Attachment_A_Reports_Volume_1.pdf

State of California Request for Qualifications No. C15E0055 Department of Parks and Recreation MALAKOFF DIGGINS STATE HISTORIC PARK Acquisition and Development Division Site Characterization and Remediation Services for Hazardous Materials throughout the Park Site Project

March 2016 Attachments

ATTACHMENT A

Reports

Volume 1

Acquisition and Development Division Site Characterization and Remediation Services for

ATTACHMENT A.1

Waste Discharge Requirements

Order No. 76-258

Acquisition and Development Division Site Characterization and Remediation Services for

ATTACHMENT A.2

Humbug Creek Watershed Assessment and

Management Recommendations

Humbug Creek Watershed Assessment and Management Recommendations

A pilot assessment of mining impacts and recommendations for action to improve water quality at Malakoff Diggins State Historic Park

Thunder of Waters

They ripped and tore the gravel banks asunder with powerful streams that rumbled like thunder.

A hundred hills were leveled by the blows to smash millenniums of deep repose.

They crushed the face of nature in their lust for gold, they reaped the shining dust.

They tore from gravel banks to ancient streams to bring fulfillment to their gold-crazed dreams.

The havoc wrought displeased both God and man and courts of law brought forth a mighty ban, that stilled the giants, brought a calm surcease to ancient hills that stood again in peace.

And God looked down upon the damaged sight where man had gloried in his selfish might.

He planted tree and shrub for kindly shade to heal the livid scars that man had made.

By Alvin Trivelpiece

Humbug Creek Watershed Assessment and Management Recommendations

Copyright The Sierra Fund, June 2014

Updated April 2015

Humbug Creek Watershed Assessment and Management Recommendations - The Sierra Fund 3

The Humbug Creek Watershed Assessment and Management Recommendations Project was funded in part by the Sierra Nevada Conservancy Proposition 84 Grant Program, the Bella Vista Foundation, the Rose Foundation for Communities and the Environment, Teichert Foundation, the Giles & Elise G. Mead Foundation, and Patagonia. This work would not have been possible without the leadership of The Sierra Fund CEO Elizabeth "Izzy" Martin, and the in-kind contribution of many Working Group Advisors, most exceptionally Department of Parks and Recreation, the United States Geological Survey, Holdrege & Kull, the Center for Science in Public Participation, the South Yuba River Citizens League and the Department of Geological and Environmental Sciences at California State University, Chico.

Principal Author: Carrie Monohan, Ph.D. The Sierra Fund

Contributors: Mark Selverston, Sonoma State University Jason Muir, Holdrege & Kull

Editors: Kerry Morse, The Sierra Fund Rebecca Bushway, California State University, Chico Karen Atkins, AmeriCorps Service Member

The breadth of this assessment would not have been possible without the dedicated work of California State University, Chico Department Chair Dr. David Brown and the Department’s graduate and undergraduate students including: Harihar Nepal, David Demaree, Keith Landrum, Cameron Liggett, Susan Miller, Peter van Daalen Wetters, Travis Johnson, Elizabeth McElroy, and Alfred John Ward.

Special thanks to reviewers who greatly improved this document from an earlier manuscript including Dr. Charles Alpers, Jacob Fleck, and Jennifer Curtis of the United States Geological Survey;

Tamara Sasaki, Cyndie Walck, and Daniel Shaw of California Department of Parks and Recreation;

Randy Adams of California Department of Toxic Substances Control; Victor Izzo and Jeff Huggins of the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board; John Hillenbrand of US EPA Region 9; Syd Brown, Kendra Zamzow, Rachel Hutchinson, Stephen McCord and Myfanwy Rowlands, and to who all attended The Sierra Fund’s annual Working Group meetings throughout this project. Thanks also to American Rivers in Nevada City for generously lending their flow meter and YSI water quality meter for the initial stage of this project.

Acknowledgements

Humbug Creek Watershed Assessment and Management Recommendations - The Sierra Fund4

Table of Contents Executive Summary ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������11

Introduction ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������14

Site Description ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������20

Watershed Assessment Activities �������������������������������������������������������������������������������31

Literature Review Critical Questions Methods Assessment Findings Summary of Findings Conceptual Model of Sediment and Heavy Metals

Recommendations �����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������123

Regulatory Framework Preliminary Engineering Evaluation Preliminary Management Recommendations Data Gaps

Next Steps �����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������158

References Cited ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������161

Appendix I: Student Projects ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������170

Appendix II: Initial Study ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������171

Appendix III: Mining Toxins Working Group Members �������������������������������194

Appendix IV: Relevant Cultural and Environmental Laws ����������������������196

Appendix V: Malakoff Diggins Digital Document Library �����������������������205

Appendix VI: GPS Locations of Sample Locations and Features �������������208

Humbug Creek Watershed Assessment and Management Recommendations - The Sierra Fund 5

List of Figures

Figure 1. Working Group Members at Chute Hill Campground Overlook

Figure 2. View of Malakoff Diggins Pit Looking West from the Chute Campground Overlook

Figure 3. Site Location: Humbug Creek Watershed and Malakoff Diggins State Historic Park

Figure 4. Map showing the Properties of the Bloomfield Hydraulic Mining Co

Figure 5. Peak Hydraulic Mining Operations at Malakoff Diggins

Figure 6. Sluices on the Malakoff Diggins Pit Floor

Figure 7. Humbug Creek Site Features – Mining Features

Figure 8. Confluence of Humbug Creek and the South Yuba River: Summer and Winter

Figure 9. Access shafts Associated with the North Bloomfield Tunnel

Figure 10. Hiller Tunnel Discharge at Low and High Flow

Figure 11. Plan of Bloomfield Tunnel and Gravel Mines

Figure 12. South Yuba River at the Confluence of Humbug Creek, Looking Downstream

Figure 13. Humbug Creek Site Features – Water Quality Sample Sites

Figure 14. Gage Instruments in Humbug Creek at Gage 3 Site

Figure 15. Gage Box at Gage 3 Site on Humbug Creek

Figure 16. Discharge Measurement at Road 1, Humbug Creek

Figure 17. Surface Flow in the Malakoff Diggins Pit

Figure 18. Confirmation Soil Samples from the Malakoff Diggins Pit

Figure 19. Collecting Water Sample from an Access Shaft Using a Bailer

Figure 20. Macroinvertebrate Sampling, Humbug Creek

Figure 21. Erosion Bridges in the Malakoff Diggins Pit

Figure 22. Humbug Creek Hydrograph

Figure 23. Regression Relationships for Humbug Creek

Figure 24. Mercury Forms in Humbug Creek during Storm Events

Figure 25. Metals in Hiller Tunnel Storm Event Discharge, January 2012 Storm

Figure 26. Mercury Sources in Humbug Creek, February 13, 2012

Figure 27. Humbug Creek Site Features – Water Quality Sample Sites and Additional Sample Locations

Figure 28. Malakoff Diggins Pit Springs and Stormwater Sample Sites

Figure 29. Malakoff Diggins Pit Confirmation Soil Sample Locations and Boring Sites

Figure 30. Shallow Subsurface Water Chemistry at Boring Sites in the Malakoff Diggins Pit

Figure 31. Particulate-Bound Mercury and TSS Loads in Malakoff Diggins Pit and Discharge

Figure 32. Malakoff Village Site

Figure 33. Shaft 5 Discharge to Humbug Creek

Figure 34. North Bloomfield Tunnel Conceptual Model

Figure 35. North Bloomfield Tunnel Outlet

Figure 36. Total Metals in North Bloomfield Tunnel Features

Figure 37. Mercury in North Bloomfield Tunnel Features

Figure 38. Humbug Creek Macroinvertebrate Survey Reaches

Humbug Creek Watershed Assessment and Management Recommendations - The Sierra Fund6

List of Figures

Figure 39. Pond and Vegetation Changes in Malakoff Diggins Pit

Figure 40. Malakoff Diggins Pond

Figure 41. Malakoff Diggins Pit Rim Erosion

Figure 42. Seismic Surveys in the Pit

Figure 43. Malakoff Diggins Pit Seismic Survey Locations

Figure 44. Deposition in the Pit

Figure 45. Sediment Deposition Monitoring Sites in the Malakoff Diggins Pit

Figure 46. Depositional Area and Volume of the Malakoff Diggins Pit Floor

Figure 47. Malakoff Diggins Pit Particle Size Distribution Sample Locations

Figure 48. Landslides along the Malakoff Diggins Pit Rim

Figure 49. Riling of Cliff Walls at Malakoff Diggins

Figure 50. Overland Flow along the Malakoff Diggins Pit Floor

Figure 51. Gullies Form along Cliff Walls at Malakoff Diggins

Figure 52. Malakoff Diggins Pit Erosion Plot (Erosion Bridge) Sites

Figure 53. Erosional Areas of the Malakoff Diggins Pit Walls

Figure 54. Conceptual Model of Sediment Source, Fate and Transport in the Malakoff Diggins Pit

Figure 55. Identifying Mercury Sources

Figure 56. Regional Surface Water Drainage Area

Figure 57. Land Ownership in the Humbug Creek Watershed

Figure 58. Soil Pathway Targets

Figure 59. Proposed and Historical Drainage Ditches

Figure 60. Typical Diversion Ditch Profile

Figure 61. Proposed Detention Basin and Dams

Figure 62. Conceptual Dam and Outlet Profile

Figure 63. Malakoff Diggins Pit, Flooded, 1954

Figure 64. Conceptual Outlet Detail

Figure 65. North Bloomfield Tunnel and Access Shafts

Figure 66. Summary of Management Strategies for Humbug Creek Watershed

Humbug Creek Watershed Assessment and Management Recommendations - The Sierra Fund 7

List of Tables

Table 1. Storms Sampled in WY 2012 and 2013

Table 2. Humbug Creek Watershed Annual Loads and Storm Event Loads for WY 2012 and 2013

Table 3. Humbug Creek Water Quality Data

Table 4. Discharge and Metals in Malakoff Diggins Pit Inflow and Outflow, February 9, 2014 Storm

Table 5. Malakoff Diggins Pit Springs Water Chemistry

Table 6. In-Situ Measurements from Borings in the Malakoff Diggins Pit

Table 7. PHg and Suspended Sediment Loads within the Malakoff Diggins Pit, December 3, 2012 Storm

Table 8. Soil Confirmation Sampling in the Malakoff Diggins Pit

Table 9. Mercury in Gerridae (Water Striders) in Humbug Creek

Table 10. Deposition Volume Caluclations

Table 11. Particle-Size Distribution in the Malakoff Diggins Pit

Table 12. Volume Calculations from Erosion Plots and Area Polygons

Table 13. Common Regulatory Benchmarks for Metals in Water

Table 14. Selected Benchmark Values

Table 15. Preliminary Ranking Criteria for Management Alternatives

Table 16. North Bloomfield Tunnel and Access shafts

Table 17. Additional Monitoring Parameters

Humbug Creek Watershed Assessment and Management Recommendations - The Sierra Fund8

Acronyms, Abbreviations, & Chemical Symbols

ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation ac acre AF acre-feet AIRFA American Indian Religious Freedom Act ARPA Archaeological Resource Protection Act As arsenic BLM Bureau of Land Management BMP best management practice BRL Brooks Rand Labs Ca calcium CABY Cosumnes, American, Bear, and Yuba CCR California Code of Regulations CALFED California Bay Delta Authority Cd cadmium CDPH California Department of Public Health CEL Cranmer Engineering and Analytical Laboratory CEQ Council on Environmental Quality CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act CFR Code of Federal Regulations cfs cubic feet per second CHHSL California Human Health Screening Level CHRIS California Historical Resources Information System Cl- chloride cm centimeter CMS cubic meter per second

CO3

2- carbonate COC contaminant of concern CQ critical question Cr chromium CRLF California red-legged frog CSU California State University CTR California Toxics Rule Cu copper CUPA Certified Unified Program Agencies CWA Clean Water Act CVRWQCB Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board DFG California Department of Fish and Game DFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife DHg dissolved mercury DO dissolved oxygen DPR California Department of Parks and Recreation DTSC California Department of Toxic Substances Control DWR California Department of Water Resources EC electrical conductivity EIS Environmental Impact Statement

Humbug Creek Watershed Assessment and Management Recommendations - The Sierra Fund 9

Acronyms, Abbreviations, and Chemical Symbols

EPA United States Environment Protection Agency ESA Endangered Species Act F- fluoride Fe iron ft feet FYLF Foothill yellow-legged frog g gram GIS geographic information system GPR ground-penetrating radar GPS Global Positioning System

HCO3

1- bicarbonate Hg mercury Hr hour Hz hertz in inch IRWMP Integrated Regional Water Management Plan K potassium kg kilogram km kilometer L liter LCT Lake City Tunnel (outlet) LiDAR Light Detection and Ranging LOI loss on ignition m meter MCL maximum contaminant level MeHg methyl mercury Mg magnesium mg milligram mi mile mm millimeter µg microgram μm micrometer Mn manganese MOU Memorandum of Understanding MRL method reporting limit Na sodium NAGPRA Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act NBT North Bloomfield Tunnel (outlet) NBGM Co. North Bloomfield Gravel and Mining Company NCRCD Nevada County Resource Conservation District ND non-detect NEPA National Environmental Policy Act ng nanogram NHPA National Historic Preservation Act

Humbug Creek Watershed Assessment and Management Recommendations - The Sierra Fund10

Acronyms, Abbreviations, & Chemical Symbols

Ni nickel NPDES National Pollution Discharge Elimination System NRHP National Register of Historic Places NTU nephelometric turbidity units OEHHA Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment OHP Office of Historic Preservation oz ounce Pb lead PCA principal component analysis PHg particulate-bound mercury ppb parts per billion ppm parts per million PRC California Public Resources Code PRG preliminary remediation goal Q discharge QA quality assurance QC quality control RL laboratory reporting level RWQCB California Regional Water Quality Control Board SHP State Historic Park SHPO State Historic Preservation Office SMARA California Surface Mining and Reclamation Act s second

SO4

2 - sulfate SS sampling sites SWRCB California State Water Resources Control Board SYRCL South Yuba River Citizens League T ton THg total mercury TMDL total maximum daily load TSF The Sierra Fund TSS total suspended sediment UC University of California USC United States Code USFS U.S. Forest Service USGS U.S. Geological Survey WY Water Year WY 2012 time duration from October 2011 to September 2012 WY 2013 time duration from October 2012 to September 2013 XRD x-ray diffraction yd yard yr year Zn Zinc °C degrees Celsius

Humbug Creek Watershed Assessment and Management Recommendations - The Sierra Fund 11

Executive Summary The Sierra Fund’s (TSF) Working Group of Advisors, as part of the Reclaiming the Sierra Initiative, selected the Humbug Creek watershed for a watershed assessment including both environmental and cultural studies, and to provide management recommendations to remediate the environmental effects of legacy mining. The Initiative is a coordinated effort to address historic mining impacts in California. The Humbug Creek watershed includes Malakoff Diggins, once the site of California's largest hydraulic mine. The Malakoff Diggins hydraulic mine pit (Malakoff Diggins or the pit), within Malakoff Diggins State Historic Park (the Park), is a significant feature in the Humbug Creek watershed. The Park is managed by the California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR).

Mine-related discharge from the Park is currently regulated by a Waste Discharge Permit with the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (Order No. 76-258) (California Regional Water Quality Control Board (CRWQCB), 1976). Ongoing erosion from the Malakoff Diggins pit causes turbid surface water runoff containing particulate-bound metals to discharge to Humbug Creek, a tributary to the South Yuba River.

The Sierra Fund’s Humbug Creek Watershed Assessment Project included studies to address critical questions regarding water quality, biotic conditions, and erosion in the Humbug Creek watershed.

This project identified sources of deleterious sediment and metals from historic mining practices at the Park that impact water quality in the watershed. This document reports the findings of the project and recommends to DPR possible management actions to abate the chronic and ongoing degradation to water quality.

Findings Studies to characterize the extent of water quality degradation found elevated levels of suspended sediment and metals (mercury, copper, lead, nickel, zinc, and iron). Specific findings include:

1. Humbug Creek contributes an estimated 500,000 kg (500 tons) of sediment and an estimated 100 g of mercury to the South Yuba River per year, during a dry or below normal year.

2. Malakoff Diggins via Diggins Creek is a major source of sediment, mercury, and other metals to Humbug Creek. (Malakoff Diggins pit water drains via Hiller Tunnel to Diggins Creek and then to Humbug Creek.)

a. Mercury in Humbug Creek, below the confluence with Diggins Creek, is greater than 80% particulate-bound, rather than in dissolved form.

Humbug Creek Watershed Assessment and Management Recommendations - The Sierra Fund12

b. Copper, nickel and zinc in Diggins Creek are primarily particulate-bound in the Hiller Tunnel discharge, rather than in dissolved form.

3. Shaft 5 (the Red Shaft) of the North Bloomfield Tunnel contributes elevated concentrations of mercury, nickel and zinc to Humbug Creek; however, the effective contribution is small because the discharge from the shaft is minimal (0.008 cms (0.03 cfs)).

4. As the walls of the Malakoff Diggins hydraulic mine pit continue to erode, material is deposited on the pit floor and is effectively filling in the pit. The vegetation that has established on the pit floor does not retain all the silts and clays, which continue to pass over the pit floor and create turbid water discharge with elevated concentrations of particulate-bound metals.

5. There are a number of physical hazards in the Park associated with the mine’s access shafts and tunnel openings.

The Sierra Fund, recognizing the Park’s unique historical status, its listing on the National Register of Historic Places and State Historic Park classification, proactively incorporated cultural resources and historic landscape components into the Humbug Creek Watershed Assessment. A registered professional archeologist (who had met the Secretary of the Interior’s professional qualifications for archaeology) summarized the known cultural resources in the Park and reviewed proposed management recommendations for feasibility with respect to protecting and preserving the significant cultural values of the Park. Additionally, DPR is funding the first phase of a comprehensive Cultural Resources Inventory and Evaluation of the Park as a result of this assessment’s findings.

Recommendations The following management strategies are recommended for further study to address the issues raised by the Humbug Creek Assessment Project. Additional investigation is recommended to address data gaps and facilitate the selection and design of management strategies.

1. Sediment and metals discharge from the Malakoff Diggins hydraulic mining pit may be managed by:

a. Constructing diversion ditches above the Malakoff Diggins pit to direct surface water around the pit, thereby reducing the amount of surface water flow over the pit walls, reducing sediment transport, and reducing surface water discharge out of the pit.

b. Constructing a detention pond at the western end of the pit to detain storm water flows within the pit, to equalize pit discharge, and to settle and retain suspended solids. Construction of saddle dams on the southwestern pit rim would allow for long-term sediment retention as the pit accumulates sediment.

Humbug Creek Watershed Assessment and Management Recommendations - The Sierra Fund 13

c. Constructing a filtration outlet structure at the inlet to Hiller Tunnel with intent to filter sediment and particulate-bound mercury, copper, nickel, and zinc from the water discharge into Diggins Creek and subsequently Humbug Creek. Over time as sediments accumulate in the pit, the filtration outlet structure would need to be extended vertically.

2. Public exposure to water and metals discharge from Shaft 5 can be addressed by constructing a boardwalk to re-route the Humbug Creek Trail around Shaft 5. A long-term management strategy to treat the water and metals discharge at Shaft 5 would necessitate monitoring the outflow both at Shaft 5 and the North Bloomfield Tunnel outfall to determine permitting requirements.

3. Physical hazards associated with tunnel access shafts and openings can be managed by limiting public access, grading, and installing fencing and/or bat-friendly gates. It is recommended that bat-friendly gates be installed at the tunnel openings.

This project is a collaborative effort of TSF, TSF’s Mining Toxins Working Group and DPR to assess and address the impacts of historic mining practices in the Humbug Creek watershed and to provide useful lessons for assessing and mitigating mine-related impacts in neighboring watersheds with similar mining legacies and water quality characteristics.

Humbug Creek Watershed Assessment and Management Recommendations - The Sierra Fund14

Introduction There are an estimated 47,000 abandoned mines in California. Among those, roughly 5,000 present ongoing environmental hazards and the majority present physical hazards (California Department of Conservation (CDOC), 2000). A comprehensive inventory of abandoned mine features in California has not been completed nor have abandoned mines, identified as physical or environmental hazards, been prioritized for remediation. Despite the Department of Conservation’s Abandoned Mine Lands Unit ongoing effort to inventory abandoned mine lands, in terms of its scale abandoned mine lands in California may be one of the longest-neglected environmental problems facing the state today.

Abandoned mine lands often present unique site-specific hazards that require individualized assessment and engineering of remediation techniques. Some important factors that determine which assessment and remediation techniques should be considered at given site are: 1) the range of historic mining and mineral processing activities that took place at the site, and 2) the current land ownership and land management status. Numerous abandoned mine sites share similar characteristics, such as distinctly turbid runoff from lands scarred by hydraulic mining where top soil was removed and erosion accelerated.

Most abandoned mines in California are on federal lands (67%), many are on private lands (31%) and some are on state and local government managed lands (2%) (CDOC, 2000). The funding available to assess and remediate a site is primarily determined by the land-owning entity. For example, private land owners are not eligible for USEPA Brownfields funding.

The Sierra Fund (TSF) has secured state funding from the Sierra Nevada Conservancy to assess and remediate state-owned, hydraulically mined lands in the Humbug Creek watershed that drain into the South Yuba River. A large portion of the Humbug Creek watershed is in the Malakoff Diggins State Historic Park (SHP), managed by the California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR). It is considered a model watershed for addressing legacy mining impacts in California’s headwaters because it is one of several watersheds that drain into the South Yuba River that are similarly affected by hydraulic mine runoff; others include Scotchman, Shady, and Spring Creeks. As a result, lessons learned from assessment and remediation on Humbug Creek will be applied to other sites whenever appropriate.

The Malakoff Diggins hydraulic mine was one of the largest such mines of the 19th century gold mining bonanza in California. Hydraulic mining debris from Malakoff Diggins was discharged through a nearly 2,000 m (8,000 ft) long drain tunnel (a tremendous feat of engineering in its own right) before entering Humbug Creek, a tributary to the South Yuba River.

Humbug Creek Watershed Assessment and Management Recommendations - The Sierra Fund 15

Currently, suspended sediment and heavy metals from the exposed and eroding historical mine workings, along with legacy mercury contamination from gold recovery operations, is mobilized by heavy rainfall to seasonally affect Humbug Creek and the South Yuba River. Humbug Creek itself is listed pursuant to Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) (USEPA, 2013a) as impaired for sedimentation/siltation, mercury, copper, and zinc. Copper and zinc are naturally occurring in the region and were exposed due to historic mining activities. Liquid elemental mercury was introduced in the gold mining and recovery process to capture gold, and millions of pounds of mercury were lost during mining operations in California (Churchill, 2000).

Sediment contaminated with mercury travels long distances and is deposited in stream and river floodplains as well as reservoir environments where it can be methylated and incorporated into the aquatic and terrestrial food chain (Singer et al., 2013). More than 96% of the total mercury loading to the San Francisco Bay-Delta comes from the streams and rivers of the Sierra Nevada and the Inner Coast Range (Wood, Foe, Cooke, and Louie, 2010). Source areas above reservoirs are a target for remediation of watershed-wide mercury pollution and stand to benefit thousands of miles of stream and river habitat. Source areas above reservoirs are specifically discussed as a mitigation strategy for mercury abatement in the Statewide Mercury Control Program for reservoirs (SWRCB, 2013c).

Project Purpose, Goals, and Objectives The purpose of this assessment project was to identify recommendations for addressing water quality impairments and physical hazards in the Humbug Creek watershed that resulted from historic mining activities. The Sierra Fund launched this project in 2011 as a collaborative effort with the California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) and the Mining Toxins Working Group (Working Group) of technical advisors (see Appendix III, Working Group Members). Together, these project partners have worked to develop a comprehensive picture of the effects in the watershed, and helped craft Critical Questions and prioritize appropriate management recommendations to begin to address physical and chemical hazards at the Park, while bearing in mind the purpose and goals of the Park unit. The function of the Department of Parks and Recreation at Malakoff Diggins State Historic Park is to “preserve, restore, and reconstruct historic resources, and maintain and manage them in such a way as to perpetuate these values for the enjoyment and inspiration of the public in accordance with the declared purpose of the unit provide a historical environment in an appropriate natural setting that is representative of the height of hydraulic mining in northern California” (Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR), 1975).

The management recommendations are designed to honor the cultural and historical significance of Malakoff Diggins SHP and to improve water quality for California’s treasured waterways.

The experts in the Working Group helped to ensure that this project met rigorous scientific, environmental, and cultural sensitivity standards. The project’s overall goals were to assess the

Humbug Creek Watershed Assessment and Management Recommendations - The Sierra Fund16

Humbug Creek watershed, provide management recommendations for the Park, and develop a model of collaborative planning that could be applied to other mining-impacted areas.

Using a comprehensive, science-based watershed assessment process, the project’s objectives were to:

A. Compile existing knowledge of the ecosystem, habitat, cultural resources and natural conditions in the Humbug Creek watershed in a collaborative way with DPR; local, state, federal and tribal agencies; and local watershed groups.

B. Characterize and assess current water quality conditions in Malakoff Diggins SHP and Humbug Creek and evaluate their contribution to impairment of water quality conditions in the South Yuba River.

C. Evaluate and select the most effective and feasible management recommendations to improve water quality in Humbug Creek, congruent with the natural and cultural resource management objectives, policies, regulations, and mission of DPR.

D. Evaluate and select the most effective and feasible management recommendations to address the physical hazards related to the mine workings, congruent with natural and cultural resource management objectives, policies, regulations, and mission of DPR.

E. Identify critical data gaps and needed monitoring to inform remediation efforts.

F. Develop a project description, initial study, and environmental check list for the recommended management techniques and actions, and associated required permits.

Project Partners The Sierra Fund has led this project since 2011, in close collaboration with the following partners:

• The California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR), as the land management agency, has been the key project partner for compiling information on the watershed;

providing cultural, natural and operations staff participation in meetings and review of all project activities and documents, which allowed for production of a feasible assessment and management recommendations plan; and providing access to Malakoff Diggins SHP.

• The California State University Chico, Department of Geological and Environmental Sciences (CSU Chico), has provided significant resources to this effort which has allowed the scope of the assessment to be much more comprehensive than it otherwise would have been. Under the direction of Adjunct Professor Dr. Carrie Monohan and Department Chair Dr. David Brown, several graduate students in the Department have conducted thesis projects at the site; these student projects have helped to accomplish significant portions of the assessment. Key findings from the graduate student research are included in the

Humbug Creek Watershed Assessment and Management Recommendations - The Sierra Fund 17 assessment results section where appropriate. (See also Appendix I: CSU Chico Student Projects.)

• Mark Selverston (M.A., Registered Professional Archaeologist, Anthropological Studies Center at Sonoma State University) has helped ensure that archaeological and historical resources are considered during project planning and identification of management recommendations. He compiled a brief history of mining activity along Humbug Creek, as well as a list and map of known cultural resources, and relevant federal and state laws.

In addition, he advised on potential cultural resources issues for each of the proposed management recommendations, and has contributed to this document.

• The South Yuba River Citizens League (SYRCL) has worked to promote community involvement through watershed educational tours and activities. SYRCL’s science staff provided technical support for the project description and CEQA checklist.

The Sierra Fund’s Mining Toxins Working Group The Sierra Fund’s Mining Toxins Working Group (Working Group) served as the technical advisors to the project and reviewers of this document. The Working Group includes a team of experts on historic mining and water quality issues, with representatives from the U.S.

Geological Survey (USGS), Bureau of Land Management (BLM), US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), local tribal leaders, and environmental consultants. These individuals are experts in their fields, and many have served as advisors to TSF’s work since 2006. See Appendix III for Working Group members.

The Sierra Fund’s Reclaiming the Sierra Initiative The Sierra Fund is a nonprofit organization that works to address the most pressing needs of the Sierra Nevada region of California. Since 2006, The Sierra Fund’s primary strategic campaign has been the “Reclaiming the Sierra” Initiative (the Initiative), which works to address the ongoing environmental, cultural and human health impacts of historic mining in the region. The Initiative’s efforts are advised by the Working Group described above.

From its inception, the Initiative has worked to assess and raise awareness about the lasting effects of historic mining in California. In 2008, TSF released Mining’s Toxic Legacy, the Initiative’s first comprehensive report detailing the impacts of historic mining, data gaps, and recommendations

Figure 1. Working Group Members at Chute Hill Campground Overlook The Sierra Fund working group members visited Malakoff Diggins State Historic Park on numerous field trips to scope assessment activities and recommendations.

(Photo taken at Working Group field trip on November 15, 2011 by K. Morse.)

Humbug Creek Watershed Assessment and Management Recommendations - The Sierra Fund18 for action. Subsequent technical studies conducted by TSF include the 2011 Gold Country Angler Survey: A Pilot Study to Assess Mercury Exposure from Sport Fish Consumption in the Sierra Nevada (Monohan, 2011a), and the 2010 Gold Country Recreational Trails and Abandoned Mines Assessment:

A Pilot Study to Assess Exposure Potential to Toxins from Mine Waste and Naturally Occurring Hazardous Substances (Monohan, 2011b).

In the current phase of this Initiative, TSF is pursuing on-the-ground solutions to clean up physical and chemical hazards associated with historic mining activities and restore California’s watersheds.

The Working Group agreed that a site-specific pilot restoration project would be an effective way to coordinate strategies to address the many issues associated with historic mining contamination.

After considering potential projects across the Sierra Nevada, the Working Group selected the Humbug Creek watershed as the best site for a model assessment and remediation project. The Humbug Creek watershed was the subject of investigation by the Department of Water Resources and the Nevada County Resources Conservation district in the late 1970’s and early 80’s. These efforts identified that Humbug Creek had significantly turbid runoff and was a major contributor of suspended sediment and metals, and led to the 303(d) listing of this water body as impaired under the CWA. Remediation of the site has the potential to result in major watershed benefits—and can serve as a model to address historic mining impacts at other sites.

A Model Project In addition to improving water quality in the Humbug Creek watershed, the pilot project approach allows the Working Group to address several scientific, legal and regulatory challenges, while building relationships—all of which support the larger effort to address the impacts of historic mining in the Sierra Nevada. The collaboration of various agencies and experts is crucial to addressing the effects of legacy mining on watersheds, since the impacts are widespread and cross boundaries of state, federal and private properties. The Working Group collaborative process for identifying management recommendations and involving stakeholders will be a key model to address other legacy mining sites throughout the Sierra Nevada. Additionally, the Humbug Creek watershed presents scientific challenges to remediate water quality contamination that are primarily driven by storm events. The management recommendations and inclusive collaborative process developed by the Working Group will make planning and remediation of other legacy mining sites throughout the Sierra Nevada on public lands more efficient and cost-effective.

Project Funding In 2011, the Humbug Creek Watershed Assessment and Management Recommendations project received base funding for a three year period from the Sierra Nevada Conservancy Proposition 84 Grant Program. The project’s funding was supplemented by grants from the Bella Vista Foundation in 2011, 2012, and 2014, from the Rose Foundation for Communities and the Environment in 2012, from the Giles & Elise G. Mead Foundation in 2013, and from the Teichert Foundation in 2014. In addition to these grants, in-kind support of time and materials has been an invaluable

Humbug Creek Watershed Assessment and Management Recommendations - The Sierra Fund 19 contribution to this project. Patagonia has provided wet-weather sampling gear. In-kind support has been provided from many individuals and agencies, including TSF’s Working Group advisors (see Appendix III). Within the Working Group, certain agencies and institutions have contributed staff time and other resources, particularly DPR, California Department of Toxic Substances Control, USEPA Region 9, and California State University, Chico.

Related Efforts The Humbug Creek Watershed Assessment Project dovetails with a project on federal lands immediately adjacent to the project area. Just downstream of DPR’s park boundary, BLM and USGS are working together to address the hydraulic mining debris on BLM lands along the banks of the South Yuba River at the confluence of Humbug Creek. Cleanup and Abatement Funds from the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) have been received for that project. The BLM-USGS effort includes characterization of the material that has accumulated at the confluence. An evaluation of engineering options for stabilization of the material to reduce erosion and subsequent downstream contamination is planned by BLM, pending funding. The Humbug Assessment and Management Recommendations Project is supported by the fact that staff from USGS, BLM, USFS and SWRCB are engaged on mercury-related issues on the BLM-led project at the confluence, which is contiguous with the Malakoff Diggins State Historic Park.

Humbug Creek Watershed Assessment and Management Recommendations - The Sierra Fund20

Site Description Study Area Malakoff Diggins is one of the largest historic mine sites from California’s 19th century mining heyday. The hydraulic mine pit is the most prominent feature of Malakoff Diggins State Historic Park (SHP), which is under the jurisdiction of California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) (California State Parks, 2010). Malakoff Diggins SHP is located in Nevada County, California, about 23 km (14 mi) northeast of Nevada City, and 100 km (63 mi) northeast of Sacramento (Cahill, 1979a) (Figure 3).

Malakoff Diggins SHP is located within the Humbug Creek watershed. Humbug Creek is a tributary of the South Yuba River. The Humbug Creek watershed is about 27 km2 (6,700 ac) (Cahill, 1979b).

The average annual precipitation is 101- 152 cm (40-60 in) (California State Parks, 2010), which primarily falls between October and April (Cahill, 1979a). The Humbug Creek watershed discharges approximately 4,300,000 m3 (3,500 AF) of water per year (Nevada County Resource Conservation District (NCRCD), 1979a).

The Malakoff Diggins SHP contains about 14 km2 (3,200 ac) of forest within the Ponderosa Pine Forest plant community, and is at 760 m (2,500 ft) to 1,000 m (4,000 ft) elevation (California State Parks, 2010). According to Cahill, “[t]he slopes and ridges surrounding the central Malakoff pit contain examples of pine forest, stands of black and live oak and manzanita, and open meadows. A number of areas that now contain dense stands of manzanita were probably once meadows or growths of pine that have been logged” (Cahill, 1979b).

The watershed supports a variety of wildlife. Birds observed at Malakoff Diggins SHP during an ecological study in 1975 included red-tailed hawk, northern flicker, western wood peewee, Figure 2. View of Malakoff Diggins Pit Looking West from the Chute Campground Overlook The excavation left by hydraulic mining exposes Paleozoic-aged metamorphosed igneous and sedimentary rock. The pit is over a mile long, 1,000 ft wide in places, and up to 600 ft deep. The surrounding forest is primarily mixed conifer and oak woodland. The pit floor is vegetated by willows. There is a pond in the far west end of the pit.

(Photo taken October 9, 2013 by C. Monohan.)

Humbug Creek Watershed Assessment and Management Recommendations - The Sierra Fund 21

Figure 3. Site Location: Humbug Creek Watershed and Malakoff Diggins State Historic Park Malakoff Diggins State Historic Park is in Nevada County, California.

0 0.55 1.10.275 Miles

Malakoff Diggins SHP

California

Nevada

Malakoff Diggins SHP

Placer

Plumas

Butte

El Dorado

Sierra

NevadaYuba

Sacramento

H U

M

BU

G C

R

EE

K

N. Bloomfield Rd.

Relief Hill Rd.

Derbec Rd.

Cruzon Grade Rd.

SOUTH YUBA RIVER

DIGGINS

CREEK

HUMBUG CREEK

0 0.8 1.60.4 Kilometers

Legend

Malakoff Diggins State Historic Park Boundary

Roads

Humbug Creek Watershed

Water Course

Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community

Malaokff Diggins Pit

Humbug Creek Watershed Assessment and Management Recommendations - The Sierra Fund22

Stellar’s jay, mountain chickadee, Nashville warbler, orange-crowned warbler, oak titmouse, bushtit, Bewick’s wren, Hutton’s vireo, black-throated gray warbler, western tanager, purple finch, black-headed grosbeak, pileated woodpecker, spotted towhee, and many kinds of owls (Harding, 1977). Lukas (2002) described the Diggins areas as a healthy and diverse bird community that is becoming increasingly valuable as one of the most important sites for birds in the county. In addition to birds and small animals, the wild animal community includes black-tailed deer, coyote, bobcat, mountain lion, and black bear.

Sensitive or special status bird and amphibian species occur or may occur at Malakoff Diggins SHP. Willow flycatcher (Empidonax trailii) surveys by David Lukas in 2002 documented two unconfirmed willow flycatcher (Empidonax trailii) calls at Malakoff Diggins pit. Willow flycatcher is a State endangered species. Other California Department of Fish and Wildlife designated bird species of special concern documented by David Lukas and/or DPR biologists in Malakoff Diggins SHP were the yellow warbler (Dendroica petechial), yellow-breasted chat (Icteria virens), olive-sided flycatcher (Contopus cooperi), and California spotted owl (Strix occidentalis occidentalis). The California red-legged frog (CRLF) (Rana draytonii) is a Federal Threatened Species and a California species of special concern. CRLF is known to occur within a couple of miles of the Park and critical habitat is adjacent to the southern Park boundary. No protocol-level surveys for CRLF have been conducted at the Park. The Foothill yellow-legged frog (FYLF) (Rana boylii) is a California species of special concern. FYLF surveys were conducted in 1999 and 2000 found a scattered population of FYLF in Humbug Creek (California Department of Fish and Game, 2011; Yarnell and Larsen, 2000;

Yarnell, 2005). DPR surveys in 2013 also found a scattered population and different life stages of FYLF. A reconnaissance fisheries survey completed in 1978 noted that due to sedimentation, fish populations in Diggins Creek were absent and found to be “fairly low” in Humbug Creek below the confluence of Diggins Creek “when compared to similar streams in the area not having the severe sedimentation problem” (NCRDC, 1978; Taylor, 1987).

The bedrock in the Malakoff Diggins area is Paleozoic-aged metamorphosed igneous and sedimentary rock (Department of Water Resources (DWR), 1987). Mio-Pliocene volcanic breccia and conglomerate (mudflows) overlie the Eocene auriferous gravel (Whitney, 1880; Saucedo, Wagner, and Martin, 1992). The auriferous gravel is part of a river channel deposit and contains boulders, pebbles and cobbles, and quartz gravels and sands (Saucedo et al., 1992). The bedrock basement is from the Paleozoic/Mesozoic (Saucedo et al., 1992). The bedrock is composed mainly of undifferentiated metasedimentary rocks consisting of argillite, phyllite, chert, conglomerate and breccia with some quartzite, clastic volcanic rock, and argillite matrix mélange (Saucedo et al., 1992).

Humbug Creek Watershed Assessment and Management Recommendations - The Sierra Fund 23

Summary of Mining, Management and Regulation in the Humbug Creek Watershed Placer gold was discovered in modern stream gravels along Humbug Creek in 1851 or 1852, which led to a rush of gold prospectors to the area (Bean, 1867). The first wave of inexperienced miners dubbed the town “Humbug” due to the lack of easy stream placer gold (Gudde, 1975). A small party of more determined miners settled near the present town of North Bloomfield in 1853 and began opening up buried Tertiary placer gravel with shallow drifts, initiating a prosperous boom time for Humbug (Bean, 1867). Sluice and small-scale hydraulic ventures followed and by 1855 the community boasted a 24-stamp steam-driven mill (Gudde, 1975).

The North Bloomfield Gravel Mining Company (NBGM Co.) incorporated in San Francisco in August 1866 and continued to enlarge their holdings, acquiring the Malakoff claims in February 1867 (Deeds, 1867). The NBGM Co.

acquired over 150,000 m2 (1,500 ac) by 1870.

The deed included a supply ditch, sluices, and flumes already on the diggins. The company headquarters and support buildings were established on the main road on the Malakoff claim, about 800 m (0.5 mi) west of North Bloomfield, and were quickly surrounded by hotels and dwellings that became known as Malakoff (Figure 4).

With the initial influx of miners, the Eureka Lake Company developed a water system to supply the San Juan Ridge, including the town of Humbug and the Malakoff Mine, which increasingly needed water for burgeoning placer ventures. More water was required after the NBGM Co. acquired the Malakoff claims and “developed a drain tunnel [Hiller Tunnel] from the mouth of the Virgin Ravine to drain them” (Bean, 1867). In 1870, the biggest setbacks to hydraulic operations continued to be access to water and drainage to run monitors and dispose of massive amounts of slurry debris, and NBGM Co. set about to develop engineering solutions.

Figure 4. Map showing the Properties of the Bloomfield Hydraulic Mining Co.

This map, surveyed by C.F. Hoffmann in October 1872, shows the location of the New York claim Ravine and drainage to Humbug Creek, the Malakoff Village Site (Malakoff), and the proposed line for the Bloomfield Tunnel (also known as Lake City Tunnel). Additional historical features depicted on this map may warrant additional sampling for mercury source area identification. (Photo taken June 22, 2012 by D. Demaree.)

Humbug Creek Watershed Assessment and Management Recommendations - The Sierra Fund24

W. Hamilton Smith, Jr., a mine manager and noted mining engineer, led the development of innovative water supply and drainage solutions for the NBGM Co., most notably the North Bloomfield Tunnel.

To supply water to the operations, Smith designed and built the first reservoir at Bowman Ranch and the ditch to the Malakoff Mine in 1870 (Jackson, 1967). More water required more drainage, and Smith engineered the 2.4 km (7,847 ft) North Bloomfield Tunnel constructed between 1872 and 1874, to drain the Malakoff Mine debris and water into Humbug Creek (Wyckoff, 1964). He is well-known for his innovative approach, which expedited construction by driving down eight shafts approximately 60 meters (200 ft) deep, spaced about 300 m (1,000 ft) apart, from which tunneling commenced in both directions, allowing work on 16 separate faces at once. The drain tunnel measured 2 x 2 m (7 x 8 ft), with small shafts 0.5 x 0.6 m (2 x 2 ft).

Hydraulic Mining Twenty years after placer mining began in Humbug Creek, truly massive hydraulic operations commenced with the completion of the North Bloomfield Tunnel. A reporter from San Francisco visited the operation in 1879 and described the diggings as a great amphitheater, vaster in its circle than the stony base of the Coliseum (Jackson, 1967). Hydraulic mining used “monitors” to direct powerful jet streams of water to wash down hillsides in search of the ancient auriferous gravels. Seven monitors ran day and night. Water jets washed down the mountain side until debris clogged the drains, at which time 30 or 40 men descended into the pit to drill into the larger boulders and set “giant powder” before fleeing to a safe “block house” made of spent flume blocks. Once the debris was reduced sufficiently it was simply washed away; gold entrained in debris sank into cracks between wood blocks lining the sluices, flumes, and undercurrents, all of which were “charged” with quicksilver (mercury) which pulled gold out of the sediment.

At Malakoff 15 flasks of mercury (a total of 520.50 kg (1,147.5 lb)) were added to sluices and undercurrents each run and sometimes scattered over the bank before it was washed so it worked its way down with the gravel into the sluices (Hanks, 1882). After a two- to three-week run, a systematic “clean up” occurred by which the water was halted and the sluice wood blocks removed so the amalgam and sediment could be

Figure 5. Peak Hydraulic Mining Operations at Malakoff Diggins Hydraulic mining monitors were used to direct powerful streams of water to wash down hillsides in search of gold bearing gravels. Seven monitors ran day and night. (Photo courtesy of California Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey Library.)

Humbug Creek Watershed Assessment and Management Recommendations - The Sierra…