CONSERVATION NEWS

by Ann Vileisis, president and conservation chair of Kalmiopsis Audubon Society

WINTER 2012

Chetco Mineral Withdrawal update

Back in November, we made a big push to submit comments to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in support of a 5-year mineral withdrawal on the scenic and recreational reaches of the National Wild & Scenic Chetco River. A group of KAS members together with other local people joined me to testify at two hearings in Brookings. As many of you know, the Chetco was designated as a National Wild & Scenic river in 1988 for three “outstandingly remarkable values”-- crystal clear water quality, robust fish runs, and recreational opportunities, including the chance to catch big fish. At the hearing, I argued that recently proposed mining would put these special values at risk. We had a good range of people, including a local fishing guide, an entomologist, representatives from other conservation groups, and all manner of Chetco lovers, testify in support of the withdrawal. In the afternoon, all speakers were in favor of the withdrawal. At the evening session, just a small set of people spoke against it and favored mining. Beyond testifying at the hearing, a great number of people submitted written comments. By working together with regional, statewide, and national environmental groups, we were able to inspire nearly 9,000 people to submit comments in support of increased protections for the Chetco!

The proposed mineral withdrawal is “in aid of legislation,” the Chetco River Protection Act (CRPA), which was introduced by Congressman Peter DeFazio and Senators Wyden and Merkley to increase protections for the National Wild & Scenic Chetco. The need for the law came with a proposal by one company to significantly increase suction dredge mining operations on 26 miles of the river. (That’s more than half its length.) So far, plans to mine in the river within the Kalmiopsis Wilderness have been thwarted by a state law that prevents degradation of water quality in wilderness areas. But plans to use large dredges on claims in some of the remote river reaches outside the wilderness were awaiting Forest Service approval when a temporary segregation took effect on August 1. At this point, the Forest Service needs to complete an Environmental Assessment (EA) within a 2-year period so that the withdrawal in-aid-of-legislation can take effect for 5 years. This will give Congress time, we hope, to enact the CPRA to make the withdrawal permanent.  

Someone recently asked me to better explain the word “withdrawal” because it sounds we support withdrawing minerals from the river’s bed. Instead, the mineral “withdrawal” means that the riverbed and lands directly adjacent to it are “withdrawn” from the location of new mining claims under the 1872 Mining Law. (As many of you know, this is an antiquated and outmoded mining law that allows anyone to stake claims on public lands for purposes of mineral extraction, without regard for other values.) Beyond prohibiting new claims, the Chetco River Protection Act will require that existing mining claims be proven “valid”--which means (in short) that they must profitably produce gold. If the existing claims prove valid, then mining will be able to continue. If the claims are found invalid, they would be retired, and that is our hope. According to several sources, there is little gold in the Chetco River outside the wilderness, and any gold that is there would be buried deep under a thick overburden of cobbles. This thick overburden would have to be removed from the river’s bottom to retrieve the very small amount that may possibly be nested against bedrock. Only the extremely high price of gold could possibly make this economically feasible.

However, we don’t think rummaging around the riverbed in its remote reaches is an acceptable option for the National Wild & Scenic Chetco River, and we’re not the only ones. On Jan. 12, the New York Times published an Op Ed by two respected fisheries biologists about the need for reform of the Mining Law of 1872, and the Chetco figured prominently in their argument as an example of why reform is needed (see http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/12/opinion/a-mining-law-whose-time-has-passed.html).

To stay up-to-date on Chetco River issues, check out the Save Our Chetco website.

Rogue River gravel grovel-the latest installment

On Jan. 18, the Curry County Board of Commissioners (BOC) voted to deny Tidewater’s permit to expand gravel extraction operations at the bar across from the old mill site up Jerry’s Flat Road owing to unresolved concerns about potential drinking water contamination. Long time KAS members know that we’ve been dealing with this proposal to expand gravel mining near the old mill site for several years.

In a previous go-around last year, the BOC had approved the gravel extraction (after a denial by the Curry County Planning Commission (PC) and appeal by citizens, including KAS) with the understanding that Tidewater would follow environmentally sensitive extraction practices--explicitly NOT trenching. But lo and behold, the method they tried did not work and so the company proceeded to dig trenches anyway. Trenches can be a problem if they are dug too deep and intercept groundwater. Moreover, with flooding, trenches can be scoured into large pits. These pits can become isolated ponds that strand fish and can also significantly change the river flow patters, causing erosion downstream.  Last fall, the state Department of Geology and Minerals Industries (DOGAMI) cited Tidewater for three violations, including digging too deep and neglecting to secure the necessary DEQ storm water permits.

As such, I was surprised when the company came back this year with a specific plan to dig trenches--the very method they’d been directed to avoid. Back in August, KAS submitted testimony urging the Planning Commission (PC) to deny Tidewater’s proposal to extract gravel with the trenching. Despite a broad range of citizen concerns, the PC approved the company’s proposal with a three-year permit. Within a month, Tidewater was cited for yet another stormwater violation at its Wedderburn site; silty runoff was found flowing directly into the Rogue River.

The City of Gold Beach together with a group of local citizens appealed the PC’s decision owing to their concerns about the proximity of the mill site project to the city’s water intake. Their worry was that digging deep trenches into the gravel bar below the level of the water table could hasten migration of toxic pollutants from the old mill area, a known hazardous waste site. In December, KAS again submitted comments in support of the appellants.

Owing to the strong testimony made by the City of Gold Beach and local citizens, the Curry BOC determined that the company had not provided enough information to assure the safety of the water supply for Gold Beach and for the Nesika Beach-Ophir water districts, and they overturned the PC’s decision. KAS applauds the City of Gold Beach and the Curry County Commissioners for putting clean drinking water for their citizens first. Tidewater may decide to appeal this decision to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA).