Hoser John
Gold Member
The 1994 regs are the ONLY option and Facebook--how gay can ya get 
dfg suction dredge report is out
- Thread starter 2cmorau
- Start date
Tarkus
Jr. Member
Push for the 94 regs, it accured to me that the DFG just needs to show that they improved or changed the regs to make them better some how. Unfortunately they have given too many options to the decision makers, the worst being a continued ban across the board, as with most bureaucrats it's easier to say no to everything, then face the fire of responsibility for a wise and just ruling.
So I say we try to turn up a fire of our own, make it unwise to rule against us for a politician.
I personally would be willing to address or give presentation to any group that will have us, on the benefits of dredging and expose the Eco-Nazi lie and scare tactics.
I've played in the political arena, what I learned was that the Rats and Cockroaches run for cover when you turn on the lights, lets light it up boys and girls
So I say we try to turn up a fire of our own, make it unwise to rule against us for a politician.
I personally would be willing to address or give presentation to any group that will have us, on the benefits of dredging and expose the Eco-Nazi lie and scare tactics.
I've played in the political arena, what I learned was that the Rats and Cockroaches run for cover when you turn on the lights, lets light it up boys and girls
Just came across this letter, and it seems to me that they dont even care what their own (EX people) have to say, MONEY, MONEY, MONEY.
Miner's News
12/03/2009
Our comments to California Fish and Game for initial scoping process for the new suction dredging EIR Print
December 3, 2009
Mark Stopher
California Department of Fish and Game
601 Locust St
Redding, CA 96001
Mr. Stopher,
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the initial scoping study for the suction dredge permitting program for California.
I have been the editor, publisher and owner of ICMJ’s Prospecting and Mining Journal for ten years. The magazine was originally established in 1931 as the California Mining Journal and has been based in California since its inception. I also worked for the magazine prior to purchasing it, beginning in 1982. I began suction gold dredging in 1983, and have used suction gold dredges in both California and Oregon waterways. I believe my personal and professional experience provides valuable expertise in the area of suction gold dredging.
I have spent a considerable amount of time examining the initial study document and summary of available studies recently released for comments. Nowhere in those documents are the overriding laws listed or discussed, including the grants afforded miners by the mining laws from 1866 to present. While I’m sure you are aware that no regulations can be changed or implemented without considering the laws pertaining to mining, I am also aware that the various mining laws and grants are covered in comments submitted by Public Lands for the People and others, so I will not duplicate their efforts here.
The majority of the material cited in the Notice of Preparation was published prior to the original EIR in 1994 and subsequent attempt at a new EIR in 1997. The research material listed after that date is inadequate to support a change from insignificant to deleterious. In fact, I was unable to locate any definitive studies that make this conclusion; rather, the literature cited is ripe with speculation, often using words such as “may” cause or “could” cause harm to fish or their spawning areas.
I attended the public scoping meeting in Sacramento. At the meeting, Mark Stopher stated that materials submitted to the State Water Resources Control Board in their recent (2007) scoping process were included and do not need to be resubmitted. However, this does not seem to be the case.
Joseph C. Greene, a retired U.S. EPA research biologist, provided a peer review of available studies on suction gold dredging to the State Water Resources Control Board (2007). He concluded, “The issue against suction dredge operations in the streams of the United States appears to be less an issue of environmental protection and more of an issue of certain organized individuals and groups being unwilling to share the outdoors with others without like interests.”
Claudia Wise is a retired U.S. EPA physical scientist/chemist. She provided a peer review of available studies to Governor Schwarzenegger prior to the passage of SB 670 (2009). She stated, “Dozens of peer-reviewed journal articles some commissioned by the USEPA, USGS, CDFG, Corp of Engineers, and many more from universities support suction dredging as having de minimis effects or no significant effect on the environment they are used in. Nothing has changed in peer-reviewed literature since that time to change this fact.”
Page 41 of the scoping literature states that mercury is discharged into our waterways by suction dredges. This is dishonest at best. Mercury is a heavy metal that settles at or near the bedrock due to its high specific gravity so it often gets vacuumed up and entrained in the dredge’s riffles along with other heavy metals and minerals. One study cited in the scoping document claimed that approximately 98% of the mercury was recovered during a test. The study went on to claim that the remaining 2% could cause problems through fish contamination and methylation. Claudia Wise addresses this concern in her peer review:
The mining community of today is, in my opinion, the only group that is in a position with the technology to help with the removal of lead and mercury at a very economical price to the public. Any residual mercury remaining after dredging is that much less to worry about residing in our Nations waterways.
In reviewing Humphrey's (2005) comments regarding possible problems associated with collecting mercury via suction dredging methods, it is right to look to the suction dredge community for help locating hotspots and removing mercury from the river systems. In my opinion the data provided in the report by Humphrey's (2005) did not demonstrate any clear conclusions that would prohibit the State from allowing this activity. On the contrary, in the discussion of results it was stated that a suction dredge in the American River was able to collect 98 percent of the measured mercury processed through the dredge. The amount of mercury collected may have been higher if the investigators had been using a dredge with the modern jet flare design. Even 98 percent is a huge plus for the environment and it would be irresponsible to not allow mercury to be removed from the rivers and streams whenever it is found.
In Humphreys report (2005), the author expressed concern for the loss of a small portion (2%) of the mercury from the back end of the sluice box. In the conclusions it was stated that the amount lost constituted a concentration more than ten times higher than that needed to classify it as hazardous waste. Yet 98 percent of the mercury was now secured and the process did not add any mercury to the system that was not already present. The small fraction lost, because of its density, would relocate back onto the river floor buried in the sediment close to where it was removed while dredging.
Mercury is continuously moved every winter in high storm events. Since the cessation of hydraulic mining, accumulated sediment from hydraulic placer mining has been transported to the Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta and San Francisco Bay by sustained remobilization (James, 1991). Providing a program to collect mercury from miners would aid the Water Board’s mission of reducing mercury contamination in the deltas and bays where mercury methylation is a large concern.
In the test described by Humphreys (2005) a small portion of floured mercury was collected in the sediments as it escaped the sluice box. This mercury whether floured before it entered the sluice box, or not, would still be in elemental form. Regardless of surface area it would be no more toxic then the other 98 percent that was suggested to be left in place.
Aside from grossly polluted environments, mercury is normally a problem only where the rate of natural formation of methyl mercury from inorganic mercury is greater than the reverse reaction. Methyl mercury is the only form of mercury that accumulates appreciably in macroinvertebrates and fish. Environments that are known to favor the production of methyl mercury include certain types of wetlands, dilute low-pH lakes in the Northeast and North central United States, parts of the Florida Everglades, newly flooded reservoirs, and coastal wetlands, particularly along the Gulf of Mexico, Atlantic Ocean, and San Francisco Bay (USGS 2000).
If not collected the mercury is guaranteed to end up farther downstream, and eventually in the delta or the bay, where methylation is a real environmental problem. In my opinion it would be a highly irresponsible management practice to leave a large portion of mercury in the rivers and streams because of unrealistic concerns for the lesser amount moving only a short distance away from an operating dredge. Most likely if floured the movement of fine mercury would extend no farther than 50-feet off the end of the sluice box. That would relate to the distance a turbidity plume might extend downstream from a small-scale suction dredge.
However, if the mercury was left in place the next storm event would surely move it downstream closer to, and eventually into, the bay and delta. In fact, according to Humphrey's study in 2005 mercury was seen moving down stream and re-deposited on bedrock already dredge cleaned. The important fact here is mercury was flowing down stream in a suction dredge free zone during lower river flows than what take place under high winter river conditions.
It is most important to reduce the total amount of mercury in the streams and rivers and its transport downstream into the bays and deltas. This is defined as a part of Total Maximum Daily Load (“TMDL”) goals.
We know for certain that mercury is transported downstream throughout the winter season during high water events. Therefore, anytime there is the possibility for the removal of mercury by miners it should be undertaken and supported. (Emphasis added.)
Mr. Josiah H. Cornell III is retired from the USDA Forest Service in Oregon. Cornell addressed many of the issues related to spawning of salmon in his own study of suction gold dredging. Cornell stated:
Salmonids spawned in the vicinity of the previous season's dredging, but, in one study, salmonids redds were not located in tailing piles. The gravels dispersed by the high stream flows, which included dredge tailings, certainly composed a portion of the suitable spawning gravels each year. Dredge tailings have been observed to provide good salmonid spawning ground due to the loose condition of the sand and gravel. In some places, mining debris may provide the best or only habitat.
A five-inch dredge could improve the intergravel environment for both fish eggs and benthos. Weighing all factors, dredging can improve the gravel environment for both fish eggs and aquatic insects. (Emphasis added.)
Mr. Greene, Ms. Wise and Mr. Cornell have extensive experience relevant to the upcoming EIR on suction gold dredging, including water quality, temperature, turbidity, fish, biota, and related topics. As we have recently learned from the release of emails indicating fraud involving the IPCC’s climate change reports, some scientists have a desire to skew results whether it be motivated by continued monetary grants, personal or political agendas. Mr. Greene, Ms. Wise and Mr. Cornell are now retired from their respective government agencies. They are no longer dependant on grant money, nor are they required to adapt to an agency agenda to maintain employment. For these reasons, their opinions should carry a much stronger weight in this process.
I have included copies of the peer reviews of Joseph C. Greene and Claudia Wise so their peer reviews can be included in this scoping process.
Based upon my personal and professional experience, which includes operation of a four-inch dredge over many years, I can state unequivocally that your data in “Table 1: Characteristics of Various Suction Dredges” is grossly exaggerated. The data suggests that suction dredges move large amounts of material. For example, a six-inch dredge may be capable of moving 6 to 17 cubic yards of material in one hour, but no miner is going to move that much material because much of the gold will be missed.
Table 1 states a miner utilizing a 4-inch dredge will move 1 to 5 cubic yards per hour. In my experience, I moved approximately 2 cubic yards of material per day with a 4-inch dredge averaging 6 hours with the dredge in operation, or 0.333 cubic yards per hour. Based on my personal and professional experience, I believe 0.333 cubic yards per hour is a realistic amount for any miner using a 4-inch dredge. Each miner is looking to recover as much gold as possible, not to just move material. While a dredge can surely move more material, the miner’s goal is to clean out the cracks and crevices to recover the gold, which is a time-consuming process. Much of the miner’s time is spent cleaning out those cracks and crevices, hence the lower volume of material processed.
I understand that the economic impact may not be considered until later in the process. However, I’m including a recent study I completed with the assistance of Pat Keene of Keene Engineering, a major suction dredge manufacturer, and Rachel Dunn of Gold Pan California, a retail mining store. Based on the results of that study, we found that suction dredging has a minimum economic impact in California of $65.46 million, not including several major categories like payroll and property taxes, commercial retail rents, trade magazines, and more. The study was conducted when the gold price was $871.86 per troy ounce. With the current gold price at $1,215 per troy ounce, and many unemployed citizens looking toward gold mining as a way to make ends meet, the current economic impact should easily exceed $100 million in my professional opinion.
This concludes my comments.
Sincerely,
Scott M. Harn
Editor/Publisher
ICMJ’s Prospecting and Mining Journal
www.icmj.com
831 479-1500
Attachments:
A. Joseph C. Greene; Peer review submitted to State Water Quality Control Board, 2007.
B. Claudia Wise; Peer review submitted to Governor Schwarzenegger’s office regarding SB 670, 2009.
C. Harn, Scott; Dunn, Rachel; Keene, Pat; “The Economic Impact of Suction Dredging in California,” ICMJ’s Prospecting and Mining Journal, Vol. 79 No. 2, pgs 37-38, Sept. 2009.
Back to all news -
Miner's News
12/03/2009
Our comments to California Fish and Game for initial scoping process for the new suction dredging EIR Print
December 3, 2009
Mark Stopher
California Department of Fish and Game
601 Locust St
Redding, CA 96001
Mr. Stopher,
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the initial scoping study for the suction dredge permitting program for California.
I have been the editor, publisher and owner of ICMJ’s Prospecting and Mining Journal for ten years. The magazine was originally established in 1931 as the California Mining Journal and has been based in California since its inception. I also worked for the magazine prior to purchasing it, beginning in 1982. I began suction gold dredging in 1983, and have used suction gold dredges in both California and Oregon waterways. I believe my personal and professional experience provides valuable expertise in the area of suction gold dredging.
I have spent a considerable amount of time examining the initial study document and summary of available studies recently released for comments. Nowhere in those documents are the overriding laws listed or discussed, including the grants afforded miners by the mining laws from 1866 to present. While I’m sure you are aware that no regulations can be changed or implemented without considering the laws pertaining to mining, I am also aware that the various mining laws and grants are covered in comments submitted by Public Lands for the People and others, so I will not duplicate their efforts here.
The majority of the material cited in the Notice of Preparation was published prior to the original EIR in 1994 and subsequent attempt at a new EIR in 1997. The research material listed after that date is inadequate to support a change from insignificant to deleterious. In fact, I was unable to locate any definitive studies that make this conclusion; rather, the literature cited is ripe with speculation, often using words such as “may” cause or “could” cause harm to fish or their spawning areas.
I attended the public scoping meeting in Sacramento. At the meeting, Mark Stopher stated that materials submitted to the State Water Resources Control Board in their recent (2007) scoping process were included and do not need to be resubmitted. However, this does not seem to be the case.
Joseph C. Greene, a retired U.S. EPA research biologist, provided a peer review of available studies on suction gold dredging to the State Water Resources Control Board (2007). He concluded, “The issue against suction dredge operations in the streams of the United States appears to be less an issue of environmental protection and more of an issue of certain organized individuals and groups being unwilling to share the outdoors with others without like interests.”
Claudia Wise is a retired U.S. EPA physical scientist/chemist. She provided a peer review of available studies to Governor Schwarzenegger prior to the passage of SB 670 (2009). She stated, “Dozens of peer-reviewed journal articles some commissioned by the USEPA, USGS, CDFG, Corp of Engineers, and many more from universities support suction dredging as having de minimis effects or no significant effect on the environment they are used in. Nothing has changed in peer-reviewed literature since that time to change this fact.”
Page 41 of the scoping literature states that mercury is discharged into our waterways by suction dredges. This is dishonest at best. Mercury is a heavy metal that settles at or near the bedrock due to its high specific gravity so it often gets vacuumed up and entrained in the dredge’s riffles along with other heavy metals and minerals. One study cited in the scoping document claimed that approximately 98% of the mercury was recovered during a test. The study went on to claim that the remaining 2% could cause problems through fish contamination and methylation. Claudia Wise addresses this concern in her peer review:
The mining community of today is, in my opinion, the only group that is in a position with the technology to help with the removal of lead and mercury at a very economical price to the public. Any residual mercury remaining after dredging is that much less to worry about residing in our Nations waterways.
In reviewing Humphrey's (2005) comments regarding possible problems associated with collecting mercury via suction dredging methods, it is right to look to the suction dredge community for help locating hotspots and removing mercury from the river systems. In my opinion the data provided in the report by Humphrey's (2005) did not demonstrate any clear conclusions that would prohibit the State from allowing this activity. On the contrary, in the discussion of results it was stated that a suction dredge in the American River was able to collect 98 percent of the measured mercury processed through the dredge. The amount of mercury collected may have been higher if the investigators had been using a dredge with the modern jet flare design. Even 98 percent is a huge plus for the environment and it would be irresponsible to not allow mercury to be removed from the rivers and streams whenever it is found.
In Humphreys report (2005), the author expressed concern for the loss of a small portion (2%) of the mercury from the back end of the sluice box. In the conclusions it was stated that the amount lost constituted a concentration more than ten times higher than that needed to classify it as hazardous waste. Yet 98 percent of the mercury was now secured and the process did not add any mercury to the system that was not already present. The small fraction lost, because of its density, would relocate back onto the river floor buried in the sediment close to where it was removed while dredging.
Mercury is continuously moved every winter in high storm events. Since the cessation of hydraulic mining, accumulated sediment from hydraulic placer mining has been transported to the Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta and San Francisco Bay by sustained remobilization (James, 1991). Providing a program to collect mercury from miners would aid the Water Board’s mission of reducing mercury contamination in the deltas and bays where mercury methylation is a large concern.
In the test described by Humphreys (2005) a small portion of floured mercury was collected in the sediments as it escaped the sluice box. This mercury whether floured before it entered the sluice box, or not, would still be in elemental form. Regardless of surface area it would be no more toxic then the other 98 percent that was suggested to be left in place.
Aside from grossly polluted environments, mercury is normally a problem only where the rate of natural formation of methyl mercury from inorganic mercury is greater than the reverse reaction. Methyl mercury is the only form of mercury that accumulates appreciably in macroinvertebrates and fish. Environments that are known to favor the production of methyl mercury include certain types of wetlands, dilute low-pH lakes in the Northeast and North central United States, parts of the Florida Everglades, newly flooded reservoirs, and coastal wetlands, particularly along the Gulf of Mexico, Atlantic Ocean, and San Francisco Bay (USGS 2000).
If not collected the mercury is guaranteed to end up farther downstream, and eventually in the delta or the bay, where methylation is a real environmental problem. In my opinion it would be a highly irresponsible management practice to leave a large portion of mercury in the rivers and streams because of unrealistic concerns for the lesser amount moving only a short distance away from an operating dredge. Most likely if floured the movement of fine mercury would extend no farther than 50-feet off the end of the sluice box. That would relate to the distance a turbidity plume might extend downstream from a small-scale suction dredge.
However, if the mercury was left in place the next storm event would surely move it downstream closer to, and eventually into, the bay and delta. In fact, according to Humphrey's study in 2005 mercury was seen moving down stream and re-deposited on bedrock already dredge cleaned. The important fact here is mercury was flowing down stream in a suction dredge free zone during lower river flows than what take place under high winter river conditions.
It is most important to reduce the total amount of mercury in the streams and rivers and its transport downstream into the bays and deltas. This is defined as a part of Total Maximum Daily Load (“TMDL”) goals.
We know for certain that mercury is transported downstream throughout the winter season during high water events. Therefore, anytime there is the possibility for the removal of mercury by miners it should be undertaken and supported. (Emphasis added.)
Mr. Josiah H. Cornell III is retired from the USDA Forest Service in Oregon. Cornell addressed many of the issues related to spawning of salmon in his own study of suction gold dredging. Cornell stated:
Salmonids spawned in the vicinity of the previous season's dredging, but, in one study, salmonids redds were not located in tailing piles. The gravels dispersed by the high stream flows, which included dredge tailings, certainly composed a portion of the suitable spawning gravels each year. Dredge tailings have been observed to provide good salmonid spawning ground due to the loose condition of the sand and gravel. In some places, mining debris may provide the best or only habitat.
A five-inch dredge could improve the intergravel environment for both fish eggs and benthos. Weighing all factors, dredging can improve the gravel environment for both fish eggs and aquatic insects. (Emphasis added.)
Mr. Greene, Ms. Wise and Mr. Cornell have extensive experience relevant to the upcoming EIR on suction gold dredging, including water quality, temperature, turbidity, fish, biota, and related topics. As we have recently learned from the release of emails indicating fraud involving the IPCC’s climate change reports, some scientists have a desire to skew results whether it be motivated by continued monetary grants, personal or political agendas. Mr. Greene, Ms. Wise and Mr. Cornell are now retired from their respective government agencies. They are no longer dependant on grant money, nor are they required to adapt to an agency agenda to maintain employment. For these reasons, their opinions should carry a much stronger weight in this process.
I have included copies of the peer reviews of Joseph C. Greene and Claudia Wise so their peer reviews can be included in this scoping process.
Based upon my personal and professional experience, which includes operation of a four-inch dredge over many years, I can state unequivocally that your data in “Table 1: Characteristics of Various Suction Dredges” is grossly exaggerated. The data suggests that suction dredges move large amounts of material. For example, a six-inch dredge may be capable of moving 6 to 17 cubic yards of material in one hour, but no miner is going to move that much material because much of the gold will be missed.
Table 1 states a miner utilizing a 4-inch dredge will move 1 to 5 cubic yards per hour. In my experience, I moved approximately 2 cubic yards of material per day with a 4-inch dredge averaging 6 hours with the dredge in operation, or 0.333 cubic yards per hour. Based on my personal and professional experience, I believe 0.333 cubic yards per hour is a realistic amount for any miner using a 4-inch dredge. Each miner is looking to recover as much gold as possible, not to just move material. While a dredge can surely move more material, the miner’s goal is to clean out the cracks and crevices to recover the gold, which is a time-consuming process. Much of the miner’s time is spent cleaning out those cracks and crevices, hence the lower volume of material processed.
I understand that the economic impact may not be considered until later in the process. However, I’m including a recent study I completed with the assistance of Pat Keene of Keene Engineering, a major suction dredge manufacturer, and Rachel Dunn of Gold Pan California, a retail mining store. Based on the results of that study, we found that suction dredging has a minimum economic impact in California of $65.46 million, not including several major categories like payroll and property taxes, commercial retail rents, trade magazines, and more. The study was conducted when the gold price was $871.86 per troy ounce. With the current gold price at $1,215 per troy ounce, and many unemployed citizens looking toward gold mining as a way to make ends meet, the current economic impact should easily exceed $100 million in my professional opinion.
This concludes my comments.
Sincerely,
Scott M. Harn
Editor/Publisher
ICMJ’s Prospecting and Mining Journal
www.icmj.com
831 479-1500
Attachments:
A. Joseph C. Greene; Peer review submitted to State Water Quality Control Board, 2007.
B. Claudia Wise; Peer review submitted to Governor Schwarzenegger’s office regarding SB 670, 2009.
C. Harn, Scott; Dunn, Rachel; Keene, Pat; “The Economic Impact of Suction Dredging in California,” ICMJ’s Prospecting and Mining Journal, Vol. 79 No. 2, pgs 37-38, Sept. 2009.
Back to all news -
kuger
Gold Member
- Nov 6, 2007
- 9,721
- 2,796
- Detector(s) used
- ,M.X.T.& Tesoro Tejon
- Primary Interest:
- All Treasure Hunting
Very good letter....only if they will listen?
We as dredgers need to take heed to other states Mercury Turn in programs and do the same here.Then we will have documentation of just how much Mercury WE are gathering,compared to other non existent measures.I have a couple hundred pounds myself that I would be willing to turn in if properly documented on HOW I gathered it!
We as dredgers need to take heed to other states Mercury Turn in programs and do the same here.Then we will have documentation of just how much Mercury WE are gathering,compared to other non existent measures.I have a couple hundred pounds myself that I would be willing to turn in if properly documented on HOW I gathered it!
http://www.icmj.com/UserFiles/file/... Impact of Suction Dredging in California.pdf
http://www.icmj.com/UserFiles/file/recent-news/Claudia Wise on SB 670.pdf
http://www.icmj.com/UserFiles/file/recent-news/Joseph-Greene-suction-gold-dredge-study.pdf
Here are the links to the last 3 letters on the bottom.
http://www.icmj.com/UserFiles/file/recent-news/Claudia Wise on SB 670.pdf
http://www.icmj.com/UserFiles/file/recent-news/Joseph-Greene-suction-gold-dredge-study.pdf
Here are the links to the last 3 letters on the bottom.
Funny....where is Dave Mccrackens name in any of this supporting material..........HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM 
I guess i will send all four letters to all the legislators thru their e-mails i found.
jog
Bronze Member
- Nov 28, 2008
- 1,364
- 682
- Detector(s) used
- Whites MXT / GMT
- Primary Interest:
- All Treasure Hunting
Hefty 1 ( they don't care what there Ex people say )
They are only concerned with what the the people they control are saying.
They are only concerned with what the the people they control are saying.
Well then i guess im going dredging and they will have one hell of a 
fight on there hands 
And than they can pay for my 3 hots and cot, health, my family and all other costs they intail on me and my family. Back to the old days of mining and intruders. 
Talkin to these idiots dont seem to work, Lets show them the hard way.
jog
Bronze Member
- Nov 28, 2008
- 1,364
- 682
- Detector(s) used
- Whites MXT / GMT
- Primary Interest:
- All Treasure Hunting
Hefty1 said:
Talkin to these idiots dont seem to work, Lets show them the hard way.
I believe if that happened the system would turn loose the sex offenders and murderers but you sir would have to stay.
By Mark Baird
On September 9, 2010 Mr. Niel Manji gave an interview to Tom Marsden of the Capital Press. Mr. Niel Manji is the recently appointed replacement of Mr. Mark Stopher, as Northern Regional Director for the California Department of Fish and Game. Mr. Stopher was replaced due to his actions in the attempt to extort and threaten Water Right Owners into signing contracts, which would give CDFG control over Water Rights in Siskiyou County.
This “Watershed Wide Permitting Process”, if successful, will negatively affect Water Rights and Property Rights, throughout the State of California
Just fightin fire with fire.
On September 9, 2010 Mr. Niel Manji gave an interview to Tom Marsden of the Capital Press. Mr. Niel Manji is the recently appointed replacement of Mr. Mark Stopher, as Northern Regional Director for the California Department of Fish and Game. Mr. Stopher was replaced due to his actions in the attempt to extort and threaten Water Right Owners into signing contracts, which would give CDFG control over Water Rights in Siskiyou County.
This “Watershed Wide Permitting Process”, if successful, will negatively affect Water Rights and Property Rights, throughout the State of California
Just fightin fire with fire.
kuger
Gold Member
- Nov 6, 2007
- 9,721
- 2,796
- Detector(s) used
- ,M.X.T.& Tesoro Tejon
- Primary Interest:
- All Treasure Hunting
Was just talkin yesterday about digging up something on Stopher......easy work!!!!Now why isnt there legal action taken against him,like would happen to you or I??
Good riddence he is gone!!!!
Good riddence he is gone!!!!
Gravel Hog
Sr. Member
We need to start working this also....
Written and oral comments received in response to the DSEIR will be addressed in a
Response to Comments document which, together with the DSEIR and any related changes
to the substantive discussion in the DSEIR, will constitute the Final SEIR. In addition, CDFG
will consider the comments received to refine, as necessary, the proposed amendments to
the previous regulations. The Final SEIR, in turn, will inform CDFG’s exercise of its
discretion as a lead agency under CEQA in deciding whether or how to approve the
Proposed Program as prescribed by the Fish and Game Code.
Th e DSEIR triggers a 60-day public
comment period. DFG will use all written
and oral comments received in response to
the DSEIR to revise or refine, as necessary,
the analysis presented in the DSEIR. A
fi nal SEIR will then be prepared which
contains responses to all comments and
an updated version of the DSEIR. Once
completed, the final SEIR will inform
DFG as the lead agency under CEQA in
deciding whether or how to approve the
proposed program.
Th e updates to DFG’s current suction
dredge mining regulations will occur in
parallel with the CEQA process. Draft
regulations will be circulated along with the
DSEIR. As with the DSEIR, DFG will use
comments to revise or refine, as necessary,
these draft regulations, and the final SEIR
will contain the proposed regulations.
Following completion of the final SEIR,
the DFG Director will consider whether
to adopt the regulations and approve the
proposed program.
Written and oral comments received in response to the DSEIR will be addressed in a
Response to Comments document which, together with the DSEIR and any related changes
to the substantive discussion in the DSEIR, will constitute the Final SEIR. In addition, CDFG
will consider the comments received to refine, as necessary, the proposed amendments to
the previous regulations. The Final SEIR, in turn, will inform CDFG’s exercise of its
discretion as a lead agency under CEQA in deciding whether or how to approve the
Proposed Program as prescribed by the Fish and Game Code.
Th e DSEIR triggers a 60-day public
comment period. DFG will use all written
and oral comments received in response to
the DSEIR to revise or refine, as necessary,
the analysis presented in the DSEIR. A
fi nal SEIR will then be prepared which
contains responses to all comments and
an updated version of the DSEIR. Once
completed, the final SEIR will inform
DFG as the lead agency under CEQA in
deciding whether or how to approve the
proposed program.
Th e updates to DFG’s current suction
dredge mining regulations will occur in
parallel with the CEQA process. Draft
regulations will be circulated along with the
DSEIR. As with the DSEIR, DFG will use
comments to revise or refine, as necessary,
these draft regulations, and the final SEIR
will contain the proposed regulations.
Following completion of the final SEIR,
the DFG Director will consider whether
to adopt the regulations and approve the
proposed program.
January 27, 2011 11:42:00 PM
By Ben van der Meer/Appeal-Democrat
A report released this week by the U.S. Geological Survey suggests the return of suction dredging for gold mining would lead to high levels of mercury entering the South Yuba River.
The report, which studied the amount of methylmercury in the food chain near historic suction dredging sites and elsewhere, determined the mercury particles most likely to become part of the food chain are the ones such dredging would most likely release.
"We should make clear there's not a risk at this time to recreational use of the river or drinking water," said Charles Alpers, a research chemist with the USGS' California Water Science Center in Sacramento.
A state moratorium on suction dredging for gold was declared in 2009, partly for its destructive effects on the environment.
The USGS studied the amount of methylmercury in invertebrates at a historic mining site on the South Yuba River near where it meets Humburg Creek, in Nevada County. Scientists then studied the amount of methylmercury in such animals at other points on the river where there wasn't such mining, as well as the compound's presence downstream, near Lake Englebright and in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta.
When suction dredging, miners collect larger particles of mercury and gold and mercury blended together, but miss smaller particles, which float downstream, according to the report.
But Alpers said he'd acknowledge relatively small-scale suction dredging would take longer to release high amounts of mercury than in the large-scale dredging of past times.
He said it would also matter when the suction-dredge miners worked.
During the summer, when such activities are more likely, more organisms would be likely to ingest the mercury, he said.
"In the winter, you're flushing out the system," he said. "It's important to put the findings in perspective with the loads and seasons."
Methylmercury is considered a toxic substance that causes damage to the nervous system, and is particularly dangerous for pregnant women, children and fetuses.
The state will lift the moratorium on such mining when three conditions are met: A report is prepared on its effects, new guidelines are written, and the state adopts those guidelines.
Mark Stopher, an environmental project manager with the state Department of Fish and Game, said the state will move closer to the first two goals at hearings next month on a draft supplemental environmental impact report on suction dredge mining.
The report includes a study of water quality, he said, similar to what the USGS studied in its report.
"We do connect the analysis and do make conclusions on whether they're significant," he said.
The report is not available yet, and Stopher would not say what those conclusions were.
CONTACT reporter Ben van der Meer at 749-4709.
If the river is fine now after all these years of dredgeing
??
By Ben van der Meer/Appeal-Democrat
A report released this week by the U.S. Geological Survey suggests the return of suction dredging for gold mining would lead to high levels of mercury entering the South Yuba River.
The report, which studied the amount of methylmercury in the food chain near historic suction dredging sites and elsewhere, determined the mercury particles most likely to become part of the food chain are the ones such dredging would most likely release.
"We should make clear there's not a risk at this time to recreational use of the river or drinking water," said Charles Alpers, a research chemist with the USGS' California Water Science Center in Sacramento.
A state moratorium on suction dredging for gold was declared in 2009, partly for its destructive effects on the environment.
The USGS studied the amount of methylmercury in invertebrates at a historic mining site on the South Yuba River near where it meets Humburg Creek, in Nevada County. Scientists then studied the amount of methylmercury in such animals at other points on the river where there wasn't such mining, as well as the compound's presence downstream, near Lake Englebright and in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta.
When suction dredging, miners collect larger particles of mercury and gold and mercury blended together, but miss smaller particles, which float downstream, according to the report.
But Alpers said he'd acknowledge relatively small-scale suction dredging would take longer to release high amounts of mercury than in the large-scale dredging of past times.
He said it would also matter when the suction-dredge miners worked.
During the summer, when such activities are more likely, more organisms would be likely to ingest the mercury, he said.
"In the winter, you're flushing out the system," he said. "It's important to put the findings in perspective with the loads and seasons."
Methylmercury is considered a toxic substance that causes damage to the nervous system, and is particularly dangerous for pregnant women, children and fetuses.
The state will lift the moratorium on such mining when three conditions are met: A report is prepared on its effects, new guidelines are written, and the state adopts those guidelines.
Mark Stopher, an environmental project manager with the state Department of Fish and Game, said the state will move closer to the first two goals at hearings next month on a draft supplemental environmental impact report on suction dredge mining.
The report includes a study of water quality, he said, similar to what the USGS studied in its report.
"We do connect the analysis and do make conclusions on whether they're significant," he said.
The report is not available yet, and Stopher would not say what those conclusions were.
CONTACT reporter Ben van der Meer at 749-4709.
If the river is fine now after all these years of dredgeing
??“The law requires us to use fish as our criteria,” Stopher said. “The deleterious effects are our primary consideration ... (but) it has to have a substantial effect.”
They keep using the word "substantial" but not one of them can tell me the defination of the word is or they all have different answers.
They keep using the word "substantial" but not one of them can tell me the defination of the word is or they all have different answers.
Top Member Reactions
-
3528 -
2090 -
2049 -
1158 -
1114 -
927 -
849 -
823 -
818 -
782 -
770 -
542 -
531 -
453 -
452 -
446 -
E
424
-
413 -
410 -
404
