This is the website for information on the Ca. Bill AB 2032 and the anaysis of the bill (intent) also has a list of the assembly addresses and phone numbers. We need to read the analysis and the Bill and call and right the assembly people voicing our opposition or there will not be a safe river in the whole state and may be picked up by other states.
Just type in AB 1032 in the box requesting the Bill number
http://www.assembly.ca.gov/acs/acsframeset2text.htm
Jerry
Full Version: AB 1032 info Dredging
Colorado Prospector - Gem and mineral prospecting and mining forums > Land Rights, Laws and References > Fight For Your Rights!
BILL ANALYSIS
AB 1032
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 10, 2007
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON WATER, PARKS AND WILDLIFE
Lois Wolk, Chair
AB 1032 (Wolk) - As Amended: March 27, 2007
SUBJECT : Dredging; Native trout and aquatic species
SUMMARY : Provides that waters designated as wild and heritage
trout waters shall be closed to suction gold dredging, except as
authorized by permit approved by the Fish and Game Commission,
and expands the Department of Fish and Game's (DFG) authority to
close other waters to suction dredging when necessary to protect
wild trout or other sensitive native aquatic or amphibian
species. Specifically, this bill :
1)Clarifies that it is unlawful to possess a vacuum or suction
dredge in or within 100 yards of waters that are closed to the
use of vacuum or suction dredges, including but not limited to
waters closed by DFG pursuant to Section 5653.7 of the Fish
and Game Code.
2)Provides that waters designated as wild and heritage trout
waters shall be closed to suction dredging, except as
authorized by permit approved by the Commission. Provides
that the commission shall not approve a permit for dredging in
designated waters unless it finds that the dredging operation
will not be deleterious to wild trout and steelhead stocks, or
to other native aquatic or amphibian species known to exist in
the designated waters, that are listed as threatened or
endangered or have been identified by DFG as species of
special concern.
3)Authorizes DFG to close other waters to dredging if it
determines that closure is necessary to protect fish and
wildlife resources, including native aquatic or amphibian
species listed by the commission as threatened or endangered,
or as species of special concern.
EXISTING LAW : Prohibits the use of vacuum or suction dredges
except as authorized by a permit issued by DFG in compliance
with DFG regulations. Requires DFG to adopt regulations
governing use of vacuum or suction dredging equipment, including
the maximum size of and time of year when dredges may be used.
Authorizes DFG to close streams otherwise open to dredging if
AB 1032
Page 2
there is an unanticipated water level change and DFG determines
that closure is necessary to protect fish and wildlife
resources. Suction gold dredging is also subject to other laws,
including but not limited to provisions of the Clean Water Act
administered by the Corps of Engineers and the State Water
Resources Control Board.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS :
1)Background : Vacuum and suction gold dredging is a process by
which power equipment is used to vacuum up sediment from the
streambeds of rivers, creeks or other water bodies to search
for gold. Typically the streambed material is sucked up a
pipe, passed over a sluice box to sort out the gold, and
discarded as tailings over another area of the streambed.
This process alters the streambed and can be harmful to fish
and wildlife, particularly during times of year when fish are
spawning or amphibian species are laying eggs, incubating
embryos or rearing tadpoles. Studies completed by DFG and
others indicate that these activities may have a deleterious
impact on native aquatic species such as wild trout and
yellow-legged frogs. A 1999 study conducted by the U.S.
Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, and
published in the North American Journal of Fisheries
Management found that dredging during summer may affect the
reproductive success of fall-spawning fishes such as Chinook
salmon, and that dredging could have significant consequences
for survival of Chinook salmon eggs and embryos. The study
recommended fisheries managers consider the potential negative
effects of dredge tailings on the spawning success of
fall-spawning fish, such as Chinook and Coho salmon. A
similar study, also conducted by the U.S. Forest Service found
that fishery managers should be especially concerned when
dredging coincides with the incubation of embryos in stream
gravels or precedes spawning runs soon followed by high flows.
The study recommended that managers carefully analyze each
watershed so requirements can be tailored to particular
locations. The study also recommended ongoing monitoring and
adaptive management strategies based on new information, and
recommended that where threatened or endangered aquatic
species inhabit dredged areas, fisheries managers would be
prudent to suspect that dredging is harmful to aquatic
species.
AB 1032
Page 3
A third study conducted by DFG biologists in 1998 on the North
Fork of the American River observed significant numbers of
foothill yellow-legged frogs in the North Fork and in Brushy
Creek, a tributary of the river. This species is a
fully-protected species and a federal Species of Special
Concern. The study found that the channel of the river was
disturbed in numerous areas by suction dredge activities, and
cautioned that, particularly in below normal water years,
low flows will reduce suitable habitat and force frogs into
areas where suction dredge activities are taking place during
breeding and rearing periods. The study concluded that
disruption of channel bedload in breeding and rearing areas
will have an adverse effect upon the species. The study
recommended that a cautious approach be taken when considering
allowing suction dredge activities that may adversely affect
these and other sensitive species. In 2006 DFG entered into a
proposed settlement agreement with the Karuk Indian tribe to
settle a lawsuit the Tribe brought challenging the adequacy of
the department's instream mining regulations. The Karuk Tribe
alleged that the regulations do not adequately protect runs of
Coho salmon and other state endangered species in the Klamath,
Scott and Salmon Rivers and adjacent tributary streams from
vacuum or suction dredging activities conducted by
recreational gold miners. The court's order in the case
notes that declarations filed with the court state that in the
opinion of DFG, suction dredge mining in those watersheds is
resulting in deleterious effects on the Coho salmon, as the
Tribe alleged.
2)Changes Proposed in this bill : Current law allows DFG to
close streams that were previously open to vacuum or suction
dredging if there is an unanticipated change in water level.
This bill would authorize DFG to take action to close streams,
irrespective of whether there is a change in water level, if
the department determines that closure is necessary to protect
fish and wildlife resources, including sensitive native
aquatic or amphibian species. The bill, which grants DFG this
authority notwithstanding other provisions of law, would allow
DFG to take timely action to close streams to suction dredging
to prevent take of listed species or prevent harm to native
trout and other sensitive species, without having to go
through the lengthy process of adopting regulations under the
Administrative Procedures Act. The bill also creates a
presumption that waters designated as wild and heritage trout
AB 1032
Page 4
waters are closed to suction dredging, except as authorized by
permit approved by the commission, and prohibits the
commission from approving a permit unless it finds that the
dredging operation will not be deleterious to wild trout or
other listed species known to exist in those waters.
3)Native Trout and Amphibians at risk : In the summer of 2006,
scientists and international amphibian experts issued an
alert, published in the journal Science, raising concerns
about worldwide threats to amphibians as a class of species.
The report notes that amphibians are considered indicator
species due to their permeable skin that absorbs water and
oxygen. A third of amphibian species worldwide are known to
be threatened with extinction due to habitat loss, pollution,
climate change and invasive species. The importance of
amphibians to the ecosystem include their consumption of
insect pests, their role in the food web, and the importance
of frog secretions for biomedicine and biotechnology.
Native trout can also be important indicator species, and are
considered by ecologists as keystone species for particular
watersheds, since if they die off they leave a critical gap in
the ecosystem that can not be filled by other species. Of
California's ten native trout species, the most at risk are
the paiute cutthroat trout, the rarest trout in California,
and the California Golden trout, a state endemic species of
special concern that is also California's state fish.
4)Support : Supporters of this bill state that DFG should have
flexibility to close waters to suction mining to prevent harm
to threatened or endangered species. California Trout notes
that research studies have shown that suction dredging for
gold can adversely affect or harm both the reproduction of
spawning fish and rearing habitat for juvenile fish,
particularly trout and salmon. For this reason, instream
mining activities should only be allowed on Wild and Heritage
Trout waters on a case-by-case basis when the Fish and Game
Commission finds that mining would not be deleterious to
sensitive species. The California Outdoor Heritage Alliance
notes that significant impacts to fish and wildlife resources
can occur in the absence of water level fluctuations, and that
the modest regulatory changes in this bill will help ensure
fish and wildlife resources are protected.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
AB 1032
Page 5
Support
California Trout
California Outdoor Heritage Alliance
Friends of the River
Karuk Tribe of California
Opposition
None on file.
Analysis Prepared by : Diane Colborn / W., P. & W. / (916)
319-2096
AB 1032
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 10, 2007
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON WATER, PARKS AND WILDLIFE
Lois Wolk, Chair
AB 1032 (Wolk) - As Amended: March 27, 2007
SUBJECT : Dredging; Native trout and aquatic species
SUMMARY : Provides that waters designated as wild and heritage
trout waters shall be closed to suction gold dredging, except as
authorized by permit approved by the Fish and Game Commission,
and expands the Department of Fish and Game's (DFG) authority to
close other waters to suction dredging when necessary to protect
wild trout or other sensitive native aquatic or amphibian
species. Specifically, this bill :
1)Clarifies that it is unlawful to possess a vacuum or suction
dredge in or within 100 yards of waters that are closed to the
use of vacuum or suction dredges, including but not limited to
waters closed by DFG pursuant to Section 5653.7 of the Fish
and Game Code.
2)Provides that waters designated as wild and heritage trout
waters shall be closed to suction dredging, except as
authorized by permit approved by the Commission. Provides
that the commission shall not approve a permit for dredging in
designated waters unless it finds that the dredging operation
will not be deleterious to wild trout and steelhead stocks, or
to other native aquatic or amphibian species known to exist in
the designated waters, that are listed as threatened or
endangered or have been identified by DFG as species of
special concern.
3)Authorizes DFG to close other waters to dredging if it
determines that closure is necessary to protect fish and
wildlife resources, including native aquatic or amphibian
species listed by the commission as threatened or endangered,
or as species of special concern.
EXISTING LAW : Prohibits the use of vacuum or suction dredges
except as authorized by a permit issued by DFG in compliance
with DFG regulations. Requires DFG to adopt regulations
governing use of vacuum or suction dredging equipment, including
the maximum size of and time of year when dredges may be used.
Authorizes DFG to close streams otherwise open to dredging if
AB 1032
Page 2
there is an unanticipated water level change and DFG determines
that closure is necessary to protect fish and wildlife
resources. Suction gold dredging is also subject to other laws,
including but not limited to provisions of the Clean Water Act
administered by the Corps of Engineers and the State Water
Resources Control Board.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS :
1)Background : Vacuum and suction gold dredging is a process by
which power equipment is used to vacuum up sediment from the
streambeds of rivers, creeks or other water bodies to search
for gold. Typically the streambed material is sucked up a
pipe, passed over a sluice box to sort out the gold, and
discarded as tailings over another area of the streambed.
This process alters the streambed and can be harmful to fish
and wildlife, particularly during times of year when fish are
spawning or amphibian species are laying eggs, incubating
embryos or rearing tadpoles. Studies completed by DFG and
others indicate that these activities may have a deleterious
impact on native aquatic species such as wild trout and
yellow-legged frogs. A 1999 study conducted by the U.S.
Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, and
published in the North American Journal of Fisheries
Management found that dredging during summer may affect the
reproductive success of fall-spawning fishes such as Chinook
salmon, and that dredging could have significant consequences
for survival of Chinook salmon eggs and embryos. The study
recommended fisheries managers consider the potential negative
effects of dredge tailings on the spawning success of
fall-spawning fish, such as Chinook and Coho salmon. A
similar study, also conducted by the U.S. Forest Service found
that fishery managers should be especially concerned when
dredging coincides with the incubation of embryos in stream
gravels or precedes spawning runs soon followed by high flows.
The study recommended that managers carefully analyze each
watershed so requirements can be tailored to particular
locations. The study also recommended ongoing monitoring and
adaptive management strategies based on new information, and
recommended that where threatened or endangered aquatic
species inhabit dredged areas, fisheries managers would be
prudent to suspect that dredging is harmful to aquatic
species.
AB 1032
Page 3
A third study conducted by DFG biologists in 1998 on the North
Fork of the American River observed significant numbers of
foothill yellow-legged frogs in the North Fork and in Brushy
Creek, a tributary of the river. This species is a
fully-protected species and a federal Species of Special
Concern. The study found that the channel of the river was
disturbed in numerous areas by suction dredge activities, and
cautioned that, particularly in below normal water years,
low flows will reduce suitable habitat and force frogs into
areas where suction dredge activities are taking place during
breeding and rearing periods. The study concluded that
disruption of channel bedload in breeding and rearing areas
will have an adverse effect upon the species. The study
recommended that a cautious approach be taken when considering
allowing suction dredge activities that may adversely affect
these and other sensitive species. In 2006 DFG entered into a
proposed settlement agreement with the Karuk Indian tribe to
settle a lawsuit the Tribe brought challenging the adequacy of
the department's instream mining regulations. The Karuk Tribe
alleged that the regulations do not adequately protect runs of
Coho salmon and other state endangered species in the Klamath,
Scott and Salmon Rivers and adjacent tributary streams from
vacuum or suction dredging activities conducted by
recreational gold miners. The court's order in the case
notes that declarations filed with the court state that in the
opinion of DFG, suction dredge mining in those watersheds is
resulting in deleterious effects on the Coho salmon, as the
Tribe alleged.
2)Changes Proposed in this bill : Current law allows DFG to
close streams that were previously open to vacuum or suction
dredging if there is an unanticipated change in water level.
This bill would authorize DFG to take action to close streams,
irrespective of whether there is a change in water level, if
the department determines that closure is necessary to protect
fish and wildlife resources, including sensitive native
aquatic or amphibian species. The bill, which grants DFG this
authority notwithstanding other provisions of law, would allow
DFG to take timely action to close streams to suction dredging
to prevent take of listed species or prevent harm to native
trout and other sensitive species, without having to go
through the lengthy process of adopting regulations under the
Administrative Procedures Act. The bill also creates a
presumption that waters designated as wild and heritage trout
AB 1032
Page 4
waters are closed to suction dredging, except as authorized by
permit approved by the commission, and prohibits the
commission from approving a permit unless it finds that the
dredging operation will not be deleterious to wild trout or
other listed species known to exist in those waters.
3)Native Trout and Amphibians at risk : In the summer of 2006,
scientists and international amphibian experts issued an
alert, published in the journal Science, raising concerns
about worldwide threats to amphibians as a class of species.
The report notes that amphibians are considered indicator
species due to their permeable skin that absorbs water and
oxygen. A third of amphibian species worldwide are known to
be threatened with extinction due to habitat loss, pollution,
climate change and invasive species. The importance of
amphibians to the ecosystem include their consumption of
insect pests, their role in the food web, and the importance
of frog secretions for biomedicine and biotechnology.
Native trout can also be important indicator species, and are
considered by ecologists as keystone species for particular
watersheds, since if they die off they leave a critical gap in
the ecosystem that can not be filled by other species. Of
California's ten native trout species, the most at risk are
the paiute cutthroat trout, the rarest trout in California,
and the California Golden trout, a state endemic species of
special concern that is also California's state fish.
4)Support : Supporters of this bill state that DFG should have
flexibility to close waters to suction mining to prevent harm
to threatened or endangered species. California Trout notes
that research studies have shown that suction dredging for
gold can adversely affect or harm both the reproduction of
spawning fish and rearing habitat for juvenile fish,
particularly trout and salmon. For this reason, instream
mining activities should only be allowed on Wild and Heritage
Trout waters on a case-by-case basis when the Fish and Game
Commission finds that mining would not be deleterious to
sensitive species. The California Outdoor Heritage Alliance
notes that significant impacts to fish and wildlife resources
can occur in the absence of water level fluctuations, and that
the modest regulatory changes in this bill will help ensure
fish and wildlife resources are protected.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
AB 1032
Page 5
Support
California Trout
California Outdoor Heritage Alliance
Friends of the River
Karuk Tribe of California
Opposition
None on file.
Analysis Prepared by : Diane Colborn / W., P. & W. / (916)
319-2096
Guys and Gals
You need to call these assembly people and follow up with letters on theis Bill AB 1032. Click on the link on my first post and you can get the names and numbers of the assembly people to contact them. Even better be sure to get your clubs to get in touch by phone and mail to get on the opposotion list.
I will post some talking points tomarrow
Jerry
You need to call these assembly people and follow up with letters on theis Bill AB 1032. Click on the link on my first post and you can get the names and numbers of the assembly people to contact them. Even better be sure to get your clubs to get in touch by phone and mail to get on the opposotion list.
I will post some talking points tomarrow
Jerry
Please call and right these assembly people and voice your opposotion to Assembly Bill AB 1032, even if you are out of state. It is important to get your and others Clubs to call and voice their opposition and get on the opposing list.
Jerry
Assembly Member Roster
Member Name Party District Capitol Phone Room No. E-mail
Adams, Anthony Rep 59th (916) 319-2059 Room 4015
Aghazarian, Greg Rep 26th (916) 319-2026 Room 4167 comments
Anderson, Joel Rep 77th (916) 319-2077 Room 2111
Arambula, Juan Dem 31st (916) 319-2031 Room 2141
Bass, Karen Dem 47th (916) 319-2047 Room 319
Beall, Jim Jr. Dem 24th (916) 319-2024 Room 5016
Benoit, John J. Rep 64th (916) 319-2064 Room 4144
Berg, Patty Dem 1st (916) 319-2001 Room 4146 comments
Berryhill, Tom Rep 25th (916) 319-2025 Room 4116
Blakeslee, Sam Rep 33rd (916) 319-2033 Room 4117
Brownley, Julia Dem 41st (916) 319-2041 Room 6011
Caballero, Anna M. Dem 28th (916) 319-2028 Room 3132
Calderon, Charles M. Dem 58th (916) 319-2058 Room 2117
Carter, Wilmer Amina Dem 62nd (916) 319-2062 Room 2175
Cook, Paul Rep 65th (916) 319-2065 Room 5126 comments
Coto, Joe Dem 23rd (916) 319-2023 Room 2013
Davis, Mike Dem 48th (916) 319-2048 Room 2160
De La Torre, Hector Dem 50th (916) 319-2050 Room 3173
de Leon, Kevin Dem 45th (916) 319-2045 Room 4140
DeSaulnier, Mark Dem 11 th (916) 319-2011 Room 4162
DeVore, Chuck Rep 70th (916) 319-2070 Room 4102
Duvall, Michael D. Rep 72nd (916) 319-2072 Room 4177 comments
Dymally, Mervyn M. Dem 52nd (916) 319-2052 Room 6005
Emmerson, Bill Rep 63rd (916) 319-2063 Room 4158
Eng, Mike Dem 49th (916) 319-2049 Room 6025
Evans, Noreen Dem 7th (916) 319-2007 Room 3152
Feuer, Mike Dem 42nd (916) 319-2042 Room 4005
Fuller, Jean Rep 32nd (916) 319-2032 Room 3098
Gaines, Ted Rep 4th (916) 319-2004 Room 2002
Galgiani, Cathleen Dem 17th (916) 319-2017 Room 2170
Garcia, Bonnie Rep 80th (916) 319-2080 Room 4009
Garrick, Martin Rep 74th (916) 319-2074 Room 2016
Hancock, Loni Dem 14th (916) 319-2014 Room 4126
Hayashi, Mary Dem 18th (916) 319-2018 Room 2188
Hernandez, Edward P. Dem 57th (916) 319-2057 Room 4112
Horton, Shirley Rep 78th (916) 319-2078 Room 2174
Houston, Guy S. Rep 15th (916) 319-2015 Room 2130
Huff, Bob Rep 60th (916) 319-2060 Room 4098 comments
Huffman, Jared Dem 6th (916) 319-2006 Room 4139 comments
Jeffries, Kevin Rep 66th (916) 319-2066 Room 5128
Jones, Dave Dem 9th (916) 319-2009 Room 3146
Karnette, Betty Dem 54th (916) 319-2054 Room 2136
Keene, Rick Rep 3rd (916) 319-2003 Room 2158
Krekorian, Paul Dem 43rd (916) 319-2043 Room 5135
Laird, John Dem 27th (916) 319-2027 Room 6026
La Malfa, Doug Rep 2nd (916) 319-2002 Room 4164
Leno, Mark Dem 13 th (916) 319-2013 Room 2114
Levine, Lloyd E. Dem 40th (916) 319-2040 Room 5136
Lieber, Sally J. Dem 22nd (916) 319-2022 Room 3013
Lieu, Ted W. Dem 53rd (916) 319-2053 Room 4016
Ma, Fiona Dem 12 th (916) 319-2012 Room 2176
Maze, Bill Rep 34th (916) 319-2034 Room 5160
Mendoza, Tony Dem 56th (916) 319-2056 Room 5144 comments
Mullin, Gene Dem 19th (916) 319-2019 Room 2163
Nakanishi, Alan Rep 10th (916) 319-2010 Room 5175
Nava, Pedro Dem 35th (916) 319-2035 Room 2148
Niello, Roger Rep 5th (916) 319-2005 Room 6027
Núñez, Fabian Dem 46th (916) 319-2046 Room 219
Parra, Nicole Dem 30th (916) 319-2030 Room 5155
Plescia, George A. Rep 75th (916) 319-2075 Room 3141
Portantino, Anthony J. Dem 44th (916) 319-2044 Room 2003
Price, Curren D. Jr. Dem 51st (916) 319-2051 Room 2179
Richardson, Laura Dem 55th (916) 319-2055 Room 3126
Runner, Sharon Rep 36th (916) 319-2036 Room 5158
Ruskin, Ira Dem 21st (916) 319-2021 Room 3123
Salas, Mary Dem 79th (916) 319-2079 Room 2137
Saldaña, Lori Dem 76th (916) 319-2076 Room 5150
Silva, Jim Rep 67th (916) 319-2067 Room 3149 comments
Smyth, Cameron Rep 38th (916) 319-2038 Room 4153 comments
Solorio, Jose Dem 69th (916) 319-2069 Room 2196
Soto, Nell Dem 61st (916) 319-2061 Room 3091
Spitzer, Todd Rep 71st (916) 319-2071 Room 5164
Strickland, Audra Rep 37th (916) 319-2037 Room 4208
Swanson, Sandre R. Dem 16th (916) 319-2016 Room 6012
Torrico, Alberto Dem 20th (916) 319-2020 Room 3160
Tran, Van Rep 68th (916) 319-2068 Room 4130
Villines, Michael N. Rep 29th (916) 319-2029 Room 3104
Walters, Mimi Rep 73rd 916) 319-2073 Room 6031
Wolk, Lois Dem 8th (916) 319-2008 Room 3120
Vacant N/A 39th
Jerry
Assembly Member Roster
Member Name Party District Capitol Phone Room No. E-mail
Adams, Anthony Rep 59th (916) 319-2059 Room 4015
Aghazarian, Greg Rep 26th (916) 319-2026 Room 4167 comments
Anderson, Joel Rep 77th (916) 319-2077 Room 2111
Arambula, Juan Dem 31st (916) 319-2031 Room 2141
Bass, Karen Dem 47th (916) 319-2047 Room 319
Beall, Jim Jr. Dem 24th (916) 319-2024 Room 5016
Benoit, John J. Rep 64th (916) 319-2064 Room 4144
Berg, Patty Dem 1st (916) 319-2001 Room 4146 comments
Berryhill, Tom Rep 25th (916) 319-2025 Room 4116
Blakeslee, Sam Rep 33rd (916) 319-2033 Room 4117
Brownley, Julia Dem 41st (916) 319-2041 Room 6011
Caballero, Anna M. Dem 28th (916) 319-2028 Room 3132
Calderon, Charles M. Dem 58th (916) 319-2058 Room 2117
Carter, Wilmer Amina Dem 62nd (916) 319-2062 Room 2175
Cook, Paul Rep 65th (916) 319-2065 Room 5126 comments
Coto, Joe Dem 23rd (916) 319-2023 Room 2013
Davis, Mike Dem 48th (916) 319-2048 Room 2160
De La Torre, Hector Dem 50th (916) 319-2050 Room 3173
de Leon, Kevin Dem 45th (916) 319-2045 Room 4140
DeSaulnier, Mark Dem 11 th (916) 319-2011 Room 4162
DeVore, Chuck Rep 70th (916) 319-2070 Room 4102
Duvall, Michael D. Rep 72nd (916) 319-2072 Room 4177 comments
Dymally, Mervyn M. Dem 52nd (916) 319-2052 Room 6005
Emmerson, Bill Rep 63rd (916) 319-2063 Room 4158
Eng, Mike Dem 49th (916) 319-2049 Room 6025
Evans, Noreen Dem 7th (916) 319-2007 Room 3152
Feuer, Mike Dem 42nd (916) 319-2042 Room 4005
Fuller, Jean Rep 32nd (916) 319-2032 Room 3098
Gaines, Ted Rep 4th (916) 319-2004 Room 2002
Galgiani, Cathleen Dem 17th (916) 319-2017 Room 2170
Garcia, Bonnie Rep 80th (916) 319-2080 Room 4009
Garrick, Martin Rep 74th (916) 319-2074 Room 2016
Hancock, Loni Dem 14th (916) 319-2014 Room 4126
Hayashi, Mary Dem 18th (916) 319-2018 Room 2188
Hernandez, Edward P. Dem 57th (916) 319-2057 Room 4112
Horton, Shirley Rep 78th (916) 319-2078 Room 2174
Houston, Guy S. Rep 15th (916) 319-2015 Room 2130
Huff, Bob Rep 60th (916) 319-2060 Room 4098 comments
Huffman, Jared Dem 6th (916) 319-2006 Room 4139 comments
Jeffries, Kevin Rep 66th (916) 319-2066 Room 5128
Jones, Dave Dem 9th (916) 319-2009 Room 3146
Karnette, Betty Dem 54th (916) 319-2054 Room 2136
Keene, Rick Rep 3rd (916) 319-2003 Room 2158
Krekorian, Paul Dem 43rd (916) 319-2043 Room 5135
Laird, John Dem 27th (916) 319-2027 Room 6026
La Malfa, Doug Rep 2nd (916) 319-2002 Room 4164
Leno, Mark Dem 13 th (916) 319-2013 Room 2114
Levine, Lloyd E. Dem 40th (916) 319-2040 Room 5136
Lieber, Sally J. Dem 22nd (916) 319-2022 Room 3013
Lieu, Ted W. Dem 53rd (916) 319-2053 Room 4016
Ma, Fiona Dem 12 th (916) 319-2012 Room 2176
Maze, Bill Rep 34th (916) 319-2034 Room 5160
Mendoza, Tony Dem 56th (916) 319-2056 Room 5144 comments
Mullin, Gene Dem 19th (916) 319-2019 Room 2163
Nakanishi, Alan Rep 10th (916) 319-2010 Room 5175
Nava, Pedro Dem 35th (916) 319-2035 Room 2148
Niello, Roger Rep 5th (916) 319-2005 Room 6027
Núñez, Fabian Dem 46th (916) 319-2046 Room 219
Parra, Nicole Dem 30th (916) 319-2030 Room 5155
Plescia, George A. Rep 75th (916) 319-2075 Room 3141
Portantino, Anthony J. Dem 44th (916) 319-2044 Room 2003
Price, Curren D. Jr. Dem 51st (916) 319-2051 Room 2179
Richardson, Laura Dem 55th (916) 319-2055 Room 3126
Runner, Sharon Rep 36th (916) 319-2036 Room 5158
Ruskin, Ira Dem 21st (916) 319-2021 Room 3123
Salas, Mary Dem 79th (916) 319-2079 Room 2137
Saldaña, Lori Dem 76th (916) 319-2076 Room 5150
Silva, Jim Rep 67th (916) 319-2067 Room 3149 comments
Smyth, Cameron Rep 38th (916) 319-2038 Room 4153 comments
Solorio, Jose Dem 69th (916) 319-2069 Room 2196
Soto, Nell Dem 61st (916) 319-2061 Room 3091
Spitzer, Todd Rep 71st (916) 319-2071 Room 5164
Strickland, Audra Rep 37th (916) 319-2037 Room 4208
Swanson, Sandre R. Dem 16th (916) 319-2016 Room 6012
Torrico, Alberto Dem 20th (916) 319-2020 Room 3160
Tran, Van Rep 68th (916) 319-2068 Room 4130
Villines, Michael N. Rep 29th (916) 319-2029 Room 3104
Walters, Mimi Rep 73rd 916) 319-2073 Room 6031
Wolk, Lois Dem 8th (916) 319-2008 Room 3120
Vacant N/A 39th
Here are some talking points for your calls and letters to the Assembly preople listed above if this bill passes. Please use them.
jerry
1. Violating California Constitution, Declaration of Rights, Article 1, sec. 1, Takings with out compenstion.
2. Violation of the California Environmental Protection Act, by not allowing the public to participate in the Agency rule making proccess.
3. Violation of the Admininstrative procedures Act, not allowing the public to participate in agency rule making proccess.
4. Discrimination of one user group, Equal protection under the law. If one goes all should go
5. Dashes the great American Dream and Heritage of todays citizens and those of tomorrow, the lure of Gold
6. Destroys the intent and heritage of California the named the (GOLDEN STATE)
7. Violates the citizens expectation to Due Proccess in being part of the government rule making proccess. Citizens are the government
jerry
1. Violating California Constitution, Declaration of Rights, Article 1, sec. 1, Takings with out compenstion.
2. Violation of the California Environmental Protection Act, by not allowing the public to participate in the Agency rule making proccess.
3. Violation of the Admininstrative procedures Act, not allowing the public to participate in agency rule making proccess.
4. Discrimination of one user group, Equal protection under the law. If one goes all should go
5. Dashes the great American Dream and Heritage of todays citizens and those of tomorrow, the lure of Gold
6. Destroys the intent and heritage of California the named the (GOLDEN STATE)
7. Violates the citizens expectation to Due Proccess in being part of the government rule making proccess. Citizens are the government
The LINK below is where your contact Assembly Legislators on the Appropriations Committee. Thei is the next Committee that AB 1032 goes to, on May 25, 2007.
You will want to send your letters and emails to these committe members, voicing your opposition to this bill. Again it is very important to get your Clubs and Organizations to write this committee letters opposing and asking to be listed as appossing of this bill.Send the letter or email to all on the list in the link below.
http://www.assembly.ca.gov/acs/newco...p?committee=43
Also the mailing address is:
Assembly persons name
Calif. State Assembly
Appropriation Committee
P.O. Box 942849
Sacramento Ca. 94249-0000
You will want to send your letters and emails to these committe members, voicing your opposition to this bill. Again it is very important to get your Clubs and Organizations to write this committee letters opposing and asking to be listed as appossing of this bill.Send the letter or email to all on the list in the link below.
http://www.assembly.ca.gov/acs/newco...p?committee=43
Also the mailing address is:
Assembly persons name
Calif. State Assembly
Appropriation Committee
P.O. Box 942849
Sacramento Ca. 94249-0000
In checking the Ca. Assembly website to night it looks as though the AB 1032 Bill passed the Appropriations Committe today with a vote of 10 to 2. I will know more about it and where it goes from this point on, tomorrow
Jerry
Jerry
In talking to Assembly LaMalfa's office this morning, I have been informed that the Bill AB 1032 will go to the Floor ( that is full Assembly, 80 members) some time next week. They can give no firm date. Then to the Senate side if it is passed.
I was also told that the only way to stop this is with more letters and losts of phone calls to all of the Assemble members. We will have to go back to the assembly web page to get names address's and phone numbers and
start doing our thing.
Please get to work.
Jerry
I was also told that the only way to stop this is with more letters and losts of phone calls to all of the Assemble members. We will have to go back to the assembly web page to get names address's and phone numbers and
start doing our thing.
Please get to work.
Jerry
In Checking the CA. Assembly websitethis morning, I find this posted on AB 1032
"LAST HIST. ACT. DATE: 04/26/2007
LAST HIST. ACTION : From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended. (Ayes
11. Noes 3.) (April 25).
FILE : ASM SECOND READING
FILE DATE : 04/30/2007
ITEM : 50
COMM. LOCATION : ASM APPROPRIATIONS
COMM. ACTION DATE : 04/25/2007
COMM. ACTION : Do pass as amended.
COMM. VOTE SUMMARY : Ayes: 11 Noes: 03 PASS
TITLE : An act to amend Section 5653 of, and to amend, repeal,
and add Section 5653.7 of, the Fish and Game Code,
relating to fish and wildlife.
This means that the Bill is on super fast track as the bill went to full committee the day after appropriations and was passed, even though I was informed that teh Bill would not be passed.
This will now go directly to the Ca. State Senate and go through the same proccess as it did in the Assembly. Letters should now go to the Senate side of the isle and definetly to the Governer..
I for one see that our biggest opportunity to stop this bill is see that the governer is aware that this bill is comming his way and see that he undersatand the ramifications of signing this bell and to ask him not to sign it into law.
Nobody said this was going to be a walk in the park
Jerry
"LAST HIST. ACT. DATE: 04/26/2007
LAST HIST. ACTION : From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended. (Ayes
11. Noes 3.) (April 25).
FILE : ASM SECOND READING
FILE DATE : 04/30/2007
ITEM : 50
COMM. LOCATION : ASM APPROPRIATIONS
COMM. ACTION DATE : 04/25/2007
COMM. ACTION : Do pass as amended.
COMM. VOTE SUMMARY : Ayes: 11 Noes: 03 PASS
TITLE : An act to amend Section 5653 of, and to amend, repeal,
and add Section 5653.7 of, the Fish and Game Code,
relating to fish and wildlife.
This means that the Bill is on super fast track as the bill went to full committee the day after appropriations and was passed, even though I was informed that teh Bill would not be passed.
This will now go directly to the Ca. State Senate and go through the same proccess as it did in the Assembly. Letters should now go to the Senate side of the isle and definetly to the Governer..
I for one see that our biggest opportunity to stop this bill is see that the governer is aware that this bill is comming his way and see that he undersatand the ramifications of signing this bell and to ask him not to sign it into law.
Nobody said this was going to be a walk in the park
Jerry
Come on ya'll.......lets get to work. PLP has asked all of us to help out.......and you can.
Take the time to read up on this and see what you think......but do it now! DO NOT HESITATE!
This kind of stuff is going on reapeatedly all across our great nation and IT DOES AFFECT YOUR LIFE LOCALLY!
As you read, you start finding the bs buried within.......
Is there any science behind their claims of dredging causing harm and destruction?!
Once again it seems that the authorities involved are either part of the problem (envirowingism) or don't care to perform their given jobs well enough to notice the bamboozelment being offered for dinner!!!!!
Here's what I came up with in my reading and research.
First off.....what's deleterious?
deleterious \del-uh-TIR-ee-us\, adjective:
Harmful; destructive; pernicious.
We all know that our activities, (small scale dredging/highbanking) are not "deleterious" to fish when activities are performed properly of course, taking into account the actual spawning season or precautions such as settling ponds for highbankers.
Many of us have discussed this very topic in the past and I will get back to the fact we do not hurt fish shortly.......
Next I noticed while reading ......the bill reads.........
The bill, which grants DFG this
authority notwithstanding other provisions of law, would allow
DFG to take timely action to close streams to suction dredging
to prevent take of listed species or prevent harm to native
trout and other sensitive species, without having to go
through the lengthy process of adopting regulations under the
Administrative Procedures Act.
Notwithstanding other provisions of law?.......So I as a citizen take that to mean that any other exsisting law that states differently pre-empts this one? (particularly any delegating specific authorities.)
The bill also mentions, vaguely, several "studies", but fail to mention exactly which they are quoting from. Don't ya' just love how they manage to forget the little tidbits.
Well here are a couple I figure are likely being used....do not know for sure but here are the studies....you decide.
This first one was done by a private firm for the USACE in San Fransico Bay. (large suction dredge) It's quoted often by the CDF&G though!
Private Firm Dredge Study-San Fransico Bay
Here's another "study" from again a private firm and it is their enviromental evaluation report for a project in California. Again....I am not sure if this one is one they are quoting this time but thought I would put a link in anyway.
Private firms enviromental evalutaion on project
Big dredge studies are great info to have......but the envirowingism groups are using these "studies", and or many others, in the courts as their "proof" that we will cause harm.
Whether it's true or not doesn't seem to be a factor in courts.
The other "study" I think they(environuts) are quoting now and have many times in the past is the FS report done by Harvey in 1999.
If you have not yet read this one, you should....very interesting.
And from here we will work back toward the fish and being harmful to them or not.
Ok, so we aren't lawyers (well most of us aren't) and most of us are not fish bioligists either.
Anyone know what scour is? How about redds.....what defines those?
Hmmmmmmmmmm...........
Well we kinda need to know those things as you see reading all this stuff.......because we are apparently destroying these and changing the entire ecosystem with a hand held nozzle!
So.....lets see we need to find some definitions. Here is a link that seems really informative on the topic of spawing salmonid.
Spawing Salmonid
From that page I found several interesting tidbits........
For Coho salmon (often used as the mentioned endangered species) the water depth is an average of 4-8 inches in redds.
Gravel size used for redds will be 5.4 inches or smaller.
And the most noticable tidbit.........TIGHT SEDIMENT IS UNSUITABLE FOR REDDS!
Ok so what is scour then.......this definition can be found in the FS Harvey99 study.
"Net scour is the difference in streambed elevation between the start and the end of the measurement period (assuming elevation decreases)."
As you read through the FS Harvey99 study you will notice the scour period measured was over half a year to cover "high water season" .....not dredging season. They did however study areas that included dredged tailings.
This quote is what they said about redds in the tailings areas.....
Quoting FSHarvey99.....
"Replication ranged from three to seven within a particular combination of stream, year, and substrate (tailings versus natural substrate). In general, replication was limited by the number of redds on tailings. We readily detected redds on
natural substrates because less periphyton covered redd materials compared with the surrounding substrate.
This difference was less apparent for redds on recently created dredge tailings, and low stability of material in tailings often yielded redds
with less strongly mounded tailspills compared with those on natural substrates. For these reasons, redds on tailings were often difficult to identify in
the absence of direct observations of spawning fish. After locating as many redds on tailings as possible, we haphazardly selected an equal number
of redds on natural substrates by making measurements at the first redds we encountered either upstream or downstream of the redds on dredge tailings."
So again, large scale dredge tailings are being studied not anything small scale.
Larger equipment would of course move larger boulders.....and yes more material.
Will your dredge suck up a 5.4 in or bigger rock?
Funny though......I think they stated that they could in fact NOT FIND THE REDDS UNLESS FISH WERE ACTIVELY SPAWING......So they haphazardly chose (guessed) with an average of the closest they could find off the tailings.
Ok so now we have a few more details on what we are supposedly destroying or will destroy.
What I saw was that tight, over compact soils are not suitable for redds.
As well......large boulders in large areas without sediment are also unsuitable. eggs need flowing oxgenated water with garvels to hold the eggs, but yet the sediment needs to be large enough for the fry to swim up and out after hatching.
The female fish when making the redd can only pick up with her tail gravels and sediment up to 10% the size of her body. (no weights of stones were mentioned)
Sediment that is too compacted with what they call fine interstitial sediment- (<0.125mm) will kill the eggs.
So when we dredge.....say it's a 4"....good size right.
We will stir up the fine interstitial sediment- (<0.125mm), collect the heaviest of all sediments and up to 4". So when Mrs. Salmon comes to make a new redd next year she will in fact be able to create a redd much more easily without the fine interstitial sediment- (<0.125mm) and heaviest particles of 4" and under!
These activities of stirring up the finer sediments not only helps the female in creating the redd but will infact insure the stability of the redd through incubation and permit those fry to surface naturally.
Whew!!!!!!!!!
K, I've rambled on for way too long!
Hope this info helps ya'll make your comments.
Do make yours please.......even if you only get through half the list or maybe even only a few on the list......send some!
CP
Take the time to read up on this and see what you think......but do it now! DO NOT HESITATE!
This kind of stuff is going on reapeatedly all across our great nation and IT DOES AFFECT YOUR LIFE LOCALLY!
As you read, you start finding the bs buried within.......
Is there any science behind their claims of dredging causing harm and destruction?!
Once again it seems that the authorities involved are either part of the problem (envirowingism) or don't care to perform their given jobs well enough to notice the bamboozelment being offered for dinner!!!!!
Here's what I came up with in my reading and research.
First off.....what's deleterious?
deleterious \del-uh-TIR-ee-us\, adjective:
Harmful; destructive; pernicious.
We all know that our activities, (small scale dredging/highbanking) are not "deleterious" to fish when activities are performed properly of course, taking into account the actual spawning season or precautions such as settling ponds for highbankers.
Many of us have discussed this very topic in the past and I will get back to the fact we do not hurt fish shortly.......
Next I noticed while reading ......the bill reads.........
The bill, which grants DFG this
authority notwithstanding other provisions of law, would allow
DFG to take timely action to close streams to suction dredging
to prevent take of listed species or prevent harm to native
trout and other sensitive species, without having to go
through the lengthy process of adopting regulations under the
Administrative Procedures Act.
Notwithstanding other provisions of law?.......So I as a citizen take that to mean that any other exsisting law that states differently pre-empts this one? (particularly any delegating specific authorities.)
The bill also mentions, vaguely, several "studies", but fail to mention exactly which they are quoting from. Don't ya' just love how they manage to forget the little tidbits.
Well here are a couple I figure are likely being used....do not know for sure but here are the studies....you decide.
This first one was done by a private firm for the USACE in San Fransico Bay. (large suction dredge) It's quoted often by the CDF&G though!
Private Firm Dredge Study-San Fransico Bay
Here's another "study" from again a private firm and it is their enviromental evaluation report for a project in California. Again....I am not sure if this one is one they are quoting this time but thought I would put a link in anyway.
Private firms enviromental evalutaion on project
Big dredge studies are great info to have......but the envirowingism groups are using these "studies", and or many others, in the courts as their "proof" that we will cause harm.
Whether it's true or not doesn't seem to be a factor in courts.
The other "study" I think they(environuts) are quoting now and have many times in the past is the FS report done by Harvey in 1999.
If you have not yet read this one, you should....very interesting.
And from here we will work back toward the fish and being harmful to them or not.
Ok, so we aren't lawyers (well most of us aren't) and most of us are not fish bioligists either.
Anyone know what scour is? How about redds.....what defines those?
Hmmmmmmmmmm...........
Well we kinda need to know those things as you see reading all this stuff.......because we are apparently destroying these and changing the entire ecosystem with a hand held nozzle!
So.....lets see we need to find some definitions. Here is a link that seems really informative on the topic of spawing salmonid.
Spawing Salmonid
From that page I found several interesting tidbits........
For Coho salmon (often used as the mentioned endangered species) the water depth is an average of 4-8 inches in redds.
Gravel size used for redds will be 5.4 inches or smaller.
And the most noticable tidbit.........TIGHT SEDIMENT IS UNSUITABLE FOR REDDS!
Ok so what is scour then.......this definition can be found in the FS Harvey99 study.
"Net scour is the difference in streambed elevation between the start and the end of the measurement period (assuming elevation decreases)."
As you read through the FS Harvey99 study you will notice the scour period measured was over half a year to cover "high water season" .....not dredging season. They did however study areas that included dredged tailings.
This quote is what they said about redds in the tailings areas.....
Quoting FSHarvey99.....
"Replication ranged from three to seven within a particular combination of stream, year, and substrate (tailings versus natural substrate). In general, replication was limited by the number of redds on tailings. We readily detected redds on
natural substrates because less periphyton covered redd materials compared with the surrounding substrate.
This difference was less apparent for redds on recently created dredge tailings, and low stability of material in tailings often yielded redds
with less strongly mounded tailspills compared with those on natural substrates. For these reasons, redds on tailings were often difficult to identify in
the absence of direct observations of spawning fish. After locating as many redds on tailings as possible, we haphazardly selected an equal number
of redds on natural substrates by making measurements at the first redds we encountered either upstream or downstream of the redds on dredge tailings."
So again, large scale dredge tailings are being studied not anything small scale.
Larger equipment would of course move larger boulders.....and yes more material.
Will your dredge suck up a 5.4 in or bigger rock?
Funny though......I think they stated that they could in fact NOT FIND THE REDDS UNLESS FISH WERE ACTIVELY SPAWING......So they haphazardly chose (guessed) with an average of the closest they could find off the tailings.
Ok so now we have a few more details on what we are supposedly destroying or will destroy.
What I saw was that tight, over compact soils are not suitable for redds.
As well......large boulders in large areas without sediment are also unsuitable. eggs need flowing oxgenated water with garvels to hold the eggs, but yet the sediment needs to be large enough for the fry to swim up and out after hatching.
The female fish when making the redd can only pick up with her tail gravels and sediment up to 10% the size of her body. (no weights of stones were mentioned)
Sediment that is too compacted with what they call fine interstitial sediment- (<0.125mm) will kill the eggs.
So when we dredge.....say it's a 4"....good size right.
We will stir up the fine interstitial sediment- (<0.125mm), collect the heaviest of all sediments and up to 4". So when Mrs. Salmon comes to make a new redd next year she will in fact be able to create a redd much more easily without the fine interstitial sediment- (<0.125mm) and heaviest particles of 4" and under!
These activities of stirring up the finer sediments not only helps the female in creating the redd but will infact insure the stability of the redd through incubation and permit those fry to surface naturally.
Whew!!!!!!!!!
K, I've rambled on for way too long!
Hope this info helps ya'll make your comments.
Do make yours please.......even if you only get through half the list or maybe even only a few on the list......send some!
CP
Since we have a real problem keeping up with AB 1032 because it is moving super fast, it goes from one committee to another and is passed before we can get the stamp on the letter, I suggest the at we try to out maneuver it. Also it appears that many of the legislators do not want to accept anything from anyone that is not in their district, something we should strive to change in the future:
I suggest that we jump ahead of the Bill by doing a mailing to the Floor of the full committee of the Ca. State Senate, This bill goes through other committee’s in the Senate before it goes to the floor and that should give us time to address this Bill to them before it is passes
I also believe it is time to start a mass mailing to the Ca. Governor, Letting him know that this Bill is headed his way and why he should veto the bill and not sign it. It will be important to address the fact that it is coming his way and tell him our reasons for asking him not to sign it. One thing we know is that he does represent all of the citizens of the state even if some of the other legislators believe that they only represent their people in their own District.
It would be possible to get the governor hundreds of emails and letters and a whole lot easier than contacting 40 or 50 other people and it would make a much bigger impact. So please lets start getting the letters to the Governors office ASAP. Start writing today, lets mail those letters. It could be that we have less than 2 weeks before this Bill gets to his desk, especially if the Bill goes through the Senate as fast as it did through the assembly. If you email, print it out and then mail it.
Let’s do it
Jerry
I suggest that we jump ahead of the Bill by doing a mailing to the Floor of the full committee of the Ca. State Senate, This bill goes through other committee’s in the Senate before it goes to the floor and that should give us time to address this Bill to them before it is passes
I also believe it is time to start a mass mailing to the Ca. Governor, Letting him know that this Bill is headed his way and why he should veto the bill and not sign it. It will be important to address the fact that it is coming his way and tell him our reasons for asking him not to sign it. One thing we know is that he does represent all of the citizens of the state even if some of the other legislators believe that they only represent their people in their own District.
It would be possible to get the governor hundreds of emails and letters and a whole lot easier than contacting 40 or 50 other people and it would make a much bigger impact. So please lets start getting the letters to the Governors office ASAP. Start writing today, lets mail those letters. It could be that we have less than 2 weeks before this Bill gets to his desk, especially if the Bill goes through the Senate as fast as it did through the assembly. If you email, print it out and then mail it.
Let’s do it
Jerry
Today at work I spent all day googleing county's that have gold prospecting and mining in them and their county supervisors. Tomorrow I will be calling them and telling them of the economic problems that they will have if this bill AB 1032 passes.
I hope some of you will join me and call some of the county supervisors. Most of them are fairly poor county's and can ill afford to lose the miners and their tourism.
Help
Jerry
I hope some of you will join me and call some of the county supervisors. Most of them are fairly poor county's and can ill afford to lose the miners and their tourism.
Help
Jerry
This is the PLP Notice of Intent to sue the CA. DFG
http://www.plp2.org/forum/showthread.php?t=31&page=2
http://www.plp2.org/forum/showthread.php?t=31&page=2
it seems like the greenies are using the same tactics as the democrats in their approach to trying to give us the boot!
another letter.
PUBLIC LANDS FOR THE PEOPLE INC.
501 C-3 NON PROFIT
7194 CONEJO DR.
SAN BERNARDINO, CA. 92404
909-889-3039
Senate, Vice President
Leland Yee 5/7/07
Senate Office
Capitol Office
Sacramento, Ca. 95814
RE: AB 1032, (Possible Misinterpretations or Misleading Statements in the Analysis) Date of Hearing, 4/25/07, AB 1032 (Wolk) As Amended: 4/16/07
Distinguished Senator, Leland Yee
Part 3 page 2 Attached. ( Recent Lawsuit Settlement) “ In December 2006, The DFG settled with the Karuk Tribe in a case the tribe brought challenging the adequacy of the Departments instream mining regulations. The tribe alleges the regulations do not adequately protect runs of Coho Salmon and other State endangered species on the Klamath, Scott and Salmon Rivers and their tributaries from suction dredging activities conducted by recreational gold miners. The court ordered , as part of the settlement , the DFG to perform a CEQA review of the impact dredging is having on these waters but the DFG indicates it does not have the fiscal resources to comply with this order. In light of this, the court may impose stricter requirements, including the shutdown of the dredging permitting program.”
Public Lands for the People (PLP) and I would like to address areas that may have been misinterpreted or misrepresented. I, as party to the lawsuit have the order in my possession and it is (attached) for review: we see no where in the order that address recreational gold miners. This is important because most of the affected miners in this state have federal mining claims (real property) protected by law and are not recreational.
The second problem we see is the last sentence in part 3 page 2 (Recent Lawsuit settlement) Dec. 2006: “In light of this, the court may impose stricter requirements, including the shutdown of the dredging permitting program.”
PLP and I can find no language in the Court Order that would address this or any other type of closure in the Court Order. This is very important because it makes this AB 1032 appear to be good for the suction dredge community by at least giving them some way to get in the water to dredge their mining claims. This is false and not the case and will keep the miners from dredging their mining claims. In our opinion, it is misleading the State Senate and the State Assembly members and those that are interested in this Bill and will create lawsuits on prohibitions and takings issues from the mining community.
For these reasons we are asking you Senator to put a (stay) on this AB 1032 until it can be reviewed by the California Attorney Generals Office to determine if the original wording of this AB 1032 is the correct interpretation of the Court Order or in fact is in error. At the very least the Legislators should understand the true meaning of the Court Order that is in place against the Ca. Dept. of Fish and Game.
If the Senator does not choose to have this reviewed by the Attorney Generals Office then PLP and I would request that the Senator vote NO on this AB 1032 and encourage the other Senators to vote no as well.
Respectfully Submitted:
Gerald Hobbs
President
Public Lands for the People
Jerhobbs2@aol.com
909-889-3039
CC: Senator, Leland Yee
Senator, Gloria Romero
Senator, Dick Ackerman
PUBLIC LANDS FOR THE PEOPLE INC.
501 C-3 NON PROFIT
7194 CONEJO DR.
SAN BERNARDINO, CA. 92404
909-889-3039
Senate, Vice President
Leland Yee 5/7/07
Senate Office
Capitol Office
Sacramento, Ca. 95814
RE: AB 1032, (Possible Misinterpretations or Misleading Statements in the Analysis) Date of Hearing, 4/25/07, AB 1032 (Wolk) As Amended: 4/16/07
Distinguished Senator, Leland Yee
Part 3 page 2 Attached. ( Recent Lawsuit Settlement) “ In December 2006, The DFG settled with the Karuk Tribe in a case the tribe brought challenging the adequacy of the Departments instream mining regulations. The tribe alleges the regulations do not adequately protect runs of Coho Salmon and other State endangered species on the Klamath, Scott and Salmon Rivers and their tributaries from suction dredging activities conducted by recreational gold miners. The court ordered , as part of the settlement , the DFG to perform a CEQA review of the impact dredging is having on these waters but the DFG indicates it does not have the fiscal resources to comply with this order. In light of this, the court may impose stricter requirements, including the shutdown of the dredging permitting program.”
Public Lands for the People (PLP) and I would like to address areas that may have been misinterpreted or misrepresented. I, as party to the lawsuit have the order in my possession and it is (attached) for review: we see no where in the order that address recreational gold miners. This is important because most of the affected miners in this state have federal mining claims (real property) protected by law and are not recreational.
The second problem we see is the last sentence in part 3 page 2 (Recent Lawsuit settlement) Dec. 2006: “In light of this, the court may impose stricter requirements, including the shutdown of the dredging permitting program.”
PLP and I can find no language in the Court Order that would address this or any other type of closure in the Court Order. This is very important because it makes this AB 1032 appear to be good for the suction dredge community by at least giving them some way to get in the water to dredge their mining claims. This is false and not the case and will keep the miners from dredging their mining claims. In our opinion, it is misleading the State Senate and the State Assembly members and those that are interested in this Bill and will create lawsuits on prohibitions and takings issues from the mining community.
For these reasons we are asking you Senator to put a (stay) on this AB 1032 until it can be reviewed by the California Attorney Generals Office to determine if the original wording of this AB 1032 is the correct interpretation of the Court Order or in fact is in error. At the very least the Legislators should understand the true meaning of the Court Order that is in place against the Ca. Dept. of Fish and Game.
If the Senator does not choose to have this reviewed by the Attorney Generals Office then PLP and I would request that the Senator vote NO on this AB 1032 and encourage the other Senators to vote no as well.
Respectfully Submitted:
Gerald Hobbs
President
Public Lands for the People
Jerhobbs2@aol.com
909-889-3039
CC: Senator, Leland Yee
Senator, Gloria Romero
Senator, Dick Ackerman
it took me all of 15 mins to email all the senators and ole Arnold himself! comeon everyone! we need your help in getting this rectified in our favor and it wont happen without your support! it dont cost a penny to email these people!
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.