Inthe559: You are quick to jump on and respond to someone that is attacking you. You don’t address Kanman and Claudia Wise that have presented that facts.

You’re wrong again. I have responded, and yes, I am quick to get pissed when someone starts spouting racism and launching personal attacks. That’s why this thread is closed.

Of course it’s not, and even the studies so often cited by proponents don’t say that. Yet those studies are being twisted, and the central question is cast aside like so much gravel.

The big fiction here is commonly dealt with in a single statement from Ms. Wise’s letter:

California Department of Fish and Game already regulates the miners out of the waterways during important life events for the Salmon. That includes during spawning season when redds are present.

That’s simply not true, and what’s worse, miners know it. One of the reasons coldwater species groups are pushing for an update to regulations is because the existing set simply don’t reflect reality.

Spring-spawned salmon and trout don’t always spawn within a set timeframe, and what’s worse, suction dredging a redd filled with fry is just as bad as one with eggs.

Then there are the species which spawn in the fall, and so on. The regs need an update. Miners are willing to pretend otherwise.

Then we have the “we improve spawning habitat” fiction, which miners accept as the literal truth when the reality is far murkier.

Again, we quote Ms. Wise:

It is well known that suction dredging causes little or no environmental harm to fish and biota what many overlook are the many benefits that dredging provides such as increased spawning gravels, dredge made refugia, and yes, mercury remediation to name a few.

Removing sediment and creating bars of loose, unaggregated gravel doesn’t make for ideal spawning habitat (the Davis biologist in the video mentioned this), yet miners persist in spreading this notion.

It’s possible there are – in some places – benefits to spawning habitat, but there is plenty of evidence to suggest the opposite is true, as the study most frequently cited says mortality rates in unaggregated beds are extreme in years of high flows.

Worse is the mercury question.

The Humphrey study that miners often cite as proof they’re “good” for the environment draws a different conclusion – that the mercury that makes it through the dredge does so in a form that is far more dangerous than the inert version found at the bottom of rivers.

In fact, the same study says the pass-through mercury leaves a dredge in concentrations ten times higher than needed to qualify it for hazardous status.

Humphrey even suggests suction dredge mining isn’t the right way to remediate mercury left in our rivers from prior mining – a conclusion conveniently overlooked by miners.

And then there’s the question of what happens to the mercury miners do collect.

Where exactly does all that mercury go? (I have an idea.)

Should the state set up collection points for miners? I think it’s a great idea. It’s one way dredge miners could contribute to the enviornment instead of harming it.

Should Fish & Game update its regulations regarding suction dredge mining?

That’s a great idea too.

Sadly, miners have fought any updates to their mining regulations – perhaps aware an impartial review of the data might suggest longer closures on some waters, and no dredge mining at all on a few others.

No, nobody’s blaming suction dredge miners for the plight of the salmon. They are, however, overdue for a review of how their operations impact fisheries and habitat in the state of California, and it’s a shame they continue to fight the process – to the point that a legislative solution is now necessary to make it happen.

I’m tired of all the red herrings and irrelevance.

It doesn’t matter that gold is a hedge against inflation, or any of the other stuff. That’s not relevant.

And the classic strawman – where a desire to see the regulations updated is transmuted to mean you want to ban suction dredge mining entirely (perhaps thereby justifying threats via email) is rubbish.

I don’t need to see suction dredge mining banned forever, but I sure as hell do want to see it happen responsibly – something not shared by a large subset of the mining community, who pretend the studies say things they don’t.

Finally, between the threats, the racism, and the personal animus, I’m closing this thread. At some point, whatever could be learned disappears behind a dense cloud of animus and bullshit, and I’ve had it.

mercedriverfriend: Define strawman for me, as my friends and I can’t figure it out and have now turned it into our latest joke. Thanks.

Is making fun of things you don’t understand par for the course? Five seconds on Google would have educated you – it’s when someone creates an false argument that can easily be “blown over” instead of dealing with the real issue.

Tom Chandler: That’s too bad since there’s been a great deal of spirited debate, yet the threatening, name-calling behavior seems pretty one sided (since I’m the one receiving the emails).
You, sir, are not worth my time.

You are quick to jump on and respond to someone that is attacking you. You don’t address Kanman and Claudia Wise that have presented that facts. You fishermen have yet to put forth any solid facts by experts. Just as I said earlier in a post no one from their side of things wants to respond to the facts of an expert. You guys just believe that what you think is fact.
As for people threating you I don’t condone that, but it wouldn’t really bother me. I am not afraid of those kinda people and would meet them anytime and anyplace to let them know just where I really do stand. Tom I don’t want you to address me, I want you to put forth your facts. Name and quote the studies and the experts of the facts you have.
I do thank you for proving my point. How you skipped over all kinds of good intelligent posts to tell me I am not worth your time. While ignoring that facts that you don’t seem to want to face. You may not be a bad guy Tom, I cant say for sure. I am a asshole at heart and don’t Deni it. But you my friend are pompous and condescending, and I would just rather be a asshole.

Gold is used industrially and for jewelry, but what most people forget (and will soon be reminded) is that gold is MONEY! It has been money for over 5000 years and will soon be regaled as money again.

You see, there’s this little problem in the international economies out there right now. A lot of investors worldwide accepted the investment paper that the criminals on Wall Street and those at the Federal Reserve have been printing for the last hundred or so years. I think the current debt run up via some of the big wall street banks in the derivative market is in the neighborhood of 1.5 quadrillion dollars in derivatives (a quadrillion is 1000 billions)- and the derivative market is unregulated (but of course, we all know those nice bankers or wall street operators wouldn’t do something that would hurt the rest of us, don’t we?). The point is that at some point in probably the very near future, anything paper is going to burn, and there will be a mass migration back to what has historically been money- gold. The central bankers of the world are accumulating it, the BRIC countries are accumulating it and the smart money of the world are accumulating it (Swiss bank accounts are running out of gold storage places). You don’t read anything about this accumulation on the news, because you and I are what the insiders call the dumb money. We watch Cramer on tv because we think he is there to help us and we also watch our retirements disappear as the bankers get billion dollar bailouts in markets they were criminally manipulating.

California is sitting on one of the richest occurrences of gold in the world. Gold is what made California one of the leading states in the Union. Mining for gold is NOT a hobby, it is a money making business and the value of the gold us dredgers find will go exponential as soon as the dollar goes into hyperinflation (which shouldn’t be far off).

Got Gold?

Here’s some investment advice: in 1980 they used to tell investors to have 20% of their assets in physical gold. Personally, I would suggest 40% or more. And maybe set aside some cash too. Do you have your money in wall street? With the criminals? You know what happens when you do business with criminals, don’t you? Personally, I wouldn’t give wall street any of my money until there is some semblance of a sheriff showing up to begin to curtail some of the egregious criminality being shown off lately. But that’s just me- call me a little paranoid.

Are you invested in Treasuries? They are paying- what almost 1%? How about mutual funds? Or your 401K? Since 2000 the investments I have in physical gold are up over 400% and gold has been increasing in value every year since 1998. How is the rest of your portfolio doing? How many of you are sitting on profits these days?

The green shoots thing with the economy is pure baloney. I do sales and I can equivocally tell you that no one is buying. Everyone is just getting by. Guess why? The dollar has devalued about 40% since 1998. That means it takes 40% more dollars today to buy what you bought in 1998.

I bet that we may see some of you fishermen out on the rivers with your pans or dredges soon when you realize gold may be the only thing that will keep you from becoming homeless- your dollars will be almost worthless and an oz of gold will be worth thousands. Call me a nut now, once the economic reality shows up, I believe that you will believe…Let’s bring up this subject again in about a year and we’ll see how crazy I am.

Kanman

Inthe559: Tom like to address the one that think negatively so he can talk down to them. You go Tom, next time someone sicks their dog on you hit them with your purse.

Inthe559: Dont get me wrong here, there are some good people that live on the res. but most are not worth the powder to blow them up with. And they steal, lie, and do what ever it takes to get there next bottle or sack or dope.

Inthe559: The more posts I read by Mr. Chandler, I take him for one of the types that protests the troops over seas. One that doesnt believe in physically standing up for your rights. All the things that made this country great at one time. Its a shame that it has come to people that want to wage their war with a pen.

Inthe559, you’ve just exposed yourself as a racist and yes – a potentially violent hater with nothing to add to this conversation.

This kind of personal attack – coupled with the handful of fairly vicious (and yes, threatening) emails I’ve received from pro-mining people suggests this thread is about outlive its usefulness.

That’s too bad since there’s been a great deal of spirited debate, yet the threatening, name-calling behavior seems pretty one sided (since I’m the one receiving the emails).

You, sir, are not worth my time.

mercedriverfriend: I’ll amuse you a bit more Tom. Hang on because I am going with the bigger picture here. It is called the lesser of two evils.

Except that your supposedly “lesser” evil has almost zero measurable impact on the other (you neglected to answer the question about what percentage of the world’s gold supply is provided by suction dredge miners).

With better than 70% of the world’s gold supply used in jewelry and only 11% used industrially (dental and electronic mostly), if you were truly so concerned about the impacts of gold mining, you’d have a much bigger impact on that simply by advocating against gold jewelry, not attacking those who want the impacts of suction dredge mining minimized.

In truth, you’re erecting a series of strawmen in an attempt to avoid the relevant question here – what are the impacts of suction dredge mining too soon prior to, during and just after the spawn, and why have miners fought every attempt to protect salmon stocks?

This entire thread is ample evidence of that (I’m going respond to the “suction dredge miner as friend to fish” nonsense in another comment).

Attacking me personally doesn’t bolster your argument, nor does attempting to paint me as some kind of hypocrite. As you’ll notice from a couple comments after yours, attacking opponents seems de rigueur for many miners.

It’s not pretty.

mercedriverfriend: Also, when a miner goes out and harvests gold, he/she is adding a resource to our lives. In my eyes this mitigates the 19.4 pounds of CO2 per gallon of fuel spent in transport and mining activity as this is much less than the fuel spent in hard-rock mining operations for the same return in gold. Fly fishing for fun can be viewed as an activity with no measurable return for mankind, in the end adding only to the pollution we face. Can that be argued, MHH?

Some people derive enjoyment from buying a piece of gold jewelry or some other such trinket. Some people derive enjoyment from catching a fish. I don’t see why one is any more or less a measurable return for mankind than the other.

Personally, I’d rather have the fish because I can eat it in a pinch.

mercedriverfriend: MHH,Weak responses. I don’t appreciate being called a liar either. The man that dreded the four ounces is a very good friend of mine and I have seen his earlier finds. I can’t help someone like you.

I did not call you liar or otherwise doubt the veracity of your claim. I am perfectly willing to believe that your friend found the 4 ounces of gold you say he found. What I don’t believe is the link you tried to make between recreational dredge mining and large scale commercial mining in Indonesia.

Your friend’s success or failure does not affect operations on the other side of the world one iota. That is the point. You are making an argument that dredge mining is somehow environmentally virtuous and a viable alternative to commercial mining. It simply is not. It’s a hobby. One with tangible effects on the environment that should be managed like any other.

Weak responses. I don’t appreciate being called a liar either. The man that dreded the four ounces is a very good friend of mine and I have seen his earlier finds. I can’t help someone like you.

The Honorable Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger
State Capitol Building
Sacramento, CA 95814
Fax: 916-558-3160

Dear Governor Schwarzenegger,

PLEASE VETO BILL SB670 (anti-suction dredging legislation)

My name is Claudia Wise; I retired in 2006 after 32 years of civil service with the U.S. EPA as a physical scientist/chemist. I have been a member of many scientific projects over the years starting my federal career in the Fish Toxicology arena and ending it with the Salmon Restoration division. I have worked on projects ranging from urban fish populations and fish avoidance testing to eelgrass habitat and global climate change. I have been and remain to be a strong proponent of protecting the environment.

On October 11, 2007 in regards to AB 1032 I wrote to you regarding another attempt by the legislature to get around a court order and unnecessarily put a large group of miners and businesses out of work with no scientific evidence to support their claims.

Dozens of peer-reviewed journal articles some commissioned by the USEPA, USGS, CDFG, Corp of Engineers, and many more from universities support suction dredging as having de minimis effects or no significant effect on the environment they are used in. Nothing has changed in peer-reviewed literature since that time to change this fact.

Suction dredge mining has little impact on the areas fish and biota. In relation to natural occurrences suction dredge mining is insignificant. To put the impact of suction dredge mining into perspective it was calculated that suction dredge mining disturbs only 0.7% of the sediment that is moved naturally in a year. The Siskiyou National Forest (SNF), where this study occurred, is a very prominent mining area in California.

According to the U. S. Forest Service, SNF, “There are 1,092,302 acres on the Siskiyou National Forest. Using a factor of 0.33 cubic yards per acre per year times 1,092,302 acres will produce a very conservative estimate that 331,000 cubic yards of material move each year from natural causes compared to the 2413 cubic yards that was moved by suction dredge mining operations in 1995. This would be a movement rate by suction dredge mining that equals about 0.7% of natural rates.” (Cooley 1995).

California Department of Fish and Game already regulates the miners out of the waterways during important life events for the Salmon. That includes during spawning season when redds are present.

It is well known that suction dredging causes little or no environmental harm to fish and biota what many overlook are the many benefits that dredging provides such as increased spawning gravels, dredge made refugia, and yes, mercury remediation to name a few.

Suction dredging breaks up cemented riverbeds providing fish with loose gravel for future spawning grounds in areas fish presently are not able to use for spawning. Between 1996 and 1998, Quihillalt (1999) found 4% of redds where located on or within 1000 m of dredge tailings. He theorized that dredge tailings may be attractive sites for redd construction because tailings are often located near riffle crests where fish frequently spawn, and they provide loose, appropriately sized substrate. However, embryos in tailings may suffer high mortality during years of high river flows (1998) and be of no concern during years of low river flows (1996 & 1997).

During a later survey on the Klamath River during 2002 only one redd was observed on suction dredge tailings. Recreational suction dredge mining was present throughout the survey from the Highway I-5 Bridge to Happy Camp (Schuyler and Magneson. 2006).

Even with scouring effects to redds reported in scientific literature this gravel provides areas to spawn that would not otherwise be available to them. Any added benefit to increasing salmon productivity, using suction dredging, is a benefit to fish numbers. Even during years of high mortality due to high flow events if only a few of the embryos survive that may be more than would be expected without the benefit of added spawning gravels provide by the tailings.

I have been involved in temperature surveys on the Klamath River in California in regards to suction dredge activity and existing conditions of refugia. We have found natural refugia to be no better in many cases to that of dredge made refugia.

Dredge holes can provide a holding place for fish as they pass up the waterway on their migration path to and from the ocean providing a place to get out of the faster currents to rest. Some of these dredge holes may also be cooler due to ground water seepage if the holes are deep enough. This leads to development of additional areas of needed refugia.

Another Benefit the suction dredge community could provide the state with is mercury remediation. In talking with miners, the majority typically do not run into large pools or hot spots of mercury. However, their concerns for the environment is the same as other citizens. Miners have shown the willingness to hand over collected mercury to a collection facility if such a facility exists. The California State Water Board’s Water Quality Division report (Humphreys, 2005) suggested the idea of paying the miner’s for their efforts would help facilitate this plan. Collection facilities have been provided in the past with great response.

The California Water Board has spent a lot of time and money on mercury remediation projects with limited success, though in 2001 EPA Region 9 located in San Francisco, California did collect mercury from miners very effectively. Collections of mercury has been happening in Oregon and Washington through the states respective Division’s of Ecology and with even greater success at miner’s rallies.

Even though EPA Region 9 has ended this program and removed it’s existence from the website EPA, Region 9 had a mercury “milk run” in 2000. Agency personnel were able to collect 230 pounds of mercury from miners and local dentists. The total amount of mercury collected was equivalent to the mercury load in 47 years worth of wastewater discharge from the city of Sacramento’s sewage treatment plant or the mercury in a million mercury thermometers. (US EPA, 2001.)

Over the past four years, the Resources Coalition and other small-scale miners associations in Washington have turned in 127 pounds of mercury and eight pounds of lead for safe disposal with the help from the Washington Department of Ecology. Ecology staff attended miners’ rallies in Oroville and Monroe, explaining the state’s program for proper disposal of lead and mercury. (ENS 2007).

The mining community of today is, in my opinion, the only group that is in a position with the technology to help with the removal of lead and mercury at a very economical price to the public. Any residual mercury remaining after dredging is that much less to worry about residing in our Nations waterways.

In reviewing Humphrey’s (2005) comments regarding possible problems associated with collecting mercury via suction dredging methods, it is right to look to the suction dredge community for help locating hotspots and removing mercury from the river systems. In my opinion the data provided in the report by Humphrey’s (2005) did not demonstrate any clear conclusions that would prohibit the State from allowing this activity. On the contrary, in the discussion of results it was stated that a suction dredge in the American River was able to collect 98 percent of the measured mercury processed through the dredge. The amount of mercury collected may have been higher if the investigators had been using a dredge with the modern jet flare design. Even 98 percent is a huge plus for the environment and it would be irresponsible to not allow mercury to be removed from the rivers and streams whenever it is found.

In Humphreys report (2005), the author expressed concern for the loss of a small portion (2%) of the mercury from the back end of the sluice box. In the conclusions it was stated that the amount lost constituted a concentration more than ten times higher than that needed to classify it as hazardous waste. Yet 98 percent of the mercury was now secured and the process did not add any mercury to the system that was not already present. The small fraction lost, because of its density, would relocate back onto the river floor buried in the sediment close to where it was removed while dredging.

Mercury is continuously moved every winter in high storm events. Since the cessation of hydraulic mining, accumulated sediment from hydraulic placer mining has been transported to the Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta and San Francisco Bay by sustained remobilization (James, 1991). Providing a program to collect mercury from miners would aid the Water Board’s mission of reducing mercury contamination in the deltas and bays where mercury methylation is a large concern.

In the test described by Humphreys (2005) a small portion of floured mercury was collected in the sediments as it escaped the sluice box. This mercury whether floured before it entered the sluice box, or not, would still be in elemental form. Regardless of surface area it would be no more toxic then the other 98 percent that was suggested to be left in place.

Aside from grossly polluted environments, mercury is normally a problem only where the rate of natural formation of methyl mercury from inorganic mercury is greater than the reverse reaction. Methyl mercury is the only form of mercury that accumulates appreciably in macroinvertebrates and fish. Environments that are known to favor the production of methyl mercury include certain types of wetlands, dilute low-pH lakes in the Northeast and North central United States, parts of the Florida Everglades, newly flooded reservoirs, and coastal wetlands, particularly along the Gulf of Mexico, Atlantic Ocean, and San Francisco Bay (USGS 2000).

If not collected the mercury is guaranteed to end up farther down stream, and eventually in the delta or the bay, where methylation is a real environmental problem. In my opinion it would be a highly irresponsible management practice to leave a large portion of mercury in the rivers and streams because of unrealistic concerns for the lesser amount moving only a short distance away from an operating dredge. Most likely if floured the movement of fine mercury would extend no farther than 50-feet off the end of the sluice box. That would relate to the distance a turbidity plume might extend downstream from a small-scale suction dredge.

However, if the mercury was left in place the next storm event would surely move it downstream closer to, and eventually into, the bay and delta. In fact, according to Humphrey’s study in 2005 mercury was seen moving down stream and re-deposited on bedrock already dredge cleaned. The important fact here is mercury was flowing down stream in a suction dredge free zone during lower river flows than what take place under high winter river conditions.

It is most important to reduce the total amount of mercury in the streams and rivers and its transport downstream into the bays and deltas. This is defined as a part of Total Maximum Daily Load (“TMDL”) goals.

We know for certain that mercury is transported downstream throughout the winter season during high water events. Therefore, anytime there is the possibility for the removal of mercury by miners it should be undertaken and supported.

You justifiably vetoed that last bill because it was unnecessary and suction dredge mining is already regulated by the Department of Fish and Game. But here we are again….

There was no reason, last year, to sign AB1032 into law and there is no reason to sign Bill 670 into law this year. I respectfully ask that you not add further to the problems related to increased government regulation where none is warranted. Please allow California Fish and Game to do their job. They are already regulating suction dredging adequately to protect fish. The court has ordered California Department of Fish and Game to prove suction dredging creates significant harm before changing the mining regulations.
I respectfully ask that you VETO bill 670.
Sincerely,

Claudia Wise

REFERENCES

Cooley, 1995, USFS. Siskiyou National Forest Service Yardage Estimate, A comparison of stream materials moved by mining suction dredge operations to the natural sediment yield rates. In house Report.
Environment News Service (ENS). 2007. Miners Remove Gold Rush Mercury from Washington Streams.
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/sep2007/2007-09-18-096.asp
Grove, Schuyler and M. Magneson. 2006. USFWS. Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office, Mainstem Klamath River Fall Chinook Salmon Spawning Survey.
Humphreys, R., 2005, Losses and Recovery During a Suction Dredge Test in the South Fork of the American River. Staff Report, State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Water Quality.
James, A.L., 1991, Incision and morphologic evolution of an alluvial channel recovering from hydraulic mining sediment: Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 103, p. 723–736.
Quihillalt, Rick R and J. D. Glase., 1999. USFWS. Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office, Mainstem Trinity River Fall Chinook Salmon Spawning Redd Survey, 1996 through 1998. In house Report.
USEPA, 2001. Mercury Recovery from Recreational Gold Miners.
http://www.epa.gov/region09/cross_pr/innovations/merrec.html
USGS, 2000. Mercury in the Environment, USGS Fact Sheet 146-00 (October 2000) Environments Where Methyl mercury is a Problem.