Source: https://www.publiclandsforthepeople.org/category/articles/
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 22:54:48+00:00

Document:
Now the lowdown on the State’s FAKE INFO, designed to keep more people off the waterways. Read the bottom half of this news item for the real code language!
The use of vacuum or suction dredge equipment, otherwise known as suction dredging, is currently prohibited and unlawful throughout California.
Under new state law effective January 1, 2016, the use of vacuum or suction dredge equipment is defined to mean the use of a mechanized or motorized system for removing or assisting in the removal of, or the processing of, material from the bed, bank, or channel of a river, stream, or lake in order to recover minerals.
Under existing state law the California Department of Fish and Wildlife is also currently prohibited from issuing any permits for suction dredging in California under the Fish and Game Code.
With state law in effect, the use of vacuum or suction dredge equipment, otherwise known as suction dredging, is unlawful in California rivers, streams, and lakes, and any such activity is subject to enforcement and prosecution as a criminal misdemeanor.
The ongoing statutory moratorium established by Fish and Game Code section 5653.1 prohibits some, but not all forms of mining in and near California rivers, streams, and lakes.
Individuals engaged or interested in otherwise lawful in-stream mining should be aware that other environmental laws may apply to these various other mining practices. Fish and Game Code section 5650, for example, prohibits the placement of materials deleterious to fish, including sand and gravel from outside of the current water level, into the river or stream. Further, Fish and Game Code section 1602 requires that any person notify the Department before substantially diverting or obstructing the natural flow of, or substantially changing or using any material from the bed, channel or bank of any river, stream or lake. See additional related information.
(1) Any petroleum, acid, coal or oil tar, lampblack, aniline, asphalt, bitumen, or residuary product of petroleum, or carbonaceous material or substance.
(2) Any refuse, liquid or solid, from any refinery, gas house, tannery, distillery, chemical works, mill, or factory of any kind.
(3) Any sawdust, shavings, slabs, or edgings.
(4) Any factory refuse, lime, or slag.
There you have it, the existing code. Now if PLP’s proposed legislation gets into the Federal code, the State will not have jurisdiction over dredging on Federally managed land. Help us get over the goal line! Join PLP today!
Public Lands for the People Inc. (PLP) wishes to comment on the proposed regulatory changes to 36 CFR 228 (Locatable Minerals) regulations. PLP represents thousands of small miners in the United States who have an interest in fair and reasonable mineral regulations throughout the United States upon federally managed public land. PLP has specific comments and language that your office will find extremely helpful in your efforts to comply with EO 13817, the GAO, and our National Minerals Policy codified under 30 U.S.C. 21(a). Most importantly, as far as miners are concerned, our comments and specific, recommended language will provide regulatory certainty to a set of regulations that have been woefully deficient since their inception in 1974. It is PLP’s position that for this reason alone our country has become over 92% dependent upon foreign sources of raw metals and rare earth minerals to meet America’s domestic needs.
Many legal arguments have been made in various federal courts since 1974 against Forest Service personnel, and courts have ruled that regulations were being administered in a hostile fashion inconsistent with the intent of Congress. PLP understands that over the years, Congress has given a rather conflicted message , along with some strange 9th Circuit Court of Appeals rulings that have led us to a rather unpredictable situation regarding mineral development upon our public lands such as Karuk v. Forest Service 681 F. 3d. 1006. Because of this, America is second to last in the world rankings of conducive regulatory environments to do business. Simply put – America has way too much conflicting red tape that is needlessly hampering its domestic producers.
As your office may already be aware, PLP submitted a courtesy copy of its proposed “Small Miner Amendments” to members of Congress (subcommittee on minerals and resources committees) and to your Washington, DC, Headquarters office of the U.S. Forest Service in March, 2018. PLP is picking up good interest in these committees in addition to words of interest from your D.C. office “to implement as much reform within the Forest Service and not wait for Congress on matters of regulatory clarification for the mining industry”. PLP wishes to reiterate that the Forest Service utilize the section of the “Small Miner Amendments” defining significant resource disturbance definitions and the enhanced section regarding notices of non-compliance mirroring the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). This would provide the regulatory certainty the mining community has desired for a very long time plus eliminate abuse by some poorly trained non-minerals staffers PLP has observed and gone to court over in the past 25 years. Several of these cases will be addressed later in this paper.
PLP and ICMJ’s Prospecting and Mining Journal has presented this language to over 40,000 miners across the United States and received an overwhelming number of endorsements with little-to-no complaints. PLP understands the Forest Service does not implement the Clean Water Act, but none-the-less, we have added this language because it is a major sticking point to the small mining community. So, any clarity from the Forest Service on the issue in coordination with the EPA and Army Corp would be greatly appreciated in order to facilitate regulatory certainty consistent with EO 13817 and EO 13783.
Why Clean up the language of Notices of Non-Compliance consistent with the SMAs?
While the Forest Service and the BLM both admittedly have many civil and criminal remedies available to them in order to rectify miner’s noncompliance with federal regulations, most fundamentally as founded in our countries Bill of Rights under the 5th Amendment to our Constitution is the right of Due Process. Citing a miner under 36 CFR 261 without first providing a hearing at a meaningful time and place is not Constitutional nor acceptable under normal legal jurisprudence unless you are the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. (Regarding U.S. v. Godfrey, where he got the shaft and the 9th averted their eyes to the fact no administrative hearing was provided and 36 CFR 228.7, 14 was not complied with by the Forest Service in order to gain a criminal conviction on two of the 5 counts.) If the Forest Service does not rectify these abuses in the application of their regulations under 36 CFR 228, it will never comport with future legal challenges PLP has prepared that are not within the 9th Circuit jurisdiction. And, as such, the Forest Service is encouraged to adopt the notice of non-compliance language provided in PLP’s “Small Miner Amendments” in order to cure its existing constitutional defects.
Why define Significant Surface Resource Disturbance?
Fundamentally, the word “significant” is an arbitrary term that invites a wide range of perception not at all fitting to use for regulatory certainty. Significant surface resource disturbance as to require the submission of a NOI or POO is a horrible regulatory standard that invites abuse every time. As stated by judge Carlton in U.S. v Lex, 300 F. Supp. 2d 951: “There is a serious argument to be made that the regulation was ‘so vague and standard-less that it leaves the public uncertain as to’ what is prohibited. City of Chicago v. Mo-rales, 527 U.S. 41, 56, 119 S.Ct. 1849, 144 L.Ed.2d 67 (1999) (quoting Giaccio v. Pennsylvania, 382 U.S. 399, 402–403, 86 S.Ct. 518, 15 L.Ed.2d 447 (1966)). As such, the enforcement of the regulation would offend due process. In any event, the rule of lenity requires that courts infer the rationale most favorable to defendants in construing the residential purpose element. See United States v. Martinez, 946 F.2d 100, 102 (9th Cir.1991)”.
And as such, the Forest Service is encouraged to adopt the definitions and language provided in PLP’s “Small Miner Amendments” to cure the defects.
PLP is aware that the Forest Service does not have the Congressional authority to require a financial assurance before a miner proceeds to exercise his rights under the U.S. Mining Act (30 U.S.C. §§ 22-54). In Pearson v. Madrid, Plumas National Forest et. al, unpublished case from 2001 District court for the Eastern District of Cal., Pearson was able to demonstrate to the court that he availed himself to 26 bonding companies (approved list of reclamation bonding companies) the Forest Service provided, where not one would issue and bond! Judge Peter Nowinski stated in open court that Pearson had done his due diligence to obtain a bond and the Forest Service could not prevent him from proceeding without a financial assurance (bond) in part because it would be an unreasonable circumscription of his placer mining rights and in order for an agency such as the Forest Service to require monies from the public in light of their mining rights it must be accompanied by an express intent of Congress.
The problem (as PLP sees it), was created by the Forest Service itself on this matter not just because the Forest Service lacks the legal authority to require a bond, but the fact in many cases the Forest Service regulates the miner out of business over time and does not refund the bond even after reclamation is performed to the conditions of the agreed reclamation plan. The monies are held for “ongoing monitoring”—which can be endless until the monies are used up—all the while the miner has no say in this arbitrary process. Bonding companies stay away from bonding mining projects for the fact there is a lack of regulatory certainty. If the miner performs the labor to reclaim the site as specified by the conditions of his approval, then the money should be refunded—not held forever. This is a sign that “Best Management Practices” are not being applied in a fair and reasonable matter. As stated in the 1974 Congressional oversight hearing on the proposed 36 CFR 252 (now 36 CFR 228) regulations: “…the regulations must be fair to the miner and fair to the Forest Service…”. Therefore, the Forest Service is encouraged to adopt the definitions and language provided in PLP’s “Small Miner Amendments” to cure the defects.
A common problem PLP has observed for the last 28 years is the Forest Service practice of placing an expiration date on the terms of an NOI or approval of a POO. This practice must stop. BLM does not do this, and this practice does not provide regulatory certainty consistent with EO 13817. The original point of submitting a NOI or POO in 1974 was to give the Forest Service a reasonable opportunity to mitigate surface impacts in connection with mineral operations. The Forest Service is reminded that operations under 36 CFR 228 and 30 U.S.C. 22-54 is not for the purposes of exercising a term lease system where the Federal government retains mineral ownership. Therefore, the Forest Service is encouraged to adopt the definitions and language provided in PLP’s “Small Miner Amendments” to cure the defects in the application of the 36 CFR 228 regulations.
Everywhere across the United States, PLP has fielded complaints from miners that they are being delayed for years on the approval of their POO; some have been delayed for over a decade! Most miners give up and the activists within the Forest Service think they have won and deterred another “evil miner” in their eyes. PLP is aware that not all the Forest Service plays this game, so it does vary from district to district wholly dependent on each staff and their training within their districts. Mark Amodei’s Critical Minerals bill passed into law FY 2019 deals with this problem in part. This new law, under the National Defense Authorization Act, places a 30-month limit on the time the Forest Service must mitigate and place terms and conditions upon the approval of a POO. Amodei’s bill will not cure the problem. It is PLP’s opinion that all it will accomplish is more litigation against the Forest Service (for their failure to act or undue delay after 30 months has gone by) brought forth under the Administrative Procedures Act.
In light of the fact that in Karuk v. Forest Service 681 F. 3d. 1006 the 9th Circuit told the Forest Service that an inaction under a NOI is still an action within the meaning of NEPA, the Forest Service is not foreclosed in adopting the language of PLP’s “Small Miner Amendments” in its fullest (cited above). Providing regulatory certainty in the smoke-filled air of the 9th Circuit where miners presently loath to submit is a real incentive now and down the road.
Therefore, the Forest Service is encouraged to adopt the definitions and language provided in PLP’s “Small Miner Amendments” to cure the defects.
PLP’s “Small Miner Amendments” presently sitting in committee gaining sponsorship does, in our opinion, cure the problem–it helps the Forest Service and helps all miners. Why? Because PLP is asserting that while the government has a reasonable right to mitigate surface impacts under the various environmental laws The MINER still retains the bundle of rights to extract those minerals he or she has lawfully laid claim to under federal mining law. These rights, albeit not unlimited,, referred to in the library of Congress (Mining Law – Legal and Historical Analysis published in 1989) teaches us that miners have a “Right of Self-Initiation” that cannot be unreasonably circumscribed that is not to be confused with a lease system. PLP’s “Small Miner Amendments” attempt to place clear guidance to this contentious issue of minerals development upon public lands in the 21st Century.
Thank You for your consideration in this matter from the entire Board of Directors of Public Lands for the People.
Public Lands for the People delivered information to the Federal EPA in Washington DC in March that legally explained that suction dredgers do not “add” a pollutant within the meaning of the Federal Clean Water Act requiring a 402 or 404 pollution discharge permit. The EPA has assured us of a decision in the near future, as it was passed to their specialists on the matter.
As we know, whether it is California’s SB 637, or the CA Water Board, or Idaho’s IDWR, they all defer to the Federal EPA regarding exemptions when the Feds choose to specifically state such. The fact is, the States get funds from the Federal government to carry out these directives. PLP is continuing to follow this matter up and resolve it under the Trump administration so that suction dredgers will not be labeled polluters requiring discharge permits in CA or any other State. PLP strongly believes that by submitting to a 402 permit, as some have advocated (see the article below this newsletter: “Surrendering to the Pollution Permit”), miners will run the risk of undermining and subverting our negotiations with the Federal EPA to resolve this issue at a national level.
PLP also believes that when the true costs of the $6,000 permit plus the cost of hiring a water monitoring engineer per dredger (or group of dredgers), at $50,000 comes to light (which is now being hidden), dredgers will be rightfully outraged as this will not be affordable, nor reasonable. We can say this with relative certainty based upon our experts with real experience in past permitting, going back to the year 2000!
PLP has a solution to this situation through the “Small Miner Amendments to the NDAA” now presently sitting in the Minerals subcommittee in Congress under review and markup. We are presently being told by the subcommittee chair (Congressman Paul Gosar, AZ), that there is very positive interest in sponsors to get this bill on track for next year. We need and certainly appreciate your moral and financial support to keep this momentum going in the halls of Congress!
As an option, PLP is considering litigating CA SB 637 in Federal District court. Unfortunately, it’s presently beyond PLP’s sole financial means without your added financial support, and especially the promised support from several mining and prospecting organizations which has vaporized. We can’t even consider this option in light of the disappointing fact that AMRA and the GPAA has not committed, nor produced any civil litigation monies to PLP in the past 2 years to fight the ongoing dredge litigation against the State of California.
We believe that the more cost-effective solution is through our present Federal legislative push to override the state and the state court decisions, and to stay on track and within budget. Our “Small Miner Amendments” not only solves the dredgers problems, it solves many, many more regulatory issues in a simple but comprehensive way. Read it on our website if you have not already and tell your Congressman and Senator we need this now!
There has been a lot of buzz going around lately that “They might let us dredge in 2019” in California. That would truly be awesome after all these years! The small-scale mining industry will be back in full swing. Manufacturers would once again start cranking out dredges and other related equipment; good times to be enjoyed by one and all. That has been and continues to be the goal of Public Lands for the People.
Mining groups other than PLP have proposed that miners submit themselves to a water quality permit (permission) from the California Water Board, in order to obtain an additional permit from CDFW with the admission by the applicant that suction dredging for gold is adding a pollutant (although it be deminimus). That means the miner admits he is adding pollution to the waterway, but “please, let us dredge.” This one act alone not only is dishonest due to the fact that dredges remove material from the waterway (net withdrawal), this gives up one’s Mining Rights by contract to the government of California and turns away from the important win in the Godfrey case. Federal Mining rights can only be protected FEDERALLY – not at the state level. State law only fills the gaps where federal law does not speak or specifically occupy on federal lands.
It appears at this time that SB1222 has come to a halt. Good riddance! Preserving federally granted mining rights has been a core value of PLP since its inception and is a responsibility the board will not waiver from. SB1222 as written demonizes the suction nozzle that many smart miners have been using via gravity systems. We cannot in good conscious support submitting to a state agency that will require we relinquish our Federal Mining Rights to a privilege-based permit “permission” system that states dredges pollute, and that the privilege can be taken away at any time via an agency, committee or legislature of the state.
Do you trust the Government or the Legislature of California to be fair? The same Government that some correctly has accused of tyranny, and the same government that continues to defy federal law on many other issues not directly related to mining which affects our whole country and the future of our Republic. This fight against the tyranny of the Government of California has always been that the state can only regulate reasonably. They are not authorized to prohibit! Mining law is authorized through Federal law, which supersedes state law when in conflict. By submitting to the CA Water Board or CDFW for a permit will not guarantee that they cannot deny that permit (permission), at any time in the future, even after permission was given! Is that not what happened to us in 2009?
Federal Mining rights can only be protected FEDERALLY – not at the state level. State law only fills the gaps where federal law does not speak or specifically occupy on federal lands If the prospector / miner does not trust the State of California, then the miner could support the FEDERAL “Small Miner Amendment to S. 145” and join PLP to protect your Federal Mining Rights.
MINERS MAKING THE RULES UPDATE: A MUST READ!
Miners Making the Rules and Regulations supported in Washington D.C.
The existing Federal Mining Law gives claim holders the authority to make rules and regulations in the context of organized Mining Districts. The miners within traditional mining districts have been neglecting their duties under Federal Mining law (30 U.S.C. section 22). This is why the Minerals and Mining Advisory Council (MMAC) was formed as a project under Public Lands for the People (PLP) to organize the traditionally and legally recognized Mining Districts within the United States and encouraging the miners holding mining claims to step to the plate, legally, and take charge of their future.
MMAC’s objectives are advancing methodically and are being well received by regional Bureau of Land Management where MMAC has recognized their needed role in this process and this new path. The MMAC website, PLP facebook and ICMJ have been documenting our progress.
PLP and MMAC went to Capital Hill in Washington D.C the first week of March 2016. We had more than 36 meetings with Senators, Congressmen, and their legislative staffers on the House Natural Resource, Energy and Natural Resource, Oversight and Armed Services committees. In sum they felt our proposed bill and mainly the idea of the MINING DISTRICTS are exactly what they are looking for from the Grass Roots of America. What they were especially excited about is the power the traditional and congressionally recognized mining districts have presently, and with some clarification through the MMAC bill, can push back agency overreach! Why were they so interested in the mining districts? They saw the mining districts as a viable option to the issue that public lands go back to the States immediately and thus would trigger massive valid existing right determinations, which never end well for the miner. The committees were not aware of this until MMAC and PLP opened their eyes, and a way to open the land and roads to recreation, hunting, ranching and other outdoor activities under the “free and open” language of the Mining Law.
We have been called back to work closely on this historic piece of legislation with the legislative staffers on our bill and review other bills for them on the federal level. We are prepared to provide the Congressional education of the customary functions of the Mining Districts to the staffers. The Mining Districts along with clarification through the MMAC bill can break up the conflicts while employing a constitutional representative form of local governance benefiting other recreational public land users, along with grazing, hunting and ranching. This will require funding to pay for our travel and research. Now, here is where your help is needed. PLP is a 501(c)(3) and your donation for this grand endeavor will be tax deductible. Be part of the solution and make a healthy donation today in order that MMAC and PLP can continue to assist the local mining districts and educate Washington DC on the POWER OF THE MINING DISTRICTS! Please make your check payable to: PLP and add “for MMAC Bill” on the memo part of the check and send to: Public Lands for the People Inc, 20929 Ventura Blvd., Ste 47-466 Woodland Hills, CA 91364, or donate online to use auto pay on a monthly $10.00 contribution basis www.publiclandsforthepeople.org for the MMAC bill. See Washington DC progression as it happens on DC trips on PLP’s face book page https://www.facebook.com/publiclandsforthepeople .
REMEMBER $10.00 PER MONTH ON AUTO PAY IS ALL IT IS GOING TO TAKE ON YOUR PART TO TRY AND SAVE THE PUBLIC LANDS AND MINING FOR ALL OF US.
The Dept. of Interior has plans presently to place all public lands under environmental land designations that will not be for public use!

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.