Let us help you recover valuable metals. 888-437-1187


Legislation & Regulation

Legislative and Regulatory Update

Interior Department reigns in “sue and settle”
The Department of Interior (DOI)announced a series of steps the agency will take to reign in “sue and settle” tactics utilized by environmental groups and supported by some previous administrations.

The agency announced that $4.4 billion was awarded in settlements and consent decrees between January 1, 2012, and January 19, 2017, which averages more than $800 million in taxpayer dollars per year. Just in the past year, DOI was party to 96 settlements or consent decrees and paid out more than $1.7 billion.

In addition, many of the settlements were not disclosed to the public.

DOI agreed to create a publicly accessible webpage with details of ongoing litigation; publish notices for proposed consent decrees in the Federal Register and allow at least 30 days for public comment; create a searchable database of judicial rulings, consent decrees and settlements along with attorney fees paid; publish any consent decree or settlement agreement that requires the agency to commit funds or to seek budget appropriation or authorization.

Here is a link to the DOI announcement from Interior Secretary Zinke.

Comments needed on Forest Service Part 228 regulations
On 9/13/2018, the US Forest Service published an “Advanced notice of proposed rulemaking” and request for comment. The agency is considering changes to 36 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) Part 228 regulations that govern locatable minerals.

The “good” part is the agency is proposing expedited procedures for exploration that disturbs five acres or less and making the regulations more consistent with Bureau of Land Management regulations, which is what we have been advocating along with Public Lands for the People during multiple meetings with agency officials in Washington, DC.

Just one of the “bad” parts is the agency is trying to codify a 14-day limit for camping on Forest Service lands after losing in court in US vs. Lex & Waggener back in 2003, and the agency wants to require bonding for activities that were previously exempt.

During our latest meeting with a USFS deputy director in DC in June, Clark Pearson (of Public Lands for the People) and I presented 412 complaints we received from miners along with a summary of those complaints and suggested fixes for many of the issues presented. The number one complaint dealt with restricted access to public lands. This was followed by complaints about the agency’s interpretation of what constitutes a “significant disturbance,” which our readers typically described as “overbroad,” “overboard,” “unreasonable” and “defies common sense.” Some of our suggested changes appear to have been included in the proposed rulemaking.

Another major complaint involved the agency’s failure to comply with Executive Order 13377. (This EO, signed by President Trump on February 25, 2017, required the agency to reduce unnecessary regulatory burdens placed on the American people.) 

In our opinion the USFS needs to make drastic changes to remove obstructions to access, expand the definition of “casual use,” define suction gold dredging as “deminimus,” remove or significantly lengthen occupancy limitations for those actively engaged in exploration or mining, set firm time limits for approval of Notices and Plans based upon the acreage involved and provide for approval by operation of law if those time limits aren’t met, and redefine “significant disturbance.” 

There is plenty more in the Federal Register Notice than cannot be covered here. It’s significant to note that while a few Executive Orders are mentioned within the notice, there is no mention of EO 13377 and the requirement to reduce the regulatory burden on the American people.
I highly recommend you read the entire notice and respond to each of the questions that apply to you. We have provided a link to this Federal Register Notice in the online version of this article.

Comments are due by October 15, 2018. Try to address each specific question in your comments. This could be a significant opportunity to fix many of the issues and provide regulatory relief if enough miners and prospectors provide constructive comments. 

Keep in mind there is no provision for “recreational” or “hobby” mining on public lands under the mining laws. These terms should not appear anywhere in your comments.

You can review the proposed changes and submit comments via this link at www.regulations.gov. This will bring up the a link to all the documents related to this proposed rule and you’ll see a blue “Comment Now!” button on the webpage.

Constructive comments can also be mailed to:

  USDA-Forest Service
  Attn: Director—MGM Staff
  1617 Cole Blvd., Building 17
  Lakewood, CO 80401.

For further information, contact Cheryl Nabahe, USFS Minerals and Geology Management, at (202) 205-0800.

© ICMJ's Prospecting and Mining Journal, CMJ Inc.
Next Article »« Previous Article

Add a Comment

Additional articles that might interest you...

Legislative and Regulatory Update

• Idaho continues toward elimination of EPA suction dredging regulations
• EPA makes preemptive strike against Alaska mine
• Proposed Mines Act permit fees

Update: People v. Rinehart

The law is on our side, but we’ve seen some crazy rulings coming out of courtrooms lately. I believe Rinehart will win his case, but then we move on to the State Water Resources Control Board.

Retired Geologist Warned Public of Pending EPA Disaster

Retired geologist Dave Taylor of Farmington, New Mexico, predicted the disaster in a letter published by the Silverton Standard a week before it occurred.

Uniting The Small Miners

Have you ever wondered what it is going to take to stop the insanity of politicians and environmental groups from taking away our rights?

Legislative and Regulatory Update

• BLM proposed budget asks for funds for mining restrictions
• Oregon bill 838
• California suction gold dredging update

Can't We Just Do Something?

We know we lack critical minerals. We know the causes. We know the need. We have the knowledge we need right now. Why can’t we just take action and fix the problem?

New Mining Regulations in Maine

Renewed interest in mining of gold, silver, copper and other metals in Aroostook County's Bald Mountain triggered 2012 legislation requiring the overhaul of the state's two-decade-old mining regulations.

Subscription Required:

The Bawl Mill   • Ask The Experts - A few questions about 'peak gold'   • Ask The Experts - Seeking advice on processing pocket gold   • Ask The Experts - How do I recover gold in pyrite?   • Ask The Experts - Can a British citizen purchase a mining claim?   • Ask The Experts - Is California dredging going to return in 2019?   • Ask The Experts - Were you aware of the new recording fee in California?   • The Unusual Forest Nugget Patch   • California Sniping   • Large Gold Deposit Types   • PLP Update   • A Father’s Day to Remember: 24,000 Ounces Gold in Quartz   • How to Beat the Heat--and The Bedrock   • Gold Prospecting: For Better or Worse--It Was A Dark and Overcast Night   • Using Geologic Publications to Discover Collecting Sites   • Prospector Unearths Huge 'Duck’s Foot' Nugget   • Melman on Gold & Silver   • Mining Stock Quotes and Mineral & Metal Prices


Precious Metals Recovery plants and equipment
Fighting to keep public lands open to the public
Specializing in the processing of precious metal ores!
Watch prospecting shows on your computer right now
Free Online Sample Issue