VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, [3], 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 15:46:30 07/13/04 Tue
Author: Reno Chris
Subject: New Forest Service prospecting regulations

In late 2003, a federal District Court Judge made a ruling which has been interpreted as favorable to miners – this was noted at the time in the ICMJ. The decision was that unless miners were conducting operations which involved either the “cutting of trees or use of mechanized earth moving equipment”, a federal notice of intent or plan of operations was not required.

Unfortunately, as of July 9 the Forrest Service has published "NEW" rules to negate the judges decision. They did this as an "emergency" rule which allows them to put the new rule in place without any public comment or input. The emergency rule takes effect August 9, so the judges ruling that was originally brought up in this thread will have only had an effect for a few months until it is eliminated. The Forrest Service will eventually put in place a permanent rule - which we can comment on until September 7, 2004.

The specific target of this rule change is small miners. – This is per their own comments. They wrote: “There has been widespread dissemination of the district court decision among groups of small miners who have long objected to obtaining prior approval for their mining operations, and who frequently believe that mining operations invariably justify residential occupancy of NFS lands. This, coupled with the fact that the season for locatable mineral operations has already begun in many areas of the country due to favorable weather conditions, including unusually low snow pack levels in much of the west, has resulted in the initiation of many mining operations on NFS lands for which a notice of intent to operate or a plan of operations has always been required without the submission of a notice of intent to operate or the approval of a plan of operations”. The plain intent of this rule change is to circumvent the mining laws which allow miners holding valid claims to occupy their property while conducting mining operations.

Here is the crux of the matter: under the new rules, a “notice of intent to operate is required from any person proposing to conduct operations which might cause disturbance of surface resources” No limit to only significant disturbances, but ANY disturbance. You would be required under this rule to file a NOI for walking on a trail across your claim. You would be required to file an NOI for camping one night on your claim. You would be required to file an NOI for digging one panful of dirt on your claim. Any activity not specifically exempted that might disturb the surface of the ground now requires the filing of federal paperwork. The new rule is "so vague and standardless that it leaves the public uncertain as to how to comply" – which is in clear violation of the standards for federal rules. The only good thing about it is that it only applies on forest Service lands.

You can still comment on the final rule, so please do so. It is important to support organized groups of small miners, which support reasonable application of the rules. What we need with the final rule is some sort of reasonable allowance for minimal disturbance of the surface without filing federal paperwork.

A text version can be viewed at:
http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/06jun20041800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/2004/04-15483.htm

A version in PDF format can be seen at:
http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/06jun20041800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/2004/pdf/04-15483.pdf

Chris

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-6
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.