united states department of agriculture forest service...
TRANSCRIPT
-
United States Department of Agriculture
Forest Service
Discovery Mining Exploration Project Environmental Assessment
Beckwourth Ranger District, Plumas National Forest, Plumas County, California
May 2015
-
For More Information Contact:
Deb Bumpus Beckwourth Ranger District, Plumas National Forest
P.O. Box 7 Blairsden, CA 96103
Phone: (530) 836-2575 Email: [email protected]
Fax: (530) 836-0493
*Cover Photo: Dispersed camping area at the Discovery mining claim. Photo taken by Leslie Edlund, October 2014.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the
basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status,
parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or
part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases
apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication for
program information (e.g. Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) please contact USDA’s TARGET Center at
(202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office
of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272
(voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.
-
Beckwourth Ranger District, Plumas National Forest
1
Contents Contents ........................................................................................................................................... 1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 2
Proposed Project Location ....................................................................................................... 2 Background ..................................................................................................................................... 4 Need for the Proposal ...................................................................................................................... 4
Decision Framework ................................................................................................................. 4 Land Management Direction ................................................................................................... 5
Public Involvement and Tribal Consultation ................................................................................. 10 Summary ........................................................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined. Proposed Action and Alternatives ................................................................................................. 12
Alternative A – Plan as submitted ............................................................................................. 12 Alternative B – Plan with Forest Service mitigations ............................................................... 13 Alternative C – No Action ........................................................................................................ 15
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action and Alternatives................................................. 15 Cultural Resources .................................................................................................................. 15
Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 15 Summary of Effects ................................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined. Scope of the Analysis ............................................................................................................ 16 Environmental Consequences ............................................................................................... 16
Botanical Resources ................................................................................................................ 17 Summary of Effects ................................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined. Scope of the Analysis ............................................................................................................ 17 Environmental Consequences ............................................................................................... 17
Soil and Hydrology Resources ............................................................................................... 20 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 20 Summary of Effects ................................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined. Scope of the Analysis ............................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
Wildlife Resources ................................................................................................................... 22 Summary of Effects ............................................................................................................... 22 Scope of the Analysis ............................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
References ..................................................................................................................................... 23 Finding of No Significant Impact ................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Context ....................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. Intensity ...................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
List of Tables
Table 1 List of Persons, Agencies and Organizations Consulted ................................................. 11 Table 2 Summary of weed responses to risk factors for Discovery Placer Mine Project ............. 18
List of Figures
Figure 1. Vicinity map ..................................................................................................................... 3
-
Discovery Placer Mining
2
Introduction
The Plumas National Forest is preparing to authorize mineral exploration on the Discovery Placer
mining claim. This exploration project would occur on less than 1 acre of the claim. This action
is proposed to be implemented on the Beckwourth Ranger District of the Plumas National Forest.
The environmental assessment (EA) will evaluate whether implementation of the Discovery
Placer mineral exploration project may significantly affect the quality of the human environment
and thereby require the preparation of an environmental impact statement. By preparing this EA,
we are fulfilling agency policy and direction to comply with the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA). For more details of the proposed action, see the Proposed Action and Alternative
sections of this document.
Proposed Project Location
The project area is located northwest of Graeagle, California, along National Forest System
(NFS) Road 23N37. The project area is along the stream terrace of Eureka Creek. Eureka Creek
is a perennial stream that drains to the Middle Fork of the Feather River. There is a dispersed
campsite and access road on the west side of Eureka Creek that is currently and historically used
by recreational visitors. Vegetation in the area is grass, brush and mixed conifer. Vegetation is
very sparse on the west side of the creek because of continued public use. The east side of the
creek is more heavily vegetated and wetter due to the presence of a spring, but there are several
pockets of open space and overland travel would be possible without removing much vegetation.
The project as proposed would target areas on both the east and west sides of the creek. The
Discovery mining claim is 80 acres in size but work is proposed on less than 1 acre.
Access to the claim from Graeagle is west on County Road 506, then north on County Road 502
(Poplar Valley Road). Poplar Valley Road turns into NFS Road 23N37. It is approximately 3
miles to the claim along Poplar Valley Road. The project area is within the Beckwourth Ranger
District, Plumas National Forest. The legal location is T22N, R11E, NE ¼ of Section 1, MDMB.
-
Beckwourth Ranger District, Plumas National Forest
3
Figure 1. Vicinity map
-
Discovery Placer Mining
4
Background The Discovery mining claim has been held by Mr. Rafal Wolny since March of 2012. Mr. Wolny
submitted a Plan of Operations for exploratory mining on December 19, 2012. It was submitted
as a one year plan and analyzed under a categorical exclusion. Upon analysis of the Plan,
noxious weeds were found at the site as well as potential habitat for the Sierra Nevada yellow-
legged frog. Because of the presence of potential habitat for the frog, it was determined that there
were extraordinary circumstances which would require analysis of this proposal under an
Environmental Assessment (EA). This environmental assessment is conducted in an effort to
identify resource concerns and alternatives associated with implementation of this Plan.
Need for the Proposal An individual seeks to discover the mineral potential of his claim which is located on National
Forest System lands. He has submitted a Plan of Operations to obtain authorization for the
surface disturbance associated with the exploration methods he will use to extract the locatable
minerals. This Plan of Operations is needed to authorize: use of a backhoe to excavate trenches,
cross country travel to access test sites, use of heavy equipment and mining equipment for surface
disturbance, drafting of water from the creek and release of water to a settling pit, and use of one
camp trailer at the claim while operating.
This Environmental Assessment is needed because this Plan of Operations has been submitted
requesting authorization for exploration of a locatable minerals claim. According to Code of
Federal Regulations (36 CFR 228; Subpart A), the Forest must provide a timely response to a
proposed Plan of Operations. In order to provide a response and provide reasonable changes,
modifications and/or mitigations to the submitted proposal, we evaluate the proposal through an
Environmental Assessment.
According to the 1988 Plumas National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, as
amended, the Forest Service must encourage mineral exploration and development that
reasonably protects surface resources and provides for land reclamation. The purpose of this
specific analysis is to determine if the proposed Plan of Operations can be approved as submitted,
approved with accompanying design features and mitigations required to protect surface
resources, or if the Plan cannot be approved at all because it is contrary to law or regulation.
Decision Framework The deciding official for this proposal is the Beckwourth District Ranger of the Plumas National
Forest (PNF). This Environmental Assessment (EA) serves to disclose the environmental
consequences of no-action, the proposed Discovery Placer Plan of Operations action as proposed
and the proposed Discovery Placer Plan of Operations with mitigations. The deciding official will
decide whether to approve the proposal as submitted, approve the proposal with recommended
mitigations or deny operations as proposed. The Forest Service cannot deny a locatable mineral
-
Beckwourth Ranger District, Plumas National Forest
5
Plan of Operations where the proposed activities are reasonably incident to mining and would
comply with other Federal laws.
Although the approval of a Plan of Operations is not a discretionary action, the deciding official
is legally bound to provide for resource protection without unreasonably inhibiting or restricting
the activities of miners and/or prospectors. The ensuing Decision Notice (DN) linked to this EA
does NOT directly result in the approval of the claimant’s Plan of Operations (PoO). Rather, the
Decision Notice fulfills legal requirements and provides rationale for establishing reasonable
mitigations or “Conditions of Approval”, such as fire prevention measures, hazmat spill
requirements, reclamation requirements, posting of a bond, and compliance with other Federal,
State and Local regulations. The Discovery Placer PoO would be authorized subsequently when
signed by the deciding official, contingent upon the claimant’s willingness to comply with the
requirements of the Agency’s decision.
Land Management Direction The Mining Law of 1872, as amended, governs the prospecting for and appropriation of metallic
and nonmetallic minerals on federally owned lands. Under the Forest Service, Organic
Administrative Act of June 4, 1897, 30 Stat. 35, as amended, the law specifically did not reserve
the Forests from the mining laws:
“Nor shall anything herein prohibit any person from entering upon such Forest
Reservations for all proper and lawful purposes, including that of prospecting, locating,
and developing the mineral resources thereof.”
Since the mineral estate in National Forest System lands is not “reserved” within the meaning of
the 1897 Organic Act, the Secretary of the Interior maintains jurisdiction, acting through the
Bureau of Land Management, to provide for the management of mineral resources. The mining
laws are comprised of two parts: (1) the statutes themselves, which are general in nature; and (2)
the decisions of the courts and of the Department of the Interior, which interpret and apply the
statutes to specific cases (FSM, Title 2800 – Minerals and Geology, subsection 2819).
The Multiple Use Mining Act of 1955 authorized multiple uses of surface resources on mining
claims, resulting in the Locatable Minerals Surface Management Regulations (36 CFR 228
Subpart A). Although regulations do not constitute a permit to explore or mine, as that is already a
statutory right, they do provide that such activities be conducted to protect non-mineral values of
National Forest System lands against unnecessary or unreasonable damage (36 CFR 228, Subpart
A – Locatable Minerals).
As directed under 36 CFR 228.8, Requirements for Environmental Protection:
“All Plans of Operation shall contain appropriate Terms and Conditions for the protection
of the environment, including but not limited to stipulations covering air quality, water
quality, solid wastes, scenic values, fishery habitat, roads and surface reclamation and
rehabilitation.”
-
Discovery Placer Mining
6
In the subsequent Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, Congress declared that it is the
continuing policy of the Federal Government, in the national interest, to foster and encourage
private enterprise in the development of economically sound and stable industries, and in the
orderly and economic development of domestic mineral resources to help assure satisfaction of
industrial, security, and environmental needs. In the case United States v. Weiss, 642 F.2d 296,
299 (1981), the Ninth Circuit declared there is nothing in the 36 Code of Federal Regulations
which authorizes the Forest Service to prohibit the claimant’s right to the possession and
enjoyment of their claims, or to encroach impermissibly upon those rights, by circumscribing
their use in a manner that amounts to a prohibition.
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of January 1, 1969 promotes efforts which will
minimize environmental damage and develop an understanding of the interrelationships of all
components of the natural environment and the effects of human activities on the environment.
The Act requires that direct, indirect, and cumulative effects be considered when conducting an
environmental analysis.
The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) of 1976 (which amended The Forest and
Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974) requires the maintenance and protection
of the productivity of the land and, where appropriate, the improvement of the quality of soil and
water resources. The Act specifies that substantial and permanent impairment of productivity
must be avoided.
The Plumas National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (PNF LRMP) (USDA 1988),
as amended by the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (SNFPA) Final Environmental Impact
Statement (FEIS) and Record of Decision (ROD) (USDA 2004a, 2004b) establishes standards
and guidelines for protection and maintenance of Forest soils, watersheds, water quality, and
water supply. These standards and guidelines are applied as Best Management Practices (BMPs),
Streamside Management Zones (SMZs) (per guidelines in Appendix M of the PNF LRMP) and
Riparian Conservation Areas (RCAs). The 2004 SNFPA ROD (Appendix A; section D) outlines
the Standards and Guidelines for project design and implementation to ensure that Riparian
Conservation objectives are met within RCAs, based on the nature of the waterway or feature.
Critical Aquatic Refuges (CARs) are sub-watersheds that have locations of threatened,
endangered, or sensitive species, highly vulnerable populations of native plant or animal species,
or localized populations of rare native aquatic- or riparian-dependent plant or animal species.
Specific management direction for CARs is outlined in the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan
Amendment (SNFPA) Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and Record of Decision
(ROD) (USDA 2004a, 2004b).
The 1988 PNF LRMP (pages 4-46 through 4-47) provides for encouraging mineral and materials
development that reasonably protects surface resources, and provides for land reclamation.
Further requirements for inspections, monitoring, reclamation, and guidelines for road use and
vegetation management are outlined in the 2004 SNFPA FEIS ROD (pages 58-59).
-
Beckwourth Ranger District, Plumas National Forest
7
Hydrology and Soils
The Clean Water Act (CWA) of 1948 (as amended in 1972 and 1987) establishes, as Federal
policy, the control of both point and non-point source pollution and assigns to the states the
primary responsibility of governing water quality. All Plans of Operation are subject to CWA
standards.
Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act requires the identification of water bodies that do not meet,
or are not expected to meet, water quality standards or are considered impaired. The list of
affected water bodies, and associated pollutants or stressors, is provided by the State Water
Resources Control Board and approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The most
current list available is the 2010 303(d) list (California State Water Resources Control Board,
2010). No water bodies on this list are located within the Discovery Placer Mine Exploration
project.
Non-point source pollution on the Plumas National Forest is managed through the water quality
management program contained in “Water Quality Management for Forest System Lands in
California” (USDA Forest Service September 2000). This document describes Forest Service
practices and procedures for protection of water quality and contains the 1981 Management
Agency Agreement (MAA) between the California State Water Resources Control Board
(CSWRCB) and the USDA, Forest Service. The State Board has designated the Forest Service as
the management agency for all activities on National Forest lands and the MAA constitutes the
basis of regional waivers for non-point source pollution. All Plans of Operation are reviewed by
the CSWRCB for compliance with the Clean Water Act. Communications from the State Water
Board are part of the project record located at the Mt. Hough Ranger District.
The Forest Service water quality protection program relies on implementation of prescribed best
management practices (BMPs). Best Management Practices are procedures, techniques, and
mitigation measures that are incorporated in project actions and have been determined by the state
to be the most effective, practicable means of preventing or reducing the amount of pollution
generated by nonpoint sources to a level compatible with water quality goals. All mining
operations authorized under a Plan of Operations are required to comply with Best Management
Practices. Random evaluations are conducted on operations each year to evaluate the operation
for sediment transport and deposition, signs of erosion, and improper refuse or waste disposal.
The Pacific Southwest Region (Region 5) of the USDA-Forest Service has recently adopted an
amendment to the Forest Service Handbook, Section 2509.22, Soil and Water Conservation
Handbook, Chapter 10 (Water Quality Management Handbook) (USDA 2011). This handbook
improves and replaces the Best Management Practices presented in Water Quality Management
for Forest Service Lands in California. In addition to the Forest Service Handbook, the National
BMP Program provides a standard set of core BMPs and provides a means to track and document
the use and effectiveness of BMPs on NFS lands across the country. The National Core BMPs are
not intended to supersede or replace Region 5’s Forest Service Handbook BMPs, but rather
supplement them by providing a foundation for water quality protection on NFS lands and
facilitate national BMP monitoring (USDA 2012). The Forest Service water quality protection
program relies on implementation of prescribed BMPs. These best management practices are
-
Discovery Placer Mining
8
procedures and techniques that are incorporated in project actions and have been determined by
the State of California to be the most effective, practicable means of preventing or reducing the
amount of pollution generated by nonpoint sources to a level compatible with water quality goals.
Appendix A of the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (SNFPA) Record of Decision (ROD)
(USDA Forest Service, 2004) describes management direction applicable to riparian areas,
hydrology, or water resources. The SNFPA require the establishment of Riparian Conservation
Areas (RCAs) (Table 1) along streams and special aquatic features to (1) preserve, enhance and
restore habitat for riparian and aquatic dependent species, (2) ensure water quality is maintained
or restored, (3) enhance habitat for species associated with the transition zone between upslope
and riparian areas, and (4) provide greater connectivity of riparian habitats within watersheds.
Riparian Conservation Areas – Prescription Classification
Perennial Streams: 300 feet on each side of the stream, measured from the bank full edge of the
stream
Seasonally Flowing Streams (including intermittent and ephemeral streams): 150 feet on
each side of the stream, measured from the bank full edge of the stream
Streams in Inner Gorge: top of inner gorge
Other hydrological or topographical depressions without a defined channel: 50 feet from
edge of feature or riparian vegetation, whichever is greater.
National Forests, under this guiding document, must manage RCAs consistent with the SNFPA
riparian conservation objectives (RCOs) and associated standard and guidelines. The RCOs
provide a checklist for evaluating whether a proposed activity is consistent with the goals
described by the Aquatic Management Strategy (AMS). RCA widths may be adjusted at the
project level if a site-specific RCO analysis demonstrates a need for different widths.
National Forest Service Manual for Soil Management
Forest Service Manual 2550 (USDA 2010) establishes the management framework for sustaining
soil quality and hydrologic function while providing goods and services outlined in Forest land
and resource management plans. Primary objectives of this framework are to inform mangers of
the effects of land management activities on soil quality and to determine if adjustments to
activities and practices are necessary to sustain and restore soil quality. Soil quality analysis and
monitoring processes are to be used to determine if soil quality conditions and objectives have
been achieved.
Forest staff will determine soil quality indicators and measures that are appropriate for the
proposed activities. Most soil quality indicators are observations and measurements taken at the
soil surface and in the upper mineral soil since this region of the soil profile strongly influences
soil hydrology and long term soil productivity. Forest staff is directed to estimate the type,
amount, and degree of change to soil indicators that the proposed activity may produce by using
appropriate analysis methods, scientific literature, past monitoring results, and knowledge of local
-
Beckwourth Ranger District, Plumas National Forest
9
site and soil characteristics. In most cases, qualitative estimates of the effects of management
activities on soils are considered sufficient to meet analysis objectives.
The major objective of soil quality monitoring is to ensure that ecologically sustainable soil
management practices are applied. Soil quality monitoring is to be used to validate and refine
management decisions. Monitoring information collected allows land managers to determine if
land management plan desired conditions are being achieved. The focus of project level
monitoring is observation and documentation of the implementation of soil protection
prescriptions.
Region Five National FSM Supplement for Soil Management
Region 5 FSM 2500 chapter 2550 Supplement (USDA 2012) establishes soil functions (support
for plant growth function, soil hydrologic function, and filtering and buffering function) that the
region will use to assess and manage soil conditions. The analysis standards are to be used for
areas dedicated to growing vegetation. They are not applied to lands with other dedicated uses,
such as system roads and trails or developed campgrounds.
Plumas National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP)
Forest Plan standards and guidelines provide the relevant substantive standards to comply with
NFMA. The 1988 LRMP (USDA 1988b) establishes standards and guidelines to prevent
significant or permanent impairment of soil productivity. This includes determining adequate
ground cover for disturbed sites during project planning on a case-by-case basis.
Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 (SMARA)
The Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 (SMARA) was enacted by the California
Legislature to address the need for a continuing supply of mineral resources, and to prevent or
minimize the negative impacts of surface mining to public health, property and the environment.
The Act's requirements apply to anyone engaged in surface mining operations in California
(including those on federally managed lands) which disturb more than one acre or remove more
than 1,000 cubic yards of material.
Archeological Resources
Section 101 of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the federal government to
preserve important historic, cultural, and natural aspects of our national heritage. To accomplish
this, federal agencies utilize the Section 106 process of the National Historic Preservation Act
(NHPA). Passed by Congress three years before NEPA, the NHPA sets forth a framework for
identifying and evaluating historic properties, and assessing effects to these properties. This
process has been codified in 36 CFR 800 Subpart B. The coordination or linkage between the
Section 106 process of the NHPA and the mandate to preserve our national heritage under NEPA
is well understood, and is formally established in 36 CFR 800.3b and 800.8.
-
Discovery Placer Mining
10
NEPA includes reference to “…important historic, cultural, and natural aspects of our national
heritage”. This terminology includes those resources defined as “historic properties” under NHPA
(36 CFR 800.16(l)(1)). Therefore, agencies use the NHPA Section 106 process to consider,
manage, and protect historic properties during the planning and implementation stages of federal
projects. Locally, the Plumas National Forest uses the Programmatic Agreement Among the
U.S.D.A Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region (Region 5), California State Historic
Preservation Officer, Nevada State Historic Preservation Officer, and the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation Regarding the Processes for Compliance with Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act for Management of Historic Properties by the National Forests of the
Pacific Southwest Region (2013) (Programmatic Agreement) to implement the Section 106
process (36 CFR 800.2 – 800.4(b)).
Noxious Weeds
This assessment is in compliance with the Plumas National Forest Land and Resource
Management Plan (USFS PNF LRMP 1988), the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment
(SNFPA) FSEIS and Record of Decision (ROD) (USFS 2004a and 2004b), Executive Order on
Invasive Species (Executive Order 13112), and the direction in the Forest Service Manual section
2900, Invasive Species Management (amendment effective since 12/5/2011) (USFS 2011), which
includes a policy statement calling for a risk assessment for noxious weeds to be completed for
every project. The overriding principle stated in these documents is that the costs associated with
preventing an infestation are much less than the costs of eliminating a population once it has
expanded, and of managing the effects of a degraded plant community.
Public Involvement and Tribal Consultation This proposal was listed in the Schedule of Proposed Actions from December 2012 to the present
time. The proposal was published in the Portola Reporter on January 16th, 2013.
The Forest Service consulted the following individuals, Federal, State, tribal, and local agencies
during the development of this EA:
-
Beckwourth Ranger District, Plumas National Forest
11
Table 1 List of Persons, Agencies and Organizations Consulted
Name/Agency Purpose & Authorities for
Consultation or
Coordination
Findings & Conclusions
Maidu Summit Consortium Consult with tribal agencies in
regards to culturally
significant area.
No comments or concerns.
Susanville Indian Rancheria Consult with tribal agencies in
regards to culturally
significant area.
No comments or concerns.
Greenville Indian Rancheria Consult with tribal agencies in
regards to culturally
significant area.
No comments or concerns.
Washoe Tribe of Nevada and
California
Consult with tribal agencies in
regards to culturally
significant area.
No comments or concerns.
Central Valley Regional Water
Quality Control Board
Consult with CVRWQCB as
the state agency responsible
for water quality
Limited exploration activities
do not pose a threat to water
quality.
California Department of Fish
and Wildlife
Consult with CDF&W in
regards to threatened and
endangered species and their
habitat
Request for written
notification of pending
decisions.
U.S Fish and Wildlife Service Consult with USFW in regards
to threatened and endangered
species and their habitat
Included in batch process for
consultation with resulting
mitigations.
Trout Unlimited Consultation in regards to
habitat or impacts
No comments or concerns.
George Copeland Landowner No comments or concerns.
Robert Bennett Adjacent landowner Ensure private/forest
boundary properly delineated.
Ensure noise disruptions and
dust is kept to a minimum.
Tim Holabird District Representative No comments or concerns.
-
Discovery Placer Mining
12
Chapter 2 The Plumas National Forest proposes to approve the Discovery mining Plan of Operations as
described in “Alternative B – Proposed Action with Mitigations”. This action is needed to
establish the appropriate terms and conditions which the claimant must abide by while exercising
his right to mine as established by the General Mining Law of 1872 while protecting National
Forest resources consistent with other applicable law, regulation and policy.
In addition to Alternative B the Forest Service also evaluated the Proposed Action as submitted
by the claimant and the No Action alternative. These alternatives are described in more detail
below.
Proposed Action and Alternatives
Alternative A – Plan as submitted The proposed action is the Plan of Operations as submitted by the proponent and is summarized
below.
The project will explore the subsurface using a backhoe to dig 10-20 pits that will be advanced to
bedrock. Pits will be located in areas of limited vegetation. Pits will be about 2-4 feet wide, up
to 20 feet long and between 5 and 15 feet deep. An average of 22 cubic yards of material will be
extracted from each pit. Excavated material will be screened through a grizzly. Large rocks that
are screened out will be returned to the pit. Screened material will be transported by backhoe to
the processing area.
Twelve trenches are proposed on the north side of Eureka Creek and eight trenches are proposed
on the south side of the creek. The processing area would be set up on the north side of the creek
by may be moved to the south side, while those trenches are being excavated. Access routes to
the trenches would be along existing roads as well as over land in areas of sparse vegetation.
The processing system is a small, portable trommel wash plant, capable of processing less than 5
cubic yards per hour. Water is supplied to the trommel by two portable pumps. Finer material
may be processed through a concentrating bowl or table to retrieve smaller particles.
Water is pumped from the creek to a plastic-lined freshwater holding trough, about 10’ x 10’ x 10’
deep. Wastewater will discharge into a pit that is about 20’ x 10’ x 10’ in size, where it will be
allowed to percolate into the ground. No waste laden water from, or caused by, the operation will
enter the creek. The processing area will be located at least 25 feet from the creek.
Concurrent reclamation of the test sites will be accomplished by backfilling each pit as tailings
are begin produced from processing. Waste material will be transported and replaced back into
the excavations and compacted. The refilled pits will be covered with topsoil if available, and the
area graded to conform to the natural topography. Native vegetation will be scattered over the
disturbed area.
-
Beckwourth Ranger District, Plumas National Forest
13
Operations will be seasonal from spring through the fall depending on weather. There will be no
stream crossings or streambed alteration. If rain events are forecast, erosion control measures
will be put into place to prevent soil movement. During times of forecasted storm events, the pits
will not be filled to capacity, leaving ample space for storm water. No heavy equipment will be
used during or following rain storms to prevent excessive soil disturbance.
The backhoe and equipment will be fueled from 5 gallon approved fuel containers or from an
approved pick up bed transfer tank. Fuel will be kept in the bed of the pick-up truck during
operations or in an impervious container capable of holding twice the volume of fuel and oil at
capacity. The backhoe will be maintained in good repair and will be free of leaks of lubricants,
fuel, coolants and hydraulic fluid. It will be fueled and parked in the same area each day. Oil
absorbent pads will be available at all areas where fuel or lubricants are transferred to machinery,
to catch spills or dripping fuel.
The site will be reclaimed for seasonal closure by November 15th or the onset of winter weather.
Residential occupancy in 1 to 3 camp trailers during the course of seasonal mining is proposed.
One to three persons may be on site during active mining operations. The trailers will be parked
at the existing dispersed site. Trailers will be taken off site for sewage disposal at approved
facilities.
Seasonal and final reclamation will include the removal of all exploration and processing
equipment, camping equipment, fencing, trash, and vehicles.
Alternative B – Plan with Forest Service mitigations Alternative B is the proposed action with mitigations. Under this alternative, mining exploration
as proposed in the Plan of Operations would take place with the following mitigations.
MITIGATIONS
Soil and Hydrological Resources:
Incorporation of the following operational guidelines would help minimize the risk of soil erosion
and degraded water quality resulting from the proposed mining activities:
Three trenches on the south side of the creek will be accessed across a spring and wet area.
In order to access this area, the claimant will protect this wet area from disturbance by the use
of matting material such as geogrid or wooden planks. The matting material would be laid
across the wet areas and equipment must travel across this matting material.
This alternative is consistent with Best Management Practices (BMPs) to protect water
quality as specified in the Pacific Southwest Region Water Quality Management Handbook
(USDA 2011). Conditions of approval for the Plan of Operations will outline specific Best
Management Practices that are applicable to this implementation of the project.
Applicable Best Management Practices can be found in the Hydrology and Soils report in the
project record at the Mt. Hough District office.
-
Discovery Placer Mining
14
Botanical Resources:
Rush Skeleton Weed (noxious weed) removal by hand pulling has been ongoing at the site.
Herbicide treatment to control this weed will be undertaken in the summer of 2015. No
ground disturbing activity will take place until the noxious weed infestation has been treated
at least once with herbicides. Coordination of the mining Plan of Operation and ongoing
weed treatments will be necessary.
Herbicide treatments will be done twice each year for several years.
Excavated soil that is stockpiled on the surface for longer than 1 day shall be covered with 3
mm thick, black, polyethylene plastic to reduce the potential for weed establishment or
growth.
All vehicles and equipment will be washed prior to entering the project area and will arrive
free of all plant material. Any vehicle or equipment that leaves National Forest System Road
23N37 must be washed prior to leaving the project area.
A specific camping area will be designated.
A seeding plan utilizing local, native seeds and weed free mulch will be incorporated into the
conditions of approval for the Plan to provide competition for skeleton weed.
Monitoring for noxious weeds will take place at least twice per summer by botany staff.
Monitoring of reclamation will be the responsibility of minerals staff. A specific reclamation
plan will be incorporated into the conditions of approval with specific re-vegetation criteria
and timeframes.
Wildlife Resources:
The project has been submitted for batch consultation to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
regarding the listing of the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog as Federally Endangered.
Operations are subject to a limited operating period. All work would be completed between
April 15th and October 1st or the first wetting rain.
All equipment must be kept out of Eureka Creek, all riparian vegetation and wet meadows or
wet areas (springs, etc.).
Suction strainers must be used on all drafting hoses and contain screens with less than 2mm
holes. The suction strainer shall be inserted close t the substrate in the deepest water
available; the suction strainer shall be placed in a bucket to avoid substrate and amphibian
disturbance.
No storage of fuels and other toxic materials within RCA’s and CAR’s. No refueling within
RCAs and CARs unless there are no other alternatives. Ensure that spill plans are reviewed
and up-to-date.
-
Beckwourth Ranger District, Plumas National Forest
15
Minerals Administration Evaluation of Proposed Operation:
Regular inspections of the site would be implemented to ensure that mining activities fall
within the scope of the Plan of Operations and Conditions of Approval and to ensure that
reclamation is being performed in a timely manner.
A bond which covers the potential costs of resource damage or equipment removal will be in
place prior to the start of operations. Reclamation will be inspected by Plumas National
Forest staff to ensure timely and successful reclamation.
Compliance with State and Local Agency Regulations
This operation falls under the thresholds specified by the Surface Mining and Reclamation
Act of 1975 (SMARA).
A determination that Waste Discharge Requirements are not required has been received from
the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Alternative C – No Action
The No-Action Alternative represents no change from the current condition. This alternative acts
as a baseline to describe the existing environmental and social setting, by which the predicted
effects of the Proposed Action may be compared.
Under the No-Action alternative, current management plans would continue to guide
management of the project area. Without an approved plan, the mining claimant could conduct
activities allowed under 36 CFR 228.4; limited to using vehicles on approved NFS roads,
searching for and occasionally removing small mineral samples, prospecting and sampling while
not causing any significant surface resource disturbance, marking and monumenting the claim,
and conducting subsurface operations which would not cause surface resource disturbance.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action and Alternatives This section summarizes the potential impacts of the proposed action and alternatives for each
impacted resource. Resources with no impacts that will not be analyzed further include Range
and Recreation.
Cultural Resources
Introduction
Cultural objects, historic structures and buildings, and archaeological sites are the material
remains of our national heritage. Together they are known as heritage or cultural resources. The
Plumas National Forest is responsible for, and committed to, protecting and managing these
nonrenewable resources for current and future generations to understand and enjoy.
-
Discovery Placer Mining
16
Scope of the Analysis
Geographic Analysis Area: The cultural resources geographic analysis area is the same as the area
of potential effect (APE) of the proposed Discovery Mine project area.
Timeframe of Analysis: The temporal boundary is determined by the life of the project. This
boundary was chosen because there will be no effect to cultural resources during the
implementation of this project’s activities.
Environmental Consequences
Direct and Indirect Effects
Effects of Action Alternatives on Cultural Resources
There will be no effect to cultural resources during the implementation of the proposed activities
of the Discovery Mine project.
Effects of Alternative C (No-action) on Cultural Resources
With no proposed activity, there would be no effect to cultural resources.
Cumulative Effects
There would be no direct or indirect effects to cultural resources from any of the alternatives
therefore there would be no cumulative effects.
National Historic Preservation Act
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act requires that the Forest take into account
the potential effects of undertakings on historic properties (cultural resources) prior to initiating
any actions that have the potential to effect such properties. For undertakings that are determined
to have no effect on cultural resources, the Plumas National Forest (PNF) follows the process
outlined in the "Programmatic Agreement among the U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Pacific Southwest
Region (Region 5), California State Historic Preservation Officer, Nevada State Historic
Preservation Officer, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, Regarding the Process
for Compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) for
Management of Historic Properties by the National Forests of the Pacific Southwest Region”
(Programmatic Agreement) (USDA 2013).
The Discovery Mine EA meets the NHPA by avoiding cultural resources by following the
process outlined in the Programmatic Agreement. Therefore there will be “no effect” on cultural
resources and the Forest would have taken into account the effect of the Discovery Mine project
on cultural resource sites in compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA.
Indian Sacred Sites, Executive Order 13007 of May 24, 1996
-
Beckwourth Ranger District, Plumas National Forest
17
Through scoping and consulting with local Native American tribes, it was determined by District
Archeologist that the project may be implemented without further review or consultation.
Botanical Resources
Scope of the Analysis
Geographic Analysis Area: The area of analysis for the noxious weed risk assessment includes the
project area and surrounding land up to 1 mile outside the project boundary. Access routes to the
project area were also considered in analyzing the risk of noxious weed infestation. The project
area was surveyed for noxious weeds by PNF botanists in spring and summer of 2013 and spring
of 2014.
Effects of Alternative A on Botanical Resources
The equipment and vehicles involved in the proposed activities can transport spread seeds and
plant fragments within and outside of the project area. The soil disturbance being proposed would
create conditions favorable to germination new rush skeleton weed plants. Excavation removes
competing vegetation. Rush skeleton weed would likely take advantage of these conditions.
While rush skeleton weed is capable of spreading rapidly, it does not typically invade stands of
native vegetation in good condition. Drought, soil disturbance from human or animal activities,
and open plant communities can increase the likelihood for invasion. Rush skeleton weed’s
competitiveness is believed to be related to its ability to reproduce vegetatively in response to
damage such as severed roots, stems cut near the base, and fire. Once established, grasses are
unlikely to outcompete rush skeleton weed for water and nutrient (USDA FS 2012).
The amount of soil disturbance and the amount of available sunlight are important factors in the
risk of introduction and spread of noxious weeds. Many noxious weeds are early seral (i.e.
pioneer) species that invade newly disturbed places with bare soils and ample sunlight. Activities
that create these conditions increase the risk of invasion. The more disturbance caused, the greater
the area available for introduction, and thus the greater the risk. Therefore high disturbance
activities are considered more at risk of invasion by noxious weeds than low disturbance.
The proposed action dependent factors result in a high risk of spread of noxious weeds.
Effects of Alternative B on Botanical Resources
The Mitigations and Standard Operating Procedures outlined above in Alternative B will be
followed to reduce the risks of spreading Rush Skeleton weed. These mitigations include
proactive prevention of weed spread, control of existing populations, and restoration and
revegetation of the site.
Environmental Consequences
With all of the above mitigations in place there will be a slight reduction in the likelihood of weed
spread. Rush Skeleton weed is very resistant to control. During project implementation, vehicles
will travel through the area where weeds are located. These vehicles can transport seeds and
plant parts to other parts of the claim or off the claim. Soil disturbance creates new ground for
weeds to establish themselves. If all the above mitigations such as covering open soil with plastic
and washing vehicles before and after transport are strictly implemented, weed spread can be
minimized.
-
Discovery Placer Mining
18
Noxious weeds significantly reduce the value of public lands. Noxious weeds negatively impact
timber production, grazing, wildlife habitat, and recreational opportunities. Any untreated or
unknown noxious weed populations are highly likely to spread to nearby private lands. The
known population of rush skeleton weed poses a threat to Plumas-Eureka State Park which lies
one-half mile away. Noxious weed control is expensive and time consuming. Prevention and
control of small infestations can reduce these impacts and reduce expenditures in the long run.
Thus, noxious weed surveys, control of small infestations, and prevention measures are vital in
reducing overall impacts and costs from noxious weeds.
Anticipated Weed Response under Alternative B
Table 2 Summary of weed responses to risk factors for Discovery Placer Mine Project
Factors Variation Risk
NON-PROPOSED ACTION DEPENDENT FACTORS
1. Inventory The entire project area was surveyed Moderate
2. Known Noxious Weeds High priority species present High
3. Habitat vulnerability Moderate but frequent current disturbance Moderate-to-high current vulnerability
4. Non-project dependent vectors Moderate current vectors (OHV and recreational camping)
Moderate-to-high current vulnerability
PROPOSED ACTION DEPENDENT FACTORS
5. Habitat alteration expected as a result of project.
High ground disturbance; change in vegetative ground cover
High
6. Increased vectors as a result of project implementation
Increased use of vehicles entering and exiting the area during proposed activities throughout the life of the proposed project. Backhoe, trommel, pumps, tools, and camp trailer will enter and exit the project area.
High
7. Mitigation measures
No SOPs1 measures implemented High
Some SOPs measures implemented Slightly reduced
All SOPs measures implemented Moderately reduced
8. Anticipated weed response to proposed action
Some or no SOPs measures implemented High potential for significant increase in weed spread as a result of project implementation
All SOPs measures implemented Moderate potential for significant increase in weed spread as a result of project implementation
9. Cost estimates
2015 - Spraying, monitoring, and control 7 days GS 11 = $2,345 2016 - Spraying, monitoring, and control 5 days GS 11 = $2,345
Generally, it is more economical and efficient to treat small infestations than to wait until they are large.
1 Standard Operating Procedures
-
Beckwourth Ranger District, Plumas National Forest
19
Specific Design Features
Future treatments would include herbicide application, hand digging, prevention measures,
monitoring and re-vegetation.
Avoid all ground disturbing activities until after the noxious weed infestation has
been treated at least once with herbicides. Treatment is proposed for summer of
2015. An Environmental Analysis (EA) and a NEPA decision will be required.
The herbicides planned for use are: Aminopyralid + triclopyr (Milestone®)
and/or Clopyralid (Transline®).
Herbicide treatments would be done twice each year for several years.
Effectiveness monitoring is also proposed. See the Rush Skeleton Weed Project
Environmental Analysis for a complete explanation of that project.
Vehicle and Equipment washing: all vehicles and equipment must be washed
prior to entering the project area and should arrive free of all soils and plant
material. Any vehicle or equipment that leaves forest road 23N37 (the main
access road) must be washed prior to leaving the project area.
A specific camping area will be designated;
•Stockpiling of soil. Excavated soil will be set aside within the area of
disturbance and covered with 3 millimeter black polyethylene plastic until it is
placed back in the pit it was taken from.
•Re-vegetation of the site following would be done at the discretion of the PNF
interdisciplinary team to provide competition for the rush skeleton weed. Only
native plants would be used. Two grass species, mountain brome (Bromus
carinatus) and blue wild rye (Elymus glaucus) and one nitrogen-fixing species
deer vetch (Acmispon americanus). The source of the seeds or plants would be
the PNF. Other native species may be substituted for these species at the
discretion of the PNF.
Monitor the project area in spring; identify and treat any newly found rush
skeleton weed plants.
Document and map changes in the rush skeleton weed population.
Effects of Alternative C (No-action) on Botanical Resources
With no proposed activity, weeds would still exist. Herbicide and other treatments including
hand pulling would continue in an attempt to eradicate Rush Skeleton Weed. Treatment may be
more successful without the added disturbance from mining.
-
Discovery Placer Mining
20
Soil and Hydrology Resources
Scope of the Analysis
Geographic Analysis Area: The cultural resources geographic analysis area is the same as the area
of potential effect (APE) of the proposed Discovery Mine project area. This boundary was chosen
because there will be no effect to cultural resources within the Discovery Mine Project area.
Timeframe of Analysis: The temporal boundary is determined by the life of the project. This
boundary was chosen because there will be no effect to cultural resources during the
implementation of this project’s activities.
Alternative A – Plan as submitted
Ground-disturbing activities associated with the Proposed Action of this project can result in
erosion and sedimentation. By effectively planning and mitigating for erosion control,
sedimentation and water quality can be controlled or prevented. Forest Service personnel develop
mitigation measures along with selecting applicable Best Management Practices (BMPs) for the
proposed action of this project by using an interdisciplinary team approach during the planning
phase of this project. Mitigation measures and applicable BMPs are included in the Discovery
Placer Mine Exploration Project Environmental Assessment (EA) document and are included
below for hydrology and soils. It is expected that by following the appropriate BMPs and
associated effectiveness monitoring, along with stated mitigation measures and project design
elements there will be no detrimental direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to soils and water
quality and associated beneficial uses from implementation of proposed activities in the Proposed
Action of this project.
Alternative B - Proposed Action with Mitigations
Mitigation Measures
Riparian Conservation Areas
Appendix A of the SNFPA ROD (USDA Forest Service, 2004) describes management direction
applicable to riparian areas, hydrology, or water resources. The SNFPA require the establishment
of Riparian Conservation Areas (RCAs) along streams and special aquatic features to (1)
preserve, enhance and restore habitat for riparian and aquatic dependent species, (2) ensure water
quality is maintained or restored, (3) enhance habitat for species associated with the transition
zone between upslope and riparian areas, and (4) provide greater connectivity of riparian habitats
within watersheds.
National Forests, under this guiding document, must manage RCAs consistent with the SNFPA
riparian conservation objectives (RCOs) and associated standard and guidelines. The RCOs
provide a checklist for evaluating whether a proposed activity is consistent with the goals
described by the Aquatic Management Strategy (AMS). RCA widths may be adjusted at the
project level if a site-specific RCO analysis (see below) demonstrates a need for different widths.
A full RCO Analysis can be found in the project record located at the Mt. Hough Ranger District
office.
-
Beckwourth Ranger District, Plumas National Forest
21
Operations within RCAs: Equipment use within RCAs will be allowed within the designated
areas discussed within the Discovery Placer Mine Exploration EA and with the permittee. Any
variations from this should be discussed with the between the permittee and the Forest Service
personnel prior to entry into the existing RCAs on Eureka Creek or ones not discussed and agreed
upon. Mechanical Equipment will be restricted from entering 10 feet from the edge of channel
along Eureka Creek. There are also three trenches that are located on the south side of the creek
will be accessed across a spring and wet area. In order to access this area, the claimant will
protect this wet area from disturbance by the use of matting material such as geogrid or wooden
planks. The matting material would be laid across the wet areas and equipment must travel
across this matting material. Additionally, the processing area will be located at least 25 feet from
the creek. No waste laden water from, or caused by, the operation will enter the creek.
Residential occupancy camp trailers will be parked at the existing dispersed site. Trailers will be
taken off site for sewage disposal at approved facilities.
Slope Restrictions: All mechanical equipment would be restricted to slopes up to 25 percent
within the RCAs.
Bank Stability: Remove no trees adjacent to channels that provide bank stability and/or contribute
to channel integrity (except for hazard trees).
Temporary Road Locations: Temporary roads would generally not be allowed within RCAs
unless authorized by District watershed department staff. However, mechanical equipment would
be allowed on existing temporary roads that are within the RCAs to access sites. No new roads
were approved with this permit.
Restoring Disturbed Areas and Access Routes: Areas disturbed by operations should be restored
to a like or better condition than prior to operations. Where available, slash would be spread out
across disturbed areas. Install erosion control measures where erosional issues are evident or
expected. After use and if necessary, barricade any access routes created to discourage vehicle
traffic by using available natural materials such as rocks, logs, root wads and earth, to appear
somewhat natural, have low installation costs and require little to no maintenance.
Material near Stream Courses: Remove any material outside of RCAs that are generated by
project activities that may impeded flow prior to the end of operations.
Hazard Tree Removal in RCAs: With case-by-case permission hazard trees may be hand-felled
and left in place or removed from RCAs if necessary in a manner that minimizes disturbance to
the RCA.
Hazard Material Use and Operational Waste: Follow all applicable BMPs in storing, using, and
disposing of hazardous material (e.g. petroleum products, etc.) and operational waste.
Soil Protection
Ground Cover: The project standard for ground cover for the proposed project area will be
dependent upon the soil EHRs within the unit. The Soil Resource Inventory for Plumas National
Forest indicates that the maximum Erosion Hazard Rating for soils within the proposed project
-
Discovery Placer Mining
22
area (i.e. Chaix-Wapi and Riverwash-Fluvents) are moderate (50%) to very high (70%) (USDA
1988c). A 60% ground cover recommendation would be applied to areas that are impacted by
operations and where organic material is available.
Wet Weather Operations Standards: Conduct operations when soil is dry; that is, in the spring
when soil moisture in the upper 8 inches is not sufficient to allow a soil sample to be squeezed
and hold its shape, or will crumble when the hand is tapped. In the summer and early fall after
storm event(s) when soil moisture between 2-8 inches in depth is not sufficient to allow a soil
sample to be squeezed and hold its shape, or will crumble when the hand is tapped. If rain events
are forecast, erosion control measures will be put into place to prevent soil movement. During
times of forecasted storm events, the pits will not be filled to capacity, leaving ample space for
storm water. No heavy equipment will be used during or following rain storms to prevent
excessive soil disturbance. The site will be reclaimed for seasonal closure by November 15th or
the onset of winter weather.
Slope Restrictions: Allow low ground pressure (under 8.0 psi when “unloaded”) excavators to
work on slopes up to 35 percent outside of RCAs. Short pitches of up to 45 percent may be
allowed for transport of mechanical equipment.
Skid Trails & Temporary Roads: Reuse existing skid trails and/or temporary roads where and if
available. Departure from roads would be allowed with this permit as long as equipment will not
likely impair the soil and slope restrictions are being met.
Restoring Skid Trails & Temporary Roads: Vehicle access to skid trails and temporary roads
would be blocked and water bars would be installed where needed prior to the end of operations.
Additionally, where available, slash would be spread out across skid trails and temporary roads.
Best Management Practices (BMP’s)
BMP’s for Road Management Activities, Stream Crossings, Parking and Staging Areas,
Equipment refueling and servicing, aggregate barrow areas, erosion control, mining, and
vegetation manipulation will be followed to preserve soil and water quality. These BMP’s are
outlined in more detail in the hydrology and soils report located at both the Beckwourth and Mt.
Hough Ranger District offices.
Alternative C - No Action
With no proposed activity, there would be no effect to soil or hydrological resources.
Wildlife Resources
Scope of the Analysis
Geographic Analysis Area: The area of analysis for the biological assessment includes the project
area and surrounding land up to1/4 mile outside the project boundary.
Timeframe of Analysis: The temporal boundary is determined by the life of the project.
-
Beckwourth Ranger District, Plumas National Forest
23
Alternative A – Plan as submitted
Activities associated with the Proposed Action of this project can result in impacts to Sierra
Nevada yellow-legged frog and their habitat.
Alternative B - Proposed Action with Mitigations
By effectively planning and mitigating for the presence of SNYLF, impacts to frogs and their
habitat can be minimized or prevented. Forest Service personnel have developed mitigation
measures for the proposed action of this project by using an interdisciplinary team approach
during the planning phase of this project. Mitigation measures are outlined above. It is expected
that by following the stated mitigation measures and incorporating project design elements there
will be limited detrimental direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to SNYLF and their habitat.
Alternative C - No Action
With no proposed activity, there would be no effect to wildlife.
References Code of Federal Regulations (36 CFR 228; Subpart A)
Region 5 FSM 2500 chapter 2550 Supplement (USDA 2012)
Plumas National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (PNF LRMP) (USDA 1988), as
amended by the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (SNFPA) Final Environmental
Impact Statement (FEIS) and Record of Decision (ROD) (USDA 2004a, 2004b)
Programmatic Agreement among the USDA Forest Service, Pacific
Southwest Region (Region 5), California State Historic Preservation
Officer, Nevada State Historic Preservation Officer, and the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation regarding the Process for compliance
with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act for Management of Historic
Properties by the National Forests of the Pacific Southwest Region (USDA 2013)
The Mining Law of 1872, as amended
Forest Service, Organic Administrative Act of June 4, 1897, 30 Stat. 35, as amended
FSM, Title 2800 – Minerals and Geology, subsection 2819
The Multiple Use Mining Act of 1955
Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970
United States v. Weiss, 642 F.2d 296, 299 (1981)
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (1969)
-
Discovery Placer Mining
24
National Forest Management Act (NFMA) of (1976)
Clean Water Act (CWA) of 1948 (as amended in 1972 and 1987)
“Water Quality Management for Forest System Lands in California” (USDA Forest Service
2000).
Soil and Water Conservation Handbook, Chapter 10 (Water Quality Management Handbook)
(USDA 2011)
-
Beckwourth Ranger District, Plumas National Forest
25