C.F.R. » Title 43 » CHAPTER II—BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR › SUBCHAPTER C—MINERALS MANAGEMENT (3000) › PART 3800—MINING CLAIMS UNDER THE GENERAL MINING LAWS › Subpart 3809—Surface Management

43 C.F.R. § 3809.100

What special provisions apply to operations on segregated or withdrawn lands?

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Mineral examination report. After the date on which the lands are withdrawn from appropriation under the mining laws, BLM will not approve a plan of operations or allow notice-level operations to proceed until BLM has prepared a mineral examination report to determine whether the mining claim was valid before the withdrawal, and whether it remains valid. BLM may require preparation of a mineral examination report before approving a plan of operations or allowing notice-level operations to proceed on segregated lands. If the report concludes that the mining claim is invalid, BLM will not approve operations or allow notice-level operations on the mining claim. BLM will also promptly initiate contest proceedings.

(b) Allowable operations. If BLM has not completed the mineral examination report under paragraph (a) of this section, if the mineral examination report for proposed operations concludes that a mining claim is invalid, or if there is a pending contest proceeding for the mining claim,

(1) BLM may—

(i) Approve a plan of operations for the disputed mining claim proposing operations that are limited to taking samples to confirm or corroborate mineral exposures that are physically disclosed and existing on the mining claim before the segregation or withdrawal date, whichever is earlier; and

(ii) Approve a plan of operations for the operator to perform the minimum necessary annual assessment work under § 3851.1 of this title; or

(2) A person may only conduct exploration under a notice that is limited to taking samples to confirm or corroborate mineral exposures that are physically disclosed and existing on the mining claim before the segregation or withdrawal date, whichever is earlier.

(c) Time limits. While BLM prepares a mineral examination report under paragraph (a) of this section, it may suspend the time limit for responding to a notice or acting on a plan of operations. See §§ 3809.311 and 3809.411, respectively.

(d) Final decision. If a final departmental decision declares a mining claim to be null and void, the operator must cease all operations, except required reclamation.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 2002–2015 · leading case: Vane Minerals (Us), LLC v. United States
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Vane Minerals (Us), LLC v. United States (2014) uscfc · cites it 4× “¶ 11 (citing 43 C.F.R. § 3809.100 3 ); see also PL Resp.”
Grand Canyon Trust v. Williams (2015) azd · cites it 2× “” 43 C.F.R. § 3809.100 (a) (emphasis added).”
Reoforce, Inc. v. United States (2014) uscfc · cites it 2× “To ascertain whether a deposit constitutes an uncommon variety, the BLM prepares a “mineral examination report,” 43 C.F.R. § 3809.100 (a), known as a “common variety determination[.”
Peeples, Inc. v. Arizona State Land Department Ex Rel. Anable (2002) arizctapp “Second, federal law does not require proof of a profitable mineral discovery as a prerequisite for obtaining a federal unpatented mining claim.”
HMI Lenders L.C. v. Jewell (2015) utd “” 43 C.F.R. § 3809.100 (a). Where a mineral examination indicates a claim lacks a valuable discovery, the United States may contest its validity, in administrative proceedings before the Department of the Interior.”
— 43 C.F.R. § 3809.100(a) — 1 case
Grand Canyon Trust v. Williams (2015) azd “” 43 C.F.R. § 3809.100 (a) (emphasis added).”
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.