January 9. 2006
Jan Flatten
c/o Forest Supervisor James Boynton, Okanogan Valley Office
1240 Second Avenue South
Okanogan, WA 98840
comments-pacificnorthwest-okanogan-tonasket@fs.fed.us
Re: Comments regarding the preliminary Environmental Assessment for the Buckhorn
Mountain Access Road and Related Activities Project (EA)
I hope that you will carefully consider these comments. We do not want to live
with the repercussions of poor decision making.
OHA takes the public trust responsibility the USDA Forest Service (FS) administers
very seriously. We expect you to use the best information available as the basis
for your decisions. Unfortunately the current EA fails to include relevant information
and therefore calls into question the value of the document as a decision making
tool. The public has the right to know what the impacts would be before an action
is approved or undertaken.
The EA does not provide an objective examination of the connect between the
proposed mine and the activities proposed on National Forest System (NFS) lands.
The proposed pipe line and the water coming out of the pipe cannot be separate
from the water going into the pipe. Where the water is coming from and why cannot
be isolated from the environmental impacts to NFS land. The actions that the
FS is responsible for and the subject of this EA are integral parts of a large-scale
development project which would have significant and cumulative environmental
impacts for which an environmental impact statement (EIS) is required. Incorporating
the Draft Supplemental EIS (DSEIS) does not release the FS from its responsibility
to apply its measure and fully review the significant environmental impacts
by doing an EIS under NEPA.
In this document, the FS attempts to extricate itself from the process and produce
a minor review of a small piece of a larger project and fails to address the
purpose of an environmental assessment which is to determine whether a proposal
will have significant environmental impacts. The road access and other related
facilities are integral parts of a larger project. The amended Plan of Operations
for which this preliminary Environmental Assessment is written is the “proposed
Buckhorn Mountain Project on lands administered by the Forest Service”
not the access road and related activities project as the title of this document
suggests. When the EA uses the phrase “project activities” it should
clarify whether it relates to the mine or the road and infiltration area or
other activity on National Forest System (NFS) land.
Please consider and explain how this project and the Methow Transmission Project
administratively differ and why that project is currently undergoing NEPA/SEPA
review. In both instances new and reconstructed access is needed through federal
land and a special use permit would be required. Both projects would have significant
environmental impacts. Why is the FS as co-lead agency producing in an EIS for
one and only doing an EA in the other? The FS should join with Ecology and prepare
a comprehensive document that reviews the significant impacts of this proposal
in an EIS under NEPA/SEPA.
The EA and available supporting documents fail to acknowledge, fail to mitigate,
and/or downplay the long-term significance to the environment and 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.
The EA fails to address the deficiencies that the PCHB rejected including water
rights and water rights mitigation, hydrologic and geochemical modeling. The
EA fails to consider minimizing Marias Creek road impacts by reducing its width
from 24 foot to 12 foot. Most of these issues were brought up in scoping comments.
For these and the reasons below the EA is inadequate. The FS should
make a determination that the impacts of this project including the direct,
indirect and cumulative impacts are significant and merit an Environmental Impact
Statement.
The following comments explain why the EA in its current form does not adequately
address potential direct, indirect and cumulative impacts that would be caused
by developments on NFS land for the proposed mine on Buckhorn Mountain. The
EA does not look at alternatives that would minimize the impacts nor does it
offer sufficient mitigation to make the impact acceptable. It would appear that
the document was prepared to conclude that the impacts of the proposal are not
significant, rather than as an objective examination of the data or an objective
projection of the potential impacts. Much of the information is misleading because
it extrapolates data inappropriately and draws conclusions from inadequate information
or fails to draw conclusions or mitigate situations when the information would
warrant action. There is not a sufficient basis for the responsible officials
to come to an objective decision.
The EA uses the word “preliminary” in the document title but does
not explain what it means. Is EA is not a draft document? When would the EA
be considered final?
The EA fails to include a list of references that the FS relied on to make the
document. Without a list of references, the document is not accountable to published
models and methods that inform decision-making. Further, with no list of references
the document is unsubstantiated. This shows little respect, consideration, or
appreciation for other agency and the public’s involvement in the review
effort especially considering that the document was released on December 9 for
a 30 day comment period right through the holiday season.
SPECIFIC COMMENTS
Chapter 1
Background (page 1) The EA states that “due to a subsequent State
of Washington decision to rescind a key permit for the project….”.
In actuality the State did not rescind a permit, a quasi-judicial board granted
the appeals of the State’s decisions and ordered water rights and water
quality certification reversed and vacated respectively. This should be corrected
because this point is important in explaining the conclusions of law that the
mine project must adhere to. As a reminder we include the The Pollution Control
Hearings Board (PCHB) January 19, 2000 decision, finding of facts, conclusion
of law, and order in it's entirety (appendix # 1), as part of our comments so
that it may be entered into the record. Each and every technical issue, and
conclusion should be addressed in the EA. A full accounting of the issues, documents
and predictive modeling rejected by the PCHB (see appendix 1) should be included
so the public can be assured that inappropriate information is not being relied
on in the EA.
The sub-section goes on to state that the “the decision space was narrowed
to only those activities…”. The narrower decision the FS has to
make does not in any way excuse the FS from reviewing all the impacts of the
project that relies on FS land for it’s implementation.
Management Direction (page 4) While ‘the Forest Plan
has a forest wide standard and guideline that requires mining claimants be given
reasonable access to their mining claims’, the project that the road access
and related facilities supply is located on private land and not subject to
this standard and guideline. The project should instead be managed under multiple
use guidelines that balance and considers all of the goods and services that
the federal public land provides
.
Purpose and Need (page 4) Part of the purpose and of an environmental
assessment is to determine if a project would have significant environmental
impacts. If the answer is yes, an environmental impact statement (EIS) is required.
The State of Washington in the DSEIS for the mine proposal, that the FS has
incorporated into this EA, has already established that it would have significant
environmental impacts. The FS must make a determine as to whether the impacts
of this project including the direct, indirect and cumulative impacts are significant.
Proposed Action (page 6) According to the EA, the Forest Supervisor
proposes to approve access to the proposed mine along with other related activities
without a determination of whether the impacts would be significant. Further
the Forest Supervisor is proposing to approve access and related facilities
to a project that the Pollution Control Hearings Board (PCHB) has determined
as a “conclusion of law” does not meet requirements of law. Unless
and until there is some reason to believe that the established law has been
somehow changed, the Forest Supervisor has a responsibility to consider and
respect them as the law of the land.
In its Conclusions of Law at #59 the PCHB stated;
“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 adverse
consequences of the development. The long-term engineered solutions proposed
in this case are legally insufficient.” (Emphasis added)
It appears that the FS has come to a predetermined result (ie. no significant
impact). The FS must ensure the scientific integrity of all studies. Despite
the fact that the mine as proposed would be a private land development, it would
be a direct impact of the FS approval here.
The EA should include a list of which of the underlying documents in the 1997
FEIS are still being relied on as accurate and which the PCHB has rejected in
its technical issue and/or conclusion of law and are no longer reliable or relevant.
Much of the information in the Crown Jewel Project EIS is almost a decade old
and out of date.
A big part of the proposed action is access roads. The limited maps lack road
labels making it extremely difficult to follow explanations in the EA . The
large scale of nearly identical maps make it difficult to identify locations
referenced in the document.
Decision Framework (page 6) Once again the document fails to
identify the responsibility to make a determination whether the direct and indirect
impacts along with the cumulative impacts would be significant to people and
the environment. There is no way for the Forest Supervisor to determine if the
mine proposal that the road access and related activities and facilities would
or could obtain water rights, or comply with the waste discharge and other environmental
protection laws. The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW) has stated
in its comments to the DSEIS for the Buckhorn Mine proposal, “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 the headwater tributaries originating on Buckhorn Mountain.”
Therefore there is no way the Forest Supervisor can legitimately make a Determination
or Mitigated Determination of No Significance.
Public Involvement and Consultation, Consultation (page 7)
There is no mention in this section of consultation with the Washington State
Department of Ecology or the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife.
The Forest Service relationship with Ecology and Fish & Wildlife should
be clearly explained in this document. The document should list who at the various
agencies has been consulted on this project.
Public Involvement and Consultation, Issues (page 7) The EA
fails to discuss or consider the unavoidable adverse direct, indirect, and cumulative
impacts so that alternatives to minimize or mitigation developed and undesirable
and unintended consequences can be avoided. A direct impact of the FS' approval
would be the private land development of the proposed mine. This issue should
be fully discussed in the EA.
Issue # 1; Measured by should include miles of fence on all lands not just NFS
administered lands.
Issue # 3; Measured by should include not only the amount hauled over NFS lands
but the quantity spread on NFS and other lands and include an analysis of the
quantity of impacts.
Issue # 7; The description of the issue should include that the site that is
proposed for obtaining gravel for upgrading and constructing the Marias Creek
access road is known to be badly infested with noxious weeds. Alternatives to
deal with this and additional mitigation should be developed to prevent or at
least minimize the spread of weeds so that herbicide spreading on public land
can be minimized.
Issue #8; Not only would the proposed action have cumulative impacts with the
mine, there would be direct and indirect impacts as well. A direct or at least
an indirect impact of water coming out of the pipe and into the infiltration
area is the water going into the pipe. The impacts of where the water is coming
from should be considered in the EA. The direct, indirect and cumulative impacts
of the project with the mine should also be measured by; the quantity and quality
of stream habitat that would be reduced in winter. The decrease in stream flow
in consecutive low precipitation years and under drought conditions. The functional
loss of the reduction in seeps, springs, ponds, and wetlands should be qualified.
The reduction in fish and fish habitat. The Impact of increase chloride in Marias
Creek.
Chapter 2,
Alternatives, Management Mitigation, and Monitoring (page 15) It appears
that the FS has come to a predetermined result (ie. no significant impact).
The FS must ensure the scientific integrity of all studies. Despite the fact
that the mine as proposed would be a private land development, it would be a
direct impact of the FS' approval here. (See Decision Framework above)
Alternatives Considered but Eliminated From Detailed Study
(page 15) Although this section acknowledges that all the alternatives in the
1997 FEIS considers different proposals for on-site processing of ore, for some
reason, they are incorporated by reference in this EA. Since the Forest Service
incorporates the 1997 FEIS in this EA, OHA incorporates the entire administrative
record of that EIS in our comments to this preliminary EA. They are available
at the Tonasket Ranger District.
Components Considered but Eliminated From Detailed Study, Ore and Supply
Transportation Operating Schedule, Operating Season (page 18) states,
“The Forest Service would only shut down when haul is causing environmental
damage.” What standards and benchmarks are being used to assess this environmental
damage? It states that cost would be borne by the mining company. How would
the cost of increased sedimentation be assesses and compensated?
Alternatives Fully Developed
Infiltration Areas and Supply Pipeline (page 26) States, “An
infiltration area for treated mine water meeting State and Federal Water Quality
Standards would be constructed….” There is no justification for
this statement in the EA. In their December 28 comment letter to Ecology regarding
the Buckhorn Mtn proposal the EPA stated, “In addition, the predicted
effluent quality from the proposed mine water treatment system would not meet
surface water quality criteria for some parameters.” The FS must show
how it arrived at and can justify its conclusion.
Alternative B – Proposed Action (page 26) States that
this alternative is based on the Amended Plan submitted March 15, 2005 and ‘subsequent
clarification of this plan’. The EA should state specifically what documents
it received that provide clarification of this plan.
Ore Haul Route (page 26) The maps fails to label roads making
it difficult to follow the text explanation of the alternative
.
Supply Haul Route (page 27) What mechanism insures that suppliers
will use the routes that are described in the EA? Are they legally bound in
some way or are they free to use the easier route of Beaver Canyon to the Chesaw
side of the Pontiac Ridge Road?
Water Monitoring (page 29) The EA states that there are presently
8 monitoring wells and a number of water monitoring stations on National Forest
System (NFS) land. The location and purpose of these water monitoring devices
should be identified.
Water quality is basic to the significance of the impacts of the proposed infiltration
area and road access. The EPA has stated, in its December 28 comment letter
to Ecology, “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…” The FS cannot ignore its responsibility
under NEPA to use all the information available prior to making statements and
certainly decisions.
What criteria was used to determine that 4 or more water monitoring devices
described in the EA would be adequate? What evidence is there to insure that
NFS land would be protected from pollution.
Management and Mitigation (page 52) Issuing of permits and
approvals does little or nothing to ensure enforcement of management and mitigation.
Specific ongoing enforcement with trigger criteria should be identified especially
since some of the impacts from project components may not be completed until
after the “60 or more years” needed for the mine to reach equilibrium
and that environmental consequences are predicted based on successful implementation
of these measures.
Water Discharges, Water quality (page 57) The DSEIS does not
predict water quality standards would be met. See comment above. In addition,
water quality predictions are not conservative.
Water Discharges, Flow Augmentation (page 57) This item recognizes
the direct and indirect impacts that would be caused by the proposed underground
mine on NFS land. These direct and indirect impacts should be expressed throughout
the document and the mine components (surge pond, treatment plant, etc) should
be fully described and explained in this document. The monitoring described
in this section is not reflected in the water monitoring component in the Alternative
section above.
Land Use (page 58) Seven items in this section related to range
management. They are poorly explained and some these items may have impacts
of their own that should be analyzed. The EA should have a section that relates
specifically to range management.
Land Use, Noxious Weed Control (page 61) The $4,000 fee the
proponents would pay for weed control would do little to stop the spread of
noxious weeds if the current plan is implemented. The Beal gravel pit is known
to be infested with noxious weeds. This is where the spread of weeds should
be managed not after the fact. It would be better to minimize the spread of
weeds than to have to remediate an infestation.
Monitoring Measures (page 76) This section is insufficient
to protect the environment. A complete monitoring plan should be required with
the EA. This section uses words like ‘some’ and ‘portions
of’ to refer to what monitoring would take place. The EA should be clear
about what monitoring would take place, when, and by who. What other agencies
are referred to that would have permit requirements and require monitoring?
What specific monitoring and compliance would the FS require? The EA should
include a table of all monitoring that is proposed, who would be responsible,
when would monitoring be done and what would trigger remedial action.
Water Resources Monitoring (page 77) The description in this
section of water quality, quantity, and levels of regulated substances monitoring
are completely inadequate to assess the impacts that would occur and especially
if the goal is to prevent, reduce, or mitigate the impacts. The timing of monitoring
water flows along haul road are especially inadequate, monthly is not adequate
and quarterly in the winter leaves no room for informed action.
What specific surface monitoring stations would be set up for streams, seeps,
and springs impacted by ore haul, water infiltration, and mining operations?
What ‘baseline monitoring network’ is referred to that ‘would
be preserved to the extent possible’? What baseline water quality and
quantity parameters would be used to assess if remedial action is needed?
Groundwater monitoring wells should be located where they could best assess
impacts not necessarily as close a s possible. What ‘baseline monitoring
network’ is referred to that ‘would be preserved to the extent possible’?
What baseline water quality and quantity parameters would be used to assess
if remedial action is needed?
This section indicates that post closure monitoring would continue at least
3 to 5 years and the focus would be long term water quality. Three to five years
would not be considered ‘long-term’ especially for a project that
is predicted to take 25 to 60 years or more to reach hydrologic equilibrium.
Fish Populations (page 78) Every other year for monitoring
fish populations as presented in this section of the EA is completely inadequate
considering the impacts of this proposal. By the time changes in fish populations
were discovered by biennial monitoring as proposed in the EA and attributed
to project activities it would be too late to develop and implement adequate
mitigation or project modifications. Do “project activities” in
this section relate to the mine or the road and infiltration area?
Noxious Weed Monitoring (page 78) It should be noted that the gravel pit that
is proposed to supply gravel for the Marias Creek Access road is infested with
noxious weeds. Some type of monitoring to insure these weeds do not spread would
be important to minimize the problem.Chapter 3.
Environmental Consequences (page 89) This section summarizes and cites specialist’s
reports. There should also be a list or table of references of both the citations
in the EA and of reports that were relied on in the specialist’s reports.
The FS incorporating Ecology’s DSEIS does not release the FS from its
responsibility to review the direct, indirect and cumulative impacts by doing
an EIS under NEPA. The road access and related facilities are integral parts
of a larger project.
Hydrology(page 111) A definition and scope of this section
should be explained.
Ecology’s DSEIS is a draft document with numerous problems, it should
not be relied on as a basis for the FS analysis of impacts to NFS land.
Existing Condition, Climate (page 111) Impacts to the hydrology
in this area are of primary importance. The lack of confidence in the underlying
data was one of the main causes for water rights and water quality certification
to be vacated and revoked respectively. The accuracy of the climate information
is questionable. The mean temperature cites Pentec Environmental 2004. When
Pentec Environmental 2004is reviewed it cites Forest Service and Ecology 1997
and actually a correlation from Republic and Molson and not from within the
project area. This information was subsequently readjusted before the PCHB hearing.
The FS should be using the most up-to-date information and not present a chain
of different citations. Further the figures for precipitation do not have a
citation. Accurate precipitation information is critical since stream flows
are modeled from this information. The information in Pentec 2004 states, “
The average annual precipitation for the area ranges from 15 inches in Republic
to 12 inches at Omak in the west precipitation at Conconully, northwest of Republic,
is approximately 15 inches. Over the region, precipitation averages approximately
21 inches annually (PNRBC, 1970).” Conconully is not northwest of Republic
but northwest of Omak and 21 inches does not come close to the numbers being
averaged.
Wetlands (page 113) This section does little to describe the
existing condition of wetlands within the project area. Mentioning the various
consultants that have mapped wetlands and the various amounts each one has come
up with for various agencies and the mining proponent does not provide any representation
of the quantity or quality of the wetlands in the project area. This section
should describe not only the quantity or quality of the wetlands but their structure
and function as well.
The EA should include information about the changes that have occurred over
the years regarding the water flowing out of the Roosevelt adit.
Soil Permeability (page 113) The description of the existing
condition of soil permeability for the infiltration gallery is inadequate. This
issue is extremely important because it would receive the direct impacts of
the dewatering of the mine yielding impacts from water quality and quantity.
Any casual observer would note the large road cut adjacent to the proposed infiltration
area. It is likely that the outwash sand and gravel overlaying the till and/or
glacio-lacustrine sediments are from this road cut. This should be discussed
in the text.
The text fails to describe that water currently flows from beneath the proposed
infiltration area. Water discharged to this area would likely flow directly
into surface water. This should be realistically analyzed and reflected in the
documentation.
Water quality (page 114) There is a disconnect between the
FS EA and the Ecology DSEIS. While the EA states that any water discharged must
meet water quality standards, the DSEIS predicted treated effluent concentrations
shown in Table 3.7-1 exceed groundwater criteria for chromium (as stated), and
are equal to the criterion values for nitrate and selenium and also equal to
the MCL for antimony. When compared to surface water criteria and aquatic life
criteria, treated effluent concentrations exceed surface water criteria for
chromium (by 70 times), lead (by 2 times), mercury (by 33 times), ammonia (by
8.6 times), selenium (by 2 times), silver (by 3 times), and zinc (by 1.1 times).
The impact of the release of treated effluent is not discussed in the EA.
(See Addendum #3; Memorandum by Ann Maest PhD; Buka Environmental Re: Comments
on Projected Operational and Post-Closure Water Quality for the Buckhorn Mountain
Project, December 14, 2005. Attached and incorporated.)
Water Infiltration Gallery Effects for all Action Alternatives (page
118) This section seems to limit water discharge into the infiltration area
to 40 gpm with the rest going into “the Roosevelt adit or wetland in Marias
Creek.” This misleads the reader into believing that the rest of the water
would go down Marias Creek. This is not the case since currently the discharge
from the Roosevelt adit is routed back into Nicholson Creek. See page 3-39 of
the 1997 FEIS; “At this time, surface and subsurface flows in Nicholson
Creek includes most of the Roosevelt adit flows.” The water rights application
for the mine requests 100 gpm for dewatering mine shafts. The impacts of discharging
this water into Nicholson Creek should be fully and realistically examined in
the EA.
Effects of Salts for Dust Suppressants for all Action Alternatives
(page 119) This section acknowledges that magnesium chloride has not been found
effective, in some cases, even with product reapplication, for periods of more
than about one year, and that it should only be used for short-term (less than
one year) stabilization. Yet the EA ignores its own recommendation to limit
the use of magnesium chloride and only when water quality testing shows a problem
would action to stop its use be taken. This blatant disregard for aquatic degradation,
pollution prevention, and anti-degradation laws is unacceptable.
Alternative B and B1, Direct and Indirect Effects (page 121)
This section fails to consider increased sediments due to the infiltration gallery
will increase sediments in Nicholson Creek and that the increase would increase
as dewatering increased. The gallery is proposed in soils that are highly permeable
over soils that have low permeability. There is already a steady flow from the
base of this area near the road cut. The addition of 40 gpm would go right through
the gravel outwash into surface water producing sedimentation into Nicholson
Creek. (see comment above from page 118)
The EA should describe in detail what the impacts of the estimated reduction
on average of 124 gpm to the baseflow of Toroda Creek would be (as per the bottom
of page 123 of the EA). See comment Amphibians (page 131) below.
Cumulative Effects (page 129) Incorporating the state’s
DSEIS does not release the FS from its responsibility to apply its measure and
fully review the cumulative environmental impacts under NEPA
The EA continues to build on the foundation that the PCHB rejected. In Its Conclusions
of Law at #61 the PCHB stated, “….As thoroughly as this proposed
mine has been studied and evaluated, it is not at all certain that we have a
clear understanding of the hydrogeology on the site. There are substantial questions
about the stream flows, groundwater flows and relative precipitation…”
Yet the EA continues to rely on much of the same data.
The EA should describe where the proponent would get all the water discharged
onto NFS land. This should include all water that would be dewatered in order
to mine or water used for dust suppression. Water rights have been a pivotal
issue to the mine in the past and since they have been rejected in the past
because it was not clear that issuing them was lawful, the EA should show what
has change to assume that water is available for this project. While water rights
are not generally the subject to an EA, in this case because of the PCHB decision
and that adverse impacts to senior water rights are the significant impact identified
by the DSEIS, it is altogether fitting and proper that water rights should be
reviewed as part of this EA.
The EA should clearly indicate the total water discharge that would flow from
the proposed pipe line and exactly how that water would be distributed. Where
would that water go, what would the quality of that water be, and what would
the impacts of that discharge be. It should be noted that the water right application
is for 100 gpm. for mine dewatering, industrial and mitigation with the impacts
clearly defined. The EA should clearly state the specific rate at which groundwater
would be pumped out of Buckhorn mountain including yearly and project totals.
The DSEIS (page 3.7-26) uses a minimum recharge value of 1.9 inches/year but
the corresponding figure on page 2-3 of the FEFLOW model is 1 inch/year.
It would seem that the FS failed to coordinate the EA with the state’s
review of the same environment. Each agency has a different description of the
affected environment and the estimated quantity of water in the seeps, springs
and streams that may be temporarily or permanently altered. The EA should explain
how the changes would impact the function of the seeps spring and headwater
streams including but not limited to moderation of temperatures, riparian vegetation,
sediment transport, and storage release attenuation.
The million-gallon surge pond seems to be a catch all for mine water that could
be used for almost anything. What is the legal status of this proposed reservoir?
The mitigation of streams on the eastern side of Buckhorn during critical times
of the year should be comprehensively discussed in the EA. The piecemeal approach
to mitigation is unacceptable.
The EA fails to encompass the estimated “25 to more than 60 or more years”
that it would take for the water level of the mountain to reach equilibrium
after mining. All aspects of the EA should recalibrated to this time frame.
The EA cannot ignore the impacts that the discharge into the infiltration gallery
would have on the west side of Buckhorn Mountain. The EA must contain an accurate
water balance. The EA must, but fails to, answer the basic questions; where
does the water come from and where does it go to.
Drought conditions should also be considered but are not.
The EA cannot ignore the procedures for mine closure and post-closure monitoring
since they directly impact uses of NFS land. The proposed plan for addressing
groundwater impacted by contact with the mined area apparently relies upon extracting
the impacted groundwater by pumping, circulating the impacted groundwater through
the treatment system, and infiltrating the treated groundwater into the mined
area (DSEIS, section 3.7.2.2). However, the intent of the proposed plan is unclear.
For example, it is reasonable to expect that this approach would require maintaining
groundwater levels equivalent to the lowest elevations achieved during dewatering
to prevent release of impacted groundwater from the mine workings to the surrounding
aquifer (if groundwater levels were allowed to rise, then capture of all impacted
groundwater could not be assured). However, the proposed plan does not appear
to consider the concept that maintaining depressed
groundwater levels within the mined area may be necessary. For example, the
plan apparently assumes that all extracted and treated groundwater will be discharged
to the infiltration gallery (DSEIS, section 3.7.2.2), but previously noted in
the same section that “the infiltration gallery may not have sufficient
capacity to infiltrate all of the water”. In addition, maintaining low
groundwater levels within the mined area is inconsistent with the stated goal
of allowing groundwater levels within the workings to recover swiftly in order
to minimize impacts to groundwater quality anticipated from acid generation
within the vadose zone and impacts to surface water and groundwater quantities
anticipated from mine dewatering. It is also unclear whether the proposed approach
will actually decrease impacts to applicable standards within a reasonable timeframe.
The proposed approach does not explicitly commit the operator to prevent the
release of impacted groundwater from the former mine workings, define the conditions
under which the operator would transition to discharging treated mine water
back into the mined area, or describe how such discharge would be effected (i.e.
whether an infiltration system would be constructed).
See Appendix # 4, Udaloy Environmental Services to Okanogan Highlands Alliance
December 2005, (Udaloy 2005) attached and incorporated.
Water Quality; The EA should also not ignore the ground water
quality impacts of the mine for it could directly impact NFS land. The plan
is to allow surface to runoff from development rock and ore stockpiles to mix
with groundwater and then monitor the groundwater downstream and if needed enhance
water capture and treatment. Development rock and ore stockpiles could be covered
so that groundwater would not be further contaminated thereby reducing the pollution
that would eventually surface on NFS land. All potentially acid-producing rock
could and should be mixed with cement to further reduce the inevitable acid
mine drainage.
Water quality in the Southwest Zone is predicted to be poor and outside the
groundwater capture zone yet no modeling of the potential seepage to downgradient
groundwater and surface water during operations was conducted. The DSEIS states
that groundwater monitoring would be conducted to confirm that groundwater from
this zone is being captured yet of the four monitor wells proposed none are
close to the southwest zone. These impacts would take place on NFS land and
should be included in the EA.
The DSEIS predicts that discharge to the infiltration gallery would not to exceed
water quality criteria, four constituents are at or above water quality standards.
The impacts of the release of treated effluent to surface water is not adequately
considered in the EA. An evaluation of the consequences of releasing treated
effluent to the Nicholson and Marias Creek watersheds, both in terms of quantity
and quality of surface and groundwater, should be addressed in the EA.
The DSEIS predicts that water treatment will most likely be needed for nitrates
and ammonia as the mine refills with water (25 or more than 60 or more years)
and that the treatment facility would remain operational beyond that. This period
should be considered part of the mine operation or at least the reclamation
and be included in the EA when defining the project life. The EA should reflect
that water treatment may be required for more than 60 years after actual mining
stops; in other words, reclamation far exceeds the amount expressed throughout
the document.
The approach to arriving at the best and worst case water quality values for
operational and post-closure water quality in the DSEIS is very convoluted and
represents several iterations that are poorly presented in the geochemical appendix.
Surface Water, Water Quantity; (see above) The DSEIS states that effluent
from the treatment facility would be required to meet water quality standards
yet concentrations shown in Table 3.7-1 show four constituents at or above water
quality standards going into the infiltration gallery. The impacts of the release
of treated effluent to surface water is not adequately considered in the EA.
An evaluation of the consequences of releasing treated effluent to the Nicholson
and Marias Creek watersheds, both in terms of quantity and quality of surface
and groundwater, should be addressed in the EA.
Surface Water, Water Quality; The EA should discuss the impacts that could occur
from increased water flows going down Nicholson Creek. What would the impacts
be of stopping that flow after 7.5 years. The area of the proposed infiltration
gallery already has surface water flows coming from under the glacial till that
was apparently excavated from the cut bank where near MW-3. The significant
discharge into this area will likely result in creation of a direct path into
surface water that would likely cause significant erosion down Nicholson Creek.
For discharges of development rock and ore stockpiles see above. In addition
contaminated water from development rock and ore stockpiles that infiltrates
into groundwater via well or other infiltration should be considered a point
source of pollution and required an NPDES permit.
Marias Creek Haul Route; Alternative road designs should be looked at that would
meet project criteria for road access while minimizing impacts to public resources.
The bottom of page 123 refering to dust-control water for the Marias Creek haul
route states that baseflows of Toroda Creek would be reduced on average by about
124 gpm but fails to explain what the impacts of this would be. Instead the
section concludes that no senior water rights have been identified in fall and
winter so it does not represent an impact in fall or winter from a water rights
perspective. The EA should clearly express the impacts of the reduced baseflow
on Toroda Creek and affirm that the creek has been closed to new appropriation
since the 1950’s and that the change in use would constitute an expanded
use and would most likely be denied.
The EA should evaluate the impacts of extracting groundwater from the Toroda
Creek basin during early mine development.
Aquatics (page 129) Aquatics should be defined. A general description
should include a mention of seeps and springs and their function as wetlands.
In fact it is important to include the functions of wetland in the environment
not simply how to identify them. Some of the functions that should include are
moderation of temperatures, riparian vegetation, sediment transport, and storage
release attenuation. The EA should consider the wetland edges of headwater streams
and acknowledging that they accumulate to represent a notable resource. These
wetland edges of headwater streams are not considered in this EA but should
be.
Existing Condition, Amphibians (page 131) It is good that the
information that the EA contains a mention that Toroda creek has been closed
to surface water availability based on fisheries dating back to the 1950’s
but this information should be at least under fisheries or hydrology, not amphibians.
In addition it should be mentioned that this was on the recommendation of Washington
State Department of Fish and Wildlife.
Marias Creek, Wetlands, Seeps, and Springs (page 133) The description
of the wetlands is inadequate for the public to understand the locations and
impacts of the proposed action. The EA approximates 8 acres of wetland but fails
to provide any way of assessing there location or relationship to the proposed
activities. Are they above or below the road? There are also numerous wetlands
near and downstream from the proposed infiltration site that should be included
Nicholson Creek, Wetlands, Seeps, and Springs (page 133) The
description of the wetlands is inadequate for the public to understand the locations
and impacts of the proposed action. The EA approximates 9 acres of wetland but
fails to provide any way of assessing there location or relationship to the
proposed activities. Are they above or below the road? The headwater of Nicholson
Creek that is commonly referred to as the Gold Bowl should be recognized in
the EA as a wetland even though much of its vegetation has been degraded by
grazing and drought. Likewise, there are numerous wetlands downstream from the
proposed infiltration site. One directly below and others portions of the 9
acre wetland (RA1 through RA7) drain down Nicholson Creek
.
Environmental Consequences, Effects Common to All Action Alternatives,
Water Infiltration System, Direct/Indirect Effects (page 134) The EA
should consider whether changes in water quality and quantity Water from the
infiltration system could impact the full range of aquatic habitat and organisms.
Water from the infiltration system would 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 aquatic habitat and life should be evaluated for the EA. The
discharge could also cause increased turbidity that should be considered. The
EA should consider that water from the treatment facility could be of higher
temperature and would cause additional impacts. Will the headwaters of Nicholson
‘blow-out’ from too much water? How would Nicholson Creek headwaters
be impacted?
The DSEIS states that “the water quality would be assured because the
treatment system would treat it as needed.” The DSEIS goes on to say,
“as a contingency measure, the amount and location of delivery of water
could be adjusted, based on monitoring.”
Which wetlands created by the seeps and springs on NFS land are above the drawdown
in the water table are expected to have reduced flows or go dry from the water
discharged into the infiltration gallery? At what elevation would the broadest
part of the cone of depression intersect the slope of the mountain? The EA should
describe how long each of the impacts of the mine, such as dewatering are predicted
to last, and what the basis is for that prediction. What flows reduction from
water going into the infiltration gallery should be expected from the Roosevelt
Adit. Without a clear plan of how, by who, when and to what specific quantity
flows would be augmented there is no way to understand what the impacts to wetlands
would be or if mitigation would be effective.
Cumulative Impacts (page 134) The impacts of “shifting
the water from one watershed to another” should be quantified. What would
the improvements be to fish and other aquatic organisms in Toroda Creek and
its tributaries and what would be the impact of reducing the water available
on fish and aquatic organisms and habitat in the Myers Creek basin and its tributaries.
The EA should contain a complete water balance. How much water is expected to
be released and where? What are the expected water losses to wetlands, seeps,
and springs that augmentation is expected to offset during dry months.
The EA should be clear that the cumulative impacts of the water infiltration
system when looked at with the impacts from the mine and specifically the dewatering
of the mountain and water quality concerns would be significant. The EA needs
to fully quantify the aquatic impacts in the other drainages on Buckhorn Mountain
and recognize that the proposed action does not come close to mitigating the
impacts thereby necessitating that they be considered significant, any addition
to these significant impacts would be considered cumulative.
Other Direct/Indirect Effects Common to All Action Alternatives, (page 135)
The failure of the EA to recognize that there are significant unmitigated wetland
and aquatic Resources impacts are major flaws in the document.
Page 3.10-19 of the DSEIS states, A decrease in flow during the winter months
has the potential to affect resident brook trout by exposing spawning gravels
and reducing intragravel flow during the egg incubation period. There is no
indication that this impact would be mitigated. It should be included in this
section.
The EA makes the case that sedimentation is bad for fish and that sediments
during at least the first three years could be expected. Prevention in subsequent
years is dependent on vegetation growth. If monitoring indicates a problem then
shrubs or trees would be planted. This is an inadequate solution. It takes years
for trees and shrubs to grow and in the meantime fish are being harmed or dying.
In addition it is recognized that elevated levels of salts and chlorides could
be impacting fish and amphibian. If fish or amphibian mortality is detected,
lignin sulfonate could be used which is another waste product with few relevant
guidelines are available for minimizing environmental risk (see bottom of page
161).
The aquatic impacts to Marias and Nicholson Creek from reduced flows from dewatering
and refilling of the Buckhorn Mountain aquifer should be included in the EA.
If, how, and when those impacts would be mitigated should also be made clear.
The EA should include information about the changes that have occurred over
the years regarding the water flowing out of the Roosevelt adit.
Alternative B and B1: Marias Creek Haul Route (page 137) The
EA should quantify how much of the creek is adjacent to the road and not wide
enough to intercept and hold sediments. The EA states that additional sediment
in Marias creek could result in the loss of fish populations and that modeling
indicates a 34% increase in sediments but that mitigation would reduce this.
The EA should make some attempt to rate the effectiveness of this mitigation.
Considering that the impact of additional sediments could be the loss of fish
populations, there should be a high likelihood of success. The EA has different
solutions in different places. In this section rocks, shrubs and/or trees would
be planted along the silt fence and page 66 states that if sedimentation occurs
activities causing it would be suspended or modified. Both are unrealistic considering
the length of time and addition sedimentation planting would cause and transportation
of ore is integral to the project. Additional mitigation could include excluding
cows from the creek altogether.
How much of the approximately 8 acres of wetland that would be excavated for
widening the road or the new road cuts. What is the likelihood that the wetlands
would reestablish and occupy about the same area? How much of the wetland function
would be reduced or lost? The reductions include flood water detention and retention,
which allows peak flood flows to be reduced, groundwater recharge and discharge
and water quality improvements. These impact should be quantified and considered
in developing mitigation. How would the accumulation of salts and dust suppressant
impact the health and function of the wetlands? How long would it take for the
wetlands to recover? What is the likelihood of success? How would noxious weed
introduction from the Beal pit impact recovering wetlands? What wetland function
would be impacted by culvert placement?
Of the 160 feet of wetland that would be filled no mention is made of mitigating
the impacts. How would the Forest Service ban on fill that contains noxious
weed seed be enforced?
Cumulative Effects for All Action Alternatives (page 142) It
does not seem that any real attempt was made to look at the cumulative impacts
of this proposal on aquatic resources. This section is totally inadequate. The
EA should consider present, and foreseeable future grazing impacts as well as
foreseeable future mining impacts especially considering the almost 200 mining
claims Crown controls in the area.
Drought conditions should also be considered.
The cumulative impacts of the Forest Service changing the course of water flowing
from the Roosevelt mine adit into Marias Creek so it would flow into Nicholson
Creek for the previous mining proposal should be considered. If this is controversial,
the history of changes to the flow of said waters should be discussed in the
EA. In addition, the EA should discuss the possibility that the cumulative impacts
of past mining exploration has created preferential flow paths and change the
hydrology of the area.
Ongoing Activities (page 143) Grazing should be considered
in this section
.
Reasonably Foreseeable Future Action (page 145) The assertion
that there are no cumulative impacts from surface water baseflows that are expected
to would decrease in Marias and Nicholson Creeks effecting the viability of
the fry and egg survival because road construction has no impact on baseflows
is absurd. The infiltration gallery is an integral part and directly linked
to dewatering of the mine and together formulate the cumulative impacts. The
same goes for the Toroda Creek and Upper Myers Creek watersheds.
Biological Evaluation (page 145) This should be adjusted to
reflect these comments.
Other issues that should be included in the EA
In addition to reclamation and environmental protection costs, performance securities
should be required to also cover the cost of environmental damages that could
occur.
The mine site should include the loss of hunting and other recreation uses.
Animal Interaction with traffic and associated road kill of wildlife would increase
on more roads than Maria and Toroda Creek Roads.
The EA should include a table of all of the anticipated fish and wildlife impacts
and the mitigation measure that is proposed to offset that impact. The table
should include short-term, long-term, and perpetual impacts. The EA fails to
include a Mitigation Plan.
Water rights are an important part of the affected environment yet not mentioned
in the EA. Senior water rights would be impacted by a shift in the hydrologic
divide. While water rights are not generally the subject of an EA, when it is
well know that a project would have significant enough impacts to change the
hydrology of a mountain, impairing senior water rights and the public interest
and this has been established as a ‘conclusion of law’, and the
FS is analyzing the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of a pipeline and
discharging the water onto NFS land, it should fall within the scope of the
EA.
The cumulative impacts sections fail to take a hard look at foreseeable future
events. It is reasonable to assume and foresee that improved access to previously
inaccessible areas will result in increased development such as timber sales
and mineral development. Again, the PCHB, weighed in on this one, stating in
its decision at issue #14 “Ecology never considered the cumulative impacts
of BMG’s new water rights and existing and future demand from exempt wells
and reasonable foreseeable development projects, either independent of or prompted
by the mine’s development.” A reasonable assessment of future development
should be part of the EA. Drought conditions should also be considered.
The EA fails to adequately consider the potential impacts of hazardous materials
in the various locations and road conditions, potentially impacting bodies of
water, fish and wildlife. These concerns should be addressed more accurately
in the EA.
The EA fails to consider the impacts of the mitigation itself. Mitigation plays
a pivotal roll in this proposal and should be fully included as a focus of the
EA.
The EA should analyzes and compare whether reducing the width of the road proposed
for Marias Creek would minimizing transportation impacts of the project.
The EA cannot be considered complete because it does not contain a reclamation
plan for the Buckhorn Mine itself, and there is no corresponding estimate of
the reclamation costs, post-closure monitoring, maintenance, and water treatment
plant operating costs, and no analysis of whether the mine operator can meet
the terms of the financial surety that would be required.
A geochemical analysis of the rock in the proposed gravel pit should be done
to fully understand what the impacts of building and reconstructing the Marias
Creek Road would have on water quality and fish habitat. In addition, the gravel
pit is purported to be infested with noxious weeds. The impact of using noxious
weed infested gravel should be fully analyzed and alternatives to minimize,
reduce or mitigate the impacts should be proposed.
The EA should clearly state how much water would be dewatered from the mountain.
This information is needed because all of this water, except what would be consumed
would be pumped to NFS land. In addition, how the water that would be pumped
out of the mountain would be treated for nitrates and other contaminants before
it would be pumped to an infiltration gallery or to replenish depleted stream
flows should be fully analyzed since it is integral to assuring what the impacts
from the infiltration gallery would be. This is all part of the mining process
that the FS cannot ignore in the analysis if the related activities.
What mechanism would be used to insure that supplies and employee would use
the routes described in the EA?
The EA should require that only seeds from native plants be used in all plantings.
The DSEIS for the proposed mine predicts it would take 25 to 60 or more years
for the water table on Buckhorn Mountain to reach equilibrium. Many times water
quality problems don’t start for 60 years. Post-closure monitoring would
be critical in maintaining water quantity and quality mitigation and it should
be expected to be maintained for at least 60 or more years. The EA should be
fixed fully reflect this time frame..
An environmental monitoring plan, including wildlife and aquatic resources mitigation
monitoring should be developed. In addition, the responsible parties for collecting,
evaluation and distribution of data should be identified.
The EA should consider the traffic, noise, dust and visual quality changes could
discourage on current residents future residential or other low-intensity uses
along the proposed Marias Creek haul route. This the EA fails to acknowledge
the impacts to community economic development efforts highlighting the scenic
beauty and recreation opportunities of the areas rural character for tourism
that allowing 5 to 7 trucks a minute to use Marias Creek Rd. The indirect effects
of this proposal on land use was expressed as a large concern by many of the
people who would be most impacted by this proposal. The EA should address these
concerns not simply mention them.
The EA should look at the cumulative impacts that other or additional exploration
could be developed using the access road. The EA fails to consider the 189 mining
claims that the proponent has in the area. The public has a right to know the
possible impacts of foreseeable future projects that could affect NFS land in
the area that the EA fail on this account.
Ore trucks should be covered to reduce rocks and dust.
The EA anticipates increases of noise to be right up to the limits allowed by
state law. However, the noise document states that baseline ambient sound levels
INCLUDE the traffic from the K2 mine (although that mine has been closed for
months). These “ambient sounds” of K2 mine traffic, when taken out
of the equation, would make the increased sound of traffic on and off the proposed
mine site a “very serious impact” to the quality of life in the
community. The truck noise from K2 should not be considered in the baseline
and landowners need to be justly compensated for these noise impacts.
An independent, local citizens group should monitor noise and be empowered to
enforce noise limits in their community. These actions could include requiring
heavy-duty brake mufflers, further limiting of the hours of operation, and monetary
compensation to mitigate impacts landowners seriously impacted by noise.
Who’s job would it be to monitor noise impacts to Mule deer? With so many
ore hauling truck, with trailer, on the haul road all the time year passing
through mule deer winter range who would determine if engine-braking noise is
determined to be a problem. What would be the extent of impact to mule deer?
Is there is a study proposed to attempt to determine the impact? The use of
specialized mufflers could reduce the impact on the mule deer. Specialized mufflers
be required on all of the haul trucks.
Soils (page 101) This section fails to consider the impacts of significant rain
and rain on snow events that occur commonly in this area and could cause erosion
and exacerbate mine pollution. The impact of large rain events and rain on snow
should be included. Erosion of cut-and-fill slopes should be addressed. The
EA should include other sediment control structure, like sediment settling areas,
that would increase stream protection from sediment and polluted road runoff
through culverts more than riprap. How is the stability of the Toroda and Kettle
River roads to be maintained considering the addition of 100 large ore truck
per day over 7.5 years.Vegetation (page 298) We are concerned that the riparian
vegetation will be impacted by haul route traffic and de-watering caused by
changes in the road prism (widening). There are several rare plants, such as
the northern bog orchid and moonwart, and says there would be no impact if best
management practices (BMP’s) were implemented. We do not find in the report
what the likelihood of the BMP’s being implemented and maintained are.
Past projects have never had 100% effectiveness and this is unlikely to break
that precedent, so we would like to see an assessment of how effective the BMP’s
will be over time and how that will be monitored and funded. Dust is mentioned
as impacting plant photosynthesis, and weeds are mentioned as moving into disturbed
sites, but the EA fails to quantify or even estimate the actual impacts, stating
they would be small. This is not rigorous science and we ask that the impacts
of dust and weeds be quantified, or that the comment that the impacts would
be “small” be backed up with analysis and research.
This area is part of the former North Half of the Colville Reservation and cultural
plants were important and their distribution and abundance ensured by treaty
rights. The EA inadequately addresses the impacts on cultural plants, fails
to inventory the plants, and does not discuss whether there has been communication
with the Colville Confederated Tribe about plants on site and along the haul
routes.
The mitigation measures do not address the likelihood that weeds will invade
newly disturbed sites and what the action will be when noxious weeds occupy
those sites. A mitigation measure to require immediate restoration of disturbed
sites with native plants should be included in the EA. The 61.5 acres of cleared
area along the Marias Creek Road is an irreversible loss of riparian and upland
habitat, which is mentioned in the DSEIS. The consequences on species viability
is not measured or discussed in the EA. It is also not discussed what would
happen at the end of the project with this road. We recommend it become a one-way
haul road, without widening and that non-toxic dust abatement be used throughout
the life of the project. Increasing noxious weeds on another 61.5 acres should
be compensated for by weed elimination on similar habitat elsewhere and plans
to eventually restore these 61.5 acres after the hauling is done should be part
of the SEIS and Decision.Transportation (page 90) The EA fails to address spills,
spill prevention and spills into aquatic resources and accidents. The DSEIS
in Table S-2 on page S-12 (Summary of Environmental Impacts), No Action; “There
are existing material spills that occur periodically on the highway. These spills
would continue.” Then in the Proposed Action column, “Similar accident
as No Action Alternative.”
Wildlife (page 203) This section tiers to two other documents,
the Crown Jewel FEIS and the Kettle River Project FEIS. In the case of the Kettle
River FEIS, the document was written pre-1988, and is therefore out of date,
although perhaps useful as a background source of information.
Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Species; This table lists
several species and a likelihood of occurrence in the affected areas, citing
the 1997 FEIS. However the project scope has changed, and this will now be an
underground mine, and the ore will be hauled to the Republic mill site. In effect
the mining site is smaller and more enclosed, but the affected area from hauling
and motorized activity has expanded exponentially. This is a changed circumstance
that requires a new look at the interactions of this project with wildlife,
and new consultation with federal agencies.
The North American Lynx is now listed as a threatened species and suitable and
possible occupied habitat exists near the area, and along the travel corridor,
which is very close to the Jackson Roadless Area. Lynx are known to be moving
into areas near Republic and are also known to travel over long distances. The
SEIS fails to acknowledge any impacts on lynx within the mine site and travel
route and we do not see evidence that US Fish and Wildlife has been recently
consulted regarding lynx.
Wolverine have been seen in this part of Washington, in fact a wolverine was
killed several years ago within a few miles of the mine site and haul route.
They are also reclusive animals that could be impacted by vehicle collisions,
noise such as blasting and vehicles, and access by the increased population
of miners in the area. No mention was made in the wildlife section about the
cumulative impacts of the increased population that would likely include hunters
and motorized recreationists.
Gray wolves are returning to their once occupied habitat in Idaho and Montana
and have been reported in eastern Washington as dispersal animals. Road kills
or injuries can attract predators such as wolf, bald eagle, golden eagle and
wolverine and the constant truck traffic and expected mortalities could impact
these species. This is not discussed (except for deer) in the wildlife report.
California bighorn sheep occupy Vulcan Mountain within a half-mile of the haul
route and may be expanding into the Toroda/Marias creek area. There should be
consultation with Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife to assess the impacts
of haul traffic on sheep populations.
Bald Eagles occupy many stretches of the haul route, are an endangered species,
and yet are not discussed in the report. Consultation with US Fish and Wildlife
Service should occur and mitigation impacts should be part of the SEIS. One
such mitigation measure might be to lower speed limits along the Kettle River
and Curlew Creek part of the haul route.
Impacts of the hauling along Marias Creek, Toroda Creek, the Kettle River, and
Curlew Creek are not addressed with regards to impacts on riparian vegetation
and wildlife. Noise, dust, herbicides to restrict noxious weeds are all issues
of importance along roads. When those roads are within riparian areas the concerns
are increased. Since some of the water bodies near the mine site will be de-watered,
it may cause birds and mammals to be displaced to other riparian areas.
The EA underestimates the impacts to mule deer and other wildlife. noise from
construction and operation of the haul road could affect some species substantially
more than an amount equal to doubling the width of the road as indicated by
the Forman, 2000. A substantially greater amount of mitigation should be required
for this.