

• 1988 John Muir project vs USDA
• 1994 Samuels vs Forest Service, Jim Upchurch, Forester
• 2009 Ursack, Inc., Jacqueline Florine, Gary Fisher and Phoenix Vamvakias vs Sierra Interagency Black Bear Group, National Park Service, United States Forest Service, Craig Axtell, Michael Tollefson and Jim Upchurch

In addition, the geologist, Beverly Everson, on the project knows nothing about mining. She saw a mine for the first time when she visited Sierrita four years ago. She has no knowledge to question and analyze the data presented by Augusta Resource Corp./Rosemont Copper Mine personnel.

Issue Three: Circumvention of Coronado Forest Plan Revision

The Forest Service has circumvented an on-going (4 year) process on a revised Forest Plan. The plan that has been going through a public process has never mentioned mining. So why was the Amendment to the Forest Plan stuck into the Augusta Resource Corp./Rosemont Copper Mine DEIS with no prior public notice as the Mining Plan had been accepted by the Forest Service in 2007. The Forest Service had plenty of time to bring up their intent during 2008 to 2010. The Forest Plan should have been revised before the mine was even considered.

Fall 2005		Pre-Revision preparation
Spring 2006		Began developing the Comprehensive Evaluation Report
June 2006		Public meetings to determine issues
September 2006		Public meetings to prioritize issues
November 2007		Public meetings to develop Desired Conditions
November 2008		Public open houses to share draft Desired Conditions and proposed Land Use Zones (Suitability)
June 2009		Notice of Initiation published in the Federal Register
January 2010		Notice of Intent to revise Forest Plan published in the Federal Register
March 2010		Open houses to present initial working draft of revised Forest Plan and potential wilderness evaluation reports; initial 45-day scoping period begins
April - October 2010		Developed draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) and refined draft revised Forest Plan using public input

The current Forest Plan does not provide for mining in the proposed area. The Forest Plan contributors were most concerned about disturbance by ATV riders, while the Forest Service intends to permit haul trucks, which will have to pass through designated Forest Service land that is not on Augusta Resource Corp./Rosemont Copper Mine's property holdings.

A description of the six alternatives considered in detail in this DEIS is provided in this chapter. Only the no action alternative (alternative 1) is consistent with the management direction contained in the “ Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan,” as amended (forest plan) (U.S. Forest Service 1986). The action alternatives (alternatives 2 through 6) would require a programmatic amendment that would permanently alter the Coronado 's forest plan for the area covering the proposed project area, along with the associated plan components for that area. (pg. xix, Executive Summary) www.rosemonteis.us/files/deis-execsummaryvol1.pdf

No public notice of a new Amendment proposed in page 89 in Chapter 2 has been given. The DEIS cannot serve as a Public Notice for an Amendment because this Public Notice was not given with the release of the DEIS. A notice tucked into the back of a chapter of a 1,000 page document does not qualify under the NFMA. I have been participating and receiving notices on the Forest Plan by e-mail. I received no notice.

We are dealing with a Forest Service personnel that states “a preliminary review of the proposed amendment indicate that it would likely not be a significant amendment to the Coronado Forest Plan.” (DEIS, pg. 95) A toxic pit lake of one mile diameter forever and the destruction of 6,000 acres of forest forever that includes 33,000 mature trees is not significant. We deserve better.

Issue Four: Infractions of Travel Plan Management Rules

There are Augusta Resource Corp./Rosemont Copper Mine company contractor drill trucks on the Forest Service roads now that are not allowed according to the current Travel Management Plan, which was created by a public process.

At the present time, large drill trucks that take up the whole road in the Rosemont Junction area are a danger, much greater than ATV's. I, personally, had to replace a practically new tire because of damage from having to pull off the road into and area with sharp rocks to let a wide truck pass.

Augusta Resource Corp./Rosemont Copper Mine company water trucks were using a wash on Forest Service land as road to haul water to their Hidden Springs Ranch in a total infraction of Forest Service rules. It appears the Forest Service has stopped them, but what penalty did the company pay for their violation of rules. The back-country off-the-road vehicles pay an annual fee to ride in this area. What fees are the large industrial trucks of Augusta Resource Corp./Rosemont Mine paying? And the recreational rides pay fines for using tracks and washes not designated for travel in The Plan.

Issue Five: Forest Service circumvention of Conservation Projects in place by other Government agencies

The Forest Service is ignoring the fine work that Pima County has done in planning for and choosing the best areas for conservation. This mine will unduly impact the water supply to this conservation project. www.pima.gov/cmo/sdcp/reports/d29/BarVReport.pdf

The Forest Service is ignoring the fine work done by BLM in the Las Cienegas National Conservation Area. This mine will unduly impact the water supply to this conservation project.
www.blm.gov/az/st/en/prog/blm_special_areas/ncarea/lascienegas.html

Issue Six: Congressional pressure to speed-up process

The last mine to be permitted in Arizona was at Safford. It was an Arizona company with a decent environmental record, actual money in the bank, and no opposition to the mine project. The permitting took ten years. Where as Augusta Resource Corp./Rosemont Copper Mine has no environmental record (except for their Environmental Manager, who has a bad mining record in Arizona), no money in the bank
[See:  http://azstarnet.com/business/local/rosemont-seeking-m-in-construction-loans/article_c35ffe32-2a97-5a2b-82dd-a898c109b870.html ] and has a lot of opposition to the mine: 18,000 persons signed a petition that they do not want mining in the Santa Ritas.

Distribution List:

Tom Tidwell, Chief USDA; Leslie Weldon, Deputy Chief USDA; Corbin Newman, FS; Dianne Guidry, FS; Coronado Supervisor, Jim Upchurch, Senator Kyl , AZ, Senator McCain , AZ, Rep. Flake, AZ (Received $6,000 in campaign donations from Rosemont Copper employees), Rep. Giffords , AZ, Rep. Grijalva , AZ

_______________________

Friday, February 17, 2012 7:47 AM

Subject: Request for information

Good Morning, Chief Tidwell,

In my continuing efforts to keep you and your staff informed on the Rosemont situation, I am including a link to EPA's latest letter to the Army Corps, which you probably have already received.

www.savethesantacruzaquifer.info/EPA-Letter-to-Corps-2-13-12.pdf

Interestingly, I had asked Mr. Upchurch at the first of the year if the Army Corp were to deny the 404 clean water permit would that stop the whole process immediately.

Upchurch's reply: "Nancy, the approval of the Army Corp of Engineer permit is a separate decision to be made by the Army Corp of Engineers and is required to implement the proponent's current proposed plan of operations.  Our decision to approve a Mine Plan of Operations is predicated on the proponent meeting all applicable federal laws and regulations…" s/Jim Upchurch

As a taxpaying citizen, I am wondering what is the cost of the local Forest Service having spent their time and energy in the process of permitting the Rosemont mine for several years now. Could you please provide me the exact dollar amount that we taypayers are spending on administrative costs to enable the Augusta Resource/Rosemont mine project? I realize this figure will not include the costs accumulated at other government agencies.

By the way, some Congressmen are complaining about the time in getting the Rosemont mine permitted. It took 10 years for Phelps Dodge (now Freeport-McMoran) to get their new Safford mine permitted. Phelps Dodge was a traditional U.S. company with good financial backing and a decent environmental record. Most of their environmental challenges came with their purchase of Cyprus Minerals. Further, there was no opposition from the public.

Thank you for your time and consideration,
Nancy Freeman
P. O. Box 934
Green Valley, AZ 85622

________________________________

To: Secretary Vilsack and Chief Tidwell
From: Nancy Freeman
P. O. Box 934
Green Valley, AZ 85622

Date: March 05, 2012 12:59 PM via e-mail

Subject: New Forest Planning Rule/NEPA connected actions

Dear Secretary Vilsack,

Subject: Comments on new planning rule for our national forests

Good afternoon,

First, I must apologize for submitting these comments so late in the planning rule process. I simply did not know about the new rule until a couple of weeks ago when I received a notification by Post Card. Since then I have been diligently compiling and weeding out information to make viable comments on the process. I have been dealing with mining challenges in Arizona for 10 years, and as you can see I have compiled loads of data--of which I am only sending you a sampling.

As usual, I have placed the information on a webpage for easy access to the documentation: www.mining-law-reform.info/Forest-Planning-Rule-Comments.htm

I would be happy to answer any and all questions, for, as you can see, I know a lot--too much.

Have a good day and happy reading,

Nancy Freeman
P. O. Box 934
Green Valley, AZ 85622

________________________________

From: Nancy Freeman
P. O. Box 934
Green Valley, AZ 85622

Date: Monday, April 02, 2012 12:04 PM

New Forest Planning Rule/NEPA connected actions

Dear Secretary Vilsack,

I was extremely disappointed that the Forest Service ignored the issues of the devastation caused by mining in their recent Planning Rule. I will continue to pursue the logic that Foresters are not qualified to write permits for mining and that is not what we taxpayers are paying them for.

I realize that the following report is centered on the Rosemont operations; however, it is a true "model" of how bad it can get when Foresters try to permit something they know nothing about. As usual, I have put the report on a link, so that you have easy access to documentation of the court cases.

www.savethesantacruzaquifer.info/NEPAConnectedActions.htm

Thank you for your attention to this matter,

Nancy Freeman
P. O. Box 934
Green Valley, AZ 85622

__________________________

From: Nancy Freeman (sent via e-mail)
To: National Forest Service Office
Date: Thursday, August 16, 2012 4:36 PM

Subject: Request for Information

Good morning, Foresters,

I would like to receive a list of the status of all the National Forests that are being considered for mineral lease applications and permits with the data of the acreage and the number of trees that will be impacted, if available.

______________________________

To: Ms. Nancy Freeman
From: Gregory C. Smith
Acting Director, Minerals & Geology Management
Date: August 20, 2012

Dear Ms. Freeman:

This letter is our response to your emailed Freedom of information Act (FOIA) request dated August 16, 2012. Your request was received in the Washington Office FOIA Service Center on August 24, 2012. Your request has been given FOIA tracking number l2-2237-R. You requested a copy of a list of states of all the National Forests that are being considered for mineral lease applications and permits with the data of the acreage and the number of trees that will be impacted.

The Washington Office Minerals and Geology Management Staff conducted a search for records and located no records responsive to your request. The information you are requesting is not collected nor maintained by the agency.

The FOIA provides you the right to appeal this no records determination. An Administrative Appeal under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) is a follow-up request by an initial requester (or their representative) based only on the initial request (no new issues can be raised) asking the agency to reverse the original decision.... To facilitate the processing of your appeal, please include a copy of this letter and/or the FOIA control numbers assigned to your FOIA request 12-2237-R.

Link to scan of Forest Service reply: www.savethesantacruzaquifer.info/FS_Letter_9-11-12.pdf _______________________

From: Nancy Freeman [[email protected]]
To: National Forest Service Office, Washington, D.C.
Date: Wednesday, September 19, 2012 6:50 PM
Subject: FOIA Request appeal

Dear Forest Service:

Since the Forest Service was not able to carry out my previous request for mining records, I am filing this appeal..

I would like to receive a list of the status of all the National Forests that are being considered for mineral lease applications and permits with the data of the acreage and the number of trees that will be impacted, if available.

For some reason it took the Minerals and Geology Management office a month to figure out they had no records of mines in National Forests. I request to be informed the purpose and the function of the Washington DC Minerals and Geology Management office of the Forest Service. Please be exact. As a U.S. citizen, what service will they provide me? [Please note that the purpose and function are often distinct. For example, in the Coronado National Forest Office in Tucson, Arizona the purpose of the Forest Service is to protect the National Forest, yet the function is permititng a copper mine that will destroy 4,000 acres of National Forest lands.]
________________________

To: Ms. Nancy Freeman
From: Nicholas E. Douglas
Director, Minerals & Geology Management
Date: January 7, 2013

Dear Ms. Freeman:

This letter is in response to your second emailed Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request dated September 19, 2072, on the subject of mining records. The Forest Service Washington Office FOIA Service Center received your request on September 21,2012. You requested that we inform you of "the purpose and the function of the Washington DC Minerals and Geology Management office of the Forest Service.. ...and what service will they provide me?"

The Federal Govemment's policy for minerals resource management is based upon the Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, which states: "...foster and encourage private enterprise in the development of economically sound and stable industries, and in the orderly and economic development of domestic resources to help assure satisfaction of industrial, security, and environmental needs." Within this context, the National Forests and Grasslands play an essential role in contributing to an adequate and stable supply of mineral and energy resources while continuing to sustain the land's productivity for other uses and its capability to support biodiversity goals.

The Washington Office Minerals and Geology Management Staff have conducted a search for records, and we have identified the following two documents, consisting of four pages, which relate to your request. In 1995, then Forest Service Chief, Jack Ward Thomas, issued the Forest Service's Minerals Program Policy. In 2004, then Forest Service Chief, Dale Bosworth, re-affirmed the policy in officiat Forest Service correspondence. Please find copies of both
documents enclosed.

The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) provides you the right to appeal this response. An Administrative Appeal under the FOIA is a foilow-up request by an initial requester (or their representative) based only on the initial request (no new issues can be raised) asking the agency to reverse the original decision to....

FOIA request 12-2464-R.

Thank you for your continuing interest in your Forest Service Lands.

Forest Service's Minerals Program Policy, Jack Ward Thomas, 1995

Minerals and Geology Management Program, 2004

____________________________________________

To: Ms. Nancy Freeman
From: Leslie A. C. Weldon
Deputy Chief, National Forest System
Date: January 14, 2013

Dear Ms. Freeman:

This letter is a partial response to your Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) appeal dated October 1, 2012, which was received in our Washington Offlrce FOIA Service Center on the same date. You are appealing the adequacy of the search conducted by the Washington Office Minerals and Geology Management staffin response to your initial request dated September 11, 2012 (FOIA Case No. 12-2237-R).

In your original FOIA reques! you requested "a list of the status of all National Forests that are betng consideredfor mineral lease applications and permits with the data of the acreage and the number of trees thatwill be impacted, if available."

We have completed our review of your appeal. Based on your appeal, the Forest Service, Washington Office Minerals and Geology Management staff completed a second search for records. The enclosed CD contains three files responsive to your appeal, which we are releasing in entirety. The three files consists of oil & gas leases currently authorized on National Forest System lands; oil and gas parcels currently pending on National Forest System lands; and a lands, minerals & geology operations spreadsheet. In accordance with 7 C.F.R. Subtitle A, Part 1, Subpart A, §1.14, our final appeal response has been forwarded to the USDA Office of General Counsel (OGC) for a legal sufficiency review. We will forward our final appeal response to you as soon as the OGCreview has been completed.

Link to scan of Letter: www.mining-law-reform.info/Jan 14 2013.pdf

__________________________

To: Ms. Nancy Freeman
From: Nicholas E. Douglas
Director, Minerals & Geology Management
Date: March 21, 2013

Dear Ms. Freeman:

This letter responds to your email inquiries to Forest Service Chief Thomas L. Tidwell and Associate Deputy Chief James M. Pefla concerning the proposed Rosemont copper mine on the Coronado National Forest near Tucson, Arizona. The Chief and the Associate Deputy Chief asked me to respond.

The Forest Service has responded to your past requests for information with all available responsive documents. ln your recent inquiry to Chief Tidwell, you expressed the desire to receive the "periodically and systemically inventoried" records of the "present and future use" of the minerals on National Forest land as required by FLPMA." As you may know, the section of the Federal Lands Policy Management Act (FLPMA) you cited in your inquiry is not relevant to the Forest Service as that section only applies to public lands. As you are aware, FLPMA defines public lands as lands managed by the Secretary of the Interior through the Bureau of Land Management.

In your earlier inquiry to Mr. Pefla, you asked about the Organic Act and the legal basis for allowing hard rock mining on the National Forests. The Organic Act does not prohibit mineral extraction on Forest Service lands, and the Forest Service is not aware of any law that prohibits hard rock mining in the National Forests as long as such activity conforms to sound environmental practices.

The Forest Service or our attorneys are not in a position to give you legal advice and interpretation of the Organic Act, which is the subject of one of your concerns. We encourage you to seek private counsel relating to the interpretation of Organic Act.

We recommend that you continue to work with the Coronado National Forest as they evaluate the proposed Rosemont mine.

Thank you for your interest in the management of National Forest System lands.

Link to scan of letter: http://www.mining-law-reform.info/Mar 21 2013.pdf

____________________________________

To: Ms. Nancy Freeman
From: Leslie C. Weldon
Deputy Deputy Chief National Forest Systen
Date: April 8, 2013

Dear Ms. Freeman:

This letter is our final response to your Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) appeal date October 7, 2012, which was received in our Washington Office FOIA Service Center on the same date. You are appealing the adequacy of the search conducted by the Washington Office Minerals and Geology Management (MGM) staff in response to your initial request dated September 11, 2012 (FOIA Case No. 12-2237-R). On September 1, 2012, Acting Director for
MGM, Gregory Smith sent you a "no records" response to your initial request.

In your original FOIA request, you requested "a list of the status of all National Forests that are being considered for mineral lease applications and permits with the data of the acreage and the number of trees that vvill be impacted, if available."

In response to your appeal regarding the adequacy of search, the MGM staff conducted a second search and located responsive documents. On January 14, 2013, we sent you a partial response releasing 35 pages in their entirety, consisting of oil & gas leases currently authorized on National Forest System lands; oil & gas parcels currently pending on National Forest System lands; and a lands, minerals and geology operations spreadsheet.

In response to your appeal regarding the acreage and the number of trees that will be impacted, no records were found.

In response to a FOIA reqrest and appeal that reasonably describes the records sought, the Agency must conduct a "reasonable" search for the responsive records....

Your appeal is hereby granted in part and denied in part. This is the Agency's final determination of your FOIA appeal. You may seek judicial review of the determination in an appropriate United States District Court pursuant ro 5 U.S.C. g 552(aXa)G).

Prior to seeking judicial review, you may contact the Office of the Government Information Services (OGIS). OGIS was created within the National Archives and Records Administration when the OPEN Government Act of 2007 amended the FOIA. OGIS provides mediation of FOIA disputes between appellants and Federal agencies. Participation in mediation does not affect your right to judicial review. Contact infbrmation for OGIS can be found at:
http://www.archives.com.

Link to scan of letter: www.mining-law-reform.info/April 8 2013.pdf
________________________________

Following are the records sent by the Forest Service. I can't make heads or tails of them, can you? If so, please advise.
I can find no order or organizaiont, and many do not even name the Forest Name, and none of them include any details. Please advise if you can figure anything out!.

FOIA Case No. 12-2237-F: Mining operations in National Forests

For records on currently proposed mining projects in the West

Currently Threatened Forests: At the present time, 44 National Forests in the West are being threatened with 170 projects: See current inventory

Home