Sent it to the guy who wrote this artical. Pound him.
California hearing on dredging rules attracts few
Share
By Carlos Alcalá
[email protected]
Published: Wednesday, May. 11, 2011 - 12:00 am | Page 2B
There was controversy but few surprises Tuesday as the California Department of Fish and Game held its final hearing on the contentious issue of suction dredging for gold in the state's rivers and streams.
The hearing attracted advocates and critics from El Dorado, Placer and Sierra counties – three of the top five counties for dredging according to a 2008 survey.
The department – under orders from the Legislature and a court ruling – has drafted an environmental impact report and regulations to control dredging, which sucks up river bottom gravel in an attempt to collect gold.
The report will be revised on the basis of months of public input. The department hopes to issue final regulations in November.
The most unexpected thing at Tuesday's hearing on the report and proposed rules may have been the turnout.
Mark Stopher, the agency's official in charge of developing the EIR and rules, told the the audience he had received well over 8,000 emails on the topic and had expected an overflow crowd at the 200-seat auditorium in downtown Sacramento.
Instead, just 27 people spoke from an audience that was slightly more than double that size.
Environmental organizations, Indian tribes, fishing groups and other suction dredging opponents complained that Fish and Game's proposed regulations are based on bad science and too lenient to miners.
Miners and their allies argued that the rules were based on bad science and too strict.
"I didn't hear anybody say that we got it perfectly right," Stopher said dryly at the conclusion of the three-hour hearing.
The comments differed only in details from those received since the draft document was released in February, Stopher said.
For example, officials have heard a lot from miners – in five other hearings and in written comments – who attack the science behind the EIR's findings on potential hazards from mercury stirred up by dredges.
At the hearing, they heard from professional data analyst Eric Maksymyk, also a miner, who blasted the mercury studies for nearly 30 minutes, based on his reading of the numbers in those very studies.
It would take 14,800 miners in one spot to produce the mercury contamination the studies suggested, Maksymyk said.
"It's impossible," he said. "It's flawed analysis."
Mercury contamination is but one issue.
Others include risks to amphibian and fish breeding.
The court ruling that led to the EIR was the product of a Karuk tribe lawsuit seeking to protect salmon in the Klamath River.
The new rules only appear to protect fish from deleterious impacts because "you redefined deleterious," said Craig Tucker, a representative of the Karuk and other organizations.
He and some others said "no program" – that is, a ban on all dredge mining – is the only acceptable alternative.
Miners, in turn, protested their rights to mineral deposits were being taken from them without compensation.
© Copyright The Sacramento Bee. All rights reserved.
Share
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Call The Bee's Carlos Alcalá, (916) 321-1987.
California hearing on dredging rules attracts few
Share
By Carlos Alcalá
[email protected]
Published: Wednesday, May. 11, 2011 - 12:00 am | Page 2B
There was controversy but few surprises Tuesday as the California Department of Fish and Game held its final hearing on the contentious issue of suction dredging for gold in the state's rivers and streams.
The hearing attracted advocates and critics from El Dorado, Placer and Sierra counties – three of the top five counties for dredging according to a 2008 survey.
The department – under orders from the Legislature and a court ruling – has drafted an environmental impact report and regulations to control dredging, which sucks up river bottom gravel in an attempt to collect gold.
The report will be revised on the basis of months of public input. The department hopes to issue final regulations in November.
The most unexpected thing at Tuesday's hearing on the report and proposed rules may have been the turnout.
Mark Stopher, the agency's official in charge of developing the EIR and rules, told the the audience he had received well over 8,000 emails on the topic and had expected an overflow crowd at the 200-seat auditorium in downtown Sacramento.
Instead, just 27 people spoke from an audience that was slightly more than double that size.
Environmental organizations, Indian tribes, fishing groups and other suction dredging opponents complained that Fish and Game's proposed regulations are based on bad science and too lenient to miners.
Miners and their allies argued that the rules were based on bad science and too strict.
"I didn't hear anybody say that we got it perfectly right," Stopher said dryly at the conclusion of the three-hour hearing.
The comments differed only in details from those received since the draft document was released in February, Stopher said.
For example, officials have heard a lot from miners – in five other hearings and in written comments – who attack the science behind the EIR's findings on potential hazards from mercury stirred up by dredges.
At the hearing, they heard from professional data analyst Eric Maksymyk, also a miner, who blasted the mercury studies for nearly 30 minutes, based on his reading of the numbers in those very studies.
It would take 14,800 miners in one spot to produce the mercury contamination the studies suggested, Maksymyk said.
"It's impossible," he said. "It's flawed analysis."
Mercury contamination is but one issue.
Others include risks to amphibian and fish breeding.
The court ruling that led to the EIR was the product of a Karuk tribe lawsuit seeking to protect salmon in the Klamath River.
The new rules only appear to protect fish from deleterious impacts because "you redefined deleterious," said Craig Tucker, a representative of the Karuk and other organizations.
He and some others said "no program" – that is, a ban on all dredge mining – is the only acceptable alternative.
Miners, in turn, protested their rights to mineral deposits were being taken from them without compensation.
© Copyright The Sacramento Bee. All rights reserved.
Share
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Call The Bee's Carlos Alcalá, (916) 321-1987.
sent a email to stopher and what lying shat do you think caused this mess?? sniveling sob -John
