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.