EPA Blasts DSEIS and EA

The EPA has been providing technical guidance regarding the various mine proposals on Buckhorn Mountain to the Washington State Department of Ecology and the USDA Forest Service since 1992. Their comments to Ecology regarding the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (DSEIS) and to the Forest Service regarding the preliminary Environmental Assessment (EA) are consistent with past comments and express significant concerns regarding the current proposal and documentation. What follows are highlights from EPA’s comments. For the complete text go to http://www.okanoganhighlandsalliance.org.
The EPA expresses particular concern that the predictions for water quality during and after the proposed mine may be underestimated. They are concerned that the predicted effluent quality from the proposed mine water treatment system would not meet surface water quality standards. In addition EPA states, “We are also concerned that the impacts to wetlands and aquatic resources were not analyzed in an appropriate level of detail to support the conclusion of no significant impacts or demonstrate that the mitigation measures would reduce the impacts.”
Regarding the Forest Service EA, “EPA believes that information in the EA indicates there are potential significant impacts to water quality, air quality and habitat on Forest Service lands that are not sufficiently described or mitigated to support a finding of no significant impacts. These issues may be best addressed in the context of an environmental impact statement.”
EPA expressed concern that the Crown Jewel EIS, the foundation document for the supplement, “is almost a decade old and may not be easily accessible to members of the public or agency review staff.” They repeated the continued belief that “the SEIS be a stand alone document”, as they recommended in their scoping letter.
Regarding performance security, EPA believes that estimates for reclamation, mitigation, and long-term monitoring and maintenance should be included in the final SEIS.
EPA stated that the SEIS should identify the issues the Pollution Hearings Control Board (PHCB) ruled on in 2000 that still apply to this project (water rights and mitigation plans), provide a summary of the ruling on these issues, and describe how the proposed project or mitigation measures incorporated in the SEIS resolves the issues.
EPA stated that the description of the Optional Tailings Facility across the San Poil River is too fuzzy in terms of what triggers the option and that the evaluation of environmental impacts is inadequate. They site the examples of no geologic or hydrologic of subsurface conditions for the site and no engineering analysis.
EPA’s concerns regarding water resources are significant in that the approach is very similar to why the PCHB rejected the Crown Jewel proposal. They state, “the SEIS relies on temporal averages of data to depict water quality conditions and estimated impacts. Such an approach can be grossly misleading because hydrologic processes at any point in time are inherently anything but average, if for no other reason than seasonality. And, of course, there are a host of other sources of variability in addition to seasonality.”
EPA goes on to express that the representativeness of samples used for environmental testing does not appear to be documented in the SEIS. An example would be the spatial and chemical distribution of samples in relation to the material intended to be mined. By excluding any hint of variability in measured hydrologic and geochemical data, conclusions on predicted water quality (mine drainage, effluent, etc.) and environmental impacts in this SEIS may be underestimated. Consequently, regulatory decisions based on the SEIS may be poorly supported.
According to the SEIS, the infiltration gallery may not have sufficient capacity to infiltrate all of the water. The SEIS states that this will be addressed by adding an additional infiltration area or treating and discharging to surface waters. EPA expressed concern with the level of uncertainty expressed in these statements and that the water balance and modeling should be at a sufficient level of detail and conservativeness so that there is more certainty in the amount of water that would need to be infiltrated or discharged.
Regarding the capture and treatment of groundwater impacted by mining, EPA wants to know the effectiveness of the treatment system and where water would be discharged to be explained. They also question that the worst case best case scenarios in the SEIS since both rely on averages of data rather than a full range of data.
EPA questions that the 4 wells to monitor the effects of mine operations would be near sufficient nor three for the tailings or infiltration gallery. EPA questions whether long-term water treatment is possible considering the estimated 60 years timeframe for re-filling the mine and that it may be unrealistic to count on a water treatment plant operating that long.
The EPA notes the discrepancy in the SEIS that indicates that treated water exceeds criteria for ammonia, zinc, selenium and other parameter. They would like to know how the effluent quality was obtained and the uncertainty in those values. The SEIS should also describe the impacts of the infiltrated water on the receiving streams in terms of water quantity and quality impacts and impacts to aquatic resources.
The section on Water Supply Resources should include more detailed discussion on the existing water rights, the applicants pending water rights applications, the level at which water supply will be reduced, and how that will impact existing water rights. In addition, this section does not discuss water removed from the Myers Creek tributaries (Bolster, Ethel, and Gold Creek) or propose mitigations for the water removed. Because water rights and the need to maintain instream baseflows were ruled on by the State’s Pollution Control Hearings Board, it is important that these issues be fully and transparently discussed and disclosed in the SEIS.
There is no discussion of what the ecological, hydrological, and water quality monitoring would be that might trigger the flow augmentation mitigation measures nor is there any indication that biological condition of wetlands, seeps, springs, and streams would be monitored to indicate when flows should be augmented and supplemented. There is no discussion of the timing over which follow augmentation might occur. Without this information it is not possible to determine if these mitigation measures will be effective.
The SEIS should include a map which shows where all of the wetlands (including the Frog Pond), seeps, springs, and streams are located in relation to the zones of potential impact from this underground mining operation.
EPA criticizes the SEIS statements that “The amount and location of delivery of water could be adjusted, based on monitoring” and that with the mitigation measure of augmenting water the impacts would “be minimized and not significant.” Concluding that impacts will not be significant based on speculative monitoring and contingency measures and no apparent baseline data does not justify this conclusion nor adequately mitigate the impacts.

WDFW Finds DSEIS Lacking

Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) has reviewed Kinross’Buckhorn Mountain Gold Mine models looked at anticipated impacts to streams, seeps, and wetlands, on mitigation proposals and had discussions with Ecology, the Forest Service, and Kinross. Although early discussions between WDFW and Kinross and consultants seemed to reach agreement that Kinross would present a mitigation package that would clearly offset any potential impacts from hydrological modification. Kinross has not developed a mitigation plan with any specific details. According to WDFW, the concepts in the mitigation plan have possibilities, as well as some clear differences concerning suitable mitigation measures, but are too amorphous to meet the standard they thought they had agreed on.
WDFW also reviewed and made comments to 5 water rights for surface waters and wells in continuity with fish bearing surface waters. They recommended denial on 4 based on impacts to fish and approval of one for non-consumptive groundwater use. These applications were part of a set being reviewed ahead of the Buckhorn Mountain Water Right Applications.

The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) expressed significant problems in their comments on the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (DSEIS). The following are snippets are from WDFW much more extensive comment letter to Ecology.
• There is little quantification of these impacts and the proponent has stated a preference to limit the studies performed to quantify these impacts and instead direct those funds into on-the-ground mitigation measures that clearly outweigh the anticipated impacts. Some progress toward such a goal has been made but there are many details to resolve.
• Many of the mitigation measures that are proposed in the document are indefinite. Some use the action verb “could” rather than “will” or “shall” and other measures would be triggered by undefined adaptive management based on undefined monitoring. These mitigation measures need to be better defined so that their potential for success can be evaluated.
•The DSEIS does not include an inventory or functional assessment of aquatic habitat impacted by the proposed action. For example, the headwater reaches of streams impacted by mine dewatering and drawdown of the water table are not identified in the document. The springs and seeps are not described in terms of their plant communities, seasonal water level changes, areas of saturation, or ecological functions. The long term effects on groundwater seepage due to reduced permeability and hydraulic conductivity from compacted mine backfill is not included in the impact analyses. Some of this information was not included by agreement with the understanding that a lack of detail in impact assessment would be compensated for with additional investment in extent and duration of mitigation. The presumption of this arrangement is that mitigation is better for the environment and less expensive than litigation. The DSEIS unfortunately does not include either the detailed impact assessment or the additional investment in mitigation. This should be corrected.
• The DSEIS describes the groundwater effects of mining and dewatering the ore body but does not present these effects in terms of surrounding topography or down-gradient aquatic resources.
• The groundwater model reported in the DSEIS is a steady state model for average groundwater levels and drawdown conditions. Since water levels are dynamic and change considerably (by over 100 feet in some cases) both seasonally and from year to year, the model should include a transient analysis of maximum drawdown during periods of reduced groundwater levels. The transient analysis should include seasonal effects of mine dewatering, changes in groundwater flow, and shifts in the groundwater divide during years of below normal precipitation or runoff conditions.
The lack of physical data in the area of impacts to aquatic resources is a significant flaw in the groundwater model and analysis to date.
• It is anticipated that it will take 25 to 60 years or more for the groundwater level to rise back to a new equilibrium and that some hydrologic effects due to backfilling, loss of fracture permeability, and a shift in the groundwater divide will be permanent. However, many of the mitigation measures that are proposed are short-term or indicate that they “could” be used. It is important that the mitigation proposals match the length of time that the impacts will occur and that they contain the word “will” rather than “could.”
•The ultimate disposition of the mined area, particularly future development for home sites or recreational properties should also be addressed as a potential cumulative impact.
• We appreciate the mitigation measures listed to avoid or minimize impacts to the aquatic resources. However, as proposed in the DSEIS, it does not appear that adequate mitigation measures will be in place to offset impacts such as the permanent reduction in stream flow in Myers Creek and the long-term reduction in all of the headwater tributaries originating on Buckhorn Mountain.
• However, the protocols for the monitoring and steps that would be taken to mitigate damages need to be further defined. Background levels should be established and monitoring protocols should identify the temporal and spatial parameters of levels that exceed background water quality. Specific strategies should be defined that will assure that water quality levels are maintained.
• This would indicate the need for long-term or perpetual mitigation in the form of conservation easements or other permanent protection for mitigation areas, and a replacement ratio substantially greater than 1:1.
• The statement: “Presumably all the impacts on wildlife and habitats will be covered by the wildlife mitigation agreement…” appears to be premature at this time. There are some good elements proposed for mitigation and there appears to be a positive working relationship with the proponent, but as indicated elsewhere in this letter there appear to be some missing parts to the mitigation package and many details to be fleshed-out before we would agree that the impacts are all covered by a mitigation agreement.

Tribal Referendum on Mining

On March 18, 2006, the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Indian Reservation Business Council (CCT) will ask their tribal members to vote on a proposed mine on Mount Tolman, located southeast on the Colville Reservation, near Keller, Washington. The project proposes open-pit mining on Mt. Tolman for copper and molybdenum, whose price is now spiking on the international market. The exact process for refining this ore has not been made clear, nor has the site for processing these minerals. In addition, while research suggests Mt. Tolman contains other valuable minerals such as gold, silver, zinc, and lead, the proposal does not address such minerals at this time.

Mt. Tolman

Located in the heart of the San Poil Valley, Mt. Tolman overlooks the San Poil River and Lake Roosevelt on the Columbia River. Mt. Tolman provides a beauty that keeps local people living in the Keller area and draws vacationers back year after year. But the significance of Mt. Tolman to the San Poil (one of the confederated tribes of Colville Indian Reservation) and other Colville peoples is far greater than mere beauty. Tul’meen, as Mt. Tolman is known in the Nselxchin language spoken by San Poils, provides habitat for wildlife and medicinal and food plants that are integral to the already endangered cultures of the Colville peoples. Tul’meen is also sacred among San Poils and other indigenous Colvilles for the powder paint it provides that is used for spiritual protection and traditional healing.
Unfortunately, Tul’meen cannot provide for its own protection from the devastation that open-pit mining may bring. In turn, many tribal members across the reservation have taken the initiative to provide the protections their mountain requires. These tribal members are concerned with even more than the loss to an open-pit mine of the top of Tul’meen, its beauty, and the habitat and traditional cultural resources it provides. They are concerned with the potential effects of sulfuric acid and molybdenum wastes on the larger area, and on Tul’meen’s tributaries that feed the San Poil and Columbia Rivers. Reaching to the safety of all Washingtonians, they are concerned with the risks represented by tons of chemicals that may be transported to Tul’meen over Washington’s highways.
In view of these concerns a number of groups on the Colville Reservation have taken as their primary focus the importance of educating tribal members on the potential impacts of the proposed mine on the land, water, wildlife, and humans. To this end tribal members have researched the known risks and consequences of mining, and directed their efforts to providing Colville members with the knowledge necessary to making a well-founded decision on March 18. These groups were instrumental in organizing a presentation to the Colville Business Council by mining experts Bonnie Gestring and Ann Maest of the organization Earthworks. Following this presentation, the Colville Business Council was persuaded to include more comprehensive information on the risks of mining in its educational efforts.
In preparation for the scheduled mining education meetings, one concerned group, Visions for Our Future, has planned a Spiritual Camp from February 17-20 open to all Colvilles and native and nonnative people alike. Because Mt. Tolman has been fenced since the multinational giant, AMAX, unsuccessfully attempted to open a molybdenum mine there in the 1970s, the Camp will be held at the foot of Mt. Tolman on Meadow Creek. In addition, concerned Colvilles plan to hold gatherings before the scheduled mining education meetings in Spokane and Seattle.
The message that concerned tribal members wish to impress upon the voting population of the Colville Confederated Tribes and other native and non-native people potentially affected by an open-pit mine on Tul’meen is education. This issue cannot be decided based solely on possible financial gains that may well shift with a changing market. We must also honestly discuss the possible adverse effects of mining. Above all, we hope tribal voters will keep in mind the cultural beliefs of their ancestors who understood the ways that all things are interconnected. Following in their ancestors’ footsteps, what the Colville Peoples do now will affect the animals, the land, the vegetation, and the people throughout Washington for generations to come.

Technical Experts Review DSEIS for OHA

Anne Udaloy is a licensed hydrogeologist in Washington State
The PCHB noted that the data presented in support of the FEIS did not adequately characterize the hydrogeology or hydrology of the Buckhorn Mountain area (PCHB, 97-146 Final, January 19, 2000). Few additional hydrogeologic or hydrologic data are presented in support of the Draft SEIS; those presented are limited to focused studies of areas such as the proposed infiltration gallery. Site-specific meteorological data, such as precipitation and pan evaporation rates, have not been collected. Measurement of background stream discharges and groundwater levels was halted before the end of 2000 and has apparently not resumed. As a result, the hydrogeologic and hydrologic characterization of the Buckhorn Mountain area is insufficient to allow evaluation of the potential impacts related to mine development, operation, or closure.
Existing hydrologic and hydrogeologic data are insufficient to permit calculation of a site water balance, or accurate definition of existing conditions. Critical hydrogeologic boundary conditions, such as the North Lookout Fault zone and the Toroda Creek fault, have not been characterized. The hydraulic properties of bedrock outside of the mineralized area have not been characterized. As a result, the numerical model used to predict potential impacts to groundwater and surface water distribution is based on numerous assumptions, and the results are unlikely to be predictive. In addition, the boundary conditions assigned to the model fundamentally bias certain conclusions. For example, the model cannot and therefore does not predict dewatering of the upper reaches of the creeks due to mining-induced drawdown in the underlying aquifer; instead, it requires the creek headwaters to provide an infinite source of recharge to surrounding bedrock even as groundwater levels in the surrounding bedrock decline due to mine operation. As a result, the numerical model significantly underestimates impacts to surface water and groundwater.
The proposed approach to water management during mine operation and closure is internally inconsistent. For example, it does not appear that the proposed infiltration gallery can operate as designed. In addition, it does not appear that the proposed mine closure operations will ensure capture and treatment of all impacted groundwater. It also appears that the same water resources are expected to serve multiple conflicting uses, simultaneously.
The proposed background, compliance, and performance monitoring programs for surface water and groundwater are poorly defined and entirely inadequate.
In summary, the Draft SEIS does not describe the existing hydrogeologic and hydrologic conditions of the site. In addition, the Draft SEIS does not present a coherent or consistent description of water management during mine development, operations, or closure. As a result, the Draft SEIS does not define potential impacts to groundwater or surface water due to mine development, operations, or closure.

Ann Maest, PhD with Buka Environmental
Predictions of operational and post-closure water quality for the Buckhorn Mountain Project are based on results from geochemical testing of waste rock and other materials. The static acid-base accounting test method selected overestimates the amount of neutralizing material present in the waste rock and mine walls, thus underestimating the amount of potentially acid generating (PAG) rock at the site. Estimates of the amount of PAG rock were used to predict both operational and post-closure water quality. HCT results also likely underestimate the percentage of rock that will become acidic over time and the maximum contaminant concentrations. Therefore, it is likely that actual mine water quality will be worse than predicted.
Treated effluent from the underground mine is planned to be discharge to an infiltration gallery in the Nicholson Creek watershed. Although the effluent would be discharged for groundwater infiltration, because of its location it will reach surface water relatively quickly. Predicted effluent water quality exceeds a number of surface water criteria and/or aquatic life criterion values. The impacts of the discharge of this effluent on downgradient groundwater and surface water quality should be evaluated for the Final SEIS, and alternative treatment methods for lowering metal, ammonia, and nitrate concentrations to acceptable levels should also be considered.
To predict post-closure water quality, Golder used some of the most dilute background water quality to mix with Gold Bowl mine water, thus resulting in lower post-closure contaminant concentrations. This, combined with the assumption that all inundated rock is non-reactive, that acid drainage will not develop before the mine is filled with water, and that there will be not inputs of contaminants from mineralized rock overlying the mine workings makes the estimates of post-closure water quality overly optimistic.
Humidity cell test results indicate that 64% of the rock tested will become acidic over time. However, mitigated post-closure mine water quality is predicted to be better than pre-mining water quality. Reasonable worst case water quality for both the operational and post-closure mine water quality needs to be re-evaluated for the Final SEIS. In addition, there are no quantitative predictions of post-mining groundwater or surface water quality downgradient of the underground mine. These predictions should be completed for the Final SEIS.

From the Pit

What amazed us here from the crow's nest at OHA central is that Ecology and the Forest Service would accept such a poor job of documenting the impacts related to the proposed mine on Buckhorn Mountain. Six years ago the PCHB clarified any confusion. Crown Resources had six years to address the issues, yet they chose instead to ignore the deficiencies in the data used for the predictive models and tried once again to bluff their way through the process. The EPA and WDFW have repeated consistent concerns with the project, especially the lack of a clear understanding of the impacts, and failure to mitigate the unavoidable impacts.
The agencies seem to be on the fast track to come out with final documents. The Forest Service completed their response to comments by early February and has sent their final to the Regional Office for review. They expect to come out with the final EA by early April. Ecology says the SEIS should be out by the end of May. Unfortunately neither agency could have developed adequate responses in these timeframes and appeals may be necessary. You generous support at this time is especially appreciated.
It is our understanding that Kinross, instead of addressing impacts, is spending its time lobbying the legislature, complaining that the process is taking too long. Using the Jack Abramoff model to influence the process to get favorable actions from the agencies. This is reminiscent of event in the previous round when political considerations overshadowed sound science yielding bad decisions that were ultimately overturned. Politics should have no place in the environmental documentation and permitting process.
We have a right to know whether or not this proposed mine can comply with environmental protection laws without political involvement.

Water Rights - The Fatal Flaw

A water right is a legal document authorizing beneficial use of a designated amount of water to be diverted from a specific source and used in a specific location. A water right certificate is required if diversion is from surface water; ground water if more than 5,000 gallons per day is used or more than 1/2 acre is affected, or if the well serves more than one single residence.
To summarize the criteria Ecology applies to water rights applications, it must show that:
1. Water is physically available for appropriation.
2. The appropriation will not impair existing water rights.
3. The public interest will not be harmed.
4. The intended use is beneficial.
Crown Resources has applied for two ground water rights in the amounts of, not to exceed, 20 gpm for domestic supply and, not to exceed, 100 gpm for mining (dewatering), industrial, and mitigation and one surface water right not more than 50 gpm for mining. They have also applied to change water rights for the Newman Ranch on Toroda Creek from irrigation to be used for dust control, road construction and mitigation in the amount of, not to exceed, 300 gpm.
Both the Myers and Toroda Creek basins have been considered closed to new water appropriations since the 1950's on the recommendation of Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife. Those creeks are either fully appropriated by existing water rights, or stream flows must be maintained to protect fisheries.
The DSEIS predicts that dewatering the mine would permanently shift water that currently flows down Myers Creek into the Toroda Creek basin adversely affecting senior water rights. The document proposes mitigating this permanent shift by pumping water from an unnamed junior water right into Myers Creek. It also predicts that if the 300 gpm currently used for irrigation was used for dust suppression, water consumption would increase by about 124 gpm because of the water that would normally infiltrate back into Toroda Creek .
It does not take a genius to see that Crown's water plan would fail at least some part of all four tests. Analysis of impacts and mitigation scenarios are not explicitly and credibly addressed in the DSEIS. Let's hope Ecology does not repeat the failed strategy of the previous proposal. Water rights should be denied