Governor Vetoes Bill To Protect Klamath, Salmon Rivers from Suction Dredge Mining

A typical suction dredge miner moves a few yards of river gravel per day. But CDFG says in the lawsuit brought by the Karuk Tribe that these suction dredge miners harm the river. Now this same CDFG says that this restoration project is beneficial. This is a direct contradiction of the testimony they gave in court. If a suction dredge harms fish, as they claim, then what would be the impact of a project of this size that dwarfs all suction dredge activities taken as a whole? The attachments will how a comparison of how suction dredges impact a river and this restoration project impacts a river. http://www.redding.com/news/2007/sep/08/fishing-for-rocks/ The California Department of Fish and Game is involved in a Salmon restoration project on the Trinity river in northern California, which is a tributary of the Klamath river. In this project, they are depositing over 130,000 tons of bank run gravel into the Trinity rivers main stream banks, driving huge heavy equipment into the river, and stockpiling piles of silt to be allowed to wash into the river, hoping it will wash out during high water flows during the winter and spring. There is a major problem with the whole concept that the California Department of Fish and Game feels that this is an acceptable way to recover this rivers “natural state”, and yet they have attacked gold dredgers as harmful. As per our dredging permit regulations, we are not allowed to operate any motor vehicle in a waterway, and we are not allowed to introduce any bank run material into the waterway, yet on the Trinity river, CD F&G is doing just that. CD F&G is sorting out the bank run gravel, looking for classified rock between 3/8“ to 4” in size, leaving the oversized material on the bank, placing the sorted 3/8“ to 4” gravel into the waterway using huge front end loaders and dump trucks and driving them in the river, and piling the silt bank run material to be washed downstream during high water flows. Dredging sorts material this same way, yet does not add anything to the river that is not already there. A dredge leaves the oversize material on the bottom of the river, moves the material 5“ and smaller on top of the oversized material, and adds no silt that is not already in the river bottom. If the eminent expert fishery biologists like Dr. Peter Moyle of the University of California at Davis and Dr. Walt Duffy of Humboldt State University, that the author of this bill states that in their expert opinions that the problem with dredging is the “loose dredge tailings that may be washed downstream could POSSIBLY cover and suffocate salmon nesting beds (reds)“, then there is a MAJOR problem with this bill or a MAJOR problem with this restoration project on the Trinity. How can the small amount of material we are talking about with dredging compare to the hundreds of thousands of tons of BANK RUN MATERIAL that CD F&G is now placing into an endangered salmon bearing stream to be “washed downstream during high water”? This doesn't even begin to address another MAJOR issue with this restoration project. If the material that CD F&G is using to sort is from the hydraulic mines and huge bucket line dredges from past mining, when huge amounts of mercury were legally used in those mining activities, then all this bank run material that is being added to the Trinity river is contaminated with mercury, which is a known highly poisonous toxin, and is being taken from the bank and placed into the active water way. This is in DIRECT VIOLATION OF FEDERAL EPA LAW AND CALIFORNIA LAW! AB1032 is based on nothing more than possibilities and maybes. There has been no proof of any damage, and in light of this restoration project on the Trinity river, AB1032 and the philosophy used to create it is in direct conflict with ongoing restoration projects that CD F&G is currently involved with and the philosophy used to justify those projects. I challenge you to print this in your Green paper. Tom Quintal seeking truth in your mis information green propaganda.

First,
I would like to take this moment to thank the Governor for the veto of a one sided bill that had no place ever making it to his desk.

Second,
It was obvious that the majority of the public did not support this bill. An article on this very website generated hundreds of e-mail comments about the article and bill, and ALL where asking for a veto. Not one single comment was in support of this bill. I repeat, not one single comment was in support of this bill.

The truth about this issue has been decided in numerous environmental studies to date which prove opposite of what the sponsors and supporters tried to lie and misrepresent as the truth, judges and now the Governor have been able to see the real facts and that science has proved exactly opposite of what you are claiming.

A prime example of your misrepresentations about this whole issue is the above photograph. You are using this photo to try and show that a dredger has fiftyfive gallon barells of some substance on the bank of a river and he is causing harm. Guess what you fools, those fifty five gallon barrels are what he is using as flotation on his dredge. They are empty and clean and pose no threat to the environment, but you are trying to use this photo to get an emotional reaction by people who veiw it who know nothing about suction dredging and would assume like you have that those barrels are full of some toxic substance instaed of being "RECYCLED" and used for a totally different purpose than what they were originally made for. Gee, go figure, a dredger that recycles. Stop trying to paint a picture of us as evil.

My last response to you on AB 1032 did not include attachments however if you go to this web site it includes the information and pictures I reference regarding the lost attachments. http://www.redding.com/news/2007/sep/08/fishing-for-rocks/ As you will see a gold dredge does not compare to the environmental destruction large track hoes cause in this so called fish river restoration project. Miners do fish river restoration for free and even pay a high permit fee to California Department of Fish and Game to boot. Looks like CDF&G has millions of dollars to waste on their so called river restroation project on the Trinity River, so why not give miners their suction dredge water quality permits free for doing fish habitat reconstruction.

'wonder how the gillnetting was this year for the tribe??'
If the proponents of AB1032, environmentalists & all those trying to kill dredging were really interested in protecting the northern Caif. fisheries maybe they would consider limiting the annual rape of the salmon runs by local tribes.
Just my 2 cents.
Cheers

I understand both sides of this issue as I have spent most of my free time for the last 30 years recreating in the Sierra's and have participated in just about every water born activity you can in these beautiful mountains. Can someone point me to the studies that were used to empower this bill? I would like to research the affects of logging, road building, off-roading, camping, horse packing, mountain biking and mining on our fisheries. These are all common activities I encounter while spending time in the Sierra's. I have been a "catch and release" fisherman for many many years and have seen most streams suffer from over fishing. I seen very remote canyon type creeks diminish in fish populations due to nothing I can see taking place. I have hiked into some very remote areas, repeatedly, with little impact from the above activities, and have seen the fish populations decline. While other streams that are easily accessed I have seen tremendous amounts of human interference and the fish populations seems to thrive. This is all very unscientific and is only my own observations but they are years in the making and I have met many older folks who will offer similar findings on the same watersheds. My thoughts are I'm not convinced we honestly know who or what is causing this decline....BTW...I'm referring to trout streams. The salmon issues may be clearer...or not? Do we have something useful to use as to "Why" these things are taking place?
One thing I can say I've seen improve over the last 30 years is the bear and mountain lion population. At least in my neck of the woods, in the very remotest locations, I spot these animals every year now.

I'd like to know where the research is to back up what the Kuruk's & Ca. trout accusations. I have looked & looked for the research & have not found anything other then what the Kuruk's say w/nothing to back it up. Where on the other hand I've found plenty of research & studys to suppoet the prospecting community.

First off the Trinity project as all the necessary permits and recent environmental review in place. While the instream mining community has been getting a free ride since 1994. CDFG has admitted the 1994 CEQA document is stale, and in my opinon is inadequate to say the least. It also seems the rational for allowing dredging or not was based on political pressure brought to bear by the mining community. For example why are some rivers/streams closed for certain species while others that are open have the same species present? Another question I like to ask is what happened to the 1997 review which reached draft form, but "dissappeared", could it be you all didn't like the direction so you called in your political cronies to kill it? Once again with AB 1032 your money was well spent on lawyers and lobbyist.

As to studies how could you all miss reading the only peer reviewed study " Effects of Suction Dredging on Streams 1998 B Harvey T Lisle". The mining community seems to dismiss/ignore science which doesn't fit the agenda, or simply cherry picks portions of studies that they chant like a mantra.

The comment regarding the picture and calling folks "fools" is another tatic favored by the dredging folks. Lets see from the angle I see the photo the dredge is already afloat and the streambed altered by somebody rooting around for flakes.

One last comment, once again the ignorance toward native people is evident. The Karuk Tribe does not gill-net as you imply, they use traditional hand held dip nets. Also the Tribes are limited to the amount of fish they can harvest. So you all better get back to ironing your sheets and hoods for the next klan rally. If you want to see some real ignorant comments just check out the mining chat forums. By the way is also how you all got your cronies to post. Like the "Silent Majority" of the "Ray-Gun" years you are neither, just loud and obnoxious.

The suction dredge studies of the past deal with large commercial operations. Operations that were common on the Trinity River more than anywhere else that I'm aware of. These dredges were 8-10 inch ID hoses and occasionally ran two suction hoses. Operations like that would surely change the environment they worked within. The current dredging regulations disallow such operations from being implemented without a special use permit issued by the Fish and Game. They are now quite rare. Any operation that moves more than a few yards a day is required to submit a Plan of Operation that includes your reclamation system. All of these dredging sites require a visual inspection before a final permit is issued...this regulation system is in place for smaller dredging operations...as small as a single 6" hose. So, the Fish and Game can essentially deny suction dredging, based on stream bed altering estimates. They currently have the power to control the streams in question.
The fact of the matter is, there are very few actual dredges in the water, pumping gravel, at any given time during the Fish and Game approved dredging season. The amount of stream bed altering taking place from suction dredging, with our current regulations is infinitesimal. Yes the creaks and rivers are all claimed up, yes the Fish and Game hands out a few thousand dredging permits each year but take a drive and a hike up your favorite river. Most will have about one dredge for every 2-3 miles of stream. Of those, most dredges will run only 2 weeks out of the year....during vacations or weekends. Even on the North Fork of the Yuba, the most easily accessed gold bearing river in CA you will only see about 1 dredge every mile. Once the river leaves Hwy 49 the number of dredges in the water drops dramatically. Up on Canyon Creek, where I have my claim. I have walked down stream 3 miles and up stream 4 and not seen one other dredges in the water although the whole Canyon is claimed. This is a normal finding for the Sierra's.....The reality is dredging is a tiny little detail in the big picture. For the environmentalist who has become drawn into the battle against dredging I say this. Go up into the gold country. Hike the water water ways in question, actually look at what is disturbing or entering the creaks. Keep an open, scientific mind. There are more important factors involved here that are killing our fish. You can eliminate dredging but unfortunately the fish populations will not respond. There are greater issues here boys. Dredging is just easy to pick on. It looks ugly, it sounds destructive...there are many horrible photo's to support this...do your diligence...GO UP INTO THE MOUNTAINS AND LOOK AROUND! Get off the paved road and hike. You will find very little dredging....you will find tons of grazing land though with cows and sheep running amok pooping up our water.

Here is a link to a peer reviewed scientific study of suction dredge mining on the U.S. Forest Service website.

http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/publications/harvey/HarveyLisle.pdf


Publication Information

Title: Effects of suction dredging on streams: a review and an evaluation strategy

Author: Harvey, Bret C.; Lisle, Thomas E.

Date: 1998

Source: Fisheries 23(8): 8-17.

Description: Abstract - Suction dredging for gold in river channels is a small-scale mining practice whereby streambed material is sucked up a pipe, passed over a sluice box to sort out the gold, and discarded as tailings over another area of bed. Natural resource managers should be concerned about suction dredging because it is common in streams in western North America that contain populations of sensitive aquatic species. It also is subject to both state and federal regulations, and has provided the basis for litigation. The scientific literature contains few peer-reviewed studies of the effects of dredging, but knowledge of dredging practices, and the biology and physics of streams suggests a variety of mechanisms linking dredging to aquatic resources.

Key Words: PSW4351, watershed, stream, suction dredging, river channels, dredging, fisheries

Harvey, Bret C.; Lisle, Thomas E. 1998. Effects of suction dredging on streams: a review and an evaluation strategy Fisheries 23(8): 8-17..

Dan, thank you for the link to the study.
I found it to be inconclusive as it stated many times itself. If this is the primary dredging study then there really is very little scientific material to support either side of the controversy. It would appear that most dredging activities, as I have stated above, are somewhat minimal and very localized. The effects of one dredge, even when taking into account a large amount of sediment moving down stream in a plume exiting from the sluice discharge, the overall amount of waterway stressed is very small. One dredge every mile at most, for only a few miles of the rivers entire length with an impact of 100 feet of stream bed or less....come on people. Put your noggins to use here.
We need a better study, we need conclusive facts and we also need to protect the spawning season along with the eggs incubation period.
I, for one, want to keep our streams pristine and I also want to dredge for gold. It can be done...I believe.

Dave

I appreciate your common sense and rational approach to this very volatile issue. The final sentence of the article's conclusion advocates a precautionary approach: "Where threatened or endangered species exist, managers would be prudent to assume activities such as dredging are harmful unless proven otherwise."

Conclusion:
Suction dredging and associated activities have various effects on stream ecosystems, and most are not well unde- stood. In some situations, the effects of dredging may be local and minor, particularly when compared with the effects of other human activities. In others, dredging may harm the population viability of threatened species. Dredging should be of special concern where it is frequent, persistent, and adds to similar effects caused by other human activities. Fishery managers should be especially concerned when dredging coincides with the incubation of young fish in stream gravels or precedes spawning runs (e.g., fall-run chinook salmon) soon followed by high flows. They also should be concerned about increased fine-sediment deposition in channels that naturally contain abundant fine sediment or receive inputs from other disturbances.

We recommend that basin-scale analyses of dredging and other activities be performed so regulations can be tailored to particular issues and effects in each stream system. Quantitative, uniform guidelines and regulations that are truly applicable and scientifically supportable for a variety of basins probably will never be found. Instead, basin-specific regulations will need to be created in a political but scientifically informed process using information from a basin-scale analysis. Considering the uncertainty surrounding dredging effects, declines in many aquatic animal populations, and increasing public scrutiny of management decisions, the cost of assuming that human activities such as dredging cause no harm deserves strong consideration by decision makers (Mapstone 1995). Where threatened or endangered species exist, managers would be prudent to assume activities such as dredging are harmful unless proven otherwise (Dayton 1998). )

"We are dismayed that the Governor caved into special interests and failed to stand up for the fish and the Karuk people. Currently recreational gold miners are having fun at the expense of our fishery and our culture. After years of fighting to protect salmon, steelhead and lamprey from suction dredging, we are back to square one," stated Karuk Vice Chair Leaf Hillman.
ON THE CONTRARY, HE DID NOT CAVE IN TO SPECIAL INTRESTS (YOU AND YOUR SUPPORTING GROUPS), HE MERELY UPHELD THE RULE OF LAW! AN EIR IS REQUIRED UNDER CEQA PRIOR TO MAKING THE PROPOSED CHANGES; IF THE EIR SUPPORTS YOUR CLAIMS THEN THE CDFG CAN CHANGE THE REGS.

Lets see:
"First off the Trinity project as all the necessary permits"
Last time I checked all dredgers in Ca. were required to pay fees for permits. That makes us just as legal as the Trinity Restoration project.


"As to studies"
How about a few studies?

EPA Suction Dredge Study - 1999
Impact of suction dredging on water quality, benthic habitat, and biota in the Fortymile River, Resurrection Creek, and Chatanika River, Alaska

“The primary effect of suction dredging on water chemistry of the Fortymile River, as detected at Site 1, was increased turbidity, total filterable solids (TFS), and copper and zinc concentrations downstream of the dredge. Turbidity and TFS were substantially elevated downstream of the dredge and the plume of sediment-laden water created by the dredge was visually obvious. But, although the plume was visually dramatic it was spatially confined to within 160 m (= 525 ft.) of the dredge and was restricted to the portion of those days that the dredge was operating. Furthermore, the effect of the plume was limited to approximately 7% of the width of the river. The results from this sampling revealed a relatively intense, but very localized, decline in water clarity during the time the dredge was operating. Wanty et al. (1997) reported turbidity values of 19 NTU 30.5 m (100 ft) downstream of a 10 inch dredge located below Wilson Creek on the North Fork Fortymile River.
Values returned to near background levels (3.7 NTU) within the next 30.5 m but remained slightly above background levels (2.2 - 2.3 NTU) as far as 150 m downstream (furthest sampling transect). Turbidity values downstream of an 8-inch dredge operating in the same vicinity were lower because less sediment was being disturbed and the sediments were coarser and hence settled more rapidly.”

US Army Corp of Engineers – 1994
“The main reason this SPECIAL PUBLIC NOTICE 94-10 is presented here is to show the Corps finding of de minimis (i.e., inconsequential) effects on aquatic resources for suction dredges with nozzle openings of 4 inches or less. This is an official recognition of what suction dredgers have long claimed; that below a certain size, the effects of suction dredging are so small and so short-term as to not warrant the regulations being imposed in many cases. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), in particular, has ignored this concept, although numerous studies, including the EPA's own 1999 study of suction dredging, repeatedly and consistently support the Corps finding de minimis effects. The reports consistently find no actual impact of consequence on the environment, and so almost always fall back to the position that "potential for impact exists".

USGS Suction Dredge Study – 1997
“Therefore, suction dredging appears to have no measurable effect on the chemistry of the Fortymile River within this study area. We have observed greater variations in the natural stream chemistry in the region than in the dredge areas. Preliminary results from three tested sites suggest that the shallow ground water may be of poorer quality in some pyrite-rich outcrop areas. This water could be discharging to the surface water, leading to increased dissolved metal loads.”

Nature, Not Man, is Responsible for West Coast Salmon Decline
http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA254.html
But the premise that human actions are responsible for the decline of salmon, thus justifying sweeping regulations against development, is erroneous. The NMFS's ESA listing ignores a rapidly accumulating body of scientific evidence showing that changes in the natural climatic conditions of the Pacific Northwest are largely responsible for the low numbers of salmon. Specifically, a naturally-occurring increase in the temperature of the Pacific Ocean off the coast has caused a sharp decline in salmon by destroying most of the salmon's food supply and increasing the number of fish that prey on salmon.
The marked decline in the salmon catch beginning in the mid-1970s corresponded to an increase in the temperature of the Pacific Ocean off the coasts of Washington, Oregon and California. This warming has had a most detrimental impact on salmon survival rates.
When the water warms, nutrients needed for the production of phytoplankton (algae) - including phosphorous, nitrogen and silicon - drop. When phytoplankton production decreases, tiny invertebrate organisms called zooplankton which feed on the phytoplankton also decreases. Since 1976, zooplankton levels have declined by an estimated 70% due to ocean warming. Because salmon feed on zooplankton, they have suffered accordingly.
Despite billions of dollars in expenditures, widespread implementation of policies to aid the salmon and a cleaner environment, the salmon population continues to decline. The NMFS and environmental activists insist that more stringent regulation, more restrictions on development and additional spending is needed. But if the previous efforts could not halt the salmon decline, it is doubtful that doing more of the same will yield better results.

Nowhere in the following scientific study does it mention dredging as a cause of degradation to streams/rivers and/or any negative affect on fish hatcheries or fish populations. It does however mention over grazing by cattle as the reason.
Golden trout habitat selection and movement patterns in degraded and recovering sites within the Golden Trout Wilderness, California
Author: Matthews, K.R.
Date: 1996
Source: North American Journal of Fisheries Management 16:578-590
Description: Abstract.—I used radio transmitters to determine habitat selection and movement patterns of California golden trout Oncorhynchus mykiss aguabonita in two areas defined by their different levels of habitat recovery in the Golden Trout Wilderness, California. Study areas were differentiated by the amount of streamside vegetation (low or high coverage of beaked sedge Carex rostrata). Lower amounts of streamside vegetation were typically associated with other signs of degradation caused by cattle, including widened streams, collapsed banks, and reduced bank undercutting. Twenty-nine California golden trout were monitored from 6 July to 14 July 1994 over 192 diel-tracking hours at six study sections in low- and high-sedge areas in Mulkey Meadow. In both low- and high-sedge areas, California golden trout were observed using nine habitat features (undercut bank, willows, collapsed bank, open channel, aquatic vegetation, sedge, boulder, grass, and detrital mats), but they more often selected undercut banks, aquatic vegetation, and sedge and avoided bare and collapsed banks. Home ranges were similar in high-sedge sections (17.3 m) and low-sedge sections (16.9 m). Most fish moved little and were found within 5 m of their previously recorded location at both low-sedge and high-sedge sites. Total movement over the tracking period was variable between individual fish, but mean cumulative distances differed and were greater in high-sedge areas than in low-sedge areas. This study documented that California golden trout in pools and runs used and selected habitat features typically damaged by grazing (undercut banks, aquatic vegetation, and sedge) and avoided habitat features (bare and collapsed banks) typically caused by cattle grazing. Grazing management that seeks to protect habitat features preferred by California golden trout must employ strategies that protect undercut banks, sedge, and aquatic vegetation, and that reduce bare and collapsed banks.

Excerpts From Suction Dredge Studies
http://www.akmining.com/mine/excerpts.htm
Excerpts from various scientific studies. An important but lengthy read.
PUBLISHED BY THE WASHINGTON ALLIANCE OF MINERS AND PROSPECTORS
with additions by Steve Herschbach of Alaska Mining & Diving Supply


Forest Service yardage Estimate
http://akmining.com/mine/fsyards.htm
Subject: A comparison of stream materials moved by mining suction dredge operations to the natural sediment yield rates

“There are 1,092,302 acres on the Siskiyou Natural Forest. Using a factor of 0.33 cubic yards per acre per year times 1,092,302 acres will produce a very conservative estimate that 331,000 cubic yards of material move each year from natural causes compared to the 2413 cubic yards that was moved by suction dredge mining operations in 1995 on the Siskiyou. This would be a movement rate by suction dredge mining that equals about 0.7% of natural rates.”
(Bold & italics mine)

How does one dredger even begin to match the above as an impact to turbidity/stream degradation etc
How do 100 recreational dredgers even begin to match the above as an impact to turbidity/stream degradation?
Mother Nature has a way of renewing the planet. Forest fires are one way, this is another.
The effects created by small scale dredgers are minuscule compared to what Mother Nature does.

"One last comment, once again the ignorance toward native people is evident"
That one might be a winner for you; I'll have to check it out.

And last but not least
"So you all better get back to ironing your sheets and hoods for the next klan rally. If you want to see some real ignorant comments just check out the mining chat forums. By the way is also how you all got your cronies to post. Like the "Silent Majority" of the "Ray-Gun" years you are neither, just loud and obnoxious."

(Here's where you really shine) You resort to insults, name calling & character assassination to make your point.
The next time you want to bring up ignorance you should check your reflection in the mirror.
As Forrest Gump used to say, 'Stupid is as stupid does.

Cheers & have a nice day

fact is, the reason the govenor vetoed AB1032 is because its painfully obvious that the only reason this bill was introducted was specifically to circumvent a california court ordered enviromental impact study. furthermore, its been proven time after time that suction dredging has virtually no impact on the enviroment and the state of californias fisheries. everyone involved thats against AB 1032 is completely confident that when and if the envirometal impact study is completed that it will be proven once and for all that the effect of suction dredge mining within the states waterways is so neglegable in most cases, its virtually imesurable. it has been stated that, along with suction dredging that there are alot of other reasons that the fish are on the decline, such as agricutural runoffs containing toxic chemicals and pesticides, logging,etc,etc,etc. well, as far i know i dont see any of these organizations attempting to get legislation enacted to stop this. most of californias forests are owned by one private company or another anymore, and i dont see any organizations attempting to do anything about that. i have personally been prospecting and running gold dredges for over 30 years. i have used dredges from ultra small 1 1/2" intake models to dredges with intakes up to 10". i have dredged in mountain streams less than a foot deep, and i have dredged in waters over 40 feet deep. ive also dredged on seasonal creeks, that have very little if any water flow during the summertime. in those creeks, what holes i did dredge that were left by mother nature after the winters storms and runoff virtually always hold fish of some sort, and that in areas that were previously devoid of aquatic life of any kind. in all of the years ive been dredging, i have yet to have one single hole that either i personally didnt backfill, or that mother nature didnt fill herself with the winter runoff. those holes that were not filled always ended up giving what trout were in the river a nice cool place to lay when the summers heat came down on them. ive had trout of all sizes hang out on the edges of my dredge hole like a bunch of vultures waiting for whatever small bits of food i happened to kick up, and the occasional helgramite and worm to surface, and then they would dart in and grab it ,virtually out of my hands and take there place back on the rim. ive seen trout and salmon congragate and spawn in my dredge tailings, even though there were miles and miles of rivers for them to spawn. ive even moved my dredge because of it, just to have the next school of fish come along and do the exact same thing. does suction dredge mining hurt our fisheries in the state of california?.....not in the least.

The bottom line remains that obtaining gold particles by panning with a simple sluice box and pans will be far less destructive to the riparian ecosystem than the mechanized pumps of suction dredging..

Suction dredging increases turbidity in already heavily sedimented (from clear cut logging) rivers, that creates additional stresses for salmon and other migratory fish already experiencing population declines from lower water quality. In addition, suction dredging rereleases mercury into the watershed..


"The legislation, AB 1032, would restrict suction dredging, a modern method of gold mining. Using power equipment and large hoses to vacumn stream floors, suction dredging is a common method used by gold miners to redeem gold that may lie on river bottoms. In the process, however, dredgers often also bring up the mercury that has settled there.

"Suction dredging stirs up mercury because most streams in Northern California are affected by historical mining operations. Suction dredging spreads the existing contamination," said Wolk.

AB 1032 would require instream dredging operations to obtain a site-specific permit from the Department of Fish & Game in order to dredge. Currently, dredgers receive a permit that allows them to dredge anywhere, with no limitations on where they can or cannot dredge. Oversight by the department will provide more protections to streams and rivers that may be more vulnerable to dredging, said Wolk, allowing for the possible closure of some waters to dredging altogether."

article @;
http://www.newsreview.com/chico/Content?oid=351501

When people pan for gold, there isn't as much turbidity because everything is sampled from the near surface gravel beds, the panning process is by hand and there is less impact on water quality. While panning for gold is more labor intensive, isn't the creation of jobs what so many developers always claim for their new projects? So in this case, where additional jobs would be created by panning for gold instead of suction dredging, why not encourage more jobs from panning for gold??

Here's the basics on panning for gold (no mercury, turbidity, etc..);

"Step #1 - Find where the gold is

There is no use panning for gold in a stream where there is no gold so go to a stream where people have found gold before. Since gold is much heavier than water (about 19 times heavier), the gold stays on the bottom and gets caught in the sand in slow moving areas around bends of the stream and along the shore. It also tends to get stuck in small crevices in rocks and wedged in pieces of wood. Try to find places like this along the stream.

Step #2 - Submersion

Put about 4 handfuls of material into your gold pan. Submerse the pan in the stream. While holding the gold pan under water, move the pan in a circular motion so that the lighter materials will be carried out of the gold pan. Don't move it too rapidly or you may lose gold along with the rocks and sand. Keep doing this until about half of the material in the gold pan is gone.

Step #3 - Panning

Lift the pan out of the water and begin swirling it around with it tipped slightly to the side where the riffles are. When all the water is gone dip the pan into the water again, bring it back out, and start swirling again. Keep doing this until nearly all the material in the pan is gone.

Step #4 - Seperation and Retrieval

Use a suction pipet to spray water into the pan and seperate any nuggets or flakes of gold from the sand in the bottom of the gold pan. The pipet is also useful to suck up small flakes of gold and deposit them into a display vial or other container. If you didn't find any gold, don't worry. It takes practice, patience, and a little luck to find, but keep trying. There's nothing like finding gold in the bottom of your gold pan!"

read on @;
http://www.infowest.com/life/goldpan.htm

Personally i would advocate for gold panners to sab the suction dredge equipment and move in on the so-called "claims" of the suction dredge operators and pan their gold. After all, we're still in the wild west!!

The previous post needs to be removed. It helps neither side of this controversy. His ignorance of the modern gold miner is beyond obvious. BTW...all dredgers still pan. He also advocates breaking the law. Where is your honor sir? Where is your integrity? I hope that you do not have children as you are a very poor role model. Use the law and court system to change our beloved country is you are so inclined. Thats what it is there for.

Earl,

First off, I will coment on your name calling and accusations calling me a member of the KKK. Sticks and stones, etc etc etc.....

I am a Native American, so be very carefull telling me what I do know and don't know about "native people".

I made no attacks against any "native people" here, and I made no comments about how the Karuks harvest their salmon. But on the other side of the coin, if the Uroks and Hoopa indians are using gill nets on the Klamath river, then the comments made by others are valid.

You made the statement, and I quote " As to studies how could you all miss reading the only peer reviewed study " Effects of Suction Dredging on Streams 1998 B Harvey T Lisle".

This is not a study. The authors had only read other studies and wrote this "Review and evaluation" There were "NO PEERS WHO EVALUATED THE CONCLUSIONS THESE TWO MADE IN THIS REVIEW"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Let me explain something here. Having an opinion that dredging "might" cause harm is your right. Having scientific proof that dredging does in fact cause harm of a measurable amount is something that you do not have, and nobody has been able to produce. We dredgers can show studies done in the field to back up our claims of not causing harm, and you mention a book review and label it as "study" and to boot claim it is the only one with peer review. If this report, and that is all this is, a book report, is the only basis you have for your feelings that dredging is causing harm, you have no provable case against dredging.

As to your comment about the Trinity river restoration project having all the necessary permits and reviews in place, my only question is this then, those old tailings contain mercury and are being dumped into a river containing endangered fish, do you know what they are doing to remove this mercury before this dirt is dumped into the river, and if the answer is nothing, then I don't care what permits they have in place, they are dumping one of the most reproductive damaging toxins there is into this river. Dredging on the other hand removes this toxin from the river.

As for the review that disappeared, the greenies didn't like the conclusions that were reafirming that dredging had a minimal impact and they pulled the plug on funding before it could be completed and printed.

You all act like dredging is a new thing here. This industry has been practiced since the early sixties. The salmon decline started in the mid to late seventies. In the eighties dredging was regulated and restricted to non spawning seasons in stream coarses that contained salmon, and yet the salmon population is still in a declining mode. So you think stopping dredging will save the salmon and trout???? You are wrong, and how do you propose to pay all the dredgers in three years when the salmon population is still declining and you finally realise that you put us out of business and ruined our livelyhood for false reasons?

I don't want to personally attack any person here, but your racists comments about ironing my sheets and hood in preparation for the next Klan rally are a personal attack by you towards me and you don't even know me. Grow up you insecure imbesile. I am a Native American, I respect the environment, I respect the rights of others, and I believe that the law should be followed.

One last comment to "more labor, less pollution w/ panning"

I will forward your letter to the district attorney for the county in which that e-mail originated from. You are instigating criminal activity, and making threats of sabatoge against law abiding citizens. Your post should be removed.

For all the people who were outraged by the previous posts about panning for gold being prefered to suction dredging for ecological reasons;

Please do forward the posted comment to the D.A., and we'll invite the D.A. over for tea and bisquits!! Be aware that snitching and running to the authorities with accusations of "eco-terrorist" will only decrease your moral standing in the NorCal community..

Censorship is the last resort of cowards. It appears that the truth of panning as being less destructive than suction dredging is true, and for this reason there are demands made of imc editors to remove the previous post. Truth hurts the deceitful propaganda spread by greedy golddigging suction dredgers, no??

Am sticking to my ideals and promoting both panning for gold on the so-called mine claims (most all on public land, BTW) AND sabbing the suction dredge equipment to prevent the greater crime of environmental degradation occurring on the river tributaries. The presence of the lower four dams on the Klamath River adversely effects the salmon, and the distrubance and turbidity from suction dredging compounds the already poor water quality of the tributaries..

What we (ghosts in the machine) want is BOTH the removal of the lower four Klamath dams (owned by Pacificorp/Berkshire Hathaway) and also an end to the destructive process of suction dredging. For those who want to pan for gold, we only ask that you don't litter, pick up after yourselves, don't poop within 50 ft. of any water source (standard procedure in U.S. National Forests is dig a hole [> 6 "] and bury human waste), and don't take more (gold, deer, fish, wood, etc..) than you need. Greed is the BIGGEST problem faced by the ecosystem. There is no reason to recognize any private mine claims as public land is open to anyone provided that they don't harm the land and rivers..

As suction dredgers have recently been the greatest force of destruction on the rivers, it is time for them to leave..

A simple pan and screen is all that is required for those who are not as lazy as suction dredgers and willing to work for their gold by sifting through the gravel by hand..

First off, nobody asked for that post to be removed because of your comparing panning and dredging. In both of your posts you endorse sabatoging mining equipment. That is a crime. If you think freedom of speach gives you the right to promote criminal activity, you are highly mistaken.
As to your claim that panning is less harmfull than dredging, you are also mistaken. First off, show me physical proof that dredging as currently regulated causes harm.
If you think dredgers are lazy, then it just goes to show how little you actually know about dredging, and I would dare you to work on the production side of a dredge for two weeks and then think dredgers are lazy.
You live in a pipe dream and promote the virtue of committing a crime to try and force your twisted beliefs on someone else. What do you call yourself?
Mining claims are a legal ownership of minerals in this country, and the ability to file, buy or sell them is a right that any citizen has.
The next time you want to promote proper use of the resources of this great nation, remember that it is indians who sell excess fish that they have over harvested, and it is the indians that have sued the government to not to have to be bound by the same environmental laws that every other person in this country must follow.
If you promote committing crimes to force your way on others, you are the coward.

Its awfully painful to watch complete ignorance compete for attention while displaying horribly misinformed opinions. Your the lazy one buddy. Its obvious to all that you have not done your homework, you have not observed a gold dredge in operation nor have you done the wild fish of California any favors. Its easy to spew "opinions de jour" without leaving the comforts of your little world. If you wish to make an impact ask questions, educate yourself, present yourself as informed...not stupid! People can see right through your boisterous ranting and irrational conclusions. Adding the sabotage crap just got you "gonged" off this show.

Dredger wrote;

"The next time you want to promote proper use of the resources of this great nation, remember that it is indians who sell excess fish that they have over harvested, and it is the indians that have sued the government to not to have to be bound by the same environmental laws that every other person in this country must follow."

Again it is clear that the self serving Euro-american interests promoting suction dredging lack any respect for the first nations of the indigenous people of north america OR the salmon populations threatened with extinction. To claim that indigenous people are overharvesting fish (salmon) and the good ol' U.S. government of imperialist goons who nearly drove the indigenous peoples and salmon off the face of the Earth and into extinction with promotion of industrialization (lower four Klamath dams) and imperialist expansion (excessive mining claims), it is no wonder that people are advocating sabotage of your precious gold dredging equipment..

The thoughtless greed of gold suction dredging and the resulting turbidity of the river water has indeed resulted in people losing their rationality, just as a hissing and clawing cat backed into the corner will not appear to act rational either, but for the self defense strategy ingrained in our brains by mother nature herself. Salmon are not capable of defending themselves against either the turbidity caused by the suction dredges or the warmer, slower, toxic algae infested water caused by Pacificorp's lower four Klamath dams, so we humans who are gifted with the awareness are then forced to act by our own conscioussness..

There's also the legal defense of commiting a lesser crime in order to prevent a greater crime from taking place. In this case the suction dredging is the greater crime, and sabotage is the lesser crime that prevents the greater crime (contribution to extinction of salmon) from occurring. Of course under the occupation of the criminal GW bush regime neo-cons, we cannot expect much justice in the U.S. court system these days..

Warren Buffet's Berkshire Hathaway (Pacificorp) lower four Klamath dams are also contributing to the extinction of the salmon, and we've got something waiting in the wings for Warren Buffet also. We've tried asking Buffet to remove the lower four Klamath dams politely, nicely and kindly, now the "not so nice" activists are getting their chance to obtain results. If it's between shedding the blood of a greedy, selfish billionaire or witnessing the extinction of the salmon as a result of corporate greed, which option do you guess this author will chose? Sometimes physical threats are the only real option in the current political climate of GW Bush regime's tyranny..

Believe it or not, some folks are not that far away from joining up with the Mahdi Army and having a west coast faction of the Shia militia started by Moqtada Al-Sadr to declare an insurgency right here in what you folks call the U.S.A. This is of course not coming from the indigenous peoples themselves, just some other outsiders who chose a different path than standard imperialist ventures into capitalism. We are small in number, though our commitment to see this out to the bitter end grows more resolute each passing day. Calling people "extremist" only shows that pushing people up against the wall will result in extreme behaviors, as with Al Queda, etc.., the U.S. foreign policy makers (GW Bush petro-cabal) bears full responsibility for the conditions that enabled Al Queda to manifest into reality. Election of 2008 be damned to hell, we're going all out for this seccesion from the real evil empire, the United States of Amnesia!!

So go on, keep up with the name calling and other such antagonisms, you'll soon see how much of this is rhetoric and what will come down into reality the next few months. You'll also see all that laziness firsthand as your suction dredges lie streamside in shambles..

Some advice; Pack your suction dredges up and head back to wherever, just get the bloody hell out of NorCal. We answer to a higher authority than the U.S. government, and your suction dredges WILL BE DESTROYED!!

Praise Allah! Praise Al Lat! Praise Madre Tierra!

The above comments show an escalation of verbal aggression from two polarized viewpoints of suction dredging, though the causes are deeper than simply methods of gold extraction. We all should attempt to write in calmer tones and avoid escalating tensions to the point of driving people over the edge into overt extremist behavior..

Of course nobody can take serious any attempts to organize a faction of Moqtada Al-Sadr's Mahdi Army (Shia militia) on the West coast of the U.S. The Mahdi Army is known to operate in their native country of Iraq, not anywhere outside of this region. This comment could be the result of a frustrated response to prior antagonisms from obviously insensitive people who prioritize their supposed "right" to operate suction dredges on nation forest rivers and tributaries despite their known impact to salmon in the form of turbidity..

Combined with this anger is also directed at Warren Buffet, the CEO of Berkshire Hathaway Inc., owner of the Pacificorp corporation that owns and operates the lower four Klamath dams. These outdated dams are also impediments to the salmon and responsible for worsening water quality through lowering water velocity, lowering dissolved oxygen content, increasing toxic algae blooms and increasing warmer water temps. All these conditions mentioned above compounded can worsen the health of the salmon populations who depend on the rivers for their survival. The people of the coastal region, indigenous and immigrant, also depend on the salmon for physical health, cultural and spiritual survival..

There is a great deal at stake here, so certain people's emotions may at times get the best of them. The point could be made that gold flakes will always be in the river's gravel beds, though salmon may become extinct if water quality problems worsen. So if the suction dredgers give it a rest for a while, and serious efforts are made at salmon restoration (ie., decommission & safely remove lower four Klamath dams) would that really be that horrible? Once the salmon return and increase their populations, the gold will still be there in the rivers, sparkling of the bright red bellies of the returning salmon..