Home

This site was established to help our efforts in preventing an open pit mine next to residential and recreational areas.

Please keep checking back often as we will be adding information as quickly as we can.

Next Meeting:

TBD

Last Updated: 11/15/2011 _ 8pm

About

No Fairplay Mine

We are a Non Profit organization dedicated to stopping the proposed "Destiny Placer Mine" operation located in Fairplay, Colorado.This mine will be located 75ft (yes, FEET), from residential homes. This will bring down property values considerably.Many residents of the area use this parcel of land for recreation. This mine would prevent that.Many species of wildlife habitate this parcel of land, using it to migrate back and forth from the river.This mine will bring NO jobs to the area, only having 3 or 4 total employees at any given time. It is indicated that these few people will be brought in from elsewhere in the state and only stay a few days a week.We are NOT opposed to mining. We are opposed to the location.
Mine Area.jpg

News/Documents
Mine Area.jpg

In the News

Posted on the 9news website:

Gold mining project not such a boon for homeowners

Documents

Here are documents available for printing.

EAEISProcess (2).pdf

Photos

Mine Area.jpg
Scan_Pic0002.jpg
Scan_Pic0003.jpg
Scan_Pic0007.jpg
Scan_Pic0004.jpg
Scan_Pic0005.jpg
Scan_Pic0006.jpg
Scan_Pic0008.jpg
Scan_Pic0009.jpg

Mine Area.jpg
Scan_Pic0002.jpg
Scan_Pic0003.jpg
Scan_Pic0007.jpg
Scan_Pic0004.jpg
Scan_Pic0005.jpg
Scan_Pic0006.jpg
Scan_Pic0008.jpg
Scan_Pic0009.jpg

Letters

Information

General Information

This page contains official responses from local government agencies as well as our own response to the BLM.Click on the links to the left to read the letters online. You may also download a copy by clicking on the PDF link below.

Town of Fairplay Letter.pdf

FaSD.pdf

NFM.pdf

County Commissioners.pdf

Thank you letter to BOCC.pdf

No Fairplay Mine

Official Response by the NO FAIRPLAY MINE, Registered Colorado Non Profit

The No Fairplay Mine Group is writing you regarding the statutory and regulatory authority of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) with respect to the proposed Destiny Gravel Pit proposed for public lands in Fairplay, Colorado. In particular, this letter addresses the BLM’s authority under federal mining laws, including the General Mining Law of 1872, 30 U.S.C. §§ 21, et seq. and the Mineral Materials Act of July 31, 1947 (30 U.S.C. §§ 601–604), as amended by the Surface Resources Act of 1955 (30 U.S.C. §§ 601, 603, and 611–615), and the applicability of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321, et seq. to the BLM’s consideration of the proposed mining application.With respect to the application of federal mining laws, the proposed application presents an unusual scenario. Specifically, the application initially submitted to the state (and to BLM), and currently on file for the project, states that “[t]his pit will be used for construction materials such as road base, landscape, and cement processes with secondary materials being precious metals, gold and silver.” Exhibit C “Mining Plan” at 1. The proposed mining plan further states that “[t]he primary commodities to be mined are sand and gravel; the secondary to be mined is (sic) precious metal, gold and silver.” Id. at 3. Lastly the application states “[t]he incidental products are gold, 2 silver, which will help off-set the cost of operation and production.” Id. Thus, based on the applicant’s statements, this mine is primarily a sand and gravel pit mining operation, with gold and silver providing ancillary benefit in helping to off-set the costs of the sand and gravel mining. This distinction is critical with respect to the applicability of federal mining laws. The General Mining Law of 1872, 30 U.S.C. §§ 21, et seq., allows claiming rights only for “valuable” minerals, and only where a demonstrated profit could be made from mining those “valuable” mineral deposits. 30 U.S.C. § 23, 26. However, Congress has specifically excluded sand and gravel deposits from the operation of the General Mining Law of 1872: No deposit of common varieties of sand, stone, gravel, pumice, pumicite, or cinders and no deposit of petrified wood shall be deemed a valuable mineral deposit within the meaning of the mining laws of the United States so as to give effective validity to any mining claim hereafter located under such mining laws. 30 U.S.C. § 611. Thus, sand and gravel (and other so-called “mineral materials”) are not “locatable” minerals under the General Mining Law of 1872, and may only be mined from federal public lands pursuant to a purchase contract issued pursuant to the Mineral Materials Act of July 31, 1947 (30 U.S.C. §§ 601–604), as amended by the Surface Resources Act of 1955 (30 U.S.C. §§ 601, 603, and 611-615). Under the Mineral Materials Act and Surface Resources Act, BLM enjoys expansive discretionary authority with respect to whether or not to authorize sand and gravel mining on public lands. The BLM’s authority with respect to disposal of mineral materials has recently been clearly set forth by the Interior Board of Land Appeals: As background, it is important to restate the authority under which we operate in considering a mineral material sale. We recently stated this background in Echo Bay Resort, 151 IBLA 277, 280 (1999), in the following quote: Under the Materials Act of 1947, as amended, 30 U.S.C. §§ 601-604 (1994), and its implementing regulations, 43 C.F.R. Part 3600, BLM has considerable discretion to dispose, by sale or other means, of mineral materials from the public lands. See 30 U.S.C. § 601 (1994); 43 C.F.R. § 3610.1-1; Jenott Mining Corp., 134 IBLA 191, 194 (1995); Glen B. Sheldon, 128 IBLA 188 (1994). No disposal is authorized by the statute where it would be “detrimental to the public interest.” 30 U.S.C. § 601 (1994); see Curtis Sand & Gravel Co., 95 IBLA 144, 160, 94 I.D. 1, 10 (1987). BLM is required, by 43 C.F.R. § 3600.0-4, to deny such a request when it justifiably “determines that the aggregate damage to public lands and resources would exceed the benefits to be derived from the proposed sale.” See Glen B. Sheldon, 128 IBLA at 189. A BLM decision, made in the exercise of its discretionary authority, generally will be overturned by the Board only when it is arbitrary and capricious, and thus not supported on any rational basis. Utah Trail Machine Association, 147 IBLA 142, 144 (1999); Glenn B. Sheldon, 128 IBLA at 191.3 Melluzzo Stone Company, Inc., 154 IBLA 23 (2000). Further, should such minerals be mined without a discretionary sales contract, even on an otherwise valid mining claim, an act of trespass has occurred. Mineral material trespass is prohibited by 43 U.S.C. §§ 1732, 1740 (1988), and by 43 CFR 3603.1 which states: Except when authorized by sale or permit under law and the regulations of the Department of the Interior, the extraction, severance or removal of mineral materials from public lands under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior is unauthorized use. Unauthorized users shall be liable for damages to the United States, and shall be subject to prosecution for such unlawful acts (see subpart 9239 of this title). In turn, BLM regulations provide: The extraction, severance, injury, or removal of . . . mineral materials from public lands under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior, except when authorized by law and the regulations of the Department, is an act of trespass. Trespassers will be liable in damages to the United States, and will be subject to prosecution of such unlawful acts. 43 CFR 9239.0-7. Lastly, even if a mining operation is planned for a legitimately “locatable” mineral, that operation must also evidence the ability to make a profit solely from the extraction of the locatable mineral alone, without regard to any potential profits from sales of any sand and gravel resources. This rule is established law within the Interior Department: It has long been the rule that the value of a non-locatable mineral deposit may not be added to the value of a locatable mineral deposit for the purpose of establishing that a qualifying discovery has been made. The validity of a mining claim located after July 23, 1955, depends upon whether a discovery has been made only with respect to the locatable mineral, and this determination must be made without any consideration of any value that a common variety mineral deposit on the same claim may have. U.S. v. Prowell, 10 IBLA 23, 25 (1972). As applied to the case at hand, it appears that the operator has represented to the State and BLM that the proposed operations are aimed primarily at mining sand and gravel, and that the gold and silver are “incidental products” needed to “help off-set the cost of operation and production.” Simply put, such a mining operation for sand and gravel resources is not subject to the General Mining Law of 1872, but rather the Mineral Materials Act and Surface Resources Act. Further, this description raises substantial question as to the validity of the mining claim. In such a case, the BLM should request a demonstration that the mining claims at issue are valid under the mining law – that is, whether the value in mining the gold or silver alone can justify proceeding with the mining operation. With respect to the applicability of NEPA, there appears to be a substantial question as to the level of environmental review that will be required by BLM in processing the mining application. The above-referenced report prepared by Mr. Tom Williams, MA, CPESC, dated July 4 22, 2009 regarding the potential impacts associated with the proposed mining operation demonstrate that the proposed mining operation may result in significant impacts, justifying the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). According to the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), NEPA is “our basic national charter for protection of the environment.” 40 C.F.R. § 1500.1(a). NEPA requires agencies to evaluate the environmental consequences of their actions before they act. 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C). The courts interpret the congressional mandate to apply NEPA “to the fullest extent possible,” id. at § 4332, as a direction to “make as liberal an interpretation as we can to accommodate the application of NEPA.” LaFlamme v. F.E.R.C., 852 F.2d 389, 398 (9th Cir. 1988). “NEPA ensures that important effects will not be over looked or underestimated only to be discovered after resources have been committed or the die otherwise cast.” Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332, 349 (1989). In addition, the preparation of environmental analyses guarantees that “relevant information will be made available to the larger audience that may also play a role in both the decision making process and the implementation of that decision.” Id. To those ends, NEPA requires federal agencies proposing “major Federal actions” that may significantly affect the quality of the human environment to prepare a detailed environmental impact statement (EIS). 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C). An EIS must be prepared if substantial questions are raised as to whether a project may cause significant deterioration of some environmental factor.” Idaho Sporting Congress v. Thomas, 137 F.3d 1146, 1149 (9th Cir. 1998) (emphasis in original). In order to determine whether or not a project will have a significant impact on the environment, the federal agency may prepare an Environmental Assessment (EA). If the agency determines, after preparation of the EA, that the project will not significantly impact the environment, then it may issue a finding of no significant impact (FONSI). 40 C.F.R. §§ 1501.4(b), 1508.9. Otherwise, if the agency finds that the project may have a significant impact on the environment, then it must prepare an EIS. 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C), see also, Idaho Sporting Congress v. Thomas 137 F.3d at 1149 (“an EIS must be prepared if substantial questions are raised as to whether a project may cause significant deterioration of some environmental factor” (emphasis in original)). “If an agency decides not to prepare an EIS, it must supply a convincing statement of reasons to explain why a project’s impacts are insignificant.” Blue Mountains Biodiversity Project v. Blackwood, 161 F.3d 1208, 1212 (9th Cir. 1998). The CEQ states that “[a]s a general rule. . . agencies should use a broad approach in defining significance and should not rely on the possibility of mitigation as an excuse to avoid the EIS requirement.” CEQ NEPA Guidance, 46 Fed. Reg. 18026, 18038 (1981); see also National Audubon Soc y v. Hoffman, 132 F.3d 7, 18 (2d Cir. 1997) (“[W]hen it is a close call whether there will be a significant environmental impact from a proposed action, an EIS should be prepared. . . . NEPA’s policy goals require agencies to err in favor of preparation of an EIS. . . .”). Factors that an agency must consider in determining whether an action “significantly” affects the environment relate to the context and intensity of the action. 40 C.F.R. § 1508.27. The factors the agency must consider include the degree to which the action affects public safety or health, the degree to which the environmental impacts are highly uncertain, involve unique or unknown risks, or are likely to be highly controversial, and unique characteristics of the geographic 5 area such as its proximity to historic or cultural resources, park lands, prime farmlands, wetlands, wild and scenic rivers, or ecologically critical areas. 40 C.F.R. § 1508.27(b)(2)-(b)(5). Further, NEPA requires agencies to fully evaluate socioeconomic impacts in addition to environmental impacts. See Animal Defense Council v. Hodel, 840 F.2d 1432, 1439 (9th Cir. 1988); Hughes River Watershed Council v. Glickman, 81 F.3d 437, 446 (4th Cir. 1996); 40 C.F.R. § 1502.23 (cost-benefit analysis); §§ 1502.24, 1508.8 (the “effects” that an EIS must evaluate include economic impacts). Importantly, the standard for preparing an EIS is not that significant impacts “will” occur, but rather, that the impacts “may” occur. For instance, as set forth by the federal courts: A plaintiff seeking to show that an agency should have prepared an EIS instead of a FONSI “need not demonstrate that significant effects will occur,” but rather must show only that “there are substantial questions whether the project may have a significant effect of [sic] [on] the environment.” Anderson [v. Evans], 350 F.3d 815, 831 (9th Cir. 2003). Western Land Exchange Project v. U.S. Bureau of Land Management, 315 F.Supp.2d 1068, 1087 (D. Nev. 2004)(emphasis in original). In this case, the report prepared by Mr. Tom Williams, MA, CPESC, dated July 22, 2009 detailing the impacts associated with the project demonstrate that significant effects may occur from the project. As discussed in the report, the location of the proposed mining operation in such close proximity to so many residential parcels warrants higher scrutiny by the BLM, and results in a more significant impact than may result from such a mining operation in a more remote location. Specifically, the report provides a detailed assessment of the potential impacts to the local environment, including noise, dust, visual and aesthetic impacts. Also of great concern are the impacts to local surface and ground water quality and quantity, and wildlife resources, among others. Lastly, the report provides considerable detail as to the likely socioeconomic impacts associated with the proposed project. These socioeconomic impacts will be acutely felt by not just adjacent residential home owners, but local businesses as well. Given the extent of these impacts detailed in the report, an EIS is necessaryIn response to the EAThe EA admits that little gold may exist on the claim (EA at 22).This raises serious issues both of reasonableness of the mining operation as proposed for a decade or more and questions of validity of the mining claim. In fact, the EA admits that sale of gravel may be necessary to achieve profitability. This is not allowable. Only claims supported by an independently valuable and marketable mineral deposit give rise to any "right to mine" under the 1872 Mining Law. The BLM's record must contain some analysis sufficient to support the marketability of the deposit in order to justify the BLM's assumption of validity - an analysis the BLM admits is lacking (EA at 22). At minimum, BLM should consider an alternative of approving only a shorter term operation, with any future mining dependent on production data demonstrating a viable operation based on gold recovery alone.The same applies to the market for the salable materials (sand and gravel). The EA identifies multiple other mines in the immediate area also extracting sand and gravel for sale. The BLM's record must contain some analysis sufficient to support the assumption of a reliable market for this sand and gravel. Indeed, the EA states that the sand and gravel may be given away for free. This suggests there is no current market for the material. Further, the EA fails to review the impacts to the other mining operations in the County. Should one operator be giving the material away, one should expect that other operators selling for price would experience a negative impact. This highlights the need for an analysis of whether there exists a current demand for the mineral materials proposed for sale. Failing to consider these factors unlawfully skews the "public interest" analysis in favor the proposed action. At minimum, the EA should review an alternative to allow for sale of only that material equivalent to the swell factor, so as to allow for complete reclamation of the site.The EA states that ground water is not expected to be encountered at the site (EA at 7). However, no data, water monitoring, or other analysis is presented to support this statement. NEPA requires that where data or information does not exist, but is obtainable, BLM must require acquisition and Submittal of that data.The EA states that BLM is the lead agency for the EA (EA at 8). However, the EA recognizes that CDRMS will retain primary permitting authority. Under NEPA, such agencies must be cooperating Agencies in the environmental analysis - and must be incorporated at the earliest possible time. There is no indication that BLM has even requested CDRMS be a cooperating agency in the EA, in violation of NEPA.The EA relies repeatedly and extensively on mitigation measures to bring the level of impacts (in BLM's view) below the "significance" threshold for many of the resources impacted (air, water, Socioeconomic, visual, noise, cumulative, etc.). However, NEPA disallows the use of mitigation to Justify an EA, unless the mitigation is detailed and its effectiveness has been demonstrated with Competent scientific analysis. In the EA as drafted, the BLM relies on unspecific mitigation, and Includes no data or analysis on the effectiveness of that mitigation. In order to rely on any mitigation, these details and analyses for each proposed mitigation must be included in the EA.The EA rejects an alternative of moving the mining operation (EA at 10) based on an assumption that this alternative "would most likely be economically infeasible." However, no data or other analysis is presented to justify this assumption. Rejection of this alternative with no demonstrable basis in fact is unreasonable, arbitrary and capricious.The impact analysis for air quality contains several omissions. The review fails to consider reasonably foreseeable past, present, and future activities such as oil and gas development. Further, the assessment of Class I air sheds reviews some nearby wilderness areas, but completely ignores several others. For instance, the EA fails to acknowledge the Buffalo Peaks Wilderness, the Lost Creek Wilderness, Brown's Canyon proposed wilderness, the Holy Cross Wilderness, and the Mount Evans Wilderness, among others. Any competent analysis must review each of these and any other applicable area.The mitigation section at page 1 7 of the EA fails to assess the effectiveness of the mitigation listed. It also reflects a time of operation (8am to 5pm) inconsistent with the proposed action.The EA admits that "information on ground water quality is lacking" - this is unacceptable under NEPA. NEPA imposes an affirmative duty on the BLM to acquire (or require) missing data to be Obtained, or demonstrate why such data is unobtainable. In this case, simple water quality monitoring would be easily obtainable - indeed, the CDRMS requires five quarters of data be obtained prior to any approvals. The BLM is obligated to include such data in its EA.Further on water quality, the EA repeatedly asserts that the rocks into which the mine will excavate Contain no acid or toxic-forming materials (EA at 26,31), but fails to present any data supporting this assumption. Again, NEPA requires the BLM to obtain missing data. In this case, the proponent should be required to conduct the necessary leach tests, such as Synthetic Precipitation Leaching Procedure (SPLP) tests to demonstrate the chemical nature of the rock it will be extracting and exposing to the environment.In conclusion, the BLM should process the proposed mining operation as a proposal for a mineral materials sales contract, rather than a proper proposal under the General Mining Law of 1872. To the extent precious metal mining is actually proposed, the BLM should require a demonstration as to the validity of the mining claim, given the secondary” status the proponent places on the precious metal mining prospects. In any case, the impacts of the proposed mining operation “may” be significant, largely as a result of the close proximity of the proposed operation to substantial residential development. Such a potential impact warrants the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) under NEPA.

Town of Fairplay

Official Response from the Town of Fairplay

County Commissioners

Official Response from the County Commissioners

To Whom It May Concern:This letter is to express the unanimous opposition of the Park County Board of County Commissioners to the permitting ofthe proposed Fairplay Destiny Mine located in Park County.The Board has reviewed the Draft Environmental Assessment ("EN') and, based on the contents therefore and the Boards familiarity with the property and area in question, believes that a "No Action Alternative" is required under these circumstances. This is so for many reasons, including the following:• The EA includes photographs of the site which, unfortunately, are somewhat misleading since they are directed away from the residential development adjacent to the site. Quite simply, the development of mining in this location would most likely destroy the marketability of both existing and proposed residences located within yards of the boundary of the proposed mining site.• The proposed mining site is also directly adjacent to one of the premier local recreational facilities in the Fairplay area, the "Fairplay Beach." This facility is used by residents of Park County and is also a significant attraction for tourists and visitors. The development of this proposed sand and gravel mining operation, which we believe is only masquerading as a gold mine, would negatively impact the aesthetics of the area but, more importantly, would threaten and compromise water quality and the world class trout fishery located on this stretch of the Middle Fork of the South Platte River.• The proposed mining site is also located directly in the view corridor of the Town of Fairplay within a few hundred yards of the Town's major retail and hotel district. Dust, noise and light from the operation would have an astonishingly detrimental effect on the Town's economy and livability.• The South Park Land Tenure Adjustment Environmental Assessment approved in 2005, classified this 80 acre parcel as a disposal parcel. The proposed mine would have an effect on the disposal of all or a portion of the 80 acre parcel during the life of the mine. The "No Action Alternative" will give the Town, County and local citizens an opportunity to consider a request or submit an application to BLM to purchase this property for local recreational opportunities which will be consistent with the further development of the local economy which is based on recreation and tourism.For these reasons as well as the reasons identified in letters from other concerned persons and entities including the Town ofFairplay, the Town of Alma and the Fairplay Sanitation District, the Board of County Commissioners respectfully requests thatBLM adopt a "No Action Alternative." Should BLM not chose the "No Action Alternative," however; the County would strenuously request that BLM require a full Environmental Impact Statement ("EIS") prior to rendering a decision on this application. We very much believe that, given the potentially disastrous consequences of permitting the proposed mining operation on housing and businesses in the area, a full EIS to address the many concerns should, at a minimum, be conducted.Thank you for you consideration.

Fairplay Sanitation

Official Response from the Fairplay Sanitation District

To Whom it May Concern:I serve as general legal counsel to the Fairplay Sanitation District (the “District”) of the County of Park, State of Colorado. The following comments are those of the District Board of Directors concerning the Draft Environmental Assessment (“EA”) for the proposed Fairplay Destiny Mine. The Fairplay Sanitation District is the local governmental entity providing wastewater collection and treatment facilities and services to the Town of Fairplay and adjacent areas. Pursuant to a directive from the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, acting under the Federal and Colorado Clean Water Act, the District planned and constructed a new enclosed wastewater treatment facility at a cost in excess of $5 million. As part of the planning and engineering for this facility, the District was required to include planned residential and recreational residential land uses, immediately adjacent to the proposed “Fairplay Destiny Mine” operation. Further, the District secured financing from both public and private sources, repayment of which is based, in part, upon financial charges/exactions from the build-out of these residential and recreational residential areas which are served by the District. Upon review of the Draft EA, the District Board of Directors is significantly and seriously concerned that the negative impacts and potential negative impacts of this proposed development have not been adequately addressed by the Draft EA, with the result that mitigation of such impacts or the inability to mitigate such impacts, will have no influence on BLM’s final decision regarding the proposed operation, even though a “No Action Alternative” may be the best overall result for the Fairplay community of which the District is an integral part. To encourage a full and complete analysis of the proposed operation and its impacts, notably socio-economic and economic, the Fairplay Sanitation District Board offers the following comments:• Validity of mining claim: Was claim legally established, in accordance with provisions of the Mining Act of 1872? Was the site properly posted? Were corners properly marked? Have proper annual filings, both federal and local, for the claim been made? Are commercially-valuable mineral deposits within the claim? Has the claim been lawfully maintained on annual basis?• Is Applicant true and correct owner of the claim? Is Applicant sole owner of the claim? Are there any conflicting claims? Are all parties with ownership interests named as co-Applicants with proper signatures signifying consent? An historical bane of mining development is dispute among competing ownership interests, leading to the halt of production work after start-up, resulting in unsightly, partially-completed work and abandoned equipment left in place. • Are there any assays showing commercially-valuable deposits within claim area? At what depths are such claimed deposits? The Draft EA states initial development will only go down 25 to 50 feet, while the depth of the alluvial formation is in excess of 125 feet. Heavy elements, such as gold, silver and palladium tend to settle toward the bottom of undifferentiated alluvium deposits. The Colorado Mines Area Survey does not establish the presence of such deposits within the particular claim area and, as a matter of law, is insufficient to constitute a showing of the presence of commercially-valuable mineral deposits under the Mining Act of 1872.• Is Applicant sufficiently capitalized to go forward with the proposed development of mining activities? Another historical bane of mining development is under-capitalization of operations, leading to the halt or even abandonment of production work after start-up, again resulting in unsightly, partially-completed work and abandoned equipment left in place.• With respect to the Draft EA’s section regarding “VISUAL RESOURCES,” why was the view toward abutting or immediately adjacent residential real estate development ignored in the initial analysis? The opening photograph of the Draft EA is deceptive in that it shows a view only to the south and west, whereas a view toward the north and east would clearly display adjacent residential uses. Further, the view taken from Front Street, across the South Platte River to the north and approximately a quarter mile away from the proposed development site, appears to have been chosen solely to minimize the visual impacts of this proposed development. Closer visual perspectives from both commercial and residential developments adjacent to the proposed site of operations would more clearly show a negative visual impact for such proposed developments. • What firsthand traffic studies have been employed or have been presented to explain both the amount of traffic and the impact of heavy vehicles on Town of Fairplay streets and Park County roads, including the impact of the breakdown of such roadways and impact of significant amounts of leaked fuel and lubricant materials from the increased vehicle traffic? • With respect to the Draft EA’s section regarding “SOCIO-ECONOMICS,” what is the specific number of jobs projected to actually be created for the local populace? The proposed operation appears to be highly mechanized, not requiring much additional attendant labor. Further, there is only brief discussion acknowledging impact of this proposed operation upon the local recreation industry, including impacts to recreational residential development. What are the detailed projected impacts upon local recreational uses, including those who may wish to purchase recreational residential units in adjacent areas? How would negative aspects of the proposed operation (noise, fugitive dust, visual pollution, heavier local traffic) affect the local real estate markets for permanent residential housing and recreational residential units? The Draft EA dismisses the negative effects of the proposed development, by claiming the effects from past activities of a similar nature have “…already been absorbed by local communities…” This ignores the fact that this proposed development is to occur very near valuable residential and recreational residential development areas and that the “past activities” occurred in areas much farther away from the current focus of development in the Town of Fairplay. Such “past activities,” as well as similar current mining activities, are more regional in scope and not localized to the vicinity of this proposed development and so do not affect these valuable residential and recreational residential development areas, uses for which both Park County and the Town of Fairplay have master-planned. • The Draft EA, although referencing “REALTY,” does not contain any analysis or appraisal of the negative impacts such proposed development would have on the local property values of those areas abutting or immediately adjacent to the proposed development site, including discussion of noise, fugitive dust, visual pollution and heavier local traffic upon potential purchasers and developers of real estate in the local vicinity. What negative impacts will these issues have upon property values, not only the value of current properties used for residential development, but those being developed for residential and recreational residential uses? Why has the input from local real estate developers, real estate brokers and local real estate appraisers not been included by Applicant, with respect to these issues? • Although small in scope, this proposed project looms large in overall impact on the Fairplay community. Why is there no discussion of an overall cost/benefit analysis of this proposed project upon all aspects of the community, including the financial impact upon the Fairplay Sanitation District? In conclusion, the Fairplay Sanitation District Board suggests this proposed development requires analysis of several areas of concerns which have not been adequately addressed by the current Draft Environmental Assessment and should result in exercise of No Action by BLM. Or, in the alternative, the Board respectfully suggests the proposed Fairplay Destiny Mine Application be subject to development and presentation of a full “Environmental Impact Statement” to fully and adequately address all issues which affect the Fairplay community. Respectfully submitted on behalf of the Board of Directors of the Fairplay Sanitation District.

Our Letter to the BOCC

No Fairplay Mine's Letter to the BOCC

November 6, 2011Dear Park County Commissioners,The No Fairplay Mine Group would like to let you know that we appreciate your interest and understanding in regards to the Destiny Mine BLM land proposal.Your quick response in formatting and completing a comment letter to go out to the BLM by the deadline of October 30, 2011 was very impressive. The attendees at your BOCC meeting, felt that their concerns had been heard and that their voice had been represented by the Park County Government. It was really good to see the Town and County collaborate by taking a stand within our community for what the people believe in.May this collaborating set a precedence for future County and Town relations. It takes a community to make a difference.Sincerely,Trevor Messa - President, No Fairplay Mine Non-ProfitMark Fisher - Vice President, No Fairplay Mine Non-ProfitDarin Zaruba - Head of the No Fairplay Mine Non-Profitwww.nofairplaymine.org

Information
No Fairplay Mine
Town of Fairplay
County Commissioners
Fairplay Sanitation
Our Letter to the BOCC

The Process

This is the flow chart for the Environmental Assessment Process. The section circled in red is where we are at right now.

To see the full chart, as well as the EIS (Environmental Impact Statement) flow chart, please go to "News/Documents" and download the PDF of both charts.

You can click on the chart to the right to enlarge it, however the quality may not be very good. View the PDF version if you would like to see it more clearly.

Comments

Please keep comments clean. Derogatory statements will not be tolerated. All points of view are welcome, but comments that are offensive will be removed.

All fields must be filled out to submit a comment.

Contact

No Fairplay Mine contact

Tel: 719.839.5688

Email: info_nofairplaymine.org

No Fairplay Mine

Home

About

News/Documents

Photos

Letters

The Process

Comments