|
JU1.13.1008 11:11PM USBI IBLA
<br />1. Background
<br />A, LKA's Notice of Intent
<br />NO. 7446 P. 3 _ _
<br />IBLA 2007-187
<br />LKA filed a "Notice of Intent to Conduct Exploration Activities for the
<br />LKA Ibcploration Adit Project" (NOI), COC-70807, with BLM on December 5, 2006.2
<br />It proposed to dig a 4,208-foot long, 8-foot high, and 6-foot wide tunnel on public
<br />lands, starting from an adit in the NE'/,SW'/4 sec. 10, T. 43 N., R. 4 W., New Mexico
<br />Principal Meridian, Hinsdale County, Colorado, within its overlapping LKA Nos. 1
<br />and 2 lode mining claims, CMC-252483 and 04C-252484. Such activity, involving
<br />the use of machinery and explosives, is to be conducted over the course of an
<br />18-month period of time and is intended to assess the quality and quantity of any
<br />gold and other valuable minerals present on the claims.
<br />In a letter dated December 29, 2006, the Field office deemed LKA's NOI to be
<br />incomplete and required, in accordance with 43 C.F.R. § 3809.301, the submission of
<br />additional information from LKA concerning the proposed activities. It stated: "Unu'l
<br />a complete Notice is filed with this office, BLM is unable to determine that your
<br />proposed operations will not result in unnecessary or undue degradation .... In
<br />addition, we are unable to make a determination as to the amount of the required
<br />financial guarantee," Letter to LKA, dated Dec. 29, 2005, at 2. The Field Office also
<br />stated that, until the information was provided, "your Notice cannot be processed and
<br />the proposed exploration a0viry is not to take place." Id. LKA provided additional
<br />information on January 25, and April 9, 2007.
<br />B. Field Office's April 2007 Decision
<br />in its decision, the Field Office stated that, based on its review of the
<br />submitted materials, it would "not accept the proposed Notice level operations,"
<br />noting instead that "[t]he proposed operations could be re-submitted to this office as
<br />a Plan of operations or as a Plan amendment." Decision at 1, 2.
<br />BLM set forth, in some detail, three basic reasons for not accepting the
<br />proposed notice4evel operations. Fiat, BLM stated that the proposed operations
<br />1 (...continued)
<br />the appeal at the request of the parties in order to allow them to explore settlement
<br />of this appeal. On May 20, 2008, counsel for LKA reported that those negotiations
<br />had been unsuccessful.
<br />2 Gault Group Inc. (Gault) prepared, filed, and pursued LKA's NOI with BLM, on
<br />behalf of LKA. Gault also filed a copy of the NOI with the Division of Reclamation,
<br />Mining and Safety (DRMS), Department of Natural Resources, State of Colorado.
<br />175 IBLA 227
|