Search the Community

Does anyone know what the details are of the expansions of Death Valley and Joshua Tree National Parks contained in the new bill just passed in Congress? I could not find any details where the expansions are shown.

Not quite sure where to put this Steve. It will probably have some interest for western prospectors and the eastern hunters are going to find it really useful. You decide if it needs to be moved and I'll go with it. Land Matters has begun a new section on their website for new projects in development. The most recent new project is Forest Ownership. This new map tracks Forest Boundaries as well as both surface and subsurface (mineral) ownership on the National Forest System. "Forest Ownership" may sound funny since the common assumption is that all National Forest lands are created equal and are owned by the federal government. Unfortunately it's not really that simple. Land status within the forests varies greatly depending on several factors. We hope by developing this map set individual areas of the forests can be better understood by those who live near, use and research the United States forest reserves. These maps should help you understand why some areas of forest are off limits, why you see houses and farms within a National Forest and who owns the mineral rights in any particular area of a forest. In particular visitors to the eastern states forests can discover why they don't have the free use rights western forest users do. This map is going to be an eye opener for those who believe that all National Forests are the same. Many of the eastern forests are not owned or controlled by the federal government. Often when the U.S. has purchased some rights to surface use the minerals and timber are still owned in whole or in part by private individuals or corporations. When you go to the New Projects Page be sure and click on the "Forest Ownership" tab in the center of the page and read the background I've written for these new map layers. That background can really help you understand what you are seeing on these maps. The purpose of introducing these new projects while they are still in development is to get user feedback. You can have a direct influence on how these maps are developed and used as well as helping Land Matters define which projects should receive priority in their development. Please leave any comments you may have and if a particular project seems worthwhile consider supporting that project to help it along. Here is the link to the New Projects Page. Just click on the "Forest Ownership" tab then choose the Forest Ownership map link on the right to open the new project map in a new tab. Barry

If you have comments on these proposed revisions, the deadline is June 4. It’s very important that we hear from many of you on this important issue. NOTICE OF PROPOSED CHANGES ON MINING IN THE REGULATIONS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES BRIEF DESCRIPTION The Department of Natural Resources proposes to change regulations on mining rights, addressing claim location, conflicting rights, annual labor, and penalties and eligibilities to cure abandonments. The Department of Natural Resources proposes to change regulations on mining. The Department of Natural Resources proposes to adopt regulation changes in Title 11 of the Alaska Administrative Code, dealing with mining, including the following: (1) 11 AAC 86.215 is proposed to be amended to address requirements for mining locations on state-owned land. (2) 11 AAC 86.216 is proposed to be added to address overlapping and conflicting mining locations on state-owned lands. (3) 11 AAC 86.220 is proposed to be amended to address annual labor, recording and amending affidavits of annual labor, essential facts required for affidavits of annual labor, and cash payments made instead of performing annual labor. (4) 11 AAC 86.224 is proposed to be added to address penalties and eligibility to cure an abandonment of a claim or location under AS 38.05.265. (5) 11 AAC 86.541 is proposed to be amended to address conditions for termination of a tide or submerged land mining lease and to address default cures in lease contracts. (6) 11 AAC 86.590 is proposed to be added to provide definitions. You may comment on the proposed regulation changes, including the potential costs to private persons of complying with the proposed changes, by submitting written comments to the Department of Natural Resources, 550 W. 7th Avenue, Suite 1070, Anchorage, AK 99501-3579 or by e-mail to dnr.mining.regulation@alaska.gov or by fax to 907-269-8904. The comments must be received by the department no later than 5:00 p.m. on Monday, June 4, 2018. You may submit written questions relevant to the proposed action to: Joseph Joyner, Department of Natural Resources, 550 W 7th Ave., Suite 1070, Anchorage, Alaska 99501-3579 Fax: (907) 269-8904, E-Mail: dnr.mining.regulation@alaska.gov. The questions must be received at least 10 days before the end of the public comment period. The Department of Natural Resources will aggregate its response to substantially similar questions and make the questions and responses available on the Alaska Online Public Notice System https://aws.state.ak.us/OnlinePublicNotices/Login.aspx and agency website at http://www.dnr.state.ak.us/mlw/hottopics. If you are a person with a disability who needs a special accommodation in order to participate in this process, please contact Joseph Joyner at 907-269-8511 no later than May 25, 2018, to ensure that any necessary accommodations can be provided. For more information, a copy of the proposed regulation changes, or if you have any questions regarding the proposed regulations, go to http://www.dnr.state.ak.us/mlw/hottopics, or write to the Department of Natural Resources, Attention Joseph Joyner, 550 W. 7th Avenue, Suite 1070, Anchorage, Alaska 99501-3579; or call 907-269-8511. After the public comment period ends, the Department of Natural Resources will either adopt these or other provisions dealing with the same subject, without further notice, or decide to take no action on them. The language of the final regulations may be different from that of the proposed regulations. YOU SHOULD COMMENT DURING THE TIME ALLOWED IF YOUR INTERESTS COULD BE AFFECTED. Statutory authority: AS 27.05.010; AS 38.05.020; AS 38.05.185; AS 38.05.195; AS 38.05.205; AS 38.05.210; AS 38.05.211; AS 38.05.242; AS 38.05.250; AS 38.05.255; AS 38.05.265; AS 38.05.300 Statutes being implemented, interpreted, or made specific: AS 27.05.010; AS 38.05.020; AS 38.05.185; AS 38.05.195; AS 38.05.205; AS 38.05.210; AS 38.05.211; AS 38.05.242; AS 38.05.250; AS 38.05.255; AS 38.05.265; AS 38.05.300 Fiscal information: The proposed regulation changes are not expected to require an increased appropriation. The proposed regulations provide for user fees for certain elective services or elective uses of state-owned facilities, but do not establish mandatory permitting or compliance requirements that impose costs on a private person, other state agencies, or municipalities. Date: May 3, 2018 ________________________________ Andrew T. Mack Commissioner, Department of Natural Resources ADDITIONAL REGULATION NOTICE INFORMATION (AS 44.62.190(d))1 1. Adopting agency: Department of Natural Resources 2. General subject of regulation: Mining 3. Citation of regulation (may be grouped): 11 AAC 86.201, 11 AAC 86.215, 11 AAC 86.216, 11 AAC 86.220, 11 AAC 86.224, 11 AAC 86.541, 11 AAC 86.590 4. Department of Law file number, if any: 5. Reason for the proposed action: ( ) Compliance with federal law or action (identify): ( ) Compliance with new or changed state statute ( ) Compliance with federal or state court decision (identify): ( X ) Development of program standards ( X ) Other (identify): Mining Rights 6. Appropriation/Allocation: Resource Development / Claims, Permits, and Leases 7. Estimated annual cost to comply with the proposed action to: A private person: None Another state agency: None A municipality: None 8. Cost of implementation to the state agency and available funding (in thousands of dollars): Initial Year Subsequent FY 19 Years Operating Cost $ 0 $ 0 Capital Cost $ 0 $ 0 1002 Federal receipts $ 0 $ 0 1003 General fund match $ 0 $ 0 1004 General fund $ 0 $ 0 1005 General fund/ program $ 0 $ 0 Other (identify) $ 0 $ 0 9. The name of the contact person for the regulation: Name: Joseph Joyner Title: Natural Resource Manager Address: DNR, DMLW, 550 W. 7th Ave. Ste. 1070, Anch., AK 99501-3579 Telephone: 907-269-8511 E-mail address: joe.joyner@alaska.gov 10. The origin of the proposed action: __X__ Staff of state agency _____ Federal government _____ General public _____ Petition for regulation change _____ Other (identify): 11. Date: May 3, 2018 Prepared by: Name: Joe Joyner Title: Natural Resource Manager Telephone: 907-269-8511

For those Alaskans unaware, DNR has been trying to revise certain sections of the Alaska mining statutes. Our Alaska legislature is no better than the DC circus! DNR said the hell with them (my words) and has switched gears toward regulation change. I just received this notice. "Dear Recipient, The Department of Natural Resources proposes to change regulations on mining. The Department of Natural Resources proposes to adopt regulation changes in Title 11 of the Alaska Administrative Code, dealing with mining, including the following: (1) 11 AAC 86.215 is proposed to be amended to address requirements for mining locations on state-owned land. (2) 11 AAC 86.216 is proposed to be added to address overlapping and conflicting mining locations on state-owned lands. (3) 11 AAC 86.220 is proposed to be amended to address annual labor, recording and amending affidavits of annual labor, essential facts required for affidavits of annual labor, and cash payments made instead of performing annual labor. (4) 11 AAC 86.224 is proposed to be added to address penalties and eligibility to cure an abandonment of a claim or location under AS 38.05.265. (5) 11 AAC 86.541 is proposed to be amended to address conditions for termination of a tide or submerged land mining lease and to address default cures in lease contracts. (6) 11 AAC 86.590 is proposed to be added to provide definitions. Attached please find copies of the proposed regulations, the public notice and the Dear Alaskan Letter which goes into more detail regarding the Department’s proposed actions. You may comment on the proposed regulation changes, including the potential costs to private persons of complying with the proposed changes, by submitting written comments to the Department of Natural Resources, 550 W. 7th Avenue, Suite 1070, Anchorage, AK 99501-3579 or by e-mail to dnr.mining.regulation@alaska.gov or by fax to 907-269-8904. The comments must be received by the department no later than 5:00 p.m. on Monday, June 4, 2018. You may submit written questions relevant to the proposed action to: Joseph Joyner, Department of Natural Resources, 550 W 7th Ave., Suite 1070, Anchorage, Alaska 99501-3579 Fax: (907) 269-8904, E-Mail: dnr.mining.regulation@alaska.gov. The questions must be received at least 10 days before the end of the public comment period. The Department of Natural Resources will aggregate its response to substantially similar questions and make the questions and responses available on the Alaska Online Public Notice System https://aws.state.ak.us/OnlinePublicNotices/Login.aspx and agency website at http://www.dnr.state.ak.us/mlw/hottopics. For more information, a copy of the proposed regulation changes, or if you have any questions regarding the proposed regulations, go to http://www.dnr.state.ak.us/mlw/hottopics, or write to the Department of Natural Resources, Attention Joseph Joyner, 550 W. 7th Avenue, Suite 1070, Anchorage, Alaska 99501-3579; or call 907-269-8511. After the public comment period ends, the Department of Natural Resources will either adopt these or other provisions dealing with the same subject, without further notice, or decide to take no action on them. The language of the final regulations may be different from that of the proposed regulations. You should comment during the time allowed if your interests could be affected. Sincerely Joseph Joyner, Chief, Program Support Section, DMLW, DNR"

Last week I went to get my Alaska dredging permits. Usually they give you the diverge permit when you get the Habitat Permit for the Fish and Game. When I got there they informed me I had to go to the Department of Environmental Conservation for the diverge permit where I had to pay $25. So it begins

I'm surprised the prospectors in Southern California haven't picked up on this. The Obama administration went on a public land closure spree just after Christmas 2016. The most disturbing of those withdrawals was the withdrawal of the last scattered bits of public land not already under withdrawals for wilderness, military, National parks, wild and scenic sewers, or study areas in the Southern California Conservation Area. This particular December 28, 2016 withdrawal was literally the last gasp for public lands open to location in the desert conservation area. 1,337,904 (1.3 million) acres were closed in dozens of small areas. These little bits of land were withdrawn from mining only "to protect nationally significant landscapes with outstanding cultural, biological, and scientific values". Literally some of these areas were parking lots (scientific values?). Virtually all of the area was desert scrub land (biological?) with the usual 4WD tracks (nationally significant landscape?) and trashy drinking spots (outstanding cultural value?). Only mining was restricted. This withdrawal was the most disheartening and downright spiteful of all the withdrawals made just before the end of Obama's presidency. The withdrawal is now being cancelled. The 1,337,904 acres will be open to location again at 10 a.m. on March 9, 2018. It's still out there and now you can get u sum!

how strict are these rules enforced,,,,,,,,,,,, lets say a spoon or a crevice tool on the banks of a river ?????

The 10 million acre Sagebrush chicken withdrawal is no more! The withdrawal has been withdrawn. BLM cancels 10 million acre Sagebrush Focal Area Withdrawal Proposal Read that and then go beeping. 10 million acres is gonna take you a few weekends to detect so get started early.

I got a call at my business the other day. A miner was desperate to get some reclamation work done. I thought I had this guy pegged as another miner that made a mess on public land and now he is being told he has to clean it up. I was wrong. I ask his where the work was and what needed to be done. When he told me I told him this could cost several thousand dollars. He said he well understood the cost involved but the U.S.F.S. was going to keep his bond in addition to charging him for them to do the work which was several times more expensive than what I told him my work might cost. The work was to construct erosion control in his access road, remove a section of the road, and block off the road from future access. This didn't sound right and I told him I needed to see his Plan of Operation. He drove 100+ miles to bring me a copy of his plan. It was for occupancy for more than 14 days and to construct and maintain an out house- nothing more. The bond amount was extraordinarily excessive. I called the U.S.F.S. minerals officer to try to get a better understanding of the situation. She said that she considered the road as part of the reclamation. I replied "maybe it was but it wasn't part of the plan". She didn't care and if he didn't do as told he would be charged for the costs of the U.S.F.S doing the work. Somehow I managed to hold my smart@$$ mouth and my temper and politely said I believed the historic public road was protected by statute and she was acting outside of their own minerals administration guidelines, that if I could be shown a regulation, forest rule or any thing the claim owner signed or initialed that obligated him to eliminate his own claim access or something that gave her the authority to make these demands, I would immediately load up equipment and do the work otherwise I would need a better explanation from District Forest Ranger and Forest Supervisor. The claim owner received a call soon thereafter and was told he did not have to do the road work. The claim owner nearly spent thousands of dollars needlessly. So if any of you own a claim, please take the time to familiarize yourselves with regulations that apply to you AND regulations that apply to the regulators. Claim owners have more rights regarding their claims than what most realize. Please-no anti government rants if you reply. Thanks. Klunker

I would like to ask a question (and I hope this question does not turn political) What is the opinion or thoughts of most of you boys on the other side of the world about unfilled detector holes left by others. Here in Australia we are have a big problem with unfilled detector holes to the extent that some of our goldfields could be shut down because of it. Is it a problem over there and how do you guys combat it. Please guys just general comments as I don't want this to get heated and removed as I know it can be a touchy subject. Wombat

I made a call to BLM in Canon City Colorado to see what it took to dredge on the Arkansas River. In years past the permit was free but then it cost to get the same permit. I talk with this Lady at BLM and told her what I wanted. I told her that is was a member to GPAA and Gold Prospectors of Colorado. The first thing she told me I could get a dredging permit from the GPOC and that is because they have a bond covering the members. When she said that I knew that is why the club charge extra for dredging. Now at the same time she said that GPAA hadn't done the same so I couldn't get a permit to dredge on GPAA claims. They do have a Public access called point bar I can get a permit for 25 dollars and it's good for two years.( I think that's right ) I've dredge for a long time over the years on the Arkansas River and even wrote story that ran in GPAA mag. years back about it. I've also been working on a dredge that can collect that fine gold and get it all. I say all because of test I've done here at home. Oh well! Right now I checking into the club on the west side of Colorado to see what they have to offer. Just like to hear from someone on here that does dredge in Colorado. I know it is other clubs in Colorado and that's another thing I'd like to know more about each. I'll take any and all help I can get. Chuck

Can anyone guide me on removing a non paying/performing signer from a placer claim? This person will not return calls, emails or execute a quit claim mailed to them. Thanks for any help! Chris

BLM has announced the new inflation adjusted minerals fees for 2017. These only affect mining locations if you want to apply for a Mineral Patent adjudication or file a protest. Many other O&G, mineral leasing, geothermal and coal fees are being raised too. You can read the details and a lot more about new land status changes at the Land Matters NEWS page. Barry

Just a reminder less than 24 hours to go. If you haven't done your annual BLM filing yet you need to get them in to your State BLM office by end of day tomorrow. 2016mcfilings.pdf 2016mcf.pdf

Sam at Armadillo Mining asked me to get the word out about the unlawful shutdown of motorized placer mining in Oregon. Unfortunately the miners fighting this illegal ban are heavily out-gunned by various environmental groups. The politics of all this are too complicated for my lizard brain, but I hope it's ok to pass the info along. If not, delete this post. Sam and the others at Armadillo are good people, and the Bohmkers are legends in the prospecting community out here. Just want to help them continue their heritage. A battle this big gets expensive real fast, and they had the idea to have a raffle to help with the legal costs. It's a small group of miners vs. the state, enviros, and miles of red tape and loopholes. You can help them out and have a chance to win something yourself with this raffle. Top prize is a half pound of GOLD, they will also be giving away a metal detector, prospecting equipment, and you don't even have to show up to the drawing to win. I think it's a good cause and the fact that you can win something for your support is a good angle for them. Check out the attached flyer and link for the details. Fight Against SB 838 / Win 1/2 lb of Gold ArmadilloMining ad.pdf

This is a great response. Had to share. http://www.reptilesmagazine.com/Owners-Response-to-Govt-Request-to-Access-Property-to-Count-Yellow-Legged-Frogs-is-Priceless-trending/

No doubt you scoff. But did you know that stream fed sluice boxes and even a gold pan can be considered a pollutant "point source" under the Clean Water Act? Which can lead to this.... http://vtdigger.org/2016/06/27/state-reminds-gold-prospectors-to-obtain-permits-for-sluice-boxes/ http://www.rutlandherald.com/article/20160628/THISJUSTIN/306289995

Can anyone tell me if handicapped people can use a quad on BLM, National forest land, special permits etc. Thanks in advance, Rege

The BLM has proposed eliminating the SMALL MINER'S WAIVER for those of us who own ten (10) or fewer mining claims. This could be extremely costly and we are the only ones who can stop this. Here is the wording that I have cut-n-pasted from the BLM's information: "The proposal also increases the annual maintenance fees under the General Mining Law of 1872 and eliminates the fee exemption for miners holding ten or fewer mining claims." So, what we need to do is contact our members of congress and specifically ask that this be removed from the BLM budget. Get everyone you know who wants to save the small mining community to do the same. Explain why you are doing so. Write original letters, send them to your representative's district offices AND to their offices in DC. Call them if you can. This has to be stopped and only we can do it. The more it costs to hang onto our legitimate claims the less they are worth. While most of us cannot operate our claims full time, we should be able to keep them without paying more and more in fees. The small miner's waiver was created to protect the "little guy" and now the BLM is trying to get rid of it so we must protect ourselves and our most powerful weapon is the written and spoken word - directly to our elected officials. PM me for more if I can help in any way. Here is a link to the BLM budget https://www.doi.gov/…/appr…/2016/highlights/upload/BH007.pdf

Please, no rants, opinion, or anything off the topic. Mining only. Claims should be substantiated and supported with valid sources and evidence. Anecdotal evidence is not useful here. Please be able to cite which particular law or regulation an abuse or overstep is occuring upon. I'm especially interested if such a regulation is in violation of the General Mining Act of 1872. Federal only (BLM, EPA, DEQ, USFS, etc), unless it's a state issue where they are clearly violating federal law. I've read about people's complaints online for years. So let's imagine that over the next few days we have someone's ear who is in a position and has the power to really change things for a moment and is interested in truly representing the people. What would the mining community take that opportunity to say to them?

The Sage Grouse Proposed Mineral Withdrawal by the BLM would close nearly 10 million acres of land to mineral entry. This affects claims in 5 western states. Friday the 15th of January (this Friday!) is the deadline for comments on the proposal. Generally comments and opinions don't apply to the Secretary's decision but with the time near and facts on hand a little attention by more than a few voters and representatives might just convince the Secretary to think twice. If the withdrawal goes ahead no new claims can be made in the withdrawn area. In addition the existing claims are likely to come under greater scrutiny and challenges to their validity. That puts nearly 7,000 mining claims in the sights of the BLM land managers. Now is the most effective time to share your opinions and present facts to influence the outcome. With little time left the Secretary will have less chance to bring influence or political pressure to bear on members of Congress should they object. Land Matters has been working hard to figure out how many and which claims will be at stake should the withdrawal be approved. We've produced a comprehensive report on all the claims affected in this proposal and made an interactive map with just the claims within the proposed withdrawal area. The BLM did not assist in the preparation of this report. We spent considerable time and effort in hand mapping the location of these claims in relation to the proposed withdrawal. I could find no evidence the Secretary even knows how many or what claims would be affected. I'm sure she and your representatives would appreciate being informed of this information to help their decisions to be made on all the facts available. This is a factual report that you can not only view online but there is a zipped download available directly from the reports front page. At a mere 159Kb in size this report can be shared by email quite easily. Why not look over the whole situation and check in with your representatives to make sure they know the facts about the potential effects of this withdrawal should it be approved. The new custom interactive Sage Grouse Proposed Withdrawal Map shows just the claims affected with all the claim information normally found only on the Land Matters Mining Claims Maps. Be sure to read and download the interactive Sage Grouse Proposed Withdrawal Report too. To give you an idea of whats at stake with this withdrawal look over this summary chart from the report. Barry

Just a reminder: Small Miners claim holders need to have their Affadavit of Labor or their Intent to Hold County Record copies filed with the BLM State office by end of day tomorrow Wednesday December 30th. Don't be late or you will lose your claim.

I've added the Sage Grouse proposed Mineral Withdrawal display to the Mining Claims Maps for the five affected states. It's a separate layer you will have to turn on to see. This map has been heavily requested. Check it out while you can since the BLM is known for disappearing maps without notice. This map was not easy to find. It's not going to be easy to use either because the BLM is serving it up in a light dirt color that blends with just about every base map layer. Now is a good time to learn to use the transparency tool found by right clicking the layer you want to change the transparency on. The affected States Mining Claim Maps are linked here: Oregon Idaho Wyoming Nevada Utah Here's the description of the Map information from the BLM. As you can see the map isn't accurate because the boundaries of the final withdrawal won't be decided until after it's passed. We are trying to figure out a way to get a list of the affected claims from this information. If we succeed we will make a list and share it on the Land Matters website. Please pass these maps around. It's your Land and it Matters. Barry

Today at 1200 @ BLM 3040 Biddle Rd., Medford OR there will be a protest supporting the owners of the Sugar Pine Mine in Josephine County, Oregon. I hope to see fellow miners there! http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/04/21/usa-miners-oregon-idUSL1N0XI01S20150421

Hi Fred (and anyone else who might know), I have a question that came from your question, and sorry to split the thread.... Are you actually allowed to take gold out of the country that you find it in? Imagine that you find more than just a few small nuggets. Won't the authorities stop you? I live in Europe and would love to go to some of the gold bearing areas in other countries such as Australia, Canada, the USA, maybe even Russia or China, but I always had a doubt about whether I would be allowed out again with the gold. Thanks, richard