Little Papoose Mine Exploration Project Decision Notice/FONSI

LITTLE PAPOOSE MINE EXPLORATION ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT DECISION NOTICE AND FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT USDA Forest Service, Powell Ranger District, Clearwater National Forest, Idaho County, Idaho

Background The Forest Service prepared the Little Papoose Mine Exploration Environmental Assessment in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant Federal and State laws and regulations. The mine is located in the upper portions of the Imnamatnoon (formerly Papoose) Creek drainage, a tributary to the Lochsa River. It is located in T37N, R13E, Section 12 and T37N, R14E, Sections 6 and 7, Boise Meridian, Idaho County, Idaho.

The Little Papoose Mining Claim was located by the Larson Group in the early 1960’s. Since that time the owners have done extensive trenching, drilling and started underground development. In 1998, 2001, 2002, 2005, 2008 and 2009, the owners were authorized to conduct exploratory drilling and trenching in existing jammer roads under limited 1-year categorical exclusions. This decision approves the same types of activities over a longer, 5-year time frame.

Decision and Rationale I have decided to implement Alternative 2 actions as described in the Little Papoose Mine Exploration Environmental Assessment (EA), pages 9 through 11. The proposed action would approve Larson’s Plan of Operation with its associated design features. Activities include geochemical and geophysical surveys of rock (no ground disturbance) and the drilling of 74 sites and trenching of 88 sites along or within existing road prisms (15 holes and 18 trenches annually between May and November with trenches ranging from 25’ to 75’ in length and up to 3’ deep). The total amount of land that would be disturbed is less than 5 acres. Water needed for the drilling operation would be obtained from a spring on the mining claim. The claimant has already obtained a State of Idaho water right permit for this site.

I have chosen to implement Alternative 2 because it best meets the purpose and need for approving Larson’s Plan of Operation in order to comply with the 1872 Mining Law and the 1897 Organic Act while protecting surface resources.

Other Alternatives Considered One other alternative was brought forth during the comment period (EA, pg. 11). One individual suggested analyzing an alternative that does not allow trenching or drilling on overgrown roads. This alternative was dismissed as it prevents the claimant from accessing his claim. Forest Service regulations (36 CFR 228A) do not allow the Forest Service to deny access or preempt the miners’ statutory right granted under the 1872 Mining Law. They also state “a Plan of Operation will be analyzed by the authorized officer to determine the reasonableness of the requirements for surface resource protection.” Based on previous drilling and trenching by the claimant in other locations on this claim, the proposed actions area reasonable and surface resources will be protected.

An additional alternative suggesting that no activities occur within PACFISH buffers was also brought up but not considered or dismissed in the EA. Based on the assessment of effects in the EA, and the fact that this would not meet the requirements of the 1872 Mining Law of providing

1 access, this alternative was not considered. The effects of the actions within the buffers would be negligible, would meet PACFISH standards and guidelines for mining activities within buffers, and would not prevent the attainment of Riparian Management Objectives (EA, pages 13–15).

Public Involvement The proposal was first listed on the Clearwater National Forest website (http://www.fs.fed.us/sopa/) in the Schedule of Proposed Actions on January 1, 2010.

On November 12, 2009, 148 scoping letters asking for input on the proposed action were sent to the Nez Perce Tribe and all interested individuals, businesses, organizations and agencies. A legal notice and request for public comment appeared in the Lewiston Tribune on November 13, 2009. Comments were received from 3 organizations and 1 agency and considered in the analysis. An additional design feature was included in the final proposed action based on public comment.

The EA was sent out to 7 individuals and a legal ad appeared in the Lewiston Tribune on January 20, 2010. A total of 10 comments were received at the end of the 30 day comment period.

Consideration of Issues The following issues were identified during scoping and were addressed by developing alternatives to the proposed action:

There is a concern that activities occurring within PACFISH buffers will negatively impact water quality and therefore fish species in the Imnamatnoon drainage. This issue was used to develop design criteria for the Proposed Action. The EA addresses design features and the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects for this issue (EA, pg. 5 and pgs. 13-15).

People expressed concern that proposed activities may affect Threatened or sensitive wildlife or fish species. The proposed action was designed to have no effect on these species (EA, pg.5-6; also included in the Biological Assessment and Evaluation, see project file)

There is a concern that brushing open currently closed roads will lead to unauthorized OHV use. An additional design feature was included for the Proposed Action as a result of this concern. A design feature that requires the operator to place the brush back on jammer roads near their entrance after work on the road is complete has been included. This should help deter unauthorized use. (EA, pg. 6).

There was a concern that the agency should require a financial assurance that reclamation would be completed in the event of abandonment of the sites. Reclamation bonding is required under 36 CFR 228.13 and Forest Service manual direction 2817.24. Reclamation costs would be determined at the pre-mining meeting with the operator (EA, pg. 6).

There was a belief that the agency is obligated to ensure that a mining claim must be valid before activities are allowed. On National Forest System lands open to entry and mining claim location under the 1872 Mining Law, the 1897 Organic Act affirms the public’s right to enter, search for, and develop mineral resources. It also authorized the Forest Service to approve and regulate all

2 Little Papoose Mine Exploration Project Decision Notice/FONSI activities related to prospecting, locating, and developing mineral resources. Nothing in the Act restricted this authority to activities only on valid claims (EA, pg. 6).

I believe the issues and concerns identified throughout the scoping and planning process were fully addressed during alternative development and analysis.

Consideration of Public and Other Agency Comments A summary of the comments that were received for the project proposal, and my response to those comments, is attached to this document as Appendix A. The original comment letters and all other comments received are included in the project file.

The formal scoping period for this project ended December 13, 2009. Comments that were received during that time were used to develop the issues and alternatives that were included in the EA, and to ensure that those issues and alternatives were adequately analyzed.

The comment period for the EA ended on April 12, 2010. I considered these comments when making my Decision, and I find that the selected alternative responds to the issues and concerns that were brought forward by the public and other agencies.

Finding of No Significant Impact I have determined through the Little Papoose Mine Exploration Environmental Assessment that this is not a major federal action individually or cumulatively that will significantly affect the quality of the human environment; therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement is not needed. This determination is based on the analysis of the context and intensity of the environmental effects, including the following factors:

(1) The analysis considered both beneficial and adverse effects. Beneficial and adverse direct, indirect and cumulative environmental impacts discussed in the Environmental Assessment have been disclosed within the appropriate context and intensity. No significant effects on the human environment have been identified. There will be no significant direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to threatened, endangered, MIS, or sensitive species, or other components of the environment (EA, pgs. 5, 6, 8, 15).

(2) No significant adverse effects to public health or safety were identified. None are unusual or unique to this project. Implementing Alternative 2 would have no effect on public health and safety (EA, pgs.10, 11). (3) There will be no significant impacts to unique characteristics of the area such as wetlands, park lands, wild and scenic rivers, floodplains, prime farm lands, old growth forests, range and forest land, minority groups, civil rights or consumers. No effects are expected to historic properties or cultural resources (EA, pg. 8). There would be no significant effects to riparian areas, wetlands, and sensitive soil types and areas due to project design measures (EA, pgs.13-15). (4) The effects of implementation of this decision are not likely to be highly controversial and therefore there has been no scientifically backed information that indicates substantial controversy about the effects disclosed in the Environmental Assessment.

3 (5) Based on similar actions in the area and the resource professionals that worked on this project, the probable effects of this decision on the human environment, as described in the EA, are well known and do not involve unique or unknown risks. Activities approved in this decision notice are routine projects similar to those that have been implemented under the Clearwater National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan over the past 23 years. (6) This action does not establish precedence for future actions with significant effects, nor does it represent a decision in principle about a future consideration. Activities approved in this decision notice are routine projects similar to those that have been implemented under the Clearwater National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan over the past 23 years. (7) These actions are not related to other actions that, when combined, will have significant impacts. This decision is made with consideration of past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions on National Forest land within potentially affected areas which could have a cumulative significant effect on the quality of the human environment. The effects analysis contained in the Little Papoose Mine Exploration EA discusses cumulative effects; none were found to be significant (EA, Chapter 3). (8) The action will have no significant adverse effect on districts, sites, highways, structures, or objects listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. No effects are expected to historic properties or cultural resources (EA, pg. 8).

(9) The effects on endangered or threatened species and their habitat are discussed in the Biological Assessment which has been completed for the project. It documents the project would have “no effect” to lynx, bull trout or steelhead trout. (EA, pg. 5; Biological Assessment in the project file). (10) This decision is in compliance with relevant federal, state and local laws, regulations and requirements designed for the protection of the environment. Effects from this action meet or exceed state water quality standards through the implementation of design features and best management practices (EA, pgs. 7, 8, 9, 11).

Other Findings This decision is consistent with the goals, objectives, and direction contained in the 1987 Clearwater National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan), PACFISH, the Endangered Species Act, and the National Historic Preservation Act (EA, pgs.7-9, 15). This decision is in compliance with Executive Order 12989 “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations”. No minority or low-income populations would be disproportionately affected under either alternative (EA, pg. 16).

Implementation Date If no appeals are filed within the 45-day time period, implementation this decision may occur on, but not before, 5 business days from the close of the appeal filing period. When appeals are filed, implementation may occur on, but not before, the 15th day following the date of the last appeal disposition. 4 Little Papoose Mine Exploration Project Decision Notice/FONSI

Administrative Review or Appeal Opportunity This decision is subject to appeal pursuant to 36 CFR 215.11. A written appeal must be submitted within 45 days following the publication date of the legal notice of this decision in the Lewiston Tribune, Lewiston, Idaho. It is the responsibility of the appellant to ensure their appeal is received in a timely manner. The publication date of the decision legal notice in the Tribune is the exclusive means for calculating the time to file an appeal. Appellants should not rely on date or timeframe information provided by any other sources. Paper appeals must be submitted to:

USDA Forest Service, Northern Region ATTN: Appeal Deciding Officer P.O. Box 7669 Missoula, MT 59807

Or

USDA Forest Service, Northern Region ATTN: Appeal Deciding Officer 200 East Broadway Missoula, MT 59807

Office hours: 7:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.

Electronic appeals must be submitted to:

[email protected]

Faxed appeals must be submitted to: FAX: (406) 329-3411 In electronic appeals, the subject line should contain the name of the project being appealed. An automated response will confirm you electronic appeal has been received. Electronic appeals must be submitted in MS Word, Word Perfect, or Rich Text Format (RTF). It is the appellant’s responsibility to provide sufficient project or activity specific evidence and rationale, focusing on the decisions, to show why my decision should be reversed. The appeal must be filed with the Appeal Deciding Officer in writing. At a minimum, the appeal must meet the content requirements of 36 CFR 215.14, and include the following information: The appellant’s name and address, with telephone number, if available; A signature, or other verification of authorship upon request (a scanned signature for electronic mail be filed with the appeal); When multiple names are listed on an appeal, identification of the lead appellant and verification of the identity of the lead appellant upon request; The name of the project or activity for which the decision was made, the name and title of the Responsible Official, and the date of the decision; The regulation under which the appeal is being filed, when there is an option to appeal 5 under either 36 CFR215 or 36 CFR 251, subpart C; Any specific change(s) in the decision that the appellant seeks and rationale for those changes; Any portion(s) of the decision with which the appellant disagrees, and explanation for the disagreement; Why the appellant believes the Responsible Official’s decisions failed to consider the comments; and How the appellant believes the decisions specifically violates law, regulation , or policy

If an appeal is received on this project there may be informal resolution meetings and/or conference calls between the Responsible Official and the appellant. These discussions would take place within 15 days after the closing date for filing an appeal. All such meetings are open to the public. If you are interested in attending any informal resolution discussions, please contact the Responsible Official or monitor the following website for postings about current appeals in the Northern Region of the Forest Service: http://www.fs.fed.us/r1/projects/appeal_index.shtml.

Contact Person For further information concerning this decision or the Forest Service appeal process, contact Karen Smith, Project Team Leader, Kamiah Ranger Station, 903 3rd St, Kamiah, Idaho, 83536, (phone 208-935-4252).

JOE B. HUDSON Acting Powell District Ranger ______Clearwater National Forest Date

6 Little Papoose Mine Exploration Project Decision Notice/FONSI

APPENDIX A Response to Comments Those who commented on the EA: Ron and Janice Hartig, private citizens Bejay and Vianna Marshall, private citizens Marina Quigley, private citizen Raymond Coon, private citizen E. Jo Coon, private citizen Gary Macfarlane, Friends of the Clearwater (FOC) Jonathan Oppenheimer, Idaho Conservation League (ICL) Ted Antonioli, Missoula Chapter Montana Mining Association

Eight of the commentors wrote in support of the selection of Alternative 2.

Water Quality/Fisheries The 50-foot buffer is too little. MM2 of INFISH and PACFISH standards require that structures and other impacts be located outside of riparian habitat conservation areas (RHCAs). The buffers for fish bearing streams are 300 feet, not 50 feet. (FOC)

Response: PACFISH standards do not prohibit activities from occurring within buffers. Where activities are proposed, PACFISH guidance is to not retard the attainment of Riparian Management Objectives (RMOs) and avoid adverse effects to listed fish species. PACFISH standard MM2 states where no alternative to siting facilities in RHCAs exists locate and construct the facilities in ways that avoid impacts to RHCAs and streams, and adverse effects on listed anadromous fish. The project does not affect RMOs and only uses existing roads (EA pgs. 3, 5, 7, 8, 10, 15). The project does not affect listed fish species (EA, pgs. 5 through 8, 15)

The EA fails to show how the requirements of NFMA would be met in regard to other native salmonids such a Westslope cutthroat trout or MI or other rare species dependent upon aquatic or riparian environments. The EA fails to show monitoring information for MI, TES and other rare species (FOC)

Response: There would be no effects to westslope cutthroat trout, management indicator, or other threatened or endangered species as their habitat does not occur in the analysis area or the project would not affect the amount or availability of their habitat (EA, pg. 6; Biological Assessment and Evaluation, project file).

Under CWA Section 313, and 36 CFR Part 228, the Forest Service cannot approve the operation without complying with all water quality and CWA requirements. We are concerned that trenching activities will contribute pollutants to Imnamatoon Creek and downstream to the Lochsa River, which is 303(d) listed for water temperature. Since the project will further disturb the area, remove vegetation, and open roads, we are concerned that the project may result in discharges to area streams, and therefore the requirements of the CWA apply. (ICL)

While Imnamatoon Creek is not listed under section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act, no discharge is allowed which would cause or contribute to a violation of a water quality standard.

Response: The EA addressed water quality concerns through the issue indicator that addressed activities within PACFISH buffers (EA. Pg. 5). Design features have been included to prevent impacts to water quality (EA, pgs. 9, 10). The project was designed to have no effect to water quality in Imnamatnoon Creek (EA, pgs. 14, 15) and therefore none would occur to the Lochsa River.

7 We are concerned that the trenching may be occurring in areas of historic dredge spoils, which are likely to contain contaminated soils. By disturbing and mixing these soils, the likelihood of further contamination is increased in Imnamatoon Creek. (ICL)

Response: Trenching will occur on or across existing roads. Mining activities near or under these roads are not known to have historically occurred; therefore it is unlikely that soils contaminated by previous mining activities exist. The soils disturbed by the project would therefore not contaminate Imnamatnoon Creek. Design features have been included that prevent effects to the stream (EA, pgs. 9, 10).

We feel that reopening and use of roads, trenching and drilling and other associated activities will result in impacts to water quality and aquatic habitat. As a result, the Forest Service must consult with the NOAA-Fisheries and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (pursuant to the Endangered Species Act) regarding potential impacts to fish and wildlife species. (ICL)

Response: Project design features have been included to prevent impacts to water quality (EA, pgs. 9, 10). The project was designed to have no effect to water quality in Imnamatnoon Creek (EA, pgs. 14, 15). The determination for effects to listed fish and wildlife species is “no effect” therefore consultation with the regulatory agencies is not required (EA, pgs. 6, 7, 8, 15).

PACFISH also contains important standards and guidelines aimed at reducing the effects to water quality and fish habitat associated with roads. The agency must comply with all INFISH standards and requirements. In Hells Canyon, the court invalidated Forest Service approvals on numerous mining operations based on violations of INFISH and road density Forest Plan standards. The Forest Service should consider the road density in the area and determine whether the existing access road needs to be partially or fully decommissioned and revegetated following exploration. No violation of road standards or road density standards can occur. (ICL)

Response: The project complies with appropriate PACFISH/INFISH standards related to roads and minerals management (EA, pg. 15). The Hells Canyon lawsuit was based on suction dredging discharges of pollutants into navigable waters. The Little Papoose project will not discharge pollutants into any waters (EA, pgs. 9, 10).

The Clearwater National Forest Plan does not have a road density standard; however extensive road decommissioning (over 40 miles) has been conducted within the Imnamatnoon drainage since 1992 in order to reduce the effects of roads on streams. Roads used for exploration will be minimally disturbed (EA, pg.15) and will remain mostly vegetated with grasses and forbes after activities have been completed.

A hazardous material plan needs to be in place in the event of a fuel or solvent leak. We are concerned about the use of fuels, lubricants, solvents, and other toxic chemicals that may enter the soil and water. (ICL)

Response: Hazardous materials on work sites include diesel fuel, gasoline, and lubricating grease. No other hazardous chemicals would be present (EA, pg. 4). A spill kit and absorbent pads would be maintained on site. Any spills would be cleaned up immediately and any resulting waste would be transferred off site in accordance with local, State and Federal regulations. The appropriate agencies would be notified (EA, pg. 15).

Wildlife The EA fails to look at impacts from opening up impassable old roads on various species including TES and MI species such as lynx, wolverine and others. (FOC)

8 Little Papoose Mine Exploration Project Decision Notice/FONSI

Response: There would be no effects to terrestrial management indicator or threatened or endangered species as their habitat does not occur in the analysis area or the project would not affect the amount or availability of their habitat (EA, pg. 6; Biological Assessment and Evaluation, project file). Brushing overgrown roads will improve access for these species making travel on them easier. The roads will remain closed to motorized use after activities are complete therefore no effects from use are expected (EA, pg. 6). The exploration activities are limited in time and space and would not affect these species.

Reasonableness of the Proposed Action Claim Validity and a Valuable Deposit In our scoping comments we addressed the issue of claim validity in detail but it was erroneously dismissed. Ironically, the EA as much as admits there is no valuable mineral deposit. It states the claimants, “do not have sufficient information in regards to relative value and workability of the mineralized deposit.” (emphasis added). This is important because the reasonableness of the proposed action needs to be adequately considered. (FOC)

The EA suggests the proposal is reasonable but does not analyze or provide a rationale for why the proposal is claimed to be reasonable. (FOC)

Response: The EA states “nothing in the 1897 Organic Act restricted this authority to activities only on valid claims. In fact, the Act specifically refers to prospecting, which occurs prior to establishing a valid claim”(EA, pg. 6). It also states, regarding value and workability, that “Larson’s proposal to continue exploration is reasonable and justified based on previous and extensive surface drilling and trenching information gathered over the past 30 years” (EA, pg. 4). The project is therefore considered reasonable in that it allows Larson to continue to collect information in order to establish a valid claim. The activities are consistent with the 1872 Mining Law and the 1897 Organic Act.

Activities that are “reasonably incident” would be expected to be closely tied to, and be defined within, what would be reasonable and customary for a given stage of mining activity. Mining activity that would cause significant surface disturbance on lands in the National Forest System must be related to a logical step in that process and the steps must be in the proper sequence. The EA suggests that the proponent may be at a prospecting or earlier exploration phase and that more advanced exploration is not yet warranted. Geophysical surveys and geochemical surveys are part of the proposal and thrown in with drilling and trenching. It would seem the former two activities should precede the latter two activities yet all are mixed together in this proposal. (FOC)

Response: The claimant has been conducting similar activities (geophysical, geochemical, and drilling/trenching activities) on and off since 1998 in order to discover the extent of mineralization on the claim. The activities would not disturb more than 5 acres over the 13,200 acre watershed (EA, pg. 3) over a 5-year period. This is 0.03% of the watershed and not considered a significant surface disturbance.

Range of Alternatives The EA fails NEPA as no alternative is evaluated that would avoid either drill sites or trenches within RHCAs. PACFISH was designed as an interim measure that has been recognized as inadequate for long- term protection of anadromous and inland native fish. Yet, the proposed action would allow drilling and/or trenching in RHCAs. In our scoping letter we suggested the agency locate ground-disturbing activities outside of RHCAs. No alternative looks at such an option even though removing drilling or trenching in sensitive RHCAs—something that should be done to meet PACFISH and INFISH guidelines (FOC)

Response: The project complies with PACFISH/INFISH guidelines and was designed to have no affect on PACFISH RMOs (pool frequency, water temperature, large woody debris, bank stability and width/depth ratio) (EA, pgs. 8, 15). Since RMOs would be maintained and the drilling and 9 trenching within the RHCAs would disturb only 0.2 acres over the 13,200 acre watershed, no alternative for conducting activities outside of RHCAs was considered. The effects to the RMOs would have been the same for either alternative.

NEPA The EA fails to look at cumulative impacts of this project on the area. (FOC)

The Forest Service must also analyze and disclose the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of this project in conjunction with all past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions, including but not limited to past and present mining operations. (ICL)

Response: The EA considered cumulative effects for activities within RHCAs (EA, pg. 15). The project would have no direct effects and indirect effects were negligible and not measurable. With no direct and only negligible indirect effects, no cumulative effects to water quality or listed or sensitive fish species or their habitat would occur.

Permitting The operator will need to obtain a stormwater discharge permit to reduce erosion from the disturbed area. (ICL)

Response: A stormwater discharge permit (Construction General Permit) from EPA is required only if the disturbed area is greater than 1 acre. The permit only pertains to the drilling activities since they are the only activities that use water (EPA, personal communication, May 2010). The total area that would be disturbed from drilling would be 0.02 acres (74 holes; 8” actual drill hole and 3’x 3’ tailing pile around each hole); therefore no permit is required. Other design features to eliminate or greatly reduce erosion are included in the EA, pgs. 10 and 11.

The operator must obtain a NPDES permit for the discharge of any water pollutants into Imnamatnoon Creek, which is hydrologically connected to Lochsa River. (ICL)

Response: NPDES permits are only required when discharge into streams is planned (IDEQ, personal communication). No discharge is expected. Any water used for drilling will be captured in the drill hole or will be dispersed across the soil. Design features will prevent discharge into streams.

Due to the discharge, the operator must obtain Certification under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, and the Forest Service cannot approve any operations without such a Certification. (ICL)

Response: Certification under Section 401 is required only if an NPDES permit is obtained. No NPDES permit is required for this project.

Bonding Under 36 CFR § 228, the agency should require a financial assurance that ensures the reclamation would be completed in the event of abandonment of the site. The bond must be substantive enough to cover the potential impacts to the area's ecosystem as well as the area surrounding the transportation route. These bonding calculations should be included in an environmental review and available for public comment and review. (ICL)

Response: A description of required reclamation activities was provided in the Plan of Operation and disclosed in the EA (pg. 11). The EA also states that reclamation costs would be determined at the pre-mining meeting with the operator (EA, pg. 6). Based on our past experience with the claimant, reclamation will be thorough and will occur in a timely fashion.

10 Little Papoose Mine Exploration Project Decision Notice/FONSI

Transportation Plan The Forest Service does not describe the types of vehicles used to transport equipment, the number of trips per week (associated dust and sediment delivery to adjacent streams), the volume of hazardous materials, or the details of a Spill Prevention Plan. (ICL)

Response: The types of vehicles likely to be used are described in the EA, pg. 3. Large volumes of traffic are not expected and most traffic will be associated with pickup trucks moving crews (3-5 trucks, one trip in and one trip out per day). Drill and trenching equipment will be moved from one site to another as needed. A spill kit and absorbent pads would be maintained on site. Any spills would be cleaned up immediately and any resulting waste would be transferred off site in accordance with local, State and Federal regulations. The appropriate agencies would be notified (EA, pg. 15).

Noxious Weeds Waste rock piles need to be stabilized to prevent erosion and expansion of noxious weeds. All equipment should be inspected, cleaned and washed prior to the operator entering public lands. (ICL)

Response: All equipment and vehicles will be washed prior to entry onto the forest (EA, pg. 9). Reclamation also includes revegetation using an approved Forest mix (EA, pg.10).

Work crews trained in noxious weed recognition and removal should patrol the roadbed and the area within 100' on either side of the road and mechanically remove any weeds or microtrash. (ICL)

Response: Weed inventory and treatment is not required under the proposed action; however, activities to control weeds are being conducted under the Lochsa Weeds Environmental Assessment (2007) by the Clearwater National Forest. The Imnamatnoon watershed is a focus area for treatment. Any trash generated by the claimant will be removed by the claimant.

Unauthorized Off Highway Vehicle Use We are concerned that if the road may be improved, activities will encourage inappropriate Off Highway Vehicles (OHV) use in and around the project area. We are concerned that piling of brush and trees will not effectively discourage unauthorized OHV use. Instead, the FS should require placement of boulders, gates or other structures to provide effective closures. (ICL)

The Forest Service needs to describe how they will effectively monitor and control the use of OHVs in the project area. The analysis should describe proposed methods for managing OHV access (signs, berms, boulders, gates) and the probability of success for each of these measures. This analysis should include funding and numbers of personnel available for monitoring, maintenance, and enforcement. (ICL)

Response: A discussion of unauthorized OHV use and methods for controlling it is included in the EA, pg. 6. All roads that are currently closed prior to activities will be closed after activities are complete. Forest Service law enforcement officers are responsible for enforcement. For reference, there is little OHV use in the area except during hunting season.

11