More smoke and mirrors from the state.

[Goldwasher]

Hefty will you enlighten him?......( I realize that may be next to impossible)

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

How to Research for Treasure Hunting and Metal Detecting From Lead Generation to Vetting - Grab it through Amazon!

[Goldwasher]

Hummmm... There is a difference between prospecting and mining.

Is that a question? There is a big difference by definition. Though you can be both. You are only one of them at a time technically. It is of no matter to you where you live. And you are also a self professed disbeliever in the rights and strengths of the mining laws so what does it matter to you anyways?

 

[chlsbrns]

Hefty will you enlighten him?......( I realize that may be next to impossible)

Post a link! How could I know if it wasn't posted? I don't know hefty. If he got his stuff bach... GREAT! Now what is everybody doing to stop the amendment of the CWA and the amendment of the 1872 Mining Act?

 

[Goldwasher]

Post me a link to him getting his stuff back. I wasn't about to read 20 pages of tnet posts. I read the first page and the last page two years later where someone was asking what the outcome was.

As usual it does no one any good to not read threads completely. You and the guy asking later without reading the complete thread are perfect examples.

 

[chlsbrns]

Is that a question? There is a big difference by definition. Though you can be both. You are only one of them at a time technically. It is of no matter to you where you live. And you are also a self professed disbeliever in the rights and strengths of the mining laws so what does it matter to you anyways?

Obviously is was a statement not a question. You don't know the difference?

 

[chlsbrns]

As usual it does no one any good to not read threads completely. You and the guy asking later without reading the complete thread are perfect examples.

I might read 20 pages of posts. All of what I did read were people who's posts were not actually or really helping. Post a link!

 

[Goldwasher]

I don't need to post a link I followed the thread. Hefty stood up and got his stuff "bach". He had a bit of the runaround but, he stuck it out. Because he knew the laws and procedure and DFW did not as usual. I would not lie about it.

 

[chlsbrns]

I don't need to post a link I followed the thread. Hefty stood up and got his stuff "bach". He had a bit of the runaround but, he stuck it out. Because he knew the laws and procedure and DFW did not as usual. I would not lie about it.

Oh hefty stood up and stuck it out! You originally posted to show me how others got together to help but now you are admitting that it was hefty who did it alone. Got it!

 

[chlsbrns]

Did you miss my bold question at:
http://www.treasurenet.com/forums/d...ke-mirrors-state-post4228110.html#post4228110

 

[Goldwasher]

Oh hefty stood up and stuck it out! You originally posted to show me how others got together to help but now you are admitting that it was hefty who did it alone. Got it!

No, I posted the link to Heftys situation to counter your statements and mentioned instances of miners using the laws in place and making gains. Hefty did have support btw. With the law you don't need multiple people. The law doesn't say if you are alone you don't count. That was precisely my point. That there are many instances of people standing up to abuse of law and power. Alone and together. You are saying if we don't stand up things will be taken. I am illustrating how miners continually stand up and fight. Somehow you are saying they don't.

 

[Goldwasher]

Obviously is was a statement not a question. You don't know the difference?

Not obvious when you don't use proper punctuation. And since it is a statement I will tell you again. Yes, there is a difference. Sorry you don't know.

 

[chlsbrns]

No, I posted links to different people standing up. Using the laws in place and making gains. Hefty did have support btw. With the law you don't need multiple people. The law doesn't say if you are alone you don't count. That was precisely my point. That there are many instances of people standing up to abuse of law and power. Alone and together. You are saying if we don't stand up things will be taken. I am illustrating how miners continually stand up and fight. Somehow you are saying they don't.

Using the laws in place. Yes the two big cases are about dredging without a permit and how dredging is detrimental to fish. Neither case addresses the CWA. Say both win their case. Great! Now we have to deal with the CWA (amended or not)

Did you miss my bold question at:
http://www.treasurenet.com/forums/d...ke-mirrors-state-post4228110.html#post4228110

 

[chlsbrns]

Not obvious when you don't use proper punctuation. And since it is a statement I will tell you again. Yes, there is a difference. Sorry you don't know.

Are you saying that you saw a ? After my statement instead of a . ?

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

Just ban one member for insults and attacks in a different thread...... Please post by TN rules so someone else doesn't earn a timeout....

 

[Goldwasher]

Sorry I wasn't trying to insult or attack. I can see how it may appear so I apologize.

 

[Goldwasher]

Brandons case is about dredging without a permit and The rights of a Mineral estate grantee. Not about harming fish. The dredge ban conglomerate cases are about A tribe suing the DFW over a technicality. It could be said it is about weather it is harmful to fish. Yet, since no actual scientific data has been taken into consideration. Furthermore the data that exists states dredging causes no harm. It appears to most as a political case. Sadly it comes down to has the money to stay in the fight. And to prove my point it is a major case where citizens have gotten together and are standing up for the rights they already have and don't want to lose. And are staying in the fight rather than backing down to the pressure and losing those rights for future generations.

 

[chlsbrns]

I want to fight! I want to fight with the politicians! I don't want to fight with you or with anyone who mines!

 

[Hefty1]

Hefty will you enlighten him?......( I realize that may be next to impossible)

I will do my best......?

 

[Hefty1]

Post me a link to him getting his stuff back. I wasn't about to read 20 pages of tnet posts. I read the first page and the last page two years later where someone was asking what the outcome was.

How about straight from the unbeaten horses mouth....What the USFS did was against the law, they did not follow their own rules and regulations and took all of my equipment off my claim without any notice...short story... if it wasn't for all the help I rec, from miners, prospectors from here on tnet and across all the west coast and even some from the east coast, with them writing letters, making phone calls, to all the people responsible for this illegal takings. These letters and phone calls to Washington D.C. helped also. Then I rec, a call from Congressman McClintock. After about a week or two of negotiations between McClintock, USFS, and I. They set a date for me to pick up my equipment. NO Charges.

Thanks Again to all those prospectors, miners, Tnet members with their help in this.

And yes I went back to workin my claim...have not seen them since.

 

[Hefty1]

I take this as not needing CWA permit for highbanking.... Not trying to beat a dead horse.


Section 404(f) Exemptions

Section 404(f) of the Clean Water Act provides a list of activities exempt from regulation under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. If an activity involves the discharge of dredged and/or fill material into waters of the U.S. and falls within one of these activity categories, a Department of the Army Permit under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act is not required (see Exceptions). These exemptions do not apply to any activity within a navigable water of the U.S. in which a permit is required under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899.

NOTE: These exemptions only apply to activities occurring within waters of the U.S. that result in a discharge of dredged and/or fill material. A permit would NOT be required under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act if the activity would NOT result in the discharge of fill material into waters of the U.S. Please contact your local district office for a determination on whether your activity is exempt under Section 404(f) of the Clean Water Act.

Exempt Activities

1. Farming, silviculture and ranching activities 2. Maintenance Activities
3. Construction and maintenance of Farm ponds, stock ponds, or irrigation ditches or the maintenance of drainage ditches
4. Construction of temporary sedimentation basins
5. Any activity with respect to which a State has an approved program under section 208(b)(4) of the CWA which meets the requirements of sections 208(b)(4) (B) and (C).

6. Construction or maintenance of farm roads, forest roads, or temporary roads for moving mining equipment
[h=2]Exempt Activities[/h]
The following is a brief summary of each category of exempt activities. For clarity and readability, the entire excerpt of the Corps regulations was not included. If you would like to review all requirements for exempt activities, please see 33 CFR 323.4 .
Back to Top

1. Normal Farming, silviculture, and ranching activities such as plowing, seeding, cultivating, minor drainage, and harvesting.

- includes: plowing, seeding, cultivating, minor drainage and harvesting for the production of food, fiber and forest products, or upland soil and water conservation practices
- MUST be a part of an established (on-going) farming, silviculture, or ranching operation. An operation is not longer established when the area on which it was conducted has been converted to another use or has lain idle so long that modifications to the hydrologic regime are necessary to resume operations.
- For example, if a property has been used for cattle grazing, the exemption does not apply if future activities would involve planting crops for food; similarly, if the current use of a property is for growing corn, the exemption does not apply if future activities would involve conversion to an orchard or vineyards.
- If the activity does not occur within waters of the U.S., or if it does not involve a discharge of fill material, the activity does not require a Department of the Army permit, whether or not it is part of an established farming, silviculture, or ranching operation.
​

Back to Top

2. Maintenance Activities.

- includes: emergency reconstruction of recently damaged parts, of currently serviceable structures
- examples: dikes, dams, levees, groins, riprap, breakwaters, causeways, bridge abutments or approaches, and transportation structures.
- DOES NOT include any modification that changes the character, scope, or size of the original fill design
- Emergency reconstruction must occur within a reasonable period of time after damage occurs to qualify for the exemption
- If a maintenance activity would involve ANY modifications to the original fill design, including the location of the fill, the type of material to be used, the amount of material used, etc., then the activity DOES not qualify for the maintenance exemption and a DA permit would be required. However, the activity may qualify for authorization under a Nationwide Permit 3, Maintenance.
​

Back to Top

3. Construction and maintenance of Farm ponds, stock ponds, or irrigation ditches or the maintenance of drainage ditches

- This exemption applies to the construction or maintenance of farm or stock ponds or irrigation ditches, or the maintenance (but not construction) of drainage ditches.
- Discharges associated with facilities that are appurtenance and functionally related to irrigation ditches are included in the exemption (e.g. siphons, pumps, headgates, wingwalls, weirs, diversion structures, etc.)
- Regulatory Guidance Letter (RGL 07-02) provides additional information regarding this exemption for the construction and maintenance of irrigation ditches and maintenance of drainage ditches, including definitions for irrigation ditches, drainage ditches, construction and maintenance.
​

Back to Top

4. Construction of temporary sedimentation basins

- This exemption applies to the construction of temporary sedimentation basins on a construction site which does not include the placement of fill material into waters of the U.S.
- Construction site is any site involving the erection of buildings, roads, and other discrete structures and the installation of support facilities necessary for construction and utilization of the structures. Also includes any other land areas which involve land-disturbing excavation activities, including quarrying and other mining areas, where an increase in the runoff of sediment is controlled through the use of temporary sedimentation basins. ​

​