Opinion ID: 767180
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Forest Service requirements.

Text: 40 The Shumways argue that the Forest Service has exceeded its authority by raising the bond requirements arbitrarily and unreasonably circumscribing their milling operations. The record establishes a genuine issue of fact as to whether this is so. 41 The owner of a mining or mill site claim does not need a patent, or a vested right to issuance of a patent, to possess and use the property for legitimate mining or milling purposes. A mining or mill site claim is property in the fullest sense of the word. 66 Despite the absence of a patent, the government cannot take the a valid mining claim for public use without paying compensation. 67 The owner of a perfected mining or mill site claim is not required . . . to secure patent from the United States; but so long as he complies with all provisions of the mining laws, his possessory right, for all practical purposes of ownership, is as good as though secured by patent. 68 42 Mining claims located after the effective date of the 1955 Multiple Use Act are subject, when a patent has not yet issued, to a right in the United States to manage surface resources and allow others to use surface resources, though these uses shall be such as not to endanger or materially interfere with prospecting, mining or processing operations or uses reasonably incident thereto. 69 The Shumways do not contest applicability of the Multiple Use Act, and concede for purposes of this appeal that their millsite claims are subject to the right of the United States to manage the surface resources within the limitations of the Act. What the Shumways do contest is whether the Forest Service has stayed within the limitations of the Act. 43
44 The Multiple Use Act empowers the Forest Service to regulate non-mining activity upon mining claims, so long as the non-mining activity does not interfere with mining activities or uses reasonably incident thereto. 70 The Forest Service has required the Shumways to remove their horse, residential trailer, and junk. The Shumways apparently have removed the horse, which Mr. Shumway used to reach parts of his claim not accessible by road, but claim that the trailer, equipment, and materials are necessary in his milling operation. The Forest Service itself asked the Shumways to live on the site for security purposes when there was cyanide being used in the mill site operations. The Shumways claim there is a continued need for security on the site to prevent vandalism of their equipment. They have establisheda genuine issue of fact in this respect. 45 As to the equipment, or the junk as the Forest Service refers to it, the Shumways have also established a factual issue for trial. While the Forest Service might regard the equipment on the Shumways' sites as junk, it has not proved it. The Shumway affidavit establishes a genuine issue as to whether the equipment and materials are incidental to his milling operations. The Thorne affidavit establishes a genuine issue by providing evidence that the Shumways have $400,000 worth of equipment, a proper laboratory properly used, and properly stored valuable chemicals. 46 The Forest Service's own evidence in some respects establishes a genuine issue in favor of the Shumways. In particular, the Forest Service's photographs, submitted to show the junk, display much that plainly is not. For example, a photograph of a pile of tires is submitted to show junk. But to anyone who drives much on bad, unpaved roads, what is notable about the tires is that they are mounted on intact steel wheels. Such mounted tires have a use, and a market among those who operate vehicles in terrain where flats are frequent and bent wheels not unusual. Those of us who occasionally drive on mining roads buy them, to have a couple of extra mounted spares. If the Shumways drive the rigs shown in the exhibits, then it is extremely plausible as Mr. Shumway says in his affidavit, that these mounted tires are equipment incidental to his milling operations. That the Forest Service calls what appear to be good wheels junk may reflect a lack of competence on its part to evaluate other people's equipment, rather than a lack of value of the equipment. 47 Likewise, the Shumways have established a genuine issue about whether their trailer is junk that should be removed or a dwelling reasonably incident to mill site activity for which their claim is held. The Shumways' evidence establishes that (1) they mill at the mill site, which would give them a reason to live there, just as a grocer may have a reason to live upstairs from the store; (2) the Forest Service previously ordered them to have someone living there, to protect against vandals who might spill cyanide; and (3) even though they no longer use cyanide, they still need security to protect the site from vandals. That a sham mining claim cannot furnish legal basis for a dwelling site does not imply that a dwelling is not reasonably incident to a genuine mine or mill site. The need of humans to eat, sleep, and relax in the remote locations where mines have often developed has always necessitated mining camps, bunkhouses, and other dwellings. 48
49 As required by the Forest Service's organic act, the Secretary of Agriculture was delegated the authority to promulgate regulations for the protection of the forests: 50 The Secretary of Agriculture shall make provisions for the protection against destruction by fire and depredations upon the public and national forests which may have been set aside . . .; and he may make such rules and regulations and establish such service as will insure the objects of such reservations, namely, to regulate their occupancy and use and to preserve the forests thereupon from destruction. 71 51 That same organic legislation limited that power, requiring that no such rule or regulation prohibit any person from entering upon the national forests for all proper and lawful purposes, including that of prospecting, locating and developing the mineral resources thereof. 72 Such persons must comply with the rules and regulations covering such national forests. 73 Interpreting these statutes in United States v. Weiss, 74 we held that the Secretary may adopt reasonable rules and regulations which do not impermissibly encroach upon the right to use and enjoyment of . . . claims for mining purposes. 75 Thus, under Weiss, the Forest Service may regulate use of National Forest lands by holders of unpatented mining claims, like the Shumways, 76 but only to the extent that the regulations are reasonable and do not impermissibly encroach on legitimate uses incident to mining and mill site claims. Congress has refused to repeal the Mining Law of 1872. Administrative agencies lack authority effectively to repeal the statute by regulations. 52 The Forest Service regulations impose numerous requirements on anyone running a mining operation in the National Forests. Mine and mill site operators must give the Forest Service a notice of intent to operate, and based on this notice [i]f the District Ranger determines that such operations will likely cause significant disturbance of surface resources, the operator shall submit a plan of operations, unless the mine operation falls within a small group of exceptions. 77 A plan of operations describes the type of operations proposed and the manner conducted. 78 The plan of operations must be approved by the District Ranger, who must analyze the proposal, considering the economics of the operation along with the other factors in determining the reasonableness of the requirements for surface resource protection. 79 53 The Forest Service may also require a mine or mill site operator to furnish a bond to secure compliance with the plan of operation's reclamation requirement. 80 Because the bond is linked to the reclamation goals of the plan of operations, the bond amount may not be set arbitrarily. The regulations specifically require the Forest Service to consider the costs of reclamation in setting the bond amount: In determining the amount of the bond, consideration will be given to the estimated cost of stabilizing, rehabilitating, and reclaiming the area of operations. 81 Also, the regulations expressly permit the Forest Service to adjust the bond when the plan of operations changes, and requires the Forest Service to reduce the bond amount as the Forest Service accepts portions of reclamation as completed. 82 54 The Forest Service, in 1990, requested that the Shumways submit a new plan of operations since their operations had changed substantially, citing additional equipment, pile of refuse and change in the type of chemicals used. The Forest Service eventually agreed to approve the plan of operations that the Shumways submitted in December 1990, but increased the bond requirement for the Shumways' mill sites from $5200 to $18,000. But because the Shumways' bond was by a surety not approved by the Department, no surety approved by the Department would write the bond, and the Shumways could not spare $18,000 cash, their plan of operations was not approved. Nothing else about the plan was disapproved except the Shumways' surety on their bond. More recently the Forest Service estimated that the required bond would be between $100,000 and $150,000. The Forest Service justifiedthis dramatic increase as based on the cost of clean up, due to the current conditions at the mill site-including the substantial amount of equipment and other material, including vehicles, scrap metal, and trash, which they disputably characterized as junk. 55 The Forest Service's Complaint asked the court to evict the Shumways because they had not filed a plan of operations nor the required bond. The Shumways argue that the Forest Service would not accept their plan until they filed the requested bond. But the bond amount, argue the Shumways, was impermissibly arbitrary. 56 Based on our review of the evidence before the trial court, there is an issue of fact as to whether or not the government properly increased the bond amount to an arbitrary figure, and threatened additional arbitrary increases if the Shumways met the figure. As we discussed above, the Shumways presented evidence contradicting the Forest Service's assertion that the mill site operations had changed substantially and that their equipment and materials were junk. If that is true, the bond amount should not have drastically changed. 57 The Shumways have also raised a genuine issue of material fact as to whether remediation would include the cost of hauling away the equipment and materials on the site. If, as the Thorne affidavit says, the equipment has a replacement value of $400,000 then costs of transportation would merely be a factor affecting the price at which the equipment could be sold. 58 Nor does the record provide a basis for evicting the Shumways. There is uncontradicted evidence that the Shumways own the mill site claims. There is no evidence in the record before us that (as was the case in Goldfield Deep Mines 83 ) the Shumways' claim is a sham. Even had there been, the Shumway and Thorne affidavits would establish a genuine issue to the contrary. The Forest Service has offered no explanation for why its disapproval of an operating plan should result in eviction. The more appropriate remedy, consistent with the mining or mill site claim owner's rights as well as the Forest Service's would be an injunction, requiring appropriate measures to protect surface resources or prohibiting mining or milling pending approval of an appropriate plan or bond. Failure to file an approved operating plan cannot, ipso facto, cause a forfeiture of the bona fide claim owner's equitable title and possessory right. The Shumways are not guests at their mill site, but property owners. Like someone who proposes to operate a nursing home in an area zoned for single family residential and light retail, regulations may prohibit their proposed use, but it does not follow that they forfeit their interests in the real estate.