BLM Abandoned Mine Letter

[Danb]

Any one else here get a letter from the BLM stating there is an abandoned mine on your claim and you are responsible for closing it and removing any hazards? The entrance of an adit that is caved about 5 ft. in, sits maybe 10 ft. inside my placer claim boundary.


Dan

[rhartill]

See this previous topic...was your letter like the one linked to in this post?

http://www.mojaveunderground.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=488&sid=53cea84ab1d26ae3b683a92d712cda57

[one_bad_rover]

I recieved one from the DOI regarding claims in areas that have had reclaimation. I would send them a a letter back, or have russ draft you something, letting them know that they cannot close anything on your property without explicit permission as it can have serious financial impact on your mining and you will seek financial reparations.
As to you being responsible, send them a letter that says that you are only responsible to return the land to the state it was in when you filed claim.
They really dont have much response to this, and you may have to write a few letters, but they will back down as soon as it gets to the Solicitor Generals office.

[Danb]

Thanks for the input Russ and Corey,

I’ll post a link to a .pdf copy of the letter.
It said if I object to their reclamation, I will be responsible for reclamation.
I was thinking of reopening the adit as it follows a quartz vein that was rumored to have a good content of gold.

[rhartill]

I'd like to read and compare your letter to others I've seen. The reclamation they propose is usually FAR and AWAY overkill. AND a tremendous stretch to assume that you are responsible for the digging someone else did before you claimed the property. We've had success in getting them to back down from the specific proposed reclamation to a more reasonable stmt that the current claimholder promises to fence and warn visitors via signage of any "danger." THEY HAVE NO RIGHT to reclaim access to valuable minerals downshaft and thereby destroy the value of the claim in the process. In my opinion, they can't force you to accept legal responsibility to reclaim what you'd rather not reclaim.

[Danb]

Here is a link to the letter.

http://silvercityminingcompany.com/blmletter.html

[one_bad_rover]

thats the same letter. Note that they say you will be responsible but they dont have any authority to enforce that. Just send them a registered letter letting them know that they are not to be on your land. Also, what was extremely effective in the lakeside area was sending a letter to the contractor, I basically told them that not only would I sue them into bankruptcy but I would physically defend the claim to the full extent of the law.
they backed off and told the BLM they werent doing closures on any of our claims. hehehe...

[Dino]

Very interesting discussion. Thanks for sharing!. I'm curious to see how it turns out. I've never received a notice like the one posted and was curious if it only concerns unpatented claims on BLM land. I also wouldn't mind finding out more on what the BLM defines as casual use. It seems like there was a time when the government encouraged and assisted prospectors to locate and file claims but all that seems to have changed.

[rhartill]

yes, it applies only to unpatented claims on BLM land. Forest Service lands may be different.

I concur that in the good old days, the government seemed to encourage/promote prospecting. E.g., the uranium rush of the 1950s, the minerals exploration assistance program, etc.:

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2003/of03-94/of03-94.pdf

Definitions from the CFR (Code of Federal Regulation)


TITLE 43 - PUBLIC LANDS: INTERIOR

SUBTITLE B - REGULATIONS RELATING TO PUBLIC LANDS

CHAPTER II - BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

SUBCHAPTER C - MINERALS MANAGEMENT (3000)

PART 3800 - MINING CLAIMS UNDER THE GENERAL MINING LAWS

subpart 3809 - SURFACE MANAGEMENT

3809.5 - How does BLM define certain terms used in this subpart?

As used in this subpart, the term: Casual use means activities ordinarily resulting in no or negligible disturbance of the public lands or resources. For example (1) Casual use generally includes the collection of geochemical, rock, soil, or mineral specimens using hand tools; hand panning; or non-motorized sluicing. It may include use of small portable suction dredges. It also generally includes use of metal detectors, gold spears and other battery-operated devices for sensing the presence of minerals, and hand and battery-operated drywashers. Operators may use motorized vehicles for casual use activities provided the use is consistent with the regulations governing such use (part 8340 of this title), off-road vehicle use designations contained in BLM land-use plans, and the terms of temporary closures ordered by BLM.

(2) Casual use does not include use of mechanized earth-moving equipment, truck-mounted drilling equipment, motorized vehicles in areas when designated as closed to off-road vehicles as defined in 8340.05 of this title, chemicals, or explosives. It also does not include occupancy as defined in 3715.05 of this title or operations in areas where the cumulative effects of the activities result in more than negligible disturbance.

Exploration means creating surface disturbance greater than casual use that includes sampling, drilling, or developing surface or underground workings to evaluate the type, extent, quantity, or quality of mineral values present. Exploration does not include activities where material is extracted for commercial use or sale.


Read more: http://cfr.vlex.com/vid/does-blm-def...#ixzz11W7mIF41

[Dino]

Russ, Thanks for the info! I'm currently in the process to do a little exploratory work on the claim I picked up from Spenst a few years back and talked to him recently. He drilled a couple of test holes on the site and is going to mail me his information on what he found. I filed for a water right and was approved, so if nothing else maybe I'll be lucky enough to hit water on the site (hopefully it's potable). What sparked my curiosity about this thread was the requirement to submit a plan of operation before attempting anything other than casual use. I'm hoping drilling under the pretext of pursuing a water right will enable me to not only evaluate the underground geology but also avoid having to put up a reclamation bond. I'm still fairly new to exploration work and have been fortunate enough to check out the Buffalo and Chloride point mines with MU. So far I haven't encountered any workings that headed in the direction of my claim (4th of July No2). This may be a good thing for water quality but bad for mineral potential. I've got until next year to drill and will be researching more into drilling methods and contractor pricing over the winter. If you know of anyone who has done exploratory drilling I would definetly love to have someone mentor me in this endeavor.

[rhartill]

IF unpatented, chances are high you will need to file a plan of operations and unfortunately a reclamation bond. If patented, you can skip the BLM and just file plans with DOGM. Drilling usually is considered beyond casual use...Does your claim have a BLM CAMC serial number? I'd be happy to provide a free hour consult on the legal issues involved as you proceed. LMK...

[Danb]

I’m not sure what I’m going to do just yet. It’s an unpatented claim. The site will most likely be under several feet of snow in a few weeks, so I don’t think they have time give further notice and contract until next year. I have noticed that the Idaho BLM is easier to work with than Utah BLM and FS. It will not be an easy task to close or reopen this adit due to its location. But it is very visible from the main road and gives passers by a look at an old mine. Tell me if this is a bad idea, contact the field office and see what their time line is on this closure and open a dialogue. Maybe some fencing and signage will mitigate the issue. If not I will use Corey’s advice.

[rhartill]

I think fencing and signage will do the trick, especially if Idaho BLM more reasonable...Opening a dialogue to ascertain which closure method they favor, if any, is also a great idea.

[Dino]

Thanks Russ. I would definetly like to take you up on that hour if for nothing else other than getting to meet you. The mine claim I got from Spenst is patented but I'm unaware of a BLM CAMC serial number. I'll look into it. Sometimes it seems like there are so many hurdles one must jump through at the individual level of mining from filing all the appropiate paperwork to start an operation, safety training, and where to ship the ore for processing. It almost makes one wonder if an investment venture into starting a custom mill for processing ore from smaller mines might have a niche in todays market.

[Dawn_CL]

Hello.

Unfortunately the BLM forbids erecting signage or fencing on unpatented claims except those that identify the claim as a legal claim (ie, federal mine claim signs on the borders of the claim, corner post signs that identify the corners of the claim land, location notices, etc.) All other signage and fencing are prohibited unless the fencing and/or signage to keep people out are ok'ed by the BLM. Usually they will ok it if the mines you are looking to protect is a danger to the public OR you are currently working your mine and need to protect the equipment you might be storing for use in your mine. Otherwise, this all falls within the definitions of "occupancy" and permission must be obtained by the BLM for this (other than the reasons i just mentioned). Is also called "Concurrence for Occupancy. However, im not sure whether this applies in any other states besides Arizona or not as i reside in AZ and have a producing mine here.
I have 6 mines on my claim (i have over 1 1/2 mile square of land) with only one mine that i work. Theres 2 other mines on my claim that i had to fence and post with a sign that says "Danger - Open Mine Shaft" simply because those anyone could fall right into the shafts because of them not easily seen until you have already fell into them. Those types of signs and/or fencing BLM allows without needing a 'Concurrence' because it involves life safety. My main mine i have posted with the entrance gated because thats the one i work.Those types of signs and/or fencing BLM allows without needing a 'Concurrence' because it involves life safety. My main mine i have posted with the entrance gated because thats the one i work. The other three are small surface mines which i do not work yet and due to the lack of life safety issues, they do not require fencing or signage.

My suggestion on this would be to check with your local BLM office or state office for thier definition of Occupancy or erecting signs or fences.

Dawn