Waterboard talking points

[ratled]

Waterboard talking points UPDATED!!!

We put out our waterboard talking points and I thought that those here might like to view them too. You can see them here The New 49'ers :: Gold Prospecting :: Waterboard talking points

We hope this gives you some inspiration. I hope everyone does something no matter what it is

ratled

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Minelab PRO-FIND 35 Waterproof Pinpointer Metal Detector for Experts with Tone ID & Adjustable Sensitivity - Grab it through Amazon!

[Goldwasher]

Nice, thank you.

 

[rodoconnor]

When I first saw the line to this post my first thought was ," Now they're waterboarding us!" Not enough coffee yet !

 

[ratled]

Just wanted to give it one bump since it is current

 

[Goldfleks]

About sending in a e-mail... Is there a template with vetted points. I'm interested in contributing to this, but due to my limited experience beyond a little bucket slucing I don't think I have anything concise to contribute other than voicing my opining on the Monument status of the EFSG which is entirely off topic. Any guidance? I know it's just a single e-mail, but every spec of gold eventually adds up to an ounce.

 

[Steve Ia]

I'm all for it. And if you get some gold while extracting some critical info more power to you.

 

[ratled]

GF, thanks for the reply. No, we intentionally stayed away from itemized talking points and form letters. If 100 folks send in the same 10 comments, then the water board only has to note 10 comments. If the 100 folks send in the same 10 questions then the board only has to explore just 10 issues. Now, if 100 folks send in 100 questions the water board has to address 100 issues. There is a better chance then to have them address some important issues that might have been left off the list of 10.

The best thing I can pass on is you should state why you feel this shouldn't happen and why (references), how it affects you, etc. I would say write all of your ideas, feelings and thoughts down and use that as a starting point. I would then do some research based on those topics as weather you think they should be included when you address the board. BTW, forum posts and group newsletters are not research but may point you to something worth spending research time on. One example for you, as you just mentioned, is "every spec of gold eventually adds up to an ounce". You could figure out how many specs you in a typical year times that by the number of years you have not been able mine and how that affects you.

I hope that helps some. If you need more my contact info is listed in there somewhere

ratled

 

[ratled]

Bump, getting close to the dead line to have your written comments turned in

ratled

 

[russau]

One hand written note / question is worth MORE than ALL the form letters you could get! I found that form letters usually get filed in the T.C. file...........

 

[ratled]

Giving this a bump as it is getting close tot he deadline.

For those that keep asking for talking points here are a couple of the points from my letter to the board that I will share as it is easy for those that wish to use them to verify them and really are the core failure points of SB 637



How can water board give fair and objective oversight in suction dredge permit and regulation when they are on record after having made the predetermined conclusion and statement that all suction dredging mining should be banned and the DFW moratorium be continued indefinitely? - SWRCB letter to DFW dated 11 Mar 2013.

What is the name of regulated pollutant/s that SWRTCB feels suction dredging requires a 402 permit?
What is the published/accepted volume threshold for the regulated pollutant?
Are there different thresholds for temporary and permanent activities?
What methods are used to test for the pollutants?
What are the published documented effects if the threshold is exceeded?
What is the documentation/publication or regulation that contains this information?

 

[ratled]

Bump there is still time

ratled

 

[ratled]

Last bump - 2 days left

 

[Tuolumne]

couple hours left

here is part of my rant they will read

I would rather have no permit and just use the past regulations as far as keeping it simple.

Fast track permit for waters historically not having anadromous fish like salmon and steelhead or heritage trout
Fast track permit for non Mercury hot spots

Fast track any areas that have non native animals or non native animals that pollute the water

example-Crayfish, non native stocked trout, fungi attacking frogs, watersheds that are visited by range cattle

All facets of these non native animals, as it relates to water quality, is to be studied before taking into consideration what harm dredging may or may not pose for altered ecosystems.





Also Im more worried about all the range cattle fouling the water with hundred and hundreds of pounds of poo in small area and hearding/altering the banks do worse in two week than any dredge operation. Whats worse for water quality down stream? Drinking a glass of 98% lead free dredged water, drinking a glass of 100% lead water non dredged, or drinking your lead water with range cattle bacteria? Please there is way worse pollution entering the water from range cow than any dredge could do, please keep this in mind in certain multi use areas.



How come the water board is worried about 2% of mercury and not 100% of cow poo going into the stream from destructive range cattle on my claim? Please prioritize the threats to water quality

If you are worried about 2% of mercury not caught by dredging, then what about the 100% of mercury being moved during the rainy season?

Any numbers and studies from dredging mercury that are to be taken into consideration for this permit must be juxtaposed against data from studies of mercury’s natural movement in the environment.

Where are the details about how much mercury is being moved by nature every year regardless of dredging or not?