NFBR Mining Supplemental EIS Introduction 

1

Draft 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, and has been an 

active mining area since the 1860’s. Though placer mining peaked from 1863-1866, 

activity began to decline about 1890 as the richest placers were worked out. The placer 

mining activity, however, uncovered many rich veins, and lode mining began in earnest.

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 1980’s, many without expiration dates, and needed

reevaluation to address environmental and regulatory changes. Several new Plans were 

submitted in the early 2000’s, with some as amendments to current Plans. In response, 

the Forest Service initiated a watershed-scale analysis in 2001 to consider the 

approval/re-approval of 49 current, modified, or new Plans of Operations.

The North Fork Burnt River Mining Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) was 

published for this watershed-scale analysis and a Record of Decision (ROD) was signed 

by the Whitman District Ranger, WWNF, in April 2004. This ROD authorized actions set 

forth in Alternative 4 of the 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 (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 Court vacated the Forest Service’s approval of 33 Plans, 

enjoining the Forest Service from allowing mining operations in the NFBR pursuant to 
Introduction NFBR Mining Supplemental EIS

2

the April 2004 FEIS and ROD. This Supplement has been prepared to provide additional 

information and analysis to address the deficiencies identified by the District Court of 

Oregon. A new Record of Decision will be issued once a Final Supplement to the FEIS 

has been completed.

1.1 Court Findings

This section summarizes the findings of the District Court. The Court found the April 

2004 FEIS (FEIS) and Decision deficient because the Agency:

(1) 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 of a pollutant 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.” (Papak 2006, pp. 8-9)

(2) 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 of 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 Forest Service’s decision to allow new mining 

operations on 303(d)-listed streams arbitrary and capricious.” (Papak 2006, p. 

10)

(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. 
NFBR Mining Supplemental EIS Introduction 

3

“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.” (Papak 2006, p. 15)

(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.” (Papak 2006, p. 

16)

(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.” (Papak 2006, pp. 

17-18)

(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 

warranted 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.” (Papak 2006, p. 19)

1.2 Scope, Format, and Context of this Supplement

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

Mining FEIS. In accordance with 40 CFR 1502.9 (b) (3) and Forest Service Handbook

1909.15, it incorporates new information and provides clarification of a previous 

analysis. The Supplement’s scope has been defined and limited to the analyses needed to 

address the deficiencies identified by the District Court in Section 1.1. 

The format for the Supplement is the same as the FEIS. Some sections of the FEIS are 

supplemented; other sections are sufficient and remain unchanged. For each chapter, 

each section of the original FEIS is listed with an explanation about whether or not that 

section changed with the Supplement.

This is a Draft Supplement to the FEIS. It is available for comment for 45 days from the 

date of publication of the legal notice in the Baker City Herald. Comments received will 

be evaluated and considered in the development of a Final Supplement to the FEIS.
Introduction NFBR Mining Supplemental EIS

4

Once the Final Supplement is prepared, a new ROD (Record of Decision) will be issued

using the full project record including FEIS and the analyses documented in the Final 

Supplement; and because this ROD could include an amendment to the Forest Plan, the 

Responsible Official for the proposal has shifted from the Whitman District Ranger to the 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Supervisor. 

1.3 Specific Consultation, Coordination, and Analyses Pertinent to 

Addressing the Deficiencies Identified by the Court

Addressing the deficiencies identified by the District Court involved expanded 

coordination and consultation with the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality

(ODEQ), and required several new and specific analyses not done for the 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.

Consultation with the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality

The Court determined that the Forest Service failed to meet the intent of the Clean Water 

Act (CWA) in its 2004 NFBR mining decision. 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 of a pollutant. If a Plan has potential for 

a discharge, the Forest Service will consult and coordinate with ODEQ, to either: 

1) get a supplemental plan (36CFR 228.4(d)) from the operator that avoids a potential 

discharge, or

2) identify Best Management Practices (BMPs) that the Forest Service can impose on the 

approval of a Plan to avoid a potential discharge, or 

3) secure a 401 certificate of compliance from the operator/ODEQ prior to approval of 

the Plan. ODEQ determines compliance with the CWA. 

The FEIS did not include a determination of potential for discharge of each Plan being 

considered. This Supplement does (Appendix 1A).

Second, the mining area identified in the Plan of Operations is, by definition, a point 

source. Any discharge of a pollutant from this “area” arriving at a stream, whether by 

means of a channelized flow, sheet flow, or groundwater, necessitates either a change in 

the Plan to avoid the discharge or the acquiring of a 401 certification from the ODEQ 

prior to the Forest Service approving the Plan.
NFBR Mining Supplemental EIS Introduction 

5

Third, the General Water Pollution Control Facility Permits (600 Permit) issued by 

ODEQ pursuant to ORS 468B.050 are not intended to manage all potential discharges. 

These permits are issued to manage the operations waste management systems. These

permits include terms and conditions to regulate the handling of waste water. Having a 

600 permit for a proposed Plan of Operations does not address all potential discharges of 

pollutants. 

The Supplement, in consultation with ODEQ, includes a determination of potential 

discharge for each Plan of Operations being considered, and BMPs that would address 

any potential discharge.

Site-by-Site, Plan-by-Plan Evaluation and Determination of Potential Discharge of a 

Pollutant

The Court determined that the Forest Service should obtain a 401 certificate of 

compliance from the operators before approving Plans of Operations that had a potential 

for discharge. 

The FEIS did not include a determination on the potential for a discharge of a pollutant 

for each Plan. 

The Supplement includes a determination on the potential for a discharge of a pollutant 

for each Plan. A Forest Service hydrologist evaluated each of the 42 Plans in the field. 

Some Plans included multiple locations for a total of 66 mining operation sites. The 

proposed operation on each of the 66 sites was evaluated and a determination made on 

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

adit. 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.

Site-by-site, Plan-by-Plan Evaluation and Determination of ―Anti-degradation‖ of 

303d Listed Streams

The Court 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. 

The FEIS and original decision conditioned the approval of the individual Plans with a 

set of requirements, i.e. stream buffers and other measures (FEIS, Chapter II, pg. 20, 

Requirements for Plans of Operations Common to Alternatives 3 and 4). The FEIS did 

not, however, include a specific evaluation of whether the anti-degradation threshold for 

the 303d listed streams would be met. The FEIS requirements were intended to prevent a 

discharge of a pollutant 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.
Introduction NFBR Mining Supplemental EIS

6

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 

increase in sedimentation. These additional BMPs brought the Plans under Alternatives 3 

and 4 into compliance with Section 313 of the CWA. The analysis and findings are 

documented in Chapter 3, Soil and Watershed Section and Appendix 1A.

Selection of Buffer Widths for RHCA’s (Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas)

The Court 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 FEIS required and defined stream buffers in the approved Plans of Operations (FEIS 

Chapter 3, Pgs 33-34) to prevent a discharge of pollutants 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 mining sites (66) covered by the 42 Plans were visited 

by a 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 Appendix 1A and 2 of this Supplement and in Chapter 3, Watershed and 

Soil Resources section.

Evaluation of New Roads in RHCA’s (Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas)

The Court 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 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 FEIS did not 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 
NFBR Mining Supplemental EIS Introduction 

7

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 operator as needed for evaluation. Some 

roads were dropped by the operators. Appendix 8 of this Supplement describes the 

changes operators made to the road construction proposals in response to these inquiries. 

Additionally, the Forest Service 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. 

Evaluation of Settling Ponds in RHCA’s (Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas)

The court 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 FEIS evaluated pond construction proposed in the Plans (FEIS, Chapter II, Pgs. 12-

16), and disclosed the effects (FEIS, Chapter III, Pgs. 49, 85, 88, 90, 93, 98, and 122). 

The 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 operator as needed. In some cases, the 

operator dropped the proposed pond. Appendix 8 of this Supplement describes the 

changes made by the operators.

A Forest Service 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 Resource, and 

Appendix 5.

Evaluation of Open Road Densities

The Court determined that the Forest Service failed to demonstrate that it had 

adequately analyzed whether mining and private property access needs, administrative 
Introduction NFBR Mining Supplemental EIS

8

use and needs of other forest users are warranted exceptions to the open-road density 

guidelines.

In order to address the question of “warranted exceptions to the open-road density 

guidelines” it is important to understand how the open road densities were evaluated in 

the FEIS and Supplement.

The 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, as prescribed by the LRMP (LRMP p. 4-35). 

In addition, errors were found in the inventory of open, closed, and decommissioned 

roads used in the initial analysis. In particular, several miles of road already programmed 

for closure (i.e. the decisions had already been made), were not accurately accounted for. 

This means that 1) the open road densities did not reflect all previous closure decisions, 

and 2) some roads proposed for closure were already closed. This led to some double 

counting and a misrepresentation of the effects in the FEIS. 

The Supplement used updated GIS roads data to correct the errors in the FEIS. This 

resulted in substantially fewer roads prescribed for closure in the Supplement. The new 

open road densities found in Appendix 4 (Tables A4-4 and A4-5) of this Supplement 

reflect all previous closure decisions. Appendix 4 also compares open road densities 

from the 2004 FEIS with those provided in this Supplement. Appendix 9 provides a 

comparison of road management activities proposed in the FEIS with road management 

activities proposed in this Supplement. 

 

Additionally, open road densities by Management Area within Subwatersheds are now 

provided in the Supplement, but only to disclose information as prescribed the LRMP 

(Chapter 3, Wildlife Habitat). Open road densities are primarily critical to big game 

habitat and it has been determined that for the NFBR Watershed, measuring open road 

densities by Management Area is more meaningful relative to big game security (Chapter 

3, Wildlife Habitat).

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 (Chapter 2, and Appendix 4). 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.
NFBR Mining Supplemental EIS Introduction 

9

1.4 Other Specific Changes from FEIS

 

Clarifications, Modifications and Withdrawals of Proposed Plans of Operations 

Since the FEIS, several operators have withdrawn their proposed Plans, others have 

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

recognizes and incorporates them (Appendix 8), making changes in the description of 

Alternatives in Chapter 2 and the effects in Chapter 3, as warranted. Those Plans that 

were withdrawn by the operators, i.e. 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 operator without approval by the 

Forest Service. As part of the analysis for this Supplement, each of the proposed Plans of 

Operations were reviewed to determine which proposed mining activities, if any, were 

not likely cause a significant disturbance of surface resources and therefore be authorized 

by regulation. Three specific types of activities were identified: suction dredging, 

camping, and pick and shovel work. 

The detailed analysis for this determination is in Appendix 6 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 Chapter 3 under Cumulative Actions and their Effects within the NFBR 

Watershed Common to All Alternatives.

Impact of Roads on Water Quality 

For the FEIS, the impact(s) of roads on water quality was determined using two methods. 

For the Supplement, with its emphasis on determining whether the proposed Plans are in 

compliance with the CWA, these two methods and their findings were re-evaluated. The 

conclusion of this re-evaluation is that the impact of roads on water quality was not 

clearly displayed in the FEIS, leading to the appearance that roads were contributing 

large volumes of sediment to streams when in fact they were not. The revised findings are 

documented in Appendix 3. As a result, the effects in Chapter 3 of this Supplement have 

been revised to account for this change.

Suction Dredging

The FEIS did not include a detailed evaluation of the effects of suction dredging.

The Supplement includes a site-specific analysis of the direct, indirect and cumulative 

effects of suction dredging in Chapter 3, and Appendices 6, 7A and 7B.
Introduction NFBR Mining Supplemental EIS

10

1.5 Structure of the Supplement

Again, this Supplement includes only new or modified information from the FEIS. Any 

sections or text of the FEIS that remained unchanged are identified in a shaded box as 

“No change from FEIS”. Likewise, portions of the 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 FEIS. 
NFBR Mining Supplemental EIS Chapter 1 

11

CHAPTER 1

PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION

A. Document Structure________________________________

No change from FEIS.

B. Location of Project Area____________________________

No change from FEIS.

C. Background______________________________________

No change from FEIS.

D. Purpose and Need for Action________________________ 

Existing Condition

No change from FEIS except for deletion of the last paragraph of the “Existing 

Condition” in Chapter I, p. 6 of the FEIS. With the exception of Burnt Lode Placer,

suction dredging is not an activity authorized under this decision. Refer to Supplement 

Appendix 6 for the explanation of suction dredging in this watershed as a Notice of Intent 

level activity.

Desired Condition

No change from FEIS.

Purpose and Need

Add the following clarification to the end of the first paragraph of this section, Chapter I, 

p. 7 of the FEIS: 

However, the overall percentage of human-caused sediment being contributed from roads 

is small, because the majority of the sediment entering the streams is a result of stream 

bank and channel bed erosion. This is discussed in detail in Appendix 3 and in the 

Watershed and Soil Resources section of Chapter 3.
Chapter 1 NFBR Mining Supplemental EIS

12

E. Proposed Action

Replace this section of the FEIS with the following:

The proposed action is based on the plans as submitted by the operators. 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 of a pollutant 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 describes 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.

Five of the Plans from Alternative 1 are not included in this alternative because the 

operators did not indicate that they intended to continue their operation (Dream Chaser, 

Don Juan Lode/Placer, Lucky 7 Placer, Lucky John Placer, and Three Cent Lode). 

F. Decision Framework

Delete this section from the FEIS and replace with the following section “Decision to be 

Made”.

F1. Decision to be Made

This is a new section not included in the FEIS.

The Forest Supervisor of the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest is the responsible 

official for review, analysis, and selecting an alternative from the choices in this 

Supplement to the FEIS. The Forest Supervisor’s decision will be documented in a 

Record of Decision (ROD). In the ROD, the Forest Supervisor may decide to:

1) Authorize approval of Plans of Operations as supplemented, including Forest 

Service Water Quality Protection Measures (WQPMs) and General Requirements

and pending receipt of required 401 certifications where a potential discharge of 

pollutant has been identified by this analysis.

2) Approve Road Management Proposals included in Alternative 4.

3) Adopt a site-specific non-significant amendment to the Wallowa-Whitman 

National Forest’s Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) to change 

the open road density Guidelines to reflect a more appropriate scale for specific 

management areas within subwatershed of the North Fork Burnt River Mining 

planning area.
NFBR Mining Supplemental EIS Chapter 1 

13

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 will be required before the Plans of Operations are approved.

G. Laws, Regulations, Policies, and Plans

No change from FEIS.

H. Public Involvement

No change from FEIS.

H1. Public Involvement for Supplemental Analysis

This is a new section not included in the FEIS.

The Supplement was listed in the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Schedule of 

Proposed Actions (SOPA) in December of 2006. The Notice of Intent (NOI) to 

supplement the 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 deficiencies noted by the court in the FEIS, and to record the analysis of a 

proposed non-significant site-specific amendment to the Wallowa-Whitman National 

Forest’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 over two hundred interested 

parties, including: individuals, groups, miners, county, State and Federal agencies, the 

Nez Perce Tribe and the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Reservation. 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. 

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; 
Chapter 1 NFBR Mining Supplemental EIS

14

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 the Supplement’s 

analysis file and was used to respond to the noted deficiencies by the Court.

I. Issues

Change Indicator #2, Key Issue 1, Water Quality, Chapter 1, page 19 of the FEIS to the 

following:

2. The number of operations that have the potential to discharge a pollutant into 

navigable waters.

Change Key Issue 3, Access/Road Densities, Chapter 1, page 20 of the FEIS to add the 

following indicator:

3. Open road densities by Management Area within subwatersheds.
NFBR Mining Supplemental EIS Chapter 2

15

CHAPTER 2

ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE 

PROPOSED ACTION

A. Introduction

No change from the FEIS.

B. Alternative Development Process

No change from FEIS.

B1. Changes in the Plans of Operations

This section is new, not in the FEIS.

Since the FEIS, several operators 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 warranted, in Chapter 3. A listing and description 

of the Plan withdrawals and modifications can be found in Appendix 8 of this 

Supplement.

C. Alternatives Considered in Detail

This section in the FEIS has been replaced with the following: 

The four alternatives considered and evaluated in this Supplement are similar to those in 

the FEIS, but have been described a little differently to clarify intent and purpose.

Alternative 1: No action/No change—This alternative provides the benchmark 

to evaluate all other alternatives, describing the existing approved Plans of 

Operations and the effects of these Plans for their approved durations. No new or 

modified Plans are included.

Alternative 2: Proposed Plans of Operations (Proposed Action) - This 

alternative describes and evaluates the Plans of Operations as submitted by the 

operators.

Alternative 3: Proposed Plans of Operations with Forest Service BMPs and 

Forest Plan Amendment - This alternative is the same as Alternative 2 (with the 

exception of no suction dredging for Burnt Lode Placer) with additional Forest 

Service Best Management Practices (BMPs) in the form of 1) “Site-Specific 
Chapter 2 NFBR Mining Supplemental EIS

16

Water Quality Protection Measures (WQPMs)” and 2) “General Requirements”. 

These BMPs are added to the Plans submitted by the operators to eliminate the 

potential for a discharge of pollutants into navigable waters, and to ensure 

compliance with the WWNF Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) 

standards and guidelines, including INFISH MM1 and MM2. 

This alternative also includes a Forest Plan Amendment for open road densities in 

specific Management Areas within subwatersheds.

Alternative 4: Proposed Plans of Operations with Forest Service BMPs, 

Forest Plan Amendment, and Road Management Activities - This alternative 

is the same as Alternative 3, but includes additional road management activities 

(maintenance, reconstruction, closure and decommissioning). 

D. Elements Common to Action Alternatives

This section in the FEIS has been replaced with the following: 

There are a number of actions and BMPs that are common to all Action alternatives, i.e. 

Alternatives 2, 3, and 4:

1. When a proposed Plan has a potential for a discharge of pollutants, ODEQ will be 

consulted with and provide written agreement to the BMPs prior to the Plan’s 

approval by the Forest Service. 

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

in an approved Plan of Operations must be re-closed or re-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.

E. Alternative 1 (No Action/No Change)

This section in the FEIS is replaced with the following:

According to Table II-3 (FEIS pg. 62), all the Plans, except 7, are currently expired. The 

seven that aren’t expired have no expiration date listed on their original Plan.

A “No Action/No Change” alternative is required by regulation at 40 CFR 1502.14(d). It 

provides the baseline to determine and evaluate the effects of the other alternatives. This 
NFBR Mining Supplemental EIS Chapter 2

17

alternative describes the Plans of Operations that are currently approved and their effects. 

No new or modified Plans are included in this alternative.

Tables II-1 and II-3 are not changed from the FEIS. Table II-2 has been modified to 

delete all activities determined to be “notice-level” or “approved by regulation”. Refer to 

Appendix 6 in this Supplement for the details on which activities were removed and why.

F. Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) – (Proposed Plans of 

Operations as submitted by the operators)

This section in the FEIS is replaced with the following. 

Alternative 2 includes a different mix of Plans than Alternative 1 and an increase in the 

number of Plans from 34 to 42. Some of the 42 Plans have multiple locations resulting 

in 42 Plans with 66 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 approve the Plans of Operations as submitted by the operators. 

Forty-two (42) Plans would be approved. 

Table II-5 from the 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 6 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 operators. Refer to the maps at the end of this 

chapter for each operation by Alternative. 

Five of the Plans from Alternative 1 were dropped from this alternative because the 

operators indicated that they did not intend to continue their operation (Dream Chaser, 

Don Juan Lode/Placer, Lucky 7 Placer, Lucky John Placer, and Three Cent Lode). 
Chapter 2 NFBR Mining Supplemental EIS

18

Table 2-1

Comparison of Plans of Operations by Alternatives 2, 3, and 4

( Forest Service proposed Road Management Activities for Alt 4 are found in Supplement Appendix 9)

Operation Name

Alternative 2

Proposed Operations as 

Submitted by the Miners 

Alternative 3 and 4

Proposed Operations with 

BMPs

August Placer Proposed Equipment: Track hoe, 

backhoe, dump truck, dozer, trommel, 

sluice, pumps.

Proposed 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-G24; 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: Same as 

Alternative 1 

Proposed 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-G24; 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-G22; 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-G24; 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; H1-H12; F1-

F9; NW1-NW9; P1-P2; W1-W7; R1-

R7; R8-R24; Z-Requirements

Dream Chaser PL Withdrawn since FEIS Withdrawn since FEIS

EJ Placers Proposed Equipment: Excavator, 

dump truck, loader, trommel.

Proposed 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-G24; H1-H12; F1-

F9; NW1-NW9; P1-P2; W1-W7; R1-

R7; R8-R22; Z-Requirements, and

Site-Specific WQPMs
NFBR Mining Supplemental EIS Chapter 2

19

Operation Name

Alternative 2

Proposed Operations as 

Submitted by the Miners 

Alternative 3 and 4

Proposed Operations with 

BMPs

Geiser Stream Diversion Withdrawn since FEIS Withdrawn since FEIS

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-G24; 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-G24; H1-H12; F1-

F9; NW1-NW9; P1-P2; W1-W7; 

R1-R7; R8-R22, and

Site-Specific WQPMs

Gold Busters PL Proposed Equipment: Backhoe, 

trommel, high-bankers, sluice, pumps, 

generators.

Proposed Activities: Excavations in 

placer gravels, processing, and use of 

existing ponds inside RHCA.

Same as Alternative 2 with General 

Requirements G1-G24; H1-H12; F1-

F9; NW1-NW9; P1-P2; W1-W7; R1-

R7; R8-R22

Gold Camp PL Equipment: Backhoe, dump truck, 

dozer, pumps, trommel, generator, highbankers.

Activities: Testing and mining placer 

gravels, high-banking, processing, and 

use of existing ponds within RHCA.

Same as Alternative 2 with General 

Requirements G1-G24; 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-G24; H1-H12; F1-

F9; NW1-NW9; P1-P2; W1-W7; R1-

R7; R8-R22, and

Site-Specific WQPMs

Golden DonkPL Withdrawn since FEIS Withdrawn since FEIS

Goldy PL and Mill Proposed Equipment: Loader, 

trommel, pump, gold spinner, 5-yd 

dump truck.

Proposed 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-G24; 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-G24; H1-H12; F1-

F9; NW1-NW9; P1-P2; W1-W7; R1-

R7; R8-R22; Z-Requirements, and

Site-Specific WQPMs
Chapter 2 NFBR Mining Supplemental EIS

20

Operation Name

Alternative 2

Proposed Operations as 

Submitted by the Miners 

Alternative 3 and 4

Proposed Operations with 

BMPs

Jackpot Withdrawn since FEIS Withdrawn since FEIS

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-G24; 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-G24; H1-H12; F1-

F9; NW1-NW9; P1-P2; W1-W7; R1-

R7; R8-R23; Z-Requirements

Jim Bob PL Proposed Equipment: Backhoe, 

trommel, sluice, pumps, hand tools.

Proposed 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-G24; H1-H12; F1-

F9; NW1-NW9; P1-P2; W1-W7; R1-

R7; R8-R22, and

Site-Specific WQPMs

Ladder, Rusty Bucket PL Proposed Equipment:

Backhoe, excavator, dozer, 2 5-yard 

dump trucks, wash plant, test plant, 

pumps.

Proposed Activities: Exploration 

testing and mining, processing, use of 

ponds outside RHCA.

Same as Alternative 2 with General 

Requirements G1-G24; H1-H12; F1-

F9; NW1-NW9; P1-P2; W1-W7; R1-

R7; R8-R24, and

Site-Specific WQPMs

Lucky One PL/LD Proposed Equipment: Backhoe, 

dozer, dump truck, wash plant, pumps, 

generator.

Proposed 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-G24; H1-H12; F1-

F9; NW1-NW9; P1-P2; W1-W7; R1-

R7; R8-R24; Z1-Z10, and

Site-Specific WQPMs

Lucky PL Proposed Equipment: Excavator or 

backhoe, dump truck, wash plant, highbankers, dozer.

Proposed 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-G24; H1-H12; F1-

F9; NW1-NW9; P1-P2; W1-W7; R1-

R7; R8-R22; Z1-Z10

Mary Dixie LD Withdrawn since FEIS Withdrawn since FEIS
NFBR Mining Supplemental EIS Chapter 2

21

Operation Name

Alternative 2

Proposed Operations as 

Submitted by the Miners 

Alternative 3 and 4

Proposed Operations with 

BMPs

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-G24; H1-H12; F1-

F9; NW1-NW9; P1-P2; W1-W7; R1-

R7; R8-R22; Z1-Z10, 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; 

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-G24; H1-H12; F1-

F9; NW1-NW9; P1-P2; W1-W7; R1-

R7; R8-R23; Z1-Z10

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-G24; 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-G24; H1-H12; F1-

F9; NW1-NW9; P1-P2; W1-W7; R1-

R7; R8-R22

Parkerville PL Withdrawn - Replaced with Parkerville 

Placer Mining

Withdrawn - Replaced with 

Parkerville Placer Mining

Parkerville PL Mining Proposed Equipment: Backhoe, 

excavator, dozer, loader, dump truck, 

trommel, pumps, generator.

Proposed 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-G24; H1-H12; F1-

F9; NW1-NW9; P1-P2; W1-W7; 

R1-R7; R8-R22; Z1-Z10

Playboy Placers Withdrawn since FEIS Withdrawn since FEIS

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-G24; H1-H12; F1-

F9; NW1-NW9; P1-P2; W1-W7; R1-

R7; R8-R22, and

Site-Specific WQPMs
Chapter 2 NFBR Mining Supplemental EIS

22

Operation Name

Alternative 2

Proposed Operations as 

Submitted by the Miners 

Alternative 3 and 4

Proposed Operations with 

BMPs

R&RK #2, #3 PL Proposed Equipment: Backhoe, wash 

plant, pumps, generator.

Proposed 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-G24; H1-H12; F1-

F9; NW1-NW9; P1-P2; W1-W7; R1-

R7; R8-R22, and

Site-Specific WQPMs

R&RK #4, #5 PL Proposed Equipment: Backhoe, 

trommel.

Proposed Activities: Excavation of 

placer gravels, and processing, pond 

construction within RHCA, use of 

existing ford

Same as Alternative 2 with additional 

General Requirements G1-G24; 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

Proposed Equipment: Wash plant, 

backhoe, dozer, dump truck, pumps, 

generator, hand tools.

Proposed 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 with General 

Requirements G1-G24; 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-G24; 

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-G24; H1-H12; F1-

F9; NW1-NW9; P1-P2; W1-W7; R1-

R7; R8-R22, and

Site-Specific WQPMs

Shamrock PL Proposed Equipment: Backhoe, dozer, 

trommel, pumps.

Proposed Activities:

Exploration testing in placer gravels, 

processing, use of existing fords

Same as Alternative 2 with General 

Requirements G1-G24; H1-H12; F1-

F9; NW1-NW9; P1-P2; W1-W7; 

R1-R7; R8-R22, and

Site-Specific WQPMs

Silver Bell PL Proposed Equipment: Generator, 

excavator, loader, trammel. 

Proposed Activities:

Same as Alternative 1 without use of instream ponds, construct and use 4 offchannel ponds inside RHCA, install 

gates on 2 access roads.

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
NFBR Mining Supplemental EIS Chapter 2

23

Operation Name

Alternative 2

Proposed Operations as 

Submitted by the Miners 

Alternative 3 and 4

Proposed Operations with 

BMPs

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-G24; H1-H12; F1-

F9; NW1-NW9; P1-P2; W1-W7; R1-

R7; R8-R22; Z-Requirements

Sluice Box PL Proposed Equipment: Same as 

Alternative 1.

Proposed Activities:

Same as Alternative 1 with additional 

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-G24; H1-H12; F1-

F9; NW1-NW9; P1-P2; W1-W7; 

R1-R7; R8-R22, and

Site-Specific WQPMs

Snow Creek PL Proposed Equipment: Same as 

Alternative 1 

Proposed 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-G24; H1-H12; F1-

F9; NW1-NW9; P1-P2; W1-W7; R1-

R7; R8-R22; Z-Requirements

Standby/McNamee PL Proposed Equipment: Backhoe, wash 

plant, pumps.

Proposed 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-G24; H1-H12; F1-

F9; NW1-NW9; P1-P2; W1-W7; R1-

R7; R8-R22; Z-Requirements, and

Site-Specific WQPMs

Star (Pinus) PL Proposed Equipment: Backhoe, hand 

tools.

Proposed 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

Sunshine PL Withdrawn since FEIS Withdrawn since FEIS

Three Cent PL Proposed Equipment: Same as 

Alternative 1 

Proposed Activities:

Same as Alternative 1 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-G24; 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-G24; H1-H12; F1-

F9; NW1-NW9; P1-P2; W1-W7; R1-

R7; R8-R22; Z-Requirements, and

Site-Specific WQPMs
Chapter 2 NFBR Mining Supplemental EIS

24

Operation Name

Alternative 2

Proposed Operations as 

Submitted by the Miners 

Alternative 3 and 4

Proposed Operations with 

BMPs

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-G24; 

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 Proposed Equipment: Backhoe or 

excavator, dump truck.

Proposed 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-G24; 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-G24; H1-H12; F1-

F9; NW1-NW9; P1-P2; W1-W7; R1-

R7; R8-R22

Table 2-2

Operations Proposing Road Construction under Alternative 2

Plan of 

Operations

Creek Proposed Nonsystem Mine Access roads for 

construction

Burnt Lode/Placer 3 

(Karissa)

NFBR The operator 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.
NFBR Mining Supplemental EIS Chapter 2

25

Table 2-3 

Operations proposing use or construction of Fords, Bridges, and Culverts under 

Alternative 2

Plan of 

Operations

Creek Fords

Big Elk /Red Dog Dry Creek 1 existing ford. Operator proposes to cross when the channel is dry. 

Dream Chaser 

Placer

NFBR 1 existing ford 

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). Operator 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. 
Chapter 2 NFBR Mining Supplemental EIS

26

Plan of 

Operations

Creek Fords

Upper Winterville 

Placer/Lode 

(southern portion)

Winterville 

Creek 

(intermittent 

flow)

2 existing fords. 

Wild Flower 

Placer 

NFBR 1 existing ford. 

Table 2-4

Plans of Operations with Existing or Proposed Ponds 

Alternatives 2, 3 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 / 150 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
NFBR Mining Supplemental EIS Chapter 2

27

Plan of Operations Creek/INFISH 

buffer

Existing Ponds 

(Yes/None)

Proposed Ponds 

(Yes/None)

Parkerville Placer Mining None None Yes. Outside 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 / 50 feet 

and 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 None Yes. Outside RHCA None

Silver Bell Placer 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 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

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 Tony Ck / 300 feet None Yes. Inside RHCA

Wild Flower Placer NFBR / 300 feet Yes. Inside RHCA None

G. Alternative 3 (Proposed Plans of Operations with Forest 

Service BMPs and Forest Plan Amendment)

This section in the FEIS is replaced with the following. 

Alternative 3 would approve the Plans of Operations submitted by the operators with 

additional Forest Service Best Management Practices (BMPs) listed in Table 2-1, 

Column 3. The Forest Service BMPs would change the proposed operations to avoid the 

potential for a discharge of pollutants into navigable waters, and to ensure compliance 

with the WWNF Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) standards and 

guidelines, including INFISH MM1 and MM2. 

They also would minimize the adverse environmental impacts on National Forest System 

surface resources as provided in the mining regulations found at 36 CFR 228 Subpart,and 
Chapter 2 NFBR Mining Supplemental EIS

28

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

In Chapter 3, these BMPs are separated into two categories: 1) site-specific Water 

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

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

protection. 

Alternative 3 would also amend the Forest Plan to change the open-road density 

standards for specific management areas within selected subwatersheds in the NFBR 

analysis area.

Forest Plan Amendment

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.

Additionally, in some cases, having very small portions of Management Areas within 

Subwatersheds resulted in high open road densities. These small pieces are not 

representative of open road densities at the landscape level. In several subwatersheds, 

open road densities for some management areas were calculated on less than one square 

mile of land, and are therefore not at an appropriate scale for comparison or to meet the 

intent of the Forest Plan guidelines (Forest Plan 4-35). 

The Forest Plan amendment in Alternative 3 responds to Key Issue 3 in the FEIS and 

would change the following open road density guidelines to reflect a more appropriate 

scale for specific management areas within subwatersheds of the North Fork Burnt River 

Mining planning area.

1) Guideline #12 and Guideline #13 for Management Area 1 (Forest Plan, p. 4-58) 

in subwatershed 83G would change from 2.5mi/sq mi to 2.8 mi/sq mi; 

2) Guideline #12 and Guideline #13 for Management Area 1W (Forest Plan p. 4-58)

in subwatershed 83F would change from 1.5 mi/sq mi to 1.9 mi/sq mi; 

3) Guideline #9 for Management Area 3 (Forest Plan p. 4-62) in subwatersheds 

83C, 83E, 83F, 83G and 83H would change from 1.5 mi/sq mi to 1.7 (83C), 1.9 

(83E), 2.8 (83F), and 3.1 (83G) and 1.6 (83F); 

4) Guideline #9 for Management Area 3A (Forest Plan pg. 4-62) in subwatersheds 

83B, 83C, and 83G would change from 1.5 mi/sq mi_to 4.8 (83B), 2.1 (83C), and 

1.9 (83G); and 

5) Guideline #8 for Management Area 18 (Forest Plan p. 4-97) in subwatershed 83G 
NFBR Mining Supplemental EIS Chapter 2

29

would change from 1.5 mi/sq mi to 1.7 mi/sq mi. 

This plan amendment is being prepared under the 2000 rule as amended with transition 

wording at 36 CFR 219.35 that allows the use of the 1982 rule procedures. [ See 65 FR 

67568, Nov. 9, 2000, as amended at 66 FR 1865, Jan. 10, 2001; 66 FR 27554, May 17, 

2001; 67 FR 35434, May 20, 2002; 68 FR 53297, Sept. 10, 2003; 69 FR 58057, Sept. 29, 

2004]. The 1982 rule and the 2000 rule as amended is available online at 

http://www.fs.fed.us/emc/nfma/2000_planning_rule.html.

Alternative 3 would amend the Forest Plan as follows:

Current Direction -- MA1, Guideline #12: 

Close local roads and collector roads, permanently or seasonally, between timber sale 

projects as needed to provide for soil and water protection, fire protection, wildlife 

habitat, recreation and other purposes. Open road densities will generally not exceed 2.5 

miles per square mile. Where densities are projected to exceed 2.5 miles per square mile 

of open road during timber sale activities, analyses will be made to document that 

resource objectives will be met with the higher densities.

Amended for Subwatershed 83G: Close local roads and collector roads, 

permanently or seasonally, between timber sale projects as needed to provide for 

soil and water protection, fire protection, wildlife habitat, recreation and other 

purposes. Open road densities will generally not exceed 2.8 miles per square 

mile. Where densities are projected to exceed 2.8 miles per square mile of open 

road during timber sale activities, analyses will be made to document that 

resource objectives will be met with the higher densities.

Current Direction -- MA1 and 1W, Guideline #13: 

Manage the transportation system on that portion of Management Area 1 within the 

identified elk winter range as described in Management Area 3, including limiting open 

road density to 1.5 miles per square mile.

Amended for Subwatershed 83F: Manage the transportation system on that 

portion of Management Area 1 within the identified elk winter range as described 

in Management Area 3, while limiting open road density to 1.9 miles per square 

mile.

Current Direction -- MA3, Guideline #10: 

Where snow normally will provide an adequate level of road closure on winter ranges, 

additional closures to meet the 1.5 miles per square mile standard will not be necessary.

Amended for Subwatersheds 83C, 83E, 83F, 83G and 83H: Where snow 

normally will provide an adequate level of road closure on winter ranges, 
Chapter 2 NFBR Mining Supplemental EIS

30

additional closures to meet the 1.5 miles per square mile standard will not be 

necessary. Open road densities for MA3 will be limited to 1.7 miles per square 

mile in subwatersheds 83C, 1.9 miles per square mile in subwatershed 83E, 2.8

miles per square mile in subwatershed 83F, 3.1 miles per square mile in 

subwatershed 83G, and 1.6 miles per square mile in subwatershed 83H.

Current Direction -- MA3A, Guideline #9: 

In general, roads left open year long on summer ranges will be limited to 1.5 miles per 

square mile, although in some areas local conditions will necessitate higher densities. In 

some instances, less than 1.5 miles per square mile will be feasible.

Amended for Subwatersheds 83B, 83C, and 83G: In general, roads left open 

year long on summer ranges will be limited to 4.8 miles per square mile in 

subwatershed 83B, 2.1 miles per square mile in subwatershed 83C, and 1.9 miles 

per square mile in subwatershed 83G, although in some areas local conditions 

will necessitate higher densities. In some instances, less than 1.8 miles per square 

mile will be feasible.

 

Current Direction -- MA18, Guideline #8: 

Close local roads and collector roads permanently or seasonally as needed to provide soil 

and water protection, fire protection, wildlife habitat, recreation and other purposes. In 

general, open road density will be limited to a maximum of 1.5 miles per square mile, 

although in some areas local conditions may necessitate higher or permit lower densities.

Amended for Subwatershed 83G: Close local roads and collector roads 

permanently or seasonally as needed to provide soil and water protection, fire 

protection, wildlife habitat, recreation and other purposes. In general, open road 

density will be limited to a maximum of 1.7 miles per square mile, although in 

some areas local conditions may necessitate higher or permit lower densities.

After implementation of the road management activities proposed in Alternative 3, the 

open road densities for the above Management Areas and Subwatersheds will be within 

the newly amended Forest Plan Guidelines as displayed in Table A4-7 in Appendix 4 of 

this Supplement.

H. Alternative 4 -- (Alternative 3 with Additional Road 

Management Activities and Forest Plan Amendment)

This section of the FEIS is replaced with the following. Note that previous or doublecounted road closures described in Chapter 1, Section 1.3 of this Supplement have been 

removed from this alternative.
NFBR Mining Supplemental EIS Chapter 2

31

Alternative 4 would approve the same Plans of Operations as described in Alternative 3 

and would address Key Issue 3 in the FEIS by authorizing road closures, 

decommissioning, and maintenance and reconstruction activities within the watershed for 

the purpose of reducing open road densities. Alternative 4 would also amend the Forest 

Plan to change the open-road density standards for specific management areas within 

selected subwatersheds in the NFBR analysis area.

Road Management Activities

Alternative 4 would close to public use 17.74 miles of system roads, decommission 5.47 

miles, increase maintenance on 19.75 miles, and reconstruct 21.7 miles as initially 

identified in the NFBR Watershed Roads Analysis (Roads Analysis, 2002). The work 

would be initiated when funding becomes available. Most road closures would restrict 

motorized use year-round.

Road maintenance activities would include installing water bars, cleaning culverts, 

replacing culverts that have failed or been damaged, road surface grading, and 

resurfacing. Reconstruction would include replacing undersized culverts, realigning 

portions of the road, and upgrading the road surface. Decommissioned roads would be 

removed from the system and put-to-bed by scarifying soil compaction where feasible, 

removing culverts, and constructing waterbars for drainage. See Appendix 9 in this 

Supplement for a list of roads and the activities planned.

Forest Plan Amendment

The rationale and justification for the Forest Plan Amendment is that same as described 

under Alternative 3. Due to the road closures proposed in this alternative, the 

amendment would vary slightly from the description for Alternative 3, but only by one or 

two tenths per mile of open road density in four of the Management Areas within 

subwatersheds (see Appendix 4, Table A4-7 for a comparison of the amendment by 

alternatives).

The Forest Plan amendment in Alternative 4 responds to Key Issue 3 in the FEIS and 

would change the following open road density guidelines: 

6) Guideline #12 and Guideline #13 for Management Area 1 (Forest Plan, p. 4-58) 

in subwatershed 83G would change from 2.5mi/sq mi to 2.6 mi/sq mi; 

7) Guideline #12 and Guideline #13 for Management Area 1W (Forest Plan p. 4-58) 

in subwatershed 83F would change from 1.5 mi/sq mi to 1.9 mi/sq mi; 

8) Guideline #9 for Management Area 3 (Forest Plan p. 4-62) in subwatersheds 

83C, 83E, 83F, 83G and 83H would change from 1.5 mi/sq mi to 1.7 (83C & 

83E), 2.7 (83F), and 3.1 (83G) and 1.6 (83F); 

9) Guideline #9 for Management Area 3A (Forest Plan pg. 4-62) in subwatersheds 

83B, 83C, and 83G would change from 1.5 mi/sq mi_to 4.8 (83B), 2.1 (83C), and 
Chapter 2 NFBR Mining Supplemental EIS

32

1.8 (83G); and 

10) Guideline #8 for Management Area 18 (Forest Plan p. 4-97) in subwatershed 83G 

would change from 1.5 mi/sq mi to 1.7 mi/sq mi. 

This plan amendment is being prepared under the 2000 rule as amended with transition 

wording at 36 CFR 219.35 that allows the use of the 1982 rule procedures. [ See 65 FR 

67568, Nov. 9, 2000, as amended at 66 FR 1865, Jan. 10, 2001; 66 FR 27554, May 17, 

2001; 67 FR 35434, May 20, 2002; 68 FR 53297, Sept. 10, 2003; 69 FR 58057, Sept. 29, 

2004]. The 1982 rule and the 2000 rule as amended is available online at 

http://www.fs.fed.us/emc/nfma/2000_planning_rule.html.

Alternative 4 would amend the Forest Plan as follows:

Current Direction -- MA1, Guideline #12: 

Close local roads and collector roads, permanently or seasonally, between timber sale 

projects as needed to provide for soil and water protection, fire protection, wildlife 

habitat, recreation and other purposes. Open road densities will generally not exceed 2.5 

miles per square mile. Where densities are projected to exceed 2.5 miles per square mile 

of open road during timber sale activities, analyses will be made to document that 

resource objectives will be met with the higher densities.

Amended for Subwatershed 83G: Close local roads and collector roads, 

permanently or seasonally, between timber sale projects as needed to provide for 

soil and water protection, fire protection, wildlife habitat, recreation and other 

purposes. Open road densities will generally not exceed 2.6 miles per square 

mile. Where densities are projected to exceed 2.6 miles per square mile of open 

road during timber sale activities, analyses will be made to document that 

resource objectives will be met with the higher densities.

Current Direction -- MA1 and 1W, Guideline #13: 

Manage the transportation system on that portion of Management Area 1 within the 

identified elk winter range as described in Management Area 3, including limiting open 

road density to 1.5 miles per square mile.

Amended for Subwatershed 83F: Manage the transportation system on that 

portion of Management Area 1 within the identified elk winter range as described 

in Management Area 3, while limiting open road density to 1.9 miles per square 

mile.

Current Direction -- MA3, Guideline #10: 

Where snow normally will provide an adequate level of road closure on winter ranges, 

additional closures to meet the 1.5 miles per square mile standard will not be necessary.
NFBR Mining Supplemental EIS Chapter 2

33

Amended for Subwatersheds 83C, 83E, 83F, 83G and 83H: Where snow 

normally will provide an adequate level of road closure on winter ranges, 

additional closures to meet the 1.5 miles per square mile standard will not be 

necessary. Open road densities for MA3 will be limited to 1.7 miles per square 

mile in subwatersheds 83C and 83E, 2.7 miles per square mile in subwatershed 

83F, 3.1 miles per square mile in subwatershed 83G, and 1.6 miles per square 

mile in subwatershed 83H.

Current Direction -- MA3A, Guideline #9: 

In general, roads left open year long on summer ranges will be limited to 1.5 miles per 

square mile, although in some areas local conditions will necessitate higher densities. In 

some instances, less than 1.5 miles per square mile will be feasible.

Amended for Subwatersheds 83B, 83C, and 83G: In general, roads left open 

year long on summer ranges will be limited to 4.8 miles per square mile in 

subwatershed 83B, 2.1 miles per square mile in subwatershed 83C, and 1.8 miles 

per square mile in subwatershed 83G, although in some areas local conditions 

will necessitate higher densities. In some instances, less than 1.8 miles per square 

mile will be feasible.

 

Current Direction -- MA18, Guideline #8: 

Close local roads and collector roads permanently or seasonally as needed to provide soil 

and water protection, fire protection, wildlife habitat, recreation and other purposes. In 

general, open road density will be limited to a maximum of 1.5 miles per square mile, 

although in some areas local conditions may necessitate higher or permit lower densities.

Amended for Subwatershed 83G: Close local roads and collector roads 

permanently or seasonally as needed to provide soil and water protection, fire 

protection, wildlife habitat, recreation and other purposes. In general, open road 

density will be limited to a maximum of 1.7 miles per square mile, although in 

some areas local conditions may necessitate higher or permit lower densities.

After implementation of the road management activities proposed in Alternative 4, the 

open road densities for the above Management Areas and Subwatersheds will be within 

the newly amended Forest Plan Guidelines as displayed in Table A4-7 in Appendix 4 of 

this Supplement.

I. Monitoring Under Alternatives 3 and 4 

Add the following under PACFISH/INFISH Implementation Monitoring of Minerals, 

page 35 of the FEIS.
Chapter 2 NFBR Mining Supplemental EIS

34

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

required in the approved Plans of Operations. These BMPs address the initial screening 

items listed in the FEIS (Chapter 2 page 36). These BMPs will be observed during 

annual inspections to determine if the operator has implemented these BMPs and that 

they are achieving the desired results. 

This level of annual monitoring was outlined in 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)). Unforeseen significant 

disturbance could be defined as effective water quality measures resulting in a discharge 

even if the terms of the plan were in compliance. 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.

J. Alternatives Considered But Eliminated from Further 

Study

No change from FEIS.

K. Comparison of Alternatives

This section in the FEIS is replaced with the following:

This section provides a summary of the Plan of Operations’ activities that are of concern 

relative to the potential for a discharge of pollutant into navigable waters from the 

proposed operations by alternative.

Alternatives 1 and 2 have the potential for a discharge of pollutants. Alternatives 1 and 2 

include 25 Plans that do not contain sufficient buffers along stream channels or other 

requirements sufficient to prevent a potential discharge, therefore these Plans would not 

be in compliance with Section 313 of the Clean Water Act. 

Alternatives 3 and 4, with the added BMPs listed in Appendices 1A, 1B, and 2, do not 

have the potential for a discharge of a pollutant, with one exception. These Plans would 

therefore be in compliance with Section 313 of the CWA. The exception is Burnt 

Lode/Placer (Karissa site) road construction. Road construction to the Karissa site would 

continue to have the potential for a discharge, even with the added Forest Service BMPs.

Therefore, this Plan would not be in compliance Section 313 of the CWA.

Alternative 4 would improve the drainage and stability of the roads and would reduce 

motorized use on some roads. It would also eliminate a small amount of road-generated 

sediment currently being delivered to the streams, although this improvement is likely 
NFBR Mining Supplemental EIS Chapter 2

35

non-measurable relative to turbidity or suspended sediment loads. Further, 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 were re-established.

Table 2-5

Plans of Operations and comparison of Forest Service determination of potential for 

a discharge of a pollutant under Alternatives 2, 3, and 4

Stream adjacent 

to

Activity of 

concern

Potential for Discharge

Plan of 

Operations

Alternative 2 Alternatives 3 

and 4

August Placer none No No

Big Elk/Red Dog Dry Ck Mining Yes No

Burnt Lode/Placer NFBR Mining, suction 

dredging and 

proposed road

Yes Yes (road only)

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

Gold Camp Placer Camp Ck Mining Yes No

Golden Bandit 

Placer/Lode 

none No No

Goldy Placer & 

Millsite

none No No
Chapter 2 NFBR Mining Supplemental EIS

36

Stream adjacent 

to

Activity of 

concern

Potential for Discharge

Plan of 

Operations

Alternative 2 Alternatives 3 

and 4

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 Maintenance 

activities for 

decommissioned road 

FS 1065250 as road 

is in or close to 

drainage.

Yes No

North Fork Placer NFBR Mining Yes No

Old Channel Placer none No No

Parkerville Placer 

Mining

none No No

Prudent Placer 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

Silver Bell Placer Camp Ck No No

Silver Eagle Lode none No No

Sluice Box Placer NFBR Mining and ford Yes No
NFBR Mining Supplemental EIS Chapter 2

37

Stream adjacent 

to

Activity of 

concern

Potential for Discharge

Plan of 

Operations

Alternative 2 Alternatives 3 

and 4

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 

Processing site 

Three Cent and East 

Three Creeks

Processing Yes No

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

Tony Ck Mining Yes No

Wild Flower Placer NFBR No No

Preferred Alternative

This is a new section not included in the FEIS.

Alternative 4 is the agency preferred alternative.
Chapter 2 NFBR Mining Supplemental EIS

38
NFBR Mining Supplemental EIS Chapter 2

39

INSERT ALTERNATIVE 1 MAP HERE
Chapter 2 NFBR Mining Supplemental EIS

40
NFBR Mining Supplemental EIS Chapter 2

41

INSERT ALTERNATIVE 2, 3, 4 MAP HERE
Chapter 2 NFBR Mining Supplemental EIS

42
NFBR Mining Supplemental EIS Chapter 3

43

CHAPTER 3

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

and

ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS

Some parts of the Watershed and Soil Resource section in the FEIS have been substantially rewritten to clarify and to add information and analysis. The changes are made subsection by 

subsection below. 

Introduction

No change from FEIS.

Updated Cumulative Actions Common to All Alternatives

This is a new section not included in Chapter III in the FEIS. This section provides updated 

information about actions previously analyzed in the FEIS under the Watershed and Soil 

Resources Cumulative Effects section for Alternative 1 (Chapter III, pp. 26-28). Updated actions 

are Road Reconstruction, OHV bridge construction, and Suction Dredging. The only new 

reasonable foreseeable future action is the WWNF Travel Management Plan. 

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), and the resulting effects were as anticipated in the 2004 FEIS 

(Chapter III, p. 27). 

OHV Bridge

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 2004 FEIS (Chapter III, p. 27). 

Suction Dredging

Suction dredging was determined to be Notice of Intent level activity at all sites mentioned in the 

Plans of Operations, with the exception of Cub Creek (Burnt Lode/Placer) (Appendices 7A and 

7B). Appendix 7A includes the cumulative effects analysis of suction dredging. Cub Creek 

suction dredging will be discussed under Direct/Indirect Effects for each Alternative.
Chapter 3 NFBR Mining Supplemental EIS

44

WWNF Travel Management Plan

The final outcome of the 2010 WWNF Travel Management Plan is unknown. However, analysis 

of the range of alternatives considered in the 2009 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

(DEIS) suggests that implementation of the proposed WWNF Travel Management Plan would 

most likely result in implementation of some previously planned road closures, enforcement of 

current road closures, and a reduction in motorized cross-country travel. Discussion of the 

cumulative effects of implementation of this Plan is analyzed for applicable resource areas 

below. 

A. Watershed and Soil Resources

(Key Issue 1)

Introduction

No change from FEIS.

2. Affected Environment

a. Watershed

No change from FEIS. 

1) Landform Characteristics and Channel Morphology

No change from FEIS.

2) Precipitation and Temperature

No change from FEIS, except the last paragraph of this section in the FEIS, Chapter III, Page 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-widen, 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.

 
NFBR Mining Supplemental EIS Chapter 3

45

3) Water Temperature 

No change except Paragraph 2 of this section in the FEIS, Chapter III, Page 9, top of the page, is 

replaced with the following to reflect updated information: 

The ODEQ summer maximum standard for waters supporting salmonids has changed from 64o F 

to 68o F. The salmonid of interest in the NFBR watershed is Redband Trout. Stream 

temperatures in the watershed exceed both the old and the revised standard in many cases. Three 

streams in the analysis area are listed as water quality-impaired for temperature under Section 

303(d) of the Clean Water Act: NFBR, Trout Creek, and Patrick Creek. Five are listed for 

sedimentation: NFBR, Trout Creek, Patrick Creek, Camp Creek, and Geiser Creek. See further 

discussion of Section 303(d) in 2004 FEIS Chapter III, page 11.

4) Flow Characteristics 

No change from FEIS

5) Stream Surveys 

No change from FEIS

6) Water Quality 

Four elements are added at the end of this section of the FEIS, Chapter III, page 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. 
Chapter 3 NFBR Mining Supplemental EIS

46

Existing Beaver Dams

The presence of beaver dams within claim boundaries and the impact on water quality as a result 

of breaching those dams if mining areas were flooded were not addressed in the 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 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 (Wildflower and EJ Placer). Dam breaching would release large quantities of sediment 

now trapped behind the dams and would have an impact on water quality and fish habitat.

Adit Discharge

The 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 (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. The hydrology of the sites is listed in Table 3-1.
NFBR Mining Supplemental EIS Chapter 3

47

Table 3-1

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 letter, January 23, 2008). Water quality field sheets 

and the CES report for all 14 metals analyzed are found in the Project File in a folder marked 

“Water Quality Data – Adits.” Table 3-2 shows only those metals of concern for either human 

receptors or aquatic organisms at the five adits where the operators intend to use the adit water 
Chapter 3 NFBR Mining Supplemental EIS

48

and/or open the adit. Table 3-3 summarizes the results and potential risk to human health and 

aquatic organisms. 

Some of the values in Table 3-2 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 

serves at least twenty-five individuals” (SDWA, 300f, Definitions). In addition, the adit water 

goes subsurface within 200 feet of the discharge point in all cases (Table 3-2). The standards 

listed in Table 3-2 are a mix of proposed and recommended criteria (see footnotes at end of 

Table 3-3) 

Table 3-2 

Adit Discharge Analytical Results (Cascade Earth Sciences 2008).

HH = Human health. AO = Aquatic organisms

Operation Arsenic, TR Cadmium, TR Iron, TR Manganese, TR Mercury, TR

Proposed Standards/Criteria, corrected for hardness where applicable

Oregon – Aquatic life1150 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
NFBR Mining Supplemental EIS Chapter 3

49

Table 3-3

Summary of the water testing results of adit waters and risk to human health and aquatic 

organisms based on proposed criteria noted in Table 3-2

Operation Adit water to 

be used by 

operator?

Adit activity 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 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 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 Ore will be mined underground Arsenic None
Chapter 3 NFBR Mining Supplemental EIS

50

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. 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 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.

7) Wetlands

No change from FEIS.

8) Water/Road Interaction

No change from FEIS except Paragraph 3, Chapter III, Page 15 is replaced with the following 

two (2) 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 Forest Service 

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 observtions in 2006, 2007, and 2008 identified the main sources of 

sediment entering the streams as stream banks and channel beds which are eroding due to 
NFBR Mining Supplemental EIS Chapter 3

51

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.

These roads continue to intercept and direct surface run-off and subsurface flow; and there is no 

hydrologic difference between those open to use or those closed to use. 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. The percent increase is displayed in the “Percent Increase in 

Drainage Efficiency” column.

b. Soils

No change from FEIS.

3. Environmental Effects

Introduction

This Introduction is not in the FEIS. It is a new section, not in the FEIS, to set the stage for the 

results of the watershed analysis conducted for this Supplement.

Several of the findings of the Court in its review of the FEIS related to compliance with the 

Clean Water Act (CWA) and the LRMP’s standards for managing inland native fish and riparian 

habitat. The analysis for this Supplement was designed to address these specific issues, but is 

limited to an evaluation of the effects on streams within the NFBR watershed where mining 

activity is proposed. A Forest Service hydrologist visited each of the mining sites identified in 

the proposed Plans of Operations to evaluate the potential effects of the proposed operations 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:

1. Is there a potential for a discharge of a pollutant into navigable waters (to determine 

compliance with CWA)? 

1. Are adverse effects to inland native fish species minimized (ensure compliance with the 

WWNF Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) standards and guidelines, 

including INFISH MM-1 and MM-2. 

2. Are the proposed new mine access roads, proposed new ponds, and the existing ponds 

within RHCA’s necessary? Are there alternative locations outside the RHCA’s for these 

structures? What are the impacts to RHCA’s, streams and inland native fish of locating 

these structures inside the RHCA’s (to determine compliance with LRMP standard, 

INFISH MM2)?
Chapter 3 NFBR Mining Supplemental EIS

52

Methodology Used

The Forest Service 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 were used to determine if the Water Quality Protection 

Measures (WQPMs) proposed by the miners (Appendices 1A, 1B) are sufficient to prevent a 

discharge of a pollutant into navigable waters as defined by the Clean Water Act (CWA, Section 

401) and meet INFISH standards MM-1 and MM-2. 

Proposed features and activities of the Plans of Operations examined for compliance with the 

CWA 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 states: 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

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 operators 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 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.

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,
NFBR Mining Supplemental EIS Chapter 3

53

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 3-1 were not adequately addressed by the miner’s WQPMs. 

Table 3-4

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

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 fine-grained 

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

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 Forest Service hydrologist’s individual site 

evaluations was whether the proposed stream buffering was sufficient to protect water quality. 
Chapter 3 NFBR Mining Supplemental EIS

54

The effectiveness of the buffer zone was difficult to determine because of the variety of ways 

that the operators 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 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.

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 Forest Service 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 Forest Service 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 of pollutant. 

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. 

 
NFBR Mining Supplemental EIS Chapter 3

55

Figure 3-1. An example of a stream cross-section showing how the location of mining activity affects the potential 

for a discharge of pollutants. 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 ...” 

Introduction to Effects Analysis 

The Effects Analyses for Alternative 1 to 4 have been updated to reflect a determination that: 1) 

camping, 2) pick and shovel work, and 3) suction dredging, except on the Burnt Lode/Placer 

(Cub Creek) that were included in the NFBR’s proposed Plans of Operations are not likely to 

cause a significant disturbance of surface resources and therefore are authorized by regulation at 

36 CFR 228.4 (See Appendix 6 for the determination and Appendix 7 A & B for the effects 

analysis in this Supplement). Accordingly, these activities are not involved in the decision and 

they have been removed from the direct and indirect effects analysis. They are, however, 

assessed as part of the Cumulative Effects. 

The Effects Analyses for Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 have been updated to reflect that the Geiser 

Stream Diversion and the Shamrock Placer culvert proposals were withdrawn since the 

publishing of the FEIS. Neither of these is further evaluated in the Supplement.

Additionally, several new sections are added specifically to address issues raised by the Court.

-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)
Chapter 3 NFBR Mining Supplemental EIS

56

a. Alternative 1 (No Change)

1) Direct and Indirect Effects

This section is the same as the FEIS except the information about the Midas/Lady Bug Placer in 

the last paragraph at the bottom of page 24, FEIS, Chapter III is updated with the following: 

The original FEIS stated that Midas/Lady Bug placer is approved to construct a temporary check 

dam in the intermittent portion of California Gulch to capture water to seasonally suction dredge. 

The FEIS concluded that a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 404 permit was required for the 

construction of a check dam. 

Alternatively, the Forest Service has determined that a 404 permit is not necessary. Field visits 

and analyses completed in connection with this Supplement have led the Forest Service 

hydrologist to draw different conclusions. The affected channel has been historically placer 

mined. It is confined between slopes covered with old placer tailings composed of cobbles. The 

channel bed is also composed of cobbles. The composition of the stream banks and bed make 

the channel highly stable and resistant to instream erosion. Stream flow is low and seasonal and 

there is no surface hydrologic connectivity between this stream reach and the perennial reaches 

of California Gulch located further downstream. 

As for the effects of the check dam, no channel widening or channel bed erosion would occur 

above or below it, except in direct response to the suction dredging. The temporary check dam 

would be built from cobbles taken from the hillslope and be several cobbles high. The cobbles 

that would be used would be clean and the dam would be removed each season (S. Guthrie, 

written correspondence, March 24, 2008 and pers. communication 2008). Any sediment that 

travels downstream would be the result of the suction dredge operation and not the construction 

or removal of the cobble check dam and would settle out when the water went subsurface. 

Again, this analysis does not support or justify a requirement for a 404 permit because there 

would be no discharge of dredged or fill material into navigable waters as defined by the CWA 

in Section 404.

2) Cumulative Effects 

There is no change from the FEIS except for the addition of updated information which is found 

in the section above titled: Updated Cumulative Actions within the NFBR Watershed Common 

to All Alternatives

b. Alternative 2 (Proposed Plans of Operations as submitted by the 

operators)
NFBR Mining Supplemental EIS Chapter 3

57

1) Direct and Indirect Effects

Soils

This is a new section, not in the FEIS

Alternative 2 would impact fewer acres then the acres listed in Table III-12 of the FEIS, p. 29 

because several operations have since been dropped since the 2004 FEIS. The soil impacts 

would, however, be similar to those discussed in Alternative 2 of the FEIS. 

Water Quality 

This is a new section, not in the FEIS

Fords, Bridges, and Culverts

Alternative 2 has a total of 14 existing fords, 4 proposed fords, 1 existing bridge, 2 proposed 

bridges and 1 proposed culvert (Table 3-5). Thirteen of the existing and proposed fords have 

little to no potential for inputting sediment into streams because the approach and exit are 

already well rocked, banks already sloped, and the channel bed is stable because it is composed 

of cobbles. The existing bridge also has no potential for a sediment discharge being 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. Discharge of sediment into streams would be a 

violation of the CWA, INFISH MM-1 and INFISH MM-2 (fish habitat component). 

The five fords of concern are 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 

culvert is across a seasonally dry tributary and 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 2-foot high banks are composed of fine-grain sediments and the channel bed is composed of 

old logs, cobbles and fine sediments. Their installation and removal would have the the potential 

to contribute sediment into the streams due to the fine-grained nature of the banks. Discharge of 

sediment into streams would be a violation of 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). 
Chapter 3 NFBR Mining Supplemental EIS

58

Table 3-5

Plans of Operations with Existing or Proposed Fords, Bridges, and Culverts under 

Alternatives 2, 3, and 4

(stream bank and bed conditions included)

Plan of Operation Fords, Bridges, and Culverts

August Placer 1, 2, 3 None

Big Elk/Red Dog 1 existing ford. Operator proposes to cross when the channel is dry. Stream 

banks and channel bed are stable.

Burnt Lode/Placer None

Camp Hale None

Dominion Lode Group None

EJ Placer A None

EJ Placer B None

EJ Placer C Existing cement ford

EJ Placer D None

EJ Placer E Existing bridge

Gimlet Placer None

Glory B Placer None

Gold Busters Placer – Pinus 

Creek site

None

Gold Camp Placer – site 1 None

Gold Camp Placer – site 2 None

Gold Camp Placer -- site 3 None

Golden Bandit Placer/Lode 1 None

Golden Bandit Placer/Lode 2 None

Gopher Placer 1 (north of FS 

7830)

None

Gopher Placer 2 (south of FS 

7830)

None

Jay Gould Lode (Banzer) None

Jay Gould Mine Works 

(Newell)

None
NFBR Mining Supplemental EIS Chapter 3

59

Plan of Operation Fords, Bridges, and Culverts

Jim Bob Placer 2 existing fords: 1 ford crosses the NFBR. Another seasonal ford crosses an 

overflow channel on the south side that is dry most of the year. NFBR stream 

banks are composed of cobbles and are stable.

Ladder/Rusty Bucket None

Lucky One Placer/Lode 1 proposed ford. Ford crosses through a mix of wetland and narrow creek bed 

(2-3 feet wide). Operator 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. 

Lucky Placer None

Midas/Lady Bug Placer None

Monarch 1, 2, 4 None

North Fork Placer None

Old Channel Placer None

Parkerville Placer Mining None

Prudent Placer None

R&RK 2,3 3 existing fords. The three fords have stream banks and beds composed of 

cobbles and are highly stable. 

R&RK 4, 5 1 existing ford. Banks are composed of fine-grained sediment. Bank slopes at 

the ford are fine grained sediments. The low spot between the northern valley 

floor and the little island has water present. 

Racer Group/Keystone Korners 

Placer

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. Stream banks are 

composite banks, composed of fines overlying a layer of cobbles/gravels, and 

banks are easily sheared.

Roberts Lode None

Rocker Group Placer None

Shamrock Placer 2 existing fords. Southern ford. East bank is composed of fine-grained material. 

West bank is composed of cobbles and is stable. Channel bed is composed of 

cobbles and is stable. Northern ford: Same characteristics as southern ford.

Silver Bell Placer None

Silver Eagle Lode None

Sluice Box Placer 2 existing fords. Ford 1 is located at the base of the access road. The ford 

crosses the outflow from an upstream spring just before the flow reaches the 

NFBR. Ford 2 crosses the NFBR. The southern bank is composed of fines and 

tends to get rutted. Northern bank is composed of cobbles and is stable. 

Channel bed is a mix of gravels, sands and some cobbles, and is stable. 

Snow Creek Placer 1 proposed ford. The ford is composed of old placer tailings, which are a mix 

cobbles and fines. The log supports from the old bridge are still present on both 

sides of the bank, partially protecting the banks. Removal of the logs would 

result in bank disturbance and sediment input into the stream.

Standby/McNamee Placer 1 

(upstream site)

None
Chapter 3 NFBR Mining Supplemental EIS

60

Plan of Operation Fords, Bridges, and Culverts

Standby/McNamee Placer 2 

(downstream site)

1 proposed ford. The banks are composed of fine-grained sediment, and are 

more than 4 feet high in places.

Star (Pinus) Placer None

Three Cent Placer (all sites) None

Upper Geiser Creek Placer/Lode 1 proposed ford. The ford is composed of a mix cobbles and fines. 

Upper Winterville Placer/Lode 1 existing ford. The channel has only intermittent flow and is dry much of the 

summer. The channel bed is composed of cobbles with gravel and sand in 

between the cobbles. The channel bed in both places is stable. The banks are 

composed of a mix of fines and cobbles, and are sloped. 

West Parkerville Placer None

Wild Flower Placer 1 existing ford. The ford is used to cross the NFBR to access the area on China 

Creek proposed for hand testing. Channel bed is stable. 

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 5 of this Supplement. 

Alternative 2 has 26 Plans with existing or proposed ponds located inside an RHCA (Table 3-6). 

Valley floor widths on both sides of the streams are less than 300 feet at all but one site (Gopher 

Placer), and in many cases less than 150 feet. The existing and/or proposed ponds are 1) located 

in close proximity to the testing and processing activities, 2) on the flat valley floor where 

ground water, the dominant source of pond water, is accessible at shallow depths, 3) dug into the 

ground, and 4) are in highly stable locations. There is no potential for sediment to enter the 

stream as a result of their location. In contrast, placing existing or proposed ponds outside the 

RHCA would situate them on hillsides where soils are shallow and slopes are steep. This creates 

a risk of pond failure as the shallow hillside sediments become saturated and pore pressure builds 

up at the interface between the sediments and the underlying bedrock or less porous zone. The 

result could be a gully or a small debris flow. In addition, the relocated ponds would be less 

likely to tap into shallow groundwater, thereby eliminating the miner’s water source for the 

ponds. Therefore, placement of these ponds inside the RHCA would be in compliance with the 

LRMP (INFISH MM-1 and MM-2).

Gopher Placer is the exception in that it could be moved because the area is flat. The ponds at 

Gopher site 1 are located inside the 150 foot RHCA buffer 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 
NFBR Mining Supplemental EIS Chapter 3

61

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. 

Table 3-6

Plans of Operations with Existing or Proposed Ponds within an RHCA under

Alternatives 2, 3 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 / 150 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 None No No

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 / 50 feet No Yes
Chapter 3 NFBR Mining Supplemental EIS

62

Plan of Operation

Creek/INFISH 

buffer

Existing Ponds 

w/in RHCA

Proposed Ponds 

w/in RHCA

and 300 feet

Roberts Lode None No No

Rocker Group Placer Greenhorn Ck / 300 

feet; Slab Creek / 

50 feet

Yes No

Shamrock Placer None No No

Silver Bell Placer Camp Ck / 150 feet Yes Yes

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 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

Upper Geiser Creek Placer/Lode 

(processing site)

Geiser Creek / 300 

feet

Yes No

Upper Winterville Placer/Lode None No No

West Parkerville Placer Tony Ck / 300 feet No Yes

Wild Flower Placer NFBR / 300 feet Yes No

***August Placer/Lode has existing ponds on top of an old mine tailings dump. Although this is not an INFISH or 

CWA issue, the leaching of heavy metals have future 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 3-7). 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 3-7

Plans of Operations Proposing Road Construction under Alternative 2, 3 and 4

Plan of Operations Creek Nonsystem Mine Access Roads Proposed for construction

Burnt Lode/Placer 3 

(Karissa)

NFBR The operator 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. 
NFBR Mining Supplemental EIS Chapter 3

63

Plan of Operations Creek Nonsystem Mine Access Roads Proposed for construction

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 

Forest Service hydrologist on August 15, 2008. The road would be located along an old ditch 

grade. The ditch is situated on a steep slope, and comes within 10 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. 

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 

discharge of sediment into the NFBR given the location and volume of sediment that would be 

disturbed and moved. Therefore, the Karissa road construction would not be in compliance with 

the LRMP (INFISH MM-1 or the fish habitat component of INFISH MM-2). 

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 LRMP (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 Forest Service 

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 LRMP (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 Use by Miners

Under Alternative 2 there are 21 Plans of Operations that propose to use all or portions of closed 

or previously decommissioned roads (Appendix 1B). These roads total 43.93 miles and are 

distributed over four subwatersheds (Table 3-8). A map displaying the location of these roads 

can be found in the project file. 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 
Chapter 3 NFBR Mining Supplemental EIS

64

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. 

Table 3–8

Miles of closed roads and previously decommissioned roads proposed for use in Plans of 

Operations under Alternatives 2 and 3.

(Data source: 2009 Forest Service GIS database)

Alt 2 and 3 

Mine Subwatershed Closed and/or previously 

decommissioned road 

miles

August Placer G 0.00

Big Elk/Red Dog Placer F 0.18

Burnt Lode/Placer G 0.00

Dominion E, F 5.63

EJ Placers C 7.57

Gold Busters Placer F 0.00

Golden Bandit Placer F 3.00

Gopher Placer F 1.07

Jay Gould Mine and Lode F 2.28

Ladder/Rusty Bucket & 

Monarch Lode

F 0.09

Lucky One Placer/Lode F 0.34

Lucky Placer F 5.52

Midas/Ladybug Placer G 0.62

Monarch Lode F 4.41

N. Fork & Prudent Placers E

Parkerville Placer, Upper 

Winterville Placer/Lode

G 1.20

Parkerville G 0.67

Rocker Group G 0.30

Silver Bell Placer F 0.67

Silver Eagle Lode G 0.45

Snow Creek Placer G 0.26

Standby/ McNamee Placer G 4.76

Star (Pinus) Placer F 0.69

Three Cent Placer/Red Dog D 0.00

Upper Geiser G 3.12

Upper Winterville 

Placer/Lode

G 2.10

West Parkerville G 0.00

Total 43.93
NFBR Mining Supplemental EIS Chapter 3

65

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 (Wildflower 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

Six Plans are located in areas where adits discharge water but only five propose to either use the 

adit waters and/or mine the adit. Only the five Plans are discussed. 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 3-1). 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 3-3). If lode values are economic, then the operators 

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). 

Lucky One Placer/Lode discharges into a pre-existing wetland that has a short segment of 

channel with perennial flow that goes subsurface at Forest Service road 7380240. Therefore, 
Chapter 3 NFBR Mining Supplemental EIS

66

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 (Appendix 7A and 7B) 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 

turbidity plume generated by suction dredging to persist. 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. It is also possible that the turbidity would span Cub Creek because the 

channel is narrow.

Suction dredging on Cub Creek also has the potential to trigger a headcut because of the finegrained 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. As a result, fish habitat would decrease 

and the fish would be unable to move around and through the active mining area. 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 has 25 Plans that have the potential for a “may” discharge either because of 

activities at one or more of its sites or maintenance/use of closed/decommissioned roads (Table 

3-9). As a result, these 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. The detailed Effects 

Analysis of the miners’ Water Quality Protection Measures (WQPMs) as they pertain to use of 

closed/decommissioned roads is found in Appendix 1B. 

Table 3-9

Plans of Operations and Forest Service determination of potential for a discharge of a 

pollutant under Alternative 2 and creek potentially affected

Creek adjacent 

to

Activity of 

concern

Potential for 

Discharge

Plan of 

Operations

Sites Alternative 2

August Placer 1,2, 3 None No

Big Elk/Red Dog Big Elk/Red Dry Ck Mining Yes
NFBR Mining Supplemental EIS Chapter 3

67

Creek adjacent 

to

Activity of 

concern

Potential for 

Discharge

Plan of 

Operations

Sites Alternative 2

Dog 

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 on 

Cub Creek)

Cub Ck Mining and 

suction dredging

Yes

2 (test site 4 on 

Cub Creek)

Cub Ck Mining and 

suction dredging

Yes

3 (Karissa) NFBR Proposed road 

building

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 Ck Mining Yes

Glory B Placer Glory B Placer Jackknife Ck No

Gold Busters 

Placer 

Gold Busters 

Placer 

Pinus Ck No

Gold Camp Placer 1 Camp Ck Mining Yes

2 Camp Ck No

3 None No

Golden Bandit 

Placer/Lode

1 None No

2 None No

Goldy Placer & 

Millsite

Goldy Placer & 

Millsite

None No

Gopher Placer 1 (north of FS 

7830)

Simpson Ck Mining Yes

2 (south of FS 

7830)

Simpson Ck 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 Ladder/Rusty None No
Chapter 3 NFBR Mining Supplemental EIS

68

Creek adjacent 

to

Activity of 

concern

Potential for 

Discharge

Plan of 

Operations

Sites Alternative 2

Bucket Bucket 

Lucky One 

Placer/Lode

Lucky One 

Placer/Lode

Simpson Ck No

Lucky Placer Lucky Placer None No

Midas/Lady Bug 

Placer

Midas/Lady 

Bug Placer

None No

Monarch 1 (main portal 

and also referred 

to as Monarch 

Mine Works 1)

Mosquito Ck

Maintenance 

activities for 

decommissioned 

road FS 

1065250 as road 

is in or close to 

drainage.

Yes

2 (test 

excavation)

None Yes

4 (new millsite) None Yes

North Fork Placer North Fork 

Placer

NFBR Mining Yes

Old Channel 

Placer

Old Channel 

Placer

None No

Parkerville Placer 

Mining

Parkerville 

Placer Mining

None No

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 Ck

Mining, culvert 

installation, 

bridge building

Yes

Roberts Lode Roberts Lode None No

Rocker Group 

Placer 

Rocker Group 

Placer 

Greenhorn and 

Slab Cks Mining Yes

Shamrock Placer Shamrock 

Placer

NFBR Mining and ford Yes

Silver Bell Placer Silver Bell 

Placer

Camp Ck 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 Ck

Mining and road 

maintenance 

activities of 

closed roads FS 

1038400, 

1038401, and 

1035559 where 

close to creek

Yes
NFBR Mining Supplemental EIS Chapter 3

69

Creek adjacent 

to

Activity of 

concern

Potential for 

Discharge

Plan of 

Operations

Sites Alternative 2

Standby?NcNamee 

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

Star (Pinus) Placer Star (Pinus) 

Placer

Pinus Ck Mining and road 

maintenance 

activities of

closed road 

7386430 where 

it crosses the 

creek

Yes

Three Cent Placer Processing site 

1

Three Cent Ck No

Processing site 

2

Three Cent Ck Processing Yes

Mining 1 (north 

of FS 1075 

road)

Three Cent Ck No

Mining 2 (south 

of FS 1075 

road)

Three Cent Ck No

East East Three Cent 

Ck

No

Red Dog Three Cent Ck No

Upper Geiser 

Creek Placer/Lode

Processing site 

area

Geiser Ck Processing Yes

Portion 

alongside the 

creek between 

the junction 

with 1044060 

upstream to the 

portal.

Geiser Ck

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
Chapter 3 NFBR Mining Supplemental EIS

70

Creek adjacent 

to

Activity of 

concern

Potential for 

Discharge

Plan of 

Operations

Sites Alternative 2

Upper Winterville 

Placer/Lode Upper 

Winterville 

Placer/Lode

Trib to Geiser 

Ck

Mining and 

maintenance 

activities for 

decommissioned 

road FS 

10644045

Yes

West Parkerville 

Placer

West Parkerville 

Placer

Tony Ck Mining Yes

Wild Flower 

Placer

Wild Flower 

Placer

NFBR No

2) Cumulative Effects

The following fully replaces page 31 in Chapter III of the FEIS:

The past, ongoing, planned, and reasonably foreseeable future actions described in the FEIS, 

Chapter III, pgs. 26-28 are the same for all alternatives (with the exception of mining). Under 

Alternative 2 there are 25 Plans of Operations that have the potential for a discharge of a 

pollutant into navigable waters for some portion of their Plan. The distribution of those Plans 

with respect to streams is as follows: 

Camp Ck (1), Dry Ck (1), Geiser Ck (3), Gimlet Ck (1), Greenhorn/Slab Cks (1), McNamee 

Gulch (1), Mosquito Ck (1), NFBR (8), NFBR/Cub Creek (1), unnamed NFBR tributary (1), 

Pinus Ck (1), Simpson Ck (1), Snow Ck (1), Three Cent Ck (1), Tony Ck (1) and a natural 

wetland (1). The majority of the Plans (9) occur adjacent to the NFBR, a perennial, fish-bearing 

stream. 

The assessment of the cumulative effect of the mining operations on water quality takes into 

account the ambiguity on the location of where the operators would actually be working. The 

assessment of cumulative effects assumes the worst case scenario – that being that the operators 

were measuring their buffer from the edge of the low-flow channel. As a result some operations 

would be 1) on the active floodplain, 2) on a hillside that feeds directly into the stream, 3) on the 

valley floor terrace bank, or 4) near the edge of the valley floor terrace-channel break in slope 

(Figure 1). 

Under Alternative 2, the 25 Plans of Operations have the potential to input sediment into their 

adjacent streams and locally further degrade water quality. The operations would alter stream 

banks, active floodplains, and valley floor terrace edge stability. They could also potentially 

result in long-term, chronic inputs of sediment into the stream channels. As a result of the 

WWNF Travel Management Plan, any reductions in motor vehicle travel over time would allow 

for the revegetation of native surface roadbeds, decreased sediment generated, transported and 

potentially delivered to a stream, and reconnection of near-surface groundwater flow paths. 
NFBR Mining Supplemental EIS Chapter 3

71

c. Alternative 3 (Proposed Plans of Operations with Forest Service BMPs)

The following Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects for Alternative 3 fully replace pages 32-

35 in Chapter III in the FEIS.

1) Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 3 includes the same 42 Plans of Operations as Alternative 2. Alternative 3 differs 

from Alternative 2, however, in that it adds 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 operators to 

eliminate the potential for a discharge of pollutants into navigable waters, and to ensure 

compliance with the WWNF Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) standards and 

guidelines, including INFISH MM1 and MM2. 

The Forest Service WQPMs are site-specific and based on topography, ground cover, presence 

and location of old placer tailings with respect to a stream, distance from stream, ford 

characterisitics, micro-topography, and presence of adits (Appendix 1A). Requirements to Plans 

of Operations under Alternative 3 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). 

Soils

Alternative 3 would impact the same number of acres as Alternative 2. The soil impacts would 

also be similar to those discussed in Alternative 2 of the FEIS. 

Water Quality

Alternative 3 examines the same aspects of the Plans for compliance with the Clean Water Act 

and INFISH MM-1 and MM-2 as those discussed in Alternative 2 but takes into account the sitespecific Forest Service WQPMs and General Requirements. 

Fords, Bridges, and Culverts

Alternative 3 has the same 14 existing fords, 4 proposed fords and 1 existing bridge as 

Alternative 2. However, the two proposed bridges and one proposed culvert at Racer 

Group/Keystone Korners would be changed to 3 fords, thereby increasing the total number of 

fords from 18 under Alternative 2 to 21 under Alternative 3. 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.
Chapter 3 NFBR Mining Supplemental EIS

72

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 5 proposed fords have the potential to 

contribute sediment into the streams due to the fine-grained nature of the banks. The banks of 

these 8 fords would be sloped and rocked, and where necessary, the channel beds would be 

rocked (Table 3-10). The disturbance related to the armoring the 8 fords would be limited to 

less than 10 feet of stream banks and be of short duration (day that rocking and bank sloping 

occurred). The rocking would protect the underlying fine sediments from being eroded. 

Table 3-10

Forest Service WQPMs for Plans of Operations using Fords, Bridges, and/or Culverts in 

Alternatives 3 and 4

Plan of Operations Creek Fords, 

Culverts and 

Bridges

WQPMs

Big Elk /Red Dog Dry Creek 1 existing ford None

EJ Placer 1, 2, 3 NFBR 1 existing 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: Rock and slope south bank.

R&RK 4, 5 NFBR (perennial 

flow)

1 existing ford Rock both sides of the ford. Rock the low spot 

between the northern valley floor and the little 

island where water is present.

Racer 

Group/Keystone 

Korners Placer

Geiser Creek 

(intermittent flow 

and section with 

perennial flow)

1 culvert and 2 

temporary log 

bridges 

Drop culvert and bridge proposals and replace with 

fords. 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.

Shamrock Placer NFBR 2 existing 

fords

The east bank of both fords will be rocked and 

sloped.

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. 
NFBR Mining Supplemental EIS Chapter 3

73

Plan of Operations Creek Fords, 

Culverts and 

Bridges

WQPMs

Snow Creek Placer Snow Creek 1 proposed 

ford

The stream banks will be rocked and sloped.

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, the stream banks will be sloped. 

Upper Geiser Creek 

Placer/Lode

Geiser Creek 1 proposed 

ford

The stream banks will be rocked and sloped

Upper Winterville 

Placer/Lode 

Winterville Creek 

(intermittent flow)

2 existing 

fords (one is 

referred to as a 

crossing)

None. The miner’s mitigations are sufficient. He 

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).

Wild Flower Placer NFBR 1 existing ford None

Proposed Road Construction 

The effects of Alternative 3 would be less than described in Alterative 2 because of the 

additional Forest Service WQPMs (Appendix 1A) for the Burnt Lode (Karissa road 

construction). 

Closed/Previously Decommissioned Roads Use by Miners

Alternative 3 has the same closed/previously decommissioned roads proposed for use as 

Alternative 2 (Table 3-8, Appendix 1B) except there would be a reduction in the potential effect 

of miners using these roads compared to Alternative 2 because of the implementation of the 

road-specific Z-requirements (Appendix 2). The road-specific Z-requirements identify 

additional ways that soil disturbance would be minimized and sediment prevented from entering 

any channels. Road use of closed roads would be limited to when the miners were operating. 

Ponds inside RHCAs

Under Alternative 3, as is the case for Alternative 2, 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. 

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 
Chapter 3 NFBR Mining Supplemental EIS

74

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 3 has the same water quality effects from adit discharge as 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. 

Suction Dredging on Cub Creek (Burnt Lode/Placer)

There would be no suction dredging on Cub Creek under Alternative 3, therefore there would be 

no effects.

Summary of Effects

Alternative 3 includes additional Forest Service BMPs: site-specific Forest Service WQPMs 

(Appendices 1A, 1B) which address mining activity and the Z-requirements (Appendix 2) which 

address how the closed/previously decommissioned roads used by the miners will be maintained. 

These additional BMPs bring all but one Plan into compliance with Section 313 of the CWA. 

The sole exception is the Burnt Lode/Placer (Karissa site) road construction (Table 3-11). Under 

Alternative 2, 25 Plans would not be in compliance, compared to only one Plan under 

Alternative 3. Road construction to the Karissa site would continue to have the potential for a 

discharge, even with the added Forest Service BMPs.

The Burnt Lode/Placer proposed access road (Karissa site) would not comply with INFISH MM1 or MM-2, despite additional Forest Service WQPMs, for the following reasons. 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 10 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. 
NFBR Mining Supplemental EIS Chapter 3

75

Table 3-11

Plans of Operations and comparison of Forest Service determination of potential for a 

discharge of a pollutant under Alternatives 2, 3, and 4

Creek adjacent 

to

Activity of 

concern

Potential for Discharge

Plan of 

Operations

Sites Alternative 2 Alternatives 3 

and 4

August Placer 1,2, 3 None No No

Big Elk/Red Dog Big Elk/Red 

Dog 

Dry Ck 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 Ck Mining and 

suction dredging

Yes No

2 (test site 4 on 

Cub Creek)

Cub Ck Mining and 

suction dredging

Yes No

3 (Karissa) 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 Ck Mining Yes No

Glory B Placer Glory B Placer Jackknife Ck No No

Gold Busters 

Placer 

Gold Busters 

Placer 

Pinus Ck No No

Gold Camp Placer

1 Camp Ck Mining Yes No

2 Camp Ck No No

3 None No No

Golden Bandit 

Placer/Lode

1 None No No

2 None No No

Goldy Placer & 

Millsite

Goldy Placer & 

Millsite

None No No

Gopher Placer 1 (north of FS 

7830)

Simpson Ck Mining Yes No
Chapter 3 NFBR Mining Supplemental EIS

76

Creek adjacent 

to

Activity of 

concern

Potential for Discharge

Plan of 

Operations

Sites Alternative 2 Alternatives 3 

and 4

2 (south of FS 

7830)

Simpson Ck Mining and 

maintenance 

activities for FS 

7380270

Yes No

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 Ck 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

Maintenance 

activities for 

decommissioned 

road FS 

1065250 as road 

is in or close to 

drainage.

Yes No

2 (test 

excavation)

None Yes No

4 (new millsite) None 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

None No 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 Ck

Mining, culvert 

installation, 

bridge building

Yes No

Roberts Lode Roberts Lode None No No

Rocker Group 

Placer 

Rocker Group 

Placer 

Greenhorn and 

Slab Cks Mining Yes No

Shamrock Placer Shamrock 

Placer

NFBR Mining and ford Yes No

Silver Bell Placer Silver Bell 

Placer

Camp Ck No No

Silver Eagle Lode Silver Eagle 

Lode

None No No

Sluice Box Placer Sluice Box 

Placer

NFBR Mining and ford Yes No
NFBR Mining Supplemental EIS Chapter 3

77

Creek adjacent 

to

Activity of 

concern

Potential for Discharge

Plan of 

Operations

Sites Alternative 2 Alternatives 3 

and 4

Snow Creek Placer 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?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 Ck No No

Processing site 

2

Three Cent Ck Processing Yes No

Mining 1 (north 

of FS 1075 

road)

Three Cent Ck No No

Mining 2 (south 

of FS 1075 

road)

Three Cent Ck No No

East East Three Cent 

Ck

No No

Red Dog Three Cent Ck No No

Upper Geiser 

Creek Placer/Lode

Processing site 

area

Geiser Ck Processing Yes No
Chapter 3 NFBR Mining Supplemental EIS

78

Creek adjacent 

to

Activity of 

concern

Potential for Discharge

Plan of 

Operations

Sites Alternative 2 Alternatives 3 

and 4

Portion 

alongside the 

creek between 

the junction 

with 1044060 

upstream to the 

portal.

Geiser Ck

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 

Ck

Mining and 

maintenance 

activities for 

decommissioned 

road FS 

10644045

Yes No

West Parkerville 

Placer

West Parkerville 

Placer

Tony Ck Mining Yes No

Wild Flower 

Placer

Wild Flower 

Placer

NFBR No No

2) Cumulative Effects 

The cumulative effects of implementing Alternative 3 are less than those of Alternative 2 due to 

the Forest Service WQPMs (Appendix 1A) and General Requirements (Appendix 2) included in 

Alternative 3. Those General Requirements included in Alternative 3 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 Z-requirements. 

With the exception of Burnt Lode/Placer (Karissa site road ), Forest Service WQPMs developed 

as a result of site visits, would eliminate the potential for a discharge of a pollutant. In many 

cases, clarifying the buffer starting location to be the valley floor terrace-channel break-in-slope 

edge would be sufficient to eliminate the potential for a discharge. In these cases the operation 

would be now clearly out of the active flood prone area and onto the historic floodplain (valley 

floor) which is only flooded during rare extreme events. 
NFBR Mining Supplemental EIS Chapter 3

79

d. Alternative 4 (Proposed Plans of Operations with Forest Service BMPs 

and Road Management Activities)

The following Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects for Alternative 4 fully replace pages 35 -

39 in Chapter III in the FEIS. Alternative 4 in the Supplement and its conclusions represent a 

major change from the FEIS. See Supplement Chapter 1 and Appendix 3 for the rationale for 

these changes.

1) Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 4 was developed to address a potential water quality concern related to possible 

sediment inputs into stream channel from roads, mining, and logging. Alternative 4 is similar to 

Alternative 3 but has some additional road-related requirements (Appendix 2): 1) Some 

currently open roads would be closed, and 2) road management activities were identified in the 

Roads Analysis (USDA 2002) for these selected roads. 

The FEIS linked information found in the Roads Analysis (USDA 2002) with results from the 

modified R1-R4 erosion model (USDA 2000) to estimate a maximum amount of sediment that 

might enter a channel under a highly simplified landscape conditions from roads, logging, and 

mining. While the model results and the Roads Analysis conclusions had no parameters in 

common but were linked in an attempt to identify 

However, this distinction between potential maximum and actual sediment inputs was lost in the 

final writing of the FEIS. Instead, the estimates of sediment generated by an activity (based on 

the model) and the potential risks of sediment delivery (based on model and roads analysis) were 

presented as an actual rather than a maximum potential amount of sediment delivered. Both the 

model and the Roads Analysis based their estimates of sediment inputs on the assumption that 

the linear distance from a stream was the only parameter that influenced outcome. 

As stated in the Water/Road Interaction section located under Affected Environment –

Watershed in this chapter of the Supplement, the model sediment yields resulting from mining, 

roads, and timber harvest were approximately 5 tons/sq. mile/year. The 5 tons/sq. mile/year 

from these human activities represented 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).” If, as stated in the FEIS (Ch. III, p. 55), that “Results from the 

modeling show that roads from all land ownership contribute.....about 69 percent of the modeled 

sediment load [5 tons/sq. mile/year]” then roads are currently contributing at most 1.6% of the 

total sediment now entering streams. 

This potential 1.6 % contribution of sediment to streams from roads was based solely on the 

linear distance between the road and the creek. The model could not take into account ground 

cover, micro topography, or downed woody vegetation. Therefore, the 1.6% estimate of roadcontributed sediment would be a maximum value. Based on a re-analysis of methods and the 
Chapter 3 NFBR Mining Supplemental EIS

80

FEIS, combined with field reviews, this Supplement concludes that roads in the NFBR 

watershed are not a major contributor to water quality degradation as it pertains to sediment 

inputs, and were not intended by Bradford and Fedora (USDA 2000) to be interpreted as such. 

This is discussed in detail in Appendix 3 of this Supplement.

Soils

Same as Alternative 3.

Water Quality 

Alternative 4 considers the same Plans as Alternative 3 and identifies the same effects for 1) 

fords, bridges, and culverts, 2) ponds inside RHCAs, 3) proposed road construction, 4) breaching 

of beaver dams, 5) adit discharges, 6) use of closed/decommissioned roads, and 7) suction 

dredging on Cub Creek (Burnt Lode/Placer). The effects for Alternative 4 are different in the 

following activities:

Proposed and Existing Closed/Previously Decommissioned Roads Use by Miners

Under Alternative 4 the number of Plans using closed and/or decommissioned roads would 

increase from 21 to 26 Plans because some of the roads that are currently open under Alternative 

3 and used by the miners would be closed under Alternative 4. The miles of closed roads used 

by miners to access their operations would therefore increased from 44.93 to 64.94 miles (Table 

3-12 and Appendix 9). The impact to water quality as a result of the miners using closed/ roads 

would be the same as Alternative 3 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. 

Table 3-12

Comparison of miles of previously closed and decommissioned roads and new closed roads 

proposed for use in Plans of Operations under Alternatives 2, 3, and 4

Alt 2 and 3 Alt 4 (new miles) Alt 4 

Mine SWS Closed and/or 

previously 

decommissioned 

road miles 

Open road miles 

that would become 

closed roads (miles)

Total 

Closed 

roads used 

(miles)

August Placer G 0.00 0.29 0.29

Burnt Lode/Placer F 0.00 0.18 0.18

Dominion G 5.63 1.38 7.01

EJ Placers E, F 7.57 0.00 7.57

Gold Busters Placer C 0.00 0.87 0.87

Golden Bandit Placer F 3.00 1.29 4.29

Gopher Placer F 1.07 0.00 1.07

Jay Gould Mine and Lode F 2.28 2.05 4.33
NFBR Mining Supplemental EIS Chapter 3

81

Alt 2 and 3 Alt 4 (new miles) Alt 4 

Mine SWS Closed and/or 

previously 

decommissioned 

road miles 

Open road miles 

that would become 

closed roads (miles)

Total 

Closed 

roads used 

(miles)

Ladder/Rusty Bucket & 

Monarch Lode

F 0.09 0.06 0.15

Lucky One Placer/Lode F 0.34 0.80 1.14

Lucky Placer F 5.52 0.00 5.52

Midas/Ladybug Placer F 0.62 0.00 0.62

Monarch Lode G 4.41 5.20 9.61

N. Fork & Prudent Placers F 0.12 0.12

Parkerville & Upper 

Winterville

E 1.87 0.17 2.04

Big Elk/Red Dog Placer G 0.18 1.01 1.19

Rocker Group G 0.30 0.00 0.30

Silver Bell Placer G 0.67 0.00 0.67

Silver Eagle Lode F 0.45 0.00 0.45

Snow Creek Placer G 0.26 0.04 0.30

Standby/ McNamee Placer G 4.76 3.30 8.06

Star (Pinus) Placer G 0.69 0.00 0.69

Three Cent Placer/Red 

Dog

F 0.00 0.59 0.59

Upper Geiser D 3.12 0.75 3.87

Upper Winterville 

Placer/Lode

G 2.10 0.00 2.10

West Parkerville G 0.00 1.81 1.81

Total 44.93 19.91 64.84

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, this input would be 

limited spatially to the 300 feet on either side of the crossing, and limited temporally to the time 
Chapter 3 NFBR Mining Supplemental EIS

82

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. 

Summary of Effects

Alternative 4 as described above would have the same effects as Alternative 3 except for the 

possible short-term impacts to water quality as a result of road management activities. 

2) Cumulative Effects

The cumulative effects of implementing Alternative 4 would be the same as those described for 

Alternative 3 with the exception of the additional maintenance, reconstruction, closures and 

decommissionings of selected roads. Ongoing maintenance and reconstruction, and proper 

design and implementation of road drainage features and road stabilization for closed and 

decommissioned roads would help prevent the contribution of sediment to streams in the future 

by decreasing the potential for road failures. 

Implementation of Alternative 4 may result in a small reduction in the amount of road-generated 

sediment that is delivered to streams. The result would be a non-measurable improvement in 

water quality as it pertains to turbidity and suspended sediment loads. Alternative 4 would not, 

however, influence the 303 (d) listing for sedimentation (embeddedness) because 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. 

4. Comparison of Alternatives

The following section fully replaces page 39 in Chapter III in the FEIS:

Alternatives 1 and 2 would not adequately protect water quality. These Alternatives include 

Plans that do not contain protection measures sufficient to protect water quality. Under 

Alternative 2, 25 Plans would have the potential for a discharge of a pollutant into navigable 

waters and therefore not be in compliance with Section 313 of CWA. 

Alternatives 3 and 4, with their added WQPMs (Appendix 1A, 1B) and General Requirements 

(Appendix 2), would eliminate the potential for a “may” discharge of a pollutant into stream 

channels and bring the Plans into compliance with Section 313 of the CWA for all but one Plan.

The sole exception is the Burnt Lode/Placer (Karissa site) road construction (Table 3-11) and a 

reduction of 25 Plans under Alternative 2 to only one Plan not in compliance. Road construction 

to the Karissa site would continue to be the potential for a discharge, even with the added Forest 

Service BMPs.
NFBR Mining Supplemental EIS Chapter 3

83

Alternative 4 would add emphasis and focus on road management, and through actions taken, 

would improve the drainage and stability of the roads, reduce use on the roads, and eliminate a 

small amount of road-generated sediment that is currently being delivered to streams. This 

improvement is likely non-measurable relative to turbidity or suspended sediment loads and 

would not influence 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 roadgenerated 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 were re-established.
Chapter 3 NFBR Mining Supplemental EIS

84

B. Fisheries _________________________________________ 

(Key Issue 2)

1. Affected Environment

a. Current Management Direction 

No change from FEIS.

b. Desired Condition

No change from FEIS.

 

c. Fish Populations

No change from FEIS.

d. Historical Impacts to Fish from Early Mining on the Burnt River

No change from FEIS.

e. Stream Surveys (1989 to 1994)

No change from FEIS.

2. Environmental Effects 

a. Introduction

No change from FEIS.

b. Redband Trout 

Alternative 1

No change from FEIS.
NFBR Mining Supplemental EIS Chapter 3

85

Direct and Indirect Effects

No change from FEIS.

Lode mining

No change from FEIS.

Ford/Bridge Crossings

No change from FEIS.

Placer Mining 

No change from FEIS.

Suction dredging 

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.

 

Water Withdrawals

No change from FEIS.

Cumulative Effects Within the North Fork Burnt River Watershed 

No change from FEIS.

Tree Removal Activities

No change from FEIS.

Prescribed Fire

No change from FEIS.
Chapter 3 NFBR Mining Supplemental EIS

86

Mining

As a result of the re-analysis of road and watershed effects for this Supplement (Appendix 3), 

this section has been replaced with the following:

Under Alternative 1, the existing placer, lode, and suction dredge mining in the NFBR 

Watershed is adversely affecting about 35 acres of riparian habitat, with about 30 acres of 

riparian habitat being disturbed adjacent to fish-bearing streams such as the NFBR, Camp, 

Gimlet, Greenhorn, Jackknife, Snow, Geiser, Pinus, and Dry Creeks.

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). This table 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.

Given this information about historic stream channel impacts, Alternative 1 is not having an 

impact on fisheries in the context of sediment delivery and mining.

Livestock Grazing

No change from FEIS.

Transportation System

This section in the FEIS, Chapter III, pgs. 55-56 is fully replaced with the following:

During the last 2-3 years the Forest has been developing a new Travel Management Plan (TMP) 

in response to the 2005 Travel Management Rule. In this process, a DEIS was published with a 

full range of travel management options that have been considered for the analysis area including 

the NFBR project area. Based on this analysis which is nearing completion (decision expected in 

late 2010), some alternatives would reduce motorized open-route densities. Motorized open 

route density is defined as miles of roads and trails designated for motor vehicle use per square 

mile of land base (usually 5th of 6th HUC). Once the TMP (a reasonable foreseeable future 

action) is decided and implemented, open road densities are expected trend toward LRMP 

guidelines. 

For the detailed information, refer to the Access/Transportation section in this Supplement and 

Appendix 4.

Special Uses/Recreation

No change from FEIS.
NFBR Mining Supplemental EIS Chapter 3

87

Determination

No change from FEIS.

Alternative 2

No change from FEIS.

Direct and Indirect Effects

Lode mining 

This section in the FEIS, Chapter III, pgs. 58-59 is replaced with the following:

The Supplemental analysis identified three operations that have adits that discharge water. They 

are August Placer/Lode, Ladder/Rusty Bucket, and Lucky One Placer/Lode. Based on the Water 

Quality analysis above, including Tables 3-5 and 3-6, there are no fisheries concerns because the 

adit waters go subsurface prior to reaching any perennial stream or wetland. Other effects from 

lode mining are the same as Alternative 1. 

Ford/Bridge Crossings

Two changes from the FEIS. In an August 16, 2004 letter, Shamrock Placer pulled their 

proposal to install a culvert in the NFBR. Also, in a November 16, 2006 letter, Snow Creek 

Placer requested a change in their proposal to allow them to cross Snow Creek with a ford, rather 

than a temporary bridge. See Watershed and Soil Resources, Chapter 3 of this Supplement for 

the effects of the proposed Snow Creek ford.

Placer Mining

No change from FEIS.

Suction Dredging

Suction dredging is no longer analyzed as a direct/indirect effect except for dredging on Cub 

Creek (Burnt Lode/Placer). Refer to Watershed and Soil Resource section for detailed 

discussion of suction dredging on Cub Creek and its effects. The rationale for excluding 

suction dredging from the proposed activities in the Plans of Operations is found in Chapter 

1, Section 1.4 and Appendices 6, 7A and 7B of this Supplement. 

Water Withdrawals

No change from FEIS.

Cumulative Effects
Chapter 3 NFBR Mining Supplemental EIS

88

No change from FEIS, with the exception of suction dredging. A detailed discussion of suction 

dredging and related field observations are found in the Surface Resource Disturbance 

Determination (Appendix 6), and Effects of Suction Dredging on Water and Fisheries Resource 

(Appendix 7A). 

Determination

No change from FEIS.

Alternative 3 

No change from FEIS.

Direct and Indirect Effects

Lode mining

No change from FEIS.

Ford/Bridge Crossings

Three changes from the FEIS. 

1) In an August 16, 2004 letter, Shamrock Placer withdrew their proposal to install the culvert 

in the NFBR. 

2) In a November 16, 2006 letter, Snow Creek Placer requested a change in their proposal to 

allow them to cross Snow Creek with a ford, rather than a temporary bridge. See the 

Watershed and Soil Resources section of this Chapter, Alternative 3, Direct/Indirect Effects, 

for the effects of the proposed Snow Creek ford. 

3) A WQPM would modify the Racer/Keystone Korners Plan of Operations from using a 

temporary bridge to cross a tributary of Geiser Creek to using a ford. This change would 

decrease the amount of surface and streambank disturbance. See the Watershed and Soil 

Resources section of this Chapter, Alternative 3, Direct/Indirect Effects, for the effects of the 

proposed Racer/Keystone Korner ford. 

Placer Mining

This section in the FEIS, Chapter III, pgs. 63-64 is replaced with the following:

Direct and indirect effects to redband trout from placer mining, as described under Alternative 1, 

would also apply to Alternative 3. However, under Alternative 3, the WQPMs (Appendix 1) 

and the General Requirements (Appendix 2) would prevent any sediment generated by mining 

and associated activities from being delivered to the streams. Shading vegetation would be 

protected to the extent practicable so as to not increase solar radiation directly on the streams. 
NFBR Mining Supplemental EIS Chapter 3

89

Those General Requirements to Plans of Operations under Alternative 3 which directly or 

indirectly contribute to a reduction of the effects of the mining operations on fish and fish habitat 

are G6, G7, G12, G19, G23, G24, P2, R1-R3, R5, R7, R8, R12-R14, and Z4-10 (see Supplement 

Appendix 2). Sediment barriers and buffers, as prescribed by the WQPMs, would prevent 

sediment generated from mining and associated activities from entering the streams. The 

WQPMs are new and a result of field visits by the Forest Service hydrologist in Fall 2006, 2007 

and 2008 to answer the questions raised in the United States District Court of Oregon Opinion 

and Order dated August 4, 2006. 

Ongoing reclamation of placer mining-disturbed sites would reduce the amount of exposed soils 

and reduce the potential for sediment from reaching adjacent streams. Monitoring placer mining 

operations would ensure compliance with the WQPMs and General Requirements. 

Suction Dredging

Suction dredging is no longer analyzed as a direct/indirect effect because no suction 

dredging would occur under this Alternative on on Cub Creek (Burnt Lode/Placer). 

Water Withdrawals

No change from FEIS.

Cumulative Effects

No change from FEIS, with the exception of suction dredging. A detailed discussion of suction 

dredging and related field observations are found in the Surface Resource Disturbance 

Determination (Appendix 6), and Effects of Suction Dredging on Water and Fisheries Resource 

(Appendix 7A). 

Insert the following at the end of this section of the FEIS.

The WQPMs included with Alternative 3 would eliminate the potential for sediment inputs into 

the streams, by moving mining activities out of the active floodplain, stream banks, or valley 

floor terrace banks and onto the valley floor terrace. While periodic flooding of Whitney Valley 

suggests that some of the valley floors in this watershed are flooded during high flow events, one 

of the requirements is that the sediment created from excavation during testing and/or mining 

would be replaced into holes at the end of each season. This requirement eliminates the last 

potential source of sediment related to the mining activity that could discharge into streams.

Determination

No change from FEIS.
Chapter 3 NFBR Mining Supplemental EIS

90

Alternative 4

Direct and Indirect Effects

Replace the introductory text prior to Lode mining, including Table III-23 (Page 65, Chapter III, 

FEIS) with the following: 

For a full discussion of road activities proposed under Alternative 4, see the Watershed and Soil 

Resources, and Access/Transportation sections of this Chapter.

Lode mining

Same as Alternative 3.

Ford/Bridge Crossings

Same as Alternative 3.

Placer Mining

Same as Alternative 3.

Suction Dredging

Same as Alternative 3.

Water Withdrawals

Same as Alternative 3.

Road Activities

Replace this section of the FEIS with the following:

The conclusion of this Supplement is that the impact of roads on water quality was not clearly 

displayed in the FEIS, leading to the appearance that roads were contributing large volumes of 

sediment to streams when in fact they were not (see Supplement Appendix 3). 

Determination

Replace this section of the FEIS with the following because the analysis for this Supplement 

determined that the proposed road activities would have a non-measureable effect on water 

quality.

The effects of implementing Alternative 4 are same as described for Alternative 3. 
NFBR Mining Supplemental EIS Chapter 3

91

Cumulative Effects

Replace second paragraph of this section of the FEIS, page 68, with the following. This includes 

references to the WWNF Travel Management Plan and the additional General Requirements 

(particularly Z1-10) included in this Supplement.

In addition the scale of cumulative effects to the NFBR Watershed from the existing 

transportation system would also be reduced due to road maintenance activities, which 

emphasize maintaining the drainage facilities and preventing damage to adjacent resources. 

Miners are also required to maintain mining access roads in good condition (refer to Chapter 2 of 

this Supplement, General Requirements Z1-10). Active road maintenance would maintain 

drainage and result in less surface erosion and sediment delivery to adjacent stream channels. 

Overall cumulative impacts to redband trout within the NFBR Watershed are the same as 

described under the other three alternatives, based on the large distribution of Columbia River 

redband trout throughout the eastern portion of the area east of the Cascade Mountains.

In the future, the Management Plan may also result in reduced impacts since cross-country travel 

with motor vehicles may be eliminated and some roads now open available to motorized use may 

be not be left open designated for motorized use. 

C. Access/Transportation System_______________________

1. Affected Environment

a. Introduction

This section is the same as the FEIS with the following paragraph added:

Mining Claim Access

Mining access is different from access needed or associated with other national forest uses. 

Federal regulations provide a mining operator 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).

b. LRMP Direction

This section in the FEIS is replaced with the following:

The LRMP goal for the transportation system is: “To provide a safe, efficient, environmentally 
Chapter 3 NFBR Mining Supplemental EIS

92

sound access for the movement of people and materials involved in the use and management of 

the National Forest Lands.” (LRMP, page 4-34)

LRMP standards and guidelines for the transportation system include: 

Provide the minimum system necessary for the specific activities authorized under the 

management area direction. 

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. 

When roads are closed, they are assigned a “Maintenance Level 1” category. Basic custodial 

maintenance is performed 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 nonmotorized travel. When roads are seasonally closed, they continue to be maintained at 

“Maintenance Level 2” (the road is maintained for passage of high clearance vehicles). 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. 

When roads are decommissioned, they are permanently closed and no longer maintained. Soil 

compaction may be reduced where feasible (surface tilled or broken up), drainage structures 

(culverts) are removed, and drainage installed to reduce/prevent erosion. They may also be 

seeded and re-contoured to match the lay of the land. 

LRMP 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. (LRMP, page 4-34).

 

2. Environmental Effects 

This section in the FEIS is fully replaced with the following:
NFBR Mining Supplemental EIS Chapter 3

93

a. Alternative 1

1) Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 1 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. 

The owners and operators of the 34 currently approved mining Plans of Operations would be 

required to meet of the requirements of their Plans relative to road management. Additionally, 

the operators, at the end of operations, would decommission access roads authorized in the Plan 

of Operations and constructed by the miner. 

Implementation of this alternative would have the least impact on access. Administrative use 

and public access would remain at current levels. Alternative 1 does not include an opportunity 

to reconstruct, close, or decommission any roads in the watershed beyond those already covered 

in previous NEPA decisions. 

2) Cumulative Effects

The Geiser Creek Road (Forest Road 1044000, County Road 528) reconstruction, 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. 

In addition, the Forest is currently in the process of developing a new Travel Management Plan 

(TMP) in response to the 2005 Travel Management Rule. A draft EIS was published in 2009 

with a full range of travel management options that have been considered for the analysis area 

including, the NFBR project area. Based on this analysis (decision expected in late 2010), some 

alternatives would reduce motorized access from current levels, however it would not influence 

miner’s access to their operations, because 36 CFR 228.12 allows them reasonable access. 

Roads incident to mining, not designated as open in the TMP, may be authorized for miner’s 

access through either a Notice of Intent or Plan of Operations. 

b. Alternative 2

Alternative 2 would approve 42 Plans of Operations. Three Plans propose construction of 

sections of temporary road to provide access to their operations. These are: Burnt Lode/Placer 

(2000 feet); R&RK 2, 3 Placer (200) feet; and Lucky One Placer/Lode (1000 feet). The 

construction, maintenance, and reclamation of these temporary roads would be regulated by the 

Forest Service BMPs added to their Plans. The remainder of this alternative is the same as under 

Alternative 1.
Chapter 3 NFBR Mining Supplemental EIS

94

1) Direct and Indirect Effects

Under Alternative 2, there would be approximately 3,300 feet of temporary mine access roads 

constructed. The miner would be responsible for the construction, maintenance and reclamation 

of the road segment. Therefore there may be a small increase in public access on these 

temporary roads because the miner’s may not provide a gate to restrict access by the public. 

The remaining effects for Alternative 2 are the same as under Alternative 1.

2) Cumulative Effects 

The cumulative effects of Alternative 2 are similar to those described for Alternative 1. The 

construction of approximately 3,300 feet of mine access road would temporarily add to the 

physical presence of roads in the watershed but would not increase public accessibility. 

c. Alternative 3

Alternative 3 is the same as Alternative 2 except for the addition of General Requirements G7, 

R12, and Z-requirements (Appendix 2). Temporary mine access roads constructed in accordance 

with an Approved Plan of Operations, and “closed” system roads used in accordance with an 

Approved Plan of Operations would be closed to public use and maintained according to the 

General Requirements (Z-requirements). These mining access roads would be gated or restricted 

by other methods approved by the Forest Service; maintained in a stable condition; and closed or 

decommissioned to the satisfaction of the Forest Service when mining operations are complete. 

1) Direct and Indirect Effects

The effects of Alternative 3 are essentially the same as Alternative 2, except under this 

alternative, General Requirement Z1 would require the operator to install a gate on the portion of 

closed or temporary mine access roads that are no longer open for public access, thereby 

preventing public access. 

2) Cumulative Effects

The cumulative effects for Alternative 3 are the same as for Alternative 2. 

d. Alternative 4 

Alternative 4 is the same as Alternative 3 with additional road management activities. 

1) Direct and Indirect Effects 

Some roads have been closed or decommissioned since completion of the 2004 FEIS in 

accordance with a previous NEPA decision. Other roads would be closed or decommissioned 

under this alternative. This would reduce access for recreationists, fuelwood cutters, hunters, 
NFBR Mining Supplemental EIS Chapter 3

95

and administrative use. The closing of approximately 23 miles of road in the watershed 

represents less than 0.14% reduction in public access. However, this would not affect mine 

access because of 36 CFR 228.12.

2) Cumulative Effects

Alternative 4 is similar to Alternative 3 except for a small decrease in public access from closing 

23 miles of road. The road system in the watershed would continue to be dynamic as the Travel 

Management Plan is implemented and as roads are closed under other project decisions. 

e. Comparison of Alternatives

Replace this section of the FEIS with the following:

Alternatives 1-3 would not affect public access because there would be no road closures or 

decommissioning. Alternative 4 would affect public access because there would be 

approximately 23 miles of new road closures and decommissionings (Appendix 9). However, 

this would not affect mine access because of 36 CFR 228.12.
Chapter 3 NFBR Mining Supplemental EIS

96

D. Noxious Weeds____________________________________

1. Affected Environment

No change from FEIS.

2. Environmental Effects

No change from FEIS, except the Suction Dredging section (Chapter III, Page 87, FEIS) and Camp 

Sites discussion (Chapter III, Page 89) were dropped because it has been determined to be a notice-level 

activity and approved by regulations as provided in 36CFR 228.4. Chapter 1 and Appendix 6 of this 

Supplement provides additional explanation of their exclusion from the Plans of Operations. 

Add the following text to the end of each Cumulative Effects Section for Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 on 

pages 96 and 100 of Chapter III of the 2004 FEIS:

Suction dredging results in very little terrestrial disturbance. The primary terrestrial disturbance is from 

getting the dredge from the vehicle and carrying it to the area of use. This activity has a very low 

potential for disturbance, and would therefore have no cumulative effects to the proposed activities. 

Implementation of the 2010 WWNF Travel Management Plan would most likely prevent off-road travel 

in most locations in the watershed, further preventing the spread of noxious weeds.

E. Wildlife Habitat___________________________________ 

1. Affected Environment

a. Introduction

No change from FEIS.

b. Pre-Field Review

No change from FEIS.

c. Project Location

No change from FEIS.
NFBR Mining Supplemental EIS Chapter 3

97

d. Wildlife Habitats

No change from FEIS.

f. Proposed, Endangered, Threatened, and Sensitive Species (PETS)

No change from FEIS. 

g. Management Indicator Species (MIS)

No change from FEIS.

1) Northern Goshawk

No change from FEIS.

2) Rocky Mountain Elk

 

No change from FEIS for first four paragraphs of this section.

Open Road Density

Replace entire section in the FEIS, Chapter III, pp. 112-113, with the following. This reflects 

updated open road densities and their effect on critical elk summer range. Open road densities in 

the following table may vary slightly from the original analysis, as the current database has been 

updated to account for previous road management decisions implemented since 2004 (Appendix 

9).

Road densities have also been well documented as affecting habitat conditions. An important 

factor for retaining elk in the NFBR Watershed is open road density. This plays a key role in 

determining whether elk will remain in an area through summer and fall. Miles of open roads 

per square mile of habitat by Management Area is the index used because big game habitat is 

more consistent by Management Areas (MA). Existing open road densities by Operational 

Maintenance Level are presented in Table 3-13 (see Appendix 4 for a description of Operational 

and Objective Maintenance Levels). These roads may currently remain open to vehicle use, and 

potential disturbance to elk.

Current levels of road and human use, as well as changes to habitat in the area may have 

contributed to the apparent shift of elk use off the Forest and onto adjacent private lands (G. 

Kiester, ODFW, personal communication, 2002), where they find security from disturbance and 

alfalfa for forage. 
Chapter 3 NFBR Mining Supplemental EIS

98

Table 3-13

Updated Existing Open Road Densities by LRMP Management Areas

(by Operational Maintenance Level)

Management Area 

(MA)

LRMP Open Road 

Density Guidelines 

(miles per square mile)

*2004 FEIS Open Road 

Densities

(miles per square mile)

**2008 Open Road 

Densities

(miles per square mile)

MA 1 2.5 3.5 3.7

MA 1W 1.5 2.8 2.7

MA 3 1.5 2.5 2.0

MA 3A 1.5 2.2 2.4

MA 15 N/A 1.7 1.7

MA 16 N/A 30 19.1

MA 17 N/A 1.6 1.6

MA 18 1.5 3.0 1.5

NOTE: MA16 (11 acres) is skewed due to the very small portion of land base within the management areas and is 

not representative of the road densities at the landscape level, and is therefore not at an appropriate scale for 

comparison. 

* Open road miles from April 2002 NFBR Roads Analysis, Pg. 43, Appendix A.1, Operational Road Summaries and 

Densities

** Data from Travel Management Plan database, GIS Spreadsheet road_report2, operational maintenance level, 

created 1/14/08 by C. Winkler.

In the analysis for this Supplement, Management Areas 3 and 3A were determined to provide 

critical elk summer range in the NFBR watershed. The Patrick Creek Wildlife Area (primarily 

MA 3A) has the best summer elk habitat in the watershed. The current open road density in the 

Patrick Creek Wildlife Area (Operational Maintenance Level) is 1.7 miles per square mile.

LRMP Direction

LRMP standards and guidelines for wildlife include: 

Meet the specific open-road density guidelines found in the direction for individual 

management areas unless a specific exception is determined to be needed to meet 

management objectives through the Forest Service NEPA process. (LRMP, page 4-35). / 

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...Decisions to leave open road densities greater 

than the guidelines are expected to be the exception rather than the rule.

For the FEIS, open road densities were calculated and displayed separately for the Management 

Areas and for the Subwatersheds. To follow LRMP direction, this Supplement provides open 

road densities calculated by Management Areas within Subwatersheds (Table 3-14). However, 

as described above, the more appropriate index for analyzing wildlife habitat is Management 
NFBR Mining Supplemental EIS Chapter 3

99

Area, because big game habitat is more consistent by Management Area. Therefore, the 

following analysis of open road densities relative to wildlife habitat will be at the Management 

Area scale.

This Supplement also reflects the pre-FEIS decisions changing the management of a specific 

road. The 2008 open road densities found in Table 3-14 reflect all pre-existing road 

management decisions. Appendix 9 in this Supplement compares road management activities as 

proposed in the FEIS with road management activities as proposed in this Supplement. 

Appendix 4 compares open road densities from the 2004 FEIS with those provided in this 

Supplement.

Table 3-14

Updated Open Road Densities by LRMP Management Areas within Subwatersheds

SWS Management Area LRMP Open 

Road Density 

Guidelines 

(miles/sq. 

mile)

Acres **2008 Operational 

(Existing) Open Road 

Densities (miles/sq. 

mile)

*2008 Objective 

(Intended) ML 

Open Road 

Densities (miles per 

square mile

Alt 1 -3 Alt 4

83A 1 2.5 7.4 0.2 0.2 0.2

3 1.5 3038 1.9 1.3 1.3

15 N/A 168 2.5 2.5 2.5

Private and other N/A 5456 0.6 0.7 0.7

Total 8670 1.1 0.9 0.9

83B

1 2.5 1029 2.7 1.9 1.9

3 1.5 4939 1.5 1.2 1.2

3A 1.5 251 4.8 4.8 4.8

15 N/A 576 0.6 0.2 0.2

Private and other N/A 2224 1.1 1.1 1.1

Total 9019 1.5 1.3 1.3

83C

1 2.5 3628 2 1.5 1.5

3 1.5 6353 1.8 1.7 1.7

3A 1.5 702 0.5 2.1 2.1

15 N/A 1032 2.4 1.7 1.7

Private and other N/A 462 0.4 0.5 0.5

Total 12178 1.9 1.6 1.6

83D

1 2.5 5964 2.8 1.9 1.7

1W 1.5 1611 3.5 0.5 0.5

3 1.5 11180 1.6 1.1 1.1

15 N/A 1014 1.4 1.3 1.3
Chapter 3 NFBR Mining Supplemental EIS

100

SWS Management Area LRMP Open 

Road Density 

Guidelines 

(miles/sq. 

mile)

Acres **2008 Operational 

(Existing) Open Road 

Densities (miles/sq. 

mile)

*2008 Objective 

(Intended) ML 

Open Road 

Densities (miles per 

square mile

Alt 1 -3 Alt 4

Private and other N/A 0 0 0 0

Total 19769 2.1 1.3 1.2

83E

1 2.5 28 8.5 0 0

3 1.5 3811 3.6 1.9 1.7

3A 1.5 5291 2.8 0.9 0.9

15 N/A 498 1 0 0

Private and other N/A 0 0 0 0

Total 9628 2.2 1.2 1.2

83F

1 2.5 13127 4.5 2 1.7

1W 1.5 1323 2.4 1.9 1.9

3 1.5 2694 3.6 2.8 2.7

15 N/A 1654 2.1 1 0.9

18 1.5 7 0.9 0 0

Private and other N/A 0 0 0 0

Total 18805 4 2 1.8

83G

1 2.5 9326 4.9 2.8 2.6

3 1.5 889 3.7 3.1 3.1

3A 1.5 5635 2.9 1.9 1.8

15 N/A 1053 2.8 2 2

18 1.5 6 2 1.7 1.7

Private and other N/A 632 2.3 2.3 2.3

Total 17542 4 2.5 2.4

83H

1 2.5 6018 2.2 1.8 1.8

1W 1.5 375 0.2 0.3 0.3

3 1.5 2767 1.7 1.6 1.6

15 N/A 673 0.2 0.2 0.2

16 N/A 11 22.8 22.8 22.8

17 N/A 34 1.4 1.4 1.4

Private and other N/A 973 1.5 1.5 1.5

Total 10851 1.8 1.6 1.6

NOTE: Shaded rows indicate current open road densities exceed LRMP guidelines. Of these above areas, several 

are skewed due to the very small portion of land base within the management area and are not representative of the 

road densities at the landscape level. In SWS's 83A (MA 1), 83B (MA3a),83E (MA1), 83G (MA 18),, the open road 
NFBR Mining Supplemental EIS Chapter 3

101

densities were calculated less than 1 square mile of land, and are therefore not at an appropriate scale for 

comparison or to meet the intent of the LRMP guidelines. 

The LRMP provides no guidelines for MAs 15, 16, and 17.

* Data from Travel Management Plan database, GIS Spreadsheet road_report3, created 7/23/08 by C. Winkler.

In Table 3-14, several open road densities are high due to the very small portion of land base 

within the management area and are not representative of the road densities at the landscape 

level. These road densities were calculated on significantly less than 1 square mile of land, and 

are therefore not at an appropriate scale for comparison or to meet the intent of the LRMP 

guidelines. In other cases open road densities exceed the LRMP guidelines and were calculated 

at the appropriate area scale.

However, because calculating open road densities by Management Area (Table 3-13) is more 

meaningful when analyzing impacts to big game, the data provided in Table 3-14 (open road 

densities calculated by Management Area within Subwatersheds) is solely provided to disclose 

the open road densities as prescribed by the LRMP. 

3) Pileated Woodpecker 

No change from FEIS.

4) Pine Marten 

No change from FEIS.

g. Other Species and/or Species Groups

1) Pale Western Big-Eared Bat

No change from FEIS.

2) Migratory Birds (MBS)

No change from FEIS.

2. Environmental Effects

a. Activities Considered in this Analysis

No change from FEIS.

b. Forested Habitats and Associated Species

No change from FEIS.

c. Direct and Indirect Effects on Riparian Habitats and Associated Species 
Chapter 3 NFBR Mining Supplemental EIS

102

(ESA-listed and MIS)

No change from FEIS.

1) Alternatives 1 and 2

No change from FEIS.

2) Alternatives 3 and 4

Replace this section of the FEIS with the following: 

Riparian vegetation. Under Alternatives 3 and 4, vegetation providing shade and/or bank 

stability to the stream shall not be removed unless specifically approved in writing by the District 

Ranger (requirement G8). The intent is to maintain riparian vegetation in approximately the 

original density. If this is done, the short-term removal of riparian vegetation (shrubs) should not 

have a long-term effect on stream temperatures (due to lack of shading) or loss of nesting or 

foraging habitat for species like willow flycatcher. Because of the small amount of habitat that 

could be affected and a requirement to protect riparian shrubs, effects on riparian-associated 

species would be immeasurable. 

Water quality. Five streams within the NFBR Watershed are 303(d) listed. Three of them have 

operations located on them: NFBR (11), Camp Creek (3), and Geiser Creek (3). Sedimentation 

and stream temperatures have been listed as reasons for the 303(d) listing. Implementation of 

additional Forest Service BMPs would maintain current water quality conditions and protect 

riparian vegetation (requirements G6, G8, G11, G12, G19).

During the NFBR Watershed Analysis, it was determined that 75 percent of the tributary streams 

of the NFBR exceeded the standard of less than35 percent cobble embeddedness. The North 

Fork Burnt River exceeded the standard on 50 percent of the river. Fine sediments can impact 

aquatic invertebrate habitat by settling into and covering gravels, impeding inter-gravel water 

flow that provides oxygen and removed waste products (Joslin and Youmans, 1999). Reductions 

in aquatic invertebrates affect species such as American dipper that use them as a prey base. The 

Forest Service WQPMs and General Requirements in Alternatives 3 and 4 would prevent 

sediment discharge into streams during mining and road-related activities. Therefore there would 

be no increase in cobble embeddedness (sedimentation), resulting in the maintenance of current 

in-stream habitat conditions.

3) Columbia Spotted Frog

No change from FEIS.

a) Alternatives 1 and 2

No change from FEIS.

b) Alternatives 3 and 4 

Healthy riparian systems. 

Replace this section of the FEIS with the following: 
NFBR Mining Supplemental EIS Chapter 3

103

The Forest Service WQPMs and General Requirements in Alternatives 3 and 4 would prevent 

sediment discharge into streams during mining and road-related activities.

Alternatives 3 and 4 would not impact stream-side vegetation because the Forest Service 

WQPMs and General Requirements would remove activities from the active floodplain, 

streambanks, valley floor terrace banks, or wetlands, and place activities on the valley floor. 

This would maintain cover and foraging habitat for this species. 

Generally, amphibian richness and abundance have been found to be negatively correlated with 

the amount of fine sediments in the stream (Maxell, 2000). It is expected that sedimentation in 

the NFBR could increase as a result of the Burnt Lode/Placer (Karissa) proposed road 

construction and on-going maintenance. Otherwise, in-stream habitats would be provided at 

close to existing levels. 

Mining ponds. 

No change from FEIS.

4) Lynx

No change from FEIS.

5) Gray wolf

No change from FEIS.

6) Bald Eagle

No change from FEIS.

7) California wolverine

No change from FEIS 

a. Alternatives 1, 2 and 3

Open Road Densities:

Replace entire section of FEIS, (items 7a and 7b) with the following. 

The effects on wolverine from open road densities are the same as described for Rocky Mountain 

Elk, below.

The determination for all alternatives for wolverine is “may impact individuals or habitat, but 

will not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing.”

8) Yellow-billed cuckoo

No change from FEIS.
Chapter 3 NFBR Mining Supplemental EIS

104

9) Spotted bat

No change from FEIS.

10) Northern goshawk

No change from FEIS.

11) Rocky Mountain Elk

Replace entire section from the FEIS with the following:

Two factors will be used to compare alternatives: 1) riparian habitats provide important habitat 

components during the summer, and 2) open road densities contribute towards a lower elk 

security and can contribute towards displacement. This may already be an issue in the project 

area, as elk appear to have been displaced during the summer months.

Most projects have existing stream buffers, but site-specific existing riparian conditions vary 

widely. Some have little riparian vegetation due to historic or more recent disturbances, while 

others have a well-developed shrubby riparian zone (such as EJ Placers, Jim Bob Placer, North 

Fork Placer, Prudent Placer, R&RK 2,3 Placer, Racer/Keystone Placer, Shamrock Placer, Snow 

Creek Placer, Upper Geiser Placer/Lode, Upper Winterville Placer/Lode, and Wild Flower

Placer). These areas provide thermal relief for elk during the summer and provide cover and 

opportunities for resting and travel. 

a) Alternatives 1, 2 and 3

Riparian habitats. As discussed in the existing condition section, the apparent trend for 

inventoried riparian vegetation is towards natural or altered site potential. Though each project 

has some requirements to protect riparian areas applied to them, the requirements range from 

minimal to adequate. Assuming that there are no requirements to protect riparian areas, or stream 

buffers, the following table shows the percent of the riparian habitat conservation area (RHCA) 

that could be affected by mining.

Subwatershed 83G has the largest percent of RHCA that could be affected by mining activities 

(Table 3-15). In addition, MA3 and MA3A, which include generally cooler, moister habitat 

types are favored by big game during the summer, have high current open road densities of 2.0 

and 2.4 miles/square mile, respectively. Because of the high open road densities, big game use 

will likely be shifted from roaded areas into other less roaded areas.

Table 3-15

Percent of the RHCA Within a Subwatershed

SWS Percent

83C <1

83D <1

83E <1

83F <1

83G 2
NFBR Mining Supplemental EIS Chapter 3

105

Alternative 3 includes extensive requirements to protect riparian areas that are not included in 

Alternatives 1 and 2. These include direction for damming or diversion of water, management of 

surface run-off water, vegetation removal, streambank stability, and stream buffer strips. In 

addition, there is direction for monitoring erosion control methods. While the same percent of 

projects are in RHCAs, the requirements reduce the potential for effects. When these 

requirements are implemented, riparian areas should continue with their generally increasing 

trend towards potential.

Open road densities. Open road densities would be the same under Alternatives 1, 2, and 3. 

Under these alternatives, operational (existing) open road densities for MA1, MA1W, MA3, and 

MA3A would exceed LRMP guidelines (Table 3-13). Once all road closures from previous 

decisions are implemented, objective (intended) open road densities would meet LRMP 

guidelines in all management areas (Table 3-16).

Christensen et al. (1993) reviewed literature and research to summarize effects of open road 

densities on summer elk habitat use. They recommended that in order to benefit elk habitat and 

retain high use, open road densities should be below 0.7 miles per square mile. In another study, 

Leege (1984) indicates that at 2.0 miles of open road density, potential elk use has dropped to 

50% of its potential. Consequently, none of these alternatives meet the criteria for high elk use 

or provide good quality elk habitat.

The proposed 3,300 feet of temporary 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. Additional requirements for Alternative 3 (Refer to Chapter 2 of 

this Supplement, General Requirements, Z1-10) would ensure the segments are gated, permitting 

access by only the miner, and that each road segment is properly maintained and reclaimed after 

completion of mining activities. Based on the small amount of road proposed, and that the 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 any of these alternatives. The same would be true for segments of closed roads receiving 

occasional use by the miners when accessing their operations. 

The Forest Plan Amendment proposed in Alternatives 3 and 4 would have no effect on big game, 

as explained above, because open road densities by Management Area are more relevant to big 

game habitat than the Management Area by Subwatershed guideline proposed for amendment. 

Refer to Supplement Appendix 4 for a detailed discussion of open road densities in the NFBR 

Watershed.

Under Alternative 3, implementation of the proposed Forest Plan amendment would bring open 

road densities within LRMP guidelines for Management Areas within Subwatersheds (Appendix 

4). 
Chapter 3 NFBR Mining Supplemental EIS

106

b) Alternative 4

Riparian habitats: The effects are the same as described for Alternative 3. 

Open road densities. All proposed road management activities would be implemented under 

this alternative. This alternative would result in lower open road densities after roads are closed 

or decommissioned (Table 3-16). In MA 1W, roads are seasonally closed by snow, so the open 

road objective is considered met for MA 1W for the season of big game use (winter).

LRMP guidelines for open road densities by Management Area would be met (Table 3-16). 

While open road densities would be lowered, and disturbance could be potentially reduced, the 

criteria recommended by Christensen et al. for high elk use would not be met. However, 

potential elk use would improve from the 50 level for Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 (prior to 

implementation of all previous road closure decisions) to about 60% for Alternative 4 (Leege). 

The best summer elk habitat is in Patrick Creek Wildlife Area, which is the majority of MA 3A. 

Closing roads and maintaining the existing closures would improve conditions for elk in the 

NFBR watershed.

The effects from the proposed construction and use of approximately 3,300 feet of mine access 

road are the same as described for Alternatives 1-3. The General Requirements described for 

Alternative 3, also apply to Alternative 4 (Refer to Chapter 2 of this Supplement, General 

Requirements, Z1-10), ensuring the proposed access roads are gated, permitting access by only 

the miner, and that each road segment is properly maintained and reclaimed after completion of 

mining activities. The effects from the use of closed roads by miners would also be the same as 

described for Alternatives 1-3. 

The Forest Plan Amendment proposed in Alternative 4 would have no effect on big game, as 

explained above, because open road densities by Management Area are more relevant to big 

game habitat than the Management Area by Subwatershed guideline proposed for amendment. 

Refer to Supplement Appendix 4 for a detailed discussion of open road densities in the NFBR 

Watershed.

Under this alternative, implementation of the proposed Forest Plan amendment would bring open 

road densities within LRMP guidelines for Management Areas within Subwatersheds (Appendix 

4). 

c) Comparison of Alternatives

Under all alternatives, open road densities would meet LRMP guidelines for all Management 

Areas (Table 3-16). However, under Alternatives 1 and 2, LRMP guidelines would not be met 

for specific portions of Management Areas within Subwatersheds (Table 3-14).

Current open road densities by subwatershed do not change under Alternatives 1-3. Under 

Alternative 4, open road densities for Subwatersheds 83D, 83F and 83G are reduced over time 

(Table 3-17). 
NFBR Mining Supplemental EIS Chapter 3

107

Table 3-16

Comparison of Alternatives,

Open Road Densities by Management Area

Management Area 

(MA)

LRMP Open Road 

Density Guidelines 

(miles per square mile)

*2008 Objective Open 

Road Densities 

Alternatives 1-3

(miles per square mile)

*2008 Objective 

Open Road Densities

Alternative 4 

(miles per square mile)

MA 1 2.5 2.1 1.9

MA 1W 1.5 1.1 1.1

MA 3 1.5 1.5 1.5

MA 3A 1.5 1.5 1.5

MA 15 N/A 1.1 1.1

MA 16 N/A 19.5 19.0

MA 17 N/A 1.6 1.6

MA 18 1.5 1.0 1.0

NOTE: MA16 (11 acres), MA17 (34 acres)) and MA18 (14 acres) are obviously skewed due to the very small 

portion of land base within the management areas and are not representative of the road densities at the landscape 

level, and are therefore not at an appropriate scale for comparison. 

* Data from 2008 WWNF Travel Management Plan database, (excel spreadsheet “road_report3”, objective 

maintenance levels, created 7/23/08 c.winkler)

Table 3-17

Comparison of Alternatives

Open Road Densities by Subwatershed

Subwatershed # Square Miles *2008 Objective 

Open Road Densities 

Alternatives 1-3

(miles per square mile)

*2008 Objective 

Open Road Densities

Alternative 4 

(miles per square mile)

83A 13.55 0.9 0.9

83B 14.09 1.3 1.3

83C 19.03 1.6 1.6

83D 30.89 1.3 1.2

83E 15.04 1.2 1.2

83F 29.38 2.0 1.8

83G 27.48 2.5 2.4

83H 16.96 1.6 1.6

* Data from 2008 WWNF Travel Management Plan database, (excel spreadsheet “road_report3”, objective 

maintenance levels, created 7/23/08 c.winkler)

12) Pale western big-eared bat

No change from FEIS.
Chapter 3 NFBR Mining Supplemental EIS

108

d. Cumulative Effects

No change to 2 introductory paragraphs from FEIS.

1) Recreation

No change from FEIS.

2) Roads/trails

Replace entire section from the FEIS, Chapter III, p. 132, with the following:

The adverse effects of roads and motorized vehicle use on some species of wildlife has been well 

documented. The effects are dependent on factors such as location, intensity of use, duration, 

and the species involved. Some species, such as wolverine, are sensitive to human use and may 

be displaced from the area. Others, such as elk, may only be displaced temporarily or during 

critical stress periods (like hunting season).

Closed roads may be used as motorized trails and may still cause disturbance to some species of 

wildlife. According to the Roads Analysis (2002), the project area includes 244 miles of closed 

roads. The watershed also contains several miles of designated OHV trail and winter snowmobile 

routes. Both of these activities also introduce some amount of disturbance to wildlife species, 

though site-specific data is lacking.

The Geiser Creek Road (Forest Road 1044000, County Road 528) was reconstructed under a 

separate decision in 2006 (D. Taylor, USFS, WWNF, personal communication, 5/2/08). The 

road reconstruction effectively stabilized the road prism, preventing 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 2004 FEIS. 

A decision is expected for the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Travel Management Plan 

(TMP) in late 2010. All action alternatives in the 2009 TMP DEIS would restrict motorized 

vehicle travel on National Forest system lands to designated roads, trails, and areas only. Under 

the proposed action (Alternative 2 of the TMP DEIS, 2009), designated motorized routes include 

all current USFS motorized trails and all Forest roads with an objective maintenance level of 2-5. 

Within the NFBR project area the TMP proposed action reflects the road closure decisions of 

Alternative 4 of the 2004 NFBR FEIS, and designated routes would be those roads identified to 

remain open within the project area. The TMP Interdisciplinary Team is currently analyzing 

alternatives to the proposed action based on comments and input received from the public. The 

range of alternatives will consider designated route densities ranging from the current condition 

(under No Action) to an alternative even more restrictive than the proposed action. Under 

current direction, access for administrative, firefighting, emergencies, private landowners, 

snowmobiles, nonmotorized uses, mining, and roads with legally documented rights of way held 

by state, county, or other public road authority would not change under the TMP. Access for all 
NFBR Mining Supplemental EIS Chapter 3

109

other motorized recreational pursuits would be restricted to designated roads, trails and areas 

with the exception of limited distances for dispersed camping and firewood cutting.

Motorized open route density is defined as open roads plus open trails. Once the TMP (a 

reasonable foreseeable future action) is decided and implemented, open road densities will trend 

toward LRMP guidelines. 

The cumulative effects of Alternative 2 are similar to those described for Alternative 1. The 

construction of approximately 3,300 feet of mine access road would temporarily add to the 

physical presence of roads in the watershed, but the combined length of the roads would not 

measurably change the overall road densities in the watershed. 

3) Timber management

No change from 2004 FEIS.

4) Livestock grazing

No change from 2004 FEIS.

5) Mining

No change from FEIS.

6) Prescribed burning

No change from FEIS.

7) Wildfire

No change from FEIS.

8) Riparian-associated species.

No change from FEIS.

9) Spotted frog.

No change from FEIS.

10) California wolverine. 

No change from FEIS.

11) Pale big-eared bat.

No change from FEIS.

12) Rocky mountain elk.

No change from FEIS.

e. Consistency with the LRMP

Replace entire section from the FEIS with the following:
Chapter 3 NFBR Mining Supplemental EIS

110

LRMP direction for review of effects on threatened and endangered species has been 

incorporated. In addition, LRMP wildlife direction for riparian habitats, snags, dead and down 

material, and raptor nest sites have been incorporated. 

The LRMP includes guidelines for open road densities by Management Area, which is the 

criteria for which effects on wildlife is measured. Under the existing condition (prior to the 

implementation of previous road closure decisions) Alternatives 1, 2 and 3, in MA1, MA3 and 

MA3A exceed the LRMP guidelines. Once all previous road closure decisions have been 

implemented, along with the additional road closures proposed under Alternative 4, all 

Alternatives would meet the LRMP guidelines in all Management Areas. 

As discussed in detail in Supplement Appendix 4, several specific portions of Management 

Areas within subwatersheds do not meet the LRMP Guidelines. A Forest Plan Amendment to 

adjust open road densities for those particular areas is included in Alternatives 3 and 4 (Chapter 

2), which would result in Alternatives 3 and 4 meeting the open road density guidelines in all 

Management Areas within subwatersheds. 

f. Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources

No change from FEIS.

F. Heritage Resources________________________________ 

No change from FEIS, except for the removal or suction dredging, pick and shovel work (hand 

work), and camping as activities approved under the Plans of Operations. These three activities 

are covered under the 36CFR 228.4 regulations. Refer to Chapter 1, Section 2D of this 

Supplement for an explanation of their exclusion from the Plans of Operations. 

G. Botany __________________________________________ 

1. Affected Environment

No change from FEIS.

2. Environmental Effects

No change from FEIS, except for the removal or suction dredging, pick and shovel work (hand 

work), and camping as activities approved under the Plans of Operations. These three activities 

are covered under the 36CFR 228.4 regulations. Refer to Chapter 1 of this Supplement for an 

explanation of their exclusion from the Plans of Operations. 

3) Effects of Alternatives 2, 3, and 4
NFBR Mining Supplemental EIS Chapter 3

111

b) Cumulative Effects

Add the following text to the first paragraph of this section of the FEIS:

Implementation of the 2010 WWNF Travel Management Plan would prevent off-road travel in most 

locations in the watershed, further preventing displacement and death of unknown sensitive plants and 

soil compaction.

H. Rangeland Management____________________________

No change from FEIS.

I. Visual Quality_____________________________________ 

No change from FEIS

J. Social/Economic___________________________________

No change from FEIS.

K. Additional Disclosures

1. Probable Adverse Environmental Effects that Cannot be Avoided

Localized sedimentation/reduced water quality at site and down stream

Replace this section from the FEIS with the following 3 paragraphs:

Off-channel activity that would have a water quality impact is limited to Burnt 

Lode/Placer (Karissa site road). This proposed road 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 10 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.

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.

Damage or removal of riparian vegetation at some sites

No change from FEIS.
Chapter 3 NFBR Mining Supplemental EIS

112

Changed soil structure and reduced productivity 

No change from FEIS.

Fish/wildlife/plant habitat

No change from FEIS.

Visible disturbance 

No change from FEIS.

2. Relationship Between Short-Term Use and Long-Term Productivity

No change from FEIS.

3. Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources

No change from FEIS.

4. Potential Conflicts with Plans and Policies of Other Jurisdictions

a. Permits Required

Replace paragraph 5 “Oregon Department of Environmental Quality” from the FEIS with the 

following. The rest of this section remains unchanged.

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality

Replace this section from the FEIS with the following:

Oregon DEQ may require one or more of the following:

Existing 700-PM Permit (as of May 31, 2010)– suction dredges no more than 

 30 HP

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

401 certification – required if operation would result in a “may discharge of pollutant” 

into navigable waters (CWA section 401).
NFBR Mining Supplemental EIS Chapter 3

113

b. Grazing/Rangeland Management

No change from FEIS.

c. Clean Air Act

No change from FEIS.

d. Clean Water Act 

Replace entire section from the FEIS with the following:

The Clean Water Act of 1977 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 nonpoint 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). Determination of a Total Maximum Daily Load 

(TMDL) standard for the Burnt River Sub-basin, which encompasses the North Fork Burnt River 

watershed, is scheduled for 2009. 

Information on the streams listed as water-quality impaired under Section 303(d) of the Clean 

Water Act in the analysis area for the 2004 FEIS is in the Watershed section, Chapter III, pages 

11-12. 

Alternatives 1 and 2 have the potential to input sediment into the streams which would result in 

further degradation of streams already on the 303(d) list. Therefore, Alternatives 1 and 2 are not 

in compliance with Section 313 of the Clean Water Act. Alternative 3 and 4 includes additional 

Forest Service BMPs. These additional BMPs bring all but one Plan into compliance with 

Section 313 of the CWA. The Burnt Lode/Placer (Karissa site) road construction (Table 3-11) 

would continue to be out of compliance because the road construction and maintenance activities 

still have the potential for a discharge, even with the added Forest Service BMPs, given the steep 

hillslope and evidence of active downslope movement of soil, rocks, and trees.

5. Effects on ESA-Listed Species and Regional Forester’s Sensitive

 Species

No change from FEIS.

6. Effects on Prime Farm Land, Range Land, and Forest Land

No change from FEIS.

. 
Chapter 3 NFBR Mining Supplemental EIS

114

7. Energy Requirements

No change from FEIS.

8. Effects on Civil Rights, Women, and Minorities

No change from FEIS.

9. Effects on Environmental Justice

No change from FEIS.

10. Effects on Wetlands and Floodplains

Replace entire section from the 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 Alternatives 3 and 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 Supplemental EIS Chapter 3

115

11. Effects on Cultural Resources with SHPO Concurrence

No change from FEIS.

12. Consultation with Indian Tribes/Protection of Treaty Resources

No change from FEIS.

13. Inventoried Roadless, Wilderness, Potential Wilderness, Research 

Natural Areas, Experimental Forests

This section of the FEIS has been renamed to include potential wilderness areas, and the text has 

been replaced with the following:

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 effect 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. 

14. Precedent

No change from FEIS.

15. Public Health and Safety

No change from FEIS.

16. Highly Controversial Effects On Human Environment

No change from FEIS.

17. LRMP Consistency

No change from FEIS.

18. Incomplete and Unavailable Information

No change from FEIS.
Chapter 3 NFBR Mining Supplemental EIS

116
NFBR Mining Supplemental EIS Chapter 4

117

CHAPTER 4

AGENCIES AND PERSONS CONSULTED

Recipients of the Draft Supplemental EIS

The following list contains the recipients of the NFBR Mining Draft 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
Chapter 4 NFBR Mining Supplemental EIS

118

Individuals

Ken and Jan Alexander

Bert and Linda Aylward

Jerry and Gail Harshman

Mr. Stan Baker

Mr. Rolly Shandy

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 

Tribes

Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation

Nez Perce Tribe
NFBR Mining Supplemental EIS Chapter 4

119

Preparers

The following agency personnel participated in the preparation of the Supplemental EIS. All 

personnel are either current or retired employees of the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest.

Ken Anderson – District Ranger

Suzanne Fouty – District Hydrologist

Karen Haines – Threatened and Endangered Species Coordinator

Mike Hall – District Lands, Recreation and Minerals RDMA

Sophia Millar – Interdisciplinary Planner/NEPA

Timothy Schommer – Wildlife

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