This was posted for comment today 10-19-2007 Lets start getting some comments in on this to the Ca. Department of Fish and Game.
Jerry
Department of Fish and Game —
Public Interest Notice
For Publication October 19, 2007
Notice Soliciting Information Regarding
Suction Dredge Mining
The California Department of Fish and Game (Department)
hereby invites interested public agencies and
members of the public to submit information to the Department
regarding suction dredge mining in California.
The Department is particularly interested in information
relevant to the following issues:
1. Whether suction dredge mining results in adverse
impacts to the environment;
2. Whether suction dredge mining under the
Department’s current regulations governing such
activities results in deleterious effects to fish;
3. Whether there are changed circumstances or new
information available since 1994 regarding
suction dredge mining and the environment
generally; and
4. Whether changed circumstances or new
information available since 1994 indicates suction
dredge mining under the Department’s existing
regulations is resulting in new significant or
substantially more severe environmental impacts
than previously considered by the Department.
All comments or other information should be submitted
in writing to the Department by December 18,
2007. The Department encourages interested public
agencies and members of the public to submit comments
to the Department via email at the following address:
SuctionDredgeMining@dfg.ca.gov.
Comments submitted to the Department via regular
mail should be sent to the following address:
California Department of Fish and Game
Attn: Suction Dredge Mining Program
1416 Ninth Street, 12th Floor
Sacramento, CA 95814
Background: The Department regulates suction
dredge mining in California by authority set forth in the
Fish and Game Code. The Code directs the Department
to promulgate regulations designating waters where
suction dredging may occur subject to various restrictions,
including time of year and size of dredging equipment.
The Code also directs the Department to issue
suction dredge permits upon the payment of designated
fees if it determines, pursuant to adopted regulations,
that the operation will not be deleterious to fish. (See
generally Fish & G. Code, §§ 5653, 5653.9.)
The Department promulgated the existing regulations
governing suction dredge mining in California in
1994. (See generally Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, §§ 228,
228.5.) The Department promulgated the regulations in
compliance with the Administrative Procedure Act
(APA) (Gov. Code, § 11340 et seq.) and the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Resources
Code, § 21000 et seq.). For purposes of CEQA, the Department
certified an environmental impact report
(EIR) and determined that, while suction dredge mining
has the potential to result in significant impacts to the
environment, any such impacts could be avoided or
substantially lessened through compliance with the restrictions
and closures set forth in the existing regulations.
The Department also concluded under the Fish
and Game Code that suction dredging authorized pursuant
to the regulations would not be deleterious to fish.
In May 2005, the Karuk Tribe of California filed a
lawsuit in Alameda County Superior Court challenging
the Department’s suction dredge program based on alleged
violations of CEQA and the Fish and Game Code.
(Karuk Tribe of California v. California Department of
Fish and Game, Super. Ct. Alameda County Case No.
RG 05 211597.) In February 2006, various mining interests,
including several individuals and the New
49ers, Inc., joined the lawsuit by court order as party interveners.
In December 2006, the trial court issued an
order and judgment in the action with the consent of all
parties. The order directs the Department to “conduct
further environmental review pursuant to CEQA of its
suction dredge mining regulations and to implement, if
necessary, via rulemaking, mitigation measures to protect
the Coho salmon and/or other special status fish
species in the watershed of the Klamath, Scott, and
Salmon Rivers, listed as threatened or endangered after
the 1994 EIR.”
This notice and the related request for information regarding
the existing permitting program for suction
dredge mining in California is part of the Department’s
CALIFORNIA REGULATORY NOTICE REGISTER 2007, VOLUME NO. 42-Z
1784
effort to comply with the court order in the Karuk litigation.
The Department expects there will be additional
opportunities for interested public agencies and members
of the public to provide input to the Department regarding
the existing suction dredge mining program
and the related court ordered environmental review. Interested
public agencies and members of the public are
advised that submitting comments or information to the
Department in response to this notice is not a substitute
for submitting comments to the Department in response
to future notices soliciting public input that may be required
under CEQA or the APA.
Although the Department is providing this notice as
part of its effort to comply with the court order in the
Karuk litigation, the Department is interested in information
related to the issues highlighted above on a
state–wide basis. For example, the Karuk litigation focused
on issues related to the Department’s suction
dredge mining program in the Klamath, Scott, and
Salmon River watersheds. In contrast, the Department
is interested in information as specified above regarding
suction dredge mining throughout California.
Additional information regarding the Department’s
suction dredge permitting program and the court ordered
environmental review is available through the
Department’s website at www.dfg.ca.gov. Information
available through the website includes the 1994 EIR
certified by the Department when it adopted the existing
regulations governing suction dredge mining; relevant
excerpts from the California Fish and Game Code
and Title 14 of the California Regulations governing the
Department’s existing permitting program for suction
dredge mining; and various documents from the Karuk
litigation, including the December 2006 court order.