DECISION MEMO BLUE BIRD CONSOLIDATED MINE U.S. FOREST SERVICE- PACIFIC SOUTHWEST REGION SOUTH FORK MANAGEMENT UNIT TRINITY COUNTY, CALIFORNIA

Transcription

1 DECISION MEMO BLUE BIRD CONSOLIDATED MINE U.S. FOREST SERVICE- PACIFIC SOUTHWEST REGION SOUTH FORK MANAGEMENT UNIT TRINITY COUNTY, CALIFORNIA BACKGROUND This memorandum serves as the decision document for the Blue Bird Consolidated Mine 1 located on the South Fork Management Unit. Pursuant to the General Mining Law of 1872, Leslie Eslick-Green and Alfred Mead 2 has submitted a proposed Plan of Operations to the Forest Service for mining activities on an existing mining claim 3 located on National Forest System lands. These lands are subject to location under the mining laws of the United States. The claimant is proposing to excavate a series of 20 feet by 35 feet by 4 feet test pits within an area of approximately 100 feet by 100 feet and sample for gold and other valuable minerals. The overall size of the mining claim is 20 acres; however the project area where proposed activities would occur is approximately 0.4 acres. The Blue Bird Consolidated project area is located on the Hayfork Ranger District of the Shasta- Trinity National Forest. The project area lies within the Upper Hayfork Creek Watershed Area and is located approximately 5 ½ air miles southeast of Hayfork. The project area is located just off the Wildwood County Road (302) approximately 2.9 miles south of the junction with State Highway 3. An existing road that parallels the county road for a short distance provides access to the project area. The project area is situated on a leveled and cleared area and is located approximately 130 feet east of Hayfork Creek. The legal location for the mining claim is Township 31N, Range 11W, Section 15 and 22, MDM; however, the project area is located in Section This is the official project name; however, it should be noted that in this document Blue Bird is sometimes spelled as one word and that the word Consolidated has been inadvertently dropped from the name. 2 Leslie Eslick-Green is the owner of the Blue Bird Conslolidated Mine. A Plan of Operations was submitted by Eslick-Green on October 19, Alfred Mead, an operator on the Blue Bird Consolidated Mine, also submitted a Plan of Operation on October 15, Both Plans of Operation are similar in content. They are both referenced throughout this decision and supplemental specialis reports, biolocial assessments, and biolagical evaluations. 3 Blue Bird Consolidated Mine BLM Claim Number Page 1 of 10

2 LAND AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN The proposed action is located within the Hayfork Management Area (#18). The land allocations from the Shasta-Trinity National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) are Matrix, Adaptive Management Area and Riparian Reserves. The Management Prescription designations are Wildlife Habitat Management (VI) and Riparian Management (IX), respectively. Permitted management practices are listed below. Wildlife Habitat Management: Mineral development is listed on page 4-66 of the Forest Plan as a permitted management practice. Riparian Reserves: Minerals Management activities are permitted within Riparian Reserves as long as a reclamation plan, approved Plan of Operations, and reclamation bond for all mineral operations are provided. A detailed list of requirements and regulated activities are found under Standards and Guidelines for Resource Activities, especially Minerals Management, within Riparian Reserves and Key Watersheds on page 4-56 of the Forest Plan. Minerals Development is a permitted management practice within the Riparian Management Prescription, as listed on page 4-60 of the Forest Plan. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION The purpose and need for action for this proposal is to respond to the legally submitted proposed Plan of Operations to test for minerals within an existing mining claim. The role of the Forest Service is to ensure that proposed mining activities minimize environmental effects in the project area and adjacent surrounding areas and that project participants comply with all applicable laws. PROPOSED ACTION The proposed action consists of the excavating and the processing of gold bearing placer gravels from an area that has been leveled and cleared previously. This area is located approximately 130 feet from Hayfork Creek and is approximately 0.4 acres in size with a slope of one to two percent. A series of tests pits approximately 20 feet wide by 35 feet long would be excavated one at a time within the area. The dimensions of the area to be tested are approximately 100 feet by 100 feet. It is estimated that up to 1,500 cubic yards of material would be processed on site. Page 2 of 10

3 A smaller pit approximately 20 feet by 20 feet in size would also be excavated and it would be used as a settling pond to capture, store, and re-circulate water for use in the processing stage. Water would be hauled in from an outside source by a tank and trailer and stored on site during operations. A trench would connect the smaller pit to the pit that is being worked. This is in the event of an overflow of water so that it is directed back into the larger pit and does not flow into the creek. Slit paper, jute rolls, tarps, and straw bales would be kept on site to be used when necessary. The excavated test pits would average approximately 6 feet in depth and the settling pond would be approximately 4 feet deep. The top soil would be stockpiled on a tarp next to the pit being sampled. A tarp would be kept on site to cover the top soil after operations have completed for the day or if there is a greater than 30% chance of measurable precipitation. A jute roll would also be staked securely around the stockpiled material. A small bobcat tractor or backhoe would be used to excavate the material from the pits. Other equipment that would be used includes pickup trucks, a generator, and a water pump. A trommel would be set up at the current test pit where the excavated material and water would pass through the trommel and into the test pit. From the test pit, the water would be pumped to the settling pond where it would then be pumped back to and through the trommel. After the gold and any other valuable minerals have been removed, the remaining material would be placed back into the pit. Then the top soil would be replaced and leveled off to blend back into the existing ground level. The reclaimed pit would then be seeded and mulched with an approved grass mixture and mulch. This process would continue with the next test pit in the project area until the sampling work is completed. After the last test pit has been completed, filled in, and reclaimed, the settling pond would be then be filled in, leveled, and reclaimed. Conifers would be planted after all mining activities are completed. Other than fuel and necessary lubricants, no other hazardous materials will be used on site. Fuel and any lubricants would be brought in as needed, but would be kept in the back of the vehicle and parked at least 150 feet away from Hayfork Creek. Refueling and servicing of equipment would occur as far away from Hayfork Creek as possible. Absorbent material would be available during refueling or equipment servicing. A portable toilet would be set up near the access road and maintained and serviced as necessary. After all operations are completed, it would be removed. The access road and any other areas would be watered as necessary for dust abatement. Garbage and any other solid waste material would be removed daily from the site. Operations would be conducted outside of the winter season and would be suspended when Page 3 of 10

4 necessary because of measurable precipitation. DECISION It is my decision to approve the proposed Plan of Operations submitted by Leslie Eslick- Green 4 for the Blue Bird Consolidated Mine Project as described and modified by this document. The Plan proposes to develop an area of approximately 0.4 acre for mining within an existing 20 acre mining claim. The proposed Plan of Operations has been closely reviewed and is reasonable based on what mining activities are proposed and where they would occur. In order to minimize adverse effects, my decision includes Project Design Standards, Mitigation Measures, and Best Management Practices (BMPs). A bond has been provided to ensure reclamation. Monitoring is also included. I have also reviewed the project area on the ground. The project area is accessed by an existing road off the Wildwood County Road. Less than ½ acre of the claim would be developed and this is within an existing open and flat area created from past activities. No trees would need to be removed for the proposed action. I also took into account the location of where the various mining activities would take place in relation to Hayfork Creek. Although the project area is located within the 300 foot Riparian Reserve of Hayfork Creek, the area where the proposed activities would occur is located approximately 130 feet from the stream channel. Therefore, no disturbance or other activities would occur within the stream channel or along the stream banks. The water that would be used in the processing operation would be brought in from a private offsite water source. Finally, I have considered the past, ongoing, and reasonably foreseeable actions within the area that, in combination with the proposed action, may contribute to cumulative effects. I find that the Blue Bird Consolidated Mine Project would not produce substantial adverse environmental effects, either individually or cumulatively, on the physical, biological, or social components of the human environment. In summary, I find that the proposed action allows for limited mining operations within an existing mining claim and minimizes potential adverse environmental effects. I have determined that this action is categorically excluded from documentation in an environmental impact statement (EIS) or an environmental assessment (EA). The applicable category of actions is identified in agency procedures as 36 CFR 220.6(e)(8). This categorical exclusion is applicable for short-term (1 year or less) mineral, energy or geophysical investigations and their incidental support activities that may require cross-country travel by 4 See Footnote 2. Page 4 of 10

5 vehicles and equipment, construction of less than 1 mile of low standard road, or use and minor repair of existing roads. I have reviewed the resource conditions pertaining to extraordinary circumstances (see below) and no extraordinary circumstances exist that would preclude the use of a categorical exclusion. Although several resource conditions are present in the project area, the mere presence of one or more of these resource conditions does not preclude use of a categorical exclusion. It is the existence of a cause-effect relationship between a proposed action and the potential effect on these resource conditions and if such a relationship exists, the degree of the potential effect of a proposed action on these resource conditions that determine whether extraordinary circumstances exist. 5 I find that there are no extraordinary circumstances that warrant further analysis and documentation in an EA or EIS. There are several conditions related to project implementation that have been highlighted by the various resource specialists. Appendix A contains project design standards and mitigations, as well as, best management practices that must be adhered to during implementation. I took into account resource conditions identified in agency procedures that should be considered in determining whether extraordinary circumstances might exist 6 : 1. Federally listed threatened or endangered species or designated critical habitat, species proposed for Federal listing or proposed critical habitat, or Forest Service sensitive species a. Wildlife Species: Implementation of the proposed Plan of Operations action would not affect any threatened, endangered or proposed species or their critical habitat. 7 The Northern spotted owl Endangered Species Act (ESA) determination is no effect because the Project will not reduce canopy closure or remove, degrade or downgrade nesting, roosting or foraging habitat. In addition, a limited operating period will be utilized to eliminate potential noise disturbance to nesting owls. There is no designated Critical Habitat in the Project area. The proposed action may impact individual sensitive species, but would not cause a trend towards federal listing or a loss of viability for the following species: Willow flycatcher, Northern goshawk, Bald eagle, Pallid bat, Townsend s big-eared bat, Western red bat, American marten, Pacific fisher, Foothill yellow-legged frog, Northwestern pond turtle, Southern torrent salamander, and the Big Bar/Hesperian 5 36 CFR 220.6(b) 6 All resource specialist reports, evalutions, assessments and related documents are found in the project record as well as on the Shasta-Trinity National Forest website: 7 Wildlife Biological Assessment for the Blue Bird Mine Project, August Page 5 of 10

6 snail. 8 The Trinity shoulderband snail is not a Forest Service sensitive species, but is a Survey and Manage species. Though this species has been observed at approximately seven locations within five miles of the project area, there have been no sightings within the project area nor is there suitable habitat within the project area. Based on this analysis, there are no extraordinary circumstances present in the project area with respect to Federally- listed Threatened or Endangered species or designated Critical Habitat, species Proposed for Federal Listing or Proposed Critical Habitat, or Forest Service Sensitive species. Finally, as a result of the Memorandum of Understanding between the USDA Forest Service and the US Fish and Wildlife Service to Promote the Conservation of Migratory Birds 9, the effects of project activities on migratory birds and their habitat were analyzed. Project activity effects on migratory birds listed under the Endangered Species Act Threatened and Endangered species list and migratory birds listed on the Forest Service Sensitive species list are minimal. 10 The project will not impact habitat components necessary to maintain a diversity of species. b. Botanical Species: Implementation of the proposed Plan of Operations would not affect any Sensitive plant or fungi species or Survey and Manage species. 11 Field survey and analysis of the project area and the surrounding mining claim reveals that no Sensitive plant or fungi species or any Survey and Manage species appear no is there suitable habitat for any Sensitive plant or fungi species or any Survey and Manage species. 12 Additionally, field survey and analysis indicate there are no Sensitive plants or fungi species or Survey and Manage species present within the project area. 13 Based on this analysis, there are no extraordinary circumstances present in the project area with respect to Forest Service sensitive or survey and manage botanical species. c. Aquatic Species: Although, Hayfork Creek watershed is a perennial stream, known to be habitat for 8 Wildlife Biological Evaluation for the Homestake Consolidated Mine Project, August Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the USDA Forest Service and the US Fish and Wildlife Service to Promote the Conversation of Migratory Bird, December Migratory Landbird report, August 16, Biological Evaluation for Plant and Fungi Species and Supplemental Botany Report, January 23, Ibid; Sensitive Plant and Fungi Biological Evaluation, Blue Bird Mine, December 2, Biological Evaluation for Plant and Fungi Species and Supplemental Botany Report, January 23, 2012; Sensitive Plant and Fungi Biological Evaluation, Blue Bird Mine, December 2, Page 6 of 10

7 federally listed ESA species, project implementation of the proposed action would have no effect on the Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast coho salmon or its critical habitat. 14 Furthermore, the proposed action will not adversely affect Chinook or coho salmon Essential Fish Habitat. 15 Based on this analysis, there are no extraordinary circumstances present in the project area with respect to Forest Service sensitive aquatic species. 2. Flood plains, wetlands, or municipal watersheds It is possible that some portion of the project area occupies the 100-year floodplain. It appears the propose test pits and associated facilities are beyond the extent of all but the highest floods. No stream channels or other functional surface drainage are apparent at the project site. The upland surface surrounding the proposed pits is dry and supports no hydrophilic or facultative wetland vegetation; therefore, no wetlands are observed to be present within the project area. There are no extraordinary circumstances present in the area with respect to floodplains, wetlands, or municipal watersheds. 16 Consequently, there are no extraordinary circumstances associated with these resources. 3. Congressionally designated areas such as wilderness, wilderness study areas, or national recreation areas There are no congressionally designated areas such as wilderness, wilderness study areas or national recreation areas within or adjacent to the project area. Consequently, there are no extraordinary circumstances associated with these resources. 4. Inventoried roadless areas or potential wilderness areas There are no inventoried roadless areas within or adjacent to the project area. Consequently, there are no extraordinary circumstances associated with these resources. 5. Research natural areas There are no research natural areas within or adjacent to the project area. Consequently, there are no extraordinary circumstances associated with these resources. 6. American Indians and Alaska Native religious or cultural sites There are no extraordinary circumstances present with respect to American Indian religious or cultural sites. 17 Consequently, there are no extraordinary circumstances associated with these resources. 7. Archaeological sites, or historic properties or areas The project site was visited and no historic properties were identified in the project area. 18 There are no extraordinary 14 Fisheries Biological Assessment/Evaluation, Blue Bird Mine, October 26, Ibid. 16 Hydrology Report, Blue Bird Mine Project, January 18, Programmatic Agreement for Compliance with Section106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, November 9, Ibid. Page 7 of 10

8 circumstances present with respect to archaeological sites, or historic properties or areas. 19 Consequently, there are no extraordinary circumstances associated with these resources. 8. Other Resources In addition to the resource conditions that were assessed for extraordinary circumstances, the effects of implementing the proposed action were also analyzed for the following surface resources: soils, water, and vegetation. Approximately 0.4 acre of ground would be directly disturbed through excavating; however this would not occur all at one time. Instead a series of test pits would be dug and then filled in sequentially. The top soil would be stockpiled next to the pit and then returned to the pit before moving on to excavate the next adjoining pit for processing. No water would be removed from Hayfork Creek for the proposed action. There should be no direct or indirect effects to aquatic and riparian resources, water quality or beneficial uses of water from the proposed action. Incorporating Project Design Standards, adhering to LRMP Standards and Guidelines, and implementing Mitigation Measures would ensure that the project would not result in significant impacts to soils and water resources. The project area is covered primarily with grasses with some shrubs along the perimeter. No trees would be cut. In summary, there would be no significant impacts to the other resources in the project area that were considered. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT This action was originally listed as a proposal on the Shasta-Trinity National Forest (Forest) Schedule of Proposed Actions on April 1, 2010, and updated periodically during the analysis. Letters requesting comments were sent to potentially interested and affected parties along with the scoping notice. Additionally, public input was solicited through public notice releases in the Trinity Journal and Record Searchlight newspapers. Comments were received from two interested parties. These comments and responses are provided in Appendix B. The Forest convened an interdisciplinary team of resource specialists to review and analyze the proposed Plan of Operations and proposed action. Public comments and specialist input have been incorporated into my decision and are included in the project file. FINDINGS REQUIRED BY OTHER LAWS AND REGULATIONS This decision is consistent with the Shasta-Trinity National Forest Land Management Plan. The decision is also consistent with all applicable Federal, State and local laws or requirements, including the following: 19 Programmatic Agreement for Compliance with Section106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, November 9, Page 8 of 10

9 Shasta Trinity National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan: I find that the proposed action is consistent with the standards and guidelines contained in the Forest Plan, including those for Survey and Manage Species, Riparian Reserves and the Aquatic Conservation Strategy Mining Law:This project complies with the 1872 Mining Law because it permits the claimant to access and develop an existing mining claim. Clean Water Act and State Water Quality Laws: This decision complies with the Clean Water Act and state water quality laws. Compliance will be achieved through the implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs), and water quality resource protection measures identified by Forest specialists. These project-specific mitigations are designed to reduce or eliminate the threat of water quality impairment. Migratory Bird Treaty Act/Executive Order 13186: The project complies with the 2008 Memorandum of Understanding between the USDA Forest Service and the US Fish and Wildlife Service to Promote the Conservation of Migratory Birds. Effects to migratory bird populations are not anticipated. Executive Order 13112, Invasive Species: With the implementation of the resource protection measures outlined in the botanical Biological Evaluation it is unlikely that invasive and noxious weeds will be introduced or spread as a result of the project. National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 Compliance: The project is an exempt undertaking under terms of the Programmatic Agreement and can be implemented without further review or consultation. The project level exemption is available in the project record. Endangered Species Act: The project would not affect the northern spotted owl. This project would have no effect on threatened fish species. ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW (APPEAL) OPPORTUNITIES Pursuant to 36 CFR (f), this decision is not subject to administrative appeal. Implementation of this project may occur immediately. Page 9 of 10

10 CONTACT For additional information concerning this decision, contact: Larry McLean, Minerals Administrative Technician, Trinity River Management Unit, Shasta-Trinity National Forest, P.O. Box 1190, Weaverville, CA, 96093, Mitchel Wilkinson District Ranger, South Fork Management Unit Date The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C , or call (800) (voice) or (202) (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Page 10 of 10