United States 

Department of

Agriculture

Forest 

Service

August 2012

Final Supplemental 

Environmental Impact 

Statement and Record of 

Decision

North Fork Burnt River Mining

Whitman Ranger District

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Baker County, Oregon

For Information Contact: Sophia Millar

Wallowa-Whitman National 

Forest

PO Box 905

Joseph, OR 97846

(541) 263-1735

smillar@fs.fed.us

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its 

programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, 

age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (Not 

all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require 

alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, 

audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice 

and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of 

Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW, 

Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an 

equal opportunity provider and employer.

NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Table of Contents

i

Table of Contents

Record of Decision. ........................................................................................... ROD-1

Summary of the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement ...........S-1

Changes from Draft to Final...............................................................C-1

Introduction

Introduction to the Supplement..........................................................................1

Court Findings. ......................................................................................4

Scope, Format and Context of this Supplement.....................................5

Specific Consultation, Coordination and Analyses. .............................6

Other Specific Changes from FEIS......................................................11

Structure of the Supplement.................................................................12

Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need

Purpose and Need for Action...........................................................................13

Proposed Action...............................................................................................13

Decision to be Made ........................................................................................13

Public Involvement ..........................................................................................14

Comment Period ..............................................................................................15

Issues ..............................................................................................................16

Chapter 2 - Alternatives

Changes in the Plans of Operations. ................................................................17

Alternatives Considered in Detail....................................................................17

Elements Common to Alternatives 2 and 4 .....................................................18

Alternative 2.....................................................................................................18

Alternative 4.....................................................................................................27

Monitoring under Alternative 4. ......................................................................30

Comparison of Alternatives.............................................................................31

Preferred Alternative........................................................................................34

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Updated Cumulative Actions Common to All Alternatives. ...........................41

Watershed and Soil Resources.........................................................................43

Affected Environment..........................................................................43

Environmental Effects. ........................................................................50

Alternative 2...................................................................................55

Alternative 4...................................................................................68
Table of Contents NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

ii

Access/Transportation System.........................................................................83

Affected Environment..........................................................................83

Environmental Effects .........................................................................89

Alternative 2 ....................................................................................89

Alternative 4 ....................................................................................91

Wildlife Habitat ...............................................................................................93

Affected Environment..........................................................................93

Environmental Effects .........................................................................94

Alternatives 2 and F.......................................................................84

Additional Disclosures.....................................................................................96

Chapter 4 – Persons and Agencies Consulted and Index

Recipients of the Draft Supplemental EIS.....................................................101

Preparers ........................................................................................................102

Appendix 1A – Water Quality Protection Measures .......................................... A1A-1

Appendix 1B – Closed and Decommissioned Roads Proposed for Use..............A1B-1

Appendix 1C – Site Characteristics.....................................................................A1C-1

Appendix 2 – General Requirements..................................................................... A2-1

Appendix 3 – Discussion of Roads Analysis and modified R1-R4 WATSED 

Erosion Model........................................................................... A3-1

Appendix 4 – Operations with Ponds.................................................................... A4-1

Appendix 5 - Determination of Significant Surface Resource Disturbance .......... A5-1

Appendix 6A – Effects of Suction Dredging in the Analysis Area .................... A6A-1

Appendix 6B – Stream Characteristics and Suction Dredging............................A6B-1

Appendix 7 –Modification to Plans of Operations ................................................ A7-1

Appendix 8A - Road Proposals status changes since 2004 FEIS, 

sorted by Road Number ......................................................... A8A-1

Appendix 8B - Road Proposals status changes since 2004 FEIS, 

sorted by Mining Operation........................................................A8B-1

Appendix 9 - Water Use, Water Rights and Large Woody Material Changes 

Proposed in Plans of Operations ................................................... A9-1

Appendix 10 Responses to Comments on the Draft SEIS.................................. A10-1

Appendix 11 - Issue Tracking.............................................................................. A11-1

Appendix 12 - New Information and Changed Circumstances Evaluations ....... A12-1

Appendix 13 - Agency Comment Letters............................................................ A13-1

References .......................................................................................................REF-1
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Table of Contents

iii

List of Tables, Figures, and Maps

Table Page

Table 2-1. Comparison of Plans of Operations by Alternatives 2 and 4.............................19

Table 2-2. Operations Proposing Road Construction under Alternatives 2 and 4..................24

Table 2-3. Operations proposing use or construction of Fords, Bridges, and Culverts

under Alternatives 2 and 4..............................................................................24

Table 2-4. Plans of Operations with Existing or Proposed Ponds under Alternatives 2 and 4.....25

Table 2-5. Alternative 4 Road Management Proposals. ...............................................................29

Table 2-6. Annual Inspection Items..............................................................................................30

Table 2-7. Plans of Operations and comparison of Forest Service determination of potential 

for a discharge under Alternatives 2 and 4......................................... 32

Table 3-1. Stream temperature monitoring sites and maximum 7-day running average of daily

stream temperatures (*F) by year .......................................................................44

Table 3-2. Hydrology of the Sites with Adits that Discharge Water............................................46

Table 3-3. Adit Discharge Analytical Results. .............................................................................47

Table 3-4. Summary of the Water Test Results of Adit Waters. ..................................................48

Table 3-5. Features Analyzed and Characteristics of Concern.....................................................52

Table 3-6. Plans of Operations with Existing or Proposed Fords, Bridges, and Culverts............57

Table 3-7. Plans of Operations with Existing or Proposed Ponds within an RHCA....................59

Table 3-8. Plans of Operations Proposing Road Construction. ....................................................60

Table 3–9. Miles of closed roads and previously decommissioned roads proposed for use 

in Plans of Operations.........................................................................................62

Table 3-10. Plans of Operations and Forest Service determination of potential for a discharge 

of a pollutant under Alternative 2 and creek potentially affected.......................65

Table 3-11. Forest Service WQPMs for Plans of Operations using Fords, Bridges, 

and/or Culverts in Alternative 4..........................................................................70

Table 3-12. Comparison of miles of closed and decommissioned roads used by 

miners by Alternative..........................................................................................74

Table 3-13. Plans of Operations and comparison of Forest Service determination of potential 

for a discharge of a pollutant by Alternative ......................................................77

Table 3-14. Open Road Densities by Management Areas within subwatersheds..................87

List of Tables in Appendices

Appendix 3

Table A3-1. Erosion Response Curves for North Fork Burnt River non-point sources. ......... A3-3

Table A3-2. Estimated sediment delivery ratios...................................................................... A3-4

Table A3-3. Parameters used in the GIS analysis of the roads................................................ A3-7

Appendix 5

Table 5-1. Activities Exempted from Forest Service Authorization or Approval................... A5-3
Table of Contents NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

iv

Appendix 6A

Table 6A-1. Plans of Operation that listed suction dredging as an activity in the 2004 

FEIS. ................................................................................................................. A6A-2

Table 6A-2. Sites identified in Plans of Operation where suction dredging is proposed.. . A6A-12

Table 6A-3. Sites identified in Plans of Operation where suction dredging is proposed 

and summary of potential impacts to Fisheries...................................A6A-21

Appendix 7

Table 7-1. Modifications to Proposed Plans........ ...................................................A7-1

Table 7-2. Operations added or Withdrawn from Alternatives 2 and 4....... .....................A7-2

Appendix 12

Table 12-1A. INFISH Riparian Management Objective..........................................A12-2

Table 12-1B. Iterim RMO objectives for pool frequency.........................................A12-3

Table 12-2. Information to be included in the Annual Inspections...............................A12-4

Table 12-3. MIS and habitat description for the North Fork Burnt River project area.........A12-7

Table 12-4. Pathways and Indicator Values used to assess condition of the streams...........A12-7

Table 12-5. MIS habitat summary for Camp Creek................................................A12-9

Table 12-6. MIS habitat summary for Geiser Creek..............................................A12-10

Table 12-7. MIS habitat summary for Gimlet Creek.............................................A12-11

Table 12-8. MIS habitat summary for Greenhorn Creek.........................................A12-12

Table 12-9. MIS habitat summary for Mosquito Creek..........................................A12-12

Table 12-10. MIS habitat summary for Snow Creek.............................................A12-13

Table 12-11A. MIS habitat summary for NFBR – Downstream Whitney Valley (1990)...A12-14

Table 12-11B. MIS habitat summary for NFBR – Upstream of Whitney Valley (1990)...A12-14

Table 12-11C. MIS habitat summary for NFBR – Upstream of Whitney Valley (2007)...A12-15

Table 12-12. MIS distribution in the project area in relation to the WWNF range..........A12-15

Table 12-13. PETS Species Summary of Effects................................................A12-21

Table 12-14. Sensitive Plant Species and Suitability of Habitat................................A12-24

Tables 12-15 A through 12-15L. Information on Grazing Allotments,

NFBR watershed .......................................................................A12-26

List of Figures

Figure 3-1. Example of stream cross-section and potential for discharge............................54

List of Maps

Map 1. Vicinity Map....................................................................................3

Map 2. Alternatives 2 and 4 – Proposed Operations..............................................35

Map 3. Alternative 4 Road Closure and Decommissionings.....................................37

Map 4. Stream Temperature Monitoring Sites and 303d Listed Streams.....................39
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Abstract

North Fork Burnt River Mining 

Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Baker County, Oregon

August 2012

Lead Agency USDA Forest Service

Responsible Official Jeff Tomac, Whitman District Ranger, Wallowa-Whitman National 

Forest 

Further Information Sophia Millar, Team Leader

Wallowa Mountains Office

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

PO Box 905

Joseph, OR 97846

(541) 263-1735

smillar@fs.fed.us

Abstract This Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 

(Supplement) documents the re-analysis of the proposed mining 

activities in the North Fork Burnt River watershed as previously 

documented the 2004 North Fork Burnt River Mining Final 

Environmental Impact Statement. This Supplement has been prepared 

to provide additional information and analysis to address the 

inadequacies identified by the United States District of Oregon in 

Hells Canyon Preservation Council et al. v. Haines, CV05-1057-PK 

(HCPC 2006) on August 4, 2006. Therefore, the scope of this 

Supplement is narrower than the scope of the North Fork Burnt River 

Mining FEIS. The Supplement also incorporates new information and 

provides clarification of the previous analyses. The NFBR Mining 

analysis area (approximately 106,500 acres) is located on the Whitman 

Ranger District, northwest of the town of Unity, Oregon in Baker 

County. The preferred alternative is Alternative 4 which addresses the 

inadequacies identified by the Court (HCPC 2006). Alternative 4 will 

authorize the approval of mining operations with additional Forest 

Service Best Management Practices (BMPs) for those activities that do 

not require a 401 certification from the State of Oregon Department of 

Environmental Quality (ODEQ). Activities determined through this 

analysis to still have the potential for a discharge, even with Forest 

Service BMPs, would only be approved if the miner presents to the 

Forest Service a 401 certification from the ODEQ authorizing this 

activity or documentation from ODEQ that a 401 certification is not 

needed. 

Record of Decision

Record of Decision NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

ROD-1

Record of Decision

Introduction

In 2004, the Whitman District Ranger for the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest (WWNF) 

signed the 2004 North Fork Burnt River Record of Decision (2004 ROD) to authorize the 

approval of 49 mining Plans of Operation in the North Fork Burnt River Watershed. The 2004 

decision was subsequently litigated by Hells Canyon Preservation Council et al., and a court 

order and opinion (HCPC 2006) documented the inadequacies identified for the 2004 ROD. 

This 2012 North Fork Burnt River Mining Record of Decision (2012 ROD) does not replace the 

2004 ROD. The 2004 ROD included some components for which the decision was not found 

inadequate by HCPC 2006 (e.g. road management activities). Because those decisions were 

already made, those components will not be included in the ROD for this Supplement.

This 2012 ROD addresses the inadequacies identified in the United States District of Oregon in 

Hells Canyon Preservation Council et al. v. Haines, CV 05-1057-PK, August 4, 2006 (HCPC 

2006). These inadequacies include consistency with 1) section 401 of the Clean Water Act

(CWA), 2) section 313 of the CWA, 3) the Organic Act and its regulations, 4) INFISH standard 

MM-1 (buffer widths), 5) INFISH standard MM-2 (roads), 6) INFISH standard MM-2

(settling/processing ponds), and 7) exceptions to meeting Forest Plan open-road density

guidelines. 

This 2012 ROD documents the decision and rationale for selection of the components in 

Alternative 4 from the 2012 North Fork Burnt River Mining Final Supplemental Environmental 

Impact Statement (Supplement) that were either not included in the 2004 ROD (e.g., Best 

Management Practices (BMPs)/Water Quality Protection Measures, Supplement Appendix 1A), 

or have been revised or updated to address the inadequacies identified by the court of Oregon 

(e.g., effects analysis for Alternative 4, Supplement Chapter 3). This ROD also documents the 

decision and rationale for incorporating all updated or new information included in the 

Supplement.

Background

The following narrative describes a series of events that have led up to this 2012 ROD. A clear 

understanding of this history will help place this decision into context with documents and events 

that preceded this decision.

The North Fork Burnt River Mining Project began June 5, 2001, when the Notice of Intent to 

prepare an environmental impact statement was published in the Federal Register, Volume 66, 

Number 108. The ROD for the 2004 FEIS was signed on April 7, 2004. The decision was 

appealed and later affirmed by the Appeal Deciding Officer and found consistent with applicable 

laws, regulations, policies and the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land and Resource 

Management Plan (Forest Plan).

On July 7, 2005, Hells Canyon Preservation Council (HCPC), Earthworks, and Northwest 

Environmental Defense Center challenged the 2004 ROD in the United States District Court, 

District of Oregon. They alleged violations of the National Forest Management Act, the 

National Environmental Policy Act, the Organic Administration Act, and the Clean Water Act. 
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Record of Decision

ROD-2

On August 4, 2006, Judge Papak, United States District Court, District of Oregon found 

violations of law because the Forest Service: (1) did not require a certificate of compliance under 

33 U.S.C. 1341(a)(1), also referred to as Section 401 under the Clean Water Act, prior to 

approvals of the Plans of Operations, (2) failed to ensure that authorized mining activities will 

comply with 313 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1323(a) on the 303(d) listed waters for 

water-quality limited for sedimentation, and the Organic Act and its regulations, (3) failed to 

adequately analyze the selection of buffer widths for the riparian habitat conservation areas 

(RHCAs) and as such is inconsistent with INFISH standard MM-1, (4) failed to adequately 

analyze the necessity of new roads and whether access alternatives exist and to provide specific 

assurances that the new road construction will comply with INFISH standard MM-2, (5) 

incorrectly determined that settling/processing ponds are not structures subject to INFISH 

standard MM-2 and therefore failed to perform the required analysis under MM-2 as to 

alternative locations, and (6) failed to adequately analyze whether mining and private property 

access needs, administrative use and needs of other forest users are exceptions to the open-road 

density guidelines of the Forest Plan.

On January 12, 2007, the Court vacated the Forest Services’s approval of 33 Plans of Operation, 

enjoining the Forest Service from allowing mining operations in the NFBR Watershed pursuant 

to the April 2004 FEIS and ROD. The Supplement has been prepared to 1) provide additional 

information and analysis necessary to fully address the inadequacies identified by the court in the 

2004 FEIS, and 2) provide information that has changed or been updated since 2004. The Notice 

of Intent to prepare the Draft SEIS (DSEIS) was listed in the Federal Register on February 21, 

2007 (Vol. 72, No. 34) for a 45-day comment period. 

This new 2012 ROD will authorize the approval of activities within the 42 Plans of Operation 

listed in ROD Table R-1 (Appendix A) that do not require 401 certification from Oregon 

Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ). Approval of those activities with a potential for 

a discharge will depend in part on receipt of 401 certifications from Oregon Department of 

Water Quality (ODEQ). Although the 2004 FEIS analyzed 49 Plans, 7 were later withdrawn by 

the miners, leaving 42 Plans. Of the 42 Plans, 33 had been signed at the time of the injunction, 

and those 33 were enjoined. This Supplement includes all 42 Plans (the 33 that were enjoined 

and the 9 that weren’t yet signed). 

Project Location 

The North Fork Burnt River (NFBR) Watershed (approximately 106,500 acres) is located in the 

Blue Mountains of Eastern Oregon and is within the administrative boundaries of the Whitman 

Ranger District of the WWNF (Map 1 in ROD Appendix A). It lies to the northwest of the town 

of Unity, Oregon, in Baker County. 

The legal description for the watershed is: 

Township 9 South, Range 351⁄2 and 36 East 

Township 10 South, Range 35, 351⁄2, 36, and 37 East

Township 11 South, Range 36 and 37 East

Township 12 South, Range 36 and 37 East, Willamette Meridian.

The NFBR is a tributary to the Burnt River, which is a tributary to the Snake River. The NFBR 

originates near Greenhorn Mountain, 25 miles northwest of the town of Unity, Oregon.
Record of Decision NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

ROD-3

Scope, Format, and Context of the Supplement

The scope of this Supplement is narrower than the scope of the 2004 FEIS because it only 

incorporates new information and provides clarification of a previous analysis. This is in 

accordance with 40 CFR 1502.9 (b) (3) and Forest Service Handbook 1909.15. The 

Supplement’s scope has been defined and limited to the analyses needed to address the 

inadequacies identified in HCPC 2006 in Section 1.1, and also incorporates updated or new 

information not raised in HCPC 2006. 

The 2004 ROD included the following components for which the Decision was not found to 

be inadequate by HCPC 2006: 

• Road maintenance, reconstruction, closure and decommissioning activities for Forest 

Service roads, identified in Alternative 4 of the 2004 FEIS.

• Finding of consistency with the following laws, regulations and policy:

o The Clean Air Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Preservation of American 

Antiquities Act of 1906, the National Historic Preservation Act, Civil Rights, 

Women and Minorities, Environmental Justice, and Consultation with Indian 

Tribes/Protection of Treaty Resources. 

The Supplement incorporates and complies with the following documents, laws, regulations and 

policies, as amended:

• Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, as amended 

(1990)

• Pacific Northwest Invasive Plant Final Environmental Impact Statement (May 2005)

• The 1872 Mining Law

• The Organic Administration Act of 1897

• The Multiple Use Mining Act of 1955

• The Mining and Mineral Policy Act of 1970

• The National Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA)

• The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA)

• The Forest Service Surface Use Regulations (36CFR Part 228, Subpart A)

• The Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2800

• The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)

• The Council of Environmental Qualtiy Regulations (CEQ) 36 CFR 800

• The Clean Water Act of 1977 (The Federal Water Pollution Control Act)

• The Organic Act

• All NFBR proposed Plans of Operations submitted by the miners for this analysis.

The Supplement only identifies the sections of the 2004 FEIS that are either completely replaced 

or partially changed. Any unchanged information from the 2004 FEIS is not included in the 

Supplement. Each resource area in Chapter 3 includes an introductory explanation in a shaded 

box about which elements of HCPC 2006 are being addressed. An introductory shaded 

paragraph also identifies what is being changed with the Supplement. Any updated or new 

information that is not responsive to HCPC 2006 is included in Appendix 12.
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Record of Decision

ROD-4

Decision

As Whitman District Ranger, it is my decision to select the following components of Alternative 

4 as described in the Supplement, along with updated and/or new information provided below. 

My decision is specific to the 42 Plans of Operations submitted by the miners and includes 

additional Forest Service Best Management Practices (BMPs) listed in Table R-2, Column 3 

(Appendix A) and presented in detail in the Supplement Appendix 1A and Appendix 2. 

1. Incorporate Best Management Practices (BMPS) into the Plans of Operations prior to 

Plan Approval 

These Forest Service BMPs are separated into two categories: 1) Site-specific Water Quality 

Protection Measures (WQPMs) (Supplement Appendix 1A), and 2) General Requirements 

(Supplement Appendix 2). Table R-2 (Appendix A) makes clear which BMPs apply to a 

particular site to ensure protection of water quality and other resources. The Forest Service 

BMPs will minimize the adverse environmental impacts on National Forest System surface 

resources as directed by the mining regulations found at 36 CFR 228 Subpart A, and will address 

Key Issue 1 (water quality/fish habitat) and other associated operational issues, such as camping. 

2. Approve Construction of 3,200 feet of Mine Access Road

Three Plans of Operations include proposals for constructing a total of 3,200 feet of nonsystem 

mine access roads (Table R-3 in Appendix A). The 3,200 feet of proposed mine access road 

would not contribute to Forest Service open road densities because they would not be designated 

as open Forest Service roads. The supplemental analysis considers whether or not these roads 

that are proposed for construction within an RHCA could be located outside of the RHCA per 

INFISH MM-2 (Supplement, Watershed and Soil Resources, Chapter 3). 

3. Approve Use or Construction of Fords, Bridges and Culverts

Table R-4 (Appendix A) lists the Plans of Operations that propose use or construction of fords, 

bridges and culverts. No bridges or culverts would be constructed under Alternative 4. The 

supplemental analysis considers the environmental effects of fords, bridges and culverts 

(Supplement, Watershed and Soil Resources, Chapter 3). Appendix 1A includes the Forest 

Service Water Quality Protection Measures (WQPMs) that are specific to the construction of 

new fords and modification of existing fords. 

4. Approve Construction of New Ponds and Use of Existing Ponds

Table R-5 (Appendix A) lists the Plans of Operations proposing use or construction of ponds. 

The supplemental analysis considers the environmental effects of these ponds, and whether or 

not they could be located outside of the RHCA per INFISH MM-2 (Supplement, Watershed and 

Soil Resources, Chapter 3). 

5. Approve Plans of Operation

The Forest Service BMPs and ODEQ Terms and Conditions would change the proposed Plans to 

avoid the potential for a discharge into navigable waters or Waters of the State (CWA

compliance), and to ensure compliance with the WWNF Forest Plan standards and guidelines, 

including INFISH MM1 and MM2, for all but three activities: 1) proposed road construction for 

Karrisa site (Burnt Lode/Placer), 2) suction dredging on Cub Creek (Burnt Lode/Placer), and 3) 

construction and use of processing pond at Processing site 2 (Three Cent Placer). These three 
Record of Decision NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

ROD-5

activities will not be approved until the Forest Service receives a valid copy of 401 certification 

for the activities from the operators. 

Activities that have the potential for a discharge will not be approved until 401 certification 

is submitted by the miner to the Forest Service. A separate signature page will be attached to 

the Plan of Operations for those activities requiring 401 certification, to be signed by both the 

miner and the District Ranger if 401 certification is received by the Forest Service. Those 

activities in Burnt Lode/Placer and Three Cent Placer not requiring 401 certification may be 

approved separately from those requiring 401 certification, as described below.

For all other activities in the proposed Plans (no 401 certification required), approval of 

commencement of mining activities will occur when the District Ranger actually signs the Plan 

of Operations. The District Ranger will sign the Plan of Operations after the following have 

been received by the Forest Service:

1. A final Plan signed by the miner which incorporates the Forest Service BMPs identified 

in this decision to minimize adverse environmental impacts resulting from the operation 

(Site-specific Water Quality Protection Measures (Appendix 1A), and General 

Requirements (Appendix 2), and

2. Reclamation bonds for all Plans.

Incorporate Updated or New Information

Watershed and Soil Resources

The largest portion of material the Supplement updated the Watershed and Soil Resources effects 

analysis (Supplement Chapter 3). The Whitman district hydrologist evaluated each of the 42 

Plans in the field. Some Plans included multiple locations for a total of 78 mining operation 

sites. The proposed activities on each of the 78 sites were evaluated and a determination made 

regarding the potential for a surface or subsurface discharge into navigable waters, as defined by 

the CWA, or into the broader Waters of the State from these activities. The detailed and specific 

Methodology and Criteria for Determination of Effects, the analysis, and the findings are 

documented in the Supplement, Chapter 3, Watershed and Soil Resources and Appendix 1A. The 

hydrologist then developed site-specific water quality protection measures to prevent a discharge 

into streams (Supplement Appendix 1A). The General Requirements from the 2004 FEIS were 

updated to include requirements for miners’ use of Forest Service closed, decommissioned, and 

non-system roads to protect soils and water quality (Supplement Appendix 2, Z-Requirements). 

Access/Transportation System

The 2004 ROD made road management decisions, and those decisions were not challenged 

in HCPC 2006. This 2012 ROD 1) corrects the actual number of miles of closures and 

decommissionings, as displayed in Alternative 4, and 2) responds to element #6 of HCPC 

2006, that the Forest Service “failed to clearly identify and discuss management objectives 

that require exceptions to the open-road density guidelines, this court finds that the ROD is 

not consistent with the Forest Plan.” (HCPC 2006, p. 19).”

The supplemental analysis describes how the alternatives are consistent with Forest Plan open 

road density guidelines by including detailed discussion of the Forest Plan direction for open 
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Record of Decision

ROD-6

road densities, and corrects the erroneous conclusion from the 2004 FEIS that exceptions were 

needed to exceed open road density guidelines. 

Also, errors were found in the inventory of open, closed, and decommissioned roads used in the 

2004 analysis. In particular, miles of road already programmed for closure (i.e. the decisions had 

been made prior to the 2004 FEIS) were included in Alternative 4. This led to some double 

counting and an incorrect assessment of the effects in the 2004 FEIS. 

Further corrections were made after release of the 2010 Draft SEIS, after the interdisciplinary 

team came to a better understanding of which roads the 2002 NFBR Roads Analysis considered 

“existing” open or closed. The Supplement used updated September 2007 GIS roads data and a 

re-assessment of the data included in the 2002 NFBR Roads Analysis to correct the errors in the 

2004 FEIS. This resulted in substantially fewer roads prescribed for closure or decommissioning 

than presented in the 2004 ROD (since many of the proposed roads were already closed or 

decommissioned under a previous decision). Appendices 8A and 8B include the corrected road 

status and timing of closure decisions (pre or post 2004). 

It was also determined that the 2004 FEIS displayed open road densities by Operational 

Maintenance Level separately for the Management Areas and for the Subwatersheds. It did not 

include open road densities by Management Area within Subwatersheds (MA/SWS), as 

prescribed by the Forest Plan (USDA 1990, p. 4-35). 

The Supplement examines open road densities by MA/SWS including 1) open road densities for 

Forest Service roads only, as those are the only roads over which the Forest Service has 

jurisdiction, and 2) open road densities for State, County, private and Forest Service open roads. 

The updated calculations and analyses for open road densities for MA/SWS are found in the 

Access/Transportation section of Chapter 3 of the Supplement and reflect all previous closure 

decisions, including those made in the 2004 ROD.

Suction Dredging

Appendix 5 of the Supplement clarifies that suction dredging is considered a Notice of Intent 

(NOI) level activity, and is not an activity included in the Plans of Operations, in all but one 

case. Suction dredging is considered an NOI level activity because there is no significant 

disturbance of surface resources from suction dredging with the exception of suction dredging on 

Cub Creek (Burnt Lode/Placer), which is included in this Decision. 

No significant disturbance of surface resources, including listed fish habitat (no listed fish 

species or designated critical habitat occur within the NFBR watershed), would occur from the 

activities listed in Supplement Appendix 5. This decision is not impacted by and distinguishable 

from the recent 2012 en banc decision in Karuk Tribe v. USFS because no listed species or 

critical fish habitat occurs within the project area. Therefore ESA consultation for the NOI 

activities is not required.

Roads and Sediment 

The Supplement also clarifies that roads are not a major contributor of sediment entering the 

stream, but that the majority of the sediment entering the streams is coming from stream bank 

and channel bed erosion (Supplement Appendix 3 and Chapter 3, Watershed and Soil Resources 

section).
Record of Decision NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

ROD-7

Other New Information and Changed Circumstances Evaluations (Appendix 12)

Appendix 12 includes new or updated information that does not address the inadequacies 

identified in HCPC 2006. It considers whether or not this new information or change in 

circumstances is within the scope and range of effects considered in the original analysis. This 

appendix includes updated information for 1) goshawks and heritage resources, 2) bull trout and 

redband trout, 3) noxious weeds, 4) Potentially Endangered and Threatened Species (PETS) and 

Management Indicator Species (MIS), 5) listed plant species, 6) rangeland management, 7) 

consultation with Indian tribes/protection of treaty resources, and 8) inventoried roadless, 

wilderness, potential wilderness, research natural areas, and experimental forests. 

After interdisciplinary review and consideration of this information within the context of the 

project, I have determined that a correction, supplement, or revision to an enviromental 

document is not necessary (40 CFR 1502.9(c)(1) and FSH 1909.15, Chapter 10, Section 18.1).

The information does not change determinations or findings made in the 2004 FEIS for these 

resources. In all cases, effects are within the scope and range of those disclosed in 2004. 

Table R-2 (Appendix A of the ROD) displays the activities proposed by the miners under 

Alternative 2 (column 2) and additional BMPs/Requirements added to the proposed Plans of 

Operations under Alternative 4 (column 3). Tables R-3, R-4, and R-5 (Appendix A of the ROD) 

display the proposals for use of existing and/or proprosed mine access roads, fords, bridges, 

culverts and ponds.

Monitoring Under Alternative 4 

The following additional monitoring items were added to Alternative 4 during the supplemental 

analysis. These additional items will be incorporated into the Plans of Operations upon approval.

The Supplement includes BMPs (WQPMs and General Requirements) that would be required in 

the approved Plans. These BMPs address the initial screening items listed in the 2004 FEIS 

(Chapter II, page 36). These BMPs will be observed during annual inspections to determine if 

the miner has implemented these BMPs and that they are achieving the desired results. Annual 

mining inspections would also examine the following items listed in Table R-6 (Appendix A of 

the ROD).

This level of annual monitoring was outlined in the 2004 FEIS, Chapter II page 36, "Additional 

Monitoring Requirements". Current regulations allow the District Ranger to stop all operations 

that are not in compliance with the operating plan or causing unforeseen significant disturbance 

(36CFR 228.4 (a) (4), and 228.4 (e)). An example of a unforeseen significant disturbance could 

be failure of a WQPM to prevent a discharge during a flood. Effectiveness would be measured 

by the inspectors observing sediment discharge into streams or evidence of discharge, such as 

rills and gully development, from the operating area to adjacent streams, or development of 

seepage zones along streambanks related to ponds.

Additional updated monitoring requirements for goshawks and heritage are included in 

Supplement Appendix 2 (General Requirements) as part of this decision.
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Record of Decision

ROD-8

Rationale for the Decision

I have selected the components of the Supplement’s Alternative 4 that address the inadequacies 

identified by HCPC 2006 in the 2004 FEIS, along with any updated or new information included 

in Supplement Appendix 12. These components were selected after considering how they 

address the inadequacies noted by HCPC 2006, and respond to public comments received on the 

2010 Draft SEIS.

Inadequacies in the 2004 FEIS Noted by HCPC 2006

The Court found the April 2004 FEIS (FEIS) and Decision violated law because the Agency:

(1) Did not require the miners to obtain a 401 certificate of compliance before approving 

the Plans of Operations for proposed mining operations with a potential discharge 

under 33 U.S.C. 1341(a)(1), also referred to as 401 under the Clean Water Act. 

“The agency’s responsibility under the CWA is clear and, as here, the Forest Service has not 

complied with the 401 requirement of certification prior to permitting miners to begin mining 

operations...Thus, mining activities that may result in discharges of pollutants into navigable 

waters will commence without 401 certification, a violation of the CWA.” (HCPC 2006, pp. 8-9) 

The Supplement clearly discloses those activities within the Plans that have the potential 

for discharge, and requires 401 certification from those miners, prior to approval of those 

activities included in their Plan (Supplement, Chapter 3, Table 3-13). The process for

determining discharge potential was conducted site-specifically by the district hydrologist 

in the field for all 78 sites of the 42 proposed Plans. A determination was made on the 

potential for a discharge, either from surface activity or water discharging from an adit via 

either surface or subsurface flow paths. The detailed and specific Methodology and Criteria 

for Determination of Effects, the analysis, and the findings are documented in Chapter 3, 

Watershed and Soil Resources, and Appendix 1A of the Supplement. Therefore, I find that 

the analysis in the Supplement clearly displays compliance with the 401 requirement of 

certification prior to Plan approval and commencement of mining activities included in the 

Plan.

(2) a. Failed to demonstrate that the proposed Plans in 303(d) listed subwatersheds 

would not further degrade the waters and therefore could not ensure compliance with 

Section 313 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1323(a) which states: “Each 

department, agency, or instrumentality of the executive, legislative, and judicial 

branches of the Federal government (1) having jurisdiction over any property or 

facility, or (2) engaged in any activity resulting, or which may result, in the discharge 

or runoff of pollutants, and each officer, agent, or employee thereof in the 

performance of his official duties shall be subject to and comply with, all Federal, 

State, Interstate, and local requirements, administrative authority, and process and 

sanctions, respecting the control and abatement of water pollution in the same 

manner, and to the same extent as any non-governmental agency...” 

“This court cannot find support in the record for the Forest Service’s position that 

implementation of the requirements to the POOs as outlined in Alternative 4 of the ROD will 

protect water quality and result in no measurable increase in sedimentation. This court finds the 
Record of Decision NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

ROD-9

Forest Service’s decision to allow new mining operations on 303(d)-listed streams arbitrary and 

capricious.” (HCPC 2006, p. 10)

b. Failed to comply with the Organic Act which authorizes the Forest Service to 

promulgate regulation for users of national forests, and specifies that individuals 

entering the national forests for the purpose of exploiting mineral resources “must 

comply with the rules and regulations covering such national forests. It also states 

that mining operations shall be conducted so as, where feasible, to minimize adverse 

environmental impacts on national forest resources. 

The Forest Service has failed to minimize adverse environmental impacts as required by 

regulations, and failed to ensure that mining operators comply with water quality standards 

(HCPC 2006, p. 13).

The Supplement includes a site-by-site and Plan-by-Plan evaluation to determine compliance 

with the anti-degradation provision (CWA Section 303), and the Organic Act which authorizes 

the Forest Service to promulgate regulations for the use and preservation of national forests. If a 

Plan was determined to not be in compliance with the anti-degradation provision, the Forest 

Service identified additional Best Management Practices (BMPs) designed to ensure no 

degradation of water quality or increase in sediment inputs. However, for two activities in the 

proposed Burnt Lode/Placer plan and one activity in Three Cent Placer, BMPs could not be 

identified that would prevent the potential for a discharge and degradation of water quality. For 

these three activities, the miners would be required to get 401 certification from Oregon 

Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) for those activities and present it to the Forest 

Service, prior to approval of those activities. Under Alternative 4, these additional BMPs, along 

with receipt of any required 401 certifications, bring the Plans into compliance with Section 313 

of the CWA and the regulations authorized by the Organic Act. The analysis and findings are 

documented in Chapter 3, Soil and Watershed Resources, and Appendices 1A and 2 of the 

Supplement. Therefore, I find that the implementation of the Forest Service BMPs to the Plans as 

outlined in Alternative 4 of the Supplement and ROD will protect water quality and meet the 

intent and letter of the CWA. 

(3) Failed to demonstrate that it had adequately analyzed the selection of buffer widths 

for the riparian habitat conservation areas (RHCAs) to be consistent with INFISH

standard MM-1 (USDA 1995), as required in the Forest Plan. 

“This court finds that the analysis laid out in the FEIS is inadequate regarding the selection of 

buffer width such that the ROD is inconsistent with INFISH standard MM-1 and the Forest Plan 

for the WWNF.” (HCPC 2006, p. 15)

For the Supplement, each of the mining sites (78) covered by the 42 Plans were visited by the 

district hydrologist to assess and document the adequacy of the proposed buffers, and to propose 

adjustments in the operations, as warranted, for consideration by ODEQ and to meet the intent of 

both the CWA and INFISH/Forest Plan. The analysis and findings are documented in Chapter 3, 

Watershed and Soil Resources, and Appendices 1A and 2 of the Supplement. ODEQ’s comments 

are found in Supplement Appendix 10, Response to Comments, and their comments and 

suggestions have been incorporated into the Supplement. Therefore, I find that the analysis in the 

Supplement is adequate regarding the selection of buffer widths and is consistent with INFISH 

standard MM-1 and the Forest Plan.
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Record of Decision

ROD-10

(4) Failed to demonstrate that it had adequately analyzed the necessity of new roads, 

considered alternatives, and provided specific assurances that the new road 

construction would comply with INFISH standard MM-2 (USDA 1995), as 

required in the Forest Plan. 

“The Forest Service must provide a more thorough analysis on the issue of new road 

construction in RHCAs to satisfy the mandate of MM-2.” (HCPC 2006, p. 16)

The Supplement includes an analysis of the INFISH standard. A Forest Service mining 

specialist, in consultation with engineers, evaluated the proposed road construction in each Plan 

to determine if it was operationally necessary and appropriately located. Additional information 

was requested from the miner as needed for evaluation. Some proposed roads were dropped by 

the miners. Appendix 7 of the Supplement describes the changes miners made to the road 

construction proposals in response to these inquiries. Additionally, the district hydrologist 

examined the proposed roads for potential sediment contribution, and specifically whether or not 

an alternative location existed outside the RHCA. The Supplement considers the new road 

segments “structures” under INFISH standard MM-2, and discloses whether the new 

construction would impact fish habitat, and comply with INFISH standard MM-2 (Supplement, 

Chapter 3, Watershed and Soil Resources). Therefore, I find that the analysis in the Supplement 

provides a thorough analysis of road construction in RHCAs to satisfy the mandate of INFISH 

MM-2.

(5) Incorrectly determined that settling ponds are not structures subject to INFISH

standard MM-2 and therefore failed to perform the required analysis under MM-2 

as to alternative locations, as required by the Forest Plan. 

“The Forest Service must perform the required analysis under MM-2 as to whether alternatives 

exist to locating settling ponds in RHCAs.” (HCPC 2006, pp. 17-18)

The Supplement documents the analysis of the proposed ponds as structures. A Forest Service 

mining specialist reviewed each Plan to determine the necessity of the proposed ponds, and if the 

proposed ponds were clearly mapped and identifiable on the ground. Additional information was 

requested from the miner as needed. In some cases, the miner dropped the proposed pond. 

Appendix 7 of the Supplement describes the changes made by the miners.

The district hydrologist also examined the proposed and existing pond locations and evaluated 

whether or not an alternative location existed outside the RHCA. In all cases, the ponds were 

considered “structures” and a determination made as to whether they would be in compliance 

with INFISH standard MM-2. The analyses and findings are documented in the Supplement, 

Chapter 3, Watershed and Soil Resources, and Appendix 4. Therefore, I find that the district 

hydrologist has performed the required analysis under INFISH MM-2 as to whether alternatives 

exist to locating settling/processing ponds in RHCAs.

(6) Failed to demonstrate that it had adequately analyzed whether mining and private 

property access needs, administrative use and needs of other forest users are 

exceptions to the open road density guidelines, as required by the Forest Plan. 

“Because the Forest Service failed to clearly identify and discuss management objectives that 

require exceptions to the open-road density guidelines, this court finds that the ROD is not 

consistent with the Forest Plan.” (HCPC 2006, p. 19)
Record of Decision NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

ROD-11

The Supplement uses updated September 2007 GIS roads data and a re-assessment of the data 

included in the 2002 NFBR Roads Analysis to correct the errors in the 2004 FEIS (Supplement 

Introduction). This resulted in substantially fewer roads prescribed for closure in the 2004 FEIS 

and ROD. Table R-7 (Appendix A) lists the actual road closures and decommissionings 

prescribed under Alternative 4 as adjusted by the supplemental analysis. Additionally, 

Appendices 8A and 8B of the Supplement include the corrected road status and timing of closure 

decisions (pre or post 2004) to facilitate comparison of the two NEPA documents. 

The Supplement also includes open road density calculations by Management Area within 

subwatersheds (MA/SWS), which is the method prescribed by the Forest Plan (USDA 1990 4-

35); the 2004 FEIS did not include this calculation. The new open road densities for MA/SWS 

found in the Access/Transportation section of Chapter 3 of the Supplement have been adjusted to 

reflect all previous closure decisions and displays open road densities that include 1) all open 

roads (State, County, private and Forest Service), and 2) only Forest Service open roads. The 

“Changes from Draft to Final” section of the Supplement explains these changes in open road 

density calculations from the 2004 FEIS with those provided in the Supplement, and the 

elimination of the Forest Plan amendment that was proposed in the Draft SEIS. 

No Increase in Open Road Densities

Under Alternative 4, no new open Forest Service roads are proposed for construction, therefore 

open road densities would not increase under any of the alternatives. The Forest Plan states: 

“Analyze projects which will require construction of new roads or which 

require opening old roads, with the intent of meeting specific management 

area road density guidelines during the activity. If the analysis indicates that 

meeting these guidelines during project activity is important in meeting the 

resource management objectives, and if the project will require an open road 

density in excess of the guideline, then mitigation of the effects of adding open 

roads will take place where practicable. Mitigation may include efforts such as 

closing other roads in the analyis area...” (Forest Plan pg. 4-36). 

Although the above standard and guideline was designed to address impacts from construction or 

opening of existing Forest Service roads for timber sale haul, it can be applied to this project. No 

new open Forest Service roads are being added to the watershed under any of the 

alternatives in this project, therefore Alternative 4 is consistent with Forest Plan open road 

density guidelines and no exceptions to the guidelines are needed. The 3,200 feet of new 

temporary mine access roads are not included in the total open Forest Service road miles or open 

road density calculations because they are not open to the public. They are for use only by the 

miner as stipulated in their Plan of Operations, and requirements to prevent public access to 

those temporary roads are included in Appendix 2, General Requirements (Z-Requirements).

In summary, the 2004 road closures and decommissionings in Alternative 4 moved some 

MA/SWS towards Forest Plan open road density guidelines because 1) no new open Forest 

Service roads were added to the watershed, and 2) the 2004 ROD authorized closing and 

decommissioning 7.7 miles of open roads (as corrected per the supplemental analysis). Access

to National Forest lands will continue to be provided to the public, as will reasonable access to 

miners (per 36 CFR 228.12). Therefore Alternative 4 is consistent with Forest Plan open road 

density guidelines and Forest Plan direction for public access.
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Record of Decision

ROD-12

I find that the Supplement clearly identifies and discusses Forest Plan direction for meeting open 

road densities (Forest Plan pg. 4-35 and 4-36), and public access (Forest Plan pg. 4-34) and 

therefore, is consistent with the Forest Plan open road density and public access guidelines. I 

also find that the need for exceptions to meeting open road density guidelines identified in the 

2004 FEIS were included in error, as no new open roads are proposed for construction with this 

project, therefore open road densities will not increase as a result of Alternative 4.

The impacts of roads on wildlife are clearly displayed in the Wildlife Habitat section of Chapter 

3 of the Supplement, and I find that the results of the Habitat Effectiveness Indicator analysis are 

consistent with Forest Plan direction (Forest Plan pg. 4-57). The proposed mining activities will 

not measureably decrease cover (only incidental tree removal may occur – Appendix 9) or 

increase open road densities, so there will be no associated decrease in the HEI value. 

(Supplement Chapter 3, Wildlife Habitat). The Wildlife Habitat section in Chapter 3 also 

incorporates the Distance Band Analysis which is considered the best available science to 

display the effects of roads on elk and other big game.

Purpose and Need

The purpose and need for the Supplement is to address specific inadequacies identified by HCPC

2006. Supplemental environmental analysis was necessary be responsive to the 2006 Court 

Order and Opinion and 2007 Court Injunction.

Changes from Draft to Final SEIS and Updated Information Since 2004

The Supplement reflects changes made since release of the August 2010 Draft SEIS. These 

changes were made based on comments received during the 45-day comment period and updated 

information received by the interdisciplinary team after August 2010.

Open Road Densities

The most notable change since the Draft SEIS is the exclusion of the Forest Plan amendment for 

open road densities proposed under Alternative 4. One commenter responded that the Forest 

Plan amendment for open road densities should be considered a significant amendment 

(Appendix 10, Comment 97g). A meeting with the commenter on December 8, 2010, provided 

more detailed description of their concern that the amendment would set a precedent for those 

amended areas, and would preclude future closures and decommissioning of roads in those areas. 

The interdisciplinary team reviewed the open road density analysis, made corrections to the 

analysis and it was determined that a Forest Plan amendment was no longer necessary for the 

reasons explained above (refer to the Inadequacies Noted by the Court #6).

The interdisciplinary team also determined it was inappropriate to include the analysis of open 

road densities for Forest Plan consistency in the Wildlife Habitat section of the 2010 Draft SEIS. 

The effects of all roads (Forest Service, State, County and private) on wildlife are considered in 

the Supplement, but the analysis of consistency with Forest Plan open road density guidelines is 

now limited to the Access/Transportation System section of Chapter 3 of the Supplement.

Other changes from Draft to Final – Supplement Appendix 12

Because several years have passed since issuance of the 2004 Record of Decision, the 

Supplement also includes changed or updated information since the 2004 FEIS was released. 

This point was raised by a commenter for the DSEIS, and in response, the Forest Service 
Record of Decision NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

ROD-13

documented updated information in Supplement Appendix 12. It is described in more detail in 

the section titled “Decision” which begins on page 6 of the ROD. 

No change has occurred in listed fish species or critical habitat in the NFBR watershed since 

2004. Supplement Appendix 12 updates the effects on sensitive redband trout. It clarifies that 

because all proposed mining activities, except one, will occur outside the stream channel and 

active floodplain and will not alter the potential for input of large woody material (LWM), 

Alternative 4 will not contribute to a negative trend in viability for redband trout on the 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest. The exception is suction dredging on Cub Creek which 

would occur in the channel and has the potential to trigger a headcut and channel incision and 

widening and potentially affect fish. Suction dredging on Cub Creek is being evaluated as part 

of the Plan and its direct/indirect and cumulative effects are discussed in the Watershed and Soils 

Resources section in Chapter 3.

Public Comment Received on the 2010 Draft Supplemental EIS (DSEIS)

Alternative 4 in the Supplement differs from Alternative 4 in the DSEIS based on comments 

received on the DSEIS. The individual comments and responses are contained in Appendix 10 

of the Supplement. The comments represented a wide variety of viewpoints on the preferred 

alternative. Some comments stated that the preferred alternative should 1) correct specific 

details for some Plans submitted by the miners, 2) not include a Forest Plan amendment for open 

road densities and, 3) include updated species lists along with analysis of effects to any new 

species since the 2004 FEIS. All of the comments were considered in the decision.

Based on the comments received on the DSEIS, the selected components of Alternative 4 as 

supplemented, along with the new and/or updated information, strikes a reasonable balance by 

addressing comments that are within the scope of the deciding officer’s authority as well as 

consistent with how minerals management has been represented by the Forest Plan and its 

amendments.

Summary of the Supplement

Public Involvement

Scoping

The Supplement was listed in the WWNF Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA) in December of 

2006. The Notice of Intent (NOI) to supplement the 2004 FEIS was published in the Federal 

Register on February 21, 2007 (Federal Register vol. 72, no. 34, pages 7855-7856). The NOI 

requested public comment on the proposal to incorporate additional information and analysis 

necessary to fully address the inadequacies noted by the court in the 2004 FEIS, and to evaluate 

the need for a non-significant site-specific amendment to the WWNF’s (Forest Plan).

The Supplement focuses on points identified as inadequate in HCPC 

2006. Evaluation of new information and changed circumstances not 

related to the points raised in HCPC 2006 are found in Appendix 12 

(New Information and Changed Circumstance Evaluations). 
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Record of Decision

ROD-14

Requests for comments (scoping) for the preparation of the Supplement began in February 2007. 

The Forest Service sent scoping letters to over two hundred interested parties, including: 

individuals, groups, miners, county, State and Federal agencies, the Nez Perce Tribe, 

Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation, and the Confederated Tribes of the 

Umatilla Reservation (CTUIR). A list of interested parties to whom the letters were mailed and 

copies of the letters are located in the analysis file, as is a copy of the NOI. Additionally, 

individual letters were sent to all miners with current and proposed operations in the watershed.

This project was presented by the WWNF to the CTUIR at the following staff to staff and 

government to government meetings:

11/17/2008 – Natural Resources Committee meeting (staff to staff)

12/02/2008 – Fish & Wildlife Committee meeting (staff to staff)

12/09/2008 – Cultural Committee meeting (staff to staff)

04/02/2009 – Board of Trustees meeting (government to government)

03/14/2011 – Natural Resources Committee meeting (staff to staff)

05/10/2011 – Fish & Wildlife Committee meeting (staff to staff)

05/17/2011 – Cultural Committee meeting (staff to staff)

08/31/2011 – Board of Trustees meeting (government to government)

02/22/2012 – Natural Resources Committee meeting (staff to staff)

03/27/2012 – Fish & Wildlife and Cultural Committees meeting (staff to staff)

05/09/2012 – Board of Trustees meeting (government to government)

The Forest Service received one letter in response to the scoping letter and NOI, with the 

following concerns: 

1. the Supplement should include analysis of substantive changes to the mining project

proposals; 

2. the Supplement should address whether or not the proposed projects would create new or 

contribute to existing Water Quality Standard violations under the Clean Water Act; 

3. the Supplement should clearly address the anti-degradation standard for streams where 

water quality is limited; 

4. the Supplement should consider an alternative to the current Plans of Operations that will 

comply with Section 313 of the Clean Water Act (i.e. compliance with State water quality

laws and anti-degradation of 303d listed streams); 

5. the Supplement should propose buffers that are adequate to protect INFISH species; 

6. the Agency must determine if new road and settling pond construction within RHCAs is 

necessary; 

7. a Forest Plan amendment for open road densities is not scientifically justifiable; and 

8. the Supplement should include all issues previously raised.

Information obtained as a result of the scoping process is located in Supplement Appendix 11-

Issue Tracking, and the Supplement’s analysis file and was used to respond to the noted 

deficiencies by the Court.

Comment Period

The Notice of Availability for the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (DSEIS) 

was published in the Federal Register on September 24, 2010 (Vol. 75, No. 185, page 58377). 

The 45-day comment period began September 24, 2010 and closed on November 8, 2010.
Record of Decision NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

ROD-15

Tribal consultation efforts consisted of sending tribes the Schedule of Proposed actions, scoping 

letter, and DSEIS during the 45-day comment period, and reviewing the project at staff to staff 

and government to government meetings with CTUIR members. No treaty resources were 

identified by any tribe as at risk, and no specific comments were received from the tribes for this 

supplemental analysis.

Several comment letters were received during the formal comment period. A copy of the 

original comment letters is available in the analysis file, along with a compiled list of 

respondents. Specific comments are addressed in Appendix 10. Several individuals called, 

wrote letters, or visited to clarify errors in their proposed Plans of Operations.

Issues

Key Issue 1, Water Quality: In the Supplement, indicator #2 in the 2004 FEIS under Key Issue 1 

was changed as follows:

2. The number of operations that have the potential to discharge into navigable waters.

Key Issue 3, Access/Road Densities: In the Supplement, an additional indicator was added:

3. Open road densities by Management Area within subwatersheds.

Changes in the Plans of Operations

Since the 2004 FEIS, several miners have withdrawn their proposed Plans, others have provided 

clarification, and others have made slight modifications. This Supplement recognizes and 

incorporates these changes (Appendix 7), making adjustments in the description of Alternatives 

in Chapter 2 and the effects in Chapter 3, as warranted. A listing and description of the Plan 

withdrawals and modifications can be found in Appendix 7 of the Supplement.

Alternatives Considered in Detail

The Supplement addresses the inadequacies identified by HCPC 2006 in addressing impacts 

from Alternative 4 (the selected alternative from the 2004 NFBR Mining ROD). Alternative 2 

(the miner’s proposal) is provided in this Supplement as a basis for comparison of the effects of 

Alternative 4. Therefore, Alternatives 1 and 3 were not discussed in the Supplement.

This project was coordinated with the Oregon Department of 

Environmental Quality. Their comments are included in 

Supplement Appendix 10 and any additional Terms and Conditions 

are included in Appendix 1A.
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Record of Decision

ROD-16

Alternative 2: Proposed Plans of Operations (Proposed Action) – This alternative describes 

and evaluates the 42 Plans of Operations as submitted by the miners.

Alternative 4: Proposed Plans of Operations with Forest Service BMPs – This alternative 

includes the same Plans of Operations as Alternative 2 with the following additions:

1. Additional road management activities (maintenance, reconstruction, closure and 

decommissioning). 

2. Additional Forest Service Best Management Practices (BMPs) in the form of 1) “SiteSpecific Water Quality Protection Measures (WQPMs)” and 2) “General Requirements”. 

These BMPs are added to the Plans submitted by the miners to eliminate the potential for 

a discharge into navigable waters, and to ensure compliance with the Forest Plan 

standards and guidelines, including INFISH MM1 and MM2. 

Elements Common to Alternatives 2 and 4

Elements common to action Alternatives 2 and 4 include the following:

1. When a proposed activity has been identified by the district hydrologist as having the 

potential for a discharge, 401 certification must be presented to the Forest Service prior to 

Plan approval and commencement of that mining activities included in the Plan (See 

description of plan approval process in “Decision” section above). Any additional terms 

and conditions included in the 401 certificate will be incorporated into the Plan.

2. Any closed, decommissioned or nonsystem roads that are authorized for reconstruction or 

use in an approved Plan of Operations must be closed or decommissioned at the 

completion of operations or at the expiration of approval of the Plan.

3. Approval of all Plans expire 10-years from the date of approval. Approval may be 

extended if they are operating within its terms and NEPA compliance is still adequate and 

current at the time of extension.

Alternative 2 Proposed Plans of Operations as submitted by the 

miners

Alternative 2 includes 42 proposed Plans of Operation (Plans) (Refer to Table R-2 in Appendix 

A). Some of the 42 Plans have multiple locations resulting in 78 actual mining sites. Alternative 

2 would be approved for a period of 10 years, and this is the time frame used to evaluate the 

potential effects from the proposed activities. 

Alternative 2 would authorize the approval of the 42 Plans as submitted by the miners. 

The 2004 ROD included components of Alternative 4 that were not 

found inadequate by HCPC 2006 (e.g. road management activities). 

However, all components of Alternative 4 are included here for 

consistency and clarity, including the corrected/updated information 

from the supplemental analysis.
Record of Decision NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

ROD-17

Alternative 4 Proposed Plans of Operations with Forest Service 

BMPs and Road Management Activities

Previous or double-counted road closures described in Chapter 1, Section 1.3 of the Supplement 

have been removed from this alternative. The miles of maintenance and reconstruction activities 

included in the 2004 ROD were unchanged as a result of this supplemental analysis; therefore 

they are not included in Table 6.

Alternative 4 would authorize the approval of the same Plans as described in Alternative 2 with 

the additional Forest Service Best Management Practices (BMPs) listed in Table R-2, Column 3 

(Appendix A at end of ROD) and presented in detail in Appendix 1A and Appendix 2. One 

difference is that the culvert and two bridges proposed under Alternative 2 for Racer 

Group/Keystone Korners are replaced with three fords under Alternative 4. The change in 

crossing types would decrease the amount of bank and channel bed disturbance and its longevity 

compared to installation of the culvert or temporary log bridges, and therefore the reduce the 

potential for sediment inputs into the channels. 

The Forest Service BMPs would change the proposed operations to avoid the potential for a 

discharge into navigable waters or Waters of the State, and to ensure compliance with the 

WWNF Forest Plan standards and guidelines, including INFISH MM1 and MM2. Alternative 4 

also addresses Key Issue 3 by authorizing road closures, decommissioning, and maintenance and 

reconstruction activities within the watershed for the purpose of reducing open road densities. 

The Forest Service BMPs would minimize the adverse environmental impacts on National Forest 

System surface resources as directed by the mining regulations found at 36 CFR 228 Subpart A, 

and address Key Issue 1 (water quality/fish habitat) and other associated operational issues such 

as camping. In Chapter 3, these Forest Service BMPs are separated into two categories: 1) Sitespecific Water Quality Protection Measures (WQPMs) (Appendix 1A), and 2) General 

Requirements (Appendix 2) to make clear which BMPs apply to a particular site to ensure water 

quality protection.

Activities requiring 401 certification will not be approved until 401 certification is 

submitted by the miner to the Forest Service. A separate signature page will be attached to 

the Plan of Operations for those activities requiring 401 certification, to be signed by both the 

miner and the District Ranger after 401 certification is received by the Forest Service. The 

activities in the Plans not requiring 401 certification may be approved separately from those 

requiring 401 certification, as described below.

For all other proposed activities contained within the 42 Plans (no 401 certification required), 

approval of commencement of mining activities will occur when the District Ranger actually 

signs the Plan of Operations. The District Ranger will sign the Plan of Operations after the 

following have been received by the Forest Service:

1. A final Plan signed by the miner which incorporates the requirements identified in this 

decision to minimize adverse environmental impacts resulting from the operation 

(mitigations, monitoring, Site-specific requirements (Appendix 1A), and General 

Requirements (Appendix 2), and

2. Reclamation bonds for all Plans.
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Record of Decision

ROD-18

Road Management Activities

Alternative 4 authorized closure of 5.1 miles of system roads, and decommissioning of 2.6 miles 

of currently open system roads (as adjusted per this supplement). It also authorized conversion 

of 4.5 miles from closed to decommissioned (Table R-7). Maintenance will increase on 19.75 

miles, and 22.65 miles will be reconstructed. 

Road maintenance activities includes installing water bars, cleaning culverts, replacing culverts 

that have failed or been damaged, road surface grading, and resurfacing. Reconstruction 

includes replacing undersized culverts, realigning portions of the road, and upgrading the road 

surface. 

The objective of road decommissioning is to stabilize, restore, and revegetate unneeded roads to 

a more natural state to protect and enhance NFS lands (FSM 7734.02). Decommissioned roads 

are removed from the forest transportation atlas. Road decommissioning treatments may range 

from simply administratively removing the road from the system to fully restoring the slope to 

near natural contours. The level of treatment is determined site-specifically based on the road’s 

current condition and location, and what is needed to meet the objective to hydrologically 

stabilize the road. These activities will occur as funding is available.

Table R-7 (Appendix A) shows the list of roads that were authorized for closure and 

decommissioning under Alternative 4 of the 2004 FEIS. Some roads have multiple road 

segments, occur within multiple subwatersheds, or fall within multiple management areas. 

The Environmentally Preferable Alternative

In this decision, the selected alternative is described and rationale is given for its selection. It is 

also required by law that one or more environmentally preferable alternatives be disclosed [40 

CFR 1505.2(b)]. The environmentally preferable alternative is not necessarily the alternative 

that will be implemented and it does not have to meet the underlying need for the project. It 

does, however, have to cause the least damage to the biological and physical environment and 

best protect, preserve, and enhance historical, cultural, and natural resources (Title I, Section 

101, NEPA as amended).

The 2004 NFBR Mining Record of Decision (ROD) made road management 

decisions (maintenance, reconstruction, closure and decommissioning), and 

those decisions were not challenged in HCPC 2006. This Supplement does 

not prescribe any new road management activities on Forest Service roads. 

Therefore no road management decisions for Forest Service roads will be 

included in the Record of Decision for this Supplement.

The inclusion of road management activities from the 2004 ROD are 

included in this supplemental analysis only to incorporate corrections that 

have been made since 2004, and provide clarity when comparing effects of 

the alternatives.
Record of Decision NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

ROD-19

In the case of the North Fork Burnt River Mining Final Supplemental EIS, I have determined 

that the environmentally preferable alternative is Alternative 4 – the Selected Alternative. 

Alternative 4 approves 42 Plans and contains consistent requirements that minimize the amount 

of disturbance in the INFISH RHCAs. Alternative 4 includes site-specific Water Quality 

Protection Measures (WQPMs) and General Requirements that address water temperature, the 

potential for a discharge of sediment or water into naviagble water or Waters of the State, 

hazardous material spills, location of campsites, fire prevention and suppression, maintenance 

and use of mine access roads, and ongoing and final reclamation. 

Under this alternative, only two activities in the Burnt Lode/Placer and one activity in the Three 

Cent Placer, would have the potential for a discharge. These activities with a potential for 

discharge will be in compliance with the CWA if 401 certification is received from the State of 

Oregon. The prior closure and decommissioning of roads approved in the NFBR 2004 ROD will 

reduce open road densities, which in turn may decrease potential disturbance to wildlife. It 

should be noted that this part of the decision was not found inadequate by HCPC 2006. 

Alternative 2 is not environmentally preferable because it does not include consistent 

requirements that minimize the effects to water quality and fish habitat. It also does not include 

any maintenance, reconstruction, closure and decommissioning of roads. Under this alternative, 

activities in 28 Plans (29 sites) would have the potential for a discharge, and would therefore not 

be in compliance with the CWA, and would require 401 certification from the State of Oregon.

Refer to effects on the environment described in Chapter 3 of the Supplement.

Findings Required by Other Laws, Regulations, and Orders

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

(Forest Plan)

Minerals

The decision to select Alternative 4 (as supplemented) is consistent with the intent of the Forest’s 

goals and standards and guidelines for Minerals listed in Chapter 4 of the Forest Plan (Forest 

Plan, pages 4-33 and 4-34), and is stipulated at 36 CFR 228 Subpart A. The following standards 

and guidelines apply to the activities approved in this decision.

1. Access: Permit claimants reasonable access to their claims as specified in the United 

States Mining Laws.

Federal regulations provide a mining miner reasonable access incident to their operations 

(refer to 36 CFR 228.12). As a part of the Supplement, the access proposed for each 

operation was reevaluated (project file) to determine which existing roads and proposed 

roads are reasonably incident to the operation, and to determine what BMPs, if any, are 

needed to approve or regulate construction, use, or maintenance of the roads (Supplement 

Appendix 2, Z-requirements).

2. Operating Plans (Plan of Operations): Require operating plans, in accordance with 

36CFR 228 Subpart A, when operations are proposed which involve significant 

disturbance of the surface resources (Forest Plan pg. 4-33).

3. Operating Plans will include reasonable and operationally feasible requirements to 
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Record of Decision

ROD-20

minimize adverse environmental impacts on surface resources (Forest Plan, pg. 4-33).

The process for determining environmental impacts on surface resources was conducted sitespecifically by the district hydrologist in the field for all 78 sites of the 42 proposed Plans. A 

determination was made on the potential for a discharge, either from surface activity, or 

water discharging from an adit, as well as compliance with CWA, and INFISH MM-1 and 

MM-2. The detailed and specific Methodology and Criteria for Determination of Effects, the 

analysis, and the findings are documented in Chapter 3, Watershed and Soil Resources of the 

Supplement and Supplement Appendix 1A. 

4. Analyze operating plan proposals and alternatives, including alternatives for access, 

reclamation, and mitigation, using the Forest Service NEPA process (Forest Plan pg. 4-

33).

The 2004 FEIS and ROD analyzed all Plan proposals, including alternatives for access, 

reclamation and mitigation using the NEPA process. The Supplement addressed all the 

deficiencies identified by the court regarding the 2004 analysis process, therefore all 

elements of the above standard have been addressed.

5. Reclamation: Develop reclamation standards using an interdisciplinary process to 

ensure lands are in productive condition to the extent reasonable and operationally 

feasible...(Forest Plan pg. 4-33).

Reclamation requirements have been identified in Appendix 2, and applicable requirements 

will be incorporated into each Plan of Opeations. Once this ROD is signed and issued, 

reclamation bonds will be required before the Plans of Operations are approved.

INFISH

The Forest Plan has been amended to include goals, objectives, standards, and guidelines for 

protection of inland native fisheries as defined in the inland Native Fish Strategy (known as 

“INFISH;” USDA, 1995). It is an interim habitat protection and restoration strategy designed to 

protect and improve aquatic health using riparian habitat conservation areas (RHCAs) and 

riparian management objectives (RMO). 

While several of the RMOs would be locally affected by suction dredging on Cub Creek (Burnt 

Lode Placer), the effects would be non-measureable at the stream and subwatershed scale 

(Supplement Chapter 3, Fisheries). 

Legal Requirements and Policy

This ROD adheres to requirements of federal law.

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 

NEPA establishes the format and content requirements for environmental analysis and 

documentation. The entire process of preparing the DSEIS and FSEIS was undertaken to 

comply with NEPA.

The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) of 1976 

I find this decision to be consistent with the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land and 

Resource Management Plan (including INFISH) and with the requirements of the National 

Forest Management Act implementing regulations by considering the impacts of the selected 
Record of Decision NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

ROD-21

alternative on the environment and their consistency with the Forest Plan (Supplement Chapter 3 

and Appendix 12). 

An updated evaluation of sensitive redband trout determined that while there may be impacts to 

individuals, those effects would not contribute to a negative trend in viability on the WallowaWhitman National Forest for redband trout (Supplement Appendix 12).

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended

The Supplement is consistent with ESA, because no listed fish or criticial habitat is located in the 

project area, and no change in effects determinations for listed wildlife species has been 

identified in the supplemental analysis. An updated analysis of gray wolf is included in the 

Supplement, and concluded that there would be no effects to the gray wolf from Alternative 4 

because: 1) no denning or rendezvous sites have been identified within the project area, and 2) 

prey species will not be negatively affected by proposed activities. 

This decision is not impacted by and distinguishable from the recent 2012 en banc decision in 

Karuk Tribe v. USFS because no listed species or critical fish habitat occurs within the project 

area, therefore ESA consultation for the NOI activities identified in Supplement Appendix 5 is 

not required.

1872 General Mining Law as amended 

This decision, as well as the Purpose and Need, Proposed Action, and each action alternative in 

the Supplement, is consistent with the mining laws.

Multiple Use Mining Act of 1955

The decision is consistent with the Multiple Use Mining Act, in that it responds to activities 

reasonably incident to mining by placing reasonable mitigations in order to protect surface 

resources, allowing the proponents to meet their objectives, and not preclude future opportunities 

to further develop the claims (2012 Supplement, Chapter 2, Table 2-1, Appendices 1A and 2).

The Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 as amended in 1977 and 1987 , also known 

as the federal Clean Water Act

The Selected alternative will meet and conform to the Clean Water Act as amended, and meets 

the anti-degradation standards agreed to by the State of Oregon and the Forest Service, Region 6, 

in a memorandum of understanding (Forest Service Manual 1561.5, Memorandum of 

Understanding Number: 02-MU-11060000-141.) This act establishes a non-degradation policy 

for all federally proposed projects accomplished mainly through planning, application, and 

monitoring of best management practices (BMPs). Identification of BMPs is mandated by 

Section 319 of the Water Quality Act of 1987, which states: “It is national policy that programs 

for the control of non-point sources of pollution be developed and implemented." Site-specific 

BMPs or Water Quality Protection Measures (WQPMs) have been added to each Plan and 

designed to protect beneficial uses (2012 Supplement, Appendix 1A). 

In order to meet the intent of the Clean Water Act, the two Plans (3 activities) that have the 

potential for a discharge will be required to present 401 certification to the Forest Service prior to 

approval of those activities that could input sediment into navigable waters or Waters of the 

State. The two Plans with the potential for a discharge are Burnt Lode/Placer and Three Cent 

Placer. The three activites are 1) proposed road construction to Karissa site (Burnt Lode/Placer), 
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Record of Decision

ROD-22

2) suction dredging on Cub Creek (Burnt Lode/Placer), and 3) pond construction and use at 

processing site 2 (Three Cent Placer). 

The Organic Administration Act of 1897

The Selected alternative will meet and conform to the Organic Administration Act by 

minimizing adverse environmental impacts as required by regulations, and ensuring that mining 

operators comply with water quality standards by 1) incorporating Site-specific BMPs or Water 

Quality Protection Measures (WQPMs) to each Plan, and 2) requiring operations with activities 

that have a potential for discharge to submit 401 certification to the Forest Service prior to Plan 

approval and commencement of those mining activities.

Wetlands and Floodplains

Wetlands were not evaluated in the Supplement because no proposed activities would take place 

within wetlands (Supplement, Chapter 3, Watershed and Soil Resources). Executive Order 

11988 (Protection of Floodplains) requires government agencies to take actions that reduce the 

risk of loss due to floods, to minimize the impact of floods on human health and welfare, and to 

restore and preserve the natural and beneficial values served by floodplains. Executive Order 

11988 defines the term “floodplain” as follows: “...that area subject to a one percent or greater 

change of flooding in any given year.” 

Stream discharge data is limited in this watershed and so flood frequency data is also limited. 

The only stream gage in the area is located on the NFBR near Whitney. The gage collected data 

from 1964 to 1999. Data on this gage are now being collected by the Baker County 

Watermaster’s office/Oregon Department of Water Resources under contract to the U. S. Forest 

Service. The data are collected for 6 months each year. As such, there is not sufficient data in 

the record to determine the magnitude of the 100-year flow event. However, flows have been 

observed that partially flood Whitney Valley (R. Lusk, per. comm. 12/9/08). Therefore, it is 

probable that the valley floor (historically, the active floodplain) found along many of the 

streams in this watershed have at least a one percent chance each year of being flooded. 

Under Alternative 4, the Forest Service Site-specific WQPMs (Appendix 1A) and General 

Requirements (Appendix 2) protect the active floodplain, the stream banks, and the valley floor 

terrace banks by restricting mining activities to the valley floor (100 year or less floodplain). 

The General Requirements also minimize the effects to the valley floor by limiting the size of the 

area disturbed, the amount of riparian vegetation impacted at any one time, and by requiring 

reclamation plans that fill in holes and reseed and/or replant the area disturbed. These activities 

help restore and preserve the natural and beneficial values served by the 100 year or less 

floodplains. 

Consultation with Indian Tribes/Protection of Treaty Resources 

The Forest Service, through the Secretary of Agriculture, is vested with statutory authority and 

responsibility for managing resources of the National Forests. Commensurate with the authority 

and responsibility to manage is the obligation to consult, cooperate, and coordinate with Indian 

tribes in developing and planning management decisions regarding resources on National Forest 

system land that may affect tribal rights.

The NFBR Mining project planning area lies within the interest areas of the Nez Perce Tribe and 

the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation (CTUIR).
Record of Decision NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

ROD-23

Elements of respective Indian cultures, such as tribal welfare, land, and resources were 

sometimes entrusted to the United States government as a result of treaties. Trust responsibilities 

resulting from treaties dictate, in part, that the United States government facilitate the execution 

of treaty rights and traditional cultural practices of Indians by working with them on a 

government to government basis in a manner that attempts a reasonable accommodation of their 

needs, without compromising the legal positions of the respective tribes or the federal 

government. Specific treaty rights applicable to the land base managed by the WWNF are 

generally articulated in Article III of the 1855 Nez Perce Treaty, as follows:

“The exclusive right of taking fish in all the streams where running through or bordering said 

reservation is further secured to said Indians: as also the right of taking fish at all usual and 

accustomed places in common with citizens of the territory, and of erecting temporary buildings 

for curing, together with the privilege or hunting, gathering roots and berries, and pasturing 

their horses and cattle upon open and unclaimed land.”

And as part of Article I of the 1855 Walla Walla, Cayuse, and Umatilla Treaty, as follows:

“Provided, also, That the exclusive right of taking fish in the streams running through and 

bordering said reservation is herby secured to said Indians, and at all other usual and 

accustomed stations in common with citizens of the United states, and of erecting suitable 

buildings for curing the same; the privilege of hunting, gathering roots and berries and 

pasturing their stock on unclaimed lands in common with citizens, is also secured to them.” 

For this project, a government-to-government scoping letter was sent to tribal staff members of 

the Nez Perce Tribe, the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Indian Reservations and the 

Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation on February 23, 2007, informing them 

of the NFBR Mining supplemental analysis and requesting any comment or concerns. The 

project was also included in the WWNF Program of Work presentations to the CTUIR 

throughout the analysis process. No specific comments were received from the tribes for the 

supplemental analysis.

General concerns received from tribal staff members on previous projects reflect the following:

• Potential effects to archaeological and traditional properties and traditional food

resources.

• Potential effects to water quality.

• Potential effects to fish habitat, including salmonid species federally listed asthreatened 

or endangered under ESA.

• Potential effects to wildlife habitat, including elk security.

• Potential effects to economic recovery.

• Potential effects to treaty rights.

Because tribal trust activities often occur in common with the public, the WWNF will strive to 

manage tribal ceded land to enable the execution of tribal rights, as far as practicable, while still 

providing goods and services to all people.

Implementation

Prior to implementation of the Plans, each miner must submit a signed Plan which incorporates 

the requirements identified in the decision to minimize adverse environmental effects resulting 

from the operations, and must post a reclamation bond specific to their Plan. Any Plans with 
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Record of Decision

ROD-24

activities requiring 401 certification will present the certification to the Forest Service prior to 

approval and commencement of that mining activity included in the Plan. Any additional terms 

and conditions included in the 401 certificate will be incorporated into the Plan.

Procedure for Change During Implementation

Minor changes may be needed during implementation to better meet on-site resource 

management protection objectives.

In determining whether and what kind of further NEPA action is required, the Responsible 

Official will consider the criteria for whether to supplement an existing environmental impact 

statement in 40 CFR 1502.9(c) and FSH 1909.15, sec. 18, and in particular, whether the 

proposed change is a substantial change to the intent of the Selected Alternative as planned and 

already approved, and whether the change is relevant to environmental concerns. Connected or 

interrelated proposed changes regarding particular areas or specific activities will be considered 

together in making this determination. The cumulative impacts of these changes will also be 

considered. 

Administrative Appeals

This decision is subject to appeal pursuant to Forest Service regulations at 36 CFR 215.7. 

Written notice of appeal must be postmarked or received by the Regional Forester, Appeal

Deciding Officer, USDA Forest Service, 333 SW First Avenue Portland, OR 97204 within 45 

days of the date of publication of the notice for this decision in the Baker City Herald (Baker 

City, Oregon). Individuals or organizations who have expressed interest in the North Fork Burnt 

River Mining Project may file an appeal. The appeal must meet the content requirements of 36 

CFR 215.14 "Appeal Content”: 

• The appeal must state that the document is an appeal pursuant to 36 CFR 215; 

• The name, address, and telephone number (if applicable) of the appellant must be 

included, and must identify the decision by title, subject, date of decision, and name and 

title of the Responsible Official;

• The appeal narrative must be sufficient to identify the specific change(s) to the decision 

sought by the appellant or portions of the decision to which the appellant objects, and 

must state how the Responsible Official’s decision fails to consider comments previously 

provided; and 

• If applicable, the appeal should state how the appellant believes this decision violates 

law, regulation, or policy. 

Appeals (including attachments) may be filed by regular mail, fax, e-mail, hand delivery, express 

delivery, or messenger service. The publication date of the notice for this decision in the 

newspaper of record is the sole means of calculating the appeal-filing deadline, and those 

wishing to appeal should not rely on dates or timelines from any other source. 

E-mail appeals must be submitted to: appeals-pacificnorthwest-regional-office@fs.fed.us, and 

must be in one of the following three formats: Microsoft Word, rich text format (rtf) or Adobe 

Portable Document Format (pdf). Electronic appeals must be submitted only to the e-mail 

address shown above as part of the actual email message, or as an attachment in Microsoft Word, 

rich text format or Adobe portable document format only. E-mails in other formats or containing 

viruses will be rejected. Note in the subject line the name of the project and that it is an appeal. 
Record of Decision NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

ROD-25

Fax appeals must be submitted to: 503-808-2339. Appeals may be hand-delivered to the 

Resource Planning and Monitoring Office, 333 SW First Ave., Portland, Oregon 97204 between 

8:30 AM and 4:30 PM Monday-Friday. 

It is the responsibility of all individuals and organizations to ensure their appeals are received in 

a timely manner. For electronically mailed appeals, the sender should normally receive an 

automated electronic acknowledgement from the agency as confirmation of receipt. If the sender 

does not receive an automated acknowledgement of the receipt of the appeal, it is the sender’s 

responsibility to ensure timely receipt by other means.

The scope of appeals to this decision is limited to the analyses, conclusions, determinations and 

findings contained in the 2012 Supplement and in this Supplemental ROD.

Miners who have Plans included in this North Fork Burnt River Mining supplemental analysis 

are entitled to appeal under 36 CFR 251, which is the normal appeal means available for agency 

actions taken with respect to permitted activities. Miners are entitled to appeal this decision 

under the 215 procedures or under the 251 procedures, but not both.

Notices of appeal filed under 36 CFR 251 must be fully consistent with 36 CFR 251.90, 

“Content of Notice of Appeal.” The notice of appeal must be filed with Kevin D. Martin, Acting 

Forest Supervisor as described in the previous paragraph. In addition a simultaneous copy of the 

notice of appeal must be filed with the Regional Forester, Appeal Deciding Officer, USDA 

Forest Service, 333 SW First Avenue Portland, OR 97204. Again, the appeal must be 

postmarked or delivered within 45 days of the date the Legal Notice for this decision appears in 

the Baker City Herald.

Electronic appeals must be submitted as part of the actual e-mail message, or as an attachment in 

Microsoft Word, rich text format, or portable document format only. E-mails submitted to email addresses other than the one listed above or in other formats than those listed or containing 

viruses will be rejected. Only individuals or organizations who submitted substantive comments 

during the comment period may appeal. 

Following completion of the appeal processes, the Forest Service will take the necessary steps in 

the District of Oregon to dissolve the 2007 injunction issued in HCPC 2006. This Project may be 

implemented as soon as the 2007 injunction issued in HCPC 2006 is lifted.
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Record of Decision

ROD-26

Contact Person

For additional information regarding this decision, please contact:

Sophia Millar, Team Leader

Wallowa Mountains Office

PO BOX 905

Joseph, OR 97846

(541) 263-1735

August 14, 2012

Jeff Tomac

Whitman District Ranger

Date

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest
Record of Decision Appendix A NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

ROD-27

Appendix A (of the ROD)
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Record of Decision Appendix A

ROD-28

Table R-1

Plans of Operations and comparison of Forest Service determination of potential for a 

discharge under Alternatives 2 and 4

Plan of 

Operations Sites Creek adjacent to

Activity of 

concern

Potential for Discharge

Alternative 2 Alternative 4

August Placer 1,2, 3 None No No

Big Elk/Red Dog Big Elk/Red 

Dog 

Dry Mining Yes No

Burnt Lode/Placer

1 (2 test holes –

part adjacent to 

NFBR)

NFBR Mining and 

proposed road Yes No

2 (“meadow” 

site – site 1)

None

No No

2 (pond site –

site 2)

None No No

2 (test site 3 on 

Cub Creek)

Cub Mining Yes No

2 (test site 4 on 

Cub Creek)

Cub Mining Yes No

2 (Cub Creek) Cub Suction 

dredging Yes Yes

3 (Karissa site) NFBR Proposed road 

building Yes Yes

Camp Hale Placer Camp Hale 

Placer

None No No

Dominion Lode 

Group

Dominion Lode 

Group

Tribs to NFBR Maintenance 

activities for 

some of the 

close roads in 

area of stream 

crossings

Yes No

E J Placer A, B, C, D, E NFBR Mining Yes No

Gimlet Placer Gimlet Placer Gimlet Mining Yes No

Glory B Placer Glory B Placer Jackknife No No

Gold Busters 

Placer

Gold Busters

Placer

Pinus No No

Gold Camp Placer

1 Camp Mining Yes No

2 Camp No No

3 None No No

Golden Bandit 

Placer/Lode

1 None No No

2 Unnamed trib to 

Pinus Creek

Mining Yes No

Goldy Placer & 

Millsite

Goldy Placer & 

Millsite

None

No No

Gopher Placer

1 (north of FS 

7830)

Simpson Mining Yes No

2 (south of FS 

7830)

Simpson Mining and 

maintenance 

activities for FS 

7380270

Yes No
Record of Decision Appendix A NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

ROD-29

Plan of 

Operations Sites Creek adjacent to

Activity of 

concern

Potential for Discharge

Alternative 2 Alternative 4

Jay Gould Lode –

(Banzer)

Jay Gould Lode 

– (Banzer)

Unnamed 

channel ends in 

wetland

Mining

Yes No

Jay Gould Mine 

Works (Newell)

Jay Gould Mine 

Works (Newell)

None

No No

Jim Bob Placer Jim Bob Placer NFBR Mining Yes No

Ladder/Rusty 

Bucket 

Ladder/Rusty 

Bucket 

None No No

Lucky One 

Placer/Lode

Lucky One 

Placer/Lode

Simpson No No

Lucky Placer Lucky Placer None No No

Midas/Lady Bug 

Placer

Midas/Lady 

Bug Placer

None

No No

Monarch

1 (main portal 

and also referred 

to as Monarch 

Mine Works 1)

Mosquito 

Waste material 

disposal on skid 

road up 

Mosquito Ck

Yes No

2 (test 

excavation)

None No No

4 (new millsite) None No No

Exploration drill 

sites

South Fk 

Gimlet 

Maintenance 

activities for 

decommissioned 

road FS 

1065250 as road 

is in or close to 

drainage. 

Related to 

possible road 

access needs for 

drilling 

exploration 

holes.

Yes No

North Fork Placer North Fork 

Placer

NFBR Mining Yes No

Old Channel Placer Old Channel 

Placer

None No No

Parkerville Placer

Mining

Parkerville 

Placer Mining

Small unnamed 

headwater trib 

to NFBR

Mining and use 

of pond just 

upstream of FS 

1046045

Yes No

Prudent Placer Prudent Placer NFBR Mining Yes No

R&RK 2,3 R&RK 2,3 NFBR Mining Yes No

R&RK 4, 5 R&RK 4, 5 NFBR Mining and ford Yes No

Racer 

Group/Keystone 

Korners Placer

Racer 

Group/Keystone 

Korners Placer

Geiser 

Mining, culvert 

installation, 

bridge building

Yes No

Roberts Lode Roberts Lode None No No

Rocker Group

Placer 

Rocker Group

Placer 

Greenhorn and 

Slab Mining Yes No
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Record of Decision Appendix A

ROD-30

Plan of 

Operations Sites Creek adjacent to

Activity of 

concern

Potential for Discharge

Alternative 2 Alternative 4

Shamrock Placer Shamrock 

Placer

NFBR Mining and ford Yes No

Silver Bell Placer

#2

Silver Bell 

Placer #2

Camp No No

Silver Eagle Lode Silver Eagle 

Lode

None No No

Sluice Box Placer Sluice Box 

Placer

NFBR Mining and ford Yes No

Snow Creek Placer Snow Creek 

Placer Snow 

Mining and road 

maintenance 

activities of 

closed roads FS 

1038400, 

1038401, and 

1035559 where 

close to creek

Yes No

Standby/NcNamee 

Placer

1 (upstream 

site)

McNamee 

Gulch 

road 

maintenance 

activities of 

decommissioned 

road FS 

1035125 where 

it crosses the 

creek

yes No

2 (downstream 

site)

McNamee 

Gulch 

Mining and ford Yes No

Star (Pinus) Placer

Star (Pinus) 

Placer

Pinus Mining and road 

maintenance 

activities of 

closed road 

7386430 where 

it crosses the 

creek

Yes No

Three Cent Placer

Processing site 

1

Three Cent No No

Processing site 

2

Three Cent Construction 

and use of 

proposed 

processing pond 

Yes Yes

Mining 1 (north 

of FS 1075 

road)/Processing 

site 3

Three Cent 

No No

Mining 2 (south 

of FS 1075 

road)

Three Cent 

No No

East East Three Cent No No

Red Dog Three Cent No No
Record of Decision Appendix A NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

ROD-31

Plan of 

Operations Sites Creek adjacent to

Activity of 

concern

Potential for Discharge

Alternative 2 Alternative 4

Upper Geiser 

Creek Placer/Lode

Processing site 

area

Geiser Processing Yes No

Portion 

alongside the 

creek between 

the junction 

with 1044060 

upstream to the 

portal.

Geiser 

Mining and road 

maintenance 

activities of 

closed road 

1044086 where 

it crosses the 

creek and FS 

1044065 where 

it comes close to 

creek, and 

decommissioned 

FS 1044051 

where it comes 

close to creek

Yes No

Upper Winterville 

Placer/Lode

Upper 

Winterville 

Placer/Lode

Trib to Geiser 

Mining and 

maintenance 

activities for 

decommissioned 

road FS 

10644045

Yes No

West Parkerville 

Placer

West Parkerville 

Placer

Unnamed 

tributary to 

NFBR

Mining

Yes No

Wild Flower Placer Wild Flower 

Placer

NFBR Ford Yes No
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Record of Decision Appendix A

ROD-32

Table R-2

Comparison of Plans of Operations by Alternatives 

Operation Name

Proposed Operations as Submitted by the 

Miners (Alternative 2)

Proposed Operations with BMPs 

(Alternative 4)

August Placer Equipment: Track hoe, backhoe, dump truck, 

dozer, trommel, sluice, pumps.

Activities: Exploration testing of placer gravels, 

processing, existing ponds outside RHCA, ditch 

maintenance, use of log bridge

Same as Alternative 2 with General 

Requirements G1-G26; H1-H12; F1-

F9; NW1-NW9; P1-P2; W1-W7; R1-

R7; R8-R24; and Site-Specific Water 

Quality Protection Measures 

(WQPMs)

Big Elk/Red Dog PL Proposed Equipment: Dozer, backhoe, excavator, 

dump truck, loader, trammel, pumps, generators

Activities: Gate installation, additional placer 

exploration and mining, new and existing settling 

ponds inside RHCA, use of existing ford

Same as Alternative 2 with General 

Requirements G1-G26; H1-H12; F1-

F9; NW1-NW9; P1-P2; W1-W7; R1-

R7; R8-R22; Z-Requirements, and

Site-Specific WQPMs

Burnt Lode/PL Equipment: Backhoe, dozer, trommel, pumps.

Activities: Testing and mining of placer gravels, 

processing, suction dredging, temporary road 

construction (approx. 2000 feet), and existing and 

proposed ponds inside RHCA.

Same as Alternative 2 except no 

suction dredging. Includes General 

Requirements G1-G26; H1-H12; F1-

F9; NW1-NW9; P1-P2; W1-W7; R1-

R7; R8-R22, and Site-Specific 

WQPMs

Camp Hale PL Equipment: Backhoe, dozer, trommel, pump.

Activities: Sampling with backhoe, processing, use 

of existing ponds outside RHCA.

Same as Alternative 2 with General 

Requirements G1-G26; H1-H12; F1-

F9; NW1-NW9; P1-P2; W1-W7; R1-

R7; R8-R22

Dominion Ld Group Equipment: Excavator, backhoe, dozer, mucker, 

generators, compressors.

Activities: Exploration/development, portal 

construction, trenching, drilling, road upgrade, use 

of proposed ponds outside of RHCA.

Same as Alternative 2 with General 

Requirements G1-G23; G25-G26; 

H1-H12; F1-F9; NW1-NW9; P1-P2; 

W1-W7; R1-R7; R8-R24; ZRequirements

EJ Placers Equipment: Excavator, dump truck, loader, 

trommel.

Activities: Testing of placer gravels, bulk sample, 

processing with use of an additional processing site 

and proposed pond construction within RHCA, use 

of existing concrete ford

Same as Alternative 2 with General 

Requirements G1-G26; H1-H12; F1-

F9; NW1-NW9; P1-P2; W1-W7; R1-

R7; R8-R22; Z-Requirements, and

Site-Specific WQPMs

Gimlet PL Equipment: Dozer, excavator, portable mill, 

generator, compressor, pumps.

Activities: Excavate and process placer gravels and 

old tailings. Proposed pond construction inside 

RHCA.

Same as Alternative 2 with General 

Requirements G1-G26; H1-H12; F1-

F9; NW1-NW9; P1-P2; W1-W7; R1-

R7; R8-R22, and Site-Specific 

WQPMs

Glory B PL Equipment: Backhoe or excavator, dozer, dump 

truck, trommel, pumps, generator.

Activities: Exploration pits, processing, existing 

and proposed pond construction within RHCA.

Same as Alternative 2 with General 

Requirements G1-G26; H1-H12; F1-

F9; NW1-NW9; P1-P2; W1-W7; 

R1-R7; R8-R22, and Site-Specific 

WQPMs

Gold Busters PL Equipment: Backhoe, trommel, high-bankers, 

sluice, pumps, generators.

Activities: Excavations in placer gravels, 

processing, and use of existing ponds inside 

RHCA.

Same as Alternative 2 with General 

Requirements G1-G26; H1-H12; F1-

F9; NW1-NW9; P1-P2; W1-W7; R1-

R7; R8-R22
Record of Decision Appendix A NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

ROD-33

Operation Name

Proposed Operations as Submitted by the 

Miners (Alternative 2)

Proposed Operations with BMPs 

(Alternative 4)

Gold Camp PL Equipment: Backhoe, dump truck, dozer, pumps, 

trommel, generator, high-bankers.

Activities: Testing and mining placer gravels, highbanking, processing, and use of existing ponds 

within RHCA.

Same as Alternative 2 with General 

Requirements G1-G26; H1-H12; F1-

F9; NW1-NW9; P1-P2; W1-W7; R1-

R7; R8-R22, and Site-Specific 

WQPMs

Golden Bandit 

PL/LD

Equipment: Core or rotary drill, trommel, impact 

mill, backhoe, dozer, pumps. 

Activities: Drilling (holes 50' or less), exploration 

testing of placer gravels, processing, and use of 

ponds outside RHCA.

Same as Alternative 2 with General 

Requirements G1-G26; H1-H12; F1-

F9; NW1-NW9; P1-P2; W1-W7; R1-

R7; R8-R22, and Site-Specific 

WQPMs

Goldy PL and Mill Equipment: Loader, trommel, pump, gold spinner, 

5-yd dump truck.

Activities:

Processing site for mining at Pyx and King 

Solomon Mines (Granite Creek watershed); process 

concentrates and mill tailings, exploration testing of 

placer gravels, use of settling ponds outside RHCA.

Same as Alternative 2 with General 

Requirements G1-G26; H1-H12; F1-

F9; NW1-NW9; P1-P2; W1-W7; R1-

R7; R8-R22

Gopher PL Equipment: Backhoe, dozer, small tractor, 

trommel, pumps.

Activities: Exploration testing, processing, use of 

settling ponds within RHCA.

Same as Alternative 2 with General 

Requirements G1-G26; H1-H12; F1-

F9; NW1-NW9; P1-P2; W1-W7; R1-

R7; R8-R22; Z-Requirements, and

Site-Specific WQPMs

Jay Gould LD 

(Banzer)

Equipment: Backhoe or excavator, mucker, dump 

truck, dozer, generators.

Activities: Clean and repair 2 portals, trenching, 

underground mining, milling done off site. Use of 

ponds within RHCA.

Same as Alternative 2 with General 

Requirements G1-G26; H1-H12; F1-

F9; NW1-NW9; P1-P2; W1-W7; R1-

R7; R8-R24, and Site-Specific 

WQPMs, 

Jay Gould Mine 

Works (Newell)

Equipment: Backhoe or excavator, mucker, dump 

truck, dozer, generators.

Activities: Clean and repair 2 portals, trenching, 

underground mining, milling done off site. Use of 

ponds within RHCA.

Same as Alternative 2 with General 

Requirements G1-G26; H1-H12; F1-

F9; NW1-NW9; P1-P2; W1-W7; R1-

R7; R8-R23; Z-Requirements

Jim Bob PL Equipment: Backhoe, trommel, sluice, pumps, 

hand tools.

Activities: Exploration test holes in placer gravels, 

processing, construct settling pond within RHCA, 

use of existing ford

Same as Alternative 2 with a General 

Requirements G1-G26; H1-H12; F1-

F9; NW1-NW9; P1-P2; W1-W7; R1-

R7; R8-R22, and Site-Specific 

WQPMs

Ladder, Rusty 

Bucket PL

Equipment: Backhoe, excavator, dozer, 2 5-yard 

dump trucks, wash plant, test plant, pumps.

Activities: Exploration testing and mining, 

processing, use of ponds outside RHCA.

Same as Alternative 2 with General 

Requirements G1-G26; H1-H12; F1-

F9; NW1-NW9; P1-P2; W1-W7; R1-

R7; R8-R24, and Site-Specific 

WQPMs

Lucky One PL/LD Equipment: Backhoe, dozer, dump truck, wash 

plant, pumps, generator.

Activities: Exploration testing in placer gravels, 

processing, repair or construct new settling ponds 

within RHCA, pipe water across Simpson Creek for 

use in settling ponds, road repair and construction 

(1000’) of temporary road, proposed log ford, 

reopen and sample existing adit, drill well.

Same as Alternative 2 with General 

Requirements G1-G26; H1-H12; F1-

F9; NW1-NW9; P1-P2; W1-W7; R1-

R7; R8-R24; Z-Requirements, and

Site-Specific WQPMs
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Record of Decision Appendix A

ROD-34

Operation Name

Proposed Operations as Submitted by the 

Miners (Alternative 2)

Proposed Operations with BMPs 

(Alternative 4)

Lucky PL Equipment: Excavator or backhoe, dump truck, 

wash plant, high-bankers, dozer.

Activities: Exploration testing in placer gravels, 

panning and high-banking in existing ponds outside 

RHCA, processing at Gold Busters site.

Same as Alternative 2 with General 

Requirements G1-G26; H1-H12; F1-

F9; NW1-NW9; P1-P2; W1-W7; R1-

R7; R8-R22; Z-Requirements

Midas/Lady Bug PL Equipment: Backhoe, sluice, wash plant, 3" highbanker.

Activities: Temporary check dam in stream, road 

repair; exploration and mining of placer gravels, 

processing, construct settling ponds outside RHCA.

Same as Alternative 2 with General 

Requirements G1-G26; H1-H12; F1-

F9; NW1-NW9; P1-P2; W1-W7; R1-

R7; R8-R22; Z-Requirements, and

Site-Specific WQPMs

Monarch LD Equipment: Backhoe or excavator, dump trucks, 

loader, dozer, generator, compressor, portable ball 

mills, jig, centrifugal concentrators, portable saw 

mill.

Activities: Milling with ball mill, construct settling 

ponds outside RHCA; exploration/testing, new 

portal and test portal construction, timber cutting 

and milling for portal, underground mining, 

trenching, phone line and road repair 

Same as Alternative 2 with General 

Requirements G1-G26; H1-H12; F1-

F9; NW1-NW9; P1-P2; W1-W7; R1-

R7; R8-R23; Z-Requirements

North Fork PL Equipment: Backhoe or excavator, dozer, trommel, 

dump truck, loader, pumps, generator.

Activities: Exploration testing and mining of placer 

gravels, processing, and use of settling ponds inside 

RHCA.

Same as Alternative 2 with General 

Requirements G1-G26; H1-H12; F1-

F9; NW1-NW9; P1-P2; W1-W7; R1-

R7; R8-R22, and 

Site-Specific WQPMs

Old Channel PL Equipment: Backhoe, dozer, loader, sluice.

Activities: Excavate and process placer gravels 

outside RHCA.

Same as Alternative 2 with General 

Requirements G1-G26; H1-H12; F1-

F9; NW1-NW9; P1-P2; W1-W7; R1-

R7; R8-R22

Parkerville PL 

Mining

Equipment: Backhoe, excavator, dozer, loader, 

dump truck, trommel, pumps, generator.

Activities:

Exploration & mining of placer gravels, processing, 

construction and use of 3 off-channel ponds outside 

RHCA. 

Same as Alternative 2 with General 

Requirements G1-G26; H1-H12; F1-

F9; NW1-NW9; P1-P2; W1-W7; 

R1-R7; R8-R22; Z-Requirements

Prudent PL Equipment: Backhoe or excavator, dozer, dump 

truck, trommel, pumps, generator.

Activities: Excavation of placer gravels, 

processing, and construction of settling pond 

outside RHCA.

Same as Alternative 2 with General 

Requirements G1-G26; H1-H12; F1-

F9; NW1-NW9; P1-P2; W1-W7; R1-

R7; R8-R22, and

Site-Specific WQPMs

R&RK #2, #3 PL Equipment: Backhoe, wash plant, pumps, 

generator.

Activities: Exploration testing of placer gravels, 

processing, construction of settling ponds inside 

RHCA, construction of 200’ of temporary road, use 

of existing fords

Same as Alternative 2 with General 

Requirements G1-G26; H1-H12; F1-

F9; NW1-NW9; P1-P2; W1-W7; R1-

R7; R8-R22, and

Site-Specific WQPMs

R&RK #4, #5 PL Equipment: Backhoe, trommel.

Activities: Excavation of placer gravels, and 

processing, pond construction within RHCA, use of 

existing ford

Same as Alternative 2 with additional 

General Requirements G1-G26; C1-

C5; H1-H12; F1-F9; NW1-NW9; P1-

P2; W1-W7; R1-R7; R8-R22, and

Site-Specific WQPMs
Record of Decision Appendix A NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

ROD-35

Operation Name

Proposed Operations as Submitted by the 

Miners (Alternative 2)

Proposed Operations with BMPs 

(Alternative 4)

Racer 

Group/Keystone 

Korners PL

Equipment: Wash plant, backhoe, dozer, dump 

truck, pumps, generator, hand tools.

Activities: Exploration testing in placer gravels, 

processing, construction of settling ponds within 

RHCA, road repair, 2 proposed temporary log 

bridges, and one proposed culvert 

Same as Alternative 2 EXCEPT the 

one proposed culvert and two 

proposed bridges REPLACED with 

three fords and has General 

Requirements G1-G26; H1-H12; F1-

F9; NW1-NW9; P1-P2; W1-W7; R1-

R7; R8-R22, and Site-Specific 

WQPMs. 

Roberts LD Equipment: Dozer, excavator, compressor.

Activities: Reopen and stabilize adit, underground 

mining including use of explosives, stockpiled ore 

on site, ore removed from site for processing, and 

close access road.

Same as Alternative 2 with General 

Requirements G1-G19; G22-G26; 

H1-H12; F1-F9; NW1-NW9; P1-P2; 

W1-W7; R1-R4; R6-R7; R8-R14; 

R16-R24, and Site-Specific WQPMs

Rocker Group PL Equipment: Backhoe or excavator, dozer, dump 

truck, trommel, pumps, generator.

Activities: Exploration and mining of placer 

gravels, processing, and use of settling ponds inside 

RHCA.

Same as Alternative 2 with General 

Requirements G1-G26; H1-H12; F1-

F9; NW1-NW9; P1-P2; W1-W7; R1-

R7; R8-R22, and Site-Specific 

WQPMs

Shamrock PL Equipment: Backhoe, dozer, trommel, pumps.

Activities: Exploration testing in placer gravels, 

processing, use of existing fords

Same as Alternative 2 with General 

Requirements G1-G26; H1-H12; F1-

F9; NW1-NW9; P1-P2; W1-W7; 

R1-R7; R8-R22, and

Site-Specific WQPMs

Silver Bell PL #2 Equipment: Generator, excavator, loader, trammel. 

Activities: Same as Alternative 1 without use of instream ponds, construct and use 4 off-channel 

ponds inside RHCA, install gates on 2 access roads.

Same as Alternative 2 with General 

Requirements G1-G26; H1-H12; F1-

F9; NW1-NW9; P1-P2; W1-W7; R1-

R7; R8-R22; Z-Requirements, and

Site-Specific WQPMs

Silver Eagle LD Equipment: Backhoe, dozer, dump truck, loader.

Activities: mining in existing dumps and open pits, 

on-site & off-site processing.

Same as Alternative 2 with General 

Requirements G1-G26; H1-H12; F1-

F9; NW1-NW9; P1-P2; W1-W7; R1-

R7; R8-R22; Z-Requirements

Sluice Box PL Equipment: Backhoe or excavator, trammel

Activities: Exploration testing upstream on both 

sides of river. Water source off-channel ponds or 

spring. Construction of ponds within RHCA. Use of 

existing fords.

Same as Alternative 2 with General 

Requirements G1-G26; H1-H12; F1-

F9; NW1-NW9; P1-P2; W1-W7; 

R1-R7; R8-R22, and

Site-Specific WQPMs

Snow Creek PL Equipment: Backhoe, dozer, trammel, generator, 

pumps, dump truck.

Activities: Additional mining and exploration 

testing along creek with 10-foot buffer, mining of 

flood channel and inland channel areas, additional 

testing excavations, use of ponds within RHCA, and 

one proposed ford

Same as Alternative 2 with General 

Requirements G1-G26; H1-H12; F1-

F9; NW1-NW9; P1-P2; W1-W7; R1-

R7; R8-R22; Z-Requirements

Standby/McNamee

PL

Equipment: Backhoe, wash plant, pumps.

Activities: exploration testing of placer gravels in 

existing and new pits, processing, use of settling 

ponds inside RHCA.

Same as Alternative 2 with General 

Requirements G1-G26; H1-H12; F1-

F9; NW1-NW9; P1-P2; W1-W7; R1-

R7; R8-R22; Z-Requirements, and

Site-Specific WQPMs
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Record of Decision Appendix A

ROD-36

Operation Name

Proposed Operations as Submitted by the 

Miners (Alternative 2)

Proposed Operations with BMPs 

(Alternative 4)

Star (Pinus) PL Equipment: Backhoe, hand tools.

Activities: Exploration testing in placer gravels, 

construction of ponds in RHCA, use of ford, 

processing on private land.

Same as Alternative 2 with General 

Requirements G1-G26; H1-H12; F1-

F9; NW1-NW9; P1-P2; W1-W7; R1-

R7; R8-R22; Z-Requirements, and 

Site-Specific WQPMs

Three Cent PL Equipment: Dozer, backhoe, excavator, dump 

truck, trammel

Activities: Exploration testing and mining of placer 

gravels, along with mining and processing in Three 

Cent Placer/East area, pond repair and construction 

within RHCA, water well, pipeline.

Same as Alternative 2 with General 

Requirements G1-G26; H1-H12; F1-

F9; NW1-NW9; P1-P2; W1-W7; R1-

R7; R8-R22, and Site-Specific 

WQPMs

Upper Geiser Creek 

PL/LD

Equipment: Backhoe or excavator, loader, dump 

truck.

Activities: Exploration testing along Geiser Creek 

and ridge area west of creek, processing at Upper 

Geiser processing site, use of ponds outside RHCA, 

and one proposed ford

Same as Alternative 2 with General 

Requirements G1-G26; H1-H12; F1-

F9; NW1-NW9; P1-P2; W1-W7; R1-

R7; R8-R22; Z-Requirements, and

Site-Specific WQPMs

Upper Winterville 

PL/LD

Equipment: Backhoe or excavator, loader, dump 

truck.

Activities: Exploration testing of placer gravels, 

processing at Upper Geiser processing site, use of 

ponds outside RHCA, and use of existing fords

Same as Alternative 2 with General 

Requirements G1-G19; G22-G26; 

H1-H12; F1-F9; NW1-NW9; P1-P2; 

W1-W7; R1-R4; R6-R7; R8-R14; 

R16-R22; Z-Requirements, and

Site-Specific WQPMs

West Parkerville PL Equipment: Backhoe or excavator, dump truck.

Activities: Exploration testing of placer gravels and 

old channels, processing at adjacent Parkerville site 

(private land), with settling ponds on NFS, existing 

ponds cleaned and repaired, construction of ponds 

in RHCA.

Same as Alternative 2 with General 

Requirements G1-G26; H1-H12; F1-

F9; NW1-NW9; P1-P2; W1-W7; R1-

R7; R8-R22, and

Site-Specific WQPMs

Wild Flower PL Equipment: Backhoe or excavator, dump truck, 

pumps, generator, hand tools.

Activities: Excavations of placer gravels, 

processing, use of settling ponds in RHCA, and use 

of existing ford.

Same as Alternative 2 with General 

Requirements G1-G26; H1-H12; F1-

F9; NW1-NW9; P1-P2; W1-W7; R1-

R7; R8-R22

Table R-3

Operations Proposing Road Construction under Alternative 4

Plan of Operations Creek Nonsystem Mine Access roads proposed for construction

Burnt Lode/Placer 3 

(Karissa)

NFBR The miner proposes to construct a road along an abandoned ditch to 

access his site. The ditch would be accessed via 1042074 (Sluice 

Box Placer access road). New road would be approximately 2000 

feet (as measured off the 7.5 minute USGS Greenhorn Quad).

Lucky One Placer Simpson Creek 

(section with 

perennial flow)

1000 feet of proposed road from the east side of the creek to the adit, 

grading down to the hillside, ending 30 ft. from the creek. 

R&RK 2, 3 NFBR 200 feet of proposed road on the south side of the river. The road 

would be accessed by the most upstream ford.
Record of Decision Appendix A NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

ROD-37

Table R-4

Operations proposing use or construction of Fords, Bridges, and Culverts under 

Alternative 4

Plan of Operations Creek Fords

Big Elk/Red Dog Dry Creek 1 existing ford. Miner proposes to cross when the channel 

is dry. 

EJ Placer 1, 2, 3 NFBR 1 existing concrete ford. 

Jim Bob Placer NFBR 

(perennial flow)

2 existing fords. 1 ford crosses the NFBR. Another 

seasonal ford crosses an overflow channel on the south side. 

Lucky One Placer Simpson Creek 

(perennial flow)

1 proposed ford. Ford crosses through a mix of wetland and 

narrow creekbed (2-3 feet wide). Miner proposes to place 

logs in stream and wetland for crossing, and rock from the 

adit to the log crossing (east side), since this area is wet. 

The west side of the access route at the log crossing 

approach would also be rocked. The steeper bank on the 

west side would be pulled back so that the access into the 

ford is gentle. 

R&RK 2,3 NFBR 3 existing fords.

R&RK 4, 5 NFBR 

(perennial flow)

1 existing ford. 

Racer Group/Keystone Korners 

Placer

Geiser Creek 

(perennial flow)

Proposed culvert and two proposed bridges REPLACED 

with three fords.

Shamrock Placer NFBR 2 existing fords. 

Sluice Box Placer NFBR 2 existing fords. Ford 1 is located at the base of the access

road. Ford 2 crosses the NFBR. 

Snow Creek Placer Snow Creek 1 proposed ford.

Standby/McNamee Placer 2 

(downstream site)

McNamee Gulch 1 proposed ford. 

Upper Geiser Creek 

Placer/Lode

Geiser Creek 1 proposed ford. 

Upper Winterville Placer/Lode 

(northern portion)

Winterville Creek 

(intermittent flow)

1 existing ford. 

Upper Winterville Placer/Lode 

(southern portion)

Winterville Creek 

(intermittent flow)

2 existing fords. 

Wild Flower Placer NFBR 1 existing ford. 
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Record of Decision Appendix A

ROD-38

Table R-5

Plans of Operations with Existing or Proposed Ponds in Alternative 4

Plan of Operations

Creek/INFISH

buffer

Existing Ponds 

(Yes/None)

Proposed Ponds 

(Yes/None)

August Placer 1, 2, 3 None Yes. Outside RHCA None

Big Elk/Red Dog Trib to Dry Ck/50 

feet

Yes. Inside RHCA Yes. Inside RHCA

Burnt Lode/Placer NFBR/300 feet Yes. Inside RHCA Yes. Inside RHCA

Camp Hale Placer None Yes. Outside RHCA None

Dominion Lode Group None None Yes. Outside RHCA

EJ Placer NFBR/300 feet None Yes. Inside RHCA

Gimlet Placer Gimlet Creek/300 

feet 

None Yes. Inside RHCA

Glory B Placer Jackknife Ck/50 feet None Yes. Inside RHCA

Gold Busters Placer Pinus Ck/300 feet Yes. Inside RHCA None

Gold Camp Placer (1, 2, and 3) Camp Ck/300 feet Yes. Inside RHCA 

(sites 1 and 2) and 

outside RHCA (site 3)

None

Golden Bandit Placer/Lode (1 and 2) None Yes. Outside RHCA None

Goldy Placer & Millsite None None Yes. Outside RHCA

Gopher Placer 1 (north of FS 7830) Simpson Ck/50 feet Yes. Inside RHCA None

Gopher Placer 2 (south of FS 7830) Simpson Ck/150 feet Yes. Inside RHCA None

Jay Gould Lode (Banzer) Unnamed channel 

ends in wetland/50 

feet

Yes. Inside RHCA None

Jay Gould Mine Works (Newell) Gimlet trib None. Yes. Outside RHCA

Jim Bob Placer NFBR/300 feet Yes. Inside RHCA Yes. Inside RHCA

Ladder/Rusty Bucket None None Yes. Outside RHCA

Lucky One Placer/Lode Simpson Ck/150 feet None Yes. Outside RHCA

Lucky Placer None Yes. Outside RHCA None

Midas/Lady Bug Placer None None Yes. Outside RHCA

Monarch Lode (sites 1, 2, 4) None None Yes. Outside RHCA

North Fork Placer NFBR/300 feet Yes. Inside RHCA None

Old Channel Placer None Yes. Outside RHCA None

Parkerville Placer Mining Unnamed trib to 

NFBR/50 feet

Yes. Inside RHCA Yes. Inside RHCA

Prudent Placer NFBR/300 feet Yes. Inside RHCA None

R&RK 2,3 NFBR/300 feet Yes. Inside RHCA Yes. Inside RHCA

R&RK 4, 5 NFBR/300 feet None Yes. Inside RHCA

Racer Group/Keystone Korners 

Placer

Geiser Ck/300 feet None Yes. Inside RHCA

Roberts Lode None None None

Rocker Group Placer Greenhorn Ck/300 

feet; Slab Creek/50 

feet

Yes. Inside RHCA None

Shamrock Placer NFBR/300 feet None Yes. Inside RHCA

Silver Bell Placer #2 Camp Ck/150 feet Yes. Inside RHCA Yes. Inside RHCA

Silver Eagle Lode None None Yes. Outside RHCA

Sluice Box Placer NFBR/300 feet Yes. Inside RHCA None

Snow Creek Placer Snow Ck/300 feet Yes. Inside RHCA None

Standby/McNamee Placer 1 

(upstream site)

McNamee Gulch/50 

feet

Yes. Outside RHCA None
Record of Decision Appendix A NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

ROD-39

Plan of Operations

Creek/INFISH

buffer

Existing Ponds 

(Yes/None)

Proposed Ponds 

(Yes/None)

Standby/McNamee Placer 2 

(downstream site)

McNamee Gulch/150 

feet

Yes. Outside RHCA None

Star (Pinus) Pinus Creek (300 ft) None Yes. Inside RHCA

Three Cent Placer Processing 1 Three Cent Ck/150 

feet

Yes. Inside RHCA None

Three Cent Placer Processing 2 Three Cent Ck/50 

feet

None Yes. Inside RHCA

Three Cent Placer Mining 

1/Processing 3

None Yes. Outside RHCA None

Upper Geiser Creek Placer/Lode

(processing site)

Geiser Creek/300 feet Yes. Inside RHCA None

Upper Winterville Placer/Lode (south 

of private lands)

Winterville Creek/50 

feet

None. Processing will 

occur at the Upper 

Geiser Creek 

Placer/Lode

None

West Parkerville Placer Unnamed tributary to 

NFBR/300 feet

None Yes. Inside RHCA

Wild Flower Placer NFBR/300 feet Yes. Inside RHCA Yes. Inside RHCA

Table R-6

Annual Inspection Items for Mining Operations

Inspection Item Action

Equipment and Structures List sizes and take photos of all 

Earthwork A) Excavations (testing and mining hole sizes and note 

if current work)

B) Processing site (size of compacted area not including 

settling ponds)

C) Settling ponds (sizes, if they are holding water, if 

they have been cleaned out, and if there is vegetation)

D) Camp area (size of area being compacted by 

camping)

E) Roads (lengths of any accesses to sites, condition)

Water List if there are any overflows, muddy water, distance of 

workings to water, etc.

Weeds List if there are weeds, identify if possible, take picture 

if you are unsure, take a measurement of area, and GPS

Access List all the roads and numbers to get to the site

Sketch Map Include conversations, any campers on site, any other 

uses of sites for records. This is also an area for photo 

references from the sketch map. Also list any noncompliance issues.
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Record of Decision Appendix A

ROD-40

Table R-7

Alternative 4 Road Management Proposals

(as corrected and adjusted per this supplemental analysis)

Road # Length (miles) NFBR Supplement Proposal Alt 4

(Change in Status) Subwatershed

1000364 0.44 Open to Closed E

1000365 0.21 Open to Closed E

1000369 0.07 Open to Closed E

1000378 0.27 Open to Closed F

1035559 0.04 Open to Closed G

1035561 0.16 Open to Closed G

1035562 0.09 Open to Closed G

1038302 0.09 Open to Closed G

1038303 0.11 Open to Closed G

1038304 0.09 Open to Closed G

1044045 0.62 Closed to Decommissioned G

1044051 1.33 Open to Decommissioned G

1044065 0.5 Closed to Decommissioned G

1044070 0.26 Closed to Decommissioned G

1044086 0.19 Open to Decommissioned G

1046035 0.21 Open to Closed G

1055113 1.09 Closed to Decommissioned F

1055115 0.66 Open to Decommissioned F

1055117 0.39 Open to Decommissioned F

1055306 0.29 Open to Closed F

1060128 0.45 Open to Closed F

1060203 0.16 Open to Closed F

1060269 0.29 Closed to Decommissioned F

1065120 0.18 Closed to Decommissioned F

1065140 0.53 Closed to Decommissioned F

1065300 0.47 Closed to Decommissioned F

1065910 0.21 Closed to Decommissioned F

1075071 0.18 Open to Closed D

1075077 0.41 Open to Closed D

1900400 0.39 Closed to Decommissioned F

1900424 0.87 Open to Closed F

7380240 0.8 Open to Closed F

7380270 0.16 Open to Closed F
Summary of the 

Supplement

Summary of the FSEIS NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

S-1

North Fork Burnt River Mining Summary of the 

Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

This Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (Supplement) addresses the 

inadequacies identified by the District of Oregon in Hells Canyon Preservation Council et al. v. 

Haines, CV 05-1057-PK, August 4, 2006 (HCPC 2006). This Supplement re-analyzes and 

discloses the potential site-specific environmental effects of proposals to authorize mining Plans 

of Operations within the North Fork Burnt River Mining Analysis Area. The analysis includes 42 

Plans of Operations and covers approximately 106,500 acres on the Whitman Ranger District of 

the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest. Refer to Chapter 1, Map1, Vicinity Map.

This Supplement includes only new or modified information from the 2004 FEIS, and will result 

in a new Record of Decision (2012 ROD) that will be signed by the Whitman District Ranger 

(Responsible Official). The 2004 ROD included some components for which the decision was 

not challenged by HCPC 2006 (e.g. road management activities). Because those decisions were 

already made, those components will not be included in the 2012 ROD for this Supplement.

Location and Overview of the Area

The North Fork Burnt River (NFBR) Watershed (approximately 106,500 acres) is located in the 

Blue Mountains of Eastern Oregon and is within the administrative boundaries of the Whitman 

Ranger District of the WWNF. It lies to the northwest of the town of Unity, Oregon, in Baker 

County (see Vicinity Map, Supplement Chapter 1).

The legal description for the watershed is: 

Township 9 South, Range 351⁄2 and 36 East 

Township 10 South, Range 35, 351⁄2, 36, and 37 East

Township 11 South, Range 36 and 37 East

Township 12 South, Range 36 and 37 East, Willamette Meridian.

The NFBR is a tributary to the Burnt River, which is a tributary to the Snake River. The NFBR 

originates near Greenhorn Mountain, 25 miles northwest of the town of Unity, Oregon.

Structure of the Supplement

Portions of the 2004 FEIS that were modified or replaced are identified and described in a 

shaded area, with reference to where the original text can be found in the 2004 FEIS.

Purpose and Need for Action

The purpose and need for the Supplement is to address specific inadequacies identified by HCPC 

2006. Supplemental environmental analysis is necessary be responsive to the 2006 Court Order 

and Opinion and 2007 Court Injunction.
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Summary of the FSEIS

S-2

Proposed Action 

Replace this section of the 2004 FEIS with the following:

The proposed action (Alternative 2) is based on the plans as submitted by the miners. The 

proposed action would authorize the approval of current, new, or modified Plans for 42 mining 

claims in the NFBR Watershed, pending receipt of 401 certifications, where a potential discharge 

has been identified by this analysis. The proposed action does not include any Forest Service 

site-specific Water Quality Protection Measures (WQPMs) or General Requirements. The Plans 

of Operations and proposed activities included in this alternative are listed in Chapter 2, Table 2-

1. Table 2-1 summarizes each Plan’s proposed activities and equipment under this alternative. A 

map displaying the location of each operation can be found at the end of Chapter 2.

Issues

Change Indicator 2, Key Issue 1, Water Quality, Chapter 1, page 19 of the 2004 FEIS to the 

following:

2. The number of operations that have the potential to discharge into navigable waters.

Change Key Issue 3, Access/Road Densities, Chapter 1, page 20 of the 2004 FEIS to add the 

following indicator:

3. Open road densities by Management Area within subwatersheds.

Alternatives Considered in Detail

This section clarifies which alternatives are analyzed in this Supplement.

This Supplement addresses the inadequacies identified by HCPC 2006 in addressing impacts 

from Alternative 4 (the selected alternative from the 2004 NFBR Mining ROD). Alternative 2 

(the miner’s proposal) is provided in this Supplement as a basis for comparison of the effects of 

Alternative 4. Therefore, Alternatives 1 and 3 will not be further discussed in this 

Supplement.

• Alternative 2: Proposed Plans of Operations (Proposed Action) – This alternative 

describes and evaluates the 42 Plans of Operations as submitted by the miners.

• Alternative 4: Proposed Plans of Operations with Forest Service BMPs – This 

alternative includes the same Plans of Operations as Alternative 2 with the following 

additions:

The 2004 ROD included components of Alternative 4 that were 

not challenged by HCPC 2006 (e.g. road management 

activities). However, all components of Alternative 4 are 

included here for consistency and clarity, as well as 

corrected/updated information from the supplemental analysis.
Summary of the FSEIS NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

S-3

1. Additional road management activities (maintenance, reconstruction, closure and 

decommissioning). 

2. Additional Forest Service Best Management Practices (BMPs) in the form of 1) “SiteSpecific Water Quality Protection Measures (WQPMs)” and 2) “General Requirements”. 

These BMPs are added to the Plans submitted by the miners to eliminate the potential for 

a discharge into navigable waters, and to ensure compliance with the Forest Plan 

standards and guidelines, including INFISH MM1 and MM2. 

Elements Common to Alternatives 2 and 4

This section in the 2004 FEIS, Chapter 2, pg. 2, has been replaced with the following:

Elements common to action Alternatives 2 and 4 include the following:

1. When a proposed Plan has been identified by the district hydrologist as having the 

potential for a discharge, 401 certification must be presented to the Forest Service prior to 

Plan approval and commencement of mining activities included in the Plan. Any

additional terms and conditions included in the 401 certificate will be incorporated into 

the Plan.

2. Any closed or decommissioned roads that are authorized for reconstruction or use in an 

approved Plan of Operations must be closed or decommissioned at the completion of 

operations or at the expiration of approval of the Plan.

3. Approval of all Plans expire 10-years from the date of approval. Approval may be 

extended if they are operating within its terms and NEPA compliance is still adequate and 

current at the time of extension.

Preferred Alternative

Alternative 4 is the agency preferred alternative.
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Summary of the FSEIS

S-4
Changes from

Draft to Final SEIS

NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Changes from Draft to Final SEIS

C-1

NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

Changes from Draft to Final SEIS

Many of the changes made between the NFBR Mining Draft SEIS and Final SEIS were minor in 

nature and focused on grammatical corrections, editorial formatting, and clarification of data 

previously presented. The changes were driven by public comment and a comprehensive internal 

review. 

Other changes include:

Changes Made in Final SEIS Location in Draft SEIS

2012 ROD only addresses what was found inadequate by the District 

Court of Oregon (HCPC 2006) in the 2004 ROD. The Supplement 

clarifies the scope of analysis to only address inadequacies identified 

in HCPC 2006, and to incorporate new or updated information since 

2004. New and updated information not responsive to the 

inadequacies identified in HCPC 2006 are now found in Appendix 

12. 

Introduction

Clarified what was already approved in 2004 ROD (not challenged 

in HCPC 2006), and what will be included in 2012 ROD. 

Introduction

Focus of Supplement on Alternatives 2 and 4

Alternatives 1 and 3 of the 2004 FEIS are not responsive to the 

inadequacies identified by HCPC 2006 in addressing impacts from 

Alternative 4 (the selected alternative from the 2004 NFBR Mining 

ROD). Therefore, only Alternative 2 (the miner’s proposal) is 

provided in this Supplement as a basis for comparison of the effects 

of Alternative 4. For the above reasons, Alternatives 1 and 3 were 

not discussed in this Supplement.

All Chapters
Changes from Draft to Final SEIS NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

C-2

Changes Made in Final SEIS Location in Draft SEIS

Forest Plan Amendment and Open Road Densities

The Final SEIS differs from the Draft SEIS in its calculation of open 

road densities and the need for a Forest Plan Amendment. Unlike 

the Draft SEIS, a Forest Plan Amendment for open road densities is 

no longer included in Alternative 4 of the Final SEIS. 

After further review of all Forest Plan direction for open road 

densities, the Responsible Official determined that the 2004 NFBR 

FEIS erroneously included a need to identify warranted exceptions 

to meeting the open road densities. Although some Management 

Areas exceeded the specified Forest Plan open road density

guideline, the NFBR Mining project proposals 1) did not add new 

open roads to the watershed, and 2) authorized closure and 

decommissioning of 7.7 miles of open roads (Alternative 4), moving 

the watershed towards Forest Plan direction. 

The Responsible Official determined that all alternatives, including 

the proposed action, comply with the Forest Plan and therefore that 

no plan amendments are needed to meet Forest Plan direction. 

It was also determined that it was inappropriate to include the 

analysis of open road densities for Forest Plan compliance in the 

Wildlife Habitat section of the Draft SEIS, because the Forest Plan 

direction for calculating open road densities is limited to 

Management Areas within Subwatersheds (MA/SWS), which is not 

how wildlife use the landscape. New scientific techniques (Distance 

Band Analysis) were used to provide a more accurate estimation of 

effects to terrestrial wildlife species from roads. The wildlife 

analysis includes a Habitat Effectiveness Indicator (HEI) analysis to 

comply with Forest Plan direction, and a Distance Band analysis 

(new science), both of which consider the impacts of roads on 

terrestrial wildlife species. Therefore, the analysis of open road 

densities by MA/SWS for Forest Plan compliance is limited to the 

Access/Transportation of Chapter 3 of the Final SEIS.

Introduction: Evaluation 

of Open Road Densities

Chapter 2: G. 

Alternative 3, H. 

Alternative 4

Chapter 3: 

C. Access/Transportation 

System,

E. Wildlife Habitat

In the Introduction, the Responsible Official was changed from the 

Forest Supervisor to the Whitman District Ranger. This change 

occurred because a Forest Plan amendment is no longer included in 

the Decision, therefore, a Forest Supervisor’s signature is not 

required.

Introduction
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Changes from Draft to Final SEIS

C-3

Changes Made in Final SEIS Location in Draft SEIS

The Decision to be Made was clarified to explain that only those 

components of the 2004 FEIS that were challenged by the court of 

Oregon in 2006 will be included in the 2012 ROD for this 

Supplemental analysis. All road management proposals included in 

the 2004 FEIS were approved in the 2004 ROD. This includes all 

maintenance, reconstruction, closures and decommissionings 

presented in Alternative 4 of the 2004 FEIS. However, the actual 

miles of road closed or decommissioned under Alternative 4 have 

been adjusted in this supplemental analysis due to errors found in the 

original 2004 analysis (many roads already had previous NEPA 

decisions for closure or decommissioning) . This is explained in the 

Introduction of the FSEIS. These corrected miles are presented in 

the description of Alternative 4 in Chapter 2 and in the 

Access/Transportation System section of Chapter 3, even though the 

decision for the road closures and decommissionings was already 

made in the 2004 ROD.

Chapter 1: F1. Decision 

to be Made

Chapter 2: H. 

Alternative 4

Chapter 3: C. 

Access/Transportation 

System

In response to ODEQ comments 100 and 103 (Appendix 10), 

removed discussion of 600 permit from the Introduction of the Draft 

SEIS. 

Introduction

Updated information for Goshawk, Pileated Woodpecker, American 

Marten and Primary Cavity Excavators was added to Appendix 12 of 

the Final SEIS.

Chapter 2: I. Monitoring 

Under Alternatives 3 and 

4 Chapter 3: E.2(c),10. 

Updated analysis of redband trout MIS and RMOs, including MM6, 

was added to Appendix 12 of the Final SEIS. MM1 and MM2 

discussed in Watershed And Soils Resources section of Chapter 3 in 

the Final SEIS.

Chapter 3: B.2(b), 

Alternative 4

Comment Period paragraph was added to Chapter 1, Section H.1 –

Public Involvement

Chapter 1: H.1 – Public 

Involvement

Decision to be Made was clarified and edited to exclude a Forest 

Plan Amendment for open road density guidelines in Chapter 1: F.1 

of the Final SEIS

Chapter 1: F.1 –

Decision to be Made

Added Table 2-5 to display proposed road management activities 

under Alternative 4.

Chapter 2: K

Added Map 4 to display location of adjusted road closures and 

decommissioning under Alternative 4

N/A

Golden Bandit operation - potential for a discharge under Alt. 2 

changed from No to Yes. Table is now #2-6 in the Final SEIS. 

Chapter 2: K, Table 2-5
Changes from Draft to Final SEIS NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

C-4

Changes Made in Final SEIS Location in Draft SEIS

Global change: Discharge of a pollutant changed to “discharge” 

throughout entire Final SEIS. This is explained on page 2 of the 

Introduction of the Final SEIS.

Throughout Chapters 1, 

2 and 3.

Wildflower Placer: Chapter 2, Table 2-5, ford has been added as an 

activity of concern, and a “potential for discharge” has been added 

for Alternative 2.

Chapter 2: K, Table 2-5

Bridges and culverts were added as a Feature/Activity analyzed in 

Table 3-4, Chapter 3.

Chapter 3: A.3, Table 3-

4. 

Ponds inside RHCA section of Chapter 3, section A.3(b). 

Clarification was added. Added information about ponds not 

influencing stream temperature. Added that Three Cent Placer

Mining 1/Processing site 3 is a concern with respect to compliance 

with INFISH MM1, MM2, and CWA.

Ch. 3: A.3(b), “Ponds 

Inside RHCAs”

Corrected Table 3-6 in Chapter 3 with the following 5 changes: 

1) Shamrock Placer: From NO proposed ponds to YES proposed 

ponds. 

2) Silver Bell: Clarified that only Silver Bell 2 site, and from YES 

proposed ponds to NO proposed ponds. 

3) Added Three Cent Placer mining 1/Processing 3 site with a NO 

existing ponds and YES for Proposed ponds. 

4) Wildflower: From NO proposed ponds to YES proposed ponds. 

5) Parkerville Placer ponds changed from a NO existing ponds 

inside RHCA to YES.

Chapter 3: A.3(b) Table 

3-6 

Changed Table 3-8 and Table 3-12 in Chapter 3. Added 0.00 miles 

for N. Fork and Prudent Placer.

Chapter 3: A.3(b) Table 

3-8 and 3-12 

Global change throughout Chapter 3: Changed number of proposed 

plans with discharge potential under Alternative 2 from 25 to 28 as a 

result of correction to site location for Wildflower Placer, 

information related to Parkerville Placer, and correction to Golden 

Bandit site 2.

Chapter 3: A. 

Watershed and Soil 

Resources
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Changes from Draft to Final SEIS

C-5

Changes Made in Final SEIS Location in Draft SEIS

Corrected Table 3-9 in Chapter 3: 

1) Placerville Placer: added “trib to Tony Creek”, Activity of 

concern = mining, Potential for discharge = Yes. 

2) Silver Bell Placer: Added 2 to site name. 

3) Wild Flower Placer: Activity of concern = Ford. Potential of 

discharge changed from No to Yes due to ford.

Chapter 3: A.3(b) Table 

3-9 

In response to comment 128 (Appendix 10), Table 3-9 in Chapter 3 

has been correct for Golden Bandit Placer/Lode site 2 with the 

following language: Adjacent to unnamed tributary to Pinus Creek, 

Activity of concern = mining, and Potential for discharge under Alt. 

2 changed from No to Yes. 

Chapter 3: A.3(b) Table 

3-9 

Table 3-10. Added WQPM to Wild Flower Placer related to ford. Chapter 3: A.3(b) Table 

3-10

Ch. 3, Watershed and Soil Resources, Alt 3. Added reference to Belt 

et al (1992) and their work related to distance sediment travels.

Chapter 3: A.3(c)1

Three Cent Placer Mining 1 has been renamed “Three Cent Placer 

Mining 1/Processing site 3”

Throughout Chapters 1, 

2 and 3.

Three Cent Placer Processing site 2 has a discharge under 

Alternatives 2 and 4.

Throughout Chapters 1, 

2 and 3.

In reference to Wild Flower Placer: Under Alt 2 there is a potential 

for a discharge due to ford but not under Alt 3. New WQPMs added

to Alt 3. Also, proposed ponds inside RHCA changed from NO to 

YES.

Throughout Chapters 1, 

2 and 3.

All tables with open road density information are now updated to 

include September 2007 GIS data and 2002 NFBR Roads Analysis 

data, to reflect the correct open road density information related to 

the 2004 NFBR FEIS and ROD.

Chapter 3: C. 

Access/Transportation 

System

Added Three cent processing site 2 as having a potential for 

discharge under Alternatives 2 and 4. Explanation provided for why 

Burnt Lode/Karissa site, section dredging on Cub Creek, and Three 

cent processing site 2 have discharge potential.

Chapter 3: A.3(c)1

Added information for potential impact to stream system if beaver 

dams breached.

Chapter 3: A, 

throughout Watershed 

and Soil Resources 

section
Changes from Draft to Final SEIS NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

C-6

Changes Made in Final SEIS Location in Draft SEIS

Chapter 3, Watershed and Soil Resources, Alternative 2: Added 

brief discussion of how water withdrawals and tree removal could 

influence stream temperatures and made effects determination. 

Referenced back to 2004 FEIS for detailed discussion of impacts. 

Added this additional header and information to Alternative 4.

Chapter 3: A.3(b)1, and 

A.3(c)1.

Chapter 3 under Water Quality, Alternative 2, Suction Dredging: 

Added information collected by district hydrologist regarding 

conditions on Cub Creek

Chapter 3: A.3(b)1

Chapter 3, Watershed and Soil Resources, Affected 

Environment/Water Temperature. Section has been updated to 

reflect the increase in temperature standard from 64° F to 68° F.

Chapter 3: A.3

Chapter 3, Watershed and Soils Resources: Removed all references 

to Alternatives 1 and 3.

Removed all discussion about Midas/Lady Bug and the 404 permit 

as a result of ODEQ comment regarding USACE jurisdiction over 

this topic. Miner will be required to interact with USACE on this. 

This section now reads: No change from the 2004 FEIS.

Chapter 3: A.3(a)1

Moved description of reasonable foreseeable actions from 

Watershed and Soil Resources section to beginning of Chapter 3. 

Updated cumulative actions that have changed or been added since 

2004.

Chapter 3:A.3(a)2

Number of mining sites is 78, not 65 or 66 as shown in the Draft 

SEIS.

Throughout entire Draft 

SEIS

Chapter 3, Fisheries updated information has been moved to 

Appendix 12, including discussion of MIS habitat and riparian 

management objectives.

Chapter 3: B.2, 

Alternatives 2, 3 and 4

Updated bull trout information with current designated critical 

habitat information.

Chapter 3: B.1(c)

Fisheries – Fish 

Populations
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Changes from Draft to Final SEIS

C-7

Changes Made in Final SEIS Location in Draft SEIS

Revised Wildlife Habitat, Chapter 3. Revised effects analysis for 

impacts of roads on big game (elk). More recent research in 

northeastern Oregon found that road density is a poor indicator of 

habitat effectiveness because it does not take into account the 

distribution of those road miles on the landscape. By contrast, the 

study described a strong linear increase in elk use as distance from 

roads increased. Therefore, a method using a distance-banding 

approach, as described by Rowland et al. (2005), is a more accurate

indicator of road effects on elk habitat. A distance band analysis for 

the NFBR watershed is now included in the Wildlife Habitat section 

of Chapter 3. To comply with Forest Plan direction, an HEI analysis 

is also included in the Wildlife Habitat section of Chapter 3. An 

analysis of open road densities by Management Area within 

Subwatershed and consistency with the Forest Plan guidelines now 

appears only in the Access/Transportation section of the Final SEIS. 

Therefore, the entire section titled Open Road Densities in the 2004 

FEIS, Chapter III, pp. 112-113 and in Draft SEIS, P. 97-101 was 

removed from the Wildlife Section and placed in the 

Access/Transportation section of the Final SEIS. 

Chapter 3: E

Updated Wildlife Habitat section for Gray Wolf, California 

wolverine, and Northern Goshawk is found in Appendix 12 Final 

SEIS.

Chapter 3: E

Updated Botany with updated species information is found in 

Appendix 12 Final SEIS.

Chapter 3: G.1.b

Rangeland Management section updated to reflect reductions in 

permitted #s since 2004 and NEPA decisions completed for 7 

allotments in the NFBR watershed. Updated information is found in 

Appendix 12 Final SEIS.

Chapter 3: H

Updated Consultation with Indian Tribes/Protection of Treaty 

Resources is found in Appendix 12.

Chapter 3: K.12

Added paragraph for Preservation of American Antiquities Act of 

1906 to Additional Disclosures in Appendix 12.

Chapter 3: K.19

Monarch Lode clarification: Has two possible sites of discharge – 1) 

waste rock place on skid road up Mosquito Creek (Monarch 1) and 

2) possible use of decommissioned FS road 1065250 for access to 

exploration drilling.

Appendix 1A, Chapter 

2: Tables 2-1 and 2-5, 

and Chapter 3: Tables 3-

9 and 3-11
Changes from Draft to Final SEIS NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

C-8

Changes Made in Final SEIS Location in Draft SEIS

Updated Tribal Consultation and added dates for CTUIR program of 

work meetings.

Chapter 3

Chapter 2: Public 

Involvement

Appendix 1A: Parkerville Placer: Under Alt 2 would have a 

discharge if they disturb the pond just upstream of FS road 1046045. 

Under Alternative 4, there would be no discharge because operator 

would not use the pond. 

Appendix 1A and 

Chapter 3: Watershed 

and Soil Resources

Appendix 1A: North Fork Placer: Added clarity to plan boundaries 

based on the map provided in the Plan and a field visit by the district 

hydrologist on June 27, 2011 to restrict operation to the old Ricco 

Ditch located part way up the hillslope on the north side of the 

NFBR.

Appendix 1A

Appendix 1A: Midas/Lady Bug: added that they will be required to 

engage with the USACE regarding the need for 404 permit.

Appendix 1A

In response to a comment, Appendix 1B was clarified to identify 

which roads are currently closed, and which are currently 

decommissioned.

Appendix 1B

Requirement Z11was added to Appendix 2 to ensure proper closure 

of mine access roads. Also, for the introductory description of the ZRequirements, “miner-created temporary access roads” were added 

to the description of roads covered under these requirements.

Appendix 2: 

Z-Requirements

Draft SEIS Appendix 4 – Open Road Densities and LRMP Direction 

has been deleted. The description of how open road densities are 

calculated is now included in the Introduction, and the 

Access/Transportation section of Chapter 3. The finding of 

consistency with Forest Plan open road density direction is included 

in the Access/Transportation section of Chapter 3. Appendix 

numbers have been changed accordingly, ex. Appendix 5 – Ponds, is 

now Appendix 4).

Appendix 4: Open Road 

Densities and LRMP 

Direction

Appendix 4: Ponds. Gold Busters and Star (Pinus) Placers –RHCA

width changed from 50 to 300 feet because Pinus Ck is tributary to 

camp Creek, a perennial fish-bearing stream, and Pinus Creek has 

seasonal flow along its entire length. Therefore, seasonally, it is 

expected that Pinus Ck in the areas of both operations there are fish 

making Pinus Creek a fish-bearing stream with an RHCA buffer of 

300 ft. This change is also reflected in the tables in Chapter 3 that 

reference RHCA width for this site. 

Appendix 5 and 

Chapter 3 Watershed 

and Soil Resources
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Changes from Draft to Final SEIS

C-9

Changes Made in Final SEIS Location in Draft SEIS

Appendix 4: Silver Bell Placer originally had two sites analyzed: 

SB 1 and SB 2. Only SB 2 is being proposed. Therefore all 

references to SB 1 are dropped. SB 2 will use only existing ponds.

Appendix 5 and 

Chapter 3 Watershed 

and Soil Resources

Appendix 4: Shamrock ponds are proposed and inside the 300 foot 

RHCA buffer of NFBR. New WQPM added -- pond locations will 

be determined with district hydrologist’s input.

Appendix 5 and 

Chapter 3 Watershed 

and Soil Resources

Appendix 4: Shamrock information in Appendix 4 has been 

corrected. Information related to this site was actually for Sunshine 

Placer. 

Appendix 5 and 

Chapter 3 Watershed 

and Soil Resources

Appendix 4: Three Cent Mining 1/Processing site 3 correction. 

Miner will be using the pond at this site for processing. 

Appendix 5 and 

Chapter 3 Watershed 

and Soil Resources

Appendix 4: Wild Flower Placer location correction. Operation is 

on the south side of NFBR and there are 3 ponds: one existing and 

two proposed. All ponds will be inside the 300 foot RHCA buffer.

Appendix 5 and 

Chapter 3 Watershed 

and Soil Resources

Appendix 4: North Fork Placer. All references to the boundaries of 

the operation have been removed. Added information about pond 

locations on north and south sides of NFBR.

Appendix 5 and 

Chapter 3 Watershed 

and Soil Resources

Appendix 4: Racer/Keystone: Changed RHCA buffer from 50 to 

300 feet because Geiser Ck has seasonal flow along its entire length, 

has fish and is perennial in places. Therefore, seasonally it is 

expected that Geiser Creek in the area of RKK has fish, making 

Geiser Creek in the area of the operation a fish-bearing stream with 

an RHCA buffer of 300 ft. 

Appendix 5 and 

Chapter 3 Watershed 

and Soil Resources

Appendix 4: Gimlet Placer. More information added to this site 

regarding Gimlet Creek 

Appendix 5 and 

Chapter 3 Watershed 

and Soil Resources

Split Appendix 8 into 8A and 8B. 8A is sorted by road #, and 8B is 

sorted by mines.

Appendix 9

Updated Appendices 8A and 8B to reflect the corrected # of miles of 

road closures and decommissionings in the 2004 NFBR Mining 

FEIS.

Appendix 9

Added Large Woody Material (LWM)/Tree Removal, and Water 

Withdrawal Table as Appendix 9.

Not in Draft SEIS
Changes from Draft to Final SEIS NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

C-10

Changes Made in Final SEIS Location in Draft SEIS

Added Appendix 10 with Response to Comments. Not in Draft SEIS

Added Appendix 12 New Information and Changed Circumstances 

Evaluation

Not in Draft SEIS

Suction dredging on Cub Creek (Burnt Lode/Placer Plan) is not

considered NOI work because of the potential to trigger a headcut 

and have long-term sediment inputs. Therefore, suction dredging on 

Cub Creek will be discussed in the Direct/Indirect Effects and 

Cumulative Effects of the Watershed and Soil Resources section. 

Chapter 3 Watershed 

and Soils Resources 
Introduction

to the Supplement

NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Introduction

1

Final Supplement to the

North Fork Burnt River Mining

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Whitman Ranger District

(Formerly the Unity, Baker, and Pine Ranger Districts)

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

1. Introduction to the Supplement

The North Fork Burnt River (NFBR) watershed on the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

(WWNF) is located in the Blue Mountains of Eastern Oregon (Map 1). It has been an active 

mining area since the 1860s. Though placer mining peaked from 1863-1866, activity began to 

decline around 1890 as the richest placers were worked out. The placer mining activity, 

however, uncovered many rich veins, and lode mining began in earnest. The watershed HUC 5 

number in 2004 was 170529283 with the subwatersheds identified with a letter (A through H). 

Since 2004, the watershed number, some of the subwatershed boundaries and all of the 

subwatershed numbers have changed. However, the old numbers and boundaries were used in 

this Supplement in order to be comparable with the 2004 FEIS. 

In recent years, 30-40 mining operations have had approved Plans of Operations (Plans), 

working the placer and lode deposits in the NFBR. Approximately 10 percent are working hard 

rock mines; the remaining 90 percent work the placers. Some of these Plans were approved in 

the early 1980s, many without expiration dates, and needed reevaluation to address 

environmental and regulatory changes. Several new Plans were submitted in the early 2000s, 

with some as amendments to current Plans. In response, the Forest Service initiated a watershedscale analysis in 2001 to consider the approval/re-approval of 49 current, modified, or new Plans. 

The North Fork Burnt River Mining Final Environmental Impact Statement (2004 FEIS) was 

published for this watershed-scale analysis and a Record of Decision (ROD) was signed by the 

Whitman District Ranger, WWNF, on April 7, 2004. This ROD authorized actions set forth in 

Alternative 4 of the 2004 FEIS. The decision was appealed, and later affirmed by the Appeal 

Deciding Officer, who found it consistent with applicable laws, regulations, policies and the 

WWNF Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan). 

On July 7, 2005, Hells Canyon Preservation Council et al. (plaintiff) filed a complaint against the 

Forest Service in the United States District Court of Oregon, and moved for summary judgment 

on January 27, 2006. The Forest Service filed a cross-motion for summary judgment. Oral 

arguments were held on May 1, 2006. The plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment was granted 

as to claims under the Clean Water Act, the Organic Act and the National Forest Management 

Act. The Forest Service’s motion for summary judgment was granted as to claims under the 

National Environmental Policy Act. 

On January 12, 2007, the United States District Court of Oregon vacated the Forest Service’s 

approval of 33 Plans, enjoining the Forest Service from allowing mining operations in the NFBR 

pursuant to the April 2004 FEIS and ROD. Only 33 Plan were included in the injunction 
Introduction NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

2

because not all of the 49 Plans analyzed in the 2004 FEIS had been submitted to the Whitman 

District Ranger for final signature prior to the date of the injunction. 

This Supplement has been prepared to provide additional information and analysis to address the 

inadequacies identified by the District of Oregon in the opinion and order for Hells Canyon 

Preservation Council et al. v. Haines, CV 05-1057-PK, August 4, 2006 (HCPC 2006). A new 

ROD will be issued with this Final Supplement to the FEIS. Since seven of the Plans of 

Operation have been withdrawn since the 2004 ROD, the deciding official will determine in this 

new ROD if 42 Plans will be authorized for approval. 

This new 2012 NFBR ROD will not replace the 2004 NFBR ROD. The 2004 ROD included 

some components and findings for which the Decision was not found inadequate in HCPC 2006 

(e.g., road management activities). Because those Decisions were already made, those 

components and findings will not be included in the ROD for this Supplement. The Responsible 

Official for the 2012 ROD is the Whitman District Ranger of the Wallowa-Whitman National 

Forest. 
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Introduction

3
Introduction NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

4

1.1 Court Findings

This section summarizes the findings of HCPC 2006. The Court found the 2004 FEIS and ROD 

violated law because the Forest Service:

(7) Did not require the operators to obtain a 401 certificate of compliance before 

approving the Plans of Operations for proposed mining operations with a 

potential discharge under 33 U.S.C. 1341(a)(1), also referred to as 401 under the 

Clean Water Act. 

“The agency’s responsibility under the CWA is clear and, as here, the Forest Service has 

not complied with the 401 requirement of certification prior to permitting miners to begin 

mining operations...Thus, mining activities that may result in discharges of pollutants 

into navigable waters will commence without 401 certification, a violation of the CWA.” 

(HCPC 2006, pp. 8-9)

(8) a. Failed to demonstrate that the proposed Plans in 303(d) listed subwatersheds 

would not further degrade the waters and therefore could not ensure compliance with 

Section 313 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1323(a) which states: “Each 

department, agency, or instrumentality of the executive, legislative, and judicial 

branches of the Federal government (1) having jurisdiction over any property or 

facility, or (2) engaged in any activity resulting, or which may result, in the discharge 

or runoff of pollutants, and each officer, agent, or employee thereof in the 

performance of his official duties shall be subject to and comply with, all Federal, 

State, Interstate, and local requirements, administrative authority, and process and 

sanctions, respecting the control and abatement of water pollution in the same 

manner, and to the same extent as any non-governmental agency...” 

“This court cannot find support in the record for the Forest Service’s position that 

implementation of the requirements to the PoOs [Plans of Operation] as outlined in 

Alternative 4 of the ROD will protect water quality and result in no measurable 

increase in sedimentation. This court finds the Forest Service’s decision to allow new 

mining operations on 303(d)-listed streams arbitrary and capricious.” (HCPC 2006, 

p. 10)

b. Failed to comply with the Organic Act which authorizes the Forest Service to 

promulgate regulation for users of national forests, and specifies that individuals 

entering the national forests for the purpose of exploiting mineral resources “must 

The Court Order and Opinion references “a discharge of a pollutant” when 

discussing concerns related to CWA, Section 401. However, this Supplement 

will only use the phrase “a discharge” in order to be consistent with the language 

found in Section 401 of the Clean Water Act which states “...any discharge into 

the navigable waters...” Reference to a “discharge or runoff of pollutants” is 

found in Section 313(a)(2) of the CWA. 
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Introduction

5

comply with the rules and regulations covering such national forests”. It also states 

that mining operations shall be conducted so as, where feasible, to minimize adverse 

environmental impacts on national forest resources. 

“The Forest Service has failed to minimize adverse environmental impacts as 

required by regulations, and failed to ensure that mining operators comply with 

water quality standards (HCPC 2006, p. 13).”

(9) Failed to demonstrate that it had adequately analyzed the selection of buffer 

widths for the riparian habitat conservation areas (RHCAs) to be consistent with 

INFISH standard MM-1 (USDA/USDI 1995), as required in the Forest Plan. 

“This court finds that the analysis laid out in the FEIS is inadequate regarding the 

selection of buffer width such that the ROD is inconsistent with INFISH standard MM-1 

and the Forest Plan for the WWNF.” (HCPC 2006, p. 15)

(10) Failed to demonstrate that it had adequately analyzed the necessity of new 

roads, considered alternatives, and provided specific assurances that the new road 

construction would comply with INFISH standard MM-2 (USDA/USDI 1995), as 

required in the Forest Plan. 

“The Forest Service must provide a more thorough analysis on the issue of new road 

construction in RHCAs to satisfy the mandate of MM-2.” (HCPC 2006, p. 16)

(11) Incorrectly determined that settling ponds are not structures subject to 

INFISH standard MM-2, and therefore failed to perform the required analysis 

under MM-2 as to alternative locations, as required by the Forest Plan. 

“The Forest Service must perform the required analysis under MM-2 as to whether 

alternatives exist to locating settling ponds in RHCAs.” (HCPC 2006, pp. 17-18)

(12) Failed to demonstrate that it had adequately analyzed whether mining and 

private property access needs, administrative use and needs of other forest users 

are exceptions to the open road density guidelines, as required by the Forest Plan. 

“Because the Forest Service failed to clearly identify and discuss management objectives 

that require exceptions to the open-road density guidelines, this court finds that the ROD 

is not consistent with the Forest Plan.” (HCPC 2006, p. 19)

1.2 Scope, Format, and Context of this Supplement

The scope of this Supplement is narrower than the scope of the 2004 FEIS because it only 

incorporates new information and provides clarification of a previous analysis. This is in 

accordance with 40 CFR 1502.9 (b) (3) and Forest Service Handbook 1909.15. The 

Supplement’s scope has been defined and limited to the analyses needed to address the 

inadequacies identified in HCPC 2006 in Section 1.1, and also incorporates updated or new 

information not raised in HCPC 2006. 
Introduction NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

6

The 2004 ROD included the following components for which the Decision was not found 

inadequate in HCPC 2006:

• Road maintenance, reconstruction, closure and decommissioning activities for Forest 

Service roads, identified in Alternative 4 of the 2004 FEIS.

• Finding of consistency with the following laws, regulations and policy:

The Clean Air Act, The Endangered Species Act, The Preservation of American 

Antiquities Act of 1906, The National Historic Preservation Act, Civil Rights, Women 

and Minorities, Environmental Justice, and Consultation with Indian Tribes/Protection of 

Treaty Resources. 

This Supplement incorporates and complies with the following documents laws, regulations and 

policies, as amended:

• WWNF Land and Resource Management Plan, as amended (1990)

• Pacific Northwest Invasive Plant Final Environmental Impact Statement (May 2005)

• The 1872 Mining Law

• The Organic Administration Act of 1897

• The Multiple Use Mining Act of 1955

• The Mining and Mineral Policy Act of 1970

• The National Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA)

• The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA)

• The Forest Service Surface Use Regulations (36CFR Part 228, Subpart A)

• The Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2800

• The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)

• The Council of Environmental Qualtiy Regulations (CEQ) 36 CFR 800

• The Clean Water Act of 1977 (The Federal Water Pollution Control Act)

• The Organic Act

• All NFBR proposed Plans of Operations submitted by the miners for this analysis.

This supplement only identifies the sections of the 2004 FEIS that are either completely replaced 

or partially changed. Any unchanged information from the 2004 FEIS is not included in this 

Supplement. Each supplemented section shares the same heading as the 2004 FEIS, and an 

introductory shaded paragraph identifies what is being changed with the Supplement. Each 

resource area in Chapter 3 includes an introductory explanation about which elements of HCPC 

2006 are being addressed. Any updated or new information that is not responsive to HCPC 2006 

is included in Appendix 12.

1.3 Specific Consultation, Coordination, and Analyses Pertinent to Addressing 

the Inadequacies Identified in HCPC 2006

Addressing the inadequacies identified in HCPC 2006 involved expanded coordination and 

consultation with the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ), and required sitespecific analyses not provided in the 2004 FEIS. The following subsections introduce these 

changes. The results of coordination and the new analyses are found in Chapters 2 and 3 of this 

document.
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Introduction

7

Consultation with the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality

HCPC 2006 determined that the Forest Service failed to meet the intent of the CWA in its 2004 

FEIS and ROD. Given its primacy in administering the CWA, the Forest Service expanded 

consultation with ODEQ during the preparation of this Supplement and clarified several critical 

points. First, the Forest Service is to be “...subject to and comply with, all Federal, State, 

Interstate, and local requirements, administrative authority, and process and sanctions, respecting 

the control and abatement of water pollution in the same manner, and to the same extent as any 

non-governmental agency...” (CWA, Section 313(a)2). The Forest Service is to determine the 

potential of a specific Plan of Operations to create a discharge as per ODEQ direction

(http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/sec401cert/faqs.htm#q6). 

If a Plan of Operations (Plan) has potential for a discharge, the Forest Service will: 

1. identify Best Management Practices (BMPs) that the Forest Service can impose on the 

approval of a Plan to avoid a potential discharge, or 

2. if BMPs cannot be identified to prevent a potential discharge for a given activity, then the 

miner would be required to secure a 401 certification for that activity from ODEQ prior 

to Forest Service approval of that portion of the Plan and commencement of the mining 

activity. ODEQ is designated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as the 

agency responsible for ensuring compliance with the Clean Water Act. 

The 2004 FEIS did not include a determination of potential for discharge of each proposed Plan, 

and for each site within a Plan. 

The Supplement, in consultation with ODEQ, includes a determination of potential discharge 

for activities in each Plan of Operations being considered, and BMPs that would address any 

potential discharge (Appendix 1A).

Site-by-Site, Plan-by-Plan Evaluation and Determination of Potential Discharge

HCPC 2006 determined that the Forest Service should obtain from the miners a 401 certificate of 

compliance before approving Plans that had a potential for discharge. 

The 2004 FEIS did not include a determination on the potential for a discharge for each Plan, 

nor did it require 401 certification from the miners before approving Plans that had a potential 

for discharge. 

The Supplement includes a determination on the potential for a discharge for each Plan. The 

Whitman district hydrologist evaluated each of the 42 Plans in the field. Some Plans included 

multiple locations for a total of 78 mining operation sites. The proposed activities on each of the 

78 sites were evaluated and a determination made regarding the potential for a surface or 

subsurface discharge into navigable waters, as defined by the CWA, or into the broader Waters 

of the State from these activities. The detailed and specific Methodology and Criteria for 

Determination of Effects, the analysis, and the findings are documented in Chapter 3, Watershed 

and Soil Resources.

For all proposed Plans, mining activities would not be approved for commencement until the 

Forest Service receives 1) a final Plan signed by the miner which incorporates the requirements 

identified in this Supplement to minimize adverse environmental impacts resulting from the 

operation (monitoring, Site-specific requirements (Appendix 1A), and General Requirements 
Introduction NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

8

(Appendix 2), 2) 401 certification for those activities with a potential for discharge, and 3) 

reclamation bonds for all Plans.

Site-by-site, Plan-by-Plan Evaluation and Determination of “Anti-degradation” of 303d 

Listed Streams

HCPC 2006 determined that the Forest Service failed to demonstrate that the proposed Plans in 

303d listed subwatersheds would not further degrade the waters and therefore could not ensure 

compliance with Section 313 of the CWA and the Organic Act. 

The 2004 FEIS and ROD conditioned the approval of the individual Plans with a set of 

requirements, i.e. stream buffers and other measures (2004 FEIS, Chapter II, pg. 20, 

Requirements for Plans of Operations Common to Alternatives 3 and 4). The 2004 FEIS did not, 

however, include a specific evaluation of whether the anti-degradation threshold for the 303d 

listed streams would be met. The 2004 FEIS requirements were intended to prevent a discharge 

during operations and achieve the State’s anti-degradation provision (OAR 340-041-0004), but 

the requirements were not site or plan-specific enough to provide confidence or certainty. 

The Supplement includes a site-by-site and Plan-by-Plan evaluation to determine compliance 

with the anti-degradation provision (CWA Section 303). If a Plan was determined to not be in 

compliance with the anti-degradation provision, the Forest Service identified additional BMPs 

designed to ensure no degradation of water quality or sediment inputs, except for the three 

activities: 1) proposed road construction to the Karissa site, 2) suction dredging on Cub Creek, 

both in the Burnt Lode/Placer plan, and 3) construction of a processing pond at Three Cent 

Placer/Processing site 2. These additional BMPs bring activities in all other Plans under 

Alternative 4 into compliance with Section 313 of the CWA. The analysis and findings are 

documented in the Supplement, Chapter 3, Watershed and Soil Resources Section and Appendix 

1A.

Selection of Buffer Widths for Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas (RHCAs)

HCPC 2006 determined that the Forest Service failed to demonstrate that it had adequately 

analyzed the selection of buffer widths for the RHCAs to be consistent with INFISH standard 

MM-1. 

The 2004 FEIS required and defined stream buffers in the approved Plans of Operations (2004 

FEIS Chapter III, Pgs 33-34) to prevent a discharge during operations, but only limited 

evaluations were conducted to verify the sufficiency of these buffers to be in compliance with 

INFISH MM-1 and the Forest Plan. 

For the Supplement, each of the 78 mining sites covered by the 42 Plans was visited by the 

district hydrologist to: 

1. assess and document the adequacy of the proposed buffers, 

2. propose adjustments in the operations to prevent a discharge and other resources 

concerns, and 

3. meet the intent of both the CWA and INFISH/Forest Plan. 

The analysis and findings are documented in Appendix 1A of this Supplement and in Chapter 3, 

Watershed and Soil Resources.
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Introduction

9

Evaluation of New Roads in Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas (RHCAs)

HCPC 2006 determined that the Forest Service failed to demonstrate that it had adequately 

analyzed the necessity of new roads, considered alternatives, and provided specific assurances 

that the new road construction would comply with INFISH standard MM-2.

The 2004 FEIS included an evaluation of the proposed road construction by operation (FEIS, 

Chapter 2, Pgs. 12-16 ), and disclosed the effects of that road construction (FEIS, Chapter 3, Pgs. 

88, 90, 93, 97, 98, 138, 143, 149, and 151). The 2004 FEIS did not, however, consider the 

proposed road segments as “structures”, include an analysis on the necessity of new roads and 

whether alternatives exist, or provide specific assurances that new road construction would 

comply with the Forest Plan INFISH standard MM-2 which states:

“Locate structures, support facilities, and roads outside Riparian Habitat 

Conservation Areas. Where no alternative to siting facilities in Riparian Habitat 

Conservation Areas exists, locate and construct the facilities in ways that avoid 

impacts to Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas and streams and adverse effects on 

inland native fish. 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.”

The Supplement includes an analysis of the INFISH standard. A Forest Service mining 

specialist, in consultation with engineers, evaluated the proposed road construction in each Plan 

to determine if it was operationally necessary and appropriately located. Additional information 

was requested from the miner as needed for evaluation. Some roads were dropped by the miners. 

Appendix 7 of this Supplement describes the changes miners made to the road construction 

proposals in response to these inquiries. Additionally, the Whitman district hydrologist 

examined the proposed roads for potential sediment contribution, and specifically whether or not 

an alternative location existed outside the RHCA (Supplement, Chapter 3, Watershed and Soil 

Resources). The Supplement considers the new road segments “structures” under INFISH 

standard MM-2, and discloses whether the new construction would impact fish habitat, and 

comply with INFISH standard MM-2. 

Evaluation of Settling Ponds in Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas (RHCAs)

HCPC 2006 determined that the Forest Service incorrectly determined that settling ponds are not 

structures subject to INFISH standard MM-2 and therefore failed to perform the required 

analysis under MM-2 as to alternative locations. 

The 2004 FEIS evaluated pond construction proposed in the Plans (2004 FEIS, Chapter II, Pgs. 

12-16), and disclosed the effects (2004 FEIS, Chapter III, Pgs. 49, 85, 88, 90, 93, 98, and 122). 

The 2004 FEIS did not consider the proposed ponds as “structures”, whether alternative locations 

exist, or provide specific assurances that new pond construction comply with INFISH standard 

MM-2. 

The Supplement documents the analysis of the proposed ponds as structures. A Forest Service 

mining specialist reviewed each Plan to determine the necessity of the proposed ponds, and if the 

proposed ponds were clearly mapped and identifiable on the ground. Additional information was 

requested from the miner as needed. In some cases, the miner dropped the proposed pond. 

Appendix 7 of this Supplement describes the changes made by the miners.
Introduction NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

10

The Whitman district hydrologist also examined the proposed pond locations and evaluated 

whether or not an alternative location existed outside the RHCA. In all cases, the proposed 

ponds were considered “structures” and a determination made as to whether they would be in 

compliance with INFISH standard MM-2. The analyses and findings are documented in the 

Supplement, Chapter 3, Watershed and Soil Resources, and Appendix 4.

Evaluation of Open Road Densities

HCPC 2006 determined that the Forest Service failed to demonstrate that it had adequately 

analyzed whether mining and private property access needs, administrative use and needs of 

other forest users are exceptions to the open road density guidelines.

It is important to understand how the open road densities were evaluated in the 2004 FEIS and 

and how this differs in the Supplement.

The 2004 FEIS displayed open road densities separately for the Management Areas and for the 

subwatersheds. It did not include open road densities by Management Area within

subwatersheds (MA/SWS), as prescribed by the Forest Plan (USDA 1990, p. 4-35). 

In addition, errors were found in the inventory of open, closed, and decommissioned roads used 

in the initial analysis. In particular, the miles of road already programmed for closure (i.e. the 

decisions had already been made) were not accurately accounted for. This means that some 

roads proposed for closure already had a decision for closure. This led to some double counting 

and an incorrect assessment of the effects in the 2004 FEIS. 

The Supplement concluded that the 2004 FEIS erroneously included the need for exceptions to 

meeting the open road density guidelines. After further review of all Forest Plan direction for 

open road densities, the deciding official determined that although some Management Areas

exceeded the specified Forest Plan open road density guideline, the 2004 NFBR Mining ROD 1) 

did not add new open roads to the watershed, and 2) authorized closing and decommissioning of 

7.7 miles of open roads (Alternative 4 as corrected in this Supplement), thereby moving the 

watershed towards Forest Plan direction. The specific Forest Plan direction is cited in 

Supplement Chapter 3, Access/Transportation System. 

The Supplement used updated September 2007 GIS roads data and a re-assessment of the data 

included in the 2002 NFBR Roads Analysis to correct the errors in the 2004 FEIS. This resulted 

in fewer roads prescribed for closure or decommissioning than as represented in the 2004 ROD 

(since many of the proposed roads already had a decision for closure). Table 2-5 in Chapter 2 of 

this Supplement lists the actual road closures and decommissionings prescribed under 

Alternative 4 as adjusted by this supplemental analysis. Appendices 8A and 8B include the 

corrected road status and timing of closure decisions (pre or post 2004 Decision). 

The Supplement examines open road densities by MA/SWS including 1) open road densities for 

Forest Service roads only, as those are the only roads over which the Forest Service has 

jurisdiction, and 2) open road densities for State, County, private and Forest Service open roads. 

These updated calculations for open road densities for MA/SWS are found in the 

Access/Transportation section of Chapter 3 of this Supplement and reflect all previous closure 

decisions (including the road management decisions made in the 2004 ROD). These open road 

densities by MA/SWS are provided in the Supplement specifically to disclose compliance with 

Forest Plan guidelines (Chapter 3, Access/Transportation System). 
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Introduction

11

The 3,200 feet of proposed mine access road would not contribute to Forest Service open road 

densities because they would not be designated as open Forest Service roads. The effects of 

roads on wildlife are disclosed in Chapter 3, Wildlife Habitat.

1.4 Other Specific Changes from 2004 FEIS

Clarifications, Modifications and Withdrawals of Proposed Plans of Operations 

Since the 2004 FEIS, several miners have withdrawn their proposed Plans, some have provided 

clarification, and others have made slight modifications. This Supplement recognizes and 

incorporates these changes (Appendix 7), making adjustments in the description of alternatives 

in Chapter 2 and the effects in Chapter 3, as needed. Those Plans that were withdrawn by the 

miners (Dream Chaser, Geiser Stream Diversion, Golden Donk, Jackpot, Mary Dixie, Playboy 

Placer and Sunshine Placer) are not discussed in this Supplement.

“Notice-Level” Mining Operations

36 CFR 228 allows mining activities that are not likely to cause a significant disturbance of 

surface resources to proceed at the discretion of the miner without approval by the Forest 

Service. As part of the analysis for this Supplement, each of the proposed Plans were reviewed 

to determine which proposed mining activities, if any, were not likely to cause a significant 

disturbance of surface resources and therefore authorized by regulation (36CFR228). Three 

specific types of NOI activities were identified: suction dredging (with the exception of suction 

dredging proposed on Cub Creek in the Burnt Lode/Placer plan), camping, and pick and shovel 

work. 

The detailed analysis for this determination is in Appendix 5 of this Supplement, Determination 

of Significant Surface Resource Disturbance. While these specific activities may not require 

approval, their cumulative effects, if any, are accounted for and discussed in the Updated 

Cumulative Actions and Effects Common to All in Chapter 3.

Impact of Roads on Water Quality 

For the 2004 FEIS two methods were used to estimate the impact of roads on water quality as it 

pertained to 1) inputs of sediment into streams in the NFBR watershed and 2) increase in the 

drainage network, and drainage efficiency. The first method used components of the Region 1-

Region 4 WATSED erosion model (Potyondy 1991) to estimate potential contributions of 

sediment from logging, roads, and mining in the NFBR watershed (USDA 2000). The model 

provided a qualitative comparison of potential erosion and soil loss generated as a result of 

different activities and the potential for delivery if linear distance from the stream channel was 

the only factor determining delivery. This modified model was based on a GIS analysis, 

literature review, and the Region 1-R4 modified WATSED (Water Yield and Sediment Yield) 

model (USDA 1991). There was no field component to the model. 

The second method was a Forest Service field-based roads inventory combined with a GIS 

analysis. All roads in the watershed were inventoried except private roads, the State Highway, 

and certain county roads. The Roads Analysis (USDA 2002) utilized GIS mapping and database 

querying to answer a series of water quality questions, and thereby obtain accurate information 

and significant data on which to stratify roads with respect to water quality risks. The result was 
Introduction NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

12

an Erosion Risk Score (ERS) based on scientific judgment and information that resulted in a list 

of priorities for future road restoration and maintenance (USDA 2002). 

The Supplement, with its emphasis on determining whether the proposed Plans are in 

compliance with the CWA, re-examined the 2004 FEIS water quality and sediment input 

conclusions related to roads. The Supplement re-examined 1) the assumptions of each method 

used in the 2004 FEIS analysis, 2) how the results from each method were used, and 3) what 

other contributors of sediment were either not included in their analysis of water quality impacts 

related to sediment inputs or not clearly displayed. 

The conclusion of this Supplement is that the impact of roads on water quality was not clearly 

displayed in the 2004 FEIS, leading to the appearance that roads were contributing large volumes 

of sediment to streams when in fact they were not. Support for this conclusion is provided in 

Appendix 3. In addition, discussions with authors of the WATSED model analysis (C. Bradford, 

USFS, pers. comm., 2006) and the Roads Analysis (D. Taylor, USFS, pers. comm., April 2008)

found agreement with the conclusions presented in the supplemental analysis that roads were not 

a major contributor of sediment in the NFBR watershed. This change in incorporated throughout 

the Supplement. 

Suction Dredging

The 2004 FEIS did not include a detailed evaluation of the effects of suction dredging.

The Supplement includes a site-specific analysis of the direct, indirect (Cub Creek only) and 

cumulative effects of suction dredging in Chapter 3, and Appendices 5, 6A and 6B.

Other Updated Information (Appendix 12)

Appendix 12 includes new or updated information that does not address the inadequacies 

identified in HCPC 2006. It considers whether or not this new information or change in 

circumstances is within the scope and range of effects considered in the original analysis. This 

appendix includes updated information for 1) goshawks and heritage resources, 2) bull trout and 

redband trout, 2) noxious weeds, 3) wildlife Potentially Endangered and Threatened Species 

(PETS) and Management Indicator Species (MIS), 4) listed plant species, 5) rangeland 

management, 6) consultation with Indian tribes/protection of treaty resources, and 7) inventoried 

roadless, wilderness, potential wilderness, research natural areas, and experimental forests. 

After interdisciplinary review and consideration of this information within the context of the 

project, the Responsible Official has determined that a correction, supplement, or revision to an 

enviromental document is not necessary (40 CFR 1502.9(c)(1) and FSH 1909.15, Chapter 10, 

Section 18.1). The information does not change determinations or findings made in the 2004 

FEIS for these resources. In all cases, effects are within the scope and range of those disclosed 

in 2004. 

1.5 Structure of the Supplement

Again, this Supplement includes only new or modified information from the 2004 FEIS. 

Portions of the 2004 FEIS that were modified or replaced are identified and described in a 

shaded area, with reference to where the original text can be found in the 2004 FEIS. 
Chapter 1

NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Chapter 1

13

CHAPTER 1

PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION

Purpose and Need for Action

Existing Condition

No change from 2004 FEIS except for deletion of the last paragraph of the “Existing Condition” 

in Chapter I, p. 6 of the 2004 FEIS. With the exception of Burnt Lode Placer (Cub Creek sites),

suction dredging is not an activity included in the proposed Plans of Operations. Refer to 

Supplement Appendix 5 for the explanation of suction dredging in this watershed as a Notice of 

Intent level activity.

Purpose and Need

The purpose and need for Supplement is different than that of the 2004 FEIS.

The purpose and need for Supplement is to address specific inadequacies identified in the 2006 

Court Order and Opinion (HCPC 2006). Supplemental environmental analysis is necessary to be 

responsive to HCPC 2006 and the 2007 Court Injunction.

Proposed Action 

Replace this section of the 2004 FEIS with the following:

The proposed action (Alternative 2) is based on the plans as submitted by the miners. The 

proposed action would authorize the approval of current, new, or modified Plans for 42 mining

claims in the NFBR Watershed, pending receipt of 401 certifications, where a potential discharge 

has been identified by this analysis. The proposed action does not include any Forest Service 

site-specific Water Quality Protection Measures (WQPMs) or General Requirements. The Plans 

of Operations and proposed activities included in this alternative are listed in Chapter 2, Table 2-

1. This summarizes each Plan’s proposed activities and equipment under this alternative. 

Decision to be Made – Supplemental Analysis

This is a new section not included in the 2004 FEIS.

The Whitman District Ranger of the WWNF is the responsible official for review, analysis, and 

issuing a decision resulting from this supplemental analysis. Since the 2004 ROD includes some 

components for which the Decision was not found inadequate in HCPC 2006 (eg. road 

management activities), those components will not be included in the ROD for this Supplement. 

The Whitman District Ranger’s decision resulting from this supplemental analysis will be 

documented in a new Record of Decision (ROD). In the new ROD, the Whitman District Ranger 

may decide to:
Chapter 1 NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

14

1) Adopt the supplemental information included in this analysis, or 

2) Not adopt the supplemental information included in this analysis.

The Decision based on this analysis will meet Forest Plan standards and guidelines, and other 

applicable laws, regulations and policies. Once the ROD is signed and issued, reclamation bonds 

and any 401 certifications determined necessary will be required before the Plans of Operations 

are approved and prior to commencement of mining activities. 

Alternative 4 will authorize the approval of mining operations with additional Forest Service 

Best Management Practices (BMPs) for those activities that do not require a 401 certification 

from the State of Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ). Activities determined 

through this analysis to still have the potential for a discharge, even with additional Forest 

Service BMPs, would only be approved if the miner presents to the Forest Service a 401 

certification from the ODEQ authorizing this activity or documentation from ODEQ that a 401 

certification is not needed.

Public Involvement for Supplemental Analysis

This is a new section not included in the 2004 FEIS.

Scoping

The Supplement was listed in the WWNF Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA) in December of 

2006. The Notice of Intent (NOI) to supplement the 2004 FEIS was published in the Federal 

Register on February 21, 2007 (Federal Register vol. 72, no. 34, pages 7855-7856). The NOI 

requested public comment on the proposal to incorporate additional information and analysis 

necessary to fully address the inadequacies noted in HCPC 2006 in the 2004 FEIS, and to 

evaluate the need for a non-significant site-specific amendment to the WWNF’s Land and 

Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan).

Requests for comments (scoping) for the preparation of the Supplement were begun in February 

2007. The Forest Service sent scoping letters to more than 200 interested parties, including: 

individuals, groups, miners, county, State and Federal agencies, the Nez Perce Tribe, 

Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation, and the Confederated Tribes of the 

Umatilla Reservation (CTUIR). A list of interested parties to whom the letters were mailed and 

copies of the letters are located in the analysis file, as is a copy of the NOI. Additionally, 

individual letters were sent to all miners with current and proposed operations in the watershed. 

This project was presented by the WWNF to the CTUIR at the following staff to staff and 

government to government meetings:

11/17/2008 – Natural Resources Committee meeting (staff to staff)

12/02/2008 – Fish & Wildlife Committee meeting (staff to staff)

12/09/2008 – Cultural Committee meeting (staff to staff)

04/02/2009 – Board of Trustees meeting (government to government)

03/14/2011 – Natural Resources Committee meeting (staff to staff)

05/10/2011 – Fish & Wildlife Committee meeting (staff to staff)

05/17/2011 – Cultural Committee meeting (staff to staff)

08/31/2011 – Board of Trustees meeting (government to government)

02/22/2012 – Natural Resources Committee meeting (staff to staff)
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Chapter 1

15

03/27/2012 – Fish & Wildlife and Cultural Committees meeting (staff to staff)

05/09/2012 – Board of Trustees meeting (government to government)

The Forest Service received one letter in response to the scoping letter and NOI, with the 

following concerns: 

1. the Supplement should include analysis of substantive changes to the mining project

proposals; 

2. the Supplement should address whether or not the proposed projects would create new or 

contribute to existing water quality standard violations under the Clean Water Act; 

3. the Supplement should clearly address the anti-degradation standard for streams where 

water quality is limited; 

4. the Supplement should consider an alternative to the current Plans of Operations that will 

comply with Section 313 of the Clean Water Act (i.e. compliance with State water quality

laws and anti-degradation of 303d listed streams); 

5. the Supplement should propose buffers that are adequate to protect INFISH species; 

6. the Agency must determine if new road and settling pond construction within RHCAs is 

necessary; 

7. a Forest Plan amendment for open road densities is not scientifically justifiable; and 

8. the Supplement should include all issues previously raised.

Information obtained as a result of the scoping process is located in Appendix 11 and the 

Supplement’s analysis file and was used to respond to the noted inadequacies in HCPC 2006.

Comment Period

The Notice of Availability for the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (DSEIS) 

was published in the Federal Register on September 24, 2010 (Vol. 75, No. 185, page 58377). 

The 45-day comment period began September 24, 2010 and closed on November 8, 2010.

Tribal consultation efforts consisted of sending tribes the Schedule of Proposed actions, scoping 

letter, and Draft SEIS during the 45-day comment period, and reviewing the project at staff to 

staff and government to government meetings with CTUIR tribal members (see above). No 

treaty resources were identified by any tribe as at risk, and no specific comments were received 

from the tribes for this supplemental analysis.

Several comment letters were received during the formal comment period. A copy of the 

original comment letters is available in the analysis file, along with a compiled list of 

respondents. Specific comments are addressed in Appendix 10. Several individuals called, 

wrote letters, or visited to clarify errors in their proposed Plans of Operations.

This project was coordinated with the Oregon Department of 

Environmental Quality. Their comments are included in 

Appendix 10 and any additional Terms and Conditions are 

included in Appendix 1A.
Chapter 1 NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

16

Issues

Change Indicator #2, Key Issue 1, Water Quality, Chapter 1, page 19 of the 2004 FEIS to the 

following:

3. The number of operations that have the potential to discharge into navigable waters.

Change Key Issue 3, Access/Road Densities, Chapter 1, page 20 of the 2004 FEIS to add the 

following indicator:

4. Open road densities by Management Area within subwatersheds.
Chapter 2

NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Chapter 2

17

CHAPTER 2

ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED 

ACTION

Changes in the Plans of Operations

This is a new section not included in the 2004 FEIS.

Since the 2004 FEIS, several miners have either withdrawn their proposed Plans or modified 

them. These modifications are reflected in the descriptions of alternatives later in this chapter, 

and the effects are adjusted, if needed, in Chapter 3. A listing and description of the Plan 

withdrawals and modifications can be found in Appendix 7 of this Supplement.

Alternatives Considered in Detail

This section clarifies which alternatives are analyzed in this Supplement. 

This Supplement addresses the inadequacies identified in HCPC 2006 in addressing impacts 

from Alternative 4 (the selected alternative from the 2004 NFBR Mining ROD). Alternative 2 

(the miner’s proposal) is provided in this Supplement as a basis for comparison of the effects of 

Alternative 4. Therefore, Alternatives 1 and 3 will not be further discussed in this 

Supplement.

• Alternative 2: Proposed Plans of Operations (Proposed Action) – This alternative 

describes and evaluates the 42 Plans of Operations as submitted by the miners.

• Alternative 4: Proposed Plans of Operations with Forest Service BMPs – This 

alternative includes the same Plans of Operations as Alternative 2 and the following 

additions:

a. Corrected road management activities (maintenance, reconstruction, closure and 

decommissioning). 

b. Additional Forest Service Best Management Practices (BMPs) in the form of 1) 

“Site-Specific Water Quality Protection Measures (WQPMs)” and 2) “General 

Requirements”. These BMPs are added to the Plans submitted by the miners to 

eliminate the potential for a discharge into navigable waters or Waters of the State 

The 2004 ROD included components of Alternative 4 that were 

not found inadequate in HCPC 2006 (e.g. road management 

activities). However, the road management activities of 

Alternative 4 are included in this Supplement for consistency 

and clarity, as well as corrected road closure/decommission 

information.
Chapter 2 NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

18

(CWA compliance), and to ensure compliance with the Forest Plan standards and 

guidelines, including INFISH MM-1 and MM-2. 

Map 2 shows the 78 locations proposed for mining in the 42 Plans in Alternatives 2 and 4. Some 

of the location areas have multiple sites. Map 2 is found at the end of Chapter 2.

Elements Common to Alternatives 2 and 4

This section in the 2004 FEIS, Chapter II, pg. 2, has been replaced with the following: 

Elements common to action Alternatives 2 and 4 include the following:

1. When an activity in a proposed Plan has been identified by the district hydrologist as 

having the potential for a discharge, 401 certification from ODEQ must be presented to 

the Forest Service prior to approval and commencement of that mining activity. Any 

additional terms and conditions included in the 401 certification related to that activity 

will be incorporated into the Plan.

2. Any closed, decommissioned, and nonsystem roads that are authorized for reconstruction 

or use in an approved Plan of Operations must be closed or decommissioned at the 

completion of operations or at the expiration of approval of the Plan.

3. Approval of all Plans expire 10-years from the date of approval. Approval may be 

extended if they are operating within its terms and NEPA compliance is still adequate and 

current at the time of extension.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Plans of Operations as submitted by the 

miners

This section in the 2004 FEIS, Chapter II, pg. 9, is replaced with the following. 

Alternative 2 includes 42 proposed Plans. Some of the 42 Plans have multiple locations 

resulting in 78 actual mining sites (Map 2 at end of Chapter 2). Alternative 2 would be approved 

for a period of 10 years, and this is the time frame used to evaluate the potential effects from the 

proposed activities. 

Alternative 2 would authorize the approval of the 42 Plans as submitted by the miners. 

Table II-5 from the 2004 FEIS has been replaced with Table 2-1 and modified to delete all 

activities determined to be “notice-level” or “approved by regulation”. Refer to Appendix 5 in 

this Supplement for the details on which activities were removed and why.

Tables 2-1, 2-2, 2-3, and 2-4 describe the proposed equipment and activities, road activities, and 

use or construction of ponds, fords, bridges, and culverts for the various proposed operations as 

submitted by the miners. Refer to Map 2 at the end of this chapter for the location of each 

operation. 

Seven Plans have been withdrawn since the 2004 FEIS. They are: Dream Chaser Placer, Geiser 

Stream Diversion, Golden Donk Placer, Jackpot Placer, Mary Dixie Lode, Playboy Placer, and 

Sunshine Placer. Dates when withdrawn are found in Appendix 7. They will not be discussed 

further. 
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Chapter 2

19

Table 2-1

Comparison of Plans of Operations by Alternatives 2 and 4

(Forest Service Road Closure and Decommissionings proposed for Alt 4 are found below in Table 2-5)

Operation Name

PL=Placer

LD=Lode

Alternative 2

Proposed Operations as Submitted 

by the Miners 

Alternative 4

Proposed Operations 

with BMPs

August Placer Equipment: Track hoe, backhoe, dump truck, 

dozer, trommel, sluice, pumps.

Activities: Exploration testing of placer gravels, 

processing, existing ponds outside RHCA, ditch 

maintenance, use of log bridge

Same as Alternative 2 with General 

Requirements G1-G26; H1-H12; F1-

F9; NW1-NW9; P1-P2; W1-W7; R1-

R7; R8-R24; and Site-Specific 

Water Quality Protection Measures

(WQPMs)

Big Elk/Red Dog PL Equipment: Dozer, backhoe, excavator, dump 

truck, loader, trammel, pumps, generators

Activities: Gate installation, additional placer 

exploration and mining, new and existing 

settling ponds inside RHCA, use of existing ford

Same as Alternative 2 with General 

Requirements G1-G26; H1-H12; F1-

F9; NW1-NW9; P1-P2; W1-W7; R1-

R7; R8-R22; Z-Requirements, and

Site-Specific WQPMs

Burnt Lode/PL Equipment: Backhoe, dozer, trommel, pumps.

Activities: Testing and mining of placer gravels, 

processing, suction dredging, temporary road 

construction (approx. 2000 feet), and existing 

and proposed ponds inside RHCA.

Same as Alternative 2 except no 

suction dredging. Includes General 

Requirements G1-G26; H1-H12; F1-

F9; NW1-NW9; P1-P2; W1-W7; R1-

R7; R8-R22, and Site-Specific 

WQPMs

Camp Hale PL Equipment: Backhoe, dozer, trommel, pump.

Activities: Sampling with backhoe, processing, 

use of existing ponds outside RHCA.

Same as Alternative 2 with General 

Requirements G1-G26 ; H1-H12; F1-

F9; NW1-NW9; P1-P2; W1-W7; R1-

R7; R8-R22

Dominion Ld Group Equipment: Excavator, backhoe, dozer, 

mucker, generators, compressors.

Activities: Exploration/development, portal 

construction, trenching, drilling, road upgrade, 

use of proposed ponds outside of RHCA.

Same as Alternative 2 with General 

Requirements G1-G22; G25-G26; 

H1-H12; F1-F9; NW1-NW9; P1-P2; 

W1-W7; R1-R7; R8-R24; ZRequirements

EJ Placers Equipment: Excavator, dump truck, loader, 

trommel.

Activities: Testing of placer gravels, bulk 

sample, processing with use of an additional 

processing site and proposed pond construction 

within RHCA, use of existing concrete ford.

Same as Alternative 2 with General 

Requirements G1-G26; H1-H12; F1-

F9; NW1-NW9; P1-P2; W1-W7; R1-

R7; R8-R22; Z-Requirements, and

Site-Specific WQPMs

Gimlet PL Equipment: Dozer, excavator, portable mill, 

generator, compressor, pumps.

Activities: Excavate and process placer gravels 

and old tailings. Proposed pond construction 

inside RHCA.

Same as Alternative 2 with General 

Requirements G1-G26; H1-H12; F1-

F9; NW1-NW9; P1-P2; W1-W7; R1-

R7; R8-R22, and Site-Specific 

WQPMs

Glory B PL Equipment: Backhoe or excavator, dozer, dump 

truck, trommel, pumps, generator.

Activities: Exploration pits, processing, existing 

and proposed pond construction within RHCA.

Same as Alternative 2 with General 

Requirements G1-G26; H1-H12; F1-

F9; NW1-NW9; P1-P2; W1-W7; 

R1-R7; R8-R22, and Site-Specific 

WQPMs

Gold Busters PL Equipment: Backhoe, trommel, high-bankers, 

sluice, pumps, generators.

Activities: Excavations in placer gravels, 

processing, and use of existing ponds inside 

RHCA.

Same as Alternative 2 with General 

Requirements G1-G26; H1-H12; F1-

F9; NW1-NW9; P1-P2; W1-W7; R1-

R7; R8-R22
Chapter 2 NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

20

Operation Name

PL=Placer

LD=Lode

Alternative 2

Proposed Operations as Submitted 

by the Miners 

Alternative 4

Proposed Operations 

with BMPs

Gold Camp PL Equipment: Backhoe, dump truck, dozer, 

pumps, trommel, generator, high-bankers.

Activities: Testing and mining placer gravels, 

high-banking, processing, and use of existing 

ponds within RHCA.

Same as Alternative 2 with General 

Requirements G1-G26; H1-H12; F1-

F9; NW1-NW9; P1-P2; W1-W7; R1-

R7; R8-R22, and Site-Specific 

WQPMs

Golden Bandit PL/LD Equipment: Core or rotary drill, trommel, 

impact mill, backhoe, dozer, pumps. 

Activities: Drilling (holes 50' or less), 

exploration testing of placer gravels, processing, 

and use of ponds outside RHCA.

Same as Alternative 2 with General 

Requirements G1-G26; H1-H12; F1-

F9; NW1-NW9; P1-P2; W1-W7; R1-

R7; R8-R22, and Site-Specific 

WQPMs

Goldy PL and Mill Equipment: Loader, trommel, pump, gold 

spinner, 5-yd dump truck.

Activities: Processing site for mining at Pyx and 

King Solomon Mines (Granite Creek 

watershed); process concentrates and mill 

tailings, exploration testing of placer gravels, 

use of settling ponds outside RHCA.

Same as Alternative 2 with General 

Requirements G1-G26; H1-H12; F1-

F9; NW1-NW9; P1-P2; W1-W7; R1-

R7; R8-R22

Gopher PL Equipment: Backhoe, dozer, small tractor, 

trommel, pumps.Activities: Exploration testing, 

processing, use of settling ponds within RHCA.

Same as Alternative 2 with General 

Requirements G1-G26; H1-H12; F1-

F9; NW1-NW9; P1-P2; W1-W7; R1-

R7; R8-R22; Z-Requirements, and

Site-Specific WQPMs

Jay Gould LD (Banzer) Equipment: Backhoe or excavator, mucker, 

dump truck, dozer, generators.

Activities: Clean and repair 2 portals, trenching, 

underground mining, milling done off site. Use 

of ponds within RHCA.

Same as Alternative 2 with General 

Requirements G1-G26; H1-H12; F1-

F9; NW1-NW9; P1-P2; W1-W7; R1-

R7; R8-R24, and Site-Specific 

WQPMs, 

Jay Gould Mine Works

(Newell)

Equipment: Backhoe or excavator, mucker, 

dump truck, dozer, generators.

Activities: Clean and repair 2 portals, trenching, 

underground mining, milling done off site. Use 

of ponds within RHCA.

Same as Alternative 2 with General 

Requirements G1-G26; H1-H12; F1-

F9; NW1-NW9; P1-P2; W1-W7; R1-

R7; R8-R23; Z-Requirements

Jim Bob PL Equipment: Backhoe, trommel, sluice, pumps, 

hand tools.

Activities: Exploration test holes in placer 

gravels, processing, construct settling pond 

within RHCA, use of existing ford

Same as Alternative 2 with a General 

Requirements G1-G26; H1-H12; F1-

F9; NW1-NW9; P1-P2; W1-W7; R1-

R7; R8-R22, and Site-Specific 

WQPMs

Ladder, Rusty Bucket 

PL

Equipment: Backhoe, excavator, dozer, 2 5-

yard dump trucks, wash plant, test plant, pumps.

Activities: Exploration testing and mining, 

processing, use of ponds outside RHCA.

Same as Alternative 2 with General 

Requirements G1-G26; H1-H12; F1-

F9; NW1-NW9; P1-P2; W1-W7; R1-

R7; R8-R24, and Site-Specific 

WQPMs

Lucky One PL/LD Equipment: Backhoe, dozer, dump truck, wash 

plant, pumps, generator.

Activities: Exploration testing in placer gravels, 

processing, repair or construct new settling 

ponds within RHCA, pipe water across Simpson 

Creek for use in settling ponds, road repair and 

construction (1000’) of temporary road, 

proposed log ford, reopen and sample existing 

adit, drill well.

Same as Alternative 2 with General 

Requirements G1-G26; H1-H12; F1-

F9; NW1-NW9; P1-P2; W1-W7; R1-

R7; R8-R24; Z-Requirements, and

Site-Specific WQPMs
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Chapter 2

21

Operation Name

PL=Placer

LD=Lode

Alternative 2

Proposed Operations as Submitted 

by the Miners 

Alternative 4

Proposed Operations 

with BMPs

Lucky PL Equipment: Excavator or backhoe, dump truck, 

wash plant, high-bankers, dozer.

Activities: Exploration testing in placer gravels, 

panning and high-banking in existing ponds 

outside RHCA, processing at Gold Busters site.

Same as Alternative 2 with General 

Requirements G1-G26; H1-H12; F1-

F9; NW1-NW9; P1-P2; W1-W7; R1-

R7; R8-R22; Z-Requirements

Midas/Lady Bug PL Equipment: Backhoe, sluice, wash plant, 3" 

high-banker.

Activities: Temporary check dam in stream, 

road repair; exploration and mining of placer 

gravels, processing, construct settling ponds 

outside RHCA.

Same as Alternative 2 with General 

Requirements G1-G26; H1-H12; F1-

F9; NW1-NW9; P1-P2; W1-W7; R1-

R7; R8-R22; Z-Requirements, and

Site-Specific WQPMs

Monarch LD Equipment: Backhoe or excavator, dump 

trucks, loader, dozer, generator, compressor, 

portable ball mills, jig, centrifugal concentrators, 

portable saw mill.

Activities: Milling with ball mill, construct 

settling ponds outside RHCA; 

exploration/testing, new portal and test portal 

construction, timber cutting and milling for 

portal, underground mining, trenching, phone 

line and road repair 

Same as Alternative 2 with General 

Requirements G1-G22; G25-G26; 

H1-H12; F1-F9; NW1-NW9; P1-P2; 

W1-W7; R1-R7; R8-R23; ZRequirements

North Fork PL Equipment: Backhoe or excavator, dozer, 

trommel, dump truck, loader, pumps, generator.

Activities: Exploration testing and mining of 

placer gravels, processing, and use of settling 

ponds inside RHCA.

Same as Alternative 2 with General 

Requirements G1-G26; H1-H12; F1-

F9; NW1-NW9; P1-P2; W1-W7; R1-

R7; R8-R22, and Site-Specific 

WQPMs

Old Channel PL Equipment: Backhoe, dozer, loader, sluice.

Activities: Excavate and process placer gravels 

outside RHCA.

Same as Alternative 2 with General 

Requirements G1-G26; H1-H12; F1-

F9; NW1-NW9; P1-P2; W1-W7; R1-

R7; R8-R22

Parkerville PL Replaced - Replaced with Parkerville Placer

Mining

Replaced - Replaced with 

Parkerville Placer Mining

Parkerville PL Mining Equipment: Backhoe, excavator, dozer, loader, 

dump truck, trommel, pumps, generator.

Activities: Exploration & mining of placer 

gravels, processing, construction and use of 3 

off-channel ponds outside RHCA. 

Same as Alternative 2 with General 

Requirements G1-G26; H1-H12; F1-

F9; NW1-NW9; P1-P2; W1-W7; 

R1-R7; R8-R22; Z-Requirements

Prudent PL Equipment: Backhoe or excavator, dozer, dump 

truck, trommel, pumps, generator.

Activities: Excavation of placer gravels, 

processing, and construction of settling pond 

outside RHCA.

Same as Alternative 2 with General 

Requirements G1-G26; H1-H12; F1-

F9; NW1-NW9; P1-P2; W1-W7; R1-

R7; R8-R22, and Site-Specific 

WQPMs

R&RK #2, #3 PL Equipment: Backhoe, wash plant, pumps, 

generator.

Activities: Exploration testing of placer gravels, 

processing, construction of settling ponds inside 

RHCA, construction of 200’ of temporary road, 

use of existing fords

Same as Alternative 2 with General 

Requirements G1-G26; H1-H12; F1-

F9; NW1-NW9; P1-P2; W1-W7; R1-

R7; R8-R22, and Site-Specific 

WQPMs
Chapter 2 NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

22

Operation Name

PL=Placer

LD=Lode

Alternative 2

Proposed Operations as Submitted 

by the Miners 

Alternative 4

Proposed Operations 

with BMPs

R&RK #4, #5 PL Equipment: Backhoe, trommel.

Activities: Excavation of placer gravels, and 

processing, pond construction within RHCA, 

use of existing ford

Same as Alternative 2 with additional 

General Requirements G1-G26; C1-

C5; H1-H12; F1-F9; NW1-NW9; P1-

P2; W1-W7; R1-R7; R8-R22, and

Site-Specific WQPMs

Racer Group/Keystone 

Korners PL

Equipment: Wash plant, backhoe, dozer, dump 

truck, pumps, generator, hand tools.

Activities:

Exploration testing in placer gravels, processing, 

construction of settling ponds within RHCA, 

road repair, 2 proposed temporary log bridges, 

and one proposed culvert 

Same as Alternative 2 EXCEPT the 

one proposed culvert and two 

proposed bridges REPLACED with 

three fords and has General 

Requirements G1-G26; H1-H12; F1-

F9; NW1-NW9; P1-P2; W1-W7; R1-

R7; R8-R22, and Site-Specific 

WQPMs

Roberts LD Equipment: Dozer, excavator, compressor.

Activities: Reopen and stabilize adit, 

underground mining including use of explosives, 

stockpiled ore on site, ore removed from site for 

processing, and close access road.

Same as Alternative 2 with General 

Requirements G1-G19; G22-G26; 

H1-H12; F1-F9; NW1-NW9; P1-P2; 

W1-W7; R1-R4; R6-R7; R8-R14; 

R16-R24, and Site-Specific WQPMs

Rocker Group PL Equipment: Backhoe or excavator, dozer, dump 

truck, trommel, pumps, generator.

Activities: Exploration and mining of placer 

gravels, processing, and use of settling ponds 

inside RHCA.

Same as Alternative 2 with General 

Requirements G1-G26; H1-H12; F1-

F9; NW1-NW9; P1-P2; W1-W7; R1-

R7; R8-R22, and Site-Specific 

WQPMs

Shamrock PL Equipment: Backhoe, dozer, trommel, pumps.

Activities: Exploration testing in placer gravels, 

processing, use of existing fords

Same as Alternative 2 with General 

Requirements G1-G26; H1-H12; F1-

F9; NW1-NW9; P1-P2; W1-W7; 

R1-R7; R8-R22, and Site-Specific 

WQPMs

Silver Bell PL #2 Equipment: Generator, excavator, loader, 

trammel. 

Activities: Excavation of trenches in placer 

gravels, construct and use 4 off-channel ponds 

inside RHCA, install gates on 2 access roads.

Same as Alternative 2 with General 

Requirements G1-G26; H1-H12; F1-

F9; NW1-NW9; P1-P2; W1-W7; R1-

R7; R8-R22; Z-Requirements, and

Site-Specific WQPMs

Silver Eagle LD Equipment: Backhoe, dozer, dump truck, 

loader.

Activities: mining in existing dumps and open 

pits, on-site & off-site processing.

Same as Alternative 2 with General 

Requirements G1-G26; H1-H12; F1-

F9; NW1-NW9; P1-P2; W1-W7; R1-

R7; R8-R22; Z-Requirements

Sluice Box PL Equipment: Backhoe or excavator, trammel

Activities: Exploration testing upstream on both 

sides of river. Water source off-channel ponds or 

spring. Construction of ponds within RHCA. 

Use of existing fords.

Same as Alternative 2 with General 

Requirements G1-G26; H1-H12; F1-

F9; NW1-NW9; P1-P2; W1-W7; 

R1-R7; R8-R22, and Site-Specific 

WQPMs

Snow Creek PL Equipment: Backhoe, dozer, trammel, 

generator, pumps, dump truck.

Activities: Additional mining and exploration 

testing along creek with 10-foot buffer, mining 

of flood channel and inland channel areas, 

additional testing excavations, use of ponds 

within RHCA, and one proposed ford

Same as Alternative 2 with General 

Requirements G1-G26; H1-H12; F1-

F9; NW1-NW9; P1-P2; W1-W7; R1-

R7; R8-R22; Z-Requirements
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Chapter 2

23

Operation Name

PL=Placer

LD=Lode

Alternative 2

Proposed Operations as Submitted 

by the Miners 

Alternative 4

Proposed Operations 

with BMPs

Standby/McNamee PL Equipment: Backhoe, wash plant, pumps.

Activities: Exploration testing of placer gravels 

in existing and new pits, processing, use of 

settling ponds inside RHCA.

Same as Alternative 2 with General 

Requirements G1-G26; H1-H12; F1-

F9; NW1-NW9; P1-P2; W1-W7; R1-

R7; R8-R22; Z-Requirements, and

Site-Specific WQPMs

Star (Pinus) PL Equipment: Backhoe, hand tools.

Activities: Exploration testing in placer gravels, 

construction of ponds in RHCA, use of ford, 

processing on private land.

Same as Alternative 2 with General 

Requirements G1-G24; H1-H12; F1-

F9; NW1-NW9; P1-P2; W1-W7; R1-

R7; R8-R22; Z-Requirements, and 

Site-Specific WQPMs

Three Cent PL Equipment: Dozer, backhoe, excavator, dump 

truck, trammel

Activities: Exploration testing and mining of 

placer gravels, along with mining and 

processing in Three Cent Placer/East area, pond 

repair and construction within RHCA, water 

well, pipeline.

Same as Alternative 2 with General 

Requirements G1-G26; H1-H12; F1-

F9; NW1-NW9; P1-P2; W1-W7; R1-

R7; R8-R22, and

Site-Specific WQPMs

Upper Geiser Creek 

PL/LD

Equipment: Backhoe or excavator, loader, 

dump truck.

Activities: Exploration testing along Geiser 

Creek and ridge area west of creek, processing 

at Upper Geiser processing site, use of ponds 

outside RHCA, and one proposed ford

Same as Alternative 2 with General 

Requirements G1-G26; H1-H12; F1-

F9; NW1-NW9; P1-P2; W1-W7; R1-

R7; R8-R22; Z-Requirements, and

Site-Specific WQPMs

Upper Winterville 

PL/LD

Equipment: Backhoe or excavator, loader, 

dump truck.

Activities: Exploration testing of placer gravels, 

processing at Upper Geiser processing site, use 

of ponds outside RHCA, and use of existing 

fords

Same as Alternative 2 with General 

Requirements G1-G19; G22-G26; 

H1-H12; F1-F9; NW1-NW9; P1-P2; 

W1-W7; R1-R4; R6-R7; R8-R14; 

R16-R22; Z-Requirements, and

Site-Specific WQPMs

West Parkerville PL Equipment: Backhoe or excavator, dump truck.

Activities: Exploration testing of placer gravels 

and old channels, processing at adjacent 

Parkerville site (private land), with settling 

ponds on NFS, existing ponds cleaned and 

repaired, construction of ponds in RHCA.

Same as Alternative 2 with General 

Requirements G1-G26; H1-H12; F1-

F9; NW1-NW9; P1-P2; W1-W7; R1-

R7; R8-R22, and

Site-Specific WQPMs

Wild Flower PL Equipment: Backhoe or excavator, dump truck, 

pumps, generator, hand tools.

Activities: Excavations of placer gravels, 

processing, use of settling ponds in RHCA, and 

use of existing ford.

Same as Alternative 2 with General 

Requirements G1-G26; H1-H12; F1-

F9; NW1-NW9; P1-P2; W1-W7; R1-

R7; R8-R22
Chapter 2 NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

24

Table 2-2

Operations Proposing Road Construction under Alternatives 2 and 4

Plan of 

Operations

Creek Nonsystem Mine Access roads proposed for construction

Burnt Lode/Placer 3 

(Karissa)

NFBR The miner proposes to construct a road along an abandoned ditch to 

access his site. The ditch would be accessed via 1042074 (Sluice 

Box Placer access road). New road would be approximately 2000 

feet (as measured off the 7.5 minute USGS Greenhorn Quad).

Lucky One Placer Simpson Creek 

(section with 

perennial flow)

1000 feet of proposed road from the east side of the creek to the adit, 

grading down to the hillside, ending 30 ft. from the creek. 

R&RK 2,3 NFBR 200 feet of proposed road on the south side of the river. The road 

would be accessed by the most upstream ford.

Table 2-3

Operations proposing use or construction of Fords, Bridges, and Culverts under 

Alternatives 2 and 4

Plan of 

Operations

Creek Alternative 2 Alternative 4 

Big Elk/Red Dog Dry Creek 1 existing ford. Miner proposes to 

cross when the channel is dry. 

Same as Alternative 2

EJ Placer 1, 2, 3 NFBR 1 existing concrete ford. Same as Alternative 2

Jim Bob Placer NFBR 

(perennial 

flow)

2 existing fords. 1 ford crosses the 

NFBR. Another seasonal ford crosses 

an overflow channel on the south side. 

Same as Alternative 2

Lucky One Placer Simpson 

Creek 

(perennial 

flow)

1 proposed ford. Ford crosses 

through a mix of wetland and narrow 

creekbed (2-3 feet wide). Miner 

proposes to place logs in stream and 

wetland for crossing, and rock from 

the adit to the log crossing (east side), 

since this area is wet. The west side 

of the access route at the log crossing 

approach would also be rocked. The 

steeper bank on the west side would 

be pulled back so that the access into 

the ford is gentle. 

Same as Alternative 2

R&RK 2,3 NFBR 3 existing fords. Same as Alternative 2

R&RK 4, 5 NFBR 

(perennial 

flow)

1 existing ford. Same as Alternative 2

Racer 

Group/Keystone 

Korners Placer

Geiser 

Creek 

(perennial 

flow)

1 proposed culvert and 2 proposed 

bridges: 1) one culvert in a seasonally 

dry tributary, 2) one temporary bridge 

using logs across Geiser Creek, and 

3) one temporary bridge using logs in 

a seasonally wet draw. 

Proposed culvert and two proposed 

bridges REPLACED with three fords.

Shamrock Placer NFBR 2 existing fords. Same as Alternative 2
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Chapter 2

25

Plan of 

Operations

Creek Alternative 2 Alternative 4 

Sluice Box Placer NFBR 2 existing fords. Ford 1 is located at 

the base of the access road. 

Ford 2 crosses the NFBR. 

Same as Alternative 2

Snow Creek Placer Snow Creek 1 proposed ford. Same as Alternative 2

Standby/McNamee

Placer 2 

(downstream site)

McNamee 

Gulch

1 proposed ford. Same as Alternative 2

Upper Geiser 

Creek Placer/Lode

Geiser 

Creek

1 proposed ford. Same as Alternative 2

Upper Winterville 

Placer/Lode 

(northern portion)

Winterville 

Creek 

(intermittent 

flow)

1 existing ford. Same as Alternative 2

Upper Winterville 

Placer/Lode 

(southern portion)

Winterville 

Creek 

(intermittent 

flow)

2 existing fords. Same as Alternative 2

Wild Flower 

Placer

NFBR 1 existing ford. Same as Alternative 2

Table 2-4

Plans of Operations with Existing or Proposed Ponds 

Alternatives 2 and 4

Plan of Operations Creek/INFISH

buffer

Existing Ponds 

(Yes/None)

Proposed Ponds 

(Yes/None)

August Placer 1, 2, 3 None Yes. Outside RHCA None

Big Elk/Red Dog Trib to Dry Ck/50 

feet

Yes. Inside RHCA Yes. Inside RHCA

Burnt Lode/Placer NFBR/300 feet Yes. Inside RHCA Yes. Inside RHCA

Camp Hale Placer None Yes. Outside RHCA None

Dominion Lode Group None None Yes. Outside RHCA

EJ Placer NFBR/300 feet None Yes. Inside RHCA

Gimlet Placer Gimlet Creek/300 

feet 

None Yes. Inside RHCA

Glory B Placer Jackknife Ck/50 feet None Yes. Inside RHCA

Gold Busters Placer Pinus Ck/300 feet Yes. Inside RHCA None

Gold Camp Placer (1, 2, and 3) Camp Ck/300 feet Yes. Inside RHCA 

(sites 1 and 2) and 

outside RHCA (site 3)

None

Golden Bandit Placer/Lode (1 and 2) None Yes. Outside RHCA None

Goldy Placer & Millsite None None Yes. Outside RHCA

Gopher Placer 1 (north of FS 7830) Simpson Ck/50 feet Yes. Inside RHCA None

Gopher Placer 2 (south of FS 7830) Simpson Ck/150 feet Yes. Inside RHCA None

Jay Gould Lode (Banzer) Unnamed channel 

ends in wetland/50 

feet

Yes. Inside RHCA None

Jay Gould Mine Works (Newell) Gimlet trib None. Yes. Outside RHCA

Jim Bob Placer NFBR/300 feet Yes. Inside RHCA Yes. Inside RHCA
Chapter 2 NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

26

Plan of Operations Creek/INFISH

buffer

Existing Ponds 

(Yes/None)

Proposed Ponds 

(Yes/None)

Ladder/Rusty Bucket None None Yes. Outside RHCA

Lucky One Placer/Lode Simpson Ck/150 feet None Yes. Outside RHCA

Lucky Placer None Yes. Outside RHCA None

Midas/Lady Bug Placer None None Yes. Outside RHCA

Monarch Lode (sites 1, 2, 4) None None Yes. Outside RHCA

North Fork Placer NFBR/300 feet Yes. Inside RHCA None

Old Channel Placer None Yes. Outside RHCA None

Parkerville Placer Mining Unnamed trib to 

NFBR/50 feet

Yes. Inside RHCA Yes. Inside RHCA

Prudent Placer NFBR/300 feet Yes. Inside RHCA None

R&RK 2,3 NFBR/300 feet Yes. Inside RHCA Yes. Inside RHCA

R&RK 4, 5 NFBR/300 feet None Yes. Inside RHCA

Racer Group/Keystone Korners 

Placer

Geiser Ck/300 feet None Yes. Inside RHCA

Roberts Lode None None None

Rocker Group Placer Greenhorn Ck/300 

feet; Slab Creek/50 

feet

Yes. Inside RHCA None

Shamrock Placer NFBR/300 feet None Yes. Inside RHCA

Silver Bell Placer #2 Camp Ck/150 feet Yes. Inside RHCA Yes. Inside RHCA

Silver Eagle Lode None None Yes. Outside RHCA

Sluice Box Placer NFBR/300 feet Yes. Inside RHCA None

Snow Creek Placer Snow Ck/300 feet Yes. Inside RHCA None

Standby/McNamee Placer 1 

(upstream site)

McNamee Gulch/50 

feet

Yes. Outside RHCA None

Standby/McNamee Placer 2 

(downstream site)

McNamee Gulch/150 

feet

Yes. Outside RHCA None

Star (Pinus) Pinus Creek/300 feet None Yes. Inside RHCA

Three Cent Placer Processing 1 Three Cent Ck/150 

feet

Yes. Inside RHCA None

Three Cent Placer Processing 2 Three Cent Ck/50 

feet

None Yes. Inside RHCA

Three Cent Placer Mining 

1/Processing 3

None Yes. Outside RHCA None

Upper Geiser Creek Placer/Lode

(processing site)

Geiser Creek/300 feet Yes. Inside RHCA None

Upper Winterville Placer/Lode (south 

of private lands)

Winterville Creek/50 

feet

None. Processing will 

occur at the Upper 

Geiser Creek 

Placer/Lode

None

West Parkerville Placer Unnamed tributary to 

NFBR/300 feet

None Yes. Inside RHCA

Wild Flower Placer NFBR/300 feet Yes. Inside RHCA Yes. Inside RHCA
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Chapter 2

27

Alternative 4 - Proposed Plans of Operations with Forest Service 

BMPs and Road Management Activities

This section of the 2004 FEIS, Chapter II, pg. 39, is replaced with the following. NOTE: The 

previous or double-counted road closures described in Chapter 1, Section 1.3 of this Supplement 

have been removed from this alternative. The miles of maintenance and reconstruction activities 

included in the 2004 ROD were unchanged as a result of this supplemental analysis and therefore 

they are not included in Table 2-5.

Alternative 4 would authorize the approval of the same Plans as described in Alternative 2 with 

the additional Forest Service Best Management Practices (BMPs) listed in Table 2-1, Column 3 

of Appendix 1A and Appendix 2. Tables 2-1, 2-2, 2-3, and 2-4 describe the proposed equipment 

and activities, road activities, and use or construction of ponds, fords, bridges, and culverts for 

the various proposed operations as submitted by the miners. Refer to Map 2 at the end of this

chapter for the location of each operation. 

Under Alternative 4, the Forest Service BMPs would modify the proposed operations to avoid 

the potential for a discharge into navigable waters or Waters of the State (CWA compliance), and 

to ensure compliance with the WWNF Forest Plan standards and guidelines, including INFISH

MM-1 and MM-2. Alternative 4 also addresses Key Issue 3 (Open road densities by MA/SWS) 

by correcting information regarding road closures, decommissioning, and maintenance and 

reconstruction activities.

The Forest Service BMPs would minimize the adverse environmental impacts on National Forest 

System surface resources as directed by the mining regulations found at 36 CFR 228 Subpart, 

and address Key Issue 1 (water quality/fish habitat) and other associated operational issues such 

as camping. In Chapter 3, these Forest Service BMPs are separated into two categories: 1) Sitespecific Water Quality Protection Measures (WQPMs) (Appendix 1A), and 2) General 

Requirements (Appendix 2) to make clear which BMPs apply to a particular site to ensure water 

quality protection. In addition, some Oregon Department of Environmental (ODEQ) terms and 

conditions were included in Appendix 1A for those Plans with some activities that had the 

potential for a “may discharge”. 

Activities requiring 401 certification will not be approved until 401 certification from 

ODEQ is submitted by the miner to the Forest Service. A separate signature page, with the 

specific activities documented, will be attached to the Plan of Operations for those activities 

requiring 401 certification, to be signed by both the miner and the District Ranger if 401 

certification is received by the Forest Service. The activities of the Plan not requiring 401 

certification may be approved separately from those requiring 401 certification, as described 

below.

For all proposed activities within Plans not requiring 401 certification, approval of 

commencement of mining activities will occur when the District Ranger actually signs the Plan. 

The District Ranger will sign the Plan after the following have been received by the Forest 

Service:

1) A final Plan signed by the miner which incorporates the requirements identified in this 

decision to minimize adverse environmental impacts resulting from the operation 

(monitoring, Site-specific requirements (Appendix 1A), and General Requirements 

(Appendix 2), and
Chapter 2 NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

28

2) Reclamation bonds for all Plans

Road Management Activities

This section has been updated to provide a clearer picture of which roads were closed or 

decommissioned under the 2004 ROD (Table 2-5). 

Alternative 4 authorized the closing of 5.1 miles of system roads, and decommissioning of 2.6 

miles of currently open system roads (as adjusted per this supplement). It also authorized the 

conversion of 4.5 miles from closed to decommissioned (Table 2-5). Maintenance was 

authorized to increase on 19.75 miles, and 22.65 miles were slated for reconstruction. 

Road maintenance activities includes installing water bars, cleaning culverts, replacing culverts 

that have failed or been damaged, road surface grading, and resurfacing. Reconstruction 

includes replacing undersized culverts, realigning portions of the road, and upgrading the road 

surface. 

The objective of road decommissioning is to stabilize, restore, and revegetate unneeded roads to 

a more natural state to protect and enhance NFS lands (FSM 7734.02). Decommissioned roads 

are removed from the forest transportation atlas. Road decommissioning treatments may range 

from simply administratively removing the road from the system to fully restoring the slope to 

near natural contours. The level of treatment is determined site-specifically based on the road’s 

current condition and location, and what is needed to meet the objective to hydrologically 

stabilize the road. These activities will occur as funding is available.

Table 2-5 shows the list of roads that went from opened to closed or decommissioned and the 

roads that went from closed to decommissioned under Alternative 4 of the 2004 FEIS. Some 

roads have multiple road segments, occur within multiple subwatersheds, or fall within multiple 

management areas. Map 3, located at the end of Chapter 2, shows the location of the roads and 

the subwatersheds listed in Table 2-5. 

The 2004 NFBR Mining Record of Decision (ROD) made road 

management decisions (maintenance, reconstruction, closure and 

decommissioning), and those decisions were not found inadequate in 

HCPC 2006. This Supplement does not prescribe any new road 

management activities on Forest Service roads, therefore no road 

management decisions for Forest Service roads will be included in the 

Record of Decision for this Supplement.

The road management activities included in the 2004 ROD are included in 

Alternative 4 of this supplemental analysis to incorporate corrections to 

road miles that have been made since 2004, and provide clarity when 

comparing effects of the alternatives.
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Chapter 2

29

Table 2-5

Alternative 4 Road Management Proposals

(as corrected and adjusted per this supplemental analysis)

Road # Length (miles) NFBR Supplement Proposal Alt 4

(Change in Status) Subwatershed (SWS)

1000364 0.44 Open to Closed E

1000365 0.21 Open to Closed E

1000369 0.07 Open to Closed E

1000378 0.27 Open to Closed F

1035559 0.04 Open to Closed G

1035561 0.16 Open to Closed G

1035562 0.09 Open to Closed G

1038302 0.09 Open to Closed G

1038303 0.11 Open to Closed G

1038304 0.09 Open to Closed G

1044045 0.62 Closed to Decommissioned G

1044051 1.33 Open to Decommissioned G

1044065 0.5 Closed to Decommissioned G

1044070 0.26 Closed to Decommissioned G

1044086 0.19 Open to Decommissioned G

1046035 0.21 Open to Closed G

1055113 1.09 Closed to Decommissioned F

1055115 0.66 Open to Decommissioned F

1055117 0.39 Open to Decommissioned F

1055306 0.29 Open to Closed F

1060128 0.45 Open to Closed F

1060203 0.16 Open to Closed F

1060269 0.29 Closed to Decommissioned F

1065120 0.18 Closed to Decommissioned F

1065140 0.53 Closed to Decommissioned F

1065300 0.47 Closed to Decommissioned F

1065910 0.21 Closed to Decommissioned F

1075071 0.18 Open to Closed D

1075077 0.41 Open to Closed D

1900400 0.39 Closed to Decommissioned F

1900424 0.87 Open to Closed F

7380240 0.8 Open to Closed F

7380270 0.16 Open to Closed F
Chapter 2 NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

30

Monitoring Under Alternative 4 

Add the following after the first 2 paragraphs of section 2a. “General”, Chapter II, pg. 35 of the 

2004 FEIS.

The Supplement includes BMPs (WQPMs and General Requirements) that would be required in 

the approved Plans. These BMPs address the initial screening items listed in the 2004 FEIS 

(Chapter II, page 36). These BMPs will be observed during annual and interim inspections to 

determine if the miner has implemented these BMPs and that they are achieving the desired 

results. At the same time, the implementation of the INFISH standards and guidelines for 

Minerals Management (MM-1 and MM-2) would also be monitored during annual inspections 

(Table 2-6). If there are any noticeable impacts to resources, including a discharge, the 

operations would be stopped immediately and not allowed to be resumed until corrected.

Annual inspections would also examine the following:

Table 2-6

Annual Inspection Items

Item Action

Equipment and Structures List sizes and take photos of all 

Earthwork A) Excavations (testing and mining hole sizes and note 

if current work)

B) Processing site (size of compacted area not including 

settling ponds)

C) Settling ponds (sizes, if they are holding water, if 

they have been cleaned out, and if there is vegetation)

D) Camp area (size of area being compacted by 

camping)

E) Roads (lengths of any accesses to sites, condition)

Water List if there are any overflows, muddy water, distance of 

workings to water, etc. 

Weeds List if there are weeds, identify if possible, take picture 

if you are unsure, take a measurement of area, and GPS 

Access List all the roads and numbers to get to the site

Sketch Map Include conversations, any campers on site, any other 

uses of sites for records. This is also an area for photo 

references from the sketch map. Also list any noncompliance issues.

Current regulations allow the district ranger to stop all operations that are not in compliance with 

the operating plan or causing unforeseen significant disturbance (36CFR 228.4 (a) (4), and 228.4 

(e)). An example of an unforeseen significant disturbance could be failure of a WQPM to 

prevent a discharge during a flood. Failure of a WQPM would be determined if the inspectors 

observed sediment discharging into streams or saw evidence of discharge, such as rills and gully 

development, from the operating area to adjacent streams, or the development of seepage zones 

along streambanks related to ponds.
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Chapter 2

31

Comparison of Alternatives

This section in the 2004 FEIS, Chapter II, pg. 43, is replaced with the following:

This section provides a summary of the Plans’ activities that are of concern relative to the 

potential for a discharge into navigable waters or Waters of the State from the proposed 

operations by alternative (Table 2-7). 

Alternative 2 includes 28 Plans with activities that have the potential for a discharges due to a 

proposed activity. Therefore, parts of these 28 Plans would not be in compliance with Section 

313 of the Clean Water Act. 

Alternative 4 includes only two Plans (Burnt Lode/Placer and Three Cent Placer) with activities 

that have the potential for a discharge because of the added Forest Service BMPs and ODEQ

terms and conditions listed in Appendices 1A and 2. Therefore, all but portions of two Plans 

would be in compliance with Section 313 of the CWA. The Burnt Lode/Placer activities with 

the potential for a discharge are 1) proposed road construction to access the Karissa site and 2) 

suction dredging on Cub Creek. The Three Cent Placer activity with the potential for a discharge 

is construction and use of a processing pond at Processing site # 2. The reasons are listed below:

1. Burnt Lode/Placer: 

a. Proposed construction of an access road to Karissa site. The access route is 

located on a steep slope and would follow the old ditch. Parts of the old ditch are 

now buried under rocks, logs and sediment indicating considerable downslope 

movement of material and the old ditch comes within ten feet the NFBR in places. 

Road construction would expose and move considerable sediment in close 

proximity to the NFBR and could potentially destabilize portions of the slope 

since some of the road would need to be cut-and-fill construction. In addition, the 

amount of material that has moved downslope and covered the ditch indicates that 

the road would require continuous maintenance. No Forest Service WQPMs were 

identified that could prevent a discharge of sediment into the NFBR. 

b. Proposed suction dredging on Cub Creek. The fine-grained nature of the 

sediments in the channel increases the risk that suction dredging would trigger a 

headcut and channel incision. Channel incision into fine sediments would result 

in 1) the input of new sediment from outside sources rather than just a 

redistribution of in-channel sediment, 2) long-term chronic inputs of sediment 

into Cub Creek as the headcut moved upstream, and 3) a lowering of the ground 

water table. No Forest Service WQPMs were identified that could protect the 

channel bed such that suction dredging could occur without the potential for 

triggering channel incision. 

2. Three Cent Placer: 

a. Pond construction and use at Processing site #2. The proposed processing ponds 

have the potential to input sediment into Three Cent Creek regardless of location

the area. The area has only a narrow flat terrace adjacent to the creek (less than 

20 feet wide) making it impossible to have the ponds a minimum of 20 feet from 

the creek and still on a flat surface. If the ponds are constructed in this narrow 

zone, there is the potential for bank failure during construction. If failure does not 

occur during construction, there is also the potential for movement of pond water 
Chapter 2 NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

32

subsurface towards the stream which would remobilize bank sediments were the 

pond waters re-emerged along the stream bank. If the ponds are located on the 

hillslope there is also the potential for pond failure and hillslope erosion. 

Alternative 4 would improve the drainage and stability of the roads via maintenance and 

reconstruction, and would reduce motorized use on some roads via road closures and 

decommissionings. These road management activities would eliminate a small amount of roadgenerated sediment currently being delivered to the streams, although this improvement is likely 

to result in non-measurable decreases in turbidity level or suspended sediment loads. Appendix 3 

explains why roads are not considered a major contributor of sediment into streams, and 

therefore why road management activities would result in only small, non-measureable 

reductions in sediment and improvement in water quality. This reduction in sediment would not 

alter the current 303 (d) listing for sedimentation (embeddedness) of selected streams because 1) 

the current contribution of sediment into the streams from roads is minimal, 2) the silt 

component of road-generated sediment delivered to the streams would move through the stream 

as suspended load, and 3) any sands or gravels that make it to the stream would settle within a 

few feet. The current sedimentation (embeddedness) is related to historic activity. A decrease in 

channel embeddedness would require disturbance of the channel bed and removal or 

redistribution of the fines. 

Over time, Alternative 4 would result in the revegetation of closed roads and the decompaction 

of the roadbed as trees became established on the roadbed. The result would be that water would 

be retained in the watershed longer as infiltration into the roadbed increased and the near-surface 

groundwater flow paths are re-established.

Table 2-7

Plans of Operations and comparison of Forest Service determination of potential for a 

discharge under Alternatives 2 and 4

Plan of 

Operations

Stream adjacent 

to

Activity of 

concern

Potential for Discharge

Alternative 2 Alternative 4

August Placer None No No

Big Elk/Red Dog Dry Ck Mining Yes No

Burnt Lode/Placer NFBR and Cub 

Creek

Mining, suction 

dredging and 

proposed road 

construction

Yes Yes (only 

suction 

dredging and 

proposed road 

construction)

Camp Hale Placer none No No

Dominion Lode 

Group

Tribs to NFBR Maintenance 

activities for some of 

the close roads in 

area of stream 

crossings

Yes No

EJ Placer NFBR Mining Yes No

Gimlet Placer Gimlet Ck Mining Yes No

Glory B Placer Jackknife Ck No No

Gold Busters Placer Pinus Ck No No
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Chapter 2

33

Plan of 

Operations

Stream adjacent 

to

Activity of 

concern

Potential for Discharge

Alternative 2 Alternative 4

Gold Camp Placer Camp Ck Mining Yes No

Golden Bandit 

Placer/Lode

none Yes No

Goldy Placer & 

Millsite

none No No

Gopher Placer Simpson Ck Mining and 

maintenance 

activities for FS 

7380270

Yes No

Jay Gould Lode –

(Banzer)

Unnamed channel 

ends in wetland

Mining Yes No

Jay Gould Mine 

Works (Newell)

none No No

Jim Bob Placer NFBR Mining Yes No

Ladder/Rusty Bucket none No No

Lucky One 

Placer/Lode

Simpson Ck No No

Lucky Placer none No No

Midas/Lady Bug 

Placer

none No No

Monarch Lode Mosquito Ck Waste material 

disposal on skid road 

up Mosquito Ck

Yes No

South Fk Gimlet 

Creek 

Maintenance 

activities for 

decommissioned road 

FS 1065250 as road 

is in or close to 

drainage. Road 

access may be needed 

for drilling 

exploration holes.

Yes No

North Fork Placer NFBR Mining Yes No

Old Channel Placer none No No

Parkerville Placer

Mining

Unnamed tributary to 

NFBR

Mining and use of 

pond just upstream of 

the 1046045 road

Yes No

Prudent Placer (#9) NFBR Mining Yes No

R&RK 2,3 NFBR Mining Yes No

R&RK 4, 5 NFBR Mining and ford Yes No

Racer 

Group/Keystone 

Korners Placer

Geiser Ck Mining, culvert 

installation, bridge 

building

Yes No

Roberts Lode none No No

Rocker Group Placer Greenhorn and Slab 

Creeks

Mining Yes No

Shamrock Placer NFBR Mining and ford Yes No
Chapter 2 NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

34

Plan of 

Operations

Stream adjacent 

to

Activity of 

concern

Potential for Discharge

Alternative 2 Alternative 4

Silver Bell Placer #2 Camp Ck No No

Silver Eagle Lode none No No

Sluice Box Placer NFBR Mining and ford Yes No

Snow Creek Placer Snow Ck Mining and road 

maintenance 

activities of closed 

roads FS 1038400, 

1038401, and 

1035559 where close 

to creek

Yes No

Standby/McNamee

Placer 

McNamee Gulch Mining, Ford, and 

road maintenance 

activities of 

decommissioned road 

FS 1035125 where it 

crosses the creek

yes No

Star (Pinus) Placer Pinus Ck Mining and road 

maintenance 

activities of closed 

road 7386430 where 

it crosses the creek

Yes No

Three Cent Placer East Three Cent 

Creek

Pond construction 

and use of processing 

pond at Processing 

Site 2

Yes Yes

Upper Geiser Creek 

Placer/Lode

Geiser Ck Processing, Mining 

and road maintenance 

activities of closed 

road 1044086 where 

it crosses the creek 

and FS 1044065 

where it comes close 

to creek, and 

decommissioned FS 

1044051 where it 

comes close to creek

Yes No

Upper Winterville 

Placer/Lode

Trib to Geiser Ck Mining and 

maintenance 

activities for 

decommissioned road 

FS 10644045

Yes No

West Parkerville 

Placer

Unnamed tributary to 

NFBR

Mining Yes No

Wild Flower Placer NFBR Ford Yes No

Preferred Alternative

This is a new section not included in the 2004 FEIS.

Alternative 4 is the agency preferred alternative.
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Chapter 2

35

INSERT ALTERNATIVE 2 and 4 MAP HERE (Map 2)
Chapter 2 NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

36
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Chapter 2

37

Insert Alt 4 Roads Map here (Map 3)
Chapter 2 NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

38
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Chapter 2

39

Insert Stream temperature and 303d Map here (Map 4)
Chapter 2 NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

40
Chapter 3

NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Chapter 3

41

CHAPTER 3

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

and

ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS

Updated Cumulative Actions and Effects Common to All Alternatives

This is a new section not included in Chapter III in the 2004 FEIS. This section provides updated 

information about actions previously analyzed in the 2004 FEIS under the Watershed and Soil 

Resources Cumulative Effects section (Chapter III, pp. 26-28). Updated information is provided 

for road reconstruction, OHV bridge construction, ongoing grazing, Notice of Intent level mining 

activities, suction dredging on Cub Creek, and the WWNF Travel Management Plan (TMP). 

The effects analyses for Alternatives 2 and 4 have been updated to reflect a determination that: 

1) camping, 2) pick and shovel work, and 3) suction dredging, except on Cub Creek (Burnt 

Lode/Placer), are not likely to cause a significant disturbance of surface resources and therefore 

are authorized by regulation at 36 CFR 228.4. Accordingly, these activities are not involved in 

the decision to authorize the approval of the Plan of Operations, and they are not included in the 

direct/indirect analysis. Only the cumulative effects for the TMP are addressed by resource area 

in Chapter 3 of this Supplement. The cumulative effects from the other activities are addressed 

either immediately below or in Appendices 6A and 6B (Suction dredging). Suction dredging on 

Cub Creek (Burnt Lode/Placer) is being treated as mining activity contained within a Plan 

(similar to fords, bridges, culverts, roads) and will be discussed in the Direct/Indirect Effects and 

Cumulative Effects of the Watershed and Soil Resources section in this chapter. 

Road Reconstruction 

The reconstruction of the Geiser Creek Road (Forest Road 1044000, County Road 528) was 

completed in Summer 2006 (D. Taylor, Whitman Ranger District, Wallowa-Whitman National 

Forest, pers. com. 5/2/08). The resulting cumulative effects were as anticipated in the 2004 

FEIS (Chapter III, p. 27) and will not be further discussed in Chapter 3 of this Supplement. 

OHV Bridge

The OHV ford near the confluence of the NFBR and Second Creek was replaced with a bridge in 

June 2006. The resulting cumulative effects were as anticipated in the 2004 FEIS (Chapter III, p. 

27) and will not be further discussed in Chapter 3 of this Supplement. 

Ongoing Grazing

Updated permitted livestock numbers in the NFBR Watershed since the 2004 can be found in 

Appendix 12. Since 2004, there has been a decrease in the total number of permitted livestock in 

the NFBR Watershed. Therefore, the current cumulative effects are anticipated to be less than or 

equal to those displayed in the 2004 FEIS for all resources in the 2004 FEIS (Chapter III, p. 27) 

and will not be further discussed in Chapter 3 of this Supplement. 
Chapter 3 NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

42

Notice of Intent Level Mining Activities

Notice of Intent (NOI) level mining activities in the watershed (camping and pick and shovel 

work) would result in no significant disturbance of surface resources (Appendix 5). Therefore, 

there would be no cumulative effect on water quality from those activities. These NOI activities 

are authorized by regulation at 36 CFR 228.4 and will not be further discussed in Chapter 3 of 

this Supplement. 

Suction Dredging

Suction dredging was determined to be Notice of Intent (NOI) level activity at all sites 

mentioned in the Plans of Operations, except for proposed suction dredging on Cub Creek (Burnt 

Lode/Placer) (Appendices 5, 6A and 6B). Appendix 6 examines the direct/indirect and 

cumulative effects of suction dredging for all sites and Appendix 6B includes the field 

observations of each site. Therefore, the cumulative effects of suction dredging proposed in the 

Plans will not be further discussed in Chapter 3 of this Supplement except at Cub Creek. Suction 

dredging on Cub Creek (Burnt Lode/Placer Plan) is not considered NOI work because of the 

potential to trigger a headcut and have long-term sediment inputs. Therefore, suction dredging 

on Cub Creek will be discussed in the Direct/Indirect Effects and Cumulative Effects of the 

Watershed and Soil Resource section. 

WWNF Travel Management Plan (TMP)

Analysis for the WWNF Travel Management Plan, which addresses motorized travel on 

approximately 1.3 million acres, is ongoing and implementation of a decision is considered a 

foreseeable action. The NFBR project area is included within the TMP project area. TMP had 

not begun in 2004 and, therefore, was not considered in the NFBR FEIS and ROD. One of the 

purposes of the TMP is to meet national travel management direction (Travel Management Rule, 

36 CFR 212.1). This direction requires designation of those roads, trails, and areas that are open 

to motor vehicle use, and prohibits use of motor vehicles off of - or outside of - these designated 

routes or areas (TMP FEIS pg. 8). It is expected that a TMP decision will limit cross-country 

travel. All road closures and decommissioning included Under Alternative 4 of the 2004 ROD 

(as updated and adjusted by this Supplement) are incorporated in the existing condition for TMP. 

TMP will be discussed under Cumulative Effects for Alternatives 2 and 4 of Chapter 3 of this 

Supplement.
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Chapter 3

43

Watershed and Soil Resources

(Key Issue 1)

Affected Environment

Precipitation and Temperature

No change from 2004 FEIS, except the last paragraph of this section in Chapter III, pg. 6, is 

expanded as follows.

Air temperature has become the most important variable for predicting both the mean and 

maximum daily water temperatures and patterns of temperature changes because current streams 

are over-widened, incised, straightened and disconnected from their historic floodplains (valley 

floors). As a result groundwater tables have dropped and no longer contribute cool base flows to 

the streams during the summer. The loss of riparian vegetation and over-widening of the 

channels has also eliminated much of the historic shade component on the rivers.

Water Temperature 

No change from the 2004 FEIS, except that Paragraph 2 of this section, Chapter III, Page 9, top 

of the page, is replaced with the following to reflect updated information.

The salmonid of interest in the NFBR watershed is redband trout. The ODEQ summer maximum 

standard for waters supporting salmonids has changed from 64o F to 68o F in 2004 (Oregon 

Administrative Rules 2004). This standard, 68o F, will be used in the MIS Habitat summary 

tables for redband trout which are found in Appendix 12. 

Stream temperatures available for the NFBR watershed are found in Table 3-1. Map 4, at the 

end of Chapter 2, displays the location of the temperature monitoring sites and streams that are 

303d listed. 

Three streams in the analysis area were listed as water quality-impaired for temperature under 

Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act: NFBR, Trout Creek, and Patrick Creek 

(http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/assessment/rpt0406/search.asp) under the 64°F standard. These 

three streams still exceed the new standard of 68°F. Camp Creek also exceeds the 68°F standard 

(Table 3-1) but is not currently 303(d) listed because the data have not been submitted to DEQ as 

of 2012. Five streams are listed for sedimentation (embeddedness): NFBR, Trout Creek, Patrick 

Creek, Camp Creek, and Geiser Creek. See further discussion of Section 303(d) in 2004 FEIS, 

Chapter III, page 11.

This section responds to elements #1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the court order 

and opinion (see Introduction pgs. 2-3) and specifically addresses 

compliance with the Clean Water Act and the impacts of mining 

activities on water quality. It also includes updated cumulative effects 

to incorporate the future foreseeable WWNF Travel Management Plan.
Chapter 3 NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

44

Table 3-1 

Stream temperature monitoring sites and maximum 7-day running average of daily stream 

temperatures (o F) by year

Creek Hobo 

No.

Position of hobo with 

respect to tributaries 1995 1996 1997 1999 2003 2005 2006 2008

Camp Camp 

83F.1

Upstream of conflu 

w/Pinus

70 * * * * * 71.08 65.5

Geiser Geiser 

83G.1

Upstream of conflu 

w/Winterville Ck.

61.5 * * * * * * *

Geiser Geiser 

83G.2

* * 60.8 * * * * *

Geiser Geiser 

83G.4

Downstream of conflu 

w/Winterville Ck.

* * 72.7 * * * 70.88 65.46

Greenhorn Green 

83G.1

Upstream of conflu 

w/Snow Ck.

62.53 * * * * * 66.47 62.4

N Fk Burnt NFBR 

83A.1

Upstream of conflu 

w/First Ck.

75.2 * * * * * * *

N Fk Burnt NFBR 

83C.1.4

* * * * * 79.3 * *

N Fk Burnt NFBR 

83E.2

Upstream of conflu 

w/Trout Ck.

76.7 77.3 78.7 78.18 * * 83.46 78.01

N Fk Burnt NFBR 

83E.3

Downstream of conflu 

w/China Ck. (not to be 

confused with China in 

83B)

* * 76 75.82 * * * 72.76

N Fk Burnt NFBR 

83G.4

Upstream of conflu 

w/Snow Ck.

65.8 * 65.7 * * * 71.77 66.47

N Fk Burnt NFBR 

83E.6

* * * 73.59 * * * *

Snow Snow 

83G.1

Downstream of the 

confluence with 

Greenhorn Creek and 

Upstream of confluence 

w/NFBF

61.3 64.6 * * * 66.1 65.59 60.8

Trout Trout 

83D.1

Upstream of conflu 

w/NFBR

* * 76 * * 76.97 77.71 72.26

Trout Trout 

83D.3

Upstream of conflu 

w/Alder Creek

* * 69.8 * * * * *
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Chapter 3

45

Water Quality 

Four elements are added at the end of this section of the 2004 FEIS, Chapter III, pg. 14, and 

discussed as they pertain to their influence on surface water quality: 1) valley floor flooding, 2) 

the presence and condition of beaver dams within claim boundaries, 3) existing adit water 

quality, and 4) suction dredging in Cub Creek (Burnt Lode/Placer).

Valley Floor Flooding 

In the NFBR watershed, multiple terraces often border the streams. These terraces once were the 

active floodplains, and they currently exist because the streams in this watershed have incised, 

widened, and straightened as a result of historic activity. These terraces flood less frequently and 

at higher stream flows than the active floodplain. The current “active” floodplains are inset into 

the larger valley channel and have been reduced in width from extending across the valley floor 

to 30 feet wide or less in most places. 

The active floodplain is flooded approximately every 1-2 years. The frequency at which the 

higher valley floor terrace (historic floodplain) floods is unknown, but flows have been observed 

that partially flood Whitney Valley (R. Lusk, Baker County Water Master, per. comm. 12/9/08). 

Therefore, it is probable that the valley floors, though isolated from their streams most years, are 

periodically flooded. Operations on valley floors that have disturbed areas that are not yet 

reclaimed have the potential, when flooded during a high flow event, to input sediment into the 

streams. 

Existing Beaver Dams

The presence of beaver dams within claim boundaries and the impact on water quality as a result 

of breaching those dams were not addressed in the 2004 FEIS. North Fork Placer and Prudent 

Placer are located along the NFBR in stream sections with active beaver dams. North Fork 

Placer proposes to breach the beaver dams if they flood the operation. R&RK 2, 3 Placer has an 

inactive, but intact beaver dam on the NFBR near its proposed operation. In addition, other areas 

have had transient beaver dams that are built in the fall and wash out in the spring (Wild Flower 

and EJ Placer). Dam breaching would release large quantities of sediment now trapped behind 

the dams and decrease water quality and fish habitat. Dam breaching and failures would also 

slow the recovery of the stream-valley floor hydrologic connection, and prevent expansion of 

riparian habitat and shade along the stream and a rise in the groundwater table.

Adit Discharge

The 2004 FEIS stated that water coming out of the adits would be tested for water quality for 

those Plans that intended to mine the adit or use the water. If the adit water was found to exceed 

State water quality standards for the receiving stream, it must be treated before entering the 

stream system (2004 FEIS, p. 34). 

Five Plans of Operations propose to work an adit and/or use the adit water: August Placer/Lode 

(lower portal), Jay Gould Lode (Banzer), Ladder/Rusty Bucket, Lucky One Placer/Lode, and 

Roberts Lode. All five adits were tested for water quality in October 2007 by Cascade Earth 

Sciences under contract to the Forest Service (Cascade Earth Sciences 2008). The hydrology of 

the sites is listed in Table 3-2.
Chapter 3 NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

46

Table 3-2

Hydrology of the Sites with Adits that Discharge Water

Operation Site Hydrology

August Placer/Lode 

(downslope portal)

Water discharges into pond and goes subsurface. Channels are related to historic 

mining and discontinuous. There are no fish.

Jay Gould Lode 

(Banzer)

The adit discharges water into an adit-generated wetland located below 

the road. There is a culvert under the road, and a continuous channel 

between the adit and this wetland. The condition of the channel below 

the culvert outlet indicates that the channel does carry water at times. 

The adit water goes subsurface and re-emerges several times before 

reaching the wetland.

Ladder/Rusty Bucket The adit discharges water into an adit-generated wetland. The wetland is less 

than 100 feet long and terminates at a road. Surface water does not extend 

beyond the wetland. No other surface waters in area. There is no discharge of 

water or sediment into surface waters. 

Lucky One 

Placer/Lode

Adit water discharges into a wetland which has a perennial stream flowing 

through it. Flow goes subsurface prior to reaching any perennial stream. There 

are no fish in the area. There are no known public water sources as defined by 

the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974, and there is no known human consumption 

of the ground or surface water.

Roberts Lode The adit discharges water into mining-created channel below the adit. The 

channel carries water for less than 100 feet before going subsurface. Water 

resurfaces in a wetland below the old mill site. A road marks the downslope end 

of the wetland. There is a channel below the road but it is dry. There are no fish 

in the area.

The unfiltered samples were analyzed for the following: 

1. 14 total recoverable metals: antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, copper, 

iron, lead, low-level mercury, manganese, nickel, silver, selenium, and zinc. 

2. Wet chemistry parameters: hardness (dissolved calcium and magnesium), sulfate, total 

dissolved solids, total suspended solids, pH, and conductivity.

3. Field parameters: water temperature, pH, conductivity, oxidation reduction potential, 

dissolved oxygen.

Of the 14 metals analyzed, arsenic, iron and manganese are the main metals of concern for 

human receptors. Cadmium, iron, manganese, and mercury are the main metals of concern for 

aquatic organisms (Cascade Earth Sciences 2008). Water quality field sheets and the Cascade 

Earth Sciences report for all 14 metals analyzed are found in the project file (Cascade Earth 

Sciences 2008). Table 3-3 shows only those metals of concern for either human receptors or 

aquatic organisms at the five adits where the miners intend to use the adit water and/or open the 

adit. The standards listed in Table 3-3 are a mix of proposed and recommended criteria (see 

footnotes at end of Table 3-4). Table 3-4 summarizes the results and potential risk to human 

health and aquatic organisms. 

Some of the values in Table 3-3 are greater than the minimum proposed criteria for aquatic and 

human health. However, there are no fish in the area and there is no known human consumption 

of water discharging from these adits. These adits are not public water sources as defined by the 

Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974 (SDWA). The SDWA defines public water systems as “a 

system for the provision to the public of water for human consumption through pipes or other 

constructed conveyances, if such system has at least fifteen service connections or regularly 
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Chapter 3

47

serves at least twenty-five individuals” (SDWA 1974, 300f, Definitions). In addition, the adit 

water goes subsurface within 200 feet of the discharge point in all cases (Table 3-3). 

Table 3-3 

Adit Discharge Analytical Results (Cascade Earth Sciences 2008).

HH = Human health. AO = Aquatic organisms

(Values in bold exceed proposed and recommended standards)

Operation Arsenic, TR Cadmium, TR Iron, TR Manganese, TR Mercury, TR

Proposed Standards/Criteria, corrected for hardness where applicable

Oregon – Aquatic life1 150 0.3 1000 NS 0.012

Oregon – Ecological 

Screening Level 

Values2

NS 22 1000 120 0.77

Oregon – Human 

Health3

0.018 NS 300 50 NS

EPA – Aquatic Life 

(CCC)4

150 0.268 1000 NS 0.77

EPA – Human Health 

(water + Organism)5

0.018 NS 300 50 NS

ORNL – Surface 

Water PRG6

NS 1.10 1000 120 1.3

Adit Results

August Placer/Lode 2 < 0.5 < 0.1 1,140 

(HH, AO)

30 0.00173

Jay Gould Mine 

(Banzer)

< 0.5 0.1 (B) 20 (B) 41 0.00033

Ladder/Rusty Bucket < 0.5 1.8 (AO) 80 6 (B) 0.00044

Lucky One 

Placer/Lode

1.3 (HH) 0.1 (B) 17,200 

(HH, AO)

3,020 (HH, AO) 0.0726 (AO)

Roberts Lode 8.8 (HH) < 0.1 60 10 (B) 0.0012

NOTES:

All analyses except Low-Level Mercury were conducted by ACZ Laboratories, Inc., Steamboat Springs, 

CO per EPA Method 200 series

Low-Level Mercury analyses were conducted by Brooks Rand, Seattle, WA per EPA Methods 1631

TR = Total recoverable metals

mg/L = milligrams per liter

μg/L = micrograms per liter

su = standard units

μS = micro siemens

< value = analyte not detected above method detection limit (MDL)

B=Analyte was detected above the method detection limit (MDL) but below the practical quantitation 

limit (PQL) Italic values indicate that the MDL exceeds the lowest standard

Shaded values indicate that the value exceeds one or more standard; exceeded criteria also shaded

H= Analyzed past holding time

STANDARD NOTES:

1 - State of Oregon proposed Aquatic Life criteria (Toxic Compounds Criteria, May 2004), underline -

corrected for hardness, italics - expressed as dissolved
Chapter 3 NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

48

2 - State of Oregon Level II Ecological Screening criteria (ODEQ, December 2001), italics - expressed as 

dissolved

3 - State of Oregon proposed Human Health criteria, water+organism (Toxic Compounds Criteria, May 

2004), underline - corrected for hardness, italics - expressed as dissolved

4 - EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) recommended chronic ambient water quality criteria for 

freshwater aquatic life used (EPA, 2002), underline - corrected for hardness, italics - exp

5 - EPA recommended ambient water quality criteria for protection of human consumption of water and 

fish (EPA, 2002 NTR), italics - expressed as dissolved

6 - ORNL (Oakridge National Laboratory) Preliminary Remediation Goals for Ecological Endpoints 

(ORNL, 1997)

NS = No Standard

Table 3-4

Summary of the water testing results of adit waters and risk to human health and aquatic 

organisms based on proposed criteria noted in Table 3-3

Operation

Adit water 

to be used 

by miner?

Adit activity proposed?

(Yes/No)

Parameters that 

exceeded the lowest 

human health 

proposed criteria

Parameters that 

exceeded the lowest 

aquatic organism 

proposed criteria

August 

Placer/Lode 

(downslope 

portal)

Yes No Iron Iron

Jay Gould Lode 

(Banzer)

Yes Yes - Work will entail taking 

samples underground

Existing dumps will be enlarged 

as mining underground 

progresses (p. 3). 

None None

Ladder/Rusty 

Bucket

Yes No None Cadmium 

Lucky One 

Placer/Lode

Yes Yes - Initially exploration and 

sample will take place 

underground. If lode values are 

economic to mine then will 

continue to mine underground (p. 

3)

Arsenic, iron, 

manganese

Iron, manganese, 

mercury

Roberts Lode Yes Yes - Ore will be mined 

underground

Arsenic None

Suction Dredging on Cub Creek (Burnt Lode/Placer)

Cub Creek is a tributary to the NFBR and flows through a narrow valley composed of fine 

sediment. Cub Creek is narrow (< 7 feet) and has fine-grained stream banks. The channel bed 

contains a high percentage of silt and sands with some cobbles. Channel bed and bank 

complexity and roughness are limited to a few boulders and downed woody material. Riparian 

woody vegetation is limited along the stream. Fine sediment is entering the creek due to bank 

trampling by domestic livestock. Flow is low, but perennial in this section. It is unknown if fish 

are present. This proposed section of stream does not appear to have been historically placer 

mined. Dredging on Cub Creek would occur upstream of its confluence with the NFBR.
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Chapter 3

49

The composition of the channel bed (high percentage of fines) and stream banks (fine-grained 

sediments) increases the potential for suction dredging to trigger the development of a headcut. 

Headcuts once established often lead to the rapid channel incision as the headcut migrates 

upstream. As the channel incises, there is a drop in the groundwater table and a shift in 

vegetation type to more drought-tolerant species and increased stream bank sensitivity to bank 

failure and erosion. The speed at which channel morphology and stream character can change as 

a result of channel incision varies as a function of channel bed and bank characteristics and is 

well-documented in the literature (Bryan 1927, Bryan 1928a, Bryan 1928b, Cottom and Stewart 

1940, Schaffer 1941, Cooke and Reeves 1976, Shankman and Pugh 1992, Fouty 2003). The 

ability of suction dredging, specifically, to alter channel morphology has been noted by Harvey 

(1986) on a tributary with a large percentage of fines. He observed that 15 meters of a stream 

were channelized and riffles transformed into exposed gravel bars as the result of a 10-day 

operation of one dredge.

Water/Road Interaction

Paragraph 3, Chapter III, pg. 15 of the 2004 FEIS is replaced with the following two paragraphs.

There are approximately 747 miles of system road (some open and some closed to motorized 

use) of all jurisdictions within the NFBR Watershed, 557 miles of which are native-surface 

roads. While the modelling conducted for the FEIS (Chapter III, p.55) indicated some 5 tons/sq. 

mile of sediment from these roads in the past, making them major contributors to activitygenerated sediment to area streams (FEIS Figure III-7, Chapter III, page 55), the Whitman 

district hydrologist determined in the analysis for this Supplement that they are no longer a major 

sediment source because the fill slopes have vegetated, road beds have stabilized, and stream 

crossings are limited. Field observations in 2006, 2007, 2008, 2010 and 2011 identified the main 

sources of sediment entering the streams as stream banks and channel beds which are eroding 

due to instream fluvial processes acting on unvegetated, often high, vertical banks, and bank 

trampling by livestock. Appendix 3 provides a detailed discussion of roads and their potential to 

impact water quality.

There is no hydrologic difference between those roads open to use or those recently closed to 

use. Both types of roads continue to intercept and direct surface run-off and subsurface flow. A

study of forest roads in the western Cascades indicates that nearly 60 percent of all roads are 

hydrologically integrated with the stream system, increasing drainage effeciency (Wemple, 

1994). Sixty percent of the road density is added to the perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral 

stream density to arrive at the drainage density in Table III-6 of the 2004 FEIS. The percent 

increase is displayed in the “Percent Increase in Drainage Efficiency” column. The district 

hydrologist’s professional opinion is that 60 percent is probably high, given that this watershed is 

located on the east side of the Cascade mountains, in a drier landscape, with fewer stream 

crossings. 
Chapter 3 NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

50

Environmental Effects

Introduction

This is a new section, not in the 2004 FEIS, that sets the stage for discussing the results of the 

watershed analysis conducted for this Supplement.

Several of the findings in HCPC 2006 were related to compliance with the Clean Water Act

(CWA) and the Forest Plan’s standards for managing inland native fish and riparian habitat. The 

analysis for this Supplement was designed to address these specific issues, and is limited to an 

evaluation of the effects on streams within the NFBR watershed where mining activity is 

proposed. The Whitman district hydrologist visited each of the mining sites identified in the 

proposed Plans of Operations to evaluate the potential effects of the proposed activities on the 

water quality and fisheries. The photographs and field notes are a part of the project file. The 

field evaluations focused on three questions to determine compliance with the CWA and Forest 

Plan standards and guidelines, including INFISH MM-1 and MM-2:

1. Is there a potential for a discharge into navigable waters or Waters of the State (CWA)?

2. Are adverse effects to inland native fish species minimized (Forest Plan – MM-1 and 

MM-2)?

3. Are the proposed new mine access roads, proposed new ponds, and the existing ponds 

within RHCAs necessary? Are there alternative locations outside the RHCAs for these 

structures? What are the impacts to RHCAs, streams and inland native fish of locating 

these structures inside the RHCAs (Forest Plan)

Methodology Used

The Whitman district hydrologist visited each site within a Plan of Operations. The sites varied 

by topography, ground cover, presences and location of old placer tailings with respect to the 

stream, distance from stream, stream bank height and composition, channel bed composition, 

stream bank and valley floor vegetation, micro-topography, and adit characteristics. 

Evaluation of site characteristics (Appendix 1C) was used to determine if the Water Quality 

Protection Measures (WQPMs) proposed by the miners (Appendices 1A, 1B) are sufficient to 

prevent a discharge into navigable waters as defined by the Clean Water Act (CWA, Section 

401), or into Waters of the State, and meet INFISH standards MM-1 and MM-2. 

Proposed features and activities of the Plans of Operations examined for compliance with the 

CWA and possible impacts to the broader Waters of the State included: 

1. Fords,

2. Proposed road construction, 

3. Exploration of adits that discharged water or use of adit water, 

4. Proposed use of closed/previously decommissioned roads, 

5. Mining/testing activities, 

6. Breaching of beaver dams,

7. Suction dredging.

MM-1: Minimize adverse effects to inland native fish species from mineral operations. If the 

Notice of Intent indicates that a mineral operation would be located in a Riparian Habitat
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Chapter 3

51

Conservation Area, consider the effects of the activity on inland native fish in the determination 

of significant surface disturbance pursuant to 36 CFS 228.4. For operations in a Riparian 

Habitat Conservation Area, ensure miners take all practicable measures to maintain, protect, 

and rehabilitate fish and wildlife habitat which may be affected by the operations. When 

bonding is required, consider (in the estimation of bond amount) the cost of stabilizing, 

rehabilitating, and reclaiming the area of operations.

MM-2: Locate structures, support facilities, and roads outside Riparian Habitat Conservation 

Areas. Where no alternative to siting facilities in Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas exists, 

locate and construct the facilities in ways that avoid impacts to Riparian Habitat Conservation 

Areas and streams and adverse effects on inland native fish. 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.

Proposed features and activities of the Plans examined for compliance with INFISH MM-1 and 

MM-2 include:

1. Use of proposed and existing mine access roads inside an RHCA,

2. Use of proposed and existing ponds inside an RHCA,

3. Breaching of beaver dams (Fish component of MM-2 only),

4. Suction dredging.

Criterion for Determination of Effects

The following components of a Plan were identified as having the potential for a “may” 

discharge if concerns identified in Table 3-5 were not adequately addressed by the miner’s 

WQPMs. 
Chapter 3 NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

52

Table 3-5

Features Analyzed and Characteristics of Concern

Applicable 

CWA/INFISH

Standards and 

Guidelines

Feature/Activity analyzed Characteristics of Concern

CWA, Section 401

INFISH MM-1

INFISH MM-2 

(fish habitat 

component)

Ford Ford has fine-grained banks and/or have vertical banks

Proposed Road Construction 

and/or Maintenance, Bridge 

and culverts

Soil disturbed during road construction has a high potential 

of reaching a creek.

Adit Discharge of Water Adit water in an adit proposed for activity discharges into a 

perennial stream or a wetland that is not adit-generated.

Closed/decommissioned road 

use

Location of closed road with respect to stream channel, its 

current condition, and the amount of disturbance required to 

make the road passable results in the soil having a potential 

of reaching a creek.

Mining/Testing activities Effectiveness of buffer width not sufficient to capture 

sediment that may leave the site before it reached the stream 

or active floodplain

Effectiveness of buffer width is uncertain because the 

description of the buffer zone (i.e. 25 feet from the creek) is 

not specific enough to make a clear determination if there is 

a potential for a “may” discharge. Depending on what the 

miner means by “creek” (i.e. low flow stream bank, spring 

runoff stream bank, or large flood stream bank), the site may 

or may not have a potential for a discharge. 

Breaching of beaver dams Discharge of a large volume of previously stored finegrained sediment downstream during the low flow season 

resulting in increased turbidity. Loss of fish habitat.

Suction dredging Channel beds composed of gravels, sand and/or silt. 

Potential for headcut in channel bed sediments leading to 

bank failures, channel incision and large inputs of sediment 

into the stream as well as a lowering of the valley floor 

groundwater table.

INFISH MM-2 

(structure location 

component)

Mine access roads inside 

RHCA

Availability of alternative location

Ponds inside RHCA Availability of alternative location

The feature that most often raised concern in the Whitman district hydrologist’s individual site 

evaluations was whether the proposed stream buffering was sufficient to protect water quality. 

The effectiveness of the buffer zone was difficult to determine because of the variety of ways 

that the miners described their proposed buffers, the uncertainty in where they started measuring 

the buffer, and the general ways they described the location of their operations. Four buffer 

scenarios/situations are presented below which illustrate the reason why knowing exactly where 

the buffers are being measured from is important when making a potential discharge call. These 

four scenarios are illustrated in Figure 3-1 and use a fixed distance of 25 feet for the purpose of 

the example. More discussion on the buffer sufficiency questions and site characteristics are 

found in Appendix 1C.
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Chapter 3

53

Scenario 1: The buffer width is measured from the edge of the stream bank as defined by the 

summer or low flow (Figure 3-1, Point A). In this case, the Whitman district hydrologist’s call 

was that the proposed mining/testing activity would likely disturb sediment in the active 

floodplain and therefore create a potential for a discharge since the active floodplain would be 

flooded in the following spring and the disturbed sediment would be transported to the stream. 

Scenario 2: The buffer width is measured from the back edge of the active floodplain or the 

edge of the high flow channel (Figure 3-1, Point B). In this case whether the buffer is sufficient 

depends on the topography. If the buffer places the activity on the high-flow channel bank or 

right on the edge of the valley floor terrace, the Whitman district hydrologist’s call would be that 

the proposed operation has a high potential for a discharge because this area has the potential to 

interact with the spring high flows. If the buffer width places the activity on the valley floor 

terrace behind a berm of old placer tailings, then the call would be there was no potential for a 

discharge. 

Scenario 3: The buffer width is measured from the edge of the valley floor terrace which is the 

historic floodplain (Figure 3-1, Point C). In this case each operation was individually evaluated 

to determine if the site factors and characteristics were sufficient to support a “no potential for a 

discharge” call because the high flow event required to flood the valley floor terrace is relatively 

infrequent and may have a recurrence interval of 25 years or more. In many cases the call was 

“no potential for a discharge.” Characteristics considered were the topography, ground cover, 

and presence/absence of or old placer tailings lining the terrace edge. If the operation was 

behind old placer tailings lining the channel then the potential for a discharge is zero. 

Scenario 4: The scenario is similar to Scenario 1: The buffer width is measured from the edge 

of the stream bank as defined by the summer or low flow (Figure 3-1, Point A). However, in this 

case the topography places the buffer zone and the operation on a slope with any sediments 

created above the buffer having a direct line to the stream. The call for this scenario was 

dependent on the distances between the operation and the stream and the more specific 

characteristics of the buffer itself. 
Chapter 3 NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

54

Figure 3-1. An example of a stream cross-section showing how the location of mining activity 

affects the potential for a discharge. The common description used in the proposed Plans of 

Operations for the four scenarios described above for where the buffer measurement began was, 

“...the buffer is 25 feet from a creek ...” 

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125

Elevation (ft)

Distance from Left Pin (ft)

Low flow 

channel

Activel Floodplain (point 

bar)

Scenario 3

Scenario 2

Scenario 1 

Scenario 4

Point A: Low flow 

or summer flow 

channel edge

Point B. Edge of 

active floodplain

Point C: Valley floor 

terrace/channel break in 

Valley floor (Historic slope

floodplain)
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Chapter 3

55

Effects Analysis 

The Effects Analyses for Alternatives 2 and 4 have been updated to reflect the withdrawal of the 

Geiser Stream Diversion and the Shamrock Placer culvert proposals since the publishing of the 

2004 FEIS. Neither of these proposals is further evaluated in the Supplement.

Additionally, several new sections are added specifically to address issues raised in HCPC 2006.

Alternative 2 - Proposed Plans of Operations as submitted by the 

miners

Direct and Indirect Effects

Water Quality

This is a new section, not in the 2004 FEIS

Discharge Potential

Of the 42 Plans proposed by miners, 28 Plans have proposed activities with the potential for a 

discharge. The activities considered when evaluating discharge potential are found in Table 3-5.

Water Withdrawals and Tree Removal 

Stream temperatures can be influenced by a number of natural landscape and hydrologic features 

and human land uses. Water withdrawals and removal of shade trees are two activities, often 

proposed in mining plans, which can lead to increases in stream temperatures. 

There are 42 Plans of Operation: 28 of the 42 Plans are along streams and 12 of these propose 

withdrawing water from a creek (Appendix 9). Of the 12, three Plans state that they have 

existing water rights: 

Glory B Placer (Jackknife Creek), 

Gold Camp Placer (Camp Creek), and 

Silver Bell Placer #2 (Camp Ck).

Four other Plans propose to get water from a stream if a water right can be obtained: 

Burnt Lode/Placer (NFBR), 

Gopher Placer (Simpson Ck), 

Prudent Placer (NFBR), and 

Snow Creek Placer (Snow Ck). 

The site-specific effects of the miners’ proposed Water 

Quality Protection Measures (WQPMs) are displayed in 

detail in Appendix 1A, Column 2 
Chapter 3 NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

56

This brings the total Plans intending to withdraw water from a creek to seven Plans. This differs 

from the 2004 FEIS where eight Plans proposed withdrawing water (2004 FEIS, Ch. 3, p. 61). 

The eighth Plan was Geiser Stream Diversion which has since been dropped.

The remaining five Plans just reference taking water from the stream without identifying the 

need for, or existence of, a water right:

Gimlet Placer (Gimlet Ck)

Gold Busters Placer (Pinus Ck)

Rocker Group Placer (Greenhorn Ck and Slab Ck)

Shamrock Placer (NFBR)

Upper Geiser Ck (Geiser Ck)

Water withdrawals from all but the NFBR have the potential to locally impact stream 

temperatures depending on the time of year water is withdrawn, the amount, and the continuity 

of the withdrawal (i.e. just to fill a pond vs. continuous withdrawal). 

No impacts to temperature related to the removal of trees are anticipated because there would be 

no removal of shade trees and minimal removal of trees throughout the operations (Appendix 9).

Fords, Bridges, and Culverts 

Alternative 2 has 14 existing fords, four proposed fords, one existing bridge, two proposed 

bridges and one proposed culvert (Table 3-6). Thirteen of the existing and proposed fords have 

little to no potential to input sediment into streams because 1) the approach and exit are already 

well rocked, 2) banks already sloped, and 3) the channel bed is composed of cobbles and stable. 

The existing bridge also has no potential for a sediment discharge because it is a large bridge 

built to Forest Service specifications. However, the remaining five fords, two proposed bridges, 

and one proposed culvert all have the potential to contribute sediment into the streams due to the 

fine-grained nature of the banks. Input of sediment into streams would not be in compliance 

with CWA, INFISH MM-1 and INFISH MM-2 because of how sediment inputs would 

negatively impact water quality and therefore one key element of fish habitat. 

The five fords of concern occur in R&RK 4&5, Sluice Box, and Shamrock Placer (existing 

fords); and Snow Creek Placer and Standby/McNamee 2 (proposed fords). The two proposed 

bridges and one proposed culvert occur in the Racer Group/Keystone Korners. The proposed 

Racer Group/Keystone Korners culvert is across a seasonally dry tributary. Installation of the 

culvert would result in bank and channel bed disturbance with the potential for sediment to be 

transported to Geiser Creek. One of the proposed log bridges would be located in a seasonally 

wet draw. The bridge placement, use, and removal would result in localized soil disturbance and 

compaction. The other proposed temporary log bridge across Geiser Creek would result in 

channel and bank disturbance because the two-foot high banks are composed of fine-grain 

sediments and the channel bed is composed of old logs, cobbles and fine sediments. The 

installation and removal of these log bridges would have the the potential to contribute sediment 

into the streams due to the fine-grained nature of the banks. Input of sediment into streams would 

not be in compliance with the CWA Sec 303(d) (anti-degradation) and therefore Section 313 of 

the CWA, as well as INFISH MM-1 and INFISH MM-2 (fish habitat component) because of 

how sediment inputs would negatively impact water quality and therefore one key element of 

fish habitat.
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Chapter 3

57

Table 3-6

Plans of Operations with Existing or Proposed Fords, Bridges, and Culverts under 

Alternative 2 

(stream bank and bed conditions included)

Plan of Operations Creek Alternative 2

Big Elk/Red Dog Dry Creek 1 existing ford. Miner proposes to cross when the channel is dry. 

EJ Placer 1, 2, 3 NFBR 1 existing concrete ford. 

Jim Bob Placer NFBR 

(perennial flow)

2 existing fords. 1 ford crosses the NFBR. Another seasonal ford 

crosses an overflow channel on the south side. 

Lucky One Placer Simpson Creek 

(perennial flow)

1 proposed ford. Ford crosses through a mix of wetland and narrow 

creekbed (2-3 feet wide). Miner proposes to place logs in stream and 

wetland for crossing, and rock from the adit to the log crossing (east 

side), since this area is wet. The west side of the access route at the 

log crossing approach would also be rocked. The steeper bank on the 

west side would be pulled back so that the access into the ford is 

gentle. 

R&RK 2,3 NFBR 3 existing fords.

R&RK 4, 5 NFBR 

(perennial flow)

1 existing ford. 

Racer Group/Keystone 

Korners Placer

Geiser Creek 

(perennial flow)

1 proposed culvert and 2 proposed bridges: 1) one culvert in a 

seasonally dry tributary, 2) one temporary bridge using logs across 

Geiser Creek, and 3) one temporary bridge using logs in a seasonally 

wet draw. 

Shamrock Placer NFBR 2 existing fords. 

Sluice Box Placer NFBR 2 existing fords. Ford 1 is located at the base of the access road. 

Ford 2 crosses the NFBR. 

Snow Creek Placer Snow Creek 1 proposed ford.

Standby/McNamee

Placer 2 (downstream 

site)

McNamee 

Gulch

1 proposed ford. 

Upper Geiser Creek 

Placer/Lode

Geiser Creek 1 proposed ford. 

Upper Winterville 

Placer/Lode (northern 

portion)

Winterville 

Creek 

(intermittent 

flow)

1 existing ford. 

Upper Winterville 

Placer/Lode (southern 

portion)

Winterville 

Creek 

(intermittent 

flow)

2 existing fords. 

Wild Flower Placer NFBR 1 existing ford. 

Ponds inside RHCAs

All pond locations inside RHCAs were evaluated with respect to compliance with INFISH MM1 and MM-2. Detailed descriptions of the site conditions for the existing and proposed ponds for 

each Plan are found in Appendix 4 of this Supplement. 

Alternative 2 has 26 Plans with existing or proposed ponds located inside an RHCA (Table 3-7). 

The proposed and/or existing ponds have been located to be in close proximity to the testing and 

processing activities. Valley floor widths on both sides of the streams are less than 300 feet at all 
Chapter 3 NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

58

but one site (Gopher Placer) before becoming hillslopes. In many cases the valley floor width is 

less than 150 feet/side. If the ponds were to be moved outside the RHCA, they would be placed 

on hillsides where soils are shallow and slopes are steeper. This alternate location (on hillslopes) 

creates a risk of pond failure because the shallow hillside sediments would become saturated. As 

pore pressure builds up at the interface between the sediments and a less porous zone (i.e. 

underlying bedrock), the sediments become mobile, resulting in a small debris flow or gullying. 

The relocated ponds would also be less likely to tap into shallow groundwater and would 

eliminate the miner’s water source for the ponds (groundwater). This would require additional 

equipment and/or disturbance to bring the water to the mining site or materials to the ponds. 

All existing and proposed ponds, except Three Cent Placer Processing site #2, are in compliance 

with Forest Plan (INFISH MM-1 and MM-2) and CWA due to the following site characteristics: 

1. Ponds on the flat valley floor where groundwater, the dominant source of pond water, is 

accessible at shallow depths, 

2. Ponds dug into the ground, 

3. Ponds are in highly stable locations,

4. Ponds far enough away from the stream that there is little potential for creating seepage 

zones along the banks and creating bank failures, and

5. Ponds are small enough in size and distant enough from the streams such that there would 

be no measurable influence on stream temperatures. 

Three Cent Placer Processing site #2 is an exception because the valley bottom width is less 

than 20 feet wide and there is a high likelihood that the proposed pond will create seepage zones 

along the right bank resulting in sediment input into East Three Cent Creek. This would be a 

discharge as defined by the CWA. 

Gopher Placer is the exception with respect to site location because the valley widths along this 

portion of Simpson Creek are greater than 150 feet and the area is flat. Therefore, the Gopher 1 

ponds could be moved outside the 150-foot RHCA zone. The area outside the buffer zone is 

forested. The pond at Gopher site 2 is located inside the 50-foot RHCA buffer zone. The pond 

is separated from channel by historic mine tailings. The channel in this area has only 

intermittent flow. However, the ponds at both sites are existing, are highly stable, and located 

where the topography is flat. Moving these ponds would result in new disturbance with no real 

benefit to the stream system or the area. 
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Chapter 3

59

Table 3-7

Plans of Operations with Existing or Proposed Ponds within an RHCA under

Alternatives 2 and 4

Plan of Operation

Creek/INFISH

buffer

Existing Ponds 

w/in RHCA

Proposed Ponds w/in 

RHCA

***August Placer 1, 2, 3 None No No

Big Elk/Red Dog Trib to Dry Ck/50 

feet

Yes Yes

Burnt Lode/Placer NFBR/300 feet Yes Yes

Camp Hale Placer None No No

Dominion Lode Group None No No

EJ Placer NFBR/300 feet No Yes

Gimlet Placer Gimlet Creek/300 

feet 

No Yes

Glory B Placer Jackknife Ck/50 

feet

No Yes

Gold Busters Placer Pinus Ck/300 feet Yes No

Gold Camp Placer 1 Camp Ck/300 feet Yes No

Gold Camp Placer 2 Camp Ck/300 feet Yes No

Gold Camp Placer 3 None No No

Golden Bandit Placer/Lode 1 None No No

Golden Bandit Placer/Lode 2 None No No

Goldy Placer & Millsite None No No

Gopher Placer 1 (north of FS 7830) Simpson Ck/50 feet Yes No

Gopher Placer 2 (south of FS 7830) Simpson Ck/150 

feet

Yes No

Jay Gould Lode (Banzer) Unnamed channel 

ends in wetland/50 

feet

Yes No

Jay Gould Mine Works (Newell) Gimlet trib No Yes

Jim Bob Placer NFBR/300 feet Yes Yes

Ladder/Rusty Bucket None No No

Lucky One Placer/Lode Simpson Ck/150 

feet

No Yes

Lucky Placer None No No

Midas/Lady Bug Placer None No No

Monarch Lode (sites 1, 2, 4) None No No

North Fork Placer NFBR/300 feet Yes No

Old Channel Placer None No No

Parkerville Placer Mining Small unnamed 

headwater trib to 

NFBR/50 feet

Yes Yes

Prudent Placer NFBR/300 feet Yes No

R&RK 2,3 NFBR/300 feet Yes Yes

R&RK 4, 5 NFBR/300 feet No Yes

Racer Group/Keystone Korners Placer Geiser Ck/300 feet No Yes

Roberts Lode None No No

Rocker Group Placer Greenhorn Ck/300 

feet; Slab Creek/50 

feet

Yes No

Shamrock Placer None No Yes

Silver Bell Placer #2 Camp Ck/150 feet Yes No
Chapter 3 NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

60

Plan of Operation

Creek/INFISH

buffer

Existing Ponds 

w/in RHCA

Proposed Ponds w/in 

RHCA

Silver Eagle Lode None No No

Sluice Box Placer NFBR/300 feet Yes No

Snow Creek Placer Snow Ck/300 feet Yes No

Standby/McNamee Placer 1 (upstream site) McNamee 

Gulch/50 feet

No No

Standby/McNamee Placer 2 (downstream 

site)

McNamee 

Gulch/150 feet

Yes No

Star (Pinus) Pinus Creek (300ft) No Yes

Three Cent Placer Processing 1 Three Cent Ck/150 

feet

No No

Three Cent Placer Processing 2 Three Cent Ck/50 

feet

No Yes

Three Cent Placer Mining 1/Processing 3 Three Cent Ck/50 No No

Upper Geiser Creek Placer/Lode

(processing site)

Geiser Creek/300 

feet

Yes No

Upper Winterville Placer/Lode None No No

West Parkerville Placer Unnamed tributary 

to NFBR/300 feet

No Yes

Wild Flower Placer NFBR/300 feet Yes Yes

***August Placer/Lode has existing ponds on top of an old mine tailings dump. Although this is not an INFISH or 

CWA issue, as water passes from the ponds through the old mine tailings there is the potential to leach heavy metals 

into the groundwater and soils.

Proposed Road Construction inside an RHCA

Alternative 2 has three operations with proposed road construction (Table 3-8). The assessment 

of effect was based on road distance from the creek, topography, and ground cover. Proposed 

road construction and use were examined for their compliance with CWA and INFISH MM-1 

and INFISH MM-2. 

Table 3-8

Plans of Operations Proposing Road Construction under Alternative 2 and 4

Plan of Operations Creek Nonsystem Mine Access Roads Proposed for construction

Burnt Lode/Placer 3 

(Karissa)

NFBR The miner proposes to construct a road along an abandoned ditch to 

access his site. The ditch would be accessed via 1042074 (Sluice 

Box Placer access road). New road would be approximately 2000 

feet (as measured off the 7.5 minute USGS Greenhorn Quad).

Lucky One Placer Simpson Creek 

(section with 

perennial flow)

1000 feet of proposed road. The road climbs a ridge on the east side 

of the creek to the adit, grading down to the hillside, ending 30 ft. 

from the creek. 

R&RK 2,3 NFBR 200 feet of proposed road on the south side of the river. The road 

would be accessed by the most upstream ford.

The area of the proposed Burnt Lode/Placer road construction (Karissa site) was visited by the 

Whitman district hydrologist on August 15, 2008. The road would be located along an old ditch. 

The ditch is situated on a steep slope, and comes within ten feet of the NFBR in places. The 

ditch has been buried by hillslope sediments, rocks, and downed logs along much of its length. 

The valley floor terrace is discontinuous, so the road cannot be relocated to the valley floor.
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Chapter 3

61

The characteristics of the area where the road is proposed are such that the road location would 

be in compliance with the road location component of INFISH MM-2. However, construction 

and use of a road along the ditch has the potential to be the source of a long-term, chronic input 

of sediment into the NFBR given the location and volume of sediment that would be disturbed 

and moved. Therefore, the proposed road construction to the Karissa site would not be in 

compliance with the Forest Plan (INFISH MM-1 or the fish habitat component of INFISH MM2). 

The area of the proposed Lucky One road construction was visited and reviewed by the Forest 

Service transportation specialist during the 2004 analysis. The proposed road would have no 

potential for sediment input into Simpson Creek because the road would end 30 feet before 

reaching the creek. The proposed road would be in compliance with the road location 

component of INFISH MM-2 because it would be used to access a testing area inside the RHCA

and therefore could not be constructed in any other location. The proposed road would also be in 

compliance with the Forest Plan (INFISH MM-1 and the fish habitat component of INFISH 

MM-2).

The area of the proposed R&RK 2, 3 road construction was visited by the Whitman district 

hydrologist in 2006. The proposed road has no potential for sediment input into the NFBR 

because the proposed road would be located on a flat bench above the river. The proposed road 

would be in compliance with the road location component of INFISH MM-2 because it would be 

used to access a testing area inside the RHCA and therefore could not be constructed in any other 

location. The proposed road would also be in compliance with the Forest Plan (INFISH MM-1 

and the fish habitat component of INFISH MM-2) because no sediment inputs or reductions in 

fish habitat quality or complexity would occur.

Closed/Previously Decommissioned Roads Used by Miners

Under Alternative 2, there are 28 Plans of Operations that propose to use all or portions of closed 

or previously decommissioned roads (Appendix 1B). These roads total 61.07 miles and are 

distributed over four subwatersheds (Table 3-9). All of the Plans, except Snow Creek Placer, 

identify some road maintenance activities proposed by the miners (Appendix 1B). However, 

some of these roads may have become revegetated with trees, gullied or have blocked culverts 

since last used. In this case, the road maintenance activities proposed by the miners may create a 

greater disturbance than originally anticipated and the WQPMs in their Plans may not be 

sufficient to protect water quality. Therefore, their proposed road maintenance activities, on 

some portions of the roads, may result in sediment discharging into channels and thereby 

contribute to water quality degradation. 
Chapter 3 NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

62

Table 3-9

Miles of closed and decommissioned roads proposed for use by miners 

(Data source: September 2007 Forest Service GIS database)

Mine SWS Alt 2

Closed and Decommissioned Road miles

August Placer G 0

Big Elk/Red Dog Placer G 1.19

Burnt Lode/Placer F 0.18

Dominion G 6.02

EJ Placers E, F 7.57

Gold Busters Placer C 0

Gold Camp Placer F 0.5

Golden Bandit Placer F 4.29

Goldy Placer and Mill Site G 0.95

Gopher Placer F 0.91

Jackpot Placer G 0.2

Jay Gould Mine and Lode F 4.17

Jim Bob Placer G 0.39

Ladder/Rusty Bucket & Monarch Lode F 0.15

Lucky One Placer/Lode F 0.34

Lucky Placer F 5.52

Midas/Ladybug Placer F 0.62

Monarch Lode G 7.82

N. Fork & Prudent Placers F 0.12

Old Channel Placer F 1.55

Parkerville Placer Mining & Upper Winterville Placer E 1.84

Rocker Group G 0.23

Silver Bell Placer #2 G 0.67

Silver Eagle Lode F 0.58

Snow Creek Placer G 0.26

Standby/McNamee Placer G 8.06

Star (Pinus) Placer G 0.69

Three Cent Placer/Red Dog F 0

Upper Geiser D 2.35

Upper Winterville Placer/Lode G 2.3

West Parkerville G 1.6

Total 61.07
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Chapter 3

63

Breaching of Beaver Dams 

Beaver are present in the NFBR watershed. Active and remnant dams exist on the NFBR, Camp 

Creek, and Trout Creek and are trapping sediment. At present, only North Fork Placer, Prudent 

Placer, and R&RK 2, 3 are adjacent to stream sections with stable beaver dams though other sites 

are located adjacent to streams with transient beaver dams (Wild Flower and EJ Placer). 

However, the distribution and number of beaver dams is expected to increase over time as 

existing and proposed restoration activities in the NFBR watershed improve key riparian woody 

species needed to build and maintain their dams. 

Breaching or removing a beaver dam to avoid flooding the operation, as proposed in the North 

Fork Placer Plan, would not be in compliance with INFISH MM-1 or the fish habitat component 

of MM-2 because dam failure would result in a loss of complexity and quality of fisheries 

habitat, a reduction in conditions favorable to the expansion of riparian vegetation and increased 

streamside shade, and a loss of surface and groundwater storage. The sediment eroded from 

behind the dams would result in a short-term increase in turbidity. 

Adit Discharge

Five Plans are located in areas where adits discharge water and propose to either use the adit 

waters and/or mine the adit. In four areas, the adits discharge water into adit-generated wetlands: 

August Placer/Lode 2 (lower portal), Jay Gould Lode (Banzer), Ladder/Rusty Bucket, and 

Roberts Lode (Table 3-2). In the fifth area (Lucky One Placer/Lode), the adit discharges water 

into a wetland with a perennial stream. The wetland/stream zone extends upstream of the adit 

for over 200 feet, and downstream to Forest Service road 7380240. The wetland is the result of 

historic mining that mined the draw and tapped into groundwater. 

Only Jay Gould (Banzer), Lucky One Placer/Lode, and Roberts Lode propose to open the adits 

for initial exploration and sampling (Table 3-4). If lode values are economic, then the miners 

would expand their underground operations. At that time, adit water chemistry could potentially 

change, as new geologies are exposed and new mine waste generated. However, Jay Gould 

(Banzer) and Roberts Lode are more than 300 feet from any perennial stream and the wetlands

present are adit-discharge generated wetlands. Therefore, even if adit water chemistry changed 

at any of these two sites as a result of lode mining, there would be no impact to downstream 

surface waters. Continued inspection of these potentially active sites will occur as specified 

under Forest Service surface management regulations (36 CFR 228 subpart A). If underground 

development has occurred, the Forest Service will periodically retest the water and if changes to 

the operation are necessary as a result of the sampling, the Plan of Operations will be modified 

through the provisions set forth in 36 CFR 228.4 (e). 

Water from the Lucky One Placer/Lode adit flows into a pre-existing wetland. This wetland has 

a short segment of channel with perennial flow that goes subsurface at Forest Service road 

7380240. Therefore, even if adit water chemistry changed at this site as a result of lode mining, 

there would be no impact to downstream surface waters.

Suction Dredging on Cub Creek (Burnt Lode/Placer)

Suction dredging on Cub Creek (Burnt Lode/Placer) was identified as the only suction dredging

operation of concern currently in the NFBR watershed (Appendices 6A and 6B) because of the 

fine-grained composition of its bed and banks (silts, sands, and gravels). The high percentage of 

fines in the channel bed and channel banks and the low flows on Cub Creek could cause the 
Chapter 3 NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

64

turbidity plume generated by suction dredging to persist. Depending on the amount of dredging, 

the Cub Creek plume may be visible in the NFBR downstream of its confluence with Cub Creek. 

It is also possible that the turbidity would span Cub Creek because the channel is narrow.

On June 30, 2011 the district hydrologist followed Cub Creek from its culvert outlet under 

County Road 503 to its confluence with the NFBR. The culvert outlet is suspended and is a fish 

passage barrier. There is a defined channel present from the culvert outlet to the confluence with 

the NFBR confined between old placer tailings. The channel was carrying flow for the entire 

length. The channel bed is a mix of areas dominated by cobbles and boulders with pockets of 

sand to long section of sands, silts and some very coarse gravels with scattered large cobbles and 

small boulders. Fines dominate the channel bed and there is evidence of fresh sand, silt and 

gravel deposits. The stream banks below the culvert outlet to the confluence with the NFBR are 

mostly well vegetated with grasses, forbs, rushes with some alders. The sediment source is thus 

upstream of the culvert outlet where mining is proposed. Based on site conditions, the potential 

for a sediment plume generated by suction dredging to reach the NFBR is expected because the 

system has a surface hydrologic connection. 

Suction dredging on Cub Creek has the potential to trigger a headcut because of the fine-grained 

composition of the channel bed. A channel headcut would lead to 1) channel straightening, 2) 

undercutting of stream banks, 3) channel widening, 4) increased turbidity, 5) increased 

suspended sediment, 6) increased stream temperatures as the groundwater table dropped, and 7) 

sections of stream shifting from perennial to intermittent flow as base flows contributed by 

groundwater decreased. As the channel incises and/or widens, the groundwater table would drop 

and portion of the stream could go dry. In addition, if the channel incises and/or undercuts its 

banks, the turbidity plume would persist even after dredging ceased, resulting in a long-term 

reduction in the quality of fish habitat. 

Summary of Effects

Alternative 2 includes 28 Plans with activities that have the potential for a “may” discharge 

(Table 3-10). As a result, portions of these 28 Plans would not be in compliance with Section 

313 of the CWA. 

The detailed Effects Analysis of the miners’ Water Quality Protection Measures (WQPMs) as 

they pertain to their proposed mining activity is found in Appendix 1A, Column 2. 
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Chapter 3

65

Table 3-10

Plans of Operations and Forest Service determination of potential for a discharge under 

Alternative 2 and creek potentially affected

Plan of 

Operations Sites Creek adjacent to Activity of concern

Potential for 

Discharge

Alternative 2

August Placer 1,2, 3 None No

Big Elk/Red Dog Big Elk/Red Dog Dry Mining Yes

Burnt 

Lode/Placer

1 (2 test holes – part 

adjacent to NFBR)

NFBR Mining and proposed road Yes

2 (“meadow” site – site 1) None No

2 (pond site – site 2) None No

2 (test site 3) Cub Mining Yes

2 (test site 4) Cub Mining Yes

2 (Cub Creek) Cub Suction dredging Yes

3 (Karissa) NFBR road construction / maintenance Yes

Camp Hale 

Placer

Camp Hale Placer None No

Dominion Lode 

Group

Dominion Lode Group Tribs to 

NFBR

Maintenance activities for some 

of the close roads in area of 

stream crossings

Yes

E J Placer A, B, C, D, E NFBR Mining Yes

Gimlet Placer Gimlet Placer Gimlet Mining Yes

Glory B Placer Glory B Placer Jackknife No

Gold Busters 

Placer

Gold Busters Placer Pinus No

Gold Camp 

Placer

1 Camp Mining Yes

2 Camp No

3 None No

Golden Bandit 

Placer/Lode

1 None No

2 Unnamed trib 

to Pinus 

Creek

Mining Yes

Goldy Placer & 

Millsite

Goldy Placer & Millsite None No

Gopher Placer 1 (north of FS 7830) Simpson Mining Yes

2 (south of FS 7830) Simpson Mining and maintenance 

activities for FS 7380270

Yes

Jay Gould Lode 

– (Banzer)

Jay Gould Lode –

(Banzer)

Unnamed 

channel ends 

in wetland

Mining Yes

Jay Gould Mine 

Works (Newell)

Jay Gould Mine Works

(Newell)

None No

Jim Bob Placer Jim Bob Placer NFBR Mining Yes

Ladder/Rusty 

Bucket 

Ladder/Rusty Bucket None No

Lucky One 

Placer/Lode

Lucky One Placer/Lode Simpson No

Lucky Placer Lucky Placer None No
Chapter 3 NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

66

Plan of 

Operations Sites Creek adjacent to Activity of concern

Potential for 

Discharge

Alternative 2

Midas/Lady Bug 

Placer

Midas/Lady Bug Placer None No

Monarch

Site 1: main portal and 

also referred to as 

Monarch Mine Works 1

Mosquito 

Waste material disposal on skid 

road up Mosquito Ck Yes

Site 2: test excavation None No

Site 4: new mill site None No

Exploration drill sites South Fk 

Gimlet 

Maintenance activities for 

decommissioned road FS 

1065250 as road is in or close to 

drainage. Related to possible 

road access needs for drilling 

exploration holes.

Yes

North Fork 

Placer

North Fork Placer NFBR Mining and breaching of beaver 

dams

Yes

Old Channel 

Placer

Old Channel Placer None No

Parkerville 

Placer Mining

Parkerville Placer Mining Small 

unnamed 

headwater 

trib to NFBR

Mining and use of pond just 

upstream of FS 1046045

Yes

Prudent Placer Prudent Placer NFBR Mining Yes

R&RK 2,3 R&RK 2,3 NFBR Mining Yes

R&RK 4, 5 R&RK 4, 5 NFBR Mining and ford Yes

Racer 

Group/Keystone 

Korners Placer

Racer Group/Keystone 

Korners Placer Geiser Mining, culvert installation, 

bridge building Yes

Roberts Lode Roberts Lode None No

Rocker Group

Placer Rocker Group Placer Greenhorn 

and Slab Mining Yes

Shamrock Placer Shamrock Placer NFBR Mining and ford Yes

Silver Bell Placer

#2

Silver Bell Placer #2 Camp No

Silver Eagle 

Lode

Silver Eagle Lode None No

Sluice Box 

Placer

Sluice Box Placer NFBR Mining and ford Yes

Snow Creek 

Placer Snow Creek Placer Snow 

Mining and road maintenance 

activities of closed roads FS 

1038400, 1038401, and 1035559 

where close to creek

Yes

Standby/McNam

ee Placer 1 (upstream site) McNamee 

Gulch 

Road maintenance activities of 

decommissioned road FS 

1035125 where it crosses the 

creek

Yes

2 (downstream site) McNamee 

Gulch 

Mining and ford Yes
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Chapter 3

67

Plan of 

Operations Sites Creek adjacent to Activity of concern

Potential for 

Discharge

Alternative 2

Star (Pinus) 

Placer

Star (Pinus) Placer Pinus Mining and road maintenance 

activities of closed road 7386430 

where it crosses the creek

Yes

Three Cent 

Placer

Processing site 1 Three Cent No

Processing site 2 Three Cent Construction and use of 

processing pond

Yes

Mining 1/Processing site 

3 (north of FS 1075 road)

Three Cent No

Mining 2 (south of FS 

1075 road)

Three Cent No

East East Three 

Cent 

No

Red Dog Three Cent No

Upper Geiser 

Creek 

Placer/Lode

Processing site area Geiser Processing Yes

Portion alongside the 

creek between the 

junction with 1044060 

upstream to the portal.

Geiser 

Mining and road maintenance 

activities of closed road 1044086 

where it crosses the creek and 

FS 1044065 where it comes 

close to creek, and 

decommissioned FS 1044051 

where it comes close to creek

Yes

Upper 

Winterville 

Placer/Lode

Upper Winterville 

Placer/Lode Trib to Geiser 

Mining and maintenance 

activities for decommissioned 

road FS 10644045

Yes

West Parkerville 

Placer

West Parkerville Placer Unnamed 

trib. to NFBR

Mining Yes

Wild Flower 

Placer

Wild Flower Placer NFBR Ford Yes

Cumulative Effects

The cumulative effects analysis area for watershed and soil resources is the NFBR watershed 

during the 10-year period of the Plan of Operations. Under Alternative 2, there are 28 Plans of 

Operations that have some proposed activities that have the potential for a discharge as a result 

of some activity in their Plan. The mining activities off channel, or in the case of in-channel

suction dredging on Cub Creek of triggering a headcut and channel incision, has the potential to 

add to the existing sediment inputs into stream channels from ongoing livestock grazing, stream 

bank erosion and roads.

With respect to foreseeable future WWNF Travel Management Plan (TMP), it is anticipated that 

designation of roads, trails and areas for motorized use under TMP will limit cross-country travel 

within the project area. The reduction in cross-country travel would minimize the creation of 

new fords with their potential to input sediment into stream channels. It would also eliminate the 

potential to create wheel tracks that could erode and contribute sediment into streams Because 

cross-country travel is anticipated to decrease under TMP, the implementation of the TMP would 

result in no additional impacts to water quality then are currently present in the watershed. 

When the projected effects of Alternative 2 on water quality are considered together with all 

other past, present and reasonable foreseeable actions in the geographic scope of analysis, the 28 
Chapter 3 NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

68

Plans are likely to increase the amount of sediment entering into stream channels in the NFBR 

watershed, resulting in cumulative effects from the proposed activities.

Alternative 4 - Proposed Plans of Operations with Forest Service BMPs and 

Road Management Activities

The following Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects for Alternative 4 supplements pages 35-

39 in Chapter III in the 2004 FEIS.

Alternative 4 includes the same 42 Plans of Operations as Alternative 2. Alternative 4 differs 

from Alternative 2 in that it includes additional Forest Service Best Management Practices 

(BMPs) in the form of 1) “Site-Specific Water Quality Protection Measures (WQPMs)” and 2) 

“General Requirements” as well as Road Management Activities. It also includes ODEQ Terms 

and Conditions (Appendix 1A) which were added after ODEQ reviewed the Draft SEIS. The 

Forest Service BMPs and ODEQ Terms and Conditions are added to the Plans submitted by the 

miners to eliminate the potential for a discharge into navigable waters, and to ensure compliance 

with the Forest Plan standards and guidelines, including INFISH MM-1 and MM-2. 

The Forest Service WQPMs are site-specific and based on topography, ground cover, presence 

and location of old placer tailings with respect to the stream, distance from stream, stream bank 

height and composition, channel bed composition, stream bank and valley floor vegetation, 

micro-topography, and adit characteristics (Appendix 1A). Belt et al (1992) summarizes the role 

of these factors in capturing sediment and in influencing the distance that sediment can travel via 

overland flow or channelized flow. General Requirements to Plans of Operations under 

Alternative 4 which directly or indirectly contribute to a reduction in the effects of the mining 

operations to water quality are G3, G6-G8, G11-G12, G19, G23, G24, H5, H8, P2, R1-R2, R5, 

R7, R14, and Z1 -10 (Appendix 2). 

Direct and Indirect Effects

The following Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects for Alternative 4 supplements pages 35 -

39 in Chapter III in the 2004 FEIS. Alternative 4 in the Supplement includes changes from the 

2004 FEIS. See the Supplement Introduction, sections 1.3 and 1.4, and Appendix 3 for the 

rationale for these changes.

Alternative 4 was developed to address a potential water quality concern related to possible 

sediment inputs into stream channel from roads, mining, and logging. In Alternative 4 of the 

2004 FEIS selected roads (Table 2-5) were identified to be closed or decommissioned or receive 

maintenance or reconstruction to address a water quality concern identified by the Roads 

Analysis (USDA 2002) and the modified R1-R4 WATSED erosion model (USDA 2000). 

However, a re-analysis of methods used in the 2004 FEIS for this supplemental analysis, 

The site-specific effects of the Forest Service 

Water Quality Protection Measures (WQPMs) are 

displayed in detail in Appendix 1A, Column 3.
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Chapter 3

69

combined with field reviews, concluded that roads in the NFBR watershed are not, in fact, a 

major contributor to water quality degradation as it pertains to sediment inputs. 

This reassessment of road impacts agrees with Bradford and Fedora (USDA 2000) who 

conducted the hydrology analysis in the 2004 FEIS. They had identified stream bank and bed 

erosion as the major contributor of sediment into the stream systems of the NFBR, but this key 

point was relegated to a couple of sentences in the 2004 FEIS, and therefore, was overlooked. 

The 2004 FEIS and this Supplement both agree that roads in the NFBR watershed are not a 

major contributor to water quality degradation as it pertains to sediment inputs. Appendix 3 

explains why roads are not considered a major contributor of sediment into streams, and 

therefore why the road management activities proposed under this alternative would result in 

only small, non-measureable reductions in sediment and improvement in water quality.

Water Quality 

Alternative 4 examines the same Plans and aspects of the Plans as those discussed in Alternative 

2 for compliance with the CWA and INFISH MM-1 and MM-2 but takes into account the sitespecific Forest Service WQPMs and General Requirements and ODEQ Terms and Conditions. 

Aspects examined are: 1) water withdrawals and tree removal, 2) fords, bridges, and culverts, 3) 

ponds inside RHCAs, 4) proposed road construction, 5) breaching of beaver dams, 6) adit 

discharges, 7) use of closed/decommissioned roads, and 8) suction dredging on Cub Creek 

(Burnt Lode/Placer). The effects for Alternative 4 are different in the following activities:

Discharge Potential 

The Forest Service WQPMs, developed as a result of site visits, would eliminate the potential for 

a discharge except for activities in two Plans (Burnt Lode/Placer and Three Cent Placer). The 

three activities are: 1) proposed road construction to Karissa site (Burnt Lode/Placer), 2) suction 

dredging on Cub Creek(Burnt Lode/Placer), and 3) proposed pond construction and use (Three 

Cent Placer – Processing site #2). In many cases, clarifying the buffer starting location (see 

Figure 3-1 and associated discussion) was sufficient to eliminate the potential for a discharge. In 

these cases the operation would now be clearly out of the active flood-prone area and onto the 

historic floodplain (valley floor) which is only flooded during rare extreme events. In the 

process of this clarification of mining activity location, and the addition of Forest Service 

WQPMs and General Requirements and ODEQ Terms and Conditions, the number of Plans with 

proposed activities that have a potential for a discharge decreases from 28 Plans under 

Alternative 2 to two Plans under Alternative 4.

Water Withdrawals and Tree Removal 

These are the same as Alternative 2 with the addition of General Requirement G-8 (Appendix 2). 

This requirement adds an extra layer of stream shade and bank stability protection: “Vegetation 

providing shade and/or bank stability to the stream banks shall not be removed unless 

specifically approved in writing by the District Ranger.”

Fords, Bridges, and Culverts

Alternative 4 is similar to Alternative 2 in that it includes the same existing and proposed fords, 

and the one existing bridge. It differs from Alternative 2 in that the two proposed bridges and 

one proposed culvert found in the Racer Group/Keystone Korners Placer would be replaced by 

three fords. Therefore, no bridges or culverts would be constructed under Alternative 4.
Chapter 3 NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

70

The change in crossing types used at Racer Group/Keystone Korners would decrease the amount 

of bank and channel bed disturbance and its longevity compared to installation of the culvert or 

temporary log bridges, and therefore the potential for sediment inputs into the channels. This 

change increase the total number of fords from 18 under Alternative 2 to 21 under Alternative 4. 

Of the 21 fords, 13 have little to no potential for inputting sediment into streams, and therefore 

do not require any WQPMs. Three existing fords and five proposed fords have the potential to 

contribute sediment into the streams due to the fine-grained nature of the banks. The banks of 

these eight fords would be sloped and rocked, and where necessary, the channel beds would be 

rocked (Table 3-11). The disturbance related to the armoring the eight fords would be limited to 

less than ten feet of stream banks and be of short duration (the day that rocking and bank sloping 

occurred). The rocking would protect the underlying fine sediments from being eroded. 

Table 3-11

Forest Service WQPMs for Plans of Operations using Fords, Bridges, and/or Culverts 

in Alternative 4

Plan of Operations Creek

Alternative 2

Fords, Culverts 

and Bridges

Alternative 4

Water Quality Protection Measures

Big Elk/Red Dog Dry Creek 1 existing ford None

EJ Placer 1, 2, 3 NFBR 1 existing 

concrete ford. 

None

Jim Bob Placer NFBR (perennial 

flow)

2 existing fords None

Lucky One Placer Simpson Creek 

(perennial flow)

1 proposed ford None

R&RK 2,3 NFBR 3 existing fords Upstream and downstream fords: None.

Middle ford: 

1. Rock and slope south bank. 

1. Pull material away from the stream and 

deposited in location where the sediment will 

not be able to reach the stream during high 

flow events.

2. Place small straw baffles or bales, silt fences 

along the stream when pulling back the 

material 

R&RK 4, 5 NFBR (perennial 

flow)

1 existing ford 1. Rock both sides of the ford. 

2. Rock the low spot between the northern valley 

floor and the little island where water is 

present.

3. Pull material away from the stream and 

deposited in location where the sediment will 

not be able to reach the stream during high 

flow events.

4. Place small straw baffles or bales, silt fences 

along the stream when pulling back the 

material 
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Chapter 3

71

Plan of Operations Creek

Alternative 2

Fords, Culverts 

and Bridges

Alternative 4

Water Quality Protection Measures

Racer 

Group/Keystone 

Korners Placer

Geiser Creek 

(intermittent 

flow and section 

with perennial 

flow)

1 proposed 

culvert and 2 

proposed bridges: 

1) one culvert in 

a seasonally dry 

tributary, 2) one 

temporary bridge 

using logs across 

Geiser Creek, and 

3) one temporary 

bridge using logs 

in a seasonally 

wet draw. 

REPLACE proposed culvert and two proposed 

bridges with fords. 

1. Rock and slope Geiser Creek ford, and 

seasonally wet tributary and seasonally wet 

draw, or restrict crossing of seasonally wet 

tributary and draw to periods when they are 

dry. 

2. Pull material away from the stream and 

deposited in location where the sediment will 

not be able to reach the stream during high 

flow events.

3. Place small straw baffles or bales, silt fences 

along the stream when pulling back the 

material 

Shamrock Placer NFBR 2 existing fords 1. The east bank of both fords will be rocked and 

sloped.

2. Pull material away from the stream and 

deposited in location where the sediment will 

not be able to reach the stream during high 

flow events.

3. Place small straw baffles or bales, silt fences 

along the stream when pulling back the 

material

Sluice Box Placer NFBR 2 existing fords Ford 1 is located at the base of the access road. 

The stream bank will be rocked and sloped.

Ford 2 crosses the NFBR. The southern stream 

bank will be rocked and sloped. 

For both fords: 

1. Pull material away from the stream and 

deposited in location where the sediment will 

not be able to reach the stream during high 

flow events.

2. Place small straw baffles or bales, silt fences 

along the stream when pulling back the 

material

Snow Creek Placer Snow Creek 1 proposed ford 1. Rock and slope stream banks

2. Pull material away from the stream and 

deposited in location where the sediment will 

not be able to reach the stream during high 

flow events.

3. Place small straw baffles or bales, silt fences 

along the stream when pulling back the 

material 
Chapter 3 NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

72

Plan of Operations Creek

Alternative 2

Fords, Culverts 

and Bridges

Alternative 4

Water Quality Protection Measures

Standby/McNamee

Placer 2 (downstream 

site)

McNamee Gulch 1 proposed ford The miner proposes the following: The ford will 

be rocked with adjacent tailings rock (p. 2). 

In addition, 

1. Slope the stream banks. 

2. Pull material away from the stream and 

deposited in location where the sediment will 

not be able to reach the stream during high 

flow events.

3. Place small straw baffles or bales, silt fences 

along the stream when pulling back the 

material

Upper Geiser Creek 

Placer/Lode

Geiser Creek 1 proposed ford 1. Rock and slope the stream banks. 

2. Pull material away from the stream and 

deposited in location where the sediment will 

not be able to reach the stream during high 

flow events.

3. Place small straw baffles or bales, silt fences 

along the stream when pulling back the 

material

Upper Winterville 

Placer/Lode 

Winterville 

Creek 

(intermittent 

flow)

2 existing fords 

(one is referred to 

as a crossing)

Miner proposes the following: This creek crossing 

will be designed so that the streambanks are sloped 

to at least a 2:1 slope and if clean washed rock is 

placed in the channel it will be left in place and not 

removed. Creek banks impacted at the crossings 

will immediately be seeded (p. 3). 

In addition: 

1. Rock the stream banks. 

2. Pull material away from the stream and 

deposited in location where the sediment will 

not be able to reach the stream during high 

flow events. 

3. Place small straw baffles or bales, silt fences 

along the stream when pulling back the 

material

Wild Flower Placer NFBR 1 existing ford 1. Rock and slope the stream banks. 

2. Pull material away from the stream and 

deposited in location where the sediment will 

not be able to reach the stream during high 

flow events. 

3. Place small straw baffles or bales, silt fences 

along the stream when pulling back the 

material
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Chapter 3

73

Proposed Road Construction 

The effects of Alternative 4 would be less than described in Alterative 2 because of the 

additional Forest Service WQPMs (Appendix 1A) for the Burnt Lode (proposed road 

construction to Karissa site). 

Proposed and Existing Closed/Previously Decommissioned Roads Use by Miners

Under Alternative 4 the number of Plans using closed and/or decommissioned roads increased 

from 28 to 31 Plans because 7.42 miles of road that were currently open under Alternative 2 and 

used by the miners were closed under Alternative 4 (Table 3-12). An additional 0.25 miles were 

closed under Alternative 4 bringing the total miles of roads going from open to closed or open to 

decommissioned to 7.67 miles. However, these 0.25 miles are not associated with any mine and 

are not included in the road miles linked to the Plans presented in Table 3-12 below. 

The impact to water quality as a result of the miners using closed/roads would be the same as 

Alternative 2 because the Z-Requirements would apply (Appendix 2). The Z-Requirements 

identify how closed roads would be maintained in order to minimize the amount of disturbance 

and prevent sediment from entering any channels. Use of the closed/previously decommissioned 

roads would be limited to when the miners are operating. 
Chapter 3 NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

74

Table 3-12

Comparison of miles of closed and decommissioned roads used by miners by Alternative 

Mine SWS Alt 2 Alt 4 (additional 

miles)

Alt 4 

Closed and 

Decommissioned 

Road miles 

Open road miles that 

would become 

Closed or 

Decommissioned 

Roads (miles)

Total Closed or 

Decommissioned 

Roads used (miles)

August Placer G 0 0.29 0.29

Big Elk/Red Dog Placer G 1.19 0 1.19

Burnt Lode/Placer F 0.18 0 0.18

Dominion G 6.02 0.99 7.01

EJ Placers E, F 7.57 0 7.57

Gold Busters Placer C 0 0.87 0.87

Gold Camp Placer F 0.5 0 0.5

Golden Bandit Placer F 4.29 0 4.29

Goldy Placer and Mill Site G 0.95 0 0.95

Gopher Placer F 0.91 0.16 1.07

Jackpot Placer G 0.2 0 0.2

Jay Gould Mine and Lode F 4.17 0.16 4.33

Jim Bob Placer G 0.39 0 0.39

Ladder/Rusty Bucket &

Monarch Lode

F 0.15 0 0.15

Lucky One Placer/Lode F 0.34 0.8 1.14

Lucky Placer F 5.52 0 5.52

Midas/Ladybug Placer F 0.62 0 0.62

Monarch Lode G 7.82 1.79 9.61

N. Fork & Prudent Placers F 0.12 0 0.12

Old Channel Placer F 1.55 0 1.55

Parkerville Placer Mining

& Upper Winterville 

Placer

E 1.84 0 1.84

Rocker Group G 0.23 0 0.23

Silver Bell Placer #2 G 0.67 0 0.67

Silver Eagle Lode F 0.58 0 0.58

Snow Creek Placer G 0.26 0.04 0.3

Standby/McNamee Placer G 8.06 0 8.06

Star (Pinus) Placer G 0.69 0 0.69

Three Cent Placer/Red 

Dog

F 0 0.59 0.59

Upper Geiser D 2.35 1.52 3.87

Upper Winterville 

Placer/Lode

G 2.3 0 2.3

West Parkerville G 1.6 0.21 1.81

Total 61.07 7.42 68.49
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Chapter 3

75

Road Management Activities

Under Alternative 4 the roads within RHCAs scheduled for road management activities (i.e. 

install water bars, replace culvert, grade road surface, scarify and see road bed) may have a 

short-term effect on water quality during ground-disturbing activities depending on the location 

of the roads with respect to a stream channel. The bulk of the road-generated sediment entering 

the streams would be silts which would move through the stream as suspended load. The minor 

amounts of sand or fine gravels that the roads may contribute are expected to settle out within a 

few feet of entering the stream based on work by Keller (1971) (as cited in Harvey and Lisle 

1998) where he examined sorting of bedload. These effects would be localized and limited to 

the time when ground-disturbing activities take place using Forest Service Best Management 

Practices (Hauter and Harkenrider 1988). 

At the crossing sites, it is possible that some sediment may reach the channel during any grounddisturbing activity related to maintenance or reconstruction. However, in most cases, this input 

would be limited spatially to the 300 feet or less on either side of the crossing, and limited 

temporally to the time when ground-disturbing activities take place. Sediment input would be 

short-term and distributed over the entire subwatershed, and impacts to water quality would be 

non-measurable. 

Ponds inside RHCAs

Alternative 4 is the same as Alternative 2 (Table 3-7). There are no effects from having existing 

and proposed ponds inside the RHCA and the ponds are in compliance with INFISH MM-1 and 

MM-2 (Appendix 4). 

Breaching of Beaver Dams

There is a reduction in the potential for mining activity to generate a turbidity plume and loss of 

fish habitat (INFISH MM-1 and MM-2) because existing and future beaver dams in these 

drainages would be protected and left undisturbed by the miners. If conflicts develop between 

beaver dams and mining operations as a result of pond levels rising and potentially flooding 

operations, the miners would work with the Forest Service to install pond-level control devices 

(Appendix 2, General Requirement G-23).

Adit Discharge

Alternative 4 has the fewer water quality effects from adit discharge than those described for 

Alternative 2. August Placer currently has a pond that is located on top of an old mine tailings 

dump. This pond would be moved in order to eliminate the potential for an increase in heavy 

metals concentrations in the local near surface ground water as a result of water leaching through 

the old mine tailings (Appendix 1A).

Suction Dredging on Cub Creek (Burnt Lode/Placer)

The effects of suction dredging on Cub Creek would be the same as those stated in Alternative 2. 
Chapter 3 NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

76

Summary of Effects

Alternative 4 includes additional Forest Service BMPs and ODEQ terms and conditions. These 

address mining activity and how the closed/previously decommissioned roads used by the miners 

will be maintained. 

Under this alternative, only two Plans have activities with the potential for a discharge. The two 

Plans are Burnt Lode/Placer and Three Cent Placer. The activities in the Burnt Lode/Placer plan 

are 1) proposed road construction to Karissa site, and 2) proposed suction dredging on Cub 

Creek. The activity in the Three Cent Placer plan is construction and use of a proposed 

processing pond at Processing Site 2. These proposed activities would not be in compliance with 

the CWA (Table 3-13). Under Alternative 2, 28 Plans have activities that would not be in 

compliance, compared to only two Plans under Alternative 4. 

1) Burnt Lode/Placer: 

a. Proposed construction of an access road to Karissa site. The access route is 

located on a steep slope and would follow the old ditch. Parts of the old ditch are 

now buried under rocks, logs and sediment indicating considerable downslope 

movement of material and come within ten feet the NFBR in places. Road 

construction would expose and move considerable sediment in close proximity to 

the NFBR and could potentially destabilize portions of the slope since some of the 

road would need to be cut-and-fill construction. In addition, the amount of 

material that has moved downslope and covered the ditch indicates that the road 

would require continuous maintenance. No Forest Service WQPMs were 

identified that could prevent a discharge of sediment into the NFBR. 

b. Proposed suction dredging on Cub Creek. The fine-grained nature of the 

sediments in the channel increases the risk that suction dredging would trigger a 

headcut and channel incision. Channel incision into fine sediments would result 

in 1) the input of new sediment from outside sources rather than just a 

redistribution of in-channel sediment, 2) long-term chronic inputs of sediment 

into Cub Creek as the headcut moved upstream, and 3) a lowering of the ground 

water table. No Forest Service WQPMs were identified that could protect the 

channel bed such that suction dredging could occur without the potential for 

triggering channel incision. 

3. Three Cent Placer: 

a. Pond construction and use at Processing site #2. The proposed processing ponds 

have the potential to input sediment into Three Cent Creek regardless of location

the area. The area has only a narrow flat terrace adjacent to the creek (less than 

20 feet wide) making it impossible to have the ponds a minimum of 20 feet from 

the creek and still on a flat surface. If the ponds are constructed in this narrow 

zone, there is the potential for bank failure during construction. If failure does not 

occur during construction, there is also the potential for movement of pond water 

subsurface towards the stream which would remobilize bank sediments were the 

pond waters re-emerged along the stream bank. If the ponds are located on the 

hillslope there is also the potential for pond failure and hillslope erosion. 
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Chapter 3

77

Table 3-13

Plans of Operations and comparison of Forest Service determination of potential for a 

discharge under Alternatives 2 and 4

Plan of 

Operations Sites Creek adjacent to Activity of concern Potential for Discharge

Alternative 2 Alternative 4

August Placer 1,2, 3 None No No

Big Elk/Red Dog Big Elk/Red 

Dog 

Dry Mining Yes No

Burnt Lode/Placer

1 (2 test holes –

part adjacent to 

NFBR)

NFBR Mining and proposed 

road

Yes No

2 (“meadow” 

site – site 1)

None No No

2 (pond site –

site 2)

None No No

2 (test site 3 on 

Cub Creek)

Cub Mining Yes No

2 (test site 4 on 

Cub Creek)

Cub Mining Yes No

2 (Cub Creek) Cub Suction dredging Yes Yes

3 (Karissa site) NFBR Proposed road 

building/maintenance

Yes Yes

Camp Hale Placer Camp Hale 

Placer

None No No

Dominion Lode 

Group

Dominion Lode 

Group

Tribs to NFBR Maintenance 

activities for some of 

the close roads in 

area of stream 

crossings

Yes No

E J Placer A, B, C, D, E NFBR Mining Yes No

Gimlet Placer Gimlet Placer Gimlet Mining Yes No

Glory B Placer Glory B Placer Jackknife No No

Gold Busters 

Placer

Gold Busters 

Placer

Pinus No No

Gold Camp Placer

1 Camp Mining Yes No

2 Camp No No

3 None No No

Golden Bandit 

Placer/Lode

1 None No No

2 Unnamed trib 

to Pinus 

Mining Yes No

Goldy Placer & 

Millsite

Goldy Placer & 

Millsite

None No No

Gopher Placer

1 (north of FS 

7830)

Simpson Mining Yes No

2 (south of FS 

7830)

Simpson Mining and 

maintenance 

activities for FS 

7380270

Yes No
Chapter 3 NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

78

Plan of 

Operations Sites Creek adjacent to Activity of concern Potential for Discharge

Alternative 2 Alternative 4

Jay Gould Lode –

(Banzer)

Jay Gould Lode 

– (Banzer)

Unnamed 

channel ends 

in wetland

Mining Yes No

Jay Gould Mine 

Works (Newell)

Jay Gould Mine 

Works (Newell)

None No No

Jim Bob Placer Jim Bob Placer NFBR Mining Yes No

Ladder/Rusty 

Bucket 

Ladder/Rusty 

Bucket 

None No No

Lucky One 

Placer/Lode

Lucky One 

Placer/Lode

Simpson No No

Lucky Placer Lucky Placer None No No

Midas/Lady Bug 

Placer

Midas/Lady 

Bug Placer

None No No

Monarch

1 (main portal 

and also referred 

to as Monarch 

Mine Works 1)

Mosquito Ck

Waste material 

disposal on skid road 

up Mosquito Ck Yes No

2 (test 

excavation)

None No No

4 (new millsite) None No No

Exploration drill 

sites

South Fk 

Gimlet 

Maintenance 

activities for 

decommissioned 

road FS 1065250 as 

road is in or close to 

drainage. Related to 

possible road access

needs for drilling 

exploration holes.

Yes No

North Fork Placer North Fork 

Placer

NFBR Mining Yes No

Old Channel 

Placer

Old Channel 

Placer

None No No

Parkerville Placer

Mining

Parkerville 

Placer Mining

Small 

unnamed 

headwater trib 

to NFBR

Mining and use of 

pond just upstream 

of FS 1046045

Yes No

Prudent Placer Prudent Placer NFBR Mining Yes No

R&RK 2,3 R&RK 2,3 NFBR Mining Yes No

R&RK 4, 5 R&RK 4, 5 NFBR Mining and ford Yes No

Racer 

Group/Keystone 

Korners Placer

Racer 

Group/Keystone 

Korners Placer

Geiser 

Mining, culvert 

installation, bridge 

building

Yes No

Roberts Lode Roberts Lode None No No

Rocker Group

Placer 

Rocker Group

Placer 

Greenhorn and 

Slab Mining Yes No

Shamrock Placer Shamrock 

Placer

NFBR Mining and ford Yes No

Silver Bell Placer

#2

Silver Bell 

Placer #2

Camp No No
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Chapter 3

79

Plan of 

Operations Sites Creek adjacent to Activity of concern Potential for Discharge

Alternative 2 Alternative 4

Silver Eagle Lode Silver Eagle 

Lode

None No No

Sluice Box Placer Sluice Box 

Placer

NFBR Mining and ford Yes No

Snow Creek 

Placer

Snow Creek 

Placer Snow 

Mining and road 

maintenance 

activities of closed 

roads FS 1038400, 

1038401, and 

1035559 where close 

to creek

Yes No

Standby/NcNamee 

Placer

1 (upstream 

site)

McNamee 

Gulch 

road maintenance 

activities of 

decommissioned 

road FS 1035125 

where it crosses the 

creek

yes No

2 (downstream 

site)

McNamee 

Gulch 

Mining and ford Yes No

Star (Pinus) Placer

Star (Pinus) 

Placer

Pinus Ck Mining and road 

maintenance 

activities of closed 

road 7386430 where 

it crosses the creek

Yes No

Three Cent Placer

Processing site 

1

Three Cent No No

Processing site 

2

Three Cent Processing Yes Yes

Mining 1 (north 

of FS 1075 

road)/Processing 

site 3

Three Cent No No

Mining 2 (south 

of FS 1075 

road)

Three Cent No No

East East Three 

Cent 

No No

Red Dog Three Cent No No

Upper Geiser 

Creek Placer/Lode

Processing site 

area

Geiser Processing Yes No

Portion 

alongside the 

creek between 

the junction 

with 1044060 

upstream to the 

portal.

Geiser 

Mining and road 

maintenance 

activities of closed 

road 1044086 where 

it crosses the creek 

and FS 1044065 

where it comes close 

to creek, and 

decommissioned FS 

1044051 where it 

comes close to creek

Yes No
Chapter 3 NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

80

Plan of 

Operations Sites Creek adjacent to Activity of concern Potential for Discharge

Alternative 2 Alternative 4

Upper Winterville 

Placer/Lode

Upper 

Winterville 

Placer/Lode

Trib to Geiser 

Mining and 

maintenance 

activities for 

decommissioned 

road FS 10644045

Yes No

West Parkerville 

Placer

West Parkerville 

Placer

Unnamed 

tributary to 

NFBR

Mining Yes No

Wild Flower 

Placer

Wild Flower 

Placer

NFBR Ford Yes No
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Chapter 3

81

Cumulative Effects 

The cumulative effects of implementing Alternative 4 are less than those of Alternative 2 

because the number of Plans with activities that have the potential for a discharge decreases from 

28 Plans under Alternative 2 to two Plans under Alternative 4. This is due to the Forest Service 

WQPMs (Appendix 1A) and General Requirements (Appendix 2), and ODEQ Terms and 

Conditions (Appendix 1A) included in Alternative 4. Those General Requirements, which 

directly or indirectly contribute to a reduction of the effects of the mining operations to water 

quality, are G3, G6-G8, G11-G13, G19, G23, G24, H5, H8, P2, R1-R2, R5, R7, R14, and Zrequirements. 

In addition, ongoing maintenance and reconstruction, and proper design and implementation of 

road drainage features and road stabilization for closed and decommissioned roads authorized 

under the 2004 NFBR ROD will help prevent the contribution of sediment to streams in the 

future by decreasing the potential for road failures. Road activity under the 2004 NFBR ROD 

will result in a small reduction in the amount of road-generated sediment that is delivered to 

streams. The result will be a non-measurable reduction in turbidity levels and suspended 

sediment loads and so there will be minimal improvement in water quality. This road work will 

not change the 303(d) listing for sedimentation (embeddedness) because the bulk of the roadgenerated sediment entering the streams would be silts which would move through the stream as 

suspended load. The minor amounts of sand or fine gravels that the roads may contribute are 

expected to settle out within a few feet of entering the stream based on work by Keller 1971 (as 

cited in Harvey and Lisle 1998) where he examined sorting of bedload. 

The cumulative effects related to the foreseeable future WWNF Travel Management Plan (TMP) 

are the same as under Alternative 2. As mentioned previously, it is anticipated that designation 

of roads, trails and areas for motorized use under TMP will limit cross-country travel within the 

project area. The reduction in cross-country travel would minimize the creation of new fords 

with their potential to input sediment into stream channels. It would also eliminate the potential 

to create wheel tracks that could erode and contribute sediment into streams. Because crosscountry travel is anticipated to decrease under TMP, the implementation of the TMP would 

result in no additional impacts to water quality then are currently present in the watershed. 

The projected effects of Alternative 4 on water quality (both those discussed in this Supplement 

and those authorized in the 2004 NFBR ROD), when considered together with all other past, 

present and reasonable foreseeable actions in the geographic scope of analysis, would result in a 

reduction in cumulative effects compared to Alternative 2. This reduction in effects is due to 1) 

the Forest Service BMPs which reduced the number of Plans with proposed activities that have 

the potential for a discharge from 28 Plans to two Plans and, 2) BMPs which ensured proper road 

maintenance for closed and/or decommissioned roads proposed for use by the miners, and 

ODEQ Terms and Conditions. 
Chapter 3 NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

82

Comparison of Alternatives

The following section fully replaces page 39 in Chapter III in the 2004 FEIS:

Alternative 2 would not adequately protect water quality. Under Alternative 2, 28 Plans propose 

activities that would have the potential for a discharge into navigable waters or Waters of the 

State and therefore would not be in compliance with Section 313 of CWA. Alternative 4, with its 

added WQPMs (Appendix 1A) and General Requirements (Appendix 2), would eliminate the 

potential for a “may” discharge into stream channels and bring activities in all but two Plans 

(Burnt Lode/Placer and Three Cent Placer) into compliance with Section 313 of the CWA. The 

three proposed activities that still have the potential for a discharge are 1) the proposed road 

construction to Karissa site (Burnt Lode/Placer), 2) proposed suction dredging on Cub Creek 

(Burnt Lode/Placer), and 3) proposed construction and use of a processing pond at Processing 

Site 2 (Three Cent Placer) (Table 3-13). 

The roads authorized to be closed or decommissioned under the 2004 NFBR ROD will improve 

the drainage and stability of the roads, reduce use on these roads, and eliminate a small amount 

of road-generated sediment that is currently being delivered to streams. This reduction in 

turbidity levels or suspended sediment loads will be non-measurable and will not change the 

303(d) listing for sedimentation (embeddedness) because 1) the current contribution of sediment 

into the streams from roads is minimal, 2) the silt component of road-generated sediment 

delivered to the streams moves through the stream as suspended load, and 3) any sands or 

gravels that make it to the stream would settle within a few feet. The current sedimentation 

(embeddedness) is related to historic activity. A decrease in channel embeddedness would 

require disturbance of the channel bed and removal or redistribution of the fines. 

Over time, roads authorized for closure or decommissioning under the 2004 NFBR ROD will 

result in the revegetation of closed roads and the decompaction of the roadbed as trees become 

established on the roadbed. The result will be that more water will be retained in the watershed 

longer as infiltration into the roadbed increases and the near-surface groundwater flow paths are 

re-established.
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Chapter 3

83

Access/Transportation System

Because HCPC 2006 found the 2004 FEIS and ROD inadequate in explaining the exceptions to 

meeting the open road density guidelines, the following is included to specifically address that 

concern.

After further review of all Forest Plan direction for open road densities, the deciding official 

determined that the 2004 NFBR FEIS erroneously included a need to identify exceptions to 

meeting the open road densities. In the 2004 FEIS, although some Management Areas exceeded 

the specified Forest Plan open road density guideline, the NFBR Mining project proposals 1) did 

not add new open roads to the watershed, and 2) authorized closing and decommissioning 7.7 

miles of open roads (Alternative 4), thereby moving the watershed towards Forest Plan direction. 

Affected Environment

Introduction

The following clarifications and additional paragraph regarding mining claim access are added to 

this section of the 2004 FEIS.

This section responds to element #6 of HCPC 2006, to “...identify and 

discuss management objectives that require exceptions to the open-road 

density guidelines” (Introduction pg. 4). It also includes corrected 

information regarding the miles and status of roads that were included for 

closure or decommissioning in the 2004 NFBR Mining FEIS and ROD, and 

an updated cumulative effects analysis to incorporate the future foreseeable 

WWNF Travel Management Plan (TMP).

The section specifically discusses Forest Plan consistency for open road 

densities (Forest Plan, page 4-35). The effects of all roads on wildlife are

discussed in the Wildlife Habitat section of this Chapter.
Chapter 3 NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

84

During the supplemental analysis, errors were found in the inventory of open, closed, and 

decommissioned roads used in the 2004 analysis. In particular, there were miles of road already 

programmed for closure (i.e. the decisions had already been made), were not accurately 

accounted for. This led to some double counting and an incorrect assessment of the effects in the 

2004 FEIS. 

The Supplement used the September 2007 GIS roads data so that the reassessment of data in 

2012 used the same database as the 2004 FEIS, and reassessed the information included in the 

2002 NFBR Roads Analysis to correct the errors in the 2004 FEIS. This resulted in substantially 

fewer roads prescribed for closure or decommissioning than were represented in the 2004 ROD 

(since many of the proposed roads already had a decision for closure). This Supplement 

incorporates the corrected/adjusted miles of road closure and decommissioning prescribed under 

the 2004 ROD. Under the 2004 ROD, the actual new miles that Alternative 4 authorized were the 

closing of 5.1 miles of system roads and decommissioning of 2.6 miles of currently open system 

roads (as adjusted per this supplement). It also authorized the conversion of 4.5 miles from 

closed to decommissioned. Refer to Table 2-5 in Chapter 2 for the specific activities by road 

number.

The Supplement examines open road densities by MA/SWS and reflects all previous closure 

decisions (including the road management decisions made in the 2004 ROD). Additionally, 

Appendices 8A and 8B include the corrected road status and timing of closure decisions (pre or 

post 2004 ROD). 

Refer to the Changes from Draft to Final section of this document for explanation of changes in 

how open road densities were analyzed and the deletion of the Forest Plan amendment that was 

proposed in the Draft SEIS.

Mining Claim Access

Mining access is different from access needed or associated with other national forest uses. 

Federal regulations provide a mining miner reasonable access incident to their operations (refer 

to 36 CFR 228.12). As a part of this Supplement, the access proposed for each operation was 

reevaluated (project file) to determine which existing roads and proposed roads are reasonably 

incident to the operation, and to determine what BMPs, if any, are needed to approve or regulate 

construction, use, or maintenance of the roads (Appendix 2, Z-requirements).

Because the road management decisions (maintenance, reconstruction, closure and 

decommissioning) proposed in the 2004 FEIS were not found inadequate in HCPC 

2006 of Oregon, the decision to approve those activities was made with the 2004 

NFBR Mining ROD. This Supplement does not prescribe any new road 

management activities on Forest Service roads; therefore no road management 

decisions for Forest Service roads will be included in the ROD for this Supplement.

The road management activities included in the 2004 ROD are included in Alternative 4 

of this supplemental analysis only to incorporate corrections that have been made since 

2004, and provide clarity when comparing effects of the alternatives.
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Chapter 3

85

• Manage road and trail uses to protect resources, accommodate or restrict conflicting uses, 

provide reasonable safety, and prevent damage to the facilities. 

• Protect water quality in all aspects of road and trail system management. 

• Use practices that will avoid or minimize sediment production from new road 

construction and will correct existing sediment sources. 

Basic custodial maintenance is performed on closed Forest Service roads to reduce damage to 

adjacent resources to an acceptable level and to ensure that the road remains in place to provide 

for potential future management activities or public access needs. Emphasis is given to 

maintaining the drainage facilities and runoff patterns. Vegetation encroachment and down 

woody material buildup may occur at this level. While roads are closed to highway vehicles, 

they remain open and suitable for OHV use and non-motorized travel. Seasonal closures exclude 

access during the wet season to protect the road and adjacent resources, and to protect wildlife 

and habitat. The Patrick Creek Closure Area within the NFBR Watershed is closed to motor 

vehicles for a two-month period in late spring/early summer during the elk calving season. 

The objective of road decommissioning is to stabilize, restore, and revegetate unneeded roads to 

a more natural state to protect and enhance NFS lands (FSM 7734.02). Decommissioned roads 

are removed from the forest transportation atlas. Road decommissioning treatments may range 

from simply administratively removing the road from the system to fully restoring the slope to 

near natural contours. The level of treatment is site-specific, based on the road’s current 

condition and location, and what is needed to meet the objective to hydrologically stabilize the 

road. 

Access

Forest Plan standards and guidelines for access include: 

• Manage traffic as needed due to structural limitation of the road or limitation imposed by 

other resources, such as wildlife or recreation. (Forest Plan, page 4-34).

• Implement open road density guidelines as opportunities arise. Normally this will be 

following a timber sale project, but may also include special projects aimed at reducing 

open road densities in key areas (Forest Plan p. 4-36).

Open Road Densities

When calculating Open Road Densities to determine if a project meets Forest Plan guidelines, 

the WWNF Forest Plan states:

• “Meet the specific open-road density guidelines found in the direction for individual 

management areas unless a specific exception is determined, through the Forest Service 

NEPA process, to be needed to meet management objectives. 2/3/. 

2/Total road density (closed and open roads) is not restricted except as stated in 

the standards and guidelines for soils.

3/The method used for calculating open road densities is an important factor. 

The average road density is calculated by dividing an area by the number of miles 

of open roads within that specific area. 
Chapter 3 NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

86

If the area is too large, the average becomes meaningless; conversely, if the area 

is too small, the resulting figures may not provide useful information. For the 

purpose of implementing this direction, open road density will normally be 

calculated on the basis of subwatersheds. The area of each Management Area

contained in each subwatershed will be calculated, and the open roads within that 

management area/subwatershed will also be calculated to determine the open 

road density. 

The acreage and road mileage included in the calculation will include all acres 

(NF and private) within the major proclaimed boundaries of the National Forest, 

but will exclude private land acreage outside the major proclaimed boundaries. 

“Islands” of proclaimed National Forest which are outside the major proclaimed 

boundaries will be included in the calculations if they are still under National 

Forest management. Decisions to leave open road densities greater than the 

guidelines are expected to be the exception rather than the rule” (Forest Plan p. 

4-35).

Therefore, the Forest Plan identifies the following guidelines for calculating open road densities 

in order to comply with the Forest Plan:

• calculate open road densities for each management area found within a subwatershed to 

include all National Forest and private lands within the major proclaimed boundaries of 

the National Forest.

For this analysis, two calculations were used for determining whether open road densities by 

Management Area within a subwatershed (MA/SWS) comply with the Forest Plan. 

1) all State, County, private, and Forest Service open roads, 

2) Forest Service open roads only, as those are the only roads over which 

the Forest Service has jurisdiction, and are therefore the only roads that 

the Forest Service can close or decommission.

Open road density results are presented in Table 3-14 for all MA/SWS. The open road densities 

for Alternative 2 were derived from the 2002 NFBR Roads Analysis (project file) which 

reflected the existing condition prior to the 2004 decision. Open road densities for Alternative 4 

were derived from the September 2007 GIS database (project file) which incorporated the 2004 

decision to close or decommission 7.7 miles of open road. The 3,200 feet of new temporary mine 

access roads are not included in the total open road miles or open road density calculation 

because they are not considered open roads.
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Chapter 3

87

Table 3-14

Open Road Densities by Management Areas within Subwatersheds (MA/SWS) 

* The 3,200 feet (.61 miles) of temporary mine access only roads are not included in the total open road miles or open road density

calculation because they are not considered open roads.

SWS # MA Acres

Sq.

Miles of 

Area

Forest 

Plan 

Guidelines

Open Road 

Densities for 

State, County, 

pvt, and FS roads 

(miles/sq. mile)

Open Road 

Densities for FS 

roads only 

(miles/sq. mile)

FS road miles 

closed or 

decommissioned 

under Alt 4

Proposed 

Temporary 

Mine 

Access Only 

Roads*

(miles)

% Total Open 

Roads = State, 

County, and pvt

Alt 2 Alt 4 Alt 2 Alt 4 Alt 2 Alt 4

A 1 7 0.01 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0 0

A 3 3038 4.75 1.5 1.3 1.3 1.0 1.0 0.00 29 29

A 15 168 0.26 n/a 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 0.00 0 0

A Total 3214 5.02 1.4 1.4 1.0 1.0

B 1 1029 1.61 2.5 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 0.00 0 0

B 3 4939 7.72 1.5 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.1 0.00 7 7

B 3A 251 0.39 1.5 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 0.00 0 0

B 15 576 0.90 n/a 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.00 0 0

B Total 6796 10.62 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.3

C 1 3628 5.67 2.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 0.00 0 0

C 3 6353 9.93 1.5 1.7 1.7 1.1 1.1 0.00 35 35

C 3A 703 1.10 1.5 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 0.00 0 0

C 15 1032 1.61 n/a 1.7 1.7 1.5 1.5 0.00 7 7

C Total 11716 18.31 1.6 1.6 1.3 1.3 0.00

D 1 5964 9.32 2.5 2.0 1.9 1.9 1.8 0.88 5 6

D 1W 1611 2.52 1.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.00 0 0

D 3 11180 17.47 1.5 1.1 1.1 0.9 0.9 0.00 19 19

D 15 1014 1.59 n/a 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 0.00 0 0

D Total 19769 30.89 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.1 0.88

E 1 28 0.04 2.5 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 0.00 0 0

E 3 3811 5.95 1.5 2.0 1.9 0.6 0.4 0.72 71 76
Chapter 3 NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

88

SWS # MA Acres

Sq.

Miles of 

Area

Forest 

Plan 

Guidelines

Open Road 

Densities for 

State, County, 

pvt, and FS roads 

(miles/sq. mile)

Open Road 

Densities for FS 

roads only 

(miles/sq. mile)

FS road miles 

closed or 

decommissioned 

under Alt 4

Proposed 

Temporary 

Mine 

Access Only 

Roads*

(miles)

% Total Open 

Roads = State, 

County, and pvt

Alt 2 Alt 4 Alt 2 Alt 4 Alt 2 Alt 4

E 3A 5291 8.27 1.5 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.00 5 5

E 15 498 0.78 n/a 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0 0

E Total 9627 15.04 1.3 1.2 0.7 0.6 0.72

F 1 13127 20.51 2.5 2.3 2.1 2.2 2.1 3.49 0.19 3 3

F 1W 1323 2.07 1.5 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 0.00 0 0

F 3 2694 4.21 1.5 2.9 2.8 1.6 1.5 0.26 45 46

F 15 1654 2.58 n/a 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 0.01 0 0

F 18 7 0.01 n/a 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0 0

F Total 18805 29.38 2.2 2.1 2.0 1.9 3.76

G 1 9326 14.57 2.5 2.94 2.88 1.82 1.75 0.98 0.38 38 39

G 3 889 1.39 1.5 4.1 3.1 3.5 2.6 1.33 14 18

G 3A 5635 8.81 1.5 1.9 1.9 1.4 1.4 0.00 0.04 26 26

G 15 1053 1.65 n/a 2.0 2.0 1.5 1.5 0.00 25 25

G 18 6 0.01 n/a 2.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 0.00 50 50

G Total 16911 26.42 2.6 2.5 1.7 1.7 2.31

H 1 6018 9.40 2.5 1.8 1.8 1.7 1.7 0.00 7 7

H 1W 375 0.59 1.5 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.00 0 0

H 3 2767 4.32 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.5 1.5 0.00 5 5

H 15 673 1.05 n/a 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.00 0 0

H 16 11 0.02 n/a 23.3 23.3 16.7 16.7 0.00 28 28

H 17 34 0.05 n/a 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 0.00

H Total 9878 15.43 1.6 1.6 1.5 1.5 0.00
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Chapter 3

89

Environmental Effects

This section in the 2004 FEIS is fully replaced with the following:

Effects Common to Alternatives 2 and 4

Forest Plan Consistency

Under both alternatives, no new open Forest Service roads are proposed for construction, 

therefore open road densities would not increase under any of the alternatives. The Forest Plan 

states: 

“Analyze projects which will require construction of new roads or 

which require opening old roads, with the intent of meeting specific 

management area road density guidelines during the activity. If the 

analysis indicates that meeting these guidelines during project activity 

is important in meeting the resource management objectives, and if the 

project will require an open road density in excess of the guideline, 

then mitigation of the effects of adding open roads will take place 

where practicable. Mitigation may include efforts such as closing other 

roads in the analyis area...” (Forest Plan pg. 4-36). 

Although the above standard and guideline was designed to address impacts from construction or 

opening of existing Forest Service roads for timber sale haul, it can be applied to this project. 

No new open Forest Service roads are being added to the watershed under any of the 

alternatives in this project, therefore Alternatives 2 and 4 are consistent with Forest Plan 

open road density guidelines and no exceptions to the guidelines are needed. The 3,200 feet 

of new temporary mine access roads are not included in the total open Forest Service road miles 

or open road density calculations because they are not open to the public. They are for use only 

by the miner as stipulated in their Plan of Operations, and requirements to prevent public access 

to those temporary roads are included in Appendix 2, General Requirements.

Alternative 2

The open road densities for Alternative 2 were derived from the 2002 NFBR Roads Analysis 

(project file), and the densities for Alternative 4 were derived from the September 2007 GIS 

database (project file).

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 2 would continue current management of the transportation system, including the 

Forest Service’s implementation of past decisions as the program of work and funding allows. 

Administrative use and public access would remain at current levels. Alternative 2 did not 

include an opportunity to reconstruct, close, or decommission any roads in the watershed beyond 

those already covered in previous NEPA decisions. 

Three Plans propose construction of sections of temporary road to provide access to their 

operations. These are: Burnt Lode/Placer (2,000 feet); R&RK 2, 3 Placer (200) feet; and Lucky 

One Placer/Lode (1,000 feet). These roads are not considered open Forest Service roads, 

therefore they do not contribute to open road densities. 
Chapter 3 NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

90

The construction, maintenance, and reclamation of these temporary roads would be regulated 

only by the proposed requirements the miners submitted with their Plans. However, their Plans 

may not have included specific direction for ensuring these access roads are seasonally closed. 

Therefore there may be a small increase in public access on these temporary roads because the 

miners may not provide an adequate closure device at the end of each season. 

At the end of operations, the miners would reclaim access roads (closed, temporary or nonsystem 

roads) authorized in the Plan of Operations, including those constructed by the miner. These 

reclamation activities typically include ripping and reseeding the road bed. Reclamation 

activities are outlined in a reclamation plan included with the calculation of the bond required for 

the Plan.

The remaining effects for Alternative 2 are the same as described above for “Effects Common to 

all Alternatives”.

Cumulative Effects

The cumulative effects analysis area is the NFBR watershed for the ten-year duration of the 

Plans of Operations.

The Geiser Creek Road (Forest Road 1044000, County Road 528) reconstruction was authorized 

under a separate decision in 2006 (D. Taylor, USFS, WWNF, personal communication, 5/2/08).

The road reconstruction effectively stabilized the road prism, preventing chronic sediment 

contributions to Geiser Creek. 

The OHV ford near the confluence of the NFBR and Second Creek was replaced with a bridge in 

June 2006 and the resulting effects were as anticipated in the effects in the 2004 FEIS. 

With respect to foreseeable future WWNF Travel Management Plan (TMP), it is anticipated that 

designation of roads, trails and areas for motorized use under TMP will limit cross-country travel 

within the project area. It is anticipated that the TMP would not restrict miners’ access to their 

operations because 36 CFR 228.12 allows them reasonable access. Roads incident to mining, 

not designated as open in the TMP, could be authorized for miner’s access through either a Plan 

of Operations or special use permit. 

No Forest Service system roads were proposed to be closed or decommissioned under this 

alternative in the 2004 FEIS. 

The construction of approximately 3,200 feet of mine access road would temporarily add to the 

physical presence of roads in the watershed. Because the miners may not provide an adequate 

closure device at the end of each season, there may be an increase in public access on these 

temporary roads. 
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Chapter 3

91

Alternative 4 

Note: Although the 2004 NFBR ROD approved the road closure and decommissioning activities 

proposed in Alternative 4, those activities are included in this section of the Supplement for 

consistency and clarity when comparing the alternatives.

In the 2004 FEIS, Alternative 4 included road management activities (closure, decommissioning, 

maintenance and reconstruction). Under the 2004 NFBR Mining ROD, this alternative closed 5.1 

miles of open road and decommissioned 2.6 miles of open road. It also converted 4.5 miles of 

closed roads to a decommissioned status. Refer to Table 2-5 in Chapter 2 for the specific 

activities by road number.

Alternative 4 differs from Alternative 2 by including site-specific water quality protection 

measures and General Requirements to the Plans. General Requirements G7, R12, and Zrequirements (Appendix 2) are specific to roads used by the miners. Temporary mine access

roads constructed in accordance with an Approved Plan, “closed” system roads, and nonsystem 

roads used in accordance with an Approved Plan would be closed to public use and maintained 

according to the General Requirements (Z-requirements). Under General Requirement Z-11, 

during periods of operations, and seasonal or temporary shutdowns, the miner would be 

responsible for installing and maintaining a road closure device that is approved in writing by the 

District Ranger. All closed, temporary or nonsystem roads would be reclaimed to the 

satisfaction of the Forest Service when mining operations are complete. 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

This alternative reduced open road densities as reflected in Table 3-16 under the 2004 NFBR 

ROD. The closing or decommissioning of approximately 7.7 miles of open road in the 

watershed represented a four percent reduction in public access (i.e. recreationists, fuelwood 

cutters, hunters, and administrative use) via open Forest Service roads. However, this does not 

affect mine access because of 36 CFR 228.12, which allows miner’s reasonable access to their 

operations. The 7.7 miles of open Forest Service roads that were closed or decommissioned 

under Alternative 4 are distributed over eleven MA/SWS and four subwatersheds (Table 3-16). 

A Forest Plan Transportation goal is “ to provide safe, efficient, environmentally sound access

for the movement of people and materials involved in the use and management of the National 

Forest lands” (USDA 1990, pg. 4-34). Providing reasonable access to miners is stipulated at 36 

CFR 228.12. After closing or decommissioning 7.7 miles of open road under Alternative 4, the 

remaining Forest Service roads will continue to provide access to private land, and public land 

used for recreation, mining, and administrative purposes (fire and timber access). See Map 3 at 

the end of Chapter 2 for the Forest Service roads that remained open under Alternative 4.

In conclusion, Alternative 4 as authorized under the 2004 NFBR ROD moved some MA/SWS 

towards Forest Plan open road density guidelines because 1) no new open Forest Service roads 

were added to the watershed, and 2) it authorized closing and decommissioning 7.7 miles of 

open roads. Access to National Forest lands is being provided to the public under this 

alternative. Therefore Alternative 4 is consistent with Forest Plan open road density guidelines 

and Forest Plan direction for public access.
Chapter 3 NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

92

Cumulative Effects

The cumulative effects related to the foreseeable future WWNF Travel Management Plan (TMP) 

are the same as under Alternative 2. However, there would be no public accessibility to the 

3,200 feet of temporary mine access roads due to the addition of the General Requirement Z-11 

as discussed above. Therefore there would be no increase in public access from this alternative. 

Comparison of Alternatives

Replace this section of the 2004 FEIS with the following:

Alternative 2 did not have changed public access because no road closures or decommissionings 

were proposed. Alternative 4, however, did affect public access because approximately 7.7 

miles (as adjusted per this Supplement) of open road was identified for closure or 

decommissioning under the 2004 ROD (Table 2-5). However, this will not affect mine access 

because of 36 CFR 228.12.

All alternatives would be consistent with Forest Plan open road density guidelines for the reasons 

stated above under “Forest Plan Consistency”.
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Chapter 3

93

Wildlife Habitat

Replace all analyses of impact of roads on Rocky Mountain elk in the 2004 FEIS with the 

information below. 

Affected Environment

Open Road Density 

Habitat Effectiveness Indicator (HEI)

Road densities are no longer considered a good indicator of quality of elk habitat and the action 

alternatives would not measureably affect the ratio of cover to forage or increase open road 

densities. However, to be consistent with current Forest Plan direction, an HEI analysis is 

included here. 

The HEI model developed by Thomas et al. (1988) relies on open road density as an indicator of 

relative effects from roads on elk habitat. This model considers the density of open roads, the 

availability of cover habitat (see definitions; Forest Plan 1990, 4-57), the distribution and 

juxtaposition of cover and forage across the landscape, forage quantity and quality. Only the 

open road variable is affected by the proposed mining activities because they would not affect 

cover habitat (i.e., overstory height and canopy closure). The NFBR project area currently has 

an HEI value of 0.59 (2012 GIS data, project file), which is above the Forest Plan standard of 

0.50, therefore the current HEI for the project area is consistent with Forest Plan direction for 

HEI.

Distance Band Analysis (DBA)

More recent research in northeastern Oregon has found that road density is a poor indicator of 

habitat effectiveness because it does not take into account the distribution of those road miles on 

the landscape (Rowland et al. 2005). By contrast, the study described a strong linear increase in 

elk use as distance from roads increased. Therefore, a method using a distance-banding analysis 

(DBA), as described by Rowland et al. (2005), is a more accurate indicator of road effects on elk 

habitat because it is “more spatially explicit and biologically meaningful tool” for assessing 

effects from roads.” “As research and analysis techniques have become more sophisticated, 

particularly with the advent of geographic information systems (GIS) and high resolution remote 

imagery, the study of effects of roads on terrestrial and aquatic communities has 

evolved...”(Rowland et. al. 2005). Part of this “evolution” is the use of automated telemetry 

systems, such as that employed at the Starkey Experimental Forest and Range in Oregon. Use of 

Long Range Navigation and more recently satellite technology allows researchers to compile 

This section includes an updated analysis of impacts of roads on Rocky 

Mountain elk, a management indicator species, to incorporate new science 

and partially respond to element #6 (open road densities) of HCPC 2006. 

Refer to the Access/Transportation section of Chapter 3 for a complete 

discussion of Forest Plan consistency for open road densities.
Chapter 3 NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

94

more study subject (elk, deer, cattle, hunters, vehicles) locations, with greater accuracy than 

traditional hand-held telemetry applications. 

A combination of these newer research techniques were used in several studies at Starkey that 

address effects of motorized access on elk. “Effects of Off-Road Recreation on Mule Deer and 

Elk” (Wisdom et. al. 2004), and “Effects of Roads on Elk: Implications for Management in 

Forested Ecosystems” (Rowland et. al. 2005) are a sample of the studies from the Starkey Project 

that are relevant to this project. In the distance band approach, elk habitat is divided into three 

habitat categories based on the distance to nearest security habitat. Poor security habitat is zero 

to 1⁄2 mile from open roads, moderate habitat is 1⁄2 mile to one mile from open roads, and 

optimum habitat is greater than one mile from open roads.

Distance band analysis (DBA) replaces HEI analysis as the method for evaluating impacts to elk

from motorized travel. The most to up-to-date analysis of DBA for the NFBR watershed is 

found in the wildlife section of the ongoing TMP analysis which is now part of the NFBR SEIS 

project file. According to this analysis, currently one percent of the NFBR Watershed is in 

moderate elk security habitat, and the rest of the watershed (99 percent) is in poor elk security 

habitat.

Environmental Effects

Alternatives 2 and 4

The direct/indirect and cumulative effects analysis for Rocky Mountain Elk includes the NFBR 

watershed during the time of mining activities (late spring, summer, and early fall) for the tenyear period of the approved Plans of Operations. 

Direct/Indirect Effects

Temporary Mine Access Roads

Three temporary mine access roads, totalling 3,200 feet, are proposed for construction under 

Alternatives 2 and 4. These three mine access roads would be available for use only by the 

miners. The miners would be responsible for the construction, maintenance and reclamation of 

these particular road segments. Based on the small amount of new miner-access roads proposed 

(3,200 feet), and that these roads would be only used by the miners during operation 

(intermittently, late spring through early fall), the level of use would not be enough to cause a 

great disturbance to elk and other big game under alternatives 2 and 4. Also, the proposed 3,200 

feet of mine access roads would only minimally alter elk forage or cover and therefore have little 

direct or indirect impact on elk. For the same reasons, the occasional use by miners of closed 

roads to access their operation would have little impact on elk. 

Elk Security Habitat

Habitat Effectiveness Indicator (HEI)

The NFBR project area currently has an HEI value of 0.59, which is above the minimum Forest 

Plan standard of 0.50. The proposed mining activities will not measureably decrease cover 

because only incidental tree removal may occur (Appendix 9) and there is no increase open road 

densities. Therefore, there will be no decrease in the HEI value under either alternative. When 

the projected effects of the alternatives are considered together with all other past, present and 
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Chapter 3

95

reasonably foreseeable actions in the geographic scope of analysis, there are no cumulative 

effects that would exceed the Forest Plan HEI standard within the 10-year temporal scale used 

for this analysis. Therefore, based on the HEI model, there would be no measurable disturbance 

of elk (for example, to cause elk to leave the area) caused by these mining activities. Therefore, 

all alternatives would be consistent with the Forest Plan direction for HEI. 

Distance Band Analysis (DBA)

Currently 99 percent of the North Fork Burnt River watershed in the poor security habitat 

category (less than 1⁄2 mile from open roads). The remaining one percent falls into the moderate 

habitat category (project file). In the 2004 NFBR ROD, Alternative 4 authorized closing or 

decommissioning 7.7 miles of open roads. However the scale of this decrease in open road miles 

would not measureably increase the percentage of habitat in each distance band because 1) the 

7.7 miles of closures or decommissionings (22 discrete road segments) are scattered throughout 

the watershed and 2) 18 segments are less than a half mile long (Map 2 and Table 2-5). Since 

there would be no measureable change in elk security habitat from all alternatives, there would 

be no direct or indirect effects and therefore there are no cumulative effects. 

For additional discussion of open road densities, refer to the Access/Transportation section of 

Chapter 3.

Cumulative Effects on Rocky Mountain Elk and their Habitat 

The cumulative effects related to the foreseeable future WWNF Travel Management Plan (TMP) 

are the same under all alternatives. As mentioned previously, it is anticipated that designation of 

roads, trails and areas for motorized use under TMP will limit cross-country travel within the 

project area. Decreases in cross-country motor vehicle use are expected to reduce impacts to elk

security by reducing disturbance to elk from cross country motorized vehicle use. With respect 

to the 3,200 feet of proposed temporary mine access roads, there would be a non-measureable 

cumulative effect to elk due to the limited of use and cover change.
Chapter 3 NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

96

Additional Disclosures

1. Probable Adverse Environmental Effects that Cannot be Avoided

Localized sediment inputs/reduced water quality at site and down stream

Replace this section from the 2004 FEIS with the following 3 paragraphs:

Off-channel activity that would have a water quality impact is limited to the 1) proposed road 

construction to the Karissa site (Burnt Lode/Placer) and construction and use of proposed 

processing pond (Three Cent Placer – Processing site 2). The in-channel activity that would 

have a water quality impact is limited to suction dredging on Cub Creek (Burnt Lode/Placer) 

The proposed road construction to the Karissa site would follow an old ditch that is located on a 

steep hillslope. The hillslope feeds directly into the NFBR in places. The road would be within 

ten feet of NFBR in places. The ditch has filled in places with boulders and sediment indicating 

that there is considerable sediment movement occurring on the hillslope.

The construction and use of proposed processing pond would occur in an area that has only 

narrow flat terrace adjacent to the creek (less than 20 feet wide) making it impossible to have the 

ponds a minimum of 20 feet from the creek and still on a flat surface. If the ponds are 

constructed in this narrow zone, there is the potential for bank failure during construction. If 

failure does not occur during construction, there is also the potential for movement of pond water 

subsurface towards the stream which would remobilize bank sediments were the pond waters reemerged along the stream bank. If the ponds are located on the hillslope there is also the 

potential for pond failure and hillslope erosion. 

Suction dredging on Cub Creek has the potential to trigger a head cut and channel incision 

resulting in a chronic input of sediment and reduction of the cooler groundwater contributions to 

the creek.

With the above exceptions, sediment is short-lived at the point of origin. Most mining 

operations do not continue into winter, and in-stream activities are restricted to July 1 – October 

31, providing an opportunity for water to clear.

2. Potential Conflicts with Plans and Policies of Other Jurisdictions

Permits Required

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality

Replace this section from the 2004 FEIS with the following:

Oregon DEQ may require one or more of the following:

• The 700-PM Permit – suction dredges no more than 30 Hp. The Oregon DEQ will 

require a 700-PM or individual dredge permit prior to the commencement of dredging 

operations

• General Permit – operations adjacent to waterways with no discharge and process no 

more than 10,000 cubic yard of material per year (600 permit)

• Individual Permit – required if operation does not fit General Permit
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Chapter 3

97

• 401 certification – required if operation would result in a “may discharge” into navigable 

waters (CWA section 401).

3. Clean Water Act

Replace entire section from the 2004 FEIS with the following:

The Clean Water Act of 1977 (CWA) was enacted to facilitate the restoration and maintenance 

of the chemical, biological, and physical integrity of the waters of the United States. The Act 

was amended in 1987 to protect national waters from pollution from point sources and select 

non-point sources. As part of the implementation of this Act, the State of Oregon maintains an 

inventory of water quality-limited streams, which is based on standards developed by the Oregon 

Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ). Data collection for the Total Maximum Daily 

Load (TMDL) standard for the Burnt River Sub-basin, which encompasses the North Fork Burnt 

River watershed, is occurring in summer 2012. 

Information on the streams listed as water-quality impaired under Section 303(d) of the CWA in 

the analysis area for the 2004 FEIS is in the Watershed section, Chapter III, pages 11-12. 

Alternative 2 has 28 Plans with activities that have the potential to input sediment into the 

streams which would result in further degradation of streams already on the 303(d) list. 

Therefore, 28 Plans are not in compliance with Section 313 of the CWA. 

Alternative 4 includes additional Forest Service BMPs, reducing the number of Plans with 

activities that have a potential for a discharge from 28 Plans under Alternative 2 to only one Plan 

under Alternative 4 (Table 3-13). Therefore, the additional Forest Service BMPs therefore 

brings activities in all but two Plans (three activities) into compliance with Section 313 of the 

CWA. Burnt Lode/Placer still has activities with the potential for a discharge. The activities 

are 1) proposed road construction to the Karissa site, and 2) suction dredging on Cub Creek. 

Three Cent Placer still has an activity with the potential for a discharge. The activity is 

construction and use of a processing pond at Processing site 2. These three proposed activities 

would not be in compliance with the CWA (Table 3-13). 

1) Burnt Lode/Placer: 

a. Proposed construction of an access road to Karissa site. The access route is 

located on a steep slope and would follow the old ditch. Parts of the old ditch are 

now buried under rocks, logs and sediment indicating considerable downslope 

movement of material and come within ten feet the NFBR in places. Road 

construction would expose and move considerable sediment in close proximity to 

the NFBR and could potentially destabilize portions of the slope since some of the 

road would need to be cut-and-fill construction. In addition, the amount of 

material that has moved downslope and covered the ditch indicates that the road 

would require continuous maintenance. No Forest Service WQPMs were 

identified that could prevent a discharge of sediment into the NFBR.

b. Proposed suction dredging on Cub Creek. The fine-grained nature of the 

sediments in the channel increases the risk that suction dredging would trigger a 

headcut and channel incision. Channel incision into fine sediments would result 

in 1) the input of new sediment from outside sources rather than just a 

redistribution of in-channel sediment, 2) long-term chronic inputs of sediment 

into Cub Creek as the headcut moved upstream, and 3) a lowering of the ground 
Chapter 3 NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

98

water table. No Forest Service WQPMs were identified that could protect the 

channel bed such that suction dredging could occur without the potential for 

triggering channel incision.

2. Three Cent Placer: 

a. Pond construction and use at Processing site #2. The proposed processing ponds 

have the potential to input sediment into Three Cent Creek regardless of location

the area. The area has only a narrow flat terrace adjacent to the creek (less than 

20 feet wide) making it impossible to have the ponds a minimum of 20 feet from 

the creek and still on a flat surface. If the ponds are constructed in this narrow 

zone, there is the potential for bank failure during construction. If failure does not 

occur during construction, there is also the potential for movement of pond water 

subsurface towards the stream which would remobilize bank sediments were the 

pond waters re-emerged along the stream bank. If the ponds are located on the 

hillslope there is also the potential for pond failure and hillslope erosion. 

4. Effects on Wetlands and Floodplains

Replace entire section from the 2004 FEIS with the following:

Wetlands are not evaluated in this Supplement because no proposed activities would take place 

within wetlands. Executive Order 11988 (Protection of Floodplains) requires government 

agencies to take actions that reduce the risk of loss due to floods, to minimize the impact of 

floods on human health and welfare, and to restore and preserve the natural and beneficial values 

served by floodplains. Executive Order 11988 defines the term “floodplain” as follows: “...that 

area subject to a one percent or greater change of flooding in any given year.” 

Stream discharge data is limited in this watershed and so flood frequency data is also limited. 

The only stream gage in the area is located on the NFBR near Whitney. The gage collected data 

from 1964 to 1999. Data on this gage are now being collected by the Baker County 

Watermaster’s office/Oregon Department of Water Resources under contract to the U. S. Forest 

Service. The data are collected for 6 months each year. As such, there is not sufficient data in 

the record to determine the magnitude of the 100-year flow event. However, flows have been 

observed that partially flood Whitney Valley (R. Lusk, per. comm. 12/9/08). Therefore, it is 

probable that the valley floor (historically, the active floodplain) found along many of the 

streams in this watershed have at least a one percent chance each year of being flooded. 

Under Alternative 4, the Forest Service WQPMs and General Requirements protect the active 

floodplain, the stream banks, and the valley floor terrace banks by restricting mining activities to 

the valley floor (100 year or less floodplain). The General Requirements also minimize the 

effects to the valley floor by limiting the size of the area disturbed, the amount of riparian 

vegetation impacted at any one time, and by requiring reclamation plans that fill in holes and 

reseed and/or replant the area disturbed. These activities help restore and preserve the natural 

and beneficial values served by the 100 year or less floodplains. 
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Chapter 3

99

5. Forest Plan Consistency

No change from 2004 FEIS, Chapter III, pg. 187, except add the following paragraph to the end 

of this section.

Also, site-specific water quality protection measures (WQPMs) (Appendix 1A) and General 

Requirements (Appendix 2) have been added to Alternative 4 to ensure water quality protection 

and protection of other resources from mining activities.
Chapter 3 NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

100
Chapter 4

NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Chapter 4

101

CHAPTER 4

AGENCIES AND PERSONS CONSULTED

Recipients of the Draft Supplemental EIS

The following list contains the recipients of the NFBR Mining Draft and Final Supplemental 

EIS. The list includes those who requested copies, responded to the scoping efforts, permittees 

affected by the proposal, and required agencies.

Agencies 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

Department of Environmental Quality

Department of Land Conservation and Development

Department of Geology and Minerals Industries

Division of State Lands

Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10

FAA, Northwest Mountain Region

Federal Highway Administration

National Marine Fisheries Service, Habitat Conservationists Division

Natural Resources Conservation Service

NOAA Office of Policy and Strategic Planning

Northwest Power Planning Council

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 

Oregon Department of Forestry

Oregon Parks and Recreation Department

Oregon State Economist

Oregon State Water Resources Department

USDA APHIS PPD/EAD

USDA National Agricultural Library

USDA Office of Civil Rights

USDI Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance

U.S. Army Engineer, Northwest Division

U.S. Coast Guard

U.S. Department of Energy, Office of NEPA Policy and Compliance

Organizations

Hells Canyon Preservation Council

Northwest Environmental Defense Center

Earthworks

Individuals

Ken and Jan Alexander

Bert and Linda Aylward

Jerry and Gail Harshman

Mr. Stan Baker

Mr. Rolly Shandy
Chapter 4 NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

102

Mr. Max Buckner

Ms. Patricia Cutting

Mr. Paul Dickison

Eastern Oregon Miners and Prospectors, Mr. Jim Haney, President

Mr. Johnny West

Mr. Jerry Florence

Mr. Jerry Fonville 

Mr. Eugene Gass

Mr. Delbert Blaylock

Randy and Michelle Dunbar

Mr. Ron Dubuc

Scott and Rebecca Guthrie

Frank and Dorothy Hannigan

Mr. James Jones

Rex and Reva Kniesteadt

Jason Wharton

Mr. Ed Marshall

Mr. Maynard White

Ms. Kay White

Mr. Ron McCullough

Mr. Dave McPherson

Mr. Scott Newall

Ladd Brothers

Ken and Ruth Price

Mr. Roger Lake

Mr. Casey Mortensen 

Mr. Gary Banzer

Chris Miller 

Tim Graber, Jon Robson and Laura Worthington

Patricia Todd

Tribes

Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation

Nez Perce Tribe

Confederated tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation

Burns Paiute Tribe

Preparers

The following agency personnel (past and present) participated in the preparation of the 

Supplemental EIS. All personnel are current, previous or retired employees of the WallowaWhitman National Forest.

Ken Anderson – Previous Whitman District Ranger 

Jeff Tomac – Current Whitman District Ranger 

Suzanne Fouty – District Hydrologist

Karen Haines – Threatened and Endangered Species Coordinator (retired)
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Chapter 4

103

Mike Hall – District Lands, Recreation and Minerals RDMA

Sophia Millar – Interdisciplinary Planner/NEPA

Paul Boehne – WWNF Fisheries Biologist

Shannon Archuleta – District Fisheries Biologist

Timothy Schommer – Wildlife Staff Officer (retired)

Mark Penninger – Acting Wildlife Staff Officer

Jamie Ratliff – District Wildlife Biologist

Carolyn Winkler – GIS Specialist

Karl Vester – Writer/Editor

Forest Service consultants

Trish Carroll – Region 6 Water Quality, Water Uses and Groundwater Program Manager

Gregory Visconty –Region 6 Geologist - Recreation, Lands and Minerals Resources

Jill Dufour – Region 6, Regional Environmental Coordinator

Jackie Andrew – Region 6, Assistant Director, Resource, Planning and Management 

Val Black – Region 6, OGC

Holly McLean – Region 6, OGC
Chapter 4 NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

104
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Chapter 4

105

Index

303(d) listed streams......................................................................................... 4, 8, 15, 39, 43,56,81, 82, 97

Access.............................................................................................................................................................

5, 11, 16, 22, 24, 25, 30, 31, 33, 50, 51, 52, 60, 61, 66, 71, 76, 78, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 89, 90, 91, 92, 94, 

95

August Placer..................................................................................................................................................

19, 25, 32, 45, 48, 46, 59, 60, 63, 65, 74, 75, 77

Big Elk/Red Dog....................................................................... 19, 24, 25, 32, 57, 59, 62, 65, 67, 70, 74, 77

buffers.............................................................................................................................................................

............................................................................................................................................................ 8, 15

Burnt Lode/Placer8, 11, 13, 19, 24, 25, 31, 32, 41, 42, 45,48, 55, 59, 60, 62, 63, 65, 69, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 

82, 89, 96, 97

Camp Hale Placer ......................................................................................................... 19, 25, 32, 59, 65, 77

Clean Water Act (CWA)....................... 1, 4, 8, 12, 15, 18, 27, 31, 43, 50, 52, 56, 58, 60, 64, 69, 76, 82, 97

Distance Band Analysis (DBA)...................................................................................................... 93, 94, 95

Dominion Lode Group............................................................................................ 19, 25, 32, 59, 62, 64, 77

Dream Chaser Placer............................................................................................................................. 11, 18

EJ Placers........................................................................................ 19, 24, 25, 32, 45, 57, 59, 62, 63, 70, 74

elk.............................................................................................................................................. 85, 93, 94, 95

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)......................................................................................... 7, 47, 48

erosion model........................................................................................................................................ 11, 68

Fish habitat.................................................................................................... 9, 27, 45, 52, 56, 61, 63, 64, 75

floodplain................................................................................................................ 43, 45, 52, 53, 54, 69, 98

Fords.....2, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27, 33, 34, 41, 50, 52, 56, 57, 60, 66, 67, 69, 70, 71, 72, 78, 80, 

81, 90

Geiser Stream Diversion........................................................................................................... 11, 18, 55, 56

Gimlet Placer ................................................................................................................ 25, 32, 56, 59, 65, 77

Glory B Placer......................................................................................................... 19, 25, 32, 55, 59, 65, 77

Gold Busters Placer............................................................................... 19, 21, 25, 32, 56, 59, 62, 65, 74, 77

Gold Camp Placer....................................................................................... 20, 25, 33, 55, 59, 62, 65, 74, 77

Golden Bandit Placer/Lode............................................................................... 20, 25, 33, 59, 62, 65, 74, 77

Golden Donk Placer.............................................................................................................................. 11, 18

Goldy Placer & Millsite.......................................................................................... 25, 33, 59, 62, 65, 74, 77

Gopher Placer.................................................................................................... 20, 25, 33, 55, 58, 62, 65, 74

Habitat Effectiveness Indicator (HEI)............................................................................................. 93, 94, 95

INFISH............................................................................................................................................................

........................................ 5, 8, 9, 10, 15, 18, 25, 27, 30, 50, 51, 52, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 63, 68, 69, 75

Jay Gould Lode................................................................... 20, 25, 33, 45, 46, 47, 48, 59, 62, 63, 65, 74, 78

Jay Gould Mine Works..................................................................................... 20, 25, 33, 59, 62, 65, 74, 78

Jim Bob Placer.............................................................................. 420, 24, 25, 33, 57, 59, 62, 65, 70, 74, 78

Management Area....................................................................................... 10, 16, 28, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 89

Management Area by Subwatershed (MA/SWS) .......10, 27, 84, 86, 87, 91

Mary Dixie Lode................................................................................................................................... 11, 18

Midas/Lady Bug Placer..................................................................................... 21, 26, 33, 59, 62, 66, 74, 78

Monarch Lode......................................................................................................... 21, 26, 33, 59, 66, 74, 78

North Fork Placer.......................................................................................................... 26, 33, 45, 59, 66, 78

Old Channel Placer........................................................................................... 21, 26, 33, 59, 62, 66, 74, 78

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) ....6, 7, 14, 15, 18, 27, 31, 43, 48, 68, 69, 76, 81, 

96, 97
Chapter 4 NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

106

Parkerville Placer............................................................................................................................................

...................................................................................................................... 21, 26, 33, 59, 62, 66, 74, 78

Playboy Placer ...................................................................................................................................... 11, 18

Ponds..........5, 9, 10, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 27, 30, 31, 32, 43, 50, 51, 52, 57, 58, 59, 60, 69, 75, 76, 

83, 96, 98

Prudent (No. 9) Placer..................................................................... 21, 26, 33, 45, 55, 59, 62, 63, 66, 74, 78

Racer Group/Keystone Korners Placer..................................... 22, 24, 26, 33, 56, 57, 59, 66, 69, 70, 71, 78

redband trout......................................................................................................................................... 12, 13

Riparian Habitat Conservation Area (RHCA).....5, 8, 9, 10, 15, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 26, 50, 51, 52, 57, 

58, 59, 60, 61, 70, 75

road density............................................................................................. 5, 10, 49, 83, 85, 86, 87, 89, 91, 93

Roberts Lode......................................................................................... 26, 33, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 63, 66, 78

Rocker Group.............................................................................................. 22, 26, 33, 56, 59, 62, 66, 74, 78

Silver Bell Placer ........................................................................................ 22, 26, 34, 35, 59, 62, 66, 74, 78

Silver Eagle Lode.............................................................................................. 22, 26, 34, 60, 62, 66, 74, 79

Sluice Box Placer............................................................................ 22, 24, 25, 26, 34, 56, 57, 60, 66, 71, 79

Snow Creek Placer..........................................................................................................................................

........................................................................................ 25, 26, 34, 55, 56, 57, 60, 61, 62, 66, 71, 74, 79

Standby/McNamee.................................................................... 23, 25, 26, 34, 56, 57, 60, 62, 66, 72, 74, 79

Star (Pinus) Placer................................................................................. 23, 26, 34, 52, 60, 62, 67, 69, 74, 79

suction dredging........8, 11, 12, 13, 19, 31, 32, 41, 42, 45, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 63, 64, 65, 67, 69, 75, 76, 

77, 82, 96, 97, 98

Sunshine Placer..................................................................................................................................... 11, 18

Three Cent Placer.............................................. 23, 26, 31, 34, 58, 60, 62, 67, 69, 74, 76, 79, 82, 96, 97, 98

Transportation System .............................................................................................................. 10, 83, 84, 89

Travel Management Plan (TMP) ............................................................................ 41, 42, 67, 81, 90, 92, 95

Upper Geiser Creek Placer/Lode ........................................ 23, 25, 26, 34, 56, 57, 60, 62, 64, 67, 72, 74, 79

Water Quality Protection Measures (WQPMs).......13, 14, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 27, 30, 31, 50, 51, 55, 61, 

64, 68, 69, 70, 73, 76, 81, 82, 91, 97, 98, 99, 

Water withdrawals.......................................................................................................................... 55, 56, 69

West Parkerville ............................................................................................... 23, 26, 34, 60, 62, 67, 74, 80

Wetlands ............................................................................................................................................... 63, 98

Wild Flower Placer......................................................................... 23, 25, 26, 34, 45, 57, 60, 63, 67, 72, 80
Appendix 1A

Water Quality Protection Measures

NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Appendix 1A

A1A-1

Appendix 1A

Water Quality Protection Measures (WQPMs) for Mining Activities proposed in the Plans of Operations

Comparison of Alternatives and Effects Related to Water Quality

Note: For Alternative 2, page numbers reference the page in the Plan where the Miner’s WQPM is found.

Plan of Operations

Alternative 2 (Miner’s proposal) Alternative 4

Plan Water Quality Protection Measures (WQPM)

and Determination of Effects

Additional Forest Service Water Quality Protection 

Measures, ODEQ Terms and Conditions and 

Determination of Effects

August Placer 1, 2, 3 Plan WQPM: 

A buffer of 20-25 feet will be maintained during testing between areas of 

disturbance and Slab Creek (p. 3).

Wet area below the mine dump will not be impacted during this 

operation (p. 3).

NOTE: The adit water will be used but the adit will not be mined.

Effects

No potential for a discharge into navigable waters or Waters of the State 

because there is no surface hydrologic connection between the channel 

in this area and Slab Creek where it meets up with Greenhorn Creek. 

The channel is discontinuous and related to historic mining activity. 

Additional Forest Service WQPM

Adit-specific requirements:

1. Water from the adit shall be piped or trenched across 

bare soils and the mine dump to a settling pond. 

2. Settling and/or processing ponds shall not be built in 

mine dumps. 

Effects

Same as Alternative 2
Appendix 1A NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

A1A-2

Plan of Operations

Alternative 2 (Miner’s proposal) Alternative 4

Plan Water Quality Protection Measures (WQPM)

and Determination of Effects

Additional Forest Service Water Quality Protection 

Measures, ODEQ Terms and Conditions and 

Determination of Effects

Big Elk/Red Dog Plan WQPM: 

A 10-15 foot buffer will be left along Dry Creek (15’ if there is a tree 

growing (p. 1).

A buffer 25-foot wide will be maintained between processing activities 

and the stream channel (p. 4).

Effects

The effectiveness of the proposed buffer is uncertain because the 

description of the buffer zone in the Plan was not specific enough. 

Depending on the starting point the miner intended to use, there “may” 

or “may not” be a potential for a discharge into navigable waters or 

Waters of the State. As a result of this uncertainty and lack of 

clarification, the worst-case scenario was used ( Figure 1, Point A). In 

this scenario, there would be a potential for a discharge into navigable 

waters.

Additional Forest Service WQPM

1. Measurement of the buffer would start at the top of the 

valley floor terrace-channel bank break in slope (Figures 

1 and 2 for explanation of this feature) in this document.

2. The operator has two starting options: 

a. The buffer width would be increased to 25 

feet or 

b. one of the following barriers will be placed 

between the operation and the channel: silt 

fences, bales of straw, bermed washed tailings 

or some other Forest Service approved sediment 

barrier

3. If rills develop in the 20-foot buffer zone then silt fences 

or other impediment would be placed within this zone to 

prevent sediment in the rills from reaching the channel.

4. To prevent sediment from reaching the channel during a 

high flow event that floods the valley floor, excavated 

material would be replaced into holes at the end of each 

season.
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Appendix 1A

A1A-3

Plan of Operations

Alternative 2 (Miner’s proposal) Alternative 4

Plan Water Quality Protection Measures (WQPM)

and Determination of Effects

Additional Forest Service Water Quality Protection 

Measures, ODEQ Terms and Conditions and 

Determination of Effects

Big Elk/Red Dog

(continued)

Effects

Discharge potential would be eliminated because the mining 

activities would now occur on a flat valley floor, and the 

buffer clarification and increase in buffer width would 

compensate for the lack of downed woody material and 

grasses. Ground cover is 80% plus and mostly a thin coating 

of pine needles. Valley floor has very little microtopography and very little downed woody material. If rills 

form, then requirement #3 would effectively prevent 

sediment from reaching the creek.

Burnt Lode/Placer 1 

(2 test holes –

adjacent to NFBR)

Plan WQPM

A vegetated buffer strip at least 25 feet wide will be maintained between 

the test site and the NFBR (p. 6).

Effects

There is the potential for a discharge into navigable waters or Waters of 

the State for the reasons discussed in Big Elk/Red Dog Placer. 

Additional Forest Service WQPM

1. Measurement of the buffer would start at the edge of the 

conifer-valley floor boundary, extending 15 feet east into 

the trees.

2. To prevent sediment from reaching the channel during a 

high flow event that floods the valley floor, excavated 

material would be replaced into holes at the end of each 

season.

Effects

Discharge potential would be eliminated because mining 

activities would be removed from the annual floodplain. 

Recent gravels on the valley floor indicate that regular flows 

are reaching the valley floor. The gentle hillslope has good 

ground cover that would effectively trap sediment, thus 

preventing it from reaching the valley floor. 

Ground cover on the valley floor is estimated at 70% or more 

and is a mix of needles, horsetail and grasses and provides 

additional sediment trapping capability. 
Appendix 1A NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

A1A-4

Plan of Operations

Alternative 2 (Miner’s proposal) Alternative 4

Plan Water Quality Protection Measures (WQPM)

and Determination of Effects

Additional Forest Service Water Quality Protection 

Measures, ODEQ Terms and Conditions and 

Determination of Effects

Burnt Lode/Placer 2 

(“meadow” site –

site 1)

Plan WQPM

A vegetated buffer strip at least 25 feet wide will be maintained between 

the test site and the NFBR (p. 6).

Effects

There is no potential discharge into navigable waters or Waters of the 

State, because there is no surface hydrologic connection between this 

site and NFBR. The site is separated from NFBR by County Road 503 

and is lower in elevation than the county road. No culverts are located in 

this area. The proposed buffer is, therefore, not relevant.

Additional Forest Service WQPM

None

Effects

Same as Alternative 2

Burnt Lode/Placer 2 

(pond site - site 2)

Plan WQPM

A vegetated buffer strip at least 25 feet wide will be maintained between 

the test site and the NFBR (p. 6).

Effects

There is no potential discharge into navigable waters or Waters of the 

State, because there is no surface hydrologic connection between this 

site and NFBR. The site is separated from NFBR by County Road 503 

and is lower in elevation than the county road. No culverts are located in 

this area.

Additional Forest Service WQPM

None

Effects

Same as Alternative 2
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Appendix 1A

A1A-5

Plan of Operations

Alternative 2 (Miner’s proposal) Alternative 4

Plan Water Quality Protection Measures (WQPM)

and Determination of Effects

Additional Forest Service Water Quality Protection 

Measures, ODEQ Terms and Conditions and 

Determination of Effects

Burnt Lode/Placer 2 

(test site 3 on Cub 

Creek)

Plan WQPM

None identified for this site.

Effects

There is the potential for a discharge into navigable waters or Waters of 

the State for the reasons discussed in Big Elk/Red Dog Placer and 

because of concerns related to suction dredging. There is the potential 

for suction dredging in Cub Creek to trigger a headcut which would 

result in channel incision and eventually widening and a lowering of the 

groundwater table in the upstream meadow. 

Additional Forest Service WQPM

1. A 25-foot buffer would be established and measurement 

of the 25-foot buffer would start from the valley floor 

terrace-channel bank break in slope (See Figures 1 and 2 

for explanation of this feature). 

2. To prevent sediment from reaching the channel during a 

high flow event that floods the valley floor, excavated 

material would be replaced into holes at the end of each 

season.

3. No suction dredging would occur in Cub Creek

Effects

Discharge potential would be eliminated because buffer 

clarification puts the mining activities on the flat valley floor. 

The gentle topography combined with the presence of grasses 

and downed wood would provide sufficient sediment traps to 

prevent sediment generated by the operation from reaching 

the stream. 

The potential for triggering a headcut would be eliminated 

because the change from use of a suction dredge to hand 

tools would reduce the likelihood of rapid destabilization of 

the channel bed and channel incision. Rate of production 

using hand tools provides ample time to monitor and adjust 

the operation should it appear that the channel bed may 

become unstable. 

Ground cover on the valley floor is at least 50% and is a mix 

of grasses and forbs. Area is heavily grazed. Lots of downed 

wood in the valley floor.
Appendix 1A NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

A1A-6

Plan of Operations

Alternative 2 (Miner’s proposal) Alternative 4

Plan Water Quality Protection Measures (WQPM)

and Determination of Effects

Additional Forest Service Water Quality Protection 

Measures, ODEQ Terms and Conditions and 

Determination of Effects

Burnt Lode/Placer 2 

(test site 4 on Cub 

Creek)

Plan WQPM

None identified for this site.

Effects

Same at Burnt Lode/Placer 2 (test site 3 on Cub Creek)

Additional Forest Service WQPM

1. Same as Burnt Lode/Placer 2 (test site 3 on Cub 

Creek)

Effects

Same as Burnt Lode/Placer 2 (test site 3 on Cub Creek)

Burnt Lode/Placer 2 

(suction dredging 

on Cub Creek)

Plan WQPM

Would be held to the water quality protection measures of ODEQ’s 700 

permit.

Effects

There is the potential for a discharge into navigable waters or Waters of 

the State because of the potential for dredging to trigger a headcut and 

cause channel incision. Channel bed and bank sediments are very finegrained. Unlike suction dredging in most streams which results in a 

redistribution of in-channel sediment, if dredging in this location 

triggered a headcut, sediment would be entering the channel from 

outside sources (i.e. banks and previously unchannelized valley bottom). 

Result would be long-term input of sediment and lowering of the 

groundwater table.

Additional Forest Service WQPM

None identified that could prevent a headcut.

Effects

The potential for a discharge into the Cub Creek, and thus the 

NFBR, remains for the same reasons stated in Alternative 2. 
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Appendix 1A

A1A-7

Plan of Operations

Alternative 2 (Miner’s proposal) Alternative 4

Plan Water Quality Protection Measures (WQPM)

and Determination of Effects

Additional Forest Service Water Quality Protection 

Measures, ODEQ Terms and Conditions and 

Determination of Effects

Burnt Lode/Placer 3 

(Karissa site road 

construction)

Plan WQPM

None identified for this site or for the road construction.

Effects

There is the potential for a discharge into navigable waters or Waters of 

the State, as a result of road construction because of the location (on a 

steep hillside), extent (approx. 2000 feet) of the proposed road, and the 

evidence of soil movement make it highly likely that sediment will move 

downslope into the NFBR during construction and maintenance.

Additional Forest Service WQPM

1.The road would be designed to meet Forest Service 

engineering specifications. 

2. Silt fences or straw bales would be placed below the 

road construction.

Effects

Despite the additional Forest Service WQPMs, the potential 

for a discharge into the NFBR remains for the same reasons 

stated in Alternative 2. However, the impact may be less. 

Camp Hale Placer Plan WQPM

.... no testing holes will be excavated closer than 25 feet from the creek. 

(p. 3)

Effects

No potential discharge into navigable waters or Waters of the State, is 

possible because the operation is more than 300 feet from Camp Creek 

and the topography is flat. The proposed buffer is, therefore, not 

relevant.

Additional Forest Service WQPM

None

Effects

Same as Alternative 2
Appendix 1A NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

A1A-8

Plan of Operations

Alternative 2 (Miner’s proposal) Alternative 4

Plan Water Quality Protection Measures (WQPM)

and Determination of Effects

Additional Forest Service Water Quality Protection 

Measures, ODEQ Terms and Conditions and 

Determination of Effects

Dominion Lode 

Group

Plan WQPM

Buffers a minimum of 10-feet wide will be maintained between 

excavations and stream channels; buffers a minimum of 25-feet wide 

will be maintained between processing activities and stream channels (p. 

6).

Effects

Potential discharge into navigable waters or Waters of the State because 

of possible sediment inputs into streams as a result of maintenance 

activities on closed/decommissioned roads needed to access mining sites 

1, 2, 3, and 4 and exploration drill sites.

Additional Forest Service WQPM

1. Z-requirements (FS BMPs for opening and 

maintaining closed roads).

Effects

No discharge potential 
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Appendix 1A

A1A-9

Plan of Operations

Alternative 2 (Miner’s proposal) Alternative 4

Plan Water Quality Protection Measures (WQPM)

and Determination of Effects

Additional Forest Service Water Quality Protection 

Measures, ODEQ Terms and Conditions and 

Determination of Effects

EJ Placer A, B, C, 

D, E

Plan WQPM

All test holes will be at least 25 feet from the high-water mark (p. 3).

Ponds are located at least 50’ from the river (p. 5).

A vegetated buffer strip of at least 25-feet wide and will be maintained 

between testing or mining area and the NFBR channel and 10 feet from 

the overflow channel along road 315 (p. 5)

Effects

There is the potential for a discharge into navigable waters or Waters of 

the State for the reasons discussed in Big Elk/Red Dog Placer. In 

addition, there are concerns about the location of the processing ponds, 

because the stream banks have fines overlying a cobble/gravel/fine layer 

and are greater than 4 feet tall in places. Banks are unstable when 

vegetation is absent due to their composition and height. 

EJ Placer E has a water quality concern as a result of the operation. 

May eliminate cold/cool water refugia in the NFBR which is 303d listed 

for temperature due to altering groundwater flow patterns.

Additional Forest Service WQPM

1. Measurement of the 25-foot buffer would start from the 

valley floor terrace-channel bank break in slope (See 

Figures 1 and 2 for explanation of this feature). Where 

two terraces exist and the lower terrace is less than 25-

feet wide, the count would start from the higher one. 

2. To prevent sediment from reaching the channel during a 

high flow event that floods the valley floor, excavated 

material would be replaced into holes at the end of each 

season.

3. EJ Placer E: The location of the processing ponds 

would be determined by the district hydrologist working 

with the operator.

4. EJ Placer B: Measurement of the 10-foot buffer would 

start from the top of the overflow channel bank. 

Effects

Discharge potential would be eliminated because the buffer 

clarification combined with the percent and type of ground 

cover and the flat topography would effectively trap any 

sediment generated by the activity and prevent it from being 

delivered to the stream.

EJ Placer A: Ground cover on the valley floor terraces is 

about 50% and is a mix grasses and forbs. 

EJ Placer B: Ground cover on the valley floor terraces is 

about 80% and is a mix of grasses and forbs.
Appendix 1A NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

A1A-10

Plan of Operations

Alternative 2 (Miner’s proposal) Alternative 4

Plan Water Quality Protection Measures (WQPM)

and Determination of Effects

Additional Forest Service Water Quality Protection 

Measures, ODEQ Terms and Conditions and 

Determination of Effects

EJ Placer A, B, C, 

D, E

(continued)

EJ Placer C: Ground cover on the valley floor terraces is 

about 80% and is a mix of grasses and fords with some 

willows and alders. 

EJ Placer D: Ground cover on the valley floor terrace is 

about 100% and is a mix of deep needles, grasses, forbs with 

a shrub understory of snowberry.

EJ Placer E: Ground cover on the valley floor terrace is 

about 100% and is a mix of dense grasses and forbs. There 

are areas of wetlands with sedges and rushes.
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Appendix 1A

A1A-11

Plan of Operations

Alternative 2 (Miner’s proposal) Alternative 4

Plan Water Quality Protection Measures (WQPM)

and Determination of Effects

Additional Forest Service Water Quality Protection 

Measures, ODEQ Terms and Conditions and 

Determination of Effects

Gimlet Placer Plan WQPM

A ten-foot buffer will be maintained between test holes and the creek (p. 

3).

Processing will take place at least 25 feet from the creek (p. 3).

Effects

There is the potential for a discharge into navigable waters or Waters of 

the State for the reasons discussed in Big Elk/Red Dog Placer. 

Additional Forest Service WQPM

1. Mining operations on the west side of Gimlet Creek 

would be limited to the hillslope west of the old road. 

2. Mining operations on the east side of the creek would be 

limited to the non-stream side of the placer tailings. 

These tailings are located on the valley floor. As a 

result, the width of the buffer would vary. 

3. Buffer widths on the east side of the stream would vary 

because they are defined by the location of the tailings. 

Where tailings are not continuous, straw bales or silt 

fences would be placed in the open area to plug the 

break to prevent sediment from reaching the creek. 

4. To prevent sediment from reaching the channel during a 

high flow event that floods the valley floor, excavated 

material would be replaced into holes at the end of each 

season.

Effects

Discharge potential would be eliminated on the west side 

because the road on the west side would effectively trap any 

sediment that exits the hillside. Discharge potential is 

eliminated on the east side because the ground is flat and the 

river is bordered in many places by tailings. The tailings, 

straw bales, or silt fences would effectively block any 

sediment generated by the activity from entering Gimlet 

Creek. 

Ground cover on both sides of the creek is about 80% and is 

a thin layer of pine needles. 
Appendix 1A NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

A1A-12

Plan of Operations

Alternative 2 (Miner’s proposal) Alternative 4

Plan Water Quality Protection Measures (WQPM)

and Determination of Effects

Additional Forest Service Water Quality Protection 

Measures, ODEQ Terms and Conditions and 

Determination of Effects

Glory B Placer Plan WQPM

All mining sites will be located at least 10 feet from the channel (p. 2).

Two off-channel settling ponds .... will be located at least 25 feet from 

the channel (p. 3). 

Effects

No potential for a discharge into navigable waters or Waters of the State, 

because Jackknife Creek is separated from any navigable waters by a 

huge tailings pile zone. However, given the ambiguity of the current 

buffer description, there is the potential for sediment to get into the 

Jackknife Creek as a result of the mining activity. 

Additional Forest Service WQPM

1. Measurement of the 10- foot buffer would start from the 

top of the old placer mine tailings that line the stream 

banks. 

Effects

Discharge potential would be eliminated because the 

topography between the creek and are to be mined is 

composed of old placer tailings and the ground has a lot of 

micro topography. Operating behind the tailings berm 

closest to the channel ill effectively trap any sediment. 

Ground cover is 80% plus and mostly a thin layer of needles. 

Gold Busters Placer Plan WQPM

Test runs of placer gravels will be settled in pond located at least 30’ 

from the creeks in each location (p. 3). 

At least a 20’ buffer will be maintained between backhoe test holes and 

Pinus Creek or any springs located on the claims (p. 3).

Effects

No potential discharge into navigable waters or Waters of the State, 

because they are mining in the hillside, and their ponds are located away 

from the stream and are very stable. The hillside is more than 75 feet 

from the creek, and a bench is located between the hillside and the area 

of the operation which slopes gently down to the creek. (See letter from 

Kay White dated Feb 23, 2008 in which she clarifies the plan). 

Additional Forest Service WQPM

None

Effects

Same as Alternative 2
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Appendix 1A

A1A-13

Plan of Operations

Alternative 2 (Miner’s proposal) Alternative 4

Plan Water Quality Protection Measures (WQPM)

and Determination of Effects

Additional Forest Service Water Quality Protection 

Measures, ODEQ Terms and Conditions and 

Determination of Effects

Gold Camp Placer 1 Plan WQPM

Testing will also take place in the Camp Creek meadow at least 25 feet 

from the creek and back into the higher ground outside the meadow area 

(p. 3).

Settling/recycling ponds are also located in the dry draw near the spring 

(p. 6). 

No buffer for the spring stated.

Ponds will be located at least 25 feet from the creek (p. 6).

Note: it is unclear if the water in the ponds is coming strictly from 

groundwater, or if the groundwater will be supplemented with water 

from the creek and a spring at site #1. If supplemented, then the water 

levels in the ponds will be higher than groundwater. 

Effects

There is the potential for a discharge into navigable waters or Waters of 

the State for the reasons discussed in Big Elk/Red Dog Placer. In 

addition, there are concerns about the pond given the characteristics of 

the stream banks. The bank sediments are fines overlying unconsolidated 

gravels. Banks are about 3-feet tall and unvegetated. 

Additional Forest Service WQPM

1. When ponds tap only into groundwater, then ponds can 

be within 25 feet of the edge of the valley floor terracechannel bank break in slope. However, if the ponds are 

filled with water such that the water level in the ponds is 

higher than the stream water level, then the stream banks 

perpendicular to the ponds and downstream of the ponds 

would be monitored for the development of seepage 

zones that may be the result of elevated waters levels in 

the ponds. If seepage zones are noted, then the ponds 

would be drained so that they are tapping only into 

groundwater.

2. Measurement of the 25-foot buffer for testing activity 

would start from the valley floor terrace-channel bank 

break in slope (See Figures 1 and 2 for explanation of 

this feature). 

3. To prevent sediment from reaching the channel during a 

high flow event that floods the valley floor, excavated 

material would be replaced into holes at the end of each 

season.

Effects

Discharge potential would be eliminated because buffer 

clarification, when combined with the percent of ground 

cover and the flat topography, would effectively trap any 

sediment generated by the activity and prevent it from being 

delivered to the stream.

Ground cover on the valley floor terrace is about 50% and is 

grasses with a shrub overstory of sagebrush. 
Appendix 1A NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

A1A-14

Plan of Operations

Alternative 2 (Miner’s proposal) Alternative 4

Plan Water Quality Protection Measures (WQPM)

and Determination of Effects

Additional Forest Service Water Quality Protection 

Measures, ODEQ Terms and Conditions and 

Determination of Effects

Gold Camp Placer 1

(continued)

The potential for ponds to create local zones of bank failure due to 

seepage depends on how full the ponds get with respect to the water 

surface elevation in the channel. If the ponds tap only into groundwater, 

then bank failure is not expected because the water elevation in the 

stream and the ponds will be the roughly the same. However, if the 

ponds are filled with water such that the water level in the ponds is 

higher than the stream water level, then bank failure is possible because 

the elevated water level in the ponds will result in a steeper hydraulic 

gradient that could result in localized bank seepage zones which would 

remobilize bank sediments. Bank failures would occur as a result of the 

operation and would input sediment into the creek. 

Gold Camp Placer 2 Plan WQPM

Ponds will be located at least 25 feet from the creek (p. 6).

Effects

No potential discharge into navigable waters or Waters of the State, 

because this site would be used only for camping and processing. The 

ponds are currently in place, dug into the ground and are stable. The 

closest pond is 60 feet from the valley floor terrace-channel bank break 

in slope.

Forest Service additional WQPM

None

Effects

Same as Alternative 2

Gold Camp Placer 3 Plan WQPM

Ponds will be located at least 25 feet from the creek (p. 6).

Effects

No potential discharge into navigable waters or Waters of the State, is 

possible because this site is more than 300 feet from any stream and 

separated from Camp Creek by a road.

Additional Forest Service WQPM

None

Effects

Same as Alternative 2
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Appendix 1A

A1A-15

Plan of Operations

Alternative 2 (Miner’s proposal) Alternative 4

Plan Water Quality Protection Measures (WQPM)

and Determination of Effects

Additional Forest Service Water Quality Protection 

Measures, ODEQ Terms and Conditions and 

Determination of Effects

Golden Bandit 

Placer/Lode 1

Plan WQPM

A 10-foot buffer will be maintained between mining excavations or 

drilling and stream channels.

A 25-foot buffer will be maintained between processing sites and stream 

channels. 

Effects

No potential discharge into navigable waters or Waters of the State, 

because this site is high in the drainage and is more than 300 feet from 

any stream. There are no channels in the area.

Additional Forest Service WQPM

None

Effects

Same as Alternative 2
Appendix 1A NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

A1A-16

Plan of Operations

Alternative 2 (Miner’s proposal) Alternative 4

Plan Water Quality Protection Measures (WQPM)

and Determination of Effects

Additional Forest Service Water Quality Protection 

Measures, ODEQ Terms and Conditions and 

Determination of Effects

Golden Bandit 

Placer/Lode 2 

The processing 

ponds (shown as 

reservoirs 1, 2, 3 on 

the map) are located 

in this area.

Plan WQPM

A 10-foot buffer will be maintained between mining excavations or 

drilling and stream channels.

A 25-foot buffer will be maintained between processing sites and stream 

channels. 

Effects

There is the potential for a discharge into navigable waters or Waters of 

the State for the reasons discussed in Big Elk/Red Dog Placer. 

Additional Forest Service WQPM and ODEQ Terms and 

Conditions

1. Processing activities would be restricted to the current 

pond locations located on the western side of the ridge as 

presented on the map. This makes the 25-foot buffer 

irrelevant as the ponds are separated from the channel by 

the ridge.

2. The buffer width between mining excavation or drilling 

and the stream channel on the eastern side of the ridge 

would be increased to 50 feet from the top of the highflow stream channel bank because this area is a steep 

hillside that feeds directly into the creek (See Figures 1 

and 2 for explanation of this feature).

3. Forest Service: one of the following barriers will be 

placed between the operation and the channel: silt 

fences, bales of straw, bermed washed tailings or some 

other Forest Service approved sediment barrier at least 

10 feet from the top of the stream bank and between the 

channel and the mining excavation or drilling.

ODEQ: In addition to the silt fences or other 

impediment, a berm collection system will be created 

between the downstream side of the operations and the 

stream buffer. The berm collection system will be 

designed to route sediment and any water away from the 

stream to a location where it does not have the potential 

to enter the stream channel. 
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Appendix 1A

A1A-17

Plan of Operations

Alternative 2 (Miner’s proposal) Alternative 4

Plan Water Quality Protection Measures (WQPM)

and Determination of Effects

Additional Forest Service Water Quality Protection 

Measures, ODEQ Terms and Conditions and 

Determination of Effects

Golden Bandit 

Placer/Lode 2 

The processing 

ponds (shown as 

reservoirs 1, 2, 3 on 

the map) are located 

in this area.

(continued)

Effects

Discharge potential would be eliminated because the increase 

in buffer widths and silt fences or other impediment would 

effectively trap any sediment generated by the mining 

activity or drilling on the hillside and prevent it from being 

delivered to the stream channel located on the east side of the 

ridge. The clarification of the processing pond location 

would eliminate any concerns because the ponds would be 

distanced from the creek and separated from it by a ridge.

Ground cover on the ridge is 80 to 100% and is a mix of 

needles and grasses.

Goldy Placer and 

Millsite

Plan WQPM

No excavations will take place closer than 100 feet from the pond or the 

ephemeral stream channel that flows water during the springtime (p. 4). 

Effects

No potential discharge into navigable waters or Waters of the State, 

because this site is more than 300 feet from any stream and there are no 

channels that connect this area with downslope channels.

Additional Forest Service WQPM

None

Effects

Same as Alternative 2
Appendix 1A NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

A1A-18

Plan of Operations

Alternative 2 (Miner’s proposal) Alternative 4

Plan Water Quality Protection Measures (WQPM)

and Determination of Effects

Additional Forest Service Water Quality Protection 

Measures, ODEQ Terms and Conditions and 

Determination of Effects

Gopher Placer 1 

(north of FS 7830)

and Gopher Placer

2 (south of FS 7830)

Plan WQPM

Wet areas, springs and bogs will be protected during mining activity (p. 

3)

Where Simpson Creeks forks to the west, no testing is planned in the 

wet, boggy areas between the stacks of rock and the stream (p. 3). 

A buffer of 25 feet will be maintained when testing using the backhoe. 

This buffer will be between areas of disturbance and Simpson Creek or 

any bogs or springs (p. 4). 

When the backhoe is used in the vicinity of West Simpson Creek or 

Simpson Creek above road 7380, a buffer of ten feet will be maintained 

(p. 4).

Effects

There is the potential for a discharge into navigable waters or Waters of 

the State for the reasons discussed in Big Elk/Red Dog Placer. 

Additional Forest Service WQPM

1. Where old placer tailings line the stream bank, 

measurement of the 10-foot buffer would start from the 

back edge of the tailings. 

2. In areas where no tailings line West Simpson Creek and 

there is a valley floor, measurement of the 25-foot buffer 

would start from the valley floor terrace-channel bank 

break in slope (See Figures 1 and 2 for explanation of 

this feature). 

3. In areas where the hillside feeds directly into the creeks, 

mining would occur up the hillslope at least 50 feet from 

the top of the stream bank, and one of the following 

barriers will be placed between the operation and the 

channel: silt fences, bales of straw, bermed washed 

tailings or some other Forest Service approved sediment 

barrier

Effects

Discharge potential would be eliminated because 1) where 

tailings are present, they would effectively trap any sediment 

behind them and prevent sediment from reaching the creek, 

2) where tailings are absent but there is a flat valley floor 

terrace, the increase in buffer width, combined with the type 

of ground cover, would prevent it from reaching the creek, 

and 3) where the topography is a hillslope, the increase in 

buffer widths, combined with the amount of ground cover 

and the straw bales, would trap any sediment generated from 

the activity. 
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Appendix 1A

A1A-19

Plan of Operations

Alternative 2 (Miner’s proposal) Alternative 4

Plan Water Quality Protection Measures (WQPM)

and Determination of Effects

Additional Forest Service Water Quality Protection 

Measures, ODEQ Terms and Conditions and 

Determination of Effects

Gopher Placer 1 

(north of FS 7830)

and Gopher Placer

2 (south of FS 7830)

(continued)

Effects (continued)

Ground cover in the areas where the topography is flat is 50 

to 100% and is a mix of grasses and needles. The ground 

cover varies in areas that are under conifers (higher % ground 

cover and largely needles) or in more open areas (lower % 

ground cover and more of a mix of needles and grasses). 

Ground cover in areas where the topography is a hillslope 

with conifers is 100%. The ground cover is a mix of 

primarily needles with some grasses.
Appendix 1A NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

A1A-20

Plan of Operations

Alternative 2 (Miner’s proposal) Alternative 4

Plan Water Quality Protection Measures (WQPM)

and Determination of Effects

Additional Forest Service Water Quality Protection 

Measures, ODEQ Terms and Conditions and 

Determination of Effects

Jay Gould Lode –

(Banzer)

Plan WQPM

Buffers a minimum of 10 feet wide will be maintained between 

excavations and stream channels; buffers a minimum of 25 feet wide 

will be maintained between processing activities and stream channels (p. 

5).

Effects

There is the potential for a discharge into navigable waters or Waters of 

the State for the reasons discussed in Big Elk/Red Dog Placer. In this 

case there are two areas of concern : 1) the wetland located below FS 

1060. This wetland is not adit generated, and 2) test holes within 10 feet 

of the stream channel. Holes dug this close to the stream channel have 

the potential to trigger bank failures due to the height of the stream bank. 

NOTE: Operator will be opening adit and using the adit water. The adit 

discharges water directly into an adit-generated wetland just below the 

adit. The adit waters go subsurface. Groundwater reemerges several 

times before reaching the FS 1060 road. There is a continuous channel 

between the adit and the wetland located below the road. The condition 

of the channel below the culvert outlet indicates that the channel does 

carry water at time. The channel ends in a wetland that is supported by 

groundwater and is NOT adit-generated. 

Additional Forest Service WQPM

1. The buffer width would be increased to 25 feet for 

excavations, and the measurement of the 25-foot buffer 

for excavations would start from the valley floor terracechannel bank break in slope (See Figures 1 and 2 for 

explanation of this feature). 

2. Measurement of the 25-foot buffer for all processing 

activities would start from the valley floor terracechannel bank break in slope (See Figures 1 and 2 for 

explanation of this feature). 

3. The adit water shall be piped across bare soils and the 

mine dump to a settling pond. 

4. Settling and/or processing ponds shall not be built in 

mine dumps.

Effects

Discharge potential would be eliminated because the increase 

in buffer width, when combined with clarification of where 

the buffer measurement begins, results in putting the activity 

either, 1) in the flat area or, 2) on a hillslope, but with flat 

topography between the channel and the activity. The buffer 

width, combined with the gentle topography in the buffer 

area and the moderate ground cover, would be sufficient to 

trap any sediment generated by the activity and prevent it 

from being transported to the channel and then to the 

wetland. 

Ground cover is about 100% and is mostly a thin layer of 

needles. Scattered grasses are present.
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Appendix 1A

A1A-21

Plan of Operations

Alternative 2 (Miner’s proposal) Alternative 4

Plan Water Quality Protection Measures (WQPM)

and Determination of Effects

Additional Forest Service Water Quality Protection 

Measures, ODEQ Terms and Conditions and 

Determination of Effects

Jay Gould Mine 

Works (Newell)

Plan WQPM

Buffers a minimum of 10 feet wide will be maintained between 

excavations and stream channels; buffers a minimum of 25 feet wide 

will be maintained between processing activities and stream channels.

NOTE problem – Same as JG Lode (Banzer). 

Effects

No potential discharge into navigable waters or Waters of the State, 

because the drill locations as represented by the map are on a ridge.

Additional Forest Service SSR

None

Effects

Same as Alternative 2
Appendix 1A NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

A1A-22

Plan of Operations

Alternative 2 (Miner’s proposal) Alternative 4

Plan Water Quality Protection Measures (WQPM)

and Determination of Effects

Additional Forest Service Water Quality Protection 

Measures, ODEQ Terms and Conditions and 

Determination of Effects

Jim Bob Placer Plan WQPM

The brush will be protected by maintaining a 20- foot undisturbed buffer 

between the test excavations and the river. 

A seasonal spring ... will be protected and where the road crosses near 

the spring, the road surface will be rocked (p. 3). 

A ten foot or greater undisturbed buffer will be maintained along both 

sides of the run-off channel (p. 3). 

The soil will be stockpile at least 50 feet from the river and 20 feet from 

the run-off channel (p. 3).

Effects

There is the potential for a discharge into navigable waters or Waters of 

the State for the reasons discussed in Big Elk/Red Dog Placer. 

NOTE: There is an overflow channel on the south side, but it is dry 

during the summer, and the absence of any riparian vegetation along it in 

indicates that water in the channel is short lived. The overflow channel 

is not considered to be a point of concern. 

Additional Forest Service WQPM

1. Where old placer mine tailings line the creek, mining 

and processing activities would occur behind the placer 

tailings (versus the stream side). 

2. Where tailings are absent and topography is flat, the 

measurement of the 20-foot buffer would start from the 

valley floor terrace-channel bank break in slope (See 

Figures 1 and 2 for explanation of this feature) and the 

operator will place one of the following between the 

operation and the channel: silt fences, bales of straw, 

bermed washed tailings or some other Forest Service 

approved sediment barrier. 

3. Measurement of the 10-foot buffer along the overflow 

channel would start at the top of the channel bank.

4. The overflow channel will be bermed at the upstream 

end where water exits the NFBR into the overflow 

channel in order to keep the area dry. The berm would 

be removed when the work is done.

5. To prevent sediment from reaching the channel during a 

high flow event that floods the valley floor, excavated 

material would be replaced into holes at the end of each 

season.
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Appendix 1A

A1A-23

Plan of Operations

Alternative 2 (Miner’s proposal) Alternative 4

Plan Water Quality Protection Measures (WQPM)

and Determination of Effects

Additional Forest Service Water Quality Protection 

Measures, ODEQ Terms and Conditions and 

Determination of Effects

Jim Bob Placer

(continued)

Effects

Discharge potential would be eliminated because the buffer 

clarification, and an increase in buffer widths where tailings 

are absent, when combined with the flat valley floor, ground 

cover and tailings, would effectively trap any sediment 

leaving the site and prevent it from reaching the stream. 

Where tailings exist, they form an effective sediment barrier 

between the operation and the channel such that no sediment 

would be transported to the channel. 

Ground cover on the south side is about 50% and is mostly 

grasses with some needles. 

Ladder/Rusty 

Bucket Placer

Plan WQPM

Both these draws will be protected by keeping all mining activity over 

100 feet away (p. 4).

Effects

No potential for a discharge into navigable waters or Waters of the State, 

because there are no streams in the area and the two draws in the area 

will have a 100-foot buffer. 

NOTE: Operator will be opening adit and using the adit water but will 

not be mining the adit. The adit discharges water into an adit-generated 

wetland. The wetland is less than 100 feet long and terminates at a road. 

Surface water does not extend beyond the wetland. No other surface 

waters in area. 

Additional Forest Service WQPM

1. Adit water shall be piped across bare soils and the mine 

dump to a settling pond. 

2. Settling and/or processing ponds shall not be built in 

mine dumps.

Effects

Same as Alternative 2
Appendix 1A NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

A1A-24

Plan of Operations

Alternative 2 (Miner’s proposal) Alternative 4

Plan Water Quality Protection Measures (WQPM)

and Determination of Effects

Additional Forest Service Water Quality Protection 

Measures, ODEQ Terms and Conditions and 

Determination of Effects

Lucky One 

Placer/Lode

Plan WQPM

Test holes will be in the wide flat area on top of the ridge and will not be 

on the steep sideslopes or in areas within 80 feet from the creek (p. 3).

No testing will be closer than 50 feet from the creek on the west side 

except in the area where the creek will be crossed to access the adit (p. 

3).

If lode values are economic to mine, a road approximately 1000 feet or 

less in length will be constructed from the east side of the creek to the 

adit. The road will grade down the hillside to reach the adit, ending 

approximately 30 feet from the creek (p. 3).

The adit will be opened and mining will take place underground and also 

at the mouth of the adit leaving a 20-foot undisturbed buffer between the 

mining and creek (p. 3).

....ponds will be established at least 50 feet from the creek. An 

alternative processing site may be established high on the east hillside at 

least 100’ from the creek (p. 3). 

NOTE: Miner plans to mine the adit which is discharging water.

On March 11, 2008 received a letter from the operator in which he stated 

the following: “...While mining is taking place underground, water will 

be piped through the working area so the working area is dry, and so the 

water stays clean. The pipeline will cross Simpson Creek and the adit 

water will flow into the settling ponds... We do not plan to discharge 

muddy water from the adit into Simpson Creek”

The letter also states that they will rock both sides of the creek approach 

and place logs in the stream and wetland area in order to minimize 

impacts to this area. These changes in the Plan eliminate the discharge 

concerns. 

Additional Forest Service WQPM

1. Settling and/or processing ponds shall not be built on 

mine dumps. 

Effects

Same as Alternative 2
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Appendix 1A

A1A-25

Plan of Operations

Alternative 2 (Miner’s proposal) Alternative 4

Plan Water Quality Protection Measures (WQPM)

and Determination of Effects

Additional Forest Service Water Quality Protection 

Measures, ODEQ Terms and Conditions and 

Determination of Effects

Lucky One 

Placer/Lode

(continued)

Effects

No potential for a discharge into navigable waters or Waters of the State, 

given the plan design.

Lucky Placer Plan WQPM

Buffers a minimum of 20 feet wide will be maintained between 

excavations and stream channels; Buffers a minimum of 25 feet wide 

will be maintained between processing activities and stream channels (p. 

3). 

A 20-foot wide area around the ponds, spring sources for these ponds, 

bogs, wetlands, or floodplains will be protected from impacts during 

mining related activities (p. 5). 

Effects

No potential for a discharge into navigable waters or Waters of the State, 

because this site is more than 300 feet from any stream and there are no 

channels that connect this area with downslope channels. 

NOTE: There are two processing ponds. One has created a small 

wetland.

Additional Forest Service WQPM

None

Effects

Same as Alternative 2
Appendix 1A NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

A1A-26

Plan of Operations

Alternative 2 (Miner’s proposal) Alternative 4

Plan Water Quality Protection Measures (WQPM)

and Determination of Effects

Additional Forest Service Water Quality Protection 

Measures, ODEQ Terms and Conditions and 

Determination of Effects

Midas/Lady Bug 

Placer

Plan WQPM

10 feet from California Gulch and tributaries. An unmined buffer strip 

composed of mounds of tailings left by historic mining and vegetated 

ground will be left between the mining site and California Gulch 

tributaries (p. 3)

Settling ponds will be at least 20’ from the creek (p. 3). 

Small check dams constructed of rocks will be constructed in the two 

tributaries to provide water for mining... (p. 3).

Effects

Potential for a discharge into navigable waters or Waters of the State as a 

result of building a small dam in the channel to trap water for suction 

dredging. May also require a 404 permit. The operation is high in the 

watershed and the channel proposed for suction dredging is 

discontinuous and not connected to any perennial streams. 

NOTE: There is no valley floor. The stream is bordered by hillsides. 

Additional Forest Service WQPM

1. Settling ponds would be located on the ridge area below

the old cabin in the area where the topography is gentle.

2. No building of check dams in the stream without first 

getting a 404 permit from the Army Corps of 

Engineers or a letter from ACE stating that a 404 permit 

is NOT required.

Effects

The operation would be in compliance with the Clean Water 

Act upon getting the appropriate permit and/or approval from 

ACE regarding the building of check dams.
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Appendix 1A

A1A-27

Plan of Operations

Alternative 2 (Miner’s proposal) Alternative 4

Plan Water Quality Protection Measures (WQPM)

and Determination of Effects

Additional Forest Service Water Quality Protection 

Measures, ODEQ Terms and Conditions and 

Determination of Effects

Monarch Lode 1 

(main portal and 

also referred to as 

Monarch Mine 

Works 1)

Plan WQPM

Buffers a minimum of 10 feet wide will be maintained between 

excavations and stream channels (p.6).

Buffers a minimum of 25 feet wide will be maintained between 

processing activities and stream channel (p. 6).

Effects

There is the potential for a discharge into navigable waters or Waters of 

the State due to placement of waste rock along skid trail up Mosquito 

Ck. 

NOTE: There are no other streams near any of the proposed activity 

sites. Therefore, the proposed 10 foot and 25 foot buffers are not 

applicable to this operation. 

Additional Forest Service WQPM

1. No waste rock will be placed along skid trail up 

Mosquito Creek or along any drainages

Effects

Discharge potential would be eliminated because waste rock 

would be place away from any creeks or drainages.

Monarch Lode 2 

(test excavation)

Plan WQPM

Same as Monarch Lode #1

Effects

No potential for a discharge into navigable waters, as defined by the 

CWA, because there are no channels, seeps or wetlands present in the 

area proposed for mining activity.

Additional Forest Service WQPM

None

Effects

Same as Alternative 2

Monarch 4 (new 

millsite)

Plan WQPM

Same as Monarch Lode #1

Effects

No potential for a discharge into navigable waters, as defined by the 

CWA, because there are no channels, seeps or wetlands present in the 

area proposed for the mill. 

Additional Forest Service WQPM

None

Effects

Same as Alternative 2
Appendix 1A NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

A1A-28

Plan of Operations

Alternative 2 (Miner’s proposal) Alternative 4

Plan Water Quality Protection Measures (WQPM)

and Determination of Effects

Additional Forest Service Water Quality Protection 

Measures, ODEQ Terms and Conditions and 

Determination of Effects

Monarch exploration 

drilling sites

Plan WQPM

Same as Monarch Lode 1

Effects

There is the potential for a discharge into navigable waters or Waters of 

the State if FS road 1065250, which is currently decommissioned, is 

reopened to access exploration sites because the road is in or close to the 

South Fork Gimlet Ck.

Additional Forest Service WQPM

1. Z-requirements (FS BMPs for opening and maintaining 

closed and decommissioned roads)

Effects

None
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Appendix 1A

A1A-29

Plan of Operations

Alternative 2 (Miner’s proposal) Alternative 4

Plan Water Quality Protection Measures (WQPM)

and Determination of Effects

Additional Forest Service Water Quality Protection 

Measures, ODEQ Terms and Conditions and 

Determination of Effects

North Fork Placer Plan WQPM

A 25 foot buffer will be maintained between the mining site and the river 

(p. 3).

Processing ponds exist on the north side of the river (old dredge ponds) 

are off channel and located over 50 feet from the river (p. 3).

One set of ponds is located on the west end of the claims [on the north 

side]; one is located on the east end [on the north side] over 50 feet from 

the river and will be used for processing (p. 5). 

Off channel ponds are also located on the south side of the river just east 

of the bridge, over 50 feet from the river (p.5).

Plan and map indicate that there is mining on the north and south sides 

of the river. 

Effects

There is the potential for a discharge into navigable waters or Waters of 

the State for the reasons discussed in Big Elk/Red Dog Placer, as well as 

because they propose to mine in the wetlands and breach beaver dams. 

NOTE: The Plan states: Beaver dams will be removed so that the river 

does not flood into the mining area (p. 6). Removal of the beaver dams 

will release the sediment trapped behind the dam downstream and will 

result in increased turbidity and possible burial of spawning gravels. 

Additional Forest Service WQPM

1. Measurement of the 25-foot buffer between mining and 

the river would start at the valley floor terrace-channel 

bank break in slope (See Figures 1 and 2 for explanation 

of this feature). 

2. Measurement of the 50-foot buffer between the northern 

processing ponds and the creek would start at the valley 

floor terrace-channel bank break in slope (See Figures 1 

and 2 for explanation of this feature).

3. Wetlands would have a 25-foot buffer with the buffer 

starting at the edge of the wetland vegetation.

4. The beaver dams would not be breached. Instead, 

beaver deceivers would be installed to keep the water 

levels in the beaver ponds at a level that would not flood 

the mining areas at high flow, while maintaining water 

storage capacity and trapping sediment. 

5. To prevent sediment from reaching the channel during a 

high flow event that floods the valley floor, excavated 

material would be replaced into holes at the end of each 

season.
Appendix 1A NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

A1A-30

Plan of Operations

Alternative 2 (Miner’s proposal) Alternative 4

Plan Water Quality Protection Measures (WQPM)

and Determination of Effects

Additional Forest Service Water Quality Protection 

Measures, ODEQ Terms and Conditions and 

Determination of Effects

North Fork Placer

(continued)

Effects

Discharge potential would be eliminated with the buffer 

clarification because the valley floor is flat and there is 

sufficient ground cover and micro-topography in the 

proposed buffer zone to trap sediment generated by testing 

and processing. 

Discharge potential due to mining in the wetlands adjacent to 

the NFBR would be because the wetlands would not be 

mined and would be buffered from activities.

Discharge potential, as a result of breaching the beaver dams 

and releasing the sediment trapped behind the dams, would 

be eliminated because the dams would not be breached and 

would continue to trap and store sediment. 

Ground cover on the valley floor terrace on the south side is 

about 50% and is mostly grasses. 

Old Channel Placer Plan WQPM

None

Effects

No potential for a discharge into navigable waters or Waters of the State, 

because the operation is in a draw with channels created by past mining. 

No live streams are located in the area. Ponds are stable.

Additional Forest Service WQPM

None

Effects

Same as Alternative 2
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Appendix 1A

A1A-31

Plan of Operations

Alternative 2 (Miner’s proposal) Alternative 4

Plan Water Quality Protection Measures (WQPM)

and Determination of Effects

Additional Forest Service Water Quality Protection 

Measures, ODEQ Terms and Conditions and 

Determination of Effects

Parkerville Placer Plan WQPM

Process water will be pumped into off-channel ponds (p. 6).

Roads will be waterbarred if necessary (p. 6)

A 15-20 foot buffer will be maintained between springs and boggy areas 

and the testing operation. Wet areas will be crossed where rock exists 

(p. 6). 

A minimum 20-foot buffer will be maintained along the channel.... (p. 

6).

A minimum 25-foot buffer will be maintained between processing 

activities and the channel (p. 6).

Effects

There is the potential for a discharge into navigable waters or Waters of 

the State because the pond just upstream of the FS road 1046-045 has 

filled in and pond seasonally overflows across the 1046-045 road into a 

small headwater unnamed tributary of the NFBR. The hillside has been 

hydraulically mined and there are numerous draws. There are some 

boggy areas and ponds that have tapped into groundwater

NOTE: Plan refers to this small unnamed headwater tributary as 

tributary to Tony Creek. However, I could not find reference to a “Tony 

Creek” on USGS 7.5’ quads or in the FS GIS data base. Therefore, 

references to Tony Creek are removed throughout the document and 

replaces with “an unnamed tributary to the NFBR.” 

Additional Forest Service WQPM

1. The pond just upstream of FS1046-045 road will not be 

used for any mining activities or disturbed. 

2. One of the following between the operation and the pond 

just upstream of FS 1046-045: silt fences, bales of straw, 

bermed washed tailings or some other Forest Service 

approved sediment barrier. Any sediment that collects 

behind the barrier will be removed prior to removing the 

barrier.

Effects

Discharge potential would be eliminated with the non-use of 

the above pond and the placement of barriers because no 

sediment from the operations would enter the pond and travel 

over the road into the small unnamed headwater tributary to 

the NFBR.
Appendix 1A NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

A1A-32

Plan of Operations

Alternative 2 (Miner’s proposal) Alternative 4

Plan Water Quality Protection Measures (WQPM)

and Determination of Effects

Additional Forest Service Water Quality Protection 

Measures, ODEQ Terms and Conditions and 

Determination of Effects

Prudent (No. 9) 

Placer

Plan WQPM

A 10-20 yard per hour trommel will be set up approximately 100 feet 

from the river (p. 3).

Two to three off-channel settling/recycling ponds each ... will be located 

approximately 80 to 100 feet from the Burnt River and will be used for 

processing (p. 5). Note: The river is the NFBR not the Burnt River. 

A 30-foot buffer will be utilized between the mining site and the river (p. 

5).

The buffer for processing is 100 feet (p. 5).

Effects

There is the potential for a discharge into navigable waters or Waters of 

the State for the reasons discussed in Big Elk/Red Dog Placer. 

NOTE: The NFBR has multiple channels at this spot. 

Additional Forest Service WQPM

1. Measurement of the 30-foot buffer for mining would 

start at the valley floor terrace-channel bank break in 

slope or starting at the top of the road fill slope (See 

Figures 1 and 2 for explanation of this feature).

2. The processing site would remain in its current 

location. The current processing site is on a bench and 

outside the yearly or high flow floodplain. This 

location places the processing site within 50 feet of the 

NFBR rather than 100 feet as stated in the Plan. 

3. Wetlands would have a 25-foot buffer starting at the 

edge of the wetland vegetation. 

Effects

Discharge potential would be eliminated because buffer 

clarification puts the entire buffer on the valley floor terrace 

or on the back side of the road. Both features are flat and 

wide enough to prevent any sediment that might be generated 

by the operation from being transported to the river. In 

addition, the flat valley floor has about 50 % ground cover. 
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Appendix 1A

A1A-33

Plan of Operations

Alternative 2 (Miner’s proposal) Alternative 4

Plan Water Quality Protection Measures (WQPM)

and Determination of Effects

Additional Forest Service Water Quality Protection 

Measures, ODEQ Terms and Conditions and 

Determination of Effects

Prudent (No. 9) 

Placer

(continued)

The processing site would remain in its current location. 

This places the processing site within 50 feet of the NFBR 

rather than 100 feet. The current processing site is on a 

bench and outside the yearly or high flow floodplain. 

Therefore, there are no concerns as long as the processing 

site remains in its current location. 

In addition, a buffer around the wetlands, which are located 

on the valley floor, would prevent sediment from getting into 

the wetlands which are adjacent to the NFBR.

Ground cover on the valley floor is about 50% and is mostly 

grasses. Ground cover on the road is 0%.
Appendix 1A NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

A1A-34

Plan of Operations

Alternative 2 (Miner’s proposal) Alternative 4

Plan Water Quality Protection Measures (WQPM)

and Determination of Effects

Additional Forest Service Water Quality Protection 

Measures, ODEQ Terms and Conditions and 

Determination of Effects

R&RK 2,3 Plan WQPM

A small washing plant will be set up in the tailings are on the north side 

of the NFBR at least 50 feet from the river (p. 3). 

The ponds will be at least 50 feet from any live water (springs, streams, 

bogs) (p. 3). 

On the north side of the river, topsoil, if any is available, will be scraped 

off each area to be tested and stockpiled beside the hole at least 50 ‘ 

from streams, bogs, or springs (p. 3)

Trees and brush growing along the stream, its tributaries and any springs 

or bogs will be left undisturbed for at least 20’ on all sides to protect the 

water from sediment... (p. 3). 

NOTE: No buffer distances are stated for testing on the north and south 

sides of the NFBR.

Effects

There is the potential for a discharge into navigable waters or Waters of 

the State for the reasons discussed in Big Elk/Red Dog Placer. In 

addition, the south bank of the middle ford is composed of fines.

The plan identifies buffer distances for processing but not for testing. 

While the Plan is ambiguous on where the buffer measurements start, but 

the sketch map indicates that testing areas will either be behind old 

placer tailings or separated from the creek by a road and a flat zone. 

Additional Forest Service WQPM

1. Testing on the south side of the river would be limited to 

the non-stream side of the placer tailings. The result is a 

buffer that varies in width but is at least 25 feet from the 

creek.

2. Testing on the north side would be limited to the area 

north of the mine access road. This also places testing 

behind the old placer tailings which line the northern 

stream bank. The result is a buffer that varies in width 

but is at least 25 feet from the creek. 

3. Processing ponds would be behind the tailings that line 

the northern stream banks. The result is a buffer that 

varies in width.

Middle ford: 

1. Rock and slope south bank. 

2. Pull material away from the stream and deposited in 

location where the sediment will not be able to reach the 

stream during high flow events.

3. Place small straw baffles or bales, silt fences along the 

stream when pulling back the material 

Effects

Discharge potential would be eliminated because all the 

activity is located behind tailings that line the stream banks. 

Therefore, it is not possible for sediment generated by the 

activity to be transported to the creek.

Ground cover is 80% plus and mostly a thin layer of needles.
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Appendix 1A

A1A-35

Plan of Operations

Alternative 2 (Miner’s proposal) Alternative 4

Plan Water Quality Protection Measures (WQPM)

and Determination of Effects

Additional Forest Service Water Quality Protection 

Measures, ODEQ Terms and Conditions and 

Determination of Effects

R&RK 4, 5 Plan WQPM

The small washing plant is portable and will be set up in the areas of 

tailings approximately 25 feet from the creek (p. 3). 

A vegetated buffer strip 25 feet wide will be maintained between the test 

holes and the river (p. 5).

Processing operations will located approximately 50 feet from the river 

(Letter dated March 7, 2008). This is change from the originally 

submitted Plan which stated that “ the processing operations will be 

conducted at least 25 feet from the creek (p. 6).”

Effects

There is the potential for a discharge into navigable waters or Waters of 

the State for the reasons discussed in Big Elk/Red Dog Placer. 

NOTE: East side: The riparian woody pockets and wetlands are 

regularly inundated by NFBR or contain water that could transport 

sediment to the creek if these areas were disturbed. 

Additional Forest Service WQPM

1. East side: If testing is to occur on the valley floor THEN 

measurement of the 25-foot buffer would start at the 

valley floor terrace-channel bank break in slope (See 

Figures 1 and 2 for explanation of this feature). In 

addition, all riparian woody pockets and wetlands would 

have a 10-foot buffer with measurement of the buffer 

starting from the edge of the riparian woody vegetation 

or wetland vegetation. One of the following barriers will 

be placed between the operation and the riparian woody 

vegetation or wetland vegetation: silt fences, bales of 

straw, bermed washed tailings or some other Forest 

Service approved sediment barrier

2. West Side: Testing would be restricted to those areas 

that have a valley floor of at least 25 feet and are not the 

annual floodplain. 

3. Northern ford: 

a. Rock both sides of the ford. 

b. Rock the low spot between the northern valley 

floor and the little island where water is present. 

c. Pull material away from the stream and 

deposited in location where the sediment will 

not be able to reach the stream during high flow 

events.

d. Place small straw baffles or bales, silt fences 

along the stream when pulling back the material

4. To prevent sediment from reaching the channel during a 

high flow event that floods the valley floor, excavated 

material would be replaced into holes at the end of each 

season.
Appendix 1A NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

A1A-36

Plan of Operations

Alternative 2 (Miner’s proposal) Alternative 4

Plan Water Quality Protection Measures (WQPM)

and Determination of Effects

Additional Forest Service Water Quality Protection 

Measures, ODEQ Terms and Conditions and 

Determination of Effects

R&RK 4, 5

(continued)

Effects

Discharge potential would be eliminated because 1) 

clarification of the buffers puts the entire buffer on the valley 

floor terrace and/or out of the annual floodplain, and 2) the 

ford would be rocked and stable. 

Ground cover is 80% plus and a mix of grasses and forbs.

Racer 

Group/Keystone 

Korners Placer

Plan WQPM

A small washing plant will be set up along Geiser Creek at least 50 feet 

from the creek (p. 3). 

The ponds [off channel settling ponds] will be at least 50 feet from any 

live water (springs, streams, bogs) (p. 3).

Topsoil will be scraped off each area to be tested and stockpile beside 

the hole at least 50’ from streams, bogs, or springs (p. 3). 

Trees and brush growing along the stream, its tributaries and any springs 

or bogs will be left undisturbed for at least 20’ on all sides to protect the 

water from sediment (p. 3). 

Effects

There is the potential for a discharge into navigable waters or Waters of 

the State for the reasons discussed in Big Elk/Red Dog Placer. In 

addition, the current road to one of the proposed fords is gullied, with the 

gullies feeding directly into the channel, and the operators plan to install 

two temporary log bridges and one culvert in the channels. The culvert 

and temporary bridges will disturb the banks and channel bed and result 

in sediment entering the channel. 

Additional Forest Service WQPM

1. The proposed culvert and two temporary log bridges 

would be dropped and REPLACED with 3 fords and do 

the following: 

a. Rock and slope Geiser Creek ford, and seasonally 

wet tributary and seasonally wet draw, or restrict 

crossing of seasonally wet tributary and draw to 

periods when they are dry. 

b. Pull material away from the stream and deposited in 

location where the sediment will not be able to reach 

the stream during high flow events. 

c. Place small straw baffles or bales, silt fences along 

the stream when pulling back the material 

2. On the SW side, measurement of the 50-foot buffer 

would start at the top of the valley floor terrace-channel 

bank break in slope (See Figures 1 and 2 for explanation 

of this feature). 

3. On the NE side, mining is restricted to where the valley 

floor is at least 30 feet wide. 
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Appendix 1A

A1A-37

Plan of Operations

Alternative 2 (Miner’s proposal) Alternative 4

Plan Water Quality Protection Measures (WQPM)

and Determination of Effects

Additional Forest Service Water Quality Protection 

Measures, ODEQ Terms and Conditions and 

Determination of Effects

Racer 

Group/Keystone 

Korners Placer

(continued)

4. To prevent sediment from reaching the channel during a 

high flow event that floods the valley floor, excavated 

material would be replaced into holes at the end of each 

season.

Effects

Discharge potential would be eliminated because 1) buffer 

clarifications move the operation to where it is flat and 

ground cover sufficient to trap any sediment, and 2) the fords 

would be rocked and this source of fine sediment eliminated. 

Ground cover would be grasses and forbs and about 80%. 

Grasses are heavily grazed and were cropped to 1 inch or less 

during survey.
Appendix 1A NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

A1A-38

Plan of Operations

Alternative 2 (Miner’s proposal) Alternative 4

Plan Water Quality Protection Measures (WQPM)

and Determination of Effects

Additional Forest Service Water Quality Protection 

Measures, ODEQ Terms and Conditions and 

Determination of Effects

Roberts Lode Plan WQPM

Test holes excavated at least 20 feet from the drainage west of the main 

adit (p. 3). Note: The test holes appear to be referring to lode operations 

and not to the placer operations. The operator talks about “hand placer 

operation.”

Buffers a minimum of 25 feet wide will be maintained between 

processing activities and stream channels (p. 5).

Effects

No potential for a discharge into navigable waters or Waters of the State, 

as a result of the lode operation, because 1) there is no surface 

hydrologic connection between the adit waters and a perennial stream, 2) 

between an intermittent stream that has the potential to transport water or 

sediment to a perennial stream, and 3) all milling will take place at 

another site. 

No potential discharge into navigable waters or Waters of the State, as a 

result of the placer operation, because 1) ponds will capture any 

sediment generated by the placer operation and 2) there is no surface 

hydrologic connection between the adit waters and a perennial stream. 

NOTE: The plan states that the adit discharges water but a field visit 

found only one water source that is upslope of the adit. Water flows 

down the channel in front of the adit for a short distance and then goes 

subsurface. The zone mining engineer believes that water is backed up 

behind the material that has sealed off the portal. Operator will be 

opening adit and using the adit water. The adit discharges water into 

mining-created channel below the adit. The channel carries water for 

less than 100 feet before going dry. Water resurfaces in a wetland below 

the old mill site. A road marks the downslope end of the wetland. There 

is a channel below the road, but it is dry. 

Additional Forest Service WQPM

1. Adit water shall be piped or trenched across bare soils 

and the mine dump to a settling pond. 

2. Settling and/or processing ponds would not be built in 

mine dumps.

Effects

Same as Alternative 2
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Appendix 1A

A1A-39

Plan of Operations

Alternative 2 (Miner’s proposal) Alternative 4

Plan Water Quality Protection Measures (WQPM)

and Determination of Effects

Additional Forest Service Water Quality Protection 

Measures, ODEQ Terms and Conditions and 

Determination of Effects

Rocker Group

Placer 

Plan WQPM

At least a 20-foot buffer will be maintained between the mining site and 

Greenhorn Creek and a 10-foot buffer between the mining site and Slab 

Creek (p. 3). 

Two off-channel settling/recycling ponds ... and two smaller ponds are 

located over 50 feet from Greenhorn Creek and will be used for 

processing (p. 5). 

Effects

There is the potential for a discharge into navigable waters or Waters of 

the State for the reasons discussed in Big Elk/Red Dog Placer, as well as 

the implied suggestion that the existing processing sites might be moved 

closer to the stream, and topography on the east side of the stream (see 

below). 

NOTE: The plan states that testing of the claims will take place on the 

east side of Greenhorn Creek. No buffer width for testing is specified 

for the east side. The east side of the creek is bordered by a hillslope 

where the hillslope feeds directly to the stream.

Additional Forest Service WQPM

1. The processing site and ponds would remain where they 

currently are located.

2. On the WEST side of Greenhorn Creek, the operator has 

two choices: 

a. operator will place one of the following 

between the operation and the channel: silt 

fences, bales of straw, bermed washed tailings 

or some other Forest Service approved sediment 

barrier, or

 

b. the buffer width is increased to 50 feet, with 

one of the above barrier installed only if rilling 

is noted in the 50-foot buffer zone. 

Measurement of the buffer would start from the 

top of the low-flow stream bank (See Figures 1 

and 2 for explanation of this feature).

3. On the EAST side of Greenhorn Creek where testing is 

proposed, topography is variable. The operator has two 

choices: 

a. Where there is no valley floor terrace and the 

hillside feeds directly into the creek, a silt 

fences, bales of straw, bermed washed tailings 

or some other Forest Service approved sediment 

barrier, would be installed at least 20 feet from 

the creek between the creek and testing, or
Appendix 1A NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

A1A-40

Plan of Operations

Alternative 2 (Miner’s proposal) Alternative 4

Plan Water Quality Protection Measures (WQPM)

and Determination of Effects

Additional Forest Service Water Quality Protection 

Measures, ODEQ Terms and Conditions and 

Determination of Effects

Rocker Group

Placer 

(continued)

b. the buffer width is increased to 50 feet, with a 

barrier installed only if rilling is noted in the 

50-foot buffer zone. Measurement of the buffer 

would start from the valley floor terracechannel bank break in slope were present or 

from the top of the stream bank (See Figures 1 

and 2 for explanation of this feature). 

4. On the NORTH side of Slab Creek the measurement of 

the 10-foot mining buffer would start from the top of the 

old mine tailings that line the creek. Where tailings are 

absent, the measurement would be increased to 25 feet, 

and would begin from the valley floor terrace-channel 

bank break in slope (See Figures 1 and 2 for explanation 

of this feature). Another option is to install a silt fence 

10 feet from the creek. No work is proposed for the 

south side of Slab Creek. 

Effects

Discharge potential would be eliminated because the 

combination of buffer clarifications, silt fences, working 

behind the tailings, and keeping the processing site at its 

current location would prevent any sediment from entering 

Slab Creek or Greenhorn Creek.

Ground cover on the west side of Greenhorn Creek in the 

buffer zone is 80% or more, and is a thin layer of needles.

Ground cover on the east side of Greenhorn Creek in the 

buffer zone is 80 % or more, and is a thin layer of needles 

and some downed wood.

Ground cover on the north side of Slab Creek in the buffer 

zone is 80 % or more and is a thin layer of needles.
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Appendix 1A

A1A-41

Plan of Operations

Alternative 2 (Miner’s proposal) Alternative 4

Plan Water Quality Protection Measures (WQPM)

and Determination of Effects

Additional Forest Service Water Quality Protection 

Measures, ODEQ Terms and Conditions and 

Determination of Effects

Shamrock Placer Plan WQPM

All mining excavations will be at least 25 feet from the river (p.3).

Processing will take place at least 50 feet from the river (p. 3).

The boggy area located near the processing site and camp area will be 

protected from impacts associated with the mining operations (p. 3).

A vegetated buffer strip at least 25 feet wide will be maintained between 

the test sites and the NFBR (p. 6).

Settling/recycling ponds will be at least 50 feet from the river (p. 6). 

Stockpiles of topsoil will be on the side of the hole farthest from the 

river (p.6). 

Effects

There is the potential for a discharge into navigable waters or Waters of 

the State for the reasons discussed in Big Elk/Red Dog Placer. In 

addition, the east bank of the two fords is composed of fine grained 

sediment which will be dislodged during use. 

Additional Forest Service WQPM

1. Measurement of the 25-foot buffer for testing and 

mining activities would start from the valley floor 

terrace-channel bank break in slope (See Figures 1 and 2 

for explanation of this feature). 

2. Measurement of the 50-foot buffer for processing 

activities would start from the valley floor terracechannel bank break in slope (See Figures 1 and 2 for 

explanation of this feature).

3. To prevent sediment from reaching the channel during a 

high flow event that floods the valley floor, excavated 

material would be replaced into holes at the end of each 

season.

4. Processing pond locations will be determined with input 

from District hydrologist.

5. The east bank of both fords will be rocked and sloped.

6. Pull material away from the stream and deposited in 

location where the sediment will not be able to reach the 

stream during high flow events.

7. Place small straw baffles or bales, silt fences along the 

stream when pulling back the material
Appendix 1A NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

A1A-42

Plan of Operations

Alternative 2 (Miner’s proposal) Alternative 4

Plan Water Quality Protection Measures (WQPM)

and Determination of Effects

Additional Forest Service Water Quality Protection 

Measures, ODEQ Terms and Conditions and 

Determination of Effects

Shamrock Placer

(continued)

Effects

Discharge potential would be eliminated because the buffer 

clarification places the activities on the valley floor where it 

is flat and provides a vegetated filter strip between the 

mining and processing areas and the stream. This filter strip 

is sufficient to trap any sediment generated by the activities.

Ground cover in the southern part of the operation is 40 to 

50%. Ground cover in the north end of the operation is about 

100%. Vegetation is grass and forbs.

Silver Bell Placer #2 Plan WQPM

Three off-channel settling/recycling ponds south of the test area... are 

located 50 feet from Camp Creek and 50 feet from the ponds which are 

in-channel (p. 3). 

The ponds used for this operation will be at least 50 feet from the creek 

(p. 4).

Topsoil will be stockpiled at least 50 feet from the stream channel (p. 4). 

 The testing/mining operation will be conducted out of the immediate 

riparian area along Camp Creek at least 25 feet from the creek (p. 6). 

Effects

There is the potential for a discharge into navigable waters or Waters of 

the State for the reasons discussed in Big Elk/Red Dog Placer. 

Additional Forest Service WQPM

1. Measurement of the 25-foot buffer would start from the 

top of the hillslope where the ground becomes flatter.

Effects

Discharge potential is eliminated because all activity would 

take place in a flat area. Although ground cover is limited, 

the combination of topography and ground cover is sufficient 

to trap any sediment generated, preventing it from reaching 

the creek. In addition, the ponds are large, excavated and 

located in the flat area, and are therefore very stable. 

Ground cover is about 50% and mostly grasses in the buffer 

zone.
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Appendix 1A

A1A-43

Plan of Operations

Alternative 2 (Miner’s proposal) Alternative 4

Plan Water Quality Protection Measures (WQPM)

and Determination of Effects

Additional Forest Service Water Quality Protection 

Measures, ODEQ Terms and Conditions and 

Determination of Effects

Silver Eagle Lode Plan WQPM

A 10 foot wide riparian buffer should be established around all springs, 

bogs, wetlands, floodplains and Category 3 and 4 stream segments (p. 3).

Effects

No potential for a discharge into navigable waters or Waters of the State, 

because the operation is distanced from any streams. The only wetland 

in the area is an adit-discharge-generated wetland. Wetland is small and 

spatially confined and the buffer is sufficient to protect it. Surface water 

extends only about 20 feet beyond the wetland. 

NOTE: The miner is not using this adit or its waters. 

Additional Forest Service WQPM

None

Effects

Same as Alternative 2
Appendix 1A NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

A1A-44

Plan of Operations

Alternative 2 (Miner’s proposal) Alternative 4

Plan Water Quality Protection Measures (WQPM)

and Determination of Effects

Additional Forest Service Water Quality Protection 

Measures, ODEQ Terms and Conditions and 

Determination of Effects

Sluice Box Placer Plan WQPM

Wet areas in the floodplain will be avoided.

Processing sites and settling/recycling ponds are located at least 50 feet 

from the river (p. 3). 

Testing may also take place in the area between the river and the spring, 

however no test holes will be excavated closer than 25 feet from the 

river (p. 3). 

Mining on the north and south sides of the river on the Sluice Box #1 

utilizing a 25 foot buffer; mining on the wide flat area south of the river 

on the Sluice Box #2 utilizing a 50 foot buffer (p. 3).

Processing sites are located on the north and south sides of the river (p. 

5). 

Berms at the base of stockpiles and a 25-foot vegetative buffer along the 

streams will minimize sediment movement (p. 5). 

Topsoil will be stockpiled at least 50 feet from the stream channel (p. 5). 

Effects

There is the potential for a discharge into navigable waters or Waters of 

the State for the reasons discussed in Big Elk/Red Dog Placer. In 

addition, the ford banks are composed of fine-grained sediment that 

would be dislodged when the ford is used. 

Additional Forest Service WQPM

1. Measurement of the 25-foot buffer for mining would 

start from the valley floor terrace-channel bank 

break in slope (See Figures 1 and 2 for explanation 

of this feature). 

2. For wetland areas, measurement of the 25-foot 

buffer for mining would start from the outside edge 

of the wetland vegetation.

3. Measurement of the 50-foot buffers for processing 

and the ponds would start from the valley floor 

terrace-channel bank break in slope (See Figures 1 

and 2 for explanation of this feature).

4. To prevent sediment from reaching the channel 

during a high flow event that floods the valley floor, 

excavated material would be replaced into holes at 

the end of each season.

Ford 1 is located at the base of the access road. The stream 

bank will be rocked and sloped.

Ford 2 crosses the NFBR. The southern stream bank will be 

rocked and sloped. 

For both fords: 

a. Pull material away from the stream and deposited in 

location where the sediment will not be able to reach 

the stream during high flow events. 

b. Place small straw baffles or bales, silt fences along 

the stream when pulling back the material
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Appendix 1A

A1A-45

Plan of Operations

Alternative 2 (Miner’s proposal) Alternative 4

Plan Water Quality Protection Measures (WQPM)

and Determination of Effects

Additional Forest Service Water Quality Protection 

Measures, ODEQ Terms and Conditions and 

Determination of Effects

Sluice Box Placer

(continued)

Effects

Discharge potential would be eliminated because the 

clarification puts the testing and processing activities on the 

valley floor which is largely flat (some micro- topography) 

and has sufficient ground cover and or a mix of ground cover 

and micro-topography in the buffer widths to effectively trap 

any sediment that might be generated, preventing it from 

reaching the creek. 

Ground cover on the north side of the river in the 

mining/testing buffer zone varies from < 50% to about 80%, 

depending on whether it’s in an area with old tailings (<50%) 

or an area with better soil. Micro topography is more 

obvious on the north side due to low piles of old tailings.

Ground cover on the south side of the river in the 

mining/testing buffer zone is about 100%, and is either 

grasses or a thick layer of needles.
Appendix 1A NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

A1A-46

Plan of Operations

Alternative 2 (Miner’s proposal) Alternative 4

Plan Water Quality Protection Measures (WQPM)

and Determination of Effects

Additional Forest Service Water Quality Protection 

Measures, ODEQ Terms and Conditions and 

Determination of Effects

Snow Creek Placer

1, 2, 3, and 4

Plan WQPM

Processing takes place at least 50 feet from Snow Creek (p. 3)

At selected sites, the 20-foot buffer for mining will be reduced to 10 feet

from the creek and wet areas (p. 3).

The ephemeral draw will be avoided leaving a 10-foot buffer between 

any excavations and this channel (p. 3).

Topsoil will be stockpiled at least 50 feet from the stream (p. 5).

Effects

There is the potential for a discharge into navigable waters or Waters of 

the State for the reasons discussed in Big Elk/Red Dog Placer. In 

addition, the ford banks are composed of fine-grained sediment that 

would be dislodged when the ford is used.

Additional Forest Service WQPM

1. The processing site would be restricted to the bench area 

in the middle section where the current large ponds are 

located. 

2. Measurement of the 50-foot buffer for processing would 

start from the edge of the bench. 

3. At the middle section where the bench exists, 

measurement of the 20-foot buffer for mining would 

start from the top edge of the bench, thereby avoiding 

impacts to the floodplain.

4. At the southern section or in the middle section where 

the bench does not exist, if the area to be mined is flat, 

then the measurement of the 20-foot buffer for mining 

would start from the valley floor terrace-channel bank 

break in slope (See Figures 1 and 2 for explanation of 

this feature) and one of the following barriers will be 

placed between the operation and the channel: silt 

fences, bales of straw, bermed washed tailings or some 

other Forest Service approved sediment barrier. 

5. At the southern section or in the middle section where 

the bench does not exist, where the area to be mined is 

on a hillslope and there is a valley floor, and the valley 

floor is at least 20 wide, the measurement of the 20-foot 

buffer would start from the valley floor terrace-channel 

bank break in slope (See Figures 1 and 2 for explanation 

of this feature) and one of the following barriers will be 

placed between the operation and the channel: silt 

fences, bales of straw, bermed washed tailings or some 

other Forest Service approved sediment barrier. 
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Appendix 1A

A1A-47

Plan of Operations

Alternative 2 (Miner’s proposal) Alternative 4

Plan Water Quality Protection Measures (WQPM)

and Determination of Effects

Additional Forest Service Water Quality Protection 

Measures, ODEQ Terms and Conditions and 

Determination of Effects

Snow Creek Placer

1, 2, 3, and 4

(continued)

6. At the southern section or in the middle section where 

the bench does not exist, if the area to be mined is on a 

hillslope and the hillside feeds directly into the creeks, or 

the valley floor width is less than 20 feet, mining would 

occur up the hillslope at least 50 from the top of the lowflow stream bank, and one of the following barriers will 

be placed between the operation and the channel: silt 

fences, bales of straw, bermed washed tailings or some 

other Forest Service approved sediment barrier would be 

installed between the activity and the creek. 

7. Topsoil would be stockpiled only in flat areas with the 

measurement of the 50-foot buffer starting from the edge 

of the bench (middle section) or valley floor terracechannel bank break in slope (southern section).

8. For the ford do the following:

a. Rock and slope stream banks 

b. Pull material away from the stream and 

deposited in location where the sediment will 

not be able to reach the stream during high flow 

events. 

c. Place small straw baffles or bales, silt fences 

along the stream when pulling back the material
Appendix 1A NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

A1A-48

Plan of Operations

Alternative 2 (Miner’s proposal) Alternative 4

Plan Water Quality Protection Measures (WQPM)

and Determination of Effects

Additional Forest Service Water Quality Protection 

Measures, ODEQ Terms and Conditions and 

Determination of Effects

Snow Creek Placer

1, 2, 3, and 4

(continued)

Effects

Middle section: This section has two discrete topographic 

flat areas on the north side of Snow Creek. It has a narrow 

active floodplain with many small ponds and wetlands

(referred to as “floodplain”). It also has a large, wide bench 

that is above the floodplain and is where the large processing 

ponds are located (referred to as “bench”). On the south side 

of the creek, there is only the floodplain Southern section: 

Single valley floor area changing to hillslope.

Discharge potential would be eliminated because the 

clarification puts the testing and processing activities in areas 

that are flat or if on a hillslope ensures sufficient sediment 

trapping capability between the activity and Snow Creek. 

Ground cover in the middle section on the on the north side 

of the river is < 50%.
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Appendix 1A

A1A-49

Plan of Operations

Alternative 2 (Miner’s proposal) Alternative 4

Plan Water Quality Protection Measures (WQPM)

and Determination of Effects

Additional Forest Service Water Quality Protection 

Measures, ODEQ Terms and Conditions and 

Determination of Effects

Standby/McNamee

Placer 1 (upstream 

site)

Plan WQPM

A berm of old tailings protects McNamee Creek from run-off associated 

with the testing. 

Two or three small ponds .... will be used to settle and recycle process 

water (p. 3). NOTE: no buffer distance stated.

Test holes will be excavated along McNamee Creek and in the area 

between the two forks of McNamee (p. 3).

A 20-foot wide area around the ponds, springs, bogs, wetlands, or 

floodplains will be protect from impacts during mining related activities 

(p. 5). 

Topsoil will be stockpiled at least 50 feet from the stream channels (p.5). 

Effects

There is the potential for a discharge into navigable waters or Waters of 

the State for the reasons discussed in Big Elk/Red Dog Placer. 

Additional Forest Service WQPM

1. Where tailings line the creek, the operation would take 

place behind the tailings. The result would be a variable 

buffer width. 

2. Where tailings do not line the creek, measurement of the 

20 foot buffer related to mining activities would start 

from the valley floor terrace-channel bank break in slope 

(See Figures 1 and 2 for explanation of this feature). 

3. The operator will place one of the following between the 

operation and the channel: silt fences, bales of straw, 

bermed washed tailings or some other Forest Service 

approved sediment barrier. 

Effects

Discharge potential would be eliminated because 1) the 

tailings, where present, would effectively block sediment 

from reaching McNamee Gulch, and 2) where the tailings are 

absent, the increase in buffer width and the abundance of 

micro-topography from past placer mining, combined with 

the downed wood and needles, would effectively trap any 

sediment.

Ground cover in the buffer zone is about 100%, and is a thin 

layer of needles with some downed wood.
Appendix 1A NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

A1A-50

Plan of Operations

Alternative 2 (Miner’s proposal) Alternative 4

Plan Water Quality Protection Measures (WQPM)

and Determination of Effects

Additional Forest Service Water Quality Protection 

Measures, ODEQ Terms and Conditions and 

Determination of Effects

Standby/McNamee

Placer 2 

(downstream site)

Plan WQPM

The ford will be rocked with adjacent tailings rock (p. 2). 

A small washing plant will be set up approximately 50 feet from 

McNamee Gulch (p. 3). 

A 20-foot wide area around the ponds, springs, bogs, wetlands, or 

floodplains will be protect from impacts during mining related activities 

(p. 5). 

Topsoil will be stockpiled at least 50 feet from the stream channels (p.5).

Effects

There is the potential for a discharge into navigable waters or Waters of 

the State for the reasons discussed in Big Elk/Red Dog Placer. In 

addition, the ford banks are composed of fine-grained sediment that 

would be dislodged when the ford is used.

Additional Forest Service WQPM

1. Measurement of the 20 foot buffer related to mining 

activities would start from the valley floor terracechannel bank break in slope (See Figures 1 and 2 for 

explanation of this feature). 

2. The operator will place one of the following between the 

operation and the channel: silt fences, bales of straw, 

bermed washed tailings or some other FS approved 

sediment barrier. 

3. To prevent sediment from reaching the channel during a 

high flow event that floods the valley floor, excavated 

material would be replaced into holes at the end of each 

season.

4. The miner proposes the following: The ford will be 

rocked with adjacent tailings rock (p. 2). In addition, 

a. Slope the stream banks. 

b. Pull material away from the stream and 

deposited in location where the sediment will 

not be able to reach the stream during high flow 

events. 

c. Place small straw baffles or bales, silt fences 

along the stream when pulling back the material

Effects

Discharge potential would be eliminated because the 

additional barriers, or increased buffer and the buffer starting 

point clarification puts the activity on the valley floor which 

is flat, with about 50% ground cover that can effectively trap 

and prevent sediment generated from the activity from 

reaching the stream

Ground cover is about 50% on the valley floor terrace in the 

buffer zone and is mostly grasses and some forbs.
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Appendix 1A

A1A-51

Plan of Operations

Alternative 2 (Miner’s proposal) Alternative 4

Plan Water Quality Protection Measures (WQPM)

and Determination of Effects

Additional Forest Service Water Quality Protection 

Measures, ODEQ Terms and Conditions and 

Determination of Effects

Star (Pinus) Placer Plan WQPM

Ponds are located over 30 feet from the creek (p. 3). 

A 10-foot buffer will be maintained between the testing/mining site and 

the creek (p. 3).

Where trees are present a 20-foot buffer will be maintained (p. 3)

Whenever topsoil is present .... Stockpiled at least 10 feet away from 

stream courses and in all cases out of the normal floodplain (p. 3). 

Effects

There is the potential for a discharge into navigable waters or Waters of 

the State for the reasons discussed in Big Elk/Red Dog Placer. In 

addition, the Plan indicates it will mine on a hillslope that feeds directly 

into a stream channel (Figure 1, Scenario 4). 

NOTE: The valley floor terrace varies in width and presence along the 

length of the creek as the creek meanders back and forth. In some places 

the valley floor terrace is up to 40-feet wide and in other places it is 

absent and the hillslope feeds directly into the creek.

Additional Forest Service WQPM and ODEQ Terms and 

Conditions

1. Measurement of the buffer for testing/mining would 

start from the valley floor terrace-channel bank 

break in slope when a valley floor terrace exists (See 

Figures 1 and 2 for explanation of this feature).

2. Forest Service: When the hillslope feeds directly 

into the creek or the bench/valley floor between the 

hillslope and the creek is less than 15 feet wide, one 

of the following barriers will be placed between the 

operation and the channel: silt fences, bales of 

straw, bermed washed tailings or some other Forest 

Service approved sediment barrier, would be placed 

between the creek and the testing/mining activity. 

ODEQ: In addition to the silt fences or other 

impediment, a berm collection system will be created 

between the downstream side of the operations and the 

stream buffer. The berm collection system will be 

designed to route sediment and any water away from the 

stream to a location where it does not have the potential 

to enter the stream channel. 

3. When the operation is done, the sediment that is 

trapped behind the silt fences or other impediment 

would be moved off site to a flat area and the 

impediment removed. 

4. To prevent sediment from reaching the channel 

during a high flow event that floods the valley floor, 

excavated material would be replaced into holes at 

the end of each season.
Appendix 1A NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

A1A-52

Plan of Operations

Alternative 2 (Miner’s proposal) Alternative 4

Plan Water Quality Protection Measures (WQPM)

and Determination of Effects

Additional Forest Service Water Quality Protection 

Measures, ODEQ Terms and Conditions and 

Determination of Effects

Star (Pinus) Placer

(continued)

Effects

Discharge potential would be eliminated because 1) when a 

valley floor terrace is present the sediment would be trapped 

on the valley floor and 2) where there is no valley terrace the 

silt fences or other impediment would be effective at 

capturing sediment that is moving downslope. 

Ground cover in the buffer zone is about 80% or more and is 

a mix of grasses, wood and forbs.

Three Cent Placer

Processing site 1

Plan WQPM

Settling ponds will be located at least 50 feet from the creek (p. 7).

Effects

No potential for a discharge into navigable waters or Waters of the State, 

because this processing site is located on an upper bench. There is the 

long trench (settling pond) between the processing site and the inchannel ponds used for processing water. The processing site is 

therefore physically disconnected from the in-channel ponds and any 

sediment that moves off the bench would be trapped in the settling pond. 

Additional Forest Service WQPM

None

Effects

Same as Alternative 2 
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Appendix 1A

A1A-53

Plan of Operations

Alternative 2 (Miner’s proposal) Alternative 4

Plan Water Quality Protection Measures (WQPM)

and Determination of Effects

Additional Forest Service Water Quality Protection 

Measures, ODEQ Terms and Conditions and 

Determination of Effects

Three Cent Placer

Processing site 2

Plan WQPM

Settling ponds will be located at least 50 feet from the creek. 

Effects

There is the potential for a discharge into navigable waters or Waters of 

the State for the reasons discussed in Big Elk/Red Dog Placer and due to 

the placement of processing ponds on a hillslope if they put them 50 feet 

from the creek. There is the potential for pond failures which would 

funnel material directly into the stream. The flat valley bottom area is 

only about 10 feet wide.

 

NOTE: The settling ponds mentioned in their plan at this site were 

reclaimed. Site-specific requirements apply to the proposed ponds. 

The processing ponds are proposed for the west side of the creek near a 

small aspen grove. The aspen grove is on a small mound (24- feet wide) 

between the channel and a small draw. The valley floor is narrow on the 

west side and slopes upwards. Placement of the settling ponds at least 

50 feet from the creek would put the ponds on the hillslope. If the ponds 

are placed within the mound they would be within 10 feet of the creek 

and have the potential to result in bank seeps and bank failure to 

develop. 

Additional Forest Service WQPM

1. The proposed ponds would be relocated downstream of 

the confluence of the channel and the short draw (below 

the aspen grove) and on the west side of the creek.

2. Measurement of the buffer for the processing ponds 

would start from the valley floor terrace-channel bank 

break in slope.

3. The ponds would be lined and would need to be at least 

20 feet from the creek on flat ground.

4. The ponds would be dug into the ground.

Effects

Despite the additional Forest Service WQPMs, the potential 

for a discharge into the NFBR remains for the same reasons 

stated in Alternative 2. However, the impact may be less. 

Ground cover is 80% or more in this area and mostly grasses 

and some forbs.
Appendix 1A NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

A1A-54

Plan of Operations

Alternative 2 (Miner’s proposal) Alternative 4

Plan Water Quality Protection Measures (WQPM)

and Determination of Effects

Additional Forest Service Water Quality Protection 

Measures, ODEQ Terms and Conditions and 

Determination of Effects

Three Cent Placer

Mining 1/Processing 

site 3 (north of FS 

1075)

Plan WQPM

Wet sections of the creek will be protected with a 10 foot buffer of 

vegetated ground (p. 3). 

No mining will take place in the floodplain on the east side of Three 

Cent Creek from the aspen grove north to FR 1075 (p. 7).

Equipment will not cross the wet fork of Three Cent Creek (p. 7)

A 10-foot buffer will be maintained on the west side of Three Cent 

Creek channel south of FS 1075 (p. 7).

Topsoil will be stockpiled 50 feet from the creek (p. 7)

Effects

No potential for a discharge into navigable waters or Waters of the State. 

Miner would only use pond for processing and there is no surface 

connection between the pond and Three Cent Creek. 

Additional Forest Service WQPM

None

Effects

Same as Alternative 2

Three Cent Placer

Mining 2 (south of 

FS 1075 road)

Plan WQPM

None

Effects

No potential for a discharge into navigable waters or Waters of the State, 

because the topography is gentle, ground cover is greater than 70%, and 

surface water or a defined channel is not present.

Additional Forest Service WQPM

None

Effects

Same as Alternative 2
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Appendix 1A

A1A-55

Plan of Operations

Alternative 2 (Miner’s proposal) Alternative 4

Plan Water Quality Protection Measures (WQPM)

and Determination of Effects

Additional Forest Service Water Quality Protection 

Measures, ODEQ Terms and Conditions and 

Determination of Effects

Three Cent 

Placer/East

Plan WQPM

1. Small batches of placer gravels will be processed at this location at 

least 50 feet from the creek. 

2. A 25-foot buffer will be maintained between any test sites and East 

Three Cent Creek (p. 7).

3. A 20-foot buffer will be maintained along the creek to protect water 

quality and riparian vegetation while testing (p. 4)

4. No mining activity is planned nearer than 200 feet from East Three 

Cent Creek, however, small scale processing will take place in this 

location according to the terms of the approved Plan of Operations (p.4).

NOTE: Plan buffer references #2, 3, and 4 were confusing because they 

all state different distances. A letter dated February 29, 2008, clarified 

the buffer. It is as follows:

A 200 foot buffer will be maintained between the mining operation on 

the Three Cent Placers and East Three Cent Creek.

Effects

No potential for a discharge into navigable waters or Waters of the State, 

because the mining area is 200 feet from the creek, and there is good 

ground cover and micro topography on the hillslope to trap any sediment 

that exits the mined area. 

Additional Forest Service WQPM

None

Effects

Same as Alternative 2
Appendix 1A NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

A1A-56

Plan of Operations

Alternative 2 (Miner’s proposal) Alternative 4

Plan Water Quality Protection Measures (WQPM)

and Determination of Effects

Additional Forest Service Water Quality Protection 

Measures, ODEQ Terms and Conditions and 

Determination of Effects

Three Cent 

Placer/Red Dog

Plan WQPM

None

Effects

No potential for a discharge into navigable waters or Waters of the State, 

because the only water used for the operation is from a pond created as a 

result of the excavation tapping into groundwater. The pond is a closed 

system and water does not exit the pond. The mined draw that the pond 

sits in is not channelized. 

Additional Forest Service WQPM

None

Effects

Same as Alternative 2

Upper Geiser Creek 

Placer/Lode

(Processing site 

area)

Plan WQPM

A 25-foot buffer will be maintained between processing activities and 

stream channels (p. 3).

Effects

There is the potential for a discharge into navigable waters or Waters of 

the State if they move the processing site. 

NOTE: The plan states that a 25-feet processing buffer will be 

maintained between processing activities and stream channel. A 25-foot 

processing site would put the put the ponds on a hillslope, increasing the 

potential for saturation of pond sediments, a small failure, and channel 

formation. The result would be an input of sediment into the channel. 

The current processing site is at least a 100 feet from the creek and is 

separated from the creek by tailings and hummocky topography. The 

existing processing site is highly stable and has no water resource 

concerns. 

Additional Forest Service WQPM

1. The processing site would continue to be in its current 

location which is located over 150 feet from the stream 

on a flat bench. 

2. For the ford: 

a. Rock and slope the stream banks. 

b. Pull material away from the stream and 

deposited in location where the sediment will 

not be able to reach the stream during high flow 

events. 

c. Place small straw baffles or bales, silt fences 

along the stream when pulling back the material

Effects

Discharge potential would be eliminated because the current 

processing location is distant from the stream and separated 

from it is separated from the creek by tailings and hummocky 

topography.
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Appendix 1A

A1A-57

Plan of Operations

Alternative 2 (Miner’s proposal) Alternative 4

Plan Water Quality Protection Measures (WQPM)

and Determination of Effects

Additional Forest Service Water Quality Protection 

Measures, ODEQ Terms and Conditions and 

Determination of Effects

Upper Geiser Creek 

Placer/Lode

(alongside the creek 

between the junction 

with 1044060 

upstream to the 

portal.

Plan WQPM

During testing, a 20-foot buffer will be maintained between the test holes 

and Geiser Creek (p. 3).

A 20-foot no entry buffer will be maintained on both sides of Geiser 

Creek, Tunnel Creek and the unnamed tributary stream, and on all 

springs, on ponds (other than settling ponds), bogs, and wet meadows (p. 

10).

The stockpiled topsoil at test sites will be stored at least 50 feet from the 

stream (p. 11).

Effects

There is the potential for a discharge into navigable waters or Waters of 

the State for the reasons discussed in Big Elk/Red Dog Placer. In 

addition, there is the potential for a discharge in those places proposed 

for mining where the hillslope feeds directly into the creek (Figure 1, 

Scenario 4). In addition, the ford banks are composed of fine-grained 

sediment that would be dislodged when the ford is used.

NOTE: East side valley floor is up to 50-feet wide. 

Additional Forest Service WQPM

1. East side: Activity would behind the tailings ridge that 

is nearest the creek. The buffer width would be a 

variable width from the creek. 

2. West side: Where there is a valley floor terrace that is 

20 feet wide or greater, measurement of the buffer would 

start at either the valley floor terrace-channel bank break 

in slope or if tailings are present, from the top of the 

tailings (See Figures 1, 2 and 4 for explanation of these 

features) and one of the following barriers will be placed 

between the operation and the channel: silt fences, bales 

of straw, bermed washed tailings or some other Forest 

Service approved sediment barrier.

3. No testing would take place where the valley floor 

terrace is less than 20 feet wide or where the hillside 

ends directly at an active floodplain

4. To prevent sediment from reaching the channel during a 

high flow event that floods the valley floor, excavated 

material would be replaced into holes at the end of each 

season. 

5. For the ford: 

d. Rock and slope the stream banks. 

e. Pull material away from the stream and 

deposited in location where the sediment will 

not be able to reach the stream during high flow 

events. 

f. Place small straw baffles or bales, silt fences 

along the stream when pulling back the material
Appendix 1A NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

A1A-58

Plan of Operations

Alternative 2 (Miner’s proposal) Alternative 4

Plan Water Quality Protection Measures (WQPM)

and Determination of Effects

Additional Forest Service Water Quality Protection 

Measures, ODEQ Terms and Conditions and 

Determination of Effects

Upper Geiser Creek 

Placer/Lode

(alongside the creek 

between the junction 

with 1044060 

upstream to the 

portal.

(continued)

Effects

Discharge potential would be eliminated because the buffers

as described would prevent sediment from entering the 

stream.

Upper Winterville 

Placer/Lode (south 

of private land)

Plan WQPM

Winterville Creek will be protected with a 20-foot buffer on the lower 

half of the claims where no work will take place except for one ford (p. 

3).

This creek crossing will be designed so that the streambanks are sloped 

to at least a 2:1 slope and if clean washed rock is placed in the channel it 

will be left in place and not removed. Creek banks impacted at the 

crossings will immediately be seeded (p.3). 

A minimum 25-foot buffer will be maintained between stream channels 

and any future processing activities associated with the project (p. 6)

Effects

There is the potential for a discharge into navigable waters or Waters of 

the State for the reasons discussed in Big Elk/Red Dog Placer. 

Additional Forest Service WQPM

1. Measurement of the 20-foot buffer would start from the 

valley floor terrace-channel bank break in slope. 

2. In addition to the miner’s protection measures for the 

ford: 

a. Rock the stream banks. 

b. Pull material away from the stream and 

deposited in location where the sediment will 

not be able to reach the stream during high flow 

events. Place small straw baffles or bales, silt 

fences along the stream when pulling back the 

material

Effects

Discharge potential is eliminated because the buffers as 

described would prevent sediment from entering the stream.
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Appendix 1A

A1A-59

Plan of Operations

Alternative 2 (Miner’s proposal) Alternative 4

Plan Water Quality Protection Measures (WQPM)

and Determination of Effects

Additional Forest Service Water Quality Protection 

Measures, ODEQ Terms and Conditions and 

Determination of Effects

West Parkerville 

Placer

Plan WQPM

Provide at least a 20-foot buffer from the edge of the upper bank for any 

testing to occur (p. 3).

No processing will occur in the in-channel ponds in Tony Creek (p.3).

All springs and ponds will be protected with a 20-foot buffer to ensure 

there is no loss of wetlands (p. 4). 

Topsoil will be stockpiled at least 50 feet from the stream (p. 4).

Buffers a minimum of 25 feet wide will be maintained between 

processing activities and stream channels (p. 6).

Use of straw and wood in addition to the riparian buffer will detain the 

runoff until some of the sediment [from the disturbed ground] can settle 

out (p. 6) 

Effects

There is the potential for a discharge into navigable waters or Waters of 

the State for the reasons discussed in Big Elk/Red Dog Placer. 

NOTE: Plan refers to Tony Creek. However, I could not find reference 

to a “Tony Creek” on USGS 7.5’ quads or in the FS GIS data base. 

Therefore, references to Tony Creek are removed throughout the 

document and replaces with “an unnamed tributary to the NFBR.” 

Additional Forest Service WQPM

1. Near spring, ponds and wetlands, measurement of the 

20-foot buffer would start from the outside edge of the 

spring or wetland vegetation and the top of the pond 

berm. Buffer widths would vary as a function of 

topography and presence/absence of tailing lining the 

creek. 

2. In areas of mining activity along the unnamed tributary 

to NFBR, when placer tailings line the stream bank, 

measurement of the 25-foot buffer would start from the 

top of the tailings ridge (See Figure 4 explanation of this 

feature).

3. In areas where tailings are absent from along the creek 

and the valley floor is flat, measurement of the buffer 

would start from the valley floor terrace-channel bank 

break in slope if a channel exist (See Figures 1 and 2 for 

explanation of this feature). 

4. In areas where tailings are absent and the valley floor 

slopes towards the creek, the buffer would be increased 

to ensure mining activities take place on flat ground or

one of the following barriers will be placed between the 

operation and the channel: silt fences, bales of straw, 

bermed washed tailings or some other Forest Service 

approved sediment barrier.
Appendix 1A NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

A1A-60

Plan of Operations

Alternative 2 (Miner’s proposal) Alternative 4

Plan Water Quality Protection Measures (WQPM)

and Determination of Effects

Additional Forest Service Water Quality Protection 

Measures, ODEQ Terms and Conditions and 

Determination of Effects

West Parkerville 

Placer

(continued)

Effects

Discharge potential would be eliminated because the 

additional barrier or increased buffer and the buffer starting 

point clarification put the activity away from the creek and 

on gentle topography. Placement on gentle topography 

and/or behind tailings would effectively trap and prevent 

sediment generated from the activity from reaching the 

stream.

Ground cover is about 30% or less on the ridge and mostly 

grasses, needles, and forbs.

Wild Flower Placer Plan WQPM

A 25-foot buffer strip will be maintained between the mining site and the 

river (p.3).

Two off-channel settling ponds, approximately 20x15x10 will be located 

at least 50 feet from North Fork Burnt River (p. 6).

at least a 25-foot unmined buffer strip composed of mounds of tailings 

left by historic mining will be left between the mining site and the North 

Fork Burnt River (p. 6).

No tree removal will occur within 100 feet of the [North Fork] Burnt 

River (p. 7).

Effects

There is the potential for a discharge into navigable waters, as defined by 

the CWA, as a result of using the existing ford to cross the NFBR given 

its current condition. 

Additional Forest Service WQPM

WQPMs for the ford.

1. Rock and slope the stream banks. 

2. Pull material away from the stream and deposited in 

location where the sediment will not be able to reach the 

stream during high flow events. 

3. Place small straw baffles or bales, silt fences along the 

stream when pulling back the material.

Effects

Discharge potential would be eliminated because the ford 

would be sloped and rocked. 
Appendix 1B

Closed and Decommissioned Roads

Proposed for Use

NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Appendix 1B

A1B-1

Appendix 1B

Closed and Decommissioned Roads proposed for use in Plans of Operation

Comparison of Alternatives 2 and 4 and Effects related to Water Quality

Insert tables (11x17 pages)
Appendix 1B NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

A1B-2
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Appendix 1B

A1B-3
Appendix 1B NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

A1B-4
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Appendix 1B

A1B-5
Appendix 1B NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

A1B-6
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Appendix 1B

A1B-7
Appendix 1B NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

A1B-8
Appendix 1C

Site Characteristics

NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Appendix 1C

A1C-1

Appendix 1C

Site Characteristics Used to Develop Forest Service 

Water Quality Protection Measures

All proposed mining sites were visited by the Forest hydrologist in 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2011. 

The proposed mining sites varied by topography, ground cover, presence of stream tailings, 

micro-topography, presence of beavers, and presence of adits. Based on the site characteristics, 

Water Quality Protection Measures (WQPMs) were developed (Appendix 1A) to eliminate the 

potential for a discharge of pollutant into any channel and ensure compliance with Clean Water 

Act (CWA), INFISH MM-1 and MM-2. While variability existed between sites, they fell into 

the general categories listed below. 

1. Operations on valley floor

a. No placer tailings line the channel bank

b. Placer tailings line the channel bank

2. Operation on a hillslope

a. No placer tailings line the channel bank

b. Placer tailings line the channel bank

3. Beaver dams

a. Currently present 

b. Likely to be present at some time in the near future

4. Adit present

a. Not discharging water

b. Discharging water and within 300 feet of perennial stream or natural wetland 

BUT not discharging directly into either 

i. Operation plans to use adit water BUT not work the lode.

ii. Operation plans to use the adit water AND work the lode.

iii. Operation will not use the adit water OR work the lode.

c. Discharging water and within 300 feet of perennial stream or natural wetland 

AND discharging directly into one or the other 

i. Operation plans to use adit water BUT not work the lode.
Appendix 1C NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

A1C-2

ii. Operation plans to use the adit water AND work the lode.

iii. Operation will not use the adit water OR work the lode.

d. Discharging water and greater than 300 feet from perennial stream or natural 

wetland

i. Operation plans to use adit water BUT not work the lode.

ii. Operation plans to use the adit water AND work the lode.

iii. Operation will not use the adit water OR work the lode.

5. Miscellaneous Site Characteristics

Discussion of Site Characteristics for each Category

1. Operation on valley floor: Starting point of buffer measurement clarified and buffer 

widths adjustments made from Alternative 2

a. No placer tailings line the channel bank

Most proposed Plans of Operation identified buffers around streams, wetlands, and springs. 

However, the location of where the buffer measurement started was often ambiguous because it 

was tied the stream. The low-flow stream varies in width from year to year and within a given 

season, and the wetted edge is therefore not a fixed location. Identifying the high spring flow 

edge requires evaluating a number of field elements (i.e. vegetation type, erosion lines, bar 

morphology) to determine the hydrologic bankfull or yearly high flow edge to a stream 

(Harrelson et al. 1994). Because many of these channels have widened and incised, there are 

often multiple points that one could choose from when measuring a distance “from the creek”. 

For example, in Figures 1 and 2, Points A, B, and C all meet that definition but at progressively 

higher stream flows (Point A being the low flow or summer flow edge and Point C being the 

very high flood event edge). 

The ambiguity raised questions about where the miner planned to start their buffer measurement: 

Was the plan referring to the 1) the low-flow stream edge during operation which would vary 

from year to year, 2) from the stream edge as defined by the high spring runoff flow and if so 

what where the indicators used to determine that location or 3) from the top of the stream bank or 

edge of terrace? Was the intention of the miners to stay out of the active floodplain or off 

unstable banks? This ambiguity is a problem because the starting location of the buffer 

measurement determines the degree to which a buffer eliminates the potential for a discharge of 

sediment into navigable waters as defined by the CWA. 
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Appendix 1C

A1C-3

Figure 1. Shows the location of the Valley floor terrace (historic floodplain) –Channel break-inslope geomorphic feature. Note that this edge is NOT the streambank of the active channel but 

the streambank of the larger geomorphic channel. The active channel is inset into the 

geomorphic channel. Elevation (ft)

Distance (ft)

Active Channel

Active Floodplain 

(point bar)

Geomorphic bankfull channel

Valley floor terraceChannel bank break in 

slope (Point C)

Valley floor terrace -

Channel bank break in slope

Back edge of active 

Floodplain (Point B)

Edge of low-flow stream 

channel (Point A)

Valley Floor/Historic 

floodplain
Appendix 1C NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

A1C-4

Figure 2. North Fork of the Burnt River. Solid yellow arrow at the location of the valley floorchannel bank (VFT-CB) break-in-slope feature (Point C). Dashed yellow arrow is at the point 

bar which is part of the active floodplain. 

In order to eliminate the ambiguity and ensure no potential for a discharge of a pollutant, 

regardless of stream flow, a geomorphic rather than hydrologic feature was selected as the 

starting point for the buffer measurement. The geomorphic feature chosen as the starting point 

was the valley floor terrace-channel bank (VFT-CB) break-in-slope when present (Figures 1 and 

2). This geomorphic feature is clearly visible in the field and does not vary from year to year or 

within a season, unless an erosional event has occurred. The valley floor is the historic 

floodplain which has been isolated from the stream as a result of channel widening and incision 

due to historic land use. The selection of this geomorphic feature as the starting point puts 

proposed mining activities on the valley floor and outside the active floodplain, stream banks, 

and valley floor terrace banks. Current vegetation on the valley floor is drought tolerant, 

indicating that this geomorphic surface is rarely flooded. 

Figure 3 shows how the buffer zone location, and its ability to prevent a discharge of pollutant, 

varies depending on how the “creek edge” is defined and the topography. In Scenario 1, the 

operation would be in the stream bank that borders the active floodplain. In Scenario 2, the 

operation would be on the valley floor terrace, but close to the stream cut bank that borders the 

active floodplain. Disturbance of the cut bank in Scenarios 1 and 2 would result in sediment 

moving into the active floodplain which would then be delivered to the stream the following 

Point C: Valley floor 

terrace-Channel 

break-in-slope 

(historic floodplain)

Point A: Edge of low 

flow/summer flow 

Point B: Edge 

of active 

floodplain 
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Appendix 1C

A1C-5

spring. In Scenario 3, the operation would be clearly on the valley floor terrace with 25 feet of a 

no-activity zone separating the activity from the stream cut bank. In Scenario 4, the operation 

ends up on a steep hillslope. 

Figure 3. Example of how the selection of a different starting point results in a different location 

for the operation. Any of these buffer starting points would meet the “from a creek” reference. 

In this example, buffer distances are 25 feet in all scenarios.

Buffer widths in the plans submitted by the operators varied from 10 to 25 feet from the stream. 

The Forest Service hydrologist examined those plans and after clarifying the buffer starting point 

and evaluating the topography, and in the absence of any other circumstances (i.e. presence of 

placer tailings lining the edge of the valley floor, buffer distances were started at 25 feet and 

increased as slope increased and/or ground cover decreased. The literature review by Belt et al. 

(1992) discussed the effectiveness of buffer strips on sediment movement. Their review 

identified slope and density of obstructions as the key factors controlling sediment movement 

through a buffer strip. Valley floors tend to be flat, or may have considerable micro topography 

due to historic mining. Ground cover percentages were found to vary from 50 to 100 percent 

depending on the amount of grazing that is occurring in an area. The flat topography and ground 

cover results in sediment generated by mining activity moving as sheet, rather than channelized, 

flow which limits the distance sediment can travel. Given the limited ground disturbance at any 

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

0 25 50 75 100 125

Elevation (ft)

Distance from Left Pin (ft)

Annual Floodplain 

(point bar)

Scenario 3

Scenario 2

Scenario 1

Scenario 4

Low flow

channel

Point C

Point A

Point B
Appendix 1C NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

A1C-6

one time in a given operation, and the other general requirements that address stockpiled top soil 

and reclamation, the 25-foot buffer was determined to be sufficient to prevent sediment from 

entering the stream channel. 

b. Placer tailings line the channel bank

Many operations state that they will have a 25-foot buffer in place to protect water quality. The 

starting point of measurement is, however, not clearly stated (See Figure 3) and the effectiveness 

of the proposed buffer varies as a function of that starting point. For example, many proposed 

mining sites have old placer tailings lining the stream banks. In these cases, a 25-foot buffer 

may put the mining operation behind the tailings, in other places within the same operation it 

would but the mining operation in front of the tailings or on top of the tailings (Figure 4). In the 

two latter cases, the 25-foot buffer would not be sufficient and there would be a potential for a 

discharge of sediment into the creek. Therefore, the following modification was made. 

The buffer location was tied to the location of the placer tailings lining the streambank and 

operations placed behind the tailings instead of being assigned a fixed distance (i.e. 25 feet). 

Because the location of the tailings with respect to the valley floor terrace-channel break-in-slope 

(VFT-CB) feature varied along the stream, the distance between the operation and the stream 

varied (Figure 4), in some cases being within 10 feet of the break-in-slope feature. However, the 

tailings effectively trap sediment and, where present, completely prevent delivery of any 

sediment generated by the mining activity. Where there are breaks in the tailings piles and the 

potential for sediment reaching the creek, the 25-foot buffer distance from the VFT-CB break-inslope feature was invoked along with additional protection measures such as installing straw 

bales or silt fences.
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Appendix 1C

A1C-7

Figure 4. Schematic showing how using the placer tailings piles results in a variable distance 

from the VFT-CB break-in-slope and the stream. BROWN line represents the VFT-CB breakin-slope location.

2. Operations on hillslopes: Starting point of buffer measurement clarified and buffer 

widths adjustments made from Alternative 2 (reference Figure above)

Operations that occurred on hillslopes fell into three general categories: 1) hillslope feeds into a 

valley floor terrace where the bench is between 15 and 25 feet wide, 2) hillslope feeds into a 

valley floor terrace where the valley width (bench) is more than 25-feet wide, or 3) hillslope 

feeds directly into the stream or where the valley floor terrace is less than 15-feet wide. Where 

activity was occurring, buffer widths were adjusted as needed to create enough of a buffer strip 

to capture any sediment generated by activity on the hillslope. The concern with activity on 

hillslopes is the potential to have channelized flow which is capable of carrying sediment much 

further than overland flow (Belt et al. 1992). In some cases, where ground cover was limited, the 

hillslopes steep, and/or the valley floor was either absent or narrow, additional requirements 

were included, such as silt fences or straw bales to prevent sediment delivery to a stream 

channel. 

3. Beaver dams 

Beaver dams would not be breached or otherwise disturbed. Instead, operators would evaluate 

under what conditions a beaver dam could pose a problem to their operation ahead of time and 

would work with the district hydrologist to design and build pond-elevation control features. 

These methods allow for beavers and beaver dams to remain and continue to provide water 

quality and habitat benefits, while preventing the ponds from flooding the mining operations. 

Proposed mining activity

Stream

VFT-CB break 

in slope

Valley 
Appendix 1C NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

A1C-8

4. Adit waters

Several plans, located in the headwaters of various streams, proposed using water from adits for 

their processing. This water would be piped into processing and settling ponds and allowed to 

evaporate or seep into the ground and therefore would not directly discharge into surface water 

or channels that would transfer the water to a perennial stream or wetland. 

5. Miscellaneous Site Characteristics

The August Placer pond, located on the top an old mining dump, would be moved to prevent the 

pond water infiltrating into the dump tailings and mobilizing heavy metals. 

Upper Geiser Placer processing site would not be moved because its current location has no 

potential for sediment delivery to a stream. 
Appendix 2

General Requirements

NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Appendix 2

A2-1

Appendix 2

General Requirements for Plans of Operations Included in

Alternative 4

Replace entire section in the FEIS, Chapter II, pp. 20-32, with the following. 

Changes made to this portion of the 2004 FEIS include:

• Removal of requirements for working in wetlands or floodplains, W1-W7. These are no 

longer applicable because a field review found that under Alternatives 3 and 4 none of 

the Plans of Operation involve working in wetlands or floodplains. Therefore, references 

to Executive Order 11990 (1977 as amended) – Protection of Wetlands, and Executive 

Order 11988 – Protection of Floodplains have been removed.

• Removal of camping requirements, C1-C5. Camping is now considered a Notice-Level 

activity, with the exception of camping that might cause a significant disturbance of 

surface resources. Refer to the Introduction and Appendix 5 of this Supplement.

• Removal of requirements specific to lode mining, L1-L2. All requirements specific to 

Lode Mining are now included as Forest Service Water Quality Protection Measures

(Supplement Appendix 1).

• Removal of General Requirement G-13. Removed because this is already a Forest 

Service administrative procedure.

• Addition of Z-requirements for closed, decommissioned or non-system roads. 

Requirement G-10 was absorbed into these new requirements. R-17 was absorbed into 

G-11, Z-requirements.

• Addition of requirement G-23 to prevent breaching of beaver dams.

• Addition of requirement G-24 restricting specific activities within stream buffers. 

• Addition of requirement G-25 for monitoring and protecting active goshawk nesting sites.

• Addition of requirement G-26 for monitoring and protecting unexpected heritage 

resources found at the site.

• Additional minor changes were made to clarify specific requirements, but did not change 

their intent.

1. General Requirements for Plans of Operations included in Alternative 4

a. Requirements for Protection of Surface Resources

The following are minimum requirements for protection of surface resources as specified 

in 36 CFR 228 Subpart A. They will be applied to Plans of Operations as needed. 

G1. All ground-disturbing operations outside of this plan shall obtain prior written

approval of the District Ranger. Proposals not in this plan will be submitted in writing to 

be analyzed (36 CFR 228.4(d) and 228.5(c)).

G2. Site-specific reclamation bonds may be required to ensure that reclamation takes 

place (36 CFR 228.13). Bonding will also be required to ensure that all approved 
Appendix 2 NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

A2-2

equipment and structures are removed from NFS lands within a reasonable time period 

following cessation of activities.

G3. There shall be no damming or diverting of water in the streams unless covered by 

required State and Federal permits. 

G4. Operations shall be conducted to prevent damage to historic monuments or objects of 

antiquity protected by American Antiquities Act (16 U.S.C. 433) National Historic 

Preservation Act of 1966, as amended Section 106; 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. Operator shall stop all operations and notify the Forest Service of 

any discovery of cultural or natural history resource. Removal of historic artifacts is a 

violation of Federal law.

G5. The operator shall comply with all other State and Federal regulations. 

G6. 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 and 

weed-free straw bales or straw wattles may be used to establish a barrier along the banks 

to control sediment movement into the creek (see NW8). 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 shingle arrangement so that sediment-laden runoff cannot escape the 

impounded area.

G7. During ongoing mining activities, all disturbed sites (roads, cut and fill slopes, 

campsites, ponds, dumps, and stockpiles) shall be maintained in a stable condition.

G8. Vegetation providing shade and/or bank stability to the stream banks shall not be 

removed unless specifically approved in writing by the District Ranger.

G9. 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 on-site. Forest Service personnel will determine which trees approved for 

removal are merchantable. These trees will be stockpiled for Forest Service disposal. All 

other trees approved for removal shall be stockpiled on-site to be used for final 

reclamation. 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. 

G11. Mining equipment shall cross creeks only at pre-approved sites, as authorized by 

the District Ranger. All fords shall be sloped and armored with rock, based on a sitespecific evaluation. Bridges shall be installed so as not to result in continued sediment 

delivery to the stream, and shall be removed upon final cessation of mining operations.
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Appendix 2

A2-3

G12. If a sediment plume is visible in the stream below the mining site, the operation 

shall cease work until the cause of the sediment plume is determined. If it is determined 

that the sediment plume is being caused by the mine operation, operations shall not 

resume until the problem is corrected.

G14. No structures (buildings) shall be constructed, occupied or maintained without 

written approval from the District Ranger. Use of any proposed or existing structures 

must be reasonably incident for mining purposes and justified in the Plan of Operations.

G15. Snow removal on roads is not approved unless addressed in an approved Plan of 

Operations or subsequent modifications or supplements to the Plan.

G16. Excavations left open for more than a week shall have the sides contoured to allow 

wildlife to escape should they fall in.

G17. Range permittees shall be allowed access to monitor cattle.

G18. Other than seasonally, where operations have ceased temporarily, 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 nonoperating periods (36 CFR 228.10).

G19. 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. hay 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). 

G20. Silt removed from settling ponds shall be stockpiled in areas designated for topsoil 

storage and managed to prevent erosion and noxious weed infestation, such as covering 

with plastic.

G21. No chemical flocculent or surfactant shall be used in ponds unless it is EPAapproved and shown to be safe for aquatic species (amphibians).

G22. All explosives handling and storage will comply with ATF requirements. Proof of 

ATF approval shall be submitted to the District Ranger prior to Plan approval.
Appendix 2 NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

A2-4

G23. Beaver dams will not be breached by the miners. If pond levels behind the dams 

increase to the point that there is the potential to flood the mining operation, the miners 

would work with the Forest Service to install pond-level control devices.

G24. Stream buffers are to be undisturbed. No mining activities, storage of equipment 

or overburden, or driving a vehicle off an existing road is permitted within a stream 

buffer.

G25. 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 

nest 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.

G26. If unexpected heritage resources are encountered during project implementation, 

these resources will be evaluated and 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 sites, despite eligibility status, will be avoided 

pending a determination from the State Historic Preservation Office regarding eligibility 

to the National Register of Historic Places. All eligible and potentially eligible 

(Undetermined) sites will be protected throughout the life of the project. Protection of 

these sites shall be accomplished through avoidance by ground-disturbing activities.

If avoidance of significant heritage sites is not possible, the impacts will be mitigated 

following consultation with the State Historic Preservation Office and in some cases, the 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. 

b. Hazardous Materials Requirements

Hazardous materials include processing chemicals and compounds, and petroleum 

products such as gasoline, oil, hydraulic fluid, diesel, etc.

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. Operators shall be required to have a lined containment vault under hazardous 

material storage barrels. 
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Appendix 2

A2-5

H3. 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 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.

H4. Spill kits shall be available in case of an accidental spill.

H5. 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 within the INFISH RHCA shall 

require the use of oil-absorbing mats. (see H8).

H6. Burning of spilled substances shall not occur unless authorized by the District 

Ranger and ODEQ.

H7. 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

H8. 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.

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/in the vicinity of all NFS lands which are caused by 

operator's employees, directly or indirectly, as a result of mining operations. 

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 
Appendix 2 NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

A2-6

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 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.

c. 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 WWNF, providing for the prevention and control of fires in the 

project area.

F2. The mine operator shall certify compliance with fire protection and suppression 

requirements before beginning operations during the fire period and closed season and 

shall update such certification when operations change.

F3. 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.

F4. 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. 
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Appendix 2

A2-7

F5. 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. 

F6. 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 longhandled, round-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 longhandled, 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.
Appendix 2 NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

A2-8

F7. The operator shall observe all the requirements of the Industrial Fire Precaution 

Level. Daily, prior to the start of work, the operator shall obtain the predicted Industrial 

Fire Precaution Level from the appropriate Ranger District headquarters. If predictions 

made after 6:00 p.m. local time are significantly different than the original prediction, the 

Forest Service will inform the operator when changes in restrictions or industrial 

precautions are made.

Waivers written in advance may be used for any and all activities. Activities for which 

waivers may be issued include, but are not limited to:

a. road maintenance, such as sprinkling, graveling, grading and paving; 

b. power saws on mining claims for felling and bucking where extra prevention 

measures will significantly reduce the risk of fire;

c. maintenance of equipment (other than metal cutting and welding) or 

improvements such as structures, fences, and powerlines.

Such waiver or substitute precautions will prescribe measures to be taken by the operator 

to reduce the risk of ignition and/or the spread of fire. The Forest Service shall consider 

site-specific weather factors, fuel conditions, and specific operations that result in less 

risk of fire ignition and/or spread than contemplated when precaution level was predicted. 

Consideration shall also be given to measures that reduce the precaution levels above. 

The operator shall assure that all conditions of such waivers or substitute precautions are 

met.

F8. 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 fire fighting 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, No. "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.
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Appendix 2

A2-9

F9. 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. 

d. Mitigations for Control of Noxious Weeds

NW1. A copy of the “North Fork Burnt River Mining EIS Noxious Weeds Map” (or the 

relevant portion thereof) will be in the approved Plan of Operations (see Appendix B).

NW2. The WWNF will provide the mine operator with a Burnt Powder Zone Noxious 

Weed Identification Field Card so that the operator is able to recognize the presence of 

noxious weeds. 

NW3. All equipment to be operated in the project area shall be cleaned in a manner 

sufficient to prevent noxious weeds from being carried into the project area. This 

requirement does not apply to passenger vehicles and other equipment to be used 

exclusively on roads. Cleaning of equipment, if needed, will occur off NFS lands. 

Equipment shall be cleaned on-site prior to moving it to another site if the site is known 

to have noxious weed infestations.

NW4. Prior to its use, any rock sources (e.g. pits, quarries) will be inspected for noxious 

weeds. Rock source material contaminated with high priority noxious weed propagules 

will not be utilized.

NW5. Areas of stockpiled soil will be seeded with native/desirable non-native seed mixes 

as recommended by the Forest Service botany specialist, or covered with plastic.

NW6. When seeding areas of bare soil, the seed mix shall:

1. Be certified weed-free per WWNF Noxious Weed Management Plan protocol

2. Meet Forest/Regional native seed policy

3. Consist of native grass seed species and/or combinations of native seed species 

and desirable non-native seed species (i.e. fast growing annuals) that do not 

persist to the extent of competing with native forbs and grasses. Plant species 

selections will be coordinated with the Forest Service botany specialist.

NW7. The amount of seed applied to each acre shall be 15 lbs and will be dispensed by 

broadcast method. 

NW8. All hay or straw used for mulching, erosion control, or other rehabilitation 

purposes shall be certified weed-free per WWNF Noxious Weed Management Plan 

protocol.

NW9. If noxious weed infestations do occur on the project site, a noxious weed inventory 

shall be completed by the Forest Service and early treatment will be initiated as identified 

by the Forest Service. 
Appendix 2 NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

A2-10

e. Requirements Specific to Placer Mining and Trenching

P1. Trench or pit excavation shall not occur where it will cause substantial damage to 

roots of live, standing trees not approved for removal.

P2. All test holes or trenches dug by mechanized equipment such as a backhoe or track 

hoe shall be backfilled during the dry season annually. 

f. Reclamation Requirements

Ongoing Reclamation

R1. Reclamation shall be ongoing to ensure stabilization of the area and so that a 

minimum amount of ground will be open at any time. 

R2. Surface mining and testing in areas within the INFISH RHCA shall be conducted and 

reclaimed in one season. This shall include refilling of test holes, revegetating to avoid 

active erosion, and mulching with wood or straw certified free of noxious weeds.

R3. All mined areas shall be stabilized prior to seasonal shutdowns or extended periods 

of inactivity. This shall be accomplished before any equipment is removed.

R4. Topsoil, where it exists, shall be scraped off the areas to be excavated and stockpiled 

for later reclamation. If the hole will be left open for over 2 weeks, stockpiles of topsoil 

shall be seeded or covered with plastic immediately (see NW6 for seed mix 

requirements). All material shall be stockpiled in the order that it was excavated and 

used to refill the pit or trench in that order. 

R5. Water shall be contained in ponds with no sediment discharge allowed. All ponds 

approved by the District Ranger to be left open during seasonal shutdown shall be left dry 

or at the normal water table. The mine operator shall have straw bales (see NW8) or 

other material available on-site to be used as a filtering agent should overtopping of 

ponds or significant soil movement from storm events occur.

R6. Annually, test excavations not approved in writing by the District Ranger to be left 

open over winter shall be reclaimed to normal contours and the surface seeded with seed 

certified free of noxious weeds by the WWNF (see NW6).

Final Reclamation

R7. All mined areas shall be returned to natural or near-natural contours; if located on the 

hillside, the areas will be benched for stability.

R8. Following re-contouring of the ground, wood shall be scattered over the reclaimed 

area and seeded with native seed species or locally appropriate native trees and shrubs. 
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Appendix 2

A2-11

This includes the trees and snags felled on the site and stockpiled for use in final 

reclamation.

R9. All stockpiled topsoil and/or other suitable fines, such as silt from the settling ponds, 

shall be evenly spread over disturbed areas on completion of the operation and/or in an 

ongoing restoration program. Areas shall be reclaimed to a useable condition as 

determined by the District Ranger.

R10. Stockpiles to be used for ground surface (topsoil) in reclamation will be inspected 

for noxious weed infestations prior to being spread across the reclamation area. If 

infestations occur on stockpiles, measures will be taken to ensure noxious propagules will 

not be spread across the reclamation area in the reclamation process.

R11. In areas of high livestock traffic, reclaimed areas will be fenced (and maintained) if 

needed (temporary fencing) by the operator for a period of not less than 2 years following 

reclamation (Forest Plan, page 4-25 item 29(a)).

R12. Mine access roads, landings, and terrace areas constructed under the mining 

operation shall be subsoiled, seeded with seed certified free of noxious weeds (see NW6), 

and covered with wood or similar material to discourage vehicle access.

R13. Test holes will be refilled. All tailing mounds created in the operation shall be 

flattened and stabilized. 

R14. Eroding cutbanks (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. Ponds newly constructed for this operation shall be field-reviewed for the final 

reclamation plan. Considerations for reclamation include whether the pond was used as a 

water source or settling pond, and whether it holds water throughout the year or 

amphibian breeding season. Where ponds are identified for reclamation, the pond shall 

be backfilled, re-contoured and seeded (see NW6). Where ponds are identified for 

retention, they shall have sides sloped, have shallow edges, slopes reseeded (see NW6), 

and riparian vegetation established. Species of vegetation planted around the retained 

ponds will reflect the native species composition for the area. Plant species selections 

will be coordinated with the Forest Service botany specialist. Pre-existing ponds that are 

occupied/suitable for amphibians shall be left for amphibian habitat. 

R16. Areas of bare soil shall be seeded using seed certified free of noxious weeds by 

WWNF as described in NW6.

R17. R17 was absorbed into other reclamation requirements in the 2012 NFBR 

Supplement.

R18. The mine operator shall remove all trailers, outhouses, living accommodations, 

machinery, and mining-related debris from the mining site. 
Appendix 2 NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

A2-12

R19. The mine operator shall re-plant grass, brush, and trees appropriate to the site 

(including wetland vegetation) to the original densities as described in NW6 (Forest 

Plan, page 4-25 #28).

R20. After seeding, the mine operator will evenly distribute straw, free of noxious weeds, 

over the site to a thickness of not less than 3 inches.

R21. Specifications for revegetation will be developed at the time of final reclamation. 

Variables such as the time of the year, sufficient top soil, existing ground cover, desired 

vegetation and acceptable survival will be evaluated at that time. 

R22. Partial bond release may occur, however, the bond will not be released in full until 

final reclamation is successful.

R23. Permanently close all portals to prevent entry by the public. Adits shall be surveyed 

for bats by Forest Service personnel, and those with known bat populations shall be 

closed with a closure device that allows access for bats but limits human use.

R24. 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. 

g. Road-related Requirements (Z-Requirements)

The “Z” requirements apply to 1) closed roads that are being used solely for mining 

access, and 2) non-system roads that are related to mining operations, and 3) minercreated temporary access roads. These requirements apply only during the dry season 

(July 1 to October 1). During the dry season window, it would be unusual for an area to 

get an amount of precipitation for enough duration to cause road damage. Outside the 

dry season window, weather and therefore road conditions become variable from day to 

day and within a day. Operators working outside this window will therefore need to 

consult with the Forest Service to determine if special road BMPs are required. The need 

for and type of special BMP required will vary as function of road characteristics and 

conditions, and are therefore not presented here. 

Z1. Use of closed, temporary and non-system roads will be incident to mining 

operations.

Z2. Closed, temporary and non-system roads used for mining access shall have brush 

and trees removed as is necessary to accommodate the movement of the miner’s 

equipment and vehicles only. All stumps and brush in the road bed that will 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 from the Forest Service. Removal of 

trees and brush is limited to the roads are dry to minimize road damage. 
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Appendix 2

A2-13

Z3. Disposal of trees/brush removed from closed roads used solely for mining 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 not placed in draws 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. 3) Vegetation shall be moved to a Forest Service approved location to 

be piled and burned by the miner after appropriate burn permits have been obtained from 

the authorized officer.

Z4. The miner shall be responsible for reducing water flow concentrations resulting in 

road erosion on those closed roads that are used for mining access. Traveled way 

maintenance activity shall be limited to the dry season to minimize the potential for road 

damage. Minor road work shall be permitted where the fill slope materials have settled 

over time and subsided. Minor blading and shaping of the road shall be permitted to 

remove minor deformities (i.e. boulders, holes, gullies) in the travel way 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 use. 

Z5. During the use and maintenance of access roads, surface drainage and erosion 

control features or structures shall be 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 existing erosion control and drainage 

structures, and those to be repaired, installed and maintained, include silt fences, erosion 

control blankets, earthen berms, sediment catch basins, drain dips, armored grade sags, 

water bars and corrugated metal pipes. 

These 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).

Z6. 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. French drain) and prevent rutting or the development of a 

channel. The design and materials to be used shall be reviewed and approved by the 

Forest Service in writing prior to construction.
Appendix 2 NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

A2-14

Z7. Crossing of permanent wetlands to access a site will be avoided. 

Z8. Crossing a channel with intermittent flow to access mining operations shall occur 

only at Forest Service approved locations. 

Z9. All operations that are required to ford a fish-bearing stream on a Maintenance Level 

1 road (closed road) shall restrict vehicle movement across the stream to 1) either the 

instream work window as identified for each site by the Oregon Department of Fish and 

Wildlife or 2) build a permanent crossing structure (i.e. bottomless pipe arch, bridge). 

The permanent structure shall not affect fish passage. The permanent structure shall meet 

performance requirements that address site-specific issues and conditions as well as 

manual and policy direction. These include passing the 100-year flow event, preventing 

stream bank modification, maintaining structural integrity for vehicles used in the 

operation, and accident prevention and safety. 

Z10. Where the miner has removed vegetation on the road bed and fill slope to create 

access, the miner shall re-plant grass, brush, and trees present on the road prior to their 

disturbance to the original densities (Forest Plan, page 4-25 #28). The miner will 

monitor vegetative recovery. Specifications for revegetation will be developed at the 

time of final reclamation and acceptable survival will be evaluated at that time. If 

necessary, additional vegetation shall be planted to meet the density requirements. If 

necessary, the road shall be mulched to improve vegetative recovery and minimize 

erosion. Any berms or tank traps that have been removed to provide mine access will be 

replaced in their original location upon completion of mining.

Z11. During periods of operations, and seasonal or temporary shutdowns, the operator is 

responsible for installing and maintaining a closure device that is approved in writing by 

the District Ranger.
Appendix 3

Discussion of Roads Analysis and 

modified R1-R4 WATSED Erosion Model

NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Appendix 3

A3-1

Appendix 3

NFBR Watershed Roads Analysis and the modified R1-R4 (WATSED) 

erosion model

In the 2004 NFBR Mining FEIS (2004 FEIS) two methods were used to try and estimate the 

impact of roads on water quality as it pertained to 1) inputs of sediment into streams in the 

NFBR watershed and 2) increase in the drainage network, and drainage efficiency. The first 

method used components of the Region 1-Region 4 (WATSED) erosion model (Potyondy 1991)

to estimate potential contributions of sediment from logging, roads, and mining in the NFBR 

watershed (USDA 2000). The model provided a qualitative comparison of potential erosion rate 

and soil loss generated as a result of different activities and the potential for delivery if linear 

distance from the stream channel was the only and most important factor determining delivery. 

This modified model was based on a GIS analysis, literature review, and the Region 1-WATSED 

(Water Yield and Sediment Yield) model (USDA 1991). There was no field component. 

The second method was a Forest Service field-based roads inventory combined with a GIS 

analysis. All roads in the watershed were inventoried except private roads, the State Highway, 

and certain county roads. The Roads Analysis (USDA 2002) utilized GIS mapping and database 

querying to answer a series of water quality questions, and thereby obtain accurate information 

and significant data on which to stratify roads with respect to water quality risks. The result was 

a numeric value ERS (Erosion Risk Score) based on scientific judgment and information that 

resulted in a list of priorities for future road restoration and maintenance (USDA 2002). 

The driving force behind the WATSED model, and in part the Roads Analysis, was to determine 

the potential for roads in the NFBR watershed to contribute to water quality degradation via 

through sediment input. The model examined the potential contribution of sediment into stream 

for roads, logging and mining based solely on linear distance from a stream channel. The Roads 

Analysis evaluated only road conditions and whether inside or outside a Riparian Habitat 

Conservation Area (RHCA). The results from the two methods were then used in the 2004 FEIS 

and referenced in the Watershed and Soil Resource, Fisheries, and Access/Transportation 

sections. The results were the basis for the development and selection of Alternative 4. 

The water quality and sediment input conclusions in the 2004 FEIS were re-examined as part of 

this Supplement analysis. The review involved re-examining the assumptions of each method, 

how the results from each method were used, and what elements of their analysis were excluded 

from the 2004 FEIS. The conclusion of this Supplement analysis is that the way the impact of 

roads on water quality was presented in the 2004 FEIS lead to the incorrect conclusion that roads 

were having a major water quality impact in the watershed. The model results and the Roads 

Analysis conclusions were incorrectly translated from estimates of sediment generated by an 

activity (model) or potential risks of sediment delivery (model and Roads Analysis) into reality. 

The reanalysis in the Supplement concluded that the roads in the NFBR watershed are not a 

major contributor to water quality degradation as it pertains to sediment inputs. Support for this 

conclusion is provided below in the discussion of the methods, the assumptions used in the 

methods to draw conclusions, and by considering the intent of each method. Discussions with 

authors of the Model analysis (C. Bradford, USFS, pers. comm., 2006) and the Roads Analysis 

(D. Taylor, USFS, pers. comm., April 2008) found agreement with the conclusions drawn below. 
Appendix 3 NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

A3-2

In addition, the conclusions of this Supplement, with respect to the relative contribution of 

sediment into streams from roads, mining, and logging compared to stream bank and bed 

erosion, is in agreement with the conclusions found in the Fisheries section of the FEIS (Ch. III, 

p. 54-55) which states that the majority of the sediment entering the streams was coming from 

channel erosion and background soil erosion. 

This discussion will be referenced in Chapter 3 of the Supplement when discussing road-water 

quality analysis and conclusion changes made from the 2004 FEIS to the Supplement in the 

Watershed and Soils Resources, Fisheries, and Access/Transportation sections. 

The Model

Bradford and Fedora (USDA 2000) used components of the R1-R4 (WATSED) erosion model

(Potyondy 1991) to estimate potential contributions of sediment from logging, roads, and mining 

in the NFBR watershed. Their model was based on a GIS analysis, literature review, and the 

WATSED model. There was no field component, though the model results are later tied to the 

Roads Analysis. 

Bradford and Fedora (USDA 2000) used the following information to estimate potential tons of 

sediment that could be generated by different activities and then potentially transported and 

delivered to streams: 1) channel erosion response curves for different disturbances (Table A3-1 

and A3-2) estimated sediment delivery ratios based on the linear distance between a disturbance 

and a channel (Table A3-2). Detailed discussion of the model is found in Bradford and Fedora

(USDA 2000, Appendix C). However, a portion of that discussion is presented here because it is 

relevant to the conclusion in this Supplement that the 2004 FEIS overstated the impact of roads 

on water quality. 

The predicted soil erosion curves for management activities (Table A3-1) were obtained from the 

WATSED model documentation. The erosion response curves data used came from three 

sources: 

1) the WATSED model, 

2) values estimated by van der Zweep (1999) based on professional judgment, and 

3) values estimated by Kennedy (1997) to be 17% of unsurfaced roads (USDA 2000).

“Soil detachment and sediment transport are two components used by the WATSED model for 

the prediction of sediment yield from a watershed. Soil detachment component, or soil erosion, 

predicts how much soil is moved from its original location. The amount that detached sediment 

moves downhill or downstream is predicted by a sediment transport component (USDA 2000, 

p. C-2). 
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Appendix 3

A3-3

Table A3-1.

Erosion Response Curves for North Fork Burnt River watershed non-point sources 

(USDA 2000, Table C.1)

Proposed activity Predicted Soil Loss (tons/sq. mile/yr)

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7

Road construction 1 12750 9817 8160 6875 5100 4450 4080

Temp Road construction 2 12750 6375 3188 1594 797 398 0

Closed Road (Level 1) 2 2040 2040 2040 2040 2040 2040 2040

Reopen closed road 2 4080 3060 2550 2295 2168 2104 2040

Open Native Surface Road (Level 

2) 1

4080 4080 4080 4080 4080 4080 4080

Open Aggregate Surfaced road 

(Level 3) 2

694 694 694 694 694 694 694

Logging (tractor) 1 352 187 144 92 42 21 0

Logging (cable) 1 221 110 55 0 0 0 0

Wildfire (high intensity ) 1 550 468 275 138 83 44 17

Wildfire (moderate intensity) 2 225 234 138 69 42 22 8

Wildfire (low intensity, prescribed 

natural fire) 1

10 0 0 0 0 0 0

Road obliteration 2 12750 6375 0 0 0 0 0

Subsoiling 2 525 278 137 0 0 0 0

Note: there is no value for mining disturbance

1 WATSED

2 Values estimated by van der Zweep (1999) based on professional judgement

3 Values estimated to be 17% of unsurfaced roads (Kennedy 1997)

According to the model, the volume of predicted soil loss assigned to open and closed native 

surface roads is an order of magnitude greater than logging, or low to moderate intensity 

wildfire. It is four times (closed road) and eight times (open road) as great as that estimated for a 

high intensity wildlife. Therefore, even if roads were rare in a watershed and logging or 

wildfires common and widespread, roads would still be weighted heavily as a source of sediment 

generation that could potentially be transported and delivered to a stream.

The model then used only the linear distance between a disturbance and a channel to determine 

the amount of sediment potentially delivered to a channel (sediment delivery ratio) due to lack 

of other information (Table A3-2). However, as clearly stated by Bradford and Fedora (USDA 

2000) and in a review of riparian buffer articles by Belt et al (1992), distance is only one factor 

that determines the amount of sediment delivered to a stream, and it is often not the most 

important one. Therefore, the sediment delivery ratios presented in Table A3-2 represent 

maximum values possible under a highly simplified landscape. The context of the model results 

– maximum values possible under a highly simplified landscape – were lost in the FEIS and 

appeared instead as actual delivery. 

“The distance that sediment gets transported before getting deposited depends on numerous 

characteristics including slope gradient, surface roughness, vegetation and litter cover. 

Delivery ratios predict the ratio of detached sediment that actually leaves a particular 

watershed. Sediment delivery ratios in WATSED were based on land type and slope 

position and the values varied from 1% on ridge tops to 80% on stream bottoms. 
Appendix 3 NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

A3-4

Land type databases have not been developed on the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest, so 

an alternative method using existing data was developed to estimate sediment yield based on 

the distance of the disturbance to the nearest stream (USDA 2000, p. C-2).” 

Table A3-2.

Estimated sediment delivery ratios (van der Zweep 1999) 

(USDA 2000, Table C.2)

Distance from stream channel 

(meters)

Delivery ratio (%)

0 – 50 30

51 – 100 20

100 – 150 10

> 150 1

Tables A3-1 (predicted soil loss) and A3-2 (estimated sediment delivery ratios) were used to 

estimate tons of sediment that might make it to the stream from a given activity (Equation 1). 

Equation 1: 

Predicted soil loss (tons/sq. mi/yr) x Disturbance area (sq. miles) within a given sediment 

delivery zone x estimated sediment delivery ratio (%) = sediment delivered to stream (tons/yr)

As stated earlier, the distance that sediment gets transported before being deposited depends on 

numerous characteristics including slope gradient, surface roughness, vegetation and litter cover 

in the buffer strip and fillslope, as well as distance from a stream (Belt et al. 1992) and distance 

travelled. The distanced travel will also vary depending on if water moves as channelized versus 

sheet flow. 

The type and density of vegetation or obstructions on the fill slope can greatly reduce sediment 

movement via sheet flow off the fill slope. Burroughs and King (1985) compared sediment 

yields from treated fill slopes and the yields from fill slopes with a loose soil surface. They 

found that dense grass planted on a section of fill slope at a 67% slope reduced sediment yield by 

97%, a wood fiber mulch reduced sediment yield by 91%, and a slash windrow reduced sediment 

yield by 87%. Trapping of sediment transported via sheet flow would be enhanced even further 

as slope decreased. Wright et al. (1982) examined soil losses after a prescribed burn in a 

grassland/shrub area with some oak and juniper. They found that soil losses and changes in 

water quality were not serious on 20% or less slopes, but that adverse effects lasted for 15 to 

more than 30 months on slopes 37 to 61%. They also found that soil loss rates stabilized when a 

combination of live vegetation and ground cover reached 64 to 72% during normal to wet years, 

or 53 to 60% during dry years. And an experimental study of the effects of changing percentages 

of vegetation cover on sediment yields (no fire component) found that sediment yields decreased 

rapidly on 10% slopes as live vegetative cover increased from 15 to 43% (Rogers and Schumm 

1991). The Burroughs and King (1985) study also showed the impact of increasing storm 

duration on sediment yields as a function of ground cover. As storm durations increased, so did 

sediment yields. However, the same pattern remained of decreasing sediment yields with 

increasing live vegetative cover.
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Appendix 3

A3-5

Channelized flow is limited to cross-drains, culverts, drainage ditches along the inside of the 

road bed and in the vicinity of a stream crossing, and road ruts and rills. Because these features 

are restricted in space, their impact is localized. Therefore, the values generated by the 

WATSED model represent a maximum value that could be generated and might be delivered

to a stream if 

1) distance was the only factor influencing delivery, 

2) the predicted soil loss values were appropriate for roads built in the 1970s through the 

1980s, 

3) No migitations were in place, and 

4) the fillslopes and intervening topography between the base of the fillslope and the stream 

were unvegetated. 

Belt et al. (1992) stated in their review of the studies evaluating the effectiveness of buffer strips 

in reducing sediment inputs into streams that “Road construction [emphasis added] is generally 

recognized as the largest single source of sediment because the removal of vegetation and 

construction of cut and fill slopes initially exposes large areas of erodible surface (p. 15).” 

However, Belt et al. (1992) also indentified fillslope cover and the role of slope and topography 

in reducing sediment movement. The roads in the NFBR watershed have been in place since the 

1970s and 1980s and the fillslopes have become vegetated and stabilized.

Field work conducted for this Supplement by the Whitman District hydrologist found no 

evidence to support the model’s results that large volumes of sediment were being delivered to 

the stream. Evidence for channelized or diffuse flow originating off the road fillslope and 

crossing the valley floors was absent. NFBR watershed roads in close proximity to stream 

channels were separated from the streams by zones with moderate to high ground cover and 

micro-topography, and it was common for the streams to be lined with old placer mining tailings. 

Fillslopes have become vegetated with a mix of trees, litter and grasses, thereby effectively 

trapping the sediment that exits the road as sheetwash. These features have effectively limited 

the amount of road sediment that could be delivered to NFBR streams.

Location of potential sediment inputs from roads into channels in the NFBR area are restricted to 

road-stream intersections, fords, or failed road drainage features where flow is concentrated.

However, both stream crossing and cross-drains are limited in the area. Therefore, the use of 

estimated sediment delivery ratios based on solely on a linear distance from a stream does not 

reflect conditions in the NFBR watershed, and overstates tons delivered to the streams in this 

area. In addition, the erosion response curves (Table A3-1) of predicted soil loss are likely high 

for this area because the majority of NFBR Forest Service roads were built in the 1970s and 

1980s (2004 FEIS, Chapter III, p. 69) and bare ground is now largely limited to the cutslope and 

the road beds. 

Stream Bank Conditions

While sediment is indeed entering the NFBR streams, field work in Fall 2006, Fall 2007 and Fall 

2008 by the Whitman District hydrologist found that the source of the majority of the sediment is 

from eroding stream banks. Field observations found vertical banks composed of fine sediment 

overlying gravels, or stream banks composed of old placer tailings devoid of stabilizing riparian 

vegetation. Blocks of stream bank were observed in the stream and the abundance of 

unvegetated, vertical stream banks indicated that instream erosion is an ongoing process. Unlike 

roads, stream banks have no features that can prevent the delivery of sediment from an eroding 
Appendix 3 NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

A3-6

stream bank into the stream. In contrast, the sediment delivery potential from roads, logging, 

and mining is minimized or eliminated by topography, ground cover, placer tailings along stream 

banks, and/or stable, vegetated road fillslopes and stable road beds. Therefore, though the model 

indicates that roads have the highest potential to contribute sediment to streams, this is only

when roads are 1) compared to logging and mining (i.e. stream bank failures not modeled) and 2) 

the distance from a stream is the only parameter considered. 

The conclusions of this Supplement, with respect to the relative contribution of sediment into 

streams from roads, mining, and logging compared to stream bank and bed erosion, is in 

agreement with the final conclusions of Bradford and Fedora (USDA 2002) found in the 

Fisheries section of the FEIS (Ch. III, p. 54-55). They concluded that the majority of the 

sediment entering the streams was coming from channel erosion and background soil erosion. 

“Sediment yields resulting from mining, roads, and timber harvest are approximately 5 

tons/sq. mile/year [based on WATESED model]. This [5 tons/sq. mile/year from all three 

human activities] represents approximately 2.3% of the average annual yield contributed 

to the reservoir [based on a 1991 Bureau of Reclamation study]. The remainder of the 

sediment budget [97.7%] must come from channel erosion and background soil erosion 

(USDA 2000) (emphasis added).”

It is important to keep in mind that this 5 tons/sq. mile/year estimate was intended for 

comparison purposes only and represented a very small portion of the total sediment estimated 

entering the streams (2.3 percent). Of this 5 tons/sq. mile, 69 percent of the 5 tons/year (3.45 

tons/year) is modeled as coming from roads, not 69% of the total sediment entering the streams. 

In addition, these numbers do not reflect current conditions. Sediment inputs into the reservoir 

are episodic in nature and volumes would vary as a function of timing and location of land uses, 

type of disturbance, and climatic events. Watershed vegetation conditions have improved greatly 

since the reservoir was built and soil disturbances from road building, logging and mining are 

much less than historically occurred. 

Roads Analysis

The second method used to access potential inputs of sediment into streams from roads was the 

NFBR Watershed Roads Analysis completed in 2002. This analysis combined field inventory 

and reconnaissance with a GIS analysis which evaluated questions related to water quality

threats on each individual road in the watershed, excluding private roads, the State Highway, and 

certain County roads. 711 miles of Forest Service roads were inventoried out of the 747 miles of 

road identified in GIS in the NFBR watershed. The road inventory qualitatively rated Forest 

Service road conditions as good, fair, poor, bad, or very bad, based on evidence of road erosion 

and sediment transport (USDA 2002, Figure 4.1, pp. 15-16). Roads rated poor, bad, or very bad 

were selected out of the total roads and then subjected to a GIS analysis to obtain road-related 

information and data. The GIS analysis overlaid various parameters (Table A3-3) selected to 

capture the potential for a road to generate and deliver that sediment to a channel. The 

information and data were rated, prioritized and quantified to obtain an Erosion Risk Score 

(ERS). The ERS was then used to identify a list of priorities for future restoration and 

maintenance (USDA 2002).
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Appendix 3

A3-7

Table A3-3

Parameters used in the GIS analysis of the roads that had rated poor, bad, or very bad and 

the information sought

Parameters examined Information provided

Soil erosivity Sediment generation potential

Road surface type Sediment generation potential

Landslide areas Sediment generation potential and possible 

mechanism for sediment delivery to stream

Current road conditions Sediment generation potential and delivery

potential (i.e. are ruts or rills present?)

Riparian Habitat Conservation Area (RHCA) Sediment delivery potential 

Number of stream crossing (actual and adjusted 

number based on length of road in the RHCA)

Sediment delivery potential

Topography Sediment delivery potential

The Roads Analysis was intended as a screening tool to assist in stratifying roads. An ERS of 

Extreme, Severe, or Serious was meant only to indicate potential for sediment generation or 

sediment delivery into a channel, not actual generation or delivery. “The accumulation of data 

generated through answering these questions was rated, prioritized and quantified to obtain a 

numeric value based on scientific judgment and information that resulted in a list of priorities for 

future restoration and maintenance (USDA 2002, p.17).” 

A road inside an RHCA was weighted very heavily in the generation of an ERS. Therefore, 

three points regarding how GIS used RHCAs in its analysis need to be made in order to 

understand how the ERS would have been skewed. 

The first point is one of clarification. RHCA buffer widths vary depending on flow and 

presence/absence of fish. A fish-bearing perennial or fish-bearing intermittent stream is given a 

300-foot buffer on each side of the channel. A non-fish bearing, intermittent stream in a nonpriority watershed such as the NFBR is given a 50-foot buffer. A non-fish bearing, perennial 

stream is given a 150-foot buffer. The Roads Analysis (USDA 2002), however, did not make a 

distinction between the type, and therefore width, of the RHCA buffer. Thus a road that was 75 

feet from a stream would be inside the RHCA if along a perennial, fish-bearing stream, but 

outside the RHCA buffer if along a non-fish bearing intermittent stream. In this way, the Roads 

Analysis (USDA 2002) differs significantly from the modified WATSED model (USDA 2000)

which used fixed distances from a stream without regard to RHCA classification. The ability to 

link the two methods is thus compromised. 

The second point has to do with how RHCAs were used to rate road connectivity to the streams, 

or the likelihood that a road could deliver sediment to a stream. The GIS analysis determined 

the number of times a road crossed a channel and the length of road that was inside an RHCA. 

The number of stream crossings was then increased as a function of the length of road inside an 

RHCA. The variable buffer widths again provide a complication in the assessment as shown in 

the following example: 

Road 1 is two miles long and is within 250 feet of a perennial fish-bearing stream (300-

foot RHCA buffer) for its entire length. It has one stream crossing. Road 1 would end up 

with a RHCA Interaction factor of 21. Road 2 is also two miles long but is within 100 

feet of an intermittent non-fish bearing stream (50-foot RHCA buffer). It has 10 stream 
Appendix 3 NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

A3-8

crossings. Road 2 would end up with a lower RHCA Interaction factor (11) despite the 

fact that actual road-stream connection is higher for Road 2. 

Finally, the third point is the Road Connectivity Percentage calculation. This calculation looks 

at the length of road inside an RHCA compared to its total length -- the higher the percentage of 

road/total road length along inside the RHCA the higher the RHCA Significance Index. Using 

the above example, Road 1 would end up with an RHCA Significance Index of 9 because more 

than 56% is within the RHCA. Road 2 would end up with an RHCA Significance Index of 0 

because none of its length is within an RHCA. The result of using the RHCA buffer without 

regard to actual distance is that the Roads Analysis overstated the potential for sediment delivery 

for some roads and understated the delivery potential for others. Therefore, road work on those 

roads that ended up with an ERS of Extreme, Severe, or Serious does not automatically translate 

into a measurable improvement in water quality if the roads were not actually delivering 

sediment.

Conclusions

Three components need to be examined when assessing whether sediment generated by a 

disturbance may present a water quality problem. 

1. The amount of sediment generated and its spatial location with respect to a stream 

channel. 

2. The amount of that sediment that is transported off-site. 

3. The amount of that sediment that is actually delivered to a stream channel. 

Activity type determines the amount of sediment generated, and ground conditions and weather 

determine the amount and distance a sediment particle is transported from its original site. Site 

conditions between the activity and the channel, along with the timing of weather conditions

with respect to the disturbance, will determine the amount and timing of sediment delivered to a 

stream channel. 

Studies examining the amount of road sediment moved during a weather event are limited. 

However, a review of the literature on surface erosion after wildfires found that an increase in 

sediment inputs as a result of a wildfire will be temporary with recovery to pre-fire levels about 

three years after a low-severity wildfire, and 7 to 14 years after a moderate or high-severity 

wildfire, respectively (Robichaud et al. 2000,) and that ground cover was key to stabilizing and 

reducing soil loss (Wright et al. 1982). Wright et al. (1982) examined soil losses after a 

prescribed burn in a grassland/shrub area with some oak and juniper. They found that soil losses 

and changes in water quality were not serious on 20% or less slopes, but that adverse effects 

lasted for 15 to more than 30 months on slopes 37 to 61%. They also found that soil loss rates 

stabilized when a combination of live vegetation and ground cover reached 64 to 72% during 

normal to wet years, or 53 to 60% during dry years. Wright et al. (1982) found significant 

reduction in soil losses 3 months after seeding, and soil loss rates reached pretreatment levels in 

6 months. On the unseeded slopes, it took 15 to 18 months before soil loss rates decreased 

significantly, and 33 to 42 months to reach pretreatment levels. And an experimental study of 

the effects of changing percentages of vegetation cover on sediment yields (no fire component) 

found that sediment yields decreased rapidly on 10% slopes as live vegetative cover increased 

from 15 to 43% (Rogers and Schumm 1991). Their study also showed the impact of increasing 

storm duration on sediment yields as a function of ground cover. As storm durations increased 
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Appendix 3

A3-9

so did sediment yields. However, the same pattern remained of decreasing sediment yields with 

increasing live vegetative cover.

The Roads Analysis (USDA 2002) and the modified WATSED model results used different 

techniques to determine potential for sediment delivery and provide very coarse estimates. The 

variability in methods with no factors in common resulted in different conclusions for the same 

road. The modified WATSED model used a straight linear distance between a disturbance and a 

stream channel to determine potential sediment delivery ratio. The Roads Analysis used the 

variable Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas (RHCA) to define the distance relationship 

without noting actual distances, and adjusted road connectivity based on whether a road was 

inside/outside an RHCA. Roads in the Roads Analysis that were of equal distance from a 

stream, but in different RHCA buffer zones, ended up with very different ratings, while the same 

roads in the modified WATSED model ended up with the same sediment delivery ratio. 

Sediment is entering the NFBR streams, but field work in Fall 2006 and Fall 2007 by the 

Whitman District hydrologist found that the bulk of it is coming from the stream banks. There is 

sufficient complexity in ground conditions between roads and stream channels to effectively trap 

road sediments that exit the road as sheet flow. While many of the roads parallel drainages, the 

numbers of actual fords or road-stream channel crossings are few. The study of forest roads in 

the western Cascades found that nearly 60% of all roads in their study area were hydrologically 

integrated with the stream systems (Wemple 1994; Wemple et al. 1996). This number was used 

in the 2004 FEIS (Chapter III, p. 15) to estimate percent increase in drainage efficiency (Chapter 

III, p. 15, Table III-6). Sixty percent is likely high for the NFBR watershed because the 

landscape is drier, the topography less steep, tributaries, and therefore ditch relief culverts, much 

fewer than the western Cascades. 

The conclusion of this Supplement that 60% connectivity between roads and streams 

overestimates conditions on the NFBR watershed is based on a review of Wemple et al (1996). 

In this study the authors noted that the key factor in determining drainage network extension is 

the number of culverts which deliver water to a stream. Therefore, as the number of stream 

crossings decreases, so does the connectivity of the roads to the streams and the amount of 

drainage network extension. 

The importance of channel and stream bank erosion was noted by Bradford and Fedora (USDA 

2000, p. C-4), but could not be factored into the model. The statement that the vast majority of 

sediment is generated from other activities and from channel and stream bank erosion (USDA 

2000, C-4) was mentioned only once in the 2004 FEIS (Chapter III, p. 54) though bank erosion 

is mentioned three other times in other places (Chapter III, pp. 13, 41, 151). The result is that 

the importance of bank erosion as a source of sediment input into streams is lost in the 

presentation and interpretation of the model results. 

In conclusion, the assumptions in the two methods, their very different approaches, and absence 

of parameters in common, often resulted in the same road having different impacts. The 

assumptions and approaches prevent their results from being linked. Based on the above 

discussion, it is therefore the conclusion of this Supplement that sediment contribution from 

roads into streams was overstated and does not reflect current conditions. 
Appendix 3 NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

A3-10
Appendix 4

Operations with Ponds

NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Appendix 4

A4-1

Appendix 4

Operations with Ponds

Question: Does an operation have proposed or existing ponds within an RHCA? If yes, can the 

pond be relocated outside the RHCA and if not, why not? 

These questions address the concerns raised in the Court Order and Opinion (HCPC 2006) about 

locating structures inside the RHCA (INFISH MM-2). MM-2 is as follows:

Locate structures, support facilities, and roads outside Riparian Habitat Conservation 

Areas. Where no alternative to siting facilities in Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas exists, 

locate and construct the facilities in ways that avoid impacts to Riparian Habitat Conservation 

Areas and streams and adverse effects on inland native fish. 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.

There are two types of ponds: settling/recycling ponds and processing ponds. The 

settling/recycling ponds are used to capture the dirty water generated as a result of the placer 

operation. The processing ponds are the clear water ponds. 

Appendix 4 provides site descriptions. Discussion of whether the ponds could be relocated 

outside the RHCA is found in Chapter 3, Watershed and Soil Resources under Alternative 2 in 

the section titled “Ponds inside RHCAs.”

August Placer

Outside RHCA buffer zones. Historic excavations with no flow connection to Slab Creek 

proper. Channels are discontinuous and related to historic placer mining. Natural channel of 

Slab Creek may initiate beyond operating area. Water for source pond is coming from adit. 

Existing ponds for water source. 

Make note in EIS that any references to Slab Creek at this site should be changed to reference the 

historically excavated area.

Big Elk/Red Dog

Note: This operation was referred to as Red Dog Placer in the 2004 FEIS. Its correct name is 

Big Elk/Red Dog 

Dry Creek is intermittent in a non-priority watershed. RHCA buffer zone = 50 feet. The valley 

floor width is less than 100 ft total and bounded by hillslopes.

Two processing ponds exist, one is an in-channel pond located on the southern end of claim. The 

northern pond is off-channel. Southern pond is 16x30x5 feet, located on a snowmelt channel, 

not Dry Creek. Northern pond is approx 20x30 feet. Both processing ponds have been 

excavated into the ground and are inside the RHCA. Two to three settling ponds (approx 10x15) 

are proposed and will be located near the existing processing ponds in flat areas and excavated 

into the ground. Water source will be ground water, snow melt, and possibly hauled in. These 

proposed ponds would also be inside the RHCA.
Appendix 4 NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

A4-2

Burnt Lode Placer

NFBR is a perennial, fish-bearing stream. RHCA buffer zone = 300 feet. 

Existing settling ponds (2) are located at Burnt Lode/Placer site #2. The ponds are within 300-ft 

RHCA for NFBR and the operator may construct one more pond in same location. County Road 

503 separates the ponds from the NFBR. Ponds are topographically lower than the road, and the 

road forms a barrier between the stream and the ponds. 

Camp Hale

Ponds are located outside of the RHCA.

Dominion Lode

Proposed ponds outside of RHCA. 

Portions of the channel have perennial flow and portions only carry intermittent flow. 

Depending on the area the RHCA is either 50 feet (intermittent flow) or 150 feet (Perennial 

flow). 

EJ Placer

NFBR is a perennial, fish-bearing stream. RHCA buffer zone = 300 feet. The valley bottom 

width is less than or equal to 300 feet at most on a side. The valley bottom is bounded by 

hillslopes.

The proposed ponds at EJ Placer 5 would be inside the 300-foot RHCA if this becomes a 

processing site. The ponds would be located in a dry area. The operator plans to tap into 

groundwater. 

Gimlet 

Gimlet Creek has perennial flow along portions of its length and flows throughout its entire 

length in the spring and early summer. In the area of the proposed activity, flow is perennial. 

Fish have been observed in multiple locations along the stream by the district hydrologist. 

Therefore, the intermittent sections of the stream are seasonally fish-bearing and the entire length 

of the stream has an RHCA buffer zone = 300 feet. Valley bottom width is less than 150 feet 

total.

Two off-channel settling/recycling ponds will be located at least 25 feet from Gimlet Creek and 

will be used for processing. Ponds will be approximately 20’ x 15’ x 10’. Ponds will be behind 

old placer tailings that line the creek.

Glory B

Jackknife Creek is an intermittent stream. RHCA buffer zone = 50 feet. Valley is 50 feet wide 

on a side at most. 

Proposed ponds would be constructed 25 ft from the channel on west side of the road in a wide 

area above the channel. The road is between the pond location and the channel. Ponds would 

be inside the RHCA.

Gold Busters 

Pinus Creek had flow in the area of this operation when visited by the district hydrologist on 

October 24, 2006. Additional information from Jan Alexander (October 17, 2010) indicates that 
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Appendix 4

A4-3

there are times that the stream dries up in this area and that Pinus Creek, in the area of the 

operation, has intermittent flow. However, while having intermittent flow, it has flow 

throughout its entire length in the spring and early summer and is a tributary to Camp Creek 

which is a perennial, fish bearing stream. Therefore, Pinus Creek is assumed to be seasonally 

fish-bearing. RHCA buffer zone = 300 feet. The total valley bottom is less than 150 feet width 

and the valley bottom is bounded by a hillslope on one side and tailings on the other.

Existing four ponds are at least 30 feet from the creek on flat ground. Ponds are excavated into 

the ground and all but the first pond is behind a high tailings pile. Ponds are very stable. 

Gold Camp

Camp Creek is a perennial, fish-bearing stream. RHCA buffer = 300 feet.

Site 1: Southern site. Pond is located in RHCA (300 ft buffer). 

Site 2: Middle site. Along Camp Creek. Work site and possible alternative processing site. Site 

has existing ponds. Ponds within the 300 foot RHCA buffer zone. Closest pond is about 60 feet 

from Camp Creek. 

Site 3: Northern site. Process ponds located in a dry draw. Outside RHCA.

Golden Bandit Placer and Lode

Existing ponds outside of RHCA. 

Goldy Placer and Mill

Proposed ponds outside of RHCA. 

Gopher Placer

Several channels in this area. 

West Simpson Creek has intermittent flow. RHCA buffer = 50 feet.

Simpson Creek, north of road, has intermittent flow. RHCA buffer = 50 feet. 

Simpson Creek, south of road, is perennial, non-fish bearing. RHCA buffer = 150 feet.

Gopher 1 = North site: North of the road. Existing settling ponds to be used. In-channel ponds 

used only as water source. Ponds within 50 ft. buffer. Topography flat and forested.

Gopher 2 = South of the road. Existing pond to be used as a settling pond. Pond within 150 ft. 

buffer for Simpson Creek. Pond is separated from creek by historic mine tailings and 

topography flat. 

Jay Gould Lode (Banzer)

Channel has intermittent flow. RHCA buffer = 50 feet. 

Existing ponds in-channel. Channel ends below FS road 1060 in a wetland. Valley bottom is 

less than 50 feet on each side.

Jay Gould Mine Works (Newell)

Proposed ponds located outside of RHCA.
Appendix 4 NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

A4-4

Jim Bob Placer

NFBR is a perennial, fish-bearing stream. RHCA buffer = 300 feet.

1 existing pond about 80 feet from the river. Pond is dug down into the ground.

2 proposed small settling ponds within the 300-ft RHCA buffer for the NFBR. Valley floor 

width is less than 300 total. The valley floor is bounded by hillslopes and a road. 

Ladder/Rusty Bucket

Proposed ponds located outside of RHCA.

Lucky One Placer

Simpson Creek is a perennial, non-fish bearing stream. Flow is perennial through the mining 

site, but Simpson Creek goes dry below the FS road 7830. Valley bottom is less then 50 feet 

wide total. Site is bounded by hillslopes. Hillslope on the west side becomes a bench. 

Propose construction of settling ponds outside the RHCA. Water source for proposed ponds is 

the adit, which is located inside RHCA. 

Lucky Placer

Existing ponds on a ridge outside of the RHCA. 

Midas Ladybug Placer

Proposed ponds located on the ridge and outside the 50-foot RHCA. 

Monarch Lode

Proposed ponds are located outside the RHCA.

North Fork Placer

NFBR is a perennial, fish-bearing stream. RHCA buffer = 300 feet. Valley floor width is less 

than 300 ft on both sides of the stream and bounded by hillslopes. 

Two processing sites are proposed: one on the north side of the NFBR and one on the south side 

of the NFBR and just east of the bridge that crosses the NFBR. Both sites plan to use existing 

ponds: Both sets of ponds are located more than 50 feet from the NFBR and within the RHCA. 

Topography is flat.

Old Channel Placer

Existing ponds outside the RHCA. 

Existing ponds located in a draw, which was historically mined. Channel present but an artifact 

of the historic mining. 

Parkerville Placer Mining

The area has been historically mined with defined channels tapping into ground water. Existing 

ponds also tap into groundwater. There is no continuous channel linking the channel 

downstream of FS 1046045 and the area upstream of FS 1046045 proposed for mining because 

the road culvert is buried and the road is now acting as a dam. The only time a surface 

hydrologic connection exists between the area upstream and downstream of FS 1046045 
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Appendix 4

A4-5

proposed when the pond, just upstream of the road, over tops. When overtopping occurs, there is 

a small amount of road sediment that gets eroded and moves into the channel below. 

The pond just upstream of the road is proposed for use as are several other existing ponds. In 

addition, 2-3 off-channel settling/recycling ponds will be excavated. Both the existing ponds 

and the proposed ponds are inside the RHCA 50-foot buffer zone designated for wetlands less 

than 1 acre or seasonally flow stream. However, there is no other location to put these ponds 

because the valley bottom is between 50 to 100 feet wide at most and is bordered by old tailings. 

Prudent (#9) Placer

NFBR is a perennial, fish-bearing stream. RHCA buffer = 300 feet. Valley bottom width is less 

than 300 feet and bounded by a forested hillslope.

Existing ponds are located within the RHCA. Ponds are located away from the stream and up 

against the hillslope, adjacent to the processing site. 

R&RK #2 & #3

NFBR is a perennial, fish-bearing stream. RHCA buffer = 300 feet. Valley bottom width is less 

than 150 feet total and is bounded by forested hillslopes.

Existing off-channel ponds in tailings area and inside RHCA. Water source for the ponds will 

come from ground water and/or existing dredge ponds. New 10x12x6 ft settling ponds would be 

located behind 2 to 3 foot tall berms and located at least 50 feet from any live water. The old 

dredge pond, located within 25 feet of creek, is buffered with old tailings and will be used only 

as a water source.

R&RK #4 & #5

NFBR is a perennial, fish-bearing stream. RHCA buffer = 300 feet. Valley floor is less than 150 

feet total and bounded by forested hillslopes.

There are two proposed processing sites. Both sites are within the 300-foot RHCA buffer of the 

NFBR. Site 1 is on the south side of the NFBR in the flat valley floor area by the ford and just 

west of the road that goes to Site 2. Site 1 is within 25 feet of the NFBR and the valley floor in 

this area is 30 feet at maximum. The ground is flat. 

Site 2 is located at the end of the road and upstream of Site 1. Site 2 is located on the west side 

of the NFBR (it makes a bend). The valley floor at Site 2 is about 80 feet. 

Racer Group/Keystone Korners Placer

Geiser Creek has perennial flow along portions of its length and flows throughout its entire 

length in the spring and early summer. In the area of the proposed activity, flow is intermittent. 

Fish have been observed in multiple locations along the stream by the Jackie Dougan, past 

district fisheries biologist. Therefore, the intermittent sections of the stream are likely seasonally 

fish-bearing and the entire length of the stream has an RHCA buffer zone = 300 feet. Valley 

bottom width is less than 40 feet on the northeast side and about 50 feet on the southwest side. 

The valley bottom on the northeast side is bounded by forested hillslope. On the southwest side, 

beyond 50 ft from the creek, the topography gradually slopes upward. 

Two to three off-channel settling ponds proposed (approx 10x12 x 6 feet) at least 50 ft from any 

live water. 50 feet on the west-southwest side places the pond either at the back edge of the 
Appendix 4 NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

A4-6

valley floor terrace or up on a hillslope bench. The pond will be excavated with a 2 to 3 foot 

berm above normal contour. Proposed ponds would be inside RHCA.

Roberts Lode

Will be taking material to the Snow Creek processing site. No ponds at the Roberts Lode site.

Rocker Group Placer

Greenhorn Ck is perennial. Unknown if fish bearing in this portion of the watershed. Assuming 

fish bearing. RHCA = 300 feet. 

Slab Creek has intermittent flow. RHCA = 50 feet. 

Existing processing and settling ponds within RHCA. Existing ponds are more than 100 feet 

from both creeks. Ponds are located on a bench made of tailings and are stable. 

Silver Bell Placer #2 only

Camp Creek is perennial and likely non-fish bearing in this portion of the watershed. RHCA = 

150 feet.

Three existing off-channel ponds (not to be constructed as stated in FEIS). Plan talks about 

further development of the ponds (i.e. cleaning and deepening). Use of 3 off-channel 

settling/recycling existing ponds located 50 ft from Camp Creek and the 3 in-channel ponds. 

One in-channel ponds is an exempt reservoir used for storage of processing water. Only existing 

ponds will be used. The Forest Service hydrologist found 3 ponds below (south) Road 7380 (at 

Silver Bell Placer #2. As currently located, the ponds in Silver Bell #2, are existing, excavated 

into the ground, within an RHCA (150 ft buffer), and 45 feet from the top of the bank. There 

will be no sediment discharge from the ponds because they are very large and the ground is flat. 

Although the topography is flat, moving them would result in additional ground disturbance and 

would separate them from the processing water.

Shamrock Placer

Proposed settling/processing ponds to be located on north side of the NFBR. Inside RHCA. 

Propose to process within at least 50 feet from the NFBR. However, the valley bottom with is 

only 60 feet maximum on the north side. To move the ponds outside the RHCA would result in 

putting them on the steep hillslope which would be unstable and likely to trigger a pond failure. 

Sluice Box Placer

There are two processing sites proposed, one on the north side and one on the south side. Both 

processing sites and therefore ponds are located within the 300-foot RHCA buffer of the NFBR. 

The water sources for both sites are existing springs. The pond on the south side is more than 50 

feet from the NFBR and is on flat ground. The ponds on the north side are small depressions in 

old placer tailings. These are within 25 feet of the NFBR. The valley floor is less than 100 feet 

wide total and there is no other place to put the ponds. There are no concerns with respect to the 

potential for sediment inputs into the stream as a result of using these ponds given the flat 

topography, ground cover, and distance from the creek. The south side ponds are the best but it 

would require crossing the NFBR frequently to access the ponds. 
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Appendix 4

A4-7

Silver Eagle Lode

No channels present. Only wetland in the area is a small wetland (about 100 long x 25 feet wide) 

which is the result of adit water discharging from the adit and being ponded by a road.

Snow Creek Placer

Existing ponds are located in the middle section of his operation. The ponds are within the 300 

foot RHCA buffer of Snow Creek. The ponds are above the stream and tap into groundwater. 

They are large and stable. Moving the ponds would result in new disturbance in a forested area 

with some topography. Their current location is the best location.

Standby/McNamee Placer

Existing ponds. No pond construction to occur. Their current location is the best location given 

the source of water they are tapping into.

For site #1. Old placer tailings provide very effective berms to McNamee Creek. Water source 

from existing shaft – tapping into groundwater and snowmelt. Site is outside the RHCA – shaft 

is more than 50 ft away from McNamee Creek.

Site#2 uses existing pits. Washing site to be 50 ft from the creek. Ponds are existing. 50 ft. 

buffer puts them up against the hillside. RHCA buffer is 150 ft. Moving ponds any further away 

from stream would move them up on the hillside. Ditch along base of hillside feeds into the 

ponds. Water source = groundwater, snowmelt and possible ditch contribution.

Star (Pinus) Placer

Pinus Creek. Stream has intermittent flow in this area. However, it has flow throughout its 

entire length in the spring and early summer and is a tributary to Camp Creek which is a 

perennial, fish bearing stream. Therefore, Pinus Creek is assumed to be seasonally fish-bearing. 

RHCA buffer zone = 300 feet. Proposed ponds would be located over 30 feet from the creek. 

Three Cent Placer

This operation includes six sites:

1. Three Cent Placer/Red Dog: There is a pond in the draw as a result of excavating for 

material. This excavation has partly filled with ground water. They are not using this 

pond. Placer gravel to be hauled away to the processing site. 

2. Three Cent Placer/East: No ponds identified for this site.

3. Three Cent Placer Processing 1: has existing ponds

4. Three Cent Placer Processing 2: These ponds will be constructed on the west side of the 

creek. The ponds noted in plan were on the east side of the creek and have been reclaimed. 

5. Three Cent Placer Mining 1/Processing site 3 (north. end of claim): There is an old test pit 

that has filled with water. Plan to use this pond.

6. Three Cent Placer Mining 2. No ponds. 

Three Cent Placer Processing 1 and Three Cent Placer Processing 2: 

Each processing site will have a 3-pond system. At #1, ponds exist but are outside the 50-foot 

RHCA buffer for this intermittent stream. The ponds are large and stable. The water in the 

channel downstream of the ponds is probably a mix of groundwater and subsurface flow from 

the ponds. There are no concerns at this site.
Appendix 4 NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

A4-8

At #2, the ponds were reclaimed so would have to be dug again. Depending on where you are in 

the area of Processing site #2, the channel either had a small amount of flow in August or was 

dry. The valley floor is less than 100 feet wide total. The east hillslope is fairly steep, the west 

hillslope is more gentle. The ponds are proposed for the west site. 

The plan’s 50 foot buffer puts the ponds on the hillslope. If the diagram is correct then the 

previous ponds were on the mound that divides the two channels. In this case the ponds were 

within 10 feet of the creek. 

Three Cent Placer Mining 1/Processing site 3:

The pond taps into ground water. Mining activity has created outflow from the pond – riparian 

vegetation has established. Changing location of the pond would simply start the process over, 

therefore, the pond should not be relocated. 

Upper Geiser Creek Placer/Lode

Geiser Creek is perennial and possibly fish-bearing in this area. RHCA = 300 feet.

The plan states that a 25-feet processing buffer will be maintained between processing activities 

and stream channel. A 25-foot processing site would put the put the ponds on a hillslope, 

increasing the potential for saturation of pond sediments, a small failure, and channel formation. 

The result would be an input of sediment into the channel. However, the current processing site 

is at least a 100 feet from the creek and is separated from the creek by tailings and hummocky 

topography. This site is highly stable and has no water resource concerns. 

Upper Winterville Placer

Will only work the portion of this operation south of the private lands. No existing or proposed 

ponds. All processing will occur at the Upper Geiser Creek Placer/Lode processing site. 

West Parkerville Placer

Tony Creek is perennial. It is unknown if it is fish-bearing. Assuming fish bearing. RHCA = 

300 feet. 

The plan calls for reconstructing two settling/recycling ponds in the area north of the lower offchannel pond. The existing ponds will not be cleaned out due to the various amphibians and 

reptiles present in the ponds and the areas adjacent to them. Water from these existing ponds 

may be used but a fine screen strainer will be used to prevent intake of amphibians and reptiles. 

The reconstructed settling/recycling ponds are off channel. Source of water is winter storage or 

as allowed by State water law. There will be no overflow of the processing pond water into 

Tony Creek. They are least 25 feet from the creek and within the 50 foot RHCA buffer of Tony 

Creek but on flat ground. Given the topography of the area, the location of the private land, and 

the location of the creek (possible source of water) there isn’t any other place to put the ponds. 

There are no concerns about sediment entering Tony Creek from the ponds.

Wild Flower Placer 

The processing site will use one existing pond and two proposed ponds located on the south side 

of the NFBR . The ponds are within the 300-ft RHCA buffer for NFBR and at least 50 feet from 

the NFBR. The ground is flat, the ponds are deep, and they tap tapping into groundwater. The 

other source of water will be make-up water from the river when needed. The ponds are in a 

previously mined area and are stable. The valley width is less than 300 feet and therefore to 
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Appendix 4

A4-9

move the ponds would require putting them on the hillslope. It was also decrease their ability to 

tap into groundwater and would result in new disturbance in a previously undisturbed area. 

There is no potential for sediment in these ponds reaching the NFBR given the flat topography 

and the coarse nature of the tailings between the river and the ponds.
Appendix 4 NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

A4-10
Appendix 5

Determination of Significant Surface 

Resource Disturbance

NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Appendix 5

A5-1

Appendix 5

Determination of Significant Surface Resource Disturbance

This documents the Forest Service’s determination on whether the North Fork Burnt River 

mining operations as proposed by the operators meet the requirement for Plan of Operation 

submittal outlined in 36 CFR 228.4. 

A mining proposal may be submitted as either a Notice of Intent or a Plan of Operation. A 

Notice of Intent, at a minimum, is required for operations which might cause a significant 

disturbance of surface resources. The mining operator can forgo the Notice and submit a Plan of 

Operations if he/she feels that the proposed or planned operations would warrant or require 

Forest Service approval.

When operations are proposed, whether in a Notice of Intent or a Plan of Operation, the District 

Ranger must determine whether, based on past experience, direct evidence, or sound scientific 

projection, he/she would reasonably expect the proposed operations to have impacts on National 

Forest System (NFS) lands that more probably than not need to be avoided or ameliorated by 

means such as reclamation bonding, timing restrictions, or other mitigation measures. If so, the 

proposed operations are considered a potentially significant disturbance of surface resources as 

defined in the 36 CFR 228 regulations, and require a Plan of Operations. Approval of this Plan 

of Operation requires processing and documentation in compliance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

Some mining activities are exempt by regulation (36CFR 228.4(a)(1)) from the requirement to 

submit either a Notice or a Plan of Operation. Specifically: 

• Operations limited to the use of existing road.

• Marking and monumenting a mining claim.

• Prospecting or sampling a small amount of material generally removed by hand.

• Operations that cause no more disturbance than other uses of the forest which do not 

require special authorization.

• Operations completely underground with no surface disturbance.

These mining activities are allowed by regulation unless a field review reveals that they are 

causing or will likely cause a significant disturbance of surface resources. In that event, the 

operator is notified to cease operations (36 CFR 228.4(a)(4)) and to submit a Plan of Operations, 

or a modification to an existing plan, for review and approval. 

In a review of the Plans of Operations for the North Fork Burnt River mining area the following 

mining activities, included in the Plans, were determined to be authorized by regulation. The 

operators were notified that no further review or approval was needed for these proposed and 

specific mining activities. 

• Camping or seasonal occupancy incidental to mining when described in the Plan of 

Operations as portable temporary quarters such as a travel trailer or similar equipment 

typically used by recreationists on the national forest. This type of temporary or seasonal 

occupancy would not likely cause surface resource disturbance substantially different 

from that caused by other users of the national forest who are not required to obtain 
Appendix 5 NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

A5-2

special use authorization, contract, or other written authorization (36 CFR 228.4 (a) (1) 

(v)). Alternatively, any camping or occupancy that might cause a significant disturbance 

of surface resources, such as extensive or year-round occupancy, improper disposal of 

refuse, poor sanitation practices, soil compaction, or loss of vegetation in a riparian area, 

were not exempted. 

• Pick and shovel operations for sampling activity when described in the Plan of 

Operations as only removing a reasonable amount of mineral deposit for analysis and 

study. Based on past experience for the proposed locations and the national forest 

resources involved, this type of pick and shovel activity is not likely to cause a significant 

disturbance of resource resources. 

• Suction Dredging, Sluicing, Panning, and High-Banking when described in the Plans 

of Operations as being in compliance with the terms and conditions typically imposed by 

the State of Oregon, Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ)1 and/or Department of 

State Lands2 (DSL), in their required State dredging permit. Based on past experience, 

this type of regulated dredging operation in the proposed locations, with the size of 

equipment proposed for use (maximum 6 inch diameter), and the national forest 

resources affected, will not likely cause a significant disturbance of surface resources. No 

additional measures, such as reclamation bonding, timing restrictions beyond those 

specified by the state permit, or other mitigation measures were needed to minimize 

adverse environmental impacts. 

As noted above, these determinations relied on a combination of past experience, direct 

evidence, and/or sound scientific projection. The ranger district’s minerals program manager 

supplied site inspections from past mining operations documented annually for all known mining 

operations on the district. Over 600 mining inspections were documented and summarized for 

the last 4 years, documenting in particular any surface disturbances. Notes were also included 

regarding effects from camping, work with hand tools, and suction dredging; and no significant 

disturbance of surface resources noted. 

Also, the ranger district’s hydrologist, working with the BLM’s fisheries biologist, evaluated site 

conditions for areas proposed for dredging in the North Fork’s Plans of Operation. This 

evaluation (Appendices 6A and 6B) provided information on channel morphology, water quality, 

and fisheries. Channel morphology factors evaluated included stability of the dredge tailings, 

stability of the channel bed, pool characteristics, and abundance and stability of roughness 

elements (i.e. beaver dams, log jams). Water quality parameters evaluated were turbidity, 

suspended sediment, and stream temperature. Fish habitat parameters evaluated were turbidity, 

suspended sediment, stream temperature, spawning gravels, pool habitat, and channel 

complexity. In addition, the spatial distribution, the specific timing of operations, the size of the 

dredges and hoses, along with the terms and conditions of ODEQ’s 700-PM permit that each 

dredge operator is required by State law to have in hand. 

 1 Existing 700-PM General Discharge Permit, ORS 468B.050 and section 402 of the Federal Clean Water 

Act

2 Oregon Removal Fill Authorization Application, Recreational/Small Scale Placer Mining Within 

Essential Salmon Habitat OAR 141-089-0245 to 0275
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Appendix 5

A5-3

These hydrology analyses indicated that only suction dredging on Cub Creek (Burnt 

Lode/Placer) had the potential to destabilize the channel bed and bank and degrade water quality

and fisheries habitat. Accordingly, the proposed dredging on the Burnt Lode/Placer on Cub 

Creek was not exempted from approval in a Plan of Operation.

These hydrology analyses also indicated the other proposed suction dredging operations would 

potentially have beneficial cumulative effects on water resources (water quality and channel 

morphology). These beneficial effects include: 1) a local reduction in channel embeddedness, 2) 

a local increase in a source of spawning gravel material, and 3) creation of short-term local pool 

habitat during the summer. These beneficial effects would not be lost or adversely affected by 

the local increases in turbidity and/or suspended sediment because they would be limited to 

actual time of operation and small (non-measurable) in scale.

The fisheries analyses provided additional findings. The proposed suction dredging (except 

Burnt Lode/Placer on Cub Creek) would not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing or 

loss of viability to the population or species, even though it may impact individuals or habitat. 

Again, the proposed suction dredging on the NFBR may temporarily improve pool habitat and 

increase spawning gravels. In contrast, the proposed Cub Creek operation has the potential for 

increased turbidity, increased suspended sediment, buried spawning gravels, and for head-cutting 

and channel incision. The Cub Creek operation was determined to need consideration and 

approval through a Plan of Operation.

Table 5-1 below shows the Plans of Operation submitted for the NFBR and the specific proposed 

mining activities that were included in the Plans and now exempted from Forest Service 

authorization or approval and NEPA analysis as a result of the information and 

findings/determinations in this report. 

Table 5-1

Activities Exempted from Forest Service Authorization or Approval

Proposed Mining Operation Camping Pick & Shovel Dredging

August Placer

Camp Hale Placer Yes

Dominion Lode Group Yes

EJ Placer Yes

Geiser Stream Diversion Placer/Lode

Gimlet Placer Yes Yes

Glory B Placer Yes Yes

Gold Busters Placer Yes Yes

Gold Camp Placer Yes Yes

Golden Bandit Placer/Lode Yes

Goldy Placer and Mill Yes

Gopher Placer Yes

Jay Gould Load Yes

Jay Gould Mine Works Yes

Jim Bob Placer Yes Yes

Ladder Rusty Bucket Placer Yes

Lucky One Placer/Load Yes

Lucky Placer Yes Yes

Midas/Lady Bug Placer Yes Yes
Appendix 5 NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

A5-4

Proposed Mining Operation Camping Pick & Shovel Dredging

Monarch Lode Yes

North Fork Placer Yes Yes

Old Channel Placer Yes

Parkerville Placer Mining

Prudent Placer Yes Yes

R&RK 2, 3 Placer Yes Yes

R&RK 4, 5 Placer Yes Yes

Racer Group/Keystone Korners Placer

Red Dog Placer

Roberts Lode Yes Yes

Rocker Group Placer Yes

Shamrock Placer Yes Yes

Silver Bell Placer Yes

Silver Eagle Lode

Sluice Box Placer

Snow Creek Placer Yes

Standby/McNamee Placer Yes

Star (Pinus) Placer Yes Yes

Three Cent Placer Yes

Upper Geiser Creek Placer

Upper Winterville Placer

West Parkerville Placer

Wildflower Placer Yes Yes Yes

The NOI activities described above are not impacted by and distinguishable from the recent 2012 

en banc decision in Karuk Tribe v. USFS because no listed or critical fish habitat occurs within 

the project area, therefore ESA consultation for the NOI activities is not required.

I have determined that all other proposed mining activities included in the Plans of Operation are 

likely to have impacts that may need to be avoided or ameliorated via reclamation bonding, 

timing restrictions, or other measures to minimize adverse environmental impacts to NFS 

resources. Accordingly, they have been included in the environmental analysis that is being 

completed in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act.

August 14, 2012

Jeff Tomac

Whitman District Ranger

Date
Appendix 6A

Effects of Suction Dredging 

in the Analysis Area

NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Appendix 6A

A6A-1

Appendix 6A

Effects of Suction Dredging

On Water and Fisheries Resources

In the North Fork Burnt River Mining Watershed

This report provides information on the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of suction 

dredging on water and fisheries resources in the North Fork Burnt River watershed. The water 

resources portion of this report was written by Suzanne Fouty, hydrologist for the Whitman 

Ranger District. The fisheries section was written by Suzanne Fouty and reviewed by John 

Quintela, fisheries biologist previously with the Whitman Ranger District and currently with the 

Bureau of Land Management. The fisheries analysis relies on information contained within the 

Water Resources section.

Suzanne Fouty has a Ph.D. in Geography with a specialty in fluvial geomorphology from the 

University of Oregon, a M. S. degree in Geology from the University of Arizona with a specialty 

in geomorphology, and a B.S. degree in Geology from the University of Washington. She has 

worked for the Wallowa-Whitman for six years.

Introduction

A number of miners notified the Forest Service of their intent to suction dredge in streams in the 

North Fork Burnt River (NFBR) watershed by including this activity in their Plans of Operation. 

During the NFBR Supplement analysis, it was determined that the suction dredging activities 

listed in the NFBR Plans do not require approval through a NEPA decision, because if the 

operators adhere to the State’s 700-PM permit, there would be no significant surface disturbance 

(Finding of Non-significant Surface Resource Disturbance, Supplement project file). However, 

the activity’s effects must still be accounted for and disclosed along with the effects of the other 

mining activities being considered in the proposed Plans of Operation. This document serves 

that purpose by capturing the effects of the known suction dredging in the NFBR minerals 

planning area. 

To determine these effects, site-specific analyses of streams and stream reaches were necessary. 

Factors examined included channel morphology, water quality, and redband trout and their 

habitat. The analysis used a series of questions raised by Harvey and Lisle (1998), as well as 

questions raised in other studies to define potential areas of concern. Channel morphology 

parameters evaluated were stability of the dredge tailings, stability of the channel bed, pool 

characteristics, and abundance and stability of roughness elements (i.e. beaver dams, log jams). 

Water quality parameters evaluated were turbidity, suspended sediment, and stream temperature. 

Fish habitat parameters evaluated were turbidity, suspended sediment, stream temperature, 

spawning gravels, pool habitat, and channel complexity. 

Additionally, several operational factors were considered -- the spatial distribution of suction 

dredging operations, the specific timing of operations, the size of the dredges and hoses, and in 

particular, the terms and conditions of the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality’s 

(ODEQ) 700-PM permit. This 700-PM permit applies only to suction dredges with 30 

horsepower or less and an inside diameter suction hose of 6-inches or less. All proposed dredge 

operations in the NFBR Plans fit these criteria.
Appendix 6A NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

A6A-2

This analysis did not consider other activities associated with suction dredging such as camping, 

firewood collection, trampling of vegetation, trash disposal etc. These activities and their effects 

were evaluated in connection with the other mining activities and operations in the various Plans 

of Operation.

Analysis Area

The analysis area is limited to the specific streams and reaches with proposed suction dredging. 

The analysis is further bounded, relative to the potential impacts on redband trout (a R6 Regional 

Forester’s sensitive species) and their habitat, by the timing of spawning and re-emergence with 

respect to dredging.

The only suction dredging analyzed are those areas indicated in the list of Plans from the 2004 

North Fork Burnt River Mining FEIS that included suction dredging. These Plans are displayed 

in Table 6A-1 and shown geographically on Maps 2 and 3 of the Final SEIS. 

Table 6A-1

Plans of Operation that listed suction dredging as an activity in the 2004 FEIS

Operation Name Creek Flow Creek status

Burnt Lode/Placer

(Karissa site)

NFBR Perennial main stem

Burnt Lode/Placer

(Cub Creek site)

Cub Perennial. Tributary to 

NFBR 

*Don Juan 

Lode/Placer

Unnamed tributary Intermittent Tributary to 

Greenhorn Ck.

Dream Chaser 

Placer

NFBR Perennial Main stem

Gimlet Placer Gimlet Intermittent in area of operation, 

perennial elsewhere along the 

stream

Tributary to Camp 

Ck

Glory B Placer Jackknife Creek Intermittent Tributary to Pinus 

Creek

Gold Busters 

Placer

Plan of Operations map in plan 

signed by the operator on 3/31/05 

showed the operation on both 

Camp and Pinus Creeks. Letter 

from operator dated 2/23/08 with 

corrected map shows that only 

working on Pinus Creek.

Pinus = perennial in this location. 

Long sections are dry downstream

Pinus = Tributary 

to Camp Ck

Jim Bob Placer NFBR Perennial Main stem

*Lucky 7 Placer Gimlet Intermittent Tributary to Camp 

Creek

Midas/Lady Bug 

Placer

California Gulch Intermittent. Check Dams in 

California Gulch

Headwater 

tributary

North Fork Placer NFBR Perennial Main stem

Prudent (#9) Placer NFBR Perennial Main stem 

R&RK #2, #3 

Placer

NFBR Perennial Main stem
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Appendix 6A

A6A-3

Operation Name Creek Flow Creek status

R&RK #4, #5 

Placer

NFBR Perennial Main stem

Shamrock Placer NFBR Perennial Main stem

Sluice Box Placer NFBR Perennial Main stem

Wild Flower Placer NFBR Perennial Main stem

* Not analyzed since their operators did not continue their operation.

This appendix provides the specific characteristics of the affected streams based on site visits for 

each operation in 2006, 2007, and 2008. 

Information Used

The following information was used to evaluate potential impacts: 

1. Field observations of the channel bed and bank composition, site characteristics and 

stability 

2. Spatial distribution of mining claims with Plans that state suction dredging as one of its 

activities, 

3. Fish type and timing of spawning and emergence, 

4. The timing of the instream work window,

5. Peer-reviewed literature and various reports, 

6. Dredge hose size and distribution of suction dredging activity, and

7. The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality’s 700-PM permit requirements. 

ODEQ 700-PM permit

The ODEQ 700-PM permit replaced the 700-J permit referenced in the 2004 FEIS. The most 

significant proposed change is the dredge and motor size limitations - proposed to be changed to:

1. small suction dredges having an intake nozzle with an inside diameter not exceeding four 

inches and a motor no larger than 16 horsepower, 

2. in-water nonmotorized mining equipment used for recovering precious metals or minerals 

from stream bottom sediments.

Recreational hand panning is not required to obtain a permit. 

Dredges larger than this would require an individual, rather than a general, permit from the State 

(www.deq.state.or.us/WQ/wqpermit/mining.htm). 

However, it should be noted that the 700-PM permit restrictions and requirements do not replace 

or supersede Federal laws and Forest Service regulations. How the Forest Service regulates 

mining operators on National Forest System lands under the Forest Service’s locatable mineral 

operations regulations at 36 CFR 228 Subpart A remains unchanged. A mining operator 

conducting or proposing to conduct instream suction dredge operations within National Forest 

System lands must be in compliance with 36 CFR 228 Subpart A regulations, whether operating 

under a Notice of Intent or an approved Plan of Operations. The operator is responsible for his 

or her own compliance with all applicable State and Federal laws and regulations. 

The 700-PM permit does not specify a location or dredge size (i.e. 2 inches, 4 inches, 6 inches) 

and is not submitted to the Forest Service. Thus, this discussion of suction dredging effects is a 
Appendix 6A NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

A6A-4

minimal effects analysis because the impact of dredging varies as a function of dredge size, 

distribution and number of dredges, stream size, the fineness of the sediments, and flow regime 

(Harvey 1986). However, unless given permission by the miner who has a claim in an area, 

another individual may not suction dredge the portion of the stream that flows through the claim. 

As such, the spacing of mining claims provides zones of limited suction dredging activity. 

Operations are restricted by the State to daylight hours and the particular instream work window 

for each watershed. See the following website for 

details: www.dfw.state.or.us/lands/inwater/Oregon_Guidelines_for_Timing_of_%20InWater200

8.pdf

In the NFBR watershed the instream work window is July 1 to October 31, based on the presence 

of redband trout. None of the streams in this watershed are Oregon Scenic Waterways or have 

been designated by the State as Essential Salmon Habitat. 

All dredging operations included in this FSEIS were proposed to adhere to the terms of the 700-

PM permit, and were subsequently evaluated on a site-by site basis following Forest Service 

mining regulations at 36 CFR 228 Subpart A. Only one of the dredging proposals rose to the 

level of needing an authorized Plan of Operations (Burnt Lode/Cub Creek). 

Literature Review 

The peer-reviewed literature on suction dredging impacts is limited and focuses largely on 

impacts to fish, aquatic insects and benthic invertebrates. Channel morphology and water quality

information was sometimes included because of their influence on the habitat requirements of 

these organisms. When reviewing the literature, dredge size and numbers, channel 

characteristics and study location were noted to place the literature in its proper site context. To 

varying degrees the papers discuss the spatial and temporal extent of the changes. Information 

specifically relevant to understanding and determining the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects 

of suction dredging in the NFBR is presented in the following paragraphs. All literature is 

located in the project file along with a literature summary.

Channel width and sinuosity

Low-flow channel width can be increased and low-flow channel sinuosity decreased by suction 

dredging by removal of gravel/cobble bars. However, the 700-PM permit restricts the types of 

channel bars that can be suction dredged, thereby decreasing the extent of impact. Dredging is 

allowed into gravel bars up to 10 feet outside the wet perimeter of the stream (Section A.3), but 

the bar must be devoid of “any rooted vegetation, located either between the stream banks and 

the wet perimeter of the stream or entirely within the wet perimeter of the stream” (Definition 

#4). Because most cobble/gravel bars in this watershed have some vegetation, dredging would 

be largely restricted to the channel bed. Mid-channel bars with vegetation would also be 

excluded from dredging. Therefore, suction dredging has the potential to locally decrease lowflow channel sinuosity and increase low-flow channel widths by mining unvegetated gravel bars. 

Channel complexity and roughness

Channel complexity and roughness are provided by boulders, log jams, beaver dams, and stream 

bank vegetation. Schedule C.4 of the ODEQ 700-PM permit states: “Moving boulders, logs, or 

other natural stream infrastructure within the stream channel as described in Schedule A3 is 
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Appendix 6A

A6A-5

allowed. However, in no case may this infrastructure be removed entirely from the stream 

channel. Removal of infrastructure that extends into the stream channel from the stream bank is 

also prohibited.” Schedule A3 defines the stream channel as the wetted perimeter, or if 

unvegetated gravel bars are present, then the stream channel extends up to 10 feet outside the wet 

perimeter. Only those features that fall within this area may be moved, provided that 

infrastructure is not attached to the bank. Therefore, log jams attached to the stream bank and 

beaver dams would not be disturbed or destabilized because both features are directly attached to 

the stream banks. However, boulders or log jams contained within the channel and not attached 

to the stream banks could be moved. Therefore, suction dredging has the potential to locally 

alter channel complexity and roughness if in-channel boulders and log jams are removed.

Channel bed stability and morphology

Channel bed composition determines channel bed stability and thus the potential for suction 

dredging to alter pool/riffle distributions and characteristics and/or create a knickpoint which 

would might headcut and lead to channel incision. Harvey and Lisle (1999) found that scour and 

fill varied spatially as a function of bed composition and variability in stream flow. Thomas 

(1985) found that deposited sediment increased 10-20 times over background levels immediately 

downstream of a dredge, and then decreased exponentially downstream. His study found that the 

bulk of the sediment stirred up by dredging was redeposited within 6-11 meters, and in one case 

the gravel deposited by the dredge had moved into and filled a pool. Somer and Hassler (1992) 

found increases in sedimentation below dredges on some streams and not others, suggesting the 

role of substrate composition in determining the potential for pool infilling. Therefore, it is 

possible that if a pool exists immediately downstream from a dredging operation, there may be 

some reduction in that particular pool’s depth as a result of infilling by sands and gravels. 

The literature distinguishes between natural riffles and dredge tailings and found that the stability 

of these features differ. The natural riffles have adjusted over time to variable instream flow 

conditions and tend to be stable. The stability of the suction dredge tailings, however, is a 

function of the tailings composition, and its impact on channel bed morphology varies 

accordingly. Thomas (1985) found that gravel tailings are unstable. All the gravels deposited by 

the dredge in his study stream had moved downstream one year after dredging. Somer and 

Hassler (1992) also found that that the “dredge pocket and pile” stream morphology was short 

term, and that the dredge holes and tailings were no longer visible the following summer. In 

contrast, Harvey and Lisle (1998) noted that rocks too large to pass through dredges are 

commonly piled, and that these piles can persist during high flows. These imposed topographic 

high points have the potential to destabilize channels during high flows, depending on site 

characteristics. They also noted that suction dredging may cause natural riffle crests to erode, 

causing upstream pools to become shallower. The potential for natural riffle crests to erode 

depends on the riffle composition and location of the dredging operation with respect to riffle 

crests. Therefore, there is the potential for suction dredging to alter distribution of riffles and 

destabilized channels under certain site conditions.

Stream bank stability

Dredging of stream banks can result in large amount of fines entering the stream, decrease 

stream bank stability, and decrease shade. However, Schedule C.5 of the ODEQ 700-PM permit 

prohibits dredging of stream banks, undercutting or eroding them or removing boulders, rooted 

vegetation, or embedded woody plants from stream banks. In addition, so long as the channel 
Appendix 6A NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

A6A-6

bed composition was resistant to instream scour, a suction dredge pool would not be expected to 

trigger a headcut which, if it happened, would increase stream bank sensitivity to instream 

erosion by increasing bank heights. Therefore, dredging would not destabilize the banks and 

contribute sediment into the creeks, either by removing bank vegetation or undercutting the 

banks. 

Stream Temperature

Current temperature conditions in the NFBR watershed are the result of historic activity which 

resulted in channel incision, widening, and straightening, a lowering of the groundwater table, 

and the removal of riparian woody vegetation. The 700-PM permit prohibits dredging in the 

stream banks or removing stream side vegetation. Therefore, suction dredging will not alter 

either the actual stream temperatures or their patterns, unless dredging triggers a channel 

headcut. In this case, the increased bank heights, as a result of channel incision, would make the 

stream banks more sensitive to instream erosion and the evolution of a wider channel. The 

increase in channel widths would result in a decrease in water depths for the same discharge and 

thus an increase in stream temperatures. Channel incision would also lead to a lowering of the 

water table, reducing the influx of cooler groundwater base flows into the stream. This would 

also lead to increased stream temperatures and a potential shift from perennial to intermittent 

flow. 

Turbidity and Suspended Sediment

With respect to potential turbidity plumes, the 700-PM permit requires that “suction dredges with 

suction hoses that have an inside diameter of 4 inches or greater must visually monitor each day 

of operation to assure turbidity is not visible beyond 300 feet downstream at any time (Schedule 

B.1).” Suction dredges with suction hoses that have an inside diameter less than 4 inches do not 

have to monitor for turbidity (Schedule B.2). Research examining turbidity plumes found that 

depending on the amount and type of fines in the substrate and the stream gradients, plume 

distances varied from being non-detectable below a dredge or only a few meters in length 

(Griffith and Andrews 1981), to 80 plus meters (Harvey 1986), to more than 123 meters 

downstream (Somer and Hassler 1992). Only Griffith and Andrews (1981) identified the 

percentages or makeup of the fines in the substrate. They found that sediment less than 0.5 mm 

(silt) composed 13 and 18 percent of the substrate on their two streams. Sediment less than 4mm 

(fine gravel) made up 58% of the material dredged in both streams. 

Thomas (1985) found in his study that deposited sediment increased 10-20 times over 

background levels immediately downstream of a dredge, and then decreased exponentially 

downstream. His study found that the bulk of the sediment stirred up by dredging was 

redeposited within 6-11 meters, and in one case the gravel deposited by the dredge had moved 

into and filled a pool. Somer and Hassler (1992) found increased in sedimentation below 

dredges on some streams and not others suggesting the role of substrate composition in 

determining the potential for pool infilling. Harvey and Lisle (1999) found that scour and fill 

varied spatially as a function of bed composition and variability in stream flow. Therefore, there 

is the potential for suction dredging to increase turbidity and suspended sediment in a stream 

depending on the channel bed composition.
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Appendix 6A

A6A-7

Direct/Indirect Effects to Water Resources 

The water resources considered in this analysis are water quality and channel characteristics 

(pools, riffles, sinuosity, roughness, complexity). The site-specific analyses evaluate the impact 

of suction dredging on a given section of stream based on the spatial locations of those Plans of 

Operation. A summary of current stream channel bed and bank conditions where suction 

dredging is proposed is provided when discussing the potential for cumulative effects to channel 

stability, water quality or redband trout and their habitat. More detailed descriptions of current 

conditions can be found in the 2004 FEIS in the Watershed and Soil Resources section (Chapter 

III, pp. 3-39), the Fisheries section (Chapter III, pp. 39 – 68), and this appendix. All operators in 

the plans have indicated that they will be using a 6 inch-or-less suction hose.

Midas/Lady Bug and Glory B

Midas/Lady Bug is located in the headwaters of California Gulch. Glory B is located on 

Jackknife Creek just upstream of the confluence of Pinus and Jackknife Creeks. These 

headwater tributaries were historically placer mined. Old placer tailings line the stream banks, 

and the channel banks and bed are composed largely of cobbles and thus resistant to instream 

erosion. Silts and clays in the channel bed are expected to be low, with the dominant fine 

sediment being sands and gravels. Flow is seasonal and the streams are dry by mid-late summer. 

The section of Pinus Creek below its confluence with Jackknife Creek also has intermittent flow 

and has been historically mined. Fish are not present. Channel bars are absent and the channels 

are straight.

Seasonal flow restricts the period when suction dredging would occur. Any turbidity generated 

during operations would be short-term and not make it 300 feet before flows go subsurface. The 

temporally and spatially limited seasonal flow prevents any surface hydrologic connection 

between flows in these areas with channels downstream that have a surface hydrologic 

connection to streams with perennial flow. For these reasons, suction dredging at these two 

operations would not affect channel stability, water quality, or redband trout and their habitat 

either on site or downstream. Therefore, suction dredging will not alter channel form and 

sinuosity, channel complexity and roughness, stream bank stability, channel bed stability and 

morphology and water quality in these stream reaches.

Gimlet Placer

Gimlet Creek is a tributary to Camp Creek. The mining operation is more than 2 miles upstream 

of the confluence of Gimlet Creek with Camp Creek. Gimlet Creek, below Gimlet Placer and to 

the confluence with Camp Creek, is incised, widened and straightened, and has long reaches 

which have only intermittent flow. The limited silt and clay prevents long turbidity plumes or 

increased suspended sediment for any distance, and the low flow results in sands and gravels 

settling out within a short distance (less than 50 feet) (Griffith and Andrews 1981; Thomas 

1985). In addition, Gimlet Creek has long sections that are dry during the dredging season 

downstream of the operation. As a result there is no surface hydrologic connection between the 

operation and reaches of Gimlet Creek that have perennial flow, or Camp Creek. For these 

reasons, suction dredging at this operation would not affect channel stability, water quality, or 

redband trout and their habitat either on site or downstream. Therefore, suction dredging will not 

alter channel form and sinuosity, channel complexity and roughness, stream bank stability, 

channel bed stability and morphology and water quality in this stream reach.
Appendix 6A NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

A6A-8

Cub Creek

Cub Creek is a tributary to the NFBR and flows through a narrow valley composed of fine 

sediment. Cub Creek is narrow (less than 7 feet) and has fine-grained stream banks. The 

channel bed contains a high percentage of silt and sands with some cobbles. Complexity and 

roughness are limited to a few boulders and downed woody material. Riparian woody vegetation 

is limited along the stream. Large amounts of fine sediment are entering the creek due to bank 

trampling by domestic livestock. Flow is low, but perennial in this section. It is unknown if fish 

are present. This proposed section of stream does not appear to have been historically placer 

mined. Dredging on Cub Creek would occur upstream of its confluence with the NFBR.

The composition of the channel bed (high percentage of fines) and stream banks fine-grained 

sediments) increases the possibility that suction dredging could trigger the development of a 

headcut. Headcuts once established often lead to the rapid channel incision as the headcut 

migrates upstream. As the channel incises, there is a drop in the groundwater table and a shift in 

vegetation type to more drought-tolerant species. The speed at which channel morphology and 

stream character can change as a result of channel incision varies as a function of channel bed 

and bank characteristics and is well-documented in the literature (Bryan 1927, Bryan 1928a, 

Bryan 1928b, Cottom and Stewart 1940, Schaffer 1941, Cooke and Reeves 1976, Shankman and 

Pugh 1992, Fouty 2003). The ability of suction dredging, specifically, to alter channel 

morphology has been noted by Harvey (1986) on a tributary with a large percentage of fines. He 

observed that 15 meters of a stream were channelized and riffles transformed into exposed gravel 

bars as the result of a 10-day operation of one dredge.

The high percentage of fines in the channel bed and channel banks and the low flows on Cub 

Creek may result in the turbidity plume generated by suction dredging to persist longer than that 

generated by suction dredging in the NFBR. If the channel begins incising and/or undercutting 

its banks, the plume would persist even after dredging ceased. Depending on the amount of 

dredging, the Cub Creek plume may be visible in the NFBR just downstream of the confluence 

of Cub Creek and the NFBR. In addition, it is possible that the turbidity would span Cub Creek 

because the channel is narrow. 

Potential for channel incision and stream bank undercutting or erosion as a result of suction 

dredging is restricted to Cub Creek because of the fine grained composition of its bed and banks 

(silts, sands, and gravels). However, suction dredging on Cub Creek would be monitored as part 

of the Forest Service’s annual mining inspections. If undercutting or stream bank erosion occurs 

as a result of suction dredging, the operator would be in violation of the State 700-PM permit 

(Schedules C.3, C.5, and C.7) and dredging would be stopped until resource issues were 

addressed. 

Schedule C.3 states: The permittee must provide a safe passage for fish around and through the 

active mining area if the stream was historically or is currently inhabited by native migratory 

fish. 

If the channel incises and/or widens the groundwater table would drop and portion of the stream 

could go dry. As a result, the fish would not be able to move around and through the active 

mining area. 
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Appendix 6A

A6A-9

Schedule C.5 states: Dredging stream banks is not allowed under this permit. Undercutting or 

eroding stream banks and remove or disturbance of boulders, rooted vegetation, or embedded 

woody plants from stream banks is prohibited.

Suction dredging on this creek has the potential to trigger a headcut. A channel headcut would 

lead to 1) channel straightening, 2) undercutting of stream banks, 3) channel widening, 4) 

increased turbidity, 5) increased suspended sediment, 6) increased stream temperatures as the 

groundwater table dropped, and 7) sections of stream shifting from perennial to intermittent flow 

as base flows contributed by groundwater decreased. 

Schedule C.7 states: Suction dredging activity must not result in the formation of organic or 

inorganic deposits that are harmful to fish or other aquatic life as required in OAR 340-041-0007 

(13). 

The increased sediment loads created from channel incision and stream bank erosion would bury 

spawning gravels located downstream resulting in the formation of inorganic deposits that are 

harmful to fish or other aquatic life.

North Fork Burnt River suite

Operations on the NFBR are bounded by the confluence of Cub Creek and the NFBR on the 

upstream end, and the confluence of Patrick Creek and the NFBR on the downstream end. Flow 

on the NFBR is perennial and redband trout are present. The NFBR is 303 (d) listed for stream 

temperature and sedimentation (embeddedness). The distance between the ten individual 

operations varies from 660 feet to more than 6100 feet (Figure 1). 

The stream banks of the NFBR are composed of fine sediment (sand, silt, and clay) overlying a 

layer of cobble/gravels/fines. Stream bank characteristics vary. In places the banks are vertical, 

exceed five feet in height, are unvegetated and are therefore easily eroded during high spring 

flows. Point bars are present in the channel with the amount of bar vegetation varying from site 

to site. Bars are typically composed of cobbles, gravels, and sand. The channel beds are 

dominated by cobbles, with sands and gravels in the spaces in between. High percentages of silt 

and clay are restricted to behind the beaver dams within the NFBR, and along the margins of the 

stream where banks have failed. Coarse woody material exists in the form of occasional log 

jams and beaver dams. The NFBR was historically placer mined and the channel is wide, 

incised, and straightened. Water depths were measured in reaches with and without newly 

formed beaver dams in late fall 2007 (project file). In two reaches without beaver dams, the 

average water depths were 0.8 to 1 foot deep, with a few deep pools related to historic mining 

activity or log jams. When beaver dams were present, the average water depth was 1.7 feet, 

almost twice the average depth found in reaches without beaver dams. Stream temperatures 

exceed ODEQ’s temperature standard of 68*F. Wetted widths measured in the three reaches 

ranged from 7 to more than 25 feet wide. The channel bed is composed of cobbles and very 

coarse gravels and is well armored. The coarseness of the channel bed makes the bed highly 

stable and resistant to channel scour.

Cobbles dominate the NFBR channel bed. The coarseness of the channel bed material makes the 

bed resistant to instream scour and limits the development of pools. This has resulted in a 

relatively smooth channel bed topography, as reflected in limited variation in water depths in the 

two reaches that did not have beaver dams surveyed in Fall 2007. The greater variability in 

channel bed topography in Reach 4 compared to Reach 2 is the result of stable pools created by 
Appendix 6A NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

A6A-10

past mining activity and scour around in-channel woody material. In 2007, Reaches 1 and 3 

contained beaver dams and displayed much greater variability in channel bed topography and 

water depths. 

Pools created by suction dredging would not result in the development of a headcut and channel 

incision because the dominance of cobbles has created a channel bed resistant to scour. The 

coarse channel bed material also makes the bed resistant to instream erosion, even if dredging is 

near a riffle crest. The depth of a pool immediately downstream of the suction dredging may be 

affected depending on the amount of sand and gravel disturbed by dredging. Therefore, it is 

possible that if a pool exists immediately downstream from a dredging operation that there may 

be some reduction in that particular pool’s depth as a result of infilling by sands and gravels. 

Suction dredge tailings composed largely of gravels are expected to be transitory and remolded 

or removed by high flows (Harvey and Lisle 1998). Tailing composed of cobbles are expected 

to more stable with limited remolding during high flows. While the cobble tailings may persist, 

the overall coarseness of the channel bed material and the width of the channel (7-25 feet) 

minimize the potential for the topographic high points to destabilize the channel bed or banks 

during high flows. Therefore, there is only a short-term (one season) alteration of the channel 

bed on channel bed stability and morphology as a result of suction dredging. 

Channel complexity and roughness is provided by log jams, beaver dams, and boulders. 

Removal of any of these features that are embedded into the stream bank is prohibited by ODEQ

700-PM permit, Schedules C.4 and C.5. Boulders or log jams not embedded in the stream can 

be moved and therefore, suction dredging would result in a small reduction in channel 

complexity and roughness. However, the protection of the larger features (beaver dams, log 

jams embedded into the bank, stream bank vegetation) from disturbance means that the effect on 

channel complexity and roughness would be minimal.

Turbidity plumes from the NFBR operations are expected to be much less than 300 feet in length 

for the following reasons. First, the silt/clay component in the substrate of the NFBR is expected 

to be low because the stream was historically placer mined with large equipment, which would 

have flushed the silt/clays downstream. Any large quantities of silt/clay in the stream are now 

limited to along the margins of the channels where banks are eroding, or behind beaver dams or 

bank-embedded log jams. Activity should not occur in these areas according to the 700-PM 

permit. However, disturbance of in-channel log jams could result in a local, seasonal plume 

depending on the type of sediments trapped behind the jams. Second, the summer wetted widths 

range from 7 to more than 25 feet, based on measurements taken in fall 2007. In contrast, the 

inside diameter suction hose is no greater than six inches. The nozzle size limits the amount of 

channel bed that can be mobilized at any one time. Therefore, the plume would be very limited 

in width. Finally, even if all ten operators were suction dredging at the same time, the distances 

between operations closest to each other vary from 660 feet to 6100 feet or more of stream 

(Figure 1) and plumes would not overlap. Therefore, there would be a short-term increase in 

turbidity as a result of suction dredging, but limited in length and width.

Suspended sediment in the NFBR would only increase locally as a result of suction dredging. 

Cobbles dominate the NFBR channel bed with silts, sands and gravels in the spaces in between. 

Dredging in streambeds in which sand is the dominant interstitial fine sediment is unlikely to 

yield suspended concentrations. Sand and gravel are usually deposited immediately downstream 

(Harvey and Lisle 1998). Based on the amount of historic placer mining that occurred in this 
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Appendix 6A

A6A-11

stream, sands and gravels are expected to be the dominant interstitial fine sediment. Any change 

in suspended sediment concentrations would therefore be local and immeasurable, except 

perhaps immediately below the dredge. 

Stream temperatures on the NFBR would not be altered by suction dredging because dredging 

would not alter the factors that control stream temperatures. 

Summary of Potential Direct/Indirect Effects to Water Resources

The potential effects to water resources from suction dredging listed in the Plans of Operations 

are summarized in Table 6A-2. Of the 14 operations (15 sites) only the Burnt Lode/Placer on 

Cub Creek was identified as a site where suction dredging could influence channel bed and bank 

stability and thus water quality and fisheries habitat. 

Cumulative Effects to Water Resources

The beneficial cumulative effects of proposed suction dredging on water resources (water quality

and channel morphology) in the NFBR watershed are 1) a local reduction in channel 

embeddedness, 2) a local increase in a source of spawning gravel material, and 3) creation of 

short-term local pool habitat during the summer. Except in the case of Cub Creek, increases in 

turbidity and/or suspended sediment are localized, short-term (limited to actual time of 

operation), and non-measurable except in close proximity to the dredge. 

The negative cumulative effects of suction dredging are restricted to Burnt Lode/Placer site on 

Cub Creek, where the creek has the potential to incise and create a sustained turbidity plume and 

increased suspended sediment. The turbidity on Cub Creek may make it to NFBR. However, 

any plume that enters the NFBR from Cub Creek is expected to be non-measurable less than 100 

feet downstream of the confluence because the flows on Cub Creek are low compared to those 

on the NFBR. The potential for headcutting is the greatest concern because of its subsequent 

impacts to the groundwater table, vegetation, and channel sinuosity. Unlike increased turbidity, 

headcutting does not cease once suction dredging has stopped, but would continue until it 

reached a section of stream which was bedrock controlled, or well-armored by cobbles or roots. 

However, as stated above under Direct/Indirect Effects, suction dredging on Cub Creek (Burnt 

Lode/Placer) would be monitored as part of the Forest Service’s annual mining inspections. If 

channel incision and/or bank failure is observed, then suction dredging would be in violation of 

the State 700-PM permit and dredging would be stopped until resource issues were addressed. 
Appendix 6A NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

A6A-12

Table 6A-2

Sites identified in Plans of Operation where suction dredging is proposed. 

Shaded boxes indicate areas of potential concerns to water resources.

Operation Creek Flow/Fish 

Status

Channel 

sinuosity

Channel 

complexity 

and 

roughness

Channel bed 

stability and 

morphology

Stream 

bank 

stability

Stream 

Temp

Turbidity Suspended 

Sediment

Burnt 

Lode/Placer

(Cub 

Creek)

Cub 

Creek

Perennial in 

this section. 

Unknown if 

fish-bearing.

Potential for 

bank 

undercutting and 

channel 

straightening as a 

result of the 

development and 

migration of a 

headcut. Also 

potential increase 

in gravel tailings. 

No impact 

because very 

little channel 

complexity at 

present. 

Potential for 

channel 

incision and 

development 

and 

migration of 

a headcut. 

Potential for 

bank 

undercutting 

as a result of 

the 

development 

and 

migration of 

a headcut.

Potential for 

an increase 

in stream 

temperatures 

and shift 

from 

perennial to 

intermittent

flow as 

channel 

incised and 

stream banks 

erode.

Potential for 

increased 

turbidity that 

extends the 

width of the 

stream and 

continues after 

dredging 

ceases as a 

result of 

dredging 

causing 

channel bed 

and bank 

instability.

Potential for 

increased 

suspended 

and bedload 

sediment 

movement 

because of 

channel 

headcutting 

and bank 

erosion.
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Appendix 6A

A6A-13

Operation Creek Flow/Fish 

Status

Channel 

sinuosity

Channel 

complexity 

and 

roughness

Channel bed 

stability and 

morphology

Stream 

bank 

stability

Stream 

Temp

Turbidity Suspended 

Sediment

Burnt 

Lode/Placer

(Karissa)

NFBR Perennial/

Fish-bearing

Potential to 

locally alter 

developing lowflow channel 

sinuosity and 

channel 

narrowing by 

mining gravel 

bars Restricted to 

places with 

unvegetated 

channel bars. 

Potential to 

locally reduce 

complexity 

and roughness. 

Changes 

restricted to 

moving 

roughness 

features 

contained 

within the 

stream channel 

but not those 

which extend 

into the stream 

bank (i.e. 

beaver dams, 

log jams).

Short-term 

(1-2 seasons) 

pool 

development 

depending on 

the amount of 

bedload 

moving. 

Short-term 

gravel 

tailings 

which will be 

remobilized 

during spring 

high flows. 

Cobble 

tailings may 

persist for a 

couple of 

seasons. No

headcutting 

expected due 

to cobbledominated 

channel bed.

No impact No impact Plume will be 

< 300 feet in 

length and 

much less in 

width than the 

width of the 

wetted 

channel.

No WQ 

concerns. 

Low 

concentration

s in channel 

bed because 

creek has 

been 

historically 

mined. 

Dream 

Chaser 

Placer

NFBR Perennial/

Fish-bearing

Localized impact 

to low-flow 

channel. See 

Burnt 

Lode/Placer

(NFBR sites).

Possible 

localized 

impact. See 

Burnt 

Lode/Placer

(NFBR sites). 

Short-term 

localized 

impact. See 

Burnt 

Lode/Placer

(NFBR site).

No impact No impact Same as Burnt 

Lode/Placer

(NFBR site).

No WQ 

concerns. 

See Burnt 

Lode/Placer

(NFBR site).
Appendix 6A NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

A6A-14

Operation Creek Flow/Fish 

Status

Channel 

sinuosity

Channel 

complexity 

and 

roughness

Channel bed 

stability and 

morphology

Stream 

bank 

stability

Stream 

Temp

Turbidity Suspended 

Sediment

Gimlet 

Placer

Gimlet 

Creek

Intermittent/

Non-fish 

bearing

No impact No impact No concerns. 

No changes 

in channel 

stability 

because bed 

is cobbledominated. 

Pools and 

tailings likely 

to persist 

because 

limited flow. 

No 

headcutting 

expected 

because 

channel bed 

resistant to 

instream 

erosion and 

flow low.

No impact No impact None. Stream 

goes 

subsurface 

below site.

No WQ 

concerns. 

See Burnt 

Lode/Placer

(NFBR site).

Glory B 

Placer

Jackknif

e Creek

Intermittent/

Non-fish 

bearing

No impact No impact. No concerns. 

See Gimlet 

Placer.

No impact No impact None. Flow 

seasonal and 

goes 

subsurface 

below site.

No WQ 

concerns. 

See Burnt 

Lode/Placer

(NFBR site)

Gold 

Busters 

Placer

Pinus 

Creek

Intermittent/

Non-fish 

bearing

No impact No impact No concerns. 

See Gimlet 

Placer.

No impact No impact None. Flow in 

this area may 

be perennial 

but stream 

goes 

subsurface 

below site.

No WQ 

concerns. 

See Burnt 

Lode/Placer

(NFBR site)
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Appendix 6A

A6A-15

Operation Creek Flow/Fish 

Status

Channel 

sinuosity

Channel 

complexity 

and 

roughness

Channel bed 

stability and 

morphology

Stream 

bank 

stability

Stream 

Temp

Turbidity Suspended 

Sediment

Jim Bob 

Placer

NFBR Perennial/

Fish-bearing

Localized impact 

to low-flow 

channel. See 

Burnt 

Lode/Placer

(NFBR sites).

Possible 

localized 

impact. See 

Burnt 

Lode/Placer

(NFBR sites). 

Short-term 

localized 

impact. See 

Burnt 

Lode/Placer

(NFBR site).

No impact No impact Same as Burnt 

Lode/Placer

(NFBR site).

No WQ 

concerns. 

See Burnt 

Lode/Placer

(NFBR site).

Midas/Lady 

Bug Placer

Californi

a Gulch

Intermittent/

Non-fish 

bearing

No impact No impact No concerns. 

See Gimlet 

Placer.

No impact No impact None. Flow 

seasonal and 

goes 

subsurface 

below site 

No WQ 

concerns. 

See Burnt 

Lode/Placer

(NFBR site)

North Fork 

Placer

NFBR Perennial/

Fish-bearing

Localized impact 

to low-flow 

channel. See 

Burnt 

Lode/Placer

(NFBR sites).

Possible 

localized 

impact. See 

Burnt 

Lode/Placer

(NFBR sites). 

Short-term 

localized 

impact. See 

Burnt 

Lode/Placer

(NFBR site).

No impact No impact Same as Burnt 

Lode/Placer

(NFBR site).

No WQ 

concerns. 

See Burnt 

Lode/Placer

(NFBR site).

Prudent 

(#9) Placer

NFBR Perennial/

Fish-bearing

Localized impact 

to low-flow 

channel. See 

Burnt 

Lode/Placer

(NFBR sites).

Possible 

localized 

impact. See 

Burnt 

Lode/Placer

(NFBR sites). 

Short-term 

localized 

impact. See 

Burnt 

Lode/Placer

(NFBR site).

No impact No impact Same as Burnt 

Lode/Placer

(NFBR site).

No WQ 

concerns. 

See Burnt 

Lode/Placer

(NFBR site).

R&RK #2 

#3 Placer

NFBR Perennial/

Fish-bearing

Localized impact 

to low-flow 

channel. See 

Burnt 

Lode/Placer

(NFBR sites).

Possible 

localized 

impact. See 

Burnt 

Lode/Placer

(NFBR sites). 

Short-term 

localized 

impact. See 

Burnt 

Lode/Placer

(NFBR site).

No impact No impact Same as Burnt 

Lode/Placer

(NFBR site).

No WQ 

concerns. 

See Burnt 

Lode/Placer

(NFBR site)

R&RK #4 

#5 Placer

NFBR Perennial/

Fish-bearing

Localized impact 

to low-flow 

channel. See 

Burnt 

Lode/Placer

(NFBR sites).

Possible 

localized 

impact. See 

Burnt 

Lode/Placer

(NFBR sites). 

Short-term 

localized 

impact. See 

Burnt 

Lode/Placer

(NFBR site).

No impact No impact Same as Burnt 

Lode/Placer

(NFBR site).

No WQ 

concerns. 

See Burnt 

Lode/Placer

(NFBR site).
Appendix 6A NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

A6A-16

Operation Creek Flow/Fish 

Status

Channel 

sinuosity

Channel 

complexity 

and 

roughness

Channel bed 

stability and 

morphology

Stream 

bank 

stability

Stream 

Temp

Turbidity Suspended 

Sediment

Shamrock 

Placer

NFBR Perennial/

Fish-bearing

Localized impact 

to low-flow 

channel. See 

Burnt 

Lode/Placer

(NFBR sites).

Possible 

localized 

impact. See 

Burnt 

Lode/Placer

(NFBR sites). 

Short-term 

localized 

impact. See 

Burnt 

Lode/Placer

(NFBR site).

No impact No impact Same as Burnt 

Lode/Placer

(NFBR site).

No WQ 

concerns. 

See Burnt 

Lode/Placer

(NFBR site).

Sluice Box NFBR Perennial/

Fish-bearing

Localized impact 

to low-flow 

channel. See 

Burnt 

Lode/Placer

(NFBR sites).

Possible 

localized 

impact. See 

Burnt 

Lode/Placer

(NFBR sites). 

Short-term 

localized 

impact. See 

Burnt 

Lode/Placer

(NFBR site).

No impact No impact Same as Burnt 

Lode/Placer

(NFBR site).

No WQ 

concerns. 

See Burnt 

Lode/Placer

(NFBR site).

Wildflower 

Placer

NFBR Perennial/

Fish-bearing

Localized impact 

to low-flow 

channel. See 

Burnt 

Lode/Placer

(NFBR sites).

Possible 

localized 

impact. See 

Burnt 

Lode/Placer

(NFBR sites). 

Short-term 

localized 

impact. See 

Burnt 

Lode/Placer

(NFBR site).

No impact No impact Same as Burnt 

Lode/Placer

(NFBR site).

No WQ 

concerns. 

See Burnt 

Lode/Placer

(NFBR site).
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Appendix 6A

A6A-17

Direct and Indirect Effects to Fisheries

The instream work window for the NFBR watershed is July 1 to October 31. Redband trout are 

present and they typically spawn in March, April, and May and emerge in June and July 

(Quintela, pers. com. 4/18/08). For the purposes of this analysis, redband trout are assumed to 

be present in all perennial streams. Redband trout are assumed to be absent in intermittent 

streams or streams that have large section(s) of channel that are dry during the summer 

downstream of the mining site.

Operations that were located on sections of channel that carry only intermittent flow and are nonfish bearing are Gimlet Placer (Gimlet Creek), Glory B Placer (Jackknife Creek), Gold Busters 

Placer (Pinus Creek), and Midas/Lady Bug Placer (California Gulch). Therefore, these creeks 

and Operations will not be discussed further. The discussion below is limited to operations on 

the NFBR and Cub Creek, which are perennial streams.

Spawning Gravels

Suction dredge tailings can become focal points of spawning depending on the abundance of 

natural riffles in a stream channel (Harvey and Lisle 1999). The large amount of historic mining 

and channel changes in the NFBR watershed has resulted in the streams having limited spawning 

gravels. Therefore, the timing of spawning is key when evaluating the potential impact of suction 

dredging on redband trout. Redband trout typically spawn in March, April, and May and emerge 

in June and July (Quintela, pers. com. 4/18/08).

The tailings piles created during the summer in the NFBR would vary in their composition from 

piles dominated by cobbles to piles dominated by gravels and sands. The piles composed of 

gravels and sands are expected to be remolded or removed by the high flows in the spring 

(Thomas 1985). As a result, gravel-dominated tailings would not be available in the spring as 

potential spawning gravels, which is when the redband trout spawn. The tailings piles dominated 

by cobbles might persist into the spring but would not be conducive to spawning. Therefore,

suction dredging would not impact redband trout survival as it pertains to spawning and 

emergence in NFBR.

The channel bed of Cub Creek is a mix of fines and gravels. The low flow conditions on Cub 

Creek mean that any gravel tailings might not be remolded or removed by high spring flows to 

the same degree as those in the NFBR. This is not a concern at this site because redband trout

typically spawn in March, April, and May and emerge in June and July (Quintela, pers. com. 

4/18/08) and the redds would not be washed out prior to emergence. However, bank trampling 

by livestock and their removal of riparian woody vegetation, which stabilizes the streambanks, is 

contributing to increased suspended and bedload sediment in the channel. This sediment input 

would likely bury spawning gravels generated by suction dredging and suffocate eggs. The 

bedload and suspended sediments input from bank trampling would increase if suction dredging 

triggered channel incision and bank undercutting. However, impacts to fisheries triggered by 

suction dredging would be in violation of the State 700-PM permit (Schedule C.5, C.7) and 

dredging would be stopped until resource issues were addressed. Therefore, while it is possible 

that suction dredging may result in an increase in spawning sites, the beneficial alteration would 

likely end up a negative for redband trout because of livestock impacts even if dredging does not 

alter bed and bank stability.
Appendix 6A NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

A6A-18

Pools

The NFBR channel bed is dominated by embedded cobbles making the channel beds highly 

resistant to erosion. As a result pool habitat is limited. Some exceptions exist where historic inchannel mining and in-channel woody material have created some deep and stable pools. It is 

possible that suction dredging, in the process of deepening pools or creating new pools, may 

intersect cooler subsurface flows (Harvey and Lisle 1998), thereby creating temporary, seasonal 

refugia for fish both in terms of habitat and improved stream temperature conditions. Therefore, 

suction dredging would result in a localized increase in pool habitat which may or may not 

persist, depending on the amount of bedload that moves during the high spring flows.

Cub Creek channel also has very few pools headcut. However, the high percentage of fines in 

the bed and the lack of channel bed armoring raises the possibility of channel incision could 

occur. This would alter the character of this stream and result in degraded habitat conditions.

Habitat Complexity

Streams in this watershed have widened, incised, and straightened, and features creating channel 

complexity are limited. Schedule C.4 of the ODEQ 700-PM permit states: “Moving boulders, 

logs, or other natural stream infrastructure within the stream channel as described in Schedule 

A3 is allowed. However, in no case may this infrastructure be removed entirely from the stream 

channel. Removal of infrastructure that extends into the stream channel from the stream bank is 

also prohibited.” Schedule A3 defines the stream channel as the wetted perimeter, or if 

unvegetated gravel bars are present, then the stream channel extends up to 10 feet outside the wet 

perimeter. Only those features that fall within this area may be moved, provided that 

infrastructure is not attached to the bank. Therefore, log jams and beaver dams, key elements in 

creating habitat complexity, would not be disturbed or destabilized because both features are 

directly attached to the stream banks.

The Schedule C.4 restriction applies to the following operations: North Fork Placer, Prudent 

(#9), R&RK 2&3, Wildflower (beaver dams), and Sluice Box (log jams). The protection of log 

jams and beaver dams means that key habitat elements for fish are protected. However, inchannel logs, boulders, and unvegetated gravel bars could be moved resulting in a local reduction 

of habitat complexity. As a result parts of the NFBR could see a local reduction in habitat 

complexity as a result of suction dredging. Cub Creek has little to no habitat complexity at 

present and therefore suction dredging would not alter this parameter.

Stream Temperature

The U.S. Forest Service has limited stream temperature data for the NFBR watershed. Based on 

the available data, the perennial streams are above ODEQ temperature standard of 68*F, at least 

some years. The elevated stream temperatures are the result of historic land use activity which 

led to channel incision, widening and straightening and a lowering of the groundwater table 

(USDA 1995).

The ODEQ 700-PM permit (Schedule C.5) prohibits undercutting or eroding stream or removing 

of stream bank vegetation, woody plants or boulders embedded in the bank, and thus indirectly 

channel incision. As long as the terms and conditions of the 700-PM permit are adhered to, 

suction dredging would not alter streamside shade, stream discharge, groundwater recharge, base 

flows, channel bed or bank stability, or channel widths – all factors that influence stream 

temperature. On the NFBR, it is possible that suction dredging may intersect cooler subsurface 
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Appendix 6A

A6A-19

flows in the process of deepening pools or creating new pools, (Harvey and Lisle 1998), thereby 

creating temporary, seasonal refugia for fish. 

Turbidity

The potential for an increase in turbidity during the summer when fish are already stressed by 

elevated stream temperatures was evaluated and found to be low on the NFBR for three reasons. 

First, most of the streams channels evaluated have been historically placer mined during which 

time much of the silt/clays were flushed downstream. Therefore, any large quantities of silt/clay 

in these historically mined streams are now limited to the margins of the channels where banks 

are eroding, or behind beaver dams in most creeks where suction dredging is proposed. The 

ODEQ 700-PM permit prohibits disturbing beaver dams or log jams or working in stream banks. 

These restrictions, if adhered to, eliminate the concern that suction dredging would destabilize 

these features and cause increased turbidity downstream of the operation.

Second, the summer wetted widths in the NFBR varies from 7 to more than 25 feet, based on 

measurements taken in 2006 and 2007. In contrast, the inside diameter suction hose is less than 

six inches, which limits the amount of channel bed that can be mobilized at any one time. 

Therefore, the plume would be very limited in width at any one time. The remaining streams 

where suction dredging is proposed are separated from perennial streams

Finally, the operations are spatially separated from each other (Figure 1) which eliminates the 

potential for overlapping plumes. Therefore, the turbidity plumes from these operations are 

expected to be well within the requirements of the 700-PM permit and much less than 300 feet in 

length andwidth. This would leave ample areas of undisturbed water for the fish to hold, feed, 

and migrate in.

Cub Creek is the exception to the above discussion. Cub Creek does not appear to have been 

historically mined. Channel widths are narrow (less than ten feet wide) and the banks are fine 

grained and heavily trampled, resulting in an increase in silts in the channel bed. In addition, 

flows are low during the summer. Therefore, the turbidity plume may persist for a longer 

distance in Cub Creek and there may be a small plume of cloudy water in the NFBR just 

downstream of its confluence with the NFBR. It is uncertain if there are fish in Cub Creek, but if 

they are present, suction dredging could have an impact on fish as the turbidity plume may span 

the entire channel width and length.

Suspended Sediment

Cobbles dominate the NFBR channel bed with silts, sands and gravels in the spaces in between. 

Dredging in streambeds in which sand is the dominant interstitial fine sediment is unlikely to 

yield suspended concentrations. Sand and gravel are usually deposited immediately downstream 

(Harvey and Lisle 1998). Thomas (1985) found that suspended sediment returned to ambient 

levels at 30.5 meters downstream of the dredge (measured during worst-case scenario). The bulk 

of the sediment stirred up by dredging was re-deposited within 6-11 meters. In contrast, Somer 

and Hassler (1992) found that suspended sediment in their stream did not return to background 

levels 113 meters downstream from the dredge. However, the authors note that the sediment in 

their stream was displaced farther downstream than results in Thomas (1985) because of the 

steeper gradient and the high proportion of fines released in the overburden.

Based on the amount of historic placer mining that occurred in the NFBR, sands and gravels are 

expected to be the dominant interstitial fine sediment. Any change in suspended sediment 
Appendix 6A NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

A6A-20

concentrations would therefore be local and immeasurable, except immediately below the 

dredge. In the case of Cub Creek, movement of suspended sediment as a result of suction 

dredging may persist because 1) there is a much greater amount of fines in the channel bed, 2) 

bank trampling and the removal of riparian woody vegetation by livestock results in the banks 

are actively contributing fines to the creek, and 3) the suction dredging could trigger a headcut. 

All of these increase suspended sediment and bedload inputs. However, a suction dredginggenerated headcut and bank undercutting would be in violation of the 700 PM permit (Schedule 

C.5) and dredging would be stopped until resource issues were addressed.

Summary of Potential Direct/Indirect Effects to Fisheries

The potential direct and indirect effects to fisheries, as a result of suction dredging in the sections 

of streams where the Plans of Operation indicated activity, are summarized in Table 6A-3. Only 

minor changes are expected on the NFBR and none of these changes are detrimental to fisheries. 

The dredging of pools may provide a short-term benefit to fish or fish habitat by intersecting 

cooler groundwater and thereby creating summer refugia. The gravel tailings may also provide a 

benefit because they would be remolded by the spring high flow and may provide additional 

spawning sites in the spring. In addition, dredging may locally break up the armored channel 

bed and permit the stream to create additional scour pools.

Unlike the NFBR, Cub Creek is more sensitive to channel changes as a result of suction dredging

because of its channel bed and bank characteristics and the low flows, and there is the potential 

for an impact to fisheries. However, impacts to fisheries triggered by suction dredging would be 

in violation of the State 700-PM permit (Schedule C.3., C.5, C.7) and dredging would be stopped 

until resource issues were addressed.
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Appendix 6A

A6A-21

Table 6A-3

Sites identified in Plans of Operation where suction dredging is proposed and summary of potential impacts to Fisheries.

Shaded boxes indicate areas of concern to fisheries.

Operation Creek Flow/Fish Status Spawning Gravels Pools Habitat 

Complexity 

(i.e. log jams, 

instream 

wood, beaver 

dams)

Stream 

Temperature

Turbidity Suspended 

Sediment

Burnt 

Lode/Placer

Cub 

Creek

Perennial in this 

section. Unknown 

if fish-bearing.

Local increase in 

spawning gravels. 

The low flows may 

result in spawning 

gravels (tailings) 

persisting for 

several seasons. 

However, 

continued inputs of 

bank sediments due 

to trampling have 

the potential to 

bury these 

spawning gravels 

and any eggs.

Local 

increase in 

pool 

habitat. 

The pools 

could 

persist for 

a number 

of seasons 

due to low 

flows.

No impact to 

channel 

complexity 

because the 

creek has very 

little 

complexity at 

present.

Pools could become 

knickpoints leading 

to headcuts, channel 

incision, a lowering 

of the water table 

and the temperatures 

increasing and/or 

the flow changing 

from perennial to 

intermittent.

Potential for 

increased 

turbidity 

because of 

high 

percentage of 

fines in 

channel bed 

and along the 

channel 

margins and 

the limited 

flow.

Potential for 

increase 

because of 

high 

percentage of 

fines in 

channel bed 

and along the 

channel 

margins.

Burnt 

Lode/Placer

(Karissa)

NFBR Perennial/

Fish-bearing

Local, 1 season 

increase in 

spawning gravels

Local, 1-2 

season 

increase in 

pool 

habitat

Minimal 

reduction

No change Local, and 

minor increase 

during 

operation 

Local, and 

minor increase 

during 

operation 

Dream 

Chaser 

Placer

NFBR Perennial/

Fish-bearing

Local, 1 season 

increase in 

spawning gravels

Local, 1-2 

season 

increase in 

pool 

habitat

Minimal 

reduction

No change Local, and 

minor increase 

during 

operation 

Local, and 

minor increase 

during 

operation 

Gimlet 

Placer

Gimlet 

Creek

Intermittent/Nonfish bearingN/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Glory B 

Placer

Jackknife 

Creek

Intermittent/Nonfish bearingN/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Appendix 6A NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

A6A-22

Operation Creek Flow/Fish Status Spawning Gravels Pools Habitat 

Complexity 

(i.e. log jams, 

instream 

wood, beaver 

dams)

Stream 

Temperature

Turbidity Suspended 

Sediment

Gold 

Busters 

Placer

Pinus 

Creek

Intermittent/Nonfish bearingN/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Jim Bob 

Placer

NFBR Perennial/

Fish-bearing

Local, 1 season 

increase in 

spawning gravels

Local, 1-2 

season 

increase in 

pool 

habitat

Minimal 

reduction

No change Local, and 

minor increase 

during 

operation 

Local, and 

minor increase 

during 

operation 

Midas/Lady 

Bug Placer

California 

Gulch

Intermittent/Nonfish bearingN/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

North Fork 

Placer

NFBR Perennial/

Fish-bearing

Local, 1 season 

increase in 

spawning gravels

Local, 1-2 

season 

increase in 

pool 

habitat

Minimal 

reduction

No change Local, and 

minor increase 

during 

operation 

Local, and 

minor increase 

during 

operation 

Prudent (#9) 

Placer

NFBR Perennial/

Fish-bearing

Local, 1 season 

increase in 

spawning gravels

Local, 1-2 

season 

increase in 

pool 

habitat

Minimal 

reduction

No change Local, and 

minor increase 

during 

operation 

Local, and 

minor increase 

during 

operation 

R&RK #2 

#3 Placer

NFBR Perennial/

Fish-bearing

Local, 1 season 

increase in 

spawning gravels

Local, 1-2 

season 

increase in 

pool 

habitat

Minimal 

reduction

No change Local, and 

minor increase 

during 

operation 

Local, and 

minor increase 

during 

operation 

R&RK #4 

#5 Placer

NFBR Perennial/

Fish-bearing

Local, 1 season 

increase in 

spawning gravels

Local, 1-2 

season 

increase in 

pool 

habitat

Minimal 

reduction

No change Local, and 

minor increase 

during 

operation 

Local, and 

minor increase 

during 

operation 
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Appendix 6A

A6A-23

Operation Creek Flow/Fish Status Spawning Gravels Pools Habitat 

Complexity 

(i.e. log jams, 

instream 

wood, beaver 

dams)

Stream 

Temperature

Turbidity Suspended 

Sediment

Shamrock 

Placer

NFBR Perennial/

Fish-bearing

Local, 1 season 

increase in 

spawning gravels

Local, 1-2 

season 

increase in 

pool 

habitat

Minimal 

reduction

No change Local, and 

minor increase 

during 

operation 

Local, and 

minor increase 

during 

operation 

Sluice Box NFBR Perennial/

Fish-bearing

Local, 1 season 

increase in 

spawning gravels

Local, 1-2 

season 

increase in 

pool 

habitat

Minimal 

reduction

No change Local, and 

minor increase 

during 

operation 

Local, and 

minor increase 

during 

operation 

Wildflower 

Placer

NFBR Perennial/

Fish-bearing

Local, 1 season 

increase in 

spawning gravels

Local, 1-2 

season 

increase in 

pool 

habitat

Minimal 

reduction

No change Local, and 

minor increase 

during 

operation 

Local, and 

minor increase 

during 

operation 
Appendix 6A NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

A6A-24

Cumulative Effects

There is the potential for short-term improved pool and spawning habitat in the NFBR. 

However, the overall cumulative effect of suction dredging on fisheries habitat conditions and 

fisheries in NFBR is limited to one to two seasons. Turbidity increases would not be channel 

spanning and would be non-measurable within a few 100 feet at most downstream of the dredge. 

There is no the potential for short-term improved pool and spawning habitat in Cub Creek 

because the fine grained nature of the banks and bed. Turbidity on this creek would likely be 

channel spanning because it is narrow and flows low. 

Determination of Effect to Redband Trout

Based on the above fisheries analysis, suction dredging may impact individuals or habitat but 

will not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing or loss of viability to the population or 

species for two reasons. First, on the NFBR, suction dredging may improve pool habitat and 

increase spawning gravels. Second, while suction dredging on Cub Creek may result in 

increased turbidity, increased suspended sediment, buried spawning gravels, and the potential for 

headcutting and channel incision, this is but one small tributary in the watershed and has very 

low flows. 

Therefore, Alternative 4 would not contribute to a negative trend in viability on the WWNF for 

redband trout. 
Appendix 6B

Stream Characteristics and 

Suction Dredging

NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Appendix 6B

A6B-1

Appendix 6B

Site-specific characteristics of the NFBR Watershed streams in areas 

mentioned in Plans of Operation to be suction dredged

Operation 

Name And 

Operator

Creek Flow Creek 

status 303 (d) listed/Parameters

Burnt 

Lode/Placer

(Karissa site)

NFBR Perennial main stem Yes/stream temperature and 

sedimentation

(embeddedness)

Field observations and notes: This site is located in a canyon and inaccessible except by foot. The channel is 

composed of cobbles, small boulders and some gravels and sands. The stream banks are composed of fines. Cobble 

bars are present. Some turbidity is expected during suction dredging but is expected to be limited in distance and 

amount because of the lack of silt and clay in the channel bed substrate.

Burnt 

Lode/Placer

(Cub Creek 

site)

Cub Creek Perennial in 

places

Tributary to 

NFBR

No

Field observations: The flows in this creek are low and only portions have perennial flow. The creek has a lot of 

fines entering it from the stream banks as a result of bank trampling by ungulates. Suction dredging in this creek 

may create a turbidity plume that may extend beyond the confluence of Cub Creek and NFBR.

Gimlet Placer Gimlet Perennial? Tributary to 

Camp Ck

No but have temperature data 

and temperature exceeds 

State standard of 68*F

Field observations: Channel bed is composed largely of cobbles and is highly stable. No knickpoints or 

unvegetated mid-channel bars in the area. Channel straight and incised and bordered by old placer tailings in places. 

Stream banks are a mix of fines and old placer tailings. Some turbidity is expected but will be limited due to the 

lack of silt and clay in the channel bed substrate. 

Glory B 

Placer

Jackknife Creek Intermittent Tributary to 

Pinus Creek

No

Field observations: Channel bed is composed largely of cobbles and is highly stable. No knickpoints or 

unvegetated mid-channel bars in the area. Channel straight and incised and bordered by old placer tailings in places. 

Flow is intermittent. Some turbidity is expected during suction dredging but limited in distance and amount because 

of the lack of silt and clay in the channel bed substrate.
Appendix 6B NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

A6B-2

Operation 

Name And 

Operator

Creek Flow Creek 

status 303 (d) listed/Parameters

Gold Busters 

Placer

Plan of Operations map in 

plan signed by the operator 

on3/31/05 showed the 

operation on both Camp and 

Pinus Creeks. Letter from 

operator dated 2/23/08 with 

corrected map shows that 

only working on Pinus Creek.

Pinus = perennial 

in this location. 

Long sections are 

dry downstream

Pinus = 

Tributary to 

Camp Ck

No and no temperature data

Camp Creek site: Field observations: Channel bed is composed largely of cobbles and is highly stable. No 

knickpoints or unvegetated mid-channel bars in the area. Point bars are present. The operator in a letter dated 

February 23, 2008 stated that she would NOT be working in this area. 

Pinus Creek site: Field observations: Bed stability is only moderate because the channel bed has an abundance of 

gravels rather than cobbles though the gravels may just be the top layer and cobbles may underlie the gravels. This 

is highly likely given the large piles of cobbles adjacent to the stream. Some turbidity is expected during suction 

dredging but limited in distance and amount because of the lack of silt and clay in the channel bed substrate. A 

large section of Pinus Creek is dry during the summer months before it reaches Camp Creek. Therefore, there is no 

surface hydrologic connection between the operation and Camp Creek and no potential for either the turbidity plume 

or suspended sediment reaching Camp Creek.

Jim Bob 

Placer

NFBR Perennial Main stem Yes/stream temperature and 

sedimentation

(embeddedness)

Field observations: Channel bed is composed largely of cobbles and is highly stable. No knickpoints or 

unvegetated mid-channel bars in the area. Point bars are present. Some turbidity is expected during suction 

dredging but limited in distance and amount because of the lack of silt and clay in the channel bed substrate.

In a letter dated May 19, 2008, the operator stated that he will NOT be using an 8-inch dredge. 

Midas/Lady 

Bug Placer

California Gulch Intermittent.

Check Dams in 

California Gulch

Headwater 

tributary

No

Field observations: Only the western tributary is proposed for suction dredging. Channel bed is composed largely 

of cobbles and is highly stable. The channel is confined between two hillslopes and stream flow is very seasonal. 

Lots of sediment traps downstream should some sediment be released during the operation. No knickpoints or 

unvegetated mid-channel bars in the area.

North Fork 

Placer

NFBR Perennial Main stem Yes/stream temperature and 

sedimentation

(embeddedness)

Field observations: Beaver dams are present in this reach and dams have trapped fine sediment. Channel bed is 

composed largely of cobbles and is highly stable. No knickpoints or unvegetated mid-channel bars in the area. 

Some turbidity is expected during suction dredging but limited in distance and amount because of the lack of silt and 

clay in the channel bed substrate.

Prudent (#9) 

Placer

NFBR Perennial Main stem Yes/stream temperature and 

sedimentation

(embeddedness)

Field observations: Beaver dams are present in this reach and dams have trapped fine sediment. Channel bed is 

composed largely of cobbles and is highly stable. No knickpoints or unvegetated mid-channel bars in the area. 

Some turbidity is expected during suction dredging but limited in distance and amount because of the lack of silt and 

clay in the channel bed substrate.
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Appendix 6B

A6B-3

Operation 

Name And 

Operator

Creek Flow Creek 

status 303 (d) listed/Parameters

R&RK #2, #3 

Placer

NFBR Perennial Main stem Yes/stream temperature and 

sedimentation

(embeddedness)

Field observations: A beaver dam is present in this reach and dams have trapped fine sediment. The dam is not being 

maintained and is releasing water from the bottom of the dam. Some turbidity is expected during suction dredging

but limited in distance and amount because of the lack of silt and clay in the channel bed substrate EXCEPT if the 

beaver dam was to be destabilized. .If suction dredging was to destabilize this dam, a large amount of silt would be 

released into the creek. 

R&RK #4, #5 

Placer

NFBR Perennial Main stem Yes/stream temperature and 

sedimentation

(embeddedness)

Field observations: Channel bed is cobbles with a coat of fines. Some turbidity is expected during suction dredging

but limited in distance and amount because of the lack of silt and clay in the channel bed substrate.

Shamrock 

Placer

NFBR Perennial Main stem Yes/stream temperature and 

sedimentation

(embeddedness)

Field observations: Channel bed is composed largely of cobbles and is highly stable. No knickpoints or 

unvegetated mid-channel bars in the area. Some turbidity is expected during suction dredging but limited in distance 

and amount because of the lack of silt and clay in the channel bed substrate.

Sluice Box 

Placer

NFBR Perennial Main stem Yes/stream temperature and 

sedimentation

(embeddedness)

Field observations: Channel bed is composed of cobbled and small boulders in some places and composed of 

gravels and sands in other places. There are some log jams in the channel upstream of the mining operation. Some 

turbidity is expected during suction dredging but limited in distance and amount because of the lack of silt and clay 

in the channel bed substrate unless the log jams are destabilized. Log jams increase channel complexity by trapping 

sediment which may lead to channel bar development and channel narrowing. In this case there is often difference in 

the channel bed elevation upstream and downstream of the log jam. If the log jams become destabilized and leave 

the system then channel complexity decreases and a headcut may develop in the deposited sediment which would 

release fine sediment downstream. Log jams also can create pools and bank undercuts that are important fish 

habitat. 

Wild Flower 

Placer

NFBR Perennial Main stem Yes/stream temperature and 

sedimentation

(embeddedness)

Field observations: Beaver dams are present in this reach and dams have trapped fine sediment. Channel bed is 

composed largely of cobbles and is highly stable. No knickpoints or unvegetated mid-channel bars in the area. 

Some turbidity is expected during suction dredging but limited in distance and amount because of the lack of silt and 

clay in the channel bed substrate.
Appendix 6B NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

A6B-4
Appendix 7

Modification to Plans of Operations

NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Appendix 7

A7-1

Appendix 7

Modifications to Plans of Operations since the 2004 FEIS

Withdrawn Plans of Operations

Seven operators (Dream Chaser, Geiser Stream Diversion, Golden Donk, Jackpot, Mary Dixie, 

Playboy Placer and Sunshine Placer) have withdrawn their proposed Plans since the 2004 FEIS. 

The Forest Service has determined that the withdrawal of these Plans would have a beneficial 

effect in the watershed because four of them are located immediately adjacent to streams (Dream 

Chaser, Geiser Stream Diversion, Jackpot, Playboy and Golden Donk), and one of them has an 

adit discharge into a tributary of Geiser Creek that would increase the adit been reopened (Mary 

Dixie). (See project file for field notes and photographs of these 7 operations). Therefore, these 

7 operations are not discussed in the Supplement.

Additional Plan Modifications

Additional minor modifications to proposed Plans of Operations have occurred since the 2004 

FEIS. In some cases, site-specific locations of proposed road and pond construction were 

verified by contacting the miner’s by letter. Copies of the miner’s description of these locations 

are located in the Supplement’s analysis file. With the exception of Burnt Lode/Placer (Karissa 

site road), it has been determined that all of the modifications listed below will have either an 

immeasurable or beneficial effect than what was previously disclosed in the FEIS. 

With the exception of Alternative 1, Tables 7-1 and 7-2 below include changes that replace

information in the following tables in the FEIS: Chapter I, Table I-1; Chapter II, Tables II-1, II2, II-3, II-4, II-5, II-8, II-9, II-10, II-14, II-17; Chapter III, Tables III-4, III-7, III-8, III-10, III-13, 

III-14, III-42, III-43, III-44, III-45, III-46, III-51.

For all Plans (with the exception of suction dredging in Cub Creek in Burnt Lode/Placer), suction 

dredging, pick and shovel, and camping have been removed from Alternatives 2-4 because they 

have been determined to be “Notice of Intent” level activities are not covered under a Plan of 

Operations. (Refer to Supplement Appendix 5). 

Table 7-1

Modifications to Proposed Plans

Operation Name Modification

Big Elk/Red Dog In the FEIS, Big Elk/Red Dog Placer was referred to as Red Dog. However, the Plan of 

Operations refers to it as Big Elk/Red Dog, or simply as Big Elk. This is not to be 

confused with the area in Three Cent Placer that is referred to as “Red Dog”. These are 

separate sites, and have always been separate sites. 

Burnt Lode Placer Clarification that a road needs to be constructed to access his Karissa site. The 

proposal was listed in the original proposed Plan, but was not listed in the FEIS.

Camp Hale Placer New Operators - nothing else changed.

Dream Chaser Entire Proposal Dropped 5/11/09

EJ Placer Per letter dated March 5, 2008, operator proposes to add an additional processing site E 

(see map in Plan). Proposed location to be approved by the district hydrologist prior to 

construction. 

Geiser Stream Diversion Entire Proposal Dropped, 5/29/09
Appendix 7 NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

A7-2

Operation Name Modification

Gold Busters Per letter dated February 23, 2008, operator clarified their plan by stating that there is 

only one processing site not two. The processing site is located on Pinus Creek. Ponds 

are existing. Letter also attached a map which clarified location of testing and mining. 

Testing and mining will only occur in the vicinity of Pinus Creek. There will be no 

testing or mining on Camp Creek

Golden Donk Entire Proposal Dropped, 8/23/2004

Jackpot Entire proposal Dropped 5/6/2004

Jay Gould LD and Jay 

Gould Mine Works

In the FEIS, Jay Gould Lode and Mine Works were analyzed together as one operation, 

however, they are separate operations with different operators, but are geographically 

adjacent to each other. In the Supplement, they are being treated as separate operations. 

Jay Gould LD (Banzer), and Jay Gould Mine Works (Newell).

Lucky One Modification – Per letter dated April 4, 2008, while mining is taking place 

underground, water will be piped through the working area. The pipe will cross 

Simpson Creek and flow into settling ponds.

Mary Dixie Entire Proposal Dropped 03/21/2008

Monarch Lode Mill Site Location Amendment - Site B is the new Mill site location. It is located 2500' 

to the SW of other mill site A location. Site B is a flatter area with better access. Also 

he states that a portion of the rd may be relocated. 

Monarch Lode 16 drill sites for exploration purposes - additional existing roads are needed for access

Playboy Placer Entire Proposal Dropped 3/9/2008

Racer Group/Keystone 

Korners Placer

Does not want to construct 400' (.08 mile) of road to tie into existing road 1044146.

Silver Bell Placer/White 

Wonder

FEIS states that this operation is planning to construct 200' (.04 mile), but spoke to 

operator 2/7/208 and he said that the roads and ponds are in place. 

Shamrock PL Withdrew proposal to install culvert in NFBR 8/16/04.

Silver Eagle Modifications - 1) Source of process water will come from groundwater, not adit water 

2) no underground mining, only mine pay gravel from existing dumps and open pits

Sluice Box Placer Modification based on phone conversation with operator and Dan Burton (in Plan file) 

– 7/15/09. Mr. West clarified that he will line the 2 small ponds near NFBR on the 

north side of the creek with filter cloth, such as geotech fabric, before using them for 

processing. He will monitor the ponds while in use, being careful to allow any 

overflow that would allow sediment to enter the stream.

Snow Creek Placer Does not want to construct a 200' (.04 mile) road to grade down from 1038 to the 

processing site. 

Standby/McNamee Placer Does not want to construct 600’ (.08 mile) of temporary road around piles of logs and 

wet spring area that ties back into existing road at the ford. Will not construct additional 

ponds.

Standby/McNamee Access Road Correction: Wants to add 1035420 and 1035200

Sunshine Placer Entire Proposal Dropped

Three Cent Placer/East No testing or stockpiles within 200 feet of the creek. 

Table 7-2

Operations added or Withdrawn from Alternative 1 and Alternatives 2-4

Total Operations in 

Alt 1

(2004 FEIS)

Withdrawn from 

Alts 2 and 4 in 

FEIS

New additions to 

Alts 2 and 4 in 

FEIS

Withdrawn from 

Alts 2 and 4 after 

FEIS

Total operations in 

Alts 2 and 4 in 

Supplement

34 5 18 5 42
Appendix 8A

Road Proposals Status Changes since 

the 2004 FEIS (sorted by road number)

NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Appendix 8A

A8A-1

Appendix 8A

Road Proposals Status Change since 2004 NFBR FEIS 

Sorted by Road Number

2012 Final SEIS Corrections

Road # Mine SWS Length 

(miles)

2004 FEIS Alt 

4 action (C = 

close, D = 

decommission)

Roads Closed or 

Decommissioned 

PRIOR to 2004 

FEIS 

Adjusted 

2004 

Alternative 4 

Road miles 

(Open to 

Closed or 

Open to 

Decom)

Adjusted 2004 

Alternative 4 

Road miles 

(Closed to 

Decom) 

1000315 Dominion E 1.21 C 1.21

1000361 Dominion 0.27 C 0.27

1000362 Dominion 0.36 D 0.36

1000363 Dominion 0.22 D 0.22

1000364 Dominion E 0.44 C 0.44

1000365 Dominion E 0.21 C 0.21

1000366 Dominion 0.10 D 0.1

1000369 Dominion E 0.07 C 0.07

1000375 Dominion E and F 0.79 C 0.79

1000376 Dominion E and F 0.27 C 0.27

1000378 Dominion F 0.27 C 0.27

1035125 Standby/McNamee

Placer

G 3.37 C 3.37

1035220 Standby/McNamee

Placer

G 0.26 C 0.26

1035250 Rocker Group G 0.23 D 0.23

1035455 Standby/McNamee

Placer

0.24 D 0.24

1035471 Midas/Ladybug 

Placer

0.10 C 0.1

1035485 Roberts Lode 0.19 C 0.19

1035508 Silver Eagle Lode G 0.51 C 0.51

1035509 Silver Eagle Lode 0.13 C 0.13

1035559 Snow Creek Placer G 0.04 C 0.04

1035560 None (used to 

access the 

withdrawn 

Playboy Placer

G 0.39 C 0.39

1035561 None (used to 

access the 

withdrawn 

Playboy Placer

G 0.16 C 0.16

1035562 None (used to 

access the 

withdrawn 

Playboy Placer

G 0.09 C 0.09

1035580 August Placer G 0.19 C 0.19

1035675 August Placer G 0.30 C 0.3
Appendix 8A NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

A8A-2

2012 Final SEIS Corrections

Road # Mine SWS Length 

(miles)

2004 FEIS Alt 

4 action (C = 

close, D = 

decommission)

Roads Closed or 

Decommissioned 

PRIOR to 2004 

FEIS 

Adjusted 

2004 

Alternative 4 

Road miles 

(Open to 

Closed or 

Open to 

Decom)

Adjusted 2004 

Alternative 4 

Road miles 

(Closed to 

Decom) 

1035850 Jackpot Placer G 0.20 C 0.2

1038250 Rocker Group G 0.20 C 0.20

1038302 August Placer G 0.09 C 0.09

1038303 August Placer G 0.11 C 0.11

1038304 August Placer G 0.09 C 0.09

1038400 Snow Creek Placer G 0.18 C 0.18

1038401 Snow Creek Placer G 0.08 C 0.08

1040020 N. Fork & Prudent 

Placers

E 0.20 C 0.2

1040059 N. Fork & Prudent 

Placers

E 0.42 D 0.42

1042012 Wild Flower 

Placer

G 0.21 C 0.21

1042014 Wild Flower 

Placer

G 0.36 C 0.36

1042039 None (used to 

access the 

withdrawn Dream 

Chaser Placer)

G 0.15 C 0.15

1042074 Sluice Box Placer G 0.11 C 0.11

1042087 Shamrock Placer G 0.24 C 0.24

1042096 R&RK#2, #3 

Placer

G 0.20 C 0.20

1042158 Burnt Lode/Placer G 0.18 C 0.18

1044030 Upper Winterville 

Placer/Lode

G 1.10 C 1.10

1044040 Parkerville & 

Upper Winterville

G 0.60 C 0.60

1044045 Parkerville & 

Upper Winterville

G 0.62 D 0.62

1044051 Upper Geiser G 1.33 D 1.33

1044065 Upper Geiser G 0.50 D 0.5

1044070 Upper Geiser G 0.26 D 0.26

1044075 Upper Geiser G 1.20 C 1.20

1044086 Upper Geiser G 0.19 D 0.19

1044100 Upper Geiser G 0.50 C 0.50

1044103 Upper Geiser & 

Geiser Stream 

Diversion

G 0.48 C 0.48

1044120 Upper Geiser G 0.56 C 0.56

1046035 West Parkerville G 0.21 C 0.21

1046035 West Parkerville G 0.79 C 0.79

1046036 West Parkerville G 0.07 C 0.07

1046045 Parkerville Placer G 0.42 D 0.42
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Appendix 8A

A8A-3

2012 Final SEIS Corrections

Road # Mine SWS Length 

(miles)

2004 FEIS Alt 

4 action (C = 

close, D = 

decommission)

Roads Closed or 

Decommissioned 

PRIOR to 2004 

FEIS 

Adjusted 

2004 

Alternative 4 

Road miles 

(Open to 

Closed or 

Open to 

Decom)

Adjusted 2004 

Alternative 4 

Road miles 

(Closed to 

Decom) 

1046050 Parkerville Placer G 0.42 C 0.42

1046065 West Parkerville G 0.70 C 0.7

1046178 Goldy Placer & 

Millsite

G 0.10 C 0.10

1046185 Goldy Placer & 

Millsite

G 1.00 C 1.00

1055100 Monarch Lode F 1.47 C 1.47

1055110 Monarch Lode 1.83 C 1.83

1055113 Monarch Lode F 1.09 D 1.09

1055115 Monarch Lode F 0.66 D 0.66

1055117 Monarch Lode F 0.39 D 0.39

1055140 Big Elk/Red Dog F 0.18 C 0.18

1055152 Red Dog Placer F 1.01 C 1.01

1055160 Three Cent Placer 0.30 C 0.3

1055300 Ladder/Rusty 

Bucker & 

Monarch Lode

F 2.10 C 2.1

1055305 Monarch Lode F 1.45 C 1.45

1055306 Monarch Lode F 0.29 C 0.29

1055315 Monarch Lode F 0.45 C 0.45

1055321 Monarch Lode F 0.87 C 0.87

1055328 Ladder/Rusty 

Bucker & 

Monarch Lode

F 0.06 C 0.06

1060128 Monarch Lode F 0.45 C 0.45

1060175 Monarch Lode F 0.29 D 0.29

1060200 Jay Gould Mine 

and Lode

F 2.00 C 2.00

1060201 Jay Gould Mine 

and Lode

F 0.70 C 0.70

1060202 Jay Gould Mine 

and Lode

F 0.24 C 0.24

1060203 Jay Gould Mine 

and Lode

F 0.16 C 0.16

1060204 Jay Gould Mine 

and Lode

F 0.13 C 0.13

1060265 Jay Gould Mine 

and Lode

F 0.20 C 0.2

1060267 Jay Gould Mine 

and Lode

F 2.16 C 2.16

1060269 Jay Gould Mine 

and Lode

0.29 D 0.29

1065110 Monarch Lode F 1.83 C 1.83

1065120 Monarch Lode F 0.18 D 0.18

1065140 Monarch Lode F 0.53 D 0.53
Appendix 8A NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

A8A-4

2012 Final SEIS Corrections

Road # Mine SWS Length 

(miles)

2004 FEIS Alt 

4 action (C = 

close, D = 

decommission)

Roads Closed or 

Decommissioned 

PRIOR to 2004 

FEIS 

Adjusted 

2004 

Alternative 4 

Road miles 

(Open to 

Closed or 

Open to 

Decom)

Adjusted 2004 

Alternative 4 

Road miles 

(Closed to 

Decom) 

1065150 Monarch Lode F 0.39 C 0.39

1065250 Monarch Lode F 0.29 D 0.29

1065270 Monarch Lode F 0.72 C 0.72

1065300 Monarch Lode F 0.47 D 0.47

1065910 Monarch Lode F 0.21 D 0.21

1075070 Three Cent 

Placer/Red Dog

D 1.22 C 1.22

1075071 Three Cent 

Placer/Red Dog

D 0.18 C 0.18

1075077 Three Cent 

Placer/Red Dog

D 0.41 C 0.41

1900280 EJ Placers D 2.06 C 2.06

1900282 EJ Placers C 1.90 C 1.90

1900371 Gold Camp Placer F 0.27 C 0.27

1900380 Gold Camp Placer F 0.23 C 0.23

1900390 Glory B & Old 

Channel Placer

F 0.27 C 0.27

1900392 Glory B & Old 

Channel Placer

F 0.92 C 0.92

1900393 Glory B Placer F 0.34 C 0.34

1900394 Old Channel 

Placer

F 0.23 C 0.23

1900400 Dominion F 0.39 D 0.39

1900422 Gold Busters 

Placer

F 0.30 C 0.30

1900424 Gold Busters 

Placer

F 0.87 C 0.87

1900425 Gold Busters 

Placer

F 0.20 C 0.20

1900430 Dominion F 0.37 C 0.37

1900460 Dominion F 1.10 C 1.10

1920015 EJ Placers C 1.10 C 1.10

1960040 Upper Winterville 

Placer/Lode

G 0.60 C 0.60

1960080 Upper Winterville 

Placer/Lode

G 0.60 C 0.60

7380120 Golden Bandit

Placer

F 3.00 C 3.00

7380160 Golden Bandit 

Placer

F 1.22 C 1.22

7380160 Golden Bandit 

Placer

F 1.29 C 1.29

7380163 Golden Bandit 

Placer

F 0.37 C 0.37
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Appendix 8A

A8A-5

2012 Final SEIS Corrections

Road # Mine SWS Length 

(miles)

2004 FEIS Alt 

4 action (C = 

close, D = 

decommission)

Roads Closed or 

Decommissioned 

PRIOR to 2004 

FEIS 

Adjusted 

2004 

Alternative 4 

Road miles 

(Open to 

Closed or 

Open to 

Decom)

Adjusted 2004 

Alternative 4 

Road miles 

(Closed to 

Decom) 

7380164 Golden Bandit 

Placer

F 0.21 C 0.21

7380200 Lucky Placer F 3.90 C 3.9

7380220 Lucky Placer F 1.60 C 1.6

7380231 Lucky Placer F 0.29 C 0.29

7380240 Lucky One 

Placer/Lode

F 0.80 C 0.80

7380240 Lucky One 

Placer/Lode

F 0.64 C 0.64

7380270 Gopher Placer F 0.16 C 0.16

7380290 Golden Donk 

Placer & Gopher 

Placer

F 0.69 C 0.69

7380300 Silver Bell Placer F 0.45 C 0.45

7380302 Silver Bell Placer F 0.22 D 0.22

7386260 Glory B, Golden 

Bandit, Star 

(Pinus), & Old 

Channel Placers

F 1.09 C 1.09

7386260 Glory B, Golden 

Bandit, Star 

(Pinus), & Old 

Channel Placers

F 1.55 C 1.55

7386410 Old Channel 

Placer

F 0.17 C 0.17

7386412 Golden Bandit 

Placer

F 0.29 D 0.29

7386415 Golden Bandit 

Placer

F 0.15 C 0.15

7386430 Star (Pinus) Placer F 0.69 D 0.69

80.21 68.00 7.67 4.54
Appendix 8A NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

A8A-6
Appendix 8B

Road Proposals Status Changes since 

the 2004 FEIS (sorted by mine)

NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Appendix 8B

A8B-1

Appendix 8B

Road Proposals Status Change since 2004 NFBR FEIS 

Sorted by Mine 

2012 Final SEIS Corrections

Mine Road # SWS Length 

(miles)

2004 FEIS Alt 

4 action (C = 

close, D = 

decommission)

Roads Closed or 

Decommissioned 

PRIOR to 2004 

FEIS 

Adjusted 

2004 

Alternative 4 

Road miles 

(Open to 

Closed or 

Open to 

Decom)

Adjusted 

2004 

Alternative 4 

Road miles 

(Closed to 

Decom) 

August Placer 1035580 G 0.19 C 0.19

August Placer 1035675 G 0.30 C 0.3

August Placer 1038302 G 0.09 C 0.09

August Placer 1038303 G 0.11 C 0.11

August Placer 1038304 G 0.09 C 0.09

Big Elk/Red Dog 1055140 F 0.18 C 0.18

Burnt Lode/Placer 1042158 G 0.18 C 0.18

Dominion 1000315 E 1.21 C 1.21

Dominion 1000361 0.27 C 0.27

Dominion 1000362 0.36 D 0.36

Dominion 1000363 0.22 D 0.22

Dominion 1000364 E 0.44 C 0.44

Dominion 1000365 E 0.21 C 0.21

Dominion 1000366 0.10 D 0.1

Dominion 1000369 E 0.07 C 0.07

Dominion 1000375 E 

and 

F

0.79 C 0.79

Dominion 1000376 E 

and 

F

0.27 C 0.27

Dominion 1000378 F 0.27 C 0.27

Dominion 1900400 F 0.39 D 0.39

Dominion 1900430 F 0.37 C 0.37

Dominion 1900460 F 1.10 C 1.10

EJ Placers 1900280 D 2.06 C 2.06

EJ Placers 1900282 C 1.90 C 1.90

EJ Placers 1920015 C 1.10 C 1.10

Glory B & Old 

Channel Placer

1900390 F 0.27 C 0.27

Glory B & Old 

Channel Placer

1900392 F 0.92 C 0.92

Glory B Placer 1900393 F 0.34 C 0.34

Glory B, Golden 

Bandit, Star 

(Pinus), & Old 

Channel Placers

7386260 F 1.09 C 1.09
Appendix 8B NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

A8B-2

2012 Final SEIS Corrections

Mine Road # SWS Length 

(miles)

2004 FEIS Alt 

4 action (C = 

close, D = 

decommission)

Roads Closed or 

Decommissioned 

PRIOR to 2004 

FEIS 

Adjusted 

2004 

Alternative 4 

Road miles 

(Open to 

Closed or 

Open to 

Decom)

Adjusted 

2004 

Alternative 4 

Road miles 

(Closed to 

Decom) 

Glory B, Golden 

Bandit, Star 

(Pinus), & Old 

Channel Placers

7386260 F 1.55 C 1.55

Gold Busters 

Placer

1900422 F 0.30 C 0.30

Gold Busters 

Placer

1900424 F 0.87 C 0.87

Gold Busters 

Placer

1900425 F 0.20 C 0.20

Gold Camp Placer 1900371 F 0.27 C 0.27

Gold Camp Placer 1900380 F 0.23 C 0.23

Golden Bandit 

Placer

7380120 F 3.00 C 3.00

Golden Bandit 

Placer

7380160 F 1.22 C 1.22

Golden Bandit 

Placer

7380160 F 1.29 C 1.29

Golden Bandit 

Placer

7380163 F 0.37 C 0.37

Golden Bandit 

Placer

7380164 F 0.21 C 0.21

Golden Bandit 

Placer

7386412 F 0.29 D 0.29

Golden Bandit 

Placer

7386415 F 0.15 C 0.15

Golden Donk 

Placer & Gopher 

Placer

7380290 F 0.69 C 0.69

Goldy Placer & 

Millsite

1046178 G 0.10 C 0.10

Goldy Placer &

Millsite

1046185 G 1.00 C 1.00

Gopher Placer 7380270 F 0.16 C 0.16

Jackpot Placer 1035850 G 0.20 C 0.2

Jay Gould Mine 

and Lode

1060200 F 2.00 C 2.00

Jay Gould Mine 

and Lode

1060201 F 0.70 C 0.70

Jay Gould Mine 

and Lode

1060202 F 0.24 C 0.24

Jay Gould Mine 

and Lode

1060203 F 0.16 C 0.16

Jay Gould Mine 

and Lode

1060204 F 0.13 C 0.13

Jay Gould Mine 

and Lode

1060265 F 0.20 C 0.2
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Appendix 8B

A8B-3

2012 Final SEIS Corrections

Mine Road # SWS Length 

(miles)

2004 FEIS Alt 

4 action (C = 

close, D = 

decommission)

Roads Closed or 

Decommissioned 

PRIOR to 2004 

FEIS 

Adjusted 

2004 

Alternative 4 

Road miles 

(Open to 

Closed or 

Open to 

Decom)

Adjusted 

2004 

Alternative 4 

Road miles 

(Closed to 

Decom) 

Jay Gould Mine 

and Lode

1060267 F 2.16 C 2.16

Jay Gould Mine 

and Lode

1060269 0.29 D 0.29

Ladder/Rusty 

Bucker & 

Monarch Lode

1055300 F 2.10 C 2.1

Ladder/Rusty 

Bucker & 

Monarch Lode

1055328 F 0.06 C 0.06

Lucky One 

Placer/Lode

7380240 F 0.80 C 0.80

Lucky One 

Placer/Lode

7380240 F 0.64 C 0.64

Lucky Placer 7380200 F 3.90 C 3.9

Lucky Placer 7380220 F 1.60 C 1.6

Lucky Placer 7380231 F 0.29 C 0.29

Midas/Ladybug 

Placer

1035471 0.10 C 0.1

Monarch Lode 1055100 F 1.47 C 1.47

Monarch Lode 1055110 1.83 C 1.83

Monarch Lode 1055113 F 1.09 D 1.09

Monarch Lode 1055115 F 0.66 D 0.66

Monarch Lode 1055117 F 0.39 D 0.39

Monarch Lode 1055305 F 1.45 C 1.45

Monarch Lode 1055306 F 0.29 C 0.29

Monarch Lode 1055315 F 0.45 C 0.45

Monarch Lode 1055321 F 0.87 C 0.87

Monarch Lode 1060128 F 0.45 C 0.45

Monarch Lode 1060175 F 0.29 D 0.29

Monarch Lode 1065110 F 1.83 C 1.83

Monarch Lode 1065120 F 0.18 D 0.18

Monarch Lode 1065140 F 0.53 D 0.53

Monarch Lode 1065150 F 0.39 C 0.39

Monarch Lode 1065250 F 0.29 D 0.29

Monarch Lode 1065270 F 0.72 C 0.72

Monarch Lode 1065300 F 0.47 D 0.47

Monarch Lode 1065910 F 0.21 D 0.21

N. Fork & Prudent 

Placers

1040020 E 0.20 C 0.2

N. Fork & Prudent 

Placers

1040059 E 0.42 D 0.42
Appendix 8B NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

A8B-4

2012 Final SEIS Corrections

Mine Road # SWS Length 

(miles)

2004 FEIS Alt 

4 action (C = 

close, D = 

decommission)

Roads Closed or 

Decommissioned 

PRIOR to 2004 

FEIS 

Adjusted 

2004 

Alternative 4 

Road miles 

(Open to 

Closed or 

Open to 

Decom)

Adjusted 

2004 

Alternative 4 

Road miles 

(Closed to 

Decom) 

None (used to 

access the 

withdrawn Dream 

Chaser Placer)

1042039 G 0.15 C 0.15

None (used to 

access the 

withdrawn 

Playboy Placer

1035560 G 0.39 C 0.39

None (used to 

access the 

withdrawn 

Playboy Placer

1035561 G 0.16 C 0.16

None (used to 

access the 

withdrawn 

Playboy Placer

1035562 G 0.09 C 0.09

Old Channel 

Placer

1900394 F 0.23 C 0.23

Old Channel 

Placer

7386410 F 0.17 C 0.17

Parkerville & 

Upper Winterville

1044040 G 0.60 C 0.60

Parkerville & 

Upper Winterville

1044045 G 0.62 D 0.62

Parkerville Placer 1046045 G 0.42 D 0.42

Parkerville Placer 1046050 G 0.42 C 0.42

R&RK#2, #3 

Placer

1042096 G 0.20 C 0.20

Red Dog Placer 1055152 F 1.01 C 1.01

Roberts Lode 1035485 0.19 C 0.19

Rocker Group 1035250 G 0.23 D 0.23

Rocker Group 1038250 G 0.20 C 0.20

Shamrock Placer 1042087 G 0.24 C 0.24

Silver Bell Placer 7380300 F 0.45 C 0.45

Silver Bell Placer 7380302 F 0.22 D 0.22

Silver Eagle Lode 1035508 G 0.51 C 0.51

Silver Eagle Lode 1035509 0.13 C 0.13

Sluice Box Placer 1042074 G 0.11 C 0.11

Snow Creek Placer 1035559 G 0.04 C 0.04

Snow Creek Placer 1038400 G 0.18 C 0.18

Snow Creek Placer 1038401 G 0.08 C 0.08

Standby/McNamee

Placer

1035125 G 3.37 C 3.37

Standby/McNamee

Placer

1035220 G 0.26 C 0.26

Standby/McNamee

Placer

1035455 0.24 D 0.24

Star (Pinus) Placer 7386430 F 0.69 D 0.69

Three Cent Placer 1055160 0.30 C 0.3
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Appendix 8B

A8B-5

2012 Final SEIS Corrections

Mine Road # SWS Length 

(miles)

2004 FEIS Alt 

4 action (C = 

close, D = 

decommission)

Roads Closed or 

Decommissioned 

PRIOR to 2004 

FEIS 

Adjusted 

2004 

Alternative 4 

Road miles 

(Open to 

Closed or 

Open to 

Decom)

Adjusted 

2004 

Alternative 4 

Road miles 

(Closed to 

Decom) 

Three Cent 

Placer/Red Dog

1075070 D 1.22 C 1.22

Three Cent 

Placer/Red Dog

1075071 D 0.18 C 0.18

Three Cent 

Placer/Red Dog

1075077 D 0.41 C 0.41

Upper Geiser 1044051 G 1.33 D 1.33

Upper Geiser 1044065 G 0.50 D 0.5

Upper Geiser 1044070 G 0.26 D 0.26

Upper Geiser 1044075 G 1.20 C 1.20

Upper Geiser 1044086 G 0.19 D 0.19

Upper Geiser 1044100 G 0.50 C 0.50

Upper Geiser 1044120 G 0.56 C 0.56

Upper Geiser & 

Geiser Stream 

Diversion

1044103 G 0.48 C 0.48

Upper Winterville 

Placer/Lode

1044030 G 1.10 C 1.10

Upper Winterville 

Placer/Lode

1960040 G 0.60 C 0.60

Upper Winterville 

Placer/Lode

1960080 G 0.60 C 0.60

West Parkerville 1046035 G 0.21 C 0.21

West Parkerville 1046035 G 0.79 C 0.79

West Parkerville 1046036 G 0.07 C 0.07

West Parkerville 1046065 G 0.70 C 0.7

Wild Flower 

Placer

1042012 G 0.21 C 0.21

Wild Flower 

Placer

1042014 G 0.36 C 0.36

80.21 68.00 7.67 4.54
Appendix 8B NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

A8B-6
Appendix 9

Water Use, Water Rights and Large 

Woody Material Changes Proposed in 

Plans of Operations

NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Appendix 9

A9-1

Appendix 9

Proposed Water Use, Water Rights, and Large Woody Material (LWM) changes uses in Plans of Operations

Plan of Operation Creek/INFISH

buffer

Water Source DIRECT water 

withdrawals from 

Creek?

LWM recruitment concern

August Placer 1, 2, 

3

None adit no None. distant from any creek

Big Elk/Red Dog Trib to Dry 

Ck/50 feet

snow melt and possibly 

groundwater into ponds

no Areas where there are no trees or only a few small trees will 

be tested first. A 10-15 foot buffer will be left along Dry 

Creek (15' if there is a tree growing), p.1

Burnt Lode/Placer NFBR/300 feet Snow melt and groundwater. Water from NFBR 

only if a water 

right is obtained.

At site #2, clear down to Cub Ck, some trees in the tailings 

will have to be removed to mine. At site 1, no tree removal.

Camp Hale Placer None irrigation ditch. Not referring to 

Pete Mann ditch

no None. Project area more than 300 feet from creek

Dominion Lode 

Group

None Will drill 1 or 2 wells or hauled 

in.

no None. Project areas more than 100 feet from creek

EJ Placer A, B, C, 

D, E

NFBR/300 feet groundwater no No tree removal will take place during test hole excavation, 

however a few trees approximately 12" DBH will have to be 

removed at the processing site where they are growing in and 

between ponds and they have to be removed to set up the 

trommel (p.3).

Gimlet Placer Gimlet 

Creek/300 feet 

groundwater and water from the 

creek

Yes, make up 

water will be 

pumped or gravity 

fed from the creek.

Maybe because dead lodgepole pine will be piled for burning 

or used on the claims as firewood. This would locally reduce 

potential LWM inputs.

Glory B Placer Jackknife 

Ck/50 feet

Glory B Placer reservoir #83661. 

Never found it in the field

yes, but appears to 

have a water right 

for it. Water will 

be groundwater 

because creek is 

dry in summer.

Maybe. Trees which are removed will be less than 24 " 

DBH. However, no trees along the channel will be removed. 
Appendix 9 NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

A9-2

Plan of Operation Creek/INFISH

buffer

Water Source DIRECT water 

withdrawals from 

Creek?

LWM recruitment concern

Gold Busters 

Placer

Pinus Ck/300 

feet

"streams will not be visibly 

dewatered (p.3)

Unclear what the 

water source is but 

Plan suggests water 

will be from the 

stream.

A few small trees will be removed. 

Gold Camp Placer

1, 2, 3

Camp Ck/300 

feet

Mixed. 1) snow melt in existing 

ponds in dry draw until they dry 

out. 2) water may be hauled in. 3) 

well may be drilled near seasonal 

spring. 4) A water right exists for 

pumping from Camp Creek.

A water right exists 

for pumping from 

Camp Creek.

No removal of trees over 20 inches during testing. 

Golden Bandit 

Placer/Lode 1

None water will be hauled in and used 

for drilling. For Placer part , will 

use the existing and reconstructed 

ponds as water sources. Water 

source = snowmelt.

no Some trees will be cut but not near any creeks.

Golden Bandit 

Placer/Lode 2

None same source type as GB 1 same source type 

as GB 1

same as GB 1

Goldy Placer & 

Millsite

None Skinny Dip pond no Some trees will be cut but not near any creeks.

Gopher Placer 1 

(north of FS 7830) 

Gopher Placer 2 

(south of FS 7830)

Simpson Ck/50 

feet

Mixed sources: 1) spring water 

which enters ponds. 2) Text 

suggests that some of the ponds 

are being supplied by 

groundwater. 3) Will funnel 

water draining off bedrock into 

ponds.

Water would only 

be pumped from 

Simpson Creek if a 

water right is 

obtained from the 

State. 

None. Any snags which are not hazard trees or in the way of 

the operation will be left standing if located within 300 feet 

of Simpson Creek or 150 feet of West Simpson. Very little 

of the site is close to the creek. 

Jay Gould Lode 

(Banzer)

Unnamed 

channel ends in 

wetland/50 feet

Adit water no none. Some timbers will be cut for the lode, but they will be 

at least 50 feet from the creek.

Jay Gould Mine 

Works (Newell)

Gimlet trib Adit water no none. Some timbers will be cut for the lode, but they will be 

at least 50 feet from the creek.
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Appendix 9

A9-3

Plan of Operation Creek/INFISH

buffer

Water Source DIRECT water 

withdrawals from 

Creek?

LWM recruitment concern

Jim Bob Placer NFBR/300 feet Do not explicitly state source but 

text suggests that it will be 

groundwater. 

no none. Areas where there are no large trees will be tested first. 

Only a minimum of seedling and saplings will be impacted. 

Area to be tested is 50 to 100 feet wide and about 300 feet 

long. Near the hillside and in the falt area along the river 

there are some trees over 12 inches DBH. These trees will be 

avoided except where gold values are high and the trees are at 

least 50 feet from the river and do not provide shade to the 

river. 

Ladder/Rusty 

Bucket

None adit, adit pond, large pond east of 

the adit pond, well, and lower 

pond. No live streams nearby. 

Water source thus adit water, 

snowmelt.

no none. Not near any streams. Areas that are open and have 

few or no trees will be tested first. No large trees (over 21 

inches DBH) will be removed in the operation.

Lucky One 

Placer/Lode

Simpson 

Ck/150 feet

adit and if not enough water then 

a well will be drilled.

no None. No testing will be closer than 50 feet from the creek 

on west side. On east side testing will take place in the area 

which was clear cut in the timber sale.

Lucky Placer None Water will be from existing 

ponds. Water source appears to 

be groundwater and/or snowmelt. 

no None. Distance from any stream.

Midas/Lady Bug 

Placer

None For dredging the western 

tributary the operator will 

construct a temporary dam of 

rocks and dead fall trees. 

Snowmelt will provide water. 

Stream goes dry early. Trib has 

been hydraulically mined. Ponds 

for settling and processing are on 

ridge. Tapping into groundwater 

and snowmelt. 

no but will use 

water that is 

captured behind 

temp. dam when 

dredging. Also 

will be using 

groundwater and 

snowmelt into the 

ridge ponds. 

None. Areas to be mine are on ridge. 

Monarch Lode

(sites 1, 2, 4)

None water truck will supply water to 

drilling sites

no None. Will required mine timbers for initial portaling and 

drifting. Trees will be from on site. However, most of drill 

sites are not close to streams. 

North Fork Placer NFBR/300 feet ponds supplied by groundwater no None. Mining area is at least 25 feet from creek. No 

reference to removing trees but this area does not have a lot 

of conifers in the area. 
Appendix 9 NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

A9-4

Plan of Operation Creek/INFISH

buffer

Water Source DIRECT water 

withdrawals from 

Creek?

LWM recruitment concern

Old Channel Placer None existing spring fed ponds and one 

pond with water source unstated 

but likely either groundwater or 

the spring 

no None. small trees will be moved out of the way of the 

operation. 

Parkerville Placer

Mining

None Clean water from PM Ditch will 

flow through the two upper ponds 

and down to the lower pond 

where water needed for 

processing will be pumped out. 

No

Prudent Placer NFBR/300 feet Process water will come from off 

channel ponds. Make up water 

will be pumped from the Burnt 

River (actually NFBR) only as 

authorized by the State. 

Yes IF get okay 

from State: "Make 

up water will be 

pumped from the 

Burnt River 

(actually NFBR) 

only as authorized 

by the State." 

The operations will not remove any tress which provide 

shade to the North Fork Burnt River.... Willows and alders 

along the stream will not be removed or damaged.

R&RK 2,3 NFBR/300 feet Water will come from 

groundwater and/or existing 

dredge ponds.

No Trees and brush growing along the stream, its tributaries and 

any springs or bogs will be left undisturbed for at least 20 

feet on all sides to protect the water.

R&RK 4, 5 NFBR/300 feet existing off-channel ponds No Vegetated strip of 25 feet will be maintained between the test 

holes and river (p. 5). A few small trees will be removed 

during testing (p. 3)

Racer 

Group/Keystone 

Korners Placer

Geiser Ck/50 

feet and 300 

feet

groundwater. No use of Geiser 

Creek water unless a water right 

is obtained (p. 5)

No A few small trees will be removed during test activities, 

however, areas which have the fewest trees will be chosen as 

test sites (p. 3). Trees and brush growing along the stream, 

its tributaries and any springs or bogs will be left undisturbed 

for at least 20 feet on all sides to protect the water from 

sediment and to keep stream temperatures low (p.3).

Roberts Lode None (Snow Creek processing site for 

lode. Placer operation will use 

water from the portal.

No No streams within 300 feet of the adit. No trees removed at 

the Snow Creek processing site.
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Appendix 9

A9-5

Plan of Operation Creek/INFISH

buffer

Water Source DIRECT water 

withdrawals from 

Creek?

LWM recruitment concern

Rocker Group

Placer

Greenhorn 

Ck/300 feet; 

Slab Creek/50 

feet

Four off-channel ponds. 2 for 

settling/recycling and 2 for 

processing. Groundwater and 

snowmelt. Make up water for 

processing pond will come from 

the settling/recycling ponds or 

the creek when needed.

Make up will be 

used from the 

creek IF needed. 

Tree removal will take place ahead of the mining operation 

(p. 3) but at least a 20-foot buffer will be maintained between 

the mining site and Greenhorn Creek and a 10-foot buffer 

between the mining site and Slab Creek.

Shamrock Placer NFBR/300 feet Off-channel ponds and creek They note that 

make up water will 

be needed as water 

is lost to 

evaporation and 

seepage but are 

unclear if the offchannel ponds are 

the source of that 

make up water or 

the creek. 

This site has almost no trees. It is an open valley bottom. 

They will have a buffer between the creek and operation. 

They also note that "some tree removal may take place but no 

trees will be removed that provide shade essential for 

maintaining stream temperatures.

Silver Bell Placer

#2

Camp Ck/150 

feet

One in-channel pond. Is an 

exempt reservior. Pond has 

assigned permit #83654 by State 

of Oregon. Reservoir is spring 

fed. Water from this pond will 

be pumped to three off-channel 

ponds for use in processing.

yes. In channel, 

spring-fed pond is 

source of water for 

3 off-channel 

ponds and stream. 

None. Any trees removed will be 8 -10 inches or less. 

Silver Eagle Lode None Unclear. Say 50 gallons of water 

to be used initially to process 

concentrates. They are NOT 

using the adit water so must be 

bringing it in.

No none. Area is distant from any channels. A few small trees 

10" or less may need to be cut, but minmal tree removal is 

needed. 

Sluice Box Placer NFBR/300 feet water will be pumped from a 

spring

No none. Only a few small trees and seedlings will be removed 

during testing. The site has a 25 foot buffer.

Snow Creek Placer Snow Ck/300 

feet

Water will be taken from Snow 

Creek if a water right is obtained 

and water will be taken from the 

large ponds. Large ponds are 

being feed by groundwater. 

Yes, if water right 

obtained.

None. No trees or brush providing shade to the stream will 

be removed within at least 20 foot buffer adjacent to the 

stream. Three large diameter western larch will be protected 

while mining. No distubance will take place closer than 20 

feet from these trees. 
Appendix 9 NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

A9-6

Plan of Operation Creek/INFISH

buffer

Water Source DIRECT water 

withdrawals from 

Creek?

LWM recruitment concern

Standby/McNamee

Placer 1 (upstream 

site)

McNamee 

Gulch/50 feet

Water will come from the 

existing shaft

No None. A few small lodgepole pine will be removed, 

however, no trees or brush which shade the creek will be 

impacted.

Standby/McNamee

Placer 2 

(downstream site)

McNamee 

Gulch/150 feet

Water will come from 

groundwater and/or the existing 

pond

No Same as #1

Star (Pinus) Pinus Creek

(300 ft)

Off channel ponds (groundwater) No None. No trees or brush providing shade to the stream will 

be removed. No other tree removal is anticipated other than 

removal of dead trees and a few small green trees on areas to 

be tested. 

Three Cent Placer

Processing 1

Three Cent 

Ck/150 feet

In-channel ponds that are spring 

feed (NOTE: These ponds are in 

a draw but I would not really call 

them "in-channel" in the sense 

that they in a flowing stream.) 

Also well (though not sure where 

it will be).

No None. No new disturbance planned.

Three Cent Placer

Processing 2 (East 

Three Cent mining 

site)

Three Cent 

Ck/50 feet

Will dig pond. Water = 

groundwater 

No None. Proposed processing site will be in a place where 

there are no trees. 

Three Cent Placer

Mining 1 (north of 

FS 1075 road)

N/A N/A Maybe some as will be mining in dry stream channel. Area 

will be small. 

Three Cent Placer

Mining 2 (south of 

FS 1075 road)

N/A N/A None. Not in drainage area

Three Cent 

Placer/East 

(mining)

N/A N/A None. While "A few trees may be impacted during test 

work" activity will take place more than 200 feet from the 

creek. 

Three Cent 

Placer/Red Dog

Groundwater in pond No None. No creek.
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Appendix 9

A9-7

Plan of Operation Creek/INFISH

buffer

Water Source DIRECT water 

withdrawals from 

Creek?

LWM recruitment concern

Upper Geiser 

Creek Placer/Lode

(processing site)

Geiser 

Creek/300 feet

Geiser Creek or off channel pond 

according to plan. However, 

field visit saw multiple off 

channel ponds that have 

groundwater. All at least 50 feet 

from creek.

The plan suggests 

yes, but field visit 

saw multiple 

exisitng offchannel ponds 

which are being 

used. 

No. 20 foot buffer between stream and testing.

Upper Winterville 

Placer/Lode 

(southern section)

None Water for panning will come 

from small perennial section of 

Winterville Creek. Bulk samples 

will take place on Geiser Creek 

site.

A little for panning None. There will be a 20 foot buffer.

West Parkerville 

Placer

Tony Ck/300 

feet

Groundwater in existing ponds. No None. There will be a 20 foot buffer.

Wild Flower Placer NFBR/300 feet groundwater in ponds. no None. Mining will be in the hillslope which is more than 100 

feet from creek.
Appendix 9 NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

A9-8
Appendix 10

Responses to Comments 

on the Draft SEIS

NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Appendix 10

A10-1

Appendix 10

Responses to Comments

The following comments were received in response to the August 2010 NFBR Mining Draft 

Supplemental EIS. All letters and emails received during the 45-day comment period can be 

found in the project file. Responses to the comments were written by WWNF personnel.

Jan Alexander 10/17/10

Comment 1: I still believe the FS has done the miners a disservice by lumping all the 

operations into one document. If there is one problem with the document, that one problem will 

stop all the miners from operating.

Response 1: In some cases, separate EAs are appropriate for documenting isolated, small-scale 

mining operations. However, when several operations are located within one watershed, 

documenting a single operation through analysis in an EA may not meet Council on 

Environmental Quality Regulations. NEPA requires disclosure of reasonably foreseeable 

actions. Because all 42 operations are located in the same watershed, and all proposed mining 

activities will occur during the same time period, the Forest determined these proposals were 

similar actions in the context of NEPA. It was decided early on that with so many operations 

within one watershed, all with the potential of affecting many of the same resources, one analysis 

was necessary to cover all the proposed operations. Given the potential for significant effects, 40 

CFR directs documentation of the analysis in an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) (40 

C.F.R. § 1508.27). The regulation authorizes agencies to consider similar actions in a single 

document, and encourages them to do so when one EIS will provide the best way to adequately 

assess the combined impacts of similar actions (40 C.F.R. § 1508.25(a)(3)). 

The Forest understands how this has affected these small mining operators and has been working 

to allow for some limited mining activities within the scope of the regulations. As they worked 

through this analysis, the Forest made every effort to evaluate individual mining proposals and 

when possible, authorized mining activities that had minimal surface disturbance. In some cases 

where operators were unable to complete operations in the time period they specified in their 

Plan of Operation (Plan), the Forest extended their Plan. In addition, for some limited 

exploration activities, the Forest worked with the operators to modify their proposal to reduce the 

disturbance to less than significant levels. This has allowed operators to proceed within these 

limited activities without a Plan (36CFR 228.4 (a)(1)(i) through (v)). See Appendix A at the end

of this appendix.

Comment 2: On page 16D #2 talks about the “expiration of approval of the Plan”. The Forest 

Service does not have the right under the law to “unapprove” a Plan. I suggest some different 

wording for this paragraph.

Response 2: Title 36 of the Code of Regulations (36CFR) §228.4 (c)(3) requires the operator to 

identify “the period during which the proposed activity will take place.” The reference to the 

expiration of the Plan refers to the end of the period identified in the Plan. 
Appendix 10 NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

A10-2

Comment 3: Alternative 1 is not correct. The North Fork Mining, Snow Creek and Three Cent 

Plans of Operation are all ongoing Plans approved under Environmental Assessments. 

Dominion was also approved, although not a lot of mining took place. The other seven Plans 

may lack duration of activities dates but no Plans have “expiration dates”. The operating plan 

form simply states that if operations will continue past the miners’ best guess for how long it will 

take to complete his project, he must submit a new or revised Plan. Please correct this 

paragraph.

Response 3: Same as response to Comment 2. 

Comment 4: In Chapter 2, amending the Forest Plan (insignificant amendment) to reflect the 

need for additional roads to meet the statutory rights of mining access is acceptable, however, 

my concern is that you are attempting to set a precedence for the number of roads that will be 

allowed for mining access. If an additional mile of road is needed by a future miner, the 

amendment covers only the miles of road needed under this EIS. Mining access is a statutory 

right and this right cannot be superseded by the Forest Plan. I would suggest that if it is 

important that the Forest Plan reflect mining access, then these miles of road should be set 

higher than what is presently needed, so that no future Forest Plan amendments are necessary.

Response 4: This decision can only address the current proposals. However, the decision will 

not affect future requests for additional access needed for operations. When and if additional 

requests are received, a separate analysis will be conducted to determine if the requests are 

reasonable, if other options are available that may reduce surface impacts, and if additional 

environmental analysis is necessary. Any future requests would be considered a supplement to 

the Plan and be subject to the same review as the original Plan (36CFR §228.5 (c)).

The Final SEIS differs from the Draft SEIS in its presentation of open road densities and the 

need for a Forest Plan Amendment. Unlike the Draft SEIS, a Forest Plan Amendment for open 

road densities is no longer included in Alternative 4 of the Final SEIS. Further analysis of the 

Forest Plan between the Draft and the Final SEIS determined that the project is consistent with 

Forest Plan. Refer to the Changes from Draft to Final section, and Chapter 3 

Access/Transportation System in the Final SEIS for a more detailed explanation how open road 

density guidelines are met.

Comment 5: On page 36, the direction speaks only to timber sales. Since you are amending the 

Forest Plan, can you add “mining operations”?

Response 5: Project specific amendments like the one proposed for this analysis are specific to 

the project area and activities under analysis. An amendment of the magnitude you are 

requesting would require a “significant” Forest Plan Amendment that would be outside the scope 

of this analysis.

A Forest Plan Amendment is no longer included in Alternative 4. Upon further review it has 

been determined that Alternative 4 is consistent with Forest Plan guidelines. Refer to Chapter 3 

Access/Transportation System in the Final SEIS for a more detailed discussion of open road 

density guidelines.
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Appendix 10

A10-3

Comment 6: On page 37 you have the Wildlfower operation east of the county road instead of 

west of the road and across the river (you do have it in the right spot on the map). For 

consistency, this too should probably be a “yes” for alternative 2.

Response 6: The map included in the Plan of Operation turned out to be incorrect. Upon 

receiving the correct map, the hydrologist revisited the site on October 15, 2010 and reassessed 

the potential for a discharge. Based on observations made during that visit, the ford that crosses 

the North Fork Burnt River was identified as having a potential for a discharge under Alternative 

2. Therefore, there is a correction to Table 3-11 (Table 2-5 in the Draft SEIS is replaced with 

Table 3-11 in Chapter 3 of the Final SEIS). Under Alternative 2, Wildflower Placer is shown as 

having the potential for a discharge. Under Alternative 4 (with Forest Service BMPs), there 

would be no potential for a discharge. This correction has been made throughout the Final 

SEIS.

Comment 7: On page 54 and 55, there is an elaborate discussion of buffer widths and a sketch, 

but I am afraid most miners will not have a clue. If each Plan of Operation was evaluated under 

a separate EA, there would be a detailed discussion of that operation and where the required 

buffers are to be located.

Response 7: The Draft SEIS includes site-specific Water Quality Protection Measures, including 

buffers, for each individual operation and site, in Draft SEIS Appendix 1A. 

Comment 8: On page 60, the Wildflower operation, using mechanized equipment is located 

across the river. You need to correct the Wildflower description throughout the document.

Response 8: See Response 6

Comment 9: On page 62, the Silver Bell ponds are in place. Shamrock has an off-channel pond 

but has proposed settling ponds. Wildflower has a small off-channel pond but has proposed 

settling ponds.

Response 9: Note: Draft SEIS Appendix 5 is now numbered as Appendix 4 in the FSEIS. 

Silver Bell ponds: The confusion stems from one of the maps included in the Plan of Operations. 

This map shows the location of proposed ponds for the Silver Bell #1 site. However, 

clarification has since been provided by the operator, and the map showing Silver Bell #1 site 

and its corresponding proposed ponds does not apply to the Plan. No activity is proposed for 

Silver Bell # 1, therefore, there are no proposed ponds for the Plan. A correction has been made 

to Table 3-7 and to Final SEIS Appendix 4 to reflect that 1) there are only existing ponds in the 

RHCA, 2) no new ponds are proposed, and 3) no activity is planned for Silver Bell #1. 

Shamrock Placer ponds: The Plan as written is confusing as to whether the processing/settling 

ponds are existing or proposed. The Plan states “The water source for the operation is off 

channel ponds......Thus, the ponds are oversized in case of a storm event....” (p. 6). This 

suggests the presence of multiple, existing ponds. The next paragraph on p. 6 states 

“Settling/recycling ponds will be at least 50 feet from the river.” This suggests proposed ponds. 
Appendix 10 NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

A10-4

The map attached to the Plan shows proposed ponds. No existing ponds were observed during 

the field visit on November 6, 2003 and therefore for this analysis no existing ponds were 

considered. 

The following corrections have been made in to the FSEIS: 1) On Table 3-7 under existing 

ponds inside the RHCA will remain No, but proposed ponds inside the RHCA has been changed 

to a Yes. 2) Corrections have also been made to Final SEIS Appendix 4.

Wildflower Placer ponds: The comment above was confirmed with the correct map and a field 

visit. Corrections have been made to Table 3-7 stating that ponds are proposed in the RHCA and 

in Final SEIS Appendix 4.

Comment 10: On page 64, 0.00 needs to be added to the chart for North Fork and 

Prudent/Number 9.

Response 10: The FSEIS shows the correction.

Comment 11: On page 66 there is a chart that should be a complete repeat of the chart on page 

33, but it isn’t, which is very confusing.

Response 11: Table 2-5 is replaced with Table 3-11 in Chapter 3 in the Final SEIS. This will 

eliminate the confusion.

Comment 12: On page 70, the Wild flower and maybe Parkerville probably should have a 

“yes” call for alternative 2 due to their locations.

Response 12: Wild Flower Placer: Based on correct map and site visit, the discharge call under 

Alternative 2 has been changed from a No to a Yes as a result of ford characteristics. 

Parkerville Placer: Based on the site visit and Plan the operators will be using off-channel 

ponds. The activity is in an area that was hydraulically mined in the past creating a draw but not 

channels. Therefore, the discharge call under Alternative 2 and 4 will continue to be No. 

Comment 13: On page 75, we again have the repeat of the page 33 chart and the page 66 chart. 

This is confusing to me. The operations I mentioned above, Wildlfower and Parkerville, may 

need to be looked at for alternative 2.

Response 13: See Response 11.

Comment 14: On page 81, North Fork and Prudent have a blank space in the chart.

Response 14: There are no closed roads that would be used under Alternative 2. The table 

displays a value of 0.00 miles in the FSEIS.

Comment 15: On page 105, the document needs to describe what the direction is for “damming 

or diversion of water” and the document should explain what operations this refers to.
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Appendix 10

A10-5

Response 15: The following clarification is included in the Final SEIS:

“These include direction for damming instream flows to create instream ponds for suction 

dredging (Midas Ladybug Placer) or diversion of water from streams into off channel ponds 

which a number of operators propose if a water right can be acquired.”

Comment 16: On page 113, the document states that a TMDL standard is scheduled for 2009. 

This statement needs to be changed to reflect the fact that this is a responsibility of DEQ and that 

no standard has been determined.

Response 16: The sentence referencing the TMDL has been corrected as follows:

Determination of a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) standard for the Burnt River Sub-basin, 

which encompasses the North Fork Burnt River subwatershed, is the responsibility of Oregon 

Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ). The major water quality concerns are bacteria, 

nutrients, and temperature. There are also a few 303(d) listings for dissolved oxygen, 

chlorophyll, sedimentation and turbidity. ODEQ collected some bacteria data in 2007/2008, and 

started sampling 10 locations for bacteria and nutrients in 2010. They plan to continue sampling 

those 10 locations through 2011 and 2012. Water Quality modeling is anticipated to begin late 

2012 or 2013. The TMDL would likely not be completed until at least 2013 (John Dadoly, 

ODEQ, 2/10/11, email). 

Comment 17: Page 114 has a typo under Effects to Wetlands and Floodplains. The first 

paragraph, last sentence should be a one percent or greater chance, not change.

Response 17: This correction has been made in the Final SEIS.

Comment 18: Appendix 1A page 31, for consistency, I would suggest you give the 

Standby/McNamee miners the option of using filter fabric or some other form of buffer such as 

straw or washed tailings, instead of increasing their buffer width. Rocker got the option of using 

filter fabric and Greenhorn Creek is perennial; Standby didn’t get this option, and McNamee 

dries up. Consistency is the key.

Response 18: In the Final SEIS, the following Water Quality Protection Measure (WQPM) has 

been added in Final SEIS Appendix 1A for Rocker Group and Standby/McNamee Placer and any 

other operations where the proposed buffer when measured from the valley floor-channel break 

in slope is not sufficient to ensure that there would be no potential for a discharge of sediment 

into a stream channel:

The operator will place between the operation and the channel one of the following: silt fences, 

bales of straw, bermed washed tailings. 

Comment 19: Appendix 1A, page 33, the effects discussion for Three Cent is confusing. Do you 

want the ponds constructed on top of the 24 foot wide mound? This discussion needs work. Also, 

there does not appear to be a clear understanding of this operation.

Response 19: This comment refers to Three Cent Placer Processing site 2. 
Appendix 10 NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

A10-6

No. As stated in Draft SEIS Appendix 1A, the ponds would not be built on the 24-foot wide 

mound (i.e. island) but would be relocated downstream of the confluence of the channel and the 

short draw (i.e. below the aspen grove) and on the west side of the creek. This change in 

location would reduce the impact to surface resources because it would eliminate the need to 

cross the seasonally-dry channel. However, the new location is still not sufficient to eliminate 

the possibility of a discharge because the topography slopes towards the creek, the flat area near 

the creek is narrow, and the bank sediment are fine grained. The pond at the new location is 

within 10 feet of the creek. As the pond fills with water, there will be groundwater flow towards 

the bank resulting in saturated sediments/seepage zones. These seepage zones will mobilize 

bank sediments and result in a potential for a discharge of sediment into the channel. 

The potential for a discharge as a result of seepage from the pond at the new location was not 

captured in the Draft SEIS. However, the Final SEIS corrects this and Three Cent Placer

Processing site 2 is identified as having a potential for a discharge under all alternatives. 

Comment 20: There 2 mining sites, site #1 which is north of road #1075, and site #2 which is 

south of road #1075. There are three processing sites, processing site #1, just south of road 

1075 which is being utilized now, processing site #2 which is near the aspen grove and currently 

the ponds are reclaimed, and another pond located in the north part of the claims. I see no 

discussion of using this spring fed, off channel pond. See POO page 3 “A pond located on the 

north end of the claims, in the area which was previously disturbed, will be used to process small 

runs of material early in the year when there is sufficient water. The pond is approximately 

80’X65’X10’ deep...” There are existing settling ponds on site that will be cleaned out and used 

to settle and recycle this water. Three cent does not have a defined channel in the area where 

this pond is located.

Response 20: Comment 20 is in reference to Three Cent Placer. Discussion of the spring-fed, 

off channel pond is found in Chapter 3, the effects discussion for Three Cent Placer Mining 1. 

The effects discussion states: “No potential for a discharge of a pollutant into navigable waters, 

as defined by the CWA. The miner would only use the pond for processing and there is no 

surface connection between the pond and Three Cent Creek.” 

This area north of FS 1075 is both a processing site and a mining site. In the Plan, the operator 

identifies this site as Mining site #1. 

In the Final SEIS the following clarification is made to all applicable tables and appendices: 

Three Cent Placer Mining 1 is renamed Three Cent Placer Mining 1/Processing site 3.

Comment 21: On page 34 and 35, you need to correct the paragraph that states “surface water 

or a defined channel is not present”. This statement applies to the area north of road #1075, not 

to the area south of #1075. South of road #1075, Happy Camp spring maintains the water in the 

in-channel pond, and while some sections of Three Cent go dry, there are a lot of springs on the 

private land and there is a defined channel.

Response 21: This comment refers to Appendix 1A. Based on the description in their Plan, 

Three Cent Placer Mining 2 area is located south of FS 1075 and east of the current processing 

site (referred to as Processing site # 1 in the Plan). In this area there was a draw and a test pit 
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Appendix 10

A10-7

filled with water, but no defined channel. Defined channels were only observed west of the 

ponds used at Processing site #1 and at the Three Cent Placer/East site. 

Comment 22: On page 38, the Wildflower process ponds and mining site are both located on 

the west side of the river. This effects section needs to be rewritten given the location of this site.

Response 22: See Response 6. 

Comment 23: On page 4 of Appendix 1B, what is meant by “No evidence of 2 mining claims”? 

I personally have conducted assessment work in this area, and the location of the second 

processing site is along this road. Please clarify.

Response 23: This comment refers to EJ Placer sites. This was an observation made by the 

Forest Service engineers when evaluating the 1920015 road for the 2000 NFBR Roads Analysis. 

They did not observe any indication of mining activity when they examined the road. 

Comment 24: On page 11 there is a typo, it should read “road crosses”. Also, the access roads 

for the Rocker are wrong. Access is via 1042150, 100, and 750. These roads are access to 

private land, as well as to the mine, and qualify under RS2477 (appear on the 1901 topo map of 

the area).

Response 24: Regarding Appendix 1B, Rocker Group: 

Appendix 1B of the analysis addresses “Closed and Decommissioned” roads. Both the 1038250 

and 1038251 roads access Slab Creek. The Plan of Operations received on June 3, 2005 

identifies access roads as 1038150, 1038200, and 1038250. 1038200 follows Greenhorn Creek 

north into Section 14, outside the area identified in the Plan. 1038150 is an open road and 

therefore not addressed in this section. The roads mentioned in this comment, 1042150, 100, and 

750 are not located in T. 10 S., R. 35 E., Sections 22, and 23, and are outside the identified area 

of operations. (All road numbers are from The Forest Service Infra Roads Database (i.e., 

Transportation Atlas)).

Appendix 1B: Typo in “road crosses” has been corrected in the Final SEIS. 

The typo in the Road numbers in Final SEIS Appendix 1B has been corrected. FS 1035250 

should be FS 1038250. 

Comment 25: Appendix C page 6 has a typo, in the second paragraph, it should read “it would 

put the mining operation” not but.

Response 25: The correction is in the Final SEIS.

Comment 26: On page 19, Z9 adversely affects the Wildflower, Sue (Jim Bob) , the R&RK 

operations, the Sluicebox, Snow Creek and probably some other operations. Rather than 

prohibiting access, which would be a takings, the miner should be given the option of surveying 

the ford for redds, and if there are none, he should be authorized to access. If there is a redd, an 

alternate ford should be established with the assistance of the FS fish biologist. Redband trout 
Appendix 10 NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

A10-8

are very important, however, currently they are neither threatened nor endangered, and my 

suggestion would protect the fish and prevent a takings.

Response 26: Z9 does not prohibit access. Z9 limits access to the instream work period, or 

requires the construction of a crossing.

Comment 27: I could not check all the roads for accuracy, however, since the Rocker was not 

even close, I would suggest that the roads section be scrutinized for accuracy by your staff.

Response 27: The maps submitted by the miner’s in their Plan of Operations did not always 

correspond to the road numbers in the Forest Service roads database. This analysis reflects the 

most current Forest Road numbers. An example of this difference in the miner’s maps and 

Forest Service roads database is captured in Response 24. 

Comment 28: Appendix 5 page 2, indicates that Gimlet Creek is perennial. This is true, 

however, the surface water subs into the gravel for about a quarter mile or more just 

downstream of the Gimlet Placer.

Response 28: The following clarification is added to the Final SEIS, Appendix 4:

“Gimlet Creek is perennial along portions of its length and has flow throughout its entire length 

in the spring and early summer. In the area of the proposed activity, flow is perennial.”

Comment 29: On page 3, Pinus Creek is dry in the summer in the area of the Gold Buster claim.

Response 29: The following clarification is added to the Final SEIS, Appendix 4. 

“Gold Buster operation was visited on October 24, 2006. At that time Pinus Creek had flow. 

According to comments from Jan Alexander (October 17, 2010), Pinus Creek goes dry during a 

portion of the summer. Pinus Creek in the area of the operation is considered as having 

intermittent flow. However, Pinus Creek is a tributary to Camp Creek, which is a perennial, 

fish-bearing stream. Because Pinus Creek has flow throughout its entire length in the spring and 

early summer, it is assumed that it is seasonally fish-bearing. Therefore, the RHCA buffer zone 

= 300 feet.” 

Comment 30: On page 5, the North Fork Placer discussion is incorrect. On the north side of 

the river, the site is bounded by Highway 7, on the south side it is bounded by a timbered 

hillside.

Response 30: Comment 30 has two parts that need to be addressed:

1. The following correction has been made to the Final SEIS, Appendix 4: The “south” side (rather 

than the west side) of the Operation is bounded by a forested hillslope.”

2. References to the northern boundary of the operation have been removed from Appendix 4

discussion because this appendix dealt with pond locations. However, clarification to the location of 

the boundary on the north side of the operation as been provided for the files based on the following 

information provided in the Plan and gained during a field visit by the district hydrologist: 
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Appendix 10

A10-9

According to the maps labeled Alternatives B and C included in the Plan of Operations, the 

operation is bounded on the North side by “Ricco’s ditch”. The map shows FS Road 1040-020 

and FS Road 1040-059, but neither County Road 503B nor Highway 7 are shown on the map. A 

ditch is visible on the current map for the Old Unity Ranger District. This ditch is located 

between County Road 503B and the Highway 7. 

On June 27, 2011 the district hydrologist revisited the area to locate the Ricco ditch. The ditch is 

located about a third to a quarter way up the hillslope on the northeast side of the operation. It is 

an old ditch. It has some water in it, along with rushes and sedges. The ditch has failed in at 

least one place and cut a gully in the hillside. As presented in the Plan of Operation, the northern 

boundary of the operation is the Ricco ditch, not Highway 7. 

Comment 31: On page 5, this discussion is incorrect. There is a surface connection via an 

intermittent stream that flows through a culvert in road 045 down to Tony Creek.

Response 31: Comment 31 is in reference to Parkerville Placer in Draft SEIS Appendix 5. 

NOTE: No reference could be found on the FS GIS layer or on U.S.G.S. 7.5 topographic maps 

to a Tony Creek in this area. Therefore, in the document, this tributary is now referred to as “a 

small unnamed tributary to the NFBR.” It is only referred to as Tony Creek in this response for 

clarity with respect to Comment 31.

The Parkerville Placer site in the area of FS 1046-045 was revisited on June 30, 2011 by the 

district hydrologist to re-evaluate the issue of a surface connection to Tony Creek via a culvert 

under the FS 1046-045 road. On the upstream side of the road the pond has largely filled in with 

sediment and no culvert inlet was observed. On the downstream side of the road no culvert 

outlet was visible. Water was observed to be flowing over the road and there may be some flow 

through the road fill. If the pond just upstream of the road is not used and a barrier is placed at 

the upper end of the pond to separate the pond from the operation, then there would be no 

surface connection between the operation and the channel below FS 1046045. This 

supplementary information is added to Appendix 4 in the Final SEIS. In addition, it altered the 

“may discharge” call under Alternative 2 in Chapter 3 from a “no potential to discharge” to a 

“potential discharge.

Comment 32: On page 6, under the Racer discussion, I suggest that you not quote me as your 

source that Geiser Creek is perennial and fish bearing, since I am not a fish bio. Please look at 

Jackie Dougan’s fish BE for the Racer.

Response 32: Appendix 4. The following change has been made to Racer Group/Keystone 

Korners Placer. 

“Geiser Creek is a perennial, fish-bearing stream in places and an intermittent fish-bearing 

stream in others. Because Geiser Creek has flow throughout its entire length in the spring and 

early summer, it is assumed that it is seasonally fish-bearing. Therefore, the RHCA buffer zone 

= 300 feet.” 
Appendix 10 NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

A10-10

Comment 33: On page 7, all off-channel settling recycling ponds on the Silver Bell have been 

constructed. There is a pond upstream which is in-channel and it washed out years ago. That 

map came from a previous plan, use the second map which shows the location of the existing 

ponds. Using “not clear” in the document is weak.

Response 33: Silver Bell ponds: The confusion stems from one of the maps included in the 

Plan of Operations. This map shows the location of proposed ponds for the Silver Bell #1 site. 

However, clarification has since been provided by the operator, and the map showing Silver Bell 

#1 site and its corresponding proposed ponds does not apply to the Plan. No activity is proposed 

for Silver Bell # 1 and therefore, there are no proposed ponds for the Plan. A correction has been 

made to Table 3-7 and to Final SEIS Appendix 4 to reflect that 1) there are only existing ponds 

in the RHCA, 2) no new ponds are proposed, and 3) no activity is planned for Silver Bell #1. 

This will also eliminate the use of the words “not clear.” 

Comment 34: On page 7, the Shamrock claims are within the RHCA.

Response 34: This correction is made throughout the Final SEIS. See Response 9.

Comment 35: On page 8, I would say there are three processing sites, not six. I would suggest 

you not list the Red Dog “pond”, as this is just a low spot that collected some rain water. I 

would not list Three Cent Placer East, because there are no ponds.

Response 35: This refers to Three Cent Placer notes in Draft SEIS Appendix 5 (FSEIS 

Appendix 4). 

1. This is a complex operation with multiple sites. For clarity, it was deemed important to clearly 

identify all sites and distinguish which sites did and did not have ponds. There is no change from 

the Draft SEIS. 

Comment 36: On #5, Three Cent Placer Mining 1 (north end of the claim) the miners intend to 

use this pond for processing. Please delete “not using this pond” it gives the reader the idea 

that this pond is not part of the POO.

Response 36: Refers to Three Cent Placer notes in DSEIS Appendix 5. A correction is made to 

Three Cent Placer Mining 1 to read “Three Cent Placer Mining 1/Processing site 3”. This 

correction is made throughout Appendix 4 of the Final SEIS. The correction is made in Final 

SEIS Appendix 4 and throughout the Final SEIS.

Comment 37: On page 9 there needs to be some discussion that the Three Cent Placer Mining 1 

settling ponds currently exist. They just need to be cleaned out.

Response 37: The pond at this site is discussed on Appendix 4, page 9 and in Appendix 1A. 

However, a correction is made to reflect that the pond at this site will be used. See Response 35. 

Comment 38: On page 10, the Wildflower discussion should read that the ponds are located on 

the west side of the NFBR. The rest of the discussion should be based on the location of the 

Wildlfower mining and processing sites.
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Appendix 10

A10-11

Response 38: The corrections are made in the Final SEIS. See Response 6.

Comment 39: Appendix 7a on page 22, there is a typo, should be “shaded”, not shades.

Response 39: Note: Appendix 7A is now Appendix 6A in the FSEIS.

This type has been corrected in Appendix 6A of the Final SEIS.

Comment 40: Appendix 7b page 1 talks about Cub Creek. There is much discussion about Cub 

Creek throughout the document, and the dangers of suction dredging. The FS should note that 

Cub Creek subs into the gravel when it hits the dredge tailings on the valley floor. Cub Creek 

was diverted years ago through the tailings, and sediment plumes would have a difficult time 

making their way into the NFBR. There are no fish. I suggest you check Jackie Dougan’s fish 

BE.

Response 40: Note: Appendix 7B is now Appendix 6B in the FSEIS.

During high flows Cub Creek provides water to the NFBR. Therefore, any sediment that makes 

into Cub Creek either from mining activities on the valley floor or as a result of channel incision 

or bank failures will make it to the NFBR the following stream and result in a discharge under 

the Clean Water Act. 

Appendix 6B is simply presenting site characteristics of the stream in the vicinity of the Burnt 

Lode/Placer operations. The field observations for Cub Creek are in agreement with the 2004 

FEIS, Appendix G. It is stated in Appendix 6A that the presence of fish is unknown. The 

concerns about Cub Creek have to do with the high potential for channel incision as a result of 

suction based on the information provided as to the location of dredging and the input of 

sediment into the NFBR. 

On June 30, 2011 the district hydrologist followed Cub Creek from its culvert outlet under 

County Road 503 to its confluence with the NFBR. The culvert outlet is suspended and is a fish 

passage barrier. There is a defined channel present from the culvert outlet to the confluence 

between old placer tailings. The channel was carrying flow for the entire length. The channel 

bed is a mix of areas dominated by cobbles and boulders with pockets of sand to long section of 

sands, silts and some very coarse gravels with scattered large cobbles and small boulders. Fines 

dominate the channel bed and there is evidence of fresh sand, silt and gravel deposits. The 

stream banks below the culvert outlet to the confluence with the NFBR are mostly well vegetated 

with grasses, forbs, rushes with some alders. The sediment source is thus upstream of the culvert 

outlet where mining is proposed. 

Based on site conditions, the potential for a sediment plume generated by suction dredging to 

reach the NFBR is expected because the system has a surface hydrologic connection. Therefore, 

there is no change to the SEIS with respect to the potential for a discharge related to suction 

dredging.

Comment 41: The elaborate discussion under the suction dredging part of the document for the 

Sluicebox is unnecessary. The suction dredge permit does not allow miners to take out log jams.
Appendix 10 NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

A10-12

Response 41: All Plans of Operation that stated that they planned to do suction dredging were 

visited. Appendix 6B simply presents the field observations. The analysis of potential effects at 

this site is presented in Appendix 6A. All impacts as a result of Sluice Box suction dredging are 

identified as local, minimal or no change. 

Comment 42: As information, DEQ does not issue water quality permits to miners who intend to 

discharge soil into navigable waters. Instead DEQ requires miners and the FS to design mining 

operations so there will be no discharge, and no adverse impacts to the surface waters. I see the 

failure to analyze the Karissa road as a bit of a cop out. There are countless mitigation 

measures that engineering could provide you that would protect water quality in the river during 

road construction.

Response 42: Site characteristics of the proposed road locatin to the Karissa site (Burnt 

Lode/Placer) are found in Chapter 3, p. 63, and an explanation of why the potential for a longterm, chronic discharge of sediment into the NFBR would be expected. Therefore, there is no 

change in the Final SEIS.

Jan and Ken Alexander 11/01/10

Comment 43: We, in good faith, stated in our POO that our trammel would be located 80-100 

feed “from the river”. Now that the buffer has been changed by the FS to reflect the distance 

between our trammel and either the “back edge of the active floodplain” or “edge of the valley 

floor terrace which is the historic floodplain” (we have not idea which applies to our operation), 

rather than the distance to the water in the river when we are mining, we think our trammel ends 

up only 50 feet away. The analysis should state this figure, not the 100 feet figure. We do not 

wish to move our processing site up the hill into the timbered hillside.

Response 43: A site visit on October 15, 2010 by the Whitman Ranger District hydrologist to 

the Prudent #9 site identified no concerns with the location of the existing processing site and no 

move is required to be in compliance with the Clean Water Act. Point #2 for Prudent #9 in 

Appendix 1A has been rewritten as follows:

2. The processing site would remain in its current location. The current processing site is on a 

bench and outside the yearly or high flow floodplain. This places the processing site within 

50 feet of the NFBR rather than 100 feet. 

Comment 44: Our POO also states that we will maintain a “30 foot buffer between our mining 

operation and the river”. Now that the buffer has been changed by the FS to reflect the distance 

between either the “back edge of the active floodplain” or “edge of the valley floor terrace 

which is the historic floodplain”, we believe there are places where we will have to leave the 

minerals and pull back from the braided stream channel that flows near our site, and in fact, 

have lost quite a little bit of ground that we had planned on mining. We are requesting that our 

buffer be changed to 25 feet from whatever point the FS has in mind for our operation, which is 

a buffer width that is consistent with the other mining operations along the NFBR.

Please consider that fact that we have mined all these years, sometimes quite closed to the river, 

but behind a barrier of washed rock placed along the edge of the road (which completely 
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Appendix 10

A10-13

prevents any sediment from reaching the river). For us, with the price of gold on the increase, 

even the additional five feet (changing our buffer from 30 feet to 25 feet) means, 1,000-2,000 

additional yards that can be excavated and processed.

Response 44: The buffer widths evaluated were based on what was proposed in each miner’s 

Plan of Operation. Prudent #9 Plan stated that they would maintain a “30 foot buffer between 

our mining operation and the river”. However, as discussed in the Draft SEIS, Chapter 3, pages 

53-55 and again in Appendix 1C, “the river” as a marker of where the distance is measured from 

is ambiguous. An attempt was made in person in the Whitman Ranger District office in Spring 

2009 to get clarification from the operators as to which point they were measuring their buffer 

from. After 2 hours of discussion, no clarification was provided by the operators. Therefore, 

the buffer widths were evaluated at several points on the ground (See Figure 3-1 in Chapter 3 

and Figures 2 and 3 in Appendix 1C) to determine if there was a potential for a discharge. The 

effects analysis examined the potential for a discharge if the 30 foot buffer was measured from 1) 

the low flow channel and 2) the edge of the historic floodplain (valley floor edge-channel break 

in slope). 

The identified buffer will not prohibit operations as proposed in the Plan. It only identifies the 

potential activity that may result in a discharge due to its proximity to the stream. If the

operators wish to have a different buffer width examined, they will need to submit a modification 

to their plan of operation. However, future plans will be asked to provide clear information 

about where the operator proposes to mine rather than providing some fixed, arbitrary buffer 

width. This will allow the Forest Service specialists to evaluate the potential effects of what the 

operator actually intends to do. 

Comment 45: On page 94, the document states, “alternative 3 is the same as alternative 2 

except for the addition of General Requirements...” This statement is not true if you look at the 

Prudent/Number 9 POO. Our proposal includes continued mining of the old county roadbed, 

protecting water quality in the braided channel of the river with a berm of washed rock located 

along the outside edge of the road. The roadbed now would be off limits due to the new buffer 

proposed by the FS.

Response 45: The identified buffer will not prohibit operations as proposed in the Plan. It only 

identifies the potential activity that may result in a discharge due to its proximity to the stream. 

If the operator wants to continue with their proposal to mine in the old roadbed, they would have 

to get a 401 certification from DEQ before that portion of their Plan would be approved.

Comment 46: ...DEQ requires miners to design their operations so there is no potential for a 

discharge, and no adverse impacts to the surface waters will occur. This is exactly what Ken 

and I have done over the years that we have mined the Number 9 Placer, and never has our 

operation impacted water quality in the NFBR. Ms Fouty states, “If the buffer width places the 

activity on the valley floor terrace behind a berm of old tailings, then the call would be there was 

no potential for a discharge of pollutant”, however it appears she was unaware that this was a 

condition of our mining Plan. Perhaps if our operation had not been lumped together with all 

the other operations, and a truly site-specific analysis of our operation had been conducted, we 

would never have been shut down from mining.
Appendix 10 NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

A10-14

Response 46: Prudent No. 9 was visited twice by the district hydrologist: On November 1, 2006 

and October 15, 2010. In addition, the district hydrologist met with the operators in the 

Whitman Ranger district office in the Spring of 2009 to talk about their plan and get clarification 

as to where their buffer was being measured from. At that meeting, the operations did not 

mention the berm of old tailings. Nor was there a sketch map showing the location of the 

various parts of the operation and site characteristics. As a result the field visit had to rely on a 

written description and the fixed buffer width provided when analyzing the operation as it the 

potential for a discharge. 

Chris Miller 10/17/10

Comment 47: Alternative1 is not correct. Our Three Cent Plan of Operation is ongoing.

Response 47: The Plan as submitted did not clearly identify the period during which the 

proposed activity would take place as required by regulation (36CFR 228.4 (3)). The Forest 

Service determined in the 2004 FEIS and ROD that 10 years was an adequate time to complete 

the operations outlined in the Plan and added that condition when the Plan was approved in 

2005. 

The 10-year term represents no change from the 2004 FEIS. Chapter 2 of the FEIS states the 

Plans will be approved for 10 years from the date signed. Additionally, the letter acknowledging 

approval of the Plan dated September 28, 2005, that the Plan was approved for a period of 10 

years. 

The rest of the comments submitted by Chris Miller are the same as Comments 2, 19, 20, 

21, 35, 36 and 37 above. Refer to the corresponding Responses.

EOMA - Chuck Chase 11/01/10

Comment 48: EOMA still believes that this EIS is complete overkill for these exploration/small 

scale mining operations. Most of these operations date back ten years, when the miners proposed 

testing of their claims with the promise from the FS of a rapid approval of their test plans. The 

idea then, was that miners would work to define their deposits, establish reserves, and then 

amend their plans for mining. But after waiting ten years for approval of their exploration 

plans, miners are pretty discouraged. EOMA hopes that the FS will facilitate approval of future 

mining POOs based on the results from these test plans.

Response 48: The level of NEPA analysis necessary for future mining proposals will be 

evaluated on a case-by-case basis as those proposals are submitted to the Forest Service.

Comment 49: Several operations are incorrectly described as to their locations. On page 37, 

for instance, you have the Wildflower operation east of the county road instead of west of the 

road and across the river (you do have it in the right spot on the map). I also noted problems 

with the Shamrock, North Fork, Three Cent, Parkerville and others. 
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Appendix 10

A10-15

Response 49: Wildflower Placer: See Response 6.

Shamrock Placer: See Response 9

North Fork: See Response 30.

Three Cent Placer: See Responses 19, 20, 21, 35, 36, 37.

Parkerville Placer: See Response 12, 31.

The rest of the comments submitted by Chuck Chase on behalf of EOMA are the same as 

Comments 1-5, 7, 18, 19, 26 and 42 above. Refer to the corresponding Responses.

Pat Todd 11/05/10

Comment 50: The supplement states it has been prepared to provide additional information and 

analysis to the deficiencies identified by the District Court of Oregon on August 4, 2006. I 

believe that changes to this decision in the form of a NOI that a Supplement was being prepared 

should have been mailed to me and to Dave Hinton. Not only do we have standing as 

commenter’s to the Scoping, the Draft, the Final EIS and The Appeal, but also as land owners 

who have been promised by the WWNF that we would be contacted and informed of all new or 

amended mining plans of operations impacting our property. See attached memo from Deb 

Schmidt dated May 1997. It appears that since the Draft and Final EIS had chapters full of 

comments and responses and the supplement only had one comment that the Forest Service 

failed to do a good job of contacting interested and concerned parties like myself. I have spoken

with other private land owners and water rights holders in this drainage and inquired if they had 

been contacted. None of those I spoke with having water rights, grazing rights, private property 

rights in this drainage had been made aware of the supplement or given the opportunity to 

participate in any scoping, public meetings or had been sent a copy of the draft. The addresses 

and phone numbers ... have remained unchanged since 1990. 

Response 50: A scoping letter announcing the supplemental analysis was distributed on Feb. 21, 

2007 to a mailing list of approximately 200 people, including you as Pat Hinton at 1336 3rd

Street in Baker City, Oregon. Additionally, a scoping letter was sent to Dave Hinton at the same 

address (1336 3rd Street, Baker City, Oregon). The Notice of Intent to prepare a supplemental 

Environmental Impact Statement (Draft SEIS) for this project was published in the Federal 

Register on that day, and a legal notice was published in the Baker City Herald. The analysis 

was posted on the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest (WWNF) Schedule of Proposed Actions 

(SOPA) prior to Feb 21, 2007, and has been on the SOPA ever since. 

No response to the scoping letter was received from Pat Hinton, Dave Hinton, or Pat Hinton 

Todd, or Pat Todd. 

A legal notice was published in the Baker City Herald on September 24, 2010, announcing the 

availability of the Draft SEIS. At the same time, a Notice of Availability of the Draft SEIS was 

published in the Federal Register. The Draft SEIS was published on the WWNF website on Sept 

24, 2010. Additionally hard copies were mailed to all miners included in the analysis, anyone 

who responded to the scoping letter, all prior litigants, the tribes, and all other required 

agencies/organizations.
Appendix 10 NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

A10-16

The WWNF received an email from you on Sept. 24, 2010, the same date that the legal notice 

was published in the Baker City Herald, requesting the 42 Plans, claiming the Draft SEIS did not 

contain enough site-specific information on which to comment. This was formalized in a 

Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request from you on Oct 6, 2010.

Per a phone conversation with you on October 21, 2010, Sophia Millar (NFBR Mining IDT 

leader) confirmed that you saw the Baker City Herald legal notice on September 24, 2010, and 

accessed the Draft SEIS on the website that day. Since you accessed the Draft SEIS on the same 

day it was released for public comment, therefore you had the same amount of time for review as 

the rest of the public.

The WWNF sent copies of all 42 Plans of Operations associated with the Draft SEIS to you 

within the legal timeframes of FOIA.

Additionally, the Whitman Ranger District Minerals specialist (Mike Hall) and Hydrologist 

(Suzanne Fouty) responded in detail to your specific questions via either phone or email during 

the 45-day comment period. Those conversations and emails are documented in the project file.

The legal requirements for public scoping of the analysis were conducted as directed in the 

Forest Service Handbook 1909.15, Chapter 10, section 11.

Scoping shall be carried out in accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR 1501.7. 

Because the nature and complexity of a proposed action determine the scope and intensity 

of analysis, no single scoping technique is required or prescribed. (36 CFR 220.4(e)(2)).

Comment 51: On September 24th 2010 when I contacted Sophia Millar I requested that the 

draft be extended to allow analysis and comments. On a subsequent phone call Sophia said my 

request had been denied. 

I immediately made a request to obtain the plans of operations in a FOIA request. The Forest 

responded in a timely manner but still my comment period was now two weeks shorter as I 

waited for the documents needed to review the document.

I am including a letter from Deb Schmidt written in May of 1997 which states specifically that I 

would be notified of all mining proposals adjacent to my private property. I was probably one of 

the most interested members of the public in the 2004 NFK Burnt River Mining EIS. Even though 

only a portion of my comments were ever publically addressed in the EIS there are enough of 

them published that it would be difficult to call it an unfortunate oversight to not include me in 

all the scoping and writing of the Supplemental Impact Statement. I am still at the same address 

in Baker City, with the same phone number still paying taxes on the same tax lots. My name has 

changed from Patricia Hinton to Patricia Hinton Todd, but I have never had any trouble 

receiving mail due to that name change. I was not notified that a supplement was being 

published to the 2004 EIS. See page 117 in Chapter 4 of the Supplement to the FEIS for a list of 

Recipients of the Scoping and distribution of the Supplement my name was never on the list. The 

FS cannot pick its most favorable public.
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Appendix 10

A10-17

I was under the assumption that the Court Opinion in August of 2006 had been a final decision 

enjoining the mineral plan of operation proposals included in that analysis. I had confidence 

that this was indeed a final decision. I was also confident that should there be any new or future 

impacts to the Burnt River Watershed or at least to the FS land directly adjacent to my private 

property, or to the Pete Mann Ditch that brings water from the John Day Drainage into the 

Burnt River and still remains an appurtenance to Winterville Patented that I would be notified. 

The Forest Service failed to contact me. 

I first noticed that the Supplement was in the final stages of public comment when it was 

published in the Democrat Herald, September 24th. I contacted Sophia Millar and asked her 

how this Supplement could have progressed this far without contacting all the interested parties 

in the 2004 EIS? Since I was so involved with the 2004 EIS I was sure that even if I requested the 

Supplement and plans covered in the document that I would not be able to fully comprehend the 

actions covered in this decision within the timeframes specified for public comments.

I asked if it was possible to get an extension of the comment period because of this major 

oversight on behalf of the FS. The extension would enable me to request and receive information 

I would need to fully comment on the supplement. I was told that it was unfortunate that I had 

been overlooked in all the scoping, but that there was nothing that could be done to change the 

scheduled decision dates. I requested a copy of the document and I requested copies of the plans 

being authorized by the document. I received these requests on October 8th. I have been making 

field trips and researching plans ever since. I feel that an extension of comment time that would 

allow me to field verify the Supplement proposal is a fair request based on the fact that the FS 

had promised to notify me of all proposals impacting my personal property. 

Response 51: Please refer to Response 55. Also, after reviewing the project files, it was 

determined that you were included on the list of recipients for the scoping letter (as explained 

above in Response 55).

Comment 52: H. Public Involvement No change from FEIS. 

A change is obvious to me, I was included in the initial scoping, the Draft EIS, the Final EIS, the 

ROD, the Appeal, but I was excluded in the Supplement. I therefore request that the end of the 

comment time of the Draft Supplement be rescinded and I request that scoping be re-initiated to 

uphold the NEPA requirements of Public Involvement. This is based on the fact that there is no 

time for those interested parties that had not been included to have the same comment time as 

those that were given full notice and adequate time and resources to field visit all the sites 

mentioned and request information and documents needed to comment (2007 to present). This 

skews the Public involvement and makes the document in violation of NEPA by discriminating 

and picking and choosing who will be invited to participate. 

The Original FEIS included 49 plans of operations, which addressed 66 sites. The Supplement 

states that 7 plans have been dropped from the Original but some of them have been included 

under different names and configurations and the total mining site number is absent from the 

Supplement. It could be 42 Plans with more than 66 sites and there is no way of knowing if the 

existing plans have expanded. 
Appendix 10 NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

A10-18

Response 52: There has been no change in the Public Involvement portion of the 2004 FEIS. 

However, the public involvements efforts during the Supplemental EIS process are documented 

in the August 2010 Draft SEIS at Chapter 1, section H1.

The description and number of all Plans and sites included in the August 2010 Draft SEIS can be 

found in Chapter 2, section F; and Chapter 3, Table 3-9.

The Final SEIS includes an updated number of sites included in the 42 Plans, as clarifications 

provided via comments on the Draft SEIS.

Comment 53: The Range of Alternatives presented in the FEIS had limited the scope of analysis 

to an unreasonable level. There was never consideration of an alternative approving Plans of 

Operations for less than 10 years. This would be an alternative that would speed up the 

reclamation process, if returning to a desired condition would ever be the goal of the agency. 

There was several comments addressing this in the comments of the Draft EIS from HCPC , 

NEDC and myself. They were all dismissed as not meeting the purpose and need of the EIS.

All but 7 of the 34 ongoing plans of operations have now expired. So with the exception of those 

7 (who are not likely to sign anything that will impose an expiration date) all the remaining 

plans of operations should be pending; not operating according to the District Court Order. Of 

the expired 27 plans that were called “on going claims in the area” in the FEIS how many of 

them have done final reclamation? How many of them have been given their bonds back? FEIS 

page 70 of Appendix G: HCPC 3b While there was a ―no Mining, Reclamation Only, Existing 

Claims Bought Out alternative considered but eliminated from further study, there was no 

consideration of simply not approving the proposed operations and letting them expire. 

It is clear that the FS can no longer meet the Purpose and Need of the 2004 FEIS. Not even the 

Supplement can change the fact that the 27 plans of operations have expired. They are no longer 

viable legally approved plans. They are no longer supposed to be on going (although my 2010 

field inspections have shown me that this is not the case). I suggest requiring the miners to do 

final reclamation as reflected in their expired plans and begin a new baseline alternative by 

beginning a new EIS that could better reflect the illegal conditions you are now trying to amend 

with a SEIS. 

Now the FS would be able to consider a true No Action alternative with the exception of the 7 no 

expiration date plans. This would be a better “BaseLine Alternative” more representative of 

current conditions in 2010 as opposed to current conditions in 2004.

...The plans submitted have changed; some of the plans have been altered. Some of them are 

expired and should have had final reclamation done when the plans were enjoined and yet my 

field verifications don’t indicate that any final reclamation was done; only the end of season 

requirements were met. I wonder if the bonds were returned without the reclamation being 

accomplished. Some of the 34 are continuing even without the signing of the SEIS. Will the 27 

expired plans be renewed and freed from the original final reclamation requirements of the plans 

that were issued from 1997 – 2008? 
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Appendix 10

A10-19

This is pretty good evidence that the FS manages plans as a continuum whose reclamation never 

comes due. It skews all analysis of future desired conditions, because the reclamation will never 

be a reality. Mining reclamation of this drainage has never occurred since I have been 

monitoring mining in this drainage (since 1977).The time for reclamation never arrives. Plans 

are submitted with activities described for only for the first 12 months, but the plans are issued 

for 10 years with no one having any idea what will happen in the 2nd thru 10th years. No miner 

knows what he will find or where he will find it. His operations are determined as he finds 

minerals. None of the plans I reviewed had anything but very vague activities beyond 12months 

or the current season. I don’t believe mining plans of operations should be issued for longer 

than 2 years. I also believe that no more than one single amendment should be issued without 

submitting a new plan. It would be nice to finally see a final reclamation accomplished in that 

area. 

Response 53: An alternative that no longer allows mining, or will not allow for the approval of 

the submitted Plans of Operations, is outside the scope of the analysis and does not meet the 

purpose and need. This issue was addressed in the 2004 FEIS (NFBR FEIS ROD pg. 1, FEIS 

Chapter I pg. 5, FEIS Appendix G pg. 68-71). 

Each of the operations considered in this analysis has either submitted a new Plan, asked that 

their original Plan be supplemented to extend the initially proposed activities, or has identified 

new significant surface disturbance not covered in the initial plan. Some of the Plans that had 

not expired had changed conditions, such as 303d listed streams, which required a modification 

to address unforeseen disturbance (see pg. 1, NFBR FEIS Record of Decision, 2004).

A Plan of Operations is not intended to act as a limiting factor on how long an area can be 

mined. The area identified in this analysis is open to entry under the mining laws. Mining 

claims have been recorded throughout this area. The 1872 Mining Law (as amended) gives 

every citizen a statutory right to enter and remove valuable mineral deposits. The regulations do 

not specify a time period in which the deposit must be removed. As long as the area remains 

open to mineral entry, mining can be expected to continue.

The 10-year term represents no change from the 2004 FEIS. Chapter 2 of the FEIS states the 

Plans will be approved for 10 years from the date signed. This is an estimate on a reasonable 

amount of time needed to complete the operations as proposed. 

The regulations specifically require an operator to identifying the period of time activities will 

take place (36CFR §228.4 (c) (3)) when a Plan of Operations is submitted. The Plan should only 

address the activities reasonable foreseeable at the time and be supplemented or modified as 

conditions change (36CFR §228.4 (d)). Although the term “amendment” is used frequently 

when a change of a Plan is submitted or requested, the regulations only address supplements and 

modifications. There is no regulatory requirement to submit a new Plan of Operations except 

when operators change (36CFR §228.4 (a)). 

Each operation has both ongoing and final reclamation requirements. This is no change from the 

2004 FEIS and ROD (see Chapter II, pg. 30-32).
Appendix 10 NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

A10-20

Comment 54: The Supplement states that the Forest Hydrologist visited all sites over the past 4 

years. Most of the claims with the exception of the no expiration date plans and the Red Dog and 

Three Cent (which expired in 2008) should have been inactive since they have expirations earlier 

than 2006 when the hydrologist began inspections. The remaining plans from the FEIS should 

have been inactive due to the District Court Order. It is too bad that the hydrologist did not take 

this opportunity to assess a baseline of a no action alternative while mining was shut down and 

anticipate conditions after reclamation would be achieved. If the plans that have expired it 

should be indicated in the SEIS that some are operating and why they are operating. 

I was hoping that the Supplement might address the progress it may have seen (or not seen) in 

reducing the numbers of 303(d) listed streams especially since it is stated in both the Supplement 

and FEIS that this is a desired condition. 

Response 54: The observations made by the Forest hydrologist were in response to specific 

concerns raised by the August 4, 2006 Court Order and Opinion, and were limited to examining 

whether or not the operation as proposed had the potential for a discharge.

Comment 55: It should also be noted that only a hydrologist visited the claims, not a fish 

biologist. A fish biologist is not a contributor of the Supplement but only a consultant. The 

original EIS did have a fish biologist on the ID Team. Therefore only a partial evaluation of 

water quality not fish habitat can be considered as being done for this Supplement.

Response 55: Same response as #59 above. Also, no specific fisheries concerns were raised in 

the August 4, 2006 Court Order and Opinion, except for those related to INFISH, which were 

fully addressed by the Forest hydrologist in the Draft SEIS in Chapter 3. The Fisheries section 

of Chapter 3 has been updated to include updated analyses of MIS redband trout and Riparian 

Management Objectives (RMOs). This Fisheries section is now located in Appendix 12 (New 

Information and Changed Circumstances Evaluations) of the Final SEIS.

Comment 56: Some discussion should be addressed as to why claims that have expired dates in 

the POOs are still actively mining. I have seen major mining taking place on some of these 

claims in 2010, Three Cent and Red Dog, for example. Are these mining operations paying for 

road use permits to haul all that material in and out of the forest to their processing plant. Has 

anyone gone out and looked at all the trees they are cutting over 6” on those claims? Their plan 

of operations say that “Timber will be removed in 1⁄2 acre parcels ahead of the mining This 

provision signed into the plan is for apparently to allow clear cutting of 1⁄2 acre parcels at a time. 

I gather even the unsigned proposed plan gives approval. The wording often seen in mitigation 

templates like “unless approved by.......” is really a whole set of alternative options the public 

never sees. The place is being clear cut without a plan of operations. And the trees are not 

staying on site as stated in the proposed plan. This wording appears on several of the plans of 

operation and in the summary of comments in the FEIS all miners were appeased with comments 

from the FS like “it is clear that trees must be removed from these areas when they are mined, 

the plan gives no estimate as to the numbers of trees to be removed.” Page 110 of Appendix G 

2004 FEIS. 
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Appendix 10

A10-21

Response 56: The decision to extend the Plan did not rely on the 2004 NFBR FEIS and ROD. 

The decision to extend the POO for the Three Cent Placer was based on a Decision Notice dated 

April 22, 1998. Based on this review, the 1998 Plan was extended (FSH 11.23) so the miner 

could complete the work proposed. This previous analysis and decision is still valid.

 

Three Cent Placer proposed some changes to their Plan of Operations that were analyzed in the 

2004(2004 FEIS, Table II-5). Those changes won’t be approved until the decision for this 

supplemental analysis is signed.

The August 4, 2006 Court Order and Opinion did not affect mining that is allowed by regulation 

(36CFR §228.4). A limited amount of operations continued within the North Fork Burnt River 

watershed that were not causing a significant disturbance of surface resources. This level of 

operations does not require authorization or approval from the Forest Service. 

No Plan of Operations allows timber to be removed from National Forest System lands.

The comment related to the removal of trees and the amount of acres cleared was responded to in 

the 2004 NFBR FEIS (Appendix G, pg. 110). 

Comment 57: I believe the Supplement has been defined and limited to the analyses needed to 

circumvent the deficiencies identified by the District in Section 1.1, not to correct the findings. 

The scope isn’t smaller now it is actually much broader. Now the plans include what was 

proposed in the EIS, what is proposed in the SEIS, what is ongoing, what was changed, what was 

dropped, what was not assumed not to be a structure before like roads and ponds are actually 

structures now. They are still in the same locations in the plans. It is hard for me to believe that 

even though they weren’t considered structures needing to follow INFISH regulations before; 

now that they are structures inside the INFISH RHCAs they all miraculously pose no problems 

to INFISH.

Response 57: The potential of a structure to impact fish habitat and water quality is not a 

function of its distance from the creek, but a function of site and structure characteristics. The 

explanation of why most of the proposed and existing ponds and roads are in compliance with 

INFISH can be found at Draft SEIS Chapter 3. 

One proposed road construction to the Karissa site (Burnt Lode/Placer) would not be in 

compliance with INFISH and this is discussed on page 63. One proposed pond at Three Cent 

Mining 1/Processing site 3 was identified during the comment period as having a potential for a 

discharge into East Three Cent Creek. The Final SEIS is corrected throughout the document to 

reflect this correction. 

Comment 58: The Road Densities that were established for both the California TS and the EIS 

violated the LRMP. To circumvent that, the LRMP has been changed to accommodate the 

proposed EIS densities in the SEIS. This is truly egregious and capricious that the FS would 

rewrite its own manual directives to get around a District Court decision. It’s kind of like a 

coyote chewing off its own foot to get out of a trap. 
Appendix 10 NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

A10-22

Response 58: A Forest Plan Amendment is no longer included in Alternative 4. Upon further 

review it has been determined that Alternative 4 is consistent with Forest Plan guidelines. Refer 

to Chapter 3 Access/Transportation System in the Final SEIS for a detailed discussion of open 

road density guidelines.

Comment 59: The area is no longer being managed for wildlife, or water, timber or roads it is 

being managed to accommodate miners...I believe that the FS is using the NFk Burnt River 

drainage as a large scale mining zone to gather as much mineral activity as possible into a small 

and manageable area. 

Response 59: Mike

This comment is outside the scope of the analysis. The area is managed for multiple uses, 

including mining. 

Comment 60: Mike Hall told me in a phone conversation in October of 2010 that I could not 

evaluate the SEIS on what has occurred in the past. He said I could only evaluate the SEIS for 

what it currently proposes along with the required future management mitigations of the SEIS. 

Past practices of the FS or the Miner did not warrant any consideration. Although I don’t 

believe that to be true the current plans and current management practices of the SEIS are 

egregious enough to warrant comments.

Some of the plans have drastically changed the wording on how they plan to operate. It is 

particularly interesting to me how all the plans have changed with the same wording in the same 

areas from the FEIS to the SEIS. In particular, most of the references to using water on the sites 

now state that water will come from ground sources in existing ponds. Well that might work for 

May and June, but by July those ponds with only ground water will be dry. If they are spring fed 

they need a water right. There are some plans that mention water from ditches, water from wells 

and water from sources once a water right is given. The fact is that all the water rights are over 

allocated and no new water rights will be issued in this drainage. 

It is practically a miracle that all these mines that never could operate before without pumping 

water from creeks and streams will now be able to operate practically water free. Some plans 

say a suction dredge will be used to feed the trommels and fill the ponds. The plans have gone 

from contributing to the poor conditions of 303(d) streams and creeks to not possibly being able 

to contribute sediment or warmer temperatures based on a new set of mitigations that can easily 

and will easily be over ridden on a case by case basis through POOs. 

Response 60: The issue of Water Rights was addressed in the 2004 FEIS Appendix G Section 1, 

and in the 2004 FEIS Chapter 1. There is no change from the NFBR FEIS. 

The expectation is that the miners will comply with mitigation measures that have been attached 

to their Plans of Operation. Failure to do so would be a violation of Federal law with carries 

both civil and criminal penalties.

Comment 61: Over allocated roads that were contributors of sediment to 303 (d) creeks in the 

EIS now will never contribute a significant amount of sediment according to the SEIS, so there’s 

no need to follow the guidelines of the LRMP. Leading me to believe there is firm scientific data 
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Appendix 10

A10-23

to support that a roadless area would have just as much sediment in its creeks as an over roaded 

analysis area consisting of native surface roads without drainage that are constructed on steep 

slopes and inside the riparian areas. 

The analysis of the NFk BR drainage was analyzed before the California TS had begun. That TS 

has now been active for 7 years since 2003. At the time of the EIS was being analyzed the 

Timber Sale was still being analyzed concurrently. Many of the proposals of the EIS were tiered 

to proposals of the TS. Now the FEIS does not have to rely on California TS road density

impacts because the TS appears to be nearly complete. I believe the impacts of the Timber Sale 

could now be better defined instead of merely predicted as they were in the FEIS. 

The SEIS states that each of the sites were visited by the Forest Hydrologist. Over 66 sites within 

the last four years. I don’t believe she was working on forest when the EIS was published. Her 

name does not appear in the FEIS as a contributor. Instead of relying on analysis done in 2002-

2004 during high mining and the end of the Geiser and Jack TS and before the California TS 

began, the data could now be analyzed in its current 2010 post Timber Sale – Pre large scale 

mining condition. For once an Alternative of No action could truly be evaluated. It is egregious 

and capricious to look at issuing 42 plans for a period of 10 or more years based on information 

that no longer is representative of the current conditions. The Supplement has lost its window of 

being appurtenant to the FEIS and the benchmarks portrayed in Alternate 1 during the analysis 

of the FEIS. All sections of citing current conditions as a bench mark for future conditions is 

compromised by the old data that no longer exists in the drainage. 

Response 61: All of the sites were visited by the district hydrologist in 2006, 2007, and 2008 

with a couple of follow up visits in 2010 and 2011 in response to the Court Order and Opinion 

that determined that the 2004 FEIS was not site-specific enough to determine if buffers stated in 

the Plans of Operation were sufficient to prevent a discharge and be in compliance with the 

Clean Water Act and INFISH. Field notes and photos from those visits are found in the project 

file and provide information on site conditions. Features recorded include ground cover 

percentage and type, topography, presence of side channels, presence of mine tailings along the 

stream, riparian vegetation, and locations of the operation with respect to the stream. 

Site conditions, as it pertains to the potential for a discharge into a stream channel, are provided 

in Final SEIS Appendix 1A under Alternative 4.

A discussion of the potential for roads to input sediment into the stream channels is provided in 

Final SEIS Appendix 3. There is no discrepancy between the assessment in the 2004 FEIS and 

the Final SEIS as it pertains to the impact of roads on water quality. Rather, Appendix 3 clarifies 

points raised in the 2004 FEIS. In the 2004 FEIS, the road contribution appeared greater than it 

actually was due to the way the information was presented in chart form. 

Comment 62: I find it totally illegal for the FS to change the road densities in the LRMP to 

reflect the proposed road densities of the needs of the miners. 

Response 62: A Forest Plan Amendment is no longer included in Alternative 4. Upon further 

review, it has been determined that Alternative 4 is consistent with Forest Plan guidelines. Refer 
Appendix 10 NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

A10-24

to Chapter 3 Access/Transportation System in the Final SEIS for a detailed discussion of open 

road density guidelines.

Comment 63: In order to circumvent the impression that they are constructing anything in the 

RCHA, plans of operations refer to places where one could cross a creek to existing crossing or 

existing fords, but my field observations show that these are not constructed non-sediment 

contributing fords of FS Specifications. They are just places where someone took an ATV or 

someone with a four wheel drive high clearance vehicle could or has crossed at one time. There 

is quite a difference in finding a place to cross and using a constructed ford. Winterville Creek 

fords and crossing fall into this category. Sure you can get across that little creek with a track 

hoe, but not without Degrading the banks and contributing sediment. The same thing applies to 

the R&RK 1&2 and R&RK 3&4 and Keystone Racer claims. I am sure there are more but I 

haven’t been able to field verify all the fords. 

Response 63: The channel beds at these fords are composed of large cobbles and are stable. 

Fine sediment is limited in the channel bed. It is the fine grained stream banks that were 

identified as being a potential source of sediment into the creek. These banks will be sloped and 

rocked under Alternative 4. Information on bank and bed composition is found in Table 3-5.

Site-specific BMPs for rocking the banks are found in Table 3-10. Two additional BMPs are 

added in the Final SEIS in Appendix 1A and in Table 3-11 to further prevent sediment from 

entering the stream when the ford construction is occurring:

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 events.

3. When pulling back the material, small straw baffles or bales, silt fences will be placed along the 

stream to catch any sediment that moves downslope

Comment 64: I was concerned with the plan of operation for Upper Winterville Creek the plan 

says an existing crossing from Private land will be used. This is not approved by the land 

owners and when I relayed this to the hydrologist she said “Oh I have a letter stating that the 

miner is no longer proposing to mine on the upper portion of the plan. “ 

There were several other items we discussed and several times she told me that the miner had 

sent a letter withdrawing that proposal or that is no longer needed. But the plans being sent out 

to the public to review do not include the letters between the FS and the operators. I believe that 

all the plans should be resubmitted with current owners stated, dates received and submitted 

signed, with all ORMC numbers displayed and all legal descriptions given. All plans should have 

maps showing site locations clearly drawn on maps that map the analysis maps. It is impossible 

to understand a miner’s operations hand drawn or sketched out on a map that is older than 40 

years old as it relays to the current FS New maps. Or the FS analysis should be done with maps 

of the same years as the miner has submitted. 

Response 64: A letter was received by the Forest Service on May 26, 2009 stating that the 

northern portion of what is called Upper Winterville Placer/Lode has been removed from the 

Plan of Operation. As such the northern area will not be approved by the FS for mining activity. 

The letter is in the project file. The Plan of Operations and Notice of Intent requirements are 

found at 36 CFR 228.4. See Appendix A at the end of this appendix.
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Appendix 10

A10-25

Comment 65: I have asked that the FS not allow Frank Hannigan to submit plans of operations 

using the Winterville Name. He has never had an interest in Winterville and he often uses his 

placer mining claims to allude to the fact that he has an interest in the private property. So he 

often states access will be from a ford on the private property. Or he alludes to the fact that he 

has a right to haul on private roads. His placer claims are the currently located as the Caranza 

and that would be a better name to issue him a plan of operations under. His plans say he may 

process on the existing pond south of private, that pond is in stream and should not be allowed. 

He used to say he had a water right to that pond and that has been proved to be as untrue as his 

claims to the Pete Mann Ditch or to any water from the ditch to fill his ponds at Parkerville. I 

would definitely like to meet a FS person on Winterville to see where his operations are actually 

proposed. I requested that Mike Hall meet me out there two weeks ago and he said snow would 

not allow that, but the snow has not closed the road yet. 

I am not able to fully comment on the plans of Mr. Hannigan unless I meet with someone in the 

field. Instead of using the illegal operating plans and activities submitted by miners for 

Alternative 2 in the 2004 FEIS and again considering them as Alternative 2 in the 2010 SEIS, the 

FS should be requesting that the operator resubmit plans that could be approved and be in 

compliance with the District Court Decision for consideration as Alternative 2. Especially since 

the ongoing plan argument no longer applies in most cases. Using the same plan with new 

templates of mitigations will never reflect the individual intention of the operators. This can be 

seen by reading the comments of the operators in the 2004 FEIS. I might mention if you review 

the comments in the FEIS the FS complies with the operator’s submitted intention instead of 

upholding the attached mitigations. Having the FS interpret the Court Findings and then 

incorporate the mitigations into the operator’s submitted plan by way of an attachment is 

egregious. The operator should state what he intends to do and if it is legal it is approved and if 

it is illegal it is not approved until he submits a plan that meets the legal requirements of 

operating on FS land his plan should remain unapproved.

If the plans are going to be issued for ten years than all the mining activity expected for the next 

10 years need to be defined for approval and adhered to without alteration over the ten year 

period. If the plan changes requiring more than one amendment then a new plan should be 

issued. It is very hard to manage multiple amendments and when the plan changes from the 

issued and considered published plans a new plan is the only way to satisfy NEPA. Neither the 

FS or the miner can tell what the operational plan for mining will be after the first 12 months of 

activities have been completed. Ten year plans are not a good way to manage mineral plans. 

Ten year plans begin to look like new plans every year as amendment after amendment are 

added without public input. The FS basically signs a blank check for exploration when it signs 

plans for 10 years. 

Response 65: There is no regulatory requirement to file a mining claim to mine on land open to 

mineral entry under the mining laws. The only condition under 30 USC 22 is that you are a 

citizen, or you have declared the intention to become a citizen. Therefore, having a mining claim 

is not a prerequisite for submitting a Plan of Operations for approval. Additionally, claim names 

are at the sole discretion of the person filing the claim, and often have no bearing on a 

geographic reference.
Appendix 10 NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

A10-26

A Plan of Operations is not intended to act as a limiting factor on how long an area can be 

mined. The area identified in this analysis is open to entry under the mining laws. Mining 

claims have been recorded throughout this area. The 1872 Mining Law (as amended) gives 

every citizen a statutory right to enter and remove valuable mineral deposits. The regulations do 

not specify a time period in which the deposit must be removed. As long as the area remains 

open to mineral entry, mining can be expected to continue.

The 10-year term represents no change from the 2004 FEIS. Chapter 2 of the FEIS states the 

Plans will be approved for 10 years from the date signed. This is an estimate on a reasonable 

amount of time needed to complete the operations as proposed. 

The regulations specifically require an operator to identifying the period of time activities will 

take place (36CFR §228.4 (c) (3)) when a Plan of Operations is submitted. The Plan should only 

address the activities reasonable foreseeable at the time and be supplemented or modified as 

conditions change (36CFR §228.4 (d)). Although the term “amendment” is used frequently 

when a change of a Plan is submitted or requested, the regulations only address supplements and 

modifications. The term “amendment” is often used interchangeable for supplements and 

modifications. There is no regulatory requirement to submit a new Plan of Operations except 

when operators change (36CFR §228.4 (a)). 

36 CFR 228.4(a)(3) states: “An operator shall submit a proposed plan of operations to the 

District Ranger ...” (emphasis added). 36CFR §228.5 then outlines the procedure the District 

Ranger must follow in responding to the submitted Plan of Operations. These regulations allow 

the District Ranger to notify the operator if changes or additions are necessary. These changes or 

additions are often developed in the environmental review (NEPA) of the plan and documented 

in the final Plan. Before the final Plan is approved any changes deemed necessary to meet the 

regulations must be agreed to by the operator. 

The objective is to develop a complete Plan with the operator that is reasonable, meets all 

regulatory requirements and minimizes surface resource impacts. This is reflected in the final 

Plan that is accepted by the operator and approved by the Forest Service.

Comment 66: In this Supplement, the analysis of suction dredging was conducted differently. 

Suction dredging, with the exception of the Cub Creek (Burnt Lode/Placer) was determined to be 

unlikely to cause a significant surface disturbance and therefore is no longer analyzed as a 

direct/indirect effect. Refer to Chapter 1, Section 1.4 and Appendix 6, 7A and 7B of this 

Supplement for the details of this determination. Refer to Watershed and Soil Resource section in 

this Supplement for detailed discussion of suction dredging on Cub Creek (Alternative 2) and its 

effects.

The creeks and streams in the NFk of the Burnt River could not facilitate suction dredging

without damming the creek to allow the dredge to operate, they are too shallow. In many creeks 

and streams & gulches where there are no trails or roads along the stream, the actual hiking 

down to a stream dragging a dredge or driving cross country to access the water may be a major 

undertaking or impossible without first clearing a trail, which is; on FS lands and in riparian 

reserves. Even though the actual mining itself is deemed unlikely to cause a significant surface 
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Appendix 10

A10-27

disturbance (just washing gravels and putting the same material washed back into the creek) the 

preparation of hauling and installing the dredge will cause damage to the banks and add 

sediment to the streams. In the NFk Burnt River drainage, miners use suction dredges to pump 

water to their trommels and ponds. By dropping suction dredging from the supplement it 

authorizes miners who are now reporting not to need water from the creeks to use dredges to get 

water to their ponds and trommels. Without any FS staff being able to monitor the operation. 

Pumping water from the creeks into trommels is a violation of the clean water act and 

misappropriating water without a water right. However, several plans I reviewed stated that 

they would use a dredge as a pump to fill ponds and trommels.

A twice daily hike down to the stream to refuel and manage the dredge forces miners and 

prospectors to actually create significant surface disturbances in or along streams, which will in 

turn force the operation from “insignificant” to “significant” without viable regulations. This 

is against the will of Congress, who approved such regulations so that operations are not likely 

to cause a significant disturbance. Not monitoring suction dredging is egregious.

Response 66: The Forest Service routinely monitors and documents inspections on all mining 

activities on National Forest System lands. This includes suction dredgers, persons using gold 

pans, and/or any other method. If at any time during an operation the District Ranger determines 

that the activity is causing or will cause a significant disturbance to surface resources, the 

operator must stop and cannot proceed until a Plan of Operations is approved (36CFR §228.4 

(a)(4)). 

Suction dredging was not dropped from the analysis. As long as the suction dredge is operated in 

compliance with state law, and the District Ranger determines that the activity is not or will not 

cause a significant disturbance, the activity is authorized by the regulations (36CFR §228.4 (a)).

See Appendix A at the end of this appendix.

Suction Dredging and pumping water from the stream for other purposes are two different 

activities. By allowing suction dredging to occur does not tacitly authorize any additional or 

unrelated activity.

Comment 67: In the Draft EIS many of the plans proposed pumping water out of the creeks and 

streams. Some amount of educating them occurred between the Draft and the Final in that all 

those claims that stated they would use water for which they had no water rights now say, 

“Water from the creek or stream will be used if a water right is obtained.” No new water rights 

can be issued in this drainage so that is never going to happen. 

Response 67: Note: Appendix 6, 7A and 7B are now Appendix 5, 6A and 6B in the FSEIS.

The issue of Water Rights was addressed in the 2004 FEIS Appendix G Section 1, and in the 

2004 FEIS Chapter 1. There is no change from the 2004 FEIS. 

Comment 68: Also it is a common comment in SEIS that all the plans now use ground water and 

adit water for processing and that apparently was all they anticipate needing for the next ten 

years. 
Appendix 10 NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

A10-28

Response 68: A supplement to the Plan of Operation would be required if, at a later date, the 

operator wanted to use a different source for water then in their approved Plan. The supplement 

“shall be subject to approval by the authorized officer in the same manner as the initial plan of 

operations...” (36CFR 228.5 (c)).” This could require additional environmental review and 

analysis.

Comment 69: I was told that the mining plans I received were not the original plans as 

submitted, but were re-typed by the FS (word for word) for the record. Yet there is a common 

language applied to all the plans that come from all over the state and even out of the state that 

suggests that there has been a lot of active editing and or one author for the benefit of all to 

avoid or not disclose items of environmental concern. Some of the plans have signatures like the 

7 plans that have no intention of complying with the expiration dates. Some of them have 

submitted signatures most of them don’t. Some of them post ORMC numbers most of them don’t. 

Only 4-5 of them I received actually had a map attached to them. I have tried to locate some of 

these sites in the field based on the analysis maps and the plan descriptions and it is not possible 

to be confident of where the proposal in the plan will occur on the ground. I suggest that if the 

FS is going to rewrite all the plans that they also map or remap the plan proposal as well. 

Response 69: 36CFR §228.4 (a) requires the operator to submit a proposed Plan of Operations. 

There is no policy or regulation that directs the Forest Service to rewrite the Plans. 

Comment 70: The Pete Mann Ditch is definitely Historic Pre Dating the FS by many years and 

used to appear in plans as needing protection. The FS now excludes all references to the Pete 

Mann Ditch. There is no protection of it as a historic structure, there is no reference to the 

deliverance of water from the NFk of the John Day River to the N Fk BR and Hannigan’s plans 

which always include plans to use the Pete Mann Ditch in his Parkerville Plans are now almost 

blacked out on the plans sent to me. However some references were missed and so the reference 

to the PM Ditch was still readable. The FS cannot pretend it is not addressing use of the PMD if 

it is in fact authorizing its use covertly.

For instance there is no mention of Tony Creek in the Analysis. This is because there is no Tony 

Creek in the drainage. This is the waters conveyed by the Pete Mann Ditch. Parkerville Placer

and Keystone Racer and many others closer to the wilderness access, reconstruct and maintain 

the Pete Mann Ditch. When the FS does manage the Ditch it does so covertly. When it doesn’t 

protect it from operations that would alter or use the Ditch it violates NEPA. Not mentioning it 

doesn’t mean it isn’t there. 

Yet this part of the plan is a hidden agenda the FS does not want to address. However by 

covering up its management of the PMD in all analyses it is not only impacting the data it is

actually committing fraud. The PMD is not only a significant contributor of water into the NFk 

BR Drainage it is also the only conveyance of NFk JDR water into the Burnt River. Ask the 

Burnt River Irrigation Co. if how the FS manages the Ditch is significant to them. Yet no mention 

of how the impact of bringing water from the NFk of the John Day River into the NFk of the 

Burnt River impacts this EIS. No mention of what should be protected. I have a documented 

paper trail of the FS not disclosing management of a ditch that conveys water based on water 

rights granted to my Winterville Property in 1865 and 1887 and a court decision that says that 
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Appendix 10

A10-29

as long as I have water rights I have an interest in the Ditch. I still have water rights conveyed 

by the ditch.

The Pete Mann ditch is not just a miner’s free ride to water. It conveys water allocated by water 

rights. I am having a lawyer look into all areas where the Draft, The EIS and the Supplement 

have purposely not divulged the Pete Mann Ditch as the conveyance referenced. As well as 

portions where not disclosing this resource has impacted the data and the decisions in this 

drainage. My suggestion is that the Pete Mann Ditch and the water it conveys should be part of 

the Analysis in all future EAs and EISs. The attempt to disguise what you are addressing is an 

illegal disclosure. 

Response 70: The Forest Service has no control over the water that flows into or out of the Pete 

Mann Ditch. This decision does not authorize water use as part of the operations. That is a 

water rights issue. One operation proposes to use water from the ditch. This operator does not 

propose to disturb, maintain, alter, modify or cause any impacts to the ditch. If that were to 

occur, the operator would be in violation of the terms of their Plan. The Forest Service has 

several options in dealing with non-compliance issues including criminal, civil, and 

administrative remedies. 

NOTE: References to a Tony Creek have been removed from the Final SEIS because no Tony 

Creek could be found on the FS GIS layer or on U.S.G.S. 7.5 topographic maps in this area. 

Therefore, this tributary is now referred to as “a small unnamed tributary to the NFBR.”

EPA 11/05/10

Comment 71: One of the major components of this analysis relates to mining claim access. This 

includes analysis of impacts from roads and the proposal for additional roads and stream 

crossings/fords. All of these activities can result in discharge of sediment to Waters of the U.S. 

and should be coordinated with the State of Oregon to ensure that approvals are protective and 

appropriate measures are in place to avoid impacts. The SDEIS notes that the Forest Service 

has consulted with Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) and we acknowledge 

the addition of Appendix 1A, which discloses potential discharges. It appears that there is only 

one identified due to the proximity of proposed road to the stream. We recommend including 

information on the timing of the 401 certification and additional requirements for any discharges 

since approval of plans cannot occur until certification has been secured. 

Response 71: When a proposed Plan has been identified by the district hydrologist as having the 

potential for a discharge, 401 certification must be presented to the Forest Service prior to Plan 

approval. Any additional terms and conditions included in the 401 certificate will be 

incorporated into the Plan. This is clearly described in the Final SEIS (Chapter 2, pg. 22) and 

2012 ROD pg. 4.

Comment 72: The SDEIS discusses the need to amend the Forest Plan to increase open road 

density in five Management Areas to accommodate access to mine claims. It also states that 

roads related to mines would be temporary so this amendment would be insignificant. We are 

unclear if these roads would be closed but continue to exist or be decommissioned. Unless 
Appendix 10 NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

A10-30

decommissioned, closed roads can contribute sediment to streams and the NFBR and four other 

streams in the project area are listed as water quality impaired for sediment. Appendix 1B 

includes a table that lists information on closure and decommissions; however, they are lumped 

together. It would be helpful to clarify how many roads would be decommissioned and why they 

were selected. We support decommissioning roads and reestablishing vegetation to reduce 

erosion and protect water quality. We recommend that the EIS provide additional detail on the 

closure plan and road decommissioning. 

Response 72: The FSEIS clarifies how open road densities are calculated (Chapter 3, 

Access/Transportation). The construction of 3,200 feet of temporary mine access roads would 

not contribute to open road densities because they are not considered open roads. In response to 

comments from the public, and after further analysis by the interdisciplinary team, the deciding 

official determined that a Forest Plan Amendment for open road densities would no longer be 

included in Alternative 4 (see “Changes from Draft to Final”).

Appendix 1B in the Final SEIS has been adjusted to include the specific action (closure or 

decommission) associated with each road under Alternative 4. In addition, the notes section has 

a current description of each road’s condition, which explains why they were proposed for 

closure or decommissioning (ex. poor condition, rutted roads, etc.).

The Forest Service roads proposed for closure and decommissioning were selected through a 

Roads Analysis process for the 2004 FEIS (project file) and the reasons for their selection are 

displayed in notes section of Appendix 1B of the Final SEIS. General Requirements Z1-11 

(Appendix 2) includes maintenance and reclamation activities specific to the closed, and nonsystem mine access roads Requirement Z10 includes direction for reclamation of these roads. 

Requirement Z11 has been added to the Final SEIS to include the following direction. “During 

periods of operations, and seasonal or temporary shutdowns, the operator is responsible for 

installing and maintaining a closure device that is approved in writing by the District Ranger.”

Comment 73: We believe that the NFBR watershed has a high density of roads compared to 

other watersheds (465.97 open road miles and 4.88 road density3

) and 1200 miles of roads 

provide access to active mining claims. The density of roads causes habitat fragmentation and 

can cumulatively increase sediment in streams. Road maintenance activities are often key in 

reducing sediment loads. We acknowledge that the SDEIS states that approximately only 1.6% 

of 5 tons/sq.mil/year of sediment is from roads. Although this may seem minimal, we are 

concerned those additional roads could discharge sediment (i.e., Burnt Lode/Placer 3), that the 

condition of existing roads could deteriorate, and that cumulative impacts of other projects could 

exacerbate the situation. We also note that plans for the Forest propose additional roads. We 

are unclear if this cumulative effect could have a greater potential for sediment delivery in an 

already impaired watershed and how this complies with anti-degradation provisions4

. The EIS 

should discuss other activities in the watershed that would result in additional roads, how these 

affect water quality, and details of a road maintenance plan. 

 3 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Travel Management Plan Draft EIS (2009)

4 CWA Section 313, 33 U.S.C § 1323(a)
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Appendix 10

A10-31

Response 73: A cumulative effects analysis is included in Chapter 3. This analysis discloses the 

potential cumulative effects from implementation of the foreseeable future Travel Management 

Plan (TMP). The impacts of roads on water quality is discussed in detail in Appendix 3 of the 

Draft SEIS and Final SEIS, and road maintenance activities are described in detail in Appendix 

2, Z 1-10.

Comment 74: The Draft SEIS indicates that there will be five additional fords and multiple 

stream crossings. We are concerned about stream crossings that have potential to disturb the 

stream substrate and cause bank erosion from transport in-stream. We understand that rocks 

may be placed in areas where fords will occur. We are unclear if placement of rocks in streams 

would require a Corps’ of Engineers 404 permit. In the event that a Corps permit is required for 

any activities (stream crossings and any activities in wetlands related to other activities) in 

Waters of the U.S., the EIS should discuss this coordination and how the project will comply with 

the 404(b)(1) guidelines and three tiered analysis to first avoid of impacts, second minimize 

impacts, and last compensate for impacts. We also recommend that bridges be used whenever 

possible to avoid stream fords.

Response 74: The channel beds at these fords are composed of large cobbles and no material 

will be added to the channel bed. It is the banks that will be sloped and rocked. Information on 

bank and bed composition is found in the Final SEIS, Table 3-5. Site-specific BMPs for rocking 

the banks are found in Table 3-10. No 404 permits from the ACE are needed because there will 

be no instream placement of rock. 

The amount of ground disturbance and potential for a sediment discharge as a result of bridge 

building were determined are greater than with a rocked ford. 

Comment 75: The SDEIS includes construction of settling ponds for a number of the Plans of 

Operation and Appendix 5 discloses the operations that include ponds. We are concerned that 

some of these ponds are in Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas (RHCAs) and near wetlands

and streams. As previously stated, three streams in the project area are listed as impaired for 

sediment and five streams are listed for temperature. We are concerned about settling ponds 

being constructed in RHCAs and the resulting potential loss of vegetation, increased sediment 

delivery, and increased temperature in streams. We are unclear about whether the design of 

these ponds took heavy precipitation events into account to ensure that the settling ponds would 

be stable, so that they would not be breached and cause a discharge to surface waters. We 

recommend that the final EIS provide details of the design requirements for settling ponds and 

minimize locating ponds in areas where contamination of surface water could result in the event 

of failure. 

Response 75: Note: Appendix 5 is now Appendix 4 in the FSEIS.

Existing and proposed pond locations were evaluated for compliance with INFISH MM-1 and 

MM-2 and for the potential for a discharge. 

The potential of the ponds to impact fish habitat and water quality is not a function of its distance 

from the creek, but a function of site and structure characteristics. The explanation of why most 

of the proposed and existing ponds are in compliance with INFISH can be found at Draft SEIS 
Appendix 10 NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

A10-32

Chapter 3, page 60 and on page 63. Key site characteristics that informed the analysis were 

topography and ground cover. First, the ponds are dug into the ground rather than created using 

a dam in a drainage. As a result there are no dam breaching concerns and no channelized flow. 

Second, the ponds are located on the valley floor where the topography is flat and the area is 

stable even if the ground is saturated. Therefore there is little potential for channelized flow to 

occur even if the pond overtops. This is not the case if the ponds were moved up onto the 

hillslopes. Ground cover is 50 to 100 percent on the valley floors, and thus there is sediment 

trapping capability should the pond fill up and over flow onto the valley floor. 

Comment 76: Multiple proposals include placer mining of underground mine portals (e.g., Jay 

Gould Mine Works, Monarch LD, Roberts LD). The SDEIS discusses contaminants of concern 

(COC), the human health and aquatic organism standards for COCs, and the analytical results 

of water chemistry for operators that intend to either use the water from the adit or open the 

adit. In a number of cases the adit water exceeded the standard for human health and/or aquatic 

organisms. We are very concerned with activities occurring in contaminated sites and believe 

that proper clean up of sites should occur. The document should clarify if the operator would be 

responsible for clean up actions once activities commence in areas that are contaminated (have 

they caused further contamination and release of COCs?). The document notes that these waters 

do not contain fish and are not a source of drinking water. However, the document also notes 

that some of the discharges go underground and then are expressed in nearby springs. It would 

be helpful to better understand whether or not these discharges are reaching waters with 

designated beneficial uses and what the ramifications of activities in contaminated sites would 

be. The EIS should further discuss the impacts and regulatory framework around this activity. 

Response 76: There are two components to the above response: 1) placer mining of 

underground portals and 2) whether discharges reach waters with beneficial uses. They are 

address separately.

The first comment stating that the mining proposals include "placer mining of underground 

portals" is incorrect. The listed operations will use one of the following two approaches: 

1) Water discharging from an underground mine water will be used to process the operator’s 

placer materials and then that water will then been sent from their wash plant through a series of 

settling ponds to remove all sediment, or 

2) The operator will open and enter these underground workings for lode deposit exploration 

and development. They will use settling ponds established to remove any sediment that may be 

produced as a result of their activities.

In the first case, the operators would not be contributing to the Contaminants of Concern 

condition of the water as there are no chemical additions during placer mine operations. 

Therefore, they would not be held responsible for any other water treatments than those required 

under placer operation practices (settling ponds).

In the second case, the operators could be held responsible for any change in water chemistry as 

a result of their underground exploration and development activities. Similar to the placer 

operations, sediment control through use of settling ponds would be a requirement. As stated in 
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Appendix 10

A10-33

Requirement R24 (Appendix 2), the point of compliance for this issue is at the point of entry into 

Waters of the State.

In this case, there would be continued inspection of these potentially active sites as specified 

under Forest Service surface management regulations (36 CFS 228 subpart A). If underground 

development has occurred, the Forest Service will periodically retest the water and if changes to 

the operation are necessary as a result of the sampling, the Plan of Operations will be modified 

through provisions set forth in 36 CFR 228.4 (e) (see Draft SEIS, Chapter 3, p. 65)

With respect to the second comment: “It would be helpful to better understand whether or not 

these discharges are reaching waters with designated beneficial uses and what the ramifications 

of activities in contaminated sites would be. 

There are five adits that discharge water. August Placer and Lucky One Placer are proposing to 

use the water discharged to process placer deposits and will not be altering the adits. Jay Gould 

Mine (Banzer), Ladder/Rusty Bucket and Roberts Lode plan to work their adits which may result 

in changes in water quality. Currently, Jay Gould Mine (Banzer) water has values below 

standards. The nearest residence is 2 miles away and in the next drainage. Therefore, there are 

no current concerns about this site. Ladder Rusty Bucket has only one value that is above 

standard (Cadmium = 1.8). The EPA standard = 0.268. However, this site is more than 4 miles 

from any private land and therefore from any residences. Finally, Roberts Lode exceeds 

standards for Arsenic (8.8). The EPA standard is 0.018. Private land begins about 0.25 miles 

downstream. However, as stated in Chapter 3, p. 48 all of these mine discharges go subsurface 

within 200 feet of the portals with only Jay Gould Lode (Banzer) and Roberts Lode having 

wetlands further downstream where the adit water may be co-mingling. 

Comment 77: There are many historic placer mines/suction dredge operations throughout the 

NW that were not reclaimed and vegetation has still not established on spent tailings after 

decades. Therefore, we believe that reclamation is critical to promote site rehabilitation and 

restore ecosystem processes. The SDEIS does not provide adequate detail of site reclamation 

requirements or design. Appendix 2 includes Requirement G2, which states that site-specific 

reclamation bonds may be required to ensure reclamation takes place. We strongly support 

financial assurance requirements and recommend that all Plans of Operations include a bond 

for site reclamation since all of the proposals include surface disturbance. The EIS should 

discuss the bonding mechanism, what activities would be covered, and benchmarks for bond 

release. The EIS should also provide information about the details of reclamation design and 

requirements. 

Response 77: Reclamation requirements are outlined in Appendix 2. A detailed plan will be 

developed when operations cease, and are dependent upon the condition of the site at that time. 
Appendix 10 NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

A10-34

Hells Canyon Preservation Council (HCPC) 11/08/10

Comment 78: Alternatives 1 and 2 (Alt 2 representing the Proposed Action) are not viable 

alternatives, because as the Forest Service admits, those alternatives include 25 plans that do 

not contain measures to prevent further degradation to 303(d) listed water quality impaired 

streams, and consequently fail to comply with the requirements of the CWA. These comments, 

therefore, focus on Alternative 3 and the Forest Service’s Preferred Alternative (Alternative 4). 

Alternatives 3 & 4 would approve 42 Plans of Operations (PoOs) for lode, placer and suction 

dredge mining covering 66 different sites for a period of 10 years. These alternatives call for 

Best Management Practices (“BMPs”) that the Forest Service alleges will eliminate the 

potential for a discharge of pollutants, thereby avoiding the need for 401 certification pursuant 

to the CWA. These BMPs are also intended to ensure compliance with Forest Plan standards, 

including INFISH mining standards MM-1 and MM-2. Draft SEIS, 16. 

Three PoOs propose construction of temporary roads to provide access to their operations for a 

combined total of 3300 feet (approximately .63 miles). Draft SEIS, 93. Alternatives 3 & 4 would 

also authorize the use of 44.93 or 64.84 miles of previously “closed” or decommissioned roads, 

respectively. Draft SEIS, p. 84. These alternatives propose 7 new fords and the use of several 

existing fords. Eight of these existing and proposed fords have been identified as potential 

contributors to increased sedimentation and would require bank and stream channel 

stabilization activities to avoid new sediment input. Draft SEIS, p. 72. Twenty-six (26) PoOs call 

for the use of existing or new settling ponds within RHCAs. The Draft SEIS, however, states that 

given the location of these ponds there would not be a potential for any sediment discharge. 

Draft SEIS, 60. Five plans propose to use adits that discharge water. Draft SEIS, 65. The Draft 

SEIS states that 4 adits discharge water into adit generated wetlands and the fifth discharges 

water into a wetland with a perennial stream. Draft SEIS, 65. These areas would require 

consistent future monitoring for discharge effects. 

Alternatives 3 & 4 call for a site-specific forest plan amendment to modify Forest Plan open 

road density standards. The Draft SEIS states: 

Because the LRMP is somewhat unclear as to what constitutes an “open road” and how 

open road densities should be calculated (by Management Area, and/or or Management 

Areas within Subwatersheds), this Supplement takes a conservative approach in 

addressing this issue. Since the temporary mine access roads in the NFBR watershed 

could be construed as contributing to the open road densities, and because some 

Management Areas within Subwatersheds would remain above LRMP guidelines, a 

Forest Plan Amendment for open road densities is included in Alternatives 3 and 4 of this 

Supplement. Because temporary access roads would be reclaimed upon completion of 

mining activity, and would no longer be perceived as contributing to open road densities, 

this amendment would be considered non-significant. DSEIS, 28. 

Lastly, Alternative 4 proposes to close 17.74 miles of system roads, decommission 5.47 miles, 

increase maintenance on 19.75 miles, and reconstruct 21.7 miles. However, these road 

maintenance and decommissioning activities are somewhat speculative in that they will only “be 

initiated when funding becomes available.” Draft SEIS, 31. 
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Appendix 10

A10-35

Response 78: In the 2004 FEIS, the road closures, maintenance, decommissioning were intended 

to compensate for the sediment inputs created by the mining operations based on the R1-R4 

model. This model was based on a linear distance from a channel and did not take into account 

topography, ground cover, or downed woody material or tailings along the creek. A review of 

the model and the road conditions in the NFBR under the SEIS effort found that roads are not a 

major contributor to sediment inputs into the creeks. Therefore, the issue of when the roads are 

going to be closed is no longer relevant because it is no longer tied to water quality. See 

Appendix 3 of the Final SEIS for discussion of model and roads analysis.

Each operation has both ongoing and final reclamation requirements. This is no change from the 

2004 FEIS and ROD (see Chapter II, pg. 30-32). Also, General Requirements Z1-11 (Appendix 

2) includes maintenance and reclamation activities specific to the closed, and non-system mine 

access roads. Requirement Z10 includes direction for reclamation of these roads. Requirement 

Z11 has been added to the Final SEIS to include the following direction. “During periods of 

operations, and seasonal or temporary shutdowns, the operator is responsible for installing and 

maintaining a closure device that is approved in writing by the District Ranger.”

The Final SEIS differs from the Draft SEIS in its presentation of open road densities and the 

need for a Forest Plan Amendment. Unlike the Draft SEIS, a Forest Plan Amendment for open 

road densities is no longer included in Alternative 4 of the Final SEIS. Further analysis of the 

Forest Plan between the Draft and the Final SEIS determined that the project is consistent with 

Forest Plan. Refer to the Changes from Draft to Final section, and Chapter 3 

Access/Transportation System in the Final SEIS for a detailed discussion of open road density

guidelines.

Comment 79: The NFBR EIS lacks “reasonably thorough discussion[s] of the significant 

aspects of the probable environmental consequences” of individual mining projects.5 This 

omission violates NEPA.6 Tiering subsequent environmental assessments to the NFBR EIS is the 

natural and preferred corrective.7

Beyond the statutory mandate, a necessity for site-specific impacts of individual mining 

operations within the NFBR Watershed is borne out through examinations of specific Plans of 

Operation. The Plans of Operation originally submitted in conjunction with preparation of the 

NFBR EIS do not meet the requirements of 36 C.F.R. § 228.4(c). The statements about 

environmental degradation are incomplete and conclusory, some do not have a length of 

operation, and they are vague as to how they will meet requirements for environmental 

protection. It should not be the role of the Forest Service to supplement these Plans of 

Operation. The applicants bear responsibility for submitting complete Plans of Operation.

 5 Block, 690 F.2d at 761.

6 Id.

7 See Blue Mountains Biodiversity Project v. Blackwood, 161 F.3d 1208, 1214 (“Nothing in the tiering 

regulations suggests that the existence of a programmatic EIS . . . obviates the need for any future projectspecific EIS. . . .”).
Appendix 10 NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

A10-36

Response 79: 36 CFR 228.4(a)(3) states: “An operator shall submit a proposed plan of 

operations to the District Ranger ...” (emphasis added). 36CFR §228.5 then outlines the 

procedure the District Ranger must follow in responding to the submitted Plan of Operations. 

These regulations allow the District Ranger to notify the operator if changes or additions are 

necessary. These changes or additions are often developed in the environmental review (NEPA) 

of the plan and documented in the final Plan. Before the final Plan is approved any changes 

deemed necessary to meet the regulations must be agreed to by the operator. 

The objective is to develop a complete Plan with the operator that is reasonable, meets all 

regulatory requirements and minimizes surface resource impacts. This is reflected in the final 

Plan that is accepted by the operator and approved by the Forest Service.

The role of the Forest Service in accepting Plans of Operations does not appear to be an 

environmental issue and may be outside the scope of the analysis. 

Comment 80: The Range of Alternatives presented in the EIS has limited the scope of the 

analysis to an unreasonable level. NEPA documents must discuss alternatives to the proposed 

action in order to “provid(e) a clear basis for choice among options by the decision maker and 

the public.”8 Additionally, agencies “shall to the fullest extent possible: Use the NEPA process 

to identify and assess the reasonable alternatives to proposed actions that will avoid or minimize 

adverse effects of these actions upon the quality of the human environment.”9 The purpose of this 

requirement is “to insist that no major federal project should be undertaken without intense 

consideration of other more ecologically sound courses of action, including shelving the entire 

project, or of accomplishing the same result by entirely different means.”10

The Forest service admits that the Proposed Action is non-viable as it fails to fulfill the Forest 

service’s legal obligations. HCPC contends that both Alternatives 3 & 4 also fall short of 

meeting all management requirements established by laws and regulations, thus neither are 

viable alternatives either. 

There was no consideration of simply not approving the proposed operations and allowing the 

existing Plans of Operation to expire. The NFBR Draft SEIS does not analyze the effects of 

allowing the current Plans of Operation to expire and the reclamation work that would be 

required upon expiration of those Plans of Operation. Nor was there consideration of an 

alternative approving the Plans of Operation for less than 10 years – an alternative that would 

help speed up the reclamation process. Nor was there individualized consideration of the mining 

projects, so that a decision maker could approve some and deny others. 

Response 80: This is outside the scope of this analysis. The SEIS was prepared to address 

deficiencies identified in the August 4, 2006 Court Order and Opinion.

The regulations do not allow the government to consider not approving Plans that are reasonable, 

and proposed in areas open to entry under the mining laws. This is also inconsistent with the 

 8 40 C.F.R. §§ 1502.14, 1507.2(d), 1508.9(b); 42 U.S.C. § 4332(e).

9 40 C.F.R. § 1500.2(e).

10 Environmental Defense Fund v. Corps of Engineers, 492 F.2d 1123, 1135 (5th Cir. 1974); Methow 

Valley Citizens Council v. Regional Forester, 833 F.2d 810 (9th Cir. 1987), rev'd on other grounds, 490 

U.S. 332 (1989)
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Appendix 10

A10-37

Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970. The process does allow for approval of each separate 

mining proposal. The ROD completes the environmental requirements but does not approve any 

Plans. Approval of Plans is an administrative process that is conditional on meeting certain 

requirements that include but not limited to posting a Bond, accepting any changes to the plan, 

providing 401 certification as deemed necessary, and signing the Plan. 

Comment 81: Additionally, the agency illegally failed to review the alternatives inherent in 

each proposed and renewed mining operation. Many of the approved Plans of Operation cover 

various mining methods. Alternatives for each operation include different mining methods (e.g., 

suction dredge only, mechanical sluicing/highbanking only, nondestructive exploration methods, 

etc.). The EIS does not consider these project-specific alternatives. In other words, the Forest 

Service should have considered each proposed Plan of Operations as a separate project, with a 

separate NEPA alternatives, mitigation, and impacts analysis.

Response 81: The SEIS was specifically prepared to address deficiencies identified in the 

August 4, 2006 Court Order and Opinion. In Order and Opinion, Section IV, the issue of NEPA 

was addressed. The Judge specifically stated:

“Plaintiffs argue that the Forest Service violated NEPA by considering forty-nine 

proposals together and, thus, failing to analyze site-specific impacts from each mining 

operation, and also by failing to consider an adequate range of alternatives to each of the 

proposed mining operations. This court disagrees.” (Opinion and Order, pages 19 and 

20.)

Each specific proposed Plan and the potential effects are fully described in both the 2004 FEIS 

and this Final SEIS. 

Comment 82: The analysis area also contains approximately 90 miles of perennial fish-bearing 

streams. Redband trout, a Forest Service sensitive species, inhabits these streams. It’s possible 

federally listed bull trout may occur in some of these streams as well, but it appears no recent 

surveys have been conducted to determine their presence. 

The FEIS acknowledges that the use of heavy equipment across fords will adversely affect fish 

and aquatic habitat: 

Heavy equipment using the existing fords to cross the North Fork Burnt River and Snow 

Creek will stir up some stream bottom substrate and create some soil disturbances to the 

respective stream banks and streambeds. This will ensure that these existing fords will 

continue to be chronic sediment sources to the NFBR and Snow Creek. The pulse of 

sediment released when the miners vehicles cross these streams will force the redband 

trout occupying these streams immediately below the fords to move to less turbid waters, 

as the suspended sediments can be a source of gill irritation to the fish. FEIS, 45. 

Response 82: The discussion on Page 45 in the 2004 FEIS regarding the impact of existing 

fords and their potential to create a chronic input of sediment into streams occurs under 

Alternative 2. Alternative 2 is the operator’s proposal and does not include the Forest Service 
Appendix 10 NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

A10-38

BMPs included in Alternative 4. The potential for long-term chronic sediment inputs is from the 

sloped, fine-grained banks which could easily become rutted. While crossing the ford would 

result in stirring up some fine sediment, this disturbance would be short-term because it would be 

the actual passage of the vehicle that disturbs the channel bed. 

Concerns about the potential for sediment inputs into the streams from the ford banks were 

eliminated in the 2004 FEIS in Alternative 4, General Requirement G-11. In the 2004 FEIS, 

Chapter 2, page 21, General Requirement G-11 stated the following:

Mining equipment shall cross creeks only at pre-approved sites. Crossings shall 

be of a width and frequency so as to impact no more than 10% of the affected 

stream channel within the claim or as authorized in writing by the District 

Ranger. If fords are used, they shall be armored with rock.

General Requirement G-11 is carried forward in the Final SEIS and part of the Final SEIS Water 

Quality Protection Measures (WQPM) found in Appendix 1A. In addition, site characteristics 

are found in the Final SEIS in Chapter 3, Table 3-5. 

Comment 83: The FEIS goes on to state: 

“The loss of pool habitat in Snow Creek could result in a minor localized decline in 

abundance of redband trout within the stream, as slightly increased mortality rates of 

adult redband trout could occur due to the loss of needed over-wintering (pool) habitat. 

Recruitment of redband trout into the NFBR population could be reduced due to the 

mining-caused loss of spawning gravels and rearing areas within Snow Creek.” FEIS, 

45. 

Alternatives 3 & 4 do not provide adequate protections from stream temperature increases that

will result from the loss of streambank vegetation. As you know, many of these streams are 

already 303(d) listed for exceeding stream temperature standards and bull trout and redband 

trout are very sensitive to these changes. The District Ranger should not allow for the removal of 

streambank vegetation pursuant to the proposed General Requirements.

Response 83: 

NOTE: The FSEIS only discusses Alternatives 2 (miners’ proposals) and Alternative 4 

(miners’proposals with Forest Service Best Management Practices added). 

The only time removal of streambank vegetation would be allowed is if the District Ranger 

agrees in writing (Final SEIS, Appendix 2, General Requirement G-8). Other than that, they are 

not to remove stream bank vegetation (Final SEIS, Appendix 2, General Requirement G-24). 

This concern is further addressed in the Final SEIS in Alternative 4 in the discussion about 

ensuring compliance with CWA Section 401 (Chapter 3, Watershed and Soil Resources). In 

order to prevent a discharge, the operations have been clearly moved up onto the valley floor and 

out of the active flood plain or bank. In addition, the operations are either now behind tailings 
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Appendix 10

A10-39

piles or at least 25 feet from the valley floor-channel break-in-slope, adding additional protection 

of stream bank vegetation. 

Stream temperatures exceed DEQ standard as a result of historic activities which resulted in 

channel widening, incision and straightening and disconnected from its valley floor. The result 

was shallower water depths and a reduction in ground water return flows. None of the proposed 

mining activities improve conditions or further degrade conditions because under Alternative 4 

the operations are on the valley floor and not influencing those factors that could improve or 

further degrade conditions (i.e. bank trampling, browsing or removal of riparian woody 

vegetation, instream channel erosion). 

Comment 84: Many of these General Requirements rely upon compliance and strict adherence 

on behalf of the miners. Draft SEIS, App. 2. The Final SEIS should discuss the history of the 

miner’s compliance with similar protections and the likelihood of protection measures being 

ignored. How often will Forest Service officials conduct compliance monitoring? How many 

occurrences of non-compliance are needed to revoke approval of any PoO or trigger other 

remedies? These questions should be thoroughly explored in the FEIS. 

Response 84: The SEIS was specifically prepared to address deficiencies identified in the 

August 4, 2006 Court Order and Opinion.

Compliance monitoring is conducted annually at a minimum, more if necessary. For the last 8 

years the Whitman Ranger District has documented more than 1500 inspections on mining sites, 

whether or not there has been any activity. All persons entering National Forest system lands 

under the mining laws must comply with all rules and regulations governing such national forest 

(Organic Administration Act 6/4/1897), including the regulations found at 36CFR 261.10 

Occupancy and Use. The Forest Service has both criminal and civil remedies for dealing with 

non-compliance with either the regulations or an approved Plan of Operations.

Comment 85: As the FEIS also concedes, over the long term, “the loss of LWM recruitment will 

result in the simplification of in-stream habitat, resulting in fewer pools available to redband 

trout for rearing and over-wintering. The loss of over-wintering habitat is one of the main causes 

for the increased mortality of adult redband trout.” FEIS, 47. Redband trout population numbers 

in the NFBR Watershed will also “be reduced due to the loss of spawning gravels and rearing 

areas within the NFBR Watershed.” Id. 

Response 85: The plans were reviewed and no one is proposing large-scale removal of trees 

along the stream. The removal of large woody material (LWM) and the effects are now presented 

in the Final SEIS in the Water Quality section in Alternative 2 under a new subheading “Large 

Woody Material”, and Appendix 9. 

Comment 86: Short term, mining-caused disturbed soil/vegetation areas will result in an 

increased risk of accelerated erosion to adjacent stream channels from surface runoff. 

Infiltration and subsurface drainage are major routes for water through these project areas. 

Intense summer storms and spring runoff may result in overland sedimentation flows into 

adjacent stream channels. Id. 
Appendix 10 NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

A10-40

Mining-caused disturbances of soils to within 10 feet of the various channels within the NFBR 

Watershed will result in the loss of some existing pool habitat, as the mining-caused sediment 

from disturbed areas makes its way into adjacent stream channels. In the short term, this 

sediment would have an impact on available downstream pool habitat, which is used by redband 

trout for rearing and over-wintering habitat. Id. 

Response 86: The above concerns were related to Alternatives 1 and 2 in the 2004 FEIS. 

Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 are the operator’s proposal and do not include the Forest Service 

BMPs added to Alternative 4. The potential for sediment generated by the mining activity to 

travel either via surface or groundwater flow and reach the stream has been eliminated in the 

Final SEIS through the development of site-specific Water Quality Protection Measures

(WQPMs) except for two activities proposed in the Burnt Lode/Placer. These WQPMs are 

found in Appendix 1A and Appendix 1B. The two activities which still have the potential for a 

“may” discharge even after Forest Service WQPMs are: 1) road construction to the Karissa site 

and 2) suction dredging on Cub Creek. Both of these activities would require 401 certification 

prior to Forest Service approval.

Comment 87: The loss of some rearing and over-wintering habitat could impact redband trout

recruitment, as some individual redband trout could die due to the loss of rearing and overwintering habitat. Spawning redband trout normally dislodge fine sediment when digging their 

redds, and the redband trout eggs will not be affected by fine sediment. However, if this fine 

sediment has had a chance to “set up” between the gravels in the pool tail crests, the amount of 

spawning gravels available to spawning redband trout will be reduced. Id. 

Water withdrawals, particularly from low flow creeks such as Camp, Geiser, and Snow Creeks 

and their tributaries, may also adversely affect resident trout. FEIS, 49-50. 

Response 87: The concerns regarding the impact of fine sediment inputs from the mining 

activity are addressed in Response 86.

The Forest Service recognizes the impacts of additional water withdrawals on stream 

temperatures and therefore the quality of habitat for resident trout. The magnitude of the impact 

on temperature will vary as a function of the stream conditions, extent of withdrawal, and time of 

year as discussed in the 2004 FEIS, p. 49-50. Operations proposing water withdrawals are 

discussed in the Watershed and Soils Resources section of Chapter 3 and in Appendix 9. 

However, water withdrawals from streams require a water right and are therefore under the 

jurisdiction of the Oregon Department of Water Resources, not the Forest Service. 

Comment 88: NFMA requires that, “fish and wildlife habitat shall be managed to maintain 

viable populations of existing native and desired non-native vertebrate species in the planning 

area.”11 Furthermore, the Forest Service Manual states the agency must manage “habitats for 

all existing native and desired nonnative plants, fish, and wildlife species in order to maintain at 

least viable populations of such species.”12 INFISH, an amendment to the WWNF LRMP, directs 

the Forest Service to, amongst other things: 1) ensure operators take all practicable measures to 

 11 36 C.F.R. § 219.19.

12 FSM 2670.12; see also FSM 2670.32.
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Appendix 10

A10-41

maintain, protect, and rehabilitate fish and wildlife habitat, 2) avoid impacts to RHCAs in the 

location of roads, structures and support facilities, and 3) prohibit the storage of solid waste 

materials in RHCAs unless releases can be prevented and stability ensured.13

In addition to INFISH, the Forest Service Manual directs the agency to “give preferential 

consideration to riparian dependent resources when conflicts among land use activities 

occur.”14 Also, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Trout Plan states that the goal of 

the plan is to: “[a]chieve and maintain optimum populations and production of trout to 

maximize benefits and to insure a wide diversity of opportunity for present and future citizens.15

INFISH works, in part, through a system of Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas (“RHCAs”). 

These areas are “portions of watersheds where riparian-dependent resources receive primary 

emphasis, and management activities are subject to specific standards and guidelines.” RHCAs 

include streams, ponds and lakes, wetlands, intermittent streams, and other areas that help 

maintain the integrity of aquatic ecosystems. INFISH imposes specific standards and guidelines 

that apply to all activities in RHCAs and to all activities that may degrade RHCAs. 

Response 88: INFISH allows for entry into RHCA as long as the goals of INFISH are met which 

are to “achieve a high level of habitat diversity and complexity through a combination of habitat 

features, to meet the life history requirements of the fish community inhabiting a watershed 

(INFISH 1995, A-3).” “Adoption of these requirements [INFISH] during the interim period is 

not to be considered a “lockout” of any project of activity from the RHCAs. However, proper 

analysis is required prior to initiation of projects (INFISH 1995, A-1).” 

INFISH has specifics RMOs which cannot be degraded or have their recovery slowed. These are 

1) Pool frequency, 2) water temperature, 3) LWD, 4) Bank stability, 5) Lower bank angle and 6) 

width/depth ratio. A site-specific analysis of the location and the operation is considered proper 

analysis. All of the sites were visited by the district hydrologist and potential impacts to 

Riparian Management Objectives evaluated. Based on the analyses in the Watershed and Soils 

Resource section and the Fisheries section of Appendix 12 (New Information and Changed 

Circumstances Evaluations), and Appendices 6A and 6B (Suction Dredging), under Alternative 

4 the proposed activities would not impact the existing condition of the RMO parameters or 

contribute to a negative trend in viability on the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest for redband 

trout. 

Comment 89: INFISH amended the Wallowa-Whitman Forest Plan to add mandatory 

standards and guidelines for activities occurring within RHCAs on the forest. When it approved 

the Burnt River mining projects, however, the Forest Service failed to implement three INFISH 

requirements applicable to mining activities, namely MM-1, MM-2 and MM-3. One of these 

special guidelines, MM-1, directs the agency to “[r]equire a reclamation plan, approved Plan of 

Operations, and reclamation bond for all mineral operations that include Riparian Reserves.” 

 13 INFISH at 10-11, MM-1 to 3.

14 FSM 2526.03-2.

15 FEIS at D-1.
Appendix 10 NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

A10-42

Standard and guideline MM-1 added a heightened level of environmental scrutiny to mining 

activities in Riparian Reserves. Some mining operations on the Forest occur under the “notice” 

provisions of 36 C.F.R. § 228. Persons seeking to mine on the forest submit a “notice of intent” 

describing the location and nature of the proposed mining operation.16 For those operations 

“likely to cause significant disturbance of surface resources,” a plan of operations is required.17

“Plan” mines require submission of substantially more information from a mine operator than 

“notice” mines, and also require preparation of an EA by the Forest Service prior to approval.18

The effect of MM-1 was to require “plan” level scrutiny for all mining activities in Riparian 

Reserves, not just those likely to cause significant disturbance. MM-1 reflects a presumption by 

the Departments of Agriculture and Interior that mineral operations in Riparian Reserves cause 

significant disturbance, thus warranting a plan of operations in all instances, including suction 

dredge mining. 

Response 89: Section C of the Northwest Forest Plan standards and guidelines states: “none of 

these standards and guidelines applies where they would be contrary to existing law or 

regulation, or where they would require the agency to take actions for which they do not have 

authority.” The Plan standards and guidelines must be read in concert with the various laws and 

regulations governing the management of National Forests, including the mining regulations. 

The MM-1 standard and guideline referred to requires an operating plan, a reclamation plan and 

a bond for all mineral operations in riparian reserves. Mineral operations are referred to in the 

Northwest Forest Plan by the following language: “Such plans and bonds must address the cost 

for removal of facilities, equipment, and material; recontouring disturbed areas to near premining topography, isolating and neutralizing or removing toxic or potentially toxic materials, 

salvage and replacement of topsoil, and seedbed preparation and revegetation to meet Aquatic 

Conservation Strategy objectives.” This language describes activities meeting the “likely cause 

significant surface disturbance” test of the Forest Service Mining Regulation, for which an 

operating plan must be filed and a bond posted, and, conversely, should not be read to include 

non-significant surface disturbing activity. 

To apply this standard and guideline to activities not meeting the “likely cause significant surface 

disturbance” test, is not appropriate, and is contrary to law and regulation. If no significant 

surface disturbance is occurring, there is no reason to require a reclamation bond, nor would the 

Forest Service be able to determine the bond amount. 

In the areas covered by the Northwest Forest Plan or covered by other general management 

guidance or strategies, forest users can conduct non-significant surface disturbing activities 

without filing plan of operations per the intent of the Forest Service Mining Regulations. A 

Notice of Intent to Operate (NOI) will still be required if the proposed activity might cause 

disturbance of surface resources and it doesn’t meet the provisions of 36 CFR 228.4(a)(2). The 

MM-1 standard and guideline applies only when the proposed activity is likely to cause 

significant surface disturbance. This direction is outlined in 3 letters found in the project file 

(Forsgren 2002, Holleman 2002, and Gadt 2002).

 16 36 C.F.R. § 228.4

17 36 C.F.R. § 228.4(a).

18 26 See 36 C.F.R. §§ 228.4(c),(d),(f).
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Appendix 10

A10-43

Comment 90: Standard and guideline MM-2 requires the Forest Service to “locate structures, 

support facilities, and roads outside Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas. Where no alternative 

to siting facilities in Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas exists, locate and construct the 

facilities in ways that avoid impacts to Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas and streams and 

adverse effects on inland native fish.” 

Response 90: This was addressed in the Draft SEIS, Appendix 5 and Chapter 3, p. 60 -62 and 

did not change in the Final SEIS. DSEIS Appendix 5 is now Appendix 4 in the FSEIS.

Comment 91A: Standard MM-3 requires the Forest Service to “[p]rohibit solid and sanitary 

waste facilities in Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas.” If no alternative to disposing mine 

waste, defined as waste rock, spent ore, and waste, in Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas 

exists, the Forest Service is required to follow a five-step process to assess the waste material 

and proposed waste facilities, and obtain adequate reclamation bonds. 

Here, the ROD allows structures, support facilities, and/or mine waste disposal in the RHCAs in 

violation of INFISH standards and guidelines. There is no evidence that the agency reviewed 

each project for compliance with INFISH and the Forest Plan (a violation of the NFMA and 

NEPA). It does not appear that the Forest Service completed any analysis to discern whether 

suitable alternatives for located roads and structures existed prior to approving these projects. 

Therefore, the Forest Service's decisions to approve the plans of operations for the mining 

projects violated standard and guideline MM-2 and MM-3. 

Response 91A: Note: DSEIS Appendix 5 is now Appendix 4 in the FSEIS.

INFISH allows for entry into RHCA as long as the goals of INFISH are met which are to 

“achieve a high level of habitat diversity and complexity through a combination of habitat 

features, to meet the life history requirements of the fish community inhabiting a watershed 

(INFISH 1995, A-3).” “Adoption of these requirements [INFISH] during the interim period is 

not to be considered a “lockout” of any project of activity from the RHCAs. However, proper 

analysis is required prior to initiation of projects (INFISH 1995, A-1).” To comply with 

INFISH, a site-specific analysis for each proposed structure (ponds and roads) is required. 

All pond locations inside RHCAs were evaluated with respect to compliance with INFISH MM1 and MM-2. Detailed descriptions of the site conditions for the existing and proposed ponds for 

each Plan are found in Appendix 5 of the Draft SEIS. Placement of ponds outside the RHCA

was evaluated in the field. The conclusions of those field analyses are found in Chapter 3, p. 60-

61 of the Draft SEIS. Operations with ponds inside the RHCA are listed in Table 3-6. Only one 

proposed pond was found to be potentially out of compliance with MM-1 and MM-2 and the 

Clean Water Act (Three Cent Placer Mining 1/Processing site 2). Identification of this pond as 

being a potential concern occurred during the review of comments and has been added to the 

Final SEIS.

All three proposed roads inside the RHCA were evaluated for compliance with MM-1 and MM2. The proposed roads are needed to access the mining areas. The potential effects of the 

proposed roads were discussed in the Draft SEIS Chapter 3, p. 62 -63. Only one proposed road, 
Appendix 10 NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

A10-44

the road to the Burnt Lode/Placer Karissa site, was not in compliance with INFISH MM-1 and 

MM-2 and the Clean Water Act. 

Comment 91B: Some of the approved plans of operations call for disposal of waste rock and 

other waste outside mining portals in one or more ponds. Yet the ROD and FEIS fail to 

document any findings pertaining to the five-step process required by INFISH prior to approving 

disposal of solid and/or sanitary waste in RHCAs, in violation of MM-3. 

Response 91B: Under INFISH MM-3, the “five-step process” referred to above is:

MM-3: Prohibit solid and sanitary waste facilities In Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas. .....

a. Analyze the waste material using the best conventional sampling methods and 

analytic techniques to determine its chemical and physical stability characteristics.

b. Locate and design the waste facilities using the best conventional techniques to ensure mass 

stability and prevent the release of acid or toxic materials. If the best conventional technology is 

not sufficient to prevent such releases and ensure stability over the long term, prohibit such 

facilities in Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas.

c. Monitor waste and waste facilities to confirm predictions of chemical and physical stability, and 

make adjustments to operations as needed to avoid adverse effects to inland native fish and to 

attain Riparian Management Objectives.

d. Reclaim and monitor waste facilities to assure chemical and physical stability and revegetation to 

avoid adverse effects to inland native fish and to attain the Riparian Management Objectives.

e. Require reclamation bonds adequate to ensure long-term chemical and physical stability and 

successful revegetation of mine waste facilities.

The effects of the five points are not applicable because none of the lode mines are within the 

RHCA or propose to dump materials inside the RHCA. The 5 points do not apply to the placer 

operations inside the RHCA because there are no chemicals used. 

Comment 92: Under NFMA, the Forest Service must demonstrate that site-specific actions, 

such as mining projects, are consistent with the Forest Plan for the entire forest.19 In this 

instance, the Forest Service cannot demonstrate that the plans of operations it proposes to 

approve for the Burnt River mining projects comport with INFISH standards and guidelines, 

which are part of the Wallowa-Whitman Forest Plan. The Forest Service cannot rely on 

unproven BMPs and mitigation measures to demonstrate compliance with its legal obligations. 

The FEIS should address what data is available on the efficacy of these BMPs? 

Response 92: All sites were revisited by the district hydrologist in 2006, 2007, and 2008, with 

some sites revisited in 2010 and 2011, and the Plans of Operation evaluated as to their 

compliance with INFISH and the Clean Water Act. Factors examined in that evaluation were 

topography, ground cover (type and percentage), presence and location of old placer tailings, 

micro topography, presence of beaver dams, and presence and location of adit. The influence of 

these factors in determining how far sediment can travel overland is summarized in Belt et al. 

 19 16 U.S.C. § 1604(i); 36 C.F.R. § 219.10(e). See also Friends of Southeast's Future v. Morrison, 153 

F.3d 1059 (9th Cir. 1998) (NFMA violation where agency failed to follow forest plan); Neighbors of 

Cuddy Mountain, 137 F.3d 1372 (same); Siskiyou Regional Education Project, 87 F. Supp. 2d 1074 

(same).
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Appendix 10

A10-45

(1992). Based on site characteristics, Water Quality Protection Measures were developed to 

eliminate the potential for a discharge of pollutant into any channel and ensure compliance with 

the Clean Water Act and INFISH MM-1 and MM-2 and added to Alternative 4. The sitespecific WQPMs are found in Appendix 1A of the Final SEIS. 

Comment 93: Federally listed bull trout have never been verified to occur in these streams, 

however, the only bull trout survey listed in the 2004 FEIS was conducted in 1990 by ODFW and 

no specific location data was provided. 2004 FEIS, 39-40. As a federally listed species under the 

Endangered Species Act, the Forest Service has a duty to affirmatively determine, by conducting 

recent monitoring surveys, whether bull trout are present in any of the project area streams. 

Moreover, as a resident trout species, bull trout, are also a Management Indicator Species (MIS) 

for the Wallowa Whitman National Forest. Forest Plan, 2-9. 

Forest Wide Standards and Guidelines in the WWNF LRMP specifically rank management and 

enhancement of water quality and fish habitat as a priority over other uses described or implied 

in all other forest plan management standards or guidelines. LRMP, 4-22. Simply put, the Forest 

Plan clearly provides that protecting federally listed fish and their habitat is more important 

than authorizing mining activities. The Forest Service has failed to demonstrate how 

management and enhancement of water quality and fish habitat will have priority over 

authorizing mining activities in an already severely degraded watershed for the next ten years.

Response 93: See Response 92. 

Bull Trout have never been verified in streams in the North Fork Burnt River watershed. The 

federal species listing (1998) and the federal designation of critical habitat (2010) under the 

Endangered Species Act relied on the best available scientific data to determine species 

occurrence and suitable habitat. Based on the data available for the 2004 FEIS no bull trout, or 

its habitat, occur in the streams of the project area. The Federal species status for bull trout has 

not changed since the 2004 FEIS. This list was updated on January 28, 2012 by US Fish and 

Wildlife Service (USFWS 2012).

On January 14, 2010, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issued a Final rule for bull trout critical 

habitat for the coterminous United States (USFWS 2010). The North Fork Burnt River was not 

included as critical habitat because bull trout are not found in the Burnt River Basin and the 

habitat and water quality does not meet habitat needs for refounding areas (USFWS 2005 and 

2010), therefore the effects on bull trout are the same as described in the 2004 FEIS. 

The Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan identify steelhead 

and resident trout as management indicator species (MIS). No steelhead are found in the North 

Fork Burnt River due to the Hell’s Canyon Dam complex on the Snake River blocking all 

anadromous migration into the Burnt River system. The WWNF considers the redband trout as 

the resident trout species for assessment of the MIS. The Final SEIS includes an updated analysis 

of MIS fish species and habitat in the NFBR Watershed (Final SEIS, Appendix 12, New 

Information and Changed Circumstances Evaluations, Fisheries).
Appendix 10 NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

A10-46

Existing stream conditions in the NFBR watershed are the result of past activities ( placer 

mining, intensive livestock grazing, logging, road building, ditch building, beaver trapping) and 

current activities (livestock grazing in the riparian zone, elk browse of riparian woody 

vegetation, and beaver trapping). The past activities triggered large-scale channel widening, 

incision and straightening while current activities are keeping the stream from recovering by 

preventing the re-establishment of abundant riparian woody vegetation and limiting the ability of 

beavers to build dams and reconnect the stream to the valley floor – thereby initiating improved 

water quality, water distribution, and fish and wildlife habitat to name a few improvements. 

While many current mining activities, as proposed under Alternative 4 (includes Forest Service 

BMPs) are inside the Riparian Habitat Conservation Area, they are outside the active floodplain

zone and the narrow riparian zone. The operations also would not remove stream-side shade 

trees (Appendix 9). Therefore, the proposed activities have no influence on stream temperatures, 

large woody material recruitment, riparian vegetation, or sediment inputs except three activities: 

1) Proposed road construction to the Karissa site (Burnt Lode/Placer), 2) proposed suction 

dredging on Cub Creek (Burnt Lode/Placer), and 3) construction and use of the proposed 

processing pond at Processing Site 2 (Three Cent Placer). These three activities would still 

potentially contribute sediment into the adjacent streams as discussed in the Watershed and Soils 

Resources section of Chapter 3 (New Information and Changed Circumstances Evaluations). 

Those three activities aside, the remaining proposed mining activities would neither a positive 

nor negative impact on the quality and complexity of fish habitat. As noted above, improvement 

in stream conditions and fish habitat will require changes that are outside the scope of this 

analysis. 

The United States mining laws (30 U.S.C. 21–54) confer a statutory right to enter upon the 

public lands within this project area to search for and remove valuable minerals. The Forest 

Service does not have the authority to prohibit mining in the area nor can it impose restrictions to 

the operations that would result in a prohibition. It is the purpose of the analysis to identify and 

authorize how mining operations will be conducted so as to minimize adverse environmental 

impacts on National Forest System surface resources.

Comment 94: The Forest Service must demonstrate that project level surveys have been 

conducted and current population data gathered for MIS. The Forest Plan for the WWNF states 

that the applicable National Forest Management Act (NFMA) implementing regulations require 

that “fish and wildlife habitat be managed to maintain viable populations of existing ... species 

in the planning area.” To insure this, the regulations direct that: (1) “Habitat must be provided 

to support, at least, a minimum number of reproductive individuals,” and (2) “Habitat must be 

well-distributed so that those individuals can interact with others in the planning area.” WWFP 

2-10. 

The point of conducting TES and MIS surveys is to determine population numbers so that 

viability can be assured and so impacts from management can be known. The WWFP also 

imposes a forest-wide requirement for surveying for MIS species. WWFP 5-10. In some 

instances, a habitat model may be used as a proxy to determine MIS viability in lieu of surveys. 

Inland Empire Pub. Lands Council, 88 F.3d 754, 760 n.6 (9th Cir. 1996). However, where the 

Forest Service's “methodology does not reasonably ensure viable populations of the species at 
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Appendix 10

A10-47

issue,” using habitat evaluation as a proxy for monitoring population trends can be deemed 

arbitrary and capricious. See Idaho Sporting Congress, Inc. v. Rittenhouse, 305 F.3d 957, 972 

(9th Cir. 2002). 

Both redband trout and bull trout are designated MIS on the Wallowa Whitman National Forest. 

LRMP 2-9. The FEIS suggests that the Forest Service has not conducted any recent surveys for 

these species. Neither the FEIS nor the Draft SEIS provide any actual population data for either 

species. The Forest Service cannot rely upon stale habitat data. The Lands Council, 379 F.3d at 

748 (Forest Service cannot use 13-year-old fish habitat survey, even where updated by 6-yearold fish count surveys, because “[e]vidence of the current habitat conditions, and any 

degradation or improvement in the last thirteen years, is relevant evidence”). 

Without current baseline data, the Forest Service has no means to determine the impacts of 

mining activities on the viability of bull trout and redband. In the absence of any systematic 

effort to collect data and determine population trends, the Forest Service’s approval of any 

PoOs will be inconsistent with the Forest Plan MIS requirements and therefore arbitrary and 

capricious. Moreover, NEPA requires the Forest Service to take a “hard look” at the impacts of 

this project on sensitive and listed fish species and aquatic habitat. The Forest Service is 

required to “describe the environment of the areas to be affected or created by the alternatives 

under consideration.” 40 C.F.R. § 1502.15. The establishment of the baseline conditions of the 

affected environment is an essential requirement of the NEPA process. See Half Moon Bay 

Fisherman's Marketing Ass'n v. Carlucci, 857 F.2d 505, 510 (9th Cir. 1988) (Ninth Circuit 

stated that “without establishing... baseline conditions... there is simply no way to determine 

what effect [an action] will have on the environment, and consequently, no way to comply with 

NEPA”). The NEPA process mandates a “coherent and comprehensive up-front environmental 

analysis to ensure informed decision making to the end that the agency will not act on 

incomplete information, only to regret its decision after it is too late to correct.” Center for 

Biological Diversity v. U.S. Forest Service, 349 F.3d 1157, 1166 (9th Cir. 2003)(internal 

citations omitted); see also CBD v. BLM, 422 F.2d 1115, 1167-1168 (N.D. Ca. 2006 )(holding 

that BLM.s approval of a management plan for a recreational sand dunes area was arbitrary 

and capricious because it was prepared in the absence of current inventories of sensitive species

known and likely to occur in the project area). 

Response 94: See Responses 92 and 93. The Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land and 

Resource Management Plan identify steelhead and resident trout as management indicator 

species (MIS). The WWNF considers the redband trout as the resident trout species for 

assessment of the MIS. 

An updated MIS assessment for redband trout has been incorporated into the Final SEIS 

(Appendix 12, New Information and Changed Circumstances Evaluations, Fisheries).

Comment 95: Furthermore, goshawk nests have been located within a half-mile of four 

different mining operations.20 “Past surveys have found several goshawk nests/territories within 

the NFBR, but monitoring has not been done in several years and it is not known if they are still 

active.”21

 20 FEIS at G-49.

21 NFBR Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation at 12, NFBR analysis file document #231.
Appendix 10 NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

A10-48

NFMA, its implementing regulations, and subsequent case law require the Forest Service to 

know what the viable populations of MIS located in the project area are before management 

prescriptions are applied. However, the FEIS and the underlying specialist reports never explain 

what the population levels are for the MIS. Since there is only an assumption that if habitat exists 

species will use it, there can be nothing more than an assumption that viability is assured 

through forest structure and stand development, i.e., habitat. Thus, there is only an assumption 

that viability is being ensured. In fact, the Wildlife Report admits that “Several data gaps have 

been identified ... These have been addressed through use of assumptions ...”22 This does not 

meet the requirements of NFMA. 

Response 95: Past surveys (pre-2004) have found several goshawk nests/territories within the 

NFBR Watershed. However, in June 2012 the district wildlife biologist surveyed the four mining 

sites within 1⁄2 mile of known historic nest sites (Gopher Placer, Lucky One Placer/Lode, 

Monarch Lode, and Silver Bell Placer) and found no active sites. 

Because no active nests were found in areas where historic nests were reported, no impacts to 

Northern goshawk are expected to occur from the proposed mining activities.

Because goshawk habitat occurs within the project area, the determination for all alternatives is 

“may impact individuals or habitat, but will not likely contribute to a trend towards federal 

listing.”

A viability assessment for northern goshawk was completed in 2011, and found that this species 

currently exists at viable levels on the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest (project file). The 

assessment considered available data and the Draft Northern Goshawk Management Indicator 

Assessment. None of the sources indicated a concern over population viability for goshawks. In 

the case of NFBR Mining proposed activities, the scale, nature, and duration of effects to 

goshawk habitat is not sufficient to affect population viability. 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 (SEIS Appendix 2, Requirement G25). This would 

further reduce the potential negative effects of mining activities to northern goshawks.

Appendix 2, General Requirements, also includes parameters that allow removal of trees, 

including snags, by operators (Requirement G9). Any trees, snags, or down woody material that 

need to be removed would be stockpiled on-site, and would be put on-site during reclamation. If 

snags over 12” dbh are removed, a new snag will be created in the same area. A review of the 

existing plans found that most (37 of 39) projects (2004 FEIS, Chapter 3, p. 119), have 

requirements to protect existing snag and down woody material. Mining project plans are sitespecific and designed with mitigations that adjust for saftey while maintaining and preserving 

wildlife characteristics. Those projects that do not have existing requirements to protect trees or 

down woody material (Ladder/Rusty Bucket Placer and Monarch Lode), and where larger trees 

may be removed, could decrease these habitat components in the project areas. Due to the small 

scale of these two project areas (total 4 acres of disturbance) effects would be immeasurable at 

the subwatershed, watershed, and Forest scale. 

 22 Id. at 1.
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Appendix 10

A10-49

Current mining operations are functioning at a maintenance level and are guided by established 

mitigation measures, and standards and guidelines. None of the ongoing or proposed mining 

projects, either by themselves, or cumulatively, are expected to degrade the environmental 

baseline conditions for goshawk. Therefore, the overall effects would be neutral with respect to 

population viability at the Forest level. 

Comment 96: HCPC questions the Forest Service’s reliance on a Biological Evaluation that is

now several years old and which itself already relied on outdated surveys for many TES species. 

As you know, the Forest Service must consult with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and NOAA 

Fisheries concerning the impacts on listed species of this action. Section 7 of the ESA imposes an 

affirmative duty upon the Forest Service. This affirmative duty extends to “any action 

authorized, funded, or carried out by such agency,” including authorizing mining activities on 

land managed by the federal government. 16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2). The ESA requires the Forest 

Service to consult with NOAA Fisheries and FWS to insure that its authorized mining activities 

are “not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened 

species or result in the destruction or adverse modification” of critical habitat. Id. § 1536(a)(2), 

(a)(4). 

Only after the Forest Service complies with § 7(a)(2) can any activity that may affect a protected 

species go forward. Pacific Rivers Council v. Thomas, 30 F.3d 1050, 1056–57 (9th Cir. 1994). 

See also PCFFA, 138 F.Supp.2d at 1242 (citing Pacific Rivers Council); Greenpeace v. Nat’l 

Marine Fisheries Serv., 106 F.Supp.2d 1066, 1075 (W.D. Wash. 2000) (“the duty [of 

consultation created by § 7] must be fulfilled before initiation of agency action”) (emphasis 

added). 

The Forest Service cannot rely on “best management practices” or mitigation measures for 

ensuring no jeopardy and no adverse habitat modification unless those measures are reasonably 

specific and certain to occur. See Ctr. for Biol. Diversity v. Rumsfeld, 198 F. Supp. 2d 1139, 

1152 (D. Ariz. 2002); (Mitigation measures must be “reasonably specific, certain to occur, and 

capable of implementation; they must be subject to deadlines or otherwise-enforceable 

obligations; and most important, they must address the threats to the species in a way that 

satisfies the jeopardy and adverse modification standards.”) A mere expression of intent to 

implement mitigation measures is inadequate “absent specific and binding plans” for 

effectuating that intent. Nat’l Wildlife Fed’n v. NMFS, 524 F.3d 917, 936 (9th Cir. 2008). 

In other words, even if the Forest Service sincerely believes that it is committed to carrying out 

BMPs, the ESA requires more: the adoption of measures that actually will avoid and/or mitigate 

harm to listed fish and wildlife. The Ninth Circuit made this clear in invalidating a BiOp in part 

because NMFS relied on promises of future construction of fish passage on the Columbia River 

dams that lacked “solid guarantees that they will actually occur.” Id. at 935. The Court of 

Appeals emphasized that not “even a sincere general commitment to future improvements may 

be included in the proposed action in order to offset its certain immediate negative effects, 

absent specific and binding plans.” Id. at 935–36 (emphasis added); see also Natural Res. 

Defense Council v. Kempthorne, 506 F. Supp. 2d 322, 350-57 (E.D. Cal. 2007) (invalidating 

adaptive management plan that contained “no quantified objectives or required mitigation 
Appendix 10 NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

A10-50

measures” and failed to provide a reasonable certainty that necessary mitigation measures 

would be implemented or admitted adverse impacts mitigated). 

Response 96: Under Alternative 4 each site within each Plan of Operations have been assigned 

site-specific Water Quality Protection Measures (WQPMs) to ensure that there would be no 

input of sediment into the creeks and no changes in stream temperatures. The operations are out 

of the active floodplain and up on the valley floor terraces either behind old placer tailings piles, 

pulled back away from the valley floor terrace-channel break in slope (See Appendix 1C), or 

behind silt fence or straw bale barriers. The Forest Service routinely monitors and documents 

inspections on all mining activities on National Forest System lands (Final SEIS, Chapter 2, 

Monitoring). The WQPMs are easily verifiable as they are tied to specific features on the ground 

and any discharges of sediment will be visible. 

Comment 97a: The NFBR Watershed is a heavily roaded watershed, and the two subwatersheds most affected by this project are particularly heavily roaded. The total existing road 

density across the entire watershed is 4.5 miles per square mile (mi/mi2), with an open road 

density of 2.8 mi/mi2. NFBR Mile 21 has 4.4 miles of open road per square mile, and Camp 

Creek has 4.2 miles of open road per square mile.23

Response 97a: Note: DSEIS Appendix 9 is now split into Appendix 8A and 8B in the FSEIS.

Total open road densities were updated and recalculated in the 2010 DSEIS. After 

implementation of Alternative 4, the total open road density (includes Forest Service, State, 

County and private roads) for NFBR Mile 21 (SWS 83G) is 2.5 miles per square mile, and the 

total open road density for Camp Creek (SWS 83F) is currently 2.1 miles per square mile (Final 

SEIS, Table 3-25). 

The Forest Plan open road density guidelines, along with a discussion of how open road densities 

are calculated, are included in Chapter 3, Access/Transportation System of the Final SEIS.

Comment 97b: The Forest Plan (LRMP) standard is no higher than 2.5 miles of open road per 

square mile, and for MA1 and MA3 areas it is 1.5 miles per square mile. In some cases, the open 

road density in these two subwatersheds comes close to or exceeds three times the LRMP 

standards: for instance in the NFBR Mile 21 subwatershed in the MA3 land designation, open 

road density is 5.2 miles per square mile, while the LRMP standard is 1.5 miles per square 

mile.24 Once private roads and all roads being used by motorized vehicles – whether designated 

“open” or not – are included, as required by the LRMP,25 these densities are even higher. The 

FEIS is clear: the road density is not within LRMP standards for any management area.26 There 

is no mine’s exception to these LRMP open road density standards. 

Response 97b: The Final SEIS updated the open road densities with September 2007 GIS data 

and a re-assessment of the 2002 NFBR Roads Analysis. When calculating open road densities to 

 23 FEIS at III-72.

24 FEIS at III-56.

25 LRMP at 4-35.

26 FEIS at I-6.
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Appendix 10

A10-51

meet Forest Plan guidelines, the calculation is based on Management Areas within 

subwatersheds (MA/SWS) (USDA 1990, 4-35). 

The Forest Plan does not tie mine access rights to Forest Plan open road densities. Miners are 

allowed reasonable access to their operations on any type of road per 36 CFR 228.12.

Comment 97c: The Draft SEIS proposes to re-open between 44.93 to 64.84 miles of previously 

closed and fully decommissioned roads for the life of this 10-year project and construct up to 

0.63 miles of new “temporary” road. These re-opened roads and new temporary roads are very 

likely to facilitate unauthorized motorized use. This is a serious concern and the Final SEIS 

should take a hard look at the potential impacts of increased unauthorized motor vehicle use. 

The construction and use of re-opened and temporary roads will also contribute to the further 

spread of noxious weeds. 

Response 97c: Note: Draft SEIS Appendix 9 is now split into Appendix 8A and 8B in the Final 

SEIS. 

The Draft and Final SEIS do not propose to re-open any roads. The roads identified in Appendix

8A and 8B of the Final SEIS, regardless of their status (open, closed or decommissioned), are 

intended for use by the miners to access their sites. Any road that is currently closed or 

decommissioned, or that was closed or decommissioned as a result of the 2004 decision, will not 

be open for use by the public. General Requirements Z1 through Z11 in Appendix 2 prescribe 

how the miners will use, maintain and reclaim these closed and non-system roads, and any berms 

or tank traps that have been removed to provide mine access will be replaced in their original 

location upon completion of mining. Also, Requirement Z11 has been added to include the 

following direction in the Final SEIS. “During periods of operations, and seasonal or temporary 

shutdowns, the operator is responsible for installing and maintaining a closure device that meets 

Forest Service standards”. This will discourage or prevent unauthorized use of these roads by 

the public.

Comment 97d: While HCPC is encouraged to see the incorporation of maintenance and 

decommissioning incorporated into the Preferred Alternative, those activities remain speculative 

and even if implemented mining roads will still play a part in the continuing LRMP open road 

density violations. 

Response 97d: Under Alternative 4, the miners would be required to follow the use and 

maintenance requirements (Z-requirements) for closed and non-system roads outlined in 

Appendix 2 of the Final SEIS. These closed roads do not contribute to open road densities.

Comment 97e: As Plans of Operation under Alternatives 3 and 4 are valid for 10 years, the 

majority of the road closures and decommissioning will occur 10 years in the future, at best. It is 

more than likely that if these Plans of Operation are approved for 10 years, the operators will 

seek to renew them for additional 10 year periods when they expire. Therefore, the road closures 

and decommissioning may not take place for several decades. 
Appendix 10 NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

A10-52

Response 97e: NOTE: The FSEIS only discusses Alternatives 2 (miners’ proposals) and 

Alternative 4 (miners’proposals with Forest Service Best Management Practices added). 

The use of the roads is not necessarily connected to the period for which the Plan of Operations 

is authorized. The use of the roads is based on what is reasonable and necessary for mining. If 

during the period of operations the road is no longer necessary for mining, the operator would be 

required to complete the reclamation, including closing or decommissioning the 

road. Conversely, if the road is needed for a longer period, the operator can supplement the Plan 

of Operations. Any supplement to the Plan is subject to the same review as the original Plan, 

including completing any additional analysis determined necessary.

Comment 97f: Alternative 4 is presented as the Preferred Alternative and the alternative most 

in line with the Clean Water Act, but because it does not really propose any immediate action in 

regards to road closures, we believe it must be rejected as a matter of law under NEPA and the 

Clean Water Act. Even for those actions that would occur in the near-term, it is clear that closed 

roads continue to intercept and direct surface run-off and subsurface flow for years following 

closure.

Response 97f: Alterative 4 addresses the purpose and need of this project which is to approve 

and authorize mining operations while being in compliance with the Clean Water Act and other 

laws, regulations and policies. General Requirements in Appendix 2 include direction for 

maintenance of closed roads used by miners. Also refer to response 97c and 97d.

Comment 97g: Moreover, Alternatives 3 & 4 call for a site-specific forest plan amendment to 

modify Forest Plan open road density standards. The Draft SEIS states that: “Because 

temporary access roads would be reclaimed upon completion of mining activity, and would no 

longer be perceived as contributing to open road densities, this amendment would be considered 

non-significant. “ Draft SEIS, 28. First, HCPC disagrees with the Forest service’s 

characterization of activities authorized under 10-year PoOs as “temporary” measures. Second, 

there is no such reclamation plan in place, and it is so temporally removed that it is ridiculous to 

include any such suppositions in the actual analysis of effects. Consequently, we strongly believe 

that this constitutes a significant Forest Plan amendment. 

Response 97g: NOTE: The FSEIS only discusses Alternatives 2 (miners’ proposals) and 

Alternative 4 (miners’ proposals with Forest Service Best Management Practices added). 

A Forest Plan Amendment is no longer included in Alternative 4. Upon further review it has 

been determined that Alternative 4 is consistent with Forest Plan guidelines. Refer to Chapter 3 

Access/Transportation System in the Final SEIS for a detailed discussion of open road density

guidelines.

Comment 98: The mitigations under Alternatives 3 & 4 may reduce the risk of noxious weeds, 

but there is still “a moderate to high potential for new noxious weed infestations to occur, even 

under Alternatives 3 and 4.”27 Most of the activities associated with mining operations – road 

construction, road maintenance, heavy equipment operation, pond construction, and camp sites 

 27 FEIS at III-97.
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Appendix 10

A10-53

– have high risk for the introduction of noxious weeds.28 In fact, there are currently 68 

inventoried noxious weed infestations within the EIS; 39 are near mining sites.29 To approve 

operations that will knowingly increase noxious weed infestations is contrary to NFMA and 

Forest Service policy 

Response 98: NOTE: The FSEIS only discusses Alternatives 2 (miners’ proposals) and 

Alternative 4 (miners’ proposals with Forest Service Best Management Practices added). 

This analysis is limited to responding to the concerns raised in the August 4, 2006 Court Order 

and Opinion. The court’s opinion did not cite effects of noxious weeds as a NFMA inadequacy 

in the analysis. General Requirements G20, NW1 through NW9, and R20 in Appendix 2 include 

mitigations for control of noxious weeds. The effects of implementing these requirements was 

analyzed in the 2004 FEIS (2004 FEIS, pgs. 97-100).

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) 11/08/10

Comment 99: References throughout the document to "discharge of a pollutant" as the trigger 

for 401 WQC, should be changed. "Discharge of a pollutant" is critical to Section 402 of the 

Clean Water Act (CWA). Rather, CWA Section 401 requires "any applicant for a Federal license 

or permit to conduct any activity ... which may result in any discharge into the navigable waters 

(emphasis added)" to first obtain a 401 WQC from the affected state. 

Response 99: This has been changed in the Final SEIS.

Comment 100: While pollutants are a consideration of the 401 WQC evaluation, any potential 

discharge requires review and certification, whether it actually contains pollutants or not. The 

Supreme Court has stated in S. D. Warren Co. v. Maine Board of Environmental Protection et 

aI, 547 U.S. 370,126 S.Ct. 1843 (2006), "[w)hen it applies to water, 'discharge' commonly means 

a 'flowing or issuing out'" and an addition of a pollutant is not "fundamental to any discharge." 

Response 100: This clarification is helpful. We have interpreted your response to mean that 

pond water seeping into the ground and comingling with other groundwater and eventually 

remerging as surface water does not apply to the interpretation of ‘discharge’. If this is correct in 

how DEQ is interpreting 401, this explains why the 600 permit is provided to the miners for 

certain types of operations and why groundwater-surface water interaction is not perceived as an 

issue as it pertains to the CWA.

Comment 101: DEQ understands that USFS has included quotes from the NFBR court 

decisions which refer to "discharge of a pollutant" inconsistent with the above interpretation. 

However, the USFS explanations and resolutions of the court findings in the SEIS should clearly 

reflect the actual CWA Section 401 language of "any discharge." While some sections correctly 

discuss "discharge," those that continue to use "discharge of a pollutant," particularly when 

describing the USFS determination of whether 401 WQC is required, should be changed. 

 28 FEIS at III-88, 89.

29 FEIS at III-83.
Appendix 10 NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

A10-54

Accordingly, USFS should also revisit any decisions that 401 WQC was not required where 

elements of any discharge (not just when discharge contains pollutants) exist.

Response 101: The phrase ‘discharge of a pollutant’ will be removed from the Final SEIS. 

There is no need to re-evaluate any of the projects because the issue of groundwater-surface 

water interactions in the processing and settling ponds did not result in a ‘potential for a may 

discharge’ call UNLESS the ponds were very close to the creek, likely to be highly porous 

because they were in old placer tailings (limited fines), and/or were close to the stream and 

elevationally above the stream such that water moving from the ponds into the ground would 

likely re-emerge at the bank, resulting in either bank failures or remobilization of fine sediment 

into the stream. 

Comment 102: DEQ agrees that consultation occurred between the agencies in 2008 and that 

we agreed on the process for determining potential for discharge and, therefore the need for 401 

WQC, as described on page 4 of the Introduction. 

Response 102: No response needed.

Comment 103: The statement regarding DEQ's WPCF 600 permit as "not intended to manage

all potential discharges" on page 5 of the Introduction is incorrect. No discharge to surface 

waters is allowed under the WPCF 600, and it specifically" ... covers small scale precious metals 

mining operations that use non-chemical ore or placer processing methods and dispose of 

wastewater by evaporation or seepage." 

Response 103: The Final SEIS will remove from the Introduction the discussion regarding the 

600 permit. The “all potential discharges” that the DSEIS alluded to was confusion regarding 

the existence of the surface water-groundwater-surface water (SW-GW-SW) interaction. 

However, based on the comment from DEQ about the Supreme Court decision (this comment 

and Comment 100) this interaction, related to a potential for a discharge, does not extending to 

the SW-GW-SW interaction of WATER but only to surface flow of water into surface water. If 

heavy metals were discharging into the groundwater then the 600 permit would not apply 

because this would be ‘chemical’ ore and a pollutant would be present. This does not eliminate 

the problem of sediment travel to the creek via the groundwater (i.e. Sluice Box) or remobilizing 

bank sediment or triggering bank failures (possibly EJ Placer or Gold Camp ponds) and a ‘may 

discharge’ call would still apply because in this case there is a pollutant involved (sediment)

arriving at the stream, even though it is via groundwater flow paths.

The Supreme Court has stated in S. D. Warren Co. v. Maine Board of Environmental Protection 

et aI, 547 U.S. 370,126 S.Ct. 1843 (2006), "[w)hen it applies to water, 'discharge' commonly 

means a 'flowing or issuing out'" and an addition of a pollutant is not "fundamental to any 

discharge." 

Comment 104: As the analysis of suction mining actions in Appendix 7A and 7B rely on 

implementation of the DEQ NPDES 700 PM permit, it is misleading to state that suction 

dredging is a "notice Level" only activity without stating that a permit is required from the state. 

Please insert a statement into Section 1.4 of the Introduction; Chapter 3, page 96, in the 
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Appendix 10

A10-55

discussion of suction mining; and any relevant appendices; that suction dredge mining requires 

an NPDES 700-PM general permit or individual NPDES permit from DEQ. 

Response 104: Note: DSEIS Appendices 7A and 7B are now Appendices 6A and 6B in the 

FSEIS.

A mining operator conducting or proposing to conduct instream suction dredge operations within 

National Forest System lands must be in compliance with either a notice of intent or an approved 

Plan of Operations under the Forest Service’s locatable mineral regulations. The operator is 

responsible for his or her own compliance with all applicable State and Federal laws and 

regulations.

The term “Notice Level” is generally defined in the context of this analysis as a category of 

mining activities that do not require approval of a Plan of Operations before these activities can 

commence. The regulations actually state that a “notice of intent” to operate is only required 

from a person proposing to conduct operations which might cause a significant disturbance of 

surface resources. 

The determination of “Notice Level” operations is not dependent on obtaining any permits. The 

determination is based only on the impacts of the operation on surface resources (See Title 36 of 

the Code of Federal Regulations §228.4).

The analysis determined that dredging at all but one of the sites identified by the operators, when 

following the terms of the State permit, will not cause a significant disturbance of surface 

resources and therefore a Plan of Operations is not required. Regardless of whether a permit is 

obtained, if during operations significant impacts to surface resources are observed, the District 

Ranger shall notify the operator that a proposed Plan of Operations must be submitted and that 

the operations cannot be conducted until that Plan of Operations is approved. 

The operator may also be required to submit a proposed plan of operations if the District Ranger 

determines that the proposed operations ``will likely cause significant disturbance of surface 

resources.'' The phrase ``will likely cause significant disturbance of surface resources'' means 

that, based on past experience, direct evidence, or sound scientific projection, the District Ranger 

reasonably expects that the proposed operations would result in impacts to NFS lands and 

resources which more probably than not need to be avoided or ameliorated by means such as 

reclamation, bonding, timing restrictions, and other mitigation measures to minimize adverse 

environmental impacts on NFS resources. 

The Forest Service's locatable mineral regulations do not use the term ``significant'' in the same 

manner as that term is used in the National Environmental Policy Act. The term ``significant 

disturbance'' refers to operations ``for which reclamation upon completion of [that operation] 

could reasonably be required,'' and to operations that could cause impacts on NFS resources that 

reasonably can be prevented or mitigated. 

As per DEQ’s item #10 request, a reference to the required State permits will be inserted at page 

98 in Chapter 3. Additional references throughout the document are not necessary.
Appendix 10 NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

A10-56

Even though the regulations allow a level of activities to occur without the need to obtain 

authorization from the Forest Service, this does not relieve the operator from abiding by all other 

Federal and State regulations that may apply to their mining operations. 

Comment 105: In Chapter 2, Section D, number 1) should be changed as follows (new text in 

italics): 

"When a proposed Plan has a potential for a discharge, ODEQ will be consulted with and 

provide a 401 WQC decision prior to the Plan's approval by the Forest Service, as well as 

advising on other water quality permits required from ODEQ. " 

Response 105: The eight permits listed in DEQ Comment #10 are now found in Chapter 3, p. 98 

of the Final SEIS. Forest Service regulations state: 

D23.34 - Identification of Permits Necessary to Implement the Proposal

The draft environmental impact statement shall list all Federal permits, licenses, and other 

entitlements which must be obtained in implementing the proposal. If it is uncertain whether a 

Federal permit, license, or other entitlement is necessary, the draft environmental impact 

statement shall so indicate. (40 CFR 1502.25(b)) 

Because the Forest Service is to determine the potential of a specific Plan of Operations to create 

a discharge as per ODEQ direction (http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/sec401cert/faqs.htm#q6), 

number 1 in section D of Chapter 2 of the Supplement has been changed as follows:

1. When a proposed activity in a Plan has been identified by the district hydrologist as 

having the potential for a discharge, 401 certification must be presented to the Forest 

Service prior to approval of that activity. Any additional terms and conditions included 

in the 401 certificate will be incorporated into the Plan.

Comment 106: The information presented in Chapter 3's discussion of determination of effects 

and the expanded rationale offered in Appendix 1 C, seems to examine the proper activities and 

criteria to offer a sound methodology for determining potential for discharge and whether 

pollutants could be carried to waters of the state. 

Response 106: No response needed, as DEQ agrees with our methodology. 

Comment 107: In Chapter 3, Alternative 1, page 56, there is a discussion of whether a US Army 

Corps of Engineers (USACE) CWA Section 404 permit is required for placement of a check dam

in an ephemeral stream. For CWA Section 404 permits, DEQ accepts USACE's jurisdictional 

determination as to whether a 404 permit is required or not. If USACE determines that a USACE 

CWA Section 404 permit is required, DEQ would evaluate all actions associated with the 

proposal with regard to potential water quality impacts to make a 401 WQC decision. 

Alternatively, the proposal may fit into a USACE Nationwide permit category that already has 

401 WQC from DEQ with conditions required to protect water quality. However, concurrence by 

USACE that a CWA Section 404 permit is not needed at this site, may not obviate the need for 
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Appendix 10

A10-57

401 WQC. This is because the USFS is considering the action in a mining Plan of Operation 

(PoO). DEQ understands the court decision for NFBR to interpret a PoO as a “Federal license 

or permit" and since the action includes discharge into the stream of materials to make check 

dam, it appears that 401 WQC of all actions affecting waters of the state30 proposed in the plan 

would be required. In light of this, USFS should revisit any other similar decisions that 401 

WQC is not required.

Response 107: Only one operation (Midas Ladybug) proposed to build a small check dam in the 

creek and this was evaluated during the field visit by the district hydrologist. No other 

operations proposed to in-channel activity. All other proposals to suction dredge are operating in 

streams that have flow.

Comment 108: In Chapter 3, Alternative 2, page 57, there is a discussion of the potential for 

implementation of various stream crossing methods (e.g., culverts, fords, bridges) to discharge 

pollutants to waters. As in comment 7) above, DEQ relies on USACE to make a jurisdictional 

call as to whether USACE CWA Section 404 permits are required for stream impacts. However, 

even if these actions are exempt from USACE CWA Section 404 permits, they each may result in 

discharge to waters (both directly through placement of materials and through future runoff, if 

uncontrolled). If consideration of a PoO by USFS equates to a "Federal license or permit," then 

both triggers of 401 WQC are present. In light of this, USFS should revisit any other similar 

decisions that 401 WQC is not required. 

Response 108: This comment is in reference to 5 fords (3 existing and 2 proposed), 2 proposed 

bridges and one proposed culvert. Concerns about the potential for a discharge are addressed in 

Alternative 4. Alternative 2 is the Plan of Operations as proposed by the miner without 

additional Forest Service BMPs. The potential for a discharge is eliminated in Alternative 4 by 

using BMPs, requiring that fords be used instead of building 2 bridges, and installing one culvert. 

The 3 new fords in Alternative 4 would adhere to Forest Service BMPs to avoid the potential for 

a discharge.

Comment 109: Chapter 3 offers several discussions about road building, maintenance and

decommissioning, as well as various stream crossings. Where roadways and crossings have the 

potential to discharge runoff to waters of the state (including wetlands) and a Federal action is 

being considered (e.g., a PoO), a 401 WQC would be required. Typically, during the 401 WQC 

evaluation process, a post-construction stormwater management plan commensurate with the 

scope of the project is required. If application of BMPs can adequately address control and 

treatment of runoff to avoid discharge of pollutants, then the BMPs described in the plan are 

required as part of the evaluated project proposal or additional conditions may be applied in the 

401 WQC [DEQ understands from Appendix 2 that Z roads (closed and non-system roads used 

only for mining) are only used in the dry season (unless expressly approved by USFS with 

 30 Water or Waters of the State as defined by ORS 468B.005(8) means lakes, bays, ponds, Impounding 

reservoirs, springs, wells, rivers, streams, creeks, estuaries, marshes, inlets, canals, the Pacific Ocean 

within the territorial limits of the State of Oregon and all other bodies of surface or underground waters, 

natural or artificial, inland or coastal, fresh or salt, public or private (except those private waters which do 

not combine or effect a junction with natural surface or underground waters), which are wholly or 

partially within or bordering the state or within its jurisdiction.
Appendix 10 NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

A10-58

specific BMP requirements) such that stormwater management by miners is not anticipated to be 

needed. The comment above relates to new access roads and maintenance or decommissioning 

activities.] 

Response 109: There are three operations that propose new access roads: Burnt Lode (Karissa 

– 2000 feet), Lucky One Placer (1000 feet), and R&RK 2, 3 (200 feet).

R&RK 2, 3 has no potential for a discharge under any alternative because of its location on a 

bench.

Lucky One Placer has no potential for a discharge under any alternative because the road ends 30 

feet before reaching the stream.

Burnt Lode (road construction and maintenance to Karissa site) has a potential for a discharge 

under all alternatives. The operator’s stormwater management plan will be incorporated into the 

Plan of Operations prior to authorization.

The maintenance or decommissioning road activities occur only under Alternative 4. These 

activities would be conducted by FS personnel and with FS BMPs to prevent discharge to any 

creeks.

Comment 110: Permits Required on page 112, should be changed as follows (new text in

italics): Oregon DEQ may require one or more of the following: 

1. NPDES 700-PM General Permit 

• suction dredges no more than 30 HP and inside hose diameter of 6 inches used 

for recovering precious metals or minerals from stream bottom sediments in 

areas NOT designated as essential salmon habitat. 

• suction dredges not to exceed 16HP with an inside diameter intake nozzle no 

greater than 4 inches used for recovering precious metals or minerals from 

stream bottom sediments in areas designated as essential salmon habitat. 

• non-motorized in-water equipment used jar recovering precious metals minerals 

stream bottom sediments such as a hand sluice or rocker box. 

2. NPDES Individual Permit - required if the operation discharges pollutants to waters of 

the state and it does not fit General Permit 

3. WPCF 600 General Permit - operations adjacent to waterways with no wastewater 

discharge to waters of the state including groundwater (operations located above 

ordinary high water level and wastewater is isolated from Oregon waters) and process 

no more than 10,000 cubic yard of material per year 

4. WPCF Individual Permit - operations adjacent to waterways with no discharge to waters 

of the state including groundwater and process more than 10,000 cubic yards of material 

per year. 

5. NPDES 1200-C General Permit- if construction for the proposal disturbs one acre or 

more. Construction activities include clearing, grading, excavation and stockpiling. DEQ 

also requires an erosion and sediment control plan with the general NPDES' 1200-C 

permit application. 
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Appendix 10

A10-59

6. NPDES 1200-Z General Permit - if stormwater will contact mining materials and/or 

waste (such as overburden, raw material, intermediate product or waste products). DEQ 

requires a stormwater pollution prevention and control plan with applications for 

general NPDES 1200-Z coverage. 

7. Onsite (septic) sewage removal and disposal. 

8. 401 Water Quality Certification - required if operation may result in a discharge into 

navigable waters (CWA section 401). 

Response 110: The above change has been made in the Final SEIS.

Comment 111: In general, DEQ agrees with the approach by USFS to analyze the potential for

impacts to water quality on a site by site basis, then group these into the following three 

categories: 1) no potential for discharge; 2) potential for discharge but effective BMPs are 

possible to avoid or minimize water quality impacts; and, 3) potential for discharge without 

adequate BMPs to avoid impacts to water quality. DEQ's approach would be that: no 401 WQC 

is needed for group 1); a programmatic 401 WQC could be crafted for group 2) that would 

certify some locations as proposed (including USFS BMPs per Alternative 4) and include 

additional location specific conditions as needed; and, evaluate group 3) for individual 401 

WQCs, which may result in denial such that a PoO could not then be approved by USFS. 

However, in order to determine which of the -59 locations listed in Appendix 1A would fall into 

which 401 WQC category, DEQ needs additional information. This may require some reanalysis by USFS per the comments contained herein and additional buffer widths and BMPs per 

comment 12 below. 

Response 111: The 401 language in the categories above was initially proposed and was 

presented to DEQ at our meeting in Portland on May 13, 2008. However, based on the Office of 

General Council’s statement that only the State can determine if a 401 is needed, the decision 

was made in the Draft SEIS to only distinguish between those operations that would or would 

not result in a discharge, and if BMPs would prevent a discharge. The FS can only determine if 

a discharge may happen; it is up to the State to determine if a 401 is needed. 

Comment 112: DEQ concurs with the methodology presented in Appendix 1C for standardized

measurement or buffer areas from the "valley floor terrace-channel break in slope." However, as 

these are mostly fish-bearing streams, it is difficult to reconcile the order of magnitude 

difference between the proposed buffer widths of 10 feet to 25 feet with the USFS Inland Native 

Fish Strategy (INFISH) guidance (available at: http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/fish/9506-infish.pdf) that 

requires buffers and riparian conservation areas of 50 feet to 300 feet for one side of a stream. 

DEQ understands that current condition of many riparian areas in the NFBR basin is poor due 

to historic mining activities. DEQ has concluded that lack of sufficient riparian vegetation and 

subsequent erosion, over-widened stream channels, loss of groundwater storage in the 

floodplain due to down-cut channels, and flow modification are the major contributors to stream 

impairment of temperature and sedimentation. Therefore, DEQ's development of Total Maximum 

Daily Loads (TMDLs) to address stream impairment in the basin will be focused on protection of 

existing riparian vegetation, beaver dams, and channel complexity and increasing riparian 

vegetation where it has been lost. As a designated management agency (DMA) for 
Appendix 10 NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

A10-60

implementation of the TMDLs, USFS will be responsible for implementing TMDls and 

associated Water Quality Management Plans (WQMP) and consider TMDL allocations as it 

approves PoOs. As a key component of this process, USFS will be required to develop TMDL 

Implementation Plans (IP) or other plans as agreed to by DEQ, that include the best available 

information on management and restoration measures for inclusion as requirements into PoGs 

and other approvals. DEQ and USFS currently have agreed that Water Quality Restoration 

Plans (WQRPs) are the USFS version of this planning process and would serve as their IP upon 

review and approval by DEQ. We anticipate that USFS' INFISH Guidance will be the basis of 

water quality planning. Until DEQ develops a TMDL for this basin and USFS has developed 

TMDL specific IP/WQRPs, USFS should apply all mining and road standards and guidelines 

from the INFISH Guidance to all mining PoOs. 

Response 112: Section C of the Northwest Forest Plan standards and guidelines states: “none of 

these standards and guidelines applies where they would be contrary to existing law or 

regulation, or where they would require the agency to take actions for which they do not have 

authority.” The Plan standards and guidelines must be read in concert with the various laws and 

regulations governing the management of National Forests, including the mining regulations. 

The government must consider approval of Plans that are reasonable and in areas open to entry 

under the mining law. The Forest Service has no authority to exclude mining within the areas 

identified as buffers in INFISH. These areas remain open to entry under the mining law. 

The Forest Service has applied guidelines from INFISH because INFISH allows entrance into 

RHCAs if 1) site-specific analysis is done, and 2) the activity does not retard the attainment of 

Riparian Management Objectives. 

The RHCA widths listed in INFISH (1995) are for defining Interim RHCAs buffer widths in the 

absence of site-specific analysis or a watershed analysis. Therefore, these values are considered 

only as a starting point for determining whether the widths should be increased or can be 

decreased. This flexibility is clearly stated in INFISH as long as the goals of INFISH are met 

which are to “achieve a high level of habitat diversity and complexity through a combination of 

habitat features, to meet the life history requirements of the fish community inhabiting a 

watershed (INFISH 1995, A-3).” 

1. “Adoption of these requirements [INFISH] during the interim period is not to be 

considered a “lockout” of any project of activity from the RHCAs. However, proper 

analysis is required prior to initiation of projects (INFISH 1995, A-1).”

2. “Widths of interim Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas that are adequate to protect 

streams from non-channelized sediment inputs should be sufficient to provide other 

riparian functions, including delivery of organic matter and woody debris, stream 

shading, and bank stability (Brazier and Brown 1973, Gregory et al. 1984, Steinblums et 

al. 1984, Beschta et al. 1984, McDade et al. 1990, Sedell and Beschta 1991, Belt et al. 

1992. The effectiveness of riparian conservation areas in influencing sediment delivery 

from non-channelized flow is highly variable. A review by Belt et al. (1992) of studies 

in Idaho and elsewhere concluded that non-channelized sediment flow rarely travels 
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Appendix 10

A10-61

more than 300 feet and that 200-300 foot riparian “filter strips” are generally effective at 

protecting streams from sediment from non-channelized flow (INFISH 1995, A5).” 

“Interim RHCA widths would apply where watershed analysis has not been completed. Sitespecific widths may be increased where necessary to achieve riparian management goals and 

objectives, or decreased where interim widths are not needed to 1) attain RMOs or 2) avoid 

adverse effects (INFISH 1995, A-5).” 

The Belt et al (1992) article expands on the question of buffer width. The 200 to 300 foot 

riparian “filter strip” was considered a worst case scenario as it pertained to movement of 

sediment via overland, as opposed to channelized, flow. Factors identified in the article as 

influencing the distance that sediment could travel via overland flow and whether widths should 

be increased or decreased were: topography, vegetation, woody debris, rocks, slope, proximity 

to floodplain (concerns about flooding), stream size, needs for large woody debris inputs. These 

points were considered when doing the site-specific analysis of each site as required by INFISH

if entering into an RHCA and will be referred to when addressing the questions below regarding 

the operations.

On final note: Often the distances that the miner proposed were arbitrary and not related to what 

actually existed on the ground or where the operations actually were. This use of fixed buffer 

distances is a holdover from an earlier approach initially accepted by the FS when the original 

FEIS was being done. Future plans will be required to state simply where they are going to be 

doing their operations rather than just stating a fixed distance from creeks, streams, wetlands. 

Comment 113: DEQ agrees that 25-foot buffer areas measured from the "valley floor terracechannel break in slope" will be sufficient to protect riparian areas and water quality in some 

circumstances. These are when topography is relatively flat and the area has already been 

highly disturbed such that it is difficult for vegetation to recover in these areas because of the 

lack of topsoil and the increased depth to groundwater caused by historic mining activities. 

Insuring activities are behind old mine tailing berms will also likely be protective. However, 

reclamation of each area after mining must be required, in order to make improvements in 

meeting temperature, sedimentation and other water quality standards in the affected waters of 

the state. Successful reclamation may require importing topsoil and providing irrigation to 

establish riparian plantings. DEQ was not able to review the FEIS to evaluate the adequacy of 

reclamation requirements, or any of the proposed PoOs in their entirety to determine definitive 

impacts to water quality. 

Response 113: Guidance, direction, and objectives for reclamation of mine sites are found in the 

regulations (see Appendix B at the end of this appendix), the Forest Plan (see Appendix C at the 

end of this appendix), and in the Forest Service Manual (see Appendix D at the end of this 

appendix). Additionally, the FEIS and DSEIS both include Reclamation Requirements 

(Appendix 2 of the FSEIS).

Generally, the operator is responsible for reclaiming surface disturbed by their specific 

operations to a condition equal to or better then pre-disturbance levels. The regulations do not 
Appendix 10 NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

A10-62

allow the Forest Service to require the operator to correct pre-existing conditions, or improve 

conditions from what existed prior to the date they began operations. 

Successful reclamation is not dependent on making improvements in meeting temperature, 

sedimentation and other water quality standards. Although improvement of surface resource 

conditions, above those existing prior to the mining operations or preparations for future use, are 

desirable goals, they cannot be forced on operators as an added cost (FSM 2817.21 8).

Reclamation requirements are included in every authorization and made part of any approved 

Plan of Operation. Performance bonds are also required and must be in place before a Plan is 

approved. Plans typically require ongoing reclamation to reduce the potential of resource 

impacts (DSEIS Appendix 2 f. R1). Reclamation plans also include seasonal requirements 

intended to stabilize the site prior to seasonal shutdowns (DSEIS Appendix 2 f. R2, R3, and R6). 

This approach also benefits the operator by keeping bonds low. Failures to follow any 

reclamation requirements carry both criminal and civil penalties. The bond could also be used 

to complete any required reclamation if the operator failed to complete any work that could 

result in resource impacts. To assure compliance to Plan provision, inspections of operations 

occur and documented on a regular basis throughout the operating season. 

Comment 114:Sites that are less disturbed and have existing riparian vegetation or the ability 

to re-grow it should have the INFISH buffers of less than 50 feet to 300 feet on streams with fish 

use. 

Response 114: INFISH allows for buffer width modifications. See above discussion about 

INFISH and Belt et al 1992. 

Comment 115: For meeting the Temperature TMDL, a 150-foot buffer width (1 Potential Tree 

Height) on one side is recommended. Of particular concern are sites that are on hill slopes 

above waters where buffers of 25 feet or less are proposed and will likely not be protective. 

While additional BMPs are proposed for some of these sites, DEQ does not believe the proposed 

BMPs (e.g., silt fences and hay bales) will be effective and the language lacks assurance that 

they will be implemented. In some cases, it may be advisable for miners to construct a berm 

collection system on the downhill side of operations, above stream buffers, that directs runoff to 

a detention basin (lined if need be). In this way, pollutants can be contained and collected water 

can be utilized for operations, minimizing water use from a stream or a well.

Response 115: Upon approval of the Plan that includes these BMPs, it becomes enforceable by 

regulation (36CFR Section 228). To assure compliance to Plan provision, inspections of 

operations occur and are documented on a regular basis throughout the operating season. At the 

same time, the implementation of the INFISH standards and guidelines for Minerals 

Management (MM-1 and MM-2) would also be monitored. If there are any noticeable impacts 

to resources, including a discharge, the operations will be stopped immediately and not allowed 

to be resumed until corrected.
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Appendix 10

A10-63

DEQ Comments Regarding Individual Operations

Big Elk/Red Dog 

Comment 116: Is a 25-foot buffer over a thin coating of pine needles and very little downed 

material or grasses from mining area to the stream adequate to protect riparian areas and water 

quality? 

Response 116: Under Alternative 4 the operation is on the valley floor (outside the active 

floodplain) and 25 feet from the valley floor-break in slope. It is the combination of flat 

topography and ground cover that work together to slow the velocity of the overland flow and 

allow it to infiltrate and prevent transport of sediment and a discharge into the channel. Photos 

are found project file.

Comment 117: If rills make it to the stream despite the 25-foot buffer, placement of silt fence 

will likely be ineffective. How will slit fence implementation be assured? 

Response 117: Upon approval of the Plan that includes these BMPs, it becomes enforceable by 

regulation (36CFR Section 228). To assure compliance to Plan provision, inspections of 

operations occur and documented on a regular basis throughout the operating season. If there are 

any noticeable impacts to resources, including a discharge, the operations will be stopped 

immediately and not allowed to be resumed until corrected (Chapter 2, Monitoring).

Burnt Lode/Placer 2 ("meadow" site -site 1), (pond site - site 2), (test site 3 on Cub Creek), 

(test site 4 on Cub Creek) 

Comment 118: Is a 25-foot vegetated buffer strip between the mining area and the stream 

sufficient to protect riparian areas and water quality? If vegetation is present, perhaps this is a 

less disturbed site where INFISH buffers should be applied. 

Response 118: 

Burnt Lode/Placer 2 ("meadow" site -site 1), (pond site - site 2): 

Yes. These operations are completely separated from the NFBR by County Road 503 and there 

are no channelized connections between the sites and the NFBR, therefore, there is no potential 

for a discharge. The 25-foot buffer was assigned by the miner in their Plan but only applies to a 

portion of their operation.

Burnt Lode/Placer 2 (test site 3 on Cub Creek), (test site 4 on Cub Creek): 

These sites are adjacent to Cub Creek. The measurement of where that 25-foot buffer begins is 

key. It begins at valley floor terrace-channel bank break in slope and moves 25-feet back on the 

valley floor. As a result, the activity is restricted to the valley floor/terrace (the abandoned 

floodplain) or the hillslope behind it. Cub Creek has been incised and widened. Based on the 

valley floor vegetation, there is no evidence that high flows are spilling over onto the valley 

floor. It is the combination of flat topography and ground cover that work together to slow the 
Appendix 10 NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

A10-64

velocity of the overland flow and allow it to infiltrate and prevent transport of sediment and a 

discharge into Cub Creek.

Burnt Lode/Placer 3 (Karissa) 

Comment 119: It appears that adequate protections are not possible during road construction

to prevent discharge to waters. While USFS proposes placement of silt fences along the road, 

this would offer only minimal improvement. Without adequate maintenance and removal plans, 

silt fences can worsen discharges or become debris themselves, so it is inadvisable to deploy 

them. Without application of effective controls of sediment laden runoff, 401 WQC would likely 

be denied. 

Response 119: No mitigations or BMPs have been identified that could prevent a discharge 

related to the proposed road construction to the Karissa site given the proposed location of the 

road and the location of the operation.

Dominion Lode Group, Lucky Placer, Monarch Lode 1 & 2 

Comment 120: The miner's propose buffers of 10 feet, 20 feet or 25 feet. USFS states that 

proposed locations are 150 feet to 300 feet from streams, so buffers are not relevant. These 

appear to be areas where the INFISH buffer widths are implementable and should be applied to 

protect water quality and riparian areas. 

Response 120: Entrance into the INFISH buffers can occur based on a site-specific analysis as 

long as it would not retard the development of Riparian Management Objectives (see discussion 

at beginning of #12). The activity does not retard the development of the Riparian Management 

Objectives. This operation has no potential to impact water quality because of its distance from 

a stream channel and the nature of the activity. The distances that the miner proposed were 

arbitrary and not related to what actually existed on the ground or where the operations actually 

were located. This use of fixed buffer distances is a holdover from an earlier approach initially 

accepted by the Forest Service during the analysis for the original 2004 FEIS. Future plans will 

be required to state simply where they are going to be conducting their operations, rather than 

just stating a fixed distance from creeks, streams, wetlands. 

EJ Placer A. B, C, D, E 

Comment 121: Is a vegetated buffer of 25 feet adequate to protect riparian areas and water 

quality? 

Response 121: Yes. This is 25 feet on the valley floor/terrace. Topography is very flat and 

vegetation is lush sedges and grasses. The only flow would be overland flow and under these 

conditions the overland flow would go subsurface quickly, and any sediment would be deposited 

in the lush vegetation before it got through the 25 feet. It is the combination of flat topography 

and ground cover that work together to slow the velocity of the overland flow and allow it to 

infiltrate and prevent transport of sediment and a discharge into the NFBR. 
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Appendix 10

A10-65

Comment 122: Buffer widths are only 10 feet in some areas. If vegetation is present, perhaps 

this is a less disturbed site where INFISH buffers should be applied.

Response 122: This buffer width is restricted to one area where there is an overflow channel that 

receives water only during high flows. It is dry in the summer and the ground around the 

channel is very flat. 

Entrance into the INFISH buffers can occur based on a site-specific analysis as long as it would 

not retard the development of Riparian Management Objectives (see discussion at beginning of 

#12). The activity does not retard the development of the Riparian Management Objectives. In 

addition, the miner has identified a possible mineral deposit in the area analyzed and based on 

the 1872 Mining Act (as amended), the miner is allowed entry into this area for mineral removal. 

Therefore, it is not an option to request that the miner move 300 feet away and out of the RHCA.

Comment 123: There are also concerns with pond locations (fines and unstable, devegetated 

banks) and with groundwater/surface water interface and cool water refugia in NFBR. Without 

effective buffer widths and BMPs, resolve to pond location concerns, and analysis of 

ground/surface water impacts, additional restrictions may be applied through 401 WQC 

conditions or denial. 

Response 123: The ponds will be located with input from the district hydrologist. Therefore, 

site conditions, including bank conditions will be considered when selecting the site. Should 

seepage zones develop in the stream bank on the side the pond is located, then the pond will be 

lined.

Gimlet Placer

Comment 124: Is a 10-foot buffer of thin cover of pine needles and sections of straw bales along 

tailing mounds sufficient to protect riparian areas and water quality? Without effective BMPs, 

additional restrictions may be applied through 401 WQC conditions or denial. 

Response 124: Yes. The topography in the area proposed for excavation on the east side of 

Gimlet Creek is very flat and the ground is old placer tailings. The only flow would be overland 

flow and under these conditions the overland flow would go subsurface prior to reaching the 

stream. Because overland flow has very slow velocities, a silt fence or straw bales would be 

more than adequate to stop flow and trap sediment. Therefore, it is the combination of flat 

topography, tailings, and ground cover that work together to slow the velocity of the overland 

flow and allow it to infiltrate and prevent transport of sediment and a discharge into the channel. 

Photos are found project file.

Glory B Placer

Comment 125: Is a 10-foot buffer of thin cover of pine needles over old tailings sufficient to 

protect riparian areas and water quality? Without effective BMPs, additional restrictions may be 

applied through 401 WQC conditions or denial.
Appendix 10 NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

A10-66

Response 125: Yes. The location of where that 10 foot buffer begins is key. The buffer 

measurement begins at the top of the old placer tailings located up on the valley floor and places 

the activity behind the tailings. The old placer tailings parallel the creek. Jackknife Creek is 

incised and has intermittent flow. As a result, the likelihood of a flow reaching the top of the 

valley floor edge and overtop the tailings and interacting with the operation is zero. 

Camp Gold Placer 1, Gold Camp Placer 2, Gold Camp Placer 3

Comment 126: Is a 25-foot buffer of 50% cover in grasses and shrubs adequate to protect 

riparian areas and water quality? If vegetation is present, perhaps this is a less disturbed site 

where INFISH buffers should be applied.

Response 126a: Entrance into the INFISH buffers can occur based on a site-specific analysis as 

long as it would not retard the development of Riparian Management Objectives (see discussion 

at beginning of #12). The activity does not retard the development of the Riparian Management 

Objectives. In addition, the miner has identified a possible mineral deposit in the area analyzed 

and based on the 1872 Mining Act (as amended), the miner is allowed entry into this area for 

mineral removal. Therefore, it is not an option to request that the miner move 300 feet away and 

out of the RHCA.

Gold Camp Placer 1

Response 127b: This is the only site of the three in which there were possible concerns. The 

measurement of where the 25-foot buffer begins is key. It begins at valley floor terrace-channel 

bank break in slope and moves 25 feet back on the valley floor. As a result, the activity is 

restricted to the valley floor/terrace (the abandoned floodplain). The channel has incised and 

widened. Therefore, the potential for high flows to crest onto the valley floor is very, very low 

and would be a very extreme event. In addition, the valley floor is mostly flat with micro 

topography. Any runoff from a precipitation event would be overland flow, not channelized 

flow so sediment will not be carried far. In addition, the BMPs call for filling in the holes at the 

end of each season. Thus the sediment source is eliminated. 

The big concern has to do with the ponds and whether there is the possibility of the ponds 

creating zones of seepage at the stream bank interface as water re-emerges at the bank face. 

However, this is addressed in different ways depending on whether the pond surface elevations 

are above the stream elevations (water added to the ponds) or nearly at the stream elevation 

(pond taps into groundwater). See Final SEIS, Appendix 1A.

Gold Camp Placer 2

Response 127c: This site is for camping and processing only. The existing ponds which would 

be used are dug into the ground and are stable. The closest pond is located 60 feet from the top 

of the valley floor terrace-channel bank break-in-slope. The ponds are tapping into groundwater 

and therefore surface elevation of the ponds and surface elevation of the stream are similar. 
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Appendix 10

A10-67

Gold Camp Placer 3

Response 127d: This site is more than 300 feet from any stream. There are no channels in the 

area. 

Golden Bandit Placer/Lode 2 

Comment 128: Is 50 feet of buffer down from a ridge to the water over pine needles and grasses 

with silt fences at 10 feet from the top of bank adequate to protect riparian areas and water 

quality? Is construction of a berm collection system on the downhill side of operations and above 

stream buffers possible in this location? Without effective BMPs, additional restrictions may be 

applied through 401 WQC conditions or denial. 

Response 128: In this case, there is no place to put a berm as the hillslope forms the channel 

bank. Therefore, to create a berm would result in creating disturbed ground on a hillslope with 

the potential of the berm itself becoming a source of sediment. The silt fences or straw bales do 

not disturb the ground and therefore do not create a source of sediment that can be eroded. Silt 

fences and straw bales/waddles are standard methods used by multiple agencies (i.e. Oregon 

Department of Transportation, Forest Service Engineering, fire rehabilitation, and other 

consulting groups) to prevent sediment from entering streams. 

Gopher Placer 1 (north of FS 7830), Gopher Placer 2 (south of FS 7830) 

Comment 129: Is a 25-foot buffer of pine needles and grasses adequate to protect riparian 

areas and water quality?

Response 129: This 25-foot buffer only applies when there is a valley floor terrace. In this case 

it is the flat topography when combined with the ground cover that work together to slow the 

velocity of the overland flow and allow it to infiltrate and prevent transport and a discharge

Comment 130: Will silt fences and hay bales be effective at the bottom of a 50-foot hill slope of 

conifers with pine needles and grasses? Is construction of a berm collection system on the 

downhill side of operations and above stream buffers possible in this location? Without effective 

buffer widths and BMPs, additional restrictions may be applied through 401 WQC conditions or 

denial.

Response 130: In this case, there is no place to put a berm as the hillslope forms the channel 

bank. Therefore to create a berm would result in creating disturbed ground on a hillslope with 

the potential of the berm itself becoming a source of sediment. The silt fences or straw bales do 

not present this concern. The silt fences or straw bales do not disturb the ground and therefore 

do not create a source of sediment that can be eroded. Silt fences and straw bales/waddles are 

standard methods used by multiple agencies (i.e. Oregon Department of Transportation, Forest 

Service Engineering, fire rehabilitation, and other consulting groups) to prevent sediment from 

entering streams. 
Appendix 10 NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

A10-68

Jay Gould Lode - (Banzer) 

Comment 131: Is a 25-foot buffer of pine needles and scattered grasses adequate to protect 

riparian areas and water quality?

Response 131: The measurement of where that 25 foot buffer begins is key. It begins at valley 

floor terrace-channel bank break in slope and moves 25 feet back on the valley floor. As a result, 

the activity is restricted to the valley floor/terrace (the abandoned floodplain). The channel has 

incised and widened. Therefore, the potential for high flows to crest onto the valley floor is very, 

very low and would be a very extreme event. In addition, the valley floor is mostly flat with 

micro topography. Any runoff from a precipitation event would be overland flow, not 

channelized flow so sediment will not be carried far. 

Jay Gould Lode - (Banzer & Newell) 

Comment 132: Potential discharges to wetlands are not addressed. Without effective BMPs, 

additional restrictions may be applied through 401 WQC conditions or denial.

Response 132: Prior to the adit water reaching the wetland located below Forest Service road

1060, is goes subsurface, resurfaces for a little ways, then goes subsurface again. Therefore, 

there is no direct surface discharge to the wetland. 

Jim Bob Placer

Comment 133: Is a 25-foot buffer sufficient to protect riparian areas and water quality? Some 

sections have only a 10-foot buffer over 50% cover of grasses and needles. Without effective 

buffer widths and BMPs, additional restrictions may be applied through 401 WQC conditions or 

denial. 

Response 133: First, where placer tailings exist on the valley floor (terrace/abandoned 

floodplain), the activity will be behind the tailings. Therefore, any sediment that did move via 

overland flow would be trapped behind the tailings (See Final SEIS, Appendix 1C, p. 7, Figure 

4). The channel has incised and widened. Therefore, the potential for high flows to crest onto the 

valley floor and overtop the tailings is zero. 

Where tailings are not present on the valley floor, the measurement of where the 25-foot buffer 

begins is key. It begins at valley floor terrace-channel bank break in slope and moves 25 feet 

back on the valley floor. As a result, the activity is restricted to the valley floor/terrace (the 

abandoned floodplain). The channel has incised and widened. Therefore, the potential for high 

flows to crest onto the valley floor is very, very low and would be a very extreme event. In 

addition, the valley floor is mostly flat with micro topography. Any runoff from a precipitation 

event would be overland flow, not channelized flow so sediment will not be carried far. 

Therefore, the 25 foot buffer is sufficient to prevent sediment from reaching the stream.

With respect to the 10-foot buffer zone: This buffer is restricted to an overflow channel which 

only flows water in the spring. The channel is dry during the summer.
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Appendix 10

A10-69

North Fork Placer

Comment 134: Is a 25-foot or 50-foot buffer adequate to protect riparian areas and water 

quality? 

Response 134: Yes. The measurement of where the 25-foot and 50-foot buffer begin are key. 

Both begin at valley floor terrace-channel bank break in slope and move feet back on the valley 

floor. As a result, the activity is restricted to the valley floor/terrace (the abandoned floodplain). 

The channel has incised and widened. Therefore, the potential for high flows to crest onto the 

valley floor is very, very low and would be a very extreme event. In addition, the valley floor is 

mostly flat with micro topography. Any runoff from a precipitation event would be overland 

flow, not channelized flow so activity-generated sediment would not be carried far. 

The 50-foot distance for the ponds is sufficient because the ponds are dug into the ground and 

are actually more than 50 feet from the creek. The ponds are tapping into groundwater and 

therefore there is not an elevated flow gradient towards the creek. 

Prudent (#9) Placer 

Comment 135: Is a 25-foot or 30-foot buffer over 50% cover of grasses adequate to protect 

riparian areas and water quality? 

Response 135: Yes. The measurement of where the 25-foot and 30-foot buffer begin are key. 

Both begin at valley floor terrace-channel bank break in slope and move feet back on the valley 

floor. As a result, the activity is restricted to the valley floor/terrace (the abandoned floodplain). 

The channel has incised and widened. Therefore, the potential for high flows to crest onto the 

valley floor is very, very low and would be a very extreme event. In addition, the valley floor is 

mostly flat with micro topography. Any runoff from a precipitation event would be overland 

flow, not channelized flow so activity-generated sediment would not be carried far. The 

processing site is on a bench. See photos in project file.

R&RK4, 5

Comment 136: Is a 25-foot buffer over 80% cover of pine needles adequate to protect riparian 

areas and water quality? 

Response 136: Yes. The buffer conditions vary depending on the side of the creek the operator 

is working. The measurement of where the 25-foot buffer begins is key. On the east side, the 

25-foot buffer is measured from the valley floor terrace-channel bank break in slope and moves 

back on the valley floor. The topography is flat and it is the flat topography when combined 

with the ground cover that work together to slow the velocity of the overland flow and allow it to 

infiltrate. 

On the west side, the 25-foot buffer is also measured from the valley floor terrace-channel bank 

break-in-slope. Working will only be allowed without a discharge call if there is a valley floor 

terrace and if that valley floor terrace is at least 25-feet wide. The reasons for why this is 
Appendix 10 NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

A10-70

sufficient to prevent a discharge are the same as for the east side: the topography is flat and it is 

the flat topography when combined with the ground cover that work together to slow the velocity 

of the overland flow and allow it to infiltrate. 

Racer Group/Keystone Korners Placer

Comment 137: Is a 50-foot buffer over grazed grass adequate to protect riparian areas and 

water quality? 

Geiser Creek is on the 303(d) list of impaired waterbodies for the parameter of habitat 

modification. Actions may not further impair a listed parameter, nor cause other parameters to 

be listed. 

DEQ has concern for impacts to the parameters of habitat modification and temperature in 

Geiser Creek and its tributaries due to the proposed addition of unshaded rock at 3 ford 

crossings. Although USFS proposes placement of rock to reduce sediment input from temporary 

log bridges proposed by the miner, analysis of potential impacts to temperature and habitat 

modification is not provided to justify this approach. Without a valid analysis, a preventive 

alternative (such as a bridge) may be imposed through 401 WQC conditions or denial. 

Response 137: There would be no change in the habitat conditions or stream temperatures and 

sediment would be prevented from entering the creek because 1) fords are only 12-feet wide and 

therefore impact only a very small section of the stream, 2) would be located in places where 

there is currently no shade provided because bank vegetation is absent, and 3) in many cases are 

existing fords.

Rocker Group Placer 

Comment 138: Is a 20-foot buffer over sloping ground with 80% cover of pine needles with silt 

fence at the bottom adequate to protect riparian areas and water quality? 

Response 138: Yes because the amount of rilling is expected to be small if at all. 

Comment 139: If rilling occurs, will a 50-foot buffer with silt fences be adequate? 

Response 139: Yes, because the amount of sediment that would be transported in the rills would 

be minor.

Comment 140: How will silt fence implementation be assured? 

Response 140: Upon approval of the Plan that includes these BMPs, it becomes enforceable by 

regulation (36CFR Section 228). To assure compliance to Plan provision, inspections of 

operations occur and documented on a regular basis throughout the operating season. If there are 

any noticeable impacts to resources, including a discharge, the operations will be stopped 

immediately and not allowed to be resumed until corrected (Chapter 2, Monitoring).
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Appendix 10

A10-71

Comment 141: Is construction of a berm collection system on the downhill side of operations 

and above stream buffers possible in this location? 

Response 141: This option would result in increased ground disturbance and the creation of bare 

ground without any additional protection.

Shamrock Placer 

Comment 142: Is a 25-foot or 50-foot buffer over 40-50% cover of grasses and forbs adequate 

to protect riparian areas and water quality? 

Response 142: Yes. The measurement of where the 25-foot buffer begins is key. The 

measurement begins at the valley floor terrace-channel bank break in slope and moves back on 

the valley floor. The topography is flat and it is the flat topography when combined with the 

ground cover that work together to slow the velocity of the overland flow and allow it to 

infiltrate and prevent a discharge into the NFBR. 

Additional BMPs will be added to the FSEIS that require the miner to place straw bales or silt 

fences to compensate for the limited ground cover. 

Comment 143: If vegetation is present, perhaps this is a less disturbed site where INFISH

buffers should be applied.

Response 143: The valley bottom width on the east side of the NFBR is 60 feet at most and then 

there is a steep hillslope. Entrance into the INFISH buffers can occur based on a site-specific 

analysis (see discussion at beginning of #12). 

Silver Bell Placer 1 and 2 

Comment 144: Is a 25-foot buffer over flat ground with 50% cover of grasses adequate to 

protect riparian areas and water quality? 

Response 144: The measurement of where the 25-foot buffer begins is key. The measurement 

begins at the valley floor terrace-channel bank break in slope and moves back on the valley floor. 

The topography is flat and it is the flat topography when combined with the ground cover that 

work together to slow the velocity of the overland flow and allow it to infiltrate and prevent 

transport and a discharge into the headwaters of Camp Creek. 

Sluice Box Placer

Comment 145: Is a 25-foot or 50-foot buffer over 50-100% cover of grasses or thick pine 

needles adequate to protect riparian areas and water quality? 

Response 145: The measurement of where the 25-foot buffer begins is key. The measurement 

begins at the valley floor terrace-channel bank break in slope and moves back on the valley floor. 

The topography is flat and it is the flat topography, when combined with the ground cover, that 
Appendix 10 NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

A10-72

work together to slow the velocity of the overland flow and allow it to infiltrate and prevent 

transport of sediment and a discharge into the NFBR. 

Snow Creek Placer 1, 2, 3, and 4 

Comment 146: Is a buffer of 20 feet or buffer or 50 feet on a hill slope over <50% cover 

adequate to protect riparian areas and water quality? 

Response 146: This operation has multiple sites with varying site characteristics. The 

measurement of where the 20-foot buffer begins is key and the starting point of that 

measurement varies at the sites. In all cases the location of that starting point is designed to 

place the activity on flat topography. It is the combination of flat topography and ground cover 

that work together to slow the velocity of the overland flow and allow it to infiltrate and prevent 

transport of sediment and a discharge into the NFBR. 

Comment 147: Is construction of a berm collection system on the downhill side of operations 

and above stream buffers possible in this location? 

Response 147: Given the flat topography, this option would increase ground disturbance and 

create bare ground without providing any more protection of water resources.

Standby/McNamee Placer 1 (upstream site) 

Comment 148: Is a 25-foot buffer over 100% cover of needles and some downed wood adequate 

to protect riparian areas and water quality? 

Response 148: Yes. The measurement of where the 25-foot buffer begins is key. The 

measurement begins at the valley floor terrace-channel bank break in slope and moves back on 

the valley floor. The topography is flat, and it is the flat topography when combined with the 

ground cover that work together to slow the velocity of the overland flow and allow it to 

infiltrate and prevent transport of sediment and a discharge into the McNamee Creek. 

Standby/McNamee Placer 2 (downstream site) 

Comment 149: Is a 25-foot buffer over 50% cover of grasses and forbs adequate to protect 

riparian areas and water quality? 

Response 149: Yes. The measurement of where the 25-foot buffer begins is key. The 

measurement begins at the valley floor terrace-channel bank break in slope and moves back on 

the valley floor. The topography is flat, and it is the flat topography when combined with the 

ground cover that work together to slow the velocity of the overland flow and allow it to 

infiltrate and prevent transport of sediment and a discharge into the McNamee Creek. 

Comment 150: If vegetation is present, perhaps this is a less disturbed site where INFISH

buffers should be applied.
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Appendix 10

A10-73

Response 150: Entrance into the INFISH buffers can occur based on a site-specific analysis as 

long as it would not retard the development of Riparian Management Objectives (see discussion 

at beginning of #12). The activity does not retard the development of the Riparian Management 

Objectives. In addition, the miner has identified a possible mineral deposit in the area analyzed 

and based on the 1872 Mining Act (as amended), the miner is allowed entry into this area for 

mineral removal. Therefore, it is not an option to request that the miner move 300 feet away and 

out of the RHCA.

Star (Pinus) Placer

Comment 151: Are silt fences at the bottom of a hill slope within a 15-foot distance between 

mining and the creek adequate to protect riparian areas and water quality? 

Is construction of a berm collection system on the downhill side of operations and above stream 

buffers possible in this location? Without effective buffer widths and BMPs, additional 

restrictions may be applied through 401 WQC conditions or denial. 

Response 151: We have incorporated this recommendation into our BMPs (WQPMs) for this 

site (Final SEIS, Appendix 1A). 

Three Cent Placer Mining 1 (north of FS 1075 road)

Comment 152: Is a 10-foot buffer of vegetated ground adequate to protect riparian areas and 

water quality? If vegetation is present, perhaps this is a less disturbed site where INFISH buffers

should be applied. Without effective buffer widths and BMPs, additional restrictions may be 

applied through 401 WQC conditions or denial. 

Response 152: The only activity at this site is to use an existing pond for processing. The 

distances that the miner proposed were arbitrary and not related to what actually exists on the 

ground or the activity proposed. This use of fixed buffer distances is a holdover from an earlier 

approach initially accepted by the Forest Service when the analysis for the original 2004 FEIS 

was being conducted. Future plans will be required to state simply where they are going to be 

conducting their operations rather than just stating a fixed distance from creeks, streams, 

wetlands. 

Upper Geiser Creek Placer/Lode (both sites) 

Comment 153: No analysis is offered on the cumulative effects to temperature and fish 

habitat/use (in conjunction with impacts from other sites) in Geiser Creek from rocking banks 

and slopes at fords. While sedimentation would be minimized, temperature and fish use may be 

impaired. Are bridges an option (as in Requirement Z 9 of Appendix 2)? Without a valid 

analysis, a preventive alternative (such as a bridge) may be imposed through 401 WQC 

conditions or denial. 

Response 153: There would be no change in the habitat conditions or stream temperatures 

because 1) ford is only 12 feet wide and 2) is an existing ford where there is currently no shade 
Appendix 10 NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

A10-74

provided because bank vegetation is absent. Because this is an existing ford, no trees would be 

removed and there would be no change in the stream-side shade contributed at this site. 

Therefore, no cumulative effects to temperature and fish habitat are expected.

Upper Geiser Creek Placer/Lode (alongside the creek between the junction with 1044060 

upstream to the portal) 

Comment 154: Is a 20-foot buffer on a hill slope adequate to protect riparian areas and water 

quality? 

Is construction of a berm collection system on the downhill side of operations and above stream 

buffers possible in this location? Without effective BMPs, additional restrictions may be applied 

through 401 WQC conditions or denial. 

Response 154: We have incorporated this recommendation into our BMPs (WQPMs) for this 

site. 

Upper Winterville Placer/Lode (southern portion) 

Comment 155: Is a 20-foot buffer adequate to protect riparian areas and water quality? 

Response 155: Yes. The measurement of where the 20-foot buffer begins is key. The 

measurement begins at the valley floor terrace-channel bank break in slope and moves back on 

the valley floor. The topography is flat, and it is the flat topography when combined with the 

ground cover that work together to slow the velocity of the overland flow and allow it to 

infiltrate and prevent transport of sediment and a discharge into the Winterville Creek. 

Where the channel exists, it only carries water in the spring. The channel has incised to a coarse 

cobble bed and widened and flows do not access the valley floor based on the drought tolerant 

vegetation present. Riparian woody vegetation is limited to right along the stream edge or in 

pockets where there is higher water. 

West Parkerville Placer

Comment 156: Is a 20-foot or 25-foot buffer over 30% cover of grasses, needles and forbs on a 

ridge adequate to protect riparian areas and water quality? 

Response 156: Yes. The measurement of where the buffer begins is key. If tailings are present 

that parallel the stream channel then the measurement begins at the top of these tailings. This 

puts activity behind the tailings. If no tailings, the measurement begins at the valley floor 

terrace-channel bank break in slope and moves back on the valley floor. The topography is flat 

and it is the flat topography when combined with the ground cover that work together to slow the 

velocity of the overland flow and allow it to infiltrate and prevent transport of sediment and a 

discharge into a channel. Where tailings are absent and the ground slopes in the vicinity of the 
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Appendix 10

A10-75

creek, the activity would move back onto flat ground. Again, it is the combination of flat 

topography and ground cover that combine to prevent a discharge.

Comment 157: If vegetation is present, perhaps this is a less disturbed site where INFISH

buffers should be applied. 

Response 157: Entrance into the INFISH buffers can occur based on a site-specific analysis as 

long as it would not retard the development of Riparian Management Objectives (see discussion 

at beginning of #12). The activity does not retard the development of the Riparian Management 

Objectives. In addition, the miner has identified a possible mineral deposit in the area analyzed 

and based on the 1872 Mining Act (as amended), the miner is allowed entry into this area for 

mineral removal. Therefore, it is not an option to request that the miner move 300 feet away and 

out of the RHCA.

Comment 158: In Appendix 2, Requirement G 19 should be expanded to include required 

installation and maintenance practices of silt fences and straw bales. These BMPs are 

notoriously ineffective when installed without adequate support (e.g., hay bales staked into 

ground, silt fences dug into ground and with seams on stakes facing away from sediment source) 

or maintained during use (e.g., fences and bales regularly checked for failure or movement, 

sediment removed when it accumulates to 1/3 height of silt fence). 

Response 158: Your suggestion has been incorporated into the Final SEIS.
Appendix 10 NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

A10-76

Appendix A

36 CFR §228.4(a)(1) states: A notice of intent to operate is not required for:

i. Operations which will be limited to the use of vehicles on existing public roads or roads used and 

maintained for National Forest System purposes;

ii. Prospecting and sampling which will not cause significant surface resource disturbance and will 

not involve removal of more than a reasonable amount of mineral deposit for analysis and study 

which generally might include searching for and occasionally removing small mineral samples or 

specimens, gold panning, metal detecting, non-motorized hand sluicing, using battery operated 

dry washers, and collecting of mineral specimens using hand tools;

iii. Marking and monumenting a mining claim;

iv. Underground operations which will not cause significant surface resource disturbance;

v. Operations, which in their totality, will not cause surface resource disturbance which is 

substantially different than that caused by other users of the National Forest System who are not 

required to obtain a Forest Service special use authorization, contract, or other written 

authorization;

vi. Operations which will not involve the use of mechanized earthmoving equipment, such as 

bulldozers or backhoes, or the cutting of trees, unless those operations otherwise might cause a 

significant disturbance of surface resources; or

vii. Operations for which a proposed plan of operations is submitted for approval.
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Appendix 10

A10-77

Appendix B

36 CFR §228.8 Requirements for environmental protection 

(g) Reclamation. Upon exhaustion of the mineral deposit or at the earliest practicable time during 

operations, or within 1 year of the conclusion of operations, unless a longer time is allowed by 

the authorized officer, operator shall, where practicable, reclaim the surface disturbed in 

operations by taking such measures as will prevent or control onsite and off-site damage to the 

environment and forest surface resources including: 

1. Control of erosion and landslides; 

2. Control of water runoff; 

3. Isolation, removal or control of toxic materials; 

4. Reshaping and revegetation of disturbed areas, where reasonably practicable; and 

5. Rehabilitation of fisheries and wildlife habitat. 
Appendix 10 NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

A10-78

Appendix C

Land and Resource Management Plan page 4-25:

26. Mining Activities. Protect watershed values to the fullest extent possible under existing laws in 

evaluating and developing mineral operating plans

27. When areas within 100 feet of Class I, 11, or 111 streams or other perennial water bodies are 

disturbed by mining activities, they shall later be restored by the operator to equal or comparable 

condition. This restoration will occur whenever the operator is finished with an area that is large 

enough to logically restore An inventory of existing conditions should be performed by Forest 

Service before approval of the operating plan is given. If this is not possible, then the inventory 

shall be performed before mining operations begin, with an amendment made to the operating 

plan This inventory will determine:

a. Densities of trees, riparian brush (alders, willows, etc ), nonriparian brush, and 

herbaceous vegetation.

b. Fish habitat suitability (expressed as percent of habitat optimum). The inventory method 

used will be Cow-Fish I/or a similar one.

28. Require the mining operator, as part of the restoration process to:

a. Plant trees and riparian brush at spacing’s that will achieve the original densities of these 

types. This spacing will at least be equal to what existed originally, except when the 

original densities were too great for good growth

b. Plant grass to achieve a density equal to or greater than the total of the original 

herbaceous plus nonriparian brush types--greater densities may be required if needed for 

erosion control

29. Require the mining operator, as part of the restoration process, to (where appropriate):

a. Construct a temporary fence to exclude livestock from the planted area if needed for 

protection from livestock grazing.

b. Place whole trees, construct habitat enhancement structures, or perform comparable 

improvements within the stream channel at a density required to bring the fish habitat 

suitability index up to the same value that existed before the mining operations began. 

This is needed if instream work has disrupted the fish habitat suitability index by five or 

more percentage units. The estimated costs of the above operator requirements shall be 

incorporated into the value of the operator performance bond.

30. Evaluate and restore all other surface areas impacted by mining as in the previous paragraphs 

except for those items dealing with fish habitat.

Land and Resource Management Plan page 4-33

5. Reclamation. Develop reclamation standards using an interdisciplinary process to ensure lands 

are in productive condition to the extent reasonable and operationally feasible. Reasonable 

opportunities to enhance other resources will be considered. Concurrent reclamation will be 

stressed. Reclamation bonds will be based on actual reclamation costs and formulated using 

technical and other resource input (Also see Standards and Guidelines for Watershed).
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Appendix 10

A10-79

Appendix D

FSM 2817.11 - Determination of Significant Resource Disturbance

The determination of what is significant can come only from a fair, reasonable, and consistent 

evaluation of proposed operations on a case-by-case basis. The term, significant, is sitesensitive. A particular surface resource-disturbing activity in one area, such as flat sage brushcovered ground, might not be significant, while the same operation in a high alpine meadow 

could be highly significant.

The phrase “will likely cause significant disturbance of surface resources”, which triggers the 

requirement of submission and approval of a proposed plan of operations (36 CFR 228.4 (a)(3)) 

means that, based on past experience, direct evidence, or sound scientific projection, the District 

Ranger reasonably expects that the proposed operations would result in impacts to National 

Forest System lands (NFS) and resources which more probably than not need to be avoided or 

ameliorated by means such as reclamation, bonding, timing restrictions, and other mitigations 

measures to minimize adverse environmental impacts on NFS resources (70 FR 32713, 

June 6, 2005).

2817.2 - Plan of Operations

Submission of a proposed plan of operations is required from all operators who will likely cause 

a significant disturbance of surface resources. Plans involving mining claims subject to Title 30, 

United States Code, section 612 (30 U.S.C. 612) are also subject to the restrictions of that act, 

and those restrictions should be incorporated in the approved plan. The plan must be submitted 

to the District Ranger. Prior submission and approval of a proposed plan of operations is not 

required if the proposed operations will be confined in scope to one or more of the exempted 

operations listed in Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, section 228.4(a)(1) (36 CFR 

228.4(a)(1)).

2817.21 - Required Content of a Plan of Operations

To properly serve its intended purpose, the proposed plan of operations must include the 

information described in paragraphs 1-8. Frequently needed information, but not required by the 

regulations, is enclosed in double parentheses.

1. Name, legal address and (telephone number) of the operator and of any lessees, assigns, 

or designees (and their duly appointed field representatives).

2. Names, legal mailing addresses, and (telephone numbers) of all owners other than the 

operator.

3. Name of mining district or mineralized area and the name of the claim(s) and/or 

property(ies) on which operation(s) will take place or will be based.

4. A location map of appropriate scale to show the general area in which operations will 

take place (location of claim(s) and/or property) and proposed route of access. In 

general, a forest recreation map should be adequate.

5. A surface disturbance map of the area within which onsite and offsite surface resource 

disturbing activities will, or could, take place. The scale and accuracy of the map must 

be adequate to permit identification of the site on the ground. A Geological Survey 7-1/2 

minute topographic quadrangle map or its equivalent should suffice in most cases and 

should be tied to the general area location map.
Appendix 10 NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

A10-80

6. The probable beginning and ending dates within which the proposed operation will be 

conducted (and, when appropriate, whether the operation will be intermittent or 

continuing).

7. The type and magnitude of the proposed operations. This should be documented and 

closely tied to the information on the maps. The Forest Service requires sufficiently 

detailed information, especially on earthmoving and site clearance operations, to identify 

the precautions which the operator needs to take to reasonably prevent and/or minimize 

adverse environmental impacts on national forest surfaces during and after the proposed 

operations.

8. Plans for reclamation of disturbed areas not required for further operations and for 

erosion control, including provisions for filling excavations, grading of spoil banks, 

blocking of access roads, reseeding areas, and so forth. Although improvement of 

surface resource conditions, above those existing prior to the mining operations or 

preparations for future use, are desirable goals, they cannot be forced on operators 

as an added cost.
Appendix 11

Issue Tracking

NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Appendix 11

A11-1

Appendix 11

Issue Tracking Sheet

Issues were considered by the Interdisciplinary Team and characterized as key issues or other 

issues raised during the scoping period. Key issues are listed in Chapter 1 of the analysis, and 

other issues are listed below. The following tracking sheet shows where in the Supplement (or 

FSEIS) the other issues were addressed.

Issue Statement Source of Issue Response

The SEIS should include analysis of 

substantive changes to the mining 

project proposals

Greg Dyson, HCPC, 

4/06/07 letter

Mining proposals were re-assessed to determine 

what substantive changes, if any, would address, 

remedy, and/or mitigate effects related to court 

findings; these changes are documented in 

Chapter 2 of the Supplement, and the analysis and 

findings of these changes are documented in 

Chapter 3 of the Supplement, and the ROD. 

The SEIS should address whether or 

not the proposed projects would 

create new or contribute to existing 

Water Quality Standard violations 

under the Clean Water Act

Greg Dyson, HCPC, 

4/06/07 letter

The Supplement includes Water Quality 

Protection Measures and General Requirements 

developed to prevent a discharge of sediment to 

ensure compliance with the Clean Water Act

(Chapter 2). These standards and protocols are 

analyzed and discussed in Chapter 3 of the 

Supplement and the ROD.

The SEIS should clearly address the 

anti-degradation standard for 

streams where water quality is 

limited

Greg Dyson, HCPC, 

4/06/07 letter

Anti-degradation standards are included in the 

Water Quality Protection Measures and General 

Requirements discussed in above comment. 

The SEIS should consider an 

alternative to the current Plans of 

Operation that will not violate 

Section 313 of the Clean Water Act

Greg Dyson, HCPC, 

4/06/07 letter

The Supplement modifies the existing Alternative 

4 (with Water Quality Protection Measures and 

General Requirements) to ensure compliance with 

the Clean Water Act.

The SEIS should propose buffers

that are adequate to protect INFISH

species

Greg Dyson, HCPC, 

4/06/07 letter

The Supplement includes site-specific buffers to 

ensure compliance with the Clean Water Act

(Chapter 2). These buffers are analyzed and 

discussed in Chapter 3 of the Supplement, in 

Appendix 1A, and the ROD.

The Agency must determine if new 

road and settling pond construction 

within RHCAs is necessary

Greg Dyson, HCPC, 

4/06/07 letter

Chapter 3 of the Supplement includes a sitespecific detailed analysis of each proposed road 

segment and settling pond to draw conclusions 

about their feasibility, effects and appropriate 

locations. Appendix 4 of the Supplement also 

includes site-specific pond information.

A Forest Plan amendment for open 

road densities in not scientifically 

justifiable

Greg Dyson, HCPC, 

4/06/07 letter

The Supplement includes analysis of the existing 

road system. A Forest Plan Amendment for open 

road densities is not included in the Final SEIS. 

Further analysis of the Forest Plan determined 

that the project is consistent with Forest Plan. 

Refer to Chapter 3 Access/Transportation System

in the Final SEIS for a more detailed explanation 

of open road density guidelines.
Appendix 11 NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

A11-2

Issue Statement Source of Issue Response

The SEIS should include all issues 

previously raised.

Greg Dyson, HCPC, 

4/06/07 letter

Issues raised prior to the initiation of the 

Supplement process are documented in the FEIS 

(Chapter III, Effects Analysis, and Appendix G, 

Response to Public Comments). Any issues 

raised during the supplemental analysis process 

are documented and addressed in the Supplement.
Appendix 12

New Information and Changed 

Circumstances Evaluations

NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Appendix 12

A12-1

Appendix 12

New Information and Changed Circumstances Evaluations 

Introduction

Forest Service policy for implementing regulations under the NEPA outlines a procedure for

review of actions that are awaiting implementation when new information or changes occur and 

should be considered for correction, supplementation, or revision; Forest Service Handbook 

(FSH) 1909.15, section18. If new information or changed circumstances relating to the 

environmental impacts of a proposed action or decision come to the attention of the responsible 

or deciding official after a decision has been made and prior to implementation, the official must 

review the information carefully to determine its importance. If, after an interdisciplinary review 

and consideration of new information within the context of the overall project or decision, the 

Responsible Official determines that a correction, supplement, or revision to an environmental 

document is not necessary, implementation should continue and the results of the 

interdisciplinary review is to be documented in the project file (FSH 1909.15, section 18.1).

This Appendix includes new or updated information that does not address the inadequacies 

identified in HCPC 2006. It considers whether or not this new information or change in 

circumstances is within the scope and range of effects considered in the original analysis. This 

appendix includes updated information for 1) goshawks and heritage resources, 2) bull trout and 

redband trout, 2) noxious weeds, 3) wildlife Potentially Endangered and Threatened Species 

(PETS) and Management Indicator Species (MIS), 4) listed plant species, 5) rangeland 

management, 6) consultation with Indian tribes/protection of treaty resources, and 7) inventoried 

roadless, wilderness, potential wilderness, research natural areas, and experimental forests. 

After interdisciplinary review and consideration of this information within the context of the 

project, the Responsible Official has determined that a correction, supplement, or revision to an 

enviromental document is not necessary (40 CFR 1502.9(c)(1) and FSH 1909.15, Chapter 10, 

Section 18.1). The information does not change determinations or findings made in the 2004 

FEIS for these resources. In all cases, effects are within the scope and range of those disclosed 

in 2004. 

Fisheries

Fish Populations

The following is new information related to bulltrout not in the 2004 FEIS

The Federal species status for bull trout has not changed since the 2004 FEIS. This list was 

updated on January 28, 2012 by US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS 2012).

On January 14, 2010, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issued a Final rule for bull trout critical 

habitat for the coterminous United States (USFWS 2010). The North Fork Burnt River was not 

included as critical habitat because bull trout are not found in the Burnt River Basin and the 

habitat and water quality does not meet habitat needs for refounding areas (USFWS 2005 and 

2010). Therefore, there would be no direct/indirect or cumulative effect on bull trout and bull 

trout critical habitat from any alternative.
Appendix 12 NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

A12-2

The only PETS fish in the NFBR watershed is Redband trout. It is a Region 6 sensitive species. 

Current Management Direction 

The following has been added to this section in Chapter III, p. 39 of the 2004 FEIS.

The proposed mining activities (all action alternatives) are not impacted by and distinguishable 

from the recent 2012 en banc decision in Karuk Tribe v. USFS because no listed or critical fish 

habitat occurs within the project area. Therefore, ESA consultation for the Notice of Intent Level 

activities is not required. Since no significant disturbance of surface resources would result from 

the proposed Notice of Intent level activities, no direct/indirect or cumulative effects would 

occur to fish or fish habitat (Appendix 5).

The mining plans (Plans) were examined for their compliance with the Forest Plan as amended 

by INFISH (USDA/USDI 1995). This review included compliance with 1) INFISH Riparian 

Management Objectives (RMOs) and 2) INFISH Mineral Management Standard and Guidelines, 

Additionally, the Plans were examined for their compliance with the Clean Water Act (Sections 

303 and 401). The effects of the Plans on the INFISH RMOs under Alternative 4 are discussed 

below. Compliance with the INFISH Mineral Management Standards and Guidelines and the 

CWA are discussed in the Watershed and Soils Resources section.

INFISH Riparian Management Objectives

This is a new section, not in the 2004 FEIS.

The Riparian Management Objects (RMOs) in INFISH provide “criteria against which 

attainment or progress toward attainment of the riparian goals is measured.” The goal of the 

RMOs is “to achieve a high level of habitat diversity and complexity through a combination of 

habitat features, to meet the life-history requirements of the fish community inhabiting a 

watershed (USDA/USDI 1995).” The RMOs are stream temperatures, stream bank stability, 

pool frequency, large woody debris, wetted width/depth ratios, and lower bank angle (Table 12-

1Aand B). The effects on the RMOs from the Plans are below for Alternative 4. 

Table 12-1A

INFISH Riparian Management Objectives

Habitat Feature Objectives

Pool Frequency (kf1)

(all systems)

Varies by channel width

Water Temperature (sf2) No measurable increase in maximum water temperature (7-day moving 

average of daily maximum temperature). Summer maximum stream 

temperature below 59°F in adult holding habitat and below 48°F 

within spawning and rearing habitat.

Large Woody Debris (sf)

(forested systems)

>20 pieces per mile; >12” diameter, > 35’ length

Bank Stability (sf)

(non-forested systems)

>80 percent stable

Lower Bank Angle (sf)

(non-forested systems)

>75% of banks with >90 degree angle (undercut)

Width/Depth Ratio (sf)

(all systems)

<10 (mean wetted width divided by mean depth)

1 Key feature

2 supporting feature
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Appendix 12

A12-3

Table 12-1B

Interim objectives for pool frequency

Wetted widths 

(feet)

10 20 25 50 75 100 125 150 200

Pools per mile 96 56 47 26 23 18 14 12 9

Effects to Riparian Management Objectives (RMOs)

Under Alternative 4 the number of Plans that have the potential to affect one or more the RMOs

is two Plans as a result of the addition of Forest Service Water Quality Protection Measures

(WQPMs) and Oregon Department of Environmental Quality Terms and Conditions (Appendix 

1A). The two Plans with the potential to affect the RMOs are Burnt Lode/Placer (proposed 

suction dredging on Cub Creek) and Three Cent Placer (pond construction and use at Processing 

site #2) on Three Cent Creek. Burnt Lode/Placer (proposed road construction to Karissa site), 

one of the three sites that has a potential for a discharge, would not impact any of the RMOs 

because the proposed road is located on a hillside. 

The RMOs that would locally be affected by suction dredging on Cub Creek (Burnt Lode/Placer) 

and the processing pond at Site 2 (Three Cent Placer) are: stream bank stability, lower bank 

angle, and width/depth ratio for the following reasons.

Stream Bank Stability would be locally decreased due to bank failures if the channel incised and 

banks collapsed as a result of suction dredging on Cub Creek triggering a headcut (Burnt 

Lode/Placer) or during construction and use of the proposed processing pond at Processing site 2 

(Three Cent Placer).

Lower Bank Angle (also known as bank undercuts) would be lost locally as a result of bank 

failures.

Wetted Width/Depth Ratios could be increased locally because channel incision and channel 

widening would increase the wetted width and decrease the water depth for any given discharge 

resulting in a higher W/D ratio. This change would locally increase stream temperatures as a 

greater percentage of the water column would be warmed by both long-wave and short-wave 

radiation.

Stream Temperatures would not be increased because the pond length is less than 20 feet long. 

The area already lacks shade and goes dry in the summer. Therefore, there would be no increase 

in stream temperatures as a result of any bank failures.

The following RMOs would not be affected by the mining activities as proposed in all Plans:

Large Woody Debris: There would be no effect on the input of large woody debris for the same 

reasons stated in Alternative 2. Also, an extra layer of protection to stream shade, bank stability, 

and large wood recruitment has been added through the addition of the Forest Service General 

Requirement G-8 (Appendix 2): “Vegetation providing shade and/or bank stability to the 

stream banks shall not be removed unless specifically approved in writing by the District 

Ranger.”

Pool Frequency would not be affected because even if sediment entered the stream, the bulk of 

the sediment would be fine-grained and would move as suspended sediment during higher flows 

or settle out along the margins of the stream channel. In addition, because there would not be a 
Appendix 12 NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

A12-4

change in the input potential of large woody debris (LWD), the role of LWD in creating pools 

would not change. 

In conclusion, while several of the RMOs would be locally affected by suction dredging on Cub 

Creek (Burnt Lode Placer) and the processing pond on Three Cent Creek (Three Cent Placer), 

the effects would be non-measureable at the stream and subwatershed scale and therefore would 

not prevent the attainment of the RMOs. 

Minerals Management Standards and Guidelines 

Minerals Management Standards and Guidelines 

Standards and Guidelines that relate to the Plans being addressed by this Supplement are found 

in the Minerals Management section of INFISH. Standards and Guidelines that apply to these 

Plans are INFISH MM-1, MM-2 and MM-6. MM-1 addresses the need to minimize impacts of 

the operation to fish and wildlife habitat. MM-2 addresses the location of structures (i.e. ponds), 

support facilities, and roads and the need to avoid impacts to Riparian Habitat Conservation 

Areas, streams, and fish. MM-1 and MM-2 are discussed in detail in the Watershed and Soils 

Resources section in Chapter 3. INFISH MM-6 addresses Forest Service monitoring 

requirements and allows the Forest Service to adjust the permits or Plan to avoid adverse effects 

to inland fisheries based on that monitoring. MM-6 is presented below. 

MM-6: Develop inspection, monitoring and reporting requirements for mineral 

activities. Evaluate and apply the results of inspection and monitoring to modify minerals plans, 

leases, or permits as needed to eliminate impacts that prevent attainment of Riparian 

Management Objectives and avoid adverse effects on inland native fish.

Annual monitoring of the operations would occur by the Forest Service thereby complying with 

MM-6 (inspection, monitoring, and reportng). At that time, implementation of the INFISH

standards and guidelines for Minerals Management (MM-1 and MM-2) would be monitored. 

Annual inspections would also include examining for the information in Table 12-2

Table 12-2

Information to be included in the Annual Inspections

Equipment and Structures List sizes and take photos of all 

Earthwork A) Excavations (testing and mining hole sizes and note if current work)

B) Processing site (size of compacted area not including settling ponds)

C) Settling ponds (sizes, if they are holding water, if they have been 

cleaned out, and if there is vegetation)

D) Camp area (size of area being compacted by camping)

E) Roads (lengths of any accesses to sites, condition)

Water List if there are any overflows, muddy water, distance of workings to 

water, etc.

Weeds List if there are weeds, identify if possible, take picture if you are unsure, 

take a measurement of area, and GPS.

Access List all the roads by FS road number designation to get to the site

Sketch Map Include any camp sites, any other uses of sites for records. This is also an 

area for photo references from the sketch map. Also list any noncompliance issues.
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Appendix 12

A12-5

Aquatic Management Indicator Species (MIS) Analysis 

The NFMA regulations require that “fish and wildlife habitat be managed to maintain viable 

populations of existing ...species in the planning area.” To ensure that these viable populations 

are maintained, the Pacific Northwest Region of the Forest Service has identified management 

requirements for a number species within the region. These Management Indicator Species are 

emphasized either because of their status under ESA or because their populations can be used as 

an indicator of the health of a specific type of habitat (USDA 1990).

Riparian ecosystems occur at the margins of standing and flowing water, including intermittent 

streams, ephemeral ponds, and wetlands. The aquatic MIS were selected to indicate healthy 

stream and riparian ecosystems across the landscape. Attributes of a healthy aquatic ecosystem 

includes: cold and clean water; clean channel substrates; stable streambanks; healthy streamside 

vegetation; complex channel habitat created by large wood, cobles, boulders, streamside 

vegetation, and undercut banks; deep pools; and waterways free of barriers. Healthy riparian 

areas maintain adequate temperature regulation, nutrient cycles, natural erosion rates, and 

provide for instream wood recruitment. 

The Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan identifies two fish 

species as Management Indicator Species (MIS). These include the redband/rainbow trout and 

steelhead (USDA 1990). These species were selected as they were considered to be good 

indicators of the maintenance and quality of instream habitats. These habitats were identified as 

high quality water and fishery habitat. No steelhead are found in the North Fork Burnt River due 

to the Hell’s Canyon Dam complex on the Snake River blocking all anadromous migration into 

the Burnt River. They will not be discussed further.

The amount of riparian areas and stream channels that have been directly impacted by historic

land uses vary greatly across the watershed (Table III-20, FEIS pg. 53). Table III-20 provides a 

rough estimate of the percentage of stream channel length affected by historic land uses and does 

not reflect the current impact that mining operations are having on stream channels.

Redband/Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss)

Columbia River redband trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) can be found in virtually every stream that 

is capable of supporting aquatic life within the NFBR Watershed. The present range of the 

Columbia River redband trout is east of the Cascades from Oregon into British Columbia.

Methods used to document fish distribution include field presence/absence surveys, aquatic 

inventory surveys, escapement data and redd surveys. The origin of this data has come from 

several sources including Forest Service watershed baseline updates, Forest Service Level II 

stream survey reports on fish-bearing streams based on the Hankin and Reeves method of stream 

survey, Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife (ODFW) surveys, and the state of Oregon 

Streamnet fish distribution database. Geographic Information System data (GIS) catalogues 

miles of MIS distribution by fish species. Only presence/absence surveys have been completed 

for redband trout/rainbow trout in the project area. 

Redband trout are sensitive to changes in water quality and habitat. Adult redband trout are 

generally associated with pool habitat, although other life stages require a wide array of habitats 

for rearing, hiding, feeding and resting. Pool habitat is important refugia during low water 

periods. An increase in sediment in the stream channel lowers spawning success and reduces the 

quality and quantity of pool habitat. Other important habitat features include healthy riparian 
Appendix 12 NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

A12-6

vegetation, undercut banks and large wood debris. The Wallowa-Whitman National Forest is 

utilizing this fish/habitat relationship to provide the basis for assessment of redband trout 

populations for the purposes of MIS assessment.

In the absence of redband trout population trend data, the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest has 

measured key habitat variables, and then assessed changes expected to occur as a result of 

project activities. This MIS analysis assumes that activities that maintain and improve 

aquatic/riparian habitat will provide for resident fish population viability on Wallowa-Whitman 

National Forest lands. 

Analysis of the Habitat Condition of the MIS

The North Fork Burnt River (NFBR)Watershed contains about 422 miles of streams. About 89 

miles have perennial flow and 333 miles have intermittent flow. All of the 89 miles of perennial 

stream are assummed to have redband trout. In addition, Gimlet Creek and Pinus Creek, both 

intermittent streams for sections of their length, have been observed to have fish during the 

spring flow in the sections that go dry (S. Fouty, district hydrologist, pers. observations 2010). 

Streams that are perennial along their entire length are Camp Creek, Geiser Creek, Greenhorn 

Creek, Mosquito Creek, Snow Creek, and NFBR. Streams that go seasonally dry are Gimlet 

Creek, Pinus Creek, and Three Cent Creek. There are two Mosquito Creeks in this watershed. 

The one referenced here is located downstream of Whitney Valley. 

Past land uses and activities (beaver trapping, mining, grazing, logging, road building) have 

caused changes to the NFBR HUC 5 watershed. These land uses increased stream bank erosion, 

altered stream flows, damaged riparian and in-stream habitats, channelized streams, and 

increased sediment to the streams. 

Past mining activities are evident today in the dredge tailings that are adjacent to some of the 

stream channels in the project area. These dredge piles can inhibit riparian vegetation growth and 

cause stream flows to go subsurface because of substrate deposition. The need for water for 

placer and hydraulic mining in the late 1800s necessitated development of long ditches. These 

ditches diverted large quantities of water to the mining areas and greatly impacted streams and 

riparian systems. Source streams were often depleted of enough water to maintain the riparian 

vegetation near the diversion point and downstream for a considerable distance. 

The Wallowa-Whitman National Forest has completed Forest Service Region 6 Stream Surveys

in fish-bearing streams in the North Fork Burnt River watershed. These stream surveys reflect 

the impact of past land use activities. The stream survey protocol (based on the Hankin and 

Reeves survey methodology) guides collection of field data for stream channels, riparian 

vegetation, and fish presence. Data collected from these surveys are then rated using habitat 

indicator benchmarks developed by NMFS and FWS (USDC 2004; USDI 2004). 

Habitat for the MIS species exists within the project area. Table 12-3 describes the MIS, the 

habitat they represent, and whether they are present in the project analysis area. Table 12-4 

below shows the Pathways and Indicator values used to rate the condition of the streams based 

on the data available. The stream temperature values used to rate conditions is the 68°F standard 

established by ODEQ for streams in the NFBR watershed. Table 12-1B shows the pool 

frequency values used for the ratings and comes from the INFISH Riparian Management 

Objectives table. 
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Appendix 12

A12-7

The pools/mile values presented in the MIS tables below come from data collected during the 

Aquatic Inventory surveys. Only those pools that were channel spanning were included in the 

survey. However, these values understate the number of pools/mile because field observations 

by the district hydrologist in Camp Creek, Gimlet Creek, NFBR, and Snow Creek noted pools 

that were not channel spanning. These other pools were found at outside bends, as a result of 

downed wood, or related to boulders. In several cases, pools were present that were related to 

old mining instream excavations. In addition, the pools/mile values based on wetted widths 

from the INFISH RMOs (Table 12-2B) used to assess if the streams were meeting the RMO 

were not stratified by stream type. Therefore, while the pool values presented in the MIS tables 

are used to rate the streams based on the Pathways and Indicators Matrix, these pool values are 

not considered a starting place only. 

In the following section titled Existing Habitat Condition, redband trout habitat data is 

summarized and evaluated for streams within the NFBR. The data comes from stream surveys

and from personal observations by the District specialists. 

Table 12-3

MIS and habitat description for the North Fork Burnt River project area.

MIS Habitat Description Habitat Present in 

Analysis Area

Species Present in 

Analysis Area

Rainbow Trout/Redband Trout Water quality/Fish Habitat Yes Yes

Table 12-4

Pathways and Indicator Values used to assess condition of the streams

Pathway and Indicators Properly Functioning Functioning at Risk Not Properly 

Functioning

Total Road Density <1 mile/sq. mile, no valley 

bottom roads; zero or 

minimal increases due to 

roads.

1-2.4 mile/sq. mile, some 

valley bottom roads; 

Moderate increases due to 

roads (~5%)

>2.4 mile/sq. mile, many 

valley bottom roads; 

High increases due to 

roads (20-25%)

Temperature –Migration 

and Rearing

< 68F° < 68F° most years of 

record or exceed only for 

less than a week

>68F° most years of 

record or exceed value 

for more than a week

Streambank Condition >80% of any stream has 

≥90% stability

50-80% of any stream 

reach has ≥ 90% stability

<50% of any stream 

reach has ≥ 90% stability

Pool Frequency See Table 12-1B See Table 12-1B See Table 12-1B

Large Woody Material >20 pieces per mile >12” 

diameter and adequate 

recruitment

Meet quantity, but lacks 

future source of wood

Does not meet quantity, 

and lacks future source of 

wood
Appendix 12 NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

A12-8

Pathway and Indicators Properly Functioning Functioning at Risk Not Properly 

Functioning

Riparian Vegetation Banks and valley bottom 

have an abundance of the 

appropriate riparian 

vegetation. Riparian 

vegetation is providing 

shade over large sections 

of the stream.

Riparian vegetation is 

being replaced by conifers 

and/or annual grasses and 

sagebrush. Zones of 

riparian vegetation 

appropriate for the area 

are still present by not 

continuous. Shade 

contribution from riparian 

vegetation is decreasing.

Riparian vegetation is 

largely absent, being 

replaced by conifers 

and/or annual grasses and 

sagebrush. There may 

still be scattered pockets 

of riparian vegetation but 

widely separated. Shade 

contribution from 

riparian vegetation is 

limited. 

Physical Barriers No barriers that restrict 

passage of aquatic 

organisms

Barriers restrict passage at 

low flows

Barriers restrict passage 

at a range of flows

Existing Habitat Conditions

The most recent stream surveys using the Region 6 Aquatic Inventory method were done for the 

following streams: Camp (1992), Geiser (1991), Gimlet (1990), Greenhorn (1990), Mosquito 

(1990), Snow Creek (1990), and the North Fork Burnt River (1990 and 2007). Two stream 

surveys are included for the NFBR because the 2007 survey only includes the portion of the 

NFBR upstream of Highway 7 and Whitney Valley. The 1990 survey includes both upstream 

and downstream of Whitney Valley. 

The analyses below used the Region 6 Aquatic Inventory survey for streams in the NFBR 

watershed. Much of the data are more than 20 years old with the exception of the stream 

temperature data. The 7-day moving average of the daily maximum stream temperatures and a 

map showing the location of the monitoring sites is found in the Watershed and Soils Resources 

section of Chapter 3 of the Supplement. Stream temperature data was collected most recently 

collected in 2008. In some cases, stream condition information was supplemented by personal 

observations of district specialists during the stream temperature monitoring and implementation 

of stream restoration project on Camp, Gimlet and Pinus Creek that has occurred between 2008 

and 2010. 

Existing condition information presented below demonstrates that several habitat parameters are 

not meeting INFISH riparian management objectives (RMOs) presented in the Management 

Direction section at the beginning of the Fisheries section. However, none of the mining activity 

(except suction dredging) would occur in the active floodplain or channel and therefore these 

proposed activities would not alter the existing habitat condition or the RMOs in these streams. 

Several operations propose to suction dredge. However, only suction dredging in Cub Creek has 

the potential to have a fisheries habitat impact because of the potential to trigger a headcut into 

fine sediment. This concern related to suction dredging in Cub Creek is discussed in depth in the 

Watershed and Soils Resources section and in Appendices 6A and 6B.

Camp Creek 

Camp Creek is a tributary to the NFBR and flows mostly through meadows. Camp Creek was 

surveyed on October 28, 1992 for about 1.99 miles. One reach was identified. The reach began 

at the National Forest/private boundary and ended at the junction of the FS 1900 and 1900400 
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Appendix 12

A12-9

roads. Many fish (unknown species) were observed throughout the 1992 survey. At that time, 

the habitat for Camp Creek lacked pools and was devoid of most woody material. Riparian 

habitat, in-stream cover and stream overhead cover was limited. An August 2001 informal 

survey verified the presence of redband trout and low amounts of woody material in the stream. 

However, as Camp Creek is predominantly a meadow stream, large amounts of inchannel wood 

would not be expected. The MIS habitat summary is presented in Table 12-5. 

Stream bank stability information is very limited. Only three habitat units had bank stability 

information in 1992. Values range from 5 to 90%. Bank erosion was noted at bends. However, 

field observations by the district hydrologist in 2008 and 2011 found that stream bank stability is 

very high throughout this reach except along bends. The banks are densely vegetated with 

sedges, rushes and in places willows alders. A large portion of the reach has not been grazed 

since 2006. 

Camp Creek has one stream temperature monitoring site and temperature data exists for 1995, 

2006 and 2008 (Supplement Chapter 3, Watershed and Soil Resources). Camp Creek has also 

had stream channel cross-sections established in 2008 throughout its length. The average wetted 

width for this reach is 3.6 feet based on the 1992 stream survey. 

Table 12-5

MIS habitat summary for Camp Creek 

Habitat Element Value Rating

Total Road Density (FS Open, closed, 

decommissioned) 3.95 mi/mi2 Not Properly Functioning

Stream Temperatures 

(7-day moving average of the daily maximum) 70, 71.1, 65.5 *F Not Properly Functioning

Streambank Stability (%) **High (80 to 100%) Properly Functioning

Pool Frequency/Quality (weighted ave. 

pools/mile) 19.6 pools/mile Not Properly Functioning

Large Wood (includes large and medium 

wood)

(weighted ave. wood/mile)

48.8 pieces/mile N/A as meadow 

system

Riparian Vegetation N/A* N/A*

Fish Barrier **Culvert on the 1900 road, silted in log 

structures

Not Properly 

Functioning

* No data available

** district hydrologist, personal obs., 2008 and 2011.

Geiser Creek

Geiser Creek is a tributary to the NFBR and flows mostly through meadows and forest. It was 

surveyed on May 28, 1991 for about 5.6 miles. Three reaches were identified. Geiser Creek 

was not sampled for fish. A visual survey at that time determined that redband trout were 

present in Geiser Creek. Geiser Creek has been heavily impacted by mining and associated roadbuilding activity. The 1991 Aquatic Inventory indicates that Geiser Creek was in poor condition 

and provides poor quality fish habitat. The average wetted width of Reach 1, the most 

downstreem reach is 10.26 feet with a pool frequency of 12.5 pools/mile. The average wetted 

width for Reach 2 is 8.5 feet with a pool frequency of 7.4 pools/mile. The average wetted width 
Appendix 12 NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

A12-10

of Reach 3, the most upstream reach is 5.4 feet with a pool frequency of 3.4 pools/mile. The 

weighted average wetted width for the three reaches is 7.8 feet. The MIS habitat summary is 

presented in Table 12-6.

Stream bank stability is low based on the 1991 field writeup. Eroded banks were observed 

throughout the length of the survey. Causes of this damage likely include mining, roads, 

grazing, and timber harvest. Stream buffers were not implemented on streams in the Geiser 

Creek drainage during the Cub Timber Sale in 1987, resulting in riparian areas that were not 

protected during logging. 

Stream temperature data was collected at two different locations but only 83G.4 has multiple 

years of data. Data for temperature site 83G.4 exists for 1997, 2006 and 2008 (Supplement 

Chapter 3, Watershed and Soil Resources). 

Table 12-6

MIS habitat summary for Geiser Creek

Habitat Element Value Rating

Total Road Density (FS Open, closed, 

decommissioned) 3.95 mi/mi2 Not Properly Functioning

Stream Temperatures 

(7-day moving average of the daily maximum) 72.7, 70.9, 65.46 *F Not Properly Functioning

Streambank Stability (%) **Eroded banks observed throughout 

length Functioning at Risk

Pool Frequency/Quality (weighted ave. 

pools/mile) 7.2 pools/mile Not Properly Functioning

Large Wood (includes large and medium wood)

(weighted ave. wood/mile) 27.5 pieces/mile Properly Functioning

Riparian Vegetation N/A* N/A*

Fish Barrier N/A* N/A*

* No data available

** from stream survey write up

Gimlet Creek 

Gimlet Creek is a tributary of Camp Creek and flows mostly through meadows that are being 

encroached upon by conifers. It was surveyed for about 6.1 miles on May 30, 1990. The 1990 

survey began at the National Forest-private boundary and proceeded upstream. Six reaches 

were identified but only five were surveyed because Reach 1, the most downstream reach was on 

private land. The average wetted widths for the five reaches is 7.7 feet for the 1990 survey. 

However, by mid-late summer sections of the stream go dry, disconnecting the remaining 

portions with perennial flow from each other (district hydrologist, pers. observations 2008, 2009, 

2010, 2011, and 2012) 

Stream bank stability information is provided both by the 1990 stream survey and 2011 field 

observations by the district hydrologist. Thirteen habitat units in 1990 had bank stability 

information representing three percent of the stream length. Values range from 0 to 100%. 

Gimlet Creek had poor stream habitat conditions in the lower sections compared to the upper 

parts of the creek. During the survey, flows went subsurface in the middle section due to old 
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Appendix 12

A12-11

mine tailings in the stream channel. Field observation by the district hydrologist (2010 and 

2011) found that large stretches of stream have vertical, raw banks that are actively eroding. 

Bank stability, except in sections with perennial flow, is very low.

Fish were observed in both the sections that remain perennial throughout the year and in sections 

that go seasonally dry in 2010. The MIS habitat summary is presented in Table 12-7.

No stream temperature data has been collected. 

Table 12-7

MIS habitat summary for Gimlet Creek

Habitat Element Value Rating

Total Road Density (FS Open, closed, 

decommissioned) 3.95 mi/mi2 Not Properly Functioning

Stream Temperatures 

(7-day moving average of the daily 

maximum)

N/A* N/A*

Streambank Stability **Low. Lots of eroding banks throughout 

length

Not Properly 

Functioning

Pool Frequency/Quality (weighted ave. 

pools/mile) 19 pools/mile Not Properly Functioning

Large Wood (includes large and medium 

wood)

(weighted ave. wood/mile)

46 pieces/mile Properly Functioning

Riparian Vegetation N/A* N/A*

Fish Barrier Stream goes dry along sections. Culverts 

along 7386 road. Functioning at Risk

*No data available

** mix of stream survey information and personal observations by the district hydrologist.

Greenhorn Creek

Greenhorn Creek is a tributary of Snow Creek. It flows through a mix of meadow and forest. 

One reach was surveyed on June 11, 1990 for 0.51 miles. The reach begins at the confluence of 

Snow Creek and Greenhorn Creeks and proceeds upstream. The average wetted width was 8.3 

feet. 

Stream bank stability was assessed for two habitat units. One habitat unit was a pool and 112 

feet long. Right bank stability was 60% and left bank stability was 100%. The second habitat 

unit was a riffle and 102 feet long. Right and left bank stability was 100%. Field observations 

by the district hydrologist in 2008 found that the lower portion of Greenhorn Creek, upstream of 

its confluence with Snow Creek, had high stream bank stability due to good vegative cover. 

Given the absence of livestock grazing in this drainge and the forest cover, bank stability is 

expected to be high throughout.

Habitat conditions in Greenhorn Creek are mostly good with a few habitat features rated as poor 

to fair. Greenhorn Creek flows into Snow Creek. Inventory results for the entire stream show the 

riparian area to be in good condition. 
Appendix 12 NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

A12-12

Greenhorn Creek has one stream temperature monitoring site with data. Data was collected in 

1995, 2006, and 2008 (Supplement Chapter 3, Watershed and Soil Resources). The MIS habitat 

summary is presented in Table 12-8.

Table 12-8

MIS habitat summary for Greenhorn Creek 

Habitat Element Value Rating

Total Road Density (FS Open, closed, decommissioned) 3.95 mi/mi2 Not Properly Functioning

Stream Temperatures 

(7-day moving average of the daily maximum) 62.5, 66.5, 62.4 *F Properly Functioning

Streambank Stability **High (60 – 100%) Properly Functioning

Pool Frequency/Quality (weighted ave. pools/mile) 21.6 pools/mile Not Properly Functioning

Large Wood (includes large and medium wood)

(weighted ave. wood/mile) 41.2 large wood/mile Properly Functioning

Riparian Vegetation N/A* N/A*

Fish Barrier N/A* N/A*

* No data available

** mix of stream survey information and personal observations by the district hydrologist.

Mosquito Creek 

Mosquito Creek is a tributary to the NFBR and is located south of Whitney Valley. One reach 

was surveyed on May 23, 1990 for 0.88 miles. The reach began at the confluence of Mosquito 

Creek and the NFBR and ended at its confluence with South Fork Mosquito Creek. 

Stream bank stability information from 1990 is very limited. Only three habitat units (six data 

points) have bank stability information. In five of the six bank data points, stability is 100%. 

One bank was rated at 30% stability. erosion noted at bends. The field writeup states that the 

banks appear to be in a fairly stable conditions with between 50 to 75% of the stream banks with 

armouring. 

No stream temperature data has been collected. The MIS habitat summary is presented in Table 

12-9.

Table 12-9

MIS habitat summary for Mosquito Creek (1990)

Habitat Element Value Rating

Total Road Density (FS Open, closed, decommissioned) 3.95 mi/mi2 Not Properly Functioning

Stream Temperatures 

(7-day moving average of the daily maximum) N/A* *N/A

Streambank Stability **50 to 75% Functioning at Risk

Pool Frequency/Quality (weighted ave. pools/mile) 44.3 pools/mile Not Properly Functioning

Large Wood (includes large and medium wood)

(weighted ave. wood/mile) 14.8 pieces/mile Not Properly Functioning

Riparian Vegetation N/A* N/A*

Fish Barrier N/A* N/A*

* No data available

** from stream survey report
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Appendix 12

A12-13

Snow Creek 

Snow Creek is a tributary to the NFBR. One reach of Snow Creek were surveyed on June 6, 

1990 for a total of 1.83 miles. The reach begins at the confluence of Snow Creek and the NFBR 

and proceeds upstream, past the confluence with Greenhorn Creek. Snow Creek is an upper 

watershed tributary that supports fish and is a cold-water source for the river. The stream habitat 

was identified in good condition during the survey. 

Stream bank stability information is limited in the 1990 stream survey to four habitat units. 

Values range from 60 to 100%. Field observations by the district hydrologist in 2008 during a 

review of mining projects adjacent to this creek, found high bank stability throughout its length 

due to good vegative cover. 

Stream temperature data has been collected at two sites but in different years (Supplement 

Chapter 3, Watershed and Soil Resources). Stream temperature data is presented for the Snow 

83G.2 site for 1997, 2005, 2006, and 2008. The MIS habitat summary is presented in Table 12-

10.

Table 12-10

MIS habitat summary for Snow Creek 

Habitat Element Value Rating

Total Road Density (FS Open, closed, decommissioned) 3.95 mi/mi2 Not Properly Functioning

Stream Temperatures 

(7-day moving average of the daily maximum) 61.8, 66.1, 65.6, 60.8 *F Properly Functioning

Streambank Stability **High (70 to 100%) Properly Functioning

Pool Frequency/Quality (weighted ave. pools/mile) 29 pools/mile Not Properly Functioning

Large Wood (includes large and medium wood)

(weighted ave. wood/mile) 90.2 wood/mile Properly Functioning

Riparian Vegetation N/A* N/A*

Fish Barrier N/A* N/A*

* No data available

** mix of stream survey information and personal observations by the district hydrologist.

North Fork Burnt River 

The NFBR flows into Unity Reservoir, which discharges into the Burnt River, a tributary to the 

Snake River. The NFBR flows through wooded valleys. The 1990 survey evaluated upstream 

and downstream of Whitney Valley. Nine reaches were surveyed for a total length of 13.9 miles. 

Four reaches were below Whitney Valley for a total length of 6.8 miles. Five reaches are above 

Whitney Valley for a total length of 7.2 miles. The 1990 survey began at the confluence of 

NFBR with First Creek and ended 845 feet upstream of its confluence with Snow Creek. 

Redband trout were observed during these surveys. The surveys determined that the riparian 

habitat was in fair condition. The deep pools that were present had no canopy cover. 

The 2007 survey only evaluated the NFBR upstream of Whitney Valley. The 2007 survey 

includes only upstream of Whitney Valley. It begin where Highway 7 crosses the NFBR and 

heads upstream. Five reaches were surveyed for a total length of 6.2 miles. The MIS habitat 

summary is presented in Table 12-11C. 
Appendix 12 NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

A12-14

The NFBR has six stream temperature monitoring sites which capture both the spatial and 

temporal variability in the stream. Data exist for 1995, 1996, 1997, 1999, 2005, 2006 and 2008. 

Only the range of values is shown in Tables 12-11A, B, and C. The values for each site are 

found in Supplement Chapter 3, Watershed and Soil Resources. The MIS habitat summary is 

presented in Tables 12-11A and 12-11B.

Table 12-11A

MIS habitat summary for North Fork Burnt River (1990)

Downstream of Whitney Valley

Habitat Element Value Rating

Total Road Density (FS Open, 

closed, decommissioned) 3.95 mi/mi2 Not Properly Functioning

Stream Temperatures 

(7-day moving average of the daily 

maximum)

65.7 to 83. 4 Not Properly 

Functioning

Streambank Stability **Poor due to lack of stream bank vegetation and woody 

material (R1 and R2 = 25-50%), R3 and R4 = (0-25%

Functioning at 

Risk

Pool Frequency/Quality (weighted 

ave. pools/mile) 3.3 pools/mile Not Properly Functioning

Large Wood (includes large and 

medium wood)

(weighted ave. wood/mile)

17.2 pieces/mile Not Properly 

Functioning

Riparian Vegetation N/A* N/A*

Fish Barrier

Limited to a waterfall upstream of surveyed area. 

Survey mentions many culverts but no information of 

barriers

Properly 

Functioning

* No data available

** from stream survey data

Table 12-11B

MIS habitat summary for North Fork Burnt River (1990)

Upstream of Whitney Valley

Habitat Element Value Rating

Total Road Density (FS Open, 

closed, decommissioned) 3.95 mi/mi2 Not Properly Functioning

Stream Temperatures 

(7-day moving average of the 

daily maximum)

65.7 to 83. 4 Not Properly 

Functioning

Streambank Stability 

**Poor due to lack of stream bank vegetation and woody 

material (R5, R6 = 25 – 50%; R7, R8 = 51-75%’ R9 = 75-

100%)

Functioning at 

Risk

Pool Frequency/Quality (weighted 

ave. pools/mile) 5.3 pools/mile Not Properly Functioning

Large Wood (includes Large and 

medium wood)

(weighted ave. wood/mile)

23.1 pieces/mile Properly 

Functioning

Riparian Vegetation N/A* N/A*
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Appendix 12

A12-15

Habitat Element Value Rating

Fish Barrier Limited to a waterfall upstream of surveyed area. Survey 

mentions many culverts but no information if barriers

Properly 

Functioning

* No data available

** from stream survey data

Table 12-11C

MIS habitat summary for North Fork Burnt River (2007)

Upstream of Whitney Valley

Habitat Element Value Rating

Total Road Density (FS Open, 

closed, decommissioned) 3.95 mi/mi2 Not Properly Functioning

Stream Temperatures 

(7-day moving average of the daily 

maximum)

65.7 to 83. 4 Not Properly 

Functioning

Streambank Stability High with minor amount of bank instability in 2 of the 5 

reaches. 

Functioning at 

Risk

Pool Frequency/Quality (weighted 

ave. pools/mile) 17.8 pools/mile Not Properly Functioning

Large Wood (includes Large and 

medium wood)

(weighted ave. wood/mile)

3.3 pieces/mile Not Properly 

Functioning

Riparian Vegetation N/A* N/A*

Fish Barrier

Limited to a waterfall upstream of surveyed area. 

Survey mentions many culverts but no information if 

barriers

Properly 

Functioning

* No data available

Summary Fisheries Conclusions

MIS Habitat

The amount of occupied MIS habitat for rainbow/redband trout on the Wallowa Whitman 

National Forest is estimated at 1310 miles. The amount of MIS habitat in the NFBR watershed 

is seven percent of the overall miles of habitat for the entire forest (Table 12-12). 

Table 12-12

MIS distribution in the project area in relation to the Wallowa-Whitman National 

Forest range

MIS Forest 

Distribution (mi)*

MIS in Analysis 

Area (mi)*

Proportion of MIS habitat in Project 

Area out of total on Forest

Rainbow Trout/Redband Trout 1310 89 7 %

* Miles calculated for the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest.
Appendix 12 NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

A12-16

Based on the analysis in the Watershed and Soils Resource section of Chapter 3 and Appendices 

6A and 6B (suction dredging), most of the proposed activities would not alter the existing habitat 

condition for the following reasons: First, the mining activities under Alternative 4, with one 

exception,would occur outside the stream channel and the active floodplain. Second, minimal 

trees would be removed and no shade trees would be removed. Therefore, Alternative 4 would 

not contribute to a negative trend in viability on the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest for 

redband trout. 

Riparian Management Objectives

In conclusion, while several of the RMOs would be locally affected by suction dredging on Cub 

Creek (Burnt Lode Placer) and the processing pond on Three Cent Creek (Three Cent Placer), 

the effects under Alternative 4 would be non-measureable at the stream and subwatershed scale 

and therefore would not prevent the attainment of the RMOs. Together with discussions in 

Chapter 3 in the Watershed and Soils Resources section regarding compliance with INFISH

MM-1 and MM-2 and monitoring requirements in Appendix 2 (General Requirements) that 

address MM-6, Alternative 4 continues to comply with Forest Plan. 

Redband Trout – R6 Sensitive Species

The information contained in the Fisheries section above supports the 2004 FEIS determination 

that while Alternative 4 may impact individual redband trout or habitat, but will not likely 

contribute to a trend towards federal listing or loss of viability to the population. Impacts are 

expected to be minimal as a result of the implementation of Water Quality Protections Measures 

(Appendix 1A) and General Requirements (Appendix 2) that ensure the protection of both water 

quality and fish habitat (see discussions in the Watershed and Soils Resources section in Chapter 

3). 

Noxious Weeds

In Chapter III of the noxious weed section of the 2004 FEIS, the WW-Noxious Weed 

Management Plan (1992) was referenced. This reference has been replaced with the Region 6 

2005 Preventing and Managing Invasive Plants EIS and ROD.

The District Weed Coordinator has reviewed the updated weed locations within the North Fork 

project area. After review of the information, he notes there are 43 sites that have been 

inventoried since the original document was completed. Of these 43 new sites, only 9 are 

located within or adjacent to a claim where mining activities are proposed. With this small 

change to the condition of invasive species within the project area, there is no expected change to 

the effects identified in the original analysis. The effects and mitigations are still within the 

scope and range of those identified in the 2004 document, and the application of proposed 

mitigations and prevention measures would be appropriate to curtail the introduction and spread 

of invasive species.

It is anticipated that designation of roads, trails and areas for motorized use under TMP will limit 

cross-country travel within the project area. This would limit off-road travel in most locations in 

the watershed, further preventing the spread of noxious weeds.
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Appendix 12

A12-17

Wildlife Habitat 

Proposed, Endangered, Threatened, and Sensitive Species (PETS)

Gray Wolf

The following is new information since the 2004 FEIS.

Two known wolf packs in northeastern Oregon are currently being monitored by the Oregon 

Department of Fish and Wildlife. The Imnaha pack (approximately 15 miles east of Joseph, 

Oregon) was first confirmed as breeding in 2009, however, the pack likely produced pups in 

2008 because the pack contained five adult-sized wolves in 2009. In the fall of 2009, five adults 

and five pups were observed in this pack. As of March 1, 2011 this pack contained 14 wolves, 

six of which are radio-collared. The Wenaha pack is centered approximately 20 miles west of 

Troy, Oregon and contains an estimated four adult wolves and two pups as of August, 2010. 

(http://www.dfw.state.or.us/news/2010).

Primary management concerns for the WWNF are 1) disturbance to denning wolves or 

rendezvous sites when pack numbers are low, and 2) providing adequate habitat for populations 

of prey species such as elk. While no wolves have been documented within the NFBR 

watershed (project area), there is potential for wolves to pass through the project area. However, 

the presence of a major interstate highway (Oregon State Highway 7) dissecting the project area 

makes this area marginal wolf habitat. 

Direct/Indirect, and Cumulative Effects of all alternatives - The direct/indirect and 

cumulative effects analysis for gray wolves includes the NFBR watershed during the time of 

mining activities (late spring, summer, and early fall) for the 10-year period of the approved 

Plans of Operations. Gray wolves are habitat generalists and the project area would continue to 

provide marginal habitat. Wolves are known to avoid densely roaded areas, choose areas free of 

human disturbance for denning and rendezvous sites, and therefore would be expected to avoid 

the project area during breeding. There are no known denning or rendezvous sites on or in the 

immediate vicinity of the project area. Effects of the proposed project would have no direct 

negative impacts on wolves, wolf habitat, or potential habitat, and would therefore have no 

cumulative effects. 

Determination for all alternatives - There would be no effects to the gray wolf from this 

project because: 1) no denning or rendezvous sites have been identified within the project area, 

and 2) prey species will not be negatively affected by proposed activities, therefore it can be 

determined that the proposed project would have No Impact (NI) to the gray wolf. 

Wolverine

The following is new information since the 2004 FEIS.

Prior to 1973, wolverines were classified as furbearers in Oregon. They are now considered rare 

throughout all of Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and California, but occur state-wide in Oregon in 

mountainous regions, especially in high elevation timbered portions of the Cascade Range, Blue, 

Wallowa, and Ochoco mountains. There are no known records of wolverines in the project area 

and they are not suspected to occur. They are present in the Eagle Cap Wilderness and possibly 

pass through the project area, but the project area represents the very periphery of suitable 
Appendix 12 NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

A12-18

habitat. The project area is not part of a contiguous tract of undisturbed subalpine or alpine 

forest, which wolverine prefer. Development, including a network of Forest Service roads, 

compromises the ability of the area to attract or support wolverines. They would likely avoid the 

area because of the high level of public use and disturbance.

Direct/indirect and cumulative effects of all alternatives - No direct or indirect effects are 

expected to result from any of the alternatives because there are no known records of wolverines 

in the project area and they are not suspected to occur. Wolverines will use most types of 

habitat, but require sufficient prey and security from disturbance. The wolverine may 

periodically pass through portions of the project area, but the project area represents very little 

habitat and represents the periphery of suitable habitat. 

The scale, duration and nature of this project would not change the potential of this area to 

provide habitat; potential would remain low whether or not this project is implemented. 

Important habitat features such as travel corridors, rocky outcrops, and talus slopes would not be 

affected by the mining activities. Wolverines are known to avoid heavily roaded areas and no 

alternatives would increase open road densities. The 3200 feet of proposed mine access roads 

and closed roads used by miners would not impact wolverine habitat, because they would be 

constructed in areas which are not typically used as travel corridors or denning habitat by 

wolverine. Habitat for prey species such as ungulates and small mammals would also be 

retained. Since there would be no direct or indirect effects to wolverine, there would be no 

cumulative effects to wolverine and their habitat from the project activities.

Determination for all alternatives – All project alternatives are expected to have No Impact 

(NI) to wolverine habitat. 

Management Indicator Species

Northern Goshawk

Replace this section of the 2004 FEIS with the following.

The northern goshawk is a Management Indicator Species (MIS) that has historically occurred 

within the NFBR Watershed. Goshawks utilize a variety of mature forest types. Dense overhead 

foliage or a high degree of canopy cover created by tall trees is typical of nesting habitat.

Goshawks are predators of forest birds and mammals. Their foraging habitat has a relatively 

open tree understory and large overstory trees. The majority of the important prey species reside 

mainly on the ground and in the lower portions of the tree canopy. Therefore, much of the 

goshawk’s hunting activity (prey searching and pursuit) is oriented towards these forest layers. 

Large trees are used for hunting perches and the openness for detection and capture of prey. 

These forest types have well developed herbaceous and shrubby understories. 

The goshawk uses large diameter green trees, especially those close to water, for nest sites. They 

use down logs as places to pluck their prey before carrying it to the nest. Prey species important 

to goshawk depend on the snags, down logs, and vegetative layering found within old-growth 

forest for habitat (Reynolds, et al., 1991).
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Appendix 12

A12-19

Past surveys (pre-2004) have found several goshawk nests/territories within the NFBR 

watershed. However, in June 2012 the district wildlife biologist surveyed the four mining sites 

within 1⁄2 mile of known historic nest sites (Gopher Placer, Lucky One Placer/Lode, Monarch 

Lode, and Silver Bell Placer) and found no active sites. 

The direct/indirect and cumulative effects analysis for Northern goshawk includes the NFBR 

watershed during the time of mining activities (late spring, summer, and early fall) for the 10-

year period of the approved Plans of Operations. Because no active nests were found in areas 

where historic nests were reported, no impacts to Northern goshawk are expected to occur from 

the proposed mining activities. 

A viability assessment for northern goshawk was completed in 2011, and found that this species 

currently exists at viable levels on the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest. The assessment 

considered available data and the Draft Northern Goshawk Management Indicator Assessment 

(USDA 2011c). None of the sources indicated a concern over population viability for goshawks. 

In the case of NFBR Mining proposed activities, the scale, nature, and duration of effects to 

goshawk habitat is not sufficient to affect population viability. 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 (Chapter 2, Monitoring). This would further 

reduce the potential negative effects of mining activities to northern goshawks.

Appendix 2, General Requirements, includes parameters that allow removal of trees, including 

snags, by operators (Requirement G9). Any trees, snags, or down woody material that need to be 

removed would be stockpiled on-site, and would be put on-site during reclamation. If snags over 

12” dbh are removed, a new snag will be created in the same area. A review of the existing plans 

found that most (37 of 39) projects (2004 FEIS, Chapter III, p. 119), have requirements to protect 

existing snag and down woody material. Mining project plans are site-specific and designed with 

mitigations that adjust for safety while maintaining and preserving wildlife characteristics. Those 

projects that do not have existing requirements to protect trees or down woody material 

(Ladder/Rusty Bucket Placer and Monarch Lode), and where larger trees may be removed, could 

decrease these habitat components in the project areas. Due to the small scale of these two 

project areas (total 4 acres of disturbance) effects would be immeasurable at the subwatershed, 

watershed, and Forest scale. 

In addition, a new monitoring measure designed to protect any newly discovered goshawk nests 

has been added in this Supplement to the General Requirements (Appendix 2, G-25). G-25 

addresses the steps to be taken if a new active goshawk nest is discovered after a Plan of 

Operation is approved.

In conclusion, current mining operations are functioning at a maintenance level and are guided 

by established mitigation measures, and standards and guidelines. None of the ongoing or 

proposed mining projects, either by themselves, or cumulatively, are expected to degrade the 

environmental baseline conditions for goshawk. Therefore, no cumulative effects to goshawk 

would result from the project activities, and the overall effects would be neutral with respect to 

population viability at the Forest level. Because goshawk habitat occurs within the project area, 

the determination for all alternatives is “may impact individuals or habitat, but will not likely 

contribute to a trend towards federal listing.”
Appendix 12 NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

A12-20

Pileated Woodpecker 

This is a new section not included in the 2004 FEIS.

An assessment of effects to pileated woodpecker viability found that this species currently exists 

at viable levels on the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest (2011d.). The assessment considered 

existing and available data, and the Draft Pileated Woodpecker Management Indicator 

Assessment. None of the sources indicated a concern over population viability. In the case of 

NFBR Mining Projects, the scale, nature, and duration of effects to pileated woodpecker habitat 

is not sufficient to affect population viability at the Forest Level because they do not alter or 

convert habitat. 

Although the FEIS indicates, “no pileated woodpeckers were discovered during the course of 

initial field surveys”, there is a chance that pileateds occupy habitat surrounding mining sites. 

Because initial disturbance and project set up has already occurred, and the fact that mining 

projects are operating at a maintenance level, continued operation of existing mining projects, 

and those additional proposed projects discussed in the 2004 FEIS and this Supplement for all 

alternatives, either by themselves, or cumulatively, are not expected to degrade the 

environmental baseline condition for pileated woodpeckers. Therefore, the overall effects would 

be neutral with respect to population viability at the Forest level.

American Marten 

This is a new section not included in the 2004 FEIS.

An assessment of effects to American marten (marten) viability found that this species currently 

exists at viable levels on the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest (2011a.) The assessment 

considered existing and available data, and the Draft American Marten Management Indicator 

Assessment. None of the sources indicated a concern over population viability. In the case of 

NFBR Mining, the scale and duration of effects to marten habitat is not sufficient to affect 

population viability at the Forest Level because it does not alter or convert habitat. 

As discussed in the Draft MIS Assessment, suitable environments are broadly distributed within 

the elevational range and forest types typical of marten habitat at the Forest level. However, 

there are gaps where suitable environments are absent or only present in low abundance. These 

disjunct areas of suitable environments are typically large enough and close enough to permit 

dispersal among subpopulations and to allow the species to potentially interact as a 

metapopulation. 

Although some mining projects exist in or partially within typical marten habitat (MA 15), no 

marten were discovered during the course of field surveys. The 2004 FEIS indicates that a 

limited number of winter surveys were conducted in the NFBR Watershed with evidence that 

suggests seasonal marten occupation does occur in and around California Gulch (1998) and 

Snow Creek (1992). However, because current mining operations are functioning at a 

maintenance level and are guided by established mitigation measures, and standards and 

guidelines, none of the ongoing or proposed mining projects, under all alternatives, either by 

themselves, or cumulatively, are expected to degrade the environmental baseline conditions for 

American marten. Therefore, the overall effects would be neutral with respect to population 

viability at the Forest level. 
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Appendix 12

A12-21

Primary Cavity Excavators 

This is a new section not included in the 2004 FEIS.

The 2004 FEIS indicates that danger trees may be removed, including snags, by operators. A 

review of the 2004 FEIS and existing Plans found that projects do have requirements to protect 

existing snags and down woody material. This would maintain these habitat components in 

project areas across the watershed. Those projects that do not have existing requirements to 

protect trees (Ladder/Rusty Bucket Placer and Monarch Lode), and where larger trees could be 

removed, may decrease these habitat components in the project areas. Because there are only two 

projects (areas totaling 4 acres of disturbance) effects would be immeasurable at the 

subwatershed, watershed, and Forest scale. 

The standing and down wood density in the NFBR Watershed has not been calculated. It is 

likely that the amount and distribution of these habitat components are reduced from presettlement times (USDA 1995). This is due to timber harvest and fuelwood cutting, as both 

practices have targeted the larger trees, either live or dead. The Unity District has created snags 

in the NFBR Watershed to mitigate the loss of snags due to timber harvest.

In relation to associated mining mitigations and parameters, the Primary Cavity Excavator FactSheet (Mellen-McLean 2011), indicates that forest plan revisions for this category use the 

Historic Range of Variability (HRV) to assess the likelihood of maintaining viable species 

populations. By managing to HRV, it is assumed that adequate habitat will be provided and 

available to sustain and promote species that were able to tolerate and adapt to these levels in the 

past.

Because mining operations are functioning at operation and maintenance levels and are guided 

by established mitigation measures, standards, and guidelines, none of the ongoing or proposed 

mining projects, under all alternatives, either by themselves, or cumulatively, are expected to 

degrade the environmental baseline conditions for primary cavity excavators. Therefore, the 

overall project effects would be neutral with respect to population viability at the Forest level. 

Effects to the above species are summarized below in Table 12-13. 

Table 12-13

PETS Species Summary of Effects

Speciescommon 

name

SpeciesLatin nameClassification Habitat 

Present in 

Project 

Area

Effects 

Determination*

Rationale

Gray wolf Canis lupus threatened Yes No Effect No effect to denning 

habitat or prey populations

Northern 

bald eagle

Haliaeetus 

leucocephalus

threatened No No Effect No nest sites or forage 

areas within the analysis 

area

Canada lynx Lynx canadensis threatened Yes No effect No areas of mapped 

denning or foraging 

habitat affected

Yellowbilled cuckooCoccyzus 

americanus

candidate No No effect No suitable habitat in 

analysis area
Appendix 12 NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

A12-22

Speciescommon 

name

SpeciesLatin nameClassification Habitat 

Present in 

Project 

Area

Effects 

Determination*

Rationale

Columbia 

spotted frog

Rana luteiventris sensitive/

candidate

Yes MIIH INFISH RMOs, S&Gs

LRMP S&Gs

Peregrine 

falcon

Falco peregrinus 

anatum

sensitive Yes, not 

occupied

No Impact Limited habitat, no 

extensive cliff faces 

suitable for nesting.

California 

wolverine

Gulo gulo sensitive Yes MIIH Disturbance of transient 

individuals by activity

Spotted bat Euderma 

maculatum

sensitive Yes MIIH Some areas of limited 

habitat exist adjacent to 

some individual project 

areas, but won’t be 

affected by proposals

Pacific fisher Martes pennati sensitive Marginal No impact Highly unlikely to be in 

analysis area; too dry and 

low to mid-elevation old 

forest has been extensively 

logged. No reports in last 

15 years. 

Rocky 

Mountain 

bighorn 

sheep

Ovis canadensis 

canadensis

sensitive No No Impact No Habitat

Horned 

grebe

Podiceps auritus sensitive No No Impact No Habitat

Bufflehead Bucephala 

albeola

sensitive No No Impact No Habitat

Columbia 

sharp-tailed 

grouse

Tymphanuchus 

phasieanellus 

columbianis

sensitive No No Impact No Habitat

Greater 

yellowlegs

Tringa 

melanoleuca

sensitive No No Impact No Habitat

Gray

flycatcher

Empidonax 

wrightii

sensitive Yes No impact Very limited impacts to 

open woodland, pinon, 

juniper of sagebrush 

habitats.

Bobolink Dolichornyx 

oryzivorus

sensitive No No Impact No Habitat

Northern 

leopard frog

Rana pipiens sensitive marginal No Impact Extensive surveys found 

no evidence of this species

Painted turtle Chrysemys picta sensitive No No Impact No Habitat

Upland 

sandpiper

Bartramia 

longicauda

sensitive No No Impact No Habitat

Tri-colored 

blackbird

Agelaius tricolor sensitive No No Impact No Habitat

* more rationale is provided in the above sections for each species. 

MIIH: May impact individuals or habitat, but will not likely contribute to a trend towards Federal listing or cause a 

loss of viability to the population or species.

INFISH RMOs: Inland Native Fish Strategy Riparian Management Objectives

LRMP S&Gs: Wallowa-Whitman Land and Resource Management Plan Standards and Guidelines
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Appendix 12

A12-23

Effects determinations are summarized based on species presence, historical records, site 

surveys, habitat availability, and effects of currently approved and proposed activities within 

each project area. Unless otherwise noted, effects determinations remain consistent with the 

scope and range of effects considered in the original analysis. 

Botany

Plant Presence

Replace sections b.1 and b.2 in Chapter III, p. 144 in the 2004 FEIS with the following updated 

information. Section b.3 is unchanged.

According to a pre-field review, there are no populations of federally listed threatened, 

endangered, or proposed plant species within the North Fork Burnt River Watershed 

(1705020283 – 2004 subwatershed number), or the Whitman Ranger District. Three Pacific 

Northwest Region sensitive plant species are documented at seven locations within the North 

Fork Burnt River Watershed. Botany surveys and an existing condition and effects summary for 

each Plan of Operations in the 2004 FEIS are available in the analysis file.

Federally Listed Threatened, Endangered, or Proposed Plant Species

There is no habitat within the project area for Mirabilis macfarlanei or Silene spaldingii, two 

threatened species that inhabit the northern portion of the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest. A 

list of endangered, threatened and proposed species that may occur in the county where the 

action is planned was obtained via the Internet February 3, 2012 

(http://www.fws.gov/oregonfwo/Species/Lists/RequestList.asp). 

The species list fulfills the requirement of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under section 7(c) 

of the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) to provide a 

list of threatened and endangered species upon request for federal actions and National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance. The document, “Federally Listed, Proposed, 

Candidate Species and Species of Concern under the Jurisdiction of the Fish and Wildlife 

Service Which May Occur within Baker County, Oregon” lists one threatened plant species, 

Thelypodium howellii ssp. spectabilis, known to inhabit Baker County. Thelypodium howellii 

ssp. spectabilis inhabits relatively moist, alkaline meadows on the floor of the Powder River 

valley. Baker County populations occur on private and county lands near North Powder, Haines 

and Baker City (USFWS 2002). The nearest populations of Thelypodium howellii ssp. spectabilis

are approximately 20 miles northeast of the project area, west of the Elkhorn Mountains. Suitable 

habitat for the plant does not exist on national forest system lands in the North Fork Burnt River 

watershed. Because there is no Howell’s spectacular thelypody habitat or plants in the analysis 

area, this project would have no effect to this federally threatened plant species.

Region Six Sensitive Plant Species

A summary list of the December 9, 2012 Pacific Northwest Region sensitive plants and 

documented occurrences for the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest, Whitman Ranger District, 
Appendix 12 NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

A12-24

North Fork Burnt River Watershed, and the NFBR mining analysis area is available in the 

analysis file. 

There are seven documented locations for three Pacific Northwest Region sensitive plant species 

within the perimeter of North Fork Burnt River watershed analysis area. 

Botrychium montanum – This riparian-associated species occurs along China Creek, near the 

Baker/Grant County line. No mining operations occur at this location. The closest project 

operations are located one to two miles away from this site.

Eleocharis bolanderi – This is a small, sedge-like plant that inhabits moist-dry meadows. Five 

sites are known to occur in the project analysis area. However, none of the sites are located near 

project operations. 

Pellaea bridgesii - This evergreen species occurs at one location in the Greenhorn area, near the 

Baker/Grant County line. No mining operations occur at this location. The closest project 

operations are four to six miles away from this site. 

Suitable habitat for some sensitive species may occur within the analysis area, primarily within 

riparian areas (Botany Habitat Group I). Less suitable habitat within the other two botany habitat 

groups (Group II – Upland Coniferous Forest; and Group III - Upland, non-forested) also occurs 

within the analysis area. The following table disclose species with suitable habitat in the analysis 

area (Table 12-14).

Table 12-14

Sensitive Plant Species and Suitability of Habitat

GROUP 1 – RIPARIAN (includes streams, springs, seeps and meadows)

R-6 Sensitive Species

(species in bold print are 

documented for the Whitman 

RD)

Possible Habitat within Project Area

Suitability

of

Habitat 

Botrychium ascendens,

B. crenulatum, B. lunaria, B. 

montanum, B. pedunculosum, 

Seeps, springs, moist meadows, and riparian zones; Moderate 

elevation 

Moderate -

High

Carex idahoa Meadows, swales and moist, low ground around streams, lakes 

and prairies, and high plains extending upward to moderate 

elevation in the mountains.

Moderate

Eleocharis bolanderi Swales, moist-dry meadows High

Listera borealis Moist forest, riparian areas; Moderate elevations. Low

Phacelia minutissima Vernally wet seeps, meadow edges, playas; Aspen; moderate 

elevations.

Low to 

Moderate

Plantanthera obtusata

(= Habenaria obtusata)

Bogs, coniferous swamps, rotting logs; Moderate to high 

elevations.

Low to none

Pleuropogon oregonus Riparian areas, wet meadows, sage; moderate elevations. Low

Rorippa columbiae Moist, sandy soil, Ponderosa pine; low to moderate elevations. Low

Suksdorfia violacea Moist, mossy cliffs, wet talus slopes; Low to moderate 

elevations.

Low to none
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Appendix 12

A12-25

GROUP II – UPLAND (Coniferous) FOREST

R-6 Sensitive Species

(species in bold print are 

documented for the 

Whitman RD)

Possible Habitat within Project Area

Suitability

of

Habitat 

Carex cordillerana Moist, often shady places, woods or thickets, lowland to moderate 

elevation in mountains.

Moderate

Cypripedium fasciculatum Moderately dense coniferous forests; Low to moderately high 

elevations.

Low

Listera borealis Moist forest, riparian areas; Moderate elevations. Low

Lycopodium complanatum Coniferous forest, rotting logs/deep duff; Moderate elevations. Low

Phacelia minutisiima Vernally wet seeps, meadow edges, playas, moderate elevations. Moderate

Pinus albicaulis Subalpine; ridges, ridge shoulders, upper slopes, upper reach of 

timberline

High

Phlox multiflora Basalt cliffs, rocky outcrops; moderate elevations. Low

Rorippa columbiae Moist, sandy soil, Ponderosa pine; low to moderate elevations. Low

Trifolium douglasii Moist to dry meadows, streams; moderate elevations. Low 

GROUP III – UPLAND, Non - forested (Including rock outcrops and talus)

R-6 Sensitive Species

(species in bold print are 

documented for the 

Whitman RD)

Possible Habitat within Project Area

Suitability

of

Habitat 

Achnatherum wallowensis Basalt scabland; lithosols; in PIPO or steppe; South to southwest; 

Moderate elevations.

Low 

Arabis hastatula Gravelly basalt, shale slopes, rimrocks; East slope; Moderate 

elevations

Low to 

none

Calochortus macrocarpus

 var. maculosus

Dry hills, loose soils; Low to moderate elevations. Low

Carex cordillerana Moist, often shady places, woods or thickets, lowland to moderate 

elevation in mountains.

Moderate

Castilleja flava var. rustica Subalpine sagebrush steppe, rocky slopes Moderate

Geum rossii var. 

turbinatum

Granitic rock outcrops, subalpine. Moderate

Pellaea bridgesii Talus slopes, ridges, argillite and granite rocks; moderate to high 

elevations.

Moderate

Phlox multiflora Basalt cliffs, rocky outcrops; moderate elevations. Low

Suksdorfia violacea Moist, mossy cliffs, wet talus slopes; Low to moderate elevations. Low to 

none

Thelypodium eucosumum Springs, seeps, vernally wet swales; moderate to high elevations. Low

Cumulative Effects for Botany

The foreseeable future WWNF Travel Management Plan (TMP) is the only new project in this 

area. Implementation of TMP would limit off-road travel in most locations in the watershed, 

further preventing displacement and death of unknown sensitive plants and soil compaction.
Appendix 12 NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

A12-26

Heritage Resources

Heritage resource monitoring has been added as a new General Requirement (Appendix 2, G26). 

This is new since the 2004 FEIS.

Rangeland Management

No change from 2004 FEIS except replace the numbers, seaon of use, and pasture rotation 

information listed for each allotment in Chapter III, pgs. 159-165 with the following updated 

information: 

The Camp Creek allotment is now vacant, and permitted livestock numbers have reduced from 

2,310 head to 1,382 head since 2004 for all allotments in the NFBR watershed.

Since 2004, Allotment Management Plans were authorized for approval under the NEPA process 

for the following allotments: Alder Springs, China Creek, Cree, Whitney, Snow Creek, Hale and 

Elmwood. Their information is provided below in Tables 12-15A - L.

Table 12-15A: Alder Springs

PERMITTED LIVESTOCK

Permittee: Loverin Ranch Permit Type: Term Grazing_ 

Number: 185 Season of Use 6/1 - 10/15

Permittee: A.C. Fletcher Trust Permit Type: Term Grazing

Number: 100 Season of Use 6/15 - 10/31

Permittee: Kenneth K. & Nancy L. Taylor Permit Type: Term Grazing

Number: 72 Season of Use 6/1 - 10/15

AUTHORIZED LIVESTOCK

Permittee: Loverin Ranch Permit Type: Term Grazing_ 

Number: 185 Season of Use 6/1 - 10/15

Permittee: A.C. Fletcher Trust Permit Type: Term Grazing

Number: 100 Season of Use 6/1 - 10/15

Permittee: Kenneth K. & Nancy L. Taylor Permit Type: Term Grazing

Number: 72 Season of Use 6/1 - 10/15

SYSTEM: Deferred Rotation
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Appendix 12

A12-27

ALDER

SPRINGS

Year First Crk

SWS 83D

Trout Crk

SWS 83D

Middle/Jnpr

SWS 83D

Whitney

SWS 83D/F

1 06/01-07/1 07/1-8/15 10/1-10/15 8/15-9/30

2 6/1-7/1 7/1-8/15 10/1-10/15 8/15-9/30

3 06/01-08/15 8/15-9/30 10/1-10/15 6/1-8/15

Table 12-15B: Camp Creek

PERMITTED LIVESTOCK

Permittee: none Permit Type: vacant

Number: 0 Season of Use: rest

SYSTEM: Deferred Rotation

Table 12-15C: China Creek

PERMITTED LIVESTOCK

Permittee: Rock Rim Ranch Permit Type: Term Grazing

Number: 94 Season of Use 6/15- 9/30

Number: 4 Season of Use 6/15- 9/30 (BLM 

Permit)

SYSTEM: Deferred Rotation 

CHINA CREEK

Year Cottonwood

SWS 83B

Sunflower

SWS 83B

1 8/1-9/30 6/15/7/31

2 06/15-07/31 08/01-09/30

3 7/1-8/31 9/1-10/15

Table 12-15D: Cree

PERMITTED LIVESTOCK

Permittee: Bernard & Colleen Hutcheon Permit Type: ON - OFF

Number: 4 Season of Use 5/21-10/20

SYSTEM: Rotation w/Private Land (one FS pasture) – SWS 83D
Appendix 12 NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

A12-28

Table 12-15E: Elmwood

PERMITTED LIVESTOCK

Permittee: Elmwood Ranch, Inc. Permit Type: ON - OFF

Number: 4 Season of Use: 6/01-10/31

SYSTEM: Rotation w/Private Land (one FS pasture) – SWS 83E

Table 12-15F: Hale

PERMITTED LIVESTOCK

Permittee: Randy Dunbar, Michelle Dunbar Permit Type: ON/OFF

Number: 8 Season of Use: 6/1 to 10/31

SYSTEM: Rotation w/Private Land (one FS pasture) – SWS 83F

Table 12-15G: North Burnt River

PERMITTED LIVESTOCK

Permittee: Bernard & Colleen Hutcheon Permit Type: Term Grazing

Number: 53 Season of Use 6/1 - 9/30

Permit Type: BLM

Number: 1 Season of Use 6/1 - 9/30

AUTHORIZED LIVESTOCK

Permittee: Bernard & Colleen Hutcheon Permit Type: Term Grazing

Number: 111 Season of Use 6/1 - 9/30

SYSTEM: Hybrid- Rest/Deferred Rotation

NORTH BURNT 

RIVER

Year River

SWS 83C/D

Sheep Creek

SWS 83C

North Fork

SWS 83C

Patrick

SWS 83E

1 6/1-7/1 Rest 7/2-8/1 8/2-9/30

2 6/5-7/1 Rest 7/2-8/1 8/2-9/30

3 6/15-7/1 9/1-9/30 8/2-9/1 7/2-8/2
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Appendix 12

A12-29

Table 12- 15H: North Fork Burnt River

PERMITTED LIVESTOCK

Permittee: Bonnie Clugston Permit Type: ON - OFF

Number: 2 Season of Use: 5/15- 8/15

SYSTEM: Rotation w/Private Land (one FS pasture)

Table 12-15I: Snow Creek

PERMITTED LIVESTOCK

Permittee: Morin Trust Permit Type: Term Grazing

Number: 84 Season of Use: 6/1- 9/30

Permittee: Trimble Ranch Permit Type: Term Grazing

Number: 106 Season of Use: 6/15- 9/30

Permittee: Waynette Morin and John Belveal Permit Type: Term Grazing

Number: 50 Season of Use: 6/1- 9/30 

AUTHORIZED LIVESTOCK

Permittee: Morin Trust Permit Type: Term Grazing

Number: 84 Season of Use: 6/01- 9/30

Permittee: Trimble Ranch Permit Type: Term Grazing

Number: 106 Season of Use: 6/15- 9/30

Permittee: Waynette Morin and John Belveal Permit Type: Term Grazing

Number: 50 Season of Use: 6/1- 9/30 

SYSTEM: Deferred Rotation

SNOW CREEK

Year North Fork

SWS 83G

Greenhorn

SWS 83G

1 8/1-9/30 6/1-7/31

2 08/01-09/30 06/01-07/31
Appendix 12 NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

A12-30

Table 12-15J: South Burnt River

PERMITTED LIVESTOCK

Permittee: William T. Moore Permit Type: Temorary Grazing

Number: 225 Season of Use 7/01-9/30

AUTHORIZED LIVESTOCK

Permittee: William T. Moore Permit Type: Temporary Grazing

Number: 225 Season of Use 7/01-9/30

CURRENT SYSTEM: Season long

SOUTH BURNT 

RIVER

Year Middle Fork

SWS 83H

Sheep Creek

SWS 83H

All Rest 07/01-09/30

PLANNED SYSTEM: Deferred rotation

SOUTH BURNT 

RIVER

Year Middle Fork

SWS 83H

Steep Creek

SWS 83H

South Fork 

SWS 83H

1 3rd 306.5 AMs 2nd 306.5 AMs 1st 306.5 AMs

2 1st 306.5 AMs 2nd 306.5 AMs 3rd 306.5 AMs

3 3rd 306.5 AMs 1st 306.5 AMs 2nd 306.5 AMs

Table 12-15K: Tater Knob

PERMITTED LIVESTOCK

Permittee: VACANT Permit Type: ON - OFF

Number: 0 Season of Use 5/01-9/30

SYSTEM: Rotation w/Private Land (one FS pasture) – SWS 83A

Table 12-15L: West Burnt River

PERMITTED LIVESTOCK

Permittee: William R. Tye Permit Type: Term Grazing

Number: 191 Season of Use: 6/1 - 9/30

 Permit Type: BLM

Number: 1 Season of Use: 6/1 - 9/30
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Appendix 12

A12-31

SYSTEM: Deferred Rotation

WEST BURNT 

RIVER

Year Dooley

SWS 83A/B

Busby

SWS 83B

Sisters

SWS 83B

1 5/23-8/30 5/23-8/30 8/30-09/30

2 5/23-8/30 5/23-8/30 8/30-09/30

3 5/23-8/30 5/23-8/30 8/30-09/30

Table 12-15L: Whitney

PERMITTED LIVESTOCK

Permittee: Tim and Jeanette Hueckman Permit Type: ON - OFF

Number: 4 Season of Use 6/15-10/31

SYSTEM: Rotation w/Private Land – SWS 83D/E/F

Additional Disclosures

1. Consultation with Indian Tribes/Protection of Treaty Resources

Replace the first paragraph and the first sentence of the second paragraph of this section of the 

2004 FEIS, Chapter III, pg. 186, with the following.

The Forest Service, through the Secretary of Agriculture, is vested with statutory authority and 

responsibility for managing resources of the National Forests. Commensurate with the authority 

and responsibility to manage is the obligation to consult, cooperate, and coordinate with Indian 

tribes in developing and planning management decisions regarding resources on National Forest 

system land that may affect tribal rights.

The NFBR Mining project planning area lies within the interest areas of the Nez Perce Tribe and 

the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation (CTUIR).

Elements of respective Indian cultures, such as tribal welfare, land, and resources were 

sometimes entrusted to the United States government as a result of treaties. Trust responsibilities 

resulting from treaties dictate, in part, that the United States government facilitate the execution 

of treaty rights and traditional cultural practices of Indians by working with them on a 

government to government basis in a manner that attempts a reasonable accommodation of their 

needs, without compromising the legal positions of the respective tribes or the federal 

government. Specific treaty rights applicable to the land base managed by the WallowaWhitman National Forest are generally articulated in Article III of the 1855 Nez Perce Treaty, as 

follows:

“The exclusive right of taking fish in all the streams where running through or bordering said 

reservation is further secured to said Indians: as also the right of taking fish at all usual and 

accustomed places in common with citizens of the territory, and of erecting temporary buildings 
Appendix 12 NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

A12-32

for curing, together with the privilege or hunting, gathering roots and berries, and pasturing 

their horses and cattle upon open and unclaimed land.”

And as part of Article I of the 1855 Walla Walla, Cayuse, and Umatilla Treaty, as follows:

“Provided, also, That the exclusive right of taking fish in the streams running through and 

bordering said reservation is hereby secured to said Indians, and at all other usual and 

accustomed stations in common with citizens of the United states, and of erecting suitable 

buildings for curing the same; the privilege of hunting, gathering roots and berries and 

pasturing their stock on unclaimed lands in common with citizens, is also secured to them.” 

Tribal consultation efforts consisted of sending tribes the Schedule of Proposed actions, scoping 

letter, and DSEIS during the 45-day comment period, and reviewing the project at staff to staff 

and government to government meetings with CTUIR members (refer to Chapter 2, Public 

Involvement, for the specific dates of each meeting). No treaty resources were identified by any 

tribe as at risk, and no specific comments were received from the tribes for this supplemental 

analysis.

General concerns received from tribal staff members on previous projects reflect the following:

• Potential effects to archaeological and traditional properties and traditional food 

resources.

• Potential effects to water quality.

• Potential effects to fish habitat, including salmonid species federally listed as threatened 

or endangered under ESA.

• Potential effects to wildlife habitat, including elk security.

• Potential effects to economic recovery.

• Potential effects to treaty rights.

Because tribal trust activities often occur in common with the public, the Wallowa-Whitman 

National Forest will strive to manage tribal ceded land to enable the execution of tribal rights, as 

far as practicable, while still providing goods and services to all people.

2. Inventoried Roadless, Wilderness, Potential Wilderness, Research Natural 

Areas, Experimental Forests

This section of the 2004 FEIS, Chapter III, pg. 186, has been renamed to include potential 

wilderness areas.

None of these special designations occur within the analysis area. The analysis area is not 

adjacent to any of these special designations, therefore there would be no direct/indirect or 

cumulative effects from the alternatives on these areas.

More specifically, no potential wilderness areas have been identified in the analysis areas as 

none of the lands are consistent with the inventory criteria included in Forest Service Handbook 

1909.12 Chapter 71. 

3. Preservation of American Antiquities Act of 1906

This is a new section not included in the 2004 FEIS.
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Appendix 12

A12-33

Operations within the boundaries of Plans of Operations in the North Fork Burnt River 

Watershed shall be conducted to prevent damage to historic monuments or objects of antiquity. 

The miner shall stop all operations and notify the Forest Service of any discovery of cultural 

resources.

Final Conclusions

The new and updated information provided in this appendix does not present a substantially 

different picture of the environmental consequences compared to the 2004 FEIS. None of the 

information was found to be significant, and would not lead to a change in purpose and need for 

this project. Therefore, no further environmental analysis or documentation (correction, 

supplement or revision to an environmental document) for this topic will be considered.
Appendix 12 NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

A12-34
Appendix 13

Agency Comment Letters

NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Appendix 13

A13-1
Appendix 13 NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

A13-2
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Appendix 13

A13-3
Appendix 13 NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

A13-4
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Appendix 13

A13-5
Appendix 13 NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

A13-6
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Appendix 13

A13-7
Appendix 13 NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

A13-8
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Appendix 13

A13-9
Appendix 13 NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

A13-10
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Appendix 13

A13-11
Appendix 13 NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

A13-12
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Appendix 13

A13-13
Appendix 13 NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

A13-14
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Appendix 13

A13-15
Appendix 13 NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

A13-16
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Appendix 13

A13-17
Appendix 13 NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

A13-18
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS Appendix 13

A13-19
Appendix 13 NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

A13-20
References

References NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

REF-1

References

Belt, G. H., O’Laughlin, J., and Merrill, T. (1992). Design of Forest Riparian Buffer Strips for 

the Protection of Water Quality. Analysis of Scientific Literature. Idaho Forest, Wildlife and 

Range Policy Analysis Group. University of Idaho. Report No. 8, 35 pp.

Bryan, K. (1927). “Channel erosion of the Rio Salado, Socorro County, New Mexico.”

U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 790: 17-19.

Bryan, K. (1928a). “Historic evidence on changes in the channel of Rio Puerco, a tributary of the 

Rio Grande in New Mexico.” Journal of Geology 36: 265-282.

Bryan, K. (1928b). “Change in plant associations by change in ground water level.” Ecology 9: 

474-478.

Burroughs, E. R. and King J. G. (1985). Reduction of soil erosion on forest roads. General 

Technical Report INT-264. Ogden, UT: USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 

21 pp. 

Cascade Earth Sciences letter, January 23, 2008. 

Cooke, R. U. and R. W. Reeves (1976). Arroyos and environmental change in the American 

Southwest. Oxford, Clarendon Press.

Cottam, W. P. and G. Stewart (1940). “Plant succession as a result of grazing and of meadow 

desiccation by erosion since settlement in 1862.” Journal of Forestry 38: 613-626.

Fouty, field measurements, project file – beaver dam water depths

Fouty, S. C. (2003). Current and historic stream channel response to changes in cattle and elk

grazing pressure and beaver activity. Ph.d. dissertation. University of Oregon, Department of 

Geography

Griffith, J. S. and Andrews, D. A. (1981). Effects of a small suction dredge on fishes and aquatic 

invertebrates in Idaho streams. North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 1, 21-28.

Harvey, B. C. (1986). Effects of suction gold dredging on fish and invertebrates in two 

California streams. 

Harvey, B. C. and Lisle, T. E. (1998). Effects of suction dredging on streams: a review and an 

evaluation strategy. North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 6, 401-409.

Harvey, B. C. and Lisle, T. E. (1999). Scour of Chinook Salmon redds on suction dredge 

tailings. North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 19, 613-617.

Herbert L Stewart, 82 IBLA 329 (1984), and United States v. 9,947. 71 Acres of Land, 220 F. 

Supp.328 (D.Nev.1963). 

Keller, E. A. (1971). Areal sorting of bed-load material: the hypothesis of velocity reversal. 

Geological Society of America Bulletin 82:753-756 as cited in: Harvey, B. C. and Lisle, T. E. 

(1998). Effects of suction dredging on streams: a review and an evaluation strategy. North 

American Journal of Fisheries Management, 6, 401-409.

Kennedy, R. (1997). Road Maintenance Frequency vs. Sediment Production. In FS Engineering 

Field Notes, December, pp. 11-15.
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS References

REF-2

Lusk, Rick, Baker County Water Master: per. comm. December 9, 2008 

Mellen-McLean, K. (2011). Fact-Sheet Information Sheet for Primary Cavity 

Nesters/Excavators, Pacific Northwest Region. Region 6. Portland, Oregon. 

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. www.deq.state.or.us/WQ/wqpermit/mining.htm, 

Nez Perce Treaty (1855).

Potyondy, J. P., Cole, G. F. and Megahan, W. F. (1991). A Procedure for Estimating Sediment 

Yields from Forested Watersheds in Proceedings of the Fifth Federal Interagency Sedimentation 

Conference. 

Quintela, J., BLM fisheries biologist, Baker Resource Area, pers. com., 4/18/08.

Robichaud, P. R., Beyers, J. L. and Neary D. G. (2000). Evaluating the effectiveness of postfire 

rehabilitation treatments. USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station, GTR – 63. 

Rogers, R. D. and Schumm, S. A. (1991). The effect of sparse vegetation cover on erosion and 

sediment yield. Journal of Hydrology, 123: pp. 19-24

Rowland, M. M., M. J. Wisdom, B. K. Johnson, and M. A. Penninger (2005). Effects of Roads 

on Elk: Implications for Management in Forested Ecosystems. Pages 42-52 in Wisdom, M. J., 

technical editor, The Starkey Project: a synthesis of long-term studies of elk and mule deer.

Reprinted from the 2004 Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources 

Conference, Alliance Communications Group, Lawrence, Kansas, USA.

Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974 

Schaffer, P. W. (1941). Beaver on trial, Soil Conservation Service.

Shankman, D. and T. B. Pugh (1992). “Discharge response to channelization of a coastal plain 

stream.” Wetlands 12(3): 157-162.

Somer, W. L. and Hassler, T. J. (1992). Effects of suction-dredge gold mining on benthic 

invertebrates in a northern California stream. North American Journal of Fisheries 

Management, 12, 244-252.

Taylor, Dana, Wallowa-Whitman National Forest, Forest engineer: pers. com. May 2, 2008

Thomas, J. W., D. A. Leckenby, M. Henjum, R. J. Pedersen, and L. D. Bryant (1988). Habitateffectiveness index for elk on Blue Mountain winter ranges. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-218. 

USDA, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. Portland, OR. 28 p.

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.

US Fish and Wildlife Service (2005). Biological Opinion for Bureau of Reclamation Operations 

and Maintenance in the Snake River Basin Above Brownlee Reservoir. Snake River Office, 

Boise, Idaho. 

US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS 2010). Bull trout Designated Critical Habitat, 

http://www.fws.gov/pacific/bulltrout/FinalCH2010.html#FinalCH)

US Fish and Wildlife Service (2012). Federally Listed, Proposed, Candidate Species and Species 

of Concern Under the Jurisdiction of the Fish and Wildlife Service For Baker County Oregon, 

http://www.fws.gov/oregonfwo/Species/Lists
References NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS

REF-3

USDA (1988). Wallowa-Whitman National Forest. Hauter, K. and Harkenrider, D. Watershed 

management practices guide for achieving soil and water objectives. 

USDA (1990). Land and Resource Management Plan. Wallowa-Whitman National Forest, 

Pacific Northwest Region. Portland, OR (including Final Environmental Impact Statement and 

Record of Decision).

USDA (1991). R1-R4 WATSED Water Yield and Sediment Yield Model. USDA Forest Service, 

Northern Region.

USDA/USDI (1995). Inland Native Fish Strategy Environmental Assessment. Intermountain, 

Northern and Pacific Northwest Regions.

USDA (1995). North Fork Burnt River Watershed Analysis Report. Wallowa-Whitman National 

Forest, Unity Ranger District.

USDA (2000). Unity Ranger District (now a part of Whitman Ranger District), WallowaWhitman National Forest. Bradford, C. M., and Fedora, M. North Fork Burnt River Watershed 

Analysis Cumulative Effects Addendum. 27 pp. 

USDA (2002), Unity Ranger District (now a part of Whitman Ranger District), WallowaWhitman National Forest “North Fork Burnt River Watershed Roads Analysis.” 40 pp.

USDA (2004). Final Environmental Impact Statement; North Fork Burnt River Mining. Unity 

Office of the Whitman Unit, Wallowa-Whitman National Forest. Baker County, Oregon. 

USDA (2005). Pacific Northwest Region 6, US Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Invasive Plant 

Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision.

USDA (2010a). Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Invasive plants Treatment Project final 

Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision.

USDA (2010b). Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement; North Fork Burnt River 

Mining. Whitman Ranger District, Wallowa-Whitman National Forest. Baker County, Oregon. 

USDA (2011a). Draft American Marten (Martes americana), Draft Management Indicator 

Species Assessment. Wallowa-Whitman National Forest. Baker City, Oregon. 

USDA (2011c). Draft Northern Goshawk (Accipiter gentilis), Management Indicator Species

Assessment. Wallowa-Whitman National Forest. Baker City, Oregon.

USDA (2011d). Draft Pileated Woodpecker (Dryocupus pileatus), Management Indicator 

Species Assessment. Wallowa-Whitman National Forest. Baker City, Oregon. 

USDA (2012). Final Environmental Impact Statement, Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

Travel Management Plan; Wallowa-Whitman National Forest, Baker City, Oregon.

van der Zweep, R. A. (1999). Sediment Yield Predictions, Appendix A. Tower Fire 

Environmental Impact Statement, Umatilla National Forest, Pendleton, OR. 5 pp.

Wemple, B. C. (1994). Hydrologic integration of forest roads with stream networks in two 

basins. Western Cascades, Oregon. Master’s thesis, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon.

Wemple, B. C., J. A. Jones, and G. E. Grant (1996). Hydrologic integration of forest roads with 

stream networks in two forested basins in the western Cascades of Oregon. Water Resources 

Bulletin, 32, 1195-1207.
NFBR Mining Final Supplemental EIS References

REF-4

Wisdom, Michael J.; Ager, Alan A.; Preisler, Haiganoush K.; Cimon, Norman J.; Johnson, Bruce 

K. (2004). Effects of off-road recreation on mule deer and elk.. In: Transactions of the 69th 

North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference: 531-550.

Wright, H. A., Churchill, F. M. and Stevens, W. C. (1982). Soil loss, runoff, and water quality

of seeded and unseeded steep watersheds following prescribed burning. Journal of Range 

Management 35 (3): 382 – 385.

www.deq.state.or.us/WQ/wqpermit/mining.htm Re: 700 PM permit

http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/assessment/rpt0406/search.asp