PERMFILE57307 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

The public has the right to cross mining claims for' recreational and other purposes. and to access Federal lands beyond the claim boundaries: Fdr these reasons, claimantsmay not maintain locked gates across public access routes, unless afull- . time attendant is available and the locked gate is. approved under a plan of operations. Under a. plan of operations, approvals for locked gates may be givenfor the protection of an operator's . equipment and facilities. These approvals usually . restrict the operator to a fenced compound sur- rounding the immediate area of operations. Claimants should not constructpemia'rient stiuc- tares or store equipment or mobile structures . without prior approval of the authorized Federal official. Intermittent or casual mineral explora- tion and development do not normally justify the use o such structures.- - - - - Theright ofaccess to aclaim across Federal lands does not mean that the mining claimant has a right to cause unnecessary or undue degradation of the ': resources. Vehicles used for exploration or mining purposes are not permitted in areas that are temporarily or permanently closed to vehicle use. For example, on lands administered by the BLM, in areas designated as closed to off-highway vehicle use, an approved plan of operations is. . required for new road construction and use of. existing roads. The claimant is liable for damages if found responsible for unnecessary loss of or injury to property of the United States. Issuance ofa nodce.of trespass may`oceurif an unpatented claim or site is (1) used for a homesite, place of business, or for other purposes not reasonably related to mining or milling actidiiies; (2) used for the mining and sale of leasable minerals or of mineral materials, such as common varieties of sand, gravel; or building stone; or (3) located on lands that for any reason have been wiffidrawn from location of mining claims after the effective date of withdrawal. 26 Deparmtent bf the Interior in 1894, Castle v. W m I , 19 LD 455 (1894), states: "...where minerals have been found and the evidence is of such a chazacter that a person of ordinary pm- 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 Court approved this definiflon in Chrisinan v. Miller' 197 US 3.13'(1905). In 1968 ' the Supreme Court approved a parallel concept, the mazketabiliry test, in 31~ v. Leman; 290 US 602-603 (1968). The mazketabiliry test adds to the pmdent man rule and considers economics. 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 Layman v: Ellis, 52 LD 714 (1929). This decision involved widespread nonmetallic minerals. The Solicitor noted 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 Coas[ Molybdenum, 90 ID 352 (1983) that proof ofpast 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 Copper.Mines fig;, 41 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 is based on geologic inference and mazketabiliry, not necessarily on an actual 7