301 



-2- 



The situation was further complicated because the mining 

 claim in question was supposed to be exempt from government 

 jurisdiction of the surface resources. The claim was located 

 in 1944 and was therefore protected from the restrictions of 

 the Multiple Surface Use Act of July 23, 1955 (30 USC 6OI-6I5) . 

 The operator had applied for exemption under the "grandfather" 

 clause of the Act. The mining claim was then validated by the 

 Department of the Interior and affirmed in a document dated 

 June 10, i960. Forest Service personnel and their legal coun- 

 sel claim the regulation has jurisdiction over all unpatented 

 mining claims even when there is encroachment upon other 

 statuatory rights. 



The reclamation, bonding and jurisdiction issues were sub- 

 mitted to the administrative appeal process by the operator. 

 The Forest Supervisor and the Regional Forester upheld the 

 decision of the District Ranger. They also denied all Requests 

 for Stay which would have allowed work to continue during the 

 appeal. The operator then had a choice to go ahead with annual 

 assessment work or lose the claims by default unless he were to 

 submit to the bond requirement which would then establish a 

 precedent for future imposition of similar restrictions. 



Assessment work was undertaken and completed just in time 

 to meet the deadline for that requirement. The government 

 promptly filed a civil lawsuit to obtain an injunction and re- 

 cover damages. See U.S. v. Cavanaugh , CV-R-84-'^22-BRT. 

 A decision is still pending after two years of legal maneuver- 

 ing by both sides. 



The government has intended this to be a "test case" to 

 establish their authority to administer the regulations in 

 accordance with the agency interpretation of the requirements. 

 This operator was targeted because he was a small miner with 

 limited financial resources. He would be more likely to lose 

 by default or otherwise than if a similar issue were made with 

 a larger company. 



The operator is equally dedicated to test the reasonable- 

 ness of the regulations in a court of law and in effect to 

 challenge the authority of the government to engage in this 

 unnecessary interference with a legitimate mining operation. 



The District Court in Reno, Nevada has scheduled a hear- 

 ing on a motion for summary judgement on the jurisdiction 

 issue for May 16, I986 at which time a date will be set for 

 the trial. More information will be provided to interested 

 persons after these legal issues have been addressed. 



\ 



\ 



