Jump to content
Nugget Shooter Forums

First Dredge


GeoJack

Recommended Posts

With the dredging laws being lifted next year I'm getting a jump on having the right equipment ready.

Found nozzle made locally, https://hbminingsupply.com/product/2-dry-lander-nozzle/, 2" Drylander Nozzle.  Minimum 55 g.p.m.20150830_184952.jpg

My whole claim is slate bedrock so I'm thinking this size would be the best for cleaning out the crevasses. I don't have any background on setting up the sluice boxes (48" & 36") which I plan on using in-line with each other. What criteria am I looking at for getting them set up. I'll need some legs as I plan on working it as a high banker. Mats? Angles?

I have a new 158 gpm trash pump.  Air ratchet wrench

to move the water with a 2" connector.

I wanted to use my Gold Cube but was told the water flow would be too great. 

Any tips?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, middleforkminer2 said:

SB1222???  Read the bill....they are not lifting the ban...

I heard the same thing. Supposed to start selling permits in 2019. That was from a reputable site.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Both my kids leaving the house.  Wife talking of moving to CA.  Selling dredging permits would be icing on the cake.

If you want a Gold cube, you could probably just get the Vortex matting.  I had put some thought into using this on a sluice, but I thought the material ran over it would need to be -8 mesh.  I have a sluice with a piece of ridged rubber matting up top, that I was thinking of tearing off and putting vortex matting instead.  The rest of the sluice is just Riffles over expanded metal, over carpet.  Not much use for this here in central AZ.

I do like your thinking and hope to see you succeed with this.  You're moving past where most of the what's on the internet has good info for.  Going past minutes per bucket into buckets per minute territory.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a recent article about dredging in California. Dated June 29th. I suppose their could have been some action taken that would have legalized dredging but nothing turns up in a Google search.

https://www.desertsun.com/story/news/politics/2018/06/29/suction-dredge-mining-advocates-foes-regroup-after-clarifying-legislation-grinds-halt/742999002/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I understand the situation from perusing one of the miners' rights websites recently (AMRA), the issuance of permits next year entirely depends upon the Water Board doing its job.  The board was supposed to have regulations in place for permitting within one year, and that clock started something like two and a half years ago, so they're already far behind schedule.  IF they actually get around to writing regs and then implement them, THEN permits could be ready for sale next year, ELSE nothing.  I wouldn't bet money on the outcome of that conditional statement, not yet, anyway.  Hopefulness is a good thing, though.

I've been hoping to wander over to California to snoop around some old haunts with a backpack dredge and an old friend before we both get old, if permits are issued.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I get out of it is that you may be able to use a highbanker, but that bill still prohibits anything with a suction nozzle...but when you really scrutinize the language it's clear that the water board and F&G will only  issue permits (MAYBE) after an impact study is done...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Source: https://www.icmj.com/magazine/article/california-to-allow-suction-dredging-in-2019-3828/

In a recent Facebook post, Poe stated that suction gold dredging will be returning to California in 2019.

I reached out to him to try to get some clarification just prior to our press time, but he responded that he was going to be unavailable and up in the mountains for several days.

If this becomes a reality, it could be very welcome news if under the right circumstances. The post was very well read and I’m confidant environmental groups read it as well.

First, let’s take a look at a few excerpts from the news he posted:

As a part of SB637 (the Suction Dredge Bill) signed into law in January of 2016, it was mandated that the California Water Board (CAWB) study and evaluate whether permitting should be allowed in the state, and if so, the CAWB was tasked with creating a permitting structure. We believe the sponsors of SB637, Izzy Martin and the enviro group The Sierra Fund, along with their Senator who brought the bill forward, Ben Allen, a Democrat from Hollywood, believed the CAWB would toe the political line and just slow walk or deny permits all along. SB 637 morphed into a de facto prohibition on mining as it then labeled all things as suction dredges [including] high bankers, water pumps, track wheel chairs, trucks and even sluice boxes. People were cited, their equipment confiscated and fines were paid. We pointed out that this morphing of language was illegal, immoral and adversely affected 10’s of thousands of people. Kind of hard to say an airplane is a wheelbarrow just because both have wheels and that is precisely what the vague language in SB637 did. They stated “you can still pan”.

As we pointed out in testimony at the Senate hearing on SB1222, panning is not, nor has it ever been a mining method. It is a final process, but not a mining method. Therefore, since that was really all they left us with, we made that argument, which was quite compelling that this is a ban and an illegal prohibition on small-scale mining.

So the CAWB didn’t toe the political line as some expected. What happened is the folks at the CAWB who are scientists and engineers pulled the raw data of all the studies over the past 20 years which were provided to them by WMA (Western Mining Alliance) and decided to see if dredging was in fact harming fish or fish habitat. What they concluded was dredging was de minimus, meaning it doesn’t harm fish or fish habitat. Their Board of Directors voted unanimously it is de minimus (no harm). We attended and presented (on your behalf) at every one of the public hearings with the CAWB when the permitting was being discussed and we produced a pretty compelling video of the Department of Fish and Game (DFG) actively suction dredging in other states to “create fish habitat”. Let that sink in for a minute….other states are dredging to “create” fish habitat. How is it that other states dredge to create fish habitat, but California thinks it kills fish? Well, it is because this is all political and not scientific (like you guys didn’t know that…). So what happened is they didn’t take Craig’s [from WMA] word for what the outcome was on all these studies, they pulled the raw data and then over the next year, AMRA worked with them on a permitting structure and we did this quietly and behind the scenes. If you recall, the DFG created a nightmare proposal on dredging, the one we recommended was nothing like that. It was one that didn’t involve keeping a diary, waiting a year for a permit or costing 5 grand to run a 4” dredge while being limited to a small 20 foot area in a creek they chose. CAWB listened and while ultimately it was their decision on what permitting structure to go with, it is nothing like we feared.

Over the past week we have been in meetings, had calls and emails too numerous to list asking questions we know you’d be asking because hell, they are what we would want to know as we are miners through and through like many of you. Most questions we can answer now, some we cannot answer until late June when we have some formal meetings with the Director of the CAWB and a few Senators, but we are in fact going to be dredging next spring. It will be nearly impossible for the CAWB to pull back this acknowledgment that dredging will be permitted next year.

So, here’s the nuts and bolts:

Firstly, almost all of the equipment wrapped up in the vague language of SB637 is being reversed and will once again be legal and not considered a suction dredge.

High bankers are one piece of equipment we are still actively discussing and may involve a permit of some kind if run in the creek. We believe strongly since this is incidental fallback, like a dredge, it adds nothing and does not cause any adverse impacts on California waterways. Science should prevail, not emotion or how someone feels it might, may, could or potentially impact a waterway. Facts and science.

Permitting applications will be available in early Spring and we are shooting for the very first day of Spring which is March 20, 2019.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cost: It is not going to be $2,000 like someone posted on FB, that is incorrect. The permit costs we expect to be around $200 or close to it. They have a calculation where the permit structure needs to be 110% of the cost to do the permits so it shouldn’t be that much.

It will be an on-line application process meaning you go to a specific link at the CAWB and fill it out on your computer.

It should take no more than 3 or 4 weeks for the permit, but we are going to see if this can be sped up like the Ag permits farmers obtain routinely and rapidly.

The permits are good perpetually, meaning that you pay for the permit in 2019, then if you want to dredge next year, you do not have to re-apply, just pay the fee and go dredge.

I dredge multiple rivers, do I need a permit for each waterway?

No, one permit for the whole state.

Do studies have to be done for the creek I want to dredge?

No. There will be no site specific studies required for any permits.

Will I need to get a DFG permit like we did in 2009 in addition to the CAWB permit?

No. Department of Fish and Game, who [we were] required to obtain a permit from, will be eliminated. No permits will be required from DFG for suction dredging.

Who enforces this?

DFG will be the enforcement arm and will be the agency tasked with checking for permits like we all remember…although in decades of dredging with a permit, I never once got checked.

Do we have to keep silly diaries and all the other documentation like what was proposed before?

No. There are no after season, nor continual season reporting requirements like DFG proposed in 2012 like keeping a diary and all that nonsense.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, GeoJack said:

As a part of SB637 (the Suction Dredge Bill) signed into law in January of 2016, it was mandated that the California Water Board (CAWB) study and evaluate whether permitting should be allowed in the state

 And you really expect the water board to allow it.....heck they were the ones trying to stop hand sluicing/panning....:yuckyuck:  :idea:I'll take any bets you want to wager...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would have thought F&G would fight tooth and nail to have a word in on this. At least it is down to just the one agency.

See this from above?

So the CAWB didn’t toe the political line as some expected. What happened is the folks at the CAWB who are scientists and engineers pulled the raw data of all the studies over the past 20 years which were provided to them by WMA (Western Mining Alliance) and decided to see if dredging was in fact harming fish or fish habitat. What they concluded was dredging was de minimus, meaning it doesn’t harm fish or fish habitat. Their Board of Directors voted unanimously it is de minimus (no harm). We attended and presented (on your behalf) at every one of the public hearings with the CAWB when the permitting was being discussed and we produced a pretty compelling video of the Department of Fish and Game (DFG) actively suction dredging in other states to “create fish habitat”. Let that sink in for a minute….other states are dredging to “create” fish habitat. How is it that other states dredge to create fish habitat, but California thinks it kills fish? Well, it is because this is all political and not scientific (like you guys didn’t know that…). So what happened is they didn’t take Craig’s [from WMA] word for what the outcome was on all these studies, they pulled the raw data and then over the next year, AMRA worked with them on a permitting structure and we did this quietly and behind the scenes. If you recall, the DFG created a nightmare proposal on dredging, the one we recommended was nothing like that. It was one that didn’t involve keeping a diary, waiting a year for a permit or costing 5 grand to run a 4” dredge while being limited to a small 20 foot area in a creek they chose. CAWB listened and while ultimately it was their decision on what permitting structure to go with, it is nothing like we feared.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just a general observation: In the regular scheme of creating administrative regulations it is the everyday low ranking civil servants who do the scut work and draft proposed regulations.  But, at the end of the day it is the political appointees who have the authority to adopt those proposals.  By my lights the jury still is out as to just what finally will emerge at the California Water Board.  Keeping my fingers crossed...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To address you original posting...  A trash pump does not have the pressure to run that nozzle unless your sluice is almost the same level as the material you are dredging.  As the hole deepens you will lose lift and suction fast.  Look for a pressure pump, youll be much happier.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I run a 2.5 nozzle on my Keene highbanker and a 2 inch Briggs/Pacer trash pump. I have 12 feet of suction and 12 feet of pressure hose and it is a great combo. When i go to the 2 inch setup, i have to turn the pump down to half throttle or i clear my sluice out. I have never had an issue with my highbanker/dredge combo and a trash pump. Just my experience. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How well a dredge nozzle will work depends on the PSI of the pump, the higher the PSI the better the nozzle will work, even on my 4" dredge which has a high prseeure pump designed specifically for dredging I will lose most suction/lift after going down around 20 ft deep, if you're only dredging 4 to 5 ft deep a pump with lesser PSI will work BUT not nearly as well as one putting out 50 PSI or more.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...