DECISION MEMO IDAHO DREAM PLAN OF OPERATIONS

Transcription

1 Page 1 of 7 BACKGROUND DECISION MEMO USDA Forest Service Dillon Ranger District Beaverhead County The project area is included in the Ermont Mining District in T5S R11W Section 36 and T6S R11W Section 1 along the French Creek Road at the base of Watson Gulch (See Map, Appendix A). Currently no active mining is taking place in French and Watson Gulches but the area is riddled with past mining activity and displaced material. A placer mine was reclaimed in the area in The history of the district is rich with mining booms and busts leaving the area a ghost town of past mining exploits. Some history is provided in this excerpt from the MT DEQ website on historical backgrounds of the Ermont Mining District. While gold was never the driving force in this district, there were some placers.... new placers were discovered six miles upstream in French Creek. In 1890 placers were also discovered by Charles Watson on Watson Gulch, a tributary of French Creek. The largest nugget of gold found in Beaverhead County, a lump weighing in at 40 ounces, was found in Watson Gulch in Additional placering in 1941, recovered an additional 9 ounces of gold from French and Watson Gulches.... Although early production figures are not available, in the Twentieth century the combined French and Rattlesnake Creek placers worked 1,600 cubic feet of material to yield 107 ounces of gold and 11 ounces of silver worth a combined $2,443 (Geach 1972; Wolle 1963; Ryan 1987). Higher metal prices brought revivals in and again in 1934 when numerous small mines were operated along the gulches of the district. Although some of the lode mines were in production prior to effective record keeping, it is estimated that the district produced a total of $1,500,000 by 1931 (Shenon 1931; Wolle 1963). (MT DEQ Abandon Mines Historic Narrative updated 11/5/2009.) Phillips/Huxtable claimants turned in a Plan of Operations for the Idaho Dream Placer Claim to dig 6-10 test holes for mineral exploration in July of 2010, and the potential for future mining is unknown. If and when there is a proposal for mining, further environmental studies will be required. DECISION I have decided to authorize the proponent to dig up to 10 test holes using a backhoe, which will be backfilled immediately after samples are taken. Surface soil will be stripped, placed near the exploration area, and replaced on top of each hole after samples are taken. Existing roads will be used to transport samples. The project will take approximately one week and a reclamation bond will be posted. In response to comment one test site across French Creek was withdrawn from the original proposal eliminating the need for mitigation to prevent sedimentation from vehicles crossing the stream as initially described in the 30-day notice package. The following mitigation and design features apply where the proposed action is implemented:

2 Page 2 of 7 MITIGATION AND DESIGN FEATURES REQUIRED BY THIS DECISION: Aquatics/Hydrology: Secure a three foot high silt fence between mineral exploration activity and stream banks extending 50 feet upstream and downstream of test holes. Keep trenching locations parallel to the stream as opposed to trenching toward the stream Cease activity around the disturbance in the event of sediment delivery to the stream until the forest hydrologist or fisheries biologist can review the situation. Heritage: Soils: One historic property was identified near the project area when field inventory was completed. The proposed test area location was moved at least 100 feet away from the designated site boundary as per Region 1 Programmatic Agreement, Deerlodge National Forest Historic Preservation and Management Plan; Procedures for No Effect through Project Redesign. If during the course of project implementation there is a discovery of any previously unrecorded cultural/heritage resources, the project operation in the area of the discovery will cease until the Forest Service can complete an analysis and evaluation of the heritage resource, including consultation with the Montana SHPO and appropriate Indian Tribes. This project will have very little effect on the soil since surface soil will be salvaged and replaced. The backhoe should be used to s strip the surface 6 to 8 inches or the A Horizon whichever is thickest, and place it near the trench to be replaced, upon completion of exploration. Noxious Weeds: Noxious weeds will be controlled by following direction in the Noxious Weed Control Program ROD (2002) for the (BDNF). REASONS FOR CATEGORICALLY EXCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION An action may be categorically excluded from further analysis and documentation in an environmental impact statement (EIS) or environmental assessment (EA) if it is within one of the categories identified by the USDA in 7 CFR part 1b.3 or 7 CFR part 1b.3 or 36 CFR 220.6(d) or (e), and there are no extraordinary circumstances related to the decision that may result in a significant individual or cumulative effect on the quality of the human environment. This project has been reviewed in accordance with FSH Chapter 30. I have determined the project fits within the following category: 36 CFR 220.6(e)(3): "short term mineral, energy, or geophysical investigations and their incidental support activities that may require cross country travel by vehicles and equipment, construction of less than one mile of low standard road, or use and minor repair of existing roads." My decision is based on a review of the project record that shows a thorough review of relevant scientific information provided by specialists following field reviews of the project, consideration of public comment, and the acknowledgement of unavailable information. The record includes the following resource specialist reports: Biological Assessments and Evaluations for Aquatics, Botany, and Wildlife Tribal and Heritage Resource findings

3 Page 3 of 7 Soils Report Hydrology Report Aquatics/Amphibian Report Scenery Report Minerals Report By definition, categorical exclusions do not individually or cumulatively have significant effects on the human environment (40 CFR ). Resource specialists considered direct and indirect effects from the proposed action coupled with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions. I have examined the proposed action and the effects analyses disclosed in the resource specialist reports listed above, and conclude that without notable individual effects from the proposed action, there would be no discernable cumulative effects. The interdisciplinary team reviewed the resource conditions listed in FSH Chapter 30 (31.2) and other concerns applicable to this project to determine whether any extraordinary circumstances exist. The mere presence of one or more of the resource conditions listed below does not preclude the 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 potential effect of a proposed action on these resource conditions that determine whether extraordinary circumstances exist. The resource specialist reports in the project file provide the necessary information to make a determination on the cause-effect relationship between the proposed action and the potential effect on the resource conditions and thus the presence of extraordinary circumstances, as summarized below. Table 1: Resource Conditions Effects RESOURCE CONDITION Federally listed threatened or endangered species or designated critical habitat, species proposed for Federal listing or proposed critical habitat, or Forest Service sensitive species. Floodplains, wetlands, or municipal watersheds POTENTIAL EFFECT Threatened or Endangered Species: There would be no effect to any federally listed species. Sensitive Species: May impact individuals or habitat, but would not contribute to a trend towards federal listing or loss of viability to the population or species for Great Basin Pocket Mouse-effects are expected to be short term; Pygmy Rabbit-disturbance to potential habitat temporary. Potential suitable habitat was present for sensitive plants Penstemon lemhiensis and Lesquerella pulchella- Since the proposed project is small in scale and both species occupy disturbed sites, it is determined that implementation of the proposed action may impact individuals or habitat, but will not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing or loss of viability to the population or species. No Impact all other Sensitive terrestrial, and aquatic species. The project locations will be adjacent to live streams and wetland areas but no impacts are anticipated following a field visit in November 2010 where specific hole locations were identified and resource concerns were discussed and mitigated as described in the Mitigation and

4 Page 4 of 7 RESOURCE CONDITION Congressionally designated areas, such as wilderness, wilderness study areas, or national recreation areas. Inventoried Roadless Areas Research Natural Areas American Indians and Alaska Native religious or cultural sites. Archaeological sites, or historic properties or areas. POTENTIAL EFFECT Design Features section above. With the implementation of the proposed mitigation measures, none of the activities will alter aquatic habitat or water quality. No congressionally designated areas occur in or near the project; therefore no negative impacts to any congressionally designated areas are projected. There are no inventoried roadless areas within or adjacent to the project area. Therefore, no negative impacts to any research natural areas are projected. There are no research natural areas within the project area. Therefore, no negative impacts to any research natural areas are projected. Heritage inventory has been completed. Ground disturbing activities will not take place within 100 feet of designated historic property boundaries. Pursuant to the BDNF Programmatic Agreement For Historic Mining and Associated Properties, no impacts are projected for these resources as a result of this project. A categorical exclusion is appropriate in this situation because the proposed action fits within the category described above and there are no extraordinary circumstances present. SCOPING AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT The project was first published on the SOPA on October 1 st, The proposal was provided to interested members of the public and other agencies for comment during a scoping period from November 1 through November 19, One response was received on November 9, That person requested further information from the POO including map clarification and extension of the comment period. A 30-day notice and comment package was resubmitted to the same mailing list containing project information just for the Idaho Dream Plan of Operations. One response from the same person was received on December 19, The response to those comments is attached. The full content of all correspondence is available upon request. FOREST PLAN DIRECTION The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) requires the development of long-range land and resource management plans. The Plan was approved in 2009 and provides guidance for all natural resource management activities on the Forest. NFMA also requires all projects and activities to be consistent with the plan. The decision is consistent with Forest Plan direction including all applicable standards. Forestwide Desired Condition Mineral and energy resources are explored, developed, and produced according to national direction, (Forest Plan pg. 11).

5 Page 5 of 7 Forestwide Goals and Objectives: Locatable minerals are developed on all parts of the Forest not withdrawn from locatable mineral entry in accordance with the 1872 Mining Law, regulations, and national direction, (Forest Plan pg. 27). FINDINGS REQUIRED BY LAW National Forest Management Act - The BDNF Land and Resource Management Plan was approved in 2009, as required by this Act. It has been reviewed in consideration of this project and the project meets all applicable management direction in the Plan and consistency with all applicable standards. Endangered Species Act - See Reasons for Categorically Excluding the Proposed Action Section of this document for a thorough discussion of the effects of this project to Endangered, Threatened, or Candidate Species. This project is consistent with the requirements of the Endangered Species Act. Sensitive Species (Forest Service Manual 2670) - This direction requires analysis of potential impacts to sensitive species and the Regional Forester approved the sensitive species list on October 28, Our review of the potential effects of this decision upon sensitive species has been completed and the analysis documented in the project file and resource condition table above. Environmental Justice (Executive Order 12898) - This Order requires consideration of whether projects would disproportionately affect minority or low-income populations in or around the project area. Based on internal review and public scoping, the proposed action did not identify any adversely impacted local minority or lowincome populations. Clean Water Act The intent of the Act is to restore and maintain the integrity of waters. The Forest Service complies with this Act through the use of Best Management Practices. This decision incorporates Best Management Practices to ensure protection of soil and water resources and complies with the Clean Water Act and State water quality standards. The National Historic Preservation Act As discussed earlier in this document, the Resource Condition Table, and the specialist report in the project file, impacts to cultural resources are not expected. National Environmental Policy Act - This Act requires public involvement and consideration of potential environmental effects. This document and the project record provide documentation for this decision which supports compliance with this Act (See page 2 through 4 above.). Other Laws or Requirements The proposed action is consistent with all other applicable Federal, State, and/or local laws or requirements. ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW OR APPEAL OPPORTUNITIES This decision is subject to appeal pursuant to 36 CFR A written appeal must be submitted within 45 days following the publication date of the legal notice of this decision in the Montana Standard, Butte, MT. It is the responsibility of the appellant to ensure the appeal is received in a timely manner. The legal notice of decision publication date in the newspaper of record is the exclusive means for calculating the time to file an appeal. Appellants should not rely on date information provided by any other source.

6 Page 6 of 7 Printed appeals must be submitted to: USDA Forest Service, Northern Region ATTN: Appeal Deciding Officer P.O. Box 7669 Missoula, MT Electronic appeals must be submitted to: appeals-northern-regional-office@fs.fed.us Faxed appeals must be submitted to: Fax: (406) OR USDA Forest Service, Northern Region ATTN: Appeal Deciding Officer 200 East Broadway Missoula, MT (Office hours: 7:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.) In electronic appeals, the subject line should contain the name of the project being appealed. An automated response will confirm your electronic appeal has been received. Electronic appeals must be submitted in MS Word, Word Perfect, or Rich Text Format (RTF). It is the appellant's responsibility to provide sufficient project- or activity-specific evidence and rationale, focusing on the decision, to show why my decision should be reversed. The appeal must be filed with the Appeal Deciding Officer in writing. At a minimum, the appeal must meet the content requirements of 36 CFR , and include the following information: The appellant s name and address, with a telephone number, if available; A signature, or other verification of authorship upon request (a scanned signature for electronic mail may be filed with the appeal); When multiple names are listed on an appeal, identification of the lead appellant and verification of the identity of the lead appellant upon request; The name of the project or activity for which the decision was made, the name and title of the Responsible Official, and the date of the decision; The regulation under which the appeal is being filed, when there is an option to appeal under either 36 CFR 215 or 36 CFR 251, subpart C; Any specific change(s) in the decision that the appellant seeks and rationale for those changes; Any portion(s) of the decision with which the appellant disagrees, and explanation for the disagreement; Why the appellant believes the Responsible Official s decision failed to consider the comments; and How the appellant believes the decision specifically violates law, regulation, or policy. If an appeal is received on this project there may be informal resolution meetings and/or conference calls between the Responsible Official and the appellant. These discussions would take place within 15 days after the closing date for filing an appeal. All such meetings are open to the public. If you are interested in attending any informal resolution discussions, please contact the Responsible Official or monitor the following website for postings about current appeals in the Northern Region of the Forest Service: The decision is also subject to appeal pursuant to Department of Agriculture regulations 36 CFR To appeal this decision under 36 CFR 251, a written Notice of Appeal, meeting the content requirements at 36 CFR must be postmarked or received within 45 calendar days after the date of notice of decision in this letter.

7 Page 7 of 7 However, when the 45-day filing period would end on a Saturday, Sunday, or Federal Holiday, the filing time is extended to the end of the next Federal working day. The Notice of Appeal must be sent to USDA Forest Service, Forest Supervisor,, Attn: Appeals, 420 Barrett St, Dillon, MT A copy of the appeal must simultaneously be sent to the District Ranger at 420 Barrett St., Dillon MT Additionally, if an appeal is filed, an oral presentation concerning the appeal (36 CFR ) and/or stay of implementation (36 CFR ) of the decision may be requested at any time prior to closing the appeal record. IMPLEMENTATION DATE Consistent with 36 CFR 215, implementation may begin immediately, and is expected to commence in April CONTACT PERSON Supporting documentation for this decision is available for public review at the Dillon Ranger District 420 Barrett St., Dillon, MT Further information about the decision can be obtained from the Dillon Ranger District during normal office hours weekdays, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. at Dillon, Montana. You may also call Licette Hammer at ; write her at 420 Barrett St., Dillon, MT 59725, or send an to lhammer@fs.fed.us. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL /s/ Julian J Hammer February 11, 2011 JULIAN J HAMMER District Ranger Dillon Ranger District Date