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]

Sportfishing Groups
• Sportfishing groups familiar with the practice of recreational placer mining
generally expressed some degree of opposition, though the level of opposition
varies.
• Sportfishers. greatest concern involves the possible harmful effects of suction
dredging on fish habitat and reproduction, and question the permissibility of
dredging in rivers or areas that have been the focus of salmon restoration efforts.
• Fish are more likely to be affected by suction dredging in smaller streams than in
larger rivers.


Sportfishers Share Many Concerns with Environmentalists

Recreational fishing is a perennial favorite among outdoor activities in the United
States. Oregon rivers and lakes are heavily visited by private sportfishers and also
support a significant commercial fishing guide industry. Some designated Scenic
Waterways are internationally known for their salmon and steelhead fishing. We
contacted groups representing non-commercial and commercial fishing interests
including regional fishing clubs, fishing guides and retail businesses that depend on the sportfishing industry. These groups were often suspicious about the effects of
recreational placer mining on fish but as with environmental interests, strength of
opposition varied with how familiar the group was with the activity. Most sportfishing groups are actively opposed to recreational placer mining, holding essentially the same views as environmentalists, but with an even stronger focus on fish habitat and reproduction, and several were quite knowledgeable and articulate about fish biology.

Some groups were also concerned about impacts from suction dredge motor fuel
spills. Motor noise was a somewhat less significant issue for this group than for
environmentalists. This can be partly explained by the diversity in fishing methods and destinations represented, from flyfishing in small streams to spincasting in large rivers or the ocean. Sportfishers access fishing areas any number of ways, including motorboats, and may use other motorized recreation equipment such as generators for camping.

Some groups were reticent to criticize recreational suction dredge mining on the basis of motor use, because this was seen as potentially hypocritical. Flyfishing groups were more likely to parallel environmental groups and make a case for human-powered recreation. All fishing groups did agree on what matters most: impacts on fish must be understood, monitored and prevented.

Many groups pointed out that extensive fish habitat restoration work has been
conducted in Oregon and much more is needed to restore fish runs to long-term viability. Thus, they strongly questioned whether even small-scale mining makes any sense in
streams that need, or have had such work done. Some groups. members actively
participate in these restoration efforts, both through fundraising and implementing the actual work. These groups were understandably quite strongly opposed to recreational placer mining in any streams that were candidates for restoration.


Suction Dredging Impacts Smaller Waterways More Heavily

Fishing groups frequently pointed out that impacts from recreational placer
mining can vary greatly depending on the size of the stream. Suction dredging is most questionable in smaller volume streams, where it can significantly impact water quality and bed stability across the entire stream channel. In larger streams and rivers, dredging probably has less overall impact, although this is not to say it should be condoned. It was also noted that smaller streams were not usually major recreation destinations, and that miners in these areas were therefore less visible, and perhaps more likely to violate regulations intended to minimize impacts on fish.

A long-time resident of the Rogue Basin now employed in the fishing equipment
industry was quite certain that many area miners did not follow regulations very well. He said he had observed riparian conditions in the Illinois and several other tributaries of the Rogue decline significantly over the past twenty years due to recreational placer mining.

He also indicated that the BLM is seeking funding through federal compensation
payments to mitigate and clean up impacts of recreational miner campsites. Questions about agency oversight and monitoring of smaller waterways were voiced by fishing groups elsewhere in the state as well. Because of the attention required to deal with heavy and diverse use of the Deschutes and other major rivers, some groups thought it unlikely that state agencies were monitoring less popular Scenic Waterways very often, if at all.


Campers, Hikers and Other Recreationists

• A variety of river users have some familiarity with recreational placer mining, and
while views on the activity can vary (or be nonexistent), those who do have a
strong view tend to express opposition for reasons similar to boaters and
sportfishers.

Recreational boaters and sportfishers are two prominent types of recreationists
who depend on rivers, but campers, backpackers, day hikers and birdwatchers also
frequent Oregon Scenic Waterways and may encounter recreational suction dredgers. Several people we contacted submitted anecdotes about encountering suction dredgers while hiking. Attitudes towards recreational mining based on these encounters were mostly negative, for reasons similar to those of boaters. Federal managers on the Rogue River indicated that campers actually complained about recreational suction dredgers more often than boaters.

Our methods did not permit us to sample all types of visitors, and in any case
there are limits to the utility of differentiating among them. Casual visitors that do not directly depend on rivers may not have strongly developed views on recreational placer mining, but other land-based river visitors may strongly disapprove of the activity. This certainly seems to be true of birdwatchers, another rapidly growing recreational activity.

In general, opinions of hikers and campers are did not appear to be significantly different from those of the average boater or sportfisher.