Laserfiche WebLink
MU 23.2008 12:12PM USDI IBIA <br />NO. 7496 P. 9 <br />IBIA 2007-187 <br />type, extent, quantity, or quality of mineral values present. If at any time during <br />tunnel construction, LKA desires to commence production, it will need to file a plan <br />of operations. LKA acknowledges such a requirement. Petition at 12. <br />BLM also argues that tunneling does not properly constitute "exploration," as <br />that term is defined by 43 C.F.R. § 3809.5, because tunneling is properly preceded by <br />drilling. Such an argument derives from the language of 43 C.F.R. § 3809.420, <br />which sets out the general and specific "performance standards" applicable "to your <br />notice or plan of operations," specifying, in subsection (a) (2), the proper "Sequence of <br />operations," as follows: "You must avoid unnecessary impacts and facilitate <br />reclamation by following a reasonable and customary mineral exploration, <br />development, mining and reclamation sequence." We find no support therein for a <br />ruling that the phrase "reasonable and customary ... sequence" dictates that drilling <br />must precede tunneling, where both are aimed at disclosing underground mineral <br />values, or that it has any bearing on whether LKA's proposed tunneling constitutes <br />exploration. In addition, LKA offers evidence to the contrary. See n.11, supra. <br />We conclude that UlVs proposed operations constitute "exploration" within <br />the meaning of the regulations in 43 C.F.R. Subpart 3809. <br />B. Does LKA's N01 Constitute an Improper Segmentation of a Plan of Operations? <br />I.KA asserts that its NOI does not constitute an attempt to engage in improper <br />segmentation as described in 43 C.F.R. § 3809.21(b). LKA asserts that there will not <br />be any segmentation, arguing as follows: <br />43 C.F.PL § 3809.21(b) provides "fy]ou must not segment a project <br />area by an a series of notices for the purpose of avoiding filing a plan <br />of operations." In this case, LKA has not filed a series of notices and is <br />not proposing any other exploration. The Notice for the exploration <br />project at issue is the only notice LKA has filed. <br />Petition at 11. LKA also asserts that it Is not segmenting operations within a project <br />area, since its proposed exploration is "wholly independent" of the Golden Wonder <br />Mine mining operations. Id at 12. It explains that, while the Golden Wonder Mine is <br />being operated on a mining claim owned by LKA, under a lease that grants LKA a <br />percentage of the net smelter return in compensation for the lease, neither LKA nor <br />its owners have an ownership interest in AU Mining, the company that operates the <br />Golden Wonder Mine or operational control over the Golden Wonder Mine. It states: <br />"LKA's exploration tunnel is a separate LKA prospecting endeavor, wholly <br />independent of the Golden Wonder Mine and AU Mining's interests, and would be <br />dug on a separate claim at a separate location." Id. It also states that the proposed <br />exploration tunnel would not intersect the Golden Wonder mining operations since <br />175 IBIA 233