Suction Dredging Report, Biased yet Informative Options

[Redpaw]

Unfortunately this report is full of selling out the Oregon Miners, This report blames everything ever done from all activities on mining and accounts for little if any documented cases of Drift Boat Anchor Dragging or River Rafters standing on the Salmon Beds while creating turbulence on the raft during activities. This Report assumes that every Camper in the woods is a miner and that we HOG all the good spots while destroying the Environment.

As you read this, watch for the one sided slant and look for the sellout of the Miners.



NOTE TO THE READER:
Recreational Placer Mining in the Oregon Scenic Waterways System is a report prepared by the Institute for Natural Resources at Oregon State University. The Oregon Parks and Recreation Department contracted with INR to prepare this report in response to Senate Bill 606 passed by the Legislature in 2001.
SB 606 directed OPRD to conduct a review of placer mining impacts on scenic waterways and report back to the 72nd Legislative Assembly. OPRD has not yet officially presented the report to the Legislature.

This report is informational. It does not represent a recommendation from OPRD for Legislative action regarding recreational placer mining. Before formulating a recommendation, OPRD will convene a forum of interested stakeholders to review and discuss the report. OPRD will seek stakeholder assistance in reaching a consensus recommendation on recreational placer mining in scenic waterways. To allow adequate opportunity to develop stakeholder consensus, it may be necessary to defer reporting to the Legislature until the 2005 session.
The outcome of the stakeholder forum process will be summarized and presented here before any report or recommendations are presented to the Legislature.
Contact Dave Wright at 503.378.4168 x 251 or at dave.wright@state.or.us for more information.

RECREATIONAL PLACER MINING IN THE OREGON SCENIC WATERWAYS SYSTEM

DAVID BERNELL
JEFF BEHAN
BO SHELBY


AN ASSESSMENT FOR THE OREGON PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT

JANUARY 2003

INR POLICY PAPER 2003-01
I n s t i t u t e f o r N a t u r a l R e s o u r c e s

TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...............1
INTRODUCTION........................7
BACKGROUND..........................7
AT ISSUE ...............................11
METHODS................................14

RECREATIONAL MINING ON SCENIC WATERWAYS

THE CASES FOR AND AGAINST..............................15
WHAT THE STAKEHOLDERS SAY.............................16
Recreational Miners...............................................16
Resource Conservation/Environmental Organizations................22
Boaters....................................................................29
Sportfishing Groups ..................................................33
Campers/Hikers/Other Recreationists..........................35
Watershed Councils...................................................35
Landowners ...............................................................36


WHAT THE GOVERNMENT AGENCIES SAY ...........................

OPRD....................................................................37
DSL........ ..............................................................39
DEQ.......................................................................42
ODFW.....................................................................45
WRD.......................................................................47
BLM & USFS ............................................................48
Corps of Engineers...................................................51
DOGAMI..................................................................52
NFMS & USFWS.........................................................52
State Police..............................................................53
Other Agencies ........................................................54


WHAT THE RESEARCHERS SAY...................................54
Social/Recreational Impacts........................................54
Biological/Ecological Impacts ......................................62
GOALS AND USES: ARE THEY COMPATIBLE? ................72
OPTIONS...................................................................75
ADDITIONAL STAKEHOLDER RECOMMENDATIONS ........78
APPENDICES...............................................................80
Oregon Scenic Waterways ...........................................80
Bibliography................................................................82
Organizations and People Contacted .............................86
Interview Topics/Questions...........................................88
Photograph of a Suction Dredge....................................89
About the Authors........................................................90


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Throughout the state of Oregon over the past several decades, people have visited
certain rivers and streams to engage in recreational placer mining a practice which generally entails looking for gold deposits. Some of these people use a motorized suction dredge to search for gold, and there are currently several hundred people who have obtained permits from the state to use a suction dredge. This practice, however, has been and continues to be controversial, especially in designated Oregon Scenic Waterways.

These waterways, comprising approximately 1000 river miles, are specially designated in order to maintain free flowing waters in their natural state, protect water quality and quantity at a level that is necessary for recreation, fish and wildlife uses, and to preserve scenic and esthetic qualities from the river perspective. Approximately 125 people currently hold permits to utilize a motorized suction dredge in Oregon Scenic Waterways,and the state has agreed to decide whether or not the practice should continue to be allowed in Scenic Waterways.


The statute authorizing the Oregon Scenic Waterways System in 1970 prohibited
placer mining, and made no distinction between large-scale commercial operations and small recreational activities. However, recreational placer mining was an existing use that was tacitly tolerated. In 1982, the Oregon Attorney Generals office ruled that the statute was intended to curb large commercial activities and therefore recreational mining could continue. In 1994 the Attorney Generals office revisited the issue and came to the opposite conclusion.

Recreational placer mining in Scenic Waterways was halted for only a short time.
The State Legislature amended the Oregon code in 1995 to allow the practice to continue, but only for two years, after which it would be sunsetted and no longer allowed. The December 31, 1997 sunset date was subsequently extended by two-year increments for a total of eight years. The current sunset date for recreational placer mining in Oregon Scenic Waterways is December 31, 2003 unless the Oregon State Legislature decides otherwise before that time.

Purpose of Report and Principal Questions

The Oregon State Legislature has requested that the Oregon Parks and Recreation
Department (OPRD) provide information to assist the Legislature in deciding whether to permanently allow or ban recreational placer mining in Oregon Scenic Waterways when the issue is addressed in 2003. To meet that request, this report provides information to answer the following questions, as requested by OPRD:

• What are the biological, recreational, and social effects of recreational placer
mining?
• What are the views of stakeholders, state and federal agencies, and scientific
researchers with respect to these effects?
• What are the impacts of banning or allowing recreational placer mining in
Oregon Scenic Waterways?

By providing this information on the effects and views of recreational placer mining, this report will assist the Legislature in answering the following questions:

• Is recreational placer mining an appropriate activity in Scenic Waterways?
• Is the activity consistent with the goals and objectives of the Scenic Waterways Program?
• Does recreational placer mining have unacceptable environmental impacts?


These questions encompass both social and ecological concerns. To address them, this report makes use of information obtained from researchers and scientific
literature, miners and mining groups, sportfishing and boating clubs, environmental
organizations, retail businesses, and representatives of state, local and federal agencies to assess the impacts and appropriateness of recreational placer mining in Oregon Scenic Waterways. The scientific literature provided information on potential environmental impacts, while individuals and stakeholder groups expressed a wide range of viewpoints on recreational suction dredge mining.


Arguments IN FAVOR of Suction Dredging in Oregon Scenic Waterways

Those in favor of continuing to allow recreational suction dredge mining in
Oregon Scenic Waterways generally make their case by arguing that:

• The waterways were designated partly for recreation, and miners are another
type of recreationist.
• Miners enjoy the activity; they dont do it to make a living.
• Waterways were meant to support multiple uses, and recreational miners have
as much a right to the waterways as other river users.
• Recreational placer mining on Scenic Waterways occurs at limited times in
limited areas by very few people. Oregon Scenic Waterways comprise only
1% of all river miles in the state, and only a few of these rivers contain gold
bearing sites (there are a few dozen sites that are subject to most of the suction
dredging). Because it occurs on such a small level, and at so few sites, the activity does not harm resources or interfere with other river recreation.
• Scientists have not proven that recreational suction dredging significantly
impacts fish.
• Recreational suction dredging is well regulated and most miners follow the
regulations, so it has minimal impact on the environment.
• Winter high flows erase all evidence of suction dredging.
• Suction dredging can improve waterways by removing lead and mercury, and
by loosening compacted gravel, making such areas more suitable for fish
spawning.


In addition, miners feel discriminated against for their choice of recreational
activity. They believe the public misunderstands what recreational suction dredging
actually entails, and argue that despite considerable research, fish biologists have not proven a linkage between their dredging activities and impacts on fish. They believe mining in general has been stigmatized and that people unfamiliar with the activity simply equate recreational placer mining with commercial-scale operations.


Arguments AGAINST Suction Dredging in Oregon Scenic Waterways

Those against continuing to allow recreational suction dredging in Oregon Scenic
Waterways generally make their case by arguing that:
• The waterways were designated specifically for their high quality fish,
wildlife and esthetic values, and appropriate kinds of recreation. Dredging is
inappropriate recreation because it degrades these ecological and social values
the reasons waterways were protected.
• Calling suction dredging recreational doesnt make it appropriate
motorized extractive activities are routinely prohibited in areas to protect natural qualities.
• Suction dredging has a high risk of harming waterway ecosystems and especially fish. These risks are not completely proven, but are obvious and well established.
• Suction dredge motors are noisy and impact other visitors, and risk polluting
rivers and adjacent areas with fuel spills.
• Miners sometimes threaten and frequently displace other visitors, and their camps are sometimes messy and unsanitary.
• Monitoring of compliance with regulations is inadequate and little is known
about cumulative effects, so regulators cannot support their claim that there
are no significant impacts.
• It makes no sense to spend significant time, money and effort restoring fish
runs and then allow an activity as potentially damaging as suction dredging.

Opponents of recreational placer mining say that it is inconsistent with social
values embodied in the goals and objectives of protecting the state’s most precious waterways. Suction dredge mining disrupts the natural life cycle of fish species, damages riparian areas, degrades ecological complexity, and impacts other visitors.
These impacts are both short and long-term, and occur even if miners follow all regulations scrupulously. In addition it is well established that plenty of regulatory violations occur.

[Redpaw]

Current Regulatory Structure for Recreational Suction Dredging

The DSL and DEQ require all suction dredgers to obtain permits prior to any
mining activity. Permit applications must state the waterway(s) to be mined and what sections will be visited. At the end of the year, miners are also required to submit a report to DSL specifying where they actually did go. State regulations specify the practices, or best management practices (BMPs) to be followed by miners.

DSL requires that suction dredge engines can be no larger than 16 horsepower (the 10 horsepower limit was amended in recent years) and that a miner may move no more than 25 cubic yards of material in a given year from any single site. DSL and DEQ require that intake nozzles and hoses for taking in gravel can be no larger than four inches in diameter.

The mining season, called the in-water work period, is set by DSL on the
recommendations of ODFW and usually lasts no longer than a few months each year. Mining is prohibited at those times when fish are spawning so that mining does not destroy the clusters of eggs situated in spawning gravels, which are known as redds.

Numerous other stipulations also apply to recreational placer mining. Miners may not cut vegetation out of riparian areas or suction dredge outside the wet perimeter of the waterway. They cannot move large boulders or logs that are in the stream, nor may they dam or divert the waters, or cause any obstruction to fish passages.

They must also level their tailings piles and fill the holes they create once they are done in an area, a procedure referred to as backfilling. All of these regulations and several others, arrived at through a cooperative effort involving state agencies and stakeholders, are meant to ensure that impacts are kept to a minimum.


AT ISSUE

Current law has left undecided the future of recreational placer mining with a
motorized suction dredge on Oregon Scenic Waterways. The law provides that nonmotorized activities (recreational prospecting, e.g. gold panning) are allowed without a permit, and the future permissibility of this activity is not being challenged. What remains at issue is recreational placer mining that makes use of motorized dredges, and the extent to which the continuation of such activity is consistent with the goals, priorities and objectives of the Scenic Waterways System. Therefore, this assessment addresses the following questions:

• What are the biological, recreational, and social effects of recreational placer
mining?

• What are the views of stakeholders, state and federal agencies, and scientific
researchers with respect to these effects?

• What are the impacts of banning or allowing recreational placer mining in
Oregon Scenic Waterways?

With this information, the State Legislature will be able to better decide if recreational placer mining is

1) an appropriate activity on waterways protected for scenic, recreation,
fish and wildlife values;

2) consistent with the goals and objective of the Scenic
Waterways Program; and

3) causing unacceptable environmental or recreational/social
impacts.


Suction Dredging Can Have Social/Recreational and Biological Effects

Recreational suction dredging for gold in river channels is a small-scale operation
in which gravel from the riverbed is sucked through a hose, and passed over a sluice box to sort out the gold. The remaining materials are then discarded back in to the river or onto riverbanks as tailings. Suction dredges, which consist of a gas powered motor, a hose and a sluice box sitting on a floatation device, are available commercially or assembled by miners themselves (see photo in Appendix E).

Motorized recreational suction dredging remains at issue because there are often conflicting opinions and conflicting or ambiguous data about two categories of impacts resulting from the activity: social/recreational impacts and biological/ecological impacts.

The first of these concerns conflicts that may arise among various recreational
users of the states scenic rivers. Oregon waterways support multiple uses such asfishing, hiking, camping, boating and mining, among others. Recreational mining does not seem to be growing, and may in fact have diminished over the past several years, but several other types of outdoor recreation associated partially or exclusively with rivers continue to grow, especially non-commercial river floating in kayaks, rafts and canoes.

As visitation rises on a finite land base, so does the potential for conflict between user groups.Conflict between motorized and non-motorized recreationists is a pervasive issue on public lands, and non-motorized visitors are usually impacted by motorized uses more than the reverse. Different users may hold divergent values about the proper uses of a resource, or less frequently, they may physically interfere with one anothers activities.

In any case, some level of recreation conflict results when river users interfere with one anothers enjoyment of recreation settings, and can often lead to disagreement about who and what activities should have priority on a given waterway.
The second point of contention over recreational mining involves the biological
and ecological health of living organisms and habitat in, and adjacent to Scenic
Waterways. The most important and notable of these in Oregon is, of course, fish, which are both an important part of the ecological health of Oregon waterways, and a significant exploitable resource that plays a major role in the economy of the state.

For these reasons, the impacts of various activities on fish health and populations have been a major focus of many scientific studies. However, as will be discussed later in this report, studies that specifically treat recreational suction dredge mining are quite limited, and there is sometimes disagreement about the impacts of various activities, especially recreational placer mining, on fish.


Climate of Conflict

Compounding these areas of disagreement is the often polarized political debate
over this issue and other issues surrounding the practice of mining. Those who engage in small scale or recreational mining are a self-described independent group, who maintain an interest in using public lands with as little regulation or interference from authorities as possible. Most often challenging this group are others who hold that preservation of the environment in its natural state is the highest value, and that mining with motorized equipment, even on a small scale, disrupts this natural state and should therefore not be
permitted on public lands.

These two camps often tend to question the legitimacy of the others assumptions, desires, and concerns, which makes simultaneous accommodation of both groups unlikely, if not impossible. This debate over the proper use of public lands is rooted in two very different understandings of what public actually means, and who is meant to benefit from public property.

One view, which would be supported by those wishing to engage in recreational mining, places the highest priority on direct values from actually utilizing physical resources of the land. All members of the public possess the potential to use the
land. Though only some do actually use it, these people are not taking anything away from others who do not, because all have an equal right to access it to boat, fish, camp, hike or look for gold.

In sum, this expresses the goal that the land be able to benefit the greatest number of people who happen visit and use the land. It is less concerned with values that result from non-extractive use, and suggests that denying such uses of the land is actually withholding it from the public, since most people were not going to use the land for such purposes anyway.

A second view, which would generally be supported by those who wish to end
suction dredging on Scenic Waterways, places the highest priority on values that result from the existence of public lands, whether these values result from use, use that is specifically consumptive, or no use at all. (Some consumptive uses are also often referred to as productive uses by those using the natural resources for economic gain, e.g., agriculture, forestry, and mining.)

This view suggests that placing a value only (or primarily) on consumptive uses sets aside public lands for only those who use them for these purposes, which is inherently exclusive. The rest of the population gets nothing out of them if they are not preserved. Since most people are unlikely to visit a particular area, a policy that does not value non-consumptive use results in a privileged position for only a few out of the many. This position of privilege for a few is thought to marginalize
concerns for certain nonuse values that maintain a good deal of support biodiversity, wilderness, and the ability to pass along unspoiled lands to future generations.

In addition, this view is more fearful that once certain practices take place
building a road, clearcutting a forested area they cause irreversible losses, changes or damages. This view holds that limiting development and certain uses on public lands presents a more equitable way of allocating this land to the public. Therefore, only by taking measures to preserve land in a natural state (or as close to that state as possible), can public lands really be reserved for the public.

This view is not usually applicable to all public lands in a given region, but certainly to those deemed special for their natural qualities. It is argued that these areas should be managed so as to minimize the ecological footprint of human activities on them.
These would be non-consumptive, light on the land activities, which are deemed to be more appropriate because they are more consistent with the preservation of existence values. The result of this divide is likely to be that it is not possible to satisfy all stakeholders, even partially, in reaching a decision about the permissibility of suction dredge mining in Oregon Scenic Waterways.


METHODS
Data collection for this assessment was conducted in two ways. First was a review of the appropriate literature regarding the impacts of suction dredging, including
both environmental and social considerations. The literature review included both peerreviewed academic articles and independent or government-sponsored reports.
The second method of obtaining information was by means of semi-structured in-depthinterviews with stakeholders who, either individually or through their various
government agencies or non-governmental organizations, have an interest in or
responsibility for the Scenic Waterway System.

Interviews were carried out both in person and over the telephone. Preselected topics guided the interviews but enough flexibility remained to provide for open-ended responses. The objective was to accurately represent the views and positions of different stakeholder organizations and individuals, capturing the diversity of viewpoints as opposed to focusing on the frequency of particular responses.*
The responses were acquired by means of a referral sampling technique (also
known as snowball sampling).

The researchers began the interview process with key informants in OPRD and other state and federal agencies whose work involves Scenic Waterways. With this group we identified an initial set of potential interviewees with knowledge of, or interest in the Oregon Scenic Waterways program and the issue of recreational placer mining. As these people were interviewed they were asked to provide
the names of additional persons who they thought could also provide relevant
information.

We conducted more than 150 interviews, continuing the process until two goals had been met. The first was that the information gathered became repetitive. Once
this began to occur on an increasing basis, we could be confident the number of people interviewed was sufficient to be certain that the major issues had been identified and the major viewpoints had been represented similar issues, positions, beliefs, and

* A general survey of a population selected at random was considered to be inappropriate for this assessment. Most Oregonians are unlikely to be familiar with the Scenic Waterways program or to be informed about the issues surrounding suction dredge mining. Even among some agencies and stakeholder groups, there was often great ignorance regarding the Scenic Waterways Program. A list of the topics covered can be found in Appendix D.

experiences were being expressed.

The second goal to be met involved sufficient inclusion of interested individuals, agencies, and organizations. Care was taken to include interviewees from the entire geographic scope of the Oregon Scenic Waterways program and a broad variety of interest groups to minimize the chance of missing significant issues. Just as important to this effort was to be certain that all sectors and types of interest groups had an opportunity to have their voices heard and their concerns and suggestions articulated so they could be presented to the state.

This study also made use of the grounded theory of qualitative data collection and
analysis (Glaser 1992). Grounded theory is used to develop an explanation for a situation or issues as they exist on the ground. Rather than being confirmed or disproved using a preconceived theory (hypothesis testing), the explanation for the situation emerges as research is conducted. Grounded theory is iterative rather than linear, in that relevant literature or other data continue to be acquired as research progresses rather than prior to analysis only. As explanatory factors emerge, care is taken to compare new information to the developing theory or explanation of what is going on, in order to determine if the explanation is still accurate. The characteristics of emergence and lack of preconceived theories about what is going on make grounded theory particularly suited to the type of
assessment required in this case, in which data collection was ongoing and results
continued to evolve throughout the process of acquiring information. The adequacy of the explanation of the situation or issues under study can thus be evaluated on the basis of whether or not it helps people in the situation make sense of their experience and enables them to manage it better.

To be continued....