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]

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW)


• ODFW is responsible for protecting fish and wildlife, and their habitat throughout
the state.
• Recreational mining is limited by ODFW.s recommended .in-water work
period,. which prohibits this activity when fish are most likely to be spawning
and when eggs and fry are present in the water. Work periods are applicable on
all fish bearing waters and usually last a few months during the summer and fall.
• The greatest protection to fish and wildlife on Scenic Waterways would occur if
no recreational mining took place. However, ODFW guidelines, combined with
DSL and DEQ regulations significantly mitigate the environmental impacts of
suction dredge mining.

ODFW is responsible for managing and protecting Oregon.s fish and wildlife and
their habitats. The agency advises local, state and national agencies on policies that
affect Oregon fish and wildlife, and works with them as well as public and private
landowners to improve habitat. It issues hunting and fishing licenses, regulating these activities to protect animal populations. ODFW also develops guidelines regarding what is called the .in-water work period,. those times of the year when certain activities are permitted. These can include riparian restoration, road/bridge construction and repair, work on agricultural irrigation projects or municipal water projects, and of course, recreational placer mining.


In-Water Work Periods Account for Potential Impacts to Fish, Not Scenic
Designations

ODFW guidelines are in place to minimize impacts, and potential impacts, to fish,
wildlife and habitat resources, and they help the public plan their activities around times when streams and rivers are off-limits to certain uses. For the most part, the guidelines protect fish species, and the agency.s fish biologists make the recommendations for inwater work periods. Work periods are determined by the species of concern, and the time of year they are in particular parts of a river or stream. This involves surveys of specific areas to find evidence of when fish, eggs or fry are present, and the result is a set of guidelines that are tailored to the conditions of each area covered. The idea is to avoid work during the most vulnerable periods of the life cycle, including migration, spawning, and rearing. For all listed streams and rivers, the work period applies not only to these specific areas, but also to the watershed as a whole, including unlisted upstream tributaries and associated lakes and reservoirs. In some cases, exceptions can be made to
extend the work period for a given activity in a given year if it is determines that fish species are not present at the time when work would be carried out.

ODFW does not produce guidelines that are specific to designated Scenic
Waterways or issue special permits and licenses for these areas fish, wildlife and
habitat receive equal levels of protection throughout the state. The agency is, however, an important part of the program and works closely with OPRD and other agencies to manage and protect fish and wildlife. The in-water work periods are the most significant part of their contribution. ODFW also reviews all land-use notifications sent to OPRD, and it sometimes reviews DSL removal/fill permits, including those involving individual permits for recreational placer mining. If ODFW finds that an activity may be harmful, it notes the potential harm and suggests alterations to the work period or the area to be worked in. This review process is the agency.s other major responsibility for the Scenic Waterways program.


ODFW Guidelines Contribute to Making Impacts of Suction Dredge Mining Acceptable

The in-water work periods vary from place to place, but in most areas where
recreational placer mining takes place, the season usually lasts three to four months, in the summer and part of the fall. The guidelines are in place to mitigate any environmental impacts, but the extent of the impact on fish from suction dredge mining is
not always clear. ODFW agrees that most recreational mining is done on a small scale, and that the impacts are generally small enough that they can recommend mining be allowed. As long as the regulations are followed, the damage that can potentially be done to an area in a scenic waterway is not large. (ODFW and others noted that the relative impact of suction dredge mining in smaller streams and tributaries can be much more significant because of the relatively small size of the waterway, but this consideration is outside the scope of this report.) Impacts do depend, however, on individual behavior a careful miner can have less impact than a careless group of campers. The agency noted that the regulations appear to be doing the job they were intended to do, covering the vast majority of areas and periods where there could be significant impacts.

While the agency notes that following the guidelines, along with all DSL and
DEQ requirements, will mitigate the damage done to fish, eggs, fry and habitat, it cannot completely eliminate them. There is always some impact, and in some rivers there are always fish present at a vulnerable part of the life cycle, even if eggs have already hatched. This has led to some concerns at ODFW. One is the general sense that the onus is on the agencies to prove serious impacts before protective actions are taken, not on the miners to show negligible impacts, and this may not be the most effective means for ensuring protection of fish and streams. The agency also noted that impacts are very difficult to quantify. A number of activities take place in the state.s rivers, so determining minings exact contribution to changing the natural dynamic of a waterway is next to impossible. Nonetheless, some things obviously do change the natural cycle of the river.

For example, the turbidity caused by suction dredging stirs up invertebrate food
sources that juveniles like to feed on. Miners have suggested this is a positive
development . they are feeding the fish but this means that these food sources will be gone shortly and then the food sources for the juveniles will be minimal. The effects of upsetting the natural feeding cycle may not be quantifiable in a study, due to multiple uses and their cumulative impact, but it could be an important factor that affects the survival of fewer juveniles and results in smaller populations in the long-term. Another concern is density of use. Miners understandably tend to concentrate in certain spots where gold is most plentiful. Sometimes mining organizations take large groups to a single area. This can have a significant impact on fish and habitat, but the state has little or no regulatory authority over this type of use.

In sum, the most beneficial outcome for fish, wildlife and habitat would be for no
mining activities to take place. However, the guidelines and regulations mitigate or
prevent serious harm. Moreover, even without recreational mining, other activities would still impact fish, wildlife and habitat.