<html><head></head><body bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><div><a href="http://westernminingalliance.org/?page_id=1111">http://westernminingalliance.org/?page_id=1111</a> </div><div><br></div><div>Response from western mining alliance. <br><br>Sent from my iPhone</div><div><br>On Mar 8, 2012, at 7:13 PM, <a href="mailto:FISH1IFR@aol.com">FISH1IFR@aol.com</a> wrote:<br><br></div><div></div><blockquote type="cite"><div>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<meta name="GENERATOR" content="MSHTML 9.00.8112.16441">
<font id="role_document" color="#000000" size="2" face="Arial">
<div>In a message dated 3/8/2012 6:33:06 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
<a href="mailto:bhill@igc.org">bhill@igc.org</a> writes:</div>
<blockquote style="BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px"><font style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" color="#1f497d" size="2" face="Calibri">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt">Suction
dredges are designed to remove heavy metals, esp., gold and platinum, from
waterways. Because mercury and lead are almost as heavy as gold, suction
dredges REMOVE mercury and lead from waterways along with gold and other heavy
metals. This blatant fact known to every dredge miner is carefully
circumvented by those opposed to small stream miners.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt">Doesn't
it make sense that removing mercury from waterways improves the health of the
waterway?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt">A
test of whether dredging stirs up or removes mercury from waterways would be
very simple to demostrate.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</font><p class="MsoNormal"><font style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" color="#1f497d" size="2" face="Calibri"><span style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-SIZE: 11pt">Brian
Hill</span></font></p></blockquote>
<div><font color="#000000" size="3" face="Arial">Brian....</font></div>
<div><font color="#000000" size="3" face="Arial"></font> </div>
<div><font color="#000000" size="3" face="Arial">I know the above in an "article of
faith" for suction dredge miners, and one of their great defensive talking
points, but it is also dead wrong on the science. While the dredge might
catch <u>some</u> otherwise dormant and sequestered subsurface mercury, it also
stirs it up and methylates the rest (and likely a lot more than it catches),
thus creating the most water soluble (and toxic to humans and fish) chemical
compounds of mercury known. </font></div>
<div><font color="#000000" size="3" face="Arial"></font> </div>
<div><font color="#000000"><font face="Arial"><span class="titles-large"><font size="3">See, for instance, the USGS study <em>Mercury contamination in
California’s South Yuba River, available at: </em></font></span><a href="http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=2686"><font size="3">http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=2686</font></a></font></font></div>
<div><em><font color="#000000" size="3" face="Arial"></font></em> </div>
<div><font color="#000000"><font size="3" face="Arial">In short, the tests have been
done, in many streams under varying conditions, and the conclusion is
<u>inescapable</u> that suction dredging releases otherwise sequestered river
bottom mercury that constitutes a human as well as fish health
hazard. And this is quite aside for any other adverse impacts, which also
occur (increased sediments, disturbing or destroying intra-gravel eggs,
disrupting noises affecting fish behavior, etc.). All these suction dredge
impacts are well documented. In fact, CDFG did a good literature search of
the scientific literature showing these various impacts, which is included as
Appendix D to the Draft EIR and (for those hardy souls who like to see the
source of such assertions) is attached. </font></font></div>
<div><font color="#000000"><font size="3" face="Arial"></font></font> </div>
<div><font color="#000000"><font size="3" face="Arial">There is thus every good
reason, both for environmental and human health reasons, to minimize suction
dredge impacts in many California streams, and in many others to ban it
altogether. </font></font></div><font color="#000000">
<div><font size="2" face="Arial"></font> </div>
<div><font lang="0" size="2" face="Arial" family="SANSSERIF" ptsize="10">======================================<br>Glen H. Spain, Northwest
Regional Director<br>Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations
(PCFFA)<br>PO Box 11170, Eugene, OR 97440-3370<br>Office: (541)689-2000 Fax:
(541)689-2500<br>Web Home Page: <a href="http://www.pcffa.org/">www.pcffa.org</a><br>Email:
<a href="mailto:fish1ifr@aol.com">fish1ifr@aol.com</a></font></div></font></font></div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div><DEIRAppx_D_LitRev[1].pdf></div></blockquote></body></html>