Upload
haxuyen
View
220
Download
2
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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.
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
Feather River Ranger District, Plumas National Forest
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
HDH/Millet Mining Plan of Operations Environmental Assessment
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
Feather River Ranger District, Plumas National Forest
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
HDH/Millet Mining Plan of Operations Environmental Assessment
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.
Feather River Ranger District, Plumas National Forest
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.
HDH/Millet Mining Plan of Operations Environmental Assessment
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.
Feather River Ranger District, Plumas National Forest
9
Direct and Indirect Effects
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.
Human Health and Safety
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.
HDH/Millet Mining Plan of Operations Environmental Assessment
10
Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects
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
Direct and Indirect Effects
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.
Direct and Indirect Effects
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.
Feather River Ranger District, Plumas National Forest
11
Human Health and Safety
Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects
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.
HDH/Millet Mining Plan of Operations Environmental Assessment
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.
Feather River Ranger District, Plumas National Forest
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.
HDH/Millet Mining Plan of Operations Environmental Assessment
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.
Feather River Ranger District, Plumas National Forest
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.
HDH/Millet Mining Plan of Operations Environmental Assessment
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
Feather River Ranger District, Plumas National Forest
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.