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.

State and Federal Treatment of Suction Dredging


Several government agencies both state and federal regulate recreational
mining and manage the lands where Scenic Waterways are located. Since the practice is currently permitted by law, it is considered to be a legitimate activity and treated as such.
State agencies require special permits to operate a dredge. Limitations intended to
minimize or mitigate impacts to natural resources are placed on recreational miners by state and federal agencies. These agencies generally concur that environmental impacts can be kept to an acceptable level if all regulations to protect fish and fish eggs, riparian and riverbed habitat, and water quality are carefully followed by all who use a suction dredge.


Scientific Literature on Suction Dredging Impacts

Research specifically addressing the effects of suction dredging is limited, and no
study has addressed long-term and cumulative impacts. Work completed to date
indicates that significant environmental damage can occur, affecting fish life cycles, fish habitat, riparian areas, and water quality, taking years to be remedied. However these impacts can usually be significantly reduced so that they are localized and temporary if miners follow certain best management practices. The recommended practices have already been adopted by the state of Oregon and federal agencies in their regulations.

However, questions were frequently raised about whether current monitoring is sufficient to be sure these practices are consistently followed.


Analysis of the Issues

Our analysis of stakeholder views, the regulatory structure, and scientific
literature suggests that recreational placer mining has potential to be both compatible and incompatible with the goals and objectives of the Scenic Waterways System, depending upon context, miner behaviors, and physical conditions of an area.

With respect to the social and recreational impacts, conflict defined as both
interference with ones goals and outdoor experiences or a social values conflict over the appropriateness of certain activities can be quite common, especially as river use increases. Most visitors to Scenic Waterways are non-motorized boaters, day visitors and campers, many of whom reported that miners interfere with their goals to enjoy natural ecological and esthetic conditions. These relatively common but non-violent conflicts also result from differing social values about appropriate recreational activities, but rarely result in complaints to managers. Although recreational mining has apparently been static or declining in recent years, non-motorized boating is increasing rapidly, suggesting that conflict of this nature may rise in frequency.
It is important that land managers balance freedom of action for river users while mitigating factors that lead to conflict and crowding.


With respect to environmental impacts on fish, wildlife, habitat, and water quality, it is essential that recreational miners carefully follow all applicable regulations and act as good stewards of the land and water when they are in Oregon waterways.

The result of not adopting all best management practices, even by only a handful of recreational miners, can cause serious long-term damage to the ecological health of a particular stretch of river. Criticisms were consistently voiced that while fairly comprehensive regulations are in place, these are not likely to be effective without continual educational efforts and enforcement through consistent on-the-ground monitoring. If it is uncertain whether state and federal agencies and the miners themselves can effectively ensure that regulations are adhered to, then the case for a ban is strengthened.


Management Options

Unless the Legislature chooses to grant another two-year extension for recreational placer mining in Scenic Waterways, it has the option of either banning or allowing the practice. It may also continue to allow the practice while modifying its management. Under any of these options, it is unlikely that the state can reach a decision that is equally acceptable to all interests.

Recreational miners and others sympathetic to their interests and goals would naturally oppose a ban. It would mostly impact the relatively small group of miners, as they would be forced to seek other sites not affected by a ban in order to pursue their recreational activities. On the other hand, it is reasonable to assume that risks to fish and ecological conditions in the waterways would be reduced, as would impacts on nonmotorized recreationists.

Continuing to permit the activity will also have impacts. It would be opposed by
a much larger number of individuals and organizations whose preference is for natural resource protection and non-motorized outdoor recreation. Ongoing strains to river ecosystems would continue, though these strains would vary depending on stream conditions and the behavior of individual recreational miners. It would also continue to impact experience quality for recreationists who encounter suction dredge mining in Oregon Scenic Waterways.


Recreational mining may be more problematic in some waterways than others, so
possibilities exist for refining a situation-specific approach to permitting already
embodied by in-water work period regulations. Use of a decision tree that considers
relevant parameters such as stream size, value as fish habitat, mining use levels,
cumulative impacts, and demand from other recreationists might help river managers to decide where recreational mining is likely to entail relatively higher or lower risks of ecological and social impacts. Such an approach could serve to reduce these risks short of an outright ban on recreational mining.

Expanding the parameters of situation and watershed-specific management of
recreational placer mining, and more rigorous enforcement of regulations would require additional agency resources and thus might not be economically viable given the small number of currently active miners. In addition, regulations more specific to conditions in each waterway would probably not be well received by miners, who have often called for a simpler, more consistent permitting and regulatory structure.

INTRODUCTION
Throughout the state of Oregon a number of people search for gold deposits in
rivers and streams, a practice referred to as placer mining. Many of these people engage in small-scale types of mining for recreational purposes, defined as such because they mine primarily for personal enjoyment and make little or no money off of their findings.

Some miners use only gold pans, some use a sluice box, while others make use of a motorized suction dredge to pull larger quantities of gravel from the riverbed. The latter practice has been and continues to be a source of controversy. Consequently, the state has agreed to decide whether or not recreational suction dredge mining should continue to be allowed in Oregon waterways that are part of the Scenic Waterways System.


This overall goal of this report was to assist the state in making a final determination by summarizing three sources of information:

• The state of scientific knowledge regarding impacts associated with recreational suction dredge mining
• The views of stakeholders regarding the appropriateness of recreational suction dredge mining in Oregon Scenic Waterways
• The responsibilities and views of regulatory and land management agencies
with respect to possible impacts and conflicts associated with recreational suction dredge mining


To meet this goal, existing literature pertaining to recreational suction dredging
was reviewed and summarized, and scientific experts were interviewed. Information was acquired through contacts with stakeholder groups that represent miners, sportfishers and boaters who utilize scenic waterways for recreation, state and federal agency personnel and non-governmental organizations with a potential interest in the issue.


BACKGROUND

Oregon voters established the Oregon Scenic Waterways System through a citizens initiative petition in 1970. The system originally contained all or part of six
rivers, and over the next several years, additional rivers or segments of rivers were added through designation by the governor or the state legislature.

In 1988, a second citizens initiative resulted in further expansion of the system, nearly doubling the number of river miles designated as Scenic Waterways. Since that time, there have been no additional designations. The system currently includes approximately 1,150 miles on 19 rivers, as well as Waldo Lake.* This amounts to approximately 1% of all Oregon river miles. A number of these sites are also designated as federally protected Wild and Scenic Rivers.

* A list of all Oregon Scenic Waterways can be found in Appendix A.


The Scenic Waterways program was established in response to dam construction
in the state, and also in response to increasing pressures on Oregon rivers resulting from rising population, greater development, and burgeoning recreational use. With a goal of protecting these special waterways, the program has sought to promote the wise use of these rivers and adjacent lands extending one-quarter mile inland on either side of the river. To that end, the statute that established the system specified the goal of protecting designated waterways and adjacent lands that possess outstanding scenic, fish, wildlife, geological, botanical, historical, archaeological, and outdoor recreation values of present and future benefit to the public.


The statute went on to declare that the highest and best uses of the waters within
scenic waterways are recreation, fish and wildlife uses, and to state that the goal of
establishing the system would be to “preserve Waldo Lake and selected rivers…in a freeflowing condition and protect and preserve the natural setting and water quality of the lake and such rivers and fulfill other conservation purposes. Consequently, the state has sought 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.

The law charged the Oregon Parks and Recreation Department (OPRD) with
overall administrative responsibility for Scenic Waterways. The Division of State Lands (DSL), Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) and Water Resources Department (WRD) all maintain responsibility for a variety of activities that affect Scenic Waterways:

administering removal and fill activities, water quality, fish and wildlife resources, and water rights, respectively. Several other agencies have a role in the Scenic Waterways System, and OPRD is required to consult and coordinate with them as needed.


In order to promote the goals and objectives of the program, the law places
limitations on the types of activities that can be undertaken in Scenic Waterways. First, the Scenic Waterways System complements the federal Wild and Scenic Rivers Act by extending protections to adjacent non-federal lands. Second, the state law protects designated waterways from construction of dams, reservoirs and impoundment facilities, dredging, and mining, including commercial placer mining.
The statute also places limitations on landowners with respect to cutting trees and constructing buildings, roads, or any other structures within one-quarter mile of a designated Scenic Waterway that could disrupt scenic qualities along the waterway.
Finally, the state requires permits for all activities on Scenic Waterways that affect water quality, or that involve removal or movement of materials from the riverbed.


Legal History of Recreational Placer Mining in Oregon Scenic Waterways

Among the activities prohibited on Scenic Waterways, the original 1970 statute specifically referenced a ban on placer mining. Placer mining involves the extraction of gold or other materials from mineral deposits found (most often) in the beds and banks of waterways. In Oregon today it is most often a recreational activity accomplished using a gold pan, a sluice box, or a motorized suction dredge.

Placer mining is concentrated in areas where gold deposits are found. The most commonly mined areas in Oregon Scenic Waterways are on the Rogue, North Fork John Day, Grande Ronde, Illinois, and Little North Fork of the Santiam rivers.

The 1970 law stated that the submerged and submersible lands under and along
such waterways shall not be modified by placering, dredging or by any other means. Amendments to the Act in 1973 modified this language to more clearly state that placer mining was not permitted on Scenic Waterways.

In neither of these formulations was there a specific reference to small scale, or recreational placer mining, either in the form of a ban or an exemption. After the establishment of the Scenic Waterways System, large-scale commercial mining activities were banned in these waters, but recreational placer mining continued to occur, and it continues to this day.

The issue of whether or not small scale placer mining should be allowed has been
a source of contention since the 1970s, despite a number of attempts to resolve the issue by clearly delineating what types of activities shall be permitted. Two (conflicting) opinions by the Oregon Attorney General’s office, several statutes passed by the Oregon State legislature, and a number of actions by state agencies attempted to resolve the issue.

These efforts, however, have not led to a final resolution. In 1982, the Attorney Generals office issued a formal opinion (number 8088), which stated that the prohibition on placer mining, as set forth in the statute, was not intended to cover recreational placer mining. Rather, the ban was targeted at commercial placering.

Therefore, recreational placer mining could continue. The opinion went on to
conclude that the Department of Water Resources had the authority to define recreational placer mining so that the activity could be carried out in such a way that it would be compatible with other goals and values of the Scenic Waterways System.

Following the Attorney Generals opinion, the Water Resources Department adopted a definition of recreational placer mining and permit requirements for placer
miners. As specified in the administrative rules of the Water Resources Department, Placer mining means the process of extracting minerals from a placer utilizing mechanized or hydraulic equipment, except a motorized surface
dredge with a suction hose intake four inches or less in diameter.

In addition to this definition, the DSL and DEQ have developed regulations
requiring miners to follow certain practices, including obtaining permits from both
agencies. Moreover, motorized dredges must meet particular specifications regarding size and horsepower in order to be considered recreational in Oregon law. These provisions, consistent with the Attorney General’s opinion, (though modified from time to time over the years) excluded prohibitions on recreational placer mining, while providing for a continued ban on any larger scale, commercial placering. For the next 10 several years, small-scale placer mining was carried out in Scenic Waterways without any significant legal changes affecting the practice.

In 1994, the Oregon Attorney Generals office reviewed the issue of recreational
placer mining again in response to queries from the DSL. This ruling (number 8282)
reversed the opinion issued in 1982, stating that, Neither text nor context of the scenic waterway statute allows for any exception to a complete ban on placer mining.
This ban remained in place for only a short time. In the 1995 legislative session,
House Bill 2721 became law, reversing the 1994 Attorney Generals opinion. The bill
eliminated the outright ban on placer mining, and instead made recreational placer
mining permissible in Scenic Waterways.

Two types of activities were allowed.
The first was gold panning, which is defined as a non-motorized activity that would not require a permit. The second was defined as recreational placer mining. This included gold panning, but also included activities using a motorized suction dredge having an intake hose four inches or less in diameter and a motor no larger than 10 horsepower. All placer mining involving a motorized dredge required a permit from DSL and DEQ.

House Bill 2721 put a sunset date of December 31, 1997 on any permits for recreational placer mining, so that only non-motorized gold panning could continue after that date.
In 1997 the state legislature took up the issue again. It passed House Bill 2409,
which did three things: it replaced the term gold panning with recreational
prospecting, but retained the same definition; it extended the sunset date on recreational placer mining for another two years; and it called for OPRD to conduct a review of the Scenic Waterways System and present a report to the legislature during the next legislative session.

The bill stated that if OPRD did not produce a report within the time frame specified, the December 1999 sunset date for placer mining would not apply, but
would be extended for another two years to December 2001. OPRDs report, entitled, A Vision for Scenic Waterways, was provided in May 1999 to the sponsors of House Bill 2409, but it was not presented to the full Legislative Assembly. Thus, the sunset date on placer mining was extended for another two years.

Again in 2001, the state legislature took up the issue, and passed Senate Bill 606.
This bill was similar to what had passed four years earlier. It extended the sunset date for two years, to December 2003, and called for a review of the Scenic Waterways System, including a review of the studies pertaining to the effects of recreational placer mining within Scenic Waterways.

The report is to be submitted to the legislature in 2003, and if it is not, the sunset date will be extended by another two years. The report contained herein is being presented to fulfill the provisions of Senate Bill 606.

Current Regulatory Structure for Recreational Suction Dredging

The DSL and DEQ require all suction dredgers to obtain permits prior to any
mining activity. Permit applications must state the waterway(s) to be mined and what sections will be visited. At the end of the year, miners are also required to submit a report to DSL specifying where they actually did go. State regulations specify the practices, or best management practices (BMPs) to be followed by miners.

DSL requires that suction dredge engines can be no larger than 16 horsepower (the 10 horsepower limit was amended in recent years) and that a miner may move no more than 25 cubic yards of material in a given year from any single site. DSL and DEQ require that intake nozzles and hoses for taking in gravel can be no larger than four inches in diameter.

The mining season, called the in-water work period, is set by DSL on the
recommendations of ODFW and usually lasts no longer than a few months each year. Mining is prohibited at those times when fish are spawning so that mining does not destroy the clusters of eggs situated in spawning gravels, which are known as redds.

Numerous other stipulations also apply to recreational placer mining. Miners may not cut vegetation out of riparian areas or suction dredge outside the wet perimeter of the waterway. They cannot move large boulders or logs that are in the stream, nor may they dam or divert the waters, or cause any obstruction to fish passages.

They must also level their tailings piles and fill the holes they create once they are done in an area, a procedure referred to as backfilling. All of these regulations and several others, arrived at through a cooperative effort involving state agencies and stakeholders, are meant to ensure that impacts are kept to a minimum.


AT ISSUE

Current law has left undecided the future of recreational placer mining with a
motorized suction dredge on Oregon Scenic Waterways. The law provides that nonmotorized activities (recreational prospecting, e.g. gold panning) are allowed without a permit, and the future permissibility of this activity is not being challenged. What remains at issue is recreational placer mining that makes use of motorized dredges, and the extent to which the continuation of such activity is consistent with the goals, priorities and objectives of the Scenic Waterways System. Therefore, this assessment addresses the following questions:

• 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?

With this information, the State Legislature will be able to better decide if recreational placer mining is

1) an appropriate activity on waterways protected for scenic, recreation,
fish and wildlife values;

2) consistent with the goals and objective of the Scenic
Waterways Program; and

3) causing unacceptable environmental or recreational/social
impacts.


Suction Dredging Can Have Social/Recreational and Biological Effects

Recreational suction dredging for gold in river channels is a small-scale operation
in which gravel from the riverbed is sucked through a hose, and passed over a sluice box to sort out the gold. The remaining materials are then discarded back in to the river or onto riverbanks as tailings. Suction dredges, which consist of a gas powered motor, a hose and a sluice box sitting on a floatation device, are available commercially or assembled by miners themselves (see photo in Appendix E).

Motorized recreational suction dredging remains at issue because there are often conflicting opinions and conflicting or ambiguous data about two categories of impacts resulting from the activity: social/recreational impacts and biological/ecological impacts.

The first of these concerns conflicts that may arise among various recreational
users of the states scenic rivers. Oregon waterways support multiple uses such asfishing, hiking, camping, boating and mining, among others. Recreational mining does not seem to be growing, and may in fact have diminished over the past several years, but several other types of outdoor recreation associated partially or exclusively with rivers continue to grow, especially non-commercial river floating in kayaks, rafts and canoes.

As visitation rises on a finite land base, so does the potential for conflict between user groups.Conflict between motorized and non-motorized recreationists is a pervasive issue on public lands, and non-motorized visitors are usually impacted by motorized uses more than the reverse. Different users may hold divergent values about the proper uses of a resource, or less frequently, they may physically interfere with one anothers activities.

In any case, some level of recreation conflict results when river users interfere with one anothers enjoyment of recreation settings, and can often lead to disagreement about who and what activities should have priority on a given waterway.
The second point of contention over recreational mining involves the biological
and ecological health of living organisms and habitat in, and adjacent to Scenic
Waterways. The most important and notable of these in Oregon is, of course, fish, which are both an important part of the ecological health of Oregon waterways, and a significant exploitable resource that plays a major role in the economy of the state.

For these reasons, the impacts of various activities on fish health and populations have been a major focus of many scientific studies. However, as will be discussed later in this report, studies that specifically treat recreational suction dredge mining are quite limited, and there is sometimes disagreement about the impacts of various activities, especially recreational placer mining, on fish.


Climate of Conflict

Compounding these areas of disagreement is the often polarized political debate
over this issue and other issues surrounding the practice of mining. Those who engage in small scale or recreational mining are a self-described independent group, who maintain an interest in using public lands with as little regulation or interference from authorities as possible. Most often challenging this group are others who hold that preservation of the environment in its natural state is the highest value, and that mining with motorized equipment, even on a small scale, disrupts this natural state and should therefore not be
permitted on public lands.

These two camps often tend to question the legitimacy of the others assumptions, desires, and concerns, which makes simultaneous accommodation of both groups unlikely, if not impossible. This debate over the proper use of public lands is rooted in two very different understandings of what public actually means, and who is meant to benefit from public property.

One view, which would be supported by those wishing to engage in recreational mining, places the highest priority on direct values from actually utilizing physical resources of the land. All members of the public possess the potential to use the
land. Though only some do actually use it, these people are not taking anything away from others who do not, because all have an equal right to access it to boat, fish, camp, hike or look for gold.

In sum, this expresses the goal that the land be able to benefit the greatest number of people who happen visit and use the land. It is less concerned with values that result from non-extractive use, and suggests that denying such uses of the land is actually withholding it from the public, since most people were not going to use the land for such purposes anyway.

A second view, which would generally be supported by those who wish to end
suction dredging on Scenic Waterways, places the highest priority on values that result from the existence of public lands, whether these values result from use, use that is specifically consumptive, or no use at all. (Some consumptive uses are also often referred to as productive uses by those using the natural resources for economic gain, e.g., agriculture, forestry, and mining.)

This view suggests that placing a value only (or primarily) on consumptive uses sets aside public lands for only those who use them for these purposes, which is inherently exclusive. The rest of the population gets nothing out of them if they are not preserved. Since most people are unlikely to visit a particular area, a policy that does not value non-consumptive use results in a privileged position for only a few out of the many. This position of privilege for a few is thought to marginalize
concerns for certain nonuse values that maintain a good deal of support biodiversity, wilderness, and the ability to pass along unspoiled lands to future generations.

In addition, this view is more fearful that once certain practices take place
building a road, clearcutting a forested area they cause irreversible losses, changes or damages. This view holds that limiting development and certain uses on public lands presents a more equitable way of allocating this land to the public. Therefore, only by taking measures to preserve land in a natural state (or as close to that state as possible), can public lands really be reserved for the public.

This view is not usually applicable to all public lands in a given region, but certainly to those deemed special for their natural qualities. It is argued that these areas should be managed so as to minimize the ecological footprint of human activities on them.
These would be non-consumptive, light on the land activities, which are deemed to be more appropriate because they are more consistent with the preservation of existence values. The result of this divide is likely to be that it is not possible to satisfy all stakeholders, even partially, in reaching a decision about the permissibility of suction dredge mining in Oregon Scenic Waterways.


METHODS
Data collection for this assessment was conducted in two ways. First was a review of the appropriate literature regarding the impacts of suction dredging, including
both environmental and social considerations. The literature review included both peerreviewed academic articles and independent or government-sponsored reports.
The second method of obtaining information was by means of semi-structured in-depthinterviews with stakeholders who, either individually or through their various
government agencies or non-governmental organizations, have an interest in or
responsibility for the Scenic Waterway System.

Interviews were carried out both in person and over the telephone. Preselected topics guided the interviews but enough flexibility remained to provide for open-ended responses. The objective was to accurately represent the views and positions of different stakeholder organizations and individuals, capturing the diversity of viewpoints as opposed to focusing on the frequency of particular responses.*
The responses were acquired by means of a referral sampling technique (also
known as snowball sampling).

The researchers began the interview process with key informants in OPRD and other state and federal agencies whose work involves Scenic Waterways. With this group we identified an initial set of potential interviewees with knowledge of, or interest in the Oregon Scenic Waterways program and the issue of recreational placer mining. As these people were interviewed they were asked to provide
the names of additional persons who they thought could also provide relevant
information.

We conducted more than 150 interviews, continuing the process until two goals had been met. The first was that the information gathered became repetitive. Once
this began to occur on an increasing basis, we could be confident the number of people interviewed was sufficient to be certain that the major issues had been identified and the major viewpoints had been represented similar issues, positions, beliefs, and

* A general survey of a population selected at random was considered to be inappropriate for this assessment. Most Oregonians are unlikely to be familiar with the Scenic Waterways program or to be informed about the issues surrounding suction dredge mining. Even among some agencies and stakeholder groups, there was often great ignorance regarding the Scenic Waterways Program. A list of the topics covered can be found in Appendix D.

experiences were being expressed.

The second goal to be met involved sufficient inclusion of interested individuals, agencies, and organizations. Care was taken to include interviewees from the entire geographic scope of the Oregon Scenic Waterways program and a broad variety of interest groups to minimize the chance of missing significant issues. Just as important to this effort was to be certain that all sectors and types of interest groups had an opportunity to have their voices heard and their concerns and suggestions articulated so they could be presented to the state.

This study also made use of the grounded theory of qualitative data collection and
analysis (Glaser 1992). Grounded theory is used to develop an explanation for a situation or issues as they exist on the ground. Rather than being confirmed or disproved using a preconceived theory (hypothesis testing), the explanation for the situation emerges as research is conducted. Grounded theory is iterative rather than linear, in that relevant literature or other data continue to be acquired as research progresses rather than prior to analysis only. As explanatory factors emerge, care is taken to compare new information to the developing theory or explanation of what is going on, in order to determine if the explanation is still accurate. The characteristics of emergence and lack of preconceived theories about what is going on make grounded theory particularly suited to the type of
assessment required in this case, in which data collection was ongoing and results
continued to evolve throughout the process of acquiring information. The adequacy of the explanation of the situation or issues under study can thus be evaluated on the basis of whether or not it helps people in the situation make sense of their experience and enables them to manage it better.

To be continued....

RECREATIONAL MINING ON SCENIC WATERWAYS
THE CASES FOR AND AGAINST


The strongest case for continuing to permit recreational placer mining on Scenic
Waterways is that those who engage in suction dredging are recreationists, as much as boaters, anglers and campers. Recreation is one of the highest and best uses of Scenic Waterways, according to statute, therefore recreational mining is as legitimate a use of the waterways as any other activity. Miners should not be removed from these rivers simply because of others ideological preferences. In addition, miners have to comply with certain standards and practices, as any river users do, and their activities are more strictly regulated than other users. The result of the regulations put in place by the state is that suction dredge mining has only a minimal impact on fish, wildlife and habitat.
Moreover, the impact it does have is both localized and temporary. Mining affects onlythe areas dredged, and every year the high water flows associated with winter rains andspring runoff erase all indications that any mining took place.


The strongest case against recreational placer mining is that it is inappropriate on
waterways designated as scenic and preserved specifically for their natural qualities, many of which are important fish habitat. The state has set aside certain rivers and one lake to protect them from degradation and preserve them to the greatest extent possible. The types of values specified in the Oregon Scenic Waterways Act and provided by wildland recreation areas encompassing a preference for nature over industry and machines are inconsistent with the practice of prospecting for gold with a motorized dredge. While this activity may have been more acceptable in an earlier day, this is no longer the case. Social values have changed, and there are more and more recreationists on a finite land base. In addition, there are impacts to the rivers where mining occurs.
High water flows erase the obvious markers of suction dredging, but there are cumulative impacts that harm the health of riparian areas, disrupt the natural life cycle of fish species, and diminish ecology complexity in a particular area. While regulation can mitigate impacts, it does not eliminate them. Simply operating a suction dredge causes a major disturbance where it is used. And since not all suction dredgers follow all regulations scrupulously, there are probably larger impacts than are accounted for by regulation.


The following sections of this report examine these arguments in greater detail,
looking at what recreational placer mining entails, how it is viewed and regulated by different agencies, what different stakeholders think of the activity, what environmental impacts it can have, the extent to which it causes recreational conflict, and the social values that inform the issue. It looks to three areas for information stakeholders, government agencies, and academic and government studies, which are addressed respectively in the following three sections. It should also be noted that not all of the comments, studies, and opinions apply only to recreational placer mining on Oregon Scenic Waterways, but often more generally to other waterways as well. The states designation of a waterway as scenic is legal matter, and many (though not all) of the arguments explained below are applicable regardless of where this legal designation begins and ends.


WHAT THE STAKEHOLDERS SAY

Recreational Miners

Recreational miners make several points to support the case for allowing suction
dredge mining on Oregon Scenic Waterways.
• They truly are recreationists and are not making a living off of their mining.
• Oregons rivers are meant to support multiple uses, and recreational mining is a
legitimate use. Recreational miners should have as much a right as other river
users to the waterways.
• Suction dredging has minimal impact on the environment, and numerous
government agencies and scientific studies have supported this claim.
• Winter rains wash away all evidence of suction dredging.
• Suction dredging can bring about some improvements by removing lead and
mercury from rivers and stream, and by loosening up compacted gravel, making
such areas more suitable for fish spawning.

Recreational Suction Dredging Really Is Recreational

Those who engage in recreational placer mining point out, first of all, that they are
mining for recreational purposes. It was argued that none of them make a living from the gold being retrieved; they are not even finding enough gold to pay for the costs they incur. Quantities of gold are too small to support that. (This point was made not only by miners themselves, but also by representatives from a number of other government agencies and stakeholder organizations.) More importantly, however, that is not the primary reason they give for recreational placer mining. Miners point out that first and foremost, they mine because they enjoy it and want to, not because they need to or feel they have to. A number of factors contribute to this enjoyment. While mining, people get the opportunity to get outside, to play with their toys, and to have a good time. One participant likened the practice to fishing people may spend all day fishing and not
catch anything, but they can still enjoy themselves. Mining is similar for this group.
Even if a miner does not catch anything, he or she can still have an enjoyable
experience. By the same token, when one encounters what they sought to find, i.e., a line of gold in the river or streambed, this provides the same type of excitement as landing a fish does to a fisherman.


Recreational Mining Is a Social Activity and Historically Significant

Many miners stated that mining was a very social activity they bring their families, camp out for a weekend, and teach their children how the operate a suction dredge and pan for gold. There are several mining organizations in the state; some
members have likened them to social clubs in which people who have the same interest meet periodically and plan group activities. Others pointed out that suction dredging is a way for them to keep active. A number of the recreational miners are retired, and for some this their way of getting out and getting some physical activity (one person pointed out that her husband is over 80 years old and that mining is good for him, keeping him active and thus healthy). Finally, the historical place of mining in parts of Oregon is something that mining organizations have claimed to be part of the attraction to both Oregon residents and tourists who come to the state to prospect for gold. These motivations are cited as reasons why recreational mining is a legitimate activity that should not be banned on scenic waterways.


Miners Should Not Be Discriminated Against Because of Their Recreation Choice

Miners also make their case by arguing that they should not be singled out as a
group. Oregons Scenic Waterways, like other Oregon rivers, provide for multiple uses. On Scenic Waterways, certain commercial activities are prohibited. Recreation, however, is considered to be one of the highest and best uses of these protected rivers according to the Scenic Waterways Act. Like boaters, anglers, campers and hikers, miners point out that they too are using rivers for their preferred recreational activity, and that their activity is no different from the others in that sense. It is not fair to single out one group among many for ideological reasons.

Other users and non-users should not be allowed to remove one segment of river users simply because they dont like mining on the rivers and believe it to be a nuisance or inappropriate. Some miners (though not a lot) reported comments made by others who had observed their activities, complaining to the miners that their dredging was ruining the ability of others to enjoy the natural qualities offered by the landscape. But the miners attest that they should have as much a right as anyone to enjoy Oregons waterways in the way they wish to. The only legitimate reason for banning some activity on Oregons waterways would be if that activity were causing significant harm to the health of the river and the fish and other organisms in it. Miners and their representative organizations, however, repeatedly make a strong claim, backed by a number of studies done by government and academic institutions, that recreational placer mining does not
have a harmful impact on the natural environment if certain practices are followed.


Recreational Mining Causes Minimal Ecological Impacts and Is Heavily Regulated

Mining organizations argue strenuously that recreational placer mining has minimal impact on the health of rivers, fish, plants, invertebrates, and other parts of the
ecosystem. They argue that the size of the equipment, the small amount of gravel they move, and the small amount of time spent mining each year ensures that environmental impacts will be small. And because the number of miners who use suction dredges is not terribly large, the cumulative effects of all the recreational placer miners in the state will likewise be small. Finally, after the mining is completed in a given season, all evidence of the activity is washed away by the winter rain and snow. The runoff raises water levels and moves far more gravel than suction dredges do. The result is that rivers are restored to their natural state each spring.

This de minimus impact is a result in no small part from the regulations placed
by state and federal agencies on miners. Though many of the miners readily claim that they bristle at the extent to which their activities are regulated, they do also argue that due to the limitations placed on their work, it is impossible for them to have a significant harmful impact in the waterways where they mine. DSL and DEQ require all suction dredgers to obtain permits prior to any mining activity. Permit applications must state the waterway(s) to be mined and what sections will be visited. At the end of the year, miners are also required to submit a report to DSL specifying where they actually did go. State regulations specify the practices, or “best management practices (BMPs)” to be followed by miners.

DSL requires that suction dredge engines can be no larger than 16 horsepower
and that a miner may move no more than 25 cubic yards of material in a given year from any single site. DSL and DEQ require that intake nozzles and hoses for taking in gravel can be no larger than four inches in diameter. The mining season, called the in-water work period, is set by DSL on the recommendations of ODFW and usually lasts no longer than a few months each year. Mining is prohibited at those times when fish are spawning so that mining does not destroy the clusters of eggs, or redds. Numerous other stipulations also apply to recreational placer mining. Miners may not cut vegetation out of riparian areas or suction dredge outside the wet perimeter of the waterway. They cannot move large boulders or logs that are in the stream. They must also level their tailings piles and fill the holes they create once they are done in an area. All of these regulations, and several others, are meant to ensure that impacts are kept to a minimum.


Most Miners Genuinely Want to Abide by Regulations

Clearly, not all miners scrupulously follow every prescribed practice every time
they mine, and major mining organizations in the state will readily admit that this is true. They do point out, however, that in general they want to comply with laws and regulations that apply to them. Representatives from the state’s mining organizations helped to write the regulations, along with state agencies and other stakeholders. Miners understand that they are a heavily regulated group (over-regulated, it is often attested) and that their activity carries a stigma in the eyes of many who do not mine. For these reasons, miners know that if their activities cause significant damage to the environment, they are increasingly likely to lose the opportunity to mine in more and more locations or face greater restrictions in areas where they can mine.

Therefore, there is a degree to which independent mining organizations wish to
and do police their own members and other recreational miners they encounter. One organization noted that some of its members go out on rivers to find people mining and make sure they know the regulations and abide by them. This group and others have expressed their interest in putting a stop to illegal mining, especially by squatters who live on lands they are not supposed to, which generates complaints. Those who abide by the regulations express that they end up bearing the brunt of resentment targeted at those who do not comply. It is also not uncommon for independent mining organizations in the state and region to post messages on their websites emphasizing the importance of mining in an environmentally friendly manner and urging miners to engage in responsible stewardship practices.


Dredging Activities Can Sometimes Benefit Waterways

Miners suggest that not only do their activities have no adverse environmental
impacts, but in certain cases, they can improve river health. Miners often work in sites with a history of larger-scale mining and environmental damage in the form of
compacted sediments or traces of mercury. Suction dredge mining can loosen compacted gravel and thus create new potential spawning beds that were previously unavailable.

Miners also occasionally find mercury left behind by older large-scale mining operations or lead weights lost by fishermen, both of which are removed from the water quite frequently according to various miners. In one year, miners statewide turned in 10 pounds of mercury, a significant amount according to the DEQ.
Miners also argue that their activities loosen up invertebrate food supplies for
juvenile fish. Almost all miners contacted reported instances of small fish feeding around the suction dredge as prey organisms were dislodged from the substrate and mobilized in the current as food. (This may not be as beneficial as the miners suspect. One researcher suggested that while it provides abundant food during the dredging, this may come at the expense of a longer-term decrease in food supply.)

Miners said that they continually try to explain how their activities are not harmful and are beneficial in some cases. In general, they report being on the defensive,
and most of their comments reflected this attitude. Negative perceptions of recreational suction dredging are likely related to the history of mining in Oregon, which often resulted in significant environmental harm. Miners we contacted admitted this, but pointed out that they are not engaging in large-scale operations. They dont use mercury or heavy equipment or cause significant, irreparable damage, and they dont want to be associated with large commercial mining by the public. Recreational miners feel that the stigma attached to mining because of its historical record is unfairly transferred to them, and suggest this is one of the reasons they face opposition from several quarters.

One criticism miners responded to was that they should be required to prove that
their activities do not have any harmful effects before they can be permitted to mine. In other words, the burden of proof should be on the miners. They counter this argument by stating that putting the burden of proof on the miners is contrary to how all kinds of activities are carried out in this country. People are generally given freedom to pursue their various activities unless it is determined that they are causing some type of harm to other people, to the environment, or other interests or standards. Laws and regulations limit or ban the harmful activity, they don’t require that people prove no harm before they can engage in their pursuits. Miners see no reason why they should have to prove their case; rather it is up to those who want to remove the miners from Scenic Waterways (or other areas) to make their case proving significant harm from recreational placer mining.


Dredge Motors Are No Noisier Than Motorboats or Cars

Another criticism of suction dredge mining is that it is a noisy activity. Some
miners and several other river users said this was the most common complaint they heard, but a minor one and not often voiced. They also pointed out that suction dredging is no louder than motorboats, or vehicles on roads that parallel some rivers. As one miner noted, there are specific areas around the state where motorized equipment is not allowed, and people can go to these areas to avoid engine noise. On waterways such as the recreation section of the Rogue River, river users would not be able to completely escape noise even without suction dredges.


Miners Report Few Conflicts with Other Recreationists

Complaints about noise or other issues tend not to be made directly to miners
when they are on the rivers. Mining organizations we contacted said their members have rarely been the subjects of complaints by people they encounter while suction dredging. They maintain that the reaction of other river users including sportfishers, campers, boaters and people on day trips is primarily not hostility, but interest. Miners reported that they rarely experience any kind of recreational conflict with others engaging in their recreational activities. People generally try to provide one another with sufficient space and are courteous. One miner did allow that people had told him his activity was impacting their experience, but felt it was their problem he had just as much right to be there as anyone else. In addition, he, noted, other recreationists get mad at each other very often, conflict is not only due to mining.


Miners Say They Make Significant Contributions to Local Economies

It was suggested that recreational mining generates significant economic activity
in local towns near where mining is done, and that miners often visit from out of state because of the unfriendly regulatory climate in California and Washington. Miners generally do not extract enough gold to have much economic impact, but as both tourists and residents they do spend money in local communities, with rare exceptions more than they get back in gold. No solid statistical data exists regarding exactly how much economic activity recreational placer mining generates for local communities. A 1994 State of California environmental impact report on suction dredging estimated that a typical dredger spends around $9,000 per person per year on equipment, gasoline, repairs and maintenance, motels, groceries and restaurants, other forms of recreation and occasionally on medical services. The Waldo Mining District in southwest Oregon surveyed its members in 2001, and came up with similar results.


Critics have suggested that the miners exaggerate such figures and their importance to local economies. Federal managers observed that miners tell of large
numbers of participants in the activity when talking about economic impacts, but take the opposite tack and downplay miner numbers when discussing environmental impacts. Again, it is unclear exactly how much recreational mining contributes to Oregons economy. Federal land managers and local government officials in southern Oregon, where mining is heaviest, seemed confident that local businesses are not overly dependent on it.


Many of the Good Sites for Mining Are in Designated Scenic Waterways

A final point made by miners involves maintaining access to good gold-bearing
sites. Opponents of suction dredging point out that waterways designated as scenic make up only 1% of all river miles in Oregon, so it would not affect miners significantly if these areas were deemed off limits, as there would be plenty of other places to go. Some miners granted a small amount of validity to this claim, and admitted that if recreational suction dredging were to be banned in Scenic Waterways, there would still be other streams where mining was practical.

However, miners argued that the one-percent argument naccurately represents
the true situation. Scenic Waterways may be only 1% of the state total river miles, but they encompass much more than 1% of the good mining sites. Since this form of prospecting is considered a legitimate recreational activity, it seems quite unfair to force residents or tourists to drive an extra 2-3 hours in order to engage in their preferred form of recreation. Others are not forced to do that. Many people would simply stop suction dredging altogether, because it would be so inconvenient to do. The seemingly minor limitation would result in a significant or total curtailment for some people. Second, while there are alternatives to Scenic Waterways for recreational mining in Oregon, there are not a lot of them. Most gold-bearing areas are either already claimed under the 1872 Mining Law, or the mining rights are owned by timber companies and other private landholders. In either case, this makes many potential sites off limits to recreationists.

Resource Conservation/Environmental Organizations

• Environmental and resource conservation organizations oppose recreational
placer mining.
• Motorized mining is inappropriate and incompatible with the ecological, esthetic
and recreation values for which the waterways were designated.
• Recreational placer mining has harmful environmental impacts, particularly on
fish.
• It is important to implement policies that favor protecting natural resources unless and until it can be proven that suction dredge mining does not cause harm. Only then can the activity be allowed.
• Enforcement and monitoring by the state are virtually non-existent, and many
miners do not follow all applicable regulations.
• Noise, fumes and spills are distasteful and harmful results from suction dredges,
as are unclean campsites left by recreational miners.


Environmentalists Oppose Recreational Placer Mining

We contacted a range of environmental interest groups that are currently active in
Oregon, from local entities to state groups and regional offices of national organizations.
None of the environmental interest groups contacted supported recreational placer mining and nearly all were opposed to it, many quite strongly. Some groups were unaware that small-scale suction dredge mining was a sanctioned recreational use, or said that they were primarily focused on other issues. These groups either had general reservations about the activity, or stated that they had no strongly developed position. However, most groups we contacted had some degree of familiarity with recreational placer mining and wanted it curtailed.

The degree of opposition tended to be correlated with the level of awareness of
the activity . the more knowledgeable a group was concerning recreational mining in Oregon Scenic Waterways, the more it made articulate, detailed and forceful arguments against it. Groups that are active where recreational placer mining occurs, and those for which fish habitat was an area of focus, tended to be most strongly opposed. Opposition stemmed mainly from concerns about direct impacts of dredging on fish, but also from a range of other issues. These included noise, fumes and potential fuel spills from dredge motors, ecological impacts of mining on other species besides fish, the appearance and impacts of miners. campsites along rivers and streams, and conflict and safety issues involving other river recreationists.

To support their assertions that small-scale suction dredge mining is not an
appropriate form of recreation in Scenic Waterways, environmental interest groups
focused mainly on the potential for mining to degrade ecological conditions in designated streams and rivers. Most concerns that were voiced related to salmon, steelhead and trout, and riparian organisms and conditions upon which these fish depend.

Recreational Suction Dredging is Incompatible with Oregon Scenic Waterways


Environmental groups consistently emphasized that Scenic Waterways were
designated, and are supposed to be administered, specifically to preserve and enhance fish and wildlife habitat, natural scenic and esthetic qualities, and types of recreation that rely on, and/or are .compatible. with these values. Motorized mining of any kind is considered to be contrary to the ecological, esthetic and recreation values for which the waterways were designated.

Describing small-scale, not-for-profit suction dredge mining as recreational.
does not mean it must automatically be included among the types of recreation allowed in Scenic Waterways. It is commonplace for certain kinds of recreation, especially motorized and extractive activities, to be deemed inappropriate and prohibited on a variety of public lands protected for high quality ecological and esthetic characteristics.

Oregon Scenic Waterways are an excellent example of such lands, designated for
protection because of their special nature-based attributes (e.g., fish and wildlife habitat), so a ban on a motorized resource extraction activity would be legitimate.
Several environmental groups were dubious that recreational placer mining was
truly recreational, noting that it is a resource extraction activity with economic and
utilitarian implications, even if the operation is not profitable. Groups such as outfitters and guides also make money by .using. river resources, but these uses are almost exclusively non-consumptive aside from fish retained by sportfishers. No group besides miners has a primary goal of extracting and selling physical resources from the river. All recreationists impact the landscape to some degree, but miners have a greater per capita impact on river resources because they physically rework the river bottom with motorized equipment that produces noise and pollution.


Impacts on Fish Are a Primary Concern

The principal fish-related impacts from suction dredge mining voiced by
environmental groups were:
• disturbance and destruction of eggs and fry in spawning beds
• ingestion and destruction of invertebrate food species in suction dredges
• destabilization and siltation of gravels used for spawning and food sources
• affects of sediment turbidity plumes on fish and their ability to find food
• redistribution or removal of large woody debris and rocks
Environmental groups argued that recreational mining disturbs fish spawning
areas by destabilizing and redistributing gravel, and mobilizing fine sediments. Turbidity plumes had been seen personally by members of several groups, and were mentioned frequently as a concern. In response to miners. contentions that turbidity caused by their activities is inconsequential compared to that which occurs during high winter flows, it was pointed out that in most salmon-bearing streams turbidity occurs naturally during winter but very rarely during the summer. Fish have evolved to prefer these clear summer conditions. Unnatural turbidity in the summer resulting from recreational placer mining interferes with the aquatic food chain during the time of year when it is most
productive.

Mobilized sediments can clog and kill aquatic vegetation on the stream bottom
and the organisms it supports, including insects and other invertebrates. This in turn affects the amount of food available for salmon and trout. Coarser suspended sediments are abrasive, so they may affect fish physiologically. Turbid conditions also affect the ability of fish to find food. Some groups also noted that in various life stages of trout and salmon species use riparian ecosystems at all times of year, so even carefully managed in-stream work periods cannot fully mitigate the impacts of mining on fish. For example, in the summer trout and salmon fry depend on near-shore microhabitats where recreational placer mining typically occurs.

Logs, rootwads, rocks and stable, vegetated streambanks contribute vital
structural diversity to fish streams. Environmentalists alleged that miners sometimes remove large rocks and woody debris in order to set and move their dredges more easily, and that miners sometimes excavate and destabilize stream banks by undercutting. These activities are explicitly prohibited, but even mining groups admit that violations sometimes occur. Some environmental groups charged that such violations are fairly common based on personal observations. Nearly all noted that official monitoring of recreational mining activities in Scenic Waterways has been spotty at best, and argued that miners are largely free from regulatory oversight once they are at a mining site.

Many groups emphasized the large amount of time and money being spent in
Oregon to recover and protect salmon populations endangered by past land use practices such as logging and mining, and limited evidence that threats to salmon runs have been successfully mitigated. In light of this, they strongly questioned why any activity with the potential to harm salmon and trout or hinder recovery efforts, even only marginally, should continue to be allowed in Scenic Waterways. It is indisputable that many threats to wild salmon, steelhead and trout remain, so environmentalists argue that it makes no sense to allow an activity that physically disturbs the structure of streams and clearly cannot benefit fish, even in systems where they appear to be thriving.


Winter Flows Don.t Necessarily Occur or Mitigate Impacts

A common contention by miners is that high winter flows eliminate excavation
pits, tailing piles, and other artifacts of mining that can impact fish and habitat.
Environmentalists respond that lack of visual evidence following winter flows in no way proves that ecological conditions prior to mining activities were restored without longterm impact. Tailing piles and pits in the stream bottom are more susceptible to further destabilization. More gravel may be moved farther and eventually lost from the system.

High flows do tend to obliterate visual signs of disturbance, but long-term stability of the reworked, .natural. looking streambed would likely be reduced if mining had not occurred. Environmentalists also argued that evidence of recreational placer mining can and does persist for many years in streams that do not receive high winter flows regularly because of dams or periods of dry winters.


Regulations Are in Place, but Violations Are Probably Common

Inadequate and inconsistent monitoring was one of the most frequent concerns
voiced by environmental groups, and some charged the DSL and DEQ in particular with lax oversight of recreational placer mining activities. They note that enforcement of regulations concerning in-stream work periods, requirements to backfill tailing piles, and prohibitions on bank excavation and removal of large logs and rocks is very limited.

Similarly, monitoring of effects that mining activities are having on ecosystem processes and native species is limited or non-existent. Furthermore, because the permits required of miners do not ask for a great deal of specificity about where miners go, there is no way to know how much mining is actually occurring in a particular watershed. Thus it is unclear to what extent violations may be occurring on Scenic Waterways, or on other tributaries and streams.

In determining that recreational suction dredge mining is having no significant
impacts in Scenic Waterways, the DSL and DEQ assume that all miners have permits and that all regulations are being followed. Even mining groups admit this is not the case, and that impacts are highly dependent on the stream in question, the actual stretch of river being mined, and the behavior of individual miners. Scientific knowledge is incomplete, regulations are weakly enforced, and knowledge of where and how much mining occurs is minimal. In light of this uncertainty and lackluster oversight of recreational mining, environmentalists ask where the evidence is to support state agency assertions that mining has no significant impacts.


Suction Dredge Motor Noise and Pollution

Concerns about degradation of general riparian conditions and fish habitat from
operation of suction dredges were the predominant reasons environmental groups were opposed to recreational placer mining, but other issues were also consistently raised. The impacts of suction dredge motors, particularly noise but also fumes and the potential for fuel spills, were frequently voiced. The extent of fuel spills is largely unknown because monitoring is so limited. Many found the noise from suction dredge motors offensive, intrusive and out of place in the context of rivers supposedly managed for natural scenic qualities. It was further noted that even though cars may sometimes be heard near Scenic Waterways, they soon pass. Motor noise from a suction dredge is continuous. Some groups also pointed out that motor noise could also affect wildlife, and that little was
known about these potential effects.


Off-river Impacts

Several environmental groups said miners. camps along rivers were often
.unsanitary. or .trashy,. and questioned why miners were allowed to live for .weeks at a time. in areas used by many other kinds of recreationists. Sanitation concerns related mainly to latrines and the potential for fecal coliform bacteria to impact water quality.

Some groups expressed concern about off-river impacts from the unauthorized access roads that lead to some camps, such as soil erosion and impacts on wetlands adjacent to waterways. In fact, several individuals and organizations surmised that indirect impacts caused by illegal access roads and miner camps may equal or exceed direct impacts from suction dredging itself.


Science, While Imperfect, Buttresses Environmentalist Positions

In general, environmental groups strongly support ecological research and
commonly utilize research findings to buttress their policy positions. However, many groups objected to contentions by miners that further restrictions on recreational placer mining are unnecessary because impacts on fish have not been scientifically proven.

Environmentalists generally acknowledge the latter, but maintain that lack of conclusive science is a poor rationale for continuing to allow recreational placer mining. While there may not be a definitive understanding of all possible ecological ramifications, it is already well established that suction dredge mining can significantly impact fish and other riparian organisms.

It is beyond dispute that recreational mining can cause serious impacts,
environmentalists argue. The more pressing scientific questions have to do with 1)
cumulative impacts from past and present activities, 2) quantifying impacts that can be attributed specifically to mining, and 3) relationships between impacts and how the activity is conducted. Though questions remain about contextual factors that influence how serious and common mining impacts are, available evidence leaves little doubt that serious impacts can and probably do occur. This alone, it is argued, makes the wisdom of permitting mining highly questionable, especially in important salmon habitat.

In addition, environmental organizations noted that ecological integrity is an
important value for which Oregon Scenic Waterways were designated, so in the absence of complete knowledge, the proper approach to making decisions about appropriate use is to err on the side of resource protection. Small-scale suction dredging may not ever be convicted of, or exonerated from linkages with fish mortality or spawning failure. But that is beside the point, say many environmental groups. Enough evidence already exists regarding the actual and potential impacts of recreational placer mining to ban it in Scenic Waterways.


Ecosystem Complexity and Multiple Past Uses Make Certainty About Impacts Elusive

Environmental groups also point out that understanding how human uses affect
complex riparian ecosystems requires effective monitoring and long-term
interdisciplinary research, the staffing and funding for which are often inadequate of unavailable. Land management agency support for such work is limited and declining, and even with sufficient time and resources, science may not provide definite answers.

The complexity and inter-relatedness of ecosystem organisms and processes, and
multiple past and current human uses on many rivers, make proof of direct linkages between any particular activity and impacts on fish a problematic goal.

It is further argued that there may simply be too many multiple and overlapping
activities and processes going on at once to find definitive scientific evidence about the effects of any one of them. It can be difficult to predict how a pristine system will respond to disturbance, and for river systems with a past history of significant human use the challenges are even greater. There is often little data available about conditions prior to large-scale settlement and use of these rivers, which makes identification of baseline or .natural. conditions difficult. Long-term, integrated research and monitoring can provide a clearer picture of ecosystem function, and with enough time and work a compelling case may eventually be made concerning a particular effect or trend, but these things are rarely, if ever, .proven..


Burden of Proof Should Be on Miners to Show No Impact

Some environmental groups argued that while additional research was definitely
needed, land management agencies should not have to prove that recreational placer mining causes significant impacts before restricting it. The burden should lie with miners to make the case that their activities do not have significant effects.

Mining groups acknowledge that large-scale or improperly conducted mining can
be harmful to fish and habitat. Instances where it is asserted that small-scale placer mining activities can actually benefit fish are special cases and controversial. In general, the argument in defense of recreational mining tends to be couched in the premise that overall impacts are negligible because relatively small amounts of material are being moved, and there are not that many miners anyway. Implicitly then, miners acknowledge there are probably some impacts, but they maintain that these are acceptably small. In environmentalists. views, acceptability is in the eye of the beholder, and the tacit admission that impacts occur clearly places the burden of proof on miners to show exactly what and how large these impacts are before mining is allowed to continue.


Miners and environmentalists invoke science in very different ways.

Miners assert that mining should be innocent until proven guilty of impacts. Environmentalists argue that the obviousness of some level of impact, the legacy of past impacts in many rivers, and the importance of maintaining and restoring salmon runs places the burden of proof on miners. In addition, the complexity of the issue makes certainty an elusive goal.

Requiring proof of impact reflects a lack of understanding of how ecosystems work, and is simply a stalling tactic while mining continues.


Banning Suction Dredging Would Be Cheaper Than New Studies or Effective Monitoring

Added monitoring and enforcement of state regulations, as well as increased
scientific study, can help to clarify and mitigate the impacts of recreational placer mining. Clearly, however, such work would be time consuming and expensive. More to the point, it is likely that such work would not be conclusive for reasons outlined above . the state cannot monitor every miner, nor can scientific work conclusively resolve a number of important issues. Environmentalists understand this, and have noted that the funds and human resources necessary to research and monitor suction dredging activities and be sure that ecological impacts are known and minimized make it uneconomical. A much more cost-effective alternative to necessary research and effective monitoring would be
to simply curtail recreational placer mining in Scenic Waterways.


The Will of the People of Oregon Is Not Being Met

The initiative voters passed in 1970 explicitly prohibited placer mining of any
kind, and was intended to preserve and improve ecological and esthetic conditions that existed in Scenic Waterways at that time, not simply slow the rate at which conditions decline.

Many environmentalists believe that current implementation of the Oregon Scenic
Waterways Act is not keeping the ecological, recreational and esthetic values in Scenic Waterways from being degraded. Because this can be at least partly explained by the way the Act has been administered, environmentalists maintain that the expressed will of the people regarding the Oregon Scenic Waterways System is currently not being achieved because of failure by state government agencies to vigorously implement and enforce the law. The continuation of recreational suction dredge mining is considered to
be a clear example of this failure.

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.

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.

Watershed Councils

• As institutions that operate most effectively by using a consensus-based approach, watershed councils usually prefer to avoid involvement in politically divisive issues such as recreational placer mining.

Watershed councils are institutions comprised of stakeholders with a common
interest in sustainable management of lakes, streams and rivers that make up the
watershed where they live and work. Watershed councils have emerged as a result of conclusions that watershed protection is unlikely to be effective without engagement of local constituencies, although some environmental groups have expressed wariness that business interests have too much influence at this level. Ideally, a watershed council should include all local interests in order to identify shared watershed values thought to be important.

In actual fact, the makeup, activities and policy directions of a particular council
can vary widely with issues faced, personalities involved and level of participation from constituent stakeholders. The basic idea is to assess past and present conditions of rivers and lakes in the watershed, work toward consensus on desired future conditions, and develop watershed protection and restoration projects. Watershed councils have paralleled increasing scientific consensus on the need to address land management issues at the landscape level, and realization that the benefits of sound watershed management transcend all ownership and political boundaries.


Watershed Councils Are Consensus-Based

One of the primary tenets by which most watershed councils operate is a
consensus-based approach to addressing watershed issues. The overarching goal of moving ahead on watershed projects upon which everyone agrees sometimes precludes attention on other important but more controversial issues. Some watershed council spokespersons contacted specifically stated that they had a policy in place to avoid taking positions on issues for which there was not consensus within the council. It had been agreed that political issues with ramifications for any council member or seen as potentially controversial could be counterproductive to finding common ground. The goals were to locate areas of consensus or agreement and avoid issues on which common ground was unlikely or about which some council members held opposing views.

For this reason, most watershed councils were unwilling to take a position on
recreational placer mining. This was especially true for watershed councils operating in areas where recreational placer mining occurs, such as the Rogue River and North Fork John Day areas. Individual watershed council members were more willing to express their views. Unsurprisingly, the views of individual members closely paralleled the views of interest groups they represented.

Landowners


Citizens who own land on Scenic Waterways that sits within the quarter-mile
corridor have a variety of experiences with the Scenic Waterways Program. For this
assessment, several landowners were contacted in order to get a spectrum of views about how the program is administered and about recreational placer mining.

Landowners whose land is on Scenic Waterways are stewards of lands that have been deemed to be very special to Oregonians. The landowners themselves are the first to note this, and to point out that they have a special responsibility. Many of them also noted that the reason the state of Oregon designated areas as scenic is the same reason they purchased the land.

None of the owners contacted for this assessment had ever witnessed any
recreational miners with suction dredges operating near their property. Some did not know about the activity at all. This is not surprising, considering that the gold bearing sites on Scenic Waterways have not been adjacent to private homes. Most of landowners did state, however, that if suction dredge mining were an activity pursued along stretches of the rivers where they live, they would not be inclined to view this favorably, and would support a ban on Scenic Waterways.

WHAT THE GOVERNMENT AGENCIES SAY


Multiple land ownership patterns, human use history, and jurisdictional
boundaries often characterize Oregon Scenic Waterways. Some have both state andfederal scenic designation, while others do not. Several are designated critical habitat for endangered fish species. Some traverse state parks and many see heavy recreational use.

The range of social and ecological values attached to Oregon Scenic Waterways
ensures that several different state and federal agencies are involved in management and regulation of recreational placer mining. In the following section we summarize the roles and views of these agencies:

• Oregon Parks and Recreation Department
• Oregon Department of State Lands
• Oregon Department of Water Quality
• Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
• Oregon Water Resources Department
• US Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management
• US Department of Agriculture Forest Service
• US Army Corps of Engineers
• Oregon Department of Geology and Mines
• US Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service
• National Marine Fisheries Service
• Oregon State Police
Oregon Parks and Recreation Department (OPRD)
• OPRD is the agency with overall administrative responsibility for Scenic Waterways.
• The agency has little to do with overseeing or regulating suction dredge mining.
• The agency has expressed in the past its preference to eliminate recreational
mining from Scenic Waterways as a practice that is inconsistent with the goals
and priorities of the program.


OPRD is the lead agency for the Scenic Waterways Program. It maintains overall
responsibility for program administration, coordinating with federal, tribal, state and local agencies as necessary to protect and enhance the special attributes of Scenic Waterways.

The agency.s primary responsibility involves ensuring compliance regulations intended to protect waterway qualities within the one-quarter mile corridor of land along the water.s edge. OPRD must be notified of certain activities proposed within this corridor, such as cutting trees, clearing land, mining, constructing roads, railroads, utilities, buildings, houses, or other structures, or other activities that affect the scenic qualities from the river perspective.

Proposed uses or activities may not be started until the landowner.s written
notification is approved, or one year after the notice is accepted. Landowners are
directed to comply with limitations regarding these activities, and in fact, the lion.s share of OPRD efforts on Scenic Waterways involves working with landowners to bring land use activities into compliance with regulations. The agency generally reaches agreement with landowners whose original land use plans did not comply with regulations.

However, the agency does have the authority to purchase property or scenic easements from landowners and in certain cases it can exercise the state.s right of eminent domain, but these options have been used only rarely.

With respect to recreational placer mining, OPRD does not carry out any day-today
administrative responsibilities such as issuing permits or monitoring mining
activities. Agencies that do issues permits . DSL and DEQ . do not coordinate with
OPRD in issuing permits or asking for consultations on applications. In the past DSL did do this, but since the process has generally become routine, the practice of soliciting comments from OPRD has been discontinued.

OPRD does not have direct administrative responsibilities for recreational placer
mining in Oregon Scenic Waterways, but as the lead agency for the program, OPRD has expressed its views on recreational mining in the past when asked to comment by the state legislature. In general, the department has expressed the view that recreational suction dredging should not be permitted on state Scenic Waterways. OPRD bases this position on the original placer mining prohibition in the Scenic Waterways Act and the subsequent legal opinion in 1994 supporting that prohibition.

OPRD staff also noted that these waterways are considered special by virtue of
certain scenic and other physical qualities, and suction dredge mining diminishes these values. Dredging is noisy, causes turbidity in the water and has potential impacts on the health of fish populations. More importantly, mining is not typically considered to be a recreational activity in the way that camping, hiking, boating and fishing are. The departmental values of OPRD involve the preservation of open spaces to be used as parks and for recreation in general. These values do not often include mining, even on a small scale, as one of the activities that parks, scenic rivers, and open spaces should be used for. The practice seems inconsistent with all the other values that are protected by the .scenic. designation.

OPRD staff pointed out that they see very little placer mining on the scenic rivers
they manage, and some have noted, that based on what they actually see, there is not a strong case to be made that recreational miners are having an adverse ecological impact. However, Scenic Waterways staff also explained that only four of them cover the entire state, so they are not in a position to actually see and monitor most of what is done in the waterways. Waterway administrators familiar with recreational placer mining indicated that impacts associated with miner camps and access roads were significant issues, but that DSL did not consult with OPRD any more about specific permits so these impacts had become harder to assess.

Division of State Lands (DSL)


• DSL regulates all removal and fill of gravel from Scenic Waterways.
• Recreational miners may move no more than 25 cubic yards of material from a
stretch of river in any year, and all recreational mining in Scenic Waterways
requires a DSL permit. DSL, however, does not engage in monitoring
specifically for recreational placer mining, though it did for a few years.
• A number of DSL regulations have been adopted to protect fish, wildlife and
habitat on rivers and stream.
• The agency states that if all rules and regulations are strictly adhered to,
environmental impacts will be kept at an acceptable minimum level.


DSL maintains authority over the beds and banks of Oregon.s waterways, up to
the ordinary high water mark, with the goal of effectively managing and conserving the states natural resources. State law prohibits any removal, fill, or alteration of the beds and banks of all scenic waterways, except under certain conditions, which are specified in law and regulations. In most cases, activities that involve removal, fill, or alteration of the beds and banks require a permit to be issued by DSL.


DSL Regulates and Issues Permits for Recreational Placer Mining

In Scenic Waterways DSL has provided a set of regulations that are designed to
provide extra protections, due to the fact that these waters have been deemed special by the state (similar regulations exist for waterways designated as Essential Salmon Habitat.). In fact, it is this regulatory function . the issuing of permits for removal/fill activities that comprises the greatest efforts of DSL in connection with the state Scenic Waterways System, and a good part of that effort involves recreational placer mining.

Recreational placer mining, by definition, involves the movement of materials in rivers and streams, and since Scenic waterways are specially protected areas, very strict standards apply for working in the river or on the banks, regardless of the amount of material involved. Since 1996, DSL has required that suction dredge operators must obtain approval from DSL before any work can take place that moves material or alters the bank in any way. In order to be approved by DSL and obtain a removal/fill permit, an operator must meet the following conditions:

• The dredge must have an intake nozzle no larger than four inches in diameter.
• The dredge must have an engine of 16 horsepower or less.
• Operators may work only during specified in-water work periods.
• Operators may not move more than 25 cubic yards of material annually per
stream segment.

Operators are also subject to numerous additional conditions, including the following important items. Recreational placer miners cannot:

• Work outside the wet perimeter of the river (no mining on dry land)
• Undercut the riverbank, also known as highbanking
• Dam or divert the waterway
• Obstruct fish passages
• Remove woody vegetation from the bed or bank
• Move or remove boulders, logs, stumps, or living plants
• Work outside the hours of 8 am to 6 pm.

The thrust of all these conditions is to allow for legitimate recreational uses, as allowed by the state of Oregon, while minimizing impacts on the physical landscape or on fish and wildlife.

To obtain a permit, recreational miners must submit an Oregon Removal-Fill
Application Form. (the same application is used for those who operate in Essential
Salmon Habitat.). This application has been recently simplified to make the application process quicker and less cumbersome.

It asks operators of suction dredges to provide their name and address, and to specify the type of equipment to be used, including horsepower and suction hose size. In Scenic Waterways (but not in Essential Salmon Habitat), operators must also include the name of the waterway(s) to be mined, the section of the waterway, the estimated amount of cubic yards to be moved, and the estimated number of work days. The permit issued lasts for three years before it must be
renewed. (The old application, at 4-plus pages, asked for much greater detail, including some information the average recreationist might not know.)


DSL also requires miners to send a year-end report form summarizing their
activity for the year. Failure to report may result in ones approval being revoked. The reporting requirement has been in effect for several years but has not been well enforced (less than 10% of the year end reports were usually collected, and no permits were revoked for failure to comply). DSL expressed its intention to better enforce this requirement in conjunction with the new application process. By collecting detailed information at the end of the year, DSL expects that it will be better able to compile data on usage and promote compliance with regulations.


Numbers of Miners

For the past several years, DSL has compiled data on the number of permits
issued each year, and has also gathered some information on compliance. In 1995 DSL began issuing the current removal/fill permit to recreational placer miners on Scenic Waterways, and rates of use are as follows:

# of Removal/Fill PermitsIssued for Scenic Waterways__VS_ # of Removal/Fill Permits Issued for All Waterways

1996____ 49_____ 123
1997____ 87_____ 339
1998____ 149____ 480
1999____ 22_____ 109
2000____ 31_____ 116
2001____ 36_____ 162
2002____ 52_____ 308


As of October 2002, there were 121 active removal/fill permits for recreational placer mining in Scenic Waterways, and 584 permits in total for recreational mining statewide.

After beginning the practice of issuing permits, DSL began to visit mining sites
around the state to monitor compliance with the requirements for recreational placer mining in Scenic Waterways and Essential Salmon Habitat (regulations governing both areas are the same). The monitoring effort went on for three years, and what DSL found is that, of the miners they contacted in the rivers and streams, less than half the miners had permits. However, DSL did find that miners maintained greater compliance with the actual practices prescribed in its regulations, also known as Best Management Practices
(BMPs).


Compliance Rates

# Minerscontacted__ VS__% Compliance with permit__VS__ % Compliance with BMPs
1996____ 80____ 7.4____ 39
1997____ 67____ 20.9___ 89.5
1998____ 31____ 48.4___ 83.9

DSL stopped monitoring efforts after 1998, with an understanding that previous
efforts were having the desired effect, educating the miners as to what is expected of them and getting them to comply with the regulations.


Impacts Are Acceptable Provided That Regulations Are Followed

Making certain that regulations and best management practices are adhered to is
an essential element of preventing adverse impacts. DSL operates on the basis that
recreational placer mining does not have a significant impact on the health of the rivers and streams, on fish and wildlife, and on the free flowing nature of the waterways, AS LONG AS BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES ARE FOLLOWED. If they are not followed, DSL points out that there can be significant harmful impacts.

For example, tailing piles that dam the waterway can raise stream temperatures, block water flows, or create barriers to fish. Highbanking can decrease the amount of algae and number of invertebrates, both of which provide essential forage for juvenile fish. It also destabilizes the bank and increases erosion. Removing woody vegetation disconnects the riparian area from the waterway, impacting the health of the riparian area and encouraging erosion. Finally, operating outside the in-water work period can impact fish populations by causing the destruction of redds.

One thing DSL pointed out that it does not believe is currently a problem is the
cumulative effect of recreational miners. The number of new permits issued each year for mining in Scenic Waterways is not a large number. Therefore the density of use, and the resultant cumulative effects, are not issues that DSL believes it needs to address at this time.

Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ)

• DEQ is responsible for protecting the water quality in Oregon streams and rivers.
• DEQ issues permits for all suction dredging in the state, and no one is permitted
to dredge on any state waters without a DEQ permit. The agency, however, does
not engage in monitoring or enforcement of its permits.
• A number of regulations have been adopted to protect water quality on rivers and
streams.
• The agency states that if all rules and regulations are strictly adhered to,
environmental impacts will be kept at an acceptable minimum level.
• The agency has stated that the impacts on water quality from suction dredging are
small compared to other substances and practices DEQ oversees and regulates.
Because of this, the agency is reviewing its permitting requirements and
procedures with respect to recreational mining.

DEQ is a regulatory agency whose job is to protect the quality of Oregon’s
Environment . protecting and improving Oregon’s water and air quality, cleaning up
spills and releases of hazardous materials, and managing the proper disposal of hazardous and solid wastes. The water quality division is responsible for protecting the states waters, with a mission to ensure that water quality standards are upheld for surface and groundwater so that they are safe and clean for all uses. DEQ is not charged with upholding or enforcing any special requirement for Scenic Waterways. The agency applies its water quality rules and standards uniformly statewide. DEQ interacts with the Scenic Waterways program in a variety of ways. It is provided the opportunity to comment on land use notifications. Also, if some activity on a Scenic Waterway may affect water quality through erosion or discharge, DEQ is involved in the permitting and review process.


DEQ Regulates and Issues Permits for Recreational Placer Mining

With respect to recreational placer mining, DEQ is involved through the
permitting process, and this represents the major part of DEQ.s involvement with them Scenic Waterways program. Before recreational miners are allowed out on the states waters, they must first obtain a permit from DEQ. The application process is carried out simultaneously at DEQ and DSL, with a single, one-page application to be filled out and sent to both agencies. Each agency then issues its own separate permit. DEQ reports that there are currently a total of 1011 people permitted for recreational suction dredging.

This number does not include a distinction between Scenic Waterways and all others. The number of DEQ permits may larger for two reasons: they stay in effect for a longer period of time, so even if an individual has not used his equipment in a few years, he may still have an active permit; DSL does not require permits outside Scenic Waterways and Essential Salmon Habitat if the amount of material to be moved is less than 50 cubic yards, so some suction dredgers can operate without a DSL permit.

Until this year, DEQ has issued permits to miners under EPA.s National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). These NPDES permits are administered by the states to control discharges into waterways, and DEQ has used this program and a particular type of permit, known as 700-J, to regulate recreational placer mining. In March 2002 these permits expired, but rather than renewing them, DEQ has begun issuing a temporary Mutual Agreement and Order (MAO) while it reviews the appropriateness of NPDES permits for recreational placer mining. The reason for this review is that DEQ wishes to determine if tailings from suction dredges constitute discharge into the water. The minerals were originally part of the riverbank before being run through a dredge, and thus no new materials are being discharged into the water once the tailings are redeposited into the river. In the interim, DEQ will issue an MAO to recreational miners that includes all the same stipulations and practices that miners must adhere to.

These provisions include the following: no dredging outside the active stream
channel or on the stream banks; turbidity must be minimized to the local dredging area and cannot be visible 300 feet downstream from working dredges; no discharge of tailings into a natural pool if this will reduce the depth or volume of the pool; no harassment of fish in the stream, which include providing safe passage for fish through the mining area; no dredging outside the ODFW in-water work period guidelines; no spillage or disposal of fuel or oil into waters; no disturbance of rooted or woody plants in the stream; no undercutting of riparian vegetation; no dams, channel alterations or diversion of water.


Water Quality Impacts are Minimal Provided Regulations Are Followed

DEQ.s view is that its role is to prevent or mitigate harm to water quality and that
these regulations accomplish exactly that. Like DSL, DEQ operates under the
assumption that these best management practices rules must be followed, and when they are, this ensures that recreational placer mining will have only a de minimus impact on water quality. Any impacts that do occur are confined to the dredging area, they are not significant at the time they occur, and they are of short duration.

To provide a comparative perspective, DEQ noted that recreational suction dredge
mining is considered to be a very small activity when it comes to impacting water quality. There is no discharge of pollutants into the waterways, there are no chemical components being used in the mining process, and for these reasons, recreational placer mining is one of the most benign activities the department regulates, nor does the agency monitor or enforce its regulations. This is in part due to the fact that the resources are not available to monitor compliance, but this is a low priority for DEQ, and the agency would not be likely spend additional funds on enforcing compliance.


Recreational Mining Can and Does Produce Some Benefits to Water Quality

DEQ noted that recreational mining can actually produce a benefit to water
quality, when miners remove mercury from the rivers left behind by old commercial mining operations. At the .Dredge Earth First. rally in Roseburg in July 2002, ten pounds of mercury were collected for disposal, and miners stated that this amount was only a small portion of what is often found. Some miners reported encountering one pound of mercury for every 4 to 5 hours of dredging in areas where high concentrations of mercury remain in the water. (Ten pounds of mercury, a substantial amount, is equal to the mercury in 900,000 fluorescent bulbs . about half the number recycled in Oregon each year.) DEQ suggested that some educational efforts and one technological innovation currently under development, a mercury trap for suction dredges, could further contribute to the removal of mercury from Oregon waterways.


Concerns

Some concerns were also expressed at DEQ. Even by staying in compliance with
the regulations covering recreational placer mining, individuals can still have an impact, and a large one if they are not careful stewards of the natural resources. It depends very much on the individual miner and the treatment he affords his surroundings. Even compliance with the rules cannot prevent all impacts. Also, there is little understanding of the cumulative effects of placer mining on water quality . either from multiple users or from mining being conducted in the same places year after year. In addition, since there are multiple uses on these rivers, there is no good way to determine what types of activities are having which impacts over the long-term. Lastly, it was suggested by some in the agency that the permitting process has become so routine it almost amounts to a rubber stamp, and perhaps this process might be reviewed to make sure it is furthering the goals being sought.

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.