Suction Dredge Mining

 

 

new.gif (26402 bytes)Karuk Tribe of California v. US Forest Service. (see also x) ; Panel: Klamath mining approval violates ESA; 9th Circuit overturns suction dredge gold mining rulings; Ninth Circuit Court Reverses Federal Decision on Suction Dredge; California: Tribe Wins Ruling Against Gold Mining; Court Orders Forest Service To Regulate Gold Mining in Salmon Streams; Court makes it tougher on small-time gold miners; Court Rules For New Regulation Of Gold Mining In Western Salmon Streams; California: Tribe Wins Ruling Against Gold Mining; Plain talk in a Ninth Circuit dissent; Further thoughts on Karuk Tribe; Federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Rules in Favor of Endangered Species Over 1872 Mining Law - Strikes Down U.S. Forest Service Approvals of Mining Projects Across West; The Appelate Court has reversed and remanded. This means that all suction dredge mining must go through expensive ESA consultation. The dissenting judges' opinion used the following illustration in his comments.

M. SMITH, Circuit Judge, with whom KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, joins, and with whom IKUTA and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges, join as to Parts I through VI, dissenting:

gulliver.jpg (11108 bytes) "I attempted to rise, but was not able to stir: for, as I happened to lie on my back, I found my arms and
legs were strongly fastened on each side to the ground; and my hair, which was long and thick, tied down in the same manner. I likewise felt several slender ligatures across my body, from my arm-pits to my thighs. I could only look upwards; the sun began to grow hot, and the light offended my eyes."
—Jonathan Swift, GULLIVER’S TRAVELS, Chapter 1.

new.gif (26402 bytes)Dredge Moratorium extended indefinitely The change was contained in the Resources Omnibus Trailer Bill (a trailer to the main CA budget). Previously, the moratorium was slated to sunset in 2016. Vote may extend suction dredge fight; California budget would indefinitely extend ban on dredge mining; Legislature Removes Sunset Date on Suction Dredge Moratorium Requires Fish and Game to Consult Tribal Commission as Part of Environmental Study; Dredge miner found dead on Upper Klamath; DFG is not selling suction dredge permits at this time, and cannot predict when that might occur.  DFG is currently prohibited by statute from issuing suction dredge permits.  (Fish & G. Code, 5653.1, subd. (a).)  The use of any vacuum or suction dredge equipment in any river, stream, or lake in California is also currently prohibited by statute through June 30, 2016.  (Id., subd. (b).)

new.gif (26402 bytes)Lawsuit Filed! The miners strike back...; The New 49'ers and several others filed takings litigation against the California Department of Fish & Game (DFG) on 13 April (2012);PLP files another lawsuit against the DFG o preserve mining; Group files new suction dredge lawsuit ; Modern-day gold mining; . Suction dredging rules spur suit - Group tries to halt implementation of new regulations - A coalition of commercial fishing groups, environmentalists and the Karuk Indian tribe are suing the state in an effort to prevent it from enacting new regulations on using suction dredging to mine for gold.  Suction dredging: No permits yet; Proposed amendments would close county streams to suction dredging ; CA DFG proposed regulations for suction dredge mining; Armstrong comments; DFG expects to release the related Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report on March 7, 2012; Costales Comment; DFG is not selling suction dredge permits at this time, and cannot predict when that might occur.  DFG is currently prohibited by statute from issuing suction dredge permits.  (Fish & G. Code, 5653.1, subd. (a).)  The use of any vacuum or suction dredge equipment in any river, stream, or lake in California is also currently prohibited by statute through June 30, 2016.  (Id., subd. (b).);  FSEIR; Western Mining Alliance June 2012 Newsletter

new.gif (26402 bytes)California Court of Appeal (1st District, Division 3)
Case Notification for: A126402 -  the following transaction has occurred in:
Hillman v. California Department of Fish and Game - Reversed in full

(Injunction overturned PLP wins)
Disposition status as of 2011-12-28: Final
Notes:
The order granting plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction is
reversed in full. Each party shall bear its own costs on appeal. urt of Appeal Case: A126402 Court of Appeal Opinion: [PDF] [DOC] Caution: For information on when opinions may be cited or relied upon, click here.
For opinions, go to the following web site:
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/opinions.cgi?Courts=A


current status of suction dredge mining in CA

Presentation Jim Foley

Public Lands for the People v. DFG
Motion for Preliminary Injunction
Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint for Federal Pre-emption
Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injuction
Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint for Federal Pre-emption

Dear Supervisor Marcia Armstrong:
I want to thank you for the time you spent, and your hard work, in gathering and sending to Jerry Hobbs and myself the very important documentation from Siskiyou County , and its officials, regarding suction dredge mining over the last 5 years. It will be very helpful to me, and Public Lands for the People, Inc., in our litigation seeking to restore suction dredge mining to California .
I am attaching an itemization of the extensive documentation which you have provided. It is an impressive piece of work. Again, I thank you for sharing with us your extensive knowledge and professional acumen regarding suction dredge mining in Siskiyou County and California .
With the highest personal regards, I remain very truly yours,
David Young
Attorney for Public Lands for the People, Inc.,
and other miners, in litigation to restore suction dredge mining to California

Rep. Peter DeFazio Launches Attack on Galice Creek and Grave Creek (Rogue River - Oregon)

Brown extends moratorium on suction dredging "The bill, AB 120, includes a five-year extension of an existing moratorium against the practice of suctioning river-bottom gravels in search of gold and other minerals. That would stop dredging at least until June 30, 2016." BLM regulations require compliance with state law, including having a permit from the California Department of Fish and Game to operate suction dredging equipment; Suction Dredge Mining Banned Until 2016 Governor Signs AB 129

Senator La Malfa's speech on State Senate floor opposing the cuts

Budget Trailer Bill AB 120, (amended June 8, 2011), and approved by the Assembly (on June 15) and Senate (on June 10) but not acted upon by the Governor includes the

following language on page 6:

"(12) Existing law designates the issuance by the Department of Fish and Game of permits to operate vacuum or suction dredge equipment to be a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), 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, for instream mining purposes, until the Director of Fish and Game certifies to the Secretary of State that (a) the department has completed the environmental

review of its existing vacuum or suction dredge equipment regulations as ordered by the court, (b) the department has transmitted for filing with the Secretary of State a certified copy of new regulations, as necessary, and (c) the new regulations are operative. This bill would modify that moratorium to prohibit the use of vacuum or suction dredge equipment until June 30, 2016, or until the director’s certification to the secretary as described above, whichever is earlier. The bill would additionally require the director to certify that the 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."

The Senate (SB 98) and Assembly (AB 98) budget bills, which passed both houses on June 15, included the following language:

"The funds appropriated in this item shall not be used by the Department of Fish and Game for suction 3. dredge mining regulation, permitting, or other activities, except litigation and enforcement costs." Governor Brown vetoed this language:

.


A mineral claim is a valuable property right. By imposing a morratorium on the use of that property, the state has temporarily physically taken the property. Susch takings are subject to reimbursement of just compensation for the takings.   

 

First English Evangelical Lutheran Church of Glendale v. County of Los Angeles, 482 U.S. 304; 107 S.Ct. 2378 (1987) temporary deprivations of use are compensable under the Takings Clause. "

Legislative Push to End California Gold Rush Has Miners Panning Environmental Rules

Catch 22 in California Budget Language May Doom Suction Dredge Mining

California Budget $1.8M Error Will Kill Gold Mining Industry, Says Gold Pan California

 

 

The Suction Dredge Mining  SDEIR  

The Suction Dredge Mining  SDEIR   http://www.dfg.ca.gov/suctiondredge/

  • Comments North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board

CA Fish and game Code 5653. (a) The use of any vacuum or suction dredge equipment by any person in any 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 any person uses any vacuum or suction dredge equipment in any 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. (b) 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 operation will not be deleterious to fish, it shall issue a permit to the applicant. If any person operates any 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. (c) 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. 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. (d) 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.

deleterious adjective adverse, bad, baleful, baneful, consuming, corroding, , damaging, deadly, disserviceable, envenomed, fatal, foul, harmful, injurious to health, insalubrious, lethal, malefic, maleficent, malignant, miasmal, morbiferous, morbific, nocuous, noxious, noxius, pernicious, pestilential, poisonous, septic, toxic, unadvantageous, unfavorable, unhealthy, unsatisfactory, venomous, virulent, wasting

5653.1. (a) The issuance of permits to operate vacuum or suction dredge equipment is a project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code) and permits may only be issued, and vacuum or suction dredge mining may only occur as authorized by any existing permit, if the department has caused to be prepared, and certified the completion of, an environmental impact report for the project pursuant to the court order and consent judgment entered in the case of Karuk Tribe of California et al. v. California Department of Fish and Game et al., Alameda County Superior Court Case No. RG 05211597. (b) Notwithstanding Section 5653, the use of any vacuum or suction dredge equipment in any river, stream, or lake of this state is prohibited until the director certifies to the Secretary of State that all of the following have occurred: (1) The department has completed the environmental review of its existing suction dredge mining regulations, as ordered by the court in the case of Karuk Tribe of California et al. v. California Department of Fish and Game et al., Alameda County Superior Court Case No. RG 05211597. (2) The department has transmitted for filing with the Secretary of State pursuant to Section 11343 of the Government Code, a certified copy of new regulations adopted, as necessary, pursuant to Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 11340) of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code. (3) The new regulations described in paragraph (2) are operative. (c) The Legislature finds and declares that this section, as added during the 2009-10 Regular Session, applies solely to vacuum and suction dredging activities conducted for instream mining purposes. This section does not expand or provide new authority for the department to close or regulate suction dredging conducted for regular maintenance of energy or water supply management infrastructure, flood control, or navigational purposes governed by other state or federal law. (d) This section does not prohibit or restrict nonmotorized recreational mining activities, including panning for gold. 5653.3. Any person required to possess a permit pursuant to Section 5653 shall present his or her dredging equipment for inspection upon request of a state or county fish and game warden.

5653.5. For purposes of Section 5653, "river, stream, or lake" means the body of water at the current water level at the time of the dredging.

5653.7. In the event of an unanticipated water level change, when necessary to protect fish and wildlife resources, the department may close areas that were otherwise opened for dredging and for which permits were issued pursuant to Section 5653.

5653.8. For purposes of Sections 5653 and 5653.3, "person" does not include a partnership, corporation, or other type of association. 5653.9. The department shall adopt regulations to carry out Section 5653 and may adopt regulations to carry out Sections 5653.3, 5653.5, and 5653.7. The regulations shall be adopted in accordance with the requirements of Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code and Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 11340) of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code. 5654. (a) (1) Notwithstanding Section 7715 and except as provided in paragraph (2), the director, within 24 hours of notification of a spill or discharge, as those terms are defined in subdivision (ad) of Section 8670.3 of the Government Code, where any fishing, including all commercial, recreational, and nonlicensed subsistence fishing, may take place, or where aquaculture operations are taking place, shall close to the take of all fish and shellfish all waters in the vicinity of the spill or discharge or where the spilled or discharged material has spread, or is likely to spread. In determining where a spill or discharge is likely to spread, the director shall consult with the Administrator of the Office of Spill Prevention and Response. At the time of closure, the department shall make all reasonable efforts to notify the public of the closure, including notification to commercial and recreational fishing organizations, and posting of warnings on public piers and other locations where subsistence fishing is known to occur. The department shall coordinate, when possible, with local and regional agencies and organizations to expedite public notification. (2) Closure pursuant to paragraph (1) is not required if, within 24 hours of notification of a spill or discharge, the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment finds that a public health threat does not or is unlikely to exist. (b) Within 48 hours of notification of a spill or discharge subject to subdivision (a), the director, in consultation with the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, shall make an assessment and determine all of the following: (1) The danger posed to the public from fishing in the area where the spill or discharge occurred or spread, and the danger of consuming fish taken in the area where the spill or discharge occurred or spread. (2) Whether the areas closed for the take of fish or shellfish should be expanded to prevent any potential take or consumption of any fish or shellfish that may have been contaminated by the spill or discharge. (3) The likely period for maintaining a closure on the take of fish and shellfish in order to prevent any possible contaminated fish or shellfish from being taken or consumed or other threats to human health. (c) Within 48 hours after receiving notification of a spill or discharge subject to subdivision (a), or as soon as is feasible, the director, in consultation with the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, shall assess and determine the potential danger from consuming fish that have been contained in a recirculating seawater tank onboard a vessel that may become contaminated by the vessel's movement through an area where the spill or discharge occurred or spread. (d) If the director finds in his or her assessment pursuant to subdivision (b) that there is no significant risk to the public or to the fisheries, the director may immediately reopen the closed area and waive the testing requirements of subdivisions (e) and (f). (e) Except under the conditions specified in subdivision (d), after complying with subdivisions (a) and (b), the director, in consultation with the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, but in no event more than seven days from the notification of the spill or discharge, shall order expedited tests of fish and shellfish that would have been open for take for commercial, recreational, or subsistence purposes in the closed area if not for the closure, to determine the levels of contamination, if any, and whether the fish or shellfish is safe for human consumption. (f) (1) Within 24 hours of receiving a notification from the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment that no threat to human health exists from the spill or discharge or that no contaminant from the spill or discharge is present that could contaminate fish or shellfish, the director shall reopen the areas closed pursuant to this section. The director may maintain a closure in any remaining portion of the closed area where the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment finds contamination from the spill or discharge persists that may adversely affect human health. (2) The director, in consultation with the commission, may also maintain a closure in any remaining portion of the closed area where commercial fishing or aquaculture occurs and where the department determines, pursuant to this paragraph, that contamination from the spill or discharge persists that may cause the waste of commercial fish or shellfish as regulated by Section 7701. (g) To the extent feasible, the director shall consult with representatives of commercial and recreational fishing associations and subsistence fishing communities regarding the extent and duration of a closure, testing protocols, and findings. If a spill or discharge occurs within the lands governed by a Native American tribe or affects waters flowing through tribal lands, or tribal fisheries, the director shall consult with the affected tribal governments. (h) The director shall seek full reimbursement from the responsible party or parties for the spill or discharge for all reasonable costs incurred by the department in carrying out this section, including, but not limited to, all testing.

5655. (a) In addition to the responsibilities imposed pursuant to Section 5651, the department may clean up or abate, or cause to be cleaned up or abated, the effects of any petroleum or petroleum product deposited or discharged in the waters of this state or deposited or discharged in any location onshore or offshore where the petroleum or petroleum product is likely to enter the waters of this state, order any person responsible for the deposit or discharge to clean up the petroleum or petroleum product or abate the effects of the deposit or discharge, and recover any costs incurred as a result of the cleanup or abatement from the responsible party. (b) An order shall not be issued pursuant to this section for the cleanup or abatement of petroleum products in any sump, pond, pit, or lagoon used in conjunction with crude oil production that is in compliance with all applicable state and federal laws and regulations. (c) The department may issue an order pursuant to this section only if there is an imminent and substantial endangerment to human health or the environment and the order shall remain in effect only until any cleanup and abatement order is issued pursuant to Section 13304 of the Water Code. A regional water quality control board shall incorporate the department's order into the cleanup and abatement order issued pursuant to Section 13304 of the Water Code, unless the department's order is inconsistent with any more stringent requirement established in the cleanup and abatement order. Any action taken in compliance with the department's order is not a violation of any subsequent regional water quality control board cleanup and abatement order issued pursuant to Section 13304 of the Water Code. (d) The Administrator of the Office of Spill Prevention and Response has the primary authority to serve as a state incident commander and direct removal, abatement, response, containment, and cleanup efforts with regard to all aspects of any placement of petroleum or a petroleum product in the waters of the state, except as otherwise provided by law. This authority may be delegated. (e) For purposes of this section, the following definitions apply: (1) "Petroleum product" means oil of any kind or form, including, but not limited to, fuel oil, sludge, oil refuse, and oil mixed with waste other than dredged spoil. "Petroleum product" does not include any pesticide that has been applied for agricultural, commercial, or industrial purposes or that has been applied in accordance with a cooperative agreement authorized by Section 116180 of the Health and Safety Code, that has not been discharged accidentally or for purposes of disposal, and the application of which was in compliance with all applicable state and federal laws and regulations. (2) "State incident commander" means a person with the overall authority for managing and conducting incident operations during an oil spill response, who shall manage an incident consistent with the standardized emergency management system required by Section 8607 of the Government Code. Incident management generally includes the development of objectives, strategies, and tactics, ordering and release of resources, and coordinating with other appropriate response agencies to ensure that all appropriate resources are properly utilized and that this coordinating function is performed in a manner designed to minimize risk to other persons and to the environment.

5656. Any recovery or settlement of money damages, including, but not limited to, civil penalties arising out of any civil action filed and maintained by the Attorney General in the enforcement of this article shall be deposited in the Fish and Wildlife Pollution Account in the Fish and Game Preservation Fund.

 

 

new.gif (26402 bytes)Final Request for Administration to Comply with Document Requests on Rewrite of Mining Rule; Click here to read the full letter

new.gif (26402 bytes)South West Oregon Mining Association (SWOMA)  Mining Law Learning Center

new.gif (26402 bytes)A Short History of Mining Law


The Chaffee law of 1866 and the placer law of 1870 were combined into the General Mining Act of 1872.  (See also) The mining law of 1866 had given discoverers rights to stake mining claims to extract gold, silver, cinnabar the principal ore of mercury and copper. When Congress passed the General Mining Act of 1872, the wording was changed to "or other valuable deposits," giving greater scope to the law.

The 1872 act also granted extralateral rights to lode claims, and fixed the maximum size of lode claims as 1500 feet 457m long and 600 feet 183m wide.

The Act of 1872 also set the price for land assumed under the mining act: FORTY-SECOND CONGRESS. Sess. II Ch. 152. 1872. 95 approved July ninth, eighteen hundred and seventy a patent shall issue for the placer-claim, including such vein or lode, upon the payment of five dollars per acre such vein or lode claim, and twenty-five feet of surface on each side thereof. The reminder of the placer-claim, or any placer-claim not embracing any vein or lode claim, shall be paid for at the rate of two dollars and fifty cents per acre, together with all costs of proceedings;. It set the price of the land claim to range .50 to .00 per acre. This price set by law has remained the same since 1872.

Subsequent Amendments

The acquisition of mining rights on public land in the West is mostly governed by the 1872 act. Subsequent changes to the law include:

Provisions of the 1872 Mining Law were changed with the implementation of the 1976 Federal Land Policy Management Act FLPMA effective as of January 1981. Many of the provisions of FLPMA revised the surface uses allowed on mining claims under the 1872 mining law by halting or restricting unnecessary or undue degradation of the public lands. The regulation portion of the FLPMA is found at 43 CFR 3809 "Surface Management regulations". These regulations were updated and the final rules published in December 2001. These rules effectively replace many of the 1872 Mining Law provisions and require mining reclamation, financial guarantees for reclamation to the Federal government, mining claim occupation permits and detailed Mining Plans of Operations to be submitted to the governing agencies before disturbing the surface.

         

The power and property right of the Mining Act

 The Mining Act of 1872 is a unique law that vests an individual with the right to prospect and extract locatable mineral upon public lands.  This right upon location, is a grant by Congress which carries with it a property right protectable by the Constitution (5th Amendment).  This location is a severance from ownership from the U.S. to a private party (subject to BLM validity exam) of a locatable mineral estate.   This "location" or claim acts as a relinquishment of land by the United States to the private sector to perfect to full patent if the individual wishes.

The Mining Act of 1872 is a "Location System" and not a "discretionary grant system".  As such, no executive branch agency such as the Forest Service or BLM can interfere, prohibit or encumber that right unless BLM performs a validity exam and voids the fraudulent claim upon public land.

The key point regarding the power to regulate from the Forest Service or BLM standpoint is that their actions are non-discretionary , unlike leasable lands covered under laws such as the 1920 Mineral Leasing Act.  The Forest Service is prohibited from affecting the mineral estate by regulation (Transfer Act of 1905, 16 USC 472), or action (30USC 612(b)), namely because this authority was reserved in the Dept. of Interior for administration of all the laws as affecting the Mining Act.  The BLM has the power to administer the Mining Act, but their role is still a non-discretionary one.

00-60-99.gif (1008 bytes)     SB 657 Gaines

This bill would repeal prohibition on the use of vacuum or suction dredge equipment, and exempt the issuance of permits to operate vacuum or suction dredge equipment from the California
Environmental Quality Act until January 1, 2014.

new.gif (26402 bytes)Comments on the proposed rule 3/12 Armstrong

00-60-99.gif (1008 bytes) Comments on the California Department of Fish & Game’s (DFG) Suction Dredge Permitting Program Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) and Proposed Regulations by Claudia Wise and Joseph Green, retired EPA scientists, 5/3/11;  Small Scale Gold Suction Dredging and the Environment, Power Point Presentation by retired EPA scientist Joseph Greene, 12/8/07. The same folks targeting Klamath Dams and other resource users are trying to eliminate our mining industry.

00-60-99.gif (1008 bytes) June 13, 2007 Comment to the SWRCB on affects of suction dredge mining

00-60-99.gif (1008 bytes) Testimony before the CA Natural Reources and Water Committee on SB670 4/28/2009

00-60-99.gif (1008 bytes) Siskiyou County Gold Production

00-60-99.gif (1008 bytes) Siskiyou County Minerals

00-60-99.gif (1008 bytes) Mining Database

00-60-99.gif (1008 bytes)California Coastal Comm'n v. Granite Rock Co. 480 U.S. 572 (1987)

00-60-99.gif (1008 bytes)Karuk Tribe v. US Forestry Serv., 05-16801

00-60-99.gif (1008 bytes) Karuk Tribe v. CA DFG and associated cases

00-60-99.gif (1008 bytes) Tribe Fights to Have Feds Intervene in Mining

00-60-99.gif (1008 bytes)Mercury:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bvObUSzbKk&feature=channel

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qnil6ubrryw&feature=channel_page

00-60-99.gif (1008 bytes)PLP Lawsuit

 

Socioeconomic Impacts of Suction Dredge Mining

General socio-economic impacts last 20 years on natural resource industries 

Excerpts from Dam EIR/EIS cumulative effects comment

  • Pages 51- 54 are an excerpt from Chapter 4.6.2 of CA DFG’s CEQA document concerning the economic impact of suction dredge miners. This quotes from a 1993 survey which  indicates that the average investment in suction dredge equipment was approximately $6,000; that suction dredgers spent about $6,250 on expenses per year, including groceries, restaurants, motels, camp fees and other living expenses. It is further calculated that an average of 35 days per year was spent on dredging, equaling about $179 expenditure per day per miner. In addition, dredgers spend about $3,000 on gas, oil, maintenance and repair.

  •  E-mail dated July 6, 2010 from Trista Parry of Parry’s market Ms. Parry provides figures from her small grocery business in Happy Camp that reflect the impact of the loss of suction dredge miners since the moratorium of SB 670 was passed by the CA legislature last year. It shows a decrease of $11,467 in receipts for May 2010 and a loss of $58,739.42 for June of 2010. This is contrasted with the April 2010 receipts which show a modest increase in receipts of about $3,0000 to show that this is not due to the economic downturn.

 SUMMARY COMMENT: Suction dredge mining occurs in the small, economically depressed communities of the Klamath River. The small business dynamic for the grocery stores, convenience stores, cardlock gas, camp grounds  and motels is to use summer tourist income to sustain the business in the rest of the season. The year-round local clientele is very small. The loss of dredge miners may result in the closing of vital local service stores along the Klamath. This would likely require residents to travel to Yreka to shop. In the case of the cardlock station, it is the only one on the Klamath River in Siskiyou County. 

ARTICLES

 

PROPERTY RIGHTS