Threat to the Middle Fork in Idaho

[Dee Tucker]

Words are inadequate in describing the stupidity of this proposal. The link is below. Stayed tuned to AW for announcement about the upcoming public comment period. I won't waste everyone's time here with a rant. Please read the article. http://www.americanwhitewater.org/conte ... splay_full_" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Cowper]

Wow. I mean, WOW.

I tried to seach to see what it is they even think they want to mine; haven't found it yet. But apparently, the lawsuits have been batting around since at least the late 1980's, with the F.S. apparently trying to say the mining claims aren't valid because there is no proof of valuable minerals, and the Mining Industry claiming we can't know that unless you let us go do some exploration. All of this seems to be just a side issue to the concern that apparently current mining laws DO allow them to go get the stuff, even in this "wilderness preserve", if they can prove it is there and of economic value.

[Richard]

This may be old news because the following was published June 2002 when the Republicans had control of the White House and both chambers of the legislature. http://www.wildernesswatch.org/guardian/2002/jun02.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The American Independence Mines and Minerals Company plans to build a gold mine within the Frank Church River of No Return Wilderness. The two claims are located are roughly fifty miles northeast of McCall and cover a total of forty acres. The mining company intends to convert a trail into a road and drive a bulldozer, backhoe, road grader, and other vehicles 2.7 miles into the Frank Church Wilderness Area in addition to constructing 2,000 feet of new road. The mining production would excavate an estimated 750 feet of trenches and drill 31 development holes. While the Forest Service believes that American Independence and Minerals has a legal claim to mine the land, the Forest Service wants to receive comments about the manner in which the company is allowed to access and mine the area.

Concerns: The Forest Service plans to conduct an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) concerning access for this project. Though initial scoping comments were due May 27th, you can still send your concerns and comments to the address listed below. Comments must be addressed in the EIS if they are received prior to the completion of the initial draft. The list below examines a few concerns:

1. The use of mechanized equipment in Wilderness is completely incompatible with the area’s wilderness character. The Forest Service needs to understand that the preservation of wilderness predominates over other values.

2. The area in question is within a Riparian Habitat Conservation Zone. Mining operations will harm threatened or endangered bull trout, chinook salmon, steelhead, and westslope cutthroat trout that occupy the waters downstream of the site.

3. A mining claim in a Wilderness Area does not confer a right for road access or construction. The Forest Service can still allow the claimant reasonable access with pack animals or on foot.

Send your comments to:

Ana Egnew
Krassel Ranger District
P.O. Box 1026
McCall, ID 83638
Phone: (208) 634-0624
Fax: (208) 634-0634
Email: aeegnew@fs.fed.us
For More Information:
Idaho Conservation League – John Robison, jrobison@wildidaho.org, 345-6942 ext. 13.

[okieboater]

Government bureaucrats continue to amaze me.

People floating the Middle Fork cannot take a battery powered pumps for their Zodi showers into the area because motors are banned in the Wilderness Area. Just following the regulations is the ranger's answer to why.

Yet, bull dozers, track hoes, chain saws and dump trucks plus the full complement of drilling rigs gets a pass in the same forest.

I was told that taking my kayak out of the Piedra River at the federal camp site near the river bridge was not allowed because it would damage the bank soil. I asked the camp host to show me the regulations and he said either get out of the camp or he would call the Ranger in. Wanting to get on the creek soon, we left and took out at the hiway bridge.

I was also told by the ranger at cascades camp at the Natrop CO area, that I needed to reset my cooking tarp because one pole was off the boarded square for tents and this would damage the grass. I advised him there was no grass just sand/rocks in the area the pole was in. On second thought he allowed that since I only had a couple days left to camp that he would over look it this time, just do not do it again - he left with me just shaking my head in disbelief. One bulldozer in one foot would do far more damage to the "grass" in one foot of distance than my tarp pole would do in decades of camping.

Just makes me wonder how things are done these days by our "tax payer" funded officials.

dave

PS:
Good thing our Federal lands are managed for the benefit of the American Public to enjoy for the future.

[prophet]

Dave, you tarpists are all alike. you probably didn't consider how the shade was slowly killing the plants around you either.

there was an NPR story this morning about a gold mine (i thought in Colorado) where they want to dump the mine waste into a lake even though this would kill everything in it. They had got a permit from the Corps of Engrs. but a lawsuit from some danged enviro's was holding up the process.

I would like to thank the Bush Admin. for designating over 2 million acres in 9 states as new "Wilderness" areas. Too bad our State Congresspeople couldn't bring home any bacon for this.

[okieboater]

prophet, you are correct, I did not consider the effects of that tarp's shade on the surrounding sandy soil. Mostly concerned about rain's effect on cooking dinner. I will do better next time!

OOPS, on second thought, that camp site was totally (well 95 percent of the day) shaded, that is one reason we picked it. The tarp was up for the afternoon rain showers.

New Years Resolution for me, be more considerate of Tarps and TARP effects.

Happy New Year to all and best of wishes for same, even bureaucrats.

[Clif]

um... Dave, that would be... be careful where you put your pole. A safe habit for us all.

[okieboater]

Clif, point well made and accepted.

dave

[davidbob]

Words are inadequate in describing the stupidity of this proposal. The link is below. Stayed tuned to AW for announcement about the upcoming public comment period. I won't waste everyone's time here with a rant. Please read the article. http://www.americanwhitewater.org/conte ... splay_full_" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Now see here, Hedley, I think you're missing the silver lining. As I recall Big Creek comes in from river left a couple of miles downstream from Survey Creek (home of Walter's favorite drinking barge parking spot). It might be useful having all that heavy equipment nearby in case the Waste Management Crew Captain for Team Big Water decides to use the "Burn It Fast, Burn It Big, and Burn It All" method of trash disposal there at Survey Creek again (who could have foreseen the possibility of microburst on the Middle Fork that night anyway!?).

[Trismegistus]

Richard -- The EIS of 2002/2003 concerns Golden Hand 3 and 4 mining claims. These claims were eventually pursued with relatively few modifications -- they ended up deferring all trenching "until drilling verifies the deposit and confirms that the deposits extend to the surface " and improving a couple of fords to reduce sedimentation. Since the project commenced in 2003 I can find no environmental violations subsequently reported by state and federal officials.

The current project -- Golden Hand 1 and 2 -- is very similar to that proposed for Golden Hand 3 and 4 and will likely be approved unless something particularly unsettling is revealed in the upcoming EIS. As noted previously no new road bed is being laid down -- the old road which has subsequently been used as a horse trail will be opened back up to allow access to the site. And as far as I know they plan on using pursuing the same mineral veins that were previously mined albeit the drilling and trench work may reveal additional deposits of gold -- note the nation's only cobalt mine lies nearby just outside the wilderness area on Big Creek -- but I do not believe they are looking for strategic minerals -- just gold. These are very small claims -- each only 20 acres -- in a wilderness area that encompasses 2.3 million acres. The claims are within the Big Creek watershed but actually lie near a small 1st order stream well above Big Creek.

As Cowper so indicated above mining laws and the Wilderness Act are very specific as to the rights of the landowners -- and there are probably hundreds of inholdings within this huge wilderness area -- even a number of lodges and outfitters reside within the wilderness boundaries. As long as the company can demonstrate no adverse long-term environmental impact there is probably not much one can do to stop the project without an legislative act of congress. However we can have a very real impact on assuring that the company does in fact minimize their impact. Thus all of us should carefully peruse the EIS and supporting documentation to assure that BMPs are followed. Similarly those of us that may get the opportunity to go to Idaho in the near future may want to drop in and pay a personal visit just to see for ourselves that those in charge of overseeing and regulating the project are doing their job.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

American Independence Mines and Minerals, Inc. (AIMMCO) has proposed a Plan of Operations (POO) to allow for collection of subsurface geological information on the Golden Hand 1 and 2 mining claims. The mining claims are located in the Frank Church--River of No Return Wilderness (FC-RONRW), approximately 50 miles northeast of McCall, Idaho in section 26, T22N, R9E, Boise Meridian. The claims encompass approximately 20 acres each adjacent to Coin Creek, a tributary of Beaver Creek, which flows into Big Creek, a tributary of the Salmon River.

Proposed Action

The Forest Service proposes to authorize AIMMCO to perform core drilling at up to 13 locations and excavate up to 2500 feet of trenches. This proposed action would not include mining extraction or transporting of minerals for processing. Access to the claims would be on Forest Service (FS) roads to the FC-RONR Wilderness boundary at Pueblo Summit, north of the town of Edwardsburg. Proposed access would then require vehicle passage for approximately 3 miles past the wilderness boundary on FS trail 13. Within the boundary is a roadbed that existed before creation of the wilderness. The roadbed was converted to use as a trail upon establishment of the wilderness. The proposed operation would require reconstructing approximately 2000 feet of pre-existing roadbed on each claim. These roads would access 13 drill locations from which up to core holes would be drilled. Approximately 2500 feet of trench would be excavated in the roadbed to allow collection of rock chip samples. The Ella Mine, inaccessible since the 1930s, would be opened and retimbered to allow underground mapping and sampling. Waste rock would be placed on an existing dump at the Ella portal site. Fuel would be transported in sealed containers and stored in a leak-proof containment.

Responsible Official

The responsible official is Suzanne Rainville, Forest Supervisor of the Payette National Forest, 800 West Lakeside Avenue, McCall, Idaho 83638.

Scoping Process

Public participation will be important at several points during the analysis, particularly during scoping of issues and review of the draft environmental impact statement (DEIS). The scoping process will identify potential issues and issues to be analyzed in detail, and will lead to the development of alternatives to the proposal. Comments received in response to this notice, including the names and addresses of those who comment, will be part of the project record and available for public review. The second major opportunity for public input is with the DEIS. The DEIS will analyze a range of alternatives to the proposed action, including the no-action alternative.

Comment Requested

The Forest Service encourages the public to express issues, concerns, and suggestions they may have about this proposed action. Comments should be directly related to issues associated with the proposed action, rather than general advocacy of or opposition to the project, to best assist us in the NEPA analysis. Although comments are welcome at any time during this NEPA analysis, they will be most useful to us if they are received within 30 days following the publication of this notice.

The comment period on the draft environmental impact statement will be 45 days from the date the Environmental Protection Agency publishes the notice of availability in the Federal Register. The Forest Service believes that reviewers of draft environmental impact statements must structure their participation in the environmental review of the proposal so that it is meaningful and alerts an agency to the reviewer's position and contentions. Also, environmental objections that could be raised at the draft environmental impact statement stage but that are not raised until after completion of the final environmental impact statement may be waived or dismissed by the courts. Because of these court rulings, it is very important that those interested in this proposed action participate by the close of the 45 day comment period so that substantive comments and objections are made available to the Forest Service at a time when it can meaningfully consider them and respond to them in the final environmental impact statement.

[Trismegistus]

Of course the bigger question is why are we so more overly concerned with these two 20 acre claims some thousand miles from home when we have depleted bauxite mines fouling the Saline, oil and gas exploits compromising the integrity of the Cadron and Little Red, mercury-infested fish in the Ouachita, poultry and fecal contamination of the Illinois, excess sediment and gravel mining on tributaries of the White, etc.

Seems like we have enough to keep us busy right here at home.

[KAYAKN]

Might have something to do with us all being on the same freakn planet!!

[CapnTom]

I'm with Brother Dave(Reid,Okieboater for those of you who don't know anyone on the message board),
I"m totally against the TARP( Typical Anarchists Repressing Paddling).
But I will try to aBiden by their rules... (Oops misspelling). :roll:


CapnNobody....

[Trismegistus]

I guess my epideitic rhetorical question was a little too much for kayakn .... let me explain --

The point I was trying to make was that we have very real environmental problems right here in Arkansas that merit our attention. Moreover locality is not irrelevant when we look at the motivations that underlie our environmental behavior. Many, many studies have clearly demonstrated that one of the best approaches to living green is to "think globally, act locally". Very few of us will likely ever be in a position where we can affect real change in Idaho beyond writing a few letters and eating fewer potatoes but we can all have a meaningful and positive impact here in Arkansas first thing tomorrow morning if we so desire.

Similarly, there are also a number of studies that reveal that when people suffer the immediate consequences of environmental degradation that they are far more motivated to act. In a recent book on sustainable waste management the investigators Ravindra K. Dhir and Moray D. Newlands stated that "to involve themselves in such action people must be convinced that individual actions can make an impact" and that to "induce environmental responsibility under the guise of moral responsibility often fails to motivate non-participants". Rather convenience and immediacy of benefit serve to better motivate people -- both of which can be better accomplished by focusing on environmental issues closer to home. Albeit I'm all for "moral responsibility" and I am certain a few folks will zealously embrace a letter-writing, e-mailing, phone calling campaign with regard to the mining claims in Idaho BUT we need not overlook the problems lying right outside our door. Albeit I too have made humanitarian trips well beyond our borders I still believe that the biggest impact most of us can make -- both good and bad -- is made right here at home.

Again not to undermine the "thrust of the thread" but I implore one and all to reflect upon issues of locality, convenience and immediacy of benefit when examining their role in preserving the environment.

[prophet]

seems like the mining operation should have to follow the rules of a wilderness area (no machinery) to do their work.

Tris- you make some good points about focusing on local issues too. there's plenty of stuff around here to worry about