California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) | July 29th, 2005
Summary
Mercury has been used widely since the dawn of recorded history for gold mining. During California’s gold rush, gold miners used about 6 million kilograms or 6.6 thousa
Mercury has been used widely since the dawn of recorded history for gold mining. During California’s gold rush, gold miners used about 6 million kilograms or 6.6 thousand tons of mercury (Churchill, 2000) to recover over 3.6 thousand tons of gold (Bulletin 193). The weight of mercury used is roughly equal to the total weight of a 9-mile long line of 2,750, full sized pickup trucks (note: the pick up truck line equaling gold recovered would only be 5 miles long). The miners lost about half of the mercury to the environment.
Using historical records,Churchill (2000) estimated that total mercury losses ranged between 2.3 million and 2.6 million kilograms for placer and lode mining in the Sierra Nevada Geomorphic Province. Consequently, elemental mercury from the gold rush is still found, sometimes in amounts that constitute a local hotspot (i.e., a location where visible elemental mercury is found) in Sierra Nevada watersheds where gold mining occurred.
In March 2003, a recreational gold miner reported a mercury hotspot in the South Fork of the American River near Coloma, to State Water Resources Control Board staff. It was the first time a recreational gold miner had revealed a hotspot locations to agency staff. Coloma is California’s historic “Gold Discovery” site as James W. Marshall’s discovery there in January 1848 initiated the 1849 gold rush. Steve Franklin, the recreational gold miner who reported the hotspot, claimed to have recovered about a kilogram of mercury while gold mining from the hotspot during January and February 2003.
Finding a hotspot near Coloma raised questions about its potential threat to human health, effects on local fi sh, and threat to water quality. Moreover, its discovery presented an opportunity to test the notion that recreational gold miners effectively clean up mercury hotspots while suction dredging for gold. There is no record of any attempts by state or federal agencies to clean up a mercury hotspot in a California river. But State and federal agencies have discussed whether encouraging or even providing support for recreational gold miners to clean up hotspots is viable and wise. The pros are that there is a potentially large, volunteer workforce. The cons are that oversight would be difficult and, up to now, no data supported the notion that suction dredges could recover mercury efficiently.
Recreational gold dredging on public and private lands is a moderately popular activity in California. The Department of Fish and Game (DFG) issues several thousand permits annually to recreational gold dredgers. Along with gold, recreational dredgers recover iron (nails bolts, etc.), lead (fishing weights, buckshot, and spent bullets) and mercury (elemental mercury, mercury/gold amalgam, and mercury stained gold). Over the past several years, United States Forest Service (USFS), Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and State agency staff have discussed setting up a mercury recovery program for recreational dredgers. Incentives (e.g., cash for mercury, free dredging permits, new areas opened for dredging) were proposed in exchange for mercury turned in by recreational dredgers.
Offering such incentives was and remains controversial for a variety of
reasons and a mercury recovery program was not started. Moreover, an important drawback was that the efficiency of a standard suction dredge at recovering mercury was unknown. Consequently, no one knew if mercury would be lost along with waste sediment from a suction dredge. Clearly, a mercury recovery program that dispersed elemental mercury back into a stream in substantial amounts would be unacceptable. The hotspot presented an opportunity to determine the mercury recovery efficiency of a suction dredge.
Studying the hotspot may also reveal bedrock characteristics and sediment transport conditions that cause hotspots, and the effects that concentrated mercury has on local fish. This report documents the results of a suction dredge test that was completed in September 2003 by State Water Board, USFS, and DFG staff.