## Facts

- Holders of three sets of unpatented mining claims (Thunderbolt, Robert E., and Wilson) challenged Forest Service decisions restricting motor-vehicle access to their claims on national forest lands.
- Two claim areas were designated wilderness under the Wilderness Act; the third lay within the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System.
- After the lands were withdrawn from mineral entry under the Wilderness Act or the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, only claims supported by a pre-withdrawal discovery of a valuable mineral deposit could be mined as valid existing rights.
- The Forest Service required non-motorized access (including use of pack animals) and rejected proposed plans of operation to the extent they depended on routine motorized travel on gated or closed routes.
- The claimants sought declaratory and injunctive relief compelling motorized access.
- The district court granted summary judgment to federal officials; the claimants appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the Forest Service may restrict motorized access to unpatented mining claims within wilderness and wild-and-scenic-river areas and require non-motorized means of access.
2. Whether assumed validity of the mining claims entitled claimants to motorized access as a matter of right.
3. Whether limiting motorized access unlawfully conflicts with the Mining Law of 1872, unreasonably interferes with mining, or effects a compensable taking.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the federal defendants.
- The court held the Forest Service had statutory authority to impose reasonable access restrictions, including prohibiting motorized access, in wilderness and wild-and-scenic-river areas.
- The restrictions were treated as regulation of the means of access rather than a prohibition on mining, because claimants could still reach and work claims using non-motorized methods.
- The court rejected claims that the access limits violated the Mining Law of 1872 or constituted an unlawful taking.

## Legal Principles

- Unpatented mining claims confer a possessory interest; the United States retains legal title, and mining activities on national forest lands remain subject to reasonable federal regulation.
- The Mining Law of 1872 operates “except as otherwise provided,” and later conservation statutes may lawfully limit the manner of access and operation on protected federal lands.
- Under the Wilderness Act and the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, land managers may restrict motorized uses to preserve protected values, while accommodating valid existing rights through reasonable conditions.
- Access restrictions do not amount to a prohibited denial of mining rights where they regulate convenience and method rather than foreclosing practical entry and mineral development.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit upheld Forest Service decisions requiring non-motorized access to unpatented mining claims in specially protected national forest areas, concluding the agency permissibly regulated access to protect wilderness and river values without unlawfully barring mining or taking property.


Clouser v. Espy, 42 F.3d 1522 (9th Cir. 1994)