Kilgore Project Proposal Recap
Before jumping into our Kilgore Project Public Comment Guide, let’s clearly define what the proposal is.
- On July 22, 2020, Excellon Resources (EX), a Canadian mining company, proposed to expand its exploratory gold drilling in the foothills of the Western Centennial Mountains on Forest Service (FS) land where they own claims.
- They propose to expand their drilling operation by 28%, which includes deforesting enough room on the mountainside for 10.2 miles of new roads and 130 new drill pads.
- In all, FS estimates 22 acres of watershed disturbance. For perspective, that’s roughly 17 football fields of the Caribou-Targhee National Forest.
- They propose to drill for three to five years with up to three drill rigs running at a time, 24 hours a day from July 15 to December 15.
3 Beatitudes of Public Comment Writing
- Be Kind: Please don’t treat FS employees as if they were the mining executives. EX’s threat to our beloved Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem and Snake River Plain is not the FS rangers’ fault. They’re left with two outdated laws: a mining law from 1872 and a forest plan that hasn’t been updated since 1997 (RFP). Keep in mind these forest plans should be updated at least every 20 years. FS employees are left with rules that predate 13 states (including Idaho), climate change science, blister rust, ice cream cones, and sliced bread.
- Be You: Piggy-backing off the advice in the Idaho Conservation League writing tips here, write your comment in your personal voice telling personal stories. Put any of the points in this guide in your own words. If you speak with your own voice, FS has to engage with it. But they can lump identical comments together and lessen the impact we hope to have. So, please don’t copy and paste.
- “Because”: When you communicate your opposition to the proposal, make sure to provide specific reasons why. FS doesn’t engage with “I oppose this,” but FS has to engage with “I oppose this because . . .“
How to Kill the Kilgore Project: Key to Using this Public Comment Guide
Find useful ways to engage with the following 17 topics:
- Tribes Consulted
- Denying the Proposal
- Elk
- Grizzlies
- Centennial Mountain Wildlife Corridor
- Whitebark Pine
- Gray Wolves
- Wolverines
- Lynx
- Columbia Spotted Frogs
- Noise Pollution
- Light Pollution
- Migratory Birds
- Three-Toed Woodpecker
- Boreal Owl & Great Gray Owl
- Sage Grouse
- Open-Pit Cyanide Heap Leach Mine
Key
Public Comment Topic Examples
- How the FS Will Respond
- Ways to Make Them Engage with Your Comment
The Kilgore Project Public Comment Guide
1. If you ask: Which indigenous tribes were consulted?
- FS will say: Shoshone-Bannock Tribes
- But why weren’t the Nez Perce consulted?
- The proposal happens just upstream of an important site in the Nez Perce National Historical Park
Comment in your own words & share with everyone!
2. If you say: FS Say No to the Proposal
- FS will say: The No Action alternative violates the operator’s statutory right to conduct mineral exploration on lands open to such activities under the General Mining Law of 1872.
- “No” would deny the proposal and all previous disturbance would be reclaimed. Basically, our dream. According to FS, it’s also against the law. It’s incredibly hard to deny these proposals. The best we can hope for is that FS requires EX to take more protective measures to lessen their current proposal’s impact.
- For example, EX’s proposal has to meet the criteria of the RFP. If there’s any way to argue that this proposal doesn’t meet those criteria, FS could add more protections. Potentially the strongest argument deals with elk.
Comment in your own words & share with everyone!
3. If you bring up: elk and elk habitat
- FS will say: Elk security decreases by 600 acres. Overall, the percent of the analysis area that is secure for elk declines from 33 to 31 percent. The acreage of elk security is at least 30 percent, as recommended. Elk habitat effectiveness declines from approximately 60 percent to 50 percent (1.4 miles per square mile). However, habitat effectiveness should be at least 50 percent. And habitat effectiveness is at least 50 percent.
- FS states this proposal may have a negative impact on elk in an area prized for its hunting.
- I understand this project will decrease elk security and habitat effectiveness to their 30% and 50% bare minimum requirements respectively. I take this fact to mean that future development on this area, i.e. open-pit mines, will go against the RFP and therefore should be rejected. Why is the FS approving a project that may negatively affect elk when stated future plans after this project cannot meet the RFP?
- The proposal pushes elk security and habitat effectiveness to the very limits of what was recommended nearly 30 years ago. Instead of risking being on the edge of what should “at least” be available for our elk, we should request that the proposal be reworked to keep elk safely away from the boundaries of what’s acceptable.
- In the RFP, it states, “Recent studies and publications indicate, for example, that road density plays a more crucial role in habitat management for elk and grizzly bears than was assumed in the original Plan.” The proposal shows a highly congested switchback pattern of roads. This road congestion seems to illustrate the very density that the RFP warns against for elk and grizzly bear.
- The RFP also states that “Motorized summer use will occur only on designated routes.” I can’t imagine the roads proposed in 2021 were designated by the RFP in 1997. I request that the FS requires that the proposal follow the RFP and only allow motorized vehicles on routes designated in 1997 for such summer use.
- With the proposal’s road density concerns, I also worry about the constant road usage stresses on elk in the area because the proposal includes “Fuel would be purchased off site and delivered daily to the various pieces of equipment.”
Comment in your own words & share with everyone!
4. If you bring up: grizzly bears and grizzly habitat
- FS will say: There is no evidence that grizzly bears are present within or adjacent to the project area. Grizzly bears are present in higher quality and less disturbed habitats outside of the project area.
- FS is basing this claim only on radio collar research from the Interagency Bear Study from 2000 to 2019. But those studies only show where radio-collared bears are. They need to incorporate other methods to more comprehensively study the impact this project has on grizzly bears and their habitat before they can approve this proposal.
- There’s plenty of evidence of grizzlies in and around the project area. In 2018, FS had to put up signs in and around the Kilgore Project area warning people of an injured grizzly in the vicinity.
- Another grizzly in 2018 had to be trapped and relocated for killing a calf “near Kilgore.”
- Then there’s also a recent article from ABC News that reported a euthanized 34-year-old grizzly in the Yellowstone region had been “captured north of Dubois in May 1996 and dropped its radio collar the next year.”
- Every trailhead around the area cautions people that it’s in fact grizzly country.
- Locals who own property directly downstream of the Kilgore Project say they and their neighbors have lived with grizzlies on their land for as long as they can remember. Since the environmental assessment (EA) dismisses threats to grizzlies on the grounds of a lack of evidence, I request a more thorough EA be considered in light of these reports of grizzlies in the area.
- This proposal removes 606 acres of secure grizzly habitat. That loss is too substantial to only consider one form of data (radio-collar) against other reported evidence of grizzly activity.
- If there are better, less disturbed habitats elsewhere for grizzlies, why are they feeding on ranchers’ livestock and then needing to be relocated? That seems to indicate that the boundaries between people and grizzlies are already overlapping as it is.
- The attitude that the bears have better places to go isn’t sustainable. If every EA approved proposals on this logic, then soon there would be nowhere left for the grizzlies to go.
- The FS claims the loss of 606 acres of secure habitat would be temporary because the roads would be reclaimed. Since the FS defends the approval on this statement, I request that the roads will be reclaimed and will not receive extension for a new proposal in the years to come. Otherwise, the reasoning FS gives to approve this project is not relevant.
- Also, I understand that this statement from the FS means there can never be an open-pit mine approved on these 606 acres of secure grizzly habitat because the FS states it will be reclaimed after temporarily using it for roads.
Comment in your own words & share with everyone!
5. If you bring up: Centennial Mountains as an important wildlife corridor for several keystone and protected species
- FS will say: This project is not occurring in the Centennial Mountains.
- Excellon Resources’ own documents: “The Kilgore Project is located in the northeastern portion of the Eastern Snake River Plain (“ESRP”), locally situated on southern flank of the Centennial Mountains.” Their independent study repeats this three times.
- The US Geological Survey includes the Kilgore Project in the Western Centennial section of the Centennial Mountains.
- The FS’s draft environmental assessment (EA) for this proposal illustrates the relationship between the Kilgore Project site and the Centennials: “The project area (approximately 4,000 acres) was considered for the impact analysis. The potentially affected environment is the Centennial Mountain Subsection as described in the 1997 RFP, which was selected because it includes the project area.”
Comment in your own words & share with everyone!
6. If you bring up: Whitebark Pine
- FS will say: [EX’s] (2018) field survey estimate of 22 whitebark pine trees per acre could translate to approximately 500 seedlings/saplings being directly impacted by the project. Using a very conservative estimate of 22 trees per acre for the 4,000-acre project area yields a total of 88,000 trees. Five hundred of 88,000 individual whitebark pines is 0.6 percent.
- US Fish & Wildlife Service is planning to list whitebark pine under the Endangered Species Act. They just held public comment that ended on February 1, 2021. FS should postpone any proposals that could affect even one whitebark pine until this designation is made known.
- FS needs to wait until the Endangered Species Act listing is final before approving the uprooting of 500 of the species’s future.
- It takes decades before whitebark pine produce nuts that are important food sources for several animals including grizzly bears. To remove 500 young whitebark pines would to push the already decades-long process back even further.
- If 0.6% is too small a number for the FS to take action for whitebark pine, then I expect the FS to also take no action when EX proposes to build an open-pit mine based on 0.58 grams per tonne. FS is stating that amounts of 0.6% and below are not significant enough for taking action.
- FS says, “Existing healthy mature whitebark pine will be avoided to the extent possible by the BMPs included as part of the proposed action.” I’m not comfortable with the caveat of “to the extent possible.” I request that EX’s BMPs (best management practices) be made known and that no mature whitebark pine be affected by any of the proposed plan.
- Approving the removal of whitebark pine shouldn’t occur until we have a better understanding of the threats these species face in terms of beetles, blister rust, and climate change.
- This point is especially important for the whitebark pine populations in and around the Kilgore Project area because FS states that “it is likely that many of the immature trees will be mortally impacted by blister rust.” Why would we remove trees in an area where many of them are already facing blister rust threats?
Comment in your own words & share with everyone!
7. If you bring up: Gray Wolves
- FS will say: [No idea here, because the EA they wrote makes it sound more like reason not to approve the project.]
- I agree with the what FS says in the EA: “Gray wolves from nearby packs or dispersers could be disturbed by project activities. Some habituation to project activities may have occurred in previous years of activity. Project activities could disturb or impact the habitat of the primary prey of gray wolves, elk.
- I request that EX submits a new proposal with more protections in place to make sure that they do not impact wolves or their habitat.
Comment in your own words & share with everyone!
8. If you bring up: Wolverines
- FS will say: [No idea here either, because the EA includes not one word of assessment in consideration to the project’s impact on wolverines or their habitat.]
- I request a new EA be proposed that includes an analysis on how this project may affect wolverines in and around the area.
Comment in your own words & share with everyone!
9. If you bring up: lynx and lynx habitat
- FS will say: Disturbance to lynx appears unlikely because there is no evidence of presence.
- The larger region has been identified as an important corridor for lynx. So, if there’s no current evidence of lynx at the site, it could still become viable habitat for them in the future.
- The FS seems to think there’s at least some potential habitat for lynx in the EA: “Up to 24 acres of lynx habitat may be removed by road construction to facilitate mineral exploration.”
Comment in your own words & share with everyone!
10. If you bring up: Columbia Spotted Frogs and their breeding site at the Kilgore Project
- FS will say: There is a spotted frog breeding site on the claim. However, spotted frogs moving from this breeding site are most likely to travel through the adjacent riparian corridor and head downstream to summering and over-winter habitat in Camas Creek. We do not expect that they would move uphill to drier habitats where the drill sites and sumps will be present. Thus, we do not believe that spotted frogs will encounter sumps.
- I’m not comfortable with the language of what the frogs will “most likely do.” This puts the burden of responsibility on the frogs who have their breeding site suddenly affected and not on EX’s BMPs.
- Also, FS language seems subjective (“most likely,” “do not expect that they would,” “we do not believe.”), so I request both more analysis be done to verify FS’s opinion on the mater and for better protections to be included to guarantee no frogs will be affected.
- This is especially important considering the point FS makes about the species’s vulnerabilities: “Since amphibians have porous skin, they could be poisoned by the water or residue of water in sumps.”
- And this point that FS makes: “Water withdrawal from Camas Creek could impact spotted frogs by reducing water levels necessary for survival.” Even though FS states that the frogs may have metamorphosed by project start dates, I request further analysis to ensure those frogs that may metamorphose late are not affected.
- And this point that FS makes: “Movements occur in July or from August to October.” Since frog movements overlap with the project drill schedule, I request protections to be put in place to guarantee the frogs’ safety. I feel justified in this request by this FS statement: “If spotted frogs travel overland and cross roads, their probability of road mortality is increased with project activity.”
Comment in your own words & share with everyone!
11. If you bring up: Noise pollution
- FS will say: Noise effects were analyzed for American Three-Toed Woodpecker, Boreal Owl, Great Gray Owl, Northern Goshawk, and migratory songbirds. The analysis concluded that noise effects would not cause any wildlife species to become endangered or threatened. Mufflers placed on motorized equipment is the most effective way to reduce noise limits.
- I don’t think our baseline should be whether a proposal will cause wildlife to become endangered or threatened. I believe the baseline should be whether a proposal disturbs wildlife.
- Elsewhere in the EA, FS states that wildlife will likely avoid project areas because of noise and other factors. So, that seems to undercut the effectiveness of the proposed use of mufflers. Since noise, included muffled machinery, has been found to adversely affect wildlife, I request that better protections be required to ensure no noise pollution impacts on the wildlife in and around the area.
Comment in your own words & share with everyone!
12. If you bring up: Light pollution
- FS will say: Design criteria for light pollution has been incorporated for the project and requires that light pollution during night operations will be prevented by shielding all overhead lighting to deflect light downward onto the specific work area.
- This is great to have only downward facing light. Are there any wall barriers that will be put up to limit the light to only the working area? I ask because if three rigs can be running every night from July 15 to December 15, I worry that ambient light from the down-facing light can stress wildlife.
Comment in your own words & share with everyone!
13. If you bring up: Migratory birds
- FS will say: Approximately 25 acres of migratory bird breeding habitat would be removed. Up to 2,672 acres of migratory bird breeding habitat may be disturbed by drilling noise. However, noise disturbance would occur for the latter month of the 4.5-month migratory bird breeding season (July 15 to August 15).
- If there is only a short overlap with migratory bird habitat disturbance due to noise, can we at least ask that more measures be put in place for that short time to limit as much noise as possible?
- And I request that the proposal find an alternative to removing 25 acres of migratory bird breeding habitat. Breeding habitat for migratory birds should receive stronger protections than for just an exploratory drilling project.
- And, how is it that 25 acres will be removed from migratory bird breeding habitat when the EA states 22 acres of surface disturbance will occur?
Comment in your own words & share with everyone!
14. If you bring up: Three-Toed Woodpeckers
- FS will say: Up to 9.3 acres of potential American Three-toed Woodpecker habitat would be removed. Up to 1,131 acres of potential breeding habitat may be disturbed by drilling noise. May impact individuals or habitat, but will not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing or loss of viability to the population or species
- Over a thousand acres of breeding habitat will be disturbed and almost 10 acres of habitat will be removed: I request better protections be put in place to lessen the amount of habitat removal and breeding area noise pollution.
- Also, again, the goal should be to minimize wildlife and habitat disturbance (leave no trace principles), not to just avoid doing so much damage that a species then needs federal listing.
Comment in your own words & share with everyone!
15. If you bring up: Boreal Owls or Great Gray Owls
- FS will say: Approximately 25 acres of potential Boreal Owl habitat would be removed. Up to 2,577 acres of potential breeding habitat may be disturbed by drilling noise.
- FS will then repeat the same analysis for Great Gray Owls.
- Why aren’t these points enough to require further protective measures to lessen such an incredible amount of habitat loss and noise pollution disturbance?
- Again, how will 25 acres be removed and only 22 acres of surface disturbance occur?
Comment in your own words & share with everyone!
16. If you bring up: sage grouse and sage grouse habitat
- FS will say: There are no sage-grouse within or adjacent to the project area.
- What about the sage grouse downstream on the Snake River plain?
Comment in your own words & share with everyone!
17. If you bring up: the mining company’s open-pit cyanide heap leach mine plan.
- FS will say: This project is for exploration activities only. The proposed action does not include an open pit mine. This analysis is only analyzing the effects of the exploratory proposal within the project area.
- FS hinges their approval dozens of times on matter-of-fact language that roads “will be reclaimed” within 3-5 years. But previous roads from previous project proposals have still not been reclaimed as exceptions to be used in new proposals. “All project disturbance, including roads, would be reclaimed by the end of this project, unless [EX] formally requests a timing extension or submits a new plan of operations to the FS.” The exemption intends to lessen surface disturbance; I understand that. But it makes reclamation conditional and not a matter of fact. The FS is basing their concerns on what Excellon may or may not do in the future. Yet, FS won’t engage with the public’s concerns on what Excellon states they will do in the future?
- If I can’t base my opposition on the likely future activities directly involved with this proposal, then I request that the FS cannot base any of their approval on the conditional future road reclamations directly involved with this proposal.
- Since the proposal will decrease elk security and habitat effectiveness to their 30% and 50% bare minimum requirements respectively, does that make this disturbance proposal the last one EX can make for this area to satisfy the RFP?
- The EA states that at least 606 acres of grizzly habitat will be reclaimed back to grizzly habitat, precluding any open-pit mine future plans anyway.
- Please don’t leave the future of the Eastern Snake River Aquifer, the fresh water that hundreds of thousands of Idahoans live off of, up to a technicality. Honoring the short-sightedness of a three-to-five-year contract should not take precedent over safeguarding an entire region’s water.
Comment in your own words & share with everyone!
Send Your Kilgore Project Public Comment to the Forest Service by February 11!
Comment in your own words & share with everyone!
Leave a Reply