January 09, 2006
James Boynton, Forest Supervisor
Okanogan Valley Office
1240 Second Avenue South
Okanogan, WA 98840

Dear Mr. Boynton:

            The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has reviewed the Draft Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Buckhorn Mountain Access Road and Related Activities. We are submitting comments applicable under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Section 309 of the Clean Air Act.

            EPA believes that information in the EA indicates there are potentially 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 impact. These issues may best be addressed in the context of an environmental impact statement. Attached are EPA’s detailed comments regarding these issues. Also, the EA relies on Washington Department of Ecology’s Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (DSEIS) and incorporates the DSEIS by reference. EPA provided comments to the Department of Ecology on the DSEIS and we are including those comments that are relevant to the EA as well.

If you have questions or would like to discuss these comments, please contact Lynne McWhorter at (206) 553-0205, Patty McGrath, Regional Mining Coordinator at (206) 553- 0979 or me at (206) 553-1601. Thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments.

                                                                        Sincerely,

                    Christine B. Reichgott, Manager
NEPA Review Unit

EPA Detailed Comments on Buckhorn Mountain Access Road
and Related Activities Environmental Assessment

Page 52, Management and Mitigation: We appreciate that the EA discloses the potential effectiveness of the proposed mitigation measures. In some cases we have questions as to how the effectiveness was determined. These are described in the comments below related to mitigation.

Page 57 and 66, WD-1 and WQ-2: In the section on Management and Mitigation Measures, the EA states that water discharged into the infiltration gallery and from augmentation pipelines would meet state and federal water quality standards. However, there is no information presented in the EA to support this finding. There are no estimates of the expected water quality in comparison to baseline conditions and there is no description of the water treatment. Without this information the “high” effectiveness of this mitigation measure is questionable.

Page 57, WD-2: The EA states that the effectiveness of flow augmentation would be low-moderate. Further explanation is needed since reduction in stream flows could have significant impact on aquatic resources and both the Draft EA and Ecology’s Draft SEIS relies, in part, on this mitigation measure to determine that impacts will not be significant.

Page 63, PFA-2: We are encouraged by the statement that the performance security would include sufficient funds for correcting water quality problems, as well as reclamation, revegetation, and removal of facilities. The EA rates the effectiveness of this measure as “high”. However, the effectiveness is only high if the performance security is of an adequate amount to cover the potential costs. The EA should include an estimate for the performance security and a description of how the estimate was made in order to provide a basis for its determination that it would be highly effective.

Page 69, Wetlands and Streams: This section references Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, stating that “final details of wetland mitigation would be determined in the Corps of Engineers permits in consultation with the Forest Service on National Forest System land.” The Army Corps of Engineers has stated they will process Nationwide Permits for the proposed direct impacts to wetlands and streams. As a result, the full scope of impacts to wetlands, riparian areas and aquatic resources may not be mitigated within the Army Corps permit process. Therefore, we recommend that a robust mitigation plan be developed to fully addresses all direct, indirect and secondary impacts to aquatic resources.

Page 69, WS-1: Culverts in Live Streams: It is unclear what and where the “small wetlands” that “would be constructed above culverts on live streams to compensate for wetlands lost from culvert replacement” means. We recommend that the EA clarify and describe method, location and proposed size of “small wetlands”.

Page 82, Comparison of Alternatives: The EA states in Table II-7 that the potential is high for toxic materials added to the road surface to enter streams, riparian areas, and wetlands on Forest Service land for Alternative B, the Proposed Action. The high potential for toxics to affect aquatic resources is a significant issue and should be mitigated in order to prevent fish kill and contamination of water resources in addition to the monitoring discussed.

Pages 82, Table II-7, Comparison of Alternatives: Alternative D appears to be the less environmentally damaging alternative from the aquatic resource impact standpoint (acres, linear feet of riparian areas, water quality, potential for toxic spills, etc.). For example, 19.2 acres of wetland riparian habitat conservation areas would be impacted from either Alternative B or B1, whereas Alternative D would not impact any. Alternative B or Alt B1 would likewise result in 3.9 miles of construction impacts within riparian habitat conservation areas, but only 150 linear feet would be impacted in the Alternative D alignment. We recommend that Alternative D be thoroughly evaluated and considered as the preferred alternative.

Page 81-88, Table II-7 Comparison of Alternatives: Rows 5 & 6 state that there will be no (“none”) stream temperature changes in either Marias or Nicholson creeks. We are concerned that there is the potential for stream temperature changes with up to 1 foot of drawdown predicted. Temperature changes can be caused by hydroperiod alterations.

Hydroperiod changes should be evaluated relative to impacts to biological communities of wetlands, seeps/springs, streams, and riparian areas in this table. This information should be provided in terms of linear feet downstream for streams, and duration of draw-down. For wetlands the estimated change in hydroperiod and seasonality should be assessed to address changes in biotic condition and communities (vegetation, amphibians, macro-invertebrates including Odonata, etc.). Such changes in hydroperiod could also significantly impact Platanthera obtusata (a sensitive wetland plant in the orchid family) found in this area

(page 303). The impacts to this species (and other the wetland flora in general) should be assessed more precisely relative to projected hydrologic changes associated with the infiltration gallery. Such analysis should be further discussed in the Aquatic resources section (pp. 134-145); the Draft EA does not provide enough information to support the statement that the water augmentation would minimize groundwater losses and result in little change of water availability to fish. There are not enough details as to when and how augmentation would occur to support this.

Pages 111-128, Hydrology: This section describes the effects from the project on the hydrology. A portion of this section also describes water quality effects. The impacts of water quality should be addressed in a separate stand-alone section. The water quality discussion in the draft EA is limited to the impacts from the road. Expected water quality from the infiltration gallery should also be discussed (see comments above) and the cumulative water quality impacts from the Buckhorn Mine during operations and closure should be described.

Page 118, Hydrology, Water Infiltration Gallery Effects: According to the draft EA, treated water discharged into the infiltration gallery would not exceed 40 gallons per minute (gpm) and excess water would be routed to the Roosevelt Adit or wetlands in Marias Creek to supplement surface water flows. The EA should disclose how often and during what times of year excess water over 40 gpm will occur and the magnitude of the excess flows. The EA should describe when and how much of the excess flow will be routed to, each, the Roosevelt Adit and Marias Creek and the impacts this will have on water quality and aquatic resources.

Page 131, Existing Conditions, Amphibians: Page 131 and the Biological Evaluation (pp. 146-152) discusses the presence and potential impacts to the Columbia spotted frog (Rana luteiventris), a Federal Candidate species. No other amphibian species are addressed under the heading “Amphibians.” The section goes on to describe concerns about fish passage existing conditions in Marias and Nicholson Creek. More should be stated about the existing conditions of amphibian populations and potential impacts to them as a result of hydrologic changes from the infiltration gallery, impacts from haul road routes, and cumulative effects (the combined effects of the various projects).

Page 132, Existing Conditions, Wetlands, Seeps and Springs: The statement, “These wetlands do provide excellent habitat for Columbia spotted frogs, tree frogs, western toads, and long-toed salamanders” is made for both Marias and Nicholson Creeks. However, no evaluation of impacts to these amphibians is provided in the impact section and there is no discussion of Tiger salamander in the area. Please more fully evaluate impacts to amphibian populations.

Page 134-145, Aquatic Resources Environmental Consequences: The EA states that water from mine operations that would be infiltrated into the infiltration gallery, would “result in little change to water availability to fish.” It is concluded that increased flows to Nicholson and Marias Creek from the infiltration gallery will have a positive effect. However, there is no analysis of the timing, duration or magnitude of flows that would be discharged to Nicholson and Marias Creek (or their headwater wetlands). We are concerned that changes in hydroperiod can have adverse affects biotic communities including wetland and stream functions. The EA focuses on downstream populations of fish, but does not address the potential change in hydroperiod that could impact other aquatic organisms and wetland plant communities.

Page 137, Alternative B & B1: Marias Haul Route (preferred alternative): The EA states that the existing sediment load from the road along Marias creek already impairs spawning habitat for fish in Marias Creek. Modeling predicts 34% increased sediment loading over the present condition. Mitigation to address this significant increase in sediment loading is implementation of various sediment detention methods. A detailed and enforceable monitoring plan is needed to ensure these measures function. However, the type, frequency and responsible party for monitoring is not explicitly described, nor the mechanism for enforcement such monitoring. We recommend that the EA include a commitment to develop a detailed mitigation and monitoring plan that is enforceable.

General Comment (relevant to statements in cumulative impact sections, such as p. 156 5^th paragraph): We believe that the EA does not thoroughly assess cumulative adverse impacts. It should look at the proposed action (and respective alternatives) in the context of existing, past and reasonably foreseeable projects in the area. The EA provides a list of other activities yet defers to the DSEIS stating, “Any water flow change ….would be a direct or indirect effect of the Buckhorn mining project, which is discussed in the Washington State DSEIS.” As a result there is no analysis in the EA of these cumulative effects. This approach does not achieve the goal of a cumulative impact analysis, which in essence is to evaluate the synergistic effects of all projects rather than defer to discussion of “direct and indirect” effects in other documents.

We recommend that the Forest Service complete a thorough cumulative effects analysis in the document.

Page 160, Air Quality, Environmental Consequences: The EA states that the proponent is proposing to use water and salts to aid in dust stabilization. We are concerned about the impacts to air quality from emissions and dust and the fact that the EA states that the airshed is currently “unclassified” because there is not sufficient information available to provide a classification and therefore, we are unsure at the ability of the project to determine the extent of air quality impact. We are also concerned of the use of water and magnesium chloride and their potential impacts to surface and ground water quality, soils, and vegetation. The EA discusses the use of salt in the winter for traction and the potential impacts to aquatic resources. However, the EA does not discuss the additional and cumulative impacts to aquatic resources, soils, or vegetation from salt use for dust suppression during other seasons. We recommend that the EA discuss the potential impacts from this activity as well as how impacts to air quality will be determined since the EA lacks site specific airshed data.

Page 167, Air Quality, Environmental Consequences: Table III-23 lists the criteria pollutants along with time, modeled concentration, ambient air quality standard, and percentage of ambient air quality standard. It appears that these predictions are for the project construction and operation only and does not include the cumulative affects of other activities such as prescribed fire. We recommend providing quantitative information regarding the cumulative impacts of mine operation (including transportation) along with other activities to determine potential impacts to air quality.