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]

Recreational Boaters
• River floating is one of the fastest growing forms of outdoor recreation in the
Pacific Northwest.
• Most recreational boaters in Oregon are highly unlikely to encounter recreational
mining on Scenic Waterways due to the limited number of mining sites on Scenic
Waterways.
• Opposition to suction dredge mining is widespread among boaters who encounter
such miners. This opposition, however, rarely results in complaints to land
managers and commercial outfitters, or in calls to ban the activity.
• When boaters encounter suction dredgers, some level of recreation conflict
usually results. Motor noise, intimidation and displacement of boaters, the
presence and appearance of miner camps, sediment plumes and occasional safety
issues contribute to conflict.
• The number of boaters on Scenic Waterways is increasing, while participation in
mining appears to be declining, making future trends in boater-miner contacts
somewhat uncertain.


Popularity of River Floating is Growing Rapidly

River floating by canoe, kayak or raft is among the fastest growing forms of
human-powered outdoor recreation in the United States, particularly in the Pacific
Northwest, where growth in participation is outpacing population growth by a healthy margin (Outdoor Industry Association, 2002; Bowker, English and Cordell, 1999). Many Oregon rivers are highly valued for river running, and preservation of recreation opportunities was a primary reason that several were designated as state Scenic Waterways. We contacted a range of river managers, kayak and canoe clubs representing private boaters, commercial river trip outfitters, and retail boating equipment businesses statewide to solicit their views on boating trends, recreational suction dredge mining and Oregon Scenic Waterways.

In addition to floating and whitewater, boaters cited natural ecological and
esthetic conditions, scenery and wildlife as attributes that make river running rewarding. Fishing from drift boats is also very popular in Oregon. Float anglers may share some attributes with boaters who do not fish, but there are also important differences, and conflict between these groups is an issue on some waterways. Therefore, the focus here is on kayakers, canoers and non-fishing rafters, with the views of fishing groups summarized in a subsequent section.

Federal managers on the Rogue River explained that growth in commercial
rafting seemed to have slowed in recent years after a period of rapid expansion. River guides agreed with this assessment, but indicated that commercial boating was still strong, and private boaters in hard shell kayaks, inflatable kayaks and rafts were growing rapidly in number. This was echoed by resident private boaters, who said that river running by individuals on the recreational reach of the Rogue was exploding. These boaters specifically chose weekdays to float because the weekends are now too crazy and a circus..... Similar trends have also been noted on the Deschutes River.

Retail boating equipment businesses painted a picture of rapidly rising sales of
kayaks, rafts and other boating gear. A recently opened Grants Pass shop that focused on retail kayak and raft equipment sales reported very strong business, and much faster growth than they had anticipated. The manager of a well-established Willamette Valley shop stated that dollar volume of kayak equipment sales had increased 30% annually over the past three years. Other shops reported similar stories of dramatic increases in sales.

Boaters Statewide Rarely Encounter Recreational Suction Dredging

On a statewide basis, it was fairly common for boaters to say they were unaware
that recreational suction dredge mining was allowed in Oregon Scenic Waterways, or that they had heard of it but had not personally seen it. This probably reflects the limited number of waterways in which dredging occurs, and the relatively small number of people who are recreational miners. Obviously, the chance that a boater will encounter a recreational suction dredger depends on whether the river chosen contains gold and is frequented by miners. Additionally, some smaller waterways are utilized by boaters mainly during the winter when flows are higher and by miners during the summer, which would serve to minimize contact between the two user groups on these streams.

Most boaters who had no direct experience with recreational suction dredging still
disapproved of it in principle, for reasons roughly paralleling those cited by
environmental and fishing interests. Several expressed surprise that dredging was
allowed in designated Scenic Waterways. Some boaters were reluctant to strongly
condemn or support dredging, although these individuals usually had no direct experience with it. In general their position was that while they did not personally support such an activity, the rivers should be open to all legal uses and that it was unfair to discriminate against someone just because they didn.t agree with their recreation choice.


Nearly All Boaters Who Encounter Recreational Suction Dredging Oppose It

Boaters we contacted who visit rivers where recreational suction dredging occurs
had at least passing familiarity with the activity, and most had encountered miners at some point. Designated Oregon Scenic Waterways where boaters encounter miners include the Rogue, Illinois, Elk and North Fork of the John Day Rivers. Nearly all boaters that had encountered recreational suction dredging disapproved of it, many quite strongly, and a considerable number had anecdotes about first-hand contacts. Motor noise was often cited as the most negative aspect of the encounter, but boaters also complained of sediment plumes and trashy or unsanitary miner camps.

Several boaters complained about miners camping near Scenic Waterways for weeks at a time and argued that this was essentially .squatting. on public land, which displaced other visitors from that location for as long as the miners remained. Many boaters who encountered suction dredgers echoed environmental and fishing group concerns about ecological impacts.


Miners May Intimidate and Displace Boaters

Several boaters (and other recreationists) relayed instances of being intimidated
by miners, some of whom carried sidearms and behaved in what was thought to be a threatening manner. Miners were often perceived as acting territorial toward other recreationists who encountered them, and possessive of the area where they had established a camp, as if their mining activities included .rights. to exclude others from the site. In these instances, miners may very well be mining upon sites where they have a legal claim. They may also be taking advantage of confusion about the existence of mining claims and rights that accompany them. Boaters indicated that they sometimes avoided sites where they otherwise would have stopped to camp, run rapids or surf waves because of the presence and territorial behavior of miners.


Safety Issues

Private boaters relayed instances of safety concerns associated with suction
dredging on two designated rivers, the Klamath and Illinois. Miners had placed dredge anchor cables across the entire stream channel, requiring kayakers to stop suddenly to avoid striking the cables, and portage around the obstacle. No serious accidents were reported, but the potential for one was said to be quite high in such instances where kayakers are not able to stop suddenly, which can be problematic for inexperienced boaters. A commercial kayak outfitter raised this issue as well, but explained that he tried to give a positive interpretation on recreational suction dredging by describing it as an historic activity when his clients asked or complained about it. This measure was intended to avoid perceptions that the trip was not of high quality.


Most Commercial Outfitters Are Not Strongly Opposed to Recreational Mining

Rogue River commercial rafting outfitters contacted were often neutral on
recreational suction dredging, but some expressed concern about esthetic issues such as turbidity and bank erosion. Interpretation by river guides can strongly affect visitor perceptions, and guides are understandably interested in directing attention away from things that could potentially degrade experience quality. One outfitter indicated that their guides try to downplay interest in recreational placer mining, or attenuate any negative perceptions of it in an effort to provide a positive river experience. Our data collection methods did not allow us to interview clients of commercial rafting outfitters, who may or may not share the views of company owners.

Commercial boating outfitters may not often come in contact with suction dredge
mining. Much of the commercial boating on the Rogue takes place in the Wild section, where dredging is not allowed. Recreational suction dredging is not an issue on the popular Deschutes River, another Oregon Scenic Waterway heavily used by commercial outfitters. Area managers indicated that commercial boating is not conducted on the North Fork of the John Day River, a Scenic Waterway where recreational mining occurs.


River Manager and Boater Perspectives May Differ

Federal managers on the Rogue River said that river floaters .occasionally.
complain about recreational suction dredgers. Most managers indicated that recreational mining impacts on boaters were not a serious issue and that they do not receive enough complaints to warrant taking action. Boaters sometimes disagreed and interpreted managers. responses as an effort to downplay the impact of recreational mining, perhaps because of inadequate staff for monitoring of recreation conditions and the controversial nature of the issue. This may result in a .triage. approach to management challenges, with conflict between recreational miners and boaters seen as both less pressing and more difficult to resolve than recreation access, crowding, capacity, or facility and site maintenance.

In addition, several boaters said they disapproved of recreational suction dredging
and thought it should not be allowed, but admitted they had not made this case to river managers. Voicing complaints was viewed by some as .a waste of time. because mining was still legal, and river managers were seen as uninterested or unable to do anything about it. It was also fairly common for boaters to say it was pointless to complain about valid mining claims, although this is rarely the way miners obtain access to Oregon Scenic Waterways. One long-time Grants Pass resident involved in the fishing equipment industry noted that non-local visitors (who tend to be unfamiliar with suction dredge mining) comprise the majority of commercial outfitters. clients. He argued that even if they encounter mining and question its legitimacy, these visitors are unlikely to develop strong positions and voice complaints during their short stay.

Taken as a whole, these factors suggest that the lack of a substantial number of
complaints to river managers does not necessarily mean that recreational dredgers have no significant impact on boaters. Private boaters may not be sufficiently motivated or organized to complain, or pessimistic that anything would come of it if they did. Commercial visitors may visit for a short time, be diverted by guides wanting to avoid conflict, or may not feel knowledgeable enough to question local managers about why the activity is allowed. It is of course possible that conflict between boaters and recreational suction dredgers really is negligible in extent and severity, but the responses provided for this report give reason to at least question this assumption.


Future Trends Concerning Boater-Miner Encounters Are Uncertain

Contacts between boaters and recreational suction dredgers may increase in
coming years, but this somewhat uncertain. Rapid growth in numbers of private boaters indicates that encounters with miners may rise. Recreational mining could also increase in the coming years. An Oregon business that sells suction dredges said that more people are now visiting Oregon to mine because the regulatory climate in Washington and California is so .unfriendly.. This reinforces the conclusion that contacts may increase.

On the other hand, several long-time boaters said they saw fewer recreational
suction dredgers now than they did several years ago, indicating that interest in
recreational mining may be declining. Mining groups stated that participation is
correlated to some degree with the price of gold, which is currently relatively low. If gold prices rise, participation in mining may also rebound. There are also some
indications that miners are not so much fewer in number as concentrating more on
tributary streams in order to be less visible or to seek better mining opportunities.
In summary, this analysis indicates that the average number of miners a boater
encounters on a particular day seems to have declined. However, the number of boaters who encounter a miner may rise in future years if numbers increase in either activity. If rising numbers of boaters do indeed contact miners, conflict between these groups could also increase as well.