What's the penalty for not filing a PoO to dredge with the FS

[winners58]

American Mining Rights Association - Shannon Poe dredging on the south fork Clearwater, ID
13 hrs ago - https://www.facebook.com/americanminingrights/ watch the video from the day before here.

We wanted to give you an update here in Idaho. Things are beginning to get very interesting.

Last night, we were approached by the USFS LEO (Law Enforcement Officer) who informed us that we will be required to accept a "notice of non-compliance" or a "warning of non-compliance" which are essentially one in the same. The notice gives us 48 hours to "get in compliance" or face citation and arrest. To get in compliance, we would have to obtain a Plan of Operations, which is fundamentally impossible to obtain in that time line. We are being told we have to pull our dredges from our real property mining claims which we have valid permits from the State of Idaho to mine. We have even walked with, and worked very closely with Idaho Department of Water Resources all this week on critical habitat, where we can and cannot dredge and they believe we are completely in compliance for the state.

Yes folks, the USFS are talking arrest for not obtaining a Plan of Operations (PoO) for suction dredging which is not required as a matter of settled law. The basis for the creation of requiring the PoO by this particular USFS division was, in our opinion created fraudulently. The miner determines what is a "significant disturbance", then the miner is to work with, and consult with the District Ranger for what steps to follow after that determination. District Ranger Nevius up here in the Nez Perce NF has stated, on film in front of us, and his own Supervisor Cheryl Probert that he does not consider suction dredging as causing a significant disturbance. The only other reason Probert has stated as the reason for a PoO is that the studies show it is potentially impactful. The study the USFS adopted which she cites has on all items studied came back "deminimus" meaning no harm. No harm, but she still puts forth this shutdown and regulatory nightmare. She has refused to talk with the stakeholders (the miners with claims) and has unilaterally forced egregious regulations down the throats adversely impacting the stakeholders way of life, their income and even results in a degradation of the value of the claims up here as a result of these regulations.

Of note........we can quote a dozen other District Rangers within the USFS which firmly believe a PoO is NOT required for suction dredging with a 6" or smaller, but this one little division is the only one in the entire United States we are aware of which is claiming it is required, the only one. As a Federal agency who's charter is "to encourage mining" and manage the "people's forests" they sure aren't consistent, nor are they following the law in our opinion.

We will be posting about this more shortly and will be giving the USFS our formal response on this issue at 5pm tomorrow as agreed by both parties. They will be coming to our camp.

We have been very professional, polite, but very firm in our confidence of what we know about the laws, the regulations and their authority over requiring this. In fact, we have yet to meet anyone within the USFS which can have an in depth conversation about the specific laws and regulations with us and at the same level as our knowledge. This statement is not intended to sound braggadocios, but a statement of just how uninformed the people we are having to deal with actually are.

We are heading to Grangeville to meet with the Sheriff.

More to come shortly as we are sending this from a little Cafe in Elk City ID and have very limited access to the internet.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

A Handbook of Civil War Bullets and Cartridges - Grab it through Amazon!

[winners58]

latest AMRA update

Hello from the South Fork Clearwater.

Firstly, we’d like to remind everyone internet is quite a ways away from our claim and our camp so we cannot get emails, therefore the hundreds I am getting with go unanswered for a while. Phone service is non-existent, so calling if futile. That being said, if the Washington DC USFS or Office of Inspector General (OIG) would like to reach us, please call our Operations Manager Stacy at (209) 878-3910 and she can get a message to us.

Today was the best dredging day on the SFCW I’ve had since I’ve been dredging up here. Rarely do we see a lot of gold in our box on the dredge because this dredge actually hides it quite well, but not today. As we say in dredging terms “the box was lit up”! We don’t know the final clean up total yet, but man o man! We had probably over 100 “pickers” at the clean out (pickers are pieces of gold you can pick up with our fat fingers) and a few what we call nuggets.

Then…………

At 4:30 today, the LEO (Law Enforcement Officer) for the USFS, Brooks Beegle came by our dredge as we were cleaning out and put another notice of non-compliance on my windshield telling us we have 48 hours to get off the river or get in compliance with their illegal permitting scheme.

With the gold we are getting, we are all looking forward to dredging this entire season. So no USFS, we are not going to be intimidated by your silly notices. If you feel you have the authority to cite us for this, cite me. Quit this endless harassment, and it is definitively harassment.

I drive a big Toyota 4X4 truck wrapped in the American Flag with a very mean looking eagle on each door and a very clear image of the United States Constitution on the back half of the truck, you can’t miss it. I’m at mile marker 39 on highway 14, but I’m sure you knew that with all the attention you have created.

For all the folks reading this who support us, please continue to make calls. We may actually have a news crew here shortly. But for now, Jere and I are going to enjoy a nice sit down dinner in Grangeville and plan how we are going to double our gold tomorrow, Thursday, Friday and so on.

.

Updated Call List:
Leann Marten's office (Cheryl Probert's boss): 406-329-3315
Leslee Weldon, Regional Forester (Leann martin's boss) 202-205-1689
USDA: 202-720-2791
Idaho Governor Otter's office: 208-334-2100
US Capitol: 202-224-3121 they can connect you with your Senator or House Representative
USFS 800-832-1355
USDA Complaints hotline 202-260-1026
Doug Goodman, USFS civil rights director 202-2505-0827
USDA Office of Interim Chief (Victoria) 202-205-1661
Secretary zinkes office 202 208 3100 extension 3

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Cry Of The Eagle: History And Legends Of The Cherokee Indians And Their Buried Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!

[winners58]

latest AMRA update

.


Update from the South Fork Clearwater, Saturday July 28, 2018

No miners were cited yesterday. Brooks Beegle (the LEO) was given another “stand down” order citing officer safety. As I write this, I cannot hide my sincere disbelief at the doubling and tripling down by the USFS on this statement. Brooks is no more threatened by the miners up here than he would be going to Les Schwab to get new tires. The absurdity of this is beyond stupidity. USFS, we get that you are trying to save face, but cmon guys, really? Sounds like someone is desperate to try and paint us as something we are not and we won’t tolerate it.

What the USFS needs to do is simple. Publicly apologize to the miners for Ms. Probert illegally creating an adverse regulatory scheme and threatening arrest, citations and harassing the miners and materially interfering on a daily basis. Sit down with the mining community and have an adult conversation about what their objectives are, scrap the ridiculous scheme she’s created and do what the USFS charter states: TALK TO THE MINERS. She’s ignored people up here for years. Hung up on miners waiting 3 years for their PoO. Won’t answer phone calls, emails even certified letters. Or, as we refer to the behavior, she’s gone rogue.

As mentioned two days ago, we had a lengthy discussion with one of the higher-ups with the Forest Service based in the regional office in Missoula MT. He expressed one side of the story, that of Ms. Probert’s office here in Idaho and while not surprising with what he said, it was completely wrong.

Firstly, he said what he’s heard from the miners up here is that Ms. Probert “is doing a good job”. We immediately stopped him there and corrected this. We have spoken to every miner up here, every one of them and have not found one who thinks Ms. Probert is even doing a fair job. They think she is an ideologue, won’t talk to the miners at all, believes she doesn’t care about what kind of devastating regulations she passes and should be removed, or should resign. That is the unanimous consensus among the miners.

We told Mr. Smith (USFS in MT) that over the past 4 years of issue’s with the USFS up here we have performed several FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) requests on any and all documents, conversations etc… with respect to dredging up here, AMRA and some miners in particular. Now, we don’t know who put the FOIA together, but we’d like to thank that person. When the FOIA was completed, we were given several pages stamped: “CONFIDENTIAL, NOT FOR FOIA DISCLOSURE”. That’s right, someone gave us a bunch of documents Ms. Probert and several others most certainly do not want the mining community to see. We are not going to disclose what those documents are, but we did tell Mr. Smith in Montana that we have showed them to a retired Federal Judge and he was appalled by them. He also stated there was no reason for Ms. Probert not to have released them in the first place since they did not contain personal information, national security issues or a very select small list of reasons they could not.

These documents prove Ms. Probert is not being truthful with her own agency. Ms. Probert is less than honest, plain and simple.

Ms. Probert also produced a letter with District Ranger Terry Nevius’s name on it stating dredging is a “significant disturbance” when Mr. Nevius has stated, on film, on a recorded meeting with Ms. Probert that “I have never said it was a significant disturbance, I didn’t write that letter and I never told Probert that dredging is a significant disturbance”. Last August when this was brought to her attention for the second time, I demanded Ms. Probert investigate who produced this letter, she has ……you guessed it….ignored our demand to get to the bottom of this fraud. Ignored it. This is the primary source she has used to concoct her permitting scheme, and as you can read, it was done fraudulently.

It is not going away Ms. Probert, nor are we. We have piles of evidence of not just wrong doing, but criminal activity within the USFS and as God is my witness, we are going to expose just how corrupt, ideological and reprehensible the actions of these USFS folks are up here. In the courts and publicly, this is going to be exposed.

Stop harassing, intimidating, materially interfering with and threatening arrest to the miners.

We are in the best gold I’ve ever mined up here and the USFS is costing me thousands and thousands of dollars in lost wages this season by dealing with this abhorrent behavior by the USFS and Ms. Probert. We are going dredging in about an hour so again USFS, if you think you have a case against us, I am at mile marker 39.

We should not fear our own government.

 

[Bejay]

Where both the Forest Service and the BLM are required to adhere the congressional public land management man date of the Federal Land Management Policy Act, FLPMA, which expressly states at 43 USC 1732 (b), that, ". . . no provision of this section or any other section of this Act shall in any way amend the Mining Law of 1872 or impair the rights of any locators or claims under that Act, including, but not limited to, rights of ingress and egress" any assertion of federal authority by agency, such as the BLM or the Forest Service, impairing, obstructing or closing access against, or managing the surface of Locatable mineral deposit property on public domain in-holding the public land, or otherwise interfering in any way is committed contrary to the laws of the United States of America, a breach of fiduciary duty, and an intentional and negligent trust tort.

trust: Legal Deffinition
n. an entity created to hold assets for the benefit of certain persons or entities, with a trustee managing the trust (and often holding title on behalf of the trust). Most trusts are founded by the persons (called trustors, settlors and/or donors) who execute a written declaration of trust which establishes the trust and spells out the terms and conditions upon which it will be conducted. The declaration also names the original trustee or trustees, successor trustees or means to choose future trustees. The assets of the trust are usually given to the trust by the creators, although assets may be added by others. During the life of the trust, profits and, sometimes, a portion of the principal (called "corpus") may be distributed to the beneficiaries, and at some time in the future (such as the death of the last trustor or settlor) the remaining assets will be distributed to beneficiaries. A trust may take the place of a will and avoid probate (management of an estate with court supervision) by providing for distribution of all assets originally owned by the trustors or settlors upon their death. There are numerous types of trusts, including "revocable trusts" created to handle the trustors' assets (with the trustor acting as initial trustee), often called a "living trust" or "inter vivos trust" which only becomes irrevocable on the death of the first trustor; "irrevocable trust," which cannot be changed at any time; "charitable remainder unitrust," which provides for eventual guaranteed distribution of the corpus (assets) to charity, thus gaining a substantial tax benefit. There are also court-decreed "constructive" and "resulting" trusts over property held by someone for its owner. A "testamentary trust" can be created by a will to manage assets given to beneficiaries.

tort: Legal Deffinition
n. from French for "wrong," a civil wrong or wrongful act, whether intentional or accidental, from which injury occurs to another. Torts include all negligence cases as well as intentional wrongs which result in harm. Therefore tort law is one of the major areas of law (along with contract, real property and criminal law) and results in more civil litigation than any other category. Some intentional torts may also be crimes, such as assault, battery, wrongful death, fraud, conversion (a euphemism for theft) and trespass on property and form the basis for a lawsuit for damages by the injured party. Defamation, including intentionally telling harmful untruths about another-either by print or broadcast (libel) or orally (slander)-is a tort and used to be a crime as well.


Bejay

 

[winners58]

News Story

they were told by IDWR they were 30' outside of their permitted area and denied a waver
so they cant dredge where they were getting the best gold, now the agencies are playing it up to the news media.

https://lmtribune.com/northwest/off...cle_fb61331c-9b39-58c9-b34a-fd345b6a5b81.html

Some miners dredging up problems
Agency considers issuing notices of violations to several people working on South Fork of Clearwater River

By ERIC BARKER of the Tribune Aug 2, 2018

A handful of miners on the South Fork of the Clearwater River are clashing with regulatory agencies as the suction dredge season there winds down.

The Idaho Department of Water Resources is considering issuing notices of violations to at least two of the miners. Tim Luke, water compliance bureau chief for the agency, said the miners are not adhering to the terms stated in permits issued by the agency.

"The main issue is not working in areas we had permitted and/or not getting authorization from us before moving to these other areas," Luke said.

He said more miners could be issued notices if it is determined they are violating the terms of their permits. Those citations could carry monetary fines or requirements for remediation. Luke said people who receive such notices are able to request a compliance conference to fix the problem.

The U.S. Forest Service is also monitoring a handful of miners on the river, and is considering whether to take enforcement actions because of their failure to submit required plans of operation.

Quentin Smith, the recreation, engineering, lands and minerals program manager for the Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forest, said 14 miners on the South Fork have submitted plans of operations, which are required according to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management rules. As many as nine others haven't. The agency, combined with the BLM, issues a maximum of 15 suction dredge mining permits. The miners are also required to obtain permits from the Environmental Protection Agency.

Many of those who are operating without first submitting plans of operation to the Forest Service or acquiring EPA permits have been issued warnings. Smith described it as an attempt by the agency to educate the dredgers about the mining rules and regulations.

"We have worked with many if not all of those individuals, trying to help them understand the regulatory framework," he said.

Many, but not all, of those have chosen to cease operations.

"There is a class of folks who simply seem to be doing this as part of a protest and just don't want to follow the rules," he said.

The agency has not yet decided if it will issue citations but is consulting with the Idaho County Sheriff's Office and the enforcement divisions of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the EPA.

"The noncompliant dredgers may be issued violations notices or citations. The key word is may. We haven't determined anything," Smith said.

For many years, miners needed only an easy-to-get permit from Water Resources to operate dredges in Idaho. That changed in 2013, when the EPA required miners to obtain a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permit. However, the general permits were not available on the South Fork of the Clearwater River and other rivers that are home to threatened and endangered fish.

That changed in 2016, when the Forest Service completed an environmental analysis on the South Fork that permitted suction dredge mining if certain conditions designed to protect water quality and fish habitat were followed. Miners were required to get an EPA permit, file a plan of operations with the Forest Service and to obtain the special supplement permit from the Idaho Department of Water Resources.

Prior to implementation of the new rules, a handful of miners operated in 2014 without permits on the South Fork, and other rivers such as the Salmon River near Riggins, as a form of protest. They claimed the Mining Act of 1872 gave them wide authority to operate and that the rules implemented by the federal agencies were counter to that law. The agencies, however, said the rules are needed to protect fish habitat and water quality.

At least one miner contacted the Tribune via voice mail last week to complain about actions taken by the Forest Service. Phone calls to the miner and to the American Mining Rights Association have not been returned. Some of the miners have posted videos to www.americanminingrights.com and to the group's Facebook page about the dispute over regulations. In those posts, the miners claim they are not required to obtain the federal permits.

The suction dredge mining season on the South Fork of the Clearwater River ends after Aug. 15.

---

 

[Bejay]

From My Files: (From a highly knowledgeable mining advocate)

Quote
"Claim owners and prospectors don't have to get a permit from the EPA to dredge even now. The Supreme Court has twice ruled that the EPA can't require a permit for instream sediment. The court has been very clear about the EPA's overreach in trying to include stream sediments in any definition of pollution.

Don't pay any attention to the EPA permits. Literally all anyone has to do if the EPA ever attempts to fine someone for dredging without a permit is to put the judge on notice of the prior Supreme Court decisions and the case will be dismissed. No lawyers - no BS. Just go dredge.

As far as a California appeals court making precedence for Idaho... ain't gonna happen. One State's courts don't create precedence for another State's courts. Equally a State court decision doesn't create precedence for federal courts either. Apples and oranges.

Ignore the EPA. They are all bark and no bite in this situation."


End Quote
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Trouble is; Once you agree with and get the permit and or POO you have agreed to permission authority and negated your Mining Grant (1872) mining law(s).


Bejay

 

[Bejay]

The issue of a POO is a whole other "can of worms". The point of adhering to federal land management agency contracts (POO is a contract); is based on the issue of "Significant Disturbance".


From My files. And again from a very reliable mining advocate

Quote:

"The NOI and POO demands per USFS and BLM always base their request on the term:
"Significant Disturbance"

The term "significant surface disturbance" was a way for the Secretary to try to get around the legal standard "unnecessary or undue degradation" found in the FLPMA. So miners should not be distressed by those three words. The following is the only legal definition on which the BLM or Forest Service can rely."

Supreme Court wrote:

"[a] reasonable interpretation of the word 'unnecessary' is that which is not necessary for mining.

'Undue' is that which is excessive, improper, immoderate or unwarranted."

Utah v. Andrus, 486 F. Supp.

995, 1005 n.13 (D. Utah 1979)

==================================================================


Bejay

 

[winners58]

Aug. 3rd AMRA Update

Update:

Yes folks, we are aware of the article out of Spokane which appears to be distributed by the Lewiston far left media. Our thoughts...pffft. We have given quite a few interviews and you'll be seeing them shortly. The Lewiston Tribune whom is quite left on their political ideology has written articles on dredging up there several times in past years and in our opinion, they are less than honest about their reporting. We compare their reporting to CNN crying foul for saying CNN sucks, but then attacks Mrs. Trump for reading to little children. It is called hypocrisy and ideology.

To the issue...

I was found to be in non-compliance with IDWR's rules/regulations for these specific reasons:

Although I was "approved" by them to move to our new location nearly two weeks ago, I was dredging outside the delineated, narrow line of area they approved as that is where the gold took me on my claim. Where I was (their delineated location) I averaged 3 to 5 grams a day. Moving 33' over produced two ounces per day (63 grams).

I was also found in violation for having a rope tied to the dredge to one side of the river and a rope to the other side (a 3 point tie) to secure my dredge. We are not supposed to have a rope which extends across the full width of the river. We have heard, although have not confirmed that the reasoning is so as not to interfere with rafters or inner-tubers who may want to recreate on the river. Ya, we know your thoughts, ours as well but that discussion is for another day.

I had a couple of gas cans (ANSI approved) sitting on the bank outside the river up on the bank and we have spill pads and new "Sure Cans" which virtually prevent any spills or leaks. Their regulations state they must be stored "outside the stream channel". Without a definition of what that is, we deducted it meant well outside the water channel where we had them but they claim it needs to be further than where we had stored them.

Here's the bottom line folks, IDWR is not the enemy here so we ask you refrain from attacking them over this. We expect to resolve these issues rapidly and without any problems and have a meeting with the Director of the IDWR first thing next week. I do not dispute these minor and what some may consider trivial violations but rules are rules and we believe everyone should be held to the same standards as anyone else, us included. If one parks illegally, one is in violation even if it is for a valid reason. Sure, they are watching this river closer than any other and we all know I am singled out, but we expected that.

What this does do is open a dialogue with IDWR about some of their rules, especially the one where a claim owner can only dredge in a little tiny spot on their claim. That to move and ask permission takes a long time and since the season is only 1 month, waiting for approval costs money, lots of money. IDWR has agreed to have after season meetings to discuss some of these regulations and the potential for changing them. Some of these rules simply do not work well at all and should be revisited, which they will.

I do want everyone to know we have had nothing but professionalism from IDWR, all of their staff and they have been accommodating for the most part. Again, they are not the enemy of the miners. They are experiencing extreme pressure from radical environmental groups like Idaho Conservation League (ICL)...you guys all remember the guy who said "it is my river"? Ya, those folks. The Idaho Congress passed laws which give this agency the mandate to regulate this particular river as well as most other rivers in the state.

In reference to the USFS, that is a different story and being a former Investigator as a previous career, I can tell you some of the evidence we have gathered just in the past few weeks is nothing short of jaw dropping. Much of it we are keeping close to our chest right now and have only provided it to select folks like attorney's, Senators, Congressmen and certain folks high over Ms. Probert's head. The truth and yes, justice will prevail on their illegal (yes, we say illegal) actions. Not surprisingly, the USFS still hasn't picked up the phone and reached out to the miners, we guess they are too busy trying to defend the indefensible. If they were smart, they'd start asking Ms. Probert some serious questions about what they have done up there.

We will continue to keep you all posted and we humbly appreciate all the support.

 

[Bejay]

Again here is some more relevant info for those following this post.
Again it comes from my files and it is a quote from a very reliable/knowledgeable mining advocate.


Quote:

"The law clearly states that the surface management agencies have the duty to prevent undue and unnecessary degradation of the surface of public lands.

Mining claims are not public land....(I insert: public domain). Undue or unnecessary degradation does not include the ordinary and necessary act of mining. Those are laws backed by Supreme Court decisions.

The BLM came up with a reasonable way to accomplish their duty. If the miner determines his mining will cause a "significant surface disturbance" to the public lands he is required to notify the surface management agency of that fact. That notification does not prevent him from mining because surface disturbance does not amount to "undue or unnecessary degradation". The notice is so the surface management agency can deal with the significant surface disturbance in a timely manner. Should the surface management agency find that significant surface disturbance could be lessened by working with the miner to create a plan (POO) to help lessen the significant surface disturbance the miner will be asked to create a plan that fits their mining needs.

Should the surface management agency believe a plan of operation is necessary, after establishing facts that indicate that there will be a significant surface disturbance, and the miner does not submit a notice the agency can then notify the miner that they wish to design a plan of operation with him. Should the miner disagree that a plan is needed the agency can cite him for any actual violations of the law and then it is up to a court of law to determine who is right.

The above two paragraphs describe the lawful and proper way the BLM attempts to implement their duties under the law (FLPMA). These regulations are current in the CFR. I believe they are a relatively fair way for the BLM to try to do the job Congress gave them in the FLPMA Act without obstructing or preventing mining under the 1872 law. There might be other ways they could have chosen to accomplish their job but, for now, these are the rules and methods they have made for their employees.

The problems start when the surface management agencies make rules that govern mining itself or mineral claims. The law specifically states that they have no right to regulate mining or mineral estate claims. Their duty stops at protecting the surface of the public lands. When they cross the line and try to use the Notice and Plan system to stop or control mining they have no right or duty under any law to do so. Telling a miner that he must get permission to use any particular mining equipment or to move dirt even if there is no undue degradation or significant surface disturbance is controlling the act of mining.

If you choose to follow those regulations that are not backed by law you will have entered the realm of Administrative law (regulations). If the surface management agency decides to control your mining or prevent you from mining you will be obligated to follow their regulations just as their employees are. If you find you disagree with their requirements or choose to ignore their ever changing regulations your only relief will be an administrative law court. Those courts only deal with regulations so your rights under the mining laws or equity laws will be ignored. The courts only duty will be to determine if the agency followed their own regulations.

If you choose to only honor those regulations backed by law you will have full recourse to the laws themselves should you find yourself in a dispute with a surface management agency. There are many cases that have been won by miners who have chosen to rely on the laws as written rather than a changing set of agency regulations. Several of those have been discussed. Search for Lex Waggoner to find a fairly recent example. There are many more should you choose to educate yourself further."


End Quote

======================================================================================

Bejay

 

[Bejay]

The following is taken from the above post info. It is a quote:

"Should the surface management agency believe a plan of operation is necessary, after establishing facts that indicate that there will be a significant surface disturbance, and the miner does not submit a notice the agency can then notify the miner that they wish to design a plan of operation with him. Should the miner disagree that a plan is needed the agency can cite him for any actual violations of the law and then it is up to a court of law to determine who is right."

=============================================================================================

This one paragraph is very Important. As you can see it discusses the issue of a POO. Most often the agencies notify the miner of a need for a POO, and the agencies rely on "their supposedly authoritative powers". Most often of course the miner takes this notice as gospel. But look closely at what the paragraph says. If the miner feels that a significant disturbance is not a result of the mining: per the language of the Law..... (see posting on this thread about lawful meaning of significant disturbance)…..the agency must supply factual evidence that the disturbance will cause a significant disturbance and the miner can then request that the agency should direct a resolve.....(give the miner a way to remedy). This puts the ball in their court and relieves the miner of filing a POO. The miner can follow their recommendation (their plan) and thus not enter into the contractual agreement of a POO submitted by the miner. Thus the miner remains under the granted rights per the mining laws. Remember when the miner submits a POO (that is accepted by the agency) the miner is then bound by a contract and will always fall under the jurisdiction of the Land Management Agency.


At least that is the way I interpret that. And that is why the statement/paragraph has so much meaning. IMHO


Often we fail to fully understand such things and take agencies word/requests as gospel. The factual evidence from an agency could be considered to be an EA (Environmental Assessment)….(an in house agency evaluation if you will). However it would stop an agency in its tracks if a judge ruled that in order to halt a mining operation the agency would have to do an EIS (Environmental Impact Statement) (a very costly agency action). That would make things very interesting to say the least. Food for thought tho.

Bejay

 

[winners58]

Update Aug. 11th

Update from the SF Clearwater, Idaho

Last night two of the AMRA dredgers were cited for dredging without a PoO (Plan of Operations) by the Forest Service.

Now, we will be able to present this case, along with the mountain of evidence we have obtained including video, affidavits, documents, testimony and case law on this illegal plan to require these permits they say are required.

The court case will be in a few months and we will keep you abreast of these cases as they move forward.

We are meeting again with the California Water Board again shortly over the dredging in 2019 and that will be one of our primary focuses once we leave here.

We are all in the process of reclamation on every one of our dredge holes and have returned the river to its near original condition prior to us arriving. It has been unanimous from all of the people we have talked to about our reclamation, they all believe the reclamation is “awesome” “fantastic” and “amazing”.

It has been an experience, that’s for sure and we learned more than we thought possible about the level the USFS is willing to go to continue to enforce what we are confident is an illegal scheme to further restrict and interfere with the small scale suction dredgers up here.

We have several days left and are going to make the most of them…

 

[Bejay]

The following has some merit: Karuk Tribe v. USFS (640 F 3d 979) 9th Cir 2011

Quote from summary: (note the bold response by the USFS)

SUMMARY: "The Ninth Circuit held that a miner’s notice of intent is not “agency action,” and activities described in a miner’s notice of intent are neither funded nor carried out by the USFS. Thus, the Tribe bore the burden of showing that the activities described in a notice of intent are “authorized” by the USFS. The Court stated that resolution depends on the proper characterization of what the USFS does with respect to an NOI and the activities described therein. The USFS argued that it has no power to “authorize” mining activities described in a notice of intent because the miners already possess the right to mine under the mining laws, and that the permits to engage in such mining are granted by other state and federal bodies. While the USFS has some power to require miners to seek its approval and submit to reasonable USFS regulation, such power only materializes once the USFS determines that the activity is likely to cause significant disturbance of surface resources."

Bejay

 

[winners58]

citizen enforcement lawsuit filed Friday in U.S. District Court filed against Shannon Poe by the Idaho Conservation League.
https://apnews.com/d5feb0f7c6a5435fb57259d4801a15b8

not much info yet just this hit piece

 

[Johnnybravo300]

It's nice to see a fighter! Might have to join amra now! Toss them chains off boy!

 

[Goldwasher]

interesting, considering he has one of the permitted dredges...yet, they say he doesn't.

 

[Johnnybravo300]

Get a group of miners there to perform a citizens arrest during the harassment and drag their sorry a$$e$ to the sheriff. It's that frigging easy.

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

Posts deleted, please keep politics out of forum except for our politics forum.