December%10,2013% TinaLanier,%DistrictRanger%...

of 21

December 10, 2013 Tina Lanier, District Ranger Gold Beach Ranger District Rogue River-‐Siskiyou National Forest USDA Forest Service 29279 Ellensburg Ave. Gold Beach, Oregon 97444 comments-‐pacificnorthwest-‐siskiyou-‐[email protected] Re: RF-‐38 Test Drill Preliminary Decision Memo Dear Tina Lanier: l am submitting comments in response to the November 6, 2013 Preliminary Decision Memo (PDM) on behalf of Klamath-‐ Siskiyou Wildlands Center, Oregon Coast Alliance, Soda Mountain Wilderness Council, Oregon Wild, and Environmental Protection Information Center. We are particularly concerned about the need for transparency with your response to comments. Specifically, response to comments must clearly indicate that the source of the response is a Forest Service professional with expertise in the appropriate discipline. Response to comments provided by Red Flat Nickel Corporation must be clearly identified because of their conflict of interest regarding possible additional time and expense for protecting surface resources and human safety. Responses attributed to Red Flat Nickel Corporation must be accompanied by Forest Service expert response. Transparency means that (if relevant) the correspondence used to acquire the Red Flat Nickel Corporation response to our comments must be identified (e.g. email, telephone call, letter, meeting notes, etc.). We do not believe it is ethical or even legal for you to insert Red Flat Nickel Corporation response to our comment with the final Decision Memo. Readers of response to comments would be misled into believing that a response is the official U.S. Forest Service response and assumed to be based on field observation, professional experience, or opinion of Forest Service mining experts. In other words you cannot rely on Red Flat Nickel Corporation to inform you about response to comment without first consulting Forest Service mining geologists or other Forest Service professionals. This project needs documented field review by Forest Service mining geologist, hydrologist, roads engineer, recreation specialist, and soil scientists to ensure surface resources are protected and extraordinary circumstances are identified. A July 15, 2013 Forest Service memo concerning RF-‐38 Test Drilling states “[t]his is a cost recovery account and should only be used for NEPA analysis related to this project. Please maintain an accounting record of the specific days and hours you work on this project should the proponent request it.” Please explain what is a “cost recovery account” and provide us an

of 21

accounting of specific days and hours worked by each Forest Service person on the Interdisciplinary Team. The PDM states on p.3:

Our goal is to ensure proposed activities would be conducted “so as, where feasible, to minimize adverse environmental impacts on National Forest surface resources” by regulating functions, work, and activities connected with developing locatable minerals on National Forest System land (36 CFR 228.8).

We provide the following substantive comments to minimize adverse environmental impacts on surface resources in addition to what has been identified in PDM. 1. Do not authorize drilling at Red Flat until Forest Service mining geologist field report, soil

scientist report, recreation report, roads report, and hydrologist report is completed and made available to the public.

The Forest Service failed to have a Forest Service mining geologist, hydrologist, soils scientist, recreation specialist, and roads engineer conduct a formal field review of the Plan of Operation and provide independent technical information to the decision-‐maker, other forest staff specialists (Botanist, Wildlife Biologist, Port Orford Cedar specialist) and the public. Reports from these specialist are absent from the Forest Service website1 and assumed missing from the project record during the 30 day comment period (December 4, 2013 email from Holly Witt). The true nature of the proposed drilling and possible extraordinary circumstances due to drilling are not being revealed because the Plan of Operation was not field reviewed by an independent government specialist ( e.g. Forest Service mining geologist not employed by Red Flat Nickel Corporation). A prudent decision maker would not make a decision about drilling based on information provided by Red Flat Nickel Corporation without having independent evaluation by Forest Service mining geologist, hydrologist, recreation specialist, soils scientist and road engineer. Decisions about mitigating surface resources are likely to be erroneous or incomplete because decisions are based primarily on Red Flat Nickel Corporation proposed mining, drilling technique, mitigation, and geologic information . Additionally, we cannot make adequate mining related substantive comments for minimizing impact to surface resources without the benefit of technical information from independent Forest Service mining geologist, soil scientist, roads engineer, and hydrologist. 1 Forest Service Red Flat website with available documents accessed December 9, 2013 http://www.fs.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsinternet/!ut/p/c5/04_SB8K8xLLM9MSSzPy8xBz9CP0os3gDfxMDT8MwRydLA1cj72BTUwMTAwgAykeaxRtBeY4WBv4eHmF-‐YT4GMHkidBvgAI6EdIeDXIvfdrAJuM3388jPTdUvyA2NMMgyUQQAyrgQmg!!/dl3/d3/L2dJQSEvUUt3QS9ZQnZ3LzZfS000MjZOMDcxT1RVODBJN0o2MTJQRDMwODQ!/?project=41652

of 21

2. Do not authorize drilling at Red Flat until Red Flat Nickel Corporation agrees to sample and analyze surface soils for toxic materials ( e.g., asbestos, chrysotile, chrome, cobalt and others). No mining can be authorized until Red Flat Nickel Corporation agrees to report the amount of potentially toxic materials in the drilling samples to the Forest Service (e.g. percent chrysotile and/or similarly potentially toxic minerals and substances). No mining can be authorized until the Forest Service obtains recommended mitigations about naturally occurring asbestos from the EPA.

Red Flat Nickel Corporation must be required to measure and report to the Forest Service the toxicity of surface soils at drill sites before and after drilling to assure future public safety and minimize adverse impacts (e.g. surface soil content of chrysotile, asbestos, chrome, cobalt, arsenic etc.). The proposed “spreading of drill cuttings to blend with the natural slope” may also be spreading toxic substances not currently present (PDM p. 5). Sampling by Six Rivers National Forest2 found potentially hazardous asbestos dust in unauthorized/unclassified mining roads similar to the ones being proposed as drill sites in this project. The Six Rivers Proposed Action Summary states on p. 13:

The Smith River NRA is located within an area that contains ultramafic rock formations. Naturally occurring asbestos (NOA) includes a suite of fibrous, silicate minerals that are commonly associated with ultramafic rock. Asbestos can pose a health hazard if it is released as dust into the air and inhaled by humans. The potential for exposure is greatest for riders of all-‐terrain vehicles which are open and provide no shielding from the dust, or for riders in multiple passenger vehicles traveling in close proximity with open windows.

Similar ultramafic conditions exist at the Red Flat drilling project area where asbestos is likely to occur along unauthorized/ unclassified roads. Sampling by Pacific Nickel Corporation3 found that serpentine rock was 3% chrysotile that “occurs as veinlets of fibrous individuals oriented perpendicular to the veinlet wall”. Chrysotile is known to produce a type of asbestos that is harmful to humans. This is relevant as an extraordinary circumstance because people regularly travel with all terrain vehicles on the unauthorized roads proposed for drilling (Photo 1). Baseline toxicity of sampling sites must be determined scientifically with techniques similar

2 Proposed Action Summary-‐Smith River National Recreation Areas Restoration and Motorized Travel is attached and accessed at http://www.fs.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsinternet/!ut/p/c5/04_SB8K8xLLM9MSSzPy8xBz9CP0os3gDfxMDT8MwRydLA1cj72BTUwMTAwgAykeaxRtBeY4WBv4eHmF-‐YT4GMHkidBvgAI6EdIeDXIvfdrAJuM3388jPTdUvyA2NMMgyUQQAyrgQmg!!/dl3/d3/L2dJQSEvUUt3QS9ZQnZ3LzZfS000MjZOMDcxT1RVODBJN0o2MTJQRDMwODQ!/?project=38813>. 3 Red Flat Nickel Project-‐Report prepared by Pacific Nickel Corporation is attached and accessed at http://www.oregongeology.org/sub/milo/archive/MiningDistricts/CurryCounty/GoldBeachDistrict/RedFlatsPlacers/RedFlatsPlacersReports.pdf

of 21

to those used by Six Rivers National Forest. Due to previous mining disturbance associated with unauthorized-‐unclassified roads, the proposed drill sites cannot be assumed to be benign to people recreating in the area. Additionally, Red Flat Nickel Corporation must be required to report the amount of potentially toxic materials in the core samples (e.g. % chrysotile or similar potentially toxic minerals. The Environmental Protection Agency needs to be requested to provide mitigations that would minimize environmental impacts to humans from naturally occurring toxic materials that are disturbed or exhumed by drilling. We are concerned about our use of this area becoming dangerous to our health due to naturally toxic materials being disturbed or exhumed by drilling and motorized use. 3. Do not authorize drilling at Red Flat until an adequate bond has been secured. Prior to

mining authorization the Forest Service must identify to the public the reclamation actions (not the dollar amount) that the bond would cover so that we can comment on adequacy.

The PDM p. 4 states:

The Forest Service applies regulations found at 36 CFR 228.4(a). They provide the requirements for authorizing mining operations, conducting environmental analyses to assess the impacts of the operation, applying terms and conditions to minimize impacts to surface resources, and requiring bonding where appropriate for restoration of affected lands. (emphasis added).

Bonding is required because previous mining companies such as Pacific Nickel Corporation have constructed unauthorized roads and excavated numerous large pits with no apparent reclamation. Similarly, this proposed mining activity could be abandoned with the public left to pay for reclamation. We are particularly concerned about the costs for remediation of temporary roads that will be used. Prior to permitting, these roads are unauthorized-‐unclassified roads not appropriate for industrial mining. What actions are needed to vegetatively restore the proposed 1200 ft of clearing? What actions are needed to remove contaminated soil? What actions are needed to ameliorate human health hazards of naturally occurring asbestos? 4. Do not authorize drilling at Red Flat until proper methods for containment, disposal and

removal of mine waste is required from Red Flat Nickel Corporation. The PDM p. 6 states “[b]est management practices (BMPs) would be followed to limit potential erosion. No water is anticipated to return to the surface during the drilling process because of porous soils; however, in the event it does, the water would be directed away from the drilling location and allowed to naturally infiltrate.”

of 21

Thousands of gallons of clean water are being brought to proposed drill holes and contaminated during the drilling process, thus creating mine waste. Ground water brought to the surface during drilling would also be contaminated mine waste. This mine waste must not be allowed to flow half hazard across the landscape to soak into porous soils. The proposed “spreading of drill cuttings to blend with the natural slope” may also be spreading toxic substances (i.e. mine waste) not currently present on surface soils (PDM p. 5). The PDM:6 states that “[if needed, two drilling additives (Bio-‐Cut Plus and DD2000) might be mixed with the water to improve sample recovery or maintain drill-‐hole stability. The proponent indicates that both additives are non-‐hazardous and biodegradable (MSDS on file; no hazards indicated).” The Material Safety Data Sheet for Bio-‐Cut Plus also states that “[a]lthough product is environmentally safe, spills should be contained and wiped up. Dispose according to Federal, Provincial or Municipal regulations.” The Material Safety Data Sheet for DD 2000 states the following: LEAK AND SPILL PROCEDURES: Ventilate area. Wear rubber boots, gloves, and a self -contained breathing apparatus if ventilation is not adequate. Collect into waste container. Avoid raising dust. Wash spill site after material pickup. Water solutions are very slippery. May constitute a hazard following a spill WASTE DISPOSAL: Dispose of waste according to Federal, Provincial, and Municipal regulations. (Emphasis added) We do not believe that spreading drill chips and drilling chemicals on the formerly uncontaminated ground is appropriate. A Forest Service mining engineer, hydrologist, and soil scientist need to identify required containment and required disposal of mine waste, drill cuttings, and drilling additives. The proposed contamination of surface soils at 35 drill holes with mine waste and drilling chemicals is not a Best Management Practice and does not minimize adverse impacts (i.e. mine waste materials left at drill holes).

5. Do not authorize drilling at Red Flat until the Forest Service has properly informed

citizens of the consequences of small scale nickel production for bulk testing and large-‐scale nickel mining at Red Flat nickel mine site, Cleopatra (Baldface Creek) nickel mine site, and Rough and Ready Creek nickel mine site.

The PDM:4 states:

Under [The General Mining Law of 1872 ] and related case law, the United Stated Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service has no authority to prohibit an otherwise reasonable plan of operations for such mining (i.e., one that can be characterized as the logical next step in the orderly development of a mine). For example, reasonable operations often begin with small-‐scale sampling, followed

of 21

by larger scale sampling, then on to small-‐scale production for bulk testing purposes, and then perhaps launching into a large-‐scale development.

A functioning democracy requires a knowledgeable citizenry. We as United States citizens need to be fully informed by the Forest Service of the potential consequences of implementing the General Mining Law of1872 on public lands mining claims identified in the Preliminary Decision Memo for RF-‐38 Test Drilling (Red Flat Nickel Corporation). Specifically we request the Forest Service produce a written detailed description of what “small-‐scale production for bulk testing production” would entail. Please describe in detail of what kinds of impacts we should expect based on your expert knowledge of the site and likely mining techniques for bulk testing production. What would be the potential effects to plants, wildlife, air quality, water quality, fish and recreation? Similarly we request a written detailed description of what “large scale development” of a nickel mine would entail. Please describe in detail of what kinds of impacts we should expect based on your expert knowledge of the site and likely nickel mining techniques. What would be the potential effects to plants, wildlife, air quality, water quality, fish, community quality of life and recreation? We are making these information requests as citizens with no explicit connection to National Environmental Policy Act requirements or 1872 mining law requirements in conjunction with proposed drill holes. This means the Forest Service cannot reasonably ignore our requests for expert information by claiming this request is “out of scope” of the proposed drill holes project or not required by the 1872 mining law. This request seeks no information about mining claim validity with respect to mineral content or Forest Service speculation about profitability. We simply want Forest Service experts to help citizens become more knowledgeable about “bulk testing production” and “large scale development” of nickel mining at this site due to development rights stemming from the 1872 Mining Law. We believe this request is both reasonable and warranted because of the unprecedented nickel mine related activities at three locations on the Rogue-‐River Siskiyou National Forest. The potential for changing the basic character of the Forest and socio-‐economic conditions of adjacent communities is huge. We have been informed that the Gold Beach District “won’t be holding a public meeting specific to the RF-‐38 test drilling proposal, because Tina’s decision space is too narrow for a meeting to be helpful in finalizing the decision.” 4 Yes, we are well aware that the Forest Service decision space is “narrow”. Nevertheless, the public needs to be informed that the decision to move forward with up to 3 nickel mines is largely a decision by the mining companies who own the claims and not the Forest Service. We are certain that there will be quite a few questions about the prospect of three nickel mines on the Rogue River-‐ Siskiyou National Forest that go beyond this proposed sampling with drill holes up to 50 ft deep. We also wish to remind you that the Siskiyou National Forest Plan did not anticipate the development of 3 nickel mines. Such development would certainly be cause for a plan amendment or even revision.

4 Email dated November 26, 2013 from Holly Witt (U.S. Forest Service) to R. Nawa (KS Wild) and Dave Lacey (Native Fish Society)

of 21

6. Do not authorize drilling at Red Flat until Red Flat Nickel Corporation has demonstrated

that they are “citizens” of USA as required by 1872 mining law. Red Flat Nickel Corporation is registered in Panama and appears to be 80% owned and financed by St Peter Port Capital Limited based in the United Kingdom5. The PDM:4 states:

While the law has been amended or supplemented by the Multiple Use Mining Act of 1955 (69 Stat. 368; 30 U.S.C. § 612), the Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1876; 30 U.S.C. § 21a), and other statutes, much of the nation’s public lands remain “free and open” to United States citizens for mineral exploration (30 U.S.C. § 22). Under current mining law, citizens of the United States are authorized to file mining claims, conduct mining operations on those claims, and hold conditional property rights (conditioned on compliance with applicable law and regulation) to the locatable minerals extracted from these claims. (emphasis added)

General Mining Act of 1872 states:

A person who is a citizen of the United States or has declared an intention to become a citizen with the Immigration and Naturalization Service may locate and hold a mining claim or site. A corporation organized under State law is considered a citizen and may locate and hold a mining claim or site. A corporation is held to the same standards as a citizen. Non-‐citizens are not permitted to own or have an interest in mining claims or sites. (emphasis added)

Red Flat Nickel Corporation and their financial backers do not appear to be citizens of the United States. St Peter Port Capital holds “an 80 per cent equity stake and a secured loan in Red Flat Nickel, following a restructuring of the company’s balance sheet and management.” 6 Red Flat Nickel Corp. is registered in Panama7 and in Nevada as a “FOREIGN BUSINESS CORPORATION.”8

5 see attached St Peter Port Limited Annual Report for 2013 p. 19 (accessed at http://www.stpeterportcapital.gg/html/publications.html) St Peter Port Capital Limited (“the Company”) is a Guernsey authorized, closed ended investment company regulated by the Guernsey Financial Services Commission and governed by The Companies (Guernsey) Law, 2008. 6 St Peter Port Limited Annual Report for 2013 p. 9 7 St Peter Port Limited Annual Report for 2013 p. 19 8 See attached amended 2013 annual report to Oregon Secretary of State and accessed at http://egov.sos.state.or.us/br/pkg_web_name_srch_inq.show_detl?p_be_rsn=1300096&p_srce=BR_INQ&p_print=FALSE

of 21

7. Authorization of drilling and “orderly development of a nickel mine” means the Forest Service must conduct analysis needed to initiate withdrawal of Red Flat Botanical Area and adjacent botanically valuable areas from mineral entry as directed by Siskiyou National Forest Plan.

Standards and Guideline for the Siskiyou National Forest Plan for Minerals in Botanical Area (MA-‐4-‐10, p. IV-‐89)

“Valid claims existing prior to botanical area designation may be developed. Every effort should be made to protect botanical resources, especially sensitive plant species. Botanical Areas may be recommended for withdrawal from mineral entry in situations where mitigation measures do not adequately protect management area values. The mineral potential of the area shall be assessed before withdrawal is recommended.”

The Red Flat Nickel Corporation claims were made after the Red Flat Botanical Area designation and mineral development would seem to be prohibited by the Forest Plan. Rare and sensitive plants for which the Red Flat Botanical Area was designated cannot escape destruction caused by earth moving equipment used to extract nickel ore. Severe surface disturbance over many acres cannot be mitigated. Analysis must be coordinated with BLM where mineral withdrawal is also needed for adjacent Hunter Creek Bog ACEC. Adjacent serpentine areas with rare plants would logically also need to be considered for mineral withdrawal. A Forest Plan amendment is needed to designate diverse serpentine areas as Botanical Areas and pursue mineral withdrawal.

8. Do not authorize drilling at Red Flat because the Forest Service must do an Environmental Assessment for Red Flat drilling. Extraordinary circumstances do exist that warrant and environmental analysis in an EA. a. The unique ecological conditions of adjacent Hunter Creek Bog ACEC warrants

coordinated analysis with BLM in an EA and joint concurrence with decision. b. Proposed drilling could alter or contaminate the groundwater aquifer connected to

Hunter Creek Bog. Assuming that because drill holes are not on BLM lands or 300 ft distant does not mean adjacent BLM lands and use of BLM lands is not affected. Proposed drill hole RF1 is within Hunter Creek Bog ACEC.

c. Proposed drill holes RFA 2,3, and 7 are within the Red Flat Botanical Area (Botany Evaluation:p.2 and Figure 1). Heavy equipment movement, unnatural machine noise, diesel combustion odors, dispersed camping, soil disturbance, and equipment staging within the Red Flat Botanical Area/ Hunter Creek Bog ACEC can be expected to conflict with the purpose of the Botanical Area/ACEC and spoil our use and enjoyment of the Botanical Area, ACEC complex and adjacent natural landscapes. Expected impacts to recreational use and scientific use of Red Flat Botanical Area/Hunter Bog ACEC requires further analysis and mitigations (e.g. drop drill holes in Red Flat Botanical Area).

d. Brushing on an unauthorized/unclassified road to access drill hole RFA7 would allow new motorized public use in the Red Flat Botanical Area. Areas vegetatively recovered from

of 21

previous mining would be vulnerable to new motorized use by the public due to proposed vegetative removal to access drill hole RFA7 within the Red Flat Botanical Area (Botany Evaluation Fig. 1).

e. Serpentine/ultramafic (lateritic) soils are extraordinary circumstances that make reclamation uncertain. The site has nutrient poor and naturally toxic lateritic soils. Soils have been damaged from previous mining activities (e.g unauthorized roads) that makes prospective vegetative reclamation uncertain. Adjacent areas with no mining disturbance have trees and shrubs that cover 90% of the ground. Further damage of soils (e.g. compaction, loss of nutrients ) and further reduced vegetative cover can be expected with this mining operation. Anticipated reclamation efforts are not likely to establish trees and shrubs in the short-‐term and approximately 1 acre of land will likely have less than 10% tree/ shrub cover or be totally barren of trees and shrubs for decades ( e.g., unauthorized/unclassified roads).

f. Mining disturbance from drilling and motorize use is likely to expose hikers and all-‐terrain vehicle users to elevated concentrations of toxic asbestos dust that can cause cancer.

g. Public controversy has increased as people living in the Gold Beach area realize their quality of life is being threatened.9

Cumulative Impacts also warrant an Environmental Assessment.

Regional and local analysis of temporal and spatial cumulative effects from mineral exploration (nickel and gold) warrants analysis in an Environmental Assessment.

a. Nickel explorations during the 1950s caused severe impacts from unauthorized road construction and large test pits at Red Flat and the Gasquet area (Six Rivers National Forest). The PDM;1 states “there are a number of east-‐west trending trenches that were excavated in the [Red flat] area.” The Plan of Operations (attached) p. 2 states that “From 2007 to 2009 the claimant completed additional surface sampling and drilling, including approximately 5,600 feet of drilling in 652 shallow auger holes, bulk sampling and 12 deeper sonic drill holes across the claim block.” Cumulative impact of this proposed drilling, hundreds of previous Red Flat Nickel auger holes, bulk sampling, sonic drill holes, motorized use of heavy equipment, and vegetation clearing needs to be assessed in the context of cumulative effects from previous test pits dug in the 1950s and never reclaimed (filled).

b. Unauthorized mining roads in Red Flat area are being used by all-‐terrain vehicles that prevents vegetative recovery (Photo 1). Motorized use from this mining operation and the clearing of dense vegetation on 1200 ft of unclassified road will lead to increased motorized use in new areas and retard vegetative recovery.

c. The Red Flat Botanical area will be adversely affected cumulatively from drill holes, motorized use on unauthorized/unclassified roads, and vegetative clearing.

d. Potentially toxic materials exhumed by previous miners (large test pits, miles of unauthorized road construction) and this drilling operation are potentially significant "cumulative effect" (e.g., increased asbestos in road dust, lead, arsenic and loss of

9 See attached news article dated December 6, 2013

of 21

vegetative cover. Sampling by Six Rivers National Forest of unauthorized mining roads found high concentrations of asbestos in the exposed road dirt. Similar toxic conditions likely occur on unauthorized mining roads proposed for use in the Red Flat area.

e. Red Flat Nickel Corporation is also proposing 55 Drill Holes with the Cleopatra Plan of Operation in the Wild Rivers District. http://www.fs.usda.gov/projects/rogue-‐siskiyou/landmanagement/projects

f. A Plan of Operations has been submitted to the Forest Service for nickel mining in the Rough and Ready Creek watershed. The fact that the Rough and Ready project is “on hold” and not out for public review does not mean its anticipated impacts in the “foreseeable future” can be dismissed in the context of the National Environmental Policy Act.

g. The Turner Gold Mine on a private inholding near Obrien, Oregon has had major road reconstruction and subsequent drilling in anticipation of developing a hard rock (lode) gold mine that would likely include future mining on adjacent public lands. http://www.josephinemining.com/en/assets_menu1turner.htm

h. The Forest Service cannot evade analyzing and disclosing significant regional impacts from mineral exploration with piecemeal analysis blinded to major impacts over time and space.

9. Do not authorize drilling at Red Flat until Forest Service experts have obtained site specific information about possible groundwater impacts caused by drill holes up to 50 ft deep.

The PDM:9 states:

No water is anticipated to return to the surface during the drilling process because of porous soils; however, in the event it does, the water would be directed away from the drilling location and allowed to naturally infiltrate. Drill holes will be plugged and abandoned immediately after completion.

This is not analysis. This is denial and simply parrots unsupported assertions provided by Red Flat Nickel. Water tables in serpentine soils are often shallow due to clayey soil lenses which accounts for numerous springs along road cuts. Water is certain to be encountered with drilling. Assuming no impact is convenient, but likely wrong. A particular concern are natural wetlands in the area such as Hunter Creek Bog, fens, and springs less than 200 ft from proposed drill holes RFA 9-‐10 (Photos 3,4). Groundwater impacts need to be investigated by Forest Service hydrologists and geologists with site specific analysis and not dismissed with sweeping generalizations and ineffective mitigations.

of 21

Federal courts have recently ruled against the Forest Service with regard to routine dismissal of mining effects on groundwater.10 On February 11, 2011 the Decision Notice & FONSI was signed for the CuMo Project. On July 27, 2011 a lawsuit was filed. On August 29, 2012 the US District Court for the District of Idaho issued its Decision which found in favor of the Forest Service on all points except their finding of no significant impact to groundwater, remanding this matter back to the Forest Service to undertake further groundwater analysis 10. Do not authorize drilling at Red Flat until Red Flat Nickel Corporation identifies a specific

water right as appropriate for this activity. In general we object to public water being used for corporate mining.

The PDM:10 states that “[a] maximum of 35,000 gallons municipal water would be purchased and transported by a water truck to the project area to be used during drilling operations (up to 1000 gallons per drill hole).” Such a described water use may be illegal under Oregon water law because Red Flat Nickel has no state water license to use the water for industrial purposes. If the project water is obtained from a municipal source, that water can only be used within the place of use and for the character of use as authorized by the water right. If the planned RF-‐38 water use is not authorized under a water right, then it would be illegal. Therefore, the Decision Memo must identify the water right under which the project water will be diverted, and the quantity and rate of water diversion needed for the planned use. If the proposed RF-‐38 project water use is not authorized under an identified water right, then a water right will need to be obtained from the State of Oregon before any use of water can begin on the RF-‐38 project. The Water Resourced Department and the Curry County Watermaster should be consulted to determine how an Oregon water right can be obtained to legally allow water use for the RF-‐38 project. We are not demanding that the Forest Service enforce water law. We are merely requesting that the Forest Service verify that water is being obtained with proper authorization and a specific water right or right(s). We also insist that the Forest Service visually verify the source of water when it is actually being withdrawn into vehicles for transport. 10 Forest Service CuMo Project file access http://www.fs.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsinternet/%21ut/p/c5/04_SB8K8xLLM9MSSzPy8xBz9CP0os3gDfxMDT8MwRydLA1cj72BTUwMTAwgAykeaxRtBeY4WBv4eHmF-‐YT4GMHkidBvgAI6EdIeDXIvfdrAJuM3388jPTdUvyA2NMMgyUQQAyrgQmg%21%21/dl3/d3/L2dJQSEvUUt3QS9ZQnZ3LzZfS000MjZOMDcxT1RVODBJN0o2MTJQRDMwODQ%21/?project=21302

of 21

11. The unmaintained roads proposed for drilling access are unauthorized/unclassified roads. Unauthorized roads would become “temporary roads” during the permit period for drilling. Temporary road remediation must be part of Reclamation Plan(e.g. require Red Flat Nickel to put temporary roads into “storage” and block public motorized access).

An “unauthorized road or trail” is defined in Forest Service Manual (FSM) 7705 as a road or trail that is not a forest road or trail or a temporary road or trail and that is not included in a forest transportation atlas (36 CFR212.1). For the purpose of this project, the Forest Service must identify the location and number of miles of unauthorized/unclassified roads that would be used. Plan of Operations and the PDM must recognize that drill holes would be accessed by currently “unauthorized roads”. The anticipated Forest Service DM and subsequent permit would authorize use of these unauthorized/unclassified roads as “temporary roads” during the life of the permit. When describing current conditions these roads are considered “unauthorized,” because no permit authorizing their temporary use is in place. This is important because the Forest Service would be expected to have these temporary roads reclaimed with appropriate drainage, physical barriers, and planting. Use of temporary roads for mining activities means they need to be part of reclamation. We are particularly concerned about the need to identify reclamation of anticipated temporary road that accesses RFA7 within Red Flat Botanical Area (Photo 6). We recommend that temporary roads used to access drill holes be put into storage. This means that natural drainage would be restored to prevent future erosion of the road surface. Public motorized access would be blocked (e.g. no public motorized access to the temporary road being brushed out). Public motorized use subsequent to mining use is inconsistent with Red Flat Botanical Area and Hunter Bog ACEC. Asbestos dust from these mining roads is hazardous to humans. 12. Motorized use and water sources must be restricted to prevent spread Port Orford cedar root disease (Phtopthora lateralis) (PL)

a. Mitigation 6a. We support mitigation 6a (p.7) which schedules “test drilling to occur during the dry season (generally June 1-‐Sept 30). We recommend that there be no exceptions to the dry season requirement when operating on unauthorized/unclassified roads that have an inherent high risk for the spread of Port Orford cedar root disease. b. Drop drill site RFA 10 We recommend that drill site RFA 10 be dropped. Motorized access to this site would require motorized use of road surfaces that remain saturated all year due to perennial springs. These springs nourish roadside Darlingtonia plants and uninfected Port Orford cedar groves (Photos 4,5). Allowing motorized access to drill site RFA 10 would have high risk for spreading Port Orford cedar root disease regardless of seasonal closures. The POC Risk Key assessment (P.1) erroneously concludes a “minimal risk as test hole sites are located in existing road beds”. The

of 21

Forest Service analysis failed to discern differences in PL risk between maintained logging roads such as 1703 and saturated unauthorized/unclassified road that accesses RFA 10. c. Drop drill site RFA 1 Port Orford cedar at drill site RFA 001 appears to be infected (POC Assessment p. 1) and could contaminate equipment. At a minimum this site would be drilled last in compliance with unit scheduling: Conduct drilling work in uninfested areas prior to working in areas infested with PL (PDM:7;POC Assessment p. 3). d. Stipulate access to drill holes RFA 2-‐9 is via Road 3680. Assuming drill hole RFA 10 is dropped, we suggest prohibiting motorized access to drill holes 2-‐9 from Road 1703. Unclassified road surfaces southeast of drill hole RFA 9 are saturated due to unauthorized road causing a perennial spring to be diverted down the road surface (Photo 5). The road surface has become a “wetland” and supports Darlingtonia plants. Motorized access through this spring/wetland must be prohibited. Similar wet road surfaces are present immediately east of proposed drill hole RFA 10.

e. Verify Water Source and verify Clorox treatment. Provide for Forest Service verification that “[o]nly water of domestic drinking quality would be used and brought from an off-‐site municipal source.” The off-‐site municipal source needs to be named and use verified by Forest Service. Water potentially infested with PL must not be used or verified to be Clorox treated as stated in PDM:7.

12. Assure public safety by closing public motorized access to unauthorized/unclassified roads during drilling and reclamation. Forest Service permit would provide for mining use on unauthorized/unclassified roads as “temporary roads”.

Prohibit public motorized access on currently unauthorized/unclassified roads during drilling and reclamation activities to assure public safety and reduce risk of POC disease spread. Unauthorized/unclassified roads need to be signed and public access prohibited at both ends while drilling and reclamation is in progress. Recreational all terrain vehicles and 4 wheel drive trucks traveling on unauthorized/unclassified roads would cause unnecessary conflict with drill hole sites located within roadway. Conflicts between miners and off road vehicle users has resulted in the shooting of one man on Tennessee Mt near Kerby. Administrative motorized closures are needed for unclassified roads while drilling and reclamation is occurring. 13. Do not authorize drilling at Red Flat until Red Flat Nickel Corporation agrees that there

will be no industrial mining camps or equipment staging in ecologically sensitive or botanically important areas.

Prohibit industrial mining equipment staging or support facilities (e.g. mining camp) at Flycatcher Spring or any other ecologically sensitive sites within Riparian Reserves (e.g., BLM Hunter Bog ACEC).

of 21

14. We request a Forest Service drill hole site inspection We request the Forest Service contact us to arrange a full day field trip for site inspections of the drill sites. We are particularly interested in drill sites on the unclassified road through Red Flat Botanical Area and proposed motorized access to drill hole RFA 10. Our purpose for the requested site inspection is to obtain agreement on site conditions and to develop the best mitigations to minimize ecological damage. 15. Do not authorize drilling at Red Flat until the required Reclamation Plan is produced for

public review. The PDM failed to include a “Reclamation Plan” as required by law that would provide for the establishment of shrubs and trees at areas disturbed by mining. Merely summarizing protection measures from Plan of Operations (p.6) and identifying further mitigations (p.7) is no substitute for required “Reclamation Plan”.

a. The species of trees and shrubs currently growing at proposed drill holes need to be reestablished post drilling (Photo 6). Cost effective methods to establish both shrubs and trees on disturbed lands must be described in the reclamation plan. The PDM mitigation to merely seed the disturbed areas with grass/forb mixtures is not likely to be effective and does not reclaim the area to former plant diversity. Since shrubs and small trees will be destroyed by creating drill holes and destroyed by accessing drill holes, shrubs and small trees need to be re-‐established post-‐drilling.

b. The Reclamation Plan needs to stipulate that the 1200 ft of unclassified road that requires clearing will be blocked from public motorized access with cut vegetation and other barriers.

c. The use of unauthorized/unclassified roads will be a permitted as “temporary roads”. Reclamation of these temporary roads to “storage’ status would be appropriate.

of 21

Map 1. Red Flat Botanical Area and adjacent BLM Hunter Creek Bog ACEC. At least 3 drill holes are within or immediately adjacent the Botanical Area. Botany Evaluation p. 3.

of 21

Photo 1. All-‐terrain vehicle users regularly operate on roads where nickel drilling is proposed. Exposure of toxic asbestos dust to humans has likely increased due to past unauthorized road construction and test pit excavations. Soil sampling is needed to determine presence of asbestos on native surface roads and experts from EPA must be consulted about mitigations to minimize adverse impacts to recreationists using this area during and after drilling. Photo by R. Nawa on August 10, 2013. Road 1703 at Fly Catcher Spring.

of 21

Photo 2. Typical drill site along unauthorized miner created (unclassified) road from 1950s. Road surface is lateritic soil that may contain asbestos dust. Photo by R. Nawa on August 10, 2013.

Photo 3. Typical proposed drill site along Forest Service maintained logging road 1703. Photo by R. Nawa on August 10, 2013.

of 21

Photo 4 (left)and Photo 5 (below). Motorized access to drill location RFA 010 (not shown) is high risk for POC disease spread due to wet road conditions from spring/seeps and abundant POC along access route. “Unclassified road” is unauthorized miner created route with no drainage structure sand below grade construction. Photos by R. Nawa on August 10, 2013.

of 21

Photo 6. Red Flat Nickel Corporation will destroy shrubs and small trees along 1200 ft of unclassified road to access drill holes RF7 and RF 8. Clearing vegetation from the abandoned road bed will promote an increase of post-‐mining motorized use. Unauthorized or unclassified roads would be permitted as “temporary” roads. Reclamation plan must treat temporary roads to promote vegetation growth and discourage future unpermitted motorized use. Photo by R. Nawa on August 10, 2013. Sincerely,

Richard K. Nawa Staff Ecologist Klamath Siskiyou Wildlands Center PO Box 654 Selma, OR 97538

[email protected]

of 21

Cameron La Follette Land Use Director Oregon Coast Alliance P.O. Box 857 Astoria, OR 97103 [email protected] Dave Willis, Chair Soda Mountain Wilderness Council P.O. Box 512 Ashland, OR 97520 [email protected] Doug Heiken Oregon Wild PO Box 11648 Eugene OR 97440 [email protected] Gary Graham Hughes Executive Director, Environmental Protection Information Center 145 G St., Suite A Arcata, CA 95521 [email protected] Copies to: Senator Ron Wyden, Senator Jeff Merkley, Congressman Peter DeFazio

Attachments as PDF’s (disc snail mailed separately)

1.Smith River NRA Motorized Travel Management Proposed Action Summary 2.Red Flat Nickel Project. Pacific Nickel Corporation. 3. M.P. Foose. Undated. Nickel-‐minerology and chemical composition of some nickel-‐bearing laterites in Southern Oregon and Northern California. 4. St Peter Port Limited Annual Report for 2013 5. Curry County Reporter news article: “Red Flat Nickel Mine Meeting is Monday” 6. Plan of Operations for Mining Activities on National Forest System Lands for Red Flat Confirmation Drilling Program dated November 8, 2012. 7. Notice of Intent Red Flat Drill Test dated October 26, 2012 8. Sound levels pdf 9. Red Flat Corp. Business Registration

December%10,2013% TinaLanier,%DistrictRanger%...

Documents

Transcript of December%10,2013% TinaLanier,%DistrictRanger%...