If you are Dredging iN BOISE NF you must have a letter on Intent (LOI) or a Notice of intent NOI, or a Plan of Operations POO. I have the Forest service letter that states "Suction Dredgers must have a EPA NPDES permit, or no entrance to forest" Your state dredge permit is worthless at this point!...
Drove 19 hrs, $687 for fuel,1300 new dry suit.....and now NOWHERE TO DREDGE!!
Comments
Let me say thanks for some info, but please understand, when folks come on a forum like this, they are looking for help. Telling an individual that a NOI or a POI is not required is not helping unless you tell them why it is not required.
You ticked me off on that last part so I drove the 60 miles to get internet access, that allowed me to email, and do research. Which was Info I was searchiing for when I drove to the summit to get enough signal to access goldprospectors place.
Research I uncovered showed the following:
1. A NOI and POI are required under certain scenarios, and have been declared enforceable in federal Court. You saying go do it and infering it was unenforceable was just WRONG.
a. A NOI or POO is not required per 36 CFR228.4.1 states
i) Operations which we be limited to the use of vehicles on existing public roads, ....or maintained by the NFS.
ii) Prospecting will no cause significant surface disturbance, NOTE: Significant Surface Disturbance is not defined and left to the descretion of the NFS.
iii) Marking a claim
iv) Underground operations
v) Operations,which thier totalitywill not cause surface resource disturbance, THIS IS A DREDGE
vi) Operations which will not involve earthmoving equipment, such as bulldozers or backhoes
vii) Operations for which a proposed POOis submitted for approval.
This is the info a miner needs not the sneers and coonjecture, that you infered. Some Dredgers might require a NOI based on the individual operations. To make a blanket statement, and then to infer that it was not enforceable is and was reckless.
2. On the EPA Clean Water Act (CWA), The section that makes the dredge covered under the CWA is section 404, and under this area they dicuss the dredge and its tailings. Dredges are not defined by size in this law so all dredges from 2 inch to 60 inch are in one catagory.
Here again, carefull reading and research shows one flaw in the written law, that gives some dredgers a way to safely dredge without fear.
This is only applicable in navigable waters. Each state or the US Army Corps of Engineers, designates what is navigable water. When I was dredging off the beaches of Long Beach NC, it was Navigable. Where I am now I am on the border of the township line that starts the navigale part of the river I am on.
Now the EPA was responsible for not adding that info to the letter that they sent out, but since it was written for the enviromentalist, I see why they forgot that bit of info.
Fellow Miners, never depend on anothers acertion that you are right or correct, reseach yourself, ask questions. The info I posted here can be found by googling the following:
a. Clean water ACT 404
b. 36 CFR 228.4
HAPPY MINING, I am on my claim and unless they come at me with the Endangered species Act I will me in the mountains till November
Dennis
Without the facts it's pretty hard to tell where the problem lies.
Thank those of you who emailed and PMed me with the facts of the situation. I now know that, at least some of you, have been filing NOIs to dredge. That does complicate matters some but it does not override your right to mine.
I am very busy today but I will take the time this evening to address this situation here on the forum.
Dennis, I wish you had shared the facts with us from the beginning, I still don't know if you filed an NOI or a POO. I guess it doesn't matter now as you will choose your own path. I wish you luck and hope you mine some good gold this summer. It is obvious this whole situation has been very distressing for you and I don't wish to stress you further. I intend to keep my replies to this matter public on this forum so all may contribute and benefit. As this is your personal blog I will understand if you wish this discussion moved elsewhere. If you like I will start a new thread on the main forum.
thanks jason, you get it! for the rest....Fellow miners of Idaho, You are welcome to take over the fight for our Rights in Idaho, dealing with the new EPA laws. I am tired of those of you who can not understand the difference, between Federal and state laws and rules. I will no longer update hat I do so I can mine.......Go and do what and how you like at the Forest Service, IDWR or EPA.
The fsct that you will critcize instead of giving constructive help or suggestions is why we are in the shape we are in California and soon Idaho....So go trade in your stuff for a new Lazy boy, and talk about the good old days, for you are not willing to help or fight the fight....the enf!
just my opinion of coarse. I have not had any problems where im at now, the blm and Nf are against the highbankers not the dredgers right now .......................................................wehhhhh.
Now Dennis, you have been around long enough to know not to shoot the messenger!
The Code of Federal REGULATIONS is not law. Shall I repeat?
The Code of Federal REGULATIONS is not law.
REGULATIONS are not LAW.
Congress passes laws. Those laws are called ACTS. Those ACTS are codified (collected and simplified) in the United States Code (USC). Some of the USC is law, some is not.
The Code of Federal REGULATIONS are not ACTS nor are they codified in the USC.
The Forest Service can not REQUIRE you to file an NOI.
From 43 USC (Law NOT regulation):
"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."
You may say "so what?" unless you realize that 43 USC is the basis in LAW for the REGULATION you were quoted by the Forest Service. I bet he neglected to include that part didn't he Dennis?
Why you would put more credence in what your government employee says (who is obviously against mining and can't provide you with NO quotes from the LAW) rather than the LAW presented by someone who is an advocate for miners rights is puzzling. What result did you hope to achieve by posting these obvious rumors here?
By the way Dennis the 43 USC quote from above is available from miningrights.org the very site you informed Larry you had "been using for a long time". You might want to Read it HERE.
Dennis, Law is not a tug of war between lawyers. Despite misleading TV shows there is only one law and the popular view that "the best argument wins" is false. The Ranger has presented you with no law. He HAS presented you with the CFR which is his rule book (regulation) and not law. You are not subject to those REGULATIONS unless you have agreed to abide by their RULES (not law). The way you agree to waive your rights as a mineral estate grantee and abide by their rules is to ask permission to mine through a Notice of Intent.
It's time to stop evading the question that your rights depend on Dennis:
Did you file an NOI or a POO on your mining activities?
Thanks Larry been using that site for a long time.
Clay
the chief ranger produced a entry from The Code of Federal Regulations, that in a nut shell, gave them the rule of law to require the NOI to any mining concern disturbing the surface, the unclear fact was is the floor of the creek and the forsest service soliciters are reseaching that, Hey I AM NO LAWYER, Armchair or schooled.
BUT I do know what make a rule, a regulation or a Law, and so far I have only seen Laws.
If you have proof that a POO or a NOI is a rule please provide the info so that I can go to the Libray of Congress and verify , if it is not law I will take it in.
But that does not Invalidate the EPA Permitting for the NPDES Permit, The miners in Alaska have been issued the permits last year and this year,
So your Statements that it is not law is full of holes. If it was not law we would not have had a miner fined in excess of $10,000, for violation of the NPDES permit. And a commercial mine in Idaho is now being prosecuted under the same law as I write this.
The Forest service is also aware of th Idaho Conservation League ICL, is massing people and cameras to search the state for dredges and have the Owners cited under the Clean Water Act.
It is easy to have an opinion, No two lawyers can read a law and come up with the same decision, that is why they take so many cases to the Supreme Court and they Very very rarely ever all agree.
Don;'t shoot they soldiers fighting the fight on the front line unless you are not willing to help win against the Law Enforcement Agencies
or mabe im just being a bit sketchy.
-
1
-
2
-
3
of 3 Next