*
California Suction Gold Dredging Update
*
*
Scoping meetings scheduled
Notice of Preparation/Initial Study released*

The California Department of Fish & Game announced that three public
scoping meetings will provide an opportunity for miners and other
interested parties to provide comments on the suction dredge permitting
program, and the Notice of Preparation/Initial Study has been released
for review.

Three public meetings have been scheduled:

* Fresno: Monday, November 16, 5pm, at the California Retired
Teachers Association Building, 3930 E. Saginaw Way, Fresno, CA 93726
* Sacramento: Tuesday, November 17, 5pm, at the City of West
Sacramento Galleria, 1110 West Capitol Ave., West Sacramento, CA 95691
* Redding: Wednesday, November 18, 5pm, at the Shasta Senior
Nutrition Program Center, 100 Mercy Oaks Dr., Redding, CA 96003

Written comments must be postmarked by December 3, 2009, and may be
submitted by email to: dfgsuctiondredge@dfg.ca.gov
<mailto:dfgsuctiondredge@dfg.ca.gov?subject=Suction%20Dredging%20Permitting%
20Program>

Or by regular mail:
Mark Stopher
California Department of Fish and Game
601 Locust Street
Redding, CA 96001

The Notice of Preparation/Initial Study is available here:
http://www.icmj.com/UserFiles/file/rece ... NOP-IS.pdf

(2Mb pdf file, 115 pages)

PLEASE FORWARD THIS MESSAGE TO INTERESTED MINERS, PROSPECTORS, CLUBS,
ASSOCIATIONS, AND MINING-RELATED BUSINESSES!

Sincerely,

Scott Harn
Editor/Publisher
ICMJ's Prospecting and Mining Journal
PO Box 2260
Aptos, CA 95001
831 479-1500
www.icmj.com <http://www.icmj.com>

qualification Mark's reply email:

"The moratorium established by SB 670 does not prohibit any of the activities you mention. Highbanking, power sluicing, booming, gravity dredging and dryland suction dredging may substantially modify the bed, bank or channel of a stream, river or lake, or substantially divert flow from a stream and require notification under section 1602 of the Fish and Game Code. I suggest you coordinate the regional DFG office nearest to where you conduct your activities to make that determination. You can also access our web site http://www.dfg.ca.gov/ for more information on streambed alteration agreements and suction dredging status. It seems unlikely to me that, as I understand it, a PVC suction pipe operated by hand would require a streambed alteration agreement.


Mark Stopher
Environmental Program Manager
California Department of Fish and Game
601 Locust Street
Redding, CA 96001
voice 530.225.2275
fax 530.225.2391
cell 530.945.1344"

...end quote

Joined: 08 Jul 2008
Location: Redding CA
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 153 Post Options
Quote Reply Topic: DFG Meetings are OVER
Posted: 19 Nov 2009 at 12:41pm
How many folks Here can say Cluster Pucker? Contrary to all other meeting with the Dept of Fish and Game No one was allowed to speak at these three meeting except by Handing in a Question on a 4X6in ruled Card. There was absolutely No Give and Take Between The Department of Fish and Game ( Mark Stopher) the Director in Charge of this matter for the DFG and the public at large.

Not only that little tid bit but even if you wrote down a question and handed it in that did not mean that the question would be answered by Mark Stopher. Over the three nights there were at least one hundred questions that he did not answer. Not only that but from prior knowledge of the correct answers to some of the questions that he was asked that he would not answer. His reason for not answering certain questions were the fact that they would call into question if the DFG should even be doing the study.

Just for a little back ground on that bit here is one item you need to know. The Original Study was actually done by the State of Oregon in 1972. It had nothing to do with the state of CA. In 1976 The state of CA Adopted the regulations they wish to use to receive money by charging Suction Dredgers to receive a permit. Then in 1994 The State was Sued and came up with the answer that The original Study was the only thing that had been done and it would stand for the Interim. They began another study then but felt they did not have the money and that no one cared. so the published it in 1997 and let it end right there. Then in 2004 a suit was begun and by 2006 a Judge in Alameda Co. CA decided that the State of CA DFG had until June of 2008 to address all the questions in the suit and to issue any new rules and regulations that if felt were needed to protect the CA Fishery from Suction Dredging. June 2008 rolled around and the DFG went to the hearing saying that nothing could be done as the legislature did not authorize the monies needed to do the study. Now not even in a ruling but in a simple side bar conference. The judge said well that's ok boys we will just close dredging until you have enough time to do what you want to do.

So now you know the what and the why.

Now the funny thing is they say they have enough money to do it. Yet no new money was given to the DFG for this.

The DFG say they have done all the studying they need to do and that no more studying will be done. They do admit they will use the study from 1994 and 1997. Here is the real funny thing. The actual physical work on the study was done in 1972.

So here is one little tid bit to think about How many suction dredges were there in 1970/71 which is when the underwater studies were done. Not a lot. in fact the State of OR Cobbled together the equipment to do what they did they could not even buy a commercial piece of equipment. FYI the sluice was out of plywood and the riffles were out of door molding and the carpet was gunny sack material.

So this is it for now. I wanted you all to see what has come up so far I will try to get the rest of the info online somewhere tomorrow.

dray
"A traveler has no protection besides his firearms; and the constant habit of carrying them is the main check to more frequent robberies"
Charles Darwin (1839) from:
--The Voyage Of The Beagle--