## Facts

- Curtis-Nevada Mines, Inc. and its president, Robert Curtis, located and filed approximately 203 unpatented mining claims on federal public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), including lands within the Toiyabe National Forest.
- The claims covered about 13 square miles, with 21 claims in Nevada and the remainder in California.
- BLM and USFS regulations permitted general public recreational use of the lands without requiring individual members of the public to obtain written recreation permits.
- Curtis-Nevada posted “no trespassing” signs and built barricades and other obstacles to keep hunters, hikers, and other recreational users off the claim surfaces.
- The United States sued seeking injunctive relief, alleging that the general public had a right to use the surface of the claim lands for recreation and to travel across the claims on roads used for access to other public lands, so long as the use did not interfere with mining.
- On cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court construed § 4(b) of the Surface Resources and Multiple Use Act of 1955, 30 U.S.C. § 612(b).
- The district court ruled that “other surface resources” included recreational uses, and that the public could use the surface for recreation and access so long as it did not materially interfere with mining, but it limited that public use to persons holding specific written recreation permits or licenses from state or federal agencies.
- The United States appealed only the portion of the judgment that restricted access to people with specific written licenses or permits.

## Issues

1. Under 30 U.S.C. § 612(b), may the holder of an unpatented mining claim exclude members of the general public from non-interfering recreational use and access across the claim surface unless they possess specific written governmental permits or licenses?
2. Does “permittees and licensees” in § 612(b) refer only to people with written permits/licenses, or does it include members of the general public using the land under agency regulations that allow general recreational entry?

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit reversed the portion of the district court’s judgment that limited public surface use and access to persons holding specific written licenses or permits.
- The court held that § 612(b) does not authorize restricting otherwise lawful, non-interfering public recreational use and access to only permit-holders where federal land-management rules allow general recreational use without written permits.
- The court affirmed the remainder of the district court’s judgment and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its interpretation.

## Legal Principles

- An unpatented mining claim grants a possessory right to mine and to use so much of the surface as is reasonably necessary for mining; fee title to the land remains in the United States.
- The Surface Resources and Multiple Use Act of 1955 reserves to the United States the right to manage “surface resources” on unpatented mining claims and to allow other compatible surface uses.
- “Other surface resources” under § 612(b) includes recreational uses of the surface.
- Use by the United States and by “permittees and licensees” is allowed so long as it does not materially interfere with prospecting, mining, or operations reasonably incident to mining.
- Where federal agencies allow general recreational use of public lands without individual written permits, § 612(b)’s reference to “permittees and licensees” does not justify a blanket rule that only persons with written permits may enter; the public may enter subject to the non-interference standard.
- Mining claimants may take reasonable measures to protect legitimate mining operations, but they may not use signs, barricades, or similar barriers to bar non-interfering public recreation and travel across the claim surface.

## Conclusion

United States v. Curtis-Nevada Mines, Inc. holds that § 612(b) permits public recreational use and access across the surface of unpatented mining claims when it does not materially interfere with mining, and that this public use cannot be restricted to only those individuals holding specific written state or federal recreation permits where land-management rules allow general entry without such permits.


United States v. Curtis-Nevada Mines, Inc., 611 F.2d 1277 (1980)