Final Agency Review Draft – February 2, 2016 

BIOLOGICAL OPINION 

on the 

Hopeful 2 & 3, Little Cross 1, Eddy Shipman, Tetra Alpha, Blue Sky/Bull 

Run, Grubsteak, Ruby Group, and Lightning Creek Mines 

and 

CONCURRENCE 

on the Blue Smoke, Old Eric 1 & 2, Troy D, Rosebud 1-4, Make It, Hopeful 1, 

City Limits, and Bunch Bucket Mines 2016 -2025 Approval of Placer and 

Lode Mining Plans of Operation Project, 

Umatilla and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests 

 Granite Creek Watershed, 

Grant and Baker Counties, Oregon

 

Action Agencies: Umatilla National Forest and 

 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

Consultation 

Conducted by: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

 La Grande Field Office 

 La Grande, Oregon 

Date Issued: _________________________ 

 

Issued by: __________________________ 

 Gary S. Miller 

 Field Supervisor 

File No. : 01EOFW00-2015-F-0007 
Ms. Genevieve Masters ii 

Final Agency Review Draft – February 2, 2016 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................... 1

CONSULTATION HISTORY ..................................................................................................... 2

CONCURRENCE ......................................................................................................................... 3

BIOLOGICAL OPINION .......................................................................................................... 20

1. Description of the Proposed Action ................................................................................... 20

1.1 Mine-Specific Actions ...................................................................................................... 23

1.1.1 Blue Sky/Bull Run Placer Mine ................................................................................. 23

1.1.2 Hopeful 2 & 3 Placer Mine ....................................................................................... 29

1.1.3 Little Cross 1 Placer Mine ........................................................................................ 32

1.1.4 Eddy Shipman Lode and Placer Mine ....................................................................... 34

1.1.5 Tetra Alpha Lode Mine and Mill .............................................................................. 37

1.1.6 Tetra Alpha Placer Mine ........................................................................................... 41

1.1.7 Grubsteak Placer Mine ............................................................................................. 44

1.1.8 Ruby Group Placer Mine .......................................................................................... 46

1.1.9 Lightning Creek Placer Mine .................................................................................... 50

1.2 Action Area ....................................................................................................................... 52

2. Analytical Framework for Jeopardy and Adverse Modification Determinations ........ 52

2.1 Jeopardy Determination .................................................................................................. 52

2.2 Adverse Modification Determination .............................................................................. 53

3. Status of the Species/Critical Habitat ................................................................................ 54

3.1 Listing Status .................................................................................................................... 54

3.1.1 Current Status and Conservation Needs ................................................................... 56

3.1.2 Life History ................................................................................................................ 59

3.1.3 Habitat Characteristics ............................................................................................. 60

3.1.4 Diet ............................................................................................................................ 62

3.1.5 Effects of Climate Change on Bull Trout .................................................................. 63

3.2 Status of Bull Trout Critical Habitat ............................................................................... 64

3.2.1 Legal Status ............................................................................................................... 64

3.2.2 Conservation Role and Description of Critical Habitat ........................................... 65

3.2.3 Current Rangewide Condition of Bull Trout Critical Habitat ................................. 67

3.2.4 Effects of Climate Change on Bull Trout Critical Habitat ........................................ 68

3.2.5 Consulted on Effects for Critical Habitat .................................................................. 68

4. Environmental Baseline ...................................................................................................... 68

4.1 Description of the Subbasins, Watersheds, and Action Area ......................................... 69

4.2 Status of the Species and Critical Habitat in the Action Area ....................................... 71

4.2.1 Bull Trout in the North Fork John Day River Basin ................................................. 71

4.2.2 Designated Critical Habitat ...................................................................................... 72

4.3 Factors Affecting Species Environment within the Action Area ................................... 73

5. Effects of the Proposed Action ........................................................................................... 75

5.1 Direct and Indirect Effects to Bull Trout ........................................................................ 75

5.1.1 Summary .................................................................................................................... 78

5.2 Effects to Bull Trout Critical Habitat.............................................................................. 79

5.3 Interrelated/Interdependent Effects ................................................................................ 80

6.0 Cumulative Effects .............................................................................................................. 80

7.0 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................ 80
Ms. Genevieve Masters iii 

Final Agency Review Draft – February 2, 2016 

7.1 Bull Trout ......................................................................................................................... 80

7.2 Bull trout Critical Habitat ............................................................................................... 81

8.0 Incidental Take Statement .................................................................................................. 81

8.1 Amount/Extent of Take Anticipated ................................................................................ 82

8.2 Effect of Take ................................................................................................................... 82

8.3 Reasonable and Prudent Measures ................................................................................. 83

8.4 Terms and Conditions ...................................................................................................... 83

8.5 Reporting Requirements .................................................................................................. 86

9.0 Conservation Recommendations ........................................................................................ 86

10. Reinitiation – Closing Statement ........................................................................................ 87

LITERATURE CITED ................................................................................................................. 88

APPENDIX A. Required Protection Measures ........................................................................... 96

APPENDIX B. Schematic for How to Lay a Bentonite Blanket, Filter Cloth, or Plastic ......... 112

APPENDIX C. Baseline Condition and Analysis of Bull Trout MPI Indicators Corresponding to 

PCEs of Designated Critical Habitat for Columbia River Bull Trout within the Granite Creek 

Watershed. .................................................................................................................................. 113
Ms. Genevieve Masters 1 

Final Agency Review Draft – February 2, 2016 

INTRODUCTION 

This document transmits the Fish and Wildlife Service’s (Service) Biological Opinion (Opinion) 

on the Umatilla and Wallowa-Whitman National Forest’s (UNF/WWNF) proposed 2016-2025 

approval of lode and placer mining Plans on the Hopeful 2 & 3, Little Cross 1, Eddy Shipman, 

Tetra Alpha Placer Mill and Lode, Blue Sky/Bull Run, Grubsteak, Ruby Group, and Lightning 

Creek mines (Table 1), and the Service’s Concurrence on the UNF/WWNF’s proposed 2016-

2025 approval of placer mining Plans in Blue Smoke, Old Eric 1 & 2, Troy D, Rosebud 1-4, 

Make It, Hopeful 1, City Limits, and Bunch Bucket Mines (Table 1), and the effects on the 

federally threatened bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) and bull trout critical habitat, as requested 

by the UNF/WWNF, in accordance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 

1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) The UNF/WWNF’s September 22, 2015, initial 

request for consultation, with the accompanying Biological Assessment (Assessment), was 

received on October 2, 2015. A revised final Assessment and new consultation request, dated 

December 18, 2015, was received by the Service on December 23, 2015. 

The UNF/WWNF determined, and the Service concurs, that the proposed approval of mining 

Plans of Operation (Plans) is not likely to adversely affect bull trout and bull trout critical habitat 

for the Blue Smoke, Old Eric 1 & 2, Troy D, Rosebud 1-4, Make It, Hopeful 1, City Limits, and 

Bunch Bucket mines. The Service also agrees that the UNF/WWNF proposed approval of Plans 

is likely to adversely affect bull trout and bull trout critical habitat for the Hopeful 2 & 3, Little 

Cross 1, Eddy Shipman, Tetra Alpha Placer Mill and Lode, Blue Sky/Bull Run, Grubsteak, Ruby 

Group, and Lightning Creek mines. This Opinion/Concurrence is based on information provided 

in the Assessment, telephone and electronic correspondence, and other sources of information. 

A complete administrative record for this consultation is on file at the Service’s La Grande Field 

Office in La Grande, Oregon.

Table 1. The Umatilla and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests ESA Effect Determinations 

 by Subwatershed, for the 2016-2025 Granite Mining Plans of Operation. 

Subwatershed 

(Distribution)* 

Mine Plan (Mine 

Type) Bull Trout 

Bull Trout 

Critical Habitat 

Lower Granite 

Creek (FMO) 

Blue Smoke NLAA NLAA 

Hopeful 1 NLAA NLAA 

Hopeful 2 & 3 LAA LAA 

Little Cross 1 LAA LAA 

Rosebud NLAA NLAA 

Troy D NLAA NLAA 

Upper Granite 

Creek (FMO) 

City Limits NLAA NLAA 

Make It NLAA NLAA 

Eddy Shipman LAA LAA 

Old Eric 1 & 2 NLAA NLAA 

-Boulder Creek 

(SR) 

Tetra Alpha LAA LAA 

Bull Run Creek 

(FMO) 

Blue Sky/Bull 

Run 

LAA LAA 
Ms. Genevieve Masters 2 

Final Agency Review Draft – February 2, 2016 

Subwatershed 

(Distribution)* 

Mine Plan (Mine 

Type) Bull Trout 

Bull Trout 

Critical Habitat 

Clear Creek (SR) 

Bunch Bucket NLAA NLAA 

Grubsteak LAA LAA 

Ruby Group LAA LAA 

-Lightning Creek 

 (SR)

Lightning Creek LAA LAA 

Tributaries are in italic and listed below the appropriate watershed. 

* Distribution is identified as FMO (foraging, migration and overwintering habitat) or SR (spawning and rearing 

habitat). 

CONSULTATION HISTORY 

 On October 19, 2011, the Service attended a Level 1 field visit to the Project claim sites. 

 February 26, 2013, the Service attended a Level 1 meeting to discuss Granite Mining EIS 

(Assessment). 

 On May 21, 2013, a comprehensive overview of the Assessment was presented by UNF. 

 On July 19, 2013, a draft Assessment was received. 

 On August 21, 2013, the Service received a draft Assessment while attending a Level 1 field 

visit to Granite watershed and some of the claim sites. 

 On September 18, 2013, the Service provided comments regarding the Assessment. 

 On June 11, 2014, the Service received a draft Assessment. 

 On July 31, 2014, the Service provided comments on the Assessment and requested 

additional information. 

 On July 31, 2014, the Umatilla Level 1 discussed the latest draft and provided comments and 

requests for additional information. 

 On August 19, 2014, the Service received a draft Assessment for review. 

 On September 5, 2014, the Service received a Final Granite Mining Assessment. 

 On January 16 and 26, and February 12, May 11, and July 6, 2015, the Service received 

additional clarifications to information provided in the Assessment. 

 On March 11, 2015, the Service sent out an Agency review draft of the Opinion to 

UNF/WWNF. 

 On May 11, 2015, Tracii Hickman (UNF) requested the Service, via email, to suspend 

Section 7 consultation for the Granite Mining Project. This request was due to activity in the 

Oregon Legislature regarding suction dredge mining activities that could impact water 

quality and fisheries resources. 

 On August 11, 2015, Level 1 meeting notes 

 On October 2, 2015, the Service received the UNF/WWNF’s September 22, 2015, request 

for Section 7 consultation, along with the amended Assessment, providing updated language 

regarding the status of SB 838, and applicant’s response to the draft Terms and Conditions. 

 On October 27, 2015, NMFS asked for clarification on the now current five year moratorium. 

 Based on NMFS’s October 27, 2015, request for clarification, the UNF/WWNF modified the 

proposed action by retracting all suction dredge and provided the Service with an amended 

Final Assessment on November 20, 2015. 

 On December 14, 2015, the Service attended a Level 1 meeting with Tracii Hickman to 

clarify final comments on the November 20, 2015 Assessment. 
Ms. Genevieve Masters 3 

Final Agency Review Draft – February 2, 2016 

 On December 23, 2015, the Service received a December 18, 2015, request for consultation 

along with the Final Assessment for the Granite Mining Project. 

 On January 26, 2016, the Service received a request from the UNF/WWNF to provide a draft 

Opinion for review by the Forest Service as described on page 2-13 of the Consultation 

Handbook. Upon receipt of the draft Opinion, miners with Plans of Operations in the Granite 

Mining Project with applicant status will be sent a draft Opinion for review. 

 On February 2, 2016, the Service sent a draft Opinion to the UNF/WWNF, per the January 

26, 2016 request. 

CONCURRENCE 

 

The Project area within the North Fork John Day Basin in the Granite Creek Watershed 

encompasses Forest Service (FS) lands on both the UNF and WWNF. The Project area subwatersheds include Bull Run Creek, Lower Granite Creek, Upper Granite Creek, Clear Creek 

and Lightning Creek. Within the Project area, bull trout use streams for foraging, migration, 

overwintering (FMO), and spawning and rearing (SR) (Figure 1). 

Figure 1. Granite Mining Project Major Streams and Bull Trout Critical Habitat in the 

 Project Area and 303d Listed Streams and Locations of Proposed Plans of 

 Operations. 

Each placer and lode mine operator must submit a Plan of Operation (Plan) that must be 

consistent with, and incorporate all regulations and policy in regards to protection of fish habitat 

and fish found in PACFISH/INFISH (USDA and USDI 1995) (goals, MM1-MM6 and Riparian 

Management Objectives) WWNF and UNF Forest Plans, and Oregon Department of State Lands 

(ODSL) permit. In addition, FS site-specific water resource protection measures (WRPMs), 
Ms. Genevieve Masters 4 

Final Agency Review Draft – February 2, 2016 

general requirements (GRs, as applicable), and site specific fish protection measures (FPMs, 

described below) must be adhered to. All actions described below will be re-working areas 

previously disturbed by placer and lode mining activities, no in-stream mining will occur and 

there is no stream fording. 

The action area for the concurrence includes those uplands and riparian areas that contain bull 

trout and bull trout critical habitat on Lower Granite Creek, Upper Granite Creek and Clear 

Creek subwatersheds. Each mine has an established “no disturbance” buffer, unless there are no 

new activities proposed in the riparian area (Table 2). 

Table 2. Summary of Proximity of Mines to Bull Trout Designated Critical Habitat (DCH), 

 Maximum Area Disturbed by Placer Mine Operations, Total Possible Disturbed 

 Area over the Duration of the Assessment, Miner Identified “No Activity” Stream 

 Buffers, and Pond/Water Source Information. 

Plan 

Name 

Stream 

Name 

Area of 

Disturbance 

Distance to 

Bull Trout 

DCH 

Maximum 

Area of 

Active 

Surface 

Disturbance 

at any time 

during the 

season 

(in acres) 

Total 

Area 

Potentially 

Disturbed 

from 

Mining 

Activities* 

(in acres) 

Width of 

“No 

Activity” 

Stream 

Buffer** 

Ponds 

E = 

existing 

B = to 

be built 

Water 

Source 

Blue 

Smoke 

Lower 

Granite 

Creek 

>300 ft. .01 1.75 n/a E 

Existing 

off 

channel 

dredge 

ponds 

Old Eric 

1 & 2 

Upper 

Granite 

Creek 

150 ft. .01 1.0 10 ft. E 

Existing 

off 

channel 

ponds 

Bunch 

Bucket 

Clear 

Creek 150 ft. .01 10 n/a Expand E 

Existing 

off 

channel 

dredge 

ponds 

City 

Limits 

Upper 

Granite 

Creek 

200 ft. .01 1 n/a E 

Existing 

off 

channel 

dredge 

ponds 

Hopeful 

1 

Lower 

Granite 

Creek 

150 ft. .01 1 15 ft. E 

Spring 

and 

existing 

off 

channel 

dredge 

ponds; 

water 

right 0.09 

cubic feet 

per 
Ms. Genevieve Masters 5 

Final Agency Review Draft – February 2, 2016 

Plan 

Name 

Stream 

Name 

Area of 

Disturbance 

Distance to 

Bull Trout 

DCH 

Maximum 

Area of 

Active 

Surface 

Disturbance 

at any time 

during the 

season 

(in acres) 

Total 

Area 

Potentially 

Disturbed 

from 

Mining 

Activities* 

(in acres) 

Width of 

“No 

Activity” 

Stream 

Buffer** 

Ponds 

E = 

existing 

B = to 

be built 

Water 

Source 

second 

from 

Lower 

Granite 

Creek 

Make It 

Upper 

Granite 

Creek 

50 ft. .01 2 50 ft. E 

Pond 

connected 

to Granite 

Creek 

RoseBud 

Upper 

Granite 

Creek 

200 ft. .01 5 n/a 

2 B @ 150 

ft. x 10 ft. 

x 6 ft. 

Existing 

off 

channel 

ponds 

Troy D 

Lower 

Granite 

Creek 

25 ft. .01 8 25 ft. E 

Existing 

off 

channel 

ponds 

*This is the potential total area disturbed over the duration of the Assessment (ten years) due to operational size 

limits displayed in the column to the left. This entire area will not be disturbed at one time. 

** n/a means there are no new activities proposed in the riparian area. 

The UNF/WWNF have determined, and the Service concurs, that the proposed approval of Plans 

for the following claims may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, bull trout and bull trout 

critical habitat. Effects to bull trout and bull trout critical habitat are expected to be discountable 

or insignificant based on the following: 

Blue Smoke 

 The proposed work site is located >300 feet (ft.) from bull trout FMO critical habitat in 

Lower Granite Creek (Table 2). 

 There are no stream fords. 

 Historic dredge tailings and County Road 24 and FS 1350 (Figure 2) separate mining activity 

from Granite Creek. 

 There are three proposed excavation sites and one processing site (approximately 1.75 acres). 

 Test holes will be 20 ft. x 25 ft. x 10 ft. with each test hole being reclaimed before moving on 

to the next excavation site so that no more than one excavation site will be open at a time and 

reclamation will be ongoing each year. 

 The area of active disturbance at any one time is 0.01 acres (Table 2). 

 Water supply for the processing site will come from Pond #2 and if needed, a third pond will 

be used as overflow to ensure no sediment is mobilized via surface or subsurface flow. 

 No proposed actions are expected to further impact site stability such as sediment concerns, 
Ms. Genevieve Masters 6 

Final Agency Review Draft – February 2, 2016 

and no measureable impacts to temperature and instream structures or habitat. 

 Site-specific WRPMs: For the processing site, the miner will maintain the existing difference 

in water surface elevations between the processing pond and the overflow settling pond 

(Pond #3 Figure 2) to prevent a change in the gradient of the subsurface water as it moves 

through the fill. 

 General Requirements, including surface runoff and water quality related (G4), disturbed 

areas kept in stable conditions (G5), tree removal related (G6), effective buffer strips to 

protect water quality during seasonal runoff events (G12), beaver dam protection (G14), 

stream buffers undisturbed (G15), specific requirements for visual monitoring of Granite 

Creek (M1), and other measures incorporated into the project design will minimize indirect 

effects to bull trout and bull trout critical habitat from the Project such that they are 

discountable. 
Ms. Genevieve Masters 7 

Final Agency Review Draft – February 2, 2016 

Figure 2. Blue Smoke Detailed Site Map. 

Old Eric 1 & 2 

 The proposed work site is located 150 feet (ft.) from bull trout FMO critical habitat in Upper 

Granite Creek (Table 2, Figure 3). 

 The claim exists of one work site approximately one acre in size and will move no more than 

five yards of material during the operating season. 

 The operator will recirculate the existing water from an old settling pond (drainage filter 

area), and when it becomes unusable, water will be discharged into an existing settling pond 

(100 ft. x 50 ft. x 3 ft.). 
Ms. Genevieve Masters 8 

Final Agency Review Draft – February 2, 2016 

 The majority of the work will be done by hand excavation with occasional backhoe use to 

loosen the dig site and upgrade the water source and recirculating settling pond. 

 The operator will use existing roads to access the claim. 

 The area of active disturbance at any one time is 0.01 acres (Table 2). 

 No proposed actions are expected to further impact site stability such as sediment concerns, 

and no measureable impacts to temperature and instream structures or habitat. 

 Site-specific WRPMs: Water temperature related; no standing water is permissible in the 

settling pond beyond 1 day. The area described as a settling pond is better described as a 

drainage filter area. The miner is to monitor water released into this area to assure there is no 

ponding and to stop draining if infiltration slows and water begins to pond. 

 General Requirements, including surface runoff and water quality related (G4), disturbed 

areas kept in stable conditions (G5), tree removal related (G6), effective buffer strips to 

protect water quality during seasonal runoff events (G12), beaver dam protection (G14), 

stream buffers undisturbed (G15), specific requirements for visual monitoring of Granite 

Creek (M1), and other measures incorporated into the project design will minimize indirect 

effects to bull trout and bull trout critical habitat from the Project such that they are 

discountable. 
Ms. Genevieve Masters 9 

Final Agency Review Draft – February 2, 2016 

 Figure 3. Old Eric Detailed Site Map. 

Bunch Bucket Placer Mine 

 The proposed work site is located 150 feet (ft.) from bull trout SR critical habitat in Clear 

Creek (Table 2). 

 In addition, FS 1310 Road and existing skid trails separate work activity from Clear Creek. 

 Two sites will be mined with a series of four trenches at each site (approximately 10 acres). 
Ms. Genevieve Masters 10 

Final Agency Review Draft – February 2, 2016 

The trenches will be 2 ft. wide, and dug to impermeable substrate (approximately 8 ft. deep) 

and reclaimed each season. Material will be stockpiled along the trenches and hauled to a 

stationary processing site next to the processing pond. 

 The existing pond (30 ft. x 60 ft. x 10 ft.) will be expanded to secure a dependable water 

source and all water will be recycled. No more than one excavation site will be open at a 

time and reclamation will be ongoing each year. 

 Up to 600 yards of material is proposed to be processed each year. The area of active 

disturbance at any one time is 0.01 acres (Table 2). 

 No proposed actions are expected to further impact site stability such as sediment concerns, 

and no measureable impacts to temperature and instream structures or habitat. 

 Site-specific WRPMs: No activity in the small creek mentioned in the Plan (site 1 of Figure 

4) will occur without first receiving input from the minerals administrator and district 

hydrologist so that appropriate WRPMs are identified and implemented. 

 General Requirements, including surface runoff and water quality related (G4), disturbed 

areas kept in stable conditions (G5), tree removal related (G6), effective buffer strips to 

protect water quality during seasonal runoff events (G12), beaver dam protection (G14), 

stream buffers undisturbed (G15), specific requirements for visual monitoring of Granite 

Creek (M1), and other measures incorporated into the project design will minimize indirect 

effects to bull trout and bull trout critical habitat from the Project such that they are 

discountable. 

Figure 4: Bunch Bucket Placer Mine Detailed Site Map. Note that Lightning 

 Creek is Incorrect and the Stream Should be Labeled Clear Creek. 
Ms. Genevieve Masters 11 

Final Agency Review Draft – February 2, 2016 

City Limits Placer Mine 

 The proposed work site is located 200 ft. from bull trout FMO critical habitat in Upper 

Granite Creek (Table 2). 

 In addition, all mining activity is separated from Granite Creek by the paved FS 73 Road 

(Figure 5). 

 Test holes no larger than 20 ft. x 30 ft. down to bedrock (approximately 8 ft.) will be dug 

with a backhoe. Only one test hole will be open at one time. 

 Processing water will come from and be recycled in the existing off channel ponds. 

 Approximately 3-5 cubic yards of material will be processed daily. The area of active 

disturbance at any one time is 0.01 acres (Table 2). 

 No proposed actions are expected to further impact site stability such as sediment concerns, 

and no measureable impacts to temperature and instream structures or habitat. 

 General Requirements, including surface runoff and water quality related (G4), disturbed 

areas kept in stable conditions (G5), tree removal related (G6), effective buffer strips to 

protect water quality during seasonal runoff events (G12), beaver dam protection (G14), 

stream buffers undisturbed (G15), specific requirements for visual monitoring of Granite 

Creek (M1), and other measures incorporated into the project design will minimize indirect 

effects to bull trout and bull trout critical habitat from the Project such that they are 

discountable. 
Ms. Genevieve Masters 12 

Final Agency Review Draft – February 2, 2016 

Figure 5: City Limits Placer Mine Detailed Site Map. 

Hopeful 1 Placer Mine 

 The proposed work site is located 150 ft. from bull trout FMO critical habitat in Lower 

Granite Creek (Table 2). 

 In addition, there are historic tailings and an old cabin between mining activity and Granite 

Creek (Figure 6). 

 A backhoe will only be used twice during the operating season with the majority of work 

with pick and shovel. 

 Only 1-5 yards of material will be worked each summer, for a maximum total of 1acre and 

the area of active disturbance at any one time is 0.01 acres (Table 2). All tailings will be 

placed adjacent to the dredge hole. 

 The operator will be using existing open, closed and temporary access roads. All roadrelated requirements (Appendix A, under Z) apply only during the dry season window 

(generally July 1 to October 1). Operators working outside this window will be required to 
Ms. Genevieve Masters 13 

Final Agency Review Draft – February 2, 2016 

consult with the FS to determine if special road Best Management Practices (BMPs) are 

required. 

 Processing water will come from an existing dredge hole. Additional water may be 

withdrawn later in the season from Granite Creek; however, the water right is limited to 0.09 

cubic feet per second (cfs) and will be monitored by the FS Minerals Administrator. Pump 

must not exceed 16 horsepower with an inside diameter intake nozzle no greater than four 

inches. Waste water will be put into a depression in the dredge tailings. 

 The water right of 0.09 cfs is not expected to cause a measurable impact to stream flow or 

temperature (Table 20, Assessment). 

 Site-specific FPMs: If water must be withdrawn from Granite Creek, the water pump intake 

will be screened with 3/32” plate screen (NMFS 1997) to avoid entrainment and/or intake of 

juvenile fish when withdrawing water from Granite Creek. 

 No proposed actions are expected to further impact site stability such as sediment concerns, 

and no measureable impacts to temperature and instream structures or habitat are anticipated. 

 General Requirements, including surface runoff and water quality related (G4), disturbed 

areas kept in stable conditions (G5), tree removal related (G6), effective buffer strips to 

protect water quality during seasonal runoff events (G12), beaver dam protection (G14), 

stream buffers undisturbed (G15), pumps that can be used when drafting water from a creek 

to minimize potential for impacts to fish (G23), and other measures incorporated into the 

Project design will minimize indirect effects to bull trout and bull trout critical habitat from 

the Project such that they are discountable. 

Figure 6. Hopeful 1 Placer Mine Detailed Site Map. 
Ms. Genevieve Masters 14 

Final Agency Review Draft – February 2, 2016 

Make It Placer Mine 

 All mining activity is greater than 50 ft. away from Upper Granite Creek (FMO) (Table 2 and 

Figure 7). 

 Approximately 15-20 cubic years of material will be worked during the operating season. 

The area of active disturbance at any one time is .01 acres (Table 2). 

 Test holes no larger than 15 ft. x 20 ft. down to bedrock (approximately 10 ft.) will be dug 

with a backhoe. Only one test hole will be open at one time. 

 Processing water will come from an existing pond and recycled to existing off-channel 

settling ponds. 

 Site-specific WRPMs: 1) Water used for processing will only be put into the depressions that 

are being used as settling ponds. No water will be returned to the existing off channel pond 

which is connected to Granite Creek and is the source water pond; and 2) the miner must 

avoid decreasing the source water pond level below the pond outlet elevation so that the pond 

and Granite Creek remain hydrologically connected via surface flow. 

 Site-specific FPMs: Water pump intakes will be screened with 3/32” plate screen (NMFS 

1997) (or equivalent) to avoid entrainment and/or intake of juvenile fish when withdrawing 

water from the pond that is connected to Granite Creek (G23). 

 General Requirements, including surface runoff and water quality related (G4), disturbed 

areas kept in stable conditions (G5), tree removal related (G6), effective buffer strips to 

protect water quality during seasonal runoff events (G12), beaver dam protection (G14), 

stream buffers undisturbed (G15), pumps that can be used when drafting water from a creek 

to minimize potential for impacts to fish (G23), specific requirements for visual monitoring 

of Granite Creek (M1), and other measures incorporated into the Project design will 

minimize indirect effects to bull trout and bull trout critical habitat from the Project such that 

they are discountable. 
Ms. Genevieve Masters 15 

Final Agency Review Draft – February 2, 2016 

Figure 7. Make-It Placer Mine Detailed Site Map. 

Rosebud 1-4 Placer Mine 

 All mining activity is greater than 200 ft. away from Lower Granite Creek (FMO) (Table 2). 

 In addition, County Road 24 and FS 1035 Road separates mining activity from Lower 

Granite Creek (Figure 8). 

 Approximately 2-10 cubic years of material will be worked during the operating season. The 

area of active disturbance at any one time is .01 acres (Table 2). 

 Test holes will be dug with a backhoe and are located on an existing highbar. Only one test 
Ms. Genevieve Masters 16 

Final Agency Review Draft – February 2, 2016 

hole will be open at one time. 

 The operator is using existing roads and settling ponds. 

 Site-specific WRPMs: All settling ponds must be sufficiently bermed to prevent water and 

sediment from overtopping to top of the ponds and flowing down the road and into the old 

dredge ponds. Berm material can be either sediment or straw bales but must be stable. 

 Site-specific FPMs: Miner will limit loss of water in the processing pond to no more than six 

inches of water during daily operations. Miner is to establish a fixed measure device such as 

a staff gauge or measuring rod. 

 No proposed actions are expected to further impact site stability such as sediment concerns, 

and no measureable impacts to temperature and instream structures or habitat. 

 General Requirements, including surface runoff and water quality related (G4), disturbed 

areas kept in stable conditions (G5), tree removal related (G6), effective buffer strips to 

protect water quality during seasonal runoff events (G12), and other measures incorporated 

into the Project design will minimize indirect effects to bull trout and bull trout critical 

habitat from the Project such that they are discountable. 

Figure 8. Rosebud 1-4 Placer Mine Detailed Site Map. 

Troy D Placer Mine 

 There will be a 25 foot buffer (Table 2) and an old dredge tailing berm separating all mining 

activity from Lower Granite Creek (FMO) (Figure 9 and 10). 

 Approximately 50 cubic yards of material will be processed daily. The area of active 

disturbance at any one time is .01 acres (Table 2). 

 Test holes will be 20 ft. x 20 ft. and down to bedrock (approximately 12 ft. deep). Only one 
Ms. Genevieve Masters 17 

Final Agency Review Draft – February 2, 2016 

test hole will be open at one time. 

 Material will be processed at two existing ponds greater than 200 ft. away from the old 

tailing berm (Figure 9). Water will be recycled on site. The trailer and processing plant are 

self-contained. 

 The operator is using existing roads and settling ponds. 

 Site-specific WRPMs: 1) Pond P (Figure 9), as identified on the miner’s map, will be used 

only as the source water pond; 2) pond S (Figure 9), as identified on the miner’s map, will be 

used as a settling pond. A trench will be dug parallel to the settling ponds for the pond length 

plus five ft. on either side. The trench will be on the stream side of the settling ponds and 5 to 

20 ft. away from the ponds and the field location will be verified with the FS prior to 

installation. The trench will be lined with a bentonite blanket, filter cloth, or plastic to 

eliminate the potential for subsurface flow and sediment transport into the creek (Appendix B 

for schematic). If a bentonite blanket is used then it can be left buried. If filter cloth or plastic 

is used it must be removed at completion of the Project (2024).

 General Requirements, including surface runoff and water quality related (G4), disturbed 

areas kept in stable conditions (G5), tree removal related (G6), effective buffer strips to 

protect water quality during seasonal runoff events (G12), beaver dam protection (G14), 

stream buffers undisturbed (G15), specific requirements for visual monitoring of Granite 

Creek (M1), and other measures incorporated into the Project design will minimize indirect 

effects to bull trout and bull trout critical habitat from the Project such that they are 

discountable. 
Ms. Genevieve Masters 18 

Final Agency Review Draft – February 2, 2016 

Figure 9: Troy D Placer Mine Detailed Overall Site Map. 
Ms. Genevieve Masters 19 

Final Agency Review Draft – February 2, 2016 

Figure 10. Troy D Placer Mine Detailed Site Map of Pond Site. 
Ms. Genevieve Masters 20 

Final Agency Review Draft – February 2, 2016 

 BIOLOGICAL OPINION 

The Umatilla and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests (UNF/WWNF) are proposing approval of 

the 2016-2025 Granite Mining Plans of Operation Project (Project) for lode and placer mining in 

the Granite Creek Watershed. The Granite Creek Watershed encompasses Forest Service (FS) 

lands on both the UNF and WWNF Forests (Figure 11). The Project area sub-watersheds 

include Lower Granite Creek, Upper Granite Creek, Bull Run Creek, Beaver Creek and Clear 

Creek. Within the Project area, bull trout use streams for foraging, migration, overwintering 

(FMO), and spawning and rearing (SR), as displayed in Table 1 (above). 

Figure 11. The Project Area Within the North Fork John Day Basin in the Granite Creek 

 Watershed, Encompassing Forest Service Lands on both the Umatilla and 

 Wallowa-Whitman National Forests. 

1. Description of the Proposed Action 

The duration of this Opinion is for ten years (2016 – 2025). The proposed action is the 

UNF/WWNF’s approval of nine mining Plans to operate under specific conditions within the 

action area during the June 1 to October 31 mining season in 2016 to 2025. Each mine operator 

must submit a Plan that is consistent with, and incorporates all regulations and policies in regards 

to protection of fish and fish habitat found in PACFISH/INFISH (USDA and USDI 1995) (goals, 

MM1-MM6 and Riparian Management Objectives), WWNF and UNF Forest Plans, and Oregon 

Department of State Lands (ODSL) permit. Plans have been submitted by private citizens 

proposing mining activities on UNF and WWNF lands. 
Ms. Genevieve Masters 21 

Final Agency Review Draft – February 2, 2016 

All newly approved Plans for mining operations on National Forest System lands must comply 

with the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, 33 U.S.C. §§1251-1387 (Clean Water Act 

or CWA). Proposed mining activities, which can reasonably be expected to result in any 

discharges into waters of the United States, are subject to compliance with CWA Sections 401, 

402, and/or 404 as applicable: 

 401 Certification – if operation “may result in any discharge into the navigable 

waters”....”the mining operator must give a copy of this 401 certification to the Forest 

Service prior to the Agency approving the Plan of Operations” (FSM 2817.23a – 

Compliance with the Clean Water Act). 

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) and ODSL may require the following: 

 ODEQ general Water Pollution Control Facilities (WPCF) 600 permit covers sources of 

small-scale mining operations and non-chemical ore-processing methods with disposal of 

wastewater by evaporation and/or seepage. Operations must be off-stream above ordinary 

high-water level, and discharge to Oregon waters is prohibited. 

 ODSL Individual Permit is required for mining operations that do not qualify for the 

General Authorization Permit or that involves 25 cubic yards or more of removal-fill 

activity in non-ESH waters. 

 

In addition, the UNF/WWNF have applied site-specific water resource protection measures 

(WRPMs), general requirements (GRs), and site-specific fish protection measures (FPMs) 

developed for water and fish protection. These site-specific protection measures are provided 

below, under each individual mine description and a complete list of protection measures is 

provided in Appendix A. In addition to the protection measures, the Plans include “no activity” 

stream buffers (Table 3) to protect the streams from introduction of sediment (GR-12 and GR15). These mapped stream buffers will help inform compliance in the future when the ODEQ 

clarifies definitions for removal or disturbance of streamside vegetation that impacts water 

quality as required under Senate Bill (SB) 838. 

In 2013 the Oregon Legislature passed SB 838, which imposes a five-year moratorium on 

motorized mining (such as suction dredging) in streams containing essential indigenous 

anadromous salmonid habitat or naturally reproducing populations of bull trout beginning in 

January 2016. 

The State moratorium is in effect until 2021 or until the Oregon State legislature changes the 

law. The Granite Mining FEIS will extend beyond the 2021 moratorium. The FS, in order to 

ensure consistency with Section 402 of the Clean Water Act, has determined Plans proposing 

suction dredging in naturally reproducing populations of bull trout, and 303d streams listed for 

sediment will not be approved until the moratorium on suction dredging is lifted, or until an 

amended Plan is submitted to the FS that excludes the proposed suction dredging. Should the 

moratorium on suction dredging in the State of Oregon be lifted, the FS will re-initiate ESA 

Section 7 consultation for that activity as appropriate. 
Ms. Genevieve Masters 

Final Agency Review Draft – February 2, 2016 

Table 3. Summary of Proximity of Placer and Lode Mines to Bull Trout Critical Habitat, Maximum Area  Mine Operation, Total Possible Disturbed Area over the Duration of the Assessment, Stream For Identified “No Activity” Stream Buffers, and Water Source Information.

Plan 

Name 

Stream 

(Distribution) 

Area of 

Disturbance 

Distance to 

Bull Trout 

DCH 

Maximum Area 

of Active 

Surface 

Disturbance 

(in acres) 

per Season 

Total Area 

Potentially 

Disturbed from 

Mining Activities 

(in acres) for 

2016-2025* 

Temporary 

Road 

Activity** 

Number 

of Stream 

Fords 

Width of “No 

Activity” 

Stream 

Buffer 

Ponds 

E = existin

B = to be bu

Blue-Sky/Bull Run 

Bull Run Creek 

(FMO) 30 ft. .2 1.7 0.16 miles 2 30’ E 

Eddy Shipman Upper Granite Creek (FMO) 20 ft. .25 2.5 1 20’ Build 2 10’x 20Grubsteak Clear Creek (SR) 20 ft. .25 2 0.08 miles 1 20’ E Hopeful 2 & 3 Lower Granite Creek (FMO) 50 ft. .25 3.5 2 20’ 2 E, 2 B 4’x 4’ Lightning Creek*** 

Lightning 

Creek (SR) 150 ft. .12 5 1 n/a E 

Little Cross I Lower Granite Creek (FMO) 50 ft. .25 1 0 15’ none Ruby Group Clear Creek (SR) 10 ft. .01 2.5 2 10’ None Tetra Alpha Placer*** 

Boulder Creek 

(SR) 25 ft. .5 8 0.38 miles 3 25’ E 

Tetra Alpha Lode & Mill*** 

Boulder Creek 

(SR) 25 ft. .5 2 0.39 miles 0 25’ E 

Total 2.33 acres 28.2 acres 1.01 miles 

*This is potential total area disturbed over the duration of the Assessment. Due to operational size limits displayed in the column to the left (based on what the 

 Claimant provided in his/her Plan), this entire area will not be disturbed at one time. **No new temporary roads will cross streams. Detailed temporary roads information can be found in Appendix D of Assessment. 

***These Plans include drafting from bull trout SR and FMO habitat. 
Ms. Genevieve Masters 23 

Final Agency Review Draft – February 2, 2016 

Placer and Lode Mining 

Placer mining is the mining of stream sand, rock and gravel deposits for minerals, or discrete 

grains called “placers”. The metal or gemstones are moved by stream flow from an original 

source such as a vein. Heavy metals like gold are considerably denser than the sand, rock and 

gravel deposits they are found in, thus they tend to accumulate at the base of placer deposits. 

The process of placer mining involves filling a pan with the crushed ore to separate the gold. 

Lode mining is also called hard rock mining. Gold is deposited in a lode or vein filled with 

mineral, in the rock of mountains. The process of lode mining involves extracting the gold from 

tunnels in a mountain. 

All of the placer mining proposed for this Project will consist of processing previously mined 

and disturbed existing surface deposits or by surface equipment excavating previously mined and 

disturbed areas. New surface excavating will not occur. All lode operations will be “reopening” 

or maintaining historic shafts. Only existing adits (horizontal mine entrances) will be re-opened 

for any of the lode mines. Some areas have recovered with mature vegetation, which will be 

protected under G6. As described below under “Mine-Specific Actions”, many sites will use 

heavy equipment such as backhoes and loaders to dig the material and transport it to the 

processing equipment, all of which will be located outside of RHCAs. In addition, some sites 

will require stream fording or temporary bridge installment. 

1.1 Mine-Specific Actions 

The Plans of Operations provided in the Assessment and as follows, are a summary by the 

UNF/WWNF of what activities will be authorized. These summaries are based on information 

submitted by the miners to the UNF/WWNF (Plans are on file at the North Fork John Day 

Ranger District) coupled with information gathered from on-site visits by the Minerals 

Administrator and other FS personnel. Included in each Plan are the required FS site-specific 

protection measures (PMs) developed for water and fish protection. Detailed site maps of the 

Plans are also included. A complete list of all the best management practices (BMPs) and PMs 

are provided in Appendix A. The proposed operating period for all mining operations is June 1st

to October 31st. Appendix C of the Assessment provides mining terminology and descriptions 

and photos of equipment to be used. 

 

1.1.1 Blue Sky/Bull Run Placer Mine 

Blue Sky is a proposed placer operation with test sites at four different locations and Bull Run 

contains two identified test sites (Figures 12, 13, and 14). Each activity site is no larger than 1/5 

acre and will be mined by digging and filling a trench 20 ft. wide by 11 ft. deep. A 30 ft. stream 

buffer will be maintained throughout the claim and each test hole will be reclaimed before 

moving to the next test site. The operator will use three existing ponds (5 ft. by 10 ft. by 5 ft.) to 

control overflow from the main processing pond (pond #6). Up to five cubic yards of material 

will be hauled daily from excavations sites to the processing site. Use of the existing ford on 

Bull Run Creek on a non-system FS road off Forest Road 7300 by heavy machinery will not 

exceed four trips per season for access and repairs. There is daily use of pickups for hauling 

material generated by placer mining. Gravel will be placed and packed on streambanks at fords 

to protect streambanks. This non-system road is used by the public to access dispersed campsites 

(a WWNF access and travel management plan has not been completed) (see map 1 [Figure 12] of 
Ms. Genevieve Masters 24 

Final Agency Review Draft – February 2, 2016 

Blue Sky – Bull Run, road E4A). There is a ford on the intermittent, non-fish bearing portion of 

Swamp Creek and heavy equipment will not exceed four trips per season for access and repairs; 

other equipment such as pickups and ATVs are not to exceed one trip per day. Some small 

diameter lodgepole and other riparian vegetation may be removed from the worksite. Equipment 

used: Washing plant, trommel, high bankers, water pump, auger, backhoe, ATV and pickup 

trucks. 

Conclusions: A 401 certification from ODEQ and ODSL must be obtained before receiving FS 

approval for commencing with site activity at Blue Sky site #3 because there is the potential for a 

discharge. 

Site-Specific Forest Service Requirements 

Site-specific Water Resources Protection Measures 

Processing site: None needed 

Blue Sky Bull Run (Blue Sky site #1): None needed. 

Blue Sky Bull Run (Blue Sky site #2): Place straw bales/coils along the low berm that separates 

the activity site from Swamp Creek to increase the effectiveness of the low berm. 

Blue Sky Bull Run (Blue Sky site #3) 

1. Measurement of the buffer would start at the top of the valley floor terrace-channel bank 

break in slope of the side channel. 

2. Put straw bales/coils on the valley floor between the activity site and the creek [side 

channel] 

3. The test hole must be filled in at the end of each season and the disturbed area seeded and 

covered with straw. 

4. Straw bales will be staked on the valley floor where the mining occurred in a pattern to 

disperse stream flows during spring high flows and prevent concentrated flows that could 

erode the disturbed area. 

Blue Sky Bull Run (Blue Sky site #4) 

1. Measurement of the buffer would start at the top of the valley floor terrace-channel bank 

break in slope. 

2. Use straw bales to prevent sediment transport to Bull Run Creek. 

Blue Sky Bull Run (Bull Run site #1) 

1. Measurement of the 30 ft. buffer would start at the top of the valley floor terrace-channel 

bank break in slope. 

2. Miner’s protection measure related to straw bales applies to this site because site is 

adjacent to Bull Run Creek. 

Blue Sky Bull Run (Bull Run site #2) 

1. Measurement of the buffer would start at the top of the valley floor terrace-channel bank 

break in slope. 
Ms. Genevieve Masters 25 

Final Agency Review Draft – February 2, 2016 

2. Miner’s protection measure related to straw bales applies to this site because site is 

adjacent to Bull Run Creek (G4 and G12). 

3. Location of a proposed 7375-M1b two-track road through the forest would be determined 

with input from the FS (Figure 12). 

Ford: There is a ford on the intermittent, non-fish bearing portion of Swamp Creek; rock and 

slope ford approaches. 

Site-specific Fish Protection Measures (FPMs): None 

General Requirements Identified for Protection of Water and/or Fish Resources 

G4: Surface runoff and water quality related 

G5: Disturbed areas kept in stable conditions 

G6: Tree removal related 

G7: Fords 

G12: Effective buffer strips to protect water quality during seasonal runoff events 

G14: Beaver dams protected 

G15: Stream buffers undisturbed 

H3: Have lined containment vault under hazardous material storage barrels 

H5: Spill kit on site 

H6: Hazardous substances not to be released on land, rivers etc. Have oil absorbing mats 

H8: Check equipment for leaks 

M1: Specific requirements for visual monitoring of Bull Run Creek 

W1 – 3: Requirements for working in wetlands and floodplains 
Ms. Genevieve Masters 26 

Final Agency Review Draft – February 2, 2016 

Figure 12. Blue Sky/ Bull Run Placer Mine Detailed Site Map 
Ms. Genevieve Masters 27 

Final Agency Review Draft – February 2, 2016 

Figure 13. Blue Sky Bull Run Detailed Site Map (Blue Sky Site 4)
Ms. Genevieve Masters 28 

Final Agency Review Draft – February 2, 2016 

Figure 14. Blue Sky Bull Run Detailed Site Map (Bull Run Sites 1 and 2). 
Ms. Genevieve Masters 29 

Final Agency Review Draft – February 2, 2016 

1.1.2 Hopeful 2 & 3 Placer Mine 

The Hopeful 2 & 3 Mine is located within the Lower Granite Creek subwatershed (Figure 15), 

which is FMO bull trout critical habitat. This claim has been given a 20 ft. “no activity” planspecific stream buffer (Table 3). Mining is proposed on both sides of Granite Creek (3.5 acres). 

The operator will be working old dredge tailings and approximately 15 cubic yards of material 

will be processed each year. Test holes will be 6 ft. x 3 ft. x 10 ft. in size. If valuables are found, 

the area will be worked in quarter acre parcels. The processing water will be recycled within the 

ponds. Pond 1 (20 ft. x 30 ft. x 4 ft.) is existing and lies on the south side of the claim. Pond 2 

(4 ft. x 4 ft. x 4 ft.) is proposed and will lie on the north side of the claim. The miner reviewed 

the original description of activities, and in July 2014 proposed moving the north side processing 

pond to a location where there would not be a discharge call. The miner will be using existing 

skid trail/roads. The miner will limit the number of crossings on Granite Creek as follows: One 

ford exists on Granite Creek and one on an unnamed tributary (Figure 15); heavy machinery and 

dump trucks will cross no more than four times per season, and pickup truck crossings will occur 

no more than two times per week for fuel or other maintenance items. Gravel will be placed and 

packed on streambanks at fords to protect streambanks. Equipment to be used includes a 

backhoe, dump truck, cat, pickup trucks, ATVs, high banker, and trommel, washing plant and 

water pumps. 

Site-Specific Forest Service Requirements: 

Site-specific WRPMs: None for the south processing site Pond 1 and north processing Site 3, 

Pond 3 (Figure 15): 

For the proposed north processing site Pond 2 and Pond 2 settling (Figure 15): It will be ensured 

that the two proposed ponds are deep enough and sufficiently bermed to prevent water from 

overflowing the top of the ponds. The miner will work with the FS Minerals Administrator to 

ensure proper location of ponds and placement of berms. The source water pond will be the west 

pond and at least 7 ft. from the terrace break in slope. The settling pond will be the east pond 

and will be at least 7 ft. from the terrace break in slope. A sediment berm will be created along 

the stream-side edge of the settling pond to eliminate a small swale and straw bales will be 

placed on the stream-side edge of the sediment berm. 

Mining sites 1, 3, and 4: None needed 

Site-specific FPMs: 

Fords (Figure 15): 

1. The channel bed must be stable and water depths must be below the frame on the vehicle 

before the ford can be used in order to ensure that equipment can safely cross. 

2. The north approach of the East Ford (Granite Creek) will be rocked to the slope break, plus 

an additional 25 ft. of road above the slope break. The south approach of the East Ford will 

be broken into three segments: 

 Segment A: Rock the road 
Ms. Genevieve Masters 30 

Final Agency Review Draft – February 2, 2016 

 Segment B: The road steepens for about 35 ft. to reach the top of the hill. A 

water bar will be placed at the base of the steep section of road where there is a 

2.5 ft. wide flat area on the stream side of the road. The FS Minerals 

Administrator will be on site and verify water bar location prior to construction. 

The water bar will be designed so that it diverts towards the flat area (only option 

as the other side is a hillslope). Straw bales will be placed at the stream-side edge 

of the flat area to trap all sediment leaving the road and prevent it from entering 

the creek. This section will not be rocked so that rock does not fill the water bar. 

 Segment C: A water bar will be placed where the road flattens out. The FS 

Minerals Administrator will be on site and verify water bar location prior to 

construction. This portion of the road will be rocked. 

3. A ford on an unnamed tributary on the south side will be rocked on both approaches to where 

the road flattens out (east side) or there is a change in slope (west side). The existing 

corduroy bridge will be left in the channel. 

GRs Identified for Protection of Water and /or Fish Resources:

G4: Surface runoff and water quality related 

G5: Disturbed areas kept in stable conditions 

G6: Tree removal related 

G7: Fords 

G12: Effective buffer strips to protect water quality during seasonal runoff events 

G14: Beaver dams protected 

G15: Stream buffers undisturbed 

H1: No use of processing chemicals to extract ore unless authorized 

H2: No chemical flocculent or surfactant used in ponds unless Environmental Protection 

 Agency (EPA) approved 

H3: Have lined containment vault under hazardous material storage barrels 

H5: Spill kit on site 

H6: Hazardous substances not to be released on land, rivers etc. Have oil absorbing mats 

H8: Check equipment for leaks 

M1: Specific requirements for visual monitoring of Granite Creek 

W1 – 3: Requirements for working in wetlands and floodplains 
Ms. Genevieve Masters 31 

Final Agency Review Draft – February 2, 2016 

Figure 15. Hopeful 2 & 3 Placer Mine Detailed Site Map. 
Ms. Genevieve Masters 32 

Final Agency Review Draft – February 2, 2016 

1.1.3 Little Cross 1 Placer Mine 

The Little Cross Mine is located within the Lower Granite Creek subwatershed (Figure 16), 

which is FMO bull trout critical habitat. The claim has been given a 15 ft. “no activity” planspecific stream buffer (Table 3). Little Cross Mine is a small proposed placer operation, working 

less than a quarter acre, approximately 15 ft. from Granite Creek on a road that slopes towards 

Granite Creek. Tailings will be processed at the dispersed campsite using existing groundwater 

from the dig site. Water will be recycled and no water will be discharged into Granite Creek. 

Equipment to be used includes an ATV, backhoe, and highbanker. 

Site-Specific Forest Service Requirements: 

Site-specific WRPMs for Placer Mining: 

1. Straw bales will be placed along the creek edge. 

2. A second set of straw bales will be placed 6 ft. to 8 ft. upslope from the edge of the creek. 

3. The site will be reclaimed at the end of the each season. 

4. Any sediment that collects behind the second set of straw bales will be removed prior to 

removing the stream side berm. 

Site-specific FPMs: None 

GRs Identified for Protection of Water and /or Fish Resources:

G4: Surface runoff and water quality related 

G5: Disturbed areas kept in stable conditions 

G6: Tree removal related 

G12: Effective buffer strips to protect water quality during seasonal runoff events 

G14: Beaver dams protected 

G15: Stream buffers undisturbed 

H3: Have lined containment vault under hazardous material storage barrels 

H5: Spill kit on site 

H6: Hazardous substances not to be released on land, rivers etc. Have oil absorbing mats 

H8: Check equipment for leaks 

M1: Specific requirements for visual monitoring of Granite Creek 
Ms. Genevieve Masters 33 

Final Agency Review Draft – February 2, 2016 

Figure 16. Little Cross 1 Mine Detailed Site Map. 
Ms. Genevieve Masters 34 

Final Agency Review Draft – February 2, 2016 

1.1.4 Eddy Shipman Lode and Placer Mine 

The Eddy Shipman Mine is located within the Upper Granite Creek subwatershed (Figure 17), 

which is FMO bull trout critical habitat. This claim has a 20 ft. “no activity” plan-specific 

stream buffer and a total 2.5 acres of potential disturbance (Table 3). 

Lodgepole, western larch and red fir will be used to reinforce the adit of the lode mine. Removal 

of vegetation will occur within the riparian habitat conservation area (RHCA) but no shade 

bearing trees will be removed. Explosives will be used but no surface blasting will occur. Up to 

five tons of rock material per day will be crushed and milled. Water from Chipman Gulch will 

be used during the milling process (Figure 17). No more than 150 gallons per minute will be 

used in the milling process. The operator has proposed to construct a processing pond and one 

off-channel settling pond, both estimated at 10 ft. x 20 ft. x 6 ft. Waste rock will be placed to 

build up the existing berm between Upper Granite Creek and the mill site. Equipment to be used 

for the lode claim includes a skid mounted jaw crusher, horse, portable Arrastra for milling, ball 

mill, and a bobcat. 

Placer mining activity will take place along approximately a quarter acre of Chipman Gulch. A 

20 ft. stream buffer between the mining activity and Chipman Gulch will be maintained. 

Equipment to be used includes a washing plant, mill, pickup trucks, horse, ATVs and water 

pump, backhoe loader, small cat and dump truck. 

At the processing site the processing water will be pumped from Chipman Gulch to three offchannel ponds and will be used in both the milling and placer operation. Water will be recycled 

between the newly constructed processing and settling ponds. 

Use of the existing Granite Creek ford on the closed FS road 7300-680 (above the fish barrier 

culvert) will not exceed two trips per week by heavy machinery to haul material to the 

processing site. Gravel will be placed and packed on streambanks at fords to protect 

streambanks. Two to four round trips per month by pickup trucks for maintenance needs and 

fuel delivery will be allowed. 

Site-Specific Forest Service Requirements 

Site-specific WRPMS: 

1. Prior to crossing the ford with a vehicle the channel bed must be determined to be stable 

and the water depths must be below the frame on the vehicle in order to ensure that 

equipment can safely cross. 

2. Both approaches to the ford used to access Adit A (FS road 7300-680 and TA road 7300-

E1d) will be rocked. 

Processing Site 

1. A berm will be built on the lower portion of each pond to prevent surface water and 

sediment from entering the wet meadow. 

2. A straw bale berm will be placed during construction and during use of the source water 

and settling ponds and the edge of the bench to trap any sediment generated by the 

operation from entering into the wet meadow and Chipman Gulch, and thus Granite 

Creek. 
Ms. Genevieve Masters 35 

Final Agency Review Draft – February 2, 2016 

Placer Mining 

1. If any placer mining occurs in old lode tailings or results in disturbing the old lode 

tailings, then GRs L3 and L5 will apply. 

2. The settling pond will be lined with sediment trapping cloth on the stream side of the 

pond with approximately 3 ft. of drape on the bottom and 3 ft. on either side (see 

diagram, Appendix B). 

3. A straw bale berm will be placed between the existing horse corral and creek to prevent 

runoff of nutrients. 

4. There will be no removal of trees providing stream shade. 

Lode Mining (Adits A and B) 

See GRs related to Lode mining below (L1 – L12) and Appendix A. 

Site-specific FPMs: None 

GRs Identified for Protection of Water and /or Fish Resources: 

G4: Surface runoff and water quality related 

G5: Disturbed areas kept in stable conditions 

G6: Tree removal related 

G7: Fords 

G12: Effective buffer strips to protect water quality during seasonal runoff events 

G14: Beaver dams protected 

G15: Stream buffers undisturbed 

H3: Have lined containment vault under hazardous material storage barrels 

H5: Spill kit on site 

H6: Hazardous substances not to be released on land, rivers etc. Have oil absorbing mats 

H8: Check equipment for leaks 

M1: Specific requirements for visual monitoring of Granite Creek and Chipman Gulch 

W1-3: Requirements for working in wetlands and floodplains. 

L3, L8, L11: These require water exiting lode mines to be tested for heavy metals. 

L4: This requires that the first run of the adit material be tested to determine if there is a potential 

for release of heavy metals, as well as additional testing throughout the life of the operation. 

L5: This requires that test results will be provided to the FS directly from the testing facility. 

Should the results exceed the EPA and ODEQ standards, the miner must address this issue prior 

to continuing this portion of the operation (36 CFR 261.11 (c)). 

L1, L2, L6, L7, L9, L10, and L12: General Lode requirements that address water use and 

protection. 
Ms. Genevieve Masters 36 

Final Agency Review Draft – February 2, 2016 

Figure 17. Eddy Shipman Detailed Site Map. 
Ms. Genevieve Masters 37 

Final Agency Review Draft – February 2, 2016 

1.1.5 Tetra Alpha Lode Mine and Mill 

The Tetra Lode Mine and Mill are located within the Boulder Creek subwatershed, a tributary of 

Upper Granite Creek (Figure 18 and 19) and is SR bull trout critical habitat. The lode claim has 

been given a 25 ft. “no activity” plan-specific stream buffer (Table 3). The operator will use 

existing roads to access the adit (1 acre) and the mill (1 acre). Material from the adit will be 

hauled to the mill site. No explosives are proposed for this operation. Approximately 10 tons of 

ore will be removed from the lode mine to the milling site which could result in an estimated 30 

tons of waste over the ten-year consultation. Equipment to be used consists of an excavator, cat, 

dump trucks and pickup trucks. 

The mill site is an existing mill site (1 acre) from a previously approved Plan. The Plan was 

resubmitted with amendments in order to continue operations. The water source for the mill 

comes from an existing pond (Figure 18, northern most) on Last Chance Creek and is not bull 

trout critical habitat. The water right is 100 gpm and will be monitored by the FS Minerals 

Administrator. Over fifty years ago, Last Chance Creek was diverted to fill the northern most 

pond (Figure 19, buried pipe). Last Chance Creek is intermittent and dry during the summer and 

there is no flow in the pipe during the period of operation. The operator will use three existing 

settling ponds where water will be recycled. Equipment to be used consists of a jaw crusher, 

vibrator mill, front end loader, dump truck, air compressor, water pumps, and a final gold 

recovery unit. 

Per an email from Tracii Hickman (UNF), received on December 18, 2015, regarding water 

sources for Tetra Alpha Lode and Mill, “although the project description says water is from Last 

Chance Creek, the miner also has a water right to Boulder Creek and could withdraw makeup 

water from Boulder Creek if flow from Last Chance Creek is not sufficient.” This water right is 

limited to 100 gpm (Table 3). 

Site-Specific Forest Service Requirements 

Site-specific WRPMs: None needed. 

Site-specific Additional FPMs: 

1. No water withdrawals are permitted in Boulder Creek after August 15 to protect fish 

migrating to spawn. 

2. If Boulder Creek is dry below where the miner is working prior to August 15, then the miner 

 must cease withdrawing water from the creek until flow exceeds the amount withdrawn. 

GRs Identified for Protection of Water and /or Fish Resources:

G4: Surface runoff and water quality related 

G5: Disturbed areas kept in stable conditions 

G6: Tree removal related 

G12: Effective buffer strips to protect water quality during seasonal runoff events 

G14: Beaver dams protected 

G15: Stream buffers undisturbed 

H1: No use of processing chemicals to extract ore unless authorized 

H2: No chemical flocculent or surfactant used in ponds unless EPA approved 
Ms. Genevieve Masters 38 

Final Agency Review Draft – February 2, 2016 

H3: Have lined containment vault under hazardous material storage barrels 

H5: Spill kit on site 

H6: Hazardous substances not to be released on land, rivers etc. Have oil absorbing mats 

H8: Check equipment for leaks 

M1: Specific requirements for visual monitoring of Boulder Creek 

L3, L8, L11: These require that water exiting lode mines must be tested for heavy metals. 

L4: This requires that the first run of the adit material be tested to determine if there is a 

potential for release of heavy metals, as well as additional testing throughout the life of the 

operation. 

L5: Test results will be provided to the FS directly from the testing facility. Should the results 

exceed EPA and ODEQ’s standards, the miner must address this issue prior to continuing this 

portion of the operation (36CFR 261.11 (c)). 

L1, L2, L6, L7, L9, L10, and L12: General Lode requirements that address water use and 

protection. 
Ms. Genevieve Masters 39 

Final Agency Review Draft – February 2, 2016 

Figure 18: Tetra Alpha Lode Detailed Site Map. 
Ms. Genevieve Masters 40 

Final Agency Review Draft – February 2, 2016 

Figure 19: Tetra Alpha Mill Detailed Site Map. 
Ms. Genevieve Masters 41 

Final Agency Review Draft – February 2, 2016 

1.1.6 Tetra Alpha Placer Mine 

The Tetra Alpha Placer Mine is located within the Boulder Creek subwatershed (Figure 20), a 

tributary of Upper Granite Creek and is SR bull trout critical habitat. This claim has a 25 ft. “no 

activity” plan-specific stream buffer (Table 3). Placer mining is proposed on eight acres on the 

south side of Boulder Creek. The operator proposes processing approximately 100 cubic yards 

of material per day. Placer gravels will be excavated to bedrock and all material will be hauled 

to a pre-existing processing site on the north side of Boulder Creek (adjacent to the existing 

pond). An existing pond provides water for processing and all water will be recycled on site. 

Water withdrawals from Boulder Creek will be monitored by the FS Minerals Administrator and 

are limited to 100 gpm. Mining will take place in approximately half acre parcels with a total 

disturbance area of one acre each season and a maximum depth of 30 ft. Each half acre parcel 

will be reclaimed before moving to the next work site. After material is processed it will be 

returned to the excavation site for fill. The operator has proposed two new ford crossings to 

access the placer operations on the south side of Boulder Creek (one of the fords is a ford 

bridge). The operator will limit crossing of the new fords to no more than 1-3 round trips per 

day per ford. Heavy machinery will be used for hauling material to the processing site. The 

operator will limit crossing the existing ford to no more than 2-4 times per week with a pickup 

truck or ATV for maintenance and repairs. Equipment to be used consists of an excavator, cat, 

generator, trommel, water pumps, dump trucks, and ATVs. 

Site-Specific Forest Service Requirements 

Site-specific WRPMs: 

1. The high water mark is defined as the back edge of the meadow because the lushness of 

the meadow vegetation indicates that this area is frequently flooded and has a high water 

table. Measurement of the 25 ft. buffer will start at the back edge of the meadow. 

2. For Stage 2 mining operations (the area accessed via 7355-M3c and 7355-M3d roads), a 

straw bale berm will be constructed at the base of the hillslope, outside the existing 25 ft. 

buffer. The Stage 2 area is located on the south side of Boulder Creek, along the eastern 

portion of the 7355-mc3 temporary road. 

Fords: 

The middle ford, labeled F/B in Figure 20 is not authorized for use. The existing Boulder Creek 

west ford (Figure 20) will be used to access the Stage 1 area (located along the western portion 

of the 7355m3a and m3b temporary road) via the 7355-M3b road: 

1. Ford approaches will be rocked. 

Two newly constructed Boulder Creek fords (Figure 20) will be used to access the Stage 2 

mining area via the 7355-M3c and 7355-M3d roads: 

1. Construction will take place during the ODFW in-water work window. 

2. Material will be pulled away from the stream and deposited in a location where the 

sediment will not be able to reach the stream during high flow 

3. Small straw wattles, bales, or silt fence will be placed along the stream when pulling back 

the material during ford construction or maintenance. 

4. The two newly constructed ford approaches will be rocked and sloped. 

5. General requirement G7: Fords applies (Appendix A). 
Ms. Genevieve Masters 42 

Final Agency Review Draft – February 2, 2016 

Access Road: 

1. Where temporary road 7355-M3d crosses the meadow, it will be rocked to at least 20 ft. 

back from the creek to ensure that no sediment will make it to the creek and at additional 

areas as needed to ensure the road will not erode and trigger gullying in the meadow. 

2. Two-track location will be flagged by the operator and approved by FS personnel. 

Site-specific FPMs: 

1. A fisheries biologist will monitor the stream fords to ensure that they are not creating a 

fish barrier during low flows. 

2. No water withdrawals will be permitted from Boulder Creek after August 15, in order to 

protect bull trout spawning and rearing. 

3. If Boulder Creek is dry below where the miner is working prior to August 15, then the 

operator must cease withdrawing water from the creek until flow exceeds the amount 

withdrawn. The FS Minerals Administrator will monitor flow and also determine if and 

when mining activities can resume with advice from the FS fisheries biologist. 

General Requirements Identified for Protection of Water and /or Fish Resources:

G4: Surface runoff and water quality related 

G5: Disturbed areas kept in stable conditions 

G6: Tree removal related 

G7: Fords 

G12: Effective buffer strips to protect water quality during seasonal runoff events 

G14: Beaver dams protected 

G15: Stream buffers undisturbed 

H3: Have lined containment vault under hazardous material storage barrels 

H5: Spill kit on site 

H6: Hazardous substances not to be released on land, rivers etc. Have oil absorbing mats 

H8: Check equipment for leaks 

M1: Visual monitoring for turbidity of Boulder Creek is not required given site conditions and 

distance from Boulder Creek. 

W1 – 3: Requirements for working in wetlands and floodplains 
Ms. Genevieve Masters 43 

Final Agency Review Draft – February 2, 2016 

Figure 20: Tetra Alpha Place Mine Detailed Site Map. 
Ms. Genevieve Masters 44 

Final Agency Review Draft – February 2, 2016 

1.1.7 Grubsteak Placer Mine 

The Grubsteak Mine is located within the Clear Creek subwatershed, a tributary of Lower 

Granite Creek and is SR bull trout critical habitat (Figure 21). This claim has been given a 20 ft. 

“no activity” plan-specific stream buffer (Table 3) that will be maintained with a gravel berm 

and straw bales. Space limits at the site and the preferred approach of keeping equipment 

furthest from the stream allows temporary stockpiling upslope from the berm and straw bales. If 

there is space, the stockpile will be moved further from the stream. This area has been 

designated as a temporary stockpile area because of limited operating area and the preferred 

approach of keeping equipment away from the stream bank. If there is space in the work area, 

materials will be temporarily placed further from the stream, as designated by the Minerals 

Officer. This placer operation will be working an existing pit (20 ft. x 30 ft. x 20 ft. deep) and 

will dig a new second test site (20 ft. x 30 ft. x 12 ft. deep) in the activity area (approximately 2 

acres). Excavations are in historic dredge tailings. Processing water will be used from an 

existing processing pond (Figure 21, Site A), which is over 150 ft. away from Clear Creek. All 

water will be recycled. The operator is using an existing road and an existing miner-constructed 

bridge to access both test sites. Heavy equipment will access the site via the existing ford on 

Clear Creek from July 15 to August 15, four trips per season. If the operator proposes to ford 

outside the instream work window, then a fish biologist must inspect the crossing and approve 

beforehand. Gravel will be placed and packed on streambanks at fords to protect streambanks. 

Equipment to be used includes a backhoe, trommel, shaker, water pumps, generator, pickup 

trucks, ATV, utility trailer, and motorcycles. 

Site-Specific Forest Service Requirements 

Site-specific WRPMs: The southwest approach to the Clear Creek ford will be rocked. 

Site A: None needed 

Site B: 

1. A berm made of straw bales/coils will be placed between Clear Creek and the mining 

activity. Gravels and filter cloth will not be used. 

2. Measurement of the 20 ft. buffer will start at the top of the valley floor terrace-channel bank 

break in slope of the side channel. 

3. Because of close proximity to Clear Creek, the operator must fill the existing hole at Site B 

at the end of each season. 

4. Due to the proximity of Site B to Clear Creek, there is a potential for subsurface flow from 

Clear Creek into the hole. Should the hole start to fill with water, the operator is to stop 

work immediately and contact the FS. Site conditions will be reevaluated at that time and 

additional mitigation measures added if necessary. 

Site-specific FPMs: None

GRs Identified for Protection of Water and /or Fish Resources:

G4: Surface runoff and water quality related 

G5: Disturbed areas kept in stable conditions 

G6: Tree removal related 

G7: Fords 
Ms. Genevieve Masters 45 

Final Agency Review Draft – February 2, 2016 

G12: Effective buffer strips to protect water quality during seasonal runoff events 

G14: Beaver dams protected 

G15: Stream buffers undisturbed 

H3: Have lined containment vault under hazardous material storage barrels 

H5: Spill kit on site 

H6: Hazardous substances not to be released on land, rivers etc. Have oil absorbing mats 

H8: Check equipment for leaks 

M1: Specific requirements for visual monitoring of Clear Creek 

Figure 21. Grubsteak Placer Mine Detailed Site Map. 
Ms. Genevieve Masters 46 

Final Agency Review Draft – February 2, 2016 

1.1.8 Ruby Group Placer Mine 

The Ruby Group Mine is located on Clear Creek and tributary Ruby Creek (Figure 22 and 23). 

Clear Creek is SR bull trout critical habitat and Ruby Creek is not bull trout critical habitat. This 

claim has a 10 ft. “no activity” plan-specific stream buffer (Table 3). Ruby Group will have 

eight mining sites (approximately three acres) located on Clear and Ruby Creeks. The operator 

will dig five to twenty test holes at each site. Each test hole will be reclaimed before moving 

onto the next test hole. Test holes will remove one to two yards of material (typically 8 ft. deep). 

Yearly production is estimated at 2-5 yards of material a year. The operator will be using a selfcontained and portable wash plant and using existing roads/skid trails. The operators will install 

a temporary, portable ATV bridge over Clear Creek but they will have to walk heavy equipment 

and drive pickup trucks across Clear Creek due to the limiting size of the bridge. Using the 

Clear Creek ford, the miner will mobilize heavy equipment to work sites #1, 2 and 3, and the 

miner will limit the number of crossings over Clear Creek to no more than four times per season. 

The miner will limit crossings with a pickup truck to no more than two times per week for 

maintenance needs and fuel. The ATV bridge will be placed across Clear Creek and used daily. 

Road 1310-E1a is used to ford Ruby Creek and Ruby Creek seasonally floods the road. Using 

the Ruby Creek ford, the operator will mobilize heavy equipment to work sites 1, 2 and 3 and 

these crossings will be limited to no more than four times per season. The operator will limit 

crossings with a pickup truck to no more than two times per week for maintenance needs and 

fuel. The miner will limit Ruby Creek ford crossings with an ATV to twice in June, and five 

trips per week in July and August, during low flows or when the crossing is dry. Gravel will be 

placed and packed on streambanks at fords to protect streambanks. Equipment to be used 

includes a backhoe, trommel, water pumps, ATVs, and pickup trucks. 

Site-Specific Forest Service Requirements 

Site-specific WRPMs: 

Mining at Sites 1, 2, and 3 on Ruby Creek 

1. Measurement of the 10 ft. buffer will start at the top of the valley floor-channel break in 

slope. 

2. Use of the temporary road behind the barricade that accesses work sites 1, 2, and 3 is 

limited use only, after the road goes dry. 

3. Straw bales or wattles must be placed between work sites 1, 2 and 3 and Ruby Creek. 

4. Straw bales or wattles must be placed across the road used to access sites 1, 2, and 3 

where the road could contribute sediment into the side channel of Clear Creek in order to 

trap any sediment generated by the activity. 

Mining at Sites 4, 5, 6, and 8 on Clear Creek: 

1. Measurement of the 10 ft. buffer will start at the top of the valley floor-channel break in 

slope. 

2. Straw bales or wattles will be placed between test holes and Clear Creek and between the 

test holes and the side channel to Clear Creek. 

Mining at Site 7: None 
Ms. Genevieve Masters 47 

Final Agency Review Draft – February 2, 2016 

Access Roads: 

Road 1310-E1a is the access road to sites 1, 2, and 3 (Figure 22). Road 1310-E1a is an existing 

temporary road and the miner is responsible for leaving the road in a stable and safe condition 

(i.e., this road will be treated as a temporary road once mining is completed [see Z8 and Z14]). 

In identifying FS WRPMs to prevent a discharge of sediment into Ruby Creek from the use of 

1310-E1a and the Ruby Creek ford, it was necessary to divide the road into segments as follows: 

Segment A: The portion of 1310-E1a between the Clear Creek ford and the Ruby Creek ford 

Segment B: The north and south approaches to the ford. 

Segment C: The portion of the road between the Ruby Creek ford and Site 2 

Segment D: The portion of the road between Site 2 and Site 1 

Segment A: No WRPMs are needed as this section of the road does not interact with Ruby 

Creek. 

Segment B: The north and south approaches to the ford and 25 ft. of the road on the south side 

of the ford, just before the approach begins, will be rocked. 

Segment C: Weed-free straw bales will be placed end to end starting at the north side of the ford 

to Site 2 along the west side of the road. Straw bales will be two bales deep to act as a dam to 

prevent water from Ruby Creek from flowing onto Segment C and moving sediment generated 

by road use, into Ruby Creek. 

Segment D: If water from Ruby Creek is observed flowing onto this segment of road, then the 

WRPMs stated for Segment C will be put into place. 

Temporary, Portable, ATV Bridge: 

1. Stream banks where the bridge will be placed will be rocked. 

2. At the beginning of each season, this area will be checked and more rock added as 

necessary. 

3. The bridge will be removed each fall. 

Site-specific FPMs: None

General Requirements Identified for Protection of Water and /or Fish Resources:

G4: Surface runoff and water quality related 

G5: Disturbed areas kept in stable conditions 

G6: Tree removal related 

G7: Fords 

G12: Effective buffer strips to protect water quality during seasonal runoff events 

G14: Beaver dams protected 

G15: Stream buffers undisturbed 

H3: Have lined containment vault under hazardous material storage barrels 

H5: Spill kit on site 

H6: Hazardous substances not to be released on land, rivers etc. Have oil absorbing mats 

H8: Check equipment for leaks 

M1: Specific requirements for visual monitoring of Clear Creek and Ruby Creek 
Ms. Genevieve Masters 48 

Final Agency Review Draft – February 2, 2016 

Figure 22. Ruby Group Placer Mine Detailed Site Map (1 of 2 maps). 
Ms. Genevieve Masters 49 

Final Agency Review Draft – February 2, 2016 

Figure 23. Ruby Group Placer Mine Detailed Site Map (2 of 2 maps). 
Ms. Genevieve Masters 50 

Final Agency Review Draft – February 2, 2016 

1.1.9 Lightning Creek Placer Mine 

The Lightning Creek Mine is located in the Clear Creek subwatershed, on tributary Lightning 

Creek (Figure 24) and is SR bull trout critical habitat. This claim is located over 150 ft. from 

bull trout critical habitat (Table 3), and FS 1305-100 Rd and old settling ponds separate mining 

activity from Lightning Creek (Figure 24). This operation will be working old dredge tailings on 

the south side of Lightning Creek. Mining will take place over three sites along the hillside. 

Each site will be approximately 50 ft. x 100 ft. x 15 ft. (approximately 5 acres). Reclamation of 

each site is required before moving to the next site. Existing processing ponds and settling ponds 

will be used. Water from Lightning Creek will be used under an existing water right (100 gpm) 

to process the material. The operator will use existing roads and a miner built bridge that crosses 

Lightning Creek. A hardened ford on Lightning Creek will be used twice during the year to walk 

heavy equipment across the creek during the ODFW in-water work window. Equipment to be 

used includes a backhoe, excavator, two five-yard dump trucks, pickup trucks, washing plant, 

water pumps, generator, and ATVs. 

Site-Specific Forest Service Requirements 

Site-specific WRMPs: None 

Site-specific FPMs: 

1. No water withdrawals are permitted in Lightning Creek after August 15 to protect bull trout 

SR habitat. 

2. If a stream is dry below where the operator is working prior to August 15, then the operator 

must cease withdrawing water from the creek until flow exceeds the amount withdrawn. 

The FS Minerals Administrator will monitor flow and also determine if and when mining 

activities can resume, with advice from the FS fisheries biologist. 

3. On Lightning Creek water pump intakes will be screened with 3/32” plate screen (or 

equivalent) to avoid entrainment and/or intake of juvenile fish. 

GRs Identified for Protection of Water and /or Fish Resources:

G4: Surface runoff and water quality related 

G5: Disturbed areas kept in stable conditions 

G6: Tree removal related 

G12: Effective buffer strips to protect water quality during seasonal runoff events 

G14: Beaver dams protected 

G15: Stream buffers undisturbed 

G23: Identifies characteristics of pumps that can be use when drafting water from a creek to 

minimize potential for impacts to fish 

H3: Have lined containment vault under hazardous material storage barrels 

H5: Spill kit on site 

H6: Hazardous substances not to be released on land, rivers etc. Have oil absorbing mats 

H8: Check equipment for leaks 

M1: Specific requirements for visual monitoring of Lightning Creek 
Ms. Genevieve Masters 51 

Final Agency Review Draft – February 2, 2016 

Figure 24. Lightning Creek Placer and Suction Dredge Detailed Site Map. 

 Protection Measures 

All required FS PMs are found in Appendix A. Provided below are key FS PMs and some of the 

key ODSL requirements that the operators also must comply with. 

 1. The monitoring of water withdrawals from streams within the Project is the 

responsibility of the FS Minerals Officer. 
Ms. Genevieve Masters 52 

Final Agency Review Draft – February 2, 2016 

 2. For Tetra Placer Mine, Tetra Alpha Mill and Lode, and Lightning Creek Mine, no water 

withdrawals are permitted in Boulder Creek or Lightning Creek after August 15 to 

protect fish migrating to spawn. If Boulder Creek or Lightning Creek are dry below 

where the miner is working prior to August 15, then the miner must cease withdrawing 

water from the creek until flow exceeds the amount withdrawn. 

 3. All water withdrawals will be monitored by the FS Minerals Administrator. 

 4. Mining equipment will cross creeks only at pre-approved sites, as authorized by the 

 District Ranger, with FS, NMFS, and Service mitigations, and 2012 BMPs (USDA 

 2012). 

 5. All fords will be sloped and armored with rock, based on a site-specific evaluation. 

 6. Bridges will be installed so as not to result in continued sediment delivery to the stream, 

and will be removed upon final cessation of the mining operation in 2024. 

 7. All construction of new fords and installation of new bridges will only occur during 

ODFW’s in-water work window. 

 7 The duration of all temporary roads is ten years, or until a Plan is closed. 

 8. Tetra Alpha Placer is a proposing a new temporary road in the RHCA of Boulder Creek. 

 The location of this road must be approved by FS personnel and the road will be rocked 

 20 ft. back from the creek to ensure that no sediment will make it to the creek. 

1.2 Action Area 

The action area is defined as all areas to be affected directly or indirectly by the federal action 

and not merely the immediate area involved in the action (50 CFR 402.02). In delineating the 

action area, we evaluated the farthest reaching physical, chemical, and biotic effects of the action 

on the environment. The action area for this consultation is the Granite Creek Watershed 

occupied bull trout areas and bull trout critical habitat (Figure 9) encompassed by mining 

operations approved by the Umatilla and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests (Figures 10-24), as 

well as the downstream extent of stream reaches affected by mining activities (habitat 

parameters, sediment, temperature, and fish passage). Placer and lode mines that contain bull 

trout critical habitat are summarized in Table 3. 

2. Analytical Framework for Jeopardy and Adverse Modification Determinations 

2.1 Jeopardy Determination 

In accordance with policy and regulation, the jeopardy analysis in this Opinion relies on four 

components: (1) the Status of the Species, which evaluates the bull trout’s range-wide condition, 

the factors responsible for that condition, and its survival and recovery needs; (2) the 

Environmental Baseline, which evaluates the condition of the bull trout in the action area, the 

factors responsible for that condition, and the relationship of the action area to the survival and 

recovery of the bull trout; (3) the Effects of the Action, which determines the direct and indirect 

impacts of the proposed Federal action and the effects of any interrelated or interdependent 

activities on the bull trout; and (4) Cumulative Effects, which evaluates the effects of future, 

non-Federal activities in the action area on the bull trout. 

In accordance with policy and regulation, the jeopardy determination is made by evaluating the 

effects of the proposed Federal action in the context of the bull trout’s current status, taking into 

account any cumulative effects, to determine if implementation of the proposed action is likely to 
Ms. Genevieve Masters 53 

Final Agency Review Draft – February 2, 2016 

cause an appreciable reduction in the likelihood of both the survival and recovery of the bull 

trout in the wild. 

As discussed below under the Status of the Species, interim recovery units have been designated 

for the bull trout for purposes of recovery planning and application of the jeopardy standard. Per 

Service national policy (Director’s March 6, 2006, memorandum), it is important to recognize 

that the establishment of recovery units does not create a new listed entity. Jeopardy analyses 

must always consider the impacts of a proposed action on the survival and recovery of the 

species that is listed. While a proposed Federal action may have significant adverse 

consequences to one or more recovery units, this would only result in a jeopardy determination if 

these adverse consequences reduce appreciably the likelihood of both the survival and recovery 

of the listed entity; in this case, the coterminous U.S. population of the bull trout. 

The joint Service and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Endangered Species 

Consultation Handbook (USFWS and NMFS 1998), which represents national policy of both 

agencies, further clarifies the use of recovery units in the jeopardy analysis: 

When an action appreciably impairs or precludes the capacity of a recovery unit from 

providing both the survival and recovery function assigned to it, that action may represent 

jeopardy to the species. When using this type of analysis, include in the biological 

opinion a description of how the action affects not only the recovery unit’s capability, but 

the relationship of the recovery unit to both the survival and recovery of the listed species 

as a whole. 

The jeopardy analysis in this Opinion conforms to the above analytical framework. 

2.2 Adverse Modification Determination 

This Opinion does not rely on the regulatory definition of “destruction or adverse modification” 

of critical habitat at 50 CFR 402.02. Instead, we have relied upon the statutory provisions of the 

ESA to complete the following analysis with respect to critical habitat. 

In accordance with policy and regulation, the adverse modification analysis in this Opinion relies 

on four components: (1) the Status of Critical Habitat, which evaluates the range-wide condition 

of designated critical habitat for the bull trout in terms of primary constituent elements (PCEs), 

the factors responsible for that condition, and the intended recovery function of the critical 

habitat overall; (2) the Environmental Baseline, which evaluates the condition of the critical 

habitat in the action area, the factors responsible for that condition, and the recovery role of the 

critical habitat in the action area; (3) the Effects of the Action, which determines the direct and 

indirect impacts of the proposed Federal action and the effects of any interrelated or 

interdependent activities on the PCEs and how that will influence the recovery role of affected 

critical habitat units; and (4) Cumulative Effects, which evaluates the effects of future, nonFederal activities in the action area on the PCEs and how that will influence the recovery role of 

affected critical habitat units. 

For purposes of the adverse modification determination, the effects of the proposed Federal 

action on bull trout critical habitat are evaluated in the context of the range-wide condition of the 

critical habitat, taking into account any cumulative effects, to determine if the critical habitat 

range-wide would remain functional (or would retain the current ability for the PCEs to be 
Ms. Genevieve Masters 54 

Final Agency Review Draft – February 2, 2016 

functionally established in areas of currently unsuitable but capable habitat) to serve its intended 

recovery role for the bull trout. 

The analysis in this Opinion places an emphasis on using the intended range-wide recovery 

function of proposed bull trout critical habitat, especially in terms of maintaining and/or restoring 

viable core areas, and the role of the action area relative to that intended function as the context 

for evaluating the significance of the effects of the proposed Federal action, taken together with 

cumulative effects, for purposes of making the adverse modification determination. 

3. Status of the Species/Critical Habitat 

3.1 Listing Status 

The coterminous United States population of the bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) was listed as 

threatened on November 1, 1999 (64 FR 58910). The bull trout generally occurs in the Klamath 

River Basin of south-central Oregon; the Jarbidge River in Nevada; the Willamette River Basin 

in Oregon; Pacific Coast drainages of Washington, including Puget Sound; major rivers in Idaho, 

Oregon, Washington, and Montana, within the Columbia River Basin; and the St. Mary-Belly 

River, east of the Continental Divide in northwestern Montana (Bond 1992, p. 2; Brewin and 

Brewin 1997, p. 215; Cavender 1978, pp. 165-166; Leary and Allendorf 1997, pp. 716-719). 

Throughout its range, bull trout are threatened by the combined effects of habitat degradation, 

fragmentation, and alterations associated with dewatering, road construction and maintenance, 

mining, grazing, the blockage of migratory corridors by dams or other diversion structures, poor 

water quality, entrainment (a process by which aquatic organisms are pulled through a diversion 

or other device) into diversion channels, and introduced non-native species (64 FR 58910). 

Although all salmonids are likely to be affected by climate change, bull trout are especially 

vulnerable given that spawning and rearing are constrained by their location in upper watersheds 

and the requirement for cold water temperatures (Battin et al. 2007, pp. 6672-6673; Rieman et 

al. 2007, p. 1552). Poaching and incidental mortality of bull trout during other targeted fisheries 

are additional threats. 

The bull trout was initially listed as three separate Distinct Population Segments (DPSs) (63 FR 

31647; 64 FR 17110). The preamble to the final listing rule for the United States coterminous 

population of the bull trout discusses the consolidation of these DPSs with the Columbia and 

Klamath population segments into one listed taxon and the application of the jeopardy standard 

under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (Act) relative to this species (64 FR 58910): 

Although this rule consolidates the five bull trout DPSs into one listed taxon, based on 

conformance with the DPS policy for purposes of consultation under section 7 of the Act, 

we intend to retain recognition of each DPS in light of available scientific information 

relating to their uniqueness and significance. Under this approach, these DPSs will be 

treated as interim recovery units with respect to application of the jeopardy standard until 

an approved recovery plan is developed. Formal establishment of bull trout recovery units 

will occur during the recovery planning process. 

Thus, as discussed above under the Analytical Framework for the Jeopardy and Adverse 

Modification Determinations, the Service’s jeopardy analysis for the proposed Project will 
Ms. Genevieve Masters 55 

Final Agency Review Draft – February 2, 2016 

involve consideration of how the Project is likely to affect the Columbia River interim recovery 

unit for the bull trout based on its uniqueness and significance as described in the DPS final 

listing rule cited above, which is herein incorporated by reference. However, in accordance with 

Service national policy, the jeopardy determination is made at the scale of the listed species. In 

this case, that is the coterminous U.S. population of the bull trout. 

Recovery Planning 

Between 2002 and 2004, three separate draft bull trout recovery plans were completed. In 2002, 

a draft recovery plan that addressed bull trout populations within the Columbia, Saint MaryBelly, and Klamath River basins (USFWS 2002a, b, c) was completed and included individual 

chapters for 24 separate recovery units. In 2004, draft recovery plans were developed for the 

Coastal-Puget Sound drainages in western Washington, including two recovery unit chapters 

(USFWS 2004a), and for the Jarbidge River in Nevada (USFWS 2004b). None of these draft 

recovery plans were finalized, but they have served to identify recovery actions across the range 

of the species and to provide a framework for implementing numerous recovery actions by our 

partner agencies, local working groups, and others with an interest in bull trout conservation.

The Service released a revised draft bull trout recovery plan in August 2014 (USFWS 2014) and 

a final recovery plan in September 2015 (USFWS 2015). The final recovery plan: 1) 

incorporates and builds upon new information found in numerous reports and studies regarding 

bull trout life history, ecology, etc., including a variety of implemented conservation actions, 

since the draft 2002 and 2004 recovery planning period; and (2) revises recovery criteria 

proposed in the 2002 and 2004 draft recovery plans to focus on effective management of threats 

to bull trout at the core area level, and de-emphasize achieving targeted point estimates of 

abundance of adult bull trout (demographics) in each core area. 

The 2002 and 2004 draft recovery plans provide the general life history information, habitat 

characteristics, diet, reasons for decline, and distribution and abundance of the different core 

areas. The 2014 revised draft recovery plan and the final 2015 recovery plan integrate new 

information collected since the 1999 listing regarding bull trout life history, distribution, 

demographics, conservation successes, etc., and update previous bull trout recovery planning 

efforts across the range of the single DPS currently listed under the Act. While the 2015 final 

recovery plan supersedes and replaces the previous draft recovery plans, the 2002 and 2004 draft 

recovery plans still provide important information on bull trout status and life history. 

The 2015 recovery plan establishes three recovery actions for each of the six Recovery Units 

(RUs): 

1) Protect, restore, and maintain suitable habitat conditions for bull trout that promote 

diverse life history strategies and conserve genetic diversity.

2) Prevent and reduce negative effects of non-native fishes and other non-native taxa on bull 

trout. 

3) Work with partners to conduct research and monitoring to implement and evaluate bull 

trout recovery activities, consistent with an adaptive management approach using 

feedback from implemented, site-specific recovery actions. 
Ms. Genevieve Masters 56 

Final Agency Review Draft – February 2, 2016 

3.1.1 Current Status and Conservation Needs

Bull trout recovery is based on a geographical hierarchical approach. Bull trout are listed as a 

single DPS within the five-state area of the coterminous United States. The single DPS is 

subdivided into six biologically-based recovery units: (1) Coastal Recovery Unit; (2) Klamath 

Recovery Unit; (3) Mid-Columbia Recovery Unit; (4) Upper Snake Recovery Unit; (5) Columbia 

Headwaters Recovery Unit; and (6) Saint Mary Recovery Unit (USFWS 2014, p. 32). A viable 

recovery unit should demonstrate that the three primary principles of biodiversity have been met: 

representation (conserving the genetic makeup of the species); resiliency (ensuring that each 

population is sufficiently large to withstand stochastic events); and redundancy (ensuring a 

sufficient number of populations to withstand catastrophic events) (USFWS 2014). 

Each of the six recovery units contain multiple bull trout core areas, 118 total, which are nonoverlapping watershed-based polygons, and each core area includes one or more local 

populations. Currently there are 110 occupied core areas, which comprise 600 or more local 

populations. There are also six core areas where bull trout historically occurred but are now 

extirpated, and two research needs areas where bull trout were known to occur historically, but 

their current presence and use of the area are uncertain. 

Core areas can be further described as complex or simple. Complex core areas contain multiple 

local bull trout populations, are found in large watersheds, have multiple life history forms, and 

have migratory connectivity between spawning and rearing habitat and foraging, migration, and 

overwintering habitats (FMO). Simple core areas are those that contain one bull trout local 

population. Simple core areas are small in scope, isolated from other core areas by natural 

barriers, and may contain unique genetic or life history adaptations. 

A local population is a group of bull trout that spawn within a particular stream or portion of a 

stream system. A local population is considered to be the smallest group of fish that is known to 

represent an interacting reproductive unit. For most waters where specific information is 

lacking, a local population may be represented by a single headwater tributary or complex of 

headwater tributaries. Gene flow may occur between local populations (e.g., those within a core 

population), but is assumed to be infrequent compared with that among individuals within a local 

population. 

The habitat requirements of bull trout are often generally expressed as the four “Cs”: cold, clean, 

complex, and connected habitat. Cold stream temperatures, clean water quality that is relatively 

free of sediment and contaminants, complex channel characteristics (including abundant large 

wood and undercut banks), and large patches of such habitat that are well connected by 

unobstructed migratory pathways are all needed to promote conservation of bull trout throughout 

all hierarchical levels. 

Recovery Units 

The following is a summary of the description and current status of the bull trout within the six 

recovery units (RU). A comprehensive discussion is found in the Service’s 2015 recovery plan 

for the bull trout (USFWS 2014, pp. 113-126, USFWS 2015) and the 2015 Implementation 

Plans. 
Ms. Genevieve Masters 57 

Final Agency Review Draft – February 2, 2016 

Coastal Recovery Unit 

The Coastal RU is located within western Oregon and Washington. The Coastal RU is divided 

into three regions: Puget Sound, Olympic Peninsula, and the Lower Columbia River Regions. 

This RU contains 21 core areas and 85 local populations, including the Clackamas River core 

area where bull trout had been extirpated and were reintroduced in 2011, and identified four 

historically occupied core areas that could be re-established. Core areas within Puget Sound and 

the Olympic Peninsula currently support the only anadromous local populations of bull trout. 

This RU also contains ten shared FMO habitats which are outside core areas and allows for the 

continued natural population dynamics in which the core areas have evolved. There are four 

core areas within the Coastal RU that have been identified as current population strongholds: 

Lower Skagit, Upper Skagit, Quinault River, and Lower Deschutes River. These are the most 

stable and abundant bull trout populations in the RU. The current condition of the bull trout in 

this RU is attributed to the adverse effects of climate change, loss of functioning estuarine and 

nearshore marine habitats, development and related impacts (e.g., flood control, floodplain 

disconnection, bank armoring, channel straightening, loss of instream habitat complexity), 

agriculture (e.g., diking, water control structures, draining of wetlands, channelization, and the 

removal of riparian vegetation, livestock grazing), fish passage (e.g., dams, culverts, instream 

flows) residential development, urbanization, forest management practices (e.g., timber harvest 

and associated road building activities), connectivity impairment, mining, and the introduction of 

non-native species. Conservation measures or recovery actions implemented include relicensing 

of major hydropower facilities that have provided upstream and downstream fish passage or 

complete removal of dams, land acquisition to conserve bull trout habitat, floodplain restoration, 

culvert removal, riparian revegetation, levee setbacks, road removal, and projects to protect and 

restore important nearshore marine habitats. 

Klamath Recovery Unit 

The Klamath RU is located in southern Oregon and northwestern California. The Klamath RU is 

the most significantly imperiled recovery unit, having experienced considerable extirpation and 

geographic contraction of local populations and declining demographic condition, and natural recolonization is constrained by dispersal barriers and presence of nonnative brook trout (USFWS 

2014, p.38). This RU currently contains three core areas and eight local populations. Nine 

historic local populations of bull trout have become extirpated, and restoring additional local 

populations will be necessary to achieve recovery (USFWS Klamath RU, p. B-7). All three core 

areas have been isolated from other bull trout populations for the past 10,000 years. The current 

condition of the bull trout in this RU is attributed to the adverse effects of climate change, habitat 

degradation and fragmentation, past and present land use practices, agricultural water diversions, 

nonnative species, and past fisheries management practices. Conservation measures or recovery 

actions implemented include removal of nonnative fish (e.g., brook trout, brown trout, and 

hybrids), acquiring water rights for instream flows, replacing diversion structures, installing fish 

screens, constructing bypass channels, installing riparian fencing, culver replacement, and habitat 

restoration. 
Ms. Genevieve Masters 58 

Final Agency Review Draft – February 2, 2016 

Mid-Columbia Recovery Unit 

The Mid-Columbia RU is located within eastern Washington, eastern Oregon, and portions of 

central Idaho. The Mid-Columbia RU is divided into four geographic regions: Lower MidColumbia, Upper Mid-Columbia, Lower Snake, and Mid-Snake Geographic Regions. This RU 

contains 25 occupied core areas, two historically occupied core areas, one research needs area, 

and seven FMO habitats. The current condition of the bull trout in this RU is attributed to the 

adverse effects of climate change, agricultural practices (e.g. irrigation, water withdrawals, 

livestock grazing), fish passage (e.g. dams, culverts), nonnative species, forest management 

practices, and mining. Conservation measures or recovery actions implemented include road 

removal, channel restoration, mine reclamation, improved grazing management, removal of fish 

barriers, and instream flow requirements. 

Upper Snake Recovery Unit 

The Upper Snake RU is located in central Idaho, northern Nevada, and eastern Oregon. The 

Upper Snake RU is divided into seven geographic regions: Salmon River, Boise River, Payette 

River, Little Lost River, Malheur River, Jarbidge River, and Weiser River. This RU contains 22 

core areas and 206 local populations, with almost 60 percent being present in the Salmon River 

Region. The current condition of the bull trout in this RU is attributed to the adverse effects of 

climate change, dams, mining, forest management practices, nonnative species, and agriculture 

(e.g., water diversions, grazing). Conservation measures or recovery actions implemented 

include instream habitat restoration, instream flow requirements, screening of irrigation 

diversions, and riparian restoration. 

Columbia Headwaters Recovery Unit 

The Columbia Headwaters RU is located in western Montana, northern Idaho, and the 

northeastern corner of Washington. The Columbia Headwaters RU is divided into five 

geographic regions: Upper Clark Fork, Lower Clark Fork, Flathead, Kootenai, and Coeur 

d’Alene Geographic Regions. This RU contains 35 bull trout core areas; 15 of which are 

complex core areas as they represent larger interconnected habitats and 20 simple core areas as 

they are isolated headwater lakes with single local populations. The 20 small core areas are each 

represented by a single local population, many of which may have persisted for thousands of 

years despite small populations and isolated existence (USFWS Columbia RU p. D-1). Fish 

passage improvements within the IRU have reconnected previously fragmented habitats. The 

current condition of the bull trout in this RU is attributed to the adverse effects of climate 

change, mining and contamination by heavy metals, nonnative species, modified instream flows, 

migratory barriers (e.g., dams), habitat fragmentation, forest practices (e,g., logging, roads), 

agriculture practices (e.g. irrigation, livestock grazing), and residential development. 

Conservation measures or recovery actions implemented include habitat improvement, fish 

passage, and removal of nonnative species. Unlike the other RUs, the Columbia Headwaters RU 

does not have any anadromous fish overlap. Therefore, bull trout within the Columbia 

Headwaters RU do not benefit from the recovery actions for salmon (USFWS Columbia RU p. 

D-41). 
Ms. Genevieve Masters 59 

Final Agency Review Draft – February 2, 2016 

Saint Mary Recovery Unit 

The Saint Mary RU is located in Montana but is heavily linked to downstream resources in 

southern Alberta, Canada. Most of the watershed in this RU is located in Canada. The United 

States portion includes headwater spawning and rearing habitat and the upper reaches of FMO 

habitat. This RU contains four core areas, and eight local populations. The current condition of 

the bull trout in this RU is attributed to the adverse effects of climate change, the Saint Mary 

Diversion operated by the Bureau of Reclamation (e.g., entrainment, fish passage, instream 

flows), and nonnative species. The primary issue precluding bull trout recovery in this RU 

relates to impacts of water diversions, specifically at the Bureau of Reclamation’s Milk River 

Project. 

3.1.2 Life History 

Bull trout exhibit both resident and migratory life history strategies. Both resident and migratory 

forms may be found together, and either form may produce offspring exhibiting either resident or 

migratory behavior (Rieman and McIntyre 1993, pp. 1-18). Resident bull trout complete their 

entire life cycle in the tributary (or nearby) streams in which they spawn and rear. The resident 

form tends to be smaller than the migratory form at maturity and also produces fewer eggs 

(Fraley and Shepard 1989, p. 1; Goetz 1989, pp. 15-16). Migratory bull trout spawn in tributary 

streams where juvenile fish rear 1 to 4 years before migrating to either a lake (adfluvialform), 

river (fluvialform) (Fraley and Shepard 1989, pp. 135-137; Goetz 1989, pp. 22-25), or saltwater 

(anadromous form) to rear as subadults and to live as adults (Cavender 1978, pp. 139, 165-68; 

McPhail and Baxter 1996, p. 14; WDFW et al. 1997, pp. 17-18, 22-26). Bull trout normally 

reach sexual maturity in 4 to 7 years and may live longer than 12 years. They are iteroparous 

(they spawn more than once in a lifetime). Repeat- and alternate-year spawning has been 

reported, although repeat-spawning frequency and post-spawning mortality are not well 

documented (Fraley and Shepard 1989, pp. 135-137; Leathe and Graham 1982, p. 95; Pratt 1992, 

p. 6; Rieman and McIntyre 1996, p. 133). 

The iteroparous reproductive strategy of bull trout has important repercussions for the 

management of this species. Bull trout require passage both upstream and downstream, not only 

for repeat spawning but also for foraging. Most fish ladders, however, were designed 

specifically for anadromous semelparous salmonids (fishes that spawn once and then die, and 

require only one-way passage upstream). Therefore, even dams or other barriers with fish 

passage facilities may be a factor in isolating bull trout populations if they do not provide a 

downstream passage route. Additionally, in some core areas, bull trout that migrate to marine 

waters must pass both upstream and downstream through areas with net fisheries at river mouths. 

This can increase the likelihood of mortality to bull trout during these spawning and foraging 

migrations. 

Growth varies depending upon life-history strategy. Resident adults range from 6 to 12 inches 

total length, and migratory adults commonly reach 24 inches or more (Goetz 1989, pp. 29-32; 

Pratt 1984, p. 13). The largest verified bull trout is a 32-pound specimen caught in Lake Pend 

Oreille, Idaho, in 1949 (Simpson and Wallace 1982). 
Ms. Genevieve Masters 60 

Final Agency Review Draft – February 2, 2016 

3.1.3 Habitat Characteristics 

Bull trout have more specific habitat requirements than most other salmonids (Rieman and 

McIntyre 1993, p. 7). Habitat components that influence bull trout distribution and abundance 

include water temperature, cover, channel form and stability, valley form, spawning and rearing 

substrate, and migratory corridors (Fraley and Shepard 1989, pp. 137, 141; Goetz 1989, pp. 19-

26; Bond in Hoelscher and Bjornn 1989, p. 57; Howell and Buchanan 1992, p. 1; Pratt 1992, p. 

6; Rich 1996, pp. 35-38; Rieman and McIntyre 1993, pp. 4-7; Rieman and McIntyre 1995, pp. 

293-294; Sedell and Everest 1991, p. 1; Watson and Hillman 1997, pp. 246-250). Watson and 

Hillman (1997, pp. 247-249) concluded that watersheds must have specific physical 

characteristics to provide the habitat requirements necessary for bull trout to successfully spawn 

and rear and that these specific characteristics are not necessarily present throughout these 

watersheds. Because bull trout exhibit a patchy distribution, even in pristine habitats (Rieman 

and McIntyre 1993, p. 7), bull trout should not be expected to simultaneously occupy all 

available habitats (Rieman et al. 2007, p. 1560). 

Migratory corridors link seasonal habitats for all bull trout life histories. The ability to migrate is 

important to the persistence of bull trout (Gilpin, in litt. 1997, pp. 4-5; Rieman and McIntyre 

1993, p. 7; Rieman et al. 1997, p. 1114). Migrations facilitate gene flow among local 

populations when individuals from different local populations interbreed or stray to nonnatal 

streams. Local populations that are extirpated by catastrophic events may also become 

reestablished by bull trout migrants. However, it is important to note that the genetic structuring 

of bull trout indicates there is limited gene flow among bull trout populations, which may 

encourage local adaptation within individual populations, and that reestablishment of extirpated 

populations may take a long time (Rieman and McIntyre 1993, p. 7; Spruell et al. 1999, pp. 118-

120). Migration also allows bull trout to access more abundant or larger prey, which facilitates 

growth and reproduction. Additional benefits of migration and its relationship to foraging are 

discussed below under “Diet.” 

Cold water temperatures play an important role in determining bull trout habitat quality, as these 

fish are primarily found in colder streams (below 15 °C or 59 °F), and spawning habitats are 

generally characterized by temperatures that drop below 9 °C (48 °F) in the fall (Fraley and 

Shepard 1989, p. 133; Pratt 1992, p. 6; Rieman and McIntyre 1993, p. 7). 

Thermal requirements for bull trout appear to differ at different life stages. Spawning areas are 

often associated with cold-water springs, groundwater infiltration, and the coldest streams in a 

given watershed (Baxter et al. 1997, pp. 426-427; Pratt 1992, p. 6; Rieman and McIntyre 1993, 

p. 7; Rieman et al. 1997, p. 1117). Optimum incubation temperatures for bull trout eggs range 

from 2 °C to 6 °C (35 °F to 39 °F) whereas optimum water temperatures for rearing range from 

about 6 °C to 10 °C (46 °F to 50 °F) (Buchanan and Gregory 1997, pp. 121-122; Goetz 1989, pp. 

22-24; McPhail and Murray 1979, pp. 41, 50, 53, 55). In Granite Creek, Idaho, Bonneau and 

Scarnecchia (1996) observed that juvenile bull trout selected the coldest water available in a 

plunge pool, 8 °C to 9 °C (46 °F to 48 °F), within a temperature gradient of 8 °C to 15 °C (4 °F 

to 60 °F). In a landscape study relating bull trout distribution to maximum water temperatures, 

Dunham et al. (2003) found that the probability of juvenile bull trout occurrence does not 

become high (i.e., greater than 0.75) until maximum temperatures decline to 11 °C to 12 °C (52 

°F to 54 °F). 
Ms. Genevieve Masters 61 

Final Agency Review Draft – February 2, 2016 

Although bull trout are found primarily in cold streams, occasionally these fish are found in 

larger, warmer river systems throughout the Columbia River basin (Buchanan and Gregory 1997, 

pp. 121-122; Fraley and Shepard 1989, pp. 135-137; Rieman and McIntyre 1993, p. 2; Rieman 

and McIntyre 1995, p. 288; Rieman et al. 1997, p. 1114). Availability and proximity of cold 

water patches and food productivity can influence bull trout ability to survive in warmer rivers 

(Myrick et al. 2002). For example, in a study in the Little Lost River of Idaho where bull trout 

were found at temperatures ranging from 8 °C to 20 °C (46 °F to 68 °F), most sites that had high 

densities of bull trout were in areas where primary productivity in streams had increased 

following a fire (Gamett, pers. comm. 2002). 

All life history stages of bull trout are associated with complex forms of cover, including large 

woody debris, undercut banks, boulders, and pools (Fraley and Shepard 1989, pp. 135-137; 

Goetz 1989, pp. 22-25; Hoelscher and Bjornn 1989, p. 54; Pratt 1992, p. 6; Rich 1996, pp. 35-38; 

Sedell and Everest 1991, p. 1; Sexauer and James 1997, pp. 367-369; Thomas 1992, pp. 4-5; 

Watson and Hillman 1997, pp. 247-249). Maintaining bull trout habitat requires stability of 

stream channels and maintenance of natural flow patterns (Rieman and McIntyre 1993, p. 7). 

Juvenile and adult bull trout frequently inhabit side channels, stream margins, and pools with 

suitable cover (Sexauer and James 1997, pp. 367-369). These areas are sensitive to activities that 

directly or indirectly affect stream channel stability and alter natural flow patterns. For example, 

altered stream flow in the fall may disrupt bull trout during the spawning period, and channel 

instability may decrease survival of eggs and young juveniles in the gravel from winter through 

spring (Fraley and Shepard 1989, pp. 135-137; Pratt 1992, p. 6; Pratt and Huston 1993, pp. 70-

72). Pratt (1992, p. 6) indicated that increases in fine sediment reduce egg survival and 

emergence. 

Bull trout typically spawn from August through November during periods of increasing flows 

and decreasing water temperatures. Preferred spawning habitat consists of low-gradient stream 

reaches with loose, clean gravel (Fraley and Shepard 1989, p. 135). Redds are often constructed 

in stream reaches fed by springs or near other sources of cold groundwater (Goetz 1989, p. 15; 

Pratt 1992, p. 8; Rieman and McIntyre 1996, p. 133). Depending on water temperature, 

incubation is normally 100 to 145 days (Pratt 1992, p. 8). After hatching, fry remain in the 

substrate, and time from egg deposition to emergencemay surpass 200 days. Fry normally 

emerge from early April through May, depending on water temperatures and increasing stream 

flows (Ratliff and Howell 1992 in Howell and Buchanan 1992, pp. 10, 15; Pratt 1992, pp. 5-6). 

Early life stages of fish, specifically the developing embryo, require the highest inter-gravel 

dissolved oxygen (IGDO) levels, and are the most sensitive life stage to reduced oxygen levels. 

The oxygen demand of embryos depends on temperature and on stage of development, with the 

greatest IGDO required just prior to hatching. 

A literature review conducted by the Washington Department of Ecology (WDOE 2002) 

indicates that adverse effects of lower oxygen concentrations on embryo survival are magnified 

as temperatures increase above optimal (for incubation). In a laboratory study conducted in 

Canada, researchers found that low oxygen levels retarded embryonic development in bull trout 

(Giles and Van der Zweep 1996, pp. 54-55). Normal oxygen levels seen in rivers used by bull 

trout during spawning ranged from 8 to 12 mg/L (in the gravel), with corresponding instream 

levels of 10 to 11.5 mg/L (Stewart et al. 2007). In addition, IGDO concentrations, water 

velocities in the water column, and especially the intergravel flow rate, are interrelated variables 
Ms. Genevieve Masters 62 

Final Agency Review Draft – February 2, 2016 

that affect the survival of incubating embryos (ODEQ 1995). Due to a long incubation period of 

220+ days, bull trout are particularly sensitive to adequate IGDO levels. An IGDO level below 8 

mg/L is likely to result in mortality of eggs, embryos, and fry. 

Migratory forms of bull trout may develop when habitat conditions allow movement between 

spawning and rearing streams and larger rivers, lakes or nearshore marine habitat where foraging 

opportunities may be enhanced (Brenkman and Corbett 2005, pp. 1073, 1079-1080; Frissell 

1993, p. 350; Goetz et al. 2004, pp. 45, 55, 60, 68, 77, 113-114, 123, 125-126). For example, 

multiple life history forms (e.g., resident and fluvial) and multiple migration patterns have been 

noted in the Grande Ronde River (Baxter 2002). Parts of this river system have retained habitat 

conditions that allow free movement between spawning and rearing areas and the mainstem 

Snake River. Such multiple life history strategies help to maintain the stability and persistence 

of bull trout populations to environmental changes. Benefits to migratory bull trout include 

greater growth in the more productive waters of larger streams, lakes, and marine waters; greater 

fecundity resulting in increased reproductive potential; and dispersing the population across 

space and time so that spawning streams may be recolonized should local populations suffer a 

catastrophic loss (Frissell 1999, pp. 15-16; Rieman and McIntyre 1993, pp. 18-19; MBTSG 

1998, pp. iv, 48-50; USFWS 2004a, Vol. 2, p. 63). In the absence of the migratory bull trout life 

form, isolated populations cannot be replenished when disturbances make local habitats 

temporarily unsuitable. Therefore, the range of the species is diminished, and the potential for a 

greater reproductive contribution from larger fish with higher fecundity is lost (Rieman and 

McIntyre 1993, pp. 1-18). 

3.1.4 Diet 

Bull trout are opportunistic feeders, with food habits primarily a function of size and life-history 

strategy. A single optimal foraging strategy is not necessarily a consistent feature in the life of a 

fish, because this strategy can change as the fish progresses from one life stage to another (i.e., 

juvenile to subadult). Fish growth depends on the quantity and quality of food that is eaten 

(Gerking 1994), and as fish grow, their foraging strategy changes as their food changes, in 

quantity, size, or other characteristics. Resident and juvenile migratory bull trout prey on 

terrestrial and aquatic insects, macrozooplankton, and small fish (Boag 1987, p. 58; Donald and 

Alger 1993, pp. 239-243; Goetz 1989, pp. 33-34). Subadult and adult migratory bull trout feed 

on various fish species (Brown 1994, p. 21; Donald and Alger 1993, p. 242; Fraley and Shepard 

1989, p. 135; Leathe and Graham 1982, p. 95). Bull trout of all sizes other than fry have been 

found to eat fish up to half their length (Beauchamp and VanTassell 2001). In nearshore marine 

areas of western Washington, bull trout feed on Pacific herring (Clupea pallasi), Pacific sand 

lance (Ammodytes hexapterus), and surf smelt (Hypomesus pretiosus) (Goetz et al. 2004, p. 114; 

WDFW et al. 1997, p. 23). 

Bull trout migration and life history strategies are closely related to their feeding and foraging 

strategies. Migration allows bull trout to access optimal foraging areas and exploit a wider 

variety of prey resources. Optimal foraging theory can be used to describe strategies fish use to 

choose between alternative sources of food by weighing the benefits and costs of capturing one 

source of food over another. For example, prey often occur in concentrated patches of 

abundance ("patch model") (Gerking 1994). As the predator feeds in one patch, the prey 

population is reduced, and it becomes more profitable for the predator to seek a new patch rather 

than continue feeding on the original one. This can be explained in terms of balancing energy 
Ms. Genevieve Masters 63 

Final Agency Review Draft – February 2, 2016 

acquired versus energy expended. For example, in the Skagit River system, anadromous bull 

trout make migrations as long as 121 miles between marine foraging areas in Puget Sound and 

headwaterspawning grounds, foraging on salmon eggs and juvenile salmon along their migration 

route (WDFW et al. 1997). Anadromous bull trout also use marine waters as migration corridors 

to reach seasonal habitats in non-natal watersheds to forage and possibly overwinter (Brenkman 

and Corbett 2005, p. 1079; Goetz et al. 2004, pp. 36, 60). 

3.1.5 Effects of Climate Change on Bull Trout 

The Service’s analyses include consideration of ongoing and projected changes in climate. The 

terms “climate” and “climate change” are defined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change (IPCC). “Climate” refers to the mean and variability of different types of weather 

conditions over time, with 30 years being a typical period for such measurements, although 

shorter or longer periods also may be used (IPCC 2007, p. 78). The term “climate change” thus 

refers to a change in the mean or variability of one or more measures of climate (e.g., 

temperature or precipitation) that persists for an extended period, typically decades or longer, 

whether the change is due to natural variability, human activity, or both (IPCC 2007, p. 78). 

Various types of changes in climate can have direct or indirect effects on species. These effects 

may be positive, neutral, or negative and they may change over time, depending on the species 

and other relevant considerations, such as the effects of interactions of climate with other 

variables (e.g., habitat fragmentation) (IPCC 2007, pp. 8–14, 18–19). In our analyses, we use 

our expert judgment to weigh relevant information, including uncertainty, in our consideration of 

various aspects of climate change. 

Climate change is likely to play an increasingly important role in determining the abundance of 

ESA-listed species and the conservation value of designated critical habitats in the Pacific 

Northwest. These changes will not be spatially homogeneous across the Pacific Northwest. 

Areas with elevations high enough to maintain temperatures well below freezing for most of the 

winter and early spring will be less affected. Low-elevation areas are likely to be more affected. 

During the last century, average regional air temperatures increased by 1.5°F, with increases as 

much as 4°F in isolated areas (USGCRP 2009). Average regional temperatures are likely to 

increase an additional 3°F to 10°F over the next century (USGCRP 2009). Overall, about onethird of the current cold-water fish habitat in the Pacific Northwest is likely to exceed key water 

temperature thresholds by the end of this century (USGCRP 2009). 

 

Precipitation trends during the next century are less certain than for temperature, but more 

precipitation is likely to occur during October through March, less may occur during summer 

months, and more winter precipitation is likely to fall as rain rather than snow (ISAB 2007, 

USGCRP 2009). Significant reductions in both total snow pack and low-elevation snow pack in 

the Pacific Northwest is predicted over the next 50 years (Mote and Salathé 2010) – changes that 

will shrink the extent of the snowmelt-dominated habitat available to salmonids. Where snow 

occurs, a warmer climate will cause earlier runoff, which will increase flows in early spring but 

will likely reduce flows and increase water temperature in late spring, summer, and fall (ISAB 

2007, USGCRP 2009). 

 

As the snow pack diminishes and seasonal hydrology shifts to more frequent and severe early 

large storms, stream flow timing and increased peak river flows may limit salmonid survival 

(Mantua et al. 2010). Lower stream flows and warmer water temperatures during summer will 
Ms. Genevieve Masters 64 

Final Agency Review Draft – February 2, 2016 

degrade summer rearing conditions, in part by increasing the prevalence and virulence of fish 

diseases and parasites (USGCRP 2009). To avoid waters above summer maximum 

temperatures, juvenile rearing may be increasingly found only in the confluence of colder 

tributaries or other areas of cold water refugia (Mantua et al. 2010). Other adverse effects are 

likely to include altered migration patterns, accelerated embryo development, premature 

emergence of fry, variation in quality and quantity of tributary rearing habitat, and increased 

competition and predation risk from warm-water, non-native species (ISAB 2007). 

 

The earth’s oceans are also warming, with considerable interannual and inter-decadal variability 

superimposed on the longer-term trend (Bindoff et al. 2007). Historically, warm periods in the 

coastal Pacific Ocean have coincided with relatively low abundances of salmonids, while cooler 

ocean periods have coincided with relatively high abundances (Scheuerell and Williams 2005; 

Zabel et al. 2006; USGCRP 2009). Ocean conditions adverse to salmonids may be more likely 

under a warming climate (Zabel et al. 2006). 

 

Ocean acidification resulting from the uptake of carbon dioxide by ocean waters threatens corals, 

shellfish, and other living things that form their shells and skeletons from calcium carbonate (Orr 

et al. 2005; Feely et al. 2012). Such ocean acidification is essentially irreversible over a time 

scale of centuries (Royal Society 2005). Increasing carbon dioxide concentrations are reducing 

ocean pH and dissolved carbonate ion concentrations, and thus levels of calcium carbonate 

saturation. Over the past several centuries, ocean pH has decreased by about 0.1 (an 

approximately 30 percent increase in acidity) and is projected to decline by another 0.3 to 0.4 pH 

units (approximately 100 to 150 percent increase in acidity) by the end of this century (Orr et al.

2005; Feely et al. 2012). As aqueous carbon dioxide concentrations increase, carbonate ion 

concentrations decrease, making it more difficult for marine calcifying organisms to form 

biogenic calcium carbonate needed for shell and skeleton formation. The reduction in pH also 

affects photosynthesis, growth, and reproduction of marine organisms. The upwelling of deeper 

ocean water deficient in carbonate, and thus potentially detrimental to the food chains supporting 

juvenile salmonids, has recently been observed along the U.S. west coast (Feely et al. 2008). 

 

Climate change is expected to make recovery targets for ESA-listed species more difficult to 

achieve. Actions improving freshwater and estuarine habitats can offset some of the adverse 

impacts of climate change. Examples include restoring connections to historical floodplains and 

estuarine habitats, protecting and restoring riparian vegetation, purchasing or applying easements 

to lands that provide important cold water or refuge habitat, and leasing or buying water rights to 

improve summer flows (Battin et al. 2007; ISAB 2007). 

3.2 Status of Bull Trout Critical Habitat 

3.2.1 Legal Status 

The Service published a final critical habitat designation for the coterminous United States 

population of the bull trout on October 18, 2010 (70 FR 63898); the rule became effective on 

November 17, 2010. A justification document was also developed to support the rule and is 

available on our website (http://www.fws.gov/pacific/bulltrout). The scope of the designation 

involved the species’ coterminous range, which includes the Jarbidge River, Klamath River, 

Columbia River, Coastal-Puget Sound, and Saint Mary-Belly River population segments (also 
Ms. Genevieve Masters 65 

Final Agency Review Draft – February 2, 2016 

considered as interim recovery units)1. Rangewide, the Service designated reservoirs/lakes and 

stream/shoreline miles as bull trout critical habitat (Table 4). Designated bull trout critical 

habitat is of two primary use types: 1) spawning and rearing, and 2) foraging, migration, and 

overwintering (FMO). 

Table 4. Stream/Shoreline Distance and Reservoir/Lake Area Designated as Bull Trout 

 Critical Habitat by State. 

State Stream/Shoreline 

Miles 

Stream/Shoreline 

Kilometers 

Reservoir

/Lake 

Acres 

Reservoir/

Lake 

Hectares 

Idaho 8,771.6 14,116.5 170,217.5 68,884.9 

Montana 3,056.5 4,918.9 221,470.7 89,626.4 

Nevada 71.8 115.6 - - 

Oregon 2,835.9 4,563.9 30,255.5 12,244.0 

Oregon/Idaho 107.7 173.3 - - 

Washington 3,793.3 6,104.8 66,308.1 26,834.0 

Washington 

(marine) 

753.8 1,213.2 - - 

Washington/Idaho 37.2 59.9 - - 

Washington/ 

Oregon 

301.3 484.8 - - 

Total 19,729.0 31,750.8 488,251.7 197,589.2 

The 2010 revision increases the amount of designated bull trout critical habitat by approximately 

76 percent for miles of stream/shoreline and by approximately 71 percent for acres of lakes and 

reservoirs compared to the 2005 designation. 

This rule also identifies and designates as critical habitat approximately 1,323.7 km (822.5 miles) 

of streams/shorelines and 6,758.8 ha (16,701.3 acres) of lakes/reservoirs of unoccupied habitat to 

address bull trout conservation needs in specific geographic areas in several areas not occupied at 

the time of listing. No unoccupied habitat was included in the 2005 designation. These 

unoccupied areas were determined by the Service to be essential for restoring functioning 

migratory bull trout populations based on currently available scientific information. These 

unoccupied areas often include lower main stem river environments that can provide seasonally 

important migration habitat for bull trout. This type of habitat is essential in areas where bull 

trout habitat and population loss over time necessitates reestablishing bull trout in currently 

unoccupied habitat areas to achieve recovery. 

3.2.2 Conservation Role and Description of Critical Habitat 

The conservation role of bull trout critical habitat is to support viable core area populations (70 

FR 56212). Core areas reflect the metapopulation structure of the coterminous United States 

population of the bull trout and are the closest approximation of a biologically functioning unit 

for the purposes of recovery planning and risk analyses. Critical habitat units generally 

 

1

 The Service’s 5 year review (USFWS 2008, pg. 9) identifies six draft recovery units. Until the bull trout draft 

recovery plan is finalized, the current five interim recovery units are in affect for purposes of section 7 jeopardy 

analysis and recovery. The adverse modification analysis does not rely on recovery units. 
Ms. Genevieve Masters 66 

Final Agency Review Draft – February 2, 2016 

encompass one or more core areas and may include foraging, migration, and overwintering areas, 

outside of core areas, that are important to the survival and recovery (i.e., conservation) of the 

bull trout. Protection of large areas of high-quality habitat, multiple populations and diverse 

genetic and life-history aspects are necessary to ensure a resilient, redundant, and representative 

distribution of bull trout populations. 

Because there are exclusions associated with the proposed critical habitat designation process 

that reflect land ownership, designated critical habitat is often fragmented. These individual 

critical habitat segments are expected to contribute to the ability of the stream to support viable 

local and core area populations of the bull trout in each critical habitat unit. 

The primary function of individual critical habitat units is to maintain and support core areas 

which (1) contain bull trout populations with the demographic characteristics needed to ensure 

their persistence and contain the habitat needed to sustain those characteristics (Rieman and 

McIntyre 1993); (2) provide for persistence of strong local populations, in part, by providing 

habitat conditions that encourage movement of migratory fish (Rieman and McIntyre 1993; 

MBTSG 1998); (3) are large enough to incorporate genetic and phenotypic diversity, but small 

enough to ensure connectivity between populations (Rieman and McIntyre 1993; Hard 1995; 

Healey and Prince 1995; MBTSG 1998); and (4) are distributed throughout the historic range of 

the species to preserve both genetic and phenotypic adaptations (Rieman and McIntyre 1993; 

Hard 1995; MBTSG 1998; Rieman and Allendorf 2001). 

Within proposed critical habitat areas, the PCEs for bull trout are those habitat components that 

are essential for the primary biological needs of foraging, reproducing, rearing of young, 

dispersal, genetic exchange, or sheltering. The PCEs of bull trout proposed critical habitat are as 

follows: 

 

(1) Springs, seeps, groundwater sources, and subsurface water connectivity (hyporheic flows) 

to contribute to water quality and quantity and provide thermal refugia; 

 

(2) Migratory habitats with minimal physical, biological, or water quality impediments 

between spawning, rearing, overwintering, and freshwater and marine foraging habitats, 

including but not limited to permanent, partial, intermittent, or seasonal barriers; 

(3) An abundant food base including terrestrial organisms of riparian origin, aquatic 

macroinvertebrates, and forage fish; 

(4) Complex river, stream, lake, reservoir, and marine shoreline aquatic environments and 

processes with features such as large wood, side channels, pools, undercut banks and 

substrates to provide a variety of depths, gradients, velocities, structure; 

(5) Water temperatures ranging from 2 to 15 oC (36 to 59 oF), with adequate thermal refugia 

available for temperatures at the upper end of this range. Specific temperatures within this 

range will vary depending on bull trout life-history stage and form; geography; elevation; 

diurnal and seasonal variation; shade such as that provided by riparian habitat; and local 

groundwater influence. 

(6) Substrates of sufficient amount, size, and composition to ensure success of egg and 

embryo overwinter survival, fry emergence, and young-of-the-year and juvenile survival. A 
Ms. Genevieve Masters 67 

Final Agency Review Draft – February 2, 2016 

minimal amount (e.g. less than 12 percent) of fine substrate less than 0.85 mm (0.03 in) in 

diameter; and minimal embeddedness of these fines in larger substrates are characteristic of 

these conditions; 

(7) A natural hydrograph, including peak, high, low, and base flows within historic and 

seasonal ranges or, if flows are controlled, they minimize departures from a natural 

hydrograph; 

(8) Sufficient water quality and quantity such that normal reproduction, growth, and survival 

are not inhibited; 

(9) Few or no nonnative predatory (e.g. lake trout, walleye, northern pike, smallmouth bass; 

inbreeding (e.g., brook trout); or competitive (e.g. brown trout) species present. 

3.2.3 Current Rangewide Condition of Bull Trout Critical Habitat 

Note that only PCEs 2, 3, 4, 5, and 8 apply to marine nearshore waters identified as critical 

habitat. Also, lakes and reservoirs within the CHUs also contain most of the physical or 

biological features necessary to support bull trout, with the exception of those associated with 

PCEs 1 and 6. Although PCE 9 applies to both the freshwater and marine environments, 

currently no non-native fish species are of concern in the marine environment, though this could 

change in the future. Additionally, all except PCE 6 apply to FMO habitat designated as critical 

habitat. Throughout the remainder of this Opinion, the PCEs will be referred to by the 

corresponding number, as listed above. 

Critical habitat includes the stream channels within the designated stream reaches and has a 

lateral extent as defined by the bankfull elevation on one bank to the bankfull elevation on the 

opposite bank. Bankfull elevation is the level at which water begins to leave the channel and 

move into the floodplain and is reached at a discharge that generally has a recurrence interval of 

1 to 2 years on the annual flood series. If bankfull elevation is not evident on either bank, the 

ordinary high-water line must be used to determine the lateral extent of critical habitat. The 

lateral extent of designated lakes is defined by the perimeter of the waterbody as mapped on 

standard 1:24,000 scale topographic maps. The Service assumes in many cases this is the fullpool level of the waterbody. In areas where only one side of the waterbody is designated (where 

only one side is excluded), the mid-line of the waterbody represents the lateral extent of critical 

habitat. 

In marine nearshore areas, the inshore extent of critical habitat is the mean higher high-water 

(MHHW) line, including the uppermost reach of the saltwater wedge within tidally influenced 

freshwater heads of estuaries. The MHHW line refers to the average of all the higher high-water 

heights of the two daily tidal levels. Marine critical habitat extends offshore to the depth of 10 

meters (m) (33 ft.) relative to the mean low low-water (MLLW) line (zero tidal level or average 

of all the lower low-water heights of the two daily tidal levels). This area between the MHHW 

line and minus 10 m MLLW line (the average extent of the photic zone) is considered the habitat 

most consistently used by bull trout in marine waters based on known use, forage fish 

availability, and ongoing migration studies and captures geological and ecological processes 

important to maintaining these habitats. This area contains essential foraging habitat and 

migration corridors such as estuaries, bays, inlets, shallow subtidal areas, and intertidal flats. 
Ms. Genevieve Masters 68 

Final Agency Review Draft – February 2, 2016 

Adjacent shoreline riparian areas, bluffs, and uplands are not designated as critical habitat. 

However, it should be recognized that the quality of marine and freshwater habitat along streams, 

lakes, and shorelines is intrinsically related to the character of these adjacent features, and that 

human activities that occur outside of the designated critical habitat can have major effects on 

physical and biological features of the aquatic environment. 

Activities that cause adverse effects to critical habitat are evaluated to determine if they are 

likely to “destroy or adversely modify” critical habitat by no longer serving the intended 

conservation role for the species or retaining those PCEs that relate to the ability of the area to at 

least periodically support the species. Activities that may destroy or adversely modify critical 

habitat are those that alter the PCEs to such an extent that the conservation value of critical 

habitat is appreciably reduced (75 FR 63898:63943; USFWS 2004a, Vol. 1. pp. 140-193, Vol. 2. 

pp. 69-114). The Service’s evaluation must be conducted at the scale of the entire critical habitat 

area designated, unless otherwise stated in the final critical habitat rule (USFWS and NMFS 

1998, pp. 4-39). Thus, adverse modification of bull trout critical habitat is evaluated at the scale 

of the final designation, which includes the critical habitat designated for the Klamath River, 

Jarbidge River, Columbia River, Coastal-Puget Sound, and Saint Mary-Belly River population 

segments. However, we consider all 32 CHUs to contain features or areas essential to the 

conservation of the bull trout (75 FR 63898:63901, 63944). Therefore, if a proposed action 

would alter the physical or biological features of critical habitat to an extent that appreciably 

reduces the conservation function of one or more critical habitat units for bull trout, a finding of 

adverse modification of the entire designated critical habitat area may be warranted (75 FR 

63898:63943). 

3.2.4 Effects of Climate Change on Bull Trout Critical Habitat 

One objective of the final rule (70 FR 63898) was to identify and protect those habitats that 

provide resiliency for bull trout use in the face of climate change. Over a period of decades, 

climate change may directly threaten the integrity of the essential physical or biological features 

described in PCEs 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, and 9. Protecting bull trout strongholds and cold water refugia 

from disturbance and ensuring connectivity among populations were important considerations in 

addressing this potential impact. Additionally, climate change may exacerbate habitat 

degradation impacts both physically (e.g., decreased base flows, increased water temperatures) 

and biologically (e.g., increased competition with non-native fishes). Also, see discussion under 

Section 3.1.5 above. 

3.2.5 Consulted on Effects for Critical Habitat 

The Service has formally consulted on the effects to bull trout critical habitat throughout its 

range. Section 7 consultations include actions that continue to degrade the environmental 

baseline in many cases. However, long-term restoration efforts have also been implemented that 

provide some improvement in the existing functions within some of the critical habitat units. 

4. Environmental Baseline 

The preamble to the implementing regulations for section 7 (51 FR 19932; third paragraph, left 

column) contemplates that the evaluation of “...the present environment in which the species or 
Ms. Genevieve Masters 69 

Final Agency Review Draft – February 2, 2016 

critical habitat exists, as well as the environment that will exist when the action is completed, in 

terms of the totality of factors affecting the species or critical habitat...will serve as the baseline 

for determining the effects of the action on the species or critical habitat.” The regulations at 50 

CFR 402.02 define the environmental baseline to include “the past and present impacts of all 

Federal, State, or private actions and other human activities in the action area, the anticipated 

impacts of all proposed Federal projects in the action area that have already undergone formal or 

early section 7 consultation, and the impact of State or private actions which are 

contemporaneous with the consultation in process.” The analyses presented in this section 

supplement the above Status of the Species and Status of Critical Habitat evaluations by focusing 

on the current condition of the bull trout and its critical habitat in the action area, the factors 

responsible for that condition (inclusive of the factors cited above in the regulatory definition of 

environmental baseline), and the role the action area plays in the survival and recovery of the 

bull trout and in the recovery support function of designated critical habitat. Relevant factors on 

lands surrounding the action area that are influencing the condition of the bull trout and its 

critical habitat were also considered in completing the status and baseline evaluations herein. 

4.1 Description of the Subbasins, Watersheds, and Action Area 

John Day River Subbasin 

The John Day River subbasin is located in the southwest portion of the Blue Mountains 

ecological province. The John Day River is the fourth largest drainage basin in Oregon, 

consisting of a mainstem, north, middle, and south forks. The 20,979 square kilometer (8,100 

square mile) river basin contains more than 804 kilometers (500 miles) of stream in the 

mainstem and its three forks and the John Day River is one of the longest free-flowing streams in 

the continental United States. The mainstem, middle and north forks originate in the Blue 

Mountains, and the south fork originates in the Ochoco Mountains. The mainstem originates 

southeast of the community of Prairie City and flows west through the communities of John Day 

and Dayville where it is joined by the south fork. Downstream from Dayville, the river turns 

north through Picture Gorge and continues on to the community of Kimberly, where it joins with 

the north fork. The John Day River then flows west from Kimberly for approximately 64 

kilometers (40 miles) before turning to the north to the Columbia River confluence at River 

kilometer 351 (River Mile 218) at an elevation of approximately 61 meters (200 ft.) (Oregon 

Water Resource Department 1986). The lower John Day River from Parish Creek downstream to 

Tumwater Falls is included in the Oregon Scenic Waterways and National Wild and Scenic 

River systems. 

North Fork John Day River Watershed 

The largest tributary to the John Day River is the North Fork John Day River (NFJDR) which 

originates in the Elkhorn Mountains at approximately 2,440 meters (8,000 ft.) in elevation. From 

its source, the NFJDR flows primarily west for 188 kilometers (117 miles) where it joins the 

mainstem John Day River at an elevation of approximately 1,007 meters (3,300 ft.) near the town 

of Kimberly. The NFJDR watershed consists of approximately 155,351 hectares (383,582 

acres). The Middle Fork John Day River flows into the North Fork upstream of the town of 

Monument, about 50 kilometers (31 miles) before the confluence of the North Fork with the 

mainstem. The North Fork is included in the Oregon Scenic Waterways and National Wild and 

Scenic River systems from the North Fork John Day wilderness boundary to River Kilometer 
Ms. Genevieve Masters 70 

Final Agency Review Draft – February 2, 2016 

32.5 (River Mile 20.2) above the town of Monument. Major tributaries to the NFJDR include 

Desolation and Granite Creeks. The primary land uses include agriculture, timber production, 

mining and recreation. The action area of the Project within the NFJDR basin is in the Granite 

Creek Subwatershed and encompasses 94,526 acres in northeastern Oregon of lands managed by 

the WWNF (40,878) and UNF (49,262) and includes 3,239 acres of private land (Figure 9). 

There is approximately 25,000 acres of North Fork John Day Wilderness, mostly on the UNF in 

the Granite Creek Watershed. 

Historically, there were two common types of placer mining in the Granite Watershed: dredging 

and hydraulic mining. Placer mining peaked during 1866-1863. Many acres were heavily 

impacted by these mining practices and over 30 miles of ditches were constructed in Upper Clear 

Creek subwatershed to deliver water to highbar areas. Lode mining and several mills continued 

through the early 1900’s with the discovery of ore rich veins during placer operations. Still 

present in the Granite Watershed are relic mining shafts or underground mines that were used to 

extract minerals and ore. Overburden from some of these underground mines is still present on 

the landscape today. With lode mining closing around 1911, instream dredging of alluvial 

deposits became popular and suction dredging is still actively practiced today in the Granite 

Watershed. Historic mining roads now make up a significant portion of the older Forest system 

roads. 

It is estimated that over 100 historic and/or abandon mines exist in the Granite Creek Watershed. 

Inventory and assessment of these mines is an ongoing project for the UNF/WWNF. In 1999, 

the UNF had 661 claims filed within the boundaries of the North Fork John Day Ranger District, 

but only about 40 claims had the necessary approval to actually extract minerals. In 2000, there 

were 50+ mining claims in the Granite Creek System on the UNF and a larger number on the 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest (UNF in litt. 2000). Shaft mining in the Granite Creek 

system has, in some cases, produced a mine shaft effluent high in iron, which precipitates as the 

oxide, coating the stream substrate with a fine orange flocculent precipitate (UNF in litt. 2000). 

The Red Boy Mine (not part of this Project) affects water quality in Clear Creek from heavy 

metals leaching out of the mine adit (ODFW in litt. 2000). Boulder Creek, a tributary inhabited 

by bull trout in the Granite Creek watershed, has a dewatered section which isolates it due to past 

mining activities (John Day River Recovery Unit Team in litt. 2001). Lightning and Salmon 

Creeks, in the Granite Creek watershed, are negatively affected by the Pete Mann mining ditch. 

The ditch diverts water from Granite Creek to the Burnt River watershed, and impedes bull trout 

movement upstream (UNF/WWNF 1997, ODFW in litt. 2000). Past placer mining throughout 

the NFJDR subbasin has flushed fine sediment into area streams (UNF in litt. 2000).

Extensive dredge mining on the NFJDR and in the Granite and Clear creek system in the 1950s 

and 1960s drastically altered the stream channel, effectively channelizing the stream and 

restricting its access to the flood plain (UNF in litt. 2000). In 1998, ODEQ identified habitat 

modification as a parameter limiting beneficial water uses in the NFJDR. Project streams 

indicated as water quality limited due to habitat modification included Bull Run and Granite 

creeks. In 2012, ODEQ identified Granite, Bull Run, and Clear creeks as 303(D) listed; all are 

Project streams. The Pete Man Ditch on Clear Creek impedes upstream movement of bull trout 

from Lightning and Salmon Creeks (ODFW in litt. 2000). No barrier culverts or unscreened 

diversions were identified by Claire and Gray (1993). Currently, there are no streams within the 

Granite Watershed that are ODEQ 303d listed for mercury contaminants above state or federal 

regulatory standards (2014 Assessment, page 62). 
Ms. Genevieve Masters 71 

Final Agency Review Draft – February 2, 2016 

 4.2 Status of the Species and Critical Habitat in the Action Area 

4.2.1 Bull Trout in the North Fork John Day River Basin 

Seven local populations have been identified in the NFJDR Subbasin: (1) upper North Fork John 

Day River including Crawfish, Baldy, Cunningham, Trail, Onion, and Crane creeks as well as 

the North Fork John Day River upstream of Granite Creek; (2) upper Granite Creek including 

Bull Run, Deep, and Boundary creeks and the upper mainstem Granite Creek); (3) Boulder 

Creek; (4) Clear/Lightning creek including Salmon Creek, (5) Clear Creek below the Pete Mann 

ditch (including Lightning Creek below the ditch), (6) Desolation Creek (includes South Fork 

Desolation Creek below the falls and North Fork Desolation Creek), and (7) South Fork 

Desolation Creek above the falls. Based upon inventories conducted in 1992, bull trout 

distribution in the NFJDR and tributaries is limited to 18 percent of the previously known range 

(Claire and Gray 1993). 

Resident bull trout are the predominant life history form in the North Fork with a few fluvial 

migratory individuals documented in recent years. There is limited data available for the local 

populations in this core area. Redd counts have been conducted in the upper mainstem North 

Fork and Baldy Creek. Recent redd counts in Baldy Creek show a downward trend in redd 

abundance. The North Fork has been described as the most challenging area to identify bull 

trout redds in Oregon based on the decomposing granite gravel substrate and extensive 

hybridization with brook trout. One priority for the John Day Basin is to develop a system to 

monitor bull trout presence and population trends 

In addition to the limited redd count data, researchers from Utah State University initiated bull 

trout research in the NFJDR in 2005. Population estimates for the NFJDR showed low 

abundances of bull trout in the mainstem of the North Fork and in Baldy Creek (1000 each for 

both). Due to limited distribution of bull trout below the confluence with Baldy Creek, in 2006 

researchers focused population surveys above the Baldy Creek confluence. In 2006, researchers 

from Utah State University estimated the population of bull trout greater than 120mm in the 

upper North Fork John Day above the Baldy Creek confluence at 432 individuals (95% CI = 

274- 752) and 1,193 individuals in Baldy Creek (95% Confidence Interval = 825 – 2509) (Budy 

et. al. 2005; Budy et. al. 2006). 

Migratory and resident bull trout subpopulations are found throughout the Granite Creek 

Subwatershed and designated critical habitat (Table 5). Spawning habitat in the Granite Creek 

subwatershed is limited and whether there is possible brook trout hybridization is largely 

unknown. There is evidence of brook trout hybridization in the lower reaches and tributaries of 

the NFJDR. Little is known about the current status of many of the bull trout subpopulations 

throughout Granite Watershed. Given existing conditions and information from the extensive 

1990 ODFW surveys, most of these populations are considered at risk (USFWS 2002c). 

 

Surveys by ODFW in the John Day basin (Figure 27) show declines in bull trout redd counts. 

Streams surveyed include Baldy Creek, Upper Big Creek, Call Creek, and North Fork Reynolds 

Creek. Brook trout are a non-native fish species found in the Granite Creek Watershed in Lake 

Creek, above and below Olive Lake. 
Ms. Genevieve Masters 72 

Final Agency Review Draft – February 2, 2016 

Table 5. Miles of Bull Trout Designated Critical Habitat and Distribution with Known 

 Migratory and Resident Bull Trout Subpopulations.

SWS (HUC 6) Bull Trout Distribution Bull Trout DCH 

Lower Granite Creek1 FMO 9.8 

Upper Granite Creek2 

Tributary Boulder Creek 

FMO 

SR 

11.8 

Bull Run Creek3 FMO 17 

Clear Creek4 

Tributary Lightning Creek 

SR 

SR 

24.1 

1

Lower Granite primarily provides migratory and rearing habitat for steelhead and bull trout. 2

Upper Granite Cr. is assumed rearing and spawning habitat for bull trout. 3

Bull Run Creek - There is limited survey information concerning bull trout presence. Bull trout rearing is assumed 

from stream mile 0-7.0 on Bull Run Creek. There is little spawning habitat in the headwater streams and warm 

summer temperatures limit rearing and spawning distribution.

4

Clear Creek - Stream mile 0-7.0 on Clear Cr. is migratory and rearing habitat for bull trout. Upper Clear Cr. and 

designated CH on tributaries is primarily spawning and rearing habitat for bull trout. 

Figure 27. ODFW Bull Trout Spawning Surveys in the John Day Basin. Streams Surveyed 

 Include Baldy, Upper Big, and North Fork Reynolds Creeks, 2001 to 2011. 

4.2.2 Designated Critical Habitat 

Table 6 shows the baseline condition on each of the subwatersheds where mining is proposed. 

The nine PCEs for bull trout critical habitat are as follows: PCE 1 (water connectivity), PCE 2 

(migratory habitat), PCE 3 (food base), PCE 4 (complex environment), PCE 5 (temperature), 

PCE 6 (substrate), PCE 7 (natural hydrograph), PCE 8 (water quality and quantity), and PCE 9 

(competitive species). See Appendix C for a complete breakdown of the PCE components 

baseline information. 
Ms. Genevieve Masters 73 

Final Agency Review Draft – February 2, 2016 

Table 6. Baseline Condition for each Primary Constituent Element of Bull Trout Critical 

 Habitat Applicable to the Action Area Based on Three of the Subwatersheds. 

 FAR is defined as “Functioning at Risk”; FAUR is defined as “Functioning at 

 Unacceptable Risk”. 

Creek PCE 1 PCE 2 PCE 3 PCE 4 PCE 5 PCE 6 PCE 7 PCE 8 PCE 9 

Lower 

Granite 

FAR/ 

FAUR1

FAR/ 

FAUR2

FAR FAR FAUR FAR FAR FAUR3/

FAR 

FAR 

Upper 

Granite 

FAR/ 

FAUR1

FAR/ 

FAUR2

FAR FAR FAUR FAR FAUR3

/

FAR 

FAR 

Bull 

Run 

FAR/ 

FAUR1

FAR/ 

FAUR2

FAR FAR FAUR FAR FAR FAUR3

/

FAR 

FAR 

Clear FAR/ 

FAUR1

FAR/ 

FAUR2

 FAR FAUR FAR FAUR3/

FAR 

FAR 

1 For PCE 1, the floodplain connectivity component is FAUR. 2 For PCE 2, the water quality component is FAUR. 3

For PCE 8, the temperature and chemical contaminant/nutrients components are FAUR. 

4.3 Factors Affecting Species Environment within the Action Area 

This section describes factors affecting the species’ environment and/or critical habitat in the 

action area. The environmental baseline includes all Federal, State, tribal, local, and private 

actions already affecting the species and/or critical habitat or that will occur contemporaneously 

with the proposed action. Unrelated Federal actions affecting the same species or critical habitat 

that have completed formal or informal consultation are also part of the environmental baseline, 

as are other beneficial actions. 

Based upon current knowledge of the John Day River (JDR) Subbasin, it is reasonable to say that 

aquatic habitat, as well as the historical hydrologic regime, has been highly altered over the last 

120 years through a number of factors. Threats to long-term bull trout persistence within the 

subbasin include forest management practices, roads, agricultural practices, grazing, non-native 

species and an increased populace that depends on limited surface and ground water supplies. 

Agricultural practices contribute to degraded stream and riparian conditions throughout the 

basin. Draining and conversion of wetlands to pastures, diking and channelizing of streams, and 

the removal of large trees in riparian corridors negatively affect the river’s interaction with its 

floodplain. Additionally, attempts to armor the JDR’s banks to prevent bank erosion continue to 

simplify the river channel and reduce habitat diversity. 

According to the Northwest Power Planning Council (NPPC 2001), although reduced in 

frequency and intensity, mining still continues in the JDR basin. Gold and locatable mineral 

mining occurs on the upper North and Middle forks of the JDR and tributaries to the upper 

mainstem JDR (NPPC 2001). Aggregate (rock and gravel) mining for road construction occurs 

throughout the basin (NPPC 2001). Extensive gold mining throughout the upper mainstem and 

tributaries, the upper Middle Fork and tributaries, the North Fork between Desolation Creek and 

Big Creek and in the Granite Creek basin have greatly reduced habitat diversity and contributed 

to reduced water quality (ODFW in litt. 2000). Inadequate buffer strips between mining activity 
Ms. Genevieve Masters 74 

Final Agency Review Draft – February 2, 2016 

and streams, flooded settling basins during high flows, and the cumulative impact of numerous 

small recreational operations degrade habitat quality, removing shade, and large wood, 

displacing aquatic invertebrates, and destabilizing spawning gravels (ODFW in litt. 2000). 

According to ODFW (in litt. 2000), gold dredges operated in the three major basins up until the 

1940s. 

Although hydraulic mining is uncommon today, previously degraded habitats have not yet 

recovered and still exhibit excessive sediment transport, downcutting, and instability. For 

example, hydraulic mining (e.g., gold) from stream deposits and hill slopes dramatically altered 

stream channels, riparian zones, and floodplains (Spence et al. 1996). As described earlier, 

hydraulic mining effects such as mounds on streambanks and abandoned ditches are still visible 

in the Granite Watershed. 

During lode mining there is a potential to intercept groundwater and create acid mine waste 

discharge. Examples of acid mine waste in the Project area are the abandoned Redboy, Blue 

Bird and Black Jack Mines as described in Tables 17 and 18 of the Assessment. These mines are 

old; some were developed before the National Forest was established. The mines are now 

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CRCLA) sites and 

have acid drainage occurring year round, with ongoing piping of acid waste water to settling 

ponds and annual maintenance of the drainage pipes. 

In August of 2015 the pipes in Blue Bird mine carrying acid mine waste plugged. Maintenance 

of the pipes corrected the drainage problem and returned the system to normal operations. 

Monitoring at the site found approximately forty dead fish. In response to the spill the fish are 

being tested for cause of death and water samples are being tested for mineral content. An 

incident report is on file with the La Grande field office. There are two other known accidental 

discharges of acid mine drainage that were only made known to the Service in August 2015. In 

2003, there was a discharge of acid mine drainage during maintenance at Blue Bird Mine that 

resulted in one dead fish but no record of the species was provided. In 2010, the retaining dam 

inside Black Jack Mine overtopped when floating debris was caught in the inlet, but acid mine 

discharge did not reach Clear Creek. 

The FS will continue to work with NMFS and the Service to determine impacts of the 2015 Blue 

Bird Mine discharge and follow-up as needed. It is important to note that in a 2003 Service 

consultation covering the maintenance of the three, above mentioned abandoned mines, the 

proposed action included replacing the existing six-inch overflow pipes with larger, 18-inch 

pipes. Pipes on Blue Bird and Black Jack are currently the six-inch; Red Boy pipes were 

replaced in 2013 with 18 to 24-inch pipe (September 2015 email from Tracii Hickman, UNF). 

Local restoration partners have eliminated more than 100 fish passage barriers in the main stem 

of the JDR, and a concentrated restoration and monitoring effort in the Middle Fork JDR is 

providing information about the effectiveness of different restoration treatments (OWEB 2009-

11 Biennial Report). In 2000, partners completed riparian tree planting, riparian habitat 

enhancement, dredge pile leveling, and floodplain restoration on Granite Creek. 

Low stream flows are also a concern in the John Day basin. Total basin discharge is adequate to 

satisfy all water rights on an average annual basis, but there is insufficient flow on many streams 

in late summer to satisfy all water rights holders and meet instream needs. Conservation 
Ms. Genevieve Masters 75 

Final Agency Review Draft – February 2, 2016 

priorities in the John Day reflect its importance to anadromous fish in the region. Over the past 

15 years there has been a tremendous increase in stream restoration work involving multiple 

agencies and numerous private landowners, and there are indications that these efforts have led 

to improved habitat quality in some areas. Acquisition priorities identified for this Project 

include systems contributing to improved hydrologic function (wetlands and riparian areas) and 

prairie grasslands, which have declined significantly from historic levels and are 

underrepresented on public lands. Ponderosa pine woodlands and big sagebrush steppe also have 

been included on the list even though their distribution has not decreased as much as that of other 

types and they are relatively well-represented on public lands. The John Day basin is a good 

area in which to address the statewide decline in these above-mentioned habitat types because of 

the nature of their current distribution and opportunities to expand or connect existing 

conservation areas to a greater effect (OWEB 2004). 

5. Effects of the Proposed Action 

Effects of the action are defined as “the direct and indirect effects of an action on the species or 

critical habitat, together with the effects of other activities that are interrelated or interdependent 

with the action, that will be added to the environmental baseline” (50 CFR 402.02). The 

Service’s effects analysis is based on information provided in the Assessment, as well as our 

assessment of baseline conditions and expected changes from the proposed action. 

The effects determinations in this Opinion for bull trout and critical habitat were made using 

methods for evaluating current aquatic conditions, the environmental baseline, and predicting the 

effects of the proposed action on bull trout and bull trout critical habitat. The effects of the 

UNF/WWNF proposed 2016-2025 approval of lode and placer mining plans of operation Project 

is expressed in terms of the expected effect on aquatic habitat, including the PCEs, in the Project 

area. The completed bull trout matrix, showing current conditions and effects of the action on 

specific habitat parameters is provided in Appendix C. 

Table 3 shows the maximum disturbance possible in the Project area is approximately 28.2 acres 

for placer mining, the use of twelve stream fords, construction of one temporary road in an 

RHCA, and three plans that include water drafting from SR critical habitat. However, placer 

mining activities will not occur instream, all fords must be preapproved by a FS fisheries 

biologist prior to each season’s use, temporary road construction must be pre-approved by the FS 

and will only occur during the ODFW in-water work window, and all water drafting will be 

monitored by the FS Minerals Administrator each season. Additional PMs and site-specific 

mitigations are expected to limit potential effects to bull trout and bull trout critical habitat. 

5.1 Direct and Indirect Effects to Bull Trout 

Based on the figures given above and the PMs that will be implemented for each Plan, effects to 

bull trout and bull trout critical habitat are expected to occur from the proposed Project activities 

of placer mining, stream fording, temporary road construction, and water withdrawal. The 

proposed action may also indirectly affect bull trout by impacting water quality (temperature, 

turbidity and chemical contamination/nutrients) and altering streamflow conditions (quality and 

quantity). Given the existing conditions of most of these subwatersheds within the Project area, 

placer mining, stream fording, temporary road construction, and water withdrawal may 

negatively affect bull trout and bull trout critical habitat. 
Ms. Genevieve Masters 76 

Final Agency Review Draft – February 2, 2016 

5.1.1 Placer Mining 

The mining proposed in the Project is placer mining of old tailings which does not involve any 

instream work. In areas adjacent to streams there is a potential for indirect effects from transport 

of sediments to streams as tailings are worked. Tailings are often composed of coarse sediment 

from previous processing and sorting of rock, and sediment may be transported subsurface 

through the porous cobble and rock. The impacts from placer mining activities in RHCAs will 

be limited by 1) A “no activity” stream buffer from any mining activity; distances vary from 10 

ft to ≥ 150 ft. (Table 3); and 2) limits on the size of test holes and maximum area to be worked 

and disturbed at any one time. Test holes range in size from 20 ft. by 10 ft., up to half an acre, 

and the maximum area disturbed at any one time is half an acre (Table 3). The proposed action 

could degrade water quality and habitat within the action area by increasing sediment delivery to 

and/or by resuspending instream sediments. The negative effects of sediment and turbidity on 

fish and aquatic species is well established (Henley et al. 2000, Michel et al. 2013) and includes 

alteration of food chains, decreases in primary productivity, mortality or behavior modification 

and depressed rates of growth, reproduction and recruitment. 

Placer mining activities may directly affect riparian areas by removing established vegetation to 

access tailings. Many sites have poor conditions for vegetative growth as a result of past mining 

disturbance, and these sites have little to no established vegetation. Vegetation next to streams 

provides bank stability and shade and can trap transported sediments. Riparian vegetation 

contributes leaf detritus and insects that fall into the stream and supplement the salmonid diet. 

Riparian vegetation also contributes logs and branches that shape channel morphology, retain 

organic matter, and provide essential fish habitat” (Meehan 1991). Fish and aquatic resources 

are indirectly affected by loss of riparian vegetation because of potential negative effects to bank 

stability, loss of shade, loss of large wood, increased sedimentation and turbidity, and loss of 

organic material. Operators are prohibited from removing, relocating, or disturbing stable instream woody debris or boulders (PM 10). We do not expect any adverse effects to bull trout 

associated with the removal of large woody debris or boulders. 

5.1.2 Stream Fording and Construction of a Temporary Road in a RHCA 

Seven mine operations have proposed stream fording that will be utilized in and outside of the 

in-water work window (July 15 - August 15) (Table 3) on open public and closed roads. These 

fords can have direct and indirect effects to bull trout. Crossing of the fords with heavy 

machinery can modify fish behavior, movement and feeding behavior. Fording streams can 

temporarily increase turbidity in the following ways: 1) Wave action from fording vehicles 

eroding streambanks; 2) tire rutting concentrating surface runoff on approaches; 3) water 

draining off vehicles and eroding approaches; and 4) dirt washing off of vehicles during the 

crossing. Tetra Alpha Placer Mine has proposed the construction of a new, temporary road (0.77 

miles) in the RHCA of Boulder Creek (SR) which will involve ground disturbance that will 

likely contribute sediment to nearby Boulder Creek. 

Fording and road construction will likely deliver temporary pulses (minutes) of sediment during 

general use and construction and during initial rain events. Fine sediment delivered to action 

area streams from fording and road construction activities is likely to increase turbidity in the 

water column immediately downstream and potentially increase fine sediment levels in 
Ms. Genevieve Masters 77 

Final Agency Review Draft – February 2, 2016 

interstitial spaces of stream substrates. Turbidity is likely to exceed ambient levels and 

potentially affect bull trout downstream of sediment delivery points associated with fording and 

the use of the newly constructed temporary road for a short distance (300 ft.). Elevated turbidity 

is expected to be short-lived and highly localized because of the dispersed nature of the fords and 

the new temporary road. As such, concentrations of suspended sediments in these plumes are 

not likely to reach levels that kill or injure fish; however, concentrations are likely to cause fish 

to be periodically displaced from preferred habitat, which could result in increased energy 

expenditure and possibly increase their exposure to predators. 

Most fording across stream channels will be on existing hardened fords, with only two new 

proposed ford crossings. The PM G7 requires that all ford sites be pre-approved by the FS and 

rocked to avoid adverse effects to bull trout. In addition, new ford construction will only occur 

during ODFW’s in-water work window of July 15 – August 15. Protection measures Z1-Z14 

address indirect effects from the construction of the ford crossings and road construction. 

Following authorized use through the year 2025, the temporary road will be decommissioned 

after use. 

In addition, several of these operations must receive an ODEQ 401 certification before the FS 

will authorize construction or improvements of fords and temporary roads. The majority of ford 

improvements will have short-term effects associated with the hardening of fords and sitespecific mitigations for these operations will have conditioning of the crossing (reference project 

proposal and general requirements for site specific conditioned stream crossings) with heavy 

machinery to minimize direct effects to fisheries. Appendix D of the Assessment outlines 

existing road conditions and any proposed temporary road activities. Of the approximately 0.77 

miles of proposed new temporary road construction for Tetra Alpha Placer Mine, the road occurs 

in the RHCA but none will cross Boulder Creek and all construction will occur during ODFW’s 

in-water work window. 

5.1.3 Chemical Contamination 

Use of mechanized equipment (including large equipment such as excavators and dump trucks, 

and small equipment such as pumps) in riparian areas and fording streams creates a potential for 

contamination from petroleum products. Equipment operation, including excavation work in and 

adjacent to streams in the Granite Creek watershed could introduce hazardous materials 

including fuel, lubricants, hydraulic fluids, and coolants into the waterway. These chemicals can 

be acutely toxic to fish at high levels of exposure and can cause acute and chronic effects to fish 

species, aquatic invertebrates, and aquatic and riparian vegetation. The hazardous materials PMs 

H4 through H12 apply and require such things as a hazardous substance plan, spill kits, and 

storage of fuel outside the plan-specific stream buffers for all mining-related activities. The PM 

H8 requires that all equipment operating on mining operations will be in good repair and free 

from leakage of lubricants, fuel, coolants, and hydraulic fluid. 

The FS requires that all mechanical equipment be maintained to ensure there are no leaks and 

any leaks that do occur are immediately cleaned up and repaired. In addition, the FS requires 

development of a spill plan and presence of spill containment kits on site in the event a spill 

occurs. Unless specifically approved by a FS fisheries biologist, all chemicals will be stored 

outside of RHCAs. 
Ms. Genevieve Masters 78 

Final Agency Review Draft – February 2, 2016 

Although improbable, if a spill were to occur, the likelihood of adverse effects will depend upon 

the size and proximity of the spill to live water and bull trout. If a fuel spill were to occur 

directly into live water, all spawning, rearing, and incubating life stages of fish that are present 

could be killed (the extent of which would vary tremendously, dependent on the quantity of the 

spill and the size of the receiving waterbody). However, the fuel spill and equipment leak 

contingencies and preventions provided in Appendix A are sufficient to render the risk of 

adverse effects from toxic contamination to those extremely unlikely to occur. 

5.1.4 Water Withdrawal 

Stream flows are a critical part of fish habitat and viability. Reducing stream flow can reduce the 

amount and types of habitat accessible to bull trout, reduce food availability, and increase stream 

temperatures. Maintaining bull trout habitat requires stability of stream channels and 

maintenance of natural flow patterns (Rieman and McIntyre 1993, p. 7). Tributary habitats offer 

refugia for bull trout, and the mouths of tributaries serve as important rearing habitats and/or 

temperature refugia for juvenile bull trout. Reducing flow could eliminate access of juveniles to 

these important habitat types and could result in long-term degradation of stream habitat. 

Reductions in streamflow due to water withdrawal may result in increased stream temperatures 

during the summer because there is less volume of water to buffer against solar radiation and air 

temperature fluctuations (Arismendi et al. 2012). 

The proposed action includes water withdrawal from SR bull trout habitat in Clear, Boulder and 

Lightning creeks (Tetra Alpha Placer, Tetra Alpha Lode and Mill, and Lightning Creek mines). 

Juvenile bull trout have been documented in these streams so their presence cannot be 

discounted. The water rights for Tetra Alpha Placer, Tetra Alpha Lode and Mill, and Lightning 

Creek are not to exceed 100 gpm each, and will likely occur intermittently during the operating 

season (June through October). Typically water is drafted into existing ponds for processing, 

and all water is recycled on site. Water withdrawal will not affect high flows or winter base 

flows. 

Monitoring of water withdrawal by the FS Minerals Administrator will contribute substantially 

to the protection of fish migration, spawning, and other life stages at and downstream of 

diversions. As stated in the Assessment (Table 20) and Table 3, if the Tetra Alpha Mill and 

Lode miner exercises their water right from Boulder Creek, there is a potential for direct effects 

to bull trout and critical habitat. No water withdrawals are permitted in SR habitat after August 

15 to protect fish migrating to spawn, and if a stream is dry below where the miner is working 

prior to August 15, then the miner must cease withdrawing water from the creek until flow 

exceeds the amount withdrawn. Therefore, for Boulder Creek, a reduction in streamflow as a 

result of water withdrawal is expected to decrease habitat availability, decrease forage, and 

increase stream temperatures to a degree that will adversely affect bull trout. Lightning Creek 

water withdrawals are not expected to result in adverse effects to bull trout and this conclusion is 

based on the fact that only a very small proportion of the streamflow will be removed on an 

intermittent basis for five months of the year (for up to ten years). 

5.1.1 Summary 

We are not expecting any bull trout mortality from proposed placer mining, stream fording, 

temporary road construction, or water withdrawal. Few adult or juvenile bull trout are likely to 
Ms. Genevieve Masters 79 

Final Agency Review Draft – February 2, 2016 

be present in these stream reaches and most fish in the area will likely move up or downstream 

when mining activities commence. Direct mortality from trampling of redds may occur when 

large equipment using fords, enters the immediate vicinity of a redd. However, this risk will be 

extremely low because adult bull trout (and therefore bull trout redds) are in low abundance and 

all fords must be examined by a FS fish biologist prior to use. In addition, after reviewing the 

available information and considering the measures the miners have proposed to protect SR 

habitat, the Service concludes that the probability of mining activities interrupting spawning or 

juvenile rearing is low, but not discountable. Due to implementation of the PMs the Service is 

only expecting the following adverse effects to bull trout from the proposed placer mining, 

stream fording, temporary road construction and water withdrawal, in the Granite Creek action 

area: 

 Short-term physiological distress and reduced feeding rate for bull trout exposed to 

increased levels of suspended sediment and increased water temperatures. 

 Older juveniles, age-1+, are expected to move away from suspended sediment, while 

eggs and alevins are not expected in the action area. 

 Reduction of macro-invertebrate prey base and loss of substrate habitat for juvenile bull 

trout exposed to increase levels of deposited sediment or increased water temperatures. 

 Loss of territories and associated increased competition, increased predation risk, stress, 

and reduced feeding efficiency for bull trout disturbed by placer mining operations, 

stream fording, temporary road construction and water withdrawal. 

5.2 Effects to Bull Trout Critical Habitat 

Designated critical habitat within the action area consists of bull trout SR and FMO habitat. 

Potential adverse effects of Blue Sky/Bull Run, Eddy Shipman, Grubsteak, Hopeful 2 & 3, 

Lightning Creek, Little Cross 1, Ruby Group, and Tetra Alpha Placer/Tetra Alpha Lode Mines to 

critical habitat are related to several factors described in more detail above. A crosswalk 

between PCEs and the Matrix of Pathways and Indicators for bull trout and a more in-depth 

analysis is found in Appendix C. 

The Service expects placer mining, stream fording, and temporary road construction to result in a 

short-term degradation to the suspended sediment/turbidity resulting in reductions in abundance 

of forage fish, short-term reduction of macro-invertebrate prey base, and loss of substrate habitat 

for juvenile bull trout exposed to increased levels of deposited sediment, and loss of territories 

and associated increased competition, increased predation risk, stress, and reduced feeding 

efficiency for bull trout. Water withdrawal has the capacity to reduce habitat access, reduce food 

availability and increase stream temperatures. The Service anticipates that the Project will result 

in short-term adverse effects to PCEs 3 (abundant food base), PCE 4 (complex habitat), 5 (water 

temperature), and 8 (water quality). As the miners are prohibited from operating in or near bull 

trout spawning habitat in the action area the Service is expecting insignificant effects to PCE 6 

(substrate in spawning habitat). Similarly, placer mining, stream fording, temporary road 

construction, and water withdrawal will have no significant effects on PCEs 1 (springs), 2 

(migration), and no effect on PCEs 7 (natural hydrograph) and 9 (non-native species). The 

adverse effects will be short-term during Project implementation and will not significantly affect 

the function of FMO and SR habitat for bull trout in Lower Granite Creek, Upper Granite Creek, 

Boulder Creek, Bull Run Creek, Clear Creek, and Lightning Creek. 
Ms. Genevieve Masters 80 

Final Agency Review Draft – February 2, 2016 

5.3 Interrelated/Interdependent Effects 

Interrelated actions are those that are a part of a larger action and depend on the larger action for 

their justification. Interdependent actions are those that have no independent utility apart from 

the action under consideration. Both interdependent and interrelated activities are assessed by 

applying the “but for” test, which asks whether any action and its associated impacts would 

occur “but for” the proposed action. 

Interrelated or interdependent actions associated with this Project include transporting heavy 

equipment to the mining sites over existing roads. The Assessments states that this will have no 

more of an effect to listed fish species and their habitat than normal vehicle travel over these 

roads. 

Actions interrelated and interdependent to the FS authorization of mining Plans include potential 

long-term camping associated with mining. Forest Service policy limits the duration of 

occupancy of miners to no more than 14 days without additional permits. Camping over 14 days 

requires additional permission and all camping will follow PMs G5, G20, and G21 (Appendix 

A). In addition, annual inspections and implementation and effectiveness monitoring should 

address the above concerns. Most miners occupy campsites on their claims for fewer days than 

the maximum allowed. With full implementation of the PMs, the Service is not expecting 

significant effects to bull trout from miners camping in RHCAs during the 2016 to 2025 mining 

seasons. 

6.0 Cumulative Effects 

Cumulative effects include the effects of future State, tribal, local or private actions that are 

reasonably certain to occur in the action area considered in this biological opinion. Future 

Federal actions that are unrelated to the proposed action are not considered in this section 

because they require separate consultation pursuant to section 7 of the Act. The Service is 

unaware of any significant change in non-Federal activities that are reasonably certain to occur 

within the action area. The Service assumes that future private and State actions will continue at 

similar intensities as in recent years. 

7.0 Conclusion 

7.1 Bull Trout 

After reviewing the current status of bull trout, the environmental baseline for the action area, the 

effects of the proposed Project activities, and anticipated cumulative effects, it is the Service’s 

biological opinion that the action as proposed is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence 

of bull trout. The Service reached this conclusion for the following reasons: 

 Only short-term physiological distress and reduced feeding rates for bull trout exposed to 

increased levels of suspended sediment is anticipated with no long-term effects, 

 Only a short-term reduction of macro-invertebrate prey base and loss of substrate habitat 

for juvenile bull trout exposed to increased levels of deposited sediment, and 

 Loss of territories and associated increased competition, increased predation risk, stress, 

and reduced feeding efficiency for bull trout disturbed by placer mining, stream fording, 
Ms. Genevieve Masters 81 

Final Agency Review Draft – February 2, 2016 

temporary road construction and water withdrawal operations. 

These adverse effects are anticipated to be limited and occur only within the action area during 

the annual mining season of June 1 to October 31, 2016 through 2025 and should be 

substantially minimized by the PMs incorporated into the Project proposal. 

Placer mining, stream fording, temporary road construction, and water withdrawal will occur in 

bull trout critical habitat on Lower Granite Creek, Upper Granite Creek, Boulder Creek, Bull 

Run Creek, Clear Creek and Lightning Creek. Therefore, spawning bull trout, eggs, or alevins 

could be affected by the Project. However, we anticipate that the number of bull trout present in 

the action area will be low and the proposed action will likely result in no lethal take of bull 

trout. Given these considerations, the Service concludes that the numbers, distribution, and 

reproduction of bull trout in the action area, the North Fork John Day River core area, or in the 

Mid-Columbia River recovery unit will not be significantly changed as a result of this Project. 

7.2 Bull trout Critical Habitat 

After reviewing the current status of designated critical habitat, the environmental baseline for 

the action area, the effects of the proposed project activities, and anticipated cumulative effects, 

it is the Service’s biological opinion that the action, as proposed, is not likely to destroy or 

adversely modify designated bull trout critical habitat. The Service concludes that any adverse 

impacts to PCEs 3, 4, 5 and 8 will be short-term and will not permanently alter or destroy the 

quality or function of designated critical habitat in the action area of Granite Creek watershed. 

We expect that the PMs incorporated into the proposed action should reduce the magnitude of 

adverse effects, but not eliminate them. 

8.0 Incidental Take Statement 

Section 9 of the Act and Federal regulations pursuant to section 4(d) of the Act prohibit the take 

of endangered and threatened species, respectively, without special exemption. Take is defined 

as harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture or collect, or attempt to engage in 

any such conduct. Harm is further defined by the Service to include significant habitat 

modification or degradation that results in death or injury to listed species by significantly 

impairing behavioral patterns including breeding, feeding, or sheltering. Harass is defined by the 

Service as intentional or negligent actions that create the likelihood of injury to listed species to 

such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavior patterns which include, but are not 

limited to, breeding, feeding, or sheltering. Incidental take is defined as take that is incidental to, 

and not the purpose of, carrying out an otherwise lawful activity. Under the terms of Section 7 

(b)(4) and Section 7(o)(2), taking that is incidental to and not intended as part of this project is 

not considered to be prohibited taking under the Act provided that such taking is in compliance 

with this Incidental Take Statement. 

The UNF/WWNF have a continuing duty to regulate the activity covered by the incidental take 

statement. If the UNF/WWNF (1) fail to assume and implement the terms and conditions or (2) 

fail to require the miners to adhere to the terms and conditions of the incidental take statement 

through enforceable terms, the protective coverage of section 7(o)(2) may lapse. In order to 

monitor the impact of incidental take, the UNF/WWNF must report the progress of the action 

and its impact on the species to the Service as specified in the incidental take statement [50 CFR 
Ms. Genevieve Masters 82 

Final Agency Review Draft – February 2, 2016 

§402.14(i)(3)]. 

8.1 Amount/Extent of Take Anticipated 

Available survey information indicates that there are a low number of bull trout in the action area 

but, because the Service has no accurate estimate of the number of bull trout that may be in the 

action area at any time, to address take associated with the proposed action, the amount of stream 

channel subject to placer mining, temporary road construction, and stream fording was used as a 

surrogate. Table 3 lists the placer mines, along with the number of fords and temporary road 

construct for the Project area that occur in bull trout FMO and SR habitat that may be affected 

due to localized increases in suspended sediment. 

The Service anticipates that a low number of bull trout present in action areas of the placer 

mining, temporary road construction or stream fording, (and 300 feet immediately downstream 

of each ford) each year may be subject to take in the form of harm or harassment. Specifically, 

bull trout will be harmed from: (1) short-term physiological distress and reduced feeding rate for 

bull trout exposed to increased levels of suspended sediment; (2) older juveniles, age-1+, are 

expected to move out of the vicinity, while eggs and alevins are not expected in the action area; 

(3) short-term reduction of the macro-invertebrate prey base and loss of substrate habitat for 

juvenile bull trout exposed to increased levels of deposited sediment; and (4) loss of territories 

and associated increased competition, increased predation risk, stress, and reduced feeding 

efficiency for bull trout disturbed by placer mining, temporary road construction or stream 

fording. With full implementation of the required PMs the Service anticipates the total amount 

of take will be low during the placer mining seasons. 

Authorized take will be confined to the amount of habitat affected and authorized take will be 

exceeded if: 

1. The area affected by placer mining, temporary road construction, or fording is greater 

than described in the proposed action and/or turbidity levels beyond background amounts 

occur greater than 300 feet immediately downstream of the each activity; or 

2. Miners do not comply with all of the mitigation and PMs contained in this Opinion; or 

3. Mining operations result in the mortality of any bull trout of any life-stage in the action 

area. 

If authorized take is exceeded, placer mining operations and/or placer mining activities, 

temporary road construction or use of stream fords will cease and the UNF/WWNF will reinitiate 

consultation. The Service expects no lethal take of any life history stage of bull trout and none is 

authorized. 

8.2 Effect of Take 

For this Opinion, the Service determined that this level of anticipated take is not likely to result 

in jeopardy to the species. 
Ms. Genevieve Masters 83 

Final Agency Review Draft – February 2, 2016 

8.3 Reasonable and Prudent Measures 

 

The Service believes that the following reasonable and prudent measures (RPMs) are necessary 

and appropriate to minimize impacts of incidental take of bull trout. The UNF/WWNF shall: 

1. Avoid bull trout at all times during placer mining operations, temporary road 

construction, and when using stream fords. 

2. Minimize incidental take caused by habitat impacts of the proposed action by ensuring 

proper monitoring and compliance/enforcement occur. 

3. Implement a program of monitoring and reporting to ensure that the amount and extent of 

take limits are not exceeded. 

8.4 Terms and Conditions

In order to be exempt from the prohibitions of section 9 of the Act, the UNF/WWNF must see to 

it that the claimants comply with the following terms and conditions, which will implement the 

reasonable and prudent measures described above. These terms and conditions shall be 

incorporated as mandatory requirements for each claimant’s Plan that has been approved by the 

UNF/WWNF. The UNF/WWNF’s monitoring and enforcement of the terms and conditions 

within this Opinion will further reduce the risk of impacts to bull trout and designated critical 

habitat within the Granite Creek watershed. These terms and conditions are non-discretionary. 

1. To implement reasonable and prudent measure #1 (avoid bull trout), the UNF/WWNF 

shall enforce upon claimants, the following: 

a. Placer mining operations, temporary road construction, water withdrawal and use 

of stream fords must shut down immediately if the operator observes adfluvial 

adult (large) bull trout. The operation must remain shut down until the fish 

move(s) at least 100 ft. upstream of the operation or at least 500 ft. downstream. 

b. Miners must be particularly vigilant with regard to early rearing bull trout, as this 

life stage may be present in the substrate being affected by fording. If early 

rearing bull trout are observed or their presence suspected, in or near the substrate 

while fording is occurring, operations must shut down until the fish have moved 

out of the immediate area. Miners and a FS fisheries biologist must coordinate 

regarding the identification of early rearing bull trout. 

c. All mining operations must shut down immediately if any sick, injured, or dead 

specimen of bull trout is found (see Section 8.5). In addition, if any fish eggs are 

excavated or if destruction of redds is observed, operators must contact the FS and 

receive authorization to proceed prior to resuming operations. 

2. To implement reasonable and prudent measure #2 (minimize habitat effects), the 

UNF/WWNF shall enforce upon claimants, the following: 

a. All placer mine “no activity” streams buffers must be maintained between streams 

and mining activities. 

b. Prior to using stream fords, operators must meet with a FS fisheries biologist who 

will inspect each existing and proposed ford site. No fording will be allowed in 

areas of known bull trout spawning or in areas identified as spawning habitat. 
Ms. Genevieve Masters 84 

Final Agency Review Draft – February 2, 2016 

c. Ford crossing will only occur during the ODFW in-water work window for all 

use. If the miner proposes to ford outside the in-water work window, then a FS 

fish biologist must inspect the crossing and approve beforehand. 

d. Fords must be located in areas of large substrate not preferred by spawning bull 

trout. 

e. There should not be any streambank disturbance except at fords, because each 

Plan has a “no activity” buffer. Should unexpected streambank disturbance occur 

in any way, the banks must be restored to the original contour and re-vegetated 

with native species at the end of the annual mining season in which the 

disturbance occurred. 

f. Camping areas, paths, and other disturbed sites that are located along stream 

banks and that are associated with mining operations must be re-vegetated or 

otherwise restored to their original conditions at the end of the mining season. 

g. Any temporary roads, road repair or road maintenance proposed by the operator 

that will occur within any RHCA or which has the potential to transmit sediment 

to stream channels must be specifically approved by the FS in detail and in 

writing, and will be inspected by the FS during the mining season. 

h. Operators must cease activities during the wet periods when Project activities are 

causing excessive ground disturbance (visible ground disturbance due to soil 

saturation) or excessive damage (muddying/rutting) to roads 

i. Mining operators must not remove, relocate, or disturb stable in-stream woody 

debris or boulders greater than 12 inches in diameter. 

j. The operator will not remove any large down or standing woody debris or trees 

for firewood within one tree length of the stream. 

k. No mechanized equipment will be operated below the mean high water mark 

except for when fording at designated sites. 

l. Gasoline and other petroleum products must be stored in spill-proof containers at 

a location that minimizes the opportunity for accidental spillage. 

m. A spill kit must be available in case of accidental spills. Soil contaminated by 

spilled petroleum products, must be excavated to the depth of saturation and 

removed from the National Forest for proper disposal. 

n. Operators will not entrain, mobilize, or disperse any mercury discovered during 

mining operations. Operators must cease operations and notify the FS if mercury 

is encountered in placer material. Operators must not use mercury, cyanide, or 

any other hazardous or refined substance to recover or concentrate gold. 

o. To prevent the threat of aquatic invasive species, tools used while placer mining, 

and associated equipment must be thoroughly cleaned with a pressure washer and 

dried at least five days prior to use on the Forest. 

3. To implement reasonable and prudent measure #3 (Implementation, effectiveness, bull 

trout monitoring and reporting), the UNF/WWNF shall: 

a. Once per season, turbidity monitoring shall be conducted to assess the extent and 

duration of turbidity plumes associated with “no activity” buffers of 20 ft. or less, 

i.e. Eddy Shipman on Granite Creek, Grubsteak on Clear Creek, and Ruby Group 

on Ruby and Clear Creeks. Turbidity monitoring shall occur during active placer 

mining at 300 ft. downstream of the project area. Turbidity at the downstream 

sample location shall be recorded every 30 minutes until the plume has dissipated. 
Ms. Genevieve Masters 85 

Final Agency Review Draft – February 2, 2016 

b. Once per week during construction and then once a month for the rest of the first 

season only, turbidity monitoring shall be conducted to assess the extent and 

duration of turbidity plumes associated with temporary road construction for Tetra 

Alpha Placer and Tetra Alpha Lode and Mill Mines. Turbidity monitoring shall 

occur during construction of the temporary road. If noticeable turbidity is 

observed reaching the stream, all activities must cease immediately or decrease in 

intensity until no increase in turbidity is observed at a 300 ft. mark downstream of 

the origin of turbidity. 

c. Once per month, per the first season, turbidity monitoring shall be conducted to 

assess the extent and duration of turbidity plumes associated with each stream 

ford and must occur during mobilization of both heavy equipment and daily 

equipment such as pick-up trucks and all-terrain vehicles. Turbidity monitoring 

shall occur approximately 300 ft. downstream of each ford, immediately 

following fording (i.e., when the plume reaches the monitoring location), and 

occur every five minutes until the plume dissipates. Background turbidity shall be 

collected prior to fording, and may be collected at the downstream monitoring 

location. The type and number of vehicles/heavy equipment fording the stream 

shall also be recorded. 

d. Stream flow shall be measured, monitored and recorded during water withdrawals 

for each mine a minimum of once per month each season for the following mines: 

Grubsteak Mine on Clear Creek, Lightning Creek Mine on Lightning Creek; and 

Tetra Alpha Placer, Lode and Mill Mines on Boulder Creek. 

e. Water withdrawal from instream flow cannot exceed more than the established 

water rights identified in the Assessment during the water withdrawal period 

(Table 3). 

f. Provide a written report or letter to the Service, by December 31st of each year 

indicating: 

i. The actual number of bull trout taken, if any, including observations by 

claimants of any adfluvial and early life stages of bull trout (per Term and 

Condition 1.a. and 1.b.), and any relevant biological/habitat data or other 

pertinent information on bull trout that was collected; 

ii. The results of the turbidity plumes observed in the “no activity buffers” 

for Eddy Shipman on Granite Creek, Grubsteak on Clear Creek, and Ruby 

Group on Ruby and Clear Creeks. 

iii. The results of the turbidity monitoring associated with each ford. 

iv. The results from stream flow monitoring associated with each water 

withdrawal. 

v. The results of any unexpected streambank disturbance, along with the 

restoration and revegetation associated with the disturbance. 

vi. Any new findings by FS fisheries biologist regarding stream fording in 

newly identified bull trout spawning and rearing habitat and relevant 

mitigation. 

vii. Claimant/operator compliance with the Terms and Conditions of this 

Opinion; 

viii. Remedies to address and resolve any identified problems; and 

ix. Any environmental effects of the action that were not considered in the 

Assessment or this Opinion. 
Ms. Genevieve Masters 86 

Final Agency Review Draft – February 2, 2016 

x. In addition, the report will include the location and duration of each 

miner/Plan’s mining activities. Individual operators should keep a daily 

log of mining activities to facilitate the FS’s compliance with this 

monitoring requirement. 

g. Submit all reports to: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Attn: Suzanne Anderson, 

3502 Highway 30, La Grande, OR 97850. 

8.5 Reporting Requirements 

If a dead, injured, or sick endangered or threatened species specimen (including a bull trout) is 

located, initial notification must be made to the nearest Service Law Enforcement Office, located 

at 9025 SW Hillman Court, Suite 3134, Wilsonville, OR 97070; phone: 503-682-6131. Care 

should be taken in handling sick or injured specimens to ensure effective treatment or the 

handling of dead specimens to preserve biological material in the best possible state for later 

analysis of cause of death. In conjunction with the care of sick or injured endangered and 

threatened species or preservation of biological materials from a dead animal, the finder has the 

responsibility to carry out instructions provided by Law Enforcement to ensure that evidence 

intrinsic to the specimen is not unnecessarily disturbed. 

Review Requirement: The Reasonable and Prudent Measures, with their implementing Terms 

and Conditions, are designed to minimize incidental take that might otherwise result from the 

proposed action. These measures should decrease the level of take of bull trout to the degree 

possible, given the circumstances surrounding the proposed action. With implementation of 

these measures, the Service believes that some bull trout may be incidentally taken as quantified 

above. If, during the course of the action, this minimized level of incidental take is exceeded, 

such incidental take would represent new information requiring review of the reasonable and 

prudent measures provided, the MNF must immediately provide an explanation of the causes of 

the taking and review with the Service the need for possible modification of the reasonable and 

prudent measures. 

9.0 Conservation Recommendations 

Section 7(a)(1) of the Act directs Federal agencies to utilize their authorities to further the 

purposes of the Act by carrying out conservation programs for the benefit of endangered and 

threatened species. Conservation recommendations are discretionary agency activities to 

minimize or avoid adverse effects of a proposed action on listed species or critical habitat, to 

help implement recovery plans, or to develop information. The Service recommends the 

following conservation recommendations: 

1. Limit future activities and projects that may negatively affect watershed conditions in the 

Granite Creek watershed. Allow sufficient time for the watershed to become 

hydrologically and ecologically stable following mining activity before undertaking 

substrate disturbing activities. 

2. Promote recovery of bull trout in the Granite Creek watershed by identifying potential 

habitat restoration opportunities and implementing these actions in the near-term. 

3. Continue to survey and monitor bull trout populations and habitat in the Granite Creek 
Ms. Genevieve Masters 87 

Final Agency Review Draft – February 2, 2016 

watershed. 

4. Monitor invasive/noxious weed infestations in the action area. Take necessary steps to 

control or eliminate weed infestations to minimize negative impacts on bull trout habitat. 

5. Collect necessary data to continue to update the baseline conditions for Granite Creek, 

Boulder Creek, Bull Run Creek, Clear Creek, and Lightning Creek. 

In order for the Service to be kept informed of actions minimizing or avoiding adverse effects or 

benefiting listed species or their habitats, the Service requests notification of the implementation 

of any conservation recommendations. 

10. Reinitiation – Closing Statement 

This concludes formal consultation for the potential effects of the proposed approval of the 2016-

2025 Granite Mining Plans of Operation Project (Project) for lode and placer mining on bull 

trout in the Granite Creek Watershed. As provided in 50 CFR §402.16, reinitiation of formal 

consultation is required where discretionary Federal agency involvement or control over the 

action has been retained (or is authorized by law) and if (1) the amount or extent of incidental 

take is exceeded; (2) new information reveals effects of the agency action that may affect listed 

species or critical habitat in a manner or to an extent not considered in this Opinion; (3) the 

agency action is subsequently modified in a manner that causes an effect to the listed species or 

critical habitat not considered in this Opinion; or (4) a new species is listed or critical habitat 

designated that may be affected by the action. Whenever the amount or extent of incidental take 

is exceeded, any operations causing such take must cease, pending reinitiation of consultation 

with the Service. 
Ms. Genevieve Masters 88 

Final Agency Review Draft – February 2, 2016 

LITERATURE CITED 

Arismendi, I., M. Safeeq, S. L. Johson, J. B. Dunham, and R. Haggerty. 2012. Increasing 

 synchrony of high temperature and low flow in western North American streams: double 

 trouble for coldwater biota? DOI 10.1007/s10750-012-1327-2: Hydrobiologia, p. online. 

Battin, J., M.W. Wiley, M.H. Ruckelshaus, R.N. Palmer, E. Korb, K.K. Bartz, and H. Imaki. 

2007. Projected impacts of climate change on salmon habitat restoration. Proceedings of 

the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 104(16):6720-6725. 

Baxter, C. 2002. Fish movement and assemblage dynamics in a Pacific Northwest riverscape. 

 Dissertation, Oregon State University, Department of Fisheries Science, Corvallis, 

 Oregon. 

Baxter, J.S., E.B.Taylor, R.H. Devlin, J. Hogan, and J.D. McPhail. 1997. Evidence for natural 

hybridization between Dolly Varden (Salvelinus malma) and bull trout (Salvelinus 

confluentus) in a north central British Columbia watershed. Can. F. Aquatic. Sci. 54: 421-

329. 

Beauchamp, D.A., and J.J. VanTassell. 2001. Modeling seasonal trophic interactions of adfluvial 

bull trout in Lake Billy Chinook, Oregon. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 

130:204-216. 

Bindoff, N.L., J. Willebrand, V. Artale, A. Cazenave, J.M. Gregory, S. Gulev, K. Hanawa, C. Le 

Quéré, S. Levitus, Y. Nojiri, C.K. Shum, L.D. Talley, and A.S. Unnikrishnan. 

Observations: Oceanic climate change and sea leve. In: Climate Change 2007: The 

Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment 

Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. S. Solomon, D. Qin, M. 

Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller (editors). 

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, New York, 

USA. 

Boag, T.D. 1987. Food habits of bull char, Salvelinus confluentus, and rainbow trout, Salmo 

gairdneri, coexisting in a foothills stream in northern Alberta. Canadian Field-Naturalist 

 101(1): 56-62. 

Bond, C.E. 1992. Notes on the nomenclature and distribution of the bull trout and the effects of 

human activity on the species. Pages 1-4 in Howell, P.J. and D.V. Buchanan, eds. 

Proceedings of the Gearhart Mountain bull trout workshop. Oregon Chapter of the 

American Fisheries Society, Corvallis, OR. 

Bonneau, J.L., and D.L. Scarnecchia. 1996. Distribution of juvenile bull trout in a thermal 

gradient of a plunge pool in Granite Creek, Idaho. Transactions of the American 

Fisheries Society 125: 628-630. 

Brenkman, S.J., and S.C. Corbett. 2005. Extent of anadromy in bull trout and implications for 

 conservation of a threatened species. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 

 25:1073-1081. 
Ms. Genevieve Masters 89 

Final Agency Review Draft – February 2, 2016 

Brewin, P.A. and M.K. Brewin. 1997. Distribution maps for bull trout in Alberta. Pages 206-216 

 in Mackay, W.C., M.K. Brewin and M. Monita, editors. Friends of the Bull Trout 

 Conference Proceedings. 

Brown, L.G. 1994. On the zoogeography and life history of Washington native char Dolly 

Varden (Salvelinus malma) and bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus). Washington 

Department of Wildlife, Fisheries Management Division Report, Olympia, Washington. 

Buchanan, D.M., and S.V. Gregory. 1997. Development of water temperature standards to 

protect and restore habitat for bull trout and other cold water species in Oregon. Pages 1-

8 in W.C. Mackay, M.K. Brewin and M. Monita (eds). Friends of the Bull Trout 

Conference Proceedings. Bull Trout Task Force(Alberta), c/o Trout Unlimited Calgary, 

Alberta, Canada. 

Budy, P., R. Al-Chokhachy, K. Homel, and G.P. Thiede. 2006. Bull trout population assessment 

 in northeastern Oregon: a template for recovery planning. 2005 Annual Progress Report 

 to US Fish and Wildlife Service. UTCFWRU 2006(6):1-102. 

Budy, P., R. Al-Chokhachy, K. Homel, and G. P. Thiede. 2005. Bull trout population assessment 

 in northeastern Oregon: a template for recovery planning. Annual report to the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, RWO-38. Utah Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Utah 

State University, Logan.

Cavender, T. M. 1978. Taxonomy and distribution of the bull trout, Salvelinus confluentus 

(Suckley), from the American Northwest. California Fish and Game 64: 139-174. 

Claire, E.W. and M.E. Gray. 1993. Bull trout in the John Day fish district. Unpublished Report. 

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, John Day, Oregon. 

Donald, D.B. and D.J. Alger. 1993. Geographic distribution, species displacement, and niche 

overlap for lake trout and bull trout in mountain lakes. Canadian Journal of Zoology 

71:238-247. 

Dunham, J., B. Rieman, and G. Chandler. 2003. Influences of temperature and environmental 

variables on the distribution of bull trout within streams at the southern margin of its 

range. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 23:894-905. 

Feely, R.A., C.L. Sabine, J.M. Hernandez-Ayon, D. Ianson, and B. Hales. 2008. Evidence for 

upwelling of corrosive “acidified” water onto the continental shelf. Science 320 (5882): 

1490-1492. 

Feely, R.A., T. Klinger, J.A. Newton, and M. Chadsey (editors). 2012. Scientific summary of 

ocean acidification in Washington State marine waters. NOAA OAR Special Report. 

U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 

Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research. Washington Shellfish Initiative Blue 

Ribbon Panel on Ocean Acidification. November. 
Ms. Genevieve Masters 90 

Final Agency Review Draft – February 2, 2016 

Fraley, J.J. and B.B. Shepard. 1989. Life history, ecology and population status of migratory bull 

trout (Salvelinus confluentus) in the Flathead Lake and River system, Montana. 

Northwest Science 63(4): 133-143. 

Frissell, C.A. 1993. Topology of extinction and endangerment of native fishes in the Pacific 

Northwest and California. Conservation Biology 7(2): 342-354. 

Frissell, C.A. 1999. An ecosystem approach to habitat conservation for bull trout: groundwater 

and surface water protection. Flathead Lake Biological Station, University of Montana, 

Open File Report Number 156-99, Polson, MT, January 07, 1999. 46 pp. 

Gamett, B.L. 2002. Telephone conversation between Bart L. Gamett, Salmon-Challis National 

Forest, and Shelley Spalding, USFWS, re: relationship between water temperature and 

bull trout distribution and abundance in the Little Lost River, Idaho. June 20, 2002. 

Gerking, S.D. 1994. Feeding ecology of fish. Academic Press, San Diego, California. 

Giles, M.A., and Van der Zweep, M. 1996. Dissolved oxygen requirements for fish of the Peace, 

Athabasca and Slave River basins: a laboratory study of bull trout (Salvelinus 

confluentus) and mountain whitefish (Prosopium williamsoni). Northern River Basins 

Study Project Report 120: ix + 153 p. 

Gilpin, M. 1997. Memo to Shelly Spalding, Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks. 

Connectivity on the Clark Fork River: The Bigger Picture. August 27, 1997. 

Goetz, F. 1989. Biology of the bull trout, Salvelinus confluentus, literature review Willamette 

National Forest, Eugene, OR. 

Goetz, F., E.D. Jeanes, and E.M. Beamer. 2004. Bull trout in the nearshore. U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers, Preliminary draft, Seattle, Washington, June 2004. 396 pp. 

Hard, J. J. 1995. A Quantitative Genetic Perspective on the Conservation of Intraspecific 

Diversity. American Fisheries Society Symposium 17:304-326. 

Healey, M.C. and A. Prince. 1995. Scales of variation in life history tactics of pacific salmon and 

the conservation of phenotypic and genotype. American Fisheries Society Symposium. 

17:176-184. 

Henley, W.F., M.A. Patterson, R.J. Neves, and A. Dennis Lemly. 2000. Effects of sedimentation 

and turbidity on lotic food webs: a concise review for natural resource managers. Review 

in Fisheries Science 8(2): 125-139. 

Hoelscher, B. and T.C. Bjornn. 1989. Habitat, density and potential production of trout and char 

in Pend Oreille Lake tributaries. Project F-71-R-10, Subproject III, Job No. 8. Idaho 

department of Fish and Game, Boise, ID. 

Howell, P.J., and D.V. Buchanan. 1992. Proceedings of the Gearhart Mountain Bull Trout 

 Workshop. Oregon Chapter of the American Fisheries Society, Corvallis, Oregon. 
Ms. Genevieve Masters 91 

Final Agency Review Draft – February 2, 2016 

IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2007. Climate Change 2007: Synthesis 

Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fourth Assessment Report of 

the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, Pachauri, R.K and 

Reisinger, A. (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland, 104 pp. 

ISAB (Independent Scientific Advisory Board). 2007. Climate Change Impacts on Columbia 

River Basin Fish and Wildlife. Independent Scientific Advisory Board for the Northwest 

Power and Conservation Council, Columbia River Basin Indian Tribes, and National 

Marine Fisheries Service. May 11, 2007. ISAB 2007-2. 136pp. 

John Day River Recovery Unit Team. in litt. 2001. Transcripts of the March 3, 2001 meeting of 

 the John Day River Recovery unit team. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 

 Portland, Oregon. 

Leary, R.F. and F.W. Allendorf. 1997. Genetic Confirmation of Sympatric Bull Trout and Dolly 

 Varden in Western Washington. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. 

 126:715-720. 

Leathe, S.A., and P.J. Graham. 1982. Flathead Lake fish food habits study. US EPA, Region 

VIII, Water Division, Contract R008224-01-4, Denver, Colorado, October, 1982. 209 pp. 

Mantua, N., I. Tohver, and A.F. Hamlet. 2010. Climate change impacts on streamflow extremes 

and summertime stream temperature and their possible consequences for freshwater 

salmon habitat in Washington State. Climate Change 102 (1-2): 187-223. 

McPhail, J.D., and J.S. Baxter. 1996. A review of bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) life-history 

and habitat use in relation to compensation and improvement opportunities. Department 

of Zoology, University of British Columbia, Fisheries Management Report Number 104, 

Vancouver, British Columbia. 36 pp. 

McPhail, J.D., and C.B. Murray. 1979. The early life-history and ecology of dolly varden 

(Salvelinus Malma) in the upper Arrow Lakes. Department of Zoology, Institute of 

Animal Resource Ecology, Fort Steele, British Columbia, December 1979. 113 pp. 

Meehan, W.R. 1991. Influences of forest and rangeland management on salmonid fishes and 

their habitats. U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service. American Fisheries Society 

Special Publication 19. 733 pp. 

MBTSG (Montana Bull Trout Scientific Group). 1998. The relationship between land 

 management activities and habitat requirements of bull trout. Prepared for Montana Bull 

 Trout Restoration Team. Helena, Montana. 85 pp. 

Michel C., H. Schmidt-Posthaus, and P. Burkhardt-Holm. 2013. Suspended sediment pulse 

 effects in rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss)- relating to apical and systemic 

 responses. Canadian Journao of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. Vol. 70. 

Mote, P.W. and E.P. Salathé. 2010. Future climate in the Pacific Northwest. Climatic Change 

102: 29-50. 
Ms. Genevieve Masters 92 

Final Agency Review Draft – February 2, 2016 

Myrick, C.A., F.T. Barrow, J.B. Dunham, B.L. Gamett, G.R. Haas, J.T. Peterson, B. Rieman, 

L.A. Weber, and A.V. Zale. 2002. Bull trout temperature thresholds:peer review 

summary. USFWS, Lacey, Washington, September 19, 2002. 14 pp. 

NPPC (Northwest Power Planning Council). 2001. Draft John Day subbasin summary. 

 Northwest Power Planning Council. Portland, Oregon. 

ODEQ (Oregon Department of Environmental Quality). 1995. 1992-1994 water quality 

standards review: dissolved oxygen - final issue paper. Oregon Department of 

Environmental Quality, Portland, OR. 

ODFW (Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife) in litt. 2000. Memorandum from Tim 

Unterwegner to Mary Hanson conveying comments on the draft outline for the bull trout 

John Day River Recovery Unit recovery plan. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 

John Day, Oregon. 

Orr, J.C., V.J. Fabry, O. Aumont, L. Bopp, S.C. Doney, R.A. Feely, A. Gnanadesikan, N. 

Gruber, A. Ishida, F. Joos, R.M. Key, K. Lindsay, E. Maier-Reimer, R. Matear, P. 

Monfray, A. Mouchet, R.G. Najjar, G.-K. Plattner, K.B. Rodgers, C.L. Sabine, J.L. 

Sarmiento, R. Schlitzer, R.D. Slater, I.J. Totterdell, M.-F. Weirig, Y. Yamanaka, and A. 

Yool. 2005. Anthropogenic ocean acidification over the twenty-first century and its 

impact on calcifying organisms. Nature 437 (7059): 681-686. 

OWEB (Oregon Water Enhancement Board). 2009-11 Biennial Report. Oregon Plan for salmon 

 and watersheds. 

http://www.oregon.gov/OWEB/pages/BiennialReport_0911/john_day.aspx

OWEB (Oregon Water Enhancement Board) 2004. Basin Ecological Priorities. John Day Basin. 

 www.oregon.gov/OWEB/GRANTS/docs/.../acqpriorities_johnday.pdf 

Pratt, K.L. 1984. Habitat use and species interactions of juvenile cutthroat, Salmo clarki, and bull 

trout, Salvelinus confluentus, in the upper Flathead River basin. Master's Thesis. 

University of Idaho, Moscow, ID. 

Pratt, K.L. 1992. A review of bull trout life history. Pages 5-9 in Howell, P.J. and D.V. 

 Buchanan, eds. Proceedings of the Gearhart Mountain bull trout workshop. Oregon 

 Chapter of the American Fisheries Society, Corvallis, OR. 

Pratt, K.L., and J.E. Huston. 1993. Status of bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) in Lake Pend 

Oreille and the lower Clark Fork River. The Washington Water Power Company, Draft, 

Spokane, Washington, December 1, 1993. 200 pp. 

Ratliff, D.E. and P.J. Howell. 1992. The status of bull trout populations in Oregon. Pages 10-17 

 in Howell, P.J. and D.V. Buchanan, eds. Proceedings of the Gearhart Mountain bull trout 

 workshop. Oregon Chapter of the American Fisheries Society, Corvallis, OR. 

Rich, C.F., Jr. 1996. Influence of abiotic and biotic factors on occurrence of resident bull trout in 

 fragmented habitats, western Montana. MS thesis, Montana State University, Bozeman, 
Ms. Genevieve Masters 93 

Final Agency Review Draft – February 2, 2016 

 MT. 54 pp. 

Rieman, B.E., D. Isaak, S. Adams, D. Horan, D. Nagel, C.H. Luce, and D. Myers. 2007. 

Anticipated climate warming effects on bull trout habitats and populations across the 

interior Columbia River Basin. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 

136(6):1552-1565. 

Rieman, B.E., D.C. Lee, and R.F. Thurow. 1997. Distribution, status, and likely future trends of 

 bull trout within the Columbia River and Klamath River basins. North American Journal 

 of Fisheries Management 17:1111-1125. 

Rieman, B.E. and J.D. McIntyre. 1996. Spatial and temporal variability in bull trout redd counts. 

 North American J. of Fisheries Manage. 16: 132-146. 

Rieman, B.E. and J. D. McIntyre. 1995. Occurrence of bull trout in naturally fragmented habitat 

 patches of varied size. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. Vol. 124 (3):285- 

 296. 

Rieman, BE. and J.D. McIntyre. 1993. Demographic and habitat requirements for conservation 

 of bull trout. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. General Technical 

 Report 1NI-302. 

Rieman, B.E., and F.W. Allendorf. 2001. Effective population size and genetic conservation 

 criteria for bull trout. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 21:756-764. 

Royal Society, The. 2005. Ocean Acidification Due to Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide. 

Policy Document 12/05. London, England, United Kingdom. June. 

Scheuerell, M.D., and J.G. Williams. 2005. Forecasting climate-induced changes in the survival 

 of Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon. Fisheries Oceanography 14(6);448-457. 

Sedell, J.R. and F.H. Everest. 1991. Historic changes in pool habitat for Columbia River Basin 

 salmon under study for TES listing. Draft USDA Report. Pacific Northwest Research 

 Station. Corvallis, OR. 6 pp. 

Sexauer, H.M., and P.W. James. 1997. Microhabitat use by juvenile bull trout in four streams 

located in the eastern Cascades, Washington. Pages 361-370 In W.C. McKay, M.K. 

Brewin, and M. Monita, eds. Friends of the Bull Trout Conference Proceedings, Bull 

Trout Task Force (Alberta), c/o Trout Unlimited, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. 

Simpson, J.C. and R.L. Wallace. 1982. Fishes of Idaho. University of Idaho Press, Moscow, ID. 

 93 pp. 

Spence, B.C., G.A. Lomincky, R.M. Hughes, R.P. Novitzki. 1996. An ecosystem approach to 

 salmonid conservation. TR-4501-96-6057. Man Tech Environmental Research Corp., 

 Corvallis, Oregon. 
Ms. Genevieve Masters 94 

Final Agency Review Draft – February 2, 2016 

Spruell, P., B.E. Rieman, K.L. Knudsen, F.M. Utter, and F.W. Allendorf. 1999. Genetic 

population structure within streams: microsatellite analysis of bull trout populations. 

Ecology of Freshwater Fish 8:114-121. 

Stewart. D, .B., N.J, Mocltnacz,C .D, Sawatzky,T.J.C. Carmichael and J.D. Reist. 2007. Fish life 

 history and habitat use in the Northwest territories: Bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus). 

 Canadian Manuscript Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 2801. Department of 

Fisheries and Oceans, Winnipeg, MB, Canada, 2007. 54 pp. 

Thomas, G. 1992. Status of bull trout in Montana. Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and 

Parks, Helena, MT, August 1992. 83 pp. 

Thomas, V.G. 1985. Experimentally determined impacts of a small, suction gold dredge on a 

 Montana stream. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 5:480-488. 

UNF (Umatilla National Forest) in litt. 2000. Memorandum from Dave Crabtree to Mary Hanson 

 conveying comments on the draft bull trout John Day River Recovery Unit recovery plan. 

 U.S. Forest Service, North Fork John Day Ranger District. Ukiah, Oregon. 

UNF/WWNF (Umatilla National Forest/Wallowa-Whitman National Forest). 1997. Watershed 

 analysis for Granite Creek. U.S. Forest Service. Baker City, Oregon. 

USDA 2012. General water quality Best Management Practices (BMPs). U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. 

USDA and USDI. 1995. Decision notice/decision record finding no significant impact: 

environmental assessment for the interim strategies for managing anadromous fishproducing watersheds in eastern Oregon and Washington, Idaho and portions of 

California (PACFISH). 

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2002a. Bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) draft 

recovery plan - Chapter 2: Klamath River. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, 

Oregon. 

USFWS. 2002b. Bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) draft recovery plan - Chapter 25: Saint 

Mary-Belly River. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. 

USFWS. 2002c. Chapter 20 of the bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) draft recovery plan: Lower 

Columbia Recovery Unit, Washington. USFWS, Region 1, Portland, Oregon. 102 pp. 

USFWS. 2004a. Draft Recovery Plan for the Coastal-Puget Sound Distinct Population Segment 

 of Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus). Volume I (of II): Puget Sound Management Unit. 

 Portland, Oregon. 389 + xvii pp. 

USFWS. 2004b. Draft Recovery Plan for the Jarbidge River Distinct Population Segment of Bull 

 Trout (Salvelinus confluentus). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. 132 + 

 xiii pp. 
Ms. Genevieve Masters 95 

Final Agency Review Draft – February 2, 2016 

USFWS. 2008. Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus) 5-Year Review Summary and Evaluation. 

Portland, Oregon. 

USFWS. 2014. Revised draft recovery plan for the coterminous United States population of 

bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus). Portland, Oregon. xii + 1 pp. 

USFWS. 2015. Recovery plan for the coterminous United States population of bull trout 

(Salvelinus confluentus). Portland, Oregon. xii + 179 pp. 

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) and NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 1998. 

Endangered Species Consultation Handbook: Procedures for conducting consultation 

and conference activities under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. U.S. GPO: 

2004-690-278. March 1998. 

U.S. Global Change Research Program. 2009. Global Climate Change Impacts in the United 

States. Thomas R. Karl, Jerry M. Melillo, and Thomas C. Peterson, (eds.). Cambridge 

University Press. 188 pp. Available at: www.globalchange.gov/usimpactsScheuerell, 

M.D. and J.G. Williams. 2005. Forecasting climate-induced changes in the survival of 

Snake River spring/Summer Chinook salmon (Onchorhynchus tshawytscha). Fisheries 

Oceanography 146:448-457. 

Watson, G. and T W Hillman. 1997. Factors affecting the distribution and abundance of 

bull trout: and investigation at hierarchical scales. North Amer. J. Fisheries 

Manage. 17:237-252. 

WDFW, FishPro Inc., and Beak Consultants. 1997. Grandy Creek trout hatchery biological 

assessment. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, WA, March 1997. 

47 pp. 

WDOE (Washington Department of Ecology). 2002. Evaluating criteria for the protection of 

 freshwater aquatic life in Washington's surface water quality standards – dissolved 

 oyxgen: Draft discussion paper and literature summary. Publication Number 00-10-071. 

 Washington Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA, 90 pp. I2T 

Zabel, R.W., M.D. Scheuerell, M.M. McClure, and J.G. Williams. 2006. The interplay between 

climate variability and density dependence in the population viability of Chinook salmon. 

Conservation Biology 20 (1): 190-200. 
Ms. Genevieve Masters 96 

Final Agency Review Draft – February 2, 2016 

APPENDIX A. Required Protection Measures 

PACFISH/INFISH Standards and Guidelines for Minerals Management 

MM-1. 

If the Notice of Intent indicates a mineral operation would be located in a Riparian 

Habitat Conservation Area, or could affect attainment of Riparian Management 

Objectives, or adversely affect listed anadromous fish, require a reclamation plan, an 

approved Plan of Operations, and reclamation bond. Such plans and bonds must address 

costs of removing facilities, equipment and materials; recontouring disturbed areas; 

isolating and neutralizing toxic material; salvage and replacement of topsoil; and 

revegetation of RHCAs. Reclamation bonds must contain measurable attainment and 

bond release criteria for each reclamation activity. 

MM-2 

Where no alternative to sitting facilities in RHCAs exist, locate and construct the 

facilities in ways that avoid impact to RHCAs and adverse effects. Where no alternative 

to road construction exists, keep roads to the minimum necessary for the approved 

mineral activity. Close obliterate and revegetate roads no longer required for mineral or 

land management activities. 

MM-3 

If no alternative to locating mine waste facilities in RHCAs exists, and releases can be 

prevented and stability can be ensured, then: 

 Analyze the waste material using current sampling methods 

 Locate and ensure mass stability and prevent the release of acid or toxic materials. 

 Reclaim and monitor waste facilities to assure chemical and physical stability and 

vegetation. 

 Require adequate reclamation bonds to ensure long term chemical and physical 

stability 

MM-6 

Develop inspection, monitoring, and reporting requirements for mineral activities. 

Evaluate and apply the results of inspection and monitoring to modify mineral plans as 

needed to eliminate impacts that prevent attainment of RMOs and avoid adverse effects 

to list listed fish. 

General Requirements for Protection of Surface Resources 

The general mitigations apply to all mine operations analyzed in the Granite Mining Project. 

G1. In accordance with 36 CFR §228.4(d), the operator will submit a supplement to a Plan of 

Operations for any ground-disturbing operations not specifically covered within the initial Plan. 

Any supplemental plan shall be subject to approval by the authorized officer in the same manner 

as the initial plan (36CFR §228.5(c)). 

G2. Prior to approval of the Plan of Operations, the operator will furnish a reclamation bond 

(36CFR §228.13(a)). The bond will be calculated based on site-specific conditions addressing 
Ms. Genevieve Masters 97 

Final Agency Review Draft – February 2, 2016 

the resource concerns listed in 36CFR §228.8(g), Reclamation. The bond shall also cover the 

removal of all equipment and improvements authorized in the plan, or any subsequent 

supplements or modifications to the plan. The bond amount may be adjusted during the term of 

this proposed plan of operations in response to changes in the operations or to changes in the 

economy. 

G3. Operations shall be conducted to prevent damage to historic properties or objects of 

antiquity protected by American Antiquities Act (16 U.S.C. 433); Section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended; National Environmental Policy Act of 1969; 

American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978; Archaeological Resource Protection Act of 

1979, as applicable in 36 CFR 261 Regulations; applicable Sections 36 CFR 800 Regulations; 

and other laws and various executive orders that protect cultural resources. Operator shall stop 

all operations and notify the Forest Service of any discovery of cultural or natural history 

resources and work will not continue in the area of the discovery until the properties have been 

evaluated and all necessary consultations are complete. Removal or destruction of historic 

artifacts is a violation of Federal law and as such not allowed. 

Historic building that are eligible for listing or are unevaluated will be maintained as eligible by 

following the Secretary of Interior’s guidelines for Historic Preservation and consulting with the 

Forest Service. 

G4. Surface runoff water from off-site shall be diverted around the operating site to ensure that 

this runoff water does not have a negative impact on water quality. Wood, certified weed-free 

straw bales (See R3), silt fences, or other Forest Service approved barriers, may be used to 

establish a barrier along the banks to control sediment movement into the creek. If tree boles are 

used, the logs must be embedded so that the entire length of the bole is in contact with the 

ground, and the logs overlap in a parallel shingle arrangement so that sediment-laden runoff 

cannot escape the impounded area. 

G5. During ongoing mining activities, all disturbed sites (roads, cut and fill slopes, campsites, 

ponds, dumps, and stockpiles) shall be maintained in a stable condition. 

G6. No live trees greater than 7” diameter at breast height (4.5’ from uphill side of base of tree) 

shall be cut without prior written approval. All live trees approved for removal shall remain onsite. Forest Service personnel will determine which trees approved for removal are 

merchantable. These trees will be stockpiled by the operator for Forest Service disposal, or for 

use during final reclamation. 

 Forest Service shall approve removal of snags or trees with signs of mistletoe, prior to falling. If 

snags greater than 12” are removed, the Forest Service shall be notified and a new snag in the 

same area shall be created with the approval of the Forest Service wildlife biologist. 

G7. Mining equipment shall cross creeks only at pre-approved sites, as authorized by the 

District Ranger with FS, NMFS and USFWS mitigations, and 2012 BMPs. All fords shall be 

sloped and armored with rock, based on a site-specific evaluation. Gravel will be compacted by 

equipment when placed on banks at stream crossings. Subsequent use will further stabilize the 

material. Chris Helberg, Minerals Administrator states “Driving back and forth packs it in rather 

well, (based on monitoring) several old fords that we are using.” Bridges shall be installed so as 
Ms. Genevieve Masters 98 

Final Agency Review Draft – February 2, 2016 

not to result in continued sediment delivery to the stream, and shall be removed upon final 

cessation of mining operations. 

G8. All use and/or construction of any structures shall be listed and authorized in the Plan of 

Operations or supplement (36CFR 261.10 (a)). Only structures reasonably incident and 

necessary for the proposed level of mining operations will be authorized (FSM 2812, and 69 

Stat. 367; 30 U.S.C. 601, 603, 611-615). 

G9. Snow removal on roads is not approved unless addressed in an approved Plan of Operations 

or subsequent modifications or supplements to the Plan of Operations. 

G10. Excavations left open for more than a week shall have the sides contoured to allow wildlife 

to escape should they fall in. 

G11. Other than seasonally, where operations have ceased for a year or more, the operator shall 

annually submit a written statement of intent to the District Ranger which includes the operator’s 

intent to maintain the equipment and structures, the expected date operations will resume, and an 

estimate of extended duration of operations. The operator will maintain the site, equipment, and 

structures in a neat and safe condition during non-operating periods (36 CFR 228.10). 

G12. Buffer strips and/or silt fencing (or other materials approved by the District Ranger) 

between the approved operation and the channel of intermittent or perennial streams shall be of 

sufficient width and filtering capacity (as determined by the District Ranger) to prevent the 

introduction of sediment into the stream system during normal seasonal runoff events such as 

snowmelt or high-intensity rainstorm events. 

In addition, if straw bales or silt fences are used, they will be installed with adequate support (i.e. 

straw bales staked into the ground, silt fences dug into the ground and with seams on stakes 

facing away from sediment sources) and maintained during use (i.e. fences and bales regularly 

checked for failure or movement, sediment removed with it accumulates to 1/3 height of silt 

fence or bale). 

January 16, 2015 amendment is as follows: Buffer strips and/or silt fencing (or other materials 

approved by the District Ranger) between the approved operation and the channel erosion 

control materials such as straw bales and silt fences will be placed outside the no activity stream 

buffers. 

The Minerals Administrator, representing the District Ranger, will oversee and/or monitor 

erosion control material placement to be as close to activities as reasonable to maximize 

effectiveness. 

G13. All explosive handling and storage will comply with Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms 

and Explosives (ATF) requirements and Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA). 

Copies of any permits that require any improvements (storage facilities, gates, etc.) on national 

forest system (NFS) lands must accompany the Plan of Operation or supplemental Plan, and the 

improvements shall be identified within the approved Plan. 
Ms. Genevieve Masters 99 

Final Agency Review Draft – February 2, 2016 

G14. Beaver dams will not be breached by the operators. If pond levels behind the dams 

increase to the point that there is the potential to flood the mining operation, the operator shall 

work with the Forest Service to install pond-level control devices. 

G15. Plan-specific stream buffers for mining-related activities (as specified in Appendix 1A of 

the EIS ) are to be undisturbed. No mining activities, storage of equipment or overburden, or 

vegetation removal is permitted. Driving a vehicle off an existing road within a stream buffer is 

only permitted where necessary to access the stream for mining related activities such as 

installation of a pump or dredge put in, as long as there is no significant impact to surface 

resources, and is consistent with 2012 BMPs. For requirements specific to use of fords, see G7. 

G16. If new active goshawk nests are discovered, a 30-acre nest area will be delineated by 

district wildlife personnel around active goshawk nest sites, and a seasonal restriction on the use 

of heavy equipment would be recommended in the immediate vicinity of the nests to reduce 

disturbance to goshawks during courtship and nesting. Nest areas will be deferred from tree 

removal with the exception of snags cut to address hazards around work areas. An active nest 

site is one that has been used for nesting within the previous five years. Failure to monitor a nest 

site does not equate to inactive status. 

If a new active goshawk nest is discovered after a Plan of Operation is approved, the Forest 

would initiate a Plan modification process per (CFR 228.4e) to determine what reasonable 

additional restrictions could be added to the Plan to mitigate this unanticipated impact. 

G17. If unexpected heritage resources are encountered during project implementation, these 

resources will be protected from disturbance and evaluated for eligibility for inclusion on the 

National Register of Historic Places. Significant resources will be avoided or mitigated as 

described below. In accordance with 36 CFR 800 and Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act (1966), all unevaluated sites will be avoided pending determination of 

eligibility for listing on the National Register of Historic Places by the Forest Service and 

consultation with the Oregon State Historic Preservation Office. All eligible and unevaluated 

sites will be protected throughout the life of the project if possible. Protection of these sites, in 

most cases, shall be accomplished through avoidance by ground-disturbing activities. 

If protection or avoidance of significant heritage resources is not possible, mitigation measures 

will be developed in consultation with the Forest Service and the Oregon State Historic 

Preservation Office and in some cases, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. 

G18. Approval of this plan does not relieve the operator from complying with all applicable 

Federal, State, or County laws or regulations. Any regulations/laws referenced herein are for 

emphases only and not intended to cover all regulations that may apply to this operation. 

G19. Copies of any permits/certifications issued by other regulatory agencies related to mining 

operations on NFS lands shall be submitted to the authorized officer. In some cases this may be 

required prior to approval of the Plan. (CWA §401(a)(1). BMP Min-8) 

G20. Extended occupancy (longer than allowed under the Forest Order) must be incidental to 

and necessary for the level of proposed mining operation and authorized in the Plan of 
Ms. Genevieve Masters 100 

Final Agency Review Draft – February 2, 2016 

Operations2. No person not actively involved in the day to day operations will be authorized to 

stay longer than allowed under the Forest Order (ORDER NO. 2010-0616-WW-12 and Uma FO 

2009-0614-UM-01) (36CFR 261.1(a) and 261.58(a). 

G21. The work site and camp area will be kept clean and orderly. Litter and other non-essential 

mining items brought in by the operator will be removed by the operator from NFS lands and 

disposed of properly. Burning or burying of trash is not authorized. (36CFR 261.11 (b)(c)(d)) 

G22. When the operator is contemplating a sale of the claim(s) associated with their approved 

Plan of Operations, the claimant/operator shall notify the District Ranger. The Plan of 

Operations will not automatically transfer to the new owner, and the new owner must file their 

own notice to the Forest Service (36CFR 288.4). If a new owner wishes to submit the same 

Plan, additional environmental analysis may not be needed. 

G23. During water drafting, pumps should be screened with 3/32” plate screen (or equivalent). 

Screens should be kept in good and efficient state of repair, and water must not be withdrawn at 

any time that the screen is removed. 

G24. At a pre-arranged meeting time and place, the Forest Service minerals administrator will 

inspect all equipment prior to its placement on NFS land in order to make sure that it is in 

working order, and there are no obvious leaks. 

G25: Any existing Forest Service section corners and/or marker trees removed or damaged by 

the miner will be replaced at the miner’s expense 

Hazardous Materials 

H1. No processing chemicals shall be used in the process to extract ore unless authorized in a 

Plan of Operations. Authority will be in conjunction with Oregon DEQ permitting regulations. 

H2. No chemical flocculent or surfactant shall be used in ponds unless it is EPA approved and 

shown to be safe for aquatic species (amphibians). 

H3. Operators shall be required to have a lined containment vault under hazardous material 

storage barrels. 

H4. Before commencing operations, operator shall provide a Hazardous Substances Plan. The 

Plan must include, but is not limited to, hazardous substances (as defined by 29 CFR 1910.120) 

to be used in the mining operation and identification of operators’ representatives responsible for 

supervising initial containment action for releases and, if required by Forest Service, subsequent 

cleanup. Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDSs) for all hazardous materials used will be available 

at the mining operation and all such materials shall be labeled in accordance with Federal and 

State regulations. The Plan should show operator's procedures for reporting and responding to a 

 

2

   1. Be reasonably incident - Reasonably incident means the statutory standard "prospecting, mining, or processing operations and uses 

reasonably incident thereto" (30 U.S.C. 612). It is a shortened version of the statutory standard. It includes those actions or expenditures of labor 

and resources by a person of ordinary prudence to prospect, explore, define, develop, mine, or beneficiate a valuable mineral deposit using 

methods, structures, and equipment appropriate to the geological terrain, mineral deposit, and stage of development and reasonably related 

activities. 
Ms. Genevieve Masters 101 

Final Agency Review Draft – February 2, 2016 

release. The current names and telephone numbers of those to be notified and their 

responsibilities should be listed. The Forest's Emergency Response Coordinator (name shall be 

supplied by the Forest service) should be included as a person to be notified early. The Plan 

should also list the appropriate hazardous substance response services to be employed for release 

assessment and cleanup actions. 

H5. Spill kits shall be available on site in case of an accidental spill. Spill kits (minimum size 40 

gallons) must be able to absorb and contain oils, coolants, solvents and other materials in the 

event of a spill. 

H6. Petroleum products or other hazardous substances shall not be released into land, rivers, 

streams, impoundments, or natural or man-made channels leading thereto. Storage of fuel, 

fueling of equipment or routine maintenance shall require the use of oil-absorbing mats, and 

storage would occur outside the plan-specific stream buffers for mining-related activities 

(as specified in Appendix 1A of the EIS ). Oil-absorbing mats are required under all stationary 

equipment to prevent leaking or spilled petroleum base products from contaminating soil and 

water resources. Such material will be furnished by operator and approved by the District 

Ranger before use. 

H7. Burning of spilled substances shall not occur unless authorized by the District Ranger and 

Oregon DEQ. 

H8. All equipment shall be checked for fluid leaks on a daily basis. All equipment operating on 

mining operation will be in good repair and shall be free from leakage of lubricants, fuel, 

coolants, and hydraulic fluid. Servicing of all equipment shall be done only in the areas 

approved by the District Ranger as part of the Plan of Operations. Unless otherwise agreed, 

operator shall properly dispose of all contaminated soil, vegetation, debris, vehicle oil filters 

(drained of free-flowing oil), oily rags, and waste oil in accordance with local, State, and Federal 

regulations off NFS lands and shall transport such substances in accordance with State and 

Federal regulations. 

H9. Operator shall immediately implement the Hazardous Substances Plan, notifying appropriate 

agencies, including the Forest Service, concerning all spills, leaks, or other releases of petroleum 

products or other hazardous substances (as defined in (29 CFR 1910.1200 and/or releases) on or 

in the vicinity of all NFS lands which are caused by operator's employees, directly or indirectly, 

as a result of mining operations. Plans of Operations must display storage locations for 

hazardous substances. 

H10. In addition to taking initial action to contain all releases, operator shall be held liable for all 

damages and costs of additional labor, subsistence, equipment, supplies, and transportation 

deemed necessary by the government for the containment and cleanup of petroleum products or 

other hazardous substances. 

H11. If the total oil or oil products storage exceeds 1,320 gallons or if any single container 

exceeds a capacity of 660 gallons, operator shall prepare and implement a Spill Prevention 

Control and Countermeasures (SPCC) Plan. Such plan shall meet applicable EPA requirements 

(40 CFR 112), including certification by a registered professional engineer. This plan shall 
Ms. Genevieve Masters 102 

Final Agency Review Draft – February 2, 2016 

include notification of appropriate State and local officials, the Forest Service, and other 

appropriate agencies. 

H12. It is the intent that all releases shall be removed from NFS lands and disposed of according 

to above regulations. De minimus (trifling) releases are occasional drips that fall from operating 

equipment. Routine systematic releases are drips that become increasingly worse and/or operator 

takes no preventative action to curtail releases. The Forest Service is not expected to enforce this 

provision as to de minimus releases, but routine systematic releases warrant enforcement. 

Fire Protection and Suppression Requirements 

Specific fire prevention measures are listed below and shall be effective for the period of April 1 

to October 31 of each year. The Forest Service may change the dates of said period by advance 

written notice if justified by unusual weather or other conditions. Required tools and equipment 

shall be kept currently in serviceable condition and immediately available for initial attack on 

fires. 

Compliance with State Forest Laws - Listing of specific fire precautionary measures herein is not 

intended to relieve the operator in any way from compliance with the State Fire Laws covering 

fire prevention and suppression equipment, applicable to operations under this Plan of 

Operations. These requirements meet the intent of 36 CFR 228.11. 

F1. Fire Plan – Before starting any operations, the mine operator shall prepare a fire plan, in 

cooperation with the district minerals administrator, providing for the prevention, notification 

and control of fires in the project area. 

F2. Substitute Measures - The District Ranger may by written notice authorize substitute 

measures or equipment or may waive specific requirements during periods of low fire danger. 

F3. Emergency Measures - The Forest Service may require emergency measures, including the 

necessary shutting down of equipment or portions of operations in the mining claim during 

periods of fire emergency created by hazardous climatic conditions. 

F4. Fire Control - The mine operator shall, independently and in cooperation with the WWNF, 

take all reasonable action to prevent and suppress fires on the mining claim. Independent initial 

action shall be prompt and shall include the use of all personnel and equipment available in the 

mining claim. 

F5. Fire Precautions 

1) Smoking and Open Fires -Smoking and fires shall be permitted only at the option of the mine 

 operator. Campfires shall be on mineral soil within a fire ring (either rock or metal) and shall 

 not be left unattended. Unless restricted by State Law or Federal Regulation, smoking shall be 

 permitted only in such portions of the mining claim that are free of flammable material. 

 Smokers shall extinguish and press out all burning material in a closed container or in mineral 

 soil before leaving the cleared area. 

2) Fire Extinguishers and Equipment on Trucks, Tractors, etc. - All power-driven equipment 

 operated on NFS lands, except portable fire pumps, shall be equipped with one fire 

 extinguisher having a UL rating of at least 5 BC, and one "D" handled or long-handled, round- 
Ms. Genevieve Masters 103 

Final Agency Review Draft – February 2, 2016 

 point shovel size "0" or larger. In addition, each motor patrol, truck, and passenger-carrying 

 vehicle shall be equipped with a double-bit axe or Pulaski, 31⁄2 pounds or larger. Equipment 

 shall be kept in a serviceable condition and shall be readily available. 

3) Power Saws - Each gasoline power saw operator shall be equipped with a pressurized 

 chemical fire extinguisher of not less than 8-ounce capacity by weight and one long-handled, 

 round-point shovel, size "0" or larger. The extinguisher shall be kept in possession of the saw 

 operator at all times. The shovel shall be accessible to the operator within 1 minute. 

4) Spark Arresters and Mufflers - Each internal combustion engine shall be equipped with a 

 spark arrester meeting either (1) USDA Forest Service Standard 5100-1a, or (2) appropriate 

 Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) recommended practice J335(b) and J350(a) as now or 

 hereafter amended unless it is: 

(a) Equipped with a turbine-driven exhaust supercharger such as the turbocharger. 

There shall be no exhaust bypass. 

(b) A passenger-carrying vehicle or light truck or medium truck up to 40,000 GVW 

used on roads and equipped with a factory-designed muffler complete with baffles and 

an exhaust system in good working condition. 

(c) A heavy duty truck, such as a dump or log truck, or other vehicle used for 

commercial hauling, used only on roads and equipped with a factory designed muffler 

and with a vertical stack exhaust system extending above the cab. 

Exhaust equipment described in this subsection, including spark arresters and mufflers, shall be 

properly installed and constantly maintained in serviceable condition. 

F6. The operator shall observe all the requirements of the Industrial Fire Precaution Level. It is 

the responsibility of the operator to obtain the Industrial Fire Precaution Level daily. The 

Industrial Fire Precaution Level may be obtained daily from the Forest Service at approximately 

4PM to 6PM, local time. (R6-FS-6300-51 Regional Forester Order No. 3). 

F7. Fire Security - When the Industrial Fire Precautions Level is "I" or higher, unless a waiver is 

granted, the operator shall designate a person who shall perform fire security services listed 

below on the mining claim and vicinity. The designated person shall be capable of operating the 

operator's communications and firefighting equipment specified in F-6b, and of directing the 

activities of the operator's personnel on forest fires. In lieu of having the designated person 

perform the required supervisory duties, the operator may provide another person meeting the 

qualifications stated above to direct the activities of the operator's personnel and equipment 

during all firefighting activities. 

Services described shall be for at least 1 hour from the time the operator's operations are shut 

down. For the purposes of this provision, personnel servicing equipment and their vehicles who 

are not engaged in cutting or welding metal are excluded. 

Fire security services shall consist of moving throughout the operation area or areas constantly 

looking, reporting, and taking suppression action on any fires detected. 

Whenever the Industrial Fire Precaution Level is "II" or greater, a fire security person equipped 

with a long-handled, round point, Number "0" or larger, shovel, and a five-gallon backpack 

pump can filled with water will stay at the location of a blast for 1 hour after blasting is done. 

Blasting may be suspended by Forest Service in writing, in an area of high rate of spread and 

resistance to control. 
Ms. Genevieve Masters 104 

Final Agency Review Draft – February 2, 2016 

F8. Surface blasting - Fuses shall not be used for blasting. Explosive cords shall not be used 

without written Forest Service permission, which may specify conditions under which such 

explosives may be used and precautions to be taken. 

Invasive Species and Noxious Weeds 

IS1. The minerals administrator will provide the mine operator with a noxious weed 

identification book and a map of known noxious weed locations on or near the proposed activity 

area so that the operator is able to recognize the presence of noxious weeds. 

IS2. Actions conducted or authorized by written permit by the Forest Service that will operate 

outside the limits of the road prism, require the cleaning of all equipment (e.g. heavy equipment, 

pumps, ATVs) prior to entering NFS lands, and will comply with regional and forest-specific 

invasive plant management plans, and the 2011 Region 6 Aquatics Invasive Species 

Management Plan. 

The Forest Service minerals administrator will inspect all equipment prior to its placement on 

NFS land to make sure that it has been cleaned for invasive species. Mining equipment already 

on NFS land will be cleaned by the operator, to remove invasive species at the current work site 

before moving to another location. 

IS3. Use only gravel, fill, sand, and rock that is judged to be weed free by Forest Service weed 

specialists. 

IS4. The presence of any previously unknown invasive species infestations (aquatic or 

terrestrial) should be reported to the Forest Service Minerals Administrator as soon as possible. 

Upon notification, Forest Service employees shall initiate a weed inventory at the reported site. 

IS5. All noxious weed infestations will be avoided during times of seed production. If avoidance 

is not feasible, then mechanical treatment (pulling, chopping, weed eating, etc.) will occur prior 

to any ground disturbing activities. Treatment of these areas will, at the minimum, remove all 

flower heads prior to seed set. 

IS6. When invasive plants begin to grow on stockpiled soil, mechanical treatment will occur to 

prevent seed set. Mechanical treatment (like pulling, chopping, etc.) will occur as flowers begin 

to form. The resulting organic matter may be left on site if removed prior to seed set. 

Lode Mines 

L1. When water from an adit is used in the mining process, it shall be piped or trenched around 

the mine dump to a settling pond for use. Certified weed-free straw bales and filter cloth will 

also be used to minimize sediment if determined necessary by the District Ranger. 

L2. Settling ponds shall not be built on mine dumps. 

L3. Prior to the beginning of operations, the operator(s) will test any adit discharge for 

compliance with the CWA and Safe Drinking Water Act, Oregon State and the EPA, at an 

approved testing facility. As conditions change during operations, the operator(s) will 
Ms. Genevieve Masters 105 

Final Agency Review Draft – February 2, 2016 

periodically test the discharge to see if water chemistry has changed (e.g. heavy metals or 

sulfides). Upon completion of the operations, a final water quality test of the adit discharge will 

be completed. 

L4. When processing is conducted on Forest Service land, tailings from the first run will need to 

be tested at an approved testing facility to see if they have the potential to release acidity or other 

contaminates. (See EPA standards and CWA for guidelines). Testing of the waste rock may be 

required based on the type of rock present. Additional testing will be required throughout the 

life of the operation as conditions change. Upon completion of the operations, a final test of the 

tailings and waste rock will be required before the Plan can be closed out. Reclamation 

procedures may be modified, depending on the results of the testing. 

L5. When testing of adit discharge, tailings or waste rock, a copy of the test results will be sent 

directly from the testing facility to the District Ranger. Should the results exceed EPA and 

ODEQ’s standards, the operator must address this issue prior to continuing this portion of the 

operation (36CFR 261.11 (c)). A modification to the Plan may be required as per direction 

found in 36CFR 228.4 (e). 

L6. Water and winter run off will be diverted around tailings and waste rock piles. 

L7. When opening a collapsed adit portal, the surface soils will be set aside for later closure of 

the adit or use as top soil for reclamation. 

L8. Should water begin to discharge from previously dry adits, the District Ranger will be 

notified immediately and L3 and L5 would apply. 

L9. Tailings, waste rock, and soil piles will be placed in separate /locations. Tailings and waste 

rock piles will be placed a sufficient distance from any nearby surface waters such that no 

surface discharge from the waste rock or tailings will reach the waters. 

L10. The operator will be held financially responsible for containing/controlling tailings or waste 

rock that exceeds EPA standards for human health and safety. The operator(s)/owners(s) will be 

held responsible until the tailings and waste rock are in a stable, non-leaching condition. 

L11. Portal discharges resulting from underground development conducted during the life of the 

approved Plan of Operations must meet State standards for water quality for the receiving 

stream. The point of compliance shall be at the point of entry into Waters of the State. If water 

quality standards are exceeded, then the operator(s) shall comply with OAR 340-041-0004. If 

treatment systems are needed to meet State Water Quality standards, a supplemental plan must 

be submitted to the District Ranger for approval prior to implementation. 

L12. Decontamination procedures for White Nose Syndrome “Geomyces destructans” will be 

required for all equipment leaving or coming into an adit site. See EIS for procedures as of Jan 

25, 2013. The most current procedures can be found at the following web site or through local 

State or Federal Fish and Wildlife office. 

http://www.whitenosesyndrome.org/topics/decontamination 
Ms. Genevieve Masters 106 

Final Agency Review Draft – February 2, 2016 

Placer Mining 

P1. When mining or processing old lode tailings or waste rock, the following Lode requirements 

apply: L1-6, L8-10, L11. 

 

Reclamation Requirements 

 

Ongoing Reclamation 

R1. Prior to reclamation, the operator will coordinate with the Forest Service on reclamation 

activities for things such as, but not limited to, placement of topsoil, use of slash (e.g. scattering 

on the surface, burying to create an organic layer), seed mixes and seeding rates, and means of 

accelerating vegetative recovery and soil development. 

R2. Reclamation shall be ongoing to ensure stabilization of the area and so that a minimum 

amount of ground will be open at any time. 

R3. Use certified weed-free straw for all projects, conducted or authorized by the Forest Service, 

on NFS lands. If State certified straw is not available, use sources certified to be weed free using 

the North American Weed Free Forage Program Standards or a similar certification process. 

R4. All mining excavations, not approved for winter hold over, will be refilled and reclaimed to 

normal contours before seasonal shutdown of each year. This shall include refilling of the 

excavations, re-vegetating to avoid active erosion, and mulching with certified weed-free straw. 

R5. All mining excavations, approved for winter hold over, shall be stabilized prior to seasonal 

shutdowns or extended periods of inactivity. This shall be accomplished before any equipment is 

removed. Stabilization includes, but is not limited to, the following: covering the stockpiled top 

soil and other areas of bare soil with certified weed-free straw, sloping pond sides and trenches, 

and installing sediment barriers in disturbed areas such as roads or mined area to prevent soil 

from reaching stream channels. 

R6. Topsoil, where it exists, shall be scraped off the areas to be excavated and stockpiled for 

later reclamation. All material shall be stockpiled in the order that it was excavated and used to 

refill the excavation in that order. 

R7. At the end of each operating season, areas of stockpiled soil (including silt removed from 

placer mining settling ponds, or removed topsoil) will be covered with at least 3 inches of 

certified weed-free straw. 

R8. General specifications for revegetation, such as seed mixes, shrub types, and the rate of 

application or planting densities, will be developed by the time of Operating Plan approval. 

Actual seed mixes, shrub types, and the rate of application or planting densities will be finalized 

at the time reclamation begins in coordination with the Forest Service. 

R9. Re-vegetated areas will initially be inspected for stocking and planting methods and then 

evaluated annually by the Forest Service to determine if the site’s original or surrounding 

densities have been maintained. Year to year improvement must occur in order for that portion 
Ms. Genevieve Masters 107 

Final Agency Review Draft – February 2, 2016 

of the bond, held for re-vegetation, to be returned. Annual improvement must show 

establishment of desired species and spread, equal to or greater than 10% each year such that by 

the end of year 3 there is at least 30% establishment in order to meet the objectives of this 

requirement (W-W LMP pg. 4-25)(UMA LMP 4-70 & 80)(BMP Min-8). 

R10. The operator must follow the requirements of the State of Oregon 600 permit (General 

Water Pollution Control Facility Permit issued pursuant to ORS 468B.050) as it applies to use of 

ponds as settling ponds. Water shall be contained in settling ponds with no sediment discharge 

allowed. All ponds approved to be left open during seasonal shutdown shall be left dry or at the 

normal water table. The mine operator shall have certified weed-free straw bales or wattles or 

other material available on-site, that are approved by the Forest Service, to be used as a filtering 

agent should overtopping of ponds or significant soil movement from storm events occur. 

Final Reclamation 

R11. All mined areas included in Plan of Operation activities shall be returned to natural or nearnatural contours; if located on the hillside, the areas will be benched for stability. 

R12. Following re-contouring of the ground, the ground will be seeded with native seed species 

or locally appropriate native trees and shrubs, and certified weed-free straw shall be scattered 

over the reclaimed area. 

R13. Mine access roads, landings, and terrace areas created under the mining operation shall 

scarified to a depth of 2 to 4 inches, seeded with seed certified free of noxious weeds, and 

covered with certified weed-free straw and wood, if available, to discourage vehicle access. 

R14. Exposed cutbanks created by the operator (excluding streambanks and terrace banks) shall 

be sloped to a 2:1 slope to minimize soil movement wherever testing in these banks has taken 

place. 

R15. In order to determine which ponds should be reclaimed or retained, and whether 

modifications are necessary for the retained ponds, refer to Table in EIS. 

Pond Reclamation: Where ponds are identified for reclamation, the pond shall be backfilled, 

re-contoured and seeded as specified in R 12. 

Pond Retention AND modification required: Where existing or newly constructed ponds are 

identified for retention and modification, the operator should slope sides from 0-18” deep along 

the north, west, and east edges. This sloped portion of the pond should be a minimum of 3 ft. in 

width. These specifications were developed to provide spotted frog breeding habitat. Species of 

vegetation planted around the retained ponds will reflect the native species composition for the 

area. Pre-existing ponds that are occupied/suitable for amphibians shall be left for amphibian 

habitat. 

Pond Retention BUT no modification required: Leave pond as is. 

R16. After seeding, the mine operator will distribute certified weed-free straw, 3 inches thick 

over approximately two-thirds of the area in mid to late fall leaving patchy open areas. 
Ms. Genevieve Masters 108 

Final Agency Review Draft – February 2, 2016 

R17. All stockpiled topsoil and/or other suitable fines, such as silt from the settling ponds, shall 

be spread over disturbed areas in an ongoing restoration program after consultation with the 

Forest Service as to placement of fines and/or topsoil, and will be consistent with the approved 

Plan of Operations and reclamation standards included in the WWNF Forest Plan and UNF 

Forest Plan (WWNF Forest Plan, 4-25 #27-29, UNF Forest Plan (4-80 #2).

R18. Final reclamation will be evaluated for success, with consideration given to variables such 

as the time of the year, how much topsoil was available, the density of the existing ground cover, 

and if native plants are establishing, and is consistent with the reclamation standards included in 

the WWNF Forest Plan (WWNF Forest Plan, 4-25 #27-29 and Umatilla NF Forest Plan (4-70 

#1-6, and 4-81). 

Requirements for Working in Wetlands and Floodplains 

These requirements, along with the reclamation requirements above, are included to meet the 

intent of Executive Order 11990 – Protection of Wetlands, and Executive Order 11988 – 

Protection of Floodplains 

W1. Mining in the floodplain or wetlands will be accomplished by placing equipment in dry 

areas located outside the floodplain or wetland. The wet areas and floodplain areas will be 

mined and reclaimed after July 1. Seasonal reclamation shall be accomplished by late fall in time 

to allow for the areas to revegetate and stabilize before winter (see R8 and R9 for specifications 

regarding revegetation). 

W2. Where wetland vegetation is approved to be removed, it shall be kept wet by placing it in 

the ponds for up to 14 days while the area is being mined and reclaimed. The vegetation shall be 

replaced in the riparian area to approximately the original density and monitored for success for 

3 years as described in R9 above. The success of final reclamation shall be evaluated as stated in 

R18 above. 

W3. The size, location and function of wetlands after reclamation shall be similar to what now 

exists. 

Road-related Requirements (Z-Requirements) 

Definitions: 

Open road: Road designated for motorized travel on a Motor Vehicle Use Map and/or 

designated as a National Forest System Road Operating above a Maintenance Level 1. 

This includes roads seasonally open. 

Closed road: Road listed in a forest transportation atlas and a National Forest System Road 

operating at a Maintenance Level 1 and/or not shown on a Motor Vehicle Use Map. 

Temporary access road: Roads created by the operator whether by blading or continued travel. 

A road or trail necessary for emergency operations or authorized by contract, permit, 

lease, or other written authorization that is not a forest road or trail and that is not 
Ms. Genevieve Masters 109 

Final Agency Review Draft – February 2, 2016 

included in a forest transportation atlas. These roads are not necessary for long-term 

resource management and will be decommissioned after use. The level of 

decommissioning will be specified in the operating plan. Temporary access roads are 

given a number in the operating plans for tracking and mapping purposes. An “M” 

number is a miner-created road that the operator is responsible for decommissioning 

and/or obliterating once mining activity is complete. An “E” number is an existing road 

designated for use by the operator, and the operator is not required to decommission 

and/or obliterate once mining activity is complete. 

Decommissioned road: A road that was listed in a forest transportation atlas and has had an 

action taken to eliminate use of the road, eliminate resource protection concerns, has no 

deferred maintenance needs, and requires no further maintenance. These roads have a 

route status of “decommissioned”. If specified in the operating plan, these roads may be 

utilized as temporary access roads, in lieu of new ground-disturbing construction. 

Requirements: 

The following requirements apply only during the dry season window (generally July 1 to 

October 1). During the dry season window, it would be unusual to get enough precipitation over 

a duration long enough to cause significant road damage. Outside the dry season window, 

weather and road conditions become variable daily. Operators working outside this window will 

be required to consult with the Forest Service to determine if special road Best Management 

Practices (BMPs) are required. The type of special BMPs required will vary and may range from 

timing of vehicular passage to full construction of erosion or drainage control structures. 

The operator will be responsible for acquiring state, county and or local permits and activities 

shall be in accordance with the current edition of the National Forest Commercial Road Use 

Rules for hauling of mining equipment or excavated materials. 

Z1. Use of closed and temporary access roads will be incidental to mining operations. 

Z2. Temporary roads proposed in the Plan of Operations will be flagged by the operator and 

ground verified by the Forest Service prior to creation. The creation of these temporary roads 

should be with minimal impact to the environment, fit the terrain, limit the need for excavation 

by following natural contours, favor lower slope routes, and be consistent with other 

environmental protections. 

Z3. Prior to use of existing closed or temporary access roads identified for use in the plan of 

operations, danger trees shall be identified by certified Forest Service personnel. The operator is 

responsible for felling of the danger trees and clearing any debris from the road prior to use. 

Danger trees shall be left on the ground in a stable manner, so as not to roll onto the road or 

encroach the traveled way, and left for wildlife purposes or dealt with as stated in the G6 

requirement. 

Z4. Existing closed and temporary access roads shall have brush and trees removed to the extent 

necessary to accommodate the movement of the operator’s equipment and vehicles only. All 

stumps and brush in the road bed to be removed shall be flush cut no more than 2 inches above 

the ground. Grubbing of roots and stumps shall only be allowed with prior written approval 
Ms. Genevieve Masters 110 

Final Agency Review Draft – February 2, 2016 

from the Forest Service. To minimize the potential for road damage, removal of trees and brush 

is limited to the dry season. 

Z5. Disposal of trees/brush removed from proposed and existing closed and temporary access 

shall be accomplished in one of the following ways, based on site-specific characteristics 

determined in writing by the Forest Service: 1) Vegetation shall be scattered on the downhill 

side of the road, and shall not be placed in draws, catch basins, ditch lines, or stream channels. 

2) Vegetation shall be moved to a Forest Service designated site, and left in piles of a size 

approved by the Forest Service. 

Z6. The operator shall be responsible for reducing water flow concentrations resulting in road 

erosion on closed and temporary access roads. Traveled way maintenance activity shall be 

limited to the dry season to minimize the potential for road damage. Minor road work, such as 

slough removal, shall be in permitted areas where the fill slope materials have settled over time. 

Minor blading and shaping of the road shall be permitted to remove minor deformities (i.e. 

boulders, holes, gullies) in travel ways that impede the passage of high-clearance vehicles. A 

rocky-based material shall be applied to wet (i.e. seep areas) or eroded areas, as prescribed by the 

Forest Service, in order to minimize or prevent gullying of the road, concentration of flow, or 

rutting and pooling of water. All sources of rocky material shall be approved by the Forest 

Service in writing prior to application. 

Z7. All closed roads and temporary access roads used by the operator shall be prepared for 

seasonal runoff during inactive periods (over winter). Water bars shall be constructed to provide 

effective surface drainage relief. 

Z8. During the use and maintenance of all closed or temporary access roads, surface drainage 

and erosion control features or structures shall be maintained, repaired or installed. This work 

shall be accomplished in a manner to effectively control and/or prevent water concentrations 

upon the road bed and prevent or eliminate the movement of sediment from any activity or 

source from entering into streams. Examples of erosion control and drainage structures, and 

those to be maintained, repaired, or installed include silt fences, erosion control blankets, earthen 

berms, sediment catch basins, drain dips, armored grade sags, water bars and corrugated metal 

pipes. New installation of these structures shall be agreed upon by the Forest Service prior to 

installation. 

The above structures shall be positioned to optimize the use of existing filter strips (vegetated 

area of land between road/sediment sources and the stream, capable of providing filtering and 

confinement, reducing water velocity to prevent transport of sediment into the stream). All 

drainage and erosion control structures shall be maintained to function during actual use and 

throughout periods of seasonal non-use. Additional measures shall be employed, if necessary, to 

counteract additional drainage and erosion needs during traditional wet seasons. The additional 

structures shall be installed prior to a seasonal shut down. The Forest Service may direct 

additional measures be implemented prior to high-intensity drainage periods (i.e. winter, spring 

snow melt and rain). 

Z9. Seasonal wet areas in access roads shall be avoided until they have dried up, unless 

otherwise approved in writing by the Forest Service. If a seasonal wet area must be crossed prior 

to drying up, the crossing site will be designed to permit continued subsurface diffuse flow (i.e. 
Ms. Genevieve Masters 111 

Final Agency Review Draft – February 2, 2016 

French drain) and prevent rutting or channel development. The design and materials to be used 

shall be reviewed and approved by the Forest Service in writing prior to construction. 

Z10. Crossing of permanent wetlands to access a site will be avoided. 

Z11. Crossing a channel with intermittent flow to access mining operations shall occur only at 

Forest Service approved locations. Additional measures (i.e., culvert, ford, etc.) may be required 

if determined necessary by the Forest Service. 

Z12. During seasonal shutdowns, to restrict vehicular travel, the operator is responsible for 

closing roads not designated as open and all temporary access roads as identified in the Plan of 

Operations. 

Z13. Proposed gate location as identified in the Plan of Operations shall be approved by the 

Forest Service District Ranger before installation. The gate shall be constructed according to the 

National Forest specifications. 

Z14. Temporary access roads that have a road number ending with an “M” shall be 

decommissioned or hydrologically obliterated by the operator (as defined below) when mining 

activities are completed. Methods are to be approved in writing by the Forest Service district 

ranger prior to decommissioning or hydrologically obliterating. 

Decommission: To remove those elements of a road that reroute hill slope drainage and 

present slope stability hazards. 

Hydrological obliteration: The reclamation and or restoration of land to resource 

production from that of a transportation facility. The roadbed is treated so that it no 

longer functions as a road. The wheel tracks or pathway is no longer continuous or 

suitable for traffic. This may involve some of the following activities: Closing entrances, 

scarifying road surfaces, decompacting (sub soiling) to establish vegetation and reduce 

run-off, seeding, partial to full restoration of the stream channel crossings by removing 

culverts. 

Monitoring 

M1. The operator will visually evaluate the clarity of the creek water upstream and downstream 

of their operation at a minimum prior to beginning work that day and after ceasing operations 

that day. If there is a change in water clarity below the mining site, the operation shall cease 

work until the cause of the sediment input is determined by the Forest Service (36CFR 261.11 

(c)). Notification of the Forest Service of the change in water quality shall occur no later than 

the end of the first normal working day after the observation has been made. 
Ms. Genevieve Masters 112 

Final Agency Review Draft – February 2, 2016 

APPENDIX B. Schematic for How to Lay a Bentonite Blanket, Filter Cloth, or Plastic 

POND

Valley floor Valley floor

Bentonite

Blanket

Blanket ends 1‐2 feet below

valley floor to allow for winter

and spring overflow through

the placer tailings.  

Winter pond water level

DASHED BLACK arrows  =

direction of flow through

placer tailings

Summer/Fall pond

water level
Ms. Genevieve Masters 

Final Agency Review Draft – February 2, 2016 

APPENDIX C. Baseline Condition and Analysis of Bull Trout MPI Indicators Corresponding to PCEs of 

Habitat for Columbia River Bull Trout within the Granite Creek Watershed. 

PCE PCE Habitat Feature Matrix Pathway Matrix Indicator Baseline Condition Rationale 1) Springs, seeps, groundwater sources, and subsurface water connectivity (hyporheic flows) to contribute to water quality and quantity and provide thermal refugia 

Floodplain Connectivity 

Channel Condition and Dynamics 

Floodplain connectivity 

FAR-All Watersheds 

Past mining activities hconnection in the Granibeen restoration efforts working existing dredge instances, tailings or exseparated the active stresurrounding floodplain. are to be undisturbed. Nequipment or overburdepermitted within these bRequirements for ProteReclamation requiremenoperations. Impacts fro

Water Quantity Flow/ Hydrology Change in peak/base flows FAR – All watersheds 

Pronounced changes in mining impacts and roamiles/sq miles, and mandisturbance has been loThere is no new proposchange peak/base flowsroad construction and nconstruction across stre

This project may affect but is not likel

2) Migratory habitats with minimal physical, biological, or water quality impediments between spawning, rearing, overwintering, and freshwater and marine foraging habitats, including but not limited to permanent, partial, intermittent, or seasonal barriers. 

Obstruction Water Quality 

Chemical contaminants/ nutrients, temperature 

FAR, FAUR-202, 203, 204, 206, 201 FA-204, 201 

A Fuel Spill Prevention mechanical operation. mitigations H1-H12 applimiting factor for bull distribution in Bull Run possibly Boulder creekcausal mechanism that operations would furthetemperatures at the subcontinue to contribute tobstruction. 
Ms. Genevieve Masters 

Final Agency Review Draft – February 2, 2016 

PCE PCE Habitat Feature Matrix Pathway Matrix Indicator Baseline Condition Rationale 

Flow/ Hydrology 

Change in peak/base flows 

FAR– All Watersheds 

There are pronounced cflow due to past mining Past disturbance has beThere is no new proposchange peak/base flows There is minimal temp new temp road construcchannels. 

This project may affect but is not likel

3) An abundant food base, including terrestrial organisms of riparian origin, aquatic macroinvertebrates, and forage fish. 

Forage 

Water Quality, Habitat Elements, Channel Condition and Dynamics, Habitat Access 

All 13 associated with these 4 pathways 

FA-204 FAR-203, 202, 204, 206 

Designated stream buffNo mining activities, stoverburden or vegetatiowithin these buffers, see Requirements for ProteReclamation requiremenoperations. BMPs and site specific limit potential sediment reference road-related rmitigations and general Operations with potentidischarge will be requircertification from ODEQ approves their plan of oEffects of the placer and project are limited to isoimpacts. There would lincreases in sedimentati

The project may adversely affect PCE of sediment. LAA 

4) Complex river, stream, lake, reservoir, and marine shoreline aquatic environments and processes with features such as 

Complex Condition 

Habitat Elements 

Large woody debris 

FAR-203, 204, 206, 201 FA-202 

There will be no removfrom the riparian reacheis no causal mechanism recruitment or instream 
Ms. Genevieve Masters 

Final Agency Review Draft – February 2, 2016 

PCE PCE Habitat Feature Matrix Pathway Matrix Indicator Baseline Condition Rationale large wood, side channels, pools, undercut banks and substrates, to provide a variety of depths, gradients, velocities, and structure. 

Pool frequency and quality 

FA-202, 204, 201 FAR-203, 206 

Existing off channel habmining disturbances in BMPs and site specific limit potential sediment Operations with potentidischarge will be requircertification from ODEQ approves their plan of o

Large pools 

FA-202, 204, 201 FAR-203, 206 

Off channel habitat 

FAR-All Watersheds 

Refugia Far-All Watersheds 

This project may affect but is not likel

5). Water temperatures ranging from 2 to 15° C (36 to 59 ° F), with adequate thermal refugia available for temperatures at the upper end of this range. Specific temperatures within this range will vary depending on bull trout life-history stage and form; geography; elevation, diurnal and seasonal variation; shade such as that provided by riparian habitat; and local groundwater influence. 

Water Quality Water Quality Temperature 

FAR, FAUR-202, 203, 204, 206, 201 FA-204, 201 

Water quality is temperGranite Watershed; howof Environmental QualiTotal Maximum Daily LNorth Fork John Day Sube no removal of shade RHCAs and there is no frequency on a scale thastream temperatures on scale. Olive Tone and Brights (4 cfs) however, wduring processing and O

levels must be maintainWater temperature Lighand Tetra Alpha Mill anwithdrawls. 

This project will not affect PCE 5. 
Ms. Genevieve Masters 

Final Agency Review Draft – February 2, 2016 

PCE PCE Habitat Feature Matrix Pathway Matrix Indicator Baseline Condition Rationale 6). Substrates of sufficient amount, size, and composition to ensure success of egg and embryo overwinter survival, fry emergence, and young-of-the-year and juvenile survival. A minimal amount (e.g. less than 12 percent) of fine substrate less than 0.85 mm (0.03 in) in diameter and minimal embeddedness of these fines in larger substrates are characteristic of these conditions. 

Suitable Substrate 

Water Quality Sediment 

FA-204 FAR-203, 202, 206, 206 

BMPs and site specific limit potential sediment reference road-related rmitigations and general Operations with potentidischarge will be requircertification from ODEQ approves their plan of oFording across stream chardened fords and conoccur at Forest Service adverse impacts to fishe

Habitat Elements 

Substrate Embeddedness 

FA-204, 201 FAR203,202, 206 

The project is not likely to adversely asmall amount of sediment potentially tchannels from some placer mining. 

7). A natural hydrograph, including peak, high, low, and base flows within historic and seasonal ranges or, if flows are controlled, they minimize departures from a natural hydrograph. 

Water Quantity Flow/ Hydrology Change in peak/base flows FAR– All Watersheds 

There are pronounced cdue to past mining impadisturbance has been loThere is no new proposchange peak/base flows 

This project will not affect PCE 7. 
Ms. Genevieve Masters 

Final Agency Review Draft – February 2, 2016 

PCE PCE Habitat Feature Matrix Pathway Matrix Indicator Baseline Condition Rationale 8). Sufficient water quality and quantity such that normal reproduction, growth, and survival are not inhibited. 

Water Quality Water Quality 

Temperature 

FAR, FAUR-202, 203, 204, 206, 201 FA-204, 201 

Water quality is temperGranite Watershed; howof Environmental QualiTotal Maximum Daily LNorth Fork John Day Sube no removal of shade RHCAs and there is no frequency on a scale thastream temperatures on scale. 

Sediment 

FA-204 FAR-203, 202, 206, 206 

BMPs and site specific limit potential sediment reference road-related rmitigations and general with potential subsurfacbe required to obtain a 4ODEQ and ODSL befoplan of operation. 

Chemical Contam./ Nutrients 

All PF 

A Fuel Spill Prevention mechanical operation. Hmitigations H1-H12 app

Change in Peak/Base Flows FAR– All 

Watersheds 

There are pronounced cdue to past mining impadisturbance has been loThere is no new proposchange peak/base flows 

Because of the small amount of sedimto stream channels from some placer mfording likely to adversely affect PCE 
Ms. Genevieve Masters 

Final Agency Review Draft – February 2, 2016 

PCE PCE Habitat Feature Matrix Pathway Matrix Indicator Baseline Condition Rationale 9). Few or no nonnative predatory (e.g., lake trout, walleye, northern pike, smallmouth bass; inbreeding (e.g., brook trout); or competitive (e.g. brown trout) species present. 

Species Subpopulation characteristics Persistence and Genetic Integrity FAR 

Small brook trout numbthe Upper North Fork JIt is assumed that subpobull trout adults. Data itrend between growth/sResident and fluvial life Granite Watershed and between subpopulations temperatures in lower Gartificial barriers in Upphabitat fragmentation. is not likely to adversely subpopulation scale. 

This project will not affect PCE 9.