Subject: Suction Dredge Regs. Summary

Subject: Suction Dredge Regs. Summary

Date: Monday, March 7, 2011 4:21 PM

From: MojaveJoe

Conversation: Suction Dredge Regs. Summary

SUMMARY DFG PROPOSED NEW SUCTION DREDGE REGULATIONS

{{{{{ Section 228 }}}}}

Suction Dredging

(c) Permit Application shall contain all of the following information:

(2) A list of up to six locations where the permit applicant plans to suction dredge. Location information shall include either:

(A) County, river or stream or lake name, township, range, section, quarter section, base, and meridian; or

(B) Approximate center point of the location using latitude and longitude.

For each location the California Active Mining Claim number, if applicable, and approximate dates of proposed dredging shall be listed.

(3) A list of all suction dredge equipment that will be used under the permit, including nozzle size, constrictor ring size (if needed), engine manufacturer and model number, and horsepower.

===================

(g) Number of Permits.

The Department shall issue a maximum of 4,000 permits annually, on a first-come, first-serve basis.

====================

(j) Equipment Requirements.

(1) Nozzle Restriction.

No suction dredge having an intake nozzle with an inside diameter larger than four inches may be used unless:

(A The Department has conducted an on-site inspection and approved a larger nozzle size in writing; the maximum inside diameter of the intake nozzle is no larger than six inches, or eight inches where allowable under Section 228, subdivision(j)(1)(E); and

(B) The permittee has a valid suction dredge permit; and

(C) The permittee has in their possession documentation of compliance with Fish and Game Code section 1602, subdivision(a), for the proposed suction dredging

operation, including a copy of his/her notification to the Department; any response to the notification by the Department pursuant to Fish and Game Code Section 1602, subdivision(a)(4)(A)(i); and specific authorization from the Department for a vacuum nozzle greater than 4” in diameter if a Streambed Alteration Agreement is required;

or

(D) A constricting ring with an inside diameter not larger than four inches has been attached to the intake nozzle. This constricting ring must be of solid, one-piece construction with no openings other than the intake and openings not greater than one inch between the constricting ring and nozzle. It must be welded or otherwise permanently attached over the end of the intake nozzle. No quick

release devices are permitted.

(E) Suction dredge intake nozzles up to eight inches in diameter may be permitted at the Department’s discretion in accordance with Section 228 subdivision(j)(1)(A) only on the following rivers:

(1) American (Placer, Nevada, and EI Dorado counties)

(2) Cosumnes (Sacramento, Amador and EI Dorado counties)

(3) Feather (Butte, Plumas, and Yuba counties)

(4) Klamath (Del Norte, Humboldt and Siskiyou counties)

(5) Merced (Mariposa and Merced counties)

(6) Mokelumne (Amador, Calaveras and San Joaquin counties)

(7) Scott (Siskiyou County)

(8) Trinity (Trinity and Humboldt counties); and

(9) Yuba (Sierra and Yuba counties)

(3) Pump Intake Screening.

The intake for the suction dredge 29 pump shall be covered with screening mesh. Screen mesh openings shall not exceed 3/32 inch (2.38 mm) for woven wire or perforated plate screens, or 0.0689 inch (1.75 mm) for profile wire screens, with a minimum 27% open area.

(4) Only the nozzle size(s), constrictor ring(s) and engine model numbers identified in the permit may be used.

(5) The suction dredge permit number must be affixed to all permitted dredges at all times, in a manner such that it is clearly visible from the streambank or shoreline. The number must be displayed in lettering at least three inches in height and maintained in such a condition as to be clearly visible and legible.

====================

(k) Restrictions on Methods of Operation.

(1) Motorized winching or the use of other motorized equipment to move boulders, logs, or other objects is prohibited, unless:

(A)The Department has conducted an on-site inspection and approved the proposed suction dredging operations in writing; and

(B)The permittee has a valid suction dredge permit; and

(C)The permittee has in their possession documentation of compliance with Fish and Game Code section 1602, subdivision (a), for the proposed suction dredging

operations, including a copy of their notification to the Department; any response to the notification by the Department pursuant to Fish and Game Code Section 1602, subdivision(a)(4)(A)(i); and specific authorization from the Department for motorized winching if a Streambed Alteration Agreement is required.

(2) Winching, whether motorized or hand powered, must be conducted under the following provisions:

(A) Boulders and other material may only be moved within the current water level. No boulders or other material shall be moved outside the current water level.

(B) Winching of any material embedded on banks of streams or rivers is prohibited. or rivers is prohibited.

(C) Winching of any material into a location which deflects water into the bank is prohibited.

(D) Nets and other devices may be used to collect cobbles and boulders by hand for removal from dredge holes providing the materials are not removed from within the current water level.

(3) No person may suction dredge within three feet of the lateral edge of the current water level, including at the edge of instream gravel bars or under any overhanging banks.

(4) No person shall remove or damage streamside vegetation during suction

dredge operations.

(5) No person shall cut, move or destabilize instream woody debris such as root wads, stumps or logs.

(6) No person shall divert the flow of river or stream into the bank.

(7) For the purpose of suction dredge mining subject to this section, no person shall construct a dam or weir, concentrate flow in a way that reduces the total wetted area of a river or stream, or obstruct fish passage; unless:

(A) The Department has conducted an on-site inspection and approved the

proposed suction dredging operations in writing; and

(B)The permittee has a valid suction dredge permit; and

(C)The permittee has in their possession, documentation of compliance with Fish and Game Code section 1602, subdivision (a), for the proposed suction dredging

operations, including a copy of their notification to the Department; any response by the Department to the notification pursuant to Fish and Game Code Section 1602, subdivision (a)(4)(A)(i); and specific authorization for the proposed activity if a Streambed Alteration Agreement is required.

(8) No person shall import any earthen material into a stream, river or lake.

(9) All fueling and servicing of dredging equipment must be done in a manner such that petroleum products and other substances are not leaked, spilled or placed where they may pass into the waters of the state.

(10) No fuel, lubricants or chemicals may be stored within 100 feet of the current

water level. Where this is not feasible, a containment system must be in place beneath the fuel, lubricants or chemicals.

(11) Stream substrate, including gravel, cobble, boulders and other material may

only be moved within the current water level.

(12) No person shall displace any material embedded on banks of rivers or streams.

(13) No person shall disturb any mussel beds. A mussel bed is defined as an area of any size where the density of mussels is 40 or more/square yard. Suction dredging activities, including deposition of tailings, shall not occur within 30 yards upstream of a mussel bed, nor within 10 yards laterally or downstream.

(14) Reasonable care shall be used to avoid dredging silt and clay materials that would result in a significant increase in turbidity.

(15) The permittee shall level all tailing piles, returning the site to the pre-mining grade to the greatest extent possible, prior to finishing use of the excavation site for the suction dredging season, or working another excavation site.

(16) No person shall disturb any redds, actively spawning fish, amphibian egg masses or tadpoles. If encountered while operating a suction dredge, the permittee must cease operations and relocate dredging activities.

(17) The willful entrainment of finfish, mollusks or amphibians is prohibited.

(18) No person shall use wheeled or tracked equipment instream as part of suction dredging.

(19) All suction dredge equipment shall be cleaned of mud, oil, grease, debris, and plant and animal material before use in a river, stream or lake.

==================

(l) State Wildlife Areas and Ecological Reserves. Consistent with Title 14, Sections 550, subdivision (b)(10), and 630, subdivision (a)(1), of the California Code of Regulations, suction dredging is prohibited in State Wildlife Areas and Ecological Reserves.

==================

(o) Location of Suction Dredge Operations. No person shall suction dredge in locations other than those identified in the permit application pursuant to subdivision (c).

==================

(p) Timing of Activity. Active suction dredging operations may only be conducted between one half hour after sunrise to sunset.

==================

{{{{{ Section 228.5 }}}}}

Suction Dredge Use Classifications and Special Regulations.

(a) Suction Dredge Use Classifications. For purposes of these regulations, the following classes of suction dredge use restrictions apply in California's lakes, reservoirs, streams and rivers as specified:

(1) Class A: No dredging permitted at anytime.

(2) Class B: Open to dredging from July 1 through August 31.

(3) Class C: Open to dredging from June 1 through September 30.

(4) Class D: Open to dredging from July 1 through January 31.

(5) Class E: Open to dredging from September 1 through January 31.

(6) Class F: Open to dredging from July 1 through September 30.

(7) Class G: Open to dredging from September 1 through September 30.

(8) Class H: Open to dredging throughout the year.

(b) Suction Dredge Special Regulations. The Suction Dredge Use Classifications (Section (a), above) apply for each of the rivers or streams in each of the counties listed below. Lakes and reservoirs statewide are Class H.

>>>>>> The List of River and Stream Classifications is quite lengthy and is not reproduced here to save space. I encourage you to look at the DFG’s original pdf document of the proposed regs for an easy to read chart listed by county.

See pages 18-69.

http://www.nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=27429

From what Ive learned, there are many significant changes to open rivers and streams, open dates, and even restrictions by elevation. Meaning you have probably been affected.

||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Anyone who wants to print, copy, or reproduce this information for personal use or for posting in another forum has my express permission and is encouraged to do so.

||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

NOTE- This summary is available to anyone in WORD and/or Rich Text format making it easier to read and use for letter writing. If you would like a copy just e-mail me at mojavejoe AT verizon DOT net

It's all up to you now. Do your part and say you gave it your best, or sit back and cry in your beer and let them steam roll over you.

Comments Regarding: Suction Dredge Permitting Program

March 24, 2011

California Department of Fish and Game

1416 Ninth Street

Sacramento, CA 95814

Comments Regarding: Suction Dredge Permitting Program

Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report

California Department of Fish and Game

February 2011

To Whom It May Concern:

Having reviewed all 897 pages of the above Report and countless other related documents, a lot of time and taxpayer money was spent trying to educate the public and DFG personnel about mining and more specifically about “suction dredging.” Education is never a waste but in this case it may have been. It is apparent from the conclusions cited as “Significant and Unavoidable Environmental Impacts” that analysis of the collected data has been twisted in places into what appears to be self-serving and bias findings. Throughout the Report, there were premature assumptions and faulty analysis of alleged problems because the real answer was not known or the available data would not support the desired conclusion. In such instances, the problem was simply declared “significant and unavoidable.” Despite all these pitfalls, surprisingly, there were parts of the Report itself that make a good argument for why more restrictive dredging regulations were NOT justified. Beginning with the very first paragraph of Section 228 of the DFG proposed regulations related to suction dredging, it states in part, “…the Department finds that suction dredging…will not be deleterious to fish.” Notwithstanding that published conclusion, the DFG proceeds to propose implementation of a prolonged and tedious number of changes affecting the manner in which suction dredging is performed. Even more disconcerting to the financial interest of claims owners, the proposed restrictions on dredging contained in the DSEIR take away “property rights” granted by the Mineral Estate Trust Act of 1866 and the Mining Law of 1872. The taking of such rights is a blatant violation of due process guaranteed by the 5^th amendment as it applies to the Federal Government and to the 14^th amendment as it applies to states. The taking of “property” without just cause or compensation is illegal and will continue to be pursued in lawsuits filed by the Public Lands for the Public and this litigation will continue to be pressed forward regardless of the outcome of these proposed new regulations. Notwithstanding the violations and legal entanglements referenced above, let us address the alleged “Significant and Unavoidable Impacts” referenced in Chapter 6.2.3 of the DSEIR:

Impact WQ-4: Effects of Mercury Resuspension and Discharge from Suction Dredging: This impact details analysis of Hg (Mercury) discharge and transport resulting from both dredging operations and watershed sources such as rainfall and runoff. Nobody disputes that there is mercury present in historic gold mining areas as a result of earlier gold mining efforts. But, as the report indicates, this mercury continues to slough into the river without regard to dredging activity. The report clearly points out on Page 4.2-38 that, “…In contrast to Hg discharged from suction dredging; the majority of HG is from background watershed sources during the winter wet season, when runoff conditions contribute to high flows that scour sediments laden with Hg.” Yes, every winter Mother Nature creates a “significant disturbance” and dredges without a permit. The report further cites a series of mercury samples that were taken once a month in the summer while preparing this Report. The conclusion at the bottom of Page 4.2-38 was that, “…it is possible that suction dredges were contributing to the annual HG load calculated, but Hg levels do not appear to reflect unusually high concentrations during the dry season. Given this, there are inherent uncertainties to the Hg loading estimates.” The Report itself stipulates that there are uncertainties as to the cause of HG loading that is present. So, the conclusion stated clearly in the report is that nobody knows anything for sure about movement of HG in streambeds. Even more indicative of this conclusion, on Page 4.2-40 it is reported that HG particles less than 63 um, “…do not remain suspended during summer low flows and are thus deposited back into the river.” This conclusion is no surprise to dredgers. Even further, on Page 4.2-41 it is finally concluded that, “Transport of elemental Hg that is floured and discharged from suction dredging is largely unknown as floured HG has been observed to float initially but subsequently sink or float until they are dissolved.” Yes, what goes up must come down and nobody knows how much mercury is discharged by suction dredging but the report makes clear that Mother Nature is the biggest contributor. The report also defines the low flow, summer months of dredging as between March and October. Therefore, the question presents itself as to why the proposed regulations are striving to cut short the dredging season for most dredgers to three months between July and September? WQ-4 is unfounded and should be corrected to read a finding of “less than significant.”

Impact WQ-5: Effects of Resuspension and Discharge of Other Trace Minerals from Suction Dredging: This area details results to determine the impact of other sediments encountered when dredging such as copper, lead, zinc, etc. Again, the conclusions on Page 4.2-58/59 are that dredging has a “negative impact.” It is reported that suction dredging would not be expected to increase levels of trace minerals nor result in substantial, long-term degradation of trace metal conditions that would cause adverse effects. Finally, it is further reported that the potential to mobilize the trace metals would not substantially increase health risks to wildlife. Everything sounds good for dredgers so far. However, then the report begins to speculate. It reaches out in desperation to suggest that, “If” dredging at known metal hot spots actually contained acid mine issues, low pH levels, high sediment, and pore metal concentrations, there “may be” a potentially significant impact. There are too many “ifs” and “maybes” in that assumption. Yet, despite the lack of data or knowledge to accurately identify where such conditions might exist, the report suggests that the “unknown” itself presents a significant and unavoidable impact. This is pointless analysis at its worst. The conclusion imagines that the perfect storm of conditions might exist out there somewhere to affect trace mineral conditions. That’s like saying, “Somewhere in those mountains, there is gold.” Impact WQ-5 is unfounded and should be corrected to read a finding of “less than significant.”

Impact BIO-WILD-2: Effects on Special-Status Passerines Associated with Riparian Habitat: This impact details the results to determine whether dredging impacts special-status passerine species by altering behavior, movements, and distributions. Passerines were defined as birds that are adapted for perching. This means that they primarily live in the trees. The specific disturbance of reported concern is noise from dredge equipment or encampment activities. This whole discussion is prejudicial against miners without a scintilla of scientific proof to back it up. Further, the report totally ignored any discussion or consideration for the level of noise generated by hunters, fishermen, campers, hikers, recreational vehicles, and other outdoor activities. On a scale of noise makers, suction dredgers have to be far and away the minority in number and create the least impact on the environment. This whole argument is a stretch and complete over-reaching by the Report writers. The report attempts to support its weak position by stating that, “even a small disturbance could be substantial.” Where is the scientific data for that conclusion? These are passerine creatures that live in the outdoors and expect noise as well as other disturbances all the time and on a wide range of levels. In addition, on Page 4.3-49 of the report, it suggests an accurate determination of any potential impacts to these special-status passerines must be studied using field surveys by qualified biologist to determine their location using the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) and other such sources. So, the report is really stating that nobody knows where these alleged passerines live. Well, if the locations of these passerines are important, DFG needs to submit a proposal for funding of research by qualified biologists to pinpoint locations and see what kind of funding support is present. Impact BIO-WILD-2 is unfounded and should be corrected to read a finding of “less than significant.”

Impact CUL-1: Substantial Adverse Changes, When Considered Statewide, in the Significance of Historical Resources: This impact was to consider how dredging might affect historical and cultural resources. This is yet another example of when we don’t really know anything, let’s just assert that dredging is the cause. How do we know this to be true? On Page 4.5-12, it discusses the potential impact of dredging on historical resources. The Report states, “…Whether this impact would have a substantial adverse change in the significance of a resource when considered statewide is a function of the likelihood of disturbance of these resources and their individual and/or collective significance. It is unknown whether suction dredge mining would affect significant historical resources to a level that would be considered significant statewide.” In other words, such impact cannot be attributed to dredging. Yet nonetheless, again, the writers of this Report use the same old crutch as used previously and conclude that since an impact cannot supported by scientific data, it will simply be labeled a “potentially significant impact” attributable to dredging. But, further on Page 4.5-13, the report also confesses that the only way to know for sure about the location of any historical resources would be to conduct archival research using the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS). Well, by all means, let the DFG propose a research team be assembled to conduct this perceived vital research and send it along the aforementioned study on passerines. Clearly, this whole issue is again over zealous staffers trying to make reach a preconceived conclusion when no data exists to support it. Impact CUL-1 is unfounded and should be corrected to read a finding of “less than significant.”

Impact CUL-2: Substantial Adverse Changes, When Considered Statewide, in the Significance of Unique Archaeological Resources: This impact was to consider how dredging might affect archaeological resources listed in the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR). This is another case as detailed previously where CFG has put the “cart in front of the horse.” What impact and where are these archaeological resource sites? Well, again, the report clearly describes that nobody knows. Beginning on Page 4.5-14, the Report states, “…Whether this impact would have a substantial adverse change in the significance of a unique archaeological resource when considered statewide is a function of the likelihood of disturbance to such a resource and its individual and/or collective significance. It is unknown whether suction dredge mining would affect unique archaeological resources to a level that would be considered significant statewide.” The report goes on further to suggest that the only way to know if there are unique archaeological sites, one would need to perform archival research using the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS). Well, this sounds like another budget proposal that DFG would need to submit for fundins. The fact is that if this allegation were true and verifiable, the DFG or some environmental group would have already performed this research and published the information. Impact CUL-2 is unfounded and should be corrected to read a finding of “less than significant.”

Impact NZ-1: Exposure of the Public to Noise Levels in Excess of City or County Standards: This impact considers whether operating dredge equipment exceeds noise standards. If this entire study were not so serious in its potential impact to miners, this particular impact would be laughable for lack of support and scientific merit. First of all, where are the noise level standards that apply to conditions, equipment, and animals found in Mother Nature? Does a mountain lion, wolf, or moose violate this unknown standard when they sound a mating call? The fact is that this particular impact is another “pie in the sky” effort to dream up problems and blame the problem on dredging. However, again, the Report tells us what we need to know. The report states that while dredging has the potential to generate excess noise, the existing regulations do not authorize permit holders to use their equipment in a manner that violates existing noise standards. Further, on Page 4.7-9, the Report states, “…all recreationist…are equally required to abide by local noise ordinances. Violations can be reported at any time to local authorities who have the jurisdiction to enforce applicable regulations as appropriate.” Nonetheless, absent any concrete data to support that dredgers violate recognized noise standards, the writers of this report use the same approach as in other situations where they lack scientific data. The Report writers declare the impact to be “significant and unavoidable” out of nothingness. This is a outrageous conclusion and unfounded. Consequently, Impact NZ-1 should be corrected to read a finding of “less than significant.”

Impact CUM-2: Effects on Wildlife Species and Their Habitats: This impact considers the extent dredging operations could have on non-riverine aquatic invertebrates, reptiles, birds, and mammals. Amazingly, the Report finds that dredging does not have any considerable cumulative impact on any of these creatures and declares a finding of “less than significant” in these cases. However, in the case of several bird species, the report expresses a concern with the so called “incremental effects” of the proposed program. This is puzzling since on Page 5-23 of the report, it states that, “Similar to fish species, declines in non-Fish species populations are largely due to long-term degradation of environmental conditions. With few exceptions, the declines in the population of a non-fish species are the result of the synergistic effects of anthropogenic activities, and not a single causative agent or project.” The word “anthropogenic” means “caused by humans.” So the Report is already saying that it’s not “dredging” per se that impacts non-fish or bird species but a lot of “unknown” human factors. The Report acknowledges that there are other influencing factors besides dredgers affecting the environment. And, let’s not forget that “dredgers” are in the water and birds are in the trees. Yet, this report contends that out of all the other thousands of bird, plant, and non-fish species discussed in the report, the eight non-fish species listed on Table 4.3-3 are in danger to dredging operations. This is like pulling out the mythical “needle from the haystack.” It is the position of miners that these eight species are no less impacted or at risk than the hundreds of other species determined in the Report to be “less than significant.” This impact is not based upon any scientific proof but mere conjecture. Consequently, impact CUM-2 is unfounded and should be corrected to read “less than significant.”

Impact CUM-6: Turbidity/TSS Discharge from Suction Dredging: This impact considers alleged turbidity impairments from dredge discharges impacting fish. It is a shame that the writers of this report have not actually dredged themselves or they would know firsthand the ridiculous nature of this argument. Fish surround dredgers when they are dredging because they know that food is on the menu again. Yet the false premise that turbidity from dredge discharges hurt fish has spawned into an argument for closing or restricting dredging operations. Reference is made again to the Report itself in Section 228 of the DFG Proposed Amendments to the Regulations related to suction dredging where it makes the bold statement that, “…the Department finds that suction dredging…will not be deleterious to fish.” Further on Page 5-28, the Report references past, present, and future turbidity sources of turbidity which include: agriculture, aquaculture, effluent pollution, recreation, urbanization, timber harvest, and wildfire, fire suppression, and fuels management. In essence, the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) of turbidity touted in the Report has many causes and the least of which is from dredging. This impact is overstated and embellished to serve its masters rather than speak the truth. Impact CUM-3 is unfounded and should be corrected to read “less than significant.”

Impact CUM-7: Cumulative Impacts of Mercury Resuspension and Discharge from Suction Dredging: This impact considers how dredging affects existing concentrations of Mercury present in the sediments of historic gold-mining and gold bearing regions. There is no getting around that Mercury was left behind by historic miners and mining operations. However, as previously discussed under in Impact WQ-4 and detailed on Page 4.2-8 of this Report, “the transport of elemental Hg that is floured and discharged from suction dredging is largely unknown but floured HG floats initially and will subsequently sink or float until they are dissolved.” Now the Report suddenly mentions a new mysterious field study conducted by USGS scientists in the Yuba River system. First, who are these alleged “scientists and Hg experts” and what are their qualifications? Quite candidly, this new field study just seems too obvious and convenient. It is also too premature to be accepted as reliable data. On Page 4.2-19 of this Report, it clearly states that the information provided by these unknown experts was “preliminary results.” In other words, this study (if it is one) has not undergone any peer review or been validated. And validation is necessary since the USGS chose a location where Humbug Creek meets the confluence of the South Yuba River. This is a prejudicial site for any representative field test since this is the location of the Malakoff Diggins where heavy hydraulic mining occurred and is not likely to result in data that can be repeated in other field research. Point in fact, on Page 4.2-23 of the Report, it states, “…The South Yuba river watershed experienced the most intensive level of hydraulic mining, in which mercury-contaminated hydraulic mining debris was produced, and discharged in the watershed. Reasonably, this is not a scientifically representative location from which to extrapolate a conclusion about effects of mercury Resuspension. This explains why on Page 4.2-54 of the Report, it concludes, “…because not all locations of elemental mercury deposits are known, the feasibility with which sites containing mercury could be identified at a level of certainty that is sufficient to develop appropriate closure areas or other restrictions for allowable dredging activities, is uncertain at this time.” Further on the same page, the Report states, “…a comprehensive set of actions to mitigate the potential impact through avoidance or minimization of mercury discharges has not been determined at this time, nor is its likely effectiveness known.” So, we don’t know exactly where all this mercury resides and, even if we did, the effectiveness of trying to mitigate impact is unlikely. And finally, on Page 4.2-36 of the Report, it states, “…modern equipment may result in less flouring” when discussing the impact of mercury. So, the data used to support this impact is based upon inconclusive field results and the whole problem itself may be admittedly an insolvable one. But we do know that material disturbed in any waterway will find its way to the bottom and Mother Nature does more to disrupt Mercury sediments that any dredger ever could. Impact CUM-7 is unfounded and should be corrected to read “less than significant.”

Somewhere between the “1994 Regulations Alternative” and the “Reduced Intensity Alternative” there exists an alternative that would allow CFG to continue to do its job as well as allow miners greater access their claims. But, only data that can be scientifically supported should be considered. Meanwhile, dredging should not be restricted or prohibited in those areas and during those times of the year when dredging would not pose problem to the environment. All miners are open to some better dredging practices but dredgers should not be scapegoats.

BILL NUMBER: SB 657 INTRODUCED

BILL NUMBER: SB 657 INTRODUCED

BILL TEXT

INTRODUCED BY Senator Gaines

FEBRUARY 18, 2011

An act to add Section 5653.2 to, and to repeal and add Section

5653.1 of, the Fish and Game Code, relating to fish and wildlife, and

declaring the urgency thereof, to take effect immediately.

SB 657, as introduced, Gaines. Vacuum or suction dredge equipment.

The California Environmental Quality Act requires a lead agency,

as defined, to prepare, or cause to be prepared by contract, and

certify the completion of, an environmental impact report on a

project, as defined, that it proposes to carry out or approve that

may have a significant effect on the environment, or to adopt a

negative declaration if it finds that the project will not have that

effect. The act exempts from its provisions, among other things,

certain types of ministerial projects proposed to be carried out or

approved by public agencies, and emergency repairs to public service

facilities necessary to maintain service.

Existing law prohibits the use of any vacuum or suction dredge

equipment by any person in any river, stream, or lake of this state

without a permit issued by the Department of Fish and Game. Existing

law designates the issuance of permits to operate vacuum or suction

dredge equipment to be a project under the California Environmental

Quality Act, and suspends the issuance of permits, and mining

pursuant to a permit, until the department has completed an

environmental impact report for the project as ordered by the court

in a specified court action. Existing law prohibits the use of any

vacuum or suction dredge equipment in any river, stream, or lake, for

instream mining purposes, until the director of the department

certifies to the Secretary of State that (1) the department has

completed the environmental review of its existing vacuum or suction

dredge equipment regulations as ordered by the court, (2) the

department has transmitted for filing with the Secretary of State a

certified copy of new regulations, as necessary, and (3) the new

regulations are operative.

This bill would repeal the prohibition on the use of vacuum or

suction dredge equipment, and would exempt the issuance of permits to

operate vacuum or suction dredge equipment from the California

Environmental Quality Act until January 1, 2014. The bill would

require the department to refund a specified portion of the permit

fee paid by a person issued a vacuum or suction dredge equipment

permit and subject to the prohibition on the use of vacuum or suction

dredge equipment. The bill would require the department, on or

before January 1, 2014, to complete an economic impact report on the

prohibition on the use of vacuum and suction dredge equipment.

This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as

an urgency statute.

Vote: 2/3. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.

State-mandated local program: no.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Section 5653.1 of the Fish and Game Code is repealed.

5653.1. (a) The issuance of permits to operate vacuum or suction

dredge equipment is a project pursuant to the California

Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section

21000) of the Public Resources Code) and permits may only be issued,

and vacuum or suction dredge mining may only occur as authorized by

any existing permit, if the department has caused to be prepared, and

certified the completion of, an environmental impact report for the

project pursuant to the court order and consent judgment entered in

the case of Karuk Tribe of California et al. v. California Department

of Fish and Game et al., Alameda County Superior Court Case No. RG

05211597.

(b) Notwithstanding Section 5653, the use of any vacuum or suction

dredge equipment in any river, stream, or lake of this state is

prohibited until the director certifies to the Secretary of State

that all of the following have occurred:

(1) The department has completed the environmental review of its

existing suction dredge mining regulations, as ordered by the court

in the case of Karuk Tribe of California et al. v. California

Department of Fish and Game et al., Alameda County Superior Court

Case No. RG 05211597.

(2) The department has transmitted for filing with the Secretary

of State pursuant to Section 11343 of the Government Code, a

certified copy of new regulations adopted, as necessary, pursuant to

Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 11340) of Part 1 of Division 3

of Title 2 of the Government Code.

(3) The new regulations described in paragraph (2) are operative.

(c) The Legislature finds and declares that this section, as added

during the 2009-10 Regular Session, applies solely to vacuum and

suction dredging activities conducted for instream mining purposes.

This section does not expand or provide new authority for the

department to close or regulate suction dredging conducted for

regular maintenance of energy or water supply management

infrastructure, flood control, or navigational purposes governed by

other state or federal law.

(d) This section does not prohibit or restrict nonmotorized

recreational mining activities, including panning for gold.

SEC. 2. Section 5653.1 is added to the Fish and Game Code, to

read:

5653.1. (a) The California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13

(commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code) does

not apply to the issuance of permits to operate vacuum or suction

dredge equipment pursuant to Section 5653.

(b) This section shall remain in effect only until January 1,

2014, and as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted

statute, that is enacted before January 1, 2014, deletes or extends

that date.

SEC. 3. Section 5653.2 is added to the Fish and Game Code, to

read:

5653.2. (a) The department shall refund a portion of the permit

fee paid by a person issued a permit for the use of vacuum or suction

dredge equipment pursuant to Section 5653 and subject to the

prohibition on the use of vacuum and suction dredge equipment imposed

by Section 5653.1, as that section read on August 6, 2009. The

amount of any refund issued pursuant to this subdivision shall be

prorated to refund the portion of the permit fee that is attributable

to the period for which the permit was issued and for which the

permittee could not use vacuum or suction dredge equipment as a

result of the prohibition on the use of vacuum and suction dredge

equipment.

(b) On or before January 1, 2014, the department shall complete a

report on the economic impacts of the prohibition on the use of

vacuum and suction dredge equipment imposed by Section 5653.1, as

that section read on August 6, 2009.

SEC. 4. This act is an urgency statute necessary for the immediate

preservation of the public peace, health, or safety within the

meaning of Article IV of the Constitution and shall go into immediate

effect. The facts constituting the necessity are:

In order to address, at the earliest time possible, the financial

hardship caused by the moratorium on vacuum and suction dredging to

those who depend on vacuum and suction dredging for their livelihood,

it is necessary that this act take effect immediately.