Opinion ID: 156463
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Multiple Use Mining Act of 1955

Text: 22 Manning finally asserts the district court erred in determining that the Multiple Use Mining Act of 1955, 30 U.S.C. § 601, et seq., applies to unpatented millsite claims and that based on this Act the United States has the right of free access to the surface of such claims for inspection and regulation purposes. Manning asserts the Act does not cover millsite claims, and argues the district court's determination that the Act applies to millsite claims is inconsistent with the Act's language and legislative history, with the treatment of millsites in other federal statutes, and with mining practice and custom. Manning further asserts that because the 1955 Act does not provide the United States with a right of access to millsite claims, the entry by the Forest Service employees onto his millsite violated the Fourth Amendment. 23 The Mining Act of 1872 conferred a statutory right to enter upon federal public lands to search for minerals and provided that the locators of mining claims had exclusive right of possession and enjoyment of all the surface included within the lines of their locations. 30 U.S.C. § 26; see 36 C.F.R. § 228.1 (1997). This statute was construed to mean that as against parties other than the United States, the locator had exclusive right to use the surface of this land. Silbrico Corp. v. Ortiz, 878 F.2d 333, 335 (10th Cir.1989) (internal quotation omitted). 24 In 1955, Congress amended the mining laws by passing the Multiple Use Mining Act, 30 U.S.C. § 601, et seq., which retained to the Federal Government the right to manage the surface resources of subsequently located unpatented mining claims. See 30 U.S.C. § 612(b). The Act provides that the unpatented mining claims are subject to the right of the United States and its permittees and licensees to manage surface resources and to use so much of the surface thereof as may be necessary for such purposes or for access to adjacent land so long as such does not endanger or materially interfere with prospecting, mining or processing operations or uses reasonably incident thereto. Id. 25 Manning asserts the Act's language is clear on its face, applying only to mining claims and not to millsite claims. Contrary to this assertion, however, the Act does not address the issue but is silent with respect to whether millsites are covered. The Act refers generally to any mining claim hereafter located under the mining laws of the United States, without defining mining claim to either include or exclude millsites. Id. 26 The Department of the Interior, the agency primarily charged with administering the Act, 3 has promulgated regulations for the surface management of mining claims to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation of Federal lands which may result from operations authorized by the mining laws. 43 C.F.R. § 3809.0-1 (1997). These regulations define mining claim as including any unpatented mining claim, millsite, or tunnel site located under the mining laws.... Id. § 3809.0-5(d) (emphasis added). 4 27 The Forest Service, responsible for managing the National Forests, 5 has also promulgated regulations which apply to operations ... conducted under the United States mining laws ... as they affect surface resources on all National Forest Service lands. 36 C.F.R. § 228.2 (1997). The Forest Service regulations, like the Interior Department regulations, define mining claim as including [a]ny unpatented mining claim or unpatented millsite authorized by the United States mining laws of May 10, 1872, as amended. Id. § 228.3(d). 28 Because Congress did not clearly address the issue, this court defers to interpretations of the statute by the agencies charged with its administration, provided such interpretations are based on a permissible construction of the statute. See Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 843-45, 104 S.Ct. 2778, 81 L.Ed.2d 694 (1984). One of the primary purposes of the Multiple Use Mining Act of 1955 was to amend the general mining laws to permit more efficient management and administration of the surface resources of the public lands by providing for multiple use of the same tracts of such lands. H.R.Rep. No. 84-730 (1955), reprinted in 1955 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2474. The Act was intended to continue to encourage exploration and development of mineral resources on public lands under the general mining laws while also giving full recognition to the vital importance of the forest and range resources of the public lands and the national forests. Id. Therefore, the legislation sought to foster mining activity compatible with utilization, management, and conservation of surface resources such as timber, water, wildlife, parks, monuments, and recreation areas. Id. The Interior Department and Forest Service regulations defining mining claim as including millsites are reasonable and consistent with the purpose of the statute to allow the efficient use, management, and conservation of the surface resources of public lands. This court thus concludes the Act applies to millsites. 29 Because the Forest Service has the authority to regulate Manning's millsite operations, this court rejects Plaintiff's contention that the Forest Service had no right of access to his site and that the Forest Service employees' entry onto the millsite violated his Fourth Amendment rights.