United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service 2015 Southwestern Oregon Mineral Withdrawal

Environmental Assessment

Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest, Bureau of Land Management Medford and Coos Bay Districts, Curry and Josephine Counties, Oregon Revised July 2016

For More Information Contact:

Roy Bergstrom Medford Interagency Office 3040 Biddle Road Medford, OR 97504 Phone: 541-618-2061 Email: [email protected]

Title page photographs by Clint Emerson; clockwise from left: Darlingtonia fen; ridge above Baldface Creek in serpentine habitat; serpentine campion (Silene serpentinicola)

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 http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html 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.

Contents Acronyms Used ...... iii I. Introduction ...... 1 Background ...... 1 2015 Legislation ...... 1 Application for Withdrawal ...... 1 Notice of Proposed Withdrawal ...... 1 Project Location ...... 2 Need for the Proposal ...... 2 Decision Framework ...... 2 Public Comment, Scoping, and Objection ...... 5 Initial Comment Period Results ...... 6 Tribal Consultation ...... 7 II. Proposed Action and Alternatives ...... 8 Proposed Action: 5-year Mineral Withdrawal ...... 8 Alternative Action: 20-year Mineral Withdrawal ...... 8 No Action: No Mineral Withdrawal ...... 9 Key Issues and Analysis Framework ...... 9 III. Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action and Alternatives ...... 12 Minerals ...... 12 Affected Environment ...... 12 Environmental Consequences ...... 18 Soils ...... 19 Affected Environment ...... 19 Environmental Consequences ...... 23 Hydrology ...... 25 Affected Environment ...... 25 Environmental Consequences ...... 30 Aquatics ...... 31 Affected Environment ...... 31 Environmental Consequences ...... 37 Botany ...... 42 Affected Environment ...... 42 Environmental Consequences ...... 51 Wildlife ...... 57 Affected Environment ...... 57 Environmental Consequences ...... 67 Cultural Resources ...... 71 Affected Environment ...... 72 Environmental Consequences ...... 73 Recreation, Wilderness, Wild and Scenic Rivers ...... 74 Affected Environment ...... 74 Environmental Consequences ...... 76 Agencies and Individuals Consulted ...... 79 Qualifications of Preparers ...... 80 IV. Literature Cited...... 82 Appendix A: Federal Register Notice of Proposed Withdrawal and Public Comment (including legal land descriptions) ...... A-1

i

Appendix B: State Historic Preservation Office Concurrence ...... A-1 Appendix C: Response to Comments ...... A-5

List of Tables Table 1. Soil series components of general soil map units, indicating inclusions of peridotite/serpentinite ...... 20 Table 2. Watersheds within the proposed SOMW area ...... 25 Table 3. Listed and sensitive aquatic species and habitat on the RRSNF ...... 31 Table 4. SONCC coho salmon designated critical habitat within lands in the SOMW area ...... 33 Table 5. Baseline suction dredging activities in the SOMW area ...... 38 Table 6. Comparison of effects to PCEs for SONCC coho salmon critical habitat ...... 39 Table 7. Summary of effects determinations for aquatic TES species and critical habitat ...... 41 Table 8. Plants species of concern known to occur in the SOMW area ...... 44 Table 9. Invasive plant species in the SOMW area ...... 49 Table 10. RNA’s, ACEC’s and Botanical Areas in the SOMW area ...... 51 Table 11. TES plants that occur on ¼ sections with mining claims ...... 54 Table 12. Summary of effects determinations and rationale for botanical resources ...... 57 Table 13. Federally listed and proposed wildlife species on the RRSNF ...... 58 Table 14. Region 6 sensitive wildlife species on the RRSNF ...... 58 Table 15. Vegetation seral stages in the Hunter/Pistol withdrawal area ...... 60 Table 16. Vegetation seral stages in the RnR/Baldface withdrawal area ...... 60 Table 17. Acres of habitat for northern spotted owl and marbled murrelet in the SOMW area ... 61 Table 18. Designated critical habitat for northern spotted owl in the SOMW area ...... 62 Table 19. Birds of Conservation Concern in the SOMW area ...... 67 Table 20. Wildlife habitat in areas of high and medium mineral potential in the SOMW area .... 69 Table 21. Wildlife habitat in active mining claims in the SOMW area ...... 70 Table 22. Economic contributions from recreation related travel in Curry County, OR in 2008 . 76

List of Figures Figure 1. Hunter Creek-Pistol River mineral withdrawal area ...... 3 Figure 2. Rough and Ready-Baldface Creek mineral withdrawal area ...... 4 Figure 3. General soil map of the Hunter/Pistol and RnR/Baldface withdrawal areas ...... 21 Figure 4. Ultramafic bedrock and soils with potential for NOA in the Hunter/Pistol area ...... 22 Figure 5. Ultramafic bedrock and soils with potential for NOA in the RnR/Baldface area ...... 22 Figure 6. No mining claims occur within ¼ mile of CCH in the Hunter/Pistol withdrawal area .. 34 Figure 7. Mining claims in RnR/Baldface relative to SONCC coho salmon critical habitat ...... 35

ii

Acronyms Used ACEC – area of critical environmental concern APE – area of potential effect BA – biological assessment BE – biological evaluation BLM – Bureau of Land Management BCR – bird conservation region CCH – coho critical habitat CH – critical habitat CHU – critical habitat unit DBH – diameter breast height DPS – distinct population segment EA – environmental assessment EFH – essential fish habitat ESA – Endangered Species Act ESU – evolutionary significant unit FLPMA – Federal Land Policy and Management Act FONSI – finding of no significant impact FSM – Forest Service Manual HPWA – Hunter Creek/Pistol River withdrawal area HUC – hydrologic unit code LMP – Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Service) LSH – late seral habitat MA – management area MIS – management indicator species MSA – Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act NEPA – National Environmental Policy Act NFS – National Forest System NOA – naturally occurring asbestos NOAA – National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NMFS – National Marine Fisheries Service (aka NOAA Fisheries) NOI – notice of intent NRCS – Natural Resources Conservation Service NRF – nesting, roosting, foraging

iii

NRHP – National Register of Historic Places NSO – northern spotted owl NWFP – Northwest Forest Plan O&C – Oregon and California Railroad ODEQ – Oregon Department of Environmental Quality ODFW – Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife ODOGAMI – Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries OHV – off-highway vehicle PCE – primary constituent elements PLO – public land order PoO – plan of operations RBWA – Rough and Ready/Baldface Creeks withdrawal area RFNC – Red Flat Nickel Corporation RMP – Resource Management Plan (BLM) RNA – Research Natural Area RnR – Rough and Ready ROD – Record of Decision RRSNF – Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest SOMW – southwestern Oregon mineral withdrawal of 2015 SONCC – southern Oregon-northern California coast TES – threatened, endangered, sensitive USBM – U.S. Bureau of Mines USDA – U.S. Department of Agriculture USDI – U.S. Department of Interior USFS – U.S. Forest Service USFWS – U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service VER – valid existing rights

iv 2015 SW Oregon Mineral Withdrawal Environmental Assessment Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest  Medford & Coos Bay Districts, Bureau of Land Management

I. Introduction The U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) have submitted a petition/application for a 5-year withdrawal from location and entry under the United States mining laws and operation of the mineral and geothermal leasing laws, subject to valid existing rights, on 101,021 acres of federal land. The proposed withdrawal is in support of legislation for a permanent withdrawal from mineral entry and location introduced in Congress on February 3, 2015 (S. 346 and H.R. 682). The lands that would be affected are located on the Gold Beach and Wild Rivers Ranger Districts of the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest and the Medford and Coos Bay Districts of the Bureau of Land Management in Curry County and Josephine County, Oregon.

We prepared this environmental assessment (EA) 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 EA, we are also fulfilling agency policy and direction to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). For more details, see the Proposed Action and Alternatives section of this document.

This EA does not assess the impacts of full-scale nickel mining in the proposed withdrawal areas because no viable plan of operations for such mining has been submitted, thus making any analysis purely speculative. Please see the discussion under “Key Issues and Analysis Framework.” Background

2015 Legislation On February 3, 2015, the Southwestern Oregon Watershed and Salmon Protection Act of 2015 (S. 346 and H.R. 682) was introduced to Congress. The Act proposes to withdraw certain lands located in Curry County and Josephine County, Oregon, from all forms of mineral entry, appropriation, leasing, or disposal under public land laws, subject to valid existing rights.

This proposed legislation includes federally owned land within the area depicted on two maps, submitted with the draft legislation. The areas include approximately 5,216 acres of BLM- managed public domain and revested Oregon and California Railroad lands (O&C), and 95,806 acres of National Forest System (NFS) lands (see figures 1 and 2).

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 BLM submitted a petition/application to the Secretary of the Interior for a 5- year withdrawal for the federal lands depicted on the official maps. The lands would be withdrawn from location and entry under the United States mining laws and operation of the mineral and geothermal leasing laws, subject to valid existing rights.

Notice of Proposed Withdrawal The Secretary of the Interior approved the withdrawal petition, thereby making a withdrawal proposal (43 CFR 2310.1-3(e)). The Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Land and Minerals

1 2015 SW Oregon Mineral Withdrawal Environmental Assessment Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest  Medford & Coos Bay Districts, Bureau of Land Management

Management then published a Notice of Proposed Withdrawal and Notification of Public Meetings in the Federal Register on June 29, 2015 (see appendix A).

The notice segregates1 for two years the lands described in the Southwestern Oregon Watershed and Salmon Protection Act 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.2 It also proposes a 5-year temporary withdrawal from operation of those same laws to follow the segregation. The segregation and temporary withdrawal are intended to maintain current conditions while Congress considers the legislation for a permanent withdrawal.

The segregation is in effect until June 29, 2017, unless the application is denied or canceled, a public land order for 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 withdrawal. Project Location The project encompasses two areas, as identified in the official maps included with the draft legislation, near or bordering the Kalmiopsis Wilderness: the Hunter Creek and North Fork Pistol River headwaters (Hunter/Pistol) (figure 1) and the Rough and Ready Creek and Baldface Creek (RnR/Baldface) watersheds (figure 2). Lands within the withdrawal areas are administered by the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest (95,806 acres) and the Coos Bay and Medford BLM Districts (5,215 acres). Included within the bounds of the withdrawal areas are 1,680 acres of non-federal land, which are not currently affected by segregation or withdrawal. If these non- federal acres enter into federal ownership in the future, they would be subject to the terms and conditions of the withdrawal. Legal descriptions of included areas are provided in appendix A. Need for the Proposal The need for withdrawal was created by the introduction in Congress of the Southwestern Watershed and Salmon Protection Act of 2015 (H.R. 682 and S. 346).

The purpose of the proposed action is to maintain the current environmental baseline, relative to mining, mineral exploration and development, and geothermal energy development, while Congress considers legislation enacting a permanent withdrawal from mineral entry for the federal lands depicted on the official maps. Decision Framework The implementing decision for a withdrawal is the public land order (PLO) (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 withdrawals. Therefore, it is neither

1 Segregation 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 (e.g., 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 withdrawal of the mining laws.

2 2015 SW Oregon Mineral Withdrawal Environmental Assessment Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest  Medford & Coos Bay Districts, Bureau of Land Management

Figure 1. Hunter Creek-Pistol River mineral withdrawal area

3 2015 SW Oregon Mineral Withdrawal Environmental Assessment Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest  Medford & Coos Bay Districts, Bureau of Land Management

Figure 2. Rough and Ready-Baldface Creek mineral withdrawal area

4 2015 SW Oregon Mineral Withdrawal Environmental Assessment Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest  Medford & Coos Bay Districts, Bureau of Land Management

necessary, nor appropriate for the Forest Service or BLM, as applicants of the withdrawal, to provide a decision document. There are several recommendations in this process before the Secretary makes the final decision. First, the BLM’s District Managers and the Forest Supervisor will send a recommendation to the BLM State Director, who will then send a formal recommendation to the BLM Director. The Director will review the package and send his recommendation to the Secretary’s office for final decision. The Forest Service is the lead agency for developing the EA, with assistance from the BLM.

If the NEPA review results in the development of an environmental assessment, but not an environmental impact statement, the applicant agency and the BLM will jointly prepare a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), which the BLM will sign. The FONSI will accompany the authorized officer’s recommendation and rationale for the Secretary of the Interior. Public Comment, Scoping, and Objection Public comment follows two processes with some overlap. The first process, a 90-day comment period, is 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 BLM NEPA regulations (36 CFR 220 and 43 CFR 46, respectively) in association with developing the environmental assessment. The comment period associated with the Federal Register notice also served as scoping for the NEPA process (36 CFR 220.4(e)), by allowing the agencies to identify the interested or affected parties and the issues associated with the proposed action.

Notice of Proposed Withdrawal Comment Period: The notice of proposed withdrawal was published in the Federal Register on June 29, 2015. The notice initiated a 90-day public comment period for the requested action, which ended September 28, 2015 (43 CFR 2310.3-1(b)(2)(v)). Comments could be submitted by U.S. mail or email to the BLM State Director.

Public Meetings: In addition to written comments submitted by mail to the State Director, two public meetings regarding the proposed withdrawal provided the opportunity to comment verbally or submit written comments directly. These meetings were held on September 9, 2015 at the Curry County Fairgrounds in Gold Beach and September 10, 2015 at the Anne Basker Auditorium in Grants Pass.

NEPA Notice and Comment: A 30-day notice and comment period occurred upon the release of this environmental assessment. This comment period will satisfy both Forest Service and BLM NEPA requirements. The comment period was initiated by legal notice posted in the newspapers of record (the Medford Mail Tribune, the Grants Pass Daily Courier, and the Coos Bay World) on April 27, 2016 when the environmental assessment was released to the public. See appendix C for summaries and response to comments.

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 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.

5 2015 SW Oregon Mineral Withdrawal Environmental Assessment Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest  Medford & Coos Bay Districts, Bureau of Land Management

Initial Comment Period Results Just under 23,000 comments were received in oral and written form, ranging from form letters or postcards to lengthy treatises. Among written submissions, 21 commenters were opposed to the withdrawal and the remainder in favor. Transcripts from the two public meetings also show a substantial majority of speakers in favor of withdrawal, with very few speaking in opposition. All comments submitted during this 90-day comment period, including official transcripts of the public meetings, become part of the administrative record for the project.

Issues derived from comments received during the 90-day comment period that are within the scope of this environmental analysis are listed under Key Issues and Analysis Framework, below, along with analyses required by 43 CFR 2310.3-2. Issues raised, including those that are outside of the scope of this analysis, are briefly summarized here, along with the rationale for being within or outside the scope.

Comments from Supporters Most of the issues raised by those who commented in support of the proposed withdrawal concerned the presumed resource impacts that would follow from full-scale nickel laterite mining, if the mineral withdrawal is not approved. The NEPA analysis for the proposed mineral withdrawal must be based on current proposals and reasonably foreseeable future actions. We currently have one incomplete proposal for full-scale mining, which is lacking a fully developed plan of operations, is based on claims that were previously found to be lacking a valuable mineral discovery, and is encumbered in legal proceedings. Therefore, this nickel laterite mining proposal is not reasonably foreseeable as a future action, and is not addressed, as such, in the analysis.

Without complete 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, whether or not and where stockpiling of ore would occur, and countless other details. Thus, an analysis of the potential impacts of full-scale nickel 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 even the likely type of mineral development – that occurs in the proposed withdrawal areas. We have no basis to conclude that specific resource impacts associated with other mines (e.g., surface or ground water contamination from heap leach processing) would be likely to occur here.

Many commenters voiced strong endorsement of general resource values, such as clean water, scenic values, biological diversity, and associated opportunities, such as recreation, fishing, and wilderness experiences. Descriptions of the unique natural resource values found in the withdrawal areas are addressed in the analysis, along with expected conflicts from proposed and known mining activity or generalized disturbance, based on the nature of known mineral deposits.

A large number of commenters also asserted the need for a 20-year withdrawal. We have analyzed a 20-year withdrawal as an alternative to the proposed action.

Comments from Opponents A common theme voiced in comments from those opposed to the withdrawal is that the proposal violates the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) or other laws, such as the Administrative Procedures Act. Based on our reading of FLPMA, the regulations at 43 CFR

6 2015 SW Oregon Mineral Withdrawal Environmental Assessment Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest  Medford & Coos Bay Districts, Bureau of Land Management

2300, and case law (e.g., Mount Royal Joint Venture v. Kempthorne, 2007), we are following applicable laws and regulations.

Ultimately, however, this question lies outside the scope of the NEPA 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 to make a recommendation for decision by the Secretary, based on that case file.

Similarly, a number of comments asserted that the withdrawal proposal in not consistent with direction provided in the Siskiyou National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LMP) (USFS 1989) and the BLM Coos Bay and Medford Resource Management Plans (BLM 1995a, 1995b) (RMP). We agree that the management plans specify that these areas are open to mineral location and development. If Congress passes the legislation, the agencies would amend their land and resource management plans to be consistent with the law.

Also outside the scope for this environmental analysis is the assertion that Congress will not act on the proposed legislation or that it is unlikely to pass, and therefore, the proposed withdrawal is unwarranted. So long as the legislation is pending before Congress, the purpose and need for the temporary withdrawal remains to maintain the environmental status quo during such deliberations.

Commenters assert that the withdrawal is not needed because enough land has already been set aside from mining in wilderness or other withdrawals. They also assert the withdrawal is not needed because adequate regulatory controls already exist to protect other resource values when mining occurs.

The value of mineral exploration and development to the local and regional economy was stated strongly in the opposition comments. An analysis of economic impact is required by regulation and will be addressed in this EA. Likewise, the question of the national strategic interest in the mineral resources in the withdrawal areas, especially nickel, will be addressed in the analysis. Tribal Consultation Letters requesting meetings for government to government consultation were sent to the Coquille Indian Tribe, the Elk Valley Rancheria, the Confederated Tribes of the Grande Ronde, the Confederated Tribes of the Siletz Indians of Oregon, and the Tolowa Dee-ni’ Nation on August 14, 2015. The letters described the legislation under consideration and the proposed temporary mineral withdrawal, the public comment period and public meetings, and the environmental analysis process.

Meetings were held with the Tolowa Dee-ni’ (September 17, 2015), the Confederated Siletz (September 18, 2015) and the Elk Valley Rancheria (September 21, 2015). During these meetings, each of the tribes expressed support for the mineral withdrawal proposal.

In addition to government-to-government consultation, letters in support of the withdrawal were submitted to the BLM State Director during the public comment period by the Confederated Tribes of the Siletz Indians and the Elk Valley Rancheria.

7 2015 SW Oregon Mineral Withdrawal Environmental Assessment Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest  Medford & Coos Bay Districts, Bureau of Land Management

II. Proposed Action and Alternatives The proposed action and following alternatives were considered and analyzed in detail. No other alternatives were considered. Proposed Action: 5-year Mineral Withdrawal The Forest Service and BLM request a 5-year 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 5,216 acres of BLM- managed public domain and revested Oregon and California Railroad Grant lands and 95,806 acres of National Forest System lands in Josephine and Curry Counties. The withdrawal areas are provided in the maps included with the proposed legislation titled “Southwestern Oregon Watershed and Salmon Protection Act of 2015” and as described in the June 29, 2015 Federal Register notice. An additional 1,680 acres of non-federal lands included in the external boundaries of the maps would not be affected by the withdrawal, unless they enter federal ownership at a future time. See appendix A for the full legal description of included lands.

Under withdrawal, no new mining claims may be located, mineral entry would be prohibited, and no mineral leasing is allowed. Withdrawals are strictly administrative actions not involving any ground disturbing activities. No other land management activities are affected by withdrawal from mineral entry.

Withdrawal from operation under the mining and mineral leasing laws is subject to valid existing rights (VER). Existing mining claims may be developed after a minerals validity examination determines that a discovery of a valuable mineral deposit existed at the time of the segregation. Existing claims in the withdrawal areas total 279, comprised of 234 lode and 45 placer claims. To date, no existing claims have been proven valid under the BLM’s validity examination process. Such examinations may take two to five years, or longer, to complete; the costs are borne by the agencies.

Three proposed plans of operations (PoOs) for mining on lands administered by the Forest Service were submitted prior to segregation. None of the proposals were approved under 36 CFR 228(a) when segregation went into effect on June 29, 2015.

The duration of the requested withdrawal is five years. Extension of the initial withdrawal is possible if the Secretary of the Interior determines that the purpose for which the withdrawal was made requires the extension—in this case, proposed legislation pending in the Congress—and then only for a period no longer than the length of the original withdrawal term, as specified by 43 CFR 2310.4(a). Alternative Action: 20-year Mineral Withdrawal In response to public input received during the 90-day comment period, we will analyze withdrawal for a 20-year period. This alternative is similar to the proposed action, except that it extends the period of withdrawal from five years to 20 years. Twenty years is the maximum withdrawal period allowed under the Secretary’s authority (see 43 CFR 2310.3-4).

8 2015 SW Oregon Mineral Withdrawal Environmental Assessment Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest  Medford & Coos Bay Districts, Bureau of Land Management

No Action: No Mineral Withdrawal 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.

New mining claims could be established, and proposed plans of operations could be submitted. The agencies would proceed with evaluating and authorizing previously submitted PoOs, subject to site-specific NEPA analysis, including specified mitigations and project design criteria.

Suction dredge operations could occur outside of the streams currently covered by the State of Oregon’s moratorium on motorized placer mining (Oregon Senate Bill 838, July 2013) and on all streams within the project area after the moratorium expires in January 2021. 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; and 2) The analysis required for 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.

Key issues driven by the proposed action are the economic and social effects to individuals and local communities from eliminating mining activity in the withdrawal areas. As per the regulations, discussion about the effects of withdrawal to the state, region, and nation must also be addressed.

Other analyses specified in 43 CFR 2310.3-2 include: ♦ 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 withdrawal areas ♦ Roadless areas with wilderness characteristics within the withdrawal areas ♦ Mineral resource analysis ♦ Assessments for threatened and endangered (T&E) species ♦ Presence and involvement of floodplains and/or wetlands

In addition, those resource values that are unique to this area and would potentially be impacted by current proposals for mineral exploration or development (i.e., submitted PoOs) will also be discussed. Those resource values include: ♦ High botanical diversity and endemic flora ♦ Complex near-surface groundwater (springs and fens) ♦ Streams eligible for wild and scenic river status ♦ Sensitive (non-T&E) wildlife and plants ♦ Spread of invasive plants and exotic diseases ♦ Social and economic value of non-mining recreation ♦ Potential for disturbance of soils with naturally occurring asbestos

Analysis of the action alternatives (5-year and 20-year withdrawal) will display the effects of precluding mineral entry. Analysis of the no action alternative will display the general effects of

9 2015 SW Oregon Mineral Withdrawal Environmental Assessment Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest  Medford & Coos Bay Districts, Bureau of Land Management

these areas being open to mineral entry, as contrasted with mineral entry being precluded. Specific details and effects of the proposed PoOs will not be analyzed here in detail. Site-specific NEPA for those projects would include alternatives, project design criteria, and required mitigation measures, which are beyond the scope of this analysis.

Analysis for no action, in which no mineral withdrawal will occur, will be based on:

1. areas with proposed mineral plans of operations at the time of segregation; 2. areas of suction dredge activity, as characterized by permits from the State of Oregon; 3. the distribution of existing claims and the potential for resource conflicts (e.g., whether or not 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 mineral 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.

Existing PoOs: Three proposed plans of operations (PoOs) for nickel laterite mining or exploration were submitted, but not approved, prior to segregation. Those PoOs include:

♦ RF-38 (T37S, R13W, Sec. 18, 19, 29-32; T37S, R14W, Sec. 13, 24, Willamette Meridian) ♦ Cleopatra (T41S, R10W, Sec. 5-8, 17, 18; T41S, R11W, Sec. 1, 12, Willamette Meridian) ♦ RNR (T40S, R9W, Sec. 8, 9, 21, 22, Willamette Meridian)

Two PoOs have been submitted for exploratory drilling for nickel laterite deposits: RF-38 in the Hunter/Pistol area and Cleopatra in the RnR/Baldface area. The environmental analysis for one of these two plans of operations (RF-38) is mostly complete, and the other has some analysis completed. This EA will rely on the conclusions in these analyses as representative of expected impacts under no action.

One PoO for surface mining, RNR, has been submitted in the RnR/Baldface area. The analysis of environmental effects for this PoO has not commenced because critical operational information is lacking, and the PoO is encumbered in legal proceedings. The claims underlying the PoO were previously found to be invalid, based on low quality and quantity of minerals and the lack of a valuable mineral discovery (BLM 2005). After the claims were declared null and void in 2009, in 2011 the same claimant filed new claims under a different corporate name for the same tracts. While the new claims have not yet undergone a minerals validity examination, we believe the likelihood of validation is extremely low. Therefore, the implementation of this proposal is not a reasonably foreseen future action.

Existing claims in the withdrawal areas total 279 (234 lode and 45 placer claims). To date, no existing claims have undergone BLM’s validity examination process, which determines if claims contain a valuable mineral discovery. Thus, no claims have yet been proven valid.

10 2015 SW Oregon Mineral Withdrawal Environmental Assessment Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest  Medford & Coos Bay Districts, Bureau of Land Management

Suction dredge mining: The most recent permit data available (2014) show two suction dredge operations within the withdrawal areas. Both occur on BLM land in the RnR/Baldface area along Rough and Ready Creek. No operations occur in the Hunter/Pistol area, and none have occurred in the recent past. Due to the nature of suction dredge operations, our analysis will focus on instream and riparian impacts.

11 2015 SW Oregon Mineral Withdrawal Environmental Assessment Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest  Medford & Coos Bay Districts, Bureau of Land Management

III. Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action and Alternatives This section summarizes the potential impacts of the proposed action and alternatives. For each resource, a description of the affected environment is presented, followed by an analysis of the effects for each alternative.

Resources that are not affected by any of the alternatives and, therefore, not addressed in this analysis include: general vegetation management, fire and fuels management, real estate rights- of-way and special uses, roads and transportation. Minerals

Affected Environment

Description of Geology Lands contained within the southwestern Oregon mineral withdrawal (SOMW) boundary are located in the Klamath Mountains geomorphic province, which extends from northwestern California to about Roseburg, Oregon.

Oregon’s Klamath Mountains are primarily comprised of ophiolite sequence rocks. Ophiolite sequences are indicative of ocean crustal processes, developing at spreading centers of divergent tectonic plates. From bottom to top, ophiolites consist of: mafic and ultramafic peridotite overlain by gabbro; sheeted dikes; pillow basalts; chert and pelagic clays, often fossiliferous. Upper pillow basalts are often highly porous, subjected to precipitation of massive sulfide deposits. Upper ophiolite rocks can be mineralized with copper, lead, zinc, and smaller quantities of additional locatable minerals including gold, silver and platinum. Nickel and chromium mineralization is associated with peridotite, which alters to serpentinite and greenstone.

Known Prospects, Mineral Occurrences, and Mineralized Areas Mining began in southern Oregon in 1850 with the discovery of gold along the Illinois River near the mouth of Josephine Creek, in what was later to become Josephine County. Since that time, gold, silver, copper, chromium, and limestone have been important commodities to the economy of the county. The metallic commodities of gold, silver, copper, chromium, and nickel have been, and will continue to be, the most important mineral resources (Ramp and Peterson 1979).

In Curry County, within the proposed withdrawal boundaries the main resource of note is nickel mineralization. According to the Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries (ODOGAMI), “[n]ickel is the only metallic resource that appears to have a significant positive affect on the future economic climate of Curry County” (Ramp et al. 1977).

Numerous prospects have been noted in southern Josephine and Curry counties. Within the proposed withdrawal boundaries, the minerals nickel and chromium predominate as recognized potential resources. Very few documented prospects are identified or noted pertaining to gold, silver, and copper. Prospects for gold, silver, and copper have been localized, small, isolated pockets associated mainly with sulfide mineralization, and production has been insignificant.

Nickel and chromium mineralization has been recognized and well documented since 1942. Exploration on nickel mineralization has been carried out by the United States (U.S. Bureau of

12 2015 SW Oregon Mineral Withdrawal Environmental Assessment Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest  Medford & Coos Bay Districts, Bureau of Land Management

Mines, U.S. Geological Survey) as well as state and numerous private interests, though no production has occurred. The only operating nickel mine in the United States was located near Riddle in Douglas County, Oregon, and ceased operations in 1989. Mineralization at the mine near Riddle was different from nickel mineralization identified in Josephine and Curry counties. Mineralization targeted by the Riddle mine was predominately nickel-silicate laterite, garnierite, whereas mineralization elsewhere in southern Oregon consists of nickel-laterite mineralization.

Nickel-laterite deposits near Red Flat in Curry County had mining claims located in 1939, though exploration occurred prior to that time. By 1937, a few shallow trenches and a 32-foot exploration shaft had been excavated.

The U.S. Bureau of Mines (USBM) explored the area using hand auger sampling in 1945, with follow-up drilling in 1952 and 1953. The USBM drilled 22 exploration holes ranging from 20 feet to 117 feet; the area contained about five miles of exploration roads and 15,000 feet of trenching investigation. The area has been subjected to periodic exploration to refine information on the laterites. Numerous other nickel-laterite deposits have been identified in southwestern Oregon. Most have been identified from aerial photographs, some have been field-mapped, and even fewer have been investigated using hand auger drilling to obtain samples for assay. Other than the Nickel Mountain Mine near Riddle, no production of nickel has been recorded from southern Oregon. Nickel Mountain is located in Douglas County, Oregon, roughly 45 miles north of Grants Pass, Oregon along Interstate 5.

Mining Claims, Leases and Material Sites Mining claims within requested withdrawal boundaries are dominated by claims located on nickel-laterite soils. Fewer than 12 placer claims are currently located on streams within subject land boundaries. Claims located on other than known nickel-laterite soils are assumed placer gold claims, due to their locations on area streams. However, no proposals are on record with the BLM or Forest Service for the claims, and activity on those claims has not been observed to date.

Mineral Deposits in the Proposed Withdrawal Areas

Gold, Silver, and Platinum Placer gold was discovered in southwestern Oregon in 1850 and stimulated development of the region. Miners scoured area streams and rivers for placer gold, which had been eroded from lode deposits. In 1851 a gold rush ensued, sparked by discovery of placer gold on the Illinois River. Reportedly, more than 75% of the gold exploited from the Klamath Mountains came from placer deposits.

As placers were worked, gold was traced upstream to lodes from which it eroded. From 1879 to 1908 more than 150 lode mines were operating in the Klamath Mountains. Of those mines, six produced roughly 86% of the lode gold mined, while 14 others produced about 11% of the total. Primary mineral-rich areas included Galice and Canyonville areas, Jacksonville, and the Applegate River valley.

Noted lodes in southwestern Oregon have been pocket gold deposits: small, localized concentrations of near-surface free gold with few impurities and little gangue. The pocket gold deposits were commonly associated with manganiferous quartz and calcite, seldom mined to depths of more than 25 feet, and usually found near a contact with slate, argillite, or other fine- grained, carbonaceous (carbon-rich) rock. Typically, the pocket deposits were due to supergene

13 2015 SW Oregon Mineral Withdrawal Environmental Assessment Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest  Medford & Coos Bay Districts, Bureau of Land Management

enrichment, in which the deposit being leached by acid ground water has played some role in pocket formation (Brooks and Ramp 1968, Ramp and Peterson, 1979).

Gold deposition is also recognized as resulting from hypogene enrichment associated with plutonic emplacement in sedimentary country rock. Area placer gold deposits resulted from mountain building and erosion exposing and transporting enriched zones containing gold mineralization. Placer deposits have been the major source of gold produced in southwestern Oregon: estimations up to 75% of gold produced in Josephine County have been from placers.

Volcanogenic sulfide deposits have been identified in the southwestern Oregon Klamath Mountains. Because of the depositional nature of volcanogenic sulfide mineralization, their occurrence, location, and exploitability vary considerably. Some mining of volcanogenic sulfide minerals has occurred historically near Takilma-Waldo, and the Almeda Mine on the Rogue River displayed characteristics of volcanogenic sulfide deposition. Volcanogenic sulfides are uncommon, not widespread, and not recognized as a significant type of mineralization in the Klamath Mountains of southwestern Oregon.

Major gold-producing areas are located outside of the withdrawal boundaries. No significant gold prospecting or mining activity has been recorded within subject lands. This is partly due to geologic conditions, wherein enrichment processes either did not occur, or not to a great enough degree, within country rock in subject land boundaries. Additionally, “pocket” gold, the main source of placer gold deposits in the region, are not widely recognized within subject lands.

Chromite Erosion of chromite-bearing rocks may form secondary deposits of two kinds, black sands and lateritic soil. Chromite has been recovered from black sands in the United States on a relatively small scale. Some gold and platinum have been mined from chromite-bearing beach sands along the Oregon coast, but no other minerals have been recovered during operations for chromite. The second largest known chromium resource in the United States is in black-sand deposits in raised beaches along the southwestern coast of Oregon.

In Oregon, chromite production has been restricted to periods of wartime emergency. The largest of 23 producing occurrences in Curry County is the Sourdough (Baldface) mine, worked in 1918, 1941-1944, and 1951-1958. Black sands deposits along the coast have been recognized and subjected to some exploration, but no production data are available. Past chromite production occurred outside of withdrawal boundaries.

Mercury In Curry County, four known mercury prospects have been identified; they are widely scattered across the county with no apparent geologic connectivity or relationships. Two additional areas of anomalous mercury were discovered through geochemical sampling. The Babyfoot mercury anomaly was discovered from stream sediment sampling done by ODOGAMI, and anomalous mercury was noted in rhyolites on the Mount Emily area (Ramp et al. 1977).

Nickel According to the USGS (2015) the United States has only one active nickel mine, the underground Eagle Mine in Michigan operating since April 2014. Three additional nickel mining projects are in various stages of development in northeastern Minnesota.

14 2015 SW Oregon Mineral Withdrawal Environmental Assessment Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest  Medford & Coos Bay Districts, Bureau of Land Management

In southwestern Oregon’s Klamath Mountains, nickel-laterite has formed over large areas during long periods of intensive weathering and erosion, mainly in tropical to subtropical climates, where stable landmasses have gradually been reduced to almost flat featureless peneplains. The laterite formed from the weathering of serpentinite is richest in iron, generally containing 44-55% (iron). The nickel content of this laterite commonly averages about 1%, ranging from about 0.9 to 1.3% for large volumes of material. These deposits are called nickeliferous iron laterite.

Huge deposits of nickeliferous iron laterite, similar to those in Cuba, the Philippines, and Indonesia, are not known in North America, but several smaller deposits have been thoroughly explored in California, Oregon, and Washington.

The other type of nickeliferous laterite is known as the nickel-silicate type, because a significant part of the nickel occurs either as the hydrosilicate garnierite or as a nickel-bearing talc or antigorite. This laterite has formed from the weathering of fresh peridotite, dunite, and, to a lesser degree, pyroxenite. The iron content is less than 30% in most laterite of this type; the silicon dioxide content, which is very low in the iron laterite, may be as much as 30%. The nickel content exceeds 1.5% and averages about 1.6% for large tonnages (Cornwall 1973). The Nickel Mountain Mine in Riddle, Oregon operated in a garnierite deposit.

Mineral Economics and Commodities Trends According to H.R. 1937 – 114th Congress from October 2015, the term “strategic and critical minerals” means minerals that are necessary:

1. for national defense and national security requirements;

2. for the Nation’s energy infrastructure, including pipelines, refining capacity, electrical power generation and transmission, and renewable energy production;

3. to support domestic manufacturing, agriculture, housing, telecommunications, healthcare, and transportation infrastructure; or

4. for the Nation’s economic security and balance of trade.

If a vital sector of the economy requires a mineral in order to function, that mineral would likely be deemed critical. A strategic mineral may be defined as one that is important to the Nation’s economy, involves defense issues, does not have many (if any) replacements or substitutes, and primarily comes from foreign countries. Changing technologies, political climates, local and global economies all affect what minerals may be deemed critical or strategic at a given time.

Nickel As of 2016, the United States had one active (underground) nickel mine operation in Michigan. Mineralization is chalcopyrite-pentlandite. The mine is the first nickel operation in the United States in 18 years. Three additional potential nickel mining projects were under development in Minnesota. The principal nickel-consuming state was Pennsylvania, followed by Kentucky, Illinois, New York, and North Carolina.

Approximately 45% of the primary nickel consumed went into stainless and alloy steel production, 43% into nonferrous alloys and superalloys, 7% into electroplating, and 5% into other uses. End uses were as follows: transportation and defense, 34%; fabricated metal products, 20%; electrical equipment, 13%; chemical and petroleum industries, 7% each; construction, household

15 2015 SW Oregon Mineral Withdrawal Environmental Assessment Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest  Medford & Coos Bay Districts, Bureau of Land Management

appliances, and industrial machinery, 5% each; and other, 4%. The estimated value of apparent primary consumption was $1.57 billion (USGS 2015).

The U.S. steel industry produced 1.81 million tons of austenitic (18-8 grades not hardenable by heat treatment and nonmagnetic in the annealed condition) stainless steel in 2015, up 8% from 2014, and 53% greater than the output of 1.18 million tons in 2009, the last year of the recession. Stainless steel has traditionally accounted for two-thirds of primary nickel use worldwide, with more than one-half of the steel going into the construction, food processing, and transportation sectors (USGS 2015).

Nickel prices declined during 2015 by 67%, attributed to declining global production of austenitic stainless steel, in addition to two new refineries being commissioned: one in Madagascar, the other in Canada. Production at new ferronickel smelters in Brazil and New Caledonia also contributed to a global oversupply. Production figures also affected nickel prices: 2015 saw record production of austenitic stainless steel with China producing 17.6 million tons, accounting for more than half of global output. Demand for nickel-base superalloys has been strong in the aerospace and power-generation sectors, as well as development of a microlattice of nickel metal which could be used for insulation, battery electrodes, and impact protection.

Identified land-based resources averaging 1% nickel or greater contain at least 130 million tons of nickel, with about 60% in laterites and 40% in sulfide deposits. Extensive nickel resources also are found in manganese crusts and nodules on the ocean floor. The decline in discovery of new sulfide deposits in traditional mining districts has led to exploration in more challenging locations such as east-central Africa and the Subarctic (USGS 2015).

Low-nickel, duplex, or ultrahigh-chromium stainless steels are being substituted for austenitic grades in construction. Nickel-free specialty steels are sometimes used in place of stainless steel in the power-generating and petrochemical industries. Titanium alloys can substitute for nickel metal or nickel-base alloys in corrosive chemical environments. Lithium-ion batteries instead of nickel-metal hydride may be used in certain applications (USGS 2015). Metallurgically, substitutes for nickel have not been identified. Nickel remains a critical mineral for end-uses discussed, and, therefore, remains a strategic mineral.

Chromium Chromium has been identified on numerous maps and discussed in mineral occurrence reports for southwestern Oregon by ODOGAMI. It is often associated as a beneficial byproduct occurring with nickel-laterite mineralization.

In 2014, the United States was expected to consume about 5% of world chromite ore production in various forms of imported materials, such as chromite ore, chromium chemicals, chromium ferroalloys, chromium metal, and stainless steel. One U.S. company mined chromite in Oregon from which it produced foundry sand. Imported chromite ore was consumed by one chemical firm to produce chromium chemicals. One company produced chromium metal.

Stainless- and heat-resisting-steel producers were the leading consumers of ferrochromium. Stainless steels and superalloys require chromium. The value of chromium material consumption in 2013 was $687 million as measured by the value of net imports, excluding stainless steel, and was expected to be about $690 million in 2014 (USGS 2015). In 2014, recycled chromium (contained in reported stainless steel scrap receipts) accounted for 36% of apparent consumption (USGS 2015). Domestic production figures are not available; however, since 2010, recycling production has increased 7.1%.

16 2015 SW Oregon Mineral Withdrawal Environmental Assessment Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest  Medford & Coos Bay Districts, Bureau of Land Management

World resources are greater than 12 billion tons of shipping-grade chromite, sufficient to meet conceivable demand for centuries. About 95% of the world’s chromium resources is geographically concentrated in Kazakhstan and southern Africa; U.S. chromium resources are mostly in the Stillwater Complex in Montana. Chromium has no substitute in stainless steel, the leading end use, or in superalloys, the major strategic end use. Chromium-containing scrap can substitute for ferrochromium in some metallurgical uses (USGS 2015).

The chromite mining operation in Oregon is near Coos Bay, northwest of the boundary for the Hunter/Pistol withdrawal area. Chromite is recovered from paleo-beach sands, with processing taking place at the mine’s facility located near Coos Bay. Chromite may also be a beneficial byproduct of nickel-laterite processing.

Potential Occurrence of Mineral Resources in Withdrawal Areas

Coal, Oil and Gas, Geothermal No known coal or oil and gas deposits have been identified or located within the withdrawal area. Lands involved are not classified as prospectively valuable for these fossil fuel resources. Geologic conditions are not favorable for coal, oil, and gas formation, and depositional environments were not such that coal could be formed.

The nearest coal deposit with past production was to the north of the proposed withdrawal area, near Coos Bay, Oregon. As of 2013, Oregon had no producing coal mines, and contain no recognized potential coal resources. No oil or gas leases or permits have been issued by ODOGAMI in Curry or Josephine Counties (ODOGAMI 2015).

No known geothermal resource areas exist within the requested withdrawal boundaries. There are no records of geothermal wells on subject lands, and lands are not classified as prospectively valuable for geothermal production.

All of these resources are considered to have low potential for occurrence in the withdrawal area.

Gold and Associated Minerals At the time of segregation, about 12 association placer claims were legally located on streams in the withdrawal area, presumably for placer gold. Mining claims have been located periodically on streams within these areas based on the apparent presumption that those streams potentially contain placer gold, as has been found throughout southern Oregon. Such claims have lain dormant with no proposed mining activity coming forth; therefore, it is questionable if they were located in good faith for legitimate mining activity, with the intent of initiating a profitable mining operation.

The potential for development of gold and other commonly sought-after locatable minerals is low in the withdrawal area, due to a lack of recorded production and unfavorable local geologic conditions. Abundant records documenting gold production in Josephine and Curry Counties are available through ODOGAMI, none of which discuss or identify economically significant production from this area. Quantities and concentrations of such minerals have not been documented that would suggest a valuable gold mine might be developed on subject lands, given current circumstances. Thus, gold and associated metals have a low potential for the occurrence in the withdrawal area.

17 2015 SW Oregon Mineral Withdrawal Environmental Assessment Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest  Medford & Coos Bay Districts, Bureau of Land Management

Nickel As of the date of segregation, 279 active3 mining claims were located in the withdrawal area. The majority of those claims are in areas identified and recognized as having nickel-laterite mineralization. Nickel-laterite claims are located in the Red Flat area where such exploration has taken place since the early 1940’s. Two other locations have claims for nickel-laterite: Cleopatra Ridge and the Rough and Ready Creek laterites. Claims on the Rough and Ready Creek laterite area were determined, through a mineral examination, as not meeting requirements to demonstrate discovery of a valuable mineral deposit (BLM 2005).

Nickel-laterite resources have been well documented in the area. Exploration activities has occurred on many of the identified laterite locations showing anomalous nickel values; however; to date, no mining of nickel resources has occurred.

A number of criteria affect the potential for development of known nickel-laterite resources. Nickel spot-price remains around $4 per pound, after a peak of around $23 per pound in 2007. Concentrating nickel from nickel-laterite cannot be accomplished given current technologies. No smelter capable of processing nickel-laterite resources exists in the United States; therefore, resources would need to be shipped out of country for processing, or facilities capable of processing those resources would need to be constructed. Upstart costs for constructing an adequate smelting facility would be significant. Nickel-laterite resources identified and explored to date have shown low quantities of mineable resources per location and low metal grades in the deposits. The potential for the occurrence of nickel resources in the area is moderate to high.

Environmental Consequences

Proposed Action – 5-year Withdrawal Under a 5-year withdrawal, minerals exploration and development would cease and no new mining claims would be filed. Given the current low level of mineral activity in the area and the proposals for exploratory drilling, the primary impact would be to preclude further refinement of the knowledge of mineral resources, specifically nickel resources.

Minerals validity examination could be requested for active claims. Given that the majority of claims in the area are for nickel-laterite, and the moderate to high potential for occurrence, these are the type of claims, if any, for which a request for a mineral validity examination are most likely. Whether or not the claimants currently have information to demonstrate a valuable mineral discovery is unknown. The most problematic aspect of proving a valuable discovery is the economics of the current low nickel prices, combined with high expenses associated with the remote location of the claims, and the lack of any processing facility in the United States.

In contrast, given the few number of placer gold claims and the low potential for occurrence of gold in the withdrawal area, the likelihood of any claimants pursuing, much less demonstrating, determination of a valuable discovery, seems extremely low. The effect of precluding such activity is negligible, because there currently exists a negligible level of activity.

The economic effects of precluding exploratory drilling at Red Flat and Cleopatra fall mostly on the Red Flat Nickel Corporation, which was pursuing exploration with the intention of refining knowledge of nickel-laterite mineralization in the area, presumably resulting in an economic gain.

3 Active mining claims are those for which annual recording fees are current, irrespective of ground disturbance or mineral extraction.

18 2015 SW Oregon Mineral Withdrawal Environmental Assessment Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest  Medford & Coos Bay Districts, Bureau of Land Management

The lack of this activity would have some negative economic effects to Josephine and Curry counties, because RFNC would not be expending funds to complete exploratory drilling. However, these operations were expected to last only one to two months, including reclamation. Few, if any, local residents would be expected to be hired, and the primary economic benefit would be secondary receipts to local stores, restaurants, and other businesses. In the context of the broader recreation and timber economies of the counties, such impact would be low, whether present or absent. Effects at the state level would be immeasurable.

A temporary or permanent mineral withdrawal may or may not delay or preclude full development of a nickel-laterite mining operation in these areas. The potential for such development is, at this point, purely speculative, not reasonably foreseeable, and cannot be assessed.

Cumulative effects to minerals resources from a 5-year withdrawal are similarly insignificant.

Alternative Action – 20-year Withdrawal A 20-year mineral withdrawal would further delay refinement of the knowledge of nickel-laterite resources in the area. In the span of twenty years, claims for which a determination of a valuable mineral discovery could be determined would be more likely to go forward to exploration or development under valid existing rights. How many, or which specific claims, might succeed for such a determination is unknowable.

Over the longer time span, one would expect that the more speculative claims, where knowledge of the mineral resource is poor (e.g., placer claims along streams), may be relinquished. Unpredictable factors, such as mineral commodity prices, emerging technologies, and geo- politics could reinforce or lessen this likelihood.

See the effects discussion for the proposed action above.

No Action – No Withdrawal Lack of a temporary mineral withdrawal would allow current proposals for exploratory drilling to continue, subject to completion of the NEPA process.

Suction dredge activity in streams with essential salmon habitat is precluded under a state moratorium until January 2021, so lack of withdrawal will have a negligible effect on suction dredge mining for the next five years.

Effects on mineral resources under the no action alternative would be dependent on whether a valuable mineral discovery is present on RFNC nickel-laterite claims, which is currently unknown to the agencies, and would remain proprietary information unless a mineral validity exam were requested. Soils

Affected Environment

General Soils Descriptions Soils within the proposed withdrawal are forming within the Klamath Mountains geo- physiographic province, which is made up of rugged, mountainous terrain and narrow canyons. The mountains within the Klamath province consist predominantly of pre-tertiary sediments and

19 2015 SW Oregon Mineral Withdrawal Environmental Assessment Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest  Medford & Coos Bay Districts, Bureau of Land Management

volcanics (about 65 million years old or more), that have been extensively folded, faulted, and intruded by serpentinized masses of ultra-basic and granitoid rocks along fault zones. The complex geologic history of this region also includes major periods of sea floor subduction at the continental border, volcanism, erosion, mass wasting, and uplift.

The geomorphic processes most common in the Klamath Mountains province are fluviation (degradation of the land surface by running water) and mass wasting. Fluviation is most evident on the long, steep, and rugged slopes that dominate the terrain. Mass wasting is naturally widespread and commonly occurs along geologic contacts, fault zones, in highly fractured parent material, and in areas of moisture accumulation and stream channel cutting of toe slopes. Past glaciation is evident in the highest elevations.

Due to the complex geology of the Klamath Mountains province, soils also vary widely across the landscape, and are dominantly of mixed mineralogy. In general, most soils are shallow, medium textured, and contain high percentages of rock fragments. Very deep soils also occur but are usually limited to ancient mass wasted land surfaces, glacial deposits or toe slope positions. Soils of particular interest are those derived from peridotite and serpentinite parent material because of their unique characteristics. Serpentine soils have low amounts of calcium and high amounts of magnesium, relatively heavy concentrations of nickel, chromium, and other heavy metals, and low levels of nitrogen and poor nitrogen uptake. They support unique ecosystems that have evolved to tolerate and thrive in these soil conditions.

The Digital General Soil Map of the United States (also known as STATSGO2) is a broad-based inventory of soils and non-soil areas that occur in repeatable patterns on the landscape, and generalizes the more detailed soil survey maps for broad planning and management. Table 1 provides the main soil series components of each unit, and figure 3 displays the locations of general map units in relation to the mineral withdrawal area. Note that large swathes of the mineral withdrawal area are composed of general soil map units dominated by peridotite/serpentinite mineralogy.

Table 1. Soil series components of general soil map units, indicating inclusions of peridotite/serpentinite General Soil Includes Map Main Soil Series Components Peridotite / Number Serpentinite s723 Walnett-Oragran-Jayel x s724 Neuns-Madonna-Kindig-Josephine-Hugo-Casabonne s6360 Vermisa-Vannoy-Josephine-Beekman s6361 Woodseye-Jayar-Goodwin-Althouse s6362 Macklyn-Loeb-Floras s6377 Rock outcrop-Pearsoll-Dubakella-Cornutt x s6385 Ruch-Medford s6399 Tolovana-Templeton-Salander-Reedsport-Fendall s6400 Whobrey-Rinearson-Remote-Etelka s6403 Serpentano-Digger x

20 2015 SW Oregon Mineral Withdrawal Environmental Assessment Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest  Medford & Coos Bay Districts, Bureau of Land Management

Figure 3. General soil map of the Hunter/Pistol (northwest corner) and RnR/Baldface (southeast corner) withdrawal areas

Naturally Occurring Asbestos (NOA) Influenced Geology and Soils Asbestos is a term used for several types of fibrous minerals that occur naturally in the environment. Naturally occurring asbestos (NOA) is commonly found in serpentinite and other ultramafic rock formations, as well as the soils where these rock types are located. Not all of these rock formations, however, contain NOA; they only have the potential to contain asbestos, and require environmental testing to determine presence.

Known asbestos deposits in Oregon are small and, in southern Oregon mines, have not been extensive (Bright and Ramp 1965, Van Gosen 2010). Information as to the levels of asbestiform minerals in serpentine soils on the forest is very limited. A laboratory study of two soil pedons associated with serpentine parent material, Snowcamp and Serpantano, was conducted in 1994 by the Natural Resources Conservation Service. Results for the Snowcamp pedon were negative for the presence of asbestiform minerals. The Serpentano pedon was determined to have less than one percent asbestiform minerals in the 2C2 and 2CR horizons (Burt 1994). A site just to the northeast of claims associated on Red Flat Mountain was noted to contain low amounts of chrysotile from an examination in 1970 (ODOGAMI 1977).

21 2015 SW Oregon Mineral Withdrawal Environmental Assessment Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest  Medford & Coos Bay Districts, Bureau of Land Management

Refer to figures 4 and 5 for approximate locations of serpentine and ultramafic bedrock and soils within the withdrawal areas. Locations of serpentine and ultramafic geologies were determined using the Oregon Geologic Data Compilation (OGDC) – Release 5, from the Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries (ODOGAMI 2009). Locations of serpentine and ultramafic influenced soils were determined using the NRCS Soil Surveys for Curry County and Josephine County, accessed through Web Soil Survey (NRCS n.d.).

Figure 4. Ultramafic bedrock and soils with potential for NOA in the Hunter/Pistol area

Figure 5. Ultramafic bedrock and soils with potential for NOA in the RnR/Baldface area

22 2015 SW Oregon Mineral Withdrawal Environmental Assessment Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest  Medford & Coos Bay Districts, Bureau of Land Management

The majority of existing claims within the mineral withdrawal areas occur where soil and/or underlying geology have the potential to contain naturally occurring asbestos. Many of these claims show little to no evidence of historic ground disturbing activity.

Current Level of Disturbance to Soil Productivity There are currently 279 existing mining claims within the proposed mineral withdrawal area, twelve of which are along streams and assumed placer gold. The remaining 267 are presumed to be for nickel-laterite. Many of these claims show little to no evidence of historic ground disturbing activity, based on a review of aerial imagery. The three claims with submitted plans of operations include RF-38, Cleopatra, and RNR.

The Cleopatra claim block completed shallow sampling of 736 auger holes between 2007 and 2009, and the level of soil disturbance was almost imperceptible during a field visit in 2013, save for the wooden stakes marking where the auguring had occurred. This sampling did not result in any measurable effects to soil productivity in the area.

The claim locations of RF-38 and RNR have a history of more extensive excavated trench sampling, which has resulted in more heavily disturbed soil and localized loss of productivity in the trench locations. The RF-38, or Red Flat, area has been extensively explored by the United States Bureau of Mines and private entities starting prior to the 1930’s up to around the 1970’s, and the current claimant completed more surface sampling and drilling between 2007 and 2009.

Pertaining to RNR, the Nicore Claims Group excavated 77 exploratory trenches for sampling in 2002-2003, and previously several hundred trenches were excavated and sampled by Inspiration Development Company in the 1970’s and 1980’s (BLM 2005). The exploratory trenching and associated access roads have resulted in heavily disturbed soils that are currently not supporting vegetation similar to their surroundings.

Environmental Consequences

Proposed Action – 5-year Withdrawal Withdrawal would have no direct effect to soils, which would continue to develop and evolve under natural processes. Under a 5-year withdrawal, minerals exploration and development would cease, and no new mining claims could be filed. Indirectly, future soil disturbance from potential mining activities would generally be precluded, so long as a withdrawal is in place, including on soils with the potential to contain naturally occurring asbestos.

However, under withdrawal, minerals activities may still occur on existing mining claims within the withdrawal boundaries. Claim holders may request a mineral validity exam to determine if they have made a valuable mineral discovery and, hence, have a valid existing right (VER). If such claims are determined to lack discovery, then those claims could be declared “null and void,” and new claims could not be established.

If examination determines a valuable mineral discovery, the claim holder would be able to initiate operations, subject to existing rules and regulations. When a plan of operations is submitted, a thorough analysis of site-specific effects to the soil resource, as well as required project design criteria and mitigation measures, would be completed pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act. This analysis would include the potential for naturally occurring asbestos, where appropriate based on geology and soils, and would specify required reclamation. Effects of mining exploration or operations that might occur under VER are unknowable at this time.

23 2015 SW Oregon Mineral Withdrawal Environmental Assessment Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest  Medford & Coos Bay Districts, Bureau of Land Management

Over a five-year time period, the cumulative effect of precluding mining activity is negligible, because current proposals for minerals exploration would have a negligible amount of soil disturbance, even if they went forward.

There are no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to the soil resource from withdrawal or the mere existence of mining claims within the withdrawal area. Only under VER would soil disturbance from mining occur, and would be subject to site-specific NEPA analysis and environmental mitigations. The soils within the area would generally continue to develop and evolve under natural processes.

Alternative Action – 20-year Withdrawal A 20-year mineral withdrawal would have similar effects to the 5-year mineral withdrawal, but extended over a longer period. See the effects discussion for the proposed action, above.

A minerals validity report may take two to five years, or more, to complete. Thus, over a 20-year period, establishment of VER may be more likely to occur during temporary withdrawal. Establishment of VER would likely result in the implementation of current or new proposed plans of operations, subject to NEPA analysis.

No Action – No Withdrawal With no withdrawal, plans of operations at RF-38 and Cleopatra would go forward, once the necessary environmental analyses are completed. Under current proposals, soil disturbance from these mineral explorations would be negligible.

Under no action, new claims could be established in the Hunter/Pistol and RnR/Baldface areas. However, since the establishment of a claim does not equate to operations that result in disturbance to the soil resource, no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to soils would occur from the act of establishing new claims. The establishment of a new claim could mean a potential for future soil disturbance, but the level of disturbance and effects cannot be foreseen without a claim location and complete plan of operations.

Under no action, new plans of operations could be submitted, and agencies would proceed with evaluating and authorizing previously submitted plans of operation. An analysis, based on each of the specified plans of operations, would be completed pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act to determine the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects to the soil resource, as well as required project design criteria and mitigation measures. This analysis would include the potential for naturally occurring asbestos, where appropriate, based on geology and soils.

Under no action, suction dredge operations could occur outside of the streams currently covered by the State of Oregon’s moratorium on motorized placer mining (Oregon Senate Bill 838, July 2013) and on all streams within the project area after the moratorium expires in January 2021. Suction dredging does not typically directly affect soils, as it is an in-stream activity. Indirectly, soils along streambanks and terraces may have varying levels of impacts and disturbance from related activities, such as access, day use, and camping adjacent to the claim. Depending on the level of activity, effects to soil productivity can vary from immeasurable, to short-term and naturally recoverable, to long-term effects needing restoration. Based on the historically low-level of suction dredging in the project area, we reasonably assume that these activities would be uncommon in the foreseeable future.

24 2015 SW Oregon Mineral Withdrawal Environmental Assessment Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest  Medford & Coos Bay Districts, Bureau of Land Management

Hydrology

Affected Environment Table 2 lists the hierarchy of watersheds, also known as hydrologic units, present in the proposed mineral withdrawal areas. The subbasin is represented by the fourth-field hydrologic unit code (HUC), the watershed by the fifth-field HUC, and the subwatershed by the sixth-field HUC.

Table 2. Watersheds within the proposed SOMW area 4th Field HUC* 5th Field HUC 6th Field HUC Illinois West Fork Illinois River HUC Rough and Ready Creek 171003110404 1710031104 Chetco Hunter Creek HUC 1710031205 Upper Hunter 171003120501 Lower Hunter 171003120502 Pistol River HUC 1710031204 East Fork Pistol River-Pistol River 171003120401 North Fork Pistol River-Pistol River 171003120402 South Fork Pistol River 171003120403 Crook Creek-Pistol River 171003120404 Smith North Fork Smith River HUC Baldface Creek 180101010102 1801010101 *hydrologic unit code

West Fork Illinois River Watershed The West Fork of the Illinois River joins the East Fork near Cave Junction at an elevation of 1280 feet. Rough and Ready Creek subwatershed has its highest elevation at Josephine Mountain at 4764 feet. The highest elevation in the Whiskey Creek subwatershed is on its divide with Rough and Ready, at 3925 feet. The highest elevation for the main stem of the West Fork of the Illinois River is relatively low, with the divide near 3680 feet (about 1½ miles west of the low pass at Randolph-Collier tunnel on Highway 199).

The headwater drainages of the West Fork watershed are generally managed by the Rogue River Siskiyou National Forest (RRSNF), while the lower reaches are a mix of federal, state, and predominantly private ownership. One exception is Rough and Ready Creek, which is federally managed from its headwaters to its confluence with the West Fork, with few private inholdings. The western one-third of the watershed is part of a Rare II Roadless Area. The floodplain of the lower West Fork is developed with residences, RV parks and other tourist-oriented establishments between the highway and the river. The flat alluvial deposits between Rough and Ready Creek and the river are the focus of industrial development for the Illinois Valley (airport and mill). The ownership distribution in the watershed include: USFS (49%), BLM (8%), private (42%), and State of Oregon (<1%).

European settlers cleared floodplains, trapped beavers, drained wetlands, mined, and channelized streams to facilitate rural development and agriculture. Timber harvest and associated road construction began in the late 1800s and increased up to and through the early 1990s.

The shallow, rocky soils on most parts of the Josephine Ultramafic soil unit have little capacity for water storage, leading to high runoff. High runoff causes the stream to be flashy, with rapid

25 2015 SW Oregon Mineral Withdrawal Environmental Assessment Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest  Medford & Coos Bay Districts, Bureau of Land Management

channel rise in response to rainfall. Meandering and braided channels are evident across Rough and Ready Creek’s alluvial fan. Loss of surface flow becomes evident during low summer flows.

Hunter Creek Watershed Hunter Creek, a southwest and west flowing fourth-order stream, is located in the coast range in west central Curry County in southwestern Oregon. Hunter Creek drains a basin area of 28,404 acres of moderate to steeply sloped dissected mountainous terrain before emptying into the Pacific Ocean, approximately two miles south of Gold Beach, Oregon (T37S, R15W, Section 12). Elevations range from sea level to 3,366 feet at the top of Quosatana Butte. Annual precipitation ranges from 80 to 130 inches, depending on wetness of the winter and location within the watershed. Most of the precipitation occurs between October and April in the form of rain. Fifteen%, or 4,195 acres, of the Hunter Creek watershed is located in the transient snow zone and can receive moisture in the form of rain or snow. The ownership distribution in the watershed includes private land (63%), NFS land (25%), BLM (12%), and State of Oregon (<1%).

Fire suppression has caused the level and continuity of fuels to increase, leaving the watershed susceptible to larger, more intense fires (e.g., Biscuit Fire). Moderate timber harvest and road development on public lands has altered some watershed processes and functions. Past land uses and management directives, such as stream cleanout operations (removal of instream wood), road construction in valley bottoms, and logging within the riparian forest, have created conditions that increased sediment loads and decreased riparian habitat and aquatic habitat complexity.

Pistol River Watershed The Pistol River watershed encompasses approximately 67,250 acres of Curry County. About 58% of the basin is federal land managed by the RRSNF (53%) and the BLM (5%). About 42% of the basin is privately owned. Forestry, whether public or private, is the dominant land use, involving 97% of the watershed. The remaining three percent is used for farming, livestock grazing, and rural homes. The Pistol River is located in the Klamath Mountain Province in southwestern Oregon and drains into the Pacific Ocean, with the mouth of the river located between the towns of Brookings and Gold Beach Oregon.

The first Euro-American inhabitants were miners who came to the area in the 1850's. Following or accompanying the miners were early settlers, farming in the flat lands along the rivers and major creeks and grazing cattle and sheep in the surrounding hills. Currently the flat land near the mouth of the Pistol River is occupied by residences and ranches. The middle portion of the watershed is primarily owned by private timber companies. The upper portion of the watershed is primarily NFS land. Timber commodity production has been an important use of the middle and upper portions of the watershed since World War II. Fire suppression has caused the level and continuity of fuels to increase, leaving the watershed susceptible to larger, more intense fires (e.g., Biscuit Fire). Moderate timber harvest and road development on public lands has altered some watershed processes and functions.

North Fork Smith River Watershed The North Fork of the Smith River watershed was designated a key watershed under the Northwest Forest Plan (NFWP). There are 13 miles of the North Fork of the Smith River in Oregon. It flows south from the flank of the Chetco River watershed divide in the Kalmiopsis Wilderness, and meets the Smith River at Gasquet, California, where it flows across Del Norte County to the Pacific Ocean at Smith River, California. The North Fork of the Smith was designated a Wild and Scenic River in 1988. The Outstandingly Remarkable Values are scenery,

26 2015 SW Oregon Mineral Withdrawal Environmental Assessment Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest  Medford & Coos Bay Districts, Bureau of Land Management

fisheries, and water quality. The portions designated ‘Wild’ are above Horse Creek and below Baldface Creek to the Oregon/California state line. The portion between Horse Creek and Baldface Creek is designated ‘Scenic.’

The North Fork of the Smith watershed receives approximately 100 to 150 inches of precipitation per year. About 53% of the watershed is in the rain-dominated zone (under 2500 foot elevation); 46% is in the transient snow zone (2500 to 4000 foot elevation, mostly in Baldface and Chrome Creeks), and one percent is in the snowpack zone along the Chetco Divide. The three largest streams, North Fork of the Smith River, Baldface Creek, and Chrome Creek, show evidence of considerable stream power by the size and volume of sediment and large wood that they move. Shallow and porous ultramafic soils occupy roughly half of the watershed. The prevalence of these soils contributes to the flashiness and power of the streams. Ownership in the watershed includes NFS lands (98%), State of Oregon (1%), and private ownership (1%).

For a description of past and current mining activities in the area, see the Minerals section, above.

Water Quality

Stream Temperature Solar radiation is the singularly most important radiant energy source for the heating of streams during daytime conditions (Brown 1985, Beschta 1997). The loss or removal of riparian vegetation can increase solar radiation input to a stream, increasing its temperature.

Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) 303(d) list of Water Quality Limited The DEQ 303(d) lists water bodies that are impaired for a various pollutants. The following streams within the withdrawal area are listed:

Water Body Name Pollutant Status Rough and Ready Creek Temperature Approved TMDL Hunter Creek Temperature

Rough and Ready Creek has a large area of ultramafic geology that has low vegetation productivity. Trees are naturally sparse and widely spaced, producing an open canopy. Trees in the riparian area that are providing summer stream shade produce low quality shade, allowing a large amount of solar radiation to reach the stream surface. As a result, streams flowing through ultramafic geology are warmer than streams flowing through well-vegetated riparian areas. Hunter Creek is 63% under private management, and, of that, a large portion is managed for timber production. In the past, inadequate protection of trees adjacent to the stream resulted in a loss of stream shade.

Surface mining in a riparian area has the potential to remove trees that are providing stream shade. No surface mining has occurred within the riparian in the withdrawal area, so there has been no loss of stream shade.

Effects of Mining on Stream Temperature Suction dredging operations are confined to the wetted width of the stream. Therefore, the actual mining operation does not directly affect riparian vegetation. Stream shade remains the same throughout the operation, so no increase in stream temperature occurs as a result of mining.

27 2015 SW Oregon Mineral Withdrawal Environmental Assessment Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest  Medford & Coos Bay Districts, Bureau of Land Management

Sources identified as increasing stream temperature are timber harvest, roads, water withdrawal, and mining (other than suction dredging) in riparian areas.

Increases in sediment loading to a stream can result in the stream aggrading, causing the width of the stream to increase. This can increase the surface area of the water, resulting in higher solar radiation absorption and increased stream temperatures. Suction dredging does not introduce new sediment into the stream, but does move or relocate existing streambed material. The suction dredging operation creates piles in the stream channel as the miner digs down into the streambed. The stream flow may split and flow around the pile decreasing the wetted surface area for a few feet. However, within the stream reach that the miner is working, the change is so small that the overall wetted surface area can be assumed the same, so the total solar radiation absorption remains unchanged.

Turbidity Turbidity results from an increase in suspended sediment that reduces water clarity. Suction dredging can increase water turbidity by picking up bed material and dispersing it into the water. The loss of water clarity during the suction dredging operation is a function of the type of streambed material being run through the dredge. When miners encounter material generally finer than 0.4 mm, it will become suspended in the water and reduce clarity. Fines can be mixed in the bed material or present in what is called a “clay pocket,” an area of concentrated fines in the streambed.

The state standard controlling turbidity levels in a stream is ORA 340-41-(basin)(2)(c). It requires that no more than a ten percent cumulative increase in natural stream turbidity shall be allowed, as measured relative to a control point immediately upstream of the turbidity producing activity. Under General Permits 700PM, turbidity will be localized within the general area of the dredging activity and that turbidity shall not be visible 300 feet downstream of one or more working suction dredges. So, if turbidity is visually detectable 300 feet downstream as stated in the 700PM permit, it exceeds the state standard.

How much, if any, turbidity is created by suction dredging is highly variable. Factors affecting turbidity are the volume of water in the stream, stream section type (pool, riffle or glide), bed material, and the number of operators in an area.

Exceedance of the state standard for turbidity usually occurs when more than one dredge is in use in the same area. However, one operator can exceed the standard if they do not comply with their permit.

No surface mining has recently occurred in the withdrawal area, so no sediment has been delivered that would affect water clarity.

Hazardous Material Fuel used to power the dredge is a hazardous material, if it enters a live stream. Operators are required to store their fuel 100 feet or more from the stream. No hazardous fuel spill associated with suction dredging has been documented. If fuel spills have occurred, they were not reported and were not apparent during mining site visits. Channel Morphology Several types of stream channels and features occur river systems. Landforms can play a role in channel development. In mountains without valleys, a hillslope bottom can confine a stream and

28 2015 SW Oregon Mineral Withdrawal Environmental Assessment Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest  Medford & Coos Bay Districts, Bureau of Land Management

control the longitudinal shape of the channel. These streams are usually smaller and function as headwaters, collectors or tributaries to a larger mainstem. The channels are entrenched with no floodplain, and steep with high energy. Within the withdrawal area, most of the stream network consists of these types of stream.

As the hillslopes widen to form valley floors the stream slope becomes gentle and the longitudinal stream shape forms a meander pattern. The valley floor section contains all of the valuable fish habitat. It in this area that floodplains form. A floodplain is a smooth strip of land bordering a stream and overflowed at time of high water. During flood events the high water accesses the floodplain allowing the channel width to increase. The increased channel width helps to dissipate the storms high flow energy, stabilizing the stream channel. Anthropogenic activities that alter floodplain function can cause the channel to become unstable and degrade.

None of the potential mining activities discussed would occur on a floodplain. Suction dredging is confined to the summer low-flow wetted width and, while it may alter the streambed, has little effect on the floodplain per se. Surface mining, including the proposed exploratory drilling and full-scale nickel laterite mining that might be proposed, occurs upslope outside of floodplains. Any effects to floodplains would be limited to indirect effects from access roads.

A stream channel is in a constant state of adjustment during winter flows, maintaining a balance between sediment, stream flow, and instream structures. If a suction dredge operation removes instream structures, such as wood and boulders, it can cause the channel to change. Instream structures can provide stability to a channel by establishing a control point to maintain the stream gradient or produce pools and cover for fish habitat.

A suction dredging operation typically leaves one or several cone shaped holes in the streambed with the excavated material in a pile downstream. Limited Forest visual and photo point monitoring shows the holes are filled and piles redistributed with winter flushing flows.

Problems occur from suction dredging when a miner undercuts a streambank, causing it to become unstable and collapse into the stream. General permit 700PM restricts miners from under cutting streambanks. The first winter stream flows during a storm usually redistributes the streambed material that was displaced by suction dredging.

No surface mining has occurred recently in the withdrawal area so no sediment has been delivered that would affect channel morphology.

Past Exploration - Hydrogeology Ongoing exploration for nickel-laterite minerals using boreholes and heavy equipment trenching has occurred in the claims that currently comprise RF-38, Cleopatra, and RNR. Observations during exploration activities in 2007 through 2009 at 12 deep sonic boreholes, drilled to a depth of 118 feet below ground surface, did not indicate the presence of groundwater.

This lack of groundwater observations suggests these materials encountered during exploration drilling are of higher relative permeability, otherwise shallow groundwater would likely have been observed in previous mineral exploration boreholes (Williams 2015). Furthermore, although there are no data to suggest the presence of an aquifer at the proposed exploration site, Williams (2015) does suggest, based on his professional judgment, that one or more aquifers are likely present in fractured bedrock greater than 118 feet. A sustainable yield in any groundwater well would be highly variable due to the nature of the fractured bedrock. Local and regional recharge to the aquifer(s) is most likely in the form of infiltration of precipitation and groundwater

29 2015 SW Oregon Mineral Withdrawal Environmental Assessment Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest  Medford & Coos Bay Districts, Bureau of Land Management

discharge via seeps, springs, and gaining streams within the Hunter Creek and Pistol River catchments (Williams 2015).

No groundwater quality samples have been collected and analyzed, due to the lack of wells within the site. Given the lateritic nature of the soil (rich in iron and aluminum) and weathered bedrock along with high precipitation (up to 75 inches/year), local rocks within 50 feet of the land surface are unlikely to contain leachable constituents that would pose an unacceptable risk to human or ecological receptors (Williams 2015).

There are no known public water supply wells or established municipal water supply within the Hunter Creek or Pistol River catchments.

Environmental Consequences

Proposed Action – 5-year Withdrawal Withdrawal from location and entry under the mining laws will have no direct effect on water quality in the proposed withdrawal area. Indirect beneficial effects from precluding mining activity and the establishment of new claims are expected to be minor, given the current low level of mineral exploration and mining activity. On lands with existing mining claims, some activities may still occur through the establishment of VER. Claimants may request a mineral validity exam to determine if a valuable mineral discovery exists. If VER are determined, then the claim holders may initiate operations on such claims after completion of a NEPA analysis. The activity would be subject to existing environmental rules and regulations. If the claim were determined to lack a valuable discovery, then the claim would be declared “null and void,” and a new claim could not be established. Mineral exploration and development could only occur under the 5-year withdrawal alternative based on VER. However, because of the current lack of surface mining activity, and a very low level of suction dredging activity, no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to water quality are expected within the 5-year withdrawal period. The baseline condition, relative to minerals activity, would remain the same. No cumulative effects are anticipated.

Alternative Action – 20-year Withdrawal A 20-year mineral withdrawal would have similar effects to the 5-year mineral withdrawal, but extended over a longer period. See the effects discussion for the proposed action, above.

A minerals validity report may take two to five years, or more, to complete. Thus, over a 20-year period, establishment of VER may be more likely to occur during temporary withdrawal. Establishment of VER would likely result in the implementation of current or new proposed plans of operations, subject to NEPA analysis.

No Action – No Withdrawal

Suction Dredging Two recent permits for suction dredging were issued for claims on BLM land along Rough and Ready Creek; none has recently occurred for claims on NFS lands. Major gold-producing areas are located outside of the withdrawal area boundaries, and no significant gold prospecting or mining activity has been recorded within withdrawal boundary. The few suction dredging

30 2015 SW Oregon Mineral Withdrawal Environmental Assessment Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest  Medford & Coos Bay Districts, Bureau of Land Management

operations in the withdrawal area, should they continue under no action, will have no lasting effect on water quality.

Nickel-laterite Exploration No surface mining has occurred in the withdrawal area since the late 1950’s, and the only proposal for surface mining, RNR, is incomplete and based on claims which were previously found to be lacking in a valuable mineral discovery (BLM 2005). Red Flat Nickel Corporation has proposals for exploratory drilling at RF-38 and Cleopatra. Their proposals entail drilling boreholes up to 50 feet deep at each site. For reasons discussed above, boreholes of this depth are expected to have no effect on groundwater resources.

Given the lateritic nature of the soil and weathered bedrock (rich in iron and aluminum), along with high precipitation (up to 75 inches/year), the local rocks within 50 feet of the land surface are unlikely to contain leachable constituents that would pose an unacceptable risk to human or ecological receptors (Williams 2015).

Springs, perennial streams, wetlands and fens are present at the site. All these features are considered Riparian Reserves under the Northwest Forest Plan (USFS and BLM 1994) and require protection buffers. Any future exploration boreholes would maintain a minimum of a 200- foot buffer from streams and wetlands with a 300-foot buffer for fish-bearing streams, resulting in no expected affect to groundwater, wetland or fens, if exploratory boring occurred in the future. Additional standards and guides relative to mining are specified in the NWFP to protect Riparian Reserves and achieve attainment of Aquatic Conservation Strategy goals. Aquatics

Affected Environment

Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Aquatic Species In compliance with Section 7 of the ESA and the Forest Service biological evaluation (BE) process for TES aquatic species, the list of species and habitat potentially occurring within the project area was reviewed. The USDA Forest Service Region 6 Sensitive Species List for the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest was reviewed with regard to potential effects on any sensitive species and their habitat by actions associated with the proposed project. Pre-field and reconnaissance results are summarized in table 3.

Table 3. Listed and sensitive aquatic species and habitat on the RRSNF Species/Habitat Pre-field Review Field Surveys Existing Sighting or Habitat or Species Common Name Scientific Name Potential Habitat Confirmed (Yes1/No2) (Yes1/No2) ESA Threatened Species SONCC coho salmon Oncorhynchus kisutch Yes Yes OC coho salmon O. kisutch No No Yes, located off Yes, located off federal lands, Southern DPS Pacific federal lands, Thaleichthys pacificus downstream in eulachon downstream in Rogue Rogue River River estuary estuary

31 2015 SW Oregon Mineral Withdrawal Environmental Assessment Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest  Medford & Coos Bay Districts, Bureau of Land Management

Species/Habitat Pre-field Review Field Surveys Existing Sighting or Habitat or Species Common Name Scientific Name Potential Habitat Confirmed (Yes1/No2) (Yes1/No2) Yes, located off Yes, located off federal lands, Southern DPS North federal lands, Acipenser medirostris downstream in American green sturgeon downstream in Rogue Rogue River River estuary estuary ESA Critical Habitat (CH) SONCC coho salmon O. kisutch Yes Yes OC coho salmon O. kisutch No No MSA Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Chinook salmon O. tshawytscha Yes Yes Coho salmon O. kisutch Yes Yes

USFS R6 Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species Fish Pacific lamprey Entosphenus tridentatus Yes No KMP steelhead O. mykiss Yes Yes OC steelhead O. mykiss No No SONCC Chinook salmon O. tshawytscha Yes Yes Mollusk California floater Anodonta californiensis No No Western ridged mussel Gonidea angulata No No Highcap lanx Lanx alta No No Scale lanx L. klamathensis No No Rotund lanx L. subrotunda No No Robust walker Pomatiopsis binneyi No No Pacific walker P. californica No No Insect Haddock’s rhyacophilan R. haddocki No No caddisfly 1Yes – Potential effects on these species will be further analyzed in this document. 2No – No further analysis is necessary, and a determination of “No Effect/No Impact” is rendered.

SONCC Coho Salmon and Critical Habitat (ESA Threatened) NOAA Fisheries listed SONCC coho salmon as threatened under the ESA on May 6, 1997, (62 FR 42588), and coho salmon critical habitat (CCH) for SONCC coho salmon was designated by NMFS on May 5, 1999 (64 FR 24049). CCH is defined in Section 3(5)(A) of the ESA as “the specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species” on which are found those physical or biological features (I) essential to the conservation of the species and (II) which may require special management considerations or protection.”

Critical habitat includes all river reaches accessible to listed coho salmon between Cape Blanco, Oregon, and Punta Gorda, California. Critical habitat consists of the water, substrate, and adjacent riparian zones of estuarine and riverine reaches (including off-channel habitats).

32 2015 SW Oregon Mineral Withdrawal Environmental Assessment Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest  Medford & Coos Bay Districts, Bureau of Land Management

Accessible reaches are those within the historical range of the evolutionarily significant unit (ESU) that can still be occupied by any life stage of coho salmon. Inaccessible reaches are those above specific dams or above long-standing, naturally impassable barriers (i.e., natural waterfalls in existence for at least several hundred years). Table 2 (in Hydrology) lists watersheds with SONCC coho presence, CCH and/or EFH within the action area. Table 4 list miles of CCH by watershed within the proposed withdrawal area.

Table 4. SONCC coho salmon designated critical habitat within lands in the SOMW area SONCC Coho Salmon Critical Habitat Coos Bay and Watershed RRSNF CCH Medford BLM CCH (miles)1 2 Subbasin Watershed (miles) (miles)2 Chetco Hunter 20.7 0 0 Pistol 49.6 4.0 0 Illinois River West Fork Illinois 57.4 24.4 5.4 River Smith North Fork Smith 55.8 24.9 0 River Total 183.5 79.9 5.4 1 Values based on a combination of RRSNF 2013 SONCC coho salmon delineated designated CH and ODFW steelhead presence survey data 2013 GIS map (as a surrogate for historic coho salmon habitat) website: https://nrimp.dfw.state.or.us/nrimp/default.aspx?pn=fishdistdata. 2 Steelhead presence surveys were used to determine historic coho salmon habitat since coho salmon designated CH was not spatially delineated in the Federal Register (64 FR 24049, May 5, 1999). Values based on GIS data layer entitled RRSNF 2013 Total Coho Salmon Distribution and field knowledge.

Aquatic and Riparian Habitat Baseline for TES Species Information used in this analysis includes RRSNF geographic information system (GIS) data, watershed analysis, and USFS R6 aquatic habitat stream surveys completed within the watersheds to describe the environmental baseline conditions. Watershed descriptions for Hunter Creek, North Fork Smith (Baldface Creek), Pistol River, and West Fork Illinois River (Rough and Ready Creek) watersheds can be found in the Hydrology section, above. For descriptions of historic mining activity, see the Minerals section. Figures 6 and 7 display the relationship of coho salmon critical habitat within the mineral withdrawal area watersheds.

33 2015 SW Oregon Mineral Withdrawal Environmental Assessment Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest  Medford & Coos Bay Districts, Bureau of Land Management

Figure 6. No mining claims occur within ¼ mile of CCH in the Hunter/Pistol withdrawal area

Hunter Creek Watershed Suction dredge activities summary. Mining and gravel extraction are not considered a threat to the Hunter Creek population of SONCC coho (NMFS 2014). There are no recommendations or opportunities for management of suction dredging stated in the Hunter Creek Watershed Assessment (USFS 1998a) as the presence of gold is unlikely (see Minerals section) and no placer mining has occurred. There were no Oregon Department Environmental Quality (ODEQ) applications for suction dredging and high banking permits within a ¼ mile of CCH submitted in the watershed during 2014.

Fisheries. Approximately 20.7 miles of CCH occur within the watershed, but none on NFS and BLM lands (figure 6). Coho salmon in Hunter Creek have numerous, interacting stresses that reduce population productivity. Excess sediment supply has not only filled pools, but also facilitated stream warming to well above the level suited for coho salmon. Riparian removal caused by logging and development in the lower Hunter Creek corridor has also contributed to warming and channel alterations that decreased carrying capacity for coho. Flow depletion may be a contributing factor to stream warming and reduction of fish habitat. No anadromous fish reach federal lands. A series of falls on the mainstem of Hunter Creek, upstream of the North Fork Hunter Creek, serves as a long-standing natural barrier downstream of federal lands (NMFS 2014).

34 2015 SW Oregon Mineral Withdrawal Environmental Assessment Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest  Medford & Coos Bay Districts, Bureau of Land Management

Active filed claims (as of 5/8/2013) within ¼ mile of CCH

Figure 7. Mining claims in RnR/Baldface relative to SONCC coho salmon critical habitat

Pistol River Watershed Suction dredging and high banking activity summary. Pistol River has no gold-bearing geological formations, and so was spared the mining impacts of the interior basins of the Rogue River. A large gravel operation on the floodplain terrace of the lower river is a moderate threat (NMFS 2014).

There are no recommendations or opportunities for management of suction dredging stated in the Pistol River Watershed Assessment (USFS 1998b). There were no Oregon Department Environmental Quality (ODEQ) applications for suction dredging and high banking permits within a ¼ mile of CCH submitted in the watershed during 2014.

Fisheries. Approximately 49.6 miles of CCH occur within the watershed, with 15.4 miles on NFS lands and none on BLM lands (figure 6). There are four miles of CCH on NFS lands within the withdrawn area. Pistol River coho salmon are part of a larger, south coast metapopulation and were probably not common in the watershed due to geology and gradient (Stauff 2002). There is no documented coho salmon use by the species in the watershed. However, the low-gradient mainstem was probably good coho salmon rearing habitat prior to the 1880s, when the area was

35 2015 SW Oregon Mineral Withdrawal Environmental Assessment Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest  Medford & Coos Bay Districts, Bureau of Land Management

dominated by conifers and wetlands (Stauff 2002). Private land management has degraded the lower mainstem and eliminated the coho salmon rearing potential. The only potential spawning habitat for coho salmon in the watershed is the lower one-half mile of Crook Creek and possibly some third-order stream reaches in the upper watershed. The most important factor limiting recovery of coho salmon in the Pistol River is a deficiency in suitable rearing habitat for juveniles (NMFS 2014).

North Fork Smith River watershed Suction dredging and high banking activity summary. There are 55.8 miles of critical habitat within the North Fork Smith River watershed, 38.7 miles of which occur on NFS lands. Of the 38.7 miles of CCH on federal land, 22.6 miles of those miles are currently withdrawn from mineral entry. No BLM lands occur in this watershed within the SOMW area.

There were nine active placer claims as of 5/8/2013 within the project area and three claims within ¼ mile of CCH (figure 7). One suction dredge notice of intent to operate (NOI) was received by the RRSNF during the four-year period from 2009-2012 in the subbasin on NFS land located within 1/4 mile of CCH (USFS 2015). No ODEQ suction dredging and high banking permits were issued during 2014 across all ownerships in the watershed. Some segments of the North Fork Smith River have a history of mining activity. The two-mile section between Baldface Creek and the Oregon-California state line has experienced some mineral exploration activity upslope, beyond ¼ mile of CCH. Generally, mining activities within the stream corridor are quite limited.

The segment of the Smith River from Sourdough Camp to the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest boundary was withdrawn from mineral entry by inclusion in the Wild and Scenic Rivers system (Omnibus Oregon Wild and Scenic Rivers Act 1988). The east side of the North Fork Smith River from Horse Creek downstream to Sourdough Camp was withdrawn as a part of the Kalmiopsis Wilderness on February 24, 1978. The west half of this segment was administratively withdrawn for a period of 20 years by Public Land Order 7556 on March 20, 2003 (68 FR 13726). See Appendix A in the 2015 Suction Dredging and High Banking Biological Assessment (USFS 2015) for a summary of the suction dredging and high banking mineral withdrawn areas on the RRSNF.

Fisheries. Fall Chinook salmon, coho salmon, steelhead, anadromous cutthroat trout, resident rainbow and resident cutthroat trout all use the North Fork Smith River watershed. The distribution of fish within the basin is not fully understood for all species. Of the fish-producing streams in the watershed, Baldface Creek is remarkable in its variety of habitats and very high fish production potential. There are no known blockages to fish migration in the watershed. Based on the near-pristine nature of the fish habitat in the basin, population trends for fish in the watershed appear to be governed by forces outside the basin, such as downstream migration, habitat condition, ocean conditions, ocean and lower river commercial and sport angling, and intrinsic population cycles (USFS 1995).

West Fork Illinois River watershed Suction dredging and high banking activity summary. The West Fork Illinois River was mined, but not as much as other areas in the Illinois Valley. However, the legacy of hydraulic mining on stream channels and valley topography is still evident, although current activity is light when compared to historic levels. Historic mining damage to coho salmon streams includes disruption of reaches of the mainstem East and West Fork Illinois River (USFS and BLM 2000, NMFS 2014). Placer mining claims potentially accessible to suction dredging are located on Rough and

36 2015 SW Oregon Mineral Withdrawal Environmental Assessment Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest  Medford & Coos Bay Districts, Bureau of Land Management

Ready Creek. Meandering and braided channels are evident all across the Rough and Ready alluvial fan. The channel is a high-energy system with cobble and boulder substrates.

There were 23 active placer claims (7.8% of Illinois subbasin) within ¼ mile of CCH as of 5/8/2013 (63 claims watershed wide) (figure 7). No suction dredge NOIs were received by the RRSNF during the four-year period from 2009-2012 in the watershed on NFS land located within ¼ mile of CCH (USFS 2015). Two suction dredging permits on BLM lands (none on NFS lands) were issued by the ODEQ during 2014, which were located within ¼ mile of CCH.

Fisheries. The West Fork Illinois River watershed coho salmon population is part of the greater Illinois subbasin population. About 57.4 miles of CCH occur in the West Fork Illinois River watershed, with about 25.8 miles located on NFS lands (figure 7). Most of the CCH with high intrinsic potential (IP) in this watershed is located downstream of the NFS lands on private lands. However, some high IP CCH occurs on NFS lands in Broken Kettle and Wood Creeks.

A substantial portion of the western Illinois River basin has ultramafic geology with serpentine soils that cause sparse riparian conditions and warm stream temperatures (USFS and BLM 2000). For this reason, the 2014 final SONCC Coho Salmon Recovery Plan focuses on the upper Illinois basin, where the number of tributaries with high IP coho salmon habitat is extensive, including the West Fork Illinois River (NMFS 2014).

The West Fork Illinois River watershed supports a sizable population of coho salmon and other native fishes. Portions of the watershed have serpentine geology, and these areas are generally not used heavily by coho salmon, due to high summer temperatures and general lack of habitat. The final SONCC Coho Salmon Recovery Plan (NMFS 2014) reported, “A substantial portion of the western Illinois River subbasin has serpentine soils that naturally support sparse riparian conditions…that likely result in warm stream temperatures. Therefore, streams that flow from this terrain, such as Rough and Ready and Josephine Creeks, are unsuitable for coho salmon.” The plan expanded that, “In most cases, coho salmon are naturally absent from steep lower Illinois River tributaries and those that drain the serpentine bedrock area of the western part of the subbasin (e.g., Rough and Ready and Josephine Creeks).” Portions of the watershed that are not serpentine geology, such as Elk Creek, are strong areas for coho salmon production, with very high juvenile densities.

Within this watershed, factors limiting coho salmon production include: low summer stream flows resulting from domestic and agricultural diversions, serpentine geology, high summer water temperatures, lack of instream large wood, lack of complex rearing habitat including side channels and beaver ponds, channelized stream segments, migration barriers, and potential competition from exotic species (such as redside shiners). Some of these factors are a result of management practices such as timber harvest, road construction, stream cleanout, and historic placer mining.

Environmental Consequences This analysis evaluates the potential direct, indirect and cumulative effects of no action (baseline), 5-year and 20-year mineral withdrawal on species and habitat for: SONCC coho, CH, EFH, and USFS R6 sensitive species. Coho salmon, CH, EFH, and USFS R6 sensitive species and habitat are located in the same stream segments and riparian areas in the action area, so any potential effect to one (i.e., CH) would result in an effect to the others (i.e., coho salmon, EFH and USFS R6 sensitive species/habitat). This analysis will discuss affects to CH for feasibility

37 2015 SW Oregon Mineral Withdrawal Environmental Assessment Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest  Medford & Coos Bay Districts, Bureau of Land Management

and readability, recognizing that the same effect would apply to coho salmon, EFH and USFS R6 sensitive species and habitat.

Mineral activities located greater than ¼ mile from coho salmon critical habitat will have no impact (USFS 2015). Therefore, effects on aquatic species and riparian areas will be analyzed for only those potential mineral activities within ¼ mile of coho salmon critical habitat. The mineral activities located greater than ¼ mile from coho salmon critical habitat include three proposed PoOs and the majority of filed claims, which will not be further discussed or analyzed.

Table 5 summarizes the suction dredging mineral activities of the baseline conditions and will be used for comparison with the 5-year and 20-year mineral withdrawal.

Table 5. Baseline suction dredging activities in the SOMW area Watershed Active Claims within 2014 ODEQ Issued Permits ¼ mile of CCH within ¼ mile of CCH Hunter Creek 0 0 North Fork Smith River 3 0 Pistol River 0 0 West Fork Illinois River 23 2 (BLM only)

Proposed Action – 5-year Withdrawal Withdrawal from location and entry under the mining laws will have no direct effect on TES aquatic species in the proposed withdrawal area. Indirect beneficial effects from precluding mining activity and the establishment of new claims are expected to be minor, given the current low level of mining activity. Even under withdrawal, the active claims in the proposed mineral withdrawal area could potentially operate if a validity exam is performed. Watersheds within the proposed mineral withdrawal area within ¼ mile of CCH had active placer claims ranging from zero to 23 (table 5). (Active claims are those for which the claimant has paid the fees and renews filing to keep the claim.) Suction dredge mining may occur if a minerals validity examination determines that a discovery of a valuable mineral deposit existed at the time of the segregation. However, such potential is limited to the existing active claims. Under a mineral withdrawal, no new claims could be filed.

At any given time, mining operations occur on only a small minority of active claims. During 2014, the four watersheds in the proposed mineral withdrawal area with active claims within ¼ mile of CCH had a combined total of only two suction dredging permits issued by ODEQ (table 5) out of the 26 claims. Thus, approximately only eight percent of active claims had suction dredging activities during this time, and impacts are limited. Therefore, the number of claimants that might request a validity exam and successfully establish VER is likely to be low. A significant increase in gold prices, as transpired during the 2008-2012 period, or other unforeseen circumstances, could motivate requests for more validity exams, potentially resulting in more claims with VER and more suction dredge activity.

Current and past suction dredge activity is very low in the SOMW area, and under a withdrawal, a low level of mineral activity could still occur. The potential direct and indirect negative or positive effects of mining withdrawal from a 5-year withdrawal are thus expected to have no significant changes from the current baseline conditions.

38 2015 SW Oregon Mineral Withdrawal Environmental Assessment Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest  Medford & Coos Bay Districts, Bureau of Land Management

Summary - No substantial direct, indirect, or cumulative effects or changes to aquatic TES species or habitats are expected for the proposed 5-year withdrawal from current baseline conditions, resulting in no impact to the matrix of pathways and indicators.

Alternative Action – 20-year Withdrawal A 20-year mineral withdrawal would have similar effects as the 5-year mineral withdrawal because current baseline conditions would likely remain. Over a 20-year period, chances for minerals validity exams to occur are higher, but whether or not such exams would prove any valuable mineral discoveries is not predictable. See the effects discussion for the proposed action, above.

No Action – No Withdrawal

North Fork Smith River and West Fork Illinois River watersheds The analysis for no withdrawal evaluates the potential direct, indirect and cumulative effects for: SONCC coho, CH, EFH, and USFS R6 sensitive species. The suction dredging effects for these species and habitats located within watersheds in the North Fork Smith River and West Fork Illinois River watersheds are described and analyzed in the 2015 Suction Dredging and High Banking Operations for Notices of Intent within the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest Biological Assessment (2015 BA), which is hereby incorporated by reference. The 2015 BA can be found on the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest website.

Thirteen matrix and pathway indicators out of 23 indicators in seven pathways described in the 2015 BA (p. 333) would have a range of negative effects for the no action alternative. Multiple primary constituent elements of designated CH for SONCC coho salmon would be negatively impacted by no action (table 6), as described in the 2015 BA (p. 382). There are also sublethal, and possibly lethal, effects to individuals of the species if mining activity continues with no withdrawal (USFS 2015).

Hunter Creek and Pistol River watersheds There are no anticipated effects to listed species or habitat or USFS R6 sensitive species occurring in this watershed since no suction dredging or highbanking would occur within a ¼ mile of critical habitat. None of the habitat indicators would be affected.

Effects to Primary Constituent Elements of Critical Habitat Table 6 displays the primary constituent elements (PCE) for SONCC coho salmon that apply to the action area, and summarizes the effects of the alternatives. A detailed analysis and discussion may be found in the 2015 BA.

Table 6. Comparison of effects to PCEs for SONCC coho salmon critical habitat Primary Constituent Elements Effects of each Alternative No Action Proposed Action, Proposed Action, 5-year withdrawal 20-year Site Type Site Attribute withdrawal Spawning and Cover/shelter Measurable negative Neutral Neutral juvenile rearing Food (juvenile Measurable negative Neutral Neutral areas rearing) Riparian vegetation Discountable negative Neutral Neutral Space Measurable negative Neutral Neutral

39 2015 SW Oregon Mineral Withdrawal Environmental Assessment Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest  Medford & Coos Bay Districts, Bureau of Land Management

Spawning gravel Measurable negative Neutral Neutral Water quality Measurable negative Neutral Neutral Water quantity Neutral Neutral Neutral Water temperature Measurable positive Neutral Neutral Adult and Cover/shelter Measurable positive Neutral Neutral juvenile Food (juvenile) Measurable negative Neutral Neutral migration corridors Riparian vegetation Discountable negative Neutral Neutral Safe passage Insignificant negative Neutral Neutral Space Measurable positive Neutral Neutral Substrate Measurable negative Neutral Neutral Water quality Measurable negative Neutral Neutral Water quantity Neutral Neutral Neutral Water temperature Measurable positive Neutral Neutral Water velocity Discountable negative Neutral Neutral

Summary of Effects Determination

5-year and 20-year mineral withdrawals The matrix of pathways and indicators (NMFS 1996), was used to help determine the effects of the 5-year and 20-year withdrawal. This process is intended for use when considering project level effects at the watershed scale. The 5-year and 20-year mineral withdrawal alternatives would result in “No Effect” or “No Impact” to all the baseline indicators for the following reasons:

The withdrawal would have no direct effect on aquatic species or habitats. While it may appear self-evident that precluding suction dredging and future claims within these areas would provide an overall benefit to the watersheds, the effect that would be realized is, at best, negligible. In the Hunter/Pistol withdrawal area, the potential for suction dredge activity is essentially zero, so precluding it has no effect. In the RnR/Baldface area, current impacts are limited to two operations in Rough and Ready Creek, and some activity could potentially still occur, based on VER. Therefore, baseline indicators, insofar as they can be predicted, are expected to be similar to the current condition.

Summary - There are no substantial direct, indirect, or cumulative effects or changes expected to CCH in the proposed 5-year or 20-year withdrawal area from current baseline conditions because the current low level of impacts from suction dredging could still occur.

We conclude a determination of “No Effect” or “No Impact” to aquatic biota and habitat listed in table 7. Proposed withdrawal will have “No Effect” to SONCC coho salmon and SONCC coho critical habitat, “Will Not Affect” essential fish habitat baseline conditions for coho salmon or Chinook salmon and “No Impact” to USFS R6 sensitive aquatic biota listed in table 7, since it will maintain the current environmental baseline and will likely differ immeasurably from no action.

Due to the “No Effect” determination for SONCC coho salmon, CCH and EFH, no consultation with NOAA Fisheries will occur.

40 2015 SW Oregon Mineral Withdrawal Environmental Assessment Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest  Medford & Coos Bay Districts, Bureau of Land Management

No Action (no withdrawal) The analysis of effects to the matrix of pathways and indicators was for determining the effects of no action to SONCC coho salmon and their designated CH. Table 7 displays ESA effect determinations for SONCC and OC coho salmon and their designated CH, to southern DPS green sturgeon and to southern DPS Pacific eulachon. Five indicators would have measurable negative effects from the no action alternative. Multiple PCEs of designated CH for SONCC coho salmon would be negatively impacted by the absence of withdrawal in those limited areas where suction dredging occurs. The 2015 BA found that sublethal, and possibly lethal, effects to individuals of the species may occur as a result of suction dredging (USFS 2015). Consequently, the ESA effect determination for coho salmon is “May Affect, Likely to Adversely Affect” for the species and their respective designated CH. The RRSNF submitted the 2015 RRSNF Suction Dredging and High Banking Biological Assessment on February, 27, 2015, thereby initiating formal consultation with NOAA Fisheries. A biological opinion in response is pending from NOAA Fisheries.

The southern DPS green sturgeon and southern DPS Pacific eulachon analysis for effects of the action tiers to the results of the chemical contamination/nutrients indicator and to the analysis for effects of chemical contamination that may result in harm/harassment of individuals of coho salmon. The analysis for effects to the chemical contamination/nutrients indicator determined that deep streambed sediments contaminated by legacy mercury would be mobilized by suction dredge mining. Consequently, the ESA effect determination for both the southern DPS green sturgeon and southern DPS Pacific eulachon is “May Affect, Likely to Adversely Affect” the species.

USFS R6 sensitive aquatic biota determination is rendered as a “Likely to Adversely Affect” for SONCC coho salmon and its CH and EFH and a “May Impact Individuals or Habitat, But Will Not Likely Contribute to a Trend towards Federal Listing or Cause a Loss of Viability to the Population or Species” for the remaining sensitive species.

Table 7. Summary of effects determinations for aquatic TES species and critical habitat

Species/Habitat Alternatives

Common Name No Action 5 year withdrawal 20 year withdrawal ESA Threatened Species SONCC coho salmon LAA NE NE OC coho salmon NE NE NE S. DPS Pacific eulachon LAA NE NE S. DPS North American green sturgeon LAA NE NE ESA Critical Habitat (CH) SONCC coho salmon LAA NE NE OC coho salmon NE NE NE

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation Act Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Chinook salmon LAA NE NE Coho salmon LAA NE NE USFS R6 Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species Fish SONCC Chinook salmon MIIH NI NI

41 2015 SW Oregon Mineral Withdrawal Environmental Assessment Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest  Medford & Coos Bay Districts, Bureau of Land Management

Species/Habitat Alternatives

Common Name No Action 5 year withdrawal 20 year withdrawal Pacific lamprey MIIH NI NI OC steelhead NI NI NI KMP steelhead MIIH NI NI Mollusk Western ridged mussel NI NI NI California floater NI NI NI Highcap lanx NI NI NI Scale lanx NI NI NI Rotund lanx NI NI NI Robust walker NI NI NI Pacific walker NI NI NI Pristine springsnail NI NI NI Insect Haddock’s rhyacophilan caddisfly NI NI NI ESA Species and Habitat: LAA = Likely to Adversely Affect, NE = No Effect, B-NLAA = Beneficial, Not Likely to Adversely Affect USFS R6 Forester’s Sensitive Species: NI = No Impact, MIIH = May Impact Individuals or Habitat, But Will Not Likely Contribute to a Trend towards Federal Listing or Cause a Loss of Viability to the Population or Species, BI = Beneficial Impact

Botany

Affected Environment This analysis considers three elements of the affected environment that relate to conservation of botanical resources within the withdrawal area landscape:

A. Species of vascular plants, bryophytes (mosses and liverworts), lichens, and fungi that are of conservation concern within Region 6 (Pacific Northwest) of the Forest Service and by the BLM - Oregon/Washington State Director. B. Species of vascular plants that have been documented to be invasive to native ecosystems by the Oregon Department of Agriculture (ODA). C. USFS Botanical and Research Natural Areas (RNA) and BLM Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) and RNA’s that occur within the area covered by the proposed withdrawal. The Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest and Medford and Coos Bay BLM lands within the withdrawal area encompass many biodiverse ecosystems. This fact is exemplified by the high number of species of conservation concern found on lands these agencies manage in this portion of Oregon. Over 400 such plant (vascular plants, mosses, and liverworts), fungi, and lichen species are either documented or suspected to occur. Species of conservation concern include federally endangered, sensitive, survey and manage, and strategic listed plants and fungi.

42 2015 SW Oregon Mineral Withdrawal Environmental Assessment Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest  Medford & Coos Bay Districts, Bureau of Land Management

Both mineral withdrawal areas in this proposal are within the Klamath-Siskiyou ecoregion, a subdivision of the California floristic province. The high amount of plant endemism in the region is tied to the potential for mineral resource use. The complex geology lends to high levels of usable minerals and creates harsh conditions, with heavy metal laden soils and very low amounts of nitrogen and phosphorous. These conditions lead to adaptive traits in plant species that eventually result in narrow endemism. The region has been recognized for many years as a hotspot of biodiversity in North America (Whittaker 1960, Kruckeberg 2002).

Species of Conservation Concern: TES, SM, Strategic Two federally endangered plant species (McDonald’s rockcress, Arabis macdonaldiana and Cooks lomatium, Lomatium cookii) occur within the boundary of the RnR/Baldface withdrawal area (RBWA). High potential exists for McDonald’s rockcress to be found within unsurveyed habitat within the RBWA. There is lower potential to find new populations of Cook’s lomatium because of the limited distribution of habitat within the RBWA. Seventeen sensitive species (16 vascular plants and 1 liverwort) are known to occur in the RBWA. No potential habitat for threatened or endangered plants occurs in the Hunter/Pistol withdrawal area (HPWA); subsequently, there are no populations. Three sensitive vascular plants and one liverwort species occur within the HPWA.

One additional plant species (Erigeron stanselliae, Veva’s erigeron) was recently described as new to science (Chambers 2011). It is currently listed as strategic, which is a category that focuses on rare or new species with limited information on habitat or distribution. Much more information has been gathered on this species over the past five years, which has informed the decision to add the species to the sensitive plant list during the next iteration in 2017. Considering the rarity of the species and the potential for mining impacts, this species has been included in this affected environment and will undergo an effects determination similar to sensitive species.

Habitat for sensitive listed fungi does not occur within areas that could undergo mineral extraction; therefore, no further analysis will be conducted for these species. Fungi diversity is highest in mesic old growth forests with high levels of downed wood and high rates of decomposition. The ultramafic serpentine soils where mineral extraction is likely to occur within the withdrawal areas do not provide high potential habitat for any fungi species on the R6 sensitive list. This is not to say that rare fungi could not occur on serpentine soils; however, suitable habitat for any of the currently sensitive listed species is not present within areas where mining claims occur. The five survey and manage (SM) fungi species that occur in the HPWA were found in densely forested areas with no mining potential. These fungi species have been included here to provide a comprehensive list of botanical resources occurring within the overall mineral withdrawal area, but they will not be subject to an in depth effects analysis.

Table 8 lists all plant, bryophyte, and fungi species of concern that are known to occur in the SOMW area.

43 2015 SW Oregon Mineral Withdrawal Environmental Assessment Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest  Medford & Coos Bay Districts, Bureau of Land Management

Table 8. Plants species of concern known to occur in the SOMW area Taxa # of sites4 Listing Habitat and Distribution Vascular Plants HP5 RB6 On barren to shrub covered ultramafic derived soils. Most often found in rock crevices of outcrops and steep barren slopes but occasionally found mixed with sclerophyllous vegetation within Jeffrey pine woodland. Elevational range from 500 to 4000 feet. Range is confined to the heavily serpentinized bands of soil (Josepine ophiolite) located in maritime Arabis macdonaldiana Federally 0 2 influenced SW Oregon and NW California. Curry, Josephine Counties, McDonald’s rockcress Endangered Oregon. Del Norte Co. with a disjunct on Red Mtn in Mendocino County, CA. There are a total of 4 extant populations known on the RRSNF at the current time, 2 of which occur within this mineral withdrawal proposal. The 4 sites on RRSNF lands are likely the only populations in Oregon. The California Native Plant Society shows 17 extant sites in California.

Dry rocky ridges and gravelly soils, often on serpentine. In several instances it is found on the summit and south aspects of SW Oregon coastal peaks such as Mt. Emily, Grassy Knob, Signal Buttes, especially where recent fire has occurred (Emerson 2010). In these instances it is found in shrub Arctostaphylos hispidula Sensitive 10 2 communities or sparse forest likely to be growing with Arctostaphylos Gasquet manzanita columbiana. Primarily in Curry Co. with one population in Douglas Co. and up to two populations in Josephine Co., OR; extending south through Del Norte and Humboldt Counties with a disjunct population in Sonoma Co., California.

Serpentine soil, dry rocky slopes. Low to middle elevations, often on Calachortus howellii Ceanothus cuneatus covered slopes or in open Jeffrey pine stands. Local Sensitive 0 43 Howell’s mariposa-lily endemic restricted to the Illinois River Valley in Josephine County, Oregon. 1,600 to 3,800 feet (mean = 3,800 feet). Known from many

Dry, open serpentine slopes. Most populations occur in an area just east of Camassia howellii I-5 between Sexton Mtn. and Merlin. Scattered outlying populations occur in Sensitive 0 1 Howell’s camas the Illinois Valley. Narrow endemic in SW Oregon known from10-15 populations. Sites on the RRSNF occur around 1,600 feet. Darlingtonia fens and other wet serpentine areas at low elevations. Epilobium oreganum Sensitive 0 8 Josephine Co., OR; scattered through the Klamath Mts. southward down Grants Pass willow herb into the Sierra’s to Lake Tahoe, California.

Maritime and serpentine influenced Jeffrey pine savanna. In open gravelly areas free of competition and usually surrounded by dense patches of Ceanothus pumilus, Arctostaphylos nevadensis and other sclerophyllous vegetation. Very rare globally with only two meta-populations known. Four Erigeron stanselliae Strategic7 2 0 sub-populations have been mapped within the main meta-population. The Veva’s erigeron other meta-population is very small and contains no sub-populations. There are an estimated 5,000 to 10,000 individual plants. Known from two populations separated by about 5-6 miles, entirely within the currently proposed PH withdrawal area. Curry Co., Oregon.

Erythronium howellii Open woods, often on serpentine or along ecotone’s. Illinois Valley OR Sensitive 0 9 Howell’s fawn lily south to Trinity Mts. in California.

4 Number of individual sighting reports per species for each mineral withdrawal area. Generally, this corresponds to meta-populations, but may represent sub-populations within a meta-population. 5 Hunter/Pistol 6 Rough and Ready/Baldface 7 This species will become listed as sensitive during the next iteration of the Region 6 species of conservation listing process.

44 2015 SW Oregon Mineral Withdrawal Environmental Assessment Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest  Medford & Coos Bay Districts, Bureau of Land Management

Gentiana setigera Serpentine fens often inhabited by Darlingtonia californica, also in seeps Waldo gentian Sensitive 3 21 and springs on slopes at elevations below 3,800 feet. Known from Curry and Josephine Counties, Oregon; Del Norte County, California

Hastingsia bracteosa Wet meadows, rocky seeps, serpentine Darlingtonia fens at lower var. bracteosa Sensitive 0 18 elevations. Illinois Valley Josephine Co., Oregon. Narrow endemic. Large flower rush lily

Hastingsia bracteosa Wet meadows, rocky seeps, serpentine Darlingtonia fens at lower var. atropurpurea Sensitive 0 10 elevations. Illinois Valley Josephine Co., Oregon. purple rushlily

Lomatium cookii Federally Wet meadows, oak savannahs, vernal pools on valley floors. Illinois Valley, 0 3 Cook’s lomatium Endangered Josephine Co., OR, and Agate Desert, Jackson Co., Oregon.

Gravelly serpentine slopes in coniferous forest and open areas at mid to Lomatium engelmannii Sensitive 0 1 high elvations (3,000-6,000). Sisiyou Mts. Josephine Co., OR; Siskiyou and Engelmann’s desert parsley Trinity Cos., California.

Dry openings, edges of forest, open woods, on granitic and metavolcanic Lupinus tracyi Sensitive 0 1 soils at mid to high elevations. Known from a few sites in the Siskiyou Mts Tracy’s lupine of Curry and Josephine Cos., Oregon; Siskiyous in California.

Rocky, open serpentine scrub forest, chaparral, woodlands and montane Monardella purpurea Sensitive 0 35 forest, 1,400-4,000 ft. Curry, Jackson and Josephine Cos., Oregon; to serpentine coyote mint central California in Coast Range and Klamath Mts.

Vernally moist depressions in heavy, poorly drained soils. Oak and Pine Perideridia erythrorhiza Sensitive 0 1 woodlands at low to mid elevations in the Cascades, serpentine habitats in red root yampah the Siskiyous. Douglas, Klamath, Josephine and Jackson Cos., Oregon.

Found on granitic and moderately serpentinized soils within open coniferous Prosartes parvifolia forest and shrub fields at mid elevations. Global distribution is from 2 meta- Sensitive 0 4 Siskiyou fairy bells populations and 7 sub-populations in Oregon and extant at 6 locations in California.

Fire and disturbance follower on serpentine soils, chaparral, conifer forest; 100–800 m., Klamath Range SW OR NW CA. Known from 1 site in Oregon Silene serpentinicola Strategic 0 1 within the N. Fork Smith River watershed portion of the withdrawal on state serpentine campion lands (Emerson 2013). Known from 30 sites in California but many are sub- populations. Endemic to a roughly 30 square mile area. Dry rocky serpentine slopes in open conifer/ hardwood forests from 1000 to Streptanthus howellii Sensitive 0 24 4500 ft. SW OR, NW CA. Scattered individuals occur over large areas in Howell’s jewelflower parts of this landscape.

Viola primulifolia Serpentine influenced Darlingtonia fens at lower elevations (<2,000 feet). ssp. occidentalis Sensitive 3 29 Curry and Josephine Counties., Oregon; Del Norte Co., California. western bog violet

Bryophytes Usually restricted to fens containing Sphagnum. Also found in serpentine Calypogeia sphagnicola influenced Darlingtonia fens growing among other liverworts (Sphagnum not Sensitive 1 1 bog liverwort present). Circumboreal and bipolar. In the Pacific Northwest, known from British Columbia, Washington, Montana, and Oregon. Fungi Fruits in humus or soil and matures above the surface of the ground. Ramaria celerivirescens SM-B 1 0 Associated with Abies spp., Pseudotsuga menziesii, and Tsuga heterophylla. Endemic to the Pacific Northwest.

45 2015 SW Oregon Mineral Withdrawal Environmental Assessment Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest  Medford & Coos Bay Districts, Bureau of Land Management

Fruits in humus or soil and matures above the surface of the ground. Ramaria cyaneigranosa SM-B 1 0 Associated with Abies spp., Pseudotsuga menziesii and Tsuga heterophylla. Endemic to the Pacific Northwest.

Fruits in humus or soil and matures above the ground, associated with Ramaria stuntzii SM-B 1 0 Pinaceae spp. Endemic to the Pacific Northwest.

Hypogeous to emergent, scattered to grouped associated with Pinaceae species particularly Pinus spp. Occurs in Sierra, Siskiyou, and Cascade Rhizopogon truncatus SM-D 1 0 mountains of northern California into the central Oregon Cascades, also from North Carolina to Nova Scotia. Totals (22 species) 20 148

McDonalds rockcress (Arabis macdonaldiana) USFWS Endangered Species Currently within the RBWA there are two relatively small populations of McDonald’s rockcress totaling about 60 individual plants (genets) and covering one quarter to three quarters of an acre of land. Due to the remote, inaccessible and rugged terrain within the RBWA, very little survey effort has occurred. The fact that only two small populations have been found does not accurately represent the probable extent of the species within this area. Based on what is known about habitat for the species, it is likely that there are several hundred (possibly thousands) acres of suitable habitat within the RBWA. However, in 2014 roughly 1,000 acres were surveyed, as part of the Cleopatra Mine plan of operations, with no new sites of McDonald’s rockcress being discovered, even though the species was already known in the area. Part of the reason no new sites were found may be because the survey area encompassed a broad flat ridge. The two sites known in the RBWA occur on steep faces within crevices of rock outcrops. This habitat type was mostly lacking in the Cleopatra survey area.

Mining was the main threat to MacDonald’s rockcress outlined in the 1984 recovery plan. Over 30 years later, mining still remains the principle threat to the conservation of the species. Limiting factors to ecological elements and variables considered imperative for conservation of the species are not well understood. Suitable intact soils and substrate are likely the most important component for establishment and persistence of given populations. McDonald’s rockcress is a narrowly endemic, edaphically adapted species, making soil and substrate integrity a high priority for conservation. Mining presents the greatest risk due to actions that dig, displace and uproot vegetation and associated substrate.

Cook’s lomatium (Lomatium cookii) USFWS Endangered Species The distribution of Cook’s lomatium is disjunct, occurring in the Agate Desert of Jackson County on the edge of vernal pools and 40 miles to the southwest in the Illinois Valley in seasonally wet grassy meadows, oak woodlands, and serpentine meadow and shrub habitats. The species is known from 13 occurrences in the Agate Desert and 24 occurrences in the Illinois Valley.

The largest occurrence is at French Flat ACEC which is estimated to have 132,615 plants (Pfingsten et al. 2012). No populations have ever been found between the Illinois Valley and Agate Desert populations, either along the Rogue River or in alluvial areas along the lower Applegate River. Most of the habitat between these populations is on non-federal lands and has been heavily modified by rural development. Undiscovered populations between the Agate Desert and the Illinois Valley occurrences are unlikely.

46 2015 SW Oregon Mineral Withdrawal Environmental Assessment Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest  Medford & Coos Bay Districts, Bureau of Land Management

The Illinois Valley sites are alluvial in nature within serpentine substrates and serpentine- influenced vegetation communities. Seasonally wet meadows are dominated by California oat- grass (Danthonia californica), typically occurring within Oregon white oak–ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa)/Jeffery pine (Pinus jeffreyi) savanna. An open shrub layer comprised of wedge-leaf ceanothus and manzanita is interspersed with native and introduced grasses and forbs. One Illinois Valley site occurs in an Oregon white oak savannah on shallow to moderate slopes.

Cook’s lomatium and its critical habitat in the Illinois Valley are threatened by mining, rural development, illegal dumping, and recreational use. Several populations on BLM lands have been impacted by off-road vehicles and trash dumping. Placer gold mining has restricted available habitat of a population at French Flat and altered natural hydrologic patterns through the wet meadows.

The recovery plan for Cook’s lomatium (USFWS 2012) identifies actions to assist with protection and recovery of the species and its critical habitat. To date, several of the actions have been implemented on the Medford District BLM. French Flat ACEC, Rough and Ready ACEC, and Woodcock Bog RNA were designated as special management areas, in part, to protect this species and its habitat from incompatible uses. Two additional proposed ACECs, Reeves Creek and Waldo-Takilma, are currently in interim management status for protection of Cook’s lomatium.

In 2014, Medford District also began implementing the Cook’s Lomatium Habitat Management Project (BLM 2014) to improve habitat conditions and reduce impacts from off-road vehicles on 180 acres of critical habitat. To date, approximately 90 acres have been treated, including 25 acres in Rough and Ready ACEC, within the RBWA.

Narrow Endemics and Darlingtonia Fen Associates Nearly all the sensitive listed plants in table 8, above, represent plant species with ranges that are extremely narrow, when compared to most vegetation on the landscape. The RBWA represents a considerably diverse area with probably the highest concentration of plant species of conservation concern in the state and possibly the country. Many factors combine to create this hotspot for biodiversity. Geology and soils play a huge role, and as already mentioned, create a potential conflict with conservation because of the potential mineral values attracting mining interest. Climate is another big factor because of the dramatic gradient from maritime influenced serpentine areas to arid rain-shadowed valleys. The diversity in environmental variables and habitats, coupled with relict species from previous geologic times, has resulted in an endemic-rich flora. Several species within this mineral withdrawal are known from very few sites globally.

The most narrowly distributed of these endemic species include:

1. Camassia howellii (Howell’s camas); known from 10-15 populations worldwide 2. Erigeron stanselliae (Veva’s erigeron); known from 2 populations worldwide 3. Hastingia bracteosa var. purpurea (purple flowered rush lily); known from 21 populations worldwide 4. Prosartes parvifolia (Siskiyou bells); known from 8 populations worldwide An exemplary case of niche-specific habitat is the serpentine fens that form on terraces above steep, narrow stream channels within some of the drainages in both withdrawal areas. Dominated by the insectivorous vascular plant, Darlingtonia californica (pitcher plants or cobra lily), these ecosystems represent refugia for hydrophilic species within a harsh, dry landscape. The fens stay wet all season long, while the surrounding landscape dries considerably for at least five months of

47 2015 SW Oregon Mineral Withdrawal Environmental Assessment Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest  Medford & Coos Bay Districts, Bureau of Land Management

the year. The consistent moisture in the soils creates anaerobic conditions that lead to little to low decomposition rates and high accumulation of organic matter in the form of deep mud or muck with very low nutrient content (Jules et al. 2011). Many species of conservation concern rely on these unique fen habitats:

1. Epilobium oreganum (Grants Pass willow herb) 2. Gentiana setigera (Mendocino gentian) 3. Hastingia bracteosa var. bracteosa (large flowered rush lily) 4. Hastingia bracteosa var. atropurpurea (purple flowered rush lily) 5. Viola primlifolia ssp. occidentalis (western bog violet) 6. Calypogeia sphagnicola (bog liverwort) The exact number of Darlingtonia fens within the withdrawal area is unknown. Based on the number of populations of these species it is estimated that there could be between twenty to thirty Darlingtonia fens within the subject area. Not all sites where these rare species occur can be considered Darlingtonia fens, as some represent small seeps or roadside drainages where water has accumulated due to hydrologic constraints.

As with most types of habitat dispersed across a landscape, the ecological integrity for each site in relation to past impacts from mining and other human activities is variable. Generally speaking, these fen habitats do not attract a lot of resource extraction attention because they lack suitability for mining, logging, or cattle grazing. Past impacts have mostly come from road building to access areas for the purpose of mining and logging. More recently, fire suppression activities have caused impacts, particularly during suppression of the Biscuit fire in 2002. Impacts during fire suppression have come from bull dozer construction of fire line that cuts through existing fen habitat.

Potential indirect effects from altering hydrologic regimes would be the greatest threat to these wetland ecosystems from mining. A conservation agreement (USFS 2006) and draft conservation strategy (pending) were developed for five of the Darlingtonia fen associated species mentioned above. The documents outline goals and objectives for protecting these unique ecosystems and conducting monitoring to understand population trends of these rare plant species.

Survey and Manage Species Because the SM species are old-growth dependent, very few of these species have been found within the mineral withdrawal areas. The ecosystems within the withdrawal area do not support large contiguous patches of old growth Douglas-fir and western hemlock forests which comprise the primary habitat for most of the SM species on the list. The fungi species located within the HPWA were found in adjacent forest types where mineral exploration would never be feasible.

Because of the lack of a nexus between SM species habitat and mineral exploration no further analysis will focus on this group of species. Essentially, modification to SM habitat would not occur within any proposed mineral extraction because the two features are ecologically and spatially mutually exclusive.

Invasive Plant Species Within the withdrawal areas, several invasive plant species are known to occur. Most of the species and sites are confined to the portions of subject lands that are not heavily influenced by

48 2015 SW Oregon Mineral Withdrawal Environmental Assessment Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest  Medford & Coos Bay Districts, Bureau of Land Management

ultramafic geologies. Like many native plants, invasive plant species cannot tolerate the high levels of iron, magnesium, and other heavy metals in the soils.

One exception to this rule is the introduction of yellow tuft (Alyssum murale and A. corsicum). These species were intentionally introduced on ultramafic-derived soils for the purpose of phytomining. The hope was that these species would accumulate nickel laterite in their stems, roots and leaves and that the minerals could then be extracted later through processing. The idea failed, the company who brought in the Alyssum from eastern Europe and Turkey did a poor job of cleaning up the leftover plants, and some of them escaped into the wild. The plants are adapted to the harsh soil conditions in the Siskiyou Mountains, so they pose a serious threat to the many serpentine-endemic plants discussed above.

On the RRSNF, invasive plants are managed in cooperation with the Oregon Department of Agriculture (ODA). ODA has established a ranking system that helps to prioritize species and sites throughout the state (ODA 2015). Table 9 lists invasive plants and the number of known sites found within the SOMW area.

Table 9. Invasive plant species in the SOMW area ODA # of sites # of acres Invasive Plants Distribution/Invasiveness/Ecological Impacts List HP RB HP RB Within Oregon this species is only found in Josephine County but is much more prevalent in California. It is an annual grass species with a high level Aegilops triuncialis A,T 0 2 0 6 of invasiveness (ODA 2010) rapidly taking over open grasslands, oak barbed goatgrass savanna and pastures. It is a state priority for eradication in order to prevent establishment in the rest of the state. Within Oregon this species is only found in Josephine County. It has a high level of invasiveness (ODA 2008) and can readily survive on the harsh red Alyssum corsicum A,T 0 5 0 48 serpentine soils within the RBWA. At the present time the species is yellowtuft confined to the furthest eastern edge of the RBWA (see map) and efforts are being taken to eradicate the species. Within Oregon this species is only found in Josephine County. It has a high level of invasiveness (ODA 2008) and can readily survive on the harsh red Alyssum murale A,T 0 83 0 600 serpentine soils within the RBWA. At the present time the species is yellowtuft confined to the furthest eastern edge of the RBWA (see map) and efforts are being taken to eradicate the species. This species is widespread throughout SW Oregon after being introduced in the Umpqua basin around 40-50 years ago as an erosion control. It has a Centaurea debauxii B* 1 40 .2 .3 moderate level of invasiveness especially in the xeric serpentine conditions meadow knapweed within the withdrawal areas. Ecological impacts are high within natural meadows and open canopied areas. A widespread species that closely resembles starthistle but is smaller in Centaurea melitensis B 0 1 0 .1 stature. This species is highly invasive but is already so widely distributed maltese starthistle that controlling it is no longer feasible. Yellow starthistle is a well-known annual invasive plant that occurs within xeric farm, range and open lands in Oregon along with several other Centaurea solstitialis B* 0 2 0 .08 western states. The species is highly invasive in open settings such as yellow starthistle pastures and natural meadows. It has an elevational limitation that keeps it from invading high mountain meadows.

A very invasive species in more arid regions of the state, spotted knapweed Centaurea stoebe causes extensive ecological damage, particularly in eastern Oregon and B,T 0 2 0 .5 spotted knapweed further east into the Rocky Mountains. Occurs only as a few scattered individuals in the RBWA.

49 2015 SW Oregon Mineral Withdrawal Environmental Assessment Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest  Medford & Coos Bay Districts, Bureau of Land Management

Canada thistle favors invasion of wetlands and other moist seeps and Cirsium arvense springs within SW Oregon, though it will establish nearly anywhere. It is a B* 5 0 4 0 Canada thistle widespread perennial that is nearly naturalized throughout its range in the United States.

One of the more well-known invasive plants, a hearty shrub that can take Cystisus scoparius over areas post logging. It competes well with native early shrub species. It B* 5 6 2 .9 Scotch broom doesn’t do well in the mineral rich ultramafic soils within the withdrawal areas.

Genista monspessulana Similar to Scotch broom but with less geographic distribution and B* 3 0 .5 0 French broom abundance. A medicinal invasive plant that can establish at higher elevation areas impacted with seasonal snow pack. This species is widely distributed in the Hypericum perforatum B* 0 1 0 8 high Cascades of So. Oregon but less widely distributed in the Siskiyou Mts. St. Johnswort Overall invasiveness is low to moderate on roadsides but can become an issue when it colonizes natural high elevation meadows and open forest.

Tansy ragwort is widespread throughout western Oregon. It is highly toxic Senecio jacobae to livestock. Though it highly invasive in mesic conditions, the very arid and B*,T 23 0 21 0 tansy ragwort poor soil conditions within the withdrawal areas make it a very poor competitor with a low likelihood of expanding due to mining. A = species with small enough infestations to make eradication or containment possible B = species that are generally abundant; distribution may be limited in some counties T = focus for prevention and control by the ODA Noxious Weed Control Program *Indicates species that are primarily controlled through biological methods (insect predation)

The invasive species of greatest concern in relation to mining within the withdrawal areas are: 1. barbed goatgrass (Aegilops triuncialis); rationale: Very few sites exist in the state, it can colonize disturbed harsh soils/sites, and it has shown some ability to persist on partially serpentinized sites. 2. yellowtuft (Alyssum murale and A. corsicum); rationale: These are the most impactful species in relation to mining activities within ultramafic serpentinized soils. These species evolved in ultramafic conditions in Eurasia and spread profusely, setting thousands of seeds per plant. A concerted effort is underway in Oregon to eradicate this species from the Illinois Valley. 3. spotted knapweed (Centaurea stoebe); rationale: This species has shown some tolerance for colonizing serpentine soils, though it does not proliferate the way Alyssum does. Usually only a few scattered plants are found. The open nature of ultramafic adapted forest is a concern, since this species is a sun loving species.

USFS RNAs and Botanical Areas; BLM ACECs and RNAs The RBWA area contains one USFS RNA (Lemmingsworth Gulch), one BLM RNA (Woodcock Bog), and one BLM ACEC (Rough and Ready). It also contains two botanical areas (Rough and Ready Flat and Oregon Mountain) established in 1989 by the Siskiyou National Forest LMP. The HPWA contains one botanical area, referred to as Red Flat Botanical Area, and two ACECs, referred to as Hunter Creek Bog and North Fork Hunter Creek. Details of these areas are listed in table 10.

The primary purpose for establishing these special management areas was to ensure conservation of the rare plant species and unique ecosystems that comprise these landscapes. The habitats that

50 2015 SW Oregon Mineral Withdrawal Environmental Assessment Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest  Medford & Coos Bay Districts, Bureau of Land Management make up these management areas are rare at a global scale. To have this many special management areas within a given analysis area is unprecedented and is a testament to the regional and national importance of the unique ecology of these mineral withdrawal areas.

Potential impacts from mining in these areas include many of the same issues discussed in the sections above. The difference for these ecosystems is one of scale. These areas have been given special management status because of the assemblage of different rare species within them. As opposed to a single effect on one species, affects for these areas are considered based on the whole ecosystem and natural characters associated with them. Mechanisms for effects are likely the same but the scope at which they occur are considered at a broader scale.

Table 10. RNA’s, ACEC’s and Botanical Areas in the SOMW area Area Name Agency Year Size Purpose Coos Satisfy ONHP Coast Range Ecological Cell 13 (Port 721 Hunter Cr ACEC Bay 1995 Orford cedar on ultramafic soils); large, diverse acres BLM serpentine bog. Coos Satisfy ONHP Coast Range Special Species Cell 42 for N. Fork Hunter 1,925 Bay 1995 Gasquet manzanita; undisturbed old-growth Port Orford Cr. ACEC acres BLM Cedar stands; historic/prehistoric resources. Preserve a representative area that typifies important forest/shrub land, aquatic resources, rare geologies and Lemmingsworth 1,024 other natural situations that have special or unique RRSNF 1999 Gulch RNA acres characteristics of scientific interest or importance. Protect the extremely high concentration of endemic and rare plant species (USFS 1999). Oregon 2,706 Preserve large assemblages of serpentine endemic Mountain RRSNF 1989 acres plants. Botanical Area Red Flat 70 Preserve large assemblages of serpentine endemic RRSNF 1989 Botanical Area acres plants. Provide a buffer to the Hunter Creek Bog ACEC and Rough and 1,566 help stop OHV destruction in the area. Also preserve Ready Flat RRSNF 1989 acres individual serpentine endemic plants like Gasquet Botanical Area manzanita. Rough and Medford 1,164 Rare plants in serpentine alluvium and chaparral, 1994 Ready ACEC BLM acres knobcone and Jeffery pine. Woodcock Bog Medford 281 Hanging fen on ultramafic rock and soils, supporting rare 1994 RNA BLM acres plants and Port-Orford-cedar. 9,457 Total acres

Environmental Consequences

Proposed Action – 5-year Withdrawal A 5-year withdrawal of mining in the proposed area will result in no effect to botanical resources. While it may appear self-evident that precluding mining, mineral exploration, and future claims within these areas would provide an overall benefit to the fragile and unique ecosystems that exist, the effect that would be realized to specific botanical resources can only be based on speculative determinations regarding future actions that may or may not occur. In addition,

51 2015 SW Oregon Mineral Withdrawal Environmental Assessment Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest  Medford & Coos Bay Districts, Bureau of Land Management

making site-specific determinations on botanical species for future mineral exploration is only speculative, with no way to predict effects within such a dynamic set of scenarios.

The proposed action is administrative in nature and does not propose any specific ground disturbance, environmental changes, or non-speculative benefits or impacts to botanical resources. Potential negative and beneficial effects are too speculative in nature to be able to articulate in this analysis. We assume that existing claims are not likely to be able to undergo a validity examination within this 5-year period. Few claims would seem likely to prove valid, based on mineral values at the time of segregation and past history of mineral development in the SOMW area.

Summary for TES Plants The proposed action will result in no direct, indirect, cumulative, or beneficial effects to the endangered species (Arabis macdonaldiana and Lomatium cookii), nor to any of the sensitive plant species analyzed. Under this alternative a formal determination of NO EFFECT is made for McDonald’s rockcress (Arabis macdonaldiana) and Cook’s lomatium (Lomatium cookii). A determination of no impact is made for sensitive plant species.

To reiterate, the rationale for these effects determinations is based on no ground disturbing activity being proposed. The proposed action is administrative in nature, and, even though minerals activity could occur based on VER, site specificity is lacking for making effects determinations for TES plant species. Site-specific NEPA in response to a PoO after the determination of a valid existing right would need to occur before an effects determination can be made in relation to effects from on- the-ground actions, whether they be positive or negative.

Withdrawing these lands for the next five years while Congress considers legislation to permanently withdraw them may result in the protection of yet to be found populations of McDonald’s rockcress, Cook’s lomatium, and other sensitive plant species because, except for VER, mining and new claims will be precluded. The speculative and conditional nature of the previous statement does not allow determination of a beneficial effect for endangered or sensitive plant species.

Alternative Action – 20-year Withdrawal An alternative is being presented to extend the amount of time to 20 years for Congress to enact mineral withdrawal legislation. All the assumptions from the effects analysis presented above under the 5-year withdrawal are the same for this alternative. Twenty years with no mining and no new claims may provide added protection to existing or yet to be found endangered or sensitive plant populations, specific effects cannot be determined at this time. The same can be said for invasive plant species and special management areas (RNAs and ACECs). The speculative nature of determining future claims does not afford the ability to make an accurate effects determination.

While benefits to these resources may be realized during this 20-year period, current information is inadequate to make a beneficial effects call. Over the course of 20 years, existing claims may be more likely to undergo a validity examination. Any claim that was proved valid would need to undergo site-specific NEPA analysis at the time of proposal, which would include specifying project design criteria and mitigation measures to minimize impacts to TES plants and the chances of spreading invasive plants.

52 2015 SW Oregon Mineral Withdrawal Environmental Assessment Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest  Medford & Coos Bay Districts, Bureau of Land Management

No Action – No Withdrawal This alternative is being analyzed in relation to potential direct, indirect and beneficial effects on the botanical resources outlined in the affected environment section. The difference between the no action alternative and the two action alternatives is that mining and minerals exploration could occur, new claims staked, and new PoO’s submitted. When and where new claims might be staked or PoO’s submitted is entirely speculative.

The current environmental baseline does not represent ongoing negative or beneficial effects in relation to mining in this area. There are two PoO’s that are on hold pending a NEPA decision. The RF-38 PoO was analyzed in relation to botanical resources, with a resulting determination of no effect. The Cleopatra PoO is still being analyzed and may affect Howell’s jewelflower, but project design criteria would presumably be implemented to avoid direct negative effects.

Suction dredge mining claims pose no direct risk to TES plant species, because none of these species is known to occur within or on the immediate banks of streams or rivers within these areas. Based on the locations of existing suction dredge claims and permits, there is also no mechanism for indirect effects to TES plant species.

Existing suction dredge mining activity occurs in stream channels that are lower in the watershed than known Darlingtonia fens, the only hydrologically affected TES plant habitat within these landscapes. Indirect effects to Darlingtonia fens could occur, depending on location of future permits for mining within existing claims. However, site-specific NEPA analysis would need to be completed upon receipt of a PoO to mine. Such analysis would afford the agency a chance to assess the temporal and spatial impacts with regard to these unique wetland systems. Project design criteria would be recommended for avoiding any effects to Darlingtonia fens and the rare species that occupy them.

Effects to TES Plants Mining for nickel laterite poses the greater threat with regard to direct and indirect effects on TES plant species, because these types of mining may occur in upland conditions overlapping much of the habitat types with which TES plants are associated. The two pending PoO’s are exploratory in nature. A site-specific botanical analysis of the proposed drilling for test holes for the RF-38 project found no direct or indirect effects to TES plants. The small scale of the proposed test holes (<3” diameter), the location of test holes within existing roadbed, and the limited amount of disturbance caused by the equipment (handheld bore) were determined to be of a narrow enough scope to avoid any effects.

The Cleopatra exploratory project has been surveyed for TES plants within areas proposed for test drilling. Several scattered individual Howell’s jewelflower (Streptanthus howellii) plants were found throughout the area, but none were found in the direct footprint of proposed disturbance for individual test holes. Project design criteria would be imposed to insure plants are avoided during navigation with handheld drill bores to test sites. That project is on hold, so a biological evaluation and NEPA analysis outlining specific avoidance areas within the project have not been completed.

The RNR PoO submitted in 2011 has not been analyzed and is on hold due to legal encumbrance and the need for more information about the proposal to complete the environmental and economic analyses. The estimated area encompassed by the PoO has many sensitive plant populations present, but site-specific analysis is not possible until the PoO is amended to include information requested by the agency. In the unlikely event that legal issues were resolved in

53 2015 SW Oregon Mineral Withdrawal Environmental Assessment Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest  Medford & Coos Bay Districts, Bureau of Land Management

favor of the plaintiff, and if adequate information were provided, the NEPA analysis would recommend project design criteria and mitigations that seek to protect sensitive plant species from direct and indirect effects caused by proposed mining.

There are 267 upland claims within the two withdrawal areas. Claims have been mapped by the number per ¼ section (in relation to township, range and section locations). One of the known populations of the endangered McDonald’s rockcress occurs within a ¼ section area where six claims have been staked. Available spatial distribution of claims is not at a scale fine enough to determine whether any of the claim areas overlap with the small relatively finite (8 plants covering ~1/4 acre) population of McDonald’s rockcress. Future effects from lode mining to this population are impossible to determine and would only be speculative at this juncture. If in the future, a PoO is submitted for exploration or mining within any of the existing lode claims, then a site-specific NEPA analysis will occur and determine the effects from the proposed actions. During this process, recommendations are made in consultation with the USFWS for conserving populations of endangered species (in this case McDonald’s rockcress).

Eight USFS R6 Sensitive plant species occur in ¼ section areas with existing claims. They are listed in table 11.

Table 11. TES plants that occur on ¼ sections with mining claims Species # of ¼ sections # of Claims Arabis macdonaldiana 1 6 Calachortus howellii 3 9 Erythronium howellii 1 1 Gentiana setigera 1 3 Lomatium engelmannii 1 3 Mondardella purpurea 3 4 Prosartes parvifolia 1 1 Streptanthus howellii 9 107 Viola primulifolia var. occidentalis 2 5 21 133

Within the existing claim areas Streptanthus howellii has the highest potential to be impacted by current and future PoO’s, because the heart of the species range falls directly within this proposed withdrawal area. This species tends to be distributed across the landscape as individual plants or small groups that occur over large areas, making the mapping of individual populations difficult. Without mitigation through a NEPA process, there would be high potential for impact to individuals or clumps of plants by existing and future mining plans within existing claims. Nonetheless, little to no chance exists for an entire meta-population to be impacted in a way that would extirpate the population or lead to the species being listed as threatened or endangered. The meta-populations encompass such large areas that it would likely be impossible for the footprint of a proposed mine to cover the whole population. To conclude, site-specific NEPA analysis is expected to protect Howell’s jewelflower, resulting in no impact, even if mining should occur under in the absence of withdrawal.

Other species with a moderate potential for impacts to individual or sub-populations include Calachortus howellii, Erythronium howellii, Lomatium engelmannii, Monardella purpurea, and Prosartes parvifolia. These species occur exclusively in upland soils, coinciding with high amounts of nickel laterite. The moderate potential determination is based on the relatively small

54 2015 SW Oregon Mineral Withdrawal Environmental Assessment Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest  Medford & Coos Bay Districts, Bureau of Land Management

(when compared to Streptanthus howellii) number and size of sub-populations that overlap with existing claims. The potential for individual plants or populations to be impacted by future mining is proportionally small when considering the greater lansdscape. Site-specific NEPA in response to future PoO’s would allow a more accurate effects determination. Proposed project design criteria would presumably lead to no impact on these species under a future mining or minerals exploration scenario.

Gentiana setigera and Viola primulifolia var. occidentalis occur in Darlingtonia fen ecosystems which do not provide potential for mineral extraction, hence there is no chance of mining activities causing direct effects to these species. Indirect effects from mining in adjacent areas is a potential, but there is no way to determine the chances of effects with such little information about future PoO’s within the existing claim areas. Site-specific NEPA would address potential conflicts caused by indirect effects in the form of hydrologic regime change. Proposed project design criteria would presumably lead to no impact on these species if mining were to occur in the future.

Risk of Spreading Invasive Plant Species In general, the two mineral withdrawal areas are not excessively weedy at the current time, due to the harsh soils that limit native and invasive species alike. Suction dredge mining presents little risk in relation to spreading invasive plant species because most disturbance occurs within the water and the limited disturbance on the bank is of limited scope and scale. None of the existing invasive species outlined in the affected environment section readily occur in the aquatic environment or in adjacent riparian systems. Similar to the endangered and sensitive native plant species discussed above, the largest threat of spreading invasive plants comes from mining for nickel laterite in upland ecosystems.

Yellowtuft (Alyssum murale and A. corsicum) presents the greatest threat to these unique, ultramafic-adapted ecosystems. As discussed earlier, these particular invasive plant species can tolerate and thrive in soils with high levels of heavy metal because they evolved in similar settings in Eurasia. Potential mining in the RBWA poses the greatest threat to spread because of the current distribution of these invasive species in relation to active claims. In particular, the general estimated area of the RNR PoO coincides with lands occupied or adjacent to yellowtuft infestations. The level of potential risk to spreading yellowtuft depends heavily on the outcome of the RNR PoO and the subsequent NEPA analysis that would need to occur. A ¼ section with one current claim overlaps an area infested with yellowtuft. The yellowtuft occurs in a very small portion of the ¼ section. A site-specific effect call is impossible to make without knowing the extent of disturbance and planned transportation routes. Prevention measures would be recommended, but, depending on the level and consistency of disturbance, there may be no way to keep yellowtuft from spreading into the withdrawal area.

Another threatening invasive plant species is barbed goatgrass (Aegilops triuncialis). This species is very narrowly distributed, with the only populations in Oregon occurring adjacent to lands proposed for withdrawal in the Illinois Valley. No known populations occur within any ¼ section where mineral claims currently exist. ODA has consistently treated this species when found, but the amount of seed and nature of dispersal allow this plant to easily spread and colonize barren, dry ecosystems.

Spotted knapweed (Centaurea stoebe) represents the final species that has potential to cause degradation to ecological integrity within the withdrawal area. Spotted knapweed has shown some ability to adapt to serpentine ecosystems. In general the populations that have been

55 2015 SW Oregon Mineral Withdrawal Environmental Assessment Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest  Medford & Coos Bay Districts, Bureau of Land Management

observed on serpentine have not spread or persisted the way species like yellowtuft have. However, compared with other invasive plants that occur within the withdrawal boundary, this species has some affinity to colonize and persist.

Current existing claims have minimal overlap with known invasive plant infestations. The adjacent nature of the probable location for the RNR PoO to large populations of yellowtuft is a high-risk situation with regard to further spreading that species. If, in spite of current legal encumbrances and lack of a fully developed plan, the RNR mine were ever developed, there would be a well-established vector and mechanism for invasion into the withdrawal area. During the NEPA process for the RNR PoO, site-specific and rigorous project design criteria would be recommended for abating the spread of yellowtuft into the withdrawal area.

At this time, effects of the proposed action and the 20-year alternative cannot be determined in a site-specific manner, due to the administrative nature of these actions. The risk of spreading invasive plants could be reduced by precluding mining and future claims, but there is no measurable way to account for the level of risk reduction.

Under no action, mining activity would increases the risk of spread, but there is no way to predict the future with regard to locations of invasive plants. There is very little risk that other species besides the three outlined above would increase from future mining, as mitigations in site-specific NEPA analysis would limit the potential for invasive species to spread.

Research Natural Areas, Areas of Environmental Concern, and Botanical Areas A high concentration of special management areas occurs within the footprint of the proposed withdrawal area, due to the high level of ecological integrity and the uniqueness of the ecosystems at a regional and national scale. The RBWA encompasses five special management areas that represent a land base with one of the highest concentrations of rare and endemic plants in the United States. In the RBWA there is one ¼ section with one current mineral claim in the Oregon Mountain Botanical Area. On BLM lands, the proposed West Fork Illinois River RNA coincides with three ¼ sections that total 6 claims. The HPWA contains three special management areas that represent a unique maritime-influenced, ultramafic ecosystem with several endemic plant species. There is one ¼ section with three current mineral claims within the Red Flat Botanical Area, and three ¼ sections with a total of fourteen current mineral claims in the Hunter Creek Bog ACEC.

The current claims have the potential to affect the integrity of all these special management areas, if mining were ever to occur there. The most at-risk area is the Hunter Creek Bog ACEC because of the large number (14) of claims. The Hunter Creek Bog ACEC was designated to protect the unique Darlingtonia fen and the surrounding ecosystems and hydrological regime that it encompasses. Mining has little to no potential to directly affect the bog/fen, but could indirectly impact associated hydrologic processes and ecological aspects that are tied to it. If, in the absence of withdrawal, a PoO is submitted for any of the current claims in RNA’s, ACEC’s and botanical areas, then a site-specific NEPA analysis would determine the effects and the needed project design criteria to reduce those effects.

Without clearly documented ongoing effects to the existing baseline for botanical resources, the no action alternative results in no effect to endangered plant species, no impact to sensitive plant species, moderate risk of spreading invasive plants, and no impact to RNA and ACEC’s.

56 2015 SW Oregon Mineral Withdrawal Environmental Assessment Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest  Medford & Coos Bay Districts, Bureau of Land Management

Comparison of Alternatives The following table provides a comparison of environmental consequence determinations in relation to each alternative within this withdrawal area for botanical resources. The table articulates the conclusion that we currently lack enough information or site specificity to make negative or beneficial effects calls for botanical resources addressed in this report. Therefore, we determine that none of the alternatives will result in negative or beneficial effects to botanical resources. The current level of information results in a no effect/no impact determination for plant species of conservation concern, a moderate risk of invasive plant spread, and no impact to special management areas.

Table 12. Summary of effects determinations and rationale for botanical resources No Action Alternative Proposed 5-Year Withdrawal 20-Year Withdrawal Botanical Effects Effects Effects Resource Rationale Rationale Rationale Determination Determination Determination No currently analyzed No currently No currently mechanism in place for analyzed mechanism analyzed mechanism negative effects. Future in place for negative in place for negative mechanisms for effects. Potential for effects. Potential for Endangered negative effects No Effect No Effect future beneficial No Effect future beneficial Plants possible, but too effects, but too effects, but too speculative in nature. speculative in nature speculative in nature Site-specific NEPA to determine at this to determine at this would need to analyze time. time. potential effects. Sensitive No Impact Same as above No Impact Same as above No Impact Same as above Plants Ongoing activities in Ongoing activities in Current baseline results these areas will these areas will in continued spread at a Invasive continue to pose a continue to pose a Moderate Risk moderate level for Moderate Risk Moderate Risk Plant Spread moderate risk to moderate risk to invasive plant species spreading invasive spreading invasive within this area. plants. plants. Current impacts will Beneficial outcomes Beneficial outcomes continue and are not from precluding new from precluding new measurable. New claims within these claims within these RNA’s and PoO’s proposed within areas may occur. areas may occur. No Impact No Impact No Impact ACEC’s areas that overlap But a clear But a clear RNA/ACEC will determination is determination is undergo site-specific speculative and not speculative and not NEPA analysis. possible at this time. possible at this time.

Wildlife

Affected Environment The proposed action considered under the 2015 Southwestern Oregon Mineral Withdrawal (SOMW) requires a biological evaluation (BE) to be completed per Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2672.4. The purpose of this evaluation is to determine and document the possible effects that the proposed activities and alternatives would have on any endangered, threatened, proposed, or sensitive wildlife species (FSM 2672.4).

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act also directs each federal agency to consult with USFWS (or NMFS for marine species) to ensure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by such agency is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any threatened or endangered

57 2015 SW Oregon Mineral Withdrawal Environmental Assessment Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest  Medford & Coos Bay Districts, Bureau of Land Management species, or result in the destruction or adverse modification of their critical habitat.. Table 13 shows the proposed, threatened, and endangered species known to occur on the RRSNF, indicating those species potentially affected by the proposed action; table 14 lists USFS Region 6 sensitive species. Species in bold will be analyzed further, as they occur within the project area. Species noted with an asterisk are not found in the action and will not be affected by any alternatives, including no action.

Table 13. Federally listed and proposed wildlife species on the RRSNF FWS Listed or Pre-Field Field Proposed Review: Conflict Effects Reconnaissance: Wildlife Existing Determination: Analysis Species/Habitat Species & Sighting or Potential Conflict? Needed? Present? Habitats Habitat? Northern Y Y No No spotted owl Spotted owl Y Y No No Critical Habitat Gray wolf* N N No No Pacific Fisher Y Y No No (proposed) Oregon spotted N N No No frog* Marbled Y Y No No murrelet Marbled murrelet Y Y No No Critical Habitat *Project is not within range of the species

Table 14. Region 6 sensitive wildlife species on the RRSNF Pre-Field Field Review: Conflict Effects R6 Sensitive Wildlife Reconnaissance: Existing Determination: Analysis Species & Habitat Species/Habitat Sighting or Potential Conflict? Needed? Present? Habitat? Tricolored balckbird* N N No No White tailed kite N N No No American peregrine N Y No No falcon Bald eagle Y N No No Harlequin duck Y Y No No Lewis’ woodpecker Y Y No No White headed N N No No woodpecker* Purple martin Y Y No No Northern waterthrush* N N No No Black salamander* N N No No Siskiyou Mountains N N No No salamander* Foothill yellow- Y Y No No legged frog

58 2015 SW Oregon Mineral Withdrawal Environmental Assessment Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest  Medford & Coos Bay Districts, Bureau of Land Management

Western Y Y No No pond turtle Pallid bat Y N No No Townsend’s Y N No No big-eared bat North American N N No No wolverine* Coastal marten Y Y No No Fringed myotis Y Y No No Sierra Nevada N N NO NO red fox* Evening field slug* N N No No Oregon shoulderband* N N No No Chase sideband* N N No No Green sideband Y Y No No Travelling sideband* N N No No

Crater Lake tightcoil* N N No No

Siskiyou hesperian* N N No No Franklin’s Y N No No bumblebee Western bumblebee Y N No No Johnson’s hairstreak Y Y No No Hoary elfin* N N No No Gary-blue butterfly* N N No No Coastal greenish- Y N No No blue butterfly Insular blue butterfly Y N No No Mardon skipper Y N No No Coronis fritillary Y N No No Siskiyou short-horned N N No No grasshopper* *Project is not within range of the species

Environmental Baseline Tables 15 and 16 show the current baseline of vegetative habitats currently within the areas proposed for mineral withdrawal.

The Hunter/Pistol withdrawal area consists of a mix of forested and non-forested habitats (table 15). Very little of the area is in a non-forested condition, and most of the area is dominated by conifer and hardwood species, with conifer-associated vertebrate and invertebrate species in both upland and riparian/aquatic habitats. The withdrawal area vegetation consists of approximately four percent early seral and non-forest habitat, 44% young (3-11 inches DBH) stands, 23% mid- seral (11-20 inches DBH) stands, and 29% older forest (20+ inches DBH). Many of the young stands likely result from past timber harvest.

59 2015 SW Oregon Mineral Withdrawal Environmental Assessment Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest  Medford & Coos Bay Districts, Bureau of Land Management

Table 15. Vegetation seral stages in the Hunter/Pistol withdrawal area Seral Stage/size class Acres mature >20” and <=40%cc 20 mature >20” and >40%cc and <=60%cc 21 mature >20” and >60%cc 6,338 young 11-20” <=40%cc 109 young 11-20” >40%cc and <=70%cc 146 young 11-20” >70%cc 4,856 seed/sap/pole 3-11” <40%cc 2,554 seed/sap/pole 3-11” >=40%cc 7,088 grass/shrub/sparse 104 other 680 Total 21,916

Table 16. Vegetation seral stages in the RnR/Baldface withdrawal area Seral Stage/size class Acres mature >20” and <=40%cc 1,832 mature >20” and >40%cc and <=60%cc 1,399 mature >20” and >60%cc 4,981 young 11-20” <=40%cc 7,438 young 11-20” >40%cc and <=70%cc 1,513 young 11-20” >70%cc 3,815 seed/sap/pole 3-11” <40%cc 26,282 seed/sap/pole 3-11” >=40%cc 9,721 grass/shrub/sparse 13,861 other 1,602 Total 72,444

In contrast, the RnR/Baldface withdrawal area is largely non-forested, due to the preponderance of serpentine soils and habitats (table 16). The withdrawal area vegetation consists of approximately 21% early seral and non-forest habitat, 50% young (11-3 inches DBH) stands, 16% mid seral (1-20 inches DBH) stands, and 11% of older forest (20+ inches DBH). Many of the young stands likely result from past timber harvest. The soils in these serpentine areas are high in heavy metals, and this habitat is prone to endemism in both flora and fauna, in particular for flowering plants and pollinators, like butterflies and bumblebees.

Endangered Species Act (ESA) Listed Species and Habitats Individuals and habitat for two species listed under the ESA; northern spotted owl and marbled murrelet, and designated critical habitat, occur within the proposed withdrawal areas. Acres of different types of habitat for those species are shown in the tables below.

60 2015 SW Oregon Mineral Withdrawal Environmental Assessment Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest  Medford & Coos Bay Districts, Bureau of Land Management

Northern spotted Owl For a full description of the biology, ecology, and status of the species see the 2011 Northern Spotted Owl Recovery Plan (USFWS 2011), available at: http://www.fws.gov/oregonfwo/Species/Data/NorthernSpottedOwl/Recovery/Library/Documents/Revised NSORecPlan2011.pdf

Nesting, roosting, and foraging (NRF) habitat for the northern spotted owl is generally multistoried, 80 years old or older (depending on stand type and structural condition), and has sufficient snags and down wood to provide opportunities for nesting, roosting, and foraging. The canopy closure generally exceeds 60%, but canopy closure or age alone does not qualify a stand as NRF. Other attributes include a high incidence of large trees with various deformities (e.g. large cavities, broken tops, mistletoe infestations, and other evidence of decadence), large snags, large accumulations of fallen trees and other woody debris on the ground, and sufficient open space below the canopy for owls to fly.

In southwest Oregon, NRF habitat varies greatly, but is typified by mixed-conifer habitat, recurrent fire history, patchy habitat components, and a high incidence of woodrats (a high quality spotted owl prey species). One or more important habitat components, such as down wood, snags, dense canopy, multistoried stands, or mid-canopy habitat, might be lacking or even absent in portions of NRF habitat in southwest Oregon. NRF habitat also functions as dispersal habitat.

Capable habitat for northern spotted owl is forestland that is currently not habitat, but can become NRF or dispersal in the future, as trees mature and the canopy closes.

Non-habitat does not provide habitat for northern spotted owls and will not develop into capable, dispersal, or NRF in the future.

Within the mineral withdrawal areas, there are approximately 12,000 acres of NRF habitat (40% of the withdrawal area). More NRF habitat is located in the Hunter/Pistol area (table 17). Less NRF habitat is available in the RnR/Baldface withdrawal area, due to its large inclusions of serpentine soil that do not support dense forests. On federal land, within the entire withdrawal area there are approximately 28,400 acre of dispersal only habitat (39%). Again, dispersal habitats are largely located within the Hunter/Pistol area due to the presence of serpentine soils in the Rough and Read Creek area (table 17). Fully 21% of the RnR/Baldface withdrawal area is in very early seral or non-forest. Non-forest habitat is not capable of becoming spotted owl habitat.

Table 17. Acres of habitat for northern spotted owl and marbled murrelet in the SOMW area Ownership Total NRF* Capable Dispersal Non-Forest RnR/Baldface Withdrawal Area All 72,445 5,413 20,062 19,852 27,118 Non Federal 1,184 180 370 559 75 Federal 71,261 5,233 19,692 19,293 27,043 Hunter/Pistol Withdrawal Area All 21,916 6,631 5,374 9,117 791 Non Federal 7 2 2 3 0 Federal 21,909 6,629 5372 9,114 791 *NRF habitat is equivalent to suitable habitat for marbled murrelets.

61 2015 SW Oregon Mineral Withdrawal Environmental Assessment Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest  Medford & Coos Bay Districts, Bureau of Land Management

Within the entire SOMW, there are five historic spotted owl pairs, two pairs in the Hunter/Pistol area have 100-acre cores, as per the NWFP ROD (USFS and BLM 1994). The current occupancy and reproductive status of these sites is unknown.

Spotted Owl Critical Habitat Little spotted owl critical habitat occurs within the withdrawal area; of a total of 490 acres of designated critical habitat, 248 acres are NRF and 178 acres are dispersal habitat. The physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the northern spotted owl are forested lands that are used or likely to be used for nesting, roosting, foraging, or dispersing. For a complete description of designated critical habitat see: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2012-12- 04/pdf/2012-28714.pdf

Table 18. Designated critical habitat for northern spotted owl in the SOMW area Total Acres Acres Acres Acres NSO CHU Unit Sub-unit Acres NRF Capable Dispersal Non-Forest 3 RDC 1 196 80 15 101 0 9 KLW3 294 168 47 77 2 Total 490 248 72 178 2

Marbled Murrelet For a complete description of the biology and ecology of the marbled murrelet see the murrelet listing document at http://www.fws.gov/oregonfwo/articles.cfm?id=149489445

Marbled murrelet suitable habitat includes conifer-dominated stands, generally at least 80 years old or more, with trees averaging 20 inches DBH, or more. At least one potential nest tree must be present in a stand of trees at least one acre in size (six trees per 5-acre area), and the stand trees must be at least one-half the height of the site-potential tree. In the Hunter/Pistol portion of the SOMW there are 6,630 acres of suitable murrelet nesting habitat, which is equivalent to spotted owl NRF habitat (table 17).

Marbled murrelet occupied habitat is identified where murrelets have been located within stands by established survey protocol (Evans Mack et al. 2003). Survey data collected by the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest and BLM in southwestern Oregon indicate murrelets inhabit forested areas relatively close to the ocean. Murrelets have not been found more than 16 miles inland on the Gold Beach Ranger District and the Coos Bay BLM. There are approximately 1,161 acres of occupied murrelet habitat identified in the Hunter/Pistol portion of the SOMW.

Marbled Murrelet Critical Habitat Within the SOMW there are approximately 6,212 acres of designated murrelet critical habitat. Of that, 1,259 acres are suitable murrelet nesting habitat. Mining activities that alter or remove primary constituent elements of murrelet critical habitat could affect murrelet critical habitat.

Sensitive Species Accounts This analysis will group species by taxa and habitat types to describe anticipated effects to sensitive species from potential mining activities. Species accounts for all R6 sensitive species can be found at: http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/agency-policy/

62 2015 SW Oregon Mineral Withdrawal Environmental Assessment Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest  Medford & Coos Bay Districts, Bureau of Land Management

Aquatic Amphibian and Reptile Species

Foothill Yellow-legged frog Foothill yellow-legged frogs (YLF) are mainly found in rocky or gravelly streams in southwestern Oregon and are seldom seen far from water. Habitat is confined to the immediate vicinity of permanent streams below 2,500 feet, including those that may be reduced to waterholes connected by trickles during the dry season. Foothill yellow-legged frogs are known to occur in the withdrawal area. Mining activities that disturb aquatic and riparian habitats and oviposition sites could impact this species. http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/species- index/fauna-amphibians.shtml

Northwestern Pond Turtle The northwestern pond turtle inhabits ponds, marshes and slow moving portions of creeks and rivers, which have rocky or muddy bottoms from sea level to about 5,000 feet. They may overwinter hundreds of feet from water: There are no known turtle locations in the SOMW analysis area; however, they are likely present. One was detected on the road to Babyfoot Lake near the RnR/Baldface area in 2002 several hundred feet in elevation from a perennial stream (Clayton personal observation). Activities that disturb aquatic and upland oviposition and hibernation habitat may affect turtles. http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/species-index/fauna- amphibians.shtml

Birds

Peregrine Falcon The peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus) is one of six species of falcons found in North America. In wild settings, they generally prefer high cliff ledges as nesting sites, from which they have a commanding view of the landscape. While this species is not known for the SOMW analysis area, there are several known sites in the Illinois and lower Rogue River watersheds, and they may be present in the SOMW area. Mining activities that can disturb falcons during the breeding season may affect this species. http://www.forestecologynetwork.org/falcon.htm

Harlequin Duck The harlequin duck is a bird of turbulent waters, breeding on fast-flowing streams and wintering along rocky coastlines in the surf. No locations for this species are known in either withdrawal area; however, there is suitable habitat in the Hunter/Pistol area. Mining activities that modify riparian habitats and that could disturb individuals during the breeding season may impact this species. http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/species-index/fauna-birds.shtml

Lewis’ Woodpecker Lewis’ woodpeckers are associated with oak habitats. Nests are often in mature oaks where the birds forage on insects and acorn meat. No documented locations occur within the SOMW analysis area; however, they may occur in lowland oak habitats. Mining activities that alter breeding and nesting habitats could affect this species. http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/species-index/fauna-birds.shtml

Bald Eagle Bald eagles live near rivers, lakes, and marshes where they can find fish, their staple food. Bald eagles will also feed on waterfowl, turtles, rabbits, snakes, and other small animals and carrion. No locations are known within the SOMW analysis area; however, suitable habitats occur within

63 2015 SW Oregon Mineral Withdrawal Environmental Assessment Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest  Medford & Coos Bay Districts, Bureau of Land Management

one mile of riverine habitats, and eagles may be present. Mining activities that remove nesting and roosting habitat, as well as potentially disturb breeding individuals, may affect eagles. For the biology and ecology of bald eagles, see: http://www.fws.gov/midwest/eagle/conservation/baea_nhstry_snstvty.html

Purple Martin Purple martin is an aerial feeder that utilizes a wide variety of terrestrial habitats. Generally, they inhabit open areas and prefer an open water source nearby. They nest in tree cavities, abandoned woodpecker holes, and crevices in rocks. There are historical records in Curry County very near the coast, but we have no current information on this species in the SOMW area. Mining activities that alter habitats or breeding can affect this species. http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/species-index/fauna-birds.shtml

Invertebrates

Western and Franklin’s Bumblebees Western and Franklin’s bumblebees (Bombus occidentalis, B. franklini) have three basic habitat requirements: suitable nesting sites for the colonies, nectar and pollen from floral resources available throughout the duration of the colony period (spring, summer and fall), and suitable overwintering sites for the queens. Bumblebees are generalist foragers, gathering pollen and nectar from a wide variety of flowering plants. Habitat for these species is present is the SOMW. http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/species-index/fauna-invertebrates.shtml

Butterflies

Coastal Greenish Blue and Insular Blue Butterfly The greenish blue butterfly and insular blue butterfly are found in Curry, Coos, and Lane counties in Oregon, as well as in Del Norte County, California. Both species typically occur along stream edges, bogs, or wet meadows, but also in drier sites that have blooming clovers such as roadsides and open meadows. These species may occur in the SOMW. Mining activities that alter or remove suitable habitat for these species may impact individuals. http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/species-index/fauna-invertebrates.shtml

Mardon Skipper The mardon skipper, Polites mardon, is a rare butterfly known to occur in four disjunct areas in the Pacific Northwest: (1) southern Puget Sound, (2) the east side of the Cascade Mountains (Mt. Adams area and the Wenatchee National Forest in Washington), (3) the Cascade Mountains in southern Oregon, and (4) north-coastal California and the southern coast of Oregon.

Coastal Oregon mardon skipper populations are closely associated with serpentine soils that include plentiful bunchgrasses and varied nectar sources. There are two known populations within the Hunter Creek watershed and in the SOMW analysis area: the Windy Valley meadow site and the Hunter Creek ACEC site. Both sites have current management plans that limit ground disturbance and encourage management of encroaching vegetation and fire in these meadows. Mining activities that remove or alter habitat may impact the mardon skipper. http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/species-index/fauna-invertebrates.shtml

64 2015 SW Oregon Mineral Withdrawal Environmental Assessment Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest  Medford & Coos Bay Districts, Bureau of Land Management

Coronis Fritillary This species inhabits mountain slopes, foothills, dry gulches, lower elevation canyons, prairie valleys, meadows, chaparral, sage steppe, and forest glades, margins, and openings (Opler et al. 2011). Most known records are from lower slopes at elevations less than 2000 ft., although elevations of 4400 ft. and 5100 ft. have also been recorded. Recent surveys in Josephine County found this species to be generally associated with serpentine influenced, rocky hill-slopes dominated by Jeffery pine and other serpentine associated forbes and grasses (Reilly and Black 2011). Mining activities that remove or alter suitable habitats for this species may impact individuals. http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/species-index/fauna-invertebrates.shtml

Snails

Green Sideband The green sideband is a southwestern Oregon endemic, limited to the western slope of the Coast Range and the adjacent coast itself. The taxon was originally known from 12 sites in Curry County, Oregon. All known sites are within Curry County, except for one collection from the Roseburg District BLM, in the Middle Fork Coquille River watershed in Douglas County. This is the dominant Monadenia on the west side of the Coast Range from the Pistol River to the Winchuck River. Logging, grazing, road construction, and mining are all threats to this species. The greed sideband is a likely inhabitant of the Hunter/Pistol portion of the SOMW analysis area and could be impacted by mining activities that alter or remove suitable habitats. http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/species-index/fauna-invertebrates.shtml

Mammals

Pacific Fisher The geographic distribution of fishers in the Pacific Coast states has been greatly reduced in extent from pre-settlement conditions. Fishers have recently been reintroduced on the Olympic Peninsula. Three telemetry studies and several surveys conducted by various agencies and individuals have documented fishers in the southern Oregon Cascades and Siskiyou Mountains.

Fisher are not documented within the SOMW area; however, they are known from the Chetco, Middle Rogue, and Illinois watersheds and are likely to occur in the SOMW area. Mining activities that alter or remove suitable habitats or disturb individuals during denning season may impact fisher in the analysis area. http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/documents/planning- docs/ca-ma-martes-pennanti-volume2-2011-09.pdf

Marten On the coast, marten are associated with high amounts of brush cover in both forested and serpentine habitats. Large logs with cavities provide rest and den sites for marten. Coastal marten are currently known to occupy the SOMW analysis area. Activities that remove habitats for marten, as well as activities that may disturb them during breeding season, could affect marten. For a full description of marten ecology and biology see: http://svinet2.fs.fed.us/psw/publications/slauson/slauson2.pdf

Pallid and Fringed-tailed Bats Pallid bats roost alone, in small groups (2 to 20 bats), or gregariously (100s of individuals). Day and night roosts include crevices in rocky outcrops and cliffs, caves, mines, trees, and various human structures such as bridges, barns, porches, bat boxes, and buildings. Pallid bats’ tendency

65 2015 SW Oregon Mineral Withdrawal Environmental Assessment Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest  Medford & Coos Bay Districts, Bureau of Land Management

to roost gregariously and their relative sensitivity to disturbance makes them vulnerable to mass displacement. Maternity colonies and hibernating bats are especially susceptible to disturbance. Although this species is not documented within the SOMW analysis area, it is suspected to occur, and mining activities that modify roosting habitats could impact pallid bats. http://wbwg.org/western-bat-species/

Fringed Myotis Fringed myotis roosts in crevices in buildings, underground mines, rocks, cliff faces, and bridges. Roosting in decadent trees and snags, particularly large ones, is common throughout its range in western U.S. and Canada. Fringed myotis are suspected to occur in the SOMW analysis area and could be impacted by any activities that modify vegetation. http://wbwg.org/western-bat-species/

Townsend’s Big-eared Bat Corynorhinus townsendii occurs throughout the west. It is distributed from southern British Columbia south to central Mexico and east into the Great Plains, with isolated populations occurring in the central and eastern United States. Distribution is strongly correlated with the availability of caves and cave-like roosting habitat, including abandoned mines. This species is not known from the SOMW analysis area, but there are known locations elsewhere on the RRSNF; it is a likely inhabitant of the SOMW and could be impacted by mining activities.

Management Indicator Species The 1989 Siskiyou NF LMP identified eight management indicator species (MIS). These include the bald eagle (habitat along major rivers), osprey (habitat along large rivers), spotted owl (old- growth forest), pileated woodpecker (mature forest), pine marten (mature forest), black-tailed deer (early forest successional stages), Roosevelt elk, (early forest successional stages), and woodpeckers (wildlife trees or snags). The forest baselines for each of these species are located in the RRSNF internal files and are available on the Forest website. Mining activities that could remove or alter suitable habitats may affect MIS species.

Survey and Manage Species There are three survey and manage species in the analysis area. For more information on all survey and manage species please see http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/surveyandmanage/

Oregon Red Tree Vole The Oregon red tree vole is found in the majority of mature to old growth mixed conifer stands below 5,000 ft. elevation on the RRSNF. It is an arboreal rodent, which nests on limbs of larger, older Douglas-fir within mixed conifer forests. Red tree voles have been found on all Districts on the RRSNF, and it is known from the Hunter/Pistol portion of the SOMW analysis area. Mining activities that remove or alter coniferous habitats for red tree vole could affect this species.

Flammulated Owl This flammulated owl is closely associated with mixed forest, but it requires ponderosa pine in its habitat. It is associated with multi-story, moderately closed canopy conditions. The species is unknown in the SOMW analysis area; however, suitable habitat is present. Mining activities that remove potential roosting and nesting habitats could affect this species.

66 2015 SW Oregon Mineral Withdrawal Environmental Assessment Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest  Medford & Coos Bay Districts, Bureau of Land Management

Pygmy Nuthatch This species requires ponderosa pine as a habitat component. It is unknown in the SOMW analysis area; however, there are suitable habitats for this species. Mining activities that remove potential roosting and nesting habitats could affect this species

Neotropical Migratory Bird Species A migratory bird is any species or family of birds that live, reproduce or migrate within or across international borders at some point during their annual life cycle. Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) are ecologically distinct regions in North America with similar bird communities, habitats, and resource management issues. The overall goal of BCR lists are to identify the migratory and resident bird species (beyond those already designated as federally threatened or endangered) that represent our highest conservation priorities. The SOMW analysis area lies within BCR 5. Only those species that could potentially be affected by the mining activities in the analysis area are shown in table 19.

Table 19. Birds of Conservation Concern in the SOMW area

Bird Species* Preferred Habitat mature forests with larger trees; relatively closed canopies; Northern goshawk and open understories Peregrine falcon and bald eagle cliffs and large trees Olive-sided flycatcher natural or man-made openings with tall trees or snags forest edges and openings with a diversity of flowering Rufous hummingbird plants Nest primarily in closed Douglas-fir stands with canopy cover above 70%. Key food sources include red elder, Band-tailed pigeon cascara and other berry, fruit and mast producing shrubs and trees. Mineral springs/seeps are important and provide essential calcium for nesting. Purple finch moderately moist open or semi open coniferous forests *from Bird Conservation Region 5 – Northern Pacific Rainforest

Mining activities that alter habitats for these species or that occur during the breeding seasons may affect these neo-tropical migratory bird species.

Environmental Consequences

Proposed Action – 5-year Withdrawal Withdrawing the area from mining and mineral exploration has no direct effect on any wildlife species of concern. Indirect beneficial effects could result from precluding mineral activity; however, given current and known future levels of activity, such benefits would be negligible. As such, the proposed action will have no effect on any threatened, endangered species, or their designated critical habitats, or sensitive species, MIS species, survey and manage, neotropical migrants, or any other species or habitat of concern.

To date, no existing claims have been proven valid through the BLM’s validity examination, and no further claims could be filed during the 5-year withdrawal period. For any mineral activity to go forward under withdrawal, a validity exam for an existing claim proposed for mining would be required. If the claim were to be found valid, a site-specific NEPA analysis and ESA Section 7 consultation would occur for any proposed plan of operation prior to authorizing any ground

67 2015 SW Oregon Mineral Withdrawal Environmental Assessment Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest  Medford & Coos Bay Districts, Bureau of Land Management

disturbing activity. Site-specific analysis would occur for all ESA listed, sensitive, MIS, survey and manage species, neotropical migrants, and any other species or habitat of concern.

The proposed action is administrative in nature and does not involve any specific ground disturbance, environmental changes, or non-speculative benefits or impacts to wildlife resources. While precluding exploration, mining, and the filing of future claims within these areas could potentially provide an overall benefit to the species and habitats that occur in the withdrawal area, the effects to specific terrestrial wildlife cannot be determined without speculating as to the nature and intensity of future actions that may or may not occur. At present, the potential effects of the existing PoOs are negligible or unlikely to occur (see the analysis of the no action alternative).

There will be no effect to any wildlife species of concern under this administrative action, and there are no cumulative effects to any species or habitat.

Alternative Action – 20-year Withdrawal Like the proposed action, the 20-year alternative is an administrative action, and does not involve any specific ground disturbance, environmental changes, or non-speculative benefits or impacts to wildlife resources. While precluding exploration, mining, and the filing of future claims within these areas could potentially provide an overall benefit to the species and habitats that occur in the withdrawal area, the effects to specific terrestrial wildlife cannot be determined without speculating as to the nature and intensity of future actions that may or may not occur. At present, the potential effects of the existing PoOs are negligible or unlikely to occur (see the analysis of the no action alternative).

The effects under this alternative are essentially the same as under the proposed action (see above), except that mineral development and new claims would be prohibited for a longer time. Given the extended time period, the likelihood that some claims may undergo minerals validity examination is higher than under the 5-year withdrawal. Whether or not such exams would find any valuable discoveries is unpredictable.

No Action – No Withdrawal

Potential Effects from Current Mining Proposals Three proposed plans of operations for nickel laterite mining or exploration were submitted, but not approved, prior to segregation. Those PoOs include:

RF-38 The project area for this proposal is defined as the total area associated with existing mineral claims on Red Flat Mountain. The perimeter of the claims includes an area of approximately 1,700 acres. Proposed drill sites would be contained within the perimeter of the claims. Drilling of test holes would occur within a small area of each claim, and the total area of actual effect from test drilling would be less than one-half acre. The area of actual effect would occur on Forest Service roads and secondary tracks, which are already disturbed areas. The (yet unsigned) decision memo for the project identified no effect to any TES wildlife or habitat associated with this proposed project. No other minerals activities have been proposed. Any new plan of operations would be subject to NEPA analysis and ESA consultation.

68 2015 SW Oregon Mineral Withdrawal Environmental Assessment Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest  Medford & Coos Bay Districts, Bureau of Land Management

Cleopatra Mine The Forest Service received a proposed plan of operations from Red Flat Nickel Corporation to conduct mining activities on National Forest System lands. RFNC would collect core samples to test for minerals on their existing claims on Forest Service lands within the Baldface, Taylor, and Fall Creek drainages of the North Fork Smith River watershed. Claimants would drill 59 holes, 3-inches in diameter, into rock or bare lateritic soils to a maximum depth of 50 feet. Drill sites would be approximately 600 feet apart and a minimum of 200 feet from any seasonal or perennial watercourse. No road or trail construction, reconstruction, or maintenance would occur.

The environmental analysis has not been completed, but analysis to date has identified no effect to any TES or any other species or habitat of concern associated with this proposed project. No other minerals activities have been proposed. Any new plan of operations would be subject to NEPA analysis and ESA consultation.

RNR Mine The RNR PoO submitted in 2011 is on hold due to legal encumbrance and the need for more information about the proposal to complete the environmental and economic analyses. Site- specific analysis is not possible until the PoO is amended to include information asked for by the agency.

In the unlikely event that legal issues were resolved in favor of the plaintiff, and if adequate information were provided, the NEPA would recommend project design criteria and mitigations that seek to protect all TES wildlife and their habitats from direct and indirect effects caused by proposed mining. At this time, development of the RNR Mine is not a reasonably foreseeable action, and any analysis of impacts would be purely speculative.

Possible Effects to Species and Habitats from Future Mining Table 20 shows the amount of high and medium mineral potential in each portion of the SOMW, as well as the associated habitats within those areas. Without withdrawal, mineral activities could possibly affect several species associated with aquatic, riparian, late seral, early seral, and non- forest habitats – especially the invertebrate pollinators. Whether or not mining or exploration will occur in these areas is purely speculative.

Table 20. Wildlife habitat in areas of high and medium mineral potential in the SOMW area Capable/ Non-Forest/ Acres NRF Dispersal Early Seral Serpentine RnR/Baldface Withdrawal Area High Potential 29,559 1,105 8,450 6,981 13,024 Medium Potential 31,818 1,319 9,148 8,258 13,092 Hunter/Pistol Withdrawal Area High Potential 2,621 563 1,019 917 121

Only a small portion of the high and medium mineral potential area within the SOMW is under current claim. Current claims, if they were ever to be developed, have the potential to impact habitats associated with the listed species, northern spotted owl and marbled murrelet (680 acres of NRF and 1,560 acres of dispersal), as well as several other species associated with late seral,

69 2015 SW Oregon Mineral Withdrawal Environmental Assessment Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest  Medford & Coos Bay Districts, Bureau of Land Management

early seral, and non-forest habitats. Table 21 shows the acres of current claims and potentially affected habitats within the SOMW. As previously mentioned, the RnR/Baldface withdrawal area is largely located within serpentine habitats that generally provide little late seral habitat (LSH). Current claims overlap very little LSH, but a significant portion of early seral and non-forest habitats. Existing claims in the RnR/Baldface portion of the SOMW could potentially impact up to 106 acres of NRF, 1,366 acres of dispersal habitats, and up to 5,726 acres of early seral and non-forest habitats (table 21).

Table 21. Wildlife habitat in active mining claims in the SOMW area Acres with Capable/ Non-Forest/ Withdrawal Area NRF Dispersal Claims Early Seral Serpentine Rough & Ready/Baldface 7,197 106 1,894 1,366 3,832 Hunter/Pistol 3,019 581 1,106 1,205 127

In contrast, the Hunter/Pistol withdrawal area is largely located within well-forested habitats that generally provide much more LSH. Current claims overlap some LSH and a significant portion of early to mid-seral habitats. Existing claims in the Hunter/Pistol portion of the SOMW could potentially impact up to 581 acres of NRF, 1,205 acres of dispersal habitats, and up to 1,233 acres of early seral and non-forest habitats (see table 21).

ESA Listed Species

Northern Spotted Owl and Critical Habitat Areas of high and medium mineral potential within the SOMW occur on approximately 62,000 acres of spotted owl habitats (3,000 acres of NRF and 16,000 areas of dispersal). However within existing claims, only up to 687 acres of NRF and 2,571 acres of dispersal habitat could potentially be affected, if any of these claims were to be developed.

Five spotted owl historical sites occur within the SOMW, but no owl sites are located within an existing claim. Any proposed activity that may affect spotted owls would require ESA consultation prior to authorization, with subsequent minimization measures imposed. Consequently, we anticipate little to no effect to spotted owls from any current mining claims.

Little spotted owl critical habitat occurs within the withdrawal area; of a total of 490 acres of designated critical habitat, there are 148 acres of NRF and 178 acres of dispersal habitat. Any proposed activity that may affect spotted owl critical habitat would require ESA consultation prior to authorization, with subsequent minimization measures imposed. Consequently, we anticipate little to no effect to spotted owl critical habitat from any existing claims.

Marbled Murrelet and Critical Habitat In the Hunter/Pistol portion of the SOMW there are 6,630 acres of suitable murrelet nesting habitat (table 17). However, within existing claims, not more than 687 acres of suitable murrelet habitat could potentially be affected. Any proposed activity that may affect marbled murrelets would require ESA consultation prior to authorization with subsequent minimization measures imposed. Consequently, we anticipate little to no effect to marbled murrelets.

Approximately 1,161 acres of occupied murrelet habitat are identified in the Hunter/Pistol portion of the SOMW. However, only approximately 180 acres of occupied murrelet habitat is located

70 2015 SW Oregon Mineral Withdrawal Environmental Assessment Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest  Medford & Coos Bay Districts, Bureau of Land Management

within any existing claim. No PoOs are currently authorized to conduct activities within occupied habitat. Any proposed activity that may affect occupied murrelet habitat would require ESA consultation prior to authorization with subsequent minimization measures imposed. Consequently, we anticipate little to no effect to occupied murrelet habitat.

Within the SOMW area there are approximately 6,212 acres of murrelet designated murrelet critical habitat. Of that, 1,259 acres are suitable murrelet nesting habitat. No PoOs are currently authorized that would affect critical habitat. Any proposed activity that may affect murrelet critical habitat would require ESA consultation prior to authorization, with subsequent minimization measures imposed. Consequently, we anticipate little to no effect to murrelet critical habitat.

Other Wildlife Species of Concern All sensitive, MIS, survey and manage, and neotropical migrant species or habitats that occur within the SOMW area could be affected by mining activities. However, no PoOs are currently authorized to conduct activities within any known sites or suitable habitats for any of those species.

Any proposed activity within any portion of the SOMW would require site-specific NEPA analysis prior to any authorization, where mitigations for any affected sensitive species or their habitats would be specified. Consequently, there would presumably be minimal effects to any wildlife species of concern or their habitats. No activities are currently expected or foreseeable that would affect the viability of these species. Cultural Resources The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, and its implementing regulations at 36 CFR 800 require that Federal agencies consider the effects of their undertakings on historic properties. The term “historic properties” refers to cultural resources, both prehistoric and historic, that are listed or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Cultural resources represent the tangible and intangible evidence of human behavior and past human occupation. Cultural resources may consist of archaeological sites, historic-age buildings and structures, and traditional use areas and cultural places that are important to a group’s traditional beliefs, religion, or cultural practices. These types of resources are finite and non- renewable.

This report evaluates and documents the potential effects to cultural resources from the proposed mineral withdrawal in compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act under 36 CFR 800. The report also documents the agencies’ consideration in managing federal land that has the potential to effect the use and physical integrity of sacred sites under Executive Order 13007.

A Class I literature search and site records review were conducted to identify all known cultural resources within the proposed withdrawal area boundaries. The site and survey GIS layers and the associated existing records at the agency and the Oregon State Preservation Office were consulted to provide an initial inventory of cultural resources. The most recent listings of the National Register of Historic Places were consulted for nominated and listed properties. Tribes associated with the lands included in the withdrawal area were consulted to assist in identifying Traditional Cultural Properties as defined in National Register Bulletin 38. The criteria used for establishing the area of potential effect (APE) for cultural resources was based on the boundary of the

71 2015 SW Oregon Mineral Withdrawal Environmental Assessment Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest  Medford & Coos Bay Districts, Bureau of Land Management

proposed withdrawal. Applicable draft working maps generated through geographic information system analysis were consulted to determine which cultural resources were within the APE.

Affected Environment The cultural history and ethnographic overviews of the area may be found in Beckham 1978, Deur 2008, Gray 1985, Kramer 1999, La Lande 1980, Pullen 1996, and USFS 1998a (see Literature Cited).

The federal lands within the withdrawal area contain a long and diverse cultural record that may begin as early as 8000 years ago. Remnants of past and current human activities and events can be found throughout the area that reflect continuous use by native peoples and the exploration, settlement, mining, and management by Euro-American cultures.

The first historic exploration of the proposed withdrawal area was in the Hunter Creek watershed by Spanish explorers in the 1500s. Exploration by English, Russian, and French explorers came later. The earliest recorded contact between the coastal natives and Europeans is noted in the log of Captain George Vancouver in 1792. Interest in fur resources led to a period of maritime fur trade, particularly strong between 1785 and 1820 (USFS 1998a).

The discovery of gold in the early 1850s brought an influx of people and mining into the region that affected the native peoples and landscape. During the1850s, as a result of the Rogue River Indian Wars, tribal lands were ceded to the United States Government by ratified and unratified treaties (Zucker et al. 1983). As the United States secured tribal territories, lands were set aside for conservation, protection, and settlement. These lands are included in the withdrawal area that originally came under federal title and management of the General Land Office (the precursor of the Bureau of Land Management) between the years 1850-1856 and under the Forest Service in 1906, with the establishment of the Siskiyou National Forest.

Since that time, the area has seen mineral exploration and development at varying levels of intensity since the 1850s gold rush. Gold was mined in the 1850s, mostly as placer deposits along river terraces and beaches near the mouths of the creeks. During the 1930s, exploration for nickel and gold occurred and, during the 1950s, for nickel and chromite. Most of the physical evidence found today from nickel and chromite exploration is mainly trenches and test pits (USFS 1998a).

The literature and records review identified 71 previously recorded prehistoric and historic period archaeological sites, two historic transportation routes (Mc Grew Trail ca 1858, Wimer Road ca 1888) and 20 isolated finds within the boundary of the withdrawal areas. The precontact and contact period sites include permanent and semi-permanent habitations, limited activity areas such as lithic scatters, artifact scatters, or areas used for gathering and processing specific resources (such as animals, plants, and material for stone tools). One vision quest site was identified within the Hunter/Pistol area that may be considered a traditional cultural property. Historic period sites include cabins, mines, mining features, irrigation and mining ditches, roads and trails, a stagecoach stop, refuse dumps, trash scatters, and fire lookout towers.

Of these sites, one site has been determined eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Three sites were previously determined not eligible for the NRHP, including all of the isolated finds. The balance of sites remain unevaluated for the NRHP.

The land proposed for withdrawal includes the homelands and traditional use areas of the tribes represented by the Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians, Coquille Indian Tribe, Confederated Tribes of the Grande Ronde Indians, the Tolowa Dee-Nỉ Nation, Elk Valley Rancheria, and the

72 2015 SW Oregon Mineral Withdrawal Environmental Assessment Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest  Medford & Coos Bay Districts, Bureau of Land Management

Quartz Valley Rancheria. Terrestrial wildlife, fish, aquatics, vegetation, and rivers traditionally used by the tribes have been identified within the withdrawal areas.

Limited cultural resource inventory surveys have been conducted for past management actions within the RnR/Baldface area. Records indicate a greater number of inventory surveys have been conducted in the Hunter/Pistol Area. Records and past survey results indicate a high potential to identify additional significant cultural resources within the proposed withdrawal areas.

Environmental Consequences Under 36 CFR 800, an adverse effect is found when an undertaking may alter, directly or indirectly, any of the characteristics of a historic property that qualify the property for inclusion in the National Register in a manner that would diminish the integrity of the property’s location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or association. Consideration is given to all qualifying characteristics of a historic property, including those that may have been identified subsequent to the original evaluation of the property’s eligibility for the National Register. Adverse effects may include reasonably foreseeable effects caused by the undertaking that may occur later in time, be farther removed in distance or be cumulative.

Impacts to cultural resources, especially archeological sites, can be generally defined as anything that results in the removal of, displacement of, or damage to artifacts, features, and/or stratigraphic deposits of cultural material. In the case of traditional cultural properties and sacred places, additional considerations may include alterations that would affect the character and use of the location, and/or presence and availability of a specific, traditionally used natural resource.

The criteria used for comparing the action and no action alternatives is based on the following: ♦ How will the alternatives affect cultural resources eligible for or listed on the National Register of Historic Places? ♦ How will the alternatives affect tribal traditional use and religious areas (traditional cultural properties)? ♦ How will the alternatives affect access to, ceremonial use of, or the physical integrity of sacred sites?

Proposed Action – 5-year Withdrawal The proposed action will result in a beneficial indirect effect to cultural resources by reducing the potential of adverse effects caused from the physical and auditory impacts associated with new mineral entry and geothermal energy development. The withdrawal would prohibit authorizations of new ground disturbance and other activities associated with mineral and geothermal exploration, extraction, and access that could adversely affect the physical integrity and/or the significant characteristics of cultural resources listed on or eligible for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places.

The proposed action will have no effect to cultural resources, as defined under the National Historic Preservation Act. The withdrawal will have no effect to the physical integrity or use of sacred sites under Executive Order 13007.

Since the proposed action will have no effect to cultural resources, there are no cumulative effects.

73 2015 SW Oregon Mineral Withdrawal Environmental Assessment Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest  Medford & Coos Bay Districts, Bureau of Land Management

Alternative Action – 20-year Withdrawal The alternative action would also result in no effect to cultural resources, the same effect as the proposed action but for an extended duration of 20 years. Since there will be no effects, there are no cumulative effects.

No Action – No Withdrawal Under the no action alternative, the federal lands would not be withdrawn and the lands would continue to be managed pursuant to the Siskiyou National Forest LMP and the Bureau of Land Management RMPs, as applicable. The proposed withdrawal areas include the traditional homelands and use areas of several tribes represented by six tribal governments. All of the tribes continue to use all or portions of the withdrawal area for traditional purposes. The Confederated Tribes of the Siletz, the Elk Valley Rancheria, and the Tolowa Dee-nỉ Nation have stated they believe that nickel mining would result in the loss of and impact to traditional use of the area’s natural resources and water quality. Results from past inventory surveys conducted within the proposed withdrawal areas demonstrate that cultural resources may be present.

Prior to authorizing any action for geothermal leasing and development, mineral plans of operations, suction dredging, or associated activities used to work and access existing claims, the Forest Service and BLM 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 APE.

If cultural resources and sacred sites were located within the APE, the potential effects would be analyzed and taken into consideration. If the proposed action were determined to have an adverse effect to cultural resources listed on or eligible for nomination to the NRHP and avoidance could not be accomplished, the adverse effects would be minimized, mitigated, or resolved following the procedures in 36 CFR 800.6.

The expected cumulative effects on cultural resources in the proposed withdrawal area will be that cultural resources will continue to exist in their current condition.

Conclusion Protection of cultural resources on the federal lands is best served under the action alternatives. Recreation, Wilderness, Wild and Scenic Rivers

Affected Environment The proposed withdrawal areas occur within the watersheds of Hunter Creek and Pistol River in the westernmost area of the proposed withdrawal. The Lower Illinois River (which includes Rough and Ready Creek) and North Fork Smith River (which includes Bald Face Creeks) make up the remainder of the proposed withdrawal area. The nearest communities (Brookings and Cave Junction, Oregon) are generally greater than a forty five minute driving distance to the nearest recreation opportunity within the project area. Recreation will be addressed by combined watershed region where topography and recreation uses are similar.

74 2015 SW Oregon Mineral Withdrawal Environmental Assessment Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest  Medford & Coos Bay Districts, Bureau of Land Management

Hunter Creek/Pistol River Proposed Withdrawal Area The landscapes in these areas are typified by moderately flat ridges and moderate slopes. The area has been managed for timber in the past and has several roads that were developed to provide access for timber removal. As access was created, dispersed recreation uses developed and continue throughout the area. Gold Beach is the nearest community, ranging in drive time from roughly 30 minutes to the Hunter Creek areas to over an hour to some of the further reaches of the proposed withdrawal area. The area is home to the Red Flat Botanical Area, Hunter Creek Bog, and North Fork Hunter Creek Area of Critical Environmental Concern.

Existing Uses The predominant recreation activities in the Hunter/Pistol River proposed withdrawal area are dispersed uses associated with hunting, camping, botanical study and viewing (Red Flats Botanical Area), and off-highway vehicle (OHV) use. Approximately four miles of motorized trails are identified in the Hunter/Pistol proposed withdrawal area. No developed recreation sites are present within the analysis area.

The exact amount of use is currently unknown. Past monitoring efforts indicate that much of the use is from local citizens. Dispersed campsites are present throughout the analysis area, located primarily along stream and river corridors. Fishing, sightseeing, and collecting special forest products also occur in this area. The highest use periods are during hunting season and during the summer months (USFS 1998a).

Studies conducted by Oregon State University in 1999 (Johnson and Leahy) and 2009 (Lindberg), tracking OHV use and the economic importance of OHV use, indicate that OHV use has increased over the period of 10 years. Based on demonstrated increases in OHV popularity and limited changes in opportunities available within the analysis area, that use has presumably increased or remained constant in the analysis area since the 2009 study. Most OHV use occurs during the hunting season.

Economic Contributions Associated with Recreation Uses Management of federal lands contributes to local economies through the production of goods and opportunities for use of the public lands, which may generate service or retail sales income. Estimated labor income contributions to the recreation sector in the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest economic area of influence were estimated to be $4.4 million for 2014. In contrast, estimated labor income contributions for minerals and energy production for the area were less than $100,000 (USFS 2016). Labor income is the value of wages, salaries, and benefits for wage earners, plus income to sole proprietors. The economic area of influence includes Curry, Douglas, Jackson, Josephine, and Klamath counties. Results for individual counties were not provided in this report, but information from other earlier studies is provided below.

The Hunter/Pistol withdrawal area is located in Curry County. The information presented in table 22 is for the entirety of Curry County (Runyan 2009), as no direct measures are available for use solely within the analysis area and the economic impacts derived. However, limited inferences may be derived from the information. All of the uses included are known to occur within the analysis area.

75 2015 SW Oregon Mineral Withdrawal Environmental Assessment Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest  Medford & Coos Bay Districts, Bureau of Land Management

Table 22. Economic contributions from recreation related travel in Curry County, OR in 2008 Travel Generated Expenditures by Trip Type Local Recreation Activity ($000) Expenditures* Day Use Overnight Use Hunting $519 $209 $413 Wildlife Viewing $9,438 $585 $309 Freshwater fishing $3,545 $907 $673 * Local recreation expenditures represent expenses incurred by residents who traveled less than 50 miles and are not reflected in the day use and overnight use figures (Runyan 2009).

Rough and Ready Creek/Bald Face Creek Proposed Withdrawal Area The landscapes in this area are typically remote and rugged, limiting human use historically and today. Steep mountain slopes with peaks as high as 4600 feet above sea level extend to the watercourses. Creeks and rivers within these watersheds are noted for exceptional fishing and kayaking opportunities. Timber management activities are limited in this area, resulting in a landscape that leaves little indication of human management activities. Cave Junction is the nearest community to this proposed withdrawal area. Evidence of historical mining activities is scattered throughout the area.

Recreation opportunities in the Rough and Ready and Baldface Creek watersheds are predominantly Semi-Primitive Non-motorized with corridors of Semi-Primitive Motorized where roads exist. Areas along the southern-most border of the proposed withdrawal area are designated Roaded Natural. The proposed withdrawal area also falls within portions of the North Fork Smith River watershed. Recreation opportunities within this area are predominantly within the Roaded Natural spectrum. The North Fork Smith River Wild and Scenic River is designated Semi- Primitive Non-motorized (USFS 1989). Much of the RnR/Baldface area is within the RARE II South Kalmiopsis Roadless Area (USFS 1997).

Environmental Consequences

Proposed Action – 5-year Withdrawal Three PoO’s for upland mineral exploration or mining have been filed in the proposed withdrawal area. Additionally, 12 suction dredging claims are present along streams within the withdrawal area. To date, a determination of validity has not been completed for any of the claims. Under withdrawal, suction dredging would be prohibited, unless a validity exam determined a valuable discovery. Only two suction dredge permits within the withdrawal area were issued by the state of Oregon in recent years. Both occurred on BLM land along Rough and Ready Creek.

The proposed withdrawal provides that land within the analysis area would be restricted from “location and entry under the United States mining laws, subject to valid and existing rights.” Therefore, no mining activity could occur for any claims where a minerals validity exam had not determined a valuable discovery.

Recreation activities and other resource management actions would continue to be guided by the Siskiyou LMP, as amended. If claims establish a valid existing right through a minerals exam, environmental analyses would have to be completed prior to commencement of mineral operations. The potential effects of any site-specific proposal would be evaluated under a detailed analysis process.

76 2015 SW Oregon Mineral Withdrawal Environmental Assessment Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest  Medford & Coos Bay Districts, Bureau of Land Management

Proposed Action – Effects to Recreation Any suction dredging activities occurring during the segregation and proposed withdrawal period would require a validity exam to be conducted. Only those claims determined valid would be allowed to operate. As a result, suction dredging operation is unlikely to produce a measurable change in recreational uses common to the withdrawal area (i.e., hiking, OHV travel, camping, kayaking, rafting, horseback riding, swimming, fishing, scenery viewing, botanical viewing and study). The uses are expected to continue at their current levels and increase or decrease based on industry trends. The proposed action would likely bear no relevance on any future trends in use changes for these activities, because current minerals proposals are so limited.

Recreational suction dredging and recreational panning would decrease due to the proposed action. The decreased potential for mining claims and operations would increase the opportunities for solitude and scenery, free of equipment or disturbance.

Economics Based on the overall low use rates for the proposed withdrawal area, effects to local economies would be essentially immeasurable.

Proposed Action – Effects to Wild and Scenic Rivers/Eligible Streams and Rivers Suction dredging would be limited to claims where a validity examination resulted in a determination of viability of the proposed operations. Only two suction dredging permits were granted for the last year of data (see Aquatics section), so the reduction in suction dredge operations would be slight. In addition, a moratorium on suction dredging by the State of Oregon will eliminate suction dredging for five years, starting in January 2016, irrespective of mineral withdrawal.

Scenery The proposed withdrawal would effectively maintain the remarkable scenery and landscapes that exist within the North Fork Smith Wild and Scenic River corridor and the RnR/Baldface areas for the two-year segregation period followed by the 5-year proposed withdrawal period.

Water Quality The proposed withdrawal would effectively maintain the water quality for the two-year segregation period followed by the 5-year proposed withdrawal period. The amount and duration of turbidity would be diminished on streams where suction dredging operations currently occur, unless VER is established. (See Hydrology and Aquatics sections for additional information.)

Fisheries The proposed withdrawal would effectively limit impacts to fisheries and maintain the current habitat conditions for the two-year segregation period followed by the 5-year proposed withdrawal period. (See Aquatics section for additional information.)

Proposed Action – Effects to Wilderness Characteristic The decreased potential for mining claims and operations would increase the opportunities for solitude and scenery free of equipment or disturbance. The proposed withdrawal would effectively maintain the remarkable scenery and landscapes that exist within the South Kalmiopsis and Packsaddle Roadless areas.

77 2015 SW Oregon Mineral Withdrawal Environmental Assessment Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest  Medford & Coos Bay Districts, Bureau of Land Management

Alternative Action – 20-year Withdrawal The overall effects of a 20-year withdrawal are expected to be the same as those identified for the 5-year period, but extended for the longer period. Recreational suction dredging and recreational panning opportunities would continue to be excluded from the proposed withdrawal area. All other activities would be expected to be enhanced and continue, based on industry trends. Landscapes and resources would continue to be managed based on guidance from the Siskiyou LMP and policy, regulations, and laws current to the period.

No Action – No Withdrawal Suction dredging would be expected to continue at current interest and activity levels. There are three proposed plans of operations in the withdrawal areas, which would provide for test drilling in two of the three areas covered by PoOs. The third claim will remain non-operational, pending submission of further information and resolution of legal challenges.

No Action – Effects to Recreation The no action alternative would provide for continued existing uses and mineral operations. Uses and management actions would continue to be guided by the Siskiyou LMP, policy, regulation, and law. Suction dredging activities are currently restricted under Oregon state regulations in critical salmon habitat areas. For the period of the moratorium, user conflicts would be limited to only those areas where dredging occurs outside of a habitat area. Recreation conflicts are limited in those areas, based on the light recreation use that occurs. Beyond the extent of the moratorium, user conflicts between recreational uses of the waterways and suction dredging operations would likely continue.

Interest in the pursuit of surface mining activities is expected to continue. However, impacts to recreation uses that may be associated with specific mineral operations would be covered in a site-specific environmental analysis.

The most likely impacts to recreation in the Hunter Creek/Pistol River withdrawal area would occur in the North Fork Pistol River and Pyramid Rock area of the eastern tributaries to the North Fork Pistol River. Uses here are associated with the Red Flat Botanical Area, OHV use, and hunting.

Within the RnR/Baldface area, impacts to viewsheds along the McGrew Trail and possible improvements to McGrew trail, resulting from mining access needs, would likely diminish the OHV recreation experience. Impacts may also be anticipated to dispersed uses in the Rough and Ready Creek and Baldface Creek areas. The expectation for primitive recreation experiences could potentially be jeopardized, as well as views from trails and or trail destinations.

No Action – Effects to Wild and Scenic Rivers/Eligible Streams and Rivers

Scenery The outstanding remarkable values of the North Fork Smith Wild and Scenic River corridor are protected to the extent allowed by law under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968. There are no claims within the North Fork Smith River corridor; however, portions of some claims do occur proximate to the two mile offset.

The slopes and topography surrounding the North Fork Smith, Rough and Ready, and Baldface Creeks are very steep, lending to limited sight distances from the river and creek corridors. Based

78 2015 SW Oregon Mineral Withdrawal Environmental Assessment Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest  Medford & Coos Bay Districts, Bureau of Land Management

on the steepness of the immediate waterway corridor, impacts to those adjacent viewsheds from any surface mining that might occur would presumably be limited.

Although not protected by the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, the LMP provides guidance for management in the Rough and Ready Creek and the Baldface Creek corridors. All activities under a plan of operations would be analyzed for impacts under a separate site-specific analysis.

Water Quality Water quality for the two-year segregation period may improve during the period of the state moratorium for those areas within the critical salmon habitat reaches. It would be expected that quality may diminish to pre-moratorium levels once the state moratorium expires. The amount and duration of turbidity would be expected to resume to current levels on streams where suction dredging operations currently occur. (See Hydrology and Aquatics sections for additional information).

Fisheries See Aquatics section.

No Action – Effects to Wilderness Characteristic The remarkable scenery and landscapes that exist within South Kalmiopsis and Packsaddle Roadless Areas would be jeopardized under the no action alternative. The areas would continue to be subject to current mining laws. New claims may be established and existing claims may continue ongoing processes for testing and approval for operations. In the case of suction dredging, operations would continue, or potentially increase, based on prospective interests and the relative value of precious metals after the State of Oregon moratorium ends.

The opportunities for solitude and scenery free of equipment or disturbance will likely diminish under the no action alternative. Agencies and Individuals Consulted Invitations to comment on the Federal Register Notice of Proposed Withdrawal and this environmental assessment were extended to organizations on the forest-wide scoping mailing list. Such organizations include officials of county governments in southwestern Oregon and northwestern California, 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 lands management in southwestern Oregon.

Additionally, public news releases regarding the opportunity to comment were distributed to local media outlets for both comment periods. For details on consultation with Native American tribes and the results of the first comment period see those sections earlier in this document.

79 2015 SW Oregon Mineral Withdrawal Environmental Assessment Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest  Medford & Coos Bay Districts, Bureau of Land Management

Qualifications of Preparers Joni D. Brazier, Forest Soil Scientist, Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest B.S., Natural Resources, Oregon State University 16 years in soil and water resource management Previous positions: Hydrologist (USFS), Hydrologic Technician (USGS, USFS), Biological Science Technician (USFS)

Brad Campbell, Area Mining Geologist for national forests of southern and eastern Oregon M.S., Geological Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno 26 years in geological resource management Previous positions: Forest Geologist, Minerals Program Manager (USFS), Geologist (USBR), Regional Geologist (Washington DNR), Consulting Geologist (various mining and engineering businesses)

R. David Clayton, Terrestrial Wildlife Program Manager, Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest B.S., Biology, Southern Oregon University 26 years in wildlife management Previous positions: Endangered Species Biologist (USFWS), Wildlife Biologist (USFS)

Shannon Downey, Environmental Coordinator, Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest M.S., Forest and Fire Ecology, University of Washington 25 years in natural resource management Previous positions: Endangered Species Biologist (USFWS), Coal Mine Reclamation Ecologist (Montana DEQ), Fire Mitigation Specialist (BLM), Range Management Specialist (USFS), Operations Research Analyst (USFS)

Clint Emerson, Forest Botanist (Detail), Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest B.S., Botany and Plant Pathology, Oregon State University 19 years in plant ecology and botanical resource management Previous positions: District Botanist (USFS), Environmental Consultant (Dudek and Assoc. & The Resource Company), State Botanist (Montana Heritage Program), Firefighter (USFS)

Brent D. Hasty, GIS Specialist, Region 6 Data Resource Management B.S., Geography, Southern Oregon State College 27 years in natural resource management

Susan Maiyo, Forest Fisheries Program Manager, Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest B.S., Biology – water quality and fisheries emphasis, Southern Oregon State University 26 years in natural resource management Previous positions: Hydrologist (USFS) and Wildlife Biologist (USFS)

Julie Martin, Forest Recreation Program Manager, Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest M.S., Recreation Resource Administration, Colorado State University 17 years in recreation resource management Previous positions: District Recreation Program Manager (USFS), Natural Resource Specialist – Recreation (USBOR), Outdoor Recreation Planner (USFS)

80 2015 SW Oregon Mineral Withdrawal Environmental Assessment Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest  Medford & Coos Bay Districts, Bureau of Land Management

Chris Park, Forest Hydrologist, Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest B.S., Engineering, California State University 30 years in hydrologic resource management Previous positions: Hydrology Consultant (Hydro Dynamics), Civil Engineer (USFS)

Melissa Schroeder, Forest Archaeologist, Rogue-River Siskiyou National Forest M.A., Anthropology, California State University Fullerton 29 years in cultural resource management Previous positions: Assistant Forest Archaeologist / Tribal Liaison (USFS), Archaeologist (NPS), Archaeologist (Cultural Resource Contractor)

Bryan Wender, District Botanist, Bureau of Land Management, Medford District M.S., Forestry, Virginia Tech 15 years in natural resource management Previous positions: Vegetation Ecologist (NPS), Natural Areas Steward (Virginia Natural Heritage Program), Botanist (NPS), Forester (USFS)

81 2015 SW Oregon Mineral Withdrawal Environmental Assessment Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest  Medford & Coos Bay Districts, Bureau of Land Management

IV. Literature Cited Beckham, S. 1978. Cultural Resource Overview of the Siskiyou National Forest. Prepared for USDA Forest Service, Siskiyou National Forest. Grants Pass, Oregon.

Beschta, R.L. 1997. Riparian shade and stream temperature: an alternative perspective. Rangelands. 19(2):25-28.

Bright, J.H. and L. Ramp. 1965. Oregon’s Asbestos Potential: The Ore Bin, v.27, no. 3. P. 45-63.

Brooks, Howard C. and Len Ramp. 1968. Gold and Silver in Oregon: State of Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Bulletin 61.

Brown, E.R. 1985. Technical editor. Management of wildlife and fish habitats in forests of western Oregon and Washington. U.S. Forest Service Publication No. R6-F&VVL-192.

(BLM) U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management 1995a. Coos Bay District Record of Decision and Resource Management Plan. North Bend, OR. 257 pp.

(BLM) U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management 1995b. Record of Decision for the Medford District Resource Management Plan. Medford, OR. 273 pp.

(BLM) United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 2005. Mineral Report, Nicore Claims Group. Josephine and Curry Counties, Oregon, owned by Walter B. Freeman, et al. January 31, 2005. 386p.

Burt, Rebecca. Soil Scientist, Soil Survey Laboratory, USDA Soil Conservation Service. 1994. Letter to Gerald J. Latshaw, State Soil Scientist, SCS, Portland, Oregon. Subject: SOI- Oregon, 1994: Gold Beach (CP92-OR286). May 10, 1994. 5p.

Chambers, K. 2011. A new species of Erigeron (Asteraceae) from Southwest Oregon. J. Bot. Res. Inst. Texas 5(2):415-419.

Deur, D. 2008. Homelands of the Siskiyou Divide, An ethnohistory of American Indian communities’ traditional ties to Oregon Caves National Monument and vicinity. Pacific West Region Social Sciences Series, Publication No. 2008-02. USDI National Park Service, Pacific West Regional Office, San Francisco, California.

Emerson, C. 2010. Conservation assessment for Gasquet manzanita (Arctostaphylos hispidula) within the State of Oregon. Interagency Special Status and Sensitive Species Program. Available online at: (http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/documents/planning-docs/ca-va-arctostaphylos- hispidula-2010-03.pdf)

Emerson, C. 2013. The current status of serpentine catchfly (Silene hookeri ssp. serpentinicola) in Oregon. Unpublished report prepared for the Rogue River-Siskiyou NF, Medford, Oregon.

Evans Mack, D., Richie, W.P., Nelson, S.K., and others. 2003. Methods for surveying marbled murrelets in forests: A revised protocol for land management and research. Pacific Seabird Group Technical Publication Number 2. 81p. http://www.pacificseabirdgroup.org/publications/PSG_TechPub2_MAMU_ISP.pdf

82 2015 SW Oregon Mineral Withdrawal Environmental Assessment Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest  Medford & Coos Bay Districts, Bureau of Land Management

Gray, A. 1985. The Takelma and their Athapascan kin: an ethnographic synthesis of southwestern Oregon. Master’s Thesis. Oregon State University, Oregon.

Johnson, R.L. and Leahy, J.E. 1999. The 1999 Oregon off-highway vehicle user survey. Department of Forest Resources. Oregon State University. Corvallis, OR. Available online at: http://www.oregon.gov/OPRD/PLANS/docs/trails/trail_benefits_moto.pdf

Jules, E.S., Ellison, A.M., Gotelli, N.J., Lillie, S., Meindl, G.A., Sanders, N.J. and Young, A.N. 2011. Influence of fire on a rare plant assemblage: a 5-year study of Darlingtonia fens. American Journal of Botany 98(5): 801-811.

Kramer, G. 1999. Mining in southwestern Oregon: a historic context statement. Heritage Research Associates Report No. 234. Prepared for USDI Bureau of Land Management, Medford District, Oregon.

Kruckeberg, A. R. 2002. Geology and Plant Life: The Effects of Landforms and Rock Types on Plants. University of Washington Press, Seattle, Washington.

LaLande, J.M. 1980. Prehistory and history of the Rogue River National Forest: a cultural resource overview. USDA Forest Service, Rogue River National Forest, Medford, Oregon.

Lindberg, Kreg. 2009. The economic impacts of off-highway vehicle (OHV) recreation in Oregon. Department of Forest Resources. Oregon State University. Corvallis, OR. Available online at: http://www.oregon.gov/OPRD/PLANS/docs/scorp/2008- 2012_SCORP/2009_OR_Econ_Impacts_of_OHV_Study.pdf

Mount Royal Joint Venture v. Kempthorne, 477 F.3d 745, 749 (D.C. Cir. 2007).

(NMFS) National Marine Fisheries Service. 1996. Making Endangered Species Act determinations of effect for individual or grouped actions at the watershed scale. Environmental and Technical Services Division, Habitat Conservation Branch. NMFS Northwest Fisheries Science Center. Seattle, Washington. August. 31p.

(NMFS) National Marine Fisheries Service. 2014. Final Recovery Plan for the Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast Evolutionarily Significant Unit of Coho Salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch). National Marine Fisheries Service, Fisheries Division, 20 Southwest Regional Office, Arcata, CA 95521. Available online at: http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/protected_species/salmon_steelhead/recovery_pl anning_and_implementation/southern_oregon_northern_california_coast/SONCC_recove ry_plan.html

(NRCS) United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. n.d. Web Soil Survey. Available online at http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/

(ODA) Oregon Department of Agriculture. 2008. Plant pest risk assessment for Alyssum murale and A. corsicum. Available online at: http://www.oregon.gov/ODA/shared/Documents/Publications/Weeds/PlantPestRiskAsses smentAlyssum.pdf

(ODA) Oregon Department of Agriculture. 2010. Plant Pest Risk Assessment for Barbed and Ovate Oatgrass, Aegilops triuncialis and A. geniculata Available online at:

83 2015 SW Oregon Mineral Withdrawal Environmental Assessment Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest  Medford & Coos Bay Districts, Bureau of Land Management

http://www.oregon.gov/ODA/shared/Documents/Publications/Weeds/PlantPestRiskAsses smentBarbedOvateGoatgrass.pdf

(ODA) Oregon Department of Agriculture. 2015. Noxious Weed Policy and Classification System 2015. Available online at http://www.oregon.gov/ODA/shared/Documents/Publications/Weeds/NoxiousWeedPolic yClassification.pdf

(ODOGAMI) Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries. 2009. Oregon Geologic Data Compilation (OGDC) – Release 5.

Opler, Paul A., Kelly Lotts, and Thomas Naberhaus, coordinators. 2011. Butterflies and Moths of North America. Bozeman, MT: Big Sky Institute (Version 06032011). Available at: http://www.butterfliesandmoths.org/

Pfingsten, I.A., Giles-Johnson, D.E.L, and T.N. Kaye. 2012. Lomatium cookii population monitoring in the Illinois Valley, Josephine County, Oregon. Institute for Applied Ecology, Corvallis, Oregon.

Pullen, R. 1996. Overview of the Environment of Native Inhabitants of Southwestern Oregon, Late Prehistoric Era. Pullen Consulting, Bandon Oregon. Prepared for USDA Forest Service, Siskiyou National Forest and USDI Bureau of Land Management. Grants Pass, Oregon.

Ramp, Len and Norman V. Peterson. 1979. Geology and Mineral Resources of Josephine County, Oregon. Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Bulletin 100.

Ramp, Len and others. 1977. Geology, Mineral Resources, and Rock Material of Curry County, Oregon. Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Bulletin 93.

Reilly, J. and S.H. Black. 2011. Survey results for the coronis fritillary in southwest Oregon. Unpublished Survey Report. Available on request from the Xerces Society or Medford BLM.

Stauff, R. 2002. Southwest Oregon Regional Director, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Personal communication with Angie Dillingham, Gold Beach Ranger District, Fish Biologist. Gold Beach, Oregon.

(USFS) United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1989. Final Environmental Impact Statement, Land and Resource Management Plan. Siskiyou National Forest. Siskiyou National Forest. Grants Pass, Oregon.

(USFS) United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1995. North Fork Smith River Watershed Analysis. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest, Gold Beach Ranger District, Gold Beach, Oregon.

(USFS) United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1997. West Fork Illinois River Watershed Analysis. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest, Wild Rivers Ranger District, Cave Junction, Oregon.

84 2015 SW Oregon Mineral Withdrawal Environmental Assessment Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest  Medford & Coos Bay Districts, Bureau of Land Management

(USFS) United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1998a. Hunter Creek Watershed Analysis. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest, Gold Beach Ranger District, Gold Beach, Oregon.

(USFS) United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1998b. Pistol River Watershed Analysis. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest, Gold Beach Ranger District, Gold Beach, Oregon.

(USFS) United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1999. Research Natural Area Establishment Record: Lemmingsworth Gulch RNA. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest, Medford, Oregon.

(USFS) United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2006. Conservation Agreement for Hastingsia bracteosa, H. atropurpurea, Gentiana setigera, Epilobium oreganum, and Viola primulifolia ssp. occidentalis and serpentine Darlingtonia wetlands and fens from Southwestern Oregon and Northwestern California. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest, Medford, Oregon.

(USFS) United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2015. Suction Dredging and High Banking Programmatic Biological Assessment. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest, Medford, Oregon.

(USFS) United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2016. Rogue River-Sksiyou NF Economic Contributions for 2014 At a Glance. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Portland, Oregon.

(USFS and BLM) United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, and United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 1994. Record of Decision for Amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Portland, Oregon. Available online at: http://www.reo.gov/library/reports/newroda.pdf

(USFS and BLM) United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service and United States Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 2000. East Fork Illinois River Watershed Analysis. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest, Wild Rivers Ranger District, Cave Junction, Oregon. USDI Bureau of Land Management, Medford District Office, Grants Pass Resource Area, Grants Pass, Oregon.

(USFWS) United States Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2012. Recovery Plan for Rogue and Illinois Valley Vernal Pool and Wet Meadow Ecosystems. Region 1, Portland, Oregon.

(USFWS) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011. Revised Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis caurina). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. xvi + 258p.

(USGS) United States Geological Survey. 2015. Mineral Commodity Summaries 2015, accessed 2/11/2016 at URL: http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/

85 2015 SW Oregon Mineral Withdrawal Environmental Assessment Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest  Medford & Coos Bay Districts, Bureau of Land Management

Van Gosen, B.S. 2010. Reported historic asbestos mines, historic asbestos prospects, and other natural occurrences of asbestos in Oregon and Washington: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2010-1041, http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2010/1041/.

Whitaker, R. 1960. Vegetation of the Siskiyou Mountains, Oregon and California, USA. Ecological Monographs. 30:279-338.

Williams, J. 2015. RF-38 Hydrogeological Report. Alpine Environment Consultants, LLC.

Zucker, J., K. Hummel and B. Hogfoss. 1983. Oregon Indians Culture, History, and Current Affairs: an Atlas and Introduction. Western Imprints. Oregon Historical Society Press. Portland, Oregon.

86 2015 SW Oregon Mineral Withdrawal Environmental Assessment Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest  Medford & Coos Bay Districts, Bureau of Land Management

Appendix A: Federal Register Notice of Proposed Withdrawal and Public Comment (including legal land descriptions)

A-1 2015 SW Oregon Mineral Withdrawal Environmental Assessment Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest  Medford & Coos Bay Districts, Bureau of Land Management

This page intentionally left blank.

A-2

A-1

A-2

2015 SW Oregon Mineral Withdrawal Environmental Assessment Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest  Medford & Coos Bay Districts, Bureau of Land Management

Appendix B: State Historic Preservation Office Concurrence

A-1 2015 SW Oregon Mineral Withdrawal Environmental Assessment Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest  Medford & Coos Bay Districts, Bureau of Land Management

This page intentionally left blank.

A-2 2015 SW Oregon Mineral Withdrawal Environmental Assessment Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest  Medford & Coos Bay Districts, Bureau of Land Management

A-3 2015 SW Oregon Mineral Withdrawal Environmental Assessment Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest  Medford & Coos Bay Districts, Bureau of Land Management

This page intentionally left blank.

A-4 2015 SW Oregon Mineral Withdrawal Environmental Assessment Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest  Medford & Coos Bay Districts, Bureau of Land Management Appendix C: Response to Comments The 2015 Southwest Oregon Mineral Withdrawal Environmental Assessment (EA) was released for a 30-day comment period on April 27, 2016 by publication of legal notices in the Mail Tribune (Medford), Grants Pass Daily Courier, and The World (Coos Bay), the newspapers of record for the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest, and the Medford and Coos Bay Districts of the Bureau of Land Management. Additionally, notice letters were sent by U.S. Mail to 110 individuals, government entities, and organizations informing of the availability of the EA and the open comment period.

During the 30-day period, 1,105 separate comments were received via email, U.S. Mail, or personal delivery. (Duplicate comments sent via both email and U.S. Mail were counted only once.) Approximately 75 additional comments were submitted via email after the end of the comment period.

Many of the comments voiced only support or opposition to the withdrawal and gave basic reasons, without specific comments on the analysis presented in the EA. Those comments were characterized as “votes” and were tallied. Many of the letters received had multiple signatures, and some were petitions signed by hundreds or thousands of individuals. The total number of signatories in support or opposition, including petitions, were tallied. The results are presented below. Comments were received from every state in the nation and a few international sources. All of the comments received after the close of the comment period were in favor of withdrawal, but are not included in the tallies.

Of the 30 detailed comment letters received, 15 identified specific issues regarding the analysis in the EA, and/or had additional information pertinent to the analysis. Pertinent information and specific issues are presented in the table below. Issues regarding the analysis are summarized in the table, and a response is provided. In some cases, the comment prompted minor revision of the EA, which has been so noted in the response. Additional information, which commenters desired to submit into the project record, is summarized with no response, as no response is needed. “Comment Source(s)” refers to codes given to individual letters received. Summary documentation of all comments received is located in the project record. All comment letters, in their entirety, are part of the project record.

Total Supporting Comments: Total Opposing Comments: Email "vote" 1,071 Email "vote" 1 Petition signatures 20,929 Petition signatures 0 Letters (total signatories) 65 Letters (total signatories) 4 Total 22,065 Total 5

A-5 2015 SW Oregon Mineral Withdrawal Environmental Assessment Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest  Medford & Coos Bay Districts, Bureau of Land Management Comment Comment Response Source(s) Comments below raise specific issues regarding the analysis presented in the EA; our response follows the comment. The EA uses H.R. 1937 to inappropriately define what HR 1937 correctly defines critical and strategic minerals as constitutes “strategic and critical minerals.” H.R. 1937 has “minerals…necessary a)for national defense merely been introduced, not enacted, and therefore has no and…security…b)for…energy infrastructure c)…domestic manufacturing statutory authority. That language, and the associated d)for the Nation’s economic security and balance of trade. definition of a strategic and critical mineral, should not be 50 USC 98 also provides description of critical and strategic minerals. By included in the EA. definition, nickel is considered a critical and strategic mineral. Nickel is In contrast, the Strategic and Critical Materials Stock Piling Act not produced domestically in sufficient quantity to meet needs. (50 U.S.C. § 98 et seq.) does have statutory authority. Section Both address nickel as a critical/strategic mineral by definition. The “list of MW-01, MW-05 12 (1) of the Stock Piling Act defines strategic and critical 21” referred to is not static, and because one mineral does not appear on materials as materials that (A) would be needed to supply the that list does not remove it from definition, need, requirement etc. military, industrial, and essential civilian needs of the United States during a national emergency and (B) are not found or produced in the United States in sufficient quantities to meet such need... According to the 2015 Strategic and Critical Minerals Report, the National Defense Strategy Program implemented a method for identifying strategic and critical materials. It identified net shortfalls for 21 materials… Nickel is not amongst the list of 21 materials. I disagree with the statement in the EA that stream Full-scale mining could potentially result in the impacts that the temperatures are not effected by increases in mining activities commenter notes. However, no surface mining has occurred in recent beyond the influence of riparian vegetation. In extreme cases, years in the withdrawal area, and no valid proposals currently exist. There pool aggradation can fill deep holes, prevent thermal have been no recent mining activities that channelize water and/or stratification and remove that critical summer refugia. Another change the timing of runoff; therefore, we conclude no increased delivery way stream temperature can be impacted by sediment is the of sediment is expected from the currently proposed mining activities. phenomena of turbidity in the water column absorbing solar Suction dredge activity in the withdrawal area is limited to two sites in the radiation and conducting that heat to the water thereby MW-04 lower reaches of Rough and Ready Creek. Elevated stream temperatures increasing the temperature. As noted in the EA, many of the associated with a low gradient, low summer water levels, and an streams have sparse riparian vegetation, so these streams are extensive reach of sparse serpentine vegetation overwhelm any change especially susceptible to temperature increases from sediment in temperature that may be associated with limited suction dredge inputs. Once headwater water temperatures increase, these activity. impacts may be significant all the way through the aquatic ecosystem to the estuary. This concept is similarly applicable to the erroneous statement in the EA that suction dredge mining has no impact on water temperature.

A-6 2015 SW Oregon Mineral Withdrawal Environmental Assessment Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest  Medford & Coos Bay Districts, Bureau of Land Management Comment Comment Response Source(s) Moving heavy equipment to test bore sites on existing or For the proposed exploratory drilling, no new access roads would be abandoned roads as well as creating new access roads could created. The Fisheries report for the RF-38 project characterizes the have a long term impact on sediment erosion and transport drilling rig to be used as “light, low impact,” creating a 3 inch bore hole. beyond the 1/4 mile limit discussed in the EA. I also contend The report found no effects to water quality or aquatic habitat, based on that surface disturbance has the potential to impact stream project location and design criteria. networks by increasing the timing and volume of runoff, MW-04 The effects of full-scale mining would be reasonably anticipated to be channelizing surface flows and transporting additional greater than those for the currently proposed exploratory drilling. sediment. I saw no mention in the EA of mining activities However, we cannot speculate as to the unknown design of full-scale potentially generating suspended sediment or impacting mining that may be proposed at some unknown time in the future. sediment transport beyond the brief discussion on turbidity. Therefore, such effects cannot be addressed in this EA. This region already has an extremely flashy hydrograph, and exasperating this phenomena might have significant impacts. Commenter objects to the statement on page 50 of the EA Over a 20-year timeframe, completion of a minerals validity examination, that “over the course of 20 years, existing claims my be more and potentially establishment of valid existing rights, is more likely than likely to undergo a validity examination,” and states: “Assume over a 5-year timeframe, because two to five years is often required for the same probability of valid existing rights determinations the completion of a validity examination. Twenty years simply allows a MW-06 needed to be made during the 5 years or the 20 years [of longer period, thus increasing the likelihood of completion, should any temporary withdrawal].” validity determinations be requested. Such a timeframe also more likely allows for the resolution of any appeals. Therefore, establishment of VER is more likely under the 20-year alternative. BLM should withdraw the vast majority of it lands in the Intentions stated in the 1995 RMPs do not equate to “promises.” proposed withdrawal for the full 20-years because the agency Administrative withdrawals are drawn-out, difficult legal and policy promised the public it would do so in 1995 and has yet to proceedings, for which the agencies do not often have the personnel or follow through. fiscal resources to complete. The RMP states that "decisions in the plan MW-06 will be implemented over a period of years [and] the rate of implementation is tied to BLM's budgeting process" (Medford RMP p. 6). Commenter notes that BLM attempted to withdraw the Hunter Creek ACEC in 2000, but was unsuccessful in the attempt. It should be noted that S. 346 and H.R. 682 will need to be If the withdrawal is enacted, it stays in effect for the duration, whether or reintroduced and renumbered with each new Congress if not not the legislation has been reintroduced. However, a withdrawal can be approved by the current Congress that is in session. extended “only if the Secretary determines that the purpose for which the MW-08 withdrawal was first made requires the extension, and then only for a period that shall not exceed the duration of the original withdrawal period” (43 CFR 2310.4(a)). See page 9 of the EA. The EA should provide an estimate of how long a minerals The timeframe for completion of a minerals validity exam is highly MW-08 validity examination may take to determine the valid existing variable; general estimates run from two to five years, but the period rights. could be longer or shorter. This period would not include appeal timeframes, if the claim were found to be invalid. Clarification has been

A-7 2015 SW Oregon Mineral Withdrawal Environmental Assessment Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest  Medford & Coos Bay Districts, Bureau of Land Management Comment Comment Response Source(s) added to the proposed action and discussions under environmental consequences in various sections. The economic analysis should recognize that mining activity The economic analysis in the EA must, of necessity, avoid speculative will reduce the economic benefit or profit from existing assumptions and analyze the proposals that currently exist. The analysis economic activities in the area such as recreation and fishing. addresses the economic impact of withdrawal vs. currently proposed Also the costs of environmental cleanup or reclamation from plans of operations. Projection of specific economic benefits or impacts MW-08 mining activities need to be accounted for. from full-scale mining would be purely speculative. Assumptions regarding the theoretical costs of cleanup from a theoretical proposal for mining are doubly speculative and lack any basis for analytical rigor and are beyond the scope of this analysis. The North Fork Smith River watershed in Oregon is 100% in The description of the North Fork Smith River watershed in the EA refers public ownership; 99% NFS lands and 1% State of Oregon to the entire watershed, which includes portions in Oregon and California. MW-08 lands. There are no private lands in the Oregon portion of the Private lands in the watershed occur in California. watershed that is subject to the mineral withdrawal The footnote in Table 7 has a mistake. It should say "LAA = The correction to the footnote for table 7 has been made. MW-08 Likely to Adversely Affect”, and not "LAA = Not Likely to Adversely Affect”. Where it says: "In the unlikely event that legal issues were Language regarding the RNR proposed plan of operations was vetted resolved in favor of the plaintiff…”, it would be better to say: through our solicitors. The language in the EA is that which was approved MW-08 "In the event that legal issues were resolved in favor of the by the solicitors. plaintiff…”, because it is presumptuous to assume what court decisions are unlikely. [The EA should] clearly inform readers that the Assessment Clarifying language has been added to the introduction in the EA. “does not assess the potential to all areas of concern that MW-12 could result from mining activities undertaken by Red Flat Nickel Corporation…” [T]his issue has been portrayed as one needed to stop the The commenter is in error: The decision memo for the Red Flat Nickel Red Flat Mining, which is a lawful and permitted operation, Corporation (RFNC) proposed exploratory drilling was not signed prior to and not subject to this withdrawal. segregation, and cannot be signed during segregation or withdrawal, absent a minerals validity examination. Only if an examination were requested and subsequently determined that a discovery of a valuable MW-13 mineral deposit existed on the date of segregation (i.e., the amount and concentration of minerals present would be economically feasible to mine at the value that existed on June 29, 2015) could the decision memo be signed and the plan of operations approved. The company is also currently lacking the necessary permit for water withdrawal needed for the proposed operations. The RFNC operation is not currently permitted

A-8 2015 SW Oregon Mineral Withdrawal Environmental Assessment Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest  Medford & Coos Bay Districts, Bureau of Land Management Comment Comment Response Source(s) and is subject to segregation and withdrawal, unless and until a minerals validity examination determines a valid existing right. Retain recreational mining access. Do not allow this process The Forest Service does not distinguish between “recreational” and [to] be used to deny the public access to a harmless activity “commercial” mining. The term “recreational mining access” is unclear. that many families enjoy. Segregation and withdrawal precludes establishing or accessing mining claims; recreational activities that do not require location of a mining claim MW-13 The alternatives are extremely limited, we would like to see a better range of choices, both in duration of the proposed are not affected by withdrawal. Withdrawal can apply to operation of the actions, but also of activities permitted. We would like to see mining laws, the geothermal and mineral leasing laws, or both. FLPMA an alternative that stops short of full withdrawal. and the regulations at 43 CFR 2310 do not provide for withdrawal of “commercial” mining activity while retaining “recreational” mining activity. There are no claims that have proven valid and economically Mining exploration requires only an active claim, not proof that the claim feasible to date, so no change in environmental conditions in is valid or may be economically developed. the foreseeable future is anticipated. Since that is true, there is Red Flat Nickel Corporation has submitted two plans of operations for no need for the withdrawal. exploratory drilling at the Red Flat Mountain and Cleopatra sites (see Key Issues and Analysis Framework). Without withdrawal, at a minimum, MW-13 these operations would proceed. Many claims exist in the withdrawal areas and, without withdrawal, new claims could be established. Mining activity has occurred in the past, and we have no basis to assume it will not occur in the future, absent a mineral withdrawal. Impacts to public removal of minerals for personal use via Salable minerals, also known as mineral materials, are common varieties permit have not been addressed. This includes aggregate of minerals, such as sand, stone, gravel, pumice, pumicite, cinders, and rock, landscape rock, fireplace rock, retaining wall rock, etc. clay. They are managed under the Materials Act of 1947, rather than MW-13 To go forward with a withdrawal over such a large area under the 1872 Mining Law. Salable minerals may be disposed of either without a provision for this minor and harmless use by the through a contract of sale or a free use permit. They are not affected by citizens in the area is unacceptable. There is no valid reason withdrawal from the mining laws. to prevent the public from having access to this resource. Clarifying language has been added in the Introduction of the EA. Existing claims are not impacted by this EA or legislation. Existing claims may be retained under withdrawal, but can only be Since any changes to the environment from existing claims developed if the claimant can demonstrate that the discovery of a could still occur, the mineral withdrawal doesn’t accomplish valuable mineral deposit occurred prior to segregation (i.e., exploration to MW-13 the primary purpose, so is fundamentally flawed. determine mineral concentrations must have already occurred). Therefore, existing claims are, indeed, impacted by segregation and withdrawal. There are already existing environmental laws, regulations Given that nickel laterite minerals are dispersed through the soil, and that and approval processes in place to protect the environment to retrieve the mineral, the soil must be removed and processed, it is MW-13 from negative environmental impacts from any potential lawful difficult to conceive of project design criteria that would fully mitigate mineral activity. environmental impacts

A-9 2015 SW Oregon Mineral Withdrawal Environmental Assessment Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest  Medford & Coos Bay Districts, Bureau of Land Management Comment Comment Response Source(s) A previous environmental analysis for a mining plan of operations in the withdrawal area concluded that “damage to the valued resources could not be completely avoided if full scale mining (and road access) were implemented…full scale mining would irretrievably alter the character of the landscape and resources.” Withdrawing 101,021 acres from public rights because of Active claims in the proposed withdrawal area currently total 279, and portrayed environmental effects on a very small numbers of absent withdrawal, additional claims could be located. The number of acres of existing claims that are not even affected by this EA acres covered by these claims is not precisely known. or Legislation is arbitrary and capricious. The EA has no effect on mining activity; however, a decision by the Secretary or passage of legislation by Congress enacting withdrawal does affect existing claims. Under withdrawal, these claims can be retained, but may not be developed unless a minerals validity exam determines a valuable mineral discovery was present at the time of MW-13 segregation. Such exams may take two to five years, or more, and often fail to demonstrate a valid existing right. Mineral withdrawal has no effect on salable mineral materials, public access to the area, or any other aspect of land management. Congress has proposed legislation to permanently withdraw these lands with unique and highly-valued ecological and recreational resources from mining. While such legislation is pending, ensuring that the environment is maintained in its current state is neither arbitrary nor capricious, but, rather, comprises sound conservation and resource management. You have not provided a thorough, detailed, quantitative and The Mineral Potential Report (MPR), which forms the basis for the qualitative description of the mineral resources of this area Minerals section of the EA, was prepared by journey-level geologists from and, therefore, the potential effects (including economics) the Forest Service and BLM, and was reviewed by geology and mineral have not been adequately analyzed… experts from the Forest Service Regional Office, the BLM State Office, [T]here has apparently been no, systematic, surface or sub- and the national offices of both agencies. The MPR will be included as a surface mineral exploration of the area (including geophysical separate document in the case file submitted to the Secretary of the MW-14 exploration) in order to adequately determine its’ mineral Interior, along with the EA and other supporting documents. potential. Geophysical exploration includes gravimetric, Southwestern Oregon has been a focus of interest for geologists and magnetic susceptibility, seismic velocity, resistance and miners – federal, state, and private – for many decades. Information in induced polarization, self-potential, and electromagnetic or the report is based on a thorough search of the literature, government gamma ray measurement. reports, and personal experience of the contributors. Subsurface geophysical exploration of the area is beyond the scope of this

assessment. We stand behind the report. The impacts of this withdrawal in conjunction with existing and NEPA regulations require that an agency prepare an EIS for “major MW-14 other, proposed or anticipated, withdrawals constitute a Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human significant federal action that requires an environmental environment (42 U.S.C. §4332(2)(C)). The Forest Service Handbook

A-10 2015 SW Oregon Mineral Withdrawal Environmental Assessment Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest  Medford & Coos Bay Districts, Bureau of Land Management Comment Comment Response Source(s) impact statement. There is no cumulative effects analysis for (FSH 1909.15 Chapter 20) specifies classes of actions normally requiring the effects of withdrawing this 101,000 acre area. an environmental impact statement; withdrawal from the mining and mineral leasing laws is not among them. As stated in the EA, “[t]he purpose of the proposed action is to maintain the current environmental baseline, relative to mining, mineral exploration and development, and geothermal energy development… In maintaining the current environmental baseline, by definition, the environmental effects are insignificant. Because withdrawing from access to mining has no direct effect on the environment, there can be no cumulative effects. In addition, no measurable economic effects to the counties, state, or region are anticipated. Based on the EA, we come to a finding of no significant impact, therefore, an EIS is not warranted. Withdrawing this area further limits the economic opportunities The current and proposed mineral exploration activity has a negligible within Josephine and Curry Counties… effect on the economy of Josephine and Curry Counties. According to a recent analysis of economic contributions for 2014 from Rogue River- Siskiyou NF lands, the contribution to the recreation economy is more than 14 times that of minerals and energy. MW-14, MW-15 Just as we cannot speculate about the environmental impacts of hypothetical full-scale mining, we cannot speculate about the economic benefits. However, many local governments, businesses, and individuals assert that the wild character, outstanding waters, and fisheries associated with the withdrawal area form the basis of their economies and that current economies would be threatened by extensive mining. Despite this action being called a TEMPORARY withdrawal, it If Congress passes legislation to permanently withdraw the area, it will be MW-14 will, for all intents and purposes, be a PERMANENT a permanent withdrawal. However, only Congress, not the agencies, can withdrawal. enact a permanent withdrawal. The area contains significant amounts of nickel and chromite, Nickel is currently being produced in northern Michigan, and an additional strategic metals that are currently imported from other nickel mine is expected to start production in northern Minnesota. If a countries. If supplies from those foreign countries were to be critical shortage occurs in the future, Congress could re-open the areas MW-15 cut off, we would need these domestic sources… If the areas for mineral development. The ease or difficulty of such a change would were to be withdrawn permanently, it might be very hard to re- depend on political and socio-economic factors at the time, which are open them again, should these resources be needed. currently unknowable.

A-11 2015 SW Oregon Mineral Withdrawal Environmental Assessment Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest  Medford & Coos Bay Districts, Bureau of Land Management Comment Comment Response Source(s) The following comments provide additional information, without raising specific issues regarding the analysis in the EA. We accept these comments at face-value and thank the commenters for their additional information. Some of the more salient comments are excerpted below. Lands within the withdrawal areas have exceptionally high and unique scientific, social, and ecological values that are incompatible with nickel laterite mining. Many commenters reiterated unique characteristics described in the EA (e.g., highest plant biodiversity in Oregon, exceptional water quality), provided additional information, and highlighted the national and international significance of the area. The Rough and Ready Creek and Baldface Creek proposed withdrawal area shares an approximately 20-mile common boundary with the Kalmiopsis Wilderness. The withdrawal area’s southern boundary is directly adjacent to and downstream of the Smith River National Recreation Area, sharing an approximately 14 mile common boundary. Therefore the proposed withdrawal, will benefit the Kalmiopsis MW-01, MW-03, Wilderness and the Smith River National Recreation Area. The Rough and Ready Creek and Baldface Creek withdrawal area and the MW-04, MW-07 adjacent congressionally protected and unprotected National Forest lands form watersheds, which provide exceptionally clean and clear domestic water supplies to many thousands of residents in Southwest Oregon and Northwest California. These three areas together are home or headwaters to three National Wild and Scenic Rivers, each with outstandingly remarkable wild salmon and steelhead runs (world- class), water quality and recreation and scenic values. While part of a larger ecological landscape and region, the exceptional conservation values of the two withdrawal areas are justification enough for withdrawal. The two proposed withdrawal areas include: • Nine special designated botanical reserves (and one that’s been proposed); • 6.5 miles of the National Wild and Scenic North Fork Smith River; • Two USFS Eligible Wild and Scenic Rivers (Baldface Creek and Rough and Ready Creek; MW-01, MW-03 • Approximately 148 miles of streams (including pristine to near pristine habitat for sensitive or threatened species); • All or a large part of two USFS Inventoried Roadless Areas (South Kalmiopsis and Packsaddle); • The USFS proposed 34,153 acre South Kalmiopsis Wilderness Addition with additional adjacent lands found to have high wilderness character; • Numerous rare plant wetlands known Serpentine Darlingtonia Fens that are subject to a United State Fish and Wildlife Service Conservation Agreement. Surface disturbance from mining represents a long-term degradation to the visual and ecological values of the unique serpentine terrain of MW-01, MW-05 Southwest Oregon and Northwest California. [M]aintaining vegetative cover is important for serpentine substrates because they are highly erosive and contain high concentrations of toxic heavy metals and asbestos. The presence of numerous seeps and springs and the rare plant wetlands they support are a dramatic outward expression of groundwater’s influence in the unique hydrogeologic setting of the North Fork Smith River watershed. The rare plant wetlands (serpentine Darlingtonia fens) support a unique assemblage of water-dependent species. [D]ewatering of shallow aquifers that are connected to MW-01 surface water bodies can have a significant detrimental effect and that mineral substances like asbestos, nickel, chromium—all of which are known to be present in the area’s nickel laterite soils—can pose a threat to groundwater. (Commenters note that these statements also apply to the Rough and Ready watershed.)

A-12 2015 SW Oregon Mineral Withdrawal Environmental Assessment Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest  Medford & Coos Bay Districts, Bureau of Land Management Comment Comment Response Source(s) [T]he Klamath Siskiyou region was included in the World Wildlife Fund’s assessment of the 200 locations most important for species diversity worldwide. The region is particularly rich in plant species, including many pockets of endemic communities and some of the most diverse plant communities in the world. For example, there are more kinds of cone-bearing trees found in the Klamath Mountains MW-05, MW-06 ecoregion than anywhere else in North America. In all, there are about 4000 native plants in Oregon, and about half of these are found in the the Klamath Mountains ecoregion. The ecoregion is noted as an Area of Global Botanical Significance (one of only seven in North America) and world “Center of Plant Diversity” by the World Conservation Union. The ecoregion boasts many unique invertebrates, although many of these are not as well studied as their plant counterparts. Effects of full-scale nickel laterite mining cannot be fully or adequately mitigated; existing regulations cannot adequately protect the resource. No current proposals for full-scale nickel mining are currently under consideration (and thus full-scale mining is not currently seen as a reasonably foreseeable action). Commenters cite information from previous NEPA documents (EIS’s and/or RODs) for full-scale mining proposals to elucidate the potential impacts of nickel mining, should it ever occur. Comments that are reasonably applicable to the withdrawal area are those that cite local examples of nickel mining, a sample of such comments is listed below. While not legitimately applicable to the analysis of the temporary mineral withdrawal vs. current exploratory drilling proposals, we accept these comments as generally applicable to the theoretical potential for full-scale mining. Examples are given below. Comments regarding mining of a different nature or in very different environments (e.g., recent mining waste releases into the Animas River or the Rio Dolce) are not pertinent to this analysis because comparable tailings ponds do not currently exist, nor are they likely in the futureS. [T]he Forest Service's surface management regulations do not provide adequate protection from prospecting disturbance, mining operations or mineral patent. The agencies’ position is that surface management regulations have no provisions for disapproving mineral related operations or activities that are authorized under the Mining Law of 1872. Under the regulations, disturbance cannot be eliminated MW-01, MW-05 only minimized. The Nicore ROD makes this clear. The Nicore Record of Decision acknowledges that damage to the “extremely high scientific,social and ecological values” found in the Rough and Ready Creek project area could not be avoided if full-scale mining (and road access) were implemented, even with mitigation. While there’s been no mineral production in the proposed withdrawal areas, mining activities have significantly and adversely impacted otherwise pristine landscapes and streams. For example, a bulldozed mining track up a beautiful tributary of Rough and Ready Creek has MW-01 led to severe erosion. During winter storms the road became a stream channel eventually diverting the stream itself. Most of the historic handmade pack trail to Alberg Plateau was destroyed by the bulldozing of steep mining tracks… [D]amage to the valued resources could not be completely avoided if full scale mining (and road access) were implemented…full scale mining would irretrievably alter the character of the landscape and resources. [Quoted from Nicore Mining Plan of Operations ROD] MW-03 The intent of the mineral exploration is to gather information needed to develop actual mines with attending networks of ore haul roads and mine facilities in pristine areas. Mining of nickel, or other hard rock minerals – regardless of the method of extraction – threatens to devastate water quality, aquatic and terrestrial habitat, recreational opportunities, botanical diversity, native fisheries, rare wildlife, heritage and archaeological resources, and the vistas that draw all of us to this region. The best available scientific information indicates that increased mining activities are incompatible with maintenance of high quality MW-07 anadromous fish populations in the region.

MW-11 The extraction of minerals associated with metal mining generates large amounts of waste, which creates the potential for significant releases of sediments or contaminants into adjacent waterways. The Klamath geologic province, which encompasses all of the area in

A-13 2015 SW Oregon Mineral Withdrawal Environmental Assessment Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest  Medford & Coos Bay Districts, Bureau of Land Management Comment Comment Response Source(s) southwest Oregon included in the proposed mineral withdrawal, is very erosive and prone to landslides. Siting a large-scale metal mining operation in this area would pose great risk to the fishery resources in southwest Oregon. Support and rationale for the 20-year withdrawal alternative. The majority of comments in support of withdrawal favored the 20-year timeframe. Rationale for the extended timeframe was provided in various letters. Examples are given below. Note that the recommendation to the Secretary will be provided from the Regional Forester and BLM State Director through the BLM National Director. Examples of comments are provided for these higher-level officials consideration. Officials of the Rogue River-Siskiyou NF and Medford and Coos Bay BLM Districts are not the recommending officers for this case. A 5-year mineral withdrawal may not provide adequate time for Congress to fully consider permanent protection for these areas. MW-05, MW-06, Congress is unable to pass legislation in the foreseeable future and needs additional time to achieve long-term protections for the area. MW-07 Such legislation is not currently moving even with overwhelming local support, due to greater political posturing over public lands issues among the parties. Non-mining aspects of the economy, specifically natural resource based recreation and tourism, would be negatively affected by full-scale mining development, and will benefit from predictability and stability resulting from mineral withdrawal. We cannot make any realistic assessment of the economic impacts of a theoretical full-scale mining development on current tourism-based businesses. However, we acknowledge the values and concerns expressed in the following comments. We are making lemonade economically by working on building a successful tourism economy that embraces the “wild” in the wilderness and wild rivers that surround us. Nickel mining—anywhere—but specifically HERE would be catastrophic to that tourism economy… Those MW-09 extraction activities scar and pollute the surrounding areas and bring ZERO income to the locals that are affected by the devastation… Help us preserve our fragile tourism economy. Help us to preserve the wild areas that make us America’s Wild Rivers Coast. Withdraw these areas from consideration for mineral extraction.

A-14