Supreme Court refuse to Hear dredging Case

[Hoser John]

by Hoser John » Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:23 am
Posted: Today at 6:11am
U.S. Supreme Court refuses to hear gold dredging/endangered species case

http://www.mineweb.com/mineweb/content/ ... &sn=Detail

What can ya expect from a bunch a ol'farts wearing black dresses-John

Hoser John Posts: 1464 Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2010 7:42 am Location: Redding Kalif

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Treasure of Victoria Peak - Grab it through Amazon!

[dredgeman]

Thanks for the info John.

Dave has got to be pissed, what will the club do with Or. shutdown and the new regs redefining a dredge or gravel transfer in a river coming soon.

 

[NeoTokyo]

Ughhh... -_-

 

[austin]

Why would the Supreme Court have any interest in dealing with something that clearly doesn't concern the majority of people or states in this country?

 

[dredgeman]

Now they have a tool to shut it down. Another court case is born. If anyone is left to fight it.

 

[dredgeman]

Austin

The Supreme court just allowed the closure of mining in the western united states. How does that not affect a lot of people. Jobs, sales, business, commerce.

 

[Gravel Hog]

U.S. Supreme Court refuses to hear gold dredging/endangered species case

Sure does fit into the whole picture of things. The sadness as Freedoms & Rights are lost to the unfolding agenda. ... Hoser, glad I made the recent decision that I did.

 

[vini]

Austin

The Supreme court just allowed the closure of mining in the western united states. How does that not affect a lot of people. Jobs, sales, business, commerce.

How it effects a lot of people is absolutely NO CONCERN to the government, we already know that............no longer America this is just another euro ran marxist socialist country

 

[vini]

And by the way, when did we start having to give a notice of intent?

 

[vini]

And another thing how does the supreme court rule over the top of Congressional law? the 1872 mining laws are congressional there is no higher court then that all though that article says the supreme court is the highest, excuse my ignorance if i'm wrong here

 

[vini]

That decision should only effect areas that have endangered species like the coho salmon on the klamath ( that the karuk indians OVER FISH )should not effect other areas and most of us don't cause significant disturbance ( we dont need no stinkin NOI ) I think you guys are jumpin the gun here, dooooms dayers

 

[lowctoy]

more control is what we need hahahahahaha

 

[Hoser John]

In ignorance there is indeed bliss --we are now under NES restrictions per forest circus changes mandated by yet another court decision AND NOT a thang to do with supreme court court refusal to do their jobs as required.Educate and procede as carefully as possible-John

230 posts
Posted 03 March 2013 - 04:49 AM
The General Mining Law (30 U.S.C. §§ 22-54) provides for “free and open exploration” of “[a]ll valuable mineral deposits in lands belonging to the United States.” 30 U.S.C. § 22. In prospecting, locating, and developing the mineral resources, all persons must comply with the rules and regulations covering the national forests (16 U.S.C. 478).

However, Congress has not given the Forest Service authority to unreasonably delay, circumscribe, interfere with or prohibit activities under the 1872 General Mining Law that are otherwise lawful. USFS does not have the authority to impose unreasonable requirements that would have the effect of denying the statutory right to explore for mineral resources, provided the plan otherwise meets the intent of applicable laws and regulations (30 USC 612; 36 CFR 228A).

Regulations found at 36 C.F.R. Part 228 promulgated by the Forest Service set the boundaries of Forest Service authority over locatable mineral resources and mining activities. The statement of purpose for the Part 228 regulations allows the Forest Service to: et forth rules and procedures through which use of the surface of National Forest System lands in connection with operations authorized by the United States mining laws (30 U.S.C. 21-54), which confer a statutory right to enter upon the public lands to search for minerals, shall be conducted so as to minimize adverse environmental impacts on National Forest System surface resources. It is not the purpose of these regulations to provide for the management of mineral resources; the responsibility for managing such resources is in the Secretary of the Interior. 36 C.F.R. § 228.1

Part 228 regulations, require mining claimants to obtain Forest Service approval of a plan of operations, and post necessary financial assurance to secure compliance with the plan of operation’s reclamation requirements, but make no mention of discretionary planning requirements. See, e.g., 36 C.F.R. §§ 228.4, 228.5.

Congress established the National Forests through the Organic Administration Act of 1897, 30 Stat. 11 (Jun. 4, 1897). The Organic Act which remains a central statutory authority for the Forest Service today, does not provide the authority to limit locatable mineral exploration and mining on National Forest Lands. To the contrary, the Act explicitly mandates: “nor shall anything herein prohibit any person from entering . . . national forests for all proper and lawful purposes, including that of prospecting, locating and developing mineral resources. . . .” 16 U.S.C. § 478.

Interpreting the Forest Service’s Organic Act, the 9th Circuit stated: “[T]he Forest Service may regulate use of National Forest lands by holders of unpatented mining claims, . . . but only to the extent that the regulations are “reasonable” and do not impermissibly encroach on legitimate uses incident to mining and mill site claims.” United States v. Shumway, No. 96-16480, 1999 WL 1256285 (9th Cir. Dec. 28, 1999) (citing United States v. Weiss, 642 F.2d 296, 299 (9th Cir. 1981)). Accord, Shumway, 1999 WL 1256285 at *11 (The right of the Forest Service to manage surface resources “shall be such as not to endanger or materially interfere with prospecting, mining or processing operations or uses reasonably incident thereto.”). Thus, the Forest Service cannot exercise discretionary authority to prevent the exploration, development, and mining of mineral resources on National Forest lands.

Multiple Use Mining Act of 1955 (Public Law 84-167 ; 30 U.S.C.611-615) The Act in section 4 provides: “…Any mining claim hereafter located under the mining laws of the United States shall not be used, prior to issuance of patent therefor, for any purposes other than prospecting, mining or processing operations and uses reasonably incident thereto…Provided, however, That any use of the surface of any such mining claim by the United States, its permittees or licensees, shall be such as not to endanger or materially interfere with prospecting, mining or processing operations or uses reasonably incident thereto:

Except to the extent required for the mining claimant's prospecting, mining or processing operations and uses reasonably incident thereto, or for the construction of buildings or structures in connection therewith, or to provide clearance for such operations or uses, or to the extent authorized by the United States, no claimant of any mining claim hereafter located under the mining laws of the United States shall, prior to issuance of patent therefor, sever, remove, or use any vegetative or other surface resources thereof which are subject to management or disposition by the United States under the preceding subsection (b).Any severance or removal of timber which is permitted under the exceptions of the preceding sentence, other than severance or removal to provide clearance, shall be in accordance with sound principles of forest management.

In 1960, Congress passed the Multiple-Use and Sustained-Yield Act (MUSYA), 16 U.S.C. §§ 528-531, which directed the Forest Service to manage the National Forests according to the principle of “multiple-use” and “sustained yield.” Significantly, in the MUSYA, as in the Forest Service’s Organic Act, Congress mandated that “nothing” in the Act “shall be construed so as to affect the use or administration of the mineral resources of national forest lands . . . ” 16 U.S.C. § 528.

The Act’s legislative history demonstrates a deliberate effort by Congress to limit Forest Service authority over mineral resources, and instead: “It is made clear that nothing in the bill would affect the authority which the Secretary of the Interior has with respect to the mineral resources in the national forest lands. Thus, the bill would not impair mining operations and activities under the authorities which the Secretary of the Interior has with respect to such mineral resources.” House Report No. 1551, 1960 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2377 (Apr. 25, 1960).

Congress has reaffirmed its historic policy of encouraging development of the nation's mineral resources time and time again. In 1970, Congress enacted the Mining and Minerals Policy Act, 30 U.S.C. 5 21a, which provides: The Congress declares that it is the continuing policy of the Federal Government in the national interest to foster and encourage private enterprise in . . . the development of economically sound and stable domestic mining . . . [and] the orderly and economic development of domestic mineral resources...(see also National Materials and Minerals Policy, Research and Development Act of 1980, 30 U.S.C. 1602).

The National Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA) requires the Secretary of Agriculture to assess Forest lands, develop a management program based on multiple-use, sustained-yield principles, and implement the plan on each unit of the National Forest System. The plans must be in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and must consider economic and environmental factors.

In fact, it is incumbent on the agency, when balancing the environmental analysis, to give equal consideration to the social and economic factors and not presume that environmental harm will outweigh all other considerations. Accordingly, the ninth circuit court of appeals in Lands Council v. McNair, 537 F.3d 981 (9th cir. en banc 2008), stated: “Our law does not…allow us to abandon a balance of harms analysis just because an environmental injury is at issue.”

The Claims Court termed the government’s duty as an “implied duty to cooperate.” Liability Decision, 86 Fed. Cl. at 118. "We have previously recognized that the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing encompasses the implied duty not to hinder and the implied duty to cooperate". Precision Pine & Timber, Inc. v. United States, 596 F.3d 817, 827 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Implied duty of good faith and fair dealing requires that ministerial actions be completed within a reasonable period.

“The determination of the governmental interest sought to be advanced by regulating in the specified manner against the gravity of the interference with or impact on property rights resulting whether a regulation goes so far as to constitute a taking involves a balancing the regulation.” (Forty-Niner Truck Plaza v. Union Oil Co.. 58 Cal. App. 4th 1261, 1279 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997). Id. at 1272.

 

[vini]

This is why we need you hoser, hurry up get your attorney license

 

[Hefty1]

Thanks John, as copied and put in folder for claim.