new Plan of operations review process, new public review Options

[realnice]

I recently received an email from the D.R who approves..or doesn't my P.O.O. I have had a public review last year and now apparently there is a new public review process??!! Anyone else heard of this?? If Ive already had a public review do I need to do this yet again?

Here's the email in full

Kevin – just a reminder that if you are planning to continue operating, your current plan expires June 2013 so we just need to have you submit another plan (if nothing has changed then you can use the same one and just change dates and sign). Then I will do the decision document and be sure the new plan is approved. One thing that has changed because of a lawsuit in another region last year is that all projects now (Forest-wide nationally) that require a decision document must go thru a more formal public scoping period – meaning that after we get your new plan I will post a 30 day comment period in the Coloradoan. Anyone who comments (i.e has a valid resource concern and that would be determined by Kevin) then has the right to appeal the project decision and we’d have to allow a 45 day appeal period. If we get no comments or just positive comments (that’s been the norm) we can just issue the decision w/out that extra 45 days. Let me know if you have any questions.

[CP]

Sorry to hear that you are going through this bs realnice. Seems like the FS rangers in your district are just making crap up as they go along as they think it goes?
Unfortunately this is what happens when you start jumping through hoops they put before you. I still feel the same way I did about this situation as I did in 2010 when we discussed determining significant disturbance definitions.
That thread has some great info I think and could be re-read now to see exactly what I mean.
determining significant disturbance definitions

I'm still of the opinion that the FS does not have the authority (therefore can not) regulate mining! Just my opinion but I would have asserted myself and backed the FS off their obvious overstep of delegated authority right off the bat! That's just me and I tend to be more confrontational than many are comfortable with. As I've said many times before, everyone has their own levels of controntation they choose and all choices made for one's own claim can and will affect the next moves!

At this point it's going to be a bit tougher to accomplish (not impossible by far), but they are outside their delegated authority as the law, cfr's, fsm, and fsh all state/reiterate time and time again.
They "must approve" poo's....they can not deny them.....and in fact must comply themselves with 43cfr's as well as 36.....
I could go on and on here but the point is they are not knowledgable on their own jobs! Let alone the laws.....and I certainly do not see any evidence of any "fostering or encouraging" activities from the FS in this situation as the law states shoud be happening!
In fact quite the oppisite.....the claim owner has tried to do their best to "work with" the FS and they get the continual round of BS we see here. Kudo's to the claim owner for trying.
Seen it before and it's been going on for decades at many levels, some claim owners I know have wasted over a decade trying to "work with" the FS to only finally figure out/learn later that the FS had no authority to do what they did over the years.
Still didn't stop them from trying/doing these things to the claims owners......delays, more bs, delays, more bs, more delays......they stop when the claim owner asserts themselves with knowledge though, then they move on to the next hoping they find another person who doesn't know the laws. Then it's all a circus act for that person as long as the hoops are jumped through.

Luckily any of the Colorado Prospector club members can consult me as these issues come up and together we can avert many of these problems by knowing what to do when.

Good luck with this realnice, I hope you get it worked out so feel like you can get back on track with your work as you see fit.