United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service HDH ...a123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic.download.akamai... · United States Department of Agriculture Forest

United States Department of Agriculture

Forest Service

HDH/Millet Mining Plan of Operations Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact

Feather River Ranger District, Plumas National Forest, Sierra County, California

February, 2017

HDH/Millet Claim, Canyon Creek

For More Information Contact:

Randall J. Gould c/o Donna Duncan

Feather River Ranger District 875 Mitchell Avenue Oroville, CA 95965

Phone: 530-534-6500 Email:

Fax: 530-532-1210

Cover photo by James P. Johnson, 07/28/2011; the mine area

In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil

rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions

participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on

race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual

orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public

assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any

program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs).

Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident.

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program

information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact

the responsible Agency or USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or

contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program

information may be made available in languages other than English.

To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint

Form, AD-3027, found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any

USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information

requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your

completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the

Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-

9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) email: [email protected].

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html

mailto:[email protected]

Feather River Ranger District, Plumas National Forest

1

Contents Contents ........................................................................................................................................... 1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 2

Proposed Project Location .......................................................................................................... 2 Need for the Proposal ...................................................................................................................... 2 Decision Framework ....................................................................................................................... 3 Public Involvement and Tribal Consultation ................................................................................... 3 Proposed Action and Alternatives ................................................................................................... 3

Alternative 1 ................................................................................................................................ 4 Alternative 2 ................................................................................................................................ 5

Mitigation Measures ................................................................................................................ 5 Monitoring ............................................................................................................................... 6

Conditions of Approval (COA) ............................................................................................... 6

Comparison of Alternatives ........................................................................................................ 7 Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action and Alternatives................................................... 8

Alternative 1 – Proposed Action ................................................................................................. 8 Hydrology and Soils ................................................................................................................ 8

Aquatic Resources ................................................................................................................... 9 Human Health and Safety ........................................................................................................ 9

Alternative 2 ................................................................................................................................ 8 Hydrology and Soils ............................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. Aquatic Resources .................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.

Human Health and Safety ....................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. References ...................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. Finding of No Significant Impact ................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

Context ....................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. Intensity ...................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

List of Tables

Table 1. Comparison of Alternatives .............................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.

List of Figures

Figure 1: Vicinity Map – HDH and Millet Claims ........................................................................ 2 Figure 2: Area of proposed activities (Locations approximate) .................................................... 4

HDH/Millet Mining Plan of Operations Environmental Assessment

2

Introduction The Forest Service has prepared the HDH/Millet Mining Plan of Operations Environmental

Assessment (EA) in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Code of

Federal Regulations (36 CFR 228; Subpart A) and other relevant Federal and State laws and

regulations. This Environmental Assessment discloses the direct, indirect and cumulative

environmental effects predicted to result from implementing the claimant’s proposed March 11,

2011 (as modified on April 10, 2012) HDH/Millet Mining Plan of Operations over five years, and

to disclose the basis for establishing reasonable resource protection measures.

Proposed Project Location The HDH/Millet Mining project occupies an area along Canyon Creek in Mount Diablo

Meridian, Township 20 North, Range 9 Ease, portions of sections 10, 15, and 16, Sierra County,

California; about six miles south and southeast of LaPorte, California.

Figure 1: Vicinity Map – HDH and Millet Claims

Need for the Proposal A claimant seeks to continue placer operations on his unpatented mining claim which is located

on National Forest System (NFS) lands. He has submitted a Plan of Operations to obtain

authorization for the surface disturbance associated with the exploration methods he would use to

extract the locatable minerals. A Plan of Operations is required to authorize: vehicle use on and

maintenance of a non-system access road, use and maintenance of a permitted outhouse, and

overnight occupancy in a tent camp while operations are in progress.

The USDA Forest Service, Feather River Ranger District of the Plumas National Forest has a

need to respond to the claimant’s request to implement the proposed April, 2012 HDH/Millet Plan

of Operations per the Code of Federal Regulations (36 CFR 228; Subpart A), while fulfilling legal

requirements to disclose the basis for establishing reasonable resource protection terms and

conditions included under the action alternative.

⃝←Geraldine

↓HDH/Millet


3

Decision Framework The Feather River District Ranger of the Plumas National Forest, as the Responsible Official, will

decide whether to implement the claimant’s proposed HDH/Millet Mining Plan of Operations

(Alternative 1: the Proposed Action) or implement an alternative to the proposed action.

The ensuing Decision Notice (DN) linked to this Environmental Assessment (EA) does not

directly result in the approval of the claimants’ Plan of Operations (PoO). Rather, the DN fulfills

legal requirements and provides rationale for selecting reasonable resource protection mitigations,

administered as Conditions of Approval. The approval of the HDH/Millet Mining PoO would be

authorized in a subsequent written decision letter, contingent upon the claimant’s willingness to

comply with the requirements of the Agency’s decision including reasonable protection of surface

natural resources, posting of a bond, and acquisition of required permit(s) in compliance with

other Federal, State and Local regulations.

Public Involvement and Tribal Consultation The HDH/Millet Mining Plan of Operations has been listed on the Plumas National Forest

schedule of proposed cations (SOPA) since August, 2011.

The Forest Service published a legal notice asking for public input on the plan on August 17,

2011 in the Oroville Mercury-Register, the paper of record of the Feather River Ranger District.

On September 22, 2011 the Feather River Ranger District sent letters to Concow Maidu Tribe of

Mooretown Rancheria, Mechoopda Indian Tribe of Chico Rancheria, Tyme Maidu Tribe of Berry

Creek Rancheria, and Estom Yumeka Tribe of Enterprise Rancheria

On August 2011 and again in December 2016 information about the Proposed Action was

emailed to the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (CVRWQCB) for

compliance review. It was determined that water quality impacts from the proposed activities

should be less than significant and the requirement for standard Forest Service Mining Best

Management Practices should be sufficient to protect water quality.

Proposed Action and Alternatives The Proposed Action (Alternative 1) and one action alternative to the Proposed Action

(Alternative 2) were developed and analyzed in detail.

The No-Action Alternative acts as a baseline to describe the existing environmental and social

setting, by which the predicted effects of the Proposed Action may be compared. For this

proposal a no action alternative would mean no approval of the Plan of Operations. Without an

approved plan, the mining claimant could conduct limited activities allowed under 36 CFR 228.4.

Operations would be limited to using vehicles on existing roads, searching for and occasionally

removing small mineral samples, prospecting and sampling while not causing any significant

surface resource disturbance, marking and monumenting the claim, and conducting subsurface

operations which would not cause surface resource disturbance. The Forest Service cannot deny a

locatable mineral Plan of Operations where the proposed activities are reasonably incident to

mining and would comply with other Federal laws. HDH and Millet are on-going operations,

approved in the past, for which final reclamation would not be completed until no further

operations are planned. The existing condition is that of an un-reclaimed mining operation. When


4

no further operations are expected, final reclamation would restore the site to near natural

conditions. The existing condition is not the condition prior to mining, nor the condition expected

after reclamation, and therefore not appropriate as a baseline for comparison with the other

alternatives. Therefore, a No Action alternative has not been analyzed.

Figure 2: Claim map submitted with PoO

Alternative 1 Alternative 1 (the Proposed Action) represents the claimant’s proposed HDH/Millet Mining

Plan of Operations (PoOs) to use hand tools, gold pans, and a sluice box for in-stream

recovery of placer gold from a segment of Canyon Creek, which flows through the mining

claims on National Forest System (NFS) lands (Figure 2). The operators propose to seasonally

explore and extract gold mineral commodities over a five year period. Approval in a PoO

would be required for:

⃝←Geraldine


5

Access to placer mining operations requiring seasonal motor vehicle travel on a non-system

road (a legacy temporary road not maintained as part of the National Forest System

transportation system);

Use of an existing, approved (Sierra County Health Department) outhouse; and

Long-term (over 30 days) occupancy in a tent camp, while operations are in progress.

Annual reclamation would ensure all personal items and equipment from the claim are

removed before October 15. A reclamation bond of $2,400 in in place and would be

maintained throughout the life of the project. Final reclamation would include removal of the

outhouse and reclamation of the access road when all operations are complete.

Alternative 2 Alternative 2 represents the claimant’s proposed HDH/Millet Mining Plan of Operations

(PoO) over five years, with modifications, including reclamation to adequately protect public

land mitigation measures to minimize adverse environmental effects to National Forest surface

resources, as follows:

Access to placer mining operations requiring seasonal motor vehicle travel on a non-system

road (a legacy temporary road not maintained as part of the National Forest System

transportation system);

Use of an existing, approved (Sierra County Health Department) outhouse; and

Long-term (over 30 days) occupancy in a tent camp, while operations are in progress.

Annual reclamation would ensure all personal items and equipment from the claim are

removed before October 15. Final reclamation would also include removal of the outhouse and

reclamation of the access road when all operations are complete. A reclamation bond

equivalent to the actual cost of reclamation would be held in accordance with 36 CFR 228.13.

The bond would be subject to annual evaluation to reflect changes in operations and

reclamation costs.

Mitigation Measures

Upon approval of the Plan of Operations, the implementation of the following mitigation

measures become the responsibility of the claimant, unless specified otherwise. It is also the

responsibility of the claimant to obtain any necessary permits from other State or Federal

agencies. Likewise, it is the responsibility of the regulating agency to enforce those regulations.

Certification or other approval issued by State agencies or other Federal agencies of compliance

with laws and regulations relating to mining operations would be accepted as compliance with

similar or parallel requirements of these following regulations:

Aquatics. The placer mining activities are proposed in potentially suitable habitat for the foothill

yellow-legged frog, a Forest Service sensitive species. A Limited Operating Period (LOP) is

necessary to mitigate any potential disturbance in the habitat.

Heritage: Native American prehistoric and historic era (over 50 years old) archeological sites,

features and artifacts must be protected until such a time as they can be reviewed, recorded and

possibly evaluated by qualified Forest Service personnel. In accordance with the National


6

Historic Preservation Act of 1966, the Antiquities Act of 1906, and the Archaeological Protection

Act of 1979 as amended, disturbing, altering or removing sites, features and/or artifacts from

National Forest System (NFS) lands is illegal and punishable by fines up to $10,000.00 and/or

imprisonment. There is one heritage site at the camping area. The PoO can proceed as long as

there is no surface disturbance to known features and all mining is within the creek. If

unrecorded heritage resources are discovered, all project activities in close proximity to the

resource would cease, and the Feather River Heritage Resource staff would be immediately

notified.

Invasive Plant Species. Reduce the potential for the introduction and/or spread of known

invasive weed species in the project area by applying “avoidance mitigation” and inspecting,

removing, and properly disposing of noxious weed seed and plant parts found on their clothing

and equipment.

Water Quality. Protect by employing hydrologic resource protection best management practices

(BMP). Site specific mitigations were developed to address the steep non-system access road that

is not well drained.

Wild & Scenic River/Visuals. No removal of vegetation has been proposed by the operators.

The operator must preserve eligible Wild & Scenic River features and values of Canyon Creek

and ensure compliance with Visual Quality Objectives (Retention), as defined in 1988 PNF

LRMP.

Monitoring

The Forest Service would conduct unannounced and scheduled on-site inspections of surface

operations to ensure compliance and bond adequacy. Random evaluations would be conducted

each year to evaluate the operation for sediment transport and deposition, signs of erosion, and

improper refuse or waste disposal.

Conditions of Approval (COA)

Forest Service Plan of Operations form FS 2800-5, section VI, Evaluation of Plan of Operations

and section VII, Terms and Conditions are satisfied by the Conditions of Approval (COA). COA

are attached to and made part of the Plan of Operations. These conditions are requirements for

environmental protection of NFS lands as per 36 CFR 228 and Forest Service Manual (FSM)

2800. Appendix A, summarizes the COA that would become part of the HDH/Millet Plan of

Operations.


7

Comparison of Alternatives

Table 1 displays a summary of the direct, indirect and cumulative effects of implementing each

alternative.

Table 1. Comparison of Alternatives

Natural Resource

Alternative #1

(Plan of Operations)

Alternative #2

(Plan of Operations with Mitigations)

Air Quality No Effect - Campfires would only be allowed with a permit, when fire danger is low.

No Effect - During operations, reasonable measures to prevent and suppress fires on the area of operations per 36 CFR §228.11 would be required in compliance with applicable Federal and State fire laws and regulations, including the requirements of the Clean Air Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1857 et seq.). Hand tools would be available in the event of accidental ignition and fires would be reported as soon as possible. Campfires would only be allowed with a permit, when fire danger is low.

Botanical Resources

No Effect -There are no known Federal Threatened, Endangered, Proposed species, Forest Service Sensitive species, or suitable habitat, within the project area. One Plumas National Forest Special Interest species occurs near the road, but should not be affected.

No Effect -There are no known Federal Threatened, Endangered, Proposed species, Forest Service Sensitive species, or suitable habitat, within the project area. One Plumas National Forest Special Interest species occurs near the road, but should not be affected..

Noxious weed protocol would be required of the operators. Precautions would be taken to remove seed sources before entering and operating on NFS land to avoid spread. Mulch and fill used for reclamation would be weed-free to prevent introduction.

Cultural Resources No effect – There is one site near the camp area that the operators are aware and will avoid. No activities proposed will affect cultural resources.

No effect - There is one site near the camp area that the operators are aware and will avoid. No activities proposed will affect cultural resources.

Should any unknown site be encountered, activities will cease and FS archeologist will be notified.

Human Health and Safety

Campfires would only be allowed with a permit, when fire danger is low.

Access road is non-system, steep and has erosion, making travel on it undesirable, but does get public use.

Campfires would only be allowed with a permit, when fire danger is low. Firefighting hand tools would be on-site.

Road maintenance would be required. Signing would discourage vehicle use. During final reclamation the access road would be blocked, to prevent vehicle access.

Scenic Values No Effect: Site is not visible from the main road. No Effect - Site is not visible from the main road.

Canyon Creek has been determined eligible for inclusion in the Wild & Scenic River System (1999). Existing values would be maintained.

Site would be reclaimed to restore the area to near natural conditions. The road would be blocked to prevent vehicle access to the area.

Water and Soils Direct and Indirect Effects:

Continued use (compaction) of the highly disturbed camping area and travel on the non-system mine access road would slow the rate of gradual natural trend toward vegetative and soil recovery.

This Alternative proposes some maintenance of the non-system road. This may provide some improvement by reducing sediment transport down to Canyon Creek.

Direct and Indirect Effects:

Continued use (compaction) of the highly disturbed camping area and travel on the non-system mine access road would slow the rate of gradual natural trend toward vegetative and soil recovery.

Use of the non-system mine access road would be mitigated by applying Best Management Practices, restricting use of the mining access non-system road when soils are dry and constructing water bars/dips to improve drainage. The area affected by the stream crossing would be drained and armored. Water quality would be improved in Canyon Creek.

Reclamation would stabilize and close the road, and decompact the camping area.


8

Natural Resource

Alternative #1

(Plan of Operations)

Alternative #2

(Plan of Operations with Mitigations)

Cumulative Watershed Effects:

The scale of the project is small and should not have a significant impact to water quality.

The proposed project does not change the existing condition, therefore no cumulative effects are expected.

Cumulative Watershed Effects:

The scale of the project is small and should not have a significant impact to water quality.

The proposed project does not change the existing condition, therefore no cumulative effects are expected.

Wildlife Resources Direct and Indirect Effects

The use of hand tools and especially sluicing, could create sedimentation in the streams which may affect habitat and/or disturbances to individual FYLFs. Activities could harm or displace adults, juveniles, tadpoles and/or egg masses.

No Effect to other wildlife species -There are no known Federal Threatened, Endangered, Proposed species, Forest Service Sensitive species, or Plumas National Forest Special Interest species within the project area.

Cumulative Effects

Direct and indirect effects are expected to be localized and not additive to any other project activities, therefore cumulative effects are not expected.

Direct and Indirect Effects

The use of hand tools and especially sluicing, could create sedimentation in the streams which may affect habitat and/or disturbances to individuals. Activities could harm or displace adults, juveniles, tadpoles and/or egg masses. Although an effect could still occur they would be minimized by applying mitigations and LOP.

No Effect to other wildlife species -There are no known Federal Threatened, Endangered, Proposed species, Forest Service Sensitive species, or Plumas National Forest Special Interest species within the project area.

Cumulative Effects

Direct and indirect effects are expected to be localized and not additive to any other project activities, therefore cumulative effects are not expected.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action and Alternatives This section summarizes the potential direct, indirect and cumulative effects of the Proposed

Action and Alternative to surface natural resources; based on the project-specific reports,

assessments and input prepared by the Forest Service specialists, incorporated by reference:

Biological Evaluation (BE) (Roberts, 2012 and Arroyo, 2016); Biological Evaluation (BE)

Botany (Janeway, 2013); Cultural Resources Report (Moore, 2014) and the Hydrology and Soils

Report (Angulo, 2014). Copies of these reports are available upon request at the Feather River

Ranger District.

As there would be no effect to air, botanical, scenic, or cultural surface resources on National

Forest System (NFS) lands as summarized in Table 1, no further discussion of these natural

resources is included below.

Alternative 1 – Proposed Action

Hydrology and Soils

Background

The Clean Water Act (CWA) of 1948 (as amended in 1972 and 1987) establishes, as Federal

policy, the control of both point and non-point source pollution and assigns to the states the

primary responsibility of governing water quality. Non-point source pollution on the Plumas

National Forest is managed through the water quality management program contained in “Water

Quality Management for Forest System Lands in California” (USDA Forest Service September

2000). All Plans of Operation are reviewed by the California State Water Resources Control

Board (CSWRCB) in coordination with the USDA, Forest Service to ensure compliance with the

Clean Water Act.


9


The proposed activities under this alternative would not fix the hydrological issues of the access

road not being well drained. Continued use of the access road will erode the road bed at certain

locations while providing a constant source of sediment during storm events and snowmelt

runoff. The forded stream crossing will continue to be ponded and provide sediment to the

stream. Hand panning and sluicing inside of the streambed are proposed for the project which

should not cause any changes to water quality. The pH, temperature, and dissolved oxygen will

not change due to the proposed activities. The streambed will be altered to an extent because the

sluice box will be using the streambed material and making it more readily available for transport

after it leaves the sluice box. Turbidity will increase as a result of the project but estimating the

amount and duration is difficult. The scale of the project is small and should not have a

significant impact to water quality.

Cumulative Effects

The proposed project does not change the existing condition. The subwatershed is found to be

well below TOC meaning that the hydrologic regime of the watershed is intact and its beneficial

uses are maintained. There are no cumulative effects expected with the selection of this

alternative.

Aquatic Resources

Background

Programmatic consultation with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) was initiated on

December 19, 2014 for the Federally endangered Sierra Nevada yellow legged frog (SNYLF).

The consultation was triggered based on that the HDH-Millet mining activities are within the

elevational range (4,500 to 12,000 feet or as low as 3,500 feet) of the SNYLF.

The programmatic consultation with the USFWS evaluated the effects of the HDH-Millet mining

activities and returned a concurrence on April of 2014 with a programmatic biological opinion

(BO) that states, authorization of incidental take of a SNYLF that results from an action but is not

the purpose of the action is permissible through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service incidental take

statement. Authorization of incidental take is based on: be of small numbers and have no more

than a negligible impact on the species.

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects

Under Alternative 1, the use of hand tools and especially sluicing, that could cause sedimentation

into the stream. Therefore we find that mining activities could harm or displace adults, juveniles,

tadpoles and/or egg masses.

Cumulative Effects

Direct and indirect effects are expected to be localized and not additive to any other project

activities, therefore cumulative effects are not expected.


Background

The mining claims are located at the end of a non-system road that is steep and has erosion

problems. The camp area is attractive and has been used by the public, as well as the miners, for

many years. Travel on the road could be difficult or hazardous for the unsuspecting forest visitor.


10


Travel on the non-system mine access road could lead to citation, as it is not open to public use.

The condition of the road could lead to vehicle accidents. There would be unquantifiable effects

to air quality from vehicle exhaust and limited emissions from campfires to compromise human

health. Upon termination of operations, the road would be reclaimed. There would no cumulative

effects from implementing Alternative 1, due to the limited scope, duration and intensity of

surface operations.

Alternative 2 Proposed Action with Mitigations

Hydrology and Soils


The construction and maintenance of the design features/mitigations short term may increase

potential sediment runoff that could reach streams but that is insignificant when compared to the

long term benefit of improving water quality by reducing sedimentation. The hand panning and

sluicing in the streambed should not cause a significant water quality issues.

Cumulative Effects

The proposed activities and design features do not change the aerial extent of the existing

condition or the degree. The subwatershed is found to be well below TOC meaning that the

hydrologic regime of the watershed is intact and its beneficial uses are maintained. There are no

cumulative effects expected with the selection of this alternative.

Aquatic Resources

Background

Surveys were conducted for amphibians and fish September 2012. Although there were no

SNYLF detected there is suitable habitat, surveys will continue yearly as per the U.S. Fish &

Wildlife Service survey protocol.


Under Alternative 3, the use of hand tools and especially sluicing, would cause the delivery of

sedimentation into the stream which could disturb individual frogs or suffocate egg masses.

Activities could harm or displace adults, juveniles, tadpoles and/or egg masses.

Mitigations include a limiting operating period (SNFPA ROD 2004) to minimize the accidental

crushing of individuals moving away from the water. Continued monitoring of actives, by yearly

site visits that would alert resource colleges of potential problems. Apply education and

avoidance measures of frogs and the potential presence of egg masses.

Cumulative Effects

Direct and indirect effects are expected to be localized and not additive to any other project

activities, therefore cumulative effects are not expected.


11



Travel on the non-system mine access road could lead to citation, as it is not open to public use.

The poor condition of the road could lead to vehicle accidents. The operator would be allowed to

sign the road to help prevent vehicle use. There would be unquantifiable effects to air quality

from vehicle exhaust and limited emissions from campfires to compromise human health. Upon

termination of operations, the road would be reclaimed and blocked to vehicle use. There would

no cumulative effects from implementing Alternative 2, due to the limited scope, duration and

intensity of surface operations.


12

References USDA 1988a. Plumas National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. USDA Forest

Service Plumas National Forest, Quincy, CA.

USDA 1988b. Plumas National Forest Environmental Impact Statement for the Land and

Resource Management Plan. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, Vallejo,

CA.

USDA 2004a. Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Sierra Nevada Forest Plan

Amendment. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. Vallejo, CA.

USDA 2004b. Record of Decision Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment. USDA Forest Service

Pacific Southwest Region, Vallejo, CA.

USDA Forest Service. 2012. National Best Management Practices for Water Quality

Management on National Forest System Lands. Vol 1. Technical, USDA Forest Service.

USDA 2011. Best Management Practices (BMP) Soil and Water Quality Management Handbook

Amendment - 2509.22_10. FSH Amendment, Vallejo: USDA Forest Service, Vallejo, CA.

USDA 2013. Programmatic Agreement Among the USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest

Region (Region 5), California State Historic Preservation Officer, Nevada State Historic

Preservation Officer, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Regarding the

Process for Compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act for

Management of Historic Properties by the National Forests of the Pacific Southwest

Region.

USDA 2016a. Plumas National Forest, Wildlife & Aquatic Species Small Project Form 13-7’,

Biological Assessment/Biological Evaluation (BA/BE), Management Indicator Species

Report (MIS), Migratory Bird Species Report (Roberts, Cindy- 2012; Amended

November 2016- Arroyo, Joanna)

USDA 2013b. BA/BE, Botany Report, Noxious Weed Risk Assessment and Management

Strategy (Janeway, Lawrence) USDA Forest Service, Plumas National Forest, Feather

River District, Quincy, CA.

USDA 2014c. Heritage Resources Input. (Moore, Jamie) USDA Forest Service, Plumas National

Forest, Feather River District, Quincy, CA.

USDA 2014d. HDH/Millet Hydrology and Soils Specialist Report. (Angulo, Oswaldo). USDA

Forest Service, Plumas National Forest, Feather River District, Quincy, CA.


13

Finding of No Significant Impact As the responsible official, I am responsible for evaluating the effects of the project relative to the

definition of significance established by the CEQ Regulations (40 CFR 1508.13). I have

reviewed and considered the Draft EA and documentation included in the project record, and I

have determined that HDH/Millet Mining Project would not have a significant effect on the

quality of the human environment. As a result, no environmental impact statement would be

prepared. My rationale for this finding is as follows, organized by sub-section of the CEQ

definition of significance cited above.

Context The Proposed Action (Alternative 1) and the action Alternative 2 involve proposed mining

operations targeting placer mining and request for seasonal use of National Forest System (NFS)

lands over five years affecting less than 1 acre, to gain access and park motorized vehicles and

equipment, use and maintenance of an existing outhouse, and long term camping during active

mining.

Intensity Intensity is a measure of the severity, extent, or quantity of effects, and is based on information

from the effects analysis of this Draft EA and the references in the project record. The effects of

this project have been appropriately and thoroughly considered with an analysis that is responsive

to concerns and issues raised by the public (no concerns raised). The agency has taken a hard

look at the environmental effects using relevant scientific information and knowledge of site-

specific conditions gained from field visits. My finding of no significant impact is based on the

context of the project and intensity of effects using the ten factors identified in 40 CFR

1508.27(b).

1. Impacts that may be both beneficial and adverse. A significant effect may exist even if

the Federal agency believes that on balance the effect will be beneficial.

Consideration of the intensity of environmental effects is not biased by any potential

beneficial effects of the action.

2. The degree to which the proposed action affects public health or safety.

There would be no significant effects on public health and safety. A sign installed on the

access road would limit public access to the site. During operations, reasonable measures to

prevent and suppress fires on the area of operations would be required. Campfires would only

be allowed with a permit, when fire danger is low. Alternative 2 would close the non-system

mine access road after operations are complete.

3. Unique characteristics of the geographic area such as the proximity to historical or

cultural resources, parklands, prime farmlands, wetlands, wild and scenic rivers, or

ecologically critical areas.

There is one historic site near the camping area that is known to the operators and will be

avoided. Proposed surface activities lie solely in pre-disturbed (highly impacted) areas and

thus avoid adverse impacts. Conditions of Approval protect eligible wild and scenic values of

Canyon Creek. There are no parklands, prime farmlands, wetlands, or ecologically critical

areas within or in proximity to proposed mining operations.


14

4. The degree to which the effects on the quality of the human environment are likely to be

highly controversial.

The effects on the quality of the human environment are not likely to be highly controversial.

There is no known credible scientific controversy over the impacts of the proposed action.

5. The degree to which the possible effects on the human environment are highly uncertain

or involve unique or unknown risks.

The agency has considerable experience with actions like the one proposed (36 CFR 228.5).

The analysis shows the effects are not uncertain, and do not involve unique or unknown risk.

6. The degree to which the action may establish precedent for future actions with

significant effects or represents a decision in principle about a future consideration.

The action is not likely to establish a precedent for future actions with significant effects,

because it affects a specific project area and routinely addresses a common agency action.

7. Whether the action is related to other actions with individually insignificant but

cumulatively significant impacts.

The cumulative impacts are not significant. The effects of the action are limited to the local

area and there are no other effects that would be additive to the effects of the proposed action.

8. The degree to which the action may adversely affect districts, sites, highways,

structures, or objects listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic

Places or may cause loss or destruction of significant scientific, cultural, or historical

resources.

The project falls within Screened Undertaking 2.3(c) Activities whose APE are entirely

within obviously disturbed areas, and the disturbances are such that the presence of historic

properties is considered highly unlikely, according to standard protection measures outlined

in II (A) of the First Amended Programmatic Agreement among the USDA Forest Service,

Pacific Southwest Region, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and the California

State Historic Preservation Officer, Regarding the Process for Compliance with Section 106

of the National Historic Preservation Act for Undertaking on the National Forests of the

Pacific Southwest Region (Region 5 Programmatic Agreement, 2013). Under Alternative 2,

surface disturbances proposed for this operation would create no effect to historic resources.

9. The degree to which the action may adversely affect an endangered or threatened

species or its habitat that has been determined to be critical under the Endangered

Species Act of 1973.

Programmatic consultation with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) was initiated on

December 19, 2014 for the Federally endangered Sierra Nevada yellow legged frog

(SNYLF). The consultation was triggered based on HDH/Millet mining activities within the

elevational range of the SNYLF, although none were found. Consultation with the USFWS

evaluated the effects of the proposed activities and returned a concurrence on April of 2014

with a programmatic biological opinion (BO) that states, authorization of incidental take of a

SNYLF that results from an action but is not the purpose of the action is permissible through

the USFWS incidental take statement. Authorization of incidental take is based on: be of

small numbers and have no more than a negligible impact on the species.


15

10. Whether the action threatens a violation of Federal, State, or local law or requirements

imposed for the protection of the environment.

The action would not violate Federal, State, and local laws or requirements for the protection

of the environment. Applicable laws and regulations pertaining to the project were

considered in the EA. The action is consistent with the 1988 Plumas National Forest Land

and Resource Management Plan, as amended by the 2004 Sierra Nevada Forests Plan

Amendment (SNFPA) final supplemental EIS and Record of Decision.

After considering the effects of the actions analyzed, in terms of context and intensity, I have

determined that these actions in Alternatives 1 and 2 would not have a significant effect on the

quality of the human environment. Therefore, an environmental impact statement will not be

prepared.


16

Appendix A

Conditions of Approval Resource Area Mitigation/design feature to protect resource

General Compliance with other federal, state, and local laws.

Air quality Campfires are allowed, with proper permit.

Aquatics A Limited Operating Period (LOP) is necessary to mitigate any

potential disturbance to the Foothill Yellow-legged frog habitat. The

LOP starts March 1 and ends October 15, or the first wetting rain,

each year. Only during this period can any mining activities occur

within the stream.

Bonding A reclamation bond is in place and shall be maintained throughout

the life of the project. Annual adjustment to the bond may be made.

Fire The operator shall adhere to the Fire Prevention and Mining

Operations Measures.

Fuels & Hazmat Fuel stored on National Forest System lands must be kept within in

adequate sized covered impervious basin above the flood plain.

No processing chemicals shall be used to extract minerals from ore.

Spills are to be cleaned up immediately and reported to the FS.

Heritage No activities outside of the areas described in the PoO are authorized.

All mining is within the creek.

Avoid the known arch site- no disturbance to that area.

If any new archaeological or historic era site, feature, or artifact is

discovered, all work must stop and the FS notified immediately.

Invasive Plant Species PNF standard Noxious Weed Mitigation Measures will be adhered to.

Occupancy Overnight occupancy in tents authorized, only while operations are in

progress.

No storage of personal items, (i.e. camping equipment) is allowed,

except during periods of operation (March through October). All

personal items must be removed annually, no later than October 15.

Mining related items not planned for and approved in this PoO shall

not be stored on site.

Reclamation Pursuant to 36 CFR 228.8(g), the operator shall reclaim the surface

disturbed in operations by taking measures to prevent or control

onsite and off-site damage to the environment, including: (1) Control

of erosion and landslides; (2) Control of water runoff; (3) Removal of

toxic materials; (4) Reshaping and revegetation of disturbed areas,

where practicable; and (5) Rehabilitation of fisheries and wildlife

habitat. All mined areas shall be returned to natural or near-natural


17

contours.

The outhouse and all personal items shall be removed and the road

reclaimed. Camping area shall be ripped.

Sanitation The outhouse is approved. County public health and safety

requirements shall be complied with.

Veg & Timber No vegetation or tree removal is authorized.

Hazard trees shall be identified by the operator and permission to cut

granted by the Forest Service.

Water Quality Use of the mine access road is limited to times when the road surface

is dry.

Forded Stream crossing: the berm on the outlet side of this crossing

(on west side of access road) shall be removed to drain the ponding of

water on the road. The section of road where the current ponding is

occurring shall be armored on the surface and outlet with 4 to 6 inch

rocks.

Reinforce existing cross-drains and clean lead outs to ensure proper

drainage of road-surface water and install additional cross-drains on

the sloped sections of the road. Cross-drains should be spaced no

more than 100ft apart from one another. Cross-drains should be

maintained every season to ensure their functionality.

At bottom of the road where it turns east towards the camp, install a

rolling dip angled to the east (following road) to slow and disperse

water traveling down the road.

Roads shall be maintained to prevent soil displacement, per Forest

Service guidelines attached to the COA.

Water Quality Below is a listing of Best Management Practices that would guide

this project:

2.3 Road Construction and Reconstruction

2.4 Road Maintenance and Operations

2.6 Road Storage

2.8 Stream Crossings

2.10 Parking and Staging Areas

2.11 Equipment Refueling and Servicing

2.13 Erosion Control Plans (roads and other activities)

3.1 Water Resource Protection on Locatable Mineral Operations

Water Quality Obtain any permits required by other Federal, State and local

agencies.

Wild & Scenic River/

Visuals

The operator must preserve eligible Wild & Scenic River features and

values of Canyon Creek and ensure compliance with Visual Quality

Objectives (Retention), as defined in 1988 PNF LRMP.

United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service HDH ...a123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic.download.akamai... · United States Department of Agriculture Forest

Documents