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?
Hi realnice and welcome to the forums, 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.
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! 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'!
CP
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!
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!
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! 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! 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!
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' , we all hope you hit the mother lode on your claim!
CP
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.:
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.
it is a violation of federal law to stop/impede/interfer/harrase with any legal mining operation on a federal mining claim.
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
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.
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
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
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.
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!
CP
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?
CP
Here's a document that I have on significant disturbance that may be helpful to members.
realnice
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
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
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
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?
CP
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
Cheers!
realnice
Good luck on your trip and Merry Christmass and Happy New Year to you and your family!
"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.
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
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!!
CP
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
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
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.
Haha! I about spit my drink on the computer after I read what you and Dan wrote Swizz!
Good luck realnice, and keep us informed on how things are going for you.
Haha! Bikini Car wash!....
I assume I would need permission from the D.R's( both of them )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
realnice
I'm going to stick with my classic one-piece bathing suit cuz chicks dig it.
Ok y'all. Here's a little stuff for you to chew on. 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 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.
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
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
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
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.
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
Realnice,Any updates?
...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...
Very good news!
No . I'm still limited to hand tools
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?
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.
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.
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
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.
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?
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
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.
You're welcome Chris.
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.
SOOoooooo....... I do not have to file a POO to use a battery powered power sluice in Grape Creek ACEC...... right?
Who owns the land?
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
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.
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. I think for now, I'm gonna go fish! Seriously - I even bought new lures and flies, and found my fly leaders!
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.
Interesting thread; thanks for the bump today realnice that brought it up to the top!
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.
It appears the USFS is not honoring the POO - even though they agreed to it.
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.
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 .
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!
Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)