Gold Mining in Pahá Sápa

District Ranger Esperance:

The Black Hills Group – Sierra Club obtained the notice information concerning the above-referenced project proposal submitted by Mineral Mt. Resources from the Black Hills National Forest’s website.  We have reviewed the project description, together with the detail map of the project which were linked on the website.  Members of the Black Hills Group – Sierra Club are familiar with the area where the project is proposed to be implemented and its wildlife.  Based on our review we are objecting to the implementation of the Mineral Mt. Resources Rochford Exploration Project as a categorically excluded activity without further analysis in and environmental impact statement.  We base this objection on the following reasons:

 The project notice incorrectly implies that the 1872 Mining Law ties the hands of the Forest Service with respect to this proposed mining exploration project.  While the 1872 Mining Law may not give the Forest Service the option of prohibiting this type of mining exploration, the Forest Service still has a great deal of authority in ensuring that that such exploration is implemented, conducted, and concluded in a manner that affords the best environmental protections for the resource area.  The Forest Service has the duty to fully implement NEPA’s procedures in order to fully evaluate the Mineral Mt. Resource mining exploration proposal and to determine the best methods necessary to mitigate all of the impacts to the project area and forest’s resources resulting from the project’s implementation.  That duty also extends to the review and formulation of necessary reclamation and restoration measures for the project area when the project is concluded.

We note that the Plan of Operations submitted to your office by Mineral Mt. Resources anticipates that the exploration activity in the project area will be accomplished in approximately 8 months; that the exploratory drilling activities on the projected 21 drill sites will continue continuously around the clock; timber will be cut, with Mineral Mt. Resources being required to compensate the Forest Service for only the timber cut which is merchantable; that water for use in the drilling exploration, in a quantity amounting between 5,000 and 20,000 gallons per day, depending upon drilling conditions, will be drawn from the Rapid Creek and/or Castle Creek drainages; and, the Forest Service is charged with putting together a Plan of Operations for the project to dispose of the captured water used to flush drill cuttings.  

We find the Plan of Operations to be unacceptably opaque in numerous places.  Mineral Mt. Resources will allude to a potentially significant adverse impact resulting from the exploratory drilling, then minimalize and/or eliminate it by implying mitigation assured by unspecified, but applicable standards.  For example, with respect to the accidental discharge of foreign substances and/or pollutants into streams and wetlands, the Plan of Operations states:

"In the event that Mineral Mountain or any of its contractors cause debris to enter streams and wetlands in amounts that may adversely affect the natural flow of the stream, water quality or fishery habitat, all such debris will be removed as soon as practicable, but not to exceed within 48 hours, and in an agreed manner that will cause the least disturbance to streams and wetlands.  Additional Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be installed as determined by the USFS representative."  [p. 8]

This is the most detailed description of a potential adverse environmental impact resulting from the project that we find in the Plan of Operations, but it is still not specific enough to enable your office to determine what pollutants could be released, in what quantity, and how the release might affect stream flow and water quality.  Nor does the Plan of Operations state with specificity what the referenced “Best Management Practices” are, how those BMPs can mitigate the adverse impact, or the entity that compiled the BMPs.  In the absence of the actual best management practices being relied upon by Mineral Mt. Resources in its Plan of Operations, neither can your office or the public adequately review this project application.  Adequate review of the project application further frustrated by the Plan of Operations other references to reliance upon unspecified best management practices in relation to project operations involving potential impacts to other forest resources.

 Although wildlife and cultural resources are referenced in the Plan of Operations, it is concluded that no threatened or endangered species or culturally sensitive resources are affected by, or within the project area.  No biological assessments or cultural resource opinions are supplied supporting these assertions.  Nor does the Plan of Operations identify any surveys conducted by Mineral Mt. Resource’s personnel, or consultations Mineral Mt. Resources had with the Black Hills National Forest or the applicable agencies of the State of South Dakota which would support the conclusions in the Plan of Operations.  At absolute minimum, in reviewing this project application your office will have to consider impacts to wildlife species that are used as indicator species and species of interest on the Black Hills National Forest.  Additionally, your office will have to give similar consideration to cultural resources, and to threatened or endangered botanical species that may occur in the project area.

The Plan of Operations also is inadequate to adequately enable a review and assessment regarding the reclamation of the project site.  The most substantive statement concerning reclamation occurs on page 9 of the Plan of Operations:  “Upon completion of the drilling operation, reclamation will be conducted to the satisfaction of USFS personnel.”  No standards are ever set to determine what the final condition and state of the affected landscape will be after the reclamation process is completed.  As set forth in the Plan of Operations, your agency is given the right to pass on the acceptability of the reclamation, but absent any standards for reclamation, can your agency win any argument it might have about whether the reclamation has been satisfactorily completed?

The Plan of Operations is also deficient in detail in its discussion of what measures will be taken in the event of a release of hazardous materials or toxic substances.  It is simply stated, “In the case of a spill, Mineral Mountain and its contractors will report all significant spills of hazardous substances to the Forest Service.”[p. 10]  There is no definition of what constitutes a spill sufficient in amount to a “significant spill” which would trigger the reporting requirement.  Further, the Plan of Operations is silent as to what entity shall be responsible for cleaning up the spill and restoring the site.  These matters need to be addressed in detail in order to enable adequate review of the application.

For these reasons the Black Hills Group – Sierra Club believes that the Mineral Mt. Resources Rochford Exploration Project fall outside of the categorical exclusion categories of FSH 1909.15.  Mineral Mt. Resource’s Plan of Operations is too loose and will require a rigorous NEPA analysis.  We submit that an environmental impact statement would be the best method of accomplishing such an evaluation.  It would provide your agency and the public with the best information to evaluate the proposed project and determine necessary and adequate mitigation measures for problems which may result from the implementation of the project, and to determine whether the Forest Service should require a bond from the project applicant. 

Please keep us advised as to further actions concerning and related to the Mineral Mt. Resources Rochford Exploration Project.  Thank you for this opportunity to comment.

Respectfully submitted,

BLACK HILLS GROUP – SIERRA CLUB

Jim Margadant, for the BHG Conservation Committee