mining claim in Alaska

2002L.Rev. 399, 400-01 (1970))); see also Kile v. Belisle, 759 P.2d 1292, 1295-96 (Alaska 1988) ("Abandonment is the intentional relinquishment of a mining claim.

1999Citing Kile v. Belisle, 759 P.2d 1292 (Alaska 1988), Caldera notes that we have stated that "[a]bandonment is the intentional relinquishment of a mining claim." [14] Kile, however, involved an ownership dispute over claims located by state claimants "more or less on top of" federal claims staked many years earlier. [15] The question before us was whether the federal claims had been abandoned, and we applied federal law to that question. [16] Kile did not involve allegations that claimants failed to satisfy a statute that deemed the failure to comply to be abandonment, and instead tacitly noted

1999Citing Kile v. Belisle, 759 P.2d 1292 (Alaska 1988), Caldera notes that we have stated that "[a]bandonment is the intentional relinquishment of a mining claim." [14] Kile, however, involved an ownership dispute over claims located by state claimants "more or less on top of" federal claims staked many years earlier. [15] The question before us was whether the federal claims had been abandoned, and we applied federal law to that question. [16] Kile did not involve allegations that claimants failed to satisfy a statute that deemed the failure to comply to be abandonment, and instead tacitly noted

1999The affidavit must contain the following essential facts: (1) the name or number of the mining claim, leasehold location, or mining lease.... [13] See AS 38.05.265. [14] Kile, 759 P.2d at 1295 (emphasis added). [15] Id. at 1293-94 . [16] See id. at 1295-96 . [17] See id. at 1296 n. 13. [18] See Miscovich v. Tryck, 875 P.2d 1293, 1296 (Alaska 1994); Dodge v. Wilkinson, 664 P.2d 157 , 159 n. 3 (Alaska 1983). [19] See Dodge, 664 P.2d at 157-58 . [20] See id. at 159 . [21] See Miscovich, 875 P.2d at 1296 . [22] See id. at 1297 . [23] See id. at 1298-1300 & nn. 2-3. [24] AS 38.05.185(a) provides, i

2015The locator has the exclusive right of possession and extraction of the minerals . . . lying within the boundaries of the claim.”2 The locator also has the right to “use the surface of the location only to the extent necessary for the prospecting for, extraction of, or basic processing of mineral deposits.”3 A mining claim is a property interest in State land, although it does not include an absolute right to 2 See also Welcome v. Jennings, 780 P.2d 1039, 1042 (Alaska 1989) (“A person acquires the exclusive right to possess and extract minerals on state land by discovery, location, and recordi

1989Possession of a mining claim is evidenced by satisfying statutory requirements regarding location and performance of annual assessment work. 7 Shope, 658 P.2d at 1339 .

2015See also Welcome v. Jennings, 780 P.2d 1039, 1042 (Alaska 1989) ("A person acquires the exclusive right to possess and extract minerals on state land by discovery, location, and recording."); id. ("Possession of a mining claim is evidenced by satisfying statutory requirements regarding location and performance of annual assessment work."). . 11 Alaska Administrativé Code 86.145(a)(1) (2014).

2015See also Welcome v. Jennings, 780 P.2d 1039, 1042 (Alaska 1989) ("A person acquires the exclusive right to possess and extract minerals on state land by discovery, location, and recording."); id. ("Possession of a mining claim is evidenced by satisfying statutory requirements regarding location and performance of annual assessment work."). . 11 Alaska Administrativé Code 86.145(a)(1) (2014).

2025Res., 992 P.2d 576, 578 (Alaska 1999)). 3 AS 38.05.195(b)-(c); see 11 Alaska Administrative Code (AAC) 86.135, 11 AAC 86.205, 11 AAC 86.210. 4 AS 38.05.195(c). 5 11 AAC 86.115 (“A location made on state-selected land in accordance with this chapter creates prior rights against subsequent locators, and becomes a mining claim, leasehold location, or prospecting site when the federal government conveys the selection to the state through tentative approval or patent, whichever occurs first.”). -3- 7783 Foster’s claims had been recorded.

2023Bd., 110 P.3d 1254, 1261 (Alaska 2005)). 31 Tesoro Alaska Petroleum Co. v. Kenai Pipe Line Co., 746 P.2d 896, 905 (Alaska 1987). 32 Adamson v. Mun. of Anchorage, 333 P.3d 5, 16 (Alaska 2014) (quoting Monzulla v. Voorhees Concrete Cutting, 254 P.3d 341, 345 (Alaska 2011)). -10- 7647 certificate of location or a statement of annual labor, paying any required annual rental, and paying any required production royalty; and (2) paying a penalty equal to the annual rent for the mining claim or leasehold location that was abandoned under (a) of this section.

2023Co. v. State, Dep’t of Revenue, 665 P.2d 960, 964 (Alaska 1983)). 21 See AS 44.37.020(a) (“The Department of Natural Resources shall administer the state program for the conservation and development of natural resources, including forests, parks, and recreational areas, land, water, agriculture, soil conservation, and minerals including petroleum and natural gas, but excluding commercial fisheries, sport fish, game, and fur-bearing animals in their natural state.”). 22 See e.g., 11 Alaska Administrative Code (AAC) 86.107 (2023); 11 AAC 86.110; 11 AAC 86.215. 23 971 P.2d 1034 (Alaska 1999). -8-

2023Bd., 110 P.3d 1254, 1261 (Alaska 2005)). 31 Tesoro Alaska Petroleum Co. v. Kenai Pipe Line Co., 746 P.2d 896, 905 (Alaska 1987). 32 Adamson v. Mun. of Anchorage, 333 P.3d 5, 16 (Alaska 2014) (quoting Monzulla v. Voorhees Concrete Cutting, 254 P.3d 341, 345 (Alaska 2011)). -10- 7647 certificate of location or a statement of annual labor, paying any required annual rental, and paying any required production royalty; and (2) paying a penalty equal to the annual rent for the mining claim or leasehold location that was abandoned under (a) of this section.

2023The legislature delegated the authority to manage natural resources to DNR, and the process of curing abandonment and determining ownership of mining claims is a component of that authority.21 DNR has special expertise in granting land use permits, in administering mining claims, and in collecting payments from holders of mining claims.22 Valhalla counters that in AU International, Inc. v. State, Department of Natural Resources we ruled that DNR’s application of AS 38.05.265 is subject to the substitution of judgment standard of review.23 In AU International a mining claim 19 254 P.3d 1078, 10

2023The legislature delegated the authority to manage natural resources to DNR, and the process of curing abandonment and determining ownership of mining claims is a component of that authority.21 DNR has special expertise in granting land use permits, in administering mining claims, and in collecting payments from holders of mining claims.22 Valhalla counters that in AU International, Inc. v. State, Department of Natural Resources we ruled that DNR’s application of AS 38.05.265 is subject to the substitution of judgment standard of review.23 In AU International a mining claim 19 254 P.3d 1078, 10

2023Bd., 110 P.3d 1254, 1261 (Alaska 2005)). 31 Tesoro Alaska Petroleum Co. v. Kenai Pipe Line Co., 746 P.2d 896, 905 (Alaska 1987). 32 Adamson v. Mun. of Anchorage, 333 P.3d 5, 16 (Alaska 2014) (quoting Monzulla v. Voorhees Concrete Cutting, 254 P.3d 341, 345 (Alaska 2011)). -10- 7647 certificate of location or a statement of annual labor, paying any required annual rental, and paying any required production royalty; and (2) paying a penalty equal to the annual rent for the mining claim or leasehold location that was abandoned under (a) of this section.

2023Bd., 110 P.3d 1254, 1261 (Alaska 2005)). 31 Tesoro Alaska Petroleum Co. v. Kenai Pipe Line Co., 746 P.2d 896, 905 (Alaska 1987). 32 Adamson v. Mun. of Anchorage, 333 P.3d 5, 16 (Alaska 2014) (quoting Monzulla v. Voorhees Concrete Cutting, 254 P.3d 341, 345 (Alaska 2011)). -10- 7647 certificate of location or a statement of annual labor, paying any required annual rental, and paying any required production royalty; and (2) paying a penalty equal to the annual rent for the mining claim or leasehold location that was abandoned under (a) of this section.

2015The locator has the exclusive right of possession and extraction of the minerals . . . lying within the boundaries of the claim.”2 The locator also has the right to “use the surface of the location only to the extent necessary for the prospecting for, extraction of, or basic processing of mineral deposits.”3 A mining claim is a property interest in State land, although it does not include an absolute right to 2 See also Welcome v. Jennings, 780 P.2d 1039, 1042 (Alaska 1989) (“A person acquires the exclusive right to possess and extract minerals on state land by discovery, location, and recordi

2015See 11 AAC 96.020 (enumerating low-intensity uses, including prospecting and mining without heavy machinery, allowed on State land without permit); Alyeska Ski Corp. v. Holdsworth, 426 P.2d 1006, 1011 (Alaska 1967) (explaining that article VIII, section 10 of the Alaska Constitution “reflects the framers’ recognition of the importance of our land resources and of the concomitant necessity for observance of legal safeguards in the disposal or leasing of state lands”).

2015The court relies on the functional irrevocability tests adopted in Northern Alaska Environmental Center v. State, Department of Natural Resources; in that case we concluded a statutory best interest finding was required because the permit at issue was functionally irrevocable. 2 P.3d 629, 637-39 (Alaska 2000).

1999AS 38.05.185(b) provides: The failure on the part of a mining lessee or a locator to comply strictly with AS 38.05.185-38.05.275 and regulations adopted under those sections does not invalidate the rights of a mining lessee or a locator if it appears to the satisfaction of the commissioner that the mining lessee or the locator complied as nearly as possible under the circumstances of the case, and that no conflicting rights are asserted by any other person. [26] North Slope Borough v. LeResche, 581 P.2d 1112, 1115 (Alaska 1978) (footnote omitted). [27] See Handley v. State, Dep't of Revenue, 8

1999AS 38.05.185(b) provides: The failure on the part of a mining lessee or a locator to comply strictly with AS 38.05.185-38.05.275 and regulations adopted under those sections does not invalidate the rights of a mining lessee or a locator if it appears to the satisfaction of the commissioner that the mining lessee or the locator complied as nearly as possible under the circumstances of the case, and that no conflicting rights are asserted by any other person. [26] North Slope Borough v. LeResche, 581 P.2d 1112, 1115 (Alaska 1978) (footnote omitted). [27] See Handley v. State, Dep't of Revenue, 8

1999AS 38.05.185(b) provides: The failure on the part of a mining lessee or a locator to comply strictly with AS 38.05.185-38.05.275 and regulations adopted under those sections does not invalidate the rights of a mining lessee or a locator if it appears to the satisfaction of the commissioner that the mining lessee or the locator complied as nearly as possible under the circumstances of the case, and that no conflicting rights are asserted by any other person. [26] North Slope Borough v. LeResche, 581 P.2d 1112, 1115 (Alaska 1978) (footnote omitted). [27] See Handley v. State, Dep't of Revenue, 8

1999AS 38.05.185(b) provides: The failure on the part of a mining lessee or a locator to comply strictly with AS 38.05.185-38.05.275 and regulations adopted under those sections does not invalidate the rights of a mining lessee or a locator if it appears to the satisfaction of the commissioner that the mining lessee or the locator complied as nearly as possible under the circumstances of the case, and that no conflicting rights are asserted by any other person. [26] North Slope Borough v. LeResche, 581 P.2d 1112, 1115 (Alaska 1978) (footnote omitted). [27] See Handley v. State, Dep't of Revenue, 8

1999AS 38.05.185(b) provides: The failure on the part of a mining lessee or a locator to comply strictly with AS 38.05.185-38.05.275 and regulations adopted under those sections does not invalidate the rights of a mining lessee or a locator if it appears to the satisfaction of the commissioner that the mining lessee or the locator complied as nearly as possible under the circumstances of the case, and that no conflicting rights are asserted by any other person. [26] North Slope Borough v. LeResche, 581 P.2d 1112, 1115 (Alaska 1978) (footnote omitted). [27] See Handley v. State, Dep't of Revenue, 8

1995And in State v. Henderson, 137 Ariz. 135 , 669 P.2d 113, 113-14 (App.1983), the court applied the clear and convincing evidence standard under a public nuisance statute similar to the one at issue in this case. 16 Moreover, this court has required clear and convincing evidence in other areas concerning real property such as reformation of a deed and abandonment of a mining claim.

1995And in State v. Henderson, 137 Ariz. 135 , 669 P.2d 113, 113-14 (App.1983), the court applied the clear and convincing evidence standard under a public nuisance statute similar to the one at issue in this case. 16 Moreover, this court has required clear and convincing evidence in other areas concerning real property such as reformation of a deed and abandonment of a mining claim.

1981See United States v. Coleman, 390 U.S. 599, 601-03 , 88 S.Ct. 1327, 1329-1331 , 20 L.Ed.2d 170, 174-75 (1968).

1981See United States v. Coleman, 390 U.S. 599, 601-03 , 88 S.Ct. 1327, 1329-1331 , 20 L.Ed.2d 170, 174-75 (1968).

1981See Wickwire v. McFadden, 576 P.2d 986, 987 (Alaska 1978).

1981See Wickwire v. McFadden, 576 P.2d 986, 987 (Alaska 1978).

1978Jamison v. Consolidated Utilities, 576 P.2d 97, 102 (Alaska 1978). .