Legislative and Regulatory Update
October 2018 by Scott Harn
• 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.
• 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:
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.
We're done watching as an unelected and unchecked bureaucracy, with rule-making authority, enforcement powers, and seemingly bottomless budgets abuses citizens at will.
• Positive bill passes House
• Anti-mining bill dies in Washington State
• New California suction gold dredging regulations released—and they are just as bad as we predicted
• Dredgers file US Supreme Court response in Oregon case
• Washington State pushes same suction gold dredging narrative
• Pentagon reverses decision on rare earth projects
Mining Districts are the private regulatory authority granted by Congress recognized to regulate the mineral lands held by the United States and for the disposal to citizens of the United States, by means of development and potentially perfected by patent.
- Interior Department reigns in “sue and settle”
- Comments needed on Forest Service Part 228 regulations
We all know that it was never Congress’ intent to regulate gold panners and other individual mine operators through MSHA. In fact, I believe the concept of owner-operated mines with no employees was so strange a concept to the lawmakers that they never even thought there would be a need for such an exemption.
• Idaho maintains control
• Enough wilderness already
• Restraining the EPA
• Republicans on the attack
• DOI requests hard rock royalty
• New Forest Service plans
• Bill supporting small miners
• New mercury emission regs
• Latest info on California suction dredging
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