Ecology Publishes Final Review of Proposed Mine

Caring more about keeping on schedule than keeping to their mission to protect, restore and preserve the waters of Washington State, the Department of Ecology is once again poised to bounce that rubber stamp on an EIS for the proposed Buckhorn Mine on September 15th. Six years after the Pollution Control Hearings Board (PCHB) pulled the plug on a contentious open-pit, cyanide-leach gold mine in the Okanogan Highlands, Ecology is giving approval to another fatally flawed plan to mine and mill gold. The three underground shafts proposed to mine the gold would cause preferential pathways for water to flow causing a permanent shift in the way water flows off the mountain adversely affecting senior water rights and have the potential to pollute groundwater for generations to come.
The Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) fails to mitigate this permanent hydrologic shift that would cause water currently flowing down Myers Creek to flow down Toroda Creek. They propose holding a bond to pump and treat groundwater for ten years but the contamination that would likely develop would last much longer. These were some of the fatal flaws of the previous mine proposal and they have potential to derail this one also.
In the SEIS Ecology blindly accepts Kinross hollow promise that water coming out of their treatment facility will meet water quality standards even when the modeling shows potential problems. This same approach was blasted by the PCHB and should sink this boat also.
To accommodate the 4.5 million tons of cyanide laced tailings that would be left when the gold is extracted from the ore, Kinross proposes a 30 foot expansion to their currently 180-foot-high earthen dam near Republic, WA. The expansion plan to build on existing jelly-like tailings is flawed and risky.
The ecological consequences of the current mine proposal could be harmful for generations. Ecology and the governor need to hear (see page #5) that a healthy environment for future generations is more important to the public interest than company profits.
The SEIS and available supporting documents fail to acknowledge, fail to mitigate, and/or downplay the long-term significance to our quality of life. This includes impacts to ground and surface water (quantity and quality), downstream water users, residents and tourists (health and safety, air quality, noise, transportation and scenic beauty), and fish and wildlife and their habitat.

Impacts of Proposed Mine
* The Mine would causes a permanent shift in hydraulic divide, impacting senior water rights holders.
* The mine could contaminate ground and surface water.
* Dust an noise would degrade the health, safety and quality of life in the Okanogan Highlands.
* Mitigation is inadequate to compensate for the public resources that would be degraded.

SEIS Fatally Flawed
It is difficult to come to accurate or informed conclusions when relying on incomplete information. The problems with the SEIS began from its conception. There is little similarity between the underground mine proposed by Kinross and the open pit proposed by Battle Mountain Gold except the location, oh, and the involvement of Crown Resources. Ecology chose to supplement an EIS that was for a completely different mining method, transportation and waste disposal scenarios and who’s supporting documents and conclusions were rejected by the PCHB.
Many of the problems with Ecology’s approach to reviewing the impacts of the current mine proposal were very similar to the approach they used and was rejected by the PCHB.
For example, 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 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.
The approach used in the SEIS to predict water quality for the Buckhorn Mountain Project during operation and post-closure are similarly flawed. They are based on results from geochemical testing using static acid-base accounting test method that overestimates the amount of neutralizing material present 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. Humidity Cell Test 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.
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.

Failures of the SEIS
* The SEIS minimizes impacts to ground and surface water.
* The SEIS minimizes dust and noise impacts.
* The SEIS fails to consider impacts to recreation in the area.
* The SEIS fails to consider and mitigate for increased sediment loading in local creeks.
* The SEIS fails to mitigate impacts to fish and wildlife due to reduced instream flows of local creeks from mine dewatering.
* The SEIS fails to review and require the safest tailings dam expansion options.
* The SEIS fails to collect on-site wind and weather data in Kettle River air shed when considering dust and noise.
* Baseline studies of noise do not differentiate between mechanical and natural sounds.

Construction Storm water General Permit
Despite the clear language in the Construction Storm water General Permit (CSGP) application stating that SEPA must be complied with prior to submitting the application, Ecology accepted Crown Resources application when only a draft SEIS had been issued. SEPA has not been complied with until after a final document is issued. Crown submitted a revised application in June 2006, this time the application acknowledged that SEPA has not been complied with.
Ecology informed OHA that it has a new policy, even though the policy itself has not even been published. Why is the agency charged with the protection of the environment for Washington State working over time to ease the way for major polluters? Why is an unpublished policy change being enforced to streamline the process for the applicant before public concerns about the project have been answered? Not only does this make-up-the-rules-as-you-go fly in the face of established process and procedures it places an undue burden on the public who has to review a permit application that is inaccurate and incomplete and that is based on environmental review that is only in draft form. Ecology has stated they have changed the policy from what is published and now allows processing (but not issuing) of permits before SEPA is complete. This is a major change in policy for the Washington Department of Ecology and should not be undertaken lightly. Why waste the taxpayer’s money and the public’s time to process a permit that is based on incomplete and inaccurate information. The CSGP application should be rejected because it contains inaccurate and incomplete information and does not comply with permit application requirements.
Ecology will approved this permit 7 days after the final SEIS is published
The reason SEPA must be complied with prior to submittal of the storm water permit application is that otherwise Ecology and the public must rely on draft information that is subject to change. At the time of this notice only drafts of the SEIS, EA, and Aquatic and Habitat Mitigation Plans were available of which EPA and the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) have criticized critical aspects.

Construction Air Quality Permit
Crown Resources has filed a Notice of Construction (air quality permit) application with the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology). The application is to operate a new gold mine, Buckhorn Mountain Mine. Ecology has made a Preliminary Determination to approve the Notice of Construction for this proposal.
Even though this is called Notice of Construction, the controls of dust and vehicle exhaust during construction are not part of the plan. That is deferred to the Fugitive Dust Plan, which is yet to be written. Is this starting to sound familiar? There are no realistic calculations for pollutant emissions during construction, considering the massive amounts of traffic and earth moving that would occur. No monitoring requirements are specified for the construction phase, and of course, off-site emissions are not included. Dust from Pontiac Ridge Road, Bolster Road and Nicholson Creek don’t count.
The permit does allow chemical dust suppressants to inhibit generation of airborne dust to be applied every two to four weeks that would have significant adverse impacts fish and aquatic resources.
• Insist that enforcement of air quality standards be required during construction and operations.
• Locations of monitoring stations should be chosen by Ecology not Crown.
• Self-monitoring is unacceptable. Third party independent monitoring should be required.
• The complete Fugitive Dust Plan should be available to the public for comment before permit is issued, not just an outline.
• All fugitive dust emissions from construction including all access routes (Pontiac Ridge, Bolster/Gold Creek and Nicholson Creek) should be included in modeling.
• Current wind rose data is not accurate. It should be redone using a more accurate assessment of the actual wind directions.

Groundwater Quality - Kinross Style - Dilution Is The Solution To Pollution
Modeling shows that there is a strong likelihood that as the proposed Crown/Kinross mine would fill with water after mining, groundwater would not meet water quality standards. To compensate this groundwater contamination Kinross proposed to operate a treatment facility on Buckhorn Mountain for 10 years, including winter, pumping the treated water back into the ground. After 10 years they say there would be enough water to dilute the acid and heavy metals.
Cleaning up contaminated groundwater can be costly and technically infeasible. The costs are generally borne by taxpayers or ratepayers.
The Hydrologic Monitoring Plan for closure is extremely vague on contingency plans and leaves far too much to the discretion of Kinross for self-monitoring and self-regulation. Monitoring could be needed permanently.
Ecology is confident that they can hold enough bond that if after 10 years the groundwater still does not meet standards, they can clean up the problem. The PCHB addressed this approach to permitting head on back in January 2000 when the open-pit was predicted not to meet water quality standards.
"The only real assurance we have is the proposed bonding that the state may rely on to enforce environment laws in the future. This approach is tantamount to entering a busy interstate highway on an exit ramp against the traffic. The availability of insurance in that circumstance is no more comforting than the proposed bonding here. The focus of our environmental laws must be on preventing pollution and habitat degradation. It is not legally sufficient to proceed with the proposed mine without much more specific knowledge of the potential impacts from the development and meaningful means of preventing and protecting against the adverse consequences of the development. The long-term engineered solutions proposed in this case are legally insufficient.”

Hydrologic Monitoring Plan
The Kinross Hydrologic Monitoring Plan was created before groundwater modeling was complete and incorporated into the environmental review. This is important because you should know what and where the impacts would be before you monitor those impacts. Another major flaw is that the monitoring plan does not include contingencies. What is the purpose or objectives of monitoring that would indicate the need for corrective action. How would monitoring data be used in the future and what are the performance standards. The monitoring plan fails to explain how collected data would be analyzed and what criteria would be used to differentiate between natural variability and impacts from the mine.
The Plan is flawed because it does not adequately address monitoring during the construction phase of the project--a time when road building, clear-cutting, grubbing (stump and root removal), topsoil removal and stockpiling and building construction would be high-intensity activities.
The Monitoring Plan calls for monitoring sediment loads in the creeks but fails to talk about any specific aspect of sediment loads. Sediment loading can vary considerably depending on the size of sediments the location in the stream and transport process. OHA has suggested that the agencies should require benthic macro invertebrates to be monitored as an indicator of the overall aquatic health of the streams. Bioassessment of streams can reveal water quality and stream ecosystem impairment. Aquatic benthic macro invertebrates are especially useful indicators as each species has a specific tolerance for water conditions. This aquatic biota are affected by the physical, chemical and biological conditions of the stream and may show impacts from habitat loss not detected by traditional water quality assessment. As monitors of environmental quality, macro invertebrates can reveal episodic as well as cumulative pollution and habitat alterations. The use of macro invertebrates as bioindicators could be a most reliable and cost effective assessment tool for water and habitat quality in streams.