Forest Service mining regulations

[Bonaro]

I’m sitting in a booth at the gold show in Monroe, Wa. One of the other booths is the local Forest Service office. Attached is a flyer they are handing out. It seems different than what I understand the CFR to say.
Opinions?

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Agony and Death on a Gold Rush Steamer: The Disastrous Sinking of the Side-Wheeler Yankee Blade - Grab it through Amazon!

[Johnnybravo300]

I misunderstood the question. Deleted.

 

[Bonaro]

I thought it was interesting that if an operator was unsure if he would cause a surface disturbance then he needed a NOI...then the ranger would tell him.

 

[Johnnybravo300]

Yeah I see what your saying. And it's dated 2005. I'm sure they print it up with different wording every year hehe.

 

[Assembler]

Notice this does not point out the 5 acre threshold.

 

[winners58]

that was what the FS put out after they changed CFR 36 part 228 in 2005
US v. Lex 2003 found they were under no obligation to file a NOI, the FS changed when a NOI or PoO was needed to an inclusive list got sued
changed it, in 2005 in response to the court cases final Rule Published in the Fed Registry.
But a California judge let the Karuk tribe sue based on the interim rule it was changed to after US v. Lex,
and in Karuk v. USFS they sued that a NOI in ESA listed streams required section 7 consultations/Biological opinions
then the miners appealed and won in the US 9th circuit that was appealed and reversed (Karuk v. USFS final)
so now if there are any ESA listed fish habitat when a NOI is filed ESA consultations are required by the Forest Service.
some Discussion on sec.228 Final rule; » Final Rule on Section 228.4 by U.S. Forest Service

if you don't think you need a NOI don't file, the miner decides if its a significant disturbance. (unless a determination, in writing)
there are reasons to file a NOI, if there is already a BioOp they can approve small operations
using existing roads, suction dredging, pick & shovel Op's, and long term camping. (just for a real active area other areas, no NOI needed)
some due diligence like checking the RMP planning for that area, they are now doing watershed wide mining EIS & ROD
example; (N.F.), North Fork Burnt River Mining FEIS 2014 (see appendix 5 for activity exempted, not cause significant disturbance)
people have died or moved on waiting for these EIS and PoO's to get approved

 

[IMAUDIGGER]

A new casino will be opening soon to fund many additional lawsuits.

 

[Bonaro]

that was what the FS put out after they changed CFR 36 part 228 in 2005
US v. Lex 2003 found they were under no obligation to file a NOI, the FS changed when a NOI or PoO was needed to an inclusive list got sued
changed it, in 2005 in response to the court cases final Rule Published in the Fed Registry.
But a California judge let the Karuk tribe sue based on what it was changed to after US v. Lex,
and in Karuk v. USFS they sued that a NOI in ESA listed streams required section 7 consultations/Biological opinions
then the miners appealed and won in the US 9th circuit that was appealed and reversed (Karuk v. USFS final)
so now if there are any ESA listed fish habitat when a NOI is filed ESA consultations are required by the Forest Service.
some Discussion on sec.228 Final rule; » Final Rule on Section 228.4 by U.S. Forest Service

if you don't think you need a NOI don't file, the miner decides if its a significant disturbance. (unless a determination, in writing)
there are reasons to file a NOI, if there is already a BioOp they can approve small operations
using existing roads, suction dredging, pick & shovel Op's, and long term camping. (just for a real active area other areas, no NOI needed)
some due diligence like checking the RMP planning for that area, they are now doing watershed wide mining EIS & ROD
example; (N.F.), North Fork Burnt River Mining FEIS 2014 (see appendix 5 for activity exempted, not cause significant disturbance)
people have died or moved on waiting for these EIS and PoO's to get approved

Exactly. Until you file a NOI the FS really doesn't have any power over you...which is why they want you to file when in doubt. I wanted to grill these two guys but decided not to

 

[Assembler]

The "Federal Action" is based on the 5 acre threshold.

What is being "Located" in the above Cases with no "Discoveries"?
Is there a "Mineral claimant" without a "Discovery"?
Does this marking determine lines other than the "Normal subdivision of the public lands"?
Is there any marking for "Miscellaneous angle points along irregular boundaries"?
What authority does the FS have on the "Mining of mineral deposits"?

Do not know what question Bonaro may be asking at this time with out answering these questions first.

 

[Assembler]

MINERAL, VALUABLE – (MINE)- A deposit of a mineral ore or substance which is useful in commerce or the arts, occurring in quantity and quality sufficient to justify its mining and removal for sale; also, any quantity of such ore or substance in a vein or lode, the size and continuity of which are such as to justify an ordinarily prudent man in the expenditure of his labor and means in an effort to develop a paying mine.