DOCSLIB.ORG

Tertiary Gold-Bearing Channel Gravel in Northern Nevada County, California

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Tertiary Gold-Bearing Channel Gravel in Northern Nevada County, California GEOLOGICAL SURVEY CIRCULAR 566 Tertiary Gold-Bearing Channel Gravel in Northern Nevada County, California Tertiary Gold-Bearing Channel Gravel in· Northern Nevada County, California By Donald W. Peterson, Warren E. Yeend Howard W .. Oliver, and Robert E. Mattick G E 0 l 0 G I C A l 5 U R V E Y C I R C U l A R 566 Washington 1968 United States Department of the Interior WALTER J. HICKEL, Secretary Geological Survey William T. Pecora, Director first printing 1968 Second printing 1968 Third printing 1970 Free on application to the U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C. 20242 CONTENTS Page Page Abstract --------------- 1 Geophysical investigations of the channel Geology of the channel gravel, by gravel--Continued Donald W. Peterson and Warren E. Instrumentation and field procedures- -- 12 Yeend -------------- 1 Determination of bedrock configura- Introduction - -. ---- 1 tion -------- 12 Previous work ---- 2 Seismic method - 12 Acknowledgments -- 3 Gravity method -- 13 General geology- --- 3 Magnetic method ----- 13 Bedrock ------------ 3 Resistivity method 13 Auriferous gravel- -- 3 Electromagnetic method 13 Volcanic rocks --- 8 Induced-polarization method - 16 Colluvium- ---- 8 Detection of Tertiary channels under Tertiary channel near North Columbia -- 8 volcanic cover ---------- 17 Configuration of the channel ------ 9 Recognition and delineation of the ·- Grade and distribution of gold ----- 9 blue gravel ------------- 17 Geophysical investigations of the channel Location of concentrations of magnetic gravel, by Howard W. Oliver and minerals ---- ------ ·· - 19 Robert E. Mattick -- 11 Conclusions --- 19 Introduction ----- 11 References cited- -- 22 Acknowledgments- 12 ILLUSTRATIONS Page Figure L. Index map showing location of area studied --------- - - ----- - 2 2. Geologic map of part of area between the South and Middle Yuba Rivers ------ 4 3. Diagram showing inferred path followed by the Tertiary Yuba River --- 6 4. Diagrammatic section across an idealized Tertiary channel ------- 7 5. Detailed geologic map showing location of hydraulic pits and drill holes in the Tertiary gravel in the vicinity of North Columbia and Badger Hill- ------ 9 6. Subsurface contour map of bottom of channel near North Columbia as indicated by drill holes ---------------------------------- 10 7. Cross section of channel near North Columbia as indicated by one line of drill holes --------------------------------- 10 8. Contour map of the foot-assay product as indicated by drilling information 11 9. Seismic, resistivity, gravity, magnetic, and electromagnetic data and the interpreted geologic section along A-A' (figs. 2 and 5) and gold values --- 15 10. Resistivity soundings and interpreted layers at R 1 and R1 1 near profile A-A' (fig. 9) --------------------------------------- 16 1L. Geologic section, resistivity data, and seismic traveltimes along B-li' (fig. 2) - 18 12. Electromagnetic survey of Badger Hill diggings --------------------- 20 13. Magnetic, electromagnetic, induced-polarization, and geologic data along ..C.-.k' (figs. 2, 5, and 12), Badger Hill diggings ----------------------- 21 Ill Tertiary Gold-Bearing Channel Gravel in Northern Nevada County California By Donald W. Peterson, Warren E: Yeend, Howard W. Oliver and Robert E. Mattick Abstract delineate concentrations of magnetic material. The us:-fulness of resistivity methods appears from this study to be quite restricted The remains of a huge Tertiary gravel-filled channel lie in the because of irregular topography and the variable conductivity of area between the South and i\tiddle Yuba Rivers m northern Nevada layers within the gravel. County, Calif. The deposits in this channel were the site of some of the most producnve hydraulic gold mines m Calif(!rnia between the GEOLOGY OF THE CHANNEL GRAVEL 1850's and 1884. By Donald W. Peterson and Warren E. Yeend The gravel occupies a major ·channel and parts of several tributaries that in Tertiary tlme cut into a surface of Paleozoic and Mesozoic 1gneous and metamorphic rocks. The gravel is partly INTRODUCTION covered by the remains of an extensive sheet of volcanic rocks, but it crops out along the broad crest of the r 1dge between the canyons Some of the largest and most productive mines in of the South and Middle Yuba Rivers. The lower parts of the gravel deposits generally carry the h1ghest values of placer gold. Tradi­ California operated in the Tertiary gold-bearing tionally. the richest deposits of all are found in the so-called blue gravels between the South and Middle Yuba Piver s, gravel, which, when present, lies just above the bedrock and con­ Nevada County, Calif. These mines were in coeration sists of a very coarse, poorly sorted mixture of cobbles, pebbles, from the late 1850's until 1884, when a court decision sand, and clay. It is unoxidized, and, at least locally. contains appreciable quantities of secondary sulfide minerals, chiefly halted the dumping of debris into streams tributary to pynte. the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers. Thereafter, Information in drill logs from private sources indicates that a small hydraulic mines operated sporadically, and the 2 -mile stretch of the channel near North Columbia contains over high-grade deposits just above bedrock were mined half a ~illion ounces of gold dispersed through about 22 million locally by underground methods, but product:on from cubic yards of gravel at a grade averaging about 81 cents per the gravels never again reached the pre-18134 level. cubic yard. The deposit is buried. at depths ranging from 100 to 400 feet. The region is being studied to learn the extent of Several geophysical methods have been tested for their feasibility possible gold deposits remaining in plac~ and to in determming the configuration of the buried bedrock surface, in develop methods for establishing the location and size delineating channel gravel buried under volcanic rocks, and in of gravel deposits that may lie undiscovered beneath identifying concentrations of heavy minerals within the gravel. younger rocks. This report is preliminary an·i briefly Although the data have not yet been completely processed, pre­ liminary conclusions indicate that some methods may be quite use­ summarizes the results of current geological and geo­ ful. A combination of seismic-refraction and gravity methods was physical studies of the gravels in the area shown in used to determine the depth and configuration of the bottom of the figure 1. The work was done as part of tl·~ Heavy channel to an accuracy within 10 percent as checked by the drill Metals program of the U.S. Geological Survey. holes. Seismic-refraction methods have identified depressions which are in the bedrock surface, below volcanic rocks, and which One particularly attractive area, long recognized may be occupied by gravels. Seismic methods, however, cannot as representing a large, only partly exploited block of actually recognize the presence of low-velocity gravels beneath the higher v e 1o city volcanic rocks. Electromagnetic methods, ground, lies between North Columbia and Bacqer Hill supplemented in part by induced-polarization methods, show (Lindgren, 1911, p. 139; MacBoyle, 1919, p .. 48, 50, promise of being able to recognize and trace blue gravel buried 100; Haley, 1923, p. 118; Averill, 1946, p. 266-267). less than 200 feet deep. A broad vague magnetic anomaly across Drilling records in the files of the property owners the channel suggests that more prec1se magnetic studies might Figure 1.--Index map of part of northern California showing location of report area (shaded). indicate that a 2-mile stretch of channel within this reports draw heavily on Lindgren for much of their block· contains a placer deposit of over half a million basic in formation. The area covered b? this report is ounces of gold dispersed through about 22 million cubic inc 1 u de d in maps by Lindgren and Turner (1895), yards of gravel at a grade that averages about 81 cents Lindgren (1900), and Burnett and Jennin-;s (1962). Sum­ per cubic yard. This deposit is bur i e d at depths of maries of local information on the gravels and the from 100 to 400 feet by gravels containing gold values mines in Nevada County are given by Mac Boyle ( 1919) of just a few cents a yard.!/ and Logan (1941, p. 431-436). General information on the geology of the Tertiary gravels and their exploita­ Previous Work tion is given by Haley (1923), Averill (1946), and Jenkins ( 1946). Jarman ( 1927) reports on the feasibility The classic geologic studies of the Tertiary gravels of resuming hydraulic mining and citef' figures on re­ of the Sierra Nevada are those by Whitney (1880) and serves. An excellent brief summary of the Tertiary Lindgren (1911); most of the subsequent published channels is given by Clark ( 1965). A sum m a r y of the geology of the Sierra Nevada by Bat~man and :!./ \11 values cited in this report are based on a price of $35 Wahrhaftig (1966) provides a compreh.>nsive discus­ per ounce for gold. sion of the geologic framework of the Tertiary gravel.· 2 Acknowledgments morphic rocks and brings serpentine into contact with them. The volcanic rocks capping the ridge, however. The interest and cooperation of property owners are not offset by the fault (fig. 2). throughout the area are gratefully acknowledged. The San Juan Gold Co., D. R. Schiffner, Harold Helland, Auriferous Gravel M. J. Meredith, the Coughlan brothers, Herbert Jeffries, C. R. Echlin, and E. J. Colley have granted Gravel deposited by a major river system crops out access to their lands and operations and have offered on the divide between the Middle and South Yuba Rivers valuable suggestions and information. Special thanks and is p e r'c he d 500 to 1,000 feet above the present are extended to the San Juan Gold Co. for permission major streams. Although large sections of the old river to exam in e and use information in their files. The channel have been removed by erosion, the path of the California State Division of Beaches and Parks, the ancient river can be reconstructed with reasonable California State ivision of Forestry, and the U.S.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Mining's Toxic Legacy
    Mining’s Toxic Legacy An Initiative to Address Mining Toxins in the Sierra Nevada Acknowledgements _____________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ The Sierra Fund would like to thank Dr. Carrie Monohan, contributing author of this report, and Kyle Leach, lead technical advisor. Thanks as well to Dr. William M. Murphy, Dr. Dave Brown, and Professor Becky Damazo, RN, of California State University, Chico for their research into the human and environmental impacts of mining toxins, and to the graduate students who assisted them: Lowren C. McAmis and Melinda Montano, Gina Grayson, James Guichard, and Yvette Irons. Thanks to Malaika Bishop and Roberto Garcia for their hard work to engage community partners in this effort, and Terry Lowe and Anna Reynolds Trabucco for their editorial expertise. For production of this report we recognize Elizabeth “Izzy” Martin of The Sierra Fund for conceiving of and coordinating the overall Initiative and writing substantial portions of the document, Kerry Morse for editing, and Emily Rivenes for design and formatting. Many others were vital to the development of the report, especially the members of our Gold Ribbon Panel and our Government Science and Policy Advisors. We also thank the Rose Foundation for Communities and the Environment and The Abandoned Mine Alliance who provided funding to pay for a portion of the expenses in printing this report. Special thanks to Rebecca Solnit, whose article “Winged Mercury and
    [Show full text]
  • Summary of Results of Charitable Solicitation Campaigns Conducted by Commercial Fundraisers in Calendar Year 2016
    SUMMARY OF RESULTS OF CHARITABLE SOLICITATION CAMPAIGNS CONDUCTED BY COMMERCIAL FUNDRAISERS IN CALENDAR YEAR 2016 XAVIER BECERRA Attorney General State of California SUMMARY OF RESULTS OF CHARITABLE SOLICITATION BY COMMERCIAL FUNDRAISERS FOR YEAR ENDING 2016 (Government Code § 12599) TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGES SUMMARY 1 - 5 TABLE SUBJECT/TITLE 1 ALPHABETICAL LISTING BY CHARITABLE ORGANIZATION 2 LISTING BY PERCENT TO CHARITY IN DESCENDING ORDER 3 THRIFT STORE OPERATIONS – GOODS PURCHASED FROM CHARITY 4 THRIFT STORE OPERATIONS – MANAGEMENT FEE/COMMISSION 5 VEHICLE DONATIONS – ALPHABETICAL BY CHARITABLE ORGANIZATION 6 COMMERCIAL COVENTURERS – ALPHABETICAL BY CHARITABLE ORGANIZATION California Department of Justice November 2017 SUMMARY Every year Californians provide generous support to a wide array of charities, either directly or through commercial fundraisers that charities hire to solicit donations on their behalf. The term “commercial fundraiser” refers generally to a person or corporation that contracts with a charity, for compensation, to solicit funds. The commercial fundraiser charges either a flat fee or a percentage of the donations collected. By law, commercial fundraisers are required to register with the Attorney General’s Registry of Charitable Trusts and file a Notice of Intent before soliciting donations in California. For each solicitation campaign conducted, commercial fundraisers are then required to file annual financial disclosure reports that set forth total revenue and expenses incurred. This Summary Report is prepared from self-reported information contained in the annual financial disclosure reports filed by commercial fundraisers for 2016 and includes statistics for donations of both cash and used personal property (such as clothing and vehicles) for the benefit of charity. Only information from complete financial reports received before October 20, 2017 is included.
    [Show full text]
  • North Bloomfield Gravel Mining Co. Records: Finding Aid
    http://oac.cdlib.org/findaid/ark:/13030/tf2f59n5kg No online items North Bloomfield Gravel Mining Co. Records: Finding Aid Processed by The Huntington Library staff; supplementary encoding and revision supplied by Xiuzhi Zhou and Diann Benti. The Huntington Library, Art Collections, and Botanical Gardens Manuscripts Department 1151 Oxford Road San Marino, California 91108 Phone: (626) 405-2129 Email: [email protected] URL: http://www.huntington.org © 2000 The Huntington Library. All rights reserved. North Bloomfield Gravel Mining mssHM 51035-51130 1 Co. Records: Finding Aid Overview of the Collection Title: North Bloomfield Gravel Mining Co. Records Dates (inclusive): 1890-1891 Collection Number: mssHM 51035-51130 Creator: North Bloomfield Gravel Mining Company. Extent: 96 pieces in 1 box Repository: The Huntington Library, Art Collections, and Botanical Gardens. Manuscripts Department 1151 Oxford Road San Marino, California 91108 Phone: (626) 405-2129 Email: [email protected] URL: http://www.huntington.org Abstract: This collection consists primarily of letters from the secretary to the president of the North Bloomfield Gravel Mining Company of Nevada County, California, in 1890-1891 related to the company and hydraulic mining. Language: English. Access Open to qualified researchers by prior application through the Reader Services Department. For more information, contact Reader Services. Publication Rights The Huntington Library does not require that researchers request permission to quote from or publish images of this material, nor does it charge fees for such activities. The responsibility for identifying the copyright holder, if there is one, and obtaining necessary permissions rests with the researcher. Preferred Citation [Identification of item]. North Bloomfield Gravel Mining Co.
    [Show full text]
  • Executive Summary
    Mining’s Toxic Legacy An Initiative to Address Mining Toxins in the Sierra Nevada Executive Summary Published March 2008 by The Sierra Fund The Sierra Fund’s Initiative to address legacy mining pollution has been made possible by the support of: The California Endowment The Richard and Rhoda Goldman Fund and True North Foundation Executive Summary ________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Is human health, water quality or the environment at risk from historic mining toxins? The Gold Rush changed California demographics as indigenous people were dislocated and mining towns appeared and disappeared across the Sierra Nevada Mountains. A less recognized consequence of the California Gold Rush was the massive environmental destruction that took place, which still plagues the Sierra today. Working with partners from state, federal, and tribal governments as well as from the academic, health, and environmental communities, The Sierra Fund’s report “Mining’s Toxic Legacy” is the first comprehen- sive evaluation of what happened during the Gold Rush, including: the cultural, health, and environmental impacts of this era; the obstacles that lie in the way of addressing these impacts; and a strategic plan for taking action on the longest neglected environmental problem in the Golden State of California. The California Gold Rush clawed out of the foothills of the Sierra Nevada considerable gold—93 tons or 2.7 million troy ounces in the peak year of 1853 alone... In the course of doing so, everything in the region and much downstream was ravaged. Wildlife was decimated. Trees were cut down to burn for domestic and industrial purposes and to build the huge mining infrastructure that was firmly in place by the 1870s.
    [Show full text]
  • Scoping Comments of the San Juan Ridge Taxpayers Association (SJRTA)
    COM MENTS OF THE SAN JUAN RIDGE TAXPAYERS ASSOCIATION ON THE PROPOSED SAN JUAN RIDGE MINE Submitted to the Nevada County Planning Department December 4, 2012 Sacramento Bee, December 31, 1997. TABLE OF CONTENTS I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .....................................................................................................1 II. BACKGROUND.....................................................................................................................4 III. OUR LOCAL ENVIRONMENT ........................................................................................8 A. SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT ........................................................................................................8 B. ECOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT .............................................................................................10 IV. COMPLIANCE WITH CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT .........14 A. THE EIR MUST CLEARLY DESCRIBE THE PROPOSED PROJECT; CEQA DEMANDS AN ACCURATE, STABLE AND FINITE PROJECT DEFINITION THAT ADDRESSES THE “WHOLE OF THE ACTION” UNDER REVIEW. ...........................................................................................................14 1. The Proposed Action Should Be Described in a Manner that Provides for Full Disclosure and Evaluation of Potentially Significant Impacts ..............................................15 2. Additional Information Is Needed ..................................................................................19 B. CEQA REQUIRES IDENTIFICATION OF POTENTIALLY “SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS
    [Show full text]
  • Section 3 Existing Environment
    Yuba County Water Agency Narrows Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No. 1403 SECTION 3 EXISTING ENVIRONMENT In addition to this introductory information, this section is divided into two subsections. Section 3.1 provides a general description of the river basin in which the Project occurs. Section 3.2 provides existing, relevant and reasonably available information regarding the resources. 3.1 General Description of the River Basin 3.1.1 Existing Water Projects in the Yuba River Basin Sixteen existing water projects occur in the Yuba River Basin. Eight of the water projects are licensed or exempt from licensing by FERC. Together, these eight projects have a combined FERC-authorized capacity of 782.1 MW, of which the Narrows Hydroelectric Project has approximately 1.5 percent of the total capacity. The remaining eight non-FERC-licensed projects do not contain generating facilities. Each of these water projects is described briefly below. 3.1.1.1 Narrows Hydroelectric Project The existing Narrows Hydroelectric Project is described in detail in Section 2 of this PAD. 3.1.1.2 Upstream of the Narrows Hydroelectric Project 3.1.1.2.1 South Feather Power Project The 117.5-MW South Feather Power Project, FERC Project No. 2088, is a water supply/power project constructed in the late 1950s/early 1960s and is owned and operated by the South Feather Water and Power Agency (SFWPA). None of the project facilities or features is located in the Yuba River watershed except for the Slate Creek Diversion Dam, which is located on a tributary to the North Yuba River.
    [Show full text]
  • September 14, 2012 File No. 11002A Electronically Filed Honorable
    September 14, 2012 File No. 11002A Electronically Filed Honorable Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 888 First Street, NE Washington, DC 20426 SUBJECT: Drum-Spaulding Project, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Project No. 2310- 193 Yuba-Bear Hydroelectric Project, Nevada Irrigation District, Project No. 2266-102 REPLY COMMENTS of Placer County Water Agency on the California Department of Fish and Game’s Federal Power Act § 10(j) Recommendations Dear Secretary Bose: Pursuant to the Commission’s January 19, 2012 Notice Soliciting Motions to Intervene, Protests, Comments, and Recommendations, and the Commission’s February 29, 2012 Notice extending time to file motions to intervene and comments, Placer County Water Agency (PCWA) submits comments on the California Department of Fish and Game’s (CDFG) § 10(j) Recommendations for Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s (PG&E) Drum-Spaulding Project (FERC No. 2310)1 and Nevada Irrigation District’s (NID) Yuba-Bear Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 2266)2 filed on July 30, 2012. PCWA’s interest in the aforementioned projects and background information are 1 Response to Notice of Ready for Environmental Analysis FEDERAL POWER ACT SECTION 10(j) and 10(a) RECOMMENDATIONS Drum-Spaulding Hydroelectric Project (Project No. 2310-193) (Jul 30, 2012). eLibrary No. 20120730-5181. 2 Response to Notice of Ready for Environmental Analysis FEDERAL POWER ACT SECTION 10(j) and 10(a) RECOMMENDATIONS Yuba-Bear Hydroelectric Project (Project No. 2266-102) (Jul 30, 2012). eLibrary No. 20120730-5174. September 14, 2012 Page 2 explained in detail in its letters of intervention, filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) on July 30, 20123.
    [Show full text]
  • Abstract and Presentation by Steve Evans, Friends of the River
    PRESENTATION ABSTRACTS Reclaiming the Sierra Green $olutions to Abandoned Mines Reclaiming the Sierra: Green $olutions to Abandoned Mines May 3 - 5, 2012 Miners Foundry Nevada City, California Presented by THE SIERRA FUND INSTALLATION AND OPERATION OF A PASSIVE TREATMENT SYSTEM TO TREAT MINING INFLUENCED WATER FROM THE MAGENTA DRAIN PORTAL AT EMPIRE MINE STATE HISTORIC PARK, GRASS VALLEY, CA James Gusek, Lee Josselyn, William Agster, Steve Lofholm, and Daniel Millsap Abstract. Empire Mine State Historic Park (EMSHP) near Grass Valley, CA contains historic mine workings that flooded with ground water since the Empire Mine closed in 1957. Mining influenced water (MIW) perennially flows from portions of the underground workings via the Magenta Drain portal located near the northwest corner of the Park and into an unnamed channel. The MIW water has a neutral pH (no acid mine drainage), but contains elevated concentrations of iron, arsenic, manganese, and various other trace metals. Design treatment flows vary significantly from 20 gallons per minute to a maximum 100 year storm event level of 1,200 gallons per minute. Several active treatment alternatives were evaluated including traditional lime dosing and green sand; passive treatment technologies, including biochemical reactors were also considered. However, bench scale test results indicated that simple settling of suspended iron oxy-hydroxide (with co-precipitated arsenic) and passive aerobic precipitation of manganese oxide could meet regulatory mandated effluent limits. Passive treatment methods are economical, with lower initial capital costs, lower long term operations and maintenance costs and smaller carbon footprint than active treatment methods. Keeping with California’s Dept. of Parks and Recreation (DPR) Mission Statement, “to preserve the State’s extraordinary biological diversity and protecting its most valued natural and cultural resources,” the technology is green and sustainable which is critical since the passive treatment system (PTS) will, in principle, operate into perpetuity.
    [Show full text]
  • Sierra Nevada Ecoregional Plan
    SIERRA NEVADA ECOREGIONAL PLAN December 1999 Photo Courtesy Charles Webber Sierra Nevada Ecoregional Plan 2 Sierra Nevada Ecoregional Plan Sierra Nevada Ecoregional Plan: Craig Mayer Pam Weiant Larry Serpa Christine Tam Robin Cox Jim Gaither 201 Mission Street, 4th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 (415) 777-0487 3 Sierra Nevada Ecoregional Plan 4 Sierra Nevada Ecoregional Plan TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Ecoregional Plan A. Executive Summary ……………………………………………….. 7 B. Purpose ……………………………………………………… 9 C. Description of Ecoregion ……………………………………… 9 D. Conservation Issues ……………………………………………… 11 E. Data Sources and Management ……………………………… 11 F. Conservation Targets ……………………………………… 12 G. Conservation Goals ……………………………………………… 12 H. Portfolio Assembly ……………………………………………… 14 I. Portfolio Results ……………………………………………… 15 J. Evaluation of Conservation Lands ………………………………… 25 K. Functional Aggregations …………….……………………………… 25 L. Selecting Action Areas ……………………………………………… 26 2. Analysis and Results by Ecological Group A. Aquatic Systems ……………………………………………… 35 B. Riparian ……………………………………………………… 49 C. Foothill Woodlands ……………………………………………… 61 D. Chaparral ……………………………………………………… 67 E. Montane and Subalpine Coniferous Forests ……………………… 75 F. Interior Wetlands Meadow, and Aspen ……………………… 81 G. Alpine ……………………………………………………… 95 H. Desert Scrub and Woodland ……………………………………… 101 I. Isolated Rare Plants ……………………………………………… 107 J. Common and Widespread Communities ……………………… 111 3. References and Contacts ……………………………………………. 115 4. Appendices ……………………………………………………… 127 Appendix I. Conservation
    [Show full text]
  • Draft Revised Management Plan for the Sequoia National Forest (USDA 2016A); • Draft Revised Management Plan for the Sierra National Forest (USDA 2016B)
    Draft REVISED ‘INIMIM FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN Prepared for March 2018 U.S. Bureau of Land Management and Yuba Watershed Institute Prepared by Jo Ann Fites-Kaufman, PhD, Rebecca Robinson, MS, and Chris Friedel ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The preparation of this report was made possible by the generous support of the Bella Vista Foundation. Special thanks go to the Board of Directors of the Yuba Watershed Institute (Corinne Munger, Ann Hobbs, Bob Erickson, Kurt Lorenz, Gary Parsons, and Daniel Nicholson) for providing extensive comments and edits to earlier drafts, and to Jerry Tecklin for his detailed recollections of past treatments and uncommon plant populations. The data collection effort would not have been possible without the assistance of a stellar field crew, which included Rusty Fites-Kaufman, Casey Fites-Kaufman, and Nathaniel Van Order. TABLE OF CONTENTS Revised ‘Inimim Forest Management Plan 1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Background ................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Plan Overview ............................................................................................................... 3 2. ECOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK .............................................................................................. 5 2.1 Ecological Sustainability ................................................................................................ 5 2.2 Natural
    [Show full text]
  • Request for Rehearing of Order on Waiver of Water Quality Certification
    FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION ____________________________________ ) Yuba County Water Agency ) ) P-2246-065 Yuba River Development Project ) ____________________________________) FOOTHILL WATER NETWORK’S REQUEST FOR REHEARING OF ORDER ON WAIVER OF WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION Pursuant to Federal Power Act (FPA) section 313(a) and the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, see 18 C.F.R. § 385.713, the Foothills Water Network and its member organizations petition for rehearing of the “Order on Waiver of Water Quality Certification,” 171 FERC ¶ 61,029 (Order), issued in the relicensing of Yuba County Water Agency’s (YCWA) Yuba River Development Project (Project). At YCWA’s request, the Order finds that the California State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) waived its authority under section 401(a)(1) of the Clean Water Act (CWA)1 to issue water quality certification for the relicensing of the Project. This finding is based on the Commission’s recently adopted interpretation of the one-year deadline for a state to act on a request for water quality certification (§ 401 request) under CWA section 401. Under the Commission’s interpretation, a State waives its authority to certify an activity (§ 401 authority) if an applicant withdraws and resubmits a § 401 request and the State does not act on the withdrawn request within one year. This interpretation reverses the Commission’s longstanding position that an applicant’s withdrawal-and-resubmittal of a request triggers a new one-year period for the State to act. The Commission’s new interpretation of Section 401 is not supported by the statute or court precedent interpreting the statute, is an inequitable result under 1 33 U.S.C.
    [Show full text]
  • Yuba County Water Agency's Yuba River Development Project
    Yuba County Water Agency’s Yuba River Development Project Relicensing YUBA COUNTY WATER AGENCY Yuba County Water Agency (YCWA), located in Marysville, California, is a public agency formed in 1959 pursuant to California State law (Water Code § 20500 et with a capacity of 150 kilowatts at a flow of 5 cfs; (3) New Bullards Bar Minimum seq.). The provisions of the California Water Code, under which YCWA was Flow Transformer, located adjacent to the New Bullards Bar Minimum Flow formed (WC§§ 20500–29978; 22115), permit YCWA to generate, distribute and sell Powerhouse; and (4) appurtenant facilities and features including access roads electricity. within the FERC Project Boundary. YUBA RIVER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NARROWS 2 DEVELOPMENT consists of: (1) Narrows 2 Powerhouse Penstock is a single rock tunnel, concrete lined (20 ft diameter) at the upper 376 feet YCWA owns and operates the Yuba River Development Project, which is located in and steel lined (14 ft diameter) for the final 371.5 feet. The penstock has a Yuba County, California, on the Yuba River and its tributaries including the North maximum flow capacity of 3,400 cfs; (2) Narrows 2 Powerhouse, an indoor and Middle Yuba River and Oregon Creek. A portion of the area within the FERC powerhouse located at the base of the United States Army Corps of Engineer’s Project Boundary is located on federally-owned land managed by the United States (USACE) Englebright Dam. The powerhouse consists of one vertical axis Francis Department of Agriculture Forest Service as part of Plumas and Tahoe national turbine with a capacity of 55 MW at a head of 236 feet and flow of 3,400 cfs; (3) forests.
    [Show full text]