Hope Stone Rock QuarryEnvironmental Assessment

March 2014

Lead Agency

Responsible Official

For Further Information, Contact:

USDA Forest ServiceSeward Ranger District

Tom MalecekSeward District RangerPO Box 390Seward, Alaska 99664

Mike JohnsonSeward Ranger DistrictPO Box 390Seward, Alaska 99664

What action isproposed?

The proposed action is to allow for a ten year operating plan for thedisposal of slate and a five year special use permit for palletconstruction and on-site storage of slate at an existing quarry atmilepost 11.5 of the Hope Highway near Hope, AK.

Why? The Forest Service has identified a need to provide this operator anauthorization of sufficient duration (10 years) in order to allow him toeffectively remove slate from the project area and benefit from capitalinvestments made into his business. The issuance of a special usepermit for pallet construction and on-site storage will allow theoperator to proactively remove slate from rock outcroppings and haveslate available for immediate sale.

What other actionwould meet the sameneed?

A shorter-term authorization and storage of slate off National ForestSystem lands.

What would it mean tonot meet the need?

Long-term planning for slate extraction in the project area would notoccur because decisions on whether to allow slate materials to beextracted from the project area would likely be made on a morefrequent basis. This would result in a less orderly extraction of slatematerials from the project area due to uncertainty of futureauthorizations. Storage of slate and pallet construction on adjacentlands off National Forest System lands is not possible due to theunavailability of suitable private lands near Hope, AK.

What factors will beused when making thedecision betweenalternatives?

The environmental assessment does not identify any adverseenvironmental consequences of the proposed action. However, anyadverse environmental consequences of the proposed action areweighed against the benefit of having a long-term plan for slateextraction in the project area and the ability of the operator to beefficient by constructing his own pallets on site storing slate on-sitefor immediate sale.

Are there any ways tomitigate adverse effects?

Mitigation measures were developed to address any potentialresources affected by the proposed action. The project area will bereclaimed upon cessation of operations.

What monitoring isrequired?

The Forest Service will monitor for invasive and sensitive plantspecies in the project area. If invasive plants are becomingestablished or if sensitive plants are discovered, mitigation measureswill be added to any authorization. •

IntroductionThe Forest Service has prepared this Environmental Assessment (EA) in compliance withthe National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant Federal and State lawsand regulations. This EA discloses the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmentalimpacts that would result from the proposed action and any alternatives. It also providesthe supporting information for a determination to prepare a Finding of No SignificantImpact (FONSI).

Additional documentation, including more detailed analyses of project-area resources,can be found in the project planning record located at the Seward Ranger District,Chugach National Forest in Seward, Alaska.

BackgroundLocationThe project area is located adjacent to the Hope Highway at approximately mile 11.5.The general legal description is SW1/4 of Section 29, T10N, R1W, Seward Meridian andNW1/4 of Section 32, T10N, Rl W, Seward Meridian. The project area is roughly eightacres.

Forest Plan Management Area PrescriptionThe 2002 Chugach National Forest Revised Forest Plan (Forest Plan) provides aframework that guides the Chugach National Forest's day-to-day resource managementoperations. Part of the Forest Plan direction consists of Management Area Prescriptions(MAP) which provide specific direction on managing different land areas of the ChugachNational Forest.

The project area is located in the Forest Restoration MAP of the Forest Plan (see ForestPlan page 4-68 through 4-72). This MAP is managed for multiple uses with an emphasison managing and/or restoring plant communities that have been affected by disease,insects, windstorms, or fire. Locatable and salable mineral activities are allowed in theForest Restoration MAP.

Purpose and NeedThe purpose of this project is to allow for long-term (10 year) operating plan for theextraction of slate on National Forest System lands. The proposed action would allow fora 10 year plan of operations for the extraction of slate at an existing slate quarry. A tenyear operating plan will allow the operator to secure a long-term approval from the ForestService that is necessary for financing the operation. The project would also authorize aspecial use permit for pallet construction and on-site storage that will allow the operatorto proactively remove slate from rock outcroppings and have slate available forimmediate sale.

Proposed ActionThe proposed action is to allow for a ten year operating plan for the disposal of slate anda five year special use permit for pallet constructiona and on-site storage of slate nearmile 11.5 of the Hope Highway. The minerals operation will use the existing powerline

road on the south side of the Hope Highway to access slate outcroppings and upgrade theprimitive access route on the north side of the Hope Highway to access materials by truckon non-National Forest System lands. Slate will be split with crowbars and wedges andwill be placed on wooden pallets for future sales. An excavator with breaker tip will beused occasionally to break bedrock away from rock outcroppings. Limited blasting mayoccur in order to eliminate overhanging hazards. All blasting operations and storage ofexplosives will follow Department of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosivesregulations. Stone will be loaded onto flatbed truck or skid steer and transported to thelanding where slate will be cleaned with pressurized water from on existing pond. Muddywater will percolate back into the ground and will not flow into any other surface watersources. Stone will be weighed, palletized, inventoried and stored for future sale. Aportable, trailer will be used as an office, first-aid station and crew break room. A portableband saw will be used to mill logs from the site for the construction of pallets.

Decision FrameworkGiven the purpose and need, the Seward District Ranger will review the proposed actionand any alternatives and make the following decision:

• Whether to allow for a ten year plan mining plan of operations for theextraction and sale of slate near mile 11.5 of the Hope Highway

• Whether to issue a Jive year special use permit for pallet construction and on-site storage of slate for future sale

If a determrnation is made that a ten year operating plan and a five year special usepermit is appropriate, the Seward District Ranger will also decide:

• Types of activities permitted

• Any project-specific mitigation measures and monitoring requirements

Public Involvement

The Forest Service has placed a legal notices describing the proposed action andsoliciting comments in the Anchorage Daily News on January 6, 2013. In addition, thisproject has been listed on the Chugach National Forest Schedule of Proposed Actions.No comments or responses were received.

IssuesIssues were identified through internal scoping and through interdisciplinary teamanalysis. No significant issues were identified from the proposed action.

AlternativesThis section describes and compares the alternatives considered for the Hope Stoneproject. All alternatives are consistent with the Forest Plan and will not require a ForestPlan amendment. In addition, all applicable standards and guidelines, and BestManagement Practices will be incorporated in the design of any alternatives.

Alternative 1 - No ActionAlternative 1 would not allow for a ten year operating plan for the disposal of slate fromthe project area. The Forest Service would not approve an operating plan or special usepermit for the sale and storage of slate materials at the existing quarry near mile 11.5 ofthe Hope Highway.

Alternative 2 - Proposed ActionThe proposed action is to allow for a ten year operating plan for the sale of slate and afive year special use permit for pallet construction and on-site storage of slate near mile11.5 of the Hope Highway. The minerals operation will use the existing powerline roadon the south side of the Hope Highway to access slate outcroppings and upgrade theexisting primitive access route on the north side of the Hope Highway to access materialsby truck on non-National Forest System lands. Slate outcroppings will be split withcrowbars and wedges and will be placed on wooden pallets for future sales. An excavatorwith breaker tip will be used occasionally to break bedrock away from rock outcroppings.Limited blasting may occur in order to eliminate overhanging hazards. All blastingoperations and storage of explosives will follow Department of Alcohol, Tobacco,Firearms and Explosives regulations. Stone will be loaded onto flatbed truck or skid steerand transported to the landing where slate will be cleaned with pressurized water from onexisting pond. Muddy water will percolate back into the ground and will not flow intoany other surface water sources. Stone will be weighed, palletized, inventoried and storedfor future sale. A portable trailer will be used as an office, first-aid station and crew breakroom. A portable band saw will be used to mill logs from the site for the construction ofpallets.

As slate is removed from an area, overburden (material overlying a useful slate deposit)is set aside for reclamation. Once the slate is removed from the area, the overburden isused to cover the disturbance and reclaim the area. Once all slate is removed from theproject area or upon termination or expiration of the operating plan, the entire projectarea will be reclaimed via overburden and the access roads, landing, and slate storagearea will be reclaimed and allowed to return to a natural condition.

Applicable Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines, Best Management Practices,Forest Plan Direction, and Mitigation Measures

The following Forest Plan standards and guidelines, Best Management Practices (BMPs),Forest Plan direction, and mitigation measures are applicable to Alternative 2 — ProposedAction:

• Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 2509.22 - Soil and Water Conservation HandbookSection 17: Minerals Management

• Forest Plan Standards for Mining Plans of Operations/Minerals Management Area(Forest Plan 3-33)

• Forest Plan Standards for Wildlife (Forest Plan 3-28 through 3-33)• Forest Plan Standards for Threatened, Endangered, or Sensitive Plant Species (Forest

Plan 3-27)• Forest Restoration MAP - Activities Table

• The project area will be monitored for invasive plants. If invasive plants are becomingestablished in the project area because of slate extraction activities, additionalmitigation measures may be included into the authorization. Invasive plant speciesdiscovered during the annual inspection will be disposed of by a Forest Serviceecologist. ' '

• If any previously undiscovered sensitive plants are encountered at any time prior to orduring implementation of this project, the Forest Service will protect the populationand avoid any disturbance in the area containing the population (and similar habitats inthat vicinity). The district or forest ecologist must be notified immediately to evaluatethe population and recommend avoidance or mitigation measures.

• If any previously undiscovered heritage resources are encountered at any time prior toor during implementation of this project a Forest Service Archeologist must benotified and implementation of the project may cease depending on therecommendation of a Forest Service Archeologist.

• The operator must notify the Chugach National Forest Service, Seward RangerDistrict and obtain written approval of Seward District Ranger before blasting toeliminate overhanging hazards to ensure that blasting will not or result in any safetyconcerns. • .

• The operator must construct a gate on the access road on the North side of the HopeHighway to reduce unauthorized use of this road.

These standards and guidelines, BMPs, Forest Plan direction, and mitigation measureswill be incorporated into any mining plan of operations in the project area.

Environmental Consequences

This section provides a summary of the environmental impacts under each alternative. Itdiscusses the effects relative to applicable physical, biological, and social environmentswithin the project area. To address cumulative effects, the Forest Service examined theenvironmental impacts of each alternative in conjunction with past, present, andreasonably foreseeable future actions. The discussions of resources and potential effectsincorporate existing information included in the Revised Forest Plan Final EnvironmentalImpact Statement (Forest Plan EIS), project specific resource reports and relatedinformation, and other sources as indicated. The planning record for this analysiscontains these resource sources of information as well as results of any fieldinvestigations. The planning record is located at the Seward Ranger District in Seward,Alaska, and is available for review during regular business hours. Information from theplanning record is also available upon request.

Environmental Consequences by Resource Area

Wildlife

Existing ConditionThe majority of the Chugach National Forest is effectively a conservation reserve wherenatural forces and non-industrial human use are the predominant disturbance factors. The

project area contains habitat for a variety of wildlife species. Among the species thatoccur in the project area are Forest Plan management indicator species (MIS), threatenedand endangered species (TES), and Forest Service species of special interest (SSI).These species are generally chosen for environmental analysis because they are indicativeof project effects on other species with similar habitat (MIS), have specialized habitat(SSI), or for legal and regulatory reasons (TES). Below is a table that summarizes thespecies that have habitat within the project area or are required for regulatory reasons.Species without existing or potential habitat are not discussed further in thisenvironmental analysis.

Table 1

SPECIESNorthernGoshawk*BlackOystercatcher*DuskyCanada Goose(Sensitive)

*MontagueIsland HoaryMarmotHumpbackedWhale(Endangered)KittlitzMurrelet(Candidate)MontagueIsland TundraVole(Sensitive)Osprey(Sensitive)Peale'sPeregrineFalcon(Sensitive)Steller SeaLion(Endangered)Steller"s Eider(Threatened)

MIS

X

X

TES

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

SSI

X

X

EXISTINGHABITATEvidence of foraging

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

POTENTIALHABITATYes

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

TrumpeterSwan(Sensitive)

Mountain Goat

Marbled.Murrelet

Sitka Black-tailed Deer

Wolverine

River Otter

Brown BearGray WolfMoose

Townsend'sWarbler

Lynx

Bald Eagle

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

No

Seen occasionally onhighwayUnknown

No

Unknown

Unknown

YesYesYesYes

Yes

Yes, historically

No

Yes (Winter foraging)

Yes

No

Yes

Yes (Turnagain Aim)

YesYesYesYes

Yes (foraging)

Yes

* The Montague Island Tundra Vole and Montague Island Hoary Marmot are endemic to MontagueIsland, and are not known to occur on the Kenai Peninsula. Black Oystercatchers do not occur onthe Seward Ranger District. See the Biological Evaluation for threatened, endangered, sensitive andcandidate species.

Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1 - No ActionAlternative 1 would discontinue slate extraction in the project area. Any disturbancefrom prior slate extraction would be covered with overburden and the area would bereclaimed. The project area would become more suitable existing and potential habitatfor mountain goats, marbled murrelets, wolverines, river otters, brown bears, -gray wolf,moose, Townsend's warbler, lynx, and bald eagles because there would be little or nohuman activity in the project area. However, the increase in suitability of the project areafor wildlife habitat is not expected to cause any meaningful effect on any speciespopulation viability either generally or locally because of the small size of the projectarea relative to the size of the existing intact habitat for these species.

Findings .There would be no direct, indirect, or cumulative impact to population viability to anyspecies with, potential or existing habitat in the project area from Alternative 1.

Alternative 2 - Proposed. ActionAlternative 2 would allow for slate material extraction in largely the same scope andmanner as it has occurred since 1999, however, the term of the authorization will beextended from five years to ten years. Human activities in potential or existing wildlifehabitat, such as the activities contemplated under Alternative 2, can cause wildlife speciesto avoid or not use this habitat.

Under Alternative 2, an area of approximately eight acres would be impacted by slateextraction activities. It is expected that wildlife utilizing habitat near the project areawould continue to avoid the use of the project area as potential or existing habitat.However, the project area is not considered critical habitat or a travel or migrationcorridor for any of the species and, as with Alternative 1, is not expected to cause anymeaningful effect on any species population viability either generally or locally becauseof the small size of the project area relative to the size of the existing intact habitat forthese species.

Upon termination of slate removal activities in the project area, the area would result inimpacts similar to Alternative 1 because the area would return to natural conditions.

FindingsThere would be no direct, indirect, or cumulative impact to population viability to anyspecies with potential or existing habitat in the project area from Alternative 2.

'Vegetation

Existing ConditionThe project area generally consists of coniferous forest, deciduous forest, mixed conifer/deciduous forest edge, tall shrublands, low shrublands, and rock outcrops. The projectarea has already seen vegetative disturbance from the previous slate removal activitiesthat have occurred since 1999. Five species of non-native plants have been documentedin the project area; however, none of these species have become established. Nosensitive plants were located in the project area during a survey of the area. However, theproject area contains appropriate habitat and is within the suspected range of threesensitive plants; Norber arnica, Unalaska mist-maid, and Alader lovage.

Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1 - No ActionAlternative 1 would discontinue slate extraction in the project area. Any disturbancefrom prior slate extraction would be covered with overburden and the area would bereclaimed. In addition, the roads, landing and storage area would be allowed to return to

natural conditions. Reclamation to natural conditions would likely occur over two to fiveyears, provided overburden is placed on non-rock surfaces.

The possibility of non-native species entering the project area would be reduced becausehuman activity in the area, the likely cause of the five non-native plant species identifiedabove, would not occur. In addition, the area would become more suitable habitat forsensitive plant species because human disturbance would not occur. However, the smallsize of the project area relative to the size of the existing intact habitat for sensitive plantspecies would not likely cause any meaningful increase hi the suitable habitat for thesespecies. In addition, considering that slate extraction has been occurring since 1999 andnon-native plant species have not become established, it is not likely that Alternative 1would result hi a measurable reduction in non-native plant species.

FindingsThere would be no direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts to sensitive plant species withpotential or existing habitat in the project area from Alternative 1. There would be nomeasurable effect on the establishment or spread of non-native species from Alternative1. ' .

Alternative 2 - Proposed ActionAlternative 2 would allow for slate material extraction in largely the same scope andmanner as it has occurred since 1999, however, the term of the authorization will beextended from five years to ten years. Human activity in the project area has thepotential to reduce the suitability of the area as habitat for sensitive species and canincrease the risk of non-native species occurring. Sensitive species, are unlikely tobecome established in areas with vegetative disturbance, such as the slate extractionareas, and non-native plants can travel on gear or equipment during transport to theproject area.

Alternative 2 is not expected to have any meaningful effects on sensitive plants or theprevalence of non-native plants because of the relatively small size of the project area.Sensitive plants are not expected to occur hi the area and the suitable habitat for thesespecies is extensive both generally and locally. In addition, Alternative 2 is not expectedto measurably increase the spread or establishment of non-native species hi the projectarea. Non-native species are neither established or spreading hi the project area sinceoperations began in 1999, and the continuation of slate extraction for a term often yearsis not expected to result hi any meaningful change in non-native plants in the project area.

At the conclusion of the slate extraction activities, the Proposed Action would haveeffects similar to Alternative 1.FindingsThere would be no direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts to sensitive plant species withpotential or existing habitat hi the project area from Alternative 2. There would be nomeasurable effect on the establishment or spread of non-native species from Alternative2.

10

Fisheries

Existing ConditionA survey of fisheries resources was completed and no fish or fish habitat was identifiedin any streams in or near the project area. The nearest fish are in Turnagain Arm.Salmon use Turnagain Arm as a travel corridor to fresh water spawning streams locatedseveral miles from the project area; namely, Resurrection Creek and Six Mile Creek.

Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1 - No ActionAlternative 1 would discontinue slate extraction in the project area. There would be noeffect to fisheries resources from the Alternative 1, because there is no fish or fish habitatin the project area.

FindingsAlternative 1 would not have any effect on fisheries resources.

Alternative 2 — Proposed ActionAlternative 2 would allow for slate extraction and storage in the project area for a tenyear term. There would be no effect to fisheries resources from Alternative 2 becausethere is no fish or fish habitat in the project area that could be affected by the ProposedAction

FindingsAlternative 2 would not have any effect on fisheries resources.

Heritage

Existing ConditionThere are two known heritage sites located in the general vicinity of the project area; theJohnson Pass Military Road and the Hope Guard Station. Neither of these heritage sitesis located within or adjacent to the project area. However, the area surrounding thecurrent community of Hope has been historically used for mining since the late 1800'sand has seen human presence since pre-historic times. Remnants from these uses remainin the area and have the potential to occur within the project area.

Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1 — No ActionAlternative 1 would-discontinue slate extraction in the project area. Any grounddisturbing activities in the project area has the potential to unearth or uncover unknownheritage resources. There would be no effect to any heritage resources from Alternative 1because no ground disturbing activities would occur in the project area.

11

FindingsAlternative 1 would not have any effect on heritage resources.

Alternative 2 — Proposed ActionAlternative 2 would allow for slate extraction and storage in the project area for a tenyear term. This alternative is expected to have little to no effect on heritage resourcesbecause the area has already seen ground disturbance without uncovering any heritageresources.

The absence of any heritage sites located in the project area and the absence of anycultural resources being discovered in the project area to date; radicates that it is unlikelythat the Proposed Action will have any effect to any undiscovered heritage resourcesheritage resources.

FindingsIt is unlikely that Alternative 2 would have any effect to heritage resources. If heritageresources are discovered, a Forest Service archeologist must be notified and operationsmay cease.

Compliance with Other Laws and Regulations

National Forest Management Act — The proposed action is consistent with the ForestPlan, and all proposed activities are allowable under the Forest Restoration MAP of theForest Plan (see Forest Plan page 4-68 through 4-72). No Forest Plan amendment isrequired,

Endangered Species Act — Biological evaluations were completed for threatened andendangered species. No threatened or endangered species would be affected by the actionalternatives.

Bald Eagle Protection Act - Management activities within bald eagle habitat will be inaccordance to a Memorandum of Understanding between the Forest Service and the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service. No bald eagle nests are known hi the project area.

ANILCA Section 810, Subsistence Evaluation and Finding — There is no documentedor reported subsistence use that would be restricted by any of the action alternatives; noneof the alternatives would result in a significant possibility of a restriction of subsistenceuse of wildlife, fish, or other foods.National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 - Section 106 of the National Historic •Preservation Act requires that all federal undertakings follow the regulations found at 36CFR §800 to identify and protect cultural resources that are within the project areas andwhich may be effected by projects. The Programmatic Agreement between the ChugachNational Forest, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and the Alaska StateHistoric Preservation Officer (SHPO) regarding management of the project area will befollowed.

12 •

Executive Order 12898 — Environmental Justice — Implementation of this project isnot anticipated to cause disproportionate adverse human health or environmental effect tominority or low-income populations because the proposed activities are not expected tocause any affects to human health or result in meaningful adverse environmentalconsequences. .

Clean Air Act — Emissions anticipated from the implementation of the Proposed Actionwould be of short duration and would not be expected to exceed State of Alaska ambientair quality standards (18 AAC 50).

Executive Order 13112 — Invasive Species - Invasive species populations have thepotential to spread in the project area; monitoring will be required to reduce this potentialand to determine effectiveness.

Executive Order 11988 -Floodplain Management and Executive Order 11990 —Protection of Wetlands — The project area is not located within a floodplain as definedby Executive Order 11988 and there will be no effect to wetlands as defined in ExecutiveOrder 11990.

Executive Order 12962 — Recreational Fisheries - Federal agencies are required, to theextent permitted by law and where practicable, and in cooperation with States and Tribes,to improve the quantity, function, sustainable productivity, and distribution of U. S.aquatic resources for increased recreational fishing opportunities. As required by thisOrder, the effects of this action on aquatic systems and recreational fisheries have beenevaluated and the effects relative to the purpose of this order have been documented. Noimpact to recreational fisheries is expected from the proposed project.

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, Public Law 94-265 -This project is not expected to result in any adverse effects to essential fisheries habitat asdefined in the Magnuson-Stevens Act because it has been determined that this activity,individually, will not cause any action that may adversely affect essential fish habitat asdefined by the Act.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

The Forest Service consulted an interdisciplinary team of resource specialists hi thedevelopment of this environmental analysis. The Forest Service has also placed a legal.notice describing the proposed action and soliciting comments in the Anchorage DailyNews, newspaper of record for the Chugach National Forest. This project has been listedon the Chugach National Forest Schedule of Proposed Actions. No comments orresponses were received.

13