Public Workshops

[QNCrazy]

I just recieved this email regrding the public workshops.

This is a message from the State Water Resources Control Board.


Hello All:



State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) staff has posted a Public Notice for four upcoming workshops to solicit input from stakeholders and California Native American Tribal interests on how to regulate suction dredge mining at: State Water Resources Control Board.

The workshop Agenda and Frequently Asked Questions are also posted at this link.



Staff of the State Water Board and California Department of Fish and Wildlife will be conducting these workshops in accordance with the requirements of Senate Bill 637 which became effective on January 1, 2016. The four workshops will be held in Fresno on January 17, 2017; San Bernardino on January 18, 2017; Redding on January 25, 2017; and Sacramento on February 6, 2017. Please refer to the Public Notice for the times and locations of these workshops.



After the public workshops, State Water Board staff will draft recommendations on how to appropriately regulate suction dredge mining for consideration by the State Water Board. After staff has prepared the draft recommendations, staff will propose an additional workshop and an adoption hearing where stakeholders and California Native American Tribal interests may speak directly to the State Water Board. Staff will also provide additional opportunities to submit written comments on the proposed recommendations to regulate suction dredge mining.



For future email notifications and other communications from the State Water Board regarding this matter, please subscribe to the “Suction Dredge Mining” email notification list by following the link below, choosing the Water Quality list, and selecting "Suction Dredge Mining": State Water Resources Control Board.



Future email notifications on this matter will only be distributed via the “Suction Dredge Mining” email notification list.





Thank you,



State Water Resources Control Board

NPDES Program Staff

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Minelab PRO-FIND 35 Waterproof Pinpointer Metal Detector for Experts with Tone ID & Adjustable Sensitivity - Grab it through Amazon!

[Terry Soloman]

You AMRA members better get on the stick!

 

[QNCrazy]

Not an AMRA member myself. However, all miners should be attending these workshops. Not sure our input will make a difference.

 

[russau]

Well here it is ! Atleast its a offer to get something going ! Theyre probly going to lie to you and waste your time BUT if you don't go the offer will probly never happen again !

 

[Goldwasher]

Ill be at the Sacramento meeting. Its time that the groups start organizing the miners input, get everyone on the same page and show them we are gonna be all up in there business.

 

[QNCrazy]

Here are some sample questions that were attached to the agenda:

State Water Board staff is seeking public comment on potential regulatory actions which the Water
Boards may take to protect water quality from suction dredge mining impacts. Comments are
anticipated on equipment, practices, monitoring requirements, and targeted prohibitions. State
Water Board staff has prepared sample questions to initiate discussions on suction dredge mining
and water quality protection. Participating stakeholders and Tribal interests will have the
opportunity to comment on issues brought up during the discussions and to present any additional
issues at the public meetings.

 Should the State Water Board issue a permit? depends on size of equipment. The CFR definition for casual use says "It may include use of small portable suction dredges." so 2.5" or smaller should be waived, above 2.5 would require a permit."

 What types of equipment should be permitted for use? Suction Dredges and Highbankers.

 Should certain protective practices be required? If so, what kind? For Highbankers, a settling pond.

 Should monitoring be required? If so, what kind?? Monitoring should be conducted by the Mining Districts if they are establlished.

 What prohibitions, if any, should apply? For example, should the State Water Board:

o Prohibit the use of, or method of using, certain types of equipment? Only if an opreator is found to be negligent in their operations.

o Prohibit dredging where existing high concentrations or measures of mercury, sediment, turbidity, and/or trace metals impair the water body and impact its beneficial uses, such as:
 no dredging at all in such a water body or the impaired segment of the water body; or
 no dredging within a specified distance upstream of such water a body or a water body segment; We all know we remove the mercury, lead, and other metals, so this question is mute in my opinion. Additionally, Mohter nature creates more turbidity than we do.
o Prohibit dredging a specified distance upstream of drinking water system water intakes; I would take this into consideration say 1000'
o Prohibit dredging a specified distance from California Native American Tribal land boundaries; and/or no
o Prohibit dredging in waters with elevated fish or aquatic invertebrate tissue mercury levels. If the mercury levels are elevated I say we need to prioritize dredging in those areas to remove the mercury

I am curious to how you would answer these questions. If you choose to provide answers, please be serious. Also, please don't turn this into an battlegorund thread. I respect all of you and will respect your iniput.

 

[ratled]

These answers are flawed and should be avoided.!!!! Why are we the miners going against things we already have proved are not an issue and turning around and agreeing that they are!!!!?

Thinking like this is what will get... I can't even go on

SMALL SCALE MINING CAUSES NO ISSUES!!! I have the studies that actually state so... including those from the state of CA

ratled

Here are some sample questions that were attached to the agenda:

State Water Board staff is seeking public comment on potential regulatory actions which the Water
Boards may take to protect water quality from suction dredge mining impacts. Comments are
anticipated on equipment, practices, monitoring requirements, and targeted prohibitions. State
Water Board staff has prepared sample questions to initiate discussions on suction dredge mining
and water quality protection. Participating stakeholders and Tribal interests will have the
opportunity to comment on issues brought up during the discussions and to present any additional
issues at the public meetings.

 Should the State Water Board issue a permit? depends on size of equipment. The CFR definition for casual use says "It may include use of small portable suction dredges." so 2.5" or smaller should be waived, above 2.5 would require a permit."

 What types of equipment should be permitted for use? Suction Dredges and Highbankers.

 Should certain protective practices be required? If so, what kind? For Highbankers, a settling pond.

 Should monitoring be required? If so, what kind?? Monitoring should be conducted by the Mining Districts if they are establlished.

 What prohibitions, if any, should apply? For example, should the State Water Board:

o Prohibit the use of, or method of using, certain types of equipment? Only if an opreator is found to be negligent in their operations.

o Prohibit dredging where existing high concentrations or measures of mercury, sediment, turbidity, and/or trace metals impair the water body and impact its beneficial uses, such as:
 no dredging at all in such a water body or the impaired segment of the water body; or
 no dredging within a specified distance upstream of such water a body or a water body segment; We all know we remove the mercury, lead, and other metals, so this question is mute in my opinion. Additionally, Mohter nature creates more turbidity than we do.
o Prohibit dredging a specified distance upstream of drinking water system water intakes; I would take this into consideration say 1000'
o Prohibit dredging a specified distance from California Native American Tribal land boundaries; and/or no
o Prohibit dredging in waters with elevated fish or aquatic invertebrate tissue mercury levels. If the mercury levels are elevated I say we need to prioritize dredging in those areas to remove the mercury

I am curious to how you would answer these questions. If you choose to provide answers, please be serious. Also, please don't turn this into an battlegorund thread. I respect all of you and will respect your iniput.

 

[QNCrazy]

So are we to ingnore these workshops and not provide input? What is your suggestion? I realize that they probably already have a plan and there's not much we can do about it. Honestly, I just want to get a dredge back in the water as long as it's economically feasable. Maybe I should locate some claims in those counties that aren't prosecuting.

Clay, please provide some oversight on this.

 

[ratled]

No, do not ignore these meetings. Just be informed it what you are doing, ask the correct questions and make you appropriate objections crystal clear. There is no compromise with the state. I'll reserve my further comments for other than public forum

ratled

 

[Sam_at_Armadillo]

These answers are flawed and should be avoided.!!!! Why are we the miners going against things we already have proved are not an issue and turning around and agreeing that they are!!!!?

Thinking like this is what will get... I can't even go on

SMALL SCALE MING CAUSES NO ISSUES!!! I have the studies that actually state so... including those from the state of CA

ratled

You have a GRANTED RIGHT to work your minerals, with out unreasonable restrictions!

Someone PLEASE explain to me how all of the below questions are NOT unreasonable!!!


Sam

Should the State Water Board issue a permit? depends on size of equipment. The CFR definition for casual use says "It may include use of small portable suction dredges." so 2.5" or smaller should be waived, above 2.5 would require a permit."

 What types of equipment should be permitted for use? Suction Dredges and Highbankers.

 Should certain protective practices be required? If so, what kind? For Highbankers, a settling pond.

 Should monitoring be required? If so, what kind?? Monitoring should be conducted by the Mining Districts if they are establlished.

 What prohibitions, if any, should apply? For example, should the State Water Board:

o Prohibit the use of, or method of using, certain types of equipment? Only if an opreator is found to be negligent in their operations.

o Prohibit dredging where existing high concentrations or measures of mercury, sediment, turbidity, and/or trace metals impair the water body and impact its beneficial uses, such as:
 no dredging at all in such a water body or the impaired segment of the water body; or
 no dredging within a specified distance upstream of such water a body or a water body segment; We all know we remove the mercury, lead, and other metals, so this question is mute in my opinion. Additionally, Mohter nature creates more turbidity than we do.
o Prohibit dredging a specified distance upstream of drinking water system water intakes; I would take this into consideration say 1000'
o Prohibit dredging a specified distance from California Native American Tribal land boundaries; and/or no
o Prohibit dredging in waters with elevated fish or aquatic invertebrate tissue mercury levels. If the mercury levels are elevated I say we need to prioritize dredging in those areas to remove the mercury

 

[ClaimStake]

because it's crafted using the uneducated environmentalist mentalities. it doesn't take into account real hard science. it "implies" or "presumes" things that are proven to be incorrect.

also permitting and fees should only apply to commercial operations. as it doesn't "cost" the state a dime to do anything. srsly think about it what does the state have to do in regards to a dredger? they are already watching the fishers and boaters ect. paid for by the taxpayers. so what is it that a dredger needs to pay for that is costing the state anything?

isn't this the equivalent of unreasonable fines and fees.

 

[russau]

And if you do make a comment at these meetings , make sure you are 100% correct and don't give incorrect answer BECAUSE it WILL be used against us and itll be manipulated to suit their wants ,NOT OURS ! and if you comment ,always add a point of law to your answer ,so it would have to be included in any further action on their part or the courts.

 

[Goldwasher]

And hibanking has nothing to do with the bill don't let it get set in stone. This is about suction dredging

 

[ratled]

And hibanking has nothing to do with the bill don't let it get set in stone. This is about suction dredging

Not according to the DFW - ANY motorized equipment is including HB, gold cubes blue bowls etc. They have have been stopping miners for this since January

ratled

 

[Goldwasher]

sorry Ratled it does not say no hibanking, blue bowling or gold cubing or using a hookah...I know someone who uses a motor to blow material off bedrock..talked to dfw first hand and no ticket.. i'm sure you heard of people being stopped but, I doubt you or anyone can show evidence or give names of people stopped or cited for having a motor.

And there is a huge difference between some dude stopping because an leo told him he had to...and him actually having to!

 

[ratled]

Sorry GW, you aren't the one in the field enforcing the state's idea of what the laws states. If you would like to be Rinehart II please contact me off line so we can see what can done about it. Yes I have first hand information of DFW LEO contacts on exactly this the 1st record I have goes back to February 2016.

ratled

 

[Goldwasher]

contacts? A month into a new senate bill/law that doesn't even have the method of enforcement, or set rules yet or studies or workshops or EIR?...like I said fold like laundry get put in a dark closet.
Case number or it didn't happen...it is public record do share.

I could be Brandon 2.0 any day I'm not sweatin' it, been business as usual through this whole shindig. I'm not speaking up and taking part in the fight for something I "wish" I was doing.

 

[ratled]

Great thanks for stepping up. I will contact you off line.


ratled

contacts? A month into a new senate bill/law that doesn't even have the method of enforcement, or set rules yet or studies or workshops or EIR?...like I said fold like laundry get put in a dark closet.
Case number or it didn't happen...it is public record do share.

I could be Brandon 2.0 any day I'm not sweatin' it, been business as usual through this whole shindig. I'm not speaking up and taking part in the fight for something I "wish" I was doing.

 

[ClaimStake]

wasn't brandon's case over him dredging in a recreational area, not the fact that he was dredging? that was than made out to be about dredging.

correct me if i'm wrong.

 

[ratled]

Yes, Rinehart was about suction dredging and the want of a permit. SB 637 is a different ban and the withholding of a permit- that may or may not be required other than that law.

ratled

wasn't brandon's case over him dredging in a recreational area, not the fact that he was dredging? that was than made out to be about dredging.

correct me if i'm wrong.