BREAKING....

[goldhog]

Found it interesting...

House Votes to Reject EPA Stream Protection Rules

Doc

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

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

[russau]

BUT the epa can justify breaching a dam in a mine and letting the waste water run out and polluting the stream and then claim its time for a MAJOR cleanup! them hypocrite damocrarps ! The entire top level epa people NEED TO BE FIRED!

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Diving for Pleasure and Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!

[bedrock bubba]

There will be much gnashing of teeth and hand wringing amongs the Enviro nazis!

 

[crumbaker]

So could this change anything for dredging or high banking where it's currently banned?

 

[rodoconnor]

You'd better believe it !

 

[winners58]

now we just need to rope in the EPA like the Army corps 404 "any redeposit"
under the EPA 402 it regulates all the way down to a sluice box and gold pan
rock and sand already in the stream is not pollution.
they had to change the definition under the Tulloch rule
National Mining Association, et al., Appellees, v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, et al., Appellants, 145 F.3d 1399 (D.C. Cir. 1998) :: Justia

 

[ratled]

Actually Home Builders v USACE is more current and builds off the Nat Mining case. The down side is the final rule published doesn't quite convey the courts decision
http://federalconstruction.wp.lexblogs.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/344/2009/01/NAHB-01-0274-January-30-2007.pdf

ratled

 

[Hard Prospector]

The "Chicken Soup Theory" has already been held up in court; If you take a cup of chicken soup out of the pot and dump it right back into the pot again, its still the same soup it was before it was taken out. Most mining of wet material from the same creek or river totally apply here and a fact gov. regulators just hate and try to ignore.

 

[Reed Lukens]

Party on... Kalifornistonians -

 

[goldhog]

So could this change anything for dredging or high banking where it's currently banned?

The NEW RULE.... was designed to extend the governance / area of control of government agencies.
Meaning that anyone conducting a mining activity would now have to consider ANY depression in the land that might
become a "stream" even on an intermittent basis. But then ALSO... lands outside the mining area would also be
covered and land that was within 100 feet of that "depression" / intermittent stream / creek would have to have special buffers
made. Basically it would allow them to come into a property and start "deeming" areas of impact.
Kind of like them walking onto your land and saying that when it rains the water pools on your side yard.
Therefore it is now a "wetland".

 

[ratled]

So could this change anything for dredging or high banking where it's currently banned?

No, this is a step in the right direction. What happened was the out going admin did a scorched earth towards coal before leaving - which would set the table for us to to slide further. What Prez Trump did, by working with his majority, was he eliminated it - part of his "I will get the coal miners back to work." This was new and specific to coal waste and now it is dead. However, IMHO mining waste (tailings) is mining waste and what we do is just move a little rock and gravel from the front of the hole to the back of the hole

I am still giddy as I was when it came out as it shows his comment, that he will follow through and will come around and help us too. Don't believe me? Look at the latest New 49ers newsletter and the bit about what WH Press Sec Sean Spicer said last week in one of the daily briefings (second paragraph)
» Now is the Time for us to Act! ? February 2017

Press Secretary Sean Spicer said in the recent briefing that it is this president’s objective to open up all of the nation’s resources and minerals on federal land. I truly believe that the specific inclusion of minerals, not part of the original question asked, was a purposeful and deliberate interjection.

ratled

 

[HardHatMatt]

The "Chicken Soup Theory" has already been held up in court; If you take a cup of chicken soup out of the pot and dump it right back into the pot again, its still the same soup it was before it was taken out. Most mining of wet material from the same creek or river totally apply here and a fact gov. regulators just hate and try to ignore.

Respectfully, I’m not sure I agree that is a strong analogy.

A stream is more than a collection of inert “ingredients” - it’s a biological environment that hosts and supports a diverse range of life and processes, many of which are interdependent, existing and thriving only through the maintenance of a delicate balance. Relatively clear/clean water running atop impacted rock and soil is much different than taking these various elements, mixing them up and dumping them back in the same space.

Certainly, disturbance of the stream bed, itself, and/or the introduction of sediments into the water occurs without any help from human beings through flooding and other natural processes. However, persistent external manipulation of these environments through activities such as mining fundamentally impacts the various flora, fauna and microorganisms that call the stream beds “home.”

I’m no biologist, but it seems clear that digging up a stream bed or discharging tailings into a stream necessarily displaces and damages biological life such as moss, lichen, fungi, eggs, larvae and bacteria. It suspends sediments in the water, which alters its temperature and chemistry, impacting fish, amphibians and a host of other organisms that live in and around streams.

I’m a farmer and an amateur miner/prospector, so I definitely understand the negative impacts of heavy-handed and overreaching regulations. I also believe we humans are part of nature and the environment; we deserve to use and enjoy it without tiptoeing around every mushroom and tadpole. That said, I feel there needs to be a balance and want to be informed and honest with myself about the impacts my chosen activities have on the beautiful and complex web of life of which we are a part.

 

[ratled]

Matt, it is more than feelings that matters. What matters, according to the law (and reality), is that what we do is a net withdrawal - there is no addition, introduction or anything. Is there a disturbance, yep you betcha. HOWEVER, while there is a disturbance it causes no measure affect, this is the key factor the opposition has never acknowledged and why they haven't been able to give us the death blow they wanted.

Now that the decade of feelings is gone it's time to get back to reality for this country.

ratled

 

[HardHatMatt]

I disagree that these disturbances produce no significant, measurable effect on the individual organisms or the whole system. To state the concept more simply, organisms and their environments are more than the sum of their parts. Irrespective of your own personal feelings on the matter, the most basic understanding of biological science plants this concept firmly in the realm of "fact." We all have "feelings" - it just so happens that some "feelings" are based an understanding of basic science and acceptance of facts, where as other "feelings" brush aside these irrefutable principles as necessary to justify their own choices. Cest la vie.

 

[rodoconnor]

There have been studies since the 1950s regarding the impact of dredging. The impact has been determined to be POSITIVE. Impaction of the stream bed is very detrimental to spawning. Loosening gravels and creating deep pools benefit all aquatic species. We sound like a broken record

 

[HardHatMatt]

There have been studies since the 1950s regarding the impact of dredging. The impact has been determined to be POSITIVE. Impaction of the stream bed is very detrimental to spawning. Loosening gravels and creating deep pools benefit all aquatic species. We sound like a broken record

Right. I just can't imagine how these ecosystems ever made it through the eons without a bunch of yokels out dredging...but keep fighting the good fight!

 

[KevinInColorado]

Respectfully, I’m not sure I agree that is a strong analogy.

A stream is more than a collection of inert “ingredients” - it’s a biological environment that hosts and supports a diverse range of life and processes, many of which are interdependent, existing and thriving only through the maintenance of a delicate balance. Relatively clear/clean water running atop impacted rock and soil is much different than taking these various elements, mixing them up and dumping them back in the same space.

Certainly, disturbance of the stream bed, itself, and/or the introduction of sediments into the water occurs without any help from human beings through flooding and other natural processes. However, persistent external manipulation of these environments through activities such as mining fundamentally impacts the various flora, fauna and microorganisms that call the stream beds “home.”

I’m no biologist, but it seems clear that digging up a stream bed or discharging tailings into a stream necessarily displaces and damages biological life such as moss, lichen, fungi, eggs, larvae and bacteria. It suspends sediments in the water, which alters its temperature and chemistry, impacting fish, amphibians and a host of other organisms that live in and around streams.

I’m a farmer and an amateur miner/prospector, so I definitely understand the negative impacts of heavy-handed and overreaching regulations. I also believe we humans are part of nature and the environment; we deserve to use and enjoy it without tiptoeing around every mushroom and tadpole. That said, I feel there needs to be a balance and want to be informed and honest with myself about the impacts my chosen activities have on the beautiful and complex web of life of which we are a part.

1. This is established law so your opinion is irrelevant.
2. The question the court was addressing was "is there pollution from dredging?" (no)...NOT "does this disturb the worms and clams?" (Yes) or "does the disturbance of the bottom create a problem?" (Not long term, that's for sure)

 

[Goldfleks]

Introducing new sediment has never been seen as a problem. If it was they would have banned sluicing right along with dredging. Especially considering sluicing actually introduces NEW sediment into the stream in many cases if you're bucketing dry material to the river/stream to wash it.

You should see some of the holes/trenches that get dug out on the EFSG in the river during the summer. Entire swimming holes got mined during the low flow of the river last summer using shovels and buckets and stream sluices. Yes, it took much more manpower to excavate the amount of dirt that was sluiced compared to a mechanical dredge but the net result was the same. Streambed was excavated, gravels were displaced, mercury/gold/lead/iron was removed from the river. And no one cared.

This is purely a cash grab wrapped around saving the world from mercury so the Sierra Club can get a kickback from the $ they donated to Jerry Brown's campaign.

The "Leave No Trace" crowd hates prospecting/mining because we leave a trace. Doesn't matter if that trace is washed away in the flood season. Is a trace. You read comments anywhere on these subjects on other forums and it's always the same. Holes in the river. Loud and noisy. Smelly exhaust. Kills the fish eggs. Disturbs mercury.

It's a pile of misinformation that dredgers are dredging the salmon/trout runs in the middle of the spawning season sucking up fish eggs/blocking the flow of the river and at the end of the day cleaning out their sluices and pouring the mercury/lead/iron back into the river.

Dredging the river for mercury recovery and dredging the river for gold are the SAME thing.

Welcome to the world of Fake News. Tell a lie enogh and people eventually believe it's the truth.

 

[rodoconnor]

According to the studies, the presence of dams have been the cause of stream bed impaction. By reducing raging torrents through the rivers and streams churning the material. That is how these ecosystems made it through the eons without us yokels. Instead of making fatuous statements, educate yourself.

 

[HardHatMatt]

LOL, what a silly thing to say. Are you really taking the position that an "established law" puts all debate to rest, answers a given question once and for all and renders all opinions to the contrary irrelevant? Totally hilarious. First of all, laws and their interpretations can and do often change. Second, many laws, whether they get changed or not, reflect illogical, unfair or otherwise incorrect or debatable interpretations of the matter in question...which is why many people feel aggrieved by the laws on the books and continue to debate the question and/or work to change the established law.

 

[mytimetoshine]

Right. I just can't imagine how these ecosystems ever made it through the eons without a bunch of yokels out dredging...but keep fighting the good fight!

Cannot support his position with facts, thus loses the debate. Resorts to name calling, sound familiar to anyone?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk