Recreational Placer Mining in the Oregon Scenic Waterways System
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
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 ................................................................. 37 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 General’s office ruled that the statute was intended to curb large commercial activities and therefore recreational mining could continue. In 1994 the Attorney General’s 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? 2 • 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 don’t 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.