1. Suction Dredge Case Law Placer Examination Techniques

2. Suction Dredge Case Law Several IBLA decisions have addressed issues relating to suction dredging including: the need to sample claims with a suction dredge the need to sample claims with a suction dredge whether gold in active stream channels is a “deposit” whether gold in active stream channels is a “deposit” labor rates labor rates operating and capital costs operating and capital costs competency of the mineral examiner in dredging competency of the mineral examiner in dredging

3. U.S. v. Williams, 65 IBLA 346 (1982) Claimant overcame governments prima facie case since government did not sample using a suction dredge. Claimant overcame governments prima facie case since government did not sample using a suction dredge. Government tried to argue that gold in the stream bed was not a deposit – Board found that material laid down by a stream was a deposit. Government tried to argue that gold in the stream bed was not a deposit – Board found that material laid down by a stream was a deposit. Government tried to argue that suction dredging was not a form of legitimate mining – Board found that dredging was legitimate if it could be done economically. Government tried to argue that suction dredging was not a form of legitimate mining – Board found that dredging was legitimate if it could be done economically. May be necessary for the Government to use a suction dredge to sample mining claims. May be necessary for the Government to use a suction dredge to sample mining claims.

4. U.S. v. Arbo, 70 IBLA 244 (1983) Government mineral examiner refused to take samples with the claimants dredge – Board found that to be a clear error. Government mineral examiner refused to take samples with the claimants dredge – Board found that to be a clear error.

5. U.S. v. Anderson, 83 IBLA 170 (1984) Government took pan samples when claimant was using a suction dredge. Government took pan samples when claimant was using a suction dredge. Pan sampling by the Government was questionable and lack of suction dredge sample could have subjected the Government’s case to dismissal. Pan sampling by the Government was questionable and lack of suction dredge sample could have subjected the Government’s case to dismissal.

6. U.S. v. Laczkowski, 111 IBLA 165 (1989) Dredge depreciation, expenses for wetsuit & masks, setup & breakdown time, maintenance & significant repair costs should be included in mining costs. Dredge depreciation, expenses for wetsuit & masks, setup & breakdown time, maintenance & significant repair costs should be included in mining costs. Manufacturer’s rated capacity assumes optimum conditions & continuous processing-conditions rarely encountered. Manufacturer’s rated capacity assumes optimum conditions & continuous processing-conditions rarely encountered. Conditions that would slow down dredging activity would decrease actual dredge capacity. Conditions that would slow down dredging activity would decrease actual dredge capacity.

7. U.S. v. Laczkowski, 111 IBLA 165 (1989) Judge Hughes provided a basis for comparing production rates between dredges of varying sizes. Judge Hughes provided a basis for comparing production rates between dredges of varying sizes. Judge Mullen felt stream gravel estimates should be based on quantitative measurements. Judge Mullen felt stream gravel estimates should be based on quantitative measurements.

8. U.S. v. Pierre J. Ott, 125 IBLA 250 (1993) Suction dredge is a piece of “mechanized earth moving equipment”. Suction dredge is a piece of “mechanized earth moving equipment”. Relates to determining thresholds for when a plan of operations may be required. Relates to determining thresholds for when a plan of operations may be required.

9. U.S. v. Waters, 146 IBLA 188 (1998) Value of a claimant’s labor must be included in mining costs for suction dredging. Value of a claimant’s labor must be included in mining costs for suction dredging. Costs to employer should be included labor costs. Costs to employer should be included labor costs. Cost of labor for suction dredging should be higher than minimum wage & less than heavy equipment operator. Cost of labor for suction dredging should be higher than minimum wage & less than heavy equipment operator.

10. U.S. v. Waters, 146 IBLA 188 (1998) Board averaged results of sampling to arrive at an average grade. Board averaged results of sampling to arrive at an average grade. Measuring productivity as gold recovered per hour was more reasonable than measuring volume of material dredged. Measuring productivity as gold recovered per hour was more reasonable than measuring volume of material dredged. Board added non-dredging time to costs. Board added non-dredging time to costs. Board added costs to replace wetsuits, tools, hoses, etc. to hourly dredging cost. Board added costs to replace wetsuits, tools, hoses, etc. to hourly dredging cost.

11. U.S. v. Waters, 146 IBLA 188 (1998) Amortized the cost of the dredge over a 2,000 hour period. Amortized the cost of the dredge over a 2,000 hour period. Board discarded 1 of Government mineral examiner’s dredge samples since video evidence supported claimant’s contention that the mineral examiner was not proficient at dredging. Board discarded 1 of Government mineral examiner’s dredge samples since video evidence supported claimant’s contention that the mineral examiner was not proficient at dredging.

12. U.S. v. Waters (On Reconsideration), 159 IBLA 248 (2003) Judge Harris discussed charging 25% labor overhead or a self-employment tax for owner-operator. Judge Harris discussed charging 25% labor overhead or a self-employment tax for owner-operator. Judge’s Grant & Mullen in dissenting opinions felt that 25% labor overhead was not appropriate for owner-operator (“mom & pop”) operations, such as many suction dredge operations. Judge’s Grant & Mullen in dissenting opinions felt that 25% labor overhead was not appropriate for owner-operator (“mom & pop”) operations, such as many suction dredge operations.