Free Reply to Response to Motion - District Court of Federal Claims - federal

Case 1:05-cv-00367-ECH

Document 33-2

Filed 06/19/2006

Page 1 of 13

EXHIBIT A

Case 1:05-cv-00367-ECH

Document 33-2

Filed 06/19/2006

Page 2 of 13

Volume I
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Withdrawal of Public Lands for Range Safety and Training Purposes Naval Air Station Falion, Nevada

May 1998

Q

Department of the Navy
Naval Air Station Fallon Falion, Nevada

US 00100

Case 1:05-cv-00367-ECH

Document 33-2

Filed 06/19/2006

Page 3 of 13

4. Eavironmenr.al Consequences 4.2,10 Mineral Resources Impacts ~o mineral resources would be influenced by the existence of minerals within the land withdrawal area, the availabilky of the lands to extract those minerals, and the land use controls applied to mining operations on the land. Potential direct impacts associated with the land use controls are described below_ 4.2.10.1 Alternative I . Im___mp..~: Under all withdrawal alternatives. Category A lands would be dosed to any mining activity to protect the public from existing and potential offrange ordnance. Mitring would be allowed on Category B lands subject to existing mining laws but 1:he Navy wilt have final approval authority on permits for dalm improvements and no claims may be patented after the lands are withdrawn. The following discussion on locaxable minerals applies to the entire withdrawal area except for the shoal site and those lands in r.he I3-16 area withdrawn by BUREC. These areas were withdrawn from I~eral eaxtry prior to the Navy's application for land withdrawal_ F.xp/orat/on. Significant uamitigable impacts would occur on Category A lands because no exploration may take place. The greatest impact would occur on Category A lands with high mineral potential. Approximatdy 2,200 acres ia the Fai~fiew District south and east of B-17 and 2,300 acres in the Cinnabar Hill area eas~ of B-19 would be affected. 'Casual exploration on Category B lands would be allowed except at military sites. This would not be a significant direct impact because these sites are small, are dispersed over a wide area, and are unlikely to affect exploration. Mining Claim L~arion (Staking New Claims), Significant unmitigable impacts would occur on Category A lands because no daims may.be located. No controls to locating m/ning claims on Category B .lands would occur except at EW, TACTS, and visual c~eiag &vice sizes during the dine of their use. This would not be a significant direct impam because developed military sites would occupy a small percentage of the withdrawal area and would avoid areas with high mineral potential or'existing daims. Development. Significant unmitigable impacts would occur oa Category A lands because access to urtpatented and patented daims would not be allowed, potentially ,resulting in a loss in revenue and, in the case of FElS far tbe Witbdra~oal of Publie Lands for Range Safety and Training Pu~ses at NAS Fallor~ NV 4-30 US 00101

Case 1:05-cv-00367-ECH

Document 33-2

Filed 06/19/2006

Page 4 of 13

4- Environmental Co~equences

patentees and holders of valid unpatented mining claims, a loss of private properzy or mineral rights. Applications for BLM permits for raining on Category B lands would require Navy review and approval. Approval would be granted where development was compatible with Navy traiaLag operations. Development on fenced military sites would not be permitted. In the case of visual cueing device shes, this impact would be temporary, as the sites could be developed once the visual cueing device was moved. Five. permanent EW and TACTS sites, comprising at most twenty-five acres, would be located to avoid exi~ing developmertts This would not be a significant direct impact. ¯ Pa~.'ming. Significant unmitigable impacts would occur oft Category A lands because no claims may be patented. No new patents would be allowed on Category B hack after the withdrawal..While unpatemed claims still guaraztee tee claimant exclusive rights to the minerals in the claim, restricting patenting would result in potentially adverse impacts. Maintaitfing claims ia an unpatented sr.at~ would continue to require paying an amaual fee attd obtaining permits for :my improvements. Maintaining the claims in an unpatenr~d status also would preclude a tin'truant from the land ownership r.hat accompanies patenting a daira. These adverse effects would be limited in that there are no areas wi~h high federal potential v~ithin the Category B lands except in the Wonder District (Figure 3-9). Impacts to leasable minerals co~d result from controls on access to Category B lands and on.the height limitation of structures. The height limitation could affect oil. gas, and geothermal .well &illing, as this equipment often exceeds 50 feet. In addition, no new leases could be issued on Category A lands. These impacts are not projected to he sigtaificant since the mineral inventory revealed no lands in the withdrawal area whh high leasable mineral potential. Potential impacts to salable ralnerals could result from restrictions to devdopment on Category A lands. The current sites (managed by NDOT and located in the EW and B-17 propped withdrawal areas along Highway 50, the Sheelite Mine Road, and the Dixie Valley Road) are considered valid existing rights. There are vast quantities of.salable materials on the lands out, side the proposed withdrawal area; tJaeret[ore, no significant impacts to access of salable ¯ minerals are anticipated. Mitigation: The Navy will explore means to compensate holders of impacted mining patents and valid unpal;ented mining rialtos on Category A lands.

FF.lS for tbe Withtra~l of Public Lands for Range Safety and Training Purposes at N/IS fallon, NV

US O0102

Case 1:05-cv-00367-ECH

Document 33-2

Filed 06/19/2006

4. Environmental Consequences

Page 5 of 13

Acquisition of these daims and patents will be subject to congressional authorization and appropriation. With regard to height limitations on development structures in Category B lands, waive/s could be issued by the Navy oa a case-by-case basis, depending on the proposed location and duration of time the structure will be needed. The Navy will explore the possibility of accommodating equipment necessary for oil, gas, and geothermal drilling if it is to be installed for relatively short periods or in locales where it does not pose a safety hazard to military operations. 4.Z l 0~2 Alternative II (Preferred Alternative) ~__-F.~: The land use category designations for Alternative 1/are the same as those for Alternative I and impacts would be similar to those described for iMternative L The primary exception would be for those'lands not included in the Alternative 11 withdrawal area, including land in the Wonder District ('including the Silver Center Claims) and Sand Springs District. The Wonder District and portions of the Sand Springs District have been identified as having high mineral potential, so removal of these areas from the withdrawal would lessen the impacts. Mitigation: Mitigation measures will he the same as described, for Alternative L 4.2.10.3 Alternative lII Imp~: Impacts under Alternative III would be similar to those described under Alternative L Mitigation'. Mitigation measu;res will be the same as described for Alternative .... I. 4.2.I0.4 No Action Alternative ~pa~s: The No Action Alternative would not withiL, aw any public lands. Impacts to mining on off-range ordnance lands would continue to be handed through BLM and Navy administrative processes, Mitigation: No mitigation. 4,2,11 Livestock and Wild Horse Management 4~2.I1.I Alternative I Im___~A~: Alternative i would not significantly affect livestock or wild horses on Category B lands, Grazing activities and wild horses would not be allowed FElS for th~ Wid~dramd of Ps. blic Lands for Range Safety and Training l~rposes a¢ NtIS lZallon, NV 4132 US O0103

Case 1:05-cv-00367-ECH

Document 33-2

Filed 06/19/2006

Page 6 of 13

APPENDIX H

MINING CLAIMS
In Nevada, all patented and Uapatented miaing daims must be filed w/th the Bureau of Land Martagement State Office in Reao mad the oua~ in which the daim was made, The BLM Sza~ Office maintaias a daxabase of m/axlng claims that hadudes the daim name, the-curr~, t sxaxtts of r.he claim, its locadoa date, and its location by township, raage, section, and subdivlslom Information on the current number and location of patented and unpateated mining claims .was obtained from this database. Data on township, range, section, and subdivision were compared to the withdrawal area to determiae which chims fell withh the propo~, had w~thdrawal footprint. The location date was used 1:o ~e which dahns were located afxer the lands were dosed to minet¢l entry. An assessment was performed to determine whether claims axe located on land segre~ed in 1982

or had seg~ed ;- lSS2. V~y, the dfim was comv,~-~d to the proposed
withdrawal area to determine its lo¢~ion in refexence to the ranges and Category A and B hads. Table H-1 li~ts the parental claims and Table H-2 list the.uapaxented claims located in, the withdrawal'area. The gener~ locations of the pateated and unpateated claims thought to be active in the entire withdrawal area are showa on Figure H-1.

H-t US O0104

Case 1:05-cv-00367-ECH

Document 33-2

Filed 06/19/2006

Page 7 of 13

Appenak H, Mining claims TABI F- H-1. PATENTED MINING C~

A/,~,~,it,~/,/~, and M
15N 34E 7,18 Bhfff Gold Cola Gold Coin 1 Gold Coin 2 Fraction Detroit Tiger Florenm #3 2g9653 3914

I6N 16N

34E 34E

17 17

47231 47230

2745 2668

13-17/ Categ~ry A ~17 / Catego~ A

BI~ Bdl Little Fellow
16~ 1(~1 16~ A~s I ~nd Lg ~4E ~~e i 19N 34E 3fi Bcmbk l~ Grey Hors~ G~, Horse I Grey Horse 2 252474 3425 32 Golden Dawa No, 2 Golden Da~,a No. 3 17330 3671 34E 34E 34E I7 17 16 Ohio Ohio No. 1 Great F~s LookoutNo. 2 83149 149254 90643 32O6

Car, gozy A 3752 3383 B.I~/

CategoryA s.xz/ Catego~X

Triutgh Fr~.ioa
19N 34E05E) 3601) Spider Wasp ToayPah 29199 3064

! ! I I 1 ! ! ! ! ! M

I.o~,Nd 191,~ 34~0sE) 36(31) ~ T~
Vall~ Xq¢~ P~ YdlowJadm¢

10039

33s8

!
Difi~ VaIL-T/ C.atcgory ]~ Category B

tgN
19I'

34E0sE)
34E(3 SE)

zs,~s0o)

N~,~ I2,tth W/tch K~,:L~ ~ King Mi&s 2 Kitg Miau 3

lo4z39
263382

33~s
3885

2500) Lost Chord

! ! !

DN

34E(35E)

25(30)

Great Eastc~ 1 Great Eastern 3 Great E~em 4

32958

3122

FEIS for ~ Wid~traumi of lMblic ~ for R~ge g~ree/ arm Training Purya~es a ]V~$ FMlan~ NV H-2

It
US 00105

Case 1:05-cv-00367-ECH

Document 33-2

Filed 06/19/2006

Page 8 of 13

EXHIBIT B

Case 1:05-cv-00367-ECH

Document 33-2

Filed 06/19/2006

Page 9 of 13

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS No. 05-367 L into whieh have been consolidated Nos. 05-484 L, 05-537 L, 05-1082 L, 05-1083 L, 05-1173 L, and 05-1175 L

)
GERALD E. ROTH, et. al., Plaintiffs, v. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant. )

)
) )

Honorable Emily C. Hewitt

)
)

)
)

)
DECLARATION OF BEVERLY J. FREITAS I, Beverly J. Freitas, do hereby declare: 1. I am currently a Senior Realty Specialist with Anteon Corporation, working under a contract for the United States Coast Guard. I have held this position since Januai~ 4, 2006. Previously, I worked for the Department of the Navy as a civilian Employee. My position was Business Line Team Leader for Real Estate, Integrated Product Team West, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest, San Diego, California. My office was located in Daly City, California. I retired from this position on January 3, 2006. Part of my area of responsibility for Real Estate included the Naval Air Station, FaUon, Nevada. This entailed working on various mining claim issues at Fallen. 2. During my position with the Department of the Naw, I spoke with Mr. George D. Duffy, an owner of a patented mining claim identified as Boulder #1, Churchill County, Nevada, by telephone. Mr. Duffy asked about the status of the Government acquiring his claim. I advised him that the Department of the Navy did not have money allocated for any purchases of mining claims at this time, however, it was trying to obtain the funding. If funding was received, the Department of the Navy would make Mr. Duffy an offer to purchase his mining claim for the established fair market value. At no time during the conversation did the issue of statute of limitations arise, nor did I make any mention of the statute of limitations running out on any issues concerning his mining claim.

Case 1:05-cv-00367-ECH

Document 33-2

Filed 06/19/2006

Page 10 of 13

Under ponalty ofperjury, and pursuant to section 1746 of Title 28, U.S. Code, I declare that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. Executed on the 16'h day of June, 2006.

Beverly J. Ft~tas I ~" Senior Realty ~ialist Anteon Corporation Oakland, California

Case 1:05-cv-00367-ECH

Document 33-2

Filed 06/19/2006

Page 11 of 13

EXHIBIT C

Case 1:05-cv-00367-ECH

Document 33-2

Filed 06/19/2006

Page 12 of 13

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS No. 05-367 L into which have been consolidated Nos. 05-484 L, 05-537 L, 05-1082 L, 05-1083 L, 05-1173 L, and 05-1175 L (E-filed: June 19, 2006) GERALD E. ROTH, et. al., Plaintiffs,
V.

Honorable Emily C. Hewitt

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant. DECLARATION OF ANTIONETTE PEREZ I, Antoinette Perez, do hereby declare: 1. I am currently employed as a Realty Specialist by the Department of the

Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command Southwest. In this capacity I am responsible for disposal planning, reconnaissance, condenmation reports, title research, economic analysis, transfer or withdrawal documents, preparation of contracts such as licenses and leases, and preparation of other contracting documentation. I have held this position since August 8, 2005. 2. Before accepting civilian employment with the Department of the Navy, I served on active duty from July 22, 1985 through July 3 I, 2005 in various duty stations both in the United States and overseas. My last duty station was Commander, Navy Region Southwest in San Diego where I was a Flag Writer/Personal Executive Assistant to Rear Admiral Betancourt from February 2002 - July 2005. I retired as a Chief Petty

Case 1:05-cv-00367-ECH

Document 33-2

Filed 06/19/2006

Page 13 of 13

Officer/E7. In my capacity as Flag Writer for Navy Region Southwest, I had no contact with any mine owners or plaintiffs of this lawsuit. 3. Shortly after I began working as a Realty Specialist, I was assigned the "Mining Claim Project" in October/November 2005. These claims had previously been handled by Beverly Freitas a Realty Specialist on our IPT West Team in Daly City, San Francisco, but were being transferred to NAVFAC SW as Ms. Freitas was retiring from the Department of the Navy. As part of the orderly project transfer process, Ms. Freitas provided Mr. George Duffy with my office telephone number as the new point of contact for the project. When I received the project, I was aware that three of the mine owners had filed a lawsuit. 4. I have never personally spoken with, corresponded with, or received a telephone call from Mr. George Duffy or his wise, Mrs. Margaret Duffy. Additionally, I have not personally spoken with, corresponded with or received a telephone call from any of the other mine owners or plaintiffs in this matter. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, I declare under penalty of perjury that, to the best of my knowledge, the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on June 14, 2006, San Diego, California

Antoinette Perez Realty Specialist Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest