Dredging and highbanking rules.

[diverrick]

I have a co worker who has been working his claim with a dredge. The FS stopped him the other day. They did not ticket him, not take any equipment, but they told him, he would need a POO from one of the agencys, I don't recall who, and a water permit from the Water Quality board before he could pump any water out of the creek for any reason. Plus They reminded him to not use the Dredge. I was not aware that we needed a POO nor a permit to pump such small amounts. Is this BS or what? If this is true, it isonce again another de facto ban, due to the water Quality board has no permit to issue right now, and they have no idea when they might find the money to research the issue, then issue permits. And getting a POO is just about impossible with all the hoops you have to jump through. I have been thinking of converting my Dredge into to a high banker, as that was still, legal , but after this, maybe it isn't.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

DR.ÖTEK Metal Detector, Waterproof Gold Detector, Pinpoint & Terrain Modes, Professional Metal Detector - Grab it through Amazon!

[jere64ca]

The FS issues POO if the claim is on FS administered land, BLM if on BLM administered land. Sounds like this FS agent was not entirely up to date with mining laws in the Great State of Comiefornia. They are all woefully uninformed/misinformed, but you can hardly blame them with the mess we are in right now. FS should stick to there own regulations, he seems to be mixing FS regs with CA state regs. CA State Waterboard regs address water discharges and has nothing to do with a POO.

A POO is required when you create a "significant disturbance of surface resources". This has been defined in multiple courts over the years in terms like "5 acres or more", "road building", "use of heavy equipment, excavators, Bulldozers". One of the court decisions noted that a significant disturbance CANNOT be made with hand tools.

If you run into FS making these kind of statements I have had success saying something like this, "I thought that a POO is required only if I make a "significant disturbance of surface resources". What have I done here that is a significant disturbance" point around at your rather meager current workings.
This will make them realize you have at least looked into the requirements and they will have to justify their definition of "significant disturbance" with the legal definition of "significant disturbance". Most FS field personnel have no clue and begin to back track and say something like "I will have to check into that and get back to you."

 

[russau]

Try to be polite when talking with these people! BUT ask him where you can read of this requirement. OR ask him if he knows the regulation . they like to interpret the laws themselves or just make up their own laws as they go! Remember to be polite to avoid any citations!

 

[ratled]

I would NOT use any term or cite precedence I was not fully aware of (read as having talked with a mining lawyer not the group think of a forum). I would, as Russ said, be polite and ask them for chapter and verse they are referring to so you can be sure to be compliant as the officer recommended. Lex/Wagner settled the PO/NOI issues so be sure to ask your counsel about that. Not commenting on SB 637 at this time but I'm sure this is what he was referring to as for the water permit

ratled

 

[Hoser John]

Rick everything you seek is on the F/W website under dredging. Even a link to the insane Water Quality litany of permits. They have supposedly added the Army Corp Permit as California-o golly gee wiz-forgot to renew and what was impactus minimus is NOW destructive, no permit forms even done yet, as usual. Latest greatest scam is to also add in the Dept of Conservation with yet ANOTHER stinkn' permit. They killed off the State Dept of Mines and Geology as according to their reps "NOBODY MINES IN CALIFORNIA ANYMORE" and rolled it into DC ....sic sic sic . John

 

[Hoser John]

Here you go Rick, but have a barf bag ready as ALL banned now. sic sic sic https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Licensing/Suction-Dredge-Permits

 

[Alex Burke]

Rick everything you seek is on the F/W website under dredging. Even a link to the insane Water Quality litany of permits. They have supposedly added the Army Corp Permit as California-o golly gee wiz-forgot to renew and what was impactus minimus is NOW destructive, no permit forms even done yet, as usual. Latest greatest scam is to also add in the Dept of Conservation with yet ANOTHER stinkn' permit. They killed off the State Dept of Mines and Geology as according to their reps "NOBODY MINES IN CALIFORNIA ANYMORE" and rolled it into DC ....sic sic sic . John

You brought up a great point I don't think I've seen mentioned before about the funding for the dept of mines and geology and many other resources people need to research gold or minerals.... Besides the obvious laws and regs against it here that actually put the nails in the coffin....

Trying to find info from historical mining or records here is way harder than it was a few years ago while some other states that are promoting small scale economic development make it easier than ever. The cal geological survey is useless for mining research and some of the only sources left are the usgs sites.

The best example of this disparity besides the obvious permits and laws is when you look at the Alaska dggs and compare it to info available on the California sites. It's obvious that California doesn't support small scale economic development which is what many of these agencies were originally conceived for and this state was built on. The usgs has moved drastically away from their original charter in my opinion as well but that's a subject for another thread I guess.

 

[winners58]

there still there, just are now part of the department of conservation
California Geological Survey CGS Welcome to the California Geological Survey
and SMGB that collects the fine money from SMARA
SMGB Welcome to the State Mining & Geology Board (SMGB)

 

[winners58]

I was just talking to someone that was talking to a new FS person that told them they may need to have a PoO for dredging.
thats just not the case as casual mining with no significant disturbance a PoO is only applied on a case by case basis
it would have to be a special areas or endangered critical habitat other wise you just claim you are only casual mining
under the FS if you are casual mining and they come out and say you need a PoO (CFR36.§ 228.4) then after that its on them if they want you to have a PoO,
BUT they would have to give you that in writing and give a reason. As far as other laws they cant enforce state laws, they can call in state LEO's
but they would have to have a good reason, so be very nice and like others have suggested ask if they know the specific regulations.

FS 36 CFR part 228; http://www.fs.fed.us/emc/nepa/oged/includes/leasing_regs_36cfr228.pdf

what is casual use BLM; https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/43/3809.5

and for NOI; CFR36.§ 228.4(2)(iii) A notice of intent need not be filed For operations which will not involve
the use of mechanized earthmoving equipment such as bulldozers or backhoes or the cutting of
trees, unless those operations otherwise might cause a disturbance of surface resources.

 

[Hoser John]

Thanx much for new info as they were kaput but refunded again. They had some of the absolute best books,studies and geologic info on calif obtainable,hope they reprint as last list submitted years ago got me about 2 out of 7 that used to be available, Now i'll try again. GREAT news-John

 

[Hoser John]

Bill Text - SB-637 Suction dredge mining: permits.

 

[diverrick]

I am seeing two different definitions. I'm one says it is banned on all river, lakes and streams. But elsewhere I read it is banned on all waterways, river banks banks, gravel bars. The second one would kill high banking if I am reading this right. If nothing else they are burying us in regulations that require a law degree to understand. I want to go highbank this guys claim, using the dredge nozzle. Would be working the high creek gravel beds, above and out of the water, and not discahrging back into the river. Can I do that?

 

[Hoser John]

you are pumping water with a engine out of the creek/river.......permit supposedly required by water board(insane because you are being treated as a city of less than 50,000) CFW riparian habitat extends 100 yards from the water source so more insanity prevails...do what ya feel is right Rick as always and hope for the best...sic sic sic-John

 

[jere64ca]

I am seeing two different definitions. I'm one says it is banned on all river, lakes and streams. But elsewhere I read it is banned on all waterways, river banks banks, gravel bars. The second one would kill high banking if I am reading this right. If nothing else they are burying us in regulations that require a law degree to understand. I want to go highbank this guys claim, using the dredge nozzle. Would be working the high creek gravel beds, above and out of the water, and not discahrging back into the river. Can I do that?

Highbanking is permitted in CA (my opinion). SB637 is titled "Suction dredge mining: permits". A highbanker is not a suction dredge therefore SB637 does not apply. Now if you put the jet/suction nozzle and hose on your combo unit you have a dredge and SB637 does apply. If you are over 100 yards from the river and not discharging into it you are still ok to dredge (my opinion).

That said, I really do not want to be the first person to get cited in CA now that we have Supreme Court ruling in the Reinhart case. It is a safe bet that they will throw the book at the first violator and make an example out of the case. And then throw in the opinion of the individual LEO that happens by your operation. I know of LEOs that do not agree with the dredging ban and go out of there way to "not see" you dredging and then there are LEOs that think that a battery operated recirculating sluice running in a tub is a dredge that needs a permit.

In the end,,,, it is everyone's individual decision.

 

[diverrick]

What I really need is a private place to run my dredge. If anyone has a spot PM me and we can talk. I am ready, just need the right spot.

 

[ecmjamsit]

Sounds like big corporations with lawyers are the only ones who can mine in California. I am guessing you can get a permit with a large political campaign donation. I would try running an ad in the International California Mining Journal.

ICMJ's Prospecting and Mining Journal

 

[Hoser John]

3,657 posts
Gender:Male
Location:Redding,Kalif.
Interestsredging,detecting,scuba diving,kayaking,history,getn'n'trouble

Posted June 2, 2012 ·

A Judge Laments Illegal Court Actions
by Hoser John on Sat Jun 02, 2012 9:22 pm
June 1, 2012, 6:23 PM.In Blistering Dissent, Judge Mines Deep for Verbal Nuggets.Article Comments (7) Law Blog HOME PAGE ».smaller Larger .
smaller Larger facebooktwittergoogle pluslinked ininShare.0EmailPrintBy Justin Scheck
“Here we go again,” Ninth Circuit Judge Milan Smith wrote at the beginning of a Friday dissent in a mining case in which he joined prospectors, regulators, environmentalists and a remote Indian tribe exasperated by fighting over the use of suction equipment to mine the dregs of California’s gold rush.
The issue, which the Journal wrote about in this story, is a long-running tension between recreational miners who like to suck up river sediment looking for gold and the government agencies that regulate them.Some federal and state agencies have paved the way for a California moratorium on the practice to be lifted; others are trying to keep the practice banned.
On Friday, an en banc majority opinion said the U.S. Forest Service improperly approved recreational gold mining in some California rivers because it didn’t consult with other agencies about endangered fish.
Judge Smith, and three judges who joined his dissent, were unimpressed.
He opened with an excerpt from Gulliver’s Travels accompanied by an illustration of Gulliver bound by Lilliputians. He quoted too from Dante (“Abandon all hope, ye who enter here”) and from the Journal’s April story, and wrote that the majority decision is the latest in a series of Ninth Circuit environmental cases that “ undermine the rule of law, and make poor Gulliver’s situation seem fortunate when compared to the plight of those entangled in the ligatures of new rules created out of thin air by such decisions.”
Perhaps most striking was the indictment of the Ninth Circuit in Mr. Smith’s closing.
“No legislature or regulatory agency would enact sweeping rules that create such economic chaos, shutter entire industries, and cause thousands of people to lose their jobs. That is because the legislative and executive branches are directly accountable to the people through elections, and its members know they would be removed swiftly from office were they to enact such rules,” he wrote.
“Unfortunately,” he added, “I believe the record is clear that our court has strayed with lamentable frequency from its constitutionally limited role.”
judges
DO IT TODAY , YOU NEVER KNOW WHAT TOMMORROW WILL BRING Hoser John Assistant Administrator---do you remember this old site-LONG gone now but didn't you win my raffle and dredge my claim for free say about 10 years ago?? Miss the good old days prior to the insanity? NO one misses it more financially,mentally or moral outrage as anti dredge insanity prevails--now anti all mining.