FFIM

FFIM is a non-profit organization devoted to promoting and preserving Maine's fisheries
It is currently July 24th, 2017, 10:42 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 21 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
PostPosted: April 25th, 2017, 3:53 pm 
Offline
FFIM Addict
User avatar

Joined: December 4th, 2001, 1:00 am
Posts: 5064
Location: Near the tying bench
timberdoodle28 wrote:
We don't agree over whether Landowners should have the right to allow an activity if the activity can be shown to be minor.


I'm reminded of this law (which can be found at Title 14, Part 7, Chapter 739, Subchapter 2: Trespass) recently referenced by George Smith as the reason his foraging bill was pulled.

Without permission of the owner a person may not cut down, destroy, damage or carry away any forest products, ornamental or fruit tree, agricultural produce, stones, ore, goods or property of any kind from land not that person’s own.

_________________
"You never miss the water until the well runs dry" - traditional blues


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: April 25th, 2017, 4:24 pm 
Offline
FFIMer

Joined: March 26th, 2014, 8:44 am
Posts: 6
Just to be clear. We believe that Landowner permission is required, it's one of the most important controls over any activity. We also believe the Landowner should have the right to allow an activity and not have this right taken from them by closing streams if the activity is minor. We have several updates to the bill that were unfortunately not added prior to it's printing to tighten up regulations and prevent an issue like the cupsuptic. We are submitting these with an amendment. We will be adding written permission required for any Class 2 operation also. As many of you know getting written permission is not easy. Written permision is not expected by 7 islands (cupsuptic area) and has never been granted by many other major landowners like plum creek which in itself severely resticts where people can go. I'm all for landowner rights and obeying their wishes.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: April 25th, 2017, 4:58 pm 
Offline
FFIM Addict
User avatar

Joined: December 4th, 2001, 1:00 am
Posts: 5064
Location: Near the tying bench
Permission is required for all prospecting activities, not just the proposed Class 2 category. As a landowner- I want it to remain that way.

Regarding suction dredging- label me not a fan. I'd prefer hand equipment and passive transport of materials through a pan or wash sluice. Negative pressures put on invertebrates, juvenile and small bodied fish, and potentially fish eggs (depending on the season, elevation, etc...) can result in mortality. I could live with hand digging and high bankers that are hand fed. But not suction dredges. I suspect many around here have similar thoughts. YMMV.

Btw- I've worked with suction dredges in a professional manner before and believe you're either intentionally underestimating the potential volume of material that can be moved by one in a day, or you're misinterpreting capability with capacity. There is a big difference. Equipment, site conditions, and operator ability are a few of the factors that play into capability. But capacity of the equipment is the capacity- irregardless of site conditions, etc...

Also- I see big problems with relying on yardage limits. They're not enforceable IMO.

_________________
"You never miss the water until the well runs dry" - traditional blues


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: April 25th, 2017, 6:09 pm 
Offline
FFIMer

Joined: March 26th, 2014, 8:44 am
Posts: 6
We are in agreement for permission. It is a basic requirement for all prospecting. The Class 2-4 require the higher level of written permission.

As far as impacts to the benthic community. Great question. Here is some exerpts and the study was done on a 2.5" dredge which also contains information on how much material was moved.
Griffith, J. S., and D. A. Andrews. 1981. Effects of a small suction dredge on fishes and aquatic invertebrates in Idaho streams. N. Am. J. Fish. Manage. 1:21-28.

Same study submitted by Jeff during LD1135.

“Short-term survival of the benthos after passing through the dredge was almost 100%”.
“The dredged sample plots in Summit Creek were substantially recolonized by benthic invertebrates after a 38-day period”
“Aquatic invertebrates were surprisingly resistant to damage from entrainment.”
“In general, only the emerging insects appear to be prone to damage from dredge passage. The exact length of this critical period varies among species and extends from 1 day to several weeks”

The dredge consistently moved the equivalent of 0.043-0.055 m3 of substrate per hour

We have a work window to protect eggs/fry passed in LD1135.

Other life stages
“Fingerling and larger trout would not normally be entrained since they could easily avoid the 30 cm/second intake velocity. If they enter a dredge such as the one used in our tests, they should survive.” They intentionaly entrained many fish during the testing.

I'm not confusing capacity and capability but there is a big difference as capacity is based on theoretical throughput and often overstated by the manufacturer. Several studies state manufacturer ratings can not be used to determine environmental impacts.

“The dredge used for these tests was rated by the manufacturer as capable of moving up to 3.1 m3 of overburden per hour. We operated at about 2% of this rating under field conditions, with the engine set at the maximum speed allowed by its governor.”
“A more experienced operator would have exceeded our rate, but could not possibly have approached the manufacturer's rating.”

“In the trial with loose gravel to estimate an optimal rate, a value of 0.127 m3 per hour was obtained at the standard engine speed of 2,400 rpm”

The best information on Manufacturer capacity ratings vs empirical testing can be found in the California DSEIR Chapter 3 Activity Description.
I think you will find that information I provide is fully substanciated. Not trying to mislead or underestimate anything but just get the facts out.

Enforcement of material moved is difficult I agree. The purpose is to set a persons expectations and to limit anyones intention for commercial use.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: April 26th, 2017, 7:11 pm 
Offline
FFIMer

Joined: August 20th, 2014, 2:43 pm
Posts: 52
From the bottom of my heart, thankyou Hunter


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: April 28th, 2017, 9:19 pm 
Offline

Joined: December 5th, 2001, 1:00 am
Posts: 5041
Location: Manchester, ME
I just wanted to thank the many people who came to the hearing and the many more who sent emails. You know who you are. If you have not weighed in yet, it is not too late to do so.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 21 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group