# San Miguel River -- In Stream Placer Mining



## ColoradoDave (Jun 3, 2010)

Just to clarify, this will affect the normal run commonly called the ' sawpit ' run where the usual put in is at Bilk Creek and the takeout in Placerville ( Or beyond )


----------



## efranz (May 12, 2009)

Yes, the mining operation is between Bilk Creek and Saw Pit.


----------



## DirtyHands (Apr 15, 2015)

efranz,

Is this your claim?


----------



## CBow (Aug 26, 2007)

Yeah right. Just who is this person or persons that has no problem disrupting summer recreation on a free flowing river and silting the water which is detrimental to fish and other wildlife. Is this a commercial mining
operation? Sorry but this sucks!!! I've seen these Ah&&&s all over Alaska
and they are almost always aggressive jerks who run people off public access and usually carry firearms to prove a point. This is not good news.


----------



## ColoradoDave (Jun 3, 2010)

I believe the crux of the issue is that rivers in Colorado were not declared navigable waters before the state was formed so were not considered public land at that time and therefore were available for private ownership.

To change that now would require the state to pay fair value to every landowner for the portion of their land that lies below the high water mark of the river. 

If that ever did happen, though, then no one would be able to impound the river with makeshift weirs, wires, fences, etc, nor dump or dredge in any area below the high water mark. People would be then be free to not only float, but to land anywhere below the high water mark.


----------



## rtsideup (Mar 29, 2009)

IMO, we need to adhere to playground rules here. This guy has his rights to his mining claim and seems to be interested in working with the boating community. 
It would be nice if he could understand that the boatable flows on this stretch of the Mig. are only a couple of weeks, and that by 7/1, we're, for the most part, done for the season.
What is far more concerning to me is what broke loose above the Howard's fork the other day. People in Ophir said that it sounded like a freight train. All I know is that the the Mig. was a disturbing shade of chocolate/orange...


----------



## DirtyHands (Apr 15, 2015)

Agreed, rtsideup. Happy to see the claim owner posting on the forum and giving a heads up to the community. 

My plight with the operational plan is I have run that section of the Miguel in a 10' raft down to 250cfs. The low water channel is the left run. My final lap on the Miguel was late August/early Sept. The option of portaging in this zone would be problematic for obvious reasons. The "better" option would be to take the right run and drag your boat for a 100 yrds or so.


----------



## Flaco (Nov 18, 2014)

Just for the record, the claim DOES NOT belong to efranz.

Make no mistake, Edd posted here as a service to the boating community.


----------



## steven (Apr 2, 2004)

We saw the sign tonight saying go left. We did, thinking there was a hazard of some sort on the right, as we had no idea about the mining. Thanks for getting this info out efranz. Is the entire right channel blocked? We could not see anything over on the right, but did not get out of our boats. I'll go right tomorrow evening and see whats going on. Flows are high now and have been great the last few weeks, and it looks like we will have good flows into july.


----------



## efranz (May 12, 2009)

DirtyHands --

No, this is not my claim. I'm a recreation planner with BLM. My concern is for the safety of people recreating.


----------



## kb52 (Apr 19, 2008)

ColoradoDave said:


> I believe the crux of the issue i
> 
> I think the crux of the issue is that river runners need to go either left or right so they don't run into a dredge.
> 
> ...


----------



## efranz (May 12, 2009)

Steven --

My understanding is that the dredge itself is maybe the size of a 10 or 12 foot raft, and that it is stationary while the dredging is conducted. He can move it anywhere within the active river channel.


----------



## ColoradoDave (Jun 3, 2010)

kb52 said:


> ColoradoDave said:
> 
> 
> > I believe the crux of the issue i
> ...


----------



## kb52 (Apr 19, 2008)

My understanding of "navagability" is that a river in Colorado is considered to be "navigable" because in the past (mostly due to mining and railroad construction) the river was used for floating timbers, logs, and other stuff downstream to mines, towns or whatever. Didn't have much to do with an actual boat. But thats why we can float through sections of the rivers even though both sides are privately owned - "common good use or whatever". Fencing across the river gets all "clouded" because there are livestock issues but usually the foater/navagabiity issue stands. 

I can't say who has precedence regarding dredging blocking the only floatable route to downriver users. I suppose both parties could claim it but the fact there is the 1872 law makes me think that mining could have historical precedence.

If gold were to go to $5000/ounce I bet you'd see a lot more dredging operations. I think the only reason you don't see more operations on the San Miguel is that gold prices aren't that high, the amount of recoverable gold isn't that much and most of the BLM river corridor isn't easily accessed (ie. road access right next to riverbank)T he claimant in this discussion made a case that he could access his claim via an unused /closed off county road that's adjacent to his claim. Hence the subject of our discussion.


----------



## CBow (Aug 26, 2007)

Let me be clear. I understand this guy has a legal right to mine his claim. And he even has a BLM guy acting as his spokes person. That being said we all need to understand that this is not recreational mining. This is a commercial mining operation that will be using a suction dredge to move gravel in the main stem channel of the San Miguel river. Moving lots of gravel is the goal here and moving lots of gravel is simply detrimental to aquatic habitat and the animals that depend on it. As mentioned above what would happen if gold went to 3 or 4k an ounce. Would every one still be ok with dozens of gold dredges in our beautiful San Miguel river? I sure as hell would not. 

I have been around these operations many times before and have seen the damage left behind by many a legal claim. The riparian areas where they build their cabins or tent camps are degraded and denuded. They leave equipment and improvements for others to clean up. These folks are not good stewards of the land. I'll stop my rant now and go eat dinner but I think we should all be a little concerned about this. Thanks, Craig Bradley.


----------



## ColoradoDave (Jun 3, 2010)

I'm not a lawyer, but have researched this subject quite a bit. I would hope any lawyers out there would chime in if I'm way off base ...

I understand that the difference between Navigable and Non-Navigable waters is that with Navigable waters the public owns the land under the river up to the high water line and not only does the public have free passage of the river, but no one is allowed to impound ( Block ) the river, dump or Dredge without a permit. ( I assume getting a permit would require a plan to not interfere with the normal course of the river ( As has been done voluntarily in this case ) )

Non-Navigable rivers, and the land beneath them, on the other hand are owned by respective private property owners as determined solely by their property lines.

Cases have come up, namely the Taylor, where someone was charged for floating the river and the courts upheld that the water is public property, but the land below the river is private in Colorado and the person charged touched some rocks and was therefore guilty of trespassing. That if the laws needed to be changed, the legislature needed to do it.

So, it went to the Legislature, who bailed on the topic when they found out the way to solve it would involve paying the landowners fair value and to ' take ' their land and make it public. There could possibly be other expenses too. Would the state then be responsible to maintain the waterway ? Remove strainers, etc ?

The topic got politically hot and the temporary solution was to have the State agree to mediate in individual cases. That floaters would be allowed to cross private property on a river as long as they don't touch the bottom or stop on the shores and landowners would not charge them with trespassing. As above, that local Law Enforcement would determine the merits and make a call in case of dispute.

The alarming thing starting to be discovered, though, are the impoundment issues. Recently near Lake City a wire was found suspended across the river and the sheriff declared that was OK since the landowner owned both sides of the river. There's a wire and pallets hanging in the river on the San Miguel below Norwood Bridge. There's barbed wire fences across the river on the upper Uncompahgre. Barbed wire fences across the river on the Upper Upper Taylor. Trees dragged into the river on the middle Taylor explicitly to block boat passage. Etc, etc.

All these impoundments could be considered life threatening to floaters. It's sad to think that legislature will not act on this until people start getting hurt, but isn't that always the case ?

Is there any law that stops a property owner from, say, stringing chain link fences across a river if they own both sides ? Or as said before, from placing obstructions in the river effectively blocking it from passage ? If not, what about blocking the river and demanding a toll to pass ? Like the medieval Robber Barons on the Rhine ?


----------



## rtsideup (Mar 29, 2009)

I'm with you CoDave but, just to be clear, the pallet fence on the Miguel is below the Pinion bridge, after the Norwood canyon take out. Technically, you are right, it is also below the Norwood bridge; and the many bridges above that.


----------



## ColoradoDave (Jun 3, 2010)

I thought more about the robber barons and it appears that rec.gov is a modern manifestation of that. Impounding a river in order to demand a fee to pass.

The funny part is did the placer guy on the San Miguel need to get a permit ? If it is BLM land, I would think so. If private, well the juries still out on that ...

Maybe placer claims in the future will be handled by rec.gov.

It affords a little peace of mind, at least.


----------



## Andy H. (Oct 13, 2003)

ColoradoDave said:


> The funny part is did the placer guy on the San Miguel need to get a permit ? If it is BLM land, I would think so. If private, well the juries still out on that ...


It sounds like the guy's got everything in place from what the BLM is saying, and I would expect the agency is probably going to make sure everything's in order considering how high-profile this mining claim is. If you're thinking about a river permit, the San Miguel, as with most rivers in the state, doesn't require a permit to float.

Also, while I agree with CBow about the detrimental environmental impacts of ripping up the riverbed and dumping the outwash back into the river, the BLM is not acting as the miner's spokesman. The BLM is the managing agency and is simply reporting to the river-running community the fact that the mining will be taking place, something that I appreciate. If you don't like what the agency does, it's the rules that need to be changed and you need to keep up pressure on your elected representatives to effect such change. 

-AH


----------



## Livenswell (Sep 19, 2016)

*Gold Fever!*

FWIW - the BLM doesnt really issue "Permits" for placer mining, they "Acknowledge" the activity per Notices of Intent which are filed with the BLM by the miner and then based on evaluation of that, BLM may require more extensive Plan of Operations or "POO" depending on the scale of the activity and how much disturbance it will create. There may also be a parallel state of Colorado environmental permitting framework that he may also be required to deal with, each state is a little different. In NM this activity would be regulated by both Fed. and State Mining Laws.

In this case, based on the sensitive nature of the area, etc., and guessing he is likely on a valid placer claim and that the miner has at least filed a Notice of Intent, or more likely a POO, and that POO also probably involves a reclamation plan with measures to reduce turbidity coming off the back of the dredge in the outwash so that he does not cloud the river beyond natural turbidity levels, or so, to comply with the Clean Water Act. He has also probably posted a fairly significant reclamation bond ($) with the BLM as financial assurance to cover cost of reclamation etc. should he make a mess and disappear. 

I imagine the BLM closely monitors the operation and frequently stops by to check on the condition of the claim, and given its high use by recreationistas etc., the BLM would quickly be informed if he was out of line in anyway, shoot, I imagine they are getting lots of calls already from the uninformed public who see this as a foul, but he has rights; the Mining Law of 1872 is pretty solidly in their favor, and that is a whole nuther discussion. 

Anyhow, thats all I know


----------



## Strebs (Jun 29, 2017)

Hello everyone, the claim in question is mine. I assure you that I'm doing my best to have everyone enjoy this stretch of river. Dirtyhands, send me a private message so I can make accommodations to your late August trips. 
Thanks,
Strebs


----------



## Fuzzy (May 25, 2005)

Solid!!!! Thank you for giving us a heads up and thinking of the river community. Stay safe!


----------

