Waldo Mining District

04/24/2026

Excellent interview with the head of the Forest Service about the upcoming restructuring, what has already changed, what's coming up, and how this is expected to benefit the employees, ballance the budget, and work together locally with all users of National Forests. Check it out! 👇

The AFRC Podcast: Sustainable Forests. Healthy Communities · Episode

04/20/2026

Sharing with permission a retired FS employee's comments to the proposed changes. Remember! Deadline for comments is April 21- this Tuesday !

Submit Comments Here https://www.regulations.gov/docket/FS-2018-0052/document?fbclid=IwY2xjawRSYUpleHRuA2FlbQIxMABicmlkETFtYUZlZGtzQ2NZV2VNczRrc3J0YwZhcHBfaWQQMjIyMDM5MTc4ODIwMDg5MgABHi9SChtYcYWP-AGA5bcs3vHfW4puIlVermBbPBLqgV4GBBIZSUTdm-FQ1rLX_aem_mbsD-y1cEnkKQCuffk_k5g

COMMENTS CONCERNING PROPOSED US FOREST
SERVICE MINING REGULATION CHANGES (FR
Document # 2026-03364)

4/16/2026

COMMENTS (my comments are based on over 10+ years working for
the USFS as a resource specialist having mineral
development/management responsibilities)

I am opposed to many of the requirements under this revised rule.
See the following.
1. Lack of Fixed Timeframes for the USFS to Follow
a. Lack of Required Environmental Analysis Timeframes
A big and on-going problem is a lack of specific, required environmental
analysis times for USFS. There is no guaranteed time within which the USFS
has to complete their analysis. Their standard answer to this problem is ‘hire
this out under your own nickel’. Unfortunately, my best guess would be that
90%+ of these claimants have little to no resources to do so. These are NOT
‘Newmont Mining Companies’. This has been an on-going problem with this
Agency for literally decades. I am a retired USFS employee with specific
knowledge of this on-going problem with mineral projects on National Forest
lands. They continually say they cannot complete their analysis because of
lack of money, lack of personnel, lack of operator detailed information, too
many projects and this is lower priority, etc. These statements may be true
BUT there is no one aggressively trying to change this.
Operators on the other hand are REQUIRED to comply within specific
timeframes for all of their work including Notices of Non-Compliance.
This is a double standard and must be changed.
b. Analysis Paralysis
The proposed regulations provide more opportunities for the USFS to abuse
mining claimants by requesting more and more detailed descriptions of their
proposed operations--- “ad nauseam”. This has the benefit to the Agency of
‘resetting’ the clock so the USFS does not violate these proposed regulations.
This has been extensively and currently/historically used by the USFS with
respect to mining claimants that it does NOT wish to ‘approve’. This is
frequently also facilitated by environmental activists within the Agency itself.

Mining claimants are required to abide by specific timeframes, fairness
dictates the same should be for the USFS. Again, this is a double
standard and must be changed.
c. There need to be provision for More Time for Operating Notices
Because of Limited Operating Seasons in SW Oregon
In SW Oregon, many areas are not accessible from the end of November to
May because of snow. Other areas including some of the previous are also
not accessible before June 1 or after September 30 because of Port Orford-
cedar road closures (to prevent spread of POC root disease during wet
weather). These restrictions need to be considered in these regulations in
order to provide mining operators adequate time to complete their projects.
These restrictions limit the operating season for affected miners to
ONLY 4-7 months out of a year. This issue should be addressed in
these regulations.
2. Lack of Adequate Personnel and Adequate Time to Meet with All Claimants
The USFS does NOT have adequate personnel and time to meet with all operators
other than Limited Operations prior to starting operations because ALL operators will
be wanting to start ASAP (weather permitting). This is an obvious bottleneck. In
addition, many of the USFS mining personnel are relatively inexperienced with
POO’s and, furthermore, everyone does not have ANY experience with the
proposed regulations. Therefore, they are completely unprepared to intelligently
answer questions regarding the ‘how to’ for these new regulations.
The new regulations indicate that at the Pre-Submittal Meeting, the USFS will
provide a laundry list of information to the operator about things that might affect
his/her mining operation. HOWEVER, this is the 1 st time the USFS is given ANY
information by the Operator concerning what the operator wishes to do. This is,
therefore, impossible to accomplish. This must be changed.
3. Lack of Specific Definition of Terms and Requirements
These regulations use terms that are NOT specifically defined such as a change in
the Operating Plan or a modification of an Operating Plan. What is considered a
significant enough change for this? UNDEFINED!!!

4. These Regulations Indicate the USFS wants to Require the Claimant to
Know ALL the State and Federal Requirements for their Mining Activities
but DOES NOT SPECIFY THESE REQUIREMENTS.
The claimant is NOT responsible for knowing all of the myriad of laws, regulations,
code, etc.—that is the responsibility of the oversight agencies who should be
sharing this information with the claimant. The mining operator IS NOT a
regulator.
5. Mining Claimants have been recognized by the Federal Courts as
(essentially) private land stakeholders within the National Forest.
Mining claimants (according to the Mining Law of 1872 and numerous subsequent
court case findings) are to be dealt with by the government similar to that of a private
land inholding within the National Forest. Essentially, claimants are to be dealt with
in a manner similar to a government to government relationship. According to the
Mining Law of 1872, miners can stake a claim and begin operations without explicit
prior approval, provided they discover valuable minerals. A mining claim IS NOT a
PERMITTER verses PERMITEE RELATIONSHIP. Once a discovery is made,
miners have specific property ‘rights’. Numerous court cases have determined this.
Miners cannot be legally blocked from access to their mining claims or delayed or
effectively prevented from mining.
This ISSUE is particularly egregious for suction dredge miners because all are
required under these regulations to file a Plan of Operation. Effectively, this
bans a miner from even prospecting their claim because one cannot ‘pan’
underwater or even sample in deep water without a suction dredge. Even
legally ‘maintaining’ (e.g. completing annual assessment work) one’s placer
mining claim is in jeopardy by these regulations because this is usually done
by suction dredge.
There is no surface resource that the USFS is protecting in these situations because
the ‘surface’ is underwater and the ‘owner’ of such submerged lands is not
necessarily the adjacent land owner (either the USFS or a private land owner-for
non-navigable streams/rivers) but frequently is the State (for navigable
rivers/streams).
6. Mining Claimants Working in “Brown Field” Exploration Areas (e.g.
previously mined areas) with a 5 acre or less project should NOT be
required to do a Plan of Operation.
New regulations state that a Plan of Operations is required for ALL operations on
previously mined sites. In SW Oregon, finding a mineralized site that has no
evidence of past mining/prospecting would be very difficult. WHERE does the USFS
figure a miner would logically want to look for valuable minerals? Any
knowledgeable miner is going to be doing ‘brown field exploration’—that is

prospecting where others have previously looked. Projects disturbing less than 5
acres (Operating Notice size) should NOT be thrown into this required Plan of
Operation group.

04/03/2026

Sunset over the Illinois Valley 4-2-26 *taken from 8$ Mtn road

04/02/2026

Official Statement to all Forest Service personnel regarding the major structure change of the Agency, and what comes next.

What are your thoughts about this shake up? Offices moved out of DC into Utah, regional centers shut down, state centers to open, potential moving from USDA to DOI, and a focus on active management.

From: FS-Office of the Chief
Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2026 12:07 PM
To: FS-All FS
Subject: Important Agency Update: Reorganization and What Comes Next



Moments ago, we announced plans to relocate our national headquarters to Salt Lake City, Utah, and begin a phased transition to a new organizational structure for our agency. I want to take a moment to reflect on what this means for us, why we’re making this change, and how we’ll move forward together.



For decades, our regional and research station structure has served the agency well. It helped us form strong relationships and carry out a mission that has only grown in importance. At the same time, we have operated under long‑standing budget constraints, increasing demands on our workforce, and a growing need to shift resources and authority closer to where our work happens: on the ground, alongside states, tribes, partners, and neighboring communities. The challenges we face today call for a model that is more responsive, accountable, and locally connected than before. These changes are designed to simplify the chain of command, strengthen local partnerships, and give field leaders greater ability to respond to conditions on the ground.



That said, I recognize that today’s announcement carries significant personal and professional implications. Decisions that affect where you and your families live and work are deeply consequential, and we are committed to communicating openly and supporting you throughout this process.



The transition will occur in phases to ensure continuity of operations and to give employees time and clarity as decisions are made. Throughout this period, our Interim Operations structure will remain in place and guide us until the new model is fully operational. We will continue our operations while supporting one another, monitoring our capacity, and adjusting as needed.



Our incident response remains our priority. Importantly, today’s announcement does not make any changes to our Fire and Aviation Management program or its field-based operational firefighters and their positions. Our Geographic Area Coordination Centers will remain in place as the backbone of our national incident response. Our fire readiness and response will continue without interruption.



For National Capitol Region employees whose positions are part of this initial phase, no immediate action is required. Over the coming days and weeks, you will receive additional information outlining expected timelines for relocation, options available to employees whose positions are moving, resources and support to assist with decision-making, and opportunities to ask questions and receive direct guidance. The Employee Assistance Program will also provide onsite support to help employees and families navigate this period of change.



Additional phases of the reorganization, including the formal elimination of regional and station structures and the full transition to a state-based model, will be implemented over the coming year. As those milestones approach, we will provide clear guidance to employees and partners.



I know this transition raises questions about roles, locations, reporting structures, and timelines. Change of this magnitude affects people, families, and communities—not just organizational charts. We are committed to approaching this work with transparency, empathy, respect, and an understanding of the real impacts on your lives.



To guide this effort, we have assembled a core internal executive team, supported by a continuously rotating group of field and program leaders and subject matter experts. This team will prioritize employee engagement, seeking input, listening to concerns, and incorporating feedback as we implement this transition. We will provide regular updates and maintain an internal website with the latest information, resources, timelines, and answers to common questions.



This is a significant moment for the Forest Service. It reflects both the challenges we face and the opportunities ahead to strengthen our mission for the long term. I want to be clear: there is a position for each of you in the new structure, and your skills and experience are essential to the work ahead. At the same time, we know that not all positions will look the same or be located in the same places they are today. That reality brings uncertainty, and I recognize the impact it may have. We will navigate this transition together, with transparency and support, and we will continue to deliver for the people and places we serve.



Employee Engagements Today



You’ll soon receive an invite to an all-employee call where I will walk through today’s announcement and share what employees can expect as we begin this transition. I encourage everyone who is able to join.



We also have executive leaders physically present today at many of the locations most directly affected by these changes – including our regional offices, our research stations, and the Yates building in Washington, D.C. We felt it was important for leaders to be onsite with employees on the day of this announcement.



Immediately after the all-employee call, members of the Executive Leadership Team will host virtual sessions specifically for regional staff, research station employees, and employees in the National Capital Region. These sessions will provide affected employees with direct communication from the leaders responsible for guiding the transition in their part of the organization.



Following those virtual sessions, the leaders who are onsite will hold informal, in-person meetings at each affected location. These conversations are intended to give employees space to connect directly with local leadership, raise concerns, and receive clarity in a more personal setting. We know how important it is to hear from the leaders who know your work and your team best, and today’s engagements are structured to ensure you have multiple ways to access information and support.



Thank you for your dedication, professionalism, and service to the American people.



Chief



Forest Service Shield

Thomas M. Schultz, Jr
Chief

Forest Service

201 14th Street SW
Washington, DC 20250

03/17/2026

Really read through this breakdown of the proposed F.S. Rule Changes. What are your thoughts? I see many issues for small scale operators. Kerby Jackson Tom Kitchar Dennis Hebard David Green Petersen

This is a proposed rule from the U.S. Forest Service to update its mining regulations (36 CFR Part 228, Subpart A) for locatable minerals on National Forest System (NFS) lands.

Locatable minerals are things like gold, silver, copper, and other hardrock minerals that you can claim and mine under the 1872 Mining Law. The rule does not change any federal statutes (laws passed by Congress). It only updates the Forest Service’s own rules that implement those laws. The goal is to make permitting clearer, faster, and more consistent while still protecting surface resources (soil, water, wildlife, scenery, cultural sites, etc.) “to the fullest extent practicable.”

The Forest Service says the current rules (mostly written in 1974, with small tweaks in 1981 and 2005) are outdated, cause confusion, waste time, and sometimes lead to inconsistent decisions across different national forests. They also want to better support the national policy for “strategic and critical minerals” (the ones needed for phones, EVs, military, clean energy, etc.).

Key background statutes quoted in the document (these stay the same; the regulations are just being modernized to match them better):

Mining Law of 1872: “except as otherwise provided, all valuable mineral deposits in lands belonging to the United States . . . shall be free and open to exploration and purchase. . . .” (30 U.S.C. 22).
Organic Administration Act of 1897: Authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to “make rules to regulate occupancy and use of the land and preserve the forests from destruction” while still allowing mining (16 U.S.C. 472, et seq., especially 16 U.S.C. 551).
Surface Resources Act of 1955: Mining claims “shall not be used for any purposes other than prospecting, mining, or processing operations and uses reasonably incident thereto” (30 U.S.C. 612(a)). The U.S. still manages surface resources and can use the surface for other purposes as long as it does not “endanger or materially interfere” with mining (30 U.S.C. 612(b)).

The proposed rule adds new sections and rewrites old ones so the regulations better reflect these statutes and current practices.
Simple breakdown of the three new categories of operations (biggest change)

The old rule had a fuzzy test: “likely to cause a significant disturbance of surface resources.” That caused arguments and delays. The new rule replaces it with clear, specific triggers.

Limited operations (no notice or approval needed)
Very small, hand-tool activities that cause “negligible impacts” — basically no different from what a regular hiker or camper does.
Examples quoted from proposed § 228.4(a)(2):
Small non-motorized hand tools, hand panning, non-motorized sluicing, metal detectors.
Marking a claim.
Removing non-woody plants 5 acres.
Bulk sample >1,000 tons cumulative.
Uses chemicals like cyanide or sulfuric acid.
Needs long-term post-closure care.
In special areas (Wild & Scenic Rivers, impaired waters, Tribal areas, endangered species habitat, federal facilities, segregated/withdrawn lands, etc.).
After a previous operating notice was suspended.
Plan must now include: maps, equipment list, water management, rock handling, monitoring plan, interim management plan for temporary shutdowns, and explanation why everything is “reasonably incident” to mining (§ 228.6(a)).

Other major proposed changes (quoted where possible)

Pre-submittal meeting (new § 228.4(b)): Required before you file any notice or plan. Forest Service must meet you within 21 days. Goal: make sure your paperwork is complete the first time and catch issues early (implements 2016 GAO recommendation).
New definitions (§ 228.3): Adds 12 clear definitions, including “reasonably incident uses,” “reclamation,” “financial assurance,” “surface resources,” “day” (calendar day for deadlines).
Reasonably incident uses (entire new § 228.9): Explains what you can and cannot do on the surface. Not allowed: running paid guiding/educational tours, searching for fossils as a hobby, growing crops, blocking public access (except for safety), storing toxic waste not generated by your mine, etc.
Surface protection rules (rewritten § 228.10): More detailed standards for water, air, wildlife, cultural sites, reclamation, roads, fire prevention, etc. Still requires minimizing impacts “to the fullest extent practicable” while considering economics.
Financial assurances (new §§ 228.11–228.13): Must cover full third-party reclamation cost (including long-term water treatment). Can be cash, surety bond, letter of credit, etc. Phased assurances allowed for big projects. Periodic reviews required. Clear rules for release and forfeiture.
Enforcement (new § 228.7): Stronger tools — notice of noncompliance, suspension orders (can be immediate if imminent harm), civil action, or using your bond to fix problems. No longer must prove “unnecessarily or unreasonably” causing damage.
Temporary cessation / abandonment (§ 228.8): Must notify if stopping >6 months. Must have interim management plan. After 12 months, annual updates required. Clear path to declare abandonment and use bond for cleanup.
Withdrawn or segregated lands (new § 228.14): Almost always requires a plan + mineral examination report to prove valid existing rights. Special rules for wilderness.
Possible mineral materials (new § 228.15): If unclear whether your material is “locatable” (mineable under 1872 law) or “common variety” (sold under different rules), Forest Service does a classification report. Process can be suspended while they decide.

Transitional rule (§ 228.17): Once the final rule takes effect, everyone has 1 year to bring existing operations into compliance.
Who it affects and why it matters

Small hobby miners / prospectors: Many low-impact activities stay “limited” or move to the faster operating-notice track.
Exploration companies: Faster review, clearer rules, pre-meeting helps avoid delays.
Large mines: More upfront detail required, but clearer standards and better consistency with BLM rules (so operators on mixed land aren’t confused).
Environment / public / Tribes: Stronger protection language, mandatory monitoring, financial assurances that actually cover long-term cleanup, explicit consideration of treaty rights and sacred sites.
Critical minerals: Explicit support for faster, clearer process for minerals the U.S. needs.

Edge cases covered in the proposal

Groups of 10+ people panning together now need notice/plan (cumulative impact).
Suction dredging always needs at least notice (fish habitat concerns).
Operations on withdrawn lands or near impaired waters automatically bump up to plan level.
If you try to split one project into many tiny notices to avoid a plan — not allowed.
Long-term water treatment after closure can use a trust fund (§ 228.13).

How to comment (deadline April 21, 2026)
Use regulations.gov (search 0596-AD32) or mail to the address in the document. Comments must explain your suggested change and reference the specific section.
In short: The Forest Service is modernizing 50-year-old rules to reduce confusion, speed up reviews for small/low-impact work, make big projects more predictable, tighten environmental safeguards, and better support domestic critical minerals — all while staying within the same 1872 Mining Law and 1897 Organic Act authority. No new laws are being passed; only the Forest Service’s implementing regulations are being updated.

03/17/2026

⛏️🚨🚨🚨Small-Scale Miners: This Is Your Chance To Be Heard
The U.S. Forest Service is revising 36 CFR 228 Subpart A — the regulations that govern mining and mineral exploration on National Forest lands.
If you’ve ever felt that current rules make it harder for small-scale miners and prospectors to operate, this is your opportunity to speak up.
The Forest Service is currently accepting public comments, and those comments become part of the official record used to shape the final rule.
These regulations were originally meant to allow Americans to explore and develop mineral resources on public lands. If the system isn’t working for the people it was intended for — the miner — now is the time to say so.

📝 Submit your comment here:
https://www.regulations.gov/docket/FS-2018-0052/document...
Copy the link into your browser and scroll down to the comment button and press it.
You don’t need to write anything complicated. Even a few sentences explaining your experience as a miner or prospector can make a difference.
Example comment you could use or adapt:
“Please ensure revisions to 36 CFR 228 Subpart A recognize the needs of small-scale miners and prospectors. Regulations should be clear, fair, and workable so individuals can responsibly explore and develop mineral resources on public lands as intended under U.S. mining law.”
⏳ Don’t wait the comment period closes April 21st.
👉 Share this with other miners and prospectors so their voices are heard too.

03/17/2026

Looking up Althouse Canyon

03/13/2026

Waldo Mining District signs of the past. Arrastra mill, hydraulic hillsides