Washington State Miner

Tom

An article by Nansen Malin in the NW Daily Marker reports on the efforts of a Portland-based advocacy group called the Gifford Pinchot Task Force to halt mineral exploration on Mount Margaret in Washington's Saint Helens Mining District in Skamania County.

It appears at this point that the exploration activities underway are aimed at determining if there is sufficient economic potential in the deposit to warrant the development of a mine plan. Needless to say, if the "advocacy" group has its way, any potential for economic benefit from a potential mine will go the way of the potential mine...nowhere.

It is not my intention to regurgitate the NW Daily Marker piece here. I would prefer that you read it for yourself at this link.

But I will mention that there are two public meetings scheduled at which citizens will have the opportunity to express their feelings and opinions regarding letting the explorations go forward. Details on the meetings are given in the NW Daily Marker account as follows:

LONGVIEW SCOPING MEETING
Wednesday, Feb. 15, 6:30-8 p.m.
Cowlitz Regional Conference Center (Loowit Room)
1900 seventh Avenue, Longview, WA

MORTON SCOPING MEETING
Thursday, Feb. 16, 6:30-8 p.m.
Lyle Community Center
700 W. Main Street, Morton, WA

If you wish to be heard on this issue, you now know the 'where' and the 'when' to make that happen.

Tom

The U.S. Forest Service is seeking applicants to serve on a committee to assist in the implementation of the new Land Management Planning Rule for use of the national forests. According to the web page announcing the creation of this committee, its members "will provide advice and recommendations on issues such as planning rule directives for implementation, best practices, effective monitoring practices and ongoing collaboration efforts."

The announcement further states:

The committee will be comprised of up to 21 members with diverse backgrounds, who represent the full range of public interests in management of the National Forest System lands and who represent geographically diverse locations and communities, within each of the following three categories of interests:

Significant for the small-scale mining community is the inclusion in category 3 of "energy and mineral development." (Emphasis added.)

The small-scale mining and prospecting community could benefit from having a member on this committee not only from that member's efforts on behalf of miners but also from information provided by that member to the community as to what plans are under consideration that could impact mining activities in the national forests. A sort of early-warning system, if you will, that could give the rest of us the opportunity to mobilize in support of our rights on forest service administered lands.

Persons interested in applying for the committee should take note of the following information, also from the announcement web page linked above:

Nominations must contain a completed application packet that includes the nominee’s name, resume, and completed form AD–755 (Advisory Committee Membership Background Information). The form AD–755 may be obtained here (pdf version), or here (Microsoft Word version), or from the Forest Service contact person.
The 45-day nomination period closes Feb. 21, 2012.
Completed applications sent through express mail should be sent to:
Jessica Call*
USDA Forest Service
National Forest System
Mail Stop 1106
201 14th Street SW.
Washington, DC 20024
Completed applications sent via the U.S. Postal Service must be
sent to:
Jessica Call*
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service
National Forest System
Mail Stop 1106
1400 Independence Avenue SW.
Washington, DC 20250–1106

*Note that the Federal Register notice said that applications should be addressed to Angela Gee. Any applications addressed to Ms. Gee will be received with no problems, but since Ms. Gee is no longer working on the Planning Rule FACA Committee, the current contact is Jessica Call. Applications addressed to Ms. Gee will automatically be forwarded to Ms. Call, so either contact name works.

Other facts to note are:

The 45-day nomination period closes Feb. 21, 2012. Additional details on the committee are available in the Federal Register, or by calling 202-205-0830.

See the web page linked at the beginning of this post for more information.

Tom

Note: Due to a computer crash I have been unable to post to this blog for several weeks. Things are slowly getting straightened out so I hope to be able to update more regularly now. My apologies for the lengthy absence.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission together with Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) will hold an open meeting on February 16 at 6:30 P.M. at the Montesano City Hall, 112 N Main Street, Montesano, Washington.

The purposes of the meeting, as set forth in the official announcement, are to "provide information about small-scale beach prospecting rules that were enacted last year to regulate the activity on Washington’s ocean beaches, and to hear public opinions and preferences about those rules."

Questions about this meeting should be directed to " Lisa Lantz, State Parks Acting Stewardship Program Manager, at 360-725-9777."

Previous posts on ocean beach mining in Washington can be found here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.

A Google Maps map showing the location of the Montesano City Hall is available at the link here.

Tom

As reported here and here, the Washington State Legislature is considering legislation that would impose a $150 fee for a Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) application.

SB 6011 is the companion to HB 2135 that would impose this fee. Like its House counterpart, the Senate bill was introduced at the request of the Department of Fish and Wildlife by sponsors Ranker, Hargrove and Shin.

SB 6011 had its first reading on January 9 and was referred to the Energy, Natural Resources & Marine Waters committee. HB 2135 remains in the House Committee on Ways & Means.

It will pay to watch these bills closely as public hearings tend to be scheduled with very little advance notice.

Tom

The title of this post is taken from the title of a report written by Josephine County, Oregon Sheriff Gil Gilbertson who has been involved in a "clash" with the U.S. Forest Service regarding the latter agency's law enforcement efforts within his county. (Sheriff Gilbertson's actions as they relate to the mining community have been mentioned previously on this blog here, here, and here.)

According to Sarah Foster, writing in Oregon Sheriff Gil Gilbertson Continues Stand Against U.S. Forest Service at NWV News, Gilbertson's report is,

... a “must read” for anyone concerned about infringements against the 10th Amendment and federal encroachments in general – like road closures, Wild Lands and Monument designations, mining and other resource uses. In other words, this is for anyone and everybody with an interest – no matter how casual -- in accessing the public lands, either as a “resource user” (a rancher or miner) or simply a casual vacationer who enjoys weekend camping.

Sections of the report do deal with mining, in particular these paragraphs from page 10:

“Public land” that is disposed by claims under the act of 1872 becomes “Public Domain”. “The locators of all mining locations made on any mineral vein, lode, or ledge, situated on the public domain, their heirs and assigns, w(h)ere no adverse claim existed on the 10th day of May 1872 so long as they comply with the laws of the United States, and with State, territorial, and local regulations not in conflict with the laws of the United States governing their possessory title, shall have the exclusive right of possession and enjoyment of all the surface included within the lines of their locations.”

The mechanics of what happens to the “public land’ once found to be mineral in character is expressly evidenced in the Organic Act of 1897, that “any public lands embraced within the limits of any forest reservation which…” “…shall be found better adapted for mining or for agricultural purposes than for forest usage, may be restored to the public domain.” By private settlement under various land disposal laws of the United States, such as the Mining Law of 1872, “public land” is restored to the public domain.

The federal agencies have management authority only over “public land”, not privately settled public domain. The act of location restores the land to public domain and the mining law provides the locator of such segregation “shall have the exclusive right of possession and enjoyment of all the surface included within the lines of their locations”

Federal mining claims are “private property”

“but so long as he complies with the provisions of the mining laws his possessory right, for all practical purposes of ownership, is as good as though secured by patent.”

“All mining claims, whether quartz or placer, are real estate. The owner of the possessory right thereto has a legal estate therein with the meaning of ORS 105.005”

Setting the required boundaries of a mining claim literally sets a boundary describing land separate and distinct from agency authority placing the land under the exclusive authority and jurisdiction of the locator. This interest is also stated as case law and Forest Service Manual details.

And in this paragraph from page 11:

No section of the FLPMA (Federal Lands Policy and Management Act - 1976) and, therefore, no Forest Service authority may impair or amend locator’s rights under the act of 1872. Further that, “no provision of this section or any other section of this Act (FLPMA) shall in any way amend the Mining Law of 1872 or impair the rights of any locators or claims under that Act, including, but not limited to, rights of ingress and egress”

To get the full picture of Sheriff Gilbertson's research, one should read the entire 13 page report which is available as a .pdf here: Unraveling Federal Jurisdiction within a State.

Tom

The Washington Division of Geology and Earth Resources has announced the availability of the following publications:

Open File Report 2011-1. Geologic map of the Monroe 7.5-minute quadrangle, King and Snohomish Counties, Washington, by J. D. Dragovich, M. L. Anderson, S. A. Mahan, C. J. Koger, J. H. Saltonstall, J. H. MacDonald Jr., G. R. Wessel, B. A. Stoker, J. P. Bethel, J. E. Labadie, Recep Cakir, J. D. Bowman, and S. A. DuFrane. 2011. 42 x 36 in. color sheet, scale 1:24,000, with 24 p. text. (Available online only, at http://www.dnr.wa.gov/publications/ger_ofr2011-1_geol_map_monroe_24k.zip [15.6 MB])

Open File Report 2011-2. Analytical data from the Monroe 7.5-minute quadrangle, King and Snohomish Counties, Washington—Supplement to Open File Report 2011-1, by J. D. Dragovich, S. A. Mahan, M. L. Anderson, J. H. MacDonald Jr., G. R. Wessel, S. A. DuFrane, Recep Cakir, J. D. Bowman, and H. A. Littke. 2011. 61 p., 2 plates, and 2 Microsoft Excel files. (Available online only, at http://www.dnr.wa.gov/publications/ger_ofr2011-2_monroe_supplement.zip [34.6 MB])

Tom

Yes, that's right folks. The House Committee on Ways & Means has scheduled a public hearing on HB 2135, the bill that would establish a $150 application fee for an HPA as reported earlier here.

The hearing is to take place in the John L. O'Brien Building, House Hearing Rm A, Olympia, WA tomorrow, December 6, at 10:00 AM...unless changed by the legislature before then.

It seems to this observer that, if these people really represented us, as they claim to do, they would actively seek our input instead of setting up so-called "public hearings" on such short notice that the public is effectively precluded from attending. But, I digress.

More on this unfolding travesty as it occurs.

Tom

Here we go again!

The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) has, through the offices of Representatives Zack Hudgins and Ross Hunter, introduced HB 2135, a bill which, if passed and signed into law, would allow WDFW to "charge a one hundred fifty dollar application fee for all applications for hydraulic project permits under this chapter to recover the costs for processing permit applications."

Needless to say, since the recently approved beach mining requires an HPA, it would cost $150 just to apply to go gold panning at the ocean if this bill is enacted, making the activity prohibitively expensive. Can you say, "Hard won, easily lost?"

Please feel free to use the links above to contact Representatives Hudgins and Hunter, if you are so inclined, and to read the text of the bill and follow its progress in the legislature. At the moment, the bill is in the House Ways & Means Committee.

Tom

Ever since the South West Oregon Mining Association (SWOMA) published this article on their website detailing the variety of state and federal agencies that are monitoring their online activities, I've been wondering who's watching WSM?

I don't normally concern myself with the demographics of visitors to this site, although perhaps I should. Anyway, I decided to check on who's been dropping by lately. Among our visitors in the last 2 weeks:

Washington State DNR - 1 visit

Click to enlarge.

Headquarters United States Army Information Systems Command - 6 visits

Click to enlarge.

Federal Aviation Administration - 5 visits

Click to enlarge.

BLM - 4 visits

Click to enlarge.

Department Of Homeland Security - 1 visit

Click to enlarge.

WDFW - 4 visits

Click to enlarge.

State Of New Mexico - 1 visit

Click to enlarge.

Visits by some of these agencies, like DNR, BLM, and WDFW, I can understand. But the Army? The FAA? (Seen any airborne suction dredges lately?) And the Department of Homeland Security? (YIKES! This is getting scary!)

Hopefully I haven't frightened away too many of my readers. Because maybe these are just visits by folks interested in getting out into the great outdoors and panning a few flakes of our favorite yellow metal? We can hope so, anyway.

Tom

Mining districts once constituted a bulwark for the organized protection of miners' rights. After reading the ICMJ's Prospecting and Mining Journal article linked here, it appears they are poised to do so once again. As the article above tells it, miners in southwestern Oregon have revived the late 19th-early 20th century institution of the mining district in order to more effectively organize their resistance to the increasing attacks coming from federal, state, environmentalist, and tribal sources. Instrumental in this revival is the South West Oregon Mining Association (SWOMA).

According to the SWOMA website, the Jefferson Mining District was officially created on September 2, 2011 (see document and map here) following several meetings and a vote by the miners. A couple of the assaults on miners' rights prompting the creation of the District include illegal road closures and the potential sealing of "inactive mines" (defined as "ANY mine without an approved Plan of Operations") as though they were abandoned mine lands.

Mining districts were common in Washington in the early 20th Century as shown in this 1912 map from Bulletin 507, The Mining Districts of the Western United States by James M. Hill:

Washington State Mining Districts in 1912 (Click to enlarge.)

As illustrated above, there were some 59 mining districts in Washington in those days. Could they be revived? And would doing so benefit local miners? Given the recent activity in southwestern Oregon, the answers to both questions would seem to be, "yes!" What can work in Oregon can work in Washington. In particular, the SWOMA website linked above contains ample information for anyone wanting a "blueprint" of how to form a mining district.

Washington miners should take heed of this opportunity rather than remain complacent in the face of increasing threats to their occupation, for what government and environmentalists have done to miners in Oregon (and elsewhere) they can do to miners anywhere, including Washington.

The SWOMA website is linked both in this post and in the right-hand sidebar of this page under "Clubs and Organizations" for those interested in researching the formation of a mining district.

Tom

PLSS (Public Land Survey System) and USGS Quadrangle locations are now available in Google Earth with free plug-ins courtesy of Metzger+Willard, Inc.

If you've ever needed to know the section, township, and range in which a certain geographical feature is located, you can now see this information as an overlay in Google Earth thanks to the PLSGE plug-in described on this page which also contains the download link.

Likewise, if you need to know which USGS Quadrangle map covers your area of interest, download and install the QUADS plug-in described on this page where you will also find the download link.

Metzger+Willard also have other free Google Earth plug-ins listed on their Earth Survey page. But the two mentioned above appeared to me to be the most useful for prospectors and miners. Links for both plug-ins are also available in the MAPPING APPLICATIONS & ONLINE SPATIAL DATA section of the Resources for Prospectors portion of the right-hand sidebar on this page.

Tom

As reported here, ocean beach mining opens Sunday, October 9, for small-scale placer operations. Remember, you need an individual HPA in hand before you can placer mine on the beaches as the Gold and Fish Pamphlet does NOT fulfill this requirement. (Why miners need an HPA to dig holes in the sand but clam harvesters and sand castle architects do not is beyond me.)

The areas open to mining are in the Seashore Conservation Area which is defined in RCW 79A.05.605 as

...all lands now or hereafter under state ownership or control lying between Cape Disappointment and Leadbetter Point; between Toke Point and the South jetty on Point Chehalis; and between Damon Point and the Makah Indian Reservation and occupying the area between the line of ordinary high tide and the line of extreme low tide, as these lines now are or may hereafter be located, and, where applicable, between the Seashore Conservation Line, as established by survey of the Washington state parks and recreation commission and the line of extreme low tide, as these lines now are or may hereafter be located; and shall also include all state-owned nontrust accreted lands along the ocean: PROVIDED, That no such conservation area shall include any lands within the established boundaries of any Indian reservation.

Precisely where these "lands now or hereafter under state ownership or control" which are open to mining lie is unknown to this writer and may take some research in the property records of Clallam, Grey's Harbor, Jefferson, and Pacific counties to determine. I have heard that the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) has a map or maps showing which areas are open to mining but this writer has yet to locate a copy. In any event, here is a map taken from Handbook For Gold Prospectors In Washington by Wayne S. Moen and Marshall T. Huntting, Information Circular 57, Washington Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geology and Earth Resources, 1975, page 36, showing where gold was found in beach deposits in the past. (NOTE: The locations shown below are for historical information only and are NOT necessarily open for prospecting under the new rules. Check the appropriate land ownership or WDFW map records - if they exist - before mining.)

Historical Beach Placer Locations (Click to enlarge.)

The following placers numbered on the map above are described in Information Circular 57:

1 - Shi Shi Beach: Beach between Portage Head and Point of Arches in Sections 18, 19, and 30 Township 32N Range 15W. Beach deposit in which a thin layer of fine heavy sand rests on a wave-cut terrace in sandstone overlain by 1 to 3 feet of gravel and sand. Gold and platinum are found in the thin layer and in cracks in the bedrock.

2 - Ozette Beach: Section 12 Township 31N Range 16W. Beach deposit of gold and platinum concentrated along surface of a wave-cut terrace in sandstone.

3 - Little Wink: Center S½SW¼ Section 1 Township 30N Range 16W. Reworked Pleistocene gravels in a beach placer.

4 - Morgan: NW¼NW¼NE¼ Section 12 Township 30N Range 16W. Reworked Pleistocene gravels at high-tide level.

5 - Morrow: SW¼SW¼ Section 18 Township 30N Range 15W. Beach deposit in which there is a 2-foot layer of gravel reworked by wave action from Pleistocene gravel. Spotty fine gold content averaged $4.00 per cubic yard at $20 gold.

6 - Yellow Banks: 2 miles south of Sand Point in SW¼ Section 18 Township 30N Range 15W. Beach deposit of gold and platinum concentrated on surface of a wave-cut terrace in Pleistocene drift.

7 - Main and Bartnes: NW¼NW¼ Section 19 Township 30N Range 15W. Sand and gravel cemented by clay and iron oxide.

8 - Johnson Point: NW¼ Section 5 Township 28N Range 15W. Beach placers and gold in Pleistocene deposits of the bench adjacent. Some pans of sand ran as high as 60 cents Au and some panners recovered $2 to $10 per day at $20 gold.

9 - Cedar Creek: Near mouth of Cedar Creek in E½ Section 18 Township 29N Range 15W. Gold and platinum occur in a beach placer in a 2- to 15-inch sand layer on the surface of a wave-cut beach in clay. The sand layer is said to be 400 feet long and 100 feet wide at low tide. Said to yield from 2 to 5 pennyweights of gold and platinum per cubic yard. Ratio of Pt to Au ranges from 1:5 to 1:15.

10 - Sunset Creek: Section 19 Township 29N Range 15W.

11 - Ruby Beach: E½NE¼ Section 31 Township 26N Range 13W. On tombolo (a sand bar connecting an island to the mainland or to another island) between Abbey Island and Ruby Beach. Very fine grained gold in beach sand.

12 - Moclips River: Section 8 Township 20N Range 12W.

13 - Oyhut: On ocean beach at Oyhut. Beach placer. Assays 72 cents gold per ton at $20 gold.

14 - Point Brown: Sections 15 and 23 Township17N Range 12W.

15 - Ocean Park: Ocean beach at Ocean Park. 87 cents gold per ton at $20 gold.

16 - Fort Canby: Mouth of Columbia River near Fort Canby. Sand. 81 cents gold per ton at $20 gold.

17 - Sand Island: Island at mouth of Columbia River just south of Ilwaco. Sand. $1.51 gold per ton at $20 gold.

See Information Circular 57 at the link above for more details.