LESSEES, CONCESSIONAIRES IN USDA-FOREST SERVICE LOCATIONS

[Nugget Shooter 4,622]

TO LESSEES, CONCESSIONAIRES IN,USDA-FOREST SERVICE LOCATIONS YOU MAY BE AFFECTED]

LESSEES, CONCESSIONAIRES IN

USDA-FOREST SERVICE LOCATIONS

This would include water craft concessions, land leases, Hunting leases,

Pasture leases, etc. Well; I think you get the idea.

Many of the items in these comments concern you because the proposed regulations they oppose will be, or could be, applied to you; just as they are being applied to the miners. These proposed regulations will be applied to you, even if the USDA-Forest Service has no intent of making you comply. I will explain. You can, and probably will, be forced to comply with these proposed regulations, if they become final; become law. Any organization, person or group of persons can call for the enforcement of Equal Protection; evoke the equal protection clause of the Constitution that is. All entities must be treated the same, (see page 32 of May 19th, 2008 comments). These regulations will be used against you. If you comment now doing so will give you a chance to fight these regulations before the enforcement of them reaches you and your use. You could also help with the fight, that we anticipate, without direct involvement and possible retribution from supporters of these proposed regulations. If these proposed regulations get stopped now, you will not have any future worries. If these proposed regulations are enacted, some of what is in these comments will most likely be applicable to your group or business. Most states have agreements called Memorandums of Understandings (MOUs) with the Forest Service that gives the Forest Service control over surface management on private property within the National Forests. This may also radiate to private property owners, just outside of the National Forests; 5 to 50 miles near the boundaries of each National Forest, in some instances. Local communities, within the National Forests, will most likely be detrimentally affected in more than just the mining and recreation areas of their economy. I would suggest that you read the comments for yourself and see what you think and make your own decision. The comments are due by May 27, 2008. There will not be a vote on the proposed regulations. Forest Service will simply put then into regulation, into effect, under the APA (Administrative Procedures Act) procedures. We can, however, stop their ongoing effect by pursuing whatever legal means, whatever review, is available, thereafter; but, only with your help.

This link will take you to a document that we prepared to introduce you to the comment page which you will find at the bottom of the page that this link takes you to. Please read the latest set of comments. LINK: http://www.equalaccess2justice.us/cgi-bin/....cgi?article=66

If the link above does not work copy and paste it to your browser address bar

Thank You

Walter H. Eason, Jr.

CEO Equal Access To Justice, Inc.

a 501 © (3) charitable organization

[Goldfinger 43]

They've even got recreational mineral collecting in there :grrr01: :PO2: Watch out folks. Unless this is somehow defeated, national forest will be off limits for anything. :hmmmmmm:

Steve

[frank c 969]

What else is NEW. We live near the Colorado River area also know as "Lake Mead Recreation Area" Thats a JOKE .

I guess it depends on what you consider "Recreation" as to what is ALLOWED there. :twocents:

[Lve2fsh 71]

"Lake Mead Recreation Area"

What a joke the lake is, for me anyway.

I have lived in Vegas or Boulder City since 1970 then it really was an area where everyone could play and have a good time.

Now all they do is ask for more and more money and deliver less and less services and recreational opportunities.

The favorite excuse from the government is the area is being over used so we will take it away from you.

I can drive 1 mile and see the lake but have not been to it since 2006.

Now the entire state is going the same direction.

I'm 51 and this is the first year since I was 14 that I haven't purchased a hunting license, which by the way only allows you to hunt rabbits or dove.

Any other animal you wish to hunt requires you to purchase and additional tag or stamp.

OK I have to stop now before my blood pressure goes thru the roof. :angry-smiley-010:

[El Dorado 965]

Everyone needs to stop whining here and put that effort into sending in your comment about how this will effectivly ruin your constitutional rights. No mor life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.....................This is the most serious threat so far in our continual battle and the Forest Circus wants to ban all of us from what we love.......... Here is where you can send comments by snail mail or fax or email, make sure you referance 36CFR228;

Forest Service

USDA

Minerals and Geology Management (MGM)

Staff (2810)

Mail Stop 1126

Washington, DC 20250-1125

36cfr228a@fs.fed.us

Fax No.: (703) 605-1575

[El Dorado 965]

They've even got recreational mineral collecting in there :grrr01: :PO2: Watch out folks. Unless this is somehow defeated, national forest will be off limits for anything. :hmmmmmm:

Steve

Pay attention to Steve because that is exactly what the FS is trying to do............

[sawmill 69]

Bill and All

I actually went to the trouble to read the entire proposal

in the federal register.

The Equal Justice outfit is full of beans,and made up or twisted

the facts. Not any part of their statements are verified in the proposal.

It does not affect prospecting or recreational mining.

It actually improves the notice of intent rules,and does away with

lots of red tape.

All they are doing is making their rules the same as current BLM

rules. Only they improved the notice deal,so that you can recover

minerals with a notice.

The current BLM rules doesn't allow recovery with a notice,only

exploration.

Actually the new Forest Service proposal allows a prospector to

do more than current BLM rules without any notice or bonds.

Every thing stated by Equal Justice was taken out of context or

made up. :twocents:

[El Dorado 965]

I will disagree here. Right now, on FS land in order for me to carry out my small scale mining operation Nothing, NADA zero paperwork is required wirth the exception of a Dredge permit. If this passes they will want to know evertything period via a notice wich will then require a Plan of Operations and a reclamation bond at a minimum. Hre is copied direct from the FS proposals and you can se for yourself what will now be required. Mind you the FS is currently not approving any P.O.O. at least in CA for small scale miners. While this may seem like it is not much is is really huge. Anyway the comment period is over, but here are some of their proposed changes: Please not the bold (by me)

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Title: Locatable Minerals.

OMB Number: 0596-0022.

Expiration Date of Approval: June 30, 2008.

Type of Request: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Abstract: This collection of information is necessary to ensure minimal environmental impacts associated with lo-catable mineral operations on National Forest System (NFS) lands to the extent practicable. Forest Service regulations at 36 CFR 228.5 require mining operators, with some exceptions, to notify the authorized Forest Service officer of the intent to conduct a locatable mineral operation on NFS lands by filing a Notice of Intent or Plan of Operations. Title 36 CFR 228.10 requires mining operators to submit a Cessation of Operation when mining operations temporarily cease for other than seasonal closure.

There is not a required format for the information collection, but all information identified in 36 CFR part 228 must be included. Form FS-2800-5, Plan of Operations for Mining Activities on National Forest System Lands, is available for use by mining operators to simplify this process.

The information required in a Plan of Operations, detailed in 36 CFR 228.4©, (d), and (e), includes:

1. The name and legal mailing address of operators (and claimants if they are not the same) and their lessees, as-signs, or designees

2. A map or sketch showing information sufficient to locate:

a. The proposed area of operations on the ground,

b. Existing and/or proposed roads or access routes to be used in connection with the operation as set forth in 36 CFR 228.12 on access, and

c. The approximate location and size of areas where surface resources will be disturbed

3. Information sufficient to describe:

a. The type of operations proposed and how they would be conducted,

b. The type and standard of existing and proposed roads or access routes,

c. The means of transportation used or to be used as set forth in 36 CFR 228.12,

d. The period during which the proposed activity will take place, and

e. Measures to be taken to meet the requirements for environmental protection in 36 CFR 228.8.

A Notice of Intent is required, as detailed in 36 CFR 228.4(a)(2), to include information sufficient to identify the area involved, the nature of the proposed operation, the route of access to the area of operations, and the method of transport.

A Cessation of Operations is required, as detailed in 36 CFR 228.10, to include verification of intent to maintain structures, equipment, and other facilities, expected reopening date, and an estimate of extended durations of operations.

These collections of information are crucial to protecting surface resources, including plants, animals, and their habitat, as well as public safety on NFS lands. The authorized Forest Service official will use the collected information to ensure that the exploration, development, and production of mineral resources are conducted in an environmentally sensitive manner that these mineral operations are integrated with the planning and management of other resources using the principles of ecosystem management and that lands disturbed by mineral operations are reclaimed using the best scientific knowledge and returned to other productive uses. Without this information, the Forest Service would not comply with Federal Regulations and locatable mineral operations could result in undue damage to surface resources.

Estimate of Annual Burden: 12 hours (10 hours--Plans of Operation 1 hour--Notice of Intent 1 hour--Cessation of Operations).

Type of Respondents: Mining operators.

Estimated Annual Number of Respondents: 3,255 (750--Plans of Operations 2,500--Notices of Intent 5--Cessation of Operations).

Estimated Annual Number of Responses per Respondent: 1.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 10,005 hours (10 hours x 750 Plans of Operations = 7,500 1 hour x 2,500 Notices of Intent = 2,500 1 hour x 5 Cessation of Operations = 5 7,500 + 2,500 + 5 = 10,005).

Comment is invited on: (1) Whether this collection of information is necessary for the stated purposes and the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical or scientific utility (2) the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and *69644 assumptions used (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the informa-tion to be collected and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including the use of automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

All comments received in response to this notice, including names and addresses when provided, will be a matter of public record. Comments will be summarized and included in the request for Office of Management and Budget ap-proval.

Dated: November 26, 2007.

Gloria Manning,

Associate Deputy Chief, National Forest System.

FR Doc. E7-23834 Filed 12-7-07 8:45 am

Here also for your information is an agrument about proposed changes that would also require a NOI just to camp longer than 14 days, mind you just leaving any kind of equipment constitutes occupancy. Pretty much would limit my mining to 14 days per 60 days in any one ranger district.

http://www.plp2.org/forum/showthread.php?t=124

Here is also an agrument by PLP as to why the proposed changes are unconstitutional.

http://www.plp2.org/forum/showthread.php?t...goto=nextnewest

[sawmill 69]

ElDorado

The current Forest Service and BLM rules only

allow for camping in an area for 14 days, mining

claim or not. That has been the law for some time.

The notice of intent allows for longer stays,because

it puts you in a class with other types of forest

operators ,and contractors,instead of recreational

mining.

You only have to file a notice if you are going to

use closed roads, cut timber, leave equipment or

cause significant surface damage,or camp longer

14 days.

Most prospecting ,light mining,drywashing ,metal

detecting doesn't require any notice.

These rules are being set up for small commercial

type mining and bigger operators,for surface and

underground mining activities.

They are not really aimed at recreation or casual

use .

Read the actual regulations and don't depend on

what someone spins to get support for a donation

supported group.

I bond all the time with the Forest Service. It is no

big deal and allows a commercial operator to do

things the general public can't.

There is two notice levels in the proposal,one is just

a notice ,the other is a bonded notice.

If you are going to really get carried away with a big

operation there is the plan of operations.

The notices will cover everything most small operators

will ever need,as they allow for actual mining and recovery.

Also the reclamation is in line with current BLM rules,

and current Forest Service rules. The rules for road,and

surface reclamation are just the same old standard rules

that have been in effect for years,for forest operation.

After reading the propaganda by equal justice,I was

expecting to really get pissed when I read the actual

proposal. Not one of their statements proved to be

true or accurate. I can see why the legitimate mining

companies didn't raise hell now. :twocents: