November 2016 by Scott HarnWithin these districts, some of the roads and trails have been reopened for access, critical habitat designations have been scaled back, and a few Mining Districts were completely removed from proposed withdrawals.
Landowners complained that mineral mining on or near their property could damage property values while leaving them without a cut of potential profits.
Hennis claims that months later and without his permission, the EPA built a $2.3 million water treatment facility on the property and the agency continues treating water and storing waste there.
You have made your presence known with the BLM or Forest Service, placed Mining District signs along the entrance points to your district, and found support with other local miners. But how do you gain popular support?
• Oregon proposed withdrawal
• Comment period extended for frog habitat
• Tennessee permits for gold prospecting
• California dredging injunction and restraining order hearing
• EPA rule blocked
The Bawl Mill • Our Readers Say • Legislative and Regulatory Update • Detecting: Small Creek Yields Good Gold • Ask The Experts: Is this BLM demand legitimate? • The Challenge of Winter Dredging • What Have You Got to Lose? • How to Upgrade Your Pocket Plunger • Glaciers and Placer Gold Deposits • What's In A Name? • Oregon Miners Still Fighting • Greenhorn Finds Gold in Colorado • Mining Stock Quotes and Mineral & Metal Prices • Melman on Gold & Silver