EPA's comments
on the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (DSEIS) for the Buckhorn Mountain Project.

December 28, 2005
Reply to
Attn Of: OWW-135
Derek Sandison
Department of Ecology
Central Regional Office
15 W. Yakima Avenue, Suite 200
Yakima, WA 98902

Dear Mr. Sandison:

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (DSEIS) for the Buckhorn Mountain Project. The Buckhorn Mountain Project is a revision to the Crown Jewel Project that was evaluated by the Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) and the U.S. Forest Service in an EIS in 1997. We believe that the changes to the project, such as revision of the mining method from open pit to underground and processing the ore at the existing Kettle River Mill, reduces environmental impacts from the original proposal.

We do, however, have some significant concerns with the DSEIS. In particular, the predictions of water quality conditions during and post-mining may be underestimated due to the use of data averages (rather than consideration of the variations in the hydrologic and geochemical data possible) and lack of documentation of sample representativeness. In addition, the predicted effluent quality from the proposed mine water treatment system would not meet surface water quality criteria for some parameters. We are also concerned that the impacts to wetlands and aquatic resources were not analyzed in an appropriative level of detail to support the conclusions of no significant impacts or demonstrate that the mitigation measures would reduce the impacts. Our detailed comments on these and other issues are attached.

As we discussed on the phone, EPA’s review team is available to meet with Ecology to discuss our comments. Feel free to contact me at (206) 553-0979 if you wish to set up a meeting or have questions regarding our comments.

Sincerely,
/s/ Patty McGrath
Patty McGrath
Regional Mining Coordinator

EPA Region 10 Comments
Buckhorn Mountain Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

(1) General Comment on Document Completeness - In our scoping comments, dated November 7, 2003, we recommended that the SEIS be a stand alone document. That all pertinent information, including appendices and previous data that is used, should be provided in the document instead of referring back to previous documents. We continue to believe that the SEIS should be a stand alone document with all relevant information included. The Crown Jewel EIS is almost a decade old and may not be easily accessible to members of the public or agency review staff.

Summary Chapter
(2) Section S.5.2, Performance Securities, p. S-4 - According to the DSEIS, performance securities costs will be determined near the time of issuance of the Final SEIS. We believe that estimates for reclamation, mitigation, and long-term monitoring and maintenance should be included in the FSEIS along with disclosure of the type of financial assurance mechanism that would be required. The SEIS contemplates the need for long-term water quality treatment. Costs for this and implementation of other contingency plans should also be included.

(3) Table S-1, Summary of Potential Environmental Impacts - Conflicts between the summary table and text of the SEIS were noted. For example, the conclusion that there will be no impacts to culturally significant plants (see p. S-16, Table S-1) is in conflict with other information in the SEIS as well as other supporting documents (Heritage Discipline Report, Vegetation Discipline, and potentially other cultural resources survey’s and Forest Service documents). In addition, the table implies that there are no traditional cultural properties (TCPs), while the later text in the SEIS notes potential impacts to the Hee Hee Stone.

(4) Section S.7, Proposed Potential Mitigation Measures, p. S-8 and Table S-2 – The DSEIS notes, “A summary of potential mitigation measures proposed for the Proposed Action Alternative is provided in Table S-2.” It is not clear which mitigation measures will be required and how (e.g., under what permit or approval) the measures will be required. The SEIS clearly shows that the mine project will have environmental impacts and that some of these impacts can be avoided if adequate mitigation measures are taken.
We recommend that, in the Table listing the mitigation measures (Table S-2), or in a separate table, the SEIS identify under which permit/approval the mitigation measure will be included.
In addition, a plan or plans for mitigation and reclamation should be developed. The mitigation and reclamation plan(s) should include performance standards or criteria for measuring success and continuing actions that will occur if standards or criteria are not met. The plan(s) should include monitoring of all potentially affected resources, including surface water, ground water, wetlands, and aquatic resources, etc.Chapter 1, Project Background

(5) Section 1.2, Changes to the Crown Jewel Project Since 1997, p. 1-2 - This section lists the issues that the Pollution Hearings Control Board (PHCB) ruled on in 2000. The SEIS should identify the issues that still apply to this project (water rights and mitigation plans), provide a summary of the PHCB ruling on these issues, and describe how the proposed project or mitigation measures incorporated in the SEIS resolves the issues.Chapter 2, Alternatives Considered

(6) Section 2.1.2, Proposed Action Alternative, p. 2-12 – The Optional Tailings Disposal Facility across the Sanpoil River is too fuzzy in terms of what triggers the option. It is not clear if this optional tailings facility is in lieu of the proposed facility or if it would be used at a later date for additional tailings disposal (e.g., expansion of the mine). Furthermore, the evaluation of environmental impacts of the optional tailings facility is inadequate. For example, the SEIS has no geologic or hydrogeologic observations of subsurface conditions for the site and an engineering analysis of the stability of such a facility was not conducted. Little information is provided on potential impacts in the Aquatic Resources Section (3.10) other than mention of catastrophe from a cyanide spill. The rationale and decision process for building an optional tailings facility should be clearly stated in the SEIS and should be listed as a separate alternative with an evaluation of impacts and mitigation measures.

(7) Section 2.1.2, Proposed Action Alternative, p. 2-12 – The SEIS notes that the river crossing, presumably including the pipeline, for the Optional Tailings Disposal Facility would be designed to a 100-year high flow condition and a spill pond would be constructed at the low point of the pipeline, which in Figure 2-4 appears to be in the channel of the Sanpoil River. The impacts to the Sanpoil and mitigation measures to offset such a weak design criteria should be evaluated in the SEIS.

(8) Section 2.1.2, Proposed Action Alternative, p. 2-22 – The SEIS indicates that the requirement for cement addition to backfill would be determined based on the need for underground stability. The SEIS should also note in this section that the need for cement addition or other amendment in backfill will also be considered based on the need for neutralization potential to mitigate acid generation (Mitigation Measure WAT-20). This section should also discuss when the waste rock management plan will be developed and approved (WAT-19).

(9) Section 2.1.2, Proposed Action Alternative, p. 2-24 – The SEIS indicates that mine water will be infiltrated to ground water after treating for nitrate, but not metals. The SEIS should describe the type of treatment that will occur and the effectiveness. In addition, considering the limitations and uncertainty of the geochemical analysis (as noted in comments below), a contingency should be included in the EIS for treatment of metals should the geochemical analysis on which the SEIS is based be wrong.

(10) Sections 2.1.2.16, Reclamation Measures, and section 2.1.2.17, Monitoring - These sections refer to other documents that describe proposed reclamation and monitoring for the project. EPA has not reviewed some of these other documents. See comment, (4), regarding the need to include a plans for reclamation, mitigation, and monitoring in the SEIS. Chapter 3, Affected Environment, Environmental Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

(11) Section 3.3, Transportation - The DSEIS does not adequately discuss spill prevention measures or contingency plans for potential hazardous waste spills. The DSEIS shows that the probability for spills on the project access roads is less than one percent. The summary table (Table S-1) for “Environmental Safety/hazardous material spills” states for the proposed action that the impacts are similar to the No Action Alternative- that spills would continue to occur. We believe that the summary table should more accurately reflect the probable risk, instead of stating that they would just continue to occur. Also, a spill plan should be in place and disclosed rather than deferring to the vendors who will be delivering the materials as the SEIS states. We recommend that the SEIS disclose the types of hazardous materials that would be transported, include a discussion of what could occur if there was a spill, and discuss a contingency plan in the event of a spill.

(12) Section 3.6.1.2, Geology and Soils, Site Geology, Figure 3.6-2 – The map of mine site geology is missing fault traces and names, and the mine footprint shown on other maps. The geologic map needs to be more complete to adequately portray the site environment and aid the SEIS reader.

(13) Section 3.6.1.2, Geology and Soils, Site Geology, p. 3.6-1 – The existing site geology should be supplemented by one or more cross sections that show existing mine workings and water levels.

(14) Section 3.6.2, Geology and Soils, Impacts, p. 3.6-14-15 – The discussion of mine impacts should be supplemented by one or more cross sections that show the planned mine workings in relation to subsidence, daylighting, and water levels.

(15) Section 3.6.2, Geology and Soils, Impacts, p. 3.6-15 – The SEIS notes that all areas impacted by daylight mining would be backfilled. The map on Figure 3.6-4, however, indicates that only half of the daylight areas would be backfilled. Since daylight areas are not only dangerous, but also offer pathways for air and oxic water into the mine workings, they should all be backfilled. In addition, the SEIS should include an added mitigation that such areas will also be graded to direct surface water and snowmelt away from the shallow mine workings (in addition to Mitigation Measure GEO-10).

(16) Section 3.6.2, Geology and Soils, Impacts, p. 3.6-16 – The SEIS notes that the risk of failure of the tailings dam raise has been evaluated and accepted. The particular degree of risk that has been accepted should be stated in the SEIS. Furthermore, the degree of risk proposed for failure of the slurry pipeline across the Sanpoil River should also be stated in the SEIS.

(17) Section 3.6.2, Geology and Soils, Impacts, p. 3.6-16 – The SEIS notes that no operational impacts on geology and soils would be expected from the optional tailings disposal facility. On the contrary, at least all of the impacts associated with the existing facility should probably be expected for the optional facility, such as inundation, water diversion, nitrate contamination, etc. The SEIS needs to describe impacts from the optional TDF.

(18) Section 3.7, Water Resources – General Comment on Water Resources section - In general, 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.
In addition, 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. Unfortunately, the SEIS reader can’t tell because the only data listed are lumped. Consequently, regulatory decisions based on the SEIS may be poorly supported.

(19) Section 3.7, Water Resources, Affected Environment, p. 3.7-1 to 3.7-15 – The SEIS notes the availability of hydrogeologic data (ground water and surface water) spanning from the earlier project (early 1990’s) to the present. A record of 10+ years perhaps provides an opportunity to evaluate the site under different climatic conditions, but such a comparison is not apparent in the text. This section should note whether hydrogeologic conditions described here, as well as data used for surface water and ground water mapping and modeling, reflect only the most recent measurements or the span of measurements since the early 1990’s. Any effects attributed to, or anticipated from, drought conditions should be described, as they can exacerbate water supply, streamflow, or wetland impacts of mining.

(20) Section 3.7.1, Water Resources, Affected Environment, p. 3.7-13 – The SEIS notes that “the approach to defining background water quality was based on guidance provided by the Ecology…”. Some elaboration on the determination of background would be helpful to include in the SEIS because of unusual characteristics of some constituents. For example, very high levels of aluminum in background water don’t seem realistic considering the purported neutral bicarbonate conditions of background. The section on surface water quality (p. 3.7-15) notes the occurrence of suspended solids in ground water, begging the question of whether ground water samples were really representative of ground water, or instead reflected poor sampling conditions. Unrealistic high concentrations used to represent background may make identification of mining impacts more difficult.

(21) Section 3.7.2, Water Resources, Impacts, p. 3.7-25 – It’s wasn’t clear if there was any reference to Appendix A in the SEIS, even though it’s tacked on as an Appendix. Where describing the use of ground water modeling for evaluating mine impacts on water resources, the SEIS should explicitly incorporate discussion of the limitations noted in Appendix A, p. 6-1, as these have a bearing on what weight and uncertainty to give to dewatering estimates and capture zones.
In addition, the model does not appear to address the natural hydroperiod and seasonal fluctuation that influences the biotic condition of aquatic environments. A model that addresses seasonality of the system, based on baseline data of the natural hydroperiods, should be used to compare with changes to the timing, magnitude and duration of changes to hydroperiods. This is needed in order to understand the severity of impacts.

(22) Section 3.7.2, Water Resources, Impacts, p. 3.7-26 – The SEIS should clarify whether there is a hydrologic reason for placing the infiltration gallery over the Toroda Creek fault zone.

(23) Section 3.7.2, Water Resources, Impacts, p. 3.7-35 - 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. We are concerned with the level of uncertainty expressed in these statements. 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. In addition, there is no discussion of how the infiltration gallery was designed – the effectiveness and impacts of an adequately designed infiltration gallery should be disclosed. If discharge to surface waters is an alternative to infiltration, then it should be evaluated as a separate alternative in the SEIS.

(24) Section 3.7.2, Impacts, p. 3.7-41 – The description of movement of the ground water divide and flattening of the water table should be supplemented by an additional figure that shows a cross section of before and after water level conditions across the mine site.

(25) Section 3.7.2, Water Resources, Impacts, p.3.7-41 – The SEIS states that PAG rock would be separated from non-PAG rock. In this section, or in section 2.1.2, the SEIS should describe the testing and criteria that will be used to determine which rock is PAG and how the amount of marble will be determined. This information is needed in order to determine if the testing and waste rock management is sufficient to prevent the formation of acid rock drainage.

(26) Section 3.7.2, Water Resources, Impacts, p. 3.7-42 - According to the SEIS, if monitoring indicates that groundwater is being significantly impacted, then the groundwater would be captured and treated. The SEIS should describe what triggers or criteria will be used to determine if capture and treatment is needed, the effectiveness of the capture system, the type of and effectiveness of treatment that would occur, and where the treated water would be discharged.

(27) Section 3.7.2, Water Resources, Impacts, p. 3.7-45 - Since (according to the SEIS) the greatest potential for effects on water quality would occur after the mine is closed, but before the mine has filled with groundwater, we suggest considering the possibility of evaluating an alternative or mitigation measure that expedites mine flooding.

(28) Section 3.7.2, Water Resources. Impacts, p. 3.7-45 – To address uncertainty in predictions of impacts, the SEIS describes the approach for best calculated case versus reasonable worst case. Since both cases rely on averages of data rather than ranges or distributions or some upper part of a distribution other than average, a “reasonable worst case” would likely not be represented by the calculations in the SEIS. Furthermore, the usefulness of a “best calculated case” is unclear except perhaps to best mask problem areas.

(29) Section 3.7.2, Water Resources, Impacts, p. 3.7-45 – The SEIS notes that four wells will be used to monitor the effects of mine operations. In general, four wells would not appear to be near sufficient for a mine of this size with radial drainage, nor for that matter would three wells be sufficient for the tailings facility nor three for the infiltration gallery. Consideration should be given in the SEIS to outlining an adequate monitoring system, and to insuring that both wells and sampling methods can provide representative samples (see comment 20).

(30) Section 3.7.2, Water Resources, Impacts, p. 3.7-45 – The SEIS notes that after re-filling of the mine, a water treatment plant would remain operational if needed until mine water is acceptable. Considering the 60-year estimate for re-filling the mine, a long-lived water treatment plant (though perhaps necessary to reduce pollution) might be an unrealistic measure to count on for mitigation. The SEIS should discuss whether assurance of long-term water treatment is possible.

(31) Section 3.7.2, Water Resources, Impacts, p. 3.7-46 - The text refers to Table 3.7.1 for expected effluent quality. The SEIS should describe how the effluent quality values were obtained (e.g., were treatability tests performed on samples of simulated mine water?) and the uncertainty in those values. The SEIS should compare the effluent values to anticipated limits in the NPDES permit. The SEIS states that treated water would meet criteria, except for chromium using the proposed treatment system. However, review of Table 3.7.1 indicates that treated water exceeds criteria for ammonia, zinc, selenium, and other parameters. This discrepancy needs to be corrected.
The proposed project and SEIS needs to include a treatment process that will result in the effluent meeting water quality standards, since it appears that the ion exchange process as proposed will not do this. The SEIS needs to provide documentation that demonstrates that the treatment process will meet standards under the expected and worst case influent quality and flow conditions.
The SEIS should also describe the impacts of the infiltrated water on the receiving streams in terms of water quantity and quality impacts (in this section) and impacts to aquatic resources (in Section 3.10)

(32) Section 3.7.2, Water Resources, Impacts, p. 3.7-51 - 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 (and in the context of the previous decision of the PCHB ruling). See comment (5).

(33) Section 3.7.2, Water Resources, Impacts, p. 3.7-53 – The SEIS notes that ground water quality at the Tailings Disposal Facility is not anticipated to be impacted. Such future impacts from the proposed alternative, in fact, should be anticipated because of the documented impacts that have already occurred at the facility.

(34) Section 3.7.4, Mitigation Measures, WAT-1 - Clarify what existing water right would be used.

(35) Section 3.7.4, Mitigation Measures, WAT-2 - Whose existing water rights would be used to augment flow deficits to Myers Creek (and its tributaries) during the life of mine and at closure? If the project proponent already seeks new water rights, how is it likely that there will be any flows left to allocate? It does not seem like there are any assurances to compensate the impacts to Myers creek either during the mine’s operation or in the long term after mine closure.

(36) Section 3.7.4, Mitigation Measures, WAT-3 and WAT-4 - These mitigation measures include discharging water from the treatment plant to the head of Marias Creek and Nicholson Creek, respectively. The text should note that these actions will require an NPDES permit.

(37) Section 3.7.4, Mitigation Measures, WAT-5 - There is no discussion of what the ecological, hydrological, and water quality monitoring would be that might trigger the flow augmentation mitigation measures (WAT-1 through WAT-4) 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 Surge Pond (WAT-3) could become a source for inputs of warmer water with algae or sediment and contribute to water quality impacts downstream. It could also become a vector for non-native invasive species. This needs to be evaluated in the mitigation plans.

(38) Section 3.7.4, Mitigation Measures, WAT-15 - Mitigation measure WAT-15 states that the mine water treatment system will be adaptable for changing conditions and that the treated effluent will meet surface water quality criteria. However, the SEIS provides no documentation that the effluent will meet all the surface water quality criteria (see comment 31). It is not clear what is meant by “adaptable for changing conditions.”

(39) Section 3.7.4, Mitigation Measures, WAT-18, WAT-19, WAT-20: These measures refer to the waste rock management plan. The SEIS should include a draft of that plan or at least a description of the testing and triggers proposed to determine if rock is PAG and procedures for determining the amount of marble to be added. See comment (25).

(40) Section 3.7.4, Mitigation Measures - Mitigation measures for the Optional Tailings Facility should include groundwater monitoring to determine if there is leakage and, if there is leakage that contributes to groundwater or surface water, then contingency measures for collecting it.

(41) Section 3.8.1.3, Vegetation, Culturally Significant Plants, p. 3.8-2 - Only a few cultural plants (specifically food species) are reported in the SEIS. However, there are many more plants with cultural/ethnobotanical significance that occur within the project areas (including foods, fibers/materials, and medicines). Some of these species are addressed in the Heritage report. Others are listed, but not identified in the Vegetation Discipline Report and the Wetlands Delineation reports (collectively). A more detailed discussion of cultural plants, their uses and potential impacts (as well as access issues) should be incorporated in the SEIS, and a more accurate reflection of those impacts discussed.

(42) Section 3.8.1.4, Vegetation, Rare Plants, p. 3.8-2 - The Vegetation Discipline Report provides a lot more information that should have been included in this section to more fully disclose the potential impacts to rare species and species of concern. For example, Table 3.8-1 mentions 4 Rare Plant Species in the Buckhorn Mountain Project Area, but there is a much larger list of species in the Vegetation Discipline report. The USFS has developed reports for their Environmental Analysis for the haul road which is more comprehensive
There is no discussion (in this section or in the Wetland impact section) of potential downstream impacts to the Myers Creek/Bolster Creek Wetland and Riparian Complex that has been documented by Washington Department of Natural Resources, Natural Heritage Program to support the largest Washington state population of yellow lady slipper (Cypripedium parviflorum) (see attached letter from John G. Gamon, Washington Natural Heritage Program, to Geraldine Payton, February 9, 1998). Yellow lady slipper is a state Endangered plant. The same wetland/riparian complex supports 7 other rare species, six of which were listed as state sensitive in 1998.
Because small changes in a natural hydroperiod can adversely impact wetland composition, and impact sensitive or rare species, proposed hydrologic changes should be evaluated relative to this wetland/riparian system complex and the sensitive species it supports. This system should be addressed in the Affected Environment section of both Vegetation and Wetlands.

(43) Section 3.9, Wetlands, General Comment - There is no mention of the wetland complex that exists at the confluence of Bolster Creek and Myers Creek. This system supports the largest Washington State documented population of yellow lady slipper (Cypripedium parviflorum). It also supports 6-7 other state listed sensitive plant species. Changes in hydroperiod to this wetland, caused by a shift in the hydrologic divide and diversion of flows to headwaters of Nicholson Creek could adversely impact this wetland system. A description of this system and the impacts should be addressed in the SEIS.
In addition, the SEIS does not discuss the Frog Pond wetland. EPA raised significant concerns about impacts that could result from hydrologic modification to this system in our previous review of the Crown Jewel Mine EIS. Our concerns were not only about changes in hydroperiod from groundwater alteration, but also from changes in the wetland’s ecological condition caused by potential increased surface water runoff and sedimentation. The only place where the Frog Pond is mentioned is in Table 3.7-3, Water Resources Section. However, that Table implies that the Frog Pond is the same as Seep #15.
The Frog Pond is a 1. 8 acre palustrine emergent/open water wetland system, surrounded by forest that supports a very healthy population of spotted frogs, diverse assemblage of dragonflies, and native plant community. It is structurally diverse with different size woody debris and, during normal years, has a perennial open water component. It is a high quality wetland system which should be acknowledged and discussed in the wetlands section. If a conclusion has been reached that there will be no impact to this wetland because the groundwater table is 50 feet below the bottom of the pond, the data collected to establish these facts should be disclosed and the basis for a determination that groundwater changes due to mining won’t impact the wetland should be provided in the SEIS. Further, other potential impacts to the wetland should be assessed. Forest clearing, sedimentation, upland road construction, waste rock piles, etc. should still be evaluated in terms of their potential to impact/change the nature of surface water runoff rates and overland flow inputs, etc. The location of the Frog Pond and proximity to mining operations should be clearly disclosed and mapped and a discussion provided of how and why these activities are not anticipated to impact the wetland.

(44) Section 3.9, Wetlands, General Comment - There is no clear reflection of past wetland delineations, functional assessments, or other past sources of information in the SEIS Wetland Section. These sources (including mitigation plans developed to address impacts), collectively, provide more comprehensive information on (a) the plant communities, (b) impacts, (c) hydrology information, and (d) maps showing the relationship of all wetlands, seeps, springs, and stream networks relative to proposed mine site operations. Not referencing these past documents, using the data generated by them, or providing a cross-walk between the 2005 ENSR wetlands Delineation Report (where Mine site wetlands have been re-named) makes it very difficult to understand whether the differences between the ENSR report and what was documented and reported in the past are real or simply reflect disparities between reports and the people who developed them.
The 2005 ENSR wetland report for the project area has re-numbered several of the mountain top wetlands. For example, wetland complex C1A-C1C (also referred to as the “9 acre” wetland, located at the headwaters of Marias and Nicholson creeks, is now divided into RA1 and RA2). RA1 is identified in the ENSR report (2005:3-4) as what used to be C1A and C1B and is 4.7 acres. Whereas RA2 includes what was C1C, C2 and C4, and is identified as 1.4 acres. What happened to the rest of the previously delineated 9 acre wetland (C1A-C1C)? Has the wetland actual reduced in size or is this an error?
A comprehensive document that includes maps generated from past delineations, showing the location of wetlands, seeps and springs, relative to the 2005 delineation mapped wetlands should be provided. A discussion on whether there have actually been ecological changes to these wetlands since the previous final delineation was done should also be provided to clarify why the plant assemblages and (acreage?) described in the earlier delineations and SEIS and ENSR report differ. If these are not actual differences, but reflect the way that the delineations were performed, this should be rectified.

(45) Section 3.9.1.1, Wetlands, Buckhorn Mountain Mine - Page 3.9-1 says “No wetlands are located in the immediate vicinity of the mine.” Describe how “immediate” is defined. Clearly, there are wetlands, seeps, and springs within the zone of impact or influence from water draw down (discussed to some extent on p. 3.9-10-3.9-12). This should be stated up-front in Affected Environment Section and the extent of this zone should be clearly mapped. These systems could indeed be affected by changes in hydrology due to mining operations.

(46) Section 3.9.2.2., Wetlands, Impacts - General Comment on Impact Evaluation. Impacts from the water withdrawal and diversion from the west side of the mountain to the east side should be explicitly and clearly addressed. 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. Figure 3.7-6 from Water Resources Section could be used as a starting point, but modified to overlay the wetlands inventoried (including those inventoried since 1992), seeps & springs, and all water courses. The map should be further modified to indicate the extent downstream that hydrology could be altered in west-side tributaries to Myers Creek. The ecological impacts from operational and permanent changes in hydroperiod to Bolster, Ethel, (Thorp?) and Gold Creek should be addressed more explicitly in the Impacts Sections of the Wetlands Section and the Aquatic Resources Section, and if relevant in the Seeps & Springs discussion in the Water Resources Section.

(47) Section 3.9.2.2, Wetlands, Marias Creek Haul Route - Eight wetlands are identified (MR1 - MR8) in the “immediate” vicinity of the Marias Creek haul route. These wetlands are said to originate from roadside seeps or are adjacent to Marias Creek. The Haul road has been designed to minimize impacts, and the direct impacts to wetlands are calculated to be only 0.08 acres.
What is missing from the discussion of impacts, however, is an analysis of the indirect impacts to wetlands that will have direct losses. Table 3.9-2 provides the size of each wetland in square feet and the wetland’s rating (using Ecology’s Eastside Wetland Rating System). Table 3.9-4 describes what amount of each of these wetlands will be filled by reconstruction of the existing Marias Creek Road (FR 3950). To estimate the indirect impacts, this table should be modified to show what percent of the total wetland area is affected and provide some assessment of the indirect effect on the remaining area of wetland. The proportion of impact and some discussion of the effects of those impacts on the remaining condition/quality of the wetland would better characterize the total wetland impacts from the Haul Road. For example 100% of wetlands MR3, MR4, MR6, and MR7 are filled. Whereas, no fill will be placed in wetlands MR2 or MR5, and small percents of MR1 and MR8 are to be filled.

MR3, MR 4, MR6, and MR7 are seep fed wetlands that will be impacted from road widening. The report asserts that “[p]resumably the seeps would re-emerge on the new road cuts, and these wetlands would reestablish and occupy about the same area.” This presumption seems overly optimistic. Couldn’t the fill and road construction as easily block off these seeps? Compensatory mitigation should be provided to offset the outright losses of these small wetland seeps and associated indirect impacts, even if they might “re-emerge”. Replanting with “native herbaceous seed species” is, of course, a good idea, but is not sufficient. No mention of where native seed source will be obtained is given, nor the species composition. How will the seed be ensured/determined to be (a) native, and (b) from local seed stock?

(48) Section 3.9.2.2, Wetlands, Mine Site Operations Impacts, p. 3-9-11 - Wetlands RA1-RA7. The SEIS states that Roosevelt adit flows could be reduced by 1/3 (13 gpm average annual flow from pre-mining flow of 34.2 gpm average annual flow) at the maximum extent of mining. The document notes the possibility that the wetland complexes fed by these flows could be reduced by 2 acres, and says there is the potential for decreased wetland productivity. However, there is no discussion of baseline data on wetland plant species composition, existing hydroperiod, presence of rare plants, or support for amphibian populations to compare actual biotic changes with. Simply saying there could be reduction in wetland productivity, doesn’t address the actual biotic impacts or changes. It is not clear that a functional assessment method was used here nor that the statements are based on any real data. The impact assessment is generic.
The mitigation that is proposed to “offset” the cumulative hydrologic change is flow augmentation by taking some of the water directed to the infiltration gallery and routing it through the Roosevelt adit, but exactly how will this be done? What are the legally binding mechanisms to require and enforce this condition and what are the biotic and hydrologic monitoring parameters that will trigger this augmentation?
The bottom of the page states 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.
More detailed analysis of the ecological impacts to biotic communities and wetlands, streams, seeps & springs supported by this flow source should be evaluated. A detailed monitoring plan, with biotic and hydrologic measures, that clearly articulates what will trigger flow augmentation and how it will be implemented and legally binding should be developed.

(49) Section 3.9.2.2, Wetlands, Mine Site Operations Impacts, p. 3-9-12. Myers Creek and associated Tributaries Impacts. The DSEIS states that the cumulative reduction of flow in tributaries of Myers Creek during mine operation is about 20 gpm, and that there “appears to be no way to replace the water that currently supplies the wetlands, and the impacts associated with the flow reduction would be unavoidable.” Out of kind mitigation is provided with the Pine Chee wetland preservation and enhancement area.
To more accurately characterize the impacts and magnitude of their effects, the following questions should be addressed: What is the seasonal variability of reduction (or addition) of flows? How will that vary from the natural hydroperiod? How are these changes likely to affect the biotic conditions of the wetlands (seeps, springs & streams)? What impact will these changes have on the species composition, structure and functions of the wetlands, including support for amphibians, rare species, etc.?
Depending upon the answers to the above questions, the impacts could be deemed significant from the standpoint of reduction in baseflows, reduced water rights, and impacts to sensitive species. A comprehensive Wetland Mitigation Plan should be developed to address those losses, and overall monitoring plan developed to track impacts and trigger any contingency measures required.

(50) Section 3.9.2.2, Wetlands, Optional Tailings Disposal Facility Site, p. 3.9-12 - The report states that there are no wetlands “anticipated” to be in the vicinity of the OTF. Yet, it is not noted whether wetland survey’s were actually conducted or not at this location. The report does indicate that if this facility were developed, a rupture in the pipeline carrying tailings could have an impact on downstream wetlands (and presumable the Sandpoil river). The scope of potential impacts from this Optional Tailings Disposal Facility Site is not well developed or evaluated in the SEIS.

(51) Section 3.9.2.2, Wetlands, Post Closure Impacts, p. 3-9-13. This section is all very speculative, relying on the Surge Pond to be the source for augmenting flows to the Marias and Nicholson Creek wetlands (and stream) systems. Note questions raised under Water Resources Mitigation Actions above (comment 37). Nothing is assured in terms of monitoring, contingency, guarantee of hydrologic source, etc.

(52) Section 3.10.1, Aquatic Resources, Streams and Fish Species, p. 3.10-2 - The SEIS states that fish presence surveys in the potentially affected streams are summarized in a table provide in the Appendix. No such table was found in the Appendix. This information should be included in this section of the SEIS. There should also be a discussion of any data gaps in the fish and habitat survey information and how these data gaps affect the impact evaluation. For example, the October 24, 2005 Aquatic Resources Discipline Report provides some good baseline data on Nicholson, Marias and Gold Bowl Creeks. However, it appears that no survey has been done for Bolster Creek or Ethel Creek. The Aquatic Resources Discipline report states on p.2-10 that “Gold Creek is the only creek with available habitat surveys” for the tributaries to Myer’s creek that will be impacted by the hydrologic divide shift on the west side. The data available for Myer’s Creek and Gold Creek are from 1993 and may not incorporate or reflect all that is needed or was recommended at the time to adequately characterize impacts to these systems from changes in the hydrologic divide from mining activities. In addition, no Bull Trout survey work was done for the Myer’s creek watershed.

(53) Section 3.10.2.2, Aquatic Resources, Impacts, p. 3.10-13 and p. 3.10-14 - According to the SEIS, construction of the Marias Creek Haul Route and optional tailings facility would not significantly affect aquatic resources, but that localized reductions could occur. The SEIS needs to provide a discussion of how these conclusions were reached and what is meant by localized reductions (reductions of what species, by how much, and over what area).

(54) Section 3.10.2.2, Aquatic Resources, Impacts, Operation and Post-Closure - Figures should be included in the Aquatic Resources Impact section that overlays the areas affected by the dewatering and flow reductions and flow increases (both during and after mining) on the creeks. See comment 46. This would make it easier to visualize the extent of impacts described in the text and requested in the following comments.

(55) Section 3.10.2.2, Aquatic Resources, Impacts - General Comment on the impact evaluation. The evaluation of impacts to Aquatic Resources, exemplified by the discussion on Nicholson Creek, needs improving. In the Aquatic Resources Discipline Report (Section 2.2.3 Nicholson Creek), p.2-5, in 2005 the stream above RM5.3 was observed to be dry, “with the exception of a small flow in the Gold Bowl tributary where surface flow was only present there” and the Gold Bowl “is the only perennial stream in the Nicholson Creek watershed above its confluence upstream of RM 6 on Nicholson Creek.” (p.2-8, 2.2.4). Gold Bowl, therefore, provides critical baseflow maintenance functions to Nicholson creek during dry years. However, Gold Bowl will be significantly altered as a result of mining. The SEIS needs to describe what this will do to downstream aquatic life functions of Nicholson Creek during normal years and drought years.
The SEIS concludes that the effects (from the Marias Creek Road and mine during operations and post-closure) are not expected “to rise to the level of significant impacts.” However, it is not clear what the basis is for this conclusion. The SEIS needs to clarify and quantify, the organisms and criteria or thresholds upon which “a level of significance” is based? Certainly, for aquatic life (like Tiger salamanders, or other amphibians reliant upon these places for their life cycle and life support functions) these impacts will be significant. There is no quantification of area of linear feet of stream impacted, change in vegetation composition, cover classes, etc of riparian or associated wetlands. There is no quantification of changes in aquatic life stages or specific target groups impacted by the road, mine, and tailings facility during operations and closure.

(56) Section 3.10.2.2, Aquatic Resources, Impacts - General Comment on the impact evaluation. The impact assessment focuses on the impact to aquatic resources from changes in water quantity. The assessment should also evaluate the impacts from changes in water quality. The potential water quality changes are described in Section 3.7. These changes need to be carried over into this section (and the wetlands section) so that impacts due to water quality changes are clearly disclosed.

(57) Section 3.10.4, Aquatic Resources, Mitigation Measures, p. 3.10-21 - The mitigation measures should include monitoring of the aquatic resources impacted by the project. See comment 4.

(58) Section 3.13.1.2, Heritage Resources, Traditional Cultural Properties - Culturally significant plants include food, fiber/materials and medicines. Only a few food species are reported in the SEIS. More plants with cultural/ethnobotanical significance are listed in the Heritage report and sources for additional information of plants with cultural significance are in the Vegetation Discipline Report (for example: Hierochloe odorata, Nicotiana attenuata, Vaccinium sp). A more comprehensive list of species with cultural significance should be compiled and impacts evaluated. The assessment should be based on a more thorough and complete inventory of ethnobotanical species. At a minimum the conclusion that “there will be no impacts to culturally significant plants” should be changed to reflect the information already present in the documents.
Further, p. 3.13-3 states that “a study of the mine site completed for the 1997 FEIS noted the use of plants by American Indians.” It says there has been some disturbance on the mine site, but there is no quantification or evaluation of such change to cultural plant resources. Such analysis should probably be included in the cumulative impacts discussion

(59) Section 3.13.4, Heritage Resources, Mitigation Measures - The SEIS defers mitigation of potential impacts to tribal resources to some time in the future, if they are encountered. The SEIS should describe whether the Tribes agree with these measures.

(60) Section 3.15, Socioeconomics, Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation and Economic Justice - The DSEIS acknowledges that the impact of the project on members of the Colville Tribes could be disproportionably high. The SEIS should describe what consultation process with the Tribes has taken place so far.
The Colville Tribes are concerned with impacts to resources such as water, fish and wildlife, and landscape as identified in the DSEIS. We feel that the potential impact to Tribal members should be analyzed in more detail either in this section or in the resource-specific sections for the resources where Tribes have expressed concern.

(61) Section 3.15.4, Socioeconomics, Mitigation Measures - Mitigation measure SOC-4 contemplates a process that is inclusive and well publicized during all phases of the project and that special efforts should be made to fully inform and involve the Tribe during planning and implementation of the project. This mitigation measure should be more specific or an additional mitigation measure(s) should be added to describe specifically how Tribal concerns will be addressed.Attachment: Letter from John G. Gamon, Washington Department of Natural Resources, Washington Natural Heritage Program, to Geraldine Payton, February 9, 1998.