calumet placer & bear track lode mines...

U.S. Forest Service

Calumet Placer & Bear Track Lode Mines Project

Environmental Assessment

Payette National Forest

McCall Ranger District

McCall, Idaho

May 2010

Calumet Placer Bear Track Lode Mines Project Environmental Assessment

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202)720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal


i

Table of Contents

1. Purpose and Need for Action ..................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Purpose and Need for Proposed Action ................................................................................ 1

1. 1.2.1 Summary of Proposed Action ........................................................................... 1

1.3 Decision to be Made ............................................................................................................. 3

1.4 Scoping and Issues ................................................................................................................ 3

2. 1.4.1 Scoping .............................................................................................................. 3

3. 1.4.2 Major Issues ...................................................................................................... 4

4. 1.4.3 Other Issues ...................................................................................................... 4

2. Alternatives Including the Proposed Action ............................................................................... 8

2.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 8

2.2 Description of Alternatives ................................................................................................... 8

5. 2.2.1 Alternative A – No Action ................................................................................. 8

6. 2.2.2 Alternative B – Proposed Action ....................................................................... 8

2.3 Project Design Features ...................................................................................................... 14

7. 2.3.1 Monitoring and Evaluation ............................................................................. 14

2.4 Comparison of Alternatives ................................................................................................ 15

3. Environmental Consequences .................................................................................................. 16

3.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 16

3.2 Description of Existing Environment ................................................................................... 16

3.3 Effects of the Alternatives ................................................................................................... 18

8. 3.3.1 Alternative A – No Action ............................................................................... 18

9. 3.3.2 Alternative B – Proposed Action ..................................................................... 18


ii

10. 3.3.4 Cumulative Effects .......................................................................................... 23

3.4 Project Record ..................................................................................................................... 25

4. List of Preparers ........................................................................................................................ 26

5. Consultation with Others.......................................................................................................... 26


1

1. Purpose and Need for Action

1.1 Introduction A gold mining operation is proposed at the Calumet and Bear Track mines in Township 22 North, Range 6 East, Sections 23 and 25, approximately three miles south of Warren, ID (Figure 1). The project would include two separate mines. The Bear Track would be an underground mine and the Calumet would be a placer operation. Hand-sorted high grade ore from the Bear Track would be hauled to the Calumet site to be milled. The two properties will be described separately below.

1.2 Purpose and Need for Proposed Action The purpose of the action is to approve a plan of operations for mineral development. The decision whether to allow mining activity is not within the agency’s jurisdiction as long as the proposal is reasonable and the next logical step in mineral development. Through the General Mining Laws of 1872, mining claimants have a right to locate and develop mineral resources on any public lands open to mineral entry. The management of the subsurface mineral resource is mainly according to Federal law and regulation rather than the management discretion of the Forest Service. The Forest Service manages the surface of National Forest System land under 1897 Organic Act, the Multiple Use Mining Act of 1955, and the 1872 Act Surface Use Regulations (Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations Part 228(A)). The 228 Regulations require an operator to submit a Plan of Operations (PoO) for proposed projects. In developing the proposed action, the Forest Service then has the latitude to include provisions such as project design features, operational requirements, mitigation measures, and monitoring programs deemed necessary to minimize environmental impacts to surface resources.

1.2.1 Summary of Proposed Action

Calumet Placer Mine

An area of approximately 4.8 acres would be placer mined (Figure 2). The project would be implemented in phases, with the first year’s work focused primarily on road work and running a limited production circuit using only two sluice boxes rather than the more extensive equipment described in Chapter 2. Eventual peak production volume is estimated to be no more than 150 cubic yards of material per day. Approximately 1.6 acres of the proposed site has already been disturbed and reclaimed during a previous placer operation. The other 3.2 acres would be new disturbance.


2

Figure 1.

Calumet Placer & Bear Track Lode Mines Project Environmental Assessment

3

In addition to the primary placer operation described above, up to twenty placer bulk sampling pits (roughly 5 cubic yards in volume) would be dug at various as yet to be determined locations on the Calumet claim. Test pits would avoid live water and known archaeological sites. Their exact locations would be reviewed and approved by the Minerals Administrator and other necessary resource specialists prior to any excavation. Pits would be backfilled and reclaimed in the same operating season.

Bear Track Lode Mine

The Bear Track mine is a collapsed / bridged shaft that would be reopened. Up to 100 cubic yards of loose fill may need to be removed to fully reopen the shaft to its original depth. When the loose fill material has been completely excavated, mining would proceed by drilling and blasting. Ore hauling would be limited to one pickup load per day. A higher production rate would require the operator to submit a supplemental Plan of Operations for environmental analysis and approval.

1.3 Decision to be Made The responsible official for this project, the McCall District Ranger, will decide:

• Whether to authorize mining activities under the Mining Law of 1872, as amended, and if so;

• What standards to apply to the mining activities, and;

• What project design features (PDFs) to apply to minimize adverse impacts.

1.4 Scoping and Issues

1.4.1 Scoping The public involvement process began with a legal notice in The Star News on January 21, 2010 requesting comments on the proposal. The Forest also sent letters to 133 individuals, agencies, and organizations. The public involvement effort combined the scoping period with the notice and comment period for this project. Information concerning the proposal was posted on the Payette National Forest web page and the project was included in the Payette’s Schedule of Proposed Actions. As a result of this effort, the Forest received comments from one state agency, two organizations, and six individuals.

A letter and project description was sent to the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes requesting comment on the project. Formal consultation, in the form of a presentation, occurred with the Shoshone-Paiute Tribes of Duck Valley at the December 10, 2009 and February 11, 2010 Wings and Roots meetings. The Nez Perce Tribe was sent a consultation form describing the project along with the complete scoping package sent to the public. The project was presented at the Nez Perce Tribe – Payette National Forest staff to staff meeting on November 18, 2009. No tribal concerns regarding this project were raised.


4

1.4.2 Major Issues Major issues are used to formulate alternatives to the Proposed Action, prescribe mitigation measures, or project design features, or analyze and disclose environmental effects. Indicators are measures used to track the effects of actions on the issues. There is one major issue for this project.

Hydrologic Issue: The proposed activities could increase erosion and sediment, as well as heavy metal, delivery to Upper Warren and Franklin Creeks.

Indicator: Qualitative and quantitative assessment of possible changes to selected Watershed Condition Indicators.

1.4.3 Other Issues A number of other issues or concerns were identified during the public involvement process. Once evaluated by the Interdisciplinary Team (IDT), they did not receive detailed analysis but were evaluated in relation to their potential contribution to “significant” effects. These issues will be briefly discussed here and then not addressed further in the Environmental Assessment (EA). More detailed discussions can be found in the project record. The issues or concerns were grouped into like categories. The following are the categories and a brief summary of the concern and rationale for not discussing it further in the EA.

Air Quality

Concerns were expressed that actions associated with the mining could affect air quality and might require permits.

Response: Fugitive dust is the only air pollutant of concern with this operation. Work areas and road surfaces would be watered down when nuisance quantities of dust are generated. Because the milling equipment is mounted on a small trailer, the operation would not be required to obtain a “Permit to Construct” that is required for a stationary facility. All other State of Idaho rules for the control of air pollution would be adhered to. The mine operator would be informed of the need to coordinate with the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality for any necessary state permits.

Hazardous Waste

Several respondents suggested that the actions associated with the mining project could utilize and / or generate hazardous waste which would need to be handled in accordance with State regulations.

Response: The operation would generate minimal amounts of hazardous waste and the operator would be classified as a conditionally exempt small quantity generator. As such, he would be required to comply with the regulations cited in 40 CFR 261.5 regarding the management of these wastes. All trash and solid waste would be removed from the site periodically. All petroleum products and waste fluids would be hauled and stored in DOT-approved containers in a pickup. None would be stored on site. The pickup would be parked in


5

a lined and bermed secondary containment area. Spill clean-up materials and a spill response plan would be kept in all vehicles.

Availability of related plans e.g. Final Reclamation Plan, Plan of Operations, Travel Plan

Several respondents suggested that all related plans be made available for public review.

Response: The originally submitted Plan of Operations is available as part of the project record, however this only serves as a starting point for development of the Proposed Action (Ch. 2) which incorporates provisions that the Forest Service deems necessary to minimize environmental impacts to surface resources. Final reclamation plans are usually not available at the time of initial public scoping, but are included in this document (Appendix B). The Travel Plan refers to the Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM) which is available on the Payette National Forest website and in hard copy at its offices.

The Forest Service should issue a pre-decisional EA and allow for a 30-day comment period after the document is issued.

One respondent requested that the EA be issued prior to the Decision Notice/Finding Of No Significant Impact (DN/FONSI) to allow for a comment period on any alternatives that are developed.

Response: For this project, the Forest has determined that combining the scoping and comment period was the most efficient use of Agency and taxpayer funds. Combining the scoping and comment period for proposed actions that are expected to be analyzed with an EA is allowed per 36 CFR 215 and Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 1509.12.

Public Access and Road Decommissioning

One respondent questioned the use of a locked gate on the access road and indicated that the type of post-mining decommissioning was not specified. One respondent felt that if decommissioning involved physical closure of the access road, the roadbed should be retained, while another respondent suggested that the road be obliterated.

Response: The access route for this project is an undesignated road and is not shown on the Forest MVUM (2010). As such, it is closed to public access, but would be designated as a temporary road for the duration of this project under the terms of an approved PoO. Although gating undesignated routes is not required in the Travel Plan, the use of locked gates is not precluded in cases where the potential for resource damage justifies their use. The use of gates during the project would also address public safety concerns around an active mining operation. In addition to the gate located on the north end of the access road near Webfoot Creek, large rocks would be used to permanently block access where the road also connects with National Forest System Road 50340 at Warren Summit.

The final reclamation plan calls for the removal of all temporary stream crossing structures including the Webfoot Creek bridge. Since future mining activity in this area is reasonably likely

http://www.fs.fed.us/r4/payette/publications/trvl_mgmt/rods/rod_MCL_KSL.pdf�


6

to occur, the roadbed would not be obliterated (recontoured), but would have substantial waterbars constructed to manage drainage over the long-term. The locked gate would be retained.

Level of NEPA Analysis and Cumulative Effects

Comments stated that the Forest Service must adequately disclose all past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions at least in an EA, and that the NEPA review must also disclose the cumulative impacts of these projects when taken with all other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions in the project area.

Response: The Forest Service has made a determination that this project will be analyzed using an EA. Public scoping comments were used to help determine the level of NEPA analysis appropriate for the Calumet Placer and Bear Track Lode Mines Project. Cumulative effects of the project will be discussed in Chapter 3 of this EA.

Reclamation

Comments suggested that reclamation should commence as soon as possible following operations, and that the operator must obtain a sufficient bond to fully and adequately reclaim the project area to as close a natural condition as possible.

Response: Concurrent reclamation will be an integral part of any operation approved as part of this project. A final reclamation bond equivalent to the full cost of reclamation and monitoring will be calculated and collected before any operation will be allowed to commence.

Noxious Weeds

Comments suggested that the operators should be required to wash all equipment, including the undercarriage of vehicles, before entering the National Forest, and that a noxious weed monitoring and treatment program needs to be implemented as part of this project.

Response: The Forest Plan requires all earth disturbing equipment entering the Forest to be cleaned and free of all visible plant parts, dirt, and material that may carry noxious weeds. This requirement will be followed with the proposed action. In addition, all material used in rehabilitation and reclamation activities shall be certified free of noxious weed seed. The Forest rangeland monitoring and treatment plan for this project requires annual inventory and monitoring of this mine site and access road for the duration of the mining operation to determine if new infestations have become established as a result of mining activities.

Rare Plants

A Biological Evaluation for Sensitive Plants has been completed for this project. No threatened, endangered, proposed, candidate (TEPC), or sensitive plant species are known to occur on the proposed site, and no habitat that would support these species occurs directly adjacent to the site. The Forest Botanist determined that the project would not impact any sensitive plant species, and no effects would occur to any TEPC plant species.


7

Cultural Resources

The Forest Archaeologist has determined that there would be no adverse effects to cultural resources from permitting implementation of the PoO. All historic properties would be protected by avoidance. Annual monitoring of eligible historic properties would occur for the duration of the mining activity.


8

2. Alternatives Including the Proposed Action

2.1 Introduction This section describes the two alternatives that were considered for this project. It summarizes how these alternatives would or would not meet the purpose and need, and identifies design criteria and mitigation measures.

2.2 Description of Alternatives

2.2.1 Alternative A – No Action Under the no-action alternative, the Forest Service would not approve the activities described in Chapter 1. This alternative provides a baseline for analysis and comparison of the action alternative. This alternative would not meet the Purpose and Need of the proposal.

2.2.2 Alternative B – Proposed Action A gold mining operation is proposed at the Calumet and Bear Track mines in Township 22 North, Range 6 East, Sections 23 and 25, approximately three miles south of Warren, ID (Figure 1). The project would include two separate mines. The Bear Track would be an underground mine and the Calumet would be a placer operation. Hand-sorted high grade ore from the Bear Track would be hauled to the Calumet site to be milled. The two properties will be described separately below.

Access Road

Both mines would be accessed by a temporary road. An undesignated road presently exists in this location and would be designated as a temporary road for the duration of this project. The road would be signed and gated at a point near the junction with the Pony Meadows road (FS #50359) to prevent public access. In addition, large rocks would be used to permanently block access where the road also connects with National Forest System Road 50340 at Warren Summit. Other mining claimants could be authorized by the District Ranger to use the road to access their claims in the area.

The operator would be responsible for maintaining drainage and erosion control features on the road to the appropriate FS standards. The road would require the installation of stream crossing structures at several locations. Sediment input to live water during installation of these structures would be minimized by the use of appropriate erosion control methods (e.g. silt fence, containment of loose or perched fill material, minimal crossing of channel, etc.). Stream alteration permits would be obtained by the operator. An existing ford on Webfoot Creek would be replaced with a temporary bridge meeting Forest Service specifications. The road approaches to the ford would be abandoned and reclaimed once the bridge is in place. A portion of the existing road that passes through a wetland just above the confluence of Warren Creek and Franklin Creek would be abandoned and reclaimed because of inherent drainage problems, with an old existing, drier roadbed being reopened as a new access route. Details of the project’s components are described in Appendix A.


9

Upon completion of the project, the temporary bridge would be removed and the road would be decommissioned. The final reclamation plan (Appendix B) calls for the removal of all temporary stream crossing structures including the Webfoot Creek bridge. Since future mining activity in this area is reasonably likely, the roadbed would not be obliterated (recontoured), but would have substantial waterbars constructed to manage drainage over the long-term. The locked gate would be retained.

Calumet

An area of approximately 4.8 acres would be placer mined (Figure 2). The project would be implemented in phases, with the first year’s work focused primarily on road work and running a limited production circuit using only two sluice boxes rather than the more extensive equipment described below. Eventual peak production volume is estimated to be no more than 150 cubic yards of material per day. Approximately 1.6 acres of the proposed site has already been disturbed and reclaimed during a previous placer operation. The other 3.2 acres would be new disturbance.

The mining process would start with clearing the existing stand of lodgepole pine from the portion of the area that is to be worked in any given year. Small trees and slash would be stockpiled for spreading over the area during reclamation. Some of the larger logs would be placed in a loose deck to dry, then used to timber the Bear Track mine shaft. Topsoil would be removed and stockpiled for reclamation. In some of the previously worked areas where willow clumps have reestablished, the willows would be salvaged during clearing and transplanted into the wetlands restoration area. Depending upon the location and orientation of the trenches, short temporary access roads may need to be constructed to get to them. Waterbars would be constructed on these roads at appropriate intervals.

The subsoil and underlying alluvium (poorly-sorted, sand to small boulder size material) would be removed and run through a gravity milling system to recover the gold. A series of trenches (roughly 150 feet long, 30 feet wide, and 8 feet deep) would be dug with a tracked excavator. Excavated material would be transported with a loader to a grizzly (a coarse screening grate). All material less than 5 inches in diameter passing through the grizzly would then feed to a classifier (a finer screening grate). Larger material that does not pass the grizzly would fall into a reject pile. The classifier would pass material less than 1 inch in diameter to a sluice and wilfley table (another type of gravity concentrator for fine gold). The gold-bearing concentrates from the sluice and wilfley table would be taken off-site for further processing. No chemicals would be used in the gold recovery process.

Larger material that does not pass the classifier would fall into another reject pile. If material from the classifier reject pile is determined to have economically recoverable gold that has not weathered out of the host rock, it would be moved to one of two places depending on whether it was wet or dry. If dry, it would be fed into a jaw crusher, then to an impact mill, then to the


10

sluice and wilfley table. If the classifier reject material was wet, it would be moved to a bare area and spread in very low windrows to dry. Once dry, it would be run through the circuit in the same manner as the material which was initially dry.

The sluice and wilfley table would draw water from the settling pond with a pump. If additional input water is required from the nearby streams, the operator would need to submit a supplemental PoO for environmental analysis and approval. The reject material (a slurry of clay to sand sized material known as “tailings”) from the sluice and wilfley table would run into a tailings pit where the solids would settle out and the decanted water would return to the primary settling pond in a ditch (see Figure 2).

There would be no permanent stationary fuel storage on site. Fuel would be hauled and stored in Department of Transportation (DOT) approved containers in a pickup. The pickup would be parked in a bermed area with an impervious liner for secondary containment. Spill clean-up materials and a spill response plan would be kept in all vehicles. An oil-absorbent boom would be floated in front of the primary settling pond outlet.

In addition to the primary placer operation described above, up to twenty placer bulk sampling pits (roughly 5 cubic yards in volume) would be dug at various as yet to be determined locations on the Calumet claim. Test pits would avoid live water and known archaeological sites. Their exact locations would be reviewed and approved by the Minerals Administrator and other necessary resource specialists prior to any excavation. Pits would be backfilled and reclaimed in the same operating season.

Partial reclamation of the site would occur concurrently with mining. Rather than being a separate project element implemented at the end of the mining phase, reclamation would be closely integrated with the gold recovery process. The oversized reject material from the grizzly and the classifier, along with the tailings, would periodically be backfilled into the inactive end of the working trench. It is possible that the rate of mining may at times exceed the rate of backfilling, which would be reflected in a volume increase of the tailings, reject material, and drying stockpiles at the millsite. To ensure that this volume does not exceed what is bonded in the final reclamation plan, the Minerals Administrator would suspend operations if the stockpile volume surpasses 200 cubic yards. No new excavation would take place until backfilling has reduced the stockpile to less than this volume.

Reclamation of all mined ground along with removal of debris and all equipment (other than the grizzly) would be completed by the end of each operating season. Stockpiled topsoil would be spread over the backfilled material, fertilized with a slow-release fertilizer, and seeded with native grass and forb species. Weed-free straw mulch would be applied over this. Stockpiled slash and small trees would be placed over the straw. In areas with a high water table and little topsoil, willows would be replanted using the green-staking method. Final reclamation at the end of the project would include demolition and removal of the grizzly. Detailed reclamation requirements are given in the final reclamation plan (Appendix B).


11

Figure 2.


12

Bear Track

The Bear Track mine is a collapsed / bridged shaft that would be reopened (Figure 3). An excavator would be used to dig out the first twenty feet of material from the old shaft. Logs salvaged from clearing at the Calumet site would be used to timber the shaft. Timber cribbing (dimensions of 9 feet by 9 feet) would be constructed within the excavated pit. Further sinking of the shaft through unconsolidated surface material would be done in the traditional manner of repeatedly undermining the bottom timbers and adding timbers to the top as the cribbing stack settles deeper. This process would continue until bedrock is reached. Material would be excavated by hand and winched to the surface using an engine-powered winch and a block and tackle suspended from a steel headworks frame. A locking grate would be installed at the top of the shaft to prevent public access when mine personnel are not present. Up to 100 cubic yards of loose fill may need to be removed to fully reopen the shaft to its original depth. When the loose fill material has been completely excavated, mining would proceed by drilling and blasting. A trailer-mounted air compressor would be on site to run the drill and provide ventilation. Ore would be hand-sorted and periodically hauled in a pickup to be milled at the Calumet site. Ore hauling would be limited to one pickup load per day. A higher production rate would require the operator to submit a supplemental PoO for environmental analysis and approval.

All waste rock and fill material would be placed on top of the existing dump and backfilled against the existing cutbank with no new material pushed over the present dump face. A powder magazine for explosives storage would be placed on an old spur road nearby (see Figure 3). A few bulk samples (<5 cubic yards) would be taken from the top of the existing dump and hauled to the Calumet site for milling. Final reclamation requirements for the Bear Track mine include permanent shaft closure, equipment removal, waste rock recontouring, and revegetation. Details are given in the final reclamation plan (Appendix B).


13

Figure 3.

Miscellaneous

A portable toilet and up to two small travel trailers would be kept on the Calumet site. The toilet would be pumped weekly and all trash stored in bear-proof containers and removed from the site periodically. All known archaeological sites in the area would be avoided and any new sites encountered during operations would be reported to the Minerals Administrator immediately. Blasting zones would be signed and public excluded when blasting.


14

This project has been designed to maintain water quality and, thereby, protect aquatic habitat by reducing or eliminating potential sediment sources that may cause sediment to be delivered to stream channels. The action includes mitigation proposed by FS resource specialists that has been incorporated as design criteria into the proponents proposed Plan of Operations. This alternative would meet the Purpose and Need of the proposal.

2.3 Project Design Features Project design features have been designed by the minerals administrator and the project hydrologist to mitigate potential effects to aquatic resources. Existing management requirements require applying Best Management Practices (BMPs), as described for Soil and Water Conservation Practices, to all ground-disturbing activities to reduce or minimize effects on soil and water resources. BMPs are described in the 2003 Payette National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan.

The mitigation measures which were incorporated into the project design features listed below are practices that the IDT developed during this analysis to address site-specific environmental concerns that were not sufficiently addressed by existing management requirements. Design features for this project include:

Calumet

• A number of measures to minimize potential adverse effects to water quality. These are described in detail in the Appendices.

• Partial reclamation of the site would occur concurrently with mining. Rather than being a separate project element implemented at the end of the mining phase, reclamation would be closely integrated with the gold recovery process. The oversized reject material from the grizzly and the classifier, along with the tailings would be periodically backfilled into the inactive end of the working trench. It is possible that the rate of mining may at times exceed the rate of backfilling, which would be reflected in a volume increase of the tailings, reject material, and drying stockpiles at the mill site. To ensure that this volume does not exceed what is bonded in the final reclamation plan, the Minerals Administrator would suspend operations if the stockpile volume surpasses 200 cubic yards. No new excavation would take place until backfilling has reduced the stockpile to less than this volume. Detailed reclamation requirements are given in the Final Reclamation Plan (Appendix B).

Bear Track

There are no PDFs associated with the Bear Track exploration activities.

2.3.1 Monitoring and Evaluation Forest minerals personnel will monitor all phases of the operation to ensure compliance with the plan of operations. A soil and water specialist will monitor operations to determine implementation and effectiveness of limiting sediment production by applying soil and water


15

BMPs. Process water chemistry will be monitored to avoid chemical contamination of surface water and groundwater. The Forest noxious weed plan for this project will determine if new infestations have become established as a result of mining activities by requiring annual inventory and monitoring of this mine site and access road for the duration of the mining operation. Reclamation implementation and effectiveness will be also be monitored. Monitoring plans can be found in the project record.

2.4 Comparison of Alternatives

Table 1. Comparison of Alternatives by Resource

Resource Alternative A: No Action Alternative B: Proposed Action

Hydrology

Indicator: Qualitative

assessment of changes to selected

Watershed Condition Indicators

No effect

Improve some watershed condition indicators such as stream bank

condition, floodplain connectivity, disturbance regime, and RCAs, at a

local scale.

Fisheries* No effect Primarily No Effect (some minimal

potential for chemical effects downstream)

Wildlife* No effect

Most disturbances, if any, would result in temporary displacement to

other areas. These effects, if any, would last for the duration of the

mining activity.

*There were no issues associated with the Fisheries or Wildlife Resources


16

3. Environmental Consequences

3.1 Introduction This chapter provides the basis for comparing the two alternatives described in Chapter 2. The chapter is arranged by alternative, with the probable effects of each alternative discussed in reference to resource concerns listed in Chapter 2.

3.2 Description of Existing Environment

Affected Environment and Current Condition

The project would occur on terrain classified as Cryoplanated Basin Land. Geomorphicaly, these lands are characterized by a well incised dendritic drainage pattern, rounded ridge tops, convex slopes and concave drainage bottom. This area receives between 30-50 inches of precipitation annually, 33% to 50% of this is delivered to streams via subsurface flow. Soils in this area have loamy sand to sandy loam textures and up to 35% coarse fragments can be found in the soil profile. These soils receive and transmit water rapidly if undisturbed, with very little overland flow resulting during high intensity rain storms. The inherent erosion hazard on these lands is low, which means that there is no appreciable potential for erosion. The erosion hazards for roads are moderately high, which indicates that road surfaces will yield high amounts of sediment and will erode sufficiently to require repair for maintenance and trafficability (USDA Forest Service 19731

Assessment of Watershed Condition Indicators (WCIs) for the Warren Creek watershed was updated in 2007 (See project Specialist Reports). In general most indicators were degraded primarily due to dredging and hydraulic activities from historic mining and road development from more recent and current mining operations.

).

The project area lies within two of what we refer to as “Section 7 Watersheds,”2 the Main Salmon River Southwest (MSSW), and the South Fork Salmon River (SFSR). Specifically, the Calumet Mine is in the Upper Warren Creek 6th-level hydrologic unit (HU). The Bear Track Mine is located in the Lower SFSR Analysis Area of Faurot and Burns (2007b3

1 USDA Forest Service. 1973.The Land: Soil – Hydrologic Reconnaissance. Payette National Forest. Intermountain Region.

), which comprises the SFSR drainage downstream of the confluences of the East Fork SFSR and Secesh Rivers. The Bear Track Mine is in the 11,166-ac tributary Pony Creek HU near the boundary with the MSSW Section 7 Watershed.

2 Referring to the designation for consultation under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. 3 Faurot, M. and D.C. Burns. 2007b. Biological Assessment for the Potential Effects of Managing the Payette National Forest in the South Fork Salmon River Section 7 Watershed on Snake River Spring/Summer Chinook Salmon, Snake River Steelhead, and Columbia River Bull Trout and Biological Evaluation for Westslope Cutthroat Trout. Volume 28. Ongoing and New Actions. Unpublished Biological Assessment. McCall ID. USDA. Payette National Forest. Fisheries Program.


17

Three fish species occur in the MSSW and SFSR Section 7 Watersheds that have been listed as “Threatened” under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 USC 1531 et seq.), and one species occurs that has been designated as “Sensitive” by the Intermountain Regional Forester. These are the Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), Snake River Basin steelhead (O. mykiss), Columbia River bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus), and the Westslope cutthroat trout (O. clarkii lewisi), respectively.

In the Warren Creek watershed, Chinook occur only near the mouth of Warren Creek because of gradient-related passage barriers near the mouth of Richardson Creek (Raleigh 19954) and their abundance is unknown; the only likely spawning habitat occurs just upstream of the mouth near the Romine Ranch (Nelson 2009a5; Nelson and Burns 20016). In the SFSR, redd counts also remain quite low, but supplementation provides sufficient adults to support tribal (mainly Nez Perce) and sport harvest. Marshall and Fitzgerald 20047

There is a popular recreational fishery for steelhead in the mainstem Salmon River in the MSSW Section 7 Watershed and no harvest is allowed in the SFSR. Redband trout (resident O. mykiss) are relatively widely distributed in both watersheds. In Warren Creek redband occur about to the confluence with Mayflower Creek (coincident with the endpoint of designated critical habitat [DCH], and Raleigh (1995

reported that anglers harvested 3,117 adult salmon and 98 jacks, and that of an estimated 585 unmarked fish, 177 might have been wild; Chinook have not been documented in Pony Creek.

8

Bull trout are broadly distributed in both the MSSW and SFSR Section 7 Watersheds, but not particularly abundant in the two 6th-level HUs considered here; movement patterns and life history phases represented in and around the project areas are not well known. Bull trout overlap the distribution of redband trout in Pony Creek but have not been found in Warren Creek or its tributaries upstream of the confluence of Mayflower Creek.

) reported passage barriers in the area between Mayflower and Webfoot Creeks; steelhead / redband trout occur to about the steelhead DCH endpoint in Pony Creek.

4 Raleigh, R. 1995. Warren Creek Drainage Stream Inventory Report. Volume 1. Warren Creek, Richardson Creek, Houston Creek, Mitchell Creek, Maloney Creek. Unpublished Report. Council ID; Raleigh Consultants. 5 Nelson, R.L. 2009a. Specialist’s Report for the Walla Walla Mine Drilling and Trenching Project. Unpublished Report. McCall ID: USDA. Payette National Forest. Fisheries Program. 6 Nelson, R. and D.C. Burns. 2001. Biological Assessment for the Potential Effects of Managing the Payette National Forest in the Main Salmon SW Section 7 Watershed on Snake River Spring/Summer Chinook Salmon, Snake River Steelhead, and Columbia River Bull Trout and Biological Evaluation for Westslope Cutthroat Trout. Volume 15. Ongoing and New Actions. Unpublished Biological Assessment. McCall ID. USDA. Payette National Forest. Fisheries Program. 7 Marshall, S.L. and G. Fitzgerald. 2004. The Incidental Take of ESA Listed Salmon and Steelhead During Conduct of Recreational Fisheries in Idaho. 2003 Annual Report for NOAA Fisheries Permit 1233. Boise ID. Department of Fish and Game. 8 Ibid


18

Westslope cutthroat trout are uncommon in the MSSW Section 7 Watershed. They can access the lower reaches of streams at favorable flows from the mainstem Salmon River, and have been recorded near the mouth of Warren Creek and in scattered areas upstream; they have not been reported from Warren Creek or its tributaries upstream of the confluence of Mayflower Creek. Westslope cutthroat trout are widely distributed in the SFSR Section 7 Watershed, and have been found in Pony Creek, but not as far upstream as bull trout or steelhead / redband trout.

Wildlife habitat diversity is somewhat limited in the project area. The most common wildlife habitats are lodgepole pine, and Douglas fir forests habitats. Approximately 1.6 acres have already been disturbed and the remaining 3.2 acres are second growth lodgepole pine. The surrounding habitat is second growth mixed conifer. No threatened or endangered species habitat is found within the project area.

Field crews completed a field review, following Payette National Forest wildlife survey procedures, to determine sensitive species that could occur in the project area. This review included the Idaho Conservation Data Center database (ICDC 2010), relevant publications, and consultation with knowledgeable individuals and agencies. From these reviews, seven sensitive species have been determined to be possible, potential, or likely residents of the project area. Based on suitability of the habitat and/or reported occurrence in or near the project area, two species are given a low probability of occurrence and will not be discussed further, five species are given a medium probability of occurrence, and two species are given a high probability of occurrence; ten other species are not given any probability of being present. Sensitive species rated as having a medium or high probability of occurrence will be analyzed in this document.

3.3 Effects of the Alternatives

3.3.1 Alternative A – No Action No mining activities would occur, therefore, no effects would occur within the project area due to this proposal.

3.3.2 Alternative B – Proposed Action Hydrology

Issue: The proposed activities could increase erosion and sediment, as well as heavy metal, delivery to Upper Warren and Franklin Creeks.

Indicator: Qualitative assessment of changes to selected Watershed Condition Indicators.

The scope of the analysis for the Calumet and Bear Track mines for direct, indirect and cumulative effects will be the Upper Warren Creek 6th level HU. The Bear Track mine will not be analyzed further in this document. The assessment of Pony Creek will not be carried further in the Watershed section. The proposed Bear Track mine is near the top of a relatively flat ridge,


19

outside of any riparian conservation area (RCA). The proposed action will reopen a collapsed vertical adit, placing the removed material on the disturbed area. The workings will be entirely underground. The ore will be taken to the Calumet for processing. See the proposed action section in this document for more specific details of the proposed action and the mitigation and reclamation sections for the specific items regarding these details. Because of the location of the mine, the fact that it is not near water and the removed overburden will be contained on-site within the disturbed footprint with the ore transported to the Calumet for processing, this action should have no affect on water quality and will not be carried further in this analysis.

Water Quality

Water samples were taken in 2009 at six locations around the proposed Calumet placer mine. Samples were analyzed for arsenic, lead, and zinc. All samples had values under the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) standards for chronic fresh water biota levels, which are 0.15, 0.0025, and 0.12mg/l respectively.

Effects of the Proposed Action

Access

Short term effects from proposed work on the access route would be expected. Improvement of the stream crossings (See Figure 4), decommissioning of the approaches of the ford across Webfoot Creek and the identified segments of existing road may temporarily introduce additional sediment into the streams. The possible sediment inputs are expected to be minimal. On site mitigations, such as rerouting water in the stream around the crossing during installation of structures, and sediment retention devices should reduce sediment input to negligible amounts. Included in the work on the access road will be a reroute (Appendix A). Part of the access road work would include rerouting a section of the road that passes through a wetland next to Warren Creek. The wetland section would be reclaimed back to a wetland and a new section of road would be routed around another wetland next to Franklin Creek. The potential effects of the reroutes and wetland restoration are expected to be beneficial: instead of high flows running down road surfaces, eroding surface material and creating gullies the flows would be able to run through wetlands effectively reducing stream velocities and capturing suspended sediments and filtering nutrients. The area to be restored would be relatively small in scope, approximately 0.07 acres, but would help improve some of the watershed condition indicators such as stream bank condition, floodplain connectivity, disturbance regime, and RCAs, at a local scale.


20

Figure 4.

Mining process

Storm water

The mining process will include removal of vegetation (trees) and developing a series of trenches. The material removed from the trenches will then be processed on-site next to an existing settling pond. Removing the vegetation and excavation of the trenches will expose bare soil potentially available for transport from snow melt and high intensity, or long duration rain storms. Limiting the area of disturbance to the excavation of trenches one at a time with concurrent reclamation (backfilling) of those trenches as the operation proceeds will limit the overall disturbed area within the footprint of the mining operation. Reclamation of disturbed areas, using stockpiled slash, and mulch, at year-end shut down will ensure that the potential of increased sedimentation during spring snow melt will be minimized. Erosion control treatments applied to newly (first-year) disturbed areas have been shown to be 95% effective (Megahan, et.


21

al., 19919

Process water

). Use of BMPs, such as silt fence, and straw bales, within the mine area will help capture or direct any detached material towards the settling pond keeping the material from entering either of the creeks adjacent to the operation. This two-tiered approach of reducing material available for transport through concurrent and year end reclamation and capturing or directing any material that might get transported towards the settling pond should effectively keep mining activity generated erosion from entering live water.

Water used to process the mined material will be obtained from the primary settling pond and then be discharged into the tailings pit close to the pond. The water would be filtered back into the settling pond either through ground water recharge or decanting of the water from the tailings pit keeping the water used for the processing phase in a closed system with respect to surface water. There would be no direct discharge of process water into any streams. To ensure that levels of arsenic, lead and zinc, and other Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) metals remain below chronic levels established by the State of Idaho, sampling of the primary settling pond will be done throughout the mining process. If monitoring determines that a heavy metal or metals exceed state standards then the operator would be required to modify the operation until state standards are met. See the water quality monitoring plan in the Project Record for specific details.

Initial monitoring of streams and the settling pond has indicated that current water quality meets state standards for selected heavy metals. Continued monitoring will provide a mechanism to detect whether water quality continues to meet these standards; if not, procedures outlined in the monitoring plan should reduce any exceedances back to state standards.

Fisheries

This project is not expected to have any measurable effects on fish or fish habitat in either the MSSW or SFSR watersheds. There is a very small possibility that the concentration of arsenic might be increased in Warren Creek. It is expected that the wastewater monitoring requirements imposed on the operator will prevent increased arsenic levels, but, if they do increase, it would be for a very short time because of the limits placed on the operator and that dilution, primarily from Webfoot Creek, would preclude a detectable increase at the mouth of Mayflower Creek where steelhead DCH begins. The project is relatively near DCH for steelhead and includes proposed critical habitat for bull trout, and there is a small chance these could be mildly affected by increased arsenic, as could listed fishes which all occur several miles from the project area; however, any increase in arsenic concentration will be too minor to even approach

9 Megahan, W.F., S.B. Monsen, M.D. Wilson, N. Lozano, D.F. Haber, and G.D. Booth. 1991. Erosion Control Practices Applied to Granitic Roadfills for Forest Roads in Idaho: Cost Effectiveness Evaluation. In: Land Degradation & Rehabilitation. Vol. 3: 55-65. 1992.


22

either the chronic (0.19mg/L) or acute (0.36mg/L) lowest observed effect levels (LOELs) for aquatic biota (Nelson et al. 199110

Wildlife

) or exceed the state standard of 0.15mg/L. Road maintenance, relocation, and berm construction would prevent significant sediment generation and the concurrent reclamation that the operator would perform in conjunction with the planned wetland restoration would contain sediments generated from the excavation and milling operations. The project would not affect riparian vegetation except where the operator attempts to restore riparian/wetland character to historic tailings areas, which would be beneficial actions. All water withdrawals would be from the settling pond and recycled, so streamflow would not be affected; the operator has water rights on both Warren and Franklin Creeks but has agreed not to use them for this operation (John Rygh, PNF Minerals Staff, personal communication).

Disturbance created by the sounds and activities associated with the operation could have some negative effects on all species considered in this analysis. Most disturbances, if any, would result in temporary displacement to other areas. These effects, if any, would last for the duration of the mining activity.

Sensitive Species

Columbia Spotted Frog (Rana luteiventris): The action alternative would impact Columbia spotted frog habitat. Small wetlands in the project area would be destroyed as a result of the proposed action. A series of small ponds will be constructed as part of a road reclamation / wetlands restoration subproject. The newly constructed wetlands would be about the same size as the wetlands that will be lost during project implementation. Therefore there would be no net loss of potential spotted frog habitat.

Other sensitive species: The action alternative may displace individuals through disturbance but this would be temporary; displaced animals would be expected to return after the project is completed. Project activities would not affect other sensitive species habitat.

Management Indicator Species

Pileated Woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus): These woodpeckers use mature forest with moderate to high tree densities and canopy closures and well developed understory with snags and down logs for nesting and foraging (Forest Plan 2003 p III-8511

10 Nelson, R.L., McHenry, M.L., and Platts, W.S. 1991. Mining. Chapter 12 In: Influences of Forest and Rangeland Management on Salmonid Fishes and their Habitats. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 19:425-457.

). The action alternative would not affect this habitat. An MIS population monitoring program has been established on the Payette National Forest, but it will be several years before useable trend data are available.

11 USDA Forest Service. 2003. Payette National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan.


23

3.3.4 Cumulative Effects Hydrology

Summary of past actions

Placer mining began in the area in the 1860s and was most intensive in the narrow part of the valley below the confluence of Warren and Franklin Creeks. As mining extended upstream into the broader part of the valley near the presently proposed mine site, Warren Creek was diverted into a ditch along the base of the hill slope bordering the valley on the northwest in order to dewater the placer ground that was going to be worked. This has remained the alignment of Warren Creek until the present day. The original confluence with Franklin Creek was likely a hundred meters or so upstream of the present location and portions of the existing wetlands may have originally been part of the Warren Creek floodplain.

In the mid-1970s a previous placer mining operation occupied the site of the current project. During this older project, the two existing unlined settling ponds were constructed. Both ponds were constructed primarily below grade. The site was reclaimed in 1984 with all the ponds left intact. A small (less than one gallon per minute) spring located at the southernmost part of the previously reclaimed area drains into the primary settling pond.

These actions substantially altered the hydrology of the local area. Stream channels were moved, access roads were constructed in wetlands and riparian areas increasing erosion and sedimentation and generally altering the hydrologic process. The actions, particularly those during the gold rush period, are directly related to the present condition of the WCIs.

In 2005, at the direction of the Forest, clean up was performed at the Bear Track mine site, with the claimant removing trash and old equipment. That same year, an environmental analysis of the proposed operations for the nearby KDI mine was completed and the claimant’s PoO for that operation was approved; to date, the KDI operation has not been implemented.

Part of the watershed burned in 2007 including the bridge over Webfoot Creek. This accelerated erosion and sedimentation for at least a year.

In 2009, the claimant for the Calumet mine completed some test runs on material under a Notice of Intent to determine if there was enough value in the material to make a mining operation feasible.

Ongoing and future actions

There is the possibility for operations at the KDI mine to be completed this year, but only after road improvement work outlined in this document has been implemented. If that road work does not occur, then there is a possibility for the claimant to file another PoO, which would be covered under a separate environmental analysis.


24

Since there are several claims in the watershed there is a potential for additional submittals of PoOs; these would be considered under separate environmental analysis.

Fisheries

This project is not expected to have any measurable effects on fish or fish habitat in either the MSSW or SFSR watersheds except that there is a very small possibility that the concentration of arsenic might be increased in Warren Creek. It is expected that the wastewater monitoring requirements imposed on the operator will prevent increased arsenic levels, but if they do increase it would be for a very short time because of the limits placed on the operator and that dilution, primarily from Webfoot Creek, will preclude a detectable increase at the mouth of Mayflower Creek where steelhead DCH begins.

Wildlife

The project area has been subject to habitat modification and human activity. Habitat alteration has consisted primarily of mining and recreation and associated actives, including trails and road construction and maintenance.

Cumulatively, these actions are anticipated to maintain trends in habitat alteration and human activity similar to those occurring in the past and described above. Several Forest-wide regulatory mechanisms are in place to protect particular species and minimize cumulative impacts to these species. These mechanisms also benefit other wildlife species with similar habitat requirements. All projects occurring on the Forest are analyzed for compliance with the programmatic and project-specific planning standards put forth in the Canada Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy (LCAS; USDI 200012

Species that are dependent on mature / overmature mixed conifer forest, such as the pileated woodpecker and northern goshawk, or are sensitive to human activity, such as the wolverine, could be affected by disturbance. Impacts on both the pileated woodpecker and northern goshawk would be mitigated by Forest guidelines. Increased levels of human disturbance in the watershed could become a problem for the wolverine (Gulo gulo). Species using spruce-fir and

). This ensures that cumulative impacts do not affect long-term recovery goals for Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis). Payette National Forest policy also incorporates management recommendations for northern goshawks (Accipiter gentilis) into proposed activities to maintain suitable habitat for this species throughout the watershed. Forest-wide snag and coarse woody debris guideline ensure that sufficient densities of dead trees and down logs are maintained throughout the Forest for species requiring these habitat components, such as the Canada lynx, fisher (Martes pennanti), northern goshawk, flammulated owl (Otus flammeolus), boreal owl (Aegolius funereus), three-toed woodpecker (Picoides tridactylus), pileated woodpecker, and others.

12 US Department of the Interior, Fish & Wildlife Service. 2000, Canada Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy, 2nd Edition, # R1-00-53, Missoula, MT. 142 pp., www.fs.fed.us/r1/planning/lynx/lynx.html

http://www.fs.fed.us/r1/planning/lynx/lynx.html�


25

lodgepole pine forests, such as the Canada lynx, boreal owl, and three-toed woodpecker, are unlikely to be affected, because few actions are expected to take place in these forest types (partly due to LCAS requirements), and Forest guidelines ensure adequate retention of snags and woody debris. Prescribed fire projects likely benefit big game species by improving stand diversity and forage availability. However, elk may be negatively impacted by increased road density and loss of hiding cover. Impacts on wolves would be similar to those on big game, although increased potential for human interaction is a bigger concern for wolves.

Overall, these cumulative effects are not anticipated to alter the conclusions noted above for Federally listed species, Forest Service Sensitive species, MIS, migratory birds, or deer and elk. Cumulative impacts on wildlife would likely be negligible and could be positive for some species.

Forest Plan Consistency

The action alternative would meet Forest Plan standards and guidelines and move the immediate area toward the desired future condition found in the Forest Plan. Further discussion of Forest Plan consistency by resource can be found in the Project Record.

3.4 Project Record The EA hereby incorporates by reference all the Project Record (40 CFR 1502.21). This record contains detailed information that the specialist relied upon to reach their conclusions in the EA.


26

4. List of Preparers Sue Dixon Team Leader

Jim Fitzgerald Hydrology

Alma Hanson Rare Plants

Chris Hescock Wildlife

Larry Kingsbury Cultural Resources

Lisa Klinger McCall District Ranger

Rodger Nelson Fisheries

John Rygh Minerals and Geology, Project Lead

5. Consultation with Others As part of the scoping process the Forest Service sent letters to 117 private organizations and 16 public agencies and governmental offices, including, but not limited to:

• Valley and Washington County Commissioners

• Bureau of Land Management

• Environmental Protection Agency

• Idaho Department of Environmental Quality

• Idaho Department of Fish and Game

• Idaho Department of Lands

• McCall City Government

• Nez Perce Tribe, Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, and Shoshone-Paiute Tribes of Duck Valley

• NOAA Fisheries

• Office of the Governor

• US Fish and Wildlife Service

The ID Team received comments from one state agency and eight individuals and organizations.

calumet placer & bear track lode mines...

Documents