-------
Table B-12

Estimated Capital Cost for Selected Remedy

Acid Mine Drainage

Alternative AD4B: Biologicial Treatment at Individual Mine Adits

Subarea: Minnehaha Creek

Item |

Unit |

Unit Cost

Quantity |



Cost

[Source of Cost Data

Access roads

If

$

3.20

1,842

$

5,894

ECHOS 2000; 17-03-0101;

Clear and grub treatment site

acre

$

836.95

0.02

$

500

ECHOS 2000; 17-01-0105;

Wetlands facility earthwork

ac

t

10,000.00

0.02

$

€00

Engineering Estimate

Substrate

ac

$

48,400.00

0.009

$

500

Engineering Estimate

Discharge pipiine

If

$

7.41

200

$

1,482

ECHOS 2000; 19-02-0126;

Grass Ditching

If

S

15.61

2,000

$

31,220

ECHOS 2000; 33-05-0802;

Rough Grading

Is

$

5,000.00

5

$

25,000

Engineering Estimate

Fertilize and seed

acre

$

1,137.00

5

$

5,685

Means 2000; 02920-5104500,02920-510-7000

Mulch

acre

$

980.00

5

$

4,900

Means 2000; 02910-500-0350

Site fencing

If

$

20.35

159

$

3,227

ECHOS 2000; 18-04-0107;









SUBTOTAL

$

78,908



Mobilization/Demobilization, Bonding, and















Insurance

8%







$

6,313

Engineering Estimate

Construction Contingencies

30%







$

23,672

20% Scope, 10% Bid









SUBTOTAL

$

108,893



Project Management

10%







$

10,869

EPA Cost Guidance

Additional AMD Source Control

Is







$

500,000

Engineering estimate

Remedial Design

20%







$

21,779

EPA Cost Guidance

Construction Management

15%







$

16,334

EPA Cost Guidance









SUBTOTAL

$

549,002



Proprietary Controls for Mine Waste Areas

Is

$

400.00

5

$

2,000

4 hours per property @ $100/hr legal fees

TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS









$

659,895



Cost Tables B-2 to B-17.xl$AD4B MC

-------
Table B-13

Estimated Capital Cost for Selected Remedy

Acid Mine Drainage

Alternative A04B: Biologicial Treatment at Individual Mine Adits

Subarea: Bear Gulch/Walker Creek

Item |

Unit

Unit Cost

I Quantity |



Cost

I Source of Cost Data

Access road to treatment site

If

$

3.20

4.446

$

14.227

ECHOS 2000; 17-03-0101;

Clear and grub treatment site

acre

$

836.95

0.004

$

500

ECHOS 2000; 17-01-0105;

Wetlands facility earthwork

ac

$

10.000.00

0.004

$

500

Engineering Estimate

Substrate

ac

$

48,400.00

0.002

$

500

Engineering Estimate

Discharge pipiine

If

$

7.41

200

$

1,482

ECHOS 2000; 19-02-0126;

Grass Ditching

If

$

15.81

400

$

8,244

ECHOS 2000; 33-05-0802;

Rough Grading

Is

$

5,000.00

1

$

5,000

Engineering Estimate

Fertilize and seed

acre

$

1,137.00

1.0

$

1,137

Means 2000; 029&51
-------
Table B-14

Estimated Capital Cost for Selected Remedy

Surface Water

Alternative SW3C: Additional Water Storage (Chessman Reservoir)

Subarea: Beaver Creek

Item I

Unit

Unit Cost

I Quantity j



Cost

I Source of Cost Data

Land

acre

s

2,000.00

16

$

32,000

Engineering Estimate

Clearing and grubbing

acre

$

5,370.00

16

s

85,920

Means 2000; 02230-200-0200 & 0250

Raise/modify shoreline berms

cy

$

7.90

3,400

$

26.B60

ECHOS 2000; 17-03-0423

Main Dam - raise 6 feet















Raise Cutoff Wall

cy

$

350.00

94

$

32.900

Engineering Estimate

Modify inlet/access/control structures

Is

s

50.000.00

1

s

50,000

Engineering Estimate

Imprevious Fill

cy



25.98

13,000

$

337,740

ECHOS 2000; 17-03-0428 (30 mile haul)

Salvage/supplement riprap

cy



20.00

2000

$

40,000

Engineering Estimate

Saddle Dam - raise 6 feet















Raise Core Wall

cy



350.00

40

$

14,000

Engineering Estimate

impervious and Unclassified Fill

cy



25.98

2,000

$

51,980

ECHOS 2000; 17-03-0428 (30 mile haul)

Salvage/supplement riprap

cy



20.00

1,000

$

20,000

Engineering Estimate

Filter Fabric

sy



1.04

4,500

$

4,880

ECHOS 2000; 33 08 0532

Replace flume with pipeline

If



73.96

25350

$

1,874,886

City of Helena Estimate

Erosion control mat

sy



1.11

5,000

$

5,550

Means 2000; 02370-550-0010

Fencing

If



2.18

250

$

545

ECHOS 2000; 184)4-0110









SUBTOTAL

$

2,577.041



Mobilization/Demobilization, Bonding, and















Insurance

8%







$

200,163

Engineering Estimate

Construction Contingencies

30%







$

773,112

20% Scope, 10% Bid









SUBTOTAL

$

3,556,317



Project Management

5%







$

177,816

EPA Cost Guidance

Remedial Design

8%







$

284,505

EPA Cost Guidance

Construction Management

6%







$

213,379

EPA Cost Guidance









SUBTOTAL

$

675,700



TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS









$

4,232,017



Cost Tables B-2 to B*17.xtsSW3C Chessman

-------
Table B-15

Estimated Capital Cost for Selected Remedy
Residential and Recreational Yard Soil
Alternative RY3B: Excavation with Disposal in Luttrell Repository

Subarea: Tenmile Creek Near Rimini

Item

Unit |

UnftCost

; Quantify |



Cost

Source of Cost Data

Site preparation and storm water control

acre

$ 13,900.00

7.03

$

97,874

ECHOS 2000; 17-01-0105, 33-05-0802

Excavate yard soil (ave depth = 4 feet)

cy

% 1.98

45,347

$

89,787

Means 2000; 02315-400-0260,0020 (loading)

Transport waste

cy-mile

$ 0.60

421,727

$

253,036

EPA Cost Estimate

Spread and compact waste

cy

$ 3.14

. 45,347

$

142,389

ECHOS 2000; 17-03-0422

Luttrell Repository disposal

cy

$ 5.00

45.347

$

226,735

EPA Cost Estimate

Utility Relocation

ea

$ 500.00

23

$

11,500

Engineering Estimate

Unclassified fill

cy

$ 5.00

34.010

$

170.051

Engineering Estimate

Place 12" coversoil

cy

S 12.00

11,337

$

136,041

Engineering Estimate

Install Sod

sf

$ 0.25

306,092

$

77.747

Means 2000; 02920-600-0010







SUBTOTAL

$

1,204,961



Mobilization/Demobilization, Bonding, and













Insurance

8%





$

96,397

Engineering Estimate

Construction Contingencies

15%





$

180,744

10% Scope. 5% Bid







SUBTOTAL

$

1,462,102



Project Management

6%





$

88.926

EPA Cost Guidance

Remedial Design

12%





$

177,852

EPA Cost Guidance

Construction Management

e%





$

118,568

EPA Cost Guidance







SUBTOTAL

$

385,346



TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS







$

1,867,448



Cost Tables B-2 to B-17j(I»RY36 TR

-------
Table B-16

Estimated Capital Cost for Selected Remedy
Residential and Recreational Yard Soli
Alternative RY3B: Excavation with Disposal in Luttrell Repository

Subarea: Tenmlle Creek Mainstem

Item

I Unit |

Unit Cost I Quantity I



Cost

(Source of Cost Data

Site preparation and storm water control

acre

% 13.900.00

1.1

$

15,207

ECHOS 2000; 17-01-0105,33-05-0802

Excavate yard soD to 30 Inch depth

cy

$ 1.98

4.413

$

8,738

Means 2000; 02315-400-0260,0020 (loading)

Transport waste

cy-mfle

$ 0.60

69,725

$

41,835

EPA Cost Estimate

Spread and compact waste

cy

S 3.14

4.413

»

13,857

ECHOS 2000; 17-03-0422

Luttrell Repository disposal

cy

$ 5.00

4,413

$

22,065

EPA Cost Estimate

Utility Relocation

•a

$ 500.00

4

$

2,000

Engineering Estimate

Unclassified fill

cy

$ 5.00

2,648

$

13,240

Engineering Estimate

Place 12" coversoil

cy

$ 12.00

1,765

$

21,180

Engineering Estimate

Install Sod

sf

$ 0.25

47,656

$

12,105

Means 2000; 02920-600-0010







SUBTOTAL

$

150,227



Mobil iiation/Demobtization, Bonding, and













Insurance

6%





$

12,018

Engineering Estimate

Construction Contingencies

20%





$

30,045

15% Scope. 5% Bid







SUBTOTAL

S

192,290



Project Management

8%





$

15.383

EPA Cost Guidance

Remedial Design

15%





$

28,844

EPA Cost Guidance

Construction Management

10%





$

19.229

EPA Cost Guidance







SUBTOTAL

$

63.456



TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS







%

255,746



Cost Tablas B-2 o B-17.XHRY3B TM

-------
Table B-17

Estimated Capital Cost for Selected Remedy
Contaminated Roadway Materials
Alternative RD3B: Excavation with Disposal at Luttrell Repository (5,000 Feet)

Subarea: Tenmile Creek Near Rimini

Item |

Unit

Unit Cost

| Quantity



Cost

[Source of Cost Data

Sits preparation and storm water control

acre

$

13,900.00

4

$

54,247

ECHOS 2000; 17-01-0105, 33-05-0802

Excavate roadway

cy

$

1.98

23,328

$

48.189

Means 2000; 02315-400-0280,0020 (loading]

Transport waste

cy-mile

$

0.80

218,948

$

130,169

EPA Cost Estimate

Spread and compact waste

cy

$

3.14

23,328

t

73,249

ECHOS 2000; 17-03-0422

Luttrell Repository disposal

cy

$

5.00

23,328

s

118,639

EPA Cost Estimate

Utility Relocation

Is

$

5,000.00

1

$

5,000

Engineering Estimate

Replace 24 Inch city water line

If

$

81.00

800

s

64,800

Means 2000; 02510-810-3010

Unclassified fill

cy

$

5.00

17,031

$

85,157

Engineering Estimate

Placa 12" base course

cy

$

10.00

6.296

$

62,963

Engineering Estimate

Place 6" top course

cy

$

15.00

3,148

$

47,222

Engineering Estimate









SUBTOTAL

$

685,836



Mobilization/Demobilization, Bonding, and















Insurance

8%







$

54,851

Engineering Estimate

Construction Contingencies

15%







$

102,845

10% Scope. 5% Bid









SUBTOTAL

$

843,332



Project Management

8%







$

67,467

EPA Cost Guidance

Remedial Design

15%







$

126,500

EPA Cost Guidance

Construction Management

10%







$

84,333

EPA Cost Guidance









SUBTOTAL

$

278,300



TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS









»

1,121,831



Cost Tables B-2 to B-17 xlsRD3B(S000) TR

-------
Appendix C

Page

Proposed Plan Comments and Responses	C-l

Draft Proposed Plan Comments and Responses	C-52

Public Hearing Comments and Responses 	C-104

-------
Proposed Plan Comments and Responses

-------
Comment Letter on Proposed Plan from John Arrigo - November 20,
2001

November 20, 2001
Mike Bishop

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
301 South Park Avenue, Drawer 10096
Helena, MT 59626

RE: Upper Tenmile Proposed Plan
Dear Mr. Bishop:

Overall I believe EPA has done an excellent job evaluating the
extent of contamination and has been creative and thoughtful in
its design of remediation proposals. However I do have some
specific comments and concerns. My comments on the proposed
remediation plan for the Upper Tenmile Creek Mining Area Site
are as follows

1. On several occasions in the recent past, storm water runoff
from the Chessman Road has flowed into Beaver Creek and
ultimately resulted in the discharge of extremely turbid
water into Tenmile Creek. This periodic, historic discharge
contributes suspended and dissolved solids and other
pollutants to Tenmile Creek that may have caused or will
cause impacts. The enclosed copies of color photos were
taken on July 30,1998 while I was driving up the drainage
during one of these runoff events. The upper right picture
shows a clear Tenmile Creek before I encountered the slug of
turbid runoff. The picture on the middle right show s Tenmile
Creek after the turbid slug had mixed with the stream flow.
The other photos on the left show evidence of runoff from the

Upper Tenmile Creek ROD

Response

1. EPA notes that the runoff from Chessman Road can be a
source of sediment loading to Beaver Creek and to Tenmile
Creek. EPA did not sample Chessman Road during the RI
because there has been no indication that parts of the road
might be constructed of mine wastes. In Rimini, sampling of
the roadway was conducted because there was a record that
mine wastes from the Susie mine were used to rebuild the
road after the 1981 flood. The Rimini road sampling
confirmed the presence of mine wastes. In the case of the
Chessman Road, the sediment load into the creek would be
expected to be similar in chemical composition to that form
storm erosion from any unimproved road within the
watershed. The increase is suspended solids being

C-1

-------
Comment Letter on Proposed Plan from John Arrigo - November 20,
2001

Chessman Road. Has EPA considered the Chessman Road as
a source area for metals addition to the Tenmile Creek
drainage system? Has EPA collected soil samples from the
Chessman Road to verify the presence or absence of metals?
Would EPA work with the Forest Service to improve
drainage on this road? If you would like to view other
photos, please contact me.

2. The proposed plan recommend s institutional controls to
prevent the installation of new wells. To what degree will
EPA better define the nature and extent of ground water
contamination and tailor the boundaries of the ground water
control area to the contaminated zones? Ground water in the
vicinity of my well at 3604 Rimini Road is below levels of
concern. However, with the institution of a control area that
covers the general Rimini area, I may not be able to drill a
new well to access the existing "clean" ground water beneath
my property.

Upper Tenmile Creek ROD

Response

transported into Beaver Creek are of concern to aquatic life,
but suspended sediments resulting from non-mining sources
cannot be addressed under Superfund. Remedial actions by
EPA taken to address mining-related contamination will
involve road improvements for specific mine sites. In
accordance with reclamation ARARs, EPA will implement
best management practices to control stormwater runoff and
erosion during remedial action. For those actions that
involve use of the Chessman Road, such as the Upper Valley
Forge removal by USFS, appropriate drainage and erosion
control will be implemented for those portions of the road
affected.

DEQ is beginning to develop a total maximum daily load
(TMDL) allocation plan for the upper Tenmile Creek
watershed, which will address sediment loads in the
watershed streams. EPA has developed a water quality
model for Tenmile Creek that will be available for use during
TMDL analysis

2. The RI relied on water quality data from existing wells to
characterize the nature and extent of the groundwater
contamination in Rimini and at other locations of the site.
New monitoring wells were not drilled. Although the depth
and spacing of the existing wells was not adequate to
definitively model the exact extent and possible movement of
the groundwater contamination in and near Rimini, EPA
believes that the prevalence of groundwater contamination in
Rimini and the need for a controlled groundwater area were
well established by the existing data. There were wells

C-2

-------
Comment Letter on Proposed Plan from John Arrigo - November 20,
2001

Upper Tenmile Creek ROD

Response

located in all directions from the referenced well that
exhibited various levels of contaminated groundwater, so the
extent of the "clean" zone around that well is uncertain.

Without expending considerable time and expense to define
the Rimini groundwater situation more precisely, EPA has
chosen to use a three-step process for addressing
contaminated groundwater currently used by Rimini
residents. The first step, temporarily providing bottled water
or individual treatment systems to residents with
groundwater contamination above maximum contaminant
levels (MCLs) is already in place. The second and third steps
are contained in the selected remedy. A community water
system, using a clean groundwater source, will be
constructed by EPA and turned over to the community of
Rimini for operation. The community water system would
replace the need for individual wells within the immediate
Rimini vicinity, to be used for drinking water. The third step
will be the creation of a controlled groundwater area to
ensure that contaminated groundwater is not used for
drinking water purposes.

It is important to note that there is wide latitude in
establishing well restrictions under a controlled groundwater
area (CGWA). A CWGA does not necessarily mean that a
"well ban" will be put in place; it may simply require that
newly installed wells be sampled and the water be treated or
not consumed for drinking water purposes if found to be
contaminated. Additional sampling and/or monitoring well
installation may be necessary to establish the CWGA. From

C-3

-------
Comment Letter on Proposed Plan from John Arrigo
2001

- November 20,

3. How many of the new haul roads will be reclaimed and to
what condition? I am concerned about the number, size and
length of any new roads that must be installed to remove
mine waste from the proposed 70 Category C, D and E sites.
Does the risk posed by these waste sites justify the
construction of a road to each site for removal?

4.. I and other residents are concerned about the lack of
specificity given for the proposed public water supply
system operation and maintenance costs. I recognize that it
is early in the process to formally evaluate and quantify these
costs. The normal process a water district would follow to
design, fund, construct and operate a public water supply
system would include an initial needs analysis and a facility
planning process that evaluates several options and
quantifies anticipated construction, operation and

Upper Tenmile Creek ROD

Response

EPA's perspective, the importance of the CGWA is to prevent
uncontrolled drilling of wells in contaminated aquifer zones.

3.	The mine site scoring and ranking procedure took into
account the level of access to the sites. Low priority sites
were often scored as low priority because there was no
current access and therefore reduced potential for exposure
to site contaminants. However, most of the high priority
mine sites (category C, D, and E) are relatively close to
substantial roads and have some level of current access road
directly to the sites. It will generally be necessary to
upgrade the existing roads to allow construction equipment
to access the mine sites. EPA will work with each property
owner affected by the road to define the road dimensions
and specifications. EPA's preferred approach will be to
reclaim the new roads, after site remediation, to the general
condition of the road prior to cleanup. Additional discussion
of access roads is provided in the response to the comment
letter from the Montana Department of Fish Wildlife and
Parks.

4.	Consistent with Superfund guidance, the FS and proposed
plan evaluated and summarized several alternatives for
developing a community water system for Rimini, including
a feasibility-level evaluation of system construction and
operation and maintenance (O&M) costs. Details for the cost
estimates for the different alternatives were presented in the
FS, and have since been refined in the addendum to the draft
RI and draft FS reports. The purpose of the feasibility-level
evaluation is to compare a reasonable range of possible

C-4

-------
Comment Letter on Proposed Plan from John Arrigo - November 20,
2001

maintenance costs. EPA should contact each resident
individually and attempt to quantify who wants to be
connected to the new supply, who might want to be
connected and who does not want to be connected. This
would be better than just stating EPA will construct a system
to serve up to 50 connections. It may be that less than 20
homes will realistically be connected. In this case, would it
be wise to size a system to serve 50 connections? Although I
know EPA contractors will design a system that meets
existing standards, I am not confident that multiple options
and associated costs will be analyzed and presented to the
residents for consideration. The residents will likely be
unwilling to form a county water district if they are not
confident in the anticipated costs of operating and
maintaining the system. Can EPA provide funding to task a
contractor to better quantify the required size and anticipated
operation and maintenance costs? Another method to
facilitate the formation of a county water district would be
for EPA to fund a contractor to assist the residents in
formation of a district.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the plan. Your
personal involvement and dedication through this tedious
process is appreciated. If you would like to discuss any of my
comments further, please feel free to contact me.

Sincerely,

John Arrigo
3604 Rimini Road
Helena, MT 59601

Upper Tenmite Creek ROD

Response

alternatives. The analysis assumed a reasonable number of
connections, given EPA's knowledge of the community, so
that the alternatives could be equitably compared. Capital
and O&M costs were estimated using sound engineering
costing principles and professional judgment.

Detailed cost estimates will be prepared during remedial
design. EPA will work with Rimini residents who are
proceeding with plans to form a rural water and sewer
district to ensure that the designed system is appropriate for.
the community's need and that the community can afford to
operate and maintain the system.

-------
Comment E-mail on Proposed Plan from Craig French, Montana
Department of Environmental Quality - November20, 2001

Upper Tenmile Proposed Plan Comments
From DEQ
November 20, 2001

A. Table 2, page 16, Implementability, Alternative 4:

Talks about "locating four acres of sludge drying beds near
Rimini..." and since there is nota discussion of sludge beds
in Alternative 4, this looks like an artifact from earlier
discussions involving treatment.

Since operating biological/wetland treatment facilities is a
challenging undertaking, the DEQ would like to be involved
in all design activities. Perhaps a thorough design with

B.

Q:\Tenmile\Record of DerisionNFinel ROD (for real) June 20G2\Append C • Respons Summ\C-l\Final RODC-I.wpd

Response

A.	Alternative 4 addresses acid mine drainage with a four-phase
program to first implement source controls and flow
reduction actions at discharging adits and then implement
water treatment actions if EPA determines, in consultation
with DEQ, that treatment is necessary to meet state ambient
water quality standards. In order to develop appropriate
cost estimates for the proposed plan, based on its current
knowledge of the contaminant loading for the three key adit
discharges in the Rimini area (Red Water, Susie, and Lee
Mountain), EPA assumed that physical/chemical treatment
would be the Rimini adit discharges. The treatment would
probably involve lime precipitation and activated alumina or
reverse osmosis, which would create a sludge byproduct that
would have to be d ried and disposed of in the Luttrell
repository. The least expensive method of handling the
treatment sludge is dewatering in sludge drying beds.
Approximately 4 acres would be necessary for the drying bed
if adit flow rates and contaminant loading is similar to
present conditions. If the effort to control sources and reduce
flows is successful, then treatment may not be necessary or
the size of the treatment facility, and associated sludge
drying beds, may be reduced.

B.	EPA expects DEQ to be an integral partner in the
implementation of all aspects of the four-phase program to
address acid mine drainage, including the monitoring,

C-6

-------
Comment E-mail on Proposed Plan from Craig French, Montana
Department of Environmental Quality-November20, 2001

measurable parameters that indicate the efficiency and
longevity of the treatment facility would aid in the operation
of said facilities. Such parameters that cou Id be evaluated to
indicate the health of the sulfate reducing bacteria (SRB)
population, that is, if SRB are required, would be helpful.
Also, DEQ is looking forward to learning the intricacies of
biological treatment systems operation during theshakeout
period.

Q:\Tenmile\Record of DecisiorAFinal ROD (for real) June 2002\Append C - Respons SUmm\C-l\Final RODC-I.wpd

Response

evaluation, development/implementation of bench scale and
pilot-scale tests, and design/construction of full scale
passive/biological treatment systems.

C-7

-------
Comment Letter on Proposed Plan from Michael Korn, Montana
Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks - October 30, 2001

October 30, 2001

Mike Bishop, EPA Project Manager
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
301 South Park Avenue, Drawer 10096
Helena, MT 59626

Dear Mr. Bishop:

Please consider this letter is Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks
comments on the Proposed Plan for the Upper Tenmile Creek
Mining Area under provisions of Section 117(a) of the
comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and
Liability Act of 1980, 42 USC Section 9601 et seq. (CERCLA or
Superfund) and Section 200.430(f)(2) of the National Oil and
Hazardous Substance Pollution Contingency Plan. Comments
here address fish and wildlife issues, although, for the record, we
support the cleanup efforts to improve drinking water and soil
conditions for residents of the Rimini area.

A. We applaud the long-term, coordinated efforts to re-water
Tenmile Creek as described in the Proposed Plan. We
endorse the decision to substitute improved storage capacity
of Chessman Reservoir instead of reservoir development of
Tenmile Meadows. However, no discussion was provided
about dewatering of drainages that will provid e water to
Chessman, and the consequences that the diversion will have
on local hydrology, vegetation and wildlife. We recommend
that this be addressed in the final document. It is not clear
whether some water would remain in tributaries that are
providing water to Chessman via the Red Mountain flume,

Q:\Tenmile\Record of DecisiorAFinal ROD (for real) June 20C2\Append C - Respons 9umm\C-l\Fina! RODC-l.wpd

Response

A. The primary source of water to fill Chessman Reservoir
currently is surplus snowmelt and spring runoff water
diverted from the Banner Creek drainage to Chessman
through the Red Mountain flume. Under a court decree for
water rights, the City of Helena is allowed to divert this
water each year only prior to the first call for irrigation water
downstream. Since diversion through the Red Mountain
flume occurs only during the late spring and early summer
when there is excess water, there is no dewatering of Banner
Creek during this period. The proposed capacity
improvements to both Chessman Reservoir and the Red

C-8

-------
Comment Letter on Proposed Plan from Michael Korn, Montana
Department of Fish, Wildife and Parks - October 30, 2001

and if so how much. Please provide this information.

In our correspondence of September 25, 2001, we raised several
issues that we hoped would be addressed in the Proposed Plan,
including:

B. The importance of factoring in impacts to wildlife from the
clean-up procedure itself, particularly impacts of upgraded
roads. We realize that this must be a coordinated effort with
the Helena National Forest. We asked that an evaluation be
conducted, and measures taken to assure that increased
motorized access to the Tenmile Watershed not be
encouraged. Improved road conditions will lead to increased
public use post-clean up, and this issue should be taken into
account in planning which roads would remain on the
landscape. While the current plan is to bring some of the
haul roads back to a certain width, road surfaces already are
better than they were pre-project. We recommend
coordination between the EPA (to provide necessary
funding) and the Helena National Forest (to provide travel
management) to minimize secondary motorized impacts to
wildlife and their habitat.

Q:\Tenmile\Record of Decision\Final ROD (for real) June 20(C\Append C - Respons SLimm\C-l\Fina! RODC-I.wpd

Response

Mountain flume are intended to allow the city to divert and
store additional water, but the diversion would still occur
during the period of excess runoff water and would not
dewater Banner Creek. In addition, the proposed
improvements to the flume are expected to reduce current
losses from the flume that result from the ditch being
unlined. Additional information regarding the availability of
water under the three reservoir alternatives is provided in
the addendum to the draft RI and draft FS reports.

B. EPA received a number of comments on the issue of potential
impact to wildlife caused by upgrading and improving
access roads to implement the remedial action for the site.
EPA is committed to implementing the mine site cleanups in
a manner that holds impacts on wildlife to a minimum. As
with any construction action, short-term impacts during
construction are expected. It is EPA's intent to reclaim access
roads after cleanup and leave mine site access in a condition
similar to that before the cleanup. During the design process,
there will be ample discussion with affected landowners,
USFS, DFWP, and other parties to determine the appropriate
road specifications for each mine site and each area of the
Tenmile Creek watershed. EPA plans to defer to USFS
regarding potential area closures and travel restriction plans
within the Helena National Forest; EPA will prepare its
design plans to be consistent w ith USFS plans.

C-9

-------
Comment Letter on Proposed Plan from Michael Korn, Montana

Department of Fish, Wiltiife and Parks - October 30, 2001

C.	Recognition that a six-mile segment of the Continental
Divide wildlife movement corridor has seriously disturbed
as a result of mining activity and now Superfund Cleanup
procedures.

D.	Protection of the less suitable but alternate wildlife
movement corridor that appears to have developed from
near Jericho Mountain on the Divide, across Tenmile Creek
and into the Black Mountain road-less area, to the Park
Lake-Occidental Plateau-Cataract Basin area, and across the
Boulder Divide to the Elkhorn Mountains. Critical to
protection of this corridor is assurance that the Beaver Creek
road not be upgraded in any way that would increase
motorized traffic over pre-project levels.

E.	Not widen and pave the Rimini road as proposed for Rou te
98 (a scenic forest highway.) That highway is proposed to
end at the mouth of the Beaver Creek Road. This road
should not have additional traffic if the alternate wildlife
movement corridor is to be protected.

F.	Commitment by the Forest Service to enforcing off-road
vehicle use restrictions in the watershed for at least 5 years.

G.	These issues were not addressed in the Plan that was issued
in late October. In addition, we feel that the solicitation on

Q:\Tenmi1e\Record of DecisionVFinal ROD (for real) June 20(E\Append C - Respons Summ\C-l\Final RODC-I.wpd

Response

C. The comment is noted.

D.	The comment is noted. There are several high priority mine
sites that will probably require use of the Beaver Creek road
(referred to as the Chessman Road in other comments) for
transport of mine wastes to theLuttrell repository. The
specifications for any improvements to, and post-project
reclamation of, the Beaver Creek road necessary for the w aste
haul will be developed during remedial design in full
consultation with MDFWP and USFS. It would be premature
at this time, without considering all haul road options and
their relative impacts on the success of mine site cleanups in
the Beaver Creek drainage, to make a commitment that the
Beaver Creek road would "not be upgraded in any way."

E.	The referenced scenic forest highway improvement to Route
98 has no connection to EPA Superfund action.

F.	EPA will work closely USFS to coordinate its actions with
USFS land management requirements. Management of those
public lands remains the responsibility of USFS.

G.	As noted earlier, detailed road specifications will be
developed in consultation with all affected parties during the

C-10

-------
Comment Letter on Proposed Plan from Michael Korn, Montana
Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks - October 30, 2001

page 23 requesting points of view regarding access to the
watershed does not sufficiently address wildlife habitat
issues. We believe that coordination between the EPA and
the Helena National Forest is essential to achieve these
objectives. Forest Service standards for road densities
currently exist (less than 1.8 miles of road per square mile)
and we believe that they should be utilized in this project.
We also wish to see that analysis include all motorized uses,
including non-system and user created routes as well as
system roads.

We offer our assistance as this process moves forward and hope
that we can bring together both the objectives of the clean up
while at the same time considering the needs of fish and wildlife
in the area.

Sincerely,

Michael Korn

Helena Area Coordinator

c: Larry Peterman, FWP Chief of Field Operations
Pat Flowers, Supervisor FWP Region 3
Tom Clifford, Helena National Forest Supervisor

Q:\Tenmile\Record of D6Cision\Final ROO (for real) June 2002\Append C - Respons SUmm\C-l\Final RODC-I.wpd

Response

remedial design process.

-------
Comment Letter on Proposed Plan from Tom and Caroline Hattersley -
November 21, 2001

Tom and Caroline Hattersley
71 Highland Meadow Road
Clancy, MT 59634
November 21, 2001

Via U.S. Mail and E-Mail (bishopxnike@epa.gov)

Mr. Mike Bishop

U.S. Environment Protection Agency
301 South Park
P.O. Box 1006
Helena, MT 59626

Re: Ten Mile Creek Watershed

Dear Mr. Bishop:

I am writing to you concerning an artide I read recently in the
Helena Independent Record which discussed certain cleanup
efforts planned for the Ten Mile Creek Watershed. The article
only vaguely referenced plans to capture runoff in the "Travis
Creek" area, and hold it in a proposed reservoir. I live in the
Travis Creekarea (and watershed), in Jefferson County, and my
wife and I are vitally concerned about any activity which may
jeopardize or otherwise impact the Travis Creek watershed. I
might add that neither my wife nor any of our neighbors with
whom we have discussed this recent article have ever been
notified or made aware in any way of the fact that the Travis
Creek watershed may be affected by any cleanup plans for Ten
Mile Creek. That area is not within the Independent Record
circulation zone and delivery is not available to us.

Q:\Tenmile\Recofd of DedsionVFinal ROD (for real) June 20C2 ^Append C - Respons S0mm\C-l\Fina) RODC-I.wpd

Response

The Travis reservoir site referred to in the proposed plan is
located at the headwaters of Tenmile Creek, near the continental
divide, southwest of the community of Rimini. Figure 2 in the
proposed plan accurately depicted the location of the potential
reservoir location. The site was presumably named after the
individual who historically developed it as a small reservoir.
The proposed Travis reservoir site is not located in the Travis
Creek watershed, noted to be of concern in the Hattersley letter.
Additionally, neither the preferred alternative in the proposed
plan or the selected remedy in this ROD included the
development of a reservoir at the Travis location on upper
Tenmile Creek. Rather, in both documents the proposed action is
to upgrade Chessman Reservoir to allow for additional water
storage.

C-12

-------
Comment Letter on Proposed Plan from Tom and Caroline Hattersley -
November 21, 2001

Today, I phoned your office and learned that you were out for
the day, but I did speak with your colleague Jim Harris. Mr.
Harris gave me your name and address and suggested that we
write to you with our concerns. Mr. Harris also arranged for me
to obtain a copy of the "Proposed Plan," which I picked up this
afternoon. We briefly reviewed that plan, which makes reference
only to possible construction of a reservoir at one of two
potential locations, "Travis (on Upper Tenmile Creek) or Banner
Creek." We are not familiar with a separate "Travis Creek" near
the location depicted for a potential "Travis Reservoir Site" on
Figure 2 in the Plan document.

The Travis Creek which is the subject of our concern lies to the
north of Chessman Reservoir, and flows east out of Black Hall
Meadows, which lies directly north of Chessman Reservoir.

The Travis and Banner Creek proposed reservoir location, on the
other hand, appears to lie west of Scott Reservoir. We would
appreciate clarification of which "Travis Creek" is involved. Our
comments are specifically focused on the Travis Creek which has
its headwaters in the mountains surrounding Black Hall
Meadows.

We have resided in the Travis Creek area for close to 20 years. In
fact, Travis Creek runs through our property. We have several
wells on our property, and have livestock water rights in the
creek. Over the many years we have lived in this area, we have
regularly hiked, and ridden our horses, and bicycles, throughout
it. We are very familiar with Colorado Mountain, Black Hall

Q-.VTenmiie\Record of Decision\Final ROD (for real) June 20CE\Append C - Respons Summ\C-ftFinal RODC-I.wpd

Response

-------
Comment Letter on Proposed Plan from Tom and Caioline Hattersley-
November 21, 2001

Meadows, Travis Creek, and the North Fork of Travis Creek.

Our greatest concern is that any activity in the Travis Creek
watershed, in particular planning designed to capture and divert
sources of additional water for Helena, will have a dramatic
adverse impact on that watershed.

The last four or five years of drought have already significantly
impacted this area. The water table appears to have dropped
significantly, springs have dried up, and the creek stopped
flowing for a period of time.

Travis Creek is an important part of the main creek flow running
all the way down Travis Creek Road and Lump Gulch to Clancy.
There are a number of homes with more being constructed all the
time, within the Travis Creek drainage, particularly as the creek
makes it way to Clancy. Aside from the obvious importance of
the water table and aquifer to the many residents within the
watershed, the creek and the numerous springs in the area are
also an important water source for livestock and wildlife.

The Travis Creek watershed area is perhaps as beautiful as any
land in this State. It is virtually all either a roadless area or within
a motor vehicle restricted area. Blackhall Meadows is now a
roadless area, and is a favored area for hikers and other
recreationalists throughout the greater vicinity.

This watershed in its entirety is host to a significant wildlife
population, including everything from hawk, owl, and eagle
populations to deer and a large number of moose, among other

Q:\Tenmile\Record of Decision\Final ROD (for real) June 20CC\Append C - Respons 9umm\C-l\Fina! RODC-I.wpd

Response

-------
Comment Letter on Proposed Plan from Tom and Caioline Hattersley -
November 21, 2001

animals.

We are not aware of any details concerning the plan for the Ten
Mile cleanup. However, we don t need to know very much about
any plan to capture and divert snow melt or other runoff and
water sources in the Travis Creek watershed to realize that any
such plan will jeopardize and perhaps severely affect the
watershed and its inhabitants, human or otherwise.

If the Plan affects the Travis Creek we are describing, please add
us to your list and provide us with any information you can
which bears upon that Travis Creek area.

We have spoken with neighbors and acquaintances in the area
after seeing the recent article. None of them were aware of any
activity which would affect the Travis Creek watershed.
Hopefully, some effort can be made to inform the people who
will be most impacted as residents of the area so they can
comment and provide input.

For purposes of responding or placing us on your notice list
please use the following contact address and phone number:

Tom and Caroline Hattersley
71 Highland Meadow Road
Clancy, MT 59634

Phone No. (406) 449-2547

I can also be reached at my office address and phone number:

Q:\Tenmite\Record of Deasion\Fina! ROD (for real) June 20GB\Append C - Respons SUmm\C-l\Final RODC-I.wpd

Response

-------
Comment Letter on Proposed Plan from Tom and Caroline Hattersley -
November 21, 2001

Gough, Shanahan, Johnson & Waterman
33 South Last Chance Gulch
P.O. Box 1715
Helena, MT 59624

Phone No. (406) 442-8560

Again, if we are describing concerns over a separate, and
unaffected area, please let us know and disregard these
comments. Thank you, Mr. Bishop.

Very truly yours,

Tom and Caroline Hattersley

Q:\Tenmile\Record of DectsionNFinal ROD (for real) June 20(2\Append C - Respons SLimm\C-l\Final RODC-I.wpd

Response

-------
Comment Letter on Proposed Plan from Lewis & Clark County Board of
Commissioners - November20, 2001

November 20, 2001
Mike Bishop, EPA Project Manager
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
301 South Park Avenue, Drawer 10096
Helena, Montana 59626

Dear Mr. Bishop,

Re: Comments concerning Proposed Plan Upper Tenmile Creek
Mining Area Site, Lewis & Clark County, Montana.

Thank you for allowing us the opportunity to comment on the
Proposed Plan Upper Tenmile Creek Mining Area Site, Lewis &
Clark County, Montana (October 2001) and the Preferred
Alternative (October 2001). Lewis & Clark County's (County)
comments from the Planning, Health, and Public Works
Departments have been consolidated in this letter for your
consideration. Comments are in the order of the layout of the
Preferred Alternative as presented on page 4 of the Proposed
Plan.

A.	Waste Rock and Tailings

The County supports the Preferred Alternative approach of
removal of waste rock and tailings from the higher priority
mine sites with disposal in the Luttrell repository.

B.	Acid Mine Drainage

The County supports the concept of a phased effort to
minimize drainage of storm water and snowmelt into mine
workings by capping and regrading collapsed shafts/adits

Q:\Tenmile\Record of Oacision\Final ROD (for real) June 20C2\Append C - Respons Slimm\C-l\Final RODC-I.wpd

Response

A. The comment is noted.

B. The comment is noted. During remedial design, EPA will
continue to consult with the Lewis & Clark City-County
Health Department regarding the protection of water quality
and the protection of public health.

C-17

-------
Comment Letter on Proposed Plan from Lewis & Clark County Board of

Commissioners - November20, 2001

and constructing drainage diversions at mine w orkings,
followed by design and construction of treatment facilities
for acid mine drainage. The County supports the
collaborative effort of the EPA and State of Montana in the
operation of these treatment facilities to ensure that the acid
mine drainage will be brought in compliance with the state
ambient water quality standards. The County requests that as
the phased program proceeds into the design and planning
of the treatment facilities that the EPA would continue to
consult with the Lewis & Clark City-County H ealth
Department regarding water quality protection and
protection of public health in that planning process.

C. Groundwater

The establishment of institutional controls is necessary to
prevent installation of new drinking water wells in the
contaminated aquifers of the Rimini area. However, the
County is concerned that the Proposed Plan does not address
institutional controls to prevent the ongoing use of the
existing contaminated wells and the potential for this use of
water from the contaminated wells to contribute to spreading
contaminant metals to surface waters and the clean yard soil
through irrigation and other future uses. The County
believes it may be necessary to provide for the capping
and/or abandonment of existing wells that are contaminated,
once an alternative water su pply system is provid ed, to
prevent this cross contamination problem.

Q:\Tenmile\Record of Decision\Final ROD (for real) June 20Q2\Append C - Respons SUmm\C-l\Final RODC-l.wpd

Response

C. EPA has conducted brief conservative mass balance loading
calculations for arsenic to evaluate if there is potential for
significant build-up of arsenic in soils from watering with
contaminated groundwater. Using conservative assumptions
(watering 0.25 inches per day for 90 days, groundwater
arsenic concentration = 100 ng/L,all applied arsenic remains
in the top 2 inches of soil [i.e., there is no flushing of arsenic
from the soil profile from uncontaminated rainfall or
snowmelt], "clean" yard soil conditions are similar to
sitewide background [arsenic concentrations start at 50
mg/kg]), EPA estimates it would take approximately 200
years of watering for the arsenic to approach levels that
would be of concern to human health. With the expectation
that some flushing would occur and that yards replaced with
clean soils imported from outside of the site would have
much lower arsenic concentrations to begin with, EPA has
concluded that there is very slight risk of arsenic building up

C-18

-------
Comment Letter on Proposed Plan from Lewis & Clark County Board of
Commissioners - November20, 2001

D. Surface Water

The County supports the Proposed Plan's Preferred
Alternative of expanding Chessman Reservoir and
improving the Red Mountain flume , thereby allowing the
City of Helena to release stored water into Tenmile Creek
during the low flow summer season. The augmentation of
stream flow will have beneficial effects on water quality and
the fish habitat potential of the entire Tenmile Creek system.
Water rights issues must also be addressed to ensure that the
additional flows remain in the stream beyond the limits of
the Upper Tenmile Creek Mining District Area.

We believe that increased streamflow will benefit water
quality in the Lower Tenmile Creek stream reaches. Flow
augmentation will also benefit residents and other users of
both the Tenmile Creek and the lower Prickly Pear Creek

Q:\Tenmile\Record of Decision\Final ROD (for real) June 20G2\Append C - Respons Sjmm\C-l\Final RODC-I.wpd

Response

in the soils to concentrations of concern and that there is no
reason to restrict use of groundwater for irrigation.

The final location, size, and restrictions of the controlled
groundwater area would be determined through a technical
application and public review process. The controlled
groundwater area may not require a ban on groundwater
wells. At other contaminated groundwater sites, it has been
possible to allow new wells to be installed as long as the
groundwater is sampled and not used for drinking water if
found to be contaminated. Rimini residents may be able to
use their current wells, or even drill new wells, for irrigation
purposes.

D. The comment is noted. EPA is coordinating with DFWP and
the City of Helena to encourage the execution of an instream
flow reservation by DFWP for fisheries enhancement that
would ensure that the water remained in lower Tenmile
Creek.

C-19

-------
Comment Letter on Proposed Plan from Lewis & Clark County Board of

Commissioners - November20, 2001

watersheds. This action will enhance local efforts to ensure
that these streams meet the state and federal requirements for
water quality and beneficial uses, uses that are currently
impaired by historic mining activities within the Upper
Tenmile Creek Mining Area Site.

E.	Stream Sediments

The County agrees with Proposed Plan to evaluate the
stream sediments after the waste rock and acid mine
drainage cleanups to determine the future need for removal
and disposal in the Luttrell repository.

F.	Residential and Recreational Yard Soil

The County supports the Proposed Plan for removal and
replacement of contaminated soils within residential and
recreational yards. However, because this is a one-time effort
in a small community, the County requests that the EPA
reconsider the proposed excavation level for lead. The
County supports the reduction of the excavation level for
lead to 400 parts per million (ppm) to match the recent TSCA
Section 403 Residential Lead Hazard Standard. We believe a
one-time cleanup to this more stringent standard will be the
best protection for future generations of residents and users
of the land and will be protective of the children within the
community.

The County recommends that once EPA completes the yard
replacement effort, institutional controls be implemented
drainage-wide to prevent or minimize future land use actions
that would reintroduce contaminated subsurface soils to

Q:\Tenmile\Record of DectsiorAFinaJ ROD (for real) June 20CE\Append C - Respons SUmm\C-l\Final RODC-I.wpd

Response

E. The comment is noted.

F. The referenced Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Section
403 standard is a two-part standard that recommends an
excavation level of 400 ppm for child play areas with bare
soil and an average level of 1,200 ppm for bare areas within
the remainder of fhe yard. The EPA TSCA guidance is not
Superfund-related and is intended for application where site
information or contaminant concentration data are not
available. It was developed using national default input
parameters in the IEUBK model for lead exposure. For this
site, EPA's proposed remediation and target cleanup levels
were developed also using the IEUBK model, but refining its
use with regional input parameters thought to be more
appropriate for this site. EPA also notes that the residential
yard component of the selected remedy will be driven
primarily by the concentrations of arsenic in the yard soils.
Preliminary remedial design sample results for
approximately 30 yards in Rimini indicate that nearly all
yards will have to be remediated because arsenic

C-20

-------
Comment Letter on Proposed Plan from Lewis & Clark County Board of

Commissioners- November20, 2001

remediated areas. Institutional controls should include
ongoing education about the potential health risks of
contaminated soils; notification of previous remediation and
notification of required permit process prior to subsequent
surface disturbances. All notifications should be done in
writing and recorded in the Lewis and Clark County's Clerk
and Recorder's Office. Future landowners excavating
basements or foundations for new buildings or performing
other land disturbance actions must do so in a manner that
avoids creating a new contamination problem. The
institutional controls could be similar to the permit system
implemented in East Helena that requires a permit for land
disturbance. This system allows the landowner to be
informed of the risks and the appropriate methods of
handling the excavated soils.

G. Contaminated Roadway Materials

The County believes that other alternatives beyond the three
considered in the Proposed Plan should be evaluated. We
specifically support paving the existing road, thus
encapsulating the waste rock and tailings used to repair the
road after the 1981 flood damage. Although this alternative
may have a higher initial capital cost, the long term
operational and maintenance costs, which are the
responsibility of the County, would be substantially reduced
with a paved roadway. Also paving will abate road dust
problems for the community and minimize detrimental
impacts to the stream.

Q:\Tenmile\Record of Decision\Final ROD (for real) June 2O02\Append C - Respons SUmm\C-l\Final RODC-I.wpd

Response

concentrations are greater than the cleanup level of 96
mg/kg.

EPA agrees that institutional controls should be established
by the county to inform landowners about property
conditions and prevent the release of contaminated
subsurface soils. Since the Rimini area has such a small
population, it may be possible to conduct an educational and
permitting program without significant cost. In consultation
with the state, EPA has determined that the remedy for
contaminated yard soils will require the excavation and
disposal of all accessible soils, not just the uppermost 18
inches. This approach should effectively remove most
contaminated soils in the Rimini community and minimize
the need for long-term institutional controls to prevent
contaminant remobilization and potential future exposure.

G. Based on this and other comments, EPA reevaluated the
alternatives for remediating the contaminated roadway
materials. Including the potential paving of that portion of
the roadway in the residential area of Rimini. Based largely
on concerns expressed by the State of Montana over the long-
term maintenance of alternatives that would leave
contaminated roadway materials in place, EPA has selected
total removal and disposal of accessible contaminated
materials as the remedy for roadways. The remedy
addresses approximately 5,000 feet of roadway within the
community of Rimini. Excavation to depth is expected to
have greater short-term impacts to the community during
construction, but will provide a more secure and easy-to-
maintain remedy in the long-term.

C-21

-------
Comment Letter on Proposed Plan from Lewis & Clark County Board of
Commissioners - November20, 2001

The 1998 Road Evaluation Report prepared by the Lewis &
Clark County Public Works Department provides estimates
of the cost of road paving. To lay 6 inches of crushed gravel
and 2.5 inches of asphalt overlay cost approximately $250,000
per mile. The projected test area for the roadbed from the
Chessman Reservoir turnoff to the Martin residence or the
City of Helena Tenmile Creek water intake is a distance of
approximately 1.5 miles. If paving is selected, project
planning should consider beginning the paving effort at the
Chessman Reservoir turnoff to link to the U.S. Forest Service
and Federal Highway Administration improvement project,
which proposes to pave Rimini Road to the Chessman
Reservoir turnoff from the conjunction with Highway 12.

The County is also concerned that the Preferred Alternative
of the Proposed Plan requiring excavation of the
contaminated roadbed materials to a depth of 18 inches with
the transport of the waste to the Luttrell repository and
reconstruction of the road with clean material having to be
mined and trucked in would cause substantial disruption of
the community and have potentially more detrimental
impacts to the stream from the construction effort, then the
current perceived problem. Paving of the current roadbed
would be the best long term solution to the contaminated
road base problem and minimize future road maintenance
and storm water ru noff problems.

However, if paving of the roadbed is not the selected remedy
the County supports the RD2 alternative of regrading and

Q:\Tenmile\Record of DecisiorAFinal ROD (for real) June 20Q2\Append C - Respons SUmm\C-l\Final RODC-I.wpd

Response

EPA does not believe that the portion of the road from the
Beaver Creek road turnoff to Rimini proper (approximately
2,500 feet) exhibits significant potential risk from
contaminated subsurface roadway materials. The potential
risk is limited because the road is on national forest lands
that will not be residentially developed, effectively
preventing the potential for future residential setting
exposure. Therefore, EPA does not propose to remove road
materials from that portion of the road. Paving of that
section of the road could be considered as part of the Federal
Highway Ad ministration project.

C-22

-------
Comment Letter on Proposed Plan from Lewis & dark County Board of
Commissioners - November20, 2001

capping the roadway with 18 inches of clean road base
material.

H. Rimini Water Supply

The County supports the Proposed Plan's objective to
develop a community water supply system for the residents
of the Rimini area to replace the contaminated groundwater
supply wells. The new groundwater source must be of
sufficient quantity to meet the need s of the current residents
and must incorporate design capacity for future growth and
development. The County agrees with EPA that this
community water supply system must be owned and
operated by the users of the system.

The creation of a local water district would be an appropriate
mechanism to ensure fiscal responsibility for operational and
maintenance costs of the system and will provide the
financial mechanism to generate reserves to replace major
equipment in the future. The County strongly recommends
that the formation of a water and sewer district be
undertaken at the beginning of this process. This allows the
new district to be in a position to deal with the numerous
wastewater issues of the community that must be addressed
in the future (i.e. outdated and failing septic systems and
floodplain restrictions). Creation of a water and sewer
district originally is much easier then trying to change a
water district into a water and sewer district later.

The County would like to commend the U.S. EPA for moving
forward with this cleanup effort in a timely fashion. We hope the

Q:\Tenmile\Record of Decision\Final ROD (for real) June 20QZ\Append C - Respons 3jmm\C-l\Final RODC-I.wpd

Response

H. The comment is noted. Rimini residents are currently
attempting to form a rural water and sewer district.

C-23

-------
Comment Letter on Proposed Plan from Lewis & Clark County Board of
Commissioners - November20, 2001

implementation of the final plan will progress as quickly as
possible. The County asks that the U.S. EPA continue to
collaborate and consult with Lewis & Clark County Health
Department, Water Quality Protection District, Planning
Department, and Public Works Department in planning and
implementation efforts for this cleanup as appropriate.

Sincerely,

Lewis and Clark County
Board of Commissioners

Karolin J. Loendorf, Chair
Michael A. Murray
Anita L. Varone

Q:\Tenmile\Record of Decision\FinaJ ROD (for real) June 20GE\Append C - Respons 3jmm\C-l\Final RODC-I.wpd

Response

-------
Comment Letter on Proposed Plan from Jim Posewitz, Orion/the
Hunters Institute - October 24, 2001

October 24, 2001

Mike Bishop, EPA Project Manager
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
301 South Park Avenue, Drawer 10096
Helena, MT 59626

Dear Mike,

I have reviewed the "Proposed Plan, Upper Tenmile Creek Mining
Area Site, Lewis and Claik County, Montana October 2001 (The
Plan). This commentary is provided as part of the public
participation response required under Section 117(a) of the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and
Liability Act of 1980, 42 USC Section 9601 et seq. (CERCLA or
Superfund).

General Commentary

A.	The project to clean up abandoned mine wastes and other
contamination in the Tenmile drainage is supported.
Likewise the preferred alternative is supported and we are
pleased to note that Chessman Reservoir and improvements
to the Red Mountain flume are part of the preferred
alternative.

B.	Page 1. "In a nutshell: EPA's Proposed Cleanup Plan"

We appreciate the decision to enhance water storage and
stream flow by expanding Chessman Reservoir and
improving the Red Mountain flume. This selection

Q:\Tenmile\Record of D«cision\Final ROD (for real) June 20Q2\Append C - Respons 9jmm\C-l\Final RODC-l.wpd

Response

A. The comment is noted.

B. The comment is noted. EPA's identification and adoption of
the Chessman upgrade option for additional water storage
was in large part based on the need to find an alternative that
would have less impact on wetlands and wildlife than a new
reservoir at the headwaters of Tenmile Creek.

C-25

-------
Comment Letter on Proposed Plan from Jim Posewitz, Orion/the
Hunters Institute - October 24, 2001

contributes to preserving terrestrial wildlife, amphibian and
aquatic values at the alternative Travis Dam site. Thank you
for being responsive to earlier comments on that issue.

C. We support improvement of the Rimini water supply system.
This feature could contribute to increased residential
development of the private lands in Rimini and perhaps it
would be appropriate to consider waste treatment
circumstances and options as part of this package.
Recognition of this possibility, if it is relevant, would be
appropriate.

Q:\Tenmile\Record of DecisionVFinal ROD (for real) June 20(2\Append C - Respons SUmm\C-l\Final RODC-I.wpd

Response

C. The comment appropriately notes that development of a

community water system may promote residential growth in
Rimini and may therefore indirectly increase the likelihood
that Rimini may have to install a community wastewater
treatment facility in the future. Small lot sizes and
inadequate soil conditions may limit the ability of residents
to utilize individual septic systems as the community grows.
EPA has encouraged the establishment of a rural water and
sewer district as it develops its water system. EPA will fund
the construction of the community water system because it is
necessary to provide a source of potable water to replace the
groundwater source contaminated by mining-related releases
of hazardous substances into the Rimini-area aquifers. EPA
has also included a contingency in the remedy for
contaminated yard soils whereby EPA will construct a
wastewater collection and treatment system, if necessary, to
replace existing individual septic systems that may be
damaged during the removal of contaminated soils. Many
systems in Rimini may not be replaceable as individual
systems in their current locations because of stringent design
criteria currently in place.

C-26

-------
Comment Letter on Proposed Plan from Jim Posew'tz, Orion/the
Hunters Institute - October 24, 2001

D.	Page 2. 'Site Background"

Since the 'site' of this project includes 70 abandoned mines
scattered throughout the d rainage other resource valu es in
the drainage are going to be impacted by the cleanup. We
believe a description of those resources and values needs to
be included in the site background and description. Wildlife
and recreation throughout the drainage have become valued
public resources. In addition, the site's relevance to wildlife
conservation corridors mentioned in our August 30, 2001
letter to EPA and the USFS should be addressed. The
Tenmile drainage is positioned in a very vulnerable portion
of the wild land habitat corridor connecting the Glacier/Bob
Marshall complex to wildlands in the Yellowstone area. This
geographic position alone suggests the need to recognize the
importance of retaining, or at least restoring, Tenmile's
wildlife habitat security while cleaning up its toxic legacy.
Likewise, as a component of a continental wildlife corridor
the welfare of listed (grizzly, lynx, wolf) species are necessary
considerations.

E.	Page 6, "Ecological Risk Assessment"

Comments offered above in the "Site Background" section
apply as well to this section. The network of upgraded
access and haul roads and their future disposition represent a
significant ecological risk for wildlife in Tenmile. The roads
likewise represent a potential source of sediment
contamination unless they are obliterated and reclaimed. It
is a risk that this Proposed Plan must acknowledge and deal

Q:\Tenmile\Record of Decision\Final ROD (for real) June 20(2\Append C - Respons SUmm\C-l\Final RODC-I.wpd

Response

D. The comment is noted. EPA recognizes the importance of
recreation and wildlife resources throughout the upper
Tenmile Creek watershed. EPA intends to implement the
selected remedy to achieve remedial action objectives, but to
do so in a manner that minimizes adverse impacts on
wildlife and recreational values. For this project, EPA must
balance the need to take action to protect human health and
the environment with potential impacts caused by and the
costs of the actions taken. Wildlife is one, but not the only,
resource that EPA must factor into its evaluation of project
benefits and impacts. Other factors include the fishery and
aquatic environment of Tenmile Creek and its tributaries,
groundwater, surface water used as the source for 70 percent
of the City of Helena's potable water supply, property rights
of the owners of private mining claims within the watershed,
various recreational uses (motorized and non-motorized),
and costs that must be borne by EPA, the State of Montana,
and local residents.

E. EPA recognizes that there are potential short-term (during
construction) and long-term risks to wildlife that may result
from the construction and maintenance of access and haul
roads necessary to implement the selected remedy. There is
also the potential for increased sediment loading from the
access roads to watershed stream s. EPA intends to address
those potential risks during the remedial design phase of the
project, which will occur over a period of years as detailed
plans and specification for the various elements of the

C-27

-------
Comment Letter on Proposed Plan from Jim Posewitz, Orion/the
Hunters Institute - October 24, 2001

with in the planning process. The roads are real, many
already in place, more to be built or upgraded and no plan
seems to be in place for their final disposition. Likewise, the
fate of the private property assets being upgraded and
accessed at public expense should be addressed. Decisions
made as to the future use of these lands could have lasting
ecological impacts that should be acknowledged. It would
seem that the public investment should warrant some
consideration for public values we seek to preserve in this
drainage.

Q:\Tenmile\Record of Decision\Final ROD (for real) June 20CB\Append C - Respons 9umm\C~l\Final RODC-I.wpd

Response

selected remedy are prepared. EPA will work closely with
USFS, wildlife resource managers, DEQ, private property
owners, and other interested parties to ensure that wildlife
resources are appropriately considered in the design process.
EPA's overall design approach will be to restrain
construction disturbance to the minimum amount necessary
to complete the remedy. Road improvements, road width,
tree removal, and the excavation footprint area will be
minimized to the degree possible. EPA's action will attempt
to minimize the need for long-term O&M so that
maintenance access roads will be unnecessary or minimal.
EPA will generally reclaim roads to pre-remedial conditions.
However, EPA recognizes that most of the high-priority mine
sites at which action will be taken have relatively good access
at present. One of the key factors in scoring the sites as high
priority was ease of excess, allowing for easy exposure to site
contaminants.

EPA's does not believe that its remedial action will determine
the fate of private property assets and future use of lands
within the upper Tenmile Creek watershed. Superfund is not
the proper vehicle for defining, evaluating, discussing, and
deciding future land management and land use issues. Land
and resource management decisions are appropriately the
responsibility of federal land managers, state wildlife
managers, local governmental entities, and private
landowners. Those decisions, requiring extensive public
participation and public comment and considering a wide
range of issues, are beyond the limited scope of Superfund.
EPA will coordinate its actions with those parties to be

C-28

-------
Comment Letter on Proposed Plan from Jim Posewitz, Orion/the
Hunters Institute - October 24, 2001

F. Page 7. "Upper Tenmile Creek Watershed Group"

Item number 4) in this section needs to be expanded to
include 'habitat security for resident wildlife and protection
of wildlife conservation corridor connections.' These issues
were raised at the August 23ni Watershed Group meeting by
Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, and again
during the August 29th field trip into the area.

Sincerely,
Jim Posewitz
Director At Large

CC

Tom Clifford, USFS
Mike Korn, MDFW&P

Q:\Tenmile\Record of DecisioriVFinal ROD (for real) June 20Q2\Append C - Respons SUmm\C-l\Final RODC-I.wpd

Response

consistent with current and likely future land management
uses and restrictions.

F. The comment is noted. Please refer to the responses to
comments D and E.

C-29

-------
Comment Letter on Proposed Plan from Anthony Perpignano -
November 7, 2001

Mike Bishop
U.S. EPA

301 S. Park, Drawer 10096
Helena, Mt 59601
November 7, 2001

Dear Mr. Bishop:

I was very intrigued by the recent article in the Independent
Record on Saturday, November 3, 2001. As a board member of
the Pat Barnes / Missouri River Chapter of Trout Unlimited and
as a concerned resident of the Helena Valley, I would like to
discuss with you the issue of water in the lower section of Ten
Mile Creek.

I would like to suggest that a water study be done for the section
of Ten Mile Creek from the Blue Cloud area though the valley to
its mouth at the Prickly Pear just south of Lake Helena. I would
be willing to gather the names of several land owners who own
water rights on this section of the creek and work toward seeing
if there is a solution that might allow this beaten down stream to
retain water throughou t the year. Being optimistic, I wonder if
we could involve several conservation groups like the Prickly
Pear Land Trust, Trout Unlimited, and perhaps some local
organizations that might be interested in "green spaces," such as
parks or conservation easements.

As an architect with an eye toward planning, I see the potential
to maintain and nurture this drainage so that one day, (in the
near future) as the growth expands into the valley, Ten Mile

Q:\Tenmile\Record of Decision\Final ROD (for real) June 20GRAppend C - Res pons Sjmm\C-l\FinaJ RODC-J.wpd

Response

The comments in this letter are noted. Since EPA'sSuperfund
selected remedy addresses only the upper Tenmile Creek
watershed, south of Highway 12 and upgradient of the Helena
Tenmile Water Treatment Plant, the actions suggested in the
letter, while valid, can not be undertaken as part of this EPA
Superfund project.

However, EPA's plan to conduct mine site cleanups and increase
storage capacity in Chessman Reservoir to allow for more water
to augment the instream flows in Tenmile Creek should translate
to benefits from improved water quality and increased flow in
lower Tenmile Creek downstream of the Superfund site.

The Lewis and Clark County Water Protection District is in the
beginning stages of developing a watershed improvement
program for lower Tenmile Creek. EPA recommends that Mr.
Perpignano contact Mr. Jim Wilbur at the Water Protection
District to obtain more information about and provide input to
the district's plans.

C-30

-------
Comment Letter on Proposed Plan from Anthony Perpignano -
November 7, 2001

becomes the main back bone to future development. A linear
park with green spaces and conscious development to
compliment it s physical features.

The way I see It, we can take one of two approaches to Ten Mile
Creek. First, and in my opinion the least desirable solution
would be to do what was done in Los Angeles. Ignore the
drainage as a migratory route for Salmonoids and build concrete
culverts to control water flow. Build up around the culverts and
forget about it. The second involves less resources, but a little
more imagination, and that would be to work with land owners,
concerned citizen groups, city and county planners and develop
a solution that embraces the creek ,while allowing development
to occur throughout the area. This can and has been done
successfully, and as a result, the whole community benefits.

In good water years, I have been fortunate enough to stalk trout
in the early fall only a block away from my house on McHugh
Drive. I have wrestled 16" brown trout and rainbows. After
fishing this creek for a dozen years, I know where the resident
fish are. I know the best sections, and I know the sections to
avoid. I can say with some level of confidence that some of these
larger fish are not residents. When there is water in this creek,
the fish migrate through Hauser Lake, into Lake Helena, and up
the Prickly Pear. Some actually make it as far as McHugh Drive
and some push towards Green Meadow.

All I'm saying is that there is potential here, and we won t get a
second chance. I would be very grateful if we could set up a
convenient time to further discuss these issues,

Q:\Tenmile\Record of Decision\Final ROD (for real) June 20C2\Append C - Respons SUmm\C-l\Final RODC-I.wpd

Response

-------
Comment Letter on Proposed Plan from Anthony Perpignano -
November 7, 2001

Thank you,

Anthony Perpignano AIA,

Board Member of the Pat Barnes/Missouri River Chapter of
Trout Unlimited

Q:\Tenmile\Record of Decision\Final ROD (for real) June 20CE\Append C - Respons Simm\C-l\Final RODC-I.wpd

Response

-------
Comment Letter on Proposed Plan from John Rundquist, City of
Helena - November 21, 2001

City of Helena
316 N. Park Avenue
Helena, Montana 59623
November 21, 2001

Mike Bishop
EPA Project Manager
US Environmental Protection Agency
301 South Park Avenue - Drawer 10096
Helena, Montana 59626

Subject: Proposed Plan Upper Tenmile Creek Mining Area Site
Dear Mike,

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed
plan. We appreciate that this is the culmination of a huge amount
of work and cooperation between differing interests. As you
know, the Ten Mile Basin is the primary water supply for the
City of Helena and has been for more than 100 years. The City
has a major investment in supply, storage and treatment facilities
in the basin and an obligation to preserve and protect the
quantity and quality of water for the benefit of Helena residents
and customers.

A. A historical effect of the City's priority allocation of the
basin's water is that lower reaches of the stream below the
City's diversion can be nearly dewatered for extended
periods during the sum mer months. This effect is
exacerbated by drought when the City has difficulty meeting

Q:\Tenmile\Record of OecisiorAFinal ROD (for real) June 20C2\Append C - Respons Sjmm\C-l\Fina1 RODC-I.wpd

Response

A. The comment is noted. EPA appreciates the City of Helena's
cooperation and support of the preferred alternative and of the
efforts by many parties to augment stream flows and improve
water quality in Tenmile Creek during seasonal low flow
periods. Successful implementation of the selected remedy w ill

C-33

-------
Comment Letter on Proposed Plan from John Rundquist, City of

Helena - November 21, 2001

demand and stream flows are low anyway. As noted in the
plan, the low flows accumulate toxic levels of mine waste
contaminants in the stream reach below the City's diversion
to the detriment of fish and aquatic life.

The Alternatives, 6 and 7 include provisions for
augmentation of flow in Tenmile Creek. This would be
accomplished by increasing the volume of storage in the
City's Chessman Reservoir and by increasing the delivery of
spring runoff water to Chessman with improvements to the
Red Mountain flume. The added volume of water in City's
reservoirs would then be managed to release flow from Scott
Reservoir during seasonal low flow periods. This approach
would both preserve the City's water storage capacity and
provide increased flow in the contaminated reaches of Ten
Mile Creek.

Although there are numerous technical, financial, permitting
and legal issues to work through before the plan can become
a reality, the preferred alternative #5 as well as #6 and #7 are
all supported in concept by the City. We look forward to
continuing to work and support the efforts of the USEPA and
Tenmile Creek stakeholders in advancing the selected
alternative.

B. The City is a large landowner in the Tenmile watershed with
the acquisition of the original water supply system and
various mining properties over the years. With respect to the
Chessman Reservoir, the City leases this property from the
US Forest Service. A land trade between the USFS and City

Q:\Tenmile\Record of Decision\Firtal ROD (for real) June 20C2\Append C • Respons Sbmm\C-l\Final RODC-I.wpd

Response

require long-term commitment by the city to manage water
releases from Scott reservoir and allow the released water to
bypass the existing water system intake structure on Tenmile
Creek in Rimini. EPA will work closely with the city and other
parties to address the technical, financial, legal, and permitting
issues that must be resolved to implement that portion of the
remedy.

B. The comment is noted. EPA will work closely with USFS and
the city to help facilitate the suggested land exchange.

C-34

-------
Comment Letter on Proposed Plan from John Rundquist, City of
Helena - November 21, 2001

has been discussed many times to acquire the Chessman site
and flume. Transfer of this property to City ownership with a
land exchange will be integral to the Chessman
improvements and will also help the USFS consolidate land
holdings along the Continental Divide. The City would
strongly support the facilitation of this exchange with the
CERCLA process.

Thank you again for the opportunity to comment and for
participation in a potential solution which will improve the
health of the watershed and protect this resource for all
stakeholders.

Sincerely,

John Runquist, P.E.

Public Works Director

c: Tim Burton

Q:\Tenmile\Record of D«ision\Firtal ROD (for real) June 20GE\Append C - Respons SUmm\C-l\Final RODC-I.wpd

Response

-------
Comment Letter on Proposed Plan from Diane Tipton - no date

Mike Bishop, EPA Project Manager
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
301 South Park Avenue, Drawer 10096
Helena, MT 59626

Dear Mr. Bishop:

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed
mine waste clean up alternatives for the Upper Ten mile
Watershed. I've bulleted my comments for the record below.

•	Expansion of Chessman Reservoir and improvement of the
flume system is an economically feasible solution that is
significantly more environmentally sensitive than other
options suggested, in my opinion. Thank you for listening
and making this adjustment.

•	Town of Rimini needs drinkable water, but I'm glad to see
residents will be the primary ones to decide how it will be
done and managed. Without their full support, involvement
and commitment to long-term maintenance whether that is
by actively managing it or simply paying the bills, it will be a
rough road. This is a new level of commitment and
interaction for that community and it isn't dear to me
whether they have the leadership and unity to pull this off,
but I remain hopeful. Since I'm not personally affected, I
don't have strong feelings on this but appreciate EPA's
flexibility in trying to assist the residents.

•	Any new roads created or improved to handle the hauling of
the mine waste and reclamation of adit discharges and other

Q:\Tenmile\Record of Derision\Final ROD (for real) June 20G2\Append C - Respons SUmm\C-l\Final RODC-I.wpd

Response

The comment is noted.

The comment is noted.

EPA's intent is to improve access roads only to the extent necessary
to conduct its remedial action, and then to reclaim the roads.

C-36

-------
Comment Letter on Proposed Plan from Diane Tipton - no date

related work should, I think, be built in the future to the
lowest standard workable, as this project progresses through
the next five to ten years. In addition, all roads impacted by
the EPA need to be reclaimed back to their original width
and condition, and/or eliminated where new roads were
created. I'd like a standard similar to thel mile of road per
square mile of area recommended by Montana Fish, Wildlife
& Parks to the USFS explored. Roads shouldn't be built until
funds are secured to do the entire job. The bottom line is that
as a resident of this area I don't want to have the high
country opened to further public access by default because
EPA built these roads and didn't reclaim them to their
original condition. Funds to reclaim the roads associated
with hauling waste and access to a particular mine should be
factored into the total cost of that segment of the total work
so road reclamation isn't and after thought.

•	No additional projects or changes in the Upper Tenmile
Watershed should be initiated by the EPA directly or
indirectly that increase recreational opportunities and public
access in the Upper Tenmile. The EPA's job is to focus on the
mine waste clean up and the water quantity and quality
issues. Incidental recreational concerns, increases in
recreational access to the area, or other "improvement"
projects are not on the EPA's agenda.

•	Habitat protection is by default on the EPA agenda. No
matter how the EPA work is handled it will have a
significant impact on the wildlife species in this area. I want
to see EPA take every measure and show every willingness
to work with Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks, the US Forest

Q:\Tenmile\Record of Derision\Final ROD (for real) June 20C2\Append C - Respons 9umm\C-l\Final RODC-I.wpd

Response

During remedial design, EPA will work with federal and state land
and resource managers, property owners, and other affected parties
to determine detailed access and haul road specifications and plans
for road reclamation.

The comment is noted.

EPA will coordinate closely with federal and state land and wild life
managers to minimize potential impacts on wildlife.

C-37

-------
Comment Letter on Proposed Plan from Diane Tipton - no date

Service and US Fish and Wildlife Service to protect species
from the impacts of this work.

•	Wildlife impacts include noise, traffic patterns throughout
the gulch, increased exposure to humans etc. I would like to
see FWP work as an active team member with the EPA in
monitoring and proposing wildlife-friendly alternatives
throughout the clean up process and in assisting in advising
and implementing any land deals or other habitat restoration
or preservation that might become necessary or
advantageous as a result of the work being done in the
watershed.

•	Some of the adit discharges are associated with very small
mine waste dumps in hard to reach areas where reclamation
and cleanup will do more harm to the environment that
improvement to water quality. I would like to see
environmentally friend ly alternatives considered for these
locations which would not require the building of new roads
or road improvements and which would allow little or no
disturbance in the area. With funding as tight as it is, the
projects in this overall clean up effort should be very
carefully prioritized and the associated environmental
disturbance that would result should be considered as an
intrinsic "qost" weighed against any potential benefit.

Again, thank you for the op portunity to comm ent.

Diane Tipton

1968 Rimini Road

Helena, Montana 59601

Q:\TanmlJe\Hecord of Decision\Flnal ROD (for real) June 20GE\Append C - Respons SUmm\C-l\Final RODC-I.wpd

Response

EPA will coordinate with DFWP closely during remedial design to
develop mine-specific cleanup plans that minimize impacts to
wildlife.

EPA will evaluate all adit discharges during remedial design. The
evaluation will consider relative contaminant loading to Tenmile
Creek and tributary streams, as well as adverse impacts that would
result from construction and operation of remedial actions.
Superfund requirements for compliance with state surface water
quality standards will also be considered.

C-38

-------
Comment Letter on Proposed Plan from R. Mark Wilson, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service - November 21, 2001

November 21, 2001
Mike Bishop

Remedial Project Manager
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
301 South Park, Drawer 10096
Helena, MT 59626

Dear Mr. Bishop:

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has reviewed the
document entitled, "Proposed Plan, Upper Tenmile Creek
Mining Area Site, Lewis and Clark County, Montana" under a
technical assistance Interagency Agreement with EPA. The
Service concurs with the selection of Alternative 5 as the
preferred alternative. The implementation of the preferred
alternative will result in significant water quality improvement
and substantial water flows in the Upper Tenmile Creek. I
commend EPA s efforts in successfully addressing this difficult
task. In addition, the Service has the following comments on the
document.

A. Chessman Reservoir Expansion

The Service agrees with the proposed plan for enlarging
Chessman Reservoir as a means to increase stream flows in
Upper Tenmile Creek. However, increasing the size of
Chessman Reservoir will inundate at least a portion of a 61.2
acre wetland located on the southern shore of the Reservoir
(see inclosed map). Further, wetland areas not directly
impacted from construction or inundation could be impacted
from hydrologic changes associated with fluctuating water

Q:\Tenmile\Record of Decision\Final ROD (for real) June 20C2\Append C - Respons Summ\C-l\Final RODC-I.wpd

Response

A. EPA appreciates the comments and suggestions by the
USFWS. A preliminary conceptual drawing showing the
revised pool of Chessman Reservoir can be found in the
addendum to the draft RI and draft FS reports. EPA
estimates that the proposed expansion of Chessman will
inundate approximately 15 to 20 acres of current wetlands.
During remedial design, EPA will consult with the USFWS
in determining wetland losses and establishing appropriate
mitigation approaches and wetland replacement for those

C-39

-------
Comment Letter on Proposed Plan from R. Mark Wilson, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service - November 21, 2001

levels, as well as copper sulfate treatment. Once plans for the
Chessman Reservoir expansion have been drafted, potential
wetland loss could be determined. The Service could then
calculate wetland mitigation acres needed based on the
Habitat Equivalency (HEA) model in order to insure
compliance with wetland Applicable or Relevant and
Appropriate Requirements (ARARs). Depending on the
mitigation acres needed, Banner Creek wetland could
provide a suitable site for mitigation.

B. Utilization of the HEA model will provide an accurate
estimate of the acres needed for mitigation based on
productivity of the natural and the mitigated wetland. The
Service has concerns about mitigating a high altitude
wetland because of the time required for the wetland to
become fully functional under short growing seasons. In the
HEA model, mitigation acreage, the Service recommends
that mitigation be completed prior to the loss of the
Chessman Reservoir wetland. This would reduce the
amount of lost wetland services, and thus the mitigation
acreage required. The Service is available to assist with
wetland delineation and evaluation during remedial design.

Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the
aforementioned document. The Service looks forward to
participating in the remediation of the Upper Tenmile Creek
Mining Area Site and is ready to assist in the development and
implementation of any post-remedy biological monitoring plans.
Should you have any questions concerning these comments or

Q:\Tenmile\Record of DecisionNFinal ROD (for real) June 20C2\Append C - Respons SLmm\C-l\Final RODC-I.wpd

Response

loses. EPA agrees that a prime candidate site for wetlands
mitigation would be to improve the impaired wetlands along
Banner Creek. EPA also recommends that EPA and USFWS
jointly conduct detailed evaluation of the current baseline
wetlands conditions at both the Chessman location and the
Banner Creek location prior to remedial design.

B. In consultation with USFWS, EPA will incorporate wetlands
mitigation into its overall remedial action planning, design,
and construction process. The timing of wetlands mitigation
will be dependent on where and when other site construction
activities are occurring and on funding considerations.

C-40

-------
Comment Letter on Proposed Plan from R. Mark Wilson, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service - November 21, 2001

require additional information, please contact Ms. Karen Nelson
of this office at (406) 449-5225 extension 210.

Sincerely,

R. Mark Wilson
Montana Field Supervisor

Enclosure

cc: USEPA, R-8, Denver, CO (Attn: Dr. Dan Wall)

Q:\Tenmile\ReconJ of DecisiorAFinal ROD (for real) June 20C2\Append C - Respons Summ\C-[\Final RODC-I.wpd

Response

C-41

-------
Comment Letter on Proposed Plan from Tom Clifford, U.S. Forest
Service - January 7, 2002

Mr. Mike Bishop, EPA Project Manager
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
301 South Park Ave., Drawer 10096
Helena, MT 59626

Dear Mike:

This letter is in regards to U.S. EPA-Region VIII's Proposed Plan -
Upper Tenmile Creek Mining Area Site, Lewis and Clark County,
Montana. We appreciate your efforts to continue with
substantive water quality improvements in the Tenmile basin
and your efforts to maintain the spirit of cooperation between
agencies, interested groups and landowners. Thank you for this
opportunity to provide our comments. We look forward to the
good work that is still to come.

Our comments are grouped into several sections for clarity
which include: I. General Comments on the Proposed Plan, II.
Resource specific comments on the Proposed Plan; III.Followup
comments to our joint meeting regarding roads on November 27,
2001; and IV. Identification of a conceptual process for
proceeding with a land exchange between the City of Helena and
the Forest Service to resolve issues regarding enlargement of
Chessman Reservoir.

I. General Comments on the Proposed Plan

We have identified several items in the Plan that will likely occur
in whole or part on National Forest System lands. These include
removal and d isposal of contaminated materials to the Luttrell

Upper Tenmile Creek ROD

Response

-------
Comment Letter on Proposed Plan from Tom Clifford, U.S. Forest
Service - January 7, 2002

repository, source controls and treatment facilities of acid mine
drainages, enlargement of the Chessman reservoir, and removal
of contaminated roadway materials. The Chessman reservoir
item will be discussed below. As always, we are looking for
solutions that minimize long term operations and maintenance,
minimize potential conflicts with landowners and Forest Service
permits, and retain the inherent character of National Forest
System lands within the framework of meeting Remedial Action
Objectives. At some future juncture, we would like to have a
joint meeting with you as the Remedial Project Manager and
Steve Way, the Removal Project manager regarding the transition
of duties and responsibilities for theLuttrell Pit Repository and
ancillary facilities.

It is our understanding that the specifics of design and execution
of many of the proposed cleanup items will be done with our
followup involvement through the process identified in the
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the USDA
Forest Service, Northern Region and Environmental Protection
Agency Region VIII Regarding Abandoned Mine Land Response
Actions in the Basin, Cataract, Tenmile and Nearby Watersheds
within Jefferson, Powell and Lew is and Clark Counties,

Montana. I expect the MOU will be signed early in January of
2002. Will you be preparing a Work Plan or similar document
that lays out a proposed overall schedule for completing the
items identified in the Record of Decision? Possibly we could set
up an annual joint meeting in the early fall that identifies the
work items to be developed in that year so that my staff can plan
their involvement accordingly. We should also schedule a joint

Upper Tenmile Creek ROD

Response

EPA will work closely with the USFS during remedial design
and remedial action. An early step in EPA's remedial design
process will be to establish an overall project design and
implementation schedule. When a draft of that schedule is
prepared, EPA will provide copies to DEQ, the USFS, and other
involved parties for review and comment. EPA agrees that
meetings every fall, prior to design, and spring, prior to
construction, would be valuable coordination tools. One agenda
item for the spring 2002 meeting should be the overall project
priorities and schedule. It is important to note, however, that
availability of funding may be a major determinant in setting the
final cleanup schedule.

C-43

-------
Comment Letter on Proposed Plan from Tom Clifford, U.S. Forest
Service - January T, 2002

meeting in early spring prior to the upcoming field season to
ensure any lingering issues are resolved.

II. Resource Specific Comments

The MOU referenced above provides a broad general framework
for the EPA and Forest Service to coordinate actions. The
following resource specific comments are especially applicable
on the Helena National Forest for your consideration during
project planning stages.

Heritage

The EPA's acknowledgment in the proposed plan of its historic
preservation obligations under the National Historic
Preservation Act is commendable. The EPA is further
commended for completing in 2001 a baseline analysis of long
term preservation and interpretation opportunities for historic
mining ruins in the Rimini Mining District. This document will
be very useful for identifying heritage resources worthy of
protection early in the project specific planning stages. In this
regard, we are interested in closely coordinating with EPA to
identify, evaluate and actively protect significant historic mining
ruins or features, particularly those on or adjoining National
Forest land.

We strongly encourage the EPA to develop a Memorandum of
Agreement now with the State Historic Preservation Office
(SHPO) and with the Forest Service as a supporting agency, that
clearly identifies the procedures that will be invoked to facilitate

Upper Tenmile Creak ROD

Response

The comment is noted. EPA will continue to involve USFS staff
in discussions and evaluations regarding historic resources at the
site.

EPA intends to pursue development of a memorandum of
agreement with the Montana SHPO. EPA will keep the USFS
informed of and involved in that process.

C-44

-------
Comment Letter on Proposed Plan from Tom Clifford, U.S. Forest
Service - January 7, 2002

protection of significant ruins and features during
implementation of the cleanup items in the Record of Decision.
We also encourage you to work with the Forest Service and
community of Rimini in developing interpretive signing for
historically significant, but cleanup affected mining ruins.

Wildlife

As you are aware, wildlife issues have been raised internally and
from members of other agencies and the public. The prominent
issues include road imp rovements and effects on the connectivity
of wildlife habitat as well as increased future motorized access,
and the potential for increased private land development
associated with improvements in the roads infrastructure,
intentionally or otherwise. While these issues normally are
outside the scope of consideration in analyzing remedial actions,
we appreciate your willingness to explore opportunities to
respond to them within the context of the proposed CERCLA
actions for the Tenmile. We are committed to working with you
to the extent possible to respond to these issues in a timely
manner to minimize impacts to wildlife and other National
Forest resources in the upper Tenmile watershed.

Recreation

Road restrictions or road closures associated with EPA actions
have the potential to impact recreation opportunities on public
land in the Tenmile watershed. Our management interests also
include roads where we may incur a long term maintenance,
custodial or permit management responsibility. We would like to

Upper Tenmile Creek ROD

Response

The comment is noted.

During remedial design, EPA will work closely with the USFS,
USFWS, DFWP, DEQ, affected property owners, and other
interested parties to develop site-specific access road
construction and removal/reclamation specifications. EPA's

C-45

-------
Comment Letter on Proposed Plan from Tom Clifford, U.S. Forest
Service - January 7, 2002

emphasize our involvement during the planning stages of
removal or remedial projects where roads may be impacted.

Watershed

It is important that as part of the design for individual projects
on the Forest that the desired condition of the mine site be agreed
upon. This includes drainage, vegetation, access, etc. We are
interested in pursuing the development of the desired conditions
as part of project planning.

We are interested in being involved in the identification of adit
discharges that will be selected for some kind of treatment
system. We would also Hke you to consider the discharge from
the Paupers pit site at the head of Monitor Creek for a similar
evaluation.

Lands/Roads

As the Proposed Plan has identified, there are approximately 70
priority mine waste sites that are recommended for removal to
the Luttrell repository. Based on our understanding of the issues
associated with upgrading new roads and potential for private
land development, perhaps there are some sites where onsite,
low impact reclamation practices could be implemented where
road improvements and access are not needed. We are assuming
we can explore that possibility during development of the site
specific project plans.

Upper Tenmile Creek ROD

Response

general approach will be to maintain post-remediation road
conditions similar to pre-remediation conditions.

The comment is noted. EPA will work closely with the affected
parties to define desired post-remediation conditions during the
remedial design process.

Last fall, EPA began the initial stage of the ROD-mandated four-
phase approach to addressing acid mine drainage at the site. An
inventory of adit discharges at 37 mine sites was conducted. The
inventory included evaluation of water inflow potential to the
mine workings, measurement of adit discharge flow, and
collection of water quality samples. EPA will provide the USFS
and other parties with the draft report when available. The
referenced discharge from the Paupers Pit site is responsibility of
DEQ and has not been included in EPA's analysis.

EPA will evaluate access road need s during remedial design.
Based on information gathered during the RI/FS process, EPA
determined that removal of waste materials and disposal of the
wastes at the Luttrell repository is the most appropriate remedy
for the 70 noted sites. A key factor in that determination was the
fact that long-term effectiveness of the cleanup is enhanced if the
wastes are removed to the secure Luttrell repository. If
additional information obtained during remedial design
indicates that other remediation approaches may be more

C-46

-------
Comment Letter on Proposed Plan from Tom Clifford, U.S. Forest
Service - January 7, 2002

III. Followup Comments to the Joint Roads Meeting

I appreciate your coordination of the joint roads meeting for the
Tenmile that occurred on November 27th. While we are mostly
familiar with the issues and positions identified, there were some
new points brought up that will be beneficial to our
considerations and project specific input to you regarding roads.
As you are aware, there is no more contentious area of public
land management than roads. The private land inholding pattern
and development activity in the Tenmile basin add additional
issues and complexity. The coordination process identified in the
MOU should provide for the Forest Service to be fully involved
during planning stages of individual projects so that any private
land permitting, or other management activities on our part can
be accomplished in a timely fashion.

I would like to briefly reinterate the commitments made by (he
Forest Service at that meeting.

1) The Forest Service did not make any site specific road
decisions in the meeting nor did we determine a "one size fits all"
solution for any new road construction that may be needed.
However, we will be providing our input regarding individual
new or improved roads, road use permits, gates, signs etc.
during the site specific planning that will occur as identified in
our MOU. Currently I do not plan on initiating the travel
planning process for the overall Tenmile watershed before 2004.

Upper Tenmile Creek ROD

Response

effective, while causing less short-term construction impacts,
then EPA will consider that information at that time. EPA will
work closely with the USFS and other interested parties during
remedial design.

The comment is noted. EPA appreciates the efforts of the USFS
in helping to address the issue of access roads and potential
impacts on wildlife resou rces for this project.

C-47

-------
Comment Letter on Proposed Plan from Tom Clifford, U.S. Forest
Service - January 7, 2002

2)	We agreed to put together a general picture of the roads and
entities owning/responsible for them for theTenmile basin and a
description of the maintenance standard of the road (McKenna).

3)	Duane Harp agreed to take the lead with the Tenmile
Watershed Steering Group and others to define a Desired Future
Condition for the watershed.

4)	We agreed to work with the other agencies and interested
groups during development of cleanup projects to ensure that
project specifics, including road development, are understood.
This also applies to the long term management implications for
Chessman Reservoir with regard to fish and wildlife.

IV. Land Exchange Process

The City of Helena approached the Helena Forest several years
ago regarding an interagency land exchange in the Tenmile
watershed so that the city could more efficiently manage its
municipal water supply infrastructure, instead of work through
complex and costly permits with the Forest Service. It also
became very apparent during the development of the Remedial
Plan for the Tenmile that the proposed improvements to the
Chessman Reservoir would further complicate the management
and permitting of the City's infrastructure and possibly lead to
delays to implementing EPA's Plan.

In order to facilitate the response action involving the
enlargement of Chessman Reservir, the Regional Forester will
make a time critical CERCLA decision including the exchange of

Upper Tenmile Creek ROD

Response

The comment is noted. EPA appreciates that efforts of the USFS
and the City of Helena in consummating a land exchange that
will help facilitate implementation of EPA's remedial action and

C-48

-------
Comment Letter on Proposed Plan from Tom Clifford, U.S. Forest
Service - January 7, 2002

these lands. You have stated that this exchange would be
consistent with the Record of Decision for the Tenmile NPL site.
We will be initiating our CERCLA action for the exchange early
in 2002.

We look forward to working with you on the future cleanup
actions in the Tenmile. If you have any questions or need further
clarification regarding this letter, please contact me at (406)
449-5201 ext. 275 or contact Helena District Ranger Duane Harp
at (406) 449-5490.

Sincerely,

TOM CLIFFORD
Helena Forest Supervisor

Cc: USDA Forest Service-Bob Kiikpatrick, Ray Tesoro, A1
Christophersen, Duane Harp, Kurt Cuneo, Beth Ihle, Carl Davis,
Charlie McKenna, Denise Pengeroth, Brent Costain, Sharlene
Larance, Bo Stuart, Archie Harper, Tom Fox

MDFWP-Mike Korn, Gayle Joslyn, Don Skaar

Montana DEQ-Vic Andersen, Craig French

Jim Posiwitz

Chuck Watters

Montana DNRC- Jesse Aber

Prickly Pear Water Quality Protection District - Jim Wilbur

City of Helena- Tim Burton

Lewis and Clark County Commission

Lewis and Clark County Planning

Upper Tenmile Creek ROD

Response

improvement of water quality and stream flow conditions
Tenmile Creek.

-------
Draft Proposed Plan Comments and

Responses

-------
Comment Letter from Thomas Clifford to Robert Fox, USEPA - July 20,
2001

July 20, 2001

Robert L. Fox, Superfund Program Manager
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 8, Montana Office
Federal Building, 301 S. Park, Drawer 10096
Helena, MT 59626-0096

Dear Bob:

Thank you for sending us the draft proposed plan for the Upper
Ten Mile Creek Mining Area Superfund Site.

My staff has given the document a preliminary review and
thinks the range of alternatives you have identified is adequate
and that the proposed plan can be released to the public. Rather
than respond with any questions or comments on the proposed
plan at this time, we would like to arrange a meeting with your
staff for that purpose. Please contact Forest M inerals Geologist
Beth Ihle (266-3425) or Helena District Ranger Duane Harp
(449-5490) to arrange such a meeting.

I appreciate the high level of coordination and cooperation our
two staffs have shared in the Ten Mile drainage in the past and
look forward to working with you on this new plan.

Sincerely,

THOMAS J. CLIFFORD
Forest Supervisor
Cc: B. Ihle
D. Harp

Upper Tenmile Creek ROD

Response

The comment is noted. EPA met with the USFS on November 8,
2001 to discuss USFS comments on the final proposed plan.

C-51

-------
Comment Letter from Montana Department of Environmental Quality
on Draft Proposed Plan (no date)

Requested changes to the Upper Tenmile Proposed Plan

Earlier comments submitted by DEQ regarding the Feasibility
Study have not been responded to yet. Comments were made
requesting references of successful implementations of biological
treatment systems in this part of the country. Please provide
these documents.

DEQ does not wish to determine the method of water treatment
before source control methods have been explored thoroughly.
The second and third bullets under Acid Mine Drainage on page
2 would be a good place to use language that emphasizes source
control. Treatment would not be considered until after source
control methods have been evaluated. Perhaps these two bullets
could be used as replacements:

•	Implement those source control methods that demonstrate potential
to reduce the quantity of acid mine drainage on a larger scale.

•	Physical/chemical or biological treatment systems will not be
designed and implemented to remove contaminants from any adit
discharges until EPA and DEQ determine water treatmen t is
necessary and appropriate under Phase 4 of he Reducing Operation
and Maintenance Costs (page 12).

EPA and DEQ will determine what level of water treatment is
necessary as part of the Remedial Design/Remedial Action
phases (see revised text box "Reducing Long-term Operation and
Maintenance Costs," page 12 attached).

Under Groundwater on page two, the second bullet should be:

Upper Tenmile Creek ROD

Response

References to biological treatment systems were provided in the
Rl/FS addenda report.

The final proposed plan and the ROD have incorporated the
essence of the requested revisions.

The text of the final proposed plan was clarified to emphasize
flow reduction.

C-52

-------
Comment Letter from Montana Department of Environmental Quality
on Draft Proposed Plan (no date)

•	Source control actions for waste rock and tailings and acid
mine drainage would be expected to reduce groundwater
flow and contaminant levels over time.

Under Surface Water on page two, the bullet should be rewritten
as:

•	Source control actions such as run-on and run-off storm water
controls and grouting, for waste rock and tailings and acid
mine drainage,...

Under Stream Sediments on page two, replace the word "with"
in "with disposal at the Luttrell Repository." to for.

Page 5, the second column, first sentence under Ecological Risk
Assessment, define COCs. Page 9, the second column, the first
paragraph, Add this phrase to the end of the third sentence: and
minimize infiltration.

Page 9, the second column, in the second paragraph, replace
"remedy" with remediate in the fourth sentence and replace
"Accomplish major reduction of" with significantly reduce in the
fifth sentence.

Page 10, the second paragraph under Alternative 3, the third
sentence, replace "comply" with result in compliance.

On page 10 where Alternative 4 is discussed, DEQ recommends
removing the references of AD5 and AD4 throughout the
discussion and replacing those with references to the revised

Upper Tenmile Creek ROD

Response

EPA considers source control to include all surface and
subsurface actions to reduce both contaminant leading and
discharge flow rates.

Editorial corrections were made in the final proposed plan
consistent with the comments noted.

In the final proposed plan and ROD, EPA has identified and
included a new alternative AD4/5 to incorporate the four-phase
approach for remediating acid mine drainage The approach,

C-53

-------
Comment Letter from Montana Department of Environmental Quality
on Draft Proposed Plan (no date)

O&M reduction discussion on page 12. Alternative 4's narrative
could be revised to reflect DEQ's suggested approach as follows:

Alternative 4

PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

Remove mine wastes to Luttrell for category C, D, and E sites
(WR4) and no action for category A and B sites (WR1); water
inflow reduction at all mines with adit discharge s, follow the four
phase plan that leads to determining the best method of con trolling acid
drainage (AD ?); implement groundwater use controls (GW3);
remove contaminated residential yards (RY3); remove
contaminated roadways (RD3); no action for surface water
(SW1); and stream sediments (SD1).

Alternative 4 is EPA's preferred alternative. It would provide a
protective remedy for mine waste/tailings by excavating and
hauling to the Luttrell repository mine wastes from category C,
D, and E sites. Efforts would be implemented to reduce inflow of
water into mine workings at all sites to reduce the production of
acid mine drainage. Source control methods will be evaluated
according to the jbur-phased plan on page 12 before physical/chemical
water treatment methods will be considered.

There are no changes in second paragraph.

Alternative 4 would provide a protective remedy, relative to
mine waste/tailings, that would be effective in both the long and
short-term. It would effectively isolate the most significant waste
piles at the site (wastes at category C, D, and E sites) by placing

Upper TsnmiJe Creek ROD

Response

developed in consultation with DEQ, contains the essential
elements of DEQ's comments here, primarily that all appropriate
efforts for flow reduction be taken prior to implementation of
adit discharge treatment components, in order to minimize long-
term O&M costs for treatment. EPA has agreed with that
approach. EPA does not believe that all loading from AMD can
be addressed by source control and flow reduction alone.
Current data indicate that some treatment of AMD will be
required to meet state ambient water quality standards. The
ROD recogizes that some treatment of residual adit discharge
flows will be necessary and treatment costs are factored into the
remedy cost estimates.

C-54

-------
Comment Letter from Montana Department of Environmental Quality
on Draft Proposed Plan (no date)

them in a lined regional repository with effective leachate control
and monitoring. Contaminated streams-

Page 12, Table 2, Comparison of Alternative Number of Sites and
Flow Rates of Acid Mine Drainage, should be removed since the
form of water treatment will not be determined until the four
phased O&M reduction plan reaches that point.

Please replace the text in the text box on page 12 with the
following language:

Reducing Long- term Operations and Maintenance Costs

EPA is committed to implementing a comprehensive cleanup cf mine
waste sources so that long-term operation and maintenance (O&M)
needs can be minimized The State of Montana is responsible for the
costs of all long-term O&M of the completed remedy The primary
remedy feature that may entail considerable O&M costs is the long-
term treatment of acid mine drainage from the mine adits. EPA and
DEQw ill evaluate an d impleme nt the reme dy for acid m ine drainage in
a four-phased approach. The first phase will consist of overall
assessmentof the potential to achieve remedial objectives and significant
O&M cost savings through source con trols to redu ce the volu me of acid
mine drainage from individual mines. The second phase will include
detailed design investigations and pilot studies at certain mine sites to
demonstrate source control techniques. Taking into consideration the
information generated from the investigations and studies, and, after
evaluating the net effect of source removal(s) upon water quality, he
third phase would include full-scale implementation of source control
measures at specific mine sites. If EPA and DEQ agree that water

Upper Tenmile Creek ROD

Response

EPA incorporated the substance of the recommended changes
into the final proposed plan and ROD.

C-55

-------
Comment Letter from Montana Department of Environmental Quality
on Draft Proposed Plan (no date)

treatment facilities are required to remove contaminants from the
residual adit discharge flows, EPA will design and implement
construction of water treatment facilities necessary and appropriate to
meet remedial objectives in the final phase.

I.	Phase 1- Remedial Design

•	Investigate mine maps, records and geology of specific mine
workings

•	Evaluate and map potential surface water inflows to mine workings

•	Identify mine sites where flow reduction or other source control
techniques could be potentially successful

•	Conduct sampling and tracer studies to determine water inflow and
contaminant release locations

II.	Phase 2- Remedial Design

' Open portals and adits where possible to gain access to mine
workings

•	Conduct additional detailed sampling and tracer studies if
necessary

•	Conduct pilot studies offlow reduction, segregation, grouting, mine
plugging, or other source control techniques

III.	Phase 3- Remedial Action

•	Implement full-scale source removal and source control actions at
mine sites where-necessary

•	Continue to monitor success of source control actbns

IV.	Phase 4- Remedial Design/Remedial Action

•	Begin design and construction of facilities to treat residual adit
discharge where EPA and DEQ agree a treatment facility is (or
treatment facilities are) necessary and appropriate

Upper Tenmile Creek ROD

Response

-------
Comment Letter from Montana Department of Environmental Quality
on Draft Proposed Plan (no date)

EPA will begin the adit flow reduction effort at the beginning of
remedial design It is anticipated that two years of investigation, design
and evaluation of source control techniques would be required prior to
implementing a full-scale source control actbnfor the Site. Evaluation
of water treatment op tions wou Id begin in the third yea r. EPA w ill
conduct all phases of the design and implementation of the appropriate
source control measures, as well as any water treatment facilities
necessary and appropriate to remove contaminants from the residual
adit discharges, in full consultation with DEQ.

Please explain each of the O&M categories in Table 3 with more
detail. Where do these numbers come from? What is the Waste
Rock/Tailings cost? Please provide the number crunching used
to estimate the Luttrell Repository O&M cost.

Please include DEQ's share of the estimated O&M costs of the
preferred Rimini Community Water System Alternative with the
total O&M costs for the site.

Page 18, the second line from the top, "mining related" should be
mining-related.

Page 18, number 3, the last sentence should be rewritten as:
Should an alternative with suchhigh operation and maintenance be
implemented?

Upper Tenmile Creek ROD

Response

Detailed cost estimates have been included in the RI/FS addenda
report.

The O&M costs for the Rimini community water system would
be borne by the users of the system, not DEQ.

C-57

-------
Comment Letter from Stan Frasier on Draft Proposed Plan - August 2,
2001

August 2, 2001

Mike Bishop, Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
301 South Park	Rm 192

Helena, MT 59626

Dear Mr. Bishop,

The Helena Hunters and Anglers Association would like to
express its interest in preserving the wild land character of the
Ten Mile Creek watershed while supporting the goal of
improving the stream's water quality and reclaiming associated
mine sites in the watershed. The Association's Board of Directors
met on July 31, 2001 and approved of expressing our
organization's concern in the enclosed resolution.

Our concern is presently focused on maintaining critical wildlife
wetlands in the watershed along with preserving backcountry
hunting opportunity. In addition, we believe the issue of
maintaining wild life corridors between associated wild lands in
the Northern Rockies is a valid biological concern. All of these
issues are relative to the Ten Mile Watershed project and we
believe, with the proper attention in planning they can all be
retained and possibly be enhanced.

Please take time to consider our resolution and we would
appreciate being included in the review of alternatives being
considered in this watershed.

Upper Tenmile Creek ROD

Response

-------
Comment Letter from Stan Frasier on Draft Pioposed Plan - August 2,
2001

Sincerely,

Stan Frasier
President

THE HELENA HUNTERS AND ANGLERS ASSOCIATION
RESOLUTION #2

TEN MILE WATERSHED PROJECT

Whereas: The Ten Mile Creek watershed is a key resource
supporting multiple uses of public forest lands including fish,
wildlife, and the drinking water supply of the Helena
community, and

Whereas: Helena Hunters and Anglers endorse the efforts of
the Ten Mile Watershed Group to protect and restore the
integrity of the watershed including resolving stream flow
depletion problems and addressing abandoned mine impacts,
and

Whereas: The Ten Mile Creek Watershed has long supported
dispersed hunting recreation for animals secure in defacto
wildlands, and

Whereas: International conservation efforts are w orking to
maintain wildlite habitat corridors between the wild lands of the
Northern Rockies and the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. In
this context, the relatively remote areas of the headwaters of Ten

Upper Tenmile Creek ROD

Response

C-59

-------
Comment Letter from Stan Frasier on Draft Proposed Plan - August 2,
2001

Mile Creek watershed are now or are expected to be habitat for
the natural expansion of grizzly bears extending their range
south from the Bob Marshall Wilderness complex, and

Whereas: The wetlands of the headwaters of Ten-Mile Creek
are a critical habitat type for elk, moose, bear and a variety of
other species of birds and mammals.

Now therefore be it resolved: The Helena Hunters and Anglers
Association, while supporting these reclamation efforts, urge the
Ten Mile Watershed Group to explore alternatives to the creation
of a reservoir that minimize wildlife impacts, and

Be it further resolved: That hunters and anglers be included in
the planning process for the reclamation of this watershed.

ADOPTED BY THE HELENA HUNTERS AND ANGLERS
ASSOCIATION

Upper Tenmile Creek ROD

Response

In response to public comment, EPA has rejected the alternative
of constructing a reservoir at the Travis location to avoid
potential wetlands and wildlife impacts. Additional water
storage capacity will be obtained by upgrading Chessman
Reservoir.

The Helena Hunters and Anglers have been invited by EPA to
participate in the ongoing facilitated discussions regarding
wildlife issues and access roads necessary for the Superfund
cleanup.

C-60

-------
Comment Letter from Mchael Korn on Draft.Proposed Plan -
September 25, 2001

September 25, 2001
930 Custer Avenue W
Helena, MT 59620-0701

Mike Bishop, EPA Project Manager
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
301 South Park Avenue, Drawer 10096
Helena, MT 59626

Tom Clifford, Supervisor
Helena National Forest
2880 Skyway Drive
Helena, MT 59602

Janette Kaiser, Supervisor
Beaverhead-Deerlodge NF
420 Barrett Street
Dillon, MT 59725-3572

Dear Mr. Bishop, Supervisor Clifford, and Supervisor Kaiser:

Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks appreciates that the EPA and
participating agencies/organizations have agreed to reconsider
construction of a reservoir in the meadows of upper Tenmile
Creek. This area is virtually irreplaceable wet meadow habitat
that is of vital importance to wildlife of the drainage.

We remain concerned, however, about road development and
upgrades for the purpose of hauling toxic mine waste. While we
recognize the practical necessity of hauling the materials and

Upper Tenmile Creek ROD

Response

The reservoir considered for upper Tenmile Creek was not
included in EPA's selected remedy.

C-61

-------
Comment Letter from Uchael Korn on Draft Proposed Plan -
September 25, 2001

thus, roads on which to haul must exist, we must stress the
importance of wildlife habitat that is being compromised in the
process of the Super Fund cleanup. The cleanup is currently
taking place in the Tenmile drainage (Helena National Forest)
and is about to begin on the Occidental Plateau and other sites
within the Boulder River drainage (Helena National Forest and
Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest).

I have included with this correspondence a memo and a letter
from the Fish, Wildlife and Parks wildlife biologist for this area
itemizing a variety of wildlife concerns that have arisen as a
result of the clean up procedure.

While we certainly agree that toxic mine waste must be cleaned
up, we also believe that part of the cost of that clean up lies in
reclaiming impacts that have resulted from the clean up. One of
the unavoidable results of the cleanup will be improved roads,
and even though the plan is to return some of the roads to their
original width, the standard of those roads will certainly be
improved compared to their pre-haul condition. This
improvement to road standard translates into more human usage
and greater wildlife habitat fragmentation. We would urge that a
road density of 1 mile of road per square mile be adopted by the
Forest Service to compensate for improved road standards and
increased traffic.

We are also quite concerned about the plan to develop a high
standard, 30 foot, 6.1 mile paved highway (proposed as Montana
Forest Highway Route 98) beginning at Highway 12 and
"...ending at Chessman Reservoir intersection, just north of the

Upper Tenmile Creek ROD

Response

EPA has committed to reclaiming or removing roads to the pre-
removal conditions to the extent practicable. During remedial
design, road construction and reclamation/removal
specifications for each mine site will be developed by EPA in
consultation with federal and state land and wildlife resource
management agencies, affected property owners, and other
interested parties.

The proposed paving of Montana Forest Highway Route 98 is
being considered by the Federal Highway Administration and
has nothing to do with the EPA Superfund project.

C-62

-------
Comment Letter from Mchael Korn on Draft Proposed Plan -
September 25, 2001

community of Rimini." We have reason to believe that certain
species of wildlife have been displaced from their normal
movement corridor along the Continental Divide and are using
the country between a point on the Continental D ivide roughly
at Jericho Mountain in a southeasterly direction through the
Black Mountain Roadless Area (Beaver Creek drainage), through
the Chessman Reservoir-Park Lake area onward to the
Occidental Plateau and the Boulder Divide, and then to the
Elkhorn Mountains. Thus, a highway ending at Beaver Creek
would clearly draw traffic into making the loop route from
Tenmile Creek up Beaver Creek, and over to Park Lake and back
to Interstate 15. However, because Beaver Creek acts as a
conduit for wildlife, the existing low standard, rough road
should remain as it is, or even removed.

In addressing these issues we urge you to:

•	Commit EPA funding for the cost of reclaiming roads
associated with clean up, factoring in increased traffic as a
result of higher standard road s as soon as the project is
completed;

•	If Route 98 is constructed, build to a lower standard, using
chip sealing and wildlife crossings;

•	Avoid upgrading any additional roads unless those roads are
removed and reclaimed post cleanup, in particular the
Beaver Creek road (between Red Mountain and Black
Mountain);

•	Remove other roads that compromise the proposed new
standard of 1 mile of road per square mile;

•	Commit to the cost of intense enforcement of off-road vehicle
use of the clean up areas for at least 5 years.

Upper Tenmile Creek ROD

Response

Reclamation/ removal of access roads will be part of EPA's
remedial action and will be funded the same as other remedy
components.

Improvements to Rimini Road north or the Chessman Road
(Route 98) are not part of EPA's action.

Specifications for particular access roads will be determined
during remedial design.

EPA can not be responsible for reclaiming/ removing roads other
than those used to access mine sites for cleanup purposes.
EPA can not fund land management enforcement activities ,
since these appropriately are the responsibility of other agencies.

C-63

-------
Comment Letter from Michael Korn on Draft Proposed Plan -
September 25, 2001

We are willing to participate and provide wildlife habitat
expertise for the duration of the clean up process. Because the
process is well underway and moving rapidly, we request
written correspondence in a timely manner relative to the points
raised here.

Again, thank you for considering wildlife in you re evaluation of
the reservoir, and we look forward to helping to minimize
wildlife habitat fragmen tation in this project.

Sincerely,

Michael Korn

Helena Area Coordinator

c: Pat Flowers, Supervisor FWP Region 3
Mack Long, Supervisor, FWP Region 2

Upper Tenmile Creek ROD

Response

EPA appreciates the consultative support of DFWP in this
project.

C-64

-------
Comment Letter from Gayle Joslin to Mike Karn - September 4, 2001

TO:	Mike Korn	DATE: September 4,2001

FROM: Gayle Joslin

UPPER TENMILE WATERSHED TOUR
August 29, 2001

The Helena Ranger District and the Environmental Protection
Agency hosted a tour of the mine waste clean up project for
approximately 20 individuals from the City of Helena (water
treatment and planning), Lewis and Clark County
(commissioners and planners), local residents, the Helena
Hunters and Anglers Association, and Montana Fish, Wildlife &
Parks. Several photos were taken.

There are approximately 150 mine sites in the area, 70 of which
will be cleaned up. Toxic mine waste clean up is viewed as a
positive step. However, from a wildlife habitat and population
perspective the following points are problematic:

•	This project has been underway for about 2 years. The
Tenmile Watershed group has been meeting for about 4
years.

•	Wildlife was not considered in the planning process of this
project.

•	High standard roads have been and will continue to be built
to accommodate hauling of mine waste.

•	Once the cleanup has been completed in the Upper Tenmile
watershed, the project will move into the Upper Little
Blackfoot and the Cataract Meadows areas — both very
important wildlife areas.

•	The Continental Divide Wildlife Corridor has been severely

Upper Tenmile Creek ROD

Response

-------
Comment Letter from Gayle Joslin to Mike Korn - September 4, 2001

compromised, and may not be functioning for wildlife
movement in the vicinity of the defunct Pegasus Mine and
the Luttrell Pit mine waste repository. This area now has the
appearance of an industrial site.

•	If road systems are to be removed, reduced or reclaimed,
then funding through the EPA process mu st be factored into
the cost of their removal as part of this project. The Helena
District Ranger indicated that the Forest Service intends to
address these newly created, high-standard roads "in the
future" during the Roads Analysis process, or even later in
the Watershed M anagement plans (up coming is the Little
Blackfoot). The Roads Analysis process will NOT address
anything smaller than system roads (OHV routes and old
pioneered roads will not be addressed). Funding must be
secured now, to remove the roads that are being created from
this EPA project and are compromising wildlife habitat
(habitat effectiveness, security).

•	A Cumulative Effects analysis addressing wildlife, habitat,
and security must be prepared with respect to the cleanup
project, and must be factored in as a part of the project —
probably a task to be undertaken by the Forest Service. This
analysis will reveal needed accommod ations to retain
wildlife habitat (road and area closures).

•	A 30' wide highway is planned for construction up the
Tenmile drainage, which will end just short of the town of
Rimini, at the Beaver Creek road.

•	FWP has systematically opposed upgrading the Beaver Creek
road in order to minimize habitat fragmentation for wildlife.

•	Many of the mine sites that are being cleaned up are in the
Black Mountain Roadless Area, which are accessed by the
Beaver Creek road.

Upper Tenmile Creek ROD

Response

EPA will be responsible for and will fund reclaiming/removing
roads that it has constructed or im proved for access for its
cleanup actions to the extent practicable. The comment appears
to imply that EPA should be responsible for other roads in the
road system, such as OHV routes and old pioneered roads). EPA
can not be responsible for reclaiming or removing roads that it
did not use in its cleanup.

A cumulative effects evaluation may be useful or necessary in
making land management decisions, but is not required in a
Superfund ROD. EPA will continue to consult with resource
managers, land owners, and interested parties in considering
wildlife issues during remedial design.

The proposed highway is not part of EPA's action.

The comment is noted.

The only site in the Black Mountain Roadless Area proposed for
cleanup is the Upper Valley Forge; cleanup there is complete
except for potential additional actions addressing the adit

C-66

-------
Comment Letter from Gayle Joslirt to Mike Korn - September 4, 2001

•	The issue of Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs) has not
been resolved, yet roads are being upgraded to these
properties for cleanup.

•	There are 18 mine waste dumps in the Black Mountain
Roadless Area. Adit discharges are also an issue. They are
burying the adits (photo). The FS says that roads must
remain to private lands even if they are PRPs. Weed control
will occur for 4-5 years (then what?).

•	Several of these mine sites will retain the upgraded road to
private lands, thus creating a collective additional impact
from the cleanup process. In addition, leveled "staging"
areas that are now being used for the clean up will remain for
the use of the landowner — convenient and accessible home
sites. Pressure will be brought to bear by these landowners
to upgrade the Beaver Creek road.

•	Instead of being able to use the Continental Divide as a
movement corridor due to the development of 15' wide haul
roads and the industrial complex on the crest of the divide
between Tenmile Creek and Basin Creek, wildlife are most
likely to use (and apparently are using) an alternative
corridor from Jericho Mountain, across Tenmile Creek,
through the Black Mountain Roadless area, into the
Chessman Reservoir-Park Lake country and on to the
Occidental Plateau and the Boulder Divide. From the
Boulder Divide, the Elkhorns likely become the conduit for
movement for grizzly bears (12 reports in my data base along
the Continental Divide), wolverine, wolves, and other
wide-ranging species, as well as servingas seasonal home
ranges for big game species (elk, moose, deer).

•	There will be a push to up-grade the Beaver Creek road. This

Upper Tenmile Creek ROD

Response

discharges.

EPA has conducted initial PRP searches and has not identified
viable PRP's for the site. Road improvements have been
necessary for cleanup irrespective of PRP status.

The referenced waste dumps were at the Upper Valley Forge site.
Weed control actions will continue as part of ate O&M until no
longer necessary.

Most of the access roads at the Upper Valley Forge site have been
completely removed. Staging areas for construction support
were reclaimed similar to pre-construction conditions.

The comment is noted.

The comment is noted.

C-67

-------
Comment Letter from Gayle Joslin to Mike Kern - September 4, 2001

must be resisted in order to retain what connection still
remains to mountain range movement corridors to the east of
the Continental Divide and toward the Yellowstone
Ecosystem. Mine waste hauling work in this area will end in
October 2001 — theoretically.

•	Discussion of where to build a reservoir to re-water Tenmile
Creek continues. During the tour we viewed the Banner
Creek site, adjacent to where the haul road already exists on
its way to the Luttrell Pit. The Peerless, Jenny and King adits
are currently bleeding into Banner Creek. The cost would be
$6 million to build the Banner Creek site vs. $4 for the Travis
Reservoir site, or $4 to upgrade Chessman Reservoir.

•	The issue is: The Forest Service took the EPA money to
upgrade roads, but will not have any EPA money to reclaim
or decommission roads in the future unless they act now.

•	Preference seems to be to upgrade the existing Chessman
Reservoir rather than build a new reservoir, although efforts
must be taken to assure that the Beaver Creek road will not
be upgraded between Tenmile and Chessman.

•	When asked whether a Wildlife Report of any kind exists for
this project, Mr. Bishop indicated he didn't think so. I have
not been able to find one. I called Brent Costain at the
Helena Ranger District and learned that he has not yet
written a wildlife report but thinks that perhaps the time is
ripe.

•	Mr. Bishop contends that FWP has had representation in the
form of fisheries. I content that this was not Wildlife
representation.

Clear correspondence should be written to both the Helena

National Forest and the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest

Upper Tenmile Creek ROD

Response

The selected remedy will upgrade Chessman Reservoir.

USFS Superfund removal actions have been conducted with
USFS funding. EPA did not provide funding to USFS for road
improvements.

The comment is noted.

Preparation of a wildlife report or inventory is beyond the scope
of Superfund.

EPA provided reports to and kept the DFWP representative
informed about all aspects of the ongoing Superfund project.

C-68

-------
Comment Letter from Gsyle Joslin to Mike Korn - September 4, 2001

asking that MFWP wildlife concerns be addressed immediately,
and prior to the onset of any further mine cleanup.

Upper Tenmile Creek ROD

Response

-------
Comment Letter from Gayle Joslin to Duane Harp, USFS - August 20,
2001

August 20, 2001
Duane Harp, District Ranger
Helena Ranger District
2001 Poplar Street
Helena, MT 59601

Dear Ranger Harp:

I am following up on our conversation of August 17 regarding
the reconstructed road that circumscribes the Tenmile watershed,
along the ridgeline of the Continental Divide from Bullion Parks
to the Basin Creek mine.

During our discussion you indicated that the decision process
followed a format other than NEPA. Please provide reference to
that process, along with guidelines that address wildlife. I
would appreciate receiving a copy of the decision document that
authorized this road, along with analysis of impacts to natural
resources — I am particularly interested in the discussion
regarding wildlife and whether mitigation features were factored
into the decision and whether a BE was done. The road certainly
is an imposing presence, and has changed the character of the
Continental Divide from Minnehaha Creek to the headwaters of
Basin Creek.

This road opens the door to significant motorized usage during
all seasons of the year, and will have a significant impact upon
the integrity of wildlife habitat. The Continental Divide is a
nationally recognized wildlife movement corridor, and provides
habitat to some of the most esteemed and rare wildlife in North

Upper Tenmile Creek ROD

Response

The comment is noted. The improvements to the road along the
Continental Divide to the Luttrell repository were made under
USFS Superfund authorities. EPA will need to utilize that road
for cleaning up mine sites in the Minnehaha Creek subarea for
which EPA has responsibility. EPA will work with the land and
resource management agencies, property owners, and other
interested parties to determine the final disposition of that road.

C-70

-------
Comment Letter from Gayle Joslin to Duane Harp, USFS - August 20,
2001

America, including lynx and grizzly bears.

If in fact there are no reclamation or mitigation measures
associated with the decision notice that authorized this road, it is
recommended that once the road has served its purpose, that it
be removed from the Continental Divide to restore wildlife
security and habitat integrity that has historically been present in
this fragile, high elevation environment.

Please consider these comments in your Roads Analysis.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Gayle Joslin

Helena Area Resource Office
Wildlife Biologist

c: Joel Peterson
Mike Korn

Upper Tenmile Creek ROD

Response

C-71

-------
Comment Letter from Gsyle Joslin to Mike Bishop - July 26, 2001

July 26, 2001

Mike Bishop, EPA Project Manager
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
301 South Park Avenue, Drawer 10096
Helena, Montana 59626

Dear Mr. Bishop:

I was pleased to be able to attend a field tour this week (July 25)
of the wet meadow-marshes in T8N R6W SW 13 where a
reservoir is proposed in 3 of the alternatives listed in the Draft
Proposed Plan for the Upper Tenmile Creek Mining Area.
Enclosed please find a series of photos that I took with my digital
camera. While the quality leaves a bit to be desired, the nature of
the meadows is at least partially captured.

Although I have flown over the area many times in the last two
decades, this was the first time I had been to the site on the
ground. I was immensely impressed with the productivity and
vegetative diversity of the area. The meadows are wet, deep
sponge carpets of grasses, sedges and forbs» with a couple of
beaver ponds near the center. Importance of the site for wildlife
was evident with elk beds throughout and abundant droppings
of elk, moose, deer, and bear.

The site is less than one-half mile from the Continental Divide,
which is recognized as a critical wildlife movement corridor
through the state, between ecosystems. In the past 7-8 years,
reports of grizzly bear have increased in the area from
MacDonald Pass to Boulder Hill, with a female grizzly and
offspring reported in this area in the past three years. The most
extensive use of this area is made by elk, with the Upper Tenmile

Upper Tenmile Creek ROD

Response

The descriptive comments provided in the letter are noted. No
response is necessary.

C-72

-------
Comment Letter from Gayle Joslin to Mike Bishop - July 26, 2001

watershed providing crucial high nutrition summer range for
several elk herds. Elk that winter in several dispersed wintering
areas converge in the upper Tenmile Creek area to calve, and
spend summer and fall, regaining body condition subsequent to
the demands of winter, pregnancy, birthing, and lactation.
Although somewhat diminished over the past 10 years with
improved access to the Basin Creek mine and now transportation
upgrades for Superfund cleanup, security for big game in this
area has been excellent, and thus the area has been instrumental
in providing secure habitat for big game during the fall hunting
season.. Upper Tenmile Creek is the largest area of relatively
undisturbed wildlife habitat within Hunting District 335. As
security diminishes, hunting seasons also decline, resulting in
increased restrictions and ultimately reduced hunting
opportunities. The wet meadows in upper Tenmile that are
proposed for inundation, support distinct wintering elk herds
from lower Tenmile Creek along the Mount Helena —Black
Mountain Ridge, the Little Blackfoot, upper Basin Creek, and the
Lump Gulch drainages of Prickly Pear Creek.

Moose reside throughout the meadow area, and may be able to
utilize this high, wet basin yearlong, at least during winters with
lower precipitation. Utilization by moose as well as other big
game is probably continuous for 75% of the year, during the
period April through December.

Threatened, endangered or sensitive species likely to occur in the
area include grizzly bear, gray wolf, lynx, wolverine, Northern
goshawk, and Northern bog lemming. The lynx was recently
listed as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act,

Upper Tenmile Creek ROD

Response

C-73

-------
Comment Letter from Gsyle Joslin to Mike Bishop - July 26, 2001

and the extent of their habitat includes the Continental Divide
and upper Tenmile Creek area.

The expanded and upgraded tailings haul road that partially
circumscribes the headwaters of Tenmile Creek from the top of
Minnehaha Creek south and east to the Luttrell pit, will not only
experience a high level of use compared to its pre-upgraded
status, but will continue to provide motorized disturbance down
the center of one of the most important wildlife travel corridor in
North America: the Continental Divide; unless of course, the
Helena National Forest determines that this road is in a crucial
location and should ultimately be removed.

The road, together with flooding of the wet meadows in Sections
13 and 14 would be a certain impact upon a wide variety of
wildlife, not only for the T enmile w atershed, bu t also for wild life
of upper Basin Creek, the northern reaches of the Little Blackfoot
south of Highway 12, and for wildlife using the headwaters of
Prickly Pear Creek.

How and where would these wetlands that are proposed for
inundation, be replaced with wetlands of similar quality and
quantity? I am quite familiar with the greater Helena area, being
a native of Helena and having worked as a biologist here for the
past 16 years, but I cannot recall a potential wetland site of equal
extent and quality in this area, that has not been severely
disturbed

If other alternatives can be devised that would not rely on
flooding the wet meadows of the Tenmile drainage, wildlife
habitat and intrinsic values would be maintained to a

Upper Tenmile Creek ROD

Response

The selected remedy includes the upgrade of existing Chessman
Reservoir to achieve additional water storage for flow
augmentation in Tenmile Creek, rather than construction of a

C-74

-------
Comment Letter from Gayle Joslin to Mike Bishop - July 26, 2001

substantially greater degree. If the options that include reservoir
construction are considered in the final proposal, wildlife
populations and habitats need to be thoroughly analyzed as a
trade-off.

Thank you for this opportunity to comment, and please do not
hesitate to call if you have questions.

Sincerely,

Gayle Joslin

Wildlife Biologist

Helena Area Resource Office

444-4720

cc: Duane Harp, Helena Ranger District

John Rundquist, Public Work Director City County Building

Don Skaar, Pollution Control Biologist, FWP

Jesse Aber,Tenmile Watershed Group, DNRC

Karen Nelson, Toxicologist, FWS, Liason to Superfund

Project

Joel Peterson, Wildlife Manager Region3, FWP
Mike Korn, Resource Program Manager, Helena Area
Resource Office, FWP

Upper Tenmile Creek ROD

Response

new reservoir. That change from the draft proposed plan was
made to address concerns over impacts on wetlands and wildlife
at the potential Travis Reservoir location.

C-75

-------
Comment Letter from Chuck Parrett on Draft Proposed Plan - July 9,
2001

July 9, 2001

Mike Bishop, Remedial Project Manager
EPA

310 S. Park, Room 192
Helena, Montana 59626

Dear Mike,

I am writing in response to the DRAFT proposed plan for
cleanup of the Upper Tenmile Creek watershed. My comments
represent my personal opinions only and should not be
considered as any kind of official position or opinion of my
employer, the U.S. Geological Survey. As you know, I am a
landowner in the Upper Tenmile Creek Watershed, and I
welcome efforts by the EPA to mitigate water-quality problems
in the Tenmile Creek watershed. 1 do, however, question whether
the proposed plan, particularly the preferred alternative is the
most efficient and cost-effective way to take care of the problem.

The bulk of the work outlined in preferred alternative 4 is the
removal of mine waste rock and tailings to the Luttrell Pit. As
evidenced by the clean-up activities so far undertaken, this
requires a substantial amount of new road work or substantial
upgrades to existing roads. This kind of massive road work has
its own environmental and social cost, and I question whether
the long-term benefits of clean-up of the 70 or so additional mine
sites proposed in alternative 4 will outweigh those
environmental and social costs. While 1 strongly support the
removal of mine waste from the sites that provide the greatest

Upper Tenmile Creek ROD

Response

The comment is noted. Based on its site scoring and ranking
process, EPA believes that numerous mine sites still exist that
have potential to significantly degrade Tenmile Creek and its
tributaries. While the continual loading and impact from key
adit discharges in the Rimini area are the most important sources
to Tenmile Creek, EPA remains concerned about intermittent
loading from waste material erosion during storm and runoff
events. EPA has tried to concentrate its efforts on those mine
sites that are located nearest to and present the greatest risk to
Tenmile Creek. EPA hasstrivedto develop a balanced remedy

C-76

-------
Comment Letter from Chuck Parrett on Draft Proposed Plan - July 9,
2001

threat to Tenmile Creek, it seems to me that clean-up efforts
already underway will largely take care of the problem sites.

I believe that the greatest contribu tors of contamination to
Tenmile Creek are the mine adit discharges just above Rimini
and within Rimini. Treatment of those adit discharges will do
far more to improve water quality than removal of all waste rock
piles, I suspect.

Finally, one very significant aspect of impaired water quality in
Tenmile Creek that alternative 4 does not address is the
dewatering of the mainstem by withdrawals for municipal water
supply. As you know, complete cleanup of all mine waste and
mine adit discharges will do little to restore Tenmile Creek to a
healthy stream condition if there is no flow. Accord ingly, I
believe that the proposed Travis Creek reservoir is the key
element for any significant long-term improvement in Tenmile
Creek water quality and that the reservoir should be the
cornerstone of any preferred alternative.

My idea of a preferred alternative, which would cost
substantially less than alternative 4 and offer more improvement
to the overall quality and health of the Tenmile Creek watershed,
includes the following elements:

Upper Tenmile Creek ROD

Response

that addresses all aspects of contaminant source loading; the
solid media removal effort is but one aspect of the entire remedy.

EPA agrees that three adit discharges in the immediate Rimini
area are the primary contaminant loaders to Tenmile Creek. EPA
has proposed a phased approach to dealing w ith those adit
discharges. The phased approach will attempt first to control
contaminant sources and reduce discharge flow rates, so that the
need for and cost of long-term O&M for treatment facilities can
be minimized. This approach has been developed in cooperation
with the State of Montana, which will be responsible for
operating the adit discharge treatment facilities in perpetuity,
after an initial 10 years of EPA-funded operation.

EPA agrees that augmentation of flows in Tenmile Creek during
low-flow periods is critical to success of the remedy. The
selected remedy provides for flow augmentation through
construction of additional storage capacity in Chessman
Reservoir rather than through construction of a new reservoir at
the Travis location.

These comments, which summarized and repeat the previous
comments, are noted.

C-77

-------
Comment Letter from Chuck Parrett on Draft Proposed Plan - July 9,
2001

(1)	Removal of mine waste at only the sites currently being
worked on,

(2)	Treatment of all mine adit discharge water, and

(3)	Construction of Travis Reservoir.

In conclusion, I thank you and EPA for your efforts to include
everyone in the decision-making process. I also commend EPA
for being so considerate of landowners during the current clean-
up activities, and I thank you for the opportunity to respond to
the proposed clean-up plan.

Sincerely,

Chuck Parrett

Upper Tanmite Creek ROD

Response

-------
Comment Email from Mark Poore on Draft Pioposed Plan
2001

-July 17,

To: Mike Bishop/MO/R8/USEPA/US@EPA
Subject: Alternatives for Rimini Cleanup
07/17/01 04:49 AM
Dear Mike.

I have looked at all the alternatives for the Rimini cleanup and I
feel that the alternative that may suit the community the most
would be alterative 5. The information was forwarded to me by
friends who attended the meeting. The cleaning up the adits and
making good use of the water is important! I feel a delivery
system should also be developed for the residents of Rimini even
though some may not connect to it in the near future. Cost to the
residents is also an important consideration.

Thank you for your time!

Kind Regards,

Mark A. Poore

Upper Tenmile Creek ROD

Response

The comment is noted. Alternative 5, with minor modifications
made in both the final proposed plan and the ROD, is the
remedy selected by EPA.

C-79

-------
I

Comment Letter from Jim Posewitz on Draft Proposed Plan - August
30. 2001

August 30, 2001

Mike Bishop, EPA Project Manager
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
301 South Park Avenue, Drawer 10096
Helena, MT 59626

Duane Harp, District Ranger
Helena Ranger District
2001 Poplar
Helena, MT 59601

Dear Mike and Duane,

Following the field tour of the Upper Tenmile Creek Mining
Area Site (the 'site') on August 29,2001: and a review of the
"DRAFT Proposed Plan, Upper Tenmile Creek Mining Area Site,

Lewis and Clark County, Montana, my concern for protection of
existing wildlife values has grown considerably. The concern
includes the following items: (1) the assessment process, (2)
habitat security for resident elk and other wildlife, (3) the
Tenmile watershed's value as a wildlife corridor, and (4) the long
term cumulative impacts of federally sponsored, authorized, or
accommodated activities. This commentary is provided as part
of the public participation response required under Section
117(a) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, 42 USC Section 9601 et
seq. (CERCLA or Superfund).

(1) THE ASSESSMENT PROCESS

Upper Tenmile Creek ROD

i

Response

-------
Comment Letter from Jim Posewitz on Draft Proposed Plan - August
30, 2001

While I am totally in favor of cleaning up abandoned mines I was
surprised to seethe amount of activity and disturbance already
underway in this project. This activity seems to be occurring
while questions relative to what it is impacting, what the final
disposition of its roads and other features will be, and what the
requirements of potentially responsible partners will be.

Likewise, in the draft proposed plan there is not a single word or
acknowledgement of the existence of terrestrial wildlife resources
dependent on affected public lands. Those of us accustomed to
addressing public resource values have an expectation that those
resources will be inventoried, documented and addressed in a
written planning process that we can respond to. Having now
been introduced into the watershed community meeting
approach we will participate when possible, however, we must
begin with a written understanding of how the features of this
project will address our specific concerns. In addition, we feel it
the responsibility of the project to provide us a valid inventory
and description (written) of the affected environment, including
terrestrial wildlife.

(2) HABITAT SECURITY FOR RESIDENT ELK AND OTHER
WILDLIFE

As mentioned on the field tour of August 29th area sportsmen
and women have a major concern for the habitat security of the
elk herd in this watershed. For at least half a century these
public lands have had sufficient habitat security to allow the
herd to prosper and for hunted animals to reach a mature
condition that provided older aged bulls for hunters to pursue.
Your expanding network of upgraded roads is a clear and direct

Upper Tenmile Creek ROD

Response

The proposed plan is a brief summary of key elements of the
RI/FS, risk assessments, and other key project studies and an
identification and explanation of EPA's preferred alternative for
remedial action at the site. As a brief summary for general public
review, it cannot include a full inventory of environmental
conditions at the site. More detailed information about
environmental resources is included in the ecological risk
assessment. However, it is important to recognize that the intent
of Superfund is to remediate releases of hazardous substances, so
the focus of the ecological risk assessment and other RI/FS
documents is on identifying the nature and extent of
contamination and the impact of that contamination on human
and ecological receptors. Under Superfund, cleanup action is
warranted if an imminent and substantial risk to humans or the
environment is documented. A full inventory of potentially
affected species is not necessary. However, EPA will work to
reduce the impacts of cleanup activities in relation to the wildlife
resource.

EPA's intent is to not increase the amount of access in the
watershed as a result of its cleanup actions. EPA will make
improvements to current roads or build new roads, as necessary,
to gain access to waste sites for cleanup. Unless there are
compelling reasons to do otherwise, EPA will return or remove
new roads to approximate pre-cleanup conditions. During
remedial design, EPA will work closely with federal and state

C-81

-------
Comment Letter from Jim Posewitz on Draft Proposed Plan - August
30, 2001

threat to that habitat security. In addition, parts of the program
under consideration pose a severe threat to habitat features
conducive to elk wefl being. Likewise, other activities being
conducted or allowed by other federal land managers have the
potential to degrade elk habitat quality. All of these direct
threats to elk and other wildlife must be addressed as part of the
federal action that is creating the impact and not deferred to
some future analysis. Many of the features now being federally
imposed on habitats may not be reversible and must be
addressed. For example: the status and future of the expansive
network of roads to private holdings being constructed by the
federal government across the national forest lands must be
clearly described and their future public use addressed.

(3) TENMILE WATERSHED'S VALUE AS A WILDLIFE
CORRIDOR

There has been considerable effort invested in the concept of
wildlife habitat corridors that connect fragmented populations of
important wildlife species. These concepts have considerable
support within the scientific community and among some
federal wildlife agencies. The Tenmile watershed is a part of the
corridor identified as essential to connect important North
American wildlife species. One example would be the grizzly
bear and maintaining a viable habitat connection with bear
populations of Yellowstone National Park to those of the Bob
Marshall Wilderness Complex and other bear populations
further north. This project and other federal land management
decisions in this watershed are crucial to maintaining a suitable
corridor environment. A review of corridor identifications that

Upper Tenmile Creek ROD

Response

land and wildlife resource managers and private property
owners to define road construction and reclamation/removal
specifications. EPA does not believe it will be necessary to
construct new permanent roads or expand significantly the
current network of roads to private holdings within the national
forest; most mine sites targeted for cleanup currently are
accessible by unimproved roads.

The comment is noted. EPA believes that its cleanup actions can
be conducted with minimal impact on wildlife populations in the
Tenmile Creek watershed.

C-82

-------
Comment Letter from Jim Posewitz on Draft Proposed Plan - August
30, 2001

have been described indicates this general area to be extremely
narrow and thus vulnerable. There is a responsibility to address
this issue and plan the final outcome of this reclamation effort to
be compatible with corridor conservation and integrity.

(4) LONG TERM CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

The impact of this reclamation seems to include permanent
intrusions into the wild character of this watershed. While
maintaining and restoring a wild nature to the w atershed would
be conducive to long term water quality maintenance, it is not
addressed. Rather, it is compromised with the extensive material
hauling network and no clear plan to eliminate all the haul roads
being upgraded or constructed across the federally administered
public lands. Here again, these are items that should have been
addressed before the work began and now, at best, must be
addressed while this project is underway, not deferred to some
future date when project funding and interest are gone.

Concluding Comments

It must be reiterated that the clean up effort is needed and
supported. However, the ancillary impacts must not be allowed
to create an entire new set of environmental problems to
contaminate the watershed in a variety of other ways. That
contamination might well include: an excessive and
unmanageable road and off highway vehicle (OHV) network;
sustainable and effective elk habitat compromised or destroyed;
elk security habitat diminished, and critical wildlife corridors
ruptured and fragmented. This project literally screams for a

Upper Tenmile Creek ROO

Response

Water quality within Tenmile Creek and some tributaries is
severely degraded by contamination from historic abandoned
and inactive mine sites. Without substantial cleanup of mine
wastes and acid mine drainage, restoring the "wild nature to the
watershed" would do nothing to improve long-term water
quality. EPA will work closely with land and wildlife resource
managers and private property owners in designing,
construction, and reclaiming appropriate access roads over
which to conduct the necessary cleanup actions. EPA believes
that mine site cleanup can occur without significantly impacting
the "wild character" of the watershed.

The comment is noted. EPA has already begun the process of
addressing wildlife issues associated with this project by -
facilitating an initial set of meetings with a ffected parties to
develop appropriate strategies for access road implementation
and reclamation/removal and land management and
development constraints. The coordination process on this issue
will continue through remedial design and remedial action.

C-83

-------
Comment Letter from Jim Posewitz on Draft Proposed Plan - August
30, 2001

cumulative effects analysis and to date we have a federal project
building roads and hauling dirt with no written analysis that
addresses the concerns of terrestrial wildlife.

In summary, this is not a request or suggestion to stop cleaning
up the physical damage done by mining in this watershed. It is
an urgent plea to immediately begin an effort to address the
presentand future needs of wildlife on thesepublic lands We
believe in the final analysis the protection of wildlife and wild
land values will contribute to the long-term quality of the
Tenmile watershed and water supply.

Sincerely,

Jim Posewitz

CC

Tom Clifford, USFS
Mike Korn, MTFW&P

Upper Tenmiie Creek ROD

Response

-------
Comment Letter from John Rundquist on Draft Proposed Plan - July
19, 2001

July 19, 2001

United States Environmental Protection Agency
Robert L. Fox

Superfund Program Manager

Region 8, Montana Office

Federal Building, 301 South Park, Drawer 10096

Helena, Montana 59626-0096

Subject: Draft Proposed Plan for the Upper Ten Mile Creek
Mining Area Superfund Site

Dear Robert;

In behalf of the City of Helena thank you for the opportunity to
comment on the Draft Proposed Plan date July 2, 2001. As you
know, Helena is very interested in the solutions for the mine
waste cleanup because of the watershed's importance to the City
of Helena's municipal water supply. The Ten Mile drainage is
Helena's original water supply and has been used for this
purpose for more than a century. The city has much invested in
the continued reliability of this source. In addition to a safe and
cost effective water supply, Helena is very interested in sharing
the watershed in partnership with all the affected interests
including recreation, fish, wildlife, residents, and landowners.
We are very appreciative of the efforts to date to contain and
treat the hazardous waste generated by past mining activity.

Of the alternatives presented in the draft, we strongly support
alternatives 5, 6 and 7 because they all include the Travis

Upper Tenmile Creek ROD

Response

The city's support for an additional water storage reservoir at
the Travis location is noted. The preferred alternative in the final

C-85

-------
Comment Letter from John Rundquist on Draft Proposed Plan - July
19, 2001

Reservoir option. The reservoir option can allow a base
maintenance flow to be managed in the stream without
impacting Helena's water supply in any major way. This is
important for the reasons that follow.

Water for city use is presently diverted above the town of Rimini
and above most of the mine adits of concern to stream water
quality. The City's use of the water means higher concentrations
of mine waste in the streamflow below the diversion. Treating
new adit waste and removal of tailings will help to relieve this
problem, but water quality in the stream may continue to have
high concentrations of undesirable contaminants during low
flows below the diversion due to mine wastes already released
from more than a century of mining activity. A managed
maintenance flow can help maintain water quality in Ten Mile
Creek during periods of low flow. We understand that this has a
great potential to restore, protect and enhance aquatic habitat
within that reach of Ten Mile Creek downstream of the City's
diversion. From the City's perspective this adds water to the
stream during low flow that would not impact City water rights.

The City may be able to assist with the success of alternatives 5, 6
or 7 and Rimini Water Supply Alternatives C,D or E by
operation of the new reservoir and Rimini's water treatment.

This seems prudent and feasible as the City already has certified
water treatment operators and operates two other reservoirs in
the watershed. Of course, this would require approval of the
Helena City Commission but could be supported by staff
providing that O&M expenses would be fully recovered.

Upper Tenmile Creek ROD

Response

proposed plan and the selected remedy provide for additional
water storage by upgrading Chessman Reservoir and the Red
Mountain flume. EPA chose the Chessman upgrade option to
reduce the project's potential adverse impacts on wetlands and
wildlife security, in response to other comments. EPA
understands that the City of Helena considers the Chessman
upgrade option acceptable, but less preferable than a new
reservoir at T ravis.

The comment is noted and the city's willingness to consider
operation of the water storage reservoir and Rimini community
water system, provided that city O&M expenses are recovered, is
appreciated by EPA.

C-86

-------
Comment Letter from John Rundquist on Draft Proposed Plan - July
19, 2001

Thank you again for the opportunity to comment. We look
forward to continuing partnership with the Ten Mile Watershed
Committee and a successful solution to Ten Mile mine waste
cleanup efforts.

Sincerely,

John Rundquist, P.E.

Public Works Director

c. Tim Burton, City Manager

Ten Mile Watershed Steering Committee, c/o Jess Aber,
DNRC

Response

C-87

-------
Comment E-mail from Don Skaar to Mike Bishop - July 12, 2001

To: Mike Bishop/ MO/ R8/ USEPA/ US@EPA
Subject: Tenmile plan
07/12/01 01:41 PM

Mike: Just a few comments on this morning's meeting. Two
issues that I believe you need to take into account when doing
your ranking for the nine criteria for each alternative. First, keep
in mind the point I made that alternative 4 does not appear to
totally eliminate acute toxicity to fish. This should reduce it's
score under Overall Protection of Human Health and the
Environment, at least relative to the reservoir alternatives.
Secondly, without flow augmentation, the high water
temperatures and low dissolved oxygen that occur in late
summer will exa cerbate or compou nd the detrimental effects
resulting from metals. This should also serve to reduce the
Overall Protection score. If you need citations for these effects,
let me know.

Lastly, given the obvious benefits of flow augmentation to water
quality, I would hate to see this approach not explored to its
fullest. We all know that changing the point of diversion for the
city down to the Treatment Plant would improve water quality
as well, and would cost much less than building a reservoir.
Therefore, I believe the analysis of alternatives should include
one for changing the point of diversion. The only justification for
not doing so is if you think that we really are going to build the
reservoir. I also don't ever remember John Rundquist saying

Upper Tenmile Creek ROD .

Response

The comment is noted. EPA agrees that Alternative 5 is
preferable in terms of flow au gmentation, water qu ality
improvement, and protection of the fishery and aquatic
environment. EPA's selected remedy, Alternative 5, contains
components for additional water storage and Tenmile Creek flow
augmentation.

EPA agrees that flow augmentation is critical to the successful
cleanup of Tenmile Creek. Additional storage will allow EPA to
achieve flow augmentation with little effect on the manner in
which the City of Helena operates its water supply system.
Relying on a lower diversion structure on Tenmile Creek
(presumably near Walker Creek or the Tenmile Water Treatment
Plant), without additional flow augmentation, would cause the
city to receive water with poorer quality than present, as a result
of unavoidable degradation of water quality in the Rimini
vicinity. The additional storage/flow augmentation alternative

C-88

-------
Comment E-mail from Don Skaar to Mike Bishop - July 12, 2001

"no" to the change in diversion idea, just that there were issues to
work through.

Let me phrase this argument a little differently. I know you are
including the reservoir alternative rather than the change in
point of diversion alternative because it is the preferred
alternative of the city. I am OK with that approach as long as we
actually choose it! Otherwise, you are shortchanging the flow
augmentation idea by not considering all possibilities. Are we
really sure the city won't consider the diversion change—even as
a paper exercise?

Response

would allow the city to generally intercept tributary water prior
to its exposure to the main degradation sources in Rimini,
maintaining similar input water quality to what it has currently.
Although it is not an aspect of EPA's selected remedy, the city is
evaluating a possible lower diversion structure on Tenmile
Creek. The loading model developed by EPA can be used by the
city and the upper Tenmile Watershed group to work out
refinements in the management of Tenmile Creek diversions that
would complement EPA's cleanup actions and provide
additional benefit to the fishery.

Don Skaar

Water Pollution Biologist
Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks
1420 East 6th Ave.

Helena, MT 59620
406-444-5686 (voice)

406-444-4952 (fax)
dskaar@state.mt.us

\\Hlsvr1\public\Tenmile\Recoid of DecisiorAFinal ROD (for real) June 2002\Append C - Respons Summ\GH\DonSkaar Columnswpd

C-89

-------
Comment E-mail from Sam Stewart on Draft Proposed Plan - July 24,
2001

To: Mike Bishop/ MO/ R8/ U SEP A / US@EPA

Subject: Upper Ten Mile Creek Mining Area Superfund Site

07/24/01 12:24 PM

July 24, 2001

RE: Draft Proposed Plan for the Upper Ten Mile Creek Mining
Area Superfund Site dated July 2001 (US EPA)

Upper Tenmile Creek Mining Area Rimini, Lewis and
Clark County, Montana EPA Facility ID: MTSFN 0801699
dated April 24, 2001 (U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry)

Rimini Community Meeting with other Agencies 11 July
2001

Helena Independent Record article "Rimini, Tenmile Creek
area considered "public health hazard""

Dear Mike,

As per 1st reference I would like to provide comments.

At the referenced Rimini Community Meeting a potable water
source was discussed and I believe it was generally agreed upon
that the community supported a water source if it could be
economically managed by the City of Helena or some other

Upper Tenmile Creek ROD

Response

The comment is noted. EPA estimates that costs to users of a
community water system can be kept in line with Helena water
costs if a suitable groundwater source relatively close to Rimini
can be located and if approximately 35 connections can be made

C-90

-------
Comment E-mail from Sam Stewart on Draft Proposed Plan - July 24,
2001

qualified entity. Also, the cost of the water to individuals needed
to be in line with the Helena water costs. Obviously, the final
determination will be dependent on currently unanswered
questions.

I support the principal of a ceitral water system dependent on
these unanswered questions. Building a reservoir to augment
stream flow in Ten Mile Creek was also discussed. I support this
concept to improve the watershed and fishery in Ten Mile Creek
but it became apparent to me that this reservoir was not
necessary for a water supply to Rimini residents. I believe the
money used to build a reservoir could be better utilized to
eliminate other health hazards.

The EPA and Dept of Health and Human Services currently
agree that the Ten Mile Creek road to Rimini has hazardous
waste which is toxic and poses an immediate threat to exposed
people. The Agency for T oxic Substances and and Disease
Registry are quoted in part to say that "Rimini and the
surrounding Tenmile Creek area is designated a public health
hazard because of the arsenic or cadmium in road dust."

Currently, Magnesium Chloride is being used to abate the dust
on the road to Rimini. I propose that this is not a satisfactory
dust control method. Magnesium Chloride has been
documented to be extremely corrosive in nature and it kills plant
life. If it kills plant life, how toxic is it to humans? Some of the
Magnesium Chloride has to be leaching into Ten Mile Creek.
How does this effect the fishery? Continuous treatment of
Magnesium Chloride is needed to keep dust down. This is not

Upper Tenmile Creek ROD

Response

to the system. The City of Helena has expressed interest in
operating the system for the community of Rimini if its costs for
operating the system can be recovered.

The comment is noted.

The comment is noted.

EPA has reviewed potential human health and ecological risks
associated with magnesium chloride and concluded that its use
does not present significant risk. Magnesium is an essential and
plentiful element in the human diet and the body is equipped to
absorb and use it efficiently. Intake of extremely high
concentrations over long periods, such as overuse of antacids
containing magnesium, can have toxic effects. However, those
concentrations would not be reached by incidental contact with

C-91

-------
Comment E-mail from Sam Stewart on Draft Pioposed Plan - July 24,
2001

being done and dust is still a problem to Rimini residents and
those residents who live near the road. It is a double edged
sword because if you put more Magnesium Chloride on the road
you are just aggravating the toxic characteristics. It appears to
me the most satisfactory method of dust control would be to
pave those areas which have had mine tailings used to build the
road. I would rather see money put into paving the road than
building a reservoir.

These are the comments that immediately come to my mind.
Sorry that I missed the deadline date but hope my comments are
taken into your consideration.

Sam Stewart
3474 Rimini RD
Helena, MT 59601

Upper Tenmile Creek ROD

Response

road or dust particles. Acute toxicity from magnesium chloride
in aquatic species occurs at concentrations greater than 1,000
mg/L. Instream concentrations are very unlikely to approach
anything near those levels, so potential impact on the fishery is
considered insignificant. EPA has selected a remedy for
roadways that requires excavation of all accessible contaminated
materials. After the removal of contaminated materials is
complete, the potential for road dust to contain mining-related
contaminants is eliminated and dust control related to the
Superfund action will not be necessary.

C-92

-------
E-Mail from Diane Tipton to Mike Bishop - August 6, 2001

August 6, 2001

Mike Bishop
EPA

Mike—

I have some questions and comments that I've decided are best
shared with you by emaiL The informal discussions in meetings
and by phone are not being productive. In cases where you
think I should read particular documents, you may indicate
which documents you'd recommend. However, my questions
are simple and I, and most private citizens, appreciate your time
in providing simple, direct answers rather than being referred to
documents that we then need to track down.

1.1 want to know when the draft Upper Tenmile Project Plan is
expected to be final, what the expected timeframe and dates are
for public comment and what "publics" will have the opportunity
to comment. Will the EPA ask for comment from people in the
City of Helena, just in Rimini, in Helena and the surrounding
area?

2.1 want to know what the City of Helena's relationship to the
Travis Reservoir will be, if any. Would water stored in the
proposed reservoir be part of, or separate from, the City's
existing water right on Tenmile Creek? What agency would
manage the proposed reservoir?

Upper Tenmile Creek ROD

Response

1.	The draft proposed plan was provided to agencies and
Rimini-area individuals to obtain informal public input on the
remedial options being considered by EPA. The formal
proposed plan was issued on October 22, 2001. The general
public, including Helena and the surrounding area, was invited
to comment. Pub lie hearings on the proposed plan were held in
Rimini and Helena.

2.	The Travis location is not part of EPA's current plan.
Additional storage is now planned for Chessman Reservoir,
which is managed by the City of Helena. The City of Helena
would continue to manage Chessman for its water supply. The
city has agreed in principle to release additional water from Scott
Reservoir during low flow periods and to allow that water to
bypass its diversion structure on Tenmile Creek above Rimini.

C-93

-------
E-Mail from Diane Tipton to Mike Bishop - August 6, 2001

3.	I'd recommend that there be a physical description of the
estimated size and scope of the proposed reservoir included in
the copy of the plan that the public reviews. It is difficult to
comment on a proposed reservoir when there is no quantitative
information to help us evaluate the size, scope, environmental
impact etc. of such a reservoir.

4.	How will the document be presented? Will there be a meeting
explaining the various alternatives and their relative merits? A
public presentation on the comparative merits of the different
water quantity solutions would be valuable when your full plan
is presented to the public for comment.

5.	When will the environmental impact study EPA is required to
prepare under the NEPA process going to be completed and
available for public review?

My comments are as follows. My interest is in doing what I can
to keep the public discussion and work undertaken in the Upper
Tenmile focused on what is necessary to do the clean up job. 1
want to minimize as much as possible impacts on the forest and
on wildlife, to minimize the amount of land involved in the clean
up to the degree possible, and to avoid significant changes in
land use or in the nature of this area. I strongly oppose any
move that will increase recreation into the Upper Tenmile
Watershed, widen roads and further open up the wildlife habitat
here. I also oppose moves that will change the character of the
gulch or the life style of those who live here.

Upper Tenmile Creek ROD

Response

3. Additional details about the Chessman Reservoir upgrade and
other reservoir options are included in theRI/FS addenda
report. The Travis reservoir location is not part of EPA's selected
remedy.

4.	The alternatives were discussed and presented at a number of
monthly public meetings of the Upper Tenmile Watershed
Steering Committee and at the two public hearings on the
proposed plan.

5.	EPA's Superfund RI/FS process, which includes scoping
meetings, evaluation of alternatives relative to specified
protectiveness and effectiveness criteria, and full public
comment, has been determined to be the functional equivalent of
the NEPA process. No separate NEPA analysis is required.

These comments are noted. EPA has attempted to prioritize
proposed cleanup actions to address only those sites that are
considered significant contaminant sources and has committed
to conducting its cleanup in a manner that minimizes access road
improvement and impacts on the forest and wildlife.

C-94

-------
E-Mail from Diane Tipton to Mike Bishop- August 6, 2001

The EPA's work is to clean up the environment and it should be
restricted to that goal, in my personal opinion. The residents of
this area should not have to deal with a whole host of outside
agencies in making decisions that affect our homes, the level of
recreation around us, the quality of the wildlife habitat here etc.
Those issues were never on the table and have no place in a
discussion about a clean up effort.

The City and the EPA signed on as cooperators for the Upper
Tenmile Watershed Noxious Weed Grant when I took on the job
of being the resident coordinator. As the coordinator I expect
both the City and the EPA to spray for noxious weeds in 2001
everywhere weeds occur on lands owned by the City or
disturbed by the EPA. Our verbal agreement was that the EPA
would also spray where needed last fall. The City has sprayed
some of their lands but has not sprayed the leased pasture or the
hillsides that are the worst offenders.

For the EPA, I don't think I should have to call someone in
Denver to find out if your group sprayed here in Montana last
fall or will again this year. I expect you as project manager and
spokesperson to provide that information to me and to Jesse
Aber. My offer to help you or your people identify weeds in the
work areas was genuine, even though it will require my personal
time, which is extremely valuable to me. I also wrote the state
noxious weed grant for the Upper Tenmile in my personal time
and I take my personal time to attend the watershed group
meetings. The cat and mouse game you put me through at the
last watershed group meeting wastes my time and the groups
and is not acceptable to me.

Upper Tenmile Creek ROD

Response

Under this project, EPA and the State of Montana are assuming
responsibility for cleaning up contaminant releases from
abandoned or inactive historic mining operations. EPA will
work with the land and wildlife management agencies and the
city and county planning departments regarding land use,
recreation, and wildlife habitat issues.

EPA will continue to require that weed-free borrow soils and
vegetative matter be used at its Superfund cleanu p sites and will
implement a weed control program, as needed, at EPA's
reclaimed sites. Following cleanup and reclamation activities,
the state will assume responsibility for ongoing maintenance.
EPA cannot require that the City of Helena spray for weeds on
city property.

EPA appreciates all of the time that you devote to the control of
noxious weeds in the upper Tenmile Creek watershed and to the
assistance you've provided throughout the Superfund project.

C-95

-------
E-Mail from Diane Tipton to Mike Bishop - August 6, 2001

My concern about the proposed Travis Reservoir is that I want to
see the EPA do what it can to ensure the public discussion of this
proposal stays on track. It is a "water quantity" solution and, I
think, should be presented as such. It will color the public's
input to suggest that the proposed reservoir will increase
recreational opportunities down the road. In fact, I'd like to see
the EPA state that recreation is not the purpose or intention of
the reservoir. I'd also like it slated for the public whether or not
the proposed reservoir will also be available to the City of
Helena as a water supply at some future date.

Mike, I want you to know that I appreciate and respect your
work on the draft plan and that of your agency. I also am aware
that this is a very complex project with many aspects I don't
understand and that are beyond my time and in some cases my
ability to understand. As a private citizen I can not attend all of
the meetings. I appreciate these facts every time I ask questions.
Brief, bulleted responses will be sufficient Please enter my
comments as appropriate. I assume there will be an additional
public comment period when I can send in any additional
comments. If some things are unknown at this time, you could
just indicate that and tell me when you think you might know.

Thanks very much for your time.

Diane Tipton

Upper Tenmile Creek ROD

Response

EPA is proposing the creation of additional water storage in the
upper Tenmile Creek watershed to allow for improved water
quality and stream habitat in Tenmile Creek during the annual
periods of low flow. EPA is not proposing additional
recreational opportunities, although increased fishing
opportunities will be a benefit of improved water quality and
flow conditions Chessman Reservoir currently is not used for
recreational purposes. EPA assumes that it would continue to be
closed to recreation after the upgrade.

C-96

-------
Comment Letter from Diane Tipton on Draft Proposed Plan - July 23,
2001

July 23, 2001

United States Environmental Protection Agency

Attn: Mike Bishop

Federal Building

301 S. Park

Drawer 10096

Helena, Montana 59626-0096
Dear Mr. Bishop:

I have reviewed the Draft Proposed Plan for the Upper Tenmile
Creek Mining Area Site in Lewis and Clark County. The
proposed alternatives address adit discharges in a variety of
ways including physical/chemical treatment of three adits in the
Rimini area, water inflow reduction and/or biological treatment
of all adit discharges. It appears that in all cases all adits would
be treated in some way.

I would like to see greater flexibility in the plan to characterize or
categorize the adits. Some adits are in remote areas surrounded
by fragile habitat where there would be no other reason to
disturb the environment and they are having very little if any
measurable impact on the environment The plan takes the time
to assess the mine waste dumps based on how much of a
contributor they are to the problem. I think there should be
similar approach to rating the adits.

The treatment plan for certain adits that do not significantly
contribute to the pollution problem in and around the town of

Upper Tenmile Creek ROD

Response

EPA has added provisions to the final proposed plan and ROD
whereby EPA will evaluate and weigh further during remedial
design the water quality improvements achievable at specific
adits vs. the potential adverse impacts of constructing and
operating treatment facilities at those adits. The primary reason
EPA expects that some treatment would be required at all adits is
that the adit discharge waters typically exceed state ambient
water quality standards for some parameters. In order for the
remedy to comply with state water quality standards, which it
must under the Superfund law, unless the standard is waived,
EPA anticipated that treatment would be required. During

C-97

-------
Comment Letter from Diane Tipton on Draft Proposed Plan - July 23,
2001

Rimini should also be flexible. If there is little appreciable
impact on surface or ground water quality in* the area, minimal
or no treatment should be an option. Also, in cases where the
local community requests it for specific environmental, wildlife
habitat or other concerns, the plan should allow for a assessment
of the environmental damage incurred by treating the area as
compared to performing minimal or no treatment.

As we've discussed before, the planned clean up of the Upper
Tenmile area is extensive and very pricey for taxpayers. It is
only reasonable that the plan be as flexible as possible so that in
cases where a site has little or no overaU impact we aren't bound
to "over" treat it.

I also believe that the local community should be allowed to have
input and influence on whether "noncontributing" sites are
treated and how.

Thank you for the opportunity to have input. If you have any
questions, don't hesitate to call me on 444-3079.

Sincerely,

Diane M. Tipton

Upper Tenmile Creek ROD

Response

remedial design, EPA will, in consultation with DEQ, consider
both relative overall contaminant loading and compliance with
state water quality standards for individual adit discharges.

The comment is noted.

The public is offered the opportunity to comment and have input
on all components of the site remedial plan. However, under
Superfund, public comment is a "modifying criteria." Remedies
are required to meet the two threshold criteria of "protectiveness
of human health and the environment" and "compliance with
ARARs."

C-98

-------
Comment Letter from R. Mark Wilson on Draft Proposed Plan - August
2, 2001

August 2, 2001
Mike Bishop

Remedial Project Manager
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
301 South Park, Drawer 10096
Helena, MT 59626

Dear Mr. Bishop:

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has reviewed the
document entitled, "Draft Proposed Plan, Upper Tenmile Creek
Mining Area Site, Lewis and Clark County, Montana" under a
technical assistance Interagency Agreement with EPA. The
Service has several comments on the draft document.

Travis Reservoir Site

The proposed site for Travis Reservoir is located on an 84 acre
wetland (see enclosure). During a site visit to this wetland the
Service noted its high functional value, and its apparent pristine
condition. Inundation of this area and construction of the dam
would result in a loss of nearly all of the present wetland.
Further, wetland areas not directly impacted from construction
or inundation could be impacted from hydrologic changes
associated with fluctuating water levels. Compliance with
wetland Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
(ARARs) would require mitigation of this wetland.

Mitigation of a wetland this large within the Tenmile site will be
difficult. The Service is not aware of a mitigation site (i.e., an

Upper Tenmile Creek ROD

Response

EPA concurs with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service opinion that
mitigation of the lost wetlands at the potential Travis Reservoir
location would be difficult. Largely for that reason, EPA has
selected a remedy that includes the upgrade of existing
Chessman Reservoir to provide additional water storage for flow
augmentation. The loss of wetlands will be substantially
reduced at the Chessman location.

C-99

-------
Comment Letter from R. Mark Wilson on Drift Proposed Plan - August
2, 2001

area with suitable topography) that does not currently contain a
wetland. For example, if Banner Creek wetland was chosen as a
mitigation site, it would most likely not satisfy all the mitigation
requirements. Although similar in size, the Banner Creek site is
currently a wetland, and although impaired, still has some
function. Compliance with ARARs would resuh in improvement
of all the Banner Creek wetland, as well as wetland creation,
restoration and enhancement at another site(s).

The Service estimated the number of mitigation acres needed for
the loss of Travis Reservoir wetland using the Habitat
Equivalency Analysis (HEA) model. This model estimates the
acres needed for mitigation, and results ranged from 111 acres (if
the mitigated wetland has the same productivity as a natural
wetland)'to 183 acres (if the mitigated wetland has only half the
productivity as a natural wetland). The Service has concerns
about mitigating a high altitude wetland because of the time
required for the wetland to become fully functional under short
growing seasons. In the HEA, increases in time for a wetland to
become fully functional result in increased mitigation acres
required. In order to minimize that recovery periods and thus
reduce the loss of wetland services, and the required mitigation
acreage, the Service recommends that mitigation be completed
prior to the loss of the Travis Reservoir wetland, to reduce the
amount of lost wetland services, and thus the mitigation acreage
required.

Biological Treatment Wetlands

Currently the preferred alternative includes the use of
constructed wetlands for treatment of adit discharges. These

Upper Tenmile Creek ROD

Response

EPA concurs that the constructed wetlands envisioned for
treatment of acid mine drainage would not constitute wetlands

C-100

-------
Comment Letter from R. Mark Wilson on Draft Proposed Plan - August
2, 2001

wetlands would likely not meet the dual role of a treatment
wetland and a mitigation wetland. The treatment wetlands (as
the Service understands they would be constructed) would likely
not meet the jurisdictional wetland criteria and as such, would
not be appropriate wetlands for mitigation.

Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the
aforementioned document. The Service looks forward to
participating in the remediation of the Upper Tenmile Creek
Mining Area Site. Should you have any questions concerning
these comments or require additional information, please contact
Ms. Karen Nelson of this office at (406)449-5225, extension 210.

Sincerely,

R. Mark Wilson
Montana Field Supervisor

Enclosure

cc: USEPA, R-8, Denver, CO (Attn: Dr. Dan Wall)

Upper Tenmile Creek ROD

Response

for mitigation.

-------
Public Hearing Comments and Responses

-------
Proposed Plan Public Hearing, Rimini, MT - November 8, 2001

BEFORE THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPOSED PLAN
UPPER TENMILE CREEK MINING AREA SITE
LEWIS AND CLARK COUNTY, MONTANA

TRANSCRIPT OF THE PROCEEDINGS

Heard Before Mike Bishop, EPA Project Manager

Rimini School House, Rimini, Montana

November 8, 2001
7:10 p.m.

REPORTED BY:	CHERYL ROMS A

CHERYL ROMSA COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 1278
HELENA, MONTANA 59624
(406) 449-6380

Upper Tenmile Creek ROD

Response

-------
Proposed Plan Public Hearing, Rimini, MT - November 8, 2001

INDEX

PAGE

Discussion on the road and paving versus

removal .:	 3

Discussion of the meeting re wildlife issues 	 5

Discussion about funding	 9

Discussion on the Luttrell Respository	 15

Discussion on the sampling of yards 	 21

Discussion about the road	 24

COURT REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE 	 30

Upper Tenmile Creek ROD

Response

-------
Proposed Plan Public Hearing, Rimini, MT - November 8, 2001

1	WHEREUPON, the following proceedings were had:

2	(An overview of the plan was presented by

3	Mike Bishop.)

4	MR. BISHOP: Now we would like to hear from you.

5	We have a court reporter here, and she'll record your

6	concerns.

7	Mike.

8	MR. McH UGH: M ichael McH ugh. The 18 inches of

9	road material you're going to take out, what segment of

10	the road are you talking about? Is it just in the town

11	site, or are you looking all the way down to —

12	MR. BISHOP: Our thought is primarily in the

13	town site, but we want to have some sensitivity to

14	locations where there could be some additiona 1

15	development. But as you're probably aware, those areas

16	are portions of the road that were washed out during the

17	flood event of 1981, and so that's where we'll be

18	looking.

19	MR. STEWART: Has there been a cost comparative

20	study as to digging out the 18 inches versus capping,

21	let's just say an asphalt or something like that?

22	MR. BISHOP: We actually just kind of rehashed

23	that this week.

24	MR. MARSH: My recollection of that number is

25	that it was about 150,000 more dollars to do the paving

Upper Tenmile Creek ROD

Response

The format of this meeting was primarily open discussion and
question and answer. EPA's responses to most comments are
provided directly in the discussion and are not repeated in this
column. Clarifications are noted in this column if necessary.

The contaminated road material is believed to extend
approximately from the road adjacent to the Helena water
system intake structure north to junction with the Beaver Creek
road. EPA plans to address that portion of the road adjacent to
the residential area of Rimini. The road north of Rimini crosses
national forest service land that will not be residentially
developed, so EPA does not plan on removing that portion of the
road.

EPA has reevaluated the alternative of capping the road with
asphalt. New estimates, based.on conversations with county
road maintenance personnel involved in the rebuild of the road
in 1981, indicate that approximately 5,000 feet of roadway will
have to be remediated. At this length of road requiring
remediation, EPA has determined that capping/paving would be
a cost-effective alternative. However, EPA has also consulted
with the State of Montana regarding the remedy for roadways.
The state has expressed concern about the need to maintain
either a paved cap or a gravel cover over time and the potential
remobilization of contaminants left in place during major flood
events, such as the flood of 1981. EPA has therefore included the

C-105

-------
Proposed Plan Public Hearing, Rimini, MT-November 8, 2001

1	than to do the remov al, if I remember right.

2	MR. STEWART: And does that include the

3	follow-on maintenance of what it would cost to maintain

4	a dirt road versus a paved road, as far as the County is

5	concerned?

6	MR. MARSH: Yeah, those numbers were the — it

7	was the present worth that included the capitalization

8	of the maintenance over a 30-year period.

9	MR. STEWART: I would sure like to see that

10	study, if possible.

11	MR. MARSH: And Sam, we got the cost estimate

12	for the paving directly from the County. We basically

13	asked the County what they would require in terms of the

14	paving alternative, and that cost estimate assumed

15	paving from approximately Martins' house down to below

16	Moores' house, basically all the way through the part of

17	town where there are houses.

18	MR. BISHOP: Yeah, I've got to smile about that,

19	because I made one phone call, and the first person

20	said, "I would certainly be in favor of that, and I

21	can't imagine anybody being opposed to it." Then 1

22	spoke to the next person, and they said, "Well, I'm

23	opposed to it, and I can't imagineanybody being in

24	favor of it." So you know you're in trouble.

25	MS. TIPTON: Diane Tipton. Can you tell me a

Upper Tenmile Creek ROD

Response

removal of all accessible contaminated roadway materials in
Rimini as part of the selected remedy for the site.

The revised cost estimates for alternatives to address
contaminated roadway materials are provided in the RI/FS
addenda report.

EPA's response was provided by Mr. Bishop at the meeting.
Refer to his response following the comment.

C-106

-------
Proposed Plan Public Hearing, Rimini, MT - November 8, 2001

1	little more about — You mentioned that you hired a

2	facilitator to talk about the wildlife issues, and some

3	additional mediums. Could you just elaborate on that?

4	MR. BISHOP: Sure. And, you know, initially,

5	we've invited Chuck to that meeting, but other

6	landowners, I guess, are certainly welcome. And I guess

7	I'd see this potentially being more than one meeting.

8	But the groups that we've received the strongest

9	comment from are Fish, Wildlife & Parks, there's the

10	Helena Hunters and Anglers Group, and there's a group

11	called Orion. And they basically, I think, try to

12	represent the concern of hunters and fishermen. And

13	their concern has been, which I would imagine that

14	you've heard on some of our trips and so forth, that the

15	increased capacity of our road s for these trucks

16	encourages additional people to utilize the area. It

17	encourages people that have parcels of land to develop

18	them, and possibly to increase the pressure on the

19	wildlife and decrease the security that these band s of

20	elk would otherwise have here.

21	So what we're going to try to do — and our

22	facilitator is a really interesting person that's really

23	talented at doing this sort of thing. We're going to

24	try and bring everybody together and kind of talk about

25	what the issues are and different views among the

Upper Tenmile Creek ROD

Response

-------
Proposed Plan Public Hearing, Rimini, MT-November 8, 2001

1	different parties, recognizing that many of these things

2	are not necessarily simply, you know, addressed under

3	the law that we deal with.

4	But as we have these folks together, I think

5	everybody has something potentially to contribute. And,

6	you know, certainly from our perspective, I wouldn't

7	have a problem diminishing the size of some of these

8	roads, if that's the way that we want to go when we're

9	done, and commit to a minimum standard for the trucks

10	that we would utilize and so forth. We could line out

11	those sort of objectives and that sort of a path for the

12	work that we do.

13	But conversely, the groups that we're dealing with

14	also have some resources available to them. And I don't

15	know if you're familiar with conservation easements, but

16	some of these parcels of land up here are absentee

17	landowners, some of them haven't seen the parcels that

18	they own. They were doctors or attorneys or whatever

19	that were paid. And I really dont think they have an

20	interest necessarily in developing them, and we might be

21	able to bring some of these other groups to the table to

22	acquire some easements to close up some of those areas

23	as well.

24	You know, frankly, another area that has some

25	promise, you're aware that the City owns the

Upper Tenmile Creek ROD

Response

-------
Proposed Plan Public Hearing, Rimini, MT - November 8, 2001

1	Travis Reservoir location arid there was serious concern

2	about wildlife values there. And I don't know if you

3	know it, but the Forest Service actually owns the

4	Chessman Reservoir site. And there's been a land

5	exchange that's been discussed for a decade, I bet, and

6	I would be delighted if this process could help

7	facilitate that land exchange. The City also owns the

8	impaired Banner Creek wetlands at the head of the road

9	where it splits and goes to Scott Reservoir, and that

10	could also be involved in that exchange. And those are

11	some of the sort of things that we want to talk about.

12	But under our development of Chessman Reservoir,

13	do impair about 14 acres of wetlands that are-there

14	right now, and we have a responsibility to mitigate

15	that. Our thought is that we might be able to improve

16	some of the wetland conditions up in the Banner Creek

17	wetlands, if you're familiar with those. They were

18	inundated by overburden from the placer mining. It's

19	not really a contaminated material, but it's affected

20	the stream in such a way that it's not really a healthy

21	wetland a t this point in t ime.

22	So those are the sort of things that we're talking

23	about.

24	MS. CANNON: Helenann Cannon. This is kind of

25	related, and you may just want to address it at the

Upper Tenmile Creek ROD

Response

-------
Proposed Plan Public Hearing, Rimini, MT-November 8, 2001

1	wildlife meeting more. I've heard scuttlebutt about a

2	road going right through Bonner Meadows, and that would

3	be a big concern to elk habitat.

4	MR. BISHOP: Well, that's on the Prickly Pear

5	side.

6	MS. CANNON: The back side of Red Mountain.

7	MR. BISHOP: See, that would not be ours. Well,

8	yeah, it might be —

9	MS. CANNON: There's another road going up

10	through into Lutrell.

11	MR. BISHOP: You're right. There is a mine

12	that's very remote.

13	Do you want to ad dress that, Neil? Is it

14	Valley Forge or —

15	MR. MARSH: No, it's the National Extension.

16	MR. BISHOP: National Extension, I'm sorry.

17	MR. MARSH: And the most direct route from the

18	National Extension would be on the ridge above

19	Bonner Meadows there. But I'm not quite sure what the

20	status of the Forest Service's thoughts is on the

21	National Extension.

22	MR. BISHOP: And your comment is that there

23	would be —

24	MS. CAN NON: That's big elk habitat up there.

25	I've been up there.

Upper Tenmile Creek ROD

Response

The National Extension site is a priority site for which waste
rock/tailings would be removed and disposed of at the Luttrell
repository. The route of transporting the wastes and the access
road specifications will be determined during remedial design
through consultation with the USFS, DFWP, the property
owners, and other interested parties.

C-110

-------
Proposed Plan Public Hearing, Rimini, MT - November 8, 2001

1	MR. BISHOP: Okay, everybody make a note.

2	MR. MARSH: I'll check it out this weekend.

3	MR. LEWIS: Dave Lewis. I'm curious about the

4	money. Now, DEQ has to go to the Legislature for the

5	State match. DEQ does not have the State match at this

6	time; I'm fairly certain of that.

7	MR. FRENCH: We have a portion of it.

8	MR. LEWIS: You have some portion of it, okay.

9	It's already appropriated?

10	MR. FRENCH: It's not appropriated. We have

11	money through credit. It's not real money, it's credit

12	that we have to use through this for ongoing operations

13	of the Basin Creek Mine.

14	MR. LEWIS: Oh, okay.

15	MR. BISHOP: EPA has given the State credit for

16	the bond money that they're spending up there. And

17	actually, there's enough credit to cover this entire

18	action.

19	MR. LEWIS: But you're still going to need

20	appropriation.

21	MR. FRENCH: Well, we'll still need money to run

22	the operation and maintenance.

23	MR. BISHOP: That's right.

24	MR. FRENCH: There is also the town of Basin

25	site and there is the Basin watershed site that we'd

Upper Tenmile Creek ROD

Response

-------
Proposed Plan Public Hearing, Rimini, MT-November 8, 2001

1	like to spread this money and make last as long as we

2	can, because we foresee eventually running out of this

3	credited money somewhere.

4	• MR. LEWIS: But you're not going to be able to

5	make a commitment to match the project without an

6	appropriation or some legislative authorization to do

7	so, are you?

8	MR. FRENCH: Are you asking if we have to wait

9	for the Legislature come back in session before we can

10	agree to this?

11	MR. LEWIS: Um-hum.

12	MR. FRENCH: We can agree to it before that.

13	MR. LEWIS: But can you pay the bills, I guess?

14	MR. FRENCH: We'll pay the bills.

15	MR. BISHOP: Something that would be good for

16	you to know is that many of the cleanup activities and

17	I guess specifically those that deal with these mine

18	adits, the way the program is set up, EPA will operate

19	those for ten years before we turn it over to the State.

20	So there is some leeway there. Also, when the State

21	would take over the responsibility for the Lutrell

22	Repository, it would be after we close that. And we

23	recognize that there's going to be some period of

24	time — five or ten years is our best guess at this

25	point — where we will continue to bring in materials.

Upper Tenmile Creek ROD

Response

-------
Proposed Plan Public Hearing, Rimini, MT-November 8, 2001

1	So that wouId not be required at that point in time.

2	And also, there's a state Superfund contract that we

3	need to enter into with the State before we actually

4	initiate the cleanups. And we have agreed to work with

5	the State on a year-by-year basis where we strive to

6	meet their concerns with respect to these mines by

7	diminishing the amount of discharge from them before we

8	go into the design and construction of these water

9	treatment plants.

10	So again, that commitment will be sought on a

11	year-by-year basis. It's not like we're asking for an

12	overwhelming —

13	MR. FRENCH: 2.4 million, like you said for O&M.

14	MR. LEWIS: But you still are going to need some

15	portion.

16	MR. FRENCH: We are going to eventually have to

17	pay it. But in the beginning, no, we won't pay it.

18	MR. LEWIS: As the representative, I'm the vice

19	chairman of the Appropriations Committee at the present

20	time, and I'm in line to move up if I get elected back

21	next time. But I think that due to my position there,

22	that this group up here has some pretty major leverage

23	on this, I guess. You know, you can let me know. And

24	I'm sure it will be just like every other project we

25	deal with in this part of the world; there isn't going

Upper Tenmiie Creek ROD

Response

C-113

-------
Proposed Plan Public Hearing, Rimini, MT - November 8, 2001

1	to be a consensus, but at least I can have, through the

2	appropriation process, quite a bit to say about what

3	happens with this. Because if nothing else, I control

4	their opera tional bud get.

5	But, you know, don't feel like you don't have some

6	leverage through the legislative process on this as this

7	moves along. And I know these guys have done a great

8	job. It certainly seems to me that they've done a great

9	job of trying to bring everyone together and work

10	together and everything else. But, you know, there's

11	one final hurdle here: The State's share of this thing

12	has to be authorized in some substance by the

13	Legislature. And that's where you can certainly let me

14	know what you're thinking about and what you're hoping

15	to happen here. Because I know we can put some

16	conditions on appropriations and those kinds of things.

17	Now, the rest of the question was, so how about the

18	federal money? Now, you have to go to Congress to get

19	the 20 million?

20	MR. BISHOP: No, it would be through our agency,

21	and we are competing on a national basis. This is a

22	national priority site. And certainly, we're aware that

23	Libby has a high level of concern, and we don't disagree

24	that they should be in line before we are. And the way

25	our agency is working right now is, they are trying not

Upper Tennrtile Creek ROD

Response

-------
Proposed Plan Public Hearing, Rimini, MT - November 8, 2001

1	to commit to new cleanup — cleanup of new sites until

2	they have funds that are available. And right now,

3	there's more requests going in tha n there are funds

4	available.

5	For example, the town of Basin, the record of

6	decision was done last year. They did not receive

7	funding to initiate that cleanup this past field season.

8	But, you know, you might — my superv isor, Bob Fox, is

9	here. He probably knows more about this than I do, but

10	we just know it's going to be tight for a while. But I

11	feel that it's coming, ifs just a matter of waiting for

12	our oppo rtunity.

13	MR. FOX: There's one point, if I could make a

14	comment. You know, we are in a pretty good situation

15	here by being able to look at some credit for that State

16	match, but we have other Superfund sites that have been

17	listed that don't have responsible parties and there

18	will be more need for the State match; and, of course,

19	Libby has that issue. And I do feel that it's good to

20	begin thinking about a process to go through some,

21	probably some legislative mechanism that would have some

22	funding available for matching the federal funds. If

23	not here, other places.

24	MR. LEWIS: It's an opportunity to do that. I

25	mean, we have something called the Resource Indemnity

13

Upper Tenmile Creek ROD

Response

-------
Proposed Plan Public Hearing, Rimini, MT-November 8, 2001

1	Trust in Montana, where there's a tax on various mining

2	and oil and gas production, those kind of things, that

3	goes into the trust fund. Once it hits $100 million,

4	then that money is available to be used for other

5	purposes, and it's going to hit $100 million this year.

6	So there's going to be some money on the table to use

7	for these purposes.

8	I think most legislators, certainly myself, it's

9	going to be wanting to make sure this is what the

10	community wants.

11	MR. BISHOP: Sure. The thing that would be

12	important to me, and that you can carry back, it's not a

13	bad deal in the sense that the match is 10 percent and

14	the O&M starts after 10 years of water treatment and so

15	forth.

16	So I hope the State feels like we're trying to put

17	them on a pretty good footing from the very beginning.

18	MR. LEWIS: Again, as long as that's what the

19	community —

20	MR. BISHOP: I understand.

21	MR. LEWIS: If they say, "Gee, you know, we're

22	not real sure about that," then we're going to be — I'm

23	going to be in a position to say, "Well, maybe we need

24	to go back to the drawing board," just because of the

25	unique situation.

i

14

i

Upper Tertmita Creek ROD

Response

-------
Proposed Plan Public Hearing, Rimini, MT - November 8, 2001

1	MR. BISHOP: Sure.

2	Steve.

3	MR. RIETEM A: My questions and concern are about

4	the Lutrell Pit. Will you cap that after your cleanup

5	is finished?

6	MR. BISHOP: Yes.

7	MR. RIETEMA: It won't be an ongoing waste site

8	where other materials from different parts of the state

9	are hauled up there and dumped, will it?

10	MR. BISHOP: Well, when that site was initially

11	evaluated by the State, they did an economic evaluation

12	of what distance would it be economically feasible to

13	bring waste from other mine sites to that location, and

14	there's about 2 million cubic yards of capacity within

15	that pit. And I prefer to call it a repository, because

16	we have engineered a lot of improvements to it.

17	But from all over the state, no. From the

18	Little Blackfoot, Travis Creek, or some of these

19	adjoining watersheds, yes. And we're trying to

20	accommodate waste from the Forest Servioe, potentially

21	waste from the State, and so forth, to bring it into

22	this one secure location where the maintenance at one

23	site is easier, in our opinion, than it would be to have

24	these located throughout. And I think the risk would go

25	up if we had them located at a variety of sites as well.

15

Upper Tenmile Creek ROD

Response

-------
Proposed Plan Public Hearing, Rimini, MT-November 8, 2001

1	So this has been our choice, and it was a difficult

2	one, to put it in one place.

3	MR. RIETEMA: But is there a time frame attached

4	to that, then, so that at some point it will be capped?

5	MR. BISHOP: Yes, absolutely.

6	There is an underliner and there's an overliner, and

7	the idea is that, you know, just like with the mines, if

8	we can control the amount of water going through those

9	materials, we have created significant more security.

10	So we plan to cover it actually with a heavy-duty

11	plastic liner and to recover it with suitable rooting

12	material and revegetate it.

13	MR. RIETEMA: You mentioned that there may be

14	some overflow from this —

15	MR. BISHOP: Yes.

16	MR. RIETEMA: — during these years while it's

17	being filled? Because actually, itte going to be lake

18	or a pond for a while.

19	Where is that on the watershed divide up there? I

20	mean, would that waste that comes out of there flow into

21	this drainage or to the, you know,' other side?

22	MR. BISHOP: First of all, it's not a lake;

23	because they have a separate storm water system that

24	takes any water that's impounded, that doesn't come in

25	contact with the waste and discharges, from the area.

Upper Tenmile Creek ROD

Response

-------
Proposed Plan Public Hearing, Rimini, MT - November 8, 2001

1	So there's no water that's impounded there. And they

2	put an interim cover on each wintertime, so we're

3	minimizing the amount of water that goes in there.

4	The repository actually straddles the drainage

5	divide, and it's in two counties. Ifs in a horseshoe

6	shape, and the open side of it is towards Basin Creek.

7	But it really wouldn't flow. I mean, if you look at it,

8	you can see that it's not going to go anywhere.

9	MR. RIETEMA: 1 wish we could have visited that

10	the day we went up on tour.

11	MR. BISHOP: We could have. As a matter of

12	fact, next summer, if you're still here, I'd be happy to

13	go up and show it to you. And I do have photos and so

14	forth that we could show you, as well.

15	MR. RIETEMA: So that will be capped at the end.

16	MR. BISHOP: Um-hum.

17	MR. RIETEMA: I was worried about future use,

18	you know, and having trucks hauling material from gas

19	stations and you-name-it.

20	MR. BISHOP: No. No.

21	MS. CANNON: What's the timeline on capping

22	that? Are we talking 5 years, 20 years, 50 years?

23	MR. BISHOP: That's a good question. You know,

24	if you look at the estimate of the nu mber of cubic yard s

25	that we have to remove, 245,000 cubic yards, our track

Upper Tenmiie Creek ROD

Response

-------
Proposed Plan Public Hearing, Rimini, MT -November 8, 2001

1	record here from our existing projects has been about

2	40- to 60,000 cubic yards a year from this watershed.

3	And if we were to go at that rate, we could clean up

4	this site in about 5 years. Recognizing our budget

5	problems, in our document we say five to ten years.

6	But as Craig mentioned, too, we're also — when we

7	sited the Lutrell Repository, the folks in Basin asked

8	that we also clean up their watersheds, if this thing is

9	going to be straddling the divide, and so we have a

10	similar project that's not a s far along on that side of

11	the basin. And so next year, we will be at this point

12	where we'll be discussing this sort of a decision

13	process. And again, you know, there are actually more

14	mines on that side than there are on this side. And we

15	will move as rapidly as we can, given both our physical

16	equipment constraints and also our budget constraints.

17	MS. CANNON: So you're saying it will be

18	15 years on the outside, 10 for this side and an

19	additional 5 to catch them up maybe, ballpark?

20	MR. FOX: Maybe ballpark.

21	MS. CANNON: Maybe ballpark, okay.

22	My concern, too, like Steve's, is how long before we

23	actually say, "We're pretty much done, let's cover it up

24	now and vegetate."

25	MR. BISHOP: Well, part of what we want to do is

Upper Tenmiie Creek ROD

Response

-------
Proposed Plan Public Hearing, Rimini, MT - November 8, 2001

1	do some of that covering and revegetating as we go

2	along. So as we finish up the estimate of the volume of

3	materials that we expect to remove from those mines, we

4	will come up with a final design for the final elevation

5	for that repository, and then from the areas that have

6	been filled up to that point ahead of it, we would close

7	that out. So the idea is we actually move from the

8	furthest-out portion of the repository and move back.

9	And so this revegetation should have a number of

10	years to be in good shape before we actually walk away

11	from it. And again, the State would be backing us up

12	there.

13	MR. FRENCH: Craig French. I wanted to say that

14	the DEQ supports this proposed plan, that we're very

15	much in favor of the four phases of the acid mine

16	drainage treatment, or treatment/source control plan

17	that EPA has proposed, and we're looking forward to

18	working together to deal with the water issues.

19	MR. BISHOP: You know, if people are going to be

20	shy, one thing, recognizing the State's severe concern

21	about this, and it's been their concern since before we

22	actually listed the site, when we were talking about

23	proposing this site as a national priorities list site,

24	they identified this concern. There's a mine waste

25	technology program that Congress funds to the tune of

Upper Tenmiie Creek ROD

Response

-------
Proposed Plan Public Hearing, Rimini, MT-November 8, 2001

1	about $5 million a year in Butte, and that program has

2	agreed to, at least for this next year, have as their

3	priority the investigation of techniques that would

4	mitigate these discharges in these small back-country

5	sort of situations.

6	So right now, on their website, they're inviting

7	researchers to move in that direction, and they're

8	inviting them to come and talk to the agency, so that

9	they're resolving problems that are real problems in the

10	field. They're trying to invite processes that are

11	full-scale processes, not just those that would be

12	tested in a laboratory or whatever. And I would think

13	that there would be potential that we would have some of

14	those investigations actually conducted within these

15	watersheds that are here.

16	In addition, in the design work that CDM is

17	initiating, we provided for two demonstrations of some

18	of these treatment technologies. So even though these

19	may not be the final action for a discharge from a mine

20	opening, we're providing funds to at least at two sites

21	to look at some approaches of dealing with it in a

22	low-cost sort of manner. And again, our hope is that we

23	would get into a circumstance where these could be

24	maintained, materials could be changed out maybe every

25	15 years or so. But it's using a variety of approaches

Upper Tenmile Creek ROD

Response

-------
Proposed Plan Public Hearing, Rimini, MT-November 8, 2001

1	to using bacteria and so forth to help us knock down the

2	concentrations of metals and try and stay away, to the

3	extent that we can, from the more expensive real package

4	treatment plan sort of circumstances.

5	MR. STEWART: I've got one other thing that I'm

6	curious about. You know, my lawn was sampled last year,

7	and there was a determination on one side that it needed

8	to be replaced. And people came back and now they're

9	re-sampling again, and I don't understand why they

10	couldn't use the samples — I mean, they just dug more

11	holes and more holes, and now they're going up and down

12	the streets and sampling everybody's yards agaia And

13	I'm hearing that there's different standards now as to

14	why lawns should be replaced versus others.

15	The other was supposedly a catastrophic, "let's get

16	rid of it now," and now it's more of a "well, we need to

17	look at this again." But I don't know where these

18	standards are coming from. What are the new standards

19	and who establishes those and why?

20	MR. BISHOP: There's a little difference between

21	the programs that we're working with, and the removal

22	program cond ucts initial cleanups that are the worst

23	sort of circumstances first so that we alleviate those

24	severe threats to either human health or to the stream.

25	And in the circumstance that you are in, the

Upper Tenmile Creek ROD

Response

-------
Proposed Plan Public Hearing, Rimini, MT-November 8, 2001

1	community — when we were looking at the different mine

2	sites that we were prioritizing, the community had more

3	concern about the Susie Mine, which is right in town,

4	than they did about some of the other mine sites that we

5	were looking at. And so w e actually changed that

6	priority to clean up the Susie Mine, and your property

7	is a portion of that mine site. So that's why it was

8	initially und ertaken.

9	Our program is meant to be the final cleanup action

10	that occurs. If anything, what we're trying to do is

11	just to make sure that there is no additional cleanup

12	that's needed. And we try to coordinate as best we can

13	with the removal program to have them get in and get out

14	and to be as complete as possible in the cleanups that

15	they do. But our program has — it's not that the

16	standards are necessarily different it's that — for

17	example, down at the old mill site in the lower part of

18	the canyon, there were some wastes that were left down

19	there, and we're the last program that comes through and

20	tries to see if there's additional work that might need

21	to be done before we leave the area.

22	So that's what's going on.

23	MR. STEW ART: What I was told, I was told that

24	the standards are a little different And what I'm

25	concerned about is that while they were there, they

Upper Tenmile Creek ROD

Response

-------
Proposed Plan Public Hearing, Rimini, MT-November 8, 2001

1	could have done the whole thing, if it needed to be

2	done, and now they're saying, well, now that we're back,

3	we may need to do i t —

4	MR. BISHOP: Well, the only standard that's

5	changed, and I was going to address this, I dont know

6	if you read in your papers the last week or so, the

7	arsenic standard changed. If you'll recall, last

8	January or February, the Clinton Administration, on

9	their way out, changed it and then the Bush

10	Administration decided to take a second look at it.

11	Well, it actually went ~ and this is the water

12	standard — from 50 micrograms per liter for public

13	drinking water systems down to 10, and I believe that's

14	over a 6-year period.

15	Regardless of the time frame that they're

16	implementing that, our program will implement it right

17	up front, so we have a more difficult standard to meet

18	in terms of water quality in the stream. And I will

19	tell you when we're dealing with this contaminated

20	ground water, it's very difficult to achieve the

21	improvements that we're looking for to actually see

22	those improvements in the stream. So we've got to be

23	pretty thorough about our work.

24	You know, my hope is that we're not going to tear

25	your yard up again. But we're trying to be as complete

Upper Tenmile Creek ROD

Response

C-125

-------
Proposed Plan Public Hearing, Rimini, MT-November 8, 2001

1	as possible, is all I can say.

2	MR. MARSH: Let me just add a little bit about

3	that, Sam. The sampling that we d id a year and a half

4	ago, as part of the remedial investigation, was

5	essentially a screening sampling, where we took one,

6	sometimes a couple of samples per yard, just to see what

7	the levels of lead and arsenic were in the yard

8	primarily.

9	What we're doing now is going back in as part of our

10	design effort, and from the initial sampling we did, we

11	found that, yes* there were levels of concern in

12	approximately 80 percent of the houses. We didn't

13	sample that many houses then. Now we're trying to go

14	back in and sample all the yards, and we're sampling

15	quadrants of yards or parts of yards to see actually

16	what would have to be removed in order to achieve the

17	cleanup standards that EPA will be setting in the record

18	of decision.

19	So it's really kind of a two-phase process, and

20	we're in the second phase of that process now. That's

21	why we're going back to some of the same yards.

22	MR. STEWART: I guess I've got to go back to the

23	road thing again, sorry. But there is a $150,000

24	difference between digging up 18 inches and capping it.

25	And I guess my concern is, what's $150,000 worth of

Upper Tenmile Creek ROD

Response

-------
Proposed Plan Public Hearing, Rimini, MT - November 8, 2001

24

1	aggravation when somebody comes in here and tears up the

2	road and there's dust everywhere, and it just makes a

3	mess out of the town of Rimini while they're doing this?

4	And I hope that that is a part of the consideration in

5	,	the remedial action that is necessary.

6	MR. BISHOP: It is, and, you know, your concern

7	specifically has been a discussion of considerable — or

8	a topic of considerable discussion, and we will share

9	those cost figures with you. But again, as you guys

10	meet together as a community, please let us know before

11	this comment period closes, you know, if you can come to

12	some com mon reco mmen dation —

13	MR. STEWART: Well, I haven't seen any Rimini

14	meetings in the near future, and especially by the time

15	that your November 21st date is up. And I'm coming on

16	record now saying that I feel that this is a real

17	aggravation, and I personally would rather see a capping

18	rather than going through this big process of tearing

19	through the town.

20	And I don't know — What concerns me is that all of

21	a sudden, decisions are made, and I like to be a part of

22	them, if I can. And I want to be a part of it now and

23	go on the record, and if other people in this community

24	are in disagreement, I hope that they'll say it now.

25	Because I don't know what's said over the Internet to

Upper Tenmile Creek ROD

Response

-------
Proposed Plan Public Hearing, Rimini, MT-November 8, 2001

1	you on your e-mail. And if you want me to, I will go on

2	the e-mail record as well. But I just want to say that

3	I don't see a community forum before that. And if there

4	is, good. I hope so.

5	But if people have a difference of opinion, then,

6	you know, I'd like to hear it now.

7	MR. BISHOP: Chuck.

8	MR. WATTERS: Chuck Watters. On that issue, May

9	and I have been talking, and we are going to call a

10	community meeting, and hopefully we're going to —

11	hopefully it is going to be before our due date of the

12	21st, because we have a lot of issues to discuss. We

13	have to discuss, as a community, this potable water

14	system, and the paving of this lower road and the paving

15	trough town is an issue that we're going to discuss. I

16	mean, if we really want to go on the record now, I've

17	been talking with some people in town, and right now,

18	people aren't sure what they want. I've only talked to

19	a few. But there's several people that are completely

20	against paving in town and, of course, completely

21	against paving the lower road, too.

22	But we are going to have a meeting, and that's one

23	of the things May and I are going to discuss tonight.

24	MR. BISHOP: I want to make sure people realize,

25	the lower portion of the valley paving up to Chessman

Upper Tenmile Creek.ROD

Response

-------
Proposed Plan Public Hearing, Rimini, MT - November 8, 2001

1	Reservoir is nothing to do with our work.

2	MS. CANNON: So how will that be assessed? Is

3	that a RID?

4	MR. BISHOP: No.

5	MS. CANNON: Who is going to cover that one?

6	MR. BISHOP: I believe federal highway funds.

7	And you might talk to the Forest Service. It's a forest

8	improvement road of some sort. But there were funds

9	obtained by Congress to cover that. And if you have

10	concerns about (hat, and I know people do, you need to

11	be speaking with, I think, Department of Transportation

12	and probably Federal Highway Administration.

13	MR. WATTERS: Well, Eric Griffin, the County

14	Road Supervisor, we had a meeting on this road here

15	about a month ago, and he was going to hold ~ call and

16	hold some public meetings up here to discuss that paving

17	job. And I think it's maybe time we call him and get a

18	meeting going on, because they're already serving it.

19	But what it was, when we had this meeting, he said

20	even if it goes through, it's going to be like five

21	years from now. But the main guy from the Federal

22	Highway Department that was there said, because I asked

23	the question what's driving this and how do you

24	substantiate it, and he says, "Well, one thing is it's

25	traffic count." Well, when they got to talking, there

Upper Tenmiie Creek ROD

Response

-------
Proposed Plan Public Hearing, Rimini, MT-November 8, 2001

1	is no traffic count. So they're supposed to put in

2	traffic counters.

3	And he also made the comment, he says, "Now, if the

4	people in this area don't want this," and I can quote

5	this from him, he says, "we want to know because we

6	don't want to waste our time doing all this engineering

7	if the whole community is against it."

8	Originally when they proposed this, I think the

9	people in the community thought it was just going to be

10	a paving like Colorado Gulch. But now what's really

11	happening is this is going to be a major highway.

12	Because what it is, it's federal funds that were tagged

13	to build a highway that could be used for fire control

14	access. The problem is it has to be built to this high

15	state standard.

16	MR. STEWART: Well, you know, this is not an EPA

17	issue and we shouldn't be discussing it tonight, but I

18	do think that we definitely need a meeting of the Rim ini

19	residenls to discuss this, and itfe very important. And

20	when you say "we discussed this with Eric Griffin," I

21	don't know who "we" were. And this is something that

22	I'm concerned about —

23	MR. WATTERS: That's why we're going to have

24	this meeting here, Sam.

25	MR. STEWART: Great.

Upper Tenmile Creek ROD

Response

-------
Proposed Plan Public Hearing, Rimini, MT-November 8, 2001

1	MR. WATTERS: You're on the list to be called.

2	MR. STEWART: Cool.

3	MR. BISHOP: I don't want to keep people here

4	any longer than they want to be here. Things are kind

5	of winding down.

6	1 appreciate everybody's willingness to come out

7	tonight, and if you think about things between now and

8	Tuesday, please come to our meeting at the Holiday Inn

9	downtown at 6:30 in the evening. If you have any

10	questions, give me a call. We will be at that location

11	at 5:30 again, if people have questions that you want to

12	talk over. And also, you know, letters, e-mails,

13	whatever other means you want, too, we'd be happy to

14	receive those.

15	So thank you.

16	(The proceedings were concluded at 7:50 p.m.)
27 **********

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Upper Tenmile Creek ROD

Response

C-131

-------
Proposed Plan Public Hearing, Rimini, MT-November 8, 2001

COURT REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE

STATE OF MONTANA )

ss.

COUNTY OF JEFFERSON )

I, CHERYL ROMSA, Court Reporter, Notary Public
in and for the County of Jefferson, State of Montana, do
hereby certify:

That the foregoing proceedings were reported by
me in shorthand and later transcribed into typewriting;
and that the -29- pages contain a true record of the
proceedings to the best of my ability.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand
and affixed my notarial seal this 19th day of November
2001.

CHERYL ROMSA

Court Reporter - Notary Public

My Commission Expires 8/4/03

Upper Tanmile Creek ROD

Response

C-132

-------
Proposed Plan Public Hearing, Helena, MT - November 13, 2001

BEFORE THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPOSED PLAN
UPPER TENMILE CREEK MINING AREA SITE
LEWIS AND CLARK COUNTY, MONTANA

TRANSCRIPT OF THE PROCEEDINGS

Heard Before Mike Bishop, EPA Project Manager

Holiday Inn, Elkhorn Room, Helena Montana

November 13, 2001
7:13 p.m.

REPORTED BY: CHERYL ROMSA

CHERYL ROMSA COURT REPORTING
P. O. BOX 1278
HELENA, MONTANA 59624
(406) 449-6380

Upper Tenmile Creek ROD

Response

-------
Proposed Plan Public Hearing, Helena, MT - November 13, 2001

INDEX

PAGE

Discussion of meeting with lower watershed

residents 	 5

Discussion of education and restrictions re

developing reclaimed land 		 6

Discussion of meeting re wildlife issues	 13

COURT REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE 	 21

2

Upper Tenmile Creek ROD

Response

-------
Proposed Plan Public Hearing, Helena, MT - November 13, 2001

1	WHEREUPON, the following proceedings were had:

2	(An overview of the plan was presented by

3	Mike Bishop.)

4	MR. BISHOP: At this point, feel free to

5	comment. And again, the format that we had last time

6	was kind of a question-and-answer, and we don't

7	necessarily have to do that if you just want to comment.

8	But if you do want to ask questions, I'd be happy to

9	answer them, to the extent I cou Id, as well.

10	MR. POSEWITZ: Mike, if we've already sent a

11	written comment in, there's no real need to repeat any

12	of that.

13	MR. BISHOP: That's right. But we can have a

14	discussion, if you'd like, you know, about any of your

15	comments.

16	For example, comments that we've heard from Jim and

17	his group deal with these aspects of the roads and the

18	access and the effect on the wildlife. And we do have a

19	meeting set up for the 27th that would be facilitated,

20	and it will include many of the agencies and the hunter

21	and wildlife groups to try and sit down and dialogue on

22	this issue.

23	And frankly, in the responsiveness summary, I'm not

24	quite sure how to respond to their concerns. Because

25	our program allows us to create these developments in

Upper Tenmile Creek ROD

Response

The format of this meeting was primarily open discussion and
question and answer. EPA's responses to most comments are
provided directly in the discussion and are not repeated in this
column. Clarifications are noted in this column if necessary.

C-135

-------
Proposed Plan Public Hearing, Helena, MT - November 13, 2001

1	order to do the cleanup work that we need to do, but by

2	the same token, I think all of the agencies involved

3	recognize some of the concerns that these groups are

4	identifying. And I think if we all come together and

5	try and identify our roles, we can contribute different

6	aspects to deal with the concerns that they have. And

7	frankly, from our perspective, to the extent that they

8	could possibly help with conservation easements and

9	those sorts of things to close up some of these areas

10	where property owners may be amenable to allowing that

11	sort of ongoing use to be inserted, I think we would

12	like to work with these groups as well.

13	And many of the landowners that we're dealing with

14	are in absentia. Many of them haven't seen the

15	properties that they own. Some of them, their ancestors

16	developed them, and I doubt very much they have an

17	interest in developing them. And so I think by bringing

18	many of our ideas and our abilities together, we can

19	address some of these concerns as we go through the

20	Superfund process.

21	And I guess the message that I would like to leave

22	you guys with, whether now or in the later stages of

23	this process, is that Superfund is an open process and

24	we try to be as reactive as we can. Our law does allow

25	us to be fairly responsive, so we don't have to go

Upper Tenmile Creek ROD

Response

-------
Proposed Plan Public Hearing, Helena, MT - November 13, 2001

1	through some of the permitting hoops that you might

2	otherwise have to go through. Our process is meant to

3	be a surrogate for the National Environmental Policy

4	Act, so we don't do impact statements and those sorts of

5	things. So if you do have concerns, continue to bring

6	them to us and we'll do our best to try and bring some

7	attention to them.

8	Kathy, I was just curious, I know you must be here

9	to some extent representing the Lower Tenmile folks

10	there. Do they seem to be out of the loop as far as

11	what's going on and do they have concerns and a desire

12	to meet with us?

13	MS. LEIK: Well, actually, I actually just met

14	with your representative Friday, and I haven't talked to

15	any of the other neighbors. I just couldn't go up to

16	Rimini that night, so I just came to give myself some

17	background before we had the local meeting.

18	MR. BISHOP: Right.

19	MS. LEIK: So I'm not a very good resource as to

20	how the other people feel.

21	MR. BISHOP: And just so we have some record,

22	our dialogue with Helen Cannon at the last meeting was

23	that we would try to get together a small neighborhood

24	meeting with the lower watershed group to just give them

25	the courtesy of explaining in more detail, just like we

Upper Tenmile Creek ROD

Response

-------
Proposed Plan Public Hearing, Helena, MT - November 13, 2001

1	did this evening, what we're up to and trying to hear

2	their specific concerns, if there are some.

3	MS. LEIK: One of the concerns I had, when the

4	EPA did the initial, say, reclamation, they removed, in

5	the Lower Tenmile — like in the land adjoining mine,

6	there was an old mill. I'm not probably stating the

7	correct name for it, but they had dams> you know.

8	MR. BISHOP: Tailings impoundments, right.

9	MS. LEIK: It looked Hke, you know, Mammoth up

10	at Yellowstone Park, that whole gully. So they dug it

11	out and replaced it with beautiful — and it looks —

12	they did a very nice job. This was about "89, "90. And

13	everybody really welcomed that because of the

14	contamination. It was a large area.

15	But what concerned me, then afterward, when the

16	people that own that — It was private land that was

17	reclaimed, and then a few years ago when that came up

18	for sale, another neighbor and I commented, you know, to

19	the County Land Board that we had concerns about them

20	dividing that land up and somebody building over this

21	waste site. Because, you know, a person coming in

22	there, not knowing, would think it looked like perfectly

23	good land. But if they dug a well there, you can

24	imagine, into that old dredge, you know, where there was

25	arsenic, cadmium, and lead, and there was no vegetation,

Upper Tenmi/e Creek ROD

Response

-------
Proposed Plan Public Hearing, Helena, MT - November 13, 2001

1	etcetera, wel 1, if somebody dug a well in there.

2	And then on the side hills, they pointed out to me

3	when they did the recla mation ~ I was concerned about

4	my land being contaminated, so I had some conversations

5	with them at the time, and they pointed out to me how

6	the wind, being in a westerly direction, had blown this

7	waste up on the side hills of that gu lly, and there was

8	no vegetation there. Well, kids playing in that, again,

9	would be playing, you know, just like in East Helena,

10	where it's contaminated soil.

11	But what I found out when they were dividing that

12	land from the County Planning, that there were no

13	riders on that land. I mean, there was nothing that

14	told anybody w hat was under it.

15	In fact, one person on another piece close to me

16	actually bought a piece of the reclaimed land and then

17	built a house, and they didn't realize, because of

18	course, the person selling the land didn't tell them.

19	And then they found out, when you came back with the

20	second study there, that their land was contaminated.

21	And again, they have little kids. And, you know, they

22	weren't rich people or, say, people that could really

23	afford to do very much with this few acres that they

24	had.

25	So anyway, all this time, we've been concerned as to

Upper Tenmile Creek ROD

Response

-------
Proposed Plan Public Hearing, Helena, MT - November 13, 2001

1	if you can't pu t riders, or whatever you would do —

2	that's probably not the right term for it, but when the

3	people bought the land when it came up for sale, that

4	they would know what was under there.

5	MR. BISHOP: Sure.

6	MS. LEIK: For their health.

7	MR. BISHOP: We have had discussions with the

8	County about having some mechanism to accomplish what

9	you're concerned about.

10	Mike, I don't know if you want to respond.

11	MR. McHUGH: It was the Department of State

12	Lands, the Abandoned Mine Bureau, that did the

13	reclamation on that site, and at that time, they could

14	have placed covenants or notification requirements on

15	it. The County had nothing to do with the division of

16	that land. All that was exempt, using the 20-acre

17	exemption and the family transfer.

18	We're very aware of the problems that you're talking

19	about. I know at least one case where people came and

20	dug up everything and put in a basement; now their kids

21	have elevated lead levels.

22	MS. LEIK: Right. That's the one place I was

23	mentioning.

24	MR. McHUGH: And we've tried to — We've had

25	several other proposed subdivisions in that area, and

Upper Tenmile Creek ROD

Response

-------
Proposed Plan Public Hearing, Helena, MT - November 13, 2001

1	the people have actually withdrawn their subdivision

2	application because of all the notification requirements

3	and building site restrictions that the County was going

4	to place on them; and then they've utilized other

5	exemptions, like family transfer exemptions, that the

6	County has no way to place — It would be nice to place

7	institutional controls at least that would require

8	property owners — you have to rely on the integrity of

9	the realtors and the integrity of the developers and the

10	landowners right now.

11	MS. LEIK: Right. And there's about six parcels

12	there that were 20-acre parcels that the back side goes

13	from Elk Trail. You're probably familiar with it.

14	MR. McHUGH: Yeah.

15	MS. LEIK: And of course, these are long,

16	rectangular 20-acre parcels. And so the only the

17	logical way to divide that, by covenants, they can

18	divide into 10. I know which one you're talking about,

19	where they used the family — because the County did

20	stop them from another, from the road issue. But

21	there's about six more parcels there that could all be

22	divided in half. And of course, the half that the

23	people would want — they're all built on that

24	Deer Meadow, so of course, where they would want to

25	build an access is from Elk Trail, and that would all be

Upper Tenmile Creek ROD

Response

-------
Proposed Plan Public Hearing, Helena, MT - November 13, 2001

1	right in the —

2	MR. McHUGH: The tailings ponds area.

3	MS. LEIK: — with that tailing ponds.

4	MR. McHUGH: I know. We're very worried about

5	it, but unless they come in for subdivision review, the

6	County has very limited things to do. I mean, we try to

7	work with the homeowners association in doing

8	notifications and trying to establish some institutional

9	controls, but we can't force them to do it. So it's

10	buyer beware.

11	MS. LEIK: Like I say, there's six or seven, and

12	then with the land —

13	MR. BISHOP: That is something, though, that I

14	think we ca n help institu te, Mike.

15	And I had mentioned to him that our attorney in

16	Denver, some of her colleagues had just been to one of

17	these seminars on institutional controls, what's the

18	best way to do this, do we put a notification on the

19	deed, do we — you know, I'm not sure what the best

20	method would be. But we do want to engage in some

21	conversations about this so that we try to prevent that

22	circumstance where people would dig into it and unearth

23	it and create a problem all over again.

24	And also, with respect to water, when we put in a

25	ground water control area, we will have to do it in such

10

Upper Tenmile Creek ROD

Response

C-142

-------
Proposed Plan Public Hearing, Helena, MT - November 13, 2001

1	a way that people are aware of the concerns in the

2	general area and that at a minimum, they analyze their

3	waters before they begin to use them as a potable water

4	supply and are aware that there may be some need for

5	water treatment and that sort of thing.

6	But you're right, we can't just walk away and hope

7	that it will remain effective.

8	MS. LEIK: Fortunately, that land haai't been

9	divided up, except for that one plot, but, you know,

10	with the price of land, I can see it's just a matter of

11	a few years before people do split their land.

12	MR. McHUGH: There is an effort under way right

13	now to do a Lower Tenmile watershed group similar to the

14	Upper Tenmile. And I think if we can bring the

15	information to people, they'll be more aware of the

16	problems that you have in that area. So that may be a

17	good thing.

18	The Health Department is thinking, in conjunction

19	with the remediation work that the EPA is doing in the

20	Rimini area, about having an education liaison that

21	would come up to people and hand out — you know, go

22	door to door and hand out pamphlets, offer testing, and

23	things like that. So that may be another mechanism that

24	could bring up the knowledge level there.

25	MS. LEIK: Right.

Upper Tenmile Creek ROD

Response

-------
Proposed Plan Public Hearing, Helena, MT - November 13, 2001

1	And it's kind of like East Helena, even though I

2	know that one place that was divided, you know, those

3	kids could play on that side hill where there is no

4	vegetation, and it looks perfectly fine. But that

5	gentleman didn't seem concerned at all when Mike Cannon

6	and I talked to him about it at one of our association

7	meetings. It was kind of like, oh, well.

8	I mean, to us there was a real threat to his

9	children.

10	MR. McHUGH: W ell, that's part of the reason the

11	County recommended denial of that subdivision, but then

12	they took the end run on it.

13	MS. LEIK: Right.

14	I guess there's nothing you can do about the people

15	if they don't recognize the problem.

16	I'm sorry to take so much time on that one issue,

17	but it really bothered me. Because I was so grateful

18	the EPA came and reclaimed that area. I mean, it was

19	wonderful, because it was blowing all over and

20	contaminating everything and contaminating

21	Tenmile Creek. So I was thankful that they reclaimed

22	it. I just assumed that there would be riders on the

23	land or some...

24	MR. BISHOP: And that sort of thing is left to

25	our program, and that's the difference between our

Upper Tenmile Creek ROD

Response

-------
Proposed Plan Public Hearing, Helena, MT - November 13, 2001

1	removal and remedial program. So we will be striving to

2	try and deal with that. And you didn't take too much

3	time.

4	I was just thinking that we havent been hearing

5	very much here, and we've taken the time to assemble

6	this meeting.

7	jim, I was going to put you on the hot seat a little

8	bit. This upcoming meeting that we have on the 27th,

9	can you lead us in some direction as to how you think

10	that might be organized or—

11	MR. POSEWITZ: Okay. I think, first of all, for

12	the record, we certainly appreciate the way EPA has

13	responded to everything that we have brought up as far

14	as an issue or a commentary. And the meeting on the

15	27th is to continue to address our concerns about

16	preserving as much wildlife habitat and wild life habitat

17	security in the Tenmile Drainage as is possible when we

18	go through this process.

19	Our concern was further heightened by realizing that

20	we're talking about a lot of public land ownership in a

21	watershed and that the ultimate road configuration, road

22	density, and road standards are going to be the

23	long-term responsibility, pu rview of the United States

24	Forest Service. And so what we wanted to talk about on

25	the 27th of November was to see if we had a common goal

Upper Tenmile Creek ROD

Response

C-145

-------
Proposed Plan Public Hearing, Helena, MT - November 13, 2001

1	for what — or a common objective for what we wanted the

2	Tenmile watershed to took like when EPA was finished and

3	when it was going into the long-term custodial care of

4	the National Forest Service. And why we wanted to

5	address that while the EPA was still active and present

6	is because of the resources EPA brings to the landscape.

7	And those are resources that can leave us with problems

8	or those are resources that can become part of the

9	solution.

10	So I think the meeting of the 27th will be a key one

11	for us to see if we can come to a consensus on what we

12	want the ultimate future long-range condition of the

13	Tenmile watershed to look like. It's something that we

14	deal with in the forest planning process. It's

15	something that for species Kke elk, we have a very

16	strong database to know what is conducive for elk

17	habitat, elk security, and the kind of elk seasons that

18	have been traditionally part of the Montana hunting

19	heritage. And so we don't want to be left with a future

20	condition for a lot of activity up there. And this

21	activity again focuses, in our minds, a lot on roads and

22	what might be — what we might construe as excessive

23	access to properties that, by virtue of time and just

24	the natural evolution of things, became isolated tracts

25	that did not have a tot of human activity in them.

14

Upper Tenmile Creek ROD

Response

C-146

-------
Proposed Plan Public Hearing, Helena, MT - November 13, 2001

1	MR. BISHOP: Right.

2	MR. POSEWITZ: Now they're being accessed again,

3	and thus ou r concern.

4	The other item, on the Travis site, again, we're

5	quite pleased with the EPA's response to looking for

6	alternatives to sacrificing that meadow for a water

7	supply augmentation component. And we feel that that

8	particular site, even though it's not an aboriginal

9	circumstance, it certainly is a circumstance conducive

10	to a lot of wildlife species and a lot of vegetation

11	diversity. And again, in this context, we look at the

12	Tenmile watershed as part of a larger wildlands resource

13	that basically stretches from the Yellowstone on up into

14	Glacier and into Canada. And here, I guess calling

15	EPA's and the Forest Service's attention to this

16	evolving body of science that said you need connecting

17	corridors between isolated components of critical

18	wildlife habitat; and one of the connecting corridors

19	that is normally identified in these scientific reports

20	has to do with coming down the Continental Divide.

21	And if you look at the juxtaposition of

22	Tenmile Creek, the Boulder reclamation that's also in

23	the future, the new planning start that's been initiated

24	on the Little Blackfoot side, that is a very fragile

25	component of a wildlife corridor reaching from Glacier

Upper Tenmile Creek ROD

Response

-------
Proposed Plan Public Hearing, Helena, MT - November 13, 2001

1	to Yellowstone, for example. So we think it has got

2	wildlife values and wildlife importance that go beyond

3	just the local circumstance of us elk hunters liking to

4	have isolated tracts of wild land to hunt in.

5	And again, I guess concluding with the fact that we

6	appreciate how responsive EPA has been to our raising

7	these issues.

8	MR. BISHOP: Something that I would like to

9	maybe pry out of you is, there seems to be some history

10	of previous discussion on this topic that, you know, I

11	think recognizing the concerns that you've stated is one

12	thing, but there seems to be a political aspect or

13	something to this issue that I feel maybe a little naive

14	going into this meeting on the 27th.

15	MR. POSEWITZ: I don't think there's anything

16	hidden here. I mean, if you're looking at —

17	MR. BISHOP: I don't mean anything hidden. Are

18	there issues that have been previously — bridges that

19	have been crossed that would give us some insight as to

20	how to approach this topic at this point?

21	MR. POSEWITZ: Well, I guess previous

22	discussions that involve this particular landscape, if

23	you look at the forest plan, road density

24	recommendations that are in the forest plan, if there is

25	some residual baggage from those discussions and

16

Upper Tenmile Creek ROD

Response

-------
Proposed Plan Public Hearing, Helena, MT - November 13, 2001

1	planning processes, it would be that the forest road

2	network is not consistent with the forest plan. And

3	that has to do with a lot of things, like the way

4	Congress appropriates money for roading and logging

5	where Congress didn't appropriate money for other

6	things. And there's probably a long and, oh, diverse

7	history to some of those areas, and not just in Tenmile

8	Creek. I mean, that would be the headwaters of Little

9	Blackfoot and it would be Travis Creek and Lump Gulch.

10	I mean, any part of Helena National Forest, there are

11	components of that that are inconsistent with the forest

12	plan.

13	We are engaged with the Forest Service, talking

14	about motorized recreation. And that particular Tenmile

15	watershed has got a lot of old mining roads that are

16	being used for motorized recreation, and there's

17	discussions on what, if any, degree we want the

18	Forest Service to address that. W e realize that's not

19	part of the EPA issue at all. I mean, that's the

20	residual problem, and it doesn't have much to do with

21	your remedial program.

22	You go over the ridge on Black Mountain, and there

23	is a wilderness candidate, wilderness study area. It's

24	sort of in protective custody now, but that will be

25	another big public issue when that rolls around. But

Upper Tenmile Creek ROD

Response

-------
Proposed Plan Public Hearing, Helena, MT -

November 13, 2001

1	the reality is that you ball these things together, some

2	areas with struggles and some with some degree of

3	security, you represent an exceptional wildlife

4	resource.

5	MR. BISHOP: There's no legal challenge or

6	anything that's clouding the issue at this point, is

7	there?

8	MR. POSEWITZ: No, there's none clouding the

9	issue, but now the Forest Service also has got to come

10	out with lynx guidelines. And so all of the sudden,

11	you're into the question of T&E species, with lynx,

12	wolves, wolverines, grizzly bears. And if you ascribe

13	to the corridor importance, all those things become

14	relevant.

15	We have not raised those as issues because of — we

16	think we're getting a good response with the simple

17	approach of trying to preserve elk habitat, quality

18	hunting environments, relatively wild lands; and that if

19	we can hold onto that concept — I mean, I think the

20	other idea of bringing in a T&E argument would be not

21	conducive to the process where we have repeatedly stated

22	we are in sync with your objectives.

23	We think whatyou're doing up there for Rimini and

24	for the water supply and for the mine cleanup is very

25	important stuff, and we're satisfied with the response

18

Upper Tenmile Creek ROD

Response

-------
Proposed Plan Public Hearing, Helena, MT - November 13, 2001

1	we're getting to our concerns. And granted, those other

2	issues are sitting out there like in a fog bank or a

3	cloud, but speaking for the Helena Hunters & Anglers, I

4	don't think we're going to raise those issues, because

5	we don't want to complicate the process. We want to see

6	that this continues to do what we think is a good idea:

7	Cleaning up as much of that as we can afford to clean

8	up, and do it now without a great delay getting into

9	some kind of a litigative cycle over grizzly bears, for

10	example.

11	MR. BISHOP: No. The Fish & Wildlife Service

12	has raised concerns about lynx, and we have tried to be

13	somewhat sensitive to them. And we are actually looking

14	to some extent about the potential for cadmium to

15	accumulate in them from some of these materials. We can

16	talk about that some other time.

17	But 1 just — since we're all out tonight, I thought

18	I would try and use your time effectively.

19	MR. POSEWITZ: Sure. I appreciate that.

20	MR. BISHOP: Are there other comments or

21	concerns?

22	And we let a gentleman slip away here. I'm not even

23	sure who that was, that was over in the corner there. I

24	meant to ask him as well.

25	I would like to thank you for coming out tonight.

Upper Tenmile Creek ROD

Response

C-151

-------
Proposed Plan Public Hearing, Helena, MT -

November 13, 2001

1	And again, I do look forward to working with you and the

2	groups tha t you repre sent in a forw ard-lookin g sense.

3	To the extent that you continu e to have concerns, let's

4	get together and see if we can deal with them.

5	Thank you very much.

6	(The proceedings were concluded at 7:40 p.m.)

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

20

Upper Tenmile Creek ROD

Response

-------
Proposed Plan Public Hearing, Helena, MT - November 13, 2001

COURT REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE

STATE OF MONTANA	)

ss.

COUNTY OF JEFFERSON )

I, CHERYL ROMSA, Court Reporter, Notary Public
in and for the County of Jefferson, State of Montana, do
hereby certify:

That the foregoing proceedings were reported by
me in shorthand and later transcribed into typewriting;
and that the -20- pages contain a true record of the
proceedings to the best of my ability.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand
and affixed my notarial seal this 19th day of November
2001.

CHERYL ROMSA

Court Reporter - Notary Public

My Commission Expires 8/4/03

Upper Tenmile Creek ROD

Response

-------
Appendix D

Basin Creek Mine Reclamation
Responsibilities

-------
Wlhv.'....,.... ..

c- 	" " "\QcNCY

Basin Creek Mining, Inc.	MAR " ¦- 2002

P.O. Box 180	n^Pin

_ . ___	i VrrILn
Basin, MT 59631

March 4, 2002

Department of Environmental Quality
Permitting and Compliance Division
P.O. Box 200901
Helena, MT 59620-0901
Mr. Pat Plantenberg

Re: Minor Revision 01- 001, Operating Permit 00132

Additional Revisions to Reclamation Status Map for the Record of Decision

Dear Mr. Plantenberg:

Per our recent conversation, I have again revised the Reclamation Status Map and
corresponding Reclamation Status Spreadsheet. These revisions are additional to the
revisions on the February 6, 2002 correspondence between BCMI and the DEQ. There
were two changes to the Reclamation Status Map and Spreadsheet as listed below:

Area	Acreage Description of Change

38.1	0.5	Historic mining road from SP08 to a gate on the NW

portion of the Operating Permit Boundary.
Reclamation responsibility transferred from EPA to
BCMI.

66	0.8 Access road in the Fisher Park area. Reclamation

responsibility transferred from EPA to BCMI.

Total	1.3 acres

The changes were made after consultation with the Trustee (Kelvin Buchanan), the
DEQ (Pat Plantenberg), the EPA (Steve Way and Mike Bishop), and BCMI (Dan
Adams). The primary reason for the reclamation responsibility transfer is that the EPA
has now rejected these areas as possible haul routes for historic mine waste. At the
inception of the Repository, the EPA was considering these areas as possible haul
routes.

d:\02regagVclrev1 .wpd

-------
Also included on the Reclamation Status Map are the locations of the current MPDES
Outfalls and the proposed MPDES Outfalls. The Map and Spreadsheet are now
accurate and will suffice as Exhibits to the Record of Decision.

If you have any questions or require further information please contact me at 459-0546.

Sincerely,

		

Daniel B. Adams

BCMI Site Manager

Enclosure: Reclamation Status Map

Reclamation Status Spreadsheet

cc:

Kelvin Buchanan (Trustee)
Steve Way (EPA)

Mike Bishop (EPA)

-------
March 4, 2002

BASIN CREEK MINE

OPERATING PERMIT No. 00132



BCMI

EPA

BCMI

EPA





Reclamation

Reclamation Completed by

Reclamation

Reclamation

Mlnesite Location



Completed

BCMI Prior to Repository Startup

Not Completed

Responsibility



Area

Acres

Acres

Acres

Acres



1

2.5







Luttrell Peak

2

14.3







Block B

2.1

0.2







Block B North

3

30.6







Upper Waste Repository Removal Area '

3a

1.3 " '







Middle Waste Repository Removal Area

3.1 i 0.4

. .. .. 			 _ . 	 - .	J ....... 	I



Columbia Tailings

3.2



L_



0.8

Malf. Jet Monitor Well Road ;

4

3.8







Luttrell Ridge !

5

0.4



i

1 .........

Luttrell Ridge

5.1
6

0.4
6.2

		 	 - -		 ^ ¦

.



Luttrell Ridge

Luttrell Ridge i

I 7







21.7

Luttrell Pit

r |

CO

9.7







West Luttrell Ridge

9



. 		4 _ ... 	__





West Luttrell Ridge

I 10

2







Malfunction Junction

; 11

4.1



.



Luttrell Pit East

L 11.1





0.5

Luttrell Pit East

: 11.2







0.4

Rimini Road below Repository

! 12



15.7





South Luttrell Ridge

12.1

! 0.3



0.3

South Luttrell Ridge

12a

! 0.1





South Luttrell Ridge

12b



0.1





South Luttrell Ridge

h 13

1.1







Haul Road

14

9.5







Haul Road

15

1.3





Haul Road/Drill Road

16

0.4





! Lower Venus

17

0.6





j Mine Entrance

02regag/bndsum3.wk4

1

-------
March 4,2002

BASIN CREEK MINE

OPERATING PERMIT No. 00132

26

3.9







I

LP1 Impoundment

26a

0.3 !

LP1 Overflow

26.1

2.6





! LP1 Impoundment

27

25.4





LP1

27.1





1.5 1

LP1 Perimeter Road

27.2







1.4

Riminl-Elliston Wagon Road

28

4.5



1

Fisher Park East

29

5I7



1

Fisher Park West

30

5



i

LP1 North

30.1





r i 0.9

Haul Road by Truck Shop

31

1







Truck Shop North

31.1





0.5



P. Pit Upper Access Road

32

3.9

,





Paupers Peak

32.1



-

0.6 s

Paupers Peak

33

0.4







Paupers Peak Road

34

0.5







Paupers Peak Road

35

0.3







Paupers Peak Road

02regag/bndsum3.wk4

2

-------
March 4,2002

BASIN CREEK MINE

OPERATING PERMIT No. 00132

BCMI

EPA

Reclamation

Completed

Reclamation Completed by
BCMI Prior to Repository Startup
Acres

__BCM|	

Reclamation
Not Completed

EPA

Reclamation
Responsibility

Mlnesite Location

4§__

47
47.1

48
48a



28.9
7.2

13.1
10

48b

i

48.1





48.3

0.2
3.9

	

49

14.4



49.1a

0.9



4"



0.8

LP3 West Ditch

0.3 ^



LP3 Genset



20.7

LP3 North





LP3





LP3 Cover Area



Upper Paupers Pit





Middle Paupers Pit

0.9



Upper Paupers Pit

1.8



P. Pit Haul Road

		

				

Upper Paupers Pit
Lower Paupers Pit





Lower Waste Repository Removal Area





Waste Repository Removal Area Toe

02regag/bndsum3.wk4

3

-------
March 4.2002

BASIN CREEK MINE

OPERATING PERMIT No. 00132



Paupers Peak i

		

Paupers Peak

Paupers Peak I



Paupers Peak |



ISS2 Access Road j



Paupers Peak i



Fisher Park j

0.5

LP1 East Road j

02regag/bndsum3.wk4

4

-------
March 4, 2002

BASIN CREEK MINE

OPERATING PERMIT No. 00132

02regag/bndsum3.wk4

5

-------
-------