Reclamation bond

[The1rod]

So I wanted to start a discussion about reclamation bonds, their factors and costs. So I'm gonna lay out a scenario and any feedback about other factors that may affect the bond amount, and any estimation of what it could cost would be very helpful.
So here's the scenario
A person wants to start a small/ mid scale placer operation, the claim is mostly flat with a creek running through one side. The mining plan is to strip the top soil and vegetation and run everything else down too bedrock at 12' . They will be using a small excavator to dig, and feed a trommel. Water will be pumped straight from the creek, the used water will flow into a settling pond and settle through the dirt back into the ground water. Tailings will be used to back fill as more ground is opened. Let's say at Max 20,000 yard of material will be moved in a year, equating to around an acre of surface area. And the vegetative coverage is mostly grasses and sage with a few small trees and no pocket gophers or anything else crazy and protected.
So what else is considered in a reclamation bond, and does anyone have an estimate?

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

A Handbook of Civil War Bullets and Cartridges - Grab it through Amazon!

[ghostminer]

Correct. No federal permit. It goes through the county. Try mining without the permit approved & you will be escorted off your claim.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Diving for Pleasure and Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!

[Assembler]

The beds of "Navigable bodies of water" are not public domain and are not subject to survey and disposal by the United States (common highways). The sovereignty is in the individual States. The "Appropriation of water" can be a issue.
This of course is a separate issue from the mining itself. A spray mist system can help with keeping the dust in check.
Sounds like the "Bond" is based upon the yardage / area size of the "Surface impact".

 

[mendoAu]

Correct. No federal permit. It goes through the county. Try mining without the permit approved & you will be escorted off your claim.

I'm not sure what you mean about "no permit" ...no federal permit. Perhaps a POO is not a permit but it has to be approved, in my case, by the federal agency BLM.

 

[mendoAu]

A POO is the final step needed to mine on a mining claim on public lands. Neither the BLM nor the Forest Service have the right to require a "permit" for mining. Once your POO is in place and bonded you can do whatever you proposed to do when you submitted your Plan of Operation.

Kinda like the post above, altho it is not a ermit: it is the agency (BLM) that your POO goes thru and a needed piece of paper in this county. At the point (correct if I'm wrong) of acquiring a POO it is out of the county's hands.

 

[ghostminer]

Yes,parsing words. A POO is NOT the final step to mine if you are disturbing more than 1000 cubic yards. You could say a POO is not a permit. Whatever. You need an approved POO with the FS or BLM to do significant disturbance & that disturbance is limited to 1000 cubic yards. If you can do it yourself there is no charge. If you are going bigger than that you will need to go through the county permitting process. This is much more detailed than a POO as you are disturbing more ground. There is an application fee & there will be environmental issues that have to be addressed. A POO addresses some of the same things but is easier because of the small scale. It is a big process going to a large scale & you will usually need help from professionals. Instead of listening to people who have never been through the process I suggest you talk with the FS & BLM & then the county you are in to get a complete understanding of the process. I know of one group that had a POO with the FS & were in the process of permitting to larger scale with the county but got tired of waiting. They went in with equipment & got caught. They were escorted off the claim & not able to do anything for 2 yrs.

 

[ghostminer]

Here is the POO template for FS. No charge to submit. Then you wait for all the agencies to go to your ground & sign off.
https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fseprd488807.pdf

 

[Goldwasher]

Yes,parsing words. A POO is NOT the final step to mine if you are disturbing more than 1000 cubic yards. You could say a POO is not a permit. Whatever. You need an approved POO with the FS or BLM to do significant disturbance & that disturbance is limited to 1000 cubic yards. If you can do it yourself there is no charge. If you are going bigger than that you will need to go through the county permitting process. This is much more detailed than a POO as you are disturbing more ground. There is an application fee & there will be environmental issues that have to be addressed. A POO addresses some of the same things but is easier because of the small scale. It is a big process going to a large scale & you will usually need help from professionals. Instead of listening to people who have never been through the process I suggest you talk with the FS & BLM & then the county you are in to get a complete understanding of the process. I know of one group that had a POO with the FS & were in the process of permitting to larger scale with the county but got tired of waiting. They went in with equipment & got caught. They were escorted off the claim & not able to do anything for 2 yrs.

no one has the right to "escort" you off of your claim. Unless your actually being arrested.

If you have a p.o.o. and are mining the county would have to call the sheriff...and they could only get you if your breaking an ordinance.

But, that doesn't make sense either because at that point you should have met SMARA req. have your permits in place per the POO

and the county has no say


Butte county has a retainer payment for mining and reclamation but, that should be for mining on land the county is the lead agency on. I.E not public lands

 

[ghostminer]

https://www.icmj.com/magazine/print...l-rule-when-is-a-notice-or-plan-required-744/

 

[ghostminer]

Some things are left to the discretion of the district ranger as far as what significant disturbance is. Some of them are more anti mining than others. They can issue warnings & take you to civil court. For sure any use of machinery will be classified as significant disturbance. I filed an NOI on a part of one claim for hand digging gravels to be run through a Gold Claimer 5 yd per hour motorized trommel. I was told I needed to file a POO. Obviously this should not happen as hand digging is not significant. I could have ignored them to see what would happen I suppose.

The new rule states : IF THE OPERATOR REASONABLY CONCLUDES THAT THE PROPOSED OPERATIONS WILL NOT CAUSE SIGNIFICANT DISTURBANCE OF NFS RESOURCES< THE OPERATOR IS NOT REQUIRED TO SUBMIT A NOTICE OF INTENT.

No penalty provision was added to 36 CFR 228. The Forest Service can still utilize the civil courts to go after a miner who causes a significant disturbance, which is no change to the previously existing regulations.

So in other words, the FS has no power to arrest as I read it.

 

[Assembler]

If the focus is on hand digging there should be no 'Significant disturbance issue'. A machine can still be used however not for the 'Significant disturbance issue'. Thus can be classed as a 'Hand scale operation' as far as the 'Significant disturbance issue'.
Any "Appropriation of U.S. waters" is a different issue. Also a 'Engine on Vessel' is a separate issue.

If one starts digging up trees there is going to be a 'Significant disturbance issue' by hand or with a machine.

 

[ghostminer]

I think we should take a commercial dredge right down the Feather River. The heck with the stinking permits.

 

[Assembler]

I think we should take a commercial dredge right down the Feather River. The heck with the stinking permits.

Make sure the there is no "Commercial activities" going on outside of the "Mineral deposit". The registered "Vessel" may also have some 'Issues'. Such as "Cargo or Freight issues".

The "stinking permits" do not 'Cover' the "Mineral deposits" most likely have something to do with say the "Appropriation of U.S. waters".

Now that there is a "Moratorium today" there is few "Mineral surveys and the filing of the returns" taking "Place". The "Configuration of the Mineral deposit" is such as to make conformation impracticable can only be determined by the "Discovery points" covering the "Mineral deposit".
The "Surface disturbance" is usually above the "Mineral deposit".

 

[Clay Diggins]

Significant surface disturbance is not prohibited. All mining whether hand or machine, big or small creates some disturbance of the surface resources.

Again:
The public land management agencies could care less how many yards or tons your mining plan includes. They don't regulate mining. There is no limit to the amount of material mined under a NOI or POO. The use of machinery doesn't require either an NOI or a POO. It's about the surface resources and how you impact those resources, not which tools you use or how much material you process.

The point of the POO is to allow the land management agency to input on the best way to mitigate the surface resource impacts.

Surface resources are the things the claim owner doesn't own like trees, grass, sand, water etc. but the land management agency has the right to regulate and dispose of (sell, give away, lease). Mining itself is not regulated by the land management agencies (BLM, FS) but the impacts on surface resources, which they are responsible for must be minimized by law.

No public land manager has the right to prevent mining. It's not their decision whether you mine or not. They don't have the option to say no to mining your claim. A POO is created and implemented by the mine operator in consultation with the public land management agency. Should you not agree on the best mining practices to mitigate the surface resources in your mining area you can either begin mining without a POO or bring better information on the mining plan to the table.

Professional miners put together a mining plan that minimizes surface resource disturbance. They have no problem getting concurrence from the land management agency because they bring acknowledged expertise to the project. A forest "geologist" has nowhere near the experience or knowledge a professional mining engineer has. When push comes to shove the proven professional will trump the forest geologists opinion. Neither the Forest Service nor the BLM have the last word. They can not refuse to approve your mining plan unless your surface disturbance will cause "unnecessary or undue degradation" of the land. According to the Supreme Court:

a reasonable interpretation of the word 'unnecessary' is that which is not necessary for mining.
'Undue' is that which is excessive, improper, immoderate or unwarranted.

If you follow best mining practices the "undue and unnecessary" part isn't a problem.

Permits and fees are a local phenomenon. 1,000 yards or whatever your local chota is telling you is a limit has nothing to do with a POO or public land management. Those restrictions or requirements can change with a vote or a local agency whim. If you don't like the local permit system you can get it changed by changing your local laws. Compliance, vote or court is your choice when it comes to local regs and permits. Follow them or change them. When you are in someone else's house you follow their rules or leave.

In my experience a well planned mining operation doesn't require a planning session with the public land management agency. If you are not creating an "unnecessary or undue degradation" of the land your plan is in compliance with the law. Any land management agency that tries to prevent responsible best practice mining with regulations is just being obstructive.

As far as your local permits and fees... that's why mining in California isn't appealing to professional miners. Jumping through hoops just creates fewer jobs and less profit. There are friendlier more willing places to mine in adjoining states. It isn't the BLM or Forest Service that is the problem, they have the same laws and regulations wherever you mine in the United States. It's your County or State interference that creates a bad mining environment. If you can keep that distinction clear you will understand why Nevada has more than half the mining claims in the United States. Same BLM and Forest laws as California or anywhere else but very different local regulation.

Inexperienced miners can do a lot of damage so it's best if they employ experts to help them with the practical aspects of mitigating damage to surface resources. That's why NOI and POO processes are in place. If you know enough to mitigate that damage from the beginning the bonding and the process are easy.

Heavy Pans

 

[ghostminer]

The vast, remote areas of Nevada definitely make Permitting easier. Or is that a Plan Of Operation LOL.

 

[Assembler]

The vast, remote areas of Nevada definitely make Permitting easier. Or is that a Plan Of Operation LOL.

Easier to 'Beet around the bush'......I mean dig around the bush......LOL
There can be a lot less "Surface impact" with less trees and water.

 

[Bnugget]

How close the the waters edge could a person get mining with equipment assumed you had a POO in place? I would love to be able to just start sampling all over using a small excavator.

 

[ghostminer]

You can get as close as you want. We are in Plumas County, California. We dug 25 ft deep trenches 30 ft from a creek. You just need to have a settling area in place for tailings & runoff. We pumped water directly out of the creek for the trommel.

 

[SaltwaterServr]

Significant surface disturbance is not prohibited. All mining whether hand or machine, big or small creates some disturbance of the surface resources.

Again:
The public land management agencies could care less how many yards or tons your mining plan includes. They don't regulate mining. There is no limit to the amount of material mined under a NOI or POO. The use of machinery doesn't require either an NOI or a POO. It's about the surface resources and how you impact those resources, not which tools you use or how much material you process.

That's not true.

https://asmi.az.gov/sites/default/files/documents/files/arizona_mining_permitting_guide_2011.pdf

Page 29.

CONDITIONS REQUIRING PERMITS, AUTHORIZATIONS OR FILINGS:
Activities that ordinarily result in no or negligible disturbance of the public lands or resources
are termed “casual use.” In general, the operator may engage in casual use activities without
consulting, notifying or seeking approval from the BLM.

For exploration activity greater than casual use and which causes surface disturbance of five
(5) acres or less of public lands; the operator must file a complete Notice with the responsible
BLM Field Office. Notice is for exploration only and only 1000 tons may be removed for
testing.

Also:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/43/3809.11

When do I have to submit a plan of operations?
(a) You must submit a plan of operations and obtain BLM's approval before beginning operations greater than casual use, except as described in § 3809.21. Also see §§ 3809.31 and 3809.400 through 3809.434.

(b) You must submit a plan of operations for any bulk sampling in which you will remove 1,000 tons or more of presumed ore for testing.

(c) You must submit a plan of operations for any operations causing surface disturbance greater than casual use in the following special status areas where § 3809.21 does not apply:
--------------------------------------------------

Notice of intent limits you on BLM land to only 1000 tons per year I believe, but it may be per permit period which is two years.

Also, casual use does have limitations when it comes to mechanized equipment, 12 hp being the limit at which an NOI is required.

Casual use defined:

Casual use means activities ordinarily resulting in no or negligible disturbance of the public lands or resources. For example -
(1) Casual use generally includes the collection of geochemical, rock, soil, or mineral specimens using hand tools; hand panning; or non-motorized sluicing. It may include use of small portable suction dredges. It also generally includes use of metal detectors, gold spears and other battery-operated devices for sensing the presence of minerals, and hand and battery-operated drywashers. Operators may use motorized vehicles for casual use activities provided the use is consistent with the regulations governing such use (part 8340 of this title), off-road vehicle use designations contained in BLM land-use plans, and the terms of temporary closures ordered by BLM.

(2) Casual use does not include use of mechanized earth-moving equipment, truck-mounted drilling equipment, motorized vehicles in areas when designated as closed to “off-road vehicles” as defined in § 8340.0-5 of this title, chemicals, or explosives. It also does not include “occupancy” as defined in § 3715.0-5 of this title or operations in areas where the cumulative effects of the activities result in more than negligible disturbance.


In a nutshell, if you start cutting perennial vegetation you had better get an NOI. If you intend to do anything cumulative greater than five acres, get an NOI. If you're cutting a road, NOI. If any piece of machinery you're using has an engine with greater horsepower than 12, get an NOI. Any pumping of groundwater whether it be for processing or dewatering, you definitely need an NOI and then some.

 

[StreamlineGold]

They definitely do care about what tools being used.

Forest service is a little different than the BLM they are more worried about the surface disturbance rather than the tools used but its hard to argue an excavator isnt going to create significant surface disturbance. I like Ghostminers method of reclaim as you go. Funny the USFS doesnt care about the use of underground explosives either as long as its not creating surface disturbance either.. I cracked up when I read that...like cool!

Keep it under and acre or two and a good plan seems like either agency wont be too much hassle unless your impacting named creeks, rivers etc.

 

[StreamlineGold]

The forest service verbiage sounds to me a little more like its up to the ranger if it needs a plan of operation or just a NOI, different than the BLM exploration lease. Im sure it varies from state to state too.