Jump to content
Nugget Shooter Forums

Note to BLM


Steel Pan

Recommended Posts

My inquiry,....

"I understand there are changes for the annual filings of

associaton mining claims.

Can someone direct me to where I may access the info on these changes?

Thank you,"

Their responce,....

"Thank you for your inquiry regarding association placer mining claims. At

this time, there aren't any changes regarding the annual filings. If you

could be more specific as to what you've heard regarding any changes, then

I could address that information. The annual maintenance fee is still $140

per claim which needs to be paid no or before September 1. In lieu of the

maintenance fee, you can still file the small miner's waiver if you have 10

or fewer unpatented mining claims throughout the states and the fee for

filing assessment work notices is still $10 per claim which is due on or

before December 30.

Thank you."

Sonia Santillan

Mineral Leasing Specialist

WO-320 Division of Solid Minerals

(202) 912-7123

(703) 691-3542 (Telework)

(202) 912-7199 FAX

Maybe I should refrase my question? :unsure:

Was trying to get a straight answer about changes regarding co-claimants on assocaition claims.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think perhaps you need to focus it in a little for her as it appears she thought your question was related to fees...

Ya, that's kinda what I was thinkin'.

Now that I have a name and phone number I'll contact her directly.

With some discussion I should be able to get the issue cleared up. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ya, that's kinda what I was thinkin'.

Now that I have a name and phone number I'll contact her directly.

With some discussion I should be able to get the issue cleared up. ;)

I decided to send another e-mail so as to have the actual responce to keep on file.

My inquiry,....

"Dear Ms. Santillan,

First of all, I'd like to thank you for your quick response to my inquiry.

The issue to which I was referring pertains to the individual verifications

required by each co-claimant.

Example: Notarized statements of actual involvement in the claim

location by each co-claimant thereby verifying their bona fide interest in

the claim, and their actual participation in mining activities.

Again, thank you"

Their responce,...

"We found it necessary to change our procedures when reviewing new location

notices. We were receiving location notices, mostly for association placer

claims, that contained 8 claimants, however, the address listed is the same

for all claimants. What some offices encountered was they were getting

complaints from people saying they never authorized their name to be on a

location notice. So, it was becoming evident that some people were listing

people, who may or may not exist, in an effort to claim additional acreage.

The regulations require everyone doing business with the BLM to furnish

their current mailing address, so it's just an additional step we're taking

to try to prevent additional adjudication later on. We do now find it

necessary to request this information every time we receive a new location.

If a location notice is received that contains more than one claimant name

and each claimant has included their own personal mailing address and

signature, there would be no need for an office to require a notarized

statement at that time.

The intent of the mining law was to enable prospectors to discover and

develop the lands for valuable minerals and it appears many claimants have

lost sight of this intent. It seems now that a lot of claimants are more

interested in "paper filing" in an attempt to file the claims and then make

a big profit by selling them with no intention of actually trying to

develop the claim. The BLM manages the public lands and resources and we

need to make certain the opportunity to develop and use the resources is

available to everyone and that those who are using the public lands and

resources are doing so in good faith.

Please let me know if you have any further questions or concerns.

Thank you and I hope you have a wonderful day."

Sonia Santillan

Mineral Leasing Specialist

WO-320 Division of Solid Minerals

(202) 912-7123

(703) 691-3542 (Telework)

(202) 912-7199 FAX

Personally, I don't find a need to use a notarized verification at this time. :brows:

No changes in my situation. All is good. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The BLM manages the public lands and resources and we

need to make certain the opportunity to develop and use the resources is

available to everyone and that those who are using the public lands and

resources are doing so in good faith.

Yet is just seems to continue.....sigh......

Jim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had one more inquiry.

"Dear Ms. Santillan,

That was quick, thank you.

I have one more question.

I understnd that the BLM will no longer accept the trasfer of claim

interests to one co-claimant for claims exceeding 20 acres.

Example: A claim held by six co-claimants in which five of the co-claimants

trasfer their interests to the one remaining co-claimant, thus a claim of

120 acres in possesion of one claimant.

Do I understand this correctly?"

Their responce,....

"That is not exactly right. We accept the transfers as the regulations

allow for that type of transfer. However, the regulations also require

that there has already been a valuable mineral deposit discovery made

before the transfer. If there hasn't been, then the new claimant should be

prepared to reduce the claim to meet the 20-acre per locator limit if the

BLM sends them notice to do so. Again, the BLM is beginning to question

the intent of claimants filing locations for association placers then

conveying the interest of the majority of those claimants to one person.

The Interior Board of Land Appeals has ruled that the BLM doesn't even have

to give the opportunity to reduce the claim size if the location was not a

"valid" location to begin with. In other words, if it can be determined it

was the intent to use the locators only to get additional acreage, then the

claim could be declared void without the opportunity to reduce.

Again, I hope that helps to clarify our procedures.

Thank you!"

Sonia Santillan

Mineral Leasing Specialist

WO-320 Division of Solid Minerals

(202) 912-7123

(703) 691-3542 (Telework)

(202) 912-7199 FAX

Well, that pretty much settles the issues for me. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the last communication I had from the BLM today.

I'm condident that I have all the updated info on hand now. ;)

"The actual last rulemaking for the location, recordation and maintenance

changes was in 2003. That does not include the increase in the fees which

occurred in 2009. The 2003 rulemaking can be found at

http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2003/pdf/03-26673.pdf."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the last communication I had from the BLM today.

I'm condident that I have all the updated info on hand now. ;)

"The actual last rulemaking for the location, recordation and maintenance

changes was in 2003. That does not include the increase in the fees which

occurred in 2009. The 2003 rulemaking can be found at

http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2003/pdf/03-26673.pdf."'>http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2003/pdf/03-26673.pdf."

Sorry, I just discovered that the above link isn't working. Puncuation screwed it up.

This one will work.

http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2003/pdf/03-26673.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Done that way since I can remember??? as any legal deed,trust or legal document MUST be notarized prior to recordation in relation to signatures and in kalif THUMBPRINTS ALSO-John

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Done that way since I can remember??? as any legal deed,trust or legal document MUST be notarized prior to recordation in relation to signatures and in kalif THUMBPRINTS ALSO-John

That's for transfer of interest in a claim (quit claim), right? :unsure:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We do now find it

necessary to request this information every time we receive a new location.

If a location notice is received that contains more than one claimant name

and each claimant has included their own personal mailing address and

signature, there would be no need for an office to require a notarized

statement at that time.

The bold word, "now" was only "no" in the e-mail. I'm sure that it was a typo.

I added the "W".

After reading over several times I think I made a mistake, the word should read as "not", not "now". The total read is in conflict with the word "now" used instead of "not".

Sorry for my confusion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...