Environmental Assessment

United States Department of Agriculture Supplemental Forest Service

Southwestern Environmental Region April 2020 Assessment

Proposed Riverbend Placer Mine and Lost Nugget Reclamation Project

Bradshaw Ranger District Prescott National Forest

In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident.

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English. To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) email: [email protected].

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender. i

Proposed Riverbend Placer Mine and Lost Nugget Placer Mine Reclamation Project Supplemental Environmental Assessment

Chapter 1: Purpose and Need 1 Introduction 1 Management Direction 3 Purpose and Need for Action 4 Proposed Action 4 Decision Process and Administrative Review 5 Public Involvement 6 Issue Identification 8 Issues Considered but Dismissed from Further Analysis 8 Air Quality Noise Livestock Grazing Visual Resources Heritage Resources Recreation Document Structure 10

Chapter 2: Alternatives 12 Alternative 1: No Action Alternative 12 Alternative 2: Proposed Action 12 Mitigation Measures 30

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 33 Introduction 33 Hydrology Groundwater Surface Water Water Quality Soils/Watershed Mining and Minerals 34 Biological Resources 34 Wildlife Vegetation Cumulative Effects Analysis 44 Cumulative Effects Analysis Area Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions Cumulative Effects

Chapter 4: Consultation & Coordination 55 List of Preparers List of Federal, State and Local Agencies List of Tribes

Chapter 5: References 56

Appendices

Reclamation Plan

List of Tables

Table 1. Watershed acreage and project percent of watershed acres by watershed and ownership Table 2. Watershed acreage by ownership Table 3. Ecotypes of Prescott National Forest land in the 6th level watersheds Table 4. Prescott National Forest Soil Condition by Watershed in Acres Table 5. Road Miles by 6th Level Watershed on the Prescott National Forest Table 6. Road Miles by 6th Level Watershed for All Ownerships Table 7. Past, present and ongoing projects considered during the cumulative effects analysis.

List of Figures

Figure 1. Project area Figure 2. Proposed Riverbend Placer Mine overall site plan Figure 3. Proposed Riverbend Placer Mine processing area site plan Figure 4. Current ore-processing equipment at Lost Nugget site Figure 5. Current gold-processing cabana at Lost Nugget site Figure 6. Schematic diagram of the ore recovery process Figure 7. Lined processing pond at Lost Nugget site revegetation including wetland species Figure 8. Lost Nugget site showing natural revegetation including willow and desertbroom Figure 9. Lost Nugget site. Note natural revegetation dominated by invasive species Figure 10. Current Lost Nugget site including revegetation largely by invasive species Figure 11. Current Lost Nugget site including natural revegetation by native desertbroom Figure 12. Typical upland (foreground) and riparian vegetation in and near the project area

Document Structure

This Supplemental Environmental Assessment (SEA) has been prepared in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant Federal and State laws and regulations. This Supplemental Environmental Assessment discloses the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts that would result from the Proposed Action and alternatives. The document is organized into the following chapters:

 Purpose and Need includes information on the history of the project proposal, the purpose of and need for the project, and the agency’s proposal for achieving that purpose and need. This section also details how the Forest Service informed the public of the proposal and how the public responded.

 Alternatives provides a more detailed description of the agency’s Proposed Action as well as the No Action Alternative. This discussion also includes mitigation measures.

 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences describes the environmental effects of implementing the Proposed Action. This analysis is organized by resource area. Within each section, the affected environment is described first, followed by the effects of the No Action Alternative that provides a baseline for evaluation and comparison of the Proposed Action that follows.

 Consultation and Coordination provides the list of preparers and a list of agencies consulted and/or contacted during the development of the Supplemental EA.

 References lists the documents and other sources relied upon for preparation of this document

 Appendices provide more detailed information to support the analyses presented in the Supplemental EA. The appendices include a reclamation plan.

CHAPTER 1: PURPOSE AND NEED

Introduction

Pine Creek Mining, Inc., proposes placer mining, bulk testing, and reclamation in the Hassayampa River drainage near Orofino Wash east of Wilhoit, Arizona, on mining claims within Federal lands administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Forest Service, Prescott National Forest, Bradshaw Ranger District. The Proposed Action consists of mining terrace gravels, non- chemical processing of these minerals, and concurrent reclamation on the entire Riverbend Placer claim and a portion of the Miners Delight claim and post-operational reclamation at the previously mined Lost Nugget claim site. The estimated Riverbend mine life is approximately 15 years with one working shift per day and processing 50 cubic yards per hour, though this could change based on several factors such as extent and quality of ore, acquired equipment, and economic and weather conditions. Both claims are part of the Gold Basin Project approved by the Prescott National Forest in 2005 following preparation of an Environmental Assessment (EA) and Finding of No Significant Impact in compliance in with the National Environmental Policy Act. This is a Supplemental EA analyzing a new area of proposed mining in the Gold Basin Project and an updated reclamation plan for a previously mined site. Figure 1 provides a map of the project area including the relevant claims.

Pine Creek Mining, Inc., the owner and operator of the mining claims, intends to mine locatable minerals. Locatable minerals are, in general, those hardrock minerals that are mined and processed for the recovery of metals, certain nonmetallic minerals, and uncommon varieties of mineral materials (USDA 2007).

The term placer refers to a type of deposit in which the mineral of interest is disseminated in sands and/or gravels. Placer deposits result from the mechanical concentration of heavy minerals, such as gold, released from their host rock by erosion and transported by flowing water. In the upper Hassayampa River basin, gold may be hosted in quartz veins that have intruded into Precambrian granite and schist. Erosion and stream flow have, in some case, released this gold and subsequently concentrated it in stream sediments along the Hassayampa River channel. Some of these sediments were successfully mined in the past (Wilson 1961).

The proposed project is located entirely on Prescott National Forest land located in Sections 11, 14 and 15, Township 12 North, Range 3 West, Gila & Salt River Meridian, as depicted on the Wilhoit (1969) USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle (Figure 1). Elevations range from approximately 4,100 to 4,520 feet in the project area, which is in the Central Highlands physiographic province. The major topographic feature in the area is the Hassayampa River canyon, which drains the western side of the rugged Bradshaw Mountains south of Prescott.

Figure 1. Project area including mining claim boundaries

Management Direction The management of National Forests is guided by laws, regulations, and policies that provide the framework for forest plans and site-specific project-level analysis such as this Supplemental EA. The Prescott National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (USDA 2015) goals and objectives are intended to administer mineral laws and regulations to minimize surface resource impacts while supporting sound energy exploration and development. The Plan of Operations from Pine Creek Mining, Inc., has been submitted in accordance with these regulations.

Other laws that provide management guidance and direction for this project include, but are not limited to, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Endangered Species Act, the National Historic Preservation Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Clean Air Act. This project is designed to be consistent with all applicable policies and plans. The 1872 Mining Law, as amended, and Title 36 of the Code of Federal Regulations Section 228 guides mining activities on National Forest System lands.

The Prescott National Forest, Bradshaw Ranger District, is the reviewing office for this Supplemental EA. The Bradshaw Ranger District has prepared this SEA in compliance with the NEPA and other relevant Federal and State laws and regulations. The SEA provides necessary information for the District Ranger to determine whether to accept the proposed Plan of Operations as submitted or with additional modifications, mitigation measures, and/or conditions to minimize adverse impacts to resources and to avoid unnecessary and undue degradation on the human environment.

This SEA tiers to the original Gold Basin Placer Mining Project Environmental Assessment, Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) and Decision Notice (DN) (USDA 2005) and is consistent with the Final Environmental Impact Statement / Record of Decision for the Prescott National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (USDA 2015) and the Final Environmental Impact Statement for Integrated Treatment of Noxious or Invasive Weeds (USDA 2005). In particular, this SEA is consistent with Management Direction for Minerals in the Prescott National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (USDA 2015):

Desired Conditions for Minerals • Mineral exploration and development have few impacts on natural and cultural resources. • Past and present mine facilities are sufficiently reclaimed to provide for public safety and minimize impacts to cultural and natural resources. • Developed recreation areas and administrative sites are free from commercial mining activity. • Mineral material development balances Forest Service, community, and private needs with potential resource impacts.

Best management practices include requiring claimant to obtain all required State and Federal operating permits; using existing roads and stream crossings whenever possible; reseeding and replanting natural surfaces following operations; stockpiling topsoil for reclamation; preventing sediment from reaching watercourses; stabilizing and recontouring soils following mining; not allowing encroachment on streams whenever possible; and locating and maintaining sanitation facilities in accordance with regulations. The Proposed Action is consistent with standards and

guidelines outlined in the Prescott National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (USDA 2015). Purpose and Need for Action

The need for the Proposed Action is contained in the U. S. Mining Laws, enacted on May 10, 1872 (30 United States Code 21.54) which declared all valuable mineral deposits on public domain lands, not otherwise withdrawn, to be open for mineral exploration and development.

The purpose for the Proposed Action is to approve the plan of operations submitted by Pine Creek Mining, Inc. and ensure that mining of the area follows law, regulation, and policy set forth in the Forest Service mining regulations (36 Code of Federal Regulations 228, Subpart A). These regulations outline the rules and procedures for use of the surface of National Forest System lands in connection with mineral operations. The plan of operations from Pine Creek Mining, Inc., has been submitted in accordance with these regulations. Under the Mining Law of 1872, the Prescott National Forest is required to respond to a plan of operations proposal that would allow an operator to prospect, explore, and assess locatable mineral resources on public lands.

Proposed Action

Proposed Riverbend Placer Mine

Pine Creek Mining, Inc., proposes a mining program at the Riverbend claim that would consist of both selective pit excavation and panel mining. The project would initially employ the gravity-based concentration plant used at the Lost Nugget site using available water but no chemicals or toxic substances. Water ponds, well sites, stockpile areas, parking, and limited mine infrastructure such as a trailer and cabana are proposed. Equipment would include conveyors, trackhoes, backhoes, loaders, trucks, dozer, welder, generators, and trommel. A highly efficient water desiltation unit would be installed to protect water quality by extracting sediment in used process water which would be stockpiled for later use in reclamation. Water for the operation would be from the Hassayampa River or from approved wells. The estimated mine life is approximately 15 years at a single shift processing 50 cubic yards per hour, though this could change based on several factors such as extent and quality of ore and weather conditions.

Pine Creek Mining, Inc., proposes concurrent reclamation. Following mining of a selected pit or panel, the area would be backfilled with washed gravel products, contoured to a slope as close as possible to the original including drainage features, and covered with a layer of stockpiled topsoil. This would be followed by spreading available topsoil over the mined area, scarification by trackhoe and dozer, scattering of stockpiled brush, and final seeding with a native seed mix as prescribed.

Road access to the Riverbend site is from Forest Road 72. Current public access to the area would continue under this proposal but the road would be realigned to its former position on the southeast side of the Hassayampa River channel to allow for mine workspace and to protect public safety.

Proposed Lost Nugget Reclamation

Pine Creek Mining, Inc., proposes to immediately reclaim the Lost Nugget placer mine under a proposed Reclamation Plan. Following environmental review and operations approval, all current infrastructure would be moved from the Lost Nugget site to the Riverbend site. The Lost Nugget placer mine would be backfilled with washed gravel products, contoured to a slope as close as possible to the original including drainage features, and covered with a layer of stockpiled topsoil. This would be followed by spreading available topsoil over the mined area, scarification by trackhoe and dozer, scattering of stockpiled brush, and final seeding with a native seed mix as prescribed.

Decision Process and Administrative Review Based on the analysis in this Supplemental EA, the Deciding Official, the Bradshaw District Ranger, will decide whether to authorize the project or approve the plan of operations to allow the construction, operation, maintenance, and reclamation, as applicable, of the existing Lost Nugget Mine and the proposed Riverbend Mine. The decision to be made by the Bradshaw District Ranger of the Prescott National Forest is to authorize the Proposed Action or determine that further documentation in an environmental impact statement is needed.

Under the provisions of the US Mining Laws (30 United States Code 21.54), the holder of a valid mining claim has the statutory right to enter and use such lands for prospecting, exploring, developing, or processing mineral resources in accordance with applicable regulations. The Forest Service is charged with reviewing the proposed Plan of Operations for mineral development and ensuring that such operations are conducted in a manner to "minimize adverse environmental impacts on National Forest System surface resources" (36 Code of Federal Regulations 228.1). The Prescott National Forest Plan directs that mineral laws and regulations be administered to minimize surface resource impacts while supporting sound energy and minerals exploration and development.

Direction regarding mineral activities can be found in the Forest Service Manual, FSM 2800 (Mining Claims FSM 2810, Mineral Leases FSM 2820, Mineral Materials FSM 2850) and Forest Service Handbook, FSH 2809.15 as well as under Title 36 Code of Federal Regulations part 228, subpart A.

Based on the results of the analysis disclosed in Chapter 3 and supporting information, a determination will be made as to whether a Finding of No Significant Impact is appropriate (40 Code of Federal Regulations 1508.4,1508.8). A Finding of No Significant Impact briefly presents the reasons why an action will not have a significant effect on the human environment and why an environmental impact statement need not be prepared.

Pre-Decisional Objection Process On Wednesday, 27 March 2013, the USDA Forest Service finalized regulations to change the administrative appeal process for most activities on National Forest System lands to a pre-decisional “objection” process. Under the new rules, those opposed to the issuance of the permit or with concerns about the NEPA analysis must “object” immediately following publication of the Supplemental EA. As part of the objection process, the Forest Service will resolve any and all

concerns raised before issuance of the agency’s decision. Therefore, individuals contesting the agency’s decision will no longer have an opportunity to “appeal” the agency’s decision.

• Who may object: Individuals and organizations, including a project applicant, must submit specific written (or oral, if there is a transcript) comments during one of the opportunities for public comment provided during preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement in order to be eligible to file an objection to the project. See 36 Code of Federal Regulations. §§ 218.2, 218.5(a). Federally recognized tribes may also object if they submitted written comments during Federal-Tribe consultation. 36 Code of Federal Regulations § 218.5(b).

• Timing: Any written objections must be filed within 45 days of the publication of the legal notice of the opportunity to object of the Supplemental EA. See 36 Code of Federal Regulations § 218.26(a).

Public Involvement

The proposal was listed in the Schedule of Proposed Actions on the Prescott National Forest website on April 25, 2017, the official start of the 30-day scoping period. The Prescott National Forest received scoping comment letters from four respondents during the scoping period. All letters were carefully reviewed, documented, and classified in terms of their primary resource or other topic. This Supplemental Environmental Assessment addresses all substantive comments made during the scoping period. A summary of the most relevant concerns is as follows:

Hydrology and Soils • Use of Hassayampa River water or wells in the river drainage • The ore-processing system and potential discharge of wastewater or pollutants • Oil-contaminated water or soil • Need for a comprehensive hydrological study and the cumulative effects of water use • Consumptive water uses and the required quantities of the mining operation • Specifics of potential pollution containment • Quantification of erosion • Stockpiling of native vegetation and topsoil

Geology and Minerals • Reclamation of previously mined sites prior to development of new sites • Size of mined units as part of the Riverbend concurrent reclamation • Inclusion of previously dredged material into reclamation • Enough bond for successful reclamation • Reclamation infrastructure removal, well plugging, and pond draining and filling • Economic viability of ore deposit • Replacement of the Gold Basin Mine (Lost Nugget Claim) wash plant

Vegetation • Removal of potentially old-growth trees • Successful reclamation in terms of species and use of native grasses/vegetation • Impacts to recreation including swimming, hunting, motorized recreation, etc. • Impacts to the sensitive Phillips agave

Recreation • Public access and use of Forest Road 72

Threatened and Endangered Species • Need for a review of effects to threatened/endangered, indicator, and species of concern • The recovery of threatened, endangered and sensitive species along the Hassayampa River likely to move upward in elevation to the project site as the climate changes (warms)

Archaeology • Need for an archaeological inventory

Environmental Review Process • The 1872 Mining Law and Forest Service discretion regarding the Mine Plan of Operations • Project activities and the potential need for a Clean Water Act Section 404 permit • Agreement with the Prescott National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan • Public scoping process and availability of project information

Wildlife • Management indicator species and their inventory and monitoring • Impacts to riparian habitat and desert washes • Impacts to the Pale Townsend’s big-eared bat

Air quality • Dust and vehicle/machinery emissions and the need for an air quality permit.

Noise • Noise, especially during critical animal life cycles and recreational seasons

Cumulative Effects • Previous and proposed mines’ effects on the Hassayampa River drainage • Project effects on the hydrologic functioning of the Hassayampa River

Engineering • Proposed realignment of Forest Road 72

A legal notice of the availability of the draft supplemental environmental assessment was published in the Prescott Daily Courier for a 30-day public comment period (36 CFR 218.25) on March 6, 2020

that allowed the public to submit comments on the draft EA. During the 30-day public comment period, zero letters were received. Official comments received during public scoping that meet the requirements of 36 CFR 218 have objection standing during the objection period for this project.

Issues Identification

Issues serve to highlight effects or unintended consequences that may result from the Proposed Action giving opportunities during the analysis to reduce adverse effects and compare trade-offs for the Deciding Official and public to understand. The following resources have been identified by the Prescott National Forest Inter-Disciplinary Team as having potential impacts of a significance greater than negligible or minor resulting from the Proposed Action. Effects to these resources are fully analyzed in this Supplemental EA.

• Hydrology • Groundwater • Surface Water • Water Quality • Soils/Watershed • Mining and Minerals • Biological Resources • Vegetation • Wildlife

Issues Considered but Dismissed from Further Analysis

Air Quality

Project activities such as mining, loading and hauling, project traffic on dirt roads, and bulk testing would generate fugitive dust. Placer processing with the use of water would generate only very small quantities of dust. The operation of engines in earthmoving and processing equipment would emit sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, and volatile organic compounds.

Under the Proposed Action, Pine Creek Mining, Inc. would employ a dust abatement plan to reduce dust pollution during construction activities. Project activities would be temporary, intermittent, and of short duration The Proposed Action would not involve the installation of any significant stationary source of air pollution. Fugitive dust on the haul roads from surface ore hauling and from the plant site would be controlled by watering. All placer gravels and residual alluvium handling would be by conveyor during in-pit processing. Wet processing of placer gravels would eliminate dust emissions during processing and transport and disposal of the residual alluvium.

Any air quality impacts that would result from the mobile sources of emissions used to conduct project activities would be minimal, local, and short-term and would not cause regional changes to air quality. The project would comply with both National Ambient Air Quality Standards and State of Arizona Air

Quality Standards. Concurrent reclamation of mined areas would minimize exposed soil surfaces. Once final reclamation is complete, local air quality would return to pre-mining levels.

The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality indicated during the initial approval of the Gold Basin Project that it did not require a permit for the operation of placer mine equipment based on their evaluation that the mining operations did not have the potential to emit significant amounts of regulated pollutants. The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality did not require an Air Quality Control Permit at that time. Based on the existing equipment list provided by Pine Creek Mining, Inc., and the proposed initial operation of 50 cubic yards per hour, only a pre-approved general air quality permit (ADEQ 2018) is required to continue operating under current conditions.

Noise

The proposed project is in a rural area on the Prescott National Forest with the closest residential or commercial areas approximately 4 miles to the northwest in Wilhoit. The primary human noise receptors in the vicinity of the project area are recreational visitors. Current noise in and adjacent to the project area is primarily associated with vehicle traffic along Forest Road 72. Generally, noise levels generated from the proposed activities at the nearest residential homes would be indiscernible over ambient noise levels (approximately 40 dBA). As a result, noise impacts are expected to be minimal because of the short duration, the level of operations planned, and distance to nearby communities and rural residences. The land in the project vicinity is generally rugged, and sound transmission is limited due to ground absorption and shielding by intervening topography and vegetation. Visitors to the area may experience annoyance from increased noise levels as a result of mining or conveyance activities. Because the immediate area is not an established recreation site, such as a campground or picnic area, many visitors simply pass through, often in trucks or all-terrain vehicles with their own noise. Local noise impacts would be minor, adverse, and long-term. Wildlife inhabiting the project area would initially be affected by construction noise and if possible, would likely avoid or move from the area. Those that remain would be affected by noise generated by equipment during mining and reclamation activities.

Livestock Grazing

The proposed project site is within the Hassayampa Grazing Allotment. The Hassayampa Allotment is in the southwestern portion of the Bradshaw Ranger District, immediately southeast of Wilhoit, Arizona. The allotment straddles approximately seven miles of the Hassayampa River. There are approximately 10,600 acres within the allotment, of which up to 93 acres would be disturbed under the Proposed Action. Because of the proposed mine’s small acreage amount and the planned concurrent reclamation, to include reseeding with a native grass and forb seed mix, anticipated adverse impacts to livestock are expected to be minor in the short term and negligible in the long term.

Visual Resources

The Scenery Management System was developed to determine the relative value and importance of scenery on National Forest System lands and provides a framework to effectively inventory,

assess, and manage scenic resources in sustainable and multiple-use contexts. Some activities, such as mining, can cause short- or long-term degradation of visual quality. Other activities, such as fire and vegetation management techniques, can have short-term adverse impacts but long-term benefits to visual quality. Adverse impacts to visual resources from the proposed project would be mitigated by concurrent reclamation at the proposed Riverbend Mine, resulting in short-term minor adverse impacts but long-term negligible adverse impacts. Final reclamation at Lost Nugget would result in long-term minor beneficial impacts to visual resources.

Heritage Resources

A records search of the Prescott National Forest site files revealed nine previous surveys conducted within or immediately adjacent to the Gold Basin Mine – Riverbend Parcel. In addition, the statewide AZSITE cultural resources database was reviewed but identified no additional projects. Only one previously recorded site had been documented within the project area. Previously recorded historic sites in the area are largely related to mining and prospecting activities. General Land Office maps for the project-specific township and range were also examined.

In September of 2016 a cultural resources inventory was conducted of approximately 93.3 acres of the project area. No previously unrecorded archaeological sites were located within the project area. The inventory resulted in the identification and documentation of five isolated occurrences of cultural material. These are not considered eligible to the National Register of Historic Places as their research potential was exhausted during the survey-level recording; thus, they require no further management consideration.

Recreation

Recreational activities in the area include target shooting, dispersed camping, hiking, hunting, and recreational driving; however, there are no designated campgrounds or recreational sites near the project area. The Prescott National Forest Recreation Opportunity Spectrum of the project area is Roaded Natural (USDA 2015). Recreational activities in the project vicinity are limited by rugged topography and available access from Forest Service roads. The closest wilderness areas are Castle Creek Wilderness and Granite Mountain Wilderness which are approximately 20 and 12 miles, respectively, from the proposed project site.

The proponent intends to reroute approximately 1400 feet of Forest Road 72 to a previously used alignment to the east, but access to the area would only change slightly under the Proposed Action. Those seeking quieter camping or hiking near the Hassayampa River may have to recreate upstream or downstream of the project area, resulting in a short-term minor adverse impact at Lost Nugget and a long-term minor adverse impact at Riverbend. The land to be mined or used for mining infrastructure would be closed, albeit temporarily (approximately 15 years), to recreational use. Following successful reclamation, this land would again be available for recreational use.

CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES

Alternative 1: No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, no new mining activity would be undertaken by the proponent and reclamation of the Lost Nugget site would be implemented based on stipulations of the 2005 Gold Basin Project Finding of No Significant Impact. However, under the 1872 Mining Law, the Forest Service cannot deny the proponent the right to work its mining claim. This alternative is analyzed in detail largely to provide a baseline of current conditions and for comparison of potential impacts to those of the Proposed Action.

Alternative 2: Proposed Action

Pine Creek Mining, Inc., proposes placer mining, bulk testing, and reclamation in the Hassayampa River drainage near Orofino Wash east of Wilhoit, Arizona, on mining claims within Federal lands administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Forest Service, Prescott National Forest, Bradshaw Ranger District (Figure 1). The Proposed Action consists of mining terrace gravels, non-chemical processing of these minerals and concurrent reclamation on the entire Riverbend Placer claim and a portion of the Miners Delight claim and post-operational reclamation at the previously mined Lost Nugget site. The estimated Riverbend mine life is approximately 15 years under a single shift and processing 50 cubic yards per hour, though this could change based on several factors such as extent and quality of ore, acquired equipment, and economic and weather conditions. Both claims are part of the Gold Basin Project approved by the Prescott National Forest in 2005 following preparation of an Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact in compliance in with the NEPA. This Supplemental Environmental Assessment analyzes the new area of proposed mining and an updated Reclamation Plan for the previously mined site.

Proposed Riverbend Placer Mine Ore Recovery

The approximate 32-acre known primary ore zone of the 80-acre mining area contains an estimated 2.8 million loose cubic yards of ore with potential for additional volume with continued testing of the outlying areas surrounding the known ore zone. The estimate is based on considerable testing results that have been conducted over a period of many years by various engineers and geologists. Testing by Pine Creek Mining, Inc. and others confirm the grade and volumes. Mine life is estimated to be approximately 15 years. The general configuration of the mine, including temporary roads, ponds, processing facility, parking, stockpiles, panels, etc. is shown in Figure 2 and Figure 3.

The mining program would consist of both selective pit excavation and panel mining. Development testing ahead of mining would be conducted to determine ore depth and to define the mining technique for segments of the ore zone. Any thickness of ore less than 25 feet would be excavated by a small and predetermined pit (selective pit mining) or panel mining as is proposed for the western portion of the Riverbend claim. Ore thickness in excess of 25 feet would require two benches within

an individual panel. The mining program would be designed to excavate and process between 150 and 250 loose cubic yards per hour.

Stockpile sizes would be dictated by the actual removal process. The topsoil piles would not exceed 5,000 loose cubic yards per stockpile. Brush stockpiles would not exceed an area greater than 100 feet by 200 feet. Ore stockpiles would not exceed 4,000 loose cubic yards. Stockpiling of ore, topsoil, and brush would not exceed a total of 2 acres. Removal of ore from an excavation site (pit or panel) would occur at the daily rate of approximately 2,000 cubic yards.

Figure 2. Proposed Riverbend Placer Mine overall site plan

Figure 3. Proposed Riverbend Placer Mine processing area site plan

Pit mining would include excavation of the ore zone as one layer that is accessible by trackhoe without creating benches. One large flat, or nearly flat, area would be created during the progression process of excavating from northeast to southwest into the hill. To maintain one excavated area at a size that is easily reclaimable, the excavated areas would be selectively completed as individual pits that would not exceed 60,000 square feet of surface disturbance without reclamation (approximately 150 feet × 400 feet). The pits would, however, be adjacent to each other and reclaimed as mining progresses. Panel mining would be done only on the steeper areas to the south and west whereby “slots” or panels would be mined from south to north and starting at the ore-bedrock contact and progressing into the hill in a north to northwest direction. Pit mining would start at the southeastern edge of the deposit and work into the hill following the contact zone. Panel mining would start at the slope edge of the Riverbend claim from the internal access road and would progress along the bench and into the hillside in a westerly to northwesterly direction. Panel segments would be approximately 500 feet in length and approximately 40 feet in width to facilitate both safe mining and ongoing reclamation.

Selective pit mining would be completed first and then reclaimed. Panel mining would not be initiated until pit mining and reclamation have been completed. It is not anticipated that panel mining would be started for perhaps several years. Panel mining would include only one panel at a time; however, a second panel would be mined, at least in part, adjacent to the previously mined panel to allow for efficient reclamation. This would eliminate reclamation and mining to “cross paths” and interfere with each process.

Ore Processing

The gravity milling process would include a variable speed grizzly/hopper/belt feeder and variable speed trommel wash plant with an approximate tube diameter of 8 feet. The proposed unit to be acquired is a model S7 or S8 manufactured by MSI, or equivalent such as a 250 cubic yards/hour Goldfield Engineering Alaskan wash plant. Attached to the wash trommel would be either three or four Yukon sluice boxes, each 3 feet in width by 20 feet in length. Dual jigs would be added only if laboratory testing shows ample increased gold recovery to justify the added cost. The entire wash system would use between 1100 and 1700 gallons per minute of water. All process water would be recycled through constructed water ponds. The 85 gallons per minute of makeup water would be needed to replenish water loss due to evaporation and water clinging to the washed rock products that are discarded as waste. Water used in the recovery process would be partially cleaned before returning to the first pond for recycling. The dewatering/cleaning system would be an MSI or equivalent water clarification unit that can facilitate the projected production level. This unit employs the use of high g-force hydrocyclones and a hi-speed 200 mesh dewatering screen. Processing equipment currently at the Lost Nugget site is shown in Figure 4 and Figure 5.

The exit conveyor currently at the Lost Nugget site would be installed and used to remove the fine products from the desilting unit. This product would exit the conveyor into a conical shaped stockpile. Periodically the stockpile would be removed by loader to the designated stockpile area. Stockpile areas that are considered too distant for loader transport would be facilitated with the use of the haul truck. This stockpiled material would be transported by haul truck to the mine site for reclamation as is needed during the mine/reclamation progression process.

Figure 4. Current ore processing equipment at Lost Nugget site

Figure 5. Current gold processing cabana at Lost Nugget site Other ancillary items to be incorporated into the recovery system would include a stacking conveyor at the end of the trammel, a diesel-powered water pump, and a 200-kilowatt generator.

Three tiers would be used although the bottom tier is the pond/existing road level. Primary working levels would use the existing two tiers which would require some modest expansion and leveling. The approximate area for each tier is summarized as follows:

a. The top tier would be approximately 100 feet × 150 feet b. The middle tier would be approximately 40 feet × 150 feet c. The bottom tier, at or near road level, would be approximately 20 feet × 50 feet

The wash plant feeder system on the top tier would be approximately 12 feet × 40 feet, including the feed conveyor. The middle tier would include the trommel wash section which would be approximately 30 feet in length and roughly 10 feet in width. Pine Creek Mining, Inc. anticipates the acquisition and use of an MSI S8 trommel system, or equivalent, with sluice box system and possibly dual jigs but the decision to use jigs has not yet been made. The sluice section would be approximately 25 feet in length and extend outward at a right angle to the length of the trommel. The sluice section would extend between the middle tier and the lower tier to the water clarification system. Below the trommel on the lower or bottom tier, the desilting water clarification plant, as currently installed at Lost Nugget, would be installed and used to clarify the water within the recycling process at Riverbend. The Lost Nugget MSI unit would be moved to the Riverbend site and implemented in the Riverbend ore processing operation.

The total square feet used for the entire plant is the sum total of the following units plus the area for other uses such as ore stockpiling: • Top tier for feeder/conveyor……………,………100 feet × 150 feet = 15,000 square feet • Trommel pad………………………………………...40 feet × 150 feet = 6,000 square feet • Sluice boxes (may include jigs)………………………..25 feet × 12 feet = 300 square feet • Desilting unit pad………………...... …………...….…20 feet × 60 feet = 1200 square feet • Waste conveyor……………………………….……....….5 feet × 40 feet = 200 square feet • Waste stockpile area………………………………...….60 feet × 60 feet = 360 square feet

The total is approximately 23,060 square feet, or .53 acre. Figure 6 is a schematic diagram of the ore recovery process.

Figure 6. Schematic diagram of the ore recovery process

Water Sources, Use, and Retention

Source water would be from wells or the Hassayampa River during periods of adequate surface or subsurface flow. The existing Hassayampa River pond located across the road from the proposed plant site would be used as a water source to fill the ponds and begin the processing of mined ore. During periods when no surface or subsurface water is available, the proposed water wells would be used to supply makeup water to the ponds. After the initial charge of the ponds, the makeup water requirement would be approximately 80 gallons per minute. Two water wells are anticipated at the Riverbend site, depending on the resulting well capacity. Well sites were chosen based on proximity to the operation, especially the ponds, topographic and geologic factors, and the presence of an abandoned previous well that was known to produce adequate recycling water for a 1000-yard test program.

The Riverbend operation would rely on well water or Hassayampa channel water for initial filling of the ponds and for makeup water of approximately 40,800 gallons per day. Water well(s) would be used when Hassayampa channel water is unavailable and for use in the gold room. The gold room would require only 10 gallons per minute for concentrate processing which would occur every other day for approximately 3 hours. The makeup water requirement as previously stated would be approximately 85 gallons per minute or approximately 40,800 gallons per 8-hour shift. The water sources for Riverbend would include the Hassayampa channel, one or two wells at Riverbend, and possibly, if needed, hauling water from the Wilhoit area. A 4000-gallon water truck could supply 16,000 to 24,000 (4-6 loads) of the 40,800 gallons per day required for makeup pond water only.

Recharging would occur predominantly near the end of the shift through the evening but as needed to top off the ponds for the following day’s operation. The gold room water would come from a 2500- gallon PVC storage tank that would be filled as needed from water wells. The tank would be situated next to the gold room cabana. The water used for processing concentrates would be recycled within the pond system. Except for evaporative loss and water clinging to washed products, all water would be captured and kept in the “closed system.” Based on the nearby Lost Nugget operation and the performance of the MSI desilting system, Pine Creek Mining, Inc. estimates a water loss of 3 percent to 5 percent with the higher number occurring during the warmer summer months.

Two ponds and a small sump or tank would be constructed. Water ponds would be lined to hold approximately a total of 1,800,000 gallons of water. An example as seen at the Lost Nugget site is shown in Figure 7. The highly efficient water clarification system would eliminate the need for several large ponds; instead, requiring only 2 with the first pond being the primary pond for settling and decantation. The first pond would be approximately 280 feet × 80 feet × 14 feet in depth, holding a capacity of roughly 900,000 gallons. The 14 feet includes a freeboard above the waterline of 4 feet resulting in a water depth of 10 feet. The second and pumping pond would also be 240 feet × 80 feet × 10 feet (4 feet of freeboard), holding roughly 900,000 gallons. A minimum of 900,000 gallons per pond is required to adequately service the proposed operation. Just ahead of the first pond and lying between the first pond and the desilting unit a small sump or tank would collect the exit water from the unit and direct this water to the first pond via gravity flow. Decantation would begin at this point and continue into the first pond. All ponds would be lined with 20- to 30-milimeter web reinforced poly lining or an alternative.

Figure 7. Lined processing pond at Lost Nugget site including wetland species

The lower pond would be the primary storage pond for clean and recycled water and would supply the trommel wash plant directly with a hi-volume 6-inch or 8-inch water pump. The upper pond, together with the sump, would act as the primary settling/decantation ponds. There would be some settling in the lower pond but to a much lesser extent as most settling would occur in the first (upper) pond. The settling pond would treat/settle only fine silts and suspended clay particles. The desilting unit would remove all sand, gravels, coarse silt, and most all other fine particles down to 400 mesh (37 microns). These products would be removed by conveyor into a cone shaped stockpile, followed by periodic removal to the reclamation stockpile(s).

The use of the desilting water clarification unit would reduce the frequency of pond cleaning; nevertheless, fine silt smaller than the 350 to 400 mesh would not be removed by the unit. As a result, it is estimated that the first (upper pond) would require cleaning once every two weeks whereas the lower makeup water pond would not require cleaning more than once per month. This is an estimate that could change during operations. The sump would likely be cleaned once per week. The silt would be used as supplemental topsoil. It is the intent of Pine Creek Mining, Inc. to use silt from both the clarifying unit and pond cleaning to be added to the topsoil stockpiles and to be used for reclamation as is needed on a continuing basis.

Construction of each pond would yield approximately 8000 loose cubic yards, allowing for 25 percent expansion of in-place volume, and would result in a surface area of disturbance of approximately 19,200 square feet per pond. The material, that is not processed, would be stockpiled within one of the designated stockpile areas near the pond locations as shown on the attached maps. Topsoil that lies atop the gravels to be excavated would be placed in a topsoil stockpile whereas the gravels would be placed in a waste gravel stockpile. We anticipate that approximately 30 percent of the 16,000 cubic yards would be processed. The area used for pond excavation stockpiles would be approximately a total of 10,000 to 15,000 square feet. The area would be minimized by creating high conical piles or high block piles made with either a loader or trackhoe. Material excavated from the pond would also be used for storm control devices such as berms and rock walls.

During periods of adequate surface or subsurface water in the Hassayampa River, the wells would not be used. Unfortunately, seasonal dry weather patterns and occasional drought occur at the site. If 80 gallons per minute is not available at any time from the Hassayampa River, there are two options: wells or hauling water. If a tanker truck is acceptable, as it proposed for dust suppression, it may be practical to consider a somewhat larger tanker truck for both dust suppression and makeup water. If 4–6 loads per day were hauled at the rate of 4000 gallons per load this would supply approximately 16,000 to 24,000 gallons of the daily 40,000 required for makeup water. If the river pond or subsurface water is available, the tanker truck would not be used except for the suppression of dust. If one well supplies 15 to 20 gallons per minute (7200 to 9600 gallons per day), one well could be eliminated.

Federal and State laws now require a closed water recycling system. The stress placed on the aquifer(s) to supply water for the Riverbend operation is not measured in terms of the supply to the plant from the wells or the river pond. The wells or river pond only supply the needed makeup water requirement of approximately 80 gallons per minute; not 1700 gallons per minute. The Riverbend plant would use between 1100 and 1700 gallons per minute which all would be pumped directly from the lower settling pond; most production would use approximately 1500 gallons per minute as an average. The MSI or equivalent trommel to be used washes and processes well at 1100 to 1700 gallons per minute, depending on the volume and nature of the gravels being processed at any given time.

The water use for the operation would average approximately 1500 gallons per minute or 900,000 gallons per day. This represents nearly one full pond. The other pond represents the first phase of decantation and settling. Redundant capacity must be included in order to keep the settling process “alive” without relying on only one pond of water, thus the reason for two ponds. The amount of water use does not increase with increased storage. Once the ponds are charged (filled) at startup the amount of water storage and number of ponds is of minimal consequence, other than the recharge water that is needed to replenish losses due to evaporation and water clinging to washed product. Therefore, the first pond is the settling and decantation pond whereas the second pond is the clean water source pond for the operation. It is imperative that the water system be two-times to keep the settling and decantation process active. The desilting unit, together with the second pond, allows “active” settling time. One 900,000-gallon pond would not allow the time necessary for settling to occur before the water is pumped back in to the system for processing. The 80 or 85 gallons per

minute needed from the river pond or water wells is the required fresh clean water needed for makeup water loss due to evaporation and water clinging to the washed gravels, sand, and silt.

The operation would run an hour or two before injecting the 80 gallons per minute into the system for makeup water loss. The loss would increase through much of the day due to evaporative loss. The additional loss would be water clinging to washed product as previously stated. The source would be wells or the river pond when water is available from that source. When the water is not available from the river pond the water wells would have to supply the makeup water losses, or in combination with water that could be hauled to the site. The source for the 80 gallons per minute would be active (pumping) for approximately 6 to 8 hours to recharge the system.

All water in the system would be captured except for the natural and inherent loss of water due to summer evaporation during the hotter periods and to the clinging of water to the washed products. Thus, the total estimated maximum water loss would be approximately 5 percent of 900,000, 45,000 gallons, for each pond resulting in a capturing of 855,000 gallons. The water loss is thus estimated to approximate between 40,000 and 45,000 gallons per day. The daily water loss would inherently fluctuate slightly, depending on the weather and the total percentage of silt in the ore at any given time. Most water loss would be a result of water trapped in the silt; however, the MSI or equivalent unit is designed to minimize water retention. Pine Creek Mining, Inc. estimates that between 3 percent and 5 percent would be the range of water loss.

The makeup water process is a daily ongoing process to keep the closed system “charged” and the ponds at a constant level for maximum settling and decantation. It is anticipated the mine would operate for 8 hours per day during the winter months and 10 hours per day during the summer months. The makeup water process would likely start within a couple hours of daily startup and continue after the operation has shut down for the day until the ponds are totally recharged and ready for the following day’s operation.

Access Roads

Overland travel routes would include Forest Road 72, the internal mine road segment, a short segment between the wash plant and the first pond, and the short segment from Forest Road 72 to the plant. The internal Riverbend Mine road segment would be at the southern outer edge of the selective pits and the mine panels. All road segments would be closed and concurrently reclaimed upon completion of portions of the operation. Included in Figure 2 are routes for ore transport, mobilization of heavy equipment, work crew routes, and the Forest Road 72 relocation route. Ore transport would be completed by using the internal mine access route.

The internal mine access road within the Riverbend claim would be approximately 20 feet wide to accommodate haul trucks. This road would become a part of the mined area at or near the contact between the ore and underlying bedrock. The location of this road would be constructed to facilitate the mining operation. The pond wash plant road segment would be a standard 12-foot-wide road. Forest Road 72 together with the Riverbend internal access road would be the primary access routes to and as part of the project and said roads would be maintained as may be needed due to monsoon rain damage, winter rain and snow melt damage, and public travel damage on Forest Road 72. This

work would be regarded as improvements and repairs. The northern entrance to the plant and mine site would consist of repairing an existing 100 feet of road that has been temporarily closed out with erosion control ditches. The southern entrance would be a standard 12-foot-wide road and approximately 100 feet in total length.

A segment of Forest Road 72 would be relocated in order to provide adequate operating space, prevent public encroachment to the operation, and provide for public safety. The relocation would approximate the original Forest Road 72 location prior to its change many years ago, thus the change would reflect the original position of Forest Road 72. The length of this relocated segment would be approximately 1150 feet and approximately the same current road width. This relocation would be constructed to meet Forest Service road standards and specifications, and would be maintained for repairs and improvements, as needed.

The soft mud area near the lone tree and out from the first pond would require the emplacement of gravel, together with drainage, to eliminate seasonal “ponding” in the roadbed and flat area, and subsequent damage to the road surface. The placement of gravel over a very short segment of approximately 200 feet, with outlet drainage to the south, would eliminate future road access and damage problems.

Recovered gold concentrate would be hauled off the site for additional concentration and/or shipment to a refinery generally once per week.

Equipment and Vehicles

Following environmental review and operations approval, all current infrastructure and equipment would be moved from the Lost Nugget site to the Riverbend site to initiate operations there. As the operation stabilizes and it becomes economically feasible, equipment would be updated or replaced.

The equipment that ultimately would be used at the Riverbend site includes the following or their equivalent: • Rock Systems grizzly/hopper/feeder conveyor • Rock Systems 30-foot conveyor • Rock Systems 35-foot conveyor • Komatsu PC290 trackhoe • Komatsu PC300 trackhoe • Komatsu WA 380 rubber-tired loaders (2) • Komatsu WA 500 rubber-tired loader • Komatsu HM300 articulated truck for use at Red Hill, making approximately 10 trips per day at 30 tons/trip. • Komatsu HM 400 articulated trucks (2) • John Deere 310 backhoe • One D-6 sized dozer (Komatsu D65 or equivalent) • 16-foot cargo trailer • Watchman trailer

• Two 4x4 utility pickup trucks used on site for Riverbend access with one truck entering the site via Forest Road 72 in the early morning hours and again during the late afternoon. Some employees would drive to work with their own units and leave in the afternoon. Parking would be restricted to the large flat area in below the plant and along Forest Road 72, or in the designated staging area as shown in Figure 2. • 400-amp welder on trailer • 200 KW diesel generator • Electrical switchgear and panel • 650-gallon diesel fuel tank on trailer • 400-gallon fuel tank on trailer • Concentrate workup equipment would include a carport cabana cover, one U-tech or UHF table, two Oro Industries finishing reverse spirals, two portable 6-kilowatt generators, one water pump, one 2500-gallon storage tank for concentrate cleanup (gold room), one work bench, and assorted chairs and tables. • MSI or equivalent desilting water clarification system • Miscellaneous steel, wood products, hose, piping, culvert, fencing, gates, electrical wiring, tools, and supplies and one 4 × 4 mine vehicle (pickup truck) for maintenance and pulling fuel trailers as needed. • One MSI model S7 or S8 wash trommel w/Yukon sluice system, or equivalent • Dual MSI or equivalent mineral jigs (optional) • One MSI diesel powered water pump with a capacity of 1,700 gallons per minute, or equivalent • One 4000-gallon water truck • One portable office trailer • Four small portable generators between 6- and 10-kilowatt to power the gold room, water well (s), and for backup

All rolling stock equipment to be used at the Riverbend site would be first inspected (upon giving the Forest Service an advance 48-hour notice) by a Forest representative at an offsite delivery point along US Highway 89, or at the equipment suppliers yard in Prescott, Arizona. All large stationary equipment would be transported to the site by tractor/trailer. Rolling stock and track equipment would be unloaded at the Forest Road 72 / US Highway 89 intersection and “walked” down Forest Road 72 to the Riverbend site. Smaller items would be brought in by pickup and utility trailer.

All equipment previously listed is for reference only as to size. The brand and equivalent model may change depending upon a decision based on cost and productivity comparisons. For example, the Komatsu PC300 trackhoe may actually be a John Deere, Hitachi, Volvo, or Caterpillar equivalent.

The temporary use of a crane would be required to unload the MSI unit and set it into position and erect it for startup. This crane would be a contractor rental and used for one or two days only. The crane would then travel back up Forest Road 72 and would not be a part of the Riverbend operation. This unit would also be required to close out Riverbend at some point in the future. This unit would travel to Riverbend via Forest Road 72 and dismantle and load certain items on to a flatbed tractor trailer for permanent removal.

Structures

Upon approval, the construction of the plant site would begin and all equipment and supplies at Lost Nugget hauled to the Riverbend site. The Riverbend plant site would be cleared, with all brush hauled to a nearby stockpile area(s). Upon completion of clearing the Riverbend plant site, the cabana and most all concentrate process equipment would be set up and made ready for processing concentrates.

All trailers, fuel storage containers, and portable toilets would be positioned in the large staging/parking area. It is anticipated that fencing would be placed around the ponds, parking/staging areas, the east boundary of the wash plant area, and in locations as directed by the Forest Service to maximize public and wildlife safety.

There would be no permanent structures erected at the Riverbend site. A gold room cabana, similar to that constructed at the Lost Nugget site, would be erected at Riverbend but completely removed at the termination of the operation and subsequent completion of all reclamation. All mining and processing equipment would be portable and removed when the mining project terminates.

Operations

Operations would occur only during daylight hours and would consist of 8 hours during the winter months and 8 to 10 hours during the summer months.

Mine Personnel

The Riverbend operation would include an Operations Manager, an Administrative and Regulatory Manager, eight Mill and Equipment Operators, a Mechanic and Parts Manager, and a Watchman. Total payroll for these largely full-time personnel would be approximately $650,000 annually, which is significant locally and in a rural area. A security watchman would be needed to secure and protect all equipment that would be onsite at the Riverbend location.

Erosion Control Measures

Erosion control measures would include a combination of “sausage” barriers, rock walls, and diversion ditches constructed around the plant site area and around the selectively mined areas. A portion of the mine site would be fenced to develop adequate security, eliminate entry by cattle, and prevent entry and danger to the general public. Two gates would be installed to provide security and prevent entry by cattle or the general public, enhancing safety. The north entry gate from Forest Road 72 would allow entry to the plant site via the existing road into Riverbend; the south gate near the ponds would allow entry only to the staging area, parking, ponds and well sites. The extent of fencing would be first discussed onsite with Forest Service personnel and only installed after Forest Service approval.

Brush removal would be done only for specific mining areas in advance of mining. The total acreage would not be cleared all at one time; only as mining/excavation progresses and ongoing periodic reclamation completed. Brush would be disposed of as designated by the Forest Service representative or placed in nearby brush stockpiles as shown on the attached maps.

A catchment ditch would be constructed around the lower side of the tailings pile and outside of the work area required by the loader to remove tailings. An alternative barrier of synthetic wattles would also be considered if space becomes a problem. The wattles would be used to direct the water drainage to a collector sump or ditch for absorption into the surface. If excess water is encountered due to monsoon or heavy winter storms, the sump or ditch water collected would be pumped or directed to the exit water sump near the desilting unit. This water would then flow into the first recycling pond. The desilting unit produces an exceptionally “dry” product that does not produce any significant amount of water loss. This conclusion is based on the previous use of the MSI unit at the Lost Nugget site.

Reclamation

As mining commences, the completed pit would be backfilled with washed gravel products and covered with a layer of stockpiled topsoil. Areas mined within panels would be reclaimed by filling in the panels with washed gravel and contouring to a slope as close as possible to the original. This would be followed by spreading available topsoil or original surface dirt over the mined area, scarification by trackhoe and dozer, scattering of stockpiled brush, and final seeding as prescribed. Seeding of mined sites that are reclaimed would be completed within 30 days following reclamation of each specific mined site, or over a time period as prescribed by the Forest representative.

Reclamation of mined sites would be completed by a combination of loader, trackhoe, dozer, and haul truck as may be needed. Washed coarse gravel product would be used to fill the pits as each is progressively mined. The larger coarse unwashed products that are removed from the grizzly would be placed first at the bottom of the excavated area, or mixed with mid-size washed products and then placed at the bottom of a specific pit or panel. Finer materials would be placed on top of the coarse gravels and these covered with topsoil. As contouring is completed and the site(s) covered with topsoil, a prescribed seed mix would be spread over the reclaimed area. If approved, prior to seeding, stockpiled brush would be spread out over the disturbed areas to hold moisture, prevent runoff, and to help hold the seed in place. All fencing and gates would be removed as part of the final reclamation plan. Panels would be mined and progressively reclaimed as each panel is completed. No more than two un-reclaimed mine panels would be active at one time.

Reclamation Monitoring

The Forest Service is required to conduct inspections for all active mining operations at least once per year. Inspectors check for surface compliance by the operators to ensure they are following their mining plan. Any modifications to their plan require the submittal of a Plan Amendment and approval by the District Ranger. The Forest Service monitors the sites for at least three years after earthwork is complete to ensure adequate revegetation occurs.

It may take several years for the native vegetation to re-establish. The performance goal for successful revegetation is that the reclaimed areas would have 70 percent of the native perennial canopy cover of the existing adjacent plant cover. The sites are evaluated by the Forest Service for vegetative progress during each grow season. Any areas that are not successful in revegetation would have a second seeding. If not successful, a reclamation specialist would review the reclamation procedures with the operators to decide on the best course of action. As approved by the agency, the selected plant communities or reference areas must have a reasonable chance for success on the mine site. Each plan of operation shall identify the site-specific release criteria in the reclamation plan or permit.

The success of the vegetative growth on a reclaimed site may be evaluated for release no sooner than during the second growing season after earthwork, planting and irrigation (if used) has been completed. Final bond release may be considered at that time. Interim progress of reclamation would be monitored as appropriate by the agency and operator. Where it has been determined that revegetation success has not been met, the agencies and the operator would meet to decide on the best course of actions necessary to meet the reclamation goal.

Noxious Weed Management

Pine Creek Mining, Inc. would be responsible for controlling any noxious or invasive, non-native weed infestations that may become established within their project area during the life of their project and final reclamation. This would include the responsibility for control of noxious or invasive, non- native weeds along the access roads. Noxious or invasive, non-native weeds that may be introduced due to soil disturbance and reclamation, would be treated by methods to be approved by the Forest Service. Bond release is contingent upon the absence of noxious or invasive, non-native weeds. The operators are responsible for taking steps to mitigate the spread or increased densities of noxious or invasive, non-native weeds that result from implementation of the proposal. The use of certified “weed-free” seed for reclamation and continuation of noxious or invasive, non-native weed control efforts by the operators, such as manual pulling and the use of herbicides, should reduce the risk of introducing noxious and non-native, invasive weeds to the project area.

Lost Nugget Reclamation

Pine Creek Mining, Inc., upon approval of this project, proposes to immediately reclaim the Lost Nugget placer mine under a proposed Reclamation Plan. The site is currently being naturally revegetated as shown in Figures 8–11 though some of this vegetation is invasive (which will be removed/treated during reclamation). Following environmental review and operations approval, all current infrastructure would be moved from the Lost Nugget site to the Riverbend site to begin processing there. The Lost Nugget placer mine would be backfilled with washed gravel products, contoured to a slope as close as possible to the original including drainage features, and covered with a layer of stockpiled topsoil. This would be followed by spreading available topsoil over the mined area, scarification by trackhoe and dozer, scattering of stockpiled brush, and final seeding with a native seed mix as prescribed.

Washed coarse gravel product would be used to fill the pits. Finer materials would be placed on top of the coarse gravels and these covered with topsoil. As contouring is completed and the site(s) covered with topsoil, a prescribed seed mix would be spread over the reclaimed area. If approved, prior to seeding, stockpiled brush would be spread out over the disturbed areas to hold moisture, prevent runoff, and to help hold the seed in place. All fencing and gates would be removed as part of the final reclamation.

Figure 8. Lost Nugget site showing natural revegetation including willow and desert broom

Figure 9. Lost Nugget site including natural revegetation dominated by invasive species

Figure 10. Current Lost Nugget site including revegetation largely by invasive species

Figure 11. Current Lost Nugget site including natural revegetation by native desert broom General Mitigation Measures

As stipulated in the 2005 Gold Basin Project Finding of No Significant Impact, the proponent would implement the following mitigation measures as required by the Prescott National Forest:

• An Arizona Department of Water Quality stormwater permit would be required to be in place prior to any activity. Stringent erosion control and containment measures would be included during operations as well as during reclamation. Benching of the excavated areas would be implemented during the operation to stabilize soils while mining is in progress. Straw wattles and silt fencing would be placed and maintained at the base of excavated areas and at locations prone to surface erosion. A minimum of a 100-foot filter strip would always be maintained between the base of excavated areas and riparian areas/streambanks. These measures and additional measures as needed would be implemented to prevent sedimentation and discharge into the Hassayampa River.

• Ground water levels would be monitored by the proponent and the Prescott National Forest. Monitoring wells have been drilled at locations above and below the water wells within the cone of depression to monitor the extent of water use. Thresholds would be established to determine trigger points to cease ground water use.

• Traffic control and warning signs would be provided by the proponent.

• The process ponds would be fenced and/or otherwise secured

• A pre-operation topographical survey would be completed to serve as a baseline reference to measure the quality of reclamation.

• Revegetation would be implemented in a timely manner to stabilize the impacted area and minimize invasive species invasion. To further reduce the introduction of noxious weeds, Best Known Practices for preventing weed establishment and expansion would be followed including washing mining equipment prior to moving on to the sites to remove soil and vegetative matter collected at other locations potentially containing noxious weed seeds.

• All current road access would be maintained. Proper drainage structures would be installed in existing roads, these could include outsloping, armored lowwater crossings, water bars or cross ditching.

• Generators serving the wells would be located out of the drainage to avoid any spilling of hazardous substances.

• Known heritage sites would be excluded from operations and avoided or mitigated.

• In addition to the mitigations, Best Management Practices would be implemented.

• If, during the excavation of this project, granite bedrock is encountered and the proponent wishes to excavate material other than terrace gravels, the project would be re-evaluated.

Monitoring

The following activities would monitor the effectiveness of mitigations on the mining operations:

• Groundwater would be monitored as prescribed through monitoring wells. With the mitigations previously stated, these monitoring wells would be established when use has reached levels potentially impacting riparian vegetation and downstream availability.

• A topographic survey to establish control points in advance of operations would allow for monitoring the effectiveness of the recontouring efforts to permanently stabilize slopes.

• Vegetation transects would be used to validate seeding and detect the emergence of invasive species.

• Applicable Forest Plan (USDA 2015) standards and guidelines, Best Management Practices, and Forest Service Manual and Handbook direction have been incorporated into project design and implementation.

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Introduction

This chapter provides information concerning the affected environment and potential consequences to that environment from the Proposed Action and No Action Alternative. It also presents the scientific and analytical basis for the comparison of the two alternatives. The following analysis of environmental consequences is organized by resource area and discloses the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the alternatives on those resources. The project record includes all project- specific information, including resource reports and other results of field investigations used to refine the project alternatives and perform environmental analyses.

Mining and Minerals

Affected Environment

The Prescott National Forest has abundant mineral deposits and mining is a common activity both on and off the forest. Existing mining activities on the Prescott National Forest include mineral material contracts for removal of flagstone, schist, decomposed granite, and limestone, as well as gold placer mining. There are 1,800 active placer claims and 1,484 active lode claims with 10 tunnel site claims (USDA 2015). Placer, underground, dredging and possibly hydraulic mining, mostly for gold arid silver, has occurred within the Prescott National Forest since 1864. Recreational gold pan mining is popular within the Upper Hassayampa River watershed. Currently there are several active mines within the watershed and more in some stage of planning.

Gold mining is limited to small-scale placer and/or lode mining. Placer operations involve excavation and panning from alluvial deposits and are most common in and near the Bradshaw Mountains. Most placer mining is recreational use or small commercial operators; the Gold Basin Project is the only commercial mine with an approved plan of operations. Historical mining continues to affect the Upper Hassayampa River watershed through remaining waste and tailings piles, mine seepage, and poorly placed roads with resultant high sediment loads, diminished riparian areas, and impaired water quality, all of which are issues of concern for this project.

Project Geologic Setting

The proposed project is within the Transition Zone physiographic province between the Colorado Plateau province to the northeast, and the Basin and Range province to the southwest. Precambrian rocks exposed in the Bradshaw Mountains, east of the project area, include metavolcanics and metasediments of the Big Bug Group of the Yavapai Series, gabbro, Brady Butte Granodiorite, Crooks Canyon Granodiorite, and Crazy Basin Quartz Monzonite (Stage, 2011). A poorly sorted fanglomerate unit is present in the area to the west of the Bradshaw Mountains. DeWitt (USGS, 2008) describes the unit as ranging from 10 to 240 meters in thickness, containing cobble- to boulder-

size clasts derived from the east that include the rock types exposed in the Bradshaw Mountains. A USGS geologic map (USGS 2008), showing the project area, depicts this unit as “Tfy.” The Hassayampa River streambed is geologically identified as a Holocene-age Alluvium (Qal). Including minor terrace deposits, the alluvium consists of boulders, gravel, sand, silt and clay within the present-day streambed. The thickness of this unit is highly variable (Stage, 2011).

Environmental Consequences

Alternative A: No Action

Under the no-action alternative, no future mining of placer gold would occur at the Riverbend site. Thus, no effects to mining and minerals would occur. However, mining reclamation would occur at the Lost Nugget Mine under the 2005 stipulations, as opposed to the recently prepared Reclamation Plan proposed for the Riverbend Placer Mine and Lost Nugget Reclamation Project.

Alternative B: Proposed Action

Development of mineral resources (gold) from the terraces along the Hassayampa River would entail physical removal from the earth and “commitment” to other uses, presumably of both physical and economic benefit to society. The minerals themselves are thus consigned, irreversibly and irretrievably, to human use. The project would result in a long-term impact to mining and minerals.

Biological Resources

Wildlife

Affected Environment

The project area was surveyed in July and August of 2016. Avian species observed during field surveys included bushtit (Psaltriparus minimus), rufous hummingbird (Selasphorus rufus), northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis), phainopepla (Phainopepla nitens), house wren (Troglodytes aedon), Gambel’s quail (Callipepla gambelii), blue-grey gnatcatcher (Polioptila caerulea), zone-tailed hawk (Buteo albonotatus), Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni), red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), turkey vulture (Cathartes aura), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), white-winged dove (Zenaida asiatica), cliff swallow (Petrochelidon pyrrhonota), summer tanager (Piranga rubra), western kingbird (Tyrannus verticalis), and Woodhouse's jay (Aphelocoma woodhouseii). Most of these species were observed in the scrubby oak areas atop the hills and ridges of the project area. Only the western kingbird, zone-tailed hawk, rufous hummingbird, cliff swallows, northern cardinal, summer tanager, and house wren were observed in the riparian corridor alongside the Hassayampa River. Mammals or their sign observed within the project area include mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), coyote (Canis latrans), black-tailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicus), and desert cottontail (Sylvilagus audubonii). Reptilian species observed within the project area include black-necked gartersnake (Thamnophis cyrtopsis), a whiptail lizard (Aspidoscelis sp.), and a plateau fence lizard (Sceloporus tristichus). No amphibian or fish species were observed within the project area.

All Federally listed species (USFWS 2017), Forest Service Region 3 Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species, migratory bird species, and Arizona Game and Fish Department Wildlife of Special Concern species (AGFD 2017a and 2017b) were reviewed to determine if they exist within the project area or if suitable habitat was present. A detailed analysis of the potential effects of the project on all species that occur within the Prescott National Forest can be found in the Wildlife and Rare Plants Specialist Report and Biological Evaluation in the project record. Species that may be affected by project activities and an analysis of those impacts follow. Threatened and Endangered Species

Federally protected species (those listed by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS 2017) as threatened, endangered, or are proposed as candidate for such listing) occurring within Yavapai County were analyzed for potential occurrence within the project vicinity. No Federally protected species were determined likely to occur within the project vicinity; therefore, no further analysis on these species is in this document. Justifications for why species were excluded from analysis are presented in the Wildlife Fish and Rare Plants Specialist Report in the project record. Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species

The Regional Forester, Forest Service Region 3, has designated 21 sensitive animal species for the Prescott National Forest. These are identified within the Wildlife and Rare Plants Specialist Report and Biological Evaluation. The Regional Forester’s sensitive species list is designed to identify species for which population viability is a concern so that management action can be taken to guarantee that those species do not become threatened or endangered because of Forest Service actions, and to guarantee that viable populations of those species are maintained in habitats distributed throughout their geographical range on National Forest System lands (FSM 2670). Based on this review, the pale Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii pallescens) and western red bat (Lasiurus blossevillii) have the potential to occur within the project area. Migratory Birds

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (MBTA; 16 U.S.C. 703-712), prohibits taking (i.e. harming, harassing, or pursuing), killing, possessing, transporting, or importing migratory birds, their eggs, parts, and nests except when specifically authorized by the US Department of the Interior. In addition, on 10 January 2001, President Clinton signed Executive Order 13186 placing emphasis on conservation of migratory birds. To complement the Executive Order, a Memorandum of Understanding between the Forest Service and the US Fish and Wildlife Service was signed on 8 December 2008. Relevant action items included the following: 1) “Address the conservation of migratory bird habitat and populations when developing, amending, or revising management plans for national forests and grasslands” and 2) “Within the NEPA process, evaluate the effects of agency actions on migratory birds, focusing first on species of management concern along with their priority habitats and key risk factors.”

Executive Order 13186 requires all Federal agencies to consider management impacts to migratory birds to further the purposes of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, and other applicable laws. Federal agencies are required to identify whether unintentional take would occur, and if so, whether such take would have a measurable negative effect on migratory bird populations. Take is defined as “to pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or

attempt to pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect” (50 CFR 10.12). The Forest Service, Southwestern Region, currently analyzes impacts to migratory birds by addressing effects to landbirds listed by Arizona Partners in Flight and Birds of Conservation Concern; the effects to Important Bird Areas; and the effects to important overwintering areas. Important Bird Areas are listed on the Arizona Important Bird Areas Program website (ABIAP 2017).

The Prescott National Forest assessed the potential for a total of 92 species of migratory bird species to occur within the forest boundaries. Species that occurred on other lists such as the endangered species list or the forest sensitive species list were removed from analysis as they were analyzed individually. The remaining list contains 42 species which are reasonably likely to occur within the Prescott National Forest. Nineteen of these species can reasonably be expected to occur within the project area.

Environmental Consequences Alternative 1 – No Action

Under the no-action alternative, no future mining of placer gold would occur at the Riverbend site. Thus, no effects to wildlife species would occur. However, mining reclamation would occur at the Lost Nugget Mine under the 2005 stipulations, as opposed to the recently prepared Reclamation Plan proposed for the Riverbend Placer Mine and Lost Nugget Reclamation Project. Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

Threatened and Endangered Species

Direct or indirect impacts to Federally listed species are not anticipated for this project as no listed species occur in the project area or project vicinity.

Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species

There would be minimal (< 2 acres) removal of marginally suitable potential roosting habitat for pale Townsend’s big-eared bats or Western red bats within the project area primarily xero-riparian species such as netleaf hackberry. No caves or abandoned buildings, other potential roosting habitat, occur at the site. The presence of humans and noise associated with construction activities could potentially result in minor effects to roosting and foraging. Noise disturbance from daytime construction activities is not expected to affect foraging bats because they should be foraging nocturnally (Hoffmeister 1986); however, it may impact roosting bats if they select roost sites within hearing distance of mining activities. These bats may temporarily leave the area but would likely return after the completion of the project. As a result, project activities may impact individuals but are not likely to cause a trend toward listing or loss of viability.

Migratory Birds

The project would disturb a maximum of 90 acres of interior chaparral habitat and 3 acres of riparian habitat. Vegetation would be cleared in approximately 5-acre increments that would be reclaimed as mining progresses to the next sub-area. Removal and/or destruction of vegetation is not considered

as “take” under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act but may result in impacts to migratory birds such as loss of nesting and foraging habitat.

Because each mining area would be reclaimed as the mining activities progress, the entire project limits would not be disturbed at any one time. Following reseeding, grass species may become established within a year while woody species including piñon pine and juniper may take 10-33 years to reach maturity from seed (Gottfried et al. 1995). Because an early seral stage can be expected to reestablish quickly, the reclamation plan would allow birds the opportunity to use previously disturbed areas before the project is complete. Later seral stages containing mature woody vegetation would take longer to establish. The Proposed Action would not affect migratory birds at the population level.

Potential impacts to migratory birds were considered in accordance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Executive Order 13186. Impacts to migratory birds include the removal or covering of existing vegetation. The amount of vegetation disturbance (including nesting, foraging, and cover habitat) would be up to 93 acres, an extremely small percentage of habitat available to migratory birds across the Prescott National Forest. New disturbance within the project site would be conducted outside the nesting season. Disposal activities during the nesting season would only occur within existing disturbed areas in order to avoid impacts to active nests. If mining activities are planned in areas with undisturbed vegetation during the nesting season (March 15 through August 31), a pre-construction survey by a qualified biologist for active nests would be conducted prior to vegetation removal. Any active nests would be avoided in compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.

Climate Change Climate change would likely cause a decrease in precipitation, higher temperatures, and a longer wildfire season, which would increase the probability of stand-replacing wildfire causing habitat loss for many species. Climate change would also lead to more opportunities for invasive species to establish and spread, and invasive species may outcompete species or their prey, or they may alter the species’ habitat (USGCRP 2009). However, the projected mine life is up to 15 years, perhaps an insufficient amount of time to see large-scale long-term climatic impacts (for example, significant changes in elevational distribution of biotic communities). In addition, concurrent reclamation is planned for the Riverbend site, thus near the end of the maximum mine life most of the site will already have been reclaimed and native grasses, forbs, and shrubs would have been established. Immediate reclamation of the Lost Nugget site is planned, thus long-term climate change impacts.as related to the project area are not anticipated.

Mitigation Measures for Wildlife, Sensitive Species, and Migratory Birds

Reclamation would reestablish self-sustaining native plant communities on previously disturbed land, which over time would provide wildlife habitat like the present habitat of the project area. Revegetation would take between 1 to 3 years for establishment of grasses and forbs and similar habitat conditions of interior chaparral would take 15 to 30 years for establishment.

Ponds would be fenced with four-strand fence constructed to Forest Service standards to preclude entrance by wildlife and livestock. The ponds would be constructed with geogrid strips (plastic mesh)

3 to 6 (three to six) feet wide that would be placed on top of the primary liner, extending to below the water surface and anchored to the edge of the top of ponds (in a similar manner as the impermeable plastic liner) in several locations on each end and on the sides of the ponds. These escape devices would provide a rough surface that wildlife can use to escape (climb out of) in the event they slide into the ponds.

Wildlife Mitigation Measures • Because the project area provides habitat for breeding migratory birds, a preconstruction breeding bird survey would be conducted prior to any vegetation removal within the proposed project area if activities are to occur during the breeding season of March 1 to August 31. • If any nesting birds are observed in the project area, the proponent would immediately notify the third-party contractor who would consult with the Prescott National Forest and Arizona Game and Fish Department for implementation of mitigation measures. • Vegetation removal would be conservative and would only occur in areas where clearing is necessary in the mine excavation areas. • Dust control mitigation measures would be implemented to maintain air quality around the site. • Dead and down woody material would be returned to the project area following construction to aid in ground-dwelling species population recovery and distribution. • If individual bats or roosts are discovered, the proponent would mark the roost sites to ensure that they are not disturbed or destroyed and immediately notify the third-party contractor who would consult with the Prescott National Forest and Arizona Game and Fish Department for implementation of appropriate mitigation measures. • To enhance the likelihood of wildlife utilizing wash or drainage corridors, these corridors should be maintained in as natural a state as possible, with minimal disturbance.

Vegetation

Affected Environment

Most of the proposed mine project area is classified as Interior Chaparral Shrubland (Brown 1994). During field surveys in July and August of 2016, the dominant shrubs identified included desertbroom (Baccharis sarothroides), broom snakeweed (Gutierrezia sarothrae), catclaw acacia (Acacia greggii), catclaw mimosa (Mimosa aculeaticarpa), pale desertthorn (Lycium pallidum), Fremont’s mahonia (Mahonia fremontii), three-leaf sumac (Rhus aromatica), Wright’s silktassel (Garrya wrightii), pointleaf manzanita (Arctostaphylos pungens), range ratany (Krameria parvifolia), canyon live oak (Quercus turbinella) and crucifixion thorn (Canotia holacantha) (Figure 12). Scattered throughout the shrubs were a variety of grasses, many of which occur on the south-facing slopes of the interceding ridges. Grasses consisting of little bluestem (Schizachyrium scoparium), desert fluff-grass (Dasyochloa pulchella), black grama (Bouteloua eriopoda), sideoats grama (Boutaloua curtipendula), purple threeawn (Aristida purpurea), and muhley grass (Muhlenbergia sp.). Native tree species included one-seed juniper (Juniperus monosperma), piñon pine (Pinus edulis). Forb species observed included buckwheat (Eriogonum sp.), prickly poppy (Argemone pleicantha), globemallow (Sphaeralcea sp.), sacred Datura (Datura wrightii), Nevada catseye (Cryptanthus nevadensis), and fleawort (Plantago sp.). Cacti, agave, and related species include banana yucca (Yucca baccata),

hedgehog cactus (Echinocereus sp.), and pricklypear cactus (Opuntia sp.).

The eastern and southern margins of the Riverbend project area include elements of mixed broadleaf series of Interior and Californian riparian deciduous forest (Brown 1994) along Orofino Wash and the low terraces above the Hassayampa River floodplain. These areas support canyon live oak (Quercus turbinella), netleaf hackberry (Celtis reticulata), desert willow (Chilopsis linearis), velvet mesquite (Prosopis velutina), Arizona walnut (Juglans major), and Fremont cottonwood (Populus fremontii).

Figure 12. Typical upland (foreground) and riparian vegetation in and near the project area Phillip’s agave (Agave phillipsiana) is the only Regional Forester’s sensitive plant species that has been documented within 5 miles of the project area (AGFD 2017a). According to the Prescott National Forest Ecological Sustainability Report (USDA 2009), Phillip’s agave has an immediate viability concern because the species is geographically limited and has few individuals. This species is ranked as G1-Critically Imperiled, because it occurs only in central Arizona, on pre- Columbian agriculture sites (Natureserve 2017). The species is possibly an ancient cultivar selected by pre-Columbian people and is often associated with archeological sites (Hodgson, 2001; Baker, 2014). Prior field visits to the area in response to past plans of operations have found several occurrences of Phillip’s agave. Habitat for this species occurs within the project area, and several clones were identified on the east-west oriented ridge in the northern portion of the project area during biological surveys conducted during the summer of 2016. In addition, the Prescott National Forest surveys from 2009 identified one clone that falls within the proposed project’s currently planned disturbance footprint and several on the ridges surrounding the project area where they were identified during 2016 field surveys.

Noxious or Invasive Plants

The Noxious Weeds Strategic Plan Working Guidelines, Coconino, Kaibab and Prescott National Forests ranks invasive plants as Class A, B, or C. Class A plants receive the highest priority; management emphasis involves complete eradication. Class B species receive the second highest priority; management emphasis is to contain the spread of the species, decrease population size, and eventually eliminate infestation. Class C species receive the lowest priority; management emphasis is to contain the spread of present populations or to decrease the population (USDA 2012). Invasive species observed during the field survey included Class C horehound (Marrubium vulgare), Class C red brome (Bromus rubens), and Class A tree of heaven (Ailanthus altissima).

Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1: No Action

Under the no-action alternative, no future mining of placer gold would occur at the Riverbend site. Thus, no effects to vegetation would occur. However, mining reclamation would occur at the Lost Nugget Mine under the 2005 stipulations as previously noted, as opposed to the recently prepared Reclamation Plan proposed for the Riverbend Placer Mine and Lost Nugget Reclamation Project.

Alternative 2: Proposed Action

Vegetation

Under the Proposed Action, there would be direct impacts to vegetation. An approximate maximum of 90 acres of interior chaparral and 3 acres of riparian habitat would be removed during mining operations. Cleared vegetation would be stockpiled at the time of clearing, consistent with Forest Service practices and the Reclamation Plan. As part of project reclamation, an approximate maximum of 90 acres of early seral vegetation would be reestablished. Each mining sub-area would be recontoured and reseeded with Prescott National Forest approved seed mix composed of native grasses and forbs after mining has concluded. Following reseeding, grass species may become established within the project limits in less than one year while woody species including piñon pine and juniper may take between 10 and 33 years to reach reproductive maturity (Gottfried et al. 1995). A longer time period would be required to return the area to the interior chaparral that currently comprises the majority of the site.

Under the proposed action, there would be removal of suitable habitat for Phillips’ agave on the benches and ridges above the Hassayampa River floodplain. In addition, it is likely that ground disturbance would occur in areas where the plants have been found. As a result, the mining operation would likely have direct and indirect adverse impacts to this population and its habitat. Effects would include many acres of habitat loss, possible take of individual rosettes, and ground disturbance that may lead to the introduction of noxious weeds. In accordance with the Forest Plan, “design features and/or mitigation measures should be incorporated in all Forest Service projects, as needed, to ensure that Southwestern Region sensitive plant species do not trend toward listing as threatened or endangered species.”

Climate Change

Climate change would likely cause a decrease in precipitation, higher temperatures, and a longer wildfire season, which would increase the probability of stand-replacing wildfire causing habitat loss for many species. Climate change would also lead to more opportunities for invasive species to establish and spread, and invasive species may outcompete species or alter the species’ habitat (USGCRP 2009). However, the projected mine life is up to 15 years, perhaps an insufficient amount of time to see large-scale long-term climatic impacts (for example, significant changes in elevational distribution of biotic communities). In addition, concurrent reclamation is planned for the Riverbend site, thus near the end of the maximum mine life most of the site will already have been reclaimed and native grasses, forbs, and shrubs would have been established. Immediate reclamation of the Lost Nugget site is planned, thus long-term climate change impacts.as related to the project area are not anticipated.

Vegetation Mitigation Measures

Reclamation would reestablish self-sustaining native plant communities on previously disturbed land, which over time would provide wildlife habitat similar to the present habitat of the project area. Revegetation would take between 1 to 3 years for establishment of grasses and forbs and similar habitat conditions of interior chaparral would take 15 to 30 years (Baker 2014).

• Although the Phillip’s agave is not a Federally listed species (it is a Forest Service sensitive species), areas with this species would be avoided to the greatest extent possible. • A botanical survey focused on Phillip’s agave would be conducted prior to ground-disturbing activities. • If Phillip’s agave clones are found within the disturbance areas, they would be removed and relocated to either suitable habitat or a botanical garden. • Monitoring for new Phillip’s agave rosettes would occur yearly. • Promotion of natural revegetation in order to minimize the introduction of noxious weeds as part of reclamation. • Periodic removal of noxious plants on the mine site consistent with Forest Service guidelines (Final Environmental Impact Statement for Integrated Treatment of Noxious or Invasive Weeds). • To avoid excessive erosion, revegetation with a Prescott National Forest-approved “certified weed-free seed” would be spread throughout areas of disturbance to help establish native grasses, shrubs, and forbs within the proposed project area post-construction. • Reclamation areas would be monitored and appropriate actions taken to ensure plant survival in revegetated areas until landscape recovery. • Use of only defined and established travel routes to minimize soil disturbance. • Use of mulch to protect establishing vegetation, as appropriate. • Equipment would be cleaned and inspected for noxious weeds and the site would be monitored for the presence of noxious weeds after the project is completed and these would be treated if found. • Removal of all mud, dirt and plant parts from all off-road equipment used at other projects

before moving them into the permitted area.

Riparian and Wetland Mitigation Measures

• The proponent would follow the previous alignment of an old forest road when constructing the new forest road alignment to minimize disturbance as much as possible within the riparian corridor. • If mature cottonwood or other riparian trees are encountered in this alignment, the proponent would consider realigning the road to avoid cutting these mature riparian trees. • Other than extracting water from wells and seasonally available surface water, the proponent would not remove or modify “wetlands” or other surface water within the proposed project area.

Through implementation of these BMPs and mitigation measures, it is anticipated that project activities would impact individual Phillips’ agave plants but are not likely to cause a trend toward listing or loss of viability.

Salvaged topsoil would be seeded with an approved interim seed mix, if left longer than one growing season (March–November). A final seed mix, consisting of native grasses and forbs would be used during final reclamation. A successful revegetation would restore the native plant community in the area over a period of many years.

Mitigation Measures for Control of Invasive Species

To minimize the introduction and spread of noxious weeds into the Project Area, Pine Creek Mining, Inc., would implement the following preventative measures: 1) stay on existing or designated haul roads to and from the Project Area, 2) use a certified weed-free seed mix during reclamation, 3) conduct concurrent reclamation, and 4) implement a weed monitoring and control program. The operator would annually survey the Project Area for invasive weed species. If a limited number of weeds were discovered, they would be pulled, placed in a plastic bag, sealed, and disposed of properly. For more intensive infestations, the operator would consult with the Forest Service on containment or eradication measures. Forest Service personnel will inspect equipment and vehicles prior being allowed on the site. The pullout just outside of Wilhoit, south of the FR72 turnoff will be used for these inspections.

Under the Proposed Action, the potential for the spread of noxious weeds may increase as a result of soil disturbing activities including, but not limited to, road improvements, mining excavation, operation of the mining plant, and truck traffic. A noxious weed survey would be conducted prior to the commencement of project activities. All earth moving equipment brought onto the project area would be cleaned prior to entering the Prescott National Forest. A high-pressure hose would be used to clear the undercarriage, tire treads, grill, radiator, and any other soiled areas. Any fill material brought in from an off-site location would be free of invasive weed species. Reclamation measures, including re-contouring, scarifying, and re-seeding, would promote vegetation regrowth over the long-term.

Best management practices as outlined in Appendix B of the Final Environmental Impact Statement for Integrated Treatment of Noxious or Invasive Weeds (USDA 2005) would be followed to incorporate weed prevention and control into the project. The following features would be integrated into project implementation: . Construction and maintenance equipment including trucks, bulldozers, and excavators (no all-terrain vehicles or passenger vehicles) would be kept free of noxious/invasive weed species by washing equipment prior to entering the construction site, prior to moving equipment from infested to non-infested areas of the project, and prior to departing the site.

 Where contact with a population of invasive weeds is unavoidable, Pine Creek Mining, Inc. would ensure that the population is treated prior to any activity in the area.

 The use of off-site fill materials should be discouraged and excavated substrate from the proposed project footprint should be used whenever possible. Fill material should only come from weed free sources.

 Areas affected by project construction should be re-vegetated and rehabilitated using certified, weed-free seed and weed-free mulch.

 After completion of construction activities, areas where ground disturbing activities occurred should be monitored annually for 5 years. Data collected from monitoring surveys would be compared to data from those conducted prior to activities occurring. If new populations are found, location information would be recorded and appropriate treatment of noxious and invasive weeds would occur.

 If any additional infestations of invasive weeds are encountered during implementation of the Proposed Action, the locations would be documented and reported to the Prescott National Forest.

Groundwater

Affected Environment

The Hassayampa River alluvial basin adjoins the southwest side of the Bradshaw Mountains. The USGS (1978) map of the alluvial basin shows that the northern limit of the basin is approximately 0.75 miles to the north of the project, as shown in Figure 1. There are two aquifers identified within the project area: the Qal and Tfy aquifers.

Qal Aquifer Groundwater is present in the Quaternary Alluvium (Qal) along the Hassayampa River streambed in the Qal Aquifer. Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR) well information indicates the depth to ground water in the Quaternary Alluvium varies from the 18 to 30 feet below the ground surface. Table 2 provides a summary of ADWR well information for area wells. The USGS map of groundwater conditions (1978) shows that the groundwater flow direction in the Quaternary Alluvium is parallel to the stream channel in areas downstream of the project. Although no data are shown in the project area, it is anticipated that a similar orientation of flow direction is present in the Quaternary Alluvium near the project.

Tfy Aquifer

Groundwater is present in the Fanglomerate unit (Tfy) in the Tfy Aquifer. ADWR well information indicates that the depth to ground water in these Tertiary sediments varies from 34 to 200 feet below the ground surface. ADWR well information indicates that the existing wells completed in the Tfy produce water at rates that vary from 10 to 35 gallons per minute.

Evaluation of water quality data from testing wells indicates that water in the Qal aquifer and Tfy aquifer is similar in composition. A clear separation of the two waters based on the cation/anion or stable isotope data is not evident. The similar composition indicates similar origin of the water or later mixing of the water. This data and data obtained during groundwater testing in which shallow wells were affected by withdrawal from deeper wells show that the aquifers are connected.

Environmental Consequences Alternative 1: No Action

A testing program conducted by Southwest Groundwater Consultants (SGC 2018) was designed and implemented to determine the impacts of groundwater use by the project upon both groundwater and surface water. The Riverbend project plans to use the Tfy aquifer for groundwater withdrawals. The objective of the testing program was to characterize the Tfy aquifer/Qal aquifer relationship and to characterize the Tfy aquifer/surface water relationship. Characterization of these relationships allowed quantification of the impacts resulting from the groundwater withdrawals planned for the Riverbend project. Comparison of water quality and water level data also assisted in evaluating the connections among these features.

Groundwater resources potentially impacted by the project include all aquifers encountered by the production wells, i.e. the Qal and Tfy aquifers. Potentially impacted resources include groundwater- dependent ecosystems including riparian ecosystems, aquatic habitat, and biota, all of which occur near or in the project area. Potentially impacted groundwater users include livestock operators and other mining operators near the project as these operations utilize groundwater wells for water supply.

The pumping and recovery data show that water levels in the Qal aquifer are affected by pumping of wells screened in the Tfy aquifer. Two extraction wells were pumped at a combined rate of 43 gallons per minute, the maximum anticipated rate of the proposed mine during the driest and warmest part of the year (typically from late-May to mid-July) for 72 hours. The test produced a maximum drawdown in the Qal aquifer of 4.36 feet at a test well 41 feet to the south of the drawing well; drawdowns in wells 100 to 200 feet from the pumping wells were 1.5 feet or less.

The total project demand expressed as a continuous flow rate is 22 gallons per minute. The continuous flow rate is essentially the average demand over time; it would be less during the wetter

and cooler months of the year and more during the drier and warmer months of the year. The daily quantity of flow in the Qal aquifer is approximately 60 times greater than the proposed daily project demand, as determined by test analysis. Based on this analysis, utilization of the project demand will not significantly diminish the quantity of groundwater available to existing users or groundwater- dependent ecosystems.

Long-term drawdown analysis indicates a projected drawdown of 8.35 feet at a lateral distance of 41 feet and 5 to 2 feet at a distance of 100 to 160 feet from the pumping wells after 7.6 years (the anticipated median mine life) of continuous pumping at the tested rate of 43 gallons per minute. Utilization of 22 gallons per minute, the continuous project demand, will result in significantly lower drawdowns than the aforementioned values projected from the test pumping. Water levels in the Qal aquifer below the Hassayampa River, as shown in wells located in the river channel, are 20 to 30 feet below the channel. The long-term drawdown analysis shows that the drawdown from the pumping test demand (43 gallons per minute) is 2 to 3 feet in the channel area. The resultant, worst case, depth to water in the channel, after 7.6 years of continuous pumping at the tested rate of 43 gallons per minute, would be 23 to 33 feet below the channel, within a very limited area of impact (perhaps 200 × 200 feet around the withdrawal well). Based on this data, it is evident that the depth of drawdown resulting from pumping the project, demand is small in relation to existing water levels in the channel.

The recovery data indicates that that water levels would return to pre-pumping levels shortly after pumping stops. The water levels in wells during the pumping test recovered to 90 percent within from 19.5 to 12.3 hours (again at the maximum anticipated pumping rate of 43 gallons per minute). This recovery would occur overnight when the proposed mine would not be in operation. Based on this data, the limited depth and area of the drawdown impact is a short-term impact and no long-term impacts would result from pumping the project demand. The long-term drawdown analysis shows that the impacted area is focused on the pumping wells. The anticipated Qal aquifer drawdown of less than 3 feet in the Hassayampa River channel is small in relation to the 20 to 30 feet depth of the water measured in the river channel area. This is the worst-case scenario, as the analysis does not include any beneficial recharge resulting from seasonal flows. However, the projected water level change would likely be reduced by recharge occurring from seasonal flows in the channel.

The impact of pumping the project demand upon groundwater-dependent ecosystems and water users is minimal. Riparian trees and shrubs typically have root systems of X to X feet. Drawdown for much of the year would likely be less than 4 feet immediately adjacent to the well and less than 2 feet at 100 feet distance, and only for a period of perhaps 8 to 10 hours as the mine is operating. The analysis shows that water levels in existing wells utilized by livestock and mining users would generally not be impacted, or if impacted a water level change of less than 1 foot would occur. This water level change is small in relation to the depth of the screened sections in the existing livestock and mining wells.

In summary, based on the comprehensive groundwater testing program, impacts to groundwater quantity would be minimal and short-term.

In terms of water quality, a centrifuge would be used to effectively filter nearly all fines from the mine process water to allow for water recycling and minimize any risk of sedimentation into the Hassayampa River. The refinement process would be completely free of chemicals; only naturally occurring water would be used. In addition, the two proposed ponds on a low terrace between the Hassayampa River floodplain and the toe of the ore-bearing slope would be lined with an impermeable liner to prevent infiltration of process water.

Surface Water

Affected Environment

Potentially impacted surface water features near the project include a seasonal pond located near the project and intermittent flows in the Hassayampa River. Perennial and intermittent flow sections are present in the Hassayampa River near the project. Perennial flow occurs upstream near the Gold Basin Project. The perennial flow reach extends upstream from the area near the confluence of the Lone Pine Spring drainage. In this reach, the Hassayampa River is likely to be, a gaining stream. Intermittent flow occurs in the Hassayampa River in the reach that is adjacent to the project. The Hassayampa River may be a losing stream in this reach.

Two wetland features mapped by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) are present near the project. These features are in the Quaternary Alluvium. Both features are coded intermittent or seasonal by the USFWS. The rectangular surface water feature near the project area is a pond that is coded by the USFWS as PUSCx. This code indicates the feature is an excavated, seasonally flooded palustrine feature with an unconsolidated shoreline. This water feature is not present in several historical aerial photographs of the area, indicating the feature may be seasonal. This pond is approximately 420 feet south of the project area. A channel shaped surface water feature occurs downstream from the project area and is coded R4SBA by the USFWS. This indicates the feature is an intermittent riverine streambed subject to temporary flooding. This water feature is not present in any of the historical aerial photographs of the area, indicating that the feature may be supported entirely by surface water flow events. This feature is approximately 450 feet south of the project area.

Three springs are present within the Hassayampa River watershed near the project: Buzzard Spring and an unnamed spring in Buzzard Roost Wash and Lone Pine Spring.

Stream flow data is not available for the Hassayampa River within the project area. The nearest flow gauge is near Wagoner Road and was installed by the Maricopa County Flood Control District in 1991 and continues to operate. Review of the data for Gauge No. 5352 indicates that 49 runoff events have been recorded at the gauge. The maximum recorded flow of approximately 5,100 cubic feet per second occurred in 1993. Runoff events with flows of 1,000 to 3,000 cubic feet per second occurred 17 times during the period of record and flows of less than 1,000 cubic feet per second occurred on 31 occasions. Two gauges were previously operated by the USGS in the Wagoner Road area. Review of the data for two gauges indicate that the peak daily mean flow during the period of record was from 700 to 500 cubic feet per second and the minimum was 0.6 cubic feet per second. The median daily flows at the gauges varied from 1 to 60 cubic feet per second.

Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1: No Action

Alternative 2: Proposed Action

The Proposed Action would result in the removal of vegetation and excavation of soil. Impacts to surface water quality through increased non-point source pollution from flowing water causing erosion during storm events would be eliminated or minimized through the implementation of mitigation measures. A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) has been completed for this project and will be submitted to the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ). A Notice of Intent (NOI) for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Industrial Activities under the Arizona Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (AZPDES) Multi-Sector General Permit – Mining will be completed and submitted to ADEQ upon being notified of the Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) from PNF. In terms of water quality, a centrifuge would be used to effectively filter nearly all fines from the mine process water to allow for water recycling and minimize any risk of sedimentation into the Hassayampa River. The refinement process would be completely free of chemicals; only naturally occurring water would be used. In addition, the two proposed ponds on a low terrace between the Hassayampa River floodplain and the toe of the ore-bearing slope would be lined with an impermeable liner to prevent infiltration of process water and surrounded by 4-foot compacted earthen berms to divert surface water flow. In the case of a historic flood, the process water within the berms would have significantly lower turbidity and total suspended solids than the floodwater. Thus, if the berms were to be overtopped any additional sedimentation would be minimal.

As previously discussed in the Groundwater section, the daily quantity of flow in the Qal aquifer is approximately 60 times greater than the proposed daily project demand, as determined by test analysis. The Hassayampa River shows intermittent flow and is fed by the Qal aquifer. Surface flow occurs in the Hassayampa River channel as the flow in the Qal aquifer approaches 4,000,000 gallons per day. The proposed Riverbend demand of 32,000 gallons per day would be too small to affect the surface water level of the Hassayampa River.

Water levels in the Qal aquifer below the Hassayampa River, as shown in wells in the river channel, are 20 to 30 feet below the channel. The long-term drawdown analysis shows that the drawdown from the pumping test demand (43 gallons per minute) is 2 to 3 feet in the channel area. The resultant, worst case, depth to water in the channel, after 7.6 years of continuous pumping at the tested rate of 43 gallons per minute, would be 23 to 33 feet below the channel, within a very limited area of impact (perhaps 200 × 200 feet around the withdrawal well). Based on this data, it is evident that the depth of drawdown resulting from pumping the project demand is small in relation to existing water levels in the channel.

The anticipated Qal aquifer drawdown of less than 3 feet in the Hassayampa River channel is small in relation to the 20 to 30 feet depth of the water measured in the river channel area. This is the worst-case scenario, as the analysis does not include any beneficial recharge resulting from seasonal flows. However, the projected water level change would likely be reduced by recharge occurring from seasonal flows in the channel.

Soils

Affected Environment The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey (NRCS 2018) shows the project area consists largely of Lonti gravelly sandy loam (LkD), the gold-bearing deposit of the older terrace above the current Hassayampa River. Sandy and gravelly land (Sa) occurs on flatter slopes nearer the Hassayampa River southeast of LkD, while rough broken land (Rs) occurs on steeper slopes near Orofino Wash to the east and an unnamed ephemeral wash to the west (Table 1).

Table 1. Soils within the project area

Symbol Map Unit Name Description of Soil Map Unit

Mean Annual Precipitation: 12 to 16 inches Mean Annual Air Temperature: 52-57 degrees F Landform: Fans Ecological Site: Clayey Slopes 12-1 inches p.z. (R038XA108AZ) Farmland Classification: Not prime Parent Material: Mixed alluvium Depth to Restrictive Feature: More than 80 inches Lonti gravelly Natural Drainage Class: Well drained sandy loam, Capacity of most limiting layer to transmit water: Moderately low to high (0.06-0.20 in/hr) LkD 15 to 30 percent Depth to Water Table: More than 80 inches slopes Frequency of Flooding: None Frequency of Ponding: None Available Water Storage in Profile: Moderate (~ 7.6 inches) Hydrologic Soil Group: C*

* Group C Soils have low infiltration rates when thoroughly wetted and consist chiefly of soils with a layer that impedes downward movement of water and soils with moderately fine to fine texture. These soils have a low rate of water transmission (0.05-0.15 in/hr).

Symbol Map Unit Name Description of Soil Map Unit Sandy and Ecological Site: Sandy Bottom 16-20 inches p.z. (R038XB211AZ) Sa gravelly alluvial land No other specifications listed by NRCS. Rough broken Rs No specifications listed by NRCS. land

According to the Terrestrial Ecosystem Survey (TES) of the Prescott National Forest (2000), the project area consists largely of TES map unit 483, which is approximately analogous to NRCS LkD unit. TES map unit 44 occurs along the Hassayampa River channel, floodplain, and modern terraces. TES map units 407 and 43 occur at the southwestern end of the project area. it is possible to pinpoint likely areas of concern, and design mitigations for those concerns. • TES map units 406, 407, 438, and 475 have a severe Erosion Hazard Rating, and must be revegetated once disturbed to prevent a serious increase of soil loss (206 acres or 29 percent). Mulch and jute netting, tackifier or other soils surface stabilizing method may be required on steep slopes. • TES map. units 406 and 460 are likely to have a high lime content that will hinder r vegetation efforts, especially if seriously disturbed (84 acres or 12 percent). These map units should either be avoided, or special mitigations developed to ensure successful revegetation. • TES map unit 483 is prone to problems with compaction if disturbed when wet. Once soil has been disturbed, recontour slopes while soil is dry.

Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1: No Action

Alternative 2: Proposed Action

The Proposed Action would result in an impact to soil throughout the 80-acre area of disturbance. The project area would be worked in approximately 5-acre increments and concurrently reclaimed lessening the exposure time and area of disturbed surfaces. Temporary change to local landforms and drainages resulting from the removal of the subsurface ore-bearing would occur. This excavated material would be processed for ore and the remaining material stored on site for reclamation activities. At the disturbed locations, exposed sediment would be more susceptible to erosion, potentially increasing the concentration of fine sediments of soils in the surrounding area and drainages. Initially, these soils would be generally poor in terms of productivity and composition; however, the ongoing reclamation would restore some of the soil composition resulting in minor long- term impacts.

As previously mentioned in the Surface Water section, mitigation measures to prevent or minimize erosion during storm events would be implemented via a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to include development of a water diversion upslope of mined areas to minimize runoff and erosion, use of interim erosion control blankets on exposed slopes awaiting reclamation and on stockpiled topsoil, and installation of straw wattles and silt fencing to decrease stormwater velocity and retain fines. Mulch and just netting, tackifier, or another soil surface stabilizing method may be required on steep slopes. Major soil excavation activities would be undertaken during the direr times of the year including spring and fall. TES map unit 483 is prone to problems with compaction if disturbed when wet. Once soil has been disturbed, slope recontouring would occur when the soil is dry. Concurrent and ongoing reclamation would restore some of the original soil composition and initiate reestablishment of an early seral native vegetation community. With implementation of the proposed mitigation measures and Best Management Practices as outlined in the “National Best Management Practices for Water Quality Management on National Forest System Lands’ Volume 1: National Core BMP Technical Guide” (Appendix B, USDA Forest Service, 2012), adverse impacts to soils would be minor to moderate over the long-term.

Cumulative Effects Analysis

The Council on Environmental Quality regulations defines cumulative effects as: “…[T]he impacts on the environment which result from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or Non-Federal) or person undertakes such actions. Cumulative effects can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period (40 CFR 1508.7).”

As required under NEPA and its implementing regulations, this chapter addresses those cumulative effects on resources in the Cumulative Effects Study Area which could result from the implementation of the Proposed Action and the No Action, past actions, present actions, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. The Cumulative Effects Study Area is defined here as three sub-watersheds of the Upper Hassayampa River described in the following section. The length of time for cumulative effects analysis varies according to the duration of impacts from the Proposed Action on the resource.

Cumulative Effects Analysis Area: Upper Hassayampa River Watershed

In this analysis, watersheds are used as the basis to evaluate cumulative effects. The cumulative effects analysis area for the project includes the 5th level Upper Hassayampa River watershed, which includes three 6th Level sub-watersheds: Groom Creek, Buzzard Roost Wash, and Moore’s Spring watersheds.

There are historic and current water quality issues within the 5th level Upper Hassayampa River Watershed. This watershed includes the Hassayampa River headwaters downstream to just below Campbell Flat. Nearly 65 percent of the entire watershed is within the Prescott National Forest, with the remaining Bureau of Land Management, private, or State Trust lands. The major drainage is the Hassayampa River. The Prescott National Forest’s primary ecotypes within this watershed are chaparral, piñon-juniper woodland, and ponderosa pine. The Terrestrial Ecosystem Survey indicates soil condition as satisfactory on 72 percent of the National Forest acreage, impaired on 24 percent, and unsatisfactory on 4 percent.

Management activities, inherent properties, aquatic conditions, and natural disturbances affect vegetation, soils, riparian, water quantity/quality and ultimately watershed condition. Data within each identified watershed coupled with the current conditions were used as a barometer to evaluate the cumulative effects of the Proposed Action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future action(s). Table 2 and Table 3 provide acreage information for the analysis area.

Table 2. Watershed acreage and project percent of watershed acres by watershed and ownership

Watershed Watershed Acres / Project Percent of Watershed th Groom Creek 6 Level 22943 / 0 percent th Buzzard Roost Wash 6 Level 17457 / 0.5 percent th Moore’s Spring 6 Level 22157 / 0 percent th Upper Hassayampa River 5 Level 194019 / .0005 percent Source: Natural Resource Conservation Service

Table 3.Watershed acreage by ownership

Ownership Groom Greek Buzzard Roost Wash Moore’s Spring Prescott National Forest 19068 17094 5398 BLM 0 0 985 State Trust 0 0 6972 Private 3875 363 9580 TOTAL 22943 17457 22936

6th Level Watershed Descriptions

Groom Creek – Upper Hassayampa River

Located south of the City of Prescott, this watershed (Hydrologic Unit Code [HUC] 150701030101) constitutes the higher elevation headwaters of the Hassayampa River. Historic mining activities in the late 1800s resulted in a large number of patented mining claims in an irregular pattern. Rural subdivisions have been developed on some of these claims. Arizona Department of Environmental Quality has assessed the mainstem as not attaining and several tributary reaches as impaired due to heavy metals from historic mining activities; a total maximum daily load has been developed. Including an upper elevation portion of the Bradshaw Mountains, there is heavy recreation use both on National Forest land and private inholdings. Several National Forest campgrounds are present. The Prescott National Forest administers the majority of the watershed (83 percent). The dominant biotic community type on non-Prescott National Forest lands is ponderosa pine woodland. The Prescott National Forest’s primary ecotype within this watershed is mixed conifer, ponderosa pine, and chaparral. The major drainage is the Hassayampa River. Tributaries include Copper, Indian, Groom, and Wolf Creeks.

Buzzard Roost Wash – Upper Hassayampa River

This watershed (HUC 150701030112) is immediately downstream from the Groom Creek 6th level watershed. The Hassayampa River moves from northeast to southwest through the Buzzard Roost Wash 6th level watershed. Side tributaries include Board Creek and Orofino Wash from the west and Buzzard Roost Wash and Middlewater Creek from the east. The Prescott National Forest administers approximately 98 percent of this watershed with primary ecotypes of chaparral, followed by piñon- juniper. There are several historic, current, and proposed future placer mining operations in addition of the Proposed Action.

Moore’s Spring – Upper Hassayampa River

This watershed (150701030102) is immediately downstream from the Buzzard Roost Wash 6th level watershed. It includes the Hassayampa River for many miles and several small watersheds that empty into the river from both sides, including areas in between the discrete 6th level watersheds of significant tributaries such as Milk Creek, Blind Indian Creek, etc. Slightly less than 25 percent of this 6th level watershed is within the Prescott National Forest. The majority is private and State trust with 42 percent and 30 percent of the watershed area, respectively. Piñon-juniper is the primary ecotype within the Prescott National Forest portion.

Ecotypes The higher elevations of the analysis area are characterized by ponderosa pine and oak woodlands, middle elevations by chaparral and piñon-juniper woodland, and lower elevations by piñon-juniper woodland (Table 4). Table 4. Ecotypes of Prescott National Forest land in the 6th level watershed

Ecotype Groom Greek Buzzard Roost Wash Moore’s Spring 276 Chaparral 4804 9579 Desert shrub 0 0 434 Flooded 0 926 269 Grassland 2 0 0 Mixed conifer 1571 128 0 Oak woodland 2556 0 0 Piñon-juniper 248 6069 4419 Ponderosa 2970 387 0 Total 19430 17095 5398 Source: Terrestrial Ecosystem Survey of the Prescott National Forest (2000) for Prescott National Forest portion of table.

Noxious or Invasive Plants Noxious or Invasive plants can be detrimental or destructive to ecosystem health. These species have the potential to decrease plant diversity, interfere with natural plant community dynamics, decrease vegetative ground cover, and increase run-off and erosion. A Tri-Forest (Prescott, Kaibab, and Coconino) Noxious Weed Environmental Impact Statement has been prepared to control invasive plants. The objective of the Environmental Impact Statement is to treat approximately 41,260 acres of noxious weeds starting in 2005 utilizing an integrated pest management strategy.

Soils

Soil condition is an evaluation of soil quality or the capacity of the soil to function within ecosystem boundaries to sustain biologic productivity, maintain environmental quality, and promote plant and animal health. Soil condition is important for watershed health because of its ecological services it provides. Soil condition was considered on Prescott National Forest land but not for other lands (Table 5). All land management agencies are involved in some type of land management plans that implement soil and water conservation practices. Also, all incorporated and non-incorporated lands must comply with the Clean Water Act using Best Management Practices and/or Arizona Pollutant Discharge Elimination System as delegated by the Environmental Protection Agency. These conservation practices assist in conserving soil and water resources.

Table 5. Prescott National Forest soil condition by watershed in acres

Soil Condition Groom Greek Buzzard Roost Wash Moore’s Spring Satisfactory 19430 12499 1747 Impaired 0 4954 3627 Unsatisfactory 0 0 15 TOTAL 19430 17453 5389 Source: Terrestrial Ecosystem Survey of the Prescott National Forest (2000).

Ponderosa pine, mixed-conifer and chaparral soils are generally in satisfactory condition and are fully functional. Most impaired and unsatisfactory soil conditions are associated with portions of desert shrub and piñon-juniper ecosystems. These soils are displaying a reduction or loss of soil function.

Private Land

The Natural Resource Conservation Service and other advisory conservation agencies such as the University of Arizona Yavapai County Cooperative Extension Service provide services to help conserve soil, water, and vegetation resources on private lands. These services assist private land owners with resource conservation practices related to such activities as: livestock management, irrigation management, fuel reduction, tree harvesting, vegetation management practices, erosion control, and other soil, water, and vegetation conservation practices. Actions on private land can and do add to cumulative effects in the watersheds.

Livestock Grazing

Livestock Grazing occurs throughout the cumulative effect watersheds. Improper management of livestock has the potential to impact watershed health by degrading soil and vegetation conditions. However, all land management agencies have grazing management plans that provide for vegetation, soil, and water quantity/quantity health. Livestock grazing occurs throughout the watersheds including in the project area which is part of the Hassayampa Allotment. The State

of Arizona’s water quality assessment does not discuss the potential impacts of livestock on water quality. However, both the upper and lower subwatersheds have Escherichia coli as a parameter requiring more study. This does not tie conclusively to livestock impacts. Although some studies link cattle use to a change of vegetation from site potential, no Proper Functioning Condition assessments currently suggest cattle use has a negative impact.

Fire and Fuels Treatment

Wildland fire poses a threat to watershed resources by decreasing vegetative ground cover levels, potentially causing hydrophobic soil surface conditions, and accelerating run-off, erosion rates, and sediment production. The Burned Area Emergency Response program is initiated on all wildfires 300 acres or larger and applies any necessary soil and water conservation treatments to mitigate the threat of accelerated soil loss, water quality/quantity impairment, and loss of life.

Prescribed burning has the potential to temporarily decrease vegetation productivity and increase run-off, soil loss, and sedimentation. However, burn prescriptions occur during favorable burn periods (e.g., favorable weather conditions and planned burn blocks resulting in favorable fire behavior) and Best Management Practices are implemented to minimize negative impacts. Prescribed fire can also lead to the improvement of vegetation, soil, and watershed resources by improving nutrient cycling, vegetation vigor, and vegetative ground cover.

Fuel treatments associated with brush crushing and biomass accumulation may initially have negative impacts to the soil, vegetation and watershed resources by causing mechanical disturbance to the vegetation, displacing vegetation ground cover, and creating soil compaction. However, these treatments could result in a positive influence in the long term by improving herbaceous response, plant vigor, and vegetative ground cover.

Ponderosa pine and chaparral are the ecosystems most likely to have either wildfire or prescribed burning. As illustrated in the table of ecotype by watershed the Buzzard Roost Wash watershed where the project area is located is more than half chaparral. The Prescott National Forest database does not include any fires or prescribed burns in this area within the last 20 years. Fuels Treatments since 2000 in Groom Creek include 1,742 acres of prescribed burns and 709 acres of mechanized fuel reduction.

For the purposes of this project, the potential impacts of most concern are the potential of increased runoff and sediment production. Mitigations for prescribed fire include controlling runoff from fire lines and controlling burn intensity through monitoring soil and climatic conditions. In the long-term, fire can improve soil quality by creating conditions of improved nutrient cycling and vegetation vigor and increased vegetative ground cover. On-Forest monitoring of site recovery following prescribed fire in the ponderosa pine/live oak vegetation type showed a decrease in duff and litter (75 percent) immediately after the burn, with a further decrease (to 86 percent) during the first year (Schuhardt et al 2002). By the end of the second year, duff amounts were increasing. Post-fire conditions showed an increase in downed wood (branches or trees falling). Oak seedlings had increased by 88 percent within the first year after the burn and were more vigorous. Seedlings were reduced during the second year, possibly due to browsing. Ponderosa did not regenerate.

Timber Harvest

For the purposes of this project, the major concerns are increased sediment transport and increased peak flows. Timber cutting in the ponderosa pine of the Groom Creek watershed since 1997 includes 4,421 acres. Hydrologic and soil functions are expected to recover within 5 to 7 years following timber harvests. Most of the proposed harvest is related to the high ponderosa pine and piñon pine mortality associated primarily with drought and insects. Although harvesting causes ground disturbance, total vegetation cover is expected to increase due to shrub response to increased light and water, resulting in no net effect upon soil productivity.

Best Management Practices designed to conserve soil and water resources are currently incorporated into every salvage and timber sale contract that occurs on the Prescott National Forest. Monitoring of the implementation and effectiveness of these practices is ongoing. Preliminary data from this monitoring supports the supposition of soil and water recovery from the effects of harvest within 5 to 7 years.

Roads

Roads concentrate precipitation run-off and can be a major source of sediment impacting watershed condition by impacting water quality and quantity. Road prisms have a direct impact on soils and have a connected indirect effect by concentrating water that may result in soils adjacent to roads experiencing gullying and sheet erosion. This ultimately impacts vegetation cover, composition, and diversity. Road impacts to vegetation, soil, and water resources are highly dependent on the maintenance level of the roads, road closure techniques, and road construction practices. Maintenance level 1 roads have limited use and may be occasionally used for restricted specific management purposes such as for access to range improvements and other features such as electric lines and gas pipelines. Level 2 roads are maintained at a low level with less frequent maintenance activities and are usually best suited for high clearance vehicles. Levels 3, 4, and 5 roads are maintained to a standard consistent with Best Management Practices.

For the purposes of this project, the impacts of most concern are those that may lead to increased sediment transport and peak flows. Most roads in the watersheds are native surfacing and many of the stream crossings are unimproved low water crossings. The road condition and surfacing of other ownership is not known, though many are not paved. Level 5 roads may increase surface runoff (surfacing which does not allow infiltration), increasing both runoff (compacted surfaces) and sediment transport. Table 6 and Table 7 provide information on road mileage within the analysis area.

Table 6. Road miles by 6th level watershed on the Prescott National Forest

Land Ownership Groom Greek Buzzard Roost Wash Moore’s Spring Level 1 17.6 4 4 Level 2 34.9 35 22 Level 3 0.6 0 0 Level 4 1 0 0 Level 5 0.2 4 0

Watershed sq mi 36.7 26.7 8.4 Road density mi/sq mi 1.39 1.46 2.61 *Road density for Prescott National Forest does not include Level 1 roads as the watershed impacts are minimal.

Table 7. Road miles by 6th level watershed for all ownerships

Land Ownership Groom Greek Buzzard Roost Wash Moore’s Spring Prescott National Forest* 36.7 39 22 BLM/State 13.6 0 19 Private 9.4 1 20 TOTAL 59.7 40 61 Watershed sq mi 30.5 27.3 35.8 Road density mi/sq mi 1.96 1.46 1.70 *Road density for Prescott National Forest does not include Level 1 roads as the watershed impacts are minimal.

Recreation

Recreation disturbance can impact and change vegetation population dynamics and can also expose, compact, displace, and create unstable soil conditions that could potentially increase run off, erosion, and sedimentation There are no developed campgrounds within or near the project area though there are three on National Forest System lands of the 6th level Groom Creek watershed.

Within the Prescott National Forest portion of the 6th level watersheds, dispersed recreation is the primary recreational impact. Dispersed camping, hiking, horseback riding, all-terrain vehicle riding on low standard roads and on trails, and hunting during seasons are the primary use. Where widely dispersed and not located in sensitive areas, there is limited effect on soil and water resources. Along the Hassayampa River corridor near the project area there is evidence of some dispersed camping and day use as well as periodic unauthorized all-terrain vehicle use, especially in and adjacent to the stream channel and on the terraces.

Mining and Minerals

The two primary types of mining claims that occur are locatable and non-locatable. Locatable minerals are claimable minerals within the public domain and are normally metals. Locatable minerals are subject to the 1872 mining law. Non-locatable minerals are non- claimable minerals within the public domain and are normally stone, flagstone quarries, etc. There are two types of locatable mining claims, lode and placer. Disturbances affiliated with mining expose, compact, displace, and create unstable soil conditions that could potentially increase run off, erosion, sedimentation, and negatively impact vegetative productivity. This also has the potential to impact vegetation dynamics. Some locatable mining operations have the potential to create heavy metal contaminants and high sulfide levels that can lead to water quality degradation through decreased pH levels. Water withdrawn from local aquifers for purpose of washing, i.e., fluvially separating flakes of gold or other heavy metal from the riverbed sediments within which it has been deposited, has the potential to reduce availability of water for adjacent and nearby riparian and aquatic ecosystems. All public domain mining operations must adhere to a reclamation plan to mitigate potential adverse impacts upon soil and water resources.

Placer, underground, dredging and possibly hydraulic mining, mostly for gold and silver, has occurred within the Prescott National Forest since 1864. Much of the upper Hassayampa has been withdrawn from mining. However, even in this area there are still some small (10 acres or less) active "grandfather" mining claims. Recreational gold pan mining is popular within this watershed. Currently there are several mines active within the Upper Hassayampa watershed, and more in some stage of planning. Many of these claims are only marked on the ground, with no actual disturbance.

Historical mining east of the project area has affected the watershed through remaining waste and tailings piles. Additionally, past mining led to poorly placed or constructed roads. This has resulted in high sediment loads, diminished riparian areas and impaired water quality issues, all issues of concern for this project. Current and future mining activities may need to obtain permits and file a plan of operations. These requirements help ensure that the problems associated with historical mining are not repeated and decrease the effects of current and foreseeable future mining projects to below measurable amounts.

All mining activities within the Prescott National Forest have site-specific Best Management Practices. Notices of intent, plans of operations, and prospecting permits may also have individual reclamation plans. Best Management Practices and reclamation plans provide vegetation, soil, and water conservation practices to mitigate potential adverse effects associated with mining activities. Many claims and approved mine operations are located along the toe and lower portion of the steep, highly erodible slopes adjacent to the floodplain of the Hassayampa River.

Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions The current conditions in the project area were shaped by natural processes and past human activities. Effects of past activities are reflected in the description of existing conditions for each resource as appropriate. Effects of ongoing and reasonably foreseeable activities are disclosed as part of the cumulative effect’s discussion for each resource as appropriate. In order to have cumulative effects, the effects of activities must overlap in space and time; therefore, each resource may have a different set of past, present and reasonably foreseeable actions associated with it. Table 8 lists past, present and ongoing projects that were considered during the cumulative effect’s analysis for this project.

Table 8. Past, present and ongoing projects considered during the cumulative effect's analysis

Type of Activity Past Activities/Events Present Activities Future Activities Wildfire/ Fire • Historically fires were part • None • Manage wildland fire to suppression of the chaparral and pine restore and maintain ecosystems. In 2002, the the natural fire regime Indian Fire burned 1,345 of affected Potential acres, although ash and Natural Vegetation sediment from that fire Types. affected the Hassayampa River, it’s highly unlikely that those affects are still measurable.

Type of Activity Past Activities/Events Present Activities Future Activities Prescribed Fire • Since 2015, there has been • None • Up to 2,000 acres per about 4,000 acres of year under Bradshaw prescribed fire under the Vegetation Bradshaw Vegetation EA, Management including the Payoff; Ponderosa Park, and Crooks burns. Mastication • None • None • Up to 500 acres under Bradshaw Vegetation Management per year • Up to 1,000 acres under Hassayampa Landscape Restoration Timber/Fuelwood • Historic tree cutting for • Current non- • Anticipate ongoing building communities, mechanized fuel commercial thinning to mining structures, and reduction treatments improve forest health. firewood resulted in even- include Spence Basin • Planned non- aged stands. Fire hand thinning of 250 mechanized fuel suppression led to overly acres (Bradshaw reduction treatments dense stands, thick ladder Vegetation include X acres in fuels, and severe fire risk. Management). FY17 and FY18 • Since 1997, there have (Bradshaw Vegetation been 4,421 acres of Management). commercial thinning. • Since X, there have been X acres of non-mechanized fuels reduction (Boundary and Bradshaw Vegetation Management EAs). Livestock grazing • Significant numbers of • Numbers have been • Maintaining structural livestock (cattle, sheep, significantly reduced range improvements: and horses) were beginning in the 1960s stock tanks, springs, introduced to the region by • Grazing allowed in wells and pipelines, travelers and settlers in accordance with fences, and stock 1880s. current Allotment trails, • Authorize Road Use Management Plans & • Maintaining roads as Permits for some Road Use Permits needed and permittees to maintain authorized. roads to access structural range improvements.

Type of Activity Past Activities/Events Present Activities Future Activities Recreational activities • Ongoing recreational use • Continuation of past • Continuation of past within the project area and present includes: . Dispersed camping 300-feet either side of centerline of select National Forest Service Roads; • Hiking, rock climbing, horse riding, mountain biking, four-wheel drive and OHV riding, and recreational shooting in the project area Trail maintenance activities on trails (ranging from less than a mile to miles in length); this includes motorized trails and non- motorized trails. Roads, utility right-or- • Prescott National Forest • Continuation of past • Continuation of past ways, land development established designated and present and land exchanges road system and restricted • New roads may be cross-country motorized, constructed for mineral compliant with the 2005 claim access Travel Management Rule. • Communication Site or • Forest Service System Corridor application road maintenance request(s) (ongoing)

• Occasional requests for new or improved road access to mining claims Mining • Many historic mines, • There are over 1,000 • The PNF has received abandoned/inactive mines active mining claims up to 6 proposals • Both placer and lode forest-wide filed with involving placer mining took place for the the Bureau of Land (production phase) extraction of gold and silver Management. A small and exploration as the main two percent is mined activities within the commodities. and/or filed with the Bradshaw Ranger PNF under a plan of District. operations for placer activities. Schist and decomposed granite removal are approved under a mineral material contract (both in Bradshaw Ranger District).

Cumulative Effects

Mining and Minerals

A revised Plan of Operations and a new Reclamation Plan have been developed for the project. The Proposed Action would contribute to the incremental disturbance of past, present, and future activities in the area by permanently mining placer gold disseminated in up to 80 acres of terrace

gravels at the Riverbend site. Considered cumulatively with other mining operations in the project vicinity, the Proposed Action would result in a minor adverse impact in the cumulative effects analysis area.

Biological Resources

The Proposed Action would add to the incremental disturbance of up to 90 acres of interior chaparral, including Philip’s Agave habitat, and 3 acres of riparian habit within the Bradshaw Ranger District. Considered together with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects described in Table 1, cumulative impacts to biological resources would be minor based on the relatively small amount of disturbance and the available similar habitat in the region. Because there are no impacts to Federally listed threatened or endangered species, the Proposed Action would have no cumulative impact on Federally listed species.

CHAPTER 4: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

LIST OF PREPARERS

U.S.D.A Forest Service

Sarah Clawson, Bradshaw District Ranger, Prescott National Forest Angela Gatto, Project Manager, Enterprise Program Amy Torres, Project Manager, Enterprise Program Frances Alvarado, Geologist, Prescott National Forest Keith Pohl, Project Manager, Intermountain LLC Chad Hermandorfer, Hydrologist, Enterprise Program Francisco Anaya, Ecologist/Botanist, Prescott National Forest Noel Fletcher, Wildlife Biologist, Prescott National Forest John Rose, Forest Archaeologist, Prescott National Forest Dave Moore, Soils Scientist, Prescott National Forest

LIST OF FEDERAL AND STATE AGENCIES CONSULTED Arizona Game & Fish Department U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arizona Ecological Services

LIST OF TRIBES CONSULTED

Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation Hopi Tribe Hualapai Tribe Tonto Apache Tribe Yavapai Apache Nation Yavapai Prescott Indian Tribe

CHAPTER 5: REFERENCES

Arizona Geological Survey. 2013. The Geologic Map of Arizona. Website http://data.azgs.az.gov/geologic-map-of-arizona/#. Accessed August 15, 2017. Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD). 2017a. On-line environmental review tool. Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, Arizona. Website: http://www.AGFD.gov/hgis. Accessed: October 8, 2017. AGFD. 2017b. Letter Response: Notice of Public Scoping – Pine Creek Mining, Inc. Proposed Placer Mine – Plan of Operations. Arizona Game and Fish Department. August 4, 2017. Arizona Important Bird Areas Program (ABIAP). 2017. Arizona Important Bird Areas. National Audubon Society. Website: http://aziba.org/?page_id=770. Accessed February 20, 2017.

Baker, M. 2014. Viability Analyses for Vascular Plant Species within Prescott National Forest, Arizona. Prepared as Forest Plan Revision Environmental Impact Statement. Website: www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprd3821419.pdf. Accessed: 24 July 2017. Brown, D.E. 1994. Biotic Communities of the Southwest. Southwestern United States and Northwestern Mexico. University of Arizona Press, Salt Lake City, Utah. Chronic, H. 1983. Roadside Geology of Arizona. Mountain Press Publishing Company, Missoula, Montana.

Gottfried, G. J., Swetnam, T. W., Allen, C. D., Betancourt, J. L. and Chung-MacCoubrey, A. L. 1995. Pinyon-juniper woodlands. In Ecology, Diversity and Sustainability of the Middle Rio Grande Basin pp. 95-132. Fort Collins, CO: USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, General Technical Report RM-268.

Hendricks, D.M. 1985. Arizona Soils. Centennial Publication of the College of Agriculture, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona.

Hodgson, W.C. 2001. Flora of North America. Novan, 11:410.

Hoffmeister, D.F. 1986. Mammals of Arizona. University of Arizona Press and Arizona Game and Fish Department, Tucson, Arizona. 602pp.

Latta, M.J., C.J. Beardmore, and T.E. Corman. 1999. Arizona Partners in flight Bird Conservation Plan. Version 1.0 Nongame and Endangered Wildlife, Technical Report 142. Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, Arizona. 331pp. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2017. Soil Map – Yavapai County, Arizona, Western Part. Website http:// http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov. Accessed February 16, 2017. NatureServe. 2017. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Website: http://explorer.natureserve.org. Accessed: 24 July 2017.

Richard, S. M., Reynolds, S.J., Spencer, J. E., and Pearthree, P. A., 2000, Geologic Map of Arizona: Arizona Geological Survey Map 35, 1 sheet, scale 1:1,000,000.

Stage, Daniel B. 2011. Technical Report on Gold Basin Placer Mine, Yavapai County, Arizona, USA, Pine Creek Mining, Inc.

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) 2005. Gold Basin Placer Mining Project Environmental Assessment

USDA. 2005. Record of Decision and Final Environmental Impact Statement for Integrated Treatment of Noxious or Invasive Weeds. Coconino, Kaibab, and Prescott National Forests within Coconino, Gila, Mojave, and Yavapai Counties, Arizona.

USDA. 2007. Forest Service Manual 2800 – Minerals and Geology. USDA Forest Service National Headquarters, Washington, DC.

USDA. 2009. Prescott National Forest. Ecological Sustainability Report. USDA. 2011. Prescott National Forest. Migratory Bird Species for the Prescott National Forest. USDA. 2012. Review and Assessment of Programs for Invasive Species Management in the Southwestern Region, 2012. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southwestern Region. 33pp.

USDA. 2015. Land and Resource Management Plan for the Prescott National Forest. USDA Forest Service Southwestern Region, June 2015.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2017. Trust Resources List of Threatened and Endangered Species. Information, Planning, and Conservation (iPaC) decision support system. Website http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/. Accessed October 8, 2017. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2008.Geologic Map of the Prescott National Forest and the Headwaters of the Verde River, Yavapai and Coconino Counties, Arizona. Ed DeWitt, Victoria Langenheim, Eric Force, R.K. Vance, P.A. Lindberg, and R.L. Driscoll.

U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP). 2009. Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States: Southwest Region. Website: https://nca2009.globalchange.gov/ southwest/index.html. Accessed, December 14, 2017. Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC). 2017a. Walnut Grove, Arizona (029166). Website: https://wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?az9166. Accessed November 16, 2017.

WRCC. 2017b. Skull Valley, Arizona (027965). Website: https://wrcc.dri.edu/cgi- bin/cliMAIN.pl?az7965. Accessed November 16, 2017.

Wilson, E.D. 1961. Gold Placers and Placering in Arizona. The Arizona Geological Survey, Tucson, AZ (reprinted 1981 and 1988).