NOI and POO

[Bonaro]

Wanting to do some work on a claim in Idaho. There are small existing retaining ponds and water can be recirculated far away from the creek. I have read the archives and there is MUCH info there to digest.

In a nutshell...a NOI is needed when you want to perform operation that MAY have a "Significant Surface Dsitrubance". A POO is requested by the ranger and also requires him to do a formal EIS....right?

Example: if we wanted to move the boulders on a bench about 20' x 20' in size to get to the pay layer below. then toss the boulders back when done...is this significant?

What I need to get a handle on is the actual definition of "Significant Surface Disturbance" as this seems to be the trigger point of needing either NOI or POO.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Treasure of Victoria Peak - Grab it through Amazon!

[Bonaro]

Ok, so one thing I cant understand is... If the CFR's, BLM and FS stick by the premise that I must use hand tools and battery operated toys only, how is it that here in Washington the WDFW will allow (permit) me to drop my 5" dredge in many of the rivers and there is never any mention of a NOI or POO? Do State regs trump the CFR?

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Family Maps of Hinds County, Mississippi, Deluxe Edition - Grab it through Amazon!

[winners58]

casual use is anything under heavy equipment, should be able to use farm type equipment, tractor, winch, small trommel/highbanker
as long as its under 1/2 acre for the state surface mining reg's https://www.idl.idaho.gov/mining/regulation/
It's a mining claim, mine it! probably would have been notified if it was a ACEC But you say BLM says its a sensitive site?
place to find that information is in the forest/ land use plan for that area, they sent me a letter on one of my claims
that I could only use a 4" nozzle, found what they were referencing was the 1994 northwest forest plan,
in that reference they also acknowledge regulations change over time, they were going by state regulations of that year...

 

[Hefty1]

Ok, so one thing I cant understand is... If the CFR's, BLM and FS stick by the premise that I must use hand tools and battery operated toys only, how is it that here in Washington the WDFW will allow (permit) me to drop my 5" dredge in many of the rivers and there is never any mention of a NOI or POO? Do State regs trump the CFR?

What CFRs are you referring to?

 

[Bejay]

Very good question Hefty1....as a USFS Forest Plan is simply an agency plan attempting to deal with FLPMA and other Acts and Laws. By no means are the Forest Plans Law. But often miners fail to understand the difference. But understanding the individual USFS Plans allows miners to see where the District Ranger and staff are coming from....IMHO.

Very Good question Hefty1. Be interesting to see where the question takes the discussion (I kinda know but will observe)

Bejay

 

[Bonaro]

Very good question Hefty1....as a USFS Forest Plan is simply an agency plan attempting to deal with FLPMA and other Acts and Laws. By no means are the Forest Plans Law. But often miners fail to understand the difference. But understanding the individual USFS Plans allows miners to see where the District Ranger and staff are coming from....IMHO.

Very Good question Hefty1. Be interesting to see where the question takes the discussion (I kinda know but will observe)

Bejay

There are two CFR's. The first is a FS rule. 36 CFR 228 subpart A This talks about using battery operated pumps and hand tools...but we are dealing with the BLM who assert that the FS is in the backseat.
So therefore it would revert to BLM 43 CFR 3833.5 (1) Casual use...battery operated toys...

Whoever wrote this junk needs to be kicked in the jimmies...because this miner definitely fails to understand.

 

[Bejay]

==============================================================
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 let us 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.


It should be noted I find no reason to have an 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.

The 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 in favor of giving away, or allowing any right to be taken away from any miner, nor would I personally support the filing of 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.

==============================================
----------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------- ---------------------- ------------------------------------------
==============================================================
Title 36: Parks, Forests, and Public Property
PART 228-MINERALS
Subpart A-Locatable Minerals

§ 228.4 Plan of operations-notice of intent-requirements.

(vii) Operations for which a proposed plan of operations is submitted for approval;

(2) The District Ranger will, within 15 days of receipt of a notice of intent to operate, notify the operator if approval of a plan of operations is required before the operations may begin.
____________________________________

Notice that the District Ranger is only required to:

"notify the operator IF approval of a plan of operations is required" That IF means the District Ranger IS NOT required to "notify the operator" IF no plan of operations is required.

If the person submitting the NOI doesn't hear from the District Ranger within 15 days (+ a reasonable time for mail) it is safe to assume that the District Ranger has determined that the proposed mining will NOT constitute a "significant surface disturbance".
================================================================
But consider if the district ranger, who decides whether or not what you are doing is considered a significant disturbance in "HIS/HER" eyes and he/she shuts you down because he/she doesn't want you doing anything on the so called PRECIOUS FEDERAL LAND.I think this is what most people think, including some of the Rangers. But that's not the way it works.

The regulation at CFR 228.4 says:
If the District Ranger determines
that any operation is causing or will
likely cause significant disturbance of
surface resources, the District Ranger
shall notify the operator that the oper-
ator must submit a proposed plan of
operations for approval and that the
operations can not be conducted until a
plan of operations is approved. I've put the important part in bold. The District Ranger must make a determination. That determination must be made after a study of the existing conditions on the ground and must contain expert opinions as well as a full EIS. Since the 9th Circuit decided that a determination must include consultation with other interested agencies and consideration of the ESA the whole thing becomes a big expensive production for the District Ranger.

The upshot of this is that the District Ranger can't just act on his own opinion. He has to go through the whole process of making a "determination". Instead what they usually do is charge the miner with not having a "special use permit" under CFR 261 and order his operation shut down. This is an attempt an an end run around the law. Miners are not subject to permits and the courts have consistently ruled that special use permits do not apply to mining.

The District Ranger is counting on the miner not knowing that special use permits have nothing to do with mining. An informed miner will challenge the improper use of regulations to interfere with his mining and in every case will win. The uninformed miner finds himself in a confusing mass of regulations where he can find no traction to get himself mining again.

Don't ever believe that it is a matter of the District Rangers opinion as to whether there is a requirement for a mining plan of operation. It just isn't that easy.

==========================================================

Bejay

 

[Bejay]

The issue is the law - not the BLM regulations.

The law clearly states that the surface management agencies have the duty to prevent undue and unnecessary degradation of the surface of public lands.

Mining claims are not public land. Undue or unnecessary degradation does not include the ordinary and necessary act of mining. Those are laws backed by Supreme Court decisions.

The BLM came up with a reasonable way to accomplish their duty. If the miner determines his mining will cause a "significant surface disturbance" to the public lands he is required to notify the surface management agency of that fact. That notification does not prevent him from mining because surface disturbance does not amount to "undue or unnecessary degradation". The notice is so the surface management agency can deal with the significant surface disturbance in a timely manner. Should the surface management agency find that significant surface disturbance could be lessened by working with the miner to create a plan (POO) to help lessen the significant surface disturbance the miner will be asked to create a plan that fits their mining needs.

Should the surface management agency believe a plan of operation is necessary, after establishing facts that indicate that there will be a significant surface disturbance, and the miner does not submit a notice the agency can then notify the miner that they wish to design a plan of operation with him. Should the miner disagree that a plan is needed the agency can cite him for any actual violations of the law and then it is up to a court of law to determine who is right.

The above two paragraphs describe the lawful and proper way the BLM attempts to implement their duties under the law (FLPMA). These regulations are current in the CFR. I believe they are a relatively fair way for the BLM to try to do the job Congress gave them in the FLPMA Act without obstructing or preventing mining under the 1872 law. There might be other ways they could have chosen to accomplish their job but, for now, these are the rules and methods they have made for their employees.

The problems start when the surface management agencies make rules that govern mining itself or mineral claims. The law specifically states that they have no right to regulate mining or mineral estate claims. Their duty stops at protecting the surface of the public lands. When they cross the line and try to use the Notice and Plan system to stop or control mining they have no right or duty under any law to do so. Telling a miner that he must get permission to use any particular mining equipment or to move dirt even if there is no undue degradation or significant surface disturbance is controlling the act of mining.

If you choose to follow those regulations that are not backed by law you will have entered the realm of Administrative law (regulations). If the surface management agency decides to control your mining or prevent you from mining you will be obligated to follow their regulations just as their employees are. If you find you disagree with their requirements or choose to ignore their ever changing regulations your only relief will be an administrative law court. Those courts only deal with regulations so your rights under the mining laws or equity laws will be ignored. The courts only duty will be to determine if the agency followed their own regulations.

If you choose to only honor those regulations backed by law you will have full recourse to the laws themselves should you find yourself in a dispute with a surface management agency. There are many cases that have been won by miners who have chosen to rely on the laws as written rather than a changing set of agency regulations. Several of those have been discussed on this forum. Search for Lex Waggoner to find a fairly recent example.

Bejay

 

[Bejay]

Where both the Forest Service and the BLM are required to adhere the congressional public land management mandate of the Federal Land Management Policy Act, FLPMA, which expressly states at 43 USC 1732 (b), that, “. . . 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” any assertion of federal authority by agency, such as the BLM or the Forest Service, impairing, obstructing or closing access against, or managing the surface of Locatable mineral deposit property on public domain in-holding the public land, or otherwise interfering in any way is committed contrary to the laws of the United States of America, a breach of fiduciary duty, and an intentional and negligent trust tort.

Bejay

 

[Bejay]

The Supreme Court has ruled that "significant surface disturbance" may be anything from- any digging at all on a sensitive steep wooded slope to no limit whatsoever on desert brush land. In other words every circumstance is different. There is no standard.

It is up to the claim holder to determine if his actions rise to the level of "significant surface disturbance". If so he must then notify the surface management agency for the land surrounding his claim of his intent to cause a "significant surface disturbance" (NOI).

CFR Title 36: Parks, Forests, and Public Property CHAPTER II: FOREST SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE PART 228: MINERALS wrote:

228.4 - Plan of operations. notice of intent. requirements.

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, a notice of intent to operate is required from any person proposing to conduct operations which might cause significant disturbance of surface resources. Such notice of intent to operate shall be submitted to the District Ranger having jurisdiction over the area in which the operations will be conducted. Each notice of intent to operate shall provide information sufficient to identify the area involved, the nature of the proposed operations, the route of access to the area of operations, and the method of transport.


If the surface management agency does not receive an NOI and reaches a determination that current mining does create a "significant surface disturbance" they may request a Plan of Operation from the claim holder (POO).

CFR Title 36: Parks, Forests, and Public Property CHAPTER II: FOREST SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE PART 228: MINERALS wrote:

(4) If the District Ranger determines that any operation is causing or will likely cause significant disturbance of surface resources, the District Ranger shall notify the operator that the operator must submit a proposed plan of operations for approval and that the operations can not be conducted until a plan of operations is approved.


Please note that these are the regulations the Forest Service follows. They are not laws but an attempt to implement their limited authority under FLPMA to prevent "undue degradation" of the land surface under their management. There is a lot more to these Forest CFR regulations but keep in mind the "scope" these regulations are limited to.

Title 36: Parks, Forests, and Public Property CHAPTER II: FOREST SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE PART 261: PROHIBITIONS Subpart A: General Prohibitions wrote:



261.1 - Scope.

(b) Nothing in this part shall preclude activities as authorized by the Wilderness Act of 1964 or the U.S. Mining Laws Act of 1872 as amended.


The point being they can not require you to submit a Notice of Intent. If they later determine, after investigation, that you are creating a "significant surface disturbance" and notify you of such they may ask you to submit a POO. If you refuse to submit a POO it is up to the Forest Service to prove to a court that you are indeed creating a "significant surface disturbance". The ball is in their court then.

They would like you to believe that a certain amounts of land being disturbed or certain equipment being used amount to a "significant surface disturbance" but the courts have ruled otherwise. Each circumstance is different.

Bejay

 

[Bejay]

Is the miner mining in a National Park

36 CFR § 9.1
Purpose and scope.
These regulations control all activities within units of the National Park System resulting from the exercise of valid existing mineral rights on patented or unpatented mining claims without regard to the means or route by which the operator gains access to the claim. The purpose of these regulations is to insure that such activities are conducted in a manner consistent with the purposes for which the National Park System and each unit thereof were created, to prevent or minimize damage to the environment or other resource values, and to insure that the pristine beauty of the units is preserved for the benefit of present and future generations. These regulations apply to all operations, as defined herein, conducted within the boundaries of any unit of the National Park System.

Bejay

 

[stealthpuddle]

why does this site now say not secure ?

 

[Hefty1]

There are two CFR's. The first is a FS rule. 36 CFR 228 subpart A This talks about using battery operated pumps and hand tools...but we are dealing with the BLM who assert that the FS is in the backseat.
So therefore it would revert to BLM 43 CFR 3833.5 (1) Casual use...battery operated toys...

Whoever wrote this junk needs to be kicked in the jimmies...because this miner definitely fails to understand.

Is it USFS or BLM?

 

[Bonaro]

Is it USFS or BLM?

BLM

 

[Bonaro]

Absolutely Fascinating....Thank you Bejay, I wish I could download your brain
So the summary of what I just read is something like this. The area of the mining claim itself is not public land. If my mining activities have the possibility of making significant disturbance on the public lands outside of the claim then I can run afoul of the BLM. Otherwise I have no compelling reason to submit to a NOI or POO and doing so actually places me at greater risk. Without a NOI or POO the BLM really doesn't have any leverage over me so long and my operations are contained to the claim and do not exceed 5 ac./ year...something like that?

 

[Hefty1]

Absolutely Fascinating....Thank you Bejay, I wish I could download your brain
So the summary of what I just read is something like this. The area of the mining claim itself is not public land. If my mining activities have the possibility of making significant disturbance on the public lands outside of the claim then I can run afoul of the BLM. Otherwise I have no compelling reason to submit to a NOI or POO and doing so actually places me at greater risk. Without a NOI or POO the BLM really doesn't have any leverage over me so long and my operations are contained to the claim and do not exceed 5 ac./ year...something like that?

BINGO!

 

[Hoser John]

That's the SMARA mandate threshold. It was posted the enviros"are helping the blm on the lr2000 ,maybe that's why no longer secure??John

 

[Bejay]

Thanks to MEG some years back for the Layer Cake!
The understanding of the issue of Public Domain and Public Lands appears to be the base by which an understanding can begin. From this point I believe we can begin to comprehend all the different layers of authoritative mining/land issues. So this appears to be a must learning/understanding point.
WOODSHED PARAPHRASING:
KNOWING ABOUT THE SOIL/LAND THAT IS UNDER YOUR FEET AND WHO POSSESSES IT AND WHO CONTROLS IT IS VERY IMPORTANT.
NOTE! THERE IS IS ACTUALLY ONE GROUP OF PEOPLE THAT HAVE REMAINED FREE FOR A TALENT: THE MINER. THIS IS A RESULT OF THE MINERAL ESTATE GRANT AND PUBLIC DOMAIN PER THE 1872 MINING LAW ACT.
SO THIS BRINGS ON A CONDITION THAT NEEDS TO BE UNDERSTOOD: PUBLIC DOMAIN
WOODSHED QUOTE:
"PUBLIC LAND IS THAT GENERAL UNAPPROPRIATED LAND THAT THE GENERAL MANAGEMENT LAWS APPLY"
"PUBLIC DOMAIN IS THAT WHICH IS EITHER DETERMINED BY OTHER CONGRSSIONAL ACTS AS SPECIFIC USE OR IS ACCEPTED IN FOR SPECICIC USE; SUCH AS THE MINING LAW....THAT GRANTS EXCLUSIVE POSSESSION OVER THE SURFACE OF A VALUABLE MINERAL DEPOSITE CLAIM, OR AS IN THE 1866 ACT SECT 8: GRANTS THE CONSTRUCTION OF HIGHWAYS. NO OTHER EXPRESSED RESTRICTIONS APPL. A VERY FASCINATING OPEN GRANT."
PARAPHRASING:
IT IS IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND WHERE ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITY STARTS AND WHERE IT MUST STOP.....AND WHERE ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITY CAN BE CONDITIONED AND WHERE THE FULL AUTHORITY OF THE ADMIN MUST CEASE. REMEMBER THERE IS A "PUBLIC LAND MANAGEMENT ACT" NOT A "PUBLIC DOMAIN MANAGEMENT ACT"
SO LET US UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENT LAYERS OF PUBLIC DOMAIN VS PUBLIC LANDS. WE WILL START AT THE VERY BOTTOM.....THE ROOT OF THE TREE IF YOU WILL:
PUBLIC DOMAIN IS DISPOSED TO PRIVATE USE.......ANYTHING DISPOSED IS PUBLIC DOMAIN
1ST..BOTTOM LAYER ....ALL DISPOSED LANDS WHICH IS PUBLIC DOMAIN.
2ND...LAYER ABOVE...... IS PUBLIC LANDS
IT IS IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND THE LAYER ABOVE CAN NOT TOUCH THE LAYER BELOW.
3RD LAYER....................PUBLIC LANDS CAN BE FURTHER DESIGNATED AS OTHER NAMES THAT BUILD ON TOP OF THESE PUBLIC LANDS THAT HAVE THEIR DISTINCT ADMINISTRATION DELEGATED TO THE SECRETARY OF THE INTEREIOR/BLM. HOWEVER THERE HAVE BEEN SOME RESERVATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE THAT WE KNOW AS FOREST RESERVES OR NATIONAL FOREST LANDS; THE CURRENT VERNACULAR IS.
SO WE HAVE PUBLIC DOMAIN &
PUBLIC LANDS &
ANY OTHER LAYER THAT SUB-DIVIDES THE AUTHIOITY & THEN EVEN
AQUIRED LANDS...WHERE THE U.S. GOV. GOES BACK AND ACUTALLY PURCHASES IT. THE MINARD CASE OF 2009 IS A PRIME EXAMPLE: WHERE THE GOV APPROPRIATED $$$ FOR THE USFS TO BUY SURFACE RIGTHS/MINERAL RIGHTS FROM THE ENTRYMAN MINERAL LANDOWNER. THIS IS A BACK EAST CASE. THIS IS A VERY FASCINATING CASE BECAUSE IT EXPLAINS THE LIMITED POWER OF GOVERNMENT; BEING ONLY WON EVEN WHERE THEY OWN THE TITLE, AND HAVING TO AQUIRE IT BY PURCHASE, TO THAT OF A NORMAL PROPERTY OWNER. & THEN WE STILL HAVE:
THERE IS ANOTHER PUBLIC LAND THAT IS DESCRIBED AS FED LANDS BUT IS SPLIT ESTATE LANDS WHERE THE FEDS HAVE GRANTED PART OF THE FED LAND AWAY. TYPICALLY THIS IS THE HOMESTEAD ACT WHERE THEY GOT ONLY THE SURFACE FOR STOCK GRAZING AND SUCH. WHERE YOU GET THE SURFACE BUT NOT THE MINERALS. THE MINERALS WERE ALWAYS RESERVED FOREVER AND SO THESE ARE "SPLIT ESTATE LANDS" AND THESE ARE UNDER YET A DIFFERENT MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY.
THEN YOU HAVE LANDS THAT ARE TO BE DISPOSED OF CONTINUALLY, THAT ARE MINERAL IN CHARACTER, BUT ARE TO BE DISPOSABLE LANDS....THOSE LANDS ARE UNDER A DIFFERENT PROVISION OF THE LAW FOR MANAGEMENT. THOSE ARE MINERAL LANDS BUT THEY ARE NOT "GRANTED" LANDS.
AND SO YOU FIND THESE DIFFERENT TYPES OF LANDS; THEY ARE DIFFERENT AND DISTINCT AND YOU HAVE TO KEEP TRACK OF THEM; AND WHEN THE MINERS COME IN THEY COME IN ON THE VERY BOTTOM: THE "PUBLIC DOMAIN". THE HWYS ARE EVEN ON THE PUBLIC DOMAIN. NOT EVEN THE AGENCIES CAN STEP DOWN TO STEP ON IT OR CONTROL IT.
BUT YET WE HAVE ALLOWED THEM TO DO SO......BECAUSE WE REMAIN SILENT!
END OF PARAPHRASE BEHIND THE WOODSHED....I HOPE I GOT IT RIGHT!
ALSO!
WHEN THINKING OF THE MINERAL ESTATE GRANT....HOW IS THE WORD "GRANT" CLEAR AND UNDERSTOOD? PER MY OWN PHRASE: THE GRANT IS THE RESULT OF A CONGRESSIONAL ACT FOR A SPECIFIC USE THAT CONVEYS PUBLIC LAND INTO PUBLIC DOMAIN FOR THAT USE AND POSSESSION.
I beleive this will afford people the ability to begin to go down the path of understanding.


Bejay

 

[Hefty1]

There are two CFR's. The first is a FS rule. 36 CFR 228 subpart A This talks about using battery operated pumps and hand tools...but we are dealing with the BLM who assert that the FS is in the backseat.
So therefore it would revert to BLM 43 CFR 3833.5 (1) Casual use...battery operated toys...

Whoever wrote this junk needs to be kicked in the jimmies...because this miner definitely fails to understand.

Where did you get that 43CFR link from?

43 CFR 3833.1 - Recordation of mining claims.

Subpart 3833 - Recordation of Mining Claims, Mill Sites, and Tunnel Sites and Payment of Service Charges; and...		PDF | XML | More

Section 3833.0-1 - Purpose.	PDF | XML | More

Section 3833.0-3 - Authority.	PDF | XML | More

Section 3833.0-5 -  Definitions.	PDF | XML | More

Section 3833.0-9 - Information collection.	PDF | XML | More

Section 3833.1 - Recordation of mining claims.	PDF | XML | More

Section 3833.1-1 - Refundability of service charges, location fees, rental and maintenance fees.	PDF | XML | More

Section 3833.1-2 - Recordation of mining claims, mill sites and tunnel sites located after October 21, 1976.	PDF | XML | More

Section 3833.1-3 - Service charges, rental fees, maintenance fees, and location fees; form of remittance and...	PDF | XML | More

Section 3833.1-4 - Service charges and location fees.	PDF | XML | More

Section 3833.1-5 - Maintenance fees.	PDF | XML | More

Section 3833.1-6 - Maintenance fee waiver qualifications under the Act of August 10, 1993, and other exceptions...	PDF | XML | More

Section 3833.1-7 - Filing requirements for the maintenance fee waiver and other exceptions.	PDF | XML | More

Section 3833.2 - Annual filings.	PDF | XML | More

Section 3833.2-1 - National Park System lands.	PDF | XML | More

Section 3833.2-2 - Other Federal lands.	PDF | XML | More

Section 3833.2-3 - Consistency between the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, the General Mining Law of May 10...	PDF | XML | More

Section 3833.2-4 - Contents for evidence of assessment work.	PDF | XML | More

Section 3833.2-5 - Contents for a notice of intention to hold claim or site.	PDF | XML | More

Section 3833.2-6 - When evidence or notice is not required.	PDF | XML | More

Section 3833.3 - Notice of transfer of interest.	PDF | XML | More

Section 3833.4 - Failure to file, or to pay maintenance of location fees.	PDF | XML | More

Section 3833.5 - Effect of recording and filing.

 

[Bonaro]

Where did you get that 43CFR link from?

I think I originally got it from Winner in post #18

 

[M.E.G.]