— Decision Notice —

Page 1 of 9

DRAFT DECISION NOTICE AND FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

2014 KENSINGTON FUEL DEPOT

U.S. FOREST SERVICE

TONGASS NATIONAL FOREST

JUNEAU RANGER DISTRICT

JUNEAU, ALASKA
— Decision Notice —

Page 2 of 9

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination against its customers, employees, and applicants for 

employment on the bases of race, color, national origin, age, disability, sex, gender identity, religion, reprisal, and where

applicable, political beliefs, marital status, familial or parental status, sexual orientation, or all or part of an individual's income is 

derived from any public assistance program, or protected genetic information in employment or in any program or activity 

conducted or funded by the Department. (Not all prohibited bases will apply to all programs and/or employment activities.)

To File an Employment Complaint:

If you wish to file an employment complaint, you must contact your agency's EEO Counselor (PDF) within 45 days of the date of

the alleged discriminatory act, event, or in the case of a personnel action. Additional information can be found online at 

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

To File a Program Complaint:

If you wish to file a Civil Rights program complaint of discrimination, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form 

(PDF), found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html, or at any USDA office, or call (866) 632-9992 to 

request the form. You may also write a letter containing all of the information requested in the form. Send your completed 

complaint form or letter to us by mail at U.S. Department of Agriculture, Director, Office of Adjudication, 1400 Independence 

Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, by fax (202) 690-7442 or email at program.intake@usda.gov.

Persons with Disabilities:

Individuals who are deaf, hard of hearing or have speech disabilities and who wish to file either an EEO or program complaint, 

please contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339 or (800) 845-6136 (in Spanish).

Persons with disabilities who wish to file a program complaint, please see information above on how to contact us by mail directly 

or by email. If you require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) 

please contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).

USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

Federal Recycling Program

Printed on Recycled Paper
— Decision Notice —

Page 3 of 9

INTRODUCTION

The Forest Service has considered modifications to the approved Plan of Operations for the 

Kensington Gold Project. The modifications to the approved Plan of Operations involve delivery, 

storage, and transportation of fuel at the Kensington Gold Project.

The purpose of this initiative was to consider the construction of approximately five hundred feet 

of pipeline and the installation of a bulk fuel depot in the upper laydown yard of the Slate Creek 

Cove Marine Terminal. All construction activities are to occur within the boundaries of the 

Kensington Mine operation (see Figure 1). The action is needed because underground mineral 

exploration combined with scheduled construction activities have created the need for a reliable 

fuel supply that will allow for continuous operation in an economically viable manner.

 Figure 1.
— Decision Notice —

Page 4 of 9

DECISION

Based upon my review of the 2014 Kensington Fuel Depot Environmental Assessment (EA), I 

have decided to implement Alternative 2, slightly modified. This decision will modify the 

approved Plan of Operations and allow seven fuel tanks with a total capacity of three hundred 

and fifty thousand gallons to be installed above ground, at the upper laydown yard of the 

Kensington Mine Marine Terminal. A buried header pipe will be located along the northwest 

side of the Kensington Marine Terminal access road and will connect via an approximately 500 

feet seamless pipeline to the tanks. Fuel delivery will be by barge that will dock at the 

Kensington Marine Terminal and connect to the fuel header via an approximately 100-150 feet 

flexible hose. The fuel tank truck loading station will be a 20-foot shipping container connected 

to the supply piping. The fuel tank truck will then deliver fuel to the Mill bench.

DECISION RATIONALE

I selected the proposed action alternative because construction of the fuel depot will allow the 

Kensington Gold Project to continue mining operations in an economically viable manner while 

remaining in compliance with regulatory requirements. The fuel depot will operate without 

significant effects that were not previously analyzed in the 2004 FSEIS. However, the approved 

Plan of Operations will be updated as required in the EA, and as required by 36 CFR 228. 4 (e)

for a modification to the approved Plan of Operations which is subject to approval under 36 CFR 

228.5 (c). No significant issues were identified so no additional alternatives were developed (see 

Table 1.) The 2014 Kensington Fuel Depot EA documents the environmental analysis and 

conclusions upon which this decision is based.

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

This action was originally listed as a proposal on the October 1, 2014 Tongass National Forest 

Schedule of Proposed Actions and updated periodically during the analysis. The public was

invited to review and comment on the proposal; 27 scoping letters were mailed on October 29, 

2014 and 28 notice to comment letters were mailed on June 19, 2015; a mailing list is available 

in the project record. The Legal Notice for the formal 30-day comment period was published in 

the Juneau Empire on June 26, 2015 and the EA was published on the Tongass National Forest 

projects webpage (http://www.fs.usda.gov/projects/tongass/landmanagement/projects) for 

distribution.

Public comments received on the EA were generally related to the issues below:

Concerns that an environmental impact statement (EIS) level analysis should be used for the 

Kensington Fuel Depot proposal instead of an EA level analysis.

No significant issues were recognized through the public scoping process, and no significant 

effects were identified in resource specialist reports; therefore, an EIS level analysis of the 

proposed action is unwarranted. 

Concerns of cumulative impacts related to the Juneau Access Road.
— Decision Notice —

Page 5 of 9

There already exists a fueling system at the Kensington Marine Terminal facility. It is composed 

of an upper and a lower lay down area; the isotainers are currently stored in the lower lay down 

area. Both of these areas have already been developed for use under previously completed NEPA 

for the Kensington project. If the Juneau Access Road is to be constructed, the NEPA analysis 

for that project will have to consider the existing development in the Kensington Mine Marine 

facility under cumulative effects for that analysis. The footprint for the updated Kensington Fuel 

Development project has limited trenching on previously disturbed ground, which was analyzed 

for effects on resources in the EA for the fuel depot. 

Concerns related to ongoing operations at the Kensington Gold Project.

The Kensington Gold Project was analyzed in the 2004 Final Supplemental Impact Statement; 

issues related to the Tailings Treatment Facility, mining plan, and underground exploration are 

outside the scope of the Kensington Fuel Depot EA and were not considered in this analysis. 

Concerns related to operational or design features of the proposed action.

Comments about design and operational features of the proposal were received. Best 

management practices, construction, design, and operational features all have been included in 

the EA as preventative measures to reduce the potential risk of degradation of fisheries habitat, 

sedimentation, and fuel contamination into Berners Bay. All have been addressed in the 

responses to comments and any modifications have been included in the Clarification to the EA 

section in this document.

Responses to comments can be found at http://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=45154

CHANGES AND CLARIFICATIONS TO THE EA

After public and agency review of the EA, the following changes and clarifications have been 

made. 

Pg. 4. Existing Condition. Biweekly was intended to mean twice per week, not every two weeks. 

Full isotainers are delivered once per week and empty isotainers are off loaded once per week. 

Biweekly was used to indicate the number of barge dockings related to shipping and receiving

isotainers to and from site. It is understood that 12-15 full isotainers arrive on a weekly basis and 

that 12-15 empty isotainers depart site weekly.

Pg. 4. Existing Condition. The fourth sentence should read, “Isotainers are transported by flatbed trailer that is pulled by a semi-truck from the lower laydown yard to the Mill bench for 

refilling of the day use tank.”

Pg. 4. Existing Condition. The second sentence should read, “Approximately 12-15 isotainers of 

fuel are stored at the lower laydown yard (Figure 3 and 4) of the Kensington Marine Terminal 

for a total approximate capacity of 130,000 gallons.”

Pg. 7. State of Alaska, Department of Natural Resources. The first sentence should read, “ANDR 

requires authorization for use of tidelands and submerged lands at the marine facility and will 

review any updates to the approved Plan of Operations for compliance with State Permits, 

Licenses, and Certifications.”
— Decision Notice —

Page 6 of 9

Pg. 9. Fuel Depot Operation. Omit the requirement #3, which states “Deploy containment booms 

each time refueling of the depot from a barge occurs at the Kensington Marine Terminal.” 

Requirement 3 is being omitted in response to comments received and because of a lack of 

federal or state regulation that mandate deployment of a containment boom during refueling 

activities.

Pg. 9. Fuel Depot Operation. # 6 should read, “Provide training for personnel working at the 

Kensington Fuel Depot in fuel handling fuel storage, fuel spill cleanup, and proper disposal of 

contaminated material at the Kensington Gold Project.”

Table 1. Comparison of Alternatives by resource in EA.

Resource Alternate 1 Alternate 2

Botany

No change to existing condition. Current inventory of 

invasive plants indicate no infestations of high-priority 

invasive plants in or near the project area. No endangered, 

threatened, sensitive, or rare plants have been documented 

in or near the project area.

Alternate 2 has a moderate risk of invasive plant infestation from habitat 

alteration, re-exposure of mineral soil, and the importation of construction 

equipment or construction materials. 

Fisheries

The No Action alternative would not result in a change to the 

effects of fisheries resources. Existing conditions would 

remain. 

No direct effect to fisheries habitat from Alternate 2. However, the potential does 

exist for degradation of fisheries habitat by sedimentation, and fuel contamination 

from the Proposed Action.

Hydrology

No change to existing condition. The existing risk to water 

quality from fuel transfer at Slate Cove would be fuel 

contamination resulting from isocontainer puncture and 

sedimentation from transfer of isocontainers.

Alternate 2 will result in a higher risk of fuel contamination near surface waters, a 

reduction in sedimentation near surface waters, and and a higher degree of 

regulatory oversight. 

Scenery

No change to existing condition. The No Action alternative 

would continue to meet the Scenic Integrity Objective (SIO) 

of Low to Very Low, and complies with the Forest Plan.

Under Alternative 2 the scenic integrity would change with implementation of 

recommended mitigation measures, and achieve a level of scenic integrity more 

consistent with the Old Growth Habitat LUD designation. 

Wildlife

The No Action alternative would not result in a change to the 

effects on wildlife resources as described in the 2004 

Environmental Impact Statement. The No Action alternative 

is not likely to adversely affect the humpback whale and the 

Steller sea lion. No additional threatened, endangered, or 

proposed species will be affected by the No Action 

alternative. 

Alternate 2 is not likely to adversely affect the humpback whale and the western 

Distinct Population Segment (DPS) of the Steller sea lion. Boat traffic, construction 

disturbances, and petroleum spills could result in discountable or insignificant 

effects to a small number of individuals. 

Comparison of Alternatives 

FINDINGS REQUIRED BY OTHER LAWS AND REGULATIONS

The project was designed in conformance with Forest Service Mineral Regulations, Forest 

Service Manual, and complies with the Tongass National Forest Land and Resource 

Management Plan. A full description of laws are available in the the EA. A Finding of No 

Significant Impact (FONSI) was considered for this EA. I determined the proposed action will 

not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment, and an Environmental 

Impact Statement (EIS) will not be prepared.

OBJECTION OPPORTUNITIES

This decision is subject to objection pursuant to 36 CFR 218 and must meet all of the 

requirements of 36 CFR 218.8. A written objection, including attachments, must be postmarked 

or received within 45 days after the date that notice of this draft decision is published in the
— Decision Notice —

Page 7 of 9

Juneau Empire. Electronic objections in common formats (.doc, .rtf, .pdf, or .txt) may be 

submitted to: Objections-Alaska-Tongass@fs.fed.us with “2014 Kensington Fuel Depot” on the 

subject line. Objections may also be faxed to (907) 228-6281 to the attention of “OBJECTION: 

2014 Kensington Fuel Depot,” sent by mail to the following address, or hand-delivered during 

normal business hours of 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding holidays:

Forest Supervisor

ATTN: Objection for 2014 Kensington Fuel Depot

648 Mission St. 

Federal Building

Ketchikan, AK 99901-6591

IMPLEMENTATION DATE

As per 36 CFR 218.12, if no objection is received within the legal objection period, this decision may 

be signed and implemented on, but not before, the fifth business day following the close of the 

objection-filing period. If an objection is filed, this decision cannot be signed or implemented until 

the reviewing officer has responded in writing to all pending objections.

FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

The significance of environmental impacts must be considered in terms of context and intensity. 

This means that the significance of an action must be analyzed in several contexts such as society 

as a whole (human and national), the affected region, the affected interests, and the locality. 

Significance varies with the setting of the proposed action. In the case of a site-specific action, 

significance usually depends upon the effects in the locale rather than in the world as a whole.

Intensity refers to the severity or degree of impact. (40 CFR 1508.27)

CONTEXT

Context refers to the affected environment in which the proposed action would occur. This 

means the significance of an action must be analyzed in several contexts, such as society as a 

whole (human, national), the affected region, the affected interests, and the locality. Significance 

varies with the setting of the proposed action. For instance, in the case of a site-specific action, 

significance usually depends upon the effects in the locale rather than in the world as a whole (40 

CFR 1508.27(a)). Both short- and long-term effects are relevant.

The Kensington Fuel Depot project is a site-specific action that would take place within the 

project area of Slate Creek Cove of Berners Bay. The Selected Alternative includes the 

placement of seven fuel tanks each capable of holding 50,000 gallons of fuel (350,000 total 

gallon capacity) in the upper laydown yard of the existing Kensington Mine Marine Terminal. A 

header pipe will be located along the northwest side of the Kensington Marine Terminal access 

road and will connect via an approximately 500 feet seamless pipeline to the tanks. Fuel delivery 
— Decision Notice —

Page 8 of 9

will be by barge that will dock at the Kensington Marine Terminal and connect to the fuel header 

via an approximately 100-150 feet flexible hose.

The discussion of the significance criteria that follows applies to the Selected Alternative and is 

within the context of local importance. The Kensington Fuel Depot EA details the effects of the 

Selected Alternative. None of the effects identified, including direct, indirect and cumulative 

effects, are considered to be significant, and all resources meet or exceed their respective Forest 

Plan Standards and Guidelines.

INTENSITY

The intensity of effects was considered in terms of the following: 

Impacts may be both beneficial and adverse. A significant effect may exist even if the 

Federal agency believes that, on balance, the effect will be beneficial. Effects are anticipated 

to be negligible for the Selected Alternative (See Table 1 above).

The degree to which the proposed action affects public health or safety. There will be no 

significant effects on public health and safety because the area is off limits to the public, and due 

to safety restrictions of an active mining operation (See EA page 9). Additionally, safety 

guidelines proposed by Petro limit access to the facility.

Unique characteristics of the geographic area, such as proximity to historic or cultural 

resources, park lands, prime farmlands, wetlands, wild and scenic rivers, or ecologically 

critical areas. There will be no significant effects on unique characteristics of the area because 

the construction is to occur in a previously disturbed area on an active mine site (See EA page 9).

The degree to which the effects on the quality of the human environment are likely to be 

highly controversial. The effects on the quality of the human environment are not likely to be 

highly controversial. There is no known credible scientific controversy over the impacts of the 

proposed action. The EA acknowledges that the selected alternative presents a risk of fuel 

contamination but the risk will be offset by mitigations included in the document. 

The degree to which the possible effects on the human environment are highly uncertain or 

involve unique or unknown risks. The analysis shows the effects are not uncertain, and do not 

involve unique or unknown risk.

The degree to which the action may establish a precedent for future actions with 

significant effects, or represents a decision in principle about a future consideration. The 

action is not likely to establish a precedent for future actions with significant effects.

Whether the action is related to other actions with individually insignificant but 

cumulatively significant impacts. The cumulative impacts are not significant. The cumulative 

effects of this project include past, present and reasonably foreseeable actions that will overlap in 

space and time. The State of Alaska has been working on the environmental analysis for the 

Juneau Access Project road, a road connection between Juneau and communities at the north end 

of Lynn Canal. The Juneau Access Project, if a road is built, will need to consider the cumulative 

effects of adding that project within the boundaries of the existing footprint of the Kensington

mine project area.
— Decision Notice —

Page 9 of 9

The degree to which the action may adversely affect districts, sites, highways, structures, or 

objects listed , or eligible for listing, in the National Register of Historic Places or may 

cause loss or destruction of significant scientific, cultural, or historical resources. The action 

will have no significant adverse effect on districts, sites, highways, structures, or objects listed in 

or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, because cultural sites that are 

present are currently being mitigated according to the terms of a Memorandum Of Agreement

with the Forest Service, Alaska State Historic Preservation Officer, and Coeur Alaska at the 

Kensington Gold Project. A Forest Service archeologist has reviewed this project and has made a 

determination under the provisions of Section 106 of no adverse effect for the proposed project. 

The State Historic Preservation Officer concurred with this determination. (See EA page 13) 

The degree to which the action may adversely affect an endangered or threatened species 

or its habitat that has been determined to be critical under the Endangered Species Act of 

1973. The action will not adversely affect any endangered or threatened species or its habitat that 

has been determined to be critical under the Endangered Species act of 1973. (See EA page 12)

Whether the action threatens to violate Federal, State, or local law or requirements 

imposed for the protection of the environment. The action will not violate Federal, State, and 

local laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. Applicable laws and regulations 

were considered in the EA (see EA pages 12-15). The action is consistent with the Tongass Land 

and Resource Management Plan. The Kensington Marine Terminal is located within an OldGrowth Habitat (OGH) Land Use Designation (LUD). There is an exception within the OGH 

LUD for small areas of non-conforming development, such as mining activities, which may be 

considered on a case-by case basis that are compatible with the surroundings of the characteristic 

landscape (2008 Forest Plan, 3-60); these forest lands within this LUD are open to mineral entry 

(2008 Forest Plan, 3-59) (See EA page 3).

After considering the effects of the actions analyzed, in terms of context and intensity, I have 

determined that these actions will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human 

environment. Therefore, an environmental impact statement will not be prepared. 

CONTACT

For additional information concerning this decision, contact: Curtis Caton, Geologist, Tongass 

National Forest, 8510 Mendenhall Loop Road, Juneau Alaska, 99801. (907)789-6273.