Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger yesterday vetoed AB 1032, the Suction Dredging bill supported by a broad coalition of fishing organizations and California Indian Tribes. This is the press release about the veto from California Trout, followed by the Governor's veto message:
 
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE  October 13, 2007        
CONTACT:  Severn Williams, California Trout  
510-336-9566, C 415-336-9566
 
GOVERNOR PRIORITIZES GOLD MINING OVER ENDANGERED TROUT & SALMON; VETOES AB 1032
 
Sacramento, CA - It's been thirteen years since the California Department of Fish and Game (DFG) updated its regulations regarding instream mining activities.  Since that time, multiple fish species, from the coho salmon to the Paiute cutthroat trout, have seen rapid declines and been placed on state and federal listings for threatened and endangered animals.  AB 1032 (Wolk), vetoed today by Governor Schwarzenegger, would have empowered DFG to take additional steps to protect these endangered fish against certain types of motorized gold mining activities in sensitive habitat.  The law would have applied only to mechanical suction dredging and would not have affected recreational gold panning activity.  
 
The endangered and threatened species that live in California's rivers and streams have faced increasing challenges over the years.  The ill-effects of irresponsible logging and mining activities, commercial dams and water diversion efforts, and polluted run-off from agriculture and other industries have all decreased the quality of the state's waterways.  AB 1032 focused specifically on the suction dredging used by gold miners for both recreational and commercial mining activities because it is one major factor known to disturb the sensitive habitat of vulnerable fish species.  
 
"Trout are the 'canary in the coal mine' of California's waterways," said Brian Stranko, Chief Executive Officer of California Trout, a major supporter of AB 1032.  "These fish are incredibly sensitive to environmental change.  By ignoring one major contributor to fish habitat degradation, the Governor has endangered the long-term health of all California wildlife."  
 
The genesis behind AB 1032 was a 2005 law suit brought against DFG by the Karuk Indian tribe over the need to protect sensitive waterways from the harmful environmental effects of suction dredging on fish habitat.  Although DFG agreed to complete an environmental assessment and revise its existing suction dredge mining regulations by July 1, 2008, funding gaps for the department have made it unable to begin this work, making it unlikely - if not impossible - for DFG to comply with the agreement by 2008.  AB 1032 would have provided stopgap measures to allow DFG to further regulate mechanical gold mining activity until January 1, 2011, with the hope that additional funding would be made available in the meantime to allow it to complete its environmental assessment.
 
"We are dismayed that the Governor caved into special interests and failed to stand up for the fish and the Karuk people. Currently recreational gold miners are having fun at the expense of our fishery and our culture. After years of fighting to protect salmon, steelhead and lamprey from suction dredging, we are back to square one," stated Karuk Vice Chair Leaf Hillman.  
 
California Trout and the Karuk Tribe of California were two of nearly thirty organizations that worked together in support of AB 1032.  
 
About California Trout
 
California Trout is dedicated to protecting and restoring wild trout and steelhead waters throughout California.  Founded in 1971, California Trout was the first statewide conservation group to focus on securing protections for California's unparalleled wild and native trout diversity.  Among its many current initiatives, California Trout is now leading the effort to save the official state fish, which is the California golden trout.  
 
###
 
To the Members of the California State Assembly:
 
I am returning Assembly Bill 1032 without my signature.
The purpose of this bill is to protect fish and wildlife from the potential deleterious
effects of suction dredge mining. Although I appreciate the author’s intent and the need
to protect our fish, wildlife, and water resources, this bill is unnecessary.
Current law gives the Department of Fish and Game (Department) the necessary
authority to protect fish and wildlife resources from suction dredge mining. It has
promulgated regulations and issues permits for this activity. Permits for suction dredge
mining must ensure that these operations are not deleterious to fish and allow the
Department to specify the type and size of equipment to be used. In its regulations, the
Department may also designate specific waters or areas that are closed to dredging.
It is unclear why this bill specifically targets a number of specific waterways for closure
or further restrictions. The listed waterways represent only a small fraction of the waters
in our State where suction dredging is occurring. The benefit or protection from such a
minor closure is negligible and supports the notion that scientific environmental review
should precede such decisions.
 
Sincerely,
Arnold Schwarzenegger

Here's some info. from Craig Tucker, a scientist who is spokesman for the Karuk Tribe:
 
Facts and Myths RE: AB 1032  
 
AB 1032 (Wolk) Native Trout and Salmon Protection  
 
Myth: Opponents have asserted there is a lack of evidence demonstrating  
harm to native fish from suction dredge mining.  
 
Fact: Numerous peer-reviewed scientific studies contradict the opponents'  
assertions that motorized suction dredging does not cause harm to fish or  
water quality. These studies have found that suction dredge mining can  
degrade fish habitat and water quality, and harm native species. A list and  
summary of a few of these studies is attached. One study found that suction  
dredging can adversely affect Chinook salmon by destabilizing spawning  
areas. Other studies warn of adverse affects to habitat of native trout and  
amphibian species, such as the yellow-legged frog.  
 
Declarations submitted by DFG's chief fisheries biologist in the Karuk  
lawsuit acknowledged that DFG's existing suction dredge regulations are  
inadequate and that harm is occurring to listed species including Coho  
salmon. The declaration cites numerous scientific peer-reviewed studies on  
the effects of suction dredging that have been issued since the existing  
regulations were last updated in 1994.  
 
According to respected fishery biologist Dr. Peter Moyle of the University  
of California at Davis, "suction dreding should be banned in tributaries of  
the Klamath River, 500 meters above and below cool-water refuge areas  
(stream mouths) on the mainstream of the Klamath River, the Klamath River  
from the Trinity River confluence to Green Riffle, Canyon Creek and all  
other Scott River tributaries, and the Salmon River including the north and  
south forks and all tributaries." Dr. Moyle explains that "Suction dredging  
represents a chronic unnatural disturbance of natural habitats that are  
already likely to be stressed by other factors and can therefore have a  
negative impact on fishes that use the reach being dredged.All anadromous  
fishes in the Klamath basin should be considered to be in decline and  
ultimately threatened with extirpation.Section dredging through a  
combination of disturbance of resident fish, alteration of substrates, and  
indirect effects on heavy human use of small areas, especially thermal  
refugia (side creeks), will further contribute to the decline of the  
fishes."  
 
Myth: Opponents claim that state environmental restrictions on suction  
dredge gold mining deny miners' private property rights to dredge for gold,  
and point to the 1872 federal mining law as authority.  
 
Fact: Miners do not have an unfettered right under the General Mining Act  
to engage in activities that are harmful to protected native species, in  
derogation of state and federal environmental laws. Moreover, the State of  
California acquired sovereign ownership of the beds of navigable rivers upon  
its admission to the United States in 1850. The State holds these lands for  
the benefit of all the people of California for statewide Public Trust  
purposes, including fisheries and habitat preservation. No one has an  
unalterable right to suck up streambeds in search of gold if such activities  
cause harm to public trust resources. The State and federal governments  
have also taken other actions to regulate mining activities that are harmful  
to public resources, including banning hydraulic mining that was destroying  
California's farmlands and silting up rivers. Mining claims do not exempt  
miners from the Fish and Game Code, endangered species laws, or the Clean  
Water Act. Finally, AB 1032 does not regulate all types of mining, only one  
method - motorized instream suction dredging. The bill specifically  
provides that it does not apply to nonmotorized activities, such as panning  
for gold, or to dredging for navigation or flood control purposes.  
 
Myth: Opponents of this bill have argued that it will have a negative  
economic impact on some counties that receive some limited revenue from  
suction dredge gold miners.  
 
Fact: The economic harm alleged by mining advocates has been greatly  
exaggerated since the bill was considerably narrowed. More to the point, it  
is undeniable that the decline in the population and health of our once  
abundant salmon fisheries has had a devastating impact on local economies,  
on the livelihoods of commercial salmon fishing families, and on Native  
American tribes that rely on these resources for subsistence fishing. DFG  
issues approximately 3,000 suction dredge permits per year, compared to over  
1 million sport fishing licenses and stamps. The combined economic  
contributions of sport and commercial fishing to the state and local  
communities far exceeds the economic contribution of suction dredge mining,  
which is why Humboldt County supports this bill.  
 
Myth: Motorized instream suction dredge mining benefits the environment by  
helping to clean-up mercury left in streams from the Gold Rush era.  
 
Fact: A 2003 study conducted by the State Water Resources Control Board  
found that motorized suction dredging exacerbates, and does not alleviate,  
mercury contamination of rivers and streams. The water board found that  
instream mining is an unacceptable means of recovering mercury lost to the  
environment from gold mining because the dredges release too much mercury  
back into the environment. Mercury concentrations in the sediment released  
by the dredges were more than ten times higher than that needed to classify  
it as a hazardous waste. Dredging actually makes the mercury contamination  
worse because it atomizes the mercury, releasing floured mercury back into  
the environment where it is then carried and distributed more broadly  
downstream. This process also contributes to methylation of mercury which  
bioaccumulates in fish making it toxic for human consumption.  
 
S. Craig Tucker, Ph.D.  
Klamath Campaign Coordinator  
Karuk Tribe of California  
office: 530-627-3446 x3027  
cell: 916-207-8294  
ctucker [at] karuk.us  
 
http://www.karuk.us/

hiya Dan,
 
I am wondering if you formed your own opinions from the opinion of the karuk opinion?  
The fact myth response you posted is not actual studies or research as requested, it is simply a quite biased 'opinion' only.
Do you know of, or have, 'actual studies or research' of scientific evaluation that small scale dredging has a significant delterious impact on salmon?
 
jas

heres why the salmons on the decline, and it has nothing to do with dredging
 
http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA254.html

 #254            
 July 1999
 
Nature, Not Man, is Responsible for West Coast Salmon Decline
 
by John Carlisle
 
On March 16 1999, the U.S. Commerce Department's National Marine and Fisheries Service (NMFS) added nine populations of West Coast salmon to the endangered species list, bringing the total number of federally-protected salmon subspecies to 24. The recent designations are especially significant because for the first time federal protection has been extended to salmon inhabiting streams located in a heavily-populated area of the Pacific Northwest, namely Seattle. Seattle now has the dubious distinction of being the first large city to come under the strict regulatory scrutiny of the Endangered Species Act (ESA).
 
Listing these salmon as endangered is certain to inflict significant harm on the region's economy, causing billions of dollars in losses for a broad range of industries including those involved with timber, housing, recreation and agriculture, among others. Additionally, the listings will force federal, state and local governments to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on a multitude of salmon-restoration programs that will require increases in taxes for such basic services as water and sewer. Individuals will also feel the pinch in the form of intrusive regulations governing routine water use, lawn care, car washing and any other activity that can conceivably create water runoff problems for fish.
 
The NMFS insists that these huge regulatory burdens are necessary. Federal officials and environmentalists claim that a precipitous decline in the population of West Coast salmon that has been occurring since the mid-1970s is attributable to human activities such as over-harvesting, habitat destruction for development projects, hatchery and dam operations, and land-use and water project development that degrade stream conditions vital to salmon survival.
 
But the premise that human actions are responsible for the decline of salmon, thus justifying sweeping regulations against development, is erroneous. The NMFS's ESA listing ignores a rapidly accumulating body of scientific evidence showing that changes in the natural climatic conditions of the Pacific Northwest are largely responsible for the low numbers of salmon. Specifically, a naturally-occurring increase in the temperature of the Pacific Ocean off the coast has caused a sharp decline in salmon by destroying most of the salmon's food supply and increasing the number of fish that prey on salmon.
 
It is these ocean conditions, not man, that play the preeminent role in causing fluctuations in salmon population levels. The federal response of placing more salmon under ESA protection and imposing additional regulatory burdens on businesses and property owners in the region will do nothing to counter the adverse natural forces that harm salmon but will needlessly hurt the economy. Most importantly, the oceanic phenomenon that has been so detrimental to salmon survival operates on a 20-to-30 year cycle, and there is evidence that the ocean cycle is entering a phase that will stimulate a major rebound in the salmon population, making cumbersome government mandates unnecessary.
 
Salmon Have Declined Despite Conservation Efforts and a Better Environment
 
The number of salmon entering the Columbia River has fallen dramatically from a high of 2.03 million in 1970 to a low of 673,000 in 1995.1 By the mid-1990s, the salmon population had dropped by at least 70%. Naturally, this decline is an issue of grave concern to fishermen and government leaders given the great importance of salmon to the Pacific Northwest economy. Because the salmon catch had been at record high levels prior to the sudden decline, it was assumed that the only explanation for this sudden precipitous decline in the salmon population had to be due to human activities. Fish biologists and environmental activists argued that a combination of overfishing, land development near streams and rivers, dam operations and other human factors combined to deprive salmon of the natural habitat necessary for them to swim and procreate without hindrance.
 
The Pacific Northwest's rivers and streams are important to the ecological cycle of the salmon because it is where adult salmon migrate to lay their eggs. After hatching, the young salmon make their way to the ocean where they spend one to three years before returning to the rivers to procreate, or spawn, thus beginning the cycle again.
 
Since 1978, at least $3 billion has been spent to increase, or at least maintain, the West Coast salmon population.2 Fishery managers have mainly used this money to operate hatcheries that breed salmon, monitor harvest levels and restore salmon habitat. A broad range of other policies has been implemented to enhance salmon survivability rates.
 
Because salmon lay their eggs in shallow, cool pools that are often found along the banks of streams, forestry practices have changed in recent years to protect salmon from harm. For example, buffer zones - areas directly adjacent to stream banks where activities that might disturb breeding pools or other vital habitat are prohibited - are now required. Buffers mandate that no construction or other development take place within a specified distance from a stream bank to prevent harm to breeding pools or other vital habitat.
 
Other land-use laws have also been implemented to severely restrict development near rivers and wetlands. This is the reason why there have been no new dams built in Washington in the past 35 years. Dams can block the migration routes of salmon and dam turbines can pose serious hazards to salmon survivability. As a result, existing dams now have fish ladders that allow salmon to swim past the dam as well as fish-friendly turbines that prevent salmon from being harmed.
 
Citizen groups have also organized to clean many streams while agricultural land-use practices and wastewater treatment have steadily improved over the last 25 years.3 Together these efforts have helped Pacific Northwest streams become significantly cleaner than they were in the 1970s and thus more ecologically amenable to salmon. A federally-funded 1991 study by the Battelle Marine Science's Laboratory, for example, concluded that Puget Sound - home of the Puget Sound chinook salmon that was recently listed by the NMFS - is the cleanest it has been since before World War II.4 Nevertheless, the salmon has not rebounded.
 
Despite billions of dollars in expenditures, widespread implementation of policies to aid the salmon and a cleaner environment, the salmon population continues to decline. The NMFS and environmental activists insist that more stringent regulation, more restrictions on development and additional spending is needed. But if the previous efforts could not halt the salmon decline, it is doubtful that doing more of the same will yield better results.
 
Warmer Ocean Temperatures Have Been Killing the Salmon
 
Until recently, fish biologists assumed that only changes in the freshwater habitat of salmon could explain the variability in the salmon population. Scientists were thus quick to conclude that human modification of this habitat was the reason for the salmon population decline. Implicit in this assumption was the rejection of the possibility that other factors - such as natural oceanic cycles - played a significant role in salmon survivability. It was assumed that the ocean was simply a stable, benign force that could be discounted in assessing the fortunes of salmon populations.
 
This turned out to be incorrect.
 
The marked decline in the salmon catch beginning in the mid-1970s corresponded to an increase in the temperature of the Pacific Ocean off the coasts of Washington, Oregon and California. This warming has had a most detrimental impact on salmon survival rates.
 
When the water warms, nutrients needed for the production of phytoplankton (algae) - including phosphorous, nitrogen and silicon - drop. When phytoplankton production decreases, tiny invertebrate organisms called zooplankton which feed on the phytoplankton also decreases. Since 1976, zooplankton levels have declined by an estimated 70% due to ocean warming. Because salmon feed on zooplankton, they have suffered accordingly.5
 
Dr. Victor Kaczynski, a fish biologist and consultant on fishing issues in the Pacific Northwest, says that "per classical ecological theory, a 70% decline in zooplankton biomass results in a 70% reduction in predators dependent on zooplankton directly and in their food chain (such as coho salmon) while an 80% reduction would result in a food supply that could only support 20% of the prior predator biomass (such as coho salmon)." With a reduction in zooplankton levels by more than 70% in the past two decades, West Coast salmon have declined by at least 70% as well.6
 
In addition, the salmon numbers are further reduced because the warmer water attracts predators such as mackerel and Pacific hake. These fish doubly threaten the salmon by consuming the reduced zooplankton food supply and by eating the salmon themselves.
 
Salmon are not the only marine animals affected by warm water conditions, however. The populations of the California Murre seabird and the Washington Murre have fallen by 50% and 80%, respectively, since the 1970s. Oysters, Oregon pink shrimp, sole and other fish have experienced dramatic declines similar to the salmon.7
 
An examination of the survival rates of young salmon, or smolts, further illustrates how the unfavorable ocean conditions can have a negative effect on salmon. For the coho salmon population (a federally-protected salmon group) to remain stable, the minimum marine survival rate required is an estimated 2.7%. The survival rate is the percentage of salmon that make it to adulthood.
 
Dr. Kaczynski notes that this ocean survival rate directly corresponds with the salmon population levels. For example, between 1965 and 1975, the coho salmon survival rate was 6.7%. This was significantly above the minimum 2.7%, which explains why the salmon catch reached record levels in that period. After 1975, the coho salmon survival rate started falling. Between 1991 and 1997, the coho's survival rate was a mere 1.2%, nowhere near the level to maintain a stable population. Dr. Kaczynski concludes that "coho marine survival was so poor in 1976, 1983-84, 1986, 1989, 1991-1997 that coastal coho salmon populations would have declined naturally even if there were no salmon fishing seasons."8
 
In another indication of the negative impact of the warmer ocean conditions, body sizes of surviving salmon have fallen from an average of 8.2 pounds recorded between 1970 and 1975, to only 6.2 pounds today. The reduction in body size means that females lay fewer eggs in the freshwater spawning areas, further reducing the population.
 
Another climatic event that affected the salmon population was the West Coast drought extending from the mid-1970s to 1993. The years 1987 to 1992 were the second driest in recorded California history. This is significant because when stream levels are lower, salmon survivability is reduced.
 
Rapid growth of the salmon population following the drought offers evidence of the drought's adverse effects. Two years after the drought ended in California in 1993, chinook salmon returned in remarkable numbers in several of the state's rivers. For example, the natural salmon population in the Klamath River is 97,000 adults. But by 1995, the population had soared to 200,000 - levels not seen since the 1960s.
 
Dr. Kaczynski concludes that the, "triple negative" of "adverse inland freshwater survival, estuary survival, and ocean survival... since 1976" explain the dramatic decline in the salmon population and man's unsuccessful efforts to reverse the trend 9
 
20-to-30-Year Cycle Controls Ocean Temperatures and Salmon Populations
 
Historical records provide powerful evidence that the 23-year decline in salmon is natural and not the result of human activity. Salmon populations oscillate every 20-30 years and