Pam Bode, District Ranger
Illinois Valley Ranger District
26568 Redwood Hwy.
Cave Junction, OR 97523

RE: Petite Placer Mining Environmental Assessment, Illinois River Wild and Scenic River

FROM:  Joe Serres, Co-Director, Friends of Living Oregon Waters (FLOW)

Dear Pam Bode,

            I am writing on behalf of the Oregon Wild and Scenic Rivers Program of Friends of Living Oregon Waters (FLOW).  FLOW is a group of conservation advocates in Oregon advocating for the protection and restoration of Oregon's waters.  FLOW uses legal oversight and public education to help protect Oregon's rivers, watersheds, lakes, wetlands, and groundwater from the impacts of pollution and development.  FLOW’s office is based in the Rogue Valley and we have statewide membership, including members whose interest is the protection and restoration of the area impacted by the Petite Placer Mining proposal. 

INTRODUCTION

Past mining practices have already severely degraded the area within the project area and considering further mining activity will only lead to increased environmental risks for the Wild and Scenic Illinois River and its unique environment.  The Petite Placer Mine’s effects upon water quality, plants, soils, wildlife, and recreation are significant.  As stated in the comments below FLOW recommends the selection of Alternative A (No Action).

SPECIFIC COMMENTS

1.      The Illinois River is included under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act as a protected component.  The primary objectives of this Act are to preserve the free flow of component rivers and to protect the outstandingly remarkable values that led to their designation.  Congress specified outstandingly remarkable values of the Illinois upon designation. 

The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act section 10 requires the Forest Service to administer the Illinois River "in such a manner as to protect and enhance the values which caused it to be included" in the national wild scenic rivers system, and "in such administration primary emphasis shall be given to protecting [the river's] aesthetic, scenic, historic, archaeologic, and scientific features."  16 U.S.C. § 1281(a) The Forest Service should not violate its duty to protect and enhance the values of the Illinois Wild and Scenic River by authorizing mining operations that degrade the outstandingly remarkable values designated for the Illinois River: the values of recreation, scenic (visual quality), botany, water quality and fisheries.

The Environmental Assessment (EA) did not adequately address how the outstandingly remarkable values of the Illinois River would be protected and enhanced by the proposed Petite Placer Mining. 

The Forest Service may permit activities in the corridor only if the activities do not “substantially interfere with public use and enjoyment of its values.” 16 U.S.C. § 1281(a)

The Forest Service should protect and enhance the outstandingly remarkable values of the Illinois River.  The mining threatens to impair recreation, scenic, botanical, water quality and fishery values of the Illinois River. 

The mining threatens to impair water quality and the fisheries.  The mining may cause sedimentation that exceeds water quality standards.  Sedimentation will degrade water quality and destroy fish habitat.  The mining may increase the risks for the remaining stocks of wild anadromous fish in the Illinois River.

Moreover, mining will substantially interfere with public use and enjoyment of the values of the Illinois River.  The Illinois is an important recreational river with the public enjoying the river frequently for rafting, hiking, swimming, botany, wildlife viewing, and family activities.  The Illinois River is a pristine watershed with extraordinary peace and solitude.  The mining will entail significant traffic of ore trucks and would take place over the next ten years, including periods of the year when hikers, families, fisherman, and rafters are in the corridor enjoying the river.  The mining will interfere with and adversely affect public use of the river corridor.

2.      The EA failed to meet the substantive and procedural requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).  This large-scale mining operation along the Wild and Scenic Illinois River requires the preparation of a full environmental impact statement (EIS). 

There are substantial questions as to whether mining may have a significant effect on the environment.  In this circumstance, the Forest Service must prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS).  42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C). 

The Petite Placer Mining Operation would have a significant effect in its intensity.  Intensity is evaluated in part by the “unique characteristics of the geographic area [,] such as proximity to … wild and scenic rivers.” 40 C.F.R. § 1508.27(b)(3).  The EA failed, however, to adequately analyze the mining operations in light of its activity in the wild and scenic corridor.

Moreover, Petite Placer Mining Plan will have a significant effect because it is highly controversial.  For many years the public has objected to mining within the Illinois Wild and Scenic river corridor. 

A federal action is significant where it “is related to other actions with individually insignificant but cumulative significant impacts.”  40 C.F.R. § 1508.27(b)(7).  The consequence of several “actions [that] will have cumulative or synergistic environmental impacts… must be considered together.” Kleppe v. Sierra Club,  427 U.S. 390, 410, 96 S.Ct. 2718, 2730, 49 L.Ed. 2d 576 (1976).  The EA fails to analyze the cumulative effects of this mining plan of operations with future mining operations within the watershed or even within the same mining claim of 80 acres.  The agency must perform a cumulative impact analysis that includes “other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions.” 40 C.F.R. § 1508.7.  The EA also failed to analyze the cumulative effects of mining activities in conjunction with other activities in the watershed.

An environmental assessment is “a concise public document” that serves to “briefly provide sufficient evidence and analysis for determining whether to prepare an environmental impact statement or a finding of no significant impact.” 40 C.F.R. § 1508.9(a)(1).  The agency must take a “’hard look’ at the potential environmental impacts” of the mining and “supply a convincing statement of reasons why potential effects are insignificant.” Steamboaters v. F.E.R.C., 759 F.2d 1382 (9^th Cir. 1985).

The EA fails to demonstrate the effectiveness of mitigation measures.  The EA must explain in advance exactly how certain measures will mitigate the impacts of mining. LaFlamme v. F.E.R.C., 842 F. 2d 1063, 1071.  Although the EA appropriately identified key issues the impact of the mining proposal on key river values was not supported.

Approval of mining operations constitutes a significant federal action because it “threatens a violation of Federal, state, or local law… imposed for the protection of the environment.” 40 C.F.R. § 1508.27 (b)(10).  The mining may violate state water quality standards promulgated under the Clean Water Act.  If mining was approved, the Forest Service will have failed to protect and enhance the outstandingly remarkable values of the Illinois River that led to its designation under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.  Further, the mining is planned for a riparian reserve and is not consistent with the Aquatic Conservation Strategy of the Northwest Forest Plan. In addition, the EA has not met the substantive and procedural requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act.     

3.      The proposed mine site is located on a bedrock terrace approximately 75 feet above the Illinois River.  In the past summer, the Biscuit Fire burned nearly 500,000 acres in the immediate proximity of the proposed mine site.  The proposed mine site is actually within the 300 foot Riparian Reserve for the Illinois River.  The proposed mining project will increase sediment delivery to the Illinois River, a river already subject to extensive sediment deposition from the Biscuit Fire and human causes (logging, mining, road sedimentation).           

The Forest Service is analyzing alternatives that clearly violate the Aquatic Conservation Strategy of the Northwest Forest Plan.  According to the Northwest Forest Plan, management actions “that do not maintain the existing condition or lead to improved conditions in the long term would not “meet” the intent of the Aquatic Conservation Strategy of the NFP and should not be implemented.”  Yet the Forest Service has a proposed action that would not meet the guidelines of the Aquatic Conservation Strategy (at least #’s 1,3, and 9).                                                       

4.      The mine site is also located within the Eight Dollar Botanical Area.  According to the Siskiyou LRMP (IV-87) the management goal of the area is to “protect, preserve and enhance the exceptional botanical features of these areas.”  The Eight Dollar Mountain Area has over 250 species of documented native plants.

The National Forest Management Act directs the Secretary of Agriculture to issue regulations that “provide for the diversity of plant and animal communities… in order to meet overall multiple-use objectives.” 16 U.S.C. § 1604 (g)(3)(B).                                                 

The area is known for providing unique plant habitat and according to page 30 of the EA, “most of the suitable ultramafic habitat for serpentine endemic plants is intact.” According to the Revised Biological Evaluation numerous sensitive plant species are known to inhabit the area including the Macdonald’s rockcress, Howell’s mariposa lily, Oregon willow herb, Siskiyou fritillary, Elegant gentian, Purple-flowered rush lily, Slender meadowfoam, Howell’s microseris, Red-root Yampah, Siskiyou butterweed, and Western bog violet.                         

5.      The site is accessed by traveling the Eight Dollar Mountain Road to FS Road 4201-16.  Road 4201-16 currently has no culverts and intercepts groundwater and runoff, diverting it onto hillslopes below and on the road itself.  The Forest Service is proposing the allowance of 16 ore trucks per day on this system. The use of these trucks on these roads will also increase the risk of introducing Port Orford Cedar disease and noxious weeds.  The EA failed to analyze, in a substantive manner, how impacts from heavy ore truck traffic would be insignificant.                                                                                                                                       

6.      Four protected fish species are found on the mainstem of the Illinois River; Klamath Mountains Province Steelhead, Southern OR/Northern CA Coho; Klamath Mountains Province Steelhead and Southern OR/CA Coastal Chinook.  The Illinois River is a tributary to the Rogue River.  The Rogue River produces more anadromous fish than any other coastal river in Oregon.  This productivity depends upon the available fish habitat, riparian conditions, and diversity of aquatic fauna found on small and large tributaries to the Illinois River.  The Illinois River is designated as critical habitat for the threatened Coho Salmon.                                                                                                                                                  

7.      The proposed Petite Placer Mine may violate the biological criteria water quality standard.  Oregon has a narrative biological criteria standard for water quality, which provides:                                 Waters of the State shall be of sufficient quality to support aquatic species without                     detrimental changes in the resident biological communities. (OAR 340-41-027(1))

The EA fails to discuss the mining in the context of ecological integrity or analyze whether no loss of ecological integrity will occur.                                                                        

8.      Because the mining will take place in a state scenic waterway, the miners also need to obtain permits from the Division of State Lands (DSL).

Summary

According to the EA the decisions to be made are:

1)      Determine whether or not to approve any of the alternatives: 

Recommendation:  Alternative A (No Action)

2)      Decide whether the alternative selected would result in significant impacts to the quality of the human environment, and thereby require the preparation of an environmental impact statement. 

Recommendation: If No Action were not chosen then a full EIS would be necessary.

Respectfully submitted,

Joe Serres, J.D., M.B.A.

Conservation Coordinator, Co-Director, FLOW