Gold mining in southwest Oregon is again in the news with a new proposal to mine Sucker Creek in the Illinois River Basin. According to a June 21st article in the Oregonian, the mining plan was submitted by an individual previously convicted of failing to comply with Forest Service regulations. More important, perhaps, the Oregonian reveals that the two land managing agencies don't know how many "live" (active) mining operations there are on Sucker Creek. This is significant because the creek is "essential" and "critical" salmon habitat and a major tributary of the Illinois River -- one of the Northwest's most important wild salmon and steelhead strongholds and host to the last best wild fisheries in the Rogue Basin. The former chief of the Forest Service describes the impacts of mining along streams and rivers on Southwest Oregon's fisheries as "profound."
While not examined in the article, the public agencies' lack of knowledge about mining operations on important fish producing streams and rivers is a result of Bush Administration deregulation. This has yet to be corrected by the Obama Administration. Also not examined is the fact that the American public is essentially subsidizing mining while giving away the gold found on its heritage streams and rivers for free.
Bush Administration weakens the regulation of mining on public lands - In 2001, the Bush administration moved swiftly to gut provisions of the Northwest Forest Plan's Aquatic Conservation Strategy (ACS) intended to provide greater oversight of mining along streams and rivers. Biologists and the principle authors of the ACS knew that mining was problematic because its impacts were direct. They also knew that, unless an area was withdrawn from the 1872 Mining Law, they couldn't say no to mining. So they did the next best thing—provided greater scrutiny of mining operations.
Next, the Forest Service's surface mining regulations were weakened. Under amendments to the agency's surface mining regulations that the Bush Administration pushed through, it's now essentially up to the miners to decide whether they even need to notify the agencies that they are mining on public lands. This applies to mining on National Wild and Scenic Rivers and the critical habitat of coho salmon listed under the Endangered Species Act.
It's a lot like saying to logging companies or to the general public that no notification is needed for cutting down trees on the National Forests if you reasonably conclude that the logging is not likely to have significant impacts, even if it's in old-growth forest reserves and the habitat of threatened species like the spotted owl.
The Obama Administration has not yet moved to reverse the Bush Administration's deregulation of mining on the streams and rivers flowing through our National Forests.
Giving away valuable minerals for free at the taxpayer's expense - Under the antiquated 1872 Mining Law, miners get any valuable minerals they extract from publicly owned lands for free. This includes gold, which is now valued at over $1500/ounce. The miners pay no royalties. Most miners owning 10 claims or less pay no claim-maintenance fees. In Oregon mining claims are not taxable property, so there's no contribution to the tax base of the counties. See Mining Economics and Hardrock mining makes no measurable contribution to the economy of Southwest Oregon.
What is seldom reported is that mining on National Forest and BLM lands is actually subsidized by the taxpayer. The analysis or administration of mining that does occur is not paid for by the miner but by the U.S. taxpayer. For example, the Forest Service estimated it will cost ~ $800,000 to prepare the required environmental impact statements for mining plans submitted by a Washington based company to mine almost half the length of the National Wild and Scenic Chetco River. The Oregonian reports that it cost the taxpayer $24,000 to clean up the previous mess made by the illegal mining on Sucker Creek. In addition, there was the cost of taking the case to court and staff time not incidental to clean-up costs.
This is why Cliff Tracy's quotes in the Oregonian article are so ironic:
While Southwest Oregon miners complain bitterly about delays in approving their mining plans, we know of none who've stepped forward to expedite the process by paying for it themselves.While not examined in the article, the public agencies' lack of knowledge about mining operations on important fish producing streams and rivers is a result of Bush Administration deregulation. This has yet to be corrected by the Obama Administration. Also not examined is the fact that the American public is essentially subsidizing mining while giving away the gold found on its heritage streams and rivers for free.
Mike Dombeck on mining in Southwest Oregon - Mike Dombeck, the former Chief of the Forest Service and Director of the Bureau of Land Management described the collective effect of the mining of streams and rivers in Southwest Oregon as "profound."
In a guest opinion published in the Oregonian on December 12, 2001, the former Chief of the Forest Service put it this way:
In a guest opinion published in the Oregonian on December 12, 2001, the former Chief of the Forest Service put it this way:
There's too little regulation, not too much - The Oregonian presents various sides of the argument but falls into the trap of repeating the miner's complaints about government regulation without going deeper. The article does not:The legacy of the 1872 mining law on the Siskiyou is apparent every summer when as many as several hundred miner's descend on the forest's rivers employing motorized suction dredges to search for gold. These dredges suck up the stream bottom and the rocks and gravel that salmon and steelhead need to spawn, and then dump them ... in tailings piles in the middle of the river. These mining operations provide virtually no employment, supply no strategic minerals to the nation, and contribute little to the economy of Oregon. Most are weekend "recreational miners ... The collective effect on the river systems and fisheries is profound"(emphasis added).
- look at how little regulation there actually is;
- disclose that the cost of analysis, administration, and regulation of mining is born by the taxpayer not the miner; and
- reveal that miners are extracting valuable minerals on public land for free, while the American public is subsidizing the giveaway by bearing the costs of not only of administration but also, in many cases, of clean-up or site restoration.
 |
| The aftermath of instream placer mining on the principle low-gradient spawning reach of Silver Creek, a year after the mining occurred. Silver Creek is one of the most productive wild fisheries in the Illinois River Basin. |
 |
| Placer mining on Sucker Creek (Illinois River Basin). A USDA Forest Service publication on Sucker Creek notes; that "The actual moving of the streambed during mining destroyed spawning habitat, eggs and fry in the gravel during the year it was moved." Photo 1997. |
Next, the Forest Service's surface mining regulations were weakened. Under amendments to the agency's surface mining regulations that the Bush Administration pushed through, it's now essentially up to the miners to decide whether they even need to notify the agencies that they are mining on public lands. This applies to mining on National Wild and Scenic Rivers and the critical habitat of coho salmon listed under the Endangered Species Act.
It's a lot like saying to logging companies or to the general public that no notification is needed for cutting down trees on the National Forests if you reasonably conclude that the logging is not likely to have significant impacts, even if it's in old-growth forest reserves and the habitat of threatened species like the spotted owl.
The Obama Administration has not yet moved to reverse the Bush Administration's deregulation of mining on the streams and rivers flowing through our National Forests.
Giving away valuable minerals for free at the taxpayer's expense - Under the antiquated 1872 Mining Law, miners get any valuable minerals they extract from publicly owned lands for free. This includes gold, which is now valued at over $1500/ounce. The miners pay no royalties. Most miners owning 10 claims or less pay no claim-maintenance fees. In Oregon mining claims are not taxable property, so there's no contribution to the tax base of the counties. See Mining Economics and Hardrock mining makes no measurable contribution to the economy of Southwest Oregon.
What is seldom reported is that mining on National Forest and BLM lands is actually subsidized by the taxpayer. The analysis or administration of mining that does occur is not paid for by the miner but by the U.S. taxpayer. For example, the Forest Service estimated it will cost ~ $800,000 to prepare the required environmental impact statements for mining plans submitted by a Washington based company to mine almost half the length of the National Wild and Scenic Chetco River. The Oregonian reports that it cost the taxpayer $24,000 to clean up the previous mess made by the illegal mining on Sucker Creek. In addition, there was the cost of taking the case to court and staff time not incidental to clean-up costs.
This is why Cliff Tracy's quotes in the Oregonian article are so ironic:
If the agencies continue stalling permits, he says, they risk more miners taking matters into their own hands.
The hardrock mining that brings little or no revenue to state or federal governments carries high costs not only for the federal government but for states as well. For example, California officials recently estimated that it will cost California about $2 million to issue and enforce suction dredge mining permits. See OPB News.
