Question about the Karuk II case, Here is a question I was asked that I did not know the answer to. I th Options

[wheasonjr]

June 2009
Here is a question I was asked that I did not know the answer to. I think this is a question we do need to be addressing with regards to the Karuk II case. This seems
to be a major part that we may need to defend in this dredging case. If anyone has heard of how
the below information is being addressed in the case I would be interested in knowing it.
Dear Dredging Miners and river prospectors:
If the Tribe wins this case (Karuk II), they can get a permanent injunction against the issuance
of suction dredge mining permits until DFG prepares a new EIR and promulgates new
regulations thereupon. So, I would like to know how we are going to keep the Tribe from
winning this case?
The Tribe named a number of new species, in addition to Coho Salmon, that have been listed
since 1994. They claim that this is all they need to show to win. I checked, there have been a
number of new listings since 1994. So, my questions here are is that all they need to show to get
the permanent injunction and what are we going to argue to counter that?
Yours,
Walter H. Eason, Jr.

[CP]

Hi Carl,

Cool, which topic is that on though and do you have a link to it?
Fish redd substrate in dredge tailings or dredge permits vs fish counts?

Walt is asking for input on how to address the issue so I was merely trying to give some input. The idea is to use the fish habitat they are saying is ruined and proving it has actually improved because of small scale dredging activities.
Doesn't that make sense?

CP