How do you determine when your disturbance becomes significant?? Options

[realnice]

Hi all, im new to the site. Been prospecting for about 10 years here in Colorado. I hold a few mining claims and am wondering about determining significant disturbance on historically disturbed areas. An area where i have a claim has been logged and mined for a long time and the land shows it. It also has very heavy 4wd use. it is not very pristine at all. One of my claims is visible from the road so recently it has come upon scrutiny by the USFS. there is a 40 ft x 20 ft. worked area. The area is disturbed and is comprised of filled in diggs.
The 228.4 Plan of operations—notice of intent—requirements seem to fit my site as to not have to file a plan of operations, but one stipulation is...
(v) Operations, which in their totality,
will not cause surface resource disturbance
which is substantially different
than that caused by other users
of the National Forest System who are
not required to obtain a Forest Service
special use authorization, contract, or
other written authorization;

If they deem my operation to be causing significant disturbance what can they do? Arent they supposed to inform me to stop and complete a plan of operations? What are my rights here?

How do I appeal a desicion by the USFS?

[realnice]

I have a mining claim that was unfortunately shut down this summer:( All work has been done by hand. The work area is approximately 20ft x 40 ft of filled in digs. My partner was at the site early in the summer when he informed a man that he was digging on a claim. The man was upset because he did not realize that even though he was not digging in the immediate area of operations, he was still digging on our claim. So, he went and got a ranger who immediately asked about the mine and didn't like the disturbance. The ranger said we couldn't tell people they cannot dig??!! Take in mind that we have been digging the site for approximately 3.5 years with rangers driving by and waving as they passed. Yes, the dig site is very visible from the road;Right next to it. This invites lots of claim jumpers who have caused lots of the disturbance. A cease and desist letter was sent and they took 4 months to tell me to put in a POO or pay $2,000 while alluding that I was going to be charged with a crime:0

My question is when is the line crossed between small time mining with only hand tools and significant disturbance? I know that it is compared to disturbance caused by people who aren't required to have a permit. I have seen a few different documents and it seems a little fuzzy. What size area should I request in my POO and can I have multiple work areas? Look at my work area. What kind of bond have people had for this size of disturbance??

Here it is. Thanks for any input or help!

[Mineral Estate G...]

Folks, Realnice,
The way the Forest Service sees it mining occupations alone are significant disturbance. Miners on the public domain in-holding the National Forest System lands have to know enough to assert their reasonably incident and necessary mining development and occupation is not subject to regulation correctly addressing the unreasonable administrative demands and sue wayward agents trespassing upon miner's vested surface rights. Until then, and because to explain more is cumbersome here, consider this in answer to the inquiry after the reading of the support information below: Respond to the cease and desist order, which is a pending CURRENT administrative proceeding, with a return letter sent certified and return receipt requested with a disclosure that POO and Bond Demand was not accompanied with the OMB approved form nor the statute exempting the restriction against bonding requirements for Locatables on public domain land in-holding the forest reserve as found in the FLPMA. That the principle officer is committing trespass of the law and the granted exclusive possession, including all the surface within the limits of the claim and extortion as well as violating the Forest Service Manual provision 2800 when materially interfering without a proper objective finding. The Forest Service Manual acknowledges there must be more than bare injury, loss, or damage to surface resources before an “authorized officer” of lawfully delegated authority shall act.:

FSM 2817.03 - Policy. The primary means for obtaining protection of surface resources should be by securing the willing cooperation of prospectors and miners. The willingness of the majority of prospectors and miners to comply with regulations, reasonably administered, is a principal key to the protection of environmental quality in the National Forest System. Face-to-face dialog with operators is encouraged.
However, when reasonable efforts have been made to obtain compliance with the regulations [b]and the noncompliance is unnecessarily or unreasonably causing [/b]injury, loss, or damage to surface resources, authorized officers shall take enforcement action. (See FSM 2817.3(5).)

And require production of an authorized OMB form and lawful authority over necessary and reasonable private valid vested in-holding on public domain, land that is as a matter of law not National Forest Service lands, and showing how the agent responded reasonably in the trespass to authorize the officer or retract the Cease and Desist order in writing immediately, within 14 days, before more liability accrues.

Now we, could go on an on about the violations, too numerous to mention here, but that ought to give you a good running start catch back up.

The OMB number is required, as you'll read below and there is no unexpired form that we know of. THe last expiration happened in 2008, though I could not find a link for that, just the 2002. So this works right now, but know it is an inferior answer. If the FS gets a form approved by the OMB you all will have to be able to explain how the application of the form and the Rule is invalid. How the requirement of a POO or an NOI is invalid as against a Locatables claim in-holding the forest reserve on public domain. And you'll have to know how to respond immediately and where to file your unlawful takings complaint and the basis.

If miners do not know that significant disturbance in not the actual standard they'll be convinced the Forest Service has the authority to use it. As to the issue of significant disturbance, whether or not it alone is sufficient basis, I refer you to the FSM above.

Anyone digging on a claim is a trespasser. Anyone allowing it under color of law is an accomplice without the scope of his official duties which means you should go to state court on the civil side or to the local sheriff to arrest on the criminal side. Your State mining law and property law should guide you there and as to what constitutes a mining crime under state law. But we can go off into the deep end now, so I'l leave it here because the administrative threat is apparently the greatest now.

~MEG


http://www.federalregister.gov/articles/20...comment-request

under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13
An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.Show citation box


http://clinton4.nara.gov/library/omb/OMBINVC.html
OMB NO: 0596-0022 EXPIRATION DATE: 01/31/2002 RESPS:5,924 HOURS:4,462 COSTS(000):$0 Locatable Minerals -- 36 CFR Part 228, Subpart A FORMS: FS-2800-5

http://ftp.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/86...25.87-3020.html

866 F.2d 1092
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Bruce SMITH, Defendant-Appellant.
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Roberta BLAIR, Defendant-Appellant.
Nos. 87-3020, 87-3025.
United States Court of Appeals,
Ninth Circuit.

* Appellants argue that the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 ("PRA") prohibits their prosecutions because the Plan of Operations filing requirement lacks a current control number, and appear to raise an issue of first impression in this circuit. The PRA was enacted "to reduce and minimize the burden Government paperwork imposes on the public." S.Rep. No. 930, 96th Cong., 2d Sess. 2 (1980), reprinted in 1980 U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 6241, 6242. The PRA requires all agencies to submit all "information collection requests" to the Director (the "Director") of the Office of Management and Budget ("OMB") for review and approval. See 44 U.S.C. Sec. 3507. If the Director approves the information collection request he must ensure that it contains a control number. See 44 U.S.C. Sec. 3504. An agency "shall not conduct or sponsor the collection of information unless" the information collection request has been submitted to and approved by the Director, see 44 U.S.C. Sec. 3507(a), and "shall not engage in a collection of information without obtaining from the Director a control number to be displayed upon the information collection request," see 44 U.S.C. Sec. 3507(f). "Information collection requests which do not display a current control number or, if not, indicate why not are to be considered 'bootleg' requests and [under PRA section 3512] may be ignored by the public." S.Rep. No. 96-930 at 52, reprinted in 1980 U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 6292; see 44 U.S.C. Sec. 3512 (penalties may not be imposed for noncompliance with information collection requests that do not display a current control number).

The Plan of Operations filing requirement is an information collection request that lacks a current control number. Consequently, PRA section 3512 by its terms prohibits the imposition of "any penalty" against the appellants, including criminal convictions, for their failure to comply with the Plan of Operations filing requirement.6 The statute explicitly and unambiguously provides that all information collection requests must display a current control number, or penalties for noncompliance may not be imposed.7 44 U.S.C. Sec. 3512.
The information also charged appellants with failing to file a Plan of Operations "as required by ... 36 C.F.R. Sec. 261.10(b), ( c )." These charges also allege a failure to file a Plan of Operations pursuant to regulations that do not bear a current control number and are also prohibited by the PRA.8
II
32
Because our decision relies solely on the PRA ground, we need not reach any of the appellants' other arguments.
33
REVERSED.

* *