CDFG Sac Meeting 2/11 Illegal

[old gold miner]

JUST SENT TO PAC RE: DFG/PAC CEQA SUCTION DREDGE MEETINGS

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Dear Mr. McInerny

First, I want to thank you for the courteous professional manner you handled the Suction Dredge Program Public Advisory Committee (PAC) meeting February 11th. I doubt you would disagree, in these trying economic times, it is best all involved carefully manage our time, expense and financial resources, so as not to waste them. With that concern in mind, please follow along.

I believe you are either unaware or DFG has been disingenuous in not keeping you fully advised of past, current, and ongoing legal circumstance, and events, that may well make the current suction dredge PAC meetings schedule ill advised. Resulting in nothing constructive occurring, wasting the effort, as well as all involved time, and expense. While I cannot divulge certain information, as it is both confidential, and impart privileged.

I can inform you of matters of public record, that are facts. August 6th, SB 670 made DFG’s issuance of suction dredge permit’s a CEQA project. Shortly thereafter, PLP filed suit in federal court, against provisions of SB 670, on multiple grounds they are unconstitutional, and preempted by federal law. The California Attorney Generals office (AG) answered the suit, seeking to have it dismissed, primarily on the basis the state is immune to such suits, claiming sovereign immunity.

PLP answered that motion to dismiss, with authoritative reasons, why that is not so. As well as filed a motion for immediate injunctive relief. The motion to dismiss hearing is set for March 25th. Where, it is almost certain the AG motion to dismiss will be denied. Assuming it is denied, that adds considerable credibility PLP’s motion for immediate injunctive relief will be granted at, or shortly after the March 25th hearing regarding that matter.

Again, assuming injunctive relief is granted, striking down any provision of SB 670. In that SB 670 contains no “savings“, or “severability” clause. All provisions of SB 670 are struck down, including the provision making suction dredge permitting a CEQA project. As such, DFG would have no statutory authority to continue this CEQA project. To legally reinstate issuance of suction dredge permits, as a CEQA project would require legislative action, which would take considerable time.

For that matter, it is conceivable, given the legislature now has far more information about the overall economic, and “unconstitutional” uncompensated private property “takings” effects SB 670 directly caused. It is possible no such legislation making CEQA applicable to suction dredging might be forthcoming in the future, at all.

Frankly, DFG has its mandated job to do, as well as you. However, in that a forthcoming federal court decision/injunction will be the deciding factor if CEQA is applicable to the issuance of suction dredge permitting. Would it not be the wise prudent thing to do, to at the very least reschedule these suction dredge PAC meetings, until such time as that decision is made? Simply so all involved parties do not waste resource, expense, and costs of holding, attending, meeting and compiling results from subject matter PAC meetings all for naught.

Certainly, if PLP’s suit is dismissed February 25th, proceed. But, I would wager a considerable sum, it will not be. If not, simply wait until March 25th, or shortly thereafter to determine if an injunction striking down SB 670 occurs. Then, either proceed or halt the process as appropriate, depending on the ultimate decision forthcoming shortly in federal court. Doing so may well save all involved considerable consternation, time, effort, expense, and costs.

It costs you nothing to delay these suction PAC meetings, other than rescheduling, if, or when appropriate.
Please give the matter serious consideration.

Sincerely,


~~~~~~~~~~~~

WHO HE IS:

Austin McInerny, MRP, is a Senior Facilitator/Mediator and Natural Resource/Land-Use Planner as well as a public outreach specialist. He has extensive experience developing consensus-based, stakeholder-driven, resource management/infrastructure development review processes involving a wide range of interests. He additionally has considerable management and field experience in watershed planning, environmental assessment, regulatory compliance, habitat restoration, and use of Internet-based planning tools, including geographic information systems.

His recent experience includes facilitation and strategic planning for the South Bay Salt Pond Restoration Project, the largest wetland restoration effort to be undertaken on the West Coast. He has also worked as a facilitator, neutral assessor, and process designer for the U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution on a number of highly contentious projects, including the Upper Klamath Basin Working Group Restoration Planning Process, Desert Tortoise Recovery Planning Situation Assessment, and the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains National Monument Management Plan development effort.

He has also served as facilitator and process designer for public outreach efforts associated with a wide variety of project types, including aquatic invasive species management in California, off-highway vehicle route designation for the U.S. Forest Service, expansion of the Bay Area Rapid Transit system, habitat conservation planning along the northern California coast, and recreational opportunities development in the Eastern Sierra.

He has additionally managed numerous environmental compliance efforts, including development of environmental impact report/statements. Most notably, Austin's efforts on the Upper Guadalupe River Flood Protection Project for the Santa Clara Valley Water District (San Jose, California) helped secure the Association of Environmental Professionals' 2002 Outstanding Environmental Analysis Document Award.

Mr. McInerny is certified by the U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution as an Environmental Dispute Resolution and Consensus Building Professional and has published and lectured on collaborative planning methods. He received a Masters in Regional Planning from Cornell University in 1997 and a B.A. in environmental studies from the University of California, Santa Cruz, in 1990

[CalGoldDredger]

OGM, Nice Letter, I hope to heck you know what you are doing. I certainly don't want and would hate to see something backfire or go a rye.
I would be the first to admit I am not very good with the legal or political stuff I tend to call it how I see it, I guess it is the darn oakie in me.
Mix that with some short wick temper and oooh boy, watch out.
I suppose I would not make a good candidate to make comments on this matter either in meetings or courts.
Or would I make a very good politician, I call it how I see it and don't lie, beat around the bush, sceme, cheat.......

John

[tommyknocker]

Many thanks to the folks who have committed to look out for our best interests...
However, my opinion...All this ""blather" is based on an illegal law illegally thrust upon us citizens of California.

MEMBER ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES: By agreeing to serve on the PAC, members
agree to work collaboratively and to meet the following responsibilities:
• As appropriate act as a liaison and communicate information to and from their
organizations.
• Offer the perspective of a good citizen, an independent thinker and trust worthy
individual.
• Build trust among all stakeholders.
• Contribute data/information to clarify issues and eliminate false assumptions.

That sounds great, should be done in an hour or two of the first meeting, then we can get back to stream reclamation ...

T

[old gold miner]

The point being, I did not agree to, or sign anything.
I suppose they can have me ejected, if they wish.
Trouble with that is, the STINK it would cause.

I had my CA mining claim property tax bills in hand, my income tax statements, showing income from placer gold sales.
Not to mention a brief case of laws governing mining on federal lands, in triplicate, if anyone wanted a copy.

DFG certainly did not want to hear or see any of it.
As if they can operate with their head buried in the sand.

I sent that email to PAC, explaining the timing situation in the hopes plain old common sense might prevail.
State pays travel expense for those invited, if they travel 50, or more miles
I was not invited & my budget, is at my own expense, out of my hip pocket.

Why the hell gather up a big group of people from all over the state for these meetings.
If any/all of what they do, may go down the latrine hole, if federal court overturns SB 670 shortly.
At least to me, at the present time, these PAC meetings seem like an exercise in futility.

But, its best to go along, so you are present & get your position on the record, as the meetings happen.
Otherwise, these loonies will get all sorts of bizarre things in any new reg’s, if new reg’s ever happen.
Far better to kill the BS in advance, than litigate at great expense, to try to get them changed, after the fact.

I mean right off, DFG wanted to discuss including high banking & sluicing in the new suction dredge reg’s.
Instantly, I asked DFG to show what statutory authority they have to do that, as none exists.
Statutory authority allows them to regulate in-stream vacuum & suction dredge only…. PERIOD.
End of that story.

It is clear to me, on every issue DGFG raises, they will try to stretch it beyond their power.
I know the law, reg’s & valid mining claim owners private property rights, as well as the nose on my face.
I’m just there to insure DFG cannot pull the wool over anyone’s eyes on what DFG can & cannot legally do.

Obviously, DFG will attempt to insert reg’s regarding access, camp sites, ascetics, even sound, etc.
WRONG ANSWER, they have no authority to do that.
Certainly, that BS is in CEQA.
None the less, DFG CANNOT exceed their statutory authority, in suction dredge regulation.

DFG has intentionally kept federal mining law out of all this CEQA process.
As federal mining law & the private property rights granted to valid mining claim owners CONFLICTS with all they are attempting to do.

Time & time again, I have been asserting everywhere possible, CA cannot pass laws that are inconsistent, or conflict with federal mining laws.
CA operates as if, they can ignore federal law that clearly preempts state law. WRONG ANSWER.

All I am trying to do is protect my own, my families & all other miners involved RIGHTS.
Jerry Hobbs thought I should be there & got me through the door.
Am I wrong, should I stay away & let them screw things up, more than they already have.

[russau]

the DFW cant handel the truth!

[Gold Seeker]

OGM Quote:

"All I am trying to do is protect my own, my families & all other miners involved RIGHTS.
Jerry Hobbs thought I should be there & got me through the door.
Am I wrong, should I stay away & let them screw things up, more than they already have."

I personally am glad that someone is involved that has no other agenda, other than to make sure that THEY don't overstep their authority, and to see that our rights are not omitted from the process!!

The fact that the DFG was trying to include sluicing and highbanking in the dredging regulations is making my blood pressure rise , THANKS for setting them straight on the facts!!

PLEASE keep doing what you have been doing, and don't let anyone's opinion stop you.

Thanks,
Skip

[goldfinds]

OMG thank you for going to that meeting, I think you can and will contribute a lot of relative knowledge and experience, and I think its already apparent to them you can contribute.

Not one other person that went to the meeting has communicated to the mining community about this meeting and purpose, except you, and I am very greatful for that. I want to be kept aprised of whats going on in these meetings, (I'm a serious miner and this is important to me), CDFG needs to publish minutes of each meeting online.

Thanks again OMG.

ScottC
http://www.goldfinds.com

[russau]

yes it is a very well thought out letter! thankyou OGM

[old gold miner]

One of the bizarre things in all this is why the CA legislature, during the formulation of SB 670 did not ask the CA Attorney General for a legal opinion, about the legality of a suction dredge mining prohibition during the CEQA process it implemented.

Common sense mandates, don’t pass a law that you cannot defend the legality of in court.
As a court will overturn it.
Making the whole thing, a wasted effort

NOW, I KNOW WHY NOT.

CA Attorney General would have stated, the suction dredge ban would preempted by federal law, and impossible to defend in federal court. That is FACT.
In other words, CA & DFG is playing DIRTY POOL.

Had that legal opinion been forthcoming back then, there would be no suction dredging ban, during the CEQA process.

Nor, would the CA Attorney General have been able to defend the states position on SB 670, in federal court now.
As, a prior CA Attorney Generals legal opinion to that effect, would shoot down any CA attempt to defend the SB 670 suction dredge ban in federal court.

Reality is:
From the onset some in the CA legislature & DFG knew the suction dredge ban, during the CEQA process is ILLEGAL.

THEY DID IT ANYWAY

That is what we are up against.

In effect, CA & DFG are using every dirty illegal trick in the book & no doubt will continue to do so.

When a state legislature is willing to & intentionally acts illegally, that is profoundly unconstitutional.

[old gold miner]

RECENT DFG SUCTION DREDGE SURVEY

This survey is designed as a tool to use AGAINST suction dredging in California.

1,100 were sent out.
Meaning about 33% of the number of actual permits issued in California.
Consequently, it is NOT a true sampling survey.

Its heading contains the words “Non-Residents of California”.
Yet, it was sent to many California residents.

It covers the calendar year 2008.
SB 670 provisions canceled all suction dredge permits statewide August 6th, 2008.
Consequently, the 2008 suction dredge season was incomplete.

Neither SB 670, nor California Fish & Game (DFG) regulations contain any provision for a REFUND of canceled permits. The indefinite suction dredging prohibition SB 670, and DFG regulations now enforce, is clearly in contravention of Federal Law, and unlawfully “takes” mining claim owners vested private property rights. Without provision for payment of just compensation to all those it effected.

MY ANSWER:

This survey is not within provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), nor provisions of the California Administrative Procedures Act (CA APA). DFG has no regulatory authority, or discretion to expend state funds allocated to complete a CEQA process, that includes this purported survey. Both CEQA, and APA mandate “public” hearings. This survey does not constitute a “public” hearing. Provisions of SB 670, and current DFG regulations that abrogate numerous provisions of federal law are now being challenged in United States District Court, Civil Action #.: 2:09-CV-02566-MCE-EFB.

1. Until such time as DFG can provide lawful authority to expend state funds to make such a survey; 2), gives a clear explanation how the results of such survey will be used, and where; 3), refunds 2008 canceled suction dredge permit fee’s; 4), and lifts the unlawful statewide suction dredge prohibition. I might participate in a legal survey.

IN ANY EVENT, I WILL NOT PARTICIPATE IN ANY QUESTIONABLE DFG SURVEY, plainly devised to illegally abrogate more of my Constitutionally protected private property rights.