Summary of Public Comment: Superior NF Federal...

Microsoft Word - Draft Public Concern Summary Prospecting Permits EIS.docxSummary of Public Comment: Superior NF Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits DEIS 11/17/2011
Preliminary Draft 1
Summary of Public Comment: Superior NF Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits DEIS
This document contains a summary of public comment on the Superior NF Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Draft EIS. It includes Public Concern statements that summarize an issue brought up by the public, and quotes from comments that identify this issue.
This document is not a part of the Final EIS. It is a draft copy posted on the Superior NF website in response to a request to review public comment on the project. The final document displaying comments and Forest Service responses will be available when the Final EIS is made available.
Summary of Public Comment: Superior NF Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits DEIS 11/17/2011
2 Preliminary Draft
Subject: Special Areas - BWCAW Category: 2500
Public Concern 93 The Forest Service should consider that mineral exploration activities in and adjacent to the BWCAW are inappropriate and should not be allowed because:
A) It will degrade the wilderness character and destroy solitude as required by the Wilderness Act;
B) It would affect tourism; C) Temporary road will increase the potential for illegal motorized intrusion; D) It is vulnerable to run-off problems; E) It is inconsistent with Forest Service policy, goals, and mandates; and F) Cumulative effects for all past, present, and foreseeable activities for mining,
exploration activities, and large land altering projects (land exchanges, timber sales, etc.) on federal, state, and privately owned lands have not been considered.
Sample Public Comment(s) for PC 93:
Subconcern # A
I am not against mining - but I do not think this location (far too close to the BWCAW) is right for this type of mining. The BWCAW represents a unique paddle-only roadless area too special to potentially put in harm’s way. (Ltr# 10, Cmt# 2)
Subconcern # A
I am writing to comment on the exploratory mining DEIS for the area south of the BWCA near MN Highway 1. I was volunteering cleaning campsites (I do this every spring on behalf of the Friends of the Boundary Waters and Northeastern Minnesotans for Wilderness for the Forest Service) from the evening of May 6 through the morning of May 8. This year I went in at Entry Point #32 on the South Kawishiwi River and maintained sites on the South Kawishiwi, Eskwagama Lake, Clear Lake, and Bruin Lake. When I drove along Spruce Road to the put-in, I noticed a drill site just off the road fairly close to Highway 1 where a vehicle was parked. When I drove out on Sunday, a different vehicle was parked there. The weather was relatively calm Saturday and Sunday. When I was south of campsite #6 on the South Kawishiwi River (including when I was on Bruin Lake) I could clearly hear the steady drone of what I presumed to be drilling equipment coming from the southwest. This would be the direction of the previously mentioned drill site. It would have been coming from about 5 miles away. I found the noise very disturbing in the wilderness. This was a single drilling operation, and from the DEIS I gather 1920 exploratory sites are planned over 20 years. My ears are not any better than average, so I'm sure I wouldn't be the only one bothered by this activity, especially when it is multiplied by many sites being explored simultaneously. The thought of hearing this kind of noise going on in the wilderness (especially at night) gives one pause, and I think the Forest Service should reconsider its analysis in the DEIS when it comes to noise pollution. If I had not been on a mission cleaning campsites this weekend I would have moved out of the area and stayed out. Noise like this degrades the character of the wilderness and destroys the solitude I seek in the BWCA. (Ltr# 11, Cmt# 1)
Subconcern # A
I am very concerned about the proposal to develop sulfide mining near BWCAW. I know jobs and commerce are important for the immediate future but so are natural resources like the Boundary Waters. Please leave us something for the next generation! I have read through the proposal and I am not convinced that this project can be developed without impacting the natural park in that area. (Ltr# 15, Cmt# 1)
Subconcern # A
I've been canoeing and camping in what is now the BWCAW since the early 1950s, when I went with my parents. They had gone years before with my grandparents, and I always loved that we were able to experience the lake country essentially unchanged since they were there. The lack of civilization noise is one thing special about the
Preliminary Draft 3
wilderness area - it's a no fly zone. It should also remain a no-heavy equipment noise zone. Please preserve this area as close to wilderness as possible. (Ltr# 19, Cmt# 1)
Subconcern # A
I have taken canoe camping trips to the BWCAW annually since 1966. It is always a magical experience. Just being there is like being with a master psychologist. It always clears the mind just to be in the presence of such a place! It is a unique place. . .nothing else like it. . .drinkable water from the lakes and streams. . .no mechanized noise, just the sounds of nature!! My concern with the proposed project is that there will be infringement upon those qualities that make the BWCAW so special. We cannot allow short term financial gain to ruin this area for future generations that will need this master psychologist even more than I/we do!! (Ltr# 27, Cmt# 1)
Subconcern # A
The proposal is a step-in-the-door for dangerous sulfide mining. Mineral exploration and development activities are not appropriate activities for this area due to the proximity with BWCAW which has a focus of ecological preservation and recreation. (Ltr# 29, Cmt# 1)
Subconcern # A
Hardrock fails to protect the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (“BWCAW”). My special concern is the BWCAW. USFS is required by the Wilderness Act to provide “outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined recreation.” This requirement was upheld by the court in the 2007 S. Fowl Snowmobile Trail case, and applied to agency actions outside the BWCAW as they have impacts within the BWCAW. (Ltr# 32, Cmt# 2)
Subconcern # A
We do a poor job of mining our trash and garbage for the valuables contained therein. Stories about recycling often reveal that some of those efforts are wasted by landfilling. What would make anyone think that we should mine for metals in areas near the BWCAW? Keep the mining companies far away from our wilderness areas. (Ltr# 33, Cmt#
1)
Subconcern # A
The proposed plan for more copper-nickel mining exploration at the edge of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness is a terrible idea. I urge you to do everything in your power to kick it to the curb. The BWCAW is one of our state's (and nation's) last pristine wild areas. The thought of allowing something that even has a remote possibility of harming it and/or it's wild inhabitants is not good stewardship. Water pollution/air pollution/noise pollution...it doesn't get much worse than that. I know it's just "exploration" at this point, but there would be no reason to "explore" if the ultimate goal wasn't to move forward with mining. Please do your part to keep this treasured area safe. (Ltr# 47, Cmt# 1)
Subconcern # A
The proposal to mine near the Boundary Waters appears reckless and dangerous. Today's world desperately needs a place of clean water, beautiful scenery and peaceful quiet. Please, please do not desecrate this beautiful area of wildlife, one of the few remaining in this country. (Ltr# 50, Cmt# 1)
Subconcern # A
Only in the few places like BWCA can we find perspective on life and explore values lying deeper than those motivating this rapacious commercial/industrial and increasingly inhumane world. Our very soul depends on drawing a line here. The Forest Service unquestionably has the authority to reject this project and protect the incomparable values of the BWCA. There are plenty of reasons to do so that will more than satisfy any legal requirements enforceable by a reviewing Court. (Ltr# 58, Cmt# 1)
Subconcern # A
This is not the Appropriate Place. I've been known to say that "God isn't making anymore wilderness." Why on earth are we trying to do mineral exploration, which could of course lead to mineral development, right next door to the BWCAW. We run the risk of polluting waters that would be very difficult to reclaim, and for which many people rely on for recreation, including many tourism dollars for State businesses. In addition, mineral exploration and development in this area will create noise from drilling and large equipment that will be heard in the Wilderness. This is not what wilderness users expect when visiting the BWCAW, and the Forest Service should protect this important resource. (Ltr# 69, Cmt# 1)
Subconcern # A
4 Preliminary Draft
Most significant of all is for us to appreciate the value of a scarce ecosystem. Wilderness areas are continually decreasing in size and quality throughout the world, no less here than in the “developing” world. In an increasingly degraded and crowded world, must we not preserve the inherent value of these scarce environments, both for their own sake and for the health of the planet? Not only do they provide innumerable “ecosystem services” to us (and other species), but they provide unexcelled recreation and enjoyment for many and other non-quantifiable benefits. The BWCAW and its surrounding forests are invaluable to our planet, but the BWCAW cannot survive as an isolated “island” amidst ceaseless exploration and exploitation. Its loss will accrue to us all; as we will have sacrificed an irreplaceable resource for short-term economic “gain” of others. (Ltr# 70, Cmt# 4)
Subconcern # A
It would truly be a shame to see something as great as the BWCAW ruined by short-term mining prospects. The true goal of the national park system should be maintained. I wanted to quickly voice my opinion, as someone who uses this wonderful park, in opposition of the current drilling prospects. Please keep the following in mind in an effort to weigh any potential economic gains that may come from such drilling. In 1969 the IUCN (International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources) declared a national park to be a relatively large area with particular defining characteristics.[4] A national park was deemed to be a place with one or several ecosystems not materially altered by human exploitation and occupation, where plant and animal species, geomorphological sites and habitats are of special scientific, educative and recreative interest or which contain a natural landscape of great beauty, the highest competent authority of the country has taken steps to prevent or eliminate as soon as possible exploitation or occupation in the whole area and to enforce effectively the respect of ecological, geomorphological or aesthetic features which have led to its establishment, visitors are allowed to enter, under special conditions, for inspirational, educative, cultural and recreative purposes. (Ltr# 83, Cmt# 1)
Subconcern # A
it's not appropriate to conduct mining exploration within a few miles of designated wilderness. This activity has the potential to cause serious acid and dissolved metal water pollution. --noise intrusion into the BWCAW is acknowledged and is counter to wilderness standards. It is destructive to the experience of many of the 250000 annual visitors. (Ltr# 85, Cmt# 1)
Subconcern # A
It is crucial to keep the BWCAW a wild and pristine place. Building roads and allowing mineral exploration diminishes the wilderness, and peoples' enjoyment of it. This is in direct violation of the Wilderness Act. We need further information regarding limits on density per acre of drilling, where will construction of roads, drill pads, and landings be. What about water withdrawals - and impacts to the Wilderness from this activity? Are there seasonal limits and sound level limits in proximity to the BWCAW? (Ltr# 94, Cmt# 8)
Subconcern # A
The Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permits Project fails to protect the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (BWCAW). The BWCAW is identified by the Forest Plan as “Semi-primitive Non-motorized Wilderness.” The USFS is required by the 1964 Wilderness Act to provide “outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined recreation.” This requirement was upheld by the court in the 2007 S. Fowl Snowmobile Trail case, and applied to agency actions outside the BWCAW as they have impacts within the BWCAW. The Hardrock Project fails to address noise impacts adequately, especially in the BWCAW. Substantial noise impact from sources outside the BWCAW, but under the authority of a federal agency, is impermissible under the Wilderness Act. In S. Fowl, the Court noted that, “agency activity that results in noise that is louder, more constant, more frequent, or of a different quality is more likely to degrade the wilderness character from its present condition and thus violate…” (The Wilderness Act).Each winter brings more and more visitors to the BWCA that come to enjoy the amazing thrill of winter camping, along with dog sledding, snowshoeing, and skiing. This is true also of year round residents, like us, who enjoy these Wilderness activities. What then of the constant drilling noise we will be subjected to? Our expectations and the expectations of the area visitors are one of total solitude and quiet in a primitive area. Where is the “outstanding opportunity for solitude”?Noise analysis in Hardrock is deficient in part because instead of promoting “outstanding opportunities,” which would address worst case scenarios especially, Hardrock instead relies on generalizations, primarily based on distance from the sound source. In order to evaluate the potential impact that Hardrock could have on any given visitor's wilderness experience, USFS should consider the loudest- case scenario. This would assist in an assessment of the maximum impact noise would have on the BWCAW from each of the proposed actions. A worst-case analysis is compelled by the Wilderness Act's emphasis on outstanding opportunities for solitude.The DEIS provides no qualitative or quantitative assessment which differentiates between the natural soundscape and man-made sounds. Natural sounds, regardless of their decibel level, are acceptable and
Preliminary Draft 5
welcome features of the wilderness; even low-level man-made sounds can degrade wilderness character. By the logic of the Wilderness Act, ambient level human sounds (DEIS, p.67) are noise that need to be defined as such. The Forest Service should not permit mineral exploration if it results in new auditory noise pollution in the Wilderness with the potential for a full-scale mine with ever greater noise pollution looming. Exploratory drilling should be prohibited now. (Ltr# 97, Cmt# 27)
Subconcern # A
The DEIS fails to adequately protect the BWCAW from impacts of exploration and mining. (Ltr# 98, Cmt# 2)
Subconcern # A
Location – This, the Boundary Waters Wilderness, is the largest, most desirable wilderness area in our country, visited by thousands of U.S. citizens as well as international visitors each year. They come here to experience creation at its best: Clear, refreshing air to breathe. Skies, viewing countless stars and Northern Lights. Clear, cool waters to drink and be refreshed. Noise, absent – wonderful, acceptable silence. Natural local trees and fauna. Wildlife, living and seen in their natural environment. Fish, the sport of fishing and fish safely eaten. Recreation – The above mentioned gifts are available to all who come to this area annually or for the first time “to get away from it all” and enjoy an unforgettable vacation. Our family, parents, children and now grandchildren have been campers and canoeists here since 1951. In early 1980’s we built a cabin in the north woods to be closer to the land and experiences we love. Environmental impacts if the above not protected: Polluted air. Skies obstructed by cranes and other machinery. Water (ground) tainted orange by copper leaching. Water (well) requiring testing annually for unwanted minerals. Noise –Drilling continually 24 hours a day. Destruction of trees and forests to make new roads. Absence of wildlife due to noise and destruction of habitat. Fishing –deleted because of polluted waters. (Ltr# 102,
Cmt# 1)
Subconcern # A
I love the BWCAW and visit at least once a year with my family. I have introduced many others from all over the state of MN and from out of state to the BWCAW. I always support local businesses - hotels, outfitters, restaurants - when I visit. It is a very special, unique place and I have serious problems with sulfide mining near by. I have serious problems with the EIS. I have serious problems with the ways that mining companies in MN have behaved in the past and do not trust them to do what is right in the future. I have been unhappy with how opportunities for public input on this issue have been handled. Do not ruin such an important area for recreation, nature, wildlife. Do not taint it with noise and other pollution. (Ltr# 105, Cmt# 1)
Subconcern # A
Some of the proposed exploration borders the BWCAW. Since these metals would not be used for strategic national interests—in fact the metals would be exported to our international competitors—any exploration adjacent to the BWCAW (Ltr# 111, Cmt# 21)
Subconcern # A
Not the Appropriate Place - The Forest Service should select Alternative 1 – the No Action Alternative – for this project. Mineral exploration will lead to mineral development – which has the real risk of polluting waters that people rely on for recreation – and are waters that flow into the Wilderness. Mineral exploration and development in this area will create noise from drilling and large equipment that will be heard in the Wilderness. This is not what wilderness users expect when visiting the BWCAW, and the Forest Service should protect this important resource. The Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness is the nation’s most popular wilderness area, with over 250,000 visitors coming from all over the nation and world. Establishing a mining district in the heart of this recreation area is not a wise decision. (Ltr# 116, Cmt# 1)
Subconcern # A
It is crucial to keep the BWCAW a wild and pristine place. Building roads and allowing mineral exploration diminishes the wilderness, and peoples' enjoyment of it. (Ltr# 117, Cmt# 3)
Subconcern # A
Now is the time to step up and save our million acre wilderness the pride and joy BWCA. There is no other place like it on the planet. Please keep it that way. (Ltr# 121, Cmt# 6)
Subconcern # A
I believe it is ok to do prospecting for minerals on the SNF. It just should not be done in historical site/Indian mounds or the BWCA. (Ltr# 184, Cmt# 1)
6 Preliminary Draft
Subconcern # A
I am extremely opposed to issuing permits to allow hardrock mining companies from doing exploratory drilling or any permanent drilling in the Superior National Forest for the following reasons: It is crucial to keep the Boundary Waters Wilderness Area a wild and pristine place. Building roads and allowing mineral exploration diminishes the wilderness and everyone’s enjoyment of it. (Ltr# 244, Cmt# 2)
Subconcern # A
It is crucial to keep the BWCAW a wild and pristine place. Building roads and allowing mineral exploration diminishes the wilderness, and peoples' enjoyment of it. (Ltr# 246, Cmt# 3)
Subconcern # A
The Superior National Forest and BWCA are national treasures. There are very few places left in the lower 48 that offer the type of habitat, beauty, and ecology that the Superior National Forest offers. There is no place in the lower 48 that offers what the BWCA does. Surely, these places are worthy of comprehensive protection. I believe it to be in the long term financial interest of the area to preserve these places. These areas are forever profitable as tourist draws. As a source of minerals they are "profitable" one time only. Finally, it is important to note that the BWCA is exceedingly unique and exceedingly vulnerable. People come to the BWCA from around the county to find a true wilderness experience. This true wilderness experience is becoming too rare. It only takes the whirl of one helicopter in the distance, or one polluted stream, to take away that amazing final element that makes for a true wilderness experience. I feel it very important that we preserve such places and experiences for our citizens. It is part of what we owe the future and part of our national history as well. (Ltr# 281, Cmt# 1)
Subconcern # A
The BWCAW experience is supposed to be removed from the sound, sights, and effects of industry. Mining in the Superior National Forest will violate this peaceful experience. Please do not let this permit be approved. (Ltr# 285,
Cmt# 1)
Subconcern # A
Mining exploration and operations will make wide areas unable to meet the standards set by the Forest Plan for management areas such as non-motorized, semi-primitive, wild and scenic river candidates, and the Boundary Waters. None of these areas should be within earshot of mining operations, as this noise would compromise their character. (Ltr# 287, Cmt# 2)
Subconcern # AB
Any potential risks of noise, water, air, and non-native-plant (spread through temporary and permanent access roads) pollution becomes magnified by proximity to the BWCAW as the effect of the pollution is greater, due to the contrast to the relatively pristine environment in the BWCAW. Also, mining right outside of the BWCAW harms the public perception of the area with possible impact to the tourist trade. Any pollution would have lasting impact beyond the spot polluted and the mere presence of it has negative impact just from it's existence. Proximity to the BWCAW should always be a weighted factor in permit analysis in the future. (Ltr# 9, Cmt# 1)
Subconcern # AB
How will drilling noise and mining operations affect the integrity of the BWCAW? I guess that also goes for all the other water/fish/wildlife/ecosystem aspects that mostly likely will be negatively impacted to some degree by sulfide mining in that area should it occur. The BWCAW is a fragile, unique, legally protected gem of NE MN. It also supports numerous businesses and brings major tourism dollars to the region. Sulfide mining could have a very detrimental impact on that resource, which would adversely affect many businesses and tourism $$. (Ltr# 16, Cmt#
4)
Subconcern # AB
The Boundary Waters are a unique and precious area. I have spent the summer there every year since I was born, 19 years ago. I cannot imagine life without it. Furthermore, in my years there I have become aware of just how rich and important the ecosystem(s) there are. I cannot believe that this mining operation can outweigh the value of the wilderness both to the many sensitive species that live there, but also to the millions of people who either live in or come to visit the boundary waters each year. Any EIS's that act as though mining would not have a huge, wide- reaching and damaging impact cannot be trusted--I can tell from personal observation. Also, if all you care about is the financial component, consider the appalling visual/physical damage this mining would have on the land, and how that would impact tourism over the years--I have spent a good deal of time by Ely, MN a big tourist town and know how much of the economy is fed by tourists. I think the net loss of tourism would cause a bigger financial
Preliminary Draft 7
impact than not creating a not-yet-"constructed" mine. Please, we need to prevent the destruction of the BWCAW! (Ltr# 46, Cmt# 1)
Subconcern # AB
The Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness is the nation’s most popular wilderness area, with over 250,000 visitors coming from all over the nation and world. Establishing a mining district in the heart of this recreation area is not a wise decision. Although mining may have a positive impact on the Northern MN economy, it will be short term; protecting the wilderness for recreation purposes will have a long term impact on the economy for future generations. A wilderness area, if protected, can bring people and money into an area for hundreds of years. Mining is short term and can pollute the wilderness area leaving nothing for the future generations. We owe it to the future generations to protect the BWCAW; mining in close proximity to this area will not only ruin the serenity of the wilderness for current users, but will also hurt the potential use for the future generations. (Ltr# 80, Cmt# 1)
Subconcern # AB
This is not the appropriate place for drilling. The Forest Service should not approve exploration in the area identified by the 33 prospecting permits. They are simply too close to the Boundary Waters Canoe Area (BWCAW). Where is the common sense in the fact that over 2000 exploratory holes have already been drilled and the mining companies want to keep drilling even more? The minerals are there…everyone knows that. In our opinion, we believe that the mining executives want to continue drilling as a marketing ploy, both in the regional newspapers and on their websites, so that their investors do not sell off their stocks. Showing them that progress with more exploratory drilling is being made raises the “hope” for their investors that full fledged mining operations will surely follow. However, this may be fine for the investors in mining endeavors. But, is more exploratory drilling, with the obvious goal of establishing full scale sulfide ore metal mines in the water-rich environment of this area, in the public’s best interest? The answer to us is an obvious no. This area is a natural recreational area. Continued exploratory drilling will lead to mineral development, which has the very real risk of polluting the very waters that our business and others in the business of tourism and recreation depend upon, and these are the same waters that flow into the Wilderness of the Boundary Waters. Our business alone generates roughly 4,000 visitors to Birch Lake and the Boundary Waters Canoe Area each year. Combine that with all the other tourism and recreational businesses in the area, including the Forest Service maintained and operated South Kawishiwi and Birch Lake Recreational Campgrounds, and the numbers of people from all over the world that comes to this “jewel” of Minnesota to recreate is staggering. We have had to buffer countless questions related to the one drill rig on Birch Lake a few summers back, especially since the drill rig proudly brandished a pirate’s flag. Not one of our guests or casual visitor to the lake thought that it was in the public’s best interest to allow drilling in such an irreplaceable Wilderness Area. What then of the 40 some water access drill sites, with the potential to destroy countless acres of federal wilderness shoreline along scenic Birch Lake with over 90% of it being federal shoreline that belongs to all the public. If this occurs the shoreline will never be rehabilitated. Why? Built into the Prospecting Permits Project is a proposed 20 year period of drilling with a 10 year period to look back at the drill holes. Thus, for the next 30 years anyone who recreates or lives in the area will attempt to do so with an albatross hanging over their collective heads…the advent of more prospecting drilling. Hundreds of questions will be queried should this occur. In our Registration Office dozens of informational flyers related to sulfide mining are available to the guests and visitors that frequent River Point Resort & Outfitting Co. Each person, to a one, shares total disbelief that there is a real prospect that this most pristine Wilderness Area could be adversely affected by the onset of increased exploratory drilling with the real danger of a full fledged sulfide mine, whether underground or open-pit, in operation in the near future. To a one, they consider it a travesty on one of the country’s most pristine and natural Wilderness Places. A Wilderness Area that is highly valued for its natural scenic surroundings, its clean water, and quiet, peaceful setting will have long- lasting changes to it should continued and additional exploratory mineral drilling be permitted. Creating an exploratory mining district in a lakes district is wrong…dead wrong. These are not appropriate activities for this area. The Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness and the Kawishiwi watershed is the nation’s most popular wilderness area with over 250,000 visitors from all over this nation and the world. It is not in the best interest of the public to allow further exploratory drilling. The US Forest Service should be protecting this important natural resource, as it is not the appropriate place for continued exploratory drilling. (Ltr# 97, Cmt# 20)
Subconcern # C
8 Preliminary Draft
The greater the mileage of temporary roads near the wilderness, the greater the degree to which there may be the potential for illegal motorized intrusion.” (Project, p. 105). (Ltr# 12, Cmt# 2)
Subconcern # D
Please don't approve the mining exploration requests adjacent to the Boundary Waters canoe area. That entire region is so vulnerable to run-off problems. The toxins associated with a mining project could devastate that economic and environmental region. Approval of the exploration begs approval of a mining plan and to my knowledge no mining company has ever been able to limit environmental damage to the finite and specific areas of their "dig". Mining companies do not have a good citizenship track record. Minnesota has a treasure in the BWCA and valuable clean water resource in Lake Superior, the natural run-off dumping basin. Please think forward and safe guard the region for future generations. (Ltr# 20, Cmt# 1)
Subconcern # E
Finally, the Forest Service should ensure that the Boundary Waters is protected from any and all impacts from prospecting activity. The Forest Service should consider restricting not only the time and manner in which prospecting takes place, but also denying permits in locations in which prospecting is inconsistent with Forest Service policy goals and statutory mandates. (Ltr# 65, Cmt# 19)
Subconcern # F
Some of the permit applications are for tracts of land that abut the BWCAW, and many others are for tracts in the watershed leading directly into the BWCAW. A hard look should be taken at the environmental consequences of exploratory drilling so close to the BWCAW. The Forest Service, public officials, and the general public should be able to consider a full picture of the environmental consequences of the cumulative effects of exploratory drilling and foreseeable mining on the BWCAW before decisions on these permit applications are made or further actions are taken. By failing to produce this full picture, the DEIS is inadequate. (Ltr# 71, Cmt# 8)
Preliminary Draft 9
Subject: Climate Change Category: 500
Public Concern 10 The Forest Service should address additional stresses to the environment, plants, and wildlife based on climate change, which is exacerbated by carbon emissions released during exploration and mining operations, and the destruction of wetlands. Contingency plans should be created to prevent exploration in specific areas or during seasons of erratic weather patterns.
This document does not address additional stresses to the environment, to plants, and to wildlife based upon climate change, which is exacerbated by carbon emissions released during exploration and mining operations, and the destruction of wetlands. Nor does it address increasingly erratic weather patterns involving flooding, drought, and temperature extremes. For example, during this comment period, various states have been deluged by flooding, or ravaged by tornadoes or wild fires. What contingency plans have been created to prevent exploration in specific areas or at times/seasons of environmental stress? (Ltr# 52, Cmt# 15)
Subject: Soils Category: 2410
Public Concern 92 The Forest Service should consider the following regarding soils:
A) Soils do not recover within a few years from mineral exploration activities (see photos in comment letter #12);
B) The Forest Service lacks the authority to impose restrictions to such; C) The information in the Ecological Land Type Mapping-Investigation and
Findings report; D) The Forest Plan sufficiently addresses any necessary soil restrictions any
additional restrictions will result in conflict with the Forest Plan and other legal guidance;
E) Assess the stipulations on a case-by-case basis based on the site characteristics, changing weather conditions, land conditions, overlapping Ecological Land Types, and the imprecision in the Ecological Land Types mapping;
F) Ecological Land Type stipulations are too restrictive and would restrict and/or prohibit exploration activities on 79 percent of the forest and therefore, should be removed;
G) Ecological Land Types were not designed to address mineral exploration activities, they are broad designations that do not accurately represent on the ground conditions, and they are not necessary in light of past effects to soil from exploration activities; and
H) Explain the purpose for the Ecological Land Type restrictions and how they would affect noise.
Subconcern # A
Picture 7 shows a typical drill site off of FR 1900. I visited a site just off MN Hwy 1, ¼ mile from the South Kawishiwi River, nearly four years ago, shortly after drilling had occurred. See Picture A, which I previously submitted in 2007. Pictures 1 and 2 show a photo of the same site taken a few weeks ago. The site is more degraded and worthless than it was four years ago. This is contrary to claims made: “Soils on the Superior National Forest have typically recovered from management activities within a few years. Vegetation is usually re-established within
10 Preliminary Draft
the first growing season after ground disturbing activities and becomes more prevalent after a few freeze-thaw cycles have restored any soil functions that may have been altered by the effects of the equipment operations”. (Project, p. 130) and “More recent advancements in equipment and improved project mitigation measures have resulted in substantial reductions in the impacts associated with mechanical activities.” (Ltr# 12, Cmt# 3)
Subconcern # BC
The USFS’S soils analysis and stipulations relating to soils are flawed. As with its attempts to impose other stipulations and restrictions as part of this programmatic EIS, the USFS lacks the authority to impose any restrictions or stipulations relating to soils. With that said, MiningMinnesota submits as Exhibit 5 to its Comments the Ecological Land Type Mapping – Investigation and Findings (“ELT Report”), authored by Kelly Henry and Bryan Tolcser of Short Elliott Hendrickson, Inc. Rather than repeating the details of ELT Report, which are incorporated herein by reference, MiningMinnesota submits the following comments relating to the proposed soil stipulations and summarizes below a few key points from the ELT Report, including comment regarding the flawed Stipulations relating to Ecological Land Types that are contained within the DEIS. (Ltr# 100, Cmt# 44)
Subconcern # BFG
The Forest Service has failed to consider reasonable alternatives and has instead prepared a DEIS replete with uninformed, unnecessary and excessive restrictions on prospecting and exploration activities on the SNF. To resolve these issues in the DEIS, the Forest Service must: Remove the restrictions based on Ecological Land Types (“ELTs”) in the FEIS. There is no indication that the restrictions are necessary based on past and expected effects from prospecting and exploration activities on the SNF. The proposed restrictions were designed for timber activities, not mineral activities, and there is no legal basis for application of the restrictions to mineral activities. Further, the ELTs do not accurately represent on-the-ground conditions. (Ltr# 101, Cmt# 4)
Subconcern # D
The Forest Plan for the SNF sufficiently addresses any necessary soil restrictions, and additional restrictions will result in conflict or inconsistency with the Forest Plan. When, and through what distorted mechanism, did the USFS confer rights to soils? (Ltr# 242, Cmt# 3)
Subconcern # DE
The USFS’S soils analysis and stipulations relating to soils are flawed. The Forest Plan for the SNF Sufficiently Addresses Any Necessary Soil Restrictions, and Additional Restrictions Will Result in Conflict or Inconsistency with the Forest Plan And Other Legal Guidance. In the DEIS, potential impacts are identified, such as soil compaction and displacement, as well as possible sediment delivery to nearby wetlands and waterways. DEIS at 126-7. Unlike other EISs, such as the Glacier FEIS, this DEIS (alternatives 2, 3 and 4) propose additional restrictions on the timing of activities on certain ELTs so as to further reduce soil impacts. Id. For example, activity on lowland ELTs (39% of the project area) would be limited to frozen soil so that no rutting or compaction will occur. Id. And fine textured and shallow soil ELTs would only support activity during frozen or dry conditions (40% of project area) while a small area (2% of the total project area) would allow no activity at all due to extremely shallow soil and/or gravel conditions. Id. The disparate treatment of soils by the USFS in this EIS is arbitrary and capricious.
Correctly, though, the identified impacts are characterized as “short term” and proposed efforts to minimize the impacts include the use of existing corridors, as well as the implementation of BMPs and Forest Plan standards and guidelines. DEIS at 127. Indeed, many of the contemplated Stipulations rely upon the SNF Forest Plan as the Source for the requirement. DEIS at 56. Simply put, the imposition of additional restrictions beyond those detailed in the SNF Forest Plan will result in conflicting directives for MiningMinnesota members. For purposes of consistency, clarity and ease of administration for the USFS, MiningMinnesota respectfully submits the SNF Forest Plan sufficiently addresses any soil restrictions and that further restrictions are unnecessary and unwarranted.
Similarly, the DEIS seeks to impose additional, generalized soil restrictions for mineral exploration activities for wetlands. DEIS at 56. As with the soil stipulations relating to the ELTs identified on page 56 of the DEIS, existing restrictions such as those set forth in the 2004 Forest Plan sufficiently address any restrictions as they apply to wetlands, and any additional restrictions will likely result in conflicting directives. See, e.g., Forest Plan at 2-15, and G-WS-12 and G-WS-13. Once again, there is a risk of conflicting directives leaving MiningMinnesota members with unnecessary exposure to inadvertent violations. To the extent that any additional stipulations relating
Preliminary Draft 11
to soils or wetlands are being evaluated, as set forth below, they must only be done on a case-by-case basis taking into consideration the site-specific characteristics at issue. (Ltr# 100, Cmt# 45)
Subconcern # E
The USFS’S soils analysis and stipulations relating to soils are flawed. The Soil Restrictions Identified in the DEIS Must Only Be Applied On A Case-by-Case Basis And Based Upon The Particular Site Characteristics So As To Take into Account Changing Weather Conditions, Land Conditions, Overlapping ELTs, and The Inherent Imprecision in ELT Mapping, All Of Which Creates The Risk Of Inadvertent Violations of ELT Standards.
As detailed in the ELT Report, there is inherent imprecision in the mapping of ELTs. Id. at 1-2. Of the 30 site locations visited by the ELT report authors, there were seven that were mapped incorrectly (23% error rate). Id. at 2. Of those seven areas, five sites were in a field verified ELT adjacent to the mapped ELT and the boundaries appeared to be misplaced, with such boundary discrepancies ranging from five to twenty-five meters. Id. Three sites identified were located within a transition zone between two mapped ELTs where neither was dominant. Id. Of equal, if not greater concern, two sites were incorrectly mapped altogether with no mapped ELT nearby that matched the field verified ELT. Id. The significant risk, of course, is that due to such imprecision in the mapping used, there is a increased likelihood of inadvertent violations of ELT standards.
Indeed, as the authors detail in their Report, to the extent that the Final EIS imposes regulatory restrictions based upon the ELT classifications noted, there is a need for site-specific evaluation due to the degree of variance in the ELTs noted and given the scale at which the ELT assessments were made. Id. Indeed, blanket stipulations, such as those being considered in the DEIS, do not take into account the imprecision in the methodologies used, nor do they take into account changing weather and land conditions. Id. This is especially the case where, as in the DEIS, there are alternating and recurring ELTs in landscapes. Id. at 2-3.
Similar concerns arise where, as noted and observed by the authors, the ELT boundaries are not distinct and transition zones exist with merged characteristics of two ELTs. Id. at 3. In addition, because the contemplated mineral exploration is expected to occur at small, localized levels, what appears to be minor discrepancies between the GIS-based ELTs relied upon in the DEIS and the actual ELT classifications observed on a site-specific field investigations “could be significant.” Id.
Accordingly, the experts concluded that while the GIS-based methodology utilized to create the ELT mapping was appropriate, the USFS’s reliance on this blunt tool for purposes of establishing the ELT-related restrictions in the DEIS “is not appropriate.” Id. This is especially cause for concern where the authors found “a nearly 25% rate of discrepancy between the GIS-based mapping and ground-checked results…were the USFS and BLM to proceed with the GIS-based restrictions suggested in the DEIS. Id. (Ltr# 100, Cmt# 46)
Subconcern # EF
The resource stipulations relating to soils should be applied on a case by-case basis so as to take into account overlapping ELTS and inherent imprecision in ELT mapping. This section incorporates the Technical Memorandum of Short Elliot Hendrickson, Inc. (“SEH ”), which is included as Attachment 2 to these comments. This Technical Memorandum was prepared after SEH completed field work in June 2011 for select ELTs identified within the SNF.
While SEH’s report notes that the DEIS’s references to mapping of ELTs at a scale of 1:24,000 is generally accurate, it identifies concerns with the application of Resource Stipulations based on this ELT mapping as a result of the field investigations recently performed. SEH concludes that, despite USFS’s use of sound methodology, the scale and nature of the available GIS-mapping relied upon by USFS in the DEIS makes the precise identification of ELT type and boundaries problematic for any particular ELT. Specifically, SEH’s field work found discrepancies at 23 percent of the study sites between the actual ELT types or boundaries inspected and the mapped information contained in the DEIS. Because of the small geographic areas generally involved in mineral exploration, deviations of the nature found in the SEH study can be significant. Potential inaccuracies in the ELT types or boundaries referenced in the DEIS could result in unnecessary or incorrect imposition of Stipulations grounded in the GIS- based maps or in inadvertent violations of the Resource Stipulations for ELTs if they are not tailored to the site- specific and ground-verified circumstances of a particular Mineral Authorization.
Moreover, SEH’s field verification work suggests that the ELT boundaries as indicated in the DEIS may be imprecise in many cases as a result of transition zones between two adjacent ELTs. Such difficulties are inherent in the GIS-based mapping methodologies and data utilized in the DEIS. Rather than impose blanket, and potentially inappropriate, Resource Stipulations without regard for such transition zones, the DEIS should acknowledge the existence of such issues and adopt a case-by-case approach to Resource Stipulations for ELTs.
A third concern identified by SEH in its field work was the existence of overlapping ELTs. SEH identified several areas in which smaller ELTs may exist within a larger ELT, and the smaller ELT has the potential to not be revealed in the GIS-based maps in the DEIS. By using a case-by-case approach to ELT stipulations, the USFS can ensure that these smaller ELTs are adequately protected or, if such ELTs are areas in which mineral exploration will not adversely impact the soils, can allow mineral exploration to proceed without imposing unnecessary Resource Stipulations.
Finally, SEH’s study demonstrates that the scale of the USFS’s GIS-based mapping makes the ELT classifications in the DEIS an inappropriate foundation for the broad (non-site specific) Resource Stipulations. This concern is particularly important because approximately 80 percent of the SNF would be subject to ELT-based restrictions (primarily allowing prospecting only in frozen conditions) under the DEIS. Winter-only authorizations and other requirements should be applied only on a site-specific basis, after project sites are identified and ground verified, so an appropriate evaluation of actual ELT classification, potential impacts, and available mitigation or avoidance options can be dete rmined. (Ltr# 107, Cmt# 36)
Subconcern # FG
The Blanket Ecological Land Type Restrictions Imposed by the DEIS are Unrealistic and Excessive. The DEIS proposes stipulations on exploration activities according to Ecological Land Types (“ELTs”). These stipulations would restrict exploration activities on 79% of the SNF and completely prohibit operations on additional areas of the SNF. The ELT restrictions are unrealistic and excessive for several reasons. First, the restrictions were originally designed to minimize the impacts to the soil resource from timber activities in the SNF Forest Plan and were not designed to address mineral exploration activities. Second, the ELTs are broad designations that do not accurately represent on-the-ground conditions. Third, there is no evidence that the ELT restrictions are necessary in light of past effects to the soil resource on the SNF from exploration activities. Thus, the Forest Service must remove the ELT restrictions in the FEIS. (Ltr# 101, Cmt# 10)
Subconcern # FG
The ELT Restrictions are Not Designed to Minimize Impacts to the Soil Resource from Exploration Activities. The ELT stipulations in the DEIS are derived from limitations placed on timber activities in the SNF Forest Plan. The Forest Plan, with regard to watershed health, riparian areas and soil resources, requires the Forest Service to “[f]ollow the limitations on management activities specified in Table G WS-8.” Management activities in Table G WS-8 do not include mineral exploration activities; rather, they include activities related primarily to timber production. Those timber production activities are limited based on ELT. The DEIS provides no justification for correlating timber production activities and mineral exploration activities in order to adopt similar ELT restrictions for both.
The Forest Plan restrictions for timber production are designed to reduce erosion. The restrictions assume extensive equipment use and broad surface disturbance. These concerns do not apply to exploration activities, which involve minimal erosion potential, utilize limited equipment, and result in little surface disturbance. In addition, the ELT restrictions would limit mineral exploration activities in contravention of the SNF Forest Plan, which establishes the SNF’s Forest-wide management direction. With regard to minerals on the Forest, desired condition D-MN-1 states: “[e]xploration and development of mineral and mineral material resources is allowed on National Forest System land . . . .” Desired condition D-MN-2 provides: “[e]nsure that exploring, developing, and producing mineral resources are conducted in an environmentally sound manner so that they may contribute to economic growth and national defense.” For federal minerals outside the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (“BWCAW”) and Mineral Protection Area (“MPA”), there is no further direction, including an absence of standards and guidelines, restricting mineral exploration activities on the Forest. Certainly, there are no restrictions in the SNF Forest Plan on mineral exploration activities according to ELT. There is no justification for the Forest Service’s imposition of restrictions on mineral exploration activities based on ELT. None are directed by the Forest Plan and imposition of ELT restrictions meant for timber production activities on mineral exploration activities on the SNF is arbitrary and capricious. As a result, in the FEIS, the Forest Service must remove the ELT restrictions on mineral exploration activities. (Ltr# 101, Cmt# 11)
Subconcern # FG
The ELTs are Broad Designations that Do Not Accurately Represent On-The-Ground Conditions. Restricting exploration activities according to ELT ignores the possibility that certain on-the-ground conditions within individual ELTs, such as previously impacted areas, roads, gravel pits, etc., may provide favorable conditions for mineral exploration activities. ELTs on the SNF were mapped from 1969 to 2003 and compiled through a
combination of field investigations and aerial photo interpretation. The ELT mapping it is at best, rudimentary. There is no assurance the ELTs that are mapped actually represent the ELTs in each specific area on the Forest. Moreover, because ELTs can vary widely even in a small area, the Forest Service’s broad mapping effort undoubtedly mischaracterizes and generalizes ELTs across the Forest. The FEIS must analyze and explain the shortcomings of the ELT mapping effort. Instead of relying on imprecise and limiting ELT restrictions, the Forest Service should consider the alternative of providing ELT restrictions on a case-by-case basis rather than applying them broadly and excessively and thereby restricting or prohibiting exploration activities on areas of the Forest that may not be in need of such protection. (Ltr# 101, Cmt# 12)
Subconcern # FG
There is No Evidence that ELT Restrictions are Necessary in Light of Past Effects to the Soil Resource from Exploration Activities. The Forest Service acknowledges that prospecting and exploration activities are not likely to result in adverse impacts to the soil resource on the SNF. Nonetheless, the Forest Service proposes cumbersome ELT restrictions to combat certain unknown and unexplained adverse impacts to the soil resource from prospecting and exploration activities. In light of the known past and potential future impacts to the soil resource on the SNF from mineral exploration activities, however, the ELT restrictions proposed in the DEIS are unnecessary. In the DEIS, the Forest Service recognizes that mechanical equipment has been used for decades on portions of the SNF for non-mining related activities and that such activities have caused rutting, compaction and soil displacement. However, there is no discussion in the DEIS regarding how reuse of these portions of the SNF for exploration activities would produce any significant new effects to the soil resource. Focusing exploration activities in areas with existing ruts, compacted and displaced soil, would be possible on many areas of the SNF, thereby negating the need for extensive ELT restrictions.
Where previously disturbed areas can not be utilized, impacts on the soil resources from exploration activities are expected to be minimal. The Forest Service acknowledges that modern mechanical equipment has resulted in substantial reductions in the impacts associated with mineral exploration activities in recent years. The Forest Service points out, “[n]o discernable impacts to long-term soil productivity have been identified as a result of past mineral exploration activities with the Forest,” and that, in general, “[p]ast resource management activity has had minimal effects to the soil.” “Soils on the Superior National Forest have typically recovered from management activities within a few years. Vegetation is usually re-established within the first growing season after ground disturbing activities and becomes more prevalent after a few freeze-thaw cycles have restored any soil functions that may have been altered by the effects of equipment operations.” The Forest Service has thus concluded that there are very few likely adverse impacts to the soil resource on the SNF from exploration activities. Thus, there is no need for excessive ELT restrictions to protect the soil resource on the SNF from exploration activities. Those restrictions must be removed in the FEIS. (Ltr# 101, Cmt# 13)
Subconcern # H
The Purpose For and Effects of the ELT Restrictions are Not Adequately Explained in the DEIS. The Forest Service fails to analyze in the DEIS how the ELT restrictions would affect the one issue identified in the DEIS: noise. Implementing the ELT restrictions would actually exacerbate noise impacts on the Forest. The Forest Service explains that ambient background noise varies between seasons (likely increasing in the summer and dissipating in the winter) and that sound decay is much more rapid in the summer than in the winter. Thus, noise impacts are expected to be greater in the winter than in the summer. By providing seasonal exploration restrictions, the Forest Service is increasing overall noise impacts. Likewise, by providing seasonal exploration restrictions, the Forest Service is increasing the overall duration of noise impacts on the Forest. Because exploration would be so restricted, it would take longer to complete, thereby lengthening the overall time that exploration would take place on the Forest. In the FEIS, the Forest Service should discuss the effects of more limited short-term noise impacts (fewer years of impacts) versus more continual long-term noise impacts (more years of impacts), and remove the ELT restrictions because they increase impacts overall. If the ELT restrictions are not removed, the Forest Service should acknowledge the prohibitions and limitations imposed by the ELT restrictions, and narrow its effects analysis for other Forest resources, including noise, to account for those restrictions. (Ltr# 101, Cmt# 14)
Subject: Vegetation - General Category: 2800
Public Concern 98 The Forest Service should consider the following regarding vegetation:
A) Ensure protection of the vegetation as a result of prospecting activities; B) The effect to vegetation will be temporary and not large in scale; and C) Development of a debris management plan for all downed vegetation resulting
from road construction and consider how it will be staged, where will it be chipped or burned, who will dispose of it, and how it will affect air quality.
Subconcern # A
In the same vein as item 4. , building roads through forests does destroy trees which require years to mature. Already, according to some, climate change threatens the arboreal forests. Fires and insects threaten our forests. Is this the time to add more threats to forest ecology? Are not road construction and drilling an assault on the trees and other flora of the forests? What is worth protecting---the forests’ flora and fauna or the profligate profits of industry? To whom does the national forest system belong---to the taxpayers and future generations or to short-term global investors? (Ltr# 36, Cmt# 5)
Subconcern # A
In the same vein as item 4., building roads through forests does destroy trees which require years .to mature. Already, according to some, climate change threatens the arboreal forests. Fires and insects threaten our forests. Is this the time to add more threats to forest ecology? Are not road construction and drilling an assault on the trees and other flora of the forests? What is worth protecting-the forests' flora and fauna or the profligate profits of industry? To whom does the national forest system belong---to the taxpayers and future generations or to short-term global investors? (Ltr# 130, Cmt# 6)
Subconcern # B
This document does not address additional stresses to the environment, to plants, and to wildlife based upon the potential for increased disruption and interference through a network of new forest openings that will provide access to the forest throughout the year. “Temporary” exploration roads need to be large enough in size to accommodate considerably large equipment. The footprint of mining exploration will not be “small.” (Ltr# 52, Cmt# 13)
Subconcern # C
What is the debris management plan for all the downed vegetation resulting from road construction? It is against the law to burn debris in a wetland. Burning debris is a Clean Air Act issue. How is debris to be staged and where will it be chipped or burned? What happens to the ash? Here again you need EPA or State DEQ permits and also need to consult the SHPO and Tribes. Whose homes and communities will the smoke effect? Any environmental justice issues? (Ltr# 114, Cmt# 9)
Subject: Vegetation - Non-Native Invasive Species Category: 2810
Public Concern 99 The Forest Service should consider the following regarding invasive species:
A) The spread of invasive species by ATVs due to the length of time that roads are likely to be open (up to 20 years); and
B) The cumulative effect of roads opening up areas that were not previously open to the import of invasive species even though it is a small area.
Subconcern # AB
The DEIS underestimates the likelihood of the spread of invasive species. The DEIS accepts that there will be invasive plant species imported into the forest as a result of drilling activities. It then spends a great deal of effort to show why these species once imported cannot survive in the forest. Absent an equivalent effort to elaborate the arguments as to why the invasives could reasonably be expected to survive and spread, no rational weighting of the evidence is possible. On the face of it, the analysis is at best insufficient and at worst misleading. ATVs are a primary, perhaps the largest, source of transport of invasive plant species into the forest. The DEIS dismisses the likelihood of ATV use out of hand, ignoring this most likely frequent source of the spread of new invasives to the drilling areas of the SNF. The DEIS states that the roads constructed for access to the drill sites will be reclaimed, thus preventing use by ATVs. However, many of the roads will remain open for many years for many of the sites. Return visits for additional drilling can be undertaken at any time over the life of the drilling episode for any wells not closed permanently after initial drilling. It is further noted in the DEIS that most of the roads are short and do not make loops which the ATVers prefer. However, in many locations, the drilling access roads connect with “native trails” or other roads that form the equivalent of loops. Examples of loop-like trails occur on maps 3.5 and 3.6 in the Birch Lake area in sections 7, 18, 19; and most egregiously in maps 3.12 and 3.13, sections 7, 6, 30, 31, 32, and 29. Even if the shorter roads to specific drill sites are “rapidly” reclaimed, the main access trail which forms the loop in conjunction with other trails (shown in maps 3.12 and 3.13) would remain open for many years and be an open invitation to ATVs to spread invasive species. This is, moreover, the drilling area closest to the Boundary Waters. The life of the access roads can be very long indeed. Due to the length of time that the roads are likely to be open despite being labeled “temporary” the ATV’ers are likely to have made their own trails as they often do which will survive after the access road is reclaimed. It is misleading to assume that these roads, classed as “temporary” in bureaucratic nomenclature, will in fact be temporary. Temporary in this context can mean up to 20 years! The cumulative import of invasive species will be much larger than is suggested by the “temporary” label attached to the road. It is argued that the total area of the roads and sites is small compared to the total area assessed. This position ignores the fact that this small area is at the same time distributed in many different areas thus opening up many areas not previously open to the import of invasives. It is simply inadequate to attempt to diminish the threat of invasives on the basis that the acreage of the roads and the drill sites is small. It is further argued that the expected influx of invasives cannot survive in forest areas with heavy shade. The fact of repeated introduction of invasives perhaps over many years while cover is more or less continually kept open garners no comment. The argument appears to be based on the average experience with invasives connected with logging activities. Some logging areas remain open for long periods of time as logging proceeds on adjacent parcels. Others return to closed cover forest more rapidly once logging is complete. The proper comparison to drilling activities is not the average experience, but that experienced on those areas left open for whatever reason for longer periods. (Ltr# 62, Cmt# 39)
Subconcern # AB
Natural forest vegetation will be cleared and often seeded. These disturbed lands are also exposed to non-native invasive species. We currently know our greatest hope for slowing the spread of many nondesirable species is by not providing them the opportunity to become established. This project is yet another blueprint on how to spread and establish non-natives; provide a plethora of disturbance, equipment, operators and roads into a landscape that has plentiful sources for thistles, tansies, leafy spurge, knapweed, etc. Invasive species are a serious issue and although we spend millions attempting to control them ... we are unwilling to avoid many obvious pitfalls leading to their further establishment and the degradation of our diminishing native plant communities. The project will further degrade the SNF by contributing to the spread invasive species. (Ltr# 175, Cmt# 6)
Subconcern # B
At a time when the USFS is doing an EIS on possible treatment options for invasive species in the BWCAW, the agency is preparing to approve multiple prospecting permits near the BWCAW- and tier unknown additional mineral exploration off of the FEIS. Additionally, the road openings that accompany mineral exploration will open the forest to invasive plant species and this threat to the forest, including the Superior National Forest and BWCAW, and is inadequately addressed in the Draft EIS. (Ltr# 111, Cmt# 15)
Subject: Vegetation - TES Species Category: 2830
Public Concern 100 The Forest Service should consider the following regarding TES species:
A) Address impacts to state listed species;
B) Include stipulations for avoidance of known occurrences of rare species; C) Conduct RFSS plant surveys and include in the analysis; and the public given
the opportunity to review and comment on them; D) Conduct Minnesota County Biological Surveys; E) Conduct a single high quality ground based geophysical survey paid for by the
permittees to reduce impacts; and F) Disclose who, when, where, and how they surveys have been conducted.
Subconcern # AB
State-listed plant and animal species are not addressed in the draft EIS. There are several state-listed endangered or threatened species in the area. The USFS has a copy of the Rare Features Database through a license agreement with the MNDNR. This data should be used to address potential impacts to state-listed species in the EIS. For state leases, the MNDNR requires botanical surveys if a state-listed threatened or endangered species have been documented in the vicinity of the project and suitable habitat for this species occurs within the project boundary. Minnesota’s endangered species law (Minnesota Statutes, section 84.0895) and associated rules (Minnesota Rules, Parts 6212.1800 to 6212.2300 and 6134) prohibit the taking of threatened or endangered species without a permit. Permit stipulations may also include avoidance of known occurrences of rare species. (Ltr# 39, Cmt# 4)
Subconcern # C
The DEIS explains that this project could affect sensitive plant species. “Ground disturbance associated with the project, including temporary road construction/reconstruction, drill pad construction, and drilling activities, could impact suitable habitat for RFSS plants. Resource stipulations specify that RFSS plant surveys would be conducted in suitable habitat before project activities take place, and that project operations would avoid known RFSS plant occurrences” (63). “No surveys for RFSS plants have taken place yet for the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permit DEIS” (BE, 3). These planned plant surveys should be included in the DEIS. The public needs to see the results of these surveys and be given the opportunity to review them and then submit comments. It is critical for surveys to be conducted so that the Agency can protect known occurrences of sensitive species. No surveys for plants or animals have occurred thus far. “ No specific animal surveys were conducted for this project but surveys were completed for vegetation management projects located across the Superior National Forest and the data from those projects is incorporated into the Monitoring and Evaluation Report” (BE, 2). Surveys need to be conducted and appropriate environmental review and analysis completed. The public needs the chance to see survey results, with adequate discussion by agency personnel, and then have the ability to make meaningful comments that can be incorporated into the final plans. The DEIS promises that surveys will be conducted prior to the start of exploration activities. “Because all listed plant locations or nest and/or den sites are not known, survey needs shall be determined by a SNF biologist, using approved protocols in suitable habitat, to determine occupancy in the areas where exploration activities are planned” (53). “No Surface occupancy will be allowed until adequate surveys have been completed for the following species: bald eagle, osprey, great gray owl, boreal owl, and northern goshawk” (BE, 5). When will these surveys be done? How will the public be given the opportunity to review and comment on survey results? These surveys should be included in the DEIS. (Ltr# 62, Cmt# 18)
Subconcern # D
Each time we sought to expand our business operation with the construction of new cabins, when the land that River Point is sited on was owned by the federal government (up until 2002), an endangered plant species survey and EIS had to occur. Thus, we are quite familiar with this process. This DEIS fails to adequately address the impact of the proposed mineral prospecting actions on rare plants. Specifically, the 2009 study by the Minnesota County Biological Survey ("MCBS"), a program of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources showing the location of rare plant species occurring in Minnesota counties is not included in the DEIS. Impacts of trails, drill pads and related road construction, and equipment use on rare plants in the vicinity is not analyzed in the DEIS. All of these activities will have significant impacts on these rare species. It is unacceptable to allow mineral exploration companies to have weak or no standards or regulations to follow regarding sensitive and rare plants, while other businesses, such as mine, were critically inspected regarding such. (Ltr# 97, Cmt# 31)
Subconcern # D
The MNDNR County Biological Survey has not been completed in the area. We do not know what is there. On 6/29/11 I personally observed the vast diversity of the wetland, including what I believe to be a fen along the newly cut roadway into Greenwood, and I believe I observed Botrychium Mormo in one location. And I believe one
portion of the area is a fen, but part of determining whether indeed it is a fen depends on the work done by the Biological Survey being conducted by the DNR - which is not complete and until that survey is complete no one knows what we and the authorities whose job it is to assess the propriety of don't know about the area, and neither does the forest service. Our group does not have the resources needed to determine at this point whether what was observed was indeed Botrychium Mormo – but we are fortunate that the state of Minnesota has expert botanists engaged in a formal process of studying the region and determining what biological species exist in Minnesota. This process is underway and efforts to engage in large scale and potentially destructive exploration prior to that process being complete is with regard to time and natural resources and the best interests of the people and other creatures living in Minnesota “penny wise and pound foolish” Unless the SNF has done a study equal or better than that being done by the state’s County Biological Survey, we ask that the exploration hold off till it is complete. (Ltr# 103, Cmt# 5)
Subconcern # E
Page 28 says “Geophysical surveys are proposed for all operating plans. They include narrow (3-6 feet) vegetation clearing along lines laid out in a grid type fashion”. As stated on page 20, “they may need to cut vegetation that is too dense to allow them and their equipment to get through. Normally the vegetation is thick shrubs and young trees”. There are two issues:It is likely that different prospectors will each perform their own separate surveys, resulting in needless duplication of cutting swaths. Suggestion: Similar to the airborne surveys: Rather than allowing each company to do its own survey, there should be a single, high-quality ground-based geophysical survey. Prospecting companies would pay for the survey. The USFS or BLM or a private company could be the official steward of the collected data, releasing it at some agreed cost to prospectors. This approach will greatly reduce the noise impact of chainsaws in the large area covered by geophysical surveys, and will also reduce the impact to vegetation. It will also save the prospectors a lot of money. (Ltr# 106, Cmt# 3)
Subconcern # F
What plant and animal surveys have been conducted and when and where and by whom were they conducted? (Ltr#
114, Cmt# 15)
Subject: Wild Rice - As Related to Mining Category: 3100
Public Concern 115 The Forest Service should consider the effects to wild rice harvesting and sales on both natives and non-natives, including river stands and traditional cultural properties, and include stipulations to protect the wild rice resource.
Wild rice. Studies have shown that increases in sulfate levels negatively impact the well-being of wild rice beds. Not only a fairly large industry, that of wild rice harvesting/sales by both natives and non-natives, but also an integral cultural component to our native peoples, considered sacred. (Ltr# 16, Cmt# 10)
A Supplemental DEIS should provide a thorough analysis of potential impacts on natural wild rice, including river stands, and a Traditional Cultural Properties analysis; (Ltr# 25, Cmt# 16)
The Prospecting DEIS contains inadequate analysis and mitigation of water quality impacts, including impacts of brines and toxic metals on non-degradation requirements and impacts on wild rice. The Prospecting DEIS recognizes that drill pad construction would adversely impact natural stands of wild rice, and proposes a 50-foot setback from wild rice lakes. (Prospecting DEIS, p. 16). However the DEIS neither discusses or limits the impacts of landings on wild rice; the DEIS also fails to propose any setbacks for drill pad construction adjacent to streams or rivers containing stands of natural wild rice. A Supplemental DEIS should analyze the degree to which proposed permits and operation plans impact stands of wild rice and should include stipulations to protect wild rice in lakes, streams and rivers from landings as well as drill pad construction. (Ltr# 25, Cmt# 53)
The Prospecting DEIS contains inadequate analysis and mitigation of water quality impacts, including impacts of brines and toxic metals on non-degradation requirements and impacts on wild rice. The Prospecting DEIS begins to review the significance of wild rice stands as Traditional Cultural Properties, suggesting that a wild rice stand that
has been annually harvested historically by a distinct living community for the past 100 years should be considered a Traditional Cultural Property heritage resource and that there are 34 known heritage resources within permit application boundaries. (Prospecting DEIS, pp. 178, 179). However, the DEIS criteria by which a wild rice stand would be deemed a Traditional Cultural Property are overly narrow. Cycles in productivity of natural wild rice might preclude an “annual” harvest and, in general, a resource develops cultural significance after 50, not 100 years. (See e.g. National Register Bulletin, How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, p. 41, http://www.nps.gov/nr/publications/bulletins/pdfs/nrb15.pdf) (Ltr# 25, Cmt# 54)
The DEIS does not discusses or limit the impacts of landings on wild rice. The DEIS also fails to propose any setbacks for drill pad construction adjacent to streams or rivers containing stands of natural wild rice. What is the degree to which proposed permits and operation plans impact stands of wild rice? Wild rice harvesting has occurred over decades and continues to occur throughout this project area, providing a food source and an annual income to households. The DEIS should include stipulations to protect wild rice in lakes, streams and rivers from landings, drill pad construction, water use and all other prospecting-related activities. (Ltr# 34, Cmt# 16)
The Band is especially concerned about impacts to manoomin, or wild rice. While the DEIS maintains that resource stipulations would protect wild rice waters from impacts related to mineral exploration, it has come to our attention that current prospecting activity in the Skibo South and Greenwood Lake South Mineral Exploration Projects (Encampment Minerals) has resulted in impacts to wild rice waters (the St. Louis River, which is harvested by Band members in this area, and Petrel Creek, which connects two culturally important wild rice lakes). Manoomin is an exceptionally sensitive species, declining substantially across its historic range, and as SNF is well aware, one of the most significant cultural resources to the Ojibwe. The Band would urge SNF to consider greater protective stipulations in permits for these and future projects in proximity to wild rice waters. (Ltr# 115, Cmt# 6)
I am a wild ricer and this mining can impact the wild rice. This is not a risk worth taking nor is it fair to the Native Americans. (Ltr# 240, Cmt# 2)
Subject: Wild Rice - As Related to Tribal Significance Category: 3120
Public Concern 116 The Forest Service should consider that there are very specific hydrologic conditions required for wild rice, and the thresholds for surface water quantity (Table 26) may not be protective enough and should be evaluated on a project-by-project basis, with current wild rice inventory data available, to determine if a prospecting site is near wild rice waters.
Table 26, "Indicators for potential effects on water resources", in Section 3.6, defines a threshold for surface water quantity of 'reduction of flow in a stream by 10% or drop in water levels in a basin by more than 1 ft." The Band would call attention to the very specific hydrologic conditions that wild rice requires, and note that this threshold may not be protective of critical hydrology for wild rice. This threshold should be evaluated on a project-by-project basis, with current wild rice inventory data available to determine if a prospecting site is near wild rice waters. (Ltr#
115, Cmt# 7)
Subject: Social/Economic - Economic Analysis Category: 2300
Public Concern 87 The Forest Service should consider the following regarding the economic analysis:
A) Impacts to real estate values; B) It should be bounded by the same actions used as a basis for the
environmental effects analysis because mining references exaggerate the economic effects of the proposed action;
C) The information in the University of Minnesota Duluth Labovitz School of Business and Economics report of March, 2009 titled"The Economic Impact of Ferrous and Non-Ferrous Mining on the State of Minnesota and on the Arrowhead Region and Douglas County, WI";
D) Metal markets and global demand; E) Documented history of mining company bankruptcies; F) Tax rebates to mining companies; G) The “Resource Curse” – economic theory that building an economy on selling
non-renewable resources usually results in an underperforming economy; H) The discrepancies in average mining wages and average income; I) Rationale for abstaining from mineral development; J) A cost-benefit analysis; K) Assessment of effects from restrictions placed on mineral exploration; L) The long-term environmental cumulative effects of mineral exploration on the
economy; M) The effects from not issuing prospecting permits as was done previously; N) Job number estimates directly and indirectly are low and need to be re-
evaluated to reflect economic data; O) The BBER Report should be considered; P) Impacts to business reliant on tourism and recreational opportunities; Q) Economic impacts from allowing international corporations versus Minnesota
and/or US companies to explore; and R) Assumptions made by the economic model and subsequent conclusion.
Subconcern # A
Real Estate- and what will happen when more wells start showing up contaminated? What will residents do? I don't even want to think about that possibility. Way worse than not being able to sell your home because the mine closed and there's no work. (Ltr# 16, Cmt# 8)
Subconcern # A
We live in Northeastern Minnesota and our property values are likely to be affected adversely by even the possibility of extensive metallic sulfide mining in the area. The amount of noise generated by exploratory drilling (already), and the potential damage to water quality, especially to the protected non-degradation status of many area lakes in the Kawishiwi Watershed, will affect not only our property values but the quality of our residential lives and enjoyment of recreational opportunities. (Ltr# 32, Cmt# 1)
Subconcern # A
My property values are likely to suffer by even the possibility of extensive metallic sulfide mining in the area. Assurances of safety planning are not enough. Obviously, accidents are not expected, but we must, none-the-less plan for worst case scenarios when future jobs that depend on the environment are placed in jeopardy. No one who has even a slight familiarity with the problems of sulfide mining can believe that such mining does not pose a danger to the environment, particularly concerning water quality. People living close to the triangle are already being exposed to excessive noise from by exploratory drilling, the potential damage to water quality. This is especially
true with regard to the protected non-degradation status of many area lakes in the Kawishiwi Watershed, and will affect not only their property values but the immediate quality of their residential lives and recreational opportunities. (Ltr# 43, Cmt# 2)
Subconcern # A
Our property values are likely to be affected adversely by the possibility of extensive metallic sulfide mining in the area. The amount of noise generated by exploratory drilling and the potential damage to water and land will affect not only our property values but also the present excellent quality of our lives, which is due in very large part to the relatively pristine environment of the Superior National Forest. (Ltr# 70, Cmt# 2)
Subconcern # A
Land and property values are being negatively impacted and as these mining proposals precede private property values and one's ability to sell their properties will become more limited and devalued. Having our property bound on three sides by the SNF has always been a selling point .. a feature with value. This dearly won't be the case when our SNF lands become more fragmented, noisy, and/or mined. (Ltr# 175, Cmt# 8)
Subconcern # BC
We recommend that the discussion of economic effects be improved. In our opinion, the economic analysis wrongly includes actions not discussed in the draft EIS, specifically mining. The economic analysis should be bounded by the same actions used as a basis for the environmental effects analysis— that of exploration. References to the economic effects of mining exaggerate the economic effects of the proposed action and possibly leave readers with the incorrect impression that this document addresses mining. However, if the USFS believes that the scope of the economic analysis is correct, then the University of Minnesota Duluth Labovitz School of Business and Economics report of March, 2009 title The Economic Impact of Ferrous and Non-Ferrous Mining on the State of Minnesota and on the Arrowhead Region and Douglas County, WI should be used in place of the University of Montana report of 2007. The University of Minnesota report is a better source of information on mining’s economic impact on northeastern Minnesota. (Ltr# 39, Cmt# 8)
Subconcern # C
The analysis of economic impacts in the EIS understates the adverse impact the stipulations and noise restrictions will have. Another “major omission” in the DEIS’s economic analysis is its failure to include the recent research in the Labovitz Report, the full title of which is “The Economic Impact of Ferrous and Non-Ferrous Mining On the State of Minnesota And on the Arrowhead Region and Douglas County, WI” prepared in 2009 by the Bureau of Business and Economic Research (“BBER”), Labovitz School of Business and Economics, University of Minnesota-Duluth (“Labovitz Report”). See footnote 1, above, and Exhibit 1. The Labovitz Report, using the IMPLAN model with 2007 data, details the significant direct, indirect, and induced effects associated with mineral development. Hays Report at 1, 5. (Ltr# 100, Cmt# 52)
Subconcern # C
The analysis of economic impacts in the EIS understates the adverse impact the stipulations and noise restrictions will have. The EIS Does Not Adequately Incorporate or Analyze Existing Economic Studies Regarding Mineral Exploration and Development of Hardrock Minerals in the SNF. As detailed throughout this Section of our Comments, the most thorough economic study regarding mineral exploration and development of hardrock minerals in the SNF, the Labovitz Report, has all but been ignored. The absence of this report is a glaring omission that must be considered and addressed. It details all of the significant direct, indirect and induced economic and social benefits associated with nonferrous mining in the SNF, and tells a compelling story. MiningMinnesota. We trust that the Final EIS will give it thorough consideration. (Ltr# 100, Cmt# 56)
Subconcern # C
3.14 Economics and Environmental Justice - 3.14.1.1 Analysis area (pg. 188) The DEIS' discussion of the economic impacts to the local economy affected by exploration and associated activities does not consider nor reference the more recent research report "The Economic Impact of Ferrous and Non-Ferrous Mining On the State of Minnesota And on the Arrowhead Region and Douglas County, WI" completed in March of 2009. This is a very significant omission. This report was prepared by the Bureau of Business and Economic Research, Labovitz School of Business and Economics, University of Minnesota-Duluth. The BBER Report used the IMPLAN model with 2007 data which was the most recent data available at the time. The economic impacts were reported in 2007 dollars. The economic impacts analyzed were for Minnesota's seven county Arrowhead Region (Atkins, Carlton, Cook, Itasca, Koochiching, Lake, and St. Louis Counties) and Douglas County, WI. Implant data is now available for the year 2009 and would give a more current assessment of the economic impacts. The BBER Report states that in 2007
Minnesota's non-ferrous mining (copper/nickel explorati

Summary of Public Comment: Superior NF Federal...

Documents

Transcript of Summary of Public Comment: Superior NF Federal...