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 36CFR228

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 state mining permits. 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 what they didn't want you to know.
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.:



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/20...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/F2/86...25.87-3020.html





* *

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.

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

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

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

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???

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 prospecting definitions thread

And this one is the "state mining permits"
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

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!!

realnice

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.

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

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

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.......
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

NOOOOOOOOOO!!
That's the wrong movie. OMG

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

Leonard

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!

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

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?