Note to my readers:

I will be away from a computer for the next week as a result of which there will be no postings during this time.

I shall make every effort to "catch up" on any pertinent news upon my return.

In the meantime, thank you for your understanding.

Back to Square One on New "Gold and Fish" Rules

Washington State's Department of Fish and Wildlife has officially withdrawn the latest proposed mineral prospecting rules in the wake of written comments received from the public.

According to the department's website, WDFW will propose new rules and will be accepting public comments on them as soon as they are published; reportedly "soon".

The pertinent web page may be accessed here and the official letter of withdrawal to the Office of the Code Reviser here.

Pan for Gold at the Beach This Summer?

On 20 March 2008, Governor Gregoire signed SB 6343 into law. This law, which takes effect on 12 June 2008, requires the State Parks and Recreation Commission and the Department of Fish and Wildlife to establish a pilot program to allow small scale prospecting and mining on Washington's ocean beaches beginning 1 July 2008.

The law requires the establishment of at least three demonstration areas located between the southern border of Cape Disappointment State Park and the southern border of the Quinault Indian Reservation. Furthermore, these areas must be 1) located in separate areas along the coast; 2) located in areas suitable for small scale prospecting; and 3) located in areas having minimal potential for damage to the beach environment, birds, shellfish, other beach marine life, fish habitat, and other recreational use.

The law further requires the Department of Fish and Wildlife to issue individual hydraulic project approval permits for small scale prospecting within the demonstration areas. Hopefully, WDFW will provide details on applying for these HPAs in the not too distant future.

The text of the bill as signed into law may be read here.

A Brief Summary of, and Comments on, SB 2750

SB 2750, aka the Abandoned Mine Reclamation Act of 2008, would bring a number of changes to the general mining laws that should be of concern to small-scale and recreational miners.

Like its predecessor in the House, HB 2262, SB 2750 would apply to "any mining claim...located under the general mining laws, before, on, or after the date of enactment of this Act". This means that placer claims, as well as lode claims, would fall under its control. Also, this act would apply to existing claims as well as to new ones.

Also like HB 2262, "production of all locatable minerals from any mining claim located under the general mining laws and maintained in compliance with this Act...shall be subject to a royalty of 8 percent of the gross income from mining." In any event, "(t)he royalty...shall be 4 percent in the case of any Federal land that is subject to an operations permit on the date of the enactment of this Act; and produces valuable locatable minerals in commercial quantities on the date of enactment of this Act."

One unfortunate aspect of this proposed legislation is that it makes the claim owner responsible for any "theft (of) the locatable minerals, concentrates or products derived therefrom which are produced or stored on a mining claim," although the act does not specify what penalty, if any, would be exacted from the victim of such a crime.

Also, as with HB 2262, SB 2750 requires "any person engaged in transporting a locatable mineral, concentrate, or product derived therefrom to carry on his or her person, in his or her vehicle, or in his or her immediate control, documentation showing, at a minimum, the amount, origin, and intended destination of the locatable mineral, concentrate, or product derived therefrom in such circumstances as the Secretary determines is appropriate." No mention here, at least, of forest rangers or police officers stopping motorists on the public highway to search their vehicles for "undocumented" minerals as was the case with HB 2262.

SB 2750 would also impose significant record keeping requirements on the claim holder who "shall establish and maintain any records, make any reports, and provide any information that the Secretary may reasonably require for the purposes of implementing this section or determining compliance with rules or orders under this section." The claim owner must also cooperate with any demand for an audit of his records and that "(f)ailure by a claim holder, operator, or other person...to cooperate with such an audit, provide data required by the Secretary, or grant access to information may, at the discretion of the Secretary, result in involuntary forfeiture of the claim."

As a claim owner, your mining-related records are also subject to audit "at reasonable times and upon request," and the Secretary shall "have access to, and may copy, all books, papers and other documents that relate to compliance with any provision of this section by any person."

Furthermore, if you accidentally dump your sluice box or tip your dredge into the river, you shall be "liable for royalty on all locatable minerals, concentrates, or products...lost or wasted from a mining claim located under the general mining laws and maintained in compliance with this Act...." There is no mention of how one would go about determining the value of any minerals so "lost or wasted."

In addition to the above provisions, the act would increase the annual maintenance fee to $300 per claim. If you have 10 or fewer claims and do the required assessment work, you can still qualify for the familiar "small miner exemption" and avoid paying the $300 fee. The act also imposes a $50 per claim location fee and a $100 per claim transfer fee. All of these fees are slated for increases to keep up with inflation, as and when the Secretary sees fit.

The above pretty much sums up this bill as far as it would apply to the small-scale and recreational miner. My main problems with this proposed legislation are:

1. It treats placer mining the same as lode (or "hardrock") mining when the two are entirely different in terms of the deposits they exploit, the methods used to extract the minerals, and the impact they have on the environment. Although billed as an "abandoned mine reclamation act", it appears blind to the fact that the abandoned mines in need of reclamation are lode mines, not placer mines.

2. It contains no exemption for small-scale and recreational miners and, as such, threatens to render these activities impractical even though they do not and never have contributed to the problems associated with abandoned lode mines.

As small-scale and recreational miners already know, their placer mining activities are already highly regulated at the state level and hardly need new legislative burdens applied; especially when those burdens appear tailored to large-scale commercial "hardrock" operations. Perhaps the congressional sponsors and supporters of the legislation are simply unaware of the thousands of amateur and recreational prospectors and miners and of the local economies that have grown up around providing for their needs?

Perhaps we can enlighten our Congresspersons to our existence and activities so that they do not allow us to get squashed in the gears of their general mining reform legislation? I certainly hope so.

To read the entire text of the proposed bill, visit the link here.

HB 2871 Update

The Senate passed a resolution on March 13 returning HB 2871, the bill to decriminalize violations of the state's Gold and Fish Pamphlet, to the House Rules Committee for third reading.

Son of HR 2262: SB 2750 Introduced in U. S. Senate

Remember HR 2262, the House bill that would have put an 8% royalty on the gross value of any minerals extracted from public lands, among other outrageous enactments? Well, it's back! This time it comes to us in the form of SB 2750: A bill to modify the requirements applicable to locatable minerals on public domain lands, consistent with the principles of self-initiation of mining claims, and for other purposes.

This new version of the old abomination was introduced in the Senate yesterday by Senator Dianne Feinstein of California. It has been read twice and referred to the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee.

I have only skimmed the text of this proposed measure, but it appears to embody most of the provisions of its predecessor almost verbatim as well as imposing higher fees for locating and maintaining unpatented claims.

To read the text as published in the Congressional Record, visit the link here and scroll about halfway down the page. There you will find Senator Feinstein's introduction followed by the text of the bill.

The current status of SB 2750 can be found here and an RSS feed for updates here.

I figure this is another bill we all need to keep a close watch on while sending comments to the appropriate parties.

SB 6343 Update

The beach mining bill, SB 6343, which was passed by the House on March 5, signed by the President of the Senate on March 6 and by the Speaker of the House on March 10, was delivered to the Governor this morning.

More news after it happens.

One Down; One to Go

Senate Bill 6343 - Authorizing small scale prospecting and mining in certain areas - passed the House today 96 to nothing. Next stop: the governor's desk.

We now await progress on HB 2871, the bill to decriminalize Gold and Fish Pamphlet violations.

Stay tuned.

More Progress on SB 6343

SB 6343 - the beach placer mining bill - was placed on second reading by the House Rules Committee today.

The link for this bill is here.