GENERAL41570 - 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. For these reasons, claimants may 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 given for 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 conswct permanent struc- tures or store equipmem 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 of such structures. The right of access to a claim 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 of a notice of trespass may occur if 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 activities; (2) used for the mining and sale of leasable minerals or of mineral materials, such as common varieties of sand, grave], or building stone; or (3) located on lands that for any reason have been withdrawn from location of mwng claims after the effective date of withdrawal. 26 Department of the Interior in 1894, Castle v. W m le, 19 LD 455 (1894), states: "...where minerals have been found and the evidence is of such a character that a person of orciinary 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 definition in' Chrismanv. Mil] r ]97 US 313 (1905). In 1968 the Supreme Court approved a parallel concept, the mazketability test, in ~, v. 1 m n, 29.0 US 602-603 (1968). The marketability test adds to the pendent 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 L~}mran 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 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 ('oooer Mine ~q,, 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 mazketability, not necessarily on an actual 7