Fees and Bonding Requirements Coming to a Repeater Near You Amateur repeater sites located in areas administered by the U.S. Forest Service are now being told to pay permit-renewal processing fees and to provide bonds for dismantlement, removal and restoration (DR&R) of the sites upon termination of their respective leases (which typically run for 30 years). The fees appear to be running around $1,200 and are described as being for recovery of permit processing costs. While a burden, it's probably not a deal-killer, considering that it applies to 30 years of future usage. More onerous are the DR&R bonding requirements; the ones I've seen are from $30,000 to $100,000! At my request Barry Shelley has asked our club-insurance agent whether the carrier can provide or would consider providing the requisite bonds. Since the alternative to bonding would be a cash deposit of the required amount, this could be a real issue for repeater owners / clubs. I have also asked Dan Henderson and Chris Imlay about any prior agreements, rules or laws that would exempt Amateurs from any of these requirements. We'll see whether their research finds anything that might help. Angeles National Forest in Southern California is the bellwether for this initiative, but we are told by USFS that it will be nationwide. I have unconfirmed reports that the impetus for the bonding requirements was the abandonment of coal mines on leased Federal lands and the Feds being stuck with the related clean-up costs. It does appear that the bond amount may be negotiable if the repeater owner can demonstrate the ability to meet the DR&R requirements at a lower cost. It could be argued that some site improvements, such as grading and retaining walls, would be better left in place than removed (for slope stability, vehicle turn-arounds, etc.), thereby reducing the DRR work and related cost. It is possible that a commitment to transfer a site to a willing government agency at the end of its Amateur use could satisfy USFS as an alternative to bonding, but that remains to be seen. It may be prudent for USFS lessees to develop DR&R plans for their sites before they are under time pressure to do so. 73, Marty N6VI