Suction Dredge Report 2nd Half, Biased yet Informative Options

[Redpaw]

Oregon Water Resources Department (WRD)


• WRD grants water rights throughout the state, and is responsible for assuring that
the free flowing character of Scenic Waterways is maintained.
• The agency has determined that recreational mining, which it has defined in
regulation as suction dredging with a hose no larger than 4 inches in diameter,
does not create a diversion of water and therefore has no effect on water quantities
and flow.

WRD is responsible for granting water rights to various users; they are the body
responsible for permitting and prohibiting various uses of the state.s water. Under the Scenic Waterways Act, WRD (and the Water Resources Commission, which directs the activities of WRD) has multiple responsibilities. Within Scenic Waterways, WRD has the authority to deny a number of uses of water, including dams, impoundments, certain mining operations, and many other activities. Curbing these activities in certain parts of the state was, in fact, one of the primary reasons for establishing the Scenic Waterways System in the first place.

These types of activities are not eligible to receive water rights
on Scenic Waterways. This is true not only on stretches of rivers designated as scenic, but it can also be applicable to areas upstream as well. WRD must make determinations about the likelihood of an upstream activity to significantly affect water quantity. If an activity will ultimately affect the free-flowing character of a Scenic Waterway downstream, then WRD is not supposed to grant a water right for that activity.

WRD will grant new water rights until there is an effect on water quantity, and
there is a standard that has been developed to weigh the effects of new water rights. This standard is known as the Diack flow, which is the amount of water needed in a river to preserve its free-flowing character. The establishment of Diack flows resulted from a lawsuit brought against the state. The case established that WRD is required to limit water usage if such usage will diminish the free flowing character of scenic rivers. WRD has been routinely criticized for not meeting the goals of the Diack flows, and allowing too much water to be allocated.

WRD is also charged under the Scenic Waterways Act to work collaboratively
with other state agencies on actions that involve Scenic Waterways. WRD is to review and concur on management plans for adjacent lands, on land condemnation actions, and on new additions to the Scenic Waterway System, and the agency is given an opportunity to make comments whenever any of these actions take place.


WRD Considers Recreational Mining to Have Minimal Impact; It Does Not Divert or
Take Water

With respect to recreational placer mining, WRD has little to no involvement in
the day-to-day management of these activities. WRD wrote the regulation that defined the parameters of what is meant by the term recreational, and from this definition, DSL and DEQ have established their permitting guidelines and procedures. The definition of recreational as utilizing mechanized or hydraulic equipment, except a motorized surface dredge with a suction hose intake four inches or less in diameter has effectively meant that no recreational equipment is capable of moving enough water to divert or disrupt the free flowing character of any of the states designated Scenic Waterways. These waterways are not small streams and tributaries, but rivers whose flow cannot be significantly altered by a suction dredge with a four-inch hose.

Moreover, water pulled into a suction dredge for mining purposes stays in the river.

There is no taking of the resource out of the river. Thus WRD has determined that there is no diversion or taking of water by recreational placer miners, no water quantity issue at stake, and thus no affect on the free flowing character of the waterway. As far as the responsibility of WRD is concerned, recreational placer mining has de minimus effect. Therefore the agency has no permitting authority or responsibility for this activity, and has expressed no opposition to recreational placer mining in scenic waterways with respect to its responsibilities.

[Redpaw]

WHAT THE RESEARCHERS SAY


A considerable amount of research has been conducted in both social science and
physical science fields that bears on issues associated with Oregon Scenic Waterways and
recreational suction dredge mining. We reviewed relevant academic literature in order to
summarize the current state of knowledge and assess how research findings might assist
in decision-making. A review of relevant research on wildland recreation conflict,
crowding and visitor capacity is discussed first, followed by a review of scientific
literature pertaining to suction dredging.


Social/Recreational Impacts: Wildland Recreation Conflict, Crowding and Capacity

• Conflict between recreationists can arise from interference with visitor goals for
participating in a recreation activity, or from differences in social values.
• Conflict between motorized and non-motorized use is the most pervasive conflict
found in recreation settings.
• Perceptions of recreation areas as crowded are influenced by expectations, prior
experiences, and the number, similarity and behavior of other visitors
encountered.
• A single.conflict. encounter can have more pervasive negative effects than a
larger number of non-conflict. encounters.
• Available space, ecological impacts and the activities and behavior of different
visitors all influence the capacity of a recreation setting to support visitation.
• Visitor capacity may be reduced if managers are trying to accommodate
recreation activities that are incompatible.
• Dredge mining is likely to be in conflict with non-motorized recreation,
decreasing the quality of these experiences. Because these conflicts are probably
asymmetric, miners are not negatively affected in a like manner and may be
unaware of their impact on other recreationists.

Prompted by problems associated with rapidly rising and diversifying outdoor
recreation in the 1970s, researchers responded with studies designed to help public land
managers better understand and manage factors that affect recreation settings and
experience quality. Among these factors are conflict among recreationists, crowding at
heavily used sites, and the capacity of wildland recreation areas to accommodate
visitation. These topics are interdependent to some degree, but distinctions between them
can help in understanding recreation management challenges, and considerable literature
exists on each. This section presents a review of relevant studies and discusses how the
research applies to issues facing managers of Oregon Scenic Waterways. It concludes
with a brief note on socioeconomic impacts of recreational mining in the state.


Recreation Conflict

Recreation conflict is one of the most pervasive problems faced by public land
recreation managers. There is evidence that conflicts may be increasing as wildland
recreation continues to increase (Manning 1999). Conflicts typically arise when
individuals or groups attempt to use the same recreation area for different activities, but
can also be an issue when conditions for visitors engaging in the same activity become
crowded. Most simply, conflict occurs when the recreation experience of a person or
group is negatively impacted by the presence or activities of another person or group.
Conflict may or may not be outwardly manifested. In fact, most instances of conflict do
not result in negative verbal or physical exchanges between recreationists, although these
can sometimes result.

Recreation conflict is an important issue for land managers, so it has been studied
to identify potential causes and mitigation strategies. Recreation conflict can be difficult
to differentiate as a separate construct from crowding and personal norm violations
(Schneider 2000), but research has provided a better understanding of the issue. Based
on the assumption that people recreate to meet various goals, recreation conflict is
defined as goal interference attributed to another.s behavior, with four principal
contributing factors. These are activity style . the various personal meanings assigned to
an activity; resource specificity . the significance attached to using a specific recreation
resource for a given recreation experience; mode of experience . varying expectations of
how the natural environment will be perceived, and lifestyle tolerance . the tendency to
accept or reject lifestyles different from one.s own (Jacob and Schreyer 1980).

Several propositions concerning contextual factors make conflict more likely, including:

• The more specific the expectations of what constitutes a quality experience, the
greater the potential for conflict.
• Conflict results when users with a possessive attitude toward the resource
confront users perceived as disrupting traditional uses and behavioral norms.
• When a person who views a recreation place as unequaled confronts behaviors
indicating a lower evaluation, conflict results.

Recent research has refined this definition of conflict, adding the distinction
between interpersonal conflict and social values conflict (Vaske, Donnelly, Wittman and
Laidlaw 1995). Interpersonal conflict occurs when the physical presence or activities of a
group interferes with the goals of another group, such as problematic encounters between
snowmobilers and cross-country skiers, or mountain bikers and equestrians on the same
trail. Interpersonal conflict can also occur among groups engaged in the same activity,
although this is less common.

Social values conflict arises between individuals or parties of recreationists that
do not share the same norms and values, and can occur independently of actual contact
between groups. This type of conflict is rooted in differences of lifestyle and opinion
about the kinds of activities and behavior that are appropriate in wildland recreation
areas. A tent camper may have plenty of space, but have a worse experience because of
proximity to RV campers. Similarly, a recreational suction dredge miner might not be
physically impeding a person flyfishing fifty yards upriver, but that person could still be
affected. In these instances, visitors may not be physically interfering with each other,
but conflict occurs because one sees or hears the other engaged in some activity they did
not expect and do not like. This in turn can degrade recreation experience quality.
A study summarizing 30 years of conflict research reports some consistent
findings (Manning 1999). It is well established that the degree to which recreationists see
themselves as like or different from those encountered is often related to conflict.
Variation in motives for participating in a recreation activity has also been found to
influence conflict. For example, a rafting party may seek excitement and adventure while
a person fishing may seek undisturbed river conditions that enhance the likelihood of
catching fish. These motives differ, which increases the chances for conflict when the
rafting group encounters an angler. Research has also shown that conflict can result from
both direct and indirect contact between recreationists. Indirect contact includes the mere
presence of undesirable groups or even simply evidence of such groups, including
environmental impacts.

Use of motorized recreation equipment is an issue that often divides outdoor
recreationists into two distinct ideological camps and causes significant conflict in a
broad range of contexts. Conflict between motorized and non-motorized recreationists is
rising in the Pacific Northwest, and outdoor recreation continues to increase while the
amount of available public land does not (Robinson 2001). These trends are expected to
intensify as population and recreation use in western Oregon and Washington continue to
grow. Discord between motorized and non-motorized recreationists has long been an
issue for public land managers, and nearly half of the conflict studies reviewed by
Manning involved conflict between these groups. Many such conflicts are asymmetrical,
i.e., motorized recreation affects non-motorized recreation more than the reverse. Such
conflicts may result from actual encounters as well as social value differences, making
them particularly difficult to address.


Differences also exist in views toward resource development and preservation
among participants in three types of outdoor recreation: .appreciative. activities (crosscountry
skiing, hiking, and canoeing); .consumptive. activities (fishing and hunting); and
.mechanized. activities (motorboating, snowmobiling and trail biking) (Jackson 1987).
A strong preservationist orientation is exhibited among participants in appreciative
activities, while generally stronger pro-development views are found among participants
in consumptive and mechanized activities. The main differences occurred between
people who partake in human-powered activities and those who prefer motorized
activities.


When asked why they recreate in wildlands, people commonly cite the restorative
or regenerative effects of experiencing esthetically pleasing natural environments. They
also note that it helps them recover from stresses of modern life. Natural environments
do appear to possess intrinsic mental restoration capacities (Kaplan 1995; Kaplan and
Kaplan 1989; Ulrich 1993). Scholars frequently point out that nature-based experiences
and their restorative effects may be impacted by factors that affect the perceived
naturalness of outdoor settings (Bacon 1996; Gobster 1996; Kaplan 1987; Kaplan 1995;
Parsons, Daniel and Tassinary 1994). Ulrich (1983) notes that although scenes described
as natural are not restricted to wilderness, people are more likely to respond to a scene as
natural if human built features are absent or not prominent. McCool (1979) notes that
motorized use may disrupt other recreation experiences and interfere with humanpowered
activities. Wohlwill and Harris (1980) showed that people find human elements
in a predominantly natural landscape more acceptable if these elements are perceived to
.fit. into the setting.


Conflict between motorized and non-motorized recreationists appears to result
primarily from impacts on human-powered visitors. ability to experience solitude and
natural quiet. Conflict occurs when natural esthetic conditions that many visitors expect
in wildland recreation areas are not available or are degraded by concurrent motorized
use. The effect of motor noise on esthetic attributes of recreation settings seems obvious,
but has rarely been studied by means other than field observation and visitor surveys.
However, Mace, Bell and Loomis (1999) studied how helicopter noise affects perceptions
of natural landscapes in a controlled laboratory simulation. Subjects viewed 68 slides of
scenic vistas and assessed them for naturalness, preference, and scenic beauty and
evaluated dimensions of freedom, annoyance, solitude and tranquility. When the slides
were viewed with helicopter noise in the background (as opposed to sounds of birds or
streams), the assessments of these scenes suffered. The finding was that noise interferes
with experience quality and even affects the perceived esthetic quality of landscapes.
Similar findings could be inferred in situations involving other motorized recreation
equipment.


Hammitt and Patterson (1991) investigated coping behaviors that wildland
recreationists use to avoid conflict and achieve or maintain privacy and solitude. They
note three kinds of responses described by research. Displacement occurs when those
who are dissatisfied with encounter levels or activities of other recreationists move to less
crowded areas or choose not to visit in the first place. Product shift involves redefining
the encounter (and broader recreation) experience. For example, a rafter may expect a
wilderness experience, but upon visiting an area, decide that maybe this was an
unreasonable expectation on a busy summer weekend, and rather than leave the area, reevaluate
her expectations. Rationalization occurs when a person voluntarily selects an
area, then rationalizes conditions found as satisfactory.


Shindler and Shelby (1995) explain how product shift can confound the ability of
managers to detect impacts on recreation experience quality. Visitors become tolerant of
declining environmental or social conditions in order to obtain any experience at all,
especially in scarce recreation settings like wild and scenic rivers. Over time the most
tolerant visitors come to define acceptable resource conditions. Managers may become
complacent, or simply not realize conditions are declining because changes in experience
quality occur over time. Managers may also have difficulty gaining support for
management actions to mitigate factors that are degrading experience quality because
visitors are apparently still satisfied.