Draft Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact La Paloma #1 and #2 Mining Plan of Operations

Transcription

1 Draft Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact La Paloma #1 and #2 Mining Plan of Operations USDA Forest Service Sequoia National Forest, Kern River Ranger District Tulare County, California Background The La Paloma Project is located on the Kern River Ranger District of the Sequoia National Forest. The Plan of Operations proposes mineral exploration at the existing La Paloma #1 and #2 barite mine, located on the Kern Plateau. The mine is located in Tulare County on a 40-acre mining claim in Sections 4, 9 and 10, Township 22 South, Range 34 East, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian. Two alternatives were considered in detail. Alternative 1, the proposed action, would allow mineral exploration with a plan of operations as proposed by the applicant. Alternative 2, a modified proposed action, requires the miner to submit a Revised Plan of Operation that incorporates recommended conditions of approval to meet standards and guidelines for the project. Annual monitoring would occur to ensure that conditions of approval to meet standards and guidelines are carried out. Decision and Rationale Based upon my review of the Environmental Assessment for the La Paloma Project, I have decided to implement Alternative 2, a Modified Proposed Action, hereafter referred to as the Selected Alternative. I have decided to implement the Selected Alternative which requires the miner to submit a Revised Plan of Operation that incorporates recommended conditions of approval to meet standards and guidelines for the project. Annual monitoring would occur to ensure that conditions of approval are carried out. Specific conditions of approval to meet standards and guidelines are included in Appendix 1 of this document. My decision is based on a review of the record that shows a thorough review of relevant scientific information. The Selected Alternative would allow mineral exploration for a period of five years, not to exceed 990 cubic yards of crude barite ore. Ore would be removed by scaling from the previously worked face of the mine. In addition, testing would be conducted with a tracked or tired drill rig, drilling to depths of up to 500 feet at up to ten locations. Drilling would occur only in areas previously disturbed by past mining activities. Water for drilling and dust suppression will be transported to the site by a water truck from a private groundwater source. In addition, the proponent proposes to remove fallen trees and other obstructions from Forest Road No. 22S24 and to temporarily remove water bars and berms from the road to allow passage of equipment. Water bars and berms would be re-established at the close of each season per Forest Service guidelines.

2 The project will not entail any new excavations and will be confined to areas of previous grounddisturbance. The cumulative impact of proposed activities is confined to less than one acre of National Forest System land over a period of 5 years. The purpose and need for this project is to assure resource protection while allowing for the proposed sampling and geological exploration from the existing La Paloma #1 and #2 barite mine. This action is needed to establish appropriate terms and conditions under which Patrick Embree may exercise his right to mine an existing claim, as established by the General Mining Law of 1872, while protecting national forest surface resources consistent with other applicable laws, regulations, and policies, including the standards and guidelines in the Sequoia National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (1988). Other Alternatives Considered Two alternatives were considered in detail. Alternative 1, the proposed action, would allow mineral exploration with a plan of operations as proposed by the applicant. Alternative 2, the Selected Alternative, requires the miner to submit a Revised Plan of Operation that incorporates recommended conditions of approval to meet standards and guidelines as Conditions of Approval for Plan of Operations for the project. A No Action alternative, often analyzed in environmental assessments, was dropped from consideration as no action on the Forest Service s part is not consistent with law, regulation and policy direction in regards to mining plans of operation. The Forest Service must consider and cannot deny a locatable mineral Plan of Operations where the proposed activities are reasonably incident to mining and would comply with other Federal laws. Public Involvement The project has been listed online in the Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA) for the Sequoia National Forest since October 1, In accordance with 36 CFR 218, the proposal was provided to the public and other agencies for comment during scoping between May 6 and June 5, A total of 40 public scoping notices were mailed to interested members of the public, government agencies and tribal governments. A total of three comments were received from this public scoping effort. Public Comments are summarized in the EA Scoping Issue Matrix, Appendix A in the La Paloma Project EA. Two issues were raised during scoping: 1) that the project should include conditions to minimize impacts to nesting birds, and other sensitive species, if habitat or species are found to be present and 2) that water resources should be protected during mineral exploration activities. To date no sensitive species have been identified in the project area. To mitigate any impacts to water resources, water bars and berms meeting the agency s Best Management Practices (BMPs) would be re-established at the close of each mineral exploration season for the duration of the Plan of Operation. A Preliminary EA was issued for a 30-day comment period, from February 8 to March 9, No comments were received. In response to public scoping comments and internal specialist review, Appendix 1, Conditions of Approval for Plan of Operations were incorporated into the Selected Alternative. La Paloma #1 and #2 Mining Plan of Operation-Draft Decision Notice and FONSI Page 2 of 6

3 Finding of No Significant Impact I have evaluated the Selected Alternative and Alternative 1, as described in the Environmental Assessment for the La Paloma #1 and #2 Mining Plan of Operation. The following is a summary of the project analysis to determine the effects of the project relative to the definition of significance established by the CEQ Regulations (40 CFR ). Based on review and consideration of the EA and documentation included in the project record, I have determined that the Selected Alternative will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment. As a result of this finding, an environmental impact statement will not be prepared. The rationale for this finding is organized below, by sub-section of the CEQ definition of significance. Based on the environmental analysis in the project record and findings summarized in the EA the context of this action is of local significance. 1. Impacts may be both beneficial and adverse. A significant effect may exist even if, on balance, effects are believed to be beneficial. Beneficial and adverse effects summarized in this EA are fully addressed in specialist reports in the project file. Adverse effects for either alternative would not be significant and are discussed below. The potential for adverse effects was evaluated on its own merit and was not discounted or dismissed based on the potential for offsetting beneficial effects. 2. The degree of effects on public health or safety. Features designed to meet standards and guidelines would be included as Conditions of Approval for Plan of Operations (Appendix 1). Actions such as dust abatement, road closures for public safety, and road maintenance activities would be implemented. In addition, BMPs for the protection of water quality would also be implemented as prescribed in the Hydrology Specialist Report (Stone 2015). Public health and safety were considered in the design of the project. Implementation of either alternative would produce short-term localized dust (primarily operation of heavy equipment). Conditions of Approval for Plan of Operations would be implemented to reduce emissions and effects to air quality including dust abatement achieved by applying water to roads. Implementation of the Selected Alternative would meet all applicable state and federal guidelines. 3. Unique characteristics of the geographic area such as proximity to historic or cultural resources, park lands, prime farmlands, wetlands, wild and scenic rivers or ecologically critical areas. No parklands, prime farmlands, wetlands, wild and scenic rivers, or ecologically critical areas are documented in or near the project area. No cultural resources in the area have been identified. 4. The degree to which the effects on the quality of the human environment are likely to be highly controversial. The mineral exploration operations proposed are not unknown or untested practices. The analysis in the specialist reports and the EA, and Conditions of Approval for Plan of Operations (Appendix 1) address the concerns brought forward in scoping. The degree to which the possible effects on the human environment are not highly uncertain or involve unique or unknown risks. The proposed activities are routine in nature, employing standard practices and conservation measures, and their effects are well known. Numerous scientific studies have been conducted on the types of La Paloma #1 and #2 Mining Plan of Operation-Draft Decision Notice and FONSI Page 3 of 6

4 activities proposed. The Selected Alternative would have less impact to wildlife, watersheds, and forest health in comparison to Alternative The degree to which the possible effects on the human environment are highly uncertain or involve unique or unknown risks. The proposed actions are routine in nature, employing standard practices and conservation measures, and their effects are well-known. The overall effects of the Selected Alternative will not have an impact on wildlife, watersheds, and forest health. 6. The degree to which the action may establish a precedent for future actions with significant effects or represents a decision in principle about a future consideration. Due to the routine nature of the proposed management activities, no precedent would be set for future decisions. A decision to proceed would not represent a decision in principle about any future consideration. 7. Whether the action is related to other actions with individually insignificant but cumulatively significant impacts. The Selected Alternative will not result in cumulative adverse effects when considered in combination with past, present or reasonably foreseeable actions. In accordance with guidance provided by a CEQ memorandum dated June 24, 2005 (CEQ 2005), for this analysis, past actions and events pertinent to each resource form the baseline for the existing condition of that resource. Current and reasonably foreseeable actions are considered in cumulative effects analysis as appropriate for each resource and depending on that resource s cumulative effects analysis area. Existing conditions are described, and the cumulative effects of past management discussed on pages of the EA. Cumulative effects are summarized on pp of the EA and as cited in specialist reports in the project record. 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 entire project area for the La Paloma #1 and #2 mining claims was surveyed for heritage resources by a Forest Service archaeologist in The site has been evaluated as not eligible to the National Register of Historic Places. Given the finding of not eligible, the Selected Alternative will pose no adverse effects to cultural resources. If any additional or previously unidentified cultural resources are located during project implementation, the Plan of Operation requires that the find must be protected from operations and reported immediately to district Cultural Resource personnel. Given the finding that the La Paloma Mine is not eligible to the National Register, the Forest Service can determine that historic properties as defined in 36 CFR will not be adversely affected by the proposed project. An Archaeological Reconnaissance Report (ARR) with a finding of no effect for the La Paloma #1 and #2 Mining Plan of Operations is on file at the district office in Kernville (Kelly 2014). La Paloma #1 and #2 Mining Plan of Operation-Draft Decision Notice and FONSI Page 4 of 6

5 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 There are no Threatened or Endangered species, critical habitats for such species or species proposed for listing under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 that would be jeopardized by the implementation of this Plan of Operation. As described in the EA, there have been no detections of mountain yellow legged frogs within or adjacent to the project area. Likewise the area does not provide fisher habitat due to the sparse canopy cover. Appropriate monitoring and conditions of approval to meet standards and guidelines are in place to support a not likely to contribute to a trend leading to federal listing or loss of viability determination for these species. Implementation of the proposed management activities will not jeopardize the continued existence of any fish, wildlife, or plant species or designated critical habitat listed for protection under the Endangered Species Act. 10. Whether the action threatens a violation of Federal, State, or local law or requirements imposed for the protection of the environment. Implementation of the proposed management activities would not violate Federal, State, or local environmental protection laws. The proposed management activities are consistent with the 1988 LRMP, as amended by SNFPA (2004), and the 1990 Mediated Settlement Agreement. They are also consistent with the National Environmental Policy Act, the National Forest Management Act, the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the National Historic Preservation Act. Findings Required by Other Laws and Regulations This decision is consistent with the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment. The decision is consistent with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, Endangered Species Act of 1973, National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Clean Water Act of 1948, National Forest Management Act of 1976, and the Rescissions Act of I have determined the proposed actions will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment, and an environmental impact statement (EIS) will not be prepared. Eligibility to File Objections This proposed project is subject to the pre-decisional administrative review (objection) process pursuant to 36 CFR Part 218 Subparts A and B. Objections will only be accepted from persons or organizations that have previously submitted written comments specific to this proposed project during scoping or other public involvement opportunities. Issues raised in objections must be based on previously submitted specific written comments, unless the issue is based on new information (36 CFR (c)). Individual members of organizations must have submitted their own comments to meet the requirements of eligibility as an individual; comments or objections received on behalf of an organization are considered as those of the organization only. If an objection is submitted on behalf of a number of individuals or organizations, each individual or organization listed must meet the eligibility requirement of having previously submitted comments on the project. Names and addresses of objectors will become part of the public record. Filing an Objection Objections must be filed with the Reviewing Officer in writing. The objection must contain at a minimum, a sufficient narrative description of those aspects of the proposed project objected to, specific issues related to the project, and suggested remedies which would resolve the objection. Individuals and organizations filing an objection must provide the following information: La Paloma #1 and #2 Mining Plan of Operation-Draft Decision Notice and FONSI Page 5 of 6

6 Objector s name and address, with telephone number if available; Signature or other verification of identity upon request (a scanned signature may serve as verification on electronic objections). For objections with multiple names or multiple organizations, identification of the Objector is required. Verification of the lead Objector shall be provided on request. The name of the proposed project, name and title of the Responsible Official, and the name of the National Forest and/or Ranger District in which the proposed project will be implemented. Incorporation by reference is not allowed, except for those referring to federal laws or regulations; Forest Service directives and land management plans; documents referenced by the Forest Service in the project EA; and comments previously provided to the Forest Service by the objector when written comments were requested. Written objections, including any attachments, must be filed (regular mail, fax, , hand delivery, or express delivery) with the Reviewing Officer, Forest Supervisor, Kevin B. Elliott, at Sequoia National Forest, 1839 South Newcomb Street, Porterville, CA or by fax (559) , within 45 days following the publication date of this legal notice (36 CFR ). The publication date in the newspaper of record (Porterville Recorder) is the exclusive means for calculating the objection period for this proposal. Those wishing to object to this proposed project should not rely upon dates or timeframe information provided by any other source. Time extensions of the objection time period are not permitted (36 CFR 218.6). The office business hours for those submitting hand-delivered objections are: Monday-Friday 8:00 A.M. to 4:30 P.M., excluding holidays. Electronic objections must be submitted in a format such as an message, plain text (.txt), rich text format (.rtf), and Word (.doc) to objections-pacificsouthwestsequoia@fs.fed.us with Subject: Objection La Paloma Project. It is the responsibility of the Objectors to ensure their objection is received in a timely manner (36 CFR 218.9). Timing of Project Decision and Implementation When the objection-filing period has ended and responses have been made to the objections by the Reviewing Officer, the Responsible Official may make a final decision on the proposed project. The Reviewing Officer shall issue a written response to the Objectors within 45 days following the end of this objection-filing period. When no timely objections are filed, a decision can be made on the fifth business day following the end of the objection filing period (36 CFR ). Contact If you have any questions regarding this project, please call Tim Kelly District Archeologist, at (760) , extension 616 or tkelley@fs.fed.us. ALFRED WATSON District Ranger Kern River Ranger District Date La Paloma #1 and #2 Mining Plan of Operation-Draft Decision Notice and FONSI Page 6 of 6

7 Appendix 1: Conditions of Approval for Plan of Operations for the Selected Alternative In response to public comments and internal review by resource specialists, the following specific conditions of approval were incorporated into Alternative 2, the Modified Proposed Action. These conditions of approval are to be included in the Conditions of Approval Plan of Operations to reduce or eliminate potential negative effects on resources in the project area. The Forest Service would conduct unannounced and scheduled on-site inspections of surface operations to ensure compliance and bond administration. Random evaluations would be conducted each year to evaluate the operation. Pursuant to 36 CFR 228.8, operations shall be conducted, where feasible, to minimize adverse environmental impacts on National Forest System surface resources. Compliance with the following conditions of approval will assure compliance with standards and guidelines and will be required by the Plan of Operations: A. Air Quality: Operator shall comply with applicable Federal and State air quality standards, including the requirements of the Clean Air Act, as amended (42 U.S.C et seq. The La Paloma project is subject to San Joaquin Air Pollution Control District rules and regulations, Title 17 of the California Code of Regulations. Water roads during operations for dust abatement. B. Water Quality: Design Measures are project-specific protection measures that are in addition to the standard BMPs required for water quality protection. Operator shall comply with applicable Federal and State water quality standards, including regulations issued pursuant to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended (33 U.S.C et seq.). Incorporation of the following operational project-specific guidelines would help minimize the risk of soil erosion and degraded water quality resulting from the proposed activities: i. Back fill (reclamation) of excavation pits must be roughly sorted, with some larger diameter rock material placed at the surface to decrease the amount of fine sediment available for potential transport during periods of high flow. ii. iii. iv. Weed free mulch, erosion control blanket, and/or wattles shall be applied to all disturbed areas of soil as per the erosion control plan. Appropriate road drainage features (water bars or rolling dips) must be installed every 75 feet (except for relatively flat, less than 5 percent slope, portions of the road) on all existing, nonsystem, access roads to allow runoff to be discharged from the road surface. Site runoff or any other project created waste water will be prevented from flowing directly into adjacent ephemeral, intermittent, or perennial stream networks. v. All equipment and fuel containers will be regularly inspected for leaks. Page i of xi

8 vi. vii. Drip pans or absorbent pads shall be used during all on-site fueling operations. Local water will be the only drilling lubricant; no other adjunct lubricants will be added. Water Quality Protection Measures: These are included in the FSM Soil and Water Conservation Handbook Chapter 10 - Water Quality Management Handbook, (USDA, 2011). This handbook should be provided to the claimant prior to project activates. BMPs and erosion control measures will be employed to protect the beneficial uses of water and address watershed management concerns within the affected watersheds. BMPs are measures designed to protect watershed resources and water quality. Implementation and effectiveness monitoring would ensure that water quality objectives are being met. viii. Erosion Control Plan and BMP Checklist: BMP 2.13 Erosion Control Plan. Implementation of this BMP effectively limits and mitigates erosion and sedimentation from ground-disturbing activities. This plan will include those elements identified under BMP 2.13 and include the following: a. List of anticipated ground-disturbing actions associated with the project. Use of existing L2 roads o Installation of water bars o Removal of debris and brush along the road bed for access o Add slash on access road to further prevent erosion Ground-based/ mechanized work with possible equipment: o Excavators, loaders, dump trucks, water trucks, and portable drilling rigs. b. Checklist which assures compliance with standards and guidelines required by project NEPA, requirements to meet BMPs, project plans, specifications, and permits, if any. The selection of erosion and sedimentation control measures shall be based on assessments of site conditions and how storm events may contribute to erosion. Dust Abatement on access routes Water-bars and grading of access routes Use of developed draft sites Use of developed mine sites Location of all refueling sites a minimum of 100 feet from riparian features Installation of berms and trenches around refueling sites Development of SCC spill plan Project implementation during dry conditions Development of erosion control plan Pre project monitoring to establish baseline conditions Post project monitoring to evaluate project effectiveness c. Illustrations of control practices designed to prevent erosion and sedimentation. Illustrations must show construction and installation details for control practices, and must be included in the erosion control plan. (for example, California Stormwater Quality Association BMP standard Page ii of xi

9 specifications CASQA at or Caltrans Stormwater and Water Pollution Control guides at The access roads will have water bars to prevent erosion and sedimentation. The design procedures can be read in the Forest Service Handbook (FSH) Chapter 40. Under the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Revision Standard and Guides, ground-based systems (e.g., excavators) will not operate on sustained slopes over 35%. d. Map/drawing(s) showing soil or water buffer zones, RCAs, RCHAs, SMZs or other soil or water protection areas to be protected from project activities. Project boundary extends beyond disturbance limits (see Hydrology Report). e. A description of the color and/or pattern of flagging or marking for soil or water buffer zones, RCAs, RCHAs, SMZs or other soil or water protection areas for each unit. NA no SMZ buffer zones in project area. f. Use the relevant sections from the forest s wet weather operations policy that apply to project activities as guidance to prevent significant adverse impacts to water quality from wet weather operations on NFTS roads and trails. Some wet weather operations may be part of the Project. g. Forest motor vehicle use map will be used to determine season closures for all NFTS routes that are not under permit or for administrative or project use only. A storm preparedness plan that describes additional control practices to be implemented when the National Weather Service predicts a 50 percent or greater chance of precipitation. A winterization plan that describes additional control practices to be implemented to stabilize the site during periods of seasonal inactivity. The dates vary by locality, and may be determined by the individual Regional Water Quality Control Board (for example, October 15 through May 1). Winterized means that the site is stabilized to prevent soil movement permanently if project activities are complete, or temporarily in a manner which will remain effective until end of the stabilization period. If winter activity, including over-snow operation is proposed, specifications for snow/ice depth or soil operability conditions must be described. h. Control practices to reduce the tracking of sediment onto paved roads. These roads will be inspected and cleaned as necessary. i. Control practices to reduce wind erosion and control dust. Dust abatement will be performed by watering the access roads and staging areas to reduce wind erosion and control dust. Page iii of xi

10 j. A proposed sequential schedule to implement erosion and sediment control measures, in addition to the general construction schedule. Project implementation will occur during the operational season (generally June 1-November 15). During project implementation, several BMPs will be used within areas of the project. Roads opened (or reopened) for project use will have water bars installed in accordance with the Timber Sale Administration (TSA) Handbook R5 supplement d Skid Trail and Fire Lines Recommended Spacing Guidelines. Water bar spacing is expected to use the Soil Erosion Rating of High. Location information, including directions to access the project area. Include a scaled map, with road names/numbers. Directions from Kernville, CA are as follows: Drive north on Sierra Way (Mountain Highway 99) for approximately 19 miles to Sherman Pass Road (Forest Road 22S05). Take Sherman Pass Road over Sherman Pass to the junction of Forest Road 22S41 (Bonita Meadow turn off). Drive approximately 0.4 miles along Forest Road 22S41 to Forest Road 22S24 and bear right at the Y. Drive approximately 1.0 miles on Forest Road 22S24 to reach the project area. Contact information of project personnel, including name and cell phone number (that is, sale administrator, contracting officer s representative, project manager, project supervisor, contractor, site superintendent, hydrologist, permit administrator and so forth) Keith Andy Stone- District Hydrologist x683 k. Maps requirements: Maps must be clear, legible, and of a scale such that depicted features are readily discernible. For example, sale area maps may be used to satisfy the mapping requirements outlined in b.ii, below, if they meet this intent l. N/A Acres and locations of usable roads, are discussed in the Plan of Operation. a. As a means of determining BMPs and erosion control measures, a topographic map should be in the project file. The map should extend beyond the boundaries of the project site, showing the project site boundaries, and surface and subsurface water bodies (ephemeral and intermittent waters, springs, wells, and wetlands) that could be at risk of water-quality impacts from project activities. m. Diversion of Live Streams: If the project involves stream diversions for crossing construction, the erosion control plan must include detailed plans for these activities, including storm contingencies. See BMP Stream Crossings. NA n. Non-Storm Water Management: The erosion control plan shall include provisions which eliminate or reduce the discharge of materials other than storm water to the storm sewer system and/or receiving waters. Such provisions shall ensure that discharged materials shall not have an adverse effect on receiving waters. Materials other than storm water that are discharged shall be listed, along with the estimated quantity of the discharged material. Page iv of xi

11 Ground disturbance associated with the Project will occur under dry conditions, during period of operation (generally June 1- November 15). o. Waste Management and Disposal: The erosion control plan shall describe waste management and disposal practices to be used at the project site. All wastes (including equipment and maintenance waste) removed from the site for disposal shall be disposed of in a manner that is in compliance with Federal, State, and local laws, regulations, and ordinances. Include plan for project-specific activities that produce waste products, such as concrete truck/chute/pump washout, equipment servicing, equipment washing, and so forth. p. Maintenance, Inspection, and Repair: The erosion control plan shall include inspection, maintenance and repair procedures to ensure that all pollution-control devices identified in the erosion control plan are maintained in good and effective condition and are promptly repaired or restored. A qualified person shall be assigned the responsibility to conduct inspections. The name and telephone number of that person shall be listed in the erosion control plan. A tracking and follow-up procedure shall be described to ensure that all inspections are done by trained personnel and that adequate response and corrective actions have been taken in response to the inspection. This procedure may be in the form of a written checklist, with inspections signed and dated. Photo documentation is encouraged. Claimant shall maintain all equipment operating on the project area in good repair and free of abnormal leakage of lubricants, fuel, coolants, and hydraulic fluid. Servicing of equipment will not take place on National Forest System lands. The District Hydrologist (or another qualified staff) will routinely inspect the operations to make sure all pollution-control devices are working and in place. q. Other Plans: This erosion control plan may incorporate, by reference, the appropriate elements of other plans required by local, State, or Federal agencies. A copy of any requirements incorporated by reference shall be kept in the project file. Substance Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan will be incorporated as described in BMP 7.4. r. Post-Project Storm Water Management: The erosion control plan shall describe the storm water control structures and management practices that will be implemented to minimize pollutants in storm water discharges after project activity phases have been completed at the site. It shall also specify controls to be removed from the activity site(s) and methods for their removal. The discharger must consider site-specific factors and seasonal conditions when designing the control practices that will function after the project is complete. Effectiveness monitoring through BMPs will be completed as directed by the Forest Service Handbook (FSH) , Chapter 10, as amended on December 5, Page v of xi

12 s. Preparer: The erosion control plan shall include the title and signature of the person responsible for preparation of the erosion control plan, the date of initial preparation, and the person and date responsible for any amendments to the erosion control plan. BMP Name, Objective, and Direction BMP 2.3 Road Construction and Reconstruction: To minimize erosion and sediment delivery from roads during road construction or reconstruction and their related activities. BMP 2.4 Road Maintenance and Operations: To ensure water quality protection by providing adequate and appropriate maintenance and by controlling road use and operations. BMP 2.11 Equipment Refueling and Servicing: To prevent fuels, lubricants, cleaners, and other harmful materials from discharging into nearby surface waters or infiltrating through soils to contaminate groundwater resources. BMP 2.13 Erosion Control Plan: To effectively limit and mitigate erosion and sedimentation from any ground- disturbing activity, through planning prior to commencement of project activity, and Application to the La Paloma #1 and #2 Mining Plan of Operation For reconstructed roads: No side-casting in SMZs/RMAs. Schedule operations when precipitation is less likely, soil moisture is optimal for construction, and rutting does not occur. Roads needed for project activities would be brought to current engineering standards of alignment, drainage, and grade before use, and would be maintained through the life of the project. Roads would be inspected at least annually to determine what work, if any, is needed to keep ditches, culverts, and other drainage facilities functional and the road stable. Identify road maintenance measures to protect and maintain water, aquatic, and riparian resources, including surfacing, out-sloping, dips and cross drains, armoring ditches, spot rocking, replacing culverts, and installing new drainage features. Where economically feasible, place aggregate on existing native surface roads located in areas with High and Very High Soil Erosion Hazard ratings. Require aggregate on road slopes greater than 5% in areas with High and Very High Soil Erosion Hazard ratings. Maintain road surfaces to dissipate water uniformly using out-sloping, rolling dips, or cross drains. Where feasible, use out-sloping with rolling dips as the primary technique. Adjust surface drainage structures to minimize hydrologic connectivity by discharging runoff into areas with high infiltration and surface roughness; armoring outlets; or increasing the number of drainage structures. Clean ditches only as often as needed to keep them functional. Prevent unnecessary vegetation disturbance. Avoid undercutting the toe of the cut-slope. Install erosion control measures when grading hydrologically connected segments and ditches. Project personnel would be aware of the Forest Spill Plan, including who to contact and other steps to take in case of a spill. A spill kit would be kept on-site. All waste oil, containers, and other materials would be removed from NFS lands, and properly disposed of. For heavy equipment: Storage of hazardous materials (including fuels) and servicing and refueling of equipment would be conducted at pre-designated locations outside of RCAs. If fueling and/or storage of hazardous materials are needed in these areas, sites must be reviewed and approved by the hydrologist or aquatic biologist prior to contractual agreements by the SA. Additional protection measures, such as containment devices, may be necessary. For chainsaws and other gas powered equipment: Refueling may not occur in SMZs or RMAs. In the remainder of the RCA, refueling may occur with the use of an absorbent spill pad. BMP checklists would be prepared by the hydrologist for all project activities, even when an Erosion Control Plan is not necessary. Erosion Control Plan requirements are detailed in FSH , Exhibit 13. (Appendix B for ECP). Page vi of xi

13 BMP Name, Objective, and Direction through project management and administration during project implementation. BMP 5.6 Soil Moisture Limitations for Mechanical Equipment Operations: To prevent compaction, rutting, and gullying, with resultant sediment production and turbidity. BMP 7.4 Oil and Hazardous Substance Spill Contingency Plan and Spill Prevention Containment and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan: To prevent contamination of water from accidental spills. Application to the La Paloma #1 and #2 Mining Plan of Operation The soil moisture provisions described in BMP 1.5 would apply to mechanical operations conducted by any entity (contractor or USFS) for any treatment. Fuels clean-up, site preparation, or any other treatment utilizing mechanical equipment would occur only when soil moisture is within an appropriate range as determined by a soil scientist, if necessary. For small quantities of hazardous materials, the Forest Spill Plan would be used (see BMP 2.11) A spill contingency plan and spill prevention and countermeasure plan (SPCC) must be prepared if hazardous materials (including fuels and oils) stored on the Sequoia NF exceed 1320 gallons, or if a single container exceeds 660 gallons. The plan will at a minimum include: the types and amounts of hazardous materials located in the project area, pre-project identified locations for hazardous materials storage and fueling/maintenance activities (must be located outside of RCA unless prior approval by District Hydrologist or Aquatic Biologist is obtained), methods for containment of hazardous materials and contents of on-site emergency spill kit, and a contingency plan (including contact names with phone numbers) to implement in the event of a spill. The SPCC plan must be approved by the Forest Service prior to project implementation. C. Solid Wastes: Operator shall comply with applicable Federal and State standards for the disposal and treatment of solid wastes. All garbage, refuse, or waste, shall either be removed from National Forest System lands or disposed of or treated to minimize, so far as is practicable, its impact on the environment and the forest surface resources. All tailings, dumpage, deleterious materials, or substances and other waste produced by operations shall be deployed, arranged, disposed of or treated so as to minimize adverse impact upon the environment and forest surface resources. D. Scenic Values: Operator shall, to the extent practicable, harmonize operations with scenic values through such measures as the design and location of operating facilities, including roads and other means of access, limit clearing of trees and removal of vegetation to the minimum necessary, vegetative screening of operations, and construction of structures and improvements which blend with the landscape. Clearing of vegetation should be pertinent to the approved phase of mineral exploration and development. E. Fisheries and Wildlife Habitat: In addition to compliance with water quality and solid waste disposal standards required by this section, operator shall take all practicable measures to maintain and protect fisheries and wildlife habitat which may be affected by the operations. If any new Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, or Sensitive species is found at any point in time prior to or during implementation of this project, work will be halted until the appropriate Forest Service specialist is consulted and necessary compliance with standards and guidelines are enacted. No mechanical treatment is proposed within spotted owl or goshawk territories. Page vii of xi

14 F. Roads: Operator shall maintain all roads so as to assure adequate drainage and to minimize or, where practicable, eliminate damage to soil, water, and other resource values. Unless otherwise approved by the authorized officer, roads no longer needed for operations: i. Shall be closed to normal vehicular traffic, ii. Bridges and culverts shall be removed, iii. Cross drains, dips, or water bars shall be constructed, and iv. The road surface shall be shaped to as near a natural contour as practicable and be stabilized. v. NFS roads would be left open at all times during operations, except when those operations would pose a hazard to the public. There may be five to ten minute delays to move equipment off the roadway. The roads will be signed in two places to alert the public of delays; (1) at the intersection of Sherman Pass (22S05) Road and Lookout Mountain Road (22S41); (2) at the intersection of Lookout Mountain Road (22S41) and West Road (Road No. 22S24. One or two of the operator s assistants would be assigned to communicate with the public and the operator in order to allow for efficient traffic flow. Upon arrival of traffic, the assistant will stop traffic and notify the operator. Operations will be stopped to allow for the passage of vehicles. Vehicles will be guided around any open excavation. No holes in the road will be left open at night or when the operator is not at the site. vi. Once auger holes are completed, road reconditioning will be completed to repair and restore the condition of the road to pre-project conditions. Standards are derived from National Forest System road maintenance guidelines and include: vii. Reconditioning of ditches, shoulders, and roadbed surfaces. All slide material, sediment, vegetation, and other debris from the existing ditches and culvert inlets and outlets would be removed. Ditches and culvert inlets and outlets would be reshaped to achieve positive drainage and a uniform ditch width, depth, and grade. Waste disposal sites, if needed, would be coordinated with the Forest Service. viii. Soft and unstable areas would be repaired. All slide material, vegetation, and other debris would be removed from existing shoulders including shoulders of parking areas, turnouts, and other widened areas. Shoulders would be reshaped as necessary. ix. All organic, deleterious, or oversize material larger than 6 inches would be removed from the top 6 inches of subgrade. The road would be scarified to a 6 inch depth, surface irregularities would be removed, and the road shaped to provide a uniform surface. Road surfaces would be required to meet standards for line, cross-section, and grade. The road would then be compacted. No culvert replacement or removal would be authorized. G. Reclamation: Upon exhaustion of the mineral deposit or at the earliest practicable time during operations, or within 1 year of the conclusion of operations, unless a longer time is allowed by the authorized officer, operator shall, where practicable, reclaim the surface disturbed in operations by taking such measures as will prevent or control onsite and off-site damage to the environment and forest surface resources including: i. Control of erosion and landslides; Page viii of xi

15 ii. Control of water runoff; iii. Isolation, removal or control of toxic materials; iv. Reshaping and revegetation of disturbed areas, where reasonably practicable; and v. Rehabilitation of fisheries and wildlife habitat. vi. Annual reclamation would include removal of all equipment from Federal land Annual reclamation would be completed no later than November 15th of each year. Final reclamation would include removal of all equipment and debris located on the claim. The entire disturbed area including excavations and disturbed portions of the access road would be seeded with native vegetation and covered with weed free mulch. The area would be monitored for up to three years to ensure that proper re-vegetation has occurred, that the streambed is stabilized, and that the area is returned to a natural state. vii. The timeframe for the proposed operation is five years from the date of plan approval. Seasonal operations would occur between May and November depending upon weather conditions. All operations under this plan would be concluded within 5 years from date of approval. viii. Any excavations that are left open overnight will need to be fenced with high visibility safety fencing. Regular inspections of the site would be implemented to ensure that the claimant s activities fall within the scope of the Plan of Operations and Conditions of Approval and to ensure that reclamation is being performed in a timely manner. ix. A reclamation bond equivalent to the actual cost of conditions of approval to meet standards and guidelines and reclamation would be held in accordance with 36 CFR The bond is subject to annual evaluation to reflect changes in operations and reclamation costs (required if over 10,000 cubic yards/for this project is at the discretion of deciding official). x. A bond which covers the potential costs of road repair and stabilization will be in place prior to the start of operations. Road reclamation would be inspected by National Forest road engineers to ensure an acceptable level of reconstruction and to ensure safety and stability prior to the release of this bond. xi. To minimize the increase of detrimental compaction, no heavy equipment use will be authorized when soils are wet. The following design criteria, conditions of approval to meet standards and guidelines and best management practices will be implemented to meet Forest Plan standards and guidelines and to eliminate or minimize potential impacts to soils, hydrology, vegetation, fish, wildlife, and heritage resources: a) Limit trench excavation and backhoe off-road travel to slopes < 35%. b) Top soil at new excavation sites will be removed and stockpiled separately from overburden, for use in reclamation of the trench. c) All excavation of new trenches will take place outside a 50-ft buffer from Forest Service System roads and trails (measured from the edge of road prism or trail, each side). d) Backhoe cross-country travel routes (and excavations) will be located to avoid large (>20 dbh) trees and snags, staying outside of the drip line of living trees and outside the falling radius of snags. Page ix of xi

16 e) Limit cross country travel to periods when soil conditions are dry. f) Equipment operating off of roads will be cleaned prior to entering the Project Area, to remove all mud, dirt, and plant parts. The intent is to prevent establishment and spread of invasive species. g) Trenches will be reclaimed before the backhoe demobilizes from the site (see next measure). Backhoe trails will be scarified, reseeded, and covered with organic material (including large logs or stumps), during demobilization from trenches. If soil compaction is indicated in year 3 following demobilization, then the miner will decompact that backhoe trail to a depth of at least 18 inches, by the end of year 3. Final reclamation will entail refilling and reclaiming the existing pit, and the spur road into the pit. All disturbed areas will be reseeded with native grasses and forbs approved by a Forest Service Botanist, and any mulch used will be certified as weed-free. h) Each new trench will be refilled with stockpiled overburden, covered with reserved topsoil, seeded according to the approved Reclamation Plan, and then covered with organic debris. i) Upon completion of all activities: j) The pit will be refilled with stockpiled overburden (restoring the natural contour), covered with topsoil, reseeded with native species approved by the District botanist, and covered with organic debris (if mulch is used, it must be certified weed-free). k) The spur road to the pit will be obliterated by restoring the natural contour, decompacting with an excavator to a depth of at least 18 inches, reseeding with native grasses and forbs, and covered with organic debris. l) The project area will be monitored for invasive species by the Forest Service for 5 consecutive years following final reclamation. Invasive species would be treated manually by the Forest Service. No herbicide use would be authorized under the decision for this project. A forest-wide Environmental Impact Statement addressing local use of herbicides is in preparation, and herbicides may be utilized in the future on this mining claim, depending on the outcome of that decision. m) Disturbed soils will be seeded in fall (in the year of disturbance) with a genetically appropriate native seed mix for the watershed area. The seed mix must be approved in advance by the District botanist. If desired species are not available, then as an interim measure, a non-native, non-persistent seed mix may be used. n) All disturbed areas should also be mulched with certified weed free straw or weed free mulch after seeding. o) There will be no removal of standing trees (living or dead), unless they pose a hazard to the operation, and then only with prior Forest Service approval and within limits set forth under this environmental analysis (see measure no. 8, above). As much as possible, backhoe routes will be selected to avoid large trees (>20 dbh, living and dead). Felled trees will be left on site or used for reclamation. Page x of xi