appendix f – public comments and agency...

Appendix F – Public Comments and Agency Responses

F.1 Introduction Appendix F contains comments that exemplify the breadth of the concerns and thoughts people provided during the 30-day comment period for the Draft Kawishiwi Minerals Exploration Environmental Assessment (EA) along with agency responses from the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management (BLM). All of the correspondence and comments on the Draft EA that the Forest Service received during the 30-day comment period is located in the Project File.

Table F.1 is the table of contents for Appendix F, identifying subjects and categories of the comments. Table F.2 lists people, organizations, companies, and government agencies that commented on the Draft EA, and identifies their letter or e-mail by number. Comments shown in Appendix F are identified first by the letter number and then by the comment number within the letter. For example, “Comment #67.05” refers to the fifth comment identified from letter “67” from River Point Resort and Outfitting Co., Jane, Steve, and James Koschak (Table F.2).

F.1.1 Contents

F.1.1 Appendix F Table of Contents

F.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 144 F.1.1 Contents ....................................................................................................................... 144 F.1.2 Commenter List ........................................................................................................... 146

F.2. Recreation Residences........................................................................................................ 149 F.2.1 Drilling Noise and Recreation Residences................................................................... 149 F.2.2 Drilling Noise and Permanent Residents ..................................................................... 151 F.2.3 Road/Access................................................................................................................. 151 F.2.4 Damage Deposit for Recreation Residence Roads....................................................... 152 F.2.5 Season of Core Drilling Operations and Recreation Residences ................................. 152 F.2.6 Recreation Residences and Location of Drill Sites...................................................... 153

F.3 Drilling and Recreation in the Area................................................................................... 153 F.3.1 Overall Recreation Opportunities ................................................................................ 153 F.3.2 Noise Across the Vicinity of Proposed Drilling Sites .................................................. 154

F.4 Water Quality/Wetlands ..................................................................................................... 158 F.4.1 Water Quality and Quantity.......................................................................................... 158 F.4.2 Water Quality and Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness ..................................... 159 F.4.3 Baseline Information Relating to Water Quality.......................................................... 160 F.4.4 Water Quality and Sump Pits ....................................................................................... 161 F.4.5 Water Quality and Mining............................................................................................ 163 F.4.6 Drill Holes after Drilling Operations ........................................................................... 163 F.4.7 Wetlands....................................................................................................................... 163 F.4.8 Hazardous Materials .................................................................................................... 165 F.4.9 Water Withdrawal for Drilling Operations................................................................... 165 F.4.10 Drilling Additives....................................................................................................... 166

F.5 Air Quality............................................................................................................................ 167 F.5.1 Air Pollution................................................................................................................. 167

Kawishiwi Minerals Exploration 144 Environmental Assessment

Appendix F Public Comments and Agency Responses

F.6 Vegetation............................................................................................................................. 168 F.6.1 Vegetation Removal ..................................................................................................... 168

F.7 Proposed Access and the Transportation System ............................................................. 168 F.7.1 Travel Ways.................................................................................................................. 168 F.7.2 FR 186 and other System Roads .................................................................................. 168 F.7.3 Temporary Roads ......................................................................................................... 170 F.7.4 Safety ........................................................................................................................... 173 F.7.5 Roads and Invasive Species ......................................................................................... 173

F.8 Wildlife and Plants .............................................................................................................. 174 F.8.1 Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species .......................................................... 174

F.9 Heritage (Cultural) Resources............................................................................................ 177 F.9.1 Heritage Surveys and Resources.................................................................................. 177

F.10 Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (BWCAW) .................................................. 177 F.10.1 Mining and the BWCAW........................................................................................... 177 F.10.2 Minerals Exploration and the BWCAW..................................................................... 178 F.10.3 Scope of Analysis and the BWCAW.......................................................................... 179 F.10.4 Noise and the BWCAW ............................................................................................. 180

F.11 Permits and Leases ............................................................................................................ 180 F.11.1 NEPA for Permits and Leases .................................................................................... 180 F.11.2 Lease-Prospecting and Mining................................................................................... 185 F.11.3 Issuing Permits and Leases ........................................................................................ 187

F.12 Process - NEPA .................................................................................................................. 187 F.12.1 Public Involvement for Future Mining ...................................................................... 187 F.12.2 Resource Surveys....................................................................................................... 188 F.12.3 Addressing Public Input from Scoping Efforts .......................................................... 189 F.12.4 Decisions to Be Made ................................................................................................ 189 F.12.5 Changes and Clarifications to the Draft EA............................................................... 190 F.12.6 Effects Analysis.......................................................................................................... 190 F.12.7 Environmental Impact Statement ............................................................................... 191 F.12.8 Decisions to Be Made ................................................................................................ 195 F.12.9 Cumulative Effects Analysis ...................................................................................... 196 F.12.10 Request Extension for Scoping or Comment Periods .............................................. 201 F.12.11 Payment for Analysis/Cost Collection Agreements ................................................. 201

F.13 Alternatives ........................................................................................................................ 202 F.13.1 Alternative Development ........................................................................................... 202 F.13.2 Alternative 2............................................................................................................... 204 F.13.3 Alternative 3............................................................................................................... 206

F.14 Mineral Exploration Operations...................................................................................... 207 F.14.1 Exploratory Drilling................................................................................................... 207 F.14.2 Operating Plans.......................................................................................................... 208 F.14.3 Mining as Connected Action to Drilling .................................................................... 210 F.14.4 Analysis – Consequence of Drilling........................................................................... 213 F.14.5 Mineral Rights – Federal Minerals ............................................................................ 214 F.14.6 Past Drilling ............................................................................................................... 215 F.14.7 DNR Drilling ............................................................................................................. 216 F.14.8 Drilling Operations – Monitoring/Compliance with Stipulations & Design Features217 F.14.9 Need for Mines - including National Security ........................................................... 218 F.14.10 Shipstead-Newton-Nolan ......................................................................................... 219



F.14.11 Helicopters ............................................................................................................... 219 F.14.12 Objectives of the Proposed Drilling......................................................................... 222 F.14.13 Timeline/Timeframes of Operations ........................................................................ 222

F.15 Laws.................................................................................................................................... 223 F.15.1 Authorities.................................................................................................................. 223

F.16 Social/Economics Concerns .............................................................................................. 224 F.16.1 Social Costs and Benefits........................................................................................... 224 F.16.2 Employment ............................................................................................................... 225

F.1.2 Commenter List

Table F.1.2: People, Organizations, Companies, And Government Agencies That Commented On The Draft EA

Letter Number Commenter List

1 Michael Teichert 2 Jim McMeen 3 Tom Deluca 4 Eliza Appert 5 Beaver Bay Joint Venture and Franconia Minerals Corporation, Ernest K. Lehmann 6 Beaver Bay Joint Venture and Franconia Minerals Corporation, Ernest K. Lehmann 7 Beaver Bay Joint Venture and Franconia Minerals Corporation, Ernest K. Lehmann 8 Kristi Garrity 9 Mining Minnesota, Frank Ongaro

10 Stephen F. Jay 11 Chuck Williams 12 Ryan Kasner Bialke, llc, Jack R. Ryan 13 Michael Senn 14 Kristin Aho 15 Steve DeVaney 16 Fond Du Lac Reservation, Richard D. Gitar 17 Conservationists With Common Sense, Nancy Mcready 18 David Oliver 19 Marcella Hartman 20 Kevin D. Boerst 21 Hibbing Chamber Of Commerce, Jon Minne & Lory Fedo 22 David Pickford 23 Andrea S. Childs 24 Daniel DeVaney 25 Douglas Johnson 26 Jim D. Miller 27 John Rueter 28 Don W. Berkemeyer 29 RF and Ava Portman




30 Dick Backstrom 31 Don W. Berkemeyer 32 RGGS Lands & Minerals, Ltd, L.P., Daniel Clark 33 Alan R. Geiwitz 34 Community Economic Development Joint Powers Board, Ray Marsnik 35 Latham & Watkins LLP, David J. Hayes for Duluth Metals Corporation 36 Jim Miller 37 Duluth Metals Corporation, Henry J. Sandri 38 Ely Area Development Association, Charlie Chernak, Betsy Leustek, & Bill Roloff 39 Ely Area Development Association, Cindy Fenske 40 Ed Hoffman 41 Bruce Jago 42 Arthur Lind 43 Northland Securities Inc., Randy Nitzcshe 44 Northland Securities Inc., Randy Nitzcshe & William E. Fahey 45 Dave Witt 46 Dave Witt 47 Richard Clark 48 Duluth Metals Limited, Christopher C. Dundas 49 Enid Zwirn Via Leah Jansen 50 Enid Zwirn 51 Tim Holst 52 Peter M. Leschak 53 Norma Ramsey 54 Marilyn And Janet Russell 55 Dixon Brooke 56 Jessica Jay 57 Matt Jay 58 Marilyn and Janet Russell 59 Marilyn and Janet Russell 60 Auden Schendler 61 Audrey Jiricko 62 Deborah Huskins 63 Anne Jay 64 Stephen F. Jay 65 Stephen J. Jay 66 Philip Jiricko 67 River Point Resort & Outfitting Co., Jane, Steve, & James Koschak, 68 Wendy Peroni 69 Patrick Sell 70 Lori Andresen 71 Pam Backstrom




72 Linda Bristol 73 Stewart Pobuda 74 David Godlewski Teckcominco 75 Minnesota Power 76 Ely Economic Development Authority, Heidi Omerza 77 Aaran Leustek 78 City of Babbitt, Castellano, Hoheisel, Marinaro, Negley 79 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Region II Headquarters, Craig Engwall 80 Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy, Janette Brimmer 81 Mark Severson 82 Pam Backstrom 83 Betsy Leplatt 84 Encampment Resources LLC, Harold Noyes 85 Encampment Resources LLC, Harold Noyes 86 Thomas A. Gardner 87 Andy Grimmer 88 Karen Grimmer 89 Alan John Jay 90 Patricia Leano



F.2. Recreation Residences

F.2.1 Drilling Noise and Recreation Residences

F.2.1.1 Comment: “Noise abatement--- The drilling activity and noise continues 24 hours a day

and 7 days a week and how you will be affected depends on the direction of the wind and your cabin location. We understand that River Point Resort has requested noise suppression barriers be installed at the present drilling sites near his location and the mining company (Duluth Metals) has agreed to comply.” Comment #1.02

Agency Response: As part of project design, drill rigs for each of the companies will be required to utilize sound baffles and exhaust extensions to direct drilling noise upward rather than laterally. See EA section 2.2.2.5.

F.2.1.2 Comment: “We did not have a single night (during any weekend) of 'silence' until the 3rd

week in September.” Comment #15.04

Agency Response: Affects of noise from drilling operations is addressed as a significant issue. Drilling operations typically take place 24 hours a day to shorten the duration of drilling during operating seasons and generally accomplish effective and efficient operations. Further information regarding the duration of drilling activities is discussed in sections 1.2.3.2, 1.8.2, 3.2.6, 3.2.7, and Appendix A

F.2.1.3 Comment: “Why do indicators 1 and 2 include reference to summer homes residents

but not the permanent residents in this area?” Comment #65.39

Agency Response: As indicated in section 3.2.3, Table 3.2.1, the effects to places (such as the River Point Resort and permanent residences) and recreation opportunities (such as canoeing and dispersed camping) generally equated to estimated effects at the South Kawishiwi River Recreation Residences, the South Kawishiwi River Campground, and the BWCAW Entry Points #32 and #33.

F.2.1.4 Comment: “Encampment's proposed operations pose no risk of noise impacts to the

receptors under even the most conservative assumptions.” Comment #84.10

Agency Response: The estimated effects analysis in terms of noise impacts are shown in section 3.2 and 3.3. Issues and concerns relating to noise from the proposed minerals exploration are considered in section 1.8 Issues.

F.2.1.5 Comment: “Therefore, variations in the selected route will greatly reduce the noise

levels perceived by those individuals involved in recreational activities. And, as demonstrated in Figure 3.3 of the attached Encampment Noise Impacts Report, receptors more than a mile away from a helicopter will perceive very little noise.” Comment #84.33



Agency Response: Comment acknowledged. Although helicopter flights could be heard during flights, the difference between Alternative 1 - No Action and Alternative 2 would not likely be highly noticeable considering the scope of the effects described and existing small aircraft traffic that can occasionally be seen and heard in the analysis area at this time. See EA section 3.3.6.3 and 3.3.7.

F.2.1.6 Comment: “Although the drilling rigs will generate noise during operation, this noise will

not be a significant issue, because it will be barely perceptible over the background decibel levels. The South Kawishiwi River has no limit on the number or horsepower of boats operating thereon. Additionally, all types of power boats can be, and are, launched at the South Kawishiwi Campground public boat ramp. It is misguided to be concerned about the impact of drilling noise either on this point source of internal combustion noise and activity or on recreational boating activity on the River itself. The drilling noise will be especially muffled during the summer months, when leaves are on the trees. Further, a modest wind will effectively drown out the noise from the drilling operations, and, for the majority of the time, will blow the noise away from the lake and the recreational cabins.” Comment #86.05

Agency Response: Comment acknowledged. Section 3.2 displays the analysis of effects on recreation opportunities from drilling noise and the season of operations. It includes estimated effects on recreationists at the South Kawishiwi River Campground as well as in terms of other sites and recreation opportunities in the analysis area. There are several other variables that can influence sound levels that have not been quantified in this analysis. These variables are site specific and include temperature, humidity, wind, topography, vegetation, other barriers, and the frequency (Hz) of the sound. These variables can add or subtract to perceptible noise and highly variable. Therefore, they are not quantifiable.

F.2.1.7 Comment: “Of particular importance in this case, the recreation residence leaseholders

(who pay a not insignificant annual lease fee to the USFS for that privilege) should be able to exercise and enjoy that lease without undo and avoidable noise and road/access related disruption from the proposed drilling activities”. Comment #47.05

Agency Response: The Recreation Opportunity Spectrum identified in the Forest Plan for the project area is Roaded Natural in the General Forest Management Area (Forest Plan page 3-45). Interactions between users may be moderate to high, with evidence of other users prevalent. Exploration drilling has been taking place in the vicinity of the proposed exploration and recreation sites, such as the South Kawishiwi River Campground and the South Kawishiwi River itself for the past 40 years. See EA section 1.0.1, and 1.3. As shown in section 2.2.2, measures would be implemented to minimize noise and road access effects.



F.2.2 Drilling Noise and Permanent Residents

F.2.2.1 Comment: “In the section: “Access” only S. Kawishiwi Recreation Residencies are

mentioned. There are numerous other persons, including permanent residents in this area driving on roads that are and will be impacted. The same is true for “Drilling Noise.” This should be clarified. Regarding Drilling Noise, while drilling in winter will obviously benefit those summer homes residents, it will not help the permanent residents in the area, nor those who visit their homes in the winter.” Comment #65.29

“In the description of the Project Area: (1.0.1) “recreation homes” are mentioned but there is no mention of permanent residents who live in this area. This is critical to include, since proposed strategies for mitigating some of the adverse consequences of drilling, road building, trucking, etc suggest concentrating some of these activities in the winter. An accounting of permanent residents in these areas is necessary to evaluate the proposed plans since such residents (and winter visitors to SNF) would be directly affected by drilling, noise, and truck traffic.” Comment #65.12

Agency Response: Forest recreation use is highest during the summer months and

lowest during the winter months. Any noise impacts associated with drilling activities would be less during the winter months due to less use during that season. See EA section 3.2.5. Private property owners are considered most notably in sections 1.8, 3.2, and 3.3

F.2.3 Road/Access

F.2.3.1 Comment: “For driving safety, we suggest you place a stop sign at the intersection of

FR 186 and FR 1900.” Comment #40.02

“You will certainly have to put a stop sign requiring drivers exiting FR l900 onto FR l86 to stop or at least slow enough to be aware that other people also use FR l86.” Comment #54.03

Agency Response: Comment acknowledged.

F.2.3.2 Comment: “We also urge that the Forest Service be extremely pro-active to assure that

all roads used by the mining companies are maintained at the specified level of conformance”. Comment #40.04

Agency Response: Project design and protection measures include inspections and monitoring of drilling and reclamation activities. See EA section 2.2.1.

F.2.3.3 Comment: “I would also like to take issue with a comment made in 3.2.6.2 about road

traffic at the residences. Yes, motor vehicle traffic from FR186 may be occasionally/regularly heard but it is not long term/constant as are the drone of the



drills.” Comment #15.04

Agency Response: Discussion in section 3.2.6.2 notes that while the sound of drilling could impact the sense of remoteness at a recreational residence that would occur where vehicles can have some impact on remoteness as well. As shown in section 3.2.6.3, at all recreation sites, audible impacts from drilling would be short term (1-60 days), as a drill hole takes on average 17.5 days to complete, depending on core depth. Audible effects would range from small (30-60 dBA) to moderate in scope (61-90 dBA). See EA section 3.2.6.3.

F.2.4 Damage Deposit for Recreation Residence Roads

F.2.4.1 Comment: “We should request more oversight by the Forest Service pertaining to road

usage and a financial deposit to the Forest Service by the mining companies to assure that the road is brought back to a good condition after the mining companies depart. We should also request that all mining traffic on Forest Service Road # 186 be eliminated if alternate roads are available.” Comment #1.03

Agency Response: Project design and protection measures include inspections and monitoring of drilling and reclamation activities. Any company with an approved operating plan to conduct mineral exploration on Superior National Forest system lands will be required to secure a reclamation bond pursuant to BLM Hardrock Prospecting Permit Stipulations No. 1. This bond will be used in the event that a company defaults and does not complete reclamation on drilling sites and/or access routes. Sees EA section 2.2.1.0.

F.2.5 Season of Core Drilling Operations and Recreation Residences

F.2.5.1 Comment: “Cabin use between Nov. 1st. and Apr. 1st. is practacally nil. Therefore,

under Alt. #3, Sound of the drilling would not be noticed at that time.” Comment #24.03

“Because of the proximity to our 25 cabins, we should request that the Forest Service limit the Lehmann drilling to the Winter season.” Comment #1.06

Agency Response: Section 3.2 Recreation – Effects of Drilling Noise and Season of Operations contains estimated effects analysis in terms of noise and the season of operations. Issues relating to noise are identified in section 1.8 and Alternative 3 was developed to address aspects of noise, such as season of operations, is described in section 2.4. Section 2.5 shows a comparison of the alternatives in terms of the significant issues.

F.2.5.2 Comment: “Encampment acknowledges that, for those locations in which it must

actually drill in a wetland, its drilling will be restricted to those periods in which the ground is sufficiently frozen (the "Frozen Season"). For those sites, however, in



which Encampment can drill in upland locations, but needs to cross wetlands to access to the sites, a seasonal restriction is unnecessary.” Comment #84.16

“The imposition of a complete seasonal restriction on mineral exploration will unnecessarily prolong the proposed exploratory activities for a number of reasons .” Comment #84.22

“Given the absence of significant impacts on either wetlands or the recreational receptors, a seasonal restriction is unnecessary and counterproductive.” Comment #84.24

Agency Response: Information concerning wetlands are in sections 1.8.2 Non-Significant issues, 2.2.2.2 Location and extent of areas to be occupied, 2.2.2.3 Steps taken to prevent and control soil erosion, 2.2.2.4 Steps taken to prevent water pollution, 3.6 Water Resources, and 3.7 Soil Productivity and Wetlands. Effects on recreation are shown primarily in sections 2.6 Comparison of Alternatives, 3.2 Recreation – Effects of Drilling Noise and Season of Operations, and 3.3 Recreation – Effects on Recreation from Access.

F.2.6 Recreation Residences and Location of Drill Sites

F.2.6.1 Comment: “There are 3 Lehmannn proposed drilling sites very near our rode. We

should request that these proposed sites be moved away from the road and accessed from the proposed temporary road.” Comment #1.07

Agency Response: As discussed in section 2.6 Alternatives Considered but Elimintaed From Detailed Study, an individual drill hole may be relocated by one to two hundred feet in the immediate vicinity of the proposed drill site to avoid or minimize impacts to resources at the site (such as to minimize removing trees or avoid an individual sensitive plant or heritage site if they were to be found). In addition, this project cannot be done without some disruption either from noise or small changes in traffic. Relocating drilling to points that would have no impact on nearby private property owners would not meet the purpose and need shown in section 1.4.

F.3 Drilling and Recreation in the Area

F.3.1 Overall Recreation Opportunities

F.3.1.1 Comment: “In § 3.3, in its discussion of recreation, the Draft EA should note that since

Duluth Metals initiated its work in the Kawishiwi area, company employees and contractors have not seen any canoeing, boating, hiking, camping, bird and/or animal watching or other forms of general or outdoor recreation on the federal lands located within Prospecting Permits # MNES-050652 and MNES-050846. This includes significant periods of time when drilling was not taking place. This does not mean that the areas are off limits or out-of bounds for these activities; it only represents an observation that these grounds are not frequented as a recreation area.” Comment #35.17



Agency Response: The project area for the Kawishiwi Minerals Exploration is shown in section 1.0.1. The analysis area and affected environment for the analysis shown in section 3.3 Recreation - Effect on Recreation from Access is described in sections 3.3.4 and 3.3.5. Further analysis regarding effects on recreation is in section 3.2.

F.3.2 Noise Across the Vicinity of Proposed Drilling Sites

F.3.2.1 Comment: “On my one visit to an active drill site I don't remember seeing plywood

baffles nor extended exhaust pipes. This, I believe, is mandatory and I wonder who checks this and have there been violations?” Comment #2.01

Agency Response: The drill site, if recent, was likely operating on either state owned or private mineral rights where the Forest Service does not have jurisdiction. Currently there are no drilling operations occurring under Forest Service jurisdiction. Noise reduction measures in this case would be the responsibility of the agency overseeing the operations. See Ea section 3.2.7.1. Noise abatement efforts for this project are shown in section 2.2.2.5.

F.3.2.2 Comment: “Review of this study indicates that it was conducted during CS 4000 rig

operations in the southwestern US in desert settings. This data may not be directly transferable to the forested areas of northern Minnesota and the potential use of other types of drill rigs anticipated for Duluth's project. For instance, Duluth Metals is not using a CS 4000 drill rig, and it is our understanding that the other two companies will not be using this rig. Therefore the EA's use of this study to estimate noise impacts in a different (and forested) environment likely overestimates potential noise impacts.” Comment #35.08

Agency Response: At the time of the drafting of the EA, the CS 4000 Unit #5990 Full Noise Survey was the only information available in regards to core drilling noise production. The equipment used in the study was as close to the equipment proposed in the operating plans that was available (Project File).

F.3.2.3 Comment: “Current re-construction of the "Iron Bridge" and replacement of the old

bridge over the South Kawishiwi River and associated traffic (including large hauling trucks, boom trucks, equipment trucks, etc.) are a significant source of industrial traffic on Rt. I and a large source of the current noise. This is also true for empty and loaded timber trucks using this route. These can be heard regularly on the main access routes in the area.” Comment #35.13

Agency Response: Re-construction of Highway 1 between the Kawishiwi River bridge and FR 424 would not have any cumulative effects on Alternative 2 or Alternative 3 due to construction is scheduled to begin after the expected completion of drilling operations in this analysis. The portion of Highway 1 currently under construction is approximately 12 miles from the project area. This would have no cumulative effects on the project area; any noise produced could not be heard at this distance. Further



discussion regarding Highway 1 re-construction is in section 3.2.7.2.

F.3.2.4 Comment: “In the same section, in paragraph 5 on page 56, the Forest Service

assumes that the increase in noise production could potentially increase by 13 dBA at 11 sites if they (Duluth Metals) are [ to] drill at once in the same location. Duluth Metals would not, nor could it drill all of these sites at once. First, this approach requires the use of 11 drill rigs, which Duluth does not have nor does it intend to contract even if they were available (which they are not). Second, this assumes that Duluth Metals has prior knowledge about the sites and the mineral potential for what it may intercept. This is incorrect; Duluth' s determination on whether to drill each hole proposed is based on geologic information that will be obtained in the prior holes. As noted in Duluth's proposed exploration plan, "[ d]rilling sequence and timing is dependent on location, results from drilling elsewhere in the project area and the appropriate season of operation for each site." EA at 93 (Appendix A). Thus, the potential noise impacts have been significantly overestimated. The next sentence is correct: any additional drilling on non-federal mineral rights would have minimum cumulative effects.” Comment #35.15

Agency Response: The intent of this paragraph is to convey that if it were possible to drill 11 holes on one site at the same time, the decibel level increase would be 13dBA, showing the relationship of number of sources to decibel increase. Since this is not possible, the effect would be considerably less. This paragraph has been clarified. See EA section 3.2.7.1. No assumptions have been made about any of the companies’ knowledge, or lack of, pertaining to the mineral potential at any proposed drill site.

F.3.2.5 Comment: “What are the specific abatement measures? Where are plans? What are

the materials and methods to be used for abatement? What statistics are there to show their validity and effect of eliminating noise----not reduction, but elimination of auditory pollution. Are auditory evaluations going to be done on the west side of the South Kawishiwi River?” Comment #67.05

Agency Response: Noise reduction measures would include baffles wrapped around drill rigs to absorb and deflect sound upward rather than laterally. They would also include exhaust extensions for the engines to direct exhaust and engine noise upward rather than laterally. Required monitoring of drilling operations are included in BLM stipulations for prospecting permits. See EA section 2.2.1.0.

F.3.2.6 Comment: “It appears that auditory pollution is going to be 24-7 from an unlimited

number of drill rigs for the entire winter season. In our May 29th letter, we advised limiting the drilling times and duration of drilling. This concern was not addressed in the Draft EA. There are people (and animals) that live in this area that will be negatively impacted by this proposal. Why was this not addressed in the Draft EA?” Comment #67.06

Agency Response: There are 74 drill sites proposed, 10 for Duluth Metals, 41 for



Encampment Resource, and 23 for Franconia Exploration. Due to availability of core drilling rigs, time restraints, company priority, discoveries, and other constraints, all 74 proposed sites would not be drilled at the same time. Most likely, only up to 10 sites may be in operation at any give time, due mostly to the availability of drill rigs. See EA sections 1.5 and 3.2.7.

F.3.2.7 Comment: “While the EA attempts to discount the noise as indicating that campground

users are already affected by noise from the road and that the noise will mostly be in winter when there are fewer users, the fact is the noise is an issue and it should be examined. The fact that noise may already exist from a road in the area points up the need for full cumulative impacts analysis as well.” Comment #80.36

Agency Response: Noise is identified in the significant issues described in section 1.8.1 as well as in section 18.2 Non-Significant Issues, 1.8.4 Scope of Analysis. Potential noise impacts and effects from the proposed exploration activities can be found in EA sections 3.2 and 3.3, and summarized in terms of significant issues in section 2.5. Cumulative effects of noise are considered in sections 3.2.7, 3.2.8, and 3.3.7

F.3.2.8 Comment: “Encampment's proposed operations pose no risk of noise impacts to the

receptors under even the most conservative assumptions.” Comment #84.10

“Not only does this report establish that, even using the assumptions and conclusions of the USFS EA that Encampment's operations will have an "inaudible" effect on the identified receptors, it also establishes that the actual noise impacts of Encampment's proposed operations will be far less significant than suggested by the USFS EA.” Comment #84.07

“Based on this analysis, the Encampment Noise Impacts Report concludes that Encampment's drilling activities, regardless of the season, will have virtually no perceptible noise impact on the identified receptors.” Comment #84.08

“The Distance Between Encampment’s Operations and the Receptors Ensures That, Even Under the Forest Service's Conservative Assumptions, Noise Impacts Will Be Less Than 36dBA - Either "Inaudible" or "Quiet" .” Comment #84.09

“More Realistic Modeling Confirms that, Regardless of Season, the Receptors Will Experience Noise Impacts of Less Than 21 dBA, Which Is Close To or Less Than the Current Existing Nighttime Ambient dBA Level for the Forest.” Comment #84.11

“According to the noise contours in Dr. Braslau's Figure 3.1, Encampment's proposed drilling program will have a maximum noise impact of less than 21 dBA on the receptors. Simply stated, the Encampment Noise Impacts Report concludes that Encampment's proposed operations are too far from any receptors to have any significant noise impacts on them. Encampment's Proposed Drill Rigs Will Substantially Reduce the Noise Impacts of Drilling.” Comment #84.12

“And, although Encampment is more than 1.25 miles from the nearest identified receptors, the noise impacts within one-quarter mile of the drilling sites will be less than or equal to the daytime ambient dBA for the forest, which is approximately 30 dBA .” Comment #84.13



Agency Response: The effects of noise production by the proposed activities are based on information compiled in the project file and disclosed in the EA primarily in section 3.2. Under Alternative 3, all of the drilling activity would be conducted during the winter season when recreation visitor use is documented as low and would impact the least amount of recreationists of the two alternatives. The noise study submitted by Encampment Resources (Noise Impacts from Encampment Resources, L.L.C. Proposed Drilling and Helicopter Operations.) shows less effects in the analysis area than those disclosed in the EA. See EA sections 3.2, 3.3.3, 3.3.6.3.

F.3.2.9 Comment: “Furthermore, by recognizing the factors that play a role in the intensity and

frequency of noise impacts resulting from helicopter operations, Encampment can significantly reduce any such impacts in a number of ways. Specifically, because the noise impacts on receptors is a function of the origin of helicopter flights, the altitude of the flight, and the selected route, Encampment can vary each of these factors as necessary to minimize associated noise impacts .” Comment #84.28, #84.29, #84.30, #84.32, #84.32, #84.34

“By Varying the Origin of the Helicopter Flights, Encampment Can Minimize the Noise Impacts of Its Flights.” Comment #84.29

“By Increasing the Altitude of Its Helicopter Flights, Encampment Will Increase the Vertical Distance Between the Helicopter and Receptors So As to Minimize Noise Impacts.” Comment #84.30

“Variance in the Route or Flight Path of the Helicopter Will Increase the Horizontal Distance Between the Helicopter and Receptors So As to Minimize Noise Impacts.” Comment #84.31

“For example, an increase in altitude from 1000 feet to 3000 feet, with a horizontal distance of 1000 feet from a receptor, will reduce the maximum sound level from approximately 78 dBA to roughly 68 dBA, which reduces the noise impact by half (assuming that a reduction by 10 dBA reduces noise impacts by half). When coupled with variations in the origin and routing of flights, a 'change in the vertical distance of the helicopter from receptors will significantly decrease the noise impacts of Encampment's proposed helicopter use.” Comment #84.32

“As indicated in the figure, Encampment could alternate between a nonlinear northerly route, which would be less likely to be perceived by receptors to the south, and a nonlinear southerly route, which is less likely to be perceived by receptors to the north. Through this rotation of paths, Encampment can reduce the actual perception of noise by potential receptors and effectively abate the noise impacts of helicopter use. For example, at an altitude of 1000 feet, changing the horizontal distance between the helicopter and a receptor from 2000 feet to 5000 feet will result in a reduction in maximum sound level from approximately 73 dBA to roughly 63 dBA, which reduces the noise impact by half (assuming that a reduction by 10 dBA + reduces noise impacts by half).” Comment #84.34

Agency Response: The effects of noise production by the proposed activities are based on information compiled in the project file and disclosed in the EA primarily in section 3.2. Under Alternative 3, all of the drilling activity would be conducted during the winter season when recreation visitor use is documented as low and would impact the least amount of recreationist of the two alternatives. Alternative 2 would



impact the most recreation sites for the longest period of time. The noise study submitted by Encampment Resources (Noise Impacts from Encampment Resources, L.L.C. Proposed Drilling and Helicopter Operations.) shows less effects in the analysis area than those disclosed in the EA. See Ea section 3.2, 3.3.3, 3.3.6.3.

F.4 Water Quality/Wetlands

F.4.1 Water Quality and Quantity

F.4.1.1 Comment: “I also submit that the draft EA does not adequately address all potential

sources of environmental damage; particularly, the potential effects of rock, rubble, and other byproducts of drilling. These "byproducts" may include hazardous or environmentally damaging elements, which can escape into the air and/or be washed into groundwater or streams, lakes, and wetlands. I am particularly concerned about sulfurous matter, which might produce sulfuric gases that can travel by air and damage plants, animals, and/or man-made materials, and could be turned into sulfuric acid or similar liquids that could affect groundwater and/or surface waters. I have not yet seen any analysis of potential damage of even small amounts of the byproducts of mineral exploration.” Comment #62.03

Agency Response: The impacts to water quality from drilling by-product are addressed in Section 3.6.6.2 of the EA. A description of the exploration activities is provided in Section 1.2.3 of the EA. Drill cuttings are not considered hazardous material. Additional description is described in the Jan 29, 2004 memorandum by the Minnesota Exploration Association provided by the MN/DNR. Design features protecting water quality are described in Section 2.2.2.4. There should be no creation of airborne particulates related to the drilling process because the cuttings are mixed with water / drilling fluid to cool the drill and facilitate pumping from the drill hole. No rock or rubble by-product will be produced by the exploration process.

F.4.1.2 Comment: “In addition to other mitigation and reclamation conditions already specified,

the Forest Service must require that the companies exploring in this area assure that there will be no diminution in water quality in surface area, lakes, streams, and wetlands, or in well water and ground water.” Comment #62.04

Agency Response: The exploration companies will be required to follow the conditions in the permits needed for the exploration activities. These conditions are designed to protect water resources from damage and are described in the EA including Table 3.6.1 and Sections 2.2.1 and 2.2.2.

F.4.1.3 Comment: “I have grave concerns over what blasting may do to wells in the solid rock

formation that they will need to remove or drill into. We may be looking to possible well cave-in and possible pollution of well water” Comment #2.04



Agency Response: There is no anticipated blasting associated with the exploration.

F.4.1.4 Comment: ”A In § 3.6.6.2, Potential Effects Common to Both Alternative 2 and

Alternative 3, Quantity and Quality of the Groundwater Resource, the discussion of the use of grout in the second paragraph on page 80 is not accurate. Grout is used to seal abandoned holes. Based on the geology of the Kawishiwi area and specifically the Duluth Metals project area, very little fracturing and virtually no water seepage (aquifers) is experienced. Very little, if any, grout would be used in the Duluth Metals holes, based on the experience to date, and Duluth does not believe that there will be any concern about the grout spreading to bedrock aquifers. There are no domestic wells in the immediate area of the Duluth Metals drilling, so it is unlikely that this will be an issue.” Comment #35.21

Agency Response: It is recognized that many or perhaps none of the exploratory holes will encounter regional fracture zones. In these cases the effects will be less than the potential effects described in the EA.

F.4.1.5 Comment: “Because Evidence from the 1979 Minnesota Copper-Nickel study

demonstrated that even small amounts of tailings or other debris left behind from exploratory extraction can adversely affect local waters. See, quote from study in MCEA’s May 30, 2007 letter. The EA. acknowledges this situation on page 83 where it notes that the area waters are considered impaired, even though the historic exploration discussed in the 1979 study was done in accordance with permits issued at the time.”. Comment #80.40

Agency Response: The extraction described in the 1979 was related to a single 4,000 c.y. bulk sample taken in 1974. The total volume of all the dispersed drilling activity described in the EA will be less than ≈ 2% of the volume extracted in the 1974 bulk sample. The cuttings from each site will be captured in a sump or brought off-site by the driller. Measures to protect water resources are described in Sections 2.2 and Table 3.6.1 of the EA. There is a typographical error on page 83 and the adjacent water resources are not considered impaired in Table 3.6.2.

F.4.2 Water Quality and Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness

F.4.2.1 Comment: “In particular, "there are no anticipated effects on the water resources within

the BWCAW". However, even a small amount of water pollution or acidification could affect the BWCAW, because the Kawishiwi River flows back into the BWCA nearby--anything affecting the South Kawishiwi will soon affect the Kawishiwi River as it turns and flows northward.” Comment #62.06

Agency Response: The analysis included the effects on the South Kawishiwi River in Section 3.6 and specifically Section 3.6.6. In Alternative 2 and 3 there should be no



change in the potablity or yield potential of the groundwater resource. In addition, there should be no change in the impairment classification of the surface water resources. The physical impacts to the water resources and aquatic biota would also be nominal due to the nature of activities and the mitigation measures to be employed. There should be minimal impact to the flow and water levels in the ponds, wetlands, and streams based upon the identified mitigation measures. The nominal effects on the Kawishiwi River downstream of the South Kawishiwi River as it re-enters the BWCA would be even smaller because of the additional contributing watershed area.

F.4.3 Baseline Information Relating to Water Quality

F.4.3.1 Comment: “How can the effects of core drilling be measured or studied without a

baseline study done pre-drilling? When asked to address this question at the Franconia Metals Meeting in the Babbitt City Hall on September 27, 2007, the Barr Engineering hydrologist involved with this EA replied, “No groundwater studies have been done.” The safety of both surface and groundwater appears to be based on NO science vs. inconclusive science.” Comment #63.02

“After speaking with several other concerned citizens it is clear that a complete scientific assessment of the impact of the mining on groundwater and aquifer safety has not been completed”. Comment #66.02

“Also, I find no groundwater data in the documents and cannot understand how exploration drilling is going on now without it.’ Comment #70.03

‘Section 3.6 describes surface, ground water, and potable water supply. First of all, where is the baseline water quality study? We would like to view it. According to Mark Hagley, Hydrogeologist—Ground Water Monitoring--from Barr Engineering Company, who was a presenter at the August, 2007 meeting with Franconia Metals in the Babbitt City Hall, “No groundwater studies have been done.” How can a possible valid study of changes to the quality of water be conducted once drilling begins, if no baseline study and quantitative review of findings is done prior to drilling?’ Comment #67.02

Agency Response: The effects analysis is described in Section 3.6 and is based upon the best available information. The Minnesota Geological Society has mapped bedrock conditions and fractures that extend from the southwest to the northeast in the project area in their Report of Investigations 58 published in 2002. However, the interconnectivity, transmissitivity, orientation, and dimensions of the fractures as they may relate to specific receptors and disturbances is localized and chaotic. The analysis is sufficient to provide the needed insight into the potential effects, risks, and required mitigation measures related to the project.

F.4.3.2 Comment: “Operating equipment on frozen wetlands should be studied before its

considered for approval.” Comment #56.04



Agency Response: This is addressed in the EA in Table 1.3 as the “Drilling & Water Quality / Wetland Effects…”.

F.4.3.3 Comment: ”Water: The use of sump pits, water extraction from streams, lakes or

wetlands will all have potential for adverse impact on water quality. The lack of quantitative and baseline data make it difficult to assess the impact of the proposed project. Test drilling and mining hard rock will predictably result in environmental damage with leaching of acid compounds and various metals into the immediate environment and potentially into the watersheds for this area. To the extent that northeast MN water, including in BWCAW, is threatened by increasing Hg concentrations, what impact will sulfide mining have in these fragile ecosystems? Have analyses been done systematically on well water of residents within the watersheds of proposed activities? Careful and comprehensive study of the larger system of lakes, rivers, wetlands and regional watersheds should be completed in an EIS before such activities take place.” Comment #65.34

Agency Response: Any effects associated with potential mining activities are considered outside the scope of analysis as described in Table 1.5 of the EA. On page 165 of the Report of Investigations No. 58 by the Minnesota Geological Society entitled “Geology and Mineral Potential of the Duluth Complex and Related Rocks of Northeastern Minnesota” indicates the sulfide content is generally between 1 and 5%. This relatively low concentration and small dispersed volume of material indicate the effects will be nominal. A description of the effects analysis is provided in Section 3.6 of the EA.

F.4.4 Water Quality and Sump Pits

F.4.4.1 Comment: “The sump pit for the core drilling site adjacent to the Kawishiwi Camp

Grounds overflowed this October. (Photos available). This sump pit is less than ½ mile from the South Kawishiwi River. NEPA should require an EIS on this issue alone.” Comment #67.02

“A sump pit at the core-drilling site next to the Kawishiwi Campground overflowed this past month due to the heavy rains received. This pit is less than 1/2 mile from the South Kawishiwi River----where is the contaminate going? NEPA should be involved, and an EIS should be conducted immediately. Is this going to occur? And, if not, why?” Comment #67.03

“Enclosed photos show a current sump pit. The photos were taken by a local citizen on October 13, 2007, at one of the drill sites in the area. There appears little protection for runoff (with the recent rains the pit appears full and not constructed to handle additional water) and the EA discloses no requirements regarding soils or other analysis to determine whether the sump pits will affect ground or surface water in either the short or the long-term.” Comment #80.39



Agency Response: Sump pits are sized according to the needed volume. The volume is determined by the exploratory hole length, diameter, and methods of drilling. At least a foot of freeboard is typically constructed. This is sufficient to accommodate typical direct rainfall and runoff from the disturbed site. It should be noted that the enforcement of standards related to other projects is beyond the scope of this EA. See comments and agency responses in section F.12.7 regarding determining the need for an Environmental Impact Statement.

F.4.4.2 Comment: ”Because drill cuttings are contained in a sump or tank, no run off is

expected at the site.” Comment #84.42

Agency Response: The comment is acknowledged.

F.4.4.3 Comment: “Alternative 3 (Winter Only Frozen Conditions) should be chosen as the

Preferred Alternative since this alternative is the most protective of the resources of concern to Fond du Lac Band Members. This alternative also has the resource protective benefit of requiring the drillers to use a stock tank for water rather than a sump pit”. Comment #16.02

Agency Response: Alternative 3 is described in section 2.4. It was developed to

address significant issues identified in section 1.8.1. Alternative 3 does not specifically require using tanks rather than sump pits. The draft EA in section 1.2.3.2 indicates erroneously that sump pits can not be utilized during frozen ground conditions. Section 1.2.3.2 indicates that in cases where a pit can not be dug, such as when bedrock is too close to the surface, a tank is used as a reservoir and settling point for core cuttings as water circulates through the drill hole during drilling. Measures to protect wetlands are identified in sections 2.2.2.2, 2.2.2.3, and 2.2.2.4.

F.4.4.4 Comment: ”There is no testing of the sump pits, or drill cuttings. No liners are required

for the sump pit despite the fact that sulfide ore is being looked for and should be handled as potentially reactive material.” Comment #70.02

“Clearly the very nature of this activity has the potential for significant and long-term environmental affects. The best mitigation of potential effects from sump pits is to eliminate their use in favor of using tanks and disposing of the water at a treatment location. At a minimum, sump pits should be lined and monitored to avoid overflow as a best practice due to the prevalence of wetlands ‘and other waters in the area.” Comment #80.41

Agency Response: Drill cuttings are not considered hazardous material. Additional description is described in the Jan 29, 2004 memorandum by the Minnesota



Exploration Association provided by the MN/DNR (Project File). Protection measures are described in Section 2.2.2.4.

F.4.5 Water Quality and Mining F.4.5.1 Comment: “Water has been called “mining’s most common casualty” (Acid). Core

drilling threatens rivers and lakes.” Comment #63.02

“I am well aware of the impact that mining, particularly sulfite mining has upon water and watershed regions and I am concerned that this untouched area will become disturbed and toxified.” Comment #89.01

Agency Response: The effects analysis is described in Section 3.6. It should be noted the referenced articles focus on issues associated with mining not exploration. No mining is proposed in this analysis. Therefore, these types of impacts are considered outside the Scope of Analysis described in Section 1.8.4 of the EA.

F.4.6 Drill Holes after Drilling Operations

F.4.6.1 Comment: “Wells open for so long increase the risk of groundwater contamination from

the surface; and because of the reactive nature of the Duluth Complex and its potential to release heavy metals upon oxidation, groundwater contamination could occur :6:om below, also. These potential sources of contamination increase because SO many companies) in a small geographical area, drill so many holes. Drill hole monitoring and data collection done at the nearby PolymetlNorthmet site indicated a hydraulic connection between the bedrock and surficial aquifers. The region's abundance ofwet1ands with their high organic matter and low pH water could increase sub-surface reactivity of the ore body and release metals to the aquifer. Instead of leaving drill holes open for up to 10 years, and risk increased aquifer contamination, the United States Forest Service (USFS) should require companies to seal boreholes following established protocol.” Comment #79.01

Agency Response: Some of the holes need to be temporarily kept open to allow additional down-hole testing and / or collection of piezometer readings. The holes will be constructed, maintained, and abandoned in accordance with Minnesota Department of Health code. It is noted that this is consistent with similar exploration activities on other lands including state lands. Protection measures and closure requirements are described in Table 3.6.1 and Sections 2.2.2.4 and 2.2.2.8 of the EA.

F.4.7 Wetlands

F.4.7.1 Comment: “The terms “swamp” and “swampy” appear in several areas of the document

(1.2.3.2 & 1.5 and others) but the terms are not listed in the Table Key Terms (1.0.2). Shouldn’t a more scientific word, eg. Wetland, be used? Or you might define



“swamp” and include it in the list of “Key Terms.” Use of the term “swamp” generally connotes a negative image of such an area; “wetland” generally connotes a positive image of such areas. Scientific literature, public policy papers and reports, and both state and federal agencies use the term “wetland” to describe such areas.” Comment #65.13

“I am also interested why wetlands are referred to as marsh and swamps.” Comment #56.04

A significant typographical error appears in Table 3.6.2. The portion dealing with "Assumptions for Bulk Sampling" should read: "[A]djacent water resources are not considered impaired." Comment #84.52

Agency Response: A modification in the text has been made. It should be noted that the use of the term ‘wetland’ in the text does not mean it is a jurisdictional wetland.

F.4.7.2 Comment ”First, Encampment has initiated a project to delineate the wetlands in the

area so as to make informed and responsible selections of its access routes and drilling sites. Second, it has proposed several methods of mitigating any potential impacts from drilling outside the Frozen Season despite the substantial costs associated with such mitigation measures. For example, Encampment has repeatedly expressed willingness to use helicopters or bridges as necessary to access drill sites without crossing or damaging wetlands outside of the Frozen Season. Finally, as stated in the EA, Encampment has preserved the flexibility to make small adjustments in the location of its drilling sites to account for any wetlands and, when possible, move them to upland locations. Using these and other appropriate mitigation measures, Encampment can implement its exploratory activities without significantly affecting wetlands” Comment #84.17.

Agency Response: The efforts of the company to take measures to reduce or avoid impacts associated with the proposed drilling are acknowledged. Requirements and project design features are listed in sections 2.2.1 and 2.2.2.

F.4.7.3 Comment: “Water holes may be excavated in area swamps." This should not be

allowed. The conversion of a wetland from one type to another via dredging or filling is a regulated activity and in this case is not necessary to accomplish the desired goals of the project.” Comment #16.01

Agency Response: Section 1.2.3.2 precludes the use of sump pits in areas of high groundwater. The hole will be backfilled with the excavated material. There is no anticipated change in the hydrology or soil regime, so there is no anticipated wetland type conversion.



F.4.8 Hazardous Materials

F.4.8.1 Comment: “When on tour this August at the present Franconia drill site on state land at

Bob’s Bay, we observed and took photos of polluted ground adjacent to a drill rig. A large area of ground was covered with grease and oil—most likely hydraulic fluid that spilled when hoses leaked on the machines. No effort had been made to mitigate this site. To our knowledge no HAS[Z]MAT testing has been done. What assurance is there that the same will not occur on federal land by Franconia Mining Company or by other mining companies on the Kawishiwi Mineral Exploration? These contaminants go directly into the surface and ground water supply.” Comment #67.04

Agency Response: Protection measure in Table 3.6.1 item (2) of the EA addresses measures to reduce the probability of contamination of water resources. Section 2.2.2.4 identifies steps to be taken to prevent water pollution.

F.4.9 Water Withdrawal for Drilling Operations

F.4.9.1 Comment: “The EA provides that water needs for the various drill sites will be met by

withdrawals from nearby surface waters or from tanks if no water is near. The EA further provides that withdrawals will be limited to waters with flow of 1 cubic feet per second (“cfs”) or more and that no more than 10% of the flow can be withdrawn from a stream or no more than 1% draw down in volume can occur in a lake or open water wetland. This “one size fits all” approach has the potential for significant environmental effects, particularly because there are no additional limitations or methodologies disclosed for determining the 10%. The EA is silent on when or how the flow of a stream will be measured, especially in small streams during frozen conditions. Is the 10% of flow based on a curve, modeling or monitoring and reporting of actual conditions? How will this be enforced? Is the 10% of flow, based on just surface flow or does it include flow-through (e.g., gravel substrate) as well? If it includes more than surface flow, the impacts will be greater and likely adverse during the winter months due to increased danger of freezing.” Comment #80.42

“Finally, there appears to be no limitation on size of open water’ wetland, pond, or small lake from which water can be withdrawn: Again, impacts will be much greater on smaller bodies of water. Water withdrawal is not linear units impacts, hence the “one size fits all” is not adequate mitigation for environmental effects. Rather, as the size of the waterbody decreases, the impact of the withdrawal follows a more geometric curve in terms of impacts. An EIS must address these details and provide adequate mitigation measures” Comment #80.44

Agency Response: The flow will be estimated in the field as part of site reviews by the MnDNR, USFS, and/or the BLM. Controls on the withdrawal rate and volume are scaled to the size of the resource and are not considered a ‘one-size fits all’ perspective (such as a gallons per wetland or specified rate of withdrawal for a stream). Protection measures are described in Section 2.2.2 of the EA.



F.4.9.2 Comment: “Furthermore, how can the drilling process that utilizes water extracted from

beaver ponds and swamps, which are contaminated by bacteria, be pumped into the drill holes not contaminate nearby potable water supplies? It is not possible. We want an explanation for this. We have two drilled wells on our property, and we do not want future contamination of them.” Comment # 67.02

Agency Response: There is little water lost through the drilling process. The nearest potable water supply is over 3,000 ft from the exploratory holes (see discussion in section 3.6.5 of the EA). Other holes and wells are further apart. In addition, the exploratory holes will be cased in accordance with MDH requirements. Additional requirements are described in Section 2.2.2.4.and 2.2.2.8 of the EA. .

F.4.9.3 Comment: “Encampment anticipates that it will not need the amount of water projected

in the EA because the nature of the Duluth Complex promotes recirculation of water during drilling. Actual requirements are more likely to be closer to 1,000 gallons for the initial drilling and approximately 100 gallons per hundred feet as drilling continues. Of course, Encampment will also actively seek to minimize its usage.“ (Section 1.2.3.2) Comment #84.37

Agency Response: It is recognized that the withdrawal may be less than the identified thresholds. In these cases the effects will be less than the potential effects described in the EA.

F.4.9.4 Comment: “There also is no discussion of where the withdrawals must be made. If the

withdrawal is from a pool are there assurances that the pool will not be drawn down to a level so that fish using the pool for winter refuge will not be frozen out? Will withdrawals from riffles be prohibited? A withdrawal from a riffle during winter could result in the drying out or freezing of the riffle with attendant impacts on species both at the riffle and downstream.” Comment #80.43

Agency Response: Protection measure in Table 3.6.1 item (4) of the EA addresses withdrawal rates and volumes and address these items.

F.4.10 Drilling Additives

F.4.10.1 Comment: “The EA discloses the use of bentonite in the drilling, but it fails to disclose

or discuss the possible presence of sulfide-bearing rock fragments in the cuttings. Presumably, since the goal is to extract sulfide ores, some reactive rock will be present and will go into the unlined sump pits.” Comment #80.38.

Agency Response: It is acknowledged that there will be cuttings within the drilling fluid downhole and discharged to the sump pits as described in Section 3.6.6.2, which states “Drilling fluids are used to cool the drill bit and help transport the cuttings out of the drill hole”. The exploration activity will create a small volume of material and the cuttings are not considered hazardous material.



F.5 Air Quality

F.5.1 Air Pollution

F.5.1.1 Comment: “The projected added air pollution from the proposed activities in this EA and

subsequent proposed sulfide mining must be evaluated in the context of such changes. No such comprehensive assessment was provided in the Draft EA.” Comment #65.35

Agency Response: As shown in section 1.8.4 Scope of Analysis, mining is beyond the scope of analysis for this project. Concerns relating to air quality are addressed in sections 1.8.3 other resource concerns, 1.8.4 Scope of Analysis, and 3.83 Air.

F.5.1.2 Comment: “There is no discussion in the EA of air emissions from the drill rigs and/or

the equipment or vehicles necessary to the drilling operations. Comment #80.45

Agency Response: The emissions from drill rigs and vehicle emissions would be no more significant than the existing traffic emissions on paved and unpaved roads in the area. The annual average daily traffic volume for Highway 1 is 530 AADT north of its junction with the Spruce road (CR 23) and 355 AADT south of that junction. The Spruce Road volume is 95 (Minnesota Department of Transportation 2004 & 2005, Project File). The traffic from the proposed exploration drilling would not substantially increase these values or the emissions associated with the traffic, especially because these values already include minerals exploration that was occurring at the time of the data collection in 2004 and 2005.

F.5.1.3 Comment: “Mobile sources of PM and NOx include industrial equipment such as mining

and construction equipment. The emissions can be fairly significant. An EIS should address to what extent mobile sources of PM and NOx associated with the drilling and road building activities will contribute to visibility impacts in the BWCA.” Comment #80.46

Agency Response: See above comment related to vehicle emissions. There would be no mining-related equipment with this project. Any emissions associated with road-building would be similar to existing road-building activities in the area associated with logging and other activities. Road dust has not been identified as a significant contributor to visibility impairment in the BWCAW.

F.5.1.4 Comment: “I also submit that the draft EA does not adequately address all potential

sources of environmental damage; particularly, the potential effects of rock, rubble, and other byproducts of drilling. These "byproducts" may include hazardous or environmentally damaging elements, which can escape into the air and/or be



washed into groundwater or streams, lakes, and wetlands. I am particularly concerned about sulfurous matter, which might produce sulfuric gases that can travel by air and damage plants, animals, and/or man-made materials, and could be turned into sulfuric acid or similar liquids that could affect groundwater and/or surface waters. I have not yet seen any analysis of potential damage of even small amounts of the byproducts of mineral exploration.” Comment #62.03

Agency Response: No sulfuric gases are expected from this drilling activity based on the geology of the area.

F.6 Vegetation

F.6.1 Vegetation Removal

F.6.1.1 Comment: “Encampment need not clear all vegetation in an area for the construction of

a drill pad. Indeed, Encampment will limit any cutting to the minimal amount necessary to conduct its operations. (Section 1.2.3.2).” Comment #84.36

Agency Response: Comment acknowledged. The proposed plans of operations for each company are in Appendix A.

F.7 Proposed Access and the Transportation System

F.7.1 Travel Ways

F.7.1.1 Comment: “In the description (1.3) of “Scenic Integrity Objectives (SIO) (FP p. 2-48)

does the term “travel ways” include walking paths, temporary roads, and permanent roads? The term is not included in Table 1: Key Terms.” Comment #65.17

Agency Response: Travel ways are defined as “Travel ways represent linear concentrations of public-viewing, including but not limited to highways, OML 3, 4, and 5 roads, trails, and waterways.” (Forest Plan, page, Glossary-28).

F.7.2 FR 186 and other System Roads

F.7.2.1 Comment: “In order to minimize interaction and conflict with other legitimate forest

users (e.g., S. Kawishiwi recreation residences), access to drilling sites should not be from FR186. This would minimize impact and damage to FR186, a road for which the recreation residences pay a fee to maintain. It is not clear as to what 'improvements' might need to be made to FR186 such as widening or straightening to accommodate drilling equipment that may temporarily, or more importantly, permanently impact the current condition and character of the road. This can be avoided by requiring all drill site access to be from FR1900 and not authorizing any connection between FR186 and FR1900 beyond that which already exists (as would



be the case under Alternative 3).” Comment #47.03

Agency Response: Under Alternative 3 temporary roads accessing Franconia proposed drill sites would come off or FR 1900. Under Alternative 2, three temporary roads would come off of FR 186. this provides a comparison of the effects of utilizing FR 186 and not using it. These alternatives are described in sections 2.3 and 2.4. Effects analysis of temporary roads access is shown in section 3.3 and summarized in section 2.5.

F.7.2.2 Comment: “As long as this reasonable alternative is available to the mining

companies, there should be no question about allowing the companies to utilize FR 186.” Comment #23.02

“Over the last several years various mining companies have been allowed to utilize FR186, however their use damaged the road and the damage from last spring made the road impassable to the cabin owners for a period of weeks. Such a situation is intolerable, given the already very short seasonal usage period for cabin owners.” Comment #23.03

“The road has been damaged in the past by the drilling company and by the Forest Service during fire fuel removal operations. Alt. #3 does not seem to cause any hardship on Franconia as the amount or access roads required for the drill sites is virtually the same as Alt. #2.” Comment #24.02

“I am concerned about access to this road and noise during the drilling operations. I was very disappointed at the destruction of the forest and nature due to the temp roads off FS 186 this summer of 2007.” Comment #27.01

“In the same section (§ 3.3.6.3), the Draft EA should add that Duluth Metals has a road maintenance contractor who is known and approved by the Forest Service and is on 24 hour call for any work that needs to be done. In the past, the contractor has responded immediately to requests by Duluth Metals, the Forest Service, the State of Minnesota, private mineral/land holders and Recreational Residents' requests for road repairs on areas impacted by Duluth Metals. Road repairs have been completed immediately and to the satisfaction of the State and the Forest Service.” Comment #5.19

“The part of the Maturi Road (FR l86) that goes through the swamp at its beginning is an old corduroy road. It has a swamp on either side and might not hold up well to heavy traffic.” Comment #54.04

Agency Response: If any exploration activities cause damage to the roads, the damage

would be repaired by the company as soon as possible at their expense. Any company with an approved operating plan to conduct mineral exploration on Superior National Forest system lands will be required to secure a reclamation bond pursuant to BLM Hardrock Prospecting Permit Stipulations. This bond will be used in the event that a company defaults and does not complete reclamation on drilling sites and/or access routes. These stipulations also require that the activities are monitored on a regular basis. Sees EA section 2.2.1.0, 2.2.2.8



F.7.2.3 Comment: “In § 3.3.6.3, Alternative 2 - Proposed Action, Access Off of FR 186, the

Draft EA states that recreation residence owners, Forest visitors and other travelers on FR 186 ''would also potentially experience adverse road conditions such as mud and rutting from truck traffic. " Average traffic to and from a drill site for Duluth Metals and its drill contractors ranges from three to six trips total in a 24-hour period, with an average of four trips in a 24-hour period. In many cases, this is significantly less traffic than the normal flow at local traffic and visitors to the area.” Comment #35.18

“In § 3.3.7, Cumulative Effects, Access Off of FR 186, the first sentence in the second paragraph should read: "Although South Kawishiwi River Recreation Residences were temporarily impacted by adverse road conditions and truck and equipment traffic from previous drilling operations, FR 186 was immediately returned to satisfactory conditions by drilling operators for passenger vehicle traffic." Comment #35.20

“Road Access to the S. Kawishiwi Recreation Residences will not be a truly significant issue due to the relative infrequency of the use of the existing roads by the drilling companies and their previously exhibited willingness to quickly respond to notification of any problems.” Comment #86.04

Agency Response: Section 1.8.1 states that the location of temporary road access routes in the vicinity of South Kawishiwi Recreation Residences may impact access to their cabins on the South Kawishiwi River. People noted that the proposed access of drill sites off of FR 186 would result in damage to the road such as rutting and traffic blockages or delays from drilling operations. Alternative 3 was developed to address this and other issues and the analysis in terms of effects of temporary roads off of FR186 are displayed in section 3.3. In section 3.3.6.3, the potential effects are stated in terms of implementing Alternative 2 rather than the no action alternative.

F.7.2.4 Comment: “Under 1.8.1 Significant Issues, Table 1.2 lists road access and noise as

“Issue Topics.” Only one road (FR 186) is listed, yet there are others that have been impacted, e.g. Spruce Road.” Comment #65.27

Agency Response: No significant issues were identified regarding the proposed use of the Spruce Road or other proposed existing access routes in the operating plans. Road and transportation analysis can be found in section 3.3. Roads are addressed in section 1.8.2 Non-Significant Issues in terms of road repairs, vegetation along roads, temporary roads, traffic, safety, and access to BWCAW entry points. Also see Figure 2.2 and Appendix A.

F.7.3 Temporary Roads

F.7.3.1 Comment: “The mining companies also propose creating a network of temporary roads

to get to their drill sites. We should request that they minimize this damage to the Forest in every way possible. One possibility is to require that a " chipping " process be used to minimize the environmental damage. The chipping would replace the proposed " lopped and scattered to lie within 30 inches of the ground". Comment #1.05



Agency Response: Any vegetation removed from access routes and/or drill sites would be lopped and scattered. This process ensures that the removed vegetation can be utilized in reclamation efforts. Lopped and scattered vegetation would be pulled back on to disturbed areas and spread once operations have been completed and reclamation can take place. A chipping process would not allow the vegetation to be used in this manner. See Appendix A and sections 2.6, 2.2.2.2, and 2.2.2.8.

F.7.3.2 Comment: “Also, the access routes for Franconia drill sites in the vicinity of the South

Kawishiwi River Recreational Residences would all stem from FR 1900. No temporary roads would come off FR 186 except for the short 1/4 mile connection to FR1900.” Comment #31.02

“However, this past summer there were a number of incidences which make me wish there were an addition - that the mining companies have their own access to the proposed mining sites.” Comment #68.02

Agency Response: Alternative 3 proposes alternate access routes that utilize FR 1900 rather than FR 186. See section 2.4, Figure 2.3: Franconia Exploration Drilling Sites Temporary Roads Access for Alternative 3.

F.7.3.3 Comment: “No clear rationale is provided regarding the need to build all these roads

nor is there precise estimates provided of the “footprint” in square meters or other suitable metrics of the planned activities.” Comment #65.31

Agency Response: Temporary access roads are needed to transport equipment to the drill site. The total acres for drill pad disturbance for the proposed operations of all three companies are 8.6 acres. The total miles of temporary road for Alternative 2 are 7.2 miles and for Alternative 3 is 7.5 miles for all three companies. Further information on the amount of opening and miles of roads is located in sections 1.2.3.2, 2.3 (Tables 2.1 and 2.2), and Appendix A.

F.7.3.4 Comment: “The EA discloses that up to 8 miles’ of temporary roads will be constructed

in order for the Project proponents to reach drill sites. Many of these roads, especially those for Encampment Resources LLC and the southwest end of the Lehman Exploration, Inc. lease location, are into areas that are not currently roaded or easily accessible to any kind of motorized use. Many of the temporary roads will traverse wetland areas. This is 8 miles of roads within approximately 15 square miles of terrain — a significant portion. Buried on page 68 of the EA is the ‘statement that this Project alone (never mind all the other permit and lease applications pending for the area) will result in a 6% increase in road miles. The relative impact must be set out against the background — this is the context to which the regulations refer.” Comment #80.24

“The EA makes it appear as though these roads are simply for the coming winter. In fact, the permits and lease at issue allow entry onto these lands for exploration much longer than one season so the “temporary” roads will be in existence for years, not



months. For example, Franconia Minerals has not only built, but also widened substantial roads in its exploration operation on the south end of Birch Lake in and near Bob’s Bay under agreement with the State of Minnesota without ever engaging in any environmental analysis. An EIS must be much clearer on this point and examine impacts from the roads lasting for years.” Comment #80.25

“While the EA claims that the roads will be decommissioned, the EA lacks detail on how and exactly when that will occur and what the requirements will be to ensure that motorized use is completely obstructed after the roads are decommissioned. The Forest Plan provides that revegetation of temporary roads occurs approximately within 10 years from the end of a contract, lease, or permit, a rather long time for the environmental impacts of these “temporary” roads and a delay that probably fosters them remaining roads for much longer than 10 years. Also, while it provides that future motorized access is discouraged, there is no detail regarding how to ensure that motorized recreation doesn’t result in ‘drive-arounds’ or destruction of barriers nor does it discuss how enforcement will ensue, for example with the use of remote cameras.” Comment #80.28

“…the EA fails to discuss the obvious fact that if minerals are discovered, the roads will no longer be “temporary,” will likely be open to more substantial motorized use, and will be an even more significant effect on the environment.” Comment #80.29

“The enclosed photographs, taken by a citizen on October 13, 2007, are of some of the drill sites in the area. As can be seen from these pictures, the roads are not insignificant impacts on the landscape. They are rutted and water-filled. In an area that is heavily-forested, even the small portion visible in the picture demonstrates a wide swath of clearing in the forest. This is clearly a significant environmental effect, especially considering the conversion of 8 miles of current forest to terrain that looks like that shown in the photographs.” Comment #80.30

“Even access during frozen conditions will affect the wetland after snow-melt. Enclosed is a photograph, not from the area, but from central Minnesota, used for illustration here. This is a photograph of roads that were used through wetlands in frozen conditions The road remains clearly visible after melt with open water where vegetation would apparently be. Obviously, significant environmental effects will occur from these 8 miles of road, even if access is limited to frozen conditions.” Comment #80.32

“Building access roads with interconnections (or the possibility of connection) between FR186 and FR1900 would be detrimental to the overall security of the residences in the area. Any access (if made) should be rendered completely and permanently impassable to any type of vehicle. ” Comment #15.03

Agency Response: Temporary roads would be required to be obliterated and rehabilitated once explorations activities have completed. See Appendix E (Figure E.5: Example: Decommissioned Upland Temporary Road Site) and Appendix G. The Forest Plan provides guidance on decommissioning roads stating that unclassified roads that are not needed in the National Forest road and trail system and special use permitted roads that are no longer needed would be decommissioned, and that decommissioning will make the road unusable by motorized vehicles and stabilize the roadbed (Forest Plan, S-TS-4, page 2-48). Under G-TS-16, the Forest Plan also states:



Roads and trails designated for decommissioning will generally be subject to the following:

a. The road or trail will be rendered unusable by motorized vehicles but may remain accessible to foot travel.

b. Stream crossing structures will be removed. c. Road and trail fills will be removed from flood prone and wetland areas to

restore stream and wetland crossings to original contours. d. Removed fill will be reused or disposed of in a way that will not restrict flow

or contaminate surface water. e. Exposed soil will be revegetated.

The proponents are also required to submit a bond for reclamation before any activities are allowed to commence. See EA section 2.2.1.1, 2.2.2.8 and Appendix A.

F.7.3.5 Comment: “Despite the expressed concerns about crossing the beaver pond

referenced in Section 3.6.6.4, the EA should note that Encampment crossed this same pond during the Frozen Season of 2004 without any incidents. Comment #84.41

Agency Response: Comment acknowledged.

F.7.4 Safety

F.7.4.1 Comment: “…although I would like to suggest that either a stop sign be put up at the juncture of our road with the mining road or that the mining company should make their own road out to Highway 1. The reason I would like to see this happen is because there have been near misses with the mining company trucks going at speeds not suitable for our road. We have many people (children included) who jog, ride bikes, etc. and it's only a matter of time before someone gets hurt.” Comment #72.02

Agency Response: Installing a stop sign on FR 1900 at its junction with FR 186 has been included in the design features listed in section 2.2.2.1. It is anticipated the vehicular operators and non-vehicular users of the roadway would abide by local traffic speed limits and operate their vehicles in a safe manner. Safety topics are further addressed in section 1.8.2 Non-Significant Issues. Public safety is also addressed in sections 2.2.1.2, 2.2.1.3, 2.2.2.1, and 2.2.2.7.

F.7.5 Roads and Invasive Species

F.7.5.1

Comments: “All equipment to be used in the drilling operation should be thoroughly cleaned (via hot, high-pressure water) prior to entering any wetland areas. This will help ensure that no invasive plant species are accidentally introduced to these wetlands. This protection measure is especially important if Alternative 2 is the Preferred Alternative.” Comment 16.03



Agency Response: Protection measures that would be implemented pertaining to non-native invasive species and noxious weeds are shown in section 2.2.2.6. In terms of cleaning equipment item #6 in 2.2.2.6 states that all heavy-equipment and other vehicles would be cleaned before transporting them on to National Forest. Inspection and cleaning would concentrate on the undercarriage, with special emphasis on axles, frame, cross-members, motor mounts, underneath steps, running boards, and front bumper/brush guard assemblies. Vehicle cabs would be swept and refuse deposited in waste receptacles. Heavy equipment would be inspected by the Forest Service before it is transported on to National Forest System lands. Further discussion about NNIS is located in section 3.8.5.

F.8 Wildlife and Plants

F.8.1 Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species

F.8.1.1 Comment: “This Project alone represents at least a 6% increase in compacted snow

routes in this area with obvious negative impacts on the lynx population. This is coupled with the clearing for the drill pads and the 24/7 noise and human activity on those pads. The EA also discloses that the existing roads will be “brushed” in. order to ‘make way for the heavy equipment necessary to these operations. According to the LCAS and the EA, this too will have a negative impact on the lynx because such activities adversely impact forage for snowshoe hares and other small mammals that are the lynx’s primary prey. Lynx are minimally mentioned in the EA despite the drilling activities significantly increasing impacts to the landscape that are directly contrary to recommendations for conservation of lynx in the SNF. And, there is no discussion of the cumulative impacts to lynx of these three activities combined, much less discussion of cumulative impacts to lynx from all human activities in the relevant geographic area.” Comment #80.26

Agency Response: There is a more detailed discussion of the impacts to lynx in the Biological Evaluation. The analysis of the impacts to lynx for this project was submitted to the USFWS and they concurred with the finding that this project may affect but will not likely adversely affect the Canada lynx (letter dated August 17, 2007). Their concurrence was based upon this project’s compliance with the Forest Plan and the LCAS. Also, the list of all possible cumulative effects developed for this overall project was reviewed and no new projects were identified that would change the cumulative effects analysis.

F.8.1.2 Comment: “The EA makes an argument that the substantial increase in compacted

snow routes is “offset” by the “decrease” in disturbance to lynx during the summer months. This is ridiculous and is a false comparison. The underlying examination of environmental impacts demonstrates that lynx are negatively impacted by this Project regardless of which alternative is selected or how it is carried out. Those negative impacts are not to be “set off” each other with the EA essentially saying that the ‘negative effects of this Project are offset by the other negative effects of this Project.’ This reasoning does not mitigate against preparation of an EIS, nor is it particularly instructive among alternatives.” Comment #80.27



Agency Response: Assuming Comment #80.27 refers to the discussion in 3.4.6.5, this is a comparison of Alternative 2 to Alternative 3, and it is not stating that impacts would be “offset”. It states that Alternative 3 would have more snow compacting trails but less breeding season disturbance. It also states that neither alternative would lead to federal listing or the loss of viability of the species.

F.8.1.3 Comment: “The “The EA states that there was no evidence of important and rare forest

health indicator raptor species in the Project area: the northern goshawk, the boreal owl, or the great gray owl. However, the EA provides no information regarding the methodology of the analysis. As the EA apparently recognizes, these birds are very early nesters that could be adversely affected by exploratory and prospecting activity in the area, even if it is limited to winter conditions. What was the method employed to assess their presence in the area? Was only a nest survey conducted? Was call playback used to assess their presence as well? With call playback the EA could make a more precise and better-supported statement that raptors are not in the area, while using nest surveys only does not form a sound basis for concluding species are not present. For whatever method was used, what time of year was it employed? If not during nesting it may not have produced adequate information.” Comment #80.47

Agency Response Field surveys have been conducted in the area for many years. (S. Catton email 2007, Critical Connections 2005, Pomroy-Petry 2003, Yellowfield 2006a and 2006b). They have been comprised of simple walk-throughs to the use of call playback for goshawks. No goshawks, boreal or great gray owls have been recorded in the project area. However, habitat is present for these species so they were analyzed in the BE as if they occur in the area. If any of these species are found to be nesting in the area the Forest Plan guidelines (G-WL-12 and species specific guidelines) would be implemented to limit disturbance.

F.8.1.4 Comment: “As to the boreal owl, did the USFS consult with Bill Lane? His research in

and knowledge of this species in the SNF is the most comprehensive and should have been used. According to Mr. Lane, the boreal owl has seen sharp decreases across its Minnesota range, likely attributable to a large number of human-caused factors resulting in decreased cavity habitat for nesting. The EA must discuss this and assess to what extent increased mineral development will become yet another one of those factors contributing to the owl’s sharp declines.” Comment #80.48

Agency Response Mr. Lane was not contacted for this project but has for other projects

on the forest. The BE discusses the impacts of this project on the boreal owl and it’s habitat using the best scientific knowledge available which includes information from Mr. Lane.

F.8.1.5 Comment “In addition to a minimal discussion regarding increased compacted snow

areas and the possibility of effect on the lynx population, there is no analytical discussion of what impact all of this winter industrial activity will have on lynx and their prey, especially given the indication of significant numbers clustered in the area.



Noisy, human activity on this level is likely to have significant impacts on lynx populations in the area and may contribute to them vacating the area. This is especially problematic for a threatened species on the edge of its territory and it is exactly this continued fragmentation and moving away from human interference that has contributed to the listing of the lynx.” Comment #80.49

As noted above, the EA’ s statements on page 67 that the winter exploration will “decrease” impacts on summer lynx breeding is ridiculous. It also sets up a false comparison in that interfering with lynx breeding would be a violation of the requirements of the Endangered Species Act. Arguing that avoiding a violation of the law mitigates an obvious negative environmental effect is nonsense. Finally, it is simply incorrect in that the statement presumes year-round drilling activity when the EA appears to provide primarily for winter activity only. Comment #80.50

Agency Response Disturbance to lynx was discussed in the BE but was “expected to be

minimal and discountable because activities will be of short duration and reach.” Also, any newly discovered den sites would be protected by implementing G-WL-2. Agency responses in F.8.1.1 and F.8.1.2 also address Comment #80.50.

F.8.1.6 Comment “The EA further notes that while there will be negative effects on threatened

lynx from this Project, the negative effects on lynx (and on other threatened species in the area such as some listed vascular plants) will not create a trend toward endangerment or further listings. That statement is wholly inadequate environmental review of the problem, negating the entire point of examining impacts to threatened or special concern species. Species generally do not move onto the threatened or endangered species list in one fell swoop. As the agencies know, species fall into trouble due to insidious, creeping impacts that fragment or eliminate their habitat, ‘affecting their breeding and/or food supply over time. The accumulation of insults is itself the “trend” to which the EA refers. There is nothing in NEPA or its regulations or case law that allows the agencies to forego an EIS simply because there is no obvious “trend” toward extinction, the very worst case scenario, from this single Project. Rather, allowing this level of activity in an area heavily populated by threatened lynx is not in keeping with the obligation to protect and conserve threatened and endangered species, is a significant environmental effect and an EIS ‘should be prepared.” Comment #80.51

Agency Response The finding of “may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect Canada

lynx” documented in the EA and the BE is established terminology used in consultation with the USFWS (terminology used regarding threatened, endangered, and sensitive species rather than in terms of NEPA). It does not necessarily imply “no significant impact”. The further analysis in the BE will be used by the decision maker to determine if there is a significant impact from these effects. Since this document was just the draft preliminary effects analysis no decision has been made.



F.9 Heritage (Cultural) Resources

F.9.1 Heritage Surveys and Resources

F.9.1.1 Comment “Why is there no guarantee that all drill sites will be identified by standard

survey techniques for any possible cultural resources?” Comment #67.08

“The Laurel Indians, who traversed our peninsula, surely could have lived across the river at any of the proposed drilling sites. The mining company has been given carte blanche approval to dig and destroy the ground—the bigger the machine, the bigger the destruction. In light of this, a complete EIS needs to be conducted.” Comment # 67.09

Agency Response: Heritage surveys and cultural resource reports have been completed within the project area (Project File). If the exploration companies encounter any heritage resources during the proposed operations, they are required to halt operations and notify the Forest Service so that appropriate Protection measures are used. See EA Appendix A and project file. Sections 2.2.1 and 2.2.2.7 identify requirements that address protecting heritage resources. Section 3.8.2 contains further information regarding

F.10 Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (BWCAW)

F.10.1 Mining and the BWCAW

F.10.1.1 Comment: “This decision and the EA did not reasonably consider or explore the context

of the proposed exploratory mining activities. The location of activities (past and proposed) adjacent to a federally designated wilderness area (BWCAW Act: 1978), a unique state, national, and international environmental public resource, would be reasonably expected to threaten the BWCAW, with exploratory drilling occurring within 0.75 mi. of BWCAW and proposed sulfide mining, which is among the most environmentally hazardous forms of mining known. Failure to consider this issue in its entirety is in error and would seem to violate NEPA and the intent of enabling legislation and policies of BLM and the Forest Service.” Comment #50.05

Agency Response: Mining as a connected action is outside the scope of this project. See sections 1.6.2.3 and section 1.8.4. The proposed exploration drilling activities are approximately 1.25 miles away from the BWCAW at the nearest point. No activities are proposed inside the BWCAW. See EA figure 3.2.2 and Appendix A.

F.10.1.2 Comment: “1. In reference to Superior National Forest 2004 Land and Resource

Management Plan (Forest Plan) (1.3), it is stated that exploration and development of mineral resource is allowed on NF system land, except for …BWCA and MPA. The current exploratory drilling off Spruce Rd. is going on within approximately 1 ½ to 2 miles of the BWCA. Is it possible for a mining company to drill immediately adjacent to the BWCA, say within 50 or 100 ft.? The rationale for approving drilling in close



proximity to BWCA (currently ~ 1 1/2 miles) is not presented in the Draft EA. This information should be part of the public record.” Comment #65.16

Agency Response: The nearest proposed exploration hole is approximately 1.25 miles from the BWCA border. The proposed exploration activities are not within the mining protection area. The mining protection area comprises the area generally depicted as a mining protection area on the map entitled "Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness and Boundary Waters Canoe Area Mining Protection Area" dated September 1978, which is available at the Supervisor’s Office of the Superior National Forest. The effects from the proposed activities are analyzed in sections 3.2 and 3.3. Also see Figure 3.2.2.

F.10.2 Minerals Exploration and the BWCAW

F.10.2.1 Comment: “The EA excludes the BWCA from consideration, correctly, in my opinion,

because the proposed activities are located from 1.5 miles and 5 miles from the boundary of the BWCA and no activities will take place within the BWCA.” Comment #30.03

“Chapter 1, P 4, Sect. 1.0.1: Please clarify that the nearest point of the entire project area is about 1.5 miles from the BWCA. The definition of the project area includes three proposed programs and, for example, the work planed by Franconia lies much further to the west of the BWCA.” Comment #5.05

Agency Response: The proposed exploration activities are approximately 1.25 miles away from the BWCAW at the nearest point. No activities are proposed inside the BWCAW. See EA figure 3.2.2 and Appendix A.

F.10.2.2 Comment: “ Finally, the EA, in the matrix at the end of chapter 1, states that there will be

no roads constructed “near” the BWCA. However, the maps of temporary roads shows roads to the Encampment Resources, LLC locations to within 1.5-2 miles of the BWCA boundary. Given the nature of the wilderness, MCEA would consider 2 miles to be “near.” The term “near” obviously needs some definition and precision.” Comment #80.33

“As the court recently held in the Izaak Walton case, noise impacts to the wilderness may indicate a further need to protect the wilderness values under the Wilderness Act and are a potential for environmental impact warranting an EIS. See also, 36 C.F.R. 293 .2(c).” Comment # 80.35

Agency Response: The nearest proposed exploration hole is approximately 1.25 miles from the BWCA border. Regardless of the definition of “near” as raised in comment #80.33, the estimated effects from the proposed activities are shown in sections 3.2.6 and 3.3.6. In terms of 36 CFR.2(c), potential activities for the Kawishiwi Minerals Exploration that could be in conflict with wilderness values are addressed in section 1.8.4, Table 1.4. Also see Figure 3.2.2.



F.10.3 Scope of Analysis and the BWCAW

F.10.3.1 Comment: “The EA correctly excludes consideration of the BWCA from consideration,

since the proposed actions are from 1.5 to 5 miles from the BWCA and no activities will occur within the BWCA. (Sect. 1.8.4 and Table 1.5.) ” Comment #5.03

“Duluth also agrees that the exclusion of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness ("BWCAW”) from consideration is appropriate, since the proposed actions are from 1.5 to 5 miles from the BWCA W, no activities will occur within the BWCA W, and there would be no effects on the BWCA W aside from some potential minimal effects on the opportunity for solitude. ” Comment #35.03

“The Boundary Waters were designed to be a refuge for wildlife and an area where individuals can enjoy the environment in its natural state. The proposed exploration will certainly infringe upon the natural beauty and purity of the area.” Comment #69.02

“Table 1.4 regarding concerns potentially affecting other resources simply dismisses potential effects on the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness.” Comment #62.05

Agency Response: In the past 40 years, there have been mineral exploration projects mainly involving drilling, mapping, rock sampling, soil sampling, and geophysical activities. Northeastern Minnesota has a long tradition of mineral development of iron ore. Encampment has proposed drill sites that would be the sites closest to the BWCAW considered in this analysis (Figure 2.2). As shown in section 3.2.7.1, Figure 3.2.6 Exploration Activity in Vicinity of Project Area, about 10 – 12 sites have been drilled closer to the BWCAW than sites included in Encampments proposed plan of operations, and about 20 other sites have been drilled in the past in the proximity of the proposed Encampment sites.

Potential activities for the Kawishiwi Minerals Exploration that could be in conflict with wilderness values are addressed in section 1.8.4, Table 1.4. The existing untrammeled nature of the BWCAW would be unchanged by this project since there are no activities proposed within the BWCAW. Since this project would not create any permanent improvements or human occupation within the wilderness, the undeveloped quality of the BWCAW would not be affected. The existing natural character of the BWCAW would be unchanged by this project since the project and would not change ecological ecosystems in the wilderness. Since there would be no operations within or adjacent to the BWCAW, there would be no effects on the BWCAW in terms of the primitive or unconfined recreation experiences available in the BWCAW. However, noise from the proposed drilling operations could have an affect on the opportunity for solitude within the BWCAW.

The effects of noise from the proposed activities are analyzed in sections 3.2 and 3.3. No activities are proposed within the BWCAW. Also see Figure 3.2.2 and Appendix A.



F.10.4 Noise and the BWCAW

Comments: “Although the proposed activities embodied in this Draft EA are outside the boundaries of BWCAW, your analysis has shown that noise from drilling may be heard within BWCAW, and comments from recent visitors to BWCAW indicate that noise from the mining activities is being heard.” Comment 65.07

Agency Response: There is no mining currently taking place within the project area described in section 1.0.1, Figure 1.2, or in close proximity of the project area. Drilling proposed by Encampment may be heard in the BWCAW as described in section 3.2.

Noise from the proposed drilling operations could have an affect on the opportunity for solitude within the BWCAW. In section 3.2 the EA provides analysis of decibel levels projected for the minerals exploration included in Encampment’s plan of operations, and projections for Entry Points #32 and #33 and on into the adjoining wilderness. Potential for noise from drilling to be perceptible in the BWCAW northeast of the South Kawishiwi River in the vicinity of Entry Point #32 is at the level of just becoming perceptible with an estimated 2 to 3 decibel change from the existing condition (sections 2.5 and 3.2). Minerals exploration drilling is not a new activity in the project area and its vicinity. In the past 40 years, there have also been mineral exploration projects mainly involving drilling, mapping, rock sampling, soil sampling, and geophysical activities within the project area and in the vicinity (section 1.0.1). The proposed minerals exploration activities in the plan of operations (EA Appendix A) are such that, although drilling would be continuous over the duration of the drilling at any sites that are in operation, they would come to a conclusion within 2 to 3 weeks at any one site.

F.11 Permits and Leases

F.11.1 NEPA for Permits and Leases

F.11.1.1 Comment: “The USFS and BLM Must Assess Permitting and Lease Decisions, Not Just

Operating Plans. The EA for the Kawishiwi Minerals Exploration Project (the “Project”) is far too constrained and must include the initial leasing and permitting decisions by the Bureau of Land Management (“BLM”).” Comment #80.02

Agency Response: See section 1.8.4, Table 1.5 topic Past permit and lease decisions. These three exploration proposals are located in areas that have been permitted or leased in prior actions, thus there are no leasing or permitting decisions to be made.

F.11.1.2 Comment: “The EA is wrongly limited to ensuring that the operating plans are

consistent with the terms and conditions of the USFS consent to the Project and in the case of the prospecting permits only, to determine if additional protective measures are necessary to protect surface resources. The EA does not appear to be intended for use to determine whether to issue the permits and/or lease, particularly



whether these decisions are in the public interest. The original notice and now the text of the EA specifically state that the EA will not concern the BLM decision to issue the permits or the lease in the first instance. The purpose and need portion of the EA is entirely lacking in a discussion of the purpose and need for the permits and leases. Rather, it launches into a discussion of a “completed deal”; permits and a lease that are already issued needing only a description of the limited portion of the Project that the agencies believe is subject to review. This is incorrect under the law. See, MCEA May 30, 2007 comment letter and citations therein.” Comment #80.03

Agency Response: Please see section 1.8.4, Table 1.5 under the topic Past permit and lease decisions. The prospecting activities have been proposed for areas that have been permitted or leased in prior actions, thus there are no leasing or permitting decisions to be made. The active prospecting permits and lease give the companies a right to perform exploration under their permits/lease. This EA analyzes the exploration proposals submitted by the companies in order to allow them to exercise their rights under the permits with stipulations and requirements necessary to protect resources as identified in the analysis. It does not address a mining proposal or permits/lease issuance by the BLM.

F.11.1.3 Comment: “Materials from the BLM file on the Project appear to support MCEA’s

position that the manner in which environmental review of this Project has progressed has not been in keeping with the law and that an EIS must review not just the operating plan, but the underlying BLM permit or lease2 decision itself. For example, in response to questions or arguments from some of the Project proponents, in March of 2007, BLM documents respond clearly: “Federal agencies must evaluate the potential effects of the permittee exercising their rights under the permit before the permit is issued.” BLM document titled: NEPA Questions, 3/2007, (emphasis added), copy enclosed. The same document further provides: The Forest Service must evaluate the potential impacts of drilling prior to consenting to a permit application, because a prospecting permit conveys the right to drill consistent with the terms of the permit.” Id. (emphasis in original.) An e-mail from Loretta Cartner at the USFS to Patty Beyer, dated April 18, 2007, provides: “[i]n addition, [to the forest service NEPA requirements for operating plans] the BLM is required to complete NEPA for the issuance of prospecting permits.” 3 Comment #80.04

Agency Response: The prospecting activities have been proposed for areas that have been permitted or leased in prior actions, thus there are no leasing or permitting decisions to be made. In 2001, USFS provided advice to the BLM (with additional stipulations to protect resources) for the issuance of the three prospecting permit applications. This advice was based on the 1986 Superior National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (1986 Forest Plan) and EIS. In 2003, the USFS gave advice to the BLM for an extension of the permits also based on the 1986 Forest Plan/EIS. The email reference cited does not relate to this project or these active permits. Instead, it refers to a separate process involving the USFS and BLM that needs to take place in the future to address the multiple prospecting permit applications currently held by the BLM.



F.11.1.4 Comment: “The BLM file also contains a flow chart, interestingly different and more

detailed from the one included in the EA, that makes clear that the NEPA process is to be completed prior to permit issuance. The flow chart does not address the preference right lease situation. See, copy enclosed from BLM file.” Comment #80.06

Agency Response: There are different BLM flow charts. The flow chart in this EA is based on the BLM flow chart in relation to permitting operating plans under existing prospecting permits. It has a different format to clarify the process to the public. It appears that this comment is referring to a BLM flow chart relating to the process for permitting prospecting permit applications or a lease. This chart does not apply to these exploration projects since the projects are proposed under existing prospecting permits and lease.

F.11.1.5 Comment: “It is especially critical that an EIS be prepared for the actual BLM permitting

and leasing decisions because, as noted in BLM communications in the Project file, once a prospecting permit is issued, the USFS cannot impose any new restrictions that would prevent the permittee from discovering a valuable deposit. E-mail from Steve Volz to Timothy O’Brien, dated February 6, 2007, copy enclosed. This is confirmed by statements in the EA itself. For example, in the matrix at, the end of chapter 1, the EA provides that the USFS cannot prohibit discovery of minerals, it can only regulate surface disturbance. It follows with citations to the Mining Law of 1872 and the Organic Act. Similarly, in chapter 2, page 28, the EA provides that the USFS cannot withhold consent to explore or prospect for minerals.” Comment #80.07

“It is also critical that an EIS be prepared for the actual BLM permitting and leasing decisions from a resource perspective given the location and extent of mineral activity related to this Project. As noted’ earlier and throughout these comments, the activities under review are taking place on the doorstep of a wilderness. Moreover, even outside the wilderness boundary proper, this area is extensively used and managed for outdoor recreation in that there are a number- of recreation trails (e.g., hiking, snowmobile, cross-country ski, dogsled), there is a forest service campground, and boat landing and there is extensive water recreation on the South Kawishiwi and Birch Lake.” Comment #80.09

“While MCEA recognizes from its review of the BLM file, that the federal agencies have attempted to correct the deficiencies of late NEPA analysis,4 it appears that the correction does not go far enough and that the prospecting permits and the renewal of the lease decisions themselves, must be subject to an EIS prior to their issuance.5 ......... As noted in MCEA’s earlier comment letter, the fact that the permits are issued and the lease renewed does not moot the obligation of the agencies to conduct full environmental review of the decisions to permit and lease. See, Pit River Tribe v U.S. Forest Service, 469 F.3d 768, 785-786 (9th Cir. 2006); Oregon Natural Resources Council v. US. Bureau of Land Management, 470 F.3d 818,820-21 (9th Cir. 2006).” Comment #80.11



Agency Response: The EA addresses the actions proposed, which are limited to prospecting for minerals in the areas described. Prospecting operations consist of core drilling, attendant site preparation and road/trail construction, and possible limited (non-disturbing) remote geophysical surveying. No other activities have been proposed. If a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) from the proposed operations is made, no Environmental Statement (EIS) need be initiated. The prospecting activities have been proposed for areas that have been permitted or leased in prior actions, thus there are no leasing or permitting decisions to be made. Also see Table 1.5 and section 1.2.

F.11.1.6 Comment: “As suggested in the e-mails of the USFS and in the EA itself, the proper

time for preparation of an EIS was prior to permit issuance, because an irretrievable commitment of resources occurred at that time.” Comment # 80.08

Agency Response: As stated in Table 1.5 under topic Granting mineral leases, the lease was issued in 1966 and prior to the National Environmental Policy Act. Therefore, an EIS was not completed for the lease. The prospecting activities have been proposed for areas that have been permitted or leased in prior actions, thus there are no leasing or permitting decisions to be made. Also see section 1.2.

F.11.1.7 Comment: “ It appears from the file that the USFS has agreed to the preparation of a

“programmatic” EIS for the entirety of the prospecting/exploratory/mining activities in the northeastern end of the Duluth Complex within the SNF.7, but it is unclear what the status of such EIS is and whether the USFS plans on following through on such an EIS. See, e.g., e-mail from Loretta Cartner to Dain Maddox, dated April 13, 2007, which references a prospecting EIS, but it is unclear to what extent it includes the Project permits and lease. Earlier, a briefing paper from the USFS dated August 30, 2006, states:

‘There are currently 29 prospecting permit applications, three proposed plans of operations and one preference-right lease application that are on hold until the appropriate NEPA analyses are accomplished. The NEPA needed to cover these outstanding permit requests or operating plan approvals,- and future similar requests, will cover approximately 400,000 acres on the Superior NF. Copy enclosed. (Emphasis in original.) It is unclear if this statement includes the current Project.” Comment #80.18

“Later, that document indicates that the NEPA work will be divided into three separate activities (1 EIS and 2 EAs), “grouping like decisions such that some can be on a faster timeline.” The Briefing Memorandum of December 5, 2006, (cited in footnote 6) seems to support including the Project permits and lease in a larger EIS. The existing segmentation of mineral exploration and development projects may serve to mask the larger environmental impacts from the considerably increased mineral activity in the larger area. An e-mail exchange involving Steve Volz, Timothy O’Brien, and Steve Gobat on February 6-7, 2007,’iniplies that the “site-specific” environmental analysis being done on this Project is a “component of a



comprehensive EIS analyzing future exploration on the Duluth Complex,” copy enclosed, appearing to indicate that this EA will become part of a larger EIS. 8 See also, letter from Jim Sanders and Timothy O’Brien dated April 14, 2007, which notes that the USFS will be initiating an EIS on prospecting permits, but is somewhat unclear what that will cover. Copy enclosed. These communications make clear that it is inappropriate to segment this Project from the overall increased mineral activity in the SNF, improperly narrowing the scope and cumulative analysis.” Comment #80.19

Agency Response: The planned programatic EIS project addressing the multiple

prospecting permit applications currently held by the BLM is a separate project and does not relate to this project. It will be a broad “programmatic” EIS addressing a larger area than site specific exploration proposals. This EIS has not begun at this time, but is likely to start up in early 2008. The briefing paper reference concerning how to apply NEPA for the operating plans in this EA (1 EIS and 2 EA’s) was a specific point in time and early in the NEPA project formulation. Since that time (over the course of at least 4 months), this topic was discussed and refined into the current EA; one EA for the three exploration operating plans. These exploration operating plans are separate and have much different decisions and purpose and need for actions than the prospecting permit applications held by the BLM and therefore it was decided to complete two separate environmental analysis’ for these two distictly different groups of projects. In addition, the prospecting permit applications do not include site specific operating plans but rather have a broad description of activities over a larger permit area. A site specific analysis may be completed for potential future exploration activities when a more detailed operating plan is submitted by the companies. This stage occurs after the prospecting permits are issued. Since the prospecting permits applications have not been analyzed in an EIS yet and have not been permitted, it is not known at this time whether these permits will be issued and under what conditions of approval. These decisions on the applications most likely will not be made for at least 2-1/2 years. For these reasons, these future actions are not included in this EA and will be addressed in a separate EIS.

F.11.1.8 Comments: “MCEA urges the USFS and BLM to not engage in artificial segmentation

and/or perfunctory environmental analysis simply to ensure that the Project proponents can keep to their desired, commercial schedules regardless of the environmental outcomes or requirements, and that no further permits or leases be issued until that EIS (or other individual EISs) is completed, and any permits or leases that have been issued without completion of an EIS be put on hold pending its completion.” Comment #80.21

Agency Response: See above response. In addition, see Table 1.5 under topic Past permit and lease decisions. The permits and lease are active and not part of this analysis. This analysis addresses the site specific exploration operating plans under those already issued permits and leases. Mining or other development cannot be approved (or even contemplated) in the



absence of demonstrated economic and environmental viability of prospects, thus prospecting necessarily precedes development. Most prospecting permits do not lead to valuable discovery determinations, thus prospecting does not irrevocably - or even commonly - lead to development. Should prospecting and subsequent evaluation lead to leasing and/or mining proposals, such actions would be evaluated at that time. Comments derived from predecisional deliberation or discussion lack context necessary for response. Anticipatory statements, documents not addressing the proposed actions or draft documents not made a part of the EA record are excluded from consideration.

F.11.2 Lease-Prospecting and Mining

F.11.2.1 Comment: “Does that fact that Franconia Mineral Leases were approved and renewed

necessarily mean that data regarding the environmental impact of their mining operations was measured and judged to adhere to an objective standard before renewal actions were taken?” Comment #65.11

Agency Response: The permittee of the two federal hardrock mineral leases on the SNF is Beaver Bay Joint Venture. Franconia has not proposed a mining operation to date. The exploration activities have been proposed for areas that have been permitted or leased in prior actions, thus there are no leasing or permitting decisions to be made. If a mine proposal is received by the USFS and BLM on the lease, an EIS analysis will be completed.

F.11.2.2 Comments: “Chapter 1, p. 9, Sect. 1.2.2 Federal Mineral Leases: The date of the last

renewal is incorrectly stated. The effective date of the renewal is January 1,2004, not December 5,2003” Comment #5.09

Agency Response: Comment acknowledged and the error has been corrected. F.11.2.3 Comments: “MCEA notes the EA claims that the Lehman Exploration, Inc./Beaver Bay

Joint Venture preference right lease was originally issued prior to passage of the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”) and therefore does not require an EIS. This is simply incorrect and inconsistent with the federal agencies’ position generally on this Project. First, the lease at issue was renewed in either 1987 or 1989 (there is conflicting information on this), well after the passage of NEPA. Because it had not had an EIS earlier, an EIS should have been prepared. It appears that an EA may have been prepared at that time, but there is no detail or discussion of what the earlier EA addressed and it has not been made available to the public in this process. The lease was apparently renewed again in 2004 with no EIS or other supplemental review.’ Comment #80.05



Agency Response: The EA addresses the actions proposed, which are limited to prospecting for minerals in the areas described. Prospecting operations consist of core drilling, attendant site preparation and road/trail construction, and possible limited (non-disturbing) remote geophysical surveying. No other activities have been proposed. If a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) from the proposed operations is made, no Environmental Statement (EIS) need be initiated.

The prospecting activities have been proposed for areas that have been permitted or leased in prior actions, thus there are no leasing or permitting decisions to be made. Pending Prospecting Permit Applications (PPAs) will be addressed in other environmental processes. Stipulations designed to protect other resources and/or uses have been made terms of the existing permits; other stipulations may be made to the surface use plans of operation proposed by the permittees/operator in the actions currently under investigation.

Mining or other development cannot be approved (or even contemplated) in the absence of demonstrated economic and environmental viability of prospects, thus prospecting necessarily precedes development. Most prospecting permits do not lead to valuable discovery determinations, thus prospecting does not irrevocably - or even commonly - lead to development. Should prospecting and subsequent evaluation lead to leasing and/or mining proposals, such actions would be evaluated at that time.

Comments derived from pre-decisional deliberation or discussion lack context necessary for response. Anticipatory statements, documents not addressing the proposed actions or draft documents not made a part of the EA record are excluded from consideration.

F.11.2.4 Comments: “Moreover, it appears that the Lehman Exploration, Inc. preference right

lease should be subject to its own EIS as the rights and authorities conferred under it differ significantly from those conferred under prospecting permits.” Comment #80.05

“Additionally, the Lehman Exploration, Inc. lease actually allows the first steps to occur in a mine operation and indicates that some NEPA review may be necessary before the mining begins. It is clear that the Lehman Exploration, Inc. lease, even more than the prospecting permits, confers rights on the lessee regarding mineral extraction and acknowledges the need for site-specific NEPA analysis prior to mining.6 In fact, MCEA is particularly disturbed by a statement in section 1.6.2.3 of the EA that “exploration is ongoing under the lease.” This is violation of NEPA’ s requirements that activities that could affect the environment cannot commence until the NEPA process is complete. See, e.g., document from BLM file entitled “Talking Points for Wednesday USFS,” no date, which contains a bullet point indicating that consideration of a Preference Right Lease such as that held by Lehmann Exploration, Inc. would include a plan of mining operations for a mine. Copy enclosed. This demonstrates that the Lehmann. Exploration, Inc. lease confers different and far more substantial rights, with more substantial attendant environmental effects, than the prospecting permits and that it should have its own EIS, or, all these projects should be part of the programmatic EIS, discussed below.” Comment #80.15



Agency Response: The proposed exploration operating plan submitted by Franconia under the current hardrock mineral lease has the same activities proposed by Duluth Metals and Encampment Resources with minor differences. The type of activities and similarity of environmental effects drive the reasoning to include all three exploration operation plan proposals into one EA. The activities under the three project proposals are not significantly different. The rights under the lease and permits is not driving the analysis and a mine is not proposed at this time under the lease. Exploration has been on-going and operating plans approved under the lease since the lease was issued in 1966. This proposal is similar to past exploration projects under the lease. The talking points citation is not a Forest Service or BLM document. Rather it is from industry and it appears that it is not specifically discussing the BBJV’s mineral lease, rather it was discussing the general process of discovering a valuable mineral that could lead to a preference right lease appliction and lease, which would trigger NEPA and that the issuance of a lease is a commitment to allowing the lessee to exercise the right to mine after a mine plan is submitted and NEPA is completed. Also see F.11.2 (2).

F.11.3 Issuing Permits and Leases

F.11.3.1 Comments: While you have stated that the process by which the Bureau of Land

Management (BLM) issued original leases and permits for exploratory sulfide mining is not under review in this Draft EA, it is difficult for “non-experts” like ourselves to review this Draft EA without knowledge of the process, purpose, rationale, and the potential risks and benefits, the kind of information that would ordinarily be included in an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).” Comment #65.09

Agency Response: Mining or other development cannot be approved (or even contemplated) in the absence of demonstrated economic and environmental viability of prospects, thus prospecting necessarily precedes development. Most prospecting permits do not lead to valuable discovery determinations, thus prospecting does not irrevocably - or even commonly - lead to development. Should prospecting and subsequent evaluation lead to leasing and/or mining proposals, such actions would be evaluated at that time. Mining is not under review in this EA and is out of the scope of the analysis (see F.14.3 responses), therefore, details relating to mining are not included in this EA. In addition, see section 1.8.4, Table 1.5, Topic Future mining related to the permits and leases addressed in this analysis and PolyMet’s NorthMet Project operations and section 1.6.2.3.

F.12 Process - NEPA

F.12.1 Public Involvement for Future Mining

F.12.1.1 Comments: “Also, will we be able to comment again prior to mining permits being

allowed?” Comment #2.03



Agency Response: Further NEPA analysis and processes would take place evaluating any potential mining relating to the permits and lease considered in this EA. As discussed in sections 1.4 Purpose and Need, 1.6.2.3 Consideration of Future Mining in the Decision to Be Made, and 1.8.4 Scope of Analysis, mining is outside the scope of this minerals exploration project.

F.12.2 Resource Surveys

F.12.2.1 Comments: “2) Where there any firms or organizations outside of the USFS or

government (local, State or Federal) agencies that were hired to provide any data, research etc.” Comment #57.04

“3) If there were outside agencies selected to help collect and or analyze information or data for the EA what was the selection process for these firms and or organizations.” Comment #57.05

“4) More specifically what was the EXACT selection process used to retain the independent firms that contributed information to the EA.” Comment #57.06

“6) Please provide me with all information regarding any organization that provided information or resources to the EA.” Comment #57.08

Agency Response: The following is a list of the contract botanical surveys that have been conducted in the area affected by the Kawishiwi Mineral Exploration EA: Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive (TES) plant surveys 2003 - Contractor to USFS, Deb Pomroy, conducted surveys for Kawishiwi SUmmer

Home Group, which overlaps with the project area 2005 - Contractor to USFS, Critical Connections Ecological Services, conducted

surveys for the Maturi Extension Project, which covered several access routes and drill sites in the project area

2006 - Contractor to Duluth Metals, Dave Schmoller of Yellowfield Biological Surveys, conducted surveys for Duluth Metals, which covered several large blocks of land within the project area

2006 - Contractor to USFS, Dave Schmoller of Yellowfield Biological Surveys, conducted surveys for the Glacier Project, and several survey stands are located within a portion of the project area

2007 - Contractor to Ernie Lehman (Franconia), Barr Engineering, conducted surveys for the blocks of land proposed for mineral exploration in the project area

Non-native Invasive Plants 2006 - USFS botanists conducted weed surveys in portions of the area covered by the

Mineral EA. A hard copy map showing location of survey areas is in the project file, and these are also shown on the TES plant survey reports that were submitted with the above projects. The TES plant survey reports associated with each survey were used in developing the Biological Evaluation, so they become part of the project record. Not



every acre within the project area has been surveyed for TES plants. This is the same approach used for other projects such as for vegetation management, in which a sample of the proposed areas are surveyed.

The Forest Service biologists and plant ecologist reviewed the survey processes prior to the surveys and reviewed the results of the surveys and the accompanying reports, which are available in the project file. Forest Service personnel did not identify any substantial problems in the methods of data collection or in how the results were reported. Also see agency responses in sections F.8.1.3 and F.12.11.2.

F.12.3 Addressing Public Input from Scoping Efforts

F.12.3.1 Comments: “Appendix D lists the names and organizations (if named) of persons

submitting public input, but does not include Forest Service responses. I would like to see full documentation of Forest Service Responses to each issue raised through public input.” Comment #62.09

Agency Response: Issues raised through public input during scoping are identified and addressed primarily in section 1.8 Issues. Section 1.8 contains Tables 1.2 - 1.5 that identify significant issues, non-significant issues, other resource concerns, and concerns relating to the scope of the analysis. In addition, concerns raised during scoping are addressed throughout the EA.

F.12.4 Decisions to Be Made

F.12.4.1 Comments: “Shouldn’t the word “consent” in this sentence be “decision” (instead of

“consent”) since the FS can either “consent” or “not consent” to the proposals; and in the phrase: “BLM will decide how to authorize…” -- shouldn’t that read “BLM will decide “whether” (instead of “how”) to authorize...?” This language suggests some decisions have been made prior to thorough analysis of data as required by law.” Comment #65.23

Agency Response: The wording in the Draft EA regarding the decision to be made in section 1.6.2 was revised; the more accurate word is advice based on Forest Service Manual 2822.04c and 2822.62. In terms of the permits, section 1.6.2.1 states that the Kawishiwi District Ranger must determine what mitigation and reclamation conditions of approval for surface resource protection would be included in the Forest Service advice to the BLM for the prospecting permit operating plan concurrence (FSM 2822.04c and 2822.62). In terms of the lease, section 1.6.2.2 states that the Kawishiwi District Ranger decision is to determine what mitigation and reclamation conditions of approval for surface resource protection will be included in the Forest Service advice to the BLM for the hardrock mineral lease operating plan concurrence (FSM 2822.04c and 2822.62).



F.12.5 Changes and Clarifications to the Draft EA

F.12.5.1 Comments: “We would also like to comment on: 1. Sect 1.0.2 Table 1.1 Key terms –

Hardrock minerals - In this case~ the term used for bedrock minerals which could be a sediment, as opposed to the unconsolidated overburden (glacial till., outwash etc.). 2. Sect 1.2.3.2 Sump Pit - Sentence stating sump pits cannot be used in winter is wrong. Sump pits can be used any time of the year if groundwater conditions are favorable. 3. Sect 1.2.3.2 Water - Bentonite is not the only additive used; National Sanitation Foundation International (NSF) certified additives may be used (MN rules Ch 4727.0935 subp.2).” Comment #79.02

Agency Response: Changes and clarifications made in the EA since the 30-day comment period are noted throughout Appendix F. The following responds specifically to Comment #79.02. 1. The EA has been revised to reflect these clarifications. 2. Section 1.2.3.2 has been revised. The statement restricting use of sump pits in the winter has been deleted in the EA text. 3. The intent of the discussion is to indicate what measures are used to prevent water from escaping the drill hole, and not to indicate that betonite is the only certified additive that can be used.

F.12.6 Effects Analysis

F.12.6.1 Comments: “… the proposed footprint of the planned exploration would be minor and of

much shorter duration than the impacts of USFS, state, county and/or private corporations managed logging operations have and do impact the surface of these lands.” Comment #46.04

“This Kawishiwi Mineral Exploration EA does not provide sufficient evidence upon which to make a finding of “no significant impact.”” Comment #50.01

Agency Response: Effects analysis is displayed throughout Chapter 3 Environmental Consequences and effects in terms of significant issues is summarized and displayed in section 2.5.

F.12.6.2 Comments: “I believe that the noise analysis presented in the draft EA is insufficient

and misleading. While these variables may arguably be 'not quantifiable', that does NOT make them insignificant or irrelevant. The noise analysis presented in the EA is not adequate in that none of these variables is included. The wind does indeed blow, and when it is blowing from the direction of drilling, the sound levels will be significantly louder than what is predicted by the analysis in the EA. This was the case many times during the summer when noise from the drilling activities that took place on state leases was beyond 'clearly noticeable' at the South Kawishiwi Recreational Residences even though, according to the analysis in the EA, the noise was analyzed to be below the 'threshold of perception'. Clearly, the modeling did not match reality. Furthermore, it needs to be more fully recognized that this noise is not



a fleeting, temporary type of noise, but rather a persistent and constant drone (24 -7) that increases the degree of disturbance to other forest users.At a minimum, the analysis in the EA should present a 'Reasonable Worst Case' or a '95% Significance' type analysis taking into account the variables listed. "Average" conditions may not be indicative of the degree of disruption from the drilling to other forest users - generally speaking, 50% of the time impacts are greater, often significantly, than "average" conditions. This needs to be addressed in the EA. Additionally, reasonable 'state of the art' noise prevention or suppression should be required as necessary, even if deemed 'inconvenient' by the driller. Reasonable noise mitigation measures such as equipment selection, rig location, temporary noise barriers and engine muffling should all be considered and required as necessary. To the extent that drilling can be required to take place in the winter (for example, as would be the case under Alternative 3) when the recreational residences and campground are essentially unoccupied, impacts from noise to other forest users would be significantly reduced and the inadequacies of the noise analysis in the EA become less significant.” Comment #47.02

Agency Response: In section 3.2.3 the EA recognizes that there are several other variables that can influence sound levels that were not considered in detail in this analysis. These variables are site specific and include temperature, humidity, wind, topography, vegetation, other barriers, and the frequency (Hz) of the sound. While these variables were not quantified and the analysis simplified by not quantifying them, the EA recognizes that they can add or subtract to perceptible noise and since they are highly variable inhibiting or not inhibiting the amount of noise. While at times the noise from drilling may seem louder, there would also be times when the noise would seem quieter. Section 1.2.3.2 contains descriptions of what typically is required for mineral exploration drilling, including drilling equipment and operations including discussion on drill rigs operating 24 hours a day in two 12 hour shifts. The duration of operations is estimated in section 3.2.6. Table 3.2.6 displays the estimated number of days of operations by season for each alternative considered in detail.

Noise abatement design features are identified in section 2.2.2.5. Noise abatement measures are intended to reduce impact to private residences and recreation use within the project area. These measures would help disperse drilling noise upward rather than dispersing the noise generated laterally.

F.12.7 Environmental Impact Statement

F.12.7.1 Comments: “These vague predictions do not rule out significant environmental effects.

An Environmental Impact Statement is required if "significant environmental effects MAY occur." I submit that the draft EA itself is sufficient documentation that an EIS is required.” Comment #62.02

“As someone who has enjoyed the untarnished BWCA for many years, I am strongly opposed to the proposed mineral exploration activity and believe that a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) needs to be conducted before any activity is permitted.” Comment #64.01



“We strongly believe that there is a clear and significant need for a full Environmental Impact Study to occur. Failure to conduct an EIS would certainly result in a flawed NEPA process, since the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires an EIS to be conducted before any government action may significantly alter the quality of the human environment. We strongly believe that the drilling process has already negatively altered the fragile forest environment over the past year on state land adjacent to River Point, and surely the proposed Kawishiwi Minerals Exploration will alter the adjacent federal land.” Comment #67.01

“Also, as is demonstrated -in Fig. 1.6 of the EA, all this recreation use is part of an overall protected scenic landscape, yet with extensive exploration inexplicably proposed within the scenic boundaries. Obviously, the exploration is intended to lead to mineral discovery and extraction (otherwise, this is an entirely pointless exercise). It is inconceivable that sulfide mining can exist on any large scale without impacting all of these natural resource values and yet the artificially narrow focus of the EA chooses to ignore this issue. Ignoring this obvious potential for significant environmental effects is a circumvention of the requirements and purpose of NEPA.” Comment #80.10

“III. THERE IS THE POTENTIAL FOR SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS FROM THE PERMITS AND LEASE AT ISSUE AND THE .EA FAILS TO ADEQUATELY ANALYZE THEM. NEPA requires preparation of an EIS in this case. An EIS is to be prepared for all major federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C). The purpose is to ensure that the government and the public have full information regarding environmental consequences of the proposed action. In assessing the significance of the potential effects, federal regulation requires an agency to consider the context and severity of the action, which in turn includes examination of the degree to which the effects are likely to be highly controversial and whether the action is cumulatively significant when analyzed in conjunction with other actions. 40 C.F.R. § 1508.27.” Comment #80.23

“The “temporary” roads necessary for this Project are a significant environmental effect requiring preparation of an EIS.” Comment #80.34

Agency Response: As shown in Section 1.0.1, Table 1.1 Key Terms, the environmental assessment is a document prepared to determine if a proposed action, or its alternatives, may have significant environmental effects. If significant effects may occur, an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is prepared, if not, a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) and Decision Notice can be issued. Effects analysis for this project is displayed in Chapter 3 and effects in terms of significant issues (identified in section 1.8) are summarized in section 2.5. Effects on and concerns about the BWCAW are discussed in sections 1.0.1, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.8.2, 1.8.3, 1.8.4, 3.2 & 3.3. High scenic integrity objective areas are identified in section 1.3 and Figure 1.6, and effects on visuals are addressed in sections 3.8.6. Temporary roads are considered in sections 1.2.3.2, 1.5, 1.8.1, 1.8.2, 2.2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, and 3.2 - 3.8.

A FONSI would consider the context and intensity of the actions and their estimated effects, including cumulative effects, considered in the EA. While differences in comments can reflect a range of opinions, they do not of and by themselves constitute



controversy. In terms of issuing a FONSI, controversy is gauged by differences in estimations between professionals, specialists, and scientists.

F.12.7.2 Comments: “My understanding is there is environmental review going on right now on

the Duluth Complex. Why is this exploration not included in that EIS? I believe not only does this require an EIS, it needs to wait until a EIS has been done for the whole area.” Comment #70.07

Agency Response: “These two analysis efforts differ in several ways. The Kawishiwi Minerals Exploration project considers plan of operations submitted by current permitees and leasee and the other project is considering new permitting/leasing for minerals exploration. The purpose and need and decision to be made are different for these projects. This project is not being considered in the minerals exploration EIS because not only because the decisions to be made and the purpose and need differ between the two projects. In addition, the projects are separated not only geographically but also in time of implementation. See sections 1.0 Introduction, 1.2 Background on Permits and Leases, 1.4 Purpose and Need for Action, 1.5 Proposed Action, 1.6 Decision to Be Made.

F.12.7.3 Comments: “IT APPEARS THAT THE USFS MAY HAVE PREDETERMINED THE

OUTCOME OF THIS MATTER AGAINST THE PREPARATION OF AN EIS. Of extreme concern to MCEA is information that the USFS may have predetermined the need for an EIS in this case, deciding that one was not needed well before the EA was even complete and out for public comment. Enclosed are two affidavits, and MCEA is aware of a third that may be submitted to you under separate cover, setting forth conversations wherein citizens were informed, once by USFS personnel, and again by Mr. Lehmann (who indicated he had received the information from USFS personnel) that the USFS had already determined it would not prepare an EIS for the Project. Moreover, notes from the BLM file appear to indicate that there was an agreement ahead of time with at least one of the Project proponents for the preparation only of an EA. E-mail from Loretta Cartner to Randy Rabideaux et al., dated April 20, 2007, with phone conservation documentation referenced and enclosed, copy enclosed. Those same notes indicate that at a meeting between the agencies and the regulated parties, it was agreed that the scope of environmental analysis would exclude future mining phases altogether. In addition to indicating predetermined outcomes, this appears to fly in the face of the Pit River Tribe decision and the obligation to analyze cumulative and related impacts. 14 This is in violation of NEPA and indicative of arbitrary and capricious decision-making by the agency. Courts have dealt harshly with instances where agencies predetermine an outcome that is supposed to be informational, analytical, and fully involve the public. MCEA urges the USFS to ste back from any predetermined outcome and prepare an ElS in this case to ensure that the full extent of the environmental effects of the Project are explored and mitigated for, should the Project go forward. It is the correct thing to do for the resource and under the applicable law.” Comment #80.59



Agency Response: Often projects such as vegetation management projects which result in hundreds or thousands of acres of harvest treatments and miles of temporary road development have been analyzed in environmental assessments and culminated in decision notices and findings of no significant impacts. It is not uncommon for effects from minerals exploration on National Forest System lands to be considered in EAs. Since the Kawishiwi Minerals Exploration proposed action would include a total of about 9 acres of temporary openings and about 7.2 miles of temporary road, an EA was judged to provide an appropriate level of documentation and provide ample public involvement in the analysis process in determining the need to conduct an environmental impact statement. Discussion on why mining was excluded from this analysis is shown in sections 1.6.2.3 Consideration of Future Mining in the Decisions to Be Made and 1.8.4 Scope of Analysis. Comments derived from pre-decisional deliberation or discussion lack context necessary for response. Anticipatory statements, documents not addressing the proposed actions or draft documents not made a part of the EA record are excluded from consideration.

F.12.7.4 Comments: “Please explain why a full EIS is not needed in light of the following facts.

Please address each issue independently; 1) This is a controversial issue with the public. Knowing this how can you proceed without conducting a full EIS? 2) Based on the EA this project MAY have effects on wetlands including indirect, and cumulative effects. Knowing this how can you proceed without conducting a full EIS? 3) According to the EA the proposed action MAY significantly affect threatened and endangered species or their habitats identified in the Department of the Interior's list, in accordance with §6.302, or a State's list, or a structure or a facility constructed or operated under the proposed action MAY be located in the habitat. Knowing this how can you proceed without conducting a full EIS? 4) The proposed action or plan may directly cause or induce changes that significantly alter the character of existing residential areas. Based on the public comments homeowners in the area have already confirmed that the existing activities have already altered the character of existing residential areas as well as impacted noise and air quality. Proceeding with the project without a full EIS appears to be in direct violation of NEPA policy in light of existing criteria and the existing public comments. Knowing this how can you proceed without conducting a full EIS? 5) The EA determined that there will be an impact on an entry point to the BWCA. Based on the Federal criteria for initiating an EIS which reads; "The proposed action may, directly, indirectly or cumulatively have significant adverse effect on parklands, preserves, other public lands or areas of recognized scenic, recreational, archaeological, or historic value;" it appears that continuing without an EIS would violate NEPA. Could you please explain why an EIS is not justified in this situation?” Comment 57.14

Agency Response: As shown in Section 1.0.1, Table 1.1 Key Terms, the environmental assessment is a document prepared to determine if a proposed action, or its alternatives, may have significant environmental effects. If significant effects may occur, an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is prepared, if not, a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) and Decision Notice can be issued. It is a FONSI that would discuss findings on the significance of effects in terms of context and intensity,



and it is a FONSI that would state why an EIS would not be prepared. Effects analysis for this project is displayed in Chapter 3 and effects in terms of significant issues (identified in section 1.8) are summarized in section 2.5. The following responds to the numbered questions in comment 57.14. 1) Differences in comments reflect a range of opinions, and do not of and by

themselves constitute controversy. 2) Wetlands are discussed in sections 1.8.2, 2.2.2.2, 2.2.2.3, 2.2.2.2.4, 2.3, 3.6, and

3.7. 3) Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive species are considered in sections 1.8.3,

3.4, 3.5, and Appendix B - Biological Evaluation. 4) Local residences and noise impacts are considered in sections 1.0.1, 1.3, 1.7,

1.8.1, 1.8.2, 1.8.3, 2.2.2.5, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, 3.2, 3.3, and 3.6. Air quality is considered in sections 1.8.3, 1.8.4, and 3.8.3.

5) Effects on and concerns about the BWCAW are discussed in sections 1.0.1, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.8.2, 1.8.3, 1.8.4, 3.2 & 3.3.

F.12.7.5 Comments: “It is critical that an environmental impact study be carried out by an

independently chosen scientific analyst” Comment 89,03

Agency Response: The Forest Service is the lead agency for this analysis and the United

States Department of the Interior, BLM is a cooperating agency. The FS manages the National Forest System for multiple use and sustained yield of products and services and is authorized to govern their use and occupancy under the authority of the Organic Administration Act of 1897, the Multiple-Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960, the National Forest Management Act of 1976, and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976. The roles and authorities of the Forest Service and BLM are identified in sections 1.1 Process and Agency Roles and 1.6.1 Authorities.

F.12.8 Decisions to Be Made

F.12.8.1 Comments: “It would not be in the interest of the companies or individuals to deviate

from said guidelines”. Comment #20.02

Agency Response: Mining Comment acknowledged. The companies will be required to

follow their approved plan of operations. The companies will also be required to have a permit through the State and therefore will be required to operate within the State’s processes and policies.

F.12.8.2 Comments: “Duluth notes that the Forest Service's choice to review all three

exploration plans in the same Draft EA does not preclude the Forest Service from issuing a separate decision document for each company.” Comment #35.05



Agency Response: Section 1.6.2 describes the decisions to be made for each company. The Forest Service will complete three separate decision notice documents; one for each company.

F.12.8.3 Comments: “In the absence of any significant noise impacts resulting from

Encampment's proposed activities, a broad-scale ban on exploration outside of the Frozen Season unfairly prejudices Encampment. And, with the option of using helicopters to access upland drill sites outside of the Frozen Season, Encampment can minimize any impacts on wetlands and accelerate the completion of its proposed activities. Rather than employ broad scale mitigation measures as contemplated in Alternative 3, the USFS should instead tailor its permit conditions and mitigation measures to appropriately reflect the unique circumstances of each company and its drilling program.” Comment #84.49

“By promoting the use of such initiatives when appropriate, the USFS more effectively balances the need for mineral exploration with the need to protect forest resources.” Comment #84.21

“Based on the noise-impact analysis discussed above, the USFS should not unfairly impose burdensome restrictions on Encampment's proposed exploration activities based on impacts that are not associated with its program. Instead, the USFS can easily impose tailored conditions that restrict activities based on the distance from receptors and the actual noise impact of the drilling on these receptors.” Comment #84.19

Agency Response: See section 1.6.2. In addition, each decision would be specific to each company’s proposed project proposal.

F.12.8.4 Comments: “Initial decisions regarding the exploratory mining activities did not meet

NEPA regulations (Part 1506-Other Requirements, Sec. 1506.6 Public Involvement) that require public notice and public involvement in the process. Comment #65.06

Agency Response: These projects are for mineral exploration and are not tied to mining

activities or proposals. Also see Table 1.5 Other Resource Concerns Identified in Scoping under Topic Past permit and lease decisions. The prospecting activities have been proposed for areas that have been permitted or leased in prior actions, thus there are no leasing or permitting decisions to be made.

F.12.9 Cumulative Effects Analysis

F.12.9.1 Comments: “In § 3.3.7, Cumulative Effects, Access Off of FR 186, the first sentence in



the second paragraph should read: "Although South Kawishiwi River Recreation Residences were temporarily impacted by adverse road conditions and truck and equipment traffic from previous drilling operations, FR 186 was immediately returned to satisfactory conditions by drilling operators for passenger vehicle traffic."” Comment #35.20

Agency Response: Discussion in section 3.3.7 recognizes that FR 186 was impacted by

exploration activities; it also recognizes that the impacts were not permanent.

F.12.9.2 Comments: ‘The EA should be more straightforward in describing the amount of drilling

completed or proposed in the area. There are many drillholes proposed or completed on state lands - these do not seem to be even acknowledged in the EA. In order to properly educate the reader and allow the reader to make at least a rough estimation for himself of cumulative impacts of drilling, the EA should clearly state the *total* number of drillholes that each entity proposes to drill (even if the drillholes on state lands are not officially subject to the EA).” Comment #47.04

Agency Response: Section 3.2.7.1 identifies sites that were drilled in the analysis area

including state of Minnesota and private drill site in Figure 3.2.6 Exploration Activity in the Vicinity of Project Area. In addition, proposed and ongoing exploration drilling for Duluth Metals is shown Figure 3.2.4 Duluth Metals Proposed Drilling on State Leases, Outstanding Mineral Rights, and Private ownership. Cumulative effects regarding noise from the exploration drilling is shown in sections 3.2 7 and 3.2.8.

F.12.9.3 Comments: The cumulative and related effects of mining exploration and hard rock

mining in this area and the impacts of extending the 100 mile plus Iron Range corridor deep into northeastern Minnesota’s SNF and BWCA wilderness areas, have not been addressed adequately as required by National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (29) (CEQ Sec. 1508.7: Cumulative Impact). Cumulative Effects analyses on wildlife habitats in this region have demonstrated the need for such data and information. (11). Recent industrial activities have adversely affected regional watersheds and air quality in MN Class I areas, yet these factors were apparently not included in the analyses of proposed impact of Kawishiwi Mineral Exploration and anticipated sulfide mining. Comment # 65.05

“This decision and the EA did not reasonably consider or explore the context of the proposed exploratory mining activities. The location of activities (past and proposed) adjacent to a federally designated wilderness area (BWCAW Act: 1978), a unique state, national, and international environmental public resource, would be reasonably expected to threaten the BWCAW, with exploratory drilling occurring within 0.75 mi. of BWCAW and proposed sulfide mining, which is among the most environmentally hazardous forms of mining known. Failure to consider this issue in its entirety is in error and would seem to violate NEPA and the intent of enabling legislation and policies of BLM and the Forest Service.“ Comment #50.05



Agency Response: The proposed exploration activities are approximately 1.25 miles away from the BWCAW at the nearest point. No activities are proposed inside the BWCAW. See EA figure 3.2.2 and Appendix A. Potential activities for the Kawishiwi Minerals Exploration that could be in conflict with wilderness values are addressed in section 1.8.4, Table 1.4. While individual animals may be affected by the proposed plans of operations, no substantial effects to wildlife habitat would result under any alternatives.

Cumulative effects analysis regarding the BWCAW is in sections 3.2.8 and 3.3.7. Further effects analyses and concerns involving the BWCAW are shown in sections 1.0.1, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.8.2, 1.8.3, 1.8.4, 3.2 & 3.3. Wildlife habitat is considered in sections 3.4, 3.5, 3.8.5, and Appendix B- Biological Evaluation. Air quality is considered in sections 1.8.3, 1.8.4, and 3.8.3. Mining is not considered in the EA as described in sections 1.6.2.3 and 1.8.4.

F.12.9.4 Comments: “The USFS requires that the full range of related and cumulative impacts

(past, present and reasonably foreseeable future) of proposed activities be incorporated into a project evaluation. This EA fails to accomplish this requirement.” Comment #50.03

Agency Response: Cumulative effects analysis is shown in sections 3.2.7, 3.2.8, 3.3.7,

3.4.7, 3.5.7, 3.6.7, 3.7.7, and 3.8. Cumulative impacts are also discussed in Appendix B - Biological Evaluation.

F.12.9.5 Comments: “The EA does not thoroughly address issues related to forest fragmentation

and more importantly does not take into consideration all of the other proposed exploration and mining activities in the area. Please explain how you can appropriately address forest fragmentation when you are not taking into consideration all of the proposed and or ongoing projects in the area. Especially with endangered species in the area.” Comment #57.12

Agency Response: This project does not contribute to forest fragmentation. As discussed in section 3.8.1, the condition of vegetation in terms of stand types, stand age, and diversity within stands would not change. In the short term, 1-5 years, each temporary road or drill site would not disturb enough area to change the forest type or the age of the stand. In the long term, more than 5 years, the changes would not result in changes to objectives relating to the Jack Pine/Black Spruce LE (Forest Plan, pages 2-61 – 2.63); no changes to forest type or age class, or stand diversity.

F.12.9.6 Comments: “Section 3.6.7 and Table 3.6.2 should be revised so as to exclude

Polymet's Northmet project from the cumulative effects analysis; this project does not qualify as a related action because it is neither in the same geographical area nor in the same watershed.” 84.46



“Finally, MCEA’s earlier comments raised the issue of cumulative impacts from the permits and lease at issue here and the need to review the impacts from the increased activity in the area. The EA disputes the need to conduct such review, yet presumably the programmatic ElS will do just that. Inclusion of the permits and lease that are the subject of this EA into the programmatic EIS appears to be much better able to assess the cumulative impacts of significantly increased mining and mineral activity in the SNF.” Comment #80.22

Agency Response: In section 3.6.7 the discussion regarding the Polymet's Northmet

project is included to show extent of the Kawishiwi Minerals Exploration as compared to the Polymet project. In Table 3.6.2 the discussion on the Polymet project is to identify that analysis of that project would be done in addition to the Kawishiwi Minerals Exploration. The analysis being considered for Polymet’s Northmet mining and Polymet’s exploratory drilling are not connected actions with the Kawishiwi Minerals Exploration. Those activities do not overlap in time or space with this project therefore the effects cannot be cumulative, see section 1.8.4, Table 1.5 Concerns relating to the scope of analysis.

F.12.9.7 Sample Comments: “MCEA strongly disagrees with the restricted view of cumulative

impacts taken in the EA. As noted in MCEA’s initial comment, mineral exploration and development is booming in the area and a proper cumulative impacts analysis must utilize a geographic scope that considers that development and the extension of the industrial activities on the iron range into the northeast. The BLM file documents support this in their discussion of the need for a programmatic EIS on the extensive activities in this larger area. See earlier cites. An April 3, 2007 e-mail from Steve Volz to Chris Carusona indicates that the Project boundary, for this EA excludes two prospecting permit application, but that such applications are obviously within the proper geographic area for analysis. Copy enclosed. The same e-mail also notes that the Northmet and Mesaba deposits are excluded even though both “can be expected to have significant exploratory drilling in their vicinity in the future.” The e-mail continues that “cumulative effects analysis must take into account all reasonably foreseeable activities within the target geologic province (The Duluth Gabbro), which includes theses ore bodies.... It is reasonable to expect additional prospecting along this trend in the future. Consequently, the project boundary should be expanded to include the entire base of the Duluth Complex.” Comment #80.57

“My understanding is there is environmental review going on right now on the Duluth Complex. Why is this exploration not included in that EIS? I believe not only does this require an EIS, it needs to wait until a EIS has been done for the whole area.” Comment 70.07

Agency Response: The April 3, 2007 e-mail correspondence relates to project boundaries

for the Duluth Complex Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits EIS Project, not the Kawishiwi Minerals Exploration Project. The analysis to be considered in that EIS is planned to start in early 2008. Since there are no proposed operating plans relating to the EIS under consideration, effects from the Prospecting Permits EIS are not reasonably foreseeable. The Kawishiwi Minerals Exploration project considers



actual proposed operating plans from existing prospecting permits and lease. See sections 1.2 Background on Permits and Leases, 1.4 Purpose and Need, and 1.6 Decision Framework.

F.12.9.8 Sample Comments: “Finally, presentations by one of the Project proponents here,

Duluth Metals, Ltd., emphasizes the extent of the minerals activity all along the Duluth Complex. See enclosed map from slide show presentation by Duluth Metals, Ltd. While MCEA questions the apparently arbitrary exclusion of all projects in the Complex from this EA/EIS, at a minimum, they must be considered as part of the cumulative impacts analysis. The extremely constrained approach to cumulative impacts analysis set forth in the EA is an artificial narrowing or segmenting of environmental review that is not condoned under NEPA, serving to frustrate its purpose. MCEA urges preparation of an EIS that extends full cumulative impacts analysis to the proper geographic region of the entire Duluth Complex, at a minimum.” Comment #80.58

Agency Response: The map referred to in Comment 80.58 shows the location of mineral

deposits and not individual projects. Section 1.8.4, Table 1.5, addresses Polymet’s Northmet mining and Ploymet’s exploratory drilling. Those activities do not overlap in time or space with this project therefore the effects cannot be cumulative. Cumulative effects analysis is shown in sections 3.2.7, 3.2.8, 3.3.7, 3.4.7, 3.5.7, 3.6.7, 3.7.7, and 3.8. Cumulative impacts are also discussed in Appendix B - Biological Evaluation.

F.12.9.9 Sample Comments: “Under NEPA and CEQ regulations, cumulative effects must be

evaluated for project proposals, including alternative proposals, along with direct effects and indirect effects. It is therefore critical that a comprehensive assessment of the current and proposed mineral mining impacts on Lynx and snowshoe hare populations be conducted for the areas under consideration for mining and adjacent areas of Lynx habitat. Snow compacting from current and proposed activities and temporary roads and human activities are now and will continue to impact the lives of these creatures . The question is: How and to what extent will proposed activities affect these species and other species that reside in SNF, in the context of other changes in human development in northeastern MN that may compound any effects of the proposed activities? Road density has been found to directly affect predators high in the food chain: elk, wolves, wolverines, bears and lynx. (37) “Temporary Roads” will be “decommissioned,” but no detail is presented, such as time frames and extent of “decommission”—will the forest be retuned to its natural state? When? And using various scenarios for “decommissioning” (e.g. rates and extent), what will be the expected impact on Lynx, and other flora and fauna? Although the extent of proposed road development in this Draft EA may not suggest a deleterious effect on Lynx, it is the combination of multiple seemingly small changes across Lynx range and habitat that must be assessed, since seemingly minor effects in a complex system may in aggregate cause profound and deleterious adverse impacts, often unforeseen. (11, 12, 17, 27, 28, 34, 37). Data are not presented in this Draft EA or BE that address these issues adequately.” Comment 65.32



Agency Response: Mining is not within the scope of this analysis as described in sections 1.6.2.3 and 1.8.4. Lynx are considered in sections 1.8.3, 2.5, 3.4, 3.5, and Appendix B. Temporary roads would be decommissioned as described in section 2.2.2.8, and as directed in Forest Plan guidance S-TS-3 and G-TS-16 (FP pg 2-49 & 2-50). All temporary culverts and floodplain fill shall be completely removed and the temporary access roadway completely decommissioned when drilling is completed and the holes have been abandoned. Temporary access obliteration shall include brushing in, lop and scattering as well as barriers and signs. Effects of temporary roads on Canada lynx are considered in detail in BE, Appendix B and 3.4. Temporary roads are also considered in sections 1.2.3, 1.5, 1.8.1, 1.8.2, 1.8.3, 2.2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 3.6, 3.7, 3.8.1, 3.8.5, 3.8.6, Appendix B, and Appendix E. The action alternatives for this project may effect but are not likely to adversely affect the federally listed Canada Lynx due to snow compaction reducing the competitive advantage of the lynx and possible disturbance during the breeding season (page 6 in BE).

F.12.10 Request Extension for Scoping or Comment Periods

F.12.10.1 Comments: “My understanding is that there have been a number of affected and / or adjacent

landowners who did not receive any notice of this comment period. This should be remedied by another notice period with a wider distribution in regional publications and direct mailings to those potentially affected by the exploration.” Comment 70.04

Agency Response: Public involvement efforts for this project are described in section 1.7. The mailing list used in the scoping efforts in April-May 2007 included adjacent landowners and people and organizations who have requested to be on the Forest mailing list for mineral exploration projects or to be on mailing lists for many or all projects requesting public input. Advertisements for this project also appeared in the newspaper of record, The Ely Echo, and in the Schedule of Proposed Actions for the Superior National Forest. The project has also been on the web site for the Superior National Forest from the scoping period in April-May, through the 30-day comment period and the completion of this EA. The responsible official for this project, the Kawishiwi District Ranger, did not determine a need to extend the 30-day comment period for this project. The 30-day comment period (in addition to the 40-day scoping period in April/May of this year) provided extensive and comprehensive input and comment on the proposed minerals exploration activities and the Draft EA for this project.

F.12.11 Payment for Analysis/Cost Collection Agreements

F.12.11.1 Comments: “1) Who Paid for the EA?” Comment #57.03

Agency Response: The analysis for this project was primarily financed with Forest Service funds. In three individual cost collection agreements (Project File), the proponent companies, Duluth Metals, Encampment and Beaver Bay Joint Venture, each contributed $10,000 dollars to the analysis displayed the EA.



F.12.11.2 Comments: “If there were payments made to independent firms how were the payments made.

Please explain exactly how the firms were paid for their services.” Comment #57.05

Agency Response: Analysis for this project was done entirely by Forest Service and BLM personnel. Wildlife, plant, and ecological surveys were conducted by Barr Engineering of Minneapolis, MN as contracted by Beaver Bay Joint Ventures/Franconia. See agency response to comments in section F.12.2 Resource Surveys, F.12.2.1.

F.13 Alternatives

F.13.1 Alternative Development

F.13.1.1 Comments: “The Alternative 4 we'd like to have put into place requires the construction

of another access to FR l900 rather than even the limited use of FR l86 …” Comment #54.02

Agency Response: As shown in section 2.6, the desired condition for the road system described under D-TS-2 of the Forest Plan (pg 2-47) is that the National Forest road system is the minimum needed to provide adequate access to NFS land. New roads built to access land for resource management will be primarily OML 1 or temporary and not intended for public motorized use. Temporary roads will be decommissioned after their use is completed (Forest Plan, O-TS-3, pg 2-49). FR 186 is an operation maintenance level (OML) 4 road. An OML 4 is assigned to roads that provide a moderate degree of user comfort and convenience at moderate travel speeds. Most roads are double lane and aggregate surfaced (Forest Plan page Glossary-18) (FSM 7709-58).

F.13.1.2 Comments: “Given the availability of these mitigation measures and the already

minimal noise impacts associated with Encampment's proposed operations, a seasonal restriction is unnecessary to protect recreational activities from noise impacts associated with Encampment's drilling program.” Comment #84.15

Agency Response: Noise and season of operations was identified in section 1.8.1 as

elements of significant issues listed and described in Table 1.2. Alternative 3, section 2.4, addresses these issues by limiting drilling operations to frozen conditions to limit the number of people that could potentially impacted by noise from the drilling operations. Analysis of noise and season of operations affecting recreation opportunities is shown in section 3.2.



F.13.1.3 Comments: “MCEA notes that there are two alternatives, in addition to the “no-build”

alternative presented in the EA. The two alternatives essentially concern only the timing of the subject activities, but fail to address number and location of sites and fail to address alternatives regarding things like the use of sump pits or fewer temporary roads.13 On page 42, the EA rejects examination of just such issues, which points up the need (as argued earlier) to examine the initial permitting and leasing decisions. Under applicable case law, alternatives analysis for an EIS requires full examination of a “no-build” alternative (meaning status quo in an undeveloped state) and examination of a spectrum of “real” options, not just those tailored to the desires of the Project proponents or tailored to decisions already made. See Fuel Safe Washington v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 389 F.3 d 1313, 1324 (10th Cir. 2004); Custer County Action Association v. Garvey, 256 F.3d 1024, 1040 (10th Cir. 1002); Muckleshoot Indian Tribe v. US. Forest Service, 177 F.3d 800, 812-13 (9th Cir. 1999).” Comment #80.53

“While MCEA supports the alternative that does not use helicopters, particularly where they can be heard near the wilderness, it is interesting to note that there is no exploration of using helicopters to avoid temporary road-building, yet another alternative with different environmental effects.” Comment #80.55 “While MCEA acknowledges that the, obligation to analyze alternatives does not require discussion of very large numbers of infinite alternatives, it is appropriate here to explore the extent and magnitude of the drilling activities to determine if fewer, and better placed, sites could serve the needs of the Project proponents.” Comment #80.56

Agency Response: The action alternatives considered in detail were developed to address

the purpose and need for the project described in section 1.4. Alternative 3 was developed to address the significant issues identified in section 1.8.1. Sections 1.8.2 Non-Significant Issues, 1.8.3 Other Resource concerns, and 1.8.4 Scope of Analysis provide information on issues, resource concerns, and scope of analysis which did not result in development of further action alternatives.

The public input raised concerns about noise impacts that could result from using helicopters to provide extended seasonal beyond frozen conditions for access to proposed drill sites for Encampment. Alternative 3, as described in section 2.4, would eliminate the use of helicopters for accessing drill sites. The public did not raise concerns for the impact of temporary roads as compared to impacts of helicopter for accessing sites. Onsite inspections by the IDT, discussed in section 1.1, and analysis the mapped conditions (section 3.7) did not reveal situations that would not be addressed by implementing Forest Plan direction and the stipulations and design criteria identified in sections 2.2.1 and 2.2.2.

Section 2.6 addresses alternatives considered but eliminated from detailed study. Alternative B, listed in Table 2.4, addresses concerns about re-locating proposed drill sites.



F.13.2 Alternative 2

F.13.2.1 Comments: “I do not believe the described activity of the proposed exploration under

Alternative 2 creates any significant long term impacts.” Comment 42.07

“FINAL COMMENT : WE AT NORTHLAND SECURITIES, DO NOT BELIEVE, THE DESCRIBED ACTIVITY OF THE PROPOSED EXPLORATION UNDER ALTERNATIVE 2 CREATES ANY SIGNIFICANT LONG TERM IMPACTS. ALL THE SHORT TERM IMPACTS APPEAR MINOR AND MANAGEABLE.” Comment 44.09 “We urge that the Responsible Official, in this case Mr. Mark Van Every, the District Ranger for the Kawishiwi Ranger District of the Superior National Forest select Alternative 2 because it provides for the most timely exploration of this important and highly prospective area of Minnesota's natural resources thereby a. Allowing the state and the region to timely assess the possibilities of future development, the creation of additional employment opportunities and social, economic and environmental impacts. b. Allowing the most expeditious evaluation of this area by the companies concerned, resulting in more efficient use of their investment. Winter only drilling would result in the several exploration projects requiring more than one year to complete.” Comment 5.04 “The EADA supports the Kawishiwi Minerals Exploration Environmental Assessment Alternative 2 since it allows for appropriate assessment of future development and addresses the potential social, environmental and economic impacts to the area.” Comment 38.01 “Duluth Metals urges the Forest Service to select Alternative 2 because it provides for the most reasonable approach to exploration of this important area, it ensures appropriate environmental protection and reclamation during and after the exploration, and this alternative supports the Acts and Plans of the U.S. government more reasonably than any other alternative.” Comment 37.03 “Minnesota Power urges that the Responsible Official select Alternative 2 because it provides for the most sensible exploration of this important mineral resource, allows for timely assessment of the potential for future job creation and related economic and environmental impacts, and results in the most efficient appropriate use of the companies' investment. Finally, Minnesota Power does not believe the described activity of the proposed exploration under Alternative 2 creates any significant long term impacts. All short term impacts appear minor and manageable.” Comment 75.06 “NOW HEREBY BE IT RESOLVED: The Babbitt City Council recommends that the USFS and the Responsible Officials select Alternative 2 as listed in the Kawishiwi Minerals Exploration Environmental Assessment as it provides for the potential identification of critical natural resources in an enviroilmentally responsible manner.” Comment 78.05



“I encourage Mr. Mark Van Every, the District Ranger for the Kawishiwi Ranger District of the Superior National Forest to select Alternative 2 of the EA because it provides for the most timely exploration of this highly prospective area of Minnesota. This would allow the companies concerned to more quickly evaluate the potential in the areas covered by the EA, and thereby give the state timely information about the possibilities for future development, jobs and economic impacts. I think that the impacts of exploration under Alternative 2 of the EA will be short term minor impacts only, and manageable. I want to give my complete support of the Kawishiwi Minerals Exploration EA, and I hope to see the Forest Service approval of this EA.” Comment 82.05 “The EA also discusses three alternatives and compares the environmental effects resulting from each alternative. A review of this discussion and the environmental consequences associated with each alternative demonstrates that Alternative 2 is the best alternative for ensuring the environmentally sound exploration of minerals in the Superior National Forest Unlike Alternative 3, which imposes overly broad conditions and mitigation measures on the companies, Alternative 2 enables the United States Forest Service ("USFS") to exercise flexibility in its development and imposition of appropriate permit conditions and mitigation measures.” Comment 84.03 “More specifically, Alternative 2 represents the superior option for mineral exploration in the Superior National Forest for five primary reasons. First, it complies with the Multiple-Use Sutained Yield Act ("MUSY A"), 16 U.S.C. § 528, and the Superior National Forest Land and Resources Management Plan by properly balancing the need for mineral exploration and the protection of recreational activities.” Comment 84.04 “The exploration companies will be subject to stringent regulation that will more than adequately protect the environment and the ecosystem in which the operations will occur, rendering options #3 unnecessarily restrictive. There is no doubt that Alternative #2 allows the Forest Service to comply with its stated policy to “administer its minerals program within the overall context of the principles of ecosystem management.”” Comment 86.02 “Alternative #2 allows the USFS to adhere to the wise policy stated by the Federal Government in the Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 and quoted in Section 1.6.1 as follows in the EA: “Foster and encourage private enterprise in the development of economically sound and stable industries, and in the orderly and economic development of domestic resources to help assure satisfaction of industrial, security, and environmental needs.” By selecting Alternative #2, the USFS will avoid subverting that policy when this country is progressively being subjected to severe competition for global resources necessary to support sustainable communities, which are the essential building blocks of this nation.” Comment 86.03

Agency Response: Alternative 3 was developed to address issues with the Proposed

Action, Alternative 2, identified in section 1.8.1 Significant Issues, including issues relating to season of operations and their effects on local residences.



Effects analysis for the three alternatives considered in detail (including Alternative 2) is located throughout Chapter 3 Environmental Consequences, and is summarized in terms of significant issues in section 2.5 Comparison of Alternatives.

Forest Plan direction addresses ensuring exploring mineral resources are conducted in an environmentally sound manner so that they may contribute to economic growth and national defense (D-MN-2, pg 2-9).

Discussion on authorities such as those identified in the Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 is located in section 1.6.1 Authorities.

F.13.3 Alternative 3

F.13.3.1 Comments: “Alternative 3 (Winter Only Frozen Conditions) should be chosen as the

Preferred Alternative since this alternative is the most protective of the resources of concern to Fond du Lac Band Members. This alternative also has the resource protective benefit of requiring the drillers to use a stock tank for water rather than a sump pit.” Comment 16.02 “I sincerely hope you choose "alternative Three", as it would have less impact on my family's, and neighbor's use of our summer homes. Thank you for your attention.” Comment 22.01 “I am in favor of your alternative 3 as the only means for dealing with the noise and access on FS 186. Alternatives 1 and 2 are definitely not acceptable!!” Comment 27.02 “While I am not in support of the minerals exploration. This alternative would at least minimize the impact on the well being and investments of the long term residences of the South Kawishiwi River area.” Comment 28.02 “I am in favor of your alternative 3 as the only means for dealing with the noise and access on FS 186. Alternatives 1 and 2 are definitely not acceptable!! While I am not in support of the minerals exploration. This alternative would at least minimize the impact on the well being and investments of the long term residences of the South Kawishiwi River area.” Comment 29.01

Agency Response: Alternative 3 was developed to address issues with the Proposed

Action, Alternative 2, identified in section 1.8.1 Significant Issues, including issues relating to season of operations and their effects on local residences.

Effects analysis for the three alternatives considered in detail (including Alternative 2) is located throughout Chapter 3 Environmental Consequences, and is summarized in terms of significant issues in section 2.5 Comparison of Alternatives.

Forest Plan direction addresses ensuring exploring mineral resources are conducted in an environmentally sound manner so that they may contribute to economic growth



and national defense (D-MN-2, pg 2-9). In section 1.2.3.2, the draft EA indicated that sump pits are not used for core drilling operations in froze/winter conditions. This is not necessarily the case, since sumps can be used, as soil conditions warrant, regardless of the season of operations. Tables G-WS-8, G-WS-8a, and GWS-8b provide indications on the types and intensity of activities on certain ecological land types and their associated soils (Forest Plan, pages 2-16 - 2-18). Section 3.7 provides effects analysis on soil productivity and wetlands.

F.14 Mineral Exploration Operations

F.14.1 Exploratory Drilling

F.14.1.1 Comments: “Footprint--- The Duluth Metals operation proposes a drilling site of 50 x 80

ft. in contrast to the Lehmann Exploration site of 100 x 100 feet. We should request the smallest footprint possible at each drill site.” Comment #1.04

Agency Response: A drill site footprint is dependant on the type of drill rig used. A skid mounted drill rig required less area (footprint) to operate. A truck mounted drill rig requires a larger footprint than a skid mounted rig due to the size of the equipment and area needed to maneuver the truck. The three companies propose to disturb as little area as necessary, including modifying drill site locations, to minimize disturbance and vegetation clearing. See EA Appendix A.

F.14.1.2 Comments: “Exploration needs to proceed correctly, insuring environmental

compliance and safety. At the same time, exploration needs to proceed; there is no alternative or substitute for it.” Comment #37.02

“If PolyMet is allowed to mine in an environmentally sound manner, which we Minnesotans would all insist upon, the operation can serve as a global model of responsible stewardship.” Comment #36.01

“I believe as a citizen it is in the interest of the United States to explore and understand the mineral potential of the country, including the Kawishiwi area of the Duluth Complex.” Comment #37.01

Agency Response: The Forest Plan provides direction for minerals exploration stating that exploration and development of mineral and mineral material resources is allowed on National Forest System land, except for federally owned minerals in designated wilderness (BWCAW) and the Mining Protection Area (MPA), and 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 (Forest Plan, D-MN-1 and D-MN-2, page 2-9). Mining is outside the scope of this analysis as described in sections 1.6.3 and 1.8.4.



F.14.1.3 Comment: “Also enclosed is a photograph, taken October 13, 2007, that shows a large

pile of aggregate, presumably meant to serve as the based for the drill pad and/or parking for vehicles. The EA is silent on the construction of the drill pad and what will happen after the drilling activity especially if aggregate is to be used in wetland locations (amounting to fill that possibly needs a 404 permit.) Will any aggregate or other fill used be removed? In what manner? What are the effects if it is not? Will the drill pad be actively revegetated or passively?” Comment #80.31

Agency Response: The only areas that would be allowed the use of fill are on existing access routes that may need improvement. Drill sites and temporary access routes will not have fill used on them and would be revegetated and reclaimed as described in sections 1.2.3.3, 2.2.1 – 2.2.3, and Appendix A.

F.14.1.4 Comment: “Chapter 1, p. 5, Sect. 1.0.2 Table 1.1, Key Terms: "Hardrock Minerals" is

not correctly defined. The Department of the Interior's "A Dictionary of Mining, Mineral and Related Terms (p.W. Thrush et al, DOl 1968, p. 528) defines hard rock minerals as "solid minerals, as distinguished ftom oil and gas, especially those solid minerals found in hard rocks. " We suggest that in the industry, the common usage of the term is generally applied those minerals or substances that are "locatable" under the General Mining Law of 1872.” Comment #5.06

“Chapter 1, p.6, Sect. 1.0.1 Table 1.1, Key Terms: "Plan of Operations" as defined here is limited to an "exploration plan." The public should be aware that plans that might be filed for development of a mine or in relation to modification of a mining operation or other activity under a preference right lease may also be called Plans of Operations.” Comment #5.07

“Chapter 1, p.6, Sect. 1.0.1 Table 1.1, Key Terms: "Reclamation Plan" as used in this document applies only to reclamation of drill sites and access trails. However, the term may also be used in the context of other operations beyond the scope of the EA as well.” Comment #5.08

Agency Response: In section 1.01, Table 1.1 Key Terms, “hardrock minerals” is shown as:

The term, hardrock minerals, includes mineral deposits that are found in sedimentary and other rocks. Hardrock minerals include base metals, precious metals, industrial minerals, and precious or semi-precious gemstones. Hardrock minerals do not include coal, oil shale, phosphate, sodium, potassium, or gilsonite deposits. Also, hardrock minerals do not include commodities the government sells such as common varieties of sand, gravel, stone, pumice or cinder.

The terms “plan of operation” and “reclamation pit” relate to the plans of operation in Appendix A and summarized in sections 2.3.1 – 2.3.3.

F.14.2 Operating Plans

F.14.2.1 Comment: “Under “Proposed Action” (1.5) first paragraph drilling is proposed in



“swampy” (see # 3 above) areas only when the ground is “thoroughly frozen.” How will this be achieved? Frozen wetland areas often exist adjacent to unfrozen areas depending on climatic conditions. This fact is well known to “mushers,” and winter hikers, campers, and hunters. No scientific data was presented that validates the suggestion that environmental impact is less in winter than other times of the year. Many animal and plant species depend on normal non-compacted snow for their survival (Lynx and snowshoe hare, for example.)” Comment #65.19

Agency Response: Access across swampy areas or wetlands (see Agency Response in at F.4.7.1) can only occur when the ground has frozen sufficiently for the safe passage of equipment. All sites located in low or wet areas would only have overland access during winter months once the ground has sufficiently frozen. This would protect the soil matrix from being compacted and potential impacts to the hydrology and habitat of the water resource, avoiding live loading on soil matrix. See EA sections 1.5, 2.2.2.4, 3.6 (Table 3.6.1, item #9), and Appendix A.

F.14.2.2 Comment: “The Draft EA contains some references to "clearing a drill site of all

vegetation. This description is not accurate. Duluth Metals will typically clear an area that has been approved by the Forest Service of limited timber and brush. Duluth has in the past, and will in the future, move a prospective drill site a few feet to tens of feet to avoid large stands of timber, old growth or preferential species, with the Forest Service's concurrence. While the area is typically bladed, it is usually to provide a level area for the drill rig-Duluth does not clear all vegetation. In addition, during winter, many of the sites are snow packed or ice covered and Duluth works on top of the snow and ice.” Comment #35.11

Agency Response: Comment acknowledged. The plans of operations are in Appendix A and summarized in sections 2.2.1 – 2.2.3.

F.14.2.3 Comment: “First, Encampment has initiated a project to delineate the wetlands in the

area so as to make informed and responsible selections of its access routes and drilling sites. Second, it has proposed several methods of mitigating any potential impacts from drilling outside the Frozen Season despite the substantial costs associated with such mitigation measures. For example, Encampment has repeatedly expressed willingness to use helicopters or bridges as necessary to access drill sites without crossing or damaging wetlands outside of the Frozen Season. Finally, as stated in the EA, Encampment has preserved the flexibility to make small adjustments in the location of its drilling sites to account for any wetlands and, when possible, move them to upland locations. Using these and other appropriate mitigation measures, Encampment can implement its exploratory activities without significantly affecting wetlands.” Comment #84.17

Agency Response: Estimated effects on wetlands are shown in sections 3.6 and 3.7. Temporary roads showing proposed access are shown in section 2.3, Figure 2.2.



F.14.2.4 Comment: “The description of Geophysical Surveys (1.2.3.1) indicates

forest/vegetation must be cut and new temporary roads may need to be constructed to conduct the surveys. Are all forest and non-forest natural environments that are cut or disturbed included in estimates of the “footprint” of the exploration projects? With such extensive exploration over a wide area, the acreage of this disrupted land may be sizable. Does this Draft EA include such data, including the methodology used to calculate the size of the affected areas? In the Scoping Comment period, it was stated that the surface area disturbed by the 77 drilling sites would total about 9 acres. (1.5 Proposed Action) Has this figure been verified and does it include all disturbed land?” Comment #65.14

Agency Response: Geophysical surveys generally require only minimal vegetation removal, usually brush and undergrowth. No temporary roads are proposed associated with geophysical surveys. The total acres for the 74 drill pad sites for the proposed operations of all three companies total about 8.6 acres. The acreage was determined by multiplying the area of the proposed sites by the number of sites (see Tables 2.1 and 2.2). Size of drill pad varies by company due to differences in equipment to be used. The total miles of temporary road for Alternative 2 are 7.2 miles and for Alternative 3 is 7.5 miles for all three companies. Further information on the amount of opening and miles of roads is located in sections 1.2.3.2, 2.3 (Tables 2.1 and 2.2), and Appendix A.

F.14.2.5 Comment: “Proposed Plans of Operations. The plans are so brief, lacking specific

data, and devoid of information regarding the potential adverse environmental and public health impacts, that they are of little help in assessing the proposals.” Comment #65.42

Agency Response: The plans of operations are the proposals of the three exploration companies, which are included in Appendix A and summarized in sections 2.1 – 2.3. The purpose of the EA is to disclose the estimated potential impacts of those proposals.

F.14.3 Mining as Connected Action to Drilling

F.14.3.1 Comment “The Maturi Site is less than 1000 feet from my cabin and less for a couple

more of the residences. I know that it is outside of the scope of this EA to look at future mining possibilities, but the FS should know, as area residents do (1.6.2.3), that there are definite long range plans being made to mine in these areas. These have been communicated to the communities in the area and I am surprised that this language was included in this EA.” Comment #15.05

Agency Response: Mining as a connected action is outside the scope of this project. See sections 1.6.2.3 and section 1.8.4. Potential future mining is not an element of the decision to be made in this document and it is not included in this analysis. It is not a connected action and not reasonably foreseeable since it is dependent on the unknown



outcomes of the proposed plans of operations for minerals exploration. There is not enough information to reliably indicate where and how mining would occur, what would be mined, or when it would take place. Therefore, effects to the human environment from mine development would not be meaningfully evaluated.

F.14.3.3 Comment ““I don't believe that mining on federal land only 1.5 miles from this national

treasure should be permitted.” Comment #60.02

“It is our understanding that the USFS must ensure that a full range of cumulative impacts, past, present and foreseeable future, from mining in this area and adjacent areas or regions are included in the analyses;” Comment #65.04 “In view of the well- known and potentially catastrophic environmental and human hazards of sulfide mining, and given the potential major risks of such activities in a national forest, immediately adjacent to Class I federally protected wilderness areas, it would seem both appropriate and essential for BLM to prepare an EIS on the lease and permits for these activities, both on-going and proposed. BLM permits must be demonstrated to be both in the public interest (16 U.S.C. 520) and unlikely to significantly alter the quality of the human environment (NEPA Sec. 2 (42 USC 4321; Sec. 101 (42 USC 4331); Sec. 102 (42 USC 4332), and Sec. 1508.14.” Comment #65.08 “Under 1.6.2.3 Consideration of future mining in the decisions to be made, the statement “Potential future mining is not an element of the decision to be made in this document and it is not included in this analysis” suggests that the Draft EA is an isolated document and exercise. This suggestion seems contrary to the enabling and authorizing federal statutes and policies as outlined in NEPA. (See discussion above under “General Comments.” The statement that “There is not enough information to reliably indicate where and how mining would occur, what would be mined, or when it would take place” seems at direct odds with the facts about the current mining activities and proposed mining activities contained in the company proposals and in public statements (available on the Internet) regarding the financing of such activities. As a lay person, the facts seem obvious: 1. “How?”: mining would occur using existing mining technology widely known and demonstrated in the U.S. and described by the companies; 2. “What?”: hard rock mining of metals (copper, nickel, etc) would be mined as stated by the companies and documented in this Draft EA; 3. “When?” Timing would occur based on approvals and financing. There would seem to be sufficient data and information to estimate the probability of effects to the human environment from proposed mine development. Since the logical conclusion of exploratory hard rock drilling is to mine for copper, nickel, platinum, etc., it does not seem rationale to treat exploratory drilling as a completely separate activity from the stated goal of this activity which is hard-rock mining. The probability that such activities in close proximity to the Federally designated Class I BWCAW (36) could lead to serious, even potentially catastrophic environmental damage to these wilderness areas indicates the need for conducting an EIS. Finally, the statement: “Both BLM and FS have had appeal decision-makers make clear that there is no regulatory connection between prospecting conducted under the auspices of a BLM prospecting permit and future mining on those lands” would seem to make the strongest case for conducting an EIS. An EIS will provide the broader context in



which the narrowly drawn “regulatory connection” interpretation is described. The question not addressed in this Draft EA is how this narrowly focused separation of components of a large proposed mining initiative adjacent to the BWCAW must be reconciled with the clear mission of federal and state organizations (embodied in NEPA regulations and others) whose primary purpose is to protect the wilderness for future generations. A large body of law supports these principles and specifically says agencies may not split activities into components for the purpose of avoiding comprehensive environmental analysis. (40 C.F.R 1508.25 (a)(2) Further, as noted above in General Discussion, the science of ecosystem management does not support narrowly focused, piece-meal review of a complex system, and Forest Service guidance requires that the best science is used as noted above.” Comment #80.13

Agency Response: This analysis addresses the proposed exploration activities from the three companies. A mine is not proposed in either of the exploration projects in this analysis and is not included in this analysis. Exploration must first be completed to assess the mineral potential for a mine. At the exploration stage, there is not enough detailed information on whether there is a viable ore deposit, how and where the deposit would be mined and minerals processed, and how the entire project would be engineered and operated to analyze the affects of mining. At the exploration stage, mining is not “ripe” for a decision and is out of the scope of this analysis.

Duluth Metals and Encampment Resources have prospecting permits. If exploration is completed and indicates there is adequate mineralization to warrant further investigations, the companies would apply for a preference right mineral lease and the BLM would need to validate that there is a valuable mineral deposit and the USFS and BLM would complete an environmental impact statement (EIS) analysis before a lease could be issued. The effects of a hypothetical mine could be analyzed at this stage. Once a lease is issued, additional mineral exploration and other more advanced investigations needed for planning and designing a mine would take place. If after those investigations, the company decides they want to develop a mine, they would need to submit a detailed mine operating plan and the BLM and USFS would need to complete another EIS for the mine proposal and would address the effects on the environment including social and economics. State of Minnesota permits would also be required and they too would need to analyze the mine effects in an EIS.

Franconia is proposing to complete additional exploration and mineral investigations on Beaver Bay Joint Venture’s mineral lease. Even though this lease gives them the right to mine, as described above, they would need to submit a mine operating plan that has detailed information on the mine so that the BLM, USFS and State of Minnesota could analyze potential effects in an EIS.

In addition, see Table 1.5, Topic Future mining related to the permits and leases addressed in this analysis and PolyMet’s NorthMet Project operations and section 1.6.2.3.

Mining or other development cannot be approved (or even contemplated) in the absence of demonstrated economic and environmental viability of prospects, thus prospecting necessarily precedes development. Most prospecting permits do not lead to valuable discovery determinations, thus prospecting does not irrevocably - or even



commonly - lead to development. Should prospecting and subsequent evaluation lead to leasing and/or mining proposals, such actions would be evaluated at that time.

Comments derived from predecisional deliberation or discussion lack context necessary for response. Anticipatory statements, documents not addressing the proposed actions or draft documents not made a part of the EA record are excluded from consideration.

F.14.4 Analysis – Consequence of Drilling

F.14.4.1 Comment: “One potential definition is that ''winter only" applies from October to May,

and "frozen conditions" applies to specific weather-related conditions when traversing and working on bogs, swamps and other wet locations are suitable for the proposed activities. The definition should vary based on the intent of the activity and the condition of the ice/frozen ground. For example, activities related to traversing a bog by foot covered with three inches of ice would be allowed in certain conditions, while those same conditions would not be appropriate to support a drill rig.” Comment #35.10

Agency Response: The intent of the “winter only” term in the draft EA was to identify frozen condition only. Under “frozen conditions only”, drilling operations would be done after adequate freezing had occurred on the ground to minimize effects, especially as identified in sections 2.2.2, 3.6 and 3.7.

F.14.4.2 Comment: “I have grave concerns over what blasting may do to wells in the solid rock

formation that they will need to remove or drill into. We may be looking to possible well cave-in and possible pollution of well water.” Comment #2.04

Agency Response: There are no blasting operations proposed in this project. See EA Appendix A.

F.14.4.3 Comment: “During this conversation I also requested all of the NEPA documents and

decision documents related to the test holes that Franconia has already completed or is in the process of completing. I requested this information because based on the photos contained in the EA and first hand knowledge of the test hole sites there has clearly been and will continue to be significant environmental impacts.” Comment #57.09

Agency Response: The estimated potential effects from the proposed operations and past actions are disclosed in Chapter 3 – Environmental Consequences and summarized based on the significant issues in section 2.5. Effects are estimated in terms of direct, indirect, and cumulative effects by the analysis methods used, the delineated analysis areas, the affected environments identified in Chapter 3.



F.14.5 Mineral Rights – Federal Minerals

F.14.5.1 Comment: “I agree with the EA in its statement that the USFS must manage the

subject lands for multiple uses, including the exploration and development of minerals. It is the Forest Services responsibility to ensure environmentally responsible mineral development that contributes to economic growth and our national security”. Comment #11.01 “Also, as stated in the EA (section 1.6.1), the Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 declares that it is the Federal Government's policy to 'foster and encourage private enterprise in the development of domestic resources to help assure satisfaction of industrial, security, and environmental needs." According to these acts, it is the responsibility of the USFS to encourage and facilitate development of potential resources. Exploration of the Duluth Complex by companies such as Duluth Metals, Franconia, and Encampment falls well within this realm.” Comment #19.01 “The Draft EA also accurately notes that Duluth and the other exploration companies have a legal right to explore under their prospecting permits and preference leases, and that the Forest Service generally cannot prohibit the discovery or development of valuable mineral deposits.” Comment #35.02 “Mining Minnesota agrees with the EA in its statement that the USFS must manage the subject lands for multiple uses, including the exploration and development of minerals. It is the Forest Services responsibility to ensure environmentally responsible mineral development that contributes to economic growth and our national security”. Comment #9.01

Agency Response: As stated in section 1.6.1, it is the federal government’s policy for minerals resource management to “foster and encourage private enterprise in the development of economically sound and stable industries, and in the orderly and economic development of domestic resources to help assure satisfaction of industrial, security, and environmental needs.” The Forest Service’s policy is to “administer its minerals program within the overall context of the principles of ecosystem management”. The Superior National Forest will manage National Forest System lands in accordance with applicable policies, laws, regulations, and directions.

F.14.5.2 Comment: “I agree with the EA in its statement that the USFS must manage the subject

Under 1.6.2.2: Lease Operating Plan for Franconia (ES-1352 the phrase “…FS consent, …” should be changed substituting “decision” for “consent.” Otherwise it appears that the FS can come to only one conclusion –consent--that is to approve the proposals, which are not consistent FS enabling legislation/regulations.” (65.24)

Agency Response: In accordance with Forest Service Manual 2822.62 (3), the District Ranger

shall review and advise the USDI (BLM) on the adequacy of the lessee’s (or permittee’s) operating plan in protecting and reclaiming the surface resources, including roads, as required by the terms and conditions of the lease, permit, or license. Therefore, the wording in the decision to be made is modified to reflect this direction by changing “consent” to “advice”.



F.14.6 Past Drilling

F.14.6.1 Comment: “In the section: “Purpose and Need for Action” (1.4) the language

suggests the environmental analysis needs to be completed so as to allow Duluth Metals and Encampment and Franconia to conduct activities “that will allow them to collect geologic information…..” Since these companies have been engaged in these activities for more than a year, why is this process being carried out now instead of before the companies began exploring and drilling? What was approved before they began drilling initially and how does this Draft EA differ from the evaluations done at the beginning? The public should have access to the process used.” Comment #65.18

“However, work has been going on all summer--we have directly been affected--and so we have no faith in promises that operations' effects will be minimized by conducting operations in winter months.” Comment #62.08

“Temporary roads and drill site preparation was done prior to soliciting public comment in the Spring of 2007. Do state and federal laws allow such activity before an environmental review is complete?” Comment #63.01

“...fails to address critically important questions regarding the impact of exploratory drilling (ongoing for the past 1 ½).” Comment #65.02

“Similarly, few persons in our area were aware of a public notice regarding proposed drilling in September 2006, and exploratory mining activities were already well underway by then, including road building and drilling.” Comment #65.26

“Under the section “Noise-Rec. Res.” The text uses the phrase: “from Franconia’s proposed core drilling plan of operations has the potential to be disruptive to people at the residences.” The wording needs to be changed to reflect the fact that the drilling was taking place at the time (not proposed) and that persons living in the area had already been disrupted for several months. Similarly the section: “Drilling Noise Effects on Recreation…could potentially be heard by forest visitors..” should be rewritten to reflect the fact that the noise of exploratory site preparation and drilling had already been heard.” Comment #65.28

Agency Response: From 2006-2007 there have been exploration activities within and

near the proposed project area on state mineral leases, private minerals ownership, and reserved/outstanding mineral rights. Exploration activities that occur on state or private minerals do not fall under Forest Service jurisdiction. Reserved/outstanding mineral rights have differing procedures than the rights outlined in the EA for federally owned minerals. See section 1.0.3 (Figure 1.3 Approving a Request for Exploration on a Prospecting Permit) and section 3.2.7.1 (Figure 3.2.6 Exploration Activity in Vicinity of Project Area, Figure 3.2.5 Cumulative Effects – Recreation Sites, and Figure 3.2.4 Duluth Metals Proposed Drilling on State Leases, Outstanding Mineral Rights, and Private ownership).

F.14.6.2 Comment: “The third sentence in § 3.2.7.1, Drilling on State Leases and

Reserved/Outstanding Mineral Rights, is incorrect. It should read: "Duluth Metals



Corp. has drilled 45 holes between March of 2006 and July of 2007 on state leases, reserved/outstanding mineral rights (federal prospecting leases) and private ground located within the project area." Comment #35.14

Agency Response: Section 3.2.7.1 states that Duluth Metals Corporation has drilled 45 holes between March of 2006 and July of 2007 on state leases, outstanding mineral rights, and private rights located within the project area. These drilling programs have similar operations and impacts as those proposed in Alternative 2.

F.14.6.3 Comment: “As a geologist, I have spent a great deal of time in the woods of northern

Minnesota during the last 22 years conducting geologic mapping. In all that time it was a rare event to find evidence of past drilling activities, even in areas where a few to over one hundred holes had been drilled 10-20 years earlier, e.g., Dunka Road/NorthMet deposit, Spruce Road deposit, Babbitt/Mesaba deposit, and drilled areas in the Tower-Soudan area and in northeastern Itasca County. Even when I was specifically trying to find old drill sites, I had very limited success and only found around 15 holes out of 100 holes that were sought - and even then the drill hole casing sticking out of the ground was the only evidence. This relationship attests to the aggressiveness of the woods in northern Minnesota to "quickly reclaim its own," or in other words, drill sites, sump pits, and secondary drill roads are vegetated in short order and almost all vestiges of these types of past activities are obscured.” Comment #81.10

Agency Response: Comment acknowledged. Reclamation activities are discussed in sections 1.2.3.3, 2.2.1.0, and 2.2.2.8.

F.14.7 DNR Drilling

F.14.7.1 Comment: “In Figure 3.2.7 and § 3.3.6.2, the Draft EA fails to point out the hundreds

of historic drill holes in the Kawishiwi area and surrounding areas. For over 50 years, companies including Inco, Kennecott, Newmont, Hanna, US Steel and others have drilled numerous holes in the properties. The total area of the Duluth Complex has an estimated 1900-2000 holes, many of which are in the Kawishiwi area.” Comment #35.16

“Since the 1950s, hundreds of holes have been drilled in this area, rather than the relatively few identified in Figure 3.2.7 and discussed in Table 3.24. Some form of brief notation to this effect could provide the necessary clarification.” Comment #84.39

Agency Response: At the time of writing of the draft EA, the available Geographic Information Systems (GIS) information on past and historic exploration drilling was used. It is acknowledged that this may not wholly represent the exploration history in the area.



F.14.8 Drilling Operations – Monitoring/Compliance with Stipulations & Design Features

F.14.8.1 Comment: “Encampment recognizes that some of the proposed drill sites may be so

close to potential receptors (i.e., noise impacts) or may require drilling in wetlands (i.e., resource impacts) and that the only mitigation option is therefore a seasonal restriction on drilling. Many proposed drill sites, however, neither require drilling in a wetland nor pose any risk of noise impacts on receptors. In recognition of this fact, the USFS should allow drilling in such sites throughout the year subject to tailored permit conditions and mitigation measures to protect environmental resources.” Comment #84.06

“Encampment is willing to employ a sound barrier to effectively reduce the drill rig sound level. The use of a sound barrier of this nature, a SoundSeal BBC-13-2" noise barrier for example, could independently reduce noise levels by up to 16 dBA.” Comment #84.14

“The evaluation of the actual noise impacts resulting from Encampment's proposed operations demonstrates that tailored permit conditions and mitigation measures will adequately protect recreational activities while enabling Encampment to efficiently conduct its exploration activities throughout the year.” Comment #84.48

“The use of such flexibility in the imposition of permit conditions represents a balanced approach to the use of forest resources and is therefore consistent with MUSYA as well as the Superior National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan.” Comment #84.50

Agency Response: Comment Acknowledged. Reducing drill rig sound levels and utilizing sound barriers such as discussed in Comment #84.14 would be consistent with the project design features shown in section 2.2.2.5 Noise Abatement Measures.

F.14.8.2 Comment: “Is every active drill site visited to check for noise abatement without

notice, and are there any second surprise visits?” Comment #2.02

“One of the mining companies, that utilized FR 186 last summer, left some rubber tires in the woods by the first drill site off FR 186. Certainly this type of dumping should not be allowed.” Comment #23.04

“We urge the Forest Service to provide a strong oversight to the mineral exploration to assure that all the parties involved in this operation conform to the outline of their operating plan.” Comment #40.03

“The term “reclamation” is not defined in the text or in the Table 1.1 of Key Terms. Reclamation is described as reclaiming and stabilizing drill sites once drilling activities have ceased. For a bond to be issued, the term “Reclamation” should be defined. Have the companies submitted such? Or is it the responsibility of BLM to determine the expectations for reclamation ?” Comment #65.15

Agency Response: Any company with an approved operating plan to conduct mineral exploration on Superior National Forest system lands would be required to secure a



reclamation bond pursuant to BLM Hardrock Prospecting Permit Stipulations. This bond would be used in the event that a company defaults and does not complete reclamation on drilling sites and/or access routes. These stipulations also require that the activities are monitored on a regular basis. Sees EA section 2.2.1.0 and 2.2.2.8

F.14.8.3 Comment: “AIl drill holes should be Global Position Systemed (GPS'd) with state-of-

the-art precision and accuracy for future agency monitoring.” Comment #79.01

Agency Response: The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Division of Lands and Minerals maintains a database of exploration drilling activity that includes a GIS coverage of the locations that have been located with GPS coordinates (Project File).

F.14.9 Need for Mines - including National Security

F.14.9.1 Comments: “The metals are of extreme importance to our national defense in

electronics and aerospace, transportation, power generation, and of significant environmental importance in products such as catalytic converters, petro-chemical refining, medical applications, and water purification, and efficient use of energy.” Comment 44.05 “CONSIDERING THE IMPACT OF THESE EXPLORATION ACTIVITIES CAN HAVE ON OUR NATIONAL SECURITY, PRODUCTION OF ENERGY, AND SIMPLY THE SUPPLY OF CRITICAL ELEMENTS, THAT IN SOME CASES ARE IN EXTREMELY SHORT SUPPLY, AND THE SUPPLIERS ARE NOT ONLY UNRELIABLE, BUT MAY BE DEEMED TO BE NOT FRIENDLY SOURCES; WE THEREFORE URGE YOUR CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF: KAWISHIWI MINERALS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ( EA)” Comment 44.10 “It also ensures the timely exploration of minerals that both have strategic implications for national security and environmental significance based on the use in a variety of critical technologies, including catalytic converters (pGMs) and technologies related to medicinal applications, the provision of c1ean water, and the efficient transmission and use of energy.” Comment 84.51

Agency Response: As described in section 1.6 Decision Framework, the Federal

Government's policy for minerals resource management is expressed in the Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, "foster and encourage private enterprise in the development of economically sound and stable industries, and in the orderly and economic development of domestic resources to help assure satisfaction of industrial, security, and environmental needs."

The Forest Service’s policy is to “administer its minerals program within the overall context of the principles of ecosystem management”. Forest Plan direction addresses ensuring exploring mineral resources are conducted in an environmentally sound manner so that they may contribute to economic growth and national defense (D-MN-2, pg 2-9).



F.14.10 Shipstead-Newton-Nolan

F.14.10.1 Comment: “It also looks like these 3 sites on our road might violate the terms of the

1930 Shipstead-Newton-Nolan Act mentioned in page 3 of the Forest Service letter. This act states that no use of the surface within 400 ft. of the shoreline of any lake or stream is authorized without written approval of the Forest Service Authorized Officer. We should request that the Forest Service monitor this situation very closely and deny use of these sites if they are within the 400 feet limitation.” Comment 1.08

Agency Response: The purpose of the Shipstead Newton Nolan Act (SNN) is to conserve the aesthetics of the shoreline for canoeists and boaters and is applicable to logging practices 400 ft from the shore and a more restricted 200 ft zone from the shore. Although this is not a logging project, there would be openings created by the proposed drilling and temporary road access. The permit and lease stipulations listed in sections 2.2.1 address meeting requirements under Shipstead-Newton-Nolan.

All of the proposed sites are more than 400 feet from the shore of the South Kawishiwi River. Two access roads associated with the Franconia sites include disturbance within the limits of the 400 ft of the Kawishiwi River. The access roads are perpendicular to the Kawishiwi River, are farther than 200 ft from the shoreline, and across Forest Road 186 (FR 186). The length of disturbance is approximately 210 ft (80 ft and 130 ft respectively). The amount and location of the disturbance is consistent with retaining the visual integrity from the South Kawishiwi River. Further information regarding visuals is in section 3.8.6.

F.14.11 Helicopters

F.14.11.1 Comment: “Encampment initially proposed the optional use of helicopters in an attempt

to avoid wetland impacts associated with accessing its drill sites outside of the Frozen Season, and Encampment would like to preserve the opportunity to use helicopter access where and when it deems appropriate.” Comment 84.25

Agency Response: Section 1.5 Proposed Action states that access to drill sites would

include the possibility of utilizing helicopters to lengthen the potential operations period beyond frozen conditions, where required for access considerations.

F.14.11.2 Comment: “Although the EA indicates that Encampment would utilize helicopters to

access drill sites I through 23, Encampment's Operating Plan does not limit its proposed use to these sites. Rather, because of the benefits associated with helicopter use, Encampment seeks the flexibility of using helicopters to access all of its drilling locations.” Comment #84.26



Agency Response: Section 3.3.4 indicates that Encampment’s drill sites #1 - #23 could be accessed by utilizing helicopters based on e-mail correspondence with Ted DeMatties stating that "Initially the drill would be assembled at the staging area and skidded to the high-ground sites (5 to 6 sites) on the west side of the property in Section 25." (Project File)

F.14.11.3 Comment: “The EA correctly notes in Section 3.3.6.3 that the difference between

Alternative 1 (no-action alternative) and 2 would "not be noticeable" considering the scope of the helicopter noise effects and the existing small aircraft traffic in the analysis area. It also properly indicates in Section 3.3.6.5 that the intensity of the impact is largely affected by the intermittent nature of the flights, the limited number of flights each day, and the distance between the helicopter and receptors.” Comment 84.27

Agency Response: Comment acknowledged. Estimated effects of utilizing helicopters

are displayed throughout section 3.3.

F.14.11.4 Comment: “Furthermore, by recognizing the factors that play a role in the intensity and

frequency of noise impacts resulting from helicopter operations, Encampment can significantly reduce any such impacts in a number of ways. Specifically, because the noise impacts on receptors is a function of the origin of helicopter flights, the altitude of the flight, and the selected route, Encampment can vary each of these factors as necessary to minimize associated noise impacts.” Comment 84.28 “For example, an increase in altitude from 1000 feet to 3000 feet, with a horizontal distance of 1000 feet from a receptor, will reduce the maximum sound level from approximately 78 dBA to roughly 68 dBA, which reduces the noise impact by half (assuming that a reduction by 10 dBA reduces noise impacts by half). When coupled with variations in the origin and routing of flights, a 'change in the vertical distance of the helicopter from receptors will significantly decrease the noise impacts of Encampment's proposed helicopter use.” Comment 84.31 “Therefore, variations in the selected route will greatly reduce the noise levels perceived by those individuals involved in recreational activities. And, as demonstrated in Figure 3.3 of the attached Encampment Noise Impacts Report, receptors more than a mile away from a helicopter will perceive very little noise.” Comment 84.33 “As indicated in the figure, Encampment could alternate between a nonlinear northerly route, which would be less likely to be perceived by receptors to the south, and a nonlinear southerly route, which is less likely to be perceived by receptors to the north. Through this rotation of paths, Encampment can reduce the actual perception of noise by potential receptors and effectively abate the noise impacts of helicopter use. For example, at an altitude of 1000 feet, changing the horizontal



distance between the helicopter and a receptor from 2000 feet to 5000 feet will result in a reduction in maximum sound level from approximately 73 dBA to roughly 63 dBA, which reduces the noise impact by half (assuming that a reduction by 10 dBA reduces noise impacts by half).” Comment 84.34

Agency Response: The above comments regarding measures that can be taken to further

reduce noise effects of helicopters are acknowledged. Potential effects of noise from helicopter operations are shown in section 3.3. See also F.14.11.5, agency response to Comment #84.44.

F.14.11.5 Comment: “The text of Section 3.3.6.5 appears to require some revision to clarify its

intended meaning. Although it discusses factors such as the intermittent nature of helicopter flights and the distance between the helicopter and receptors, it nonetheless makes a generalize conclusion that helicopter use has a "greater possibility of impacting visitors." These statements appear somewhat inconsistent.” Comment 84.44

Agency Response: The intent of discussion in sections 3.3.6.3 and 3.3.6.5 has been

revised to clarify that the possibility of utilizing helicopter operations to access drilling sites in Alternative 2 would have greater possibility of impacting visitors at the South Kawishiwi Campground and private residences off of FR 181, the Spruce Road. However, although helicopter flights could be heard during flights, the difference between Alternative 1 - No Action and Alternative 2 would not likely be highly noticeable considering the scope of the effects described and existing small aircraft traffic that can be seen and heard in the analysis area at this time. This is due to the passing nature of helicopter runs at any one point along a flight line from the Ely Municipal Airport to the drilling site staging area, the intermittent nature of the runs, the limited number of flights per day that people would be exposed, and the distance of the drilling sites helicopter staging area from the South Kawishiwi River Campground (almost 3 miles), from private residences (ranging from 1 to 2 miles), and from BWCAW Entry Point #32 (about 1½ to 2 miles).

F.14.11.6 Comment: “Duluth Metals has not proposed nor will it propose the use of helicopters

during its program.” Comment 35.12 Agency Response: Comment acknowledged.

F.14.11.7 Comment: “The proposed use of helicopters by Encampment in this forest area

adjacent to BWCA would not seem conform to FS or BWCA mission and policies and there are no scientific data available to suggest the use of helicopters in this environment is safe for humans or the natural environment.” Comment 65.30



Agency Response: Effects of utilizing helicopters on the BWCAW are shown in section

3.3. The scope of analysis regarding the BWCAW is shown in section 1.8.4, Table 1.5 Concerns Relating to the Scope of Analysis.

F.14.11.8 Comment: “Very limited times—perhaps as few as two to three times over an entire

summer. Contrary to what 3.3.5 Affected Environment states: air traffic via helicopter is very unusual, not usual in the vicinity of the South Kawishiwi Campground, BWCAW Entry Point #32, and private property. Floatplanes were more common this past summer due to the need to scoop up water for fire abatement. We strongly recommend no helicopter access to the drilling sites at any time, as it is simply inconsistent with the tranquil nature of forest.” Comment 67.07

Agency Response: In regards to helicopter access, section 3.3.5 states that the Ely

Municipal Airport is about 5 miles south of Ely west off of Hwy 1. The air traffic at the airport is predominantly aircraft such as private planes and helicopters. Air traffic in the vicinity of the South Kawishiwi Campground, BWCAW Entry Point #32, and private property is not unusual and also consists of occasional private planes, float plans and helicopters. A variety of resource management activities (such as fire prevention, fuel management prescribed burning) are also accomplished by the Forest Service utilizing float planes and helicopters and would be evident at these locations from time to time. Any air traffic above the BWCAW would be restricted to above 4000 feet.

F.14.12 Objectives of the Proposed Drilling

F.14.12.1 Comment: “Why are there 70 + drilling sites, each requiring site preparation, cutting

forest canopy and brushing, temporary roads, etc?” Comment 65.36 Agency Response: The purpose and need for the project is described in section 1.3. The

purpose and need of the project is for Duluth Metals, Encampment, and Franconia to conduct mineral exploration drilling and geophysical activities that will allow them to collect geologic information and drill core samples that may be used to analyze, map and discover the presence and extent of minerals.

F.14.13 Timeline/Timeframes of Operations

F.14.13.1 Comment: “As the Draft EA recognizes elsewhere, Duluth's prospecting permits were

originally set to expire on November 30, 2007 but were tolled on July 19, 2007 (effective retroactively to November 30, 2006) to avoid any prejudice to Duluth pending this analysis, and the suspension remains in effect until the BLM resumes its permission to conduct prospecting operations. Draft EA at § 1.2.1. Assuming that BLM resumes its permission to conduct prospecting operations in the near future, it



does not follow that Duluth will have five years to conduct exploration operations under its prospecting permits. Thus, the use of a five-year time period for the cumulative noise analysis overestimates the potential length of time when and the degree to which these impacts might potentially occur.” Comment #35.07

“Instead of Encampment completing its program in approximately one to two years, its operations may very well be extended to the five years contemplated in the EA.” Comment #84.23

“In Sections 1.2.3.2 and 3.2.3, the EA states that the average drilling time for each exploratory boring is seventeen days with a range of two to three weeks to complete a boring. While deeper borings may indeed take up to three weeks to complete, borings that are relatively shallow can be completed in as little as three days. Thus, the more accurate range for drilling times is from three days to three weeks .” Comment #84.43

Agency Response: In section 3.2.4 Analysis Area, the 5-year time period was selected for analysis because at the slowest production rate of approximately 21 days to complete a core hole, the project would be completed in 5 years. This slowest production rate was estimated independent of the length of time remaining on the prospecting permits, since a wide variety of unforeseen scenarios or events could alter the permit time frames. As described in section 3.2.3 Analysis Method, the actual number of drilling days can be influenced by the drilling company, availability of drill rigs, depth of hole, equipment used, etc. For the purpose of this analysis, an average of 17.5 days was be used.

F.15 Laws

F.15.1 Authorities

F.14.13.1 Comment: “I also agree with the EA in its statement referencing the Mining and

Mineral Policy Act of 1976 that it is the policy of the US Federal Government to encourage private enterprise in the development of economically sound and stable industries and in the orderly development of domestic resources to help assure satisfaction of industrial, national security and environmental needs of the United States.” Comment 53.02

“The current exploratory drilling laws, which have been in effect for almost 30 years, have adequately preserved the environment and have kept any deleterious effects related to drilling to a minimum.” Comment 81.02

“Per Section 1.6.1 in the EA, the USFS is mandated to manage the subject lands for multiple use including the exploration for and the development of mineral resources. It is the Forest Service’s responsibility to ensure environmentally responsible mineral development which will contribute to economic growth and to our national security. I agree with the EA in this, because development must be done on an environmentally sound basis.” Comment 82.01

“Table 1.3 should list, in addition to the General Mining Law, the Leasing Act of 1920 and 16 U.S.C. § 508b as authority for hardrock mineral exploration in the Superior National Forest.” Comment 84.38

Agency Response: Discussion on policy, authorities, and laws such as those identified in



the Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960 and the Act of June 30, 1950 (16 USC 508(b)) are located in section 1.6.1 Authorities. This information forms much of the basis for not only the decisions to be made described in sections 1.6.2, but also the process and agency roles shown in section 1.1 and the purpose and need for the project shown in section 1.4.

F.16 Social/Economics Concerns

F.16.1 Social Costs and Benefits

F.16.1.1 Comment: “An EIS should address the economic balance regarding possible

immediate economic returns against long-term economic damage to tourism, recreation, and timber products from increased and potentially extensive mineral development. Arguments that it is premature to do so seem contrived in that exploration for minerals, representing a fairly significant investment by these companies, would not be going forward if there was little to no present intention to develop any and all mineral resources that are discovered. The time to assess these effects and to discuss the balance is now.” Comment #80.52

Agency Response: Impacts from the proposed exploration activities are shown in the EA to be short term and small in magnitude. Any proposals for mineral development would under-go a separate environmental analysis, likely an EIS. This EIS would include possible economic impacts from the proposed mineral development. See EA Ch. 3 and 1.6.2.3.

F.16.1.2 Comment: “This not only means that wildlife and water quality will be severely

diminished, but that the tourism industry (fishing, hunting, canoeing) that comprise a large part of the BWCA annual economic basis will be adversely affected as well.” Comment #89.02

Agency Response: In the past 40 years, there have been mineral exploration projects mainly involving drilling, mapping, rock sampling, soil sampling, and geophysical activities. This area is also used a great deal for fishing, hunting and canoeing. See section 1.0.1 Project Area. Northeastern Minnesota has a long tradition of mineral development of iron ore. Encampment has proposed drill sites that would be the sites closest to the BWCAW considered in this analysis (Figure 2.2). As shown in section 3.2.7.1, Figure 3.2.6 Exploration activity in vicinity of project area, about 10 – 12 sites have been drilled closer to the BWCAW than sites included in Encampments proposed plan of operations, and about 20 other sites have been drilled in the past in the proximity of the proposed Encampment sites.

F.16.1.3 Comment: “Alternative 2 also provides the exploration companies involved with the

most efficient and appropriate use of their exploration investment budgets.” Comment #46.03

“The exploration activities of the companies fuels the local economy.” Comment #20.04



Agency Response: The importance of efficient and important exploration activities are

recognized in the EA. In section 1.82, the EA recognizes necessary efficiencies noting that drilling operations typically take place 24 hours a day to shorten the duration of drilling during operating seasons and generally accomplish effective and efficient operations. . In section 2.2.1.1 Standard Forest Service Stipulations for Prospecting Permits, states that the District Ranger would alert the permittee to circumstances which may affect not only safe work activities but also efficient conduct of work activities. A desired condition for minerals exploration is that exploring mineral resources are conducted in an environmentally sound manner so that it may contribute to economic growth and national defense (Forest Plan, D-MN-2, page 2-9).

F.16.2 Employment

F.16.2.1 Comment: “I urge that the Responsible Official(s) support Alternative 2 of the EA

because it provides the most sensible exploration of the potential mineral resources, allows for assessment of the potential for local job creation and related economic and environmental impacts.” Comment #46.02 “These explorations have brought this area back to life by offering new jobs and opportunities for our children to stay here and work.” Comment #53.07

“Encampment also notes that mineral exploration will provide the local community with a number of beneficial employment and commercial opportunities.” Comment #84.47

“The mineral deposits of Northeastern Minnesota represent a valuable national asset. The development of these mineral deposits will enhance our society through the direct economic and secondary spin off effects, locally, state and nationally.” Comment #77.01

“Northeastern Minnesota is a natural resource based economy, the mining industry provides very good jobs to the area citizens, allowing families to raise there children in stable communities and with the high wages the industry provides a comfortable living.” Comment #77.02

“Northland’s Management urge that the Responsible Official select Alternative 2 because it provides for the most sensible exploration of this important natural resource, allows for the timely assessment of potential for future job creation and related economic and environmental impacts, and results in the most efficient and appropriate use of the companies’ investment.” Comment #44.08

Agency Response: The Forest Plan provides direction for minerals exploration stating that exploration and development of mineral and mineral material resources is allowed on National Forest System land, except for federally owned minerals in designated wilderness (BWCAW) and the Mining Protection Area (MPA), and 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 (Forest Plan, D-MN-1 and D-MN-2, page 2-9).


Appendix G: Typical Road Obliteration in Decommissioning


appendix f – public comments and agency...

Documents