United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Sunset Consolidated (China Bar) Placer Mining Environmental Assessment
Mt. Hough Ranger District, Plumas National Forest, Plumas County, California December, 2013
+ For More Information Contact:
Michael A. Donald c/o Donna Duncan Mt. Hough Ranger District 39696 Highway 70 Quincy, CA 95971 Phone: 530-283-0555 Email: [email protected] Fax: 530-283-1821 Cover photo: Project area. Photo by Donna Duncan, 10/3/12
Non-Discrimination Policy The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination against its customers, employees, and applicants for employment on the bases of race, color, national origin, age, disability, sex, gender identity, religion, reprisal, and where applicable, political beliefs, marital status, familial or parental status, sexual orientation, or all or part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program, or protected genetic information in employment or in any program or activity conducted or funded by the Department. (Not all prohibited bases will apply to all programs and/or employment activities.)
To File an Employment Complaint If you wish to file an employment complaint, you must contact your agency's EEO Counselor (PDF) within 45 days of the date of the alleged discriminatory act, event, or in the case of a personnel action. Additional information can be found online at www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_file.html.
To File a Program Complaint If you wish to file a Civil Rights program complaint of discrimination, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form (PDF), found online at www.ascr.usda.gov/ complaint_filing_cust.html, or at any USDA office, or call (866) 632-9992 to request the form. You may also write a letter containing all of the information requested in the form. Send your completed complaint form or letter to us by mail at U.S. Department of Agriculture, Director, Office of Adjudication, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, by fax (202) 690-7442 or email at [email protected].
Persons with Disabilities Individuals who are deaf, hard of hearing or have speech disabilities and you wish to file either an EEO or program complaint please contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339 or (800) 845-6136 (in Spanish). Persons with disabilities who wish to file a program complaint, please see information above on how to contact us by mail directly or by email. If you require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) please contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720- 2600 (voice and TDD).
ii Mt. Hough Ranger District, Plumas National Forest
Contents Non-Discrimination Policy ...... ii To File an Employment Complaint ...... ii To File a Program Complaint ...... ii Persons with Disabilities ...... ii Contents ...... 1 Introduction ...... 2 Background ...... 2 Proposed Project Location ...... 2 Need for the Proposal ...... 3 Decision Framework ...... 4 Land Management Direction...... 4 Public Involvement and Tribal Consultation ...... 7 Proposed Action and Alternatives ...... 8 No-Action Alternative ...... 8 Proposed Action ...... 8 Comparison of Alternatives ...... 11 Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action and Alternatives...... 12 Alternative 1 – No Action ...... 13 Alternative 2 – Proposed Action ...... 13 Finding of No Significant Impact ...... 16 Context ...... 16 Intensity ...... 16
List of Tables
Table 1: Comparison of Alternatives Chart ……………………………………………………..12
List of Figures Figure 1: Vicinity Map, Northern California...... 2 Figure 2: Project Location Map T26N, R7E, Sec 19 ...... 3
1 Sunset Consolidated (China Bar) Placer Mining
Introduction The Forest Service is preparing to approve a mining operation on less than one acre of land. This operation is proposed to be implemented on the Mt. Hough Ranger District of the Plumas National Forest.
We prepared this environmental assessment (EA) to determine whether implementation of placer mining activities may significantly affect the quality of the human environment and thereby require the preparation of an environmental impact statement. By preparing this EA, we are fulfilling agency policy and direction to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). For more details of the proposed action, see the Proposed Action and Alternatives section of this document. Background The Sunset Consolidated Mining claim has been held by the current claimant and his partners since 1990. The claim had been mined under a Plan of Operations (PoO) submitted and carried out by Robert Zito. After Mr. Zito passed away, Mr. Robert Johns took over operations at the site, performing needed reclamation and cleanup. Mr. Johns submitted a new PoO for the “China Bar Placer” project in spring of 2012. The proposed PoO would authorize placer mining, over a two year period, utilizing an excavator to continue to excavate the existing pit in order to extract locatable minerals. Excavated material would be processed through a trommel and sluice box set up on adjacent private land, utilizing water pumped from an existing pond located on the mining claim. This Environmental Assessment (EA) is conducted in an effort to identify resource concerns associated with implementation of this proposed PoO. Mitigation of these resource concerns has been incorporated into the proposal and will be included in the Plan of Operations Conditions of Approval. Proposed Project Location The Sunset Consolidated Placer mining claim occupies an area within the small hamlet of Seneca, California, in Township 26 North, Range 7 East, Section 19, Mount Diablo Base & Meridian.
Figure 1: Vicinity Map, Northern California
↓China Bar ⃝
2 Mt. Hough Ranger District, Plumas National Forest
Access to the claim is off State Highway 89 west of Canyon Dam, then south on County Road 306, also known as the Seneca Road. From the Seneca Road, about two miles west of Seneca, the access is along forest road 26N32Y, which passes through private land, then crosses the river to the claim. (Figure 2) Much of the claim area was burned in the 2012 Chips fire. Subsequent rains caused massive debris flows which changed the course of the river. However, there were no changes to the area proposed for mining.
Figure 2: Project Location Map T26N, R7E, Sec 19
Butt Valley Reservoir To Seneca
О
North Fork Feather River
О = Location of proposed mining
Need for the Proposal An individual seeks to discover the mineral potential of his mining claim, which is located on National Forest System lands. He has submitted a Plan of Operations to obtain authorization for the surface disturbance associated with the exploration methods he will use to extract the locatable1 minerals. These activities include use of an excavator to remove the material, use and
1 Locatable minerals include metallic minerals (gold, silver, lead, copper, zinc, nickel, etc.), nonmetallic minerals (fluorspar, mica, certain limestones and gypsum, tantalum, heavy minerals in placer form, and gemstones) and certain uncommon variety minerals.
3 Sunset Consolidated (China Bar) Placer Mining maintenance of a non-system road and gate, and use of an existing holding pond to draft water for processing.
According to Code of Federal Regulations (36 CFR 228; Subpart A), the forest must provide a timely response to a proposed Plan of Operations. In order to provide this response and determine reasonable changes, modifications and/or mitigations to the submitted proposal, we have evaluated the proposal in this Environmental Assessment.
According to the 1988 Plumas National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, as amended, the Forest Service must encourage mineral exploration and development that reasonably protects surface resources and provides for land reclamation. The purpose of this specific analysis is to determine if the proposed Plan of Operations can be approved with accompanying design features and mitigations required to protect surface resources, or if the Plan cannot be approved at all because it is contrary to law or regulation.
Decision Framework The deciding official for this proposal is the Mt. Hough District Ranger of the Plumas National Forest (PNF). This Environmental Assessment (EA) serves to disclose the environmental consequences of no-action and the proposed China Bar Placer Plan of Operations with mitigations. The deciding official will decide whether to approve the proposal with recommended mitigations or deny operations as proposed. The Forest Service cannot deny a locatable mineral Plan of Operations where the proposed activities are reasonably incident to mining and would comply with other Federal laws. The deciding official will also determine whether a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) can be issued, or whether this project would result in significant impacts and would hence compel preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
Although the approval of a Plan of Operations is not a discretionary action, the deciding official is legally bound to provide for resource protection without unreasonably inhibiting or restricting the activities of miners and/or prospectors. The ensuing Decision Notice (DN) linked to this EA would NOT directly result in the approval of the claimant’s Plan of Operations (PoO). Rather, the decision notice (DN) would fulfill legal requirements and provide rationale for establishing reasonable mitigations to be incorporated into the PoO, such as fire prevention, hazmat spill requirements, reclamation, posting of a bond and compliance with other Federal, State and Local regulations. The China Bar Placer PoO would be authorized subsequently when signed by the deciding official, contingent upon the claimant’s willingness to comply with the requirements of the Agency’s decision.
Land Management Direction The Mining Law of 1872, as amended, governs the prospecting for and appropriation of metallic and nonmetallic minerals on federally owned lands. Under the Forest Service, Organic Administrative Act of June 4, 1897, 30 Stat. 35, as amended, the law specifically did not reserve the Forests from the mining laws:
4 Mt. Hough Ranger District, Plumas National Forest
“Nor shall anything herein prohibit any person from entering upon such Forest Reservations for all proper and lawful purposes, including that of prospecting, locating, and developing the mineral resources thereof.”
Since the mineral estate in National Forest System lands is not “reserved” within the meaning of the 1897 Organic Act, the Secretary of the Interior maintains jurisdiction, acting through the Bureau of Land Management, to provide for the management of mineral resources. The mining laws are comprised of two parts: (1) the statutes themselves, which are general in nature; and (2) the decisions of the courts and of the Department of the Interior, which interpret and apply the statutes to specific cases (FSM, Title 2800 – Minerals and Geology, subsection 2819).
The Multiple Use Mining Act of 1955 authorized multiple uses of surface resources on mining claims, resulting in the Locatable Minerals Surface Management Regulations (36 CFR 228 Subpart A). Although regulations do not constitute a permit to explore or mine, as that is already a statutory right, they do provide that such activities be conducted to protect non-mineral values of National Forest System lands against unnecessary or unreasonable damage (36 CFR 228, Subpart A – Locatable Minerals).
As directed under 36 CFR 228.8, Requirements for Environmental Protection:
“All Plans of Operation shall contain appropriate Terms and Conditions for the protection of the environment, including but not limited to stipulations covering air quality, water quality, solid wastes, scenic values, fishery habitat, roads and surface reclamation and rehabilitation.”
In the subsequent Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, Congress declared that it is the continuing policy of the Federal Government, in the national interest, to foster and encourage private enterprise in the development of economically sound and stable industries, and in the orderly and economic development of domestic mineral resources to help assure satisfaction of industrial, security, and environmental needs. In the case United States v. Weiss, 642 F.2d 296, 299 (1981), the Ninth Circuit declared there is nothing in the 36 Code of Federal Regulations which authorizes the Forest Service to prohibit the claimant’s right to the possession and enjoyment of their claims, or to encroach impermissibly upon those rights, by circumscribing their use in a manner that amounts to a prohibition.
The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) of 1976 (which amended The Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974) requires the maintenance and protection of the productivity of the land and, where appropriate, the improvement of the quality of soil and water resources. The Act specifies that substantial and permanent impairment of productivity must be avoided.
The Plumas National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (PNF LRMP) (USDA 1988), as amended by the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (SNFPA) Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and Record of Decision (ROD) (USDA 2004a, 2004b) establishes standards and guidelines for protection and maintenance of Forest soils, watersheds, water quality, and water supply. These standards and guidelines are applied as Best Management Practices (BMPs),
5 Sunset Consolidated (China Bar) Placer Mining
Streamside Management Zones (SMZs) (per guidelines in Appendix M of the PNF LRMP) and Riparian Conservation Areas (RCAs). The 2004 SNFPA ROD (Appendix A; section D) outlines the Standards and Guidelines for project design and implementation to ensure that Riparian Conservation objectives are met within RCAs, based on the nature of the waterway or feature.
Critical Aquatic Refuges (CARs) are sub-watersheds that have locations of threatened, endangered, or sensitive species, highly vulnerable populations of native plant or animal species, or localized populations of rare native aquatic- or riparian-dependent plant or animal species. Specific management direction for CARs is outlined in the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (SNFPA) Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and Record of Decision (ROD) (USDA 2004a, 2004b).
The 1988 PNF LRMP (pages 4-46 through 4-47) provides for encouraging mineral and materials development that reasonably protects surface resources, and provides for land reclamation. Further requirements for inspections, monitoring, reclamation, and guidelines for road use and vegetation management are outlined in the 2004 SNFPA FEIS ROD (pages 58-59).
The Clean Water Act (CWA) of 1948 (as amended in 1972 and 1987) establishes, as Federal policy, the control of both point and non-point source pollution and assigns to the states the primary responsibility of governing water quality. All Plans of Operation are subject to CWA standards.
Non-point source pollution on the Plumas National Forest is managed through the water quality management program contained in “Water Quality Management for Forest System Lands in California” (USDA Forest Service September 2000). This document describes Forest Service practices and procedures for protection of water quality and contains the 1981 Management Agency Agreement (MAA) between the California State Water Resources Control Board (CSWRCB) and the USDA, Forest Service. The State Board has designated the Forest Service as the management agency for all activities on National Forest lands and the MAA constitutes the basis of regional waivers for non-point source pollution. All Plans of Operation are reviewed by the CSWRCB for compliance with the Clean Water Act. Communications from the State water board are part of the project record located at the Mt. Hough Ranger District.
The Forest Service water quality protection program relies on implementation of prescribed best management practices (BMPs). Best Management Practices are procedures, techniques, and mitigation measures that are incorporated in project actions and have been determined by the state to be the most effective, practicable means of preventing or reducing the amount of pollution generated by nonpoint sources to a level compatible with water quality goals. All mining operations authorized under a Plan of Operations are required to comply with Best Management Practices. Random evaluations are conducted on operations each year to evaluate the operation for sediment transport and deposition, signs of erosion, and improper refuse or waste disposal.
The Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 (SMARA) was enacted by the California Legislature to address the need for a continuing supply of mineral resources, and to prevent or minimize the negative impacts of surface mining to public health, property and the environment. The Act's requirements apply to anyone engaged in surface mining operations in California
6 Mt. Hough Ranger District, Plumas National Forest
(including those on federally managed lands) which disturb more than one acre of land or more than 1,000 cubic yards of material.
Public Involvement and Tribal Consultation The proposal was listed in the Schedule of Proposed Actions from September 2012 to the present time. The proposal was also provided to the public and other agencies for comments and input during scoping, published in the Feather River Bulletin on August 15th, 2012. In addition, as part of the public involvement process, the Forest Service notified the following local tribal agencies:
Susanville Indian Rancheria Greenville Indian Rancheria Concow Maidu Tribe Mechoopda Indian Tribe Tyme Maidu Tribe of Berry Creek Rancheria Estom Yumeka Tribe of Enterprise
No comments were received from the public during scoping.
The California Dept. of Fish & Game (CADFG)2, and the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (CVRWQCB) were also notified of the project. These agencies reviewed the proposal for compliance with water quality standards enforced by each agency.
The following Forest Service specialists were also consulted: Kelby Gardiner - Hydrologist Colin Dillingham - Wildlife Biologist Cristina Weinberg - Archeologist James Belsher-Howe - Botanist Donna Duncan – Forest Minerals Administrator Leslie Edlund –Minerals Assistant Katherine Carpenter – NEPA Planner
2 Now called the California Department of Fish & Wildlife
7 Sunset Consolidated (China Bar) Placer Mining
Proposed Action and Alternatives A no-action alternative and the proposed action with mitigation/design features were considered: No-Action Alternative The No-Action Alternative acts as a baseline to describe the existing environmental and social setting, by which the predicted effects of the proposed action may be compared.
Under the No-Action Alternative, current management plans would continue to guide management of the project area. Without an approved plan, the mining claimant could conduct activities allowed under 36 CFR 228.4; limited to using vehicles on approved system roads, searching for and occasionally removing small mineral samples, prospecting and sampling while not causing any significant surface resource disturbance, marking and monumenting the claim, and conducting subsurface operations which would not cause surface resource disturbance.
Since the past Plan of Operations expired and a new Plan of Operations was submitted to replace the expired Plan, selection of the No Action Alternative would mean that the claimant would need to complete final reclamation under the terms of the last plan. This means that there would be some activity at the site to return it to a more natural state and reverse some of the effects of previous mining activities.
Proposed Action The proposed action represents the Plan of Operations for the China Bar Placer Project, as submitted by Mr. Johns. Any required mitigation measures or design features are also included in the proposed action and would be applied to the Plan of Operations, in the attachment called “Conditions of Approval” (COAs). The Plan of Operations form (OMB No. 0596-0022) includes a section that allows the Forest Service to respond to the proponent’s proposal. COA’s are the format for this Forest Service response and include not only the mitigations and design features identified here, but other conditions required to protect the environment, such as fire prevention and hazmat spill prevention measures.
Activities proposed include excavation of one test pit (less than 1000 cubic yards) with an excavator. Waste material would be stockpiled near the pit. Material to be processed would be transported by dump truck to adjacent private land where the material would be processed through a trommel and sluice box to recover gold. The existing excavation pit is approximately 150 feet above the North Fork of the Feather River at the end of an access road. Processing water would be pumped from a drafting pond on federal land that has been in place for many years. Water would be transported through a two inch pipe approximately 200 feet in length to the processing area located on adjacent private land. Waste water from the processing would be discharged back to a settling pond on private land. After processing, waste material (soil, sand, rocks) would be replaced back into the pit. Residential occupancy would be on the adjacent private land near the processing area. Use of private land minimizes the surface disturbance on federal land.
8 Mt. Hough Ranger District, Plumas National Forest
Additional work would include the completion of a water crossing just west of the excavation pit along the pit access road. This will include construction of a rock ford where a spring above the road creates a stream crossing. This has been approved in a Streambed Alteration Agreement, #1600-2012-0125-R2, issued by the California Department of Fish and Game on March 26, 2013 (a copy of which is in the project file).
The excavator would be moved onto the pit site when operations commence in the spring and left there until operations are completed in the fall. This will limit the number of times the excavator must cross the rock ford. Material would be transported from the test pit to the processing area by dump truck. Other mining equipment that would be on site while operating includes a dump truck, water pump, and personal vehicles. The dump truck and personal vehicles would be parked on private property when not in use.
Fuel would be brought in by pickup truck in 50 gallon barrels and stored on the private land. Hazardous materials that may be used on site include substances needed for equipment operation and include diesel, oil, grease and antifreeze. Spill precautions as well as fire precautions would be incorporated into the Conditions of Approval.
This proposal also includes authorization for continued use of an existing gate along FS Road 26N32Y, and use of the portion of the access road that is on NFS land. Use of the portion of the road on private land must be arranged by the operator.
This proposed operation is estimated to take two years to complete. Seasonal operations would occur between May and November depending upon weather conditions. Annual reclamation would include removal of all equipment from federal land, replacement of waste material to the pit and erosion control measures for the pit and access road, no later than November 15.
All operations under this PoO would be concluded within two years from date of approval. Final reclamation would include: removal of all equipment, filling in the test pit completely, grading to natural topography, re-vegetation of the excavated area and roads in the work area, using weed free mulches and seed sources, and restoration of the area to natural conditions.
A reclamation bond equivalent to the actual cost of reclamation would be held in accordance with 36 CFR 228.13. The bond is subject to annual evaluation to reflect changes in operations and reclamation costs.
Design features/mitigations identified during internal scoping:
Botanical Resources To prevent the establishment or spread of invasive species or noxious weeds during operations, all off road equipment would be washed prior to entering the Forest. Staging of equipment would be in weed free areas. Equipment operating in areas known to be infested with noxious weeds would be washed prior to leaving the infested area. Mulches, gravel, or fill used in the project, if any, would be certified weed free.
9 Sunset Consolidated (China Bar) Placer Mining
Topsoil would be stockpiled for use in re-vegetation. Topsoil would be covered during winter months to prevent erosion and weed growth. Re-vegetation efforts would use native seed from local sources.
During reclamation, the site would be checked by District botany staff to ensure that Forest priority invasive plants or noxious weeds have not become established. If any such species have become established, district staff would outline control measures as part of site reclamation.
Wildlife Resources Past mining operations have created ponds for water drafting and settling of sediment. The ponds currently have shallow slopes, which allow ingress and egress of wildlife, and there is no plan to modify the ponds with excavation. The operator should maintain at least one access point to the ponds, preferably with the slope not exceeding 50% (maximum 70% slope) to allow ingress and egress of wildlife. No other protection or mitigation measures are required for wildlife resources.
Heritage Resources Ten acres of the Sunset Consolidated claim were inventoried for heritage resources in 1994. No heritage resources were located. The project area is highly disturbed by long term placer mining, with no obvious historic features on site. Work must be confined to previously disturbed areas.
Soil and Hydrological Resources Incorporation of the following operational guidelines would help minimize the risk of soil erosion and degraded water quality resulting from the proposed mining activities: Back fill (reclamation) of pits should be roughly sorted, with some larger diameter rock material placed at the surface to decrease the amount of fine sediment available for potential transport during periods of high flow. Appropriate road drainage features (water bars or rolling dips) should be installed every 75 ft. (except for relatively flat, <5 percent slope, portions of the road) on all reconstructed access roads to allow runoff to be discharged from the road surface. An inside ditch shall be installed to preserve water quality and to effectively transport spring runoff along the access road with a cross drain to discharge spring flow in the NFFR. A 2.0 millimeter mesh screen shall be employed on the intake hose if water is to be pumped directly from the North Fork Feather River (NFFR) to ensure that aquatic biota is not negatively impacted. Wash plant runoff or any other project created waste water will not flowing directly into North Fork Feather River. Backhoe, water pump, and fuel containers will be regularly inspected for leaks. Drip pans or absorbent pads shall be used during fueling. Erosion control measures will be addressed utilizing Best Management Practices (BMP) and standards and guidelines related to mining operations to ensure that water quality is
10 Mt. Hough Ranger District, Plumas National Forest
adequately protected during and after implementation. (BMP’s are found in the Hydrology and Soils Specialist Report, and will become part of the COAs)
Minerals Administration Evaluation of Proposed Operation Long term occupancy of the site: The claimant has requested that the excavator be left on site for the operating season (approx. May-October). According to the Multiple Use Mining Act of 1955 and Forest Service Manual 2813.2 (8), mining claims will not be used “for any purposes other than prospecting, mining, or processing operations and uses reasonably incident thereto.” The claimant lives one hour’s drive from the claim. However, the route to the claim is rough and it would be difficult to transport equipment back and forth. Therefore, it is reasonable to store the heavy equipment on site for the duration of the mining season. The operator has permission from the private land owner to set up camp on the private land. (Use of private land minimizes the surface use of federal lands.) Camping gear should not be stored on the claim. All equipment, fuel, and personal items should be removed from the claim at the end of each season as part of seasonal and final reclamation.
Regular inspections of the site would be implemented to ensure that mining activities fall within the scope of the Plan of Operations and Conditions of Approval.
Compliance with State and Local Agency Regulations Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 (SMARA): This operation falls under the SMARA threshold.
A Streambed Alteration Agreement was required from the California Department of Fish & Game. The Agreement was submitted and approved, and is currently in place.
A determination that Waste Discharge Requirements would not be required was received from the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Comparison of Alternatives This section provides a summary of the effects of implementing each alternative. Information in the table is focused on activities and effects where different levels of effects or outputs can be distinguished quantitatively or qualitatively among alternatives.
11 Sunset Consolidated (China Bar) Placer Mining
Table 1. Comparison of Alternatives Chart.
Alternative 1 Alternative 2
No Action Proposed Action
Would not meet purpose and Would meet purpose and need by need. authorizing placer mining exploration. No negative effects to botanical, No long term effects to botanical, cultural, fire, fuels, and air cultural, fire, fuels, and air quality, quality, forest vegetation, or forest vegetation, or wildlife resources wildlife resources. as long as Conditions of Approval are adhered to. No further soil compaction and displacement by heavy Limited short term soil and hydrology equipment will occur. impacts from project activities may occur but resources would recover Noxious weeds would have less over time. potential to be introduced or spread throughout the area. Improves opportunities for mining exploration. Does not meet Forest Plan (PNF LRMP) minerals Inspections and monitoring required. development goals. Inspections required.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action and Alternatives This section summarizes the physical, biological, social and economic environments of the affected project area and the potential changes to those environments due to implementation of the alternatives. It also presents the scientific and analytical basis for comparison of alternatives presented in the chart above.
The analysis area of this project includes the specific areas where mining will occur as well as the access to the site. The wildlife analysis also includes a ¼ mile buffer surrounding the project area. The Hydrology and soils analysis considered the surrounding watershed (Muggins Creek). In our analysis we considered direct and indirect effects of the proposed action as well as cumulative effects of past actions.
The project area is historically used for mining and currently used primarily for mining and fishing. The Chips Fire recently burned in and around the area. Due to this fire, there are salvage timber projects planned and ongoing in the area.
There are several other known active mining projects in the area. However, none of these would contribute any cumulative effects, as each project is small scale, low impact and contained within each site. When mining is allowed and minerals are extracted, there is an irreversible commitment of those ores removed.
12 Mt. Hough Ranger District, Plumas National Forest
Alternative 1 – No Action The No Action alternative would result in no direct or indirect effects to botanical, cultural, fire, fuels, water and air quality, forest vegetation, or wildlife resources. There would be no cumulative effects of the No Action alternative. Effects from past mining activities include soil disturbance, lack of vegetation from previous mining and continued use of the access road for equipment and vehicle travel. Final reclamation required by the last Plan of Operations has not been completed due to the submission of the new plan. Under the No Action alternative, the claimant would need to complete final reclamation under the past Plan in order to restore the area to a natural condition. Therefore, removal of equipment, as well as reclamation of the pit and access roads would take place now, with no continuation of mining. The Plumas Land and Resource Management Plan goals of encouraging mineral and materials development would not be achieved under this alternative.
Alternative 2 – Proposed Action The Proposed Action would meet statutory requirements under the General Mining Law of 1872 while also meeting resource protection goals established under The Organic Act and the Locatable Minerals Surface Management Regulations (36 CFR 228 Subpart A). Short term disturbance would occur, but no indirect or cumulative effects are expected. Limited short term effects to resources would be mitigated as outlined above. Mining operations would be subject to ongoing inspections and monitoring.
Water Quality and Soils: The Muggins Creek watershed was selected as the watershed analysis area for the China Bar Placer Mining Project. Elevation ranges from 6,339 feet on Rush Creek Hill to 3,200 feet at the confluence of Butt Creek with North Fork Feather River. According to the Plumas National Forest corporate GIS stream layer, there are 32.9 miles of stream within the Muggins Creek watershed, see Error! Reference source not found. for additional information. Alder and big-leaf maple make up most of the riparian vegetation; black cottonwood and willow is also present at lower elevations. Upland vegetation is classified by montane hardwood (black oak and canyon live oak) and sierra mixed conifer forest types. Scattered rock outcrops and mine tailings classified as barren land also are also present within the project watershed.
The soil analysis area is confined to the proposed mining area (0.1 acre). Flood deposits are the primary material proposed for processing under the China Bar Placer Mining Project; specifically sand, gravel and cobbles transported as bed load by the North Fork Feather River (NFFR) and upstream tributaries. Soils of the surrounding area are made up of fractured shales and schists, weathered greenstone and andesitic tuff breccia. Just under half of the Muggins Creek watershed, or 1333 acres, possesses slopes in excess of 40 percent; consequently talus and other gravitational debris are common and would make up some of the material proposed for mining. Soil cover (fine organic matter and coarse woody debris) is scarce within the soil analysis area. Mature conifers and riparian vegetation scorched by the Chips fire that burned during the fall of 2012 have deposited, and will continue to deposit, leaf litter and woody debris. Large woody debris concentrations are below recommended levels, likely due to past land disturbances as well as the
13 Sunset Consolidated (China Bar) Placer Mining fact that the area in question is a flood plain with stream flows regulated by Canyon Dam (Lake Almanor). The Chips fire (2012) burned nearly the entire Muggins Creek watershed, though only 9 acres burned at high soil burn severity (SBS). Moderate SBS accounted for 712 acres, 1556 acres burned at low severity, and the remaining 795 acres were classified as very low/unburned.
Although compaction hazard rating is low due to the cobbly nature of the floodplain, equipment used to excavate and transport material would increase the areal extent of compaction, consequently decreasing infiltration rates and potentially inhibiting vegetative growth. Soil and organic material present would be somewhat displaced by equipment traffic, likely leading to increased potential for erosion and subsequent sediment delivery to the North Fork Feather River in the event of an intense rainstorm. Soil buffering capacity and moisture retention would also be impacted by the displacement of the duff layer. Erosion control measures would be addressed utilizing Best Management Practices (BMP) and standards and guidelines related to mining operations to ensure that water quality is adequately protected during and after implementation.
The project area is within the boundary of the 2012 Chips Fire. Fire effects are expected to recover each year of the project. Alternative 2 is expected to increase soil compaction and erosion, but the results would be well within the acceptable range. There is a very low risk of project induced cumulative watershed effects.
Botanical Resources: Due to past surveys under the former operator, and recent surveys in the area (2012), no site specific surveys were conducted. District records and maps were researched. No sensitive or special interest plant species are known in the area of proposed activities, thus no direct, indirect or cumulative effects to Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, Candidate and Sensitive (TEPS) species would occur. The re-vegetation component of this plan would help to provide protection from weed infestation. Noxious weed policies will be incorporated into the Conditions of Approval. For the vegetation removed in a mining operation, there is an irretrievable commitment of that vegetation for the period it takes to restore vegetation to the area. This is a direct effect. Re-vegetation efforts will be monitored for up to 3 years to ensure success. With re-vegetation, there will be no indirect or cumulative effects to botanical resources.
Wildlife: Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, Candidate and Sensitive species (TEPS) having potential habitat or documented occurrences in the analysis area include Sierra Nevada and foothill yellow-legged frog, spotted owl and northern goshawk. Potentially suitable western red bat habitat occurs in the project area, but no known sightings occur in the project area. There is no designated or proposed critical habitat for Threatened or Endangered wildlife species in the analysis area. There is spotted owl and northern goshawk habitat adjacent to the project area.
Field survey conducted in October, 2012 found that no suitable habitat of any species covered in the biological evaluation would be removed. Amphibian surveys were conducted along the North Fork Feather River throughout the Seneca area in June and July 2012 and no sensitive species were located. Spotted owl and goshawk surveys have been conducted in this area in 2012 and previous years.
14 Mt. Hough Ranger District, Plumas National Forest
The only TEPS species whose habitat will be directly affected by the proposed project are the foothill and Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog. The spotted owl and northern goshawk have habitat adjacent to the proposed project. For the Sierra Nevada and foothill yellow-legged frogs, the China Bar Placer mining operations may affect individuals, but is not likely to result in a trend toward Federal listing or loss of viability.
Both the spotted owl and northern goshawk are known to nest in the forest in the vicinity of the China Bar mining claim. The red bat has potentially suitable habitat in the China Bar area, but individuals are not known to occur. The project will not affect any habitat components for these species, therefore there will be no habitat removed nor direct effects to the species. Goshawks and spotted owls do not have any known nests within a quarter mile of the project area, therefore no indirect effects will occur due to disturbance. For the red bat, spotted owl and goshawk, the China Bar mining operation is not likely to adversely affect individuals or to result in a trend toward Federal listing or loss of viability.
MIS species that have potential habitat or documented occurrences in the project area include mountain quail, yellow warbler and hairy woodpecker. There is potential habitat adjacent to the project area for spotted owl, mountain quail, yellow warbler, northern flying squirrel, hairy woodpecker and aquatic macro invertebrates.
Sediment from the wash plant would be captured in the settling ponds, and would not be deposited into the North Fork Feather River and therefore no effects to aquatic macro invertebrates would occur.
Mountain quail habitat exists within the project area. The China Bar Placer project will not remove or affect the habitat for this species and will not reduce suitability for this species. No impacts are anticipated.
The project will not remove suitable yellow warbler habitat, although the species may occur along the North Fork Feather River corridor. The project will not remove or affect suitable nesting habitat. Current data at the range-wide California and Sierra Nevada scales indicate that, although there may be localized declines in the population trend, the distribution of yellow warbler populations in the Sierra Nevada are stable.
Heritage Resources: Ten acres out of the Sunset Consolidated Placer claim were inventoried for heritage resources in 1994. No heritage resource were located and recorded. A site visit was also conducted in October 2012. The site is highly disturbed by long term placer mining, with no obvious historic features present on site. As long as excavation takes place in previously disturbed areas, there will be no direct, indirect or cumulative effect to cultural resources from project implementation.
15 Sunset Consolidated (China Bar) Placer Mining
Finding of No Significant Impact As the responsible official, I am responsible for evaluating the effects of the project relative to the definition of significance established by the CEQ Regulations (40 CFR 1508.13). I have reviewed and considered the EA and documentation included in the project record, and I have determined that Sunset Consolidated (China Bar) Placer Mining project will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment. As a result, no environmental impact statement will be prepared. My rationale for this finding is as follows, organized by sub-section of the CEQ definition of significance cited above. Context For the proposed action and alternatives the context of the environmental effects is based on the environmental analysis in this EA. The proposal is to placer mine less than one acre of land and less than 1000 cubic yards of material. The project also requires motorized use of non-system access routes. Intensity Intensity is a measure of the severity, extent, or quantity of effects, and is based on information from the effects analysis of this EA and the references in the project record. The effects of this project have been appropriately and thoroughly considered with an analysis that is responsive to concerns and issues raised by the public. The agency has taken a hard look at the environmental effects using relevant scientific information and knowledge of site-specific conditions gained from field visits. My finding of no significant impact is based on the context of the project and intensity of effects using the ten factors identified in 40 CFR 1508.27(b).
1. Impacts that may be both beneficial and adverse. A significant effect may exist even if the Federal agency believes that on balance the effect will be beneficial. The Forest Service proposes to benefit the development of mineral resources by authorizing this plan for two years. Retaining the existing ponds will continue to benefit wildlife. Temporary adverse effects during implementation may include further compaction of soil on the access roads, removal of vegetation, removal of locatable minerals and creation of an exploratory pit. These temporary adverse effects will be mitigated to reduce disturbance to minimal levels.
Wildlife- The ponds created by past mining operations are beneficial to wildlife and will remain on site and be maintained to allow ingress and egress of wildlife.
Watershed Condition-– The Plan of Operations must be reviewed by the Regional Water Quality Control Board prior to project implementation. Mitigating measures to protect water quality are incorporated from that agency as well as utilization of Forest Service Best Management Practices (BMP) for mining projects and road work. Erosion control measures would be addressed utilizing Best Management Practices and standards and guidelines related to mining operations to ensure that water quality is adequately protected during and after implementation. These mitigations are outlined in the EA on pages 12 and 13.
16 Mt. Hough Ranger District, Plumas National Forest
A stream alteration permit has been obtained from the CADFG3 for the rock ford installed at water crossing near the pit.
Vegetation- For the vegetation removed in a mining operation, there is an irretrievable commitment of that vegetation for the period it takes to restore vegetation to the area. Re- vegetation of the disturbed areas will be monitored for up to 3 years to ensure success. With re-vegetation, there will be no adverse impacts to vegetation.
Minerals resources- When minerals are extracted, there is an irreversible commitment of those ores removed. Reclamation requirements insure the area will be restored to as near natural conditions as possible. For this project that includes filling in the pit and recontouring the mined area and the access road near the pit.
2. The degree to which the proposed action affects public health or safety. There will be no significant effect to human health or safety for the following reasons. Vehicle access to the site is through a locked gate, minimized the number of visitors to the site. The layout of the site precludes visitors from approaching the pit without alerting to the operation. Thus public safety around the pit should not be a concern.
Water quality in the North Fork Feather River will not be impacted, as the operation is upslope of the river and a settling pond will prevent sediment from entering the river.
3. Unique characteristics of the geographic area such as the proximity to historical or cultural resources, parklands, prime farmlands, wetlands, wild and scenic rivers, or ecologically critical areas. There will be no significant effects to unique characteristics of the area. The area has been mined for many years. The project area does not contain cultural resources, park lands or prime farmlands. The project area is not located in or adjacent to eligible wild and scenic river corridors. Streamside zones will be protected using Best Management Practices.
4. The degree to which the effects on the quality of the human environment are likely to be highly controversial. The effects on the quality of the human environment are not likely to be highly controversial. Mining has been occurring in this area for more than 20 years. There will be some short term changes to the environment during actual mining. Long-term effects should not appreciably change the human environment after mining and reclamation are complete. The China Bar Placer Project encompasses less than one acre of land. This project will only have a minor impact within the larger landscape context. In addition, the mitigations incorporated into the design of the project are designed to protect natural resources and ecological systems. 5. The degree to which the possible effects on the human environment are highly uncertain or involve unique or unknown risks. Based on past experience and historic data of past projects, the effects of implementing this project are not expected to be uncertain and are anticipated to be similar to past activities that take place on a regular basis, such as mining or logging. Each natural resource has been analyzed in detail and careful consideration has been taken to mitigate any potential for
3 California Department of Fish & Game- now the California Department of Fish & Wildlife
17 Sunset Consolidated (China Bar) Placer Mining
uncertainty or risk factors in implementing this project. Implementation of the Proposed Action will cause no highly uncertain, unique, or unknown risks other than the effects already stated (pgs. 12-14 of the EA).
6. The degree to which the action may establish precedent for future actions with significant effects or represents a decision in principle about a future consideration. This action will not have an influence or set a precedent for projects conducted in the future. Each project is analyzed on an individual site specific basis to determine the effects based on relevant scientific information to ensure Standards and Guidelines are met. 7. Whether the action is related to other actions with individually insignificant but cumulatively significant impacts. Other ground disturbing activities were evaluated in relation to the surrounding watershed and the effects of all actions combined, including the mining proposal, were found to be within the acceptable range. Activities that were assessed in the China Bar Placer Project area included timber harvesting and related silvicultural treatments on public and private land, residential development, near-by mines, wildfire, prescribed fire and off highway (OHV) trails. Within this watershed, there is a very low risk of project induced cumulative watershed effects. With implementation of the No-Action alternative, there may be small improvements in water quality. Within the EA, these cumulative effects were analyzed for all resources, and none are substantial. 8. The degree to which the action may adversely affect districts, sites, highways, structures, or objects listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places or may cause loss or destruction of significant scientific, cultural, or historical resources. No cultural or historic resources have been identified within the project area. This action will have no significant adverse effects on districts, sites, highways, structures, or objects listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. 9. The degree to which the action may adversely affect an endangered or threatened species or its habitat that has been determined to be critical under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. The action will not adversely affect any endangered or threatened species or its habitat that has been determined to be critical under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 because no threatened or endangered species have been identified within the St. Louis Project area. If, during the implementation of this project evidence of an endangered or threatened species is determined, a qualified biologist will be called immediately to make a species determination in relation to project implementation.
For species that are listed as Sensitive by the Regional Forester, it is the biologist’s determination that the project activities within the St. Louis project area may affect individuals, but are not likely to result in a trend towards Federal listing or loss of viability.
18 Mt. Hough Ranger District, Plumas National Forest
10. Whether the action threatens a violation of Federal, State, or local law or requirements imposed for the protection of the environment. The action will not violate Federal, State, and local laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. Applicable laws and regulations pertaining to the project were considered in the EA (See EA pg. 3-5 regarding Land Management Direction). This action is consistent with the Plumas Land and Resource Management Plan as amended by the 2004 SNFPA final supplemental EIS Record of Decision. After considering the effects of the actions analyzed, in terms of context and intensity, I have determined that these actions will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment. Therefore, an environmental impact statement will not be prepared.
Contact For additional information regarding this project, please contact Donna Duncan at the Mt. Hough Ranger District office at (530) 283-0555.
19