KILLING THE CEQA MONSTER

[old gold miner]

MY WRITTEN COMMENTS RE: PAC/CDFG MEETINGS
I would hope these comments struck home.'
______________________________________

CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE
COMMENTS PAC/CDFG MEETINGS

We assert, Mr. Mark Stopher as Environmental Program Manager for the California Department of Fish & Game (CDFG). Has acted, and continues to act unethically, intentionally unlawfully abusing the discretion CDFG is allowed, as Lead Agency over California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Project No. 09.005, as mandated by SB 670.

CEQA MITIGATION MEASURES ENFORCEMENT
CEQA PRC 15126.4 (4) (A) (B) & (5) CONSIDERATION AND DISCUSSION OF MITIGATION MEASURES PROPOSED TO MINIMIZE SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS.

(4) Mitigation measures must be consistent with all applicable constitutional requirements, including the following:

(A) There must be an essential nexus (i.e. connection) between the mitigation measure and a legitimate governmental interest. Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, 483 U.S. 825 (1987); and

(B) The mitigation measure must be “roughly proportional” to the impacts of the project. Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374 (1994). Where the mitigation measure is an ad hoc exaction, it must be “roughly proportional” to the impacts of the project. Ehrlich v. City of Culver City (1996) 12 Cal.4th 854.

(5) If the lead agency determines that a mitigation measure cannot be legally imposed, the measure need not be proposed or analyzed. Instead, the EIR may simply reference that fact and briefly explain the reasons underlying the lead agency’s determination.

Section 21083, Public Resources Code. Reference: Sections 5020.5, 21002, 21003, 21100 and 21084.1, Public Resources Code; Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553; Laurel Heights Improvement Association v. Regents of the University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376; Gentry v. City of Murrieta (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 1359; Laurel Heights Improvement Association v. Regents of the University of California (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1112; and Sacramento Old City Assn. v. City Council of Sacramento (1991) 229 Cal.App.3d 1011.

CEQA PRC 15126.4 (4) (A) (B) & (5) are “mandatory”.
In short, meaning CDFG may only apply mitigation measures that are consistent with all applicable constitutional requirements.

The California Constitution provides,

“A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the laws…”.
(Cal. Const., art 1, § 7. (a))

"Private property may be taken or damaged for public use only when just compensation ... has first been paid to, or into court for, the owner."
(Cal. Const., art. I, § 19.)

Irrefutably, almost all small scale suction dredge gold mining in California takes place on “mining claims“. From the initiation of this CEQA process, CDFG has concealed, and adamantly prohibited public disclosure, inclusion or discussion of private property rights, and vested interests regarding mining claims, and constitutionally protected private property rights, and interests those mining claim owners have.

In effect, CDFG has knowingly, and willfully disregarded those private property rights. In an attempt to illegally impose CEQA “mitigation measures“. Without due process of law, or means of providing payment for any compensable “taking” such measures will certainly impose. Which is in direct contravention of CEQA PRC 15126.4 (4) (A) (B) & (5) provisions.

In light of these mandatory CEQA requirements, any “mitigation measure” CDFG might, or may impose over small scale suction dredge gold mining, on mining claims (i.e., vested private property rights & interests). That unlawfully curtails, restricts, or prohibits a mining claim owners legitimate investment based use of his private property, even temporarily is clearly an unconstitutional regulatory taking. In that, the only thing a mining claim owner “owns” is the right to mine his property. “Taking” that, is a taking of all beneficial use.

CDFG cannot legally impose restrictive mitigation measures, without first providing a means to compensate those owners. Because CDFG has no means to compensate such owners, CDFG cannot impose any mitigation measure that operates to “take” private property rights, without first making payment. As such, CDFG must face the factual legal reality that, it cannot legally impose restrictive mitigation measures on suction dredging, on mining claims, and publicly explain why.

After this revelation, if CDFG intends to proceed with this CEQA project? CDFG must also gather the intestinal fortitude to face the reality that every step in whole CEQA project to date, is not in compliance with CEQA law. CDFG having intentionally omitted and/or concealed critical pertinent facts, and law from all notices, scoping meetings, SEIR documentation, CDFG/PAC meetings to date. As such, each, and every costly step to date, must be duplicated, in order to comply with applicable law. Otherwise, nothing in this CEQA process so far, is legally enforceable.

CEQA FACTS & CASE LAW
The Commission and Department may only act in compliance with state law. “An administrative agency must act within the powers conferred upon it by law and may not act in excess of those powers.” (American Federation of Labor v. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 1017, 1042; see Woods v. Superior Court (1981) 28 Cal.3d 668, 679; Wildlife Alive v. Chickering (1976) 18 Cal.3d 190, 295; Ferdig v. State Personnel Board (1969) 71 Cal.2d 96, 103.

The exercise of discretionary powers for environmental protection shall be consistent with express or implied limitations provided by other laws. Note: Authority cited: Section 21083, Public Resources Code; Reference: Sections 21000, 21001, 21002, 21002.1, and 21004, Public Resources Code; Section 4, Chapter 1438, Statutes of 1982; Golden Gate Bridge, etc., District v. Muzzi, (1978) 83 Cal. App. 3d 707; E.D.F. v. Mathews, 410 F. Supp. 366, 339 (D.D.C., 1976); Friends of Mammoth v. Board of Supervisors, (1972) 8 Cal. 3d 247; Pinewood Investors v. City of Oxnard, (1982) 133 Cal. App. 3d 1030.

CEQA requires that decisions be informed and balanced. It must not be subverted into an instrument for the oppression and delay of social, economic, or recreational development or advancement. (Laurel Heights Improvement Assoc. v. Regents of U.C. (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1112 and Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553

Substantial evidence shall include facts, reasonable assumptions predicated upon facts, and expert opinion supported by facts. Note: Authority cited: Section 21083, Public Resources Code; References: Sections 21080, 21082.2, 21168, and 21168.5, Public Resources Code; No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68; Running Fence Corp. v. Superior Court (1975) 51 Cal.App.3d 400; Friends of B Street v. City of Hayward (1980) 106 Cal.App.3d 988.

"…argument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion or narrative, evidence which is clearly inaccurate or erroneous…is not substantial evidence." PRC Section 21082.2

CEQA guidelines, regulation, and governing case law are perfectly clear. Voluminous bedrock solid case law exists, citing exactly how CEQA applies in any given circumstance, and what a CEQA Lead Agency can, and cannot legally do.

“A prejudicial abuse of discretion occurs if the failure to include relevant information precludes informed decision making and informed public participation, thereby thwarting the statutory goals of the EIR process." San Joaquin Raptor Rescue Center v. County of Merced (2007) 149 Cal.App. 4th 645, 670.

Plainly, CDFG has clearly abused its discretion from the onset, and throughout the CEQA process to date. By intentional omission, or by knowingly inserting false information in pertinent CEQA documents. Making it painfully obvious any regulation CDFG may attempt to promulgate will not withstand scrutiny by either the Office of Administrative Law, nor Administrative Procedures Act requirements.

Even if by some magical stretch of ones imagination, new regulation somehow made it that far. Any new regulation, contrary to, or not in accordance law will certainly be quickly litigated, plaintiffs requesting immediate injunctive relief to halt the implementation of any new regulation not made according to fact, or governing law.

ENVIROMENTAL BASELINE CONDITIONS

CDFG is faced with the “impossible” task of establishing a “statewide environmental baseline” where all small scale suction dredge gold mining occurs. Irrefutably, the variables of all localized environments where small scale suction dredge gold mining occurs statewide are so different in scope. No credible mean average of all individual conditions can be legally applied to any single suction dredging operation anywhere else statewide.

Given this insurmountable obstacle, in that SB 670 currently prohibits all small scale suction dredge gold mining statewide. CDFG arbitrarily attempts to totally circumvent this regulatory prerequisite, by asserting no suction dredging is now taking place throughout California. As such, that is the statewide environmental baseline condition which CDFG will use as a basis to promulgate new regulation.

Which is legally unsustainable, and preposterous in that it has nothing to do with every aspect of all individual environmental conditions (flora, fauna, fish, special status species, water - air - habitat quality, etc) existing where 3,200 small scale suction dredging operations could take place statewide in California.

The point being, without an environmental baseline, it is also impossible to credibly establish how small scale suction dredging could effect any environment. CDFG does not know, and cannot establish what those individual environmental conditions are in multiple places tens, hundreds or thousands of milers apart.

Section 15125 of the CEQA Guidelines, an EIR must include a description of the existing physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project to provide the “baseline condition” against which project-related impacts are compared. Normally, the baseline condition is the physical condition that exists when the Notice of Preparation (NOP) is published.

A threshold provides a rational basis for significance determinations. This complies with the CEQA Guidelines requirement that a Lead Agency’s determination of significance be “based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data” (Guidelines Section 15064). In this same vein, thresholds based on substantial evidence of significance bolster the defensibility of the determination.

Referencing the CEQA checklist alone does not constitute a quantifiable, defensible significant impact threshold.

CEQA thresholds must be based on legal standards, credible studies, surveys, reports, or other data which can identify that point at which a given environmental effect becomes significant. A fully-fledged threshold should contain, in some form, the following elements:

• A brief definition of the potential effect. • Reasons for its significance. • Threshold criteria for significance.• Geographic scope of the criteria. • References to the facts or data upon which the criteria are based.

MAGNITUDE OF SCALE
Factual considerations:

1). All small scale suction dredge gold mining operations combined statewide encompass’s a total physical area of less that 0.0001 of the states land mass. If equally dispersed being equivalent to about 1 dredge operating sporadically weather, water & regulatory restrictions permitting per 35,000 square acres, or 54 square miles.

2). Current small scale suction dredge gold mining regulation prohibits all suction dredging where, and when critical life events of special status fish occur, especially where, and when spawning occurs.

3). Small scale suction dredge gold mining does not take place 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, all year long. It is physically demanding strenuous work, that only occurs during daylight hours, a few hours a day.

4). Thousands of miles of California waterways, and millions of acres of waterway drainages are permanently closed to all suction dredge gold mining by current regulation, expressly to protect specific special status species of fish, etc.

5). Special status, and/or endangered species of fish do not exist statewide. Consequently, there is no logical need to prescribe a statewide standard to protect special status fish in areas where they don’t exist.

6). Suction dredging is a distinctly individual occupation, and no two operators have the exact same schedules. Suction dredging only occurs sporadically statewide, dependent on each individuals personal schedule.

7). For reasons of practicality, efficiency and their own personal safety suction dredging does not take place in freezing winter months, during snow melt run-off months, or during any other natural high water events, including floods, or any other dangerous water conditions.

8). Spacing between suction dredging operations is self regulating. To suction dredge safely, and profitably requires optimal underwater visibility, so the nozzle operator can see possible hazards, and the gravel substrate material he intends to dredge. That physical fact prevents suction dredging directly in the plume of another suction dredge operating upstream.

9). Suction dredging adds nothing to the waters in which it takes place, that is not already there. In fact suction dredging has specific beneficial effects, in that it removes 98 % of toxic lead, and other metals individual operations encounter.

10). All EPA identified sites in California where dangerous mercury contamination is known to exist, are closed to suction dredging. In the rare instances where visible elemental mercury is discovered, individual dredging operations also remove 98% of mercury that enters the dredges gold recovery system. Which, miners dispose of at regulated sites.

11). Even if all suction dredging in California was prohibited forever. The downstream migration of mercury, and all other toxic pollutants existing in California waterways would not slow, decrease, or halt. As downstream migration of any pollutant in all waterways statewide is controlled by forces of naturally occurring annual high water events, and periodic flooding that no human regulation is capable of stopping.

12). Natural laws governing hydrology establish that most waterways reset themselves due to annual, 10, 25, 50 & 100 year periodic high water events. Meaning waterways naturally restore themselves to baseline conditions by forces of nature.

13). Substantial credible evidence in the record establishes the cumulative environmental effect of small scale suction dredge gold mining is so infinitesimally small, or “de minimis”, it is not measurable, under existing scientific standards.

14). Conversely, any evidence contrary to #13 above, is primarily based on unsubstantiated allegations that small scale suction dredge gold mining “may”, “might” or “possibly” could have adverse effects on fish, or the environment.

In other words, that evidence only insinuates possible adverse effects, rather than definitively prove they occur by substantial evidence.

"…argument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion or narrative, evidence which is clearly inaccurate or erroneous…is not substantial evidence." PRC Section 21082.2

Given these irrefutable facts, the “magnitude of scale” of statewide effects of suction dredge gold mining is so infinitesimally small, it cannot have any cumulative effect on fish, or the environment above a de minimis level. As such, no credible argument to the contrary can be established.

CONTROL FACTORS
In order to establish a quantifiable environmental effect of any particular action, in any given place. All other environmental factors existing there must also be considered in the equation, in order to calculate a credible ambient result.

In other words, to fairly establish what the environmental effect of one thing occurring in one place, all other things occurring there to, that have environmental effects must be considered.

Some examples are; If small scale suction dredge gold mining were taking place in water where its natural condition is significantly turbid. The effect of the plume from suction dredging would not add visible turbidly to the waterway. If suction dredge were taking place at more than 2 ft of depth in relatively turbid water. Any effect to the waterways substrate would be invisible.

If that same water was already heavily polluted, suction dredging would not increase preexisting pollution. If no special status fish exist in a particular waterway, suction dredging could not have any effect on them.

Consequently, all things having an environmental effect on fish in any waterway, must be considered in combination with suction dredging. Otherwise no comparative scale of control factors exists, by which one could be compared to the other.

For instance, without knowing the ambient turbidity, or any other pollution level of any particular waterway. It would be impossible to credibly ascertain if suction dredge gold mining had any effect there. CDFG has not, and cannot establish credible statewide control factors.

DELETERIOUS
The term “deleterious” means “harm”. In a legal, and regulatory context the term “deleterious” alone is clearly open to ambiguity, and legal challenge. Because, the word “deleterious” alone does not establish a quantifiable degree of harm. As an example, excess salt in a human diet is “deleterious” to ones health. Consequently, the amount of salt individually consumed must be quantified to how much is, or is not deleterious to human health.

In other words, a magnitude of scale must be factually established to determine a threshold amount of salt which when consumed has a “deleterious” effect. Plainly, consumption of significant amounts of salt, is deleterious to human health. Conversely, consumption of insignificant amounts of salt is not. To determine where the baseline is drawn between the two requires sound judgment based on the best scientific and factual data available.

A defensible threshold of significance is an identifiable quantitative, qualitative or performance level of a particular environmental effect, noncompliance with which means the effect will normally be determined to be significant by the agency and compliance with which means the effect normally will be determined to be less than significant.

Thus, a “threshold of significance” for a given environmental effect is that ascertainable level at which the lead agency can reasonably verify the effects of the project to be significant, or not.

With this criteria in mind, the same holds true that when a regulatory standard is based upon a “deleterious” effect on fish. A defensible threshold of significance must be established, so that the threshold criteria used cannot be overturned on the basis that is not based on sound judgment, nor credible.

Making the same subject to legal challenge on the grounds that it is arbitrary, capricious, or not in accordance with law.

With regard to the environmental effects of small scale suction dredge gold mining, CDFG must establish a quantifiable threshold to establish at what point a “deleterious” effect is, or is not significant.

Which requires 1), establishment of a credible baseline of environmental conditions, where small scale suction dredge gold mining takes place.

2), A definable scale of magnitude of it’s effects. Both must be based on a preponderance of sound scientific evidence.

To be defensible, the standards or regulatory definition upon which these thresholds are based must be reasonable. If otherwise, the standard of both the baseline conditions, and the scale of magnitude of deleterious effects attributable to small scale suction dredge gold mining effects, when challenged would be overturned through Office of Administrative Law, or Administrative Procedures Act adjudication, or by judicial process.

RECREATIONAL LAND USE FACTORS
Suction dredging effects only a microscopic fraction of all California land & waterways. Conversely, federal public domain lands within California occupy about 45% of the State. On those lands, millions of recreational users, sightseers, tourists, picnickers, campers, hikers, fishermen, swimmers, sunbathers, rafters, boaters, off road bicycle - motorcycle - ATV - snow cat riders, skiers etc., use a large percentage of those lands in every season. All of which is a privilege, not a private property right, as valid mining claims owners are vested with.

As an example of exactly how negligible, and insignificant small scale suction dredge gold mining actually is. Consider in one year millions of individual fishermen, boaters, rafters, swimmers, sunbathers and campers themselves cause more environmental degradation in waterway drainages than all suction dredges combined statewide could in 500 or 1000 years. Simply because there are millions more of them than small scale gold mining suction dredgers, putting the same lands, and identical water resources to use annually.

To prove that exact point without doubt, consider that garbage collection sites, and dumpsters specifically meant to service all other recreational land users in California occupy far more space than all small scale suction dredge gold mining sites do statewide. Then consider that maintaining, repairing, and servicing just the public toilets alone, at recreational sites statewide is a far bigger industry by itself, than all combined suction dredge gold mining is statewide.

Simple math alone, irrefutably proves that about six million other recreation land users in California, in comparison to 3,200 (+/-) suction dredge operators equates to an insignificantly small number, and clearly negligible environmental impact suction dredge gold mining throughout California may have. With emphasis on the word “may”, as the effect of suction dredge gold mining is so small, it is impossible to even determine with accurate scientific specificity what the total “cumulative” impact it "may" have amounts to.

People generally pay attention to money. As such, ponder that in fact hundreds of millions of dollars of state/federal taxpayer funds are spent annually in California to service and repair recreational area facilities, and the significant environmental degradation directly attributable to there use, caused by all other recreational users, other than small scale suction dredge type gold mining operations.

The reality is, except in exceptionally rare isolated instances, an average person could crisscross the whole State repeatedly, without ever even seeing one single small scale gold mining type suction dredge in actual operation. In fact, suction dredge type gold mining is so rare an occurrence, that the average Californian, has never actually seen one in operation.

Moreover, small scale suction dredge type mining claim owners, have significant pride of ownership, in what they own, that other recreational land users do not normally have. As they have the privilege of use, but no personal ownership rights.

Every serious small scale suction dredge type mining claim owner who’s a mining claim that is readily accessible to the public. Has, more often than not, when arriving there found it strewn with significant litter, refuse, garbage, including piles of human excrement, each crowned with toilet paper.

In more severe instances mining claim owners have found bullet riddled junked vehicles of every sort, bent rims, worn out tires, dead freezers, refrigerators, washing machines, clothes dryers, television sets, mattress‘s, and the full spectrum derelict household furniture.

In every instance, because those mining claim owners have a distinct pride in ownership, they invest the time, and effort to clean up, haul away and properly dispose of what others illegally dumped on their property. In general, no other recreational land user would do the same, except mining claim owners.

CONFLICTS IN STATE LAW
The California Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) exempts all individual mining operations from its permitting standards, and CEQA that extract less than 1000 yards of material, on less than 1 acre annually. No individual small scale suction dredge gold mining operation in existence in California mines more than 1/20 of that amount annually. Other exemptions exist in CEQA, that fit the definition of small scale suction dredge gold mining, which CDFG intentionally ignores.

CONFLICTS WITH FEDERAL LAW
A). Federal mining laws clearly grant vested private property entitlements, and valid existing rights to mining claim owners. In laymen’s terms, meaning mining claim owners own the gold on their property, and the vested private property right to mine it. Subject only to environmental standards, that will not cause unnecessary, or undue degradation to the environment, under reasonable State regulation.

Otherwise, unreasonable regulation would preclude all mining claim owners statewide from mining what they own. Which, would be a clear unconstitutional “taking”, unless provisions were made in advance to pay those owners just compensation, for their loss. Which, is not the case here.

B). Federal, and State law grants mining claim owners with vested private property rights, to put water on their mining claims to necessary beneficial use, in order to mine. Again, the environmental standard for that water use is no unnecessary, or undue degradation. Not “no” degradation, otherwise placer mining would not be possible.

To prohibit that necessary water use would also enforce an unconstitutional “taking”, of those privately owned water rights, unless provisions were made to pay those owners, for their loss.

C). A land, and/or water use “permit” is a protected private property right, if or when a substantial investment is made, to operate under that permit. As is the case with all CDFG suction dredge permits, in that users invested in expensive suction dredges, other mining related equipment, and mining property to perform suction dredging on. Once a permitted activity takes place, the right of use is “vested” in the permit holder.

That “right” cannot be arbitrarily taken, without just compensation. As, such that use is “grandfathered” under existing regulation.

INCIDENTAL TAKE
“Take” under the California Endangered Species Act basically means harming, capturing, and killing special status species, in this instance fish. Statewide agricultural irrigation, hydroelectric power generation, municipal diversion & use, logging, commercial fishing, sports fishing, Indian fish harvesting etc, are all granted ‘incidental take” permits.

Sports fishermen certainly “take” special status species of fish. As they have no control, over which type fish they might hook, and reel in. But, CDFG does not require an “incidental take” permit to do so.

In one single day of operation, all of the aforesaid incidentally “take” more special status fish, than small scale suction dredge gold mining could possibly even effect in 1000 years.

It defies common sense, and is plainly an abuse of discretion not to grant small scale suction dredge gold miners the same treatment, or allowance CDFG so easily gives to all sports, and Indian fishermen in California.

CDFG UNLAWFULLY CIRCUMVENTS CEQA REQUIREMENTS
SB 670 mandates small scale suction dredge gold mining is a statewide CEQA project. CEQA projects are site specific, and governs significant environmental impacts at such sites. Small scale suction dredge gold mining presently takes place on 3,200 individual sites statewide, and could take place at 20,000 other sites ranging the full length, and width of California.

As such, it is literally impossible for CDFG to even establish an accurate CEQA environmental baseline everywhere small scale suction dredge gold mining physically takes place in California. The only plausible way to apply CEQA to small scale suction dredge gold mining. Is to designate each individual small scale suction dredge site, a stand alone individual CEQA project.

However, in that the State legislature only allocated $1.5 million dollars to fund this specific CEQA project. CDFG neither has the time, means, human resources or funding to do 3,200 site specific CEQA projects. With that restraint in place, in order to proceed, CDFG has no other choice, but to cut CEQA corners, by intentionally circumscribing CEQA standards.

First, and foremost CEQA mandates critical documents must be factually informative. Enough so that those critical documents clearly illuminate pertinent information the Lead Agency, and all others involved, including the public must have. In order to make a realistic appraisal what the project is, where it is situated, the environmental baseline of the site, and any significant environmental effect the project may have.

To date, CDFG refuses to established who owns, or has governing authority over the land where the project primarily takes place. CDFG has not established how many sites exist, or with any legal specificity even the address, or legal descriptions of where the project takes place, other than statewide. Nor can CDFG establish a factual comprehensive environmental baseline for the project.

Lacking that critical information, makes it impossible for anyone involved to be fully appraised of facts necessary to visit, inspect, or fairly evaluate the project.
Factually, small scale suction dredging throughout California takes place primarily on privately owned mining claims, situated on or within federal public domain lands.

In its SEIR, CDFG allocated one (1) single short paragraph in a 109 page document to mining claims. That paragraph is less than informative, and also almost totally erroneous, as follows.

5.5.8 Location
Suction dredging can take place throughout California, though much of the suction dredging occurs on private lands or unpatented claims owned by mining clubs. In some cases individual club members pay a fee to use the club’s claim, such as with the New 49ers (New 49ers 2009). Clubs cannot prohibit the public from accessing unpatented claims for purposes other than mining. These clubs may provide facilities, infrastructure, supplies, and also have their own rules and guidelines for suction dredging and associated activities. Many miners also own their own unpatented claims to which they have an exclusive right only to the locatable minerals under claim. Horizon Water and Environment. 2009.

1). “much of the suction dredging occurs on private lands ”.

Factually, the SEIR omits almost all private lands where suction dredging takes place are patented fee simple mining claims.

2). “or unpatented claims owned by mining clubs”.

Factually, mining clubs own less than 3% of all mining claims of public record statewide.

3). “cannot prohibit the public from accessing unpatented claims for purposes other than mining.”.

Factually, all patented mining claim owners can restrict all public access. Valid unpatented mining claim owners can restrict public access that will materially interfere with, obstruct or endanger their mining, or suction dredging operations.

4). “Many miners also own their own unpatented claims to which they have an exclusive right only to the locatable minerals under claim”.

Factually, valid unpatented mining claim owners, besides owning applicable minerals, and the legitimate right to extract them under reasonable regulation. Also have the right to surface use for all mining, and incidental related purposes. They also have both statutorily granted rights to use or clear standing timber (for mining purposes), and beneficial use of water by federal law, as well as riparian water rights under state law.

Not only that, provisions of both Federal and State law, allow mining claim owners to initiate trespass actions against intruders who materially interfere with their mining operations. As well as initiate criminal complaints against anyone damaging their property, equipment, or caught stealing valuable minerals from a mining claim.

Mining claim owners may also make citizens arrest, to stop active commission of such crimes, on their property.
All of which is a long standing undisputed private property right of occupancy, and use in order to mine.

Both, patented, and unpatented mining claims are in fact taxable “real property”. All such vested private property rights are certainly Constitutionally protected. A critical fact CDFG intentionally ignores.

Intentionally, nowhere in this SEIR does CDFG even mention, give any detail, or explain anything what-so-ever of all applicable Acts of Congress, federal statutes, regulation, and policy governing federal public domain lands, and mining claims. Nor, ever mention the voluminous long standing, cast iron solid case law precedents that both establish, perfect, and protect mining claim owners historically vested private property rights.

The SEIR intentionally omits all Federal Acts, and law applicable to, and governing public domain, and mining claims as impart follows: General Mining Law, as amended, 30 U.S.C. §§ 22-54, Organic Administration Act of 1897 (Ch. 2, 30 Stat.11, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 473-475, 477-482, 551; (b), Multiple-Surface Use Act (30 U.S.C.A. § 612(b) & 615, 612(b), 16 U.S.C. § 481: Use of waters, National Mineral Policy Act (30 U.S.C.A. § 21(a), The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA), as amended (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), USFS mining regulations 36 CFR 228 et seq., and BLM mining regulations 43 CFR 3800, et seq.

Irrefutably, federal law is the supreme law of the land. The federal government is, and federal law are certainly pertinent to all federal public domain lands, and mining claims in California.

CEQA guidelines 15366. Jurisdiction by Law (a) "Jurisdiction by law" means the authority of any public agency: (3) To exercise authority over resources which may be affected by the project. Note: Authority cited: Section 21083, Public Resources Code; Reference: Sections 21080.3, 21080.4, 21104, and 21153, Public Resources Code.

CEQA Guidelines 15376. Person "Person" includes any person, firm, association, organization, partnership, business, trust, corporation, limited liability company, company, district, city, county, city and county, town, the state, and any of the agencies and political subdivisions of such entities, and, to the extent permitted by federal law, the United States, or any of its agencies or political subdivisions. Note: Authority cited: Section 21083, Public Resources Code; Reference: Section 21066, Public Resources Code.

[Hoser John]

Your preaching to the choir. Stopher has been a proven SOB since the 1991 Cantara Spill Committe lied it's arse off for over 10 years and pissed off over $50 million doing nothing but making matters worse!!! THAT is how he got this position --being the only SOB who ever screwed dredgers over and got away with it BUT THE MINING RIGHTS GROUPS DIDN'T THINK THAT 368 MILES OF CREEKS AND 61 MILES A RIVER MATTERED AND TURNED THEIR BACKS--as ye sow--so shall ye reap---ya creeps---John

[CalGoldDredger]

I was just thinking that the other day, about Stopher and Colorado. Yep. He was "chosen" to do a deed, maybe even some casino money sprinkled on top.

Stopher is like a "Closing" pitcher for the greenies!!!

[Hoser John]

CEQA is really NOT a monster. It was conceived to seperate politics from biology and mandate honesty. Well casino and environutz cash fixed that. It was NEVER to be instituted without a huge scientific discovery that provided new evidence or a crash in a species population BUT that is the basis of PROMELGATION-- a emergency act to institute emergency closures in case of a accident-aka Cantara Spill. The kalif bureauratz made absolutely no effort to understand the issues and Arnold was pumping up his enviro nazi status for his exit with a pocket fulla casino cash and special favors-asta la vista anus---John

[CalGoldDredger]

Might I add...Upon the completion of the Evironmental Impact Report the temporary dredging moratorium will be lifted but many will not be happy with the new regulations that are to come from it. The writting is on the wall.

One might want to be preparing for that day.

[Hoser John]

Yes because the 7 environutz and casino crowd coalition have many more lawsuits,injunctions and stays already to file if,when and ever a ungodly expensive,time restricted,size restricted, site specific tinker frigging toy season ever starts again- F"M" and I ain't talkn' radio-John