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]

Resource Conservation/Environmental Organizations

• Environmental and resource conservation organizations oppose recreational
placer mining.
• Motorized mining is inappropriate and incompatible with the ecological, esthetic
and recreation values for which the waterways were designated.
• Recreational placer mining has harmful environmental impacts, particularly on
fish.
• It is important to implement policies that favor protecting natural resources unless and until it can be proven that suction dredge mining does not cause harm. Only then can the activity be allowed.
• Enforcement and monitoring by the state are virtually non-existent, and many
miners do not follow all applicable regulations.
• Noise, fumes and spills are distasteful and harmful results from suction dredges,
as are unclean campsites left by recreational miners.


Environmentalists Oppose Recreational Placer Mining

We contacted a range of environmental interest groups that are currently active in
Oregon, from local entities to state groups and regional offices of national organizations.
None of the environmental interest groups contacted supported recreational placer mining and nearly all were opposed to it, many quite strongly. Some groups were unaware that small-scale suction dredge mining was a sanctioned recreational use, or said that they were primarily focused on other issues. These groups either had general reservations about the activity, or stated that they had no strongly developed position. However, most groups we contacted had some degree of familiarity with recreational placer mining and wanted it curtailed.

The degree of opposition tended to be correlated with the level of awareness of
the activity . the more knowledgeable a group was concerning recreational mining in Oregon Scenic Waterways, the more it made articulate, detailed and forceful arguments against it. Groups that are active where recreational placer mining occurs, and those for which fish habitat was an area of focus, tended to be most strongly opposed. Opposition stemmed mainly from concerns about direct impacts of dredging on fish, but also from a range of other issues. These included noise, fumes and potential fuel spills from dredge motors, ecological impacts of mining on other species besides fish, the appearance and impacts of miners. campsites along rivers and streams, and conflict and safety issues involving other river recreationists.

To support their assertions that small-scale suction dredge mining is not an
appropriate form of recreation in Scenic Waterways, environmental interest groups
focused mainly on the potential for mining to degrade ecological conditions in designated streams and rivers. Most concerns that were voiced related to salmon, steelhead and trout, and riparian organisms and conditions upon which these fish depend.

Recreational Suction Dredging is Incompatible with Oregon Scenic Waterways


Environmental groups consistently emphasized that Scenic Waterways were
designated, and are supposed to be administered, specifically to preserve and enhance fish and wildlife habitat, natural scenic and esthetic qualities, and types of recreation that rely on, and/or are .compatible. with these values. Motorized mining of any kind is considered to be contrary to the ecological, esthetic and recreation values for which the waterways were designated.

Describing small-scale, not-for-profit suction dredge mining as recreational.
does not mean it must automatically be included among the types of recreation allowed in Scenic Waterways. It is commonplace for certain kinds of recreation, especially motorized and extractive activities, to be deemed inappropriate and prohibited on a variety of public lands protected for high quality ecological and esthetic characteristics.

Oregon Scenic Waterways are an excellent example of such lands, designated for
protection because of their special nature-based attributes (e.g., fish and wildlife habitat), so a ban on a motorized resource extraction activity would be legitimate.
Several environmental groups were dubious that recreational placer mining was
truly recreational, noting that it is a resource extraction activity with economic and
utilitarian implications, even if the operation is not profitable. Groups such as outfitters and guides also make money by .using. river resources, but these uses are almost exclusively non-consumptive aside from fish retained by sportfishers. No group besides miners has a primary goal of extracting and selling physical resources from the river. All recreationists impact the landscape to some degree, but miners have a greater per capita impact on river resources because they physically rework the river bottom with motorized equipment that produces noise and pollution.


Impacts on Fish Are a Primary Concern

The principal fish-related impacts from suction dredge mining voiced by
environmental groups were:
• disturbance and destruction of eggs and fry in spawning beds
• ingestion and destruction of invertebrate food species in suction dredges
• destabilization and siltation of gravels used for spawning and food sources
• affects of sediment turbidity plumes on fish and their ability to find food
• redistribution or removal of large woody debris and rocks
Environmental groups argued that recreational mining disturbs fish spawning
areas by destabilizing and redistributing gravel, and mobilizing fine sediments. Turbidity plumes had been seen personally by members of several groups, and were mentioned frequently as a concern. In response to miners. contentions that turbidity caused by their activities is inconsequential compared to that which occurs during high winter flows, it was pointed out that in most salmon-bearing streams turbidity occurs naturally during winter but very rarely during the summer. Fish have evolved to prefer these clear summer conditions. Unnatural turbidity in the summer resulting from recreational placer mining interferes with the aquatic food chain during the time of year when it is most
productive.

Mobilized sediments can clog and kill aquatic vegetation on the stream bottom
and the organisms it supports, including insects and other invertebrates. This in turn affects the amount of food available for salmon and trout. Coarser suspended sediments are abrasive, so they may affect fish physiologically. Turbid conditions also affect the ability of fish to find food. Some groups also noted that in various life stages of trout and salmon species use riparian ecosystems at all times of year, so even carefully managed in-stream work periods cannot fully mitigate the impacts of mining on fish. For example, in the summer trout and salmon fry depend on near-shore microhabitats where recreational placer mining typically occurs.

Logs, rootwads, rocks and stable, vegetated streambanks contribute vital
structural diversity to fish streams. Environmentalists alleged that miners sometimes remove large rocks and woody debris in order to set and move their dredges more easily, and that miners sometimes excavate and destabilize stream banks by undercutting. These activities are explicitly prohibited, but even mining groups admit that violations sometimes occur. Some environmental groups charged that such violations are fairly common based on personal observations. Nearly all noted that official monitoring of recreational mining activities in Scenic Waterways has been spotty at best, and argued that miners are largely free from regulatory oversight once they are at a mining site.

Many groups emphasized the large amount of time and money being spent in
Oregon to recover and protect salmon populations endangered by past land use practices such as logging and mining, and limited evidence that threats to salmon runs have been successfully mitigated. In light of this, they strongly questioned why any activity with the potential to harm salmon and trout or hinder recovery efforts, even only marginally, should continue to be allowed in Scenic Waterways. It is indisputable that many threats to wild salmon, steelhead and trout remain, so environmentalists argue that it makes no sense to allow an activity that physically disturbs the structure of streams and clearly cannot benefit fish, even in systems where they appear to be thriving.


Winter Flows Don.t Necessarily Occur or Mitigate Impacts

A common contention by miners is that high winter flows eliminate excavation
pits, tailing piles, and other artifacts of mining that can impact fish and habitat.
Environmentalists respond that lack of visual evidence following winter flows in no way proves that ecological conditions prior to mining activities were restored without longterm impact. Tailing piles and pits in the stream bottom are more susceptible to further destabilization. More gravel may be moved farther and eventually lost from the system.

High flows do tend to obliterate visual signs of disturbance, but long-term stability of the reworked, .natural. looking streambed would likely be reduced if mining had not occurred. Environmentalists also argued that evidence of recreational placer mining can and does persist for many years in streams that do not receive high winter flows regularly because of dams or periods of dry winters.


Regulations Are in Place, but Violations Are Probably Common

Inadequate and inconsistent monitoring was one of the most frequent concerns
voiced by environmental groups, and some charged the DSL and DEQ in particular with lax oversight of recreational placer mining activities. They note that enforcement of regulations concerning in-stream work periods, requirements to backfill tailing piles, and prohibitions on bank excavation and removal of large logs and rocks is very limited.

Similarly, monitoring of effects that mining activities are having on ecosystem processes and native species is limited or non-existent. Furthermore, because the permits required of miners do not ask for a great deal of specificity about where miners go, there is no way to know how much mining is actually occurring in a particular watershed. Thus it is unclear to what extent violations may be occurring on Scenic Waterways, or on other tributaries and streams.

In determining that recreational suction dredge mining is having no significant
impacts in Scenic Waterways, the DSL and DEQ assume that all miners have permits and that all regulations are being followed. Even mining groups admit this is not the case, and that impacts are highly dependent on the stream in question, the actual stretch of river being mined, and the behavior of individual miners. Scientific knowledge is incomplete, regulations are weakly enforced, and knowledge of where and how much mining occurs is minimal. In light of this uncertainty and lackluster oversight of recreational mining, environmentalists ask where the evidence is to support state agency assertions that mining has no significant impacts.


Suction Dredge Motor Noise and Pollution

Concerns about degradation of general riparian conditions and fish habitat from
operation of suction dredges were the predominant reasons environmental groups were opposed to recreational placer mining, but other issues were also consistently raised. The impacts of suction dredge motors, particularly noise but also fumes and the potential for fuel spills, were frequently voiced. The extent of fuel spills is largely unknown because monitoring is so limited. Many found the noise from suction dredge motors offensive, intrusive and out of place in the context of rivers supposedly managed for natural scenic qualities. It was further noted that even though cars may sometimes be heard near Scenic Waterways, they soon pass. Motor noise from a suction dredge is continuous. Some groups also pointed out that motor noise could also affect wildlife, and that little was
known about these potential effects.


Off-river Impacts

Several environmental groups said miners. camps along rivers were often
.unsanitary. or .trashy,. and questioned why miners were allowed to live for .weeks at a time. in areas used by many other kinds of recreationists. Sanitation concerns related mainly to latrines and the potential for fecal coliform bacteria to impact water quality.

Some groups expressed concern about off-river impacts from the unauthorized access roads that lead to some camps, such as soil erosion and impacts on wetlands adjacent to waterways. In fact, several individuals and organizations surmised that indirect impacts caused by illegal access roads and miner camps may equal or exceed direct impacts from suction dredging itself.


Science, While Imperfect, Buttresses Environmentalist Positions

In general, environmental groups strongly support ecological research and
commonly utilize research findings to buttress their policy positions. However, many groups objected to contentions by miners that further restrictions on recreational placer mining are unnecessary because impacts on fish have not been scientifically proven.

Environmentalists generally acknowledge the latter, but maintain that lack of conclusive science is a poor rationale for continuing to allow recreational placer mining. While there may not be a definitive understanding of all possible ecological ramifications, it is already well established that suction dredge mining can significantly impact fish and other riparian organisms.

It is beyond dispute that recreational mining can cause serious impacts,
environmentalists argue. The more pressing scientific questions have to do with 1)
cumulative impacts from past and present activities, 2) quantifying impacts that can be attributed specifically to mining, and 3) relationships between impacts and how the activity is conducted. Though questions remain about contextual factors that influence how serious and common mining impacts are, available evidence leaves little doubt that serious impacts can and probably do occur. This alone, it is argued, makes the wisdom of permitting mining highly questionable, especially in important salmon habitat.

In addition, environmental organizations noted that ecological integrity is an
important value for which Oregon Scenic Waterways were designated, so in the absence of complete knowledge, the proper approach to making decisions about appropriate use is to err on the side of resource protection. Small-scale suction dredging may not ever be convicted of, or exonerated from linkages with fish mortality or spawning failure. But that is beside the point, say many environmental groups. Enough evidence already exists regarding the actual and potential impacts of recreational placer mining to ban it in Scenic Waterways.


Ecosystem Complexity and Multiple Past Uses Make Certainty About Impacts Elusive

Environmental groups also point out that understanding how human uses affect
complex riparian ecosystems requires effective monitoring and long-term
interdisciplinary research, the staffing and funding for which are often inadequate of unavailable. Land management agency support for such work is limited and declining, and even with sufficient time and resources, science may not provide definite answers.

The complexity and inter-relatedness of ecosystem organisms and processes, and
multiple past and current human uses on many rivers, make proof of direct linkages between any particular activity and impacts on fish a problematic goal.

It is further argued that there may simply be too many multiple and overlapping
activities and processes going on at once to find definitive scientific evidence about the effects of any one of them. It can be difficult to predict how a pristine system will respond to disturbance, and for river systems with a past history of significant human use the challenges are even greater. There is often little data available about conditions prior to large-scale settlement and use of these rivers, which makes identification of baseline or .natural. conditions difficult. Long-term, integrated research and monitoring can provide a clearer picture of ecosystem function, and with enough time and work a compelling case may eventually be made concerning a particular effect or trend, but these things are rarely, if ever, .proven..


Burden of Proof Should Be on Miners to Show No Impact

Some environmental groups argued that while additional research was definitely
needed, land management agencies should not have to prove that recreational placer mining causes significant impacts before restricting it. The burden should lie with miners to make the case that their activities do not have significant effects.

Mining groups acknowledge that large-scale or improperly conducted mining can
be harmful to fish and habitat. Instances where it is asserted that small-scale placer mining activities can actually benefit fish are special cases and controversial. In general, the argument in defense of recreational mining tends to be couched in the premise that overall impacts are negligible because relatively small amounts of material are being moved, and there are not that many miners anyway. Implicitly then, miners acknowledge there are probably some impacts, but they maintain that these are acceptably small. In environmentalists. views, acceptability is in the eye of the beholder, and the tacit admission that impacts occur clearly places the burden of proof on miners to show exactly what and how large these impacts are before mining is allowed to continue.


Miners and environmentalists invoke science in very different ways.

Miners assert that mining should be innocent until proven guilty of impacts. Environmentalists argue that the obviousness of some level of impact, the legacy of past impacts in many rivers, and the importance of maintaining and restoring salmon runs places the burden of proof on miners. In addition, the complexity of the issue makes certainty an elusive goal.

Requiring proof of impact reflects a lack of understanding of how ecosystems work, and is simply a stalling tactic while mining continues.


Banning Suction Dredging Would Be Cheaper Than New Studies or Effective Monitoring

Added monitoring and enforcement of state regulations, as well as increased
scientific study, can help to clarify and mitigate the impacts of recreational placer mining. Clearly, however, such work would be time consuming and expensive. More to the point, it is likely that such work would not be conclusive for reasons outlined above . the state cannot monitor every miner, nor can scientific work conclusively resolve a number of important issues. Environmentalists understand this, and have noted that the funds and human resources necessary to research and monitor suction dredging activities and be sure that ecological impacts are known and minimized make it uneconomical. A much more cost-effective alternative to necessary research and effective monitoring would be
to simply curtail recreational placer mining in Scenic Waterways.


The Will of the People of Oregon Is Not Being Met

The initiative voters passed in 1970 explicitly prohibited placer mining of any
kind, and was intended to preserve and improve ecological and esthetic conditions that existed in Scenic Waterways at that time, not simply slow the rate at which conditions decline.

Many environmentalists believe that current implementation of the Oregon Scenic
Waterways Act is not keeping the ecological, recreational and esthetic values in Scenic Waterways from being degraded. Because this can be at least partly explained by the way the Act has been administered, environmentalists maintain that the expressed will of the people regarding the Oregon Scenic Waterways System is currently not being achieved because of failure by state government agencies to vigorously implement and enforce the law. The continuation of recreational suction dredge mining is considered to
be a clear example of this failure.