Archive for americanmininglawforum.myfastforum.org mining, mining law, prospector, mining claim, 1865, 1866, 1872, legal, illegal, government, policy, administrative, mineral, grant, right, forest, service, BLM, DEQ, wild, scenic, hobby, gold, placer, hard, rock, hardrock, dredging, highbanking
 


       americanmininglawforum.myfastforum.org Forum Index -> Mining Law Tibits
John Crossman

Idaho Mining Info

Dredge and Placer Mining

Questions? Contact one of our statewide Area Offices by using our Interactive Map or visit our Area Offices web page.

•  Interactive Map showing Supervisory Area Offices

•  List - Department of Lands Supervisory Area Offices

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Overview

Dredge and placer mining is the extraction of minerals from an alluvial or glacial deposit, as of sand and gravel, containing particles of gold or other valuable minerals. A placer deposit can be in a natural watercourse or an ancient river channel high above a stream. The Idaho Placer and Dredge Mining Protection Act [reference Idaho Code 47-1322] was passed as an initiative vote in 1954. Over the years several changes have been made, but the basic components of the 1954 Act still stand:

•  Placer mining requires a permit;

•  Every permit must have a performance bond;

•  Water quality must be maintained and disturbed lands and water courses must be reclaimed;

•  Site inspections to ensure compliance;

•  Penalties for violation of the Act.

Any person who disturbs more than one-half acre of land in the process of placer mining must have a permit from the Idaho Department of Lands. Applications are available from the Department of Lands. After submission of an application, and a $50 fee for each ten acres, the review takes approximately sixty days.

The Department of Lands, as the lead agency for implementing the antidegradation policy for placer and dredge mining, may solicit comments from the Departments of Fish and Game, Water Resources and Environmental Quality. A site review may be conducted prior to plan approval. Approval is by the State Board of Land Commissioners (Land Board) at a regular Land Board meeting. Permits are transferable and are good for the life of the operation.

The Act applies to all lands in the State of Idaho, including private, state and federal [Bureau of Land Management (BLM), U.S. Forest Service (USFS)]. On federal lands, an operating plan may be required by the surface management agency, usually BLM or USFS. Under authority of Memorandums of Understanding with the BLM and USFS, one plan is developed and then submitted to both the state and federal agencies.

^ top of page

Hearing

When the Department of Lands determines, after consultation with the Departments of Water Resources, Fish and Game, Environmental Quality and affected Indian tribes, that a proposed placer and dredge mining operation can reasonably be expected to significantly degrade adjacent surface waters, a public hearing will be conducted. The purpose of the hearing will be to discuss what measures should be taken to protect water quality from nonpoint source water pollution.

When there is a reasonable potential for nonpoint source pollution, the Director will require that the operator provide to the Department of Lands baseline pre-project surface water monitoring information and ongoing monitoring data during the life of the project.

^ top of page

Bonding

A performance bond is required as a condition of the permit to ensure the completion of reclamation. A bond can be either a surety bond, cash, a certificate of deposit, a bank letter of credit or an annual payment to the Reclamation Fund. The amount of the bond is determined by the estimated actual costs for the state to reclaim the lands, plus a 10% contingency. Reclamation bonds may not exceed $1,800 per disturbed acre and will be approved by the Land Board at the time of permit approval. If the operator defaults on the reclamation performance, a hearing may be required to recover the bond. The operator is given an opportunity to do the reclamation or contract it out before the bond is taken.

^ top of page

Water Quality/Reclamation

Every placer and dredge mining operation must maintain state water quality standards by implementing Best Management Practices to protect existing beneficial uses from nonpoint sources of pollution. Most operations utilize settling ponds to recycle their wash water in a closed system. Discharge of process waters to any surface water requires a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permit from the Environmental Protection Agency. Unless a Stream Channel Alteration Permit is obtained from the Department of Water Resources, an undisturbed buffer of riparian vegetation must be maintained between the operation and the bank of the stream. One of the greatest problems faced by placer miners is adequate space to properly construct settling ponds of sufficient size to successfully operate the mine.

Upon completion of mining, or concurrently on most operations, affected lands must be backfilled, graded, topsoil replaced if present, and stabilized with vegetation. Some areas are better left as ponds for wildlife habitat. The reclamation is planned as part of the overall mining operation at the time of permit approval.

^ top of page

Site Inspections

The Department of Lands is required by the Act to inspect the operation periodically to review compliance with the permit. The Act allows the Department of Lands to charge the permittee for the costs of these inspections. If a violation is found, a remedy is discussed and a reasonable period of time is allowed for corrective action. On USFS lands, the Forest Service monitors the permits and coordinates with the Department of Lands on compliance problems.

^ top of page

Penalties

The Act allows the State to enjoin an operation without a permit or bond or an operation violating an existing permit. Violation of the Act carries a civil penalty of $500 to $2,500 for each day a violation continues. If a person willfully violates the Act, they are liable for a fine of $1,000 to $5,000 or up to a year in prison or both. Additionally, the State may seek costs to reclaim lands affected by the mining operation.

^ top of page

Recreational Dredge Mining

Recreational dredge mining includes those mining activities in which miners use power sluices, small recreational suction dredges with a nozzle five (5) inches in diameter or less, and equipment rated at a maximum of fifteen (15) horsepower or less. Recreational dredge mining is regulated by the Stream Channel Protection Act administered by the Idaho Department of Water Resources (IDWR). If a miner has a recreational dredging permit issued by IDWR they do not need any additional permits from the Idaho Department of Lands (IDL) to mine in a navigable stream. Miners will need permission from IDL however to operate a recreational suction dredge or a power sluice in streams that pass through state endowment land.

^ top of page

Frequently Asked Questions

Does the Act apply to suction dredges?

Only those larger than 8-inch diameter intake. The rest are regulated on the beds of navigable rivers by the Idaho Department of Water Resources and the Idaho Department of Lands.

Does the Act apply to patented mining claims?

Yes. Patented mining claims are treated just like other private lands.

What is the usual bond rate?

The actual cost of reclamation is up to a maximum of $1,800 per acre.

What about exploration?

You may explore using motorized earth moving equipment with a Notice of Exploration to the Department of Lands. Holes or trenches must be closed and reseeded within one year. If the exploration exceeds one-half acre of disturbance, a Placer and Dredge Mining Permit is required.

What about using hazardous chemicals?

Any use of hazardous chemicals must be reviewed by the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality to meet State water quality standards.

What if I build ponds or dams?

Any water containment dams over ten feet high, or tailings ponds over thirty feet high, must be reviewed by the Department of Water Resources. Settling ponds with dams under ten feet in height must be reviewed and approved by the Department of Environmental Quality. Stream ponds or dams are not allowed without a stream channel alteration permit.

Can the Department of Lands deny a permit?

Yes. The Land Board may deny an application for a permit on state land, any riverbed or any unpatented mining claim upon its determination that the proposed operation would not be in the public interest or would result in permanent damage to a stream channel.

Can I post a bond with the U.S. Forest Service?

Yes. The Act allows the State to recognize valid bonds held by the USFS or BLM for reclamation, as long as they are in an amount as great as the required state bond.

How do I appeal a decision of the Department of Lands?

An appeal of the decision of the Department may be made by filing a letter with the Director, Department of Lands, and requesting an audience before the State Board of Land Commissioners.




Sorry it's long but I thought we could chew on this.
Thanks for looking, John
Glindberg

First off drop the word recreational....we have a discussion about this, so you are a miner. Reading the above (if you believe the state has this authority that they state) the next is it applies to 8" suction nozzle and then finally if you are going to disturb more than 1/2 acre.

I am still trying to figure out how the State believe it supercedes the 1872 Act (which they dont)

I believe this is 'color of authority' plus this is in conflict with 1872 act.

Hopefully some others well help me out here.

Gary
John Crossman

Gary, this is what I've been saying, It's just as bad here in idaho as in Oregon, and to boot the local clubs are cow-towing to the BLM and IDWR. I guess this "1872 mining law" is some abscure law that people are either avoiding or are scared to look at. I talked with a local club and they are adamant about getting the "proper" permits. The club won't even look at it. Clueless or not? I guess I'm a rogue miner gone astray, and I will follow the law and see what happens, some rogue huh?
Glindberg

I wouldn't give in that easy, like I stated (again IMHO) if you read the guidelines and do not consider your recreational, if < 8" and less then 1/2 acre the above doesn't apply, now I am in the process of learning all this like others here, which is why I hope others well join in. Ultimately John if you succomb to obtaining a permit you well be giving away your rights under the Mineral Estate Grant, Talk w/ Bejay about that. So I would wait for a bit before deciding to get a permit (if you can)

Gary
Glindberg

John, heres what I was looking for under classwork assignment #2:

Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2012 4:56 pm    Post subject:    

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

lastchancelarry wrote:
In response to 1866's comments on my answers....
1866 ACT: Sec.1 "That the mineral lands of the public domain, both surveyed and unsurveyed, are hereby declared to be free and open to exploration and occupation by all citizens of the United States, and those who have declared their intention to become citizens, subject to such regulations as may be prescribed by law, and subject also to the local customs or rules of miners in the several mining districts, so far as the same may not be in conflict with the laws of the United States. "

the underlined statement above gives local customs or rules of the miners in the mining districts, authority, not the states...
This is also repeated almost word for word in the 1872 Act: sec.1.

This line here gives me grief:
subject to such regulations as may be prescribed by law,
does as may be give authority in the future?
Does this open the door for future laws?



VERY GOOD, Larry. This was the answer I was looking for that specifically showed the most direct limitation on the authority of the states and territories. As you noted, while Sec 1 of the 1866, was officially repealed, the section was was reaffirmed in 1872 almost word for word (also Sec 1).

One of the important things to note is what this section is actually describing. Essentially, Section 1 of both acts is not only THE GRANT, but it specifically describes "exploration" and "occupation". This section of the grant later played a starring role in the famous cases of Belk v. Meagher and Robertson v. Smith, in that the courts decided that "exploration" and "occupation" was the catch-all to describe the rights and activities of the miner.

Ultimately, as decided by Robertson v. Smith, Section 1 meant that:

""the grants made by Congress in the mining law of July 26, 1866, should be liberally construed in favor of the grantee; and the grant of the right to occupy and explore the mineral lands of the United States carries with it the implied right to extract precious metals found by the occupant and explorer""

(Note that "grants" is plural, indicating that more than one is conveyed.)

"the right to occupy, explore and extract from the mineral lands the precious metals, is of a higher character than if created by what is termed a parol license, for it is given by an Act of Congress, and hence, equiviliant to a patent from the United States to the same".

Note that "exploration" and "occupation" is regarded to also include the actual development and extraction of the minerals, and that this is a GRANTED RIGHT from Congress and is to be considered higher than a license.

This right to develop and extract the minerals is granted by Section 1.

Section 1 also states who has the authority to create rules and regulations pertaining to that section -

"subject to such regulations as may be prescribed by law, and subject also to the local customs or rules of miners in the several mining districts, so far as the same may not be in conflict with the laws of the United States"

Our first key to who has jurisdiction is embodied in the phrase "as may be prescribed by law".

Prescribed is specifically defined as: "To establish rules, laws, or directions."

In this case, only Congress has the authority to establish laws, which may not infringe upon the United States Constitution, or upon a grant of rights or property. (Again, study Fletcher v. Peck)

Our second key to jurisdiction is the next half: "subject also to the local customs or rules of miners in the several mining districts, so far as the same may not be in conflict with the laws of the United States".

"Subject" is a very powerful and specific word, defined as:

"[u]Being in a position or in circumstances that place one under the power or authority of another or others"

Here, you can see a clear delegation of power to the "miners in the districts" that ultimately creates a system of self-government, provided that the miners and their districts (just like Congress) do not infringe anyone's rights or property (all of which are described in the Mining Law).

Yet nowhere are the states or territories mentioned in this section, illustrating their lack of authority to regulate what we term today as "mining". In this regard, the miner, and especially when he joins forces with other miners to create a government (a district), has an authority above and beyond that of the states or territories.

Where the states do have an authority are embodied in various other places of the Mining Acts. In a nutshell, the states and their agents (counties) play a role in the recording of documents and have an authority to devise rules and regulations to firmly establish an orderly method to help dispose of the public lands, as well as to develop methods to establish prima facie evidence to protect the miner's property. You can see this authority especially in Section 3, which describes "rules governing possessory title".

As all of you have also correctly identified, the states also play roles in insuring the orderly disposal of water rights, patents, as well as their capacity to create a record of prima facie evidence of that disposal.

Ultimately, what is illustrated is that the states are intended to be subserviant to the miners and especially to the governments (districts) that the miners create.

And now a final question: Does anyone still believe that the states have an authority to sell you a permit or have an authority to restrict your right to mine?


I reccommend reading it a few times over to get a good understanding in what 1866 was saying.

Gary
Hefty

John do you have your own claim?
If you do what land is it located on? BLM/National Forest
John Crossman

Sorry to confuse

Gary, I'm not getting any bull@#%t  permits, they have screwed me enough, the gubment is only set up to provide for their own greedy wants. You won't see me with a permit to exercise my privileges granted to me. When you talk to these goverment agency's nobody has a clue, so they pass it along. What I see is a steady march toward a revolution, violent or legal it's going to occur because people like me are tired. I hope that others will catch on to all of the good info on this forum. I also hope people will fight for what is theirs.



John
John Crossman

Our Claim

Hefty, our claim is located on the Boise National Forest.
Hefty

Very Happy  Then you are free, go get your gold.
Hefty

9th Circuit says Forest Service need not consult on suction mining in Klamath River because no "agency action" allowed the mining activity
Category U.S. Court of Appeals (9th Cir.)
Bookmark :              

Karuk Tribe of California v. U.S. Forest Service, 640 F.3d 979 (9th Cir. 2011).

FACTUAL BACKGROUND: The Klamath River (River) runs from Oregon, through California, to the Pacific Ocean. As it winds through Northern California, it crosses through the lands that have been home to the Plaintiff-Appellant Karuk Tribe of California (the Tribe) since time immemorial. The River is a designated critical habitat of the Coho, or silver, salmon and various other fish species, and is a source of cultural and religious significance to the Tribe, who depend upon it for the fish and other subsistence uses. The River also contains gold deposits. As erosion and other natural processes loosen gold from hard rock in and around the River, the gold travels downstream and settles at the bottom, underneath the lighter sediments but above the bedrock. One method of retrieving this gold is by using a suction dredger (pictured below from Klamath Riverkeeper). Suffice it to say that suction dredgers are mechanical equipment, and accordingly, may not be used on federal forest lands without formally notifying the USFS, see 36 C.F.R. §228.4(a) (2004).  

ISSUE: The Tribe contends that even small-scale suction dredge mining, especially when conducted by sufficient numbers of people with sufficient frequency, significantly disturbs surface resources and destroys aquatic habitat. In particular, the Tribe offers expert evidence that suction dredging kills salmonid and other fish eggs, kills fish food sources, destabilizes riverbed areas used for spawning, and otherwise disturbs the fish and their reproductive activities. In this appeal, the Tribe challenges the USFS’s decision to “accept” four NOIs without consulting with other agencies about the biological effects of the miners’ conduct. Further parsing the issue, the Ninth Circuit considered whether a U.S. Forest Service (USFS) District Ranger’s decision that a proposed mining operation may proceed (in accordance with the miner’s notice of intent, and even without requiring a plan of operations) is an “agency action” for purposes of triggering the ESA’s interagency consultation obligations.  The District Court had entered final judgment in favor of the USFS and denied the Tribe’s request for summary judgment.



SUMMARY: The Ninth Circuit held that a miner’s notice of intent is not “agency action,” and activities described in a miner’s notice of intent are neither funded nor carried out by the USFS.  Thus, the Tribe bore the burden of showing that the activities described in a notice of intent are “authorized” by the USFS.  The Court stated that resolution depends on the proper characterization of what the USFS does with respect to an NOI and the activities described therein.  The USFS argued that it has no power to “authorize” mining activities described in a notice of intent because the miners already possess the right to mine under the mining laws, and that the permits to engage in such mining are granted by other state and federal bodies.  While the USFS has some power to require miners to seek its approval and submit to reasonable USFS regulation, such power only materializes once the USFS determines that the activity is likely to cause significant disturbance of surface resources.  The USFS conceded that ESA consultation is required before it can approve a Plan, but argued that the Ranger’s decision not to require a Plan for the proposed activities is essentially a decision not to act and a recognition of its lack of discretionary authority over the proposed activities.  Therefore, the USFS would have no remaining discretionary involvement with or control over mining operations that it could exercise for the benefit of listed species.  The Court relied on prior case law and concluded that the notice of intent process was designed to be a notification procedure and that it is not “authorization” of private activities when those activities are already authorized by other law.  There is also nothing the USFS can do to enforce the conditions it sets forth in an NOI response, short of its authority to require a Plan.  The notice of intent is a precautionary agency notification procedure which is at most a preliminary step prior to agency action being taken.  

EXCERPT:  In short, we find Western Watersheds, 468 F.3d 1099, and Sierra Club v. Babbitt, 65 F.3d 1502, particularly applicable because, in both of those cases as well as this one, prior law (or contract) endowed the private parties with the “right, not mere privilege” . . . to engage in the activities at issue.  Where the agency is not the authority that empowers or enables the activity, because a preexisting law or contract grants the right to engage in the activity subject only to regulation, the agency’s decision not to regulate (be it based on a discretionary decision not to regulate or a legal bar to regulation) is not an agency action for ESA purposes... The mining laws provide miners like The New 49’ers with the “right, not the mere privilege” to prospect for gold in the Klamath River and its tributaries. We therefore find it is most accurate to say that the mining laws, not the USFS, authorize the mining activities at issue here. The USFS has adopted a simple review process to sort between those mining activities it will regulate in order to conserve forest resources, and those activities it will not regulate because such regulation would be unnecessary and unduly interfere with mining rights. The USFS’s limited and internal review of an NOI for the purpose of confirming that the miner does not need to submit a Plan for approval (because the activities are unlikely to cause any significant disturbance of the forest or river) is an agency decision not to regulate legal private conduct. In other words, the USFS’s decision at issue results in agency inaction, not agency action.

DISSENT (W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judge): By definition, suction dredge mining pursuant to an NOI is mining that “might cause” ”significant disturbance of surface resources,” including the surface resource of  fisheries habitat.” The Forest Service does not dispute that such mining “may affect” critical habitat of coho salmon in the Klamath River system within the meaning of Section 7 of the ESA. The Forest Service therefore has an obligation under Section 7 to consult with the relevant agencies at some point in the process of allowing such mining. The Forest Service had several available choices. It could have consulted under Section 7 when it promulgated the regulation for dredge mining under NOIs. That is, it could have consulted when it set the threshold criterion for an NOI as mining that “might cause significant disturbance of surface resources” including fisheries habitat. Or it could have consulted under Section 7 when it formulated habitat-protective criteria for approving NOIs. That is, it could have consulted when District Ranger Vandiver formulated his criteria for approving the NOIs for the Happy Camp District. Or, finally, in the absence of criteria such as those formulated for the Happy Camp District, it could have consulted under Section 7 with respect to each individual NOI. The one choice that was not available to the Forest Service was never to consult. Yet that is the choice the Forest Service made. In making that choice, the Forest Service violated Section 7 of the ESA. I respectfully but emphatically dissent from the conclusion of the majority to the contrary.


Posted by Keith Rizzardi On 07/31/2011
Glindberg

Nice find Hefty.......seems the USFS is willing to acknowledge that no NOI or POO is neccessary when its in their favor in court. This would be a must carry in the bag of law for me to use a suction recovery device ie. dredge !

Gary
Glindberg

Heres a Letter that was written by plp and waldo mining district to Washington State w/ regards to permits for dredging in 2008


Comments for Washington Dredging

These are comments for the State of Washington on the new proposed suction dredging regulations with the Wash. Dept of Fish and Game and the Commissioners
Jerry

PUBLIC LANDS FOR THE PEOPLE Inc.
7194 Conejo Dr.
San Bernardino, CA 92404
(909)-889-3039

WALDO MINING DISTRICT
P.O. Box 1574
Cave Junction, OR 97523
(541)-660-7096



September 19, 2008
Cert.
Lisa Wood
Washington Department Fish and Wildlife
600 Capital Way N.
Olympia, Washington 98501-1091

RE: Joint Aquatic Resource Permit Application (JARPA) and Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA)

These are the legal comments by and for “Public Lands for the People” Inc. (PLP), a 501 C-3 non-profit organization, its members, and for Gerald Hobbs, President of PLP and as an individual; and by and for the “Waldo Mining District” (WMD), a bona fide mining district established in 1852 in SW Oregon and as authorized by the 1872 U.S. Mining Law, its many members (many of whom are citizens of the State of Washington), and for Tom Kitchar, President of the WMD and as an individual; on the proposed WDFW, JARPA and HPA, and Accumulated Thermal Unit, (Temperature Unit), (TU) Time Frames, for Suction Dredging in the State of Washington.



Dear Ms. Wood

Public Lands for the People Inc. (PLP), the Waldo Mining District, their members, and ourselves, appreciate this opportunity to participate in the comment process for the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) in regards to the above referenced proposed actions. PLP has approximately 40,000 constituent members, many of whom are citizens of the State of Washington. PLP’s membership also includes such organizations as the Washington Resources Coalition (WRC), Washington Prospectors and Miners Association (WPMA), Washington Bedrock Prospectors (BRP) and Northwest Mineral Prospectors (NWMPC), and their members. The WMD has approximately 150 members, many of whom are citizens of the state of Washington.

All of the above organizations and many of their members are Citizens of the State of Washington. They are also Citizens of the United States of America, and as such, have rights conveyed to them under Federal Statutes and the Constitution of the United States. Among those Statutes is the Mining Law of 1872, covered under 30 U.S.C.A. 21 thru 54, and along with other laws; it grants a right to the public to free and open access to the public lands not reserved; for the purposes of exploration for, the claiming of, and the mining of valuable minerals. Pursuant to Federal Law, “…the locator of a mining claim has a possessory title thereto and the right to the exclusive possession and enjoyment thereof, and this includes the right to work the claim, to extract the minerals therefrom, the right to the exclusive property in such mineral as well as the right to defend his possession.” (30 USC 22.70); and “Unpatented mining claims are "property" in the highest sense of such term…” (30 USC 26.94).

We respectfully request that the WDFW et al., in the drafting and/or implementing of any restrictions what-so-ever on any and all prospecting and mining activities that are being performed under the grants of the U.S. Mining Laws of 1866 and 1872, please keep in mind that by the grants themselves within the 1866 and 1872 Mining Laws, miners and prospectors have very unique and specific “rights” entertained by no other members of the public. The U.S. Mining Laws not only grant the claim owner a right to the minerals, but they also grant the right to mine those minerals. Any unnecessary or unreasonable restriction or prohibition on legitimate mining activities would constitute a “taking”.


I. We respectfully believe that WDFW has created the Thermal, Temperature Unit (TU) Time Frames for suction dredging out of no where, and are attempting to shove them down the Mineral Estate Grantees (mining claim owners) throats. It matters not to the WDFW that they have no concrete science or authority to support their position to regulate suction dredge activity on the rivers at any time they arbitrarily choose. WDFW attempts this by applying laboratory (hatchery) study for TU Control time frames to fish in rivers of the wild.

WDFW ignores the comments from the Mineral Estate Grantees, the prospectors, the Public, the Washington State Attorney General’s Opinion, and instead relies on science that is speculative at best. WDFW ignores at least one other Washington State Agency Study about the TU’s, i.e.; The Washington Department of Ecology, which said the following about using water Temperature Unit Studies in there application to natural rivers conditions:

Washington Department of Ecology
Evaluating Standards for Protecting Aquatic Life in Washington’s Surface Water Quality Standards Temperature Criteria (2002)
(B) General Thoughts and Observations

(i) “Adjusting Laboratory Data for application to Natural Waters”

“Laboratory tests do not represent the full range of conditions that an organism will face in the natural environment. In most laboratory tests fish are exposed to a constant temperature environment, while in natural waters the temperature continuously fluctuates during each day., between days, and in seasonal trends of spring warming and fall cooling. In natural waters, fish must actively maintain position and seek food and shelter in currents of the rivers, succeed in the face of inter – and intra species competition for both food and shelter, avoid predation, and resist disease. In laboratory studies, however, the fish are often in test chambers without substantial currents, fed food in pellet form, treated to prevent disease, and seldom need to compete or avoid predation. On the other hand in Laboratory tests, fish are often crowded into very small unnatural spaces, even styrofoam cups, forced to perform using electrical stimulation or prodding, subjected to laminar artificial flows, and often fed unusual rations with large time intervals of starvation. Because of the differences between laboratory conditions and the environmental conditions that fish face in the natural world, we must use caution in how we apply laboratory-derived data in setting ambient water criteria. We must insure that the temperature regimes used in the laboratory tests are considered in any application to natural streams.” (emphasis added)

WDFW’s, JARPA seasonal time frames for suction dredging are non scientific, are illegal and out of control because it sets the seasons for the suction dredge miners on their Mineral Estates by using Accumulated Thermal Unit control (TU). This control on seasons allowing suction dredge mining to the winter months, “only”, can not legally be applied for several obvious reasons which will be explained later in comments. If, the JARPA time frames are changed with proper science applied, most of the legal problems will disappear.

The JARPA Time Frames torture a miner into a needless bureaucratic synopsis of a prohibitory HPA Permit. WDFW feels that they have the authority to deny the Mineral Estate Grantee the opportunity to suction dredge as the grantee requires for removing his minerals, with the JARPA or HPA permit requirements. This puts the miner in a catch 22 by rendering his mineral estate worthless. PLP will address this issue below as well as the prohibitory JARPA and HPA violations

WDFW have observed the laboratory conditions on the affects of TU’s on fish but have not observed or compared those conditions with the natural environment that the fish actually live in. This is not science but speculation and is opposite of the requirements for all state and federal environmental law and Mining Law. In WDFW’s stubborn stand on the regulation of seasons in JARPA for suction dredging through TU’s, they ignore comparable science, and also ignore State and Federal law and Constitutional rights as addressed below.


II. The U.S. Mining Laws of 1866 and 1872 do not award a mere privilege but instead they grant the right to real property, the mining claim holder is a “Mineral Estate Grantee”. The right to go upon the open public lands freely for the purpose of prospecting, discovery, exploration, claiming of the minerals upon that land, mining that land for minerals and taking that land to patent. In other words they get to make a living. The Mineral Estate Grantee has accepted a grant from the United States Government and is executing that grant (Mining Acts of 1866 and 1872) through the act of prospecting, locating, filing and mining the minerals located under that grant.
To illustrate this concept the Supreme Court has said:
"A contract is a compact between two or more parties, and is either executory or executed. An executory contract is one in which a party binds himself to do, or not to do, a particular thing;...." "A contract executed is one in which the object [10 U.S. 87, 137] of contract is performed; and this, says Blackstone, differs in nothing from a grant...." "A contract executed, as well as one which is executory, contains obligations binding on the parties. A grant, in its own nature, amounts to an extinguishment of the right of the grantor, and implies a contract not to reassert that right. A party is, therefore, always estopped by his own grant." Fletcher v. Peck, 10 U.S. 87 (1810) (emphasis added)
Fulfilling this Mineral Estate Grant by the Grantee is sometimes a difficult task, especially when Mother Nature rears her ugly head in the winter months. The snow, cold water, rains and high water prohibit this activity during months like November, December, January, February and March. Consequently, during these months, Mother Nature prohibits the Mineral Estate Grantee from acquiring his property (the Minerals) under the grant, for as much as half the year.

Like the state or federal agencies and departments, the Mineral Estate Grantee has no power or method to control or hold Mother Nature responsible for prohibiting any activity that it may affect. In essence, Mother Nature violates the Constitution, both the 5th Amendment (taking without compensation), and the 14th Amendment (for not giving due process) and by prohibiting the Mineral Estate Grantee from acquiring his minerals during these weathered periods. However, WDFW does not have this same exemption to prohibit the Mineral Estate Grantee.

The Public Lands cannot be “free and open” to exploration if the historical means of use by prospectors and miners can be prohibited by WDFW. The WDFW has the power to reasonably regulate activities not incident to mining upon the Public Lands, but those same regulations fail when they operate to prohibit the customary usage by legitimate prospectors and miners on valid mining claims or in pursuit of such a claim. These proposed regulatory amendments are prohibitive and not merely regulatory in fundamental character and, therefore, are unlawful as proposed. We call your attention to:

South Dakota Mining Ass., inc. vs. Lawrence County, (155 F.3d 1005)

“The Supreme Court has set forth the analysis we must apply to determine if a state law is preempted by federal law: State law can be pre empted in either of two general ways. If Congress evidences an intent to occupy a given field, any state law falling within that field is pre empted. If Congress has not entirely displaced state regulation over the matter in question, state law is still pre empted to the extent it actually conflicts with federal law, that is, when it is impossible to comply with both state and federal law, or where the state law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment of the full purposes and objectives of Congress. A local government cannot prohibit a lawful use of the sovereign's land that the superior sovereign itself permits and encourages. To do so offends both the Property Clause and the Supremacy Clause of the federal Constitution. The ordinance is prohibitory, not regulatory, in its fundamental character.” (emphasis added)

For the WDFW and or the State of Washington to continue to attempt to regulate suction dredge mining seasons through the JARPA and the HPA time lines of an unscientific TU Time Frames is a:
Violation of the Mining Act (30 U.S.C.A. § 22)
30 U.S.C.A. § 22 clearly states: “Except as otherwise provided, all valuable mineral deposits in lands belonging to the United States, both surveyed and unsurveyed, shall be free and open to exploration and purchase, and the lands in which they are found to occupation and purchase, by citizens of the United States and those who have declared their intention to become such, under regulations prescribed by law, and according to the local customs or rules of miners in the several mining districts, so far as the same are applicable and not inconsistent with the laws of the United States”. (emphasis added)

With this proposal, it appears as though the WDFW, in their infinite wisdom have concocted a plan to effectively close many of the rivers and streams in the State of Washington from suction dredge mining altogether without creating a taking of the miner’s mineral estate, and without violating the Constitution.

It’s like some one or some group within the WDFW (that has an agenda to prohibit suction dredge mining, or possibly the agency as a whole) said to itself: “All we have to do is create the suction dredging open time frames (seasons) concurrent with the winter months, where Mother Nature will not allow them to suction dredge because of the weather conditions, and then close the rest of the year to suction dredging.”

However, for WDFW to disallow the suction dredging to the Mineral Estate Grantee during those months that Mother Nature has left open, the agency creates a full time prohibition for the Grantee to acquire his minerals and thusly there is a taking of that Grantee’s property (Mineral Ownership) without compensation.


III. Violation of National Mineral Policy Act (30 U.S.C.A. § 21(a))

30 U.S.C.A. § 21(a) clearly states:

“The Congress declares that it is the continuing policy of the Federal Government in the national interest to foster and encourage private enterprise in (1) the development of economically sound and stable domestic mining, minerals, metal and mineral reclamation industries, (2) the orderly and economic development of domestic mineral resources, reserves, and reclamation of metals and minerals to help assure satisfaction of industrial, security and environmental needs, (3) mining, mineral, and metallurgical research, including the use and recycling of scrap to promote the wise and efficient use of our natural and reclaimable mineral resources, and (4) the study and development of methods for the disposal, control, and reclamation of mineral waste products, and the reclamation of mined land, so as to lessen any adverse impact of mineral extraction and processing upon the physical environment that may result from mining or mineral activities.” (emphasis added)

The WDFW cannot “foster and encourage” domestic mining if they use regulations that have a prohibitive, hostile and chilling effect. It is very troubling to see the WDFW continue to use general prohibitions in another futile attempt to supplant the power of Congress. The WDFW cannot prohibit that which Congress expressly authorized by the Mining Acts. Nor can the WDFW effectively repeal said mining law through the use of general prohibitions or regulation. In other words, the WDFW nor the State of Washington can not legally prohibit that which Congress authorized under the Mining Act, which in its self is a “right of self-initiation” under said act (see “The Mining Law of 1872: A Legal and Historical Analysis by Steven G. Barringer, Esq. 1989). No re-authorization of those rights can be given by the WDFW, absent a specific act of Congress with the consent of the Mineral Estate Grantee.

IV. WDFW is violation of the Supremacy Clause, Property Clause and the Commerce Clause of the United States.
Supremacy Clause
“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”
Commerce Clause

595 But most important of all there was the development of, or more accurately the return to, 596 the rationales by which manufacturing, 597 mining, 598 business transactions, 599 and the like, which are antecedent to or subsequent to a move across state lines, are conceived to be part of an integrated commercial whole and therefore subject to the reach of the commerce power.

Today, the Supreme Court said that "we do not have to consider that point" because the hiring of seven out-of-state employees and the purchase of supplies from Los Angeles showed that the mine was "engaged in commerce."

Mining equipment, vehicles, fuel from out of state, and interstate travel and out of state claim owners all have an effect on the overall economy of the United States. WDFW must recognize these issues. Along with the fact that federal funding that was received for all or parts of the study and environmental process, make them no less than a welfare recipient and subservient to uphold the laws of the donor of the grant. In this case the laws of the United States.

Funding for part or all of this project is federal funding and in accepting this federal funding, WDFW in doing so, have committed themselves to being under direction and obligation to follow federal law. If Federal funds are enjoyed by the WDFW to do part, or all of this project they can not be inconsistent with Federal Law. And certainly WDFW can not come to a conclusion that they can deny a mining project for any reason, that of which even the Federal Government can not deny.

WDFW now states that they are not prohibiting the Grantee from taking his mineral because he has an opportunity to apply for an HPA permit, but also adds that they have the ability to deny that HPA permit. To deny for any reason is a taking without compensation and WDFW does not have the ability to cover all of those applications for an HPA, especially under the threat of denial. WDFW has shown in the past 4 or 5 months that they do not have the ability address all (i.e.; the sheer numbers) of the permits. In this proposal, WDFW has put a totally unreasonable and unnecessary burden on themselves, the Grantee, the Department, and the State of Washington. A burden that neither the WDFW nor the Grantee can comply with, with any prudence or effectiveness.


V. Violation of Multiple-Surface Use Act (30 U.S.C.A. § 612(b) & (615), 612(b) clearly states:

“Rights under any mining claim hereafter located under the mining laws of the United States shall be subject, prior to issuance of patent therefore, to the right of the United States to manage and dispose of the vegetative surface resources thereof and to manage other surface resources thereof (except mineral deposits subject to location under the mining laws of the United States). Any such mining claim shall also be subject, prior to issuance of patent therefore, to the right of the United States, its permittees, and licensees, to use so much of the surface thereof as may be necessary for such purposes or for access to adjacent land: Provided, however, That any use of the surface of any such mining claim by the United States, its permittees or licensees, shall be such as not to endanger or materially interfere with prospecting, mining or processing operations or uses reasonably incident thereto…” (emphasis added)

If the “United States” themselves are prohibited from “any use” of the surface of a mining claim (including so-called protection of fish) that endangers or materially interferes “…with prospecting, mining or processing operations or uses reasonably incident thereto…”, then there is no legal way that WDFW can “endanger or materially interfere…”.


VI. The WDFW has stated that they will issue the HPA permits for one year, or possibly five years. PLP & WMD respectfully asks, “What prudent man would go into a business that requires expending the time for education, the cost for that education, cost to buy or claim that business, the cost of acquiring the equipment for that business without assuring him self an opportunity to make that business his lifetime goal for success and livelihood for himself and his family?”

When a party decides to go in business whether it be a store or mining business, they have crucial investments. If the grantee applies and receives a license or a permit it should be protected as long as his activity is legal. It should be good until the grantee decides to make some major change that would affect conditions of that license or permit or grant. They should be guaranteed to work under that license or permit or grant. The Mineral Estate Grantee should be able to expect the same benefit that any other businessman would. Especially since the Grant is just that, a grant (contract) and not a licensed or a permitted activity but a right that is not discretionary. The Grantee has a contract with the Federal Government to do business, not just a maybe, and should not have to re-apply in one or five years. He should be under the Grandfather clause for his own protection.

A Mineral Estate Grantee, by law, has even more right to do business because he is a property owner in the truest sense, he owns the minerals. For WDFW to prohibit the use of that property without compensation is a Constitutional violation. For WDFW to take the ability for that Grantee to acquire his property (minerals), either by regulation or other means is not acceptable under the law or the U.S Constitution. The Grantee is afforded Due Process through a Mineral Examination. The Grantee is not mandated to do that Mineral Examination to determine if that Mineral Estate is mineral in character or to acquire the right to mine that Estate. The challenge of validity is the function of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Before that Estate can be null and void, the government must afford the due process. WDFW does not offer that Mineral Estate Grantee due process when they can violate the Grantee’s due process by denial of an HPA and torturing the Grantee into an appeal process.

Once an HPA is issued it should be for life, unless the operation is changed to go outside of the original HPA Contract, and only then if the operation is making a very significant change, for less change it should only require and amendment. To do otherwise is to create a material interference for the prospector or Mineral Estate Grantee and the loss of any pre-existing rights granted under the mining laws of 1866 and 1872.


VII. Now, onto another violation of the WDFW. It has come to the attention of PLP & WMD, and their members that one of the requirements for HPA permits issued by the WDFW is that they are requiring that the Grantee (miner, prospector) submit and get an approved “Notice of Intent” (NOI) from the United States Forest Service (USFS). One huge problem with this is that under their own regulations (36 CFR 228.4), the USFS does not “approve” NOIs. Under their own regulations, the USFS has no authority to “require” a NOI, as the initial determination of whether a Plan of Operations (POO) is required is left to the miner, based on the likelihood of a significant surface disturbance. In other words, pursuant to the USFS Mining Regulations found at 36 CFR 228.4, mining activities that do not cause a significant surface disturbance do not need a NOI or a POO. The use of a suction dredge has not been found to cause a significant surface disturbance by the USFS, and therefore to date does not require most suction dredge miners to submit a NOI. How can WDFW require and demand miners obtain something from the USFS that the USFS itself doesn’t (have the authority to) require?

PLP & WMD suggest that the WDFW immediately remove the requirement to get a Notice of Intent from USFS in order to validate or utilize their HPA permit, for the following reasons. (WDFW illustration below)

WDFW, Hydraulic Project Approval, Provisions

Note: A
“A Notice of Intent (NOI) must be filed with the US Forest Service (USFS) Methlow Valley District Ranger. You will be notified if an operating plan or reclamation bond is required. USFS must consult with the US Fish & wildlife Service under the Endangered Species Act when an action is taken where a listed species or critical habitat is found. The District Ranger may be contacted at 509-996-4004.” (emphasis added)

Even the USFS itself has a problem with enforcing an NOI. The FS Mining Regulations are found under 36 CFR 228, and have no criminal citation remedy because of vagueness in the regulation. The USFS turns to their enforcement regulations, 36 CFR 261.1 (Scope)

Violation of: 36 CFR 261.1 (4)(b)

Nothing in this part shall preclude activities as authorized by the Wilderness Act of 1964 or the U.S. Mining Laws Act of 1872 as amended. (emphasis added)

Also, neither the WDFW nor the Forest Service exercise “discretionary” control over miners (i.e.; only discretionary decisions/permits can be denied). Any questionable regulatory authority the WDFW “may” exercise is non-discretionary in nature as applied to a private actor such as a miner. Examples:

Karuk Tribe v United States Forest Service, NO. C-04-4275 SBA

"Forest Service's acceptance of four notices of intent (NOI) to conduct mining operations in a National Forest, on basis that the operations were not likely to cause a significant disturbance of surface resources, did not constitute a "federal action" within the meaning of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and thus did not violate its duty under ESA to comply with consultation requirements; miners were all private entities, Service's review
of the NOIs did not amount to an authorization, mining operations were authorized by statute rather than merely permissive, and Service had no discretionary control over the NOIs process. Endangered Species Act of 1973, § 7(a)(2), 16 U.S.C.A. § 1536(a)(2); 50 C.F.R. § § 402.02, 402.03." (emphasis added)

United States vs. McClure (364 F.Supp.2d 1183)

“The Court is mindful that the Forest Service often times has difficulty in attempting to correspond an individual's alleged illegal activity with a specific Part 261 prohibition. The various categories of prohibited activities on National Forest System land as set forth in 36 C.F.R. 261 [Part 261-Prohibitions] are often confusing, and very rarely inclusive.FN7 A miner may be charged under 36 C.F.R. 261 for violating an approved plan of operations, United States v. Doremus, 888 F.2d 630 (9th Cir.1989); 36 C.F.R. 261.10(1), but, may not be charged for failing to submit a “notice of intent” or to file a “plan of operations.” when required to do so.” Lex & Waggener, supra, at 959-60. (emphasis added)

WDFW does not have the authority to demand that the miner/Grantee submit an NOI to USFS, much less does it the have the authority to be judge and jury in the field. WDFW can not put this condition on the HPA permit or any other permit. WDFW does not enforce or interpret Federal Law and to do so is illegal and is tantamount to a denial of an

HPA Permit. WDFW does not have the authority to deny or to hold an HPA Permit hostage for a perceived requirement designated under USFS Mining Regulations. (36 CFR 228). A NOI is not always required for suction dredge mining under Forest Service regulations and even if it were the WDFW still does not have authority to interpret that Federal Regulation or even attempt to enforce it. This argument is to be argued between the Mineral Estate Grantee and the Forest Service as to what the USFS can require or can not require, as stated below in 16 U.S.C. sect. 472.
16 U.S.C.A. Sect. 472
“The Secretary of the Department of Agriculture shall execute or cause to be executed all laws affecting public lands reserved under the provisions of section, 471 (1) of this title or sections supplemental to and amendatory thereof, after such lands have been so reserved, excepting such laws as affect the surveying, prospecting, locating, appropriating, entering, relinquishing, reconveying, certifying, or patenting of any of such lands.” (emphasis added)

VIII. For WDFW to attempt to enforce the TU’s upon the Grantee without the proper science, under the auspices of protecting an endangered threatened or concerned species is arbitrary and capricious and is not even addressed in their environmental report (White Papers). There is no opportunity for the Grantee for self mitigation, only arbitrary and capricious mitigation by WDFW (i.e.; arbitrary and capricious in the sense that the WDFW has no reliable science to support application of a hatchery study to the wild streams and rivers).

The TU’s being addressed outside of the original study (White Paper) is just another arbitrary and capricious attempt by WDFW to wield power they do not have, under the guise of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), and it is shameful and against the law. The U.S. Supreme Court in a recent 2007 Decision has stated:

National Association of Homebuilders v Defenders of Wildlife (2007)
(Cite as: 127 S.Ct. 2518)

“That in Applying Chevron, we defer to the agency’s reasonable interpretation of the ESA sec. 7 (a) (2) as applying only to “actions” in which there is discretionary Federal involvement or control. 50 CFR sec. 402.03. (emphasis added)

“Court will not infer that subsequent statute repeals an earlier enactment, unless the later statute expressly contradicts original act, or unless such a construction is absolutely necessary in order for words of the later statute to have any meaning at all; outside of these limited circumstances, statute dealing with narrow, precise, and specific subject is not submerged by a later enacted statute covering more generalized spectrum.” (emphasis added)

(2) “regulation purporting to apply consultation and no-jeopardy mandates of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), which require federal agencies to consult with other


agencies to ensure that proposed agency action is not likely to jeopardize any endangered or threatened species, only in situations in which there is discretionary federal involvement or control, was reasonable interpretation entitled to deference;” (emphasis added)

No where in the Endangered Species Act does it address the Mining Acts of 1866 or 1872. WDFW “may” (and PLP use’s the word “may” loosely) have authority to regulate suction dredge mining… but Federal Law states that the regulations must be reasonable, necessary, and yet not materially interfere with the Mineral Grant. That means reasonable to the Mineral Estate Grantee (miner) as well as the WDFW. The TU Time Frame, requirements for a Notice of intent (NOI) from the USFS, and the opportunity for WDFW to deny or prohibit the mining operation permit for any reason and to create a paper snafu with the HPA permits are not reasonable to the miner but in fact work to create a prohibition on mining – something even the Federal land management agencies have no authority to do.

Marbled Murrelet, 83 F.3dat 1074

"Finally, pursuant to Marbled Murrelet, the Court finds that Plaintiff's generalized challenge to the "discretionary" nature of the Forest Service's implementation of the NOI review process is insufficient to invoke the ESA. Although, here, the Forest Service engaged in an interactive process with the miners prior to the start of the 2004 mining season, which process involved a discussion of the types of activities that would be considered a significant disturbance of surface resources, this process is most properly considered the type of "advisory" conduct that does not trigger the ESA. Marbled Murrelet, 83 F.3d. at 1074. (emphasis added)

Indeed, as the Ninth Circuit stated in Marbled Murrelet:

“Protection of endangered species would not be enhanced by a rule which would require a federal agency to perform the burdensome procedural tasks mandated by section 7 [of the ESA] simply because it advised or consulted with a private party. Such a rule would be a disincentive for the agency to give such advice or consultation. Moreover, private parties who wanted advice on how to comply with the ESA would be loathe to contact the [agency] for fear *1103 of triggering burdensome bureaucratic procedures. As a result, desirable communication between private entities and federal agencies on how to comply with the ESA would be stifled, and protection of threatened and endangered species would suffer. Id. at 1074-75." (emphasis added)


IX. WDFW has also violated their own State Law and legal opinion, as far as the Washington State Environmental Act (SEPA), by not providing any Alternatives for the TU time frames for suction dredge mining.

SEPA Handbook, 3.3.2 Alternatives

“The EIS evaluates the proposal, the no-action alternative, and other "reasonable alternatives". A reasonable alternative is a feasible alternate course of action that meets the proposal's objective at a lower environmental cost. Reasonable alternatives may be limited to those that an agency with jurisdiction has authority to control either directly or indirectly through the requirement of mitigation. Alternatives are one of the basic building blocks of an EIS. They present options in a meaningful way for decision-makers. The EIS examines all areas of probable significant adverse environmental impact associated with the various alternatives including the no-action alternative and the proposal. Project alternatives might include design alternatives, location options on the site, different operational procedures, various methods of reclamation for ground disturbance, closure options, etc. For public projects, alternative project sites should also be evaluated. For private projects, consideration of off-site alternatives may be limited prohibited except under certain circumstances (see WAC 197-11-440(5)(d)).” (emphasis added)

WDFW has attempted and failed miserably to legally implement the Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) against the Mineral Estate Grantee. WDFW has not addressed any other alternatives for the Accumulated Thermal Unit restrictions in their regulatory JARPA time frames for suction dredge mining, as required under SEPA.

Upon review of the Washington State Attorney General, “Advisory Memorandum and Recommended Proposed Regulatory or Administrative Actions to Avoid Unconstitutional Takings of Private Property” and in particular, Washington’s Growth Management Act, (RCW 36.70A.370) the following cases referred to that Act and other takings issues:

Pennsylvania Coal Mining Company v. Mahon (260 U.S. 393, 43 S. Ct. 158, 67 L. Ed. 322 (1922). The Court noted that regulatory activity can “go too far”.

Penn Central Transportation Co. v New York City, (438 U.S. 104, 98 S. Ct. 2646, 57 L. ED. 2d 631 (1978). Takings claims are evaluated by examining and balancing three factors (1) The economic impact of the regulatory action on the property; (2) the extent to which legitimate property use expectations exist and have been interfered with; and (3) The extent to which the government has used reasonable means to achieve an important public objective. When undertaking this evaluation, the court must consider the impact on the entire property owner’s interest at stake, not just the portion subjected to the regulation.

WDFW seems oblivious to the possibility of the taking of one’s property with their extreme regulatory position on Thermal Units (TU’s). The Mining claims that the WDFW are attempting to regulate are property in the truest sense. The Minerals are owned by the Mineral Estate Grantee, the party whose name is on the recorded document is that of the Grantee.
The WDFW feels that the regulations that have been adopted for the purpose of a JARPA fairly limit the opportunity for the extraction of minerals by the Grantee. By offering a Hydraulic Project permit (HPA) for different seasonal period use, WDFW believes that the HPA prevents a taking of that property because it give the grantee an opportunity to go outside the JARPA to acquire his minerals by extending his season through an HPA.

This is far from the truth because the WDFW has an opportunity, by their own actions and decisions to deny the HPA in their own promulgated regulations. WDFW can not, through regulation or other means, outright deny the HPA application but they have thrown other curves, such as; through their illegal interpretation of federal laws, WDFW requires a permit from other federal agencies such as the USFS, which may or may not be required by law. By doing so WDFW has again performed a denial of the HPA permit by holding that HPA permit hostage in lieu of getting other additional permits from a federal agency that may or may not be attainable, nor required. If WDFW continues in this direction, and adopts the regulations, as proposed, it will constitute a regulatory prohibition and a taking of property. WDFW does not have the authority to interpret or enforce federal law, which is between the Mineral Estate Grantee and the Federal Agency in question. The Mining Acts of 1866 and 1872 are not “discretionary” Acts, they are, instead, a grant and already authorize and permits the prospector and Mineral Estate Grantee (miner) to take the minerals. The State can not prohibit that which federal law encourages.

United States v Kosanke Sand Corporation
(cite as: 12 IBLA 282)

*288 “It is our conclusion that 'existing law applicable to the agency's operations,' viz., the General Mining Act of 1872, as amended, supra, under which the claims herein involved were located, and which opens to location and purchase, '[e]xcept as otherwise provided, all valuable mineral deposits in lands belonging to the United States, * * * and the lands in which they are found * * *', 30 U.S.C. § 22 (1970), 'makes compliance impossible “This comports with the position of the Department when it reported in 1971 to the Council on Environmental Quality that the General Mining Act of 1872 do[es] not admit of environmental considerations.”

“To the extent that the mining laws give to individuals the right to enter the public domain, to locate claims thereon, to discover minerals therein, and to extract and remove those minerals there from, all without prior approval of the United States, the development of a mining claim cannot be tortured into 'Federal action,' major, minor or otherwise.” (emphasis added)

If the United States can not torture a miner into a Federal Action, major, minor or otherwise, what makes WDFW believe that they can torture the same Mineral Estate Grantee (miner) into a State Action, major minor or otherwise?





X. CONCLUSIONS

There have been millions of words, both verbal and written on the affect of the WDFW, JARPA and HPA regulations on the mining community. For the most part those words have been ignored and twisted to the advantage of the WDFW to create regulations through TU’s that are prohibitory in nature.

In this document, we have shown how the Mineral Estate Grantees have clear and distinct rights unlike any other user of the public lands. We have shown how the Mineral Estate Grantees have “Real Property” under the highest sense of such terms. We have shown how the WDFW’s decision to use TUs to regulate/restrict suction dredge mining is based on totally flawed or unsound “science” (and we use that term loosely – there is no “science”). We have shown how neither the State of Washington nor the WDFW have the authority to supersede Federal Law. We have shown how the WDFW’s requirement that Mineral Estate Grantees submit a NOI to the USFS is far beyond the authority of the WDFW, and flies in the face of the USFS’s own Mining Regulations. We have shown how mining activities under the U.S. Mining Acts are “non-discretionary” activities, and as such do not fall under the purview of the ESA, or for that matter, the CWA, or even NEPA. We have shown how the proposed rules will constitute a “taking” of the Mineral Estate Grantees property, and lastly, we have shown how it is the continuing intent of the U.S. Congress to “foster and encourage” mineral development.

This whole thing could have been avoided by WDFW if they had just attempted, in good faith, to work within the law and work with the miners to come up with some reasonable regulations. For well over 5 years the negotiations have been going on and the miners and prospectors are well aware that the process is coming to an end. This is the last chance for their plea’s to be heard by the WDFW. The Departmental Bureaucracy has worn all of the participants down to a point were patience is thin . . . but this does not mean WDFW has the final word, yet.

The Mineral Estate Grantee’s and prospectors are still positive in their position, still looking to make the American System work as it should. They have rights granted to them, and up to this point, those rights have been violated because the American System is failing because of violations of the law by the WDFW. There is still one more step in the process to insure that the American System will work for the people.

PLP & the WMD and their members and member organizations feel compelled to put the State of Washington on notice that WDFW must be guided back in the right direction or be responsible for the real possibility of Takings Claims under the 5th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, violations of Washington State Laws and violations Federal Law on the this issue.


XI. RECOMMENDATIONS: We strongly suggest that in order for the State of Washington and the WDFW to avoid many costly takings lawsuits that they discard the proposed rules, go back to “good faith” meetings with the miners and using good sound verifiable science draft regulations that protect the environment as much as possible without materially hindering or interfering with the lawful mining activities of the Mineral Estate Grantees.

Thank you for considering these comments.


Respectfully submitted by;


Gerald Hobbs
President, Public Lands for the People, Inc.



Tom Kitchar
President, Waldo Mining District


I pasted this so you could see there are appilable areas.........

Gary
Abram

Well yes that does matter because i have personally seen similar things which are fine enough for a lot of matters and also letting people understand how maximum can work is fine enough for the moment.

       americanmininglawforum.myfastforum.org Forum Index -> Mining Law Tibits
Page 1 of 1
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum
Home|Home|Home|Home|HomeHome|Home|Home|Home|Home