Dave Mack

“Here is some further explaination of the Karuk Tribe Lawsuit against the California DFG to change dredging regulations…”

(Forum post dated 29 January)

Hello Everyone,

The next round of briefs have been filed in the Karuk’s lawsuit against the California Department of Fish & Game (DFG). The key documents can be located on the special page we have created for this litigation. We have not put all of the documents up there, because there are just too many. A lot of effort is going into this litigation from all sides! While you guys are invited and encouraged to read the briefs for yourself, here is my own short summary about what is happening:

There are two important issues to be decided in the case at the present time. I understand both of these motions will be addressed by the Court during the upcoming hearing scheduled for 9 February in Alameda Superior Court.

1) Under The New 49’er banner, we have motioned to Intervene in the litigation. PLP has also submitted a similar motion to Intervene. Our position on this is that the Miners are actually the Real Parties in Interest, since it is our regulations that will potentially affected by the litigation.

In opposition to our Motion to Intervene, the Karuks have argued that we don’t really have any property rights because we are just a bunch of recreationalists with no rights under the mining laws. DFG has argued that even if we do have a property interest in the mining claims, we do not have any property interest in the annual permits which California issues to dredgers. Therefore, DFG has argued that we should not be allowed any standing in the ongoing litigation.

I believe our attorneys have done an excellent job presenting our argument that since modified regulations will reduce or eliminate access to our mining properties, and the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) of California forbids DFG to modify our regulations without allowing us an opportunity to be heard, and the yearly permits directly affect how me may access our property, that we certainly do have a place in this litigation.

2) We have also submitted a motion for the judge to reject the Stipulation which has been submitted to the Court by DFG and the Karuks to end the litigation. You guys will recall that this Stipulation creates an injunction preventing DFG from issuing dredge permits for the Main Stem of the Salmon River, Elk Creek, Indian Creek and other waterways. The injunction also reduces the dredging season on the Klamath and Scott Rivers to 1 July through 15 September. These are very substantial changes in our suction dredge regulations. DFG began implementing them in November of 2005 without so much as a single notice to the mining community or the many other people that will be adversely affected.

In opposition to our motion, the Karuks have submitted a very substantial volume of material to the Court, including Declarations from three fish biologists. Most of the material presented basically rehashes the same old arguments about dredging up the fish eggs and swallowing up juvenile salmonids. There is no acknowledgement by the Karuks that existing regulations have already addressed these very same issues. They have not provided any factual information to show how existing regulations do not provide adequate protection for the Coho salmon, or any factual information to demonstrate that a single fish has ever been harmed by a suction dredger. The Karuk’s position is that suction dredging should be presumed to be harmful unless proven otherwise (How is it even possible to prove “no harm” from any human activity?).

DFG’s opposition to our motion is based upon an argument that since their Stipulated Agreement was created during ongoing litigation, they really have not made any changes to our regulations at all. Therefore, they argue that they are not bound by the provisions of APA and the California Environmental Protection Act (CEQA) which require public participation when regulations are changed, even under emergency conditions. Interestingly, DFG’s position also is that they have done everything right in the way they have managed the suction dredge regulations during the past, including affording adequate protection to the Coho salmon. They make no claims that existing regulations do not protect the Coho. Their position is that the Stipulated Agreement simply offers additional protection because of the unproven arguments brought forward by the Karuks in the litigation. DFG argues that it is well within the authority of the Court to Order an injunction that reduces our dredging seasons. Never mind that there has yet to be any contested hearing or public debate to determine if any additional protection is even necessary!

In turn, our attorneys have argued that no matter what kind of spin they want to put on it, the fact is that the written regulations presently being issued by DFG have been changed to reduce our dredging seasons. The changes are very substantial. The fact that DFG is arguing that the earlier regulations were already in compliance with CEQA and were providing adequate protection to fish does not go well with a decision to shorten our mining seasons. We have rebutted the Declarations written by Karuk biologists with Declarations from other biologists who actually have field experience along the waterways that are being fought over in this litigation. We have also presented a Declaration which outlines just how substantial these regulatory changes are and how much damage will be caused to Miners and others.

Our main argument is that the Administrative Process in California was enacted to mandate State Agencies (DFG) to allow all interested parties to participate, and to mandate that State agencies weigh and balance all of the relevant factors to create reasonable regulations that resolve perceived problems in such a manner as to impose the least amount of restrictions upon productive activity. We argue that it is wrong for the Court to allow DFG to skirt around its important obligations to the public by sneaking behind closed doors with anti-industry groups to impose more restrictive regulations by Court Order — even without so much as a contested hearing.

As the court hearing is postponed until 9 February, I gather that DFG and the Karuks will be allowed one more opportunity to rebut our arguments in writing to the Court. I assume there will also be some oral arguments during the hearing.

We should keep our hopes up that this goes our way. If it doesn’t, we are already in early planning for the appeal. What good is the full public administrative process if a State agency can later go behind closed doors with an anti-industry group and modify industry regulations without having to justify the changes to the industry or the affected public?

We are also in the beginning stages of organizing a class action lawsuit to force the State of California to compensate all affected mining claim and private property owners for the reduced value of our/their holdings. The State cannot have it both ways. If the Court agrees that it is so important to stop or reduce the mining activity on these properties for the public good, then the State should be prepared to financially compensate property owners for our losses.

We are also exploring the possibility of filing a counter claim against the State of California for allowing the Karuks to dip net and kill the very same fish that they are trying to protect from us. Our research to date appears to show that the Karuk’s fishing practices should not be allowed under the very same laws they are using to try and eliminate the miners. This is not about retaliation. There just comes a point where we have to be looking at all of the potential negative impacts upon these fish. If conditions are so critical that serious consideration is being given to eliminating or reducing our mining seasons, then why are the Karuks being allowed to kill as many of the fish as they want out of the river? Where is the CEQA document that supports that decision by the State? I gather that other industry groups in Siskiyou County, who are also being pressured to make substantial and costly concessions, are asking the very same question.

If you possibly can, please be present at the hearing in Alameda County on February 9th. It is important that Miners are present. I know it is a long way away from our territory. Still, we need to be there in force if we can.

Once more, I am asking for another $10 donation, from anyone who can afford it, to help support our legal fund. It is vital that we finish paying attorney fees for December before we receive the January billing. Although we are close, we have not accomplished that, yet.

You guys should know that I am experiencing more stress about paying our lawyers, than I am about the litigation. The lawyers are doing a great job. We are fighting this battle as well as it can be done. The rest is up to fate. It is a good feeling to know you have done everything that you can to solve a problem!

My concern is over our future capability to do the same thing. We must keep up with our attorney bills so that we do not get overwhelmed by the process. All I can do is yell the charge. You guys are the force which will allow our side to win this battle. Now is the time to charge forward!

Thank you for whatever you can do!

Sincerely,

Dave Mack

 

 
Dave Mack

“Here is some further explaination of the Karuk Tribe Lawsuit against the California DFG to change dredging regulations…”

(Forum Post, February, 11, 2006)

Hi Guys,

The judge’s Order granting Intervention status to miners in the litigation concerning our California dredging regulations was made final on 9 February. This allows us to participate in the ongoing litigation.

We have created a special page on our web site that includes explanations and the most important documents concerning this case.

The judge’s Order also ruled that since the miners are new Parties within the litigation, it would be improper for her to rule on an earlier motion to endorse the Stipulated Agreement between the Karuks and DFG to resolve the litigation. While she said that she would entertain a new motion about this, she made it clear that the Karuks and DFG would be required to prove that the Stipulated Agreement is just, is not contrary to public policy, and does not incorporate an erroneous rule of law.

We feel very strongly that the proposed Stipulated Agreement does not meet any of these requirements.

As we anticipate that the Karuks and DFG will motion the Court to accept their Agreement, our attorneys are already preparing for our response. We have begun by serving both the Karuks and DFG with formal Discovery demands. As you may recall, up until now, both DFG and the Karuks have refused to provide us with the biological data which supports their Agreement. Now that we are Parties to the litigation, it seems reasonable that they should be required to allow us access to the information which supports their positions.

DFG’s position in the litigation, by the way, is that pre-existing regulations have afforded adequate protection for the Coho salmon. So it is going to be interesting to establish how they are justifying a decision to reduce our dredging seasons. There was some dialog in the hearing last week that perhaps both the Karuks and DFG will try and block our Discovery demands. So we may have to go around with them in court just to get at the specific information they are using to justify their positions in this litigation.

As hard as it is to believe, DFG has taken the position that they ought to be able to reduce our seasons in a secret agreement with the Karuks without ever having to justify the reasons to anyone. What’s wrong with that picture?

There have been several questions and comments posted on the various forums about DFG telling dredgers on the phone that they intend to enforce the new regulations upon miners even if the judge in this case does not endorse the Stipulated Agreement. I suggest that people should not become too alarmed by these statements. The State does not hove the power to enforce regulations which have not been adopted pursuant to the California Administrative Procedures Act (APA) and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

These regulatory changes certainly were not adopted pursuant to APA and CEQA. That is a big part of our objections in front of the Court.

In the present litigation, DFG’s position is that they can skirt around the provisions of CEQA by making a court settlement, even though they are arguing in court that they have already been affording adequate protections to fish without making a settlement agreement with the Karuks.

CEQA was implemented to prevent arbitrary and capricious actions from State officials, while providing reasonable protections for the environment.

We don’t really see how DFG can expect to have it both ways: (1) Argue that they have been protecting the fish just fine under the pre-existing regulations; and, (2) Argue that they have the right to reduce our dredging seasons to afford additional protection to settle the unproven allegations made by the Karuks.

No matter what story DFG is telling the public right now about what they plan to do, my best guess is that if the judge will not endorse the Stipulated Agreement, DFG will be forced to withdraw its regulatory changes as we see them today. Likely, they will have to begin a new CEQA process to address any perceived needs (if any) for changes to our regulations. Anything short of that would probably not hold up to our challenges in court.

Let’s just take things one step at a time. The first step was to gain Party status in the litigation. We have done that. The next step is to challenge any attempt to reduce our dredging seasons that does not follow the lawful process in California. We are working on that now. Then we will challenge any attempt by DFG to enforce regulations which have not been adopted pursuant to the laws. But I doubt the 3rd step will be necessary.

Meanwhile, since the dredging season is still a long way off, I suggest you guys hold off on buying a 2006 dredging permit in California until we see how all this is going to settle out. There is still plenty of time.

Hang tough, you guys. I believe the law is on our side on this one.

All the best,

Dave Mack

 

 
Dave Mack

“Here is some further explaination of the Karuk Tribe Lawsuit against the California DFG to change dredging regulations…”

(Forum post dated 16 March, 2006)

Hello everyone,

For those of you who are not aware, this is about some ongoing litigation in which the Karuk Tribe has been suing the California Department of Fish & Game (DFG) for issuing suction dredge permits which allow dredging in Coho salmon habitat in northern California. There is a special page dedicated to this ongoing litigation on our web site.

To resolve the litigation, the Karuks and DFG have agreed to a Stipulated Settlement which eliminates suction dredging on some waterways and reduces our dredging seasons on others. The regulatory changes are very substantial; especially to people owning mining claims or private property along the waterways which would be closed to dredging by the Settlement.

As the lawsuit was quietly filed in Alameda County last May, which is hundreds of miles away from the affected areas, and no notification was ever given to anyone within the mining community from either DFG or the Karuks, we did not even become aware of the ongoing litigation until after DFG began implementing modified dredge regulations pursuant to their settlement with the Karuk Tribe.

As soon as we became aware of the ongoing litigation, our organization (New 49’ers) took the lead in representing the mining interests of our members, and we motioned the Alameda Superior Court to Intervene in the litigation. Luckily, the Court had not yet endorsed the Stipulated Settlement, even though DFG had already changed our suction dredge regulations to conform to the Agreement.

Over very strong objections voiced by DFG and the Karuk Tribe (arguing that miners had no rights in the matter), the Court granted us Intervention status on February 9th of this year.

Subsequently, both the Karuks and DFG have made two important motions in the case:

1) They have motioned the Court to formally endorse their Settlement Agreement which changes our dredge regulations without any public input, no formal hearing or any biological justification.

2) They have motioned to Court for Protective Orders against our discovery demands for the biological justifications supporting their decision to further restrict or eliminate dredge seasons.

In turn, we filed our final brief a few days ago opposing the Stipulated Agreement and reaffirming our need to acquire biological data which supports both the Karuk and DFG positions within the litigation. To date, the Karuks have only made general allegations concerning potential harm from suction dredging, and DFG has taken the position that the pre-existing suction dredging regulations provided adequate protection to fish. There is no evidence in the record showing any harm to any fish from suction dredging under the pre-existing regulations. Therefore, we believe it is very unreasonable for DFG to enter into a private agreement with the Karuks to impose further restrictions upon suction dredge miners! Under these circumstances, our demands for the biological information which DFG and the Karuks are relying upon seem more than justified.

Both the Karuks and DFG have argued in this case that they should be allowed to reduce or eliminate our dredging seasons in a private agreement amongst themselves, without ever having to provide any biological justification to anyone, not even the court. They have presented the Court with case law to support their position which basically states that Parties in civil litigation have the right to make any private agreement amongst themselves, as long as the parties agree.

In turn, we are making the argument that the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) mandates that agencies of the State are required to follow a very structured public process before it may adopt regulatory changes for an industry, and that this is not something the State has authority to trade off in a Settlement Agreement with an anti-industry group. We also argue that the case law which the Karuks and DFG rely upon does not allow two parties in litigation to settle their dispute by trading off rights or property which belong to others.

I believe these are the last filings in this case before the judge will decide what to do about these two issues. The hearing is scheduled for 9:00 AM on 23 March at Alameda County Superior Court, Department 512, Hayward Hall of Justice, 24405 Amador Street, Hayward, California.

Once again, we have done our absolute best to represent the interests of small-scale miners. Now we must see how the judge will decide. I encourage as many miners and prospectors as possible to be present during the hearing next week. Please be there if you can!

As I have said before, winning these days is mainly about raising money to pay the best attorneys we can afford.

The law is on our side. But we are up against very practiced and respected environmental law firms. Winning means having practiced and experienced attorneys on our own side who know how to make arguments which the judge will give careful consideration to. Anything short of that lessens the chance of preserving our rights. This is the way important matters are resolved in America today. To play the game, we need to be right in there alongside the best of them making our position heard. I hope you guys are in agreement with this strategy.

I want to express my sincere thanks to those of you who have responded to my requests for financial donations to help pay the attorneys that have been helping us with this case. Thank you! The need is a continuing one, so I encourage you to please keep the flow coming our way. In turn, we will do our absolute best to hold the line for our side.

Let’s keep our collective fingers crossed for a favorable decision on the 23rd!

All the best,

Dave Mack

 

 
Dave Mack

“Here is some further explaination of the Karuk Tribe Lawsuit against the California DFG to change dredging regulations…”

Forum post, 30 March 2006

Hello everyone,

I’m sorry my report on this has taken so long, but I have been reluctant to comment beyond what was reported last week until I could obtain an actual copy of the Amended Stipulation which was submitted to the Court by the Karuks and Department of Fish & Game (DFG).

The hearing that was scheduled last week (23 March) only allowed an hour for all interested persons to present verbal arguments. The Karuks and DFG showed up at the hearing with a “new deal” in the form of an “Amended Stipulation,” which commits DFG to begin a new rule-making process under CEQA within 120 days (4 months). The injunction would expire in one year plus 120 days (unless extended by the Court) with the expectation of having new rules in place by that time. This is referring to the very same or more restrictive regulations which DFG has issued pursuant to the earlier Stipulated Agreement.

My own interpretation of this is that they are basically asking the judge to impose an injunction until DFG undergoes a formal process under CEQA that imposes an equal or greater amount of restriction upon suction dredging as what presently exists within the modified regulations. This solution is a total violation of the CEQA process, because it imposes a mandate upon DFG to arrive at a final outcome, regardless of the science or other factors which DFG is required to consider during a proper CEQA action. What is the use of going through a public process in the first place to examine the science and develop the most reasonable solutions, if DFG and the Karuks have already agreed to what the outcome is going to be? That is backwards!

DFG argued in the hearing that they have met discovery requirements to the miners, because they have allowed us access to all existing information in their files, other than anything having to do with the ongoing litigation. Our attorneys reminded the judge that it is discovery concerning the ongoing litigation which DFG is refusing to provide. They are insisting upon keeping a secret of how they are justifying further restrictive changes upon our industry!

DFG also argued that the miners are really not hurt by the new dredging restrictions, because there are many other places where we can go to prospect for gold. In turn, we argued that land owners and miners who own mineral rights within the affected area will be adversely affected by the changed regulations.

As the time allowed for this hearing was quite short, there was not enough time to fully debate the issues in front of the judge. However, the written briefs which have been submitted to the Court have exhaustively covered all sides of the issues. The key documents in the litigation can be found on the special page we have created for this on our web site.

Our lawyers argued in the hearing that the “new deal” should not be accepted by the Court for the very same reasons the earlier Stipulated Agreement should have been rejected: A State agency does [U]not[/U] have the authority to change industry regulations through a private agreement with an anti-industry group in the first place. Especially without providing [U]any[/U] factual support of its reasons to anyone!

The Court has taken everything under advisement and we assume she will issue a ruling reasonably soon. Stay tuned in, because we will put up a copy of the ruling as soon as one is issued.

I want to thank those of you who have heard my requests for financial contributions to help pay the attorneys that are working so hard for our side. I encourage you to please keep the support coming our way so that we can keep up with continuing costs of this litigation. This is going to be very important in the event we find ourselves needing to file an appeal!

Let’s all keep our fingers crossed for a positive outcome!!

All the best,

Dave Mack

 

 

By Dave McCracken

On June 6th, the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) published its Final Rule on Section 228.4 in the Federal Register. Section 228.4 is concerned with when it is necessary for a miner or prospector to submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) or Plan of Operation (PoO) with the USFS.

For around the past 30 years, Section 228.4 has said that miners or prospectors only have to provide notice to the USFS of our activities when impacts upon the surface resources might become significant.

As a result of the judge’s interpretation of this language in the recent landmark case of Lex & Waggener, last summer, the USFS implemented an Interim Rule with new guidelines for Section 228.4. Many of us within the industry objected to the Interim Rule, because it basically said that a NOI was required whenever a miner or prospector would potentially create any surface disturbance on National Forest land.

The USFS allowed a public comment period after publishing its Interim Rule, and they had at least one public scoping meeting, which took place in southern Oregon. That meeting was sponsored by the Waldo Miners in Cave Junction, Oregon.

The full version of the notice in the Federal Register condenses the thousands of individual comments which the USFS received concerning the Interim Rule into common categories, and addresses each type of comment with a response. These formal responses will become important later, in the event there are questions about what was intended by the Final Rule.

Michael J. Burnside, who was the U. S. Forest Service Assistant Director of Minerals and Geology Management in Washington DC from 2003 to 2005, has presented us with a substantial explanation about the history behind and development of the Final Rule.

For those of you who are taking an interest in the reasoning behind how the Final Rule was created, or what it means, I strongly suggest that you read through the entirety of the notice with an open mind. The rational behind the Final Rule is substantial, so I will not repeat it here. Rather, I will go into of the main points which I feel are important to small-scale miners:

1) Small-scale miners objected strenuously to the “any surface impact” concept of the Interim Rule, basically arguing that the USFS should not waste its limited resources processing NOI’s from miners that were not creating a significant disturbance on Forest Service land. We also argued that miners or prospectors should not be burdened with a requirement to notify the USFS of activities which do not create a significant impact on surface resources. As a result, the Final Rule returned to the “significant disturbance” concept.

Here follows a statement in the comment-section of the text on this subject:

Page 32729, left column: “If the operator reasonably concludes that proposed operations will not cause significant disturbance of NFS resources, the operator is not required to submit a notice of intent to operate.”

2) We also objected to the idea that miners or prospectors should be required to provide a NOI for any activity that may cause an impact upon Forest Service land that was similar to other users of the Forest that were not required to obtain any special-use authorization. Examples were given of the use of ATV’s, boats or rafts, camping and otherwise occupying the Forest while actively pursuing mineral exploration activities. As a result, the Final Rule specifically excludes from the NOI-requirement any prospecting activity which creates surface disturbances on par with other users of the forest who are not required to obtain special use authorization.

3) Within the comment-section of the notice, the USFS explains that they do not distinguish between commercial or, so-called, “recreational mining activity” or different types of mining clubs or groups. This position is consistent with our arguments that the mining law allows everyone equal rights to prospect on the public lands and lay claim to valuable minerals when they are discovered.

4) We complained that prospectors were having difficulty in some areas where the USFS was considering any prospecting activity a “significant impact;” even panning, metal detecting and non-motorized sluicing or dry-washing! As a result, the Final Rule specifically excludes these types of small-scale prospecting activities from the NOI requirement.

Here follows a statement in the comment-section of the text on this subject:

Page 32729, right column: “However, it is possible to identify some category of which will never require the prior submission of a notice of intent to operate, and the Department agrees the final rule should identify those categories with more specificity as suggested by the respondents.”

These are activities that are specifically excluded from the need to ever file a NOI. It means that under no circumstances do panners, non-motorized sluicers or electronic prospectors need to file an NOI; they do not have to make any contact with the USFS for these types of activities.

This is very good for the lower Salmon River area, by the way. Most of the activity going on down there two seasons ago involved the panning very rich pay-dirt located within the exposed bedrock cracks and irregularities along the edges of the river. Now, there is no question that small-scale prospecting and short-term camping along our mining claims do not require any NOI to the USFS in advance of the activity.

5) Any other mineral-related activity which is not likely to cause significant impact is excluded from the need to file a NOI. This is good for the industry. Naturally, whether this includes motorized sluicing (high-banking) or dredging will depend upon the situation surrounding the location where the activity tales place.

While such activity in most cases (according to my own judgment) would not create a “significant impact,” the USFS reasoned within the comment-section of the notice that there is the possibility of significant impact in some circumstances (such as when there is critical habitat present which supports a listed species), so they could not categorically exclude motorized mining from the NOI requirement. But they also did not specifically make a NOI a requirement of these activities. The Final Rule says that the miner or prospector should provide a NOI if he or she reasonably concludes that there may be a “significant impact.”

I should point out that within the Karuk litigation, the USFS has taken the position that they have no authority over mineral-related activity on Forest Service land that is not creating a significant surface disturbance.

Some people are already misinterpreting the Final Rule, assuming that motorized sluicing and dredging requires a NOI, because they are not specifically on the list of exclusions. However, a careful reading of the Rule says that any type of mining activities only require a NOI where there is likelihood of “significant disturbance.”

6) No penal provision has been added to Section 228.4. If I have this right, this means that the USFS cannot write a criminal citation to a miner or prospector who fails to provide the USFS with a NOI or Operating Plan. For more information on this subject, I suggest you read what the judge had to say in the recent McClure decision.

Some would argue that the USFS should not have the discretion to decide what is, and what is not, a “significant surface disturbance” concerning mineral-related activities on Forest Service land. There are also several sub-sets of arguments along these lines, such as whether or not the USFS even has authority to regulate mining activity within the high-water marks of western rivers in the first place, and what constitutes a “navigable river.”

These arguments have also been raised (but I doubt they will be resolved) within the Karuk litigation.

Until those issues are resolved to everyone’s satisfaction within a court of law, it is clear that the USFS believes it has the authority to regulate mineral activity which results in a significant impact upon surface resources, and they are moving forward with the presumption that they do. Therefore, they are taking responsibility to manage small-scale mining activity in accordance with this Final Rule.

Some would argue that miners and prospectors should be allowed to do whatever we want. As nice as that might be, I don’t think that argument is supported by controlling case law. The general mining law supports us a great deal. But not so much that we can turn our backs upon the rest of the world. According to its own interpretation, the USFS is charged with the responsibility of balancing use of the public lands at issue here.

The potential for problems do exist (as will always be the case) where there may be a difference in opinion between the USFS and a miner or prospector over what constitutes a “significant surface disturbance.” My own interpretation is that if such disagreements cannot be resolved between the USFS and the miner (especially in the wake of the recent McClure decision), if the USFS feels so strongly about it that they want to stop the miner from pursuing his or her mining activity, the USFS will be required to prove its position to a civil court (this is acknowledged within the comment-section of the notice).

So in essence, it appears the USFS has the authority to decide, but they must be prepared to prove their position in court before they can finally prevent the prospecting activity. This seems like a pretty reasonable balance to me!

The Karuks are suing to prevent the USFS from allowing any mining under a NOI. That case will be decided around the end of June, 2005. The Interim Rule required a NOI for almost any prospecting or mining activity. The Final Rule requires a NOI only for activity that will create a significant surface disturbance. As the USFS has determined that most of our small-scale mining activity does not create a “significant impact,” I would say that this Final Rule has been published at a good time for us.

While we can debate amongst ourselves how much better the Final Rule might have been if we wrote the final language ourselves, we should not ignore how much worse it would have been if the USFS decided to hold onto the language contained within the Interim Rule! Or they might have even come up with something worse than the Interim Rule!

I suggest we might want to acknowledge that the USFS did pretty well here to balance competing interests while continuing to encourage mineral development – which is their mandate from congress. We should be happy that there are officials within the USFS that take this mandate seriously!

I would suggest we move forward, continue to organize ourselves as we have been doing, pool our resources, and prepare to assist small-scale miners in those instances where we believe a local determination of “significant disturbance” is not reasonable. These are things to resolve in court. No amount of language in a Rule will prevent some disagreements from happening.

 

Dave's Gold

New 49′er Legal Fund-raiser!

There will be 25 prizes in all:

Grand Prize: 1-ounce of Gold!
Four ¼-ounce Prizes
Twenty 1-pennyweight prizes

Dave MackThis is gold which Dave Mack dredged from the Rogue River during the 2010 Season. Dave has authorized our office to automatically generate a ticket in your name for every $10 legal contribution we receive ($100 would generate 10 tickets, etc).

There is no limit to the size or frequency of your contributions, or to the number of prizes you can win. The drawing will take place at our weekly potluck in Happy Camp on 2 July, 2011.

Legal contributions can be arranged by calling (530) 493-2012, by mailing to The New 49’ers, P.O. Box 47, Happy Camp, CA 96039, or by clicking Here.

 

The New 49′ers Prospecting Association,
27 Davis Road, Happy Camp, California 96039 (530) 493-2012 www.goldgold.com

 

 

August 27, 2008

The Honorable Arnold Schwarzenegger
Governor, State of California
State Capitol Building
Sacramento, CA 95814

RE: Opposition to proposed language within AB 1789 to further-restrict suction dredge mining:

Dear Governor Schwarzenegger,

Last year, you vetoed AB 1032(Wolk); a bill that would have required the California Department of Fish and Game (DFG) to close rivers and waterways to suction dredge gold mining without having to follow the administrative process required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

It has come to our attention that the proponents of AB1032 are now pushing anti-suction dredging language within Assembly Bill 1798. The language would further restrict or prohibit suction dredge mining on a wide number of waterways within California. The proponents of this trailer bill language are trying to make an end run to reverse your veto of AB 1032 by using the legislative and administrative process to eliminate this activity.

The Assembly and Senate propose to further-restrict or eliminate suction dredge mining until the Department of Fish & Game completes a new Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Because these permits are issued annually, and DFG’s last EIR process took several years to complete, this language would cause great harm to the Gold Suction Dredge Mining program in California, upon which 2,500 miners and their families and mining-related businesses depend, for at least several years; probably longer. In addition to the miners themselves, several rural counties, particularly Siskiyou County, would face significant hardship as a cornerstone of their recreation and resource-based economies is removed further harming the state’s economy at a time when gold prices are at an all time high of between $800.00 and $1000.00 an ounce.

We would like to point out that throughout all of the litigation and other attempts to kill suction dredge mining by anti-mining activists during the last few years, they have yet to show any proof that a single fish has ever been harmed by suction dredgers. This, while the very same people are promoting that the State must continue to issue fish-kill licenses to millions of fishermen! This is clearly a case where special interests are attempting to subvert the political process to eliminate an important part of California’s ongoing, rich heritage; gold mining.

We are asking you to please veto this trailer bill language and allow the continued issuing of Suction Dredge Permits while the required environmental review process is being conducted.

Thank you,

(Be sure to include your full name and address.)

Cc: Senator Dave Cogdill, Senate Republican Leader
Senator Don Perata, Senate President Pro Tem
Assemblymember Michael Villines, Assembly Republican Leader
Assemblymember Karen Bass, Speaker of the Assembly

 

American Gold Eagles

The New 49′er Fund-raiser!

There will be 15 prizes in all:
Grand Prize: 1-ounce American Gold Eagle
Four ¼-ounce American Gold Eagles
Ten 1/10th-ounce American Gold Eagles

Our office will automatically generate a ticket in your name for every $10 legal contribution we receive ($100 would generate 10 tickets, etc).

This drawing will take place at our offices in Happy Camp on Friday afternoon, 8 March 2013. You do not need to be a member of our organization to participate. You do not need to be present to win.  There is no limit to the size or frequency of your contributions, or to the number of prizes you can win.

Legal contributions can be arranged by calling (530) 493-2012, by mailing to The New 49′€™ers, P.O. Box 47, Happy Camp, CA 96039, or online by clicking Here.

Eagle

The New 49′ers Prospecting Association,
27 Davis Road, Happy Camp, California 96039 (530) 493-2012 www.goldgold.com

 

 
 
Dave Mack

Here is some information concerning the Final Rule adopted by the U.S. Forest Service concerning who, how and when it becomes necessary to submit a Notice of Intent or file an Operating Plan.”