Legislative and Regulatory Update
March 2020 by Scott Harn
• NEPA comments due
I hope that many of you have taken the time to send in constructive comments about proposed changes to the National Environmental Policy Act after we mentioned it in last month’s issue. I’ve been to Washington, DC, seven times over the past year with Clark Pearson (of Public Lands for the People) and 13 times over the past four years asking for reasonable NEPA changes from the Trump administration.
The Trump administration is proposing some substantial changes to streamline the permitting process for miners and other public land users, but comments are due by March 10.
We’ve heard from many miners over the past two decades who complained of waiting for five, seven, ten, or even more years for federal agencies to complete the required studies so the miner could get to work. Among the major changes proposed: a one year deadline for federal agencies when a Environmental Assessment is needed; two years for Environmental Impact Statements. These deadlines have been in place for mining projects in Canada and Australia—it’s beyond time for US regulators to get the job done in a reasonable time frame so American miners can get back to work.
You can read and comment on the proposed NEPA changes online: Federal Register Update to the Regulations Implementing the Procedural Provision of the National Environmental Policy Act
• Update on latest US Supreme Court suction gold dredging appeal
As we’ve mentioned several times in our monthly publication, miners in Oregon have petitioned the US Supreme Court to review a lower court decision in Eastern Oregon Mining Association v. Oregon Department of Environmental Quality.
The main contention is that Oregon DEQ has been forcing suction gold dredgers and other in-stream miners to obtain a Section 402 EPA permit under the Clean Water Act when the Clean Water Act clearly states that there must be the addition of pollutant to trigger the need for such a permit. The Oregon State Supreme Court let the 402 permit requirement stand, and the miners appealed to the US Supreme Court.
The appeal is being handled by the Pacific Legal Foundation. This property rights group does not take on cases unless there is a very strong chance of prevailing in court.
We received word that the US Supreme Court has specifically requested a response from the Oregon DEQ; the agency has been ordered to respond. The agency had previously waived its right to file a response to the miner’s petition. This is good news; this means the US Supreme Court is seriously considering accepting this case.
We’ll keep you posted if there are any new developments.
On a related note, Clark Pearson and I will be returning to Washington, DC at the end of March. We plan to meet with the EPA over this very same issue and will seek clarification from the EPA regarding the requirement of an addition before a 402 Clean Water Act permit is needed.
• Washington State tries to restrict suction gold dredging
House Bill 1261 would ban gas-powered suction gold dredging in all areas where threatened or endangered species of fish have been identified.
Washington State legislators continue to ignore that the benefits of suction dredging far outweigh any detriments. These dredges remove heavy metals—including lead and mercury—from waterways while creating the thermal refugia beneficial to fish. (Thermal refugia is an area outside of the fast current of a waterway that can provide a cooler, calmer resting place for fish.)
The bill aims to bring current practices in compliance with the Clean Water Act (CWA). However, as mentioned above, the CWA clearly states there must be the addition of a pollutant to trigger the need for such a permit for suction gold dredging. This is precisely why we here at the Mining Journal have been working with Public Lands for the People to obtain clarification from the EPA on this issue. (You’ll find more discussion on this topic in the PLP Update.)
Most gold-bearing veins in this region are controlled by fractures associated with the Melones Fault, a late Cretaceous structure that is 108 to 127 million years old.
The first step in my recovery process after milling the ore to the desired size is to table it. On this particular ore, I get good results milling it to minus 100 mesh.
…for a few hours, we fervently dug for gold. After we did a cleanup, I couldn’t believe the amount we got.
- NEPA comments due
- Update on latest US Supreme Court suction gold dredging appeal
- Washington State tries to restrict suction gold dredging
Fortunately, there are products on the market that can address these problems and make a small-scale mining operation feasible.
In part one of this two-part series on gold in Guyana, I describe artisanal mining efforts currently winning alluvial gold from small-scale placer operations located along the lower Puruni River and its tributaries.
The burning question I needed answered was why didn’t the deposit ever get mined of at least one of the valuable minerals? A couple of reasons have come to light.
The Bawl Mill • Ask The Experts -- How do I find the owners of patented property? • Ask The Experts -- Is it worth going after these rare earth minerals? • Ask The Experts -- Will a land mine detector work for gold? • How to Turn Your Gold Finds Into Cash • My First Gold Patch • Caught Between A Hard Rock and A Rare Earth Place • The Potholes—California’s Oldest Known Mining District • Sampling for Success—Part I • Over The Divide: Annie Carol Robinson • Gold Prospecting for Better or Worse: If the RV’s a Rockin’, Please Come a Knockin’ • The Mid-Winter Nugget • Gold In The Midwest—Part III: Iowa, Missouri, and Kansas • Trump Proposes $1.5 Billion to Fund US Uranium Production • Mining Stock Quotes and Mineral & Metal Prices • Melman on Gold & Silver