United States Department o f the Interior OFFICE O F HEARING S AN D APPEAL S

Interior Board of Land Appeals 801 N. Quincy Street, Suite 300

Arlington, Virginia 2220 3

T A K E P R I D E * E R I C A

703-235-3750 703-235-8349 (fax )

June 3, 201 5

2015-5 4

RAKUBIAN MININ G GROUP , INC .

and

Mining Clai m Recordatio n

Decision Affirmed ; Petition for Stay Denie d as Moo t

ORDER

Rakubian Minin g Group , Inc. (Appellant) , has appeale d fro m an d petitioned for a stay of a decision of the Arizona State Office , Burea u o f Land Managemen t (BLM), declarin g two mining claims - Lon g Day an d Mammot h Spar

- forfeite d and void . BL M stated in its decision tha t th e claim s wer e forfeited becaus e Appellant failed t o either amen d th e claim s to reduce the numbe r of acres in the claims , or in the alternative , t o fil e documentatio n supportin g a discover y of a valuable minera l deposit prio r to the dat e of transfer o f the claims . BL M ha d previously issued a notice to Appellant affording it 30 days in which to fil e clai m amendments or documentation supportin g a discovery of a valuable minera l deposit . Based o n the followin g analysis , w e affir m BLM' s decision and den y th e petitio n for a stay as moot .

The tw o placer minin g claims a t issue were originall y located i n Maricopa County, Arizona, by an associatio n o f 8 persons in March 2005. Eac h o f the 8 co-locators locate d 2 0 acres in each claim, s o tha t eac h association place r minin g clai m contained 16 0 acres , the maximu m permitted by law. 3 0 §§ 35, 36 (2012) ; 43 C.F.R . § 3832.22(b). Th e 8 original locator s the n quitclaime d the minin g claim s to Gol d Rush , LLC , on Apri l 2005 . Gol d Rush , LLC , subsequently quitclaime d the claims to Elementa l Minin g Group , Inc . (Elemental) , on December 2006 , an d Elemental then quitclaime d the claim s to Appellant Rakubian Minin g Group , Inc.,

2015-54

on August 21, Ther e i s no record that any of the clai m holders complie d with the regulation applicable to a transfer o f an associatio n place r minin g claim, whic h requires tha t upon transfer o f an association placer clai m to an individua l o r an association tha t is smaller in number tha n the associatio n tha t located the claim , the transfero r mus t either "have discovere d a valuable mineral deposit before transfer" or , "[upon] notice from BL M . . . reduce th e acreage of the claim " to mee t the 20-acr e pe r claiman t limit. 4 3 C.F.R . § 3833.33.

On August 13, 2014, BL M sent a Notice to Appellant informing i t that th e claims at issue did not meet th e 20-acr e pe r locato r limit . BL M gave Appellant two options by which i t could remedy this problem. Appellan t could submit documentation, date d prio r to the dat e of transfer, supportin g a discovery of a valuable mineral deposit. Notic e at 2 . I n the alternative , Appellant could amen d th e claims to reduce th e acreage to meet th e 20-acre pe r locato r limit . Id. BL M provided Appellant 30 days fro m th e dat e it received the notice to document a discovery of a valuable mineral deposit o r to amend th e claims . Id. BL M informed Appellan t that i f the required documents o r amendments wer e no t received within th e 3 0 day time period, th e minin g claims would b e declare d forfeite d an d void . Id.

The record contains n o evidence tha t Appellant provided documentation supporting a discovery of a valuable mineral deposit o r an amendmen t t o either of the claim s within th e prescribe d 3 0 day period. Appellan t states that i t held a conference cal l wi th BL M but that i t had missed the deadlin e fo r providing th e requested documentatio n or amendment. O n October 28 , 2014, BL M issued th e decision under appeal , findin g th e claim s forfeit an d void because Appellant had no t filed amendment s t o the claim s or documentation supporting a discovery of a valuable mineral deposit withi n th e 3 0 days provided.

The law controlling the dispositio n of this appeal provide s that no place r location shal l include more than 2 0 acres for each individua l claimant , and ma y not exceed 16 0 acres for an association o f up to eight individual claimants . 3 0 U.S.C. §§ 35, 36 (2012) ; 43 C.F.R . § 3832.22(b). Upo n transfer o f an association place r claim to an individua l o r an association tha t is smaller in number tha n the associatio n

Th e record demonstrates tha t Appellant and prio r holder s o f the claim s met th e other basic requirement s fo r maintaining their claims, i.e., they made timel y filings of Maintenance Fe e Waiver Certifications, Affidavit s o f Performance o f Assessmen t Work, an d associate d processin g fee s for the claims from 200 6 to 2014.

2

2015-54

that located the claim , th e transfero r mus t eithe r "have discovere d a valuable mineral deposit before th e transfer " or , "[upon] notice from BL M . . . reduce th e acreage of the claim " to meet th e 20-acr e pe r claiman t limit. 4 3 C.F.R . § 3833.33.

When BL M determine s tha t a claimant has file d an y defective document , BLM must send th e claiman t a notice of the defec t b y certified receip t requested. 4 3 C.F.R . § 3830.94(a). Th e claimant must cure the defec t withi n 30 days o f receipt of BLM's notification o f the defect s fo r any document othe r than a defective fe e waive r request. 4 3 C.F.R . § 3830.94(b). I f a claimant fails t o submit the require d documentation within th e 30-day period, the claiman t forfeits th e mining claims or sites. 4 3 C.F.R . § 3830.91(a) (8) ; see also 43 C.F.R . §§ 3830.93(b), 3830.94(d); Johnny Smith, 18 5 254, 255 (2015) .

In thi s case, the claim s at issue, eac h o f which comprise d acres, did not comply wi th th e 20-acre pe r claiman t limit. 3 0 §§ 35, 36 (2012) ; 43 C.F.R . § 3832.22(b) . BL M notifie d Appellan t of that defec t i n the claims , and provided it wi th 3 0 days t o cure the defect . 4 3 C.F.R . § 3830.94; see also Melvin 14 6 IBL A 362, 368 (1998 ) (holdin g tha t the provision of notice and opportunit y to cure is proper when the inclusio n o f excess acreage is inadvertent). Th e record does not show that Appellant provided the required documentation that any claimant had "discovered a valuable mineral deposit before th e transfer " o f the claim s or tha t Appellant amended th e claim s within th e prescribed time period. 4 3 C.F.R . § 3833.33 .

Appellant does not state that i t filed amendment s t o the claim s or provided the requested documentatio n showing a discovery by the deadline . Instead , Appellant states that i t believes tha t the Mammot h Spar claim fulfille d th e requiremen t tha t there b e a discovery of a valuable mineral deposit before th e transfer . Appea l of Forfeiture an d Reques t fo r Stay. I n support o f this statement, Appellan t provides links to two online databases. Th e firs t identifie s the clai m as a "former underground fluorspar mine " where commercia l mining took place i n the 1950s . Id. at 1-2 . Th e second list s the clai m as a "past producer" of minerals. Id. a t 2 . Wit h respec t t o the Long Day claim, Appellant states that i t believed the clai m to have adequat e commercial grade turquois e deposit s an d sufficien t place r gol d deposit s t o justify th e purchase price of the clai m a t the time of transfer. Id. Appellan t provides n o documentation to support tha t statement .

Upon review of the record , including Appellant's submissions, w e conclud e that there i s no basis for altering BLM's decision. Appellan t failed t o respond t o BLM's 30-day notice that i t must amend th e claim s to reduce th e acreage or fil e documentary evidenc e supportin g a discovery prior t o the date of transfer o f the claims. A mining claimant on Federal lands ha s a responsibility to respond t o information request s from th e agenc y charge d b y the Unite d State s Congress wit h

3

IBLA 2015-5 4

managing the Federa l land s an d resources the claiman t wishes t o exploit . Johnny Smith, 18 5 IBL A a t 255. Appellan t failed t o do so, an d in accordance wi t h th e applicable regulations, 43 C.F.R . §§ 3830.91(a) (8) , 3830.93(b), and 3830.94(d), we conclud e tha t BL M properly declared th e minin g claims abandoned an d void .

Therefore, pursuan t t o the authorit y delegated t o the Board of Land Appeals by th e Secretar y o f the Interior , 4 3 C.F.R . § 4.1, the decisio n is affirmed an d Appellant's petition fo r stay is denied a s moot .

I concur :

4