Board of Supervisors - Regular Meeting

So, it's recording just so everybody knows. All right. So, first of all, thank you for for being here. Obviously, this isn't a meeting with all the board supervisors, just a public meeting. Uh, this is a new format, not a new format, but it's a format that we wanted to try out and do with topics like this so that we can have closer conversations and get more information and more of your opinion. Okay. So, we we will stop at 9:15 most likely so that the IT can be ready for the meeting at 9:30. So, what we'll do in this meeting is we'll have um Colin has a short presentation um and then we'll listen to you guys and then we'll have dialogue after after that. Does that make sense? Does that work out for everybody? And once again, thank you for coming everybody that's here. Go for good morning everyone. So, if you don't know me, I'm Colin Bishop. um the community development director and county leadership has asked me to to give this presentation this morning. So this um so the purpose as you know the final EIS has been released um we completed an internal review and we prepared we prepared a draft response and at this point what we're seeking since it's just a draft is any feedback that people may have that would occur in the form of this meeting um also the board meeting following this meeting will be another opportunity and then we have still some extra days before this goes forward as a final draft. So you we even have the opportunity to email email us if you feel like you have further input that you want to give. Um I think it's important that we kind of define what the scope of it is. So the letter is not just a wide open letter.

uh we'll have the opportunity to go back and and revisit everything related to the development of the South 32 MLMI. And so what this letter is from the scope is we're responding to your initial draft comments that we provided. Um and so in that letter there were identified concerns and so in terms of the scope of looking at the FEIS it's to see if those concerns were properly addressed or addressed in some form or fashion. And so the opportunity we have is to see where maybe things were not addressed or just partially addressed and if there's opportunities to revisit that. So that is the scope. So in terms of the scope of this letter, you know that that's the philosophy behind it is to look at what was addressed and then where there may still be potential things that were either partially or not addressed

point to the window.

There we go. So in terms of our approach of this letter, it's acknowledging what was addressed is identifying any remaining gaps. And so when we talk about recommending solutions, please understand these are not detailed technical solutions. It's more of a framework or scaffolding. So when you look at for example if you look at the responses towards monitoring mitigation and followup it's more to point out that there needs to be a holistic framework that doesn't just address necessarily monitoring and mitigation on the front end. But it also closes that loop that if if everything's great with the monitoring, that's awesome. But if if things are not going and trending in the direction as it for community health and the outcomes that we want as a community, then you need to close that loop of what contingencies are in place, what plans are in place, and and what how do those get implemented? Um and then how do they get reported? How do they get verified? So that's the purpose in terms of recommended solutions. It's just understand it's not detailed technical solutions. It's more of a framework discussion and bringing up what may be missing in that. So obviously the other goal is we want the development to be responsible um and to address as the last goal protect the air, water and ultimately our community. So that's the purpose in this or the approach I should say. Oops. So in terms of the final EIS the improvements that we recognized um it

went from a single point of discharge on the water to it's now spread out to different points of discharge. So in a sense that mitigates you know you spread you spread that just having it being point sourced. Um, additional baseline data is provided. Uh, the mo the modeling that was done and again we're not in the letter we provided we didn't we're not looking detailed at the modeling to say they picked the appropriate model. They did not pick the appropriate model. As you know, as you may or may not know with models, there's always assumptions that are made that go into models. And we could even debate if the assumptions that go into the models are right in addition to the model being the right model. Um so a lot of technical people obviously have provided comments and are are deep diving into those types of activities and so we anticipate that those people will provide follow up to their detailed comments on appropriateness of different models. However, it is recognizing that expanding modeling did take place. Uh reduced hall route impacts that is just recognizing there's an alternative road that will be constructed and the proposed mitigation that that provides and also within the final FIS is the a stronger technical foundation was provided than what was in the draft. So, it's just recognizing that that information was provided.

Which way am I supposed to this way? To the window. To the window. To the window. There we go. Oops. Why don't you take You need to go back. Just go next one after that.

Okay. So, just I I personally never assume everybody knows what every term is when you're dealing with technical things. I think sometimes it's helpful to take a step back and especially since this is a public meeting and anybody was welcome to attend it. We know that not everybody is air and water experts. Um when you look at air sheds and waterheds, if you think if you think of a shed, it's it's a it's a place where things are. And so an airhed is literally just a geographic area that we're looking at the pollutants that are in that area and how they can travel. Obviously, you know, weather patterns, wind, you know, terrain, that can all affect it. So, when we're going to talk about watersheds here in a minute, too. But I think it's just important to recognize when you look at the mind, then then you're looking at some some radius beyond that of where the effects are anticipated to be. So, I think it's helpful to kind of frame that from a kind of zoom out perspective. Go ahead. So the things that we noticed in terms of considerations is you know basically you can see all the bullet points there but I'll read them off for the record. Fugitive desk movement transportation corridors wind driven transport episodic weather conditions and then community exposure areas. So these are these are some of the considerations that need to take place and from a goal perspective what what our concerns center around is you want to detect issues early and then you want to make sure the adjustment occurs based on those response plans. So from a from a response letter to the Forest Service,

what what we would like to be sure is that it's one thing to have a a monitoring plan and a mitigation plan and list what those things are. But you have to you have to loop that back around and close that gap to what adjustments are actually going to take place. If if there are effects going on, who's responsible for that in the reporting and the verification that corrective action was taken that that was appropriate and it actually occurred and it was documented. So that's part of from a from an overarching theme that we see is where there could be some enhancements made realizing at this point. So it's also helpful to understand the timeline we're at with the FBI. we're not at the end of the road. We realize that there's there's still the CPDA negotiations that will take place um and then ultimately there'll be completion um of this process. And so there are we know that there's still things to be determined. So part of part of what we're trying to bring attention to or shed light to is that these we would like to see these things occur to ensure that we can verify and record and document that the community will be in fact protected by the plans. In terms of a watershed, water course flows both on the ground and underground. Um, and there's co-mingling of those. And so obviously the watershed is this geographic area in the Patagonia Mountains and it spreads out from there. and then how that how that influences not only directly that region but also the the larger region of our county.

So in terms of consideration, this is probably a little more detailed. We have distributed discharge locations which those are proposed in the in the FBI. Um surface water and sediment movement. Those are important considerations. Uh the interactions with groundwater uh metal metals mobilization potential and then the downstream receding environments. So we recognize for example there's aquifer protection permits they're going to regulate a point you know where where the where the treatment occurs just shortly thereafter and that monitoring occurs. So there's regulations they have to meet in terms of that sampling and compliance. Um but a watershed is much more than where it is discharged into a creek at that point. And and when you look at the other considerations is and then we have these considerations but also how those discharges interact you know if you have storm events for example with storm water um and then also as as there's deatering activities occur that the impacts that has underground. So, so there's this complicated set of variables that take place in terms of all the water interaction both on the surface and on the ground that also involves the soil water chemistry, you know, and so the modeling has occurred, you know, there's modeling that has been done, but what we would like to see and ensure that there's appropriate um corrective actions that are detailed that if we're seeing deletarious effects of how that will be handled. And and part of that's recognizing it's not just

during the life of the mind, but it's also what takes we know there's closure plans like all minds have to provide, but it's also that ongoing into the future. Our letter did have a few small items in terms of fire and emergency service and wildlife and equestrian. Obviously, if you've gone through our letter, our 34 page letter, draft letter at this point, um majority of its air and water, but there are we do speak to the fire and emergency services and also the wildlife and equestrian considerations and making sure there's still some follow up there and that's appropriate. just to summarize and kind of where our next steps. I think I've kind of already outlined maybe the next steps when I started off, but um you we noted the improvements. You'll also see you doing the appendices in the letter. So I didn't say this, but we decided to break the letter into it's almost like an executive summary, right? you can read the five pages of this is what we're looking at and then we provided separate information in appendices recognizing that probably a lot of people won't want to read that but if you want to read it it's there. So the appendices took every comment that we had in the draft letter and individually looked at how that was addressed in the FBI. And so that's where you'll see we either recognize it was fully addressed or the comment was partially addressed and if it was partially addressed then we provided additional comments surrounding that and additional potential frameworks that could be um pathways of consideration to how to how to address

that. So where we are in terms of next steps is obviously the board is seeking feedback. um we have a deadline. So once we collate all this feedback and figure out how we want to synthesize it into the final letter, then we'll submit that response. But the most important thing is probably that last bullet point is that this is not an end point. We want to have that continued dialogue and coordination um not only with the mind but with the community at large to make sure the shared outcomes for everybody are ultimately the best they can be. Realizing that No process will be perfect and not everyone will get what they want, but how can we all work together in the same county that we live in to make sure we can get the best outcomes that we can get all the way around.

I think that's it. That's it, right? Okay. So, yeah. Go ahead. Can we offer comments yet or? Yeah, that's so he just finished. We wanted to go through that and so now what I like Well, we didn't know how many people were going to be here. So, we're thinking about senate, but if you could talk into the microphone when you do your comments, so that's what that's what this is for is so that we can take more time with comments and and maybe have some discussion.

So, I just have to say I'm struck. I realize you haven't been with the county very long, but you've got an audience here filled with people that have been making scientific observations, comments, and feedback on the modeling that is almost exclusively provided by the mine. And we're all aware of that and we've submitted NEPA comments. And so what I want to hear from the board at some point, John, is that you guys are going to be pushing for comprehensive water, soil, and air assessments so that we understand what the uh possibilities are, where we're starting from, and how this operation is really going to be impacting us. A lot of us here are already involved in monitoring and are part of the groups that detected the antimony and took that to the media. So I and I realize it might not be the whole public that you're speaking with and this was prepared for a broader audience, but those of us that got up with notes and came here this early in the morning, those are the things that we want answers to. First of all, thank you for the presentation. I do appreciate it. Um, I'm not a fan of a general framework. I think we need specificities. I in my opinion the letter is not enough. Um, we can't just ex we cannot rely on existing um what did you say? What exists? We have to have more monitoring and we cannot rely on what just exists. We have to have independent monitoring of air and water. Um we need a specific plan. I don't understand why you wouldn't include specific responses. It's important. And it this is not just about getting along

with everybody. This is about in my opinion your role must look out for us. It is your job to do that because if we can't rely on you where we left. So this is not enough. I had more to say but I'm going to pass this on.

Okay. I'm going to read a statement actually that I prepared. Uh thank you for the opportunity to speak and I Colin I know you have a very hard job. This is uh but I want to tell you today that the FBI's response letter you know a lot of residents are concerned in the approach the county has taken. The letter accurately describes several technical issues but it does not defend the community in a way a cooperating government is expected to. It reads more like a supportive reaction to the project than a protective regulatory comment. The county's own DEIS raised major concerns. Air quality, water quality, water quantity, roadway safety, emergency response capacity, socioeconomic impacts. Yet, the FBI letter does not identify any of these unresolved NEPA deficiencies. It does not request supplemental analysis. It does not demand enforcable mitigation. and it does not ask the Forest Service to correct the gaps before issuing the record of decision. Without that, the Forest Service has no obligation to act on the on the county's concerns. Several critical issues were simply not addressed. The letter focuses on water quality, but says nothing about water quantity, nothing about long-term aquacaper draw down, nothing about domestic wells, nothing about mitigation fund for residents if wells fail. It also avoids the issue of independent monitoring. The county asked for more transparency, but it accepts a monitoring system that is run entirely by South 32. There is no request for independent air monitoring, independent groundwater, sentinel wells, or third party oversight. That leaves the public dependent on the mine's own data. The letter also fails to address the roadway and truck impacts. The DEIS

record shows hundreds of heavy trucks per day with real risks to tourists, cyclists, and local drivers. Yet, the FBI letter mentions only equestrian undercrossings. There is no discussion of accident risk, no request for a third party carrier fund to uh and no demand for emergency response resources tied to increased traffic. And perhaps most concerning, the letter does not address health impacts. The DEIS raised the possibility of increased PM10 and PM2.5 and particulate bound metals like magazine, zinc, and lead. These pollutants are linked to respiratory illness, cardiovascular stress, cancer, and long-term developmental impacts. By the way, are also now related to diabetes. There's three studies from UVA right now about heavy metals and diabetes. The county county's own DEIS comments for a permanent monitoring network and real time public data. But the FBI letter does not mention health impacts at all. It does not request a health impact fund, does not request medical monitoring, and does not request enforceable triggers that would slow or stop operations during high pollution events. Finally, the letter does not address the broader economic and community impacts, tourism, property values, business stability, or the risk of people leaving the area. These concerns were raised repeatedly during scoping and public hearings, yet they are absent from the county's response. The result is a letter that acknowledges problems, but does not insist on solutions. defers everything to future coordination, permitting, or the CPBA long after the county's leverage is gone. At this stage, recommendations are not enough. The county should be demanding enforcable commitments before the record of decision, not after. I urge the board to strengthen its

position, identify the unresolved impacts, demand independent monitoring, address water quantity, address road safety, address health, and insist that these protections be written into the record of decision itself. The people of Santa Cruz County deserve a response that protects them, not a letter that simply acknowledges risks and hopes they will be addressed. John, I want to let you know that, you know, we sit on the Royal Water working group and there's a consultant by the name of Mark Holmes who is a superstar hydraologist and he's done water research, managed big water municipalities. I know that there was a a number that there was floating around that a comprehensive water study would cost a million dollars. We have been in discussions with him and he's very vocal on these rural water working group calls. He said we could get an independent study done between 150 to $250,000 and I really would urge you all to take a look at that and talk to him. So I thank you for your time.

I'm taking notes. By the way, can I say one more thing?

Yes. I forgot to say something that's somewhat related because you talked about the the permits that are issued and I just want to make you aware of ADQ um and what they can do and not do with the permits and how far the science about whether or not that protects his legs behind. Um, as an example, I just recently was trying to reconcile my recent water report, um, saying there were no pie in my water with the 19 with the 2023 letter I received saying I had elevated levels that the EPA determined were unsafe for me and that they would be addressing how to correct that. Well, the reason there's no longer any pas in the water is because ADQ has aligned themselves with the current administration's change in EPA regulations. And so those things that cause disease and death and cancer and all those other awful things, some of which I've already experienced and don't want to ever experience again, um, are still in my water. They're just no longer testing and monitoring for them. So when we either address these things through independent monitoring with this letter or through the the assessments we get for the community protections and benefits agreement. We need to make sure since we have an opportunity and a moral responsibility that the things that we ask for the gaps, the loops that you talked about wanting to close that those things are based on science and the data we have that because we're going backwards in terms of our regulations. We're undoing 50 years of environmental regulations and that means if we just follow those regulations, we are signing up generations of people in this county to have increased morbidity and mortality.

Can I ask a quick question? And because it's I mean we're kind of used to the call the public model but um so Robin when you talked to that person on the rural water working group um did you give him so as you know Patagonia sent a letter to the forest service 5 years ago asking for that and in that letter there's I want to say six or seven bullet points of what they're asking for in that study. Did that gentleman had he seen that? Mark understands our water problem. I it blew my mind. I wish he we talked to him the last time we were all together

and he was so familiar with all the the issues and he understands and like I'm going to hold this sign up. Do not forget about this. This data is from our regulators two years ago. Um you know my head almost blew off when I saw this you know and it's presented at a board of supervisors meeting. For God's sakes, people, do not forget about the groundwater.

Yeah.

Thank you. Uh yeah, I'm like some of the other people here uh disappointed in the response so far. Um for instance um when you look at the difference between the uh draft and the final ADQ water and air permits you see big differences. You wonder why why are there big differences in the numbers between a draft permit and a final permit. When you look at the EIS, the draft one and the final one, you see the same trend. How come there can be a difference in uh air lead emissions of a factor of two for the total project between a draft and a final. You haven't addressed that at all. That's katiger finding in your response and you don't ask for any accountability why these errors I call them errors right have taken place how can that be and they play the game with your health basically because it's about water pollution we heard about the plume the antenna plume that wasn't there in the ADQ permit at all. We heard about two times more lead emission and wasn't there at the AQ permit. So I ask you very politely to dive into those numbers to get the accountability we need. There is no there's no doubt that um

our um our monitoring has a big a big role to play but we can and we can do a lot more on the preventive side to avoid disasters like this because I call a factor of two mistake a disaster. So, please look at today. Okay.

I guess I'll I'll make a few comments here too then. Um, and as as again as just a little bit of background, of course, Robert and I talk a little bit. And so, I'm not I'm not going to restate a lot of her comments, but I have a whole lot of additional detail around each one of those items. But you know when when we ended so I did 34 pages as well as all of the stuff and we've already inputed on some of the other groups that we have getting ready to input on to um for for the FBI and so we're both we're commenting both as Calvas's alliance and individually because that's the way that we did it before too weas alliance that big group as well as us individually just

just to cl just real quick so to clarify so the you're saying that you're also going to comment you're you're preparing comments individually but also as part of the whole group of the 16 entities that are okay we did it before too just simply because we we have different thoughts we have different sides of the county we have different thoughts that went into it all and and and of course we bring some we were just asked this to input on the big big group on roads and trucks and that kind of stuff which interestingly enough just our input on that part was 34 pages So to that group then we're still in there or more than that probably but after reviewing the letter what we feel it misses many of the county's own dis stage concerns and because it does not frame these as NEPA deficiencies data gaps are required mitigation and this is something I know that you have been asking some other people we we got EPA input on all this too the forest service has no obligation to act on So it's about what goes in the subject line. I know you you guys have looked at this too, but so here it is in specifics. You did not object or identify the deficiencies in the whole overall approach, especially in the subject letter. You've got to object. Did not respond. The EIS raised a number major unresolved issues. air quality, water quality, water quantity, emergency services, transportation, and so socioeconomic impacts. But the your letter does not state that the FBI has failed to address these issues. That's what they want to hear. I mean, we've been we've been talking to them. What format do we need to have this in to make it have any impact at all? It doesn't request specifically supplemental analysis in detail. It doesn't demand

corrections before the record of decision. Timelines, timelines, timelines. Doesn't invoke the county's authority as a cooperating government. You know, all of this stuff because the letter doesn't frame anything as a legal deficiency. The Forest Service can treat it as non actionable feedback. That was item number one that that jumped out not from our input. It's from it's from the input that we garnered from other experts on this kind of stuff. Yes, I've been involved in them before, but this this is something you've got standing. You know that you've heard that many times because and we all had standing because we we

commented on the DEIS and so and then the other point that I just wanted to make quickly here is again on independent monitoring. I mean the DIY comments did highlight the need for real-time air monitoring, metal monitoring, groundwater sentininal wells. It does all everything Robin made notes of there. But what your letter does, it accepts operator run monitoring, not independent. It doesn't acknowledge airsmart. You got a university up the road here that has put a lot of lot of time and money into independent air monitoring. And and in addition to that, uh we need to request independent API monitoring. Make sure that that's listed in the DEIS. It doesn't request does not request non-mine control or third party oversight. We can't have them monitoring what we're doing. Period. And it doesn't request independent sentinel wells or independent quality control beyond voluntary cooperation. This leads on monitoring under South 32's control with no enforceable. Enforceable is the right word, transparency. And he ran this stuff a long time. You know, this airs smart stuff, as you may or may not know, came out of California

years ago. It's it's EPA. It's an EPA program. Google it. Go right on the EPA site and stuff. While some people end up dogging this particular approach for real-time monitoring stuff, we recognize that it's not a high-end kind of what other people call even EPA calls monitoring that cell 32 is doing antiquated. It's more exact, more expensive, but does it address our needs and it isn't sourced? In other words, what when you say you source something that means when we have air pollution, you need to know where it's coming from, not that it's not that it's just There's technology to do that and that's what we're going to end up doing with this independent program moving ahead. I mean just to to add to that you know we have the we have the purple airs and then we have the quads those are expensive units they measure 1.5 to 10

there's expens there's there is they are as expensive as 32 units on a project

absolutely but you know you can see the data quick those metal monitors yeah it may be the best technology to do metal monitoring right now but the turnaround time is not great weeks And you know I think we have to think more the idea of was about chronic disease. Well you know if we were getting better data more timely data on metal metal you know metal in the air maybe we could not have so much chronic disease. We're already at a deficit in this county. You go down to nogal wash which is my other thing that I'm pretty distressed about and the heavy metals that are probably in the ground, you know, in the soil, the pas the solids. There's a number of studies. I've said this many times. It's not South 32's fault, the Noal wash and the trash and the filth and the smell. I had 15 graduate students the other day, do the tour because the the national and international community will be here on June 6 on June 7th to tour that whole area. This kind of stuff guys, it got we got to work on it. We have to work these problems. We have lots of problems. Stop 32 didn't cause them all. But what's happening is I call this situation a dark force multiplier. Force multipliers are supposed to be good things. What happens is there will be pifas. I guarantee you with the money. It's guaranteed. There's a study coming out right now from the UD doll center. So anyway, be aware. I'm just going to make sure everybody has a chance to talk before we go back around. Did you guys want to comment or no? Was there anybody else that wanted to speak? Okay, we can go back around. We got about nine minutes. I think Chris wanted to or Mr. Wovven wanted

talking about air monitoring. Uh South 32 proposed and probably already operational I think about uh three monitors miles and miles away from the outside the air the ambient air boundary where the standards are designed for or relate to is at the fence the property fence of South 32. So the right the permits. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So the permits apply to the property fence, right?

So there has to be a monitor hopefully independent at the fence. Please ask for it. Okay. So go ahead. You have a question? No. We got does First of all, did everybody get a talk that wanted to talk before we ask a couple questions? Yeah. Okay. You go ahead. So, you guys have seen South 32's air monitoring website, correct? Oh, yeah. Can we can you tell me a little about your opinion on that? What the pros, the cons? This is this is from other people, air real air experts opinions.

What that system does, it tells the weather really well, real time. the rest of the monitoring as was as Chris and Robin had made reference to it. It's it is a great technology. It's been proven forever and it and it protects them well. From a business standpoint, that's the way you look at it, who you're protecting. And so from that regard, it is, you know, it is again really exact. It's a month in delay on seeing what the real kind of data is on on the on the elements and stuff and the PM numbers and everything else and is it something that um it can be correlated later? Yes. But at the time, as you probably know, we all talked about doing some real time stuff versus integrating with their stuff. Two different approaches and two different um results that that The stuff that UVA is putting out right now is real time.

Anybody can get it anytime with their stuff and it's going to be it's going to be not only a month late. What you know the question becomes is okay how do you correlate that to that to anything? Yes, they've got weather with it and yes you can go online and look at it and you can you can see that part of it real time. Um other people are already pulling their data up and go kind of going to what Chris is saying. Okay. It's this background um information that's again away from the line and and you know yeah the approach is supposed to be is supposed to be on traffic lanes but um when whenever you end up looking at this kind of stuff what the real issue ends up being is the PM that comes off of the vehicles you know the the fine particles that's going to come from dust and other stuff versus the heavy metals or just you know that's good background ground for them to know, but from a public health standpoint.

Gotcha. Okay.

I was just going to say I don't think anyone thinks that it's bad what's on South 32. It's more that we think that it's incomplete and that there have been um a lot of activity in the last couple of years as we uh prepare for South 32 to become operational in this county to set up other sorts of monitoring that are independent and that will complete the picture and why the county wouldn't acknowledge and incorporate into their statements in some sort of a meaningful way the AirSmart program since it's being coordinated by researchers at two of our big un public universities in the state is just seems kind of silly because we actually have the opportunity with some of these things since for whatever reason we have a highly citizen scientist monitored ecosystem in this county. We have a great opportunity to really look at um collecting data that's not being generated by the industry that wants to do business here because if you work in any other science that's really flawed data. I mean it can't stand by itself.

Oh, you can give it to Chris. Can we get Tom Colin say something real quick and then we'll get to Chris? You No, go ahead. Go ahead. Okay.

You you cannot see uh air pollution in isolation. Um when you look at the models and this and that, uh it's it's admitted and it's really taking place. Of course, 90% of the air emitted particles end up on the soil around the site. So this those part those particles will go somewhere as runoff in streams. It's not taken care of anywhere in any permit. ADQ so far refuses to analyze runoff and I think you understand why because that will contain a lot of the particle materials including the heavy metals we talking about. So please include that.

Just personally I wanted to thank everyone for the comments. I find it's very very helpful. Um so I've just heard I'm hearing like a few themes here and I think the the goal is this is the whole purpose that we have this was we want to prove the letter and make it the best that we can make it. So um I'm hearing and you can correct me if I'm wrong. I'm hearing you want some more specificity. That's something that I'm hearing. Um I'm hearing in terms of legal language that there currently may be a gap in terms of in what you're saying and in terms of the reaction how the Forest Service is going to look at it. You know, like they actually need to respond to it or they may just kind of push it aside, don't need to respond to it. Um, so and and we've heard a lot. I feel like one of the big themes has just been monitoring, monitoring, monitoring. Having been a person that's I've spent a whole professional career in public health. My entire career been in public health. So the monitoring piece to me is one key critical part of it. So let me let me ask this question to all of you because I'm just curious how you would respond to this. If we have citizen science monitoring and whether it's air quality or water quality, we see trends that are going the wrong direction and and understanding that monitoring should lead Robin like you said to that has to be tied to health outcomes obviously, right? Um so if we have trends going in the wrong direction, what's going to happen next? I think it's a simple answer in one sense that you know we got we got some of the greatest researchers right up the

street here in both universities not only no but it came so well they want to help us I tell you what we have we have a lot of people from both universities wanting to come down and get involved engaged in exactly this particular question that's the right that's one of the answers to have an independent approach from that regard

and that would be another theme not to interrupt you but I think the independent approach we definitely have heard that theme today which is which is a good one right that's the verification piece it's always who's verifying and what authority do they have and how do you inter how do you roadmap that back to somebody who actually has the authority to make something happen but if for example if we have v if you have if a wastewater treatment plan or a water treatment plan not related to the mine, just public water, portable water, waste, domestic waste water. Um, if there's violations of the permit that continues on, continues on and continues on, eventually there's something that's going to happen. So, I guess my question is if there's citizen science monitoring on the monitoring piece and we have trends going the wrong way, what's going to happen next and who does it? So that might be something that we have to all sit down and discuss because that's not clear with the federal regulations and the state regulations changing the way that they are. So I understand that there's um some concern about that. I'm personally hoping that we get things written into the community protections and benefits agreement that exceed um the limitations of the legal requirements and address the science of what we're really up against. And I don't expect it in all arenas, but it seems like it's critical in terms of looking at water and air.

And and I just Chris, if I may make one comment. Yeah. Last comment. I know we're running short on time. So I I think what would be helpful for the county is you all have given a lot of really good comments. If you have specific language and comments that you can get back to us that we can look at rolling into the letter that would be incredibly helpful. Is there no Are you working with a consultant? No, we have for Well, that's not totally true to have the air for the air. We are we have talked to another person. Yes.

For water. For water, we feel confident in what we had before. And then with Colin's background, we feel comfortable with that. Also, what's the background in water? I've just heard health. I just So my I've spent the last 30 years in water quality specifically. Well, as it relates I guess that's not enough for me. That doesn't tell us what that means. I mean, I'm happy to visit you offline if you want. Well, but if you're the being the county's consultant, shouldn't we know what that is? Well, he's I think she just wants a little more specifics about what that means when you say water quality. Did you work for municipal cities protecting the water quality, private water companies?

So, my my background is I started in Mojave County and we had specific water quality issues along the Colorado River related to wastewater contamination. So, it's heavily involved with ADQ in the county at the start of my career. um a lot of the regulations you see today for septic systems. Um I was sat on all those committees in the 1990s and helped write some of those rules that went into effect in 2001 and that was part of the work that we did along the Colorado River. Been in the private sector since 1997 and specifically had been a manufact was a manufacturer of of wastewater equipment that we sold not only throughout North America but all over the world. So my I have I've spent every day of my waking life in the private sector working with county and state governments. Um I've sat on other states rule writing committees to write regulations around water quality and groundwater quality. Um and I currently serve on the National Sanitation Foundation. I'm on the joint committee for wastewater that actually writes the ANC standards related to waste water. I don't and you anymore. You're more than welcome to set up a meeting with him also. I have to cut it. I have to stop the meeting. Can I ask a quick qu? First of all, thank you. Thank you for this. Is this a comfortable setting? Is it better than just having the call? It's It's better, right?

No. Okay, good. We appreciate you guys coming. Thank you. Make sure you do the signin sheet and we'll get ready for the meeting at 9:30. We were just wanting to know more. We weren't trying to

We've got an audience here filled with people that have been making scientific observations, comments, and feedback on the modeling that is almost exclusively provided by the mine and we're all aware of that. We've submitted NEPA comments. And so what I want to hear from the board at some point, John, is that you guys are going to be pushing for comprehensive water, soil, and air assessments so that we understand what the uh possibilities are, where we're starting from, and how this operation is really going to be impacting us. A lot of us here are already involved in monitoring and are part of the groups that detected the antimony and took that to the media. So I and I realize it might not be the whole public that you're speaking with and this was prepared for a broader audience, but those of us that got up with notes and came here this early in the morning, those are the things that we want answers to. First of all, thank you for the presentation. I do appreciate it. Um, I'm not a fan of a general framework. I think we need specificities. I in my opinion the letter is not enough. Um, we can't just ex we cannot rely on existing um what did you say? What exists? We have to have more monitoring and we cannot rely on what just exists. We have to have independent monitoring of air and water. Um we need a specific plan. I don't understand why you wouldn't include specific responses. It's important. And it this is not just about getting along with everybody. This is about in my opinion your role

must look out for us. It is your job to do that because if we can't rely on you where we left. So this is not enough. I have more to say but I'm going to pass this on.

Okay. I'm going to read a statement actually that I prepared. Uh thank you for the opportunity to speak and I Colin I know you have a very hard job. This is uh but I want to tell you today that the FBI's response letter you know a lot of residents are concerned in the approach the county has taken. The letter accurately describes several technical issues but it does not defend the community in a way a cooperating government is expected to. It reads more like a supportive reaction to the project than a protective regulatory comment. The county's own DEIS raised major concerns. Air quality, water quality, water quantity, roadway safety, emergency response capacity, socioeconomic impacts. Yet, the FBI letter does not identify any of these unresolved NEA deficiencies. It does not request supplemental analysis. It does not demand enforcable mitigation. and it does not ask the Forest Service to correct the gaps before issuing the record of decision. Without that, the Forest Service has no obligation to act on the on the county's concerns. Several critical issues were simply not addressed. The letter focuses on water quality. It says nothing about water quantity, nothing about long-term aquaculture draw down, nothing about domestic wells, nothing about mitigation fund for residents if wells fail. It also avoids the issue of independent monitoring. The county asked for more transparency, but it accepts a monitoring system that is run entirely by South 32. There is no request for independent air monitoring, independent groundwater, sentinel wells, or thirdparty oversight. That leaves the public dependent on the mine's own data. The letter also fails to address the roadway and truck impacts. The DEIS

record shows hundreds of heavy trucks per day with real risks to tourists, cyclists, and local drivers. Yet, the FBI letter mentions only equestrian undercrossings. There is no discussion of accident risk, no request for a third party carrier fund to uh and no demand for emergency response resources tied to increased traffic. And perhaps most concerning, the letter does not address health impacts. The DEIS raised the possibility of increased PM10 and PM2.5 and particulate bound metals like maganese, zinc, and lead. These pollutants are linked to respiratory illness, cardiovascular stress, cancer, and long-term developmental impacts. By the way, are also now related to diabetes. There's three studies from UOVA right now about heavy metals and diabetes. The county county's own DEIS comments for a permanent monitoring network and real-time public data. But the FBI letter does not mention health impacts at all. It does not request a health impact fund, does not request medical monitoring, and does not request enforceable triggers that would slow or stop operations during high pollution events. Finally, the letter does not address the broader economic and community impacts, tourism, property values, business stability, or the risk of people leaving the area. These concerns were raised repeatedly during scoping and public hearings. Yet, they are absent from the county's response. The result is a letter that acknowledges problems, but does not insist on solutions. defers everything to future coordination permitting or the CPBA long after the county's leverage is gone. At this stage, recommendations are not enough. The county should be demanding enforcable commitments before the record of decision, not after. I urge the board

to strengthen its position, identify the unresolved impacts, demand independent monitoring, address water quantity, address road safety, address health, and insist that these protections be written into the record of decision itself. The people of Santa Cruz County deserve a response that protects them, not a letter that simply acknowledges risks and hopes they will be addressed. John, I want to let you know that, you know, we sit on the Royal Walker working group and there's a consultant by the name of Mark Holmes who is a superstar hydraologist and he's done water research managed big water municipalities I know that there was a a number that there was floating around that a comprehensive water study would cost a million dollars we have been in discussions with him and he's very vocal on these rural water working group calls he said we could get an independent study done between $150 to $250,000. And I really would urge you all to take a look at that and talk to him. So, I thank you for your time.

I'm taking notes. By the way, can I say one more thing?

Yes. I forgot to say something that's somewhat related because you talked about the the permits that are issued and I just want to make you aware of ADQ um and what they can do and not do with the permits and how far the science about whether or not that protects his legs behind. Um, as an example, I just recently was trying to reconcile my recent water report, um, saying there were no pieas in my water with the 19 with the 2023 letter I received saying I had elevated levels that the EPA determined were unsafe for me and that they would be addressing how to correct that. Well, the reason there's no longer any pas in the water is because ADQ has aligned themselves with the current administration's change in EPA regulations. And so those things that cause disease and death and cancer and all those other awful things, some of which I've already experienced and don't want to ever experience again, um, are still in my water. They're just no longer testing and monitoring for them. So when we either address these things through independent monitoring with this letter or through the the assessments we get for the community protections and benefits agreement. We need to make sure since we have an opportunity and a moral responsibility that the things that we ask for the gaps, the loops that you talked about wanting to close that those things are based on science and the data we have that because we're going backwards in terms of our regulations. We're undoing 50 years of environmental regulations and that means if we just follow those regulations we are signing up generations of people in this county to have increased morbidity and mortality. Can I ask a quick question and because it's I mean we're kind of used to the call the public model but

um so Robin when you talked to that person on the rural water working group um did you give him so as you know Patagonia sent a letter to the forest service 5 years ago asking for that and in that letter there's I want to say six or seven bullet points of what they're asking for in that study. Did that gentleman had he seen that? Mark understands our water problem. It would blew my mind. I wish he we talked to him the last time we were all together

and he was so familiar with all the the issues and he understands and like I'm going to hold this sign up. Do not forget about this. This data is from our regulators two years ago. Um you know my head almost blew off when I saw this you know and it presented at a board of supervisors meeting. For God's sakes, people, do not forget about the groundwater.

Yeah.

Thank you. Uh yeah, I'm like some of the other people here uh disappointed in uh the response so far. Um for instance um when you look at the difference between the uh draft and the final ADQ water and air permits you see big differences. You wonder why why are there big differences in the numbers between a draft permit and a final permit. When you look at the EIS, the draft one and the final one, you see the same trend. How come there can be a difference in uh air lead emissions of a factor of two for the total project between a draft and a final. You haven't addressed that at all. That's katiger finding in your response and you don't ask for any accountability why these errors I call them errors right have taken place how can that be and they play the game with your health basically because it's about water pollution we heard about the plume the antenna plume that wasn't there in the adq permit at all. We heard about two times more lead emission and wasn't there at the ADQ permit. So I ask you very politely to dive into those numbers to get the accountability we need. There is no there's no doubt that um

our um our monitoring has a big a big role to play but we can and we can do a lot more on the preventive side to avoid disasters like this because I call a factor of two mistake a disaster. So, please look at today. Okay.

I guess I'll I'll make a few comments here too then. Um, and as as again as just a little bit of background, of course, Robert and I talk a little bit. And so, I'm not I'm not going to restate a lot of her comments, but I have a whole lot of additional detail around each one of those items. But you know when when we so I did read all 34 pages as well as all the stuff and we've already inputed on some of the other groups that we have getting ready to input on to um for for the FBI and so we're both we're commenting both as Calvas's alliance and individually because that's the way that we did it before too weas alliance that big group as well as us individually

just to cl just real quick so to clarify so the you're saying that you're also going to comment you're you're preparing comments individually but also as part of the whole group of the 16 entities that are okay with the way we did it before too just simply because we we have different thoughts we have different sides of the county we have different thoughts that went into it all and and and of course we bring some we were just asked this to input on the big big group on roads and trucks and that kind of stuff which interestingly enough just our input on that part was 34 pages So to that group, then we're still in there or more than that probably. But after reviewing the letter, what we feel it misses many of the county's own DIS stage concerns and because it does not frame these as NEPA deficiencies, data gaps or required mitigation. This is something I know that you have been asking some other people. We we got EPA input on all this too. the forest service has no obligation to act on them. So it's about what goes in the subject line letter. I know you you guys have looked at this too, but so here it is in specifics. You did not object or identify the deficiencies in the whole overall approach, especially in the subject letter. You've got to object, do not respond. The raised a number and major unresolved issues. Air quality, water quality, water quantity, emergency services, transportation, and so socioeconomic impacts. But the your letter does not state that the FBI has failed to address these issues. That's what they want to hear. I mean, we've been we've been talking to them. What format do we need to have this in to make it have any impact at all? It doesn't request specifically supplemental analysis in detail. It doesn't demand

corrections before the record of decision. Timelines, timelines, timelines. Doesn't invoke the county's authority as a cooperating government. You know, all of this stuff. Because the letter doesn't frame anything as a legal deficiency. The Forest Service can treat it as non actionable feedback. That was item number one that that jumped out not from our input. It's from it's from the input that we garnered from other experts on this kind of stuff. Yes, I've been involved in them before, but this this is something you've got standing. You know that you've heard that many times because and we all had standing because we we

commented on the DEIS and so and then the other point that I just wanted to make quickly here is again on independent monitoring. I mean the guys comments did highlight the need for real time monitoring, manual monitoring, groundwater sentininal wells. It does all everything Robin made notes of there. But what your letter does, it accepts operator run monitoring, not independent. It doesn't acknowledge airsmart. You've got a university up the road here that has put a lot of lot of time and money into independent air monitoring. And and in addition to that, uh we need to request independent air monitoring. Make sure that's listed in the DEIS. It doesn't request does not request non-mine control or third party oversight. We can't have them monitoring what we're doing. Period. And it doesn't request independent sentinel wells or independent quality control beyond voluntary cooperation. This needs all monitoring under South 32's control with no enforceable. Enforceable is the right word, transparency. And he ran this stuff a long time. You know, this airs smart stuff, as you may or may not know, came out of California

years ago. It's it's EPA. It's an EPA program. Google go right on the EPA site and stuff. While some people end up dogging this particular approach for real-time monitoring stuff, we recognize that it's not a high-end kind of what other people call even EPA calls monitoring that stop 32 is doing antiquated. It's more exact, it's more expensive, but does it address our needs and is it source? In other words, what when you say you source something, that mean when we have air pollution, you need to know where it's coming from, not that it's not that it's just happening. there's technology to do that and that's what we're going to end up doing with this independent program moving ahead. I mean just to to add to that you know we have the we have the purple airs and then we have the quads those are expensive units they measure 1.5 to 10

there's expens there's there is they are as expensive as 32 units on a project

absolutely but you know you can see the data quick those metal monitors yeah it may be the best technology to do metal monitoring right now but the turnaround time is not greats weeks And you know, I think we have to think more the idea of was about chronic disease. Well, you know, if we were getting better data, more timely data on metal metal, you know, metal in the air, maybe we could not have so much chronic disease. We're already at a deficit in this county. You go down to Nogal Wash, which is my other thing that I'm pretty distressed about, and the heavy metals that are probably in the ground, you know, in the soil, the pifas, uh the solvents. There's a number of studies. I've said this many times. It's not South 32's fault. The nogal wash and the trash and the filth and the smell. I have 15 graduate students the other day. Do the tour because the the national and international community will be here on June 6 on June 7th to tour that whole area. This kind of stuff, guys, it got we got to work on it. We have to work these problems. We have lots of problems. Stop 32 didn't cause them all, but what's happening is I call this situation a dark force multiplier. Force multipliers are supposed to be good things. What happens is there will be pifas. I guarantee you with the money. It's guaranteed. There's a study coming out right now from the UD doll center. So anyway, be aware. I'm just going to make sure everybody has a chance to talk before we go back around. Did you guys want to comment or no? Was there anybody else that wanted to speak?

Okay, we can go back around. We got about nine minutes. I think Chris wanted to or Mr. Wovven wanted. Talking about air monitoring, uh, South 32 proposed and probably already operational I think about uh three monitors miles and miles away from the Roger site the air the ambient air boundary where the standards are designed for or relate to is at the fence the property fence of south 32. So the right the permits. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So the permits apply to the property fence, right?

So there has to be a monitor hopefully independent at the fence. Please ask for it. Okay. So go ahead. You have a question? No. We got does first of all did everybody get a talk that wanted to talk before we ask a couple questions? Yeah. Okay. You go ahead. So, you guys have seen South 32's air monitoring website, correct? Oh, yeah. Can we can you tell me a little about your opinion on that? What the pros, the cons? This is this is from other people, air, real air experts opinions.

What that system does, it tells the weather really well, real time. The rest of the monitoring, as was as Chris and Robin had made reference to, It's it is a great technology. It's been proven forever and it and it protects them well from a business standpoint. That's the way we look at it, who you're protecting. And so from that regard, it is, you know, it is again really exact. It's a month in delay on seeing what the real time data is on on the on the elements and stuff and the PM numbers and everything else and is it something that um it can be correlated later? Yes. But at the time, as you probably know, we all talked about doing some real time stuff versus integrating with their stuff. Two different approaches and two different um results that that stuff that UFA is putting out right now is real time. Anybody can get it anytime with their stuff and it's going to be it's going to be not only a month late. What you know the question becomes is okay how do you correlate that to that to anything? Yes, they've got weather with it and yes you can go online and look at it and you can you can see that part of this real time. Um other people are already pulling their data up and go kind of what Chris is saying. Okay. It's a lot. It's this background um information that's again away from the line and and you know, yeah, the approach is supposed to be is supposed to be on traffic lanes. But um when whenever you end up looking at this kind of stuff, what the real issue ends up being is the PM that comes off of the vehicles. you know, the the fine particles that's going to come from dust and other stuff versus the heavy metals or just, you know, that's good

background for them, you know, but from a public health standpoint. Gotcha. Okay.

I was just going to say I don't think anyone thinks that it's bad what's on South 32. It's more that we think that it's incomplete and that there have been um a lot of activity in the last couple of years as we uh prepare for South 32 to become operational in this county to set up other sorts of monitoring that are independent and that will complete the picture and why the county wouldn't acknowledge and incorporate into their statements in some sort of a meaningful way the airsmart program since it's being coordinated by researchers at two of our big un public universities in the state is just seems kind of silly because we actually have the opportunity with some of these things and for whatever whatever reason we have a highly citizen scientist monitored ecosystem in this county. We have a great opportunity to really look at um collecting data that's not being generated by the industry that wants to do business here because if you work in any other science that's really flawed data. I mean it can't stand by itself.

Oh, you can give it to Chris. Can we get Tom Colin say something real quick and then we'll get to Chris. You No, go ahead. Go ahead. Okay.

You you cannot see uh air pollution in isolation. Um when you look at the models and this and that uh it's it's emitted and it's really taking place. Of course, 90% of the air emitted particles end up on the soil around the site. So this those part those particles will go somewhere as runoff in streams. It's not taken care of anywhere in any permit. ADQ so far refuses to analyze runoff and I think I understand why because that will contain a lot of the particle materials including the heavy metals we talking about. So please include that. Just personally wanted to thank everyone for the comments. I find it's very very helpful. Um so I've just heard I'm hearing like a few themes here and I think the the goal is this is the whole purpose that we have this was we want to prove the letter and make it the best that we can make it. So, um, I'm hearing, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, I'm hearing you want some more specificity. That's something that I'm hearing. Um, I'm hearing in terms of legal language that there currently may be a gap in terms of in what you're saying and in terms of the reaction, how the Forest Service is going to look at it. You know, like they actually need to respond to it or they may just kind of push it aside. don't need to respond to it. Um, so and and we've heard a lot. I feel like one of the things has just been monitoring, monitoring, monitoring.

Having been a person that's I've spent a whole professional career in public health. My entire career been in public health. So the monitoring piece to me is one key critical part of it. So let me let me ask this question to all of you because I'm just curious how you would respond to this. If we have citizen science monitoring and whether it's air quality or water quality, we see trends that are going the wrong direction and and understanding that monitoring should lead Robin like you said to that has to be tied to health outcomes obviously, right? Um so if we have trends going in the wrong direction, what's going to happen next? I think it's a simple answer in one sense. It's a you know we got we got some of the greatest researchers right up the street here

in both universities but no but so they want to help us. I tell you what we have we have a lot of people from both universities wanting to come down and get involved engaged in exactly this particular question. That's the right have the right answers to have an independent approach from that regard

and that would be another theme not to interrupt you but I think the independent approach you definitely have heard that theme today which is which is a good one right that's the verification piece it's always who's verifying and what authority do they have and how do you interim how do you roadmap that back to somebody who actually has the authority to make something happen but if for example if we have v if you have if a wastewater treatment plant or a water treatment plant not related to the mine just public water portable water waste domestic waste water um if there's violations of the permit that continues on and continues on and continues on eventually there's something that's going to happen so I guess my question is if there's citizen science monitoring on the monitoring piece and we have trends going the wrong way what's going to happen next and who does it

so that might be something that we have to all sit down and discuss because that's not clear with the federal regulations and the state regulations changing the way that they are. So, I understand that there's um some concern about that. I'm personally hoping that we get things written into the community protections and benefits agreement that exceed um the limitations of the legal requirements and address the science of what we're really up against. And I don't expect it in all arenas, but it seems like it's critical in terms of looking at water and air. And and I just Chris, if I may make one comment. Yeah.

Last comment. I know we're running short on time. So I I think what would be helpful for the county is you all have given a lot of really good comments. If you have specific language and comments that you can get back to us that we can look at rolling into the letter that would be incredibly helpful. Is there no Are you working with a consultant? No, we have for Well, that's not totally true to have the air for the air we are. We have talked to another person. Yes. For water. for water. We feel confident in what we had before and then with Colin's background, we feel comfortable with that. Also, what's the background in water? I've just heard health.

I just So, my I've spent the last 30 years in water quality specifically. Well, as it relates I guess that's not enough for me. That doesn't tell us what that means. I mean, I'm happy to visit you offline if you want. Well, if you're the being the county's consultant, shouldn't we know what that is? Well, he's I think she just wants a little more specifics about what that means when you say water quality. Did you do work for municipal cities protecting the water quality, private water companies?

So, my my background is I started in Mojave County and we had specific water quality issues along the Colorado River related to wastewater contamination. So, I was heavily involved with ADQ in the county at the start of my career. um a lot of the regulations you see today for septic systems. Um I was sat on all those committees in the 1990s and helped write some of those rules that went into effect in 2001 and that was part of the work that we did along the Colorado River. Been in the private sector since 1997 and specifically have been a manufacturer of of wastewater equipment that we sold not only throughout North America but all over the world. So my I have I've spent every day of my waking life in the private sector working with county and state governments. Um I've sat on other states rule writing committees to write regulations around water quality and groundwater quality. Um and I currently serve on the National Sanitation Foundation. I'm on the joint committee for wastewater that actually writes the ANC standards related to waste water. I don't and you more you're more than welcome to set up a meeting with him also. I have to cut it. I have to stop the meeting. Can I ask a quick qu? First of all, thank you. Thank you for this. Is this a comfortable setting? Is it better than just having the call? It's It's better, right?

No. No. Okay, good. We appreciate you guys coming. Thank you. Make sure you do the signin sheet and we'll get ready for the meeting at 9:30. We weren't wanting to know more. We weren't