On February 20th, the Sierra Fund with, local co sponsors, hosted an informational meeting to present to the public in Foresthill, information they had developed on the toxic minerals left behind by mining projects from World War 2 and back to the gold rush. Yes, in fact, there are some serious public health concerns relative to the toxic legacy of mining. We can all agree on that! However, there were some problems with some of the information presented, and how some of the information developed by The Sierra Fund is being misused to mislead the people and the California State Legislature. The impact of this information, and how it has been distributed has devastating effects on the miners, mining business, the service industries that support the miners, and the mining communities. As you can expect, very passionate members of the mining community expressed their feelings about the presentation on Mercury exposure.
The meeting was divided up into two topics, Dust and Fish. The second half of the meeting presentation was actually quite reasonable and stated well established facts. Dust from ore waste and tail piles, amplified by water bodies, moving or not, can present a concentration of deadly levels of toxic metals that can contaminate our watersheds and the animals that drink from it. The dust in the soil can be disturbed, think ATV's, and become inhaled by trail users in those areas. consider the primary rider, and the guy and gal behind him creating an ever heavier cloud of toxic dust.
These sites should be identified and the public made aware of the possible health hazard. Remediation of the site may be necessary. The concern of the members was whether the studies and recommendations would be used to close trails and areas for other reasons than actual health hazards. Rich Weaver a hydrologist for the USFS made the presentation and suggested that there was no reason to suggest that the specific study area ( The Marall Chrome Mine above Foresthill ) was going to be closed to the public. I mentioned out loud "like the Clear Creak Recreation Area in San Benito County". This area was closed due to dust born asbestos concern, and only land owners and claim owners are allowed in the area. The local BLM ranger for that area is a radical environmentalist and opposes any mining in the area of his jurisdiction. There was a distinct level of distrust by the audience.
The Dust portion of the meeting was presented well, was informational, and the audience seemed to appreciate the facts and manner of the presentation.
The opening portion of the meeting, conducted by the consulting hydrologist for The Sierra Fund, Carrie Monahan, was pretty much the facts as we knew them. The early miners, not imagining anybody ever living here in the wide open frontier, abused the land in a manner that even most of us today would not agree with. Responsible mining with reclamation would be something any conservation minded miner would expect. I include myself in this group. For those who question the Supreme Court Decision to suspend hydraulicking, with out sumping the tails, would only have to look at the historical impact of that type of mining on the Sacramento Valley and the appropriateness of that moratorium. The pictures were striking!
The presentation then moved to the most contentious part of the meeting, and that is, on the impact of mercury from early mining and it's suggested impact today! At this point the audience, mostly miners and mining families, took great displeasure with the information being presented to what was supposed to be the uninformed community audience.
Since the moratorium on dredging and the very flawed and amateur mercury testing by Alpers in the Suction Dredging Environmental Impact Report, the miners have allied with great experts in the area of hydraulic study, marine toxic studies, and watershed geology. Numerous studies and reports have been gleaned for information that is directly contradictory to the information put forward by these Environmental Extremist organizations and individuals.
Unfortunately, the flawed studies by Alpers and the Sierra Fund Fish Consumption Survey are used by the Sierra Fund and other Extremist organizations to scare the pants off of citizens and the, less informed, members of the California State Legislature. An Environmental Quality Services company owner stated in the Suction Dredge EIR open hearings, "If Alpers presented this level of work to him, he would fire him and the State of California Should be ashamed for including his work in the EIR". Monahan's presentation unfolded to the point where she established that there were recommended levels of mercury intake for humans that should not be exceeded. She then listed the fish by there propensity to accrete mercury in their system by their feeding habits and their life span.
It does stand to reason, that fish that eat other fish, and other stream animals that ingest mercury from the food chain, are going to absorb and add that mercury into their system. Brown Trout, a vicious little guy, eat other fish and have higher levels of mercury, rainbow trout, not so much. Bass, a long living fish, have higher absorption. Tuna and Sharks, long lived, and top of the line predators are big mercury accumulators. Yes, all fish species in all waters absorb and have mercury in their systems, except the anchovies.
The presentation then lead to the standards established, and not sure by who, for how many fish various people, based on their age, sex, and pregnancy should be eaten over a period of time from various watersheds. Monahan then produced a survey, a very limited survey, of fisherman and how many fish they eat or feed their families from the various watersheds. Imagine that, as one audience member said, fisherman eat fish, and their families do also! the survey found that there were a high number of fisherman and their families who ingested an excessively high number of fish, exceeding the acceptable standards.
At this point, I found it necessary to ask loudly, and provide the answer loudly, with great force; So, were tissue samples done any of the survey subjects to establish that they actually have absorbed the mercury that the survey would suggest. How many of them have demonstrated any neurological effects of mercury poisoning. Knowing that the moderator, a very forceful woman herself, Izzy Cohen, would shut me down in a heart beat, I continued on asking the questions they should be answering to adequately inform the audience.
I asked about where the mercury is in the fish, how about the skin and the liver, not so much in the flesh. How many incidents of mercury toxicity or neurological defect are recorded by the California Department of Health related to mercury ingestion from watershed fish in the Sierra Nevada, the answer is none. Probably because of the naturally occurring Selenium in the volcanic rocks dissolved into the water and food chain. Selenium is a mercury antagonist and like mercury and gold amalgamation, Selenium holds mercury harmless in fish and humans.
At about that time, Izzy had enough and asked me to tone it down, or leave the building. Imagine that, my community center, my town, No! I have to admit, I then took it to a more personal level, I expressed to her that she was my worst enemy, and she I am her worst enemy. She is. This woman is the darling of the environmental movement at our state Capitol and as is destructive as any other force against the Logging, agriculture, and mining industries. I let her know, she has destroyed my mining business and the economy of my community, and we will no longer stand for it.
Well, I am not sorry. I will not apologize, I and many others in that room are mad as hell and we are not taking it any more. While we would rather, politely and professionally, like to make our case in a calm and reasoned debate, that has not worked. The damage is done. They have rolled over us and it's time for push back. They have mislead the community and the decision makers in our Capitol. We must take a stand and make it known, we are not letting it go, or are we?
James Hutchings
Foresthill California
