Legislation & Regulation
Annual Claim Fees Due September 3, 2013
August 2013 by Scott Harn
Because September 1 falls on a Sunday this year, and Monday, September 2, is a holiday, the BLM will accept yearly filings through September 3.
The BLM last year issued a rule that changes the way maintenance fees for placer mining claims are assessed. The rule implements the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2012 (FY 2012 Act), which requires the BLM to collect maintenance fees for placer mining claims based on the total acreage contained in the claim, rather than by the claim.
Claimants will now pay the maintenance fee (currently $140) for every 20 acres or portion thereof, contained in the placer mining claim. For example, if a placer mining claim consists of 46 acres, the claimants will pay $420 for the maintenance fee—$140 for each 20-acre portion of the placer mining claim and another $140 for the remaining 6 acres.
The maintenance fee for other types of claims—lode claims, mill sites and tunnel sites—continues to be $140 per claim or site. At the direction of Congress, the maintenance fee has been adjusted twice since 1993—it was raised to $125 in 2004 and to $140 in 2009.
Each payment must be accompanied by a written list of the claim name(s) and BLM serial number(s) (CAMC numbers) for which the maintenance fee is being paid. Filings made by mail need to be postmarked on or before September 3, 2013.
Miners who file the 2014 Small Miner’s Waiver will be required to file an Affidavit of Assessment Work (Proof of Labor) Form, including the $10 processing fee per CAMC number on or before December 30, 2013.
MMAC Update
After many decades of closures, land-use restrictions, and over-regulation, miners and all other public land users may finally see some real relief due to the efforts of MMAC.
Legislative and Regulatory Update
- Reminder: Annual claim fees due September 1, 2017
- Update on California suction gold dredging
PLP Update: How to Restore The Rights of Suction Dredge Miners
A two-pronged approach is necessary to restore suction dredging; federal preemption needs to be established as addressed above via petition; and clarification from the EPA is needed to establish that no Section 402 permit is necessary when there is no “addition” of a pollutant.
Legislative and Regulatory Update
• SB 637
• Public land users cry "fowl"
Legislative and Regulatory Update
Suction dredging court cases in California linger on
Legislative and Regulatory Update
Legislative and Regulatory Update
• The good, the bad, and the ugly
• California and Oregon dredge permits
Subscription Required:
The Bawl Mill
• Ask the Experts
• Ask the Experts
• Ask the Experts
• Ask the Experts
• Common Mistakes of the New Detectorist
• The Pearce Mineralized Area, Dragoon Mountains, Arizona—Part II
• Mining for Gemstones and Mineral Specimens
• Fighting and Winning Without a Lawyer
• The Essentials of Dry Washing
• Fortymile, Alaska Prospecting Adventure
• Court Says Emergency Rule in California Unjustified
• Sampling Placer Stockpiles
• Lower Prices Bring Layoffs
• Prospecting Research
• Buyer Beware! Counterfeit Metal Detectors
• Melman on Gold & Silver
• Mining Stock Quotes and Mineral & Metal Prices
• Underground in the Original 16-1 Mine
