Boulder County CO Dredging on my Un-patented Mining Claim. Legal?

[cafficgold]

Hi,

Looking for some advice if possible. I found out from the local news that the Boulder County Sheriff is shutting down access to Boulder Creek for flood repair that includes dredging the bottom of the river. I have approximately 25 acres of claimed river in the exact area that the county plans to dredge. My claims are on BLM land managed by the forest service and NOT part of Boulder County. Is the county allowed to close my access and dredge my claim? Doesn't seem right. I went to the BLM office in Golden CO and spoke with them. They said call the Ranger Office in Boulder. The Ranger Office said call the Boulder Sheriff and I am waiting to get a call back from them.

Looking for some advice and insight into the legality. Maybe I can get the dredge tailings

Thank you!

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Upgraded Night Vision Monocular Digital Infrared Monocular Telescope for 100% Darkness with 8X Zoom - Grab it through Amazon!

[Hefty1]

Do you have alot of road access on your claims?

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Minelab PRO-FIND 35 Waterproof Pinpointer Metal Detector for Experts with Tone ID & Adjustable Sensitivity - Grab it through Amazon!

[cafficgold]

Hi Hefty1 - As for equipment and or any plan of operation, I have neither at this point. I have been busy prospecting the area when the ice and snow allowed. I had planned to file a POO once the snow and ice melted. It's my first claim and have been excited to start some small mining. But now, I'm not sure what will happen. Am I screwed without a approved poo? Thank you!

 

[cafficgold]

Do you have alot of road access on your claims?

Yes the main road is a county owned highway, but is excluded from my claim.

 

[Hefty1]

Do not get a POO...that is a contract with blm and you lose all your rights to prospecting your claim.
I will contact you wed.

 

[cafficgold]

Do not get a POO...that is a contract with blm and you lose all your rights to prospecting your claim.
I will contact you wed.

Thank you Hefty1! Such great folks on this forum!

 

[Bonaro]

Actually if you want to split hairs...they are not guilty of mineral trespass unless they remove the minerals from the claim boundary. If they dredge and pile it on the banks (still inside your claim) I think they have not violated mining law...technically....kinda...I think

 

[KevinInColorado]

My wife who has worked in local government says you should constructively and professionally notify the County Attorney office of your federal claim within the proposed dredging area. They will likely understand immediately! Also reach out to your county commissioner to get them to intervene.

Be nice but clear about your need for them to step in to
- protect your property rights
- keep the county out of trouble (!!)

 

[cafficgold]

Actually if you want to split hairs...they are not guilty of mineral trespass unless they remove the minerals from the claim boundary. If they dredge and pile it on the banks (still inside your claim) I think they have not violated mining law...technically....kinda...I think

That's true and it could come down to splitting hairs. Thank you.

 

[cafficgold]

My wife who has worked in local government says you should constructively and professionally notify the County Attorney office of your federal claim within the proposed dredging area. They will likely understand immediately! Also reach out to your county commissioner to get them to intervene.

Be nice but clear about your need for them to step in to
- protect your property rights
- keep the county out of trouble (!!)

Hi KevinInColorado - Thank you for the reply. I spoke with a clerk at the county attorney office who took a message and then pointed me in the direction of the commissioner. I left messages with each and have not heard back yet. I realize the importance of being professional and nice, it can go a long way. Very frustrating though. I'll hit the phones again in the morning and hopefully get some resolution.

 

[Campngolf]

- keep the county out of trouble (!!)

This would be a key point to make them aware of. Sometimes action happens faster when there is the possibility of "issues" that may get the county/city/govt involved in the court system. Point out to them that there might be another claim owner who is not as understanding as you and he/she may decide to go straight to the legal route.

You'd be putting the shoe on the other foot....We've all heard "them" say "I'm the govt and I'm here to help". Now go help them cafficgold.

good luck.

 

[huntsman53]

You're more than welcome man! That sheriff needs to remember that she is a public servant. It's kind of a shame that you couldn't tape the phone call. Playing it back come election time might get people thinking that she really needs to be replaced with someone that is going to look out for the interests of everyone. If nothing else maybe the county could take up a collection to send to to a class on how to develop "People skills".

This is the kind of case that is important to all of us that mine. Local government that doesn't care what federal laws say about a persons rights has to be put in their place. By taking the actions that they are they are leaving themselves open to a major law suite which will cost everyone in the county in the end. I can think of at least a half a dozen laws they are breaking by not following proper legal protocol. Blocking access and removing minerals from a claim (provided they truck them off somewhere) alone are both major screw-ups on their part. Any Judge worth the title would find in your favor.

Another thought that came to mind... Does the county have all the permits needed already? EPA, Army Corp of Engineers etc? If that creek can hold a boat on it they will need the blessings of the Corp of Engineers. There was a case in New Mexico that comes to mind..... I'll have to remember/find the details again.

Also, I will point out that if there are native fish in the creek, then I believe that they have to have permits from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Colorado Parks & Wildlife Agency before they can do any dredging or overburden removal within the creek's boundaries (i.e. high water line to high water line).

I am not as knowledgeable as others on TNnet about claims but do know that they cannot interfere with a legal mining operation on Federally administered Lands and they cannot remove any minerals as you own the Mineral Rights on the land because of your' Claim. See the information copied and pasted from the link that I also provided below.

They, the Sheriff's Office, the County and probably the City as well are on a path to break several Federal Laws which can and will open them up to serious Fines, Federal Court judgements and Law suits both Federal and from Miners and maybe some others as well.


Frank

http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/media...N_/energy.Par.28664.File.dat/MiningClaims.pdf

Mining Claims and Sites
A person who is a citizen of the United States or has declared an intention to become a citizen with the Immigration and Naturalization Service may locate and hold a mining claim or site. A corporation organized under State law is considered a citizen and may locate and hold a mining claim or site. A corporation is held to the same standards as a citizen. Non-citizens are not permitted to own or have an interest in mining claims or sites. There is no limit to the number of claims and sites that you may hold as a qualified claimant, as long as the requirements of the General Mining Law have been met.

A mining claim is a selected parcel of Federal land, valuable for a specific mineral deposit or deposits, for which you have asserted a right of possession under the General Mining Law. Your right is restricted to the development and extraction of a mineral deposit. The rights granted by a mining claim protect against a challenge by the United States and other claimants only after the discovery of a valuable mineral deposit. The two types of mining claims are lode and placer. In addition, mill sites and tunnel sites may be located to provide support facilities for lode and placer mining claims (43 CFR Part 3832).

 

[Clay Diggins]

Although an injunction comes to mind the short notice period may well have been anticipated in a State with such a long and important mining history.

I'll just leave this HERE:

TITLE 34. MINERAL RESOURCES
MINES AND MINERALS
ARTICLE 45. OFFENSES
C.R.S. 34-45-101 (2013)
34-45-101. Damages for taking ore



In trials for the recovery of the value of ore or minerals wrongfully mined and extracted, if plaintiff shows himself entitled to recover, and if he had the rightful possession of the ground from which the ore was taken at the time the action was brought or tried, the fact that defendant may have been in possession, either actual or constructive, when the case was tried shall not deprive plaintiff from recovering damages for the value of the ore or mineral mined and extracted according to the rules of law pertaining to the trials of actions of that character. But for the purpose of the action, plaintiff shall be deemed and held to be in possession of all the ground, drifts, stopes, openings, and premises from which the ore was taken, although he may not be able to reach such ground from his own openings and workings. The rule of law that plaintiff can recover nominal damages for the first entry, and then wait until he obtains actual possession of the ground from which the ore was taken, and then bring another action for the value of the ore or mineral so mined and taken, shall not be observed nor applied to defeat, in the first action, the recovery of the value of the ore or mineral so wrongfully mined and taken.

C.R.S. 34-45-101

 

[Gold Rover]

I know some one who was involved with the clean up in that area. He was working on Left Hand Creek. The job is federally run, so that gives you an idea of who you are dealing with. The money being wasted on the clean up is astounding!! The removal of debris is secondary to making money, as the contractors get paid by the weight of the load coming out of the flooded areas, so the the contractors are padding the weight with dirt and rocks because the downed trees don't pay as well. So, don't be surprised if your dirt doesn't ease on down the road. He did say that there was a guy on Left Hand who was high banking and Boulder County tried to shut him down, but couldn't. I don't know the whole story on that one.

 

[Bejay]

Your post raised 2 questions. Regarding access:

From Colorado Central Magazine: http://cozine.com/2001-march/rs-2477-old-roads-and-new-controversies/

Read the above article and you will find info such as:

"In Colorado, a valid RS-2477 claim has to cover the exact route, according to Rikki Santarelli, who’s been around this block a few times. He’s currently the Chaffee County attorney, and he has served as a county commissioner and as the county attorney in Gunnison County"

OR

"Her research naturally put her in contact with federal land personnel, among them John Lancelot, Colorado realty access specialist with the BLM.

Lancelot has worked with counties all over the state, and notes that there are some common problems. Many county roads exist by “prescriptive use,” and have never been formally surveyed. Nor did the Post Office issue many formal descriptions when it established “post roads” for carrying mail between settlements. Nobody seems to be sure whether a “stock driveway” is a public highway. And counties do vacate roads, which means a lot of searching in the records to be sure a possible RS-2477 claim was not vacated at some point in the past century or so.

“But if we can find the documentation, we’ll help support an RS-2477 claim,” Lancelot said."



RS 2477 Roads & Rights-of-Way (Summary) - ICMJ's Prospecting and Mining Journal

Also this may be of assistance:

United States Court of Appeals,Ninth Circuit.
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Steve A. HICKS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 01-30146.
D.C. No. CR-00-00001-DWM.

Argued and Submitted Nov. 5, 2002.
Decided Nov. 14, 2002.

Corporate employee was convicted in the United States District Court for the District of Montana, Donald W. Molloy, Chief Judge, of operating motorcycle in area of National Forest closed to motor vehicles by Forest Service closure order, and he appealed. The Court of Appeals held that employee of corporation that owned subsurface mineral rights in national forest was not subject to Forest Service closure order that exempted landowners.

Reversed and remanded.


In this case it seems the motorcyclist was let off because the Forest Service's own law (rule or whatever) was written to exempt the landowner. The motorcyclist's innocence had little to do with the mining grant other than the motorcyclist was an employee of the company and considered a part of it as a landowner (claim owner).



The Forest Service has no power to write laws. They are however bound by the law. Steve Hicks did not win this case because the Forest Service Regulations left a loophole, he won the case because the Forest Service had no right to prevent his ingress and egress to the private property (mining claim). The Forest Service has no right to make a regulation, ruling or order that violates private property rights. The Forest Service violated the law and violated Steve Hicks right to the peaceable enjoyment of his private property right. Specifically this law among others:


CHAPTER 2 SUBCHAPTER I Section 478" style="vertical-align: text-bottom;" alt="Originally posted by U.S.C. TITLE 16 CHAPTER 2 SUBCHAPTER I Section 478" src="forum_images/quote_box.png" U.S.C. TITLE 16 > CHAPTER 2 > SUBCHAPTER I > Section 478 wrote:



Section 478. Egress or ingress of actual settlers; prospecting

Nothing in sections 473 to 478, 479 to 482 and 551 of this title shall be construed as prohibiting the egress or ingress of actual settlers residing within the boundaries of national forests, or from crossing the same to and from their property or homes; and such wagon roads and other improvements may be constructed thereon as may be necessary to reach their homes and to utilize their property under such rules and regulations as may be prescribed by the Secretary of Agriculture. Nor shall anything in such sections prohibit any person from entering upon such national forests for all proper and lawful purposes, including that of prospecting, locating, and developing the mineral resources thereof. Such persons must comply with the rules and regulations covering such national forests.


Bejay

 

[Hoser John]

It's called PROMULGATION AND RECLAIMATION and perfectly legal after all the devastation. Just relax as your getting many $100,000s of free labor. Give'm too much garbage and your life there will be LL forevermore as then branded as a pain and you WILL regret it always. Blah blah rights blah blah wrongs,such bs as they are well within the law. They just went through this exact same scenario a few years back here in Redding-ALL MINING NOW BANNED 100% WAS THEIR ANSWER TO THE PROBLEM. Too cold now anyhow so take a chill pill as you will definately pay through the wallet ifn' ya don't. JohnJohn

 

[Hefty1]

Cafficgold....sent ya a pm.

 

[cafficgold]

Hi huntsman53 - Thank you for the link and excerpts, I am learning as I go here and appreciate all the help!

 

[cafficgold]

It's called PROMULGATION AND RECLAIMATION and perfectly legal after all the devastation. Just relax as your getting many $100,000s of free labor. Give'm too much garbage and your life there will be LL forevermore as then branded as a pain and you WILL regret it always. Blah blah rights blah blah wrongs,such bs as they are well within the law. They just went through this exact same scenario a few years back here in Redding-ALL MINING NOW BANNED 100% WAS THEIR ANSWER TO THE PROBLEM. Too cold now anyhow so take a chill pill as you will definately pay through the wallet ifn' ya don't. JohnJohn

Hi John - Thanks for the reply. I don't want to cause an uproar and be branded as a pain. After talking with Hefty1, I'm thinking I will keep an eye on things (take pictures) and see if they remove the overburden from my claim. If that happens, I'll press forward legally. Hefty1 PM'd me a nice sign to post all over the claim so that it is very clear it's an active claim. I am going to get out of work early and head up to my claim just to see what is going on. I'll post pictures of what is going on up there. Thanks again!

 

[Hefty1]

http://www.treasurenet.com/forums/gold-prospecting/411080-those-you-who-just-don-t-get.html

Lots of good info...

Great talking to you this morning...keep us posted.

 

[cafficgold]

Your post raised 2 questions. Regarding access:

From Colorado Central Magazine: RS-2477: Old roads and new controversies | Colorado Central Magazine | Colorado news, stories, essays, history and more!

Read the above article and you will find info such as:

"In Colorado, a valid RS-2477 claim has to cover the exact route, according to Rikki Santarelli, who’s been around this block a few times. He’s currently the Chaffee County attorney, and he has served as a county commissioner and as the county attorney in Gunnison County"

OR

"Her research naturally put her in contact with federal land personnel, among them John Lancelot, Colorado realty access specialist with the BLM.

Lancelot has worked with counties all over the state, and notes that there are some common problems. Many county roads exist by “prescriptive use,” and have never been formally surveyed. Nor did the Post Office issue many formal descriptions when it established “post roads” for carrying mail between settlements. Nobody seems to be sure whether a “stock driveway” is a public highway. And counties do vacate roads, which means a lot of searching in the records to be sure a possible RS-2477 claim was not vacated at some point in the past century or so.

“But if we can find the documentation, we’ll help support an RS-2477 claim,” Lancelot said."



RS 2477 Roads & Rights-of-Way (Summary) - ICMJ's Prospecting and Mining Journal

Also this may be of assistance:

United States Court of Appeals,Ninth Circuit.
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Steve A. HICKS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 01-30146.
D.C. No. CR-00-00001-DWM.

Argued and Submitted Nov. 5, 2002.
Decided Nov. 14, 2002.

Corporate employee was convicted in the United States District Court for the District of Montana, Donald W. Molloy, Chief Judge, of operating motorcycle in area of National Forest closed to motor vehicles by Forest Service closure order, and he appealed. The Court of Appeals held that employee of corporation that owned subsurface mineral rights in national forest was not subject to Forest Service closure order that exempted landowners.

Reversed and remanded.


In this case it seems the motorcyclist was let off because the Forest Service's own law (rule or whatever) was written to exempt the landowner. The motorcyclist's innocence had little to do with the mining grant other than the motorcyclist was an employee of the company and considered a part of it as a landowner (claim owner).



The Forest Service has no power to write laws. They are however bound by the law. Steve Hicks did not win this case because the Forest Service Regulations left a loophole, he won the case because the Forest Service had no right to prevent his ingress and egress to the private property (mining claim). The Forest Service has no right to make a regulation, ruling or order that violates private property rights. The Forest Service violated the law and violated Steve Hicks right to the peaceable enjoyment of his private property right. Specifically this law among others:


CHAPTER 2 SUBCHAPTER I Section 478" style="vertical-align: text-bottom;" alt="Originally posted by U.S.C. TITLE 16 CHAPTER 2 SUBCHAPTER I Section 478" src="forum_images/quote_box.png" U.S.C. TITLE 16 > CHAPTER 2 > SUBCHAPTER I > Section 478 wrote:



Section 478. Egress or ingress of actual settlers; prospecting

Nothing in sections 473 to 478, 479 to 482 and 551 of this title shall be construed as prohibiting the egress or ingress of actual settlers residing within the boundaries of national forests, or from crossing the same to and from their property or homes; and such wagon roads and other improvements may be constructed thereon as may be necessary to reach their homes and to utilize their property under such rules and regulations as may be prescribed by the Secretary of Agriculture. Nor shall anything in such sections prohibit any person from entering upon such national forests for all proper and lawful purposes, including that of prospecting, locating, and developing the mineral resources thereof. Such persons must comply with the rules and regulations covering such national forests.


Bejay

Thanks Bejay for the info. I am getting a cram course in mining law. Great to learn and being an informed miner and citizen is our best defense!