From My files:
As miners we often hear the following:
"As a reminder, in order to work your mining claim, you will need to submit a NOI (notice of intent) and have an approved Plan of Operation (POO). Please work with our office to get an authorized Plan of Operations for your mining activities at your earliest convenience. Until you have an approved plan, any mining activities, associated equipment or occupancy of National Forest System lands is prohibited...... Or "BLM"
----------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------
Regardless of the local stay limit, an operator is not required to submit a notice of intent to conduct operations unless the locatable mineral prospecting, exploration or mining, and processing, and the reasonably incidental camping, might cause significant disturbance of NFS surface resources.
Moreover, as discussed above, an approved plan of operations is not required for locatable mineral prospecting, exploration or mining, and processing, and the reasonably incidental camping, unless those operations are likely to cause a significant disturbance of surface resources.
An operator, consequently, is not required to notify the Forest Service prior to conducting locatable mineral operations which involve occupancy of NFS lands providing that those operations meet two conditions: (1) The occupancy is reasonably incidental to locatable mineral prospecting, exploration, mining, or processing and (2) those proposed (or ongoing) operations, including such reasonably incidental occupancy, cumulatively will not cause (or are not causing) significant disturbance of NFS surface resources.
To the extent that respondents fear the Forest Service might cite an operator who is camping on NFS for the operator's failure to submit a notice of intent to operate when one is required, those fears are groundless. None of the prohibitions set forth in 36 CFR part 261, subpart A, including those adopted by this final rule, prohibit an action requiring a notice of intent to operate. Rather, the prohibitions applicable to occupancy of lands in conjunction with locatable mineral operations that require prior notice or approval apply when an operator acts ''without *** an operating plan when such authorization is required.'' For purposes of 36 CFR part 228, subpart A, Sec. 261.2 defines the term ''operating plan'' to mean a plan of operations that has been approved. There is no prohibition applicable to acting without a notice of intent to operate when it is required by 36 CFR part 228, subpart A.
----------------------------------------- ------------------------------------
So that is what is meant by "occupation" in the new (2008) regs. The Forest Service are stuck with it now, you can hold them to those definitions in a court of law. The courts can not allow "deference" to any other definition of what those regs mean.
Also by publishing those definitions in the Federal Register all Forest Service personnel are now put on actual and constructive notice of what those regs mean. No excuses.
Now do you can understand how important it is that you have written proof that the district rangers intend to enforce those regulations without regard to their actual meaning? Color of law. Intimidation and harassment.
Recently a miner submitted a NOI to the USFS and after 21 days the miner never received a response from the USFS to their NOI. After 21 days the agency would have had to respond. I'll post more info regarding this shortly.
================================================== =============
So the question about an NOI involves starting the process of entering into a contract with an agency. And a POO (and bond) involves a contract with an administrative agency. When you have that contract (Plan of Operations): That POO and the agency's regulations should be all you need to understand your obligations under the contract you signed. If you and that agency disagree with the meaning of your contract an administrative hearing will clear those disagreements up.
Lets only deal with mining law and let miners and the administrative agency they contract with sort out any such agreement. I know many now have thus attempted to contract with the U.S. Forest Service. Their regulations are similar to BLM but not the same. The BLM regulations are found at 43 CFR and the Parks, Forests and Public Property regulations are found at 36 CFR.
To give miners a start I will just leave this here:
36 CFR
228.13(d) When reclamation has been completed in accordance with §228.8(g), the authorized officer will notify the operator that performance under the bond has been completed: Provided, however, That when the Forest Service has accepted as completed any portion of the reclamation, the authorized officer shall notify the operator of such acceptance and reduce proportionally the amount of bond thereafter to be required with respect to the remaining reclamation.
You may wonder if your contract (POO) is terminated when you sell, lease or transfer your claim.
§ 3809.593 What happens to my financial
guarantee if I transfer my operations?
You remain responsible for obligations or conditions created while you conducted operations unless a transferee accepts responsibility under §3809.116, and BLM accepts an adequate replacement financial guarantee. Therefore, your financial guarantee must remain in effect until BLM determines that you are no longer responsible for all or part of the operation. BLM can release your financial guarantee on an incremental basis. The new operator must provide a financial guarantee before BLM will allow the new operator to conduct operations.
§ 3809.116 As a mining claimant or operator, what are my responsibilities under this subpart for my project area?
(a) Mining claimants and operators (if other than the mining claimant) are liable for obligations under this subpart that accrue while they hold their interests.
(b) Relinquishment, forfeiture, or abandonment of a mining claim does not relieve a mining claimant's or operator's responsibility under this subpart for obligations that accrued or conditions that were created while the mining claimant or operator was responsible for operations conducted on that mining claim or in the project area.
(c) Transfer of a mining claim or operation does not relieve a mining claimant's or operator's responsibility under this subpart for obligations that accrued or conditions that were created while the mining claimant or operator was responsible for operations conducted on that mining claim or in the project area until—
(1) BLM receives documentation that a transferee accepts responsibility for the transferor's previously accrued obligations, and
(2) BLM accepts an adequate replacement financial guarantee adequate to cover such previously accrued obligations and the transferee's new obligations.
Only the entity or his lessees are a subject of the POO contract. Subsequent mineral estate grantees are not bound by that contract. They are not obligated by previous POO or NOI contracts to make a NOI or POO themselves no matter what a prior claimant or grantee did. The POO quite clearly encompasses much more than reclamation, only the bond or financial guarantee relates to the reclamation portion of the POO.
There is no difference in the law between what you call a land claim or a dredge claim. You are still mining minerals whether they are covered by water, dirt or poo.
All of this relates to administrative contracts. There is no obligation to file a NOI under the law if the grantee does not believe his planned mining will create a significant surface degradation on the adjacent public lands. And should a miner submit a NOI the agency must respond within 21 days or the NOI is simply non-existent. (the CFR and USC language supporting this can be posted later).
Until a grantee makes a contract with a surface administration agency the CFR is just a rule book for administrative employees. Once an NOI or POO is submitted the whole text of the relevant CFRs becomes a part of that contract by reference. It then becomes the sole obligation of the miner to refute, administratively; any portion of those regulations he/she feels should not apply to his contract. Good luck with that futile effort - you may as well quote Lincoln to the "Judge" (administrative hearing officer)....IMHO
As long as you stay under 5 acres of disturbance, you can file a SMES (small miner's exclusion statement). If you go over 5 acres, you have to file an EIS (environmental impact statement). You don't want to get involved with as EIS, because it could take years, and thousands of $ to get approved. And yes access roads are included in the 5 acres.
Consider that the courts have ruled that each circumstance is different. They have ruled that significant surface disturbance may be reached by:
Any portion of a steep slope in a particular portion of an old growth forest.
5 acres or more in a particular portion of a pinion/juniper forest.
Unlimited amounts of a particular desert scrubland.
And many more particular to the location and circumstances.
Please note that underground tunnels and workings are exempt from consideration because they are not on the surface, however the tailing piles and ponds are of particular interest because they are, by nature, surface events.
I think where a lot of the confusion about this issue comes from two false assumptions:
1. That the CFR is law and controls mining under the mineral grant.
2. That the term "significant surface disturbance" applies to the actual mining on the surface of your mineral grant.
Neither of these assumptions apply to the mineral grant. They may be applicable to leased, sold or non-locatable minerals.
I tend to think that the CFR intentionally mixed these different types of rights, privileges and licenses into one big mass so as to fool miners under the grant and enrich the lawyer friends of the lawyers who wrote the CFR. No matter what I think of the intent that has certainly been the effect of the CFR.
If you study the actual mining laws and put the CFR and the USC out of your perception for now you will gain a much clearer and simple view of the rights and responsibilities associated with the mineral grant. Gaining a clear understanding of the very real difference between Public Lands subject to claim of right under the mineral grant and Public Domain that has been claimed under that grant will complete the picture.
As I have stated, I have no interest in the administration of the NOI and POO contracts some miners exchange for their grant. I leave that for those foolish enough to argue their contractual agreements after they have committed their word and bond to an ever changing Code of Federal Regulations. If you have entered one of these contracts you are bound by law and your bond to bow to that agencies wishes and interpretations. You can hold their feet to the fire over procedural missteps but you can not rely on the mineral grant to provide any guidance or rights within the administrative sphere you have contracted into. The potential penalties possible when in the administrative contract are truly unlimited. The bond can only be applied to reclamation as per your agreement, and can be raised, refused or the conditions modified at the will of your counter party (BLM or Forest Service). Any other infractions of your contract, whether willful, inadvertent or perceived can and will lead to monetary fines. It is virtually impossible to meet the conditions of your NOI or POO contract when regulation is a moving target changed at the moments notice by the current local unit administrator's opinion on the meaning of any particular regulation. IMHO
The Constitution guarantees us the right to make contract. It does not guarantee us the wisdom to refuse contracts that are against our own interest. Each NOI or POO is a privately negotiated contract. I know of no way to make an open ended contract fair to either party, yet we still have the right to make such a contract. Perhaps some men are capable of making an agreement, that is in their favor, to give up their mineral estate grant in exchange for administrative oversight. I have yet to witness that but I do know that large mining companies do so to their advantage so I must admit there is a possibility of an individual man doing so.
My point is that under the mineral estate grant all non relative comments ring false. There has been no diminution of that grant. The mental mixing of administrative regulations and our organic right to claim, work and patent valuable mineral lands open to entry is just that - mental mixing. There is no valid intersection between the two despite the efforts of some of our government servants to convince us so. The case of Tracy is one of many proving that to be a fact.
So it would be wise to consider that miners should choose to enjoy their mineral estate grant. If you were to be so bold as to damage the Public Lands (or private lands) beyond your mineral claim you will almost certainly be charged with a tort for that damage. By all right and law you would be liable for that damage. There is no need or sense in attempting to follow regulations that do not apply to the mineral grant on some misguided idea that the government has made an incursion on your mineral rights. There is no such law.
Those knowledgeable should advise against blindly signing any form of agreement, without first understanding what door might be opened, that may very well later haunt you.
Personally I would never offer or suggest that I am favor of giving away, or allowing any right to be taken away from any miner, nor have I been a supporter of filing any paperwork that is not needed or required.
This may be true of the administrative contract involved in leased, sold or non-locatable minerals. There has been no abridgment of the mineral estate grant unless you consider the mining of hydrocarbons and building stone to be an integral part of the organic grant.
In closing, I will continue to point out to those that ask, to learn the mining laws, obey them, know what documents you are required to sign, know the ramifications of doing so and be good stewards of the land.
And by all means.. enjoy your claim and efforts.
==============================================
In support of the miner to occupy and perform the task of mining:
The U.S. Court of Appeal for the Ninth District has upheld in its entirety the 1872 Mining Laws. In the case of USA vs. Shumway, opinion filed 12/28/1999, regarding mining claims and mill site claims, Judge Kleinfeld has ruled that the mining law is still in effect.
He states in section 14938 "...the Forest Service may regulate use of National Forest lands by holders of unpatented mining claims... but only to the extent that the regulations are 'reasonable' and do not impermissibly encroach on legitimate use incident to mining and mill site claims. Congress has refused to repeal the Mining Law of 1872. ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES LACK AUTHORITY EFFECTIVELY TO REPEAL THE STATUTE BY REGULATIONS."
Other highlights of this ruling state: Sec 14923: "Despite much contemporary hostility to the Mining Law of 1872 and high level political pressure by influential individuals and organizations for its repeal, all repeal efforts have failed, and it remains the law."
"The locators of all mining locations...so long as they comply with the laws...shall have the EXCLUSIVE right of possession and enjoyment of ALL surface located within the lines of their location..."
Sec 14925: "In law, the word 'claim' in connection with the phrase "mining claim" represents a federally recognized right in real property. The Supreme Court has established that a mining 'claim' is not a claim in the ordinary sense of the word, but rather is a property interest, which is itself real property in every sense..." "The court held that the unpatented 'title of a locator' is "property in the fullest sense of the word."
Sec 14927: "When the location of a mining claim is perfected under the law, it has the effect of a grant by the United States of the right of PRESENT AND EXCLUSIVE POSSESSION. The claim is property in the fullest sense of the term."
In ruling on the 1955 Multiple Use Act:
Sec 14927 and 14928: "Mining claims located after the effective date of the 1955 Act are subject...to a right of the United States to manage surface resources for the government and whomever it permits to do so to use the surface, SO LONG AS THEY DO NOT ENDANGER OR MATERIALLY INTERFERE WITH PROSPECTING, MINING, OR PROCESSING."
Sec 14936: "The Multiple Use Act empowers the Forest Service to regulate NON-MINING activity upon mining claims, so long as the non-mining activity DOES NOT INTERFERE WITH MINING ACTIVITIES..."
Sec 14928 and 14929: "...an unpatented mining claim remains a fully recognized possessory interest and that FEDERAL MINING CLAIMS ARE PRIVATE PROPERTY WHICH ENJOY THE FULL PROTECTION OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT."
Sec 14931: The owner of a mining claim owns property, and IS NOT A MERE SOCIAL GUEST OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR..."
To reiterate:
Sec 14938 and 14939: "...the Forest Service may regulate use of National Forest Lands by holders of unpatented mining claims, BUT ONLY TO THE EXTENT THAT THE REGULATIONS ARE "REASONABLE" AND DO NOT IMPERMISSIBLY ENCROACH ON LEGITIMATE USES INCIDENT TO MINING AND MILL SITE CLAIMS. CONGRESS HAS REFUSED TO REPEAL THE MINING LAW OF 1872. ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES LACK AUTHORITY EFFECTIVELY TO REPEAL THE STATUTE BY REGULATIONS."
-================================================== ======
Hicks vs United States
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.
----------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------- ---------------------- ------------------------------------------
So when the USFS advises a miner that they can not occupy their claim or perform the act of mining without FIRST submitting an NOI a miner might want to remind them of such rulings!
================================================== ============
Bejay
