Jump to content
Nugget Shooter Forums

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Steel Pan

Camping on claims

Recommended Posts

I've read you can only stay on a claim for 2 wks and then have to leave for 60 or 90 days. ( can't remember which )

An old timer told me that it would be limiting a prospectors income, and they can't do that.

Is there some truth to what the old timer said?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've read you can only stay on a claim for 2 wks and then have to leave for 60 or 90 days. ( can't remember which )

An old timer told me that it would be limiting a prospectors income, and they can't do that.

Is there some truth to what the old timer said?

PLP is fighting a good battle to keep mining rights for all of us crazy people. All of us miners, rock hounds ect. need to step up and help plp... or watch our freedoms slowly fade into memories. look up plp.org public land for the people. you must know the law to be able to stand up for your rights when the pine cone cop tries to tell you are breaking a forest regulation or a Law on the books.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Generally, so long as you are actually & actively prospecting, metal detecting, sampling, dredging, or performing some sort of mining. The 14 day camping limit is not applicable to a mining claim owner. To safeguard yourself, have documents with you to prove you own the mining claim. Depending on what you are doing, if above a “casual use" level, you may be required to file a notice of intent, or a plan of operation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Generally, so long as you are actually & actively prospecting, metal detecting, sampling, dredging, or performing some sort of mining. The 14 day camping limit is not applicable to a mining claim owner. To safeguard yourself, have documents with you to prove you own the mining claim. Depending on what you are doing, if above a “casual use" level, you may be required to file a notice of intent, or a plan of operation.

Makes sence to me. Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:baaasmiley:

Makes sence to me. Thanks!

On a mining claim your on your propery.

You can work it as log a weather permits.

:inocent:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Steel Pan

Your first post was part right.

A casual use claim is still considered as recreational

use. You are only entitled to camp 14 days during a

calender year on a casual use claim.

You have to file a plan of operations to camp for longer

periods. The 14 day limit is to keep every Tom,Dick,and

Harry from filing a casual use claim for their own little

private camp ground.

If they catch you camping on your claim over the 14 day

limit the BLM will charge you with trespass. Things can

go down hill fast from that point.

I never camp on the actual claim.I always camp on open

Federal land outside the claim. They can only tell you to

move on open land and it doesn't affect your claim status.

Once you set up camp on a claim you own,you are under a

different set of rules than the regular public.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just may be submitting both the NOI and POO.

Planning some activity for next spring.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OGM and Sawmill,

Didn't the Mclure(sp) case a few years back (and another one here in CA which I can't remeber)throw out this 14 day camping rule on a valid mining claim?

OK, let me step unto my Soapbox for a minute.....first a mining claim is a right to mineral property. In doing so, there is No Law to deem the claim usage as Casual or Recreational or Hobby or whatever by a management apparatice or agency, only confusing regulation.

I must ask, has anyone ever know of any small logging and/or milling operation to be of Casual, Recreational or of a Hobby stature? NO! Thus any Mining Claim must be treated in the same way when it comes to this regulation of a "14 day rule regarding camping on ones claim"!

Dang, I get so frustrated with the word usage of casual, recreational and hobby, it's a mining claim and in being so it's afforded legal Federal rights, none of which contain the above words. Your prospecting and camping on a legal claim and nothing more.....OK, off the soapbox and heading for the frig.

Back from frig..... A week ago I had a sit-down with my attorney. I've been in other law offices before on other matters, but this time something really hit me after once again noteing the amount or volumes of books relating to case law and legal authority sitting on those shelves. "How in the world could a small team process the volumes of information to make a case".....when I think about it, the kitchen sink comes into play.....at least, be it on the side of the Defense!

Gary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OGM and Sawmill,

Didn't the Mclure(sp) case a few years back (and another one here in CA which I can't remeber)throw out this 14 day camping rule on a valid mining claim?

OK, let me step unto my Soapbox for a minute.....first a mining claim is a right to mineral property. In doing so, there is No Law to deem the claim usage as Casual or Recreational or Hobby or whatever by a management apparatice or agency, only confusing regulation.

I must ask, has anyone ever know of any small logging and/or milling operation to be of Casual, Recreational or of a Hobby stature? NO! Thus any Mining Claim must be treated in the same way when it comes to this regulation of a "14 day rule regarding camping on ones claim"!

Dang, I get so frustrated with the word usage of casual, recreational and hobby, it's a mining claim and in being so it's afforded legal Federal rights, none of which contain the above words. Your prospecting and camping on a legal claim and nothing more.....OK, off the soapbox and heading for the frig.

Back from frig..... A week ago I had a sit-down with my attorney. I've been in other law offices before on other matters, but this time something really hit me after once again noteing the amount or volumes of books relating to case law and legal authority sitting on those shelves. "How in the world could a small team process the volumes of information to make a case".....when I think about it, the kitchen sink comes into play.....at least, be it on the side of the Defence!

Gary

Wait wait wait............... :olddude:

There is NO SUCH THING as a “hobby” or “recreational” mining claim.

There are only invalid & valid mining claims.

For a mining claim to be “valid”, assuming it is properly staked, filed & maintained, it must contain a “valid mineral discovery”. If it does, the claim is valid.

If it does not, and while uncontested by the USFS or BLM, you are holding the claim under the doctrine of “Pedis possessio”. Meaning standing on it, or in possession of it, while attempting to discover, develop, expose, and prove it contains a valid mineral discovery.

Without going into a lot of history & changes in the definition of the governing law. .

In this day & age, a “valid mineral discovery”, is where you have found a valuable mineral, in quantity & quality you can mine at a profit. In other words, if after associated costs are deducted, you make minimum, or better wage from mining it. Your claim contains a valid mineral discovery.

If the claim does contain a valid mineral discovery, that “vests” your private property right, against all comers.

The term “casual use” is a differing concept, defined by regulation. It is a “standard” of what you are doing there. Prospecting, panning, digging, etc., with hand tools is “casual use”. Bulldozing, cutting marketable trees, blasting, etc is not “casual use”.

What is it exactly, you intend to do?

With that info, I can steer you to the appropriate regulations, governing that use.

You want to be VERY careful in how you word an NOI.

Basically, you want to keep everything below the level of having to do a POO.

Because they can get long, drawn out, complicated.& require a reclamation bond.

As my time allows, I would be glad to help you put together a NOI.

You may not even need an NOI.

It just depends on what your plans are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

U.S. v. McClure

E.D.Cal.,2005.

United States District Court,E.D. California.

UNITEDSTATES, Plaintiff,

v.

TerryLeeMcCLURE, Defendant.

No. F2092617.

Feb. 22, 2005.

Background: Defendant, who had conducted gold mining operation on National Forest System (NFS) land, was charged with federal misdemeanor of using NFS land without required special-use authorization. Defendant moved to dismiss.

Holding: The District Court, Kellison, United States Magistrate Judge, held that mineral mining activity on NFS land was specifically excepted from Forest Service regulations' requirement for “special-use authorization,” precluding prosecution of defendant under those regulations.

Motion granted.

West Headnotes

Mines and Minerals 260 8

260 Mines and Minerals

260I Public Mineral Lands

260I(A) Reservation and Disposal in General

260k8 k. Offenses Incident to Disposal of Mineral Lands. Most Cited Cases

Mining activity on National Forest System land was specifically excepted from Forest Service regulations' requirement for “special-use authorization,” and thus misdemeanor prosecution could not be brought against gold miner under regulations' “occupancy and use ... without special-use authorization” provision; miner was subject to requirement for filing “plan of operations” contained in separate regulations, but “plan of operations” and “special-use authorization” were not synonymous. 16 U.S.C.A. § 551; 36 C.F.R. §§ 228.4, 228.5, 251.50(a), 261.10(k).

*1183Samantha Spangler, Sacramento, CA, for Plaintiff.

R. Dabney Eastham, Attorney at Law, Seiad Valley, CA, for Defendant.

ORDER

KELLISON, United States Magistrate Judge.

Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the citation/violation notice [Violation] pursuant to Rule 12(B)(2) & (3) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure came on regularly for hearing on January 18, 2005, before the Honorable Craig M. Kellison, United States Magistrate Judge. R. Dabney Eastham appeared for and on behalf of Defendant, Terry Lee McClure; and Assistant U.S. Attorney Samantha S. Spangler appeared on behalf of the United States of America [Government].

Defendant moves to dismiss the Violation on the ground that it fails to state an offense. The gravamen of Defendant's argument is that Defendant is charged with using National Forest System land without special-use authorization, when the alleged activity that he is charged with doing (gold mining) does not require “special-use authorization”. 36 C.F.R. 251.50(a).

Based on the very specific language in § 251.50(a) exempting such activity; and the court's ruling in Unites States v. Lex, 300 F.Supp.2d 951, 960-61 (E.D.Cal.2003) [Lex & Waggener ], this Court agrees.

On September 1, 2004, the Defendant was charge with violating 36 C.F.R. 261.10(k) which prohibits use of National Forest System land in the absence of “special-use authorization”.FN1

FN1.§ 261.10 Occupancy and use.

The following are prohibited:

(a) Constructing, placing, or maintaining any kind of road, trail, structure, fence, enclosure, communications equipment, or other improvement on National Forest System lands or facilities without a special use authorization, contract, or approved operating plan, unless such authorization, contract, or operating plan is waived pursuant to § 251.50(e) of this chapter.

(B) Taking possession of, occupying, or otherwise using National Forest System lands for residential purposes without a special-use authorization, or as otherwise authorized by Federal law or regulation.

© Selling or offering for sale any merchandise or conducting any kind of work activity or service unless authorized by Federal law, regulation, or special-use authorization.

(d) Discharging a firearm or any other implement capable of taking human life, causing injury, or damaging property as follows:

(1) In or within 150 yards of a residence, building, campsite, developed recreation site or occupied area, or

(2) Across or on a National Forest System road or a body of water adjacent thereto, or in any manner or place whereby any person or property is exposed to injury or damage as a result in such discharge.

(3) into or within any cave.

(e) Abandoning any personal property.

(f) Placing a vehicle or other object in such a manner that it is an impediment or hazard to the safety or convenience of any person.

(g) Commercial distribution of printed material without a special use authorization.

(h) When commercially distributing printed material, delaying, halting, or preventing administrative use of an area by the Forest Service or other scheduled or existing uses or activities on National Forest System lands; misrepresenting the purposes or affiliations of those selling or distributing the material; or misrepresenting the availability of the material without cost.

(i) Operating or using in or near a campsite, developed recreation site, or over an adjacent body of water without a permit, any device which produces noise, such as a radio, television, musical instrument, motor or engine in such a manner and at such a time so as to unreasonably disturb any person.

(j) Operating or using a public address system, whether fixed, portable or vehicle mounted, in or near a campsite or developed recreation site or over an adjacent body of water without a special-use authorization.

(k) Use or occupancy of National Forest System land or facilities without special-use authorization when such authorization is required.

(l ) Violating any term or condition of a special-use authorization, contract or approved operating plan.

(m) Failing to stop a vehicle when directed to do so by a Forest Officer.

(n) Failing to pay any special use fee or other charges as required.

(o) Discharging or igniting a firecracker, rocket or other firework, or explosive into or within any cave.

*1184 In that portion of the Violation entitled “Offense Description” the Defendant is charged with “use or occupancy of national forest system land without special use authorization pursuant [to] 16 USC 551”.FN2

FN2.16 U.S.C.551 provides as follows:

The Secretary of Agriculture shall make provisions for the protection against destruction by fire and depredations upon the public forests and national forests which may have been set aside or which may be hereafter set aside under the provisions of section 471 of this title, and which may be continued; and he may make such rules and regulations and establish such service as will insure the objects of such reservations, namely, to regulate their occupancy and use and to preserve the forests thereon from destruction; and any violation of the provisions of this section, sections 473 to 478 and 479 to 482 of this title or such rules and regulations shall be punished by a fine of not more than $500 or imprisonment for not more than six months, or both. Any person charged with the violation of such rules and regulations may be tried and sentenced by any United States magistrate judge specially designated for that purpose by the court by which he was appointed, in the same manner and subject to the same conditions as provided for in section 3401(B) to (e) of Title 18.

The Statement of Probable Cause on the reverse side of the Violation provides a narrative by the citing officer.FN3

FN3. [s. White] contacted Terry L. McClure along the Salmon River, on lands administered by the Six Rivers National Forest. McClure was operating a gold mining suction dredge in the river. On 8/30/04, McClure had been verbally warned by Forest Service personnel that dredging operations required prior authorization from the Forest Service. On 8/31/04, McClure had been personally served with a letter advising him that authorization was required. On both occasions, McClure had told the Forest Service personnel that he had no intention of submitting required paper work to seek authorization for this activity, and that he intended to to operate his dredge without any authorization. McClure told me the same thing on 9/1/04. Auth. Required as per 36 CFR 228.4(a) .

*1185 In the present case, the alleged offense (being a Class B misdemeanor) FN4 is chargeable by way of citation or violation notice.

FN4.36 C.F.R. 261.1b provides that [a]ny violation of the prohibitions of this part (261) shall be punished by a fine of not more than $500, or imprisonment for not more than six months, or both, pursuant to title 16 U.S.C., section 551, unless otherwise provided.

Part (261) prohibitions are defined as Class B misdemeanors under 18 USC 3559(7); and are classified as “petty offenses” pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 19. Under 18 U.S.C. 3571(6), the maximum fine was increased to $5,000.

Rule 58(B)(1) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure allows that the trial of a petty offense may proceed by way of a citation or violation notice as the charging document. A citation or violation notice is the functional equivalent of an indictment or an information. Like indictments and informations, a violation notice is required to cite the statute that the defendant is charged with violating. See Fed.R.Crim.P. 7©(1) (providing that “[t]he indictment or information must be a plain, concise, and definite written statement of the essential facts constituting the offense charged” and shall include “the official or customary citation of the statute, rule, regulation or other provision of law which the defendant is alleged therein to have violated”).

In Defendant's motion to dismiss, he argues that since he is an individual engaged in mining activity FN5 which specifically does not require “special-use authorization” that he cannot be convicted under § 261.10(k). In support of this argument he references 36 C.F.R. 251.50(a) and cites this court's recent decision in Lex & Waggener, supra. In Lex & Waggener, supra at 959-960, Judge Karlton noted that:

FN5. A perpetual concern of the Forest Service is the use of National Forest Service land for recreational or residential purposes under the auspices of mining. See generally, United States v. Shumway, 199 F.3d 1093, 1103 (9th Cir.1999); United States v. Nogueira, 403 F.2d 816 (9th Cir.1968). In these situations, the individuals are simply trespassers, and arguably, suitable candidates for special-use authorization. Unfortunately, this observation does not assist the Forest Service in the present case. In the body of the Violation, the citing officer observed that Defendant “was operating a gold mining suction dredge in the river.” In order for an individual to be subject to the requirements set forth in Part 228 (Mining Regulations), mere entry into National Forest System land for exploration or prospecting purposes is sufficient. In 36 C.F.R. 228.3 [mining] operations are simply defined as all “functions, work, and activities in connection with prospecting, exploration, development, mining or processing or mineral resources and all uses reasonably incident thereto...” Certainly, this is broad enough to include the Defendant's alleged activities described in the Violation.

“36 C.F.R. § 261.10(B) under which appellants were convicted, does not prohibit occupancy that is subject to a special use authorization or that is “otherwise authorized.” Here, because activity *960 covered by the Forest Service's mining regulations is excluded from the special use regulations, see 36 C.F.R. § 251.50(a),FN6 the appellants could not obtain*1186 a special use authorization for their activity which was subject to the mining regulations.”

FN6.§ 251.50(a) Scope.

(a) All uses of National Forest System lands, improvements, and resources, except those authorized by the regulations governing sharing use of roads (§ 212.9); grazing and livestock use (part 222); the sale and disposal of timber and special forest products, such as greens, mushrooms, and medicinal plants (part 223); and minerals (part 228) are designated “special uses.” Before conducting a special use, individuals or entities must submit a proposal to the authorized officer and must obtain a special use authorization from the authorized officer, unless that requirement is waived by paragraphs © through (e)(3) of this section.

The Government argues that the term “special-use authorization” as used in § 261.10(k) broadly includes a “plan of operations,” as said term is used in 36 C.F.R. 228.4 and 36 C.F.R. 228.5. The Government suggests that a “plan of operations” is a specific type of permit and included by implication within the definition of “special-use authorization” as set forth in 36 C.F.R. 261.2 which provides in pertinent part:

The following definitions apply to [subpart A-General Prohibitions]:

. . . . .

Special-use authorization means a permit, term permit, lease or easement which allows occupancy, or use rights on National Forest System land.

To adopt this argument would be contrary to the court's ruling in Lex & Waggener, supra, but more importantly, would render the statutory language in 36 C.F.R. 251.50(a) meaningless. This, the Court will not do. The terms “special-use” and “special-use authorization” as used in Title 36 C.F.R. are terms of art and are to be afforded the same meaning throughout title 36 C.F.R. We are also guided by the canon that identical terms used in different parts of the same act or legislation are intended to have the same meaning. Gustafson v. Alloyd Co., Inc., 513 U.S. 561, 570, 115 S.Ct. 1061, 131 L.Ed.2d 1 (1995).

The Court is mindful that the Forest Service oftentimes has difficulty in attempting to correspond an individual's alleged illegal activity with a specific Part 261 prohibition. The various categories of prohibited activities on National Forest System land as set forth in 36 C.F.R. 261 [Part 261-Prohibitions] are often confusing, and very rarely inclusive.FN7 A miner may be charged under 36 C.F.R. 261 for violating an approved plan of operations, United States v. Doremus, 888 F.2d 630 (9th Cir.1989); 36 C.F.R. 261.10(1), but, may not be charged for failing to submit a “notice of intent” or to file a “plan of operations.” when required to do so. Lex & Waggener, supra, at 959-60.

FN7. Being the Judge that was reversed in Lex & Waggener, I must remind myself that Lex & Waggener did not create the Part 261 enforcement problem-it simply defined it. Under Part 261, a miner can be charged with violating a “Plan of Operation,” [Doremus & § 261.10(1) ], but not by failing to obtain a “Plan of Operation” when required to do so under Part 228. The Court understands that pursuing a Part 261 violation against a noncomplying miner is a preferred remedy since it is expeditious and often results in a probationary term which mandates the miner's compliance. Here, the Government is not without remedy. It has always had the option of pursing civil abatement. See generally, United States v. Shumway, 199 F.3d 1093, 1106 (9th Cir.1999); Unites States v. Nogueira, 403 F.2d 816, 825 (9th Cir.1968); United States v. Anderson 645 F.Supp. 3, 5 (E.D.Cal.1985); United States v. Langley, 587 F.Supp. 1258, 1266 (E.D.Cal.1984); United States v. Smith Christian Mining Enterprises, Inc., 537 F.Supp. 57, 64 (D.Or.1981); Bales v. Ruch, 522 F.Supp. 150, 155 (E.D.Cal.1981). Likewise, the Government is free to pursue criminal proceedings under appropriate sections of Part 261 for “waste” or “resource destruction” (Doremus;United States v. Good, 252 F.Supp.2d 1306 (D.Colo.2000)); and Title 18 U.S.C. (United States v. Campbell, 42 F.3d 1199 (9th Cir.1994)); Similarly, it may simply choose to amend § 261.10 to make criminal a miner's failure to file a notice of intent and/or plan of operation. See Lex & Waggener at 962. Here, however, § 261.10(k) is not an appropriate vehicle.

For the foregoing reasons, and good cause appearing,

*1187 It is hereby Ordered that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Violation Notice F2092617 is hereby granted.

E.D.Cal.,2005.

U.S. v. McClure

364 F.Supp.2d 1183

END OF DOCUMENT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gary

Logging ,grazing,and other uses are in a totally

different category than mining. They are a pay for

play regulated under a contract deal. Even on a

timber sale you have to have a logging plan,and

follow the rules in the contract. We have to have

written permission and it has to be part of the

particular contract to even camp on a job period.

Believe it or not there is about a hundred times

more rules and regulations on a timber sale than

a mining claim. On a timber sale you do not have

any rights except what the feds allow in the contract.

You don't even own the timber you paid for until

it is removed to a private location and scaled .

Don't fall for the greenie propaganda .Every detail

on a timber sale is controlled by the sale administrator.

The logger has no say in how the job is done. The Forest

Service even regulates the days and hours that you can

haul. Each time we move a machine from one sale to another

even if it is just a hundred yards down the road it has to

be steam cleaned and inspected. This is to stop the spread

of noxious weeds. But everyone else can go anywhere we do

without notice because they are not regulated under the

contract. If one of our trucks pulls out of the road and

mashes a weed we can get shut down. But a whole army of

hunters can set up a camp in a meadow and that's OK.If

the general public saw a timber sale contract they would

understand just how little the logger has to do with how

a job is done.

If you think that's bad you should see the crap that the

BLM enforce.s on a drilling rig. They give a crew 3 minutes

to warm their vehicles up when leaving the rig in minus 40

degree weather. Mining regs are simple,the last timber sale

contract I got had to be shipped by UPS.

Since 1955 the only surface rights you have on a

mining claim is just what it takes to work the mine.

And you only gain those rights on a valid claim

with a proven discovery and an approved PoO .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are all wrong--NEW RULES THIS YEAR IMPLEMENTED FS CFR's-NO CAMPING NO MORE--WITHOUT PLAN OR POO NOT EVEN 1 FRIGGN' NIGHT FOLKS. Not even in the back of your truck. The Cancer on the Klamath has been the contributing factor to the camping demise.Lex/Wagoner decision is a moot point folks. Just another example of how cancer spreads to both state and fed law(see rentals on claims)--sorry--ANYHOW--just camp on a adjacent claim/private property or elsewhere and the game ends as they forgot to include a door to close this only avenue.By the by, the old rules still apply to OTHER FOLKS WHO CAN STILL CAMP/TRASH/THRASH YOUR CLAIMS--WTF?????? :*&$*(: John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Data is current as of October 29, 2009

Title 36: Parks, Forests, and Public Property

PART 228—MINERALS

Subpart A—Locatable Minerals

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

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

(1) A notice of intent to operate is not required for:

(i) Operations which will be limited to the use of vehicles on existing public roads or roads used and maintained for National Forest System purposes;

(ii) Prospecting and sampling which will not cause significant surface resource disturbance and will not involve removal of more than a reasonable amount of mineral deposit for analysis and study which generally might include searching for and occasionally removing small mineral samples or specimens, gold panning, metal detecting, non-motorized hand sluicing, using battery operated dry washers, and collecting of mineral specimens using hand tools;

(iii) Marking and monumenting a mining claim;

(iv) Underground operations which will not cause significant surface resource disturbance;

(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;

(vi) Operations which will not involve the use of mechanized earthmoving equipment, such as bulldozers or backhoes, or the cutting of trees, unless those operations otherwise might cause a significant disturbance of surface resources; or

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

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

(3) An operator shall submit a proposed plan of operations to the District Ranger having jurisdiction over the area in which operations will be conducted in lieu of a notice of intent to operate if the proposed operations will likely cause a significant disturbance of surface resources. An operator also shall submit a proposed plan of operations, or a proposed supplemental plan of operations consistent with §228.4(d), to the District Ranger having jurisdiction over the area in which operations are being conducted if those operations are causing a significant disturbance of surface resources but are not covered by a current approved plan of operations. The requirement to submit a plan of operations shall not apply to the operations listed in paragraphs (a)(1)(i) through (v). The requirement to submit a plan of operations also shall not apply to operations which will not involve the use of mechanized earthmoving equipment, such as bulldozers or backhoes, or the cutting of trees, unless those operations otherwise will likely cause a significant disturbance of surface resources.

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

(B) Any person conducting operations on the effective date of these regulations, who would have been required to submit a plan of operations under §228.4(a), may continue operations but shall within 120 days thereafter submit a plan of operations to the District Ranger having jurisdiction over the area within which operations are being conducted: Provided, however, That upon a showing of good cause the authorized officer will grant an extension of time for submission of a plan of operations, not to exceed an additional 6 months. Operations may continue according to the submitted plan during its review, unless the authorized officer determines that the operations are unnecessarily or unreasonably causing irreparable damage to surface resources and advises the operator of those measures needed to avoid such damage. Upon approval of a plan of operations, operations shall be conducted in accordance with the approved plan. The requirement to submit a plan of operations shall not apply: (1) To operations excepted in §228.4(a) or (2) to operations concluded prior to the effective date of the regulations in this part.

© The plan of operations shall include:

(1) The name and legal mailing address of the operators (and claimants if they are not the operators) and their lessees, assigns, or designees.

(2) A map or sketch showing information sufficient to locate the proposed area of operations on the ground, existing and/or proposed roads or access routes to be used in connection with the operations as set forth in §228.12 and the approximate location and size of areas where surface resources will be disturbed.

(3) Information sufficient to describe or identify the type of operations proposed and how they would be conducted, the type and standard of existing and proposed roads or access routes, the means of transportation used or to be used as set forth in §228.12, the period during which the proposed activity will take place, and measures to be taken to meet the requirements for environmental protection in §228.8.

(d) The plan of operations shall cover the requirements set forth in paragraph © of this section, as foreseen for the entire operation for the full estimated period of activity: Provided, however, That if the development of a plan for an entire operation is not possible at the time of preparation of a plan, the operator shall file an initial plan setting forth his proposed operation to the degree reasonably foreseeable at that time, and shall thereafter file a supplemental plan or plans whenever it is proposed to undertake any significant surface disturbance not covered by the initial plan.

(e) At any time during operations under an approved plan of operations, the authorized officer may ask the operator to furnish a proposed modification of the plan detailing the means of minimizing unforeseen significant disturbance of surface resources. If the operator does not furnish a proposed modification within a time deemed reasonable by the authorized officer, the authorized officer may recommend to his immediate superior that the operator be required to submit a proposed modification of the plan. The recommendation of the authorized officer shall be accompanied by a statement setting forth in detail the supporting facts and reasons for his recommendations. In acting upon such recommendation, the immediate superior of the authorized officer shall determine:

(1) Whether all reasonable measures were taken by the authorized officer to predict the environmental impacts of the proposed operations prior to approving the operating plan,

(2) Whether the disturbance is or probably will become of such significance as to require modification of the operating plan in order to meet the requirements for environmental protection specified in §228.8 and

(3) Whether the disturbance can be minimized using reasonable means. Lacking such determination that unforeseen significant disturbance of surface resources is occurring or probable and that the disturbance can be minimized using reasonable means, no operator shall be required to submit a proposed modification of an approved plan of operations. Operations may continue in accordance with the approved plan until a modified plan is approved, unless the immediate superior of the authorized officer determines that the operations are unnecessarily or unreasonably causing irreparable injury, loss or damage to surface resources and advises the operator of those measures needed to avoid such damage.

(f) Upon completion of an environmental analysis in connection with each proposed operating plan, the authorized officer will determine whether an environmental statement is required. Not every plan of operations, supplemental plan or modification will involve the preparation of an environmental statement. Environmental impacts will vary substantially depending on whether the nature of operations is prospecting, exploration, development, or processing, and on the scope of operations (such as size of operations, construction required, length of operations and equipment required), resulting in varying degrees of disturbance to vegetative resources, soil, water, air, or wildlife. The Forest Service will prepare any environmental statements that may be required.

(g) The information required to be included in a notice of intent or a plan of operations, or supplement or modification thereto, has been assigned Office of Management and Budget Control #0596–0022. The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to vary from a few minutes for an activity involving little or no surface disturbance to several months for activities involving heavy capital investments and significant surface disturbance, with an average of 2 hours per individual response. This includes time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding the burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Chief (2800), Forest Service, USDA, P.O. Box 96090, Washington, DC 20090–6090 and to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503.

[39 FR 31317, Aug. 28, 1974. Redesignated at 46 FR 36142, July 14, 1981, and amended at 54 FR 6893, Feb. 15, 1989; 69 FR 41430, July 9, 2004; 70 FR 32731, June 6, 2005]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest bedrock bob

Steel Pan

Your first post was part right.

A casual use claim is still considered as recreational

use. You are only entitled to camp 14 days during a

calender year on a casual use claim.

You have to file a plan of operations to camp for longer

periods. The 14 day limit is to keep every Tom,Dick,and

Harry from filing a casual use claim for their own little

private camp ground.

If they catch you camping on your claim over the 14 day

limit the BLM will charge you with trespass. Things can

go down hill fast from that point.

I never camp on the actual claim.I always camp on open

Federal land outside the claim. They can only tell you to

move on open land and it doesn't affect your claim status.

Once you set up camp on a claim you own,you are under a

different set of rules than the regular public.

This is the best darn summation of the issue right here Sawmill. You hit the nail right on the head.

If'n you are camping more than 14 days you are either;

A) Doing a hell of a lot more than "casual use"

B) Squatting

In either case you need to either move or get a permit. That just makes sense.

Now whether the permitting process makes sense or not, THAT is a completely different ball of wax. I have done many environmental impact statements for various construction projects (not mining) and I know that rules are not always sensible or even possible to comply with. It takes a big company and a big operation to be able to handle the red tape and paperwork requirements, not to mention the bonding, insurance, etc.etc. The little guy gets overwhelmed fast and does not have the resources it takes to comply with the BS.

For me it is a matter of the definition of "casual use". In my area, an old placer mining area which has been extensively worked, you could run a thousand yards and it would never hurt a thing. In certain sensitive wildernes area a few yards might be too much. They certainly love to make rules to protect the most sensitive areas and limit the use in other areas. We all know each area is different geologically, as well as ecologically.

Still, I do what I want to do. I prospect gravel and find spots worth working. I work them on the weekends and sometimes in projects of a week or so at a time. I have done pretty good and over the years have not found an expanse of gravel that it took me more than fourteen days to play out, or need to bring in a backhoe and start a permittable operation. I have never been restricted from doing anything that I wanted to do, or could logically justify doing IN MY AREA. And if the laws DID restrict what I wanted to do I would probably just ignore them anyway. Now that is coming from the point of a CASUAL USER. A HOBBYIST. MIning is a completely different story.

"Recreational prospecting is to mining, as deer hunting is to the extermination of the buffalo"

Bedrock Bob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL, say for instance, a person owned a valid placer mining claim on a stream, creek or river, in any western state where suction dredging was permissible & held a valid current dredge permit. That person used a 4 inch Proline dredge to mine the claim. He dredged & was recovering more than $200 a day in placer gold.

He also camped within eyesight of his dredge, to protect it from vandalism, or theft. His small tent camp & parking area was out of the way, as well as orderly, neat & clean. That person had also dug an isolated 2 or 3 ft deep, 18 inch width hole for a latrine, or used a coleman type camp port-a-potty for a latrine. Any trash, or garbage was kept neatly bagged & hauled to a disposal site, once or twice a week.

Depending on the lands jurisdiction, BLM or USFS & their attitude or demeanor towards suction dredge gold mining, you may or may not need to file an NOI. If the agency had a unfriendly demeanor towards suction dredging, then certainly, it would be wise to file an NOI, to protect your presence while mining. But, most certainly, you could stay & dredge the complete dredging season.

Are any of you telling me, that person could not stay & dredge (in the dredging season) for as long as he wished. Because, if you are, you are wrong. Think about it, you cannot dredge, or protect your mining equiptment, if you are not allowed to be present, to do so. In other words, casual use dredging, or mining cannot be limited to 14 days, in a 90 day period. If otherwise, that would be a prohibition on mining, which an administrative agency cannot do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest bedrock bob

"Are any of you telling me, that person could not stay & dredge (in the dredging season) for as long as he wished. Because, if you are, you are wrong. Think about it, you cannot dredge, or protect your mining equiptment, if you are not allowed to be present, to do so. In other words, casual use dredging, or mining cannot be limited to 14 days, in a 90 day period. If otherwise, that would be a prohibition on mining, which an administrative agency cannot do."

No. I am not telling you that. I dont know what the rules are and I dont really care. The point I was making is that any operation IN MY AREA (as I was very careful to point out) that came even close to lasting 14 days (whether that is the rule or not) would certainly be considered permittable. I contrasted that with other areas where that rule may or may not make sense.

The rules may not make sense in the case of a dredger wanting to camp in the same spot for more than 14 days (if this is indeed the rule). That would be a great example of what I was saying. Also, some fellows can camp for 14 days and leave hardly a trace. Some fellows leave a heck of a mess. Just like I pointed out the rules are often made to take care of the worst case scenario and restrict good operations.

And again, I dont see a darn thing wrong with them wanting to know if you plan on occupying a spot for an extended time. I dont see the need for a prohibition, but since everyone is not so etical sometimes it seems that there should be SOME limitations, huh? Gotta draw the line somewhere and if it is 14 days, 20 days, only longer than 14 days with a valid dredge permit, or whatever we are going to gripe if it inpinges on our plans.

We gripe and then we decide whether or not to do it anyway. So far the rules have not impinged on MY plans (again, as I was very careful to point out) and if they ever do they will probably be instantaneously and permanently ignored. I will camp anywhere I want, for as long as I want, and I am absolutely confident that I will never encounter any resistance at all.

Bob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone’s approach to mining regulation differs, as does the area they are in, and often balances on how well any existing regulation is enforced, within any specific area.

Another issue is that BLM & USFS regulations differ, so each agency has differing approaches to enforcement.

Often, the 14 day camping limit has no effect on what I do, as I am not there that long.

However, members of my extended family, often spend months dredging in 1 area, or another.

As long as they are within dredging permit time frames, making a profit & the weather is good, they stay.

I have been through NOI, POO, bonding & reclamation permitting on mining sites ranging from multimillion dollars projects, to humble 1 man shoe string projects.

So, I’m aware of the hurdles, pitfalls & idiosyncrasies of getting about any size mining project permitted.

What I have found is:

1. Know the guidelines, rules & regulations.

2. In advance, be well prepared to abide by those Reg’s.

3. Find & introduce yourself to whoever is responsible at the field level of enforcing the Reg’s.

Be polite, straight forward & honest with him.

4. Ask him if there is anything you need to do above/beyond the Reg‘s & how he wants you to do it.

Then, if possible do that punctually.

5. Invite him to your camp, to inspect what you are doing & have lunch or dinner (if you want).

6. Make him (or his counterparts) feel welcome anytime.

If you go about “permitting” in a straight forward honest expedient way, you will seldom encounter problems so large, they cannot be overcome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gary

The above case cited has nothing to do with camping

or living on a claim.

A POO can be just a simple act like getting a long

term camp permit. It is just a big name for approval

to operate out of the normal public use regs.

The Forest Service or BLM just wants to be sure that

you are a legitimate miner and not just a squatter.Also

it puts your activities on record as an approved use so

you don't get hassled by the law enforcement staff.

The main thing they want to know is that you have a

legitimate reason for the request,have sanitary

facilities capable of long term use,or that your camp

is not going to damage the area. They may want to

inspect the area and suggest a spot they feel is best

suited. It is not that big of a deal.

I talked to the BLM geologist and the ranger about

extended camping for my claims. Your POO can be as

simple as just writing your intentions with the details

on a sheet of paper and hand delivering it to the ranger.

If all it covers is extended camp use,he can approve it

on the spot.

I am not the biggest fan of the Forest Service or BLM

but there has to be some checks and balances.

Just think what would happen if everyone that got the

gleam in their eye and filed a bunch of worthless claims

was free to do as they please. Most of the claims filed

are by greenhorns and don't have enough gold to pay for

a shovel or less. Now days just about anyone can rent a

trackhoe or cat. Not all prospectors are real bright and

lots of them would destroy any thing in their way ripping

into a worthless claim. I agree that the feds tend to go

overboard but if a guy uses his head,you can deal with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest bedrock bob

Sawmill, that is twice in one day I have ageed with you completely. Is that scary or what?

We all know in some areas camping is just not allowed. I am sure that there are some gold claims in one of these areas somewhere. On some creeks it would be unwise to camp at all and on others it would not make a difference. My camping spot at the gold claim has been used for over 170 years. If I had an operation that required me to be on site full time, or have a portable building or travel trailer parked for any length of time I am fairly certain that it would be no object... it never has been in the past. Camping would be the least of the BLM's concerns and addressed as an element of the POO is it not?

A two paragraph description giving the what, where, who, and how many is all that is needed to gain permission. The Rainbow people just camped in the Jemez wilderness for two weeks and had 10,000 people camping this summer. They got a permit. Thats how it is with outfitters pitching a camp in the wilderness for hunters. They just describe what , where, how, and how many and 99.5% of the time it is groovy. It seems that it should be no more complicated for a fellow who wanted to camp on a dredging claim for 90 days, but again I really dont know about what happens out there.

In areas in the southern part of the state with huge expanses of BLM land there are a lot of squatters. Folks are usually there for only a season or two but there are several camps that have problems. I always thought that the rules were designed to control that aspect of it.

There was also a rather famous case in the Jicarilla mountians about living on a mining claim and I believe that the miners lost if I remember correctly. I'll bet you know all about that one Sawmill?

Bob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bedrock

If you are talking about the old fellow that lived

in the old store building at Jicarilla. Yes I knew him,

and used to stop and visit. There was another old guy

that lived on a side road just before getting into

Jicarilla coming from the Whiteoaks Capitan road. He

had quite a little mine hidden in an out building. He

had a shaft and hoist rig in plain site but very few

ever saw it. The old fellow kept the waste packed off

or dumped it into another shaft somewhere because you

couldn't see any sign of a mine.

The same ranger that gave me crap went after them with

a vengence. There was a bunch that took over the old

school building too. They were darn sure not nice folks.

The old guy that stayed in the old store building had

a mine going right behind the building. He was the last

person to live in Jicarilla.

I was working the Jicarilla district when gold was still

$35.00 an ounce. Back then it was just a hobby and I had

the whole place to myself. Wish I would have known what

gold was going to do back then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kind of topic related, I just got to wondering what kind of equipment limitations there might be on BLM land claims. Are you allowed to use actual power excavating equipment? I imagine you can run a drywasher or a highbanker, could you run a trommel or even a small trackhoe, bulldozer, or tractor?! What about an electric jackhammer with a shovel bit extension?!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sawmill and Bob,

If anything I was "venting a bit of discourse" on my part as to the use of the words, "casual, recreational and hobby", when related to mining and prospecting. Sawmill, I also agree with what you posted.....sometimes in the early morning hours that I've been keeping lately I may have gotten the ole train derailed :yuk-yuk:

My last contact with Jerry F. in the Jicarilla district, who you both note and mention was some months back. I know he went through some hell. I've been wondering about the fate of the area since he had to leave.

Gary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot of the so called USFS / BLM "camping" issues are caused by "stoners" & 'crank - crack - meth heads" that set up in a nice spot.

Which, quickly turns into a tweaker looking garbage dump site.

Not to mention, groups youngsters having "kegger" parties & the like.

Most of which strew cans, bottles & garbage all over & never clean it up.

Next to them are campers who just don't give a sh*t & never pack out their garbage.

Many many times, on various claims I own, we arrive at our usual camp spot to find a "mess".

Which, often involves gathering & hauling away 1/2 a pick up truck full, or more of camper trash.

Dredgers, miners & prospectors, for the most part are the kinds of good stewards of the forests we want out there.

As, most often, they leave camp sites far better than they found them.

But, for some odd reason, we get the brunt of all the BS caused by other less caring, or down-right bad campers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OGM... Ain't that the truth!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, think I answered my own question with a little more research

"The BLM regulations establish three levels of authorization, (1) casual use, (2) notice level, and (3) plans of operations. Casual use involves minor activity with hand tools, no explosives, and no mechanized earth moving equipment. No permit is required. Notice level activities involve use of explosives and/or earth moving equipment. The total annual unreclaimed surface disturbance must not exceed 5 acres per calendar year. A plan of operations is required for all other surface disturbance activities. A full environmental assessment and reclamation bonding are required".

http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:yURpH8LA_ToJ:www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/info/regulations/mining_claims.html+law+equipment+on+mining+claims&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

And I guess this was covered to some extent already in the preceding thread, just a little buried within the legal framework code.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...