Ranger Jeff Tomac April 3, 2015 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest P.O. Box 907 Baker City, OR 97814

Transcription

1 Ranger Jeff Tomac April 3, 2015 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest P.O. Box 907 Baker City, OR Re: Mark Roan (Yellow Jacket) Comments Granite Creek Watershed Mining Projects Dear Sir: The Granite Creek Watershed Mining DEIS I appreciate the opportunity to comment on this DEIS. The document was long and somewhat confusing to me, but my take on this is there are few concerns with my mining operation at the Yellow Jacket claims. However, I do have some comments. Page 3 states that plans in this proposed document would be in effect from 2014 to This statement should be changed to state that the period is for operators who work the first possible year, but that unless NEPA compliance is no longer adequate and current, (things change in the watershed), operators can work for a ten year period beginning when their plan is approved (see page 66). Page 39 also begins a description of the operations. This chart needs to remove cubic yards/yr, cubic yards/day and tons/day. Area impacted at a given time is important for the analysis and for later calculation of a reclamation bond. Some operations have cubic yards listed per day, some have cubic yards or tons listed per day. I am not sure what difference this makes. The bottom line for analysis and calculating a bond would be amount of ground disturbance at a given time. For consistency, please remove the amount processed from this chart, and for consistency, remove cubic yards and tons from the summary. In the appendix under Yellow Jacket, the document states, A1-98 requires L1-L12 as a required stipulations. This is unreasonable, because the lode is not on Forest Service system lands. Delete the requirement for L1-L12 from the DEIS. In the EOMA newsletter, there was a list of unreasonable stipulations that would be attached to each miner's POO before the Plan could be approved. I agree completely with EOMA's opinion that these stipulations are unreasonable. Page A2-3 states "The bond shall also cover the removal of all equipment and improvements authorized in the plan". This statement should be clarified. Miners who propose to remove their equipment each fall should not have equipment removal included in their bonds. If equipment removal is included in every miners' bond, and they do remove their equipment each fall, then their bond would have to be "adjusted" every year. G6 is not reasonable. Requiring miners to create new snags, when diseased or dead trees are removed for safety, is unreasonable. Many times the only trees available in the "same area" are healthy growing trees that should never be killed to make a snag. Once the snag has been created, woodcutters will simply cut it down for firewood, or it will become another danger tree. G6 was not a requirement under the North Fork Burnt River Mining EIS and it should not be a requirement under the Granite Watershed Mining Projects EIS. 1

2 G7 Remove "see project file for additional Fisheries/Aquatics direction" since this information is not available. G20 needs to be clarified. The first part "Extended occupancy (longer than allowed under the Forest Order) must be incidental and necessary for the level of proposed mining..." needs to be changed to read, "Extended occupancy (longer than allowed under the Forest Order) must be incidental and necessary for the proposed mining..." If the activity is mining, even with hand tools, the activity comes under the General Mining Law of 1872, as Amended, and Forest Orders do not apply. The second part "And authorized in the Plan of Operation" is also unreasonable. The 36CFR228 regulations do not require that occupancy be approved under a Plan of Operation. The third part of this stipulation is also not reasonable "No person not actively involved in the day to day operations will be authorized to stay longer than allowed under the Forest Order..." This stipulation is too subjective-the Forest Service may interpret this to mean the person must be actively mining to be on site, however this is not true. The General Mining Law, as amended, is the authorizing law as long as occupancy is "reasonably incident" to the mining operation. A single miner may run an operation, and be involved in the "day to day operations", while the wife or partner is on site for safety (common sense does not allow one miner to operate alone). Forest orders are for recreation activities, the mining laws and the 36 CFR228 regulations have nothing to do with recreation. G20 needs to be rewritten. G22, "When the operator is contemplating a sale of the claim associated with their Plan of Operations, the claimant/operator shall notify the District Ranger" is not a requirement under the regulations, is unreasonable, and is completely unenforceable. This sort of information can be provided to the miners in a letter, but it is not appropriate as a stipulation. G22 should be deleted. G23 should be rewritten, since using pumps to recycle process pond water does not require screening. G23 should read "When pumping water from streams, mesh on hydraulic pumps must have no less than...". G24, "At a pre-arranged meeting time and place" the Forest Service minerals administrator will inspect all equipment prior to its placement on NFS land in order to make sure that it is in working order, and there are no obvious leaks" was not well thought out and is not reasonable. How far would the inspector be willing to drive to inspect the equipment? Many operators are from the west side of Oregon or from other states. How would the inspector make sure the equipment was in "working order"? What happens if a miner is ready to haul equipment in and the mineral administrator is on training or on vacation or is sick or otherwise can't come out? G24 was not a condition of approval in the NFBR Mining Projects EIS and G24 is both unworkable and unreasonable. H8 "All equipment shall be checked for fluid leaks on a daily basis..." covers the intent of G24 and is reasonable. G24 should be deleted. IS2 needs to be rewritten to include Mining Plans of Operation, since POOs are not permits. In addition, "The Forest Service minerals administrator will inspect all equipment prior to its placement on NFS land to make sure that it has been cleaned for invasive species" should be deleted. IS2 should be changed to "All equipment to be operated in the project area shall be cleaned in a manner sufficient to prevent noxious weeds from being carried into the project area. This requirement does not apply to passenger vehicles and other equipment used exclusively on roads. Cleaning of equipment, if needed, will occur off NFS lands. Equipment 2

3 will be cleaned on-site prior to moving it to another site if the site is known to have noxious weed infestations". This stipulation was required of miners in the NFBR FEIS and is reasonable. IS3 is unreasonable, since miners would not be able to conduct ongoing reclamation if every time they were ready to fill their excavations, they would need an opinion from the FS Minerals Administrator. IS3 should be rewritten to reflect the same stipulation found in the NFBR FEIS "Prior to its use, any rock sources (e.g. pits and quarries) will be inspected for noxious weeds. Rock source material contaminated with high priority noxious weed propagules will not be utilized". IS5, "All noxious weed infestations will be avoided during times of seed production" is unreasonable and unenforceable. Miners need to be aware of the noxious weed problems on the Forest, but running over a Scotch thistle is unavoidable in a lot of areas. IS5 should be rewritten as follows: "To the extent practicable, all noxious weed infestations will be avoided during times of seed production". L5, "When testing of adit discharge, tailings, or waste rock, a copy of the test results will be sent directly from the testing facility to the District Ranger. Should the results exceed EPA and ODEQ s standards, the operator must address this issue prior to continuing this portion of the operation. A modification to the Plan may be required per direction found in 36CFR (e")" is not reasonable. L5 should be re-written to state that the District Ranger will be immediately notified upon the miner s receipt of test results that exceed the EPA and ODEQ s standards. The results will directly impact the operation, and this information is essential for the miner to know and for the miner to immediately act on. The Forest Service is often untimely in replying to correspondence (I can provide numerous examples, if needed) so the best protection for the environment is for the miner to receive the results and for the miners to provide the results to the Forest Service. In addition, L5 should not apply to my operation since this portion is on private land. L10, "The operator will be held financially responsible for containing/controlling tailings or waste rock that exceeds EPA standards for human health and safety. The operator(s)/owner(s) will be held responsible until the tailings and waste rock are in stable, non-leaching condition" is unreasonable and needs to be rewritten. Just because waste rock or tailings exist on a claim, does not automatically make the miner responsible for reclamation/stabilization. Also, under the 36CFR228 regulations, the owner of the claim is not responsible for reclamation, it is the operator who is responsible. This stipulation should be rewritten to state, "If waste rock and/or tailings generated during the course of the mining operation exceeds EPA standards for human health and safety, and concentrations exceed baseline, the operator will be responsible for containing/controlling these materials. The operator will be held responsible until the tailings and waste rock are in a stable, non-leaching condition". In addition, L10 should not apply to my operation since this portion is on private land. R1, "Prior to reclamation, the operator will coordinate with the Forest Service on reclamation activities for...placement of topsoil, use of slash, seed mixes and seeding rates..." is not reasonable. The Plans of Operation require most miners to conduct reclamation that is ongoing with the mining operation. Refilling excavations to normal land contours, placing topsoil, and seeding are all included in the Plan and in the attached stipulations. Miners must be able to conduct reclamation activities as the need arises. R1 should be changed to "Reclamation should 3

4 be ongoing to stabilize the area and so that a minimum amount of ground will be open at a given time". This stipulation is found in the North Fork Burnt River Mining stipulations and this should replace R1. R4 and R5 are not reasonable. Certified weed free straw is not available locally, County extension agents will not certify local fields because of liability issues. Growers have such stringent requirements, such the application process, and inspection just before harvest, and unless the inspections take place at the appropriate time, the grower may not be able to get the straw baled before wind or rain ruins everything. The only inspector comes out of Ontario. No farmers I talked to wanted anything to do with this program, which leaves the miners with no option except for being in noncompliance if they cannot find some straw. R4 and R5 should be rewritten. R4 can have "or woody debris mulch" or simply delete the requirement for straw. R5 should state "For topsoil stockpiles, native/desirable nonnative seed mixes as recommended by the Forest Service botany specialist will be used or the stockpiles covered with plastic". This stipulation is found in the North Fork Burnt River Mining stipulations and this should replace R5. R7 needs to be absorbed into the revised R5. R12 is not reasonable in two areas. Mine sites are often harsh sites. Many have no topsoil, they do not have an "A" horizon and native seed will not germinate. Use of desirable non-native seed mixtures, which are free of noxious weeds and which will germinate quickly to hold the soil and outcompete the weeds should be included in R12. As stated above, certified weed free straw is not available locally, and the miners should have the choice of using woody debris as mulch. Reclamation stipulations should be based on the results obtained on the ground. If the operator is able to achieve appropriate levels of vegetation without straw, this end result should be the goal, not what methods the miner uses to get these results. R13 is reasonable in that newly constructed roads should be reclaimed, however it is not reasonable as to the requirement that certified straw be used, since this is not available locally. R16 is not reasonable as it pertains to spreading a thick 3" mat of straw. Three inches of straw is detrimental to germination. The Forest Service botanist for the Lyman Quarry Project EA stated, "Certified Weed-Free Straw mulch 1/2 inch is recommended on the newly seeded or planted bare soil. The mulch should not be any thicker on seeded areas or germination will be inhibited". In addition, if straw is not available, the miner should have the option of using woody debris as mulch. R16 should be rewritten "After seeding, the mine operator will distribute certified weed free straw, if available, 1/2 inch thick over approximately two-third of the area in mid to late fall. Woody material, if available, can take the place of straw. Some patchy open areas are acceptable". 4

5 R17 is not reasonable where it requires the miner to consult with the Forest Service before spreading topsoil. If the Plan of Operation requires ongoing reclamation, the miner should be allowed to conduct his mining and reclamation whenever needed, without waiting for the Forest Service to come out and take a look. Delete the part about consulting with the FS. Z13 is not reasonable as it pertains to a miner's gate. If the location is approved by the Forest Service, the miner should have the option of constructing the gate of materials located on site, rather than purchasing an expensive powder river gate. A final concern I have is the picture of my cabin, which is on private land, not on the Forest. The Forest Service did not ask to enter my private property to take this picture, nor did I give permission for it to be displayed in the DEIS, along with a detailed map that I did not draw showing how to get to the cabin. Information such as this just invites trespass and vandalism. Pleas remove the picture from the final EIS. Sincerely, Mark A. Roan Owner/Operator Yellow Jacket Mine P.O. Box 286 Gresham, OR