New Cal, Dredge Moritorium

[NolanTheExplorer]

the bottom line is, when you disturb riverbeds you harm everything in the river. its not rocket surgery and when you create a havoc for plants and animals in the name of personal profit...well, thats just selfish. i always ask myself what the biproduct of a product is. your little pieces of gold release old toxic chemicals that have long settled on the bottom floor harming aquatic life and large fish feeding birds..all the way up the chain...to people..yes people. you make the mater extemely turbid, preventing spawning and other activities. i could go on.

i've come to realize in life you can't take the word from the person or group that is PROFITING off an activity (eg oil companies). you take the word of scientific studies and intelligent research.
i admit, im not the subject matter expert on dredging. but i have a clue.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Cry Of The Eagle: History And Legends Of The Cherokee Indians And Their Buried Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!

[Hefty1]

You sir
Please come out to Cal.

 

[Hefty1]

the bottom line is, when you disturb riverbeds

River beds are disturbed every winter you idot!!!

 

[2cmorau]

Call this guy and let him know
even if flouring occurs while dredging, it still maintains a specific gravity (S.G.)13.6 there by finding its way to the bottom quickly
and if mercury is such a concern then why are they pushing the long lasting fluorescent bulbs, that has mercury in it. ( people throw them in the trash rather then take the time to recycle )
think about it, how small of a piece of gold have you found, that's right we find flour gold, what else do we find when were doing clean up of our sluice box? Hematite S.G. 5.2
so the professor's at UC Berkeley are are going against logic and the Periodic table of elements, but what would you expect from those at UC berkeley left wing brain washing directors
dredging is history if we don't get involved
if you don't agree with what i am saying give me the arguement

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_(element)

Gerald W. Bowes, Ph.D.
Manager, Cal/EPA Scientific Peer Review Program
Office of Research, Planning and Performance
State Water Resources Control Board
1001 I Street
Sacramento, CA 95814

Telephone: (916) 341-5567
FAX: (916) 341-5284
Email: [email protected]

 

[2cmorau]

what can you expect from a guy that has a Garrett 250 LMFAO
Deadheaddigger educate yourself on the Antiquities Act
digging up a civil war relic is against the law

 

[Hefty1]

i've come to realize in life you can't take the word from the person or group that is PROFITING off an activity


I bet this guy believes in what ever this Gov, tells him to.

Alot of People do this for a living out here because they dont want stand in gov, lines.

 

[NolanTheExplorer]

taking personal offense is childish. im not out lobbying against this activity, and i won't be out lobbying for this activity.

your hobby/interest will be history if the only counter you guys have is to call someone an "idiot" and "moron" or use frozen ice pack movement (i assume) as an example of riverbed disruption.

i hope you can make a coherent argument and deliver to the appropriate people or you are exactly right, it will be history. its hard to counter in depth science and research with shallow slander.

 

[Hefty1]

use frozen ice pack movement (i assume) as an example of riverbed disruption

No its called WATER and lots of it!!!

You Sir are right!!! you are no expert

 

[Hefty1]

Hey dig
Are you working?
If yes, then you are profiting from an activity.
Dont believe yourself?

 

[Hefty1]

Naaaa dig you best stay in Vir, you would hurt yourself out here.

 

[Gravel Hog]

F'N' Easterner ideas and their politics have no business at all in the West with our Western Ways. They just don't mix, well they have and look where we're at , now.

 

[jog]

taking personal offense is childish. im not out lobbying against this activity, and i won't be out lobbying for this activity.

your hobby/interest will be history if the only counter you guys have is to call someone an "idiot" and "moron" or use frozen ice pack movement (i assume) as an example of riverbed disruption.

i hope you can make a coherent argument and deliver to the appropriate people or you are exactly right, it will be history. its hard to counter in depth science and research with shallow slander.

That's funny... I didn't call you any names, all I asked was a couple simple questions about what animals are being destroyed and the destruction of the river bottom. Still waiting.

 

[Hefty1]

My Bad
I refered to him as an idot

 

[2cmorau]

start spreading the news, or were gonna get screwed
Telephone: (916) 341-5567
FAX: (916) 341-5284
Email: [email protected]


1. Suction Dredging Budget
Background. Background: The Department of Fish and Game is responsible for
administering Section 5653 of the Fish and Game Code which requires a permit from
DFG to conduct recreational motorized suction dredge mining in state waters. The
Department's existing suction dredge mining regulations, which were adopted in 1994,
were the subject of a court order in 2006 which found that the regulations could result in
environmental impacts harmful to coho salmon or other fish species listed as threatened
or endangered under state or federal law, and ordered DFG to conduct a new
environmental impact review and update the regulations as necessary. The
Department was ordered by the court to complete the EIR by July of 2008.
After the Department failed to meet that deadline, the court in July 2009 prohibited DFG
from issuing any suction dredge mining permits as long as the related litigation was
pending. At the same time, the Legislature passed and the Governor signed into law
SB 670 (Wiggins, c. 62, Statutes of 2009) on August 6, 2009. SB 670 imposed an
immediate moratorium on suction dredge mining until three specified actions occur:
1)DFG completes the court-ordered environmental review of its permitting program; 2)
DFG updates the existing regulations governing the program as necessary; and 3)The
updated regulations take effect. DFG's draft EIR for suction dredge mining and new
proposed revised regulations were released for public comment in February 2011. The
draft EIR identifies a number of significant and unmitigated environmental impacts.
DFG has acknowledged in previous years that the current fees for suction dredge
mining permits are inadequate to cover the full costs of the program. The current
statutory base fee for a permit is $25, which when adjusted for inflation equates to
approximately $40. The base fee is $130 if an onsite inspection is required.
Nonresident base fees are $100 for a basic permit and $220 for onsite inspection. The
Senate policy committee analysis for SB 670 notes that DFG "has previously estimated
that the permits cost an average of $450 to process and to cover the costs of the
program, which if extrapolated to the approximate 3,000 permits would result in an
expenditure of about $1.3 million."
Under the new proposed regulations DFG proposes to issue up to 4,000 permits.
DFG's new estimate of revenue from 4,000 permits and onsite inspection fees is
$373,000. If the department's previous cost estimates are accurate, the program will
cost $1.8 million, not counting the additional costs of onsite inspections, potential legal
defense costs if anticipated lawsuits challenging the regulations are filed, and costs for
SWRCB permitting since the proposed regulations acknowledge that suction dredging
in mercury impaired waters will cause significant unmitigated environmental impacts,
but do not propose to limit suction dredging in such waters, leaving that problem to the
SWRCB. The department has used 27 DFG employees in the development of the
regulations so far. DFG wardens would also be required to enforce the regulations. The
gap between the current fees and the costs of the program result in an estimated $2
million subsidy of the program from the Fish and Game Preservation Fund and/or the
General Fund.
Subcommittee No. 2 May 12, 2011
Senate Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review Page 41
Staff Recommendation: Approve the following:
(1) Trailer bill language to continue the moratorium on issuance of suction dredge
permits for an additional five years, or until such time as new regulations that
fully mitigate all identified significant environmental impacts, and a proposed
fee structure that will fully cover all program costs, are in place.
(2) Approve Budget Bill Language prohibiting any funding at the department from
being used for suction dredge mining regulation, permitting or other activities.
VOTE:
Approve Staff Recommendation with the following modification:
(2) Approve Budget Bill Language prohibiting any funding at the
department from being used for suction dredge mining regulation,
permitting or other activities with the exception of enforcement and
legal defense.
Vote: 2-1 (Fuller)

 

[Caminochaos]

The only real proof I have where dredging makes an impact is in small creeks where dredging was very benificial. I have grown up next to very small creeks all my life and have experienced that due to the lack of dredging in those creeks have caused lack of habitat. What use to be 6' or 7' pools are now 1' or 2' pools where fish have trouble finding even place to swin because of all the overburden in these what use to be very deep holes. Fish population has actually dropped and the size of the fished had reduced to half in the creeks where I grew up.

 

[2cmorau]

Camino, in sonoma county we have the same problem, there has been no dredging on the creeks and the fish are dying
have a look at my post above where dredging could help

DFG needs to go to Mackay School of Mines and get the professors point of view

 

[2cmorau]

they did not use a dredge in the study, this study was done in lab conditions and still they use the word ( may )

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2010/1325B/pdf/ofr20101325b.pdf


Can Contemporary Suction-Dredging Technology Provide a Viable Approach to Cleaning up
Mercury-Contaminated Locations?
The data presented in this report provide a scientific basis for evaluating some of the potential advantages
and disadvantages of suction dredging as a method for cleaning up Hg-contaminated locations. However, it is
important to note that the actual efficiencies of various types of suction dredges to quantitatively remove Hg(0) and
Hg-Au amalgam from sediment is a question that can only be addressed in the context of a mass-balance field
experiment. A key concept in this discussion is that there are at least two distinct pools of Hg that need to be
considered. The first pool is liquid Hg(0) and Hg-Au amalgam, both of which are quite dense (in the range of
13–15 g/cm3). At some nominally large grain size (perhaps fine sand or coarse silt), Hg(0) and Hg-Au amalgam are
certainly retained in a typical sluice box as evidenced by visual inspection during the field characterization part of
this study (Fleck and others, 2011) and by verbal and written observations from the community of recreational
suction dredgers (http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/cwa401/docs/suctiondredge/comments/, accessed
June 1, 2010). The second pool of Hg that must be considered is Hg(II) associated with fine particles of typical grain
density less than 3.0 g/cm3 (fine sand [125–250 μm], very fine sand [63–125 μm], and silt, clay, and colloids
[<63 μm]) and fine, Hg-rich particles of high grain density (for example, <250 μm) of Hg(0) and Hg-Au amalgam
that may not be trapped in the typical sluice box. Thus, while a typical suction dredge may be very effective at
trapping Hg from sediment associated with the first pool, it is this second pool of Hg that is of more concern with
respect to long-range Hg mobilization and downstream MeHg production. This stems from the fact that it is the
particle-associated Hg(II) fraction that is readily available for Hg(II)-methylation and (or) partitioning into the
aqueous phase. Further, it is the ‘fine’ to ‘very fine’ sand (63–250 μm) size fraction that appears to most readily
generate an increased amount of Hg(II)R when sediment is remobilized, as indicated by the results of Experiment #1,
Part A (table 3). This latter observation likely stems from the fact that liquid Hg(0) particles associated with the finesand
size class have a very high surface-area-to-volume ratio, which make them particularly prone to chemical
oxidation in which mercuric oxide (HgO) forms on the particle surface during physical perturbation or breakdown
(for example, flowering) (Humphreys, 2005).
It is difficult with the current data set to calculate and directly compare the relative amount of THg
associated with the above two fractions (that is, large particles (>250 μm) of Hg(0) and HgAu likely to be trapped by
a typical sluice box, compared to small particles (<250 μm) comprised of fine-grained Hg(0) and HgAu, as well as
Hg(II) adsorbed to fine-grained mineral surfaces, less likely to be trapped by a typical sluice box). The first
challenge arises from the fact that there are no data on what percentage of the total fine-grained Hg-enriched
particles was retained by the sluice box. It is clear from the October 2007 dredge test that some fine-grained material
was indeed trapped in the sluice box, and that the smallest size fraction (0.3–63 μm) was elevated in THg up to 14
ppm (see fig. 20 in Fleck and others, 2011). However, it was also readily apparent that the total mass of fine-grained
material retained in the sluice box was small compared to the very large mass of fine-grained material in the
5–250 μm fraction that comprised the downstream plume of suspended material (see figs. 3, 15, and 16 in Fleck and
others, 2011). The second challenge arises from the fact that the distribution of the larger (>250 μm) particles of

 

[2cmorau]

thought this was interesting


What does mesh size mean? Figuring out mesh sizes is simple. All you do is count the number of openings in one inch of screen (in the United States, anyway.) The number of openings is the mesh size. So a 4 mesh screen means there are four little squares across one linear inch of screen. A 100 mesh screen has 100 openings, and so on. Note, therefore that as the number describing the mesh size increases, the size of the particles decreases. Higher numbers = finer powder. Mesh size is not a precise measurement of particle size. Screens can be made with different thicknesses of wire. The thicker the wires, the smaller the particle passing through that screen, and vice versa.

What do the minus ( - ) and plus ( + ) plus signs mean when describing mesh sizes? Here’s a simple example of how they work. –200 mesh aluminum would mean that all particles will pass through a 200 mesh screen. A +200 mesh aluminum means that all the particles are retained on a 200 mesh screen

How fine do screens get? That depends on the wire thickness. But the supplier of our screens does not offer any screens finer than 500 mesh. If you think about it, the finer the weave, the closer the wires get together, eventually leaving no space between them at all. So, beyond 325-400 mesh, we usually describe particle size in “microns.”

What is a micron? A micron is another measurement we use for measuring particle size. A micron is one-millionth of a meter or one twenty-five thousandth of an inch.

This table is adapted from a post made by Ken Kosanke to the PML and previously published in a PGII Bulletin.

U.S. Standard * Space between wires

Sieve Mesh No. Inches Microns** Typical material

14 0.056 1400

28 0.028 700 Beach sand

60 0.0098 250 Fine sand

100 0.0059 150

200 0.0030 74 Portland cement

325 0.0017 44 Silt

400 0.0015 37 Plant Pollen

(1200) 0.0005 12 Red Blood Cell

(2400) 0.0002 6

(4800) 0.0001 2 Cigarette smoke

 

[Hefty1]

But they dont tell the public how small this mercury really is!!!

They just yell FIRE!!!
(mercury)

Hefty

 

[2cmorau]

i red somewhere that dredging captures mercury down to 63 microns