EBR 013-1387 Response 2017…

EBR 013-1387 Response 2017-10-21
This document is Douglas Robinson’s a response to Environmental Registry EBR 013-1387 loaded Sept 06, 2017 ending Oct 21, 2017.
It was prepared by myself and is based on submissions presented to Ministry of Northern Development and Mines in documents dated Aug 20, 2015 and March 16, 2016. These documents are being submitted separately and are public domain documents received by MNDM August 25, 2015 and March 16, 2016 respectively. It is very important for the Environmental Registry Commissioner (title uncertain?) understand the dynamics and history leading into the content presented in EBR 013-1387. Please be patient and have forbearance with these documents.
The Ontario Superior Court decision KL5/01 which dealt with Land For Life policy impacts. This decision established that explicit Legislative protection designed to protect the Crown from successful court action is not against successful court action. This author or MNDM Crown Attorney can supply the public domain court documents and court transcript to you or anyone else wishing to examine the legal arguments. The Crown Attorney made much argument from the legislation protecting the Crown from prosecution.
The Mining Act Modernization legislative explicitly protecting MNDM from Court Action is a dangerous precedent and should be officially rescinded. The Crown should depend on existing Crown protection legislation that applies equally to all ministries without discrimination. The Mining Act Modernization protection is redundant, discriminatory legislation that sets a dangerous erosion of civil rights and liberties and has no place in the Canadian legal fabric.
It appears this legislation was implemented in direct response to Ontario Superior Court decision KIL5/01 and the explicit and detailed legal arguments presented in the August 20 2015 report and the discussion arising from these documents.
The August 20, 2015 report referenced in this document was written as a public domain document intended to survive in the courts. Any person, claim holder or other citizen or citizen group or ministry can use this document as evidence and they are accountable for the evidence presented in this document. It explicitly outlines the actions and the inaction of MNDM relating to Mining Act Modernization policy and legislation that impacts and will impact present and future legacy and post legacy mining claim holders, the surrounding rights holders and the Ontario public. It also clearly outlines what MNDM knew or should have known relating to Mining Act Modernization implementation and policy.
It is incumbent for the Environmental Registry Commissioner to understand the implications of these documents and the implications that extend well beyond the mining community.
The August 20, 2015 report (195 pages) pages 82-84 under the subsection 11.5 titled “MNDM EVIDENCE BASED POLICY DECISION RE: OLS SURVEY ENCUMBERED CELL CLAIMS” documents Ministry of Northern Development and Mines own policy obligation to make Evidence based policy decisions.
Very early in the development of Conversion policy MNDM commissioned a study documenting the impact of tens of thousands of fractional claims that will be created the moment conversation is implemented.
Circa 1990 or earlier MNDM instituted successful policy to policy to prevent and eliminate fractional claims and wedges. At the moment of Conversion MNDM will generate approximately 30,000 FRACTIONAL (CELL) CLAIMS that consist of claims that will fill only part of a cell. This is forced conversion, not the voluntary conversion option that was considered early in the policy development.
FRACTIONAL (CELL) CLAIMS Will consist of both FRACTIONAL BOUNDARY (CELL) CLAIMS and FRACTIONAL ENCUMBERED (CELL) CLAIMS.
BOUNDARY CLAIMS will consist of cells were two or more owners own parts of the new cell.
ENCUMBERED CLAIMS will consist of cells were the claimholder will own part of the cell and a MINING LEASE(s), MINING PATENT(s) or other LEGAL ENCUMBRANCE(s) or OTHER RESTRICTION(s) will also occupy the cell.
BOUNDARY (CELL) CLAIMS IMPACTS
Some of the negative impact of BOUNDARY (CELL) CLAIMS will be abated naturally as fractional claims forfeit and the surviving fractional claims expands to occupy the entire cell. The negative impact of this is then mitigated. However if more than two fractional claims exist in the cell, all open ground in that cell is alienated from ownership, mineral exploration and Mining.
No exploration or mine development can occur within that alienated land and no mine development will be permitted within specified setbacks from the alienated lands. These alienated lands will be concentrated in mining camps of high mineral potential, and will hinder mineral exploration and mine development in and near these fractional claims.
MNDM is fully aware of this fact and has not implemented any mechanism to abate any of these problems except
a.To allow all owners to merge their properties into a single claim that defaults to an entire cell. If any stakeholder will not voluntarily merge his property with the others valuable mining land will remain alienated. Existing exploration contracts are likely to effetely prevent merger of fractional claims to remove alienation status to this land
b.To reduce assessment work requirements for fractional cell claims to 50% of the requirement of a full cell claim. A 0.01 hectare and a 19.99 ha fractional claim will both have the same assessmenet requirement. This concession can be reversed bringing the assessmenet requirement of a 0.01 Ha claim to the full requirement amount of a 20 ha claim. Some single legacy claims will be split into four or more fractional claims.
ENCUMBERED BOUNDARY (CELL) CLAIMS IMPACTS
In contrast, the negative impact of ENCUMBERED (CELL) CLAIMS will naturally increase in the future. This will result from cultural encroachment that tends to increase alienation of land from exploration and mining. Also MINING LEASE(s), MINING PATENT(s) or other LEGAL ENCUMBRANCE(s) or OTHER RESTRICTION(s) tend to be long lived preserving the negative impacts of ENCUMBERED BOUNDARY (CELL) CLAIMS.
MNDM FRACTIONAL CELL CLAIM STUDY IMPACT ON INFORMED DECISIONS
MNDM conducted a study to meet their obligation of EVIDENCE BASED POLICY DECISION(s) recognizing the potential negative impacts of FRACTIONAL CELL CLAIMS. This study was seriously flawed and failed to deal with the most serious issue (August 20, 2015 report pages 82-84). This study dealt exclusively with BOUNDARY (CELL) CLAIMS and excluded ENCUMBERED CELL CLAIMS.
This study identified approximately 18,000 Boundary cell Claims will be generated and policy was developed to deal only with Boundary Cell Claims. The study ignored the very serious issue of the approximately 13,000-18,000 ENCUMBERED CELL CLAIMS that will be created at the moment of conversion.
Unlike Boundary cell claims, Encumber Fractional cell claims will survive indefinitely as nuisance claims. In EBR 012-2993 concerning Mining Act Modernization; MNDM made much of nuisance claim’s stating it is MNDM policy to eliminate them. However at the moment of conversion MNDM is generating thousands of nuisance claims.
This document requests that the Environmental Registry Commissioner order or strongly recommend MNDM immediately conduct the required study counting Encumbered Cell Claims as was done in the Boundary Cell Claims study. It would be appropriate to and necessary separate:
•Encumbered cell claims with one or two legacy claims in one single cell
•Encumbered cell claims with three or more legacy claim holders in a single cell
•Boundary Cell Claims with two legacy claims in a single cell
•Boundary cell claims with three or more claim holders in a single cell
•Combined Encumbered Cell Claims and Boundary Cell Claims in a single cell
This document requests that the Environmental Registry Commissioner order or strongly MNDM not implement map staking until three months after the completion of this recommended report dealing with Encumbered Cell Claims.
This document requests that the Environmental Registry Commissioner order or strongly MNDM not implement map staking until two month after presenting full digital reporting the Encumbered Cell Claims report to (MMAAC) Minister’s Mining Act Advisory Committee members and OPA and the regional Prospecting Organization and public meetings dealing with Mining Act Modernization.
This document requests that the Environmental Registry Commissioner and MNDM recognize the March 16, 2016 report as the best report dealing with Encumbered Cell Claims until the recommended study is completed or use the recognize the March 16, 2016 report as a reliable indicator of the impacts of Encumbered Cell Claims.
If the Encumbered Cell Claims study must be scoped then it is strongly recommended the study include Teck, Lebel, Eby, Otto, Nicol and Haultain townships (endorsed by NPA to MNDM). A study of these legacy Claims will demonstrate other serious nuances of Encumbered Cell Claims.
The March 16, 2016 Report established:
a.MNDM has not accounted for 13,000-18,000 Encumbered Cell Claims that will be created at the moment of conversion.
b.Approximately 6,000 of the nuisance claims will be less than 1 ha
c.Approximately 3,000 of the nuisance claims will be less than 0.5 ha
d.Approximately 600 of the nuisance claims will be less than 0.1 ha
e.MNDM will grant fractional cell claims where no open ground exits.
f.MNDM has no mechanism to grant fractional cell claims where the claim map shows no open ground.
g.MNDM does not know and cannot know the location of lands alienated from staking causing problems e and f listed above.
h.Errors in MNDM assigned boundaries of Encumbered Cell Claims will average 30m with some much larger errors. Also see August 20, 2015 report listing exact statistics.
i.MNDM was and continues to be complacent in the destruction of OLS survey fabric in Ontario and this seriously impact Boundary Cell Claims
j.MNDM is not making appropriate Evidence Based Decisions concerning Boundary Cell Claims.
Note: The final MNDM count may differ significantly from this report. However if the ratio of claims in the >1.0has, 1.0-0.5 Ha, 0.5-0.1 ha and <0.1 ha varies by more than 10% from the ratios of this study the MNDM results should be questioned.
The Aug 20, 2015 report was ground inspected by MNDM mining Lands staff and found to be as accurate and close to MNDM precision. This report requests the Environmental Registry Commissioner also recognize this report as accurate and precise. MNDM does not officially recognize the report statistics because the author is not an OLS surveyor: however the author the primary responsible person certifying surveys and survey calculations at the Agnico Eagle Mine Beaver-Temiskaming Mine south of Cobalt, Ontario
The August20, 2015 report established serious errors in MNDM claim maps resulting in serious overtaking of the leases documented. A classic example is:
a.HS355, HS 356, HS358 & LM111 have a common corner but MNDM has a serious plotting error.
b.HS356 is a simple 4 sided claim shown as a five sided claim on the claim map.
c.HS359 is a six sided claim that shows as a 9 sided claim on the claim Map.
d.MNDM field inspected these errors in the field in the fall of 2015 in response to the Aug 20, 2015 report and walked the lines and measured the OLS monumentation and examined the legacy claim reported to abut this property.
e.The legacy claim abutting these leases severely overstakes the leases and MNDM will be granting Encumbered Cell Claims based on serious MNDM errors.
f.MNDM was and remains complacent in the destruction of the survey monumentation that determine the Abutting Legacy claim(s)
g.MNDM has not dealt with severe closure errors in the original OLS surveys.
h.MNDM has not dealt with the fact establishing Encumbered Cell Claims has not and cannot deal with the very serious errors common in old mining camps.
MNDM has not corrected the above errors (a, b, c) established in 2015 and is unlikely to correct these errors on conversion of abutting Encumbered Cell Claims. MNDM will be issuing Encumbered Cell Claims where there is no open ground and is complacent in the destruction of the survey monumentation required establish the boundaries of Encumbered Cell Claims.
Other Reports
The sept 20, 2015, and NPA and other reports recommend Encumbered Cell Claims (easily extended to Boundary Cell Claims) should allow a process to allow a claim holder to merge the Fractional claims with contiguous claims and assessment credits on a ha basis. Ask the MNDM team leader tied to this EBR for this report. It is 11:30 and this EBR submission time closes in 30 minutes and I have to follow up later with these details and recommendations.
This document is restricted to public domain material and quote page 1xxx Section yy.y states public domain material.
[Original Comment ID: 211195]