Log InRegister
Quick Links : The Mindat ManualThe Rock H. Currier Digital LibraryMindat Newsletter [Free Download]
Home PageAbout MindatThe Mindat ManualHistory of MindatCopyright StatusWho We AreContact UsAdvertise on Mindat
Donate to MindatCorporate SponsorshipSponsor a PageSponsored PagesMindat AdvertisersAdvertise on Mindat
Learning CenterWhat is a mineral?The most common minerals on earthInformation for EducatorsMindat ArticlesThe ElementsThe Rock H. Currier Digital LibraryGeologic Time
Minerals by PropertiesMinerals by ChemistryAdvanced Locality SearchRandom MineralRandom LocalitySearch by minIDLocalities Near MeSearch ArticlesSearch GlossaryMore Search Options
Search For:
Mineral Name:
Locality Name:
Keyword(s):
 
The Mindat ManualAdd a New PhotoRate PhotosLocality Edit ReportCoordinate Completion ReportAdd Glossary Item
Mining CompaniesStatisticsUsersMineral MuseumsClubs & OrganizationsMineral Shows & EventsThe Mindat DirectoryDevice SettingsThe Mineral Quiz
Photo SearchPhoto GalleriesSearch by ColorNew Photos TodayNew Photos YesterdayMembers' Photo GalleriesPast Photo of the Day GalleryPhotography

Field CollectingMining Claims - Public Lands in Western USA

15th Jan 2021 21:21 UTCTaylor Vergin

Hi everyone,

I've recently relocated to northern Nevada and have been spending a lot of my free time out exploring the old mining districts in the area. While I was initially overwhelmed figuring out what was open to exploration (e.g. unpatented vs. patented claims, public vs. private lands), I now believe I have a good enough understanding of this to know where I am allowed to go on public lands and what I'm allowed to do there. 

I've recently located some old workings that I'm interested in claiming and working on a casual basis for mineral specimens. The land is owned by the BLM and open to claiming. I think I understand the process of staking/filing a claim, but it's what happens after that I would like some guidance on from more experienced members of Mindat. Do I need additional permits to work these claims if I'm only planning on doing it casually with hand tools for mineral specimens and not disturbing much ground? Do I then become liable for the old workings or ground disturbances (tailings, buildings, etc.) at the claim? From the sheer number of claims in the state that are held by private individuals, I have a hard time believing that much permitting is required for casual use.

Thanks in advance for any help on this.

15th Jan 2021 23:36 UTCIan Nicastro

I believe the additional permit that you are asking about is what's called a Plan of Operation, but based on what you mentioned you won't need one for casual use. Is the land for sure BLM or is it National Forest? Sometimes the Forest Service requires a additional plan of operation even for casual use (you can call the local National Forest office and ask), but if it's just BLM land then you do not need a plan of operation for casual use. A plan of operation is usually only necessary if you would like to use machinery, generator powered tools or blast and after you hold the claim you apply for plan of operation and then the BLM will do a site visit and they usually make you put down a land reclamation bond of at least a few thousand dollars to make sure you remediate the disturbances you create when you are done. They also control how much earth you are allowed to disturb every year when you are using machinery. My understanding is that you are not responsible for remediating pre-existing tunnels, pits, disturbances, buildings, etc... but you can contact the state BLM office and ask. The BLM will often suggest you keep out of old tunnels on your claim for safety reasons, but if your just going into old tunnels on your claim and doing minor collecting along the existing walls with hand tools that is fine, but if your attempting to full on tunnel then you would need a plan of operation, and my understanding is that underground mining on public lands comes with a lot of red tape like MSHA training, certification and inspections. Note that casual use claim holders can NOT do any of the following on their claim: store any tools, erect sheds, put up fences or signs, charge for the public to do fee digs, & live on your claim. I was informed you are allowed to camp on your casual use claim for 14 days every quarter by the California BLM office. I've found that the hardest form to find online is the first one you need to actually file the claim called the 'Lode Mining Claim Notice,' all of the other forms you need can easily be found on the BLM website. The BLM 'year' runs from Sept 1st on, so if you file before Sept 1st 2021 you will need to fill out the Lode Mining Claim Notice, placing it in a jar on the claim at the discovery marker, getting it recorded by your county, and then sending the recorded copy to your state BLM office, and then placing a copies of the stamped & recorded form you get back from the BLM on your claim at all of the markers. Then before Sept 1 2021 you will need to start turning in paper work for next year, which for the first year is a Notice of Intent to Hold form. From then on you can either do the 1) annual Maintenance Fee Waiver Certification (for small miners owning <10 claims) + submitting a county recorded Affidavit of Annual Assessment Work (aka proof of labor form) or option 2) you can just pay the Annual Maintenance fee.

16th Jan 2021 00:19 UTCTaylor Vergin

Thanks Ian, this is exactly the information I was looking for. I've seen mention of "casual use" not requiring a Plan of Operations on several of the websites that sell claims (at exorbitant rates), but could never find an actual definition according to the government. I don't plan to do any mining beyond what already exists (mostly small prospect pits), so I think I fit in the casual use exemption. 

The land is BLM, I've checked multiple sources to be sure though. There are no other active claims in the section either according to the BLM LR2000 database, so I think I'm good to file. 

Working in the environmental field, I've seen it too many times where people purchase property without doing their research and inherit some liabilities. Seeing old drums of sodium cyanide at these camps made me particularly concerned, so I wanted to make sure I didn't inherit some requirement to clean up the site. 

I will check with the BLM before I file the claims to be sure. Thanks for your guidance!

16th Jan 2021 02:13 UTCIan Nicastro

Gotcha, and yes casual use = hand tools, basically a hobby claim. I would ask about the old miner waste cans with the state BLM office.

16th Jan 2021 03:26 UTCGabe Cangelosi Expert

Those drums are likely protected, any "cleanup" of them would be considered destruction of a cultural resource. Usually 50 years of age is the set date to which they become protected, but there are some exceptions. It sounds like the previous claim has lapsed so the BLM owns all prior improvements to the claim. For example, cabins, machinery, and even some underground features are not instantly owned by the person who files a claim on them. If you want to use any of those previously existing features (such as fixing up an old cabin) you have to go through the BLM. Because of this, you will not be responsible for any of the previous manmade features on the claim since you don't own them. If you want them removed, this is possible but it requires the BLM to approve it.

19th Jan 2021 18:54 UTCElizabeth Sue Keenan

I like gold claim clubs (GPAA, AMRA, Republic Mining etc.).  I don’t need to file, worry about people dumping cars and RV’s and gold guys usually overlook the gems!   In Nevada GPAA and AMRA have quite a bit to offer.  AMRA is also a tax deductible membership which is pretty cool. 
Happy hunting! 

29th Jan 2021 05:30 UTCOwen Tolley

The BLM is a surface management agency so I think they've got nothing to say if you're just working underground and not putting more waste rock outside. They just care about surface disturbance. Just for your information, I have a friend with a claim in Utah where he mines selenite. They required a POO and a $3000 reclamation bond I think and I believe they told him he can disturb like 50 sq ft at a time or something before he needs to fill his holes back in. He also used a jackhammer but no other motorized equipment.
As for MSHA and stuff, I remember reading something about a small and remote mine exception or something like that where if you are the owner and there aren't any other employees then you are exempt from some regulations.

15th Feb 2021 02:45 UTCRobert (Bob) Werner

Bob Werner

For whatever it is worth, my personal experience with NV BLM has been rather interesting.  Filing on an abandoned mining claim that was a productive mine during the first half of the 20th century brought a lot of "unwanted" attention from the BLM.  Because my intent was future mining rather than specifically mineral collecting. The BLM paid a visit to the claim and determined that the open stopes had to closed and the shaft had to be closed.  The bottom line is that they installed a large culvert in the shaft, bulldozing in around it and did the same with one open stope and bulldozed the remaining open stopes completely closed.  The culverts had welded grating over them with the proper dimension to allow bats ingress and egress.  This mine reverted back to the BLM in the 1960's and no attention was paid to it until filing on it in 2012.  Some BLM districts in NV have become rather aggressive with their treatment of old mines, the Ely District, being one of them.  There are other similar examples currently in eastern NV.  My advice to anyone who simply intends to collect minerals, either above or below ground on BLM land is to just do it and don't bring attention of the particular mine by the BLM.  Another local mine, the Independence Mine in the Pioche District,  was a mineral collecting site until a few years ago when an individual from UT filed on it.  The BLM came right down and within the month had a culvert installed in the inclined shaft and bulldozed all open stopes completely closed, ending any mineral collecting at the site.  After the BLM activity, the guy who filed on it lost all interest and it is once again abandoned, but mineral collecting is no longer possible!!  I would personally not get the BLM involved in any old mine site where I intended to collect minerals, it is risky!

15th Feb 2021 14:25 UTCTony L. Potucek Expert

We can blame it on greed, Bob.  Someone always wants to claim property so they can have it all, or so they think.  Your solution is the best path forward. 

15th Feb 2021 16:36 UTCTaylor Vergin

Bob and Tony,

Thanks for the advice and insight, I've seen many abandoned mines that I was interested in visiting being scooped up by some claim re-sale companies. Hopefully the accessible workings weren't sealed because of them. Before that, I really had no interest in dealing with the BLM because of the potential abandoned workings issues.

I've revisited the site recently and decided not to stake it anyway, but your responses gave me an even better reason to not do so.

15th Feb 2021 18:35 UTCDan Polhemus

Taylor -

Make sure you know what type of claims you are dealing with here. Only patented claims can be re-sold, because they have become private property and moved out of federal ownership. As such, BLM would have no jurisdiction over those. BLM put a moratorium on claim patents multiple decades ago, so all newer claims are still under federal ownership, with rights to exploit the mineral rights, either surface (placer) or subsurface (lode) lying with the claim holder. These claims cannot be re-sold; if the claim holder stops paying the annual fees the claims are closed and remit to the federal government. At that point, another party can come in an seek to stake a new claim in the same place as the old one. BLM, as the underlying landowner, often seeks to mitigate hazards or do other mitigation on abandoned or relinquished claims, often in concert with state agencies that have similar responsibilities. Utah has been particularly aggressive lately in this regard.

15th Feb 2021 19:15 UTCTaylor Vergin

Hi Dan, 
These are unpatented claims being resold from what I can gather. I usually check both OnxHunt and the BLM surface ownership shapefiles before I visit to confirm land ownership and use the BLM MLRS/LR2000 to look for unpatented claims.

The legality of reselling unpatented claims has always seemed to be of dubious nature to me.

15th Feb 2021 19:34 UTCDan Polhemus

Sounds sketchy to me, as these folks would be trying to sell US government property, which is generally frowned upon, and can get you a visit from the FBI.

By contrast, there is a big market in the sale of old, patented claims in places like the foothills outside Boulder, Colorado, where real estate brokers bought them up cheap decades ago and now re-sell them as lots for mountain homes. The buyers do not always understand, however, that any legacy contamination issues from mine waste or chemicals also become their problem when they buy these.

15th Feb 2021 19:59 UTCTaylor Vergin

Agreed, especially when you look into how they price the claims for sale based on remaining "reserves". Who knew reserve estimates were as easy as collecting a few XRF readings and extrapolating wildly? 

I could see how the patented claims in Boulder would be prime real estate now. Luckily most of the mining districts in Nevada are far away enough away from civilization that the patents are still held by mining or exploration companies.

15th Feb 2021 21:31 UTCGabe Cangelosi Expert

It's completely legal to sell unpatented claims, you're just selling the mineral rights.
 
A fair sized industry has sprung up though exploiting the lack of knowledge of people about claims in a scamm-y way. They manage to stay mostly legal however by including disclaimers and only implying what is being bought. They will often look for mines that have some sort of possibly valuable historical remnants such as cabins or old equipment and imply without explicitly stating that the buyer of the claim will own those as well. Of course, an unpatented claim does not give you automatic ownership of these features. They also tend to word the pages in ways that make it seem like you are buying a relatively low cost piece of vacation property. The profit margin is massive, you can stake a claim for a few hundred bucks, then sell it for tens of thousands to someone who doesn't know what they are buying. Some people have gotten very wealthy off of doing this. Generally exaggerated reserves and little to no mention of the cost involved in extracting them is standard for these sellers. 

People don't realize how easy it is to file a claim, and what it actually means. Of course, these sellers know that there is no value to the minerals in the claims themselves when you count the costs of extracting them. I'm not going to name any specific sellers, but adding a couple extra zeros to the price of filing it is usually the standard practice. 

In summary selling unpatented claims is legal, but often morally questionable.
 

15th Feb 2021 23:12 UTCTaylor Vergin

Thanks Gabe, I suppose they wouldn't be able to advertise selling claims so obviously on the internet if it were illegal. 

I will content myself with exploring the unclaimed mines on public land. Luckily there's plenty of them to go around still in Nevada as exploration companies come and go.

16th Feb 2021 04:16 UTCDan Polhemus

Taylor -

Recall that the sale of an unpatented claim is not a real estate transaction. The federal government retains ownership of the land. All that someone would be acquiring in the transfer of such a claim is the right to exploit the surface or subsurface mineral resources on the parcel, depending on the type of claim filed. 

The following guidance may be helpful to you. It is taken directly from the official online documents of the Bureau of Land Management and the U. S. Forest Service:

"Although there may be mining claims in which the paperwork to locate is filed but no monuments are placed on the ground, federal regulations require mining claims to have four corner post monuments and to follow state monument requirements as well. Also, a notice of monument must be posted at the discovery point using a visible monument.

Mining claims that are not recorded with the BLM do not convey any rights to federal minerals. Federal unpatented mining claims may be either active or closed on BLM records. A closed mining claim gives the previous owner no rights.

A claimant is required to show a reasonable prospect of making a profit from the sale of minerals from a claim or a group of contiguous claims.

Abandoned structures and equipment are not part of a new Federal unpatented mining claim. Once left on an abandoned mining claim, structures and equipment become federal property, and a mining claim does not confer any private property rights to these items [My note - most of these would be protected from disturbance or removal under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act].

A mining claim absolutely does not give the owner any rights to exclude public land users from the land. The public has the conditional right to cross mining claims or sites for recreational and other purposes and to access federal lands beyond the claim boundaries. The public may not interfere with exploration or mining activities.

Since October 1, 1994, the BLM has been prohibited by Acts of Congress from accepting any new mineral patent applications. The moratorium has been renewed annually through the various Interior Appropriations Acts. It is unknown how long this moratorium will continue."

Notice in particular that you are allowed to walk all over an unpatented claim as long as you are not disrupting any mineral extraction operations. If the claim is unoccupied and not in production, you may go in there to photograph old structures, and such. It is not permissible for the claim owner to put up fences and signs to keep you out, because they do not own the land.

 

19th Feb 2021 04:41 UTCRobert (Bob) Werner

Gabe is correct.  Just for the record there has been a guy in Salt Lake sending a geologist around the west staking abandoned claims and selling them on eBay. It is  legal, but one should read the federal mining regulations on "Staking a Mining Claim" available from the BLM.  Caveat emptor!
Bob
 
and/or  
Mindat Discussions Facebook Logo Instagram Logo Discord Logo
Mindat.org is an outreach project of the Hudson Institute of Mineralogy, a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit organization.
Copyright © mindat.org and the Hudson Institute of Mineralogy 1993-2024, except where stated. Most political location boundaries are © OpenStreetMap contributors. Mindat.org relies on the contributions of thousands of members and supporters. Founded in 2000 by Jolyon Ralph.
Privacy Policy - Terms & Conditions - Contact Us / DMCA issues - Report a bug/vulnerability Current server date and time: May 7, 2024 01:30:23
Go to top of page