fighting the good fighttheminingalliance.com/newsletters/2015/july2015.pdfwater to the hopper and...

On July 14th, we found ourselves once again fighting the State against Senate Bill 637. This anti-mining bill, and Senate Bill 209 which seeks to change SMARA and require small operators to pay even more inspection fees, are both sponsored by The Sierra Fund and MS Elizabeth Martin. The nemesis of the small miner continues to be The Sierra Fund. While attacking small scale miners they continue to give a pass to large companies such as Tiechart Materials, who is a donor and supporter of The Sierra Fund. It appears a continuation of what we’ve seen throughout the country where these extremist environmental groups hold off on attacking large companies, which donate to them, while pushing for regulations which harm small operators, but benefit the large companies. We’ve been in a continuous fight against laws which have been ruled unconstitutional. There’s only a handful of plaintiffs and for six years we’ve not backed down. We’re holding the line between this incarnation of eco/State fascism and your individual liberties as an American. We handful of plaintiffs are what stands between winning your right to mine back, and losing it forever. As we explain in this newsletter, Senate Bill 637 is an extremely dangerous bill to the small miner. Not just the dredgers, but everyone who is operating any type of equipment. We explain in detail what this bill does and we’ve attached a copy of the current version to the end of the newsletter. There are several things you can do to ensure the objective of a fair political system, and to stop the apparent prohibited lobbying of The Sierra Fund. We’ve included information on what you, as an individual, can do to challenge the lobbying efforts of The Sierra Fund – but you can’t expect someone else to do it for you. You need to make the call, file the form and write letters. It’s time to stop The Sierra Fund.

All of us are fighting the slow march to tyranny. We’ve now had four judges rule California’s ban on using suction dredges is unconstitutional, but these rulings don’t phase the State, or the lawyers who are on the wrong side of the Constitution. Some of you attended the July 14th conference hearing in Sacramento and got to see just how your representative government works. Not very well. Despite nearly forty miners lining up to speak against the bill, and only four environmentalists in support, the representatives voted once again to move forward a bill which will essentially ban all types of small scale mining. We can’t stress how serious this bill is. For three years we’ve been providing you the information on this fight we’re in. This isn’t about, and never was about dredging. This fight has always been about holding the line against further restrictions on liberties granted to you in the U.S. Constitution. Can the State regulate you out of existence? That’s the purpose of Senate Bill 637 which we’ve spent a lot of energy and time fighting. The WMA has fought this bill from introduction, through every committee and we’ll fight it again as it goes through the last committee in the Assembly – the Appropriations Committee. Then we’ll lobby once more to defeat it when it goes to the full vote. You can fight back, and we’re going to show you how. We need your continued financial support from now until January. We’ve got big legal bills to pay, and our efforts will decide whether you will ever dredge, highbank, or have the ability to use any small scale mining equipment again. Yes, it’s that serious. We really need your help, please support us for the next six months as we prepare our legal case for trial.

FIGHTING THE GOOD FIGHT “Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.” Thomas Jefferson

The folks who produce the Bucket Digger have been great supporters of the fight and build a really handy prospecting tool. Please support those who are supporting the fight.

Page

The Western Mining Alliance is fighting Senate Bill 637 and Senate Bill 209 in the California legislature

We’re working with Congress on providing changes to federal legislation to benefit mining

We are working with our attorney James Buchal to write and argue the CEQA (regulations) lawsuit

We provide you the information you need to fight against State and Federal over-reach

Every dollar counts, whether it’s $5 or $500 we really need your support over the next six months as we enter the most expensive period of this whole fight. We have six more months of intensive legal preparation to get our challenge to the EIR and the regulations to trial, what we do over the next few months will forever impact your ability to dredge or high bank.

$100 membership – you’ll get the 2015 Claims Report which will provide you the full listing for Northern California mining claims which are pending closure by BLM. This report gives you advanced information over the general public and a signficant advantage in finding valuable lode and place claims which may be available for new filings. Includes detailed information on the creek, river or geographic feature the claim is located on. $200 and Up Membership – You’ll get the complete 2015 Claims Report which includes the entire state of California, or Washington, Oregon or Idaho and includes all claims which are pending closure by BLM. For California, Oregon and Washington we provide detailed information which lists the claims by county, creek, river or geographic feature the claim is located on.

4

Micro Sluice Concentrator

Micro Sluice 2

Micro Sluice Junior

Micro Sluice 1

The Micro-Sluice Concentrator is based on the Micro-Sluice 2 uses a "double-deck/high banker" design and will accept any size material and retain the gold from 4 mesh (1/4") down to 200- mesh.

No pre-classified or pre-screening required! Highly portable, with a size and weight of 12" x 25" (folded up) and 14 pounds, the Micro-Concentrator will process up to 300 lbs per hour. The accuracy is typically 98% for visible gold and 60-90% for sub-visible (free) gold, down to 200- mesh. The Heavy Duty HFBE Vibrator is recommended for those "difficult" jobs with micron or "flour" gold.

www.micro-sluice.com

Only 12lbs and 25" long the Micro-Sluice 2 processes wet or dry concentrates at a rate up to 1/3 cu. yd. per hour. The innovative and unique 4-stage water recycling system uses a float mounted pump to provide a consistent flow of water to the hopper and sluice

For 20 Years Your Fine Gold Recovery Specialists

The Micro-Sluice utilizes a feed hopper into which water is automatically added. The resulting slurry exits through drain holes in a consistent manner. The material then pass over a classifier plate with small holes to capture the finest materials. Then the slurry passes over a riffle system that utilizes a vee-grooved rubber mat pioneered by Micro-Sluice Gold Products to capture even the finest gold. A built-in angle indicator guarantees the correct angle of the sluice and repeatable results.

The Micro Sluice 1 is easy to backpack and ATV friendly with the new high impact flat bucket. It’s ideal for dry or desert use as a wet recycle unit where water is limited. An integral 1 quart feeder hopper features a unique wash down system that automatically regulates the rate of pre-screened material being classified. The tailings filter bag ensures no lost gold, as tailings can be run again to check for proper operation.

Call 715-924-2816

5

SENATE BILL 637 THREATENS ALL SMALL SCALE MINERS

The full text of this bill is posted on our web page. The Western Mining Alliance, led by Rick Eddy, once again took a stand against Senate Bill 637 in the Assembly Parks, Water and Recreation Committee. We were joined by Chris Giorgi, of Miners United, the East Bay Prospectors, the Motherlode Gold Hounds, representatives from PLP, GPAA and independent miners and prospectors. There were seven bills lined up for committee vote on the 14th with SB 637 being the last of the bills to be heard. Miners from across the State packed the committee hearing room while only four environmentalists bothered to show up and speak in favor the bill. Senate Bill 637, introduced by Senator Allen of Beverly Hills, is sponsored (meaning written) by The Sierra Fund, a Nevada City environmental group with a mission to ban all small scale mining. To be honest we’ve found Senator Allen to be a decent guy, and we believe he’s been duped. He is a freshman senator with a recycled staff member who has previously worked as staff support with other anti-mining legislation and has self-admittedly “known” Izzy Martin for over 20 years. The explanation of the bill included language such as “…the power equipment used to vacuum gravel from streambeds results in plumes of mercury-laden sediments downstream. This mobilizes the mercury and makes it more available for transformation into toxic methy mercury.”

We suspect the language explaining the bill was also written the Sierra Fund, and the language is full of deliberate misrepresentations of the facts to make suction dredging appear so harmful it must be regulated out of existence. For example, in 2003 the Water Board did a study conducted by Rick Humphries which was designed to test the efficiency of an unmodified suction dredge in recovering mercury. During this test Humphries found a suction dredge was 98% efficient at capturing mercury and that this capture rate included “floured” mercury. According to Humphries “all” mercury was floured prior to entering the dredge and any remaining mercury was also floured, meaning it was in very small fragments. One would think a 98% capture rate of extremely small bits of mercury would be a good thing, unless you read the way the report was spun in the SB 637 language which described the Humphries study in this way, “The author cites to a 2003 pilot study conducted by the Water Board which found that suction dredge mining exacerbates mercury contamination in rivers and streams and disturbs fish habitat, harming endangered species. According to the author, the mercury levels in fish taken from California streams where gold mining occurred are generally above critical toxicity threshold levels and pose human health risks.”

Visit www.stopSB637.org for details and updates

Last chance to stop this bill is August 19th in the Assembly Appropriations Committee. Room 4202 in the capitol building

http://www.stopsb637.org/

SENATE BILL 637 THREATENS ALL SMALL SCALE MINERS

This is a deliberate misrepresentation of the truth to achieve an environmentalist end state of national forests and public lands closed to all activities they disapprove of. We don’t put anything past MS Martin and her two person organization, even lying to achieve an end, but the above statements, entered into the record are beyond the pale. The Western Mining Alliance, in our presentation against the bill, countered these statements with the truth. We informed the committee all four Water Board studies in regards to mercury had found no association between suction dredge mining and increased mercury levels. We also showed them all four studies and informed the committee no rivers, streams or lakes within gold dredging areas exceeded the US EPA standards to human health advisories. We were then told we were out of time. At the beginning of the hearing the chairman informed everyone that two people could speak in support of the bill and two in opposition to the bill. This standard held for the first six bills. When Senate Bill 637 came up the two speakers in support were MS Martin of the Sierra Fund and a Karuk Tribe member. MS Martin continued with her assertions suction dredges contributed significantly to mercury loading and were health hazards while the Karuk tribe member largely spoke about the cultural impact of suction dredge mining. When our time to oppose the bill came up we were allowed to speak against the bill. In our opposition we informed the committee about the actual results from the Water Board studies and countered The

Sierra Fund’s misstatements. When our time was up the chairman decided he would allow MS Martin even more time to by allowing her to come up and speak to what we’d just put out. MS Martin made this statement, “Every river, stream and lake in the state exceeds the US EPA thresholds for mercury.” Really? And to what study was she citing? None, but none of the committee challenged her on this. This is another example of the lengths our opponents will go to achieve their objective. We don’t put anything past them. If you’re tired of this, there is something you can do. The most effective way to eliminate the Sierra Fund is to take away their 501(c)(3) status. You can help. Let’s ask the IRS to determine whether a significant portion of MS Martin’s time is spent on lobbying. We provide the information on the following pages, you need to fill out the form and send it in. You can also call and write the California Secretary of State and file a complaint for unregistered lobbying by a group attempting to influence the political process, you can file your complaint by writing to: Secretary of State Political Reform Division P.O. Box 1467 1500 11th Street Sacramento, CA 95814-1467

Visit www.stopSB637.org for details and updates

http://www.stopsb637.org/

FIGHT SB 637 This is the list of Assembly Members on the Appropriations Committee – Last Chance to Stop the Sierra Fund Bill. Call, Fax and Write, but don’t E mail. We believe the hearing will be on the 19th of August, but it could also be as late as the 26th. It hasn’t been set for hearing, but these are the last two sessions of the appropriations committee. Tell Assembly Member Gomez this bill isn’t needed. We’ve been cleaning the waters for 60 years with no ill effects. Tell him the information the Sierra Fund provided to write this bill is manipulated to serve their own purpose. Tell him this bill will cost millions in regulatory costs and litigation costs. Tell him we always operated under an EPA clean water permit, and the same general permit can still be used. This bill costs the State money, while not doing a thing to clean water. It simply hurts the small miner while enriching environmental groups.

Member Address Phone

Jimmy Gomez (Chair) PO Box 942849 Room 2114 Sacramento CA 94249

916-319-2051

Frank Bigelow (Vice Chair) PO Box 942849 Room 6047 Sacramento CA 94249

916-319-2005

Richard Bloom PO Box 942849 Room 2003 Sacramento CA 94249

916-319-2050

Rob Bonta PO Box 942849 Room 6005 Sacramento CA 94249

916-319-2018

Ian Calderon PO Box 942849 Room 2148 Sacramento CA 94249

916-319-2057

Ling Ling Chang PO Box 942849 Room 3149 Sacramento CA 94249

916-319-2055

Tom Daly PO Box 942849 Room 3126 Sacramento CA 94249

916-319-2069

Susan Talamontes Eggman PO Box 942849 Room 3173 Sacramento CA 94249

916-319-2013

James Gallagher PO Box 942849 Room 5128 Sacramento CA 94249

916-319-2003

Eduardo Garcia PO Box 942849 Room 4162 Sacramento CA 94249

916-319-2056

Assembly Appropriations Committee Members Continued

Member Address Phone

Chris Holden PO Box 942849 Room 319 Sacramento CA 94249

916-319-2041

Brian Jones PO Box 942849 Room 3141 Sacramento CA 94249

916-319-2071

Bill Quirk PO Box 942849 Room 2163 Sacramento CA 94249

916-319-2020

Anthony Rendon PO Box 942849 Room 5136 Sacramento CA 94249

916-319-2063

Donald Wagner PO Box 942849 Room 3098 Sacramento CA 94249

916-319-2068

Shirley Weber PO Box 942849 Room 6026 Sacramento CA 94249

916-319-2079

Jim Wood PO Box 942849 Room 5164 Sacramento CA 94249

916-319-2002

Perhaps the only causes worth fighting for are the lost causes. As Winston Churchill said “Never, never, never quit.” We may lose, but let’s not lose without a fight. Call all these reps and let your voice be heard. You’d be surprised how few phone calls they get each day. Your phone call does matter, don’t think it doesn’t. Please, if you do nothing else – make the phone call and help try to save small scale mining.

10

WMA Political Director, Rick Eddy, on the left on July 14th. Leaving the assembly hearing on SB 637. “We gave them our best effort.” Said Eddy. The frustrating slog of fighting legislation in the California capitol is carried on the back of people like Rick Eddy. Rick has fought every single anti-dredging bill. He has been tireless in his effort to defend suction dredgers, and it’s a thankless job. After losing battle after battle, Rick Eddy returns to the capital without being paid a dime, or even being reimbursed for his gas. One staffer commented the miners efforts in fighting SB 637 were better than the majority of paid lobbyists. Another staffer commented the miners were “his new heroes.” It is the unwillingness to quit, even in the face of hopeless odds which draws this praise from professional staff. We all owe a debt of gratitude to folks like Rick, who despite the odds continues to get up, off the mat, and gets back in the ring. Help support the folks like Rick Eddy who are fighting for all of us. Attend the hearings, provide your financial and moral support, and most of all – never lose faith. Like the Spartans at the Pass of Thermopylae we’ll fight it out to the end.

“The New Heroes.”

THANKS A special thanks goes out to the Republican members of both the California Senate and Assembly who have supported our efforts to defeat SB 637. A special thanks to Assembly Member Beth Gaines; Assembly Member Frank Bigelow and Senator Nielsen for supporting the miners.

SB 637 SET TO HALT DREDGING, HIGH BANKING AND EVEN SLUICE BOXES

The Sierra Fund’s personal agenda, and cozy relationship with legislative staff members, have driven the California legislature for over six years as she continues to repeatedly attack the small scale miner, while ignoring serious environmental effects caused by much larger operations. While four judges have ruled the State may not prohibit suction dredging, the eco-warriors have figured out an alternative path to a de-facto ban on the use of small scale mining equipment including suction dredges, high bankers, sluice boxes and pans. The scope of SB 637 was expanded in the latest amendment to include all “related” mining equipment to suction dredges. The generic nature of this statement will include any device you use in the rivers and subject this equipment to permitting requirements by both the California Water Board, and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. We’ve been told by the environmentalists their intention is to go after high banking, so it’s clear this bill is meant to kill both dredging and high banking. You may believe the federal preemption ruling would win the day, but this is a different approach by the environmentalists. They are not banning the equipment. However, to operate the equipment you’re now going to need two permits: you must have a permit from the Water Board (a discharge permit) and then you’ll need a permit from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. CDFW is prohibited from issuing you a suction dredge permit if you don’t have the necessary permits (or letters) from “other agencies” prior to seeking the CDFW permit. It’s conceivable, and the wording is within this bill the Water Board won’t be the only agency which you’ll need a permit for. There is also wording within this bill which could interpreted as needing the

permission of Indian tribes prior to operating. Still don’t think SB 637 is a threat? We’ve been told any river which currently has a US EPA Section 303D listing on it won’t receive a permit. These rivers include all the major dredging rivers such as the Yuba River. There are 3,490 303D listed water bodies in California. The Senate budget committee estimates an upfront cost of at least $600,000 to set up the Water Board permitting system and “unknown” costs of implementing and administering the program. At the same time Senator Allen claims this program will cost the State nothing because all costs will be covered by the miners. Oh, by the way, the bill also says all costs of the CDFW permitting program will be covered by the miners. If you do the quick math, there are at most 4,000 dredgers. With a combined program cost of over $2,000,000 between the Water Board and CDFW you divide $2,000,000 by 4,000 and you have a permit cost to run a suction dredge of $5,000 per year. That’s not prohibition is it? Even if you can pay that, the cost for the Section 1601 streambed alteration permit is going to be another $1,500. Are you starting to see what they’re doing? They’re working around “preemption” by making the task of obtaining a permit so hard that virtually no one will be able to do it, with the exception of the big mining companies who can afford to pay the costs of environmental reviews, paying off environmental groups and paying the permit cost. Your rights are being sold to the big companies. Do you want to save the value of your claim? Then help us out. Please contribute to our legal efforts. We can beat this bill through litigation, but its your responsibility to ensure there is someone left to litigate it.

Environmentalists seek revenge after preemption ruling in miners favor

13

SAMPLING OF RIVERS IN CALIFORNIA LISTED AS “IMPAIRED”

Klamath River Mad River Russian River Trinity River American River, North Fork Lower American River Bear Creek Bear River Butte Creek Calaveras River Cosumnes River Deer Creek Feather River Middle Fork Feather River North Fork Feather River South Fork

Horse Creek Humbug Creek Kanaka Creek Little Grizzly Creek Merced River Mokelumne River Pit River Sacramento River San Joaquin River Tuolumne River Willow Creek Yuba River North Fork Yuba River Middle Fork Yuba River South Fork

If SB 637 passes, and goes unchallenged through litigation any river which is listed as “impaired” will be automatically closed to suction dredging, high banking or any other type of mining activity. Likely to include the use of pans and sluice boxes. There are 3,490 impaired sections, or water bodies in California the above list is only a very short sample from the entire list of only the central valley region and the north coast region. We’ll post the complete list on our website. We must either defeat SB 637 in the legislature, or defeat it in the courts, but we must defeat it. If you have a claim on any of the above rivers, and you haven’t contributed to the fight. It’s your last chance to save your mining claim.

SB 637 SET TO HALT DREDGING, HIGH BANKING AND EVEN SLUICE BOXES

The WMA, New 49ers and PLP have been working together on the current litigation, and we’ll develop a strategy for litigating SB 637. A strategy which will consolidate our efforts under one organization, and a single legal bill. We’ve proven we can beat these people, with your continued help, we’ll win this. If you’ve been reading the newsletter for a few years then you know we expected this Water Board fight. We knew it was coming, and we knew who would do it – The Sierra Fund. Don’t sit there and let them get away with this, challenge their 501(c)(3). Write letters to the editor explaining what the Sierra Fund and Izzy Martin are really doing. Mercury in California is not a problem.

No one in California has ever been sickened from eating mercury tainted sport fish – ever. The Water Board reports on mercury in gold dredging areas show levels of mercury in fish are well below US EPA advisory thresholds and the most recent sampling of insects on the South Yuba River found mercury levels have increased since the dredging ban. It’s not about cleaning up mercury, but rather about groups being paid to clean up mercury. Something we were doing for free for sixty years. Mercury isn’t the problem, groups like the Sierra Fund are the problem. Let’s shine the light of day on them and watch them scurry.

Environmentalists seek revenge after preemption ruling in miners favor

IS THE SIERRA FUND CONDUCTING PROHIBITED LOBBYING?

The California Political Reform Act requires lobbyists to register with the California Secretary of State, it also requires any person who spends more than $5,000 in a calendar quarter (three months) on lobbying to influence legislation. A fair argument can be made that MS Martin of the Sierra Fund is heavily engaged in lobbying and her salary and costs while engaged in anti-mining lobbying would exceed $5,000 over the prior 3 months. It would be worthwhile to ask the California Secretary of State to determine whether MS Martin

is engaged in lobbying in violation of the Political Reform Act. You can request they look into this by writing a letter to: Secretary of State Political Reform Division P.O. Box 1467 1500 11th Street Sacramento, CA 95814-1467

LEGAL UPDATE

The Rinehart case just became significantly more important as it has drawn the attention of the Obama Administration. The State has relentlessly pursued prosecution of a young miner from the Bay Area, pursuing their aggressive prosecution all the way to the highest State court and threatening to take the case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. The California Supreme Court granted a request by the Obama Administration Solicitor General to extend the time for filing “Friend of the Court” briefings to 29 August to allow the United States Government time to file an amicus brief in the Rinehart case. We don’t believe this briefing, which will be prepared by DOJ attorney Lane McFadden, an environmental attorney, will be in support of the 1872 Mining Law. The risk of the Obama Administration stepping in is we believe they will be all too willing to give away any federal authorities related to mining, and we believe they will concede the State has the ability to

regulate mining out of existence. That is any mining which can’t afford to pay off the environmentalists to keep them from filing suit. Also during the past month the American Mining and Exploration Association, formerly the Northwest Mining Association, filed an excellent friend of the court briefing explaining the 1872 Mining Law, and subsequent changes to the law in support of Rinehart’s arguments in front of the Supreme Court. Donations are still needed to support the Rinehart case. You can send your donations directly to Rinehart’s lawyer at: James L. Buchal Murphy & Buchal LLP 3425 SE Yamhill Street, Suite 100 Portland, OR 97214 Phone: 503-227-1011

OBAMA ADMINISTRATION SET TO STEP INTO RINEHART FIGHT

JUDGE DENIES NEW 49ER REQUEST FOR RESTRAINING ORDER

After New 49er attorney James Buchal was prohibited from representing miners in Siskiyou County, the New 49ers sought relief from the State’s dredging ban through the San Bernardino court. On 9 July attorney James Buchal argued a request for a temporary restraining order to protect miners on the Klamath River from State prosecution.

After a brief hearing Judge Gilbert Ochoa denied the request and scheduled the issue for hearing on January 20th with the other consolidated cases.

tel:503-227-1011

tel:503-227-1011

tel:503-227-1011

tel:503-227-1011

tel:503-227-1011

LEGAL UPDATE

Judge Ochoa, of the San Bernardino Superior Court, has issued his order for the briefing and trial of all suction dredge related cases. All cases will be heard on the 20th of January 2016 beginning at 8:30 a.m. This hearing will be open to the public. Each of our cases will have one hour for briefing. The schedule from now until the trial date is: 31 August – Opening briefs due by the miners on

the CEQA case and the preemption case, as well as Keith Walker’s challenge to the constitutionality of the AB 120 and SB 1018.

17 November – The State’s response to our opening brief is due.

22 December – The miners reply to the State’s response is due

20 January 2016 – Trial date

SCHEDULE SET IN SAN BERNARDINO MINING LAWSUITS

16

THERE’S MORE THAN GOLD IN THOSE PITS

If you’ve spent much time in the Motherlode, then you’ve no doubt run across the old hydraulic pits. Many of these pits dot the landscape of the northern Motherlode reflecting the heady days of the gold rush when a small crew with a hydraulic monitor could literally move mountains – and they did. If you’ve ever prospected the old pits you’ve found them to be fairly devoid of gold, hot and a pretty frustrating way to spend your day with a metal detector. Some people have found some nice gold in the old hydraulic pits, but for the most part what you’re looking at is cobbles thrown out of the sluice box or washed out of the hillside. The gold bearing gravel was carefully washed into long sluice boxes, oftentimes through underground drain tunnels and any remaining gold is pretty small. If you’ve found unwashed gravel and sampled it you’ve probably discovered the majority of gold in the old pits was about the consistency of flour. Sometimes, and it’s happened, people will find sizeable gold embedded in a cobble which was thrown out of the sluice, or bits of gold embedded in the bedrock under the cobbles, but for the most part the pits have been hit pretty hard with metal detectors. I gave up on the pits a long time ago, but I still find them interesting. More often than not I find myself crossing hydraulic pits as a way to get where I’m going. I don’t pull out the metal detector anymore,

but I still enjoy trying to figure out how they worked the pit, and what was going on. A few months ago we published an article on the Calaveras Skull, which some believe is a fake, and some believe is genuine. If genuine it throws the entire geologic record off, but there is some pretty good evidence for the presence of mammals in the tertiary gravels. This is inconsistent with what the experts say should be there. According to J.D. Whitney, in his book “The Auriferous Gravels of the Sierra Nevada”, the age of the bedrock in the Sierra Nevada is from 252 million to 62 million years old. This observation is based, according to Whitney, on the complete lack of fossils older than 299 million years. The age of the channels, according to Whitney, are generally accepted to be from the Tertiary period which spanned from 65 million years ago to 1.5 million years ago. The Tertiary period is also known as the period in which mammals first began their ascent. Whichever way you slice it the age of the gravels is considered to be very old, at least 1.5 million years old. Which makes it all the more surprising to find bones from recently extinct mammals within the gravels.

Picture of a Gold Rush hydraulic pit


There were consistent reports from miners of finding bones from mammoths and other creatures which were thought to have lived as recently as 4,500 years ago. There are also reports of finding associated human artifacts within the gravels including the discovery of artifacts in drift mines, where there could be no surface disturbance. Reading about fossil mammal bones in the gravels, and finding these fossils yourself are two different things, but recently I came across what appears to be a fossilized section of backbone from some type of mammal. My find doesn’t really prove anything because it was in a section of the hydraulic pit which was already worked over pretty thoroughly, and well disturbed, but it does convince me mammals existed alongside the Tertiary gravels, proving at least to me the Tertiary gravels aren’t that old. I’ve had this discussion before with other miners, and in general we agree the Tertiary gravels are fairly recent, and the gold present in those gravels likely comes from within a few miles of the crest of the Sierras. This theory runs counter to what the experts believe, but if you’ve paid careful attention to the hydraulic pits you start to believe this position may be true. If you start at the crest of the Sierras and look at the pits closest to the crest you’ll find the quartz boulders are of enormous size, but even within the span of a few miles as you work down the slope you find they rapidly become smaller and smaller until within only twenty miles of the crest you have cobbles pretty consistently the size of softballs.

Fossilized vertebrae found in a hydraulic pit

From a gold miner perspective we know the heaviest boulders settle out first in the river, then the rocks get progressively smaller as you go down river. Big rocks, big gold they say and this holds true in the pits. If you find a pit, or drift mine, with big boulders, it’s likely they were getting big gold. If you’ve observed the unwashed portions of the channel you’ll notice the majority of the lower gravels (the Blue Lead) are very fine, and the gold within them is very fine. It may be abundant, but it’s very fine. Some theorize the gold in the tertiary channels is actually from within a few miles of the crest where the old rivers gouged out huge veins of quartz which then, through the action of the rivers, was broken into smaller and smaller pieces freeing the gold and depositing the gold in the placer deposits. The old pits have millions of cobbles, not just of quartz. Carefully scanning the cobbles its possible you may find some interesting rocks. I recently picked up a couple of cobbles which appeared to have either copper or turquoise embedded in them (forgot my geology book), and some good specimens of black quartz.


I’ve seen specimens of copper the old pits and I’ve heard of other minerals being found, but until recently I didn’t pay much attention to the cobbles. On one river I have claims on I find nice purple garnets in large quantities in the lower portions of the river, but none in the upper portions, which tells me the garnets were eroded by the modern river. The hydraulic pits are time capsules waiting for your exploration. There’s more to explore in a hydraulic pit than just looking for gold. After a few visits you’ll be able to read the history of the mining. In many of the places you can see the old tertiary gravels were actually exposed, and it took very little washing to get to the gold. If you carefully observe the progress of work you can see they started shallow and worked their way to the deeper overburden until the edge of the pit was a 200 foot wall of overburden. The tertiary gravels aren’t the only place the old miners used hydraulic power. In some places of the Sierras you can find curious piles of overburden with no tertiary gravels. It takes a little head scratching to figure out what they were doing but if you look closely you can see they were washing a hillside to expose a quartz vein. The dead giveaway is large chunks of exposed quartz which almost looks like it was mined, but not quite. Often you’ll see sections of hydraulic pipe and your first inclination is to believe it was a hydraulic pit which didn’t hit the tertiary gravel, but that never happened. They knew what they were doing.

Apparent turquoise cobble found in a hydraulic pit

There’s an awful lot to see and do out there, and quite often you can learn some lessons from the old timers. One thing is undisputable, they knew how to find the gold. The next time you pass by one of these pits you may want to stop and do a little rock hounding. It’s hard to tell what you’ll find. Perhaps you’ll be the one to find the definitive proof of the age of the tertiary channels. Happy hunting.

Nice piece of black quartz found amongst the cobbles

Want to Help But Don’t Know What to Do?

Every dollar helps us, whether it’s $5 or $500 we really need your help over the next six months, the fate of dredging and small scale mining is on the line. Now is the time to step up and help us pay for both the appeal of the injunction and the CEQA legal case. Selecting “continuing donation” really helps us out. Join the WMA and support what we’re doing both our lobbying and our legal

efforts

Write and call your opposition to Senate Bill 637 and Senate Bill 209

The list of committee members is on the next page

Use the IRS Form attached to the newsletter to file a complaint against the Sierra

Fund for excessive anti-mining lobbying

Write the California Secretary of State and request they evaluate whether MS

Martin of the Sierra Fund is engaged in prohibited activities under the California

Political Reform Act

Attend the Assembly Appropriations Committee hearing and voice your opposition

Visit the office of The Sierra Fund and speak with MS Martin about her efforts to

ban mining

Attend the WMA fund raising event in Nevada City

Support the Rinehart case by providing financial donations

STOP THE SIERRA FUND

March 4, 2008 – The Sierra Fund lobbies a joint

committee meeting in capital consisting of the Water and Parks; Natural Resources and Environmental Safety pushing for increased funding for toxic mine cleanups.

In the 2008 Sierra Fund annual report they state

“The Sierra Fund is a regular presence in the State Capitol, working with Senate and Assembly committees that oversee natural resource management.” This is also called lobbying.

May 2008 –The Sierra Fund and Sierra Nevada

Alliance sponsored their seventh annual Sierra Day in the Capitol putting citizen lobbyists “in every legislative office.” The primary objective was to lobby for funding for environmental projects. According to the Sierra Fund the results of this lobbying was “full funding for the Sierra Nevada Conservancy.”

2008 – The Sierra Fund states their top legislative priority is changing the laws which regulate suction dredging.

2008 – The Sierra Fund states, The Sierra Fund maintained contact with the office of US Senator Feinstein, who subsequently introduced $105 million for abandoned mine cleanup into the recently-passed American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. This funding is a great opportunity to create “green” jobs for rural Sierra communities to improve California’s water quality while protecting community health.

April 28, 2009 In Sierra Fund sponsored legislation,

Sierra Fund CEO Izzy Martin lobbies the Senate Natural Resources committee to pass the original ban on dredging SB 670.

May 2009 – The Sierra Fund issues an “Action Alert” telling their members and supporters to lobby the legislature to pass SB 670, which banned suction dredge mining.

Federal and State laws Provide Important Safeguards Against Prohibited Lobbying by “Non-Profits”

Both the Internal Revenue Service, and the California Secretary of State review the activities of groups claiming non-profit status. Excessive lobbying is prohibited. We are providing the following documentation of The Sierra Funds lobbying efforts, it’s up to you to officially ask the question whether this violates the rules for retaining non-profit status. At the end of the newsletter we have attached the IRS complaint form. Use it.

The Sierra Funds lobbying efforts over the past few years to influence anti-mining legislation includes at a minimum the following:

The Sierra Fund EIN: 68-0485725


June 2009 – Izzy Martin lobbies the senate to pass SB 670.

June 14th 2009 – The Sierra fund tells their

members and supporters to lobby the governor to sign SB 670, which banned suction dredging.

October 2009 – Prior long term assembly member

responsible for the bill which created the Sierra Nevada Conservancy, is appointed to the Board of the Sierra Fund. He later becomes Secretary of the Resources Agency.

November 2011 – In comments Secretary of

Natural Resources acknowledge the key lobbying work the Sierra Fund did in establishing the Sierra Nevada Conservancy, an agency which allocates taxpayer dollars of which the Sierra Fund is a recipient.

November 7, 2011 – Governor Brown attends

Sierra Fund event where the Sierra Fund continues to lobby for increased funding for environmental causes.

March 15, 2012 – The Sierra Fund states they have

been very active in the capital lately, and state they participated in a legislative briefing on mercury, and also claim they met with a number of legislators and the governor’s staff.

February 2012 – The Sierra Fund works with six

legislators to prepare their comments in support of the suction dredging ban including: Senators Pavley, Wolk, Evans and Assembly members Blumenfeld and Gordon.

2012 – The Sierra Fund lobbies the legislature for

changes to the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act, attempting to change the language to consolidate control over surface mining from the counties, which support it, to the State, which doesn’t.

August 2012 – The Sierra Fund issues a press

release which states “Legislation that the Sierra Fund sponsored to strengthen the Surface Mining and Reclamation Action (sic) (SMARA), Senate Bill 143 passed the Senate floor yesterday…”The Sierra Fund and the governor’s office worked closely with Mr. Rubio in developing this bill and we are thrilled with its passage.” Note Sierra Fund CEO Izzy Martin.

November 2012, The Sierra Fund states they have

been working with the legislature to amend the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act through SB 143, while at the same time lobbying against SB 1609 which would have provided some relief to miners.

24 June 2013 – The Sierra Fund sponsors a

lobbying event by inviting California legislators to tour abandoned mine sites. The Sierra Fund press release states, “The tour gave a demonstration of the Combie Reservoir sediment and mercury removal project sponsored by the Nevada Irrigation District, and funded by the Sierra Nevada Conservancy, for which the Sierra Fund is advocating increased investment.”

August 2013 – The Sierra Fund advises their

members and supporters to lobby for additional money for abandoned mine cleanup.

January 21, 2014 – The Sierra Fund sponsors, pays

for and hosts the annual Sierra Fund Legislative Reception in Sacramento.

March 2015 – SB 673. Senator Allen’s staff

acknowledges the Sierra Fund is the sponsor (author) of Senate Bill 673 which would create duplicative regulatory procedures for suction dredging and increase costs to miners.


March 12, 2015 – The Sierra Fund issues a press release noting their lobbying to introduce SB 209, which once again attempts to modify SMARA to make mining more difficult.

April 2, 2015 – Sierra Fund posters noted in the Senate Natural Resources committee office.

April 14th, 2015 Izzy Martin lobbies the Senate Natural Resources committee for passage of SB 637.

April 22, 2015 – Izzy Martin lobbies Senator Allen’s staff urging continued support of SB 637. The same day she state’s she was meeting with the governor of California.

April 28, 2015 – Izzy Martin lobbies the Senate

Environmental Quality committee in support of SB 637.

July 10th, 2015 – Izzy Martin lobbies legislature in support of Senate Bill 209, an anti-mining bill

July 13th, 2015 – Izzy Martin again in the California capitol lobbying in support on Senate Bill 637, an anti-suction dredging bill

July 14th, 2015 – Izzy Martin in the Assembly committee meeting lobbying to pass Senate Bill 637, a bill which the Sierra Fund sponsored and provided extensive support in writing language and briefings

IS THE SIERRA FUND REALLY A LOBBYING GROUP?

The California Political Reform Act requires lobbyists to register with the California Secretary of State, it also requires any person who spends more than $5,000 in a calendar quarter (three months) on lobbying to influence legislation. A fair argument can be made that MS Martin of the Sierra Fund is heavily engaged in lobbying and her salary and costs while engaged in anti-mining lobbying would exceed $5,000 over the prior 3 months. It would be worthwhile to ask the California

Secretary of State to determine whether MS Martin is engaged in lobbying in violation of the Political Reform Act. You can request they look into this by writing a letter to: Secretary of State Political Reform Division P.O. Box 1467 1500 11th Street Sacramento, CA 95814-1467

Had we not challenged the EIR with our own lawsuit then the only lawsuit against the EIR would be the environmentalists who claim the EIR and the resulting regulations didn’t go far enough in stopping suction dredging. The environmentalist’s objective is to force a separate environmental study on every single mining claim prior to allowing a suction dredge permit. They want to re-do the EIR to make it even worse than it is. If we weren’t standing in the way, they would likely achieve their goal of doing this. This, by the way, is the first time the miners have filed a CEQA lawsuit. CEQA is the favorite tool of the environmentalists. Even though we’ve won the preemption argument we’re still not dredging. What’s standing in the way? The EIR. We must defeat the EIR. All regulations will be based on the EIR and the “significant” effects such as mercury, which were listed in the EIR. The outcome of the Rinehart case will have significant ramifications for the 20 January trial cases, but one thing will remain – CEQA. Preemption or not we must win CEQA. If the ruling for preemption goes our way in the Supreme Court it’s likely they will follow the ruling of Granite Rock which said the State has the right to “regulate.” Those regulations will be based on the CDFW EIR, and likely will also be based on the EIR the Water Board must do, or the Water Board can simply use the Water Quality section of the existing EIR. It’s critical we win the CEQA case AND the preemption case. We’re asking for your support as we prepare for trial. We’ve been doing this for free for three years, all we’re asking for is help paying the lawyer on behalf of the entire small scale mining community. Please step up and help us pay our lawyer bills. We’d sure appreciate it.

WMA PRESIDENTS COMMENTS

Over the next few weeks we’ll be writing our opening brief for the CEQA case. Our lawsuit challenges the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) which has been used time and time again against us. Every time we see a statement from the State or the eco-warriors we see them referring to the “Significant and Unavoidable” impacts found in the EIR. Challenging an EIR is difficult. The lawsuit must be filed within 30 days of the EIR going final. You must participate in the entire EIR process and have voiced your objections within that process. The administrative record, which is the complete listing of all documents associated with the EIR, is over 10,000 pages in volume. The CEQA body of law is complex and confusing and there are lawyers who specialize in nothing but CEQA. We’re up to the challenge, and we’re going to win the CEQA case. Our objective is to void the EIR and have it thrown out completely. It was rigged by the environmentalists, and we won’t stand by and let them get away with it. Meanwhile the environmentalists have their own challenge to the EIR. Ironically, we’re on the same side as the environmentalists for this legal fight, with one big exception.

The Lost Pick Mine

A store in early day Phoenix was more than a place that sold soap, sugar and pick handles. It was a club of sorts, and Salt River Valley farmers, prospectors from the hills, vagrant politicians, philosophers like Darrell Duppa and promoters like Jack Swilling were the members. In the late 1870s two prospectors, remembered only as Brown and Davies, were lounging about just such a store when an Indian, apparently well-known to the proprietor, stopped and paid for a pack horse loaded with provisions with gold nuggets. He was a Yavapai the store man told Brown and his partner. He lives in a canyon, maybe 50 miles north of here. Maybe he is a hermit Indian or maybe he is an emissary for a band living livng there. Anyway, he comes in about once a year and always has enough gold nuggets to pay for what he wants.

Story by Bill Southern of Nugget Shooter, reprinted with permission

Long months of working the hills and arroyos of eastern Arizona had been fruitless ones for Brown and Davies. Here, perhaps, was a clue to the bonanza that had eluded them for so long. They followed the Indian out of the little town on the, traversing north by northwest. They noted red-brown mountains on their right: looking back into the valley they realized they had been climbing steadily. They camped on the grassy heights and their second day found them in higher, rougher country. the mountains loomed larger now, some of them black and forbidding - malpais from an ancient lava flow The Indian and his pack horse were always in sight: he made no effort to vanish from their view, as he easily could have done. Whether he was leading them into a trap or was unaware that they were trailing him is a question for folklorists to ponder. The going became slower. the saguaro and sandy slopes gave way to broken rock an low-growing mesquite on the gulch floors. They crossed three washes, now known as Skunk Creek, New River and the Agua Fria, and rode into the vastness of Black Canyon. There were high mountains on the west; on their right was a towering hillside so steep that it appeared to be a cliff. It topped out into a rolling mesa and precipitous arroyos led into it. The Indian headed into one of these arroyos and disappeared, but Brown and Davies followed what seemed to be a likely course. They crossed the mesa and dropped into another canyon, this one a tributary to the Agua Fria. They searched the canyon and the draws that fed it.

The Lost Pick Mine They had forgotten about the danger of Indians while they were amassing their small fortune-but the Indians hadn't forgotten them. A hostile band [probably Yavapais] jumped them. Davis fell dead in the first burst of gunfire and Brown dropped to the ground, rolling into a thicket. The Indians, always unpredictable warriors, rode away. Brown hid the ore bags under a pile of rocks near an outcropping of white volcanic ash on the east side of the arroyo. He marked the spot with a miners pick and riding at night made out of the canyon and on to California.

Many years later, when he was a very old man, Brown returned to Phoenix, certain he could find his way into the canyon, but h fell ill and died, telling the story of his lost mine on his deathbed. More years passed. A herder learned the story of the lost bonanza and recalled that, while he was riding east of the Agua Fria, he had seen a rusty pick in an outcropping of white rock, but the Bradshaws and the adjoining hills and canyons are full of mining relics and he thought nothing of it.

THE CLOSING STATEMENT

Fascism is usually associated with the right, but can the left be fascists? We’re witnessing the pitfalls of a one party system in California. Do you really believe we have representative government anymore? Is it representative government when one person, from one small environmental group (2 people) can introduce four bills which ban dredging and destroy small miners while only profiting that one small group? When only four environmental extremists speak in support of a bill, while nearly forty miners speak against it, and the bill passes by a strong majority? That’s ten times more people opposed to the bill than in support of it. How does a representative from Beverly Hills push forward an anti-dredging bill? Has he seen a suction dredge? Has he been on the Yuba River watching a dredge? Call him and ask? Or better yet go to his office and ask. The real question is how does this happen. If you were at the July 14th hearing you know exactly how it happens. During the committee hearing there were at best only a minority of members present. If you watched the democrats as we spoke in opposition to the bill they were busy texting or looking at their phones. It was clear they could care a less what we had to say.

The rules in the committee hearing suddenly changed after we blasted the statements of the Sierra Fund’s Izzy Martin. We directly challenged her misrepresentations and presented the facts on mercury. For the previous six bills the committee chairman held fast to his rule of two speaking in support, and two in opposition. After we finished the rules changed to allow Izzy Martin to return and rebut our facts with a simple erroneous statement that “All rivers, lakes and streams in the STATE exceed the threshold for mercury contamination.” Without a single shred of evidence and her statement is in direct contradiction to EVERY Water Board study. This was an uncomfortable moment, and one in which we were rewarded by one of the committee members saying our comments were “over the top.” Really, when is the truth over the top, but lies aren’t over the top? To lie to achieve your goals we don’t put past them. They’ve been doing it for a long time, and not being challenged. The long term solution isn’t continued litigation, it’s to deal with the root of the problem which is the Sierra Fund. There’s a lot you can do to stand up to this group, but it starts with your desire to do it. Stop this. Write your representative and tell them the truth. Write letters to editor and expose what the Sierra Fund is doing, speak to the businesses who are supporting the Sierra Fund and tell them what they are doing to small miners. You’d be surprised at who supports the Sierra Fund –Tiechart Materials? The Nevada Irrigation District, Sierra Nevada Brewery. Do something, don’t wait for someone else to pick up the fight, this is your fight to and the more voices in this fight the stronger we are. Start by simply filling out the form at the back of the newsletter and submitting it. 28

SUPPORT THOSE WHO ARE SUPPORTING THE FIGHT

It’s summer time and we’re out on the claims, where we all should be, therefore this brief newsletter to provide a quick update. You can expect nothing of importance to happened the rest of the summer. The major event has already happened. With some awful rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court this past week, the passage of the Trans Pacific Trade Agreement we’re in a pretty tough position for saving freedom. Please support the folks who are trying to make a living by supporting miners. The following pages are some of the businesses which support mining, support miners and are helping us fight back against government overreach.

30

Our online store is www.SierraRivers.com. Through the store you can purchase products which help us fund the legal fight. If you appreciate what we’re doing, but just don’t want to join an organization then at least help us out by buying some gold, a Claims Report, bumper stickers or you can even request a custom report. Just buy something to help fund the lawyer. Every dollar goes to support the fight, we don’t pay ourselves a dime.

We’ve still got some gold available for purchase. Help pay the lawyer and invest in some Yuba River gold.

http://www.sierrarivers.com/

33

Nice 1/3 oz nugget found by WMA Member while working under water in July

To the right is a picture of an old gold rush era beam with a solid metal spike still in it. Found nearby were several similar beams and multiple other spikes. Unknown mining activity at this location. Will require a follow up trip. Below is a Dahlke dredge at work in shallow water.

35

TEXT OF SENATE BILL 637

Introduced by Senator Allen February 27, 2015 An act to amend Section 5653 of the Fish and Game Code, and to add Section 13172.5 to the Water Code, relating to dredging. LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST SB 637, as amended, Allen. Suction dredge mining: permits. Existing law prohibits the use of any vacuum or suction dredge equipment by any person in any river, stream, or lake of this state without a permit issued by the Department of Fish and Wildlife. Existing law requires, before any person uses any vacuum or suction dredge equipment in any river, stream, or lake of this state, that person to submit an application for a permit for a vacuum or suction dredge to the department specifying certain information. Existing law requires the department to issue a permit, if the department determines that the use of a vacuum or suction dredge will not be deleterious to fish, upon the payment of a specified fee. Existing law designates the issuance of permits to operate vacuum or suction dredge equipment to be a project under the California Environmental Quality Act and suspends the issuance of permits and mining pursuant to a permit until the department has completed an environmental impact report for the project as ordered by the court in a specified court action. Existing law prohibits the use of any vacuum or suction dredge equipment in any river, stream, or lake of this state until the Director of Fish and Wildlife makes a prescribed certification to the Secretary of State, including certifying that new regulations fully mitigate all identified significant environmental impacts and that a fee structure is in place that will fully cover all costs to the department related to the administration of the program. This bill would require the department to issue a permit if the department determines that the use does not cause any significant effects to fish and wildlife and would authorize the department to adjust the specified fee to an amount sufficient to cover all reasonable

costs of the department in regulating suction dredging activities. This bill would prohibit the department from issuing a permit until the permit application is deemed complete, as prescribed. Under existing law, the State Water Resources Control Board and the California regional water quality control boards prescribe waste discharge requirements in accordance with the Federal Water Pollution Control Act and the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (state act). The state act, with certain exceptions, requires a waste discharger to file certain information with the appropriate regional board and to pay an annual fee. The state act additionally requires a person, before discharging mining waste, to submit to the regional board a report on the physical and chemical characteristics of the waste that could affect its potential to cause pollution or contamination and a report that evaluates the potential of the mining waste discharge to produce acid mine drainage, the discharge or leaching of heavy metals, or the release of other hazardous substances. This bill would authorize, would, after the director has made the prescribed certification to the Secretary of State, State and after prescribed public hearings and workshops, authorize the state board or a regional board to adopt waste discharge requirements that address water quality impacts of specified issues, specify certain conditions or areas where the discharge of waste from a suction dredge is prohibited, or prohibit particular methods of suction dredge mining if the state board or regional board makes a certain determination. The bill would specify that a suction dredge is equipment used for mining operations that contains any of specified components for purposes of permits issued by the department and for purposes of the regulatory process established by the state board or a regional board.

36


Bill Text The people of the State of California do enact as follows: SECTION 1. The Legislature finds and declares all of the following: (a) In 2009, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed Senate Bill 670 (Chapter 62 of the Statutes of 2009) which established a temporary ban on suction dredge mining until after a court-ordered environmental review was completed. (b) The Department of Fish and Wildlife draft regulations and draft environmental impact report were issued in February 2011. The draft environmental impact report identified nine significant and unmitigable impacts from suction dredge mining. The report concluded that suction dredge mining for gold mobilizes and discharges toxic levels of mercury, harming drinking water quality and potentially poisoning fish and wildlife, harms fish, amphibians, and songbirds by disrupting habitat, and causes substantial adverse changes statewide in American Indian cultural and historical resources. (c) In July 2011, the Legislature enacted Assembly Bill 120 (Chapter 133 of the Statutes of 2011), extending the prohibition on suction dredge mining until 2016, and requiring the department to create a fee structure that would cover all of its administrative costs relating to suction dredge mining. (d) In 2012, the Legislature acted again on suction dredge mining by enacting Senate Bill 1018 (Chapter 39 of the Statutes of 2012), which eliminated the sunset provision from Assembly Bill 120. Senate Bill 1018 also directed the department to consult with various agencies and to provide recommendations to the Legislature by April 1, 2013, regarding statutory changes or authorizations necessary for the department to promulgate suction dredge regulations. Those recommendations were to include ways to fully mitigate all identified significant environmental impacts and a fee structure to cover the department’s costs of administering the program.

(e) On April 1, 2013, the department submitted the required report to the Legislature. The department considers the environmental impact report on its proposed suction dredge mining regulatory permit program to be the most comprehensive review of suction dredge mining ever compiled in California. The report identified impacts that the department said could not be mitigated within its legal authorities. (f) In January 2015, the San Bernardino Superior Court issued a tentative ruling that state-issued suction dredge mining permits could not be required on federal land. The court noted that, while the state clearly has the power to issue suction dredge mining permits, the state’s refusal or inability to issue the permits creates an obstacle to conforming with federal law. (g) Given the importance of protecting the water supply for all Californian’s Californians from degradation, the need to protect what is left of California native cultural sites, and the value of protecting the state’s wildlife, it is urgent that the Legislature act immediately to clarify the laws regulating suction dredge mining and other related forms of small scale motorized gold mining in the state’s streams and waterways. SEC. 2. Section 5653 of the Fish and Game Code is amended to read: 5653. (a) The use of a vacuum or suction dredge equipment by a person in a river, stream, or lake of this state is prohibited, except as authorized under a permit issued to that person by the department in compliance with the regulations adopted pursuant to Section 5653.9. Before a person uses a vacuum or suction dredge equipment in a river, stream, or lake of this state, that person shall submit an application for a permit for a vacuum or suction dredge to the department, specifying the type and size of equipment to be used and other information as the department may require.

37


(b) (1) The department shall not issue a permit for a vacuum or suction dredge until the permit application is deemed complete. A complete permit application shall include copies of all required permits, including permits required under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. Sec. 1251 et seq.) and the Water Code, and any other applicable permit required to fully mitigate all identified significant environmental impacts pursuant to regulations adopted under subdivision (b) of Section 5653.1. (2) If the State Water Resources Control Board or the appropriate regional water quality control board determines that no water quality or water rights permit is necessary for the use of a vacuum or suction dredge, a letter stating this determination signed by the Executive Director of the State Water Resources Control Board, the executive officer of the appropriate regional water quality control board, or their designee shall be part of the permit application. (3) For the purpose of the Permit Streamlining Act (Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 65920) of Division 1 of Title 7 of the Government Code), the department shall not deem the permit application complete until the applicant submits all necessary permits and any required letters to the department as part of the permit application. (c) Under the regulations adopted pursuant to Section 5653.9, the department shall designate waters or areas wherein vacuum or suction dredges may be used pursuant to a permit, waters or areas closed to those dredges, the maximum size of those dredges that may be used, and the time of year when those dredges may be used. If the department determines, pursuant to the regulations adopted pursuant to Section 5653.9, that the use of a vacuum or suction dredge does not cause any significant effects to fish and wildlife, it shall issue a permit to the applicant. If a person operates equipment other than that authorized by the permit or

conducts the operation in any waters or area or at any time that is not authorized by the permit, or if any person conducts the operation without securing the permit, that person is guilty of a misdemeanor. (d) (1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), the department shall issue a permit upon the payment, in the case of a resident, of a base fee of twenty-five dollars ($25), as adjusted under Section 713, when an onsite investigation of the project size is not deemed necessary by the department, and a base fee of one hundred thirty dollars ($130), as adjusted under Section 713, when the department deems that an onsite investigation is necessary. Except as provided in paragraph (2), in the case of a nonresident, the base fee shall be one hundred dollars ($100), as adjusted under Section 713, when an onsite investigation is not deemed necessary, and a base fee of two hundred twenty dollars ($220), as adjusted under Section 713, when an onsite investigation is deemed necessary. (2) The department may adjust the base fees for a permit described in this subdivision to an amount sufficient to cover all reasonable costs of the department in regulating suction dredging activities. (e) It is unlawful to possess a vacuum or suction dredge in areas, or in or within 100 yards of waters, that are closed to the use of vacuum or suction dredges. (f) For purposes of this section and Section 5653.1, a suction dredge is equipment used for mining operations that contains any of the following: (1) A hose that vacuums sediment from the bed or bank of a river, stream, or lake. (2) A motorized pump. (3) A motorized sluice box. (4) Related small-scale mechanized mining equipment.

38


SEC. 3. Section 13172.5 is added to the Water Code, to read: 13172.5. (a) After the Director of Fish and Wildlife has certified to the Secretary of State that all of the events described in subdivision (b) of Section 5653.1 of the Fish and Game Code have occurred, and after conducting appropriate workshops and hearings pursuant to subdivision (b), the state board or a regional board may take one or more of the following actions: (1) Adopt waste discharge requirements that, at a minimum, address the water quality impacts of each of the following: (A) Mercury loading to downstream reaches of surface water bodies affected by suction dredge mining. (B) Methylmercury formation in water bodies. (C) Bioaccumulation of mercury in aquatic organisms. (D) Resuspension of metals. (2) Specify certain conditions or areas where the discharge of waste from suction dredge mining is prohibited, consistent with Section 13243. (3) Prohibit any particular methods of suction dredge mining that the state board or a regional board determines generally cause or contribute to an exceedance of applicable water quality objectives or unreasonably impact beneficial uses. (b) (1) Before determining what action to take pursuant to subdivision (a), the state board or regional board shall solicit stakeholder input by conducting at least one public workshop. If the state board is soliciting stakeholder input, the state board shall conduct the

public workshops in areas of the state where, in 2009, a substantial number of residents held a suction dredge mining permit issued by the Department of Fish and Wildlife. To promote participation in the public workshops, the state board or regional board shall proactively reach out to mining groups, environmental organizations, and California Native American tribes, as defined in Section 21073 of the Public Resources Code. (2) Before taking a proposed action pursuant to subdivision (a), the state board shall conduct at least two public hearings, and the regional board at least one public hearing, regarding that proposed action. (3) To avoid duplication of efforts between the state board and a regional board of a public workshop or public hearing that covers the same regional area, the state board and a regional board may work in collaboration to share information obtained through the public workshop or public hearing. (b) (c) For purposes of this section, a suction dredge is equipment used for mining operations that contains any of the following: (1) A hose that vacuums sediment from the bed or bank of a river, stream, or lake. (2) A motorized pump. (3) A motorized sluice box. (4) Related small-scale mechanized mining equipment.

Form 13909 (August 2007)

Department of the Treasury — Internal Revenue Service

Tax-Exempt Organization Complaint (Referral) Form

1. NAME OF REFERRED ORGANIZATION:

Street Address:

City/State/Zip Code:

Date of Referral:

2. ORGANIZATION’S EMPLOYER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (EIN):

3. NATURE OF VIOLATION:

Directors/officers/persons are using income/assets for personal gain

Organization is engaged in commercial, for-profit business activities

Income/assets are being used to support illegal or terrorist activities

Organization is involved in a political campaign

Organization is engaged in excessive lobbying activities

Organization refused to disclose or provide a copy of Form 990

Organization failed to report employment, income, or excise tax liability properly

Organization failed to file required federal tax returns and forms

Organization engaged in deceptive or improper fundraising practices

Other (describe):

4. DETAILS OF VIOLATION:

Name(s) of Person(s) Involved:

Organizational Title(s):

Date(s):

Dollar Amount(s) (if known):

Description of activities:

5. SUBMITTER INFORMATION:

Name:

Occupation or Business:

Street Address:

City/State/Zip Code:

Telephone:

I am concerned that I might face retaliation or retribution if my identity is disclosed.

6. SUBMISSION AND DOCUMENTATION: The completed form, along with any supporting documentation, may be mailed to IRS EO Classification, Mail Code 4910DAL, 1100 Commerce Street Dallas, TX 75242-1198, faxed to 214-413-5415 or emailed to [email protected].

Catalog Number 50614A www.irs.gov Form 13909 (08-2007)

of 2

TAX EXEMPT ORGANIZATION COMPLAINT (REFERRAL) INSTRUCTIONS

General Information

The information provided on this form will help the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) determine if there has been a violation of federal tax law. Submission of this form is voluntary.

Upon receipt of this form, the IRS will send you a letter acknowledging receipt of the information you submitted. If at a later date you wish to submit additional information regarding the organization, please attach a copy of the form initially submitted, and send it to the address shown above.

Specific Instructions

1. ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS: Provide the current name and address of the organization. If the organization has used prior or multiple name(s) or address(es), also provide that information.

2. EMPLOYER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER: Provide the organization’s employer identification number (EIN). The EIN is a nine-digit number, issued by the IRS, that the organization uses for tax purposes (like a Social Security Number (SSN) for an individual). If the EIN is unavailable, include a state nonprofit corporation registration number, if available.

3. NATURE OF VIOLATION: Mark the description that describes the organization’s alleged violation. More than one line may apply. If none of the descriptions appear to apply, briefly state the issue on the Other line.

4. DETAILS OF THE VIOLATION: Provide specific details of the alleged violation including names, actions, places, amounts, dates, and the nature of any evidence or documentation (who, what, where, when, how). Include the names of other organizations, entities, or persons that may be involved with the organization, providing EINs or SSNs, if available.

5. YOUR INFORMATION: Provide your name, address, and business or occupation. Include your daytime telephone number, in case we wish to contact you. The acknowledgement letter will be sent to the address you provide.

If you are concerned that you may face retribution if your identity is disclosed, check the appropriate box. You may enter “Anonymous” for Submitter’s Name if you do not want to be identified.

6. SUBMISSION AND DOCUMENTATION: Mail the completed form, including any supporting documentation that you would like for us to review, to the address provided on the form. You may also fax or email the completed form and any supporting documentation to the fax number and email address provided on the form. Include a cover letter describing the documentation or evidence you are providing. If you have already received an acknowledgment letter, include a copy of that letter. If possible, please try to submit all documentation at the same time.

If your referral relates to a church please be aware that Congress has imposed special limitations, found in IRC section 7611, on how and when the IRS may conduct civil tax inquiries and examinations of churches. You can find out more about these special limitations in Pub. 1828, Tax Guide for Churches and Religious Organizations, in the section on Special Rules Limiting IRS Authority to Audit a Church.

7. CLAIM FOR REWARD: To claim a reward for providing this information to the IRS, file Form 211, Application for Reward for Original Information.

8. NOTE: Federal law prohibits the IRS from providing you with status updates or information about specific actions taken in response to the information you submit.

Catalog Number 50614A www.irs.gov Form 13909 (08-2007)

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1828.pdf

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f211.pdf

fighting the good fighttheminingalliance.com/newsletters/2015/july2015.pdfwater to the hopper and...

Documents