Re: Charley Cree (Eddy/Shipman) Comments Granite Creek Watershed Mining Projects

Transcription

1 Ranger Jeff Tomac April 6, 2015 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest P.O. Box 907 Baker City, OR Re: Charley Cree (Eddy/Shipman) Comments Granite Creek Watershed Mining Projects Dear Sir: I have tried to study the DEIS with Jan Alexander's help. I am trying to understand what the effects on my proposed operation will be. My Plan of Operation states that I will use well water from the Buffalo Mine or will use offchannel sources. Since I do not have a water right I will use my off-channel ponds as a water source for placer processing. Page S-7 gives a list of the Forest Service Requirements. One of these is for two new gates. My access road, is currently closed with a guardrail gate that cannot be opened. I plan to replace it with a good gate that will not hurt my back. Page 3 states that plans in this proposed document would be in effect from 2014 to This statement should be changed to reflect when the Plans of Operation get approved. Page 39 also begins a description of the operations. This chart in not accurate for my operation. I am only one man. There is no way I can mine more than 1 ton of rock each day-some of this material will be ore, some will be waste rock. There will also be a lot of time spent putting in the new portal. Also, as information, the Eddy/Shipman claims are lode claims and ore is measured in tons rather than in cubic yards. Page 236 is incorrect that the Eddy Shipman has a ford on across Olive Creek. The creek I cross on road is Granite Creek. Page A8 provides some information which does not reflect what I proposed in my Plan of Operation. The DEIS states, "the existing waste rock and tailings piles previously used (Adit A and across from the pond) are very limited and will only hold a few more loads.." In fact, I did not propose spreading tailings on waste rock dumps or tailings piles, I proposed returning the mill tailings "to dry shafts and pits" (page 7 of the POO). Page A33- through 34 provides analysis of ponds and whether there is the potential for a discharge. I cannot find anywhere in this section where mill tailings disposal is analyzed. As far as the ponds go, the analysis states there is no potential for a discharge under alternative 3. However, since mill tailings appear to be a concern, I have decided not to mill on site. I will process only placer gravels on site, and ore will be hauled to another site for milling. I understand the concern for the small area on the west side of the highway where dump rock evidently has high arsenic levels. As I have time, and have a backhoe on site, I will cap this rock dump with about a foot of soil and vegetate the surface. Where the adit discharge seeps across the dump, I will direct that small flow into the vegetated area beside the dump. I will not be reopening this adit. RECEIVED APR WALLOVva-wniiMANNF WHITMAN RD BAKER OFFICF

2 The adit I will be opening is located east of the highway. I have already hauled timbers down to the adit in anticipation of opening it back up. The DEIS is not correct, as far as I can tell, when it states on page A8-26 that "the collapsed adit (A) is on the east side of the 73 road and...an Engineering Evaluation/Cost Assessment (EE/CA)...showed that metal concentrations were near clean-up level in waste rock, tailings and soil". In fact, there were no concerns noted for this area. I think that the ore is similar to the Buffalo ore, and is naturally buffered with a high percentage of calcite. Granite Creek in this location does not have elevated metals, it is not until the confluence with Chipman Gulch that the water has high levels of arsenic. It should be noted that even Chipman Gulch is not being impacted in the area of my claims. The EE/CA attributes the high arsenic levels in the area of my claims with "upstream sources". The adit I will be opening is dry, and is located over 150 feet from the old ditch that parallels Granite Creek. I will construct a sump at the mouth of the portal in case there is some seepage, and the ditch, which I talk about in my Plan of Operation, will work well as a secondary containment to ensure no adit water or sediment or dump rock could possibly enter Granite Creek. The DEIS is not correct where it states that "the lack of waste rock and tailings dumpsites will limit the expected operation to basically a testing operation with an expected duration of one season". There is absolutely no analysis to support this. There are approximately 400 feet of underground workings (200 feet of drfit and 200 feet of crosscut) and plenty of surface area on the dump for depositing the rock from the work I am planning. The tunnel is in competent rock, and once I have reconstructed the portal, I will be able to work safely underground. This is not a one season operation. There is no basis at all for this opinion. Just the lode portion of the operation will take more than 10 years. This opinion on the life of my operation should be deleted from the DEIS. The EOMA April newsletter listed some unreasonable stipulations that miners would be required to accept if they wanted to have their POOs approved. I agree completely with EOMA that the following stipulations are not reasonable: 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. 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.

3 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 subject!ve-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 waterfront 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. 152 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 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. 153 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 weedpropagules will not be utilized".

4 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. L10, "The operator will be he Id 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". Rl, "Prior to reclamation, the operator will coordinate with the Forest Service on reclamation activities for...placement of topsail, 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. Rl should be changed to "Reclamation should 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 Rl. 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.

5 R5 should state "For topsail stockpiles, native/desirable non native 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". Rl 7 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. I am glad to finally have this opportunity to comment on the Granite Creek Watershed Mining Projects DEIS, and bring up some of the errors in the document as it pertains to the Eddy/Shipman POO. Hopefully the Forest Service will correct the errors in the DEIS and hopefully they will take EOMA's suggestions and rewrite the unreasonable stipulations. r RECEIVED Charley Cree Operator Shipman/Eddy APR f) ft Of) 15 WALLOWA-vvnniviMN NF WHITMAN RD BAKER OFFICE