Forest Service mining regulations

Bonaro

Hero Member
Aug 9, 2004
960
2,155
Olympia WA
Detector(s) used
Minelab Xterra 70, Minelab SD 2200d, 2.5", 3", 4"and several Keene 5" production dredges, Knelson Centrifuge, Gold screw automatic panner
Primary Interest:
Prospecting
I’m sitting in a booth at the gold show in Monroe, Wa. One of the other booths is the local Forest Service office. Attached is a flyer they are handing out. It seems different than what I understand the CFR to say.
Opinions? ImageUploadedByTreasureNet.com1518987768.662636.jpg
 
Upvote 0
OP
B

Bonaro

Hero Member
Aug 9, 2004
960
2,155
Olympia WA
Detector(s) used
Minelab Xterra 70, Minelab SD 2200d, 2.5", 3", 4"and several Keene 5" production dredges, Knelson Centrifuge, Gold screw automatic panner
Primary Interest:
Prospecting
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread starter
  • #3
I thought it was interesting that if an operator was unsure if he would cause a surface disturbance then he needed a NOI...then the ranger would tell him.
 

Assembler

Bronze Member
May 10, 2017
2,088
777
Middle Oregon
Detector(s) used
Whites, Fisher, Garrett, and Falcon.
Primary Interest:
Prospecting
Notice this does not point out the 5 acre threshold.
 

winners58

Bronze Member
Apr 4, 2013
1,721
4,034
Oregon
Primary Interest:
All Treasure Hunting
that was what the FS put out after they changed CFR 36 part 228 in 2005
US v. Lex 2003 found they were under no obligation to file a NOI, the FS changed when a NOI or PoO was needed to an inclusive list got sued
changed it, in 2005 in response to the court cases final Rule Published in the Fed Registry.
But a California judge let the Karuk tribe sue based on the interim rule it was changed to after US v. Lex,
and in Karuk v. USFS they sued that a NOI in ESA listed streams required section 7 consultations/Biological opinions
then the miners appealed and won in the US 9th circuit that was appealed and reversed (Karuk v. USFS final)
so now if there are any ESA listed fish habitat when a NOI is filed ESA consultations are required by the Forest Service.
some Discussion on sec.228 Final rule; » Final Rule on Section 228.4 by U.S. Forest Service

if you don't think you need a NOI don't file, the miner decides if its a significant disturbance. (unless a determination, in writing)
there are reasons to file a NOI, if there is already a BioOp they can approve small operations
using existing roads, suction dredging, pick & shovel Op's, and long term camping. (just for a real active area other areas, no NOI needed)
some due diligence like checking the RMP planning for that area, they are now doing watershed wide mining EIS & ROD
example; (N.F.), North Fork Burnt River Mining FEIS 2014 (see appendix 5 for activity exempted, not cause significant disturbance)
people have died or moved on waiting for these EIS and PoO's to get approved
 
Last edited:

IMAUDIGGER

Silver Member
Mar 16, 2016
3,400
5,191
Primary Interest:
All Treasure Hunting
A new casino will be opening soon to fund many additional lawsuits. ???
 
OP
B

Bonaro

Hero Member
Aug 9, 2004
960
2,155
Olympia WA
Detector(s) used
Minelab Xterra 70, Minelab SD 2200d, 2.5", 3", 4"and several Keene 5" production dredges, Knelson Centrifuge, Gold screw automatic panner
Primary Interest:
Prospecting
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread starter
  • #8
that was what the FS put out after they changed CFR 36 part 228 in 2005
US v. Lex 2003 found they were under no obligation to file a NOI, the FS changed when a NOI or PoO was needed to an inclusive list got sued
changed it, in 2005 in response to the court cases final Rule Published in the Fed Registry.
But a California judge let the Karuk tribe sue based on what it was changed to after US v. Lex,
and in Karuk v. USFS they sued that a NOI in ESA listed streams required section 7 consultations/Biological opinions
then the miners appealed and won in the US 9th circuit that was appealed and reversed (Karuk v. USFS final)
so now if there are any ESA listed fish habitat when a NOI is filed ESA consultations are required by the Forest Service.
some Discussion on sec.228 Final rule; » Final Rule on Section 228.4 by U.S. Forest Service

if you don't think you need a NOI don't file, the miner decides if its a significant disturbance. (unless a determination, in writing)
there are reasons to file a NOI, if there is already a BioOp they can approve small operations
using existing roads, suction dredging, pick & shovel Op's, and long term camping. (just for a real active area other areas, no NOI needed)
some due diligence like checking the RMP planning for that area, they are now doing watershed wide mining EIS & ROD
example; (N.F.), North Fork Burnt River Mining FEIS 2014 (see appendix 5 for activity exempted, not cause significant disturbance)
people have died or moved on waiting for these EIS and PoO's to get approved

Exactly. Until you file a NOI the FS really doesn't have any power over you...which is why they want you to file when in doubt. I wanted to grill these two guys but decided not to
 

Assembler

Bronze Member
May 10, 2017
2,088
777
Middle Oregon
Detector(s) used
Whites, Fisher, Garrett, and Falcon.
Primary Interest:
Prospecting
The "Federal Action" is based on the 5 acre threshold.

What is being "Located" in the above Cases with no "Discoveries"?
Is there a "Mineral claimant" without a "Discovery"?
Does this marking determine lines other than the "Normal subdivision of the public lands"?
Is there any marking for "Miscellaneous angle points along irregular boundaries"?
What authority does the FS have on the "Mining of mineral deposits"?

Do not know what question Bonaro may be asking at this time with out answering these questions first.
 
Last edited:

Assembler

Bronze Member
May 10, 2017
2,088
777
Middle Oregon
Detector(s) used
Whites, Fisher, Garrett, and Falcon.
Primary Interest:
Prospecting
MINERAL, VALUABLE – (MINE)- A deposit of a mineral ore or substance which is useful in commerce or the arts, occurring in quantity and quality sufficient to justify its mining and removal for sale; also, any quantity of such ore or substance in a vein or lode, the size and continuity of which are such as to justify an ordinarily prudent man in the expenditure of his labor and means in an effort to develop a paying mine.
 
Last edited:

Top Member Reactions

Users who are viewing this thread

Top