I'm not that familiar with anything east of the big river, but the first question would be who holds the mineral rights to the property in question?

 

If the landowner, then in all probability they would fall under state laws and regulations.  USFS would have no jurisdiction over private property, unless the feds still have the mineral rights.  The big issue would be water quality as it enters federal ground, but as long as it meets state standards as it leaves the private ground it should be alright.

Need to check with USFS and the state/county to cover all the bases as to mineral ownership and laws/regs pertaining to mining/prospecting.

 

Good luck, here's hoping you are able to find something worthwhile.

Thanks for the reply, I reached out to the district ranger to see what they say.

The forest back there are covered with split estates as in Forest Service may own surface and individual may own minerals or two different individuals may own - one surface and one the mineral. Many persons assume that when they purchase a property that they own both and a typical title search does not check for mineral ownership only surface ownership. So be sure that the owner knows the difference. I know of places even in California where people have purchased years ago a house or built a house on property, some next to rivers, that they may not realize they do not own the mineral rights. Some cases the mineral rights were reserved by the Federal Government and their property is subject to claim under the 1872 mining act. There is a surprise in the waiting for a homeowner!

Do your research into what laws are applicable in your situation.  It is not unheard of for District Rangers and Forest Supervisors, and even the LEO's and field staff to have different interpretations of what laws and regs say.

 

Split estates are not uncommon, even out west.  I have a claim that 1/2 is all federal and the other half is timber company surface rights, but the feds have the mineral rights.

Thank you gentleman, I will definitely inquire as to who has surface and mineral rights.







No response from the district ranger yet, good point on the varying opinion on the law.  I will have to reach out to several sources, see how they compare.