I have no idea what happened in the AMRA case. I haven't watched the video. Please don't take this as a comment on that situation. Below is the answer to your question. It was a good question and an explanation of how these things roll might help readers understand some of the issues involved.In order to construct the campground including the construction of the sh***er I assume the FS had to do some digging what is the legal soup of them digging on your claim? I assume they are Scott free as it’s a construction project but what about the dirt they dug up?
it's a claim in LaPanza Ca. they were approached last year as well. The ticket is for "defrauding an Innkeeper" there is a third part concession that maintains the campground. As you and I know that is pretty common. I guess they told the club they need to pat the day use/ camping fee.I have no idea what happened in the AMRA case. I haven't watched the video. Please don't take this as a comment on that situation. Below is the answer to your question. It was a good question and an explanation of how these things roll might help readers understand some of the issues involved.
When the FS decides on a recreation site the land is restricted from mineral entry (withdrawn). This helps prevent the rather messy situation where a miner shows up and starts digging up the campground and suing the FS for obstructing their ability to mine the minerals they own.
Before the land can be withdrawn from entry the land status has to be checked then the public and anyone who has prior rights (like a mining claim) has to be legally notified. After the land is withdrawn it is the duty of the mining claimant to do their due diligence and avoid locating their claims within areas that are not open to location.
In the case of a prior existing mining claim no recreation area can be built within the bounds of the claim IF the mining claim owner has proof of a valuable mineral deposit. Existing mining claims will be challenged to provide their proof of a valuable mineral deposit.
If the claim owner provides the proof the FS has two choices, exempt the mining claim from the withdrawal and remove the claim area from the recreation plan or pay up the value of the proven portion of the deposit minus the cost of mining, refining and marketing the proven deposit. If the claim owner does not have proof of a valuable mineral deposit the claim will be closed and the rec area can be built.
That's the brief version. In all cases everyone gets the chance to appeal any decision so sometimes these things can take a long time. That's why the FS generally tries to avoid putting rec areas where there are existing mining claims. However this is in ... California?
yesIs this the same campground Los padre National Forest? Navajo Flat Campground, off-highway vehicle (OHV) Trailhead and day use area is an ideal location for OHV enthusiasts to enjoy the many trails in the surrounding area. A multi-use trail system that includes routes designated for motorcycles and all-terrain vehicles (ATVs) is located adjacent to this campground, known as a mecca for motorized fun.