Document text
Suction dredge mining draft panned by two sides By PAUL FATTIG Mail Tribune Lesa Barton and Barbara Ullian don't agree on much, but they concurred in their initial reaction to the Forest Service's draft environmental impact statement on suction dredge mining for the Siskiyou National Forest. "It's very bad," Barton said. "This draft EIS won't stand." "There is no accountablility in it," Ullian added. Barton and her husband, Bob, own the Armadillo Mining Shop in Grants Pass and are active miners. Ullian is the conservation director for the Illinois Valley-based Siskiyou Regional Education Project, an environmental group that has fought suction-dredge activity in the forest. How to get the EIS A draft environmental impact statement on suction dredge mining is available at Siskiyou National Forest offices or on the Internet at: www.fs.fed.us/r6/siskiyou Comments should be sent by March 16 to: Siskiyou National Forest, ATTN: Roger Mendenhall, P.O. Box 520, Medford, OR 97501. Yet both plan to pore over the 160-page document released Thursday before submitting their comments. The draft EIS sets terms and conditions for operating the gas-powered suction dredges in search of placer gold deposits in the forest. Forest officials say the preferred alternative would provide better protection for the forest's fishery while reducing red tape for small-scale gold miners on the forest. "To approve or not approve a plan of operation is not the question," said Rob Shull, minerals staff officer for the Siskiyou and Rogue River forests. "How to approve it is what this EIS is all about." Under the 1994 Northwest Forest Plan, the agency must require miners to submit and have approved plans of operations before mining within a riparian area, he said. There are about 800 mining claims in the Siskiyou forest, of which about 200 are suction dredge operations, officials said. Most of the latter are believed to be recreational operations. "This EIS is a comprehensive approach to analyzing suction dredge operations so we can review and process them with one document," Shull said. Shull acknowledged that, beyond the Northwest Forest Plan, the agency's authority for regulating miners on streams is "muddy" at best. Under the federal 1872 Mining Law, the agency cannot refuse permission to mine, although it can set reasonable conditions, he noted. "We are hoping that by putting together a reasonable plan, (miners) will have reason to comply with it and we won't have to go toe-to-toe," he said. The agency hopes to beef up oversight on mining operations to make sure they aren't harming the streams, he added. Under the preferred alternative, restrictions would include allowing only one dredge per claim operating at one time, limiting intake hoses to four inches, tailoring the length of dredging season to individual streams to protect young fish, and prohibiting moving large pieces of wood or trees along streams. "I think this does the best job we can do and still allow suction dredging," said Dan Delany, the forest fisheries biologist. "We don't have the discretion to not allow it. Our discretion lies in how we mitigate." The draft EIS has no impact on the two-year ban on new mining claims on the forest. "Suction dredge mining definitely degrades riparian reserves," Ullian said. "Under the Northwest Forest Plan, there isn't supposed to be any degradation of riparian reserves." Barton disagrees that plans of operation are warranted. "What they are doing is streamlining a process for us that we are not required to do," she said. "To require someone to use a plan of operations, they must show they are likely to cause significant disturbance, which dredging does not." Mail Tribune Home | Ottaway Newspapers, Inc. | Dow Jones & Co., Inc. | Privacy | Contact Us Copyright � 2001 Mail Tribune, Inc.