Smelt - from the first post I identified myself because I have nothing to hide. If anyone wants to contact me directly they may have my email or phone or I will meet them in person. I have noticed that you are very adept at shooting off your mouth and slandering people so long as you can remain completely anonymous. Why is that?
I am not willing to get into a piss for distance contest with a zealot like you because I am new to this forum and will not muddy their water like that. (it's called respect, learn some)

I can look beyond your petty hatred and weak attempts to draw me into a angry confrontation and see that you want to protect fish. Great news because so do I. It is unfortunate that most of what you say is either an gross exaggeration or a intentional lie...it reveals a weak character and makes me ashamed for you.

You are quick to discredit any person or report that contradicts your liberal propaganda and you can easily jump to conclusions based on your biased opinion BUT you just cant produce that report that shows a single fish being killed by a dredge, can you? Even your scientists for hire can't print a blatant lie that is easily revealed. Thats because it has never been shown that a dredge, operated legally, has ever harmed a fish. All you have it "dredges CAN harm" and "Obviously it is bad" which is an opinion.

When you can identify yourself and treat others with basic respect, you will have my interaction.

Hey Dan,

You say nobody has ever verified a fish kill by dredging, but how about fish EGGS?! I suppose none have EVER been killed by you personally in your thirty years of dredging, right?

And why have Oregon, California, and even Idaho imposed tighter restrictions or outright bans on suction dredging? (You still haven't answered.) I suppose you think the fisheries managers there are just dupes and simpletons.

Finally, why would I want to give you personal data so you and your band of crazed dredging fanatics could harass me?

Go fly a kite.

Your pal,
smelt

Dogfish - That is correct.
The WDFW carefully considers the spawning cycles of all fish in the subject stream and they set the work window that we must work WITHIN. We are allowed to work only before the fish spawn. Additionally we work in different areas of the stream, not in the spawning beds.
HPA's can be requested by filing a JARPA pr Joint Aquatic Resource Permit Application. This is a Department of Ecology instrument and there are 7 versions and/or addendum's depending on what you are wanting to do. The base permit application is 14 pages. After the JARPA is reviewed the Hydraulic permit may be denied (happens a lot, several times to me personally) or it may have detailed stipulations. It requires a in person site visit with the biologist who considered all possible fish impact of this particular project and issues the permit with appropriate restrictions to protect fish and habitat.

On one of my HPA sites, the biologist was very cautious about habitat protection. I invited him to my claim to observe my dredging activity and help him understand how benign the impact actually was. He learned a lot and had a good time.

ok Smelt, one more try...I will type slow so you can hopefully understand....

Dredgers do not kill fish eggs because they dredge before the fish spawn...get it?

I have never killed a fish with my dredge because I strictly follow the regulations as defined by WDFW aquatic biologists who are probably much better suited to make this determination than you.

Oregon, Idaho and California do not have tighter restrictions, Washington is by far the most tightly regulated. These other states have a variety of other issues going on but the core regulations are all less restrictive than WA.

You should reveal your identity because it is the honest and trustworthy thing to do. It lends credibility to your silly arguments. There is no band of crazed dredging fanatics, just me. I revealed my identity without fear of your band of liberal environmental zealots. I guess you prefer to remain anonymous so you can attack without consequence.

With the state of salmon and steelhead runs in the PNW being sub-par in general, the topic of dredging stirs a lot of emotions obviously. Dredging done correctly and limited probably has little effect on salmon and steelhead, same with logging, harvest, etc.. on a healthy fish population. There are too many people anymore who want their share of our fish and game populations. Each user group blames the other for the cumulative effects that have taken their toll in the last 100 yrs.

This thread is a perfect example of the division of user groups. The easy way out for the state or the feds, is to shut down fishing on threatened stocks along with dredging, etc... If everyone cant unite, then that will become the outcome.

Dan, Dan, Dan, oh my...there you go again (to quote President Reagan, for whom I voted twice). So much misinformation. You probably do believe the crap you're spouting, though. You seem sincere but simple-minded. If other states have outright bans or moratoriums on suction dredging, then dredging is more tightly regulated than it is in Washington, okay? And if an HPA permits a dredger to work a stream outside the work windows specified in the Fish and Gold pamphlet, I think it's fair to say he's vacuumed up some fish eggs. And it's wonderful that your applications for HPAs have required you to fill out some forms and you've chatted with a concerned biologist or two, but how many of the 1,019 HPAs issued by the WDFW from 2009 to September 2013 have gotten any serious attention before being issued? How many of those "exception" projects have been monitored for compliance with the terms of the HPA? Damn few.

Go to bed now. It's getting late. Take your blood pressure pill with a soothing glass of warm milk.

A couple more thoughts....

While there have been decent arguments made that dredging doesn't significantly harm fish populations, you guys suggesting it actually helps them are really reaching. I don't have data to prove it, but I'm pretty sure that nature, which produced much larger populations of salmon and steelhead than we see today for millions of years without our help, would do fine without more of our brands of "help."

Bonaro: You say dredging is only allowed before fish spawning. Which runs of which species are the basis for that scheduling? I'm probably wrong, but I think most salmon and steelhead spawn between October and May, with most fry hatching by the early summer. Does this mean dredging is only permitted during the summer months? Just curious....

Finally, despite the fact that I've yet to encounter a suction dredging operation in my fishing adventures, it seems there have been enough permit applications in recent years to convince lawmakers there is money to be made by charging permitting fees. Where is all this stuff happening? Have shows like "Gold Rush" (based on a much more destructive form of mining, to be sure) led to an increase in permit applications?

Are all the 1019 permit HPA's related to suction gold mining or do other industries apply for the permits, ie: gravel extraction etc.

I'll double-check and get back to you later today if I can. This morning I've got to bring a friend with a recently broken leg to the doctor (55 miles away) for a cast.

Flea - The following link will take you to the actual regulation book which also serves as our permit. http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00290/wdfw00290.pdf
You will notice that in water work timing is listed on a per stream or drainage basis with most seasons opening July 1 and closing August 31...that's a total of 60 day. to work out of the entire year. Some seasons are longer, lasting thru September and some are very short, being open only 2 weeks. These seasons are created by the WDFW with extensive input from their Biologists and consider not only the spawning cycles of salmon and steelhead but also trout and other aquatic species.

Dredging does benefit the stream and that is a proven fact. The modern day suction dredge is the most environmentally friendly mining method ever devised. In addition to gold, it efficiently collects a variety of toxic heavy metals including mercury, lead, copper and steel that current lie in the bottom of our streams, constantly leaching into the water. State and federal studies indicate that a modern suction gold dredge is capable of removing 98% of mercury in the stream. There is no other device in existence that will remove heavy metals from the stream as efficiently as a suction gold dredge.
(State of California, California Water Board (2005), Mercury Losses and Recovery )
(US Geological Survey (2010) The Effects of Sediment and Mercury Mobilization in the South Yuba River )

Dredging also loosens compacted gravel. You may not have encountered this unless you have dredged but the gravel strata in a riverbed can become so densely compacted that you have to use pry bars or pick hammers to break it up. This cemented layer can be inches or many feet think and it is impossible for fish to spawn in it. Dredging loosens this and allows it to be redistributed by the river so it will create suitable spawning areas downstream.

Refuge - Imagine a cross section of a stream where the water is 6 feet deep. The depth of water flow is actually much deeper because water permeates through the gravel all the way to bedrock. This sub-aggregate flow of water tends to be significantly cooler than surface water. A dredge will create pockets in this layer of gravel that fill with cool water from the substrate and create holding pools for fish called a cold water refugia. A highly compacted stream does not easily allow the surface waters to mix with the cooler sub-aggregate waters so you get warm and low oxygen conditions in the upper layers that are not good for fish.

Permitting fees - That actually has attracted the attention of one lawmaker, Rep Gael Tarleton, who proposed a bill to close most wates and place a $150 fee on everything else. This fee is designed to be prohibitory, high enough o force out the small prospector. I was on the committee that worked with the WDFW to create the original Gold & Fish. We offered to pay a reasonable fee for a prospecting permit and the WDFW declined because the administration would have cost them more than the revenue.

Gold Rush Alaska has certainly increased interest in prospecting. Unfortunately, this show is a great example of what not to do. Most of the people inspired by the show are very new and inexperienced so they are beginning at an entry level with small hand operated gear like pans and shovels. They are also not working at the scale necessary for a HPA permit.
I offer classes to the public to teach them how to prospect for gold. I focus on proper technique and best practices for environmental responsibility. I try to instill a respect for the land and other users and leaving a small footprint. Last summer a local vocational high school hired me to take the entire Environmental Sciences class out and teach them the methods of modern prospecting and how it can impact the environment. Since they were very pro-environment they came with a lot of negative assumptions about mining and asked a lot of tough questions. At the end they had a great time and learned a lot including that gold prospecting is not a bad thing for the environment if done properly.

Agreed - there is no reason dredging cannot co-exist with fishing, rafting or whatever. The other groups that want to shut us out are cutting their own throat because once we are out, they are next.
This is why I belong to several land rights organizations that protect Public Land for all users.

I dont actually have the numbers but that is probably just mining HPA's. There ate many thousands of other HPA's for various construction or re-vegatation projects around the state. If you want to do any kinds of work in the water, you need one

I don't know what is right or wrong in this debate, BUT don't dredgers look for exposed bedrock and not free stone cobble (locations of redds)?
Seems like they would be in a different part of the river. How does small operation dredging affect the down stream turbidity? It probably would be less impactful than a decent size slide correct? Just asking questions here...you know...for science.

Here's the answer to your question, Jerry. A first-cut review of the 1,019 mining HPAs issued by the WDFW from 2009 to September 2013 (a 45-month period) showed that one was for a restoration project. Maybe there are a few other outliers. But we can safely say that roughly 1,000 HPAs for mining were issued in those 45 months, an average of about 22 a month. The part of the WDFW's website on mining and prospecting states the following about an HPA:

"If the Gold and Fish pamphlet does not cover the location, equipment, or work time you want to use, you can request an individual, written HPA."

So each of the 1,000 HPAs issued in that relatively recent 45-month period represents some kind of exception to the rules detailed in the Gold and Fish pamphlet -- for example, a request to work outside the work window specified for a particular stream in the pamphlet. These new dredging projects (again, a monthly average of 22 new ones) are, of course, in addition to the "normal" dredging that occurs inside the established work windows or that ostensibly complies with the pamphlet's operating rules. And an individual HPA can be valid for a period of several years. That's a LOT of repetitive dredging.

What concerns me and other opponents of suction dredging is that the large number of authorized dredging projects outstrips the ability of the WDFW's already overtaxed biologists to give individual projects anything other than cursory attention. And, as I've said here repeatedly, the WDFW has no funds for a dedicated monitoring and enforcement capability for suction dredging. The purpose of Representative Gael Tarleton's proposal to charge dredgers a fee of $150 is to fund effective monitoring and enforcement, not to deprive small miners of the opportunity to do their thing. (Maybe the fee should be $100 or some other amount, but if you can afford to buy and operate a suction dredge, it seems as if you could afford to pay a licensing fee of $100 or so.) Right now, the system is vulnerable to abuse. Based on the scientific literature by fisheries biologists that I've read, suction dredging at the very least is potentially harmful to streams, so giving the WDFW the money to fund a genuine monitoring and enforcement capability is sensible. Dredgers pay nothing to dredge fish-bearing streams whereas taxpayers already have shelled out hundreds of millions of dollars to restore wild salmon and steelhead and fishing opportunities are ever more restricted. I don't think that makes sense, which is why I'm an advocate for changing our state's permissive dredging regulations.

Tarleton?

cut and paste directly from WDFW webiste: (emphasis mine)

"An HPA must be obtained from WDFW before work is conducted that uses, obstructs, diverts, or changes the natural flow or bed of state waters. The conditions of an HPA are designed to protect fish, shellfish, and their habitat. Regulated activities include bank protection, dredging, fish passage corrections, flow control structures, overwater structures and pilings, habitat and shoreline modifications, and other activities that affect waters of the state.

WDFW issues approximately 4,000 HPAs annually that cover projects throughout fresh and marine waters of the state."

....

"HPA application fees were adopted by the Washington legislature in 2012 (RCW 77.55.321), and went into effect July 10, 2012. Most HPA applications require payment of a $150 application fee before DFW can process it. There are some exemptions from the application fee, including forest practices, projects on farm and agricultural lands, mineral prospecting and mining, pamphlet HPAs, and HPAs issued under interagency agreements. The HPA fee will not apply to minor project modifications (e.g., to work windows), but will apply to applicant-requested modifications that result in the issuance of a new HPA, provided the original HPA was subject to the application fee. DFW has established a template contract/agreement that higher volume customers can use to apply a billing account to pay for HPA fees."

http://wdfw.wa.gov/licensing/hpa/#fees
.

The exposed bedrock is ideal for gold. The next target is in the boulder fields to test behind the obstructions in the low pressure areas. The downstream edge of gravel bars along the inside bend is also a good place to look. The gravelly bottom in the slower sections is the least likely place to fins gold and most likely place for a spawning bed.

Turbidity - I was dredging on Peshastin creek last summer. There was a small slide upstream on a tributary about 3 weeks earlier. The water was very turbid and visibility was about 18 inches. This persisted for over 8 miles downstream and you could still see the stain after it dumped into the Wenatachee river. Turbidity from a dredge (if present at all) has been show to settle out completely within 30-100 yards. The sediments a dredge might stir up are not laden with mud because they come from the stream, not the hillside.

smelt " What concerns me and other opponents of suction dredging is that the large number of authorized dredging projects outstrips the ability of the WDFW's already overtaxed biologists to give individual projects anything other than cursory attention"

If this is the case then you must be for closing all fishing.

Of course not, Jerry. Sport fishing, if prudently managed with either catch-and-release or very limited catch-and-keep regulations on wild fish (such as winter steelhead on the Olympic Peninsula), can be conducted by a large number of people every day with relatively limited impact on the resource. There also is an active enforcement mechanism for checking catch limits and licenses. And, as you know very well, entire rivers are closed every year to fishing for one reason or another. How is suction dredging, as currently regulated, enforced, and conducted in Washington and given its potential to damage streams, similar to sport fishing? I don't think they are at all.

I've argued at length in this forum that suction dredging needs a licensing requirement and genuine, active monitoring and enforcement in the field (at the very least), so it's obviously pointless for me to repeat those arguments. If you think suction dredging is inherently harmless or environmentally insignificant and our current rules don't require any changes (as your comment suggests), then we simply differ. Fisheries managers in Oregon, Idaho, and California have reached conclusions similar to my own, though.

Smelt. Are you related to Tarleton?