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]

ADDITIONAL STAKEHOLDER RECOMMENDATIONS


While the purpose of this report is to inform the State Legislature to assist it in
making a determination on recreational placer mining in Scenic Waterways, two
additional recommendations, pertaining to the entire state, were made by several
respondents, and these suggestions deserve mention.


Monitoring and Enforcement.


Several individuals and organizations suggested that no matter what is decided on
Scenic Waterways, the state should make a stronger effort at monitoring compliance with
regulations and enforcing DSL and DEQ permits on all Oregon Scenic Waterways and
Essential Salmon Habitat. DSL did do this for a few years and found that its efforts
resulted in greater adoption of best management practices among suction dredge miners.
Currently DSL and DEQ devote little attention to monitoring compliance with their own
permits. BLM and the Forest Service do monitor all kinds of activities on their lands, and
mining is included in this. So some monitoring and enforcement does take place, though
it can be inconsistent and uneven throughout the state.


In spite of these federal efforts, previous DSL efforts, and of the efforts of mining
organizations to encourage compliance, state and federal agencies, mining organizations,
and most of all, environmental organizations have stated that there are a number of
people around the state who do not fully comply with regulations, and therefore are more
likely to have an adverse impact as a result of their activities. Increased monitoring and
enforcement can help to further mitigate such impacts, not only through the coercive
power of government, but also through educational efforts. This practice does not have
to be pervasive and time consuming to be effective, as DSL has demonstrated in the past.
Getting state personnel out on some rivers sometimes can have a significant effect.
Perhaps members of the state.s mining organizations can accompany DSL in these efforts
to help reinforce the idea that it is important to comply with regulations and that miners
themselves are supportive of this.


Uniform Regulation and Enforcement Practices Throughout the State.
Miners and staff from several different agencies commented on the fact that
depending upon where one was in the state, he or she could be subject to different
regulations with respect to placer mining. BLM may allow one type of activity but not
others, but the Forest Service may require different practices, even in different National
Forests in Oregon. Each agency has a degree of control over its lands that allow it to set
certain conditions for suction dredging or other mining activities. These conditions may
be more stringent than standards set by the State of Oregon, which has led to complaints
of inconsistency and confusion.
One recommendation is to bring together all the different land managers and
regulators from around the state . both federal and state agencies . and ask them to come
to an agreement on a set of acceptable practices for recreational and small-scale mining
that would be applicable throughout the state. It may be the case that one set of standards
may need to be applied for small streams and tributaries, while slightly different practices
can be permitted on larger bodies of water. The lack of consistency has been described
as frustrating . individuals may not differentiate among different levels of governmental
jurisdiction when they are outdoors, and it should not be made difficult to determine if
one is in violation or in compliance with regulations. Intergovernmental cooperation
should not be insurmountable to accomplish this task.