Clay Diggins

The Supreme Court has ruled twice in the last 15 years that instream sediment is neither a point source or pollution under the Clean Water Act. Instream sediments are not a subject of the Clean Water Act.

Those who would lead you to believe otherwise, including the EPA, are pulling the wool over your eyes. Anyone who applies for a permit for instream dredging, sluicing or panning based on the Clean Water Act is throwing their money away on a fantasy.

States do, in some circumstances, have a right to control water quality. That's not a bad thing.  But when they attempt to classify instream sediments as pollution or a point source based on the Clean Water Act they are basing their actions on non existent federal law.

This is not a solid gold nugget. It's a specimen and my best guess is it's about 20% gold.

A kilo of gold is virtually the same size as an iPhone. Width: 40mm (1.58 inches) Length: 80mm (3.15 inches) Depth/Thickness: 18mm (0.71 inches)

16 kilos is less than 7 inches square. Unless the person holding the nugget is a baby there is no way that's 16 kilos of gold.

All that being said I'm thinking the finder just about lost it when they found it. I'd sure like to see some better pictures and maybe hear how it was found.

These are much better satellite images. It's a nice improvement. 

Satellite is only medium and low resolution imagery so when you zoom in closer you will still find the same aerial imagery that's been there all along. Satellites only do high resolution ground imagery on television, in real life close ground imagery is still done with aerial photography from airplanes.

Not Jade. Nephrite jade is Actinolite an Inosilicate amphibole. Not related to Californite.

Californite is massive Vesuvainite, a Sorosilicate. The more gemmy varieties are commonly known as Idocrase outside of Northern California.

I've cut some of the better material from Happy Camp and it tends to undercut adjacent to the color changes. I had luck finishing with cerium oxide but my material was darker green and translucent, your material will probably cut different. It's often a pretty stone with sometimes unusual colors.

Interesting to note that free gold is sometimes seen in specimens from Happy Camp. You might want to journey across that river next time you stop by. A Californite deposit with gold would be worth claiming.

Gulch claims can only be made where the area surrounding the gulch claim has no mineral values. Unless you are prepared to prove there are no mineral values outside of your gulch claim you can expect the BLM to challenge and close any gulch claim.

All gulch claims are placers Paul. This has nothing to do with lodes or the nonexistent secret handshake.

If you want to know more about gulch claims and BLM policy look up the "Snowflake Fraction Placer" administrative decision.

Personally I think the BLM uses Snowflake to make their jobs easier and to harass small miners. Snowflake Placer was an administrative decision in 1908 that lead to the BLM making up the 40 acres per 2 claimants rules and the gulch placer rules. Snowflake was not a court case and has never been a law. Gulch placer owners that have proof and fight for their claims win against the BLM in court. If you aren't prepared to go there don't bother making a gulch placer claim.

_____________________________

Jasong makes a good point about irregular Section parts. Regular portions of the Public Land Survey are known as aliquot parts.  About half of the Sections have irregular portions (not 40 acres square) in the mountainous west.

Regular portions that encompass 160 acres are known as quarter sections. Quarter Sections are designated by compass direction from the section center. NE, NW, SE, SW.

Regular portions that encompass the standard 40 acres are known as quarter quarters. Quarter quarters are designated by the Quarter section direction plus an added compass direction from the center of the quarter section. Land descriptions are read from the smallest portion to the largest portion left to right. Quarter quarter sections in the NE quarter section are designated NENE, NWNE, SENE, SWNE.

Irregular quarter quarter parts are designated as "government lots" - they are neither true quarter quarters nor are they aliquots. Government lots are typical shortened to "Lot" or even just "L" with a number designation. Government Lot 1, Lot 1, L1.

These designations can be mixed within a section. A single quarter section can have both quarter quarters as well as Lots. Not all sections have a full compliment of portions. Some Sections are considerably taller or wider than the standard mile square. Even more sections are short on one side. Assuming the southwest corner of a section will have a legal land description of the SWSW of Section XX will be wrong nearly half the time in the mountainous portions of the west.

_____________________________

We deal a lot with BLM challenges to claims. It's important to understand that claims made in areas that have not been surveyed for the PLSS are exempt from the aliquot part rule for placer claims. About 1/3 of California has never been surveyed. Other states more or less. Assuming a survey has been performed is a potentially big mistake for the locator. Locating a claim in relation to a survey pin that doesn't exist yet is only the most obvious of those potential problems.

Locating a claim by what you see on a map can be a problem too. The old PLSS division grid used on most maps was abandoned in 2008. It was very inaccurate. Today the new standard is the CadNSDI. This is not a new survey but a more accurate mapping of where the survey pins are actually located. It changes nothing on the ground but it does make mapping much more accurate.

Sadly the CadNSDI files are pretty screwed up. Basically the government hasn't been able to get them to work in a reliable way. These new survey mappings are not shown on any public mapping because of those problems. At Land Matters we tackled these corrupted files and managed to fix them with a few months work. Land Matters is now the only online mapping site that displays the new CadNSDI to the public. You will see the descrepencies between the old PLSS and the new CadNSDI by turning on a topo map (old PLSS) and displaying it with the PLSS map layer (new PLSS). Some places are nearly a match and in other places you will see how very far off the old system was. Here is an example in California.

Nobody showed you the secret handshake Paul?

Meadview is in Lost Basin, Gold Basin is to the south and west of Lost Basin. They both have gold but different geology.

In Gold Basin look for the older fanglomerate underneath the newer gravels. That old fanglomerate is poorly consolidated. The old gravels have gold, the new ones don't. The gold distribution in Gold Basin can seem pretty confusing if you don't know that fact.

The areas where these older gravels are exposed and then concentrated through erosion are where you will find the nuggets. The bigger washes are mostly filled with new gravels but the older gravels are exposed in some of the smaller side washes. Follow the old gravels. White Elephant Wash has several areas with exposed gold bearing gravel but there are other areas scattered throughout the upper basin.

Taking a good look at the geology before you prospect there will give you a leg up. Combine flood modelling with the geology and you have a good chance of walking right to your first find.

There is good information available on the Gold Basin deposits in USGS Professional Paper 1361. You can download a searchable copy of that paper at this Land Matters LINK. 74 Mb PDF

A similar situation with placer gravels is going on in Lost Basin but the gravels are entirely different from the gold bearing gravels in Gold Basin.

I'm with Chris on this. These people have as much of a moral right to mine their land as the Californians and the Spanish did in the Motherlode. The gold from the California mines and the silver from the Nevada mines made this country rich. What's so different about Brazilians trying to make a better life with their labor?

I've posted this elsewhere in regards to this popular story.

There is a lot more to this story than "illegal" mining. Read about how Brazil sold permits to these miners and then made it illegal to mine their permitted areas.

Quote

 

The Mining Code of 1967 creates the criteria to claim mineral rights. It also defines rights of land owners and areas available for mining. In 1989, a law introduced the mining permit for small-scale mining activities, to either Brazilian citizens on an individual basis, or to associations constituted as a mining company. Mining permits are issued by the DNPM (National Department of Mineral Production).

In 2006, the Federal Government created seven Nature Conservation Units in the Tapajós region. Many of these units overlap with the small-scale mining reserve of Tapajós, created in 1983 by the Ministry of Mining. By creating these Conservation Units, all mining activities in this area became instantly illegal. Many miners have obtained a mining license before 2006; however, their licenses have not been withdrawn. Also, new applications are still being processed at the office of DNPM. The situation is confusing and causes unrest among the small-scale miners in Tapajós.

 

Include some nonsense about how small miners use thousands of dollars of mercury on their hobbled together dredges to mine hundreds of dollars of gold and you've got a new fantasy evil story for the green press.

Does the new pan technology have a Z in it's name?

Nice looking kit. I too like the large bottom. Never got much use out of a smaller pan but you can't have too many pans.

So is this kit P.I or VLF?

This same proposal has been made for every budget since 1998.

Lots of drama no action has been the result for the last 18 years. Think about this for a minute - a federal agency is asking for fewer duties and responsibilities while asking for a bigger budget.  Very "green" - very BLM.

You can make your own conclusions about it's probable inclusion in the next budget.

Ah... facebook não é bom - no es bueno - not for me.

I'm not seeing a video?

I had a Brazilian business partner for several years. He sponsored a lot of Brazilians into the States and taught English to them so I managed to pick up a little Português.

Not saying I could translate but I know the difference between an x and a sh.

The LR2000 is still down as it has been for the last six days.  If you are looking for an alternative check out the Land Matters Mining Claims Map.

The main Denver BLM customer data servers where we get the latest claims updates are still operating and they did update with the latest extraction. They were a bit late putting that together so we've been working to get that information to you as soon as possible.

The new BLM active claims map update has just now been loaded up to the Land Matters servers.

Now we are in the curious situation where Land Matters has more current BLM claims information than the LR2000 or any other source on the internet.

On 1/26/2016 at 0:30 PM, vanursepaul said:

Barry,

Can I get my Footprints over to my new tablet?? I have a dual OS on it... Android and Windows 10---- so I was hoping i could use it more effectively in the field, but i haven't tried to download FP on my tablet yet...maybe i will do that this evening...

Thanks,

paul

I doubt your FootPrints will run there Prickly. The OS for Windows 10 on Android is Windows Mobile. We've got a lot of FootPrints users on Windows 10 for PC but the Android Mobile version is only related to the other Windows in appearance.

The Android runs on ARM architecture not on Intel like Windows computers. FootPrints doesn't have a bit of Java or Cordova in it so it's kind of like trying to mate a donkey with a pigeon. The donkey may be smart enough and the Pigeon may be willing but the result is unlikely to be anything you would want to clean up after.

If you do decide to try the install I want pictures. Never seen a donkeyette with a beak and feathers.

Barry

On 1/19/2016 at 5:54 PM, Azavsfan said:

Again I want to say thanks for the work you do! I was curious as to what you think the reason is behind the big drop in claims in the AZ counties you listed? I'm assuming the land status did not change or did it?

I have a theory but it is based on my very limited experience and minimal research in my neck of the woods sands. I think the 2 biggest factors were the decrease in the price of gold and the concurrent increase in the cost of claim fees. I know that the association my Dad belongs to down here had to drop more than 50% of their claims when the fees went up. I think there are a lot of folks who bought claims thinking the gold price would continue it's rise and they would score by selling the claims they owned but we all know what has happened short term.

Thanks again and once I get done with some of my programming classes maybe I can volunteer some time to help if you're in need of that type of thing.

You are welcome Azavsfan.

I'm not seeing a particularly big drop in claims in Arizona. Annual mining claims turnover has always been high in Arizona. I do think some of the recent turnover is related to fees but most claims are lodes that have experienced very little fee increase. Gold price in itself does contribute to the fluctuation in the number of claims but all mineral commodity prices and demand are in a slump. Gold has done better than most mineral commodities and most mining claims are made for those other minerals. In Arizona copper is king. Copper is suffering badly these days.

I think a lot of the placer claim losses are due to extreme prejudice in claims regulation enforcement by the Arizona State BLM. There is now an obvious effort at the Arizona BLM to challenge placer claims on the shallowest of pretexts. I get quite a few claim owners distressed over silly challenges and demands that are often unenforceable. I've helped a lot of them deflect these challenges but the smaller miners often give up their claims rather than go through a six month to two year appeal cycle. The Arizona office is the training center for the nation so this recent activity has much wider implications in the long run.

Prospecting clubs in particular have been hit hard by these challenge policies. These clubs rarely have a good knowledge of the laws and regulations regarding mining claims so they are an easy target that produces a lot of closed claims and fee generation from new claims being made to replace the closed claims. Most of these claim challenges have been justified on a minor regulatory interpretation basis but the misinformation passed to the clubs from the BLM in a "friendly" effort to help them come into compliance often actually results in closure.

Currently there is an attempt by the Arizona office to enforce claim closures on 9 million acres of former state lands that have been declared open by both the Arizona Supreme Court and the Federal District court.  The BLM is up to about seven months of multiple administrative hearing delays to the appeal because they are still searching for any document that might support their position. The IBLA continues to grant those delays automatically despite the fact their previous decisions on these lands have been overturned before.

We can always use good programming help. In particular PHP, GIS and spatial data work are always needed at Land Matters. Give us a call or an email when you've got the time and we will see how you can volunteer. Your continued support is really appreciated.

Barry

On 1/19/2016 at 7:42 PM, nevadad00d said:

So, I take it the only way a guy can be sure about California is to hit the County Recorder's Office before doing any detecting to be sure you're not on someone's claim?

That, a search of the LR2000, knowledge of the current land status and a survey with boots on the ground are all required before entering the public lands to prospect for valuable minerals.

The County Recorder usually has much more up to date and accurate records than the BLM case files or the LR2000. Even if both those show no claims new locators still have 90 days after making their location to record public notice and file with the BLM. 90 days is 1/4 year.

The BLM LR2000 mining claims maps offered on Land Matters are only one tool in the research needed to determine public lands open to location. Other very useful and necessary tools offered there are the current land status maps and the ability to download the Master Title Plats directly from the map. Together these tools cover most of the information needed to determine the "current" status of the public lands from the Federal point of view. That's not enough to know if the land is open to claim but it's a good start.

Land Matters makes land research much easier than visiting the various government offices or websites. It's an information source that is usually more current and accurate than the public offerings of the various land management agency websites. Easier, more current and more accurate is good but it's far from the complete picture needed to be assured that any particular piece of land is open to prospecting.

Barry

I own a 10 foot pole but I decided to pass on this thread anyway until I saw your post Chris.

You get it! Thank you for making the facts concise and to the point. Have you considered writing about mining issues?

Barry

Welcome Lanny. Good to see you here.

Barry

As they do twice each month the Land Matters Mining Claims Maps have been updated.

Not much change in California or Colorado this time - more on that later.

Arizona had some big closures in Mohave and La Paz Counties. Nearly 1,600 claims total.

New Mexico continues with the closing of a lot of claims in Sierra, Catron and Grant Counties.

Nevada topped this list again with more than 2,100 closed claims.

The most recent Claims Advantage Members Report is showing there have been 26,689 closed since last September 1 with at least 18,904 still to be determined. The bulk of those undetermined claims are in California, Colorado, Nevada and Wyoming.

Percentage wise California is the big hold up - they have processed 46 claims in the last 4 1/2 months with at least 3,477 claims still to go. That's a little more than .01% of their job done after more than 1/3 of the mining year has passed.
 

Iin the 9th paragraph in your first post here, you state:

 

The new custom interactive Sage Grouse Proposed Withdrawal Map shows just the claims affected with all the claim information normally found only on the Land Matters Mining Claims Maps.

 

If this is a map of "just" the mining claims effected, what about all the rest of the area effected that isn't currently claimed? It appears that this proposal would close off a lot more area to future claims or possible other activity such as metal detecting for nuggets. I still haven't found what all activity would be effected. Scary

It is not a map of "just" the mining claims affected. The map has several options for display on the right side. Among those options is displaying the full proposed withdrawal area. Under the category "Mining Claims" you will see an option "Proposed Sage Grouse Mineral Withdrawal" with a checkbox to the left of it. Click on the checkbox and refresh or zoom in on the map and the full area of the "Proposed Sage Grouse Mineral Withdrawal" will be displayed.

If the proposed withdrawal is approved new claims will not be allowed for the next 20 years. More than likely prospecting will be allowed. Mineral leasing will still be allowed. You can see the few details about what activities are being restricted by reading the withdrawal notice.

I did a google search on the title of the withdrawal. Went to the BLM site and the story about it, to try to find more info on what all activity it would effect. It had links to this and other state maps of other states. I'm not sure if something has changed since you first posted the Land Matters map or something changed since this map was made by them.

Those are the maps that were used in the five year multi state endangered species study. The result of that five year study was that the Sage Grouse is neither endangered or threatened.

The map you show was last updated in May of last year,  The Proposed Mineral Withdrawal was first revealed at the end of September. To this date the only map of the proposed withdrawal area is the one shown on the Map I linked you to.

I've been working for months on getting better information than the map shown here but this is the only map the BLM is using to describe the proposed withdrawal area. This is the best information available. Read the report and study the proposed withdrawal and I think you will see that the map you posted has nothing to do with the proposed withdrawal.

The BLM has not been forthcoming about the details of this withdrawal. Much of what they have published is very misleading. That's why Land Matters has spent so much time and effort to squeeze the facts out of the BS being presented.

My hope was that interested citizens would take the time to review the facts and make their opinions known on whether 7,000 claims should face challenges and 10 million acres closed to mining because the Sage Grouse population is so healthy.

It appears the BLM misinformation campaign has been effective in obscuring the facts.

The link you posted to the BLM map showing the proposed withdrawal is the same as the one I presented but the BLM map doesn't show any mining claims or land status. Neither California nor most of the areas shown on the downloaded "Proposed Plan Habitat" map you linked to are being considered in the proposed withdrawal.

Here are the areas that would be effected in Nevada and northeastern California . If you go to the BLM site you can download a map of other states effected as well. http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/nv/wildlife___fishes/sage_grouse.Par.17552.File.dat/15-05-27GRSG%20Proposed%20Plan%20Habitatmap.pdf

There are no areas in California included in the proposed withdrawal. The map you linked to is not the areas that are a subject of the proposed mineral withdrawal.

Take a look at the Map I offered. The withdrawn area layer is a direct feed from the BLM.

That's the male doing his courting dance. He looks pretty good during the mating season.

I showed the female - not so pretty but good eating.

What the heck is a Sage Grouse?

About $1.95 a pound. A little more than chicken although the price is coming down since they are breeding faster than they can be dressed and packaged at the market.

Pretty aren't they?

And why 10 million acres withdrawn for it?

Because after the largest longest and most expensive endangered species study in history it was determined they were not only NOT endangered or even moderately threatened they nearly doubled their natural population during the study.

Too many Sage Grouse and too many politicians = mining bad.

That's modern math.