36 C.F.R. § 228.3
Definitions
For the purposes of this part the following terms, respectively, shall mean:
(a) Operations. All functions, work, and activities in connection with prospecting, exploration, development, mining or processing of mineral resources and all uses reasonably incident thereto, including roads and other means of access on lands subject to the regulations in this part, regardless of whether said operations take place on or off mining claims.
(b) Operator. A person conducting or proposing to conduct operations.
(c) Person. Any individual, partnership, corporation, association, or other legal entity.
(d) Mining claim. Any unpatented mining claim or unpatented millsite authorized by the United States mining laws of May 10, 1872, as amended (30 U.S.C. 22 et seq.).
(e) Authorized officer. The Forest Service officer to whom authority to review and approve operating plans has been delegated.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 18
cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1984–2026 · leading case: United States v. Backlund, 689 F.3d 986 (9th Cir. 2012).
United States v. Backlund, 689 F.3d 986 (9th Cir. 2012). “at 65,994 (noting that residency that is not reasonably necessary to mining operations “is not an operation for purposes of 36 CFR 228.3 which is authorized by the United States mining laws .”
Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Usfws, 33 F.4th 1202 (9th Cir. 2022). “mining or processing of mineral resources,” 36 C.F.R. § 228.3 (a), but treating the waste-deposit activity as the relevant operation renders superfluous the Part 228A reclamation provisions.”
Pub. Lands for the People, Inc. v. United States Dep't of Agric., 733 F. Supp. 2d 1172 (E.D. Cal. 2010). “” 36 C.F.R. § 228.3 (a). The Forest Service contends that use of motorized vehicles on roads not designated for such use is by definition activity that “might cause significant disturbance of surface resources” because such roads would otherwise remain undisturbed.”
Karuk Tribe of California v. United States Forest Serv., 379 F. Supp. 2d 1071 (N.D. Cal. 2005). “A Notice of Intent to Operate (NOI) will still be required if the proposed activity might cause disturbance of surface resources and it doesn’t meet the provisions of 36 C.F.R. § 228.3 (a)(2). Id. The Forest Service thus concluded that, to be consistent with 36 C.”
United States v. Ernest L. Brunskill & Evelyn B. Brunskill, 792 F.2d 938 (9th Cir. 1986). “36 C.F.R. § 228.3 (a). The Brunskills contend that because 36 C.”
Idaho Conservation League v. Atlanta Gold Corp., 879 F. Supp. 2d 1148 (D. Idaho 2012). “” 36 CFR § 228.3 . Thus, the activities AGC has undertaken at the 900 Adit, such as excavation, exploration, and core drilling, fall within this definition.”
United States v. Langley, 587 F. Supp. 1258 (E.D. Cal. 1984). “The regulations, by their terms, apply to All functions, work, and activities in connection with prospecting, exploration, development, mining or processing of mineral resources and all uses reasonably incident thereto, including roads and other means of access on lands subject…”
United States v. Godfrey, 112 F. Supp. 3d 1097 (E.D. Cal. 2015). “]” 36 C.F.R. § 228.3 (a). The regulations provide that “[s]uch notice of intent shall be submitted to the District Ranger having jurisdiction over the area in which the operations will be conducted.”
Siskiyou Reg'l Educ. Proj. v. Rose, 87 F. Supp. 2d 1074 (D. Or. 1999). “36 C.F.R. § 228.3 (a) defines operations as: "All functions, work, and activities in connection with prospecting, exploration, development, mining or processing of mineral resources and all uses reasonably incident thereto, including roads and other means of access on lands…”
Earthworks v. U.S. Dep't of the Interior, 279 F.R.D. 180 (D.D.C. 2012). “Exhibit A, a letter from the Appeal Reviewing Officer to the Appeal Deciding Officer in the Cottonwood case, provides, inter alia, a review of the Forest Service’s authority to regulate mining activities pursuant to the 1872 Mining Law, and includes references to the 1955…”
Friends of the Inyo v. Usfs, 103 F.4th 543 (9th Cir. 2024). “See 36 C.F.R. §§ 228.3 (a), 228.8(g). Nor can this court speculate on how experts may have evaluated each phase of the Project independently.”
United States v. McClure, 364 F. Supp. 2d 1183 (E.D. Cal. 2005). “In 36 C.F.R. 228.3 [mining] operations are simply defined as all "functions, work, and activities in connection with prospecting, exploration, development, mining or processing or mineral resources and all uses reasonably incident thereto.”
— 36 C.F.R. § 228.3(a) — 1 case
United States v. Langley, 587 F. Supp. 1258 (E.D. Cal. 1984). “The regulations, by their terms, apply to All functions, work, and activities in connection with prospecting, exploration, development, mining or processing of mineral resources and all uses reasonably incident thereto, including roads and other means of access on lands subject…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.