ColoradoProspector   CP Club Membership Info.

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
new Plan of operations review process, new public review
realnice
post Feb 4 2013, 10:35 PM
Post #1


Diggin' In!
**

Group: Members
Posts: 44
Joined: 28-July 10
From: Colorado
Member No.: 7,319



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

QUOTE
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.




--------------------
realnice :music:
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
russau
post Feb 5 2013, 04:15 AM
Post #2


russau
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 2,841
Joined: 4-December 03
From: st.louis missouri
Member No.: 43



im not current on the laws there in Colorado, but it seems to me that the laws pertaining to federal/state maintained public lands are being mixed together. i never remember anything about public reveiw before in any federally maintained public land before. i have heard of this on state/county/city maintained property.but like i said im not up on any of the other states laws.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
swizz
post Feb 5 2013, 07:26 AM
Post #3


Moderator
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 4,436
Joined: 25-August 09
From: way on up thar
Member No.: 6,983



You are being dicked.
They are creating a consent process which doesn't legally exist.... now they got you scratching your head. Don't fall for it. They obviously want you OUT but are sugar coating their motives in hopes that you play their new game. "Formal public scoping period"... laught16.gif where do they come up with this stuff?
Screw them!!! And screw them hard. Stick to the Federal letter of law and requirements of the 1872 mining laws, you are Federally protected from this vigilante renegade tree-cop crap. They cannot legally trump that (and they know it).... so they'll try tactics like this to just sweep you under the carpet and hope you go away. They have no legal basis for a court challenge. They have no right to create processes and compliance that doesn't exist. info_grin.gif Call them out on this... refuse compliance beyond the Mining Laws of 1872... watch them squirm and cave in (they know they have NO legal basis)... looks like they're attempting to use you as a Guinna Pig. Don't be that guy. Take it to court if you have to.
Your fight starts......... NOW. research.gif


--------------------

/l
,[____],
l---L-OlllllllO-
()_) ()_)--o-)_)
BLACK SANDS MATTER!
Very Happy CP Lifetime Member
CP CORE TEAM

Referral Code CE213
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
realnice
post Feb 5 2013, 09:45 AM
Post #4


Diggin' In!
**

Group: Members
Posts: 44
Joined: 28-July 10
From: Colorado
Member No.: 7,319



Well said, Ive gone through enough BS with the FS and tried my best to work with them. Im done getting Jerked around. If there is no law on the books that says I have to undergo this then I'm not. I'm trying to find more info on this lawsuit thing as well to get a better understanding of what is going on.

music.gif


--------------------
realnice :music:
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
swizz
post Feb 5 2013, 02:40 PM
Post #5


Moderator
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 4,436
Joined: 25-August 09
From: way on up thar
Member No.: 6,983



I'm happy to help you research your specific rights in regard to this if needed. I know that Dan, Johnny, and others here could also shed some very helpful light on the subject.
I'll go out on a limb... and guess.... that this FR transferred here from California (just a hunch).


--------------------

/l
,[____],
l---L-OlllllllO-
()_) ()_)--o-)_)
BLACK SANDS MATTER!
Very Happy CP Lifetime Member
CP CORE TEAM

Referral Code CE213
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
russau
post Feb 6 2013, 04:55 AM
Post #6


russau
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 2,841
Joined: 4-December 03
From: st.louis missouri
Member No.: 43



Thankyou Swizz! i thought this sounded funny!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
swizz
post Feb 6 2013, 07:05 AM
Post #7


Moderator
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 4,436
Joined: 25-August 09
From: way on up thar
Member No.: 6,983



ya.... sounds like this FR wants to infect Colorado with Karuk fever.


--------------------

/l
,[____],
l---L-OlllllllO-
()_) ()_)--o-)_)
BLACK SANDS MATTER!
Very Happy CP Lifetime Member
CP CORE TEAM

Referral Code CE213
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
russau
post Feb 6 2013, 05:50 PM
Post #8


russau
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 2,841
Joined: 4-December 03
From: st.louis missouri
Member No.: 43



beleive me, its going everwhere! once something gets started in one state, itll get rooted in others as time goes by! if people dont keep watching situations arise, theyll get swamped with someone elses rules!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
realnice
post Feb 7 2013, 07:53 PM
Post #9


Diggin' In!
**

Group: Members
Posts: 44
Joined: 28-July 10
From: Colorado
Member No.: 7,319



Latest response
QUOTE
I will get you information. The formal comment and appeal period has changed since last year to now include the issuance of decision memos which is the level of environmental analysis (lowest due to no significant impacts) we did for your operation (which previous to last year was not appealable). Last year your project was listed in the Forest’s “schedule of proposed actions” (a website) which the public can view/comment on, however, the decision was not appealable. I received no comments. Now, because we must issue a new decision memo to approve your plan for after June 1, we have to go out for public scoping by publishing the 30-day comment period because the decision is now appealable. No comments then no appeal period. And it doesn’t mean your operation couldn’t move forward if appealed – we’d just need to go thru the process and it would add time to the decision. That’s why I recommended you get the plan in
early.


--------------------
realnice :music:
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
realnice
post Feb 7 2013, 08:02 PM
Post #10


Diggin' In!
**

Group: Members
Posts: 44
Joined: 28-July 10
From: Colorado
Member No.: 7,319



More info
Attached File(s)
Attached File  032912Letter.doc ( 59K ) Number of downloads: 94
Attached File  FS215AppealRegulations.doc ( 19K ) Number of downloads: 89
 


--------------------
realnice :music:
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CP
post Feb 8 2013, 12:20 PM
Post #11


Master Mucker!
*****

Group: Admin
Posts: 4,136
Joined: 7-October 03
From: Colorado
Member No.: 3



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.


--------------------
CP-Owner/Administrator
www.ColoradoProspector.com

IF YOU USE IT, THE GROUND PRODUCED IT!
MINERS MAKE "IT" HAPPEN!!


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
realnice
post Feb 8 2013, 01:12 PM
Post #12


Diggin' In!
**

Group: Members
Posts: 44
Joined: 28-July 10
From: Colorado
Member No.: 7,319



Well, Im just going to pull from the information they sent me. I have attached it in a response above.

QUOTE
Therefore, implementation of decisions that were finalized prior to the Court’s March 19, 2012 Order need not be halted or subjected to notice, comment and appeal, and may proceed as planned.


Pretty cut and clear and I'm pretty sure I fall before the March 19 2012 court order. Just have to pull out my giant folder of mining paperwork and find my decision doc.
Here I go again...... wacko.gif


music.gif music.gif


--------------------
realnice :music:
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
realnice
post Feb 8 2013, 01:29 PM
Post #13


Diggin' In!
**

Group: Members
Posts: 44
Joined: 28-July 10
From: Colorado
Member No.: 7,319



QUOTE
......Third, questions have already been raised concerning whether the injunction will affect ongoing activities. The Agency believes that retroactive application of the Court’s Order would impede the necessary daily functioning of the Agency and could upset the settled expectations of permittees, contractors, and members of the public or other groups interested in using National Forest System land by halting projects already underway. In prior litigation involving these same rules (Earth Island Institute v. Ruthenbeck) before the same District Court, the court concluded that “a retroactive remedy would seem to plunge the Forest Service headlong into a crippling morass of confusion. The [injunction], therefore, will apply to Forest Service projects and decisions post-dating the…docketing of the…Order.”


--------------------
realnice :music:
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Denise
post Feb 9 2013, 06:32 AM
Post #14


Master Mucker!
*****

Group: Admin
Posts: 6,913
Joined: 7-October 03
From: Colorado
Member No.: 4



QUOTE (russau @ Feb 5 2013, 04:15 AM) *
im not current on the laws there in Colorado, but it seems to me that the laws pertaining to federal/state maintained public lands are being mixed together. i never remember anything about public reveiw before in any federally maintained public land before. i have heard of this on state/county/city maintained property.but like i said im not up on any of the other states laws.



The forest service is federal making it the same in all states Russ.


--------------------
Education is the key to the future,
and participation opens the door to opportunity.

Discover your prospecting independence & success!

ColoradoProspector.com

Owner/Webmaster
Core team member

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
russau
post Feb 9 2013, 03:55 PM
Post #15


russau
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 2,841
Joined: 4-December 03
From: st.louis missouri
Member No.: 43



yup!! i didnt know if he was refering to state of federaly maintained public land. iguess im just getting old and dummer! and Leonard will probly agree! :)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 24th November 2017 - 01:32 PM