Water Board meetings

[Oakview2]

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

A Handbook of Civil War Bullets and Cartridges - Grab it through Amazon!

[QNCrazy]

I have been working on my letter and keep uncovering good information. SB 637 amended the Water Code, Section 13172.5 (b) which states in part, "(1) Adopt waste discharge requirements or a waiver of waste discharge requirements that, at a minimum, address the water quality impacts of each of the following:
(A) Mercury loading to downstream reaches of surface water bodies affected by the use of vacuum or suction dredge equipment.
(B) Methylmercury formation in water bodies."

If you Google Methylmercury, the first result is from Wikipedia which has great information. Further down the list of results i found this link: https://www.epa.gov/mercury/basic-information-about-mercury. Notice that this is from the EPA. Fight fire with Fire, right?

So how does dredging cause methylmercury formation? bottom line, it doesn't. According to both sources, methylmercury in water systems can be caused by microorganisms consuming the mercury, or natural processes such as forrest fires, volcanic eruptions, etc. which introduce Methylmercury into the atmosphere which is then redeposited on earth through rain. Bioaccumulation of Methylmercury in fish is caused by these microorganisms getting consumed by fish, and so on, and so on. So following this theory, if suction dredges removes 98% of the mercury from the waterbody, there would be less mercury for the microorganisms to conume, thereby reducing the methylmercury levels in fish. Seems like a win, win.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Diving for Pleasure and Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!

[QNCrazy]

Thanks Winners. Right, the terms they used were inorganic mercury and microbes. So let me ask as I want to get this straight, if a fish advisory means the bioaccumulation is high in fish, why wouldn't they want dredging in those areas? Seems to me, as I stated, less mercury in the rivers would ultimately lead to lower bioaccumulatioin levels. Right? Just trying to figure this crap out to put up a good argument.

 

[Tuolumne]

every spring the mercury is washing into the bay delta and SF bay, poisoning the strippers and other bay fish, the DFW already knows this.... taking out 98% of merc dredging is better than leaving 100% how could they argue? The rains dislodge 100% of the merc slowly moving it year after year and and flush it to the bay, If its not cleaned up by us then it will always continue to pollute SF bay and delta for the next hundreds of years......

 

[winners58]

better to remove it, in the waterboard statement they ask should mercury be by fish advisory or fish tissue tests.
read up on study's, it's better to quote them and list the cited reports, you don't want to be dismissed as just opinion.

2007 WB 401 comments by Claudia Wise
listings of mercury studys on WMA

Miners Minute Claudia Wise presentation on Mercury;
part 1; https://youtu.be/qM0LdWmKtlo
part 2; https://youtu.be/AhiaCWWqdlg
part 3 https://youtu.be/tXhX7IaIBZk

fish advisory map
OEHHA Fish Advisory Map | OEHHA and OEHHA home page

 

[RobertF]

One thing I noticed during the meeting is that the environmentalist, the one that came up with the young woman, did do one thing we really didn't explicitly hit on.

A plan for what we want the water board to do.

He laid out EXACTLY what he wanted them to do and then several if not X, then Z situations. I can't say I heard anyone from the mining side really lay out how we want them to handle permits/monitoring or that we don't want them to do permits.

 

[Goldwasher]

Shannon mentioned several times that they believed there should be no permit required

 

[winners58]

I would say in most cases a suction dredge will remove 100% of the mercury that is attached/attracted to the gold.
from the waterboards own documentation, the study that was conducted was a hot spot (blobs of liquid mercury)
their recommendations if a hot spot was encountered would be to stop dredging and ether use a hand operated suction tube
or identify/coordinates of the location and report it. 2005 staff report suction dredge test

 

[Hoser John]

That report was just the start of the mercury hysteria scam. I have video/photos of that same exact spot in the campgrounds being 100% blasted clean with a 8". The owner has made deals with folks for years and just like a typewriter action that site has been repeatedly dredged as the water rose and receded. Preceding years and after also and NO mercury by multiple big dredges and dozens of smaller ones. Water level allowing to pick up where you left off the preceeding year, sometimes more than once as moved, returned in a year. Year after year it was a easy place to launch but got cleaned out pretty good. That mercury was not there as all that was left-see their photos/video-was clean bedrock as we moved all the boulders of any size. If memory serves right there was a Grandiose claim of 2,750 full sized trucks weight full of miners lost mercury would stretch over 9 miles long(5 minus cabs)which was the apex insanity as old timers losses. This insane bull was from Churchhill quoting himself in a unpublished survey he faked to impress himself. ALSO the miners lost fully HALF THE MERCURY hahaha which also means half the gold PLUS the ungodly expensive elusive mercury wa wa wa yet another Churchhill pile a garbage(cleaned for the censors) They left this illegal mercury dump for months and months and never said a word creating a huge danger in the middle of the campground with a place full of kids playing on the shores and shallow water WHERE IT WAS PRESENT ALL SUMMER LONG=OVER 7 MONTHS. I have the scam in my library and it stinks up the place-John

 

[MadMarshall]

https://ca.water.usgs.gov/projects/CA07R.html

 

[Tuolumne]

https://ca.water.usgs.gov/projects/CA07R.html

wow, where was this slide at the meeting?! hes got his number on the bottom, someone should call him up. Are they going to keep the gold and not tell anyone or what? how much of that merc will have electrum? They should do a retort study after and show how we can safely capture and return nature to is pristine state, we out hippy the hippies all the time....

theres merc from other places being studied too, what about the soot coming on winds from China? Can we get that quantified for the board to consider if were already talking about 2% micron merc anyway

https://ca.water.usgs.gov/projects/2015-14.html

 

[winners58]

https://ca.water.usgs.gov/projects/CA07R.html

the Department of Interior released their final report looking into allegations of scientific misconduct by one of their scientists, Dr. Charles Alpers. The WMA challenged the findings of a 2011 report prepared by Dr. Charles Alpers, of the US Geological Survey (USGS), which concluded suction gold dredging equipment increased mercury levels in streams. The WMA alleged the scientist withheld five years of data and was also a member of an environmental group which was lobbying for a prohibition on suction dredging equipment.

The final report acknowledged Dr. Alpers was not only a member of the environmental group, The Sierra Fund (TSF), but was also on the Board of Advisors of TSF, a position which determined policy and strategy for the group. Western Mining Alliance

 

[Hoser John]

One batch of bureauratz covering yet anothers group of lying bureauratz arses.......corruption from stem to stern as the stomach churns and we start season 10 with no dredging, highbanking and pumping water illegal without a non existant permit. Fact is permiting process in place for over 20 years. "Guide to Watershed Project Permitting for the state of California" DO'H...my my my they just lie lie lie permit? PERMIT? we ain't got no permit process sic sic sic sic -John

 

[Goldwasher]

A lot of people get water permits from the board. The problem is power sluicing and dredging didn't "need" one per cwa or porter cologne...people butthurt ...use court scare people. tell them they need permit while they have to create the process for the permit you never needed before. SB637!! It has been pretty straight forward the whole time.
It was just easier for them to scare some than others.

what size nozzle is equivalent to a No#2 shovel...I haven't seen that in the regs yet.

 

[Oakview2]

Permits are the result of government taking your rights, and then selling them back to you. In this case, the fee to the waterboard are reported to be 1200 dolllars, for one site only, non refundable if they decide you cannot work your claim because of the presence of mercury, or a possible or traditional salmon waterway, proposed endangered species, possible tribal artifact sites, ect, ect, ect..... THE REAL DEPLORABLES ARE IN THE CA SENATE AND ASSEMBLY...... AND IN THE HAND PICKED PROGRESSIVE, LIBERAL, ENVIORMENTALIS OF THE AIR AND WATERBOARDS..

 

[Tuolumne]

I bet me and my 4 friends with shovels feeding a bazooka non stop can make more of a mess than a 4 inch dredge working same material....

Did you guys catch the part about not disturbing the amphibian eggs?!?

Seriously the non native DFW stocked trout and non native crayfish do the most damage. They better not count that on streams with stockers or other non native amphibian predators!

Amphibians lay eggs in wet season not when we dredge in summer.

 

[RobertF]

Shannon mentioned several times that they believed there should be no permit required

It was mentioned, not told. I guess to me it was more of a difference in the way it was presented.

The environmentalist has been around (time wise) and knows that there is a good chance that dredging won't outright be banned, just [heavily] regulated. When they clearly laid out their plan and compromises, the government representatives were writing fiercely. They wrote when Shannon and Craig did too but not like they did during the environmentalist's plan... because we never really gave one.

I know Jerry Hobbs would roll over in his grave for me saying this, but at some point we have to come to some realistic expectations and make some mention of compromise. This our way or the highway method really hasn't got us anywhere and certainly doesn't appear to be getting us back in the water any time soon. We just don't have the financial backing the environmentalist side has to try and push the our way or the highway mentality forever. Either we offer concessions we can work with and try to get them to adopt them or we'll get the environmentalist's plan shoved down our throats.

 

[Goldfleks]

With Trump in the White House, and CA breaking its 5 year drought, Jerry Brown might have less teeth to mandate the use of water going forward. Water issues are always worse when there is less of it.

 

[Oakview2]

Don't confuse the state with facts that don't fit their narrative.

I bet me and my 4 friends with shovels feeding a bazooka non stop can make more of a mess than a 4 inch dredge working same material....

Did you guys catch the part about not disturbing the amphibian eggs?!?

Seriously the non native DFW stocked trout and non native crayfish do the most damage. They better not count that on streams with stockers or other non native amphibian predators!

Amphibians lay eggs in wet season not when we dredge in summer.

 

[Goldwasher]

It was mentioned, not told. I guess to me it was more of a difference in the way it was presented.

The environmentalist has been around (time wise) and knows that there is a good chance that dredging won't outright be banned, just [heavily] regulated. When they clearly laid out their plan and compromises, the government representatives were writing fiercely. They wrote when Shannon and Craig did too but not like they did during the environmentalist's plan... because we never really gave one.

I know Jerry Hobbs would roll over in his grave for me saying this, but at some point we have to come to some realistic expectations and make some mention of compromise. This our way or the highway method really hasn't got us anywhere and certainly doesn't appear to be getting us back in the water any time soon. We just don't have the financial backing the environmentalist side has to try and push the our way or the highway mentality forever. Either we offer concessions we can work with and try to get them to adopt them or we'll get the environmentalist's plan shoved down our throats.

Dude didn't present a "plan" he presented what he wants regulated based on his opinion and agenda.

In a workshop like this technically we have equal stake. Judging the intake of presented info based on how much they were writing during someone speaking doesn't make sense . They just got up and spoke. So they had to write down info. Considering those that gave powerpoint also submitted the files to the workshop. Therefore the need to take "notes" is much less. As they have the presentation to view at their leisure.

 

[Tuolumne]

im busy like you guys but working on my power point just like you, maybe I should splice in some fungi for viewing pleasure
https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Lectures/Archive mountain yellow frog, Im anxiously awaiting the next saga to be made on the Tuolumne worms too. Minute 18:45 he starts talking about native salmon, non native fish and it gets good till the end, good maps for visual.