|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Home
– About
AMDA – Hunt
&Events –.Membership
Information-AMDA Programs-Links
|
| Plaintiff Delores M. Stapp, Vice President of PLP, vs. the United States Department of the Interior and the Bureau of Land Management announce a settlement! With the help of our attorney David Young a settlement was reached and signed by all parties on 2-27-06.
This lawsuit was filed to clarify the new rule instituted by the BLM regarding “unnecessary or undue degradation” adopted in 2000 (but repealed in 2001) and various other provisions of the rules that are burdensome and were promulgated illegally.
The Settlement:
1. Under 43 CFR 3809, casual uses included activities reasonably incident to mineral exploration, mining, or mineral processing, ordinarily resulting in not greater than negligible disturbance of the public lands or resources. The use of the word “NO” in the regulatory definition of “Casual Use” is illustrative only, and the regulatory maximum for casual use is “Negligible” disturbance, not “NO” disturbance.
Generally, casual use: a. Includes the collection of geochemical, rock, soil, or mineral specimens using hand tools; hand panning; or non-motorized sluicing, use of metal detectors, gold spears and other battery-operated devices for sensing the presence of mineral, and hand and battery-operated dry washers; b. May include use of small portable suction dredges, motorized dry washers not greater than 10 HP, and motorized recirculating units not greater than 10 HP, provided the activity results in no greater than negligible disturbance; c. May include occupancies limited to 14 days or less in a 90-day period; d. Excludes the use of mechanized earth-moving equipment, truck mounted drilling equipment, chemicals, explosives, or the use of motorized vehicles in areas when designated as closed to “off-road vehicles.” BLM, in any new road closure proceeding in the California Desert District that begins after the date of this settlement, will, in good faith and to the extent practicable, notify mining claimants of record who use the road being considered for closure for access to their mining claims, and will consider mineral resources in it decision whether to close the road.
2. For a mining or exploration operation involving an occupancy with no greater than negligible surface disturbance that does not qualify as casual use solely because of an occupancy of greater than 14 days in a 90-day period, the individual financial assurance required under 43 CFR 3809.552 will be the minimum estimated cost necessary to perform reclamation under the reclamation plan resulting from the occupancy, including the removal and disposition of any property left on the mine site. If such estimated cost resulting from such occupancy is minimal, BLM will require only a nominal financial assurance from that individual as long as that amount is sufficient to cover the estimated reclamation cost. When the operator requests that BLM release its financial assurance under 43 CFR 3809.590 following completion of reclamation and closure activities, BLM will process the request under the procedures of 43 CFR 3809.590 through 594 as “expeditiously” as practicable. 3. BLM will direct its California employees who review notices under 43 CFR 3809 to complete in as timely a manner as possible their review and other actions necessary to process a notice that may be submitted by the BLM reflecting an operation involving an occupancy that would result in no greater than negligible disturbance. 4. This Notice maybe extended for another two years by written notification! 5. BLM will inform its offices in the state of California of the terms of this settlement! 6. This Settlement Agreement is executed for the sole purpose of settling this litigation and it serves as a template for other small Miners in the California Desert Mining Districts.
SISKIYOU REGIONAL EDUCATION PROJECT (SREP) vs., U.S.F.S. Linda Goodman, Regional Forester (Region 6) & Scott Conroy, Forest Supervisor, Siskiyou National Forest. Interveners were Robert & Lisa Barton & PLP’s Gerald Hobbs. Waldo Mining District sued as an additional party and was included in Consolidation.
SREP alleged that the defendants failed to comply with the standards and guidelines contained in the Northwest Forest Plan & the Siskiyou National Forest Land Resource management Plan in conjunction with the management of suction dredge mining in the waterways of the Siskiyou National Forest. SREP sought an injunction prohibiting the USFS from authorizing or approving mineral operations in the Riparian Reserves or Supplemental Resource areas without an approved plan of operations and prohibiting the defendants and interveners from conducting any mining activities until they obtain an approved Plan of Operations from the U.S.F.S. The Barton’s & Waldo Mining District claimed that their rights under the 1872 Mining Law were being infringed upon. Suction dredging is a method of placer mining, which uses mechanical means to capture naturally occurring gold found moving through the stream system. As of 2001 there were approximately 580 placer mining claims in the Siskiyou National Forest! Significant Disturbance vs. Disturbance was again addressed. It was determined that Suction Dredging did not create “Significant Disturbance” in the Riparian areas! Jerry Hobbs, President of PLP, submitted considerable material to the Court and his request was granted for the remedial phase of this litigation. The Court used many of his arguments to sustain their final ruling that this case be dismissed. The Court granted three of Hobbs’s counter claims and five of his affirmative defenses. Magistrate Judge John P. Cooney recommended the following: It is recommended that Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment be denied, defendant’s motion for summary judgment be granted, the Barton’s & Waldo Mining District’s motion to strike be denied as moot and a judgment be entered “dismissing this case”! U.S. District Judge Michael R. Hogan then upheld what magistrate Judge Cooney found in this CASE.
THE COURT ON 3/29/06 DISMISSED THE CASE
All of the participants in this case did an admirable job and we are especially grateful to PLP’s attorney, David Young, & PLP’s Jerry Hobbs for doing their homework and presenting their findings in such a manner as to convince both judges that Waldo Mining, the Barton’s and Jerry Hobbs were right and that the environmentalists from SREP were wrong!
For all of you that have read through these accounts, it is most important to remind you that we are now facing another major challenge on Suction Dredging (Karuk vs. Ca. DFG) which will be even more damaging if those that want to get rid of the Prospectors and Small Miners prevail. Jerry Hobbs, President of PLP, & the new 49ers have intervened in this case. Jerry Hobbs has also filed a separate law suit challenging the California Department of Fish & Game for violations of the California Environmental Quality Act and California Administrative Procedures Act in promulgating their new settled regulations.
We are asking each one of you to immediately sit down and write a check to PLP’s Legal Research Fund, which will allow us to continue paying our legal council for his on going work & support in your behalf.
PLP-LEGAL RESEARCH FUND 3700 SANTA CARLOTTA ST. LA CRESCENTA, CA. 91214-1048
Copyright
© 2002 All Rights Reserved |
