Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

Colorado Prospector - Gem and mineral prospecting and mining forums _ Prospecting and Mining Laws, Regulations etc. _ How do you determine when your disturbance becomes significant??

Posted by: realnice Jul 28 2010, 10:49 AM

Hi all, im new to the site. Been prospecting for about 10 years here in Colorado. I hold a few mining claims and am wondering about determining significant disturbance on historically disturbed areas. An area where i have a claim has been logged and mined for a long time and the land shows it. It also has very heavy 4wd use. it is not very pristine at all. One of my claims is visible from the road so recently it has come upon scrutiny by the USFS. there is a 40 ft x 20 ft. worked area. The area is disturbed and is comprised of filled in diggs.
The 228.4 Plan of operations—notice of intent—requirements seem to fit my site as to not have to file a plan of operations, but one stipulation is...
(v) Operations, which in their totality,
will not cause surface resource disturbance
which is substantially different
than that caused by other users
of the National Forest System who are
not required to obtain a Forest Service
special use authorization, contract, or
other written authorization;

If they deem my operation to be causing significant disturbance what can they do? Arent they supposed to inform me to stop and complete a plan of operations? What are my rights here?

How do I appeal a desicion by the USFS?





Posted by: ColoradoProspector Jul 29 2010, 11:27 AM

Hi realnice and welcome to the forums, sign0016.gif we are all glad to have you here and make yourself right at home.

I think you've found the right place to get some answers, let me see if I can help you out a bit.
If the digs the FS are worried about are from historical digs (ie, not yours) then they can not make you take responsibility for them so don't accept them as your's if they aren't.
If they are your digs, then they still don't push or cross any thresholds that would need N.O.I.'s filed for.......the CDMG doesn't require a prospecting permit/bond until over 1,600 square feet will be disturbed in one dig, and you can have 5 of those digs upto that size open state wide in any 24 month period on different claims.
The FS maybe overstepping their authority? Sounds like it anyways so far from your description. I'd advise IMOH to NOT FILE ANY NOI with them at this time. Filing an NOI is stating to the FS that you as the claim owner are unsure whether or not your planned/current work will create a "significant disturbance of surface resources" and you'd like the FS to make that call for you.
stop.gif

In your first sentence there are two definitions needed to make a call on "significant surface resource disturbance" and those are ..... what is a "surface resource"? and what is considered "significantly disturbed"?

Surface resources falling under the authority of FS (by delegated authority-DOI/BLM) is only timber or agricultural. IE ....only trees or actual agriculture-crops,cattle grazing etc. Surface resources by law does not include recreational uses, shrubs or grasses etc, although the FS may try to say differently. Also the FS has no authority over the wildlife/fish or water, those are also under different dept authority control, they've many times tried to claim authority over those on FS lands in the past too.

The purpose of 36CFR itself states that the regulations are not to be used to regulate mining.
You can find the purpose, scope and 228 parts of 36CFR in the laws and regulations forum section titled http://www.coloradoprospector.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=2256

Also, you might wish to download your own copy of the CDMG's requirements/threshold for a prospecting permit which can be found in the same section titled http://www.coloradoprospector.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=728 On page 2 you'll find the pdf download for the CDMG's requirements, and although it's set up for dredging, there are also laws about consistency and also in application of laws as well as laws to prevent duplicate regulation by second depts such as FS trying to regulate what they should not be. FS is not delegated the authority to regulate mining except for some limited situations upon actual specially designated (by congress) areas. In general, on FS lands the BLM is still the mining authority.
Don't let the FS regulate you if they shouldn't be.

I believe the magic number of 1,600 sq ft. comes from the fact that any private/patented land owner can create that size hole on their land with out permits......consistency of application? I think so. Claim ownership is real property.

We filed an NOI back in 2003 which is posted in the forums also, titled http://www.coloradoprospector.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=36
In it you'll see where I've quoted the appeal requirements in part of my response to the rediculous and late FS response to our NOI.

Take some time to read through all those, it's really dry reading but I think you'll like what you find once you've gotten through it all. Hope it helps too.

Good luck with your mining claims, we all hope you hit a nice streak! emoticon-misc-004.gif Oh and as a miner/claim owner, you are expected to make a disturbance to remove the minerals, just be aware of the actual thresholds/laws that do apply. The FS may not always be so "helpful" if you know what I mean.
Your right to mine is clear in the law, keep on diggin'! thumbsupsmileyanim.gif

CP

Posted by: realnice Nov 18 2010, 11:51 PM

I have a mining claim that was unfortunately shut down this summer:( All work has been done by hand. The work area is approximately 20ft x 40 ft of filled in digs. My partner was at the site early in the summer when he informed a man that he was digging on a claim. The man was upset because he did not realize that even though he was not digging in the immediate area of operations, he was still digging on our claim. So, he went and got a ranger who immediately asked about the mine and didn't like the disturbance. The ranger said we couldn't tell people they cannot dig??!! Take in mind that we have been digging the site for approximately 3.5 years with rangers driving by and waving as they passed. Yes, the dig site is very visible from the road;Right next to it. This invites lots of claim jumpers who have caused lots of the disturbance. A cease and desist letter was sent and they took 4 months to tell me to put in a POO or pay $2,000 while alluding that I was going to be charged with a crime:0

My question is when is the line crossed between small time mining with only hand tools and significant disturbance? I know that it is compared to disturbance caused by people who aren't required to have a permit. I have seen a few different documents and it seems a little fuzzy. What size area should I request in my POO and can I have multiple work areas? Look at my work area. What kind of bond have people had for this size of disturbance??

Here it is. Thanks for any input or help!




Posted by: russau Nov 21 2010, 06:47 AM

if this is your legal federal mining claim, you DO have the right to tell people NOT to dig there and that know-it-all ranger is wrong to say differently!

Posted by: ColoradoProspector Nov 21 2010, 12:12 PM

Hi Realnice,

Russ is correct, you completely have the right to tell folks they can not dig there!
Amazing how much the FS officers wish to overstep their delegated authority and guidelines in the field.
Here are a few threads I think might have some great information for you to read that are all found in this same section of the forum (Prospecting and Mining Laws, Regulations etc.), by the named titles below.
Couple of them are rather long to read but well worth it I think and you'll see a few parts I've bolded that are of particular interest.

Prospecting, Government definitions
36CFR228, Minerals
FSM-Prospecting/Mineral Collecting, 2860 & 2861
43CFR3809, Surface Management

Hopefully you've already been browsing around the forum and found these but if not I'd start with those and then as you look over more, you'll find a ton of great info that could be helpful in the future.

And remember, you have the "right" to work/occupy your claim! emoticon-misc-004.gif happy088.gif The FS can not stop you or do they even have the right to regulate mines or mining operations.

The FS doesn't determine or have any authority to require bonds either. That determination and bonding is held by the state here in Colorado. They are the ones who actually reclaim (do the work) that any miners would abandon on bonded (POO's) activities.

I don't think you have crossed any of the "thresholds" that require a POO be filed in what you've described.
I wouldn't even think about filing a POO at this time from your described situation.
You'll find the definition for prospecting thread very interesting too if you are in Colorado as it has a square footage threshold mentioned that is much larger (and multiple) before any "permit" or "bond" would be required.

Personally I think I would have replied when they "allured" to the crime....Well officer, you just go ahead and right that "law" down that I'm in violation of! info_grin.gif Bet they can not find one!
If they can't provide a law broken then a crime is going to be awful hard to prove in court. Then you could have finished by telling the officer to actually leave your claim!
Sir or Maam, you are disturbing my mining work and you need to leave now! smiley-cool14.gif

Just a thought, (I would say it), but you'll have to choose your path there, some folks aren't as apt to confront as others would be.

Hope some of this info helps and keep on diggin' emoticon-misc-004.gif signs026.gif , we all hope you hit the mother lode on your claim!

CP

Posted by: Mineral Estate Grantee Nov 22 2010, 12:47 AM

Folks, Realnice,
The way the Forest Service sees it mining occupations alone are significant disturbance. Miners on the public domain in-holding the National Forest System lands have to know enough to assert their reasonably incident and necessary mining development and occupation is not subject to regulation correctly addressing the unreasonable administrative demands and sue wayward agents trespassing upon miner's vested surface rights. Until then, and because to explain more is cumbersome here, consider this in answer to the inquiry after the reading of the support information below: Respond to the cease and desist order, which is a pending CURRENT administrative proceeding, with a return letter sent certified and return receipt requested with a disclosure that POO and Bond Demand was not accompanied with the OMB approved form nor the statute exempting the restriction against bonding requirements for Locatables on public domain land in-holding the forest reserve as found in the FLPMA. That the principle officer is committing trespass of the law and the granted exclusive possession, including all the surface within the limits of the claim and extortion as well as violating the Forest Service Manual provision 2800 when materially interfering without a proper objective finding. The Forest Service Manual acknowledges there must be more than bare injury, loss, or damage to surface resources before an “authorized officer” of lawfully delegated authority shall act.:

QUOTE
FSM 2817.03 - Policy. The primary means for obtaining protection of surface resources should be by securing the willing cooperation of prospectors and miners. The willingness of the majority of prospectors and miners to comply with regulations, reasonably administered, is a principal key to the protection of environmental quality in the National Forest System. Face-to-face dialog with operators is encouraged.
However, when reasonable efforts have been made to obtain compliance with the regulations [b]and the noncompliance is unnecessarily or unreasonably causing [/b]injury, loss, or damage to surface resources, authorized officers shall take enforcement action. (See FSM 2817.3(5).)


And require production of an authorized OMB form and lawful authority over necessary and reasonable private valid vested in-holding on public domain, land that is as a matter of law not National Forest Service lands, and showing how the agent responded reasonably in the trespass to authorize the officer or retract the Cease and Desist order in writing immediately, within 14 days, before more liability accrues.

Now we, could go on an on about the violations, too numerous to mention here, but that ought to give you a good running start catch back up.

The OMB number is required, as you'll read below and there is no unexpired form that we know of. THe last expiration happened in 2008, though I could not find a link for that, just the 2002. So this works right now, but know it is an inferior answer. If the FS gets a form approved by the OMB you all will have to be able to explain how the application of the form and the Rule is invalid. How the requirement of a POO or an NOI is invalid as against a Locatables claim in-holding the forest reserve on public domain. And you'll have to know how to respond immediately and where to file your unlawful takings complaint and the basis.

If miners do not know that significant disturbance in not the actual standard they'll be convinced the Forest Service has the authority to use it. As to the issue of significant disturbance, whether or not it alone is sufficient basis, I refer you to the FSM above.

Anyone digging on a claim is a trespasser. Anyone allowing it under color of law is an accomplice without the scope of his official duties which means you should go to state court on the civil side or to the local sheriff to arrest on the criminal side. Your State mining law and property law should guide you there and as to what constitutes a mining crime under state law. But we can go off into the deep end now, so I'l leave it here because the administrative threat is apparently the greatest now.

~MEG


http://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2010/05/14/2010-11511/submission-for-omb-review-comment-request

under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13
An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.Show citation box


http://clinton4.nara.gov/library/omb/OMBINVC.html
OMB NO: 0596-0022 EXPIRATION DATE: 01/31/2002 RESPS:5,924 HOURS:4,462 COSTS(000):$0 Locatable Minerals -- 36 CFR Part 228, Subpart A FORMS: FS-2800-5

http://ftp.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/866/866.F2d.1092.87-3025.87-3020.html
QUOTE
866 F.2d 1092
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Bruce SMITH, Defendant-Appellant.
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Roberta BLAIR, Defendant-Appellant.
Nos. 87-3020, 87-3025.
United States Court of Appeals,
Ninth Circuit.

QUOTE
* Appellants argue that the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 ("PRA") prohibits their prosecutions because the Plan of Operations filing requirement lacks a current control number, and appear to raise an issue of first impression in this circuit. The PRA was enacted "to reduce and minimize the burden Government paperwork imposes on the public." S.Rep. No. 930, 96th Cong., 2d Sess. 2 (1980), reprinted in 1980 U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 6241, 6242. The PRA requires all agencies to submit all "information collection requests" to the Director (the "Director") of the Office of Management and Budget ("OMB") for review and approval. See 44 U.S.C. Sec. 3507. If the Director approves the information collection request he must ensure that it contains a control number. See 44 U.S.C. Sec. 3504. An agency "shall not conduct or sponsor the collection of information unless" the information collection request has been submitted to and approved by the Director, see 44 U.S.C. Sec. 3507(a), and "shall not engage in a collection of information without obtaining from the Director a control number to be displayed upon the information collection request," see 44 U.S.C. Sec. 3507(f). "Information collection requests which do not display a current control number or, if not, indicate why not are to be considered 'bootleg' requests and [under PRA section 3512] may be ignored by the public." S.Rep. No. 96-930 at 52, reprinted in 1980 U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 6292; see 44 U.S.C. Sec. 3512 (penalties may not be imposed for noncompliance with information collection requests that do not display a current control number).


QUOTE
The Plan of Operations filing requirement is an information collection request that lacks a current control number. Consequently, PRA section 3512 by its terms prohibits the imposition of "any penalty" against the appellants, including criminal convictions, for their failure to comply with the Plan of Operations filing requirement.6 The statute explicitly and unambiguously provides that all information collection requests must display a current control number, or penalties for noncompliance may not be imposed.7 44 U.S.C. Sec. 3512.
The information also charged appellants with failing to file a Plan of Operations "as required by ... 36 C.F.R. Sec. 261.10(b), ( c )." These charges also allege a failure to file a Plan of Operations pursuant to regulations that do not bear a current control number and are also prohibited by the PRA.8
II
32
Because our decision relies solely on the PRA ground, we need not reach any of the appellants' other arguments.
33
REVERSED.


* signs026.gif *

Posted by: Coalbunny Nov 22 2010, 02:22 AM

Title 18, Part I, Chapter 13
Civil Rights

Sec. 241. Conspiracy against rights
Sec. 242. Deprivation of rights under color of law


Sec. 241. Conspiracy against rights
If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or

If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so securedC

They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

Sec. 242. Deprivation of rights under color of law
Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

If you go 42 USC Sec. 1985, that is a civil matter. 18 USC is criminal with criminal implications. eating-popcorn-03.gif

Posted by: russau Nov 23 2010, 06:12 AM

it is a violation of federal law to stop/impede/interfer/harrase with any legal mining operation on a federal mining claim.

Posted by: dickb Nov 23 2010, 09:55 AM

QUOTE (russau @ Nov 23 2010, 06:12 AM) *
it is a violation of federal law to stop/impede/interfer/harrase with any legal mining operation on a federal mining claim.


I'm wondering if the paperwork and fees are all up to date? We don't know where the claim is located, who owns the land, the MC# of the claim, so how can anyone check the records to verify the type and if the claim has been voided for some reason.

Just don't know enough about the claim yet.

My two cents!

Dickb

Posted by: iowajoey Nov 23 2010, 08:11 PM

QUOTE (realnice @ Nov 18 2010, 11:51 PM) *
I have a mining claim that was unfortunately shut down this summer:( All work has been done by hand. The work area is approximately 20ft x 40 ft of filled in digs. My partner was at the site early in the summer when he informed a man that he was digging on a claim. The man was upset because he did not realize that even though he was not digging in the immediate area of operations, he was still digging on our claim. So, he went and got a ranger who immediately asked about the mine and didn't like the disturbance. The ranger said we couldn't tell people they cannot dig??!! Take in mind that we have been digging the site for approximately 3.5 years with rangers driving by and waving as they passed. Yes, the dig site is very visible from the road;Right next to it. This invites lots of claim jumpers who have caused lots of the disturbance. A cease and desist letter was sent and they took 4 months to tell me to put in a POO or pay $2,000 while alluding that I was going to be charged with a crime:0

My question is when is the line crossed between small time mining with only hand tools and significant disturbance? I know that it is compared to disturbance caused by people who aren't required to have a permit. I have seen a few different documents and it seems a little fuzzy. What size area should I request in my POO and can I have multiple work areas? Look at my work area. What kind of bond have people had for this size of disturbance??

Here it is. Thanks for any input or help!



HI ,It Can Get Technical at times ...Is your Claim Placer or Load or What ?? First of all you all may be in Violation .Including The BLM...It looks aweful Close to a Watershed for the Road and then You have to Give Ease way from the Road .
Get Ahold of A BLM .Land Adjudication Agent at the Nearest Office and Have them Come Inspect ..That is if you are Sure you are Posted and IDed correctly on the Site ..You can File An Exploritory Permit and Dig Anywhere on the Posted Area and No-one else is allowed to Do So In your Claim ..Copy of your Award Letter and A Copy of the AMC.Registration should be in Your Possession any Time You Are there ..
I often Keep a Copy of the CFRs concerning Mining And Minerals in The Glove Box of the Truck
I am An Ex Hotshot Forester and im On your Side ..Theres to many Agents out there ,Just Trying to Run People Off ..You cannot stop people from Crossing Your Claim as Ease Way to another Area .But you can have them Arrested for Digging
Any Federal or State Regulation Officer can Ask You to Provide Proof Of Claim and ID ,But they Dont need to Be So Power Strickin ..Dont be Affraid to USE the Agents at the BLM ..Cause truely I believe they are to Blame for Not Warning You of the Fine Line Of the Claim so near A Questinable Area ..
If theres good riches there and you want to keep it ??Just file for The Mining Operations Intention Form ,Post the Bond and Have at it ..please Keep your Exploratory Digs down to 5 ft by 5 ft and Less than 18inches ,then just put it Back ..other option would be th Lode Claim and Tunnel Permit - - all demanding A Bond all the Best My Friends ........iowajoey@treasurendeavors.com

Posted by: ColoradoProspector Nov 25 2010, 05:19 PM

Hi Joey and welcome to the forums,

I've never heard of or read any law that states a 5ft sq limit at 18" of depth, where did you find that law or quote it from?

I don't think miners "have to" give any easements either but they may have to put up funds to move any real roadway within their plan should they desire to harvest a deposit beneath it. I've seen claims where roads and or rivers are redirected around the workings during the operations of the mine.

Dick, thanks for the input but I see no need to have this person provide proof of their claims validity to hold this discussion, all responses were made by those who offered them with the assumption that this person who said they have a claim in fact does. For the sake of the discussion I think there was some great info offered. Thanks everyone for your input, keep it coming.

CP

Posted by: realnice Nov 27 2010, 12:59 PM

Well,
let me begin by saying thank you for all the input. It was all great info and straight to the point. I hope this can help others as well. Some forums can get "toody' so I really appreciate the positive tone. I wasn't seeing any hits on the post so I haven't checked in a bit. I need to figure out how to get email if someone responds:)

So, this is a lode claim. I can attest to having all required paperwork filed for the claim, corner markers, discovery marker, etc. I do not wish to include my serial number as I know how many would want to come and seek it! :) lol. I have been in contact with a BLM agent who has been great in providing me with information. It looks like I have more reading to do now! Here is the latest letter. I will try to post the cease and desist letter as well as I think It's lacking how they determined the disturbance significant. It's like they are just using their personal judgement!

Latest letter. I hope I got all the clues outta there


I am definitely planning on keeping the claim. Since I seem to past the NOI stage I will send them a POO. It really annoys me that they are making me re-contour it just to let me dig it up again immediately after???!! I know I will be requesting a fence around the immediate area. I may put a sediment fence below for good measure as there is a creek below. The "environmental assessment team" they sent up must have not seen an issue though. I'll be looking through prospecting thread for pit size info as well. As I do not have the money for a lawyer I am going to just put in the POO and see what happens. I wish I could fight it though. I really feel like the F.S rangers up here are idiots. What should I do about the $2,000. Is that something I'll have to pay down the line?? The letter is vague and that may be beneficial to me. I am requesting info on bringing in a backhoe for 1 or 2 days as well in the POO.
I will let you all know what happens.

OK!!!: ) heres some pictures, I know y'all want to see what I'm gittin at.








Posted by: dickb Nov 27 2010, 06:17 PM

Hi realnice:

I am still wondering if you have filed the Small Mining Maintenance Fees for the claim in question. They are $125.00 to be filed with the BLM by Sept 1 of each year. Somebody needs to jump in here if I'm wrong, but I think this fee is in lieu of the POO requirement.

I see from the picture that you are right against the road and there could be a safety problem for drivers using the road. Also, under the Clean Water Act you maybe required to install silt fence to prevent soil from eroding into the watershed.

I didn't see anything in the letter that identifies the laws that they claim that you are in violation of and they have to tell you what is wrong in order to get you to correct the violation.

One thing that I didn't see is a posting that this is a private mining claim and violators will be prosecuted.

Keep fighting and it may not hurt to discuss this with the County Attorney where the claim is filed.

Dickb

Posted by: realnice Nov 27 2010, 09:10 PM

QUOTE (realnice @ Nov 27 2010, 11:59 AM) *
So, this is a lode claim. I can attest to having all required paperwork filed for the claim, corner markers, discovery marker, etc.

Hey dickb,
Like I said, all my paperwork with the BLM is up to date. I don't know how to make it more clear to you. I talk with the person responsible for recording this information on a weekly basis as we have become friends of sorts. I filed the maintenance fee waiver form for $10 as well as my affidavit of labor, etc. I also have a sign in the pit that reads no prospecting is allowed. My discovery marker in the picture is torn down all the time.geeeez!

The road could be an issue and the forest service did say that it was an issue. The road is stable and has not been narrowed at all. I have also reinforced it by placing large boulders along it. The forest service has dropped the road issue at this point. A sed fence is definitely a good idea and is something I'm going to do.

I could not find the post about prospecting where I can find pit size numbers. Anyone got a link???

Posted by: dickb Nov 27 2010, 10:14 PM

Hi Again realnice:

If the BLM is solid behind you then you find yourself as the rope in a tug of war between the BLM and the FS.

You have rights as a valid mine claim holder under the 1872 Mining law and since no violation has been written, the way I see it you are within your rights to work your claim. What has been written above is the same way that I read the regulations. I guess you can send a certified letter to the FS and make them show you the laws your in violation of and what they specifically want you to do to satisfy them.

At that time you need to weigh your options. Fold or Fight!!!!!

Nice crystals and very nice job faceting the amethyst in the ring. The claim is certainly worth protecting!

Dickb thumbsupsmileyanim.gif

Posted by: ColoradoProspector Nov 28 2010, 10:43 AM

Pit size of 1600 sq ft pit can be (in Colorado) 5-1600 sq ft pits state wide (on your claims) during any 24 month period before a "permit" or "bond" would be needed. dancing_smiley.gif

Here are a couple of the links mentioned and don't forget there are pinned threads at the top of the section where you'll find the prospecting definitions and state mining permits.
Here is a direct link to the http://www.coloradoprospector.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=1659 thread

And this one is the http://www.coloradoprospector.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=728
thread link, also from the same section in the forum.

Good job asserting yourself and diggin' into the information.
Very nice finds too, love those amethyst septers! happy088.gif

CP

Posted by: realnice Nov 28 2010, 12:01 PM

QUOTE (ColoradoProspector @ Jan 3 2007, 12:01 PM) *
The term also does
not include any single activity which results in the disturbance of a single block of land
totaling one thousand six hundred square feet or less of the land's surface, not to exceed two such disturbances per acre; except that the cumulative total of such disturbances will not
exceed five acres statewide in any prospecting operation extending over twenty-four
consecutive months.


It says the term prospecting does not include...Am I reading this wrong??

Wow, I looked through that earlier scanning for numbers. Gotta slow down and read more!! wacko.gif

realnice music.gif

Posted by: ColoradoProspector Nov 28 2010, 12:10 PM

Good work, that's the quote I was refering to but I didn't have all worded as the quote shows.
I think you are reading it correctly, so in other words, a disturbance below that 1600 sq ft would have to be a disturbance level less than significant or could even be classed as casual use?
You are the claim owner and it's got to be your call as to your work, the pit size and when you feel the disturbance does classify as "significant" according to the laws at hand.
If it's not a "significant disturbance of surface resources" then what does the FS think they are doing anyway? confused0082[1].gif

CP

Posted by: realnice Nov 28 2010, 01:35 PM

Here's a document that I have on significant disturbance that may be helpful to members.

realnice music.gif


Posted by: realnice Nov 30 2010, 06:21 PM

Ok y'all, (those who have read up on this thread)

Because I have only 30 days to file an appeal. I hand delivered a letter to the district ranger requesting what regulations were used to determine the disturbance "significat". My letter FROM the ranger consisted of 3 scentences that read kinda like this; "I have visited the site and based on my observation and my resource specialists input I have deemed the disturbance significant". And so on. They can't just use thier personal judgement as I beleive they have in this situation. I have until the 16th to file my appeal; which I will be doing if I get their info or not. I beleive I have been wrongfully persecuted in this case and I intend to make it clear to the FS.

I requested info on regulations used for the determination of disturbance, and any reports from resource specialists, and information on these requirements for another active claim producing the same mineral. The reference claim is huge and is historic + in mining books with directions for anyone. It was formerly refered to as the "rainbow mine". Some of you may have heard of it. There is a plate in the denver museum from this site. The site is at leat 10 times larger of a disturbance than mine and I have never seen any reclamation happening. I do know the owner of this mine but he is almost 90 years old and is hard to reach.

So, sit tight and we'll see what happens:)

PS... to make this even better. I am graduating with a degree in Natural Resource Managment from Colorado State University this spring. What I have learned is that cooperation and communication is very important. This is not what I have experienced. After this, I could never work for an agency that is so disorganized and ignorant of their own policies. Sad really.

realnice music.gif

Posted by: ColoradoProspector Dec 2 2010, 08:24 AM

Hi again realnice,

Yes it is very sad when they don't know or even attempt to learn their "required" job description and required duties under "delegated" (limited) authority given them by the USDI!

Don't forget to read up on 36CFR's scope too where it says 36CFR's are not to be used to regulate mining claims (location) on FS lands, that authority still lies within the USDI (BLM).
The FS does have authority to regulate "mineral leases" on FS lands.

For information requesting, you should use the Freedom of Information Act or F.O.I.A. for short. There is a form to use as I understand it and timelines that the gov must follow when you file a request for information. I've never filed one myself but know of many claim owners who have done just that to get the complete file the department had on them and their claims.

Good luck with all this and keep us posted how it goes.

Congratulations on your upcoming graduation too!

CP

Posted by: realnice Dec 13 2010, 12:47 PM

So, I am finally piecing together my appeal and hope to be done today. I have another week or so. I saw a definition somewhere where bonding is not required where given the nature of the disturbance no bond is required if the natural recovery will happen. Anyone remember where to get that??? I'm overloaded with info and regs right now

realnice music.gif

Posted by: ColoradoProspector Dec 15 2010, 01:12 PM

Good luck with it too when finished.
I'm thinking maybe you read that in the prospecting definitions thread in the CDMG's definition and required working disturbance for bonding required vs disturbance.

I know I've read that one too many times but not for sure if that's where you'll find it right off the top of my head. When you start reading into them they really do stack up in the brain don't they? research.gif atomic.gif

CP

Posted by: realnice Dec 25 2010, 12:19 AM

Well I found that quote I was looking for about natural recovery, finished up my appeal as tight as I could given I was studying for a final exam and planning an internship in Costa Rica, and hand delivered it. Now I'm in Chicago and am heading to Costa Rica On the 10th on Jan. I informed the FS about this and told them to email me because I wont be back to the states until March. Now I'm waiting. They have 45 days to get back to me.....or else!!lol Thanks to you all for your advice.We'll see how this goes.
Still not getting email notifications....I'll figure it out chin.gif
Cheers!

realnice music.gif

Posted by: russau Dec 25 2010, 06:20 AM

Good luck on your trip and Merry Christmass and Happy New Year to you and your family!

Posted by: Forestwalker Jan 2 2011, 03:03 PM

"weather or not the operator submits a NOI, the DR has final authority..."

To bend you over...


Edit: Have a blast in Costa Rica dude! I took a trip there in 03 with a girlfriend and will have memories to last a lifetime. Watching Arenal spit fire at night from the cloud forest was the best.

Posted by: realnice Jan 8 2011, 05:59 PM

Quick update:

Got a call yesterday from a man in Utah who takes care of situations like mine.
His role:
Geologist - Locatable Minerals
M&GM - CNO
c/o Uinta Wasatch-Cache NF

He said that he had been sent a copy of my appeal and that he can help me with my situation and apologized for the idiots who run the FS over here. He asked me to temporarily withdraw my appeal. It sounds like they don't want to go through the costly appeal process. So now we are going to try and work something out outside of the appeals process. He also said that he doesn't normally call appellants,but he wanted to talk to me because my appeal was so well put together:).. Thanks to you all and especially CP! He wanted to set up a conference call with the Roosevelt NF district ranger on Monday but I am leaving for the airport early. He will be sending some info to me in Costa Rica so I will see what they are proposing soon I guess. So I'm feeling pretty good about this. I'll keep you guys posted when I get some more info:)

Forest Walker: where is that quote from??


realnice music.gif

Posted by: ColoradoProspector Jan 15 2011, 10:43 AM

Hi realnice,

Great work on your response and you are very welcome. Glad we could be of help with that.
Hopefully the FS will get their mind straight on this and work to "foster and encourage bonafide mining" as the law/regs state they are required too!

Forestwalker is mistaken on that quote.......The DR (district ranger) absolutely does not have the final say in anyway! There are multiple laws and regulations as well as FSM or FSH directives that REQUIRE THEM to comply with the mining law and mining authority or in other words.....They must follow the DOI/BLM's head authority and the mining law!

Keep us all posted on your future progress if possible too realnice, we'd love to hear about your positive outcome and successful digs on the claim!

Keep on diggin' in everyone!! research.gif emoticon-misc-004.gif

CP

Posted by: realnice Feb 5 2011, 10:57 AM

Hola from Costa Rica.:)
No info from the FS yet.
On the other hand I have found some nice peices of petrified wood on the beach!:) I heard about all the snow and am sending sunshine your way:)!
Laters.

realnice music.gif

Posted by: realnice Mar 8 2011, 05:11 PM

While in Costa Rica I had a Fax of a F.S document that requests an in field meeting when the snow clears. Back in Colorado now:). Now lets get this snow melted!


realnice music.gif char060.gif

Posted by: amethystguy Mar 9 2011, 08:24 AM

This is almost a nail biting thread. Can't wait to hear what happens. It's sort of like a movie. Evil park ranger tries to shut down and hamper poor and downtrodden ammy scepter miner. Govt. vs. average american!!! I am glad you posted yesterday or I may have missed this thread. Lots of good info provided. Are the crystals found in vugs? Are they gas bubble vugs or are they interconnected by veins? Please keep us filled in as I have to know what happens.

Posted by: swizz Mar 9 2011, 08:47 AM

QUOTE (amethystguy @ Mar 9 2011, 07:24 AM) *
It's sort of like a movie. Evil park ranger tries to shut down...


Yes!
I propose that we start a Bikini Car Wash to raise funds to save the mine! thumbsupsmileyanim.gif
[queue 70s hit song "Car Wash"/] bop.gif
I'm IN

Posted by: ColoradoProspector Mar 9 2011, 10:56 AM

QUOTE (swizz @ Mar 9 2011, 07:47 AM) *
Yes!
I propose that we start a Bikini Car Wash to raise funds to save the mine! thumbsupsmileyanim.gif
[queue 70s hit song "Car Wash"/] bop.gif
I'm IN


smiley-laughing021.gif Reading this I pictured Swizz, Coalbunny, Leonard in Binkinis......thanks alot for that image!! smiley-shocked003.gif laught16.gif
Well there would definately be some honkin' goin' on but who knows if anyone would have the guts to stop for the wash job. laught16.gif
I'm gonna have to look at the sun or something to burn that pic out of me head now........ slaphead.gif laught16.gif

One bit of advice realnice.......take someone with you as witness and hopefully armed with a video camera to record the meeting/events of the day. I've known several claim owners to do this and it definately helps to record the convo's and the bs should there happen to be any....... music037.gif
Good luck with the field meet up.
I'll be posting up a story about another claim owners recent field meetings with officials soon too that will be along these same lines but longer periods (years) with quite an interesting outcome......everyone keep your eyes open for that thread to show up soon, I think you'll all find the results interesting as well.

CP

Posted by: swizz Mar 9 2011, 09:13 PM

QUOTE (ColoradoProspector @ Mar 9 2011, 09:56 AM) *
I pictured Swizz, Coalbunny, Leonard in Binkinis......
CP


NOOOOOOOOOO!! ohmy.gif
That's the wrong movie. smiley-laughing021.gif OMG

Posted by: Mrs.CP Mar 10 2011, 08:12 AM

Haha! I about spit my drink on the computer after I read what you and Dan wrote Swizz! smiley-laughing021.gif

Good luck realnice, and keep us informed on how things are going for you.

Posted by: realnice Mar 10 2011, 11:10 AM

Haha! Bikini Car wash!....

I assume I would need permission from the D.R's( both of them wacko.gif )and those present to video tape or record our conversation. I think the law differs from state to state. It also may be kinda of annoying for both parties with a camera in our faces. I do have a video camera tho. What about an audio recorder in my pocket?? I'll for sure bring a witness. I could write down the results of our conversation at the end and get signatures on the agreement. I'm guessing they'll want it in my POO anyways. If they have a change of heart I can always re-instate my appeal and do it the hard way tongue.gif

realnice music.gif

Posted by: leonard Mar 11 2011, 06:23 PM

QUOTE (Mrs.CP @ Mar 10 2011, 07:12 AM) *
Haha! I about spit my drink on the computer after I read what you and Dan wrote Swizz! smiley-laughing021.gif

Good luck realnice, and keep us informed on how things are going for you.



I'd bet that anyone that is completely blind would find me quite attractive in a bikini!

Leonard

Posted by: swizz Mar 12 2011, 12:31 PM

I'm going to stick with my classic one-piece bathing suit cuz chicks dig it.

Posted by: realnice Mar 25 2011, 03:38 PM

Ok y'all. Here's a little stuff for you to chew on. biggrin.gif I have a meeting here in town on the 30th where we will conference call with a mining geologist from Washington(the state).This is the same man who was impressed by my appeal. Here is the letter the FS sent me last week. The letter reads as an "answer to my question" and says that they can answer "all of my many questions at our meeting". I didnt ask any questions in my appeal greensmilies-025.gif I think they are trying to posture and show that they did some research......a year later!

Anyways, at our meeting I will be interested in their "answers to my questions" from my appeal. I will be more interested in what we will want to accomplish at our in-field meeting. Now that they want to be on my ass I am going to request a few things like building a fence around my immediate area of operations which I'm pretty sure is within my rights. I should be able to use timbers from the site to build it as well. Any suggestions? I really want to come to a conclusion about work area size and this will be an important topic as well.








Posted by: ColoradoProspector Mar 30 2011, 10:41 AM

Interesting letter for sure.
I'd say the ranger needs to study up alot more as he still doesn't understand he has no authority over mining. Be very careful and don't let them over step their delegated authority of only surface resources. That only falls into timber or agriculture.....mining is not in one of those catagories of their authoirty no matter how many times they try to say it is.....mining is not under their depts regulation. (scope of cfr he quoted states it)

There are more details that will be posted for the other claim owners ordeals with the FS but after lengthy discussions with that claim owner (CP club member), we've decided it would be best to post those details in the protected area of the forums where all the club members can use/learn from them, but still keep the undesirables (enviro nuts etc) reading the forums from taking advantage of those details.
They are that deciding and overpowering yes!.......very worth while knowing but yet too sensitive to let fly out in the open forum area.
For anyone reading who wishes to know about those details (who wouldn't?), check the club members protected section of the forums.....you'll be blown away! Not a club member yet? Now is a great time to join up and find out the truth, your rights, and how to enact upon them!

Realnice, I'll be sending you a pm to discuss a bit more in detail for your situation.

CP

Posted by: Mineral Estate Grantee Mar 30 2011, 07:22 PM

The Forest Service and BLM (as well other agencies) have no authority over uncommon mineral deposit claims. Reference the Executive Summary The Mining Law: The Extent of Federal Authority Over Public Domain http://www.miningrights.org/exec.pdf The reference in the letter to NEPA as authority, even if applicable, which it isn't, has even less validty being NEPA is merely supplemental to other lawful authority. As proofed in the Executive Summary there is no lawful authority NEPA can supplement.

Always communicate in writing with any agency. The writing is the record. Oral meetings are not and mean nothing. Do not get lulled into using agency terminology. Being these relate to Common Mineral Material, CMM, claims terms such as "Operator" or "Operation" are improper and inappropriate to describe your Uncommon Mineral Property, UMP, or development thereof.

Without a fuller discussion, because all this has been pointed out before, read over the FSM 2800 to find, as regards the mineral grant there is no inherent authority in the Forest Service to apply anything. The "policy manual" can not be "violated" because it is instructions to the employees. Please find in the FSM "However, when reasonable efforts have been made to obtain compliance with the regulations and the noncompliance is unnecessarily or unreasonably causing injury, loss, or damage to surface resources, authorized officers shall take enforcement action (FSM 2817.3(5))." This shows, at least, and much more actually, there has to be probable cause based triggers, "noncompliance is unnecessarily or unreasonably", required to invoke agency intervention. Not even noncompliance triggers an intervention unless it is both unnecessary and unreasonable. Moreover, NEPA is not applicable or implicated in the first instance, if it could be applied to Uncommon Mineral Deposit, UMD, locations. Consequently, when in compliance with the mineral grant there is no unnecessary or unreasonable development, or enjoyment, of your exclusive possession.

Notice the surface management right clearly indicates reference only to Common Mineral Materials, CMM, or disposable minerals, not Uncommon Minerals, the granted minerals, UMD. Read for the exception to FS authority, that's us grantees: 2814.13 - Right To Manage and Dispose of Vegetative Surface Resources The right to manage other resources (except mineral deposits subject to location under the mining laws) and the limitations on such rights on claims validated prior to July 23, 1955, are found in FSM 2812 and 2813.

Sounds like the FS must make room for us, not the other way around. And we don't have to ask: 2814.21 - Respect Claim and Claimant's Property The Forest Service must respect claims and claimants' property by using precautions to avoid damage to claim corner markers, excavations, and other mining improvements and equipment.

Neither does this sound like FS can demand anything either. Locators of mineral deposit locations acquire rights against the United States, not so for CMM: 2813.1 - Rights of Claimants By location and entry, in compliance with the 1872 act, a claimant acquires certain rights against other citizens and against the United States (FSM 2811).

MEG

Posted by: realnice Jul 14 2011, 12:05 PM

Ok, so sorry for being away for a while. Life just gets so busy.

So we had our office meeting and on June 28th we had a field meeting with the District ranger, hydrologist, geologist, botanist, cultural resource specialists, etc and all the rest of the clowns that they could stuff into one forest service vehicle. I laid out my plans for buck fencing. We agreed upon a pit size of about 75 by 40 ft. Little things like where my tailing go and what not. They were really interested in depth and I told them that if I knew just how deep and where the deposit was I would be a rich man as I would be psychic! lol! But what I said is that I have the right to explore as deep as I need.They are still going to require a bond which will be about 2,000 bucks($200) which is what they determined a long time ago.
Anyways. Now that I'm bonded I'm going to work a little by hand this year and hopefully get my bond adjusted to get a backhoe in next summer. My partner has also abandoned the claim so It's all me now...even though he has been MIA through all this. I also sold my other claim and am looking into a nice gemmy Smokey spot!:)

They are still taking their sweet ass time since the field meeting and I need them to speed things up. This whole thing is over a year old now.geeeeez!
Another interesting side note is that some friends of mine filed a claim last fall and turned in a POO. The forest service said that there was no need and now they can basically dig wherever and "significantly disturb" the forest:)hah!...whatever.

realnice music.gif

Posted by: Coalbunny Aug 2 2011, 01:09 AM

If I were in your shoes, I would get all your ducks in a row showing the USFS has no authority, that you are the claim holder, and then go above his head and file a 5 USC Sec. 701-706 demand. Then he'll have to explain to his bosses why he's stepping out of line.

I am also antagonistic as well. greensmilies-017.gif

Posted by: realnice Aug 23 2011, 10:53 AM

Ok, going in for another meeting today in a few hours. Ive been so busy the past few months. Got a great new job surveying mining claims down south. Real mining claims...like 300 stakes on the whole side of a mountain. Fun job.
Anyways, I haven't had time to prepare but Im going in saying that I need a provision for mechanized equipment if I am going to furnish a 2,000 dollar bond. Otherwise I think that there should be no bond. To make things a little worse for me, the expert Tom Abbay has retired and he was a huge help for me. I requested the presence of another specialist for this meeting so we will see what they conjure up. I think they also need to take responsibility for screwing my operation up. The season is almost done which will make 2 whole seasons of no acess.
I'll let you all know how it goes.

realnice music.gif

Posted by: OkieJon May 7 2012, 12:44 PM

Realnice,Any updates?

Posted by: realnice Jul 5 2013, 09:40 AM

...I paid the bond and am operating again..They tried to screw me in a few other ways and I had to inform them of the laws further. Headache is over for a while. No heavy equipment up there yet...

music.gif

Posted by: swizz Jul 5 2013, 05:31 PM

Very good news! thumbsupsmileyanim.gif cheers.gif

Posted by: Mrs.CP Jul 7 2013, 08:44 AM

QUOTE (realnice @ Jul 5 2013, 09:40 AM) *
...I paid the bond and am operating again..They tried to screw me in a few other ways and I had to inform them of the laws further. Headache is over for a while. No heavy equipment up there yet...

music.gif


So does that mean you can have heavy equipment there now?

Posted by: realnice Jul 8 2013, 09:01 AM

No . I'm still limited to hand tools

Posted by: Mrs.CP Jul 9 2013, 10:44 AM

That doesn't even seem right of the forest service to shut your operations down in the first place with no significant disturbance.
That's not "fostering and encouraging", that's just violating your rights!

I guess I'm still really confused on what you benefited from, by filing the POO and paying the $2,000. bond?

Posted by: Caveman Jul 9 2013, 11:21 AM

Realnice, is your claim located in an ACEC (Area of Critical Environmental Concern)? It seems that more restrictive rules may apply if it is. I am running into those just trying to prospect in the Grape Creek Canyon ACEC, seems I can only pan or pick up rocks.... no "mechanized" equipment, etc. "Mechanized" includes battery powered items, excluding detectors.

Posted by: swizz Jul 9 2013, 02:59 PM

QUOTE (Caveman @ Jul 9 2013, 11:21 AM) *
"mechanized" equipment, etc. "Mechanized" includes battery powered items, excluding detectors.

well.....
"Mechanized" typically pertains to machines that move ore from one place to another (like a conveyor, dump truck, loader, backhoe, or excavator). NOI required.
"Motorized" typically pertains to electric or gas powered hand carried mining equipment as termed within "casual use".

Posted by: Caveman Jul 9 2013, 09:41 PM

QUOTE (swizz @ Jul 9 2013, 03:59 PM) *
well.....
"Mechanized" typically pertains to machines that move ore from one place to another (like a conveyor, dump truck, loader, backhoe, or excavator). NOI required.
"Motorized" typically pertains to electric or gas powered hand carried mining equipment as termed within "casual use".


The BLM broadens the definition of mechanized for an ACEC, while severely restricting casual use. In an ACEC, only hand tools, stream sluices, detectors, and pans fit the "casual use". If you have anything with a motor, be it battery, gas, or whatever powered, it's considered "mechanized" and needs a POO, even if there is no claim. I went over this for more than an hour with the woman at the BLM office in Canon City, and I asked a lot of questions regarding this. Yes, you can file a POO w/o a claim in an ACEC, you have to follow the requirements just like you have a claim, you just don't have the mineral rights - and if someone files a claim on top of you, you're done!

Posted by: swizz Jul 9 2013, 10:13 PM

I've never heard of ACEC. New designation?
What exactly gives the BLM the authority or reasoning to designate an area as "ACEC"... what is the criteria for that designation?
This is new to me.

Posted by: Caveman Jul 9 2013, 10:54 PM

I just ran into this, I do not know how long it has been around - at least since 2010 - "ACEC" is "Area of Critical Environmental Concern". Sensitive areas, endangered species, cultural/historical areas, etc. fall into this. "Grape Creek ACEC", "Arkansas (River) Canyon Lands ACEC", and "Browns Canyon ACEC" are the ones on the Arkansas River, but there are many more. Go to LR2000 Geocommunicator, under layers select ACEC, and you can see what ACEC is nearest your claim. Special rules apply for an ACEC. ARRRGGGGGHHHH!

Update - ACEC's have been around since 1976:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area_of_Critical_Environmental_Concern

Posted by: russau Jul 10 2013, 05:43 AM

im not as up-to-date as many are here but it sure seems to me that we are being regulated to death from these gubermint agenceys. pretty soon we wont be able to pick our nose on "our" federally managed land.

Posted by: swizz Jul 10 2013, 05:54 AM

QUOTE (Caveman @ Jul 9 2013, 10:54 PM) *
Go to LR2000 Geocommunicator, under layers select ACEC, and you can see what ACEC is nearest your claim.

Thanks! I went to geocom and hit the ACEC layer... sure enough they popped up. There aren't any near the claims thankfully.

Posted by: Caveman Jul 10 2013, 06:16 AM

Both of the places I want to work near here are in an ACEC, dang it all. Oh, well - $25 to run the trommel at Point Bar for 2 years isn't so bad when you are at my level, and I can still pan the creek.... just have to find the claims and their boundaries - if there are any. I would like to run the dredge into the trommel somewhere for grins and giggles. Realnice - sorry I hijacked your thread.... What's the status of your situation? Are you going to be able to run heavy equipment there, or are you still under review?

Posted by: swizz Jul 12 2013, 09:04 AM

I have been enlightened regarding ACEC (and I should have researched it myself), Thanks Dan.
Regardless of what a BLM or NFS employee told you or anyone else...
The BLM, USFS, or other land management agency cannot usurp or amend the Mining Laws Of 1872 using ACEC designation as a platform on public owned land, they might like for us to think so... especially if people refer to themselves as recreationalists or hobbyists when asking questions.
Side Note: "recreational" and "hobby" land users are not protected by the Mining Laws Of 1872. Please avoid use of those terms on public owned lands. We are either "mining" or "prospecting" on public owned land, period. Mining and prospecting are what the mining laws pertain to. If on rec designated lands like Clear Crk Open Space, Cache Crk, etc then yes, we are recreational land users/hobbyists and are not enjoying any mining "rights" while there... just recreational privileges granted by the land owner. I know this sounds knit-picky but it is very important.
Anyway... I'll get off my soap box stirthepot.gif
Land Management Agencies (BLM, NFS, etc) do not have the authority to withdraw public owned land from mineral entry or regulate actual mining or prospecting (for locatable mineral resources) based on ACEC designation. There is no built-in mining hurdle attached to ACEC designation.

Posted by: ColoradoProspector Jul 12 2013, 11:08 AM

You're welcome Chris. smiley-cool14.gif
I'd heard of the ACEC before and knew exactly where when the 1976 act was mentioned. You are spot on with the difference of recreational/hobbyist vs really prospecting in the field too Chris. Even for those who view themselves as that level (hobbyist or recreational) must understand the difference or you will be treated/restricted like a recreational user in a special use area, when actually the area of interest is not specially designated that you questioned the official about.
At any level as this thread demonstrates, claim owner or not, unfortunately our gov officials seem to be more apt to give a personal opinion rather than laws......and very sadly, if the citizen believes the opinion to be fact then they've had their rights violated in my opinion by not having been given the proper (legal) answer their job dictates!

The search feature in this forum will help emmensely for those who want to find a specific topic such as this or related. Although using ACEC in search wouldn't have brought up the info needed......but searching the FLPMA will (Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976), which will bring up a thread from several years back I posted about this and a very important excerpt from the act.

QUOTE (ColoradoProspector @ Feb 27 2010, 12:35 PM) *
One excerpt of interest is..........
Sec. 302 (43USC1732) page 21 of the FLMPA pdf
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.

http://www.coloradoprospector.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=2914
You'll also find a download link in that thread to read the entire act which has some ineteresting info on the timelines and requirements of finalizing any withdrawls (ACEC) areas. The officials could be pushing outside their authority? NO WAY! smiley-shocked003.gif ......Oooops that was sarcasim!

It never helps when we expect to ask a tax paid uniformed official for a straight answer and later find out it's pure bullsh*t! signs019.gif
But like Chris just said, you absolutely must double check their answers research.gif or be willing to accept the restrictions born of wishful thinkin' on the rangers part. stop.gif But who if not the citizens will call them on that bs? It is OUR LAND!

Dig in folks, it really does pay off for you personallly! info_grin.gif

Posted by: Caveman Jul 12 2013, 01:15 PM

SOOoooooo....... I do not have to file a POO to use a battery powered power sluice in Grape Creek ACEC...... right?

Posted by: swizz Jul 12 2013, 02:01 PM

Who owns the land?

Posted by: ColoradoProspector Jul 12 2013, 02:02 PM

QUOTE (Caveman @ Jul 12 2013, 01:15 PM) *
SOOoooooo....... I do not have to file a POO to use a battery powered power sluice in Grape Creek ACEC...... right?


I would say more than likely yes you are correct. But.......... the only way to find out for certain is to ....yep you guessed it, research it!
I've not researched it but beings as it's still called an ACEC that apparently borders the Ark headwater rec area? Then it's apparently never been finalized as a "withdrawn" area specially designated as such by congress itself......but the district rangers (past and present) sure would have liked to have included it as well as the other still named ACEC's in that area.
Funny though, reading through the FLMPA itself, it would seem to me that the time line limits for them to finish withdrawls under the act has passed by a number of years ago! Check it out and see how you read it.

What you'll need to find out is, are there current proceedings still underway concerning that particular ACEC's withdrawl as stipulated in the FLMPA with further time limits? If it is still in proceedings and or finalized then those documents/decisions are public information to be posted in that respective office for public notice/inspection including mineral assays of all mineral deposits. IE you should be able to verify their proclamation of "withdrawn" or they are just blowing smoke with their (and their bosses) personal opinion of the FLMPA.

If they are not finalized yet or do not have valid proceedings underway with the secretary and congress, then that land in fact is open still and you are fine to prospect there as in any other normal area not withdrawn. IMHO happy112.gif

Posted by: Caveman Jul 12 2013, 03:37 PM

Interesting...... there are mining claims there (where I'm looking), but they are all closed - not active, not refilled. She did say I could pan w/o any problems, but using any kind of mechanized requires a POO - even with no claim filed. I had thought that a POO could not be filed w/o a claim. I wonder if that applies to this particular ACEC in their minds - it has not been withdrawn from mining by the way, I asked specifically and she replied very quickly and assertively that it had not. It seems that they want to review what you want to do and charge a bond accordingly for restoration purposes. Grape Creek is an ACEC for archaeological reasons (Ute Temple). They do require that you fill out a NOI to run dredges, high bankers, power sluices, and trommels at Point Bar (hence the permit fee of $25 per type), but not for panning or stream sluices. If they are not allowed to do this per the Mining Law of 1872 and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, then how are they getting away with it? Here are some of their Guidelines for the Royal Gorge Field Office (RFGO)...

Casual Use Activities

Casual Use means activities ordinarily resulting in no or negligible disturbance of the public lands or resources. Casual use generally includes the collection of geochemical, rock, soil or mineral specimens using hand tools; hand panning; or non-motorized sluicing. It may also include use of battery-operated devices for sensing the presence of minerals. Casual use does not include use of mechanized earth-moving equipment. See below for requirements specific to suction dredge operations.

Notification to the BLM is not required for casual use activities on public lands.

Recreational Placer Mining in the RGFO and along the Arkansas River corridor

Per 43CFR 8365.1-5: Except on developed recreation sites and areas (or where otherwise prohibited and posted) it is permissible to collect from the public lands reasonable amounts of rock and mineral specimens for noncommercial purposes. Motorized or mechanical devices, except metal detectors, may not be used to aid in the collection of rock and mineral specimens.

Over the Counter Notification : For notice level operations at the Point Bar Placer Area, the following thresholds apply:
•In stream (suction dredging) equipment is limited to 4-inch intake nozzle and 8 hp motors.
•On shore (high banking) equipment is limited to a 3-inch intake hose or nozzle and 8-hp in total motor size.
•Operations are permitted between April 1 and September 30

General Conditions of Use

Placer Activities
•Streamside (riparian) vegetation shall not be damaged by operations.
•Motorized vehicles are restricted to designated roads and parking areas and shall be kept at least 20 feet from the edge of the stream, and away from wet or muddy areas next to the stream, streamside vegetation, or wetlands.
•On shore excavation locations shall be refilled upon completion of work. If the operator leaves the area for more than a two-day period, this work must be completed prior to departure.
•All trash, debris, or other items that were brought to the area, shall be removed to an approved disposal site when work is completed.

Public Lands
•Control erosion and water runoff.
•Take measures to isolate, remove, or control toxic materials.
•Reshape and re-vegetate disturbed areas where reasonable and practicable.
•Rehabilitate fisheries and wildlife habitat where reasonable and practicable.
•Maintain equipment, and other facilities in a safe and orderly manner.
•Do not collect or disturb historic or archaeological resources or sites.
•All operations are required to comply with applicable state or federal regulations pertaining to threatened and endangered species.
•Unnecessary and undue degradation of public lands is not authorized.


And check the Causal Use Limitations in this document:

http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/co/field_offices/royal_gorge_field/Minerals/locatable_minerals/documents.Par.88571.File.dat/Mining%20Information.pdf

Posted by: ColoradoProspector Jul 15 2013, 10:44 AM

Right Caveman, a POO (plan of operation) is only filed on a claim and bonds are only used on claims as well. This unfortunately demonstrates the lack of knowledge the uniforms have concerning their own job, it's authorizations and duties. Another conflicting statement of hers....if not withdrawn nor within the Arkansas headwater rec area, then why do they assume they can restrict it? They can not.

All the rules from the "recreational placer mining" (there's a conflicting title...no such thing!) permits are ONLY APPLICABLE TO THE ARKANSAS HEADWATER RECREATIONAL AREA boundries. If this ACEC is outside the designated rec area, then those restrictions do not apply.
It's very difficult to keep the two differentiated especially when so many officials and citizens are confused between the two..... NF/BLM lands in general vs. recreational areas. Although a recreational area may well be BLM or FS lands, any special restrictions for that specified area do not extend past the designated areas boundries. In this situation the same district ranger office deals with both catagories.....rec areas and normal non designated BLM land. Most of the questions that particular office recieves are about the recreational area and hence their answers will be all geared to their normal line of questions regarding recreational activities.
Unfortunately this also leads to the situation you've experienced where apparently they wish to push those extra restrictions into lands they are not authorized to if all that's been said/assumed here is fact.

Good luck with this and keep us all posted as to updates you might have.

Posted by: Caveman Jul 16 2013, 09:05 AM

Well, I have highjacked this thread long enough, so when I can continue it, I will open a new one called Grape Creek ACEC adventures, or something like that. Realnice, thanks for you patience, and good luck with your claim. Please keep posting and let us know how things are going with your dealings with the FS and BLM folks. emoticon-misc-004.gif I think for now, I'm gonna go fish! fishing1.gif Seriously - I even bought new lures and flies, and found my fly leaders!

Posted by: realnice Dec 16 2014, 12:55 PM

Havent been around a while. To answer a few questions.
Mrs.CP: The only benefit I got through having a P.O.O and Bond was foregoing the court process and getting back to working the claim. I am aware that I have been screwed. I do not have enough money to take on the USFS in court.

Caveman: My claim is not on or near an ACEC.

Happy Holidays.

music-smiley.gif

Posted by: EMac Dec 16 2014, 02:52 PM

Interesting thread; thanks for the bump today realnice that brought it up to the top!

Posted by: swizz Dec 16 2014, 05:53 PM

QUOTE (realnice @ Dec 16 2014, 11:55 AM) *
I do not have enough money to take on the USFS in court.

If you have a solid case (and I think you do) this shouldn't cost you a dime. USFS (defendant) will be held liable for all court costs and attorney fees, not you (plaintiff). You may even have a good cause to sue and recover some of your mining losses... or settle for a figure out of court if you catch them dead to right and they're smart. Might cost you a down payment for a good lawyer, but should be able to recover that in the process. If your case is strong they (lawyers) will want it.
Very good to hear from you again. cheers.gif

Posted by: ColoradoProspector Dec 21 2014, 09:08 PM

I’m still a bit confused on this scenario realnice put forth of suing the FS or taking them to court ……how would he end up in court to sue the FS to begin with?
I thought he’d written this POO as the claim owner (against our recommendations here) with the FS’s assistance (at his request) and then got approved for the work level/tools he stated/wrote into it……..?
So how would he end up in court at all or to sue the FS? I’m lost on that part still.
If it were in court (somehow) then what ever caused the effect of “court” would have to be addressed would it not,… whether it’s FS actions or claim owners that caused it to be “in court”?
From what I’ve seen in this threads posted history of his actions, he’s approved on a POO he wrote which now he’s unhappy with? or did I miss something else?……I don’t see how attempting to sue the FS or take them to court would even address that correctly at this point.
confused0082[1].gif

Posted by: Caveman Dec 22 2014, 06:30 PM

It appears the USFS is not honoring the POO - even though they agreed to it.

Posted by: Mrs.CP Dec 23 2014, 12:29 PM

QUOTE (realnice @ Dec 16 2014, 11:55 AM) *
Havent been around a while. To answer a few questions.
Mrs.CP: The only benefit I got through having a P.O.O and Bond was foregoing the court process and getting back to working the claim. I am aware that I have been screwed. I do not have enough money to take on the USFS in court.

Caveman: My claim is not on or near an ACEC.

Happy Holidays.

music-smiley.gif


Thanks for the update Realnice, sorry to hear that your still having problems though. sad.gif


QUOTE (Caveman @ Dec 22 2014, 05:30 PM) *
It appears the USFS is not honoring the POO - even though they agreed to it.


It may appear that way Caveman but in reality, he is just restricted to the POO that he wrote and signed.
This is the way it is unless Realnice amends his POO or the time frame runs out so he can write another..... "IF NEEDED".


Posted by: Caveman Dec 23 2014, 06:55 PM

I suspect that's it - but it may not be..... I have read several articles on-line and in the mining magazines where the USFS & BLM accept the POO, but then refuse to allow the equipment in it access to the site - usually because the USFS destroyed the old road that was being used, but sometimes other reasons as well. Just do not know what the case is here as we have not seen the POO, or why this has gone to court. When the USFS gets unfriendly, they play all sorts of games to make access difficult - even when they are clearly in the wrong.

Posted by: realnice Apr 25 2017, 01:43 PM

Just checking in on this thread as I do occasionally. It seems I missed the comments by CP regarding court.
My issue originally arose when I was issued a cease and desist letter by the USFS. I was threatened with large fines if certain actions were not met. I sent in an appeal and was then contacted by the head of mining and minerals for the entire country apologizing and asking to withdraw my appeal in return for agreeing to a P.O.O. It was also explained that I could reinstate my appeal at any time. If I had not accepted this offer then this issue would have gone to the court system. I never stated that I was going to "Sue" the USFS, just that I could not afford lawyers to go to court against the USFS. The advice from this site was helpful but" going against the advice" of the admin was my choice as I don't believe the site admins are lawyers (maybe they are?) Hope this clears anything up .

Posted by: CP Apr 26 2017, 07:00 PM

Thanks realnice but I was not confused at all I know what you said previously and I only used that terminology/scenario to fit what you said..."can't afford lawyers to fight FS in court" right....you said that.
My point was .....why would it need to be in court with lawyers....you were merely "threatened" in the field and not even cited with any violations of any kind.
Good gosh the FS is not even authorized to regulate mining at all to any degree at anytime on any land or ground they administer....that authority still is only delegated to BLM by congress....FS can only regulate surface use and occupancy....NEVER MINING!
They are in fact required to approve P.O.O. submitted for mining claims and can merely "attempt to minimized adverse conditions" as the law states! But you are completely correct, I am not a lawyer and have never claimed to be one to any degree.
How ever...I have helped more than a few miners/claim owners with their individual situations over time and even some that have had other gov agencies tell FS officials to stop messing with claim owners as it's not their job.
Our club members know about these claims as they are the claim owners themselves or have read about them on the club members forum...... None of them had success because they followed my advise or anyone else's persay either....what they did was SELF ASSERT AS A CLAIM OWNER! YOU HAVE RIGHTS FS DOES NOT! They work for you!

I sincerely wish the best for you on your future workings. Hopefully everything works out just fine and you have no further issues with FS now.

I still stand by my comments or advise as given previously though.....I do not recommend ever using the FS or working with FS officials to write one's P.O.O. for their mine/claim! sadno.gif
smile.gif

Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)