Attn: Mark Charles
Department of Environmental Quality
811 SW Sixth Avenue
Portland, OR 97204-1390

Commented by:
Dave KXXXXX
XXXXXXXX
XXXXX XXXX
XXXX

GENERAL PERMIT NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM DISCHARGE PERMIT DRAFT COMMENT

Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899
Section 10
That the creation of any obstruction not affirmatively authorized by Congress, to the navigable capacity of any of the waters of the United States is hereby prohibited; and it shall not be lawful to build or commence the building of any wharf, pier, dolphin, boom, weir, breakwater, bulkhead, jetty, or other structures in any port, roadstead, haven, harbor, canal, navigable river, or other water of the United States, outside established harbor lines, or where no harbor lines have been established, except on plans recommended by the chief of Engineers and authorized by the Secretary of War; and it shall not be lawful to excavate or fill, or in any manner to alter or modify the course, location, condition, or capacity of, any port, roadstead, haven, harbor, canal, lake, harbor of refuge, or enclosure within the limits of any breakwater, or of the channel of any navigable water of the United States, unless the work has been recommended by the chief of Engineers and authorized by the Secretary of War prior to beginning the same.

Therefore Mining Claimants, Mineral Owners, Small Scale Suction Dredge Operators, Prospectors and Outdoor Recreationalists fail to acknowledge the (DEQ) Department of Environmental Quality assumptions that it has the Authority to regulate activities prevalent to a NPDES Proposed Permit under CWA regulations.

The Army Corps has jurisdiction over both Section 404 of the CWA, which regulates discharges of dredged and fill material into navigable waters of the United States, including wetlands, and the Rivers and Harbors Act. Section 404 of the Clean Water Act cannot therefore be said to “impair” or “affect” the Army Corps’ authority over structures or activities within navigable waters. Section 511 does not exempt the Corps from complying with Section 404 permitting requirements. Moreover, the Section 404 exception makes evident that water quality determinations for activities under the Army Corps’ jurisdiction are not subject to Section 402.

Under section 511 of the CWA, Section 402 and Section 404 jurisdiction are mutually exclusive: no activity can be subject to both EPA and the Army Corps’ CWA jurisdiction; either a Section 402 or a Section 404 permit may be required for an activity regulated under the CWA, but never both.

Title 40: Protection of Environment
PART 122—EPA ADMINISTERED PERMIT PROGRAMS: THE NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM
Subpart A—Definitions and General Program Requirements
§ 122.3 Exclusions.
The following discharges do not require NPDES permits:
(a) Any discharge of sewage from vessels, effluent from properly functioning marine engines, laundry, shower, and galley sink wastes, or any other discharge incidental to the normal operation of a vessel. This exclusion does not apply to rubbish, trash, garbage, or other such materials discharged overboard; nor to other discharges when the vessel is operating in a capacity other than as a means of transportation such as when used as an energy or mining facility, a storage facility or a seafood processing facility, or when secured to a storage facility or a seafood processing facility, or when secured to the bed of the ocean, contiguous zone or waters of the United States for the purpose of mineral or oil exploration or development.
(B) Discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States which are regulated under section 404 of CWA.

Title 40: Protection of Environment
PART 122—EPA ADMINISTERED PERMIT PROGRAMS: THE NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM
Subpart C—Permit Conditions

§ 122.44 Establishing limitations, standards, and other permit conditions (applicable to State NPDES programs, see §123.25).
i) The Director may authorize a discharger subject to technology-based effluent limitations guidelines and standards in an NPDES permit to forego sampling of a pollutant found at 40 CFR Subchapter N of this chapter if the discharger has demonstrated through sampling and other technical factors that the pollutant is not present in the discharge or is present only at background levels from intake water and without any increase in the pollutant due to activities of the discharger.

The History of the Clean Water Act
Established in 1972, the Clean Water Act, with its Section 404 (33 U.S.C. 1344), is the basis for federal wetland regulation. The Clean Water Act Section 404 program is administered jointly by the Department of the Army and the Environmental Protection Agency.

This portion of the Clean Water Act provides the basic legislation that protects wetlands from dredging, filling, and other development activities.
When Congress enacted the Clean Water Act, it authorized the Army Corps of Engineers to issue permits for the discharge of dredged and fill material into waters of the United States, and left it up to the Corps to define "Waters of the United States."

Section 404(a) of the Clean Water Act regulates the discharge of dredged or fill material into "navigable waters." Thus, Section 404(a) clearly grants the Corps authority to issue permits "for the discharge of dredged or fill material into the navigable waters at specified disposal sites."


The Tulloch Rule
The Tulloch Rule does have its own de minimis exception, but it is framed in terms of the Act's overall goals. A permit is not required for "any incidental addition, including redeposit, of dredged material associated with any activity that does not have or would not have the effect of destroying or degrading an area of waters of the United States." 33 CFR s 323.2(d)(3)(i). Persons engaging in "mechanized landclearing, ditching, channelization and other excavation activity," however, bear the burden of proving to the Corps that their activities would not have destructive or degrading effects.

Degradation is defined as any effect on the waters of the United States that is more than de minimis or inconsequential

33 CFR 323.2(d)(5). Thus, whereas the 1986 rule exempted de minimis soil movement, the Tulloch Rule covers all discharges, however minuscule; unless the Corps is convinced that the activities with which they are associated have only minimal adverse effects. In promulgating the new rule the Corps "emphasize[d] that the threshold of adverse effects for the de minimis exception is a very low one." 56 Fed.45,020.

Indeed, fallback is a practically inescapable by-product of all these activities including but not limited to small scale suction dredge mining. In the preamble to the Tulloch Rule the Corps noted that "it is virtually impossible to conduct mechanized landclearing, ditching, channelization or excavation in waters of the United States without causing incidental redeposition of dredged material (however small or temporary) in the process.” As a result, the Tulloch Rule effectively requires a permit for all those activities, subject to a limited exception for ones that the Corps in its discretion deems to produce no adverse effects on waters of the United States. I would have you note that the USACE will not and has not granted small scale suction dredge mining permits due to their opinion of suction dredging is de minimus by nature.

The straightforward statutory term "addition" cannot reasonably be said to encompass the situation in which material is removed from the waters of the United States and a small portion of it happens to fall back. Because incidental fallback represents a net withdrawal, not an addition, of material, it cannot be a discharge and thus nationwide exemption is a standard rule for small scale suction dredge activities.

The nearest evidence we have of definitional intent by Congress reflects, as might be expected, that the word 'discharge' contemplates the addition, not the withdrawal, of a substance or substances. ( North Carolina v. FERC) 112 F.3d 1175, 1187 (D.C. Cir. 1997).

The primary counter argument--that fallback constitutes an "addition of any pollutant" because material becomes a pollutant only upon being dredged--is ingenious but unconvincing to those who have actually partaken the activities and have witnessed the operations of this similar in size equipment. Regardless of any legal metamorphosis that may occur at the moment of dredging, I fail to see how there can be an addition of dredged material when there is no addition of material only a withdrawal of lead and mercury along with copper coins and fishing line by the bundle.
Although the Act includes "dredged spoil" in its list of pollutants, 33 U.S.C. s 1362(6), Congress could not have contemplated that the attempted removal of 100 tons of any substance could constitute an addition simply because only 99 tons of it were actually taken away. When one reads the act it becomes apparent that the term “spoil ” only contemplates the actual removal of soil, gravel and cellar dirt to another location whether 100’ feet or 100’ miles to another dry or temporary location for further handling and clearly does not imply the operations of a small scale suction dredge is categorized under this definition.

Avoyelles Sportsmen's League v. Marsh, 715 F.2d 897, 924 n.43 (5th Cir. 1983) the court held that "the word 'addition,' as used in the definition of the term 'discharge,' may reasonably be understood to include 'redeposit,' " 715 F.2d at 923, it did not consider incidental fallback at all which at any one point of the entire days operation of a small scale suction dredge would be far less than the commercial or industrial equipment could move in one scoop during an actual permitted plan subject to regulation and environmental impact reports.


Rybachek v. EPA

The Ninth Circuit found that the Act permitted EPA to regulate placer mining using holding ponds and technology capable of meeting the criteria of the proposed new rules could not be met within their (Rybachek’s) financial means but could be met as shown for hydraulic mining which the Rybachek’s mining operations actually consisted of.

Suction Dredging is a process in which miners excavate dirt and gravel in waterways using nozzles of 4” and under and classified by many suction dredging studies to be of no to localized impact, and, after extracting the gold, place the leftover material back into the water on a de minimus scale and at no time did the operations of the Rybachek’s use or involve the equipment considered small scale mining as defined by manufacturer’s criteria of recreational equipment of 4” and under.

The Judicial Court opinion erred is assuming the nature of the Rybachek’s operation involved a Suction Dredge, and thus erroneously failed to examine the actual operations first hand in the field, but completely succeeded in sitting behind a official parapet and mocking true justice by basing their decision of computer models and numbers from an agency known to have provided incomplete figures and facts tenfold for decades. Giving summary judgement out of ignorance of the law and common sense flies in the face of America’s problems, when we can have judges make law as they see it and provide no knowledge of the issues in the actual conditions outside the building which house their ignorance and feed them feel good policies affecting this countries economic wealth.

The Rybachek ruling held that the material separated from gold and released into the stream constituted a pollutant based on the Hydraulic operations they were enjoined in, and, to the extent that "the material discharged originally comes from the streambed itself, its’ re-suspension in the stream may be interpreted to be an addition of a pollutant under the Act but nowhere did the judicial authority truly acknowledge that the Rybachek’s were allowing or could have allowed the suspended sediments to settle before allowing the direct return into the stream in the case of their Hydraulic mining operations and not to actual suction dredge operations. Therefore this ruling does not quantify the actual use of true suction dredge operations and the operations of stream based mining in itself.

The Judicial decree failed to acknowledge that the Rybachek’s were actually not suction dredge mining and were instead attempting to get by without the extra expense of holding ponds upon their hydraulic mining activity that was not actually upon or nearby the river that the judges made this ruling.Id. at 1285. The allowance of mining water from the Rybachek’s operation to re-enter the stream without filtering was the real issue here and through the courts blind method of justice they overlooked the facts and ruled on something completely different than what was intended which is common within our court system.

Rybachek ruling incorrectly held that imperfect extraction, i.e., “extraction accompanied by incidental fallback of dirt and gravel”, constituted "addition of a pollutant," but instead it identified the regulable discharge as the discrete act of dumping leftover material into the stream after it had been processed from the Rybacheks’ hydraulic mining operations where they were actually washing the hillsides away with high pressure nozzled jets of water, but the justices due to their unfamiliarity of suction dredging of such a small scale ( 8” and under ) failed to accept or acknowledge the fact that holding ponds and hydraulic mining is completely a different ongoing operation as compared to suction dredge mining of de minimus impact that contained no outside sources of soil from outside the waterway whatsoever.

When viewed as a re-suspension to cover excavation or dredging accompanied by incidental fallback (virtually every act of excavation of suction dredging), it contradicts the statutory requirement of an addition of pollutant under the clean water act as per congress’ true intention. How does one surrounded by office walls and a government paid window to see out of, come to acquire any factual knowledge based on computer models programmed by even lesser known enthusiasts of the outdoors that cannot input the variable conditions into a scenario of a single watershed accurately and thus present this information up the food chain of the judicial system to meet summary judgement.

For the DEQ to try to impose this court ruling as it pertains to the use of small scale suction dredge mining activity that is within the incidental and deminimus impact already documented within the 27 studies from:
Ames 1995,
Badali 1988,
Cooley 1995,
Gough 1997,
Griffith and Andrews 1981,
Harvey 1980,
Harvey et al. 1982,
Harvey 1986,
Hassler et al, 1986,
Huber and Blanchet 1992,
Lewis 1962,
McCleneghan and Johnson, 1983,
Nelson et al, 1991,
North 1993,
Oregon Dept. of Fish and Wildlife 1980,
Prussian et al 1999,
Shaw and Maga 1942,
Somer and Hassler 1992,
Stern 1988,
Thomas 1985,
US Army Corps of Engineers (1994),
US Dept. of Agriculture (1997),
USGS 1998,
Wanty et al, 1997,
Ward 1938,
State of California 1997,
Harvey et al 1995
only shows its willingness to circumvent established written tried and true court and agency findings.

This I am to believe, carries the Agency beyond its statutory mandate of Authority within the scope of its jurisdiction to apply an NPDES permit and subsequent penalties and fines of Industrial nature against the Mining Community of Oregon that resides within the scope of exemption from NPDES permitting as a whole which further addresses the harm economically to the State of Oregon as written in 517.123 through 517.128 Legislative findings.

The Legislative Assembly finds that prospecting, small scale mining and recreational mining:
(1) Are important parts of the heritage of the State of Oregon;
(2) Provide economic benefits to the state and local communities; and
(3) Can be conducted in a manner that is not harmful and may be beneficial to fish habitat and fish propagation. [1999 c.354 §2]

517.125 Rules to be adopted in consultation with affected parties. Any rule pertaining to recreational or small scale mining adopted after June 28, 1999 shall be adopted in consultation with affected parties.
[1999 c.354 §3]

Can it be shown that within the timeframe of draft proposal through final draft that the DEQ has truly notified the affected parties and consulted with them in a manner that reflects their needs as a Minor Industry and economic benefit to this State? Or can it be shown that through various mining community efforts to see this permit not cause undue harm has only resulted in specific members of the mining community unwilling to accept the fees and fines being purposely left out of the subsequent drafts and discussions. Need Proof?, just ask the Mining Community who has acted upon good faith and has only been ignored by an agency that fails to meet or acknowledge the State Laws as written and upheld.

517.128 Restricting access to open mining area or mining claim prohibited. A person may not attempt to restrict access to any open mining area or valid mining claim or to harass or interfere in any way with a person engaged in lawful mining activities. [1999 c.354 §4]

The plaintiffs of the Mining Community within Oregon are entitled to an injunction and therefore express that the judicial court system grant statewide relief to Mining plaintiffs and non-parties of similar activities alike. We of the Miners Response Team representing known and unknown miners encompassing Mining Claimants of ORMC # Lower 40 Little North Fork of the North Fork Santiam River do seek injunction relief and declaratory takings by this proposed draft of NPDES requirements upon the Mining Community & Third parties known or unknown of similar nature from this enactment and have documented a takings of real personal property based on USA V SHUMWAY Case Number: 96-16480 12/28/99.

We feel that any court finding would declare an illegal takings based on Measure 37 (Oregon Voter approved measure in 2004) supported by Lexx / Waggener ruling (EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA United States of America, NO. CR. S-01-559 LKK Appellee, v. O R D E R RONALD O. LEX; and KENNETH WAGGENER) and additionally by courtcase USA V SHUMWAY (Case Number: 96-16480 Date Filed: 12/28/99) of real personal loss to property and property rights and further unwarranted takings without due re-compensation to injured parties affected by this draft or final permit as part or in whole as enforced by the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) the Environmental Quality Commission (EQC) without subsequent review of actual reach of this enactment by the Oregon State Legislature. We of the Miners Response Team, Individual Miners and Mining Claimant owners do seek and will ask for invalidity of DEQ and Division of State Lands (DSL) authority to enact this draft in part or in whole against Mineral Owners, Mining Claimants, Small Scale Mining Operators and future prospecting citizens of the State of Oregon and the neighboring states citizens who regionally come into this state seeking the Mineral wealth of Oregon

We uphold our rights to ask for Judicial review and the vacancy of these proposed regulations by DEQ & DSL upon the Mineral Owners, Mining Claimants, Individual Recreational Prospectors, Small Scale Mineral Operators, and all known or unknown similar activities which would fall under this proposal from the Agencies drafting this proposal for enactment in part or whole.

The Administrative Procedure Act permits a suit to be brought by any person adversely affected or aggrieved by agency action. In most cases the agencies (DEQ) action will consist of a rule(s) of broad applicability towards plantiffs’ noted within this letter, and if we the plaintiff prevail, the result is that the rule is invalidated, not simply that the court forbids its application to a particular individual as we of the Mining Community seek. We maintain that as a whole or individuals of the mining community before any court that we will be harmed and seek programmatic implementation of federal requirements that declare the Mining Community of small scale operational nature by similarity be deemed exempt from all requirements of NPDES permitting as drafted or enacted in part or in whole.

The Oregon DEQ’s attempts to alter, manipulate, conform, twist, construct and construe these Federal EPA regulations that categorize NPDES activities and apply them in this twisted unlawful format should be an indicator that this is unjust and unwarranted based on nature of operations that have already deemed as exempted by USACE and EPA and should be the indicator that we need Judicial relief thereby allowing exemption based on de minimus and local effects not showing cumulative impact of any nature by any study cited by reference previously, and therefor by asserting that rock and sand are magically transformed into pollutants or toxics once dredged by small scale suction mining or operations under 8” hose/nozzle diameter and carried by water a relatively short distance makes it so all dredging operations necessarily results in an addition of pollutants to navigable waters which cannot be construed as a true statement as intended by Congress.

Although rock and sand only become pollutants, according to the statute as interpreted, once they are "discharged into water." 33 U.S.C. s 1362(6) (1994) one cannot imply that a suction dredge has discharged into a separate entity or body of water as per the true interpretation of the arguments clause as noted.

The Oregon DEQ’s approach thus just leads right back to the definition of discharge as found and previously noted in EPA regulations as exempt but yet Oregon’ DEQ determination of imposing and re-writing of various regulations contained in the Class categories of NPDES guidelines into a convoluted mess based on no factual data supporting this final draft and the associated fines of Industrial nature that is truly un-enforceable can lead one to only to believe that third party environmental influences subject to RICO Act violations must be inferred and backed from within the Agency by various employee personnel violating the neutrality of their positions.













Oregon Administrative Rules
340-045-0015
Permit Required

NPDES Permit Requirement:
(a) Without first obtaining an NPDES permit, no person shall discharge pollutants from a point source into navigable waters.

Are we a Point Source? Show me the Court ruled document. Are the rivers we dredge a Navigable River?. Most miners I know of do not have claims on Navigable Rivers, so my concern is that this NPDES permit does not apply to those not upon Non-Navigable Rivers. Should those miners not upon navigable river be exempt from permitting?

(B) Without first obtaining an NPDES permit, no person owning or operating an animal feeding operation designated by the Director as a significant contributor of pollutants pursuant to the provisions of 40 CFR §122.23

No cattle is/are/was used on our claim(s), nor can it be shown that we are any documentable contributor of pollutants decreed by Oregon statue.

© Shall discharge pollutants from a point source into navigable waters. Any person designated as such may seek review of the Director's determination by requesting a contested case hearing pursuant to ORS 183.413 to 183.470.

Again I ask, Where is the Judicial Court ruling that decrees we are a Point Source? and if not upon a navigable river then they need to allow the variance and exemption of NO PERMIT NEEDED under 8” hose and 40 hp motors as currently recognized and complied with by the Mining community currently.

Further questions,

Since when is hose size or motor size a factor in potential turbidity? would one not see by reading the suction dredge studies acknowledge that turbidity is based on sedimentary layers of the stream bed?

Where does the DEQ’s authority intercede on equipment used? How does the DEQ quantify their authority to control equipment used under the guise of clean water?.

What document or study has shown that turbidity is exponentially increased or decreased based on hose sized or motor horsepower? Can it not be truly factually stated that Mother Nature the other 10 months out of the year when no operations can be conducted has violated man’s laws?

(3) Any person who has a valid NPDES permit shall be considered to be in compliance with the requirements of section (1) of this rule. No additional permit for the discharge is required.

Prior documented inquiries into obtaining an U.S.A.C.O.E. npdes permit from the Portland Oregon office has resulted in multiple letters from the agency stating we are of inconsequential deminimus impact by rule and not capable of acquiring permit.

If no further permit would be needed according to Oregon Statue clearly written in the above NPDES ORS subsection then how would they possibly ask us to obtain anything else? It says “NO FURTHER PERMIT NEEDED”.

Where has it been shown that the Effluent Incidental Fallback on such a minor scale is a source of discharged pollutants in need of a total daily load allowance?

The Portland Army Corps of Engineers has stated we are of no measurable concern or scale and will not issue a permit, if the U.S.A.C.E is the only issuing authority for NPDES by Federal Law then how does DEQ think it has the authority to issue a permit?





340-045-0027
Public Notice and Participation Requirements for NPDES Permitting Actions

(1) The Department categorized permitting actions according to environmental and public health significance.
Category I represents permit actions with low environmental and public health significance and no public notice and opportunity for public participation.
Category IV represents permit actions with potentially high environmental and public health significance, and the greatest level of public notice and opportunity for public participation. The following describes the public notice and participation requirements for each category:

(a) Category I -- No public notice or opportunity for public participation.

Are we not a category 1 process? subject to complete exemption?.
We do not currently under recreational mining laws in Oregon require public notice to conduct mining operations of any nature as per small scale activities.

Where do the state laws currently written, require you to notify in a public newspaper when you want to go out and mine?
Where do the state laws currently written, require you to notify in a public newspaper when you want to operate on your Mining Claim as a Mining Claimant?

Where is it written in Federal or State Statue that a Mining Claimant shall address and restrict the operations of mineral extraction based on recreational or environmental rules?

Mining claimants concur that their rights are being infringed to say the least when a civilian not associated with mining in general can socially enjoy fishing for 24.75 a year ($2.06 a month breakdown) and actually potentially kill, injure, molest or harm a fish and face no legal repercussion while standing in waders on spawning beds? and further if so desired by civilian with fishing license or without a license, build a dam recreationally without the necessary clauses imposed upon a small scale miner that is being asked to pay 25.00 for an activity currently restricted to 45 calendar days at best.

I would like to further express how I potentially could acquire a fishing license, bring forth a shovel and dig within the banks to find natural bait, introduce a known pollutant called lead over and over again daily with no limits to amount of lead lost into river, entangle and ensnare various underwater obstacles, abandon untold numerous amounts of monofilament fishing line into stream reach when line is lost, stand on and disturb the spawning beds, smoke a cigarette, and dispose of my soda can into the streambanks regularly, wade through the river creating localized turbidity, potentially dump the entire contents of my tacklebox containing , additional lead, and additional monofilament, hooks and barbs into the stream reaches, catch and potentially kill a captured fish, and yet if I did any of this as a recreational miner or Mining Claimant I would potentially be a criminal with just a gold pan or small scale suction dredge under 4” in hand.


(B) Category II -- The Department will provide public notice of the proposed action and a minimum of 30 days to submit written comments.
Are we of the Mining Community a category 2? has it not already established within this document that we are exempt.

Since when are your private records and private actions a matter of public record? Do you not maintain the rights under terms and conditions of assessment paperwork legal work alone set forth under the mining laws to not reveal pertinent information that could cause personal operations and profits to be jeopardized?.

© Category III -- The Department will provide public notice of the proposed action and a minimum of 35 days to submit written comments. The Department will provide a minimum of 30 days notice for a hearing if one is scheduled. The Department will schedule a public hearing to allow interested parties to submit oral or written comments if:

Are we a category 3? If so then it clearly establishes the notice that the public has a right to your private operations under NPDES Permitting, and will publicly reveal your location of your mining claim and the intent of your operations, equipment used and when you will be susceptible to a flat tire or broken windshield from an ELF or Greenpeace activist(s) already documented by the FBI as targeting these activities.
Where does it state that ownership and operations of your mining claim has now become a essay writing contest to see if your allowed to mine the way the Mining laws say you can as a Mineral Owner and Operator?

(A) For NPDES permits, the Department receives written requests for public hearing during the public comment period from at least ten persons or from an organization or organizations representing at least ten persons.

The above clause just opened you up to endless litigation from Greenpeace, ELF, ALF and Friends of “Anything” to continuously write suppositional and assumptive legal briefs to shut you down and tie you up in meetings because they can do this and have done this as documented in the famous Biscuit Fire to name just one instance.

(B) For WPCF permits, the Department receives written requests for public hearing within 14 days of mailing the public notice from at least ten persons or from an organization or organizations representing at least ten persons; or

© The Department determines that a hearing is necessary.

Based on Hearsay?, A witchhunt? What standards?…..Bored Forest Rangers needing overtime to collect by appearing at your meeting officially on the clock?…Where does it stop? How much time are we willing to get off work to attend these meetings based on RICO Act environmental influences curtailing the mineral extractions by the Mineral Owners.

(d) Category IV:

(A) Once an application is considered complete, the Department will provide public notice of the receipt of a completed application and requested permitting action; and

Public Notice that you applied for a permit? What is the basis for resorting to communist actions like this?.

(B) Schedule an informational meeting in the community where the facility will be or is located and provide public notice of the meeting. The Department will consider any information gathered in this process in its drafting of the proposed permit.

Your local community will be notified? for a dredge permit application?, We don’t even get notified about drunk driver convictions
Who's paying for all this? this truly shows this permit cannot be enforced as written or implied

© Once a draft permit is complete, provide public notice of the proposed permit and a minimum of 40 days to submit written comments; and

40 days now?…the previous clause said 30-35 days….Hmmm, just enough to get those form letters in from Greenpeace, Women Voters of Oregon.

(D) Schedule a public hearing to allow interested parties to submit oral or written comments. A minimum notice of 30 days shall be provided for the hearing.

If they are not Local Property owners adjacent to your mining claim, how is it they are interested in your private affairs?…. This means a 30 day hold on your permit…right in the middle of mining season which constitutes a takings of real personal loss.

(2) The following actions are classified as follows:

(a) Category I:
(A) Minor modification of an NPDES or a WPCF permit;
(B) Issuance of a special, short-term WPCF permit;

Hmmm, is this like a short-term activity fee of 10-15.00 dollars that DEQ is trying to get us to sign to locking us into a area for that time period?
Does this not automatically make us a Category 1 user?
I ask you to prove different in your reply to this question.


© Issuance of a new or renewal WPCF permit for an on-site sewage system with a design flow less than 20,000 gallons per day, regulated by OAR 340-071.

We are less than this GPD allowance, and not a sewage system, nor a facility, nor comparable in any manner to this type of discharge, nor of the industrial Mixing Zones associated.

(D) NPDES or WPCF permit administrative actions that include but are not limited to: transfer of a permit to a new owner or operator, termination or revocation of a permit, denial of a permit, and withdrawal of an application.

I see Mining of Small Scale operations as a Category 1 by this, What do you see different? Document your standpoint in full with written law.

(E) Mutual agreement and order in lieu of a WPCF permit.

Are we not being currently managed by a M.A.O. which is a category I or II by comparison? the previous 700-J permit was ruled as a NPDES category II similarity by nature, Which according to this paragraph states we are falling in the Category I classification because we ARE currently using the MAO.

(B) Category II:
(A) Mutual agreement and order in lieu of an NPDES permit unless delay in issuing order may magnify problem [see OAR 340-045-0062(4)];

Go re-read that clause and read it again, The answer is right there as to where we under extreme circumstance that cannot be documented by any study so far as to what the worst case categorization should be.

(B) Issuance of a renewal WPCF individual permit regulated by OAR 340-045, including a renewal of a WPCF permit for an on-site sewage system with a design flow of 20,000 gallons per day or greater, regulated by OAR 340-071.

© Category III:
(A) Issuance of a new or renewal NPDES individual permit unless otherwise specified in this rule;
(B) Major modification of an NPDES permit unless otherwise specified in this rule;

Look at how many modifications and imposition of heavy fines, the DEQ in the Final Draft is trying to impose through manipulation of federal guidelines to classify small scale mining as a NPDES permittee in the future.

If they have to modify illegally the original intent of a NPDES permit guidelines under CWA to make it fit small scale mining then how is this legal to apply it specifically to suction dredging when not written for this activity under congress’ intentions of CWA.

© Issuance of a new or renewal WPCF or NPDES general permit;

Looks like mining or small scale is now a category 3 if you agree to this permit as read below, where is the science?

(D) Issuance of a biosolids land application site authorization letter for any proposed site that meets the sensitive site criteria in OAR 340-050-0030(2);

(E) Issuance of a new WPCF individual permit regulated by OAR 340-045, including a new WPCF permit for an on-site sewage system with a design flow of 20,000 gallons per day or greater, regulated by OAR 340-071.

(F) Approval of a new pretreatment program or a substantial modification to an existing approved pretreatment program;

(G) All other actions not elsewhere classified.

Is this the loophole that catches you in the net? “All Other”

(d) Category IV:

(A) Issuance of a new NPDES individual permit for a major facility, as classified by the Department.

I can’t see us as a Facility do you? Where under established rule has it been decreed that we are a facility under any Government definition?. Show this in your reply.

(B) Issuance of a renewal NPDES individual permit for a major facility, as classified by the Department, when there is a new or increased discharged load.

Using Category 4 actions for a Category 1 permit? Show the science backed justification for this.

© Major modification of an NPDES individual permit for a major facility, as classified by the Department, when there is a new or increased discharged load.

Individual permit? For small scale suction dredging? I ask that you justify using science this determination.

(B) The Department may move a permit action to a higher category based on, but not limited to, the following factors:

Justify any documented actions previously considered on record by violation or otherwise to actually require this action. I would like cited references

(a) Anticipated public interest in the facility;
(B) Compliance and enforcement history of the facility or owner;
© Potential for significant environmental or public harm due to location or type of facility, or

Define the word Significant, as it applies to small scale suction dredging and back this up with science and or peer reviewed published studies.

(d) Federal requirements.

(3) The public notice required under section (1)(B), © and (d)© of this rule, will contain at least the following information:
(a) Name and address of the permittee and permit applicant and, if different, facility location;
(B) Type of facility including a description of the facility's process subject to the permit;
© Description of the proposed permitting action (i.e., new permit, renewal permit, or permit modification);
(d) Description of the permitted substances stored, disposed of, discharged, or emitted, including whether there has been an increase or decrease in the substance since the last permit action for the facility;
(e) Location and description of documents relied upon in preparing the draft permit action;
(f) Other permits required by the Department;

Subject to whose discretion of Authority? we can and will show vindictiveness or attitude towards those not willing to accept this permit by previous actions towards those willing to work for a valid exemption permit..

Where in any statue pertaining to applicable conditions and exemptions of small scale mining does it denote these actions under CWA?

(g) Date of the previous permit action if a renewal or modification;
(h) Opportunity for public comment whether in writing or in person if required;

Is this an Essay writing contest to see if you’re literate enough to write a thousand words or less on “Why you deserve the right to mine?”.

(i) Compliance, enforcement and complaint history, along with their respective resolutions; and

What if every year you get 5 complaints, and if un-founded, they do not go on your record just like parking tickets. Show the clause agreement that no of this nature could occur.

(j) A summary of what discretionary decisions where made by the Department in drafting the permit.

What are the current guidelines already in place to enforce or mitigate compliance? NOTE THEM in the response.

(5) The Department will provide public notice as required by this rule to the applicant, those requesting notice of the permitting action, local news media, and other interested parties as identified by the Department.

How long can DEQ and/or DSL afford to keep posting notices of your permit applications without passing this expensive buck onto the permittee?

I want a clause agreement stating no new or increased permit fees above standard rate of inflation will be established for 20 years minimum.

(4) All permit applications which have been received by the Department prior to the effective date of this rule, will be processed under this rule (under the category process) as best as is practicable

As best is practicable?
What category are you really thinking a small scale mining operator will be placed in? Justify this with written rule? By court case? I want answers.

It appears to me that the DEQ Final Draft proposal and subsequent agency personnel have grabbed a section or two out of each category of NPDES criteria and have attempted to write the new 700-J permit with whatever sticks to the wall and Operators or Individual Prospectors known or unknown in the present or future or similarity of nature also known or unknown will be placed into a potential to lie to avoid criminal persecution for an activity that has throughout history been shown to finance every aspect of this countries heritage and economic wealth..



340-045-0030
Application for NPDES or WPCF Permit

According to the Final draft that DEQ is trying to get the Small Scale Mining Community Operators and Mineral Claimants to swallow, the DEQ has mutated and convoluted all the original intent of a NPDES permit as enforced by Congress to try to conform said owners and operators to pay when the owners and operators have already been required by federal law to maintain fees applicable to ownership and assessment work of owned private property. I highly suggest you read 340-045-0030 and see what it shows for time to review, their ability to stall, Fees to review application.

Excerpts from 340-045-0030

(3) All application forms must be completed in full and signed by the applicant or the applicant's legally authorized representative. The name of the applicant must be the legal name of the owner of the facility or the owner's agent or the lessee responsible for the operation and maintenance of the facility. Applications that are correctly signed and appear administratively complete will be considered timely upon receipt. A request for further information under section (5) of this rule will not effect the timeliness of an application.

Are you a facility? I rightfully request DEQ and all agencies imposing or attempting to enforce this permit to provide documentation that decrees a Mining Claimant Owner or Operator following small scale suction dredge activities are subject to be called a facility.

(5) Within 45 days of receipt of an application, the Department will preliminarily review an application to determine the adequacy of the information submitted. Failure to complete this review within 45 days does not preclude the Department from later requesting further information from the applicant as provided in this section.

It cannot be shown anywhere under any statue that the department of any agency has this authority from a Mining Claimant following and currently complying with Mineral Extraction and Mining Policies that are previously determined to be in compliance outright. I request you provide documents showing your authority to delay mineral extraction on a mining claim.


340-045-0033
General Permits
1) The Director may issue general permits for certain categories of minor discharge sources or minor activities where individual NPDES or WPCF permits are not necessary to adequately protect the environment. Before the Director can issue a general permit, the following conditions must be met:

Here I argue that we are exempt from General or Individual permit under ANY circumstances and or FEES because we are a Minor deminimus discharge and can never be classified that we are anything else as per all suction dredge studies previously submitted and referenced and contained within the entire scope of these comments.

(a) There must be several minor sources or activities that involve the same or substantially similar types of operations.

Currently according to Division of State Lands end of year reports, 1950 Small Scale Miners, Mineral Prospectors, Individuals in Oregon which represent the several minor sources of substantially similar types of operations are attempted to be classified by over regulation in the guise of a new permit, but yet further analysis of these records clearly indicates the various sizes and discharges based on hose size alone and or whether motorized dredging operations were actually documented as the DEQ in its draft fails to clarify whether these operators were operating solely under the expired 700-J or subsequent MAO agreement.

It cannot be shown that the potential to remove the Savage Rapids Dam in Southern Oregon that contains potentially millions of cubic yards and decades worth of suspended sediment that will wash down in the adjoining years after removal is perfectly okay under environmental standards and yet an Agency(s) would impose the strictest of penalties upon a mass number (again 1950 Miners / Operators / Prospectors) that reports on 1700+ yds altered by the entire spectrum of operations as a whole and scattered about the millions of miles of riverways in Oregon and generally the operations are not clustered buy yet dispersed at random by watershed bearing alluvial gravels of gold bearing nature.

(B) The sources or activities must have the potential to discharge or dispose of the same or similar types of wastes.
Dredging is dredging of river sediments based on varying occurrences of geology and waterbodies and these vary waterways are usually already closed or restricted based on their pristine nature or wilderness, can it be shown that a wilderness area that is currently restricted to suction dredge activities is containing all these supposed pollutions and are under lock and key?

One would assume that these areas would be listed not as an actual wilderness or scenic river but yet as an EPA Superfund site and I rightfully request written logic explaining different in response to this fact.

© The general permit must require the same or similar monitoring requirements, effluent limitations and operating conditions for the categories.

We are exempt from permitting, thus nullifying the final draft proposal requirements as DEQ would suggest.

(d) The category of sources or activities would be more appropriately controlled under a general permit than an individual permit.

Provide documents and examples of a single condition where it would be required under any current or existing laws that a(n) small scale suction dredge operator would ever be required to obtain a individual law and please include all documented statues that maintain that a fee would be required.


The requirements to obtain coverage under a general permit, including application requirements and application submittal deadlines. The Department may determine that submittal of an application is not necessary after evaluating the type of discharge, potential for toxic and conventional pollutants in the discharge expected discharge volume, availability of other means to identify dischargers and estimated number of dischargers to be covered by the permit The Department's evaluation must be provided in the public notice for the general permit.

How many studies have pointed out the “riverbed sediments” from mostly pristine sources are being discharged? Which is easy to establish and has been noted numerously in published studies which also show increased habitat biota the following year.

Prove any detrimental effects.
According to DEQ draft there is 1950+ dredgers, but not of the same volume or discharge type

(5) Any person operating a discharge source or conducting an activity described in a general permit must apply for coverage under the general permit, unless the general permit does not require submission of an application pursuant to (2)(a) of this rule or the source or activity is specifically covered by an individual NPDES or WPCF permit.

This NPDES permit taken from Oregon Statues is what they are mutilating in their attempts to get to compliance based on Undue Influence from third party environmental interests and agency personnel operating on a personal agenda.

Dave Kxxxxx
xxxxxx
x
x
xxxxxx

Hey ya'll,
Here is my short & sweet comments for the Oregon DEQ, I know the lawyers on the payroll there are busy and might not read an educated informative letter like Redpaw posted, so I wrote this one:

Scott Manzano
Departmant of Environmental Quality
811 SW Sixth Ave.
Portland, OR 97204-1390

Comments concerning the proposed NPDES 700J permit:

(1) The proposed NPDES 700J permit is not required for suction dredging. Refer
to USC 40 part 122.3 Exclusions

The following do not require NPDES permits:

subpart (B)

"Discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States which
are under section 404 of CWA


(2) The DEQ cannot regulate suction dredging. They are tasked with and empowered
to regulate Water Quality, and hence
can only regulate dredge fallback. All the best operating practices enumerated in
the proposed permit are beyond the authority of the DEQ to mandate.


(3) The monitoring requirements of this proposed plan are unreasonable, subjective
and arbitrary and therefore unenforceable. No enforcement officer could determine
compliance or violation in an accurate repeatable manner. No evidence could be
kept and held for a legal proceeding without encurring excessive costs both in sample
preparation, storage, and laboratory testing. The variables in collection site protocols
would virtually guarantee that no enforcement agency could expect to train their
personel adequately in the unlikely event they would ever encounter a suspected
violation.


(4) The MOU, and the extended time frame now allotted for the development of the
proposed 700J permit subject suction dredge operators to third party lawsuits. The
DEQ and the State of Oregon are culpable, and would probably be found liable for
damages suffered by dredge operators working their claims in a manner consistant
with those operating under the old 700J permit. The State's refusal to extend the
legal permit, and continue issuing same couldn't be reasonably explained in a court
of law.

That should get their attention! QJ

The beauty of both responses above is that DEQ is required to respond point by point in their "public response"...

...unless of course, they do what IDAHO BLM just did (2004)
...and excluded all negative comment into the public record
...and accepted only into public record GREENIE comments
which of course supported the BLM rule prohibiting ATVs in the BLM regulated forests.

A hue and cry went up...oh, yeahhhhhhhhhhhhh...
both sides of the IDAHO BORDER...
do we have a counter strategy here in Oregon in the event DEQ tries to use that play from the IDAHO BLM "playbook?"

Good Job, guys

as always a extreamly good job by the MRT good guys!! we need more people like Dave K., QJ and Dan(CP)! if only part of the guys that the MRT are fighting for would standup and help in some small way we would be done with this problem! and in the future also! my hat is off to you men of charactor and backbone!(and women)

yes megan, we do...

It is called Injunctive Relief and RICO Act Violations by past and present actions of thrid party influence within supposed nuetrality of agency personnel that encourage these actions towards a part of our lives..

Russau, your always speaking good of the MRT and we appreciate that, Your presence and the presence of others in the MRT makes these things happen.

the fire is on simmer ( atleast what we are protraying to the green side ) but there is a boiler plate cover that is going to explode here in oregon that will see that the Mining Community can stand on the safe side of.

gotta run, I'm heading over to finish a rocker box for 10 foster boys that need some direction in life besides hanging out on the streets and waiting for trouble.

redpaw of the mrt

Excellent responses . You now have to wonder how anyone could not have the information they need to respond to DEQ. My hat is off the RedPaw and all those of MRT.
Thank You,
geno
PS, I wish I could write that well!

thanks dave! i appreciate that a lot! but it is people like you and your efforts from the MRT and all that help facilitate the MRT to make the kind of push that you,QJ,Dan are causing! yes causing! if it wernt for your zeal and backbone and that of the MRT good guys, "WE" wouldnt be winning the war that you (the MRT) has been fighting. its through your info that you post on the forums and the info that you post on the MRT web site, dans CP site,and at the DEF website, plp,mike highbees site and the ICMJ. this is where we find out the real news! i dont see and cant find out what the GPAA is doing and im a member. i know that the Jerry Hobbs says that the GPAA is fighting behind the scenes, but thats all i can find.......i would like to think that they are hammering down some big bucks to help defeat this greenie action! i for one would like to thank you,Dan,QJ,and all of the MRT and all who supported you and your efforts and sacrifices that you made to do all that youve done for us!!!!! our fight isnt over by a long shot! we need to continue getting the word out so that more help can be sent to those that are doing "our" fighting. we need the support of all right now! not 10% of the people! all clubs/groups need to be informed and rallied into this fight for our rights! this will be the biggest job/fight that we have ever seen! and it will have to be taken to D.C. in order to fight it! it will cost a lot of money that none of us have, but we need to spend it anyway or loss all that we have! freedom isnt free! the MRT has done a lot! now its time(long over due) that everyone needs to get involved in this! everyone knows this but its easy for some to sit back and let someone else do their work and spend their cash, and then enjoy the fruits of someone elses labor. i cant get to Oregon to attend these meetings,as well as most others! but i sure as heck can send you a donation through the MRT to help you at least get to the meetings! i wish everone would send something to help "their" cause! good luck! God bless!

The Rockerbox is done, The Foster boys took it out this afternoon and were told to break it if they could, they will be using it again tomorrow and pictures should be available late tomorrow night at the earliest.

lets wish them an eventful day, i'll be at the Masons' lodge having a BarBque.

Rumor has it that the MRT will be going into production on these rockers, with different versions available as kits, later this month additional rumors of Highbankers and long toms going into production.

gotta teach these boys how to use tools because the government isn't doing much but giving them a home, so the MRT Jdawg is going to see what we can round up for production line equipment and I'll be supplying the tools and routers to give them the chance to grow up with mining in their lives.

Educating those for the good of others, my hats off to the Jdawg

redpaw of the mrt

anytime a person helps another person without asking or expecting tobe repaid for their efforts, my hat is off to them! today there is to many people to busy to help someone in need! i wish that i could of been there to help make these and esspecialy been there to see these young guys faces when you presented them the rocker boxs and tried them out! i dont find much gold here in missouri, and most of the gold that i do find i end up giving away to some young kids. it makes me feel good to do this. but now if i find some clunckers.............. it may be a different story! haha