Gravity dredge sluice North Yuba River

[49erjohn]

Hello My Brother Miners in California. Is it legal for me to gravity sluice dredge on the North Youba River? If it is, can I discharge the sluice directly into the river? Thanks JOHN

 

[H&F909ORO]

Hello My Brother Miners in California. Is it legal for me to gravity sluice dredge on the North Youba River? If it is, can I discharge the sluice directly into the river? Thanks JOHN

all dredges in california are illegal. The only legal "dredge" is the hand dredges. Look up california laws on dredging.

 

[calisdad]

Non-motorized ok. The way I read it if you get the gravel from within the river its ok to discharge.

Suction Dredge Permitting Program - California Department of Fish and Wildlife

 

[Armchair prospector]

The lefties who put this ban into place are worried about the mercury, which is a crock. If you want to know call the authorities DFW or ask the local sheriff if he enforces the ban. Don't get caught unless you have mucho bucks.

 

[Armchair prospector]

Gravity dredging is recreational and doesn't have a motor. Make a copy of the rules and keep it with you, just in case.

 

[Clay Diggins]

Don't get caught unless you have mucho bucks.

?

The only fine so far was $150. Is that mucho?

 

[Bnugget]

? The only fine so far was $150. Is that mucho?

I beg to differ, my fine exceeded that not to mention the lawsuit I filed to fight it.

 

[2cmorau]

[h=1]First, if ya have to ask don't do it
second please read Suction Dredge Permitting Program - California Department of Fish and Wildlife

Suction Dredge Permitting Program[/h]Page updated 3/14/2014
The use of any motorized vacuum or suction dredge equipment as part of a mining operation in any river, stream, or lake is currently prohibited in California.
[h=2]Fish and Game Code Statutes and Related Regulations[/h]In general, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) regulates suction dredging and the use of any related equipment in California pursuant to Fish and Game Code section 5653 specifically. Under that authority, the use of any vacuum or suction dredge equipment by any person in any river, stream or lake in California is prohibited, unless authorized under a permit issued by CDFW (Fish & G. Code, § 5653, subd. (a).)
CDFW regulations governing its suction dredge permitting program are found in the California Code of Regulations, Title 14, sections 228 and 228.5. CDFW adopted a comprehensive update of its suction dredge regulations effective April 27, 2012. (Cal. Reg. Notice Register 2012, No. 19-Z, p. 641.) CDFW amended the regulatory definition of suction dredging as an emergency action effective June 28, 2013. (Cal. Reg. Notice Register 2013, No. 28-Z, pp. 1034-1035.) On December 26, 2013, the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) approved CDFW’s proposed CDFW’s readoption of this amendment. (Office of Administrative Law, Notice of Approval of Emergency Regulatory Action, OAL File No. 2013-1216-01 EE.)
Currently, the use of any vacuum or suction dredge equipment in any river, stream, or lake in California is prohibited by statute, as it has been since August 6, 2009. (Fish & G. Code, § 5653.1, subd. (b).)
CDFW is also prohibited from issuing any suction dredge permits by the same statute.

• Access California Fish and Game Code and CDFW’s regulations

[h=2]Prohibited Use of Any Motorized Vacuum or Suction Dredge Equipment[/h]Under CDFW regulations, the use of any vacuum or suction dredge equipment (i.e., suction dredging) is defined as the use of a suction system to vacuum material from a river, stream, or lake for the extraction of minerals. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 228, subd. (a).)
However, CDFW’s suction dredging regulations do not apply to, prohibit, or restrict nonmotorized recreational mining activities, including panning for gold. (Ibid.; see also Fish & G. Code, § 5653.1, subd. (e).)
Reading together Fish and Game Code sections 5653 and 5653.1, and CDFW’s definition, the use of any motorized device to directly vacuum or suction substrate, sediment, and gravel as part of a mining operation in any river, stream, or lake is currently prohibited in California. The use of any motorized vacuum or suction device to assist in the extraction of minerals as part of an instream mining operation is also prohibited. Likewise, it is unlawful to possess a vacuum or suction dredge in or within 100 yards of any river, stream, or lake. (See Id., § 5653, subd. (d).)
Not prohibited are: (1) nonmotorized recreational mining activities, including panning for gold; and (2) the use of motorized vacuum or suction dredge equipment for regular maintenance of energy or water supply management infrastructure, flood control, or navigational purposes. (Fish & G. Code, § 5653.1, subds. (d), (e).)
[h=2]Mining Activity Not Prohibited by the Moratorium[/h]The ongoing statutory moratorium established by Fish and Game Code section 5653.1 prohibits some, but not all forms of mining in and near California rivers, streams, and lakes.
Individuals engaged or interested in otherwise lawful instream mining should be aware that other environmental laws may apply to these various other mining practices. Fish and Game Code section 5650, for example, prohibits the placement of materials deleterious to fish, including sand and gravel from outside of the current water level, into the river or stream. Further, Fish and Game Code section 1602 requires that any person notify CDFW before substantially diverting or obstructing the natural flow of, or substantially changing or using any material from the bed, channel or bank of any river, stream or lake. See additional related information.
You should also know that various other mining practices may be subject to the authority of the appropriate Regional Water Quality Control Board. If you have questions about the authority of the Regional Water Quality Control Board, or how to comply with any permitting requirements, please contact them directly.
[h=2]2013-2014 Emergency Regulatory Actions and Noticed Rulemaking[/h]On June 28, 2013, OAL approved an emergency action by CDFW under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) to amend the regulatory definition of suction dredging. (See Cal. Reg. Notice Register 2013, No. 28-Z, pp. 1034-1035; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, 228, subd. (a).) Effective December 26, 2013, OAL approved CDFW’s first readoption of the regulatory definition. (Office of Administrative Law, Notice of Approval of Emergency Regulatory Action, OAL File No. 2013-1216-01 EE.) The new definition remains in effect statewide.
On February 14, 2014, CDFW initiated regular noticed rulemaking to adopt the existing emergency regulatory definition of suction dredging. Under the APA, and absent a second readoption, the existing regulatory definition will expire on March 27, 2014. (Gov. Code, § 11346.1, subd. (e).) Thus, on March 7, 2014, the Department provided notice of a proposed second readoption of the existing emergency definition in order to preserve the existing status quo as a matter of law and on the ground, and in anticipation of the existing definition becoming permanent through the regular noticed rulemaking by CDFW pursuant to the APA. On March 14, 2014, CDFW filed with OAL the request for a second readoption.
March 2014 documents prepared by CDFW as part of the second readoption of emergency rulemaking:

• March 2014 Proposed Text of Regulatory Amendment to Readopt (PDF)

 

[Clay Diggins]

I beg to differ, my fine exceeded that not to mention the lawsuit I filed to fight it.

You are the acknowledged expert on your own life Brandon. If you differ from that figure I would be the last one to argue with you.

My understanding was the court gave you no fine if you did not dredge without a permit for the next three years.

So enlighten us... how much was your fine? Can you point us to the judgement?

Thanks for all you've done Brandon. I think everyone here admires you, certainly I do.

 

[omnicron]

Blow mining...you tube...look it up!

 

[calisdad]

Blow mining...you tube...look it up!

shhh- last time I mentioned that groups legal circumvention of the regulations some here wanted to hang me- with an old rope!

 

[Bnugget]

You are the acknowledged expert on your own life Brandon. If you differ from that figure I would be the last one to argue with you. My understanding was the court gave you no fine if you did not dredge without a permit for the next three years. So enlighten us... how much was your fine? Can you point us to the judgement? Thanks for all you've done Brandon. I think everyone here admires you, certainly I do. [/

 

[Bnugget]

You are the acknowledged expert on your own life Brandon. If you differ from that figure I would be the last one to argue with you. My understanding was the court gave you no fine if you did not dredge without a permit for the next three years. So enlighten us... how much was your fine? Can you point us to the judgement? Thanks for all you've done Brandon. I think everyone here admires you, certainly I do.

Clay diggings You are correct that my fine is on stay if I complete my 3yr probation period but I believe I will still have some court fees. I guess I was referring to the financial burden I took on to fight this case and the sacrifices my family is willing to make to support me on this. This was bigger than any fine I could have paid and been done with the whole mess but then where would we be now?
Don't get me wrong I'm happy to do it and don't regret doing it because I believe in fighting for what is right. It would not have been possible to continue this fight without the support of people like yourself and the mining community so thank you all for that. We are all in this together. Now I just hope we can prevail.

 

[DizzyDigger]

Hello My Brother Miners in California. Is it legal for me to gravity
sluice dredge on the North Yuba River? If it is, can I discharge the sluice directly into the river?
Thanks JOHN

Can't answer that question myself, John, but I would really
encourage you to take the time and research the laws yourself.
Even if someone here did say "It's legal, go get it!", I seriously
doubt if telling a judge or warden that "Some guy on TNet said
it was OK" is going to go over very well.

Guess it's a matter of "risk and/or reward".

I don't believe that Calif. can survive solely on their tax base,
and the ridiculously high fines they impose is likely the only state
income that is keeping the state solvent.

If the state really wanted to make money from traffic fines, all
they would need to do is install a few well camouflaged traffic
cameras along I-5 between Sacramento and Bakersfield. Speed
limit there is 70 mph., and most vehicles are traveling at 80+.

 

[Armchair prospector]

Typical government reg's are so unclear. It says no motorized, than any suction dredge, which should mean a hand dredge as well, but those are legal, so why not a gravity dredge?, since no motor? They might as well write the regs in Chinese. This what happens when lawyers get involved, No comprende.

 

[Oakview2]

We are not solvent, even with the outrageous fees and fines . Brown continues to crow about a suplus, when they are billions owed to the fed and billions more owed to CALPERS, teachers union. Talk about your creative bookeeping

Can't answer that question myself, John, but I would really encourage you to take the time and research the laws yourself. Even if someone here did say "It's legal, go get it!", I seriously doubt if telling a judge or warden that "Some guy on TNet said it was OK" is going to go over very well. Guess it's a matter of "risk and/or reward". I don't believe that Calif. can survive solely on their tax base, and the ridiculously high fines they impose is likely the only state income that is keeping the state solvent. If the state really wanted to make money from traffic fines, all they would need to do is install a few well camouflaged traffic cameras along I-5 between Sacramento and Bakersfield. Speed limit there is 70 mph., and most vehicles are traveling at 80+.

 

[2cmorau]

personally i think we should pull this post, we all saw what happen with GTS postings
yep Oak i agree, we pass laws that violate our rights here in california, revenue is leaving the State and brown is running again, notice how he got the left up in arms about Fracking, <------- if any one beleives brown supports this, i have a mining claim to sell in Farrallone island

 

[fowledup]

Based on the December update released by CDF&W by definition it is illegal. If the right/wrong individual cared to site you, there is more then enough gray area for him to do so. Thus making the burden of proof yours not his. Best advice -get involved and try to change it! Second best advice- "Sink the sucker, and say no more about it!