Concerns regarding Crown Resources Application for Permit to Construct a Reservoir and to Store for Beneficial Use Waters of the State of Washington (application No.35093)

Ecology should reject the application because it contains inaccurate misleading, and incomplete information.

The water that would impounded in the reservoir is hydrologically connected to the water that is already fully appropriated.

Ecology has a responsibility to protect the public interest. The public use and enjoy fish and wildlife in the area whose health and well being rely on spring, seeps, wetlands and streams that would be depleted if the applicantion is permitted. In addition, The publics use and enjoyment of the natural function of springs, seeps, wetlands and streams would be negatively impacted if the application is approved.

The application states that water would be used on mine site property. Unless the proponent is considering water delivered to the treatment facility water being used on site, only a small portion of the water proposed to be impounded would actually be used on site. Most of the water would be discharged to various locations to augment depleted streams and wetlands.

Very little of the water that would be used in the applied for reservoir would be put to beneficial use. The majority of the water would not be put to a use – instead the water would be extracted from the ground or allowed to evaporate in order to get it out of the way. Rather than being put to a use, the water is being wasted. Further, the water that is being withdrawn and discharged below the proposed mine would be degraded in quality.

According to the draft Aquatic Resource Mitigation Plan, only a small portion of the water necessary for mine dewatering would be put to use in the mine operations for purposes such as drilling, shotcrete production and dust control. Much of the water would be absolutely wasted either by allowing it to evaporate or by entrenching it in ore and development rock.

Some additional quantity of water would be discharged to undisclosed locations – but obviously well below the level of the mine. This water would not be put to a beneficial “use” – it would simply be replaced back into the hydraulic system (but in a contaminated form).

Contrary to the title of the application, most of the water that would be impounded in the proposed reservoir would not be put to beneficial use. The application states that water would be used for mining when the majority of the water would be used to augment streamflows depleted from dewatering the proposed mine. Unless the proponent is considering water delivered to the treatment facility water being used for mining, only a small portion of the water proposed to be impounded would actually be used for mining.

It would not be in the public interest to approve a reservoir permit for dewatering Buckhorn Mountain; in basins that have been considered closed; that would negatively impact senior water users and; and would not be put to beneficial use. The public has a paramount interest in healthy aquatic resources and the life that is derived from those resources.

The application would impound a very large quantity of water on the saddle of two watersheds that have been considered fully appropriated for over 50 years. Water currently flows both down the Myers and Toroda Creek basins intersecting and feeding numerous springs, seeps, wetlands and streams along the way. The impacts to these important aquatic resources must be fully considered, especially during drought conditions, when making a decision on these applications.

This area is not new to water conflict. Over a decade ago when the last round of water right decision were made, there was a call for basin planning in this area. Two things are certain; both basins are over-appropriated and there is no additional water available. We respectfully requests the Department of Ecology deny Crown Resources reservoir application.

***************************************************************

Water rights ACTION ALERT

Crown Resources has published applications for new or transfer water right with the Department of Ecology. Your comments would show Ecology the extent of public concern about this proposed mine.

Protests must be submitted by May 12, 2006

No. G4-34904 from underground sumps and five wells in the amount of 100 gallons per minute each year, for the purpose of mining (dewatering) industrial and mitigation use

No. G4-34905 from a well in the amount of 20 gallons per minute each year, for the purpose of general domestic use
.
No. S4-34999 from the Nicholson Creek in the amount of 0.111 cubic feet per second each year, for the purpose of mining use
.
No. G4-35084, from a well in the amount of 125 gallons per minute each year, for the purpose of mitigation of Myers Creek streamflows.

To change the purpose of use and change a portion of the place of use of groundwater certificate 4945-A.

The applicant has prepared an Aquatic Resources Mitigation Plan describing the potential effects of the Buckhorn Mountain Mine project on aquatic resources and water availability and proposed mitigation of those effects. The mitigation plan is available for review at www.buckhornseis.com.

Letters should be sent by May 12, 2006 to:
Department of Ecology,
15 W. Yakima Avenue, Suite 200,
Yakima, WA 98902-3452,
GTEB461@ecy.wa.gov

Suggested comments:

Re: Protest of Crown Resources Water Right Application

I am writing to protest and objection to the water rights applications submitted by Crown Resources and Donnie Newman for the proposed Buckhorn Mine. The proposed water rights would result in an impairment of existing rights and would be detrimental to the public welfare and must therefore be denied.  

A. Protesters’ Use Of Affected Waters
I have lived in or near, visited or own property the area whose water would be impacted by the proposed mine if it were granted to the applicant. I use and enjoy fish and wildlife in the area whose health and well being rely on spring, seeps, wetlands and streams that would be depleted if the water were appropriated to the applicant. In addition, I use and enjoy the natural function of springs, seeps, wetlands and streams would be negatively impacted if water were appropriated to the applicant.

B. Lack of Water Available for Appropriation
The cumulative impacts of this application along with current and prospective future demands must be considered. Every other water right in the Myers and Toroda Creek basins has been rejected due to lack of available water. It has been recognized for half a century that both basins have been over-appropriated to the detriment of fish, wildlife and aquatic resources. The Washington State Department of Fish & Wildlife (WDFW) has recommended denial of new water rights as far back as 1950. There is no more water available. These applications should be rejected. 

C. Water Not put to Beneficial Use
While mining is generally considered a beneficial use of water, very little of the water that is being applied for in this application would be put to beneficial use. In this case, the majority of the water, especially from Application No G4-34904, is not proposed to be put to a use – instead the water would be extracted from the ground in order to get it out of the way. Rather than being put to a use, the water is being wasted. Further, the water that would be withdrawn and discharged below would be degraded in quality.  

D. Not in the Public Interest
It would not be in the public interest to appropriate water; in basins that have been considered closed; that would negatively impact senior water users and; would not be put to beneficial use. The public has a paramount interest in healthy aquatic resources and the life that is derived from those resources. The speculative and perpetual nature of the proposed changes to the hydrologic system resulting from the preferential pathways created by the proposed mine does not fit the requirement that new rights not be detrimental to the public interest. There is no overriding public interest to permanently alter the hydrology of Buckhorn Mountain.

E. Aquatic Resources
The application is for a very large quantity of water on the saddle of two watersheds that have been considered fully appropriated for over 50 years. Water currently flows both down the Myers and Toroda Creek basins intersecting and feeding numerous springs, seeps, wetlands and streams along the way. The impacts to these important aquatic resources must be fully considered, especially during drought conditions, when making a decision on these applications. I expect Ecology to uphold its duty to preserve and protect instream and aquatic resources so that future generations can continue to enjoy them.

F. The Aquatic Resources Mitigation Plan (ARMP)
The applicant has prepared an Aquatic Resources Mitigation Plan that purports to describe potential effects of the Buckhorn Mountain Mine project on aquatic resources and water availability. Ecology should reject this ARMP because not only does it fail to accurately describe the aquatic resources that would be effected if the proposed mine was allowed to proceed, it underestimates what those effects would be. In addition mitigation proposed in the ARMP fails to offset the impacts described let alone mitigate what the real effects the proposed mine would have on downstream water users, aquatic resources or public interest. Ecology should explain what standard it uses to decide whether proposed mitigation is adequate.

F. Newman Water Right Transfer
It is doubtful that the he Newman water right certificate has been in continual use. In or around March 1986 the bank repossessed the land currently owned by Mr. Newman and the irrigation equipment was removed. Since then, there has only been intermittent irrigation until last year when extensive irrigation severely impacted downstream water rights users. If a right has not been beneficially used to its full extent, or if the right has been abandoned, then issuance of a certificate of change, in the amount of the original right could cause detriment or injury to others.

G. Lost Creek Well
The application for new water right in hydrologic continuity with Myers Creek should be rejected because there is no additional water available as stated above. A transfer of the existing water right offers no mitigation value because impacts to senior water rights and the public interest cannot be mitigated by a junior water right. Addition appropriation would only exacerbate the over-appropriation problem. Appropriating more water cannot mitigate over-appropriation. Senior water users would be adversely impacted as well as the public interest.

H. Regional Basin Planning Needed
Ecology cannot arbitrarily consider mitigation adequate to offset impacts to senior water right and the public interest without setting a standard for that type of decision. Ecology must, by rule, announce how it will make determinations of adequate mitigation to offset water withdrawals in closed or over appropriated basins.
In summary, it is likely that the large amount of water requested would result in dewatering not only water that is currently used but numerous springs, seeps, wetlands and streams. In addition it would use water that currently flows into Myers and Toroda Creeks. Appropriating water in basins that are closed to new appropriations, for new industrial use, over existing uses and over previously denied domestic use applications would violate the letter, spirit, and intent of the Washington water law and policy.

I respectfully requests the Department of Ecology deny Crown Resources new and transfer water right applications.