westside plantation project -...

Westside Plantation Project Geology Report

Signature on File Juan de la Fuente

Northern Province Geologist Region 5

USDA Forest Service

July 30, 2014

For:

South Fork Management Unit

Shasta-Trinity National Forest

Westside Plantation Project - Geology Report – July 30, 2014

Full Nondiscrimination Statement

Non-Discrimination Policy

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination against its customers, employees, and applicants for employment on the bases of race, color, national origin, age, disability, sex, gender identity, religion, reprisal, and where applicable, political beliefs, marital status, familial or parental status, sexual orientation, or all or part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program, or protected genetic information in employment or in any program or activity conducted or funded by the Department. (Not all prohibited bases will apply to all programs and/or employment activities.)

To File an Employment Complaint

If you wish to file an employment complaint, you must contact your agency's EEO Counselor (PDF) within 45 days of the date of the alleged discriminatory act, event, or in the case of a personnel action. Additional information can be found online at www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_file.html.

To File a Program Complaint

If you wish to file a Civil Rights program complaint of discrimination, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form (PDF), found online at www.ascr.usda.gov/ complaint_filing_cust.html, or at any USDA office, or call (866) 632-9992 to request the form. You may also write a letter containing all of the information requested in the form. Send your completed complaint form or letter to us by mail at U.S. Department of Agriculture, Director, Office of Adjudication, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, by fax (202) 690-7442 or email at [email protected].

Persons with Disabilities

Individuals who are deaf, hard of hearing or have speech disabilities and you wish to file either an EEO or program complaint please contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339 or (800) 845-6136 (in Spanish).

Persons with disabilities who wish to file a program complaint, please see information above on how to contact us by mail directly or by email. If you require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) please contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).

http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_file.html

http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html

http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html


Table of Contents 1 Summary of Effects ............................................................................................................................................................. 1

2 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................................... 1

3 Summary of Alternatives .................................................................................................................................................. 1

3.1 Alternative 1 – No Action ......................................................................................................................................... 1

3.2 Alternative 2 – Proposed Action ........................................................................................................................... 1

3.3 Alternative 3 – Reduced Short Term Watershed Impacts ......................................................................... 2

3.4 Alternatives not Considered in Detail ................................................................................................................ 2

4 Resource Protection Measures for Geology .............................................................................................................. 2

5 Affected Environment ........................................................................................................................................................ 2

5.1 Bedrock Geology and Geomorphology ............................................................................................................... 5

5.2 Previous Events and Trends ................................................................................................................................... 5

5.3 Placeholder .................................................................................................................................................................... 6

5.4 Geologic Special Interest Areas ............................................................................................................................. 6

6 Environmental Consequences ........................................................................................................................................ 6

6.1 Methods .......................................................................................................................................................................... 6

6.2 Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects ............................................................................................................ 6

6.2.1 Alternative 1 – No Action ................................................................................................................................ 6

6.2.2 Alternative 2 – Proposed Action .................................................................................................................. 6

6.2.3 Alternative 3 – Reduced Short Term Watershed Impacts .............................................................. 10

7 Monitoring Recommendations ..................................................................................................................................... 10

8 Existing Information Used for this Report .............................................................................................................. 10

Bibliography ............................................................................................................................................................................ 11

Appendix I................................................................................................................................................................................. 12

Regulatory Framework for Geology ......................................................................................................................... 12

2880.11 – Statutory Authority .................................................................................................................................... 12

2880.12 – Executive Orders ......................................................................................................................................... 14

Other Management Directives .................................................................................................................................... 14


List of Tables Table 1 - Alternative 2 ........................................................................................................................................................... 9

Table 2 - Alternative 3 ........................................................................................................................................................... 9

Table 3 - Alternative 3 ........................................................................................................................................................... 9

List of Maps Map 1 - Bedrock ....................................................................................................................................................................... 3

Map 2 - Geomorphic Features ............................................................................................................................................ 4


1

1 Summary of Effects • Alternative 1- No Action: The No-Action alternative would have no new direct,

indirect, or cumulative effects, and would maintain the current environment and future trends. This would include potential high fuel loading. There would be no new disturbance to soil from roads, landings or yarding activity.

• Alternative 2- Proposed Action: There would be very small short term (10 years) adverse effect associated with removal of trees, tractor piling, opening of currently closed roads and landings, and building of new landings. Counteracting this, there would be long term beneficial effects associated with the thinning and fuel reduction which include reduced potential for large, high severity wildfire, and development of more vigorous trees which would provide improved root support and evapotranspiration in the long term. Application of Resource Protection Measures for geology would reduce the potential for project-related landsliding to extremely low levels.

Alternative 3 Reduce Short Term Impacts: This alternative would have slightly smaller short term adverse effects associated with ground disturbance and removal of trees, and opening of temporary roads (none are opened2 Introduction The Westside Plantation project area is located approximately 7 air miles west of Hayfork, CA. The Geologic Resource Protection Measures follow applicable management directives (Appendix I). See the Westside Plantation Project Environmental Assessment (EA) for additional details on the location, purpose and need, and Proposed Action along with Alternatives for the project.

3 Summary of Alternatives The summary of each alternative focuses on proposed actions relevant to resource geology. Refer to the EA for the complete text of each alternative and the table for acreage comparisons.

3.1 Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative 1 is the No-Action alternative. This alternative involves no new activities and provides a reference to evaluate the potential effects of Alternatives 1, 3 and 4. See the 5 Affected Environment section for the existing environment and expected trends.

3.2 Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Alternative 2, the Proposed Action, was designed to meet the purpose and need for action as described in the EA. This alternative proposes about 2,239 acres of commercial plantation thinning, and 3,294 acres of non commercial plantation thinning. Additional fuel treatment would occur in commercial units, mastication, machine piling, and hand work. Primary goals of thinning are to reduce overcrowding and associated chances of disease, insect outbreak, and stand replacing fire, while enhancing habitat conditions. Refer to the Alternative Comparison Table, and the EA for additional details about the Alternative.


2

3.3 Alternative 3 – Reduced Short Term Watershed Impacts Alternative 3 was designed in response to concerns about watershed impacts brought up by the public during scoping. This alternative is different from the proposed action as follows:

1. Thinning in Riparian Reserves- It limits thinning in Riparian Reserves to hand work (no mechanical entry except on existing system roads).

2. Temporary Roads- No temporary roads would be used; 3. Secondary Fuel Treatment- No mechanical treatment (machine piling, mastication) would

be used, only hand treatments.

This alternative would involve 1,036 acres of commercial thinning of plantations, and 4,497 acres of non commercial thinning of plantations. Refer to the Alternative Comparison Table, and the EA for additional details about the Alternative.

3.4 Alternatives not Considered in Detail Refer to the EA for information on alternatives not considered in detail.

4 Resource Protection Measures for Geology

Resource protection measures for Geology are listed in the EA under Riparian Reserves, Soils and Hydrology, and Naturally Occurring Asbestos.

5 Affected Environment The affected environment is the existing environment. This section also discloses expected trends based on the existing environment. The No-Action alternative 2 would likely maintain these trends.


3

Map 1 - Bedrock


4

Map 2 - Geomorphic Features


5

5.1 Bedrock Geology and Geomorphology From west to east, the project area includes rocks of the Rattlesnake Creek, Galice, and South Fork Mountain Schist geologic terranes. Many granitic intrusive bodies are dispersed across the landscape (see bedrock map) Several proposed thinning units lie within the Bear Wallow Pluton in the Little Bear Wallow Creek watershed. The Rattlesnake Creek Terrane occupies the eastern 2/3 of the project area, and forms a broad, northwest-trending band. It contains numerous bodies of ultramafic rock dispersed throughout, along with a few very small marble outcrops (“Carbonate” on the bedrock map). The ultramafic rock is important because it can contain naturally occurring asbestos (chrysotile variety). The marble is important because it frequently contains caves and fossils.

Dormant landslides are common, and reactivated portions are capable of delivering large volumes of sediment to stream systems. Those in the project area are primarily deep seated slumps and earthflows, and are characterized by hummocky topography with steep but eroded head scarps, gentle flat benches, and steep toe zones. Root systems are generally well-above the basal slip surfaces of these deep landslides, and as a result, do not help stabilize them. However, large changes in evapotranspiration associated with tree removal can affect groundwater hydrology (making more water available) and facilitate reactivation of dormant landslides. Roads can trigger or activate larger deep-seated landslides (up to acres in size) by diverting water through stream capture, or with large cuts into the toe zones or large fills on the heads of such features (Sidle and Ochiai 2006). The geomorphic map (Map 2) displays a number of important geomorphic features in the project area. These include inner gorges, dormant landslides, and debris basins, among others.

The Northwest Forest Plan defines all active landslides and inner gorges as part of the Riparian Reserve. Active landslides are defined as having occurred within 400 years, or roughly the maximum age of a timber stand likely to occupy the site (USDA and USDI 1994). Indicators of active landsliding can include tension cracks in the surface, tilted trees, curved trees, unexpected wet areas or springs, sag ponds, and geomorphic features such as hollows and hummocky terrain (Chatwin, et al. 1994). Active landslides can be deep-seated or shallow. Deep-seated landslides are normally not initiated during a single rain event, but shallow slides may occur during a single rain event. However, antecedent moisture conditions may play a part in shallow landsliding (Sidle and Ochiai 2006).

Debris flows consist of water-charged slurries of rock, soil and organic material which travel rapidly down steep stream channels (15%-50%), and occasionally in channels as gentle as 5%. They can be triggered by shallow landslides, rapid introduction of sediment from rills and gullies, or mobilization of bed material under high flow conditions.

5.2 Previous Events and Trends The plantations being proposed for thinning and associated roads were established over the past 50 years or so, and there was a large wildfire event in 1987. The South Fork Trinity River experienced widespread landsliding during the major flood of 1964, during which huge volumes of sediment were delivered to the river. Subsequent to that, plantations been gradually growing, in


6

place, often creating densely spaced sapplings with continuous fuel from the forest floor up into the crowns. Sediment from the 1964 event has been working its way downstream, pushed by moderate flows, and smaller flood events, such as those in 1997 and 2006 delivered more sediment in the stream system.

5.3 Paleontologic Resources Some of the marble/limestone outcrops could contain fossils though none were observed in the course of field work.

5.4 Geologic Special Interest Areas There are no Geologic Special Interest Areas within the project area. The Natural Bridges Geologic Special Interest Area, consisting of a series of marble caves, lies about 12 miles to the east of the project area.

6 Environmental Consequences

6.1 Methods The Shasta-Trinity Forest’s Land and Resource Management Plan requires that unstable areas be evaluated as part of project planning. Furthermore, it requires that areas with a high probability of mass wasting from ground disturbing activities be protected.

A combination of reviewing Forest GIS layers for Geology and field sampling was done in order to evaluate and protect unstable areas. A number of proposed units and pre-existing, but unmaintained roads were walked to identify unstable areas. Rock types were observed to verify bedrock mapping available in the Forest’s GIS bedrock layer.

Direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the Proposed Action were analyzed. An analysis of effects relevant to geology for each activity was made. Cumulative effects temporally include 50 years in the past and 50 years in the future. The extent of the analysis includes the 7th field watersheds that intersect the project .

6.2 Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects

6.2.1 Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative 1, the No-Action alternative provides a background from which to analyze the other alternatives’ direct, indirect, and cumulative effects. The 5 Affected Environment section describes the existing condition and discloses trends that would be expected with the No-Action alternative. Trends of further growth of plantations with densely stocked trees and gradual fuel buildup would continue. Current landslide rates would continue, punctuated by periodic landslide and flood events.

6.2.2 Alternative 2 – Proposed Action The application of geologic resource protection measures would protect unstable lands and minimize direct, indirect, and cumulative effects associated with the Proposed Action.


7

Direct Effects

Falling and Yarding– Direct effects of falling and tractor yarding include physical disturbance to the soil, including compaction, associated with falling and removing trees with heavy equipment. Falling of trees can result in the knocking down and uprooting of adjacent trees in some situations.

Mastication- Direct effects of mastication include ground disturbances and grinding of woody material into smaller particles.

Machine Piling– Machine piling creates ground disturbance, and physical concentration of woody material. It can also cause compaction under certain soil moisture conditions.

Mastication/ Machine Piling in Commercial – Involves a combination of the effects described immediately above.

Reopening Existing Temporary Roads- Reopening of existing temporary roads would remove trees and brush. Maintenance and upgrading of existing roads would disturb the road surface and reroute surface runoff in a beneficial manner. All of the road and landing activities would have the potential to introduce dust into the air. Resource Protection Measures require consultation with the project Geologist on a case-by-case basis if potentially unstable or unstable conditions are encountered during road or landing construction. Measures also include minimizing cut and fills and draining any encountered subsurface water. Resource Protection Measures address areas underlain by ultramafic rock which could contain natural asbestos.

Constructing New Landings and Opening Existing Landings- Would: 1) remove remaining vegetation; 2) disturb soil/regolith; 3) on steeper ground, alter slopes through cuts and fills; 4) potentially reroute surface runoff; and 5) under dry conditions, introduce dust into the air.

Hand Fuel Treatments- Involves hand cutting and moving of woody material.

Burning Machine Piles –Would create small openings covered with ash and charred material.

Indirect Effects

Falling and Yarding– Indirect effects of ground disturbances from yarding can result in concentration of overland flow if furrows are created, or if the ground has been compacted. Such concentrated flow can accelerate erosion.

Mastication- Indirect effects of ground disturbance and compaction from mastication can include concentration of overland flow. However, the addition of fragmented woody material to the soil offsets this.

Machine Piling– Indirect effects of ground disturbance from machine piling can include concentration of overland flow in some situations.

Mastication/ Machine Piling in Commercial – Indirect effects of these two activities are described separately immediately above.


8

Reopening Existing Temporary Roads- Indirect effect of opening closed roads can be both positive and negative. On the one hand, existing surface drainage issues are corrected, but on the other, removal of vegetation can remove root support which may have been providing root support to older road fill material.

Constructing New Landings and Opening Existing Landings- Indirect effects of constructing new landings can include destabilizing natural slopes if cuts are large or creation of unstable fill if placed on steep slopes and not compacted. Resource protection measures are designed to prevent such occurrences.

Hand Fuel Treatments- Indirect effects of hand treating fuels include reduced potential for high severity fire.

Burning Machine Piles –Indirect effects include rapid runoff from small localized areas where the fire consumes all woody material, and reduces soil permeability.

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative Effects include incremental impacts of the action when added to other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless of who is taking the other actions. The current environmental conditions reflect the aggregate impact of all prior human actions and natural events that have affected the environment and might contribute to cumulative effects and are a proxy for the impacts of past actions. The spatial scale used for cumulative effects was HUC levels 5, 6, 7, and 8. This range of sizes allows focusing in on smaller watersheds as well as evaluating the broader picture. A temporal scale of 20 years in the past and 20 years in the future was used this is the time frame over which actions like thinning of plantations opening of existing roads, and constructing and restoring new landings would likely act. The ERA percentages and ERA risk values in Table 12 in the Westside Plantation Hydrology Report provide an indicator for landslide-related cumulative effects at HUC levels 5-8.

In general, adverse cumulative effects for the Proposed Action are anticipated to be very small and of short duration (less than 20 years) because no new roads are being built, new landings will be on gentle ground and away from unstable areas. Also, geology resource protection measures will protect unstable areas from ground disturbance and removal of excessive vegetation.

Tables 1 & 2 below (from the Westside Plantation Hydrology Report) provides a detailed tracking of percent equivalent roaded area for 7th and 5th field watersheds. The ERA model used to evaluate cumulative watershed effects in the Hydrology Report tracks disturbances such as roads, logging, and fire, and converts them to equivalent road area. Since these disturbances also affect landslide rates, the model outputs can be used as an indicator of the cumulative effects of project activities on landslide potential. Overall, with implementation of all resource protection measures in the EA – such as soils and hydrology – and this report (which restricts fill and cut heights on steep slopes), plus the correction of existing road drainage issues, the adverse cumulative effect of Alternative 2 would be very small.


9

Table 1 - Alternative 2

Alternative 2

% Equivalent Roaded Area (ERA)

Watershed Name Watershed

Acres 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Cave Creek-Swift Creek 9,538 6.4 6.4 7.0 7.3 7.2 Little Bear Wallow Creek-Hidden Valley 9,794 4.3 4.3 5.5 5.5 5.4 Miller Springs 6,994 7.3 7.3 10.0 10.5 10.1 Upper Plummer Creek 7,954 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.6 Lower Plummer Creek 8,269 9.8 9.8 10.2 10.6 10.5 Upper Indian Valley Creek 7,679 7.6 7.6 9.3 10.4 10.0 Lower Indian Valley Creek 5,926 8.0 8.0 8.2 8.2 8.2 Butter Creek Meadows 9,854 3.7 3.7 6.1 7.2 6.8 McClellan-South Fork Trinity River 6,955 2.0 2.0 2.9 3.4 3.5 Hitchcock Creek-Oak Flat 11,793 13.9 13.9 13.9 14.4 14.8

Modelled % ERA for Alternative 3 at the 5th-Field watershed scale. Note that the ERA Threshold of Concern (TOC) for this watershed is 14%. Table 2 - Alternative 3

Alternative 3



Acres 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Middle South Fork Trinity River 118,626 6.4 6.4 6.7 6.7 7.4

Modeled % ERA for Alternative 3 at the 7th-Field watershed scale. Note that TOC values are applicable to larger watersheds on the order of 6th- and 5th-Field Hydrologic Unit Codes per SHF LMP direction (Mai, personal communication). Table 3 - Alternative 3

Alternative 3



Acres 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Cave Creek-Swift Creek 9,538 6.4 6.4 6.6 6.6 6.6 Little Bear Wallow Creek-Hidden Valley 9,794 4.3 4.3 5.0 4.9 4.9 Miller Springs 6,994 7.3 7.3 9.0 8.7 8.6 Upper Plummer Creek 7,954 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.6 Lower Plummer Creek 8,269 9.8 9.8 9.8 9.8 9.8 Upper Indian Valley Creek 7,679 7.6 7.6 8.0 7.9 7.9 Lower Indian Valley Creek 5,926 8.0 8.0 8.1 8.0 8.0 Butter Creek Meadows 9,854 3.7 3.7 4.2 4.1 4.1 McClellan-South Fork Trinity River 6,955 2.0 2.0 2.4 2.6 2.9 Hitchcock Creek-Oak Flat 11,793 13.9 13.9 13.9 14.4 14.8


10

6.2.3 Alternative 3 – Reduced Short Term Watershed Impacts Direct, Indirect, and cumulative effects are very similar to the Proposed Action. By leaving temporary roads undisturbed, and slightly reducing commercial thinning area, the overall short term adverse effects would be slightly smaller.

7 Monitoring Recommendations • Implementation – Watershed personnel should work actively with Timber personnel to

monitor unit layout and marking.

• Effectiveness – Following project completion, a field review should be conducted (after activities have gone through one winter) to evaluate effectiveness of resource protection measures. Further monitoring should be done after storms known to cause landslides or debris flows. Results of effectiveness evaluations should guide future project planning and implementation.

• Landslide Movement- Geology personnel should track landslide movement, should any landslides activate following project implementation.

8 Existing Information Used for this Report

Shasta-Trinity National Forest Corporate GIS Library, including: Bedrock and geomorphology, wildfire and activities layers. Aerial and Satellite imagery, including: 2011 digital NAIP imagery.


11

Bibliography Ammann, Martin, Albert Böll, and Christian Rickli. "Significance of tree root decomposition for

shallow landslides." Forest Snow and Landscape Research, 2009: 74-94.

Chatwin, S.C., D.E. Howes, J.W. Schwab, and D.N. Swanston. A Guide for Management of Landslide-Prone Terrain in the Pacific Northwest. British Columbia Ministry of Forests, 1994.

Rose, Ed, and Juan De la Fuente. Fouts Spring Road 17N47: ERFO Site (Draft Report). Yreka: USFS, 2006.

Sidle, Roy C, and Hirotaka Ochiai. Landslides: Processes, Prediction, and Land Use. Washington, DC: American Geophysical Union, 2006.

Smith, Sheri L, and Daniel R Cluck. Marking Guidelines for Fire-Injured Trees in California. Vallejo: USDA Forest Service, 2011.

USDA and USDI. "Final environmental impact statement on management of habitat for late -successional and old growth forest related species within the range of the northern spotted owl, Volume 1." 1994.

USFS. Shasta-Trinity National Forest Bedrock Geology GIS Compilation Mapping. Vallejo, CA, 2011.

USFS. Shasta-Trinity National Forest Geomorphology GIS Compilation Mapping. Vallejo, CA, 2011b.


12

Appendix I: Regulatory Framework for Geology

2880.11 – Statutory Authority The following statutory authorities govern geologic resources and services activities essential to Forest Service programs:

1. Organic Administrative Act of June 4, 1897, as Amended (30 Stat. 34, as Supplemented and Amended; 16 U.S.C. 473-478, 482-482(a), 551. (FSM 2501.1.) This act authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to issue rules and regulations for the occupancy and use of the National forests. This is the basic authority for issuing special use permits for the collection of vertebrate paleontological resources for scientific and educational purposes on National Forest System lands.

2. Preservation of American Antiquities Act of June 8, 1906 (34 Stat. 225; 16 U.S.C. 431 et seq.). (FSM 2361.01.) This act authorizes permits for archeological and paleontological exploration involving excavation, removal, and storage of objects of antiquity or permits necessary for investigative work requiring site disturbance or sampling which results in the collection of such objects.

3. Federal Aid Highway Act (72 Stat. 913; 23 U.S.C. 305). This section of the United States Code allows federal funding for mitigation of archeological and paleontological resources recovered pursuant to Federal aid highway projects.

4. Multiple Use – Sustained Yield Act of June 12, 1960 (MUSY) (74 Stat. 215; 16 U.S.C. 528-531). (FSM 2501.1.) This act requires due consideration for the relative values of all resources and implies that the administration of nonrenewable resources must be considered.

5. Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of August 4, 1954, as Amended (68 Stat. 666; 16 U.S.C. 1001). (FSM 2501.1.) This act authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to share costs with other agencies in recreational development, ground-water recharge, and water-quality management, as well as the conservation and proper use of land.

6. Federal Water Pollution Control Act of July 9, 1956, as Amended (33 U.S.C. 1151) (FSM 2501.1); Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (86 Stat. 816) (FSM 2501.1), and Clean Water Act of 1977 (91 Stat. 1566; 33 U.S.C. 1251). (FSM 2501.1, 7440.1.) These acts are intended to enhance the quality and value of the water resource and to establish a national policy for the prevention, control, and abatement of water pollution. Ground water information, including that concerning recharge and discharge areas, and information on geologic conditions that affect ground water quality are needed to carry out purposes of these acts.

7. Wilderness Act of September 3, 1964 (78 Stat. 890; 16 U.S.C. 1131-1136). (FSM 2501.1.) This act describes a wilderness as an area which may also contain ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or historical value. These geological features are generally identified for wilderness classification purposes.

8. National Forest Roads and Trails Systems Act of October 13, 1964 (78 Stat. 1089; 16 U.S.C. 532-538). (FSM 7701.1.) This act provides for the construction and maintenance of an adequate system of roads and trails to meet the demands for timber, recreation, and other uses. It further provides that protection, development, and management of lands will be under the principles of multiple use and sustained


13

yield of product and services (16 U.S.C. 532). Geologic conditions influence the final selection of route locations.

9. Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of October 2, 1968 (82 Stat. 906 as Amended; 16 U.S.C. 1271-1287). This act states that it is the policy of the United States that certain selected rivers of the Nation which, with their immediate environments, possess outstanding scenic, recreation, geologic, fish and wildlife, cultural, or other similar values shall be preserved in free-flowing condition.

10. National Environmental Policy Act of January 1, 1970 (NEPA) (83 Stat. 852 as Amended; 42 U.S.C. 4321, 4331-4335, 4341-4347). (FSM 1950.2.) This act directs all agencies of the Federal Government to utilize a systematic interdisciplinary approach which will ensure the integrated use of the natural and social sciences in planning and in decision making which may have an impact on man’s environment. Geology is one of the applicable sciences.

11. Mining and Minerals Policy Act of December 31, 1970 (84 Stat. 1876; 30 U.S.C. 21a). This act provides for the study and development of methods for the disposal, control, and reclamation of mineral waste products and the reclamation of mined lands. This requires an evaluation of geology as it relates to ground water protection and geologic stability.

12. Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) (87 Stat. 884, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1536, 1538-1540). This act provides for the conservation of endangered and threatened species and their habitats.

13. Archeological and Historical Conservation Act of 1974 (AHCA) (88 Stat. 174; 16 U.S.C. 469). (FSM 2361.01.) This act requires all Federal agencies to notify the Secretary of the Interior when a construction project threatens to irreparably harm or destroy significant scientific, prehistoric, historic, or archeological data. The paleontological resource may have significant scientific and historic value.

14. Disaster Relief Act of 1974 (88 Stat. 143; 42 U.S.C. 5121, 5132). Section 202(b) states that the President shall direct appropriate Federal agencies to ensure timely and effective disaster warnings for such hazards as earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, landslides, and mudslides. The Federal Register, Vol. 42, No. 70 of April 12, 1977, “Warnings and Preparedness for Geologic Related Hazards,” implies coordination with the U.S. Geological Survey in such warnings.

15. Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of August 17, 1974 (RPA) (88 Stat. 476; 16 U.S.C. 1600-1614) as Amended by National Forest Management Act of October 22, 1976 (90 Stat. 2949; 16 U.S.C. 1609). (FSM 1920 and FSM 2550.) This act requires consideration of the geologic environment through the identification of hazardous conditions and the prevention of irreversible damages. The Secretary of Agriculture is required, in the development and maintenance of land management plans, to use a systematic interdisciplinary approach to achieve integrated consideration of physical, biological, economic, and other sciences.

16. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA) (90 Stat. 2795; 42 U.S.C. 6901) as Amended by 92 Stat. 3081. This act, commonly referred to as the Solid Waste Disposal Act, requires protection of ground water quality and is integrated with the Safe Drinking Water Act of December 16, 1974, and Amendments of 1977 (42 U.S.C. 300(f)). (FSM 7420.1.)

17. Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of August 3, 1977 (SMCRA) (30 U.S.C. 1201, 1202, 1211, 1221-43, 1251-79, 1281, 1291, 1309, 1311-16, 1321-28). This act enables agencies to take action to prevent water


14

pollution from current mining activities, and also promote reclamation of mined areas left without adequate reclamation prior to this act.

18. Archaeological Resource Protection Act (ARPA) October 31, 1979 (93 Stat. 721; 16 U.S.C. 470 aa). This act protects archeological resources, and prohibits the removal, sale, receipt, and interstate transport of archeological resources obtained illegally from public lands. Archeological resources include paleontological resources in context with archeological resources. Also, this act authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to issue permits for archeological research, investigations, studies, and excavations.

19. Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, as amended (CERCLA) (94 Stat. 2767; 42 U.S.C. 9601, et seq). This act provides authority to the Environmental Protection Agency and to other Federal agencies, including the U.S. Department of Agriculture, to respond to release of hazardous substances, pollutants, and constituents. It also provides for joint and several liability to potentially responsible parties (PRPs) for cleanup costs of existing water contamination. See also FSM 2160.

20. Federal Cave Resources Protection Act of 1988 (102 Stat. 4546; 16 U.S.C. 4301 et seq). This act provides that Federal lands be managed to protect and maintain, to the extent practical, significant caves.

2880.12 – Executive Orders The following Executive orders provide direction for geologic resources and services activities on National Forest System lands:

1. Executive Order 11593, Protection and Enhancement of Cultural Environment, May 13, 1971 (3 CFR 559, 1971-75 Compilation). This Executive order directs agencies to preserve, restore, and maintain the historic and cultural environment of the Nation.

2. Executive Order 12113, Independent Water Project Review, January 5, 1979. This Executive order requires an independent water project review by the Water Resources Council on preauthorization reports and preconstruction plans for Federal and federally assisted water and related land resource plans. The technical review will evaluate each plan for compliance with the Council’s principles and standards, agency procedures, other Federal laws, and goals for public involvement.

Other Management Directives 1. Shasta-Trinity National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. Directs use of riparian reserves,

streamside management zones, and stream management zones in part because of unstable and potentially unstable areas, including inner gorges. Directs avoidance of land disturbing activities with “known” or “suspected” instability.

2. Record of Decision and the Standards and Guidelines for Amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl. Defines and emphasizes use of riparian reserves, to include unstable areas.