Ecology Publishes Draft Review of Proposed Mine

Almost 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, the State has released the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (DSEIS) of a new plan to mine gold on Buckhorn Mountain. Although the review presents a plan using three underground shafts instead of the original large open-pit to get at the gold ore, it still predicts a permanent shift in the way water flows off the mountain, adversely affecting senior water rights.
The DSEIS fails to mitigate this permanent hydrologic shift that would cause water currently flowing down Myers Creek to flow down Toroda Creek. This was one of the fatal flaws of the previous mine proposal, and has the potential of derailing this one.
To accommodate the 4.5 million tons of cyanide laced tailings that would be left when the gold is extracted from the ore, Kinross propose a 30 foot expansion to their currently 180-foot-high earthen dam near Republic, WA. Their expansion plan to build on existing jelly-like tailings, which are about 50% water, is flawed and risky. Ten years ago Battle Mountain Gold tried using a centerline expansion in their plans but changed after overwhelming criticism. Adding to the outside (downstream side) of the dam would be more stable and, although more expensive, should be considered. (See graphic on page 3.)
The ecological consequences of the current mine proposal could be harmful for generations. The agencies must hear that a healthy environment for future generations is more important to the public interest than company profits.
This is your opportunity to be heard. The DSEIS 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.
Help us send a clear message to the Department of Ecology that the documentation and the lack of mitigation offered in the DSEIS is grossly inadequate and unacceptable. Ecology should do a stand alone EIS for the Buckhorn Mountain Proposal and forget about supplementing the failed Crown Jewel open-pit proposal. Support the critical (and peer) review of the DSEIS done by Okanogan Highlands Alliance.

Sample Comments for the DSEIS

All inadequacies in the DSEIS should be corrected in subsequent documents.

Scope of the DSEIS
• This a completely different proposal than the failed Crown Jewel Mine (CJM). The environmental review should be a stand alone EIS, not a supplement to the cumbersome ten year old defunct plan.
• The DSEIS should include a full analysis of the public cost versus the public benefits not only to establish a basis for determining the public interest for water right decisions, but also necessary so local regulators can determine the cost to public resources so they can assess impact fees based on Washington's Metals Mining and Milling Act.
• The DSEIS should include a full disclosure of the mining proponents and their subsidiaries holdings in the area, and in the United States including all bankruptcies, violations, or forfeitures.
• As a draft supplement to the CJM proposal Ecology should include a discussion of the documents in support of the 1997 FEIS, and subsequent permits that the PCHB has rejected as a "matter of law".
• A mere mention that the PCHB raised issues regarding this project is insufficient. The PCHB January 19, 2000 decision and finding of facts regarding this project, in it's entirety, is hereby incorporated as part of my comments. Each and every issue should be addressed in the EIS.
• Water rights is a specific issue that was raised in scoping by the public and by the PCHB, and should not be lumped into the more general water resources issue.
• The DSEIS fails to rate the effectiveness of proposed mitigations.
• The public has a right to know the actual plan not 'seat of the pants' adaptive management. Also, how would impacts be mitigated, not how they "could be" mitigated.

Ground & Surface Water
• The DEIS predicts a permanent shift in the hydrology of Buckhorn Mountain. This was specifically rejected by the PCHB. A permanent impact to senior water rights cannot be mitigated with a junior right.
• The DEIS downplays effects of dewatering mine shafts on ground water, wetlands, and creeks in the Myers and Toroda Cr. basins. It states, "a range of 25 to more than 60 years or more" for the watershed to reach equilibrium. This fails to adequately describe the affected environment, environmental impacts, or mitigation needed.
• Given the problems with the underlying science for the CJM, what quality assurance / quality control has been applied to the data presented in the DSEIS?
• The unauthorized diversion of Marias Creek near the Roosevelt Mine Adit into Nicholson Creek resulted in changes to streamflow has been extensively commented on during the process of reviewing this mine proposal. It is time to include this in the EIS.
• The impact of the predicted 124 gpm reduction in the baseflow of Toroda Creek from water historically used for irrigation that would be used for dust suppression should be fully documented.
• The statement on page 3.7-51 that "No water rights have been identified in Toroda Creek drainage...so the use of water during fall and winter does not represent an impact from a water rights perspective." is wrong and should be corrected.
• Discussion of treatment and diversion of storm water runoff from waste rock piles is inadequate to determine the level of effectiveness of the proposed mitigation measures.
• The affect of storm water runoff from the waste rock piles on surface water quality, including sediment loading, is not adequately addressed.
• The DSEIS states "a Final Water Quality Monitoring Plan will be developed for all phases of mining as part of the water quality discharge process, as regulated under the NPDES." To borrow from the last PCHB ruling denying summary judgement motion for continuance until the NPDES was written, "that would be tantamount to writing a blank check...without ever knowing whether it is feasible with water quality laws in its operation. It would be in derogation of section 401 and defy common sense...." The 'planning' should be done during the planning process.
• Page 3.7-23 under 3.7.2 Impacts states that this section describes changes. The significance of these impacts are described in subsequent sections, yet no clear correlation seems to be there.

Wetlands
• There are no Seeps and Springs listed in Table 3.7-3 in Bolster Creek, yet Bolster would be one of the more impacted creeks.
• Headwaters of Bolster, Gold, and Nicholson Creeks are predicted to decrease 33-100%. Discharge from Roosevelt Mine Adit is predicted to decease 38% and not return for 20 years or more. The EIS should include a complete water balance for all creeks in both basins flowing off Buckhorn Mountain.
• It is insufficient to state that 'the infiltration gallery may not have sufficient capacity for all the water'. If more planning needs to be done the time to do it is now, not after irreversible decisions are made.
• DSEIS fails to mitigate unavoidable adverse impacts to aquatic resources.

Fisheries
• The impact of reduced instream base flows of local creeks due to mine dewatering is understated.
• The DSEIS does not adequately address or mitigate for reduced stream flows on trout spawning and rearing habitat in Nicholson and Marias Creek.
• The DSEIS states that during mine refilling, when baseflows in Nicholson Creek would be the lowest, water from the mine could be pumped to supplement the low stream. The DSEIS states it would take "25 years to more than 60 years or more for the water table to reach equilibrium." The SEIS needs better modeling of the impacts and a complete water balance.
• Increased sediment loading smothers fish food [macro-invertebrates] and silts-up fish spawning habitat. The DEIS minimizes a probable increase in sediment loading in local creeks, especially Marias, during the life of the mine and beyond.
• The DSEIS fails to quantify the impacts of increased salts from roads washing into Marias Creek. This should be corrected.
• The proposed plan should include a fish monitoring plan, with the measurement of changes in channel dimensions, flow rate, habitat types, and trout population size and composition.Geochemistry
• The DSEIS should not delegate to some future "adaptive management plan" to specify testing, monitoring and mitigation measures, or to address concerns for geochemical impacts to water quality and changes to water quantity. All this information should be included in the SEIS.
• The possible “hot spots” in waste rock where acid generation & heavy metals leaching could occur is understated. It appears that some of the acid-producing rock would appear early, and be exposed to weathering longer, causing greater potential for acid leaching.
Tailings disposal facility
• The tailings dam expansion uses tailings to support the embankment raises. This method called “upstream” is inherently unstable and precludes full liner protection. The downstream method is more stable and should be required.
• Catastrophic failure of the tailings impoundment is understated. Although the probability is low, the potential effect on fisheries, rivers, and stream affected are understated.
• The DSEIS is far too general in saying that if adverse environmental impacts were noted in the tailings, appropriate corrective action would take place.

Wildlife
• The DSEIS fails to mitigate the impacts of increased road kill from mine traffic.
• The DSEIS fails to mitigate the impacts of short and long-term reductions in seeps, springs, and creeks on fish and wildlife.
• The DSEIS ignores the potential impacts of tailings cyanide on bats, shorebirds, and songbirds.

Air Quality & Noise
• The DSEIS does not adequately consider health impacts of fugitive dust.
• Baseline studies of noise effects do not differentiate between mechanical and natural sounds.
• Baseline ambient sound levels in the DSEIS include the traffic from the K2 mine. Truck noise is not the “natural sound” of this community and should not be considered as such. When taken out of the equation the increased sound of traffic from the proposed mine site would be considered a “very serious impact”.
• Different Ecology, EPA, and DOT noise standards are used in the 1997 FEIS and the DSEIS. This should be fixed.
• The DSEIS should include a “sound frequency spectrum” that shows modeled consecutive graduations of sound levels emanating from all impacted areas, and include various seasonal weather and time scenarios.
• Noise should be regulated to the closest private land not nearest residence.
• The DSEIS does not consider noise from delivery trucks carrying supplies, explosives or fuel; nor do they include employee transports or management vehicles.
Sensitive plants
• Available studies are incomplete on the potential impacts of reduced ground and surface water availability on unique, endangered plant communities on Myers Creek.

Socio-economics
• The DSEIS should include a cost benefit analysis so the public can understand what goes into Ecology's determinations. This is needed to determine if water rights for this project would be in the public interest. Also, local regulators could us it to determine the cost to public resources, so they can assess impact fees under Chapter 78.56 RCW Metals Mining and Milling Operations, Section 78.56.130.
• The DSEIS fails to realistically consider impacts to local facilities and services as a result of people moving to Okanogan and Ferry counties looking for work.

Treaty rights
• The DEIS does not adequately address the impacts of reduced access to traditional water, hunting and fishing rights, herb gathering, berry picking, and spiritual significance of the North Half of the Colville Reservation to Tribal members.

Transportation
• Two to ten tons per year of sodium and chloride, and 20,000 gallons of magnesium cloride are estimated to be used each year. The DSEIS minimizes the impacts the predicted mobilization of these salts would have on the fish and aquatic resources of Marias Creek.
• Erosion from Maria Creek Road should be controlled with settling pond in addition to Rip rap.
• Ammonium nitrate and fuel oil use in blasting may contaminate ground and surface water by spillage and incomplete combustion. More discussion of these impacts is needed.
• The DSEIS should discuss traffic impacts to Marias Creek wetlands from noise, dust, water runoff, changes in water quality and quantity, and impacts to fish and amphibians.
• The DSEIS fails to offer any alternative to the proposed 24-foot-wide road along Marias Creek. A 12-foot-wide road should be considered.

Reclamation
• The reclamation plan does not address long-term site monitoring and care with regard to erosion, dam maintenance, stream flows, and water quality.
• The DSEIS predicts that if revegetation of cut banks along Marias Creek are not revegetated sediment transport would be considered significant. Mitigation calls for no increase sedimentation but there should be a goal of increased protection. What assurance is there that revegetation will be effective?

Bonding
• Although posting financial assurance bonds for long-term monitoring of water quality and for cleanup of potential problems is required under state law, the DSEIS is vague about how this will be done.
• The SEIS should include financial assurance estimates and identify requirements.

Send your comments to:
Derek Sandison,
Department of Ecology
15 W. Yakima Avenue, Suite 200
Yakima, WA 98902-3452
before December 14, 2005