PERMFILE49486 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

use permit Disposals of salable minerals fiom BLM-administered lands are regulated by'I'ide 43, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Ptut 3600. Sales ate at the estimated fair maricet% value. A free use permit may be issued to a Govemment agency or a nonprofit organization. Disposals from National Forest System lands are regulated by Title 36 CFR Subpart C, 228.40. On National Forest System lands, you may need a special trse permit from the Forest Service. Unrnmmon varieties of salable type minerals may be locatable provided that the deposits meet certain tests created by various judicial and administrative decisions. Federal mineral examiners determine uncommon varieties on a case-by-case basis. Since 1963, petrified wood has not been :locat- able under the mining laws. Hobbyists may remove small amounts for noncommercial use free of charge. The Federal Govemment may sell lazger amounts of petrified wood under appli- cableregulations (see 43 CFR 3620). Since 1920, the Federal Govemment has leased fuels and certain other minerals (see 43 CFR 3000-3590). Leasable mineralstodayinclude oi] and gas, oil shale, geothermal resoura;s, potash, sodium, native asphalt, solid and semi- solid bitumen, bituminous rock, phosphate, and coal. Tn Louisiana and New Mexico, sulphur is leasable. "Discovery" of a Valuable Mineral Deposit Federal statutes do not describe what constitutes a valuable mineral deposit However, th<: Gov- emmem adopted an "economic" definition of locatable minerals that has resulted in a test that makes use of the concept of an economic: ore body. Consequently, several judicial and admin- istrative decisions have established the "pendent man rule" of discovery. A Land Decision of the Department of the Interior in 1894, Castle v. Womble, 19 LD 455 (1894), states: "...where minerals have been found and the evidence is of such a character that a person of ordinary pen- dence would be justified in the further expendi- ture of his labor and means, with a reasonable prospect of success in developing a valuable mine, the requirements of the statutes have been met " The Supreme Coun approved this definition in Chrisman v. ill r 197 US 313 (1905). Tn 1968 the Supreme Court approved a parallel concept, the marketability test, in LI„~, v. 1 "m n, 290 US 602-603 (1968). The marketability test adds to the pendent man rule and considers ewnomics. It requires that the claimant show a reasonable prospect of selling minerals from a claim or a group of claims. Its use by the Department of the Interior since 1933 is based on the Solicitor's opinion in )~yman v. Ellis, 52 LD 714 (1929). This decision involved widespread nonmetallic minerals. The Solicitornoted a need for a distinct showing that the mineral could be mined, removed, and marketed at a profit. The Interior Board of Land Appeals ruled in Pacific Coast Molybdenum, 90 ID 352 (1983) that proof of past or present profit is not a requirement. However, a profit must be a reasonable likelihood. Other Departmental decisions require a discovery on each claim, based on an actual physical exposure of the mineral deposit within the claim boundaries. Jefferson-Montana Conner Mines ~q,, 4] LD 320 (1912), establishes the full test for a lode claim: (1) a physical exposure of the mineral deposit, (2) evidence that the deposit contains a valuable mineral, and {3) engineering and economic data showing a possible profit For placer claims, in addition to proof of a discovery of a pay streak, each 10 acres must be shown to bemineral-in-character. Mineral-in- character isbased on geologic inference and marketability, not necessarily on an actual