This is what we are up against

[Oakview2]

516 troy pounds of mercury removed in 2008, now that is some heavy metal, while NID wants to spend 10 million with the guarantee of recovering zero ounces of HG. No wonder this SC is so in love with this, it just another left leaning cluster #@%*

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

How to Research for Treasure Hunting and Metal Detecting From Lead Generation to Vetting - Grab it through Amazon!

[chlsbrns]

Prepared for: California Department of Fish and Game
601 Locust Street Redding, CA
Contact: Mark Stop530/225‐2275

Prepared by: Horizon Water and Environmental
30 Broadway Street, Suite 424
Oakland, CA

Contact: Michael Steve 510/98‐1852
6
September 2009

Discharge of mercury during dredging There is only one study that directly quantifies the discharge of Hg from suction dredging operations (Humphreys 2005). In this SWRCB study, a sediment sample was collected from a known mercury hotspot and its mercury concentration was determined and classified by size. The entire sample was dredged from one large tub to another using a United States Forest Service (USFS) minerals examiner suction dredge. A comparison of the mercury concentration of the fine and suspended sediment lost by the dredge with that of the sediment caught by the sluice indicated a 98% removal of elemental Hg from the sediment.

 

[Oakview2]

I am glad SC showed up so we can once again dig up all the concrete evidence from the very agencies that are being exhtorted by the Center for Bio Diversity and the Sierra fund. Well intentioned pinheads and bad science are not good for our health, prosperity, and the living creatures of this state. PS, Humans are included unlike the green SS I do not consider us as a plauge to the enviorment



Mercury Recovery from Recreational Gold Miners | Region 9: Innovations | US EPA


Region 9: Innovative Programs
Serving Arizona, California, Hawaii, Nevada, the Pacific Islands, and Tribal Nations
Contact Us Search: All EPA This Area

• You are here: EPA Home
• Region 9
• Innovative Programs

---

The Challenge:

Looking for gold in California streams and rivers is a recreational activity for thousands of state residents. Many gold enthusiasts simply pan gravels and sediments. More serious recreational miners may have small sluice boxes or suction dredges to recover gold bearing sediments. As these miners remove sediments, sands, and gravel from streams and former mine sites to separate out the gold, they are also removing mercury.
This mercury is the remnant of millions of pounds of pure mercury that was added to sluice boxes used by historic mining operations between 1850 and 1890. Mercury is a toxic, persistent, and bioaccumulative pollutant that affects the nervous system and has long been known to be toxic to humans, fish, and wildlife. Mercury in streams can bioaccumulate in fish and make them unfit for human consumption.

The Solution:
Taking mercury out of streams benefits the environment. Efforts to collect mercury from recreational gold miners in the past however, have been stymied due to perceived regulatory barriers. Disposal of mercury is normally subject to all regulations applicable to hazardous waste. In 2000, EPA and California's Division of Toxic Substance Control worked in concert with other State and local agencies to find the regulatory flexibility needed to collect mercury in a simple and effective manner. These groups agreed to test two different mechanisms for collecting mercury during the summer of 2000. One approach was to add mercury to the list of materials that are collected at regularly scheduled or periodic household hazardous waste collection events sponsored by local county agencies.
Another mercury collection approach was to set up collection stations in areas where mercury is being found by recreational miners. One possibility would be to advertise a fixed location where people could bring mercury on a specific date and time. Another was to create a mercury "milk run" where state, local, or federal agency staff would come to locations specified by individuals or organizations such as suction dredging clubs, and pick up mercury that had been collected.

The Results:
In August and September, 2000 the first mercury "milk runs" collected 230 pounds of mercury. Not only was mercury received from recreational gold miners, but others such as retired dentists, also participated by turning in mercury that was in their possession. A Nevada County household waste collection event held in September 2000 collected about 10 pounds of mercury. 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. This successful pilot program demonstrates how recreational gold miners and government agencies can work together to protect the environment. In the summer of 2001, State agencies planned to extend the program to six counties and include collection of mercury at summer mining fairs.

Contact:
For further information, please contact David Jones at (415) 744-2266, [email protected]

 

[Fullpan]

Oak - i'll bet there's some juicy emails or documents at EPA and the Ca. Dept of Toxic Substance Control that explain the sudden abandonment of the whole program!

 

[Goldwasher]

good stuff guys kep it coming

 

[Oakview2]

Court Closes Suction Dredge Mining Loophole in Siskiyou County

 

[Aufisher]

Poorly written, loaded propaganda

 

[Fullpan]

Poorly written, loaded propaganda

But sadly, its effective

 

[Mad Machinist]

SC,

I am still waiting for an answer to my question on riparian areas.

And to give you a little to chew on, yes, we can win.

http://www.sharetrails.org/uploads/PL/PLU/061713/CA9_AZ_Strip_Mon_Memorandum_05-16-13.pdf

NMOHVA

And the 9th Circuit Court also also denied "Big Green" intervenor status in our lawsuit against Tahoe National Forest.

Here's another one for you all.

12 States Sue EPA Over Settlements With Green Groups


And when dealing with the eco Nazi's this is the only thing you need to remember. Pay attention to the last paragraph.

http://www.chiltonranch.com/chilton_ranch_lawsuit.html

​

 

[2cmorau]

Thanks for your post the Chilton Ranch is one that everyone should print out and send to there respective reps

SC,

I am still waiting for an answer to my question on riparian areas.

And to give you a little to chew on, yes, we can win.

http://www.sharetrails.org/uploads/PL/PLU/061713/CA9_AZ_Strip_Mon_Memorandum_05-16-13.pdf

NMOHVA

And the 9th Circuit Court also also denied "Big Green" intervenor status in our lawsuit against Tahoe National Forest.

Here's another one for you all.

12 States Sue EPA Over Settlements With Green Groups


And when dealing with the eco Nazi's this is the only thing you need to remember. Pay attention to the last paragraph.

Chilton Ranch Lawsuit

​

 

[Fullpan]

Yes, thanks machinist - I bookmarked the links for inspiration that the fight is not lost yet.

 

[Oakview2]

Just a SHORT list of LAW the CA suction dredge ban clearly violates.​

National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA"), 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq. ;

Executive Orders: EO 12291 and EO 12866;

Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act ("MUSYA"), 16 U.S.C. § 528 et seq.;

Numerous Sections of the Code of Federal Regulations ("CFR"), as set forth in 36 CFR 212 et seq.; 36 CFR 215.1 et seq; 36 CFR 228 et seq.; 36 CFR 261 et seq.; 43 CFR 3800; and 43 CFR 3809.1 et seq., including without limitation 43 CFR 3809.3.

The Federal Lands Policy and Management Act ("FLPMA") 43 U.S.C. § 1701 et seq., including without limitation §§ 1732(b), 1761 and 1769;

PL No. 104-208, 110 Stat.3009 § 108 (Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1997);

30 U.S.C. §§ 21-54 (Mining Act), including without limitation the Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, 30 U.S.C. § 21(a);

16 U.S.C. § 481 (Use of Waters);

30 U.S.C. § 612, 613, 615 (Multiple Surface Use Act);

5 U.S.C. §§ 601, 602, 603(b) and © (Regulatory Flexibility Act As Amended By The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (5 U.S.C. §§ 801-808) [SBREFA]);

The Endangered Species Act 16 U.S.C. § 1531;

California Civil Code § 3479 et seq.;

California Code of Civil Procedure § 731;

The 5th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution of the United States;

Article I § 8 (Commerce Clause) of the Constitution of the United States;

Article I § 7(a) of the Constitution of California;

Article I § 19 of the Constitution of California.

 

[Oakview2]

 

[bedrock bubba]

Great pic, Oakview! Send that to all the enviro nazi and news sites, and Facebook, etc!