United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service ...a123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic.download.akam… · Placer mineral exploration project may significantly

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.


3

Figure 1. Vicinity map


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


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.”


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).


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


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


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.


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:


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


significant area.


Greenville Indian Rancheria Consult with tribal agencies in


significant area.


Washoe Tribe of Nevada and

California

Consult with tribal agencies in


significant area.


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


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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


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


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.


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


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.


20

Soil and Hydrology Resources


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.


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


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


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.


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)


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)


25

Documents

United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service ...a123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic.download.akam… · Placer mineral exploration project may significantly