Case Title: LeFaivre v. Environmental Quality Council of Dept. of Environmental Quality

Citation: 

Docket Number: 86-240

State: wyoming

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date: 1987-04-09T00:00:00Z

Document:
LeFaivre v. Environmental Quality Council of Dept. of Environmental Quality1987 WY 40735 P.2d 428Case Number: 86-240Decided: 04/09/1987Supreme Court of Wyoming
Robert 
C. Le FAIVRE, Appellant (Plaintiff)

 
 
v.

 
 
ENVIRONMENTAL 
QUALITY COUNCIL OF the DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY of the State of 
Wyoming, 
Appellee (Defendant)

 
 
Robert 
C. LeFaivre, Pro Se.

 
 
A. G. 
McClintock, Attorney General, and Steven R. Shanahan, Senior Assistant Attorney 
General, for Appellee. 

 
 
Brown, 
C.J., and Thomas, Cardine, Urbigkit, and Macy, JJ. 

 
 
URBIGKIT, 
Justice.

 
 

[¶1.]     This appeal record, 
viewed by a naturalist or Indian historian, would provide a fascinating 
discussion about a place in central SweetwaterCounty in southern Wyoming of archaeological, historical and 
cultural interest, called the "Natural Corrals." Judicial review, however, 
presents a conflict to this court between the Wyoming Department of 
Environmental Quality (DEQ), which denied a mine application, and appellant 
Robert C. LeFaivre, who wants to "mine" the constituent natural rock formation 
and procure boulders for home building and decorative stone. Procedural, 
substantive and jurisdictional issues are found in appellate briefs and oral 
argument presented pro se.

 
 

[¶2.]     LeFaivre attacks the 
denial decision of the state agency on procedure: (a) protestants were not 
competent to object, secure a hearing, or present evidence; and (b) inadequate 
notice of the hearing. Substantively, he challenged the decision and contended 
that (a) the mine site was not considered properly to be a rare or uncommon area 
containing definable historical, archaeological, wildlife, surface, geological, 
botanical, or scenic value; (b) his mine and reclamation plan was adequately 
supported; and (c) the authority of the Wyoming Department of Environmental 
Quality was preempted by federal law, excluding jurisdiction over the site 
despite state law and its environmental quality processes and permitting 
requirements. Appellant also challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to 
support the administrative agency decision.

 
 
FACTS

 
 

[¶3.]     Under the business 
designation of Western Aggregates, appellant had a suspended permit (No. 503) to 
mine pumice claims on federal Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands in 
SweetwaterCounty. On April 4, 1984, 
he filed a personal application to amend Permit 503 to include two noncontiguous 
sites, one for a mill location, and the second for a building stone claim site 
of 160 acres. It is this second aspect, involving stone removal from the Natural 
Corrals that is the subject of this appeal.

 
 

[¶4.]     When public notice was 
given about the mining application for the Natural Corrals area, protests were 
made, and the contested hearing of May 15, 1986 followed. Protestants were 
Steven D. Creasman, and Charles M. Love. Both signed the protest letter which 
evidenced their relationship to the WesternWyomingCommunity 
College in SweetwaterCounty, although the protest was not made 
in the name of the College.

 
 

[¶5.]     The hearing was 
conducted by John Crow, an experienced Wyoming trial attorney who, as a member of the 
Environmental Quality Council acted as hearing examiner. Requirements in hearing 
management were complicated, since not only did LeFaivre appear pro se, but also 
protestants and all witnesses appeared without the assistance or participation 
of examining counsel, except the one witness presented by the Department of 
Environmental Quality.

 
 

[¶6.]     Applicant testified, as 
his only hearing evidence, in the form of an opening statement and closing 
argument, with some factual evidence given in the nature of a combination of 
advocate argument and witness testimony. This included a rather expressive 
critique of the proceedings:

 
 
"This 
so-called hearing is merely a politically-caused, state-sponsored rally for a 
lost cause."

 
 

[¶7.]     The land, which is 
property of the United 
States, is under the jurisdiction of the BLM, 
and it was established that BLM approval for the mining permit at the Natural 
Corrals had not been given.

 
 

[¶8.]     Love, as a protestant, 
testified within his expertise as a professional geologist and archaeologist. He 
had prepared site reports of the area. Creasman testified as an archaeologist, 
on work and research done in the area for the BLM in connection with the area's 
nomination and consideration as a national registered archaeological site. Also 
in support of permit denial, Richard Randall testified as a representative of 
the defendants of wildlife and a wildlife specialist. Jim June testified as a 
retired state game warden and game specialist of 33 years with personal 
knowledge of the area. Henry Chadey, a former native of Superior, a town located some five miles from the Natural 
Corrals, who was a county employee of Rock 
Springs with lifetime experience in the area, testified as a 
representative of the county's Historical Society and of SweetwaterCountyMuseum. Additionally testifying were 
Harold Johnson, an outdoor recreational planner and coordinator in the area of 
critical environment for the Rock Springs BLM district, and Frank Prevedel, a 
state senator and area native raised in the town of Superior, and a frequent 
visitor to the area for both archaeological search and recreational activities 
for a period of 50 years.

 
 

[¶9.]     Ice caves, Indian digs, 
artifacts, uniqueness of the area, wildlife resource, historical significance of 
the area, cultural advantage, and recreational opportunity, were among the 
generalizations specifically addressed in the testimony in opposition to the 
mine permit.

 
 

[¶10.]  A DEQ employee, Mark Moxley, the only 
other witness, testified about the permitting process and the relationship 
between the BLM and the state mining claim procedure. In analysis, he described 
the reclamation plan and mining permit intent:

 
 
"First 
let me describe what the mine plan is. It is Mr. LeFaivre's intention to go out 
and simply remove boulders, small ones, or else break off pieces of larger ones, 
so he is not intending to make any excavation into the ground, he's not 
intending to build any roads; so from that standpoint, his actual effect on the 
ground surface is minimal compared to most mining 
operations.

 
 
"The 
reclamation plan would simply be to perhaps reseed small areas where he may have 
perhaps destroyed some vegetation, or if he removes a rock and there's wear 
spots under the rock he would reseed it; but so far as any large scale 
reclamation, there would be none."

 
 

[¶11.]  Mr. LeFaivre addressed the Council in 
closing comment, summarizing his factual position:

 
 
"Mr. 
Crow, members of the Council, interested citizens. If special consideration is 
to be given protestants as concerns admission of covert evidence in support of 
cultural inventory attributed to need for cause in this open meeting type 
hearing whereas no agenda is prescribed, applicant requests that the state enter 
application as approved by LQD prior to this unusual and cumbersome politically 
motivated rally by special interests in order for evidence of fact to be 
subjected to perusal of the Council without bias in forefront of consideration 
as is due and necessary.

 
 
"The 
Council may review the remainder of the record as will be offered into evidence 
upon concurrence of the Land Quality Division by special conference so as to 
preserve private rights attached in view of ongoing litigation as is effected by 
cooperative agreement with the State of Wyoming Land Quality Division as agent of the 
state obligated to applicant herein.

 
 
"Proposed 
quarry mining activity is beyond reasonable doubt not in setting of irreparable 
harm, destruction or material impairment. Therefore, from the environmental 
point of state concern, the Council is respectfully requested to approve the 
mine plan as is indicated by Land Quality Division should be done. There is no 
particular historical, archaeological, wildlife, surface geological, botanical 
or scenic value in position of determination of the Council prohibiting mine 
permit approval. BLM predictions herein are reviewed as within prejudice of 
ACED. Opponents to minerals development are without basis in law, rule, and/or 
regulation in pursuit of personal preference to archaeologic endeavors. The area 
is not designated by any agency of government so as to deny the mineral rights. 
As for example, the Council has not designated the area rare or 
uncommon."

 
 

[¶12.]  Responding to this declamation, the 
Council in its findings and conclusions determined procedural sufficiency for 
the hearing and factually, in part:

 
 
"5. Mr. 
Charles M. Love, Professor, Anthropology and Geology, WesternWyomingCollege, and Mr. Steven D. Creasman, Director, 
Archaeological Services, WesternWyomingCollege, filed timely objections to a 
portion of the mine permit amendment application.

* * 
*

"8. 
Permit amendment application, TFN 1 1/338, covers two noncontiguous parcels of 
property. The first parcel is a building stone collection area located at the 
Natural Corrals. * * *

"9. The 
United States of 
America owns the surface and mineral rights for 
the land identified as the Natural Corrals. The land is managed by the 
Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management.

"10. The 
Applicant did not present any direct evidence at the hearing in support of his 
application, but he chose to rely on his application and documents submitted to 
the Department to support his application.

"11. 
Applicant's permit amendment application for the area around the Natural Corrals 
is to allow the mining of large blocks of rock for sale as building stone. The 
mining and reclamation plan summary indicates that no excavation, earthmoving or 
road building will be conducted at the mine site. Surface rocks will be removed 
whole or cut and split on site and then removed. Overland travel will be by four 
wheel drive with the possible use of horses and helicopters. Operations will be 
conducted to avoid streams, springs, marshy areas and drainages. Trees and large 
shrubs will be preserved. There may be a need to house employees on site using 
small travel trailers or skid mounted buildings. The mining and reclamation plan 
summary further states that if significant environmental concerns are identified 
during the inspection, then alternate sites and or methods will be developed by 
the operator.

"12. The 
Applicant's mining and reclamation plan summary does not identify any existing 
archaeological, cultural or recreational values at the proposed site located 
around the Natural Corrals. Accordingly, no proposals or statements are made on 
how such values will be reclaimed, or will be affected.

"13. The 
area of the Natural Corrals is a small portion of a much larger area known as 
Zirkel Mesa. The building stone material present in the Natural Corrals consists 
of large boulders which are the result of lava flow.

"14. 
Contrary to the assertions of the Applicant, evidence at the hearing 
demonstrated that the boulders in the Natural Corrals are of the same mineralogy 
and petrology as boulders in other sections of the Zirkel Mesa, and other areas 
of the mesa are more accessible.

"15. The 
Natural Corrals has unique archaeological values, including shallow sites of two 
or three different types of Indian pottery, beads, trade beads, leather 
fragments, soapstone, pipes, projectile points, stone tool fragments, various 
types of obsidian and bone tools, and the only occurrence of mammoth tusk known 
in southwestern Wyoming. Current data suggests the area has 
been intermittently occupied by prehistoric and historic populations for the 
last 11,000 years.

"16. The 
spring located immediately adjacent to the Natural Corrals has a good deal of 
geologic deposition. The stratigraphy within the spring or immediately adjacent 
to the spring could yield a valuable climatological, wildlife and human 
occupation sequence.

"17. Ice 
caves at the Natural Corrals contain extensive archaeological values that are 
unique and therefore cannot be reclaimed.

"18. 
Known archaeological sites at the Natural Corrals are very shallow and would be 
irreparably destroyed by mining disturbance.

"19. 
Removal of any stones or boulders around the Natural Corrals could precipitate 
an erosion process which would adversely affect the shallow archaeological 
resources.

"20. The 
natural placement of the boulders around the Natural Corrals is integral to the 
total environment; and removal of any of the boulders would affect the entire 
site.

"21. The 
area of the Natural Corrals has been used as a recreational area by the citizens 
of SweetwaterCounty for many years, and in particular has been 
extensively used by the Town of Superior. The use has been of such duration and 
nature that the use itself has caused the site to have historic importance to 
Wyoming.

"22. The 
Natural Corrals has a combination of available water, food and shelter not 
otherwise available in the desert terrain and, consequently, the area is habitat 
for abundant and varied wildlife.

"23. 
Access to the Natural Corrals is by a two-track dirt road, which is in poor 
condition, and has not been maintained as it has been closed to public vehicle 
use by the Bureau of Land Management.

"24. The 
Natural Corrals is currently being considered for nomination on the National 
Register of Historic Places. In June, 1982, the Natural Corrals was designated 
as an area of critical environmental concern by the United States Department of 
Interior, Bureau of Land Management.

"25. The 
management objectives of the Bureau of Land Management for the Natural Corrals, 
as stated in 'Natural Corrals Area of Critical Environmental Concern Management 
Plan' (DEQ Exhibit # 4), include protection of this area from the degradation of 
its cultural, recreation, and geologic values.

"26. The 
botany of the Natural Corrals is unusual for the southwestern part of Wyoming. Disturbance by 
mining would cause perhaps irreversible changes to both the vegetative and water 
regimes of the area.

"27. The 
historic, archaeologic, recreation, and wildlife values which make the Natural 
Corrals area unique are irreplaceable, and if disturbed by the proposed mining 
activity, could not be reclaimed."

 
 

[¶13.]  The petition for review, filed in the 
district court and directly certified to this court, challenged jurisdiction and 
the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the facts contained in the 11-page 
decision document.1 We have attempted to extrapolate 
the issues as stated and amplified by briefs and oral 
argument.

 
 
PROCEDURAL 
ISSUE

 
 

[¶14.]  Appellant seriously contended at the 
hearing, and now contends on appeal, that Professors Love and Creasman were 
disqualified by virtue of their employment status with the College to file the 
protest or to testify and present evidence. In its findings and conclusions, as 
well as decision during the hearing, the Council denied the numerous motions 
made, addressing the individuals' rights under Wyoming's DEQ statute to enter 
permit protest or appear as a witness, pursuant to § 
35-11-406(k), W.S.1977, 1986 Cum.Supp., which 
provides:

 
 
"Any 
interested person2 has the right to file written 
objections to the application * * * *."

 
 
See 
MacDougall v. Board of Land Commissioners of 
Wyoming, 48 Wyo. 493, 49 P.2d 663 
(1935), where standing as a citizen and taxpayer was accepted without 
question for a government contract protest.

 
 

[¶15.]  To be a witness, the test here is not 
competency to testify, but rather weight to be given, considering bias, 
prejudice, or antagonistic position as shown or contended. Each person who 
testified in support of the protest and against the application demonstrated 
personal knowledge and individual expertise with the subject matter, and the 
persuasiveness of the testimony is to be determined from its substance as given. 
State v. Zespy, Wyo., 723 P.2d 564 (1986); Caterpillar Tractor Company v. Donahue, Wyo., 
674 P.2d 1276 (1983). As Wyoming residents and concerned citizens, they 
were certainly qualified to be witnesses within the statutory criteria. Cogent 
authority to the contrary has not been presented.

 
 

[¶16.]  From our review of the record, we do not 
find the hearing notice to be insufficient. Furthermore, appellant's posture for 
procedural objection is severely constrained since he, as applicant, did appear, 
did not ask for a continuance, and actually presented no evidence except his own 
opinions. Grams v. Environmental Quality Council 
of the State of Wyoming, Wyo., 730 P.2d 784 
(1986).

 
 
JURISDICTION 
LACKING TO DENY

 
 

[¶17.]  The second contention presented by the 
appellant is that the Wyoming Environmental Quality Council cannot disprove 
applications for small mining sites in areas of the state which are contended to 
be rare or uncommon, or which have particular historical, archaeological, 
wildlife, surface geological, botanical, or scenic value, where a separate 
earlier designation had not been made. At least to the extent of this record, we 
reject the argument, and agree with the position of the State pursuant to § 35-11-406(m)(iv), W.S.1977, 1986 Cum.Supp., that 
prior special-area designation is not required before actual Council 
consideration of an individual permit application can be made which may result 
in denial premised on the site sensitive statutory criteria. Corollary to the 
designation issue is the reclamation issue whereby LeFaivre contends that the 
area is nonarchaeological, and consequently that what is sometimes 
euphemistically called "goat pasture" reclamation should suffice. This states a 
question whether the area is actually rare and unusual and of a nature to 
justify and require special reclamation attention, or merely an undistinguished 
area which requires open-field pit-mining reclamation.

 
 

[¶18.]  The special nature of this mine site 
justifies our approval of the Council's decision that reclamation is impossible 
if the special nature of the area is destroyed by cutting up and hauling away 
the area special features, namely the rock formation. We concur with the 
Council's well-supported Conclusion of Law No. 6:

 
 
"The 
Applicant has presented no evidence to demonstrate that the Natural Corrals can 
be reclaimed to its archaeological, historic, wildlife, and recreational 
use."

 
 

[¶19.]  In contending next that the authority of 
the Council is preempted by federal law, appellant postures his position on lack 
of jurisdiction of the Wyoming agency. The applicable federal 
regulation, 43 CFR 3809.3-1 provides:

 
 
"(a) 
Nothing in this subpart shall be construed to effect a preemption of State laws 
and regulations relating to the conduct of operations or reclamation on Federal 
lands under the mining laws.

"(b) 
After the publication date of these regulations the Director, Bureau of Land 
Management, shall conduct a review of State laws and regulations in effect or 
due to come into effect, relating to unnecessary or undue degradation of lands 
disturbed by exploration for, or mining of, minerals locatable under the mining 
laws.

"(c) The 
Director may consult with appropriate representatives of each State to formulate 
and enter into agreements to provide for a joint Federal-State program for 
administration and enforcement. The purpose of such agreements is to prevent 
unnecessary or undue degradation of the Federal lands from operations which are 
conducted under the mining laws, to prevent unnecessary administrative delay and 
to avoid duplication of administration and enforcement of laws. Such agreements 
may, whenever possible, provide for State administration and enforcement of such 
programs."

 
 

[¶20.]  Pursuant to that regulation, and § 9-2-121, W.S.1977 (recodified as § 9-1-216, W.S.1977, 1982 Pamphlet), as well as 
§ 35-11-102, W.S.1977 and § 35-11-109(a)(ii), W.S.1977, 1986 Cum.Supp., the 
BLM and the State of Wyoming entered into a cooperative agreement on September 
30, 1981. Its terms clearly justify and mandate consideration of permit 
applications by the state agency as in this case.3 Appellant's arguments otherwise 
lack cogent authority of statute or case law sufficient to sustain rejection of 
the state agency authority over small mine sites in this situation, and 
consequently we reject his contentions. Skurdal v. 
State, Wyo., 708 P.2d 1241 
(1985).

 
 
SUFFICIENCY 
OF THE EVIDENCE

 
 

[¶21.]  Excluding preemption and procedure, the 
singular issue of this appeal requires a sufficiency-of-the-evidence analysis. 
In effect, appellant directed his personal efforts to the contention that his 
application alone was sufficient to rebut the facts elicited by protestants 
through six witnesses. He fails, and we now affirm and conclude that the factual 
finding of the administrative agency is supported by substantial evidence. 
Grams v. Environmental Quality Council of the 
State of Wyoming, supra; Big Piney Oil & Gas Co. v. Oil and Gas Conservation 
Commission, Wyo., 715 P.2d 557 
(1986). We will not rewrite the facts elicited in the record as would be 
required for this court to determine that competent evidence is lacking to 
support the decision made. Fiedler v. Steger, Wyo., 
713 P.2d 773 (1986).

 
 
"This 
court * * * * takes the record as presented * * * * and cannot recreate the 
facts which may have been or do not appear." 713 P.2d  
at 776.

 
 

[¶22.]  Finding competent supporting evidence, 
this reviewing court is not justified in substituting its analytical opinions on 
factual matters for the determinations made by the administrative agency. 
Big Piney Oil & Gas Co. v. Oil & Gas 
Conservation Commission, 
supra.

 
 

[¶23.]  Affirmed.

 
 
FOOTNOTES

 
 

1Rule 12.06, 
W.R.A.P.:

 
 
"The petition for review shall include a 
concise statement showing jurisdiction and venue and the specific ground 
or grounds upon which petitioner contends he is entitled to relief." (Emphasis 
added.)

 
 

2"Person" is defined by the Act in § 35-11-103(a)(vi), W.S.1977, 1986 
Cum.Supp.:

 
 
"'Person' means an individual, 
partnership, firm, association, joint venture, public or private corporation, 
trust, estate, commission, board, public or private institution, utility, 
cooperative, municipality or any other political subdivision of the state, or 
any interstate body or any other legal entity."

 
 

3This decision is consistent with the 
current opinion of the United States Supreme Court in California Coastal Commission v. Granite Rock 
Company, 480 U.S. 572, 107 S. Ct. 1419, 94 L. Ed. 2d 577, 55 U.S.L.W. 4366 (1987).