Methow Headwaters Minneral Withdrawal Environmental

United States Department of Agriculture

United States Department of the Interior

2017 Methow Headwaters Mineral Withdrawal Environmental Assessment

Forest Service Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest August 2018

For More Information Contact:

Jason Peterson Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest Wenatchee, WA 97504 Phone: 509-664-9395 Email: jnpeterson.fs.fed.us

In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident. Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English. To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at Filing a Program Discrimination Complaint with USDA and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) email: [email protected]. USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer and lender.

We make every effort to create documents that are accessible to individuals of all abilities; however, limitations with our word processing programs may prevent some parts of this document from being readable by computer- assisted reading devices. If you need assistance with this document, please contact the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest at 509-664-9395. 2017 Methow Headwaters Mineral Withdrawal Environmental Assessment

Contents

Introduction ...... 1 Background ...... 1 Project Location and Description of the Area ...... 2 Decision Framework ...... 6 Public Comment, Scoping, and Objection ...... 7 Proposed Action and Alternatives ...... 8 Proposed Action: 20-year Withdrawal ...... 9 Alternative Action: 5-year Withdrawal ...... 9 No Action: No Withdrawal ...... 10 Alternatives Considered But Eliminated from Detailed Study: ...... 10 Key Issues and Analysis Framework ...... 10 Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action and the No-Action Alternative ...... 13 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions ...... 13 The Mining Process ...... 13 Minerals ...... 14 Hydrology ...... 16 Fisheries ...... 17 Wildlife ...... 18 Cultural Resources ...... 19 Invasive Plants ...... 20 Rare Plants ...... 21 Recreation ...... 21 Roadless ...... 24 Agencies and Persons Consulted ...... 26 Tribal Consultation ...... 26 References ...... 27 Appendix A. Federal Register Notice ...... 35 Agency ...... 35 Action ...... 35 Summary ...... 35 Dates ...... 35 Addresses ...... 35 For Further Information, Contact ...... 35 Supplementary Information ...... 36 Appendix B. Project Location ...... 37 Okanogan National Forest ...... 37

i 2017 Methow Headwaters Mineral Withdrawal Environmental Assessment

List of Tables Table 1. Comparison of alternatives by resource ...... 12 Table 2. Potential effects to recreation and visual resources if mining activity (from discovery to production) occurs ...... 23

List of Figures Figure 1. Vicinity map ...... 3 Figure 2. Methow Headwaters proposed withdrawal area watersheds and mining areas ...... 4 Figure 3. Methow Headwaters proposed withdrawal area showing the five mining claims ...... 5 Figure 4. Methow Headwaters proposed withdrawal area with Mazama Inc. forfeited claims ...... 6 Figure 5. Methow Headwater proposed mineral withdrawal and roadless boundaries ...... 25

ii 2017 Methow Headwaters Mineral Withdrawal Environmental Assessment

Introduction In May 2016, the Methow Headwaters Protection Act of 2016 (S. 2991) was introduced in the U.S. Senate by Senator Murray. This bill was reintroduced as S. 566 in March 2017.

Under section 204 of Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) and Bureau of Land Management regulations under 43 CFR 2310.3 - 4(a), the Secretary may withdraw over 5,000 acres for a period not to exceed 20 years. Subject to section 204(c) of FLPMA, a proposed withdrawal over 5,000 acres is subject to Congressional review.

The U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management, as a cooperating agency, have submitted a petition and application for a 20-year proposed withdrawal from settlement, sale, location, and entry under the public land laws; location and entry under the United States mining laws; and operation of the mineral and geothermal leasing laws, subject to valid existing rights, on 340,079 acres of Federal land. The proposed withdrawal is in support of legislation for a permanent proposed withdrawal from mineral entry and location introduced in Congress in May 2016 (S. 2991). This bill was reintroduced as S. 566 in March 2017. The lands that would be affected are located on the Methow Valley Ranger District of the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest in Okanogan County, Washington.

We prepared this environmental assessment to satisfy the requirements outlined at 43 CFR 2310.3-2: Development and processing of the case file for submission to the Secretary of the Interior. By preparing this environmental assessment, we are also fulfilling agency policy and direction to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act. For more details, see the “Proposed Action” and “Alternatives” sections of this document. Background

2016 Legislation On May 25, 2016, legislation was introduced in the 114th Congress as S.2991 and identified as the Methow Headwaters Protection Act of 2016. The act proposes to withdraw certain lands located in Okanogan County, Washington from all forms of mineral entry, appropriation, leasing, or disposal under public land laws. This bill was reintroduced as S. 566 in March 2017.

This proposed legislation includes federally owned land within the area depicted on maps submitted with the draft legislation. The areas include approximately 340,079 acres of National Forest System lands (figure 1).

Application for Withdrawal While Congress considers legislation to permanently withdraw these areas, the agencies need to maintain current environmental conditions on the lands identified. Therefore, on behalf of the Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management submitted a petition and application to the Secretary of the Interior for a 20-year withdrawal for the Federal lands depicted on the official maps. The lands would be withdrawn from settlement, sale, location, and entry under the public land laws; location and entry under the United States mining laws; and operation of the mineral and geothermal leasing laws, subject to valid existing rights.

1 2017 Methow Headwaters Mineral Withdrawal Environmental Assessment

The Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Land and Minerals Management published a notice of proposed withdrawal in the Federal Register on December 30, 2016 (see appendix A). It is anticipated a notification of a public meeting will be announced in the Federal Register in the fall of 2018 as well as in the newspaper of general circulation.

Withdrawal Proposal The notice segregates1 for two years the lands described in the Methow Headwaters Protection Act of 2016 from settlement, sale,2 location, and entry under the public land laws; location and entry under the United States mining laws; and operation of the mineral and geothermal leasing laws. It also proposes a 20-year withdrawal from operation of those same laws to follow the segregation period. The segregation period and proposed 20-year withdrawal are intended to maintain current conditions while Congress considers the legislation for a permanent proposed withdrawal.

The segregation is in effect until midnight December 29, 2018, unless the application is denied or canceled, a public land order for proposed withdrawal is signed, or Congress passes the proposed legislation. The notice also initiated a 90-day public comment period for the proposed withdrawal.

Other land use authorizations are unaffected by segregation or proposed withdrawal. Project Location and Description of the Area The project encompasses, as identified in the official map included with the draft legislation, the headwaters of Methow Valley watershed between Winthrop and Twisp, Washington (figure 1). The Methow Valley floor runs along Highway 20, west of the Colville Reservation and south of the Canadian border and the Pasayten Wilderness. National Forest System lands within the proposed withdrawal area are administered by the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest. Legal descriptions of included areas are provided in appendix B.

The proposed withdrawal area has a rich mining history with approximately 34 prospects or projects documented as active prior to the 1940s. Most of those claims were concentrated around two locations: just north of the town of Mazama along Goat Creek (referred to as the Mazama mining district/Flagg Mountain area) and at the headwaters of Eightmile Creek/Billy Goat Mountain (figure 2). Today many adits, shafts, open cuts (now largely caved in or closed), and bore holes are located within these areas. Past development at the Montana claim (Mazama mining district) included mining tons of copper and gold ore in 1915 and running a small mill on the property. In 1944, the Montana claim workings caved in. Past development at the Billy Goat claim (Eightmile Creek/Billy Goat Mountain area) included four tunnels (one over 700 feet long, others less than 60 feet), as well as two shafts and several open cuts for copper and gold ore extraction.

1Segregation means the removal for a limited period, subject to valid existing rights, of a specified area of public lands from the operation of the public land laws, including the mining laws, pursuant to the exercise by the Secretary of regulatory authority to allow for the orderly administration of the public lands. 43 CFR 2300.0-5(m). 2 Salable minerals, also known as mineral materials, are common varieties of minerals (for example, sand, stone, gravel, or clay) managed under the Materials Act of 1947. Salable minerals may be disposed of either through a contract of sale or a free use permit and are not affected by proposed withdrawal of the mining laws.

2 2017 Methow Headwaters Mineral Withdrawal Environmental Assessment

Figure 1. Vicinity map

3 2017 Methow Headwaters Mineral Withdrawal Environmental Assessment

Figure 2. Methow Headwaters proposed withdrawal area watersheds and mining areas

Currently, there are five posted and maintained claims—No Dice, Billy Goat, Zam47, Montana, and Zam13—all located within the Mazama mining district/Flagg Mountain or Eightmile/Billy Goat Mountain areas (figure 2 and figure 3). Although this area has posted and maintained claims totaling a maximum of 103 acres, no mining development has occurred since about 1940s; at present, there are no records indicating recent, proposed, or approved plans of operations.

Of the currently forfeited claims near the community of Mazama (Mazama Mining District/Flagg Mountain Area), there has only been mineral interest in the way of reconnaissance work and exploration since the 1960s (see figure 4).

No placer claims or placer plans of operation have been submitted within the last 10 years (and likely beyond). All reviewed claims have been lode claims. No known existing and ongoing placer mining or suction dredge mining occurs within the project area; therefore, they are not discussed further in this analysis.

4 2017 Methow Headwaters Mineral Withdrawal Environmental Assessment

Figure 3. Methow Headwaters proposed withdrawal area showing the five mining claims

5 2017 Methow Headwaters Mineral Withdrawal Environmental Assessment

Figure 4. Methow Headwaters proposed withdrawal area with Mazama Inc. forfeited claims Decision Framework The implementing decision for a proposed withdrawal is the public land order (or notice of denial). Pursuant to section 204 (a) of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, the Secretary of the Interior is authorized to make, modify, extend, or revoke proposed withdrawals. Therefore, it is neither necessary, nor appropriate, for the Forest Service or Bureau of Land Management, as applicants of the proposed withdrawal, to provide a decision document.

There are several recommendations in this process before the Secretary makes the final decision. First, the Okanogan-Wenatchee forest supervisor will send a recommendation to the Pacific Northwest Forest Service Director for Recreation, Wild and Scenic Rivers, Lands, and Minerals. Next the Forest Service director will send a recommendation to the Oregon/Washington Bureau of Land Management state director. Ultimately the Bureau of Land Management state director will review the package and send her recommendation to the Secretary’s office for final decision. The Forest Service is the lead agency for developing the environmental assessment, with assistance from the Bureau of Land Management.

If the National Environmental Policy Act review results in the development of an environmental assessment but not an environmental impact statement, the applicant agency and the Bureau of Land Management will jointly prepare a finding of no significant impact, which the Bureau of Land Management will sign. The finding of no significant impact will accompany the authorized officer’s recommendation and rationale for the Secretary of the Interior.

6 2017 Methow Headwaters Mineral Withdrawal Environmental Assessment

Public Comment, Scoping, and Objection Public comment follows three processes.

• The first process is a 90-day comment period required for the Department of Interior’s proposed withdrawal in the Federal Register, as specified by 43 CFR 2310.3-1(b). • The second process is required by the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management National Environmental Policy Act regulations (36 CFR 220 and 43 CFR 46, respectively) in association with developing the environmental assessment. The Forest Service personnel held a 30-day scoping period starting October 5 in partial fulfillment of these requirements. A press release announced this 30-day comment period, which closed November 6, 2018. Comments were submitted by U.S. mail, email, or via Forest Service’s comment analysis and response application module under the electronic project appeals and litigation system (PALS). • The third process is an additional Federal Register notice that will announce the reopening of a comment period and public meeting to be provided with the public release of this environment assessment and “Minerals Potential” report, anticipated in the fall of 2018, per 43 CFR 2310.3-1. Notice of Proposed Withdrawal Comment Period: The notice of proposed withdrawal was published in the Federal Register on December 30, 2016. The notice initiated a 90-day public comment period for the requested action, which ended March 30, 2017 (43 CFR 2310.3- 1(b)(2)(v)). Comments were submitted by U.S. mail or email to the Bureau of Land Management state director. The Forest Service held a 30-day scoping period in the fall of 2017.

Public Meeting: After the request for comments from the public on the proposal, the Bureau of Land Management is required to provide for one or more public meetings in relation to a proposal involving 5,000 or more acres in the proposed withdrawal area (43 CFR 2310.3-1(b)(2)(v)). To facilitate the process, the Forest Service proposed a schedule and venue for this public meeting in February 2017. The proposal has not been approved, and the Department of Interior has not initiated a meeting from this proposal, although one is anticipated in the fall of 2018.

Objection and Appeal: This proposal is not subject to objection under Forest Service regulations at 36 CFR 218 because it is making a recommendation to another Federal agency. In the case of a land proposed withdrawal, the decision is the public land order (or notice of denial) issuing from the Secretary of the Interior, pursuant to the Federal Land Policy and Management Act. Because the action is a department-level decision made by the Secretary, any challenges must be filed through district court.

Initial Comment Period Results About 4,500 comments were received by Bureau of Land Management personnel during the 90- day comment period associated with the notice of intent. This comment period started December 30, 2016, when the notice of intent was published in the Federal Register, and ended March 30, 2017. Bureau of Land Management personnel transmitted these comments to the Forest Service in June 2018.

Forest Service personnel held a 30-day scoping period from October 5 through November 6, 2017. Approximately 150 electronic or hard copy comments were received. One letter had 1,169 signatures attached.

7 2017 Methow Headwaters Mineral Withdrawal Environmental Assessment

Any additional comments generated from the public meeting (anticipated in the fall of 2018) will be addressed in the environmental assessment.

Issues from comments received during the 30-day comment period that are within the scope of this environmental analysis are listed under “Key Issues and Analysis Framework” section, below, along with analyses required by 43 CFR 2310.3-2. Issues raised, including those outside of the scope of this analysis, are briefly summarized here, along with the rationale for being within or outside the scope.

Comments Most issues raised by those who commented during this 90 day period were in support of the proposed withdrawal and centered on concerns relating to the presumed resource impacts from full-scale copper mining, if the proposed withdrawal is not approved. Many commenters voiced strong endorsement of general resource values—clean water, scenic values, biological diversity— and associated opportunities, such as recreation, fishing, and wilderness values.

This environmental assessment does not assess the impacts of full-scale copper mining in the proposed withdrawal areas. No viable plan of operations for such mining has been submitted, making any analysis purely speculative. See the discussion under “Key Issues and Analysis Framework” section.

A minority of commenters were opposed to the proposed withdrawal. A common theme was “Withdrawing mineral collection infringes on rights given by law”, referring to the 1872 Mining Law as amended. This statement is outside the scope of the National Environmental Policy Act analysis, as decision authority rests solely with the Secretary of the Interior. Neither the Forest Service nor the Bureau of Land Management holds authority for making a decision. Our role is to assess the impacts of the proposed withdrawal, assemble the case file as specified in 43 CFR 2310.3-2, and make a recommendation for decision by the Secretary based on that case file.

Whether support or opposition was stated with response to the proposed mineral withdrawal, under the National Environmental Policy Act, the environmental analysis for the proposed withdrawal must be based on current proposals and reasonably foreseeable future actions. As there are no specific proposals, we have no basis to presume the nature of operational components, such as how or where mineral processing would proceed, the transportation network that would be needed, where test drilling would occur, and countless other details. Thus, an analysis of the potential impacts of full-scale copper mining would be purely speculative and outside the scope of the project.

In a similar manner, concerns over general mining impacts, as exemplified in other parts of the country and other types of mines, are not applicable to the specific resource conditions or the likely type of mineral development in the proposed withdrawal areas.

Proposed Action and Alternatives Three alternatives were considered and analyzed in detail. One additional alternative was considered but not analyzed in detail. A no-action alternative and two action alternatives were analyzed in detail. There is a proposed action of a 20-year withdrawal and an alternative action of a 5-year withdrawal.

8 2017 Methow Headwaters Mineral Withdrawal Environmental Assessment

The purpose and need was created by the introduction in Congress of the Methow Headwaters Protection Act. If Congress has not passed legislation to permanently withdraw the lands from mineral entry, new plans of operation, new claims, or both could be submitted. This would happen at the expiration of either the 5-year withdrawal or the 20-year withdrawal. Similarly, if it is anticipated the pending legislation would not be approved by the time the withdrawal expired, an extension for a new period of withdrawal could be submitted. Per regulation, this extension would have to be completed before the withdrawal term expires (43 CFR 2310.1-2(c)) and must include studies, analyses, and reports (43 CFR 2310.3-2 (b)). Proposed Action: 20-year Withdrawal The Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management request a 20-year proposed withdrawal from settlement, sale, location, and entry under the public land laws; location and entry under the United States mining laws; and operation of the mineral and geothermal leasing laws for approximately 340,079 acres of National Forest System lands in Okanogan County. The proposed withdrawal areas are provided in the maps included with the proposed legislation titled “Methow Headwaters Protection Act of 2016” and as described in the December 30, 2016 Federal Register notice. See appendix A for the full legal description of included lands.

Under the proposed withdrawal, no new mining claims may be located, mineral entry would be prohibited, and no mineral leasing is allowed. Proposed withdrawals are strictly administrative actions; they do not involve any ground-disturbing activities. No other land management activities are affected by proposed withdrawal from mineral entry.

Proposed withdrawal from operation under the mining and mineral leasing laws is subject to the validity exam process. Any existing mining claims may be developed after a minerals validity examination determines a discovery of a valuable mineral deposit existed at the time of the segregation. There are five existing claims in the proposed withdrawal and all are lode claims. To date, no existing claims have gone through valid exiting right process. The examination process could take many years to complete, and the costs are borne by the agency. Forest Service personnel will not approve a plan of operation under 36 CFR 228 without first determining if a valid existing right (VER) exists.3 Minerals on the five active mining claims could be further developed subject to valid exiting rights. If a valid existing right is put in place, there could still be a decade or more to verify an economic deposit, which is required and usually necessitates more intense samplings and exploration (drilling) before any mining operation could be approved.

There were no approved plans of operation for mining on lands administered by the Forest Service submitted prior to segregation. Alternative Action: 5-year Withdrawal In response to public input received during the 90-day comment period, we will analyze the proposed withdrawal for a shorter 5-year period. This alternative is similar to the proposed action except that it decreases the period of proposed withdrawal time from 20 years to five years.

3 VER is a process for valid existing right as detailed at 43 CFR 3809.100

9 2017 Methow Headwaters Mineral Withdrawal Environmental Assessment

No Action: No Withdrawal Under the no-action alternative, proposed withdrawal from location and entry under the mining laws and operation of the mineral and geothermal leasing laws would not occur, leaving the area open to the general mining and minerals leasing laws. The current segregation would end with a secretarial notice of denial.

Under this alternative, new mining claims could be established, and proposed plans of operation could be submitted. The agencies would proceed with evaluating and authorizing previously submitted plans of operation, subject to site-specific National Environmental Policy Act analysis, including specified mitigations and project design criteria. No plans of operation have been submitted at this time.

As explained in the publication “The Anatomy of a Mine from Prospect to Production” (USDA Forest Service 1995), the lack of a proposed withdrawal does not mean the required steps or processes from discovery to processing minerals in a mine could be developed in less time than explained. It is impossible to estimate when or if a producing mine could become established in less time than history has shown. The last processing completed in the area was in the 1940s, so it would be speculation as there are no plans of operation submitted on the five current claims and the 52 claims from Mazama Minerals Inc. are forfeited.

Suction dredge operations could occur, although no plans of operation have been submitted and none are expected. Alternatives Considered But Eliminated from Detailed Study: In response to the Federal Register notice, Bureau of Land Management personnel received numerous comments suggesting a different footprint. As the purpose of the 20-year proposed withdrawal is in aid of introduced legislation, this alternative would not fulfill the purpose and need and it was not analyzed in detail. Key Issues and Analysis Framework Issues and analysis in an environmental assessment are typically focused on the environmental effects of a proposed action, which may be contrasted with taking no action. This analysis is unusual for two reasons:

1. The proposed action would forestall mining disturbance and activities but have no direct effects on the land or other land use actions. 2. The analysis required for proposed withdrawals is detailed in 43 CFR 2310.3-2, and certain elements must be included, even if no issues or impacts to these resources would occur from implementation of the proposed action.

10 2017 Methow Headwaters Mineral Withdrawal Environmental Assessment

Per regulations, effects of proposed withdrawal to the state, region, and Nation must also be addressed as stated in 43 CFR 2310.3-2:

• an analysis of the manner in which mineral development is incompatible or conflicts with other resource values in the area • existing cultural resources within the proposed withdrawal areas • roadless areas with wilderness characteristics within the proposed withdrawal areas • mineral resource analysis • assessments for threatened and endangered species • presence and involvement of floodplains, wetlands, or both

Issues can be driven by public comments in response to scoping and comment periods.

• Issues driven by responses from the public in relation to the no-action alternative are social and economic effects to individuals and local communities from eliminating mining activity in the proposed withdrawal area. Minerals potential and minerals economics will be discussed in the “Minerals” section. • Issues driven by responses from the public in relation to the proposed action alternatives are social, biological, and ecological values, such as clean water, scenic values, and associated opportunities, such as recreation, hunting and fishing, and wilderness experiences. Recreation issues will be discussed in the “Recreation” section and include visuals, hunting and fishing, and trails. Analysis for the action alternatives (20-year and 5-year proposed withdrawals) will display the general effects of precluding mineral entry. Analysis for the no-action alternative will display the general effects of these areas being open to mineral entry, as contrasted with mineral entry being precluded. Analysis for no action, in which no proposed withdrawal will occur, will be based on:

• areas with proposed mineral plans of operation at the time of segregation; • areas of suction dredge activity, as characterized by permits from the State of Washington; and • the distribution of existing claims and the potential for resource conflicts (for example, whether existing claims occur in areas with threatened, endangered, and sensitive species; sensitive wetlands; popular recreation sites; or other high-value resources). The analysis makes no assumptions about the specifics (location, timing, nature, or intensity) of any future full-scale mining, as any such assumptions would be speculative. In the absence of a proposed withdrawal or based on valid existing rights, future mineral development activity would be subject to site-specific environmental analysis and consultation if listed species might be affected. Future decisions and site-specific mitigations, project design criteria, or viable alternatives cannot be foreseen. Consequently, the potential for impacts or conflicts from being open to mineral entry, beyond the existing proposals, will be discussed only in general terms, based on the nature of known mineral deposits, specialist knowledge, agency experience, and technical and scientific literature.

11 2017 Methow Headwaters Mineral Withdrawal Environmental Assessment

Existing plans of operation: None

Existing claims: There are five legal mining claims filed with the Bureau of Land Management in the in the proposed withdrawal area, but no mining development has occurred since about 1940s. At present, there are no approved plans of operation for any claim (including these five claims) within the proposed withdrawal area.

There have been zero placer claims, placer plans of operation, or both submitted within the last 10 years (and likely beyond). All reviewed claims have been lode claims. There are no known existing and ongoing placer mining, suction dredge mining, or both within the project area; therefore, they are not discussed further. This information is contained in the “Minerals Potential” report per direction in Bureau of Land Management manuals 3031 and 3060.

No effects can be anticipated in the foreseeable future given the past history of the area and the fact that any exploratory drilling over the past 70 years has not confirmed a mineral reserve.

Table 1. Comparison of alternatives by resource Proposed Action 20-year Alternative Action Issue Withdrawal 5-Year Withdrawal No-Action Alternative Biological: No change to No change in current Without a verified reserve, no Aquatics and possible minimal condition as a valid action is anticipated in the fisheries, botanical, potential impact on exiting right could take foreseeable future. and wildlife the areas of the up to, or more than, five existing claims five years to complete

Physical: No change to No change in current Without a verified reserve, no Hydrology possible minimal condition as a valid action is anticipated in the potential impact on exiting right could take foreseeable future. the areas of the up to, or more than, five existing claims five years to complete Social (recreation): No change to No change in current Without a verified reserve, no Visuals, hunting possible minimal condition as a valid action is anticipated in the and fishing, potential impact on exiting right could take foreseeable future. solitude, hiking and the areas of the up to, or more than, skiing five existing claims five years to complete

Economic No change from No change in current Economics trends for travel and current condition condition as a valid tourism have been mostly stable exiting right could take of the past decades, whereas up to, or more than, mining has been decreasing. The five years to complete no-action alternative may do little to change this trend due to lack of a verified reserve.

12 2017 Methow Headwaters Mineral Withdrawal Environmental Assessment

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action and the No-Action Alternative This section summarizes the potential impacts of the proposed action and the no-action alternative. As past actions are over ten years old and there are no current or foreseeable future actions, this environmental analysis focuses on those resources most likely to be affected or potentially affected. Detailed analysis discussions are available from individual specialist reports for each resource, located in the project file and available upon request to the Okanogan Wenatchee National Forest.

The following resources are not affected by the proposed action and no-action alternative and are not addressed in this analysis: general vegetation management, fire and fuels management, rangeland vegetation, livestock grazing, real estate rights-of-way and special uses, roads, and transportation. Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions There are no past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future actions in the proposed withdrawal area relating to mineral extraction. The last mineral extraction in the proposed withdrawal area was in the 1940s. At the time of segregation, there were five existing claims, none of which had a previously approved plan of operation, and 52 forfeited claims (43 CFR 3830.91 (a) (4)). Cumulative effects are based on past present and reasonable foreseeable further actions. The Mining Process To understand the typical mining process and timing of the methods, see Forest Service publication “Anatomy of a Mine from Prospect to Production” (USDA Forest Service 1995). The publication explains the many stages involved in establishing a mining claim. It follows the many mandatory permits, forms, and analysis path from the beginning of a discovery and staking a claim though development a mine through the actual processing of a mineral. This process can take many years if not decades, as each stage depends on industry demand. As mentioned in the report:

“Many and varied are reasons why a company cannot put the property into operations immediately, and some of the more critical ones are completely beyond the control of the company.”

The report lists ten reasons for a mine not being established, including an unanticipated rise or drop in price, increase in labor costs, tax laws or assessment changes, threat of litigation, action of private conservation groups, or lack of capital. These are just a few of the hurdles to overcome for a mine to be put in place at the end of a segregation period if the pending legislation is not passed. This reference is mentioned to provide an understanding of stages of mining considered in a logical forecast of expected activities carried forward if a discovery could be developed from the potential of a mineral into a minable deposit.

13 2017 Methow Headwaters Mineral Withdrawal Environmental Assessment

Minerals A potential minerals report has been completed to assess the mineral occurrence and development potential of the approximately 340,079 acres of public lands proposed for proposed withdrawal from entry, appropriation, or disposal under the public land laws; from location and entry under the United States mining laws; and from operations under the mineral and geothermal leasing laws, subject to valid existing rights.

The potential minerals report was completed according to Bureau of Land Management manuals 3031 and 3060. It assesses the mineral occurrence potential and mineral development potential of the subject lands (for example, the proposed withdrawal area). Per Bureau of Land Management Manual 3031 (Energy and Mineral Resource Assessment), it states:

“the potential for mineral resources is a prediction of the likelihood of the occurrence of these resources. The occurrence of a mineral resource does not necessarily imply that the mineral can be economically exploited or is likely to be developed; mineral occurrence potential includes both exploitable and potentially exploitable occurrences. The potential for the occurrence of a mineral resource also does not imply that the quality and quantity of the resource are known.”

The analysis focuses on the potential for mineral resources and is not based on specific resource impacts associated with any specific submissions or proposals.

Exploratory drilling over the past 70 years has not confirmed a reserve. Discovery through exploratory drilling is the first stage of defining a reserve. Exploration could be halted at any point due to issues as simple as lack of either, capital, a smelter or refinery, or transportation facilities. Whether a 20-year proposed withdrawal, 5-year proposed withdrawal, or no proposed withdrawal is selected, the stages from discovery to confirming a reserve could take more than a decade, and verification of an economic deposit is necessary to begin the mining process.

Based on information in literature, in current records, and from site visits, the proposed withdrawal area has high potential for certain metallic minerals. It has moderate potential for mineral materials throughout and low potential for all other commodities.

There are five discrete areas classified as having high potential for metallic minerals. These areas make up 63,000 acres of the total proposed withdrawal area and less than 7,000 acres might have a high likelihood of potential development, although a reserve has not been verified:

• the Mazama deposit near the town of Mazama near Goat Mountain—about 7,000-acre deposit • an area following the Methow River northwest on the eastern side of the river near the Mazama deposit (Midnight Peak formation)—about 12,000-acre deposit • an area up Eightmile Creek (some acres are in the Pasayten Wilderness)—about 11,000- acre deposit • an area east of the Pasayten Fault – Okanogan blocks—about 5,000-acre deposit • an area west of the Methow River – Methow West—27,000-acre deposit

14 2017 Methow Headwaters Mineral Withdrawal Environmental Assessment

A small area along the western lobe of the proposed withdrawal area has moderate potential for metallic minerals. The potential for locatable uranium or thorium is classified as low and there are no known deposits for oil and gas, coal, oil shale, phosphate, potash, sodium, tar sands, or potassium deposits within the proposed withdrawal area. There is low favorability and no known geothermal resource areas within the area.

The potential for mineral material is moderate. Developed sources on lands of other ownership appear to be meeting most of the current demand for mineral materials; therefore potential for development of mineral materials is low. There are no reported nonmetallic or industrial minerals within the proposed withdrawal area.

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) “Critical Mineral Resources of the United States, Professional Paper 1802” (USGS 2017) identified 23 mineral commodities and commodity groups as critical to a broad range of existing and emerging technologies, renewable energy, and national security. The commodities or commodity groups include antimony, barite, beryllium, cobalt, fluorine, gallium, germanium, graphite, hafnium, indium, lithium, manganese, niobium, platinum-group elements, rare-earth elements, rhenium, selenium, tantalum, tellurium, tin, titanium, vanadium, and zirconium. These commodities have also been listed as critical or strategic based on possible supply disruption and the resulting costs. From the above list of materials, arsenic, tungsten, and uranium, (on the list of critical minerals released by the Department of the Interior (DOI 2018)), are present; however, they may not exist in a concentration large enough to be considered an occurrence.

Presidential Executive Order 13817, signed December 20, 2017, provided a Federal strategy to ensure secure and reliable supplies of critical minerals. The executive order states it is “the policy of the Federal Government to “reduce the Nation’s vulnerability to disruptions in the supply of critical materials, which constitutes a strategic vulnerability for the security and prosperity of the United States.” The Secretary issued a final list of critical minerals on May 18, 2018.

Forest Service personnel have reviewed the area of the proposed Methow Valley withdrawal for the possible presence of critical or strategic minerals. The Methow proposed withdrawal area shows low potential of the minerals identified as critical or strategic as identified by USGS and no historic interest in exploration for these minerals.

Mineral Economics Mining activity of any type from the proposed withdrawal area is not an economic driver of the region, as there is very little current or recent activity. The need for mineral material appears to be met mostly by sand and gravel or other (rip rap, shot rock) operations on lands of other ownership. This is based on the low number of mineral material permits issued by Okanogan- Wenatchee National Forest staff in the past five years. The needs of the communities are not expected to change in the foreseeable future; therefore, it is likely existing sources will continue to meet those needs. There are no current or recent oil and gas wells or geothermal exploration or development wells. Therefore, leasable commodity development is not expected in the foreseeable future.

Generally, the development of a producing mine for metallic minerals could have a fair economic impact on the region. None of the claims within the proposed withdrawal area are beyond the initial exploration stage; therefore, development of a producing mine is not foreseeable.

15 2017 Methow Headwaters Mineral Withdrawal Environmental Assessment

“The Anatomy of a Mine from Prospect to Production” publication states, “only a very small percentage of prospects develop into producing mines; authoritative estimates are in the range of 1 in 5,000 to 1 in 10,000.” As also stated in the publication, “the mineralized portions of the earth’s crust are at fixed localities, and it is not possible to move the economic concentration of mineral to a location where mining might conflict less with others.”

The Okanogan County mining economics profile, which includes oil and gas, shows a downward trend in jobs as compared to the U.S. as a whole (USDC 2018). Mining represented 0.63 percent of total employment in the county in 1998 and 0.34 percent of total employment in 2016, despite the higher wages in mining compared to wages in travel and tourism, the main industries in the proposed withdrawal area.

Mineral Resources Potential The following mineral resources have listed potential to be found in the withdrawal area: coal, oil and gas, geothermal, sodium, potassium, metallic minerals, uranium, thorium, nonmetallic minerals and industrial minerals, common variety minerals, and others (for example, naturally occurring arsenic) as described by the State of Washington Department of Natural Resources (Washington State 2018). To date, none of been found economically viable for development.

Nothing in the literature indicates or identifies any potential for placer resources. Historic prospecting and production were all in pursuit of lode mineralization, and nothing in the history suggests there was even a small era of successful placer prospecting. Therefore, discussions of mineral potential will be in reference to the potential for an occurrence of lode mineralization.

Small amounts of copper, gold, and silver have been historically produced from the proposed withdrawal area; however, no production has been reported since the late 1940s (Carithers 1946; Derkey and Lasmanis 1990). Historic prospecting and production was clustered around the areas near the community of Mazama and up Eightmile Creek.

Effects Based on the Potential If the proposed withdrawal is approved, the area will be removed from operation under the various mineral authorities, and the opportunity to explore for or develop minerals will cease to exist for a minimum of 20 years or 5 years depending on the alternative selected. If the claimants holding the five existing claims within the proposed withdrawal area want to develop the minerals subject to the U.S. mining laws, they will have to prove the claims carry valid existing rights, at great cost in time and dollars to the agency and the claimants. The authorized officer should carefully consider all of the above in determining whether to recommend proposed withdrawal from the public land laws and mineral authorities. Hydrology The proposed withdrawal area is entirely within the Methow sub basin and the Lost River, Upper Methow River, Middle Methow River, Upper Chewuch River, and Lower Chewuch River watersheds. Floodplains surround most unconfined streams in the proposed withdrawal area. Three wetlands were verified within the Mazama mining district/Flagg Mountain area.

16 2017 Methow Headwaters Mineral Withdrawal Environmental Assessment

Surface water quality in the proposed withdrawal area is high. To date, none of the mining features in the proposed withdrawal area have been documented (in Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest files) as causing water quality concerns. Groundwater within the Mazama mining district/Flagg Mountain area was sampled in 2014 (Graham 2014). All groundwater samples met primary drinking water maximum contaminant levels for antimony, arsenic, barium, and cadmium. However, some samples exceeded at least one secondary maximum contaminant level for sulfate, aluminum, iron, manganese, specific conductance, total dissolved solids, or some combination of these contaminants.

Proposed Action: 20-year Withdrawal If the proposed withdrawal is the selected alternative, no ground-disturbing mining activities would occur, unless an existing claims holder filed a new plan of operations and demonstrated a valid existing right. Site-specific direct, indirect, and cumulative effects to water resources would be analyzed at that time, as required by the National Environmental Policy Act. Therefore, the effects to water resources are outside the scope of this analysis.

Alternative Action: 5-year Withdrawal A 5 year mineral proposed withdrawal would have similar effects as the 20-year mineral proposed withdrawal although shorter in length as the proposed withdrawal would expire after 5 years. At that time, plans of operation would be subject to site-specific effects analysis and applicable processes and analysis under National Environmental Policy Act.

No Action: No Withdrawal There would be no direct effects to water resources associated with the no-action alternative because it is an administrative action. If the no-action alternative is selected, new claims, new plans of operation, or both could be submitted. At that time, plans of operation would be subject to site-specific effects analysis and applicable processes and analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act. Therefore, the effects to water resources are beyond the scope of this analysis. Fisheries The following threatened or endangered fish and their critical habitat are found in the Methow Headwaters proposed withdrawal area: Upper Columbia River spring-run Chinook, Upper Columbia River steelhead, and Columbia River bull trout. Region 6 sensitive fish species in the proposed withdrawal area are Pacific lamprey, west slope cutthroat trout, and inland red band rainbow trout. The following aquatic insects are listed as strategic on the Region 6 special status species list: Wenatchee forestfly (Malenka wenatchee), Farula raineri (a caddisfly), and Rhyacophila gemona (a caddisfly). Management indicator species in the Methow proposed withdrawal area are spring-run chinook, west slope cutthroat, inland redband rainbow, steelhead, bull trout, and eastern brook trout.

17 2017 Methow Headwaters Mineral Withdrawal Environmental Assessment

Proposed Action: 20-year Withdrawal The proposed action is administrative and does not involve any specific ground disturbance, environmental changes, or impacts to aquatic species. No ground-disturbing mining activities would occur, unless an existing claims holder filed a new plan of operations and demonstrated a valid existing right. If a claim was to be found valid, National Environmental Policy Act analysis and Endangered Species Act Section 7 consultation would occur prior to authorizing any ground- disturbing activity. At that time, site-specific analysis would occur for all threatened and endangered fish, Region 6 special status species (sensitive and strategic), and management indicator species. Therefore the effects are outside the scope of this analysis.

Under this administrative action, the proposed action would have no effect on the Upper Columbia River spring-run chinook evolutionarily significant unit, the Upper Columbia River steelhead distinct population segment, and Columbia River bull trout and their critical habitat. The proposed action would not adversely affect essential fish habitat for Chinook or coho salmon. Due to the “no effect” determination for listed species and critical habitat, no consultation with NOAA Fisheries Service will occur. The proposed action would have “no impact” on Forest Service sensitive or strategic species and would have “no effect on the viability” of management indicator species. There would be no cumulative effects to any species.

Alternative Action: 5-year Withdrawal A 5-year mineral proposed withdrawal would have similar effects as the 20-year mineral proposed withdrawal although shorter in length as the proposed withdrawal would expire after 5 years. At that time, plans of operation would be subject to site-specific effects analysis and applicable processes and analysis under National Environmental Policy Act

No Action: No Withdrawal The no-action alternative is administrative and does not involve any specific ground disturbance, environmental changes or impacts to aquatic species. Under the no-action alternative, the proposed withdrawal area would remain open to location and entry. New mining claims could be located, and exploration and development activities would continue to be processed by the Forest Service. If site-specific mining activities are proposed, the appropriate level of analysis, consultation, and National Environmental Policy Act documentation would occur at that time. Therefore the effects are outside the scope of this analysis. Wildlife The effects analysis for wildlife includes proposed, endangered, and threatened species; Forest Service Region 6 sensitive species; and management indicator species from the Okanogan- Wenatchee National Forest that may be present in the project area.

Proposed Action: 20-year Withdrawal The proposed action would have “no effect” on gray wolf, grizzly bear, lynx and its designated critical habitat, and northern spotted owl and its critical habitat; it “is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence” of wolverines. It would have “no impact” on Forest Service sensitive species, would have “no effect on the viability” of management indicator species; and “would not result in unintentional take” of migratory birds. There would be no cumulative effects to any species.

18 2017 Methow Headwaters Mineral Withdrawal Environmental Assessment

The proposed action is administrative and does not involve any specific ground disturbance, environmental changes, or impacts to wildlife resources. No ground-disturbing mining activities would occur, unless an existing claims holder filed a new plan of operations and demonstrated a valid existing right. If a claim was to be found valid, National Environmental Policy Act analysis and Endangered Species Act Section 7 consultation would occur prior to authorizing any ground- disturbing activity. Site-specific analysis would occur for all proposed, endangered, and threatened species; Region 6 sensitive species; management indicator species; migratory birds; and any other species or habitat of concern.

No Action: No Withdrawal There would be no effects to wildlife species from the no-action alternative. Under the no-action alternative, the proposed withdrawal area would remain open to location and entry. New mining claims could be located, and exploration and development activities would continue to be processed by the Forest Service. If site-specific mining activities are proposed, the appropriate level of analysis, consultation, and National Environmental Policy Act documentation would occur at that time. Reasonable terms and conditions would apply to avoid or minimize adverse impacts to wildlife species of concern. Cultural Resources A Class I literature search and site records review was conducted to identify all known cultural resources within the proposed withdrawal area boundaries. The literature and records review identified 103 previously recorded pre-contact and historic period archaeological sites and 50 isolated finds within the boundary of the proposed withdrawal area. One site, a depression-era Forest Service administrative site consisting of several buildings, is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Of the remaining sites, 12 have been determined eligible for listing on the National Register, 52 sites were previously determined not eligible, and 38 sites remain unevaluated

Terrestrial wildlife, fish, aquatics, vegetation and rivers traditionally used by the Tribes have been identified within the proposed withdrawal area; many of these areas are still in use today, and the Confederated Tribes of the Colville have indicated the Methow Valley continues to have significant cultural value to them.

Proposed Action: 20-year Withdrawal The proposed action would have no effect to cultural resources as defined under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended. The proposed withdrawal would have no effect to the physical integrity or use of sacred sites under Executive Order 13007. Since the proposed action would have no effect to cultural resources, there would be no cumulative effects.

19 2017 Methow Headwaters Mineral Withdrawal Environmental Assessment

If minerals proposed withdrawal is the selected alternative, no ground-disturbing mining activities would occur, unless an existing claims holder filed a new plan of operations and demonstrated a valid existing right. At that time, site-specific direct, indirect, and cumulative effects to cultural resources would be analyzed as required by the National Environmental Policy Act. Therefore those effects are outside the scope of this analysis.

No Action: No Withdrawal The no-action alternative would not affect cultural resources because it is an administrative action. Under the no-action alternative, the proposed withdrawal area would remain open to location and entry. New mining claims could be located, and exploration and development activities would continue to be processed by the Forest Service. If site-specific mining activities are proposed, the Forest Service would conduct cultural resource inventories to identify and evaluate all cultural resources located within the area of potential effect from the proposed action. Tribal consultation would be conducted to identify specific traditional cultural properties and sacred sites within the area of potential effect. Invasive Plants Invasive plant infestations within the project area are primarily associated with roads but may also occur in areas where timber harvest has taken place and in historic grazing areas. There are approximately 4,000 acres of invasive plants in the proposed withdrawal area. Diffuse knapweed (approximately 2,600 acres), sulfur cinquefoil (approximately 540 acres), and oxeye daisy (approximately 230 acres) are the most prevalent of the 19 invasive plant species found in the area.

Proposed Action: 20-year Withdrawal If minerals proposed withdrawal is the selected alternative, no ground-disturbing mining activities would occur, unless an existing claims holder filed a new plan of operations and demonstrated a valid existing right. At that time, invasive species introduction, establishment, and spread and integrated weed management would be addressed. Therefore, those effects are outside the scope of this analysis.

No Action: No Withdrawal There would be no effects to invasive plant introduction, establishment, or spread from the no- action alternative because it is an administrative action. Under this alternative, the proposed

20 2017 Methow Headwaters Mineral Withdrawal Environmental Assessment

withdrawal area would remain open to location and entry. New mining claims could be located, and exploration and development activities would continue to be processed by the Forest Service. If site-specific mining activities are proposed, invasive species introduction, establishment and spread and integrated weed management would be addressed at that time. Rare Plants There are no threatened or endangered plant species known or suspected to occur in the project area. There are 21 sensitive plant species and 2 survey-and-manage plant species in the area. The complete list of plants is in the “Botany” report and biological evaluation.

Proposed Action: 20-year Withdrawal If minerals proposed withdrawal is the selected alternative, no ground-disturbing mining activities would occur, unless an existing claims holder filed a new plan of operations and demonstrated a valid existing right. Future ground-disturbing activities would require additional site-specific environmental analysis, and protections for threatened, endangered, sensitive, or survey-and- manage plant resources. At that time, effects to these resources would be addressed. Therefore the effects are outside the scope of this analysis.

The proposed action would have “no effect” on any federally listed threatened or endangered plants, and “no impact” on any Region 6 sensitive plants or survey-and-manage plant species.

No Action: No Withdrawal There would be no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to botanical resources because this is an administrative action. Under this alternative, the proposed withdrawal area would remain open to location and entry. New mining claims could be located, and exploration and development activities would continue to be processed by the Forest Service. If site-specific mining activities are proposed, ground-disturbing activities would require additional site-specific environmental analysis, and protections for threatened, endangered, sensitive, or survey-and-manage plant species. Recreation Recreational activities within the proposed withdrawal area are associated with hiking, skiing, hunting, and fishing. The exact numbers of forest visitors and exact use is currently unknown. The area’s natural beauty, outdoor recreation assets, and sense of place have drawn residents, businesses, and visitors from across the country.

The proposed withdrawal meets Secretarial Order 3356, Hunting, Fishing, Recreational Shooting, and Wildlife Conservation Opportunities and Coordination with States, Tribes, and Territories, signed September 15, 2017. One purpose of Secretarial Order 3356 is to enhance recreational fishing and provide greater opportunity at recruiting and retaining sportsmen and women and conservationists. The Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forests includes rivers, high-elevation

21 2017 Methow Headwaters Mineral Withdrawal Environmental Assessment

lakes, reservoirs, and small ponds that offer abundant fishing opportunities for the experienced and beginning angler. Anglers can pursue Northwest salmon and steelhead, several varieties of trout, and warm-water fish. The Methow River’s strong population of wild rainbows, westslope cutthroat trout, and steelhead draw anglers every summer.

The withdrawal is also consistent with the Secretarial Order 3356 objective to expand recreational opportunities to “provide additional revenue for fish and wildlife conservation and for many small rural communities across America.” Several local businesses rely on Methow Valley’s recreational fishing industry for revenue. These include recreational guiding services, tourist accommodations, and local retail and food service business. A 2002 study by Washington State Employment Security Department shows employment in agriculture, forestry, and fishing represented 26.5 percent of total employment for Okanagan County.4

Recreation Economics The Okanogan County Travel and Tourism profile makes up 23 percent of Okanagan County, compared to the 15.8 percent for the rest of the U.S. (USDC 2018). Travel and tourism represented 24 percent of total county employment in 1988 and 22 percent in 2016. This decline in travel and tourism was offset by an increase in nontravel and tourism employment countywide: of 6,261 in 1998 and 6,723 in 2016.

According to Resource Dimensions’ 2005 report, the Methow Valley contains a 200-kilometer Nordic skiing trail network on Federal, State, and private lands, which brings an average (1998 to 2005) of just under 25,000 skier days and generates about $4.5 million directly, another $4.1 million indirectly, and another $2.7 million annually through related industry earnings in the Methow Valley. Of this 200-kilometer network, 52 percent of the trail system is on National Forest System lands. In a 2015 update, Resource Dimensions stated, “nearly $6.7 million dollars in direct expenditures are made annually (2014 dollars) to the Methow Valley economy by local and nonlocal trail users.”

Following the Carlton Fire Complex of 2014 in the proposed withdrawal area, Washington State Governor Jay Inslee approved $150,000 in economic recovery aid to promote the Methow Valley and Okanogan County as a tourism and visitor location. The governor stated, “From the Methow Valley and Okanogan National Forest to the Grand Coulee Dam, this region boosts beautiful landscapes, diverse wilderness recreation activities and historic towns.”

Proposed Action: 20-year Withdrawal If a 20-year minerals proposed withdrawal is the selected alternative, no ground-disturbing mining activities would occur, unless an existing claims holder filed a new plan of operations and demonstrated a valid existing right. At that time recreation effects would be addressed. Therefore, those effects are outside the scope of this analysis.

4 Methow Valley Sport Trails Association, Economic Impacts of MVSTA Trails and Land Resources in the Methow Valley, July 2005; See ESDc, September 2002. Okanogan County Profile, Labor Market and Economic Analysis Branch, Washington State Employment Security Department.

22 2017 Methow Headwaters Mineral Withdrawal Environmental Assessment years. At that time, plans of operation would be subject to site-specific effects analysis and applicable processes and analysis under National Environmental Policy Act.

No Action: No Withdrawal The no-action alternative is administrative and does not involve any specific ground disturbance, environmental changes or impacts to recreation. Under the no-action alternative, the proposed withdrawal area would remain open to location and entry. New mining claims could be located, and exploration and development activities would continue to be processed by the Forest Service. If site-specific mining activities are proposed, the appropriate level of analysis, consultation, and National Environmental Policy Act documentation would occur at that time. Therefore, the effects are outside the scope of this analysis. Given there is one main ore body discussed in the minerals potential report located under Flagg Mtn. and history shows no reserve has been confirmed for 70 years, many stages are required before effects would exist. Potential effects are described in table 2.

Table 2. Potential effects to recreation and visual resources if mining activity (from discovery to production) occurs 20-Yr. Proposed 5-Yr Proposed No Action (No Proposed Resource Withdrawal Withdrawal withdrawal) Visuals No change to existing No change to If all requirements for mineral condition is expected, valid existing development were achieved, existing right required, conditions exploring activities might be environmental analysis expected – time seen from the highest peaks in required before any actions limiting period the Pasaytan Wilderness, the could move forward peaks in the Liberty Bell proposed wilderness, the overlook on Washington Pass Road and the higher elevations of North Cascades National Park. Hunting and No change to existing No change to Summer roads might be fishing condition is expected, valid existing temporarily closed by a seasonal existing right required, conditions closure or a signed closure environmental analysis expected – time increasing travel access times. required before any actions limiting period could move forward Solitude No change to existing No change to Noise from traffic associated condition is expected, valid existing with a mining activity has the existing right required, conditions potential to reduce solitude. environmental analysis expected – time Heavy mining activity is required before any actions limiting period anticipated to be similar to a could move forward timber sale. Trails – hiking No change to existing No change to Summer trails may be blocked and skiing condition is expected, valid existing for short periods of time if mining existing right required, conditions occurred. Concerns may be environmental analysis expected – time mitigated for helicopter skiing. required before any actions limiting period could move forward

23 2017 Methow Headwaters Mineral Withdrawal Environmental Assessment

Roadless The Long Swamp Roadless Area occurs within the proposed withdrawal area. Approximately 15,444 acres of this inventoried roadless area exhibit wilderness characteristics. As the name suggests, this area is characterized by swampy lowlands along the southern edge of the Pasayten Wilderness boundary in the northwest end of the proposed withdrawal area (see figure 5).

Proposed Action: 20-year Withdrawal If mineral proposed withdrawal is the selected alternative, no ground-disturbing mining activities would occur, unless an existing claims holder filed a new plan of operations and was able to demonstrate that a valid existing right pre-dated mineral sequester and proposed withdrawal. After an existing claims holder established the valid existing right, the environmental analysis for the plan of operations would assess the potential impacts of the proposed plan on the roadless area and its wilderness characteristics would be addressed. Therefore, those effects are outside the scope of this analysis.

No Action – No Withdrawal Under this alternative, the proposed withdrawal area would remain open to location and entry. Existing mining claims could be developed and new mining claims could be located. Exploration and development activities would continue to be processed by the Forest Service, potentially reducing the opportunities for solitude. If site-specific mining activities are proposed, ground- disturbing activities would require mitigations to roadless areas with wilderness characteristics. However, the agency has limited authority to deny exploratory development.

24 2017 Methow Headwaters Mineral Withdrawal Environmental Assessment

Figure 5. Methow Headwater proposed mineral withdrawal and roadless boundaries

25 2017 Methow Headwaters Mineral Withdrawal Environmental Assessment

Agencies and Persons Consulted Invitations to comment on the Federal Register notice of proposed withdrawal and this environmental assessment were extended to organizations on the forestwide scoping mailing list. Such organizations include officials of County governments in western and central Washington, State agencies concerned with land and natural resource management, other Federal agencies, watershed councils, industry groups, local libraries, and environmental groups known to have an interest in Federal land management in central and northern Washington.

Additionally, public news releases regarding the opportunity to comment were distributed to local media outlets. An additional Federal Register notice will announce the reopening of a comment period and a public meeting. Tribal Consultation Meetings were held with the Confederated Tribes of Colville and the Yakama Nation Department of Natural Resources. Meetings were held at the Tribal Center in Nespeleum, Washington in August of 2017. The two Tribes have individually expressed support for the proposed withdrawal proposal.

Letters were sent to the Confederated Tribes of Colville and the Yakama Nation Department of Natural Resources. The letters described the legislation under consideration and the proposed temporary proposed withdrawal, the public comment period and public meetings, and the environmental analysis process. The Confederated Tribes of Colville and the Yakama Nation Department of Natural Resources submitted letters supporting the proposed withdrawal to the Forest Service during the public comment period.

26 2017 Methow Headwaters Mineral Withdrawal Environmental Assessment

References 173-200-WAC. Water quality standards for Washington's groundwater. Chapter 173-200 Washington Administrative Code.

173-201A WAC. Water quality standards for surface waters of the State of Washington. Chapter 173-201A of the Washington Administrative Code.

246-290-310-WAC. Drinking water quality standards. Chapter 246-290-310. Washington Administrative Code.

Akins, J. 2015. Cascade red fox (Vulpes vulpes cascadensi). White paper, developed for Okanogan National Forest.

Andrews, J., E. Fishburn, B. Frazier, and R. Johnson, 1985. North Fork John Day River habitat improvement: annual report FY 1985. In: Natural Propagation and Habitat Enhancement, Volume I – Oregon, U.S. Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, Division of Fish and Wildlife, Project No. 84-8, Portland, Oregon, pp. 222-261.

Becker, S.A., T. Roussin, W. Jones, E. Krausz, S. Walker, S. Simek, D. Martorello, and A. Aoude. 2016. Washington gray wolf conservation and management 2015 annual report. Pages WA-1 to WA-24. In: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Rocky Mountain Wolf Program 2015 Annual Report. USFWS, Ecological Services, 585 Shepard Way, Helena, Montana, 59601.

Campbell, S.K., V. Cavazos, R. Dalan, P. Davis, and D. Hibbert. 1985. Summary of results, Chief Joseph Dam cultural resources project, Washington. Office of Public Archaeology, Institute of Environmental Studies, University of Washington, - Social Science - 599 pages

Chatters, J. C. 1986. The Wells Reservoir project. Vol. I: summary of findings, Central Washington University Central Washington Archaeological Survey, Archaeological Report 86-6, Ellensburg, WA.

Davis, R.J., B. Hollen, J. Hobson, J.E. Gower, and D. Keenum. 2016. Northwest forest plan – the first 20 years (1994-2013): status and trends of northern spotted owl habitats. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, PNW-GTR-929.

eBird. 2018. eBird: An online database of bird distribution and abundance (web application). eBird, Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, New York. Available: eBird Online Database, https://ebird.org/home (Accessed: January 18, 2018).

Galm, J.R. and R.A. Masten. 1985. Avey’s orchard: archaeological investigation of a late prehistoric Columbia River community. Reports in Archaeology and History 100-42. Eastern Washington University, Archaeological and Historical Services. Cheney.

Graham, G. 2014. Mazama copper project plan of operations draft groundwater resource report. Okanagan-Wenatchee National Forest, Methow Valley Ranger District.

27 2017 Methow Headwaters Mineral Withdrawal Environmental Assessment

Grette Associates LLC. 2016. Technical memorandum. Blue River resources proposed drill program wetland assessment.

Hayes, G.E. and J.B. Buchanan. 2002. Washington State status report for the peregrine falcon. Washington Dept. Fish and Wildlife, Olympia. 77 pp.

Heifner, M.A., 1978. Sand and gravel mining in Colorado riparian habitats. In: Lowland River and Stream Habitat in Colorado: A Symposium, October 4-5, 1978, W.D. Graul and S.J. Bissel (Technical coordinators), Colorado Chapter, the Wildlife Society and Colorado Audubon Council, Greeley, Colorado, pp. 141-147.

Hodges, L.K. 1897. Mining in the Pacific Northwest. The Post-Intelligencer, Seattle, WA. Shorey Bookstore reproduction SJS-134B, Mining in Easter and Central Washington, 1970.

Huff, R., S. Foltz, J. Miller, and C. Voight. 2011. Species fact sheet: Lycaena cupreus. Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation. Portland, OR

Huff, R., S. Foltz, J. Miller, and C. Voight. 2012. Species fact sheet: Boloria bellona. Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation. Portland, OR

Huff, R., S. Foltz, and S. Jepsen. 2014. Species fact sheet: Bombus occidentalis. Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation. Portland, OR

Humling, M. and C. Snow. 2005. Spring chinook spawning ground surveys in the Methow River basin in 2005. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Olympia, WA.

Interagency Lynx Biology Team (ILBT). 2013. Canada lynx conservation assessment and strategy. 3rd edition. USDA Forest Service, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, USDI Bureau of Land Management, and USDI National Park Service. Forest Service Publication Rl-13-19, Missoula, MT. 128 pp

Kelly, G. Dennis 1968. A partial history of the Okanogan National Forest. Memorandum to the file, Okanogan National Forest, Okanogan, WA.

Konrad, C.P., B.W. Drost, and R.J. Wagner. 2005. Hydrogeology of the unconsolidated sediments, water quality, and ground-water/surface-water exchanges in the Methow River Basin, Okanogan County, Washington. U.S. Geological Survey. Water-Resources Investigations Report 03-4244 Version 1.1.

Kulaas-Hink, A. 2009. Buck forest and fuels project: cultural resource inventory. Okanogan- Wenatchee National Forest, Methow Valley Ranger District. On file at Okanogan Wenatchee National Forest, Wenatchee, WA.

Littlefield, C.D. and G.L. Ivey. 2002. Washington State recovery plan for the Sandhill crane. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington. 71 pages.

Longcore T. and C. Rich. 2004. Ecological light pollution. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment Vol. 2, No. 4 pp. 191-198

Lotts, K. and T. Naberhaus, coordinators. 2017. Butterflies and moths of North America. https://www.butterfliesandmoths.org/ (Version 01/16/2018).

28 2017 Methow Headwaters Mineral Withdrawal Environmental Assessment

Lyons, A. L., W. L. Gaines, J. Begley, and P. Singleton. 2016. Grizzly bear carrying capacity in the North Cascades ecosystem. Final report. Submitted to the Skagit Environmental Endowment Commission. Seattle, Washington Contract #US 15-05.

Martin, S.B. and W.S. Platts. 1981. Effects of mining: influence of forest rangeland management on anadromous fish habitat in western North America. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-119, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Portland, Oregon, 15 pp.

Methow Conservancy. 2008. The stewardship chronicles: the masked duck of the Methow. eNewsletter. Methow Conservancy, http://www.methowconservancy.org/enews0508.html

Mullan J., K.R. Williams, G. Rhodus, and J.D. McIntire. 1992. Production and habitat of salmonids in mid-Columbia River tributary streams. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

National Archives and Records Administration. 1989. Executive order 13112 of February 3, 1999. Invasive species. Federal Register 64(25). https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-1999-02- 08/pdf/99-3184.pdf

National Archives and Records Administration. 2016. Executive order 13751 of December 8, 2016. Safeguarding the Nation from the Impacts of Invasive Species. Federal Register 81(236). https://www.invasivespeciesinfo.gov/laws/execorder.shtml#eo13751

Natural Resource Manager (NRM). 2018. U.S. Forest Service wildlife database, version 2.12.3

Proebstel, D.S., R.J. Behnke, and S.M. Noble. 1988. Identification of salmonid fishes from tributary streams and lakes of the mid-Columbia basin. Joint publication by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and World Salmonid Research Institute, Colorado State University.

Raforth, R.L., D.K. Norman, and A. Johnson. 2002. Second screening level investigation of water and sediment quality of creeks in ten Washington mining districts, with emphasis on metals. Washington Department of Ecology. Publication No. 02-03-024. 94 p.

Rieman, B.E., D.C. Lee, G. Chandler, and D. Myers. 1997. Does wildfire threaten extinction for salmonids: responses of redband trout and bull trout following recent large fires on the Boise National Forest? In: Proceedings of the Conference on Wildfire and Threatened and Endangered Species and Habitats, November 13-15, 1995, Coeur d'Alene Idaho. International Association of Wildland Fire, Fairfield, WA, pp. 47-57.

Rieman, B.E., D.C. Lee, and R.F. Thurow. 1997. Distribution, status, and likely future trends of bull trout within the Columbia River and Klamath River basins. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 17.4 (1997): 1111-1125.

Rohrer, J., M. Marsh, J. McCarty. 2014. Interagency special status species program. Odonate survey of bogs, fens, and shallow ponds. Okanogan-Wenatcheee National Forest.

29 2017 Methow Headwaters Mineral Withdrawal Environmental Assessment

Rosenberg K. V., J. A. Kennedy, R. Dettmers, R. P. Ford, D. Reynolds, J.D. Alexander, C. J. Beardmore, P. J. Blancher, R. E. Bogart, G. S. Butcher, A. F. Camfield, A. Couturier, D. W. Demarest, W. E. Easton, J.J. Giocomo, R.H. Keller, A. E. Mini, A. O. Panjabi, D. N. Pashley, T. D. Rich, J. M. Ruth, H. Stabins, J. Stanton, T. Will. 2016. Partners in Flight landbird conservation plan: 2016 revision for Canada and Continental United States. Partners in Flight Science Committee. 119 pp.

Rosgen, Dave. 1996. Applied river morphology. Wildland Hydrology. Colorado.

Ruediger, B, J, Claar, S. Mighton, B, Naney, T. Rinaldi, F. Wahl, N. Warren, D. Wenger, A. Williamson, L. Lewis, B. Holt, G. Patton, J. Trick, A. Vandehey, and S. Gniadek, 2000. Canada lynx conservation assessment and strategy. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Publications. 197.

Ruggiero, L.F., K.B Aubry, S.W Buskirk, G.M. Koehler, C.J. Krebs, K.S. McKelvey,; J.R. Squires. 2000. Ecology and conservation of lynx in the United States. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-30WWW. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.

SASSI. 1993. 1992 Washington Department of Fisheries, Washington Department of Wildlife, and Western Washington Treaty Indian Tribes salmon and steelhead stock inventory (SASSI) 'Bluebook'.” March. P 215. 1992 Salmon and Steelhead Stock Inventory, https://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00194/

Shannon, G., M.F. McKenna, L.M. Angeloni, K.R. Crooks, K.M. Fristrup, E. Brown, K.A. Warner, M.D. Nelson, C. White, J. Briggs, S. McFarland, and G. Wittemyer. 2016. A synthesis of two decades of research documenting the effects of noise on wildlife. Biological Review 91:982-1005.

Shoemaker, S. 2018. USDA Forest Service. Serial number: WAOR068905 Mineral potential report for the proposed Methow Valley proposed withdrawal.

Shull, G. 2018. Fisheries biologist, Okanogan – Wenatchee National Forest, Methow Valley RD. Winthrop, WA. Personal communication.

Snow, C. 2009. Fisheries biologist, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Twisp, WA. Personal communication.

Snow, C., C. Frady, A. Fowler, and A. Murdoch (WDFW). 2008. Monitoring and evaluation of Wells and Methow hatchery programs in 2007. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, WA.

Steele, R.F. 1904. An illustrated history of Stevens, Ferry, Okanogan, and Chelan Counties, State of Washington. Western Historical Publishing Company. Spokane, WA.

Stinson, D.W. 2001. Washington state recovery plan for the lynx. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington. 78 pp. + 5 maps.

Teit, J.A. 1928. The middle Columbia Salish. Publications in Anthropology 2(4):83-128. University of Washington, Seattle, WA.

30 2017 Methow Headwaters Mineral Withdrawal Environmental Assessment

Tetra Tech EC., Inc. 2006. Methow transmission project cultural resources report. On file at Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest, Wenatchee, WA.

Upper Columbia Salmon Recovery Board (UCSRB). 2007. Upper Columbia spring Chinook salmon and steelhead recovery plan. 307pp.

USDA Forest Service. 1989. Land and resource management plan. Okanogan National Forest.

USDA Forest Service. 1994. Chewuch River watershed analysis. Methow Valley Ranger District, Winthrop, WA.

USDA Forest Service. 1995. Anatomy of a mine discovery to production. General Technical Report 645.

USDA Forest Service. 1995. Goat Creek watershed analysis. Methow Valley Ranger District, Winthrop, WA.

USDA Forest Service. 1996c. Lost River watershed analysis. Methow Valley Ranger District, Winthrop, WA.

USDA Forest Service. 1997c. Middle Methow River watershed analysis. Methow Valley Ranger District, Winthrop, WA.

USDA Forest Service. 1998b. Upper Methow River watershed analysis. Methow Valley Ranger District, Winthrop, WA.

USDA Forest Service 2001. Guide to noxious weed prevention practices. Guide to Noxious Weed Prevention Practices, https://www.fs.fed.us/invasivespecies/documents/FS_WeedBMP_2001.pdf

USDA Forest Service. 2003. Skyline Ditch biological assessment. Okanogan National Forest, Methow Valley Ranger District.

USDA Forest Service. 2004. National strategy and implementation plan for invasive species management. October 2004. 24 pp. Available online at: National Strategy and Implementation for Noxious Weeds, https://www.fs.fed.us/invasivespecies/documents/Final_National_Strategy_100804.pdf

USDA Forest Service. 2005. Forest Service Manual 2670-2671. Threatened, endangered and sensitive plants and animals. Chapter 2670. National Headquarters, Washington, DC. Effective: September 23, 2005.

USDA Forest Service. 2006b. Tripod complex fires Okanogan and Wenatchee National Forests BEAR Report. FS-2500-8.

USDA Forest Service. 2007b. Baseline conditions and effects of tripod suppression, and suppression restoration. Avail. at Methow Valley Ranger District, Winthrop, WA.

USDA Forest Service. 2009. Biological assessment for the Cub allotment management plan (AMP) renewal. Methow Valley Ranger District, Winthrop, WA.

31 2017 Methow Headwaters Mineral Withdrawal Environmental Assessment

USDA Forest Service. 2010. Flagg Mountain exploratory drilling project water resources report (‘the Hydro Report’). Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest. Available at the Methow Valley Ranger District, Winthrop, WA.

USDA Forest Service. 2011. Forest Service Manual 2900 – Invasive species management. Chapter – Zero Code. National Headquarters, Washington DC. Effective: December 5, 2011.

USDA Forest Service. 2011. Status of management indicator species on the Okanogan and Wenatchee National Forests. White paper

USDA Forest Service. 2012. National best management practices for water quality management on National Forest System lands, volume 1. Technical Guide.

USDA Forest Service. 2013. Pack and saddle stock outfitter-guide special use permit issuance project biological assessment.

USDA Forest Service. 2016. Biological assessment for Chewuch River transportation plan. Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest. Available at the Methow Valley Ranger District, Winthrop, WA.

USDA Forest Service. 2016. Flagg Mountain exploratory drilling project biological assessment. Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest. Available at the Methow Valley Ranger District, Winthrop, WA.

USDA Forest Service. 2017. Carlton complex fire emergency consultation biological assessment.

USDA Forest Service. 2018. Methow Headwaters minerals proposed withdrawal draft hydrology report. Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest. Available at the Methow Valley Ranger District, Winthrop, WA

USDA Forest Service. No date. Rogue Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest, Forest cultural resource inventory and site records. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest, Wenatchee, WA.

USDA Forest Service. No date. Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest, Forest corporate heritage GIS geo-database. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Okanogan- Wenatchee National Forest, Wenatchee, WA.

USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1994. Amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management planning documents within the range of the northern spotted owl. Record of decision.

USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1995. Decision notice/decision record for interim strategies for managing anadromous fish-producing watersheds in eastern Oregon and Washington, Idaho, and portions of California (PACFISH). Washington, D.C

USDA Forest Service, U.S. Department of Commerce, USDI Bureau of Land Management, and USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2004. Analytical process for developing biological assessments for Federal actions affecting fish within the Northwest forest plan area. Available at the MVRD, Winthrop WA.

32 2017 Methow Headwaters Mineral Withdrawal Environmental Assessment

USDC 2018. Census Bureau, County Business Patterns, Washington, D.C. A profile of mining, including oil and gas, and A profile of industries including travel and tourism, Okanagan County as reported by Headwaters Economic using Economic Profile System tool. Bozeman, MT.

USDI Bureau of Land Management. 2015. Final OR/WA state director special status species list. July 13, 2015.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005. Recovery outline: contiguous United States distinct population segment of Canada lynx. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6, Montana. 21 pages.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. National bald eagle management guidelines. Washington, DC.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008. Birds of conservation concern 2008. United States Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management, Arlington, Virginia. 85 pp.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011. Revised recovery plan for the northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, OR.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2012. Designation of revised critical habitat for northern spotted owl: final rule. Federal Register 77(233): 71876--‐72068.

USDI National Park Service. 1988. National Register bulletin 38: guidelines for evaluating and documenting traditional cultural properties. National Register Bulletin 38. Available online: https://www.nps.gov/nr/publications/bulletins/nrb38/

Washington Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation. No date. Washington information system for architectural and archaeological records data (WISAARD). Olympia, WA.

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2013. Threatened and endangered wildlife in Washington: 2012 annual report. Listing and Recovery Section, Wildlife Program, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia. 251 pp.

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Confederated Colville Tribes, Spokane Tribe of Indians, USDA-APHIS Wildlife Services, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2017. Washington gray wolf conservation and management 2016 annual report. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Colville, WA, USA.

Western Regional Climate Center. https://wrcc.dri.edu/

Williams, E. J. 2012. Conservation assessment for great gray owl (Strix nebulosa). USDA Forest Service Region 6 and USDI Bureau of Land Management, Oregon and Washington. Klamath Bird Observatory, Ashland, OR

Wilson, J. S., L.E. Wilson, L.D. Loftis, and T. Griswold. 2010. The montane bee fauna of north central Washington, USA, with floral associations. Western North American Naturalist 70:2, Article 6.

33 2017 Methow Headwaters Mineral Withdrawal Environmental Assessment

Woodruff, K. and B. Altman. 2012. Conservation assessment for gray flycatcher (Empidonax wrightii). USDA Forest Service Region 6 and USDI Bureau of Land Management, Oregon and Washington Interagency Special Status and Sensitive Species Program.

Yamamuro, A.Y., K. Romain-Bondi, and P.H. Morrison. 2011. Western gray squirrel distribution in the upper Methow Valley, Washington. Pacific Biodiversity Institute, Winthrop, Washington. 58 pp.

34 2017 Methow Headwaters Mineral Withdrawal Environmental Assessment

Appendix A. Federal Register Notice Agency Bureau of Land Management, Interior. Action Notice Summary The United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USFS) has filed an application with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) requesting that the Secretary of the Interior withdraw, for a period of 20 years, approximately 340,079 acres of National Forest System lands located in the Methow Valley, Okanagan National Forest. The purpose of the withdrawal is to protect the area while Congress considers legislation to permanently withdraw the lands and to protect the value of ecological and recreational resources of the Methow Valley. Publication of this notice segregates the lands, subject to valid existing rights, for up to 2 years from settlement, sale, location, and entry under the public land laws; location and entry under the United States mining laws; and operation of the mineral and geothermal leasing laws. This notice also gives the public an opportunity to comment on the application for withdrawal. Dates Comments must be received by March 30, 2017. The date(s) and location(s) of meetings related to the application for withdrawal will be announced at least 30 days in advance of the meetings through local media, newspapers, and the Federal Register. Addresses Comments should be sent to the BLM Oregon/Washington State Director, P.O. Box 2965, Portland, OR 97208-2965. For Further Information, Contact Jacob Childers, BLM Oregon/Washington State Office, P.O. Box 2965, Portland, OR 97208-2965 or by phone at 503-808-6225. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339 to contact the above individual. The service is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.

35 2017 Methow Headwaters Mineral Withdrawal Environmental Assessment

Supplementary Information The applicant is the USFS. The application requests the Secretary of the Interior withdraw for a period of 20 years, subject to valid existing rights, the following described National Forest System lands from settlement, sale, location, and entry under the public land laws, location and entry under the United States mining laws, and operation of the mineral and geothermal leasing laws to protect the value of ecological and recreational resources of the Methow Valley and to protect the area while legislation to permanently withdraw the lands is being considered. Recreation accounts for a substantial share of the Methow Valley community's economy while the watershed provides habitat for several threatened and endangered species. Legislation is currently pending in the 114th Congress as S.2991 and identified as the “Methow Headwaters Protection Act of 2016.”

36 2017 Methow Headwaters Mineral Withdrawal Environmental Assessment

Appendix B. Project Location Okanogan National Forest

Willamette Meridian T. 34 N., R. 20 E., Sec. 10, except that portion within the Lake Chelan-Sawtooth Wilderness and south of the ridge dividing Little Bridge Creek and Wolf Creek; Sec. 11; Secs. 14 and 15, those portions lying northerly of the ridge dividing Little Bridge Creek and Wolf Creek; Tract 37; Protraction block 37; Protraction blocks 38 and 39, except those portions lying within the Lake Chelan-Sawtooth Wilderness; Protraction block 43, that portion lying westerly of the ridge beginning in the SW1/4 and termination in the NE1/4 dividing Wolf Creek and Rader Creek; Protraction block 44, that portion lying westerly of the ridge in the NW1/4.

T. 34 N., R. 21 E., Sec. 6, W1/2, that portion lying north of the ridge in the SW1/4, except lots 4, 7, 8, and HES 218A.

T. 35 N., R. 18 E., Secs. 10 thru 12, those portions lying southerly of ridge dividing Cedar Creek from Silver Star, Varden, and Early Winters Creeks; Secs. 13 and 14; Secs. 15, 16, and 21, those portions lying southerly and easterly of ridge dividing Cedar Creek from Early Winters Creek; Secs. 22 thru 24; Secs. 25 thru 27, except those portions within the Lake Chelan-Sawtooth Wilderness; Sec. 28, except that portion within the Lake Chelan-Sawtooth Wilderness and including that portion lying easterly of ridge dividing Cedar Creek and Early Winters Creek; Secs. 33, 34, and 36, except those portions within the Lake Chelan-Sawtooth Wilderness.

T. 35 N., R. 19 E., Secs. 2 and 3; Sec. 4, that portion lying easterly of Cedar Creek and southwesterly of ridge in SW1/4; Secs. 5, 6 and 7, those portions lying southerly of ridge dividing Cedar Creek from Pekin and Varden Creeks; Secs. 8 thru 11; Sec. 14, except that portion within the Lake Chelan-Sawtooth Wilderness; Secs. 15 thru 21; Secs. 22 and 23 and 26 thru 31, except those portions within the Lake Chelan-Sawtooth Wilderness; Protraction blocks 37 and 38; Protraction blocks 39 and 40, except those portions within the Lake Chelan-Sawtooth Wilderness.

T. 35 N., R. 20 E., Secs. 1 and 2; Sec. 3, lots 1 through 4, SE1/4NW1/4, S1/2NE1/4, SE1/4; Sec. 4, N1/2NW1/4, NW1/4NE1/4; Sec. 6, except HES 202; Sec. 7 and 8; Sec. 9, W1/2, except N1/2NW1/4 and HES 182; Sec. 10, lot 1, S1/2NE1/4, E1/2SE1/4; Secs. 11 and 12; Sec. 13, N1/2; Sec. 14, N1/2, except HES 180; Sec. 16, lots 3 thru 11, NW1/4NW1/4 and S1/2NW1/4; Sec. 17, except Mineral Survey No. 1005, Tip Top Lode; Sec. 18; Sec. 19 and 20, except those portions within the Lake Chelan-Sawtooth Wilderness; Sec. 21 and 22; Sec. 23, SW1/4; Secs. 26 thru 29 and 35, except those portions within the Lake Chelan-Sawtooth Wilderness.

T. 35 N., R. 22 E., Secs. 1 thru 5; Secs. 8 thru 12; Secs. 13 and 14, those portions lying northerly of ridge dividing Perarrygin Creek from Bear and Blue Buck Creek; Secs. 15 thru 17; Secs. 21 and 22, those portions lying northerly of ridge dividing Perarrygin Creek from Bear Creek; protraction block 37; Protraction blocks 38 and 39, except HES 211; Protraction block 40; Protraction blocks 41 and 43, those portions lying northerly of ridge dividing Perarrygin Creek from Bear Creek.

T. 35 N., R. 23 E., Sec. 4, that portion lying northwesterly of the ridge that divides North Fork Boulder Creek and Granite Creek; Secs. 5 and 6; Secs. 7 thru 9; Sec. 18, those portions lying northerly of the ridge that divides Boulder Creek and Blue Buck Creek.

37 2017 Methow Headwaters Mineral Withdrawal Environmental Assessment

T. 36 N., R. 17 E., Secs. 1 thru 3; Secs. 4, 5, 7 and 8, those portions lying in Okanogan County; Secs. 9 thru 17; Secs. 18 and 19, those portions lying in Okanogan County; Secs. 20 thru 24; Sec. 25, that portion lying northerly of ridge that divides Cataract Creek and Pine Creek; Sec. 26, that portion lying in Okanogan County and northerly of ridge that divides Cataract Creek and Pine Creek; Sec. 27, that portion lying in Okanogan County; Sec. 28; Sec. 29, 32 thru 34, that portion lying in Okanogan County.

T. 36 N., R. 18 E., Secs. 1 thru 12; Secs. 13 thru 16, those portions lying northerly of ridge dividing Methow River and Early Winters Creek; Secs. 17 and 18; Secs. 19 thru 21 and 29 and 30, those portions lying northerly of ridge dividing Methow River and Early Winters Creek.

T. 36 N., R. 19 E., Secs. 1 thru 3; Secs. 7, 11 and 12; Secs. 17, 18, 20 and 21, those portions lying northerly of ridge dividing Methow River and Early Winters Creek; Sec. 28, that portion of the E1/2, lying easterly of ridge and Cedar Creek; Sec. 33, that portion lying easterly of Cedar Creek; Secs. 34 and 35; HES 84, that portion purchased from Robert Wise, Jan. 1973, Forest Service case number OKA68, bk. 243 pg. 129; HES 89, that portion purchased from R.D. Merrill Company, Sept. 1994, Forest Service case number OKA060806, bk. 125 pg. 2403; HES 237; Purchase-Marco Inc., Dec. 1994, bk. 128 pg. 1334; HES 198, that portion purchased from Trust for Public Land, Aug. 2003, Forest Service case number OKA75TPL, AFN 3065255; Tracts 37, 39, 40, 42 and 43; Protraction blocks 37 thru 58.

T. 36 N., R. 20 E., Secs. 5 thru 8, Secs. 10 thru 14, Secs. 17 thru 28; Sec. 29, except HES199 and Mineral Survey 618; Sec. 30, except E1/2SW1/4, S1/2SE1/4, lot 5, HES 82, 113, 114 and 229 and Mineral Survey 618; Sec. 31, except N1/2NW1/4NE1/4, HES 81, HES 82, HES 199, HES 200, HES 202, HES 203; Sec. 32, except HES 199, HES 201, HES 203; Secs. 33 thru 36.

T. 36 N., R. 21 E., Secs. 1 thru 11; Sec. 12, except HES 74; Sec. 13, except HES 74 and 75; Sec. 14, except HES 75; Secs. 15 thru 22; Secs. 23 and 24, except HES 75; Secs. 25 and 26, except HES 77 Sec. 27; Secs. 28 and 29, except HES 80; Secs. 30 and 31; Sec. 32, except lots 9 thru 11 and HES 79, HES 80 and HES 210; Sec. 33, except HES 78, HES 79 and HES 210; Sec. 34, except N1/2NE1/4, lots 2 and 3; Sec. 35, except HES 76 and HES 77; Sec. 36.

T. 36 N., R. 22 E., All.

T. 36 N., R. 23 E., Secs. 7 thru 10; Secs. 11 and 14, those portions lying westerly of ridge dividing Boulder Creek from Clark, Pelican and McCay Creeks; Secs. 15 thru 21; Secs. 22 and 23, those portions lying westerly of ridge dividing Boulder Creek from McCay and Wilder Creeks; Secs. 27 and 28, those portions lying westerly of ridge dividing Boulder Creek from Wilder and Jim Creeks; Secs. 29 thru 32; Sec. 33, that portion lying westerly of ridge dividing Boulder Creek from Jim and West Fork Salmon Creeks; Protraction block 38, that portion lying westerly of ridge dividing Boulder Creek from Peak and Clark Creeks, except Mineral Survey 1242; Protraction block 39, except Mineral Survey 1242; Protraction blocks 40 thru 42.

T. 37 N., R. 17 E., Secs. 12, 13, Secs. 22 thru 24, those portions lying in Okanogan County; Secs. 25 and 26; Sec. 27, 33 and 34 those portions lying in Okanogan County; Secs. 35 and 36.

T. 37 N., R. 18 E., Sec. 7, that portion lying in Okanogan County and except that portion within the Lake Chelan-Sawtooth Wilderness; Sec. 8 and 17, except those portions within the Pasayten Wilderness; Secs. 18 thru 20; Secs. 21, 25 thru 28, except those portions within the Pasayten Wilderness; Secs. 29 thru 36.

38 2017 Methow Headwaters Mineral Withdrawal Environmental Assessment

T. 37 N., R. 19 E., Secs. 19 thru 24, except those portions within the Pasayten Wilderness; Secs. 25 thru 29; Secs. 30, except that portion within the Pasayten Wilderness; Sec. 31, 33 thru 36; Protraction block 37.

T. 37 N., R. 20 E., Secs. 1 thru 3; Secs. 4, 5, and 8, except those portions within the Pasayten Wilderness; Secs. 9 thru 16; Secs. 17 thru 19, except those portions within the Pasayten Wilderness; Secs. 20 thru 35; Protraction block 37.

T. 37 N., R. 21 E., All.

T. 37 N., R. 22 E., All.

T. 37 N., R. 23 E., Secs. 2, that portion lying westerly of ridge that divides Twenty Mile Creek from Sinlahekin Creek; Secs. 3 thru 10; Sec. 11, that portion lying westerly of ridge that divides Twenty Mile Creek from Sinlahekin Creek; Sec. 14, that portion lying westerly of ridge that divides Twenty Mile Creek from Lone Frank Creek; Secs. 15 thru 22; Secs. 23, 26, and 27, those portions lying westerly of ridge that divides Twenty Mile Creek from Lone Frank and Salmon Creeks; Secs. 28 thru 33; Secs. 34 and 35, those portions lying westerly of ridge that divides Boulder Creek from Salmon and Peak Creeks.

T. 38 N., R. 20 E., Secs. 9 thru 14, except those portions within the Pasayten Wilderness; Sec. 15; Secs. 16 and 21, except those portions within the Pasayten Wilderness; Secs. 22 thru 27; Secs. 28 and 33, except those portions within the Pasayten Wilderness; Secs. 34 thru 36.

T. 38 N., R. 21 E., Secs. 7, 13, and Secs. 18 thru 24, except those portions within the Pasayten Wilderness; Secs. 25 thru 36.

T. 38 N., R. 22 E., Secs. 9 thru 11, except those portions within the Pasayten Wilderness; Secs. 14 and 15; Secs. 16 thru 18, except those portions within the Pasayten Wilderness; Secs. 19 thru 23, and Secs. 26 thru 35; Protraction block 37, except that portion within the Pasayten Wilderness; protraction block 38; Protraction block 39, except that portion within the Pasayten Wilderness; protraction blocks 40 thru 43.

T. 38 N., R. 23 E., Secs. 3, that portion lying westerly of ridge dividing Wildhorse and Dog Creeks from Hilltop Creek; Secs. 4 thru 9; Secs. 10, 14 and 15, those portions lying westerly of ridge dividing Do and Thirty Mile Creeks from Hilltop and Crosby Creeks; Secs. 16 thru 21; Secs. 22, 23, and 26, those portions lying westerly of ridge dividing Twenty Mile Creek from Crosby and Toasts Coulee Creeks; Secs. 27 thru 33; Secs. 34 and 35, those portions lying westerly of ridge dividing Twenty Mile Creek from Toasts Coulee Creek.

T. 39 N., R. 22 E., Sec. 35, except that portion within the Pasayten Wilderness; Protraction block 42, except that portion within the Pasayten Wilderness.

T. 39 N., R. 23 E., Secs. 8 and 9, except those portions within the Pasayten Wilderness; Sec. 15, that portion lying westerly of ridge dividing Queer Creek and Middle Fork Toats Coulee Creek and except that portion within the Pasayten Wilderness; Secs. 16 thru19, except those portions within the Pasayten Wilderness; Secs. 20 and 21; Sec. 22 and 27, that portion lying westerly of ridge dividing Queer Creek and Middle Fork Toats Coulee Creek; Secs. 28 and 29; Sec. 30, except that portion within the Pasayten Wilderness; Secs. 31 thru 33; Sec. 34, that portion lying westerly of ridge dividing Wildhorse Creek from Hilltop and Middle Fork Toats Coulee Creeks.