Environmental Assessment Grayson and Erlanson Forest Placer Mining...

United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service September 2010

Environmental Assessment

Grayson and Erlanson Placer Mining Operations Soda Springs Ranger District Caribou-Targhee National Forest Bonneville County, Idaho

Photo courtesy of Glenn Lackey 2009

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. (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 202-720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call toll free (866) 632-9992 (voice). TDD users can contact USDA through local relay or the Federal relay at (800) 877-8339 (TDD) or (866) 377-8642 (relay voice). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

1

CONTENTS

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ......................................................................................5

1.0 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................7

1.1 Background ..........................................................................................................................7

1.2 Purpose and Need .................................................................................................................7

1.3 Proposed Action ....................................................................................................................8

1.4 Regulatory Compliance ........................................................................................................9

1.5 Forest Plan Goals and Objectives .........................................................................................9

1.6 Decision Framework ..........................................................................................................13

1.7 Public Involvement ............................................................................................................13

1.8 Issues ..................................................................................................................................14

2.0 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES .............................................................................17

2.1 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study ...........................................17

2.1.1 Programmatic Environmental Assessment ...................................................................17

2.1.2 Allow Placer Mining Operations Without the Use of Mechanized Earth-Moving Equipment ..............................................................................................................................17

2.1.3 Allow No Mining in the Project Area .........................................................................17

2.2 Alternatives Considered in Detail .......................................................................................18

2.2.1 Alternative 1 (No Action) .............................................................................................18

2.2.2 Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) ...................................................................................18

2.3 Mitigations Specific to the Proposed Action ......................................................................20

2.4 Comparison of Alternatives ................................................................................................21

3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ..........................................................................................23

3.1 Wildlife/Habitat ..................................................................................................................23

3.1.1 Threatened and Endangered Species ...........................................................................23

3.1.2 Sensitive Species and Management Indicator Species ................................................23

3.1.3 Other Species ...............................................................................................................24

3.2 Fisheries .............................................................................................................................24

3.3 Surface Water Quality ........................................................................................................26

3.4 Erosion/Soil Loss ...............................................................................................................26

2

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES .........................................................................29

4.1 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions ...............................................29

4.2 Impact Analysis ..................................................................................................................30

4.2.1 Wildlife/Habitat ...........................................................................................................30

4.2.1.1 Alternative 1 (No Action) .....................................................................................30

4.2.1.2 Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) ...........................................................................31

4.2.2 Fisheries .......................................................................................................................31



4.2.3 Surface Water Quality .................................................................................................32



4.2.4 Erosion/Soil Loss .........................................................................................................33



4.3 Irretrievable/Irreversible Impacts .......................................................................................34

5.0 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION ....................................................................35

5.1 U.S. Forest Service Specialists .............................................................................................35

5.2 Federal, State, and Local Agencies ....................................................................................35

5.3 Tribes ..................................................................................................................................36

6.0 REFERENCES CITED .......................................................................................................37

FIGURES

1. Location of project area . .....................................................................................................8

2. Land management prescriptions in the project area .........................................................11

3. AIZs in vicinity of Grayson site ........................................................................................11

4. AIZs in vicinity of Erlanson Sites 1–4 ..............................................................................12

5. AIZs in vicinity of Erlanson Sites 5–7 ..............................................................................12

6. Location of four western sites under Erlanson Plan .........................................................19

7. Location of three eastern sites under Erlanson Plan .........................................................19

3

TABLES

1. Comparison of the no action alternative and the proposed action ....................................22

2. Special-status species and/or their habitats in the project area .........................................24

3. Fish species in the McCoy Creek watershed and their occurrence in the project area .....25

4

This page intentionally left blank.

5

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

AIZ aquatic influence zone

BA biological assessment

BE biological evaluation

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

DN Decision Notice

EA environmental assessment

EO executive order

FR Federal Register

FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact

Forest Caribou-Targhee National Forest

FS U.S. Forest Service

MIS management indicator species

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NFS National Forest System

ORV off-road vehicle

Plan Plan of Operations

RFP Revised Forest Plan for the Caribou National Forest

T&E threatened and endangered

USC United States Code

6


7

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The U.S. Forest Service (FS) has prepared this environmental assessment (EA) to analyze the potential environmental consequences associated with the proposed action and the no action alternative in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant Federal and State laws and regulations.

The EA discloses the anticipated direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts that would result from the proposed action and the no action alternative. This document will allow the FS decision-maker to determine whether or not further environmental review is required under NEPA.

1.1 Background

Mining has occurred at Caribou Mountain since gold was first discovered there around 1870. Historic placer mining practices ranged from gold panning along McCoy Creek and its tributaries to large-scale hydraulic mining and bucket dredge operations. Current methods commonly utilized to recover gold from alluvial sediments in this area include the application of suction dredges, sluice boxes, trommels, high-bankers, and other gravity separation methods.

U.S. mining laws confer a statutory right for entry upon public lands to search for and extract mineral resources. In prospecting, locating, and developing mineral resources, all persons must comply with the rules and regulations covering the National Forests (16 United States Code [USC] §478, 1897). For most activities other than non-motorized gold panning, current Federal regulations require operators to submit a Notice of Intent or Plan of Operations (Plan) to the District Ranger of the particular FS district in which exploration or mining operations are proposed. This process is codified at 36 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) §228A (2010).

Plans in the McCoy Creek area are currently evaluated based on the 1994 Environmental Assessment/Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact for Small Placer Mining Operations, Caribou Basin Area (EA/DN/FONSI) (FS 1994a, FS 1994b). Plan approval can take anywhere from a few weeks to several months depending on the complexity and anticipated surface disturbance associated with the proposed operation. Operators typically must agree to specific mitigation measures and may also be required to post a reclamation performance bond.

Depending on the method to be used, mining activities may be jointly regulated by the Idaho Department of Water Resources, Idaho Department of Environmental Quality, Idaho Department of Lands, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The FS cannot approve any mining operations until the applicable permits from these agencies have been obtained by the operator. Mining claims, which are administered by the Bureau of Land Management on National Forest System (NFS) lands, are not required in order to conduct exploration and mining activities.

1.2 Purpose and Need

The purpose of this action is to consider for approval two proposed mining activities that include the use of mechanized earth-moving equipment (e.g., backhoes), which was not considered by the 1994 EA/DN/FONSI. The need for this action is to facilitate the efficient and timely review

8

of the Plans, as required by 36 CFR §228.4(f), to determine reasonable measures to protect surface resources on NFS lands within the context of the laws.

1.3 Proposed Action

The proposed action is approval of two proposals for mining activities, hereafter referred to as the Grayson and Erlanson Plans, conditional upon agreement to specific mitigation measures. The project area is located within Bonneville County, Idaho, approximately 35 air miles northeast of Soda Springs and between Grays Lake and Palisades Reservoir (Figure 1). Under the Grayson Plan, material would be excavated with a backhoe and processed through a sluice and self-contained trommel. Under the Erlanson Plan, seven pits would be excavated using a backhoe. The excavated material would be processed through a self-contained trommel and sluice system. Operations under both Plans would occur between June and November of each year. The two Plans cover a combined surface area of 12 acres of NFS lands. The eight specific sites are considered the overall project area.

Figure 1. Location of project area.

9

The following actions/issues are outside the scope of this EA because they would not occur as part of the project:

Road construction/road modification

Logging

Discharging material directly into any stream

Instream operations.

1.4 Regulatory Compliance

This EA has been completed as part of the NEPA process and is in compliance with CEQ and FS implementation regulations (40 CFR §1500 et seq., 2010; 36 CFR §220 et seq., 2010). The intent of NEPA is to protect, restore, and enhance the human environment through well-informed Federal decisions. The following non-exclusive list of higher-tier executive orders (EOs), acts, and relevant decision and guidance documents form the basis of the analysis presented in this EA:

Clean Air Act, as amended (42 USC §7401 et seq., 1999)

Clean Water Act, as amended (33 USC §1251 et seq., 2008)

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 USC §1531 et seq., 1988)

EO 11514, Protection and Enhancement of Environmental Quality (35 Federal Register [FR] 4247, 1977)

EO 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations (59 FR 7629, 1995)

National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 USC §1600 et seq., 1988)

National Historic Preservation Act 1966, as amended (16 USC §470, 2006)

EO 13112, Invasive Species (64 FR 6183, 2003)

EO 13186, Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds (66 FR 3853, 2001)

EO 11988, Floodplain Management (42 FR 26951, 1977)

EO 11990, Protection of Wetlands (42 FR 26961, 1977)

Idaho Roadless Rule (36 CFR §294C, 2010).

1.5 Forest Plan Goals and Objectives

The 2003 Revised Forest Plan for the Caribou National Forest (RFP) provides direction for land and resource management of the project area. When appropriate, this EA tiers to the RFP. The proposed action responds to the goals and objectives outlined in the 2003 RFP and helps move the project area towards the identified desired conditions described in that plan. Specifically, that:

“Mineral resources are available for development, consistent with other resources.” (RFP 3-11)

10

The project area is within the following management area prescriptions (Figure 2):

1.3.e, Recommended Wilderness

2.1.4.b, Caribou Mountain Special Emphasis Area

3.2.b, Semi-Primitive Recreation

3.3.b, Semi-Primitive—Restoration

None of these prescriptions preclude the prospecting or mining of locatable minerals.

Several of the proposed sites are located in or near management area prescription 2.8.3, Aquatic Influence Zone (Figures 3–5). Aquatic influence zones (AIZs) are areas surrounding lakes, reservoirs, ponds, perennial and intermittent streams, and wetlands1. As described in the RFP:

“[AIZs] provide a high level of aquatic protection and maintain ecological functions (e.g., sediment transport, microclimate control, nutrient and energy regulation, and connectivity within the watershed) and processes (e.g., stream channel formation, plant community development, recruitment of organic material, including large wood, and hydrologic cycles) necessary for the restoration and maintenance of habitat for aquatic and riparian dependent organisms, and provide clean water that supports designated beneficial uses.” (RFP 4-45)

The RFP also states management direction for AIZs overrides direction from other overlapping management areas.

The width of an AIZ depends on the type of water body and is established based on factors such as topography, extent of riparian vegetation, and the presence of fish. At the sites under the proposed action, a value of 300 feet applies (RFP 4-45).

Management direction for AIZs does not specifically preclude prospecting or mining locatable minerals. The RFP provides two guidelines applicable to locatable minerals in AIZs, the first of which states:

“Locate new structures, support facilities, and roads outside AIZs. Where no alternative to siting facilities in AIZs exists, locate and construct the facilities in ways that avoid or reduce impacts to desired AIZs attributes. Where no alternative to road construction exists, keep roads to the minimum necessary for the approved mineral activity.” (RFP 4-49)

The proposed action does not include any new structures, support facilities, or roads. Due to the nature of placer deposits, the most logical place to prospect for gold is within or near current or historic stream channels. At Caribou Mountain, these areas are typically within AIZs. In this sense, no reasonable alternative locations exist. Several sites initially included in the proposed action were eventually rejected because they were in riparian areas or because the topography would not support adequate sediment control measures. Of the sites currently identified in the proposed action and shown by Figure 2, all are in upland locations outside of the riparian area.

1 The term “AIZ” may not be used interchangeably with “riparian area.” Riparian areas are found adjacent to streams, lakes, ponds, wetlands, and springs. Such areas typically contain deep-rooted and other protective vegetation. AIZs include (but are not limited to) riparian areas.

11

Figure 2. Land management prescriptions in the project area (AIZs not shown).

Figure 3. AIZs in vicinity of Grayson site (site shown to scale).

12

Figure 4. AIZs in vicinity of Erlanson Sites 1–4 (sites shown to scale).

Figure 5. AIZs in vicinity of Erlanson Sites 5–7 (sites shown to scale).

13

The second RFP guideline applicable to locatable minerals in AIZs states:

“Do not locate debris, mine overburden, excess material, leaching pads, and other facilities within [AIZs], unless no other alternatives are available. If no other alternative exists, ensure that safeguards are in place to prevent release or drainage of toxic or other hazardous materials onto these lands.” (RFP 4-49)

The proposed action does not include debris, leaching pads, or other facilities. Excavated materials, which may be considered mine overburden or excess material, would be returned to each pit after processing. Topsoil from excavations would be stockpiled as per FS direction for use in reclamation (see Section 2.3, “Mitigations Specific to the Proposed Action”). To minimize site disturbance from equipment movement, it would be most appropriate to locate the stockpile reasonably close to the excavation. Materials excavated would be processed through a sluice and self-contained trommel at each site and then returned to fill in the excavation as part of reclamation. Mitigation measures included as part of the proposed action (see Section 2.3) are intended to prevent fuel or oil spills and no other hazardous materials are proposed for use in the Grayson and Erlanson Plans.

1.6 Decision Framework

This EA does not document a decision. The purpose of the EA is to disclose the anticipated impacts and consequences of alternative actions considered in detail and give the public an opportunity to comment on the specific activities described in the alternatives. The Soda Springs District Ranger will use the EA to evaluate the alternatives in order to make the following decisions:

Does the proposed action fulfill the purpose and need?

Are additional measures necessary to prevent, minimize, or mitigate adverse impacts to surface resources?

Is the proposed action likely to result in significant impacts to surface resources, thus warranting further analysis under NEPA?

If the analysis determines additional resource protection is needed, the District Ranger would require the operator to consider the use of specific mitigation measures or other options in order to avoid unnecessary and unreasonable resource impacts.

1.7 Public Involvement

The project was first listed in the Schedule of Proposed Actions for the Caribou-Targhee National Forest (Forest) on October 2008. This quarterly report identifies new projects and the planning status of ongoing projects for the Forest. It describes how interested members of the public may comment and receive information about specific projects.

As part of the public involvement process, the agency presented the proposal to the Gold Prospectors Association of America in Blackfoot, Idaho, on March 14, 2009. Interested parties placed their name on a mailing list to receive information about the project.

On May 20, 2009, a total of 206 scoping letters were mailed to the public and agencies. Included on the distribution list were members of the public who requested they be notified of mineral proposals on the Forest and mining operators who submitted proposals within recent years. The

14

scoping letter described the proposed action and informed interested parties how they may comment. Three scoping letters were also sent to various agencies of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of the Fort Hall Indian Reservation to provide notification and opportunity for involvement.

A press release was issued to southeast Idaho television and radio stations and newspapers on June 1, 2009. The press release provided information regarding the proposed action and instructions to comment on the project.

A total of 19 comments were received in response to the various scoping efforts. Based on these comments and internal review, the scope of the project changed considerably over time. The initial proposed action was the development of a programmatic environmental assessment which would provide a framework by which proposals for small placer mining operations would be reviewed. (Details on the initial proposed action are included in Section 2.1, “Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study.”) The Forest Supervisor has since determined that rather than utilizing a programmatic approach, proposals for mining operations will be evaluated individually under NEPA.

On March 29, 2010, a second scoping letter explaining the modified proposed action was mailed. A total of 24 letters were sent to the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, select agencies, and those who responded during the initial scoping period. On that same day, a legal notice announcing the project and the 30-day comment period was published in the Idaho State Journal. The Soda Springs District Ranger provided a briefing to Shoshone-Bannock Tribes agency staff on March 31, 2010. The scoping letter and legal notice were posted to the Forest website for public access.

An additional 6 comments were received in response to the second round of scoping. Responses to all comments received were made available with the EA on the Forest website and may also be found in the project record.

1.8 Issues

Using the comments from other agencies and the public, the FS developed a list of issues to address. Those issues which could be directly or indirectly impacted by implementing the proposed action were evaluated through in-depth analyses. Other issues were eliminated from further analyses because they were identified as those: 1) outside the scope of the proposed action; 2) already decided by law, regulation, forest plan, or other higher level decision; 3) irrelevant to the decision to be made; or 4) conjectural and not supported by scientific or factual evidence (40 CFR §1500.4, 2010). Unless specifically stated otherwise, additional information is contained in the project record.

The issues eliminated from further analyses and the reasons for doing so are as follows:

Visual impacts: The project area has been significantly altered by historic mining practices such as hydraulic mining and bucket dredge operations. It is highly unlikely any significant additional impact would be observed beyond that which exists currently. The proposed small placer mining activities may have temporary impacts to visual quality objectives in the project area, but all surface disturbances would be reclaimed at project completion.

Recreation: The main recreational activities that occur within the project area are dispersed camping, off-road vehicle (ORV) use, fishing, and gold panning. Other popular activities

15

include big game hunting in the fall and snowmobiling in the winter. These pursuits are not expected to change due to the proposed action.

Travel/access restriction: Access is authorized by the Revised Caribou Travel Plan (FS 2005a) and the District Ranger may approve travel on closed roads or motorized cross-country travel for mining operations on a case-by-case basis. (This does not include roadless areas, which are addressed as a separate issue.) New road construction or road modification was not proposed and thus not considered under either alternative.

Socioeconomics: Socioeconomics are unlikely to be impacted, regardless of the decision to be made. First, small-scale mining operations are unlikely to affect other recreational pursuits such as fishing or camping or their associated revenue. Second, historical mineral resource investigations of the project area do not indicate a high potential return for prospecting or mining activities.

Livestock grazing: Livestock grazing and the proposed action are not connected or closely related actions. No impacts to cattle and sheep allotments within the project area are anticipated as a result of small-scale placer mining operations.

Roadless areas: Roadless areas within the project area include Bear Creek (No. 04615), Caribou City (No. 04161), and Pole Creek (No. 04160). Management themes for the project area are Backcountry Restoration, Special Area, and Wild Land Recreation. The proposed action is a mineral activity that is allowed in Idaho Roadless Areas under 36 CFR §294.25(b) (2010). Road construction/reconstruction and the cutting, sale, or removal of timber are not part of the proposed action and thus considered outside the scope of this EA.

Vegetation: (Rare and/or protected plants are included under sections for Wildlife/Habitat.) Noxious weeds in the project area occur in relatively small, scattered infestations and include Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), spotted knapweed (Centaurea maculosa), yellow toadflax (Linaria vulgaris), and musk thistle (Carduus nutans). The Soda Springs Ranger District has an active noxious weed treatment program carried out by certified applicators. The project area is part of an Integrated Weed Management Area as described in the Caribou-Targhee National Forest Noxious Weed Strategy (FS 2005b) and is also included in the Highlands Cooperative Weed Management Area. The spread of noxious weeds into disturbed areas would be prevented and controlled using mitigation measures considered part of the proposed action (see Section 2.3). This includes using a FS-approved herbicide, revegetating disturbed areas, and washing vehicles and rigs to prevent the spread of unwanted seeds.

Cultural resources: Significant prehistoric and historic resources exist in the McCoy Creek area. Ground disturbing activities are subject to site-specific analysis and review under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. The FS Archaeologist surveyed all proposed sites and, in consultation with the Idaho State Historic Preservation Office, determined there are no cultural resources potentially eligible for the National Register of Historic Places in the project area (documentation included in project record). The proposed action includes mitigations in the event previously unknown cultural resources are discovered during ground disturbing activities (see Section 2.3).

The issues to be analyzed in depth and their potential impacts from the proposed action are as follows:

Wildlife/habitat: Mining activities may disturb wildlife and temporarily alter habitat. Wildlife may include threatened and endangered (T&E) species, sensitive species,

16

management indicator species (MIS), species protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and rare plants.

Fisheries: Mining activities within AIZs have the potential to affect fisheries by increasing sediment delivery to streams and decreasing riparian vegetation. Water withdrawals associated with mining processes may decrease available stream habitat.

Surface water quality: Water quality may be negatively impacted from mining activities that mobilize fine sediments to increase turbidity. Water withdrawals associated with mining may modify stream flows. Mining may also increase the annual sediment discharge to McCoy Creek and its tributaries.

Erosion/soil loss: Mining activities may increase erosion and soil loss at the operation site.

17

2.0 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

This chapter describes in detail the proposed action and the no action alternative, and briefly describes those alternatives not studied in detail. It presents a comparative summary of the alternatives based on the information and analysis presented in Chapter 4. This chapter also describes mitigation measures developed to reduce or eliminate potential impacts resulting from implementation of the proposed action.

2.1 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study

As mentioned in Section 1.7, “Public Involvement,” the scope of the proposed action changed considerably over time. The initial project is described as an alternative in the following subsection. Two additional alternatives were developed based on comments from the public, agencies, and FS resource specialists. All three alternatives were evaluated but eliminated from detailed study because they do not fully meet the purpose and need of the project.

2.1.1 Programmatic Environmental Assessment

Initially, the proposed action was the development of a programmatic environmental assessment which would provide a framework by which proposals for small placer mining operations would be reviewed. The project area encompassed the McCoy Creek corridor to Palisades Reservoir, adjacent lands to the south (including Anderson Gulch and Barnes, Bilk, and Iowa Creeks), and two stream corridors located south and southwest of Caribou Mountain. Due to State restrictions, the project area was subsequently modified to exclude McCoy Creek from Fish Creek to Palisades Reservoir. The total project area included 17,400 acres and, of that amount, approximately 2,900 acres were to be considered for mechanized earth-moving equipment use. Approval of operations within the project area would be conditional upon agreement to specific mitigation measures and, in some cases, the posting of a reclamation performance bond. Up to 5 acres of new disturbance would be allowed each year, and beyond that additional NEPA would likely be required to account for anticipated cumulative impacts. After careful consideration of comments received, the Forest Supervisor decided each proposed mining operation should be analyzed separately under NEPA rather than pursuing a programmatic approach.

2.1.2 Allow Placer Mining Operations Without the Use of Mechanized Earth-Moving Equipment

An alternative was suggested to allow only small placer mining operations not utilizing mechanized earth-moving equipment. This alternative would be very similar to the existing condition (i.e., no action alternative) and was not considered in detail because it does not fully meet the purpose and need for the project.

2.1.3 Allow No Mining in the Project Area

Another alternative suggested prohibiting exploration and mining activities altogether in the project area. While this is outside common legal jurisdiction, the FS recognizes that the potential conflict with the General Mining Law of 1872 does not necessarily render this alternative unreasonable. However, this alternative was not considered in detail because it fails to meet the purpose and need of the project.

18

2.2 Alternatives Considered in Detail

2.2.1 Alternative 1 (No Action)

The FS cannot refuse to grant conditional approval of exploration or mining activities under the General Mining Law of 1872. As such, the no action alternative reflects the current condition (rather than no mining activities) which is approval of small placer mining activities based on the 1994 EA/DN/FONSI and conditional upon agreement to specific mitigation measures. Mining operations proposing the use of mechanized earth-moving equipment or those located outside the area analyzed in the 1994 EA would require individual NEPA analysis. Selection of this alternative would require the 1994 EA/DN/FONSI be evaluated to ensure it meets the criteria specified by current management plans used to guide administration of the project area.

2.2.2 Alternative 2 (Proposed Action)

The general project area of the proposed action is located within Bonneville County, Idaho, approximately 35 air miles northeast of Soda Springs and between Grays Lake and Palisades Reservoir (Figure 1). The proposed action includes the Grayson Plan and the Erlanson Plan and covers a combined surface area of 12 acres of NFS lands in the McCoy Creek watershed.

The Grayson Plan, submitted by Jay Grayson, would occur within 10 acres of Section 32, Township 3 South, Range 44 East (Figure 3). Approximately 2.5 acres of this area has already been heavily disturbed by previous mining activities and there is a settling pond and various mining equipment (i.e., trommel, sluice, grizzly) currently on the site. Operations would be accessed using existing roads or driving cross country a short distance and no new roads would be constructed. A rubber-tired backhoe would be used to excavate material for processing through a trommel and sluice. Water for the trommel and sluice would initially be pumped from Barnes Creek using an existing water right granted by the State of Idaho. There is an existing diversion structure (i.e., ditch); however, its repair and use would require authorization by the FS under a special use permit and separate NEPA analysis. Water would discharge into the existing settling pond and then be recirculated. Activities would occur between June 1 and November 15 of each year. Excavations would be reclaimed concurrently and any other disturbance would be stabilized at the end of each operating season, with final reclamation to occur when mining is complete. Material from the trommel would be returned to fill in the excavations. Reclamation would include replacement of stockpiled topsoil on excavations and reseeding of disturbed areas with FS-approved seed mixtures.

The Erlanson Plan, submitted by Dave Erlanson, would occur at seven locations throughout Sections 20, 16, and 24 of Township 3 South and Range 44 East; and Sections 15 and 16 of Township 3 South and Range 45 East (Figures 6 and 7). Seven pits would be excavated using a rubber-tired backhoe. The surface dimensions of each pit would measure approximately 10 feet by 20 feet, except for one which would be 20 feet by 40 feet. Pits would be excavated to bedrock (anticipated to be 8–10 feet on average). Excavated material would be processed through a trommel and sluice at each site. Water would be recycled using a portable tank (a temporary water right diversion to obtain the initial water would have to be issued by the State of Idaho). The area of each working site, which includes the pit and working area for

19

Figure 6. Location of four western sites under Erlanson Plan (sites not to scale).

Figure 7. Location of three eastern sites under Erlanson Plan (sites not to scale).

20

excavating and processing equipment, is estimated to be 0.25 acres for six sites and just under 0.5 acres for one site. Sites would be accessed using existing roads or driving cross country a short distance and no new roads would be constructed. Only one pit would be worked at a time, and each would be reclaimed before moving to the next pit. Topsoil from the excavation(s) would be stockpiled and replaced as part of reclamation. Areas would be reseeded using FS-approved seed mixtures. Activities would occur between June 1 and November 15 of each year. Total surface disturbance for the Erlanson Plan is estimated at 2 acres and includes the seven pits and surrounding work sites, and access routes to each site.

2.3 Mitigations Specific to the Proposed Action

The Grayson and Erlanson Plans would require specific measures to prevent, minimize, or mitigate adverse impacts to surface resources. The measures would be incorporated as requirements into the Plans, and are thus considered part of the proposed action. Mitigation measures include:

Operators must notify the FS Soda Springs District Ranger one week in advance of commencing operations for the season.

Prior to Plan approval, each site must be staked by the operator and inspected by a qualified individual to determine the extent of stream and wetland AIZs and compliance with the 2003 RFP.

Silt fencing or similar sediment control measures shall be used as determined by the FS. Settling ponds or other impoundment structures must be approved by the FS prior to construction and/or use.

Disturbed soils shall be salvaged, stabilized, and utilized for reclamation purposes.

Operators would be required to obtain prior approval for incidental timber removal (timber removal is not expected under the proposed action). For any tree within an AIZ requiring removal, it should be toppled with rootwad attached and left in the AIZ. Any trees that need to be removed must be surveyed for nests and not removed until chicks have fledged. Trench or pit excavation shall not occur where it will cause substantial damage to roots of live standing trees not approved for removal.

Disturbed ground shall be stabilized at the end of each operating season, with final reclamation to occur at the end of operations at each site. Compacted soils must be gently loosened with available equipment. Revegetation shall be performed using a FS-approved seed mixture. Reclamation efforts on forested sites must also include scattering woody debris (greater than 3-inch diameter) across the surface of the reclaimed site.

Access routes for each site must be obliterated at the end of each operation.

Operations may only occur during daylight hours.

Fire extinguishers should be present on site and ORVs shall be equipped with spark arrestors.

Operations must be postponed when ground is wet (such that equipment is making ruts greater than 4 inches) to avoid potentially detrimental soil rutting and compaction.

Spread of noxious weeds into disturbed areas shall be prevented and controlled with FS-approved herbicide. Vehicles and rigs must be washed down prior to entering NFS lands, including tires and undercarriage, to prevent spread of unwanted seeds.

21

The use of mercury is prohibited, and mercury recovered during placer operations may not be allowed to re-enter the environment.

In the event previously unknown cultural resources are discovered during ground disturbing activities, operator will halt work and notify the District Ranger. Due to the presence of dense ground vegetation, the FS Archaeologist or representative must be present at the start of excavation at Erlanson Site 2, 5, 6 and 7.

Camping areas must be pre-approved.

All refuse from camping and mining activities must be packed out and disposed of properly.

Fuel storage and equipment refueling may not occur within a riparian zone. Fuel must be stored in an Underwriters Laboratories-approved container. Operator must check equipment for fuel and oil leaks daily prior to operation. In the event of a fuel or oil spill, the District Ranger shall be notified immediately.

Operators must obtain and comply with all required permits from other State and Federal agencies.

Construction and/or repair of diversion structures for water withdrawals would require authorization by the FS under a special use permit (and is therefore outside the scope of this EA). A separate environmental analysis would be conducted as part of that process to determine minimum flows needed to maintain stream integrity and aquatic habitat.

Water withdrawals from fish-bearing streams require the pump intake be screened with 3/32-inch mesh to avoid fish entrainment. Intake approach velocities should not exceed 0.5 feet/second to prevent loss of juvenile fish, and pumps should be placed on land rather than in the water.

The District Ranger may require supplemental measures on a site-specific basis if circumstances warrant such action. Mitigation measures specific to each operation would be documented as part of each Plan approval. Site inspections to ensure compliance with mitigation measures would be conducted by the District Minerals Administrator or designated representative at least twice annually.

Prior to Plan approval, the operator would be required to furnish a bond in an amount equal to the estimated cost of the reclamation work. The bond would be annually reviewed for adequacy and not released until final reclamation requirements have been met. Reclamation bonds are outside the scope of this EA because they are highly specific to each Plan and may change based on factors such as shifting site conditions, unforeseen disturbances, and fluctuating economic values.

2.4 Comparison of Alternatives

This section provides a summary of the anticipated impacts of implementing each alternative. Information in the table is focused on activities and impacts where different levels of impacts or outputs can be distinguished quantitatively or qualitatively between alternatives.

22

Table 1. Comparison of the no action alternative and the proposed action.

Resource Alternative 1, No Action Alternative 2, Proposed Action

Wildlife/habitat No additional direct, indirect, or culmulative impacts. Existing activities such as road and trail use, hunting, grazing, and mining would continue to affect resource.

Direct and indirect impacts may occur but they would be very small due to: (1) protective mitigation measures included as part of the proposed action; (2) no key wildlife habitat or nest sites in project area; (3) short term of disturbance that may displace wildlife; and (4) small area of disturbance. Any cumulative impacts would be small and in or adjacent to areas of past low-level human disturbance from dispersed camping and/or motorized vehicles.

Fisheries No additional direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts. Current and historical activities would continue to affect resource.

Negligible direct and indirect impacts anticipated due to mitigation measures. Cumulative impacts may occur.

Surface water quality No additional direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts. Current water quality trends would continue.

Negligible impacts anticipated due to mitigation measures and distance to surface water.

Erosion/soil loss No additional direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts. Current trends in erosion/soil loss due to existing activities such as dispersed camping and ORV recreation would continue.

Short-term and minor increase in erosion due to localized soil compaction, removal of ground cover, soil displacement, and soil rutting. No long-term cumulative impacts.

23

3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

This chapter summarizes the current conditions of the environment in and adjacent to the project area (i.e., proposed sites) likely to be affected by the alternatives. Unless specifically stated otherwise, additional information is contained in the project record.

The issues discussed in depth are:

Wildlife/habitat

Fisheries

Surface water quality

Erosion/soil loss

3.1 Wildlife/Habitat

Existing conditions within the project area were determined using Forest wildlife white papers, survey data, known locations, aerial photos, known habitat types, and field visits. Information is detailed in the biological assessment (BA) and biological evaluation (BE), included as part of the project record, and summarized here. Special-status wildlife species or their associated habitats which occur in or near the project area are listed in Table 2 and considered further in Chapter 4. This includes T&E species, sensitive species and MIS, and other species recognized in the 2003 RFP. Fish species are addressed separately in Section 3.2, “Fisheries.”

3.1.1 Threatened and Endangered Species

T&E species are designated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and afforded protection under the Endangered Species Act. The two listed species that may occur in the project area are Canada lynx (threatened) and gray wolf (experimental/non-essential population). The project area provides linkage habitat for the Canada lynx and is also located in the southwest corner of the Greater Yellowstone nonessential experimental population area for the gray wolf and within dispersal distance of wolves from packs located south of Yellowstone National Park. There are no established gray wolf packs or breeding pairs in or near the project area.

3.1.2 Sensitive Species and Management Indicator Species

Sensitive species are species identified by the FS Regional Forester as those particularly susceptible to habitat changes or impacts from activities. Sensitive species or their associated habitats which occur in or near the project area include Townsend's big-eared bat, North American wolverine, harlequin duck, peregrine falcon, bald eagle, northern goshawk, Columbian sharp-tailed grouse, greater sage grouse, great gray owl, flammulated owl, boreal owl, three-toed woodpecker, and boreal toad.

In addition to being a sensitive species, Northern goshawk, Columbian sharp-tailed grouse, and greater sage grouse are also considered MIS. MIS are those species, identified by the 2003 RFP, whose population indicate the health of the ecosystem in which it lives and, consequently, the effects of forest management activities to that ecosystem.

Sensitive species that occur in the Forest but are not expected in the project area are the spotted bat, pygmy rabbit, trumpeter swan, mountain plover, Columbia spotted frog, and the plants starveling milkvetch, Cache beardtongue, and Payson's bladderpod.

24

3.1.3 Other Species

The RFP identifies several wildlife and plant issues that must be considered. These include amphibians, big game winter range, migratory land birds, and rare plants not included in the previous designations. The only issue relevant to the project area is migratory land birds because they have habitat in or near the project area.

The project area does not contain suitable habitat for the northern leopard frog or big game winter range. Furthermore, there is no habitat for the rare plants identified by the Caribou National Forest Watch List for Rare Plants (Lehman 2008) including grass-like spleenwort, green spleenwort, Rydberg’s musineon, red glasswort, Idaho sedge, and Winward’s goldenbush.

Table 2. Special-status species and/or their habitats in the project area.

Species Status1

Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis) T

Gray wolf (Canis lupus) XN

Townsend's (western) big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii pallescens) S

North American wolverine (Gulo gulo luscus) S

Harlequin duck (Histrionicus histrionicus) S

Peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum) S

Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) S

Northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) S/MIS

Columbian sharp-tailed grouse (Tympanuchus phasianellus columbianus) S/MIS

Greater sage grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) S/MIS

Great gray owl (Strix nebulosa) S

Flammulated owl (Otus flammeolus) S

Boreal owl (Aegolius funereus) S

Three-toed woodpecker (Picoides tridactylus) S

Boreal toad (Bufo boreas boreas) S

Migratory land birds RFP 1Status Codes: T = threatened, XN = experimental/non-essential population, S = sensitive, MIS = management indicator species, RFP = species identified by the RFP.

3.2 Fisheries

Numerous native and non-native fish species have been recorded in the McCoy Creek watershed; however, for the purposes of this analysis, only those species either observed or likely to occur in McCoy Creek and Barnes Creek are considered in detail (Table 3). McCoy Creek, a tributary to the south fork of the Snake River which flows eastward and empties into Palisades Reservoir, is adjacent to the proposed Erlanson sites. Barnes Creek, a tributary to McCoy Creek, is near the proposed Grayson site.

25

Table 3. Fish species in the McCoy Creek watershed and their occurrence in the project area.

Species Observed in:

McCoy Creek Barnes Creek

Yellowstone cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki bouvieri)1 Yes Yes

Northern leathersides (Lepidomeda copei)1,2 No No

Longnose dace (Rhinichthys cataractae) Yes No

Speckled dace (Rhinichthys osculus) Yes No

Redside shiner (Richardsonius balteatus) Yes No

Mottled sculpin (Cottus bairdi) Yes Yes

Piute sculpin (Cottus beldingi) Yes Yes

Brown trout (Salmo trutta) Yes No

Brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) Yes No

Lake trout (Salvelinus namaycush) Yes No

Mountain sucker (Catostomus platyrhynchus) No No

Mountain whitefish (Prosopium williamsoni) No No 1Designated as a sensitive species. 2Although not reported in the McCoy Creek watershed, the species has been documented in neighboring drainages with similar habitat features.

McCoy Creek is a Yellowstone cutthroat trout stronghold stream, and the species has also been observed in Barnes Creek. Yellowstone cutthroat trout are designated as sensitive by the Regional Forester and both fine-spotted and large-spotted varieties occur in the streams (see BA and BE in project record for details). Resident and migratory life history patterns are exhibited. The lower reaches of McCoy Creek provide spawning habitat and are used by the species at least partially as a nursery area. Other species in the fish community of McCoy Creek are longnose and speckled dace, shiners, sculpin, and non-native brown, brook, and lake trout. Sculpin have also been observed in Barnes Creek. Sculpin and dace are important forage fish for Yellowstone cutthroat trout. Brook trout can displace Yellowstone cutthroat trout populations through competition for habitat and food and predation of juveniles.

Northern leathersides are a sensitive species also considered in this analysis. Although not observed in McCoy Creek watershed, they have been documented in neighboring drainages with similar habitat features. As such, it is not unreasonable to expect a small population in the McCoy Creek watershed.

McCoy Creek and Barnes Creek have been greatly affected by historical gold mining activities such as hydraulic mining and large-scale dredging. Barnes Creek has also been affected by roads and several crossings were improved by the FS in 2009. Persistent impacts to these streams include an increase in fine sediment, simplification of habitat, overly wide and shallow stream channels, limited stream access to its floodplains, and unstable stream banks.

26

Water withdrawals associated with mining processes have the potential to decrease available stream habitat; however, construction and/or repair of diversion structures would require separate environmental analysis including a consideration of minimum flows needed to maintain stream integrity and aquatic habitat (see Section 2.3). Existing water rights relevant to the proposed action are discussed in Section 3.3, “Surface Water Quality.”

3.3 Surface Water Quality

Surface water resources in the project area include streams, wetlands, and floodplains. The project area is within the McCoy Creek watershed, reported by the RFP to have moderate water quality. There is one impaired stream, Iowa Creek, in the project area. It was identified as a 303(d) water quality limited stream in 2008 by the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality, although the cause of impairment has not yet been identified. There are no confirmed and/or mapped jurisdictional wetlands in the project area, but the presence of willows, sedges, and other typically obligate plants in riparian areas indicate wetlands may be present. Most perennial waters are connected to the Snake River, which is a navigable waterway. There are no floodplains as defined by EO 11988 in the project area, although several floodplains exist along area creeks.

There is currently only one existing water right relevant to the proposed action. This decree allows for one cubic foot per second to be diverted from Barnes Creek for use at the Grayson claim. An existing ditch runs approximately 650 feet from the point of diversion to the Grayson site. There is a significant amount of deadfall in the ditch and several places where the structural integrity has been compromised (e.g., collapsed banks). Repair and use of this ditch would require authorization by the FS under a special use permit and separate NEPA analysis (see Section 2.3). There is no existing water right for the Erlanson Plan.

The Grayson site is located on a moderate to steep hillside and outside the AIZ of the Barnes Creek mainstem. The southeast corner is within the AIZ of a perennial tributary to Barnes Creek. There is an existing settling pond on the site that would require repair prior to use. District records indicate mechanized earth-moving equipment was used at this site historically, although only small-scale and non-motorized operations (e.g., hand digging) have occurred within recent years. The mining claim is still active so there has been no reclamation.

The Erlanson sites are located in or near the AIZs of McCoy Creek. The sites are in upland areas covered by grasses and some sagebrush. Soils are relatively fine grained and exhibit moderate to low infiltration capacities. The minimal distance of each site from the nearest channel or wetland ranges between 110 feet and 260 feet. Site topography is flat to gently sloping except at Site 2, which is located on a moderately-sloped hillside above McCoy Creek Road.

3.4 Erosion/Soil Loss

For the purposes of this analysis, the affected environment for soil resources is considered to be one 10-acre parcel (Grayson site) and seven smaller (0.25–0.50-acre) parcels (Erlanson sites) for a total of 12 acres. These 12 acres include the areas proposed for excavation, the areas likely to be disturbed in accessing the excavation sites, areas used for processing, and previously disturbed areas associated with these sites.

The 10-acre Grayson site is located up Barnes Creek Road on a mountain sideslope. The soils are mapped as 317-Harkness-Blaine Families association, 15-30% slopes. The Blaine family is

27

skeletal, with an argillic horizon (clayey subsoil) and a mollic epipedon (topsoil). The Harkness family is an Alfisol with a thinner A horizon (topsoil) and heavy clay in the subsoil. These soils support subalpine fir habitat types.

The Erlanson sites, totaling approximately 2 acres, are scattered along McCoy Creek. A few are near riparian zones, but most are farther from the creek either in the floodplain or on an old stream terrace. The soils are Mollisols, indicating a deep A horizon (topsoil), and range from skeletal to gravelly to clayey.

The redoximorphic features beginning at about 25 inches at Erlanson Site 2 and 40 inches at Erlanson Site 6 indicate some periodic water table at that depth. Redoximorphic features are visible patches of oxidized and reduced iron and other minerals that form in alternating waterlogged and dry conditions. These features, and the proximity to the creek, are indicative that these two sites are functioning as part of the riparian zone.

No landform stability problems were identified relative to the proposed action during field inspections of the proposed sites. The sites appear to be suitable for the proposed activities as modified by the mitigation measures.

28


29

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

This chapter describes the potential environmental consequences of implementing the proposed action. For this project, the impact of the no action alternative is the same as the affected environment as detailed in Chapter 3. Environmental consequences are described in terms of direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts. Direct impacts are those that are caused by the proposed action and occur at the same time and place. Indirect impacts are those that are caused by the proposed action and are later in time or further removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable. Cumulative impacts are those that result from the incremental impact of the proposed action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions.

4.1 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions

The following is a list of relevant past, present, and future activities within the analysis area that may have potential to cumulatively contribute to the impacts of the proposed action. Reasonably foreseeable actions are those projects included on 5 and 10 year action plans maintained by the Forest.

Fire/Fuels: Wildfire suppression efforts have resulted in minimal disturbance in the McCoy Creek watershed. The largest wildfire since 1974 occurred in 2000 near Pole Creek and burned approximately 133 acres (FS 2007). Pole Creek is a first-order tributary to McCoy Creek and is located about 3 miles northwest of the project area. No recent fire/fuels projects have occurred in the watershed and none are planned (FS 2010, Phelps 2010).

Mining: Mining activities peaked in the McCoy Creek/Caribou Mountain area between the 1870s and 1890s. Most of the estimated 1,300 acres of total direct disturbance from mining activities is attributed to that rush. Since that time, mining activities have been smaller in scale and much of the disturbed areas have had time to recover or stabilize. There are currently no approved mining operations; however, requests for approval of instream operations such as sluicing and suction dredging are expected each summer. Seasonal restrictions to protect fisheries limit instream activities to September 15 to November 30 each year. In 2009, a total of 11 requests were received (five of these requests were from individuals taking turns working the same dredge). Although the number of requests may fluctuate due to factors including the value of gold, the availability of unclaimed areas with gold recovery potential effectively serves as an upper limit to the number of requests received.

Noxious Weeds: Noxious weeds are treated within the project area as funding permits. This is expected to continue in the future.

Range Management/Improvements: The project area includes active sheep and cattle allotments managed to standards provided in the 2003 RFP and the Caribou National Forest Riparian Grazing Implementation Guide (Leffert 2005), as well as specific allotment management plans. Annual monitoring results indicate stable overall range conditions with upwards trends (FS 2007). There have been no recent improvements (e.g., water development) and none are planned. Range management activities are not expected to change in the foreseeable future.

30

Recreation: The main forms of recreational use are dispersed camping, ORV use, fishing, gold panning, big game hunting, and snowmobiling. These activities are expected to continue at or near present rates.

Roads and Trails: Maintenance and improvements of roads and trails and illegal trail closure are performed as funding permits. These activities are expected to continue. A decision in early 2011 is anticipated for the proposed Winschell Dugway project, which would construct and reconstruct 7.8 miles of ORV trail from Caribou City to Morgan Meadows. If implemented, work on the trail would begin in summer of 2011.

Special Uses: Currently, one outfitter and guide permit is issued for the McCoy Creek/Caribou Mountain area. There has not been a high demand for special use permits in the project area and there is nothing to indicate this trend will change in the future.

Timber: The last timber harvest in the McCoy Creek watershed occurred in 1991 (FS 2007). No harvest projects are currently planned for the watershed (FS 2009, Beck 2010).

Travel Plan: Since 2003, all motorized uses are restricted to designated routes. There are no designated motorized trails, nor are any planned, in the immediate vicinity of the project area.

There are no other reasonably foreseeable actions in the project area.

4.2 Impact Analysis

The impact analysis is organized by resource. Within each section, the effect of the no action alternative (i.e., the affected environment) is described first to provide a baseline for evaluation and comparison to the proposed action. Specific indicators were selected for each resource to measure the direct, indirect, and cumulative impact for each alternative. Only these indicators will be discussed in the sections below. Unless specifically stated otherwise, additional information is contained in the project record.

4.2.1 Wildlife/Habitat

The indicators for comparing the proposed action to existing conditions are the potential of the action to (1) affect the continued existence of special-status species or (2) contribute toward Federal listing of a species or designation by the FS. The analysis area includes the proposed sites and adjacent areas that may be utilized by wildlife.

4.2.1.1 Alternative 1 (No Action)

Direct and Indirect Impacts

There would be no additional impacts to wildlife or habitat under the no action alternative. The Grayson and Erlanson Plans would not be approved, and future proposals for mining operations would be evaluated using existing or new NEPA analysis as appropriate.

Cumulative Impacts

There would be no additional cumulative impacts from the no action alternative. Existing activities such as road and trail use, hunting, grazing, fishing, and mining would continue to affect wildlife in the project area and on the Forest.

31

4.2.1.2 Alternative 2 (Proposed Action)


The proposed action would not impact cliffs, caves or underground mines, den sites, or bald eagle nest trees. The project area is small enough to be avoided by wildlife and activities would not occur from late November through May. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated to Canada lynx, gray wolf, Townsend's big-eared bat, North American wolverine, peregrine falcon, bald eagle, or Columbian sharp-tailed grouse. The preliminary determination of “no effect” to Canada lynx and gray wolf was acknowledged by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and concurrence was not requested (see BA).

The proposed action has the potential to impact the harlequin duck, northern goshawk, greater sage grouse, great gray owl, flammulated owl, boreal owl, three-toed woodpecker, boreal toad, and migratory land birds. The seven proposed sites along McCoy Creek would remove sagebrush, which is important to sage grouse. Human disturbance may temporarily displace any birds occupying the area, including the harlequin duck along McCoy Creek. Any incidental timber removal could change forest habitat. Vehicle traffic may increase collisions with amphibians that travel outside of wetlands.

The BE prepared for this analysis concludes the proposed action may affect individuals but is not likely to result in a trend toward Federal listing or designation as sensitive by the FS Regional Forester. Impacts would be very small due to: (1) no key wildlife habitat or nest sites identified within or near disturbance areas; (2) the short term during which human disturbance may displace wildlife; and (3) the small area of vegetation removal, particularly sagebrush. The mitigation measures included as part of the proposed action are designed to reduce possible impacts to nesting birds.

Cumulative Impacts

There would be a very small increase in cumulative impacts in Caribou Basin as a result of the proposed action, and they would occur in or adjacent to areas of past low-level human disturbance from dispersed camping and/or motorized vehicles.

4.2.2 Fisheries

The indicators for comparing the proposed action to existing conditions are the potential of the action to affect fisheries, including special-status species, by (1) increasing sediment delivery to streams or (2) decreasing available stream habitat via water withdrawals. The analysis area includes the proposed sites and adjacent areas downstream.



There would be no additional impacts to fisheries under the no action alternative. The Grayson and Erlanson Plans would not be approved, and future proposals for mining operations would be evaluated using existing or new NEPA analysis as appropriate. This would include mining activities involving the use of existing water rights.

32

Cumulative Impacts

There would be no additional cumulative impacts to fisheries from the no action alternative. Existing activities such as road and trail construction and maintenance, grazing, fishing, and fires would continue to affect fisheries in the project area.



The proposed action is not likely to affect the continued existence of Yellowstone cutthroat trout or northern leathersides or contribute toward Federal listing of either species. Because part of the proposed action would occur in and near AIZs, there is the potential for sediment delivery to streams. Sediment can affect fisheries by decreasing both the quality and quantity of available habitat. The mitigation measures included as part of the proposed action and described in Section 2.3 would minimize or eliminate any measurable increase in sediment delivery to streams. The proposed action would occur in upland locations (see Section 1.5, “Forest Plan Goals and Objectives”) and no riparian vegetation would be removed. Water withdrawal limits would avoid or minimize impacts to the amount of available stream habitat.

Cumulative Impacts

Cumulative impacts to fisheries may occur from implementation of the proposed action. While the proposed action alone would not contribute impacts to fisheries, it may add incrementally to sediment delivery impacts from existing activities in the project area.

4.2.3 Surface Water Quality

The indicators for comparing the proposed action to the existing condition of surface water quality are (1) the amount of modification to stream channels, diversions, canals, and flows; and (2) the size and proximity of ground disturbance to both live water and dry channels. The area of analysis includes the proposed sites as well as adjacent areas that may be influenced by the hydrology of those sites.



Under the no action alternative, the Grayson and Erlanson Plans would not be approved and there would be no related impacts to surface water quality. Proposals for future mining operations would be evaluated using either the 1994 EA or individual NEPA analysis as appropriate. This would include activities involving the use of existing water rights.

Cumulative Impacts

There would be no additional cumulative impacts to surface water from the no action alternative. Existing roads and recreational pursuits, as well as historical mining practices, would continue to influence surface water resources.



One potential measurable impact to surface water quality would be flow diversion that may alter stream channels and reduce flows to springs and wetlands. The proposed action would not result in direct modification to stream channels, diversions, or canals. However, flow modification

33

may occur when water is initially pumped from a stream using an existing water right. As previously mentioned, the State-authorized use for the Grayson Plan is one cubic foot per second. The existing ditch intended to convey the water would have to be repaired prior to use, requiring a special use permit. That permitting process would include a separate environmental analysis to determine the minimum flows necessary to maintain stream integrity and aquatic habitat (see Section 2.3). If a water right is authorized in the future for the Erlanson Plan by the State, these same requirements would apply.

Another potential measurable impact would be increased sediment and associated nutrients to surface water. The susceptibility of sediments to transport depends on numerous factors including sediment characteristics, site topography, and the distance to a channel capable of sediment transport to perennial waters. At the Grayson site, the existing settling pond would be used for water detention and recirculation. This and the sediment control measures included as part of the proposed action would be effective in preventing sediment from reaching Barnes Creek. At the Erlanson sites, which account for 2 acres of the total 12 acres that would be disturbed under the proposed action, only one pit would be worked at a time and each would be reclaimed before moving to the next pit. Although these sites are located in or near AIZs, they are in upland areas outside of the riparian corridor. Sediment control measures included as part of the proposed action would be effective in preventing sediment transport to perennial waters.

There would be no change in protection of beneficial uses to State standards under the proposed action because measurable sediment or nutrient delivery is not anticipated. Iowa Creek, the only 303(d) listed stream in the project vicinity, would not be impacted by the proposed action because there would be no ground disturbance in the Iowa Creek watershed.

Localized disturbances would be expected to diminish to near zero after mining activities cease, reclamation occurs, and ground cover and pre-existing drainage patterns are re-established. Previous Forest projects of similar scope and occurring near streams indicate recovery of ground cover and drainage would occur within 3–5 years.

Cumulative Impacts

The proposed action, as modified by the mitigation measures, would result in a negligible change to the existing acres of disturbance in the McCoy Creek watershed.

4.2.4 Erosion/Soil Loss

The indicators for comparing the proposed action to the existing condition (i.e., no action alternative) of the soil resource are the amount and extent of disturbance and the area removed from productivity. The analysis area for soil resources are the 12 acres proposed for disturbance for excavation, processing, and access, as well as previously disturbed areas associated with the sites.



Under the no action alternative, current trends in the amount and extent of soil disturbance and productivity would continue. Proposed mining operations would be considered under the 1994 EA or with individual NEPA analysis as appropriate.

34

Cumulative Impacts

There would be no additional cumulative impacts from the no action alternative. Existing activities such as dispersed camping and ORV recreation would continue to impact soil resources in the project area.



The proposed action, as modified by the mitigation measures, would disturb a few acres per year over a period of about 5 years, resulting in a total of about 12 acres disturbed and then reclaimed. Some soil compaction, removal of ground cover, soil displacement, and soil rutting is likely to occur during the period of disturbance. These conditions would leave the disturbed areas more vulnerable to increased runoff and soil erosion in the short-term. The proposed sites are primarily gently sloping to flat, and the minor amounts of erosion expected would not negatively affect soil productivity. Erosion would be expected to return to soil loss tolerance in a short period of time (2–3 years).

Cumulative Impacts

Activities that have the greatest impacts to soil resources in the analysis area include dispersed camping, past mining, and motorized recreation. Livestock grazing is incidental and has little effect on the analysis area. Past mining has caused extensive displacement on 2–3 acres at the Grayson Site. Reclamation of this area would require some re-contouring/grading and seeding. Additional site-specific input would be provided by the appropriate resource specialists to determine the extent of this reclamation. Dispersed camping is causing some soil displacement, rutting, and compaction adjacent to the McCoy Creek riparian area near Caribou Guard Station (near Erlanson Site 2). The effects of motorized recreation are present where there is a non-system road to Erlanson Site 3, as well as a recreational mining pit. Horse trailers have parked on the Erlanson Site 4. These prior disturbances, as well as the potential for continued recreational uses that lead to these conditions, should be taken into account when the effectiveness of mitigation measures is assessed at these sites.

The proposed action with mitigation measures is likely to result in minor amounts of surface disturbance, soil compaction, and soil displacement. These conditions would not affect soil productivity and would become less apparent over the 1–2 years after final reclamation.

4.3 Irretrievable/Irreversible Impacts

Irreversible commitments of resources refer to non-renewable resources, such as heritage resources, or those factors that are renewable only over long periods, such as soil productivity. Irretrievable commitment applies to losses of production, harvest, or use of renewable natural resources.

Any gold or other valuable mineral obtained during the mining process is an irreversible commitment of that mineral resource. The loss in vegetative production during the period in which excavations are open represents an irretrievable commitment of forage and wildlife habitat; however, required reclamation would ensure vegetative regrowth.

35

5.0 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

This chapter lists the FS specialists who assisted in the preparation or review of the EA. It also lists the tribes and Federal, State, and local agencies consulted by the FS during the development of this EA.

5.1 U.S. Forest Service Specialists

Ali Abusadi, Archaeologist

Wayne Beck, Silviculturist

Megan Bogle, NEPA Coordinator

Jim Capurso, Fisheries Biologist

Dennis Duehren, District Ranger

Rob Harris, Recreation Forestry Technician

Jack Isaacs, District Ranger

Mary Kauffman, Geochemist

Ann Keysor, Wildlife Biologist

Kara Green, Soil Scientist

Jim Laprevote, Hydrologist

Rose Lehman, Botanist

John Lott, Soil Scientist

Rob Mickelson, Natural Resources Branch Chief

Steve Robison, Geologist and Assistant Project Leader

Randy Tate, Engineer

Randy Thompson, Archaeologist and Tribal Liason

Dell Transtrum, Range Management Specialist

Diane Wheeler, Geologist and Project Leader

5.2 Federal, State, and Local Agencies

Idaho Department of Agriculture

Idaho Department of Environmental Quality

Idaho Department of Fish and Game

Idaho Department of Lands

Idaho Department of Water Resources

Idaho State Historic Preservation Office

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

36

U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs

U.S. Bureau of Land Management

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

5.3 Tribes

Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, Fort Hall Indian Reservation

37

6.0 REFERENCES CITED

35 FR 4247. 1977. Executive Order 11514, as amended. “Protection and Enhancement of Environmental Quality.” Federal Register. U.S. National Archives and Records Administration. Available via http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/1970.html. Accessed August 20, 2010.

59 FR 7629. 1995. Executive Order 12898, as amended. “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations.” Federal Register. U.S. National Archives and Records Administration. Available via http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/executive_orders/1994.html. Accessed August 20, 2010.

42 FR 26951. 1979. Executive Order 11988, as amended. “Floodplain Management.” Federal Register. U.S. National Archives and Records Administration. Available via http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/executive_orders/1977_carter.html. Accessed August 20, 2010.

42 FR 26961. 1977. Executive Order 11990, as amended. “Protection of Wetlands.” Federal Register. U.S. National Archives and Records Administration. Available via http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/1977-carter.html. Accessed August 20, 2010.

64 FR 6183. 2003. Executive Order 13112, as amended. “Invasive Species.” Federal Register. U.S. National Archives and Records Administration. Available via http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/executive_orders/1999.html. Accessed August 20, 2010.

66 FR 3853. 2001. Executive Order 13186. “Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds.” Federal Register. U.S. National Archives and Records Administration. Available via http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/ executive_orders/2001-clinton.html. Accessed August 20, 2010.

36 CFR 2 parts 220 et seq. 2010. “National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Compliance.” Forest Service, Department of Agriculture. Code of Federal Regulations. U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access. Available via http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/. July 1. Accessed August 20, 2010.

36 CFR 2 parts 228A et seq. 2010. “Locatable Minerals.” Code of Federal Regulations. U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access. Available via http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/. July 1. Accessed April 9, 2010.

36 CFR 2 parts 294C et seq. 2010. “Idaho Roadless Area Management,” commonly referred to as the Idaho Roadless Rule. Code of Federal Regulations. U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access. Available via http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/. July 1. Accessed August 20, 2010.

40 CFR 32 parts 1500 et seq. 2010. “Council on Environmental Quality.” Code of Federal Regulations. U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access. Available via http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/. July 1. Accessed August 25, 2010.

38

16 USC 2 part 478. 1897. “Egress or ingress of actual settlers; prospecting.” United States Code. U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access. Available via http://www.gpoaccess.gov/uscode/. Accessed August 25, 2010.

16 USC 1A part 470. 2006. “National Historic Preservation Act of 1966,” as amended. United States Code. U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access. Available via http://www.gpoaccess.gov/uscode/. Accessed August 25, 2010.

16 USC 35 parts 1531 et seq. 1988. “Endangered Species Act of 1973,” as amended. United States Code. U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access. Available via http://www.gpoaccess.gov/uscode/. Accessed August 25, 2010.

16 USC 36 part 1600 et seq. 1988. “National Forest Management Act of 1976,” as amended. United States Code. U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access. Available via http://www.gpoaccess.gov/uscode/. Accessed August 25, 2010.

33 USC 26 parts 1251 et seq. 2008. “Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972,” commonly referred to as the Clean Water Act, as amended. United States Code. U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access. Available via http://www.gpoaccess.gov/uscode/. Accessed August 25, 2010.

42 USC 85 parts 7401 et seq. 1999. “Clean Air Act,” as amended. United States Code. U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access. Available via http://www.gpoaccess. gov/uscode/. Accessed August 25, 2010.

Beck. 2010. Personal communication between Wayne Beck, Montpelier District Silviculturist, and Diane Wheeler, Soda Springs District Geologist. Caribou-Targhee National Forest, U.S. Forest Service. April 5.

FS. 1994a. Environmental Assessment for Small Placer Mining Operations, Caribou Basin Area. Soda Springs Ranger District, Caribou National Forest, U.S. Forest Service.

FS. 1994b. Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact for Small Placer Mining Operations, Caribou Basin Area. Soda Springs Ranger District, Caribou National Forest, U.S. Forest Service. December 12.

FS. 2003. Revised Forest Plan for the Caribou National Forest. Caribou-Targhee National Forest, U.S. Forest Service. February.

FS. 2005a. Revised Caribou Travel Plan. Includes Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision. Caribou National Forest, U.S. Forest Service. November 7.

FS. 2005b. Caribou-Targhee National Forest Noxious Weed Strategy. Forest Weed Management Board. November 30.

FS. 2007. McCoy Creek Watershed Assessment. Caribou-Targhee National Forest, U.S. Forest Service. February.

FS. 2009. Vegetation Improvements Five Year Action Plan for the Caribou-Targhee National Forest. Draft. Caribou-Targhee National Forest, U.S. Forest Service. December 8.

FS. 2010. Watershed Improvements Five Year Action Plan for the Soda Springs and Montpelier Zone, 2010-2014. Draft. Caribou-Targhee National Forest and Curlew National Grassland, U.S. Forest Service.

39

Leffert. 2005. Caribou National Forest Riparian Grazing Implementation Guide. Version 1-2. Robert Leffert, Forest Hydrologist, Caribou-Targhee National Forest, U.S. Forest Service. December 28.

Lehman. 2008. Caribou National Forest Watch List for Rare Plants. Draft. Rose Lehman, Forest Botanist, Caribou-Targhee National Forest, U.S. Forest Service. February 8.

Phelps. 2010. Personal communication between Rebecca (Roo) Phelps, Assistant Fire Management Officer, and Diane Wheeler, Geologist. Soda Springs Ranger District, Caribou-Targhee National Forest, U.S. Forest Service. April 5.

Date post:	06-Jul-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

Environmental Assessment Grayson and Erlanson Forest Placer Mining...

Documents