A few weeks ago we shared the USFS’s new proposal to streamline regulations as they pertain to Plans of Operations (PoO) and Notices of Intent (NOI) to mine on USFS managed lands.
In this post is our response to this proposal and we ask you click on the SHARE button now. This needs to reach as many people as possible. This is the time we need to unite as one.
Firstly, we all face a large and well organized opposition to mining, even small-scale mining. Environmental groups are well funded and utilize bot programs and paid posters to send in comments to sway policy such as this one proposed by USFS. You need to be heard and it can be as simple as clicking on the link provided below and just typing your comments. If you don’t do this, your voice and opinion does not count.
Secondly, there are few good and many not-so-good things in their new proposal. This permitting proposal is something President Trump started back in his first term from input from many of us about how the USFS needed reform and should align with the BLM’s more streamlined regulations.
We suggest you read the proposal in the link, then read our response. Then click on the “SUBMIT A PUBLIC COMMENT” on the top right of the page in the link and type your comment.
We have some other pretty exciting news we’ll be sharing soon about AMRA’s President trip meeting with lawmakers back in Washington DC a few weeks ago…but we’ll save that for a time very soon.
The link to their proposal and comment section (which ends 4/21/2026) is here:
HERE IS OUR LETTER:
Purpose: To: Director, MGM, Forest Service, USDA March 23, 2026
Attn: Locatable Minerals Rule Comments (RIN 0596-AD32)
Re: Comments on Proposed Rule: Locatable Minerals (36 CFR Part 228, Subpart A)
Federal Register Document: 2026-03364
From: American Mining Rights Association (AMRA)
PO Box 467
Coulterville CA 95311
About Us:
AMRA is a California 501(c)(3) non-profit advocacy and Educational Association which focuses on small-scale mining on public lands, both USFS and BLM managed.
In 1872, Congress created the Mining Act to protect mining for the development of valuable minerals on public lands open for mineral entry. Their intent was: The Free Access Principle; by declaring mineral deposits on federal lands “free and open to exploration,” Congress intentionally removed government discretion and royalty requirements to maximize the incentive for discovery. This proposal by the USFS should in no way alter, prevent, cause an undue burden, or materially interfere with the mining rights granted by the Acts of 1866 and 1872. It should also follow with President Trump’s recent Executive Orders on strategic and critical minerals.
Purpose:
We are providing a voice for our members, our affiliated groups, gold clubs, associations, public land users and small-scale miners in America which this proposal affects. Estimates are there are approximately 2 million small-scale miners in the United States. While we applaud the efforts to be more uniform with the regulations with the BLM, there are several aspects to this proposal which we find concerning and do not believe should be adopted and/or significant changes should be made to the language or definitions used.
Over the years, AMRA has helped and guided hundreds of miners navigate the complex and extremely challenging permitting requirements currently in place (Plans of Operations PoO). Many small-scale miners have a limited understanding of legal jargon and are frequently overwhelmed by the volumes of documents and confusing language the USFS uses to define the permitting process. Our comments are rooted in the need for a system that is accessible, transparent, and fair to all operators, without regard to their educational background.
1. Clarifying “Historical Sites” and Cultural Resources:
A primary concern is the vague language regarding historical sites, which lacks a clear definition in the proposal. In California, most mines are historical in nature; the Gold Rush took miners everywhere, and prospect holes were dug across nearly the entire landscape. This activity happened in most of the Western States during the 1800’s and could be considered “historic” locations. We are deeply concerned that under this vague language, any hole dug in the 1800s could be designated as “historical,” triggering an immediate and burdensome permitting requirement. The final rule must provide a clear, narrow definition of what constitutes a protected historical site to prevent the mere presence of 19th-century activity from becoming a permanent obstacle to modern mineral development.
2. Replacing Subjective Standards with Objective Criteria:
The Forest Service must replace subjective regulatory standards with objective criteria. The current proposal is intended to “minimize significant surface impacts,” not to stop all surface impacts entirely. To support national security directives and our mineral needs, a hole must be dug. Currently, the definition of “significant disturbance” is left to the personal whims of individual agents. To ensure fairness, the final rule must clearly state that a shovel, a pick, and a sluice box or other minimal disturbances cannot and do not create a “significant disturbance” by some agents “interpretation of the rule.” Furthermore, the Forest Service must ensure that the protection of surface resources does not materially interfere with lawful mining rights.
3. Establishing Reasonable and Binding Timelines:
The final rule must establish reasonable timelines for all procedural steps, including completeness determinations, scheduling of site visits, placement on the Forest Service’s program of work, and the initiation and completion of NEPA review. Currently, PoO processing takes anywhere from 60 days to 8 years. To stop this ideological delay process, the Agency must establish safeguards to prevent repeated completeness review cycles that could indefinitely delay environmental review.
4. Agency Accountability for Funding and Staffing:
The final rule must clearly define that responsibility for funding and staffing NEPA analysis rests with the Forest Service. With an $8.6 billion budget, internal agency funding limitations or “placement on the program of work” may not be used to delay the initiation or completion of environmental review for submitted operating notices or plans of operations. We have multiple examples of agents telling miners if they want to mine any time soon, they have to pay for the NEPA studies or wait up to two years.
5. Elimination of Arbitrary Group Size Limits:
The section restricting more than 10 people from being on a claim or public lands without a permitted operation is intrusive and should be eliminated entirely. I recently volunteered to teach the entire Lake Don Pedro, CA high school how to pan on one of my placer claims (a total of 45 students); under this language, such a minimal-impact educational activity would require a PoO, bond and full plan. This language should be removed from this proposal. Gold Clubs with sometimes hundreds of members often have “outings” where small gatherings occur and would adversely apply to them. This has been happening for decades without degradation, significant disturbances or anything which should require any form of special permitting other than the Agency’s already existing simple permit for a gathering of 75 people or more on USFS managed lands.
6. Protection of RS 2477 Rights-of-Way and Data Transparency:
This provision must explicitly protect RS 2477 roads. All roads prior to the creation of FLPMA in 1976 in the public domain open for mineral entry were mandated to remain open for mineral development as a subpart of the 1866 mining act. FLPMA states “that nothing in the Act shall be construed as “terminating any valid lease, permit, patent, right-of-way, or other land-use authorization existing on the date of approval”. 2813.14 of the USFS’s own manual governing mining claims state they must provide reasonable access and cannot cause an undue burden accessing a mining claim. Roads to this very day are being closed all across the west and many times without any regard to RS2477 or USFS 2813.14. The end result is an agent telling a mining claim owner they must now walk, sometimes miles, to their claim carrying heavy gear to mine their real property mining claims. Additionally, the USFS should provide a comprehensive, public-facing GIS map showing where environmental assessments (EAs) have already been performed to prevent redundant, costly studies.
7. Alignment with BLM Standards (5-Acre Provision):
We applaud the 5-acre disturbance threshold for Plans of Operations. To maintain consistency with BLM standards, the rule should explicitly state that a Notice of Intent (NOI) is the appropriate mechanism for any disturbance less than 5 acres.
8. Consistency with Executive Mandates and National Security:
The Forest Service’s stated goal for this proposal is to support the administration’s directives on American Mineral Independence and National Energy Dominance. However, as currently written, several provisions appear to be in direct conflict with the “Whole-of-Government” approach mandated by recent Executive Orders.
Specifically, the inclusion of vague language regarding “historical sites,” the arbitrary 10-person group limit, and the lack of a “shot clock” for repeated information requests creates new, subjective hurdles that counteract the President’s mandate to fast-track permitting and eliminate bureaucratic interference.
To truly align with the National Energy Dominance Council (NEDC) and the executive goal of unleashing American energy, this rule must focus exclusively on objective, measurable triggers. Any provision that allows an individual agent to indefinitely stall a project through subjective interpretation is a failure to meet the administration’s requirements for efficiency and accountability. The Forest Service must ensure this regulation functions as a bridge to domestic production, not a new set of barriers that undermines our national security and economic interests.
9. Training of agents:
Our extensive experience with the USFS and its agents has been great at times and challenging in others. One of the opportunities in which we see with those assigned to either enforce, approve or evaluate mining operation issues with mining is a sincere lack of training by the USFS. An extremely low number of USFS geologists, field agents and District Rangers know the 2800 manual which outlines in detail Plans of Operations, Notices of Intent and other pertinent topics related to mining. Most have not even heard of this manual created by the USFS for this very purpose. A detailed training of this proposal, the rules, regulations and the processes which will be implemented must be included.
In Conclusion:
Comparing a miner to a mountain biker, a fisherman, or a hiker is not an accurate comparison. Miners have granted rights; federal mining claims are recognized as “real property in every sense of the word” and we are not mere guests on our public lands. We pay property taxes on mining claims in California. We do not throw our gold, silver, platinum or rhodium back at the end of the day and what we do is critical to our National Security and our economic strength in the world.
Sincerely,
Mr. Shannon Poe
President, AMRA
PO Box 467
Coulterville CA 95311