Mark Stopher update AB120

[2cmorau]

Interested Parties

I am receiving quite a few requests for information, so I offer the
following update.

The public comment period closed on May 10 and DFG commenced the review
of all comments. Over 9,000 email form letters were received opposing
any and all suction dredge mining. Several hundred form letters were
received through regular mail supporting suction dredging. Many
additional letters with substantive and detailed comments were also
received. There is a lot of information to sift through, organize and
consider in preparing the Final EIR and Final regulations. We have been
and continue to work on those tasks. We said before we expected to
complete the regulatory process in November of this year. We are capable
of meeting that goal, unless we are directed otherwise by the
legislature and the Governor.

Many of you know that the legislature has been considering language
which would extend the current moratorium another five years, with
certain provisions for ending the moratorium earlier and also restrict
the use of State funds to continue the regulatory process.

Budget Trailer Bill AB 120, (amended June 8, 2011), and approved by the
Assembly (on June 15) and Senate (on June 10) includes the following
language on page 6:

"(12) Existing law designates the issuance by the Department of Fish
and Game of permits to operate vacuum or suction dredge equipment to be
a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), 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 Fish and Game certifies to the Secretary of State that (a) the
department has completed the environmental review of its existing vacuum
or suction dredge equipment regulations as ordered by the court, (b) the
department has transmitted for filing with the Secretary of State a
certified copy of new regulations, as necessary, and (c) the new
regulations are operative. This bill would modify that moratorium to
prohibit the use of vacuum or suction dredge equipment until June 30,
2016, or until the director’s certification to the secretary as
described above, whichever is earlier. The bill would additionally
require the director to certify that the new regulations fully mitigate
all identified significant environmental impacts and that a fee
structure is in place that will fully cover all costs to the department
related to the administration of the program."

I am not aware of any action taken yet by Governor Brown on this bill.

The Senate (SB 98) and Assembly (AB 98) budget bills, which passed both
houses on June 15, included the following language:

"The funds appropriated in this item shall not be used by the
Department of Fish and Game for suction 3. dredge mining regulation,
permitting, or other activities, except litigation and enforcement
costs."

Governor Brown vetoed this bill.

It remains unclear when the State budget will be signed by the Governor
and take effect. If the above budget language and trailer bill language
is ultimately included in the approved budget, DFG's current
interpretation is that we must terminate further work on developing a
Final EIR and regulations. In the meanwhile we are continuing work on
both the Final EIR and regulations.

I have been asked by several members of the public if we can expedite
our work so the regulations take effect sooner rather than later, so
that we could be finished before being directed to stop work. In my
opinion, that approach is neither feasible or productive. There is
simply too much substantive public comment to consider, respond to, and
integrate into the Final EIR and regulations. This work takes time and
it provides no enduring value if it is not done well.



Mark Stopher
Environmental Program Manager
California Department of Fish and Game
601 Locust Street
Redding, CA 96001

voice 530.225.2275
fax 530.225.2391
cell 530.945.1344
mstopher@dfg.ca.gov

[2cmorau]

9000 letters opposing suction dredging? where were thay, if they are so opposed
i was at the Sacramento meeting, everybody there ( well over two hundred ) that comment was for dredging, only one opposed,
me thinks that its BS

[2cmorau]

sign the petition



http://westernminingalliance.org/ind...d=52&Itemid=62

[Astrobouncer]

I signed.

[Hefty1]

I signed.

Hefty

[Hefty1]

Over 9,000 email form letters were received opposing
My Arse!!!
And i will want to see all 9000 of them!

Hefty

[Gramps43]

I signed.

Gramps

[impfected]

Hi all,
I have been following this dredge ban over the last year on this and other sites. This post made me register on the site to post... and probably piss someone off. If I still lived in CA. I would be helping as I could, but as someone from another state, all I can do is prepare for the time it starts to happen here. (WA).

Maybe I'm off base, but if it gives food for thought, then maybe that's enough.

"Over 9,000 email form letters were received opposing
any and all suction dredge mining. Several hundred form letters were
received through regular mail supporting suction dredging."

Quite frankly, I'm surprised it was not twice that!
It seems Dredgers are not up to speed like the opposition. These "greens" are fairly young. Young and computer savy. They have a network of friends on the internet that may not share their beliefs as strongly as they do, but are willing to fire off a form letter through email. Takes a minute or less.
You are sending regular mail (probably faxes as well)! You are throwing rocks at guys with rifles! In a fair world, maybe paper mail would have more value than email, but the elected officials (and their staff) see numbers.
Email all your friends, family and acquaintances in California, tell them your feelings on the subject and link to a form letter that they can email.
I do see that there is a lot of comments from dredger on Media sites that publish articles regarding dredging, and that is good as the general public reads those.
You need numbers of like minded folks, not just dredgers.

Anyway, I hope this is taken in the way it was intended. I'm not trying to be an A**, just give a little input as I see it.

Alan Petersen
in Seattle....

Flame on.

[Hefty1]

You might be right Alan,
But don't forget Mark Stopher and his scientific cronies are the biggest BSers in this state.
I for one have had my family and friends send in hundreds of letters so far. And only one response.
Been to the Sacramento meeting, only one opposed, hundreds spoke for dredging.
If they go by numbers instead of true facts, this state is sunk.


Hefty

[jog]

Also signed...

[russau]

[quote=Hefty1 ]
You might be right Alan,
But don't forget Mark Stopher and his scientific cronies are the biggest BSers in this state.
*********id probly go as far as to say he is the biggest frigin LIER in the state!

[2cmorau]

well if form letters are counted as one and 9000 are forms letters opposing
naaaaaa wishful thinking
send in your letters
vote no or line item AB120

as claim owners paying taxes on our mining claims with property rights and mining rights u think we have a leg to stand on
but look what happen to the logging industry here in California, they have money and pull with government and all it took was a bird to shut them down
this whole thing is BS
not only will their be a loss of money from the absence of dredging, manufacturing, small twons in gold country will lose out
and the cost to the state if brown signs as is

[Gramps43]

That bird, it was said of only nests in old growth trees, that bird of which it was a mated pair nesting in the "K" of a Kmart sign. JTYMWTK.

Gramps

[2cmorau]

LMAO gramps

a year later (after it was listed as endangered) reported the dam bird share's the border of Canada and the U.S and wide spread in British Columbia, Oregon, Washington and the neighboring States

not unique to Humbolt County as was claimed

[Gramps43]

Oh yeh i was stationed on Mt. Hebo at the time and remember the tree sitters, the equipt. wreckers and the tree spikers over that damn bird. There was another bird that they went catalyptic over but it's name escapes me.

Gramps

[2cmorau]

Interested Parties

Governor Brown vetoed specific parts of the State budget bill (i.e. SB
87), eliminating the provisions which would have prohibited the
Department of Fish and Game from expending any funds for the development
of suction dredge regulations. His message stated

"I am deleting Provision 3, which would prohibit the Department of
Fish and Game from using funds appropriated in this item for
suction-dredge regulation, permitting, or other activities, except
enforcement and litigation costs. This provision would prohibit the
Department from completing a court-ordered Environmental Impact Report
regarding the impacts of suction dredge mining on Coho salmon and other
threatened or endangered species. While I am vetoing this language to
ensure the Department is not in violation of the court order, I direct
the Secretary of Resources to examine the program and associated
policies before restarting the permit process."

This action resolves some of the uncertainty about completion of the
regulation writing process and compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), which we had projected for completion
in November of 2011. As of this moment, the Governor has not acted yet
on a related budget trailer bill, i.e. AB 120. AB 120 includes the
following language:

""(12) Existing law designates the issuance by the Department of Fish
and Game of permits to operate vacuum or suction dredge equipment to be
a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), 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 Fish and Game certifies to the Secretary of State that (a) the
department has completed the environmental review of its existing vacuum
or suction dredge equipment regulations as ordered by the court, (b) the
department has transmitted for filing with the Secretary of State a
certified copy of new regulations, as necessary, and (c) the new
regulations are operative. This bill would modify that moratorium to
prohibit the use of vacuum or suction dredge equipment until June 30,
2016, or until the director’s certification to the secretary as
described above, whichever is earlier. The bill would additionally
require the director to certify that the new regulations fully mitigate
all identified significant environmental impacts and that a fee
structure is in place that will fully cover all costs to the department
related to the administration of the program."

The key elements are that the current moratorium is extended to June
30, 2016 unless, as before, the Department of Fish and Game complete its
environmental review under CEQA, adopts new regulations and those
regulations take effect. It adds two new requirements. First, all
significant impacts must be fully mitigated. This appears to be a
different standard for approval than we were previously working toward,
however, the term "fully mitigate" is not defined in CEQA or the Fish
and Game Code. And a new fee structure must be in place. This latter
requirement will require legislation. Each new requirement has the
potential to affect the substance of the outcome and timing of these
efforts.

Currently, we continue to work on the regulations and Final SEIR. Once
the outcome of AB 120 is known we will reconsider how this effort will
proceed.


Mark Stopher
Environmental Program Manager
California Department of Fish and Game
601 Locust Street
Redding, CA 96001

voice 530.225.2275
fax 530.225.2391
cell 530.945.1344
mstopher@dfg.ca.gov

[hombre_de_plata_flaco]

Just get a few retired geezers to sit behind a PC all day making up 9000 fake names and Google Gmail accounts to bombard this guy with an equal amount of electronic mail. I'm sure that is what the tree huggers did.

[russau]

Just get a few retired geezers to sit behind a PC all day making up 9000 fake names and Google Gmail accounts to bombard this guy with an equal amount of electronic mail. I'm sure that is what the tree huggers did.

trouble with this idea is that they will see your IP address and know it was from 1 person and then he would look really stupid! why stoop to their level when all we have to do is get the people concerned with dredgeing/mining to do what they need to do!use your name and write out various letters and change them around so its not a form letter or any derivitive of a form letter. and do it NOW while we have some time left to do it!

[2cmorau]

Interested Parties,
Page Seven boys and girls
The legislative website http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/po...ttee_on_budget indicates that AB 120 was enrolled on July 12. I understand that to mean that it has gone to the Governor's Office for his consideration. I understand the Governor has 12 days to approve or veto legislation. I don't know for sure which date ends the 12 day period. If he takes no action, it is automatically approved.

Mark Stopher
Environmental Program Manager
California Department of Fish and Game
601 Locust Street
Redding, CA 96001

voice 530.225.2275
fax 530.225.2391
cell 530.945.1344
mstopher@dfg.ca.gov
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/po...ttee_on_budget

[russau]

ive already sent the Govenor 3 more email comments of my own design, made up from suggestions from guys on different websites. this is very important to send a letter or comment of your own design so it wont be counted as a form letter! we need all the help we can get in sending comments to the Govenor as quickly as you can!