DRAFT
ENVIRQNMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
Prepared^by:
Bureau of Land Management
Moab Field Office
82 East Dogwood
Moab, Utah 84532

May 1996 /
US. DHWRTMENTOR THE INTERIOR

-------

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                liliiilllllip   iillllliN	I	Ill   iiiil'iiiliilllllMllilllill
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           Pill

                                                                                                                                                                             1111IIIIIIIIIIIM^                                                        III  111 ill Hill     III 11   11 111  11  1111 111 111 l| I lllllll    111 III 11 111
                                                                                                                                                                                                4_
              I",'"!
                                                                                                                                                                                                                     i i inn nil nun n i ininininn i  in mi i in minimi mini  mi n  i  n  in    n ininnnnn  mi inn nn in mi nnnnnnnnnnnninnnnnnninn i  iiiiiii|iiiiiiiiiiiimm  mini ininiii
                                                                                                                                           111 lllllll 111 II11
                                                                                                                                                                             111 NIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII  III  IIIIIIIillllllllllMH     111 II  IIIIIIIllll   lllllll  |l  III       111   111 IIII I

iniLi	ii	n     iiJLiilili'l      i          i  ,  nl1  ,i  >'

-------
         DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
              LISBON VALLEY COPPER PROJECT
            U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
              BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
                 MOAB DISTRICT OFFICE
                        UTAH
                       May 1906
UTAH STATE DIRECTOR
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
                                                                 5)

-------

-------
             United States Department of the Interior

                          BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
                                                                       TAKE
                                Moab District Office
                              82 East Dogwood Avenue
                                Moab, Utah  84532
                                      MAY 1 6 199S
                                                                       IN KEPLYREFER TO:
1790
UTU-72499
(U-060)
Dear Reader:

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has prepared this Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (DEIS) for your review and comment.  The DEIS has been prepared to analyze
impacts from a proposed copper mining and recovery operation in Lisbon Valley, Utah. The
project proponent is Summo USA Corporation. The DEIS has been prepared under third party
contract by Woodward-Clyde Consultants.  Under this arrangement the project proponent pays
all costs associated with the EIS effort, and Woodward-Clyde Consultants prepares the EIS
under the supervision of and to standards identified by BLM.

The DEIS analyzes impacts, and identifies alternatives and mitigative measures. You are
invited to review this  DEIS and provide comments.  The comment period will be 45 days and
all comments must be postmarked by July 8,1996 in order to be considered. Comments
received will be analyzed and appropriate changes  identified in a  Final EIS. Written
comments will be printed in the FEIS, along with  BLM's response.

A public meeting will be held in Moab, Utah on June 12,1996,  at 7:00 PM, in the Moab
District Office conference room.at the above listed address.  Please address written
comments to:

                   Kate Kitchell, Moab District Manager
                   82 East Dogwood Avenue
                   Moab, Utah  84532

Additional copies of this document may be obtained by calling (801) 259-6111.  If you have
any questions about the draft, please feel free to contact Lynn Jackson, BLM Project
Coordinator, at the same phone number.

We appreciate your interest in public land management and look forward to hearing from you.
                                Sincerely,
                                Moab District Manager  .

-------

-------
                               COVER SHEET

                        Lisbon Valley Copper Project
                       Environmental Impact Statement
(X) Draft                      () Final

Lead Agency

U.S. Department of the Interior,
 Bureau of Land Management

Jurisdictions in Utah that could be
Affected

Grand County
San Juan County

Abstract

This  EIS  assesses  the  environmental
consequences of Federal approval of the
Plan of Operations for an open pit copper
mine and heap leach  operation  in Lower
Lisbon Valley, in southeastern Utah.  This
EIS   addresses  the   site-specific  and
cumulative impacts of the Proposed Action
and  four alternatives, including the  No
Action alternative.

Cumulative impacts are those impacts that
would  occur as a  result of the  Proposed
Action, plus  other  interrelated projects
planned for development in the project area
during the analysis period.
Based  on issues and concerns identified
during  the  scoping  process,  the  EIS
focuses on impacts to Water  Resources,
Geochemisty,   Soils  and   Reclamation,
Wildlife, and Socioeconomics.

EIS Contact

Comments on this EIS should be directed
to:

  Kate Kitchell, Moab District Manager
  Bureau of Land Management
  82 East Dogwood Avenue
  Moab, Utah 84532

Date by which Comments on the EIS
must be Received

July 8,  1996

Date EIS made Available to EPA and
the Public

May 24, 1996
2399S/R3.CS 5/15«S(l:4! PMyRFT/4

-------

-------
INSTRUCTIONS TO THE READER

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PROCESS

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires that an environmental analysis be conducted for
projects of this type. In this case, it has been determined that the approval of the Lisbon Valley project does
constitute a major federal action that could significantly affect the quality of the human environment. Because
of this, an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS),  rather than an Environmental  Assessment, has been
prepared to document baseline and impact conditions.

The figure below illustrates in summary fashion the environmental analysis process that the Bureau of Land
Management (ELM) will follow for this project The figure also shows the sections of the EIS where various
phases of the NEPA process are addressed.  As the diagram shows, the affected environment is documented,
impacts are assessed, and the Draft EIS (DEIS) and Final EIS (FEIS) are prepared. Alternatives development
(described in Section 2.0) has also proceeded with much coordination among Summo, the BLM, and the third-
party EIS contractor.

This document is the DEIS and will be followed by a FEIS which addresses comments on the DEIS. A Record
of Decision (ROD) will follow no sooner than 30 days after release of the FEIS.
                          0 SECTION OF WE BS DOCUMENT mERE IKS IIEU IS ADDRESSED.

                            MAJOR  PHASES  OF THE EIS  PROCESS
23996/R3.1 5/15/96(1:50 PMJ/RFT/S

-------

-------
                                                      TABLE OF CONTENTS
 Section

 DEAR READER LETTER
 INSTRUCTIONS TO THE READER
Page
 LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS	xiv

 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY	ES-1

 1.0   INTRODUCTION	1_1

      1.1   PURPOSE AND NEED	          1_4
      1.2   AUTHORIZING ACTIONS	[ 1.4
      1.3   PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND SCOPING ISSUES	1-9

            1.3.1  Alternatives Analyzed in Detail	1-9
            1.3.2  Alternatives Considered and Eliminated	1-10
            1.3.3  Issues and Concerns Analyzed	1-12
            1.3.4  Issues Considered but Not Analyzed	1-15

 2.0   ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION	2-1

      2.1   OVERVIEW	     2-1
      2.2   PROPOSED ACTION	"^.2-1

            2.2.1  General	2-1
            2.2.2  Mining Activities	2-2
            2.2.3  Crushing Activities	2-7
            2.2.4  Processing Activities	2-10
            2.2.5  Support Facilities	2-24
            2.2.6  Water Supply	2-28
            2.2.7  Work Force	2-29
            2.2.8  Electrical Power.	2-29
            2.2.9  Waste Management	'.	2-34
            2.2.10 Transportation	2-35
            2.2.11 Air Emission Controls	2-36
            2.2.12 Reclamation/Closure	2-37

      2.3    ALTERNATIVES	!	2-41

            2.3.1  No Action Alternative	2-41

2399&R3.TC Snfl9&.lSS PMyRFT/3                    -j-

-------
                                            TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
 Section
             2.3.2  Open Pit Backfilling Alternative	2-41
             2.3.3  Facility Layout Alternative (BLM Preferred Alternative)	2-42
             2.3.4  Waste Rock Selective Handling Alternative	2-43

       2.4    FEATURES COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES	2-44
       2.5    SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS FROM
             EACH ALTERNATIVE ANALYZED	2-45
       2.6    AGENCY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE	..2-45

 3.0    AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT	3_1

       3.1    GEOLOGY AND GEOTECHNICAL ISSUES 	3-1

             3.1.1  Study Area.	3_1
             3.1.2  Geologic Setting	3_1
             3.1.3  Geologic Resources	3-2
             3.1.4  Geotechnical Considerations	3-7
             3.1.5  Potential for Additional Copper Development	3-12

       3.2   .HYDROLOGY	3_14

             3.2.1  Study Area.	3.14
             3.2.2  Surface Water Resources	;	3-14
             3.2.3  Groundwater Resources	3_18

       3.3    GEOCHEMISTRY	3.31

            3.3.1 Study Area	3_31
            3.3.2 Static Test Analyses	3_32
            3.3.3 EPA Method 1312 - Synthetic Precipitation Leach Test	3-33

       3.4   SOILS AND RECLAMATION	3.34

            3.4.1 Study Area	3.34
            3.4.2 Soils Resources	3_34

       3.5   VEGETATION	3_40

            3.5.1  Study Area.	3.43
23S90B3.TC Stl6/96Q3l PMVRPTO
                                     -11-

-------
                                             TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Section
             3.5.2  Special Status Species	3-45

      3.6    WILDLIFE	3-45

             3.6.1  Study Area	3-46
             3.6.2  Special Status Species	3-46

      3.7    GRAZING	'.	3-48

             3.7.1  Study Area	3-48

      3.8    SOCIOECONOMICS	3-52

             3.8.1  Study Area	3-52
             3.8.2  Economic Conditions	3-53
             3.8.3  Population	3-56
             3.8.4  Housing	3-57
             3.8.5  Facilities and Services	3-58
             3.8.6  Social Conditions and Quality of Life	3-60

      3.9    TRANSPORTATION	3-61

             3.9.1  Study Area	3-61
             3.9.2  Highways and Local Roads in the Study Area	3-61

      3.10   HAZARDOUS MATERIALS	3-65

             3.10.1 Records Review and Agencies Contacted	3-65
             3.10.2 Historic Mining Operations and Oil and Gas
                   Development in Lisbon Valley	3-66

      3.11   CULTURAL AND PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES	3-66

             3.11.1 Study Area	3-66
             3.11.2 Cultural Resources	3-69
             3.11.3 Paleontological Resources	3-73
2399S/R3.TC #1686(1:51 PMVRPTG
                                      -111-

-------
                                             TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
 Section

       3.12  VISUAL RESOURCES	3.73

             3.12.1 Study Area	:	3.73

       3.13   LAND USE	3.77

             3.13.1 Study Area,	      3.77
             3.13.2 Land Use Resources	3.77

       3.14   CLIMATE AND AIR QUALITY	3.79

             3.14.1 Study Area.	         3.79
             3.14.2 Climate	...."".....H.l 3-79
             3.14.3 Air Quality	^.1"".!"."'. 3-81

       3.15   NOISE	3_84

             3.15.1 Study Area.	  3_g4

       3.16   RECREATIONAL RESOURCES	3.34

             3.16.1 Study Area	       3_g4
             3.16.2 Recreational Resources	        3_g4

4.0   ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES	                    4_1

      4.1    GEOLOGY AND GEOTECHNICAL ISSUES 	4-1

             4.1.1  Methodology	          4_j
             4.1.2  Proposed Action	   4_1
             4.1.3  No Action Alternative	4.3
             4.1.4  Open Pit Backfilling Alternative	.'.'.'".'."!."!.".'.'.'.'.'.".'1 ^
             4.1.5  Facility Layout Alternative	4.4
            4.1.6  Waste Rock Selective Handling Alternative	........4-4

      4.2   HYDROLOGY	4.5

            4.2.1  Methodology	           4_5
            4.2.2  Proposed Action	       4.5

                                    -iv-


-------
                                              TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Section
             4.2.3   No Action Alternative	4-23
             4.2.4   Open Pit Backfilling Alternative	4-24
             4.2.5   Facility Layout Alternative	4-25
             4.2.6   Waste Rock Selective Handling Alternative	4-25

      4.3    GEOCHEMISTRY	4-26

             4.3.1   Methodology	4-26
             4.3.2   Proposed Action	4-26
             4.3.3   No Action Alternative	4-27
             4.3.4   Open Pit Backfilling Alternative	4-27
             4.3.5   Facility Layout Alternative	4-28
             4.3.6   Waste Rock Selective Handling Alternative	4-28

      4.4    SOILS AND RECLAMATION	4-29

             4.4.1   Methodology	4-29
             4.4.2   Proposed Action	4-30
             4.4.3   No Action Alternative	4-34
             4.4.4   Open Pit Backfilling Alternative	4-35
             4.4.5   Facility Layout Alternative	4-35
             4.4.6   Waste Rock Selective Handling Alternative	4-35

      4.5    VEGETATION	4-36

             4.5.1   Methodology	4-36
             4.5.2   Proposed Action	...4-36
             4.5.3   No Action Alternative	4-40
             4.5.4   Open Pit Backfilling Alternative	4-40
             4.5.5   Facility Layout Alternative	4-41
             4.5.6   Waste Rock Selective Handling Alternative	4-41

      4.6    WILDLIFE	4-41

             4.6.1   Methodology	4-41
             4.6.2   Proposed Action	r	4-41
             4.6.3   No Action Alternative	4-45
             4.6.4   Open Pit Backfilling Alternative	•.	4-45
23994/R3.TC S/IS»6(1:S1 PMJ/RPT/3
                                        -V-

-------
                                              TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Section
             4.6.5  Facility Layout Alternative	4.45
             4.6.6  Waste Rock Selective Handling Alternative	4-46

      4.7    GRAZING	4_46

             4.7.1  Methodology	4_46
             4.7.2  Proposed Action	4_46
             4.7.3  No Action Alternative	4.49
             4.7.4  Open Pit Backfilling Alternative	4.49
             4.7.5  Facility Layout Alternative	4-50
             4.7.6  Waste Rock Selective Handling Alternative	4-50

      4.8    SOCIOECONOMICS	4-51

             4.8.1  Methodology	4.51
             4.8.2  Proposed Action	4_51
             4.8.3  No Action Alternative	4.59
             4.8.4  Open Pit Backfilling Alternative	4.59
             4.8.5  Facility Layout Alternative	4.59
             4.8.6  Waste Rock Selective Handling Alternative	4-59

      4.9    TRANSPORTATION	4.59

             4.9.1  Methodology	4.59
             4.9.2  Proposed Action	4_60
             4.9.3  No Action Alternative	4_62
             4.9.4  Open Pit Backfilling Alternative	4-63
             4.9.5  Facility Layout Alternative	4-63
             4.9.6  Waste Rock Selective Handling Alternative	4-64

      4.10    HAZARDOUS MATERIALS	4-64

             4.10.1  Methodology	4_64
             4.10.2  Proposed Action	4_67
             4.10.3  No Action Alternative	4_71
             4.10.4  Open Pit Backfilling Alternative	4.71
             4.10.5  Facility Layout Alternative	4_71
             4.10.6  Waste Rock Selective Handling Alternative	4-71
                                      -VI-

-------
                                             TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
      4.11   CULTURAL AND PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES	4-71

            4.11.1 Methodology	4-71
            4.11.2 Proposed Action	4-72
            4.11.3 No Action Alternative	4-75
            4.11.4 Open Pit Backfilling Alternative	4-75
            4.11.5 Facility Layout Alternative	4-75
            4.11.6 Waste Rock Selective Handling Alternative	4-75

      4.12  VISUAL RESOURCES	4-76

            4.12.1 Methodology	-	4-76
            4.12.2 Proposed Action	4-76
            4.12.3 No Action Alternative	4-77
            4.12.4 Open Pit Backfilling Alternative	4-77
            4.12.5 Facility Layout Alternative	4-77
            4.12.6 Waste Rock Selective Handling Alternative	4-78

      4.13  LAND USE	4-78

            4.13.1 Methodology	4-78
            4.13.2 Proposed Action	4-78
            4.13.3 No Action Alternative	4-79
            4.13.4'Open Pit Backfilling Alternative	4-79
            4.13.5 Facility Layout Alternative	4-79
            4.13.6 Waste Rock Selective Handling Alternative	4-79

      4.14  AIR QUALITY	4-79

            4.14.1 Methodology	4-79
            4.12.2 Proposed Action	4-79
            4.14.3 No Action Alternative	4-83
            4.14.4 Open Pit Backfilling Alternative	4-83
            4.14.5 Facility Layout Alternative	4-83
            4.14.6 Waste Rock Selective Handling Alternative	4-83
2399S/R3.TC 5/16/96(1:51 PMVRPTO
                                      -Vll-


-------
                                           TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
 Section                                                                Page

       4.15   NOISE	4_83

             4.15.1 Methodology	4_83
             4.15.2 Proposed Action	4-83
             4.15.3 No Action Alternative	4-84
             4.15.4 Open Pit Backfilling Alternative	4-84
             4.15.5 Facility Layout Alternative	4-84
             4.15.6 Waste Rock Selective Handling Alternative	4-84

       4.16   RECREATIONAL RESOURCES	4-84

             4.16.1 Methodology	4_84
             4.16.2 Proposed Action	4-85
             4.16.3 No Action Alternative	.'	4-86
             4.16.4 Open Pit Backfilling Alternative	4-86
             4.16.5 Facility Layout Alternative	4-86
             4.16.6 Waste Rock Selective Handling Alternative	4-86

       4.17   CUMULATIVE IMPACTS	4-86
       4.18   UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS	4-90
       4.19   SHORT-TERM USES VS. LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY	4-91
       4.20   IRREVERSIBLE OR IRRETRIEVABLE RESOURCE
             COMMITMENTS	4.93

5.0    CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION	5-1

       5.1   AGENCIES AND ORGANIZATIONS CONSULTED	5-1

            5.1.1  Federal Agencies	5_1
            5.1.2  State Agencies	5_1
            5.1.3  Local Agencies	5_1

      5.2   PUBLIC PARTICIPATION	       5-1
      5.3   PUBLIC COMMENTORS	!!!!""."Z!!!s-l

6.0   LIST OF PREPARERS	6-1

7.0   GLOSSARY	7_i
                                   -VUI-

-------
                                             TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Section




8.0    REFERENCES	8-1




9.0    INDEX	9-1
2399«/R3.TC 5/1*96(1^1 PMVRPT/3
                                      -IX-

-------
                                     TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
 LIST OF APPENDICES
 APPENDIX A
 APPENDIX B
UNP ATENTED MINING CLAIMS
STATIC TEST RESULTS
 LIST OF TABLES

 TABLE 1-1     LISBON VALLEY COPPER PROJECT PERMITS/
              NOTIFICATIONS/APPROVALS	                  1_6
 TABLE 2-1     PROPOSED DISTURBANCE BY FACILITY AND 	
              SURFACE LAND OWNERSHIP                         2-4
 TABLE 2-2     WASTE ROCK DUMPS	"."	2-8
 TABLE2-3     MAJOR MINE EQUIPMENT.              	29
 TABLE 2-4     POND DESIGN CRITERIA	.'.!."."."."".".".".".".""	2-19
 TABLE 2-5     CHEMICAL STORAGE AND USE ESTIMATES	2-26
 TABLE 2-6     ESTIMATED PROJECT WATER USE BY YEAR           2-31
 TABLE 2-7     ESTIMATED TOTAL OPERATIONS WORK
              FORCE (EMPLOYEES)	            2-32
 TABLE 2-8     ESTIMATED WORK FORCE BY SHIFT (POSITIONS) 	2-32
 TABLE 2-9     ESTIMATED DAILY VEHICLE TRIPS	           '2-36
 TABLE2-10     PRELIMINARY SEED MIXTURE           	238
 TABLE 2-11     IMPACT SUMMARY	  	2-46
 TABLE 3.2-1     SUMMARY OF SURFACE WATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS	3-19
 TABLE 3.2-2     SUMMARY OF WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS FOR
              MONITORING WELLS	  3.2i
 TABLE 3.2-3     SUMMARY OF GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS	3-26
 TABLE 3.4-1     PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS
              FOR SOILS	               3_36
 TABLE 3.4-2     SOIL MATERIAL SUITABILITY CRITERIA FOR	
              SALVAGE AND REDISTRIBUTION AS COVERSOIL        3-41
 TABLE 3.7-1     LOWER LISBON GRAZING ALLOTMENTS              3-48
 TABLE 3.7-2     LISBON GRAZING ALLOTMENTS	     	3.43
 TABLE 3.7-3     LOWERLISBON GRAZING ALLOTMENT ROTATION	3.51
 TABLE 3.7-4     PROPOSED DISTURBANCE AND SURFACE LAND
              OWNERSHIP, LOWER LISBON ALLOTMENT-
              PASTURENO. 1 AREA	                  3.51
TABLE 3.7-5     PROPOSED DISTURBANCE AND SURFACE LAND
              OWNERSHIP, LISBON ALLOTMENT	3-52

                               -x-

-------
                                    TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
TABLE 3.9-1    AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC	3-62
TABLE 3.9-2    ACCIDENT HISTORY - HIGHWAYS	3-63
TABLE 3.10-1   GOVERNMENT AGENCIES AND DATA SOURCES
             CONSULTED REGARDING POTENTIAL HAZARDOUS
             WASTE SITES	'.	3-67
TABLE 3.11-1   POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT CULTURAL
             RESOURCES IN THE STUDY AREA	3-71
TABLE 3.13-1   LAND AUTHORIZATION AND DESIGNATIONS
             WITHIN LANDS ENCOMPASSED BY THE PROPOSED
             PROJECT BOUNDARY	3-78
TABLE 3.14-1   MONTHLY TEMPERATURE MEANS	3-80
TABLE 3.14-2   MONTHLY PRECIPITATION AND SNOWFALL	3-82
TABLE 4.5-1    DIRECT IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION BY
             FACILITY AND VEGETATIVE COMMUNITY TYPE	4-38
TABLE 4.5-2    DIRECT IMPACT OF THE FACILITY LAYOUT
             ALTERNATIVE BY FACILITY AND VEGETATIVE
             COMMUNITY TYPE	4-42
TABLE 4.7-1    ACREAGE REQUIREMENTS FOR ONE AUM BY
             ECOLOGICAL SITE.....	4-47
TABLE 4-7.2    TEMPORARY GRAZING LOSS...	4-48
TABLE 4-7.3    PERMANENT GRAZING LOSS	4-50
TABLE 4.14-1   MAXIMUM PMw IMPACTS	4-82
TABLE 4.14-2   PROPOSED AIR POLLUTANT CONTROL
             TECHNOLOGY AND ASSUMED EFFICIENCY	4-82
23996/R3.TC #1096(1:51 PMVRTO3
                              -XI-

-------
                                     TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE 1-1     LOCATION MAP, LISBON VALLEY AREA	1-2
FIGURE 1-2     PROJECT BOUNDARIES AND SURFACE OWNERSHIP	1-3
FIGURE 2-1     LOCATION OF MINE FACILITIES AND AREA OF
              SURFACE CONTROL	2-3
FIGURE 2-2     PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM AREA 02 AND 03 CRUSHING
              AND SCREENING	2-11
FIGURE 2-3     PLANT SITE PLAN	2-13
FIGURE 2-4     LEACHPAD DETAILS	2-14
FIGURE 2-5     LINERDETAILS	2-15
FIGURE 2-6     PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM AREA 03 HEAP LEACHING	2-16
FIGURE 2-7     PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM AREA 04 SOLVENT
              EXTRACTION	'.	2-21
FIGURE 2-8     PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM AREA 05 ELECTROWINNING	2-23
FIGURE 2-9     PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM AREA 05 CATHODE
              HANDLING	2-25
FIGURE 2-10    SIMPLIFIED WATER BALANCE	2-30
FIGURE 2-11    ELECTRICAL POWERLINE CORRIDOR MAP	2-33
FIGURE 3.1-1    GEOLOGICAL MAP FOR THE LISBON VALLEY	3-3
FIGURE 3.1-2    STRATIGRAPHIC SECTION	3-5
FIGURE 3.1-3    CROSS SECTION A-A1, CENTENNIAL PIT AREA	.	3-6
FIGURE 3.1-4    CROSS SECTION B-B1, CENTENNIAL PIT AREA	3-8
FIGURE 3.1-5    CROSS SECTION C-C, SENTINEL #2 PIT AREA	3-9
FIGURE 3.1-6    CROSS SECTION D-D1, SENTINEL #1 PIT AREA	3-10
FIGURE 3.1-7    CROSS SECTION E-E1, GTO PIT AREA	3-11
FIGURE 3.2-1    MONITORING WELL, BORING, AND SURFACE
              WATER SAMPLING LOCATIONS	3-15
FIGURE 3.2-2    SURFACE WATER FEATURES	3-16
FIGURE 3.2-3    GROUNDWATER STIFF DIAGRAMS	3-27
FIGURE 3.4-1    SOILS MAP	3-35
FIGURE3.5-1    VEGETATTONMAP	3-42
FIGURE 3.5-2    EXISTING CONDITIONS IN LISBON CANYON (PHOTO)	3-44
FIGURE 3.7-1    LOWER LISBON VALLEY GRAZING ALLOTMENTS	3-49
FIGURE 3.8-1    UNEMPLOYMENT RATE (%)	3-54
FIGURE 3.8-2    INDUSTRY TRENDS IN  GRAND COUNTY: 1978-1994	3-55
FIGURE 3.8-3    INDUSTRY TRENDS IN  SAN JUAN COUNTY: 1990-1994	3-55
FIGURE 3.8-4    AVERAGE ANNUAL WAGES ($)	3-56
23S9&-R3.TC S1S/9«0:S1 PMyRPI/3
-X11-

-------
                                     TABLE OF CONTENTS (Concluded)
                                                              Page

FIGURE 3.8-5    POPULATION TRENDS IN SAN JUAN AND GRAND
           -   COUNTIES: 1980-1994	3-56
FIGURE 3.11-1   CULTURAL RESOURCES STUDY AREA	3-68
FIGURE 3.12-1   WOODS RANCH HEAP LEACH AREA (PHOTO)	3-74
FIGURE 3.12-2   TYPICAL LISBON VALLEY SCENE (PHOTO)	3-74
FIGURE 3.12-3   HISTORIC REMAINS OF THE GTO PIT (PHOTO)	3-75
FIGURE 3.12-4   LISBON SPRING AREA (PHOTO)	3-75
FIGURE 3.14-1   WIND FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION	3-83
FIGURE 4.2-1    PREDICTED GROUNDWATER DRAWDOWN, YEAR n	4-7
FIGURE 4.2-2    PREDICTED POST-MINING STEADY-STATE
              GROUNDWATER DRAWDOWN	4-8
FIGURE 4.2-3    PANORAMIC VIEW OF MOUTH OF LISBON CANYON
              (PHOTO)	4-11
FIGURE 4.2-4    HEAD AND SURFACE ELEVATIONS AT EACH PIT
              OVERTIME	4-15
FIGURE 4.2-5    EXISTING EROSION IN LISBON VALLEY (PHOTO)	4-17
FIGURE 4.2-6    GTO PIT AREA (PHOTO)	4-19
FIGURE 4.8-1    PROJECTED EMPLOYMENT	4-53
FIGURE 4.14-1   24-HOUR MAXIMUM PMio IMPACTS	4-81
FIGURE 4.17-1   CUMULATIVE IMPACTS STUDY AREA	4-87
23996/R3.TC 5/161/96(151 PMVRPT/3
                               -xm-

-------

-------
                                    LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
ACEC
ac-ft/yr
AGP
AIRFA
ANFO
ANP
ARD
ARPA
ATV
AUM
bgs
BLM
cfs
CQA/QC
DAQ
DEIS
DR/FONSI
EIS
EPA
ESA
FEIS
FLPMA
g/i
gpm
gpm/ft
GR
HDPE
IPs
km
LME
mg/1
MOU
MSHA
msl
NAAQS
NAGPRA

23996/R3.TC 5/lOT6(l:31 PMyRPT/3
 Area of Critical Environmental Concern
 acre-feet per year
 acid generation potential
 American Indian Religious Freedom Act
 ammonium nitrate and fuel oil
 acid neutralization potential
 acid rock drainage
 Archaeological Resources Protection Act
 all terrain vehicle
 animal unit months
 below ground surface
 U.S. Bureau of Land Management
 cubic feet per second
 construction quality assurance/quality control
 Utah Division of Air Quality
 Draft Environmental Impact Statement
 Decision  Record and Finding of No Significant Impact
 Environmental Impact Statement
 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
 Federal Endangered Species Act
 Final Environmental Impact Statement
 Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976
 grams per liter
 gallons per minute
 gallons per minute per square foot
 grassland/rangeland
 high density polyethylene
 isolated finds
 kilometers
 London Metal Exchange
 milligrams per liter
Memorandum of Understanding
U.S. Mine Safety and Health Administration
 mean sea level
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act

                   -xiv-

-------
 NEPA
 NHPA
 NNP
 NOAA
 NOI
 NPDES
 NRHP
 pCi/1
 PJ
 PLS
 POO
 PSD
 OSHA
 RO.
 RCRA
 RMP
 ROD
 ROM
 SB
 SCS
 SPCC
 Summo
 SXffiW
 IDS
 TSS
 UDOGM
 UDWR
 UNHP
 USDA
 USFWS
 VRM
 yr
 National Environmental Policy Act
 National Historic Preservation Act
 net neutralization potential
 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
 Notice of Intent
 National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
 National Register of Historic Places
 picoCuries per liter
 pinyon-juniper
 pregnant leach solution
 Plan of Operations
 Prevention of Significant Deterioration (air quality)
 Occupational Safety and Health Act
 reverse osmosis
 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
 Resource Management Plan
 Record of Decision
 run-of-mine
 sagebrush
 U.S. Soil Conservation Service
 Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasures
 Summo USA Corporation
 Solvent Extraction/Electrowinning
 total dissolved solids
 total suspended solids
 Utah Division of Oil, Gas & Mining
 Utah Division of Wildlife Resources
 Utah Natural Heritage Program
U.S. Department of Agriculture
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Visual Resources Management
year
J3996/B3.TC Sflfi/96051 PM)/RFTO
                                       -XV-

-------
                                                         EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION

This Summary of the Draft Environmental
Impact Statement (DEIS), prepared by the
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of
Land Management (BLM), Moab, Utah,
District Office, describes the evaluation of
a proposal by Summo USA Corporation
(Summo)  to develop the Lisbon  Valley
Copper Project in San Juan County, Utah.
The EIS is prepared under requirements of
the National Environmental  Policy  Act
(NEPA).

The BLM is the lead agency responsible
for preparation of the EIS, and for issuing
a final decision regarding the mine  permit
application presented  by Summo  in the
form  of a proposed Plan of  Operations
(POO). For purposes of impact evaluation,
technical  expertise  was  provided  by
independent   third-party    consultants
selected  by,  and  working  under  the
direction of, the BLM.

The BLM will  seek  public and agency
comments on the proposed project  during
the public comment period (May 24, 1996
through My 8,  1996).  Additionally,  a
public meeting will be held in Moab, Utah,
on  June 12,  1996, to receive  comments.
Comments and issues brought forth  during
the review of the DEIS will be addressed in
the Final EIS.  The BLM will consider the
Proposed Action and alternatives presented
in the FEIS and issue a  decision on the
POO  for the Lisbon Valley Project.  The
final  decision  and   rationale   will  be
presented  in  a document known as  the
Record of Decision (ROD).
This  summary  of the DEIS  contains a
description of the Proposed Action and
alternatives  to  the  Proposed   Action;
identifies the BLM's preferred alternative;
summarizes     existing     environmental
conditions, analyzes various issues,  and
discloses  the  major  impacts  of  the
proposed   project   and   the   various
alternatives upon the environment.

PROPOSED ACTION AND
ALTERNATIVES

Project Description (Proposed Action)

On August 8,' 1995, Summo submitted a
proposed Plan of Operations to the BLM,
Moab District, to develop a copper mine in
Lower Lisbon Valley, Utah.   The proposal
includes: development of four open pits to
access  copper   ore;  four  waste  rock
disposal areas,  crushing facilities; a  266
acre leach pad to  process  the  ore;  a
processing plant and ponds; construction
of a  powerline; and associated  support
facilities. The total disturbance area would
be  1,030  acres;  the project  would  be
located on a combination of Federal, State,
and private (fee) lands.

Reclamation plans include both concurrent
and  post-mining activities  to  mitigate
potential   adverse    effects  on   the
environment,   minimize  public   safety
hazards, and return the site to the existing
land uses  that are currently emphasized:
wildlife habitat, livestock  grazing,  and
mineral development.

Final reclamation activities would  include
the removal of all equipment and facilities,
2399S/R3.ES Sfl6/96(.rS3PM)/RPT/4
                                       ES-1

-------
 and revegetation of the facility areas. The
 waste rock piles and the leach pad would
 be graded,  contoured,  coversoil applied
 and the areas revegetated with an approved
 grass, forb,  and shrub mix.   Post-closure
 monitoring by  the  proponent  would  be
 required to  ensure successful reclamation
 and compliance with permit standards.

 Issues

 Areas of concern were identified through
 public scoping and agency project review.
 Public scoping meetings were held in Moab
 and Monticello, Utah on November  1 and
 2, 1995, to solicit public comment.  Based
 on scoping and agency review the primary
 issues were identified that reflect concerns
 or conflicts that could be partially or totally
 resolved through the EIS process.  These
 issues are:

    •   Surface and groundwater quality
    •   Geochemistry  and    acid   rock
       drainage
    •   Adequacy of reclamation plans
    •   Vegetation and wildlife,  especially
       threatened and endangered species
    •   Socioeconomics
    •   Cultural resources
    •   Air quality
    *   Visual resources

These issues are by no means the complete
list of environmental concerns  identified
during NEPA project review and public
scoping.  However, they  do  represent the
issues that raised the most comments or
concerns,   were  considered   in   the
development  of alternatives and, as  well,
provided direction for the impact analysis.
 Development of Alternatives

 The  issues  identified  through  agency
 review and public scoping efforts were
 used  to  formulate reasonable alternative
 actions pertaining  to  the  proposed mine
 development.   These alternatives  were
 evaluated    based   on     engineering,
 environmental, and economic factors.  The
 engineering  evaluation included technical
 implementability and  effectiveness; while
 the environmental  evaluation  considered
 potential  impacts on air, water, and  soil,
 with consideration  of subsequent  impacts
 to cultural resources,  vegetation, wildlife,
 and the human environment.  Cost  was
 only  considered   as  a   factor   in  the
 elimination of an alternative where it would
 likely result in an uneconomic mine project,
 thus equating to the No Action Alternative.

 Summary Description of Alternatives

 No Action Alternative

 This alternative evaluates  the possibility
 that the Proposed  Action  of mining  and
 heap leaching might involve "undue  and
 unnecessary  environmental  degradation"
 under BLM regulatory requirements at 43
 CFR 3809.    Summo  would not  receive
 approval  to  develop  the  Lisbon Valley
 Project, copper  mining and heap leaching
 activities  would  not  occur,  and  ore
 reserves   in   the   area   would   remain
 undeveloped.    Existing   environmental
 conditions  would   remain   unchanged,
 including  85  acres of historic  mining
 disturbance.

 Open Pit Backfilling Alternative

 This  alternative is the   same  as  the
Proposed Action except that the pits would
                                       ES-2

-------
either be partially or completely backfilled
with material from the waste rock dumps.
Under the partial backfilling scenario, the
pits  would  be  backfilled  to  a  depth
sufficient to eliminate the projected pool of
water in the  pits.  This backfilling would
also  reduce the height and area!  extent of
the dumps, and visual resources impacts.

Under the  complete  backfilling  scenario,
the pits would be  completely backfilled,
which  would  return the  pits  to  the
approximate  original contour that existed
before any mining activities occurred in the
area.    Complete  backfilling would  not
eliminate the  disturbance created by or the
need for waste rock dumps. Dumps would
be needed to store waste rock during pit
development, and until backfilling activities
could  commence.    In addition,  dumps
would remain after backfilling due to the
swell factor of the waste rock. Backfilling
activities would occur  concurrently with
operations  after each pit is sequentially
mined  to its  economic limit.  Again, this
complete backfilling  would  substantially
reduce the  height and area!  extent of the
dumps.

Facility Layout Alternative

This alternative would be the same as the
Proposed Action except that Waste Dump
D, which is proposed to be located directly
adjacent to the Lower Lisbon Valley Road,
would be eliminated.   The waste  rock
would  instead  be   transported  to  an
enlarged Waste Dump  C.   In this way,
waste disposal activities would be confined
to a single, large dump north of the Lisbon
Valley Road  and not  be divided  into two
smaller  dumps,  thus  reducing  visual
impacts  to   the  traveling  public  along
Lower Lisbon Valley Road.
Waste Rock Selective Handling Alternative

This alternative would be the same as the
Proposed Action,  except that potentially
acid generating waste  material would  be
selectively   placed   within  the  dumps.
Approximately ten  percent  of the waste
material has the potential to generate  acid,
while the remainder of the waste rock is
either non-acid generating or has the ability
to neutralize acid.   Under this alternative,
potentially  acid-generating material would
be selectively placed in the central part of
the waste dumps and away from the top or
sides of the dump to inhibit contact  with
water and  oxygen, and  thus inhibit  acid
generation.

Agency Preferred Alternative

In  accordance   with   NEPA,   Federal
agencies are required by the Council  on
Environmental  Quality  regulations  (40
CFR 1502.14) to  identify their preferred
alternative  for a project at the Draft EIS
stage.  The preferred alternative is not a
final  agency decision;  but  rather  an
indication  of the  agency's  preliminary
preference.   This   preference  may   be
changed  in  the  Final  EIS  based  on
additional  information  provided and/or
obtained during  the Draft  EIS comment
period.

The  BLM preferred alternative for the
Lisbon  Valley  Copper  Project  is  the
Facility  Layout Alternative.   Under this
alternative, the Proposed  Action would  be
implemented   with  the   exception   of
requiring Waste Dump  D to be combined
with Waste  Dump  C,  in  the proposed
location  of  Waste Dump   C.     This
alternative would mitigate adverse impacts
from concurrent  and post-mining drainage
23996/K5.ES »16/9S(!33PMVRPT/4
                                       ES-3

-------
 run-off, and long-term sedimentation into
 Lisbon  Canyon.    This alternative  may
 require  additional mitigation to cultural
 resource sites, dependent on final detailed
 design and layout of Waste Dump C.  This
 alternative also may require transport of
 additional topsoil to  the  site  for  final
 reclamation.

 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

 Chapter  3 of the DEIS  describes the
 baseline natural  resources  and economic
 and social conditions found  in the study
 area.  Following is a brief summary of this
 affected environment.

 The proposed project is located in Lower
 Lisbon   Valley   in   southwest   Utah,
 approximately  19 miles southeast of La
 Sal.   The nearest towns include La  Sal,
 Moab (approximately 40 miles northwest),
 and Monticello (approximately 30  miles
 southwest).  A network of Federal  and
 State  highways,  and a number of local
 roads  would  provide  access   to  the
 proposed project site.

 The  proposed  project  is  in   an  area
 characterized  by  historical   copper  and
 uranium  mining activity.   Approximately
 85 acres of this  site show  evidence of
 previous mining in the form of abandoned
 pits, stockpiles and overburden dumps that
 were never reclaimed.

 The affected  environment   includes  the
valley  floor of Lower Lisbon Valley  and
gently sloping  cuestas  and  structural
benches (trending  northwest to southeast)
that flank  the valley. The Lisbon Valley
project area is located at approximately
6,500  feet above  mean sea  level.   The
semi-arid  climate is characterized by  dry
 air,   sunny  days,  clear  nights,   low
 precipitation, high evaporation and  large
 diurnal  temperature changes.   Because
 there is neither  industrial  activity  nor
 urbanization,  baseline   air   quality   is
 characteristic of natural, rural air  quality
 conditions.

 Most of the soils  in the project area are
 sandy loams, with characteristics suitable
 for reclamation.  Vegetation in the region
 is categorized into three primary vegetation
 zones:    pinyon-juniper, sagebrush,   and
 grassland communities.   No  threatened,
 endangered or sensitive plant  species are
 known to occur within the project area. A
 variety of  wildlife species  can also be
 found.  Well-known species include mule
 deer, rabbits, mice, badgers, coyotes, and a
 variety  of  raptors  such  as  eagles,
 ferruginous  hawks, prairie falcons,  red-
 tailed hawks and others.  Current land uses
 of the study area include mining, wildlife
 habitat,  livestock  grazing,  and  limited
 recreation.

 Surface water in the vicinity is limited to
 that flowing from Lisbon Spring (outside
 the project boundary) and Huntley Spring,
 water intermittently ponded in two existing
 pits, and two cattle ponds.  Surface water
 drainages   in   the  project   area   are
 characterized by dry washes typical for this
 area of Utah.  Ephemeral flow occurs  only
 after  major precipitation events  such as
 thunderstorms.  The cattle ponds capture
 surface runoff for livestock and wildlife
 use. Wildlife also use the springs.

 The distribution  of groundwater at  the
project   site  is  erratic  and  strongly
 controlled by geologic  structure.    The
numerous faults present in the project area
act as barriers • to groundwater  flow in
                                        ES-4

-------
some cases,  and effectively  separate the
shallow aquifer into separate water-bearing
units.  The depth to groundwater ranges
from 60 feet to 300 feet below the ground
surface.    Existing  surface  water  and
groundwater quality exceeds Utah primary
and secondary drinking water standards for
several  metals,  radionuclides,  and TDS.
The  shallow groundwater in the project
area is non-potable  when  compared to
Utah drinking water standards, and has not
been used  historically for either livestock
or domestic use.

The economy of the area is has changed
from one driven primarily by the energy
and mining markets hi the 1970s and early
1980s to one that is currently supported by
tourism,  especially   outdoor  recreation.
However, recreational opportunities in the
study area are minimal, and visual qualities
are not outstanding in comparison to other
regional attractions.

Numerous archeological surveys have been
conducted within, and in the vicinity of the
Lisbon Valley area.  In anticipation of the
Proposed  Action,  an  intensive cultural
resource '  survey   was   conducted   on
approximately 3,640 acres. A total of 178
historic and prehistoric archeological sites
were recorded in the study area, including
159 prehistoric  sites, 14  historic sites,  4
sites with  both  prehistoric  and historic
materials, and 1 possible traditional cultural
property.     The   prehistoric  sites  are
represented  by  camps,  quarries,  litbic
procurement localities, Ethic scatters, lithic
and  sherd  scatters, pinyon  procurement
(stone tools) localities, rockshelters, and a
wickiup  (shelter).    The  historic  sites
include   mining  locations,  homesteads,
brush pens,  corrals, and fences.    The
possible  traditional  cultural  property  is

23996/R3.ES 5/16/96(1:53 PMyRPT/4                      ES-5
represented by a stone 'circle site, that may
have been used for vision quest activities.

EJ^RONMENTAL
CONSEQUENCES

The  Proposed   Action  and   the   four
alternatives were  evaluated   for  their
potential impact on various environmental,
social, and cultural  resources.  A detailed
discussion    of   these   impacts,   or
environmental consequences, is contained
in Chapter 4 of the EIS.  The following
discussions highlight the EIS material, with
a  brief  discussion of impacts to  each
environmental resource.

Geology and Geotechnical Issues

Geologic impacts  associated   with the
implementation of the Proposed Action or
alternatives would include the removal of
local   copper   resources,   changes  in
topography of the pit,  heap  leach, and
waste rock dump areas (946 acres); and
the covering of mineral resources from pit
backfilling should the Open Pit Backfilling
Alternative be implemented.

Potential  geotechnical  impacts  include
failure of constructed  slopes caused by a
seismic event in the vicinity, solution pond
overtopping during a large  precipitation
event,  and breach  of the leach pad liner
due to punctures or  incorrectly  welded
seams.   These  potential  impacts  were
considered when  the  leach   pad  was
designed, and  measures  were taken to
reduce the probability of leach pad failure.

Hydrology

Project operations would use  up  to 902
gallons  of water per  minute  (for  peak

-------
 demand  in  year  5),  which  would  be
 supplied  from  existing  shallow  wells,
 possibly some new deep wells, and mine pit
 dewatering.   The effects  of dewatering
 would reduce the quantity of groundwater
 available  from the shallow aquifer in the
 mine vicinity during operations and for a
 period  of years  after  mining  ceases.
 However, results of groundwater modeling
 indicate that there would be an increase in
 water levels near the  Sentinel Pit due to
 discharge of ephemeral surface water flow
 to  the pit, and  subsequent groundwater
 recharge.    Lisbon  Spring  and  Huntley
 Spring would not be impacted because the
 source of recharge to these two springs is
 likely not connected to the shallow aquifer
 in the project area.  Additionally, surface
 water diversion ditches around the Sentinel
 Pit would improve  existing uncontrolled
 erosion conditions in the project  vicinity.
 However, if this ditch were not maintained
 following  operations,  extensive  erosion
 would likely occur in the  three drainages
 that converge upstream of the Sentinel Pit.

 The water produced from various sources
 as  noted  above,  would  be used  for  ore
 processing^ dust control for the roads, and
 for some washdown  uses.   The  total
 groundwater use by  project  operations
 ranges from 161-1,455 ac-ft/yr. Following
 operations, the Sentinel Pit would intercept
 up to 177 ac-ft/yr of the surface water flow
 down Lisbon Canyon.   Few impacts  to
 Lisbon Canyon are expected, because it is
 already an ephemeral drainage.  Complete
 pit   backfilling   and   diversion  would
 preserve the 177-ac-ft/yr surface flow, and
 not intercept groundwater flows.

Existing water quality is generally poor;
 however,  mining  operations could further •
 degrade water quality if there was a  leach
 pad failure, or if acid or alkaline conditions
 developed in the waste rock piles or the pit
 walls.  Selective layering of potentially acid
 generating material within the waste piles
 would   address   some   acid   drainage
 concerns.    The  Open  Pit  Backfilling
 Alternative would reduce the quantity  of
 waste  rock  on  the  surface  and cover
 potentially  acid  or  alkaline  materials
 exposed in the pit walls; however,  pockets
 of both  potential   acid  and   alkaline
 conditions could occur in the pits  and
 waste  piles.    These  impacts  are  not
 expected to be high, because of the current
 degraded water quality  and the  lack  of
 current and  potential  future use  of this
 water.

 Three  of the pits are predicted to contain
 106-289 feet of standing water after mining
 operations cease.  No beneficial use of this
 water  is currently planned, but  it could
 potentially provide water for irrigation and
 livestock water  depending upon future
 water  quality.    Under  the  Open  Pit
 Backfilling Alternative,  this water would
 not be available for any potential future
 beneficial uses.

 Geochemistry

 Based  on  the results  of the EPA 1312
 Method analyses, about 10 percent of the
 waste  rock  material  has  a  potential to
 generate acid; the rest  of the  material  is
 acid neutralizing.  Should this material be
 placed  in the waste rock dumps such that it
 is exposed to water and oxygen, there is a
 small  potential for acid  drainage which
 could affect  soils, vegetation,  and water
 quality near the waste  dumps.  However,
 encapsulation, layering, or blending  this
 material in the waste dumps would inhibit.
the oxidation reactions that produce acid
                                        ES-6

-------
drainage.  Additionally, backfilling of the
pits  would  cover  some acid-generating
material in the pit walls, but could result in
pockets of acid or alkaline water quality in
the pits.

Other  geochemical  impacts  include the
potential development of alkaline leachates
from aging waste piles and exposed rock in
the water-filled pits, which could produce
elevated  levels  of sulfates,  IDS,  and
precipitate trace  metals  over  baseline
conditions.  This could  degrade shallow
aquifer water quality; however, this water
is not currently used for  any purpose, and
no foreseeable use is expected.

Soils and Reclamation

Potential  impacts   to  the soil resource
include the disturbance and alteration of
1,103 acres of native soils and increased
exposure  to   accelerated  erosion   and
surface  runoff.     Under  the  Proposed
Action, 872 acres would  be reclaimed and
231  acres of pits  would be  left open.
Adequate quantities of cover soil material
could be salvaged for use in reclamation.
Under the "Open Pit Backfilling alternative,
complete  backfilling  of the  pits would
include reclamation of all 1,103 acres of
disturbance.  However, due to the larger
area to be reclaimed, additional cover soil
material would have to be obtained in the
project vicinity or elsewhere.  The Facility
Layout alternative  would also necessitate
obtaining addition cover  soil material due
to the loss of material that would not be
salvaged in the vicinity of Waste Dump D.

Most of the soils that would be disturbed
are moderately susceptible to water erosion
and  highly  susceptible to wind erosion
when the vegetative cover is  removed.
Several  erosion  control  measures  have
been included in Summo's Proposed Plan
of Operations, and the BLM may require
additional  erosion  control measures  to
reduce potential impacts from erosion and
increase   the  potential   for   successful
reclamation.

Vegetation

Implementation of the Proposed Action or
any of the development alternatives would
disturb a total of 1,103 acres:  432 acres of
sagebrush  communities,  296  acres  of
pinyon-juniper communities, and 290 acres
of grasslands. Approximately 85  acres of
previously disturbed and unreclaimed lands
are included in the total disturbance area.
Under the Proposed Action, 231  acres of
open  pits would not be reclaimed.   In
addition,  296  acres  of  pinyon-juniper
habitat would be  replaced with sagebrush
and   grassland   communities   in  final
reclamation.
Under the Proposed Action and any of the
development  alternatives,  approximately
1,103 acres of wildlife habitat would be
disturbed  for the  life  of the  project.
Previous wildlife studies in 1994  and late
1995 have not identified any threatened or
endangered  species  in  the  project  area;
however,  another survey in the spring of
1996 is being conducted for confirmation.

Additional impacts to wildlife from project
construction and development include the
permanent loss of prairie dog towns and 2
stock ponds likely used by wildlife in the
vicinity of the leach pad area, impacts from
construction and operations such  as night
lighting and  blasting noise, which could
2399S/R3.ES SW96(l:S3PM)/RPT/.4
                                        ES-7

-------
 cause the displacement of resident fauna.
 Leach  solution ponds could .attract birds
 and waterfowl, and possible disturbance of
 raptors  could occur during  breeding and
 nesting season.

 Grazing

 Project   construction  and  development
 would   impact  two  different  grazing
 allotments; 325 acres in the Lower Lisbon
 Allotment and 395  acres in the  Lisbon
 Allotment for a total of 71.6 Animal Unit
 Months (AUMs) that would be lost for the
 life of the project.  Following reclamation,
 there would be a  permanent loss  of 7.2
 AUMs  in the vicinity of the  open pits
 unless the complete backfilling alternative
 is selected.

 Socioeconomics

 The proposed project is expected to have a
 positive   impact   on   economics  and
 employment   in  Grand   and  San  Juan
 counties.   The project would  create 80
 construction jobs and up to 143  jobs over
 the  life  of  the  project,  thus   reducing
 unemployment in the project area,  and
 would pay $54.5 million in payroll over the
 life of the project.  It is expected that the
 majority of positions would  be filled by
 residents  of Moab, Monticello,  Blanding,
 and La Sal.

 The Proposed Action is not expected to
 appreciably increase the population  of the
 study  area;  therefore,  no  impacts  on
 housing and local facilities and services —
 such  as fire  and medical facilities, law
 enforcement,   public  utilities,  and  water
 supply — are projected. However, should
 a large  number of positions have  to be
filled from outside the area, there could be
 a  strain  on  the local housing  market.
 Additionally,  increased wear on  county-
 maintained roads in the study are expected
 due to increased traffic.

 There would be no notable social  impacts
 on the quality of life for residents of Moab,
 Monticello,  and  La  Sal   (the  nearest
 communities)  due to the remoteness of the
 proposed project.

 Transportation

 Traffic on Federal and State highways, and
 on the  network  of  local  roads would
 increase due  to  worker commuter  trips,
 delivery of supplies,  shipment of copper
 plates, and heavy equipment movement  in
 the project area; however, increased traffic
 in the area would not exceed the capacity
 of the existing  road network.    It  is
 estimated that traffic accidents on area
 roads would  increase by  0.88 accident/
 year.

 Due to increased traffic,  road wear and
 maintenance costs to  county road districts
 would increase, but this would likely be
 compensated through  increased local tax
 revenues.

 During  operations,  stop  signs, warning
 signs,  and  lighting   would  keep  traffic
 congestion and delays to a minimum on the
 Lisbon Valley Road  through the  project
 site.

 Hazardous Materials

 An estimated 10 truck trips per day would
be needed to haul hazardous materials to
the mine site resulting in an estimated 0.51
accident   over the   life  of the   mine.
Accidental spills  of  this  material  could
                                        ES-8

-------
contaminate    soils   and   vegetation.
However,  each  company  transporting
hazardous    materials,    including    the
proponent, would have a Spill Prevention,
Control, and  Countermeasures  (SPCC)
Plan.  This plan would include maintaining
spill containment and clean up equipment
on  site, and training of mine  staff  to
respond to spills according to Federal and
State guidelines.

Hazardous materials used on-site would be
stored in secondary containment vessels on
a lined pad, and within a bermed area or on
a concrete floor above a drainage sump.
Therefore,  it is unlikely that any spills or
releases would result in contamination of
the surrounding environment.   Spills  of
hazardous materials outside of the storage
areas would  be controlled  in two ways.
First, for major spills, the mine's proposed
grading and drainage  design would ensure
that any uncontained material would  run
off into the leach pad, solution ponds, or
stormwater ponds.   Second, the  SPCC
Plan would prepare personnel to  contain
and clean up  the spill  according to Federal
and State guidelines.

All hazardous wastes generated at the mine
over the life of the project would either be
transported off site  for  disposal  at  an
appropriate  facility,   or  treated   and
neutralized on site to acceptable regulatory
levels.
and development of the proposed project.
A total  of  5  sites  would  be directly
impacted if the Facility Layout Alternative
was  implemented.   Mitigation  measures
include  site  avoidance   and,   where
avoidance is not feasible, data recovery and
analysis.  Development of a data recovery
plan would involve consultation among the
BLM,  State Historic Preservation Officer,
Advisory Council, and project proponent.
Project personnel would be restricted from
sites not directly impacted.

There    are    no   known   significant
paleontological resources  in  the  project
area.

Visual Resources

The landscape in the project area is of low
scenic  quality and sensitivity,  and project
activities would be within the  Class  IV
BLM guidelines for this area.  However,
notable visual contrasts would  occur in the
immediate  project  area  along  Lower
Lisbon Valley  Road.   Reclamation and
revegetation measures would reduce visual
impacts, but the water-filled pits,  reclaimed
waste  rock piles, and  leach  pad  would
remain.  Implementation of the  Open Pit
Backfilling  Alternative would reduce the
size of the waste rock piles,  and the pit
areas  would  be returned to  topographic
contours   similar   to    predisturbance
conditions.
Cultural and Paleontological Resources

There are 178 cultural resource sites within
the  project   area,  of which  24   are
potentially eligible to  be listed  on  the
National Register of Historic Places (none
are currently listed).  Of the  24 sites, one
would be directly impacted by construction
Land Use

Implementation of the Proposed Action or
any of the development alternatives would
change the current land uses of grazing and
wildlife habitat to active copper mining and
beneficiation on 247 acres of private (fee)
land; 574 acres  of BLM  land; and 273
2399WR33S 5/16/96(1:53 PMyWT/4
                                        ES-9

-------
 acres of State land;  for  the life of the
 project. No changes in property ownership
 are expected.

 Following  reclamation,  the  site would
 again be used for grazing, wildlife habitat
 and recreation.

 Climate and Air Quality

 Particulate     matter     dust     (PMio)
 concentrations were modeled for years 5
 and  9,  the years  of highest operations
 activity.  Concentrations were within the
 24-hour and annual National Ambient Air
 Quality Standards (NAAQS).  Background
 PMio levels at the project boundary would
 increase by 7 to 26 um/m3 from project
 operations,  which  levels are  well within
 NAAQS standards.
  oise

Noise levels are not expected to exceed
regulatory standards for workers inside the
property boundaries, nor for local residents
and users of adjoining  property  outside
property  boundaries.    Passersby  may
periodically  experience  impacts   from
nuisance  noise  levels  from  blasting and
truck traffic.  Blasting would occur only
during daylight hours,  only once per day
on average, and approximately every  other
day.  Residents of a planned  development
several miles south of the project area may
periodically hear blasting noise as  part of
background noise levels.

Recreational Resources

The  proposed  project  area  supports
minimal recreational opportunities such as
seasonal big and small game hunting, and
camping   and  ATV  activities   usually
associated with hunting.  In addition, the
Three  Step Hill area is occasionally used
for Christmas tree harvesting or firewood
collection.  Construction and development
activities would result in the displacement
of big  and  small game hunters in  and
around the project site for the life of the
mine.   In addition,  there  may  be  some
access  restrictions to recreation  through
the life of the project due to road closures
and mine traffic.
                                       ES-10

-------
                                                                                  1.0
                                                                   INTRODUCTION
This   Draft    Environmental    Impact
Statement (DEIS) addresses the potential
impacts of  the  proposed  Lisbon Valley
Copper   Project   (the   Project)   in
southeastern Utah.  This section includes
an introduction  to the  proposed project,
and its facilities and location; the  purpose
and need for the project; the environmental
analysis by the U.S.  Bureau  of Land
Management (BLM) to assess the impacts
for this project; and background regarding
other mitigation, permitting,  and  public
involvement and scoping issues which have
shaped this analysis.

Summo USA  Corporation (Summo),  a
subsidiary    of    Summo     Minerals
Corporation, is  proposing  to conduct an
open  pit  mining,  heap  leach  copper
operation at its Lisbon Valley project.  The
project is located approximately 18 miles
southeast  of La Sal, Utah, in  San Juan
County (Figure. 1-1).  Mining would occur
at four open pits:  the Centennial, Sentinel
#1, Sentinel #2, and GTO ( Figure 1-2).

The proposed project is located on private
(fee) land, State leases, and land controlled
by  BLM  upon  which   Summo  has
unpatented  mining claims.  Details on the
affected land sections are given in Section
2.0. The  unpatented  mining   claims are
administered by Hie  BLM,  Moab  Field
Office, with offices about 40 miles to the
north of the project site.

Access and powerline corridors extend off
the project  area.  The western portion of
the  power  line and the  substation are
within  the  San  Juan  Resource Area.

23996/R3.3 5/15/96(l:SOPMyKPT/3
    Summo proposes to construct an electric
    power transmission line, connecting the
    property  facilities  with   a  substation
    approximately three miles east of Highway
    191, approximately 10.5  miles west of the
    project  area.   This  transmission  line
    construction is a connected action for this
    particular project, and the potential impacts
    to the transmission right-of-way  will be
    assessed   for  relevant   environmental
    impacts.

    The proposed project includes the four pits
    noted above,  waste dump  areas, a single
    heap  leach facility, surface  facilities to
    support mining operations, and a Solvent
    Extraction/Electro-Winning      (SX/EW)
    plant.  The  SX/EW plant is designed to
    extract  copper  concentrates  from  the
    pregnant leach solution derived from leach
    pad operations. This plant and the other
    project  facilities   and  operations  are
    described in more detail hi Section 2.0.

    The project boundary includes about 1,038
    acres  of  disturbance,   generally  in  the
    central portion of Lisbon  Valley. Lisbon
    Valley extends for approximately 15 to 20
    miles  south  of La Sal,  Utah,  and  is
    described topographically and geologically
    in more detail hi the baseline discussions in
    Section 3.0.  Study areas for each of the
    disciplines in  Section  3.0 will  vary  to
    include all or parts of Lisbon Valley, and
    sometimes    beyond    (such    as  for
    socioeconomic     effects).     Regarding
    cumulative  effects  discussion  for each
    discipline, the study area focuses on Lisbon
    Valley.  (See  Section 3.1.5, Potential for
    Additional Copper Development.)
1-1
                                                                                                    4

-------
                           , MO N TROS E
                           I      • Paradox
                            I SAN   \MIGUEL
                               Slick Rock
                                 SOURCE: SUMMO, 1996
Job No. :
          23996
Prepared by : G.J.W.
Date :
1/24/95
                   LOCATION  MAP
                LISBON VALLEY AREA
             SAN JUAN COUNTY,  UTAH
            t-3.
                                    FIG. 1-1

-------
      SOURCE: J.D. WELSH AND ASSOCIATES,  INC.  1996
Job No. :    23996
Prepared by :  C.H.P.
Date :
4/8/96
  PROJECT BOUNDARIES  AND
    SURFACE OWNERSHIP
LISBON VALLEY  COPPER PROJECT
                                              FIG. 1-2

-------
 The  Lisbon   Valley  area  is  generally
 isolated,  with  little  population  at  the
 present time.  It is the site of present and
 historic   copper  and  uranium  mining
 operations,  with   active  and   historic
 facilities,  and remnants of ponds, pits, and
 waste piles apparent as one drives through
 the valley. "

 Summo is proposing to construct, develop,
 operate, and reclaim necessary facilities for
 mining an average of 12,500 tons of ore
 per day,  over the  approximate ten-year
 mine life.

 1.1   PURPOSE AND NEED

 The purpose and need for the project is to
 produce copper concentrates for sale from
 the mineralized zones on the Lisbon Valley
 property.  Copper is  an important  base
 metal, and is used world-wide in electric
 cables and wires, switches, plumbing and
 heating;    in    roofing   and   building
 construction;     in     chemical     and
 pharmaceutical machinery fabrication,  to
 make alloys for strength  and other special
 purposes;   for  electroplating  protective
 coatings  and  undercoatings  for  other
 metals;  and for a number of other uses.
 Leading producers worldwide are Chile,
 the United States, the former Soviet Union
 (CIS),  Canada,  Zambia,   and   Zaire
 (National Mining Association 1995).

 Summo, as an emerging copper producer,
is proposing to develop this project under
its rights afforded by the BLM authorities
noted above and the  land tenure rights
afforded  by the  Mining  Law  of 1872,
which  allows  private  individuals  and
corporations  to  explore  for  minerals,
secure mineral  patents, and develop and
extract  minerals  from those  properties.
                                              Copper demand has continued to increase
                                              in recent years, with stable prices and the
                                              promise of profitable  operations. Copper
                                              companies  are currently  exploring  and
                                              developing  mining  prospects throughout
                                              the world.

                                              1.2     AUTHORIZING ACTIONS

                                              Land status in terms of affected sections is
                                              detailed in Section 2.0. Figure 1-2  shows
                                              surface ownership of fee land, State land,
                                              and  BLM  land  within  the 4,846-acre
                                              project boundary.  Because of these other
                                              ownerships, Summo would also coordinate
                                              with the  State  and  local  agencies  in
                                              permitting and approvals for this project.
                                              Permitting and approval actions that  would
                                              occur in addition to the EIS are addressed
                                              further in this section.

                                              The proposed  action  is in  conformance
                                              with the terms  and  conditions of the
                                              Resource Management Plan (RMP)  (BLM
                                              1985a) for the  Grand Resource  Area
                                              (pages 22 and 32), as required by 43 CFR
                                              1610.5. The location of mining claims and
                                              administration  of  the  mining  law  are
                                              addressed on pages 22 and 32 of the RMP.
                                              The  exploration  and  development  of
                                              mining  claims is managed under the  43
                                              CFR 3809  regulations  with the  RMP
                                              objectives to help  meet  the demand for
                                              mineral  development  while  preventing
                                              unnecessary and undue  degradation  of
                                              other resources.  According to the 43 CFR
                                              3809   regulations,  mining  operations
                                              exceeding 5 acres during any calendar year
                                              require  the  approval  of  a  plan   of
                                              operations.

                                              The   proposed   powerline   would   be
                                              constructed  primarily  in  the San Juan
                                              Resource Area  (SJRA), located west  and
2399&R3.1 5/IS96(l:SOEMyRPr/3
                                        1-4

-------
south of the Moab Field Office (formerly
the  Grand  Resource  Area)  boundary.
According  to the General  Management
Guidance in the RMP for the SJRA, the
proposed powerline would not be within a
designated   transportation  and   utility
corridor.   Lands  outside of  designated
corridors are  available  for rights-of-way
after site-specific National Environmental
Policy  Act (NEPA)  documentation.  No
special   management   conditions   were
identified for this area in the RMP, and a
powerline right-of-way could be issued in
confbrmance with the San Juan Resource
Area RMP (BLM 1989).

Proposed actions that could affect public
lands   must  be reviewed  for  NEPA
compliance.    BLM  determined that  an
Environmental  Impact  Statement  (EIS),
rather than an Environmental Assessment
(EA),  would be required to  assess the
potential  impacts  from  the  plan  of
operations.  The proposed action  is not
covered  by any existing EAs or EISs.
There have been no EAs or EISs prepared
for BLM programmatic  actions or activity
plans in San Juan or Grand Counties that
address the impacts of heap leach mining
operations.  The EIS being  prepared for
the Summo Plan of Operations (POO) is
tiering  to  the  Grand  Resource  Area
RMP/EIS which was approved in July
1985. Tiering to the Grand Resource Area
RMP/EIS incorporates  by reference the
general analysis of the issues and impacts
in the RMP/EIS.  The EIS for the Summo
project  does  not modify the decisions of
the Grand Resource Area RMP/EIS.
The proposed Summo project is consistent
with the San  Juan County Master Plan
Program Goals and Policies (1967).

Various mitigation measures are addressed
throughout this EIS  that would  serve to
minimize or eliminate certain impacts that
may otherwise occur.  Section  2.0  lists
many   of  the   mitigation   measures
committed  to  by  Summo  to  address
impacts. Impacts are then rated in Section
4.0 with these committed  mitigations in
mind. In addition, the  discipline-specific
discussions in Section 4.0 may recommend
certain  mitigation  measures  that   serve
further to minimize or  eliminate  potential
impacts  of  the   Proposed  Action  or
alternatives  on the  natural and human
environment.     These     recommended
mitigation measures may be the subject of
negotiation between Summo and the BLM,
and may further be reflected in the Record
of  Decision  prepared  by  the  BLM
following finalization of the EIS.

A number  of other  action,  permits, and
approvals would be required for the Lisbon
Valley Copper Project.  Table 1-1 presents
a list of major actions of this type for the
project. Note that both Federal and State
agency actions are listed.  Meetings with
the various permitting agencies have been
undertaken by  Summo,  some  with the
BLM.  As the footnote to Table 1-1  states,
this list may not be all-inclusive, and the
operator is  responsible for securing  all the
necessary permits and approvals.
23996/R3.1 5/16/96(113S AM)/KPX/3
                                        1-5

-------
           TABLE 1-1
    SUMMO USA CORPORATION1
 LISBON VALLEY COPPER PROJECT
PERMITS/NOTIFICATIONS/APPROVALS
Agency
FEDERAL
US, Bureau of Land
Management
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
US. Fish and Wildlife
Service
US. Mine Safely and
Health Administration
US. Army Corps of
Engineers
Item/Permit
Description
Submittal Data
Likely Permit Specifications/Comments

POO
EIS
Right-of-Way
National Pollution
Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES)- Water
Quality
Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) -Air
Quality
Threatened and Endangered
Species
Safety Permit
Section 404 Permits -
Dredge and Fill Activities in
Watercourses
Environmental report including all
aspects of operation, environmental
and socioeconomie impacts, and
mitigation
Riglit-of-Way grants
Must comply with surface and
groundwater quality standards for
discharge and non-discharging .
systems.
Permit is required if the operation of
the proposed facility would emit
greater than 250 tons of both point
source and fugitive emissions from
the facility.
Must research threatened and
endangered species in area of
project.
Must address operational safely
issues.
Provides protection for wetlands by
regulating dredged or fill
disturbance.
Submiltal data include air quality, areas of
critical environmental concern, cultural
resources, prime or unique farmlands,
floodplains, Native American religious
concerns, threatened or endangered
species, solid and hazardous waste, water
quality, wetlands and riparian zones, wild
and scenic rivers, wilderness,
paleontology, and other issues.
Access location and use.
Application fee and a characterization of
baseline conditions, surface water and
groundwater hydrology.
This environmental evaluation includes all
climatology and air quality data and
identification and evaluation of all sources
of fugitive and point source emissions, and
a modeling of those emissions to project
air quality impacts.
Information submitted as part of EIS
prepared by BLM.
Compliance with health and safely
requirements.
Submit water quality and other
environmental data and development data.
BLM as lead agency. Because of the
location, and environmental sensitivity of the
project, an EIS is required. A permit is not
issued; approval of a selected alternative is
granted in the form of Record of Decision
(ROD). The BLM has a Memo of
Understanding (MOU) with the Uiah
Division of Oil, Gas, and Mining (UDOGM)
concerning mine permitting.
Applicability not certain.
To control discharge of metals and other
potential effluents, Monitoring of discharge
and reporting would be required.
Pennit is issued to control emissions of
hazardous air pollutants, visible emissions,
participate emissions, and sulfur emissions.
Monitoring and reporting is required.
A permit is not issued; USFWS and Stale
wildlife agencies use EIS as resource
document to demonstrate compliance.
Identification number assigned.
Required for stream diversions and wetlands
disturbance.

-------
                                                                                             TABLE 1-1

                                                                               SUMMO USA CORPORATION1
                                                                          LISBON VALLEY COPPER PROJECT
                                                                       PERMITS/NOTIFICATIONS/APPROVALS
T
                   Agency
                                Item/Permit
                                    Description
                                             Submittal Data
                                                                                                                             Likely Permit Specifications/Comments
           STATE OF UTAH
           Department of Environmental Quality
           Division of Water Quality
           Division of Air Quality
           Division of Drinking Water
Division of Environmental
Response and Remediation
           Division of Radiation
           Control
           Division of Solid and
           Hazardous Waste
                          Groundwater Discharge
                          Permit
                          Air Quality Construction
                          Permit
                          Public Water Supply
                          Permit
Pennits for Underground
Storage Tanks
                          Radiation Control Permit
                          Resource Conservation and
                          Recovery Act (RCRA)
                          Permit
                          This permit is required for all
                          activities having the potential to
                          affect groundwater.
                          Required for lite construction of any
                          facility or activity that may emit
                          both a point source and a fugitive
                          emission,
                          Required for projects with more than
                          25 employees.
Permits required if underground
storage tank or tanks are proposed.
                          For the operation of equipment with
                          radioactive material.
                          Permit to build and operate any type
                          of solid waste disposal facility.
                                 A permit application is required that
                                 shows all water-discharging facilities and
                                 their design, along with proposed
                                 monitoring requirements,
                                 Submit permit application thai describes
                                 volume of through put and the location of
                                 proposed disturbance activities.
                                 This permit requires design and control
                                 systems for clean drinking water, septic
                                 tanks, leach fields, and a review of any
                                 proposed landfill at the project area.
Design specification of proposed tanks
along with a description of the hydrology
of the project area.
                                 The specifications of the proposed
                                 equipment, the location of proposed
                                 equipment, and training and responsible
                                 party information.
                                 An analysis and characterization of all
                                 proposed waste products that would be
                                 disposed of (this may include waste dump
                                 material).
                                      Compliance with all Federal, State, and local
                                      water quality parameters or site-specific
                                      standards based upon groundwater
                                      monitoring.
                                      For compliance with Federal and State air
                                      quality point source requirements
                                      Includes regular monitoring of an on-site
                                      water supply or purchase orders if drinking
                                      water is provided from an outside source.
Independent monitoring and leak detection
would be required.
                                                                                                                          Annual reporting and calibration reports.
                                      If there is a hazard constituency to the
                                      proposed solid waste, there may be a
                                      requirement for lime facilities. There that
                                      would be a requirement for annual reporting
                                      of volume placed in the facilities.
           Department of Natural Resources
           Division of Oil, Gas, and
           Mining
           Division of State Lands and
           Forestry1
                         Notice of Intent
                         Lease
                         A proposed plan of mining
                         operations, reclamation plan, and
                         environmental impacts.
                         Must address all impacts on state
                         lease lands.
                                 An application fee, environmental
                                 description, a mining plan, and
                                 reclamation plan.
                                 Plan of Operations, reclamation plan,
                                 proposed bond to guarantee reclamation,
                                 and a schedule.
                                                                                                                          Annual reporting requirements of production
                                                                                                                          as well as reclamation activities and bonding
                                                                                                                          requirements.  A MOU is in place with the
                                                                                                                          BLM to address bonding and other issues.
                                                                                                                          Annual fees and a report on through put and
                                                                                                                          reclamation activities.
           2399WR3T.I-! May 15,1996(4:30 PM)/RPT/2
                                                                                                                                                                     Sheet 2 of 3

-------

                                                   TABLE M

                                          SUMMO USA CORPORATION1
                                       LISBON VALLEY COPPER PROJECT
                                     PERMITS/NOTIFICATIONS/APPROVALS
Agency
Division of Water Rights
Division of Wildlife
Resources
Oilier Agencies
Utah State Historic >
Preservation Office
Item/Permit
Water Right Permit
Impoundment Permits
Vegetation and Wildlife
Impacts

Compliance with the
NHPA
Description
This permit requires an
appropriation for a beneficial use, of
which mining is considered to be a
primary use.
Approval for any impoundment
(dam) or (he storage of water or
solution,
Review of mining impacts on
Federal and Slate listed sensitive
species, as well as threatened and
endangered species,
Submittal Data
A filing, fee, well location, and
information on surrounding
appropriations.
Impoundment design specifications,
Information on surface disturbance, as
well as a review of the reclamation plan to
ensure compliance with surrounding
vegetation and wildlife utilization; as a
part of the EIS.
Likely Permit Specifications/Comments
Annual reporting requirements of volume of
water used, and water level monitoring.
Leak detection monthly, quarterly, and
nimual reports as well as water level
information.
No formal permit required.

A review of project area for
significant archaeological and
historic sites. '
A cultural resources report showing the
results of literature review, field surveys,
and NRHP (National Register of Historic
Places) significance evaluations.
Mitigation of any potential adverse effects to
Federal and State significant sites.
Notes and Sources:

1 Adapted from information provided by Summo (1996). This list may not be all-inclusive; the operator is responsible for securing all the
necessary permits and approvals for the project.

2 Mining activities that would occur on State lease lands.

-------
1.3    PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND
       SCOPING ISSUES

Public participation is a key requirement of
the  NEPA process,  and vital  to   the
development    of    alternatives    and
consideration of impacts in the EIS.  The
initial opportunity for public involvement
occurs at the beginning of the EIS process,
when scoping is conducted.  The  scoping
sessions     allow    compilation    of
environmental  issues   related  to   the
Proposed  Action  and identify  public  and
agency views of the perceived, important
impacts of the proposed project. The scope
of this EIS was established by the agency
understanding of the proposed  action and
technical concerns,  as well as  the issues
identified   through   oral   and   written
comments  received  from  the public  and
commenting agencies.

To identify the issues and concerns related
to the Proposed  Action,  public  scoping
was undertaken by the BLM as follows:

   •   A Notice of Intent to prepare  the
       EIS was published in the  Federal
       Register on October 5,  1995. This
       provided.  a   summary   of   the
       proposed action and supplementary
       information regarding the  Summo
       POO in Lisbon Valley.
   •   A  public  scoping  meeting  to
       present the project to  the public
       and  solicit  public  and  agency
       comments was held in Modb, Utah
       during the evening of November 1,
       1995.
   •   A  second public scoping meeting
       for the same purpose was held in
      Monticello,  .  Utah   during  the
       evening of November 2, 1995.
    •  ^.public meeting was held by BLM
       and Summo  with  the San  Juan
       County Planning Commission and
       the general public in La Sal,  Utah
       on January 9,  1996.

A list of commenting agencies and details
regarding the extent of public participation
are presented in Section 6.0, Consultation
and Coordination.

Early  review  of  project   plans   and
comments from  the  public  prior to the
formal  public  scoping activities  noted
above, identified a preliminary set of issues
and concerns which are addressed in this
DEIS as described below.

1.3.1  Alternatives Analyzed in Detail

Four alternatives to the Proposed Action
were   developed   based   on   NEPA
requirements, public and agency comments
received during the initial scoping process,
and a  review  of  Summo's Plan  of
Operations.

No Action Alternative - An  evaluation of
the  No  Action  Alternative  is  required
under  40  CFR  1502.14  (d)  of  CEQ
regulations  implementing  the  National
Environmental Policy Act. This alternative
evaluates the  possibility that the Proposed
Action  would  result  in  undue   and
unnecessary   degradation    of    the
environment, and therefore, Summo would
not  receive  approval to   develop  the
proposed Lisbon Valley Project on public
lands.

Open Pit Backfilling Alternative - This
alternative was developed  in response to
public  and  agency  comments  received
during the initial  scoping  process.  This
23996/R3.: May 15,1996(4:32 PM)/RPT/3
                                        1-9

-------
 alternative  addresses impacts  to  visual
 resources as a result of leaving four pits
 open  following mining  operations,  along
 with    four    waste     rock    piles.
 Implementation of this  alternative would
 require backfilling of the pits with  waste
 rock,  thus  returning  the  landscape  to
 conditions  similar   to  that   prior   to
 disturbance.

 Facility  Layout  Alternative   -  This
 alternative   also   addresses    concerns
 identified during the public scoping process
 regarding visual impacts  to the public
 traveling along the Lower  Lisbon Valley
 Road. Under this alternative, Waste Dump
 D, located  adjacent  to the road in the
 Proposed Action, would  be eliminated.
 Waste Dump C,  slightly less visible from
 the   road,   would    be   expanded  to
 accommodate the additional waste  rock
 material.

 Waste   Rock   Selective   Handling
 Alternative  -   This   alternative  was
 developed to address concerns about the
 potential  for acid   rock   drainage  and
 resultant impacts to groundwater, surface
 water, soils, vegetation and wildlife.

 Section 2.3 contains additional infonnation
 on the alternatives included in the analysis.

 1.3.2    Alternatives Considered and
         Eliminated

 As indicated in  Section 2.3,  numerous
 alternatives were identified during the EIS
 process.   The following five alternatives
were evaluated based on environmental,
 engineering,  and  economic factors, and
were eliminated from further consideration
in this EIS.
                                              Mining Alternative - Summo proposes to
                                              conduct mining operations by open pit.  An
                                              alternative mining method is underground
                                              mining. Underground mining is technically
                                              and  economically infeasible  at the Lisbon
                                              Valley Project for several reasons.  First,
                                              the ore is not conducive to underground
                                              mining. Copper is not found in veins that
                                              can be effectively and efficiently mined by
                                              underground mining techniques.  Instead,
                                              the ore is scattered throughout the host
                                              rock, necessitating surface  operations to
                                              recover all of the copper ore.  In summary,
                                              the copper concentration in the ore is not
                                              high  enough to economically  support
                                              underground mining.

                                              Second,  underground  mining  does  not
                                              promote mineral conservation.  Copper is
                                              found   throughout   the   host   rock.
                                              Underground mining requires that pillars of
                                              unmined material be left in place to provide
                                              roof support for miner safety.  Ore would
                                              be wasted when left in these pillars.  Thus,
                                              this alternative has been eliminated.

                                              Site   Access  Alternative  -  Summo's
                                              proposed operations would be located  on
                                              both  sides of the Lower Lisbon  Valley
                                              Road.  Haul trucks would need to cross
                                              this road in one location to transport ore to
                                              the crushing facilities and waste rock to
                                              Waste  Dump  C.   The  potential safety
                                              concerns   of haul  trucks  crossing  this
                                              county  road  could  be mitigated   by
                                              constructing a bypass road to route public
                                              traffic  around    Summo's   mining  and
                                              leaching facilities.

                                              A  bypass  road   would need  to   be
                                              constructed either to the east  or to  the
                                              west of Summo's operations.  Constructing
                                              a road to the east would  require bisecting
                                              Lisbon  Canyon    and   Lisbon   Gap;
2399SR3.1 M»ylS.1996(432PMyRPT/3
                                        1-10

-------
 constructing a  road to the  west would
 require   traversing  Three  Step   Hill.
 Significant   environmental   degradation
 would result from constructing  either of
 these roads due to the steep terrain to be
 traversed (i.e.,  need for significant  road
 cuts and fills to achieve suitable grades)
.and disturbing  additional  areas.     For
 example, cattle and wildlife habitat would
 be impacted due to the loss of vegetation.
 Visual  impacts  to the traveling  public
 would   be  increased  since   Summo's
 operations would be below this road, in
 places,   and  not  blocked  by  natural
 topographic features.  Thus,  this alternative
 has been eliminated.

 Processing Alternative  -  Summo  has
 proposed to use  heap leaching to process
 the  host  rock  for  copper  recovery.
 Alternative processes include vat leaching,
 conventional    milling,    and    off-site
 processing.   Vat leaching  is technically
 infeasible because the mineralogy of the
 ore requires a longer solution contact time
 to recover the copper resource than would
 be provided by vat leaching.  Moreover,
 vat leaching would increase costs and air
 emissions due to repeated handling of the
 ore bearing rock  (i.e., reusable vats would
 be employed  necessitating  disposal  of
 leached material  prior  to reloading  with
 fresh  ore).    Conventional  milling  is
 technically  infeasible  because   the   ore
 grades at the Lisbon Valley Project are. too
 low for  efficient recovery;  also  this  ore
 contains too much oxide to float copper in
 a  conventional  milling process. Off-site
 processing would result in increased air
 emissions, safety  considerations,  and  costs
 from additional  truck traffic to haul ore
 bearing  rock.   Thus,  alternative   ore
 processing has been eliminated.
      Haulage Alternative - Summo proposes
      to use haul trucks to transport waste rock
      to the dumps and ore bearing rock to  the
      crushing facilities. An alternative to truck
      haulage is installing and using conveyors.
      Conveyors would be employed to transport
      ore from the crushing facilities to the heap
      leach pad.  Conveyors, are not technically or
      economically  feasible to transport waste
      rock to the dumps and  ore bearing rock to
      the crushing facilities for several  reasons.
      First,  conveyors are designed to handle a
      certain sized material.   Crushing  facilities
      would need to be installed and maintained
      at each pit to reduce the size of the ROM
      material  to   accommodate  conveyance
      requirements.    These additional crushing
      facilities have  the potential to  increase
      environmental degradation (e.g., additional
      air emissions) and would increase project
      costs.

      Second, conveyors would not be used to
      transport waste rock to the dumps.  Due to
      increased costs and air emissions, crushing
      of the  waste  rock  to  accommodate
      conveyance requirements  is impractical.
      As such, haulage, of waste rock by trucks
      would  occur  even  if conveyors were
      installed and used for ore transport to the
      crushing facilities.

      Third,  conveyors  are typically used when
      activities can be conducted at a location for
      an extended period of time, and are usually
      impractical at multi-pit operations.   Mining
      is proposed to occur for several years from
      three pits:   Sentinel #1, Sentinel #2, and
      Centennial.    Subsequent  mining  would
      occur  at two pits: Centennial and GTO.
      Conveyors would need to be constructed
      from each  of these pits to the processing
      area at  a  significant  capital investment.
23996/R3.1 5/15/96(1:50 PMJ/KPT/S
1-11

-------
 Based  on  the  foregoing  reasons,  this
 alternative has been eliminated.

 Water Balance Alternative - Summo has
 proposed to  rely upon  evaporation  to
 reduce excess water  volumes.   That  is,
 irrigation sprinklers  would replace drip
 emitters near  the middle of the leach pad
 (i.e., not along the edge of the pad) during
 periods  of  excess   water  to  increase
 evaporation  and  reduce   water in  the
 system.  Moreover, such sprinklers would
 be installed at the end of the project to
 eliminate the solution in the ponds to allow
 for closure. Installing irrigation sprinklers
 on top of the leach pad is  the typical way
 of resolving excess water balance concerns
 at  heap facilities  in  the western United
 States.

 Water for the project would be obtained
 from groundwater wells. An alternative to
 using irrigation sprinklers is to re-inject the
 water to the aquifer.   Re-injection is not
 economically     feasible     and    has
 environmental disadvantages. For example,
 numerous additional areas  would need  to
 be  disturbed to install the pipelines and
 pumping stations at a sufficient distance
 away from  the  site to avoid re-injected
 water from being recycled at the project by
 the dewatering wells.

 Another water balance alternative would
 be to construct additional  storage ponds
 and  allow  for  evaporation  from  these
 ponds  without using irrigation  sprinklers
 on top of the pad.  Constructing additional
 storage ponds would significantly increase
the acreage  being disturbed at the Lisbon
 Valley Project.   In addition, the  ponds
would need to be lined to prevent leakage,
as  outlined  in  Section  2.2.4.2.    The
 development and  maintenance  of  these
                                               ponds also would increase the costs of the
                                               project. Based on the foregoing, alternative
                                               water balance has been eliminated.

                                               1.3.3   Issues and Concerns Analyzed

                                               The  following  issues  and  impacts  are
                                               thoroughly  analyzed in this  EIS.   These
                                               issues were brought forth either during the
                                               scoping process or  through  the  NEPA
                                               process.

                                               Geology and Geotechnical Resources

                                               No  specific  issues  regarding geologic
                                               resources were raised  during  the public
                                               scoping process; however,  impacts  on
                                               topography from the development of four
                                               open pits  and  the  construction  of  four
                                               waste rock  piles are assessed in this EIS.
                                               Also,   current   and   future   mineral
                                               development is addressed in the analysis of
                                               geologic resources in Lower Lisbon Valley
                                               in Section 4.1.

                                               Geotechnical  issues revolve around the
                                               potential  for  failure   of structures  or
                                               facilities constructed for mining operations
                                               due  to  seismic  events, storm  events, or
                                               improper-  engineering   design.      The
                                               potential for failure of constructed slopes,
                                               failure  of the  leach pad or pond lining
                                               systems,  over-topping  of the  solution
                                               pond, breach of the leach pad  liner or
                                               settling  foundation  material  that could
                                               result in environmental impacts are  also
                                               analyzed in Section 4.1.

                                               Hydrology

                                              Hydrology issues for both surface water
                                               and groundwater focus on three primary
                                               categories:  quantity   of  water,   water
                                               quality,   and   accelerated  erosion  and
2399&S3.1 5/15/96(1:50 JMyRPI/3
                                         1-12

-------
increased sedimentation  in  surface water
drainages.

Water supply issues include  impacts to the
local  water table and the watershed  as a
result of water withdrawn from the aquifer
for  dewatering  of  the   pits,  use  in
processing operations, and  road watering
for dust control; these all could result in a
decreased  availability of groundwater in
the project vicinity.  Impacts to Lisbon
Spring and Huntley Spring (groundwater),
ephemeral  streams in Lisbon Canyon and
Mclntyre Canyon, and perennial  flows in
the Dolores River are  also  assessed  in
Section 4.2.

Potential   impacts  to   the  quality   of
groundwater in the shallow aquifer and
surface water  drainages as a result  of
accidental  spills  of fuels,   reagents,  and
leaching  solutions,  over-flow of solution
ponds, the use of poor quality groundwater
for dust  control, blasting operations, and
runoff water from the waste rock piles are
also discussed  in  Section  4.2.    Water
quality impacts also include  an assessment
of  water quality characteristics  such as
potential  increased   or  decreased  pH,
salinity, increased concentrations of metals,
and  TDS   above   natural   conditions.
Additionally,  the  depth,   quality,  and
potential uses of water impounded  in the
four pits  after mining ceases  are evaluated
in this section.

Impacts to water quantity and quality for
domestic use near Summit Point are also
assessed in Section 4.2.

During the environmental impact analysis,
the potential for increased  sedimentation
and accelerated  erosion as a result of re-
routing  storm  water  runoff  into   the

23996/R3.1 5/15/960 :SOPM)/KPT/3                      1-13
Sentinel  Pit  following mine closure  was
brought  forward  and  potential impacts
were assessed.

Geochemistry

Impacts from waste rock generating  acid
conditions    or   mobilizing    dissolved
constituents  is  the primary geochemistry
issue.   Impacts   from   acid-generating
material left  exposed in the pit walls are
also assessed in Section 4.3.  As a result of
the analysis process, potential impacts from
alkaline  conditions,  post-closure, in the
water-filled pits; or periodic alkaline water
runoff from the waste rock piles, are also
addressed in this section.

Soils and Reclamation

Issues regarding soils resources include the
availability of a sufficient quantity of good
quality cover soil material that could be
salvaged,  stored and redistributed  as  a
growth medium for revegetation of the site
following mining activities.  Additionally,
impacts  from  accelerated  soil  erosion,
including rill  and gully development,  loss
of topsoiL, and increased sedimentation due
to  disturbance  of  native  soils  during
construction  and operations, are assessed
in Section 4.4.  The effectiveness of the
proposed   reclamation  plan    and   the
potential for returning the site to   pre-
mining conditions are also evaluated in this
section.

Vegetation

Impacts to existing vegetative communities
include both short-term  impacts  from
construction and development  activities in
which  vegetation is removed; and long-
term impacts to those communities  that
would  not be  reclaimed,  or  would be

-------
 reclaimed to a different type of community,
 or those communities that require decades
 to regenerate, are addressed in Section 4.5.
 Impacts  to threatened,   endangered,  or
 sensitive plant species/communities, and
 the long-term  loss of species diversity are
 also addressed in this section.

 Wildlife

 Direct impacts to wildlife through the loss
 of habitat (food, water,  and cover) and
 indirect impacts from operations such  as
 noise,  nocturnal  lighting,  exposure  to
 acidic solutions, and increased traffic are
 addressed for  species such as  raptors,
 prairie dogs,  black-footed ferrets, mule
 deer,   burrowing   owls,   shrikes,  and
 rattlesnakes in Section 4.6.

 Grazing

 Short- and  long-term impacts,  due  to
 construction and operation  of the proposed
 project,  to the  Lower Lisbon  and the
 Lisbon grazing 'allotments .and the loss  of
 Animal Unit Months (AUMs) are discussed
 in Section 4.7.

 Socioeconomics

 The impacts to local economies in Grand
 and  San Juan  counties,  particularly the
 towns of Moab, La  Sal, and Monticello,
 are  discussed  in  Section  4.8,  including
 affects   on  employment,   tax   revenue,
 housing, infrastructure, fire and medical
 services, schools  and utility services; as
 well as social impacts and affects on the
 quality of life as a result of implementation
 of the proposed project.
      Transportation

      The  issues  for  transportation  include
      increased volumes of commuter and truck
      traffic on local highways and county roads
      within commuting distance of the project
      site, particularly Moab, Monticello, La Sal,
      Blanding,  and   Dove  Creek.  Related
      impacts include the potential  for increased
      accidents, and road wear and maintenance
      requirements. In  addition, impacts  to the
      traveling public from mine traffic crossing
      Lisbon Valley Road are assessed in Section
      4.9.

      Hazardous Materials

      Impacts  related  to  the  transportation,
      storage, use, and disposal of a variety of
      hazardous materials that would  be used at
      the mine; as  well as  wastes  generated
      during operations, are assessed  in Section
      4.10.  Potential environmental impacts as a
      result   of accidental  spills,  uncontrolled
      releases,  or routine  uses of  hazardous
      materials are all discussed in this section.

      Cultural and Paleontological Resources

      A  cultural resources  survey  has been
      conducted for all of the areas proposed for
      direct  impacts, including the powerline and
      associated  access  roads.   Impacts   to
      significant cultural resources located in the
      proposed project area  are  addressed  in
      Section  4.11, as  required under Section
      106 of the National Historic  Preservation
      Act(NHPA).

      Visual Resources

      Visual impacts that would result from the
      amount  of contrast created between the
      proposed  facilities  and  the   existing
      landscape condition, and visibility of the
2399SR3.1 S/15/96(l:50PMyR!T/3
1-14


-------
facilities to sensitive viewpoints within the
viewshed  of the project are assessed in
Section 4.12. Visual impacts are addressed
for both  effects during  operations  and
residual effects following reclamation.

Land Use

Land-use  related issues .are evaluated in
Section 4.13.  Impacts include potential
conflicts  with existing land use plans  on
federal  and  state  lands,  proximity  to
residential  or other sensitive  areas,  and
termination of existing land use or land use
incompatibility.

Climate and Air Quality

Impacts to air quality outside the proposed
project  boundary   as  a  result of dust
concentrations     exceeding    National
Ambient  Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)
or air contaminants exceeding background
levels, are assessed in Section 4.14.

Noise

Noise  levels impacts  both  within  the
proposed project boundary and outside the
project area are assessed in Section 4.15.
Work-place impacts would occur if noise
exposure  limits  exceeded the  Federal
Occupational  Safety  and  Health  Act
(OSHA)   and/or the  Mine  Safety  and
Health Act (MSHA) requirements.  Noise
impacts to  area residents  and passersby
from operations, blasting, and truck traffic,
are also assessed in this section.

Recreational Resources

Impacts   to   established   recreational
resources   or   access  to   established
recreational  resources, impacts  on  the
recreational environment,  and impacts to

2399&R3.1 5/]5/960:SOPM)/RPT/3
     recreation  post-closure are  discussed  in
     Section 4.16.

     1.3.4  Issues Considered but Not
            Analyzed

     All of the issues noted above, including all
     of those raised during the scoping process
     and NEPA review, have been analyzed  in
     this EIS.  However, a few issues required
     to be addressed by the agencies are not
     relevant to this EIS.  These  issues are  as
     follows.

         1.  No  direct  or indirect effects are
            expected  from  this  project   to
            Native American trust rights, .per
            the  Secretary of Interior  directive
            (Babbit 1994).
         2.  No  direct  or indirect effects are
            expected from this  project to low
            income  or minority  populations,  to
            address the social (environmental)
           justice policy (Babbit 1994).
         3.  Regarding     critical   elements
            required to be addressed by BLM
            (BLM  1988),  the  following are
            considered  not  applicable  to this
            project:

            •   Areas of Critical Environmental
                Concern (ACECs)  .
            •   Prime or unique farmlands
            •   Floodplains
            •   Wetlands and riparian zones
            •   Wild and scenic rivers
            •   Wilderness
1-15

-------

-------
                                                                               2.0
                         ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION
2.1    OVERVIEW

This  section provides a description of
Summo's Proposed  Action to  conduct
copper mining and heap leaching activities
at the Lisbon Valley Project. This section
also addresses the reasonable  and viable
alternatives  to  the  Proposed   Action.
Alternatives to  the Proposed Action and
mitigation of impacts are considered under
NEPA  regulations,  primarily 40  CFR
§ 1502.14, which requires:

    •   Evaluation of all reasonable
       alternatives, including the No
       Action alternative
    •   Discussion of reasons for
       eliminating alternatives (Section
       1.3.2)
    •   Evaluation of appropriate
       mitigation measures not included in
       the Proposed Action or alternatives

The NEPA  process   was  initiated  by
Summo's submittal of a proposed POO to
the BLM for the Lisbon Valley Project.
Based on the submitted document, BLM
determined that an EIS was required to
comply with NEPA.  As noted in Section
1.3, BLM completed a scoping process to
solicit comments from the public and other
concerned parties on the Proposed Action.
Based  on the information submitted  by
Summo and comments received during the
scoping  process,   BLM  developed  and
refined   a  range  of  alternatives  for
evaluation in the EIS.
2.2    PROPOSED ACTION

2.2.1  General

The Proposed Action is described in the
POO  for  the  Lisbon  Valley Project
(Summo 1995a), as supplemented by  a
utility right-of-way application (PacifiCorp
1995),  and  by additional  information
provided by Summo. Summo proposes to
conduct its operations in compliance with
all  applicable  Federal, State,  and local
laws, rules, and ordinances. A  listing of
major permits  and approvals required for
this project is provided in Section 1.0. The
Proposed Action would  consist of the
following primary facilities:

   •  Four open pits
   •  Four waste rock dumps
   •  Ore crushing facilities
   •  Heap ore leach pad
   •  Various stormwater and solution
       storage ponds
   •  Solution processing at a SX-EW
       plant
   •  Water production/dewatering wells
       with pipeline corridor
   •  Numerous support facilities (e.g.,
       administration building)
   •  Runoff diversion structures
   •  Haul roads
   •  69-kV powerline from the Hatch
       substation to the project site

Summo's activities would occur  on both
sides of the Lower Lisbon Valley Road,  a
road maintained by San Juan  County, Utah.
23996/R3.2 5/15/96(2:25 PM)/RFIB
                                       2-1

-------
Figure 2-1 depicts the overall layout of the
proposed facilities.

Mining and heap leaching activities would
occur on a combination of Federal, State,
and fee (Le., private) lands.  The Federal
lands are administered by BLM and include
258 unpatented  lode  mining  claims, as
identified in Appendix A.  The State lands
are held by Summo under lease from the
State of Utah; the fee lands are controlled
and/or  owned  by  Summo.  Table  2-1
summarizes land  ownership  by  project
facility.

The   Lisbon   Valley   Project  would
encompass  all  or parts of the  following
sections:

    •   Sections 22,23,24,25, 26,27, 34,
       35, and36, TSOS,R25E
    •   Section 1, T31S,R25E
    •   Sections 30 and 31, T 30 S, R 26 E

The powerline is discussed and mapped in
Section 2.2.8.  Summo proposes to fence
the majority of the areas  proposed to be
disturbed,  as  shown in  Figure 2-1, to
preclude public access. Fencing would not
be  installed where natural topographic
features   (e.g.,  cliffs)  preclude public
access.  In such areas, fencing would abut
the  natural topographic   feature.   The
fencing would be  standard three-strand
barbed wire. Gates would be installed, as
necessary,  to provide access to  the  site.
However, the gates would  be locked by
Summo, except for the gate at the security
entrance to the mine and at the intersection
of the haul road and  the Lower Lisbon
Valley  Road,  as  further  discussed in
Section 2.2.2.5.
2399&K33 5/15/96(225 EM3/RPT/3
Mining and  milling activities  previously
occurred at this site and have resulted in
the disturbance of about 85 acres.  These
disturbed  areas  include open pits, waste
dumps, and  other surface  disturbances.
These areas are included in the disturbed
acreage  in  Table 2-1  and would  be
addressed    under  Summo's   proposed
reclamation plan.

Summo would commence development of
the Lisbon  Valley Project  in  the  first
quarter of 1997  after all necessary permits
and   approvals   have   been   obtained.
Construction  of  the   mine  and  leach
facilities  would  take  approximately  10
months, and full scale  operations would
commence  in   about  November  1997.
Mining would occur at an average rate of
12,500 tons of ore per day over a projected
10-year mine life.   Final  closure  and
reclamation would take approximately five
additional years.

2.2.2    Mining Activities

2.2.2.1 General

Summo would  conduct  open pit mining
activities  at  the Lisbon Valley Project.
Open  pit  mining involves  stripping or
removing  the waste or non-ore  bearing
rock to access the ore bearing rock.  Two
types   of  waste  rock  are   typically
encountered  in  open  pit mining:   waste
rock initially encountered at the  surface,
which  is   overburden;  and  waste  rock
encountered  between  horizons   of  ore
bearing  rock,   which   is  interburden.
Overburden   and    interburden    are
collectively referred to  as  "waste rock."
Ore and. waste  rock  typically  are either
ripped with a dozer or  are drilled with a
rotary driller and blasted using a mixture of
                                         2-2

-------
                 0   1000  2000
                         RECLAMATION SOIL STOCKPILE
                         DIVERSION CHANNEL


                         SEDIMENT RETENTION STRUCTURE


                         PROPOSED FENCE LINE
                       A' APPROXIMATE CROSS-SECTION
                         LOCATION
.D. WiiLSH ANL ASSOCIATES
          LOCATIONS OF  MINE FACILITIES
         AND  AREA  OF  SURFACE  CONTRO
           LISBON VALLEY  COPPER PROJECT
^^oJnJ^A^.

-------

-------
                                TABLE 2-1

                 PROPOSED DISTURBANCE BY FACILITY
                    AND SURFACE LAND OWNERSHIP
Facility
Open Pits
Sentinel #1
Sentinel #2
Centennial
GTO
Waste Rock Dumps
Dump A
DumpB
Dump C
DumpD
Leach Pad Area
Process Area and Facilities
Miscellaneous
Haul Roads
Plant Growth Medium
Stockpiles
69-kVPoweriine
Totals
Acreage
Total

38
9
116
68

186
90
118
55
266
21

33
39
64
1,103
Federal Land

38
9
89
0

106
0
118
55
56
19

21
18
45
574
State Land

0
0
27
40

80
90
0
0
0
0

12
13
11
273
Fee Land

0
0
0
28

0
0
0
0
210
2

0
8
8
247
    Sources: Gochnour 1995; PacifiCorp 1995.
2399WR3.2 5/15/96(2:25 PM)/RI>T/3
                                   2-4

-------
 ammonium nitrate and fuel oil (ANFO) to
 facilitate loading and hauling. Open pits are
 wide at the surface and narrow as the pit is
 deepened,   with   sequential   benches
 established at  regular intervals  based  on
 rock integrity.  Blasted ore and waste rock
 typically  are  loaded onto  off-road end-
 dump haul trucks by hydraulic shovels or
 front  end  loaders.    The  haul  trucks
 transport waste rock to  the  disposal  or
 dump areas and ore to the ore  stockpile
 area.  Haul  trucks  move within the  pit
 using temporary roads  on the surface  of
 each bench with ramps extending between
 two or more  benches. More  permanent
 haul roads are constructed outside the pit
 to the waste dumps or the ore  stockpile
 area.

 2.2.2.2  Open Pits

 Mining operations  at the Lisbon Valley
 Project would  be conducted in four pits:
 Sentinel #1,  Sentinel #2,  Centennial,  and
 GTO.   The  final pit configurations  are
 depicted  on  Figure 2-1.  Prior mining
 activities removed some of the ore bearing
 rock  from   all  four   phs.   Summo's
 operations" would greatly expand the areal
 extent of these existing pits. Summo would
 commence mining  in the  Sentinel and
 Centennial Pits,  and  would  commence
 mining in the GTO  Pit in approximately
 year 7 after depleting the reserves in the
 Sentinel Pits.   Summo's proposed mining
 of  the  currently  economical   reserves
 associated with these four pits is detailed
 below.

 Sentinel Pits #1 and #2.  These pits would
 be east of the Lower Lisbon Valley Road
 and would be included in Summo's initial
 site development activities. The pits would
 have a low stripping  ratio  because the  ore

23990R3.2 5/15/86(225 EM)/RPT/3                    2-5
 outcrops  on  the  surface.   The average
 stripping  ratio  would be  0.93:1 (waste
 rock:ore), with an average annual stripping
 ratio varying from 0.03:1-2.69:1.  Mining
 would continue for an approximate seven-
 year period at  an average rate of about
 1,600,000 tons of ore per year  over the
 first six years and approximately 275,000
 tons in year  7.   The total  amount of
 material mined would be about 19,100,000
 tons: 9,900,000 tons of ore and 9,200,000
 tons of waste rock.  In general, further
 discussions of the Sentinel Pit -will refer to
 Sentinel Pit #1 unless otherwise noted.

 Centennial Pit.  This pit also would  be
 developed  with the  commencement  of
 Summo's operations and would be located
 west of the Lower Lisbon Valley Road.
 The average stripping ratio is 1.71:1, with
 a high of 3.22:1 during years  3  and 4 as
 pre-stripping activities commence in Phase
 m,  described  below.    Mining would
 continue  over  a nine-year period at  an
 average annual  production rate  of about
 3,000,000  tons of  ore.    A  total  of
 approximately 74,300,000 tons of material
would be  mined: 27,400,000 tons of ore
and 46,900,000 tons of waste rock.

Mining would  occur in three phases due to
the existence of three distinct ore bodies
that have differing leaching characteristics.

   •  Phase I would consist of mining
       oxidized ore with a high ore (i.e.,
       copper) grade. Year 1 pit
       production would be restricted to
       Phase I ore. Year 2 production
       would complete mining of Phase I
       and target certain higher grade ores
       contained in Phase n.
   •  Overall. Phase n ore is more
       oxidized and has a lower average

-------
       grade than Phase I ore. Phase n
       production would occur from year
       2 into year 4.
   •   Phase m ore is less oxidized and
       underlies a thick layer of waste
       rock. Pre-stripping of the Phase ffl
       waste rock would occur in years 3
       and 4 with mining occurring from
       approximately year 4 to year 9.

GTO Pit. This pit would be to the south  of
the Lower Lisbon Valley Road and would
have the highest strip  ratio of the areas
mined at this project.  The ore is covered
by a minimum of 100 feet of waste rock.
Stripping of the waste rock would begin in
year 6 with a total of about 13,500,000
tons of waste rock mined that year. Mining
would  occur through  year 10  with an
average stripping ratio of 6.95:1. The total
material mined over the life of this pit
would  be approximately 42,500,000 tons:
5,300,000 tons of ore and 37,200,000 tons
of waste rock.

It is anticipated that groundwater would be
encountered by  each of the pits to be
mined.  Water would  be  removed by a
combination of (a) pit water removal (Le.,
pumping water that flows into the pit) and
(b) pit  dewatering (Le., establishing and
pumping wells located around the pits.)

2.2.2.3  Mining Procedures

Summo would use dozers to rip  ore and
waste and/or drill and blast to fragment the
rock in the Sentinel Pits and Phases I and
n of the Centennial Pit. "Drilling would be
performed using a 10-inch rotary drill, with
ANFO as the explosive. Blasting would
occur hi compliance with Mine Safety and
Health      Administration       (MSHA)
regulations,  Blasting would occur  only
during daylight hours, only once per day
on average, and approximately every other
day. Broken waste rock would be loaded
into 150-ton haul trucks by a 14-cubic yard
front end loader beginning in year 1 and a
24-cubic yard loader beginning hi year 3.

Blasting of waste rock may not be required
for Phase m of the Centennial Pit and the
GTO  Pit  based on the rock quality  or
characteristics.  Mining  of waste  rock  in
these areas would be done by a contractor
(only for GTO Pit) using dozers to rip and
scrapers to haul the waste rock material.
Waste rock would be ripped using a large
dozer  and  hauled  with  44-cubic yard
scrapers.

2.2.2.4  Waste Rock Dumps

Waste rock would be hauled from the open
pits to four waste  dumps:   denoted A, B,
C, and D,  as depicted on Figure 2-1.  The
acreage of each dump is presented in Table
2-1. The dumps would be able to contain
the approximately 89,100,000  tons   of
waste rock.  As an initial matter, suitable
plant growth medium would  be salvaged
from the waste dump sites and  stockpiled
for future reclamation  purposes.    The
dumps  would  be  constructed  by  a
combination of end dumping from haul
trucks and dozing the material over the
side of the  dump  in 40- to  50-foot lifts
while   maintaining  an  overall   2.5:1
(horizontalrvertical) outslope.

Waste rock from the Sentinel Pit #1 would
be disposed  in Dump D, which would  be
located northwest of the  pit and east of the
Lower Lisbon Valley Road. The dump, as
designed, would hold over 2,100,000 tons.
23996/K3.2 5/1 5/96(2:25 PMyRPT/3
                                        2-6

-------
The waste rock from Sentinel Pit #2 and
Centennial  Pit  would be  disposed  in
Dump C, which would be to the  north of
the Centennial Pit and east of the Lower
Lisbon Valley  Road.  This dump,  as
designed,       would       accommodate
approximately 26,700,000 tons.

Two dumps would be  developed  near the
GTO Pit, both  sited west of the Lower
Lisbon Valley Road.  Dump A would be
constructed to the west of the pit to hold
about 30,800,000 tons.  This dump would
accommodate waste from the GTO  Pit.
Dump B would be developed to the north
of the GTO Pit and hold approximately
29,500,000 tons.  This dump would accept
waste rock from the Centennial and GTO
Pits.   Table   2-2  provides  summary
information on the four waste dumps.

2.2.2.5 Haul Roads

Haul roads would be installed inside  and
outside the pits, and among facilities to
access the pits, waste dumps, and the ore
crushing facilities.  Approximately 15,000
linear  feet   of haul  roads  would   be
constructed:  6,500 feet with the  Sentinel
Pits, 800  "feet with the  Centennial  Pit,
5,350 feet with the  GTO Pit, and 2,350
feet common to several of the pits.

The typical haul road design would have a
maximum grade of 10 percent and a width
of approximately  80  feet,  inclusive  of
berms, to  accommodate haulage vehicles.
Haul roads would vary from this design in
three instances: (1) the haul road accessing
the bottom 120 feet of Sentinel Pit #1
would have a 12  percent  grade,  (2)  the
haul road accessing Sentinel Pit #2 would
be 50 feet wide at 12 percent grade, and
(3) the haul road accessing the bottom 60
feet of GTO Pit would have a width of
about 50 feet
2399&R3.2 May 15.1996(433 PMyRPT/3                  2-7
A haul road would intersect the Lower
Lisbon  Valley Road northwest  of the
Centennial Pit. The haul road would be
used by off-road haul trucks to transport
ore bearing rock from the Sentinel Pits to
the ore crusher facilities and to transport
waste  rock  from  the  Centennial Pit to
Dump C.  Summo  proposes to install stop
signs  at  this  intersection to  stop  traffic
along the county road and give the right-
of-way to the haul trucks.  In addition,
signs would be installed along the Lower
Lisbon  Valley Road  to  warn  people
traveling this road of the mining operations
and the upcoming  haul road intersection.
Finally, the speed  limit along this county
road would be reduced to further minimize
safety  concerns for the traveling  public
from Summo's operations. Proper lighting
for  nighttime  operations  would   be
provided.

2.2.2.6   Major Mine Equipment

Various pieces of  major mine  equipment
would  be  used at the Lisbon Valley
Project.   Table   2-3    identifies   this
equipment.

2.2.3     Crushing Activities

2.2.3.1   General

Ore bearing rock that is hauled from open
pits (also known as run-of-mine (ROM)
material) would vary in size. Crushing in
multiple stages typically is  performed to
reduce the ROM material to a consistent
size to allow  conveyance  and  enhance
recovery during  the  leaching  process.
Crushing would be used  at  the Lisbon
Valley Project to reduce the ROM material
to an uniform size of IVz to 2 inches.

-------
                                    TABLE 2-2

                              WASTE ROCK DUMPS
Waste Dumps
Dump A
DumpB
DumpC
DumpD
Acreage
186
90
118
55
Approximate Volume
(Tons)1
38,800,000
29,500,000
26,700,000
2,100,000
Location
West of GTO Pit
North of GTO Pit
North of Centennial Pit
Northwest of Sentinel Pit #1
    Summo identified a material swell factor of 40 percent (i.e., the difference between
    naturally occurring rock and broken rock) and a loose density (i.e., volume conversion
    factor) of 102 pounds per cubic foot or 0.73 cu. yd. per ton.

    Source:  Summo 1995b.
2399&K3.2 5/15/96(2:25 PMyRPT/3
                                        2-8

-------
                                    TABLE 2-3
                           MAJOR MINE EQUIPMENT
    Number of Pieces
                 Equipment Description1
            1
            1
            1
            2
            1
            7
            1
            1
            1
            1
            3
            4
            1
            1
Ingersoll Rand TBS blast hole drill
Caterpillar D-9 dozer
Tradestar ANFO truck
Caterpillar 992 14 cu. yd. front end loader
Caterpillar 994 24 cu. yd. front end loader
Caterpillar 785B 150-ton haul trucks
Caterpillar 14G grader
Caterpillar D-9N dozer
15,000 gal. capacity off-road water truck
Caterpillar D-7 dozer
light plants
light duty pick-up trucks
maintenance truck
fuel and lube truck
    The specifically listed equipment, or its equivalent, would be used by Summo at the
    Lisbon Valley Project.
    Source:  Summo 1995c.
239S61B32 5/15/96(225 PMyRFT/3
               2-9

-------
2.2.3.2   Crushing Facilities

The crashing  facilities would be located
west of the Centennial Pit to the west of
the Lower Lisbon Valley Road.  Suitable
plant growth medium would be salvaged
and stockpiled from this  area as part of
pre-production activities.  ROM  material
would be hauled to the site by 150-ton off-
road haul trucks and deposited in the ROM
stockpile.  The ROM stockpile would be
located   adjacent  to  the  ore  receiving
hopper and encompass an area capable of
holding approximately 100,000 tons (i.e.,
roughly  one week of production).   Ore
from tiie stockpile would be retrieved by
front-end  loader  and  deposited  in the
hopper, no direct  dumping from the haul
trucks  to  the  hopper  would  occur.
Crushing  would  occur  through  both
primary  and secondary  crushing facilities,
as generally portrayed on Figure 2-2.  The
crushing facilities  would  operate two or
three shifts per day as necessary to meet
the needs of the heap leaching facility.

Primary  Crushing Facility.   The  hopper
would be fitted with a stationary grizzly (or
grate)  with 24-inch  openings.  Material
passing through the grizzly would fell into
a 30-yard  surge  hopper, while  oversize
rocks would be removed and  stockpiled.
The oversize material would be crushed to
a smaller  size by other methods  (e.g.,
portable  crusher) and returned  to the
hopper if the grade  and quantity justify
further treatment.

A  vibrating  grizzly  feeder would  feed
material from the  ore  receiving  surge
hopper at an average rate of approximately
750 dry tons per hour.   Ore not passing
through the  grizzly  (i.e.,   greater  than
6-inch diameter)  would be  routed to the
primary jaw  crusher.   The jaw crusher
would use  a nominal setting to crush the
ore to 6 inches or smaller.  Throughput
from the jaw crusher and grizzly undersize
material would be collected on the 36-inch
wide primary crusher collecting conveyor.
Ore from the primary crusher would  be
transferred  to  a double deck  vibrating
screen.  The top deck would have 3-inch
screen  openings and the bottom  deck
would  have   lYz-mch  screen openings.
Oversize from the top and bottom decks
would be diverted to the secondary cone
crusher.

Secondary    Crushing    Facility.   The
secondary  cone  crusher would  operate
with  a  setting  of  IVz  to   2  inches.
Throughput from the cone crusher would
join the vibrating screen undersize product
and be conveyed to the heap leach pad.

2.2.3.3  Conveying and Stacking

Crushed ore  would be transferred to the
heap  leach pad by a series of conveyors,
and stacked on a synthetically lined pad via
a radial stacker.   Crushed ore would be
stacked in three 36-foot-high lifts, as more
fully described in Section 2.2.4.2.

2.2.4    Processing Activities

2.2.4.1  General

Conventional  copper  recovery   in the
United    States    primarily     involved
processing high grade ore through various
aqueous solutions and treatments in a mill.
The  by-products of the milling process
were  generally copper  concentrate and
saturated tailings.   The tailings  typically
were piped to a dammed area  to allow for
evaporation and eventual reclamation.
 23996/R3.2 5/1 5/96(2-25 PM)/BPT/3
                                         2-10

-------
3996FS01
                      §s§[-

          c.
          o
          cr



          o
               t/)
               O


               TO
               r>
               m
               s:
               (O

               (O

               0>
                           3
                           n


-------
Lower   grade   copper   ore  that   is
uneconomical  for  milling  now  can  be
processed  by rather recently developed
leaching procedures. The ore-bearing rock
is crushed but not to the small size required
for mill processing.  The  crushed  ore  is
placed, or heaped, on a synthetically lined
pad area (i.e., heap leach pad) where dilute
solutions of chemicals (i.e., sulfuric acid)
are introduced on top of the heap. The
solution trickles through  the ore  and  is
collected at the bottom.   The collected
solution is typically referred to as pregnant
leach  solution   (PLS)   because   it   is
"pregnant" (or heavily laden) with copper.
The PLS is stored, as necessary, in a pond
prior to being processed through a Solvent
Extraction/Electrowinning (SX/EW) Plant.
In the SX/EW Plant, the copper is stripped
from the leachate,  resulting in a solution
typically barren of copper and referred to
as raffinate.  The raffinate is  routed to a
storage pond, enhanced with chemicals,
and recycled to the heap  to continue the
recovery process.

Summo would conduct only heap leaching
at the  Lisbon Valley Project.  The heap
leaching  facilities would be designed  to
process an average of 750 tons per hour of
ore to produce  17,000 tons per year of
copper cathodes.    The system would  be
designed  to  produce  London   Metal
Exchange (LME) Grade A 99.99 percent
copper  cathodes.    Each  of  the  major
processing facilities  of the Lisbon  Valley
Project is discussed below.

2.2.4.2   Heap Leach Facility

The  heap leach facilities,  as  depicted in
Figures 2-1, 2-3, 2-4, 2-5, and 2-6  would
be constructed to the west of the Lower
Lisbon Valley Road after removing the
suitable  plant  growth  medium.    The
facilities would consist of a heap leach pad
(pad),  PLS  pond,  raffinate  pond, one
stormwater pond, and associated solution
collection channel  and  runoff diversion
ditches.  The facilities would be designed
to contain all solutions (i.e., process water
and  direct  precipitation  from a  design
storm  event) within  the  system without
discharge to the environment.

A conveyor corridor, access  road, and
diversion ditch would be constructed along
the south side of the pad.  The conveyor
corridor would  be installed directly south
of the pad and would be about  60 feet
wide. The conveyor corridor and leach pad
is then bounded by an approximate 6-foot-
wide berm.  The diversion ditch would be
constructed south of the perimeter berm to
the dimensions discussed below.

Heap  Leach  Pad.    The  pad  would
accommodate up to 45 million tons of ore
and cover about 11.6 million square feet,
or 266 acres. The ore heaped on the pad
would  be placed  in three  lifts over four
different  stages  to  accommodate  ore
production schedules.

The  proposed pad would be  graded  to
follow the natural topography of the valley
to allow  for  solution  flow via gravity
drainage.  Drainage would be to the north
and east.   A solution collection channel
would be constructed along the north edge
of the pad to route solution to the PLS
pond.  The PLS pond would be located at
the  northeast   corner   of   the   pad.
23996/S3.2 5/15/96(225 PM)/KFT/3
                                        2-12

-------
 K\
(   \ V
I     s  1\Y
•      V   VS
    PLANT SITE PLAN

LISBON VALLEY COPPER PROJECT.
SOURCE: J.D. WELSH AND ASSOCIATES,  INC. 1996.

-------
 'UPGRADIENT SIDE
  SCALE: r = 40'
 SCALE M FEE
|   U U *t  AND COLLECTION
o      3  SECTION
       P
       ' SCALE M FEET
                                                                       PERIMETER
                                                                       BERM
                                                                      PERIMETER BERM AND •
                                                                      COLLECTION CHANNEL
                                                                      (SEE CROSS SECTION D)
                                J
                                       UNER
                          .MINIMUS SECTION
                           TT\ CELL BERM CROSS  SECTION
                           Z-V SCALE: 1" =s  5'
                                                                        SCUE « FETT
PERIMETER BERM  CROSS SECTION
SCALE: 1" = 5'
          SCM£ M FEET
       l-p
       t*MBi
       r/96
                                                   LEACH  PAD  DETAILS
                                              LISBON  VALLEY  COPPER  P.ROJECT.
                                                                                FIG. 2-4

-------

-------
LA
  en
                                           ORE

                                           PROTECTIVE COVER

                                           DRAIN PIPES (4" OIA. SLOTTED
                                           OR PERFORATED) ON SO' CENTERS

                                           SYNTHETIC LINER (80 MIL HOPE)

                                           CLAY LINER (COMPACTED SHALE)

                                           DRAINAGE LAYER (8 OZ/ SQ. YD.,
                                           NON  WOVEN FILTER FABRIC)

                                           SECONDARY LINER (COMPACTED  SUBSOIL)

                                          • SUBSOIL
                      -BAND DRAIN (4"  WICK
                       DRAIN) ON 20' CENTERS
                    LEACH  PAD LINER  SYSTEM  DETAIL
                -57 SCALE:  T
                                          SCALE IN FEET
                                               INNER SYNTHETIC UNER   '
                                               (80 MIL HOPE)

                                               DRAINAGE LAYER
                                               (HDPE GEOGRID)

                                               OUTER  SYNTHETIC LINER
                                               (40 MIL HDPE)

                                               CLAY LINER
                                               (COMPACTED SHALE)
                         SUBSOIL
                2\POND LINER SYSTEM  DETAIL
                I-SJ SCALE:  1"  - 2'     SCA1E IH FEET
                        SOURCE: J.D.  WELSH  AND ASSOCIATES,  INC.  1996.
                                        l_ 2' MIN. j
                  DRAINAGE LAYER
                  EXTENDED TO TOP
                  OF BERM SLOPE
                                                 COMPACTED
                                                 BACKFILL
                                                                                                          LEACH  PAD LINER  ANCHOR  DETAIL
                                                                                                      -5J SCALE:  r  = 2'
                                                                                                                                SCALE IN FEET
             GEOGRID BETWEEN
             SYNTHETIC LINERS
             EXTENDED TO TOP OF
             POND OR BERM SLOPE

             INNER SYNTHETIC LINER

             OUTER SYNTHETIC LINER
                                                 COMPACTED
                                                 BACKFILL
                                                                                                                                      MIN.
                        4-NPOND  LINER  ANCHOR  DETAIL
                        -5j SCALE:  1"  =  2'    SCALE IH FEET
                                                                              Job No. :
             23996
                                                                              Prepared by :  C.H.P
Date :
4/4/96
                                                                                                                      LINER  DETAILS
LISBON VALLEY  COPPER  PROJECT
                                                                                                                                              FIG. 2-5

-------
3996FS02

-------
 An  impervious liner  system  would  be
 constructed on the pad prior to placement
 of any crushed ore.   The  liner system
 would consist of, in ascending order, of (a)
 one-foot   of  compacted  in-place   low
 permeability  soil,   (b)  wick   drain  and
 geofabric for leak detection purposes, (c)
.one-foot of clay material that is compacted
 to obtain a permeability of 1 x  10~7 cm/sec,
 (d) 80-mil thick high density polyethylene
 (HDPE) synthetic  liner,  and (e) a 24-inch
 thick layer of free-draining crushed ore for
 liner  protection (Welsh  1996).  The clay
 material would be imported from  the
 Centennial Pit and an existing waste dump
 stockpiled   from  historical   mining   of
 Centennial Pit.  The 80-mil HDPE sheets
 would  be  welded together  to  form  a
 continuous impermeable synthetic liner.

 Solution collection pipes would be placed
 on the synthetic liner to enhance  drainage
 of the solution from the pad and minimize
the depth of solution (Le., head) over the
liner.     The  pipes  would   be spaced
approximately 50 feet apart to control the
hydraulic  head on the liner  for  reduced
seepage potential   and  to  enhance  the
stability of the stacked ore.

The conveyor corridor along the south side
of the  pad would have a lining system
comprised of, in ascending order (a) 2-foot
compacted clay layer, (b) a 40-mil HDPE
synthetic liner, (c) a geogrid drainage layer,
and (d) an  80-mil HDPE synthetic liner.
The  80-mil  HDPE liner would be  an
extension   of  the  80-mil  HDPE  liner
component of the leach pad.  This corridor
would be lined because solution would be
applied to the conveyed ore to agglomerate
and wet the ore prior to placement on the
pad.  This  lining  system  would extend
                                              below the ore heap until the ore stack is 10
                                              feet high.

                                              Finally, the solution collection channel on
                                              the north side of the pad would have a liner
                                              system consisting of, in ascending order,
                                              (a) 2- feet of compacted clay material, (b)
                                              40-mil HDPE synthetic liner,  (c) geogrid
                                              for leak detection purposes, and (d) 80-mil
                                              HDPE liner.   The 80-mil HDPE liner
                                              would be a continuation of the leach pad
                                              liner to provide a liner system to contain all
                                              solutions. Within the  collection  channel,
                                              solution would be routed from the pad to
                                              the pond system via PVC pipes  (Welsh
                                              1996).

                                              Design cross sections views are provided
                                              in Figures 2-4 and 2-5.

                                              Ore would be stacked or  heaped on the
                                              pad in three lifts,  each  lift being about 36
                                              feet in vertical height.  The first lift would
                                              be  offset from the  edge  of the pad  a
                                              minimum of-15 feet to  provide a buffer
                                              zone  between the toe  of the lift and the
                                              edge  of the  lined pad.  Subsequent lifts
                                              would be set back from the  crest of the
                                              previous lift The face of each lift would be
                                              sloped at  the  angle  of repose  of  the
                                              crushed ore,  and  result in  a lift slope  of
                                              about  1.5:1  and  an overall  heap slope
                                              (considering the set backs) of 2:1.

                                              The pad  would be  constructed  in four
                                              stages from east to west in an upgradient
                                              direction.   Stage  1 would be  about 2.5
                                              million square feet and contain up to 22
                                             months of production in two 36-foot lifts.
                                              Stage 2 would be  about 2.5 million square
                                             feet and  increase  the pad capacity to 42
                                             months of production in two lifts.  Stage 3
                                             would be about 2.5 million square feet and
                                             increase  the  pad capacity to  about 62
23996/R3.2 S/!5/96(2:2S PMyRTOS
                                        2-17

-------
months of production in two lifts. At this
point, a third 36-foot lift would be placed
over the existing Stages 1-3 pad prior to
constructing Stage 4. Adding the third lift
would increase the operating time of the
first three stages to about  88 months.
Stage 4 would encompass about 4 million
square  feet  and  provide the  required
capacity for the remainder of the project.

Solution Ponds.  The solution ponds would
separately  store the two  types  of leach
solutions  —  PLS and  raffinate  —  plus
contain runoff from the lined areas due to
the design storm event.  The ponds would
be  sized based  on the criteria  noted  in
Table 2-4.

A stormwater  pond would  be built  to
collect  and  store  overflow from  the
solution ponds.   Summo designed  the
stormwater pond to contain 100 percent of
the runoff from the  lined  areas due to a
major design storm event based on a one
month wet cycle of precipitation.

A water balance model was constructed to
simulate several precipitation  and runoff
scenarios, 'along with varying degrees  of
leach pad  development.   During  these
simulations, it was concluded that a one
month wet cycle of heavy precipitation in
October was the worst case  stormwater
condition.  The return frequency for this
cycle is 100 years.  During years 1 through
5, the expected runoff from the one month
wet cycle is  64.6  acre-feet.  Stormwater
storage required for years 6 through 10
was found to be 69.6 acre-feet.  Along
with operational storage of 23.2 acre-feet,
the total volume for all three ponds is 88
acre-feet for  years. 1 through 5 and  92.7
acre-feet for years 6 through 10.
The pond  system is  laid out  such that
stormwater  flow  is  directed  to  the
stormwater pond and the raffinate pond
from the PLS pond.  Runoff and solution is
transferred via spillways.

A liner system  would be installed  on the
solution  ponds  consisting of a  80-mil
HDPE liner over a 40-mil HDPE liner with
a leak detection system between the liners
(Welsh 1996).  The lower, or secondary,
liner  would  be  placed  over  a  2-foot
compacted clay subgrade with a prepared
surface suitable for liner  placement.   A
geogrid material would be placed over the
secondary liner  to  act as  a  drainage
pathway for  the leak detection system.
The geogrid  would be  covered by the
upper, or primary, synthetic liner.

The leak detection system would consist of
a gravel sump installed in the low corner of
the floor of each pond.  The sump  would
collect seepage, if any, from  the geogrid
material. A riser pipe would extend from
the sump to the  crest of each pond to serve
as a monitoring  well. The riser pipe would
be a 6-inch diameter pipe to accommodate
a sump pump for solution removal in the
event of leakage in the primary liner.

A liner system  also would be installed  in
the stormwater  pond.  An 80-mil  HDPE
synthetic liner (i.e., primary liner) would be
placed  over  a 2-foot  compacted  clay
subgrade with a prepared surface suitable
for liner placement.
23S9&S32
                                       2-18

-------
                                     TABLE 2-4

                             POND DESIGN CRITERIA
              Criteria
                    Design
  Operation
24 hrs. at 3,000 gal. per minute (gpm)
  Stormwater
Maximum accumulation of stonnwater from a one-
month wet cycle with a 100 year recurrence interval,
as calculated by a water balance
 Freeboard
Minimum of 3 feet above maximum capacity
Sources: Welsh 1996.
The solution ponds would not be covered
or  netted.   However, a  mitigation plan
would  be  developed  by  Summo  in
consultation  with   Federal   and  State
regulatory officials if problems occur with
resident and avian fauna.  Experiences at
the  Sanchez Copper Project and  other
copper  heap leach  projects in  Arizona
suggest no  avian  mortalities  from open
ponds (BLM 1992).

Diversion Ditches.    Diversion  ditches
would route natural runoff from  areas
upgradient  of the  Lisbon Valley Project
around the heap leach facility.  The primary
ditch would be installed  along the  south
side of the pad and to the east beyond the
facilities.   This  diversion  ditch  would
merge into a natural drainage that exits the
property to  the north.  Runoff from the
west side of the pad would be diverted into
a diversion ditch along the north side  of the
pad. This ditch also would intercept runoff
from  the  north  side of the valley.  No
diversion ditch is required on the east side
of the pond.
          The diversion ditches around  the project
          site would be designed to pass the peak
          flow resulting from the  100-year, 24-hour
          storm event.  Based on the topography and
          upgradient drainage areas, the typical ditch
          cross section to carry the estimated peak
          flows would be a trapezoidal section with a
          minimum 6-foot bottom width, side slopes
          excavated at 2:1, and a depth of 2 feet.
          The slope of the ditch would not exceed 1
          percent.

          2.2.4.3  Heap Leaching

          Solution for the leaching process would be
          stored in the raffinate pond.  Sulfuric acid
          and make-up water  would be added,  as
          needed, to this  pond to maintain the acid
          strength at a pH of about 2.0, and solution
          volume  necessary  for leach  recovery.
          Pumps at the pond would deliver raffinate
          to a main header, which feeds branch lines
          at approximately 100 foot spacings.  The
          branch lines would connect to a network of
          pipes laid out on top of the portion of the
          heap to be leached. The branch line would
23996/R3.2 5/15/96(2:25 PM)/RPT/3
    2-19

-------
 have spray or drip irrigation emitters  to
 distribute the raffinate to the heap.

 The  solution would  be applied primarily
 with drip emitters to minimize evaporation
 losses,  minimize  solution  drift  from the
 pad,  and reduce  fresh  water make-up
 requirements.  In order to  maintain the
 water balance during  periods  of heavy
 precipitation or snow melt,  some  of the
 drip emitters nearer the middle of the pad
 maybe replaced with spray (e.g., sprinkler)
 nozzles to increase evaporative losses and
 reduce water volumes in the system.  The
 spray emitters would not be used  in high
 wind situations to reduce the potential for
 solution drift off of the lined pad area.

 The raffinate solution would be applied  at
 an average  application  rate  of  0.004
 gallons per minute/foot2 (gpm/ft2).   The
 solution would percolate through the heap
 dissolving  copper in the ore as a copper
 sulfate solution. To maintain the grade of
 copper in  the PLS pond, an intermediate
 solution sump would collect leach solution
 from   partially    leached   ore.    The
 intermediate solution would be pumped to
 fresher ore' on the pad to increase the PLS
 grade. The final PLS, which would contain
 about 3.0 grams per liter (g/1) of copper,
 would be collected by collection pipes and
 routed to the PLS pond.   PLS would be
 pumped  from this pond to  the SX/EW
 Plant  .Figure  2-6  provides  a general
 schematic of the heap leaching process.

 2.2.4.4   Solvent Extraction/
         Electrowinning Plant

 The SX/EW Plant would be constructed to
the east of the heap leach pad and west of
the Lower Lisbon Valley Road.  The plant
      would consist of two separate circuits:  the
      SX Circuit and the EW Circuit.

      SX Circuit.  The SX circuit would consist
      of  three  mixer/settlers  and  associated
      storage  tanks.    The function  of  these
      components .is   explained  below  and
      detailed on Figure 2-7.

      The plant would  have  two  extraction
      mixer/settlers (designated El and E2) and
      one  stripping  mixer/settler.  Each mixer/
      settler would consist of a pump mix box,
      an auxiliary mix box, and  a settler with
      covers.  The pump mix box would contain
      an impeller designed to mix the PLS and
      organic  (i.e., extraction) solution, and to
      provide hydraulic head. Solution from the
      pump mix box would flow through the
      auxiliary mix box for a total retention time
      of at least  two minutes before entering the
      covered settler.

      The PLS would be pumped at about 3,000
      gpm to the El extraction mixer/settler. In
      the mixer,  PLS would contact the organic
      solution.    The organic  solution would
      contain  an  organic  chelating   agent
      (extractant) dissolved in a  high flashpoint
      kerosene (diluent).  The  chelating  agent
      preferentially  absorbs copper  from the
      PLS.  The partially stripped PLS would
      separate from the organic  solution in the
      settler and flow  to the  E2  extraction
      mixer/settler.  In this second mixer,  most
      of the remaining copper would absorb onto
      fresh  organic  solution.    The   organic
      solution  would be  separated  from the
23996302 5/15/96(2:25 J>M)
-------
3996FS03

-------
 stripped acid (or raffinate) solution in the
 settler.  The raffinate solution would flow
 through a flotation column to remove and
 recover entrained organic material before
 being  pumped  back to the raifinate pond
 for re-use on the heap pad.  The organic
 solution  does  not  achieve  100  percent
 recovery; thus, the raffinate would contain
 approximately 0.3 g/1 of entrained copper.

 The loaded organic  solution  containing
 copper  would  flow  to  the   stripper
 mixer/settler tank and would be mixed with
 a high strength sulfuric acid solution to
 form the copper-rich aqueous electrolyte.
 The copper ions would transfer to  the
 aqueous  phase and be  separated   (i.e.,
 stripped) from  the organic.  The pregnant
 aqueous  strip  solution  (strong  acidic
 electrolyte) would be filtered before being
 directed to the EW circuit.

 The solutions used  in  the leach and  SX
 circuits would be recycled in a closed loop
 system to reduce losses.  Losses would
 occur through evaporation, entrainment in
 the heap,  or entrainment in the  organic
 solution to the EW circuit.

 "Crud" or impurities would be collected in
 the SX settlers  and  from  the flotation
 column  overflow.   The crud  would be
 decanted into a pair of tanks so that the
 organic  and aqueous   solutions can be
 recovered and recycled.

EW Circuit. The EW circuit is designed to
 plate out the copper from the strong acidic
 electrolyte onto cathodes.  This circuit is
 described below  and  detailed on Figure
2-8.

The strong electrolyte  solution would be
heated in a pah" of heat exchangers.   The
                                               first   heat   exchanger   or  electrolyte
                                               interchanger  would  recover  heat  from
                                               electrolyte solution being pumped back to
                                               the SX circuit. The second heat exchanger
                                               would  use  hot water to heat the strong
                                               electrolyte solution if cold weather or start-
                                               up  conditions  make  the  extra  heat
                                               necessary.  The water  would be heated
                                               with propane or natural gas.

                                               The strong electrolyte initially would flow
                                               through  scavenger  EW cells  and  then
                                               through commercial EW cells.  Both cell
                                               types use electrolysis to plate out copper
                                               on specifically  designed  stainless  steel
                                               cathodes.   The  scavenger cells  would
                                               protect the majority of the copper in the
                                               other cells  from impurities,  which might
                                               pass the electrolyte filter..  In both the
                                               scavenger  and  commercial  EW  cells,
                                               copper  would  be  deposited onto  the
                                               cathodes.   During this process, water
                                               would dissociate to generate oxygen at the
                                               anodes.    Additional  sulfuric acid  also
                                               would be generated.  Solution from the
                                               scavenger  cells  would  flow   to   the
                                               electrolyte recirculation tank.

                                               Guar and cobalt sulfate solutions would be
                                               added   to  both  the  strong  electrolyte
                                               solution before it enters the scavenger cells
                                               and  the electrolyte  recirculation  tank.
                                               Guar,  a  plant  (i.e.,  legume)  derivative,
                                               would be added to create smoother copper
                                               cathode plates; cobalt sulfate would be
                                               added to reduce the anode corrosion rate.

                                              Electrolyte  solution from the electrolyte
                                              recirculation  tank  would  be  pumped
                                              through  the   commercial  cells,   where
                                              additional copper would be plated out, and
                                              then    returned   to    the    electrolyte
                                              recirculation tank.   A  portion  of  the
                                              recirculation tanks  solution would  be
2399fflR3i 5/15/96(2:25 PMyRPT/3
                                        2-22

-------

-------
pumped    through    the    electrolyte
interchanger to  recover heat before being
pumped back to the SI stripper mix box as
lean electrolyte.  Sulfuric  acid and water
would  be  added  to   the  electrolyte
recirculation tank,  as needed  for  proper
operations.

Cathode Handling.   After the  copper is
plated out, the cathodes would be removed
from the EW cells and transferred to the
cathode handling  system  with a  bridge
crane, as  generally portrayed on  Figure
2-9.  The  cathode  handling system would
wash the cathodes with hot water, flex and
separate the copper plates from the mother
blanks,  weigh  and  sample  the  copper
plates, and band the plates for shipping.
The plates would be shipped off site for
further fabrication purposes.

2.2.5    Support Facilities

Numerous  facilities would  be constructed
and installed to  support the Lisbon Valley
Project.  These various  support facilities
are  addressed  below and  depicted  on
Figure 2-3:

Administration Building. The administra-
tion building would be a one-story building
constructed north  of the  SX/EW Plant.
The buflding would include offices for all
of the administrative personnel required for
the project, a separate locker room with
showers for both male and  female mine
personnel,  a first aid room for emergency
medical situations,  a lunch room,  and a
conference and  training  room.   Sewage
would be  directed to a septic tank and
drain field.

Laboratory.  A  laboratory   would  be
constructed south  of the administration
                                              building, and  would be  used to perform
                                              various tests to maintain  correct ore grade
                                              in the mine and enable the process plant to
                                              maintain   high   copper  quality.   The
                                              laboratory  building would include a wet
                                              bench area; fine bench area;  coarse reject
                                              bench area; and bench area for jaw crusher.

                                              Shop. The truckshop repair building would
                                              be constructed to the south of the SX/EW
                                              Plant.  The building would be a two-story
                                              building to accommodate mine equipment
                                              and  would   contain  oil  storage   and
                                              dispensing tanks and equipment, overhead
                                              crane,   antifreeze   storage   tank   and
                                              dispensing equipment, wash bays, waste oil
                                              storage tank  and evacuation equipment,
                                              and drainage sump to contain spills within
                                              the truckshop area.   The sump would
                                              contain an oil  separation  tank and storage
                                              tank for collection and proper disposal.

                                              Warehouse. A warehouse would be housed
                                              within the same building  as the truckshop.
                                              The warehouse would store the necessary
                                              spare  parts   and supplies  required  to
                                              maintain   Summo's   operations.    The
                                              warehouse   and  truckshop   would  be
                                              separated   by  offices   to   house   the
                                              warehouse personnel, operating personnel,
                                              and truckshop  personnel.

                                              Fuel  Storage.   A  fuel   storage   and
                                              dispensing station would  be built near the
                                              truckshop/warehouse  building  for  diesel
                                              fuel and unleaded gasoline.   The station
                                              would  be used to operate the mine fleet
                                              and small vehicle fleet. Diesel fuel would
                                              be stored  in  two  15,000-gallon above
                                              ground   storage  tanks   and  unleaded
                                              gasoline would be stored  in a 5,000-gallon
                                              above ground  storage tank.  Annual fuel
                                              requirements are summarized in Table 2-5.
                                              The fuel storage area would  be bermed,
Z3996IB32 Sfl 5/96(225 EM)/RPT/3
                                        2-24

-------
                                 ELEClROWINIHItO
                                 BRIDGE CRANE
                                  057WI
en
             _ _
        \ELCCIROWINNING AJIEA
        /   6326--FS05
                                CATHODE WASH
                                HEAT EXCHANGER
                                056703
                                             "R.O.~\VATER  ~7
   IS
   fe
   o>
STREAM Ho.
DESCRIPTION
UEOWM
COPPER. IPO
6 COPPER, IPY
§ FLOW, own
SPG
, COPPER, IPO
!* COPPER. IPT
g flow, mm
< SPG
1
CATHODE
nou
EW
COPPER
5I.B
jspop.
49.0
17000
	
2
CATHODC
RINSE
WA1ER
21.0
1.00
4.0
~1.00
]
HOI 1120
TO WASII
ISA!
EKCIIHC
WATER
400.0
1.00
344.0
" 1.00
4
RCIURII
WAICR
WATER
400.0
1.00
314.0
1.00
5
CATHODE
WASH
RECIBC
WATER
(00.0
1.00
(00.0
1.00
0
iio'i"
WAlEfl
WASH
WATER
(00.0
1.00
400.0
1.00
7
WASII
TANK
DHOW
WATER
(00.0
1.00
400.0
1.00
8
WAX
REcrci
(Ib/h.)
WAX
5.23
4.41
__-
9
WAX
«f-
(Ib/h,)
WAX
1.38
	
"Tu>~
.....
10
SIMP
oiscinc
WAICR
100.0
Too"
"So~

H
WASH
TANK
O'FIOW
WATCR
21.0
1.00"
4.0
1.00
12
CUMJIC
CAIIIODE
COPPER
5(.8
19000
(9.0
17000
11
WATER
10 CA1H
WASII
WATER
421.0
1.00
"mo"
1.00
                                                                                                               SOURCE: SUMMO  1996.
                                                                                        23669
                                                                           Prepared by :  CRP
                                                                           Dote :
2/7/96
PROCESS  FLOW DIAGRAM
     5) CATHODE  HANDLING
    VALLEY COPPER  PROJECT
  SAN  JUAN  CO.,  UTAH
                                                                                                                                       FIG. 2-9

-------
                                    TABLE 2-5
                  CHEMICAL STORAGE AND USE ESTIMATES
Material
Sulfuric Acid
Extractant
Diluent (kerosene)
Ferrous Sulfate
Cobalt Sulfate
Chlorine
Gasoline
Diesel
Ammonium Nitrate
Estimated Annual Quantity
60,000 tons
4,200 gal.
30,000 gal.
3.0 million Ibs.
20,000 Ibs.
9,000 Ibs.
250,000 gal.
2.3 million gal.
2,700 tons
Source:  Adapted from Gochnour 1996a.
lined with a HDPE synthetic liner laid over
a minimum 3-inch sand layer underliner,
and sloped to a low point to  collect any
spilled material.

Chemical  Use and Storage.  The  various
chemicals that would be used at the Lisbon
Valley Project and annual quantities are
summarized in Table 2-5.   All chemicals
would be  stored on  lined bermed pads
within the fenced, security patrolled area.
The bermed areas would  be  designed to
store, at a minimum,  150  percent of the
volume  of the largest storage tank. Signs
would be posted around the storage areas
to provide warning of the potential hazards
associated with the stored materials.

Sulfuric acid would be used primarily for
heap  leaching of  copper  ore, but also
2399&S32 SnSS6C22SPMXRPT/3                    2-26
occasionally in the EW circuit, and  for
agglomeration of  ore  on the  conveyor.
Sulfuric  acid  would be  added  to  the
raffinate  pond,  and the raffinate solution
would be applied to the copper ore mass
on the leach pad as described in  Section
2.2.4.3.  After application to the leach pad,
the  copper-laden   acid  solution  (PLS)
would be  routed  through  the  SX/EW
circuit and  returned to the raffinate pond,
to be used over and over again.  Since the
sulfuric acid solution is cycled in a closed
loop process, no waste  product or waste
solution containing sulfuric acid would be
generated  for  disposal.  Since acid  is
consumed   in   the  leaching   process,
additional sulfuric acid  would need to be
added to the solution periodically. Annual
consumption of sulfuric acid would be
about 60,000 tons.  Sulfuric acid would be

-------
shipped to the mine  by tanker truck and
stored in a  tank that  would  be located
within a bermed area to minimize migration
of accidentally spilled  material.

Extractant would be used in the SX circuit
for absorption of copper from the PLS. It
would be introduced into  the circuit in
mixers within the SX/EW plant.  As the
process solution  reaches the end  of the
circuit, the organic extractant  solution is
separated from the stripped acid solution
(raffinate)  and  recirculated in the  SX
circuit.  Extractant is generally contained
within this "closed loop" process,  with
minimal  losses  to   the raffinate  pond
expected.  The  modest   quantities   of
extractant that would  escape the SX circuit
with  the  raffinate   would  be   either
evaporated/volatilized  in   the  raffinate
pond, or would be sprayed on the heap
leach pad with the raffinate solution  and
returned to the SX circuit within the PLS.
It is estimated that annual consumption of
extractant  would   be   4,200  gallons.
Extractant would be delivered to the mine
by truck and would be stored in the barrels
it is  shipped in  from  the  manufacturer.
These barrels  would be  stored at  the
SX/EW  plant  within a bermed area to
minimize the migration  of spilled material
and contamination of soils.

Diluent (kerosene) also would  be used in
the SX circuit in the extraction solution. As
described for  extractant,  diluent  would
generally be contained within the "closed
loop" SX process, with minimal losses to
the raffinate pond expected.  The modest
quantities of diluent that would escape the
SX circuit with the raffinate either would
be  evaporated/volatilized in the raffinate
pond, or would be sprayed on  the heap
leach pad with the raffinate solution  and

23996«3.2 5/15/96(225 PMyRPTO                      2-27
returned to the SX circuit within the PLS.
It is estimated that annual consumption of
diluent would be 30,000 gallons.  Diluent
would be shipped to the mine by tanker
truck and would be stored in a tank in the
SX plant area. This tank would be located
in a secondary containment vessel within a
bermed pad area to minimize the migration
of spilled material and  contamination  of
soils.

Ferrous   sulfate   would   be   used   in
maintaining the  chemistry  of the process
solution. Since  solution  is  cycled in  a
"closed loop" process, no waste products
or waste solution containing ferrous sulfate
would be generated for disposal. Annual
consumption  of ferrous  sulfate would be
about 1,500 tons.  It would be shipped to
the mine by truck hi sacks and  stored hi
those sacks near the raffinate pond in  a
bermed  area  to minimize migration  of
accidentally spilled material.

Cobalt sulfate would be used  in the EW
circuit to  control  anode  corrosion. No
waste   products   or   waste  solution
containing   cobalt  sulfate   would   be
generated    for    disposal.     Annual
consumption  of cobalt sulfate would be
about 10 tons. It would be shipped to the
mine by truck in sacks and stored in those
sacks near the SX/EW plant hi a bermed
area to minimize migration of accidentally
spilled material.

Chlorine would  be used at the  mine  for
water treatment purposes.  It would be
shipped in cylinders that would be stored in
a secure area.

Gasoline would be used to power light
vehicles  . at  the  mine.   It   would  be
completely consumed by mine vehicles, so

-------
no waste would be generated for disposal.
Annual consumption of gasoline would be
about 250,000 gallons. It would be shipped
to the mine by tanker truck and would be
stored in  a  5,000-gallon above ground
storage tank in the  fuel storage area near
the truck  shop.  The  fuel  storage  area
would be  constructed within  a bermed,
HDPE-Iined area to minimize the migration
of spilled material  and contamination of
soils.

Diesel fuel  would  be  used   in  large
quantities to fuel heavy equipment at the
mine and would be mixed with ammonium
nitrate for blasting (ANFO).  Diesel would
be completely consumed by mine vehicles
and in the blasting  process, so no waste
would be generated for disposal.  Annual
consumption of diesel would be about 2.3
million gallons.  It would be shipped to the
mine by tanker truck and would be stored
in two 15,000-gallon above ground storage
tanks in the fuel storage area near the truck
shop. The fuel  storage area would be
constructed within a bermed, HDPE-lined
area to minimize the  migration of spilled
material and contamination of soils.

Oil and lubricants would be used by light
and heavy mine equipment and, to some
extent, in drilling and other activities. They
would be shipped to the mine by truck in
drums or tanks and would be stored in the
truck shop on  a concrete floor above  a
drainage  sump to  prevent spills on the
ground and soil  contamination.  Routine
maintenance of heavy equipment and other
mine vehicles would generate waste oil and
lubricants, which would be stored in waste
oil tanks in the truck shop. These waste oil
tanks would be periodically  emptied  by a
contractor and the waste oil would be
transported  to  an  appropriate  off-site
facility for recycling or disposal.

Antifreeze  is  composed  primarily   of
ethylene  glycol  and would  be used  in
virtually  all   mine  vehicles.  Antifreeze
would be shipped to the mine by truck in
drums or tanks and would be stored in the
truck shop on a concrete  floor above a
drainage  sump to prevent spills  on  the
ground and soil contamination.  Routine
maintenance of heavy equipment and other
mine  vehicles  would   generate  waste
antifreeze, which also would be stored in a
tank  in  the  truck  shop.  This  waste
antifreeze  tank  would  be  periodically
emptied  by a contractor and the waste
antifreeze would  be transported  to  an
appropriate off-site facility  for processing
or disposal.

Ammonium  nitrate  is  used  for blasting
when combined with fuel oil (i.e.,  diesel)
(ANFO). Since ammonium nitrate would
be  completely  consumed during blasting
events,  no  waste  products  would   be
generated    for    disposal.    Annual
consumption of ammonium nitrate would
be about 2,700 tons.  It would be shipped
to the mine by truck and  stored in silos or
bins  in  a  bermed  area  to  minimize
migration of accidentally spilled material.

2.2.6    Water Supply

Water   to    meet   the    operational
requirements of the  project would  come
from  wells  developed  near  the  site.
(Potable  water  would  be provided  by
bottled water.)  A number of test holes
were drilled at the site and  identified an
aquifer  at  approximately  250-300   feet
below ground surface. The aquifer would.
provide the process water requirements for
2399SR3.2
                                        2-28

-------
the project of up to 1,000 gpm.   Well
water would  be stored  in  a fresh water
storage tank located southeast of the  ore
crushing • facility.    A  minimum  of a
100,000-gallon    reserve    would   be
maintained for fire protection.

The well water contains chloride salts.  A
reverse osmosis (R.O.) desalinization plant
would  be   constructed   to  remove
impurities,  including chloride  ions, from
the well water  for water  used  in  the
SX/EW Plant. Chloride would pit cathode
mother   blanks   if  it   became   too
concentrated  in the electrolyte.  A small
electrolyte bleed stream would be  routed
to the raffinate pond to control chloride
and iron concentrations which  could build
up in the EW  circuit.

Water from the  fresh water storage tank
would be pumped to the R.O. plant.  Water
processed  through the  plant would  be
stored in  the R.O.  water storage tank.
Brine from the R.O. plant would be routed
to the raffinate pond.

The water  balance for the Lisbon  Valley
Project presumes a processing flow rate of
approximately 3,000 gpm.   That  is,  the
SX/EW Plant  would  be  designed   to
process 3,000 gpm of PLS.  This flow rate
would be recovered as PLS from the heap
leach pad, stored in the PLS pond,  routed
through  the   zero  discharging SX/EW
Plant, and  returned to the raffinate pond
for reuse on the heap. Figure 2-10  depicts
a simplified water balance for the project.

Approximately 907 acre-feet per year on
average would be consumed by the  project
for the life of the mine (Table 2-6).  Water
would be consumed by evaporation and by
increasing the  moisture  content  of ore
placed on the leach pad.

2.2.7     Work Force

Personnel requirements for  the  Lisbon
Valley Project are  separated  into  two
phases:  construction and operations.  The
construction    phase     would     take
approximately   10 months  and  employ
approximately 80 people.

A maximum of approximately 143 people
would be employed at any one time during
the operations phase, with a majority of the
work  force coming from the surrounding
communities.  The operations work  force
would consist of people who have mining
experience from other  mining operations.
The anticipated total operations work force
is identified by year in Table 2-7, and by
shift in Table 2-8.

2.2.8     Electrical Power

Power requirements  for  the  plant are
approximately   eight  megawatts.    The
existing line to the site does not have the
capacity  required to  meet  this power
demand.  Power is available from either a
69-kV powerline  or a  138-kV powerline,
both of which  are located approximately
6.5 miles west of the Lisbon Valley Project
(Figure 2-11).  A transformer  would be
required to step down the power from the
138-kV line to a new 69-kV  powerline
feeding the plant.

A 69-kV powerline would be built for
approximately 10.8 miles along a 50-foot
right-of-way  from  the  existing  Hatch
substation  east  to  the  Lisbon Valley
Project.
23996/R3.2 5/15/96(225 PMyKPT/3
                                        2-29

-------
fe
8i
to
          627.2 GPM2

          903,206 GPD
          316,122,100 G/YR
     WEU WATER

       PUMPS
 MAKEUP WATER

   503.0 GPM
                    PLANT WATER

                    STORAGE TANK
  724,320 GPD

253,512,000 G/Y
                                             "T
                                                                            EVAPORATOR AND             EVAPORATION AM)

                                                                              SPRAY LOSSES  „ „„       SPRAY  LOSSES

                                                                               166,^ GPM    PREOPJIATJON    157,9. GPM

                                                             WA1FI1 REQURCO TO WCT ORE
                                                                    212,4 CPH
                                                               3,324.1 CPM
                                                                                         3,157,9 0PM,
                                                               RAFFfNAlE
                                                                               HEAP
                                                                                                       HEAP
                                                                                                                                     3.000 0PM
                                                                                  {INTERMEDIATE LEACH SQWTION)
                                                                                                                                     PLS
                                                                                          3.033,5 0PM
                    27,566 CPO
                                                  RAFFINATE  POND
                                         178,966  GPD '(124.2 CPM)

                                         62,610,100 G/YR
                                                                                         t
                                                                                         I
                                                                                         I
                                                                                         t
                                                                                         I
                                                                                                  FIRE WATER

                                                                                                    SYSTEM
                                                                                             RESERVE= 100,000 GAL.

                                                                                              CAPACITY^ 1.500 GPM
                                                                                                                 .HYDRAJjTS
                                                              NOTES:


                                                                  1. WATER REQUIRED TO WET ORE


                                                                              °-10  (105! = 15X-5K MOISTURE)

                                                                   W+476 TPH

                                                                   W S 53.11 STPH WATER ^ 212.4 GPM


                                                                   « 0PM
                    9,648,000 OAR




                    5,472 CPO
                                                                                      1,915,200 0/VR


                                                                                      15,000 OPD
                    5,250,000 GAR




                              MIS(







                    25,248 OPD
                                                                                      8,836,800 OAR




                                                                                      10,800 GPD
                                                                                      3.780,000 GAR




                                                                                      5,400 GPD
                                                                                                                                1,890,000 CAR




                                                                                                                                5.400 GPD
                                                                                      1,890,000 GAR




                                                                                      84,000 GPD
                                                                                      29,400,000 CAR
                                                                                                                                                      \
                                                                                                                                                         TO  PROCESS
                                                                                                               PROCESS RETURN

                                                                                                                    «(33.5 CPM)
                                                                                                                                                    /DAY - 100%
                                                                                                                                                  ILER FEED
                                                                                                                                                  ihr/OAY - IOOX
                                                                                                                                                             LOSS)
                                                                                                                                                                    > --- '
                      SX HOSES	630,000
                      EH HOSES	630.000
                      FcSOt TANK	I.06UOOO
                      	     -630,ObO
                                                                                                           ) REACENT
                                                                                                           . STOR.
                                                                                                                                                     •7flO°0% LOSS!
                                                                                                                                                        IFFICE
                                                                                                                                                        IQQg LOSS)
                                                                 2. 627.2 GPM IS AN AVERAGE PEAK

                                                                    DEMAND OVER LIFE OF MINE.
                                                                                                                                          SOURCE: SUMMO  1996.
                                                                                            Job  No. :
                                                                  23669
                                                                                            Prepared by :  CRP
                                                  Date :
2/7/96
    SIMPLIFIED  WATER  BALANCE



LISBON  VALLEY  COPPER  PROJECT

        SAN  JUAN  CO.,  UTAH
                                                                                                                                                                       FIG. 2-10

-------
                                  TABLE 2-6
                       PROJECT WATER USE BY YEAR
Year
YearO
Yearl

Year 2
Year3
Year 4
YearS
Year 6

Year?
YearS
Year 9
Year 10
Year 11
Year 12

Activities
Construction Period
Sentinel and Centennial Pit start;
processing starts
Sentinel and Centennial pits; processing
Sentinel and Centennial pits; processing
Sentinel and Centennial pits; processing
Peak water demand; GTO pit starts
Centennial Pit reaches final depth, mining
continues
Sentinel Pit completed at end of year
Centennial Pit completed at end of year
GTO pit only; processing continues
GTO pit completed; processing continues
Mining completed; rinsing pad
Mining and processing complete;
reclamation only
Flow
Required
(gpm)
100
570

612
626
676
902
833

772
556
538
522
500
100

Water Consumed
for Operations
(ac-ft/yr)
161.33
919.58

987.34
1009.93
1090.60
1455.20
1343.88

1245.47
897.00
868.00
842.14
806.65
161.33

Sources: Adrian Brown Consultants 1996; Gochnour 1996
23996/R3.2 5/15/96(225 PMyKFT/3
                                     2-31

-------
                                  TABLE 2-7

       ESTIMATED TOTAL OPERATIONS WORK FORCE (EMPLOYEES)
Employment Type
Administrative and
Processing - Salaried
Processing - Hourly
Mine - Salaried
Mine - Hourly
Total
Year
land 2
14
38
12
46
110
3
14
38
12
61
125
4 and 5
14
38
12
72
136
6-10
14
38
12
79
143
Source:  Gochnour 1996a.
                                  TABLE 2-8

             ESTIMATED WORK FORCE BY SHIFT (POSITIONS)1
Year
Shift
Day

Swing

Night


Day
Mon-Fri
Sat & Sun
Mon-Fri
Sat & Sun
Mon-Fri
Sat & Sun
Total1
land 2
45
17
14
12
12
12
112
3
50
22
16
14 •
14
14
130
4 and 5
55
27
18
16
16
16
148
6-10
58
29
19
17
17
17
157
1   The estimated total work force positions that would be required by shift, as presented in
    this table (Le., Table 2-7), is higher than the yearly employee totals presented in Table 2-6
    to take into account employees that would work multiple shifts and similar variables.

Source:  Gochnour 1996a.
7399&S32 5/15S6(225PM)/KPr/3
2-32

-------
                                                        LISBON VALLEY £^W
                                                        PROJECT BOUNDARY^
                             ELECTRICAL POWERLINE
                                                                           .   .SOURCE: SUMMO 1996.
                                      Job No. :    23996
                                                                ELECTRICAL  POWERLINE
                                                                    CORRIDOR MAP
0   2500  5000
                                            Prepared by :
SCALE IN FEET
                                                                                       FIG. 2-11

-------
 In addition  to crossing  portions  of the
 Lisbon Valley Project Area, the powerline
 would cross the following sections:

     Sections 28, 31, 32, and 33; T30S,
     R25E
     Sections 5 and 6; T3 IS, R25E
     Sections 20, 21, 26, 27, 28, 35, and
     36; T30S, R24E

 Construction  would  commence in 1997
 and take about four  months.  As part of
 construction,  an  office trailer and staging
 area  of approximately  1,000 square feet
 would be established within the right-of-
 way at both the  Hatch substation  on the
 west  end  and  the  proposed  Summo
 substation on the east end. Supplies (e.g.,
 poles, reels,  and  insulators)  would be
 stored at each staging area.  The office
 trailer would have its own sewage holding
 tank,  with   the  contents hauled  to  a
 commercial sewage dump station in Moab.

 The powerlines would be suspended 65 to
 85 feet above ground on wood poles.  All
 poles  would  be  raptor-proof  designed.
 Travel  during construction   would  use
 existing paths (e.g., roads, seismic trails,
 two-track trails)  or  cross country with
 neither the access route nor  the right-of-
 way bladed.

 Activities associated with the installation of
the 69-kV powerline  would occur in five
phases:

 1.  Holes would  be dug by augers, or
    blasted and dug by augers, to a depth
    of 8 to  11 feet for poles and 14 feet
    for anchors.
2.  Poles with cross  arms and insulators
    would be installed  in   the   holes.
    Double   and   triple  pole  structures
                                                  would be installed  to  support  the
                                                  weight of long spans or tension of
                                                  angles.
                                              3.  The   electric    wires    (i.e.,    the
                                                  conductors) would be strung on the
                                                  poles.  Large warning balls would be
                                                  installed  on  some  conductors  as  a
                                                  safety precaution.
                                              4.  The powerline would be energized.
                                              5.  The powerline route and staging areas
                                                  would be cleaned and reclaimed.

                                              In addition to operating the plant, power
                                              would be used to light various facilities at
                                              night. Visual impacts from light pollution
                                              would be reduced  by installing  shrouds
                                              around  major  lighting structures.   The
                                              shrouds would  direct light down towards
                                              the area of work and minimize the amount
                                              of light  that would be emitted upward or
                                              off site.

                                              2.2.9    Waste Management

                                              Sewage,  Liquid,  and Solid  Waste.  A
                                              system of septic tanks  and  drain fields
                                              would be installed to handle sewage from
                                              the project.   Separate systems would be
                                              installed  for  the shop/warehouse  area,
                                              administration and laboratory area, and the
                                              SX-EW Plant.  A separate system would
                                              be installed to drain the laboratory sinks to
                                              the raffinate pond.

                                              Receptacles would be placed around  the
                                              site, as  necessary, to collect  solid waste
                                              (e.g., trash from lunchroom).  A contractor
                                              would be hired by Summo to haul the solid
                                              waste to an approved landfill site.
                                              Spill
Prevention
Control
and
                                              Countermeasures f SPCQ Plan. A plan to
                                              mitigate spills and  provide  notice to  the
                                              appropriate  government   agencies   is
3399&B32 May IS, 1996(4:34 PMyRTOS
                                        2-34

-------
required  under  various  laws.    Summo
would develop a spill  prevention plan in
conjunction with Federal, State, and local
officials.   The developed plan  would be
available in the administration building for
review by governmental officials.  The plan
would  address,   at   a   minimum,   the
following matters:

   •   Name of the facility
   •   Location
   •   Date and year the facility began
       operations
   •   Identification of hazardous
       materials
   •   Maximum-storage capacity of
       hazardous materials
   •   Description of the facility, including
       storage and handling procedures
   •   Spill event action program to
       outline roles and responsibilities
   •   Medical emergency procedures

The objective of the spill prevention plan
would be to address the following matters.

   •   Reduce the potential for spills and
       environmental contamination
       through a well-defined materials
       management program.
   •   Provide the operational personnel
       with the necessary information to
       properly respond to a hazardous
       material spill event
   •   Clearly define line of function
       responsibilities for a spill situation.
   •   Provide a response and cleanup
       program which minimizes
       environmental impacts.

2.2.10   Transportation

The primary  access road  to the Lisbon
Valley Project is  the  existing San  Juan
23996/R3.2 May 15.1996(4:34PM5/RPT/3                 2-35
County Lower Lisbon Valley Road.  The
majority of the traffic would be from Moab .
south  on US Highway  191 to La Sal
Junction, east on Utah State Highway 46
to the Lisbon Valley Road located just
west of  La Sal, and  then south to the
Lisbon Valley Project.  The  remainder of
the traffic would be from Monticello east
on Utah  State Highway 666 to the Ucolo
turnoff and then north on the  San Juan
County road to the Lisbon Valley Project.
Table  2-9  summarizes  the anticipated
vehicle trips that would be made daily to
the Lisbon Valley Project.  Note that three
or more workers per vehicle  are assumed.
Summo would encourage carpooling, and
the  remote  location  may  make  such
estimates realistic.  No buses or vanpoqls
are planned by Summo.

No San  Juan County maintained road in
the Lisbon Valley Project area  would be
closed or realigned  due to  Summo's
operations.   However,  certain trails or
roadways around the Lisbon Valley Project
area would be closed for public safety
reasons.   These  trails or roadways, as
depicted   on  Figure   2-1,  include the
following.

    •   Trail through Lisbon Canyon
    •   Roadway to the Wood ranch house
    •   Roadway around the south side of
       the Centennial Pit
    •   Trails and roadways that access the
       GTOPit
    •   Trails and roadways west of the
       GTO Pit where Dump A would be
       sited

Finally, Summo proposes to install warning
signs,  stop signs and  night lighting along
the  Lower  Lisbon  Valley  Road,  as
addressed in Section 2.2.2.5.

-------
                                      TABLE 2-9

                        ESTIMATED DAILY VEHICLE TRIPS
Type

Employees (Cars,
Pickups)
Acid (18-Wheeler Tank
Trucks)
Tires and Truck
Components (6-Wheel
Trucks)'
Cathodes (18-Wheeler
Trucks)
Other Deliveries
(Various Size Trucks)
Visitors (Cars, Pickups)

Year
1
33

5

2


2

1

2
45
2
33

5

2


2

1

2
45
3
38

5

4


2

2

2
53
4
41

6

5


2

3

2
59
5
41

7

5


2

3

2
60
6
73 J

7

81


2

41

2
961
7
43

6

4


2

2

2
59
8
43

5

4


2

2

2
58
9
43

4

4


2

2

2
57
10
43

4

4


2

2

2
57
1   Daily vehicle trips would be higher in year 6 because a contractor would be hired to
    conduct pre-stripping activities in the GTO Pit.

Source:  Gochnour 1996a.
2.2.11    Air Emission Controls

Various  emission  controls  would  be
employed at the Lisbon Valley Project. The
equipment at the site would be maintained
to reduce emissions.  Each vehicle would
be equipped with standard vehicle emission
control  devices.    In addition,   Summo
would  attempt to purchase low sulphur
diesel fuel for  the heavy equipment at the
site.
Water would  be sprayed from  a water
truck to control dust in all active mine
areas, including the haul roads. If the use
of water for  dust  control becomes too
time-consuming   or    water-consuming,
Summo   would   apply   other   dust
suppressants (e.g., magnesium chloride).

Two  different dust reduction  methods
would be employed at  the  ore  crushing
facilities. Dust would be controlled in the
primary crushing facility by means of a
water spray system.  Dust control in the
2399SR3.2 5/15/96(225 EMJ/RPT/S                    2-36

-------
 secondary crushing plant  area  would be
 accomplished with a dust collector system.

 Dust suppression in other disturbed areas
 would involve the prompt revegetation of
 the  area  with a  BLM-approved  seed
 mixture.   Seeding would  be  done in
 conjunction  with   the  seasonal planting
 schedule.

 2.2.12   Reclamation/Closure

 Two primary goals of the Lisbon  Valley
 Project  reclamation  plan would  be to
 ensure   long-term  protection   of   the
 environment  and return disturbed areas to
 a suitable post-mining land use  consistent
 with  current land  uses.    The  current
 primary  lands  uses are  wildlife habitat,
 livestock     grazing,     and    mineral
 development.

 In addition,  reclamation would minimize
 public safety hazards  and, to the  extent
 practicable,  diminish the  appearance of
 mining  disturbances.   Reclamation  also
 would mitigate the adverse effects of past
 unreclaimed       mining       activities.
 Approximately  85  acres  of unreclaimed
 mining activities exist  at the project  site;
 these areas would be reclaimed along with
 the  disturbances   related  to  Summo's
 proposed operations.

 Reclamation  at Lisbon  Valley Project
 would   fell   into    two   categories:
 concurrent/interim  reclamation  and final
 reclamation.

 2.2.12.1  Concurrent/Interim
         Reclamation

 Concurrent/interim  reclamation are those
 activities conducted during active mining

23996/R3.2 5/15/56(225 PM)/RPT/3                    2-37
operations.    The  activities include  the
following measures.

   •   During site preparation, disturbed
       areas would be contoured to
       minimize erosion and provide
       adequate drainage. Sediment traps
       would be installed down gradient
       from disturbed areas. Erosion
       control structures (e.g., rock check
       dams, straw bales, silt fences)
       would be installed to prevent the
       accelerated erosion and sediment-
       ation of surface drainages.
   •   Suitable plant growth medium
       would be removed from the areas
       to be disturbed and stockpiled for
       future reclamation purposes. The
       soils investigation, conducted as
       part of baseline investigations,
       indicated that sufficient plant
       growth medium exists for
       reclamation purposes.  Details on
       the amount of suitable plant growth
       medium to be salvaged are
       provided in Section 4.4.
   •   During the life of the mine, areas
       no longer needed would be
       reclaimed and revegetated with
       plant species that meet the
       proposed post mining land uses.
       This would eliminate or minimize
       the requirement for all disturbed
       areas to remain disturbed during
       the entire mine life. A preliminary
       seed mixture is detailed in Table
       2-10.
   •   A revegetation test plot would be
       constructed at the beginning of the
       project. The goal of the test plot
       would be to test the species
       identified in the preliminary seed
       mixture (Table 2-10) to determine
       species that would grow under the

-------
                                   TABLE 2-10

                        PRELIMINARY SEED MIXTURE
                 Species
           Rate Ibs/ac1
 High Crest Crested Wheatgrass

 Intermediate Wheatgrass

 Pilot Orchard Grass

 Basin Wild Rye

 Wild Rye

 Indian Ricegrass

 LadacAlfelfe
 Lewis Flax

 Yellow Sweetclover

 Forage Kochia
 Mountain Big Sagebrush

 Fourwing Saltbush
 Bitterbrush
                1.0

                1.0

                1.0

                1.0

                1.0

                1.0

                1.0

                1.0

                0.5

                0.5

                0.1

                1.0

                1.0
                                   Total
               11.1
1 ,  The rate provided is pure live seed to be applied by drill seeding method.  The rate would
    be doubled for areas that would be broadcast seeded.
Source: Gochnour 1996a.

       conditions that exist at the Lisbon
       Valley Project. Treatments would
       be developed to simulate various
       conditions of the mine site at
       closure, and would assess plant
       species composition, fertilizer
       requirements, plant growth medium
       depth requirements, and slope and
       aspect.
2.2.12.2  Final Reclamation

Final  reclamation activities relate to site
closure.  These activities are noted below
by facility.  All areas to be revegetated
would be seeded with the mixture noted in
Table  2-10  which  was  developed  in
conjunction with the Utah Division of Oil,
Gas & Mining (UDOGM).  This list may
be   modified   by   results  from  the
revegetation test plots.
                                        2-38

-------
Open Pits. The closure plan for the open
pits is  directed primarily  toward  public
safety  with some revegetation  activities.
Rock berms or fences would be  installed
to block public  access  to  the pits.  The
berms  or  fences  would be  marked  to
provide adequate notice to the public. The
structures would be  designed to  satisfy
BLM and MSHA requirements.

No revegetation of the bench walls  would
occur.   After mining activities have been
completed, pit walls and benches would be
allowed to fill  with rubble from natural
sloughing  activities.    Haul  roads that
accessed the pit bottom would be scarified,
covered   with   soil,    seeded,   and,   if
necessary,  fertilized  to  promote healthy
vegetation stands.

Pit  dewatering   activities   would   be
discontinued.     Based   on   a  study
commissioned by Summo (Adrian Brown
1996), it  is estimated that water would
collect in each of the pits: (a) a pool of
water  about 289  feet  in depth in the
Sentinel Pits, (b) a pool about 106 feet in
depth in the Centennial Pit, and (c) a pool
about 247 feet in depth in the GTO pit.

In addition  to  berms or fences, the pit
perimeter   would   be  planted   with
After site grading, plant growth medium
would be applied to the. entire dump area at
the   optimum   thickness.   (Optimum
thickness would be determined  from the
revegetation test plots.)   The areas would
be seeded and fertilized,  as required by soil
tests.

Heap Leach Pad. The leached ore heap on
the pad would  be reclaimed to  minimize
leachate  discharge  by  preventing  water
from entering  the  heap  from  surface
                                              indigenous tree species (e.g., pinyon pine
                                              and  Rocky Mountain  juniper).    The
                                              vegetative material would act to partially
                                              screen the open pits.

                                              No   backfilling  or   other   reclamation
                                              activities  would be conducted in the four
                                              open pits to preserve evidence of copper
                                              mineralization,  as  allowed  under 43 CER
                                              §3809.0-5© (1995).   That is, the pits
                                              would remain open and not be backfilled to
                                              allow  for future  access to the  copper
                                              mineralization that would  not be mined
                                              during Summo's currently planned mining
                                              operations.

                                              Waste Rock Dumps.   Benches would be
                                              installed during development of the waste
                                              dumps  to maintain an  overall  slope  of
                                              2.5:1.  As such, some grading of the waste
                                              dumps  is  required  to break up  the
                                              individual  bench   levels  prior  to   the
                                              application of growth medium during final
                                              reclamation activities.

                                              The surfaces (tops) of the waste  dumps
                                              would be  ripped to a depth  of about 4 feet
                                              and scarified to form a roughened seedbed
                                              surface.  The surface would be contoured
                                              to  encourage   infiltration  rather  than
                                              ponding.  Undulations would be used to
                                              enhance      revegetation      efforts.
                                              percolation. In addition, heap reclamation
                                              would      enhance     runoff     and
                                              evapotranspiration from the heap surface.

                                              Leaching  activities would  continue  until
                                              the economically recoverable copper has
                                              been obtained.   The leached ore heap on
                                              the pad would be flushed with fresh water
                                              to reduce  the chemical characteristic of the
                                              effluent to levels deemed acceptable by the
                                              BLM and UDOGM. If rinsing with fresh
                                              water  does not reduce the effluent to
23996/R3.2 5/15/96(225 PM)/RPTY3
                                        2-3 9

-------
 acceptable levels, other treatments would
 be used (e.g., lime amendment). Pumping
 activities  also  would be performed  to
 reduce the solution inventory by the use of
 high evaporation sprinklers.

 After the leached  ore  heap  has  been
 decontaminated,  the  heap  would  be
 recontoured.    The  slopes  of the  heap
 would be reduced from  the  operational
 slope of 2:1 to an overall slope of 2.5:1.
 The benches and top of the heap would be
 graded to establish positive drainage.  The
 top and sides of the heap would be either
 covered with compacted  soils  or  treated
 with  commercially  available products if
 needed.  Waste rock would be placed  on
 top of this prepared layer at a minimum of
 several feet to provide for an adequate
 rooting zone. Plant growth medium would
 be spread on top of the waste rock cap to
 the depth determined from the test plots,
 and the area would be seeded.

 Other components of the heap leach pad
 closure would include removing all exterior
 piping and retention of diversion structures
 to route  precipitation and  runoff away
 from the area. No perforation of the liner
 is planned.

 Solution   and  Stormwater Ponds.   The
 ponds  would  be retained to  allow for
 solution  containment  while reclamation
 occurs at  other facilities (e.g., heap leach
 pad).  The ponds would be allowed to dry
 and, if necessary, the process  solutions
 would be  treated, as dictated by results of
 laboratory testing of the solution.   Once
 the ponds are  dry,  the  liners  would be
 folded into the ponds.  Waste rock would
 be hauled  and placed over the liners.  The
 areas  would be graded to  achieve  a
 positive  drainage,  covered  with  plant
growth medium as determined  from the
revegetation   test  plot,  seeded,   and
fertilized, as needed.

Ancillary Structures.  All equipment at the
Lisbon Valley Project would be  removed.
No chemical or electrical hazards would
remain after closure.  The powerline may
remain.  All buildings  and  other facilities
would be dismantled and removed from the
site or buried.

Foundations would be removed and buried
elsewhere on the site or buried in  place.
Facility areas would be contoured to  create
a  natural  appearance  and  to  prevent
erosion.  Plant growth medium would be
applied and the areas  seeded.   Fertilizer
would be applied at a rate that is dependent
upon site specific soil conditions.

Roads and Other Facilities.   Roads and
other facilities  not deemed essential  by
BLM would be  reclaimed.   The  areas
would be ripped, as necessary,  to alleviate
compaction,  graded   to   route runoff,
covered  with  plant  growth  medium,
seeded, and fertilized,  as indicated by test
results.

2.2.12.3 Long-Term Care

Upon completion of reclamation  activities,
monitoring would be conducted to ensure
compliance with permit standards and to
determine  reclamation  success.    At  a
minimum, the site would be monitored for
at least two years following completion of
all   final   site  reclamation    activities.
Components of the monitoring  plan would
be  developed,  in  cooperation  with  the
BLM and DOGM, as the project nears its
identified end-of-life.
23996/R3.2 S/JS9S(2:25PMyKPT/3
                                        2-40

-------
2.3 ALTERNATIVES

Various alternatives were identified based
on a review of the POO, as supplemented,
agency comments, public  comments, and
experience  at  other mining  and heap
leaching  sites.   The alternatives were
evaluated   based   on    environmental,
engineering, and economic factors.  Based
on this evaluation, some alternatives were
eliminated from further consideration and
are addressed  in Section  1.3.2   Four
alternatives are analyzed in detail  hi this
EIS:

   •   Alternative 1 - No Action
   •   Alternative 2 - Open Pit Backfilling
   •   Alternative 3 - Facility Layout
   •   Alternative 4 - Waste Rock
       Selective Handling

Each of these four alternatives is discussed
below.

2.3.1    No Action Alternative

The No Action Alternative evaluates the
possibility that  the  Proposed Action  of
mining and heap leaching might involve
undue and unnecessary degradation that is
prohibited  by 43 CFR § 3809  (1995).
Acceptable impacts include the reasonable
and necessary degradation associated with
the disturbance required for the extraction
and processing of minerals.

Under this  alternative, Summo would not
receive  approval to develop  the  Lisbon
Valley Project,  copper  mining and heap
leaching activities would not occur, and the
proven  ore reserves in the area  would
remain  undeveloped.     As  such,  the
opportunity to develop mineral resources,
as authorized by law, would be foregone.
on the public (i.e., Federal)  lands.  The
project could not be developed in a feasible
manner without  use of the  State  and
Federal (BLM) lands shown on Figure 1-2.

The environmental conditions, as described
in Section 3.0, would  continue  to  exist
unchanged by activities related to  this
mining and heap leaching  proposal.   In
addition,  the  approximate  85  acres  of
existing disturbance from past mining and
milling  activities,   including  open  pits,
dumps,  and  other  surface disturbances,
would remain unreclaimed and continue to
pose a public safety concern.

2.3.2    Open Pit Backfilling
         Alternative

An alternative identified during  the public
scoping process (discussed in Section 1.3)
was  backfilling  the  open  pits.    Two
scenarios were identified to encompass the
various scoping comments:    partial pit
backfilling  and complete pit backfilling.
Each of these scenarios is addressed below.

Scenario 1.  Under this scenario, the pits
would be partially  backfilled.   Analyses
performed by Summo and reviewed as part
of  the   EIS  process,  revealed  that
groundwater would be intercepted by open
pit mining activities.  In addition, water is
expected to pool in the pits after cessation
of mining.  The pits would be partially
backfilled to a depth sufficient to eliminate
the projected pool of water in the pits.

Partial backfilling  of the pits  would be
comparable to the Proposed  Action with
the following exceptions.  The four waste
rock dumps, addressed hi Section 2.2.2.4,
would exist; however, the height and area!
extent of the dumps would be  decreased.
23996/R3.2 5/15/96(2:25 PM)/RPT/3
                                        2-41

-------
In addition, the time required to complete
final reclamation activities of the GTO Pit
would be extended to accommodate  the
partial   backfilling   activities;    partial
backfilling  of the other pits  would  be
conducted while the GTO Pit is mined.

Scenario 2.  Under this scenario, the pits
would be completely backfilled. Complete
backfilling would return the pits to  the
approximate original contour that existed
before any mining activities occurred in the
area.

Complete  pit   backfilling  would   not
eliminate the disturbance created by or the
need for waste rock dumps.  Dumps would
be needed to store waste rock during pit
development and until backfilling activities
could  commence.  In addition,  dumps
would remain after backfilling due  to  the
swell factor of the waste rock (i.e.,  the
broken waste rock would encompass more
space than in-place rock).   However,  the
size  and area! extent of the waste rock
dumps would be reduced.

Complete  pit   backfilling  would   be
comparable to the Proposed Action with
the following exceptions. Waste rock from
the Sentinel and Centennial Pits would be
deposited in waste dumps until the Sentinel
Pits  have been mined to their economic
limits.  Waste rock from the Centennial Pit
then  would be  hauled to .backfill   the
Sentinel Pits. Upon backfilling the Sentinel
Pits,  waste rock from the  Centennial  and
GTO Pits would be placed in dumps until
mining of the Centennial Pit is completed.
Waste rock from the GTO Pit then would
be used to backfill the Centennial  Pit.
Mining  of the  GTO Pit would continue
until the economical ore reserve has been
mined.  At this time, waste rock from  the

2399&R3.2 May IS. 1996(4:36PM)/EE>T/3                 2-42
dumps near the GTO Pit would be hauled
to backfill the GTO Pit.  Due to the swell
factor  of the waste  rock, dumps would
remain northwest of the Sentinel Pit #1 and
near the GTO Pit, as more fully described
in .Section  4.1.   Moreover,  the  time
required  to complete final  reclamation'
activities  of the  GTO  Pit would  be
extended  to   accommodate  the   final
backfilling activities.

2.3.3    Facility Layout Alternative -
         BLM Preferred Alternative

Some concerns identified during the public
scoping process were the visual impacts to
the  public  traveling  along the  Lower
Lisbon  Valley  Road and  encountering
Summo's mine and heap leach facilities. A
way to mitigate some of the visual impacts,
as voiced  during  the scoping process,
could be to modify the layout of some of
the facilities.   Relocating  facilities was
considered during  the EIS  process,  but
rejected.   Instead, to potentially  reduce
visual impacts, consideration  was given to
eliminating  Waste Dump D and placing
materials from the  eliminated dump in an
increased Waste Dump C.

As depicted on Figure 2-1, Waste Dump D
is proposed to be located  directly adjacent
to  the  Lower  Lisbon  Valley   Road
northwest of Sentinel Pit #1;  Waste Dump
C would be located southeast of Sentinel
Pit #2.   Under this alternative,  Waste
Dump  D  would be  eliminated, and the
approximate 5,000,000 tons of waste rock
from Sentinel Pit #1 would be transported
to Waste Dump C.  Waste Dump C would
be expanded by approximately 50 acres to
the  southeast   to   accommodate  the
additional volume.  In this way, all waste
disposal activities would be confined to a

-------
single, large dump north of the  Lisbon
Valley Road and not be divided into two
smaller dump sites.

The  various  other facilities  were  not
considered for relocation for the following
reasons.   First,  the open pits cannot  be
relocated.  The grade of ore proposed to
be  mined  by Summo  exists  in  certain
locations  due  to  geologic  constraints.
Thus, the pits  cannot be moved to reduce
visual impacts to the traveling public.

Second,  Waste   Dumps A  and  B  are
proposed  for  areas that would be only
glimpsed by the traveling  public  due to
screening   by   natural  topography;  the
dumps would be viewed for a very limited
time by those traveling north on the Lower
Lisbon Valley .Road.  No other areas for
relocation  of these  two   dumps were
identified  that  would   lessen  the  visual
impacts to the traveling public.

Third, the heap leach pad is located in an
area that minimizes visual impacts to the
traveling public.  The pad is proposed to be
constructed in a valley to the west of the
Lower Lisbon Valley Road.  This valley is
.naturally blocked from view along most of
this  county road  due to  topographic
features; only a small portion of the valley,
and concomitantly  the leach pad,  can be
viewed from  the  Lower Lisbon  Valley
Road.  No other area  in  the immediate
vicinity of the open pits affords less of. a
visual impact than  the  current site.  The
only  other relatively flat  area in close
proximity to the open pits with sufficient
area to accommodate the heap leach pad is
in portions of Sections 25 and 36, T 30 S,
R25 E, and Sections 30 and 31, T 30 S,
R26 E.   This  area is  southeast  of the
Centennial Pit (see  Figure 2-1 for  general

23996/R3.2 May 15.1996(4:36 PMyKFT/3                 2-43
location).  The site is directly adjacent to
and  would  parallel the Lower  Lisbon
Valley Road for  approximately one  mile.
As  such,  visual impacts to the traveling
public would  be  greatly  increased  by
relocating the leach pad to this site.

Finally, the  solution ponds and  SX/EW
plant have  been  proposed in the  most
appropriate  locale given the site for the
heap leach pad.  Solution ponds should be
constructed on natural grade downgradient
of  the   pad  to  collect  solution  by
gravitational  means.   The  valley where
Summo proposes to construct the  pad
generally  flows to the  east  and north.
Thus, the solution ponds and processing
plant should be sited to the east of the pad.

Based on the foregoing, activities under
this alternative would be comparable to the
Proposed    Action,   except   for   the
elimination  of Waste Dump D and the
expansion of Waste Dump C.
2.3.4    Waste Rock Selective Handling
         Alternative

Summo  provided data  from static  test
methods that were performed on 186 rock
samples. Approximately 21 percent, or 39,
of the samples had the potential to be acid-
generating based on the sulfide-sulfur
content.  Moreover,  18 of the 39 samples
were  coal   or  coal-bearing,  which  is
equivalent  to  9.8  percent of the total
number of samples.  The waste rock will
total  about  90,000,000  tons of  which
approximately 10 percent or 9 million tons
will be coal or coal-bearing material.  The
remainder of the waste rock is either non-
acid forming or has the ability to neutralize
acid,  A concern exists  about the overall
acid-generating potential  of these materials

-------
over time and, therefore, the potential for
acid rock drainage (ARD).

The  results  of EPA  Method   1312
(Synthetic Precipitation Leach Procedure),
conducted  on four  composite samples of
the waste  rock  material,  show that only
dissolved iron is likely to be leached from
the waste rock at concentrations that only
slightly  exceed  the  applicable drinking
water standard.

The rate and amount of acid formation and
the concomitant quality  of water  is  a
function of three factors:

    •   Rock material with a net acidVbase
       balance that favors the production
       of acid
    •   Presence of water
    •   Presence of oxygen

Attempting to avoid mining the rock types
that have the potential to generate acid is
not feasible at the Lisbon Valley Project
because   these  rock   mediums   are
interspersed throughout the pits. Thus, the
goal of a selective handling program would
be to control the presence of oxygen and
water.    That is,  a  selective  handling
program would place the  rock types that
have a potential to  produce acid in areas
void of oxygen or water.

Selective handling would require an in-field
identification  of  the   acid-generating
lithologies  and disposal of these materials
in a manner that would prohibit contact
with water and oxygen, such as covering
with non acid-generating waste rock after
placement in the waste dumps.  As noted,
the  majority  of .the  potentially  acid-
generating  waste rock  is  coal or coal-
bearing  material  that   can  be   easily
recognized during the mining operation by
its dark (black) color. Based on the color
recognition, the  coal/coal-bearing waste
rock can be placed in the waste dumps in a
manner    that    precludes    potential
environmental  impact.  Selectively placing
the coal/coal-bearing waste rock within the
central part of the waste dumps and away
from the top  or  sides of the dump will
inhibit contact  with water and oxygen and,
thus, inhibit acid generation.

2.4 FEATURES COMMON TO ALL
    ALTERNATIVES

Various features or primary facilities would
exist at the Lisbon Valley Project under the
Proposed Action or the various alternatives
identified for further consideration, except
the-No Action Alternative.  That is,  no
facilities would be developed under the No
Action Alternative. The features common
to the various  alternatives, other than the
No  Action Alternative,  are  identified
below.

   •   Four open pits during active mining
       operations
   •   Waste rock dumps
   •   Ore crushing facilities
   •   Heap (ore) leach pad.
   •   Various stormwater and solution
       storage ponds
   •   Solution processing by a solvent
       extraction and electrowinning plant
   •   Water production wells with
       pipeline corridor
   •   Numerous support facilities (e.g.,
       administration building, truck shop,
       warehouse)
   •   Runoff diversion structures
   •   Various haul or access roads
   •   69-kV electric powerline from the
      Hatch substation to the project site
      5/15/96(225 PMVRFT/S
                                        2-44

-------
2.5  SUMMARY OF
     ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
     FROM EACH ALTERNATIVE
     ANALYZED

Table  2-11  presents  the  summary of
impacts by alternative, based  upon the
analysis  in  Section   4.0   by  resource
discipline.  Quantitative comparisons are
given where available and appropriate. In
other cases,  qualitative comparisons are
made.   This  table allows  the  reader and
decision maker to weigh  impacts  and
compare and contrast them,  by discipline,
across alternatives.

2.6  AGENCY PREFERRED
     ALTERNATIVE

In   accordance   with   NEPA,   Federal
agencies are  required  by the Council on
Environmental Quality (40 CFR 1502.14)
to identify their preferred alternative for a
project  at  the Draft  EIS  stage.   The
preferred alternative is  not a final agency
decision:  but rather an indication of the
agency's preliminary  preference.   This
preference may be changed in the final EIS
based on additional information provided
and/or  obtained  during the  draft  EIS
comment period.

The BLM preferred alternative  for the
Lisbon   Valley   Copper   Project   is
Alternative  No. 3  -   Facility  Layout
Alternative.   Under this alternative, the
proposed  action would be  implemented
with the  exception of requiring  Waste
Dump  D to  be  combined  with  Waste
Dump C,  in  the  proposed  location  of
Waste Dump C.   This  alternative would
mitigate adverse impacts from  concurrent
and  post-mining  drainage  run-ofi;  and
long-term  sedimentation   into  Lisbon
Canyon.    This  alternative  may  require
additional mitigation to  cultural resource
sites,  dependent on final detailed design
and layout of Waste Dump C. There may
also be a requirement to bring additional
topsoil into the site for final reclamation.
23996/R3.2 5/15/96(2:25 PM)/RI>T/3
                                       2-45

-------
           TABLE 2-11
LISBON VALLEY EIS IMPACT SUMMARY
Impact* by Allcrnnllvcs
Type of Potential Impact by
Issue
Proposed Action
(PA)

No Action
Open Pit BacWlWng
Alternative
Facility Layout Alternative

Selective Waste Rock Handling
Alternative
1 GEOLOGY AND GEOTECHNICAL ISSUES
• Topography


• Mineral Resources

• Constructed Facilities •
Potential Failures




• Water Supply








• Water Use








Waste dumps, leach pads, pits
affect 946 no; 1,103 ac planned
total disturbance
Ore, waste rock mined; copper
cathodes produced
Small slope failures easily
remedied; liner breaching,
foundation settling, and large
slope failures, pond overtopping
considered in leach pad design
No change to existing disturbed
landscape, pits, dumps

No mineral use; development
opportunities foregone
None; existing dumps and pits are
in stable, angle-of-repose
condition


Reduction in depth of pits and
heights of dumps compared to PA

Future mineral development
improbable due to pit backfilling
Slope failure potential reduced
compared to PA; remainder of
issues arc no change from PA


Minor variations from PA; pits,
dumps, pads now affect 941 ac

Little or no change from PA
regarding mineral recovery
No change from PA




No change from PA


No change from PA

No change from PA




HYDROLOGY
Up to 902 gpm peak demand for
project needed Yr 5; derived from
shallow and possibly deep wells,
and pit dewatering; proper
engineering of drainage in leach
pad area would eliminate
accelerated channel erosion
downstream between heap leach
pad and Sentinel #1 pit,
Water above used in ore
processing, dust control for roads,
and for some washdown uses; may
limit potential future uses; total
groundwater use by project
operations range from 161-1455
ac-ft/year, and project pits may
intercept up to 177 ac-fl/year of
surface flow
No change from existing
condition; no impacts; erosion of
current drainages from periodic
surface storm flows continues





As above








No implications for water supply,
except water in pits covered by
backfill and not available for any
future beneficial uses





Complete pit backfilling and
diversion would preserve 177 ac-
ft/year surface flow, and not
intercept groundwater flows





Less impacts on surface
drainages near Lisbon Canyon
with one larger dump instead of
two smaller





No change from PA








No change from PA








No change from PA









-------
                                                 TABLE 2-11
                                    LISBON VALLEY EIS IMPACT SUMMARY
Impacts by Alternatives
Type of Potential Impact by
Issue
• Water Quality










• Other Project
Coiislruction/Oper-
aliens/Closure Effects on
Water Resources




Proposed Action
(PA)
Existing water quality generally
poor; sulfate releases from
accidental leach pad failure could
affect quality in minor sense; as
would minor acid conditions (Fe
and Al) in pile vicinity caused by
leaching of coaly waste rock,
potential for elevated levels of
stilfates, TDS, and precipitate
trace metals due to aging of high
(8.0-9,0) pH waters,
Pits predicted to contain 106-289
feet of standing water post-closure;
following closure, breaching of
surface water diversion around
Sentinel pit could cause
backcutting and topographic
effects in 3 ephemeral drainages
converging on Lisbon Canyon

No Action
As above










As above







Open Pit BncWHUiig
Alternative
Backfilling and double handling
would expose more waste rock to
both potential acid and alkaline
generation (in pockets) in pits and
pile vicinities; reduced quantity of
waste rock exposed to these effects
on surface would be favorable, as
would covering of potentially acid
or alkaline materials exposed in
pit walls

Double handling of waste rock
and water quality implications
both ways (see above) perhaps
provides little benefit to
backfilling except topographic
restoration


Facility Layout Alternative

Better control at one waste
dump versus two in terms of any
water quality effects needing
mitigation







See above







Selective Waste Rock Handling
Alternative
Selective layering and covering of coaly
waste rock effectively addresses any acid
drainage concerns








See above







GEOCHEMISTRY
« Acid Generation Potential








• Other Ocochemical Issues -
Alkaline Conditions and
Related Effects


Little potential for toxic effects
from Fe and Al noted in 13 12
testing; major volume of rock lias
neutralization potential (see Water
Quality above)




Alkaline effects from aging waste
piles and exposed rock in water-
filled pits could produce elevated
levels of sulfates, TDS, and
precipitate trace metals
No change from current condition;
little or no acid drainage effects
currently observed on surface from
past shallow open pit mining





As above; no excessive alkaline
effects noted on surface from past
mining


Backfilling would cover some
potential acid- or alkaline -
generating lithology, and decrease
the amount of similar types of
waste rock exposed in surface
dumps; however, re-placement of
this rock in pits may cause pockets
of acid or alkaline water quality
there as well
See above




Consolidation of dumps would
decrease total area of exposed
rock to geochemical processes;
see PA discussion





See above




Selective handling would likely eliminate
any water quality concents from acid
drainage






Alkaline issues are ubiquitous and could
not be addressed with selective handling



2399G/R3.2 5/15/96(2:25 PM)/RPT/3
                                                   2-47

-------
                                                                                        TABLE 2-11
                                                                LISBON VALLEY EIS IMPACT SUMMARY
                                                                                      Impacts by Alternatives
  Type of Potential Impact by
            Issue
       Proposed Action
             (PA)
          No Action
      Open Pit Backfilling
          Alternative
                                                                 Facility Layout Alternative
                                 Selective Waste Rock Handling
                                           Alternative
                                                                         SOILS AND RECLAMATION EFFECTIVENESS
     Disturbance
•    Soil Quantity for
     Reclamation
     Erosion Control and
     Reclamation Effectiveness
Disturbance and alteration of
1,103 ac of native soils in project
area: loss of soil profile
development; increased exposure
to accelerated erosion and surface
runoff, compaction and rutting;
reduced productivity; 872 ac
would be reclaimed and 231 ac of
pits would be left open.

Approximately 1,462,216 cuyds
of soil material stockpiled and
later used for reclamation
Most of disturbed soils moderately
susceptible to water erosion and
highly susceptible to wind erosion;
construction and operations would
increase such effects due to
disturbance and removal of
vegetative cover; potential for
localized areas of acidic soils
resulting in phytotoxic impacts to
vegetation and increased erosion
No new disturbance and no
impacts to soils resources
No impact
Same conditions as present, with
some erosion occurring, would
persist
Initial disturbance as for PA but,
under the complete backfilling
scenario, all 1,103 no of
disturbance would be reclaimed
Less coversoil material required
for dumps reclamation, but about
402,494 additional cu yds of
material required for pits
reclamation, necessitating
additional disturbance to obtain
this material in project vicinity or
elsewhere

Partial pit backfilling would
reduce slope angles and erosion
potential on pit walls
Disturbance impacts shifted
from Bnmum soils to the rock
outcrop/Rizno complex
Loss of approximately 18,800
cu yds of suitable coversoil
material not salvaged in Waste
Dump D vicinity; more
material needed to meet quantity
required for PA
Same as PA
                                                                                                                                                              Less potential for acid generation from
                                                                                                                                                              coaly waste to affect vegetation, soils, and
                                                                                                                                                              intermittent surface water flows in waste
                                                                                                                                                              dumps vicinity
Same as PA
                               Increased reclamation effectiveness
                               compared to PA in waste dumps vicinity

-------
                                               TABLE 2-11
                                  LISBON VALLEY EIS IMPACT SUMMARY
Impacts by Alternatives
Type of Potential Impact by
Issue
Proposed Action
(PA)

No Action
Open Pit Bdchfllllng
Alternative
Facility Layout Alternative

Selective Waste Rock Handling
Alternative
VEGETATION
• Disturbance of Communities
PJ-Pinyon-Juniper GR-
Grassland- Rangeland
SB-Sagebrush



Total of 1,103 ac disturbed,
including powerline: 432 SB, 296
PJ, 290 OR, and 85 in previously
disturbed areas. Reclamation of
872 acres. Permanent loss of 296
ac PJ to be replaced with SB and
OR species.
No additional impacts to existing
vegetative communities





Same as PA except 1,103 ac
reclaimed.


•


Shift impacts from 55 ac of SB
to 50 ac of PJ.





Same as PA






WILDLIFE
• Habitat Effects from
Disturbance



• Project Construction and
Operations Effects to
Wildlife





• Project Closure Effects
• Sensitive Species


No habitat for sensitive species
identified in 1,103 ac total project
disturbance; habitat loss for other
common species (e.g. deer, prairie
dogs) would occur
Leach pad construction will
eliminate prairie dog towns and 2
stock ponds likely used by
wildlife; leach solution ponds
could attract birds and waterfowl;
night lighting and blasting noise
would have effects; possible raptor
nesting disturbance
Loss of 231 ac of habitat
None yet identified to be possibly
affected; Spring 1996 survey for
confirmation
No impacts to faunal community
currently present



Same as above







Same as above
Same as above; no sensitive
species presently identified on site

Similar to PA; see Vegetation
discussion above for acreage



Similar to PA







All disturbed areas reclaimed
Same as PA


Shift of impacts from 55 ac of
SB habitat to 50 ac of PJ and
rock outcrop habitat compared
to PA

Same as above







Same as above
Same as above


Same as PA




Same as above







Same as above
Same as above


23996/R3.2 5/15/96(2:25 PM)/RPT/3
                                                 2-49

-------
           TABLE 2-11
LISBON VALLEY EIS IMPACT SUMMARY
Impacts by Alternatives
Type of Potential Impact by
Issue
Proposed Action
(PA)

No Action
Open Pit Backfilling
Altcrnntlve
Facility Layout Alternative

Selective Waste Rock Handling
Altcrnntlve
GRAZING
» Disturbance Of Grazing
Lands-Temporary &
Permanent Acreage Losses



« Animal Unit Months (AUM)
effects





« Final reclamation




• Economics and Employment








720 new nc disturbed by PA no
longer available for grazing




71.6 AUMs temporarily lost
(minimum 13 yrs); 7.2 AUMs
permanently lost




Rcsceding of waste dumps and
haul roads with plant species
compatible to grazing will cause
minimal long-term impacts
Existing 85 ac disturbance
remains for pils




No effects to current AUMs






No reclamation specified on
current disturbance


Comparable to PA-no grazing
assumed on pit floors




Similar to PA; partial backfilling
assumes no future grazing use on
pit floor and same losses as PA;
full backfilling assumes temporary
loss of 71.6 AUMs during mining,
full reclamation and no loss of
AUMs in long-term
See above



No change from PA since site to
be fenced; net reduction in
temporary grazing loss of 5,3
AUMs if implemented and no
fencing occurs around deleted
Waste Dump D
As above






As above



Same as PA





As above






As above



SOCIOECONOMICS
80 construction jobs for 1 yr; up
to 143 jobs over 10-yr life of
mine operations created; $54,5
million in payroll over the 10 yrs;
reduced unemployment and
increased economic growth in
Grand and San Juan counties;
influx of large amounts of non-
local workers unlikely
None of the economic or
employment effects would be
experienced






Same as PA, except that final
backfilling of pits would prolong
economic and employment effects
for 1 yr





Same as PA








Same as PA









-------
                                                                                   TABLE 2-11
                                                             LISBON VALLEY EIS IMPACT SUMMARY
                                                                                  Impacts by Alternatives
  Type of Potential Impact by
           Issue
       Proposed Action
            (PA)
         No Action
                                    Open Pit Backfilling
                                       Alternative
                                Facility Layout Alternative
Selective Wnstc Rock Handling
         Alternative
    Housing
     Local Facilities and Services
•    Social Setting
Construction temporary housing
options appear more than adequate
in Moab and Monticello; during
operations, some strains to
housing in these towns could
occur if many m-migrants (see
Employment above)

Local effects in Lisbon Valley and
La Sal areas on roads and
maintenance, fire and medical
services; little immediate local
population increase to affect
utilities; powerline to be built into
project area

No notable impacts because of
project remoteness; proposed uses
continue historic mining use of
area
No housing impacts
Backfill workers reside in area an
additional 1 yr
                                                                                                                          Same as PA
                                                                                                                                                       Same as PA
                                                             No effects on local infrastructure
                               Effects on local infrastructure
                               prolonged 1 yr due to backfill
                               workers
                                                                                                                          Same as PA
                                                                                                                                                       Same as PA
                                                             No effects
                               Same as PA
                                                                                                                          Same as PA
                                                                                          Same as PA
    23996/R3.2 5/15/96(2:25 PMJ/RPT/3
                                                                                       2-51

-------
                                                                                   TABLE 2-11
                                                            LISBON VALLEY EIS IMPACT SUMMARY
                                                                                 Impacts by Alternatives
Type of Potential Impact by
          blue
       Proposed Action
      	(PA)
                                                                      No Action
                                     Open Pit Backfilling
                                        Alternative
  Facility Layout Alternative
Selective Waste RocUHmulHiig
         Alternative
                                                                                  TRANSPORTATION
   Local Mine-Induced Traffic
   Mine Operations Traffic
   Accidents
  Road Maintenance
Worker commuter trips, supplies
delivery, shipment of copper
plates, and heavy equipment
movement would modestly
increase traffic in area but not
exceed capacity of existing road
network

Planned stop signs, warning signs,
lighting, and current good sight
distance would keep congestion
and delays at major mine truck
crossing at Lisbon Valley Road
intersection  to a minimum

Increase in accidents on area roads
by .88 accidents/yr, a 5.1%
increase over 1994 levels

Road wear and maintenance needs
are more extensive due to an
increase of traffic in area;
increased costs to county road
districts likely compensated by
increased local tax revenues
No effects on current light use of
area roads
No effects
                                                            No change to present condition
No change to present condition
                                                                                           Impacts simitar to PA but
                                                                                           extended for about 1 yrto local
                                                                                           road network due to backfilling
                                                                                           activity
                               Similar to PA; no increase in haul
                               trips anticipated across Lisbon
                               Valley Road intersection
                               Same as PA
                                                                                           Additional wear on county roads
                                                                                           for I yrdue to backfilling,
                                                                                           increasing road maintenance costs
                                                                                           to County
Same as PA
                                                                                                                          No change to PA regarding
                                                                                                                          waste rock haul trips
                                                              Same as PA
Same as PA
                              Same as PA
                             No change to PA regarding waste rock
                             haul trips for selective handling
                                                                                                                                                       Same as PA
                                                                                           Same as PA

-------
                                                 TABLE 2-11
                                   LISBON VALLEY EIS IMPACT SUMMARY
Impacts by Alternatives
Type of Potential Impact by
Issue
Proposed Action
(PA)

No Action
Open Pit Backfilling
Alternative
Facility Layout Alternative

Selective Waste Rock Handling
Alternative
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
• Transportation






• Storage and Use







• Generated Wastes during
Operations

10 truck trips estimated per day to
haul hazardous materials to mine,
resulting in likely maximum of
0.51 accidents over life of mine;
accidental spill could contaminate
soils, plants, and wildlife; operator
will have SPCC Plans
Spills from storage and use
generally contained in storage
area; failure of process piping or
pad or ditch liners could cause
major spill; SPCC Plans and
imderdrains to contain spills; wind
drill of rafiinate solution during
windy days
Lab waste, SX/EW cnid, sludges,
waste oil and solvents generated
during routine operations
No wastes generated






As above







As above


Same as PA






As above







As above


Same as PA






As above







As above


Same as PA






As above







As above


CULTURAL AND PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES
* Impacts to Culturally
.Significant Sites Under
NRHP Criteria





• Impacts to Significant
Paleontological Resources

24 potentially significant cultural
resources in project area; all but 1
(currently within waste dump C
area) are located outside of areas
of direct impact; no adverse
effects under 36 CFR 800 arc
predicted with implementation of
proper mitigation program
No known significant
paleonlological resources in
project area
Illegal collection and vandalism
could occur in the undeveloped
project area





No effects


Same as PA







Same as PA


4 additional potentially
significant cultural resources (in
addition to the 1 affected in the
PA) would need to undergo data
recovery and mitigation because
of direct effects


Same as PA


Same as PA







Same as PA


23996/R3.2 5/16/96(10:44 AM)/RPT/3
                                                   2-53

-------
                                                                                       TABLE 2-11
                                                                LISBON VALLEY EIS IMPACT SUMMARY
                                                                                     Impacts by Alternatives
  Type of Potential Impact by
            Issue
       Proposed Action
             (PA)
                                                                         No Action
                                     Open Pit Backfilling
                                         Allernnllve
                                 Facility Layout Alternative
                                 Selective Wiutc Rock Handling
                                          Alternative
                                                                                     VISUAL RESOURCES
     Visual Contrasts during
     Project Operations
     Residunl Visual Effects
     after Reclamation and
     Revegetation
Notable visual contrasts will occur
in immediate project area along
lower Lisbon Valley Road;
impacts to view from Lone Pine
Peak (50 mi distant in Colo)
would likely be minimal;
landscape Is of low scenic quality
and sensitivity, and project
activities would be within
guidelines for Class IV lands

Some mitigation would have
occurred by reduction of color and
line contrasts; medium-sized
water-filled pits, reclaimed waste
rock piles and heaps will remain,
intruding on the visual condition
Past, unreclaimed features (small
pits with infrequent ponded water,
waste piles, structural remnants)
would remain as visible
disturbance on existing landscape
As above
Same as PA during operations
                                Long-term effects less than PA due
                                to decreased height and extent of
                                waste piles, and partially or fully
                                backfilled pits presenting less
                                visual impacts
See residual effects below;
similar lessening of visual
effects and disturbance during
operations
                               Consolidation of Waste Dump
                               D into Waste Dump C would
                               lessen the overall visual impacts
                               from two dumps to one larger
                               one, at the Dump C location,
                               expanded by 50 ac
Same as PA
                              As above
                                                                                          LAND USE
•    Land Use Changes
     Property Ownership
     Changes
Project will change current uses to
active copper mining and
benefaction on 247 ac of private
(fee) land; 574 ac of BLM land;
and 273 ac of State land; for a
total of 1,094 acres affected; for
10-yr mining and S-yr reclamation
periods

Property ownership secured as
above at this time; no changes
expected     	
No change from current passive
grazing use on historically mined
                                                               As above
Use changes extended 1 yr from
PA due to backfilling
                                As above
No change from PA
                                                               As above
No change from PA
                                                                                             As above

-------
                                                TABLE 2-11
                                  LISBON VALLEY EIS IMPACT SUMMARY
Impacts by Alternatives
Type of Potential Impact by
Issue
Proposed Action
(PA)

No Action
Open Pit Backfilling
Alternative
Facility Layout Alternative

Selective Waste Rock Handling
Alternative
AIR QUALITY
• Compliance with National
Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS)




• Increments of Air
Contaminants Exceeding
Background Levels



* • Noise Levels Impacts in
Immediate Project Vicinity
- inVtewofOSHA,MSHA,
mid EPA Standards




• Noise Level Impacts to Area
Residents



PMio (participate matter dust)
concentrations modeled were
within NAAQS 24-hr and annual
standards at southeast and
northwest property boundaries in
years 5 and 9 of operations
(highest activity)
Background PMio levels of 26
[ig/m3 impacted by 7 to 26 ug/m3
from project operations: 33-52
fig/m3 total is well within NAAQS
of 50-150 ug/m3
No change to current conditions






As above




Not capable of being modeled
with existing methodology;
additional participate emissions
would occur from "double-
handling" of waste rock


As above




Similar to PA; likely no
additional notable air quality
impacts




As nbove




Same as PA






As above




NOISE
No exceedanccs predicted to
workers inside property
boundaries, and to local residents
and users of adjoining property
outside property boundaries from
mining operations; nuisance levels
from blasting and traffic
periodically an issue to passersby
No residents within 1 mi; planned
development is several miles
away, and project may
periodically create blasting noise
heard as part of background
No change from current low rural
use levels






As above




Noise from project operations
extends 1 yrdueto backfilling






As above




No change from PA







As above




No change from PA







As above




23996/R3.2 5/15/96(2:25 PM)/RPT/3
2-55

-------
           TABLE 2-11
LISBON VALLEY EIS IMPACT SUMMARY
Impacts by Alternatives
Type of Polcnllnl Impact by
Issue
Proposed Action
(PA)
No Action
Open Pit BacWIIIIng
Alternative
Facility Layout Alternative
Selective Waste Rock Handling
Alternative
RECREATIONAL RESOURCES
• Displacement of
Recreational Activities
• Property Access
Displacement of big and small
game hunting activities in and
around the project site
Some potential access restrictions
to recreation tlirougli life of
project due to road closures and
mine traffic
No change from current use
No change from current
recreational use for general
purposes
No different from PA except
impacts extended one yr due to
backfilling
As above
No change from PA
As above
No change from PA
As above

-------
                                                                                 3.0
                                                      AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
To evaluate the potential impacts resulting
from  the  Proposed Action  or the other
alternatives described  in Section 2.0, it is
necessary   to  understand  the  current
environmental condition  of the  project
study area. The study area for this project
varies for each environmental resource, but
it is generally the Lisbon Valley area.  This
section describes the natural resource and
economic  and social conditions found in
the project study area.

3.1 GEOLOGY AND
    GEOTECHNICAL ISSUES

3.1.1    Study Area

The study area for geologic impact analysis
is bounded on the north by State Highway
46 (i.e., southern terminus of the La Sal
Mountains), on the south by U.S. Highway
666  (i.e.,  approximately Monticello), on
the west by U.S. Highway 191, and on the
east  by the  border  between Utah  and
Colorado.    Lisbon  Valley  is  located
roughly just to the north  and east of the
center of the rectangle described  by the
boundaries defined above (Figure 2-1).

The   study   area  lies  within the  Salt
Anticlines  physiographic  subprovince  of
the   Colorado   Plateau    physiographic
province.  The Southern Rocky Mountains
and   Basin  and   Range   physiographic
provinces  flank this province on the east
and west, respectively (Hunt 1967).  The
Lisbon Valley project is located within the
Paradox Basin, a  geological subprovince
which contains thick evaporite  deposits.
These deposits,  and  the younger  rocks
which overlay them, have been deformed
into  northwest  trending  anticlinal folds
(Cater 1995),  one of which is the Lisbon
Valley  Anticline..   Lisbon  Valley  was
formed  by  the dissolution  of  salt and
subsequent collapse of the crest  of this
structure (Weir and Puffett 1981).

Lisbon  Valley  is  a broad,  flat-bottomed
valley approximately one mile wide and
four miles long. The valley is bounded in
some areas by  steep  walled mesas and
ridges, which rise 500 to 700 feet above
the valley floor. These mesas are dissected
by canyons that generally drain away from
the Lisbon Valley.  Elevations in the area
range from approximately 5,600 to 7,200
ft. above mean sea level (msl).

3.1.2    Geologic Setting

Lisbon  Valley is near the center of the
Paradox Basin, an asymmetric sedimentary
basin of Pennsylvanian age.  The structure
and stratigraphy .of the basin are dominated
by  the  thick  evaporite  deposits  of the
Paradox Formation which were deposited
in a restricted seaway that was bounded on
the northeast by the Uncompaghre Uplift.
It is hypothesized that basement structures
created  local lows in the basin allowing for
the accumulation of abnormally thick salt
sections (Weir and Puffett 1981).  The
evaporite (salt) deposits were then buried
by clastic sediments shed from the rising
adjacent highlands.  Plastic  deformation of
the  salt, caused by  the weight  of the
overlying sediments, started in the middle
Pennsylvanian  and  continues   to   the
present.  The lower density of the salt,
23996/R3.3 5/14/96(3:47 PM)/RFr/4
                                         3-1

-------
                    compared to the younger, overlying, clastic
                    rocks, has caused the salt to rise, forming
                    northwest trending salt anticlines. Some of
                    these anticlines have  salt exposed at the
                    surface,  as at  the  Moab  Anticline  and
                    Paradox  Anticline.   In  others, like  the
                    Lisbon Valley Anticline,  the  cover  rocks
                    over the salt are folded and faulted, but the
                    salt  is not exposed at the surface. Figure
                    3.1-1  displays the geologic  map of the
                    project area located on the southeast  end
                    of the Lisbon Valley Anticlines.

                    The  structure  of the  project  area  is
                    dominated by two features:  the southeast
                    end  of the Lisbon Valley Anticline which is
                    shown in  Figure  3.1-1,  and the Lisbon
                    Valley fault zone.   The Lisbon Valley
                    Anticline is approximately 20 miles long
                    and includes the Lisbon Valley topographic
                    feature along its crest at its southeast end.

                    The Lisbon Valley fault zone cuts the crest
                    of the anticline along its entire axis, and
                    extends  further north to  approximately
                   Kane Springs, a total distance of about 30
                    miles.    Fault  planes in the  fault  zone
                   typically  "dip   to   the   northeast   at
                    approximately 50 to 60 degrees. Ground-
                   water  flow along the fault zone caused
                    dissolution of the salt core of the anticline
                   resulting in partial collapse of the structure
                    (Woodward-Clyde  1982).   The Lisbon
                   Valley topographic feature  is a result of
                   that  collapse. The Lisbon Valley fault zone
                   spreads out into a complex, fan-like  splay
                   of faults.

                   The  stratigraphic section for the area is
                   shown in Figure 3.1-2. Rocks exposed at
                   the  surface within and surrounding  the
                   Lisbon  Valley range in age  from  the
                   Pennsylvanian, represented by the Hermosa
                   Formation, through the Quaternary.  The

                   3399&B33 S/l*96(3:47PMyRPT/4                     3-2
 cross  section displayed in Figure  3.1-3
 crosses Summo's proposed Centennial Pit
 and is representative of the structure and
 stratigraphy of the Lisbon Valley Project
 (Summo 1995d).

 Sedimentary rocks   exposed  in  Lisbon
 Valley consist mainly of fluvial sandstones
 and   claystones.    These   rocks    are
 interbedded    with    limestones    and
 conglomerates that were deposited during
 the  Cretaceous Era  (Craig  1981;  and
 Woodward-Clyde 1982).

 3.1.3    Geologic Resources

 The Lisbon Valley and surrounding  area
 have been the site  of numerous  mineral
 exploration  and exploitation efforts  since
 the early 1880s. Resources that have been
 explored in the Lisbon Valley area include
 copper, uranium, vanadium, oil, gas, and
 potash.  Each   of  these  resources  is
 discussed in turn below.

 Copper was first discovered at the head of
 the Big Indian Valley, located north of
 Lisbon  Valley.  Early exploration  and
 development was mainly centered around
 two deposits: the Big Indian Mine and the
 Blackbird Mine. (Summo's Lisbon Valley
 Project would be at the same location as
 the Blackbird Mine.)  The deposits  were
 mined until  1947 and 1958,  respectively.
 Average ore grades at these mines ranged
 from 1.5 to 2 percent copper and  were
 mainly  contained  within  rocks   of the
Dakota Sandstone. Ore mineralization is
typically concentrated hi rocks surrounding
 large fault  planes,   and  malachite  and
 azurite  are  the most abundant  copper
minerals. Numerous  other prospects were
 explored  in the  area,  but  the  larger
 commercial  operations were  limited to
these mines (Weir 1981).
//o

-------
 •--; -6t.\ V~*^_i-^ T- "  «-n»_».   ~  v >
^^iffe^X  ^:^^ 0-. V^
"" "        ^X/'^   P^v'^r^ ' ;24,000
                                                         1 MILE
                                                   a-^'r \ .!-"-•
9^,^fe:*S
                                ^  1-r-KtJC   .A
                                u,   x-^\
                                -" ~
                              -\!n',  i"-- .tK%
                                               /-- \  ; Vi i ''V
                                           !(]•-'/ -I    ir-''
                                           ^/
                       ""^Vo   ^
                                                       •.Nev^^SRv : •jSrv-S»N5"fe?V<
     NOTES:

  1,  SOORCE:   G. W. WEIR, W. P. PUFFE
     PRELIMINARY GEOLOGIC MAP OF THE_
     QUADRANGLE, SAN  JUAN  COUNTY,
  2. MAP LEGEND IS PRESENTED ON THE R.N.
                               23/95
        GEOLOGIC  MAP  FOR THE
             LISBON  VALLEY
         COPPER PROJECT  AREA
                                                                 FIG. 3.1-1

-------

-------
          LEGEND
                                     Contact

          Long dashes where appro*jmat*]y id
                             Inferred or ind
                                High-angle
                                                 Cutler formation

                                    red, purple, and nettled grayish-yellow and grayish-
£
o
          Dashed whore approximately locatod;  "' rea' F^P*-*' ^^ no«wo grayish-yellow ana grayisn-
                     U. upthrown side- D  dotlrple conglomerate, conglomeratic and coarse- to fine-
                     ly uptnrown siae, ii, ucjralned arko3ie Sand3tone Interbedded with dark brown, red,
                                           Jnd purple siltstone; some thin gray chert beds and ijo-
                                           P,ated gray limestone lenses near base.  Basal contact lo-
                                            lilly gradational. Sandstone lenses in upper part of Cutler
                                    Synclinefornation in westerr. part of quadrangle contain small
          Showing trace of axial plane and D,trsniuis-'»'ar-adi^ deposits; sandstone beds along faults in
                                 olunre of Joutheastern part of quadrangle contains small copper de-
                                 f   B     Tesits.            j
                                       S3  t, prominent light-brown sandstone unit that to the west-
                             Strike  and din  'nra  P*1  O     s quarange an  in the eastern part of
                                         p ,'he adjacent Mount Feale 3HE quadrangle is truncated by the
                                       f  knconformity at base of Chlnle formation and underlies
                       ,      .   .    ._.?'   tar8e uranium deposits in the Chisle formation
                       Approximate strike »n<                   .

                                    -55OO—'
                              Stmcture con;
                                                             Eermosa formation
                       Structure contours are
                       of various units across^? fosslliferous marine limestone interbedded with brovn
                                            ind reddish-brown  line- to coarse-grained sandstone and
                                            peddish,  veHowish, and greenish-gray nudstonej top of
                                            formation locally gradational with overlying Cutler for-
                                            mation; contact placed at top of thisk, persistent gray
                                                 limestone
                                        Qea '!> -upper unit; base Disced at base of light-browi fine-
                                       _ arained sandstone containing foasil plant fragments.  Con-
                                      luviBl"-50-
                                           L, lower unit, base sot exposed; known from drilZ hole
             Light-brown, red,  and grayish-yelista to overlie Php
               silt in thin sheetllkp deposltsp, the Paradox member of the Hermosa foraation; a thick
               plat-aus; eollan material generyrcporite  sequence which consists chiefly of salt including
               water and grades Into etream-de»tassium  salts.  (Shown only in section)
               ley bottoms
                                        Ql
                   Landslide de
Irregular husnnocky deposits and t!
  moved material, ehieny made up'
  derived from the Burro Canyon f
  stone and mudstone from the Bni
  the Hnrrloon formation.  Includ
  heads of landslides
                                   UNCONFORM
                                   Mancoa  ah.
            Dark-gray to black fissile anale;-
              marine pelecypods Gryphaga newb
              patches in Lower Lisbon Valley
                                       ltd
                                 Dakota sandi

            light-brown and yellowish-brown at
              commonly containing plant laprei
              gray to  black carbonaceous nudai
              includes cobbles and boulders fi
                                  DNCOMFOJttri
                             Burro Canyon fo
            Orayiah-browii and light-brown sand
                                                  B
B'
                                                    1994 MONITORING WELL

                                                    1994 BORING (DRY).

                                                    EXISTING MONITORING WELL

                                                    LOCATION OF CROSS-SECTION OF
                                                    CENTENNIAL PIT SHOWN ON
                                                    FIGURE 3.1-3
              sllielfled in part to gray quart
              dense llneatone and interbedded |i996
              stone.  Lower contact mapped at i  	
              aandstonej gradational with top!
                                           K.N.

                                           '23/95
                                                      GEOLOGIC   MAP  .LEGEND
                                                                                                        FIG.  3.1-1

-------

-------
*<
o

DC
O
                .--"''.".' .- .-•"-—
                .'*•".-"-'..""." :.r.
o

C/3

OC
z>
-3
a:
LiJ
CL
UJ
a.
                             Alluvium and Colluvium


                             Mancos  Shale


                             Dakota Sandstone

                             Burro Canyon Formation
                             Morrison  Formation
                                     Brushy  Basin Member
                             Morrison Formation
                                  Salt Wash  Member
                             Summerville Formation

                             Entrada  Formation
                                  Slick Rock Member
                             Entrada  Formation
                                     Dewey Bridge Member
                             Carmel Formation
                             Navajo Sandstone



                             Kayenta Formation

                             Wingate Sandstone


                             Chinle Formation
                                  Moss Back Member



                             Cutler Formation
                             Honaker Trail  Formation
                           SOURCE: ADRIAN BROWN CONSULTANTS,  INC. 1996
           Job No. :
                       23996
           Prepared by :  G.J.W.
           Date :
                      4/1/96
     STRATIGRAPHIC SECTION
LISBON  VALLEY COPPER  PROJECT
    SAN  JUAN  COUNTY,  UTAH
                                                                FIG. 3.1-2

-------
10
%
OT
                                                Centennial Pit
                                                                    uuuuuuuuUuuaaaaaao
                                                            oaaoaaaaaao
                                               FINAL PIT
                                               FLOOR
                                                         nnnnnnnnnn
                                                      aoaaaaaaaa
                    Mill
                                                                                       a a a a a a a a a a a a
                                                                                                  - 6100  PL
                                                                                        aaaaaaooDoa
                                                                                        DDDaODDDDDO
                 Faults

                 QAL  -  Quaternary  alluvlun

                 Kn - Mancos Formation

                        - upper Dakota FM,, beds 3, 4, 5

                        - Dakota Fn,, coaly beds

                        - lower  Dalota  Fn,, beds 9-13

                         - upper Burro Canyon  FM.

                         - lower Burro Canyon FM.  '

                 Jn - Morrison  Fornation

                 Je - Entrada Fornation

                 TrJn -  Navajo Fornation
                      300
                       600
                   Scale (ft)
              CROSS-SECTION LOCATION SHOWN ON FIGURE 2-1

              SOURCE: GOCHNOUR 1996a.
Job No. :
23996
                                                          Prepared by :  C.H.P.
Date :
4/16/96
                          CROSS-SECTION  A-A'
                          CENTENNIAL PIT  AREA
                       LISBON VALLEY COPPER PROJECT

-------
The copper ore to be mined at the Lisbon
Valley  Project  occurs  in rocks  of the
Dakota Sandstone  and  underlying Burro
Canyon Formation.

Ore deposits at the Lisbon Valley Project
are generally tabular in shape, parallel the
sedimentary  bedding  planes,  and  are
elongated along  the  axis  of the Lisbon
Valley fault The Lower Cretaceous Burro
Canyon Formation underlies  the Dakota
Sandstone of Upper Cretaceous age.

The  stratigraphy  and  structure of the
proposed  mine   area  are  displayed  in
geologic cross sections  found in Figures
3.1-3 through 3.1-7. These sections cross
the  proposed Centennial,  Sentinel,  and
GTO pits.

The Burro Canyon Formation consists of
brown  and   grey,  commonly   silicified
sandstone and conglomerate  overlain by
interbedded  limestone and mudstone. The
Dakota Sandstone consists of yellow and
brown,   predominantly   medium-grained
sandstone   with   some   conglomerate.
Interbeds   of  coal  and  carbonaceous
mudstone  are present   in  the  Dakota
Sandstone (Weir and Puffett 1981).

Copper ore mineralization in the Burro
Canyon    and    Dakota    Formations
predominantly consists   of  the copper
oxides, azurite and malachite, with minor
copper    sulfide    minerals    (mostly
chalcocite).    Ore minerals  are found
coating sand grains, filling fractures, and as
intergrain matrix.

Copper mineralization also occurs in other
formations including the Cutler Formation,
Entrada   Sandstone,    and   Morrison
Formation (Thorson 1996a).
Uranium   and   vanadium  were  first
discovered in the Lisbon  Valley  area in
1912 but the first major uranium discovery
occurred in 1952. Subsequent exploration
and development activities established, in
its time, the largest uranium mining district
in Utah. Ore was contained  in the Moss
Back member of the Chinle Formation and
the upper  part of the Cutler Formation.
These  deposits form an  arcuate band,
approximately 24 miles long  and one half
mile wide, along the southwest flank of the
Lisbon Valley Anticline, west of the Lisbon
Valley (Figure 2-1). Active mining in this
trend stopped  in  1988  due to lowered
uranium prices (Chenoweth 1990).

Oil and gas exploration in southeast Utah
began  in  the  late   1800s.  Commercial
deposits have been developed in rocks of
Mississippi through Pennsylvanian  age in
the Lisbon Valley  Anticline.  Oil and gas
development continues in the area.

Potash  minerals  exist  in  the  evaporite
deposits  of the Paradox Formation (not
exposed in the Lisbon Valley  area). These
minerals were identified during drilling for
oil and gas. However, potash  has not been
heavily explored or developed to date. The
deposits that have been located  are fairly
deeply buried (Weir and Puffett 1981).

3.1.4  Geotechnical Considerations

Geotechnical considerations are evaluated
during the engineering design  of a project.
This section discusses geotechnical aspects
that may   affect   or  be   affected by
construction of the Proposed Action or an
alternative.      Two       geotechnical
considerations were identified:   geologic
hazards and climatic hazards.
2399S/R3.3 5/14/96(3:47 PM3/RPT/4
                                        3-7

-------
CD
0>
O)
               6500-
               6400-
               6300-
               6200-
               6100-
              \s\\\\\\
                                              -Centennial Pit-
                                                                                           B'

                                                  [\S\S\\\S\\\\\SS\\\\\\\\VNS\\V
                                                      xxs\\<.\
                                                                         anaaaaaaaaoaaaoaoaai
                                                                          apaaaooaaDDaaaaaaai
                                                                            DaoDaacmaaaaaaaai
                                                                            Odoonnnoonoodnoni
                      -6400
                       6300
                       6200
                      -6100
                                                                              FINAL PIT
                                                                              FLOOR
                                                                              EL. 6060
Faults
QAL  - Quaternary alluvium
^345 ~ uPPer  Dakota FM./ beds 3,  4, 5
Kd^yg - Dakota  Fn., coaly beds
Kdg_i3- lower Dalota FM., beds  9-13
        - upper  Burro Canyon FM.
        - lower Burro  Canyon FM,
Jn -  Morrison Formation
Trc  - Chinle Formation
PC -  Cutler  Formation
                                                                                       300
                             600
                                                                                    Scale (ft)
                                                                         CROSS-SECTION LOCATION SHOWN ON FIGURE  2-1
                                                                         SOURCE: GOCHNOUR 1996a.
                                                            Job No. :
                                                23996
                                                            Prepared by : C.H.P.
                                      Date :
4/16/96
                                                                 CROSS-SECTION  B-B'
                                                                 CENTENNIAL PIT  AREA
                                                              LISBON  VALLEY  COPPER PROJECT

-------
to
to
0)
o>
                                                                                                             6700
                                                                                                             6600
                                                                                   DOD
                                                                              aaaooDo
                                                                          aOOOODt
                                                                        DDODDD
                                                                     aoooda
                                                                   ODD
                                                                                                             6300
                                                                                                                FINAL PIT
                                                                                                                FLOOR
           DaaoDDDOoooao olo o a d a
                      aoooooaaaoDDooqa000000000000000000
                      oooDaaaaaaaooaqaaaoaaaaDaaoaaaoacjD
                      ooaaaoDaoaaaaodODDOooaoaaoaaaaaoao
                      DDOoooaaoooooaqaoaoooo
                      aaaaDaaaaaaaaa
                      aaaaaaoaa
                      a
                                                                                                    EL. 6260

                                                                                                 6200
f]  QAL  - Quaternary alluvium


      3_n~ lower Dalota  Fn,, beds  9-13


           - upper  Burro Canyon  FM,


           - lower Burro Canyon FM,


   Jn -  Morrison Formation
                                                                                                  400
                                                                           CROSS-SECTION LOCATION SHOWN  ON FIGURE  2-1


                                                                           SOURCE: GOCHNOUR 1996a.
                                                             Job No. :
                                                            23996
                                                             Prepared by :  C.H.P.
                                                 Date :
4/16/96
                                                                            CROSS-SECTION  C-C'

                                                                              SENTINEL  PIT AREA
                                                                         LISBON VALLEY COPPER PROJECT
                                                                                                              FIG. 3.1-5

-------
 I
O
  8
                      D
                       \\S\SN\SN\S\\S\\S\N\NS\\\\
                       \«k\SNS\\\\\ \S\\\\SSS\\\\\\
                         aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
                       laaaaaaaaaaaaaaaoaaaaaaaaaaaaooac.
                       laaaaaaaaanaaoaaaaaaooaaoa
                       luaaaaaonaauo
Faults
QAL -  Quaternary  alluvlun
Kn - Mancos Fornation
Kcl
                   345
                                 Dakota FM,y beds 3,  4, 5
                 Kcl678 ~
                 Kdnio- lower Dalota Fn,; beds 9-13
                         - upper  Burro Canyon FM.
                      j   - lower Burro  Canyon  FM.
                 Jn  -  Morrison Fornation
                                                                                                      600
                                                         CROSS-SECTION LOCATION SHOWN ON FIGURE  2-1
                                                         SOURCE: GOCHNOUR 1996a.
                                            Job No. :
23996
                                                             Prepared by : C.H.P.
                                                             Date :
                                                      4/16/96
                                                                      CROSS-SECTION  D-D'
                                                                        SENTINEL PIT AREA
                                                                   LISBON VALLEY COPPER  PROJECT

-------



                             ODDDODDDDDD
                             DDDOOODDDDDDDDDDDDDanDOaOaa
                              oooDODDonaoaoooDbpoanOPOoopa.ppnsnnQpD.a; RNAL
                              poooaaaonDoponppppQpp-a'ptJ.pPpponPpDaoopti
                                           pppoapbPBcpppppppoPpOaod'i
                                                        PIT
                                                    R.O0R
                                                    EL. 5880
                               ooaaooaoaca
                                                    OOOODOODODQDOai
  Faults

  QAL -  Quaternary  alluviun

  Km - Mancos Formation

  Kcl345  ~  uPPer Bakota FM., beds 3, 4,  5

  Kd678  ~  Dakota f"v  coaly  beds

  Kdg_13-  lower  Dalota Fn., beds  9-13
  Kbc^   ~  upper Burro Canyon FM.

  Ktacj5   ~  lower Burro Canyon FM.

  Trc -  Chinle Formation

  PC - Cutler  Formation

  Jm - Morrison  Formation
                               CROSS-SECTION LOCATION  SHOWN ON FIGURE 2-1

                               SOURCE: GOCHNOUR 1996a.
   300
600
Scale  (ft)
                  Job No. :
              23996
                  Prepared by : C.H.P.
    Date :
4/16/96
                 CROSS-SECTION E-E'
                    GTO  PIT  AREA
             LISBON VALLEY COPPER PROJECT
                                    s-a
                                                    FIG. 3.1-7

-------
 3.1.4.1  Geologic Hazards

 Geologic hazards in the area could have an
 effect on  the  proposed  Lisbon  Valley
 Project and  have the potential to  cause
 alterations in the leach pad facilities  or
.waste rock   dumps  preventing  optimal
 performance.  Two geologic hazards may
 be encountered. First, seismic events could
 occur in the  area that may  induce slope
 instability on the leach pad or waste rock
 dumps.    Second,  loose,  uncompacted
 surficial  foundation materials  under  the
 leach pad  may  settle during pad  loading
 activities, which could alter the flow  of
 leach solutions.

 During engineering design of the Lisbon
 Valley Project, Summo consulted data on
 historic seismic events in the Lower Lisbon
 Valley area  to calculate  the  force that
 would be  induced on the mine facilities
 during a seismic event and to determine if
 leach pad  stability could  be maintained.
 The  peak   ground  acceleration   was
 determined  to  be  0.2 Ig  ("g"  is the
 gravitational constant), which is the highest
 recorded ground acceleration at the site
 (Welsh 1996). A peak ground acceleration
 of 0.21g is indicative of a seismically active
 area  (Welsh  1996 ).   For comparison
 purposes, a region that is characterized as
 a highly active area would have a higher
 number (e.g., north-central Nevada has a
 peak ground  acceleration in excess of 0.3
 to 0.4g).   The 0.21g event used in the
 geotechnical   engineering   design  at the
 Lisbon Valley Project has a 90 percent
 probability of not being exceeded hi excess
 of 250 years (Welsh 1996 ).

Foundation soils in the area  of the  leach
pad are granular in nature (i.e., sand and

2399SS33 S/I*96(3:47PM3/RFT/4                    3-12
 silt material) and are in a loose state, based
 on surface and  subsurface  explorations
 (ConeTec 1995).

 3.1.4.2  Climatic Hazards

 Summo  consulted  historic  records  of
 precipitation and evaporation in the Lisbon
 Valley Project during engineering design to
 evaluate how  the capacity of the solution
 ponds would  need to  be modified  above
 operational  and draindown conditions to
 accommodate   runoff  from   a   large
 precipitation  event  (e.g.,  rain  water)
 without  discharge to  the  surrounding
 environment (Welsh  1996).     A  water
 balance analysis was performed and a pond
 system was developed to accommodate the
 resulting runoff, as described in Section
 2.2.4.2.

 3.1.5    Potential for Additional
         Copper Development

 Copper-bearing   minerals   have   been
 identified in rock from a variety of zones in
 the Lisbon Valley. Exploration efforts have
 spanned  over  100  years; however,  only
 two   significant   deposits  have   been
 identified, and these  deposits  have  been
 sporadically mined. The Big Indian  and
 Blackbird Mines were the largest mines in
 the valley and have similar geologic and
 ore body characteristics.  The Blackbird
 Mine mined high grade material from the
 same  ore body that  is proposed to  be
 developed for the Lisbon Valley Project.

Numerous  small  mines and  exploration
 activities have existed  for short periods
 during  the long   history  of  resource
 exploration and exploitation in the Lisbon
Valley area. The numerous other copper

-------
prospects in the Lisbon Valley are small
and differ from the Summo deposit in two
ways. First, these small prospects typically
have  copper  mineralization  confined  to
within a few feet of small faults (Thorson
1996b).   In  stark  contrast,  the  Lisbon
Valley  Project  deposits  have dispersed
copper mineralization which extends out
hundreds of feet, up to over one thousand
feet,  from major  faults.    Second,  the
deposits  to  be  mined in  the  proposed
action are located entirely within the Burro
Canyon Formation and Dakota Sandstone
(Weir 1981).   The smaller prospects may
occur in these same formations, but also
 occur  in the Cutler,  Kayenta,  Navajo,
Entrada, and Morrison Formations, and are
 controlled by the small faults rather than
 stratigraphy.

 The resource potential and geology of the
 area are generally well defined because of
 the extensive drilling and other exploration
 activities  that  have   occurred   over
 numerous years in the Lisbon Valley area.
 The deposit  that would be developed by
  Summo's Lisbon Valley Project has been
 known for years. Mining of this extensive
  deposit is proposed  at  this time due to
  favorable  economic  conditions  (i.e.,  the
  value of copper) and improvements in the
  recovery processes.

  Moreover,  it is  unlikely  that  extensive
  exploration  activities  would occur in the
  area as a result of the exploitation of the
  Lisbon Valley  Project deposit.  As noted
  above, extensive exploration activities have
  been conducted in this area for over 100
  years. The  only exploration activities that
  appear  likely  to occur are drilling by
   Summo to further  define  the  ore body
   surrounding its  existing proposed mine

   2399SR3.3 5/14/96(3:47PM)/KPT/4
  pits. As Summo  develops its mine, it is
  possible that  additional reserves  at the
  Lisbon  Valley Project  may  be  mined
  (Thorson 1996a). The potential increase in
  minable reserves  would  be based on the
  ore grade,  the  economic and technical
  success  of   mining   and   extraction
  operations,  and the market and price  for
  copper.

  Finally,  the  potential   for   additional
   exploration and  development of  copper
   deposits in the area does not appear likely
   as  reflected  by  the  lack of Notice  of
   Intentions (NOIs)  to  conduct exploration
   or mining that the BLM has received for
   the Lisbon Valley area. NOIs generally are
   required before exploration or mining can
   be conducted on BLM-administered lands.
   Since  approximately  1986,  only 8 NOIs
   have been received:   five have been for
   exploration   and   three  for   mining
   operations,   including  Summo's  Lisbon
   Valley Project. The two most recent NOIs
   were for the Summo operation and the Big
   Indian Mine (BLM 1994, 1995a, 1995b).

    The largest prior  planned operation was
    that of the Kelmine Corporation of Utah.
    The proposed operation involved open pit
    mining, heap  leaching,  and  miffing  on
    Sections 25, 26, and 36 of T 30 S, R 25 E.
    The BLM performed an evaluation of the
    project and issued a Decision Record and
    Finding   of   No   Significant   Impact
    (DR/FONSI)  on May  5,   1986 (BLM
     1986a). However, the project was  never
    initiated. The project's proposed operation
     and location are similar to that of Summo's
     proposed project.

     The  other mining  NOI  involves  small
     mining operations in  the area of the Big
3-13

-------
Indian Mine.  The  operator, William  V.
Harrison, proposed to expand his existing
surface raining operations for recovery of
mineral specimens  (BLM  1994,  1995a).
Only minimal amounts  of ore  are  to  be
developed  at  this  site.  The majority  of
copper ore  at this  location  has  been
previously mined (Thorson 1996b).

Exploration NOIs  were  submitted  for
limited drilling and were mostly in the area
of Summo's Lisbon Valley Project (BLM
1993a, 1993b, unk.a, unk.b, unk.c).

In  summary,  because of  the  somewhat
unique nature of the Summo deposit and
the extensive  exploration of the area for
over  100 years,  it is unlikely  that any
additional large copper deposits would  be
identified  or  mined  in the foreseeable
future.

3.2    HYDROLOGY

3.2.1  Study Area

This section  of the report discusses the
existing surface water  and  groundwater
resources for the study area and proposed
project   site.    Surface   water   and
groundwater data were collected at the site
in 1994  and  1995 to  evaluate baseline
conditions. Water samples  were collected
from  existing  and   recently  installed
monitoring wells, open boreholes, natural
springs, and several cattle ponds to assess
existing water quality.

Figure 3.2-1 shows the existing monitoring
and production wells, open boreholes, and
surface water features  sampled  during
baseline characterization. Well installation,
well   development,  groundwater   and

2399&R3.3 S/14/96(3t47PMyRFr/4                     3-14
surface water  sampling  procedures,  and
laboratory   data   sheets  for   baseline
characterization  are   contained  in  the
Hydrologic     Environmental    Baseline
Evaluation (Woodward-Clyde  1995a) and
in letter reports to Summo (Woodward-
Clyde 1995b; 1995c; 1995d; 1996).

3.2.2  Surface Water Resources

The Lisbon  Valley Copper  Project ties
within  the Lisbon Valley subarea of the
Dolores River Basin.  Figure 3.2-2 shows
the main surface water features within the
study  area.  This  area  is  part of the
Southeast Colorado River Basin, which is
typically hot and dry during the summer
months. Most of the precipitation that falls
within  the area occurs in the mountains
with a  majority of the local  streamflow
originating from snowmelt in  the La Sal
and  Abajo  Mountains.   Normal  annual
precipitation in the basin ranges from about
6 inches  in  the plains to approximately
30 inches in some of the mountain areas.

The Southeast  Colorado  River  Basin
includes  the  drainages of the Paria,  San
Juan, and Dolores rivers. Lisbon Valley is
included as part of the Utah portion of the
Dolores River drainage basin. In Utah, the
entire  eastern  drainage  of the  La Sal
Mountains plus a small area north of the
Dolores River is included in the Southeast
Colorado River Basin. It is estimated that
about 4 percent of the total Dolores River
Basin  water yield  occurs  in the   Utah
watershed.

-------
                                       2000  4000
                                              	
                                         SCALE IN FEET
                                      8000
:^J&f \\\y fi^^i^N^N^.^^r^^./ o^
i -rifS«r >iv!-.X VJ5rvss4.A^3f&iEKst..^*\^flS-^-^  ;- f.
-------

-------
                                r'-V=V-V «=-?»-« i-iv J-~>  -o nw /r
                  !- .• /—,f\:. ,'^':.A v M 4
                  tSi/ .ss^i- ,.-.-,5,^,0
                       ^
                                     SAN MIGUEL RIVER *"
                                   yl^:M|Op;^
                                   »a^%i*(si-

W-&^u£_S
                •. i IOQK1N
                GtASSRON

                \-y
               ^~ r-
                'T
                               -^-•-^OT.' '5F
                               g M^IT TOsfex«.-v;y; .
                              v*. ^' .-<•/• V ^C	• T?
'y>u\  f : i-r1 - - ^^MbJfo1
                        NOTE: BASE MAP TAKEN FROM USGS 1* x Z
                        MOAB, UTAH, COLORADO TOPOGRAPHIC MAP
                               SURFACE WATER FEATURES
                                  LISBON VALLEY AREA

                                 SAN JUAN COUNTY, UTAH
                                                  FIG. 3.2-2

-------

-------
3.2.2.1   Surface Water Occurrence

Surface water  flow is ephemeral in the
project  area. Surface runoff from areas
beyond  the rim of the  valley  generally
flows away from the valley. Only the valley
floor acts as a  catchment area for surface
water flow (Adrian Brown Consultants
1996). The flow system which exists in the
valley is poorly  developed. A surface water
drainage  divide  exists  east   of   the
Centennial Pit  near dry boring  94MW1
(Figure 3.2-1). The area east of this divide
is drained predominantly by  an ephemeral
stream that trends to the southeast along
the axis  of Lower Lisbon Valley.  An
ephemeral  branch tributary to this main
stream drains the GTO Pit area and joins
the  main   drainage  near  groundwater
monitoring  well   94MW6.   Near  this
confluence, the main drainage channel is
approximately 20 feet wide and 6 to 8 feet
deep. However, the streams  at the project
site, including  this  drainage,  apparently
carry water only after major precipitation
events (i.e., thunderstorms).

The western portion of the project area is
drained  by a main  ephemeral stream and
several tributaries occurring in the area of
the proposed  leach pad  west  of  the
Centennial Pit. The main ephemeral stream
from Little Valley flows east then northeast
and joins an ephemeral stream from Upper
Lisbon Valley.  After the confluence, the
drainage channel continues to the northeast
through   Lisbon  Canyon.   This  main
drainage and associated  tributaries were
dry when observed during a number of site
visits conducted in 1994 and  1995.  The
nearest  perennial stream is  the  Dolores
River, located approximately 20 miles east
of the project site.
In summary, surface water drainages in the
project  area  are  characterized  by  dry
washes  typical  for this  area of Utah.
Ephemeral flow occurs only  after major
precipitation events such as thunderstorms,

Surface water presently  on  the  site  is
limited to that flowing from  Lisbon  and
Huntiey   Springs,  water  intermittently
ponded  in the Centennial and GTO Pits,
and  two  cattle  ponds   (Figure  3.2-1).
Surface water samples have been collected
from the  two springs, two cattle ponds,
water ponded on a bench within the GTO
Pit (twice),  and  water  ponded  in  the
Centennial Pit, and analyzed for  baseline
characterization. Flow measurements were
conducted at the two springs in April 1994.
Both  had low flow  rates, with  Lisbon
Spring  flowing  at  approximately  1.2
gallons  per minute (gpm)  and  Hundey
Springs flowing at approximately 0.1 gpm.

Available      information     regarding
precipitation and surface water flow in this
area is limited. The nearest climatological
stations    (Le.,     temperature     and
precipitation) are located in the town of La
Sal and in Dry Valley. Recording stream
gauging stations are not present in Lisbon
Valley. However,  a gauging station  was
identified  in   Hatch  Wash   which   is
approximately 18 miles northwest of the
project  site  (Figure 3.2-2). The  gauging
station  (Utah No. 09185500)  on Hatch
Wash was used for general information to
characterize the drainages in the vicinity of
the project site.

Based  on the information obtained,  the
normal  annual precipitation   for  Lisbon
Valley is about 15 inches, with most of that
23996/R3.3 5/1*96(3:47 PMyKPT/4
                                        3-17

-------
 falling in the fell and whiter months.  Peak
 storm events typical of the area range from
 about  1.2 inches  for  a  2-year, 24-hour
 event to 3.0 inches for a 100-year, 24-hour
 event (NOAA 1973). Published peak flow
 information  resulting  from peak  storm
 events was available for the Hatch Wash
 drainage. This information indicated flows
 in the Hatch Wash drainage ranging from
 about 500 cubic feet per second (cfs) for a
 2-year event to approximately 6,000 cfs for
 the  100-year event.   However, no  such
 published data are available for the project
 area located in Lisbon Valley.

 3.2.2.2 Surface Water Quality

 Surface water samples were collected from
 two cattle ponds,  two springs, and water
 ponded on a bench within the GTO Pit in
 April, 1994 as described in the Baseline
 Evaluation   (Woodward-Clyde  1995a);
 from water ponded in the Centennial Pit in
 August  1995 (Woodward-Clyde 1995d);
 and  from  water  ponded on  the bench
 within the GTO Pit  in November 1995
 (Woodward-Clyde   1996).    Table 3.2-1
 presents the  analytical  results for  the.
 surface  water  samples;  the  sampling
 locations are shown on Figure 3.2-1.

 Comparison of the analytical results to the
 State of Utah drinking water  standards
 (Utah DEQ 1994) was performed to assess
 the existing water quality. Primary drinking
 water standards  are  established  to   be
 protective  of  human  health,  and  the
 secondary standards provide guidance in
 evaluating  the   aesthetic  qualities   of
 drinking water. Dissolved antimony slightly
 exceeded the primary standard in samples
from Huntiey Spring and the cattle pond
near the Sentinel Pit. Gross alpha exceeded

2399&R33 S/l 4/96(3:47 EM)/RFT/4                     3-18
 standards in Lisbon Spring and gross beta
 was  exceeded  in  all  samples  with the
 exception of that from Huntley Spring. The
 quality of  water  captured in the  cattle
 ponds is generally good. Results  for the
 two  samples  collected  from the water
 ponded on  the bench within the GTO Pit
 suggest that this water has been impacted
 from historic  uranium  mining operations
 adjacent to the GTO Pit.  The  sample
 collected in November 1995 contained the
 highest gross  alpha (5700  picoCuries per
 liter [pCi/1]), gross beta (3838 pCi/1), and
 sulfate (3900 milligrams per liter [mg/1]) of
 any samples collected at the project site.
 Water from the GTO bench also  exceeded
 the  secondary  standards  for  dissolved
 aluminum and manganese and  the primary
 standard for total dissolved solids (IDS).

 3.2.3  Groundwater Resources

 Groundwater occurrence and flow patterns
 in the Paradox  Basin area of Utah are
 influenced   by geologic  structure.  The
 Paradox Basin is defined by the presence of
 a  thick sequence   of evaporite deposits
 which are associated with the development
 of salt anticlines  bordered by extensive
 faulting. Water-bearing units in the study
 area are part of the Mesozoic  Aquifer, as
 defined by Paiz and  Thackston  (1987a).
 Regional groundwater flow directions  in
 this aquifer unit are generally towards the
 west, and it is  recharged  from  the east
 (Paiz and Thackston 1987b). Recharge to
 the aquifers from  precipitation is  very
 limited  in  extent   (Paiz and  Thackston
 1987a). Additional  discussions regarding
 the  regional  hydrogeologic  setting  are
 contained  in  Thackston  et  al.  (1981),
Hanshaw and Hill (1969), and Woodward-
 Clyde (1982).

-------
-o
SUMMARY OF SURFACE WATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS
Lisbon Valley Copper Project
April 1994 - November 1995
Location
Number of Samples
Parameter
Dissolved Aluminum
Dissolved Antimony
Dissolved Arsenic
Dissolved Barium
Dissolved Beryllium
Dissolved Cadmium
Dissolved Calcium
Dissolved Chromium
Dissolved Copper
Dissolved Iron
Dissolved Lead
Dissolved Magnesium
Dissolved Manganese
Dissolved Mercury
Dissolved Molybdenum
Dissolved Nickel
Dissolved Potassium
Dissolved Selenium
Dissolved Silicon
Dissolved Silver
Dissolved Sodium
Dissolved Thallium
Dissolved Vanadium
Dissolved Zinc
Ammonia as NH3-N
Nitrate as N03-N
Nitrite as N02-N
N03-N + N02-N
Chloride
Fluoride
Sulfate
PH
Conductivity
Hardness as CaCO3
Total Suspended Solids
Total Dissolved Solids
Alkalinity as CaCOS
Bicarbonate, total
Carbonate, total
Gross Alpha
Gross Beta
ND = Not detected
Units
mg/1
tng/l
mg/1
mg/1
me/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/l
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
units
umhos/cm
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
pCi/1
pCi/1
mg/I =
Method
EPA 200.7
EPA 200.9
EPA 200.7
EPA 200.7
EPA 200.7
EPA 200.7
EPA 200.7
EPA 200.7
EPA 200.7
EPA 200.7
EPA 200.9
EPA 200.7
EPA 200.7
EPA 200.7
EPA 200.7
EPA 200.7
EPA 200.7
EPA 200.9
EPA 200.7
EPA 200.7
EPA 200.7
EPA 200.9
EPA 200.7
EPA 200.7
SM4500
EPA 353.1
EPA 354.1
EPA 353.1
EPA 325.3
EPA 340.2
EPA 375.4
EPA 150.1
EPA 120.1
EPA 130.2
EPA 160.2
EPA 160.1
SM2320B
SM2320B
SM2320B
EPA 900.0
EPA 900.0
Detection limit
0.05
0.003-0.005
0.005 - 0.04
0.01
0.001-0.01
0.001-0.01
0.2
0.005-0.01
0.01
0.01
0.003-0.005
O.I
0.01
0.0002
0.01-0.04
0.01-0.02
0.1
0.002-0.005
0.4
0.002-0.01
0.2
0.001-0.002
0.01-0.04
0.05
0.4-1.0
0.02-0.2
0.005 .
0.02-0.2
1.0-2.0
0.3-0.5
5.0-6.0
0.05
0.5
5
2.5
5
1
1
1
2 '
4
milligrams per liter
Hunltey Spring
1
Results
ND
I 0.0062 I
ND
0.151
ND(1)
ND(1)
47.9
ND
ND
0.013
ND
24.6
ND
ND
ND .
ND
4.2
0.017
6.5
ND
41.8
ND
ND
0.02
ND
ND
NA
ND
11.5
0.28
26 '
8.25
542
218
3
309
260
316
ND
. 6
ND
umhos/cm =
GTO Bench
2
Range
ND-0.29 |
ND
ND
0.034-0.06
ND(1)
ND(1)
266-362
ND
ND-0.09
0.027-0.19
ND
159-349
0.032-0.47 |
ND
ND- 0.298
ND
52.4-72.9
0.0097
0.53-9.1
ND
373-794
ND
ND
0.013-0.73
.ND
ND-0.05(2)
0.006
ND-0.06(2)
51.5-88
ND-0.2
1900-3900
7.48-7.92
3500-6420
1400-2610
15-144
2960-6400 |
257-495
313
ND
3414-5700
2120-3838
Lisbon Spring
1
Results
ND
ND
ND
0.122
ND(1)
ND(1)
80.6
ND
ND
0.022
ND
12.6
0.012
ND
ND
ND
2.8
ND
4.9
ND
21.7
ND
ND
0.015
ND
0.047
NA
0.047
18
0.36
54
8.19
534
244
ND
305
226
276
4
49
39
micromhos per centimeter
Pond, Little Volley Pond, Sentinel
1 1
Results Results
0.052
ND |
ND
0.109
ND(1)
ND(1)
37.4
ND
ND
0.055
ND
4.3
ND
ND
ND
ND
18
ND
2.4
ND
0.68
ND
ND
0.016
ND
ND
NA
ND
ND
ND
ND
1 9.04 1 1
237
99
15
150
114
139
8
3
1 21 ||

0.085
0.0062 |
ND
0.069
ND(1)
ND(1)
24.6
ND
0.011
0.047
ND
5.9
ND
ND
ND
ND
11.9
ND
3
ND
1.4
ND
ND
0.013
ND
ND
NA
ND
ND
ND
ND
9.46 |
178
79
19
104
67
82
19
ND
14 1

Centennial Pit
1
Results
0.13
ND
ND
0.11
ND
ND
323
ND
0.02
ND
ND
26.7
ND
ND
ND
ND
15.7
ND
2.3
ND
40.3
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
. ND
ND
3
0.7
883
8.12
1502 •
883
' 194
1360
70
86
NA
8.2
1 26 \

Utah Drinking Water Standards (4) .
Primary Secondary
mg/1 me/1
0.006
0.05
2
0.004
0.005
0.10
0.015
0.002
0.10
0.05
0.002
10.0
10.0
4.0
1000
2000
15pCi/l
8pCi/l(3)

0.05-0.2
1.0
0.3
0.05
0.10
5.0
250.0
2.0
6.5-8.5


                    NA = Not analyzed            pCi/1 = picocurics per liter
                    Bolded and boxed results indicate that one or more samples for (he parameter exceeds State of Utah primary or secondary drinking water quality standards
                    (1) One or more samples had a detection limit above the State of Utah primary or secondary drinking water standards.
                    (2) One or more samples had a detection limit above the highest detected value shown.
                    (3) The standard is that activity which will cause a 4 mrem/yr exposure. The standard was converted to pCi/1 assuming that the beta activity is due to Stronlium-90 and a 2-litcr per day intake of water
                    (4) Utah Administrative Code R309-103, April 2,1993.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   Sheet 1 of 1

-------
 The  following   sections  describe   the
 occurrence of groundwater  beneath  the
 project site, the estimated extent of aquifer
 systems,  groundwater chemistry, and  the
 quality of groundwater  samples  collected
 during  the   period   October  1994   to
 November 1995.

 3.2.3.1   Aquifer Characteristics

 Groundwater is known  to  exist in  three
 water-bearing  units beneath  the project
 site.  The  shallow aquifer  extends   to
 approximately 400 feet below  ground
 surface (bgs) and is comprised of the Burro
 Canyon  Formation and  Brushy  Basin
 Member of the Morrison Formation (see
 Section 3.1 for a discussion of the geology
 of the project she). This  zone of relatively
 high hydraulic conductivity rocks is dry in
 some portions of the valley. Groundwater
 flow in this unit is highly segmented, with
 faults  appearing  to act   as barriers  to
 groundwater flow across  the faults (Adrian
 Brown Consultants 1996). Faults may  act
 as conduits along the  structures  in some
 cases, but observations at the project site,
 including "water   levels  measured   in
 monitoring wells, exploration borings, and
 areas of dry strata adjacent to saturated
 strata,  indicate that faults in the project
 area act  as barriers to  flow across the
 faults.     The  presence  of  fault gouge
 (altered to clay) along  the fault structures
 is  one  possible  mechanism  producing
 barriers to groundwater  flow across the
 faults.

 An alluvial aquifer of limited extent exists
 in the valley fill sediments near the Sentinel
Pits. A deeper aquifer at the site is located
 at depths of 900 feet bgs or greater in the
 Centennial Pit area and has not been

2399&R33 Sfl4#6(3:47H4XRFr/4                     3-20
 sampled nor tested for yield. This aquifer is
 of more regional extent and consists of the
 Entrada and  Navajo  Sandstones.  Water
 quality in these units is likely better than
 that of the shallow aquifer; however,  no
 site-specific    data    are    available.
 Groundwater  is also locally perched  on
 clay and shale layers at shallower depths
 within the project area.  Monitoring well
 94MW6  penetrates  one  such  perched
 groundwater zone in the overlying Mancos
 Shale in Lower Lisbon Valley.

 The distribution  of groundwater  at the
 project  site  is   erratic   and   strongly
 controlled  by geologic  structure.  The
 numerous faults present in the project area
 act as  barriers to  groundwater  flow in
 some cases and  effectively  separate the
 shallow aquifer into separate water-bearing
 units. The depth to  groundwater in the
 existing  monitoring  wells  ranges from
 approximately 60 feet bgs  in the Mancos
 Formation  in  Lower Lisbon Valley (well
 94MW6) to approximately 300 feet bgs in
 the Burro  Canyon  Formation near  the
 Centennial  Pit (wells  SLV1A and  SLV3)
 (Table 3.2-2).

 In   order   to     evaluate   hydraulic
 characteristics of the shallow aquifer, two
 single well pumping tests were conducted
 at the  site  (exploration boring 95R1 and
former  production well SLV3)  in May,
 1995   (Woodward-Clyde   1995e).  Data
from a  step-drawdown test conducted in
95R1  were used  to  select the maximum
pumping rate  for the constant-rate tests
performed  in  95R1  and  SLV3.  Boring
95R1  was  pumped  at a constant rate  of
 155  gallons  per   minute  (gpm)   for
approximately  15 hours with a drawdown
of 13.7 feet. Well  SLV3 was pumped at a

-------
                                    TABLE 3.2-2

              SUMMARY OF WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS FOR
                               MONITORING WELLS
                        LISBON VALLEY COPPER PROJECT
Well
Number


SLV-IA
SLV-2
SLV-3
SLV-4
MW-2A
94MW2
94MW6
Water Level(l)
(Feet bss)
April
1994
296.54
83.60
277.33
93.95
267.00
NA
NA
October
1994
294.74
83.16
278.80
94.71
267.70
259.58
60.03
March
1995
293.42
82.41
274.77
94.60
266.30
261.48
60.08
May
1995
297.26
82.36
275.78
95.79
267.38
257.80
60.18
August
1995
297.30
82.28
301.38
94.50
288.06
257.23
60.03
Sept
1995
298.00
82.29
299.09
93.71
287.97
MM
NM
Nov
1995
298.78
82.38
295.11
94.25
285.36
257.09
60.31










Well
Number
Elevation of PVC
Well
Casing
Water Level Elevation
(feet above msl)


SLV-IA
SLV-2
SLV-3
SLV-4
MW-2A
94MW2
94MW6


6483.36
6382.50
6469.05
6396.70
6454.49
6415.10
6287.5
April
1994
6186.82
6298.90
6191.72
6302.75
(2)6187.49
NA
NA
October
1994
6188.62
6299.34
6190.25
6301.99
6186.79
6155.52
6227.47
March
1995
6189.94
6300.09
6194.28
6302.10
6188.19
6153.62
6227.42
(feet above msl)
May
1995
6186.10
6300.14
6193.27
6300.91
6187.11
6157.30
6227.32
August
1995
6186.06
6300.22
6167.67
6302.20
6169.63
6157.87
6227.47
Sept
1995
6185.36
6300.21
6169.96
6302.99
6169.72
NM
-NM
Nov
1995
6184.58
6300.12
6173.94
6302.45
6172.33
6158.01
6227.19
NA = not applicable
NM = not measured
(1)   water levels measured to the top of the PVC casing on the north side of the well
(2)   Elevation of ground surfece; new surfece casing installed prior to August 1995 is approximately at
    ' elevation 6457.69
23996/R3-T.322 05-lS-96(5:42PM)/RPT/3
Sheet 1 of 1

-------
 constant rate of 140 gpm for 24 hours with
 a  drawdown  of 5.7 feet. Estimates of
 hydraulic   conductivity   of  the  Burro
 Canyon Formation in the vicinity  of the
 Centennial Pit ranged from 2,300 to 7,500
 feet/year from the results of these tests.
 The hydraulic conductivity of the Burro
 Canyon formation was also estimated from
 laboratory tests  conducted  by  Exxon
 Corporation  at  3,000 feet/year (Adrian
 Brown  Consultants 1996). These  values
 are consistent with literature ranges for
 sandstone   aquifers    (Woodward-Clyde
 1995e). Recharge to  the aquifer has been
 estimated  at 1.0 inch/year and the specific
 yield is assumed to be 0.05 (Woodward-
 Clyde 1995f).

 The  remainder   of  the  discussion  of
 groundwater resources in this EIS refers to
 the shallow aquifer system contained in the
 Burro  Canyon Formation and valley fill
 sediments beneath the project site.

 3.23.2  Groundwater Occurrence

 Groundwater beneath the project  site is
 present as  discontinuous  water-bearing
 units  and  appears  to  be  structurally
 controlled.   The   following   sections
 summarize the occurrence of groundwater
 near  each  proposed  facility  including
 mining  pits and the leach pad.    The
 information presented below is summarized
 from the Baseline Evaluation (Woodward-
 Clyde  1995a). Included in the  Baseline
Evaluation are maps and  cross-sections
representing each of the areas discussed in
the    following   sections,    and    a
potentiometric map for the entire project
 area. Data used in the following discussion
 come from water levels measured  in the
 existing   monitoring   wells   and   in
exploration borings drilled  by Summo in
1993 and 1994.

Three monitoring wells (94MW2, 94MW5,
and 94MW6) were installed in the shallow
aquifer during .October 1994 to supplement
the existing wells SLV1A,  SLV2, SLV3,
and MW2A (Figure  3.2-1).  Monitoring
well  94MW5  was  installed  in  Lisbon
Canyon during October  1994  and initially
had water at approximately 120 feet bgs.
However, shortly after installation the well
was found to  be dry  and it has been dry
since.  The  remaining wells,  have  been
sampled five times from October 1994 to
November   1995.   Additional  sampling
events  are  scheduled  quarterly  during
1996.  Three  other boreholes  (94MW1,
94MW3, and  94MW4) were  drilled to a
depth of 500 feet in October 1994 without
encountering  water. These borings  were
left  open  and  have  been  monitored
quarterly for the presence of water. Water
was first observed in open boring 94MW4
during the summer of 1995, and has since
been sampled twice.  Boreholes 94MW1
and  94MW3   have   been  dry   since
installation.

Table 3.2-2 provides a summary of water
level measurements from. April 1994 to
November 1995 for the existing monitoring
wells and  piezometer  SLV4,  which is
located within the existing Centennial Pit.
Water levels in wells SLV3 and MW2A fell
by   approximately  26   and   21  feet,
respectively, following drilling  of a test
hole (95R1)  to the  lower aquifer unit
during June 1995.  This  hole was plugged
in September; 1995 and water levels have
since recovered by 4  feet for well SLV3
and 2 feet for well MW2A.
Z3S961B33 5/1*96(3:47 PMyRPT/4
                                       3-22

-------
 Sentinel Pit Area

Water level measurements are available for
30 exploration borings in the Sentinel Pit
area.  Fourteen of the borings were dry at
bottom hole elevations ranging from 6121-
6547 feet above msl.  Water was observed
in the remaining borings  at depths of 67-
221 feet bgs,  corresponding to elevations
of 6191-6482 feet above  msl.   In the
Sentinel Pit area, groundwater occurs  in
the  Burro   Canyon  Formation,  the
underlying Brushy Basin Member of the
Morrison Formation,  and the  valley fill
sediments.  Water levels generally increase
in elevation  from  around  6200 feet  in
borings drilled on the valley floor to about
6500  feet towards the  northeast.   Dry
borings  are clustered  in two areas to the
east   of the  Sentinel  Pit.   With  one
exception, all of the dry borings penetrated
into  the  Brushy  Basin  Member.  The
distribution of water levels in the drill holes
that penetrate the Burro  Canyon/ Brushy
Basin aquifer in the vicinity of the Sentinel
Pit suggest a general local flow gradient to
the west. The water table is generally flat
in the valley fill near well SLV2.

Monitoring well 94MW5 was installed into
the  Brushy  Basin  Member  in Lisbon
Canyon, near the Sentinel Pit. Water was
measured  in  the  boring at  6202  feet
elevation prior to installation of the well,
and  was  produced  from  an  apparent
fracture zone; however, the well was dry
three days after installation.  It is unknown
why  the well is currently dry.  Several
splays of the Lisbon Fault are present  in
the  immediate area and  may  control  or
influence the flow of groundwater.
Apparent  saturated  thicknesses in  the
exploration borings that encountered water
at the Sentinel pit, as calculated from the
total depth of the borings minus the depth
to water, ranges from 4 to 353 feet, with
an average of 93.7 feet. It should be noted
that some  of these borings may not have
penetrated the full  thickness of the aquifer.
The wide  range  of apparent  saturated
thicknesses,  presence  of numerous  dry
holes, and the various elevations at which
water was encountered, suggest that the
Burro Canyon/Brushy Basin aquifer  is not
continuous across this area and  appears to
be fracture and fault controlled.

Centennial Pit Area

Groundwater  is   present   in   the  basal
sandstone  unit  of  the   Burro  Canyon
Formation  and in  sandstone fades of the
Brushy Basin Member of the Morrison
Formation in the Centennial Pit area,  based
on  information from existing  monitoring
wells  MW2A,   SLV2,   and   SLV1A,
production well SLV3, piezometer SLV4,
and several exploration borings.  Drilling
logs from the exploration boreholes in the
vicinity .of the Centennial- Pit indicate that
groundwater is first encountered at depths
ranging  from  151  to  325   feet  bgs,
corresponding to  elevations ranging from
6160 to 6302 feet above msl. Twenty-four
of the mineral exploration borings were dry
at bottom hole depths ranging from 6118
to 6233 feet above msl.

The  apparent saturated thickness of the
Burro Canyon/Brushy Basin aquifer in the
Centennial Pit area, as seen in monitoring
wells MW2A, SLV1A, and SLV3, ranges
from  18-60  feet.   Apparent   saturated
thicknesses in the exploration borings that
2399S/R3.3 S/14/96(3:47PM)/RFr/4                    3-23

-------
 encountered water ranges from 3  to  183
 feet,  with  an  average  of  40 feet,  as
 compared to the average of the saturated
 thicknesses  measured  in the monitoring
 wells of 33 feet. Groundwater elevations
 measured in the exploration borings  and
 monitoring   wells  suggest  a  probable
 groundwater gradient  to the  northwest.
 However, this gradient trend is interrupted
 by several  intervening  dry  exploration
 holes.

 Groundwater  in  the Centennial Pit area
 also appears  to  be fracture  and fault
 controlled.  The Lisbon Fault acts as  a
 barrier  to  groundwater  flow across  the
 fault to the southwest, as evidenced by  a
 number of dry exploration holes and  the
 generally higher elevations of groundwater
 in the vicinity of the existing Centennial Pit
 on the south and west sides of the various
 fault splays.   In addition, two borings
 (94MW3 and 94MW1)  that were drilled to
 a depth of 500  feet  bgs as  potential
 monitoring  wells  have  been  dry  since
 October 1994. Boring 94MW3 was drilled
 west of the Lisbon Valley fault and to  the
 south of the Centennial Pit in the Cutler
 Formation (Figure 3.2-1). Boring 94MW1
 (Figure 3.2-1) was drilled to the southeast
 of the Centennial Pit on the hill separating
 the Centennial Pit area from Lower Lisbon
 Valley.

 GTO Pit Area

 Groundwater in the GTO Pit area occurs in
 several shallow geologic units and appears
 to be fracture and fault controlled,  based
 on information from 21 exploration borings
 and monitoring well 94MW2. Four of  the
 mineral  exploration borings were dry at
 elevations ranging from 6166 to 6297 feet
above msl.  These borings extended into
239961X33 S/l*96(?:47EM>KFT/4                    3-24
 the Cutler Formation or Chinle Formation.
 Groundwater was encountered at depths
 ranging from 106 to 326 feet bgs in the
 remaining   17   exploration   borings,
 corresponding  to elevations of 6108  to
 6386 feet above msl.   Groundwater was
 •present in the  Cutler Formation  in one
 boring, the Burro  Canyon  Formation in
 one boring, the Dakota Formation in one
 boring, and the  Mancos  Shale  in  the
 remaining 14  borings.  Groundwater  is
 present at an elevation of 6155 feet in well
 94MW2.   Groundwater  level elevations
 generally  increase from 6121  feet in the
 southwest to   6385  feet  msl  to  the
 northwest  near  the   GTO  Pit  area,
 indicating a probable groundwater gradient
 to the southeast, however, the occurrence
 of groundwater is erratic. The saturated
 thickness  recorded  in monitoring  well
 94MW2  is   approximately   18  feet.
 Apparent  saturated thicknesses calculated
 from - exploration    borings    which
 encountered water range from 10  to 358
 feet, with  an average of 200 feet.

 Little Valley

 One boring  (94MW4)  was drilled to a
 depth of 500 feet bgs in upper Little Valley
 near the upgradient  end of  the proposed
 leach pad (Figure  3.2-1).   The  boring
 penetrated 120 feet  of Cutler Formation
.and 360 feet of the Pennsylvanian Hermosa
 Formation.   The boring  was dry when
 drilled but was.left open and periodically
 checked   for water.    Water began to
 accumulate  in  the  boring  during  the
 summer of  1995 and  was sampled  in
 August and November 1995. The depth to
 water  is  approximately  410  feet  bgs
 (elevation  6110 feet above msl). This water
 may have  been produced from a permeable
 unit that is locally perched on clay layers

-------
within the  Hermosa  Formation.   Little
Valley is structurally isolated from Lisbon
Valley by the Lisbon Fault.  Monitoring
well SLV2 is located on the east side of the
fault and groundwater occurs in this well at
an elevation of 6299 feet above msl.  Well
SLV2 is completed in the valley fill.

Lower Lisbon Valley

One  monitoring  well   (94MW6)   was
installed in Lower Lisbon Valley (Figure
3.2-1).  This site was initially considered
for  leach  pad   construction.   Perched
groundwater occurs in the Mancos Shale at
a depth of 60 feet (elevation 6227-feet) in
this well. Boring 94MW1 was drilled  to a
depth of 500 feet at the head of the valley
in the drainage  divide  between Upper
Lisbon and Lower Lisbon Valleys.   This
boring penetrated 340  feet of Dakota and
Burro Canyon formations and 160 feet of
the Brushy Basin Member of the Morrison
Formation, and has been  dry since it  was
drilled.

3.2.3.3  Groundwater Quality

Groundwater samples were collected from
monitoring wells  SLV1A, SLV2,  SLV3,
MW2A,  94MW2,  and  94MW6,  open
boring 94MW4 (first  sampled in August
1995), and exploration boring 95R1 (first
sampled in  May 1995)  during October
1994 to  November 1995. Table  3.2-3
summarizes the analytical  results for these
samples. The complete data are contained
in the Baseline Evaluation (Woodward-
Clyde  1994)   and  the   letter  reports
(Woodward-Clyde  1995b; 1995c;  1995d;
and 1996). Table 3.2-3 also compares the
analytical  results  to the  State  of Utah
primary and secondary  drinking  water
standards   (Utah   DEQ   1993).    The
23996/R3.3 5/14/96(3:47 PM)/RPT/4                    3-25
groundwater   samples   analyzed    are.
representative of four water-bearing units
beneath the project site: the valley fill near
the  Sentinel  Pit  (SLV2);  the  Burro
Canyon/Brushy  Basin  aquifer   in   the
Centennial Pit  area  (MW2A,  SLV1A,
SLV3, and 95R1) and the GTO Pit area
(94MW2); and the Mancos Shale in Lower
Lisbon Valley (94MW6). In addition, two
samples   from   boring    94MW4    are
representative of water quality within  the
Hermosa Formation beneath the  western
portion of the leach pad area.

The groundwater analytical results  were
compared to the State of Utah primary and
secondary drinking water standards (Utah
DEQ 1994). This comparison provides  the
basis for  the following   discussion  of
groundwater quality.

Major Ion Chemistry

Stiff diagrams are a useful tool for visually
describing   differences   in   major-ion
chemistry in waters. These diagrams plot
the  relative  proportions  of the  major
cations (potassium,  sodium, calcium, and
magnesium)   and   anions   (chloride,
bicarbonate,   and   sulfate)  on   three
horizontal axes. The  resulting  diagrams
provide a  graphical comparison  of  the
chemistry of the waters. This information is
useful for classifying water types according
to the  predominant  ions present, and  for
evaluating whether  waters from  various
wells are in hydraulic communication with
each other. Stiff diagrams  for the Lisbon
Valley groundwater samples are shown in
Figure 3.2-3.  Averages of the analytical
results  for the major  cations and anions
were used to construct the diagrams.

-------
                                                                                            TABLE 3,2-3

                                                                     SUMMARY OF GROUNDWATBR ANALYTICAL RESULTS
                                                                                    Lbboa Valley Copper Project
                                                                                    Ociobtr 19?4 - November 19SS
Well Number
NumbirofS»nipl«i
P«r»m«ler UnlU Method Dtttcllon Llnitl
Dissolved Aluminum trig/I UFA 200.1 0.01-0.2
Dissolved Antimony inj/1 EPA2Q0.9 0.002-0,006
UtwlwdAmnfe rag/l BPA 200,7 0,005-0.04
Dissolved Barium mg/1 BPA 200.7 0.01-0,2
Dissolved Beryllium rw/1 BPA 200.7 0.001-0.01
Dissolved Cadmium ing/1 BPA 200,7 0.001 -0.05
Dissolved Calcium rog/1 EPA 200.7 0.2
Dissolved Cliromium mg/l EPA 200.7 0.005-0.01
Dissolved Copper . mg/l BPA 200.7 0.01-0.1
Dissolved Iron mg/l BPA 200.7 0.01-0.4
Dissolved Lead mg/l BPA 200.9 0.003-0.005
Dissolved Magnesium mg/l EPA 200,7 0.1-0.2
Dissolved Manganese ing/I EPA 200.7 0.01
Dissolved Mercury mg/l EPA 200.7 0.0002
Dissolved Molybdenum ing/I BPA 200.7 0.01-0.1
Dissolved Nickel mg/l EPA 200.7 0.01-0.1
Dissolved Potassium mg/l EPA 200.7 O.I
Dissolved Selenium mg/1 EPA 200.9 0.002-0.005
Dissolved Silicon mg/l BPA 200.7 0.4
Dissolved Silver mg/1 BPA 200.7 0.002-0.05
Dissolved Sodium mg/l EPA 200.7 0.2
f V\ Dissolved Thallium mg/l BPA 200.9 0.001-0.005
^P* Dissolved Vanadium mg/l EPA 200.7 . 0.01-0.1
•» Dissolved Zino ing/1 EPA 200.7 0.05
Q.N Ammonia as NH3-N mg/1 SM4500 0.04-0.8
^^ NilrateasN03-N mg/l EPA353.1 0.02-1.0
O""* Nitrite as N02-N mg/I EPA 354.1 0.005
N03-N+N02.N' mg/l BPA 353.1 0.02-0.4
Chloride mg/l EPA 325.3 1.0
Fluoride mjj/1 EPA 340.2 0.3-1.0
Sulfate rng/l EPA 375.4 5.0 1
pH unia EPA 150.1 0.05
Conductivity umlios/cm EPA 120. 1 0.5
Hardness as CaCO3 mg/l BPA 130.2 5.0
Total Suspended Solids mf/l BPA 160.2 2.5-5.0
Total Dissolved Solids mg/l EPA 160.1 5.0
Alkalinity as CaCO3 mg/I SM2320B 1.0
Bicarbonate, diss. mg/l SM2320B 1.0
Gross Alpha pCi/1 BPA 900.0 2
Gross Beta pCi/1 BPA 900.0 4
*4M\r<
6
Rnni»
ND -0.05
ND
ND- 0.016 (2)
0,02-0.07
ND
-------
     94MW4
SODIUM - SULFATE TYPE
 HERMOSA FORMATION
                               94MW6
                              ^BICARBONATE TYPE
                               ICOS SHAl£
                                                        1500   3000
                                                                —
                                                          SCALE IN FEET
                                              6000
                       No+K

                       Co

                       Mg
                           CA.TIOI;
                            80  ! '
  '5996
—K.N.
                               (23/96
GROUNDWATER STIFF  DIAGRAMS

   LISBON VALLEY COPPER PROJECT
                                                                         FIG.  3.2-31

-------

-------
 Groundwater  samples  from  monitoring
 wells  SLV3 and MW2A are, in general,
 very  hard,  calcium-sulfate type waters.
 Samples  from both  wells  exceeded the
 State  of  Utah  primary  drinking  water
 standards  for sulfate and  total  dissolved
 solids  (TDS)  (1,000  and 2,000  mg/1,
 respectively, Table 3.2-3). These wells are
 screened in relatively clean sandstones of
 the basal  Burro Canyon Formation in the
 Centennial Pit  area. Water from the one
 sample collected from exploration boring
 95R1 was also a very hard, calcium-sulfate
 type water but contained lower sulfate and
 TDS than the waters from wells SLV3 and
 MW2A.   The   similarity  of the   Stiff
 diagrams (Figure 3.2-3) suggests that wells
 SLV3 and MW2A and exploration boring
 95R1 are in hydraulic communication with
 each  other.  The remaining well in the
 Centennial Pit  area (SLV1A) is located
 across a major fault from wells SLV3 and
 MW2A, and is characterized by very hard,
 calcium-magnesium-sulfate type water and
 contained   higher  dissolved  solids  than
 water from wells SLV3 and MW2A (Table
 3.2-3). Sulfate and TDS  also exceeded the
 Utah primary standards in samples from
 this well (Table 3.2-3). Based on the Stiff
 diagrams,   at least  two  separate water-
 bearing units  may  be  present  in the
 Centennial Pit  area.  This  conclusion  is
 supported by the drop in water levels seen
 from  June to August of  1995  in  wells
 SLV3    and   MW2A    without    a
 corresponding drop in water levels in well
 SLV1A (Table 3.2-2).

 Well 94MW2 is also screened in the Burro
 Canyon Formation,  downgradient of the
 GTO Pit. Water from this well is classified
 as  a   very  hard,   calcium-magnesium-
 sodium-sulfate type water. TDS and sulfate

23996JR3.3 S/14/96(3:47PMyRPT/4                    3-28
 were below the State  primary  standards
 and at  concentrations lower than samples
 from other wells screened  in the  Burro
 Canyon Formation (Table 3.2-3).   TDS
 and sulfate in samples from well 94MW2
 decreased  over  the time period sampled.
 The available data,  as  illustrated by the
 Stiff diagrams (Figure 3.2-3), suggest that
 groundwater in the GTO Pit area may be
 isolated from that in the Centennial Pit
 area.

 The water from well SLV2 is a hard to
 very  hard,  calcium-magnesium-sodium-
 bicarbonate type. This well is screened in
 valley fill material near the Sentinel Pit.
 Sodium, sulfate,  and TDS in samples from
 this well were the lowest of any sampled at
 the  project site (Table  3.2-3).   TDS
 decreased in samples from this well during
 the sampling period.  Comparison of the
 major ion chemistry of the waters from this
 well with that for the Centennial Pit wells
 (Figure  3.2-3) suggests that the valley fill
 aquifer   may   not   be   in    hydraulic
 communication  with  the  Burro  Canyon
 aquifer.  In addition,  the elevation of the
 groundwater in well SLV2 is also  over 100
 feet higher than  in nearby Burro Canyon
 aquifer wells (Table 3.2-2).

 Open boring 94MW4, located upgradient
 from the proposed  leach pad   in  Little
 Valley,  has  been sampled  twice.   This
 boring penetrates  the Hermosa Formation.
 The major ion chemistry of samples from
 this well indicates a soft, sodium-sulfate
 type water in this area, which  contrasts
with the waters sampled in the valley fill
 and Burro  Canyon aquifers  to  the  east,
 across the Lisbon Fault. Samples from this
borehole contained the lowest  calcium,

-------
 magnesium, and potassium of any wells
 sampled (Table 3.2-3).

 Well  94MW6 is screened in the Mancos
 Shale  in  Lower   Lisbon Valley.  The
 chemistry  of well  94MW6  indicates a
 moderately hard, sodium-bicarbonate type
 water.  IDS  and   sulfate  exceeded  the
 primary standards in samples from this well
 (Table 3.2-3). The samples from this well
 also  contained the highest sodium and
 chloride of any well sampled, likely due to
 leaching of soluble salts from interbedded
 evaporite   beds  (gypsum)  wfthin   the
 Mancos  Shale. The distinctive odor of
 hydrogen  sulfide was  observed   during
 sampling of this well, which suggests that
 the waters in the Mancos Shale may be
 reducing sulfate to sulfide.

 Minor and Trace Element Chemistry

 WellMW2A

 Samples from well MW2A contained  the
 highest  copper and zinc  of  any  wells
 sampled; however, copper was still below
 Utah secondary drinking water standard of
 1 mg/1. Zinc ranged up to 8.01 mg/1, well
 above the Utah secondary standard of 5
 mg/I (Table 3.2-3).  Manganese was high
 (1.17 mg/1)  in this well compared  to  the
 Utah secondary drinking water standard of
 0.05 mg/1. A comparison of the analytical
 results from  the  five  sampling   events
 (October 1994, March 1995,  May 1995,
 August  1995, and  November  1995) was
 performed to evaluate significant trends in
 the concentrations  of minor  and  trace
 elements in samples from  the individual
 wells. In samples from well MW2A, iron
 increased slightly, and barium decreased
 slightly during this time. As the result -of

2399&K33 5fl*9S(3:47I>MyRFT/4                    3-29
repeated  sampling  events  which  have
cleaned  the  well  of  sediment,  total
suspended    solids   (TSS)    decreased
dramatically during this time, whereas IDS
remained    fairly    constant.    Several
constituents showed  either a high or low
during the March 1995 sampling event in
samples from well MW2A and the other
wells. Water levels were generally highest
during March 1995 (Table 3.2-3). Barium,
silicon, gross alpha,  and gross beta were
highest during March 1995 in samples from
well MW2A. This may be related to  the
very high TSS  (17,960 mg/1)  recorded at
this  time,   probably  due  to  the  well
development activities conducted just prior
to this sampling event. Iron,  manganese,
and sulfate were lowest during March 1995
in samples from well MW2A

WeU SLV3

Samples  from well SLV3 contained  the
highest iron (8.32 mg/l) and nitrate (1.54
mg/1) of any wells sampled (Table. 3.2-3).
Iron and manganese exceeded the Utah
secondary standards  (0.3 mg/1 and 0.05
mg/1,  respectively) for samples from this
well.  The high iron  may be  due to  the
rusted steel  casing which lines the upper
part of this former production well. Barium
increased  slightly  during the sampling
period.  Analytes  highest  during March
1995 for samples from well SLV3 include
silicon and zinc, and pH was lowest during
this period.

Boring 95R1

Iron and manganese concentrations in  the
sample  from  exploration boring 95R1
exceeded the Utah  secondary standards
(0.3  mg/1 and 0.05  mg/1,  respectively,
Table 3.2-3).

-------
 Well SLV1A

 Samples from well SLV1A  contained the
 highest  cadmium  (0.029   mg/1)   and
 manganese  (2.2  mg/1)  for  wells  in  the
 project area, both of which exceeded Utah
 primary  (0.005 mg/1) or secondary (0.05
 mg/1)    drinking    water     standards,
 respectively, for  one or more  samples
 (Table 3.2-3).  In addition, aluminum, iron,
 and zinc exceeded Utah secondary drinking
 water  standards.  Aluminum, manganese,
 and selenium increased, and TSS decreased
 during  the  sampling  period.  Cadmium,
 silicon,  nitrate,  fluoride,  and  pH were
 highest,  and manganese and  sulfate were
 lowest  during March,  1995 in  samples
 fromwellSLVlA.

 Well 94MW2

 Samples from well  94MW2  contained
 aluminum,   lead,  nickel,  and  thallium
 concentrations that were higher than other
 wells sampled  (all  exceeded Utah primary
 or secondary standards), and also exceeded
 Utah primary  or  secondary standards  for
 cadmium, antimony, iron,  and manganese
 (Table 3.2-3).  Samples from this well also
 showed  the  most   changes  in  water
 chemistry during the period,  with a slight
 increase  hi  cadmium, and  decreases  in
 manganese,  molybdenum,   sulfate,  and
 TDS. Lead, molybdenum, silicon, thallium,
 fluoride,  gross alpha, and gross beta all
 were at their highest concentrations during
 March 1995, when TSS was lowest.

 Well SLV2

 In samples  from well SLV2, aluminum,
 iron,  and lead  slightly  exceeded  Utah
 primary or secondary standards (0.2 mg/1,
 0.3 mg/1, and 0.015  mg/1, respectively).
2399&E33  5/1 #96(3:47 PMXRPT/4                    3-30
 Aluminum and iron increased slightly, and
 TDS and  alkalinity  decreased during the
 sampling period.   Barium, lead,  silicon,
 nitrate, fluoride, TSS, alkalinity, and gross
 beta  were  highest  during March  1995.
 These changes may have been related to
 the high TSS and low pH present during
 that sampling event.

 Boring 94MW4

 Samples  from  open  boring  94MW4
 contained the highest  fluoride (exceeded
 the secondary standard) and also exceeded
 standards  for  aluminum,  antimony,  and
 iron. Alummum, arsenic, iron, silicon, zinc,
 nitrate,  gross  alpha,   and  gross  beta
 increased  slightly between August  and
 November 1995, while fluoride, pH,  and
 TSS decreased.

 Well 94MW6

 For samples from well 94MW6, manganese
 exceeded the  secondary  drinking water
 standard (0.05 mg/1). Aluminum and zinc
 showed  slight increases,  and  TSS   and
 alkalinity decreased during the time period
 analyzed.  Lead,  molybdenum,  selenium,
 silicon, nitrate, nitrite, and pH were highest
 during March 1995.

 Radionuclides

 The   proposed  Lisbon  Valley  Copper
Project  is  located in a  historic copper/
uranium  mining  district.  Radionuclides
 (uranium and radium)  are present  in the
groundwater at the  project site and  are
naturally occurring.  Analyses of uranium
content in  rocks  near the project  site
indicate that uranium concentration within
the ore material is variable, ranging from
0.2 to   10.3  parts  per  million  (ppm)

-------
 (Thorson 1996b).  Rocks  in  the Cutler
 Formation, located 2200 feet to the west of
 the   Centennial   Pit,   contain   higher
 concentrations. Four samples  of Cutler
 Formation  sandstone   exposed  on  the
 surface  ranged from  74  to  145  ppm
 uranium    (Thorson    1996b).     For
 comparison, the average worldwide crustal
 abundance of uranium is 1.8 ppm (Hurlbut
 and Klein 1977).

 The groundwater  analytical  results  for
 radionuclides (Table 3.2-3) were compared
 to the State of Utah primary and secondary
 drinking water standards.  Concentrations
 in samples from all wells exceeded  the
 primary  standards  for  gross alpha  (15
 pCi/1) and gross beta (8 pCi/1). Analyses of
 total uranium, radium-226, and radium-228
 were conducted  for the  October 1994
 groundwater samples. Results ranged from
 1.0 to 7.1 pCi/1 for radium-226; < 2 to 9
 pCi/1 for radium-228; and 0.037 to 0.978
 mg/1 (25 to 662 pCi/1) for total uranium.
 Several agencies were contacted (Spangler
 1996;    Moten   1996;   Hunt    1996;
 Frederickson 1996) during  preparation of
 this EIS in an attempt  to  compare'these
 concentrations      to       background
 concentrations   of   radionuclides   in
 groundwater in the Paradox Basin region;
 however, no data were available. Because
 of the naturally elevated levels of uranium
 in rocks of the Colorado Plateau Region, it
 is   likely   that   these    radionuclide
 concentrations  are  not  unusual   for
 groundwaters in the region.

 Summary

Based   on   the   groundwater   samples
 collected  and  analyzed  to date  (Table
3.2-3), shallow groundwater in the project

23996SO3 5/14/96(3:47PMyRPT/4                    3-31
area  appears  to be  non-potable when
compared to State  of Utah primary and
secondary   drinking  water  standards.
Groundwater in the valley  fill exceeded
Utah  primary or secondary standards for
aluminum,    manganese,    and    lead.
Groundwater  in  the  Burro   Canyon
Formation  in the  Centennial  pit  area
exceeded  Utah  primary  or  secondary
standards  for  aluminum, cadmium,  iron,
manganese,  zinc,   sulfate,   and  TDS.
Groundwater  in  the  Burro   Canyon
Formation in the GTO Pit area exceeded
Utah  primary or secondary standards for
aluminum, antimony, cadmium, iron, lead,
manganese,    nickel,    and   thallium.
Groundwater  in  the  Mancos  Shale
exceeded  Utah  primary  or  secondary
standards for manganese, sulfate, and TDS.
Groundwater in the Hermosa  Formation
exceeded  Utah  primary  or  secondary
standards  for  aluminum,  antimony,  and
fluoride. Samples from all of these  units
exceeded the primary  standards for gross
alpha   and  gross  beta  activities.  The
elevated radionuclide  activities are likely
naturally occurring.

3.3 GEOCHEMISTRY

3.3.1    Study Area

The  primary issue  associated with the
geochemistry of the waste  rock at the
proposed Lisbon Valley Project (i.e., study
area for geochemistry purposes) pertains to
potential   impacts    to   surface   and
groundwater    resources    from   acid
generation and  mobilization  of dissolved
constituents.   The   objective   of  the
geochemical characterization  is to  provide
representative information on two matters:

-------
    •   To evaluate the potential for acid
        generation from the waste rock
    •   To evaluate the potential for the
        mobilization of dissolved
        constituents from the waste rock

. The waste rock would be composed of the
 non-ore-bearing      lithologic     units
 encountered during the  mining operation.
 The  planned  mining of  the  Sentinel,
 Centennial, and GTO Pits would produce
 approximately  96  million tons of waste
 rock composed of alluvium, sediments, and
 coal from the  geologic units  described in
 Section 3.1. Under the Proposed Action,
 the waste rock would be placed in four
 waste  dumps,  as  described  in  Section
 2.2.2.4.

 The geochemical testing of the waste rock
 at  the  proposed  mine  site utilized  two
 procedures  to   characterize   potential
 environmental impacts:

    •   Static acid/base accounting
        methods
    •   EPA Method 1312 (synthetic
        precipitation leach test)

 A  total of 186 samples, representing  the
 lithologic  units of the  waste rock  that
 would be placed in the waste dumps, were
 analyzed.  The testing procedures and  the
 analytical  results  are presented   in  the
 following sections.

 3.3.2    Static Test Analyses

 Static  tests  were  conducted  on  186
 samples (McGlelland 1994). The static test
 is an acid-base accounting procedure used
 as  a  screening  technique to  determine
 whether sample material has the potential
 23996/R3.3  5/14/96(3:47PM)/KPT/4                     3-32
to generate or consume acid.  Static tests
assess the potential for sample material to
generate acid, based on sulfur analyses, or
to consume acid by estimating the balance
between the acid-generating and the acid-
neutralizing   capacity   of  the   sample
material.   Separate  tests  are  used  to
determine the acid generation potential and
acid  neutralization potential  of  sample
material.

The acid-generating potential (AGP) of the
sample  material  involves determining the
total amount of sulfur and sulfur  species
present. The sulfur species are the various
oxidation states in which sulfur may exist
in the rock. The two most important sulfur
species are sulfide  sulfur (S"), the reduced
form of sulfur present in pyrite and other
sulfide minerals, and sulfate sulfur (SO4~2),
the oxidized form  of sulfur produced, in
part, from  oxidation of  sulfide  minerals.
The total sulfur is a determination of the
total  concentration  of all  sulfur,  both
oxidized and  reduced,  in  the  sample
material. This value can be conservatively
used  to  evaluate  the  acid-generating
potential  of  the   sample  material   by
assuming that all forms of sulfur are acid-
generating.  In addition, pyritic sulfur is a
more realistic estimation of the quantity of
sulfur material that is likely to form acid
upon oxidation.

The acid neutralization potential  (AMP) is
determined by treating the sample material
with  a  known  excess  of standardized
hydrochloric acid.   The sample material
and acid are  heated to  ensure that  all
reactions  between  the   acid  and  any
neutralizing  components  present  in  the
sample material  go to completion.  The
ANP  is measured  by  quantifying  the

-------
amount of unconsumed  acid by titrating
with standardized sodium hydroxide.

Both the AGP and ANP are expressed as
tons  of calcium  carbonate  (CaCOs)  per
thousand tons of material.  For AGP,  this
value represents  the  amount  of calcium
carbonate  that   would  be needed   to
neutralize  1,000  tons  of  the  sample
material.  For ANP, this value represents
the  excess  tons  of  calcium  carbonate
available to  neutralize acid.    The  net
neutralization  potential  (NNP)  of  the
material is determined by subtracting  the
AGP from the ANP,  the result of which
may  be reported as  either positive  or
negative.   A  negative result indicates  a
sample which can be expected to generate
net acidhy at some point in time; a positive
result indicates a sample which will not be
a net acid generator, but which  may be an
acid   neutralizer.  Samples   may   be
considered  potentially   acid-generating
when the ratio of the  ANP to the AGP is
less than 3.00, (i.e.,  ANPrAGP < 3.00),
even when the sample is determined to be
acid-neutralizing based on  the  difference
between the ANP and  AGP. This approach
is  equivalent  to  a 300 percent  excess
neutralization potential. This conservative
approach to the interpretation of static test
results  is advantageous  since  ratios  are
used instead of absolute values  of the net
neutralization potential, thus providing  a
constant factor of safety.

The results of the static tests are presented
in Appendix B. Thirty-nine samples out of
the 186 samples  analyzed  by  static test
methods (i.e., about  21 percent  of  the
samples) were acid-generating  based  on
the sulfide sulfur content and  the NNP.
Eighteen of the 39 samples were coal or

23S9S/R33 5/1496(3:47FM)/RPT/4                     3-33
coal-bearing and the remaining 21 samples
were collected from units adjacent to, or
closely associated with, coal beds. The net
neutralizing  potential   of   the  acid-
generating samples  ranged from -0.1 to -
121.4 tons CaCO3 per 1,000 tons material
and  the  ANPrAGP  ratio ranged  from
<0.004 to <2.00.

3.3.3    EPA Method  1312 - Synthetic
         Precipitation Leach Test

The  synthetic precipitation leach test (EPA
Method  1312) was  conducted on  four
samples    of   waste   rock    material
(McClelland  1996).    The  purpose  of
Method  1312 is to  simulate  conditions
under which precipitation might leach out
constituents present  in the  waste  rock
deposited in waste  dumps  (EPA 1992a).
Method 1312 is used by the EPA and other
Federal agencies to  determine the mobility
of constituents present  in soils and mine %
materials. In the Method 1312 analysis, a
sample is saturated with deionized  water
buffered to pH 5.0 and bottle-rolled for 18
hours.   After  18  hours, the  resulting
leachate   is  filtered  and  analyzed  for
dissolved constituents.  The results of the
leachate   analyses   are  compared   to
appropriate  water  quality standards  to
determine what constituents in the sample
material have the potential to mobilize and
impact ground and surface water regimes.

The  Method  1312 procedure  is limited in
scope since only those constituents that
can be mobilized in an acidic  environment
are  affected  by  the analytical  method.
Those constituents that are mobilized in an
alkaline,  i.e.,  high pH, environment,  such
as metal  anionic  complexes,  are  not
generally present hi the  lixiviant from the

-------
Method   1312  analysis.     Professional
experience (i.e.,  open pit gold  sites in
Nevada   and  Uranium   Mill   Tailings
Radiation   Control    Act   (UMTRCA)
geochemistry) suggest that a reasonably
foreseeable  scenario  would  be  a post-
mining pit lake that was alkaline (pH 8.0 or
greater), with relatively .high TDS,  and
elevated  concentrations  of  some  metal
oxyanions   (i.e.,    aluminum,   arsenic,
selenium,  molybdenum, manganese, iron,
uranium,   zinc)  relative   to  baseline.
Therefore, the results of the Method 1312
analyses do  not preclude  the  potential
capacity for  the  waste rock  material to
mobilize  dissolved   constituents   under
alkaline conditions.

3.4    SOILS AND RECLAMATION

Soils in the project  area have formed on
the alluvial valley floor of Lower Lisbon
Valley and on gently sloping cuestas and
structural benches (trending northwest to
southeast) flanking   the  valley.  Parent
materials  include alluvium  and  eolian
deposits   derived     dominantly    from
sandstone and shale, and colluvium derived
from sandstone and  shale on the  steeper
slopes  (U.S. Department  of Agriculture,
Soil Conservation Service  [USDA, SCS]
1991).  All of the soils are in the Aridisol
or Entisol order of classification.

Escarpments of exposed sandstone line the
northeast boundary,  and several soil-rock
outcrop complexes are present within the
project area.    Additionally, there  are
approximately 85 acres of the Dumps-Pits
Complex  that consist of open  pits  and
waste-rock  piles from previous  mining
activities on mis site.
The following description of soil resources
in the project area is based on the  Soil
Survey of Canyonlands Area, Utah, Parts
of Grand and San Juan Counties prepared
by the USDA, SCS (1991). The detailed
soils  mapping  and   descriptions  were
checked in the field during baseline studies
conducted by Woodward-Clyde in 1994, to
verify their usability.

3.4.1   Study Area

The study  area  for  the  soils resource
includes  all  soils  within the   project
boundary as shown on Figure 2-1.

3.4.2   Soils Resources

Twelve detailed soil  mapping units  have
been  mapped and  described  within  the
study area (Figure 3.4-1), and a listing of
the physical and chemical characteristics of
these  soils  is presented in Table 3.4-1
(USDA, SCS 1991).  The dominant soils
of the valley floor are deep to very deep
loams and fine sandy  loams. The shallow
soils of the uplands are dominated by soil-
rock   outcrop   complexes,  with  rock
outcrops  comprising   30-70 percent  of
these  mapping units.   The rock outcrop
component  is  90  percent barren  rock
supporting little or no vegetation.

Permeability of the soils in the project area
ranges from slow to moderate in the loamy
and clay soils, and moderate to rapid in the
sandy, gravelly, and cobbly soils.  Runoff,
the precipitation discharged into  stream
channels  from  an area, is slow  in the
Ignacio-Leanto and Redbank  soil series,
high for the Shalako  soils,  and moderate
for all other soils in the study area.
23996/R3.3 5/15/96(5:43 PM)/RPT/4
                                        3-34

-------
   •PROJECT  BOUNDARY
         XD
                                                                       .?<
 MAP
SYMBOL
SOIL TYPE
   MAP
  SYMBOL
KEY FOR  SOILS MAP


    SOIL TYPE
 MAP
SYMBOL
SOIL' TYPE
  4    BARNUM LOAM 0-8% SLOPES    4-1   IGNACIO-LEANTO FINE SANDY    79   SHALAKO-ANASAZI-ROCK OUT-
                                      LOAM 2-6% SLOPES                CROP COMPLEX 3-15% SLOPES
  14   BONO-RENO FINE SANDY LOAM
       3-15% SLOPES               67   REDBANK FINE SANDY LOAM     100.  USTIC TORRIORTHENTS-USTOLUC
                                      3-8% SLOPES
  19    CAHONA FINE SANDY LOAM
       2-8% SLOPES

  22    DUMPS-Pns COMPLEX
                                                          CACIORTHIDS COMPLEX 10-60%
                                                          SLOPES
                       70   RIZNO-ROCK OUTCROP COMPLEX
                           3-15% SLOPES              101  USTIC TORRIORTHENTS-USTOLUC
                                                          HAPLARGIDS COMPLEX 10-60%
                       72   ROCK OUTCROP                   SLOPES
                                 74   ROCK OUTCROP-RENO COMPLEX
                                      3-15% SLOPES
                                                          SOURCE:  USDA, SCS 1991
     1500   3000
              —
        SCALE IN FEET
              6000
                              Job NS. :     23996
Prepared fay : C.R.P.
                   Date :•..,'
            2/3/96
                                                                    SOILS  MAP
                                                      LISBON VALLEY COPPER  PROJECT
                                                                                       FIG. 3.4-

-------
y)
                                                      TABLE 3.4-1




                 PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS FOR SOILS OF THE LISBON VALLEY PROJECT AREA
Map
Unit
Symbol Soil Map Unit Soil Series
4 Bamum Barnum

14 Bond-Rizno Bond

Rizno

19 Caliona Caliona


22 Dumps - Pits Dumps - Pits
(see text) - complex
41 Ignacio- Ignacio
Leanto


Leanto
Percent Major
Slope Horizons
3-8 A
C
3-15 ' A
B
3-15 A
C
2-8 A
B
C
••
2-6 A
B
C
2-6 A
Depth
(inches)
0-3
3-60
0-2
2-19
0-2
2-8
0-2
2-20
20-60
--
0-2
2-19
19-32
0-1
Texture
Loam
Loamy fine sand
to clay loam
Fine sandy loam
Very fine sandy
loam, loam,
sandy clay loan
Fine sandy loam
Fine sandy loam
Fine sandy loam
Sandy clay loam,
silly clay loam,
clay loam
Very fine sandy
loam, loam, fine
sandy loam
Waste rock and
pits
Fine sandy loam
Fine sandy loam
Fine sandy loam
Fine sandy loam
Erosion
Potential1'
Water /Wind pH
M/S 7.4-8.4
7.4-9.0
M/H 7.4-8.4
7.4-8.4
M/H 7.4-8.4
7.9-9.0
M/H 7.4-8.4
6.6-8.4
7.9-9.0
-
S/H 7.4-7.8
7.4-7.8
7.4-7.8
S/H 7.4-8.4
Salinity
(mmhos/
cm)
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
--
<2
<2
<2
<2
Available
Water
Retention
Capacity
in/in
0.15-0.17
0.10-0.16
0.11-0.13
0.14-0.19
0.10-0.13
0.10-0.13
0.11-0.13
0.15-0.17
0.13-0.16

0.11-0.13
0.11-0.13
0.11-0.13
0.11-0.13
Permeability
iii/lir
0.6-2.0
0.2-0.6
2.0-6.0
0.2-6.0
2.0-6.0
2.0-6.0
2.0-6,0
0.2-0.6
0.6-2.0
-
2.0-6.0
2.0-6.0
2.0-6.0
2.0-6.0
Percent
Coarse Percent Coversoil
Fragment Organic Matter Suitability1
NA 1-3 Good

0 1-3 Good

0-10 0.5-1
Fair
NA 1-3 Good


Unsuitable
0-15 1-3 Fair


0-5 1-3 Fair
   23996/R3-T.34I 05-15-96(5:43PM)/RPT
Sheet 1 of 4

-------
r
                                                    TABLE 3.4-1
                  PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS FOR SOILS OF THE LISBON VALLEY PROJECT AREA
                                                    (Continued)
Map
Unit
Symbol Soil Map Unit

67 Redbank

70 Rizno-Rock
Outcrop
Complex
Oft 72 Rock Outcrop
• 74 Rock Outcrop-
Rizno
Complex


79 Shalako-
Anasazi Rock
Outcrop
Complex



Soil Series

Redbank

Rizno
Rock
Outcrop
Rock
Outcrop
Rock
Outcrop
Rizno

Shalako

Anasazi

Percent Major
Slope Horizons
B
3-8 A
C
3-15 A
C
3-15
3-15
3-15 A
C
3-15 A
B
C
3-15 A
B
Deplli
(inches)
1-15
0-2
2-60
0-2
2-8
-
--
0-2
2-8
0-2
2-6
6-13
0-9
9-14
Erosion
Potential1
Texture Water /Wind
Fine sandy loam
Fine sandy loam M/H
Fine sandy loam
Fine sandy loam S/H
Fine sandy loam
Exposures of
sandstone
90 percent or
more barren rock
Exposures of
sandstone
Fine sandy loam S/H
Fine sandy loam
Gravelly fine M/N
sandy loam
Gravelly sandy
loam
Gravelly sandy
loam
Gravelly loam N
Gravelly loam
PH
7.4-8.4
7.4-9.0
7.9-9.0
7.4-8.4
7.9-9.0
•-
--
7.4-8.4
7.9-9.0
7.4-9.0
>7.8
>7.8
7.4-8.4
7.9-9.0
Salinity
(mmhos/
cm) •
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
-
"
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
Available
Water
Retention
Capacity
in/in
0.11-0.13
0.11-0.13
0.11-0.17
0.10-0.13
0.10-0.13
--
"
2.0-6.0
2.0-6.0
0.07-0.10
0.12-0.14
0.12-0.14
0.08-0.13
0.08-0.14
Permeability
in/hr
2.0-6.0
2.0-6.0
2.0-6.0
2.0-6.0
2.0-6.0
--

0.10-0.13
0.10-0.13
6.0-20.0
2.0-6.0
2.0-6.0
2.0-6.0
2.0-6.0
Percent
Coarse Percent Coversoil
Fragment Organic Matter Suitability2

0-10 1-3 Good

0-35 1-3 Fair
Unsuitable
Unsuitable
Unsuitable
0-35 1-3 Fair

15-35 1-3 Fair

15-35 1-3 Fair


-------
                                                    TABLE 3.4-1
              PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS FOR SOBLS OF THE LISBON VALLEY PROJECT AREA
                                                    (Continued)
Map
Unit Percent Major Depth
Symbol Soil Map Unit Soil Series Slope Horizons (inches)
C 14-26
Rock 3-15
Outcrop
100 Ustic Ustic 10-60 0-3
Torriortlients- Torriortlients
Ustollic
Calciortliids 3-1 1
11-30
30-45
Ustic 10-60 0-1
Calciortliids
1-8
8-32
32-40
101 Ustic Uslic 10-60 0-3
Torriortlients - Torriortlients
Ustollic
Haplargids
Texture
Gravelly loam,
gravejly fine
sandy loam
Exposures of
sandstone
Very cobbly
sandy loam
Very cobbly
loam
Very gravelly
sandy clay loam
Cobbly sandy
clay loam
Gravelly fine
sandy loam
Fine sandy loam,
loam
Gravelly loam
Clay loam, sandy
clay loam
Very cobbly
sandy loam
Erosion
Potential1
Water /Wind pH
7.9-9.0
--
M/N 7.9-9.0
7.9-9.0
7.9-9.0
7.9-9.0
7.4-8.4
7.9-9.0
7.9-9.0
7.9-9.0
M/N 7.9-9.0
Salinity
(mmhos/
cm)
<2
--
<4
<4
<4
<4
<4
<4
<4
<4
<4
Available
Water
Retention
Capacity
iii/in
0.08-0.14
-
0.03-0.06
0.10-0.12
0.10-0.12
0.13-0.15
0.08-0.11
0.11-0.15
0.12-0,14
0.15-0.18
0.03-0.06
Permeability
in/lir
2.0-6.0
-
2.0-2.0
0.6-2.0
0.6-2.0
0.6-2.0
2.0-6.0
0.6-2.0
0.6-2.0
0.2-0.6
2.0-20
Percent
Coarse Percent Coversoil
Fragment Organic Matter Suitability5

-
Variable 1-3 Fair
Unsuitable


Variable 1-3 • Fair



Variable 1-3 Fair
23996/R3-T.34I 05-I5-96(5:43PM)/RPTO
Sheet 3 of 4

-------
                                                              TABLE 3.4-1

                 PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS FOR SOILS OF THE LISBON VALLEY PROJECT AREA
                                                               (Continued)
Map
Unit
Symbol Soil Map Unit Soil Series




'»J
s/°
' Ustollic
• \ Haplargids
—Jl
^*9'



Percent Major Depth
Slope Horizons (inches)
3-11

11-30

30-45

10-60 0-8

8-24


24-60

Erosion
Potential1-
Texture Water /Wind
Verycobbly
loam
Very gravelly
sandy clay loam
Cobbly sandy
clay loam
Stony sandy S/N
loam
Stony sandy clay
loam, stony clay
loam
Stony silly clay
loam
PH
7.9-9.0

7.9-9.0

7.9-9.0

7.4-8.4

7.4-8.4


7.4-9.0

Salinity
(mmhos/
cm)
<4

<4

<4

<2

<2


<2

Available
Water
Retention
Capacity
in/in
0.10-0.12

0.10-0.12

0.13-0.15

0.08-0.10

0.13-0.16


0.12-0.15

Permeability
iii/lir
0.6-2.0

0.6-2.0

0.6-2.0

2.0-6.0

0.2-2.0


0.06-2.0

Percent
Coarse Percent Covcrsoil
Fragment Organic Matter Suitability*






Variable 1-3 Fair






NA   = not applicable
     = not determined
S    = Slight
M    = Moderate
N    = None
     = Not Applicable

1 The potential for the loss of soil from water and wind erosion when the vegetation is removed.
2 Coversoil suitability based on criteria in Table 3.4-2.

Source: USDA.SCS1991

-------
The potential for accelerated water erosion
ranges  from   slight  to  moderate,   and
generally  increases with increasing slope
steepness.   The  upland   soils   in   the
northeastern one-third of the project area
have a  slight  potential for water erosion;
the erosion potential for the remainder of
the soils moderate. Accelerated erosion is
most likely to occur when protective plant
cover is removed  and soils are disturbed.
During  occasional high  intensity storm
events,  rainfall can wash the topsoil away
which  can result  in  severe  erosion  and
development of rills and gullies in exposed,
unprotected soils.  Examples of this can be
seen along dirt roads and  in unvegetated
drainages in Lisbon Valley.

The hazard of wind erosion  ranges from
none to high.   The gravelly, cobbly  and
stony soils found  at the bottom of Three
Step Hill and  around the Sentinel pits, are
not susceptible to wind erosion.  However,
the fine-textured sandy loams distributed
throughout the project area (Figure 3.4-1)
are highly susceptible  to   wind erosion,
especially  if the protective vegetation is
removed.  •

Soils  throughout  the  project  area  are
moderately to strongly alkaline (pH 7.9-
9.0), and may require special consideration
during  reclamation planning to  ensure
successful   revegetation   (USDA,   SCS
1991).  Plant  species tolerant of alkaline
conditions on this site should be included
in any  seed mix selected for reclamation
activities.

None of the  soils in the  study area are
considered moderately or  highly  saline.
Only two  series, the Ustic Torriorthents-
Ustollic    Calciorthids    and     Ustic
Torriorthents-Ustollic Haplargids, could be
23996/R3.3 5/14/96(3:47 PMVRFT/4                     3-40
considered   slightly   saline   (electrical
conductivity  between  3-7  mmhos/cm  is
considered slightly saline). However, these
soils are not considered to be sensitive nor
do  they contain salts in  quantities that
would impair plant growth of proposed
species to  be used in reclamation (BLM
1992).

Soils of the project area represent a source
of material for reclamation of disturbed
areas.  The suitability of soils to be used as
coversoil material is based on physical and
chemical characteristics (Table 3.4-1) and
the  criteria  presented  in  Table  3.4-2.
Based on  this  information, soils  in the
project area  are rated fair  to  good  as a
source  of  reclamation material, with the
following exceptions:

   •   Dumps and pits complex - This
       series includes open pits and waste
       rock material disturbed during
       previous mining activities and were
       never reclaimed.
   •   Rock outcrops - This includes
       complexes that are 30 to 70 percent
       rock outcrops with little or no soil
       material. The soils that occur as
       part of these complexes are suitable
       for reclamation material, but are
       shallow and may be difficult to
       salvage if the soils are too
       intricately mingled with large rocks.

There are no prime farmland soils present
in the project area.

3.5    VEGETATION

The vegetation in the  region  in which
project area is located may be categorized
into three primary vegetation zones (Figure
3.5-1).

-------
                                     TABLE 3.4-2

                  SOIL MATERIAL SUITABILITY CRITERIA FOR
                SALVAGE AND REDISTRIBUTION AS COVERSOIL*
Soil Property
Texture
Coarse Fragment
(% by volume)
Organic Matter (%)
pH
Available Water-Retention
Capacity (in/in)
Permeability (in/hr)
Good
sandy loam
loam
silt loam
0-10
>1.5
6.1-7.8
>0.16
0.6-6.0
Fair
sandy clay loam
silty clay loam
clay loam
10-20
0.5-1.5
5.1-6.1
7.9-8.4
0.08-0.16
0.2-0.6
Poor
sand
loamy sand
sandy clay
silty clay
clay(<60%)
20-35
0.5
4.5-5.0
8.5-9.0
O.08
O.2 or >6.0
Unsuitable
clay (>60%)
>35

<4.5


Source: USDA Forest Service 1979

*      Salinity and Sodium Adsorption Ratio (SAR) criteria; common suitability criteria are not included, as
       excessive salinity/alkalinity conditions are not characteristic of area soils; coversoil is soil material
       that can support the establishment of vegetation.
2399&R3-T.342 OS-15-96(S:4«M)/RPT/3
                                                                           Sheet 1 of 1

-------
   0    1000   2000
               •-	
          SCALE IN FEET
                         4000
LEGEND

   PJ   PINYON-JUNIPER
   SB  SAGEBRUSH
  XXX  CLIFFS CONSIDERED POTENTIALLY
       RAPTOR NESTING AREAS
   GL  GRASSLAND
   RL  RANCHLAND
    D  DISTURBED
 SB-BB SAGEBRUSH-BLACKBRUSH
   MM  MOUNTAIN MAHOGANY
                 VEGETATION MAP
           LISBON VALLEY COPPER PROJECT
                                     FIG. 3.5-1

-------

-------
    The  pinyon-juniper (PJ) zone is  on
    mountain  slopes  and  occurs at the
    higher elevations, including the steeper
    cliff  faces.  Big   sagebrush  is  the
    common undercover shrub,  with other
    shrubs such as antelopebrush, Mormon
    tea, rabbitbrush, mountain mahogany,
    serviceberry, bitterbrush, and  snake-
    weed. Some of the common forbs are
    cryptantha, milk .vetch, desert paint-
    brush,  and  bladder  pod.  The  most
    common   grasses   are   wheat  grass,
    indian ricegrass, and bluegrass. Isolated
    cactus  are also present on the drier
    slopes.
    The  sagebrush  (SB) zone  occurs in
    valley bottoms and low, gentle slopes.
    Floristic  composition  varies  slightly
    between the northern and the southern
    areas.  Sagebrush  is   dominant  and
    almost the exclusive species in the area,
    with  the   exception of some golden
    rabbitbrush in  areas that have been
    disturbed.   Some   areas   have   an
    understory  of cheatgrass  and  native
    grass.
    The  grassland/rangeland (GR)  zone
    occurs  in  open  meadows,  usually
    interspersed  ,  with     intermittent
    sagebrush.    These    areas   were
    predominantly sagebrush (or  in some
    cases P-J) and were railed or chained
    during the 1960s and early 1970s. The
    areas   were  seeded   with   crested
    wheatgrass during or after the railing/
    chaining.  Sagebrush is  growing back
    into  some of these areas, and  the
    density of the sagebrush in the crested
    wheatgrass seedings may be related to
    grazing or wildfires.  Cheatgrass, blue
    grama,  needle-and-thread,  and Indian
    ricegrass are also growing in some of
    the crested wheatgrass seedings.
      These zones transition from one  to  the
      other depending primarily on the elevation,
      soil  condition, and precipitation  (West
      1988).   Additionally,  previous   mining
      activity has  intruded into the PJ and  SB
      zones, and vegetation community compo-
      sition reflects  disturbance. Approximately
      85  acres  disturbed  by previous  mining
      activity and never reclaimed now have only
      a very sparse cover of golden rabbitbrush.
      Further   detail  of  typical  vegetation
      composition  within these  zones may be
      found in the  Baseline Flora and  Fauna
      Report (Woodward-Clyde 1994).

      3.5.1  Study Area

      The   project  boundary   encompasses
      approximately 4,846  acres,  of  which
      approximately 51 percent is in the PJ zone;
      27 percent in the SB zone; 14 percent in
      the GR zone; and  8 percent disturbed by
      previous mining  operations.  Additionally,
      all of the grassland/rangeland  acreage is
      located at the western extreme of  the
      project area in two  meadows referred to as
      Wood's  Meadows,  which  is. to  some
      degree,  a reclaimed sagebrush community.
      These meadows have historically been used
      for agriculture. It is in these meadows that
      the leach pad is proposed to be established.
      As is typical of the region, the pinyon-
      juniper   communities  are   at   higher
      elevations  (Figure  3.5-2), encompass  the
      steep, rocky cliff outcrops, and integrate at
      the  lower elevations into the sagebrush
      communities.   Also typical of the region,
      the SB zone  within the project boundaries
      is located  in the remaining  non-wooded
      gentle slopes and meadows, as well as in
      Lisbon Canyon.
23996/R3.3 5/14/96(3:47 PM)/RPT/4
3-43

-------
                Figure 3.5-2. Existing conditions in Lisbon Canyon. Sagebrush and
                 rabbitbrash grow to the edges of the normally dry narrow channel.
13S9&B33 5/]4/96C3:47PMyRPT/4
                                          3-44

-------
 3.5.2   Special Status Species
      3.6    WILDLIFE
 According to the Flora and Fauna Baseline
 Data  Draft  Report   (Woodward-Clyde
 1994),   only one  federal  Category  2
 Candidate  Floral  Species,  Pediomelum
 aromaticum var. tuhyi, has the potential to
 exist within the study area; however, this
 species  is  tightly  associated  with  the
 Entrada  Sandstone  Formation,  which  is
 restricted to small outcrops in the Lisbon
 Valley.   Additionally,  the following four
 plants listed  as  sensitive  by the  Utah
 Natural Heritage Program (UNHP)  were
 identified as potentially occurring in this
 region.

    •  Depauperate daisy (Erigeron
       mancus) - found in alpine grass-
       sedge and forb communities
    •  Alcove bog-orchid (Habenaria
       zothecind) - found hi seeps,
       hanging gardens, and moist stream
       areas
    •  Broad-leaved biscuitroot or
       Canyonland lomatium (Lomafiwn
       latilobum) - found in pinyon-
      juniper and desert shrub
       communities, mainly on level areas
       of the Entrada Sandstone
      Formation.
    • Alcove rock daisy (Perityle
      specuicola) - found in hanging
      garden communities

However, suitable habitat conditions for
these four species do  not exist in the study
area. No sensitive plants were encountered
during the field reconnaissance.
      The study area is located in a cold desert
      region.  This is typified by a low annual
      precipitation and irregular (unpredictable)
      distribution  of rain.  Most moisture comes
      at times, or in ways, largely useless to
      plants, and  its potential to evaporate soil
      moisture  exceeds precipitation  (Trimble
      1989). The vegetation that  typifies  this
      region cannot support a  high density of
      ungulates.    The baseline  data  report
      (Woodward-Clyde 1994)  indicates a  low
      number  of  herbivores,  thus  also  a  low
      number  of carnivores   use  the  area.
      Characteristic  of arid  communities,  the
      most common species observed in the area
      during the compilation of the baseline data
      were  rodents.  Gunnison's  prairie   dog
      (Cynomys   giamisonf)   is  a   common
      inhabitant  of  this   habitat  type,   and
      historically  a   resident  of  the   area
      (Thompson 1995).

      Raptors and potentially active raptor nests
      were observed during the baseline  data
      collection (Woodward-Clyde 1994)   and
      during the  winter  biological   resource
      surveys  (Woodward-Clyde  1996).  The
      isolation  of the  area,  the abundance of
      natural  cliffs,  and  the  availability   of
      Gunnison's prairie dogs provide habitat for
      a  variety of raptors.  Eagles (golden and
      occasionally    bald    in   the   winter),
      ferruginous  hawks,  prairie falcons, red-
      tailed hawks, great horned owls, burrowing
      owls, and turkey vultures are the  raptor
      species most likely to occur in the project
      area.

      Discussions  with the Utah Division  of
      Wildlife Resources (UDWR) indicate a
      year long mule deer herd, of an unknown
2399SK3.3 5/14/96(3:47PM)/RPT/4
3-45

-------
size, using the general area. Some predator
species may be occasional visitors to the
area, following deer for prey (Bates 1995).

3.6.1  Study Area

Surveys on the study site have confirmed
Gunnison's   prairie   dog    (Cynomys
gunnisoni) in high density in the Wood's
Meadows area, and in lesser densities to
the south of the project area.  The prairie
dogs were mostly confined to grasslands.
Additionally,    following   the   winter
biological resource surveys, a small  mule
deer herd was confirmed in the area. The
mule deer were primarily observed in the
PJ/SB  or PJ/GR  interfaces (Woodward-
Clyde 1996).

Additional wildlife  observations recorded
during  the   surveys  (see Appendix  A,
Woodward-Clyde  1996)  include a variety
of rabbits, mice,  and birds, as well  as a
badger and  coyote.  The majority of the
raptors observed during these periods were
golden  eagles   (Aquila   chrysaetos).
Additionally,  one prairie  falcon  (Falco
mexicanus)  and  one  great  homed owl
(Bubo  vzrginianus) were  identified. These
observations  indicate  a  healthy fauna!
community, typical of cold desert pinyon-
juniper, sagebrush and grasslands in this
region.

3.6.2  Special Status Species

Special status species for Lisbon Valley
were identified through  discussions  with
agencies (U.S.  Fish and Wildlife  Service
[USFWS],  and  UDWR)  and  literature
reviews. A  list  of these species  was
provided in the Flora and Fauna Baseline
Report    (Woodward-Clyde     1994).

2399«R33 5/15/96(5:45 RvQ/RPT/4                    3-46
Continued  discussions with the agencies
and   comments  received   from  public
scoping  meetings   provided   additional
concerns.  The Draft  Interim  Biological
Resources    Report   (Woodward-Clyde
1996) addresses the current status of the
following species as:

   •   Black-Footed   Ferret    (Mustela
       nigripes) - Federal and State listed
       endangered species

       Black-footed ferret  surveys were
       conducted   in   December  1995
       according    to   USFWS   survey
       guidelines.  Following surveys  and
       subsequent   discussion  with  the
       agencies, it has been  determined
       that  no  black-footed  ferrets  are
       present within the project area, or
       its area of influence.  Therefore, no
       further  surveys are  needed,   or
       expected.

   •   Burrowing      Owl      (Speotyto
       cunicularid) - Federal  Category 2
       candidate  species; Utah sensitive
       species

       No  sign of burrowing  owl was
       identified during surveys; however,
       during spring surveys in  this area,
       particular care would  be made to
       search for sign of presence of this
       species.

   •   Loggerhead    Shrike     (Lanius
       ludovicianus) - Federal Category 2
       candidate species.

       Approximately 10 kilometers (km),
       in a linear  sense, of habitat was
       identified as potential  loggerhead
       shrike  habitat.   No shrikes were

-------
       identified during the winter surveys.
       Spring  surveys,  concentrating on
       the the  10 km of identified habitat,
       would be conducted for nests and
       mating pairs of birds.

    Species of Interest to Utah Division
    ofWildlife

    •  Great Basin Western  Rattlesnake
       (Crotalus viridus var. lutosus)

       Spring  surveys   for  presence of
       rattlesnake   dens   would   be
       conducted in conjunction with the
       Veteran's Administration  Venom
       Research Team.

       Approximately 10 kilometers (km.)
       (in  a linear  sense) of habitat  was
       identified  as potential loggerhead
       shrike  habitat.   No shrikes were
       identified during the winter surveys.
       Spring  surveys,   concentrating on
       the  10  km  of  identified  habitat,
       would be conducted for  nests and
       mating pairs of birds.

    •  Mule Deer (Odocoileus hemionus)

       Dusk/dawn      surveys     were
       conducted   during  the   winter,
       identifying a small herd of deer in
       the area.  The greatest number of
       deer seen during  any  one  survey
       period was 30. It may be concluded
       therefore, that a herd of at least 30
       individual deer use the area  during
       the winter months.    No  further
       surveys are planned.
          •  Raptors (all with potential for being
             in area)

             During  the  winter  surveys, two
             potentially active raptor nest sites
             (one   golden   eagle   [Aquila
             chrysaetos]  and  one  unidentified
             hawk)  were identified within the
             project boundaries.  Additionally,
             two potentially active golden eagle
             nests and one prairie falcon (Fcdco
             mexicanus)  eyrie  were  located
             within  a  10-mile radius of the
             project. Numerous raptor  roosts
             were  also  identified  during  the
             surveys. Incidental sightings during
             the winter surveys indicate that at
             least one prairie falcon, two adult
             and two juvenile golden eagles use
             Lisbon and the adjacent Big Indian
             valleys.    Spring  surveys  would
             center on identifying any additional
             nest  sites and confirming activity
             status of each nest.

      In summary, no threatened and endangered
      species have been identified in the project
      area, and no critical habitat for threatened
      and endangered species has been identified
      on the adjacent public lands. However, the
      groundwater  used  during  the  project
      operations  would  be  from  contributing
      formations to the Colorado River system.
      Depletions   of  water   sources   from
      contributing formations  to the Colorado
      River system potentially affect threatened
      and  endangered  fish  species   in  the
      Colorado River.
23996/R3.3 5/14/96(3:47 PM)/KPT/4
3-47

-------
3.7
GRAZING
3.7.1     Study Area

The area that would be encompassed by
Summo's proposed Lisbon Valley Project
is within two different grazing allotments.
The first allotment is the Lower Lisbon
Allotment, which consists of about 17,768
acres  of Federal,  State, and  fee  lands
(Table 3.7-1 and  Figure 3.7-1).    The
second allotment is the Lisbon Allotment,
which consists of approximately 120,818
acres of Federal, State and fee lands (Table
3.7-2 and Figure 3.7-1).

The western portion of the powerline route
would be within the Big Indian Allotment.
Other than the temporary impacts from the
construction of the powerline, the Summo
project would  not affect the Big Indian
Allotment.
                                   TABLE 3.7-1

                   LOWER LISBON GRAZING ALLOTMENTS
Owner
Public Domain (Federal Land)
State Land
Leased or deeded to permittee
Private (Redd Ranches)
Total
Acres
13,057
2,111
2,280
320
17,768
Source: BLM1988a.
                                  TABLE 3.7-2

                       LISBON GRAZING ALLOTMENTS
                 Owner
                                                  Acres
Public Domain (Federal Land)
State Land
Private
                                                 101,375
                                                  14,490
                                                  4,953
TOTAL
                                                 120,818
Source: BLM 1996b.
2399SR33 5/15/96(S:4S?M)/KPT/4
                              3-48

-------
"• " '-=!../ •'- -  .— . *•
  '} ""'•""""
                ~. -V.  *o«
             i-S^Mil^ "••_-•:
                    o^ l<\&*M&^r
                                          SOURCE: BLM (1988); SUMMO (1995)
                                            LOWER LISBON VALLEY
                                            GRAZING ALLOTMENTS

-------

-------
 Lower Lisbon Allotment

 The  grazing management plan  for  the
 Lower Lisbon Allotment between the ELM
 and Mr.  Mike Wilcox  allows  for  the
 grazing by 222 cattle from December  1
 through May 31 of each year with rotation
 among Pasture Nos. 1, 2, and 3. The three
 pastures are as follows:

    •  Pasture No. 1 is located in the
       valley bottom of Lower Lisbon
       Valley.
    •  Pasture No. 3 is on the bench area
       just above the valley floor
       encompassed by Three Step Hill
    •  Pasture No. 2 is on the bench just
       above Three Step Hill.

 The grazing rotation for the three pastures
 is summarized in Table 3.7-3.

 The BLM has identified an active grazing
 preference in  the Lower Lisbon Allotment
 of 927 animal unit months (AUM), and an
 exchange  of  use of 204 AUMs (BLM
 1988a). (An AUM is the amount of forage
 consumed by  one adult cow with calf over
 a one-month period.)

 Portions of Pasture Nos. 1 and 3 are within
 areas that would be included  in Summo's
 Lisbon Valley Project. The areas on Three
 Step Hill that encompass Pasture No. 3
 would be included in Summo's boundary
 solely as a  buffer zone and would not be
 impacted.   '

 The extreme  northern portion of  Pasture
No. 1 is within Summo's proposed  project.
 This area is in Sections 35 and 36,  T 30 S,
R 25 E, and  Section 1, T 31  S, R 25 E.
      Disturbances that would occur in Pasture
      No.   1   would   be  associated   with
      development of the GTO Pit and Waste
      Dumps A and B. Moreover, as shown on
      Figures 2-1 and 3.7-1, Summo would fence
      off the portions proposed to be disturbed
      by mining activities to minimize interaction
      between cattle and mining equipment.  The
      total disturbance associated  with this pit,
      two  dumps,  and  associated haul  road
      would be  approximately 349  acres  of
      Federal, State, and fee lands (Table 3.7-4).
      Approximately 24  of these acres were
      disturbed by prior mining of the GTO Pit.
      In addition,  Summo recently agreed  to
      purchase  the   Patterson   Ranch   -of
      approximately 200 acres from Mr. Wilcox.

      As shown on Figure 3.7-1, the Patterson
      Ranch is included in Pasture No. 1.   As
      such, the 28 acres  of fee  land in Pasture
      No. 1 (Table 3.7-4)  would be controlled by
      Summo.   Anticipated  impacts to  this
      portion of Pasture  No.  1  from  Summo's
      proposed  operations are  addressed  in
      Section 4.7.

      Lisbon Allotment

      The Lisbon Allotment includes those areas
      immediately north  of the Lower Lisbon
      Allotment. The Lisbon Allotment is under
      permit to Paul Redd d/b/a Redd Ranches.
      The allotment does not have a specific
      management  plan;  however,  the area  is
      grazed only from November  1 to June 10
      each year (BLM  1995c).  The BLM has
      identified an active grazing preference of
      11,399 AUMs, and  an exchange of use of
      1,338 AUMs (BLM 1996c).
23996/R3.3 5/15/96(5:45 PM)/KPT/4
3-50

-------
                              TABLE 3.7-3

            LOWER LISBON GRAZING ALLOTMENT ROTATION
Pasture

1
2
3
Year
I1
Dec. 1-
March31
May 1 -
May 31
April 1-
ApriI30
2
Dec. 1 -
March 31
April 1 -
April 30
May 1 -
May 31
3
Dec. 1 -
March 31
May 1 -
May 31
April 1-
April30
4
Dec. 1 -
March 31
April 1-
AprilSO
May 1 -
May 31
 1   Year 1 began on December 1,1987.
 Source:  BLM 1988a.
                              TABLE 3.7-4

        PROPOSED DISTURBANCE AND SURFACE LAND OWNERSHIP
                      LOWER LISBON ALLOTMENT
                          PASTURE NO. 1 AREA
Facility
* «•
GTOPit
Waste Dump A
Waste Dump B
Haul Roads
Total
Acreage
Total
68
186
90
' 5
349
Federal Land
0
106
0
0
106
State Land
40
80
90
5
215
Fee Land
28
0
0
0
28
Source: Summo 1995.
2399SR33 5/1496(3:47 PMyRPT/4
3-51

-------
Portions  of the Lisbon Allotment  are
within areas that would be disturbed by
Summo's Lisbon Valley Project.  The key
Summo facilities that would  be in this
allotment   include   the  Sentinel   Pits,
Centennial Pit, Waste Dumps C and D,
Leach Pad  Area, and Process Area and
Facilities.  In addition, Summo would fence
off  these  areas to  minimize  potential
problems  between mining equipment and
grazing (Figures 2-1 and 3.7-1).  The total
proposed disturbance associated with these
pits,  dumps,   leach  pad,  and  process
facilities  would  be  approximately 480
acres, as shown on Table 3.7-5. About 85
of the acres were disturbed by prior mining
and processing activities.   In  addition,
Summo  recently purchased  the  Wood's
Ranch (Figure 3.7-1), which is within the
Lisbon Allotment.  Anticipated impacts to
the  Lisbon  Allotment   from  Summo's
proposed  operations  are addressed  in
Section 4.7.
                                    TABLE 3.7-5

          PROPOSED DISTURBANCE AND SURFACE LAND OWNERSHIP
                              LISBON ALLOTMENT
Acreage
Facility
Sentinel #1 Pit
Sentinel #2 Pit
Centennial Pit
Waste Dump C
Waste Dump D
Leach Pad Area
Process Area and Facilities
Haul Roads
Plant Growth Medium Stockpiles
TOTAL
Total
38
9
116
118
55
56
21
28
39
480
Federal Land
38
9
89
118
55
56
19
21
18
423
State Land
0
0
27
0
0
0
0
7
13
47
Fee Land
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
8
10
Source: Summo 1995a.
3.8    SOCIOECONOMICS

Socioeconomic  topics  discussed  in  this
section are focused on the potentially affected
communities or  study  area.    The issues
addressed include economic and employment
conditions,   population,  housing,   local
facilities and services, local government fiscal
conditions, and social conditions.

2399&R3.3 5/15/96(5:46PMyRFT/4                     3-52
3.8.1   Study Area

This section describes existing conditions and
recent trends in Grand and San Juan counties
in Utah. The proposed Lisbon Valley Copper
Project is located within San Juan County,
and is in close proximity to Grand County.
The proposed mine has the potential to affect
the residents and the existing infrastructure of

-------
Moab, La Sal and Monticello, the closest
population centers in Grand  and  San Juan
counties (each located within 50 miles of the
proposed  mine).  Since the communities in
southern San Juan County such as Bluff and
Montezuma Creek are located at distances
greater than 50 miles from the Project she,
they are  considered to be outside of the
reasonable commute distance from the mine
and are generally considered outside of the
Study Area.

3.8.2  Economic Conditions

The description of the economy of the study
area is based on economic data supplied by
the Utah Department of Employment as well
as interviews with key personnel  in county
and state departments and information drawn
from  economic  studies conducted  by the
counties.

3.&2.1   Grand County

Grand  County's  local  economy   has
undergone significant  swings  since the late
1970s.  Recent  trends  can  be  primarily
attributed  to the rise and subsequent decline
of the mining industry. During the late 1970s
and early  1980s when that  industry was
strong, the local economy of Grand County
flourished.  Mining  contributed 807 jobs,
employing 25.5   percent of the  total
workforce in 1981 (Dunn 1995).

Throughout the same period,  the trade and
service industries offered  a relatively large
number of employment  opportunities. In
1981, trade employed 26 percent of the total
3,139 employed, while the service industry
employed  15.5 percent that same year. With
a number of sectors relatively thriving, Grand
County enjoyed a low unemployment rate.

2399&S33 5/14>96(3:47HvQ/KPT/4                     3-53
 The study area's economy showed significant
 signs of a slow down as the market in mining
 began  to  decline.  In  1982,  mining jobs
 dropped 30 percent to 563. Since  1982, the
 mining industry in Grand County has seen a
 constant    decline     in     employment
 opportunities. By 1994, only 124 workers of
 the total 3,490 employed were working in
 mining.  The wholesale  and retail trade and
 service  sector experienced a similar decline
 throughout the mid 1980s.  Without another
 industry absorbing  the  high number  of
 unemployed workers, the unemployment rate
 reached over 13 percent by 1985.

 Interest in the county's  natural wonders and
 associated tourism has increased in the past
 ten years. Grand County is home to two of
 the state's five National  Parks  and the
 Manti-La Sal National Forest. Visitation to
 study area National  Parks  has  doubled
 since 1986.  In  1994 alone, 1.2 million
 tourists visited the two parks within Grand
 County's borders.  In addition  to the
 National Parks and  Forest,  the county
 offers other  forms of outdoor activities,
 such as camping, river running, and four-
 wheeling.  Moab,  seen as  a center for
 mountain  biking   in   the   West,  and
 surrounding  towns   have   particularly
 enjoyed the recent  boom in the sport  of
 mountain biking.

 To support the influx of tourists, Grand
 County has seen an increase in employment
 opportunities with local restaurants, hotels,
 and  other  service related  industries.   A
 simultaneous increase in the number of job
 opportunities has also been realized in the
 early 1990s.  As a result, the study area's
local  economy  began  to  strengthen  in
particular sectors.  By  1990, the trade and
 service  sectors  showed signs of positive

-------
 growth.   From  1992  to  1993, the trade
 industry  experienced  an  increase  in  job
 opportunities of 15.3 percent.  By 1994, the
 trade  and  service  sector  employed  37.6
 percent  and 28.1  percent  of the  total
 workforce in the county,  respectively.   In
. 1995, the unemployment rate dropped to 5.5
 percent, which is similar to the national rate
 (5.7%) (Figure 3.8-1).   Although a higher
 number of jobs were available in the trade
 and service sector, those positions provided
 average monthly incomes of only $1,095 and
 $1,004 compared to the higher paying mining
 and energy positions of $2,320 and  $2,731
 (Dunn 1995).
   14.0

   12.0

   10.0
                                     Figure 3.8-1
                               Unemployment Rate (%)
    0.0
     1975
                    1980
                                   1985
                                                  1990
                                                                 1995
 A shift in market emphasis is obvious. Grand
 County's economy had changed from one
 driven primarily by the energy and mining
 markets in the 1970s and early 1980s to one
 that is currently  supported by tourism.  In
 Grand   County,   the    percentage   of
 nonagricultural workers in the trade and
 service sector is 65.7 percent (Dunn 1995).
 Figure 3.8-2 illustrates the relatively rapid
 changes to Grand  County's economy from
 1978-1994.

 3.8.2.2  San Juan County

 The   economy  of   San  Juan   County
 experienced  many  of the  same  trends
 described for Grand County from 1970  to
 1990.  Uranium and vanadium mining and
 muling comprised a significant portion  of
 the employment and related earnings in the
 county in the  1970s through the early
 1980s.  With changes in federal   energy

 23996/R3.3 5/14/96(3:47PM)/RPT/4                     3-54
policy,  as  well  as  unfavorable  market
forces,   the  uranium  mining   industry
declined  drastically in  the  1980s,  with
associated  decreases  in  employment  a
result.  In 1990, Utah's last uranium mill,
located near  La  Sal  in the study  area,
significantly   curtailed   its   operations,
resulting in the layoff of 130 workers.

Recent data for San Juan County indicate a
recreational  and service  employment trend
similar to  that  of Grand  County  (Figure
3.8-3). San Juan County has also enjoyed the
opportunities which has presented themselves
as a result of the county's natural wonders.
An increased interest in the county's terrain
and in outdoor activities have resulted in an
influx  of  tourists.  As   a  result, these
wholesale  and  retail  trade  and  service
industries  have  seen  the most  significant
gains. In 1995, the two sectors employed the
largest percentage  (37.5 percent)  of the

-------
 county's nonagricultural employment force,
 (LMI Research 1995). Like Grand County,
 San Juan County's average monthly income
 for the trade and service industry is lower
 than  the average income  provided  by the
 mining  and  energy industry.  Trade  and
 service offered monthly average incomes of
 $907  and  $1,061  compared to  those of
 mining and energy at $2,490 and $2,277 in
       1994. In San Juan County, the percentage of
       non-agricultural workers in the trade  and
       services sectors is 37.5  percent. As of the
       second quarter of 1995, San Juan County's
       unemployment rate was 7.7 percent, which is
       higher than Grand County (5.5%), the State
       of Utah (3.6%), and the nation (5.7%).
       (BTAC 1995).
      2500
                                       Figure 3.8-2
                         Industry Trends in Grand County: 1978-1994
                                     Year
      1800
                                      Figure 3.8-3
                       Industry Trends in San Juan County; 1990-1994
                                    Year
23S9&K33
3-55

-------
Given the shift in the Study Area economy
from  higher  paying mining  and  minerals
production toward tourism, average annual
incomes have not kept pace with the rest of
Utah.   While average incomes in the state
have risen steadily over the past 20 years,
 incomes in Grand and San Juan counties have
 been generally flat (Figure 3.8-4).
   25,000
   20,000
   15,000
   10,000
    5,000
                                      Figure 3.8-4
                               Average Annual Wages ($)
       1975
                     1980
                                   1985
                                                  1990
                                                              1994 (est)
                                      Figure 3.8-5
                 Population Trends in San Juan and Grand Counties: 1980-1994
                                                                      H Grand County

                                                                      EJ San Joan Comity
                                   Year
3.8.3  Population

Grand and  San  Juan Counties  followed
different  population  patterns  (see  Figure
3.8-3).     Since   1981,   Grand  County
experienced a constant decline in population.
Grand County's population peaked in  1981
23996/R3.3 5/14/96(3:47PMD/KPT/4                     3-56
reaching a total population of 8,400. Since
1981, however, Grand County saw a steady
decline in population throughout the 1980s.
By 1990,  the population had  Men 19.7
percent to 6,620. San Juan County, on the
other  hand,  maintained  a  fairly  even
population during that period. Li 1981, San
                                                                                                         til

-------
 Juan County's population was 12,600 and
 had not fluctuated by any more than 300
 residents migrating in or out of the county
 throughout the 1980s.  The population had
 settled back at 12,600 in San Juan County
 from 1987 through 1990 (SEUAOG1994).

 Since 1990, both counties have experienced
 an increase in population. Data  from  1994
 indicate Grand County's population has risen
 to 7,940 (a 20.3 percent increase). Although
 not as pronounced,  San  Juan County's
 population also increased. San Juan County
 experienced growth of 6.3 percent to 13,400.
 Rapid growth is forecasted for Grand County
 over the  next  several  years.   Estimates
 indicate the population in  Grand County will
 increase  95.1  percent  between  1994  and
 2020, to  15,493  (Utah  Economic   and
 Demographic  Projections  1994).    This
 growth is  projected  due  to  increased
 retirement activity in Grand County, as well
 as tourism-related growth in employment and
 associated increased demand for service and
 trade sector workers.   San Juan County is
 also expected  to  experience an increase in
 population through the early part of the next
 century. Population is projected to increase
 by 15 percent to 15,415 by the year 2015.

 3.8.4  Housing

 Available  housing is scarce in both study
 area  counties.  Grand  Comity and more
 specifically,  Moab, have particularly  low
 vacancy rates.  In the City  of Moab, 1996
 data indicate only 18, or 0.9 percent of the
 total    1,994     units    are    vacant.
 Unincorporated  Grand  County (regions
 outside the City of Moab) shows only 24,
 or  1.82 percent  of the total 1,318  units
 available.  Monthly rent  in Grand County
 ranges  from  $350 to  $1000  with an

2399&R33 5rt4S6(3:47EM)«PT/4                     3-57
 average of $650.  The average sales prices
 for a home is $82,813 (SEUAOG 1996).
 These housing costs are quite  high,  and
 difficult for many service and trade sector
 workers to afford.

 In  response  to  the  lack  of  available
 affordable    housing,    new   building
 ordinances for Grand County are allowing
 certain businesses with available land space
 to build dormitory style housing on open
 property.   In addition to the ordinance,  a
 new thirty-six unit low-income housing
 complex   has   been   completed   and
 construction on  a five unit  building just
 recently begun.  Approval for the building
 of 40 three bedroom homes  which would
 be available for approximately $50,000, is
 also pending (Curtis 1996).

 Unlike  the permanent  housing  situation,
 temporary housing is plentiful  in  Moab.
 Among the hotels, motels, and bed  and
 breakfast units in the city, 1,243 rooms are
 available.   Moab also has a relatively large
 number of RV hook up sites.    Among
 seven of the eight RV parks within  or just
 outside of Moab, 393 sites are  available.
 Many of these parks have vacant sites year
 round with the exception of late March  and
 over  Memorial  Day  weekend  (Snyder
 1996).

 San  Juan  County  and  the  City  of
Monticello are not  suffering as severely
from a lack of housing, but  do not have
particularly high  availability  rates.   The
lack of available housing in Moab   and
Grand  County has put additional pressure
on housing in San Juan County.  A recent
study in the early part of 1996, indicates
that in Monticello 4.51 percent, or 31 of
the total  387 housing  units,  are  vacant.

-------
 Unlike Moab and Grand County, rent is
 significantly lower at a monthly average of
 $300, with a range  of $150 to  $700.   In
 addition, the average sales price for a unit
 is also much lower, at $50,000 (SEUAOG
 1996).

 Temporary housing, however,  is not  as
 plentiful as in Moab. Monticello currently
 has 142 units  with another 80 units to
 become available in early summer among
 the hotel,  motel,  and  bed  and  breakfast
 establishments.     The  total  number  of
 available full RV hook ups in Monticello is
 64 (Walker 1996).

 3.8.5  Facilities and Services

 This  section  describes the availability and
 specific limitations  of facilities and services
 within the study area in Grand and San Juan
 counties.  The  following  was  researched
 through numerous interviews with those in
 key  positions  within  organizations  that
 provide community services, and through the
 interpretation of data supplied by the State or
 relevant counties.

 3.8.5.1  Grand County

 Public Schools

 Grand County School District currently has
 an  elementary,  intermediate,  middle, and
 high school within the system. Currently,
 all schools  are operating under capacity at
 a total enrollment of 1,579.

By September  1997, the District would
have closed the existing middle school and
moved  the 7th and 8th  graders of the
current middle school to the current  high
school.  Grades 9-12 would be moved to a

2399&K3.3 5/14/96(3:47PMyRPT/4                     3-58
 new high school which is currently under
 construction and scheduled to  open by
 September 1997. By the end of 1997, the
 Grand County School District would have
 the capacity to hold 2800 students (Averett
 1995).

 Medical Facilities

 Grand County is provided medical services
 by Allen Memorial  Hospital  located in
 Moab.  The  hospital  employs  licensed
 physicians,   physicians   assistants,   and
 registered nurses and offers respite, acute,
 and  extended  care.  Emergency  room
 service and  care is provided  by Locum
 Tenens in Grand County (SEUAOG 1995).

 Law Enforcement and Fire Protection

 Grand County is served by a police station
 in Moab and a countywide sheriff. A fire
 department covers all of Moab and Spanish
 (Moab)  Valley.     The  total  number
 employed to provide police services in the
 county is 32 with 42 volunteer and paid
 fire fighters (Twitchel 1996; Squire 1996;
 Brewer 1996).   The county's  sheriffs
 department  noted  40  percent of  their
 activity    was    tourist-related     and
 concentrated during the  summer  months.
 According   to   interviews   with   key
 personnel  in  the  city  and countywide
 offices,  permanent  residents  are  well
 served and demands on  each department
 are below capacity.

 Utilities

 Grand County receives  electricity from
Utah  Power  and Light  and gas service
from Utah Gas Service. These facilities are
modern and have the capacity to handle

-------
 future growth and demand (Powell 1996;
 Zufelt 1996).

 Water Supply and Wastewater
 Treatment

 Grand  County  is  supplied  water  and
 receives water treatment through the City
 of Moab  Water Department  and  the
 Spanish Valley Water District. The City of
 Moab Water Department supplies water to
 homes and businesses within city limits and
 treats wastewater for all of Spanish Valley.
 Spanish Valley  Water  District  does  not
 treat water, but does supply water to those
 outside of the Chy  of Moab and within
 Spanish Valley.  Residents outside of the
 city and beyond Spanish Valley draw water
 from wells, and have  on-site septic tanks.

 Demands   on water supply  within  the
 county is well under  capacity.  The City of
 Moab  Water Department has  plans  to
 upgrade and expand the county's  sewer
 treatment  facility.  Although  the county's
 treatment  facility is  nearing capacity,  the
 upgrade and expansion, which is scheduled
 for completion by late 1997, would  enable
 the county to handle the treatment needs
 for the population increase for the next 10
 years (Snyder 1996; Modine 1996).

 3.8.5.2  San Juan County

 Public Schools

 The study area  has  two elementary, one
 middle, and two high schools.  As of 1993,
 the County's School District  was at 85.8
 percent capacity with  a total of 2,240
 students and the capacity to hold 2,610.
 Although  the  system is currently  not at
 maximum, some  concerns have been raised
 over the District's ability to accommodate
2399SR33 5/1*96(3:47PM5/RPT/4                    3-59
 an increase in  growth (San Juan County
 Economic Development Plan 1993).

 Medical Facilities

 Within the study area,  San Juan County
 provides medical  services  through two
 different major hospitals and clinics. San
 Juan   County  Hospital  in  Monticello
 employs licensed   physicians,  PA/NP's,
 LPN's,  and registered nurses and  offers
 acute and extended care. Emergency care
 service   is  provided  by  the  Blanding
 Birthing Center/Urgent  Care Center  in
 Blanding, which is located less than 30
 miles from Monticello  (BTAC Report
 1996).

 Law Enforcement and Fire Protection

 The study area within San Juan County is
 served by the  City of Monticello Police
 Department and  the San Juan County
 Sheriffs Department.  Fire protection is
 provided in  part  by the  County  Fire
 Department and the City of Monticello Fire
 Department.

 Between the two policing bodies, the City
 of Monticello  and  nearby  towns  are
 protected by   a  squad  of  11  officers
 (Alverez  1996;  Ewart   1996).    Fire
 protection is served by a minimum of 20
 paid and volunteer firefighters year round
 (Slade 1996).   Law enforcement and fire
 protection services are more than adequate
 at present.

 Utilities

 San Juan County receives electrical service
 from Utah  Power  and Light and Empire
Electrical  Associates.  Natural   gas  is
 provided by Utah Gas Service. All facilities

-------
 are modern and have the capacity to handle
 additional growth (Rodstrom 1996; Zufelt
 1996).

 Water Supply and Wastewater
 Treatment

 Monticello and residents within 15 miles of
 the city receive water and water treatment
 from the City of Monticello itself. Those
 businesses  and  residents  outside of the
 City's range rely upon individual wells and
 septic facilities.  The City's water supply is
 partially dependent on rain  and snowfall,
 and rarely at capacity. Currently, the water
 supply  is more than sufficient.  At the
 current rate of treating 350,000 gallons/day
 and  the  ability  to   treat  1.5   million
 gallons/day of  sewage, the City is well
 below capacity. A  modern  wastewater
 treatment   facility   is   scheduled   for
 completion by late 1997 (Schafer 1996).

 3.8.6  Social Conditions and Quality of
       Life

 Residents of the study area enjoy numerous
 amenities  associated with the abundance of
 open  space accessible to the public. Public
 lands  available for enjoyment include Arches
 and Canyonlands National Parks, the Manti
La  Sal   National   Forest,  as  well  as
 considerable areas administered by the ELM.
For many area residents, wildlife viewing and
hunting  opportunities   are  available  just
minutes from home.  A considerable network
of roads and trails is available on public lands
which support recreational activities, such as
mountain biking, hiking, horse riding, and off
road  vehicle use. In  addition, the striking
scenic beauty of the  attractions previously
mentioned also  enhances  quality of  life.
Informal discussions with local area residents

23996*3.3 5/14/96(3:47 PM)/KPT/4                     3-60
 and elected officials have revealed that many
 residents  of the study  area value  having
 quality recreational opportunities in the areas
 surrounding local towns, and would  like to
 see them  protected. While opportunities in
 outdoor  recreation  and  scenic  beauty
 greatly enhance quality of life in the study
 area, various factors also exist that reduce
 the quality of life for some residents.

 Lower wages associated with service and
 trade sector jobs, combined with relatively
 high housing  costs and limited  affordable
 housing  supply,   have  strained  many
 families in  the study  area  financially,
 particularly in Moab. The average monthly
 income in Grand  County in 1995 was
 $1,349, which is only  71 percent of the
 average monthly income of $1,917  in the
 State of Utah.  Similarly, income levels in
 San Juan  County are also relatively low at
 $1,498, or 79 percent of the state average.
 It is important to note, however, that lower
 incomes and the incidence of poverty in
 San  Juan  County  are  more  heavily
 concentrated in the southern part of the
 county along the Navajo Strip, outside of
 the study area (BTAC 1995).

 In general, there is some speculation within
 the  community that  lower  wages and
 higher  living  costs  are at least  partly
 responsible for high rates of high school
 drop-outs (second highest in the State) and
 teenage pregnancy (also second  highest in
 the State).  This may be due to a higher
 rate of families with both parents working
 and    associated   reduction   in   child
 supervision and discipline.  Similarly,  the
incidences  of drug abuse  and domestic
violence in Grand County are also issues of
 social concern. Efforts  on the part of the
 county governments to attract higher wage

-------
 employment in the study area, as well as
 efforts to increase the supply of affordable
 housing, could reduce cost of living-related
 pressures and stress, and improve quality
 of life for many residents in the future.

 3.9   TRANSPORTATION

 3.9.1  Study Area

 For transportation, the study area includes
 all roads and other transportation modes
 that  serve  the  communities  of Moab,
 Monticello, Blanding and La Sal, as well as
 Lisbon Valley and the project site. This
 transportation network would be used both
 by project workers commuting to the mine
 from study  area  communities, as well as
 trucks  hauling  various  equipment  and
 supplies  to the mine and finished copper
 cathodes from the mine to  their  ultimate
 destination.

 3.9.2  Highways and Local Roads in
       the Study Area

 Major Highways

 Federal and  State highways provide  the
 main transportation  access  to  the study
 area. The major transportation network in
 the study area consists of three highways:
 U.S. Highway 191,  State Route  46, and
 U.S. Highway 666.  Descriptions  of each
 highway  are presented  below.  These
 highways are maintained  by  the Utah
 Department   of  Transportation.  Historic
 and current traffic counts for each  of these
 highways  are provided in  Table 3.9-1.
 Similarly,  the accident histories of these
highways are provided in Table 3.9-2.
 U.S.  Highway 191 is the  primary north-
 south highway serving southeastern Utah.
 It connects the study area with Interstate
 70 to the  north,  which  is  the  most
 important transportation route  in  eastern
 Utah.  U.S.  Highway  191 is a paved
 undivided two-lane  highway serving the
 communities of Moab and Monticello, as
 well  as Blanding and Bluff to  the south.
 Traffic volumes along this highway in the
 northern portion of the study  area  have
 grown considerably over the last ten years
 reflecting increased use of the  region  by
 tourists.  From 1985 to 1990, average daily
 traffic increased  by 94 percent between
 Moab and the turn off for Canyonlands
 National Park.  Similarly,  from 1990  to
 1994, traffic increased by .an additional  32
 percent along that stretch. Traffic growth
 on U.S. Highway 191 has been slower in
 the   vicinity  of  Monticello,  however.
 Despite  its  regional  significance,  traffic
 volumes  along this highway are modest,
 relative to its  capacity, averaging roughly
 8,430 vehicles per day  at the  Grand-San
 Juan County line in 1994. Due to the use
 of the region  by tourists, traffic volumes
 are higher from May to September and
 lower from October through March.

 In terms of traffic hazards  and  accidents,
 U.S. Highway 191 has experienced growth
 in the number of  accidents,  which  is
 generally due to growth in the volume  of
 traffic on the highway.

Fortunately, the growth in the accident rate
has been considerably  slower  than the
growth in traffic volumes. In 1994,  U.S.
Highway  191   experienced  48  accidents
between Moab and La Sal Junction and 55
accidents between Monticello and La Sal
Junction (UDOT 1995). Review of
2399&R33 5n4/96(3:47PM)®PT/4                    3-61

-------
                                       TABLE 3.9-1
                AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT) IN THE STUDY AREA
Highway
U.S. 191 San Juan/Grand County Line
U.S. 191 North of Monticello
State Route 46 east of U.S. 191
U.S. 666 east of Monticello
ADT
1985
3,310
2,145
785
1,270
ADT
1990
6,410
2,740
840
1,585
ADT
1994
8,430
3,250
1,000
.1,865
% Change
1985-1994
155%
52%
27%
47%
       Source: Utah Department of Transportation 1983-1994.
23996/R3R9-1.XLS #15/96(5:47 PMJ/RFTO
                                                                                  Sheet 1 of 1

-------
                            TABLE 3.9-2
       ACCIDENT HISTORY - HIGHWAYS IN THE STUDY AREA
Highway
U.S. 191 Moab to La Sal Junction
U.S. 191 Monticello to La Sal Junction
State Route 46 east of U.S. 191
U.S. 666 east of Monticello
Accidents
1986
38
31
2
7
Accidents
1990
36
48
6
21
Accidents
1994
48
55
5
17
Source: Utah Department of Transportation  1986-1994
                                                                 Sheet 1 of 1

-------
 accident  data  compiled  by  the  Utah
 Department of Transportation  for U.S.
 Highway 191 revealed that fatal accidents
 are very uncommon in the study area.  For
 the three years of data reviewed  (1986,
 1990, and 1994), there was only one fatal
 accident on U.S.  Highway 191  between
 Moab and Monticello. Although there were
 more accidents recorded in the towns of
 Moab and  Monticello than on the rural
 portions of US  Highway  191,  accident
 records  did  not  reveal  any  specific
 locations  that had. a  particularly high
 number of accidents.

 State Route 46 runs east-west and provides
 access to the northern end of Lisbon Valley
 from U.S. Highway 191.   This two-lane
 paved highway serves the small community
 of  La  Sal,   Utah  and  other  small
 communities in southwestern Colorado,
 such  as Nucla and  Naturita (as Colorado
 Highway 90).  In general, traffic volumes
 along this highway are low due to  the
 sparse population of the area it serves. In
 1994, average daily traffic on this highway
 was approximately 1,000 vehicles per day.

 In terms of traffic hazards  and accidents,
 State Route 46 has a very low accident
 rate due to low traffic  volumes.   This
 highway experienced a mere five accidents
 in  1994  (UDOT  1995),  Approximately
 one-half of these accidents  were reported
 to involve collisions with wild animals. In
 addition, there were no recorded fatalities
 on  State Route 46  in the years reviewed
 (1986, 1990, and 1994).  There were no
 high accident locations identified along SR
 46.

 U.S. Highway 666 also runs east-west and
 provides access to  the  southern  end of
       Lisbon Valley  from  Highway  191  and
       Monticello.  This two-lane paved highway
       serves  only  a few small  unincorporated
       communities in Utah east of Monticello, as
       well as Dove Creek and Cortez, Colorado
       to  the  southeast.   Traffic  volumes along
       this highway are also low due to the sparse
       population of the area it serves.

       In terms of traffic  hazards and accidents,
       U.S. Highway 666 also has a low accident
       rate due  to  low  traffic volumes.   This
       highway experienced 17 accidents in 1994
       (UDOT 1995).  Approximately 25  to 35
       percent of accidents  recorded in  1986  -
       1994 were reported to involve  collisions
       with wild or domestic animals.  There were
       no recorded fatalities on U.S. Highway 666
       in the years  reviewed. In addition, there
      were no high accident locations identified
      along U.S. 666 within the study area.

      Local Roads

      In general, traffic volumes on local roads
      that serve the Lisbon Valley area are very
      low due to the fact that the  area is very
      sparsely inhabited.   Traffic  on these local
      roads is generally associated with other
      mines, ranching activities, and recreation in
      the  local   area. Road maintenance  on
      county roads  in the project  area is the
      responsibility  of San Juan County, which
      handles grading, paving, and snowplowing.
      Although roads that serve inhabited areas
      are plowed in the winter, wet weather can
      render unpaved roads  virtually impassable
      for short periods of time. The following is
      description of local roads that serve Lisbon
      Valley and the proposed project site.

     Big Indian Road (County Road 106) is a
     paved two-lane road that runs south from
2399&E3.3 S/W96(3:47.PM)/RPT/4
3-64

-------
                  State Route 46 west of La Sal to the Big
                  Indian Rock area and then curves west and
                  intersects with Highway 191 roughly ten
                  miles south of La Sal junction.

                  Lisbon Valley Road (County Road 113) is
                  a gravel surfaced two-lane road that runs
                  south   from  Big  Indian  Road to  the
                  proposed project site.

                  Little Valley Road (County Road 109) is a
                  dirt road that extends west from Lisbon
                  Valley Road and the proposed project site
                  across  Big Indian  Wash to the southern
                  portion of Big Indian Road. Although this
                  road is relatively rough and  winding,  it
                  provides the  most direct  access  to the
                  project she from Monticello and could be
                  used by commuting mine  workers when
                  weather and road conditions permit.

                  West Summit Road (County Road 313) is a
                  gravel  surfaced  road that extends north
                  from U.S.  Highway 666 to Summit Point
                  and the southern terminus of West Lisbon
                  Spur (CR 305).

                  UColo Road (County Road 315) is a paved
                  two-lane road that  parallels West Summit
                  Road,  originating at U.S. Highway 666 to
                  the east. This road serves  the community
                  of UColo  and continues north, where  it
                  curves  west  and  intersects with  West
                  Summit Road  a few miles south of Summit
                  Point   This  road  is  also  a  potential
                  commuter route for mine workers residing
                  in the Monticello area and communities to
                  the east, since it is paved and relatively
                  straight.
      3.10  HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

      Historic activities in Lisbon Valley that
      may have  involved the use of hazardous
      materials   or  generation  of  hazardous
      wastes are  limited  to scattered  mining
      operations and an active natural gas field
      that has been  developed in the northern
      part  of the  valley.  Given  the  remote
      location of Lisbon Valley,  other types of
      industrial  activities,  such as  oil refining,
      chemical manufacturing, gas stations, and
      other business activities that could generate
      hazardous wastes are not present.

      3.10.1 Records Review and Agencies
            Contacted

      Various  government agencies,  including
      the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
      (EPA),   the   Utah   Department   of
      Environmental  Quality,  and   San Juan
      County were contacted to identify known
      sites that either generate or are  potentially
      contaminated with hazardous wastes in the
      study area.  Based on that records review
      and agency  consultation,  only a  limited
      number of sites were  identified  in  the
      overall study area.   In general, the vast
      majority of these sites are located within
      the  towns of the  study area, such  as
      Monticello and La  Sal.   Within  Lisbon
      Valley, only a limited number of sites were
      identified during the records review. None
      of these sites are located within five miles
      of the proposed project site,  and there is
      little or no  potential that  contamination
      could migrate from these locations to the
      project she. With respect to the proposed
      project site itself, review of agency lists
      and records  and contacts with various
      agencies   revealed    no    documented
      hazardous  waste sites  or  contamination
                 2399SR33
3-65
IfO

-------
 present. Table 3.10-1 provides a list of all
 agencies   and  related   data   sources
 consulted, and results of the survey.

 3.10.2  Historic Mining Operations and
        Oil and Gas Development in
        Lisbon Valley

 Numerous  active  and inactive  uranium,
 vanadium, and copper mines, as well as
 mineral prospects  are  present in Lisbon
 Valley.   These mines  are  located in the
 northern portion  of the valley  near the
 community of La Sal, also near Big Indian
 Rock, to  the south,  as well as at the
 proposed project site.  Many of the mine
 sites  include waste rock dumps, old mill
 workings,  and tailings impoundments and
 ponds.  As described above, only a few of
 these  mines   have  been  listed and/or
 investigated by the EPA and the  State for
 potential hazardous waste  contamination
 or  have registered underground storage
 tanks. None of those mines are located on
 or even within five miles of the project site.
 No other information is available regarding
 mine   and  mill   wastes  and   potential
 hazardous  materials contamination at the
 other mine sites in Lisbon Valley.

 An oil and gas field has been developed by
UNOCAL in Lisbon Valley to the north of
the proposed project site.   This field is
registered with the  EPA as a generator of
hazardous wastes, although  no records of
 spills    or   contamination   have   been
documented.  In addition, according to the
 State  of Utah's Registered Underground
 Storage Tank Facility Database, there is at
least  one  underground   storage  tank
associated with this development,  although
there was no indication that this tank(s) has
leaked.

23996/R33 5/14/96(3:47PM)/RFT/4                     3-66
 Section 4.10 describes hazardous materials
 that would be used at the proposed Lisbon
 Valley Mine, how they would be  stored,
 and measures that would  be taken  to
 minimize the risk of an accidental spill or
 uncontrolled release in the future.

 3.11   CULTURAL AND PALEONTO-
       LOGICAL RESOURCES

 Cultural  resource data for the  study area,
 shown on Figure 3.11-1,  were  compiled
 through a review of archaeological literature,
 unpublished surveys, file searches at the Utah
 Department  of Natural  History and Utah
 BLM  offices,   field  investigations,  and
 consultation    with  locally   experienced
 archaeologists (Louthan 1995,1996; Graham
 1995b; Metcalf 1995; Black  1996;  OTSfeil
 1996). Information on more recent  Native
 American use in the study area was collected
 from  the  literature  and  knowledgeable
 individuals.

 Paleontological  data  for  the  project were
 compiled through  a review of the literature,
 and consultation with and  site visits  by the
 Moab District BLM paleontologist.

 3.11.1  Study Area

 The  archaeological  literature  and  specific
 survey findings indicate human activity in this
part  of the Colorado Plateau, dating back
 over at least the past eleven thousand years.
The    cultural/chronological    framework
applicable to the study area (Figure 3.11-1)
includes:

-------
                                                              TABLE 3.10-1
         GOVERNMENT AGENCIES AND DATA SOURCES CONSULTED REGARDING POTENTIAL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
Agency Data Source
EPA Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and
Type of Sites Tracked
Active waste sites being investigated by EPA
Sites In Lisbon Volley
Rio Algom Mine
Keystone Pit
Distance
front Project Agency Comments
9 miles No further remedial action planned
8 miles No further remedial action planned
       Liability Information System
       (CERCLIS) Database

EPA    Resource Conservation and
       Recovery Information System
       (RCRIS) Database

EPA    Toxic Release Inventory System -
       (TRIS) Database

EPA    Permit Compliance System -
       PCS Database
                                 Permitted facilities that generate hazardous wastes
                                 Data on reported releases of hazardous compounds
                                           Hccla Mine             8 miles
                                           Unocal Lisbon Plant #28   6 miles
None
Facilities with NPDES wastewaste discharge permits     None
                                                                N/A
                                                                                                 N/A
                                None
                                None
None
                                None
EPA





UDEQ



UDEQ
UDEQ
Facility Index System -
(FINDS) Database




UST Facilities Database



LUST Facilities Database
Closed Landfills List
Master list of all EPA regulated facilities





Registered underground storage tanks



Leaking underground storage tank facilities
Closed Landfills in Utah
Homestake Mines
Hecla Mine
Unocal Storage Tanks
Unocal Lisbon Station
Keystone Pit
Rio Algom Mine
Atlas -Pandora Mine
Rio Algom Mine
UMETCO La Sal Mine
Unocal Lisbon Plant #28
Rio Algom Mine
San Juan Co., La Sal, UT
7 miles
8 miles
6 miles
6 miles
8 miles
9 miles
1 2 miles
9 miles
12 miles
6 miles
9 miles
14 miles
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
EPA - U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
UDEQ - Utah Department of Environmental Quality

-------
V
€\
GO
                                                                CULTURAL RESOURCES STUDY AREA
                                                                                         SOURCE: GRAHAM, 1995
                                                                                CULTURAL RESOURCES

                                                                                     STUDY AREA
              SCALE IN FEET
                                                                                                    FIG. 3.11-1

-------
    Palebindian/Pre-Archaic Period
        11,000 - 9,500 B.P. (Before Present)
    Archaic Period
        9,500-2,000 B.P.
    Late Prehistoric Period
        2,000 -ca.700B.P.
    Protohistoric/EEstoric Period
        700 B.P.-present

Paleontological  resources   in  the  region
consist of vertebrate fossils that are found in
the  Morrison   and  the  Burro  Canyon
formations.

3.11.2     Cultural Resources

To  ascertain  the nature of the  affected
environment concerning cultural  resources,
specific data  pertaining  to all  proposed
disturbance  areas   were   obtained   and
analyzed. These records indicate that a total
of 25  archaeological  surveys  have  been
conducted within, and in the vicinity of, the
Lisbon Valley area. It appears that all of the
surveys were at a Class HI level. A Class El
survey  is defined as  an intensive pedestrian
survey  of the entire  area indicated. A high
level of confidence is  associated  with this
type of survey. Most of the previous surveys
were for seismic lines  or  for  other linear
projects   and   consequently,    although
numerous, did not cover extensive portions
of the  current study area.  Summary  data
concerning the archaeological surveys in the
affected sections  can be found in Graham
(1995a).

In anticipation of the Proposed Action, an
intensive cultural resource survey (Class ID)
was conducted  of the proposed mining and
processing area, and the  transmission line
corridor and associated new access roads
(Figure 3.11-1). Approximately 3,640 acres

239961333 5/1*56(3:47PM)/KPT/4                      3-69
were  surveyed for  this  project  (Graham
1995a).

Historic   and   Prehistoric  Archaeological
Localities.   At present, 364  archaeological
and historical cultural resource localities are
documented within the study area.  This total
includes  186 isolated finds  (EFs)  and 178
sites.

Definition of IPs and sites varied in different
parts of the study  area depending on artifact
density.  In  areas  where  numerous  chert
outcrops have  left a continuous low-density
lithic scatter  over  much of the terrain, sites
were defined as more than 10 artifacts in a 30
meter  diameter  area.  IF  forms   were
completed  for  finds of 2 to 10 artifacts or
locales representing a single activity event.
Lone tools were recorded as IPs as well. In
areas where a  continuous  low to  moderate
density lithic  scatter  covered the   entire
landform, sites  were defined as areas where
artifact density increased above a threshold of
more than two  flakes in a 10 meter diameter
area.  Also  in   this area,  IF  forms  were
completed for tools only. All other historic or
prehistoric  localities are recorded  as sites.
Generally,   archaeological   and   historic
localities less than  50  years  old are not
recorded (Graham  1995a).

Of the 178 sites recorded in the study area,
159 are prehistoric, 14 are historic, 4 contain
both prehistoric and historic materials, and 1
is a possible traditional cultural property. The
prehistoric  sites are represented by camps,
quarries,  lithic  procurement localities, lithic
scatters,  lithic  and  sherd scatters, pinyon
procurement  localities,  rockshelters,  and a
wickiup.  The historic sites include mining
locations, homesteads,  brush pens, corrals,
and fences. The traditional cultural property

-------
is represented by a stone circle site that may
have been used for vision quest activities.

No sites in the study area are currently listed
on  the National Register of Historic Places
(NRHP). Archaeologists have recommended
24  sites as being potentially eligible to the
NRHP, and the remaining 154 sites as being
not eligible for listing. The  186 IPs are not
eligible by definition. All of these 24 sites are
recommended  eligible  for  listing  in  the
NRHP, under criterion  (d) of 36 CER 60.4.
The single traditional cultural property could
be eligible for listing under criteria (a) and/or
(b),  in  addition to (d). The 24 potentially
eligible sites are listed in Table 3.11-1.  The
BLM   and  the   Utah   State  Historic
Preservation OfBcer would consult to make
final eligibility determinations.

Evaluation of Significance.  Prehistoric and
historic sites are considered significant if they
are listed in  or eligible for  listing  in  the
NRHP.   When so  determined, they  are
termed historic properties. By definition, IPs
are usually not considered for listing. To be
considered for listing,  a she  must  possess
integrity  of   location,  design,   setting,
materials,    workmanship,    feeling,   and
association  and meet one or more  of the
following criteria, as found in 36 CER & 60.4:
(a)    Association with  events that have
       made a significant contribution to the
       broad patterns of our history; or
(b)    Associated with the lives of persons
       significant in our past; or
(c)    Embodiment   of  the   distinctive
       characteristics of a type, period, or
       method    of   construction,   or
       representative  of the  work of  a
       master, or possession of high  artistic
       values,  or  representative   of  a

2399S/R33 S/14/96(3:47PM)/KPT/4                      3-70
        significant and distinguishable entity
        whose    components   may    lack
        individual distinction; or
(d)     Have yielded,  or may be likely to
        yield,  . information  important  in
        prehistory or history.

Prehistoric and historic sites without standing
architecture are usually eligible to the NRHP
under criterion (d).  Examples of such  sites
are short and long-term camps, pinyon nut
procurement  sites,   prehistoric  quarries,
rockshelters, and remains of homesteads.

There  are a variety of types  of sites  and
locations that are considered eligible for the
NRHP  based  on  significance  to  Native
American  groups.  The  term  "traditional
cultural properties" is used to refer to these
types of sites. Some Native Americans prefer
to refer to them as  sacred  sites  (Navajo
Nation  1991).  These  properties, or sites,
could include places to gather plants  and
minerals, places associated with tribal or clan
origins  or customs, places identified as the
home of a Holy Being, locations of echoes,
places   where   an  apparition  or  other
supernatural event occurred, and others.

These places may not be a marked or easily
discernible  sites  as  such,   but  include
mountains, rock outcrops, hills, springs, or
individual  trees. Locations may  not  be
"sacred" in the Euro-American  sense of the
word.  These locations are associated with
stories  and traditions,  and  may serve as
mnemonic devices  for individuals to recall
oral tradition. Thus, a site may be significant
even when an individual is not there, as  they
are still "using" the locatioa  Guidelines for
determining significance and NRHP eligibility
of traditional cultural  properties  have been
prepared  by  the  National  Park  Service

-------
                           TABLE 3.11-1




  POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT CULTURAL RESOURCES IN THE STUDY AREA
SITE NUMBER
42SA10270

42SA16865

42SA22821
42SA22822
42SA22828
42SA22844
42SA22848

42SA22863

42SA22864
42SA22871
42SA22875
42SA22895
42SA22896
42SA22904
42SA22919
42SA22926
42SA22935
42SA22945
42SA22947


42SA22948
42SA22949

42SA22957
42SA22959

42SA23016
DESCRIPTION
camp/lithic
procurement
sherd & lithic scatter

lithic scatter
lithic scatter
lithic scatter
lithic scatter
camp/lithic
procurement
camp

pinyon procurement
lithic scatter
sherd & lithic scatter
lithic scatter
wickiup/lithic scatter
rockshelter
quarry
buried camp
quarry
rockshefter/lithic scatter
stone circle


rockshefter/lithic scatter
lithic scatter/pinyon
procurement
lithic scatter
lithic scatter/
rockshelter
camp
CULTURAL
PERIOD
Archaic

Archaic-Late
Prehistoric
unknown
unknown
unknown
Late Prehistoric
unknown

Archaic-Late
Prehistoric
unknown
Archaic
Late Prehistoric
Paleoindian-Archaic
Late Prehistoric
Late Prehistoric
Late Prehistoric
unknown
unknown
unknown
unknown


unknown
Archaic-Late
Prehistoric
unknown
Paleoindian-Archaic

unknown
INITIAL
RECOMMENDATION
Avoidance

Avoidance

Avoidance
Avoidance
Avoidance
Avoidance
Avoidance

Avoidance

Avoidance/ Consultation
Avoidance
Avoidance
Avoidance
Avoidance/ Consultation
Avoidance
Avoidance
Avoidance
Avoidance
Avoidance
Avoidance/
Consultation/Data
Recovery
Avoidance
Avoidance/ Consultation

Avoidance
Avoidance

Avoidance
SOURCE: Graham 1995a
2399&R33
3-71

-------
(National Register Bulletin 38). These types
of sites may be eligible to the NRHP under
criteria (a), (b), (c), or (d) of 36 CFR § 60.4.

Native American access to sacred sites for
the purpose of worship or their ceremonial
use is protected by the AIRFA of 1978. If
any such sites are identified, the BLM would
comply with AIRFA and  ensure continued
access by the individuals or groups.

The Native American Graves Protection and
Repatriation  Act  (NAGPRA)   of  1990
requires  Federal  agency consultation with
Native American groups concerning activities
that may affect archaeological resources of
importance to the Native American groups.
This law especially pertains to the treatment
of human remains, but also relates to  other
cultural     items     recovered    during
archaeological investigations. Therefore, data
recovery  programs  and  other  mitigative
actions must also meet the requirements of
NAGPRA NAGPRA also requires Native
American groups be  consulted  before  a
permit   for    site   excavation   under
Archaeological  Resources Protection  Act
(ARPA) is issued.

The land, in general, is also seen by Native
American  groups  as  a  storehouse  of
resources such as vegetation, minerals, and
water, similar to the wilderness area concept
Thus, the integrity of the cultural landscape
can be considered significant. Other sites that
could be significant are vision quest  sites,
sweat lodges, eagle traps, game corrals, trail
shrines, rock art, and marked  and unmarked
graves. These  locations could be significant
to a Tribe as a whole, a clan or a family. In
the study area, one she has been identified as
being a possible vision quest site.


23996/R3.3 5/14(96(3:47PM)/RFT/4                     3-72
 Significance of paleontological  resources is
 based  on  an  estimation  of scientific  or
 educational importance of the fossils that may
 occur   in  a  given  geologic  formation.
 Significance criteria for  vertebrate fossils
 include such factors as completeness of the
 material, concentration of the material, and
 unique or rare occurrences of material (ECuntz
 etal. 1989).

 Traditional Cultural Properties. Letters were
 sent to five tribal organizations by the Utah
 BLM, Moab District Office on January 18,
 1996,  seeking  comment  on the  potential
 effects the proposed project may  have on
 cultural  properties.  Tribal  organizations
 contacted include:  the Ute Mountain Ute
 Tribe,   the  White  Mesa  Ute   Council
 (contacted through the  Ute Mountain Ute
 Tribe), the Northern Ute Indian Tribe,  the
Navajo  Utah  Commission, and the  Hopi
 Tribe Cultural  Preservation  Office. There
 may be locations significant to individuals,
 clans, or extended family groups that are not
 general tribal knowledge.  There may also be
 locations generally known, but not previously
 identified.

 To date, site visits have been conducted with
the Ute Indian  Tribe  and their Native
American consultant.

Follow  up contacts with  the  other  tribal
groups has either been unsuccessful, or has
provided no commitments or positions from
the Tribes.  If at some  point in the future,
these groups wish to participate, BLM will
work with them and attempt to address or
resolve any issues they may have.

Although all cultural resources  recorded in
the study  area  are available  for Native
American  consultation,   one may  be  of
particular interest,  a stone circle that may
                                                                                                     /rz

-------
have been a vision quest site (42SA22947).
Native American consultation could provide
information that would  be valuable to the
interpretation of these sites, and help define
whether they are indeed traditional cultural
properties.

Historic Period.   An important historical
resource of note that is located in the project
vicinity is the Old Spanish Trail.  This trail
served as a major trade route between Santa
Fe  and Los Angeles and  as  a route for
famous explorers.  In the project vicinity, a
segment of this trail ran  from Piute Springs,
through Lisbon Valley, and on up to La Sal.
Portions of the trail are thought to date to
prehistoric times and may have been used by
Archaic and Fremont peoples.  The trail was
most  intensiveh/ used from 1829 to  1848
when  Santa Fe traders used  the trail to
transport  goods  to   and  from California
(Anonymous 1995; Roring 1996).

Located to  the southeast  of the proposed
project area is an old wagon road that goes
down  Three Step HOI from Summit Point
into Lisbon  Valley.  This wagon road may
have first been used in the 1870s and by 1920
it had  been moved about 1-1/2 miles to the
east The original road down Three Step Hill
was very  steep and  included three  distinct
steps.  The new route follows a more gentle,
continuous slope down the hill.  Portions of
the old Three Step H21 road may coincide
with a segment of the Old Spanish Trail
(Nebecker 1996; Roring 1996).  No signs of
either  this wagon road  or the Old Spanish
Trafl   were  found   during  the  cultural
resources  inventory   of the  project area
(Metcalfl996).
3.113    Paleontological Resources

To gain an understanding of the nature of the
affected       environment      regarding
paleontological   resources,  general   data
concerning   the   occurrence  of   likely
fbssiliferous  geological  formations in the
study area were obtained through analysis of
geologic  base maps. This resulted  in the
identification  of two  formations  that are
exposed  in the study area and that  could
possibly  contain significant  fossils.  The
formations of concern are the Morrison and
Burro    Canyon.   Exposures  of   these
formations were then inspected by the BLM
Moab  District  paleontologist.  Significant
fossils were  not found  in  any of the areas
investigated (Rasmussen 1996).

3.12   VISUAL RESOURCES

3.12.1  Study Area

The project   area  is  located   in the
Canyonlands  section  of the  Colorado
Plateau physiographic province (Fenneman
1931).     The  landscape  is  generally
comprised  of  flat valley  bottoms,  low
rolling hills, and some areas of steep and
broken   rock  faces.  These  latter  areas,
which are the sites of the two springs in the
immediate area (Lisbon Spring and Huntley
Spring) have the most visual interest.   In
comparison  to  other  outstanding  scenic
areas  in southeastern  Utah,  however,
Lisbon Valley lacks any distinctive visual
qualities and is not a local  scenic attraction.
Figures 3.12 -1 through 3.12-4 are photos
of the  mine  project  area from various
viewpoints,  and an area near a spring and
rock face.
239961533 5/]*96(3:47PM}!R!T/4
                                         3-73

-------
                                       Figure 3.12-1
                                 GTO Pit Area, looking east
                                       Figure 3.12-2
                          Lisbon Spring area, with rock outcrops,
                      coniferous/deciduous trees, and rock pictographs
2399&R3-3.PHO 5/13/96(3:37 PMyRPT

-------
                                   Figure 3.12-3
                      Woods Ranch heap leach area, looking west
                                   figure 3.12-4
            Typical Lisbon Valley scene, looking north towards the project area
23»«R3-3J>HO Sfl3/9«C3:37PM)/RFr
                                             3-75

-------
 A report was prepared for the  BLM  16
 years  ago  (Meiiji Resource  Consultants
 1980) which assessed visual characteristics
 of the Dry  Valley Planning  Unit, which
 includes  Lisbon  Valley.    Since   little
 development has occurred in the area since
 that time, the findings of that study appear
 valid today and are summarized below.

 Scenic Quality

 Scenic quality is a measure of the visual
 appeal of the landscape.  Lands are given
 an A, B, or C rating based on the apparent
 scenic quality.

 The Dry Valley Planning Unit only has a
 small area of Class "A" scenery.  Lisbon
 Valley is classified as "C," generally devoid
 of interesting land form.  Drainages  are
 noted  as having pockets of visual interest
 on the north and south slopes of Lisbon
 Valley  along the  outcrops   and ledges.
 Otherwise, the  area  is characterized  as
 lacking visual interest.

 Vegetation is comprised of pinyon-juniper
 along  the benches and  slopes, and, sage-
 grassland and forb types on the lowlands.
 No  flowing  surface   water   of  any
 consequences  exists  in  the   area.  The
 scenery is quite void of color, with light
 tans and pinks,  and little contrast except
 for  the  coniferous  trees.  Few  cultural
 modifications exist  except   for widely
 scattered  residences and stock  watering
 facilities such as the Woods Ranch.  Past
 mining operations have left  open  pits
 (some  with   infrequent ponded  water),
 small adits or underground openings, and
waste  piles.  These existing developments
 do   not   dominate    the    surrounding
 characteristic landscape  and do not detract

23996/R3.3 5/15/96(5:48 PMJ/RPT/4                      3-76
 from  or add noticeably to  the  scenic
 quality.   Much  of Lisbon  Valley was
 reportedly chained 40 or 50 years ago to
 remove  the  trees  and  sagebrush areas
 plowed  to  create the  marginal grazing
 resource that exists today.

 Visual Sensitivity and Distance Zones

 Lisbon Valley is rated medium to low
 visual sensitivity.  The estimated 50 to 150
 vehicles  that  travel the  gravel  road each
 day are delivery and some mining service
 vehicles traveling  through the property to
 the mines being decommissioned and  oil
 and gas  and telecommunications facilities
 to the north, and to southeastern Utah and
 the far southwest comer of Colorado  to
 the south. Other minor traffic is associated
 with  agricultural activity in the area and
 trips to local commercial centers.

 Distance   zones   are   foreground   to
 middleground  in most of the Planning Unit,
 and in Lisbon  Valley. Travel corridors are
 usually between one-quarter to  two miles
 wide throughout the Valley.

 Land ownership is mostly private,  with a
 few parcels of State and Federal controlled
 lands as noted in Figure 1-2. Intrusions  on
visual quality in the immediate project area,
 which constitutes  this visuals study area,
 are few, as noted above.

 Visual Resource Classification

 Visual resources here are classified at the
lowest level,  Class  IV,  with "C" scenic
 quality as noted above.  Under the BLM
Visual Resources  Management  (VRM)
system (BLM 1980), objectives for Class
IV landscapes are  to provide for activities
which may require major modifications  of

-------
 the   existing    landscape    character.
 However, every attempt should be made to
 minimize impacts through careful location
 of  facilities,  minimal  disturbance,  and
 repetition of the basic line from color and
 texture elements found in the surrounding
 landscape.

 3.13  LAND USE

 The  Lisbon Valley  Area  is located  in
 northeastern  San  Juan  County,   Utah
 (Figure  1-1)  and covers  roughly  720
 square miles. The primary land uses of the
 study area include mining, wildlife habitat,
 livestock grazing,  and limited recreation.
 Wildlife,    grazing,   and    recreational
 resources are discussed  in  Sections  3.6,
 3.7, and 3.16.

 3.13.1 Study Area

 The  study  area for  land  use  resources
 includes the  proposed  Lisbon  Valley
 Copper  Project Area (Figure  2-1)  and
 surrounding lands  in the Lower Lisbon
 Valley vicinity.  Regional land  uses  that
 may be indirectly impacted by the proposed
 project are also discussed in this section.

 3.13.2 Land Use Resources

 Land Jurisdictions

 San  Juan  County  is  comprised   of
 approximately 61 percent federal lands, 9
 percent state  lands,  23  percent Navajo
 Nation lands, and 8 percent  private lands.
 Most of the  Lisbon Valley  consists of
 public land, with relatively small areas of
 private (fee) lands  occurring in  scattered
 areas along the  valley floor (Figure 1-2).
Public lands within the study  area  are
 administered by  the BLM and UDOGM.

23SS&'R33 J«4«fi(3:47PM>KPT/4                     3-77
 BLM lands are administered by the Moab
 Field Office and the western two-thirds of
 the  powerline would be within  the  San
 Juan Resource  Area.   State  lands  are
 managed by the School and Institutional
 Trust   Lands   Administration.     Land
 development  activities  are  under  the
 jurisdiction of San Juan County.

 The  proposed  Lisbon   Valley  Copper
 Project  includes   approximately    258
 unpatented lode mining claims, state leases,
 and private land. The unpatented claims are
 administered  by   the   BLM.   Summo
 presently  holds,  or  would obtain,   all
 necessary rights  to surface use and access
 of  lands  potentially affected   by  the
 Proposed Project.  Specific claim names
 and  corresponding UMC  numbers  are
 provided   in  the  Proposed  Plan   of
 Operations (Summo 1995a).

 Other land  authorizations and designations
 within the  Project Area  are presented in
 Table 3.13-1. These include powerline and
 pipeline right of ways and  public  water
 reserves where  there are known  water
 sources which  are preserved  in  40-acre
 parcels  and,  therefore,  not  available  for
 private purchase.

 Land Use Plans

 The  management of Federal public lands
 and  resources within  the  Project  Area is
 directed  and guided  by  the  BLM's
Resource Management Plan (RMP) (BLM
 1985a). Objectives  of the RMP  include
keeping public lands open for exploration
and  development  of mineral  resources
while  protecting  areas  with  sensitive
resource values.  To achieve this goal, the
BLM recommends leaving "the entire
Resource Management Area (1.8 million

-------
                                  TABLE 3.13-1

            LAND AUTHORIZATIONS AND DESIGNATIONS WITHIN
  LANDS ENCOMPASSED BY THE PROPOSED SUMMO PROJECT BOUNDARY
 T. 30 S., R. 25 E.
        Sections 22, 23, 25, 26
        Sections 25-28
        Sections 26 and 35
        Section 24
        Section 35
pipeline R/W UTU-42733
powerline R/W UTUO-94810
power-line R/W UTU-48443
Public Water Reserve NEViNWV*
Public Water Reserve SVSNWVi,
NJ4SWV4
R/W for dam and reservoir site
12' total width
100'total width
25'total width
40 acres
160 acres

2.24 acres
T. 30S.,R. 26 E.
        Section 31
pipeline R/W UTU-42733
                                                                 12' total width
Source: BLM 1996.
acres) open to mining claims for locatable
minerals under the general Mining Laws,
with the exception of 1,850 acres of widely
scattered campgrounds and  scenic  sites
under existing mineral withdrawals." (BLM
1985a).

As  with  the  Grand  Resource  Area,
resources in the San Juan Resource Area
are directed by the San Juan RMP (BLM
1989).  Objectives of the RMP relative to
the proposed utility ROW corridor, is to
allow discretionary ROWs so long as RMP
goals are met and after completion of site-
specific  NEPA   documentation  (BLM
1989).

The management of State of Utah lands is
the  responsibility  of  the  School  and
Institutional  Trust  Lands Administration
23996/R3.3 5/15/96(5:49 PM3/RPT/4                   3-78
           (formerly the Division of State Lands and
           Forestry).   The  state does not  have a
           general management plan, but management
           in the state is directed toward obtaining the
           greatest possible  monetary return for the
           trust consistent with sound management
           practices (Stokes 1996).

           Land  management  decisions on  private
           land in  San Juan County are  guided by
           county  land  use   plans  and  zoning
           ordinances and  regulations.   San  Juan
           County is in the  process  of updating its
           County Master Plan,  originally adopted in
           1968. A Preliminary Draft Master Plan has
           been drafted and  is under revision.  It is
           anticipated that the County Commissioners
           would   make decisions  regarding  the
           adoption of the new master plan by the
                                                                                             II*

-------
summer  of 1996.   In the interim,  the
existing master plan and zoning regulations
remain in effect.  The current master plan
supports  economic development activities.
The Lisbon Valley is currently zoned for
industrial use.

Transportation and Utility Corridors

Transportation and utility corridors in the
Project  Area  include several  flowlines,
access  roads,  and  powerlines   (Table
3.13-1).  Access to the Project Area is by
an unpaved San  Juan County-maintained
road,  which runs  from Utah Highway 46,
west of La Sal  and east of U.S. Highway
191,  to   U.S.  Highway  666  east of
Monticello.  Issues concerning traffic and
road use  are addressed in Sections 2.2.10,
3.9, and 4.9.

Minerals Development

The Lisbon Valley Area has a long history
of mining activity.  Copper was discovered
in the area in the  late 1800s.  Intermittent
exploration   and   small-scale   mining
activities  from open  pit and underground
operations occurred until the mid-1900s, as
evidenced by remaining  abandoned  pits,
stockpiles,  and overburden.   Incomplete
records  for this period  indicate  that
approximately  2.5  million  pounds  of
copper have been produced  from at least
five oxide  deposits in the Lisbon  Valley
(Summo   Corporation  1995a).  Details
concerning  historical  mining,   current
minerals development, and planned mining
development in the area are provided in
Section 3.1.5.
Residential Use

One resident lives near the Woods' Ranch
(owned by Summo) near the Project Area
and  may  relocate  upon  review of the
project     (Gochnour    1996b).    The
construction of three residences is planned
near Summit Point, located approximately
6 miles to  the south of the Project Area.
No other residences are known to occur in
the Project Area and vicinity.

3.14    CLIMATE AND AIR
        QUALITY

3.14.1  Study Area

The Lisbon" Valley Project is located  at
approximately  6,500 feet above  MSL on
the   southeast  plateau   of Utah   in
canyonland terrain about 20 miles south of
the La Sal Mountains. The site  is in the
semi-arid,  continental  climate  regime, that
is  characterized by dry air,  sunny  days,
clear   nights,   low   precipitation,   high
evaporation, and large diurnal temperature
changes.

3.14.2  Climate

Site  temperatures  are  expected  to be
similar to the long-term record (which has
the longest, most complete records in the
immediate region) collected at Monticello,
Utah  (Air  Sciences  1995). The monthly
means at Monticello from  1951  to 1980
are presented in Table 3.14-1 and show an
average temperature of 46°F. The warmest
months are from June to August with  an
average temperature  of over 65°F.  The
coolest months are December to February.
2399SR33 #15/96(5:49 EM)/RPT/4
                                        3-79

-------
                              TABLE 3.14-1

                    MONTHLY TEMPERATURE MEANS
                           MONTICELLO, UTAH1
Month
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
Annual Mean
• Average Temperature (°F)
25.0
29.0
34.9
43.6
52.7
62.0
68.6
66.1
58.9
48.6
35.6
27.2
46.0
        1   Data are from 1951-1980 per NOAA 1992.

        SOURCE: Air Sciences 1995.
23996/R3.3 S/14/96(3:47PM)/KPT/4
                                  3-80

-------
 Site precipitation also  is expected to be
 similar  to   the  record  collected   at
 Monticello    (Air    Sciences    1995).
 Precipitation data from 1951 to 1980  are
 presented in  Table 3.14-2  and show an
.average annual   precipitation  of 14.41
 inches. Months of maximum precipitation
 are    July    and    August;    minimum
 precipitation occurs in June."Snowfall at
 Monticello is over 54 inches and occurs in
 the months of December through March
 (Table 3.14-2).

 Site evaporation is represented by regional
 information  available  in  the National
 Oceanic and  Atmospheric Administration
 (NOAA) Evaporation Atlas, based on  the
 15-year  period   of  1956-1971.   Pan
 evaporation at the Lisbon Valley Project is
 estimated  to  be  50   inches/year  (Air
 Sciences 1995).

 Wind   speed   and  direction  data   are
 expected  to  be  similar to  those  data
 collected at the airport in Grand Junction,
 Colorado,   and   used   in  the  permit
 application submitted on behalf of Summo
 to the Utah Division of Air Quality (DAQ)
 (Air   Sciences  1996).   The  DAQ  has
 approved the use of those data   for
 permitting purposes and considers the data
 to be generally representative of the project
 area.    Five  years  of wind data   are
 summarized as frequency distributions in
 Rgure 3.14-1 by direction.  The data show
 a high frequency of winds from the east-
 southeast and southeast with a much lower
 secondary peak from the northwest. These
 winds  are along the axis of the Colorado
 River Valley in Grand Junction - the same
 axis as the valley of the Lisbon Valley
 Project.    The  data record  shows  2.8

 2399OR33 5/1*96(3:47 PMyRPT/4                    3-81
 percent calms (no wind) and an average
 speed  of 7.3  knots  (8.2 miles  per hour
 (mph)). About 30 percent of all winds are
 from the  predominate  directions of east-
 southeast and southeast with an average
"speed of 9.0 mph.  The least frequent wind
 directions are from  the  south-southwest
 and southwest, totaling less than  5 percent
 of all winds with an average speed of about
 10.9 mph.

 3.14.3    Air Quality

 Baseline air quality represents the ambient
 conditions   before    the    project   is
 constructed. In an area such as the Lower
 Lisbon Valley, there is neither  industrial
 activity nor  urbanization that could affect
 the natural, rural air quality conditions. The
 nearest industrial project is the Rio Algom
 uranium mine,  about  12 miles to  the west.
 This project is currently inactive but could
 restart.   Regardless,  emissions from this
 mine would not reach the  Lisbon Valley
 site in sufficient  concentrations  to be
 considered more  than negligible.  Active
 projects in the region  also  are small and
 more  distant,  and emissions from these
 projects would not impact the project site
 (Air Sciences 1996).

 Baseline air pollutant concentrations at the
 Lisbon  Valley  Project  location   were
 estimated  based on  regional information
 (Air    Sciences     1996).     Baseline
 concentrations of  combustion gases are
 assumed  to be at  natural  background
 levels, or negligible.  Paniculate data have
 been collected  by the DAQ  in the town of
 Moab,  located roughly 40 miles northwest
 of the Lisbon Valley Project. Moab is in a
 similarly  semi-arid region,  is  lower in

-------
                              TABLE 3.14-2

               MONTHLY PRECIPITATION AND SNOWFALL
                          MONTICELLO, UTAH1
Month Precipitation Average (in.)
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
Total
1.34
0.97
0.96
0.86
1.00
0.48
1.67
1.89
1.16
1.62
1.08
1.38
14.41
Snowfall Average (in.)
15.1
10.1
7.8
2.2
0.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.6
5.4
12.7
54.3
    1   Data are from 1951-1980 per NOAA 1992.

      SOURCE: Air Sciences 1995.
23996/B3.3 5/14/96(3:47PMyRPT/4
                                  3-82

-------
                           NNW
                 NW
        WNW
        W
        WSW
                 sw
                            ssw
            LEGEND
                 < 6 KNOTS
                   6 KNOTS
       CALMS ARE WINDS WITH
      SPEEDS LESS THAN 1 KNOT
SHOWN AS DIRECTION WIND  IS FROM
                                          N
              NNE
                          NE
                                 ENE
                                                                        20%
                          SE
               SSE
                                                    AVERAGE WIND SPEED = 7.3 KNOTS
                                                              SOURCE: AIR SCIENCE INC. 1996.
                           Job No. :     23996
                           Prepared by :  CRP
                           Dote :
2/13/96
            WIND  FREQUENCY  DISTRIBUTION
                                                                              FIG. 3.14-1

-------
 elevation and warmer than the project site,
 and is therefore expected to be drier and
 dustier than the project site.  Furthermore,
 concentrations of particulate at the project
 site are expected to be lower than in Moab
 due to the lack of industrial activity nearby.
 The annual average PMio concentration in
 Moab for 1994, 26 mg/m3, was used as the
 upper limit  for the  24-hr  and annual
 baseline  concentrations  for  the  Lisbon
 Valley Project.   (PM10 is the particulate
 matter with an aerodynamic diameter that
 is equal to or smaller than 10 micrometers
 in size).

 3.15   NOISE

 3.15.1   Study Area

 Existing  noise levels in the Lower Lisbon
 Valley are expected to be representative of
 rural  conditions  and are expected to vary
 between  35 and 45 decibels (dB) (BLM
 1985b).  Noise sources are expected to be
 primarily natural,  such  as  wind,  but
 additional noise comes from aircraft and
 from  traffic on nearby roads (e.g., Lower
 Lisbon Valley Road).  Noise from aircraft
 could average 50 dB, and from traffic on
 paved roads could be expected to be 66 dB
 (BLM 1985b).  An average level of 55 dB
 is  considered   by   the  Environmental
 Protection Agency (EPA  1974) to be the
 level  above which annoyance occurs in a
 residential   neighborhood.   A   similar
 threshold has not been established for rural
 areas (BLM 1985b).  The  EPA  further
 considers that maintaining noise below an
 average level of 70 dB would adequately
 protect public health and welfare.
      3.16   RECREATIONAL
             RESOURCES

      In the  project  area, recreation  use  or
      demand is low compared to other areas in
      the  region.   Recreation  is  generally
      dispersed, and there are no developed
      recreation sites in Lisbon Valley. Major
      activities  include  big  and  small  game
      hunting with some associated camping and
      All Terrain Vehicle (ATV) use.

      Information was compiled from maps and
      literature supplied by public  and private
      agencies  and  telephone  communications
      with Federal and State agencies.

      3.16.1  Study Area

      The study area for recreational resources
      includes public lands in the vicinity of the
      proposed Lisbon  Valley Copper  Project
      boundary  (Figure   1-2)  and  regional
      recreation sites  that  may  be  indirectly
      impacted by the proposed project.

      3.16.2 Recreational Resources

      Dispersed Recreation

      Dispersed  recreation  represents the most
      common form of recreational activity in the
      study area. The primary recreational use of
      the Lisbon Valley is seasonal deer and
      cottontail rabbit  hunting  a^id year-round
      jack-rabbit hunting,  with minor camping
      and ATV use associated with the  hunting
      activities  (Van Hemert  1996,  McClure
      1996a).  Minimal use of the  Three Step
      Hill area for Christmas tree harvesting and
      firewood  gathering  also  occurs.   An
      estimated-  maximum  of 100-200  visitor
23996/R3.3 5/14/96(3:47PMyKPT/4
3-84

-------
days  of use per year occurs in the study
area (Van Hemert 1996).

Within  the  study  area,  there  are  no
mountain biking or hiking trails, nor scenic
areas that  would typically attract tourists
or provide scenic opportunities.  Fishing
and   other water-related  recreation  is
nonexistent due  to the  lack  of surface
water. There are no wilderness areas in the
vicinity of Lisbon Valley,  however,  the
Dolores River Canyon Wilderness Study
Area is approximately 7 miles northeast of
the Project Area.

The RMP (ELM 1985a) contains no plans
for recreation development  in the vicinity
of the  proposed  project.   Additionally,
neither  the BLM  nor the State Lands
Administration currently have any plans for
recreational development of public lands in
this area; this is the only area in the region
where  recreational  activities   are  not
increasing. (Van  Hemert  1996,  Stokes
1996).

Regional Recreation

Public lands north and west of the project
area offer a wide variety of dispersed and
developed  recreational  opportunities for
local  residents  and nonresidents.   The
nearest  developed  recreation is the Wind
Whistle  Campground  located   approxi-
mately 20  miles west  of Lower Lisbon
Valley.  This campground is used regularly
from  spring through fall.  The  Needles
Overlook is the next  closest  developed
recreational area. It is  approximately 35
miles northwest  of the project area and is
heavily used (Van Hemert 1996).

The Manti La Sal National Forest (which is
divided  between an area north of La Sal
and  an  area  west  of Monticello),  the
Arches National Park north of Moab, and
the Canyonlands National  Park southwest
of Moab offer an abundance of recreational
opportunities and tourist  attractions  that
do  not  exist in the Lisbon  Valley  area.
Recreation  activities include hiking, biking,
camping,  picnicking,  horseback  riding,
rock climbing, fishing, boating, sightseeing,
and a variety of others. In the winter, these
areas are used for cross-country skiing and
snowmobiling    (Multi-Agency   Visitors
Center 1995).
2399&K33 5/1496(3:47 PMyEPT/4
                                         3-85

-------
                                                                                  4.0
                                             ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
 The  baseline  conditions  discussed  in
 Section 3.0 would receive impacts from the
 Proposed  Action,  or the alternatives,  as
• described  in  Section  2.0,  if such are
 approved for implementation.  This section
 on Environmental Consequences discusses
 these predicted impacts  for  each of the
 resource   issues.    No  specific  impact
 assessment  methodology  applies to all
 resources  but  in general the  context,
 magnitude, and intensity  of the impact  is
 discussed,   in  quantitative   fashion  if
 possible, in accord with NEPA, CEQ and
 BLM guidelines.   The analysis therefore
 compares and contrasts the impacts among
 alternatives. This section further provides
 detail for  the impact summary comments
 presented  in Table  2-11.  Section   4.17
 addresses   the  cumulative   impacts   of
 projects in the regional study area by issue.

 In  many  cases,   potential  impacts are
 assessed in two or more resource sections
 because  they  are  interrelated;  direct
 impacts to one resource result in indirect
 impacts to another resource; e.g., impacts
 to soils also affect vegetation and wildlife.

 4.1   GEOLOGY  AND
      GEOTECHNICAL ISSUES

 4.1.1  Methodology

 Geologic  impacts  associated with the
 implementation of the Proposed Action or
 alternatives, as noted in Sections 2.2 and
 2.3,  respectively,  include  those related to
 the  removal of mineral resources; changes
 in topography  of  the pit, heap leach, and
 waste rock dump  areas; and the covering

 2399SE3.4 5/15/96(9:12 PMyKPTO                     4-1
of mineral resources  from pit backfilling
(i.e., if Alternative 2 is implemented). This
section  addresses the  potential  impacts
from    a   geologic   standpoint    from
implementing the Proposed Action or an
alternative.

This  section  also discusses  geotechnical
aspects  of potential consequence  to the
environment   that  could  result   from
implementing  the Proposed  Action  and
each  of the alternatives,  as  described in
Section  2.3.

4.1.2    Proposed Action

4.1.2.1  Impacts

Impacts     associated    with     the
implementation of the  Proposed  Action
would include the mining of approximately
135,900,000 tons of material:   42,600,000
tons of  ore and 93,300,000 tons of waste
rock.    Approximately  170,000 tons  of
copper  cathode would be produced over
the life-of-mine from the ore.  The waste
rock would be deposited into four waste
rock dumps.

The mining of this rock and placement of
waste rock and leached ore on the  surface
of the site represent a topographic impact
to the  site.   The  pit  areas and  waste
rock/leach  pad  areas  would encompass
approximately   231   and   706   acres,
respectively.

Three geotechnical  impacts  are possible
under the Proposed Action:   slope failure .
due to seismic events, exceedance of the

-------
 solution pond volume, and leach pad liner
 breach.  Each of these matters is discussed
 in turn below.

 Slope Failure

 The failure of a constructed slope can be
 caused by a seismic event occurring in the
 vicinity of the slope.  A seismic event could
 modify the load structure on the leach pad
 beyond the loads carried in a static, or non-
 seismic, condition. The factor of safety for
 slopes that are stable  is at or above  1,
 which is a ratio of forces that are tending
 to stabilize the slope to forces that are
 tending to  cause movement.   A seismic
 event adds forces to the slope that upsets
 the equilibrium  and drives  the  factor of
 safety downward. A slope will fail when a
 factor of safety below 1 is reached.

 A slope failure could have several potential
 impacts.   Failure of the heap leach pad
 slopes in large magnitude onto surrounding
 land has the  potential  to  make impacts
 outside the limits of the leach pad. Impacts
 would include possible contamination of
 soil, flora and fauna by ore that is saturated
 with leaching solutions.  Small scale  slope
 failures  would likely remain within the
 limits of the leach  pad and not  pose
 environmental impacts.

 The potential also exists that the pad lining
 system   could  fail   during  earthquakes
 resulting in a compromise  of the  lining
 system integrity and opening the possibility
 of solution release. Impacts would include
 soil contamination from leach solution and
 a potential for groundwater contamination.
 Since the liner is below the heap  ore, flora
 and fauna would not be directly impacted.
2399&R3.4 S/l&9«(9:12PMyRPT/2                     4-2
 Summo  considered slope stability during
 the  design of the Lisbon  Valley Project
 leach pad. Computer modeling was used
 to design slopes that  would remain stable
 under both static  loading  conditions and
 seismic loading conditions for the area
 (Welsh 1996). These measures reduce the
 probability  of  leach  pad  failure  and
 contaminant release.

 Solution Pond Volume Exceedance

 During a large precipitation event, solution
 pond volumes would increase over normal
 operating levels. Most of the precipitation
 must percolate through  the  heap ore to
 discharge to the ponds.  This percolation
 may attenuate peak flows several days after
 the event has-ended.  If the pond system
 does not  have the capacity to  hold extra
 volume such  as that produced  by a large
 precipitation  event, diluted solution may
 overtop the ponds and discharge into the
 environment.  Large spills would discharge
 leach  solution  into   the   environment
 contaminating soils,  groundwater, flora,
 and fauna.

 To   avoid   damage   through  solution
 discharge to the environment and loss of
 recoverable copper,  all solution ponds
would   be   sized   to  accommodate
precipitation volumes that  should not  be
 exceeded in 100 years (Welsh 1996). The
probability of pond overtopping is then
 substantially reduced.

Leach Pad Liner Breach

Breaches in the geomembrane liner below
the leach  pad  could occur in many ways.
 Some  of the  more common  forms  are
puncture due to angular rocks against the
liner, machinery above  the liner causing

-------
 rips or punctures, and incorrectly welded
 seams.  These forms of liner breach would
 have the  potential  to  release  leaching
 solution into the environment.  This would
 contaminate soil and groundwater. Summo
 has designed the lining system to minimize
 to  the  extent feasible puncture  of the
 geomembrane liner from above or below
 by  large,  angular rocks.   To protect the
 liner  from  below,   a  one-foot layer  of
 natural fine-grained clay material underlain
 by an eight-ounce geofabric above a one-
 foot layer of compacted silt is proposed to
 be installed.   To prohibit liner punctures
 from above, a thin, protective layer of ore
 would  be placed over the pad enabling
 machinery   to  move  about   for  ore
 placement.

 Large sheets  of geomembrane  liner are
 welded  together to produce a continuous
 impermeable lining system.  If the welding
 is not performed correctly, leach solutions
 could enter the environment.   To prevent
 this,  a construction  quality  assurance/
 quality  control  (CQA/QC)  program  is
 typically implemented to  ensure  welding
 integrity  during  construction   and   a
 continuous lining system.

 Foundation Settling

 Foundation    material   in   a    loose
 (i.e., uncompacted)   state  would  settle
 under a heap  leach pad during and after
 loading  of the heap with ore.  Settlement
below the pad would potentially influence
the drainage of solution ponds, predicted
 settlement  must be  taken into  account
when performing initial site grading. No
 environmental impacts would be created by
foundation settling.
2399&R3.4 5/15/96(9:12 PMJ/RFT/2                     4-3
 4.1.2.2  Recommended Mitigation

 The proposed mine plan is premised upon
 economic  and  safety  considerations to
 allow for a viable mine.  The pits must be
 developed with stable walls to comply with
 MSHA   requirements   and   minimize
 potential  risks  to  mine  workers.    The
 deposition of waste  rock in  the  four
 designated dumps was designed to allow
 for  the  efficient  mining  of ore   and,
 secondarily,   to  minimize  topographic
 impacts.     As  such,   there   is   no
 recommended   mitigation  of  geologic
 impacts.

 The geotechnical design proposed for the
 Lisbon    Valley  Project   incorporates
 appropriate engineering considerations to
 the maximum extent possible.   To ensure
 liner integrity, Summo should commit to a
 CQA/QC  program  during  construction
 activities.

 4.1.3    No Action Alternative

 Under this alternative, there would be no
 development  of the mineral resources at
 the Lisbon Valley Project and no change in
 the topography.   (Project  development on
 private, or fee,  lands  only is infeasible.)
 Moreover, this  alternative would  leave
 historic mining  disturbances unreclaimed.
 The   impact  under  the  No   Action
 Alternative  is  that  the  opportunity to
 develop mineral resources, as authorized
by law,  would  be foregone on Federal
lands.  There would be no irreversible or
irretrievable resource commitments  under
this alternative.

There  would be  no  impacts from  a
geotechnical  standpoint  under  the  No
Action Alternative since the facilities (e.g.,
                                                                                                263

-------
 heap leach pad) would not be developed.
 In addition, existing waste  rock dumps
 from  previous  mining  activities would
 remain on site in a fairly stable, angle-of-
 repose configuration.

 4.1.4    Open Pit Backfilling
         Alternative

 4.1.4.1  Impacts

 The impacts under this alternative would
 be comparable to the  impacts  identified
 under the Proposed  Action.   However,
 under  this  alternative,  the  partial  or
 complete filling of the pits  would  have
 topographic   and  future   development
 impacts. The topographic impact would be
 the reduction in the height and area! extent
 of the waste rock dumps and  either the
 partial or complete filling of the pits.  The
 future development impact would be that
 development of  the  currently  identified
 uneconomical copper resources  would be
 economically prohibitive.

 The geotechnical impacts associated  with
 implementing the Open  Pit  Backfilling
 Alternative are comparable to the impacts
 associated with the Proposed Action  with
 one  exception.   Material from the waste
 dumps would be used to backfill the  pits,
 either partially or completely.  This would
 result in a reduction in the size of the waste
 dumps (Le., reduction in total height and
 slope length).   The  reduction in waste
 dump  size  would further   reduce  any
 impacts that may result from  a. seismic
 event (e.g., further reduce slope failure).

4.1.4.2   Recommended Mitigation

Complete backfilling of the four pits would
maximize usable topography.  However,

2399&R3.4 5/lS96(9:12PM>KPT/2                     4-4
 under  such  a   scenario,   the   copper
 resources that would not be mined during
 Summo's proposed operations would  be
 covered  rendering  future   development
 improbable.  Partial backfilling of the pits
 would minimize the copper resources to be
 buried  but  still  potentially  impact  the
 viability of future mineral activity.

 4.1.5    Facility Layout Alternative

 Under this alternative, the geologic impacts
 or consequences would be the same as the
 impacts or consequences  associated  with
 the Proposed Action,  except for minor
 topographic variations.

 For geotechnical issues, implementation of
 this   alternative  would  result  in   the
 relocation of the waste  rock  from Waste
 Dump D to Waste Dump C. Waste Dump
 C would be constructed  in  the  manner
 comparable to  that under the Proposed
 Action.  The only difference  between the
 Proposed Action and this alternative is that
 the area! size of Waste Dump  D would be
 expanded by  approximately 50 acres.  As
 such,   the impacts  and  environmental
 consequences  from   implementing  this
 alternative from a geotechnical standpoint
 are no different  than  those under the
Proposed Action.

4.1.6     Waste Rock Selective Handling
         Alternative

From   a  geologic  and  non-geochemistry
standpoint, there would be no change  in
the impacts  or  consequences  from the
discussion provided under the Proposed
Action.   Please  refer  to  Section  4.3
concerning    geochemistry     impacts
associated with this alternative.

-------
Under this alternative., there would also be
no change of the impacts or environmental
consequences   from   a    geotechnical
standpoint that  is  different  from  the
impacts  or  environmental consequences
under the Proposed Action.

4.2 HYDROLOGY

The primary goals of the water resources
impact   analysis  are  to  estimate  the
potential effects of the proposed action on
surface water and groundwater quality and
quantity.  Important water resource issues
considered,    including   those   issues
identified during  the  public   scoping
meetings  and  comments submitted  are
presented below:

   •  Depletion of groundwater
      resources due to pit dewatering and
      process water use
   •  Discharge of process waters to the
      environment
   •  Degradation of surface water and
      groundwater
   •  Potential land subsidence from
      groundwater extraction
   •  Potential for spills of process
      solutions, fuels, antifreeze, and
      similar substances
   •  Potential loss of current uses of
      surface water and groundwater
   •  Degradation of ephemeral stream
      drainages from contaminated
      surface water runoff
   •  Potential impact to off-site, private
      water sources from blasting
      operations, groundwater
      withdrawal, or contamination
   •  Potential water quality impacts
      from the proposed 69 kV
      transmission line to the project
         •  The quality of water potentially
            ponded in the pits following
            operations
         •  Cumulative impacts of the project
            on future uses of surface water and
            groundwater

     4.2.1    Methodology

     Potential impacts to  water resources have
     been   estimated  using   the   existing
     information  discussed in  Sections 3.1  -
     Geology, 3.2 - Water Resources,  and 3.3 -
     Geochemistry; and additional information
     from  the  sources  referenced.  Existing
     water quality  information,  depth to and
     amount of groundwater available,  details of
     the  Proposed  Action  and  Alternatives,
     results  of  acid-base  accounting  and
     Method  1312  results,  and  groundwater
     modeling  studies were  used  to predict
     project impacts.

     Examples of potential impacts that may be
     detrimental to the  environment or human
     use  of  water  resources  include   the
     reduction  or loss of  an  existing beneficial
     use  of surface water  or  groundwater
     resources;   contamination   of  water
     resources    to   preclude   existing    or
     reasonable   future    beneficial   uses;
     degradation  of water  quality parameters to
     levels  above  drinking  water  standards
     (other  than  those   parameters  which
     currently  exceed standards); or loss  of
     wildlife habitat due  to  contamination  or
     loss of resources.

     Potential impacts may also be beneficial to
     the  environment.    An example of  a
     beneficial impact would be the creation of
     additional surface water resources which
     are of sufficient quality and accessibility
23996/R3.4 5/15/96(9:12 PMyRFT/2
4-5

-------
 such that they may potentially be used for
 irrigation and livestock watering.

 4.2.2    Proposed Action

 This section discusses potential direct and
 indirect impacts to water resources from
 the  Proposed  Action   (Section   2.0),
 highlights  committed   mitigation,   and
 recommends     additional     mitigation
 measures.

 4.2L2.1   Direct and Indirect Impacts

 Potential Impacts from Dewatering

 Under the Proposed Action, the shallow
 aquifer would be dewatered in the vicinity
 of the mine pits. This dewatering would be
 necessary  to  allow access to  the  ore.
 Groundwater extracted would be used for
 process requirements and dust control on
 project roads. Dewatering would increase
 the depth to water in the area, increase the
 costs to extract the remaining groundwater
 from the aquifer and reduce availability of
 groundwater in the immediate project area
 (Adrian Brown Consultants 1996).

 Results by groundwater modeling (Adrian
 Brown Consultants  1996) indicate that the
 net effect of the dewatering operations and
 ponding of water in the  pits after mining
 ceases would be to increase water levels in
 the groundwater system near the Sentinel
Pit  (due to discharge of ephemeral surface
water flow to the  pit,  and  subsequent
 groundwater  recharge)  and to decrease
 post-mining groundwater levels near the
 Centennial   and  GTO   pits   (due  to
 evaporation of surface water from the pit
 lakes   and   subsequent   groundwater
 discharge to the pits). Figure 4.2-1 shows
the  predicted water level  drawdowns in

2399&R3.4 SrtS/96(9:12EMyRPT/2                    4-6
Lisbon Valley at year 11 (the conclusion of
mining activities).  The model predicts that
drawdown  effects would  be  centered
around the mining pits and decrease away
from the pits.

Figure 4.2-2 shows the  long-term  (250
years) steady-state drawdowns  in  water
levels following mining.  Water levels are
expected  to be  approximately 50 feet
higher in the vicinity of the Sentinel Pit and
zero to 25 feet lower in the remainder of
the   project    area    (Adrian   Brown
Consultants  1996).     Most  of  the
equilibration of the groundwater system
would occur within the first 50 years after
mining (Adrian  Brown Consultants 1996).

The consolidated  nature  of the aquifer
materials  indicates that significant  land
subsidence due to  groundwater extraction
would not occur.

Effects  of dewatering  would  reduce the
quantity of groundwater available from the
shallow aquifer in the mine vicinity during
the mining operation and  for a period of
years after mining ceases (Adrian Brown
Consultants 1996). However, the potential
impacts are tempered by the following: 1)
after  mining   ceases,   the  groundwater
recharge rate is expected to increase  in the
vicinity of Sentinel Pit No. 1 due to inflow
of ephemeral surface water into the pit
(Adrian Brown Consultants 1996), 2) the
shallow aquifer is  currently not used for
any beneficial purposes, and 3) the  water
naturally  exceeds  the   State  of  Utah
drinking water  standards for sulfate,  TDS,
manganese,   radionuclides,   and   other
parameters.  Therefore,  potential uses  of
the water are limited at present and would
be similarly limited  in the future.

-------
                                  :-~::'v]F VZ7 &r^  r )*&$'	W*&
                                  ^if^^:^^M yM
                                  t MAM, ^6x\c^:i/A;:^Ab»


                                                            S^5
                                                            .-.S^St-v f V. „->


                               V:'^a>1%^

    ELEVATIONS FEET ABOVE SEA LEVEL

    CONTOUR INTERVAL SO FEET
                                                  PREDICTED GROUNDWATER

                                                    DRAWDOWN, YEAR II
SOURCE: ADRIAN BROWN CONSULTANTS, INC. 1996
LISBON VALLEY COPPER PROJECT
                                                                 FIG. 4.2-1

-------
•o
   PREDICTED  POST MINING
STEADY-STATE GROUNDWATER
         DRAWDOWN
  LISBON VALLEY  COPPER PROJECT
                                                         Prepared by : C.H.P
     SOURCE: ADRIAN BROWN CONSULTANTS, INC. 1996

-------
Dewatering  of the shallow aquifer would
likely not impact the flow  of the two
known springs sampled in the area. Lisbon
Spring is fed from  shallow waters in the
Burro  Canyon Formation north of the
Sentinel Pit at a topographically higher
elevation than the shallow aquifer.  Huntley
Spring is fed  from water which  emerges
from the Cutler Formation  on the slopes of
Three Step Hill at an elevation much higher
than the top of the Burro Canyon aquifer
near the pits.  The source of recharge to
these two springs  is likely not connected to
the  shallow  Burro  Canyon Formation
aquifer in the project area. Therefore, there
would be no impacts to the water quality
or  quantity  of springs that  are located
topographically higher than the proposed
pits (e.g., Lisbon and Huntley Springs).

Dewatering  during mining,  and  loss  of
shallow  aquifer  groundwater  following
mining,  are not  expected  to  result  in
adverse impacts to flows in  the  Dolores
River.   The   maximum   groundwater
extraction rate predicted to  occur during
the mining activities is about 1,450 acre-
ft/year (Table  2-6), which occurs during
start-up of GTO  Pit activities in Year  5
(Adrian Brown Consultants 1996).   The
results of groundwater modeling indicate
the  long-term   net   loss   of  shallow
groundwater associated with evaporation
of pit lake water  from the Centennial and
GTO Pits following completion of mining
would be  about 24 acre-feet/year (Adrian
Brown  Consultants  1996).    Although
groundwater extraction during mining and
long-term losses  of shallow groundwater
following mining could potentially result in
decreased discharges  of groundwater  to
the Dolores River, the quantity  of such
decreases  is insignificant when  compared
to  the  quantity  of discharge within the

23996/R3.4 5/15/96(9:12PMXKPT/2                      4-9
Dolores River itself.  Information obtained
from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS
1992)  suggests  that the average  annual
discharge  in the Dolores  River  in  the
vicinity of the confluence with Mclntyre
Canyon for the  periods of 1985-1992 is
about   115,835   acre-ft/year.     As   a
percentage of this  river discharge,  the
discharge    potentially   lost   due   to
dewatering  during   mining  is  about  1
percent, and the discharge potentially lost
following   mining  due  to   pit   water
evaporation is about 0.02 percent.   These
potential reductions  would not result in
adverse impacts  to  flows in  the Dolores
River.

Potential  Impacts  from  Leaching and
Processing Operations

Groundwater extracted from  the  shallow
aquifer  would be used  for leaching and
processing copper-bearing  fluids  in  the
SX/EW   facility.   The   leaching  and
processing operations  are proposed  as
continuous-recycle   systems;   therefore,
minimal discharge of process waters to the
environment would occur.  Although there
would be  some losses of process water to
the atmosphere due to evaporation  of the
water sprayed on the leach pad ore, loss of
process   water   to   the   subsurface
environment is not  expected  because the
leach pad would be lined and monitored for
leaks as described in Section 2.2.4.2. After
mining and leaching  operations cease, the
leach piles would be reclaimed by covering
them with a low  permeability soil cover, as
described   in  Section  2.2.11.2.   During
leaching  operations,  surface   drainage
within the footprint area of the leach pad
would be contained and routed to the PLS
pond. A system of surface water diversion
structures would route natural stormwaters
around the leach pad and into the existing

-------
drainage channel that  flows  into Lisbon
Canyon.  This  diversion  system  would
maintain the natural flows in the canyon
during mining activities and would  likely
not result in notable increases or decreases
in ephemeral surface water flows in Lisbon
Canyon (see panoramic view of mouth of
Lisbon Canyon, Figure 4.2-3).  Stormwater
retention  ponds  would  also   receive
overflow  from  the raffinate and   PLS
ponds. This water would be pumped back
into the raffinate pond and used as makeup
water  for .the  system.  The  ditches and
ponds would be designed to contain runoff
from a 100-year, 24-hour storm event.

Accidental spills of leaching solutions from
the  leach  pad,   SX7EW  facility,   or
conveyance  structures  could  potentially
migrate  to  surface  water drainages  or
groundwater. If such a spill were to occur,
the low  pH and high sulfate and  metal
contents  of the leaching  solutions  could
potentially contaminate the drainages  or
groundwater. The impacts to surface water
resources would be a lowering of pH and
transport of additional sulfate and metals in
the stormwaters leaving the site  through
Lisbon Canyon.  The  potential  for such
spills  is  diminished by  the  operational/
mitigation measures  committed to by the
applicant.

The potential  for  adverse  impacts  to
groundwater would depend on the release
of a sufficient quantity of leaching solution
to reach groundwater.   Potential impacts
could  include  lowering  of pH,  and
transport of sulfate and dissolved metals to
and within groundwater.  In the case of a
small release (either a small spill or a small
quantity  leak),  the potential  for adverse
impacts would be mitigated by the natural
buffering and  adsorptive potential of the
native  soils underlying  the facilities.   It is
also  noted  that  natural  groundwater
currently exceeds drinking water standards
for sulfate  and  several  metals,  and  is
currently not used for any purpose.

Potential  Impacts  from  the  Use   of
Groundwater for Dust Control

The  groundwater  extracted   from  the
shallow aquifer  would be used for dust
suppression  on the  haul  roads  and  could
contain low levels of radionuclides,  based
on  existing  analyses  (Section 3.2.3.3).
Radiological analyses  of the groundwater
samples collected in October 1994  reveal
that the elevated gross alpha and gross beta
radiation  is  likely  due  to radium and
uranium  isotopes. Since  the groundwater
for dust  control would likely come from
new production wells and possibly from
the existing monitoring wells, water quality
analyses   from  wells   SLV3,  MW2A,
SLV1A,   and   test   hole  95R1   are
representative of the quality of water which
would be used for dust control. The gross
alpha and gross beta results for  samples
from these wells are quite variable (Table
3.2-3). Average values for the combined
sample results for these parameters for the
wells   listed   above   (excluding   one
anomalously high sample for well MW2A,
which  is associated with very  high total
suspended solids) are 154 pCi/1 for gross
alpha and 189 pCi/1 for gross beta.  These
values are  above the  primary drinking
water standards of 15  pCi/1 for gross alpha
and 8 pCi/1 for  gross  beta  (Utah DEQ
1994). An EPA standard for total uranium
in  uranium  mill waters is  0.044  mg/1
(Moten 1996). However, according  to the
staff contacted in the agencies listed in
Section 3.2.3.3, and a communication from
the  Department of  Energy  to  BLM
(Cornish 1996), no standards exist for road
watering or other industrial uses of water
containing elevated levels of radionuclides.
                                        4-10

-------
                 Figure 4.2-3. Panoramic view of mouth of Lisbon Canyon, looking west, showing proposed sites of
                                        Sentinel No. 1 Pit (left foreground) and temporary
                                     diversion structure (along canyon wall in middleground).
23996/R3.4 5/13/96(4:08 PMJ/RPT/2
                                                           4-11

-------
For comparison with other area projects,
groundwater used for processing at the Rio
Algom Lisbon Mine to  the north  of the
project    site   contains   radionuclide
concentrations  up  to   40,000   pCi/1
(Gochnour 1996b). Use of the shallow
aquifer groundwater for dust suppression
could   potentially   lead   to  temporary
exposures    to    naturally    occurring
radionuclides  such  as  radon.   However,
modeling of the potential radon exposure
(Cornish 1996) shows  that exposure to
workers   from    the    application   of
groundwater to  roads  for  dust  control
would be on the order of 20 times less than
the  occupational dose limit of 5  REM.
Exposure to the  general public using  the
roads  in  the project   area  would  be
substantially less.  Therefore, it is expected
that   no health  hazard  would occur to
workers or the general public from the use
of groundwater for dust control.

Potential   impacts  to   surface  water
drainages and  groundwater from use of
groundwater for  dust  control are  also
related to naturally elevated concentrations
of  radionuclides   in  the  groundwater.
Stormwater runoff of sediment-laden water
could transport the radionuclides (bound to
the sediments) to surface water drainages
and then down those drainages.  Infiltration
of radionuclide contaminated dust control
water  into  surficial soil  could result in
transport of radionuclides to groundwater.
However,   transport  of  radionuclides
through the vadose zone to groundwater is
unlikely to occur due to the low mobility of
radionuclides in soil. Radionuclides  have a
high affinity for adsorption to soil particles
and generally  can only  move in  the
subsurface  via  colloidal processes,  which
are not generally effective in transporting
contaminants    in    most    subsurface

2399&B3.4 S/lS/96(9:12PMyKPT./2                    4-12
environments.    In    summary,    such
radionuclide effects are  expected to be
minimal  on surface soils,  sediments, and
groundwater downstream of the haul roads
in Lisbon Canyon, and to therefore have
little or no effect on vegetation and wildlife
in that vicinity.

Potential  Impacts to Surface Water and
Groundwater Quality

Existing   water  quality in  the  shallow
aquifer is generally poor, with elevated
concentrations of certain metals,  sulfate,
and TDS.  Potential adverse impacts to
groundwater quality would be expected to
be limited because  of  the closed  water-
processing   systems    proposed,    spill
mitigation measures committed  to  by  the
applicant, and  the low  acid-generating
potential of the rock materials.

No  potential  impacts  to  groundwater
quality or quantity would be expected in
the   deeper   aquifer   in   the  Navajo
Formation.  The ore to be mined  for this
project is contained within the Dakota and
Burro Canyon Formations. Mining in  the
proposed pits  would extend only  to  the
base  of  the  Burro  Canyon Formation,
which is several hundred feet above the top
of the deeper aquifer.

Surface water flow is ephemeral, occurring
in  on-site  drainages   only  during  and
immediately after storm events.  There is
limited use of surface water in the project
area,  and aquatic organisms are  lacking in
the drainages.  Potential impacts  to surface
water quality can occur as a result of leach
pad liner or containment failure, or runoff
of water from waste  rock  piles.   The
potential for these impacts to surface water
quality to occur is low because the leach

-------
pad liner  and containment  systems are
designed  to  minimize  the  potential for
failure,  and  waste  rock  piles  will  be
designed  to  minimize  the  potential for
surface water run-on to or runoff from the
waste piles.

Results of acid-base accounting tests reveal
that 21  percent  of the  samples  tested
(which represent about 10 percent  of the
total volume of waste rock to be placed in
the   dumps)   were   potentially   acid-
generating (see Section 4.3.2). Generation
of acid could mobilize certain metals from
the dumps. However, results of Method
1312  Synthetic  Precipitation   Leaching
Procedure tests (McClelland Laboratories,
Inc. 1996), which used sulfiiric acid to
simulate geochemical conditions that can
develop in mine  wastes exposed to the
environment,  indicate that only aluminum
and iron would be leachable from the mine
wastes.    Accordingly,  the  runoff could
potentially stain  drainages  with   iron
compounds, and perhaps have impacts on
vegetation, but would  not  cause  any
substantial impact.

Potential Impacts to Water Uses

Currently, limited beneficial uses exist for
water resources in the project area. Surface
waters in the Lower Lisbon Valley area are
occasionally  impounded  and  used  for
livestock  watering   by several  ranchers
(Section   4.8).    Because  of restricted
access,  the   Proposed  Action  would
temporarily reduce the availability of water
for grazing purposes  in the immediate area
of the mining operations, but ephemeral
surface   water  could  be   impounded
elsewhere  in the valley.
      The  ultimate diversion  of Lisbon Valley
      surface water flows into the Sentinel No. 1
      Pit following mining activities would result
      in the elimination of ephemeral surface.
      water flow from Lisbon Valley into Lisbon
      Canyon (again, see Figure  4.2-3).   The
      quantity of natural ephemeral surface water
      flows down Mclntyre Canyon would not
      be   affected,   and   would   continue
      throughout and following mining activities.

      The diversion of ephemeral surface  water
      flow from Lisbon Valley into the Sentinel
      Pit following mining activities would not
      result in a significant reduction in  flows
      within the  Dolores  River  because  the
      quantity  of  diverted   surface  flow  is
      insignificant  compared to  the quantity of
      flow in the Dolores  River.   Based on
      information • obtained   from  the   U.S.
      Geological   Survey (USGS  1992),  the
      average annual discharge  in the  Dolores
      River at the  point  where it  intersects
      Coyote  Wash (where the Lisbon Valley
      surface  flow  would  have  entered  the
      Dolores River in the absence of mining) is
      about 209,950 acre-ft/year.  The  quantity
      of ephemeral  surface  water flow  from
      Lisbon Valley that would be diverted into
      the Sentinel Pit at the conclusion of mining
      is 177 acre-ft/year. An annual probability-
      weighted runoff approach was used which
      established the  annual  runoff volume  of
      0.35 inches applied to a drainage basin area
      of 9.5 square miles resulting in  177 acre-
      feet  (Adrian  Brown Consultants  1996).
      This  annual volume  of 177 acre/ft/year
      represents about   0.08  percent  of  the
      discharge in the Dolores River.
2399S/R3.4 5/15/96(9:12PMyRPT/2
4-13

-------
A district-wide riparian inventory including
the Lisbon Canyon and East Coyote Wash
stream channels, was conducted  in  1990
(Younker et al.)-  No riparian areas or
aquatic organisms that would be dependent
on the ephemeral flows through Lisbon
Canyon were found, therefore there would
be  no  substantial   impacts   to  those
resources as a  result  of a reduction of
flows following mine closure.

Mining would create  three  surface water
bodies as the pits fill with water following
mining activities (Figure 4.2-4).  The water
quality in these pit lakes is expected to be
potentially  alkaline  (pH  probably 8.0 or
greater),   with   elevated   sulfate   and
dissolved  solids concentrations  (Adrian
Brown Consultants 1996).  Analyses of
other natural lakes and pits  from the
Colorado Plateau region and  the  Great
Basin suggest that the post-mining pit lake
waters will undergo  evapoconcentration,
causing  concentrations  of some  metal
oxyanions to increase (BLM 1996d, Miller
et al.  1996; Hamp et al.  1995).   Such
increases  may degrade  existing  shallow
groundwater  quality.     However,  these
waters presently  have no beneficial  uses.
These lakes could   constitute a useful
addition  to the  water  resources  of the
valley, as they could potentially provide
water for irrigation and livestock watering
depending   upon  future  quality.    No
beneficial  use   is   currently   planned,
however. Groundwater from the shallow
aquifer  system  within  the project  site
vicinity is  currently  not used for  any
purpose.
      Potential  Impacts to  Water Supply  Near
      Summit Point

      Several people are interested in building
      homes approximately six miles south of the
      project site, in Section 20, T 31 S, R 26 E,
      near Summit Point. These people attended
      the public meeting in  Moab and expressed
      concern  about project impacts  to  water
      supplies, as the homes would draw water
      for  domestic  use  from   groundwater
      sources.  The proposed location of these
      homes is  to the west  of the Lisbon Fault,
      which  appears to act as a barrier  to
      groundwater   flow   (Adrian    Brown
      Consultants 1996) and would thus separate
      the  area  of the  proposed homes  from
      potential water quality impacts in the mine
      area. The area near the proposed homes is
      underlain by the Dakota Formation, which
      overlies  the ore-bearing  Burro  Canyon
      Formation.  The  base of the underlying
      Burro Canyon Formation in the area of the
      proposed homes is at  approximately 6,900
      feet elevation. The elevation of the base of
      the  Burro   Canyon  Formation  in  the
      Centennial and GTO Pit areas ranges from
      approximately  6,000  to   6,200   feet.
      Therefore, if the  source of the well water
      for these homes is  the Burro  Canyon
      Formation,  then  the  water, would come
      from a higher elevation and would likely
      have no connection with that at the project
      site. It is also possible that the domestic
      wells would need to be  drilled  to the
      Entrada or Navajo Formations in this area.
      Neither  of these formations would  be
      impacted   by  project  operations.   In
      addition,  data presented in  Section 3.2
      demonstrate that the rocks on the west side
      of the  Lisbon   Fault  are  hydraulically
      isolated from the shallow  aquifer in the
      Centennial and GTO  Pit areas. Since the
      home  sites  are   approximately  six miles
2399SR3.4 S/l»9€(9:12PM)/KPT/2
4-14

-------
 660O
 5800
         DEWATERING CASE- 0.35" RUNOFF TO SENTINEL PIT, DYNAMIC STORAGE
                      WATER AND PIT ELEVATIONS OVER TIME
               • GTO PIT
               •GTO WATER
                          6789  10 11  12  13  14  15  16 17  18  19 -20
                              YEARS SINCE MINING STARTED
            CENTENNIAL PIT   -&- SENTINEL PIT
            CENTENNIAL WATER -Sr- SENTINEL WATER
PIT NAME:
Pre-mining Ground Elevation (ft)
Original water table elevation (ft)
Final pit floor elevation (ft)
Predicted final water level elevation (ft)
Depth of floor below predicted pool surface (ft)
GTO
6480
6150
5880
6127
: 247 , :
CENTENNIAL
6440
6188
6060
6166
106
SENTINEL
6460
6200
5960
6249
289
NOTE FINAL WATER LEVEL ELEVATIONS IN TABLE ARE HIGHER THAN THOSE SHOWN ON CHART
     SINCE CHART ONLY PROJECTS TO YEAR 20; WATER LEVELS WILL CONTINUE TO RISE
     SLOWLY OVER TIME
                      SOURCE: ADAPTED  FROM ADRIAN  BROWN  CONSULTANTS, INC. 1996
Job No. :   . 23996
Prepared by : G.J.W.
                      Date :
           4/1/96
                                            HEAD AND SURFACE ELEVATIONS
                                                AT  EACH  PIT  OVER  TIME
                                               LISBON VALLEY COPPER  PROJECT
                                                                         FlG- 4-2'
                                                                      /
                                                                    l\b

-------
south   of  the  project   area,  blasting
operations  in  the GTO  Pit  would  be
unlikely to  cause any disturbance to the
groundwater regime  in  the area of the
proposed  home  building.  Therefore,  no
impacts are expected  to  the quantity or
quality of water available for domestic uses
in the area of the proposed homes.

Potential Increases in Erosion and
Sedimentation

The mining operations  would result in
disturbance to 1,103 acres. Disturbed areas
would consist of bare  soil  and rock, haul
roads,  waste   rock   dumps,   topsoil
stockpiles, spent  leach pad materials, and
process area facilities. Stormwater runoff
from the disturbed areas could potentially
result in an increase in sedimentation to the
ephemeral  drainages  in  Lisbon Valley,
Lisbon  Canyon,  Lower  Lisbon Valley,
Mclntyre  Canyon,  and  Coyote Wash.
Stormwater  and sediment control measures
would be implemented during mining  by
the applicant  to  mitigate  this effect,  as
discussed  in Section 4.2.2.2.  Following
completion of mining  and discontinuance
of  mitigation  measures,  an  increase  in
sedimentation is likely in the lower Lisbon
Valley, Mclntyre  Canyon, and portions of
the Lisbon  Valley in  the  disturbed area
upstream of the Sentinel Pit. In the case of
Lisbon Canyon and Coyote Wash, which
are downstream of the Sentinel  Pit, less
sediment  would  reach  those  drainages
following mining  because of the diversion
of upstream  ephemeral  surface water flows
(and associated sediment) into the Sentinel
Pit Because the aforementioned drainages
do  not support  aquatic  organisms, the
increase in sedimentation in the ephemeral
drainages  is not expected to result in  an
adverse impact to those drainages.
With respect to the Dolores  River, the
impacts of increased sedimentation from
the Lower Lisbon Valley following mining
are  not expected  to  result in adverse
impacts to the Dolores River.  This  is
because the  area of land to be disturbed
during  mining  is  insignificant  when
compared to the area of the entire drainage
basin that provides sediment to the Dolores
River.   Based on information  obtained
from the U.S.  Geological Survey (USGS
1992),  the  drainage  basin  area  that
provides sediment  to the  Dolores River
upstream  of the river's  intersection with
Mclntyre   Canyon  (where  the  Lower
Lisbon Valley sediment enters the Dolores
River)  is   estimated to  be  about  1,134
square miles (725,760 acres).   The total
area to be disturbed as  a result of mining
(including  the  area  within the Lisbon
Valley,   which  would  not   introduce
sediment to  the Dolores River following
mining) is  1,103 acres, which is about 0.2
percent of the total Dolores River drainage
basin area.  Thus, the amount of sediment
introduced from the mining area, although
increased from pre-mining levels, is likely
to be very small when  compared to the
amount of sediment  produced  from the
remainder  of the Dolores River drainage
basin.

Because  ephemeral  surface  water  flows
from the Lisbon Valley would be diverted
into the Sentinel Pit at the conclusion of
mining,  creating  a  waterfall into the  pit
during and immediately following  storm
events, the profile of drainages upstream of
the pit would be affected.  It is  expected
that increased  erosion  and  downcutting
would occur in the area upstream of the pit
as  the  ephemeral  streams attempt  to
reestablish   the  original  stream profile
(Figure 4.2-5).
2399SR3.4 S/l 5/96(9:33 PI«g«!T/2
                                        4-16

-------
Figure 4.2-5  Existing erosion and downcutting in vicinity of the proposed leach pad and
              facility area, just upstream from the mouth of Lisbon Canyon.
23996/R3.4 5/13/96(4:08 PMjlKPT/2
                                           4-17

-------
 While   the    increased   sedimentation
 produced by this erosion and downcutting
 would not affect Lisbon Canyon, Coyote
 Wash, or the Dolores River because all of
 the sediment would be transported into the
 pit, the erosion process would result in the
 loss  of sediment and the formation  of
 gullies and/or canyons upstream of the pit.
 It is possible that this erosion could result
 in the destabilization of the reclaimed heap
 leach pad,  waste  dumps,  and  roads  in
 Lisbon Valley.

 Post-Mining Pit Water Quality

 Under   current   conditions,   water   is
 intermittently ponded in the Centennial and
 GTO Pits as a result of precipitation into
 those   pits.      The  quality   of  this
 intermittently ponded water is represented
 by analyses  given  in Table 3.2-1.   The
 quality of water ponded in the Centennial
 Pit in August  1995 met Utah drinking
 water  standards   for   all  parameters
 measured except gross beta,  and was  of
 better quality than groundwater in the area.

 Water intermittently ponded in  the GTO
 Ph has  not been sampled, but may be  of
 poorer quality than that in the Centennial
 Ph.   This is  expected because historic
 uranium mining operations exist on the
 flanks of Three Step  Hill, adjacent to the
 GTO Pit.  Water ponded on uranium waste
 rock from the Continental Mine located on
 a bench on the south side of the GTO Pit
 has been sampled twice (Table 3.2-3) and
 contains the  highest  concentrations   of
 radionuclides and sulfate of any water
 sampled  on  site.    Storm  events could
 potentially lead  to  runoff from this area
into the GTO Pit, impacting water in the
pit.  The Proposed Action would remove

23996>R3,4 5/15/96(933 PMyKET/2                    4-18
 this waste rock and bench from the GTO
 Pit, eliminating this source of sulfate and
 radionuclides  to  the  pit  water  (Figure
 4.2-6).

 Each of the proposed pits would intercept
 groundwater in the shallow aquifer during
 mining, and  hence, would  contain lakes
 following  the   conclusion   of  mining
 activities.  Although the Centennial and
 GTO Pit lakes would undergo a net loss of
 water to  evaporation, resulting in a  net
 inflow of groundwater to the pits, pit water
 outflow to the shallow aquifer could still
 occur, leading to potential downgradient
 migration  of contaminants.    Therefore,
 impacts to groundwater surrounding and
 downgradient  of  the  pits   could  be
 expected.  The  Sentinel Pit No. 1  would
 receive  ephemeral  surface  water  inflow
 from the Lisbon Valley, which is predicted
 to  result  in a net groundwater recharge
 condition, with pit lake water moving into
 the  surrounding  shallow aquifer.    The
 quality of surface water which would enter
 the pit is expected to be good based on
 chemical analyses of water in stock ponds
 which collect  surface  flows  in  Lisbon
 Valley.  Therefore, the water quality in the
 Sentinel Pit is expected to be relatively
 good because of the influence of surface
 water runoff into the pit, and the acid-
 neutralizing potential of the pit wall rocks
 (Adrian Brown Consultants 1996).   As a
 result; adverse  impacts to groundwater
 surrounding  the  Sentinel  Pit  are  not
 expected.

 Some acid-generating Ihhologies may be
 exposed in the Centennial and  GTO  Pit
walls by mining (Section 4.3).  However,
 overall the pit wall rocks would have a net
acid-neutralizing capability; therefore, it is

-------

Figure 4.2-6   Current  condition  of GTO  Pit  (the  deepest  historic  pit in the  area) with
              evaporites from flow off bench area shown as lighter-colored material in pit
              bottom.
2399&K3.4 5/13/96(4:08 PM)/RPT/2
                                          4-19

-------
 expected that pit lake water would be of
 neutral  to  basic  pH  (Adrian  Brown
 Consultants 1996).  Based on a review of
 the groundwater quality and the nature of
 the materials exposed in the pit walls, it is
 expected  that  the  principal  dissolved
 constituents in the pit lake water would be
 sulfate,  chloride,  sodium,  and  calcium.
 The GTO  Pit, in particular, may contain
 high sulfate levels.

 Following completion of mining, salinity in
 the Centennial Pit and GTO Pit lake water
 is expected to slowly increase over time
 due to  evaporation  of  pit  water  and
 concentration of  dissolved  constituents.
 The  rate  of salinhy  increase   in  the
 Centennial  Pit is  estimated  to  be 59
 mg/L/year; the rate of salinity increase in
 the  GTO  Pit is  estimated  to  be 31
 mg/L/year  (Adrian Brown Consultants).
 Also, the use of ANFO for blasting in the
 pits   could  produce  elevated  nitrates,
 ammonia, and dissolved or total  organic
 carbon as a result of residues from blasting
 operations.

 In summary,  post-mining water quality for
 the Sentinel Pit is expected to be suitable
 for livestock and wildlife use, because of
 the dilution  from surface water runoff.
 The post-mining water quality for the other
 two pits is  likely to gradually degrade due
 to     evapoconcentration     processes,
 becoming progressively more alkaline (pH
 greater than  8.0).    As  a  result,  the
 concentrations of TDS  and  component
 constituents,   sulfate,  and  some  metal
 oxyanions would  likely increase,  possibly
 degrading  existing  shallow groundwater
 quality surrounding and downgradient of
the Centennial and  GTO  pit lakes (see
      references  in  discussion   of  Potential
      Impacts to Water Uses).

      Proposed Action  -  Case 2 - No  Post-
      Mining Recharge of Surface Water to
      Groundwater at the Sentinel Pit

      Under  this scenario,  the estimated  177
      acre-feet  of surface water discharge to the
      Sentinel Pit, and  subsequent recharge to
      the shallow aquifer, would not occur (i.e.,
      there   would   be   maintenance  of a
      permanent  stormwater  diversion around
      the Sentinel   Pit  -   see  Recommended
      Mitigation below).   This alternative was
      essentially modeled as Case 2 in the Lisbon
      Valley  Project Hydrogeologic Evaluation
      Report,  Appendix  2  (Adrian  Brown
      Consultants  1996).   It was modeled to
      allow  Summo  the best estimate of mine
      water supply for process and mining needs,
      and further assumed  the  water levels
      around the  pits would be drawn down by
      wells prior to mining, to supply water for
      project needs.  From that modeling effort,
      depths  of water in the pits during the post-
      mining period  would be 182  feet in the
      GTO Pit; 110  feet in the Sentinel and no
      lake development  at the Centennial  Pit.
      The pit lakes essentially reach equilibrium
      within  10 years after cessation of mining
      although  complete  equilibrium  is   not
      reached for many years.

      The resulting depths in modeled Case 2,
      assuming no recharge at the Sentinel  Pit,
      compare to 247 feet in the GTO pit; 289
      feet in the Sentinel pit and 106 feet in the
      Centennial pit  assuming 177 acre-feet of
      surface water go to groundwater recharge
      through the Sentinel  Pit,   as  presented
      previously for the Proposed Action.
239SWR3.4 S/35/96(9:]2PMyRPT/2
4-20

-------
Impacts to groundwater quality would be
similar to that discussed for Post-Mining
Pit Water  Quality (Section 4.2.2.1) with
the exception that there would be no water
in the Centennial Pit and water quality in
the Sentinel Pit would probably be poorer
than  predicted for the 177 acre-feet of
recharge case.   The water  quality would
likely be poorer because there would be no
introduction  of  expected   good  quality
surface water into the Sentinel Pit to dilute
evapo-concentrated constituents.

Post-mining  groundwater  levels  in  the
shallow aquifer within  the  project area
would also be lower  than post-mining
levels   with  177-acre-feet   of  annual
recharge to the groundwater system.  For
example, groundwater levels in the vicinity
of the GTO Pit would be approximately 70
feet lower  than with the 177 acre-feet of
recharge case  (Adrian Brown Consultants
1996; Figures A-16  and A-29; Appendix
2).

Potential Impacts from Accidental Spills

Accidental spills of diesel and unleaded fuel
from haul trucks and other mine vehicles,
kerosene and  reagents from the  SX/EW
facility,  and leaching solutions from the
leach  pad,  PLS pond, and  raffinate pond
could  result   in  adverse   impacts to
groundwater.     The   great   depth to
groundwater (i.e., typically 200  to 300
feet)  would   make   contamination  of
groundwater resources by spills of these
materials unlikely, except in the  area of
monitoring  well SLV2, where the depth to
groundwater is' approximately 83 feet and
infiltration to the aquifer through the valley
fill  sediments is possible.  Groundwater
from the valley fill sediments, although not
potable, is the highest quality of any in the

23996/R3.4 5/15/96(9:12 !>M)/RFr/2                     4-21
 area. Spills of vehicle fuels or kerosene
 could  also  potentially lead to petroleum
 contamination of surface water drainages,
 which  might then be transported  off site
 during   runoff   events.  However,  the
 committed mitigation measures,  described
 later,  make  the  spills  of  significant
 quantities of petroleum products unlikely.

 Potential Impacts from Power Line
 Construction

 A 69 kV power line would be constructed
 to the site as discussed in Section 2.2.7.
 Potential impacts to water resources from
 power line construction include  increased
 runoff from disturbed areas and  increased
 sedimentation of surface water  courses.
 However, there  are no perennial  streams
 along the proposed power line corridor. A
 study by Permits West (1995) identified no
 impacts  from the  proposed transmission
 line with the employment of the committed
 mitigation  measures   proposed   for  the
 power line construction.

 4.2.2.2  Committed and Recommended
         Mitigation Measures

Recall  that  the  following are committed
mitigation measures described in  Section
2.0. All leaching facilities (pad, conveyance
 corridors, diversion ditches, and solution
 storage ponds) would  be lined to minimize
the potential for leakage to groundwater.
 The  details  of  the   lining  system  are
 contained in Section 2.2.4.2. The leach pad
 system would contain  all fluids,  including
 stormwater which falls on the pad area,
and  route them to  the  storage  ponds.
 Solution would be applied to the heap by
drip  methods during most times, reducing
the  amount  of  spray from the  facility.
 Solution collection pipes would reduce the

-------
head of the percolating leach pad solutions,
further   minimizing  the  potential  for
seepage  through the  liner system.  The
diversion ditches and pond  system would
be engineered to contain the design storm
of 3.4 inches of precipitation in 24 hours.
The  leak  detection system   would  be
monitored  to  detect  leakage  from the
storage ponds. Reclamation of waste piles
and other exposed surfaces would proceed
throughout the project as feasible and at
the end  of mining. Waste rock dumps
would be contoured to prevent water from
ponding  on  them,  thus   reducing  the
infiltration of water  into the dumps. This
would reduce the potential production of
acid  drainage  from them.  Reclamation
procedures  are  described  in  Sections
2.2,11.1  and  2.2.11.2.   These measures
would reduce  potential impacts to surface
water and groundwater resources resulting
from release of leaching fluids or migration
of acid runoff to the environment.

Committed mitigation measures that would
be  employed  during mining  to prevent
accelerated  erosion  of surface  water
drainages and  increased sedimentation are
discussed •  in   Section  • 2.2.11.1.   A
stormwater management plan  would also
be prepared to address .drainage problems
in disturbed areas. This plan  includes the
design for  a  flood diversion structure
around the Sentinel  No.  1 Pit and Waste
Dump D during mining operations. This
diversion structure would maintain natural
storm  flows into Lisbon  Canyon  from
Lisbon valley  during the mining activities
(Figure 4.2-3).  Following mining, water
would be allowed to  discharge into the
Sentinel Pit, which would eliminate flows
into  Lisbon   Canyon  from   the  Lisbon
Valley.    Surface water inflows  in the
Lower   Lisbon  Valley  and  Mclntyre

23996/R3.4 5/1586(9:12 PMyRFT/2                    4-22
Canyon  would  be  unaffected  by  the
diversion structure at the Sentinel Pit.

To reduce  the  potential  for increased
sedimentation  to surface water  courses
along the proposed power line, installation
would  be   performed   from   existing
roadways, trails,  seismic tracks, and the
right-of way. Neither the access nor right-
of-way would be bladed.  Trucks would be
towed to the pole positions by backhoe if
they could not be driven there.

To address the potential for spills of fuels
and hazardous materials, a spill prevention
plan would be prepared in conjunction with
federal,  state, and local officials. This plan
would detail the procedures for storage
and use of hazardous  materials, fuels, and
process solutions. The vehicle maintenance
shop would be constructed  with a waste
sump to contain spills of fuels and solvents
used.

In  addition  to  the  committed  mitigation
measures discussed above, the following
mitigation  measures  are recpmmended.
One  or   more   test  boreholes   are
recommended to evaluate the lithology and
depth   to   groundwater  in   the   area
downgradient of the proposed leach pad.
Downgradient monitoring wells could also
be  installed  in  the  test  boreholes  (if
necessary) to monitor potential impacts to
groundwater from the leach pad  during
mining  operations,  if  groundwater  is
encountered at a reasonably shallow depth.
If water wells are developed  on public
land, and need to be abandoned, then BLM
should be  contacted  to  ensure that the
appropriate   plugging   procedures   are
followed that are  protective  of the natural
environment. Testing of sludges from the
solution   storage  ponds   should   be

-------
performed prior to final  reclamation  to
evaluate  disposal methods.  The above-
ground storage tanks  at the fuel storage
facility should be surrounded by a berm
capable of containing 110% of the volume
of the largest tank.

The proposed plan of operations calls for
construction   and   maintenance   of  a
stormwater diversion  ditch around  the
northern edge of the Sentinel Pit to route
stormwater down Lisbon  Canyon  during
mining operations. During the post-mining
period, the diversion would be re-routed to
allow stormwater  runoff to  enter  the
Sentinel Pit precluding ephemeral surface
water flow down Lisbon Canyon (i.e., from
the area(s) upstream of the Sentinel Pit).

Potential impacts from the  above scenario
could include  extensive  erosion in  the
drainages upstream of the  Sentinel Pit as
these  streams seek  re-establishment  of
streambed  gradients   into   the   pit.
Topographic relief of several hundred feet
from the valley floor to the bottom of the
pit  would   exist  initially  and   severe
downcutting into the pit wall and upstream
would  occur  as  the  pit  fills  unless
engineered structures are put in  place  to
minimize  erosion.   Potential  mitigation
measures for the above scenario include:

    •  A  lined  concrete  stream channel
       near the pit and concrete apron  or
       spillway constructed down the pit
       wall to prevent downcutting from
       stormwater   cascading    to   the
       bottom of the pit.
    •  Installation  of a  pipe  from the
       drainage at the valley floor to the
       bottom  of  the  pit   to  route
       stormwater  into  the  pit  without
       downcutting effects.

23996/R3.4 5/15/96(9:12 PMyRPT/2                    4-23
    •  Partial backfilling of the Sentinel pit
       to reduce the magnitude  of long-
       term down cutting and erosion.
    •  Maintaining    the    stormwater
       diversion  permanently  around the
       Sentinel Pit is another option that
       could be considered.  Constructing
       and   maintaining   a   permanent
       diversion   would  minimize  the
       potential     erosion     problems
       discussed above and would provide
       ephemeral surface water flow down
       Lisbon Canyon  as it  was  during
       pre-mining.       Maintaining   a
       permanent  diversion  in perpetuity
       could be problematic.
    •  A  fifth  option   would  entail
       complete backfilling of the Sentinel
       Pit  with  waste  rock  and  re-
       establishment of the surface water
       drainage  across  the backfilled pit
       and down Lisbon Canyon.

Potential impacts from this option include
potential leaching of certain  metals  and
suifate from waste rock into groundwater
further  degrading water  quality  of the
shallow aquifer.   The loss of the Sentinel
Pit Lake would occur, thus eliminating this
surface  water body  for  possible  future
beneficial uses.

4.2.3    No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, mining
would not take place on the property. The
extraction of copper for  beneficial uses
would not occur, and the  resource  would
remain undeveloped. Existing groundwater
quality  would remain  as  described  in
Section    3.2.2.   Groundwater    would
continue to  be  available  for industrial
purposes in its current volume  and quality.
Erosion of surface water  drainages from

-------
 intense   thunderstorm   events   would
 continue. A number of waste rock  piles
 currently  exist  on  site  from  previous
 mining operations.  These piles  currently
 contain some acid-generating materials, but
 do not appear to be releasing acid mine
 drainage to the environment in a notable
 way  (e.g.,  no iron staining  is  noted in
 ephemeral  stream courses,  and  no toxic
 effects to wildlife have  been observed).
 Under the  No Action  Alternative,  these
 piles would not be reclaimed. In addition,
 the pit lakes would not be  created  and
 would not enhance surface water resources
 in the valley.

 4.2.4    Open Pit Backfilling
         Alternative
Two  scenarios  for  this alternative have
been  developed:  partial  backfilling  and
complete backfilling  of the pits.  Waste
rock would be  used to backfill  the pits.
Partial backfilling would fill the pits to
above  the level  of ponded water, if any.
Complete backfilling would fill  the pits to
the surrounding ground level.

4.2.4.1   Direct and Indirect Impacts

The  impacts   to   surface  water  and
groundwater resources from both scenarios
of Alternative 2  would be nearly the same
as for the proposed action. Backfilling of
the pits,  either  partially or fully,  would
result in  a reduced quantity of waste rock
remaining in the piles following  mining.
Backfilling would also cover the potentially
acid-generating materials exposed in the pit
walls (Scenario  2), and cover  any water
ponded in the pits.  Covering of the water
in  the   pits  will  reduce  or  eliminate
evaporation of  the pit water;  therefore,
groundwater levels will be higher in the

23S9SR3.4 S/lS#6(9:12PMyRFT/2                    4-24
 vicinity of the backfilled pits as compared
 to the proposed  action,  in which the pits
 are left  open,  pit water evaporates, and
 water levels are low.  Evapo-concentration
 resulting  in elevated  concentrations  of
 TDS,  sulfate and  other potential  metal
 oxyanions would not occur.

 Potential impacts to surface  water from
 acid drainage from the pit walls would also
 be reduced  or eliminated  However, the
 unconsolidated waste rock material used to
 backfill the pits would be more susceptible
 to leaching of metals than undisturbed rock
 because  of  the increase in  surface  area
 exposed  to infiltrating precipitation.  This
 could, under certain  conditions, result  in
 migration of metals  from the waste rock
 into groundwater within and downgradient
 of the pits.    Results  of Method  1312
 leaching  tests  performed   on  samples
 representative of waste  rock indicate that
 the waste  rock  could   potentially"  leach,,
 aluminum and iron under acidic leaching
 conditions.  This could lead to increases in
 concentrations   of   these   metals   in
 groundwater within  and downgradient  of
 the  pits.    Secondary   drinking  water
 standards have been  promulgated for both
 metals. These metals are not toxic but can
 cause  taste  problems   and   staining   of
 plumbing fixtures.   However, results  of
 static   testing  of waste  rock  samples
 indicate that only approximately 10 percent
 of the waste rock volume would be capable
 of producing  acidic  solutions,  and thus
 creating the conditions necessary to  leach
aluminum and iron from the waste rock  as
predicted by the 1312 analyses. Because
the remainder of the waste rock volume
has a net acid-neutralizing capacity, it  is
expected that no  acid  solutions will be
produced in the backfilled pits, and hence,

-------
 leaching  of aluminum  and  iron will be
 minimal.

 On the other hand, as discussed in Section
 3.3.3, Method 1312 testing  is performed
 using slightly acid pH  waters (about pH
 5.0),  which  may not  be  realistic for
 predicting  the   constituents    or  the
 concentrations of constituents  leachable
 from alkaline geologic  materials.   In the
 post-mining setting, therefore, precipitation
 infiltrating   downward   through   the
 backfilled material could result in alkaline
 conditions with  a pH probably  8.0  or
 greater with the  potential for sulfate and
 some oxyanions to leach and migrate into
 the shallow aquifer.

 4.2.4.2  Recommended Mitigation
         Measures

 Mitigation measures  for  this alternative
 would be similar to those for the Proposed
 Action. Backfilling of the pits could itself
 be considered a mitigation measure  as the
 quantity of materials in the waste dumps
 would be reduced and acid generation from
 the materials exposed in the pit walls may
 be reduced.

 4.2.5    Facility Layout Alternative

 This  alternative  would  eliminate  waste
 dump  D and  place these materials in an
 expanded waste dump C.

 4.2.5.1  Direct and Indirect Impacts

Elimination of waste dump D would lessen
the impact on  surface water drainages in
the vicinity of Lisbon Canyon and  lessen
 overall hydrologic impacts compared to the
Proposed Action. No potential source of
acid generation would exist in this area;

23996/R3.4 5/15/96(9:34 PMyRPT/2                     4-25
 therefore,   no  degradation  of  Lisbon
 Canyon  from acid  drainage  from waste
 dump D  would occur.   Waste dump  D
 (Figure   2-1)   would   not  block  the
 ephemeral  drainage.      Therefore,   a
 permanent  diversion around  the  dump
 would not be needed, and the potential for
 head cutting, slope failure, or imderrnining
 of the dump by flowing  water would be
 eliminated.

 4.2.5.2  Recommended Mitigation
         Measures

 Mitigation measures for this  alternative
 would be the same  as  for  the Proposed
 Action.

 4.2.6    Waste Rock Selective Handling
         Alternative

 This  alternative  would  selectively handle
 waste rock so as to minimize the potential
 for acid production and  leaching of metals
 from the waste dumps.  Acid-generating
 lithologies would be identified and handled
 in the ways described in Section 2.3.4.

 4.2.6.1   Direct and Indirect Impacts

 Selective waste handling would lessen or
 eliminate the potential impacts to surface
 water    drainages   and   groundwater
 resources in the project  area  from acid
 drainage conditions. Alkaline water quality
 effects are ubiquitous in the project area,
 and the waste rock piles  are expected to
have no substantial impact on nearby sites,
vegetation, and  ephemeral surface  water
flows.

-------
 4.2.6.2  Recommended Mitigation
         Measures

 This   alternative  itself  comprises   a
 mitigation  action for the protection of
 water resources in the project area. Other
 committed  mitigation measures  for  this
 alternative would be  the same as ,for the
 Proposed Action. There are no additional
 mitigation measures proposed.

 4.3  GEOCHEMISTRY

 4.3.1  Methodology

 The potential for waste rock deposited in
 the   waste  dumps  to  generate  acid
 conditions    or   mobilize     dissolved
 constituents is the primary issue associated
 with the geochemistry at the Lisbon Valley
 Project  A secondary potential impact is
 from acid-generating material left exposed
 in   the   pit   walls.      Environmental
 consequences with respect to geochemistry
 of the Proposed Action and  alternatives
 thereto, as described  hi Section  2.3,  are
 addressed below.

 4.3.2    Proposed Action

 43.2.1   Impacts

 Mining to access the ore from the four pits
 would produce approximately  96,000,000
 tons of waste rock.  These materials would
 be disposed in four waste dumps.  Potential
 impacts  associated with  the  Proposed
 Action are as discussed below based on the
 results of static tests  and EPA  Method
 1312 analyses, as presented in Section 3.3.
 Also,  comments  on  potential  alkaline
geochemistry issues are given.
 The results of static tests on the material
 that would comprise the waste rock show
 that about 21 percent of the total samples
 (comprising about 10 percent by mass of
 the waste rock) were acid-generating with
 net neutralization potentials less than zero
 (i.e., NNP < 0), based on the sulfide sulfur
 concentrations.  All of the acid-generating
 samples  were   coal,  coal-bearing,   or
 associated with or adjacent to coal units.

 Waste rock placed in the waste dumps may
 produce local  areas  of acid-generating
 material,  i.e.,  "hot  spots",  which  could
 impact both  surface  water  runoff  and
 leachate to groundwater resources.   In
 addition, under the Proposed Action, acid-
 generating material may be exposed  at the
 surface of  the waste  dumps  for  some
 unknown length of time and.thus have the
 potential to impact surface water runoff.

 The results  of the  EPA Method  1312
 analyses (Synthetic  Precipitation Leach
 Procedure) show that iron and aluminum
 have the potential to leach from the  waste
 rock  at concentrations  exceeding  Utah
 secondary drinking water standards.  The
 dissolved iron concentrations in three  out
 of four composite waste  rock  samples
 ranged  from  0.39  mg/1 to  0.72  mg/1
 compared to the Utah secondary drinking
 water  standard  of  0.3-0.6   mg/I.  The
 dissolved aluminum concentrations in three
 out of four composite waste rock samples
 ranged from 0.21 to 1.5 mg/1 compared to
 the  Utah  secondary   drinking   water
 standard of 0.05 to 0.2 mg/1.   All  other
 dissolved    constituents   were   below
 applicable  drinking  water standards   or
were not  detected.   The drinking  water
 standards for iron and aluminum are not a
health-based standard; they are based on
aesthetic qualities such as color and  taste.
23SSSR3.4 5^5/96(9:12 PMJ/RPT/2                     4-26

-------
Therefore, based on the results of the EPA
Method   1312   analyses,   impacts  to
ground-water resources may occur due to
leaching  of dissolved iron and  aluminum
from the waste rock in the backfilled pits.
It should be noted that neither iron nor
aluminum are recognized as being toxic to
wildlife or domestic animals at these levels
(National Academy of Sciences 1980).

It should also be noted that groundwater in
the project vicinity is not yet classified, but
would be when environmental permits are
applied for  at the beginning of project
construction and operations. Groundwater
in Utah  is currently  designated in  three
classes; Class I - Pristine, Irreplaceable, or
Ecologically Important; Class n - Drinking
Water Quality; or Class ffl, Limited Use
(Utah   Department   of  Environmental
Quality, Division  of Water Quality 1995:
R317-6-3). Classification of pit water, for
example,  could  be subject to legal  and
regulatory interpretation at a later date.

Regarding    other   geochemistry/water
quality  issues  (see  Section  4.2),  the
majority of pit wall rock arid waste rock is
likely to  yield alkaline leachate,  based on
the static test results.  (The 1312 tests are
performed with slightly acid water, about
pH  5.5:   results therefore will not  be
representative   of   potential    mobile
constituents   under . alkaline  conditions.)
Leachates from  the pit wall rocks  and
waste rock (limited as they may be under
infrequent precipitation)  are likely  to  be
alkaline,  high TDS,  elevated  in  sulfates,
and with elevated concentrations of some
metal oxyanions.  In pit water, evaporation
over  post-closure years  could produce
similar conditions as pH rises from about
7.5 to the 9.0-9.5 range.
4.3.2.2  Recommended Mitigation

Recommended mitigation is addressed  by
the   Waste   Rock  Selective   Handling
Alternative.

4.3.3    No Action Alternative

No   additional  geochemistry   concerns
would arise with the selection of the No
Action Alternative.  That is, mining of ore
from the Sentinel, Centennial,  and GTO
Pits   would    not   occur    and  the
corresponding  four  waste  rock  dumps
would not be developed.  No impacts  to
surface or groundwater resources would
occur from  any  newly developed mine
facilities.

4.3.4    Open Pit Backfilling
         Alternative '

4.3.4.1 Impacts

Partial  or  complete  backfilling  of the
Sentinel, Centennial, and GTO Pits -would
cover some or all of the potentially acid-
generating lithologies in the pit walls (e.g.,
the  coal  and coal-bearing units).    This
would reduce  or eliminate the  potential
impacts  to  groundwater resources from
this source.

Backfilling the pits also would decrease the
amount of waste rock in the waste dumps.
Thus, the potential impacts to surface and
groundwater resources would be decreased
from these mine facilities.

Both  partial   and  complete  backfilling
scenarios have  the  potential  to further
degrade existing groundwater quality in the
vicinity  of the  proposed  pits.    The
backfilled  waste  rock,   whatever   its
23996/R3.4 5/15/96(9:12 PMVRPTV2                    4-27

-------
geochemical      characteristics     (i.e.,
potentially acid  generating  or  alkaline)
would have increased surface area; hence it
would   be  easier  to   leach   soluble
constituents from these materials.

4.3.4.2  Recommended Mitigation

No mitigation is recommended.

4.3.5    Facility Layout Alternative

4.3.5.1  Impacts

The number of waste dumps would be
decreased from four to three  under this
alternative.   Waste Dump D  would be
eliminated and  the approximate 2,100,000
tons of waste rock planned for this facility
would be placed in Waste Dump C.  This
alternative would decrease the total area of
waste material exposed at the mine facility.
This could decrease potential impacts  to
surface and ground water resources from
the waste rock, particularly from surface
water runoff produced on the waste rock,
and slightly decrease both acid and alkaline
geochemical  effects  from  waste  rock
weathering.

4.3.5.2  Recommended Mitigation

No  mitigation  is  recommended  for
geochemical issues.

4.3.6    Waste Rock Selective Handling
         Alternative
4.3.6.1   Impacts

This alternative would provide for waste
rock  to  be  selectively placed  in waste
dumps  to   inhibit  and   mitigate   acid
generation or mobilization of  dissolved

2399&R3.4 5/15/96(9:12 PM>KPT/2                    4-28
constituents.  Waste rock with NNP < 0,
or with the potential to mobilize dissolved
constituents based  on the Method  1312
analyses, would be selectively placed in the
waste dumps by one, or a combination, of
the following methods:

    •  Encapsulation
    •  Layering
    •  Blending

Encapsulation is a  method of entombing
potentially     environmentally-impacting
waste material within other waste materials
that are acid-neutralizing  and would not
mobilize dissolved  constituents.   Covering
waste  material  by  this  method  would
inhibit water  and  oxygen from reacting
with the waste rock that is acid-generating
or   capable   of   mobilizing   dissolved
constituents.  However,  "hot spots" could
occur locally if the encapsulating material
has limited acid-buffering capacity.

Layering is a method of encapsulation on a
small  scale,   whereby  potentially  acid-
generating material  is placed in the waste
dump  in thin  lifts  on  top   of acid-
neutralizing waste  rock.   The potentially
acid-generating waste rock  is then itself
covered with a layer of acid-neutralizing
waste rock.  Placement of potentially acid-
generating waste  rock  in  this manner
provides a larger relative amount of acid-
buffering capacity per unit mass of acid-
generating waste rock than the larger scale
encapsulation method of placement.

Blending is the thorough mixing of acid-
generating and acid-neutralizing materials.
Blending would provide the largest relative
amount of acid-buffering  capacity  to the
acid-neutralizing waste material.

-------
Based on the results of static testing, the
coal and coal-bearing units as well as those
units   adjacent  to  or  spatially  closely
associated with coal units, are potentially
acid-generating.    The  potentially  acid-
generating     material    accounts   for
approximately 10 percent, by mass, of the
total amount of waste material (Thorson
1996b).     Selective   handling  of  the
potentially acid-generating material would
require correlation of  the mine plan, i.e.,
mining sequence,  with  placement of waste
rock  in the  dumps  to  be certain  that
material  necessary    for   encapsulation,
layering, or  blending  is available when
acid-generating waste is removed from the
pits.  This may require the  stockpiling of
non-acid-generating  waste   for  use  as
needed during the mine operation.

As described in Section 2.3.4, it is planned
that selective placement of the coal/coal-
bearing waste rock  would  occur  in the
waste dumps, in the more central part of
the dump and away from the top and sides
of the dump.  Such placement will inhibit
the oxidation reactions that produce acid
drainage.  The selective placement would
also isolate the potentially acid-generating
waste rock in a manner that precludes any
effect on reclamation such as revegetating
the waste dumps.

Also, there is some low potential for waste
rock leachates to develop that are alkaline
and exhibit  elevated  TDS,   and elevated
concentrations of metal oxyanions.  Thus,
there  is some potential for degradation of
shallow aquifer water  quality.  However,
since  these  waters are not planned for
beneficial use in the foreseeable future, no
notable impact is expected.
4.3.6.2   Recommended Mitigation

No additional mitigation is recommended.

4.4      SOILS AND RECLAMATION

4.4.1    Methodology

Issues and concerns raised for the soils
resource during the public scoping process
focus on the following:

    •  Adequate   quantity  of   topsoil
       material for reclamation - volume
       of suitable cover soil for salvage
       and redistribution to an adequate
       thickness  which would sustain  a
       protective  vegetative  cover  and
       desired post mining land uses
    •  Application  of   erosion  control
       methods - stability of disturbed and
       reclaimed  soils  as  measured  in
       terms   of erosion  potential  and
       adequacy   of   erosion  control
       methods
    •  Restoration   of  the   area   to
       productive use after the extraction
       phase of mining - returning the site
       to  wildlife   habitat,    livestock
       grazing, and mineral development

In  response  to  these   concerns,  the
following criteria have been developed to
focus the impact analyses on the key issues
and provide a point  of reference  about
which the analysis  of  impacts  will  be
completed:

    •  Restoration of at least 12 inches of
       suitable coversoil material (topsoil
       and/or  suitable  subsoil) on final
       reclamation grades and surfaces to
       serve  as  an  effective  long-term
       plant    growth    medium    as
23996/R3.4 5/15/96(9:12 PM)/RPT/2                    4-29

-------
       recommended by the BLM (1992),
       McClure   (1996b)   and  NRCS
       (Anders 1996)
    •  Reduce soil erosion or excessive rill
       and  gully  development  by  50
       percent within one year and by 75
       percent within  five  years  of soil
       disturbance
    •  Develop      a     comprehensive
       reclamation   plan   to   ensure
       successful    establishment    of
       revegetation  within 3 to 5  years
       post-closure so the site  can  again
       be used  for wildlife habitat and
       grazing.

Summo's adherence to these criteria would
reduce impacts to the soils  resource and
increase  the  likelihood  for   successful
reclamation  of the site and  restoration to
current land  uses  of  wildlife  habitat,
grazing, and mineral development.

Summo's  Plan  of  Operations  (1995)
contains  mitigation  measures   and  both
interim and  final reclamation  plans, as
described  in  Section 2.2.11, that  address
the  issues discussed above.   Summo's
committed" mitigation measures, as noted
below, are  taken  into  consideration in
determining  the final impacts to the soils
resource.

    •  Install  erosion  control  structures
       during site preparation
    •  Salvage and stockpile  cover soil
       material for reclamation purposes
    •  Reclaim disturbed areas not needed
       for the life of the mine as soon as
       feasible
    •  Develop and implement field trials
       to  determine the preferred species
       composition,              fertilizer
       requirements,     and     seedbed
2399SK3.4 S/1S/96(9:12PMyRPT/2                    4-30
       preparation  needed  prior to  final
       reclamation activities
    •  Regrade  the  waste  dumps,  rip
       compacted     material,     apply
       coversoil, reseed the disturbed area,
       and fertilize, as necessary
    •  Decontaminate  the   leach   pad,
       recontour the surface, and  cover
       with compacted soils or treat with
       lime or other  similar products.  A
       layer of waste  rock  would be
       placed on top  to provide a rooting
       zone of vegetation.    Coversoil
       would then be placed over  the
       waste    rock    and    the    area
       revegetated.
    •  For   all   other   facilities,   all
       equipment  would   be  removed,
       disturbed     areas      regraded,
       compacted soils ripped, coversoil
       applied,   and  disturbed   areas
       reseeded,   and   fertilized,   as
       necessary.
    •  Monitor and maintain/repair the site
       for at least two years following
       final reclamation activities

4.4.2    Proposed Action

4.4.2.1   Impacts

The construction and  operation of  the
proposed copper  mine  and associated
facilities  including four waste rock dumps,
a leach pad and processing  facilities,  and
the  installation  of a  powerline  would
disturb approximately 1,103   acres in the
project   area.    Direct   impacts  from
disturbance to soils could include:

    •  Loss  of soil  profile development
       due to mixing of soil horizons  and
       breakdown of soil structure

-------
    •  Increased exposure of surface soil
       materials to accelerated erosion and
       loss of soil material
    •  Increased volumes of surface runoff
       resulting   in   rill   and   gully
       development
    •  Soil compaction and  rutting from
       heavy equipment traffic
    «  Reduced  soil  productivity  as  a
       result   of  decreased  biological
       activity and reduced organic matter

Such adverse impacts would likely result
from  the  clearing  of  vegetation,  and '
excavation,   salvage,   stockpiling,   and
redistribution  of  soils during construction
and reclamation  activities.   Blading  or
excavation of areas to achieve  desired
grades can also result in slope  steepening
of exposed soils in cuts and fills, mixing of
topsoil  and  subsoil  materials, and the
breakdown of soil aggregates  into loose
particles.   Soil structural aggregates can
also be broken down by compaction from
vehicular traffic.

The   absence   of   vegetative   cover,
steepening of slopes,  and the breakdown of
aggregates" would result in an increased
potential for both sheet and channelized
runoff and accelerated soil erosion, rill and
gully    formation,     and    increased
sedimentation.   The  combined effect  of
these impacts would be  the increased
difficulty    in    achieving    successful
reclamation or the failure of reclamation
efforts.

Implementation of the  Proposed  Action
would result  in the  disturbance  and
alteration  of .1,103 acres of native  soils
during  construction   and  development
activities.   The  majority of disturbance
would occur in the Barnum, Cahona, and
                                              Rock Outcrop-Rizno complex soil series
                                              (Figure 3.4-1).  Most of the Centennial pit
                                              lays within the Dumps-Pits complex which
                                              was  disturbed  during  previous  mining
                                              activities  and  never  reclaimed.     The
                                              Barnum and Cahona soils, in particular,
                                              would provide .good cover soil material for
                                              reclamation activities.

                                              Soil Quantity

                                              Salvage of the A and B horizons of soils
                                              (not including rock outcrop complexes) in
                                              the areas of the proposed leach pad, pits,
                                              waste rock  dumps, and process facilities
                                              would  provide approximately 1,462,216
                                              cubic yards of soil material that would be
                                              stockpiled and later used  for  reclamation
                                              activities.    This  volume   of  material is
                                              enough to cover all disturbed areas (except
                                              the  open  pits) with approximately 12.6
                                              inches of  fair to good cover soil. (Cover
                                              soil is a combination of topsoil and subsoil
                                              material capable of supporting vegetation.)

                                              Redistribution of approximately 12 inches
                                              of cover  soil would  provide an adequate
                                              growth medium  for  plants on disturbed
                                              areas at closure.  The material that would
                                              be salvaged  contains  adequate  organic
                                              matter    and   has   suitable  physical
                                              characteristics such as sufficient soil fines
                                              to hold moisture and nutrients.

                                              The proposed reclamation  plan does  not
                                              include details for the salvage of cover soil
                                              material (e.g. quantity to be salvaged)  nor
                                              specific   measures   to    maintain   the
                                              productivity  of the soils (e.g. revegetation
                                              of the stockpiled material) to be used for
                                              reclamation,, however, a sufficient quantity
                                              of good quality material is available.
23996/R3.4 5/15/96(9:12PM)/RPT/2
                                        4-31

-------
 Erosion Control

 Most of the soils that would be disturbed
 under the Proposed Action are moderately
 susceptible to  water erosion and  highly
 susceptible to  wind erosion  when the
 vegetative cover is removed.  Construction
 of the leach pad, process facilities, waste
 rock dumps,  access roads, and the open
 pits  would  include  the   removal  of
 vegetation and  excavation and stockpiling
 of soil material.   These activities  would
 result   in    increased   soil   exposure,
 sedimentation mixing of soil horizons, soil
 compaction, loss  of topsoil  productivity,
 and increased susceptibility of the soil to
 wind and .water erosion.  Soil compaction
 caused by equipment traffic may decrease
 infiltration  and water  storage  capacity,
 increase   runoff,    and   reduce    soil
 productivity.  Rill  and gully  development
 could be  also  expected  where surface
 water runoff is channelized  such  as in
 ditches  along roads or in surface  water
 diversion ditches around the facilities.  An
 example of this type of erosion is shown in
 Figure 4.2-5.

 Additionally,  during  operations,  surface
 water flows from three drainages upstream
 of Sentinel Ph 1 would be routed around
 the pit to maintain natural storm flows into
 Lisbon Canyon (Figure 3.5-2)  from Lisbon
 Valley.  However, as discussed in Section
 42.2.1, ephemeral surface flows from the
 three drainages would be diverted into the
 Sentinel  Pit at  the  conclusion of mining
 operations rather  than  maintaining  the
 diversion ditch around the pit  As a result,
 during and  following  storm events, it is
 expected  that  accelerated erosion and
 downcutting would  occur upstream  in all
three drainages  forming  gullies and/or
canyons   as   the   stream  attempts  to

2399&R3.4 5/15/96(9:12PM)«PT/2                    4-32
 reestablish  the  original  stream profile.
 Sedimentation produced by this process
 would not  affect Lisbon Canyon because
 all of the sediment would be transported
 into the pit.

 Under   the   Proposed  Action,   final
 reclamation includes grading slopes of the
 waste rock piles and the heap leach to a
 2.5:1 slope.  These relatively steep slopes
 also increase the potential for soil erosion
 on  approximately  772  acres  (acreage
 adjusted to include slopes).

 Summo's committed mitigation  measures
 include  installation  of  erosion  control
 structures  during  site  preparation  and
 prompt reclamation of disturbed areas not
 needed  for  the   life   of  the   mine.
 Additionally,  disturbed  sites  would  be
 contoured to minimize erosion and provide
 adequate  drainage.  Again, the proposed
 reclamation  plan lacks specific details for
 installation of erosion control  structures,
 however,  the  rigorous  application  of
 erosion control measures including the use
 of rock check dams, silt fences, and bales
 of straw  for temporary erosion control
 would reduce the potential for soil erosion
 and sedimentation  in Lisbon Valley and
 Lisbon  Canyon.  Erosion   from  newly
 disturbed areas may not be reduced by 50
 percent after one year and by 75 percent
 after   five   years   without  additional
 mitigation measures.

Reclamation Effectiveness

Final reclamation activities would include
regrading surfaces to minimize erosion and
provide   adequate   drainage,    ripping
compacted  soils,  and   application   of
fertilizer, if  necessary, prior  to reseeding
disturbed  sites.   These  measures would

-------
provide  a more hospitable  seedbed  and
enhance revegetation efforts. Incorporation
of information  developed from  the  field
studies (e.g.,  optimal  species  mix,   and
fertilizer   and  mulching  requirements)
would  also   contribute  to   successful
revegetation   efforts.    Reclaimed  areas
would  be monitored  and  retreated, if
necessary, for at least two years.

Under the Proposed Action,  factors that
hinder   the   potential   for   successful
reclamation and a return of the site to
predisturbance  conditions   include   the
following:

•   About 9 million tons (or approximately
    10 percent of all of the waste material)
    of potentially acid generating material
    would be placed indiscriminately in the
    waste rock dumps.  Though most of
    the material in the waste rock dumps
    would be acid neutralizing, as noted in
    Section 4.3.1 localized areas of acid
    generating     material     distributed
    throughout the  dumps could result in
    acidic  conditions  in  the  coversoil
    material placed  over the dumps  for
    reclamation. Due to plant intolerance
    for acidic soil  conditions, phytotoxic
    impacts to vegetation could occur, and
    the susceptibility of the cover soil to
    accelerated erosion would increase as
    the vegetative cover died back.

    Alternatively, a high  pH of the waste
    rock  piles would not be expected to
    affect   the  cover soil  material   or
    reclamation efforts because soils in the
    area naturally have a pH of 7.9 to 9.0.

•   The 2.5:1 slopes of the waste rock
    dumps  and the leach pad would have
    less  potential   for   successful   re-
23996/R3.4 5/15/96(9:12 PM)/RPT/2                    4-33
    vegetation due to the reduced potential
    for capturing runoff than the relatively
    level valley floor existing  at  present.
    This could result in reduced vegetative
    cover with lower productivity than the
    predisturbance conditions of the native
    plant communities.  Soil erosion rates
 .   would be higher  on these areas, with
    lower  densities  of plants,  and  the
    potential for  establishing  vegetation
    would  be  progressively  reduced  as
    erosion increases.

Thus,  even though there is an adequate
quantity of good quality cover soil material
available, with  the  potential for increased
erosion and an anticipated modest success
of   revegetation    efforts,    successful
reclamation within 3 to 5 years of closure
may not be possible.

Under the Proposed  Action, 85 acres  of
existing  disturbance  would  either  be
incorporated  into   the  new  pits   or
reclaimed.   The  231 acres of open pits
would be left unreclaimed except for the
haul roads  that would  access  the  pit
bottom would be scarified, covered with
soil, seeded, and fertilized, if necessary.

4.4.2.2  Recommended Mitigation

The    following    erosion     control,
revegetation, and mitigation measures are
recommended to increase the potential for
successful reclamation of sites that would
be disturbed through implementation of the
Proposed  Action.      Additionally,  the
following  mitigation   measures  would
minimize impacts to the soils resource.

    •   All   potentially  acid   generating
       waste material should be placed in
       the  center of the waste piles to

-------
        prevent acidification of the cover
        soil   and   potential  phytotoxic
        impacts to vegetation.
    •   Mitigation   measures   that   are
        recommended in Section 4.2.2.2 to
        prevent accelerated erosion in the
        three   drainages  upstream  from
        Sentinel Pit 1  are re-emphasized
        and also recommended here.
    •   Erosion and sedimentation control
        measures and structures should be
        installed  on  all  disturbed areas.
        Soil  erosion control  should  be
        accomplished on  sites  in  highly
        erosive soils, sites  where surface
        runoff would be  channelized,  and
        steep areas with mulching, netting,
        tackifiers, hydromulch, or matting.
        The type of control measure should
        depend on slope gradients and  the
        susceptibility of soil to wind  and
        water erosion (Table 3.4-1).
    •   Runoff discharged from water bars
        or  diversion ditches should  be
        directed     into      undisturbed
        vegetation  away   from   natural
        drainages to minimize rill and gully
        development
    •   Install  water bars  on all  slopes
        exceeding    25  feet   long   and
        10 percent gradient
    •  Minimize,  where  feasible,  slope
       angles   to  enhance  retention  of
       topsoil and reduce erosion
    •  On slopes with angles of 2.5:1, 10
       to 15 foot wide  benches should be
       constructed at least every 30 to 40
       feet with adequate erosion control
       structures constructed along slopes
       in between the benches to intercept
       runoff.
    •   All  runoff  and  erosion  control
       structures   should   be  inspected
       periodically,  cleaned   out,  and
2399&R3.4 5/15/96(9:12 EK4)/RPT/2                    4-34
        maintained in functional  condition
        throughout  the  duration  of the
        project
    •   The  excavation  of   cover  soil
        material should be limited to the A
        and B horizons;  substrate material
        is  not  likely to provide suitable
        reclamation material and cover soil
        material   should   be   handled
        separately from substrate materials
        to preclude mixing of the materials
    •   Reclamation of the four waste rock
        piles should  include  covering them
        with 3-4 feet of compacted subsoils
        or  overburden material containing
        at least  65 percent  fines, prior to
        the  replacement  of 12  inches  of
        coversoil.  This would provide an
        adequate  rooting   depth   and
        enhance the potential for successful
        reclamation.
    •   Stockpiled   soil   salvaged   for
        reclamation  purposes   should  be
        seeded  with a  prescribed seed
        mixture   (Section  4.5.2.2),  and
        covered with mulch  for protection
       from wind and water erosion and to
        discourage the invasion of weeds
    •   Redistribution of a minimum of
        12 inches  of cover  soil  would
       provide an adequate plant growth
       medium and  enhance the  potential
       for reclamation success
    •   Keep project  area  fenced  until
       reclamation is complete

4.4.3     No Action  Alternative

4.4.3.1   Impacts

Under this alternative, there would be no
new disturbance and, therefore, no impacts
to soils resources. Existing  conditions, as
discussed in 3.4  would remain the same,

-------
including 85  acres of existing disturbance
that would not be reclaimed.

4.4.4    Open Pit Backfilling
         Alternative

4.4.4.1  Impacts

Impacts to soils  would. be as described
under the Proposed Action except the open
pits would be either  partially backfilled or
completely backfilled.  Waste rock would
have to be stored at the proposed  dump
facilities for a time, until successive mining
of  the pits is completed  and the stored
waste material is  placed in the mined-out
pits.

Implementation  of  Alternative 1  would
require  slightly less coversoil material for
reclamation of the waste  dumps  and the
volume  of cover soil material available for
reclamation would only be enough to cover
all disturbed areas, including the pits, with
9.9 inches of fair  to  good cover soil.  An
additional 402,494 cubic yards of material
would be needed for  reclamation of the
pits.

4.4.4.2  Recommended Mitigation

Recommended  mitigation  would  be  the
same as discussed in Section 4.4.2.2 for the
Proposed Action.

4.4.5    Facility  Layout Alternative

4.4.5.1  Impacts

Impacts from construction and operation
activities would be the same as described
for the Proposed Action.
      Implementation of this alternative would
      shift impacts from the Barnum soil series to
      the Rock Outcrop-Rizno series  (Figure
      3.4-1).  This  would result  in a  loss of
      approximately   18,800   cubic  yards  of
      suitable coversoil material that would not
      be salvaged in the vicinity of Waste Dump
      D.    Material  in   the  vicinity   of the
      alternative waste dump  location  is rated
      poor to unsuitable for reclamation material
      due to  a  combination  of large  rock
      outcrops  and  very  shallow  soils.   The
      volume of salvaged material  would  be
      enough to cover all disturbed  areas (except
      the open pits) with approximately 11.7
      inches of cover soil material.  All  other
      impacts  would  be  the  same   as  -the
      Proposed Action.

      4.4.5.2  Recommended Mitigation

      Recommended  mitigation would  be the
      same as discussed in Section 4.4.2.2 for the
      Proposed Action.

      4.4.6    Waste Rock Selective Handling
              Alternative

      4.4.6.1  Impacts

      Implementation of this  alternative  would
      require selectively placing acid generating
      rock throughout the waste  dumps  and
      covering   this  material   with   acid
      neutralising rocks.

      Implementation of this  alternative  would
      eliminate the potential acidification of the
      cover soil material and phytotoxic impacts
      to  vegetation  and   subsequent increased
      erosion, as discussed under the Proposed
      Action.  All other impacts would be the
      same as the Proposed Action.
23996/R3.4. 5/15/96(9:12 PMyRFT/2
4-35

-------
 4.4.6.2   Recommended Mitigation

 Recommended mitigation would be  the
 same as discussed in Section 4.4.2.2 for the
 Proposed Action.
 4.5
VEGETATION
 4.5.1    Methodology

 The primary effects to vegetation would
 result  from  disturbance  or  removal  of
 natural vegetation through the installation
 and operation of the Proposed Action,  or
 alternatives as identified and described  in
 Section   2.0.    Potential  impacts    to
 vegetation include:

    •  Disturbance     of    threatened,
       endangered,  or  sensitive  plant
       species/communities
    •  The  loss   of  vegetative  cover
       resulting in accelerated erosion
    •  The  long-term loss  of  natural
       communities, (e.g., pinyon-juniper,
       which would  take up  to  80-100
       years   to   reach   predisturbance
       conditions   and   any   associated
       utility  such  as  wildlife  habitat,
       firewood,  and  visual screening  of
       disturbances
    •  The  long-term loss  of  species
       diversity

 Summo's proposed mitigation  measures
 and reclamation plan (Section  2.2.11) and
the adequacy of the proposed  reclamation
program to achieve a suitable environment
for natural plant succession and a return to
pre-mining   levels  of   canopy   cover,
productivity,  and  utility in both the short-
and   long-term.    (Section    4.4)   are
considered in the final impact analysis.

2399«R3.4 5/15/96(9:12PMyRPT/2                     4-36
No sensitive plant species are expected to
be found,  and   no  unique  vegetative
community types have been  identified on
site.  Additionally, there are no riparian
communities on this site. Therefore, these
issues will not be dealt with further in this
.impact analysis.

4.5.2    Proposed Action

4.5.2.1   Impacts

As proposed, this alternative would disturb
a  total  of 1,103  acres,  including  the 64
acres proposed to be  disturbed for the
development  and   installation   of  the
powerline.  The  powerline corridor  was
not included in the baseline flora and fauna
report  (W-C    1994),   therefore,  the
assumption was made for analysis purposes
that the 64 acres  of disturbance is  equally
distributed  between  the   two   major
vegetation communities; PJ and SB.

Short-term impacts  under the Proposed
Action  would  include   disturbance  of
approximately 432 acres in the SB zone,
296 acres in the PJ zone, 290  acres in the
GR  zone, and 85  acres of previously
disturbed areas (Table 4.5-1).  Construction
of the  power  line would result  in  the
disturbance of approximately 64 acres of
PJ and SB communities.   The vehicles
utilized during the power line  construction,
including  rubber tired and tracked heavy
equipment,  would crush the vegetation
along the cross-country routes.

Provided the roots of the grasses are not
damaged  from  rutting,   no  long-term
impacts   to   vegetation   would   be
anticipated.   If the  root systems  of the
perennial  plants along the cross-country

-------
travel routes are damaged,  annual  plants
such as cheatgrass would increase  in the
disturbed areas.

Based on ELM'S previous experience with
UP&L  construction  projects,  intensive
disturbance is expected to be limited to 1.6
acres (30' radius around each of about 100
poles).   Additional  disturbance  of  an
approximate 10-foot wide corridor along
the entire  10.8 miles  of the powerline
would affect 13.1 acres.  The installation of
the   powerline    would    result   in
approximately  14.7  acres   of  surface
disturbance that would require reclamation.
The  remainder   of   disturbance  for
construction of the powerline  is expected
to require minor reclamation efforts.  Trees
beneath the line will  not be cleared  and
fewer than a dozen trees are expected to be
cut for construction of the power line.

Summo's    proposed    mitigation   for
disturbances along the  power line route
include  scattering limbs and trees,  raking
or harrowing, and reseeding where needed.
Seed mixes would include grass, forb, and
shrub species  to be determined by each
land owner or manager.

During the 10 years of mining operations
when the heap leach pad is in operation,
when the waste rock dump areas are being
used, and when the haul roads are m use;
there would be no  perennial  vegetation
growing on 1,039 acres (64 acres along the
powerline  route would  be  revegetated
immediately   following    construction).
Concurrent reclamation of disturbed sites
no longer  needed for  operations  would
reduce the total  number of acres  to be
reclaimed at closure.
When  mining operations  end,  the  waste
rock dumps, heap leach  pad,  processing
area, and haul roads (approximately  799 '
acres) would be scarified and seeded with
the seed mixture shown on Table 2-9 (and
modified if the proposed test plots provide
information   that  different  species   or
quantities   of  seed   would   improve
reclamation results).

Additionally, as discussed in Sections 4.3.1
and  4.4.2.1, potentially  acid  generating
material would be placed indiscriminately
throughout the waste rock dumps  which
could result, over time., in localized areas
of acidic  conditions  in the  plant .growth
medium placed over the waste  rock piles
for reclamation.  Phytotoxic impacts to
vegetation would result in a loss  of
vegetative cover and productivity, and, in
turn, lead to increased erosion.

Due to the structure  of the subsoils  of the
waste dumps, there may not be adequate
rooting depth for some .native perennial
plant species and the  reclamation would
result in a lower plant  density  and  lower
productivity  on  449  acres  than  the
predisturbance  conditions of the  native
plant communities.  Annual plant species,
such as cheatgrass, would increase in these
areas.  Soil  erosion rates would be higher
on these areas resulting in lower densities
of  perennial plants.    The  potential for
establishing  native   perennial  vegetation
would be progressively reduced as erosion
increases. Many of these areas would be
along the slopes of the reclaimed  waste
dump and heap leach pad areas.

Following  mining  operations,  the  pits
would  be left open.   Approximately  231
acres of EJ and SB communities would be
lost. As overburden sloughs from the pit
23996/R3.4 5/15/96(9:12 PM)/RPT/2                    4-37

-------
                                     TABLE 4.5-1

                  DIRECT IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
               BY FACILITY AND VEGETATIVE COMMUNITY TYPE
Community Tvnes
Facility
Open Pits
Sentinel #1
Sentinel #2
Centennial
GTO
Waste Dumps
DumpD
Dump C
DumpB
Dump A
Leach Pad Area
Process Area and Facilities
Miscellaneous
Haul Roads
Topsoil Stockpiles
69-kV Powerline
Totals
Total
Acreage

38
9
116
68

55
118
90
186
266
21

33
39
64
1,103
Pinyon-
Juniper

10
7
0
0

5
98
46
54
0
0

15
29
32
296
Sagebrush

21
2
68
43

50
20
39
132
0
0

15
0
32
432
Grassland/
Raneeland

0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
266
21

3
0
0
290
Previously
Disturbed

7
0
48
25

0
0
5
0
0
0

0
0
0
85
walls,  annual  plant  species,  such  as
cheatgrass,  would  grow on  the  slopes.
Plants  such as Indian  ricegrass,  rubber
rabbftbrush, and sagebrush would grow on
some of the more stable slopes.

In the short-term, there would be a loss of
plant diversity on all reclaimed sites and
the  total number  of species  would  be
substantially reduced. Over the long-term,
most species could be expected to reinvade
the disturbance areas, though ft can take
centuries before the original diversity of a
site  is returned to  predisturbance levels.
However,  even when  diversity is  lost,
reclaimed   communities   can   achieve
comparable cover and productivity in 3-5
23995/R3.4 S/l»96(9:12PMyEPT/2                    4-38
years for grasses and forbs, 15-20 years for
shrubs, and 80-100 years for trees.

Plant species used for  revegetation are
selected for their ability to become quickly
established, provide a stable  surface, and
support  a self-perpetuating  community.
These species are used to control erosion,
maximize productivity and canopy cover,
and  create  a  suitable   environment for
natural   plant   succession   rather  than
reestablish diversity.

The  use of non-native  species,  such as
crested   wheatgrass  and yellow  sweet
clover, in the seed mix could supplement
the  native   species  and  increase  the

-------
potential  for  establishing  perennial plant
species during  the  reclamation  of this
project.   Crested wheatgrass  and alfalfa
were  seeded  in some  areas  of  Lisbon
Valley during the 1960's and 1970's when
railing sagebrush and chaining stands  of
pinyon - juniper.  Crested wheatgrass has
been established in many areas of Lisbon
Valley, including portions of the  project
area.  Yellow sweet clover is non-native
species that has spread  throughout San
Juan and  Grand Counties.   Many times,
even when  not included in the seed mix,
yellow sweet  clover has been  one of the
first  species  to  become  established on
surface disturbances.  Yellow sweet clover
and  alfalfa  provide   nitrogen   fixing
properties  which  would  improve the
potential  for  establishing  other  plant
species.   Although the  BLM has policies
for  using native plant species,  crested
wheatgrass  and yellow  sweet clover have
been previously established in the proposed
project area. Indian ricegrass is established
in many of the  areas of northern  Lisbon
Valley that  were chained and seeded with
crested wheatgrass, which would indicate
that  the   crested  wheatgrass  did  not
eliminate  -the  opportunities   for  native
Indian ricegrass.

The   use    of   crested   wheatgrass,
intermediate wheatgrass,  tall wheatgrass,
alfalfa, and  yellow sweet clover has been
successful on  reclamation projects for oil
field and mining projects in the UNOCAL
area. Some of these projects included the
stabilization  of  poorly developed  soils
along rocky slopes of pinyon-juniper areas.
The wheatgrass  and alfalfa have remained
in the reclaimed areas,  and they have not
expanded  into the undisturbed native plant
communities.   These species  have been
successful in  competing with undesirable

23996/R3.4 5/15/96(9:12 PMyRFT/2                     4-39
non-native  species  of  wheatgrass,  and
these species have  not precluded  native
perennial plants.

4.5.2.2  Recommended Mitigation

All  potentially  acid   generating   waste
material should be placed in the center of
the waste dumps and away from the tops
and edges to prevent  acidification of the
cover soil material and potential phytotoxic
impacts to vegetation.

Although the BLM  has policies  for using
native plant species when possible, the use
of non-native species  would improve the
potential  for  establishing  perennial plant
species  and  displacing undesirable, non-
native annual species  such as cheatgrass.
The use  of non-native  species  can also
maximize available  precipitation, become
quickly  established  to minimize erosion,
and improve the potential  for establishing
other species. The following seed mixture
is  recommended  to  stabilize   top  soil
stockpiles and other surface disturbances:
Indian ricegrass
Crested wheatgrass
Tall wheatgrass
Fourwing saltbush
Bitterbrush
Yellow sweet clover
3 pounds/acre
3 pounds/acre
2 pounds/acre
2 pounds/acre
1 pound/acre
1/2 pound/acre
This seed mixture is a drill seeding rate and
would have  to  be doubled if broadcast
seeded. This mixture would be modified if
the proposed test plots provide information
that  different species  or quantities of seed
would improve reclamation results.

Additionally,   to  get better  shrub  re-
establishment, BLM may require that some

-------
 shrub seedlings be planted hi conjunction
 with reseeding efforts.

 The authorized officer of BLM will inspect
 public land portions of the power line route
 after   construction  to   determine  the
 required      rehabilitation     measures.
 Rehabilitation will include those measures
 identified and deemed  necessary by the
 authorized  officer to ensure  successful
 mitigation  of  the  impacts  from  the
 construction  operations.    Rehabilitation
 measures  will   include  the   following
 techniques when necessary:

    •   Scarification of vehicle tracks  that
       are visible from existing roadways,
   '•   Scarification  of  soil  compacted
       during operations,
    •   Seeding of the scarified areas with
       seed mixture developed  from the
       mining site,
    •   Rehabilitation of existing trails used
       for access during the construction
       operations, and
    •   Installation of barriers or signs to
       prevent future vehicle use across
       routes used during  construction
       operations.

 4.5.3     No Action Alternative

 4.5.3.1   Impacts

 Under this alternative, there would be no
 additional impacts to existing  vegetative
 communities.

 4.5.4     Open Pit Backfilling
         Alternative

Under this alternative, two scenarios exist
 (Section 2.3.2).  Scenario 1 is a partial
backfilling of the open pits,  projected to
      decrease the extent of the waste dumps,
      but  not eliminate  the  need for  them.
      Scenario 2 entails complete backfilling of
      the open pits.  This would eliminate waste
      dump C to  the southeast  of the  Sentinel
      Pits completely and following the closure
      of the pits,  the disturbed areas would be
      revegetated.   Scenario  1  would not  be
      further discussed in these sections since the
      size of  the waste rock  piles would  be
      decreased but they would not be eliminated
      and the  open pits would not be eliminated.
      The following discussion  centers  upon
      Scenario 2.

      4.5.4.1   Impacts

      Short-term impacts to vegetation  under
      this alternative would be the same as those
      discussed   in   Section   4.5.2  because
      construction  and  development activities
      would be the  same as for the Proposed
      Action, including development of the waste
      rock piles.  However, complete hack-filling
      of the pits would eliminate Waste Dump C
      making that 118 acres of disturbance easier
      to reclaim.   Additionally,  231 acres  of
      disturbance due to pit development would
      be reclaimed.   Thus, all 1,103 acres  of
      disturbance would be reclaimed under this
      alternative as compared to 872 acres under
      the  Proposed  Action.   As discussed  hi
      Section   4.4.4.1,  additional  cover soil
      material   would   have  to   be  obtained
      elsewhere for reclamation of the pits.

      4.5.4.2   Recommended Mitigation

      Recommended mitigation  would  be  the
      same as for the Proposed Action.
2399&R3.4 5/lS96(9:12PM3/RPI72
4-40

-------
4.5.5    Facility Layout Alternative

4.5.5.1   Impacts

Under this  alternative, Waste Dump D
would be eliminated, and Waste Dump C
would be increased to handle this material.
The expansion of Waste Dump C would be
approximately 50 acres, from 118 acres to
168 acres.    The elimination  of Waste
Dump D would  reduce the impacts of the
Proposed Action by 5  acres, but would
shift impacts from primarily the sagebrush
zone  (Waste  Dump  C)  to the pinion-
juniper  zone  (Waste  Dump  D)  (Table
4.5-2).

4.5.5.2   Recommended Mitigation

Recommended  mitigation would be  the
same as for the Proposed Action.

4.5.6    Waste Rock Selective Handling
         Alternative

4.5.6.1

All impacts would be the same as for the
Proposed Action except the following:

•   Selectively handling the coaly waste
    material and  placing it in the center of
    the waste  dumps would eliminate the
    potential for localized acidification of
    the cover soil material and phytotoxic
    impacts   to  vegetation   and   the
    associated loss of vegetative cover and
    productivity,  and erosion.

4.5.6.2   Recommended Mitigation

Recommended mitigation would be the
same as for the Proposed Action.
                                              4.6
               WILDLIFE
                                              4.6.1    Methodology

                                              Modification of the  existing  topography
                                              and vegetation  cover in the project area
                                              may affect wildlife habitat for any species
                                              currently utilizing this site year-around or
                                              seasonally.  Additional project impacts to
                                              wildlife  species may  be  caused  from
                                              operational  disturbances  such as  noise,
                                              nocturnal   lighting,    acidic   solution
                                              exposure, and  increased traffic.    If the
                                              species affected are listed as Federal or
                                              State    Threatened,   Endangered,   or
                                              Candidate species (sensitive species), the
                                              impacts would  be substantial.  Mitigation
                                              efforts suggested would be incorporated
                                              into the  analysis  of the  potential for
                                              impacts to wildlife.

                                              Winter surveys for sensitive species as well
                                              as  mule deer  and Great Basin  western
                                              rattlesnake were conducted in December of
                                              1995 (W-C  1996).   The status  of the
                                              majority of  the species  of  concern is
                                              unclear,  since the project area provides a
                                              potential for spring/summer habitat,  not
                                              winter habitat.   Habitat for these  species
                                              will be surveyed in the spring of 1996, and
                                              results incorporated into  the  Final EIS.
                                              The species that will be surveyed for in the
                                              spring, and therefore addressed generally in
                                              this Draft EIS, include  the  following:
                                              burrowing  owl, Great  Basin  western
                                              rattlesnake, loggerhead shrike,  and nesting
                                              raptors.

                                              4.6.2    Proposed Action

                                              Projected project impacts resulting from
                                              any of the alternatives would be very
                                              similar. These impacts will be analyzed
23996/R3.4 5/15/96(9:12PMyRPT/2
4-41

-------
                                    TABLE 4.5-2

         DIRECT IMPACTS OF THE FACILITY LAYOUT ALTERNATIVE
              BY FACILITY AND VEGETATIVE COMMUNITY TYPE
Community Tvnes
Facility
Open Pits
Sentinel #1
Sentinel #2
Centennial
GTO
Waste Dumps
DumpD
Dump C
DumpB
Dump A
Leach Pad Area
Process Area and Facilities
Miscellaneous
Haul Roads
Topsoil Stockpiles
69-kV Powerline
Totals
Total
Acreage

38
9
116
68

0
168
90
186
266
21

33
39
64
1098
Pinyon-
Juniper

10
7
0
0

0
143
46
54
0
0

15
39
32
346
Sagebrush

21
2
68
43

0
25
39
132
0
0

15
0
32
377
Grassland/
Ranseland

0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
266
21

3
0
0
290
Previously
Disturbed

7
0
48
25

0
0
5
16
0
0

0
0
0
85
and presented in detail for the proposed
action alternative, and referenced  in the
following alternatives.
4.6.2.1
As  identified  in  Section  4.5.2,  it  is
anticipated that a total  of 1,103  acres
would be  disturbed  under the proposed
action.   No  habitat for  special status
species has been identified.  However, the
disturbance of these acres would certainly
impact  the  small  mammal  and  avian
populations that currently inhabit the area.

The location  that  is  designated to be
impacted by the leach pad (257 acres),.is
currently occupied by Gunnison's prairie
2399S»R3.4 5/15/96(9:11 EMyRPT/2                    4-42
dogs,  as  well  as  small  rodents  and
passerines.   Prairie  dog  towns  are  a
favored habitat for the burrowing owl and
the  black-footed ferret (USFWS  1989;
Terres  1980),  both  sensitive  species.
Although  no burrowing owls  have been
found, spring surveys will be conducted to
confirm the presence or absence of the
species in these areas.  No black-footed
ferrets have been identified within the area
of project influence,  and  no additional
surveys are planned, with the approval of
the wildlife agencies (Williams 1996).

According  to  BLM  records  (Thompson
1995), a drought in 1989/1990 caused the
dispersal of the prairie dogs, up and down'
Lisbon Valley.   Winter surveys  early in

-------
 1996  confirmed  the  presence  of  this
 species  in the  northern  and  southern
 reaches of the valley.  Approximately 767
 acres  of occupied  habitat were located
 outside  of the  project  influence  (W-C
 1996).     During   disturbance   due  to
 construction  activities,  wildlife  would
 disperse  from  the  area,  and  settle in
 adjacent,  undisturbed areas.   Regarding
 Gunnisqn's prairie dogs, and the associated
 fauna!  component  of the  community,
 sufficient populations  exist in contiguous
 habitat adjacent to the leach pad area, such
 that the impacts due to this  construction
 and operation activity are negligible in a
 regional context, however, locally the loss
 of a 257-acre town would be substantial.

 The construction of the leach pad would
 also eliminate two (2)  small  stock ponds
 that currently provide water  for resident
 fauna.  The winter surveys (W-C  1996)
 identified  a  small  herd  of  mule  deer
 (minimum size of 30 individuals) that use
 the area in the vicinity of the ponds.  This
 area   provides   water,  vegetation  for
 grazing, as well as browse species,  and
 good  edge habitat for  cover  with  the
 pinion-juniper/sagebrush interface in close
.proximity  to  the stock  ponds  and  the
 grassland/rangeland   community   in  the
 Woods Meadow.  Although this area has
 not been  designated as critical habitat for
 mule deer, it is  obvious that a small herd
 use the area.

 Operation of the leach pad  area would
 provide   access  to  acidic  ponds  for
 passerines or migrating water fowl,  and
 other wildlife seeking water in this semi-
 arid cold  desert region.   The  areas of
 operation would be fenced with a three-
 strand barbed wire fence, to exclude large
      mammals, but no  plans are in  place for
      deterrents to the avian communities.

      The  proposed heap  leach  pad,  however,
      has been designed to safeguard the ground
      water  and  surface  water through  the
      construction of an impervious liner and a
      stormwater  retention   system.     These
      systems would be built  to  contain a 100-
      yr., 24-hr storm event (Section 2.2)

      Construction  of all other facilities  would
      have  a  very localized impact  on  the
      resident fauna,  but the 837 acres  to  be
      disturbed  by the  construction  of these
      facilities is minimal in relationship to the
      vast region of similar community structure
      present in the Lisbon Valley and adjacent
      valleys.  As no sensitive species have been
      identified in the project area, the impact to
      resident small mammal and small  avian
      populations  due to  the construction  of
      these   facilities  would  be  negligible,
      especially in  light   of the  ubiquitous
      distribution   and  the   high   rate   of
      reproduction   that   characterizes  these
      populations.

      The winter surveys have identified  active
      winter raptors in the area. Two potentially
      active raptor nest sites have been identified
      within the project boundary.  Raptors are
      susceptible to  disturbance  during  the
      breeding and nesting season. If these nests
      are found during the spring surveys to  be
      active, construction activities and blasting
      from operational activities may disturb the
      breeding  birds.   This may be evident in
      behavior   ranging   from  the   use   of
      alternative  nests  (outside  the  zone  of
      influence) to abandonment of a nest full of
      eggs,   depending  on  the  timing   of
      disturbance.
23996/R3.4 5/15/96(9:11PMXRPT/2
4-43

-------
The presence of a new powerline in the
area, is not expected to negatively impact
the  raptor population.   The powerline's
design is "raptor-proof;  power lines are
far  enough  apart  as  to  preclude  any
accidental    electrocution    from   birds
contacting two lines while landing on, or
taking off from, these lines.

Other operational  impacts include the use
of night lights during the proposed 24-hr
schedule, and the noise from  operation,
especially blasting.   In accordance  with
MSHA  standards, blasting would occur
only once every other day, on average, and
only during  daylight   hours.     These
activities would  not  directly  adversely
impact any additional wildlife species, but
would  cause the displacement  of the
resident  fauna into adjacent areas outside
of the influence of these  disturbances.

An increased number of roads,  impacting
an estimated 33 acres, and the associated
traffic, may increase  collision mortality for
small mammals,  deer and passerines.  The
proposed activity along these haul roads is
minimal  (Section  3.9), and the  direct
impact  to* resident  fauna  populations  is
expected to be negligible.

As   discussed    in    Section   4.2.2.1,
groundwater   extracted   for   process
requirements  and  dust  control are  not
expected to result in direct adverse impacts
to flows in the Dolores River or therefore,
the  Colorado  River.    Likewise, post-
closure,  surface water  diverted into the
Sentinel  Pit would have minimal impacts
on flows  into  the  Dolores River  and
Colorado River.

However, the use  of groundwater for the
proposed mining  operations would be a

2399&R3.4 5/15/96(9:11PM)/RFT/2                    4-44
water  depletion  to  the Colorado River
(Table 2-6), and there could be  indirect
affects on the threatened and endangered
fish  species in the Colorado River.   The
Programmatic Section 7 Consultation for
Water  Depletions   for  Moab   District
(completed in 1994) did not address water
depletions from groundwater in the project
area, and a separate Section 7 Consultation
for  depletion   determinations   of   the
proposed   Summo   project  would  be
initiated with USFWS.

4.6.2.2   Recommended Mitigation

As outlined in Sections 2.0, 4.4 and 4.5,
interim and final  reclamation plans are in
place.   The entire  areas of disturbance,
with the exception of the 231 acres  of open
pits,  would be reclaimed and revegetated
with species adapted to this environment,
and tested for successful establishment for
projected site conditions.

In cooperation with the UDWR, mitigation
for  the  loss  of  mule   deer   habitat,
specifically  a  water   source,  may  be
necessary.  This mitigation should  include
some habitat enhancement in the  local
vicinity.

Following project activities, the open pits
should be fenced with  12-foot chain link
fence for  public safety.  These  measures
would also prevent potential falling hazard
for large mammals.

If the solution ponds in the leach pad area
prove to present problems  with resident
and  migratory avian  fauna,  a mitigation
plan  should be developed  by Summo in
consultation  with   Federal  and  state
regulatory agencies.

-------
All  major  lighting  sources  would  be
shrouded  to  direct  light   downwards
towards the  area  of work.  This would
minimize the area of influence of this light
source, minimizing the impacts to resident
nocturnal fauna and nightlighting impacts
to humans residing up or down valley.

If active raptor nests are found within one-
half mile of the project area during the
spring  survey,  UDWR, U.S.  Fish  and
Wildlife  Service  (USFWS),  and  BLM
would   be  notified.  Initial,   start-up
construction  would need to  be curtailed
within a one-half mile radius of the nest
during nesting  season of the  appropriate
species (projected to be April  15 through
July 10).  If alternate nests for these birds
are  found within  the  local  region,  an
alternate method of mitigation would be to
cap  the nests on site,  to prevent  the
initiation of usage with the potential for
interruption, causing the individuals to use
one of the alternate nests.

Based on the Programmatic  Section 7
Consultation for Moab District (ES/6 UT-
94-F-008) and  guidance in Moab District
Bulletin  UT-060-94-B-63,  the  potential
impacts to threatened and endangered fish
species   from   the  depletion   of   the
groundwater  could  be offset with  the
contribution  of funds to  the Recovery
Program.  The contribution would be a
depletion charge of approximately $12-13
per  acre-foot  of  water  based  on  the
average  annual depletion of the project.
No water would be pumped directly from
the Green, Colorado, or Dolores Rivers;
and no water pumping restrictions would
be required for this proposed action.
      4.6.3    No Action Alternative

      4.6.3.1  Impacts

      Under this alternative, there would be no
      impacts to the fauna! community  currently
      present.

      4.6.4    Open Pit Backfilling
              Alternative

      4.6.4.1  Impacts

      Projected impacts to  local wildlife  are
      similar to those presented in the proposed
      action alternative. Primary differences lie
      in the amount of habitat impacted.  These
      differences are outlined in Section 4.5.4 of
      this document. Additionally, with the total
      backfilling of the pits,  the  potential  for
      large mammals to fell into  or be trapped
      inside of a pit   is   eliminated.   Partial
      backfilling would  cause some hazards to
      remain.

      4.6.4.2  Recommended Mitigation

      Mitigation measures "would be similar to
      those suggested in the Proposed Action.

      4.6.5    Facility Layout Alternative

      4.6.5.1   Impacts

      The  reduction in vegetated acres  lost
      through the elimination of Waste Dump D,
      would provide no significant differences to
      impacts assessed in the Proposed Action.

      4.6.5.2   Recommended Mitigation

      Recommended mitigation  is similar  to
      those in the Proposed Action.
2399&K3.4 5/15/96(9:11 PM)/RFT/2
4-45

-------
 4.6.6    Waste Rock Selective Handling
         Alternative

 4.6.6.1  Impacts

 Impacts would be  the  same  as those
 estimated for the Proposed Action.

 4.6.6.2  Recommended Mitigation

 Recommended mitigation is  similar  to
 those in the Proposed Action.

 4.7      GRAZING

 4.7.1  Methodology

 This   section   addresses  the  potential
 impacts to livestock (i.e.,  cattle) grazing
 that could  result from implementation of
 the Proposed Action. In addition, potential
 impacts to cattle grazing associated with
 each of the alternatives  to the Proposed
 Action, as identified  in  Section 23, are
 addressed below.  As noted in Section 3.7,
 Summo's   proposed  operations  would
 impact  two grazing  allotments:  Pasture
 No.  1 of the Lower Lisbon Allotment and
 portions of the Lisbon Allotment.

 The BLM has indicated that the number of
 acres required to support one AUM (i.e.,
 carrying capacity) varies  throughout the
 areas that would be disturbed by Summo's
 proposed  Lisbon  Valley Project.   For
 example, 5 to 10 acres is needed to support
 one    AUM    in   areas    with    a
 sagebrush/crested    wheatgrass    plant
 community (BLM 1995c).   Table 4.7-1
 addresses  the  acreage  needed  for one
 AUM  based on  various  BLM-identified
 ecological sites.
      4.7.2    Proposed Action

      4.7.2.1   Impacts

      As  noted  in  Section  3.7,   activities
      proposed  to be conducted  by  Summo
      would impact  acreage  in  two  different
      grazing allotments:   approximately  349
      acres   would    be    disturbed   from
      implementation  of the Proposed Action in
      the Lower Lisbon Allotment (Table 3.7-4)
      and about 480  acres  would be disturbed
      from the Proposed Action  in the Lisbon
      Allotment (Table 3.7-5).   However, the
      area contemplated  for  Summo's Lisbon
      Valley Project is in an area that has been
      disturbed by prior  mining and processing
      operations.   Approximately 24  acres of
      land in the Lower Lisbon Allotment and 61
      acres  in the Lisbon Valley would be re-
      disturbed    by    Summo's    proposed
      operations.   As  such, the net acreage of
      disturbance  that   would   be   directly
      attributed to  Summo's operations during
      the life-of-mine would be 720 acres (i.e.,
      site disturbance in  the Lower Lisbon and
      Lisbon Allotments  of 349 and 480 acres,
      respectively, for a total of 829 acres less
      prior disturbance in the Lower Lisbon and
      Lisbon Allotments  of 24  and 61 acres,
      respectively, for a total of 85 acres).

      Environmental  impacts to  cattle  grazing
      would occur in three ways.  First, Summo's
      proposed operations would result in the
      temporary loss  of  grazing areas during
      active mining operations.  Approximately
      71.6 AUMs of grazing capacity would be
      temporarily lost during development  of
      Summo's Lisbon Valley Project (Table
      4.7-2). The temporary loss of 42.7 AUMs
      in the Lower Lisbon Allotment would be
      approximately 4 percent of the allotment's
      grazing  capacity.   This level of change
2399&S3.4 SnSI96(9in PMyRFT/2
4-46

-------
                                     TABLE 4.7-1

         ACREAGE REQUIREMENTS FOR ONE AUM BY ECOLOGICAL SITE
      Ecological Site
Acres/AUM
            Facility
Upland Loam
Upland Loam seeded with
crested wheatgrass
Upland Stony Loam

Upland Shallow Loam

Semidesert Stony Loam

Upland Shallow Loam seeded
with crested wheatgrass

Mine site
  20 to 30
   5 to 10
    50

  30 to 50

    50

  10 to 15


     0
Sentinel Pits 1 & 2
Waste Dump C
Sage/Grass Areas

GTO Pit
Waste Dumps A, B, & D
Ore Leach Pad/Process Plant Area
Sage/Crested Wheatgrass Areas

P-J Slopes

P-J Slopes

P-J Slopes

P-J Slopes


Centennial Pit
Source:  BLM 1996
23996/R3.4 5/15/96(9:11 PM)/RFD2
                                      4-47

-------
                                   TABLE 4.7-2
                          TEMPORARY GRAZING LOSS
         Area
Average Acreage
   perAUM1
Proposed Disturbed
     Acreage2
Loss AUM
Sentinel Pit No. 1
Sentinel Pit No. 2
Centennial Pit
GTO Pit
Waste Dump A
Waste Dump B
Waste Dump C
Waste Dump D
Leach Pad Area
Process Area and
Facilities
Haul Roads
Plant Growth Medium
Stockpiles
TOTAL
Source:
1 "DAIIA^ AM v>n1..An !«. TV«1»1 «. A
25
25
0
7.5
7.5
7.5
25
7.5
7.5
7.5

7.5
40



•7 1
38
9
116
403
186
90
118
55
56
21

32
39




1.5
0.4
0
5.3
24.8
12
4.7
7.3
7.5
2.8

4.3
1.0

71.6


  Based on values in Tables 3.7-4 and 3.7-5.
  GTO Pit acreage amount reflects proposed purchase by Summo of the Patterson Ranch.
would  have little impact on the overall
management   of  the  allotment.  The
temporary  loss  of 28.9 AUMs  in the
Lisbon Allotment would be less  than  1
percent of the total AUMs and would not
affect the grazing of the allotment.

There would be a permanent loss of 1.9
AUMs in the Lisbon Allotment and 5.3
AUMs in the Lower Lisbon  Allotment.
The permanent loss of 2-5 AUMs would
be difficult to measure due to the size of
the allotments;  but  these  losses,  after
reclamation,   would  not   affect   the
implementation of future grazing schedules

2399&R3.4 5/15/56(9:11 PMyRPT/2                    4-48
                   or resource management objectives  for
                   either allotment.  The loss of 2-5 AUMs
                   within the project area would be absorbed
                   by  grazing  other  portions  of  these
                   allotments.

                   This  temporary loss  would  be for  the
                   length  of  the  project  since  Summo
                   proposes to fence the entire  site.  Thus,
                   this temporary loss would be for  at least 13
                   years:

                      •  10 years for mining operations,
                      •  approximately  one year for final
                         reclamation

-------
    •   at   least  two   years   to   allow
        sufficient  vegetative  growth  to
        establish on reclaimed areas (e.g.,
        waste dumps) before grazing would
        resume.

 Second,  Summo's  proposed  operations
 would result  in  the permanent loss  of
 grazing areas after cessation  of active
 mining  operations.   Summo  does not
 propose to reclaim any of the four mine
 pits,   but  would  reclaim the  remaining
 facilities.  As  such,  a  permanent loss  of
 about 7.2 AUMs would result from not
.backfilling  and reclaiming the  Sentinels,
 Centennial and GTO Pits (Table 4.7-3).

 Finally, Summo's proposed fencing would
 block  normal  movement  of  livestock
 between two grazing areas.  That is, the
 fencing   would   restrict  trailing   that
 currently occurs to gain access by cattle  to
 other portions of the Lisbon Allotment and
 to gain  access  to  the Lower  Lisbon
 Allotment.

 4.7.2.2  Recommended Mitigation

 Summo has proposed  to implement its
 operations in a way that minimizes impacts
 to livestock grazing to the extent possible.
 For example, the waste  dumps and haul
 roads  would be  reseeded  with  species
 compatible to cattle grazing.  In addition,
 the pits would be blocked off during final
 reclamation to minimize access.  As such,
 no mitigation is recommended.

 4.7.3    No Action Alternative

 There would be no impact  to livestock
 grazing under the No Action Alternative.
 In addition,  the existing  approximate 85
 acre  disturbance  associated  with  prior
 development would remain.
 2399&R3.4 5/15/96(9:34 PMJ/KPT/2                    4-49
 4.7.4    Open Pit Backfilling
         Alternative

 4.7.4.1  Impacts

 Two scenarios are  identified in Section
 2.3.2  for  pit  backfilling:    partial  and
 complete. Environmental impacts to cattle
 grazing  from these  two  scenarios  are
 addressed below.

 Scenario 1 - The environmental impacts to
 cattle  grazing from  implementing  the
 partial  backfilling   scenario  would   be
 comparable to the environmental impacts
 of the Proposed  Action, as  discussed in
 Section  4.7.1.    Cattle  grazing of  the
 reclaimed pit floor should  be considered
 non-existent  -because  of  the  physical
 barriers that Summo would install to  bar
 access to the pit floor. Thus, approximately
 71.6  AUMs  (Table  4.7-2)  would   be
 temporarily lost for at  least 13  years  and
 7.2  AUMs  (Table  4.7-3)  would   be
 permanently   lost   under    the   partial
 backfilling scenario.

 Scenario 2  -  Environmental  impacts  to
 livestock  grazing  as   a  result   of
 implementing  the  complete  backfilling
 scenario would occur only during Summo's
 operations.  Approximately 71.6 AUMs
 would be temporarily  lost  for  about  13
 years,  as  detailed  in Section  4.7.1.1, no
 AUMs  would   be   lost   after  final
 reclamation  since  the site  would  be
 completely       reclaimed.       Thus,
 implementation  of this alternative  would
have a net gain over the Proposed Action
 of 7.2  AUMs (i.e., no permanent grazing
loss   would   occur   from  completely
backfilling the pits).

-------
                                   TABLE 4.7-3
                         PERMANENT GRAZING LOSS
, Area
Sentinel Pit No. 1
Sentinel Pit No. 2
Centennial Pit
GTO Pit
TOTAL
Average Acreage
perAUM1
25
25
0
7.5

Proposed Disturbed
Acreage2
38
9
116
403

Loss AUM
1.5
0.4
0
5.3
7.2
  Based on values in Table 4.7-1.
  Based on values in Tables 3.7-4 and 3.7-5.
  GTO Pit acreage amount reflects proposed purchase by Summo of the Patterson Ranch.
4.7.4.2   Recommended Mitigation

No mitigation is recommended.

4.7.5    Facility Layout Alternative

4.7.5.1   Impacts

Under this alternative, there would  be no
change of the impacts to livestock grazing
that   is   different   from   the   impacts
associated with the Proposed Action since
Summo  proposed to  fence the  entire
Lisbon Valley Project site.

However, a slight reduction in the loss of
temporary grazing would be realized if the
facility   layout  alternative  would  be
implemented and Summo would not fence
off the  55 acres  associated with Waste
Dump D. As noted in Table 4.7-2,  about
7.3  AUMs  would be  temporarily lost
during development  of Waste Dump D.
Under the facility layout alternative, Waste
Dump D would be eliminated and Waste
Dump  C  would  be   expanded  by
approximately 50 acres.  The disturbance
of an additional 50 acres at Waste Dump C

2399&R3.4 5/1586(9:11PWTVRPT/2                    4-50
would result in an increase in temporary
loss grazing of only about 2 AUMs, or a
net reduction in temporary loss grazing of
5.3 AUMs (i.e., 7.3 AUMs less 2 AUMs)
assuming the area for deleted Waste Dump
D is not fenced.  Upon the reclamation of
expanded Waste Dump C, the permanent
loss of grazing capacity would be the same
as under the Proposed Action.

4.7.5.2  Recommended Mitigation

No mitigation is recommended.
4.7.6
4.7.6.1
Waste Rock Selective Handling
Alternative
Implementation  of  the  Waste  Rock
Handling  Procedure  Alternative  would
reduce  the  potential  impacts  of  acid
generation  from  certain  waste   rock
lithologies.   However, the  overall  direct
impact to cattle grazing would not change
from the Proposed Action.  Thus, as with
the Proposed Action,  approximately 71.6
AUMs would be temporarily lost for about

-------
 13  years  and  7.2  AUMs  would  be
 permanently lost under this alternative.

 4.7.6.2  Recommended Mitigation

 No mitigation is recommended.

 4.8    SOCIOECONOMICS

 4.8.1  Methodology

 This section describes the potential impacts
 the  Proposed  Action  would  have  on
 various  socioeconomic  conditions  and
 addresses  concerns   expressed   during
 project scoping. These issues include:

    •  New employment and earnings that
       would  be  generated   by  the
       construction and operation of the
       proposed mine
    •  Impacts on the  study area economy
    •  Impacts on  housing in the study
       area
    •  Impacts on tax revenues collected
       by local governments
    •  Impacts the Proposed Action could
       have on community facilities  and
       government   services   including
       water     supply,     wastewater
       treatment,  public schools,  health
       care, and fire and police protection
    •  Potential  impacts  the  Proposed
       Action could have on the overall
       quality of life of the residents in the
       study area.
      4.8.2   Proposed Action

      4.8.2.1 Impacts

      Employment,  Earnings, and  the Local
      Economy

      Employment

      Over the  ten-year life of the Proposed
      Action,  employment  would    generally
      increase from Year 1 to Year 6 and remain
      constant from Year 6  until completion of
      mining  in Year  10.  During initial project
      construction, a  workforce of roughly  80
      would be  required.   Construction of the
      leach pad, SX/EW plant, mine office, and
      other   mine   facilities   would   take
      approximately six to  ten months.  Since
      construction of some of the mine  facilities
      would  require   contractors  that   have
      specialized expertise, it is likely that many
      of the  construction  workers  would  be
      brought in from communities outside of the
      study area for up to  ten months.  While
      many construction workers would be non-
      local, some of the construction jobs would
      be  filled  by  local   workers.  Due  to
      uncertainties regarding specific contractors
      that would be used and the precise mix of
      trades  and  expertise that  would  be
      required,  it  is unclear how many  local
      versus  non-local  construction   workers
      would be hired at this time.

      After construction is completed, a variety
      of salaried  and hourly  jobs would  be
      created for a period often years, which is
      the  estimated   operational  life  of  the
      project.   Salaried mine personnel, which
      would consist of the mine superintendent,
      four mine foremen, two mining engineers,
      the  chief  geologist,  the   maintenance
      superintendent,   and   support  personnel
23996/R3.4 5/15/96(9:11 PMVKFT/2
4-51

-------
would total a constant 12 positions over
the life of the project. Administrative and
processing salaried positions would include
the  general  manager,  chief accountant,
plant superintendent, and  other technical
and   support   positions    totaling   14
employees over the life of the project. It is
expected that 38 hourly positions would be
available for  ore crushing  and  stacking,
operations in the SX(EW plant, crane and
forklift operators,  laboratory technicians,
security guards, electricians,  and welders.
These jobs would also be required over the
full  ten-year  project life.    In total,  64
positions would be created that would last
throughout  the   mine's  ten-year  life.
Additional hourly mining jobs, however,
would fluctuate over the life of the project.

As the mine would enter different stages of
production,    actual    hourly   mining
employment would vary.  During the initial
two years of production, hourly mining
jobs would number about 46 positions. The
.number  of hourly  labor mine  openings
would increase over the following years of
the  project.   During the  third  year,  an
additional   15  positions  would   open,
increasing the hourly mining  staff total to
61   employees.   The  third and  fourth
phases, or Years 4 and 5 and  6 through 10,
would  utilize  an estimated 72  and  79
hourly mining workers, respectively. After
Year 10, reclamation of the mine would
last  up to 5  years  and  would employ a
declining  number   of  workers   until
completion.   Examples of hourly mining
jobs that would be created include drillers,
driller's helpers, blasting technicians,  heavy
equipment  operators (loaders,  graders,
dozers),  truck  drivers,  fiiel   and  lube
servicemen, heavy equipment  mechanics,
mechanics  helpers, and general laborers.
Figure 4.8-1  illustrates the total projected
employment over the life of'the Proposed
Action.

It  is  expected   that  the  majority  of
positions that would be created over the
ten year operational life of the  project
could  be  filled  by  residents  of  the
communities within the study area such as
Moab, Monticello, Blanding, and  La Sal
(Myrick  1996;  Langstan  1996;  Curtis
1996). Given the distance of the mine site
from the communities in southern San Juan
County, such as Bluff, Montezuma Creek,
and Mexican Hat,  it is unlikely that the
project would employ a  significant number
of residents of those communities.

There  are  many  skilled workers within
Grand and San Juan counties who could
staff the project. The decline of the mining
industry in the early to  mid-1980s forced
many miners to leave the study area in
search of work.   The  trade and-service
sectors in Monticello and primarily Moab,
however, absorbed a large percentage of
the  remaining former  miners.    Local
workers who have mining experience or
possess the skills  needed to  mine would
likely leave the typically lower paying trade
and service positions for the  higher wage
job opportunities the mine would create.
This  transfer  of  workers   to  mining
employment would represent a loss of less
than one  percent  of workers  from the
service and  trade sectors.   Given  the
population  growth  that is projected to
occur, the growth in the labor force should
replace lost service and trade workers.
23996B3.4 S/1S»6(9:I1 PMXRPT/2
                                         4-52

-------
                                          Figure 4.8-1
                                      Projected Employment
          Year  Year   Year   Year   Year  Year  Year   Year   Year  Year
                                                                     E3 Hourly Mining Personnel
                                                                     S Hourly Ore Processing, SX/EW
                                                                     13 Salary Mine Personnel
                                                                     S Salary'Processing Personnel
                                                                      Salary Administrative
                                   Phases

In  addition,  the imminent closure of the
Energy Fuels uranium mine just outside of
Blanding would likely contribute to  the
number of experienced miners available to
staff the project. The Energy Fuels mine is
scheduled for closure in the near future and
will lay off a  total of approximately  70
workers. Miners have already been laid-off
and are anxiously awaiting new mining
opportunities (Myrick 1996).   Additional
workers could be available in communities
in western Colorado, such as Dove Creek,
Naturita, and Nucla.  To the  extent  the
project would  be  staffed by   local  area
workers, the project  would  result in a
decrease in the  unemployment rate, which
would be a  positive impact on the study
area economy.   As described  in Section
3.8.2, the unemployment rate in 1995 was
6.3% in Grand  County and 7.7% in San
Juan County.

Earnings

The operation of the mine would generate
an  estimated $54,555,637 in payroll.  Of
that total, the hourly mining labor payroll
for  the full 10 years contributes 53 percent
or $28,933,632 to the mine's total payroll.
Processing hourly employment  which are
2399SR3.4 5/15/96(9:11 PM)/RPT/2                     4-53.
second to hourly mining openings in actual
positions, would pay out $14,842,000 in
payroll.  Administrative  and  processing
salaried positions would pay approximately
$6,400,000, and $4,380,000 would be paid
for   the   mining   salaried   positions
(Gochnour & Associates 1996a).

Total  earnings would increase over  the
operational life of the mine until Year 6,
where  they   would   level   off  until
completion of the project.  Total earnings
in  Years  1  and  2  would  be  about
$4,461,000 each year.  Due to increases in
hourly  mine  personnel  that  would  be
utilized, total earnings would rise to about
$5,096,000  in  Year  3,  and then  to
$5,579,000 per year in Years 4 and 5. In
Years  6 through 10, total annual earnings
would peak at about $5,876,000.

During the reclamation phase, which would
last up to  five years,  additional earnings
would be generated, although they would
decline relative to the productive phase of
the mine.

-------
Local Economy

The  Proposed   Action  would   have
numerous impacts on the local economy of
the study area, as well as the State of Utah.
The project-related creation  of new jobs
and substantial generation  of  earnings
described above would result in  reduced
unemployment  and  increased  economic
growth in Grand and  San Juan counties.
To the extent workers would be hired from
western  Colorado (e.g.,  Dove  Creek,
Naturita),  economic  benefits would be
experienced there  as  well.    Economic
benefits  would occur  as  a  result  of
expenditure of mine-related  earnings on
housing, food,  and goods and  services
provided   by   study   area   businesses.
Similarly,   this  spending activity would
generate additional sales tax revenue for
local cities and counties, as well as the
State of Utah.  Estimates of these indirect
economic benefits that would be generated
by the Proposed Action were calculated by
the  project team using the  Southeastern
Utah  Region   Input/Output  Economic
Model, created by the Governor's Office of
Planning and Budget. Since it is unclear at
the present time where many of the mine's
equipment and  supply purchases would
take  place, the  model  was run  using
projected  employment and earnings values
only.

Based on the mine employment projections
provided   above,  the  Proposed  Action
would create an additional 31 to 54 new
jobs in local area communities over the life
of the project.  These  would  primarily
consist of  service and trade sector jobs,
with a  few  jobs  created  in  finance,
insurance,  and  real estate,  as  well  as
transportation and public utilities.  Since it
is unclear  where all of the local project

23S9SR3.4 S/1S«6(9:11 EMyRPT/2                    4-54
employees currently live, the distribution of
earnings expenditure and  the  associated
creation of new jobs is uncertain at this
time. It is assumed that many of these new
jobs would be created in Monticello and
Moab, with the communities of La Sal and
Blanding also experiencing some indirect
job creation as well.  In total,  direct and
indirect employment that would be created
due to the Proposed Action would be 141
to 197 private sector jobs over the ten-year
operational life of the project, which would
be considered a positive economic impact
on  the  study area.   These  new  jobs
indirectly created by the Proposed Action
would comprise both expansion of existing
businesses and creation of new businesses
in Moab, Monticello,  and elsewhere. As
stated previously,  this estimate does not
include mine purchases of equipment and
supplies, such as  fuel and  pipe, which
would further increase indirect employment
that would be created within  the  study
area.

Similarly, the  expenditure of mine-related
earnings in the local economy  and the
indirect creation of jobs  would  generate
additional earnings in  the  local economy
that would also be spent in the local  area.
Based  on   the   mine-related   earnings
described  above,  the Proposed  Action
would  indirectly  generate an  additional
$1,160,000 to $1,528,000 in earnings per
year  over  the life of the project which
would then decline during reclamation and
end at completion.  These indirect earnings
would be generated primarily due to the
increased  service  and   trade  sector
employment,  but  also due  to  increased
transportation  and  utility  employment,
construction   employment,  and  finance,
insurance and real estate  employment. In.
total,  direct  and  indirect private sector

-------
 earnings that would be generated due to
 the  Proposed Action  would be  $5.62
 million to $7.40 million per year. Over the
 ten year life of the project, total direct and
 indirect earnings would be about $68.74
 million,  which  would  be a  substantial
 economic  benefit  to  the   study  area
 economy.

 Assuming future exploration activities and
 market  conditions  do   not   support
 additional mining in Lisbon Valley in the
 future,  completion  of reclamation  and
 closure of  the  proposed  Lisbon Valley
 Copper Mine would result in the loss of
 employment   in  Grand   and  San  Juan
 Counties  as roughly 143  mine  workers
 would be laid off. Service and trade sector
jobs could also be  indirectly lost, due to
 reduced spending activity by mine workers.
 This direct and indirect loss of jobs would
 represent  roughly  a 0.2 percent loss of
 employment   in  Grand  and  San  Juan
 Counties   overall.   Unemployed   mine
 workers   would  have  to  seek  other
 employment  opportunities in the  study
 area.   Some  would  find  construction
 industry jobs, some would have to work in
the lower paying service and trade sectors,
 and  others   may  leave  the  study  area
 altogether    to    pursue    employment
 opportunities elsewhere in Utah or in other
 states.

Based on  projected study  area population
and economic growth, it is very likely that
the overall number  of jobs in Grand and
 San Juan  Counties  will increase, despite
closure of the mine in roughly 15 years.
 Since overall employment will grow in the
future and mine closure would result in  a
loss of less than one percent of jobs in
Grand and San Juan Counties, it is unlikely
      that a significant economic "bust" would
      occur as a result of closure of the mine.

      Housing - Construction Phase

      During   the    estimated    10   month
      construction  period,   a   projected   80
      construction  workers   would  be  hired.
      Currently, Summo  is fairly confident  no
      .firms within the study area have experience
      with the construction of copper mines.  It
      is likely an outside construction company
      with such a specialty would need to  be
      contracted.  If  a  company  outside of the
      study area is contracted, it is  likely that
      many of the workers possessing specialized
      skills would also come from  outside the
      local area, resulting in a temporary influx
      of residents.  While much of the specialized
      construction workforce would  be  non-
      local, some  of the general  construction
      workers  (e.g.,  truck drivers  and heavy
      equipment operators) could be hired from
      the  local communities,  thereby reducing
      this temporary influx of residents.

      Temporary housing, including motel, hotel,
      and bed and breakfast units, in the cities of
      Moab and Monticello and the surrounding
      communities is plentiful.  By early summer,
      the total number of units available between
      the  two  cities  is 1455.   Including  the
      approximate total number of RV hook up
      spots adding an additional  457 units, the
      total  number   of   available   temporary
      housing is  1912  (Snyder  1996, Walker
      1996).    With  an  abundant number  of
      temporary housing options,  the study area
      would  likely not feel a strain from  the
      potential influx of as many as 80 temporary
      construction workers.
23996/R3.4 5/15/96(9:11 PM>KPT/2
4-55

-------
 Housing - Operational Phase

 Monticello  and particularly Moab,  might
 have difficulty  absorbing additional  non-
 local  workers  and  families  with  the
 currently  low  vacancy  rates.    New
 ordinances  and housing projects  would
 relieve some of  the current  strain on
 housing demands.  Currently however, the
 City of Moab has a vacancy  rate of only
 0.9 percent while Monticello has a rate of
 4.51 percent (SEUAOQ  1996).    This
 analysis suggests, however, the likelihood
 of a large influx of new residents  to the
 study area is low.

 At the height of the mine's operation, a
 total of 143 workers would be employed.
 Employment opportunities would primarily
 be filled by those who worked on the mines
 which were active in the 1980s  and who
 are  now employed  in other sectors.  In
 addition,  the  miners who  are  currently
 finishing work at the local uranium mine
 would  likely   look  for  the  mining
 opportunities presented  by  the proposed
 Coppermine (Myrick 1996).

 Tax Revenue

 The Proposed Action would contribute a
 net  revenue increase  to San Juan  and
 Grand counties, as  well as the  State of
 Utah and the Federal government over its
 ten-year life.  In  San Juan County, the
 physical location of the proposed mine, the
 project  would  generate  considerable  ad
 valorem/property tax revenue.  Since mine
 equipment that would be used to  assess
valuation would be  depreciated over the
life of the project, property taxes collected
from the  project  by  San Juan County
would gradually  decline.  In the first year,
estimated property tax that would be paid

23»fi/R3.4 S/1#96(9:l ] PMXRPT/2                    4-56
 to San Juan County would be $471,600.
 This figure would decline to $47,200 in
 Year  10, with  a  ten-year  average  of
 $235,800 per year. These revenues would
 be used by the county to fund a variety of
 government   services   and   community
 facilities utilized  by all county residents.
 The  San  Juan  County  School  District
 would receive the largest portion of county
 ad valorem/property tax revenue.

 Purchasing  activity by  Summo  would
 generate sales and use tax revenue for the
 cities and counties of the study area and
 the State  of Utah..  Although estimates of
 local  purchasing   activities   are   very
 tentative,  estimated sales taxes that would
 be  paid  by  the  project  amount  to
 approximately  $740,000   per year.  A
 portion of these sales tax dollars would be
 paid to the State of Utah. It is unclear how
 purchases and associated sales tax revenue
 would be allocated between Grand and San
 Juan counties at  this time.  As described
 for property tax  revenue,  this increase in
 revenue of $740,000 would be used by the
 counties and the state to fund a variety of
 services  and   facilities  utilized  by all
 residents.  In  addition to mine  purchases,
 employees of the mine would spend a
 portion of their  earnings on  goods and
 services provided  by businesses within San
 Juan and Grand counties. Additional  sales
 tax revenue would be  generated  through
 these   purchasing   activities.   Local
 governments  in turn would use this tax
 revenue   for   providing   services  and
 operating  community  facilities,  thereby
benefiting local area residents.

It is important to note that although the
Proposed  Action  would result in limited
employment and earnings benefits for the
residents of southern San Juan County and

-------
the Navajo Nation, tax revenues generated
by the project in San Juan County would
benefit  all residents of San Juan County,
including those living   in and around
Mexican Hat, Blufi; and Montezuma Creek
due to  increased funding of schools  and
other community facilities and services.

Mineral  lease  payments would  also  be
collected by the State of Utah for mining
activities that would occur  on state lands.
It is estimated  these  payments would
average $252,100 per year or $2,521,000
over the  life  of the  project,  thereby
benefiting  the  State  School  Trust   and
school  districts  throughout  the  state
receiving trust fund monies.

In summary, from  a cost versus benefits
standpoint, the Proposed  Action would
contribute millions of dollars  to various
state and  local  government   entities.
Despite costs that would be borne by the
counties for road maintenance, the project
would result in a large net benefit for local
government fiscal  conditions.    During
operations, therefore,  impacts would  be
medium to high, positive.  Over time, as
production eventually would  decline  and
end, royalties  and tax revenues  generated
would also decline and end.

Local Facilities and Services

The Proposed  Action would increase wear
on county maintained roads in  the study
area due to the increase in automobile  and
truck traffic the  project would generate.
Although  this  increase  in wear would
increase county road maintenance costs to
some extent,   the  economic and fiscal
benefits would more than compensate for
any increase in maintenance costs borne by
San Juan County. In addition, there is the

23996/R3.4 5/15/96(9:11 PMyRPT/2                    4-57
 potential  that  fires  or other unplanned
 emergencies requiring  assistance  could
 occur at the mine site.  If such an incident
 were to occur, Summo may request the
 assistance   of  the   fire  department  in
 Monticello   and/or   medical   response
 services (ambulance)  in  Monticello  or
 Moab.  Since it is  difficult to predict the
 extent these services would be utilized, if
 at all, it is uncertain whether this potential
 demand would increase costs for  those
 services appreciably.  Based on the current
 status  of  fire protection  and   medical
 services in the  study area,  the rare use of
 these services are not predicted to result in
 major costs to  providers and result in any
 reduction in these services to study area
 residents.

 The   Proposed   Action    would   not
 appreciably increase the population of the
 study  area  and  therefore  would  not
 significantly increase the demand on public
 schools in Grand or San Juan counties. At
 present, there is adequate capacity in both
 Grand  and   San    Juan   counties  to
 accommodate some  growth, nevertheless.
 Since  the  Proposed Action would not
 significantly increase the population of the
 study  area,  there  would  be  minimal
 increase in demand  on medical facilities,
 public  utilities,   water   supply,   and
 wastewater  treatment.     The  proposed
 powerline would supply adequate electrical
 power for the  project.  Existing facilities
 are considered  to have  excess capacity  at
the  present  time   and  would  easily
 accommodate   the   modest  increase  in
 demand  the   Proposed   Action  could
generate. Thus, no impact is projected.

 Since security would be self-provided by
 Summo at the mine site, the project would
not directly increase the demand for law

-------
enforcement services. Similarly., since only
a modest increase in  population  would
occur in the study area, if any, there would
be a minimal increase in demand for law
enforcement services in the communities
where project workers would live, such as
Monticello and Moab.  As described  in
Section   3.8.5,   demands   for   law
enforcement  services  are  not nearing
capacity, so a slight increase in demand in
study  area  communities  due  to  the
Proposed Action would have no impact.

Social Impacts and Qualify of Life

The Proposed Action  could impact the
aesthetic beauty and recreational value  of
Lisbon Valley to some extent.   These
impacts are described in Sections 4.13 and
4.16,   respectively.     Although   many
residents  of  the study  area  consider
outdoor  recreational   opportunities  and
aesthetic beauty to be an important factor
that contributes  to  quality of  life, the
Proposed Action  would not significantly
impact quality of life for those people
because  the project  site is  located in a
remote area that is fer removed  from the
communities of Moab and Monticello and
is not in an important scenic or recreational
use  area."    Residents  of  Moab  and
Monticello would not see the project site
from  their communities and would have
plentiful outdoor recreational opportunities
closer to home.

Alternatively, the  creation of higher wage
mining jobs would increase the incomes of
many households  in Grand and San Juan
counties.  To the extent  the increase  in
income   and  economic  opportunity  for
study  area  residents  reduces  problems
associated with high living costs, such  as
housing, the project could result in positive
social impacts.

The study  area  has a  long history  of
mining and natural  resources extraction
and  production.  Many residents  in  the
study  area  historically   derived  their
livelihoods from  uranium  and vanadium
mining and mining   In general,   the fact
that  employment  in  these  .industries
provides higher wages and is the economic
base of the region is well understood in the
communities  of the  study area.    Unlike
other areas where a  new mine or natural
gas development  would cause significant
changes in the composition and character
of local communities, the proposed project
would be  compatible with other industries
that were  established in the study  area for
decades.   For individuals that would  be
employed  directly or  indirectly, the project
may have  beneficial impacts on quality of
life.  In general, wages that would be paid
to project workers would be higher  than
many of the wages  paid to service and
trade sector workers  in the study area.  In
addition, to the extent the proposed project
provides additional tax revenue and royalty
income to  various  local  government
entities and increases the funding  of
important  community  facilities,  such  as
libraries and parks, the project could have
beneficial  impacts on the quality of life in
the study area.

4.8.2.2 Recommended Mitigation

Mitigation  of  socioeconomic   impacts
would consist of hiring local area  workers
to the greatest extent possible.  This would
minimize the need for recruiting non-local
workers who would move to the study
area   and  increase   the  demand   for
                                        4-58

-------
 permanent  housing and  local government
 services and community facilities.

 4.8.3  No Action Alternative

 4.8.3.1 Impacts

 Under the No  Action  Alternative,  no
 project-related   employment,    earnings
 generation,  or other impacts in the study
 area  would   occur   to  socioeconomic
 resources.  In brief, many of the positive
 economic and fiscal  impacts that  could
 result from project would not occur.

 4.8.4   Open Pit Backfilling Alternative

 4.8.4.1 Impacts

 Impacts to  socioeconomic conditions for
 this alternative would  generally  be  the
 same as those described for the Proposed
 Action, although final backfilling of the
 Centennial and GTO  pits would  prolong
 employment, earnings, and related  positive
 economic impacts for about one year.

 4.8.4.2 Recommended Mitigation

 Recommended  mitigation would  be  the
 same as for the Proposed Action.

 4.8.5  Facility Layout Alternative

 4.8.5.1  Impacts

 Impacts for  this alternative would be the
 same as those described for the Proposed
 Action.  Modifications to the layout of
 waste rock dumps would not appreciably
 change mine employment and earnings, nor
 associated economic impacts to the study
 area.
       4.8.5.2 Recommended Mitigation

       Recommended  mitigation would be  the
       same as for the Proposed Action.

       4.8.6  Waste Rock Selective Handling
             Alternative

       4.8.6.1  Impacts

       Impacts for this alternative would be  the
       same as those described for the Proposed
       Action.    Modifications  to  waste  rock
       handling procedures would not appreciably
       change mine employment and earnings, nor
       associated economic impacts to the study
       area.

       4.8.6.2 Recommended Mitigation

      Recommended mitigation  would be  the
      same as for the Proposed Action.

      4.9   TRANSPORTATION

      4.9.1  .Methodology

      The   following    discussion   identifies
      potential transportation-related impacts of
      the Proposed  Action  and  the  various
      project  alternatives.   Issues  addressed
      include those identified  by the public and
      interested government agencies during the
      EIS scoping process. These issues include:

         •   Projected  volumes  of  commuter
            and truck traffic associated with the
            project
         •   The potential  for  an increase  in
            accidents along roads that would be
            used by the project
         •   Anticipated   road    maintenance
            requirements due to trucks using
            highways and local roads
23996/R3.4 5/15/96(9:11 PM>RPT/2
4-59

-------
4.9.2    Proposed Action

4.9.2.1  Impacts

Traffic on Highways and County Roads

Project-related traffic would consist  of
worker commute trips to the  mine site,
truck trips associated with the delivery of
various supplies to the mine and shipment
of copper plates from the mine to their
market destinations,  and heavy equipment
movement within the active mining area
associated with the operation.

For the Proposed Action, it is  estimated
that  there  would  be  approximately  33
commuter round trips per day during the
mine construction period and Years 1 and
2  of  mine  operation for the  Monday
through Friday work week. Weekend shifts
would  result in  roughly 21  commuter
round trips on Saturdays and Sundays. In
Years 3 through 5, weekday commute trips
would increase to 41 trips per day. In Year
6, due to anticipated pre-stripping  of the
GTO  Pit by a contract firm,  commuter
trips would peak at  73 trips per day. For
Years  6 through  10, weekday commuter
trips would drop to 43  trips  per day.
Weekend commuter traffic over the life of
the project would be lower, ranging from
21 to about 33 trips per day. In addition, a
nominal number  of automobile trips is
anticipated for visitors to the mine site. For
purposes of this analysis, h is expected that
approximately two  visitor trips per day
would occur due to  potential  inquiries
about mine employment or general public
interest in the operation.

It is assumed that most project workers
would carpool together in cars and pickup
trucks to reach the  project site. Workers

2399SR3.4 5/15/96(9:11 PMXRPT/2                    4-60
would not be shuttled by Summo to the
mine by bus or vans. Typical commuter
trips would originate in Monticello, Moab,
and possibly Blanding, and Dove Creek,
Colorado.  Commuters driving from Moab
would take U.S. Highway 191 south to La
Sal Junction, then proceed east on State
Route 46,  and south on Lisbon Valley
Road  to  reach  the mine  site.  From
Monticello, it  is likely  that commuters
would take  U.S. Highway  666 east to
UColo Road, and proceed north to Summit
Point  and down Three  Step Hill to the
mine  site.  From  Blanding,  commuters
would take U.S. Highway 191 north to
Monticello and continue on to the mine as
described  above.  From  Dove  Creek,
commuters would take U.S. Highway 666
west to UColo Road and proceed north to
the mine as described above.

Based  on  review of projected  project
equipment and supply requirements  and
copper  plate  production,  truck  traffic
associated with delivery  of supplies  and
shipment of copper plates would  include
approximately seven trips per day by heavy
(18-wheeler)  trucks   and  approximately
three trips per day by medium (six-wheel)
trucks during Years  1 through 3. Heavy
truck trips would increase slightly and peak
at about nine trips per day during Years 5
and 6, while medium trucks would peak at
roughly 12 trucks per day in Year 6.  The
majority of  truck trips  would enter the
study area on U.S.  Highway 191  and
would proceed to  La Sal Junction, then
east on State Route 46, and then south on
the Lisbon Valley Road to reach the mine
site. Truck trips would  seldomly use the
UColo or West Summit  Roads to access
the mine site from the south due to rough
road conditions.

-------
None of the highways and local roads that
would be used by commuters and project-
related  trucks  are experiencing  traffic
congestion at this time.  In fact, although
study area traffic volumes  have increased
substantially   over  recent  years,  the
transportation system is still operating well
below  its  capacity  due  to  the  rural
character of the study area. From a traffic
and congestion standpoint,  the addition of
project-related commuter and truck traffic
(96 vehicles  per  day maximum)  would
result  in a  modest increase  in  traffic
volumes,  which  would  not exceed the
capacity of project area  highways or the
local road network.  It  is conceivable that
this increase in traffic could cause modest
traffic  delays  and  inconveniences on rare
occasions under certain circumstances.

Mine  Traffic Crossing Lisbon  Valley
Road

For heavy equipment operation within the
active  mine  area,  the vast  majority  of
activity would be in areas closed to the
public  and would not impact the  public
transportation  network.  However,  two
types of hauling  activities  would require
the crossing  of Lisbon Valley  Road and
could result in potential conflicts with the
traveling public. First, the  hauling of ore
from the Sentinel #1 and #2 Pits to the ore
stockpile area adjacent  to the crusher and
leach pad would involve the crossing of the
county  road  during Years 1 through 7.
These trips would involve  large, off-road
150-ton trucks.  Based on projected ore
production from  the Sentinel Pits,  it is
estimated that up  to 50  roundtrips (100
crossings) per day would be required  to
haul the ore across the  county road to the
stockpile area during Years 1  through 6,
with fewer trips occurring in  Year  7  as

23996/R3.4 5/15/96(9:17 PM^RPT/2                    4-61
 production would end at those pits.  Over
 a 24-hour period, this haul  traffic would
 amount to just over 4 crossings per hour.
 Since open pit mining involves periods of
 both  ore  extraction  and  waste  rock
 removal,  ore hauling across the county
 road would not necessarily occur  every
 day.

 Second, the hauling of waste rock from the
 Centennial  Pit  to  Dump C could  also
 involve the crossing of the county road
 during  Years  1  through 9.  Based  on
 projected waste rock generation from  the
 Centennial Pit, it is estimated that up to
 150 roundtrips  (300  crossings)  per day
 would occur.  Over  a 24-hour period, this
 haul traffic would equate to about 12 or 13
 crossings per hour.

 In  terms  of the potential impact to  the
 traveling public, it is  important to note that
 traffic associated with public use of Lisbon
 Valley Road is generally very low, but
 varies depending  on  the time  of year
 (hunting  season,  livestock  grazing  and
 calving activities result in increased traffic).
 As described in Section 2.2.2.5,  Summo
 has proposed to install stop signs at the
 intersection of the haul road with Lisbon
 Valley Road,  as well as install  warning
 signs  on  the   county road along the
northern and southern approaches to the
intersection to alert drivers to the presence
 of the haul trucks and the need  to  stop.
Finally, the speed limit along the county
road  would also be reduced to  increase
reaction  time  and  further  reduce  the
potential for accidents.  It is also important
to note that the location of the proposed
haul road intersection  is in an  open area
with very good  sight distance.  Assuming
an automobile and haul truck approached
the intersection • at the same time,  both

-------
drivers would see the other vehicle well
before reaching the intersection.

Given the low traffic volume along the
county road, combined with modest truck
traffic projected that would cross the road
(up to 13 crossings per hour), the potential
for collisions between public vehicles and
mine trucks is very low. Similarly, due the
sporadic nature of this haul traffic and low
public traffic volumes along the  county
road,  it is unlikely that any appreciable
traffic congestion  or  significant  traffic
delays would occur  as  a  result  of the
Proposed Action.

Accidents

In  terms  of the potential  for  increased
accidents along project area highways and
local  roads due to project-related traffic,
potential future accidents were calculated
based on the 1994 accident rate for study
area highways applied to estimated project
traffic. Accordingly, it is estimated that the
Proposed Action could result in an increase
of 0.88 accident per year, using peak year
traffic volumes. This would represent a 5.1
percent increase  in accidents over  1994
levels.

Road Wear and Maintenance
Requirements

The  use   of county  roads  by  project
workers and trucks to  access  the  mine
development area would increase wear and
tear on those roads to  some extent and
would increase road  maintenance costs.
The  San  Juan County Road Department
has responsibility for building, improving,
and maintaining these county roads. Based
on discussions  with  the   County  Road
Department, the Proposed Action would

23996/S3A Sfl 5/96(9: HPM)/RPT/2                    4-62
roughly double the volume of truck and
automobile  traffic  on  the  local  roads
serving  the  mine site,  thereby increasing
the need for maintenance on those roads.
Although  future project  activities would
increase  the need for  maintenance  on
county roads,  and that maintenance may
increase costs borne by the county road
district, the proposed project would result
in numerous positive economic and fiscal
impacts on  San Juan  County that would
likely offset any increase in county road
maintenance   costs.   A   discussion   of
economic and  fiscal  impacts  associated
with the Proposed Action is presented in
Section 4.8.

4.9.2.2 Recommended Mitigation

Mitigation  measures   for  transportation
have been described previously  and consist
of installing  stop signs, warning signs, and
reduced  speed  limits for traffic  using
Lisbon Valley Road in the vicinity of the
haul road intersection in  the proposed
mining area. These measures would reduce
the potential for collisions between mine
haul trucks  crossing Lisbon Valley Road
and public automobiles and trucks.  The
reduction of speed through the area would
also reduce wear and  tear on  the county
road. In addition, the encouragement of
carpooling by mine staff could reduce the
number of commuter  vehicle trips to  and
from the mine site, thereby reducing traffic
volumes and further reducing road wear.

4.9.3    No Action Alternative

4.9.3.1   Impacts

Under  the  No  Action Alternative,  no
project-related  automobile or truck traffic
would occur.  Thus, there would  be  no

-------
 additional traffic volume added  to  study
 area highways and roads, no mine-related
 haul traffic crossing Lisbon  Valley Road,
 no  potential increase  in  accidents within
 the study area,  no added wear on county
 maintained roads, and  no transportation of
 hazardous materials. As a result, no impact
 to the transportation network of the study
 area would occur.

 4.9.4     Open Pit Backfilling
          Alternative

 4.9.4.1   Impacts

 Impacts under this alternative would be
 very similar to those described  for the
 Proposed Action.  Since backfilling of the
 Centennial and GTO Pits would extend the
 duration of activity at the mine, commuter
 trips and truck  trips  would  be extended
 over  a  longer  period  of time  until
 backfilling were completed,  although the
 number  of  trips   per day  would  not
 increase.

 For heavy equipment operation within the
 active mine area, hauling activities across
 Lisbon Valley Road would be the same as
 described for the  Proposed  Action. The
 method used for backfilling the pits under
 either  scenario  would not  result in  an
 increase in haul trips across Lisbon Valley
 Road.

 In  terms  of the potential for increased
 accidents along project area highways and
 local roads due  to  project-related traffic,
 impacts would be the same as described for
the Proposed Action.

The use  of county   roads  by   project
workers  and trucks to access the mine
development area would increase wear and

23996/R3.4 5/15/96(9:11 PM)/RPT/2                    4-63
 tear  on those roads  to  some extent and
 increase road maintenance costs. However,
 this alternative would result in numerous
 positive economic  and fiscal impacts  on
 San Juan County that would likely offset
 any increase in county road maintenance
 costs.

 The  use  and  transport  of  hazardous
 materials would be similar to that described
 for the Proposed Action, and the potential
 for accidents and associated environmental
 impacts would also be similar.

 4.9.4.2 Recommended Mitigation

 Mitigation  measures   for   transportation
 under this alternative would be the same as
 described for the Proposed Action.

 4.9.5    Facility Layout Alternative

 4.9.5.1   Impacts

 All potential impacts to the transportation
 system under this alternative would be the
 same as described for the Proposed Action.
 The elimination of Dump D and increased
 size of Dump  C would not change the
 overall  number or nature of waste  rock
 haul trips.

 4.9.5.2   Recommended Mitigation

Mitigation  measures  for  transportation
under this alternative would be the same as
described for the Proposed Action.

-------
4.9.6    Waste Rock Selective Handling
         Alternative

4.9.6.1   Impacts

All potential impacts to the transportation
system under this alternative would be the
same as described for the Proposed Action.
The selective  handling and disposal  of
waste rock would not influence or change
the overall number or nature of waste rock
haul trips.

4.9.6.2   Recommended Mitigation

Mitigation  measures  for  transportation
under this alternative would be the same as
described for the Proposed Action.

4.10   HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

4.10.1   Methodology

Potential environmental impacts related to
the use, storage, and disposal of hazardous
materials at the Lisbon Valley Mine are
associated  with  (1)  the  potential  for
accidental spills or uncontrolled  releases
into the environment and  (2) normal  or
routine  uses of hazardous materials that
could result in contamination of the project
site.

The following section describes the toxic
hazard  characteristics of the  hazardous
materials that would be used at the mine.
Subsequent   sections  identify  potential
impacts that could arise from each of the
project alternatives.
 Toxicity of Project-Related  Hazardous
 Materials

 Sulfuric acid.   Sulfuric acid is  corrosive
 and toxic. Inhalation of vapors can cause
 severe irritation of the respiratory system
 and may be fatal: Skin or eye exposure can
 result in severe bums. Ingestion can cause
. severe burns to mouth, throat and stomach
 and may also be fatal. In addition, sulfuric
 acid is severely reactive with  metals and
 water. Exposure  to sulfuric acid would
 most likely occur to mine workers handling
 the material. It is also possible that spilled
 acid could contaminate soils, and destroy
 vegetation and wildlife, if exposed, due to
 spill during transport or wind drift from the
 leach pad and conveyor areas.  Exposure
 due  to  wind -drift is unlikely,  however,
 because spray emitters would not be used
 under high wind conditions.  Spills during
 transport  are  possible,  but  are highly
 unlikely  due  to   the  lack  of traffic
 congestion in the  study area,  good  sight
 distance and limited road  hazards on the
 Lisbon Valley Road, and  reduced speeds
 proposed for haul trucks serving the mine.

 Extractants.     According  to   product
 Material  Safety Data  Sheets  (MSDS),
 hazard characteristics  of LIX984N  and
 LIX622N   extractants   include   severe
 toxichy to  humans and  terrestrial  and
 aquatic organisms, moderate flammability,
 and low reactivity.  Extractants can cause
 severe eye and skin irritation and/or burns
 if exposed.  If inhaled,  extractant vapors
 can cause irritation of the respiratory tract
 and is harmful if swallowed.  In  addition,
 extractants can ignite or  release harmful
 gasses if exposed to heat.

 Exposure to extractants would most likely
 occur  to  mine  workers  handling  the
2399&R3.4 5/15/96(9:]] PMyRPT/2
                                        4-64

-------
 material.  It is also possible that it could
 contaminate soils, and harm vegetation and
 wildlife, if  exposed, due  to  spill during
 transport.1   Spills  during  transport  are
 possible, but are highly unlikely due to the
 lack of traffic congestion in the study area,
 good  sight  distance and limited road
 hazards on  the Lisbon Valley Road,  and
 reduced speeds proposed for haul trucks
 serving the mine.

 Kerosene.    Hazard characteristics   of
 kerosene include  moderate flammability if
 exposed to  sufficient heat or flame, and
 slight hazards associated with inhalation of
 vapors,  ingestion,   and  skin  and  eye
 exposure.  Exposure  to  kerosene  would
 most likely occur to mine workers handling
 the material. It is also possible that spilled
 kerosene  could  contaminate  soils,  and
 harm  vegetation and  wildlife,  if exposed,
 due to spill during transport. Spills during
 transport  are possible,  but  are  highly
 unlikely  due  to  the  lack  of  traffic
 congestion in the study  area,  good sight
 distance and limited road hazards on the
 Lisbon Valley Road,  and reduced speeds
 proposed for haul trucks serving the mine.

 Ferrous sulfate    Review of the product
 material safety data sheet  has revealed that
 ferrous sulfate is only slightly hazardous to
 health.  It is not flammable, corrosive,  or
 reactive,  although  it would  emit toxic
 sulfur dioxide gas if exposed to fire.  In
 general, ferrous sulfate could  harm mine
 workers and possibly  wildlife if exposure
 to skin, eyes, and  ingestion  were to occur
 in  sufficient  quantities.   For  wildlife,
 exposure to  ferrous  sulfate would only
 occur  if the  material  were  spilled during
transport. Since ferrous sulfate is a solid,
 cleanup of spilled  material could be easily
       accomplished   with   minimal   risk   of
       contamination of the environment.

       Cobalt Sulfate.   Review of the  product
       material safety data sheet has revealed that
       cobalt  sulfate  is moderately hazardous  to
       health  and  slightly reactive.    It  is not
       flammable  or  corrosive.  Cobalt  sulfate
       would  emit toxic  sulfur dioxide  gas  if
       exposed to fire.  In general, cobalt sulfate
       could harm mine workers and possibly
       wildlife  through exposure to  dust, with
       irritation  of the nose  and throat typical
       symptoms. Inhalation of cobalt sulfate dust
       can also cause headache,  cough, dizziness,
       and  difficulty  breathing,  depending  on
       exposure. Ingestion can cause nausea and
       vomiting,  and possibly  death  in  high
       concentrations. For wildlife, exposure to
       cobalt  sulfate  would  only  occur  if the
       material were  spilled  during  transport.
       Since this  material is a solid, cleanup of
       spills could  be easily accomplished with
       minimal  risk  of  contamination  of the
       environment.

       Chlorine.     Potential  impacts  from  a
       chlorine  release would primarily involve
      mine workers and possibly vegetation and
      wildlife exposed  to leaked  gas.  Since
      chlorine is a gas, any accidentally released
      material  would   be  vented   into  the
      atmosphere and would not impact soil or
      water resources. Chlorine gas is extremely
      toxic and can cause severe injury or death
      if inhaled in sufficient concentration. Since
      a chlorine leak  would be readily diluted in
      the atmosphere,  the  area  of  potential
      impact would be localized in the vicinity of
      the leak.

      Gasoline.  Gasoline contains many organic
      compounds.      Benzene,   one  of the
      components  of gasoline,  can  potentially
2399OR3.4 5/15/96(9:11 PM)/RPT/2
4-65

-------
cause leukemia and is toxic to the blood
and   blood-forming  tissues.   Gasoline
contains petroleum hydrocarbons, which
can irritate the eyes, skin, and lungs with
prolonged  exposure. Overexposure  may
cause   weakness,    headache, •  nausea,
confusion, blurred vision, drowsiness, and
other  nervous  system  effects.  Greater
exposure  may  cause  dizziness,  slurred
speech, flushed face, unconsciousness, and
convulsions.  In addition, gasoline is highly
flammable and can explode if it reacts with
oxidizing  agents.   Exposure  to gasoline
would most likely occur to mine workers
during  fueling or  maintenance of  mine
vehicles. It is also possible that spilled
gasoline could contaminate soils, and  harm
vegetation and wildlife.  This  would  be
unlikely at  the  mine,  however,   since
gasoline would be stored on a containment
pad  and spills  of  gasoline  would  be
contained and cleaned up promptly by mine
staff. Spills during transport are possible,
but are highly unlikely  due to the lack of
traffic congestion in the study area,  good
sight distance and limited road hazards on
the  Lisbon  Valley Road,  and  reduced
speeds proposed for haul trucks serving the
mine.

Diesel will cause irritation of the skin, eyes,
and  lungs  due  to  inhalation or  direct
exposure.   Extreme   overexposure   or
aspiration into the lungs will cause lung
damage and/or death.  Overexposure may
cause   weakness,   headache,   nausea,
confusion, blurred  vision, drowsiness, and
other  nervous system effects.  , Greater
exposure may cause  dizziness,  slurred
speech, flushed face, unconsciousness, and
convulsions. Naphthalene, an ingredient in
diesel fuel,  can irritate the eyes, skin and
lungs.  Prolonged exposure can also be
toxic to the eyes, liver, kidneys, and blood.

2399&R3.4 5/15/96(9:11 PMyRPT/2                     4-66
Given   that  diesel   is  a   petroleum
hydrocarbon, it  is  highly flammable and
will ignite if exposed to heat or ignition
source,  and  may explode if it reacts with
oxidizing  agents.  Potential exposure to
diesel is greatest for mine workers.  Other
types  of   exposures   that  could  be
experienced  are  the same as described for
gasoline.

Oil and Lubricants.    In  general,  these
materials  are not  acutely  toxic,  unless
exposure is  extreme. Exposure to  these
materials may  cause minor  skin  or eye
irritation. Prolonged exposure to waste oil
has caused  skin cancer in animal  tests.
Potential exposure to oil and lubricants is
most likely for mine workers during vehicle
maintenance.

Antifreeze.    Routes   of  exposure  can
include inhalation,  ingestion,  absorption,
skin contact, and eye contact. Some of the
effects of exposure to  ethylene glycol by
inhalation   include   headache,   nausea,
vomiting, dizziness, drowsiness, irritation
of the  respiratory tract,  and  loss  of
consciousness.     Ingestion  may   cause
nausea, vomiting, headaches, dizziness, and
gastrointestinal irritation. Ingestion may be
fatal. Liquid may be irritating to skin and
eyes.   Skin absorption may be harmful.
Chronic effects  of overexposure  may
include damage to  kidneys, liver, lungs,
blood, or central nervous system. Potential
exposure is most likely for mine workers
during  vehicle  maintenance.   Ethylene
glycol spills can be of concern because of
its toxicfty,  as wildlife and stock may not
be able to detect its potential hazard.

Ammonium Nitrate.  Routes of potential
exposure include inhalation and ingestion.  .
Dust inhalation may cause tightness  and

-------
 chest  pain,  coughing,  and  difficulty  in
 breathing. Contact with skin or eyes may
 cause   irritation.   Ingestion  may  cause
 headache,       nausea,        vomiting,
 gastrointestinal irritation, unconsciousness,
 and  convulsions.     More  importantly,
 ammonium nitrate is highly reactive with
 various materials as it is a strong oxidizer.
 Contact with other materials may cause fire
 or  explosion. Fire  or  explosion of pure
 ammonium nitrate is the most significant
 hazard associated with this material.

 4.10.2   Proposed Action

 4.10.2.1

 Potential for Accidental Spills or
 Uncontrolled Releases

 Accidental spills or releases of hazardous
 materials  could occur during transport to
 the mine  site,  as  well as during storage
 and/or use at the  mine due to leaks from
 tanks, piping, or liners.

 Transportation of Hazardous Materials

 The Proposed  Action would require the
 transport of all of the hazardous materials
 described  above to the mine by truck using
 the highways and local roads of the study
 area.   Specifically, the majority of these
 materials  would be transported on  U.S.
 Highway 191, State Route 46, and Lisbon
 Valley  Road.      Based  on  projected
 consumption  of  these  materials,  it  is
 estimated that about 10 truck trips per day
would  be required for hauling  hazardous
materials  to the  mine.  Based  on  the
Department  of Transportation  accident
 statistics  for  trucks  hauling  hazardous
materials (Abkowitz et al. 1984), combined
with the number of truck trips anticipated
                                               over the entire life of the project, it  is
                                               estimated  that there  would  be  0.51
                                               accident   involving  a   truck   hauling
                                               hazardous materials to the mine site over
                                               the entire life of the project.  The national
                                               accident  rate  used in this  calculation  is
                                               likely to be higher than the actual rate for
                                               southeastern  Utah because  it  includes
                                               urban areas which typically have  heavier
                                               traffic and  more accidents. The national
                                               rate was used  because  such an accident
                                               rate was not available for rural Utah. Thus,
                                               the estimated  0.51 accident is probably
                                               higher than would  actually be the case.

                                               The environmental impacts of an accident
                                               involving  a  truck   hauling  hazardous
                                               materials would depend on the amount and
                                               the type of material spilled. Potential spill
                                               events could range from a small spill  of
                                               ammonium  nitrate  to  a major release  of
                                               sulfuric acid.  In general, the materials of
                                               greatest  concern would be  liquid fuels
                                               (diesel  and  gasoline),   extractant,  and
                                               sulfuric acid.  Spills of solid or powdered
                                               hazardous   materials   (ferrous  sulfate,
                                               ammonium  nitrate) are of less concern
                                               because  they  could  be  contained and
                                               cleaned up readily.   Sulfuric acid or other
                                               liquid hazardous materials spilled onto the
                                               ground or into a wash   would have the
                                               potential  to  harm  localized  terrestrial
                                               habitat    and   exposed    wildlife   and
                                               contaminate soils. Flammable liquids, such
                                               as  fuels, could  ignite  in an accident and
                                               cause a range fire.  Due to the arid climate
                                               of  the  study  area,  surface  water only
                                               occurs in the   study  area  during  storm
                                               events.  Thus,  it is unlikely that surface
                                               water  resources would  be  contaminated
                                               after  a  spill.   Similarly,   groundwater
                                               resources are generally at great depth, and
                                               it  is unlikely  that  a  spill event  would
                                               contaminate  groundwater.   Due to the
23996/R3.4 5/15/96(9:11 PMyRPX/2
                                         4-67

-------
remoteness of the mine site, it is unlikely
that an accident involving a truck hauling
hazardous materials would impact human
populations, although it is possible that an
accident  could occur in a town such as
Moab or Monticello.

The transport  of  hazardous  materials
would   be   performed  by  commercial
vendors  in accordance with Federal and
State  regulations.  These  laws  require
proper placarding of transport trucks, as
well as possession of shipping papers that
describe  the  contents of the truck, health
hazards  associated with exposure to the
material,   fire   and   explosion   risks,
procedures for handling spills or releases,
and   emergency  response   telephone
numbers.  The  accidental release  of a
hazardous material during transport to the
mine site would be the responsibility of the
carrier.  Each    company  transporting
hazardous  materials would  have a  Spill
Prevention, Control, and Countermeasures
(SPCC)  Plan to  address  spills of their
cargo.    In general, the potential for an
accident of this nature is considered to be
very low. If such an event were to occur,
the spilled material would be contained and
cleaned  up  and  any  contaminated soil
remediated according to State and Federal
guidelines.

Storage and Use of Hazardous Materials

Accidental spills or uncontrolled  releases
of hazardous materials could potentially
occur  at the mine she for a variety of
reasons.   The most likely  type  of spill
would involve small quantities of fuels and
oil during vehicle fueling and maintenance.
Spills of this nature would likely be easily
contained and cleaned up with  minimal
impact to the environment.  As described

2399&R3.4 5/15/96(9:11 EM>EPT/2                     4-68
previously, all hazardous materials would
be  stored  at  the  mine   either  within
secondary  containment  vessels  (sulfuric
acid and kerosene), on an HDPE lined pad
(diesel and gasoline), within a bermed area
(extractant,  ferrous  and  cobalt  sulfate,
ammonium nitrate), or on a concrete floor
above a drainage sump (oil and lubricants,
antifreeze).  Since all hazardous materials
used at the mine would  be stored in this
fashion, it  is  likely  that   any  spills  or
releases that could  occur  in the future
would be contained  and cleaned up with
minimal opportunity  for  contamination of
the soil and surrounding environment.

Although the identified storage procedures
for hazardous  materials  on  site  would
minimize   the   risk   of   environmental
impacts, the potential still exists for major
spills  and  releases due to failure of piping
or  liners.    For  major spills  of liquid
hazardous materials above  ground due to
failure of piping or other similar incident,
the mine's proposed grading and drainage
design would ensure that any  uncontained
material would run off into the leach pad,
solution ponds,   or  stormwater  ponds.
Thus,  hazardous  materials  spilled on the
surface would not  be  released to the
environment off site. The leach pad and all
of the ponds mentioned above  would be
lined  and would  have ample capacity to
contain spilled hazardous materials. Due to
the potential for future   spills,  and  hi
compliance  with  various  laws  and
regulations,  Summo  would  prepare   a
SPCC Plan for the proposed project  as
described in Section 2.2.8. As a part  of
implementing that plan,  Summo would
maintain necessary spill containment and
clean up equipment on site and  mine staff
would receive spill response training. In the
event of a hazardous materials spill on the

-------
 surface,  mine  personnel  would  ideally
 contain  and clean up the spill before it
 would  drain into the lined leach pad  or
 ponds.  However,  the fact that all surface
 drainage would drain into lined areas offers
 assurance that spilled material would not
 impact the environment.

 Another  type of release  of hazardous
 materials that could occur  at  the mine
 would be associated with failure of a leach
 pad or solution pond liner.  Such a release
 would be contained by various wick drains,
 underdrains,  and  sumps that would  be
 constructed beneath these facilities. Each
 underdrain would drain into a sump with a
 riser pipe/monitoring well that would be
 checked  routinely.   In   addition,   a
 monitoring well would be installed on the
 downgradient side of the leach  pad to
 detect       potential       groundwater
 contamination from the leach pad. These
 surface  drainage and leak detection  and
 containment features of the project design
 would facilitate  monitoring  of soil  and
 groundwater  contamination  beneath  the
 mine site.

 Use of ANFO in blasting could contribute
 elevated nitrates,  possibly ammonia  and
 some dissolved or total organic carbon to
 affect pit water quality.  Such effects only
 would occur if ANFO  is not completely
 consumed during blasting.

 An additional type of potential hazardous
 material  release  that  could  impact  the
 environment  would  be  wind  drift  of
 raffinate  solution from  the leach  pad  to
 surrounding areas. Due to its acidity, such
 a release would likely damage or destroy
vegetation that  were  sprayed with  the
 solution  and  degrade  its suitability  as
wildlife habitat. This type of impact would

23996/R3.4 5/15/96(9:11 PMyRPT/2                    4-69
 be  minimized   through  elimination  of
 sprinkler application  of raffinate during
 high wind events.

 In summary, the preparation of an SPCC
 Plan,  along with  maintaining  associated
 spill response and containment equipment,
 and  providing   thorough  staff  training
 should ensure effective spill response by
 mine staff.  In addition, the design of the
 proposed project would provide numerous
 type of containment that would minimize
 the  potential for  release  of  hazardous
 materials off-site.

 Routine Uses of Hazardous Materials
 and Wastes Generated

 Although the vast  majority of hazardous
 materials that would be transported to the
 project site would be completely consumed
 by mine  activities  and processes,  some
 hazardous wastes would be generated due
 to routine or normal operations at the  mine
 that would require disposal.  Hazardous
 wastes  that would be generated by the
 mine would include  small quantities  of
 solid laboratory wastes, liquid laboratory
 wastes,  "crud" and cell sludge from the
 SX/EW process,  sludges at the bottom of
 the  raffinate  and  PLS ponds,  residual
 wastes in the leach pad,  and  waste oil,
 lubricants,   solvents  and  cleaners,  and
 antifreeze from the mine truck shop.

 Solid   laboratory  wastes  would   be
 transported off site to a licensed facility for
 disposal  in accordance with  state  and
 federal   regulations.   Liquid   laboratory
wastes would be routed to the raffinate
pond, where they would volatilize,  become
incorporated into the process solution (acid
rinses),  be  neutralized (base  rinses), or

-------
drop out of solution as precipitates on the
bottom of the pond.

The operation of the SX/EW plant would
generate "crud", which  is  a mixture  of
solids  (various minerals  and metals) and
organic liquids.  The mine would separate
out the organic liquids  for  reuse in  the
SX/EW circuits and dispose of the solids
on the leach pad.  Cell sludge, which  can
have  a high  metals content,  would be
deposited on the leach pad.

Over the life of the project, various solids
and sludges would become  deposited on
the bottoms  of the PLS  and  raffinate
ponds.  These sludges would likely contain
metals, acid,  and possibly  some  organic
compounds.  At the end of mine life, all
solutions and liquids would be drained or
would be evaporated from these ponds and
the remaining  solids and  sludges would be
tested  for metals  and  other  potentially
hazardous compounds.   These solids and
sludges would either be treated in place
(e.g.,   pH  neutralized),  or  removed  for
disposal at a licensed facility in accordance
with State and Federal guidelines.

Operation of the leach pad over the life of
the   project   would   result   in   the
accumulation of various  chemical  residues
within the ore mass.  Hazardous materials
that could  be present  in  residual form
include varying concentrations of sulfuric
acid,   low   concentrations  of  organic
compounds from the SX/EW circuits (e.g.,
extractant  and  kerosene),  and    metals
associated  with "crud"  and cell  sludges
deposited on  the pad from the  SX/EW
plant As described in Section 2.2.11.2, the
leach  pad  would be  flushed  with fresh
water and lime, if necessary, to reduce acid
and   other   chemical   constituents   to
acceptable  regulatory  levels.  The  liquid
within the  pad  would then be  drained/
emptied by evaporation. The pad would
then be reclaimed with recontouring and
capping of the top of the pad to minimize
infiltration.   Since infiltration  would  be
virtually  eliminated, and  the  pad  liner
would not be   punctured,  any  minute
concentrations   of   metals   or   other
compounds that  may  remain in the ore
mass   after   rinsing   would   remain
encapsulated within the pad and would not
escape into the environment as leachate.

After rinsing and treatment with lime as
needed to  increase pH to .neutral levels,
concentrations  of   hazardous  materials
within the leach pad, such as acid, metals,
and  organics  should  be  eliminated  or
reduced to very low levels. Reclamation of
the leach pad would eliminate infiltration of
precipitation and prohibit the generation of
leachate from the pad  that could possibly
contaminate soil and groundwater.

Routine  maintenance  of  mine  heavy
equipment   and  other  vehicles would
generate modest quantities of waste oil and
lubricants, spent solvents and cleaners, and
waste  antifreeze.  All  of these  waste
materials would be  periodically  collected
and transported  off site for reprocessing,
recycling, or disposal at licensed facilities.

In   summary,    all    hazardous  wastes
generated at the mine  over the life of the
project would either be transported off site
for disposal at an appropriate facility or
treated  and  neutralized  on  site  to
acceptable  regulatory levels. Thus, little or
no impact  associated with the routine  use
of  hazardous  materials  and  associated
wastes generated  is projected.
2399SB3.4 5/13/96(9:11 PM)/RPT/2
                                         4-70

-------
 4.10.2.2 Recommended Mitigation

 The  sulfuric acid tank  and other liquid
 hazardous materials, such as extractant and
 diluent would be stored on bermed HDPE-
 lined containment pads, similar to or within
 the proposed fuel storage area, to prevent
 release of these materials into the soil and
 facilitate  effective  clean up of spilled
 material.

 4.10.3   No Action Alternative

 4.10.3.1  Impacts

 Since the proposed project would not be
 implemented, there would be no transport,
 use,  storage,  or disposal of hazardous
 materials  and  wastes,  and  no  impacts
 would occur as a result.

 4.10.4   Open Pit Backfilling
         Alternative
 4.10.4.1  Impacts

 Impacts for this alternative would be the
 same as those described for the Proposed
 Action. Backfilling of mine pits would not
 appreciably change the types and quantities
 of hazardous materials  used  and wastes
 disposed of.

 4.10.4.2 Recommended Mitigation

Recommended mitigation  would be the
 same as for the Proposed Action.

4.10.5  Facility Layout Alternative

4.10.5.1 Impacts

Impacts for this  alternative would be the
same as those described  for the  Proposed

23996/R3.4 5/15/96(9:1! PMyRPT/2                    4-71
  Action.   Modifications to the layout  of
  waste rock dumps would not  appreciably
  change  the  types   and  quantities   of
  hazardous  materials  used  and  wastes
  disposed.

  4.10.5.2 Recommended Mitigation

  Recommended  mitigation would  be the
  same as for the Proposed Action.

  4.10.6   Waste Rock Selective Handling
          Alternative

  4.10.6.1  Impacts

  Impacts for this alternative would be the
  same as those described for the Proposed
  Action.  Modifications  to  waste  rock
  handling procedures would not appreciably
  change  the  types  and  quantities  of
  hazardous  materials   used  and  wastes
  disposed.

 4.10.6.2 Recommended Mitigation

 Recommended mitigation  would be the
 same as for the Proposed Action.

 4.11    CULTURAL AND PALEONTO-
        LOGICAL RESOURCES

 4.11.1   Methodology

 4.11.1.1 Sensitivity Issues

 The public scoping process did not identify
 any   issues   specific   to   cultural   or
.paleontological   resources.  However, in
 response to ELM'S consultation with Native
 American groups, representatives  of the Ute
 Tribe conducted a site visit in March 1996.
 Appropriate  mitigation  measures   were
 identified by the tribal representatives and the

-------
Utes  have planned  a  second  visit  for
appropriate closure of the site.  Should the
BLM receive any further responses to the
request for Native American consultations,
the information will be included in the Final
EIS.

In  general, the  primary issue concerning
cultural resources is the potential for impacts
to  significant  prehistoric and historic sites,
and to traditional cultural  properties. The
primary  concern  regarding  paleontological
resources  is the  potential  for impacts  to
geological formations  that may  produce
significant fossils.

4.11.1.2 Cultural Resources

The  Proposed  Action  would consist  of
several facilities including  open pits, waste
rock dumps, ore  crushing facilities, a heap
leach pad, various stormwater and solution
storage   ponds,   SX/EW   plant,  water
production wells  with a pipeline  corridor,
numerous support facilities, runoff diversion
structures, and a power  transmission line
from the Hatch substation to the project site.

Impacts   include   complete   or   partial
destruction of any sites eligible for or listed
on the NKHP,  and in cases of standing
structures and sites that are valuable for more
than the  scientific information they contain,
visual  interference.  Modifications  of  the
surroundings of traditional cultural properties
may also be a substantial impact

Indirect impacts such as increased collection
and vandalism to sites made accessible by the
project and erosion of sites as a consequence
of  project  activities are  also considered
adverse impacts.   Unknown impacts  may
 exist when the NRHP eligibility of a site is
undetermined, or because unrecorded sites
may occur.

4.11.13  Paleontological Resources

Paleontological  resources  occur  in  many
geologic formations. These formations can be
ranked to indicate the likelihood of significant
fossil occurrence (BLM 1983).

    •   Class  I  areas are those that are
       known or  are  likely  to produce
       abundant significant fossils that are
       vulnerable  to  surface  disturbing
       activities.
    •   Class n areas are those that show
       evidence of fossils but are unlikely
       to  produce  abundant  significant
       fossils.
    •   Class  TTT areas are those that are
       unlikely to produce fossils.

Procedures that are followed to provide a
paleontological clearance for a project  are
driven   by    these   classifications.    A
paleontological survey prior  to clearance is
required for Class I areas. Although surveys
are not  required for Class II or Class in
areas,  mitigation measures may be taken to
protect  any  significant  fossil  discoveries
(BLM 1983).

4.11.2   Proposed Action

4.11.2.1  Impacts

 Section   106  of the  National  Historic
Preservation Act requires Federal Agencies
to take  into account impacts  to significant
 cultural  resources prior to project approval.
 The   Advisory   Council   on  Historic
 Preservation has set out the procedures (36
 CFR § 800) to be followed to determine the
 2399&R3.4 S/15/96(9;n PMyKPT/2
                                           4-72

-------
 effects a  project may have on  significant
 cultural resources.

 Since much of the study area had not been
 previously inventoried for cultural resources,
 all of the areas proposed for direct impacts
 including the powerline and associated access
 roads were subjected to an intensive survey
 by professional, permitted archaeologists. AU
 located sites, and those previously recorded
 in impact areas,  were evaluated  for then-
 eligibility to the NRHP. The evaluations and
 determinations of eligibility are made by the
 BLM (in consultation with the SHPO) based
 upon   recommendations   of  professional
 archaeologists.

 All but one of the known potentially eligible
 cultural sites are located outside of the areas
 of direct impact.   Site  42SA22947 is a
 potential historic property for which impacts
 appear at this time to be unavoidable. It is
 located in  the area of the proposed  Waste
 DumpC.

 After the evaluation of a site,  a  plan best
 suited for mitigating impacts to the individual
 site or  sites  would  be  formulated   in
 consultation  with  the  appropriate  agencies
 and implemented.  Mtigation  in general
 usually consists of three options: avoidance,
 protection, or data recovery and analysis.

 Archaeological sites  determined eligible for
 the NRHP are usually eligible under criterion
 (d) of 36 CER § 60.4 (see Section 4.11.1.2)
 for  the  scientific  information they  may
 contain. Direct impacts to these types of sites
 are usually mitigated by data recovery if they
 cannot be avoided. Under the regulations of
 36 CFR § 800.9  (c),  a  project would  be
 considered to have no adverse effect to these
 sites  if  the  data  could  be  substantially
preserved through professional recovery and

23996/R3.4 5/15/96(9:11 PMyRPT/2                      4-73
 analysis.    This   "no    adverse    effect"
 determination does not apply to sites that are
 listed on the NRHP or determined  eligible
 under criteria (a), (b), and/or (c) of 36 CER §
 60.4.  None of these types of sites have been
 identified in the Study Area.

 Several factors are taken into consideration in
 the evaluation of impacts. The  number  of
 recorded sites and their status with respect to
 the NKHP are heavily weighted.

 It is possible that there would be impacts to
 cultural resources from construction  of the
 Proposed Action.  Additionally, the location
 of cultural resource sites would restrict the
 normal  construction  procedures  for the
 power line accessing the proposed mine she.
 However,  with the  implementation .of a
 mitigation  program,  there should  be  no
 adverse effects, as defined in 36 CFR § 800,
 to significant cultural resources.

 4.11.2.2 Recommended Mitigation

 Several measures can  be taken to  mitigate
 impacts. Site avoidance is preferred, followed
 by  site protection  and data  recovery and
 analysis.  Since  archaeological  sites  are
 frequently determined eligible to the NRHP
 under criterion (d) of 36 CFR § 60.4, adverse
 effects  can often  be mitigated with the
 implementation of a data recovery program if
 impact  avoidance  is  not  feasible.  It  is
 anticipated that  a combination of these
 measures  would   be   necessary  for  the
Proposed  Action alternative  including the
proposed powerline.

To  assure that the 23 other potential historic
properties  are  avoided,  their  boundaries
should  be established  by a  professional
archaeologist and the boundaries marked and
signed permanently so that it is  clear that

-------
ground disturbing activities cannot occur in
these areas.  The  proponent's   personnel
should be educated about the importance of
avoiding impacts to these areas. They should
also be informed of what evidence might be
found that would indicate the presence of an
undiscovered cultural resource.

If site 42SA22947 is determined to be eligible
to the NRHP, a data recovery plan would
need  to be formulated and executed to
mitigate any adverse  effects  the Proposed
Action would have on this site. Development
of  a data  recovery  plan would  involve
consultation  among  the  BLM,  SHPO,
Advisory Council, and project proponent. A
research plan would be formulated using the
latest research directions  and assuring the
techniques for data recovery and analysis are
available   and   reasonable.   Since   site
excavation is a physically destructive means
of mitigating impacts, it is done  only under
strict guidance after a comprehensive review
process. This activity must be permitted by
the BLM under the Archaeological Resource
Protection  Act  (ARPA)  of   1979,  as
amended.

In  addition to  the  mitigation  alternatives
listed above, there are other  measures that
may be  implemented in regard to traditional
cultural  properties. These measures  may
include time use restrictions, landscaping and
replanting,  project  or  she  blessing,  or
relocation   of  project   elements.   These
measures would be employed on a situational
basis, depending on the type of property
being affected, the type of impact,  and the
individuals or group with an  interest in the
property.

Due to the number of cultural sites identified
along  the  power  line   route  and   the
complexity for developing mitigation for the
sites, an archaeological avoidance plan would
be  needed  to  determine  procedures for
mitigating  potential  impacts   to   cultural
resources during the construction, operation,
and maintenance of the power line.   The
SHPO would need to review and concur with
the plan. The plan would be prepared by the
Archaeological  Consultant who completed
the field inventory  and report of  cultural
resources along the proposed  power line
route.

In order to ensure that the  procedures for
archaeological    avoidance    would    be
implemented:

    •   The BLM Right-of-Way Grant for
       the power line would not be issued
       until the BLM and SHPO concurred
       that   the   procedures  in   the
       archaeological avoidance plan  were
       adequate;
    •   The  BLM  Right-of-Way   Grant
       would stipulate that  the procedures
       for archaeological  avoidance would
       be  followed during  all phases of
       construction, operation, maintenance,
       and abandonment.
    •   There would be pre-work conference
       with the  BLM, the holder of the
       Right-of-Way  Grant,   construction
       contractors,  and an  Archaeological
       Consultant.   During the pre-work
       conference; each site  identified in the
       archaeological avoidance plan would
       be    inspected,    and   avoidance
       procedures from the plan would be
       discussed.
                                          4-74

-------
 4.11.3   No Action Alternative

 4.11.3.1 Impacts

 The No Action Alternative could potentially
 impact  cultural  resources. An  increase in
 development in this  area related  to  the
 Proposed Action could potentially counter a
 loss  of these  resources  due  to  illegal
 collecting  and  vandalism.   Without  the
 Proposed Action these resources could then
 continue to be  destroyed by these  illegal
 activities. The No Action  Alternative could
 also result in a loss of information that could
 come from Native American consultation and
 interpretation required under  the Proposed
 Action.   In  that  there  are no   known
 paleontological resources in the Study Area,
 this resource should not be impacted by the
 No Action Alternative.

 4.11.3.2 Recommended Mitigation

 Measures that  could  be undertaken to
 mitigate  impacts include restricting public
 access,   increasing   BLM   patrols,  and
 increasing on-site presence by local interested
 groups  or  citizens.    However,  these are
 presently limited by  available funding and
 public interest.

 4.11.4   Open Pit Backfilling
         Alternative

 4.11.4.1 Imparts

 Impacts from the Open Pit Backfilling would
 be the same as  those discussed  under the
 Proposed Action.

 4.11.4.2 Recommended Mitigation

Recommended  mitigation would  be the
 same as for the Proposed Action.
       4.11.5   Facility Layout Alternative

       4.11.5.1  Impacts

       Impacts  to  cultural  resources  from  the
       Facility Layout Alternative would be similar
       to those  for the Proposed Action with  one
       exception.  Instead of only  one  potentially
       significant cultural resource being committed
       to data recovery there would then be five that
       would have  to undergo  this   form   of
       mitigation.  Under  the  Proposed  Action
       alternative  only Site 42SA22947  would
       require data recovery and analysis.  Under the
       Facility Layout Alternative, not only this site,
       but   Sites   42SA10270,    42SA22844,
       42SA22848,  and 22SA22959  would  also
       require data recovery and analysis.

       In that  there are  no  known  significant
      paleontological resources in the study area,
      this alternative would have no impacts on
      paleontological resources.

      4.11.5.2  Recommended Mitigation

      Recommended  mitigation would be  the
      same as for the Proposed Action.

      4.11.6   Waste Rock Selective Handling
               Alternative

      4.11.6.1 Impacts

      Impacts  from  the  Waste Rock  Handling
      Procedures Alternative would be the same as
      those discussed under the Proposed Action.

      4.11.6.2  Recommended Mitigation

      Recommended mitigation would be  the
      same as for the Proposed Action.
2399&R3.4 5/15/96(9:35 ?M)fBFU2
4-75

-------
4.12    VISUAL RESOURCES

4.12.1 Methodology

The assessment of visual impacts is based
upon   methodologies  described  in  the
Visual Contrast Rating Handbook (BLM
Manual Handbook, Section 8431-1).  The
extent to  which  the  proposed  project
would effect the visual resource depends
on the amount of contrast created between
the proposed facilities and  the  existing
landscape condition, and visibility of the
facilities to sensitive viewpoints within the
viewshed   of the project.     Assessing
projects  in  this  manner  indicates  the
severity  of potential  impacts  and helps
guide mitigation measures.

Impacts would occur if modifications  to
the  landscape  caused  visual  contrasts
affecting the following: the quality of any
scenic resource; scenic  resources having
rare   or   unique  value;   views  from
designated or planned parks, wilderness,
natural areas, or  other visually sensitive
land  use;  views  from travel  routes;  or
views  from  established   or   planned
recreational,  educational,  or   residential
areas.

4.12.2   Proposed Action

4.12.2.1 Impacts

Construction and operation of the open pit
mines, surface facilities, waste dumps, and
heap leach pads  would introduce visual
contrasts into the existing landscape.  Open
pits and surface facilities would alter the
natural  appearance   of the   landscape,
creating line, form and color contrasts.
Areas where rock and soil  are to  be
exposed would cause color  and texture

2399SR3.4 S/15/96(9:n PM)/RPT/2
     contrasts  with the  surrounding natural
     vegetation.  An  increase  in  industrial
     activity  would be  highly  noticeable  to
     travelers on the Lower Lisbon Valley Road
     and   attract   visual   attention.   Visual
     contrasts   created    by   the   project,
     particularly color contrasts, may be visible
     from  long distance  viewpoints, such  as
     Lone  Pine  Peak  in  Colorado,  located
     approximately 50 miles east of the project
     area.  At  that distance the project would
     not draw the viewers attention. Although
     the   proposed  project   would   cause
     noticeable   changes   in   the   existing
     landscape,  the area is generally of low
     scenic quality and sensitivity, and activities
     in this area would be within guidelines for
     Class IV lands.

     Reclamation  would improve  the  visual
     condition of lands affected by the proposed
     project and would also mitigate the adverse
     visual impacts of past unreclaimed mining
     disturbances.  Revegetation would reduce
     color and texture contrasts, and the land
     would regain a more natural appearance.
     However, the open pits and  other man-
     made landforms created by the waste rock
     piles and the heap leach pads would remain
     as  a long-term  visual intrusion in  the
     landscape.

     Due  to intervening topography  and the
     proponents proposed shrouding of lights,
     visual  impacts from  night  lighting   are
     expected to be minimal.

     4.12.2.2 Recommended Mitigation

     For reducing visual  contrasts, several types
     of mitigation can be employed.   All  are
     based on three basic concepts:  (1) siting
     facilities  in   less  visible  locations,   (2)
     minimizing disturbance; and (3) repeating
4-76

-------
 the basic elements of line, form, color and
 texture found in the surrounding landscape.
 Depending on the facility,  several of the
 following mitigation's would reduce visual
 impacts:

 •  During construction, clearing  of land
    for  stockpiles  and  other  project
    facilities   should  create  curvilinear
    boundaries instead  of  straight  lines.
    Grading  should be  done  in  such a
    manner that  would  minimize  erosion
    and conform to the natural topography.
 •  Slope gradients on embankments could
    be varied and contoured to create more
    diversity of form and repeat the natural
    shapes   found   in   the   surrounding
    landscape.
 •  Contrasts in color and texture could be
    minimized  by revegetating  disturbed
    areas as  quickly as possible  and by
    planting species that match in color and
    texture   the   surrounding   natural
    vegetation.
 •  The visual contrast of structures could
    be reduced by locating the facilities to
    take   advantage  of any  available
   topographic screening,  and  by using
    colors that blend with colors found in
   the surrounding  landscape  and using
   finishes with low levels of reflectivity.

4.12.3   No Action Alternative

4.12.3.1

Under the No Action Alternative the visual
disturbances that would be created by the
proposed project would not  occur,  and
lands that are currently undisturbed would
remain in  a  natural  condition.   Past,
unreclaimed mining  activities would  also
remain as  a  visible disturbance  in  the
landscape.
                                               4.12.4   Open Pit Backfilling
                                                       Alternative

                                               4.12.4.1 Imi

                                               This alternative includes 2 scenarios; under
                                               scenario 1 the open  mine pits would be
                                               partially backfilled, in scenario  2 the pits
                                               would be  completely backfilled.   Other
                                               aspects of Alternative 2 are comparable to
                                               the  Proposed  Action.  Visual  impacts
                                               during .mine operations would be the same
                                               as described in the Proposed Action. Pit
                                               backfilling would reduce long-term visual
                                               effects by reducing the amount of visible
                                               landform disturbance.  This would occur
                                               by the reduced height and area! extent of
                                               the waste dumps and by limiting the depth
                                               of the mine pits.

                                              4.12.4.2 Recommended Mitigation

                                              Recommended mitigation here is the same
                                              as the Proposed Action.

                                              4.12.5  Facility Layout Alternative

                                              4.12.5.1 Impacts

                                              Under this alternative,  Waste  Dump  D
                                              would be eliminated and Waste Dump C
                                              would be expanded.  This would  reduce
                                              visual impacts by locating the waste  rock
                                              from Dump D in an area on the southeast
                                              side  of Dump C  with less  total visual
                                              impacts than the two dumps  would  have
                                              to travelers along the Lower Lisbon Valley
                                              Road.  Other visual impacts would be the
                                              same as the Proposed Action.

                                              4.12.5.2 Recommended Mitigation

                                              Same as the Proposed action.
23996/R3.4 5/15/96(9:11 PMyRPT/2
                                        4-77

-------
4.12.6  Waste Rock Selective Handling
        Alternative

4.12.6.1 Impacts

The operational changes that would occur
under this alternative would not effect the
overall visual effects of the project from
that described in the Proposed Action.

4.12.6.2 Recommended Mitigation

Same as Proposed Action.

4.13   LAND USE

4.13.1 Methodology

Impacts to land use were evaluated based
on   information  from  maps,   existing
literature,  and government agencies. Data
sources for the baseline inventory included
USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle
sheets,  aerial  photographs,  the  Grand
Resource Area Resource Management Plan
(BLM 1985a), and the Proposed Plan of
Operations for the Lisbon Valley Project
(Summo 1995a). Baseline information was
supplemented  by  information  obtained
from the BLM, Moab District Office, the
School  and Institutional  Trust  Lands
Administration,  and  San Juan  County.
Potential  impacts to be addressed were
identified during the scoping process.

Land-use  related  issues raised  during
scoping include the following:

    •   Potential  impacts  to current land
       uses
    •   Possibility of leaving pits open for
       future mining opportunities
Impacts  were  evaluated  based  on  the
following criteria:

   •   Potential conflicts  with  existing
       land  use  plans   (not  including
       grazing, wildlife,  and recreational
       resources   covered  in   previous
       sections)
   •   Proximity to residential or other
       sensitive areas
   •   Termination of an existing land use
       or land use incompatibility

Impacts   on   gracing   wildlife,   and
recreational  resources  are  discussed  in
Sections 4.6, 4.7, and 4.16.

4.13.2   Proposed Action

4.13.2.1  Impacts

The Lisbon Valley Copper Project would
potentially affect 247 acres of private (fee)
land,  574 acres of BLM land,  and 273
acres  of  State Land, for a total of 1,094
acres  (Table 2-1).  The project is currently
projected to have  a 10-year mining life,
with   final   closure  and  reclamation
(including previously un-reclaimed areas)
to take five additional years.

Overall,  current land use of the  Project
Area  would   not   be  affected  by  the
Proposed Action.  Land ownership in the
study  area   would remain the  same.
Implementation  of the Proposed  Action
would be consistent with federal, state, and
county land use objectives.  The San Juan
County-maintained  road  in the  Lisbon
Valley project area would remain open and
access to the Lisbon Valley would remain
unrestricted. However, as noted in Section
2.2.9, some trails or roadways around the
project Area  would be closed  for public
23S9&R3.4 snil96(9:U PMJ/RPT/2                     4-78

-------
 safety reasons.   Impacts to traffic in the
 study area are  discussed in Section 4.9.
 The  existing  power line   and pipeline
 corridors shown on  Table  3.13-1  would
 continue to be used  and would not be
 disturbed by this project.
 4.13.2.2
Recommended Mitigation
4.13.6 Waste Rock Selective Handling
       Alternative

The impacts of this alternative on existing
land use and access would be the same as
those identified for the Proposed Action.

4.14   AIR QUALITY
 No mitigation measures would be required.  .     4.14.1   Methodology
 4.13.3   No Action Alternative

 4.13.3.1 Impacts

 Existing   land   uses   would   remain
 unchanged   under   the   No   Action
 Alternative. Copper mining and heap leach
 activities would not occur, and the proven
 ore reserves  in  the  area  would  remain
 undeveloped.  As stated in Section 2.3.1,
 the opportunity  for  Summo  to  develop
 mineral resources would be foregone  on
 federal lands.  Mineral development in the
 Project Area would depend on the viability
 of extracting minerals  solely from state and
 fee lands.

 4.13.4   Open Pit Backfilling
         Alternative

 The  impacts  of these alternatives   on
 existing land use  and  access would be the
 same as those identified for the Proposed
 Action with the  exception that the pits
 would not  be open for  future  mining
 activities.

 4.13.5  Facility  Layout Alternative

 The impacts of this alternative on existing
land use and access would be the same as
those identified for the Proposed Action.
                               Mining and  processing  activities  at the
                               Lisbon Valley Project would be sources of
                               paniculate matter, quantified in this EIS as
                               PMio (i.e., particulate matter less than 10
                               microns in aerodynamic  diameter).  The
                               primary source of PMio  emissions would
                               be the crushing circuit. Crushers, screens,
                               and  conveyor  transfer points  would  be
                               process   emission   sources   of  PMi0.
                               Combustion in the  solution heater also
                               would emit small quantities  of process
                               PM».

                               Non-process    sources   of   particulate
                               emissions  would  result  from  extracting
                               materials by drilling and blasting, ore and
                               waste rock handling by mine equipment,
                               hauling of material on unpaved roads, and
                               wind  erosion from ore and waste  rock
                               storage/disposal areas.   Combustion  of
                               propane fuel  in the  solution heater also
                               would  emit small  quantities of gaseous
                               combustion   pollutants   (i.e.,   nitrogen
                               oxides,  carbon monoxide,  and  volatile
                               organic compounds).

                               4.14.2   Proposed Action

                               4.14.2.1 Impacts

                               Under this alternative, all operations would
                               be required to obtain construction  and
                               operating permits from the Utah Division
23996/R3.4 5/15/96(9:11 PMXRFT/2
                         4-79

-------
of Air  Quality (DAQ).   These  permits
would   require   a  demonstration  that
applicable  national  ambient  air   quality
standards  (NAAQS)  are  met  and  that
increments of pollution above background
levels are not exceeded.   The levels  of
particulates (PMw) that must be met at the
property boundary are shown in Table
4.14-1.   The property boundary,  around
the area under surface control by Summo,
is shown in Figure 2-1.

Dispersion   modeling   was  used    to
demonstrate   compliance   with   the
applicable State and Federal regulations for
pollutants emitted in significant quantities.
Impacts from particulate  emissions from
specific sources of the proposed operation
were modeled over 24-hr  and  annual
averaging periods, which is consistent with
the averaging periods of the PMio ambient
standards.  Modeled impacts are added to
the    estimated     background     PMio
concentrations to demonstrate compliance
with NAAQS.

Because the mining activities would occur
in different  locations  through  time,  the
impact  patterns would be different  for
different years. Emissions were modeled in
years  5  and 9.   Year 5 was  modeled
because  activities  (and  emissions)  are
anticipated to be the highest for that year.
Year 9  was modeled because  activities
would be high  and concentrated in the
southeast portion of the property.

Modeling   results  indicate  that   the
maximum 24-hour  PMio  concentrations
along  the property boundary  reach  30
jig/m3 (DAQ incremental standard) at one
location (Figure 4.14-1).  This modeled
concentration  occurs  in  year 9  to the
southeast of the GTO pit in the northeast
quadrant of Section 1.  All other modeled
emissions  at  the  property boundary are
lower; thus, the mine impacts are estimated
to be within  the 24-hr PMio  incremental
standard of  30 Mg/m3  at  the property
boundary.

The NAAQS ambient PMio standards are
addressed  by adding the modeled impacts
and  the  baseline  concentration.     As
discussed  in  Section  3.14,  the baseline
concentration of 26 jig/hr' was used in the
analysis.  As shown in Table 4.14-1, the
maximum  24-hr and annual impacts at the
property boundary are 56 and 33 Mg/m3,
respectively,  which are well below the
NAAQS limits.

Based  on the  modeling results  which
indicate that the  Lisbon Valley  Project
would  stay  within  state  and  Federal
emission standards, no impact to air quality
is anticipated from the Proposed Action.

4.14.2.2 Recommended Mitigation

Under  DAQ  guidelines, mitigation   of
potential air pollution is required.  For the
Lisbon  Valley Project,  the  air pollution
emission controls listed in Table 4.14-2 are
anticipated to be  imposed  by the DAQ.
Only PMio emissions would be controlled,
as these emissions  are the  only pollutant
which  could  be  emitted  in substantial
quantities.
 2399SH3.4 5/lS»6(9-35PM>EPT/2
                                        4-80

-------

              X a recaptor
                             .  Impact unite are jig/m'
                                                                0  KO 1000 1500 MM l«q KST
                                                                                                SOURCE:   AIR SCIENCE INC., A996
                                                                    Job No. :     23996
                                                                    Prepared by :
                                                                    Date :
2/1J/96
                   24-HOUR  MAXIMUM
                      PM10 IMPACTS
                                                                                                                        FIG. 4.14-1
°o

-------
r
                                                   TABLE 4.14-1

                                            MAXIMUM PMjo IMPACTS
                                            LISBON VALLEY PROJECT
                                           (CONCENTRATIONS IN jig/m3)
Location
Southeast
Northwest
Average
Interval
24-hr
annual
24-hr
annual
Impact
30
7
26
7
Incremental
Standard
30
17
30
17
Baseline
Cone.
26
26
26
26
Total
Cone.
56
33
52
33
NAAQS
150
50
150
50 '
                          SOURCE: Air Sciences 1996.
                                                    TABLE 4.14-2

                                PROPOSED AIR POLLUTANT CONTROL TECHNOLOGY
                                             AND ASSUMED EFFICIENCY
                                             LISBON VALLEY PROJECT
Source
Primary crushing
Secondary crushing
Conveyor drops
Drilling1 '
Haul Roads1
Stockpiles
Control
foggers
baghouse
water sprays
pneumatic flushing/filter
water sprays/chemicals
watering as necessary
Efficiency
95.0%
99.6%
83.5%
85.0%
92.0%
	 2
                    1     Activities in pit have an additional control associated with wind overshadow that is not
                          included in the listed efficiency.-

                    2     Control not accounted for in the emission inventory.

                    SOURCE:  Air Sciences 1996.
                    2399SR3.4 5/13/96(9:11 PM)/RPT/2
                                                       4-82

-------
 4.14.3   No Action Alternative

 4.14.3.1 Impacts

 Under this  alternative,  no impacts to air
 quality of the Lower Lisbon Valley would
 be expected to occur.  The air quality of
 the  area  would remain  the  same as
 baseline.

 4.14.4   Open Pit Backfilling
         Alternative

 4.14.4.1 Impacts

 Backfilling,  either partial or complete, of
 the  pits would  require retrieving waste
 rock from previously dumped locations and
 hauling the waste rock to a pit.   This
 "double handling" of most of the waste
 rock would create  additional particulate
 emissions over  that  occurring from the
 Proposed   Action.   These  cannot   be
 modeled or quantified  with the  existing
 methodology.

 4.14.5   Facility Layout Alternative

 The amount of surface area to be disturbed
 and  the amount  of waste  rock  to be
 disposed under  this alternative  are very
 similar  to   the  Proposed  Action.   No
 additional  impacts  to  air  quality  are
 anticipated  from  this  alternative.   No
 mitigation is recommended.

 4.14.6   Waste Rock Selective Handling
         Alternative
 this  alternative.
 recommended.

 4.15  NOISE
No  mitigation  is
The amount of surface area to be disturbed
and  the amount  of waste  rock to  be
disposed under this alternative are the same
as the Proposed Action.   No additional
impacts to air quality are anticipated from

23996/R3.4 5/15/96(9:11 PMXRPIV2                    4-83
 4.15.1   Methodology

 Noise concerns  in  industrial  areas  are
 generally  focused   in   an  occupational
 context.  Work-place noise standards  are
 enforced under the  Federal Occupational
 Safety and Health Act (OSHA) and  the
 MSHA,   which  set  permissible   noise
 exposure limits  by  time intervals.   The
 major sources of noise associated with the
 Lisbon Valley Project would be stationary
 and mobile equipment  used in the mining
 and processing activities, and traffic along
 the Lower Lisbon Valley Road.

 4.15.2   Proposed Action

 4.15.2.1  Impacts

 Under this alternative, all equipment would
 be  required to  operate using  approved
 mufflers and other noise abatement devices
 in accordance with Federal laws. As  such,
 noise levels at  the  property boundaries
 would be expected to remain under the 55
 dB  level  above which  noise may  be
 considered objectionable.   Persons in the
 immediate  area (recreationists)  and along
 the Lower Lisbon Valley Road would be
 able  to   hear certain  aspects  of the
 operation,  but the  noise levels  are not
 anticipated to exceed the EPA established
 level  of  55  dB  outside  the  property
boundary, except for blasting noise during
mining activity, for  short periods on an
 average of every other day.

There are currently no residences near the
proposed project.  Residences in the region

-------
are more than one mile away and separated
from the project by  ridges.   Under calm
wind conditions, project activities may be
audible;  however,  the  level  of  noise
produced by the project is not anticipated
to be  distinguishable  from  background
levels, except for the blasting noted above.

Although  the  level  of noise  is  not
anticipated to increase,  noise associated
with increased  traffic volume may be a
nuisance along  the Lower Lisbon Valley
Road.

4.15.2.2  Recommended Mitigation

The maintenance of equipment to satisfy
OSHA and MSHA regulations concerning
noise levels would reduce the noise levels
in the  Lisbon Valley Project area.   This
compliance is anticipated to  maintain the
noise level below EPA levels of annoyance
and of harm to human health and welfare.

4.153    No Action Alternative

Under this alternative, no impacts to noise
in the Lower  Lisbon  Valley  would  be
expected to occur. The noise levels of the
area would remain the same as baseline.

4.15.4    Open Pit Backfilling
         Alternative

No additional  impacts  from  noise  are
anticipated under this alternative.   No
mitigation is recommended.

4.15.5   Facility Layout Alternative

No  additional  impacts  from  noise  are
anticipated  under  this   alternative.  No
mitigation is recommended.
4.15.6   Waste Rock Selective Handling
         Alternative

No  additional  impacts  from noise  are
anticipated  under  this  alternative.   No
mitigation is recommended.

4.16     RECREATIONAL
         RESOURCES

4.16.1   Methodology

The purpose of this section is to identify
and  characterize recreational resources in
the  vicinity of the  proposed project in
order   to  assess  what    effects   the
construction   and  operation  of   each
alternative  may   have   on   existing
recreational opportunities.  The effects to
be considered include temporary disruption
of use and elimination of use.

Recreational  resources could be  affected
both directly  by  physical  changes  to
resources, and indirectly  by visual or use
influence.  Direct  impacts would  occur if
construction  or operation  of the project
resulted in the  termination  of use  or
substantial  modification  to recreational
resources within and adjacent to the study
area.   Indirect impacts  would  result  if
construction  and  operation   activities
altered    recreation   use   patterns   or
recreation demand and access to use areas
near the proposed project.

The  only issue or concern raised   for
recreational resources during the public
scoping process was the following:

    •   Adequacy   of   the   reclamation
        standards  to  return the site to
        predisturbance  conditions capable
 2399&R3.4 5/1586(9:1] EMyRPT/2
                                        4-84

-------
        of  supporting  current  levels  of
        recreation and tourism activity

 In response to this issue and other potential
 impacts  to  recreational  resources,  the
 following significance criteria have  been
 developed.  These include project-related
 changes that would:

    •   Alter or otherwise physically affect
        established,  designated, or planned
        recreational use area or activities
    •   Decrease  accessibility  to  areas
        established,  designated, or planned
        for recreational use
    •   Affect the duration, quantity, and
        quality of impact  to  recreational
        resources
    •   Post-closure, fail to reclaim the site
        to     approximate     levels    of
        predisturbance utility and to meet
        future land  management goals  of
        wildlife   habitat    and  livestock
        grazing

Impacts to  recreation  resources  would
include:

    •  Elimination     of    established
       recreational  resources  due to the
       proposed project
    •  Restriction of access to established
       recreational resources
    •  Impacts on the duration, quantity,
       or  quality   of  the  recreational
       environment or experiences
    •  Failure of the reclamation plan to
       meet  the post-mining land  use
       objectives for the establishment of
       wildlife   habitat   and   livestock
       grazing.
       4.16.2   Proposed Action

       4.16.2.1 Impacts

       Construction  activities  would result  in
       direct impacts  to recreational resources
       due tp the loss  of some wildlife habitat in
       the  project area.   Hunting opportunities
       would    not    be    eliminated,    but
       implementation  of the  Proposed  Action
       would likely displace big and small game,
       and hunters from  locations  in and  around
       the proposed project facilities for the life of
       the mine. Other BLM lands in the vicinity
       would still provide hunting, camping and
       ATV opportunities.

       The Lisbon  Valley Road  would  remain
       open to the public, but access through the
      project area shown on Figure 1-2 would be
      restricted for the life of the project. Access
      to recreational resources  north and south
      of the project area would not be impacted
      by the proposed  project.

      The Proposed Action would not have any
      direct impacts on the Three  Step Hill area
      and  should  not  affect  Christmas  tree
      harvesting or firewood collection in  this
      area.

      Noise  levels  may indirectly  affect  the
      quality of recreation activities due to noise
      from  equipment  used for  mining  and
      processing  activities,  and  truck  traffic
      throughout the project area.  Noise levels
      may be a nuisance, however, they are not
      expected to exceed federal  standards, as
      discussed further  in  Section 4.14. The
      aesthetic  quality of surrounding  recrea-
      tional use areas  would be reduced due to
      an increase in the  amount of visible land
      disturbances.
23996/R3.4 5/15/96(9:1] PMVEPT/2
4-85

-------
No impacts  are  anticipated to regional
developed  or dispersed recreation  sites
because they are located too far away to be
affected by noise, dust,  traffic or visual
impacts of the Proposed Action.

No  long-term impacts  to  recreational
resources  would  occur. Reclamation is
expected to  return  the  project area to
similar  predisturbance   conditions  as
discussed in Section 4.4 and the quality of
dispersed  recreation  activity  would be
restored.

4.16.2.2 Recommended Mitigation

Recreation impacts that would occur as a
result of construction and operation of the
proposed   project  would  be  reduced
through the application of the following
committed mitigation procedures:

    •   During  hunting,  season,  special
       signing  to  warn  the  public of
       construction and speed limit signing
    '•   Enforcement of property boundary
       closure requirements to  prevent
       unauthorized  motorized use of the
       access roads and to prevent hunting
       accidents.

As  such,  no additional   mitigation  is
recommended.

4.163  No Action Alternative

No  impacts  on  existing  recreational
resources would occur.
 4.16.4  Open Pit Backfilling
         Alternative

 Impacts would be essentially the same as
 for  the  Proposed  Action   as   would
 recommended mitigation.

 4.16.5  Facility Layout Alternative

 Impacts would be essentially the same as
 for  the  Proposed  Action   as   would
 recommended mitigation.

 4.16.6  Waste Rock Selective Handling
         Alternative

 Impacts would be essentially the same as
 for  the  Proposed  Action   as   would
 recommended mitigation.

 4.17   CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

 Cumulative  environmental  impacts  are
 those which result  from the incremental
 impacts of an action added to other past,
 present, and reasonably foreseeable future
 actions, regardless  of  what  agency or
 person  undertakes  such  actions  (CEQ
 1986:  1508.7).    Cumulative impacts can
 result   from   individually   minor  but
 collectively significant actions taking place
 over a period of time. For purposes of this
. EIS,  the  planning  horizon  is 30 years,
 which takes into  account the potential 10
 years of Summo copper operations plus 20
 years post-closure.  This section addresses
 the cumulative impacts of projects in the
 regional study area  (Figure 4.17-1) which:
 (1) currently exist, (2) are currently being
 constructed, or  (3) have a substantial
 resource commitment (greater than $10
 million in early  1996) or are evidenced by
 paperwork filings with the BLM or other
 responsible agencies for land development
 approvals.
2399SR3.4 S/15/96(10:OSI>M>HKr/2
                                        4-86

-------
Q ,-.    U3Aid sauoioa 01
  CO

-------
Cumulative impacts in the study area for
projects  other than  Summo's  proposed
copper  mine  and  related  facilities are
expected to be minor and worthy of only
brief mention, with the following reasoning
and background issues in mind:

     L Potential for  additional  copper
       mining in the  area is estimated to
       be  unlikely  in  the  foreseeable
       future,  as documented in  Section
       3.1.5.    (Fluctuations  in  mineral
       development related  to changes in
       worldwide  economic   conditions
       could affect this situation,  but are
       beyond    the    scope   of   this
       document.)  No other applications
       have been received or are noted by
       BLM to be forthcoming for copper
       development in  the  study  area in
       the next several years.  Effects of
       past activities, such as those at the
       Big Indian Mine and the Keystone
       Pit (EPA 1992a), have been noted
       as this study was prepared (also see
       Section 3.10.2).
     2.  Additional uranium mining activity
       in the study area is  also  estimated
       to be of little  importance to  study
       area impacts  in the  foreseeable
       future.    BLM  field  visits  and
       literature  reviews have noted the
       effects of past uranium activity in
       the GTO Pit vicinity,  and  other
       prospects in the area. The historic
       efforts  to  mine,   process,  and
       remedial  wastes  from   uranium
       mining in the  La Sal vicinity  have
       also been noted.    A  geologist
       contracted to   Summo  (Thorson
       1996c)  has also assessed uranium
       potential in the area in the planning
       for  the  current  Lisbon   Valley
       copper proposal.


2399SR3.4 Sfl&96(93SPM)/RFr/2                     4-88
   3. Regarding     oil     and     gas
      development, the UNOCAL  plant
      near La Sal continues operations to
      process gas  for various  pipeline
      companies,   and  oil  and   gas
      exploration (drilling), development,
      production,    and    transmission
      (pipeline)  facilities  are  currently
      active  in the project area.  It  is
      expected that these will continue  at
      the current rate or slightly increase
      in importance during the next few
      decades.
    4. Electrical    transmission    lines
      (powerlines),   other   than   the
      potential line to service the Summo
      project, are not known or planned.
      Table 3.13-1  shows existing land
      authorizations,   including   power-
      lines, in the Summo project vicinity.
    5. No   other  proposed roads  or
      residential  subdivisions   of  any
      magnitude, other than the  new
      residents in the Summit Point area
      (see Sections 3.13.2 and 4.2.2), are
      noted or planned in the study area
      within  10-20 miles  of the project
      site.    Other  development in the
      Monticello area, generally unrelated
      to this project, is likely in the next
      few decades.
    6. No expansion of agricultural lands
      for grazing or crops, or use of new
      -water  development  (e.g.,   these
      mine  pit  -waters)  for  additional
      irrigated agriculture is projected at
      this time.

It is with this set of reasonably foreseeable
actions in view that the following analyses
are made, by issue, concerning cumulative
impacts in  the study  area.   This applies
generally to the  Proposed Action, unless
otherwise noted.

-------
        Based upon past development of
        geologic   resources,   the   only
        possibility  appears  to  be  fiirther
        development of their reserves  by
        Summo or other operators, thereby
        expanding  pits,  dumps, pads, and
        beneficiation    facilities,     and
        increasing those impacts discussed
        herein.
        Regarding      hydrology,     no
        cumulative effects  other than those
        specified for the Proposed  Action
        regarding  water supply and water
        quality in  the project vicinity, and
        to   Lisbon  Canyon,   Mclntyre
        Canyon, and the Dolores River are
        anticipated.     Additional   effects
        could occur if additional copper or
        uranium reserves are identified and
        future mining activity expands  in
        the area.
        Similarly,   the   only  cumulative
        effects to geochemistry appear to
        be from  future  expanded  mining
        operations,   with   potential  for
        increased impacts from acidity and
        alkalinity generation.
        Cumulative impacts to soils  in the
        region are expected to continue at
        the current rate and to be minimal,
        with  adequate  reclamation  plans
        imposed and enforced for all  future
        land     disturbance     activities,
        including any extension  of mining
        in this locality.
        Regarding  vegetation, cumulative
        impacts have occurred  and will
        continue to occur from historic and
        any future mining, past chaining of
       grazing lands, linear impacts from
        oil   and    gas   pipelines   and
       transmission lines, and oil and gas
       facility pads.
              Cumulative  impacts  to  wildlife
              would continue at the current rate
              and  could increase if construction
              and operations of mining and other
              activities in the area interrupt use of
              springs for watering purposes,  as
              Lisbon Spring or Huntley Spring.
              Regarding  grazing,   2-5   AUMs
              would   be    permanently   lost.
              Additional impacts would occur in
              a   cumulative   sense  only  if
              expansion of the currently  planned
              mining operations would occur and
              additional pit  areas would not be
              reclaimed.
              Socioeconomics        cumulative
              impacts are expected to be minimal,
              since no other new copper or other
              mining projects are  foreseen,  and
              future    development   in   the
              Monticello      vicinity      from
              recreational       and      related
              development   is   likely  in  the
              planning process.
              The  number   of  accidents  are
              estimated  to   increase  by  0.88
              accident  per  year.    No  other
              cumulative       impacts       to
             transportation are foreseen, given
             the capacity and  condition of the
             existing network for the proposed
             mining and other uses.
             No   cumulative   impacts   are
             predicted for hazardous materials
             and wastes, since no other  mining
             or  major  industrial  projects  are
             foreseen.
             Cultural   and   paleontological
             resources  cumulative  effects  are
             minimal,   based  on   avoidance
             recommendations and mitigation of
             sites that cannot be avoided.
             Visual    resources    cumulative
             effects   are   minimal   following
23996/R3.4 5/15/96(9:38 PM)/KPT/2
4-89

-------
4.18
reclamation except for the water-
filled pits, and confined to this area;
no other major visual disturbances
are anticipated in the region.
No cumulative effects to land use
in the region  are anticipated from
this project.
Cumulative impacts to air quality
(even from extended mining here or
new projects elsewhere) would be
in compliance with air standards
and   such  impacts   should  be
minimal;   no   other    adverse
cumulative air effects are stated.
Cumulative effects  to  noise from
this and other projects in the region
would be negligible and short-term,
confined  to  blasting  and traffic
noises in  the immediate  project
vicinity.
Finally,   dispersed   recreational
activities   in  his  area   would
continue at the present rate (100-
200  visitor days per yr)  or may
increase during the next 10 yrs.

UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE
IMPACTS
NEPA and its implementing regulations as
required by the Council on Environmental
Quality and BLM (1988)  direct that  the
EIS shall address the unavoidable adverse
impacts  which  may  occur  should  the
project be  implemented.   This  project
would create a  number of  unavoidable
adverse impacts,  as  would  any proposed
development  of  this  magnitude.    The
following  predictions   are  made,  by
discipline, again with general reference to
the Proposed Action  unless  otherwise
noted.
2399SR3.4 5/15/96(9:38 PMyRPT/2                    4-90
•  No adverse impacts to geology are
   noted from the efficient extraction
   of copper mineralization
•  Such  impacts would  occur  to
   geologic resources if pit backfilling
   precludes future mining, under the
   Open Pit Backfilling alternative
•  Dewatering of the shallow aquifer
   in the project vicinity with 161-
   1455 ac-ft/yr  removed for project
   operations; and interception of up
   to 177 ac-ft/yr of surface flow in
   Lisbon Valley by project facilities,
   are   the    major    hydrologic
   unavoidable impacts
•  Under the  Open Pit Backfilling
   alternative,    backfilling    could
   preclude the use of ponded water in
   the Sentinel No. 1 Pit as a source
   of recharge to local ground water
   resources
•  Regarding  geochemistry, impacts
   to surface and ground water, soils,
   and vegetation from minor amounts
   of both acid and alkaline conditions
   in pits  and  waste  dumps  could
   occur; some  waste  dumps  would
   remain  even  with  the Open Pit
   Backfilling alternative, due to the
   rock  swell factor,  and backfilled
   waste    rock    would   produce
   unavoidable pockets  of acid and
   alkaline conditions  in the pits as
   wall rock, waste  rock,  and  pit
   water mix with groundwater and air
   during and after backfilling
•  Unavoidable  adverse  impacts to
   soils   are   expected  from  the
   excavation,  salvage,  stockpiling,
   and  redistribution of 1,103  ac of
   native soils.
•  Unavoidable losses to vegetation
   Would occur to the pinyon-juniper
   (296 ac), sagebrush  (432 ac), and

-------
       grassland/rangeland (290 ac) types
       from project  development  and a
       conversion of vegetative type on
       279 ac  of  the current pinyon-
       juniper   zone  that   would  be
       revegetated   to   grassland   and
       shrubland species
       Loss of existing stock  ponds as
       wildlife   and  livestock   water
       sources,  temporary loss of 1,018
       acres of vegetated habitat,  and
       disruption due to night lighting and
       blasting   are   the   unavoidable
       adverse impacts for this resource
       Grazing acreage would be reduced
       by fencing  and by non-reclamation
       of  the  pits,   in addition to the
       livestock  watering  issue  noted
       above
       No  unavoidable adverse impacts
       socioeconomics issues are foreseen
       None    are    identified    for
       transportation     except     an
       estimated increase of 0.88 accident
       peryear-
       Similarly, none are identified for
       hazardous  materials  and wastes,
       assuming prompt spill  cleanup or
       remedy of any process upsets
       No unavoidable adverse impacts to
       cultural       resources      and
       paleontology would likely occur
       Mining operations will affect visual
       resources  conditions   noticeably
       and unavoidably; these changes to
       landforms (pits, piles and pads) and
       line, color  and  texture  contrasts
       would be mostly restored during
       reclamation;  No  Action  would
       retain    the     current     visual
       interruptions  from  historic  pits,
       piles, and structure foundations and
       abandoned power poles
          •  Effective reclamation promotes no
             unavoidable  adverse  impacts  to
             land use and access except for pit
             areas;   under   the   Open    Pit
             Backfilling alternative, closing the
             pits to future resource extraction by
             mining could  be an  unavoidable
             adverse   impact   to   resource
             recovery
          •  Regarding air quality, an increase
             in PM10  emissions above baseline,
             but below air standards,  would
             occur
          •  Unavoidable    noise     increases
             noticeably     above     baseline
             conditions would occur for short
             periods,  and   continuous   noise
             levels above the current rural levels
             would be  experienced
          •  Quality of the limited recreational
             activities conducted in  the  study
             area  would be diminished  during
             operations  due  to   noise  and
             aesthetic effects

      4.19   SHORT-TESM USES VS.
             LONG-TERM
             PRODUCTIVITY

      The regulations   also  specify  that  the
      description of impacts should identify how
      short-term uses  of the environment will
      affect long-term productivity of resources.
      Short-term uses are defined as uses during
      the  project life plus reclamation period,  or
      about 15 years.   Long-term productivity
      effects are defined through an additional 35
      year period, with a total outlook of 50
      years from project inception.   Again,  in
      similar  format  and with qualifications  as
      previous sections, the following comments
      are presented by discipline.
23995/R3.4 5/15/96(9:38 PM)/KPT/2
4-91

-------
Regarding  geology,   short-term
mining of the pits would extract the
resource,  and long-term plans to
leave the pits open would preserve
the option of extracting additional
mineralization at a later date should
such become economic
Concerning hydrology, short-term
uses of ground  water and surface
water  as  noted  in Section 4.18
above  would  affect  long-term
productive use of water in Lisbon
Valley    for    other   purposes;
currently, no such uses exist or are
planned
Geochemistry issues in the short
and long-term primarily concern the
acid and alkaline impacts discussed
in 4. 18 above
Soils would be  used in the short-
term,  salvaged  and  replaced for
reclamation  in   the   long-term,
resulting in short-term disruption of
natural soil development processes
Short-term losses of  vegetation
would occur on  1,018 previously
undisturbed ac, of which 872 ac
would be reclaimed;  plant  cover
and  productivity would return to
pre-mining levels in 3-5  yrs for
grasslands,   15-20    yrs   for
shrublands, and  80-100  yrs for
trees;   species   diversity  would
slowly  increase  but  may  take
centuries  before a return to pre-
mining levels
The short-term  losses of 1,018 ac
of habitat for the herbivorous prey
base for raptors, especially from
construction,    would    be   re-
established in the long-term on 872
ac of habitat for the rodents that
inhabit this area; the powerline and
increased  road  kills will  generally
benefit raptors in the long-term as
perches   and    increased   food
sources;  habitat  improvements in
the  long-term  will generally  be
beneficial for wildlife,  except for
the unreclaimed pits
Livestock     grazing      would
experience a  short-term loss  of
livestock forage, and grazing would
be    displaced   during   mining
operations; livestock forage would
be   replaced  in   the   long-term
(except  for  the  pits),  and the
reclamation may  enhance  forage
production
Short-term   economic   benefits
would occur; no adverse effects on
the    long-term    socioeconomic
productivity  of  the   area  are
predicted
In     the     long-term,    the
transportation network would not
be compromised if mining activities
end as projected; extension of such
activities  or other  development  in
the  area  would   likely  promote
improvements to the network from
increased tax funding
No  effects  are  predicted  from
improper  use    of   hazardous
materials or generation or disposal
of hazardous wastes; mining wastes
would be properly controlled and
reclaimed
Not  applicable  to  cultural and
paleontological resources.
Short-term visual resources effects
will  generally diminish in the long-
term, but the geometric shapes  of
the waste dumps, pad, and pits will
remain in the long-term even after
reclamation;  under the Open  Pit
Backfilling alternative; pit openings
would be partially or fully filled and
                                  4-92

-------
         reclaimed, leaving only minor visual
         remnants there; the Facility Layout
         alternative  would  eliminate  one
         dump remnant in the long-term
     •   Short-term changes in  land  use
         would be restored in the long-term
         except for pit acreages
     •   No  long-term  air quality effects
         are expected
     •   Short-term noise  effects on long-
         term productivity of the area would
         be minimal or nonexistent
     •   The short-term  adverse effects to
         recreational  resources  activities
        would be restored  in the long-term
        with successful reclamation, except
        for the pit areas

 4.20   IRREVERSIBLE OR
        IRRETRIEVABLE RESOURCE
        COMMITMENTS

 The EIS is also to identify any irreversible
 or irretrievable  commitments of resources
 that are consumed, committed.,  or  lost
 during the life of the project, following the
 uses of the environment identified in  the
 previous section.   Use of resources is
 required in the extraction and beneficiation
 of raw materials in a manner that meets  the
 proponent's  financial   needs,   and   the
 public's consumptive  needs for copper.
 The  following  comments are given  by
 resource discipline.

    •  Mining     of     approximately
       42,500,000 tons of ore  during the
       mine life, to produce approximately
       170,000 tons of copper cathode, is
       the primary geologic commitment
    •  Use  of the hydrologic  resources
       noted in the previous  two  sections
       is  likely   not  irreversible   or
       irretrievable, since such resources
2399&S2A 5/15/96(9:38 PM>RPT/2
              recharge and renew over periods of
              years and decades; natural surface
              drainage   patterns   would   be
              disrupted by project operations in
              the facilities vicinity, perhaps never
              to be restored
           >   The geochemistry of soils, water,
              and  rock in the  vicinity  of the
              dumps and  pits would likely  be
              irreversibly changed in  the long-
              term, even though some reversal to
              move   back   towards   current
              conditions  could  occur  over a
              period of decades
              Irreversible loss of thousands  of
              years of soils development in the
              natural state would be replaced in
              part during reclamation and begin
              the soil development process  once
              again
             Losses would occur to the pinyon-
             juniper  habitat (296 ac) and these
             are   likely   irreversible   to  the
             vegetation community, even in the
             long-term;   under   Open    Pit
             Backfilling, an additional 231 ac in
             the pit  areas would be reclaimed,
             but 279 ac of pinyori-juniper would
             still  be replaced with grass  and
             shrub species
             Loss of 231  vegetated acres in the
             pits as habitat and changes to the
             topography of the area as the waste
             dumps are created  would be  the
             major resource  commitments  for
             wildlife
             Loss of seasonal  livestock grazing
             as noted above for wildlife
             No    issues   are    seen    for
             socioeconomics here
             No  losses  or commitments  are
             noted for transportation
             No  commitments are  noted  for
             hazardous materials
4-93

-------
      Loss     of    cultural     and
      paleontological  resources   may
      occur    through    testing   and
      mitigation as recommended by the
      SHPO, as this may be necessarily a
      destructive  process  (excavation),
      and not all resource knowledge  or
      integrity is recovered or preserved;
      No   Action   preserves    these
      resources in-place
      Changes  in topography  are the
      major irreversible commitment for
      visual resources impacts
      Copper,  as a land use resource,
      would    be    irreversibly   and
      irretrievably     committed    for
      extraction,           beneficiation,
      processing, fabrication and use
      No air quality commitments are
      noted
      No noise issues are noted
      No notable resource commitments
      for recreation are expected
2399&R3.4 5/15/96(?:3S PMyKPT/2
                                        4-94

-------
                                                                               5.0
                                         CONSULTAHON AND COORDINATION
 As an integral part of the EIS preparation
 process,  consultation  and  coordination
 were carried out with the following federal,
 state, and local governmental agencies, and
 Native American tribal representatives, and
 members of special interest groups and the
 general public.

 5.1    AGENCIES AND
       ORGANIZATIONS
       CONSULTED

 5.1.1  Federal Agencies

 U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of
    Land Management
 U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and
    Wildlife Service and Geological Survey
 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
    Service
 National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration

 5.1.2  State Agencies

 Utah Department of Environmental Quality
 Utah Division of Wildlife
 Utah Water Quality Division
 Utah Division of Oil, Gas, and Mining
.Utah Division of Radiation Control
 Utah Department of Employment Security
    Services
 Utah Department of Transportation
 Utah Power and Light
 Utah Gas and Service
     5.1.3  Local Agencies

     San Juan County Commissioners
     San Juan County Corrections and Sheriffs
         Department
     City of Monticello Police Department
     City of Moab Police Department
     City of Moab Fire Department
     City of Moab Water District
     City of Monticello Fire Department
     Spanish Valley Water District
     Grand County Sheriff's Department
     Grand County School District
     Southeastern Utah Association of Local
         Governments

     5.2  PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

     Comments,  suggestions,  and  concerns
     about the proposed project were gathered
     during two public scoping meetings held in
     November, 1995 and comment letters later
     sent to the BLM.  The first meeting was
     held in Moab, Utah on November 1,  1995;
     18  individuals  attended.   The  second
     meeting was held in Monticello, Utah on
     November   2,   1995;  15  individuals
     attended.

     5.3   PUBLIC COMMENTORS

     Comments,  suggestions,   and  concerns
     about the proposed project were gathered
     during a  public  scoping  period  from
     October 11 through November 29,  1995.
     For the two public meetings noted above,
     the following persons attended:
2399&R3.5 OTS/9
-------
Public Meeting Attendees:

JimFranklin, 368 E. 100 N. Moab, UT
Claudin Akens, PO Box 1387, Moab, UT
Kay Howe, PO 574, Goodland, PL
Jim Kelly, PO Box 494, Moab, UT
William Pieise, San Juan Planning Com.,
   Box 205, Monticello, UT
Ken Curtis, Job Service, 91 E. Uraniva
   Ave., Moab, UT
Brad Palmer, BLM-Moab, 82 E Dogwood,
   Suite G, Moab, UT 84532
Pat Gochnour, Gochnour & Assoc., PO
   Box 3207, Englewood, CO 80155
Sal Venticinque, BLM-Moab, 82 E
   Dogwood, Suite G, Moab, UT 84532
Robert A. Prescott, Summo USA, PO Box
   847, Moab, UT
Lois Matheson, 4081 S. Aspen Ln.,
   Evergreen, CO 80439
Hugh Matheson, Summo USA, Box 847,
   Moab, UT
Greg Hahn, Summo USA, 1776 Lincoln
   St Suite 1100, Denver, CO 80203
Tony Gallegos, State of Utah-D.O.GJVL,
   3 Triad, Suite 350, SLC, UT 80118
Lynn Jackson, BLM, 82 E Dogwood,
   Suite G, Moab, UT 84532
Chris Paulsen, Woodward-Clyde,  4582 S.
   Ulster St., Denver, CO  80237
Peter O'Connor, Westec, Inc., 5600 S.
   Quebec, 307-D, Englewood, CO
   80111
John K. Black, Monticello City Council,
   Monticello, UT
Bob Turri, PO Box 587, Monticello, UT
Ed Scherick, San Juan Co., Box 9,
  , Monticello, UT
Kate Kitchell, BLM-Moab, 82 E
   Dogwood, Suite G, Moab, UT 84532
B01 Bates, UDWR, 455 W. RR Ave.,
   Price, UT
Scott Henry, Topro Services, PO Box 693,
   Monticello, UT

2399*83.5
     Written  Comments  or  Requests for
     Information were Received  from the
     Following Parties:

        1.  Ann Marie Brusenhan, Moab, UT,
           10/11/95
        2.  Ty Lewis, Monticello, UT,
           10/16/95
        3.  Paul Friesema, Moab, UT,
           10/16/95
        4.  Jack Mozingo, Jr., McLean,
           Virginia, 10/31/95
        5.  John Black, Monticello, UT,
           11/8/95  and 11/13/95
        6.  Bob Turri, Monticello, UT,
           11/10/95
        7.  Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance,
           Salt Lake City, UT, 11/25/95
        8.  Kevin Walker, Moab, UT, 11/28/95
        9.  Dave Focardi, Moab, UT, no date
        10. Kalen Jones, Moab, UT, 11/29/95
        11. Drew Roots, Moab, UT, 11/29/95

     Comments received through the  scoping
     process are summarized in Section 1.3.3.
5-2

-------
                                                                                6.0
                                                             LIST OF PREPAKERS
 The Lisbon Valley EIS was prepared for the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Moab
 District Office, by  third-party  consultants  Woodward-Clyde and  Westec.    BLM  and
 Woodward-Clyde/Westec  personnel  involved  in  the production  of the  EIS,  their
 qualifications, and responsibilities are presented below.

 Woodward-CIvdeAVestec Team
 Scott Mernite
 Qualifications:
 Responsibilities:
 Christine R. Paulsen
 Qualifications:

 Responsibilities:
Peter O'Connor
Qualifications:

Responsibilities:
Daniel J. Davis
Qualifications:

Responsibilities:
 B.A., Geography and History
 M.A., Geography
 Ph.D., Environmental Studies, Land Resources
 19 years of experience
 Project Manager
 Public Participation
 EIS Scoping
BS Forestry Management
7 years of experience
Deputy Project Manager
Task Leader, Soils
BS Range Ecology
13 years experience
Task Leader, Grazing
Project Description and Alternatives
BS Geosciences, MS Geochemistry
9 years of experience
Task Leader, Geochemistry
23996/R3.6 S/l 6/96(12:06 PMyKPT/KFT/3
             6-1

-------
Greg L. Eddy
Qualifications:

Responsibilities:

W.Jack Clark
Qualifications:
Responsibilities:

William F.Hffl
Qualifications:
Responsibilities:

Christopher P. Freeman
Qualifications:

Responsibilities:
BS Civil Engineering
6 years experience
Project Description and Alternatives
BS Biology and Chemistry
MS Entomology/Botany
Ph.D. Entomology/Wildlife Management
21 years of experience
Task Leader, Air Resources/Noise
B A Geology
Professional Geologist
13 years of experience
Task Leader, Geology/Minerals
BS Environmental Planning
6 years of experience
Task Leader, Socioeconomics, Transportation, Hazardous
Materials
D. Richard Black
Qualifications:
Responsibilities:

David K. Jones
Qualifications:
Responsibilities:
BS Range and Wildlife Biology
MS Community Ecology
Ph.D. Ecophysiology (currently pursuing)
11 years experience
Task Leader, Vegetation, Wildlife, Sensitive Species
BS General Agriculture
BS Landscape Horticulture
Graduate Studies Recreation Resources, Landscape
Architecture
15 years experience
Task Leader, Visuals, Recreation, Land Use
                                        6-2

-------
  David K. Nicholson
  Qualifications:

  Responsibilities:

  Bob Mutaw
  Qualifications:

 Responsibilities:

 JeffEhrenzeller
 Qualifications:
 Responsibility:

 William Killam
 Qualifications:

 Responsibility:

 Robert Moran
 Qualifications:
 Responsibility:

 U.S. Bureau of Land Management
 BA Geology, MS Geology
 6 years experience
 Task Leader, Water Resources
 BA Anthropology, MA Anthropology, Ph.D. Anthropology
 16 years experience
 Task Leader, Cultural Resources
 B A Environmental Science
 MA Geology
 18 years experience
 Senior Technical Advisor, Water Resources
 BA Anthropology
 20 years experience
 Senior Technical Advisor, Cultural Resources, NEPA
 BA Zoology
 Ph.D. Geological Sciences
 25 years experience
 Senior Technical Advisor, Geochemistry
A. Lynn Jackson
Qualifications:

Responsibilities:

Joe Cresto
Qualifications:

Responsibilities:
Project Coordinator
BS Geology
18 years of experience
Coordination of project

Wildlife Biologist
BS Range/Wildlife
30 years of experience
Wildlife/T&E Species
23996R3.6 5/16/96(]2:OSPM)/RnyRFr/3
             6-3

-------
Rich McClure
Qualifications:

Responsibilities:

Linda Seibert
Qualifications:

Responsibilities:

Raymon Carling
Qualifications:-

Responsibilities:

Mary von Koch
Qualifications:

Responsibilities:

Alex VanHemert
Qualifications:

Responsibilities:

JimHarte
Qualifications

Responsibilities:

Sal Venticinque
Qualifications:

Responsibilities:

Darryl Trotter
Qualifications:

Responsibilities:
Natural Resource Specialist
BS Wildlife Biology
20 years of service
Reclamation/Soils

Wildlife Biologist
BS Wildlife Biology
20 years of experience
Wildlife/T&E Species

Natural Resource Specialist
BS Botany
28 years of experience
Range/Vegetation

Realty Specialist
BS/MS Food Science & Technology
17 years of experience
Rights of Way/Land Use

Outdoor Recreation Planner
BS Recreation Management
18 years of experience
Recreation/Visual

Hydrologist
BS Hydrology
15 years of experience
Hydrology/Soils

Geologist
BA/MA Geology
12 years of experience
Geology/Minerals

Environmental Specialist
BS/MS Botany
25 years of experience
T&E Vegetation
                                        6-4

-------
 Bruce Louthan
 Qualifications:

 Responsibilities:

 Tom Rasmussen
 Qualifications:
 Responsibilities:

 Bill Thompson
 Qualifications:

 Responsibilities:
 Archeologist
 BA/MA Archeology/Anthropology
 23 years of experience
 Cultural Resources, Native American Coordination

 Paleontologist
 BS Zoology
 MA Vertebrate Paleontology
 ABD Geology
 20 years of experience
 Paleontology

Range Conservationist
BS Range Management
 18 years of experience
Range
23996/S3.6 5/16/96(12:06 PMyRPT/RPT/3
            6-5

-------

-------
                                                                                7.0
                                                                      GLOSSARY
 ACCESS.  Access is the physical ability to
    reach a particular  place or area.  For
    the  public to legally have  access to
    BLM  land, they  must have  both a
    physical way to get there (waterway,
    foot/horse  trail,    or   road)   and
    permission (easement, right-of-way, or
    management  sanction) ^allowing  that
    particular type of physical access.

 AFFECTED   ENVIRONMENT.     The
    biological  and  physical  environment
    that will or may be changed by actions
    proposed and the relationship of people
    to that environment.

 ALLUVIAL.  Pertaining to  material or
    processes       associated       with
    transportation or deposition by running
    water.

 ALLUVIUM.  Soil  and  rock  that is
    deposited by flowing water.

 ALLOTMENT.  An area of land where
    one  or more livestock operators graze
    their livestock.  Allotments  generally
    consist  of BLM lands but  may also
    include  state owned and private lands.
    An allotment may include one or more
    separate pastures.  Livestock numbers
    and seasons of use are specified.

 ALTERNATIVE.    A   combination   of
    management  prescriptions applied in
    specific  amounts  and  locations  to
    achieve   a   desired    management
    emphasis  as  expressed in goals  and
    objectives. One of the several policies,
    plans, or projects proposed for decision
         making.    An  alternative need not
         substitute for another in all respects.

     AMBIENT.  Surrounding, existing.

     ANALYTE.  A compound determined by
         an analysis.

     ANIMAL UNIT  MONTH  (AUM).   A
         standardized   measurement  of the
         amount of forage  necessary for the
         complete sustenance of one animal for
         one month; also the measurement of
         the privilege of grazing one animal for
         one month.

     BERM. A horizontal  bench  left  in an
         exposed   slope   to  increase   slope
         stability  and  provide  a  place for
         sloughing material to collect.

     BIG  GAME. Those  species  of  large
         mammals normally managed as a sport
         hunting resource.

     BORE HOLE. A  drill  hole from the
         surface to an orebody.

     COLLUVTUM.  Fragments of rock carried
         and deposited by gravity.

     COMPACTION.  The process of packing
         firmly and closely together; the state of
        being  so  packed,  e.g.,  mechanical
         compaction  of  soil by  livestock or
        vehicular  activity.   Soil  compaction
        results irom  particles  being  pressed
        together so that the  volume of the soil
        is  reduced.   It  is  influenced by the
        physical properties of the soil, moisture
23996/R3.7 5/15/96(4:41 PM)/RKD2
7-1

-------
   content and the  type and  amount of
   compactive effort.

COUNCIL  ON   ENVIRONMENTAL
   QUALITY. An advisory council to the
   President established by the  National
   Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of
   1969.  It reviews Federal programs for
   their   effect   on .the   environment,
   conducts environmental studies,  and
   advises the President on environmental
   matters.

CULTURAL  PROPERTY.    A  definite
   location  of   past  human  activity,
   occupation, or use identifiable through
   field       inventory,       historical
   documentation, or oral evidence.  The
   term includes  archaeological, historic,
   or  architectural  sites,  structures, or
   places   with   important public  and
   scientific uses, and may include definite
   location (sites or places) or traditional
   cultural or religious  importance to
   specified social and/or cultural groups.

CULTURAL RESOURCES. A term that
   includes    hems .   of   historical,
  . archaeological    or    architectural
   significance which are fragile, limited
   and non-renewable  portions  of the
   human environment.

DEVELOPED RECREATION SITE. A
   site    developed   primarily    to
   accommodate  specific  intensive  use
   activities or grouping of activities  such
   as   camping,   picnicking,  boating,
   swimming,  whiter sports, etc.  These
   sites include permanent facilities  such
   as  roads,  trails, toilets,  and  other
   facilities  needed  to  accommodate
   recreation use over the long term.
DEWATERING.
   water.
The  act of removing
ENDANGERED SPECIES.  Any plant or
   animal species which is  in danger of
   extinction   throughout  all   or   a
   significant  portion   of  its  range.
   (Endangered Species Act of 1973).

ENVIRONMENTAL          IMPACT
   STATEMENT  (EIS).   A   detailed,
   written  statement  as   required  by
   Section 102(2)(c) of  the   National
   Environmental Policy Act of 1969.

EPHEMERAL STREAM.   A stream or
   stretch of a stream that flows only in
   direct  response to precipitation.  It
   receives no water from springs and no
   long-continued  supply  from  melting
   snow or  other surface  source.    Its
   stream channel is at all times above the
   water table. These streams do not flow
   continuously during periods of as  much
   as one month.

EROSION.  The   group  of processes
   whereby earthy or rocky material is
   worn away by natural sources such as
   wind, water, or ice and removed from
   any part of the earth's surface.

EROSION  SUSCEPTIBILITY.     The
   susceptibility of a soil to erosion  when
   no cover is present.  The rate of soil
   displacement depends on the physical
   properties of the soil, rainfall intensity
   and slope gradient.

FISCAL CONDITIONS.  Fiscal conditions
   includes payments-in-lieu of taxes and
   property taxes.
2399SR3.7 5/15/96(4:41 EM)/RPT/2
                                       7-2

-------
 FORAGE. Vegetation  used for  food by
    wildlife, particularly big game wildlife
    and livestock.

 FORB. Any herbaceous plant other than a
    grass, especially one growing in a field
    or meadow.

 FREEBOARD. The distance from surface
    of a pond to top of a dam.

 GROUNDWATER.  Water contained in
    pore   spaces   of  consolidated   and
    unconsolidated subsurface material.

 HEAP LEACH PAD.  A lined are upon
    which ore  is placed and leached with
    cyanide. Leachate accumulates at the
    base of the ore heap,  above the leach
    pad liner, and  is processed  to remove
    precious metals  from  the  cyanide
    solution.

 HYDRAULIC    CONDUCTIVITY.    A
    measure of the ease with which water
    moves   through   soil   or   rock;
    permeability.

 MANAGEMENT   UNIT.   Geographic
    areas,   not necessarily  contiguous,
    which have    common  management
    direction consistent with  the BLM
    allocations.

 MINE PIT FOOTPRINT.  The  surface
    expression  of the area of disturbance
    caused by the mine pit.

MINERAL LODE CLAIM.  A claim for
    possession of land in the public domain
    (especially national forests)  containing
    minerals under the Mining Law  of
    1872.
     MINERALIZATION.   The process by
        which a valuable mineral or minerals
        are introduced into a rock resulting in a
        potential or actual ore deposit.

     MITIGATION.      Actions  to   avoid,
        minimize, reduce, eliminate, replace, or
        rectify the impact of a management
        practice.

     MONITOR,    To  watch  or   check.
        Rangeland resources are monitored for
        changes  that occur  as a  result of
        management actions or practices.

     OFF-ROAD VEHICLE  (ORV).    Any
        motorized track or wheeled  vehicle
        designed for cross-country travel over
        any type of natural terrain.

     ORE-GRADE. When minerals are found in
        sufficient  concentration  to  warrant
        extraction by mining, the mineralized
        area is considered an ore deposit.  Ore
        is mineral that can be extracted from
        the ground at a profit. Grade is  a term
        used   to  define  the  amount  of
        concentration of a mineral in rock, and
        is usually expressed in units of metal
        per ton of rock or in percentage.

     PEAK FLOW. The greatest flow attained
        during  the  melting  of the   winter
        snowpack.

     PERENNIAL STREAM.   A stream or
        stretch  of  a   stream  that  flows
        continuously. They are generally fed in
        part by springs, and their upper surface
        generally stand  lower than the  water
        table in localities through which they
        flow.
23996/R3.7 5/15/96(4:41 PM)/RPT/2
7-3

-------
PERMEABILITY.  The  capacity   for
   transmitting a fluid; depends on the size
   and  shape  of the pores, the size and
   shape of their interconnections, and the
   extent of the latter.  It is measured by
   the rate at which a  fluid  of standard
   viscosity can  move  a given distance
   through a given interval of time.

PERMIT (GRAZING).  An authorization
   that permits the grazing  of a specified
   number and  kind  of livestock on  a
   designated  area of BLM  lands for  a
   period of time, usually not more than
   one year.

PIEZOMETER. A well, generally of small
   diameter, that is used to measure the
   elevation of the water table.

POTENTIOMETRIC  SURFACE.   The
   surface or level to which water will rise
   in  a well.    The water  table  is  a
   particular potentiometric surface for an
   unconfined aquifer.

PROPOSED  ACTION.    In terms  of
   NEPA, the project, activity, or action
   that a Proponent intends to implement
   or undertake and which is the subject
   of an environmental analysis.

PUBLIC LANDS. Any land  and interest
   hi land (outside of Alaska) owned by
   the United States and administered by
   the  Secretary of the Interior through
   the Bureau of Land Management.

PUBLIC  PARTICIPATION.    Part  of
   BLM's planning system that provides
   the   opportunity   for   citizens   as
   individuals or groups to express local,
   regional, and national perspectives and
   concerns in the rule making,  decision
   making,  inventory   and  planning,
2399&R3.7 5/15/96(4:41 ¥MyKPI/2                    7-4
   processes  for  public  lands.    This
   includes public  meetings, hearings,  or
   advisory  boards or panels that  may
   review resource management proposals
   and offer suggestions or criticisms for
   the various alternatives considered.

REAGENT.    A  substance  used  in  a
   chemical  reaction to detect,  measure,
   examine, or produce other substances.

RECORD OF DECISION (ROD).    A
   document separate from but associated
   with   an   environmental   impact
   statement  that  publicly and  officially
   discloses  the  responsible  official's
   decision on the proposed action.

RESOURCE  MANAGEMENT  PLAN.
   The system that provides a step-by-step
   process   for   considering  multiple
   resource   values,  resolving  conflicts,
   and   making  resource  management
   decisions.

RESOURCE OBJECTIVES.  The desired
   state  or  condition that  a  resource
   management  policy or  program  is
   designed to achieve.  A goal  is usually
   not quantifiable and may not have a
   specific date by  which  it  is to  be
   completed.  Goals are the basis  from
   which objectives are developed.

RIPARIAN.   Situated on or pertaining to
   the bank  of a river, stream, or  other
   body of water.  Normally used to refer
   to the plants  of  all types that  grow
   along or around springs.

SCOPING.  A term  used to identify the
   process for determining the  scope of
   issues related to a proposed action and
   for identifying significant issues to be
   addressed.

-------
 SEDIMENT.    Soil,  rock particles and
    organic or other  debris carried from
    one place to another by wind, water or
    gravity.

 SEDIMENTARY.    Rock  formed  of
    sediment, especially: (1) Clastic rocks,
    as,   conglomerate,  sandstone,   and
    shales, formed of fragments  of other
    rock transported from their sources and
    deposited in water. (2) Rocks formed
    by precipitation from solution, as rock
    salt and gypsum, or from secretions of
    organisms, as most limestone.

 SEDIMENTATION.    The   action  or
    process of deposition of material borne
    by water, wind or glacier.

 SOIL.     The  unconsolidated   mineral
    material on the  immediate  surface of
    the  earth  that  serves  as  a  natural
    medium for the growth of land plants.

 SOIL PRODUCTIVITY.  The capacity of
    a soil to produce a specific crop such
    as fiber and forage,  under defined levels
    of management.   It  is   generally
    dependent  on available  soil moisture
    and  nutrients and  length of  growing
    season.

 SPENT ORE.  Ore which has been leached
    and no longer is yielding leachate that
    is economic to process.

 SUBSIDENCE.   The  sinking of a large
    part of the earth's crust.

 THREATENED SPECIES. A species that
    the   Secretary   of   Interior  has
    determined to be  likely to  become
    endangered   within the  foreseeable
    future  throughout  all or  most of its
    range.  See also "Endangered Species."
23996/R3.7 SH5/9S(4:41 PMyRPTfl                    7-5
 TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS.  The dry
    weight of dissolved material,  organic
    and inorganic, contained in water.

 TRANSMrSSrvTTY.  The rate at which
    water is  transmitted  through a unit
    width of  aquifer  under a  hydraulic
    gradient.

 UNNECESSARY      OR     UNDUE
    DEGRADATION.            Surface
    disturbance greater than  what would
    normally  result  when an activity is
    being accomplished  by  a  prudent
    operator  in usual,  customary,  and
    proficient   operations   of   similar
    character and talcing into consideration
    the  effects of  operations  on  other
    resources   and land  uses,  including
    those resources  and uses outside the
    area of operations.

 VEGETATION   (GROUND)  COVER.
    The percent of land surface covered by
    all  Irving  vegetation  (and  remnant
    vegetation yet to decompose) within 20
    feet of the ground.

 VISUAL RESOURCE  MANAGEMENT
    CLASSES.  The degree of acceptable
    visual changes within  a characteristic
    landscape.  A class is  based upon the
    physical and sociological characteristics
    of any given homogeneous area and
    serves as a management objective.

WASTE  ROCK.  Rock that has to be
   mined to access precious metal-bearing
   ore,  but   does not  contain  enough
   mineral to be mined and processed at a
   profit.

-------
r
                     WASTE ROCK  DUMP.   Area  which
                         waste rock is end-dumped from the top
                         downward,   typically   without   any
                         selective handling criteria being used to
                         sort  the  more  reactive waste  rock
                         component

                     WATER  QUALITY.    The  chemical,
                         physical and biological  characteristics
                         of water with respect to its suitability
                         for a particular use.

                     WATERSHED.    All  lands   which are
                         enclosed by a continuous  hydrologic
                         drainage divide and lie upslope from a
                         specified point on a stream.
                      23S9SR3.7 S/l&96(4:41 JMyRPT/2
                                                             7-6

-------
                                                                                 8.0
                                                                     REFERENCES
 Abkowitz, M., A. Elger, and S. Srinivasan.
    1984. Estimating the Release Rates and
    Costs  of  Transporting  Hazardous
    Waste.    In    Transportation    of
    Hazardous Materials:  Planning and
    Accident  Analysis.   Transportation
    Research    Board.    Transportation
    Research Record 977.

 Adrian Brown Consultants.  1996. Lisbon
    Valley Project Hydrogeologic Investi-
    gation.  Prepared   for  Summo  USA
    Corp. (Revised) March 15.

 Air Sciences  Inc., (Air Sciences).  1995.
    Memo from  Z.  Chao  to  J.  Clark,
    WESTEC   concerning   baseline  air
    quality data. December 1.

 	.   1996.   Technical   Support
    Document for the Notice  of Intent
    Lisbon Valley Project. January.

 Alverez,  Jonnie.  1996.  Assistant,  City of
    Monticello      Police     Department.
    Pers. com.  with D.  Gaglione,    W-C.
    January 17.

 Anders,  Don.  1996.  Natural  Resource
    Conservation  Service. Monticello,  Utah.
    Pers.  com. with  C. Paulsen.   W-C.
    Februarys.

 Anonymous. 1995. The Spanish Trail Cut a
    Roundabout Path through Utah.  The
    History Blazer. June.

Averett, Richard.  1995. Superintendent of
    Schools, Grand County School District.
    School Enrollment Inventory. October 1.

23996/R3.8 5/13/96(4:43 PM>KKD2                     8-1
 Babbit, Bruce.  Secretary of the Interior.
    1994.  Memorandum re: U.S. Dept. of
    the  Interior  Environmental  Justice
    Policy, to be effective June 8, 1995.

 Bates, Bill. 1995. Utah Division of Wildlife
    Resources. Pers. com. with R. Black,
    W-C. December 5.

 Black, Kevin D., James M. Copeland, and
    Steven  M.  Horvath,  Jr.  1981.  In
    Graham 1995.

 Black,  Kevin.    1996.    Assistant   State
    Archaeologist - Colorado.  Pers.  com.
    with R. Mutaw, W-C. January 27.

 Brewer, Corky. 1996. Chief;  City of Moab
    Fire  Department. Pers.com. with D.
    Gaglione, W-C. January 17.

 Bureau of Land Management (BLM). (date
    unk.a).  Notice of Plan of Operations,
    UTU-69816. Submitted by Sindor, Inc.

 	-  (date unk.b), Notice  of Plan of
    Operations, UTU-69923.  Submitted fay
    Sindor, Inc.

 	. (date unk.c), Notice of Intention
    to Conduct Exploration,  UTU-69944.
    Submitted by Sindor, Inc.

 Bureau  of  Land  Management.   1980.
    Visual Resource Management. Visual
    Resource Management Program.

	.  1983. Grand  Resource  Area -
   Proposed Resource Management Plan
   and  Final  Environmental  Impact
   Statement. December 6.

-------
  	.   1983.   Draft  Environmental
   Impact  Statement  on the  Glenwood
   Springs Resource Management Plan.
   United  States  Department  of the
   Interior., Bureau of Land Management,
   Glenwood  Springs  Resource Area,
   Glenwood Springs, Colorado.

  	.  1985a.  Grand Resource  Area
   Resource Management Plan (includes
   Record of Decision and Final EIS).
   Moab District, Utah. July.

  	.  1985b.  Federal Prototype Oil
   Shale Tract C-a Off-Tract Lease, Draft
   Environmental   Impact   Statement.
   September.

  	.  1986a.  Decision  Record  and
   Finding of No Significant Impact, EA.
   UT-068-86-29  for   Kelmine  Corp.
   May 22.

  	.    1986.   Visual    Resource
   Management Inventory. BLM Manual
   Handbook 8410-1.
      . 1986. Visual Resource Contrast
   Rating.   BLM  Manual  Handbook
   8431-1.

  	.  1988.  National Environmental
   Policy Act  Handbook.    H-1790-1.
   BLM  Manual.   Rel.   4-1547.   25
   October.

  	. 1988a. The  1988 Revision of the
   Lower  Lisbon  and   East  Coyote
   Allotment    Management    Plan.
   February.

  	.  1989.    San  Juan  Resource
   Management  Plan.  Moab  District,
   Utah. April.
	.   1992.  Final   Environmental
 Impact  Statement,  Sanchez  Copper
 Project.   Stafford   District   Office,
 Arizona. December.

	.  1993a. Notice of Intention to
 Conduct  Exploration,  UTU-66349.
 Submitted by Kennecott Exploration.
 March 17.

	.  1993b. Notice of Intention to
 Conduct  Exploration,  UTU-69917.
 Submitted by AF. Dearth, August 11.

	.  1994.  Notice  of Intention to
 Commence  Small Mining Operations,
 UTU-72491.  Submitted by  William
 V. Harrison. November 7.

	.  1995a. Notice of Intention to
 Commence Small Business Operations,
 UTU-72491  (Amendment).  Submitted
 by William V. Harrison. January 19.

	.   1995b. Plan  of  Operations,
 UTU-72499.   Submitted by  Summo
 Minerals. August 10.

	.   1995c.   Pers. com.    by  B.
 Thompson (BLM) with P.  O'Connor,
 WESTEC concerning  Lower  Lisbon
 Allotment. October 10.

	.  1996. Table  provided by the
 Moab District Office on Feb. 12, 1996.
	.  1996a.  Preparation  Plan for
 Lisbon  Valley Project EIS.  Moab,
 Utah. Prepared  by Woodward-Clyde
 Consultants. January.

	.  1996b.   Pers.  com.  with P.
 O'Connor,    WESTEC    and   B.
 Thompson,  BLM  regarding  Lisbon
 Valley Allotment. April 9.
2399&R3.8 3/lS96(4:43EMyRFr/2
                                       8-2

-------
 	.  1996c.   Memorandum by  B.
    Thompson,  BLM  clarifying  grazing
    allotments in and around the area of
    Summo's Lisbon Valley Project.

 	.  1996d  Cortez  Pipeline  Gold
    Deposit,  Final Environmental Impact
    Statement,  Vol. 1.   Battle  Mountain
    District,  Shoshone-Eureka   Resource
    Area, Nevada. January.

 Business  &  Technical  Assistance Center
    (BTAC),   Southeastern  Utah.  1995.
    Southern Utah District Delta Update.

 BTAC Report.  1996.  (3.8.5.2)Cater, Fred
    W., Jr.  1995. The  Salt Anticlines of
    Southwestern     Colorado      and
    Southeastern Utah, in Geology of Parts
    of Paradox, Black Mesa, and San Juan
    Basins.   Presented  at  Four  Corners
    Field   Conference,   Four   Corners
    Geological Society.

 Chenoweth,  William  L.  1990.   Lisbon
    Valley, Utah's Premier Uranium Area,
    A Summary of Exploration and Ore
    Production,   Utah  Geological  and
    Mineral  Survey.  Open  File  Report.
    July.

 ConeTec. 1995. Field Report - Haztech
    Drilling, Lisbon Valley Mine.

 Cornish,  R.  1996. U.S.  Dept.  of Energy,
    Grand  Junction,  CO Uranium  Mill
    Tailings Radiation Program.  Pers. com.
    from L. Jackson, BLM, to C.  Paulsen,
    W-C. February 8.
      Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ).
         1986.  Regulations for  Implementing
         the  Procedural  Provisions  of  The
         National Environmental Policy Act. 40
         CFR  Parts  1500-1508.    Executive
         Office of the President.  Washington,
         D.C. July 1.

      Craig,   Lawrence   C.   1981.  Lower
         Cretaceous    Rocks,    Southwestern
         Colorado  and   Southeastern  Utah.
         Presented    at    Rocky   Mountain
         Association of Geologists 1981  Field
         Conference.

      Crampton, C. Gregory. 1979. In Graham
         1995.

      Curtis, Ken.  1996.  Utah  Department of
         Employment  Security Services,  Moab
         Office. Pers. com.  with D.  Gaglione,
         W-C. January 24.

     D.P. Engineering, Inc. (D.P. Engineering).
         1995.  Lisbon Valley Copper Project
        Heap  Leach Facilities Geotechnical
        Feasibility   Study  - Final Report.
        July 14.

     Dunn, Merritt.  1995. Utah Department of
        Employment  Security.  Grand County
        Utah:  Selected  Demographic.  Labor
        Market &  Economic  Characteristics.
        August.

     Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
         1974.  Information  on   Levels   of
        Environmental  Noise  Requisite   to
        Protect Human  Health and Welfare
        with an Adequate Margin of Safety.
        March.

            -  1992a.  Preliminary Assessment
                                                Keystone Pit, La Sal, Utah.  Prepared
                                                by  VRS   Consultants  and  others.
23996/R3.8 5/lS/96(4:43 PMyRFT/2
8-3

-------
   Contract
   December.
No.    68-W9-0053.
	.   1992b.   EPA  Method   1312
    Synthetic Precipitation Leach Test for
    Soils. November.

Ewart, Mark   1996.  Officer,  San  Juan
    County  Corrections . and   Sheriffs
    Department   Pers. com.   with    D.
    Gaglione, W-C. January.

Fenneman, Nevin  M. 1931. Physiography
    of  the    Western   United  States.
    McGraw-Hill, N.Y.

Frederickson, D. 1996. Utah Water Quality
    Division.   Pers. com.   with  David
    Nicholson, W-C. February 2.

Gochnour & Associates, Inc. (Gochnour).
    1995.  letter from P.  Gochnour to L.
    Jackson, BLM providing responses to
    identified BLM concerns.  September
    19.
   	.       1996.
    communications to
    April.
           Miscellaneous
        W-C.   January-
        1996a. Letter from P. Gochnour
   to   C.   Paulsen.  W-C    providing
   additional information  on the Lisbon
   Valley Project. January 5.

   	. 1996b. Pers. com. with S. Mernhz,
   W-C. January 31.

Gochnour,  P., Gochnour and  Associates.
    1996b. Memo to L. Jackson, BLM, with
   comments on the Lisbon Valley PDEIS.
   March 6.

Graham,  Carole  L.   1995a.  Cultural
   Resource Inventory of the SUMMO
   USA   Corporation  Lisbon  Valley
2399&R3.S 5/15/96(4:43 EM)/EET/2
   Copper    Project     and    69 kV
   Transmission Line, San Juan County,
   Utah.     Metcalf     Archaeological
   Consultants, Inc. Eagle, Colorado.

Graham,   Carole  L.,   Metcalf  Arch.
   Consultants. 1995b.  Pers.  com. with
   R. Mutaw, W-C. November 22.

Hamp, S., T.J. Jackson, and P.W. Dotson.
   1995.   Contaminant  distributions at
   typical U.S. uranium  milling facilities
   and their  effect  on  remedial action
   decisions. In International Conference
   on   Radiation   Protection    and
   Radioactive  Waste  Mgmt  in  the
   Mining  and  Minerals  Processing
   Industries,  Johannesburg,  So. Africa.
   February 20-24.

Hanshaw, B.B.,  and G.A. Hill.  1969.
   Geochemistry  and Hydrodynamics of
   the  Paradox  Basin  Region,  Utah,
   Colorado, and New Mexico. Chemical
   Geology, v. 4, p. 263-294.

Hunt, Charles, B. 1967. Physiography of
   the United States. W.H. Freeman and
   Company, San Francisco.

Hunt, G. 1996. Utah  Division of Oil, Gas,
   and  Mines.   Pers. com.    with   D.
   Nicholson,  W-C. January 31.

Hurlbut, C.S., and C.  Klein. 1977. Manual
   of Mineralogy.  19th Edition.  John
   Wiley and Sons, New York.

Kelsey  Engineering.   1995.  Maps  and
   "geologic    cross-sections,    Summo
   Lisbon Valley Project mine pits. June-
   July.

Runtz, D.W.,  H.J. Armstrong,  and  F.J.
   Athearn   (editors).   1989.   Faults,
                         8-4

-------
    Fossils,   and   Canyons:  Significant
    Features on Public Lands in Colorado.
    Geologic Advisory  Group, Colorado
    State   Office,   Bureau   of   Land
    Management, Denver.

 Langstan, Lecia. 1996.  Utah Department
    of Employment Security,   Salt  Lake
    City,  Utah.     Pers. com. with  D.
    Gaglione, W-C.

 LMI   Research.   1995.  Labor  Market
    Information, Second Quarter.

 Loutham,  Bruce,   BLM  Archaeologist.
    1995. Pers. com. with R. Mutaw, W-C.
    November 22.

 Loutham,  Bruce,   BLM  Archaeologist.
    1996. Pers. com. with R. Mutaw, W-C.
    January 24.

 Loutham,  Bruce,   BLM  Archaeologist.
    1996. Pers. com. with R. Mutaw, W-C.
    February 14.

 McClelland      Laboratories,      Inc.
    (McClelland). 1994.  Report on Static
    AGP/ANP Tests - Lisbon Valley Waste
    Rock Samples. September 20.

McCIure, Rich.  1996a  Natural Resource
    Specialist, Bureau of Land Management.
    Moab, Utah. Comments on Summo
    PDEIS. February 1996 version. March.

McCIure, Rich.  1996b.  Natural Resource
    Specialist, Bureau of Land Management
    Moab, Utah. Pers. com. with C. Paulsen,
    W-C. February 9.

Mefiji Resource Consultants.   1980. Visual
    Resource  Inventory  and Analysis  of
    South  Central  Utah Regional  Area
    Prepared  for U.S.  Dept. of Interior

23996/R3.8 5/15/96(4:43 EM)/KPT/2                     8-5
    Bureau of Land Management.  Moab,
    Utah. September.

 Metcalf, Mike,  Metcalf Arch.  Consultants.
    1995. Pers.  com. with R Mutaw, W-C.
    November 27.

 Metcalf, Mike,  Metcalf Arch.  Consultants.
    1996. Pers.  com. with R Mutaw, W-C.
    Aprils.

 Miller,  G.C., W.B.  Lyons,  and A. Davis.
    1996. Understanding the water quality of
    pit lakes. Envr. Science &  Technology.
    30(3):118A-122A

 Modine, Marsha.  1996. Assistant, Spanish
    Valley Water District. Pers. com. with D.
    Gaglione, W-C. January 17.

 Moten,  L.  1996.  Utah  Division   of
    Radiation Control.  Pers. com. with D.
    Nicholson, W-C. January 31.

 Multi-Agency Visitors  Center. 1995.  San
    Juan  County  Utah!  Visitors  guide
    1995-1996. Monticello, UT. 47 pp.

 Myrick, Peggy.  1996. Utah Department of
    Employment Security, Blanding, Utah.
    Pers.  com.  with D.  Gaglione, W-C.
    January 24.

National Academy  of Sciences.   1980.
    Mineral   Tolerance   of   Domestic
    Animals.  National  Research Council,
    Washington, D.C.

National Mining Association. 1995. Facts
    about Minerals.  Published by National
    Mining Association, Washington, D.C.

National   Oceanic  and   Atmospheric
    Administration    (NOAA).    1973.
    Precipitation-Frequency  Atlas of  the

-------
    Western  United States,  Volume VI,
    Utah.

	.  1992.  Climatological  Data  for
    Utah, September.

Navajo  Nation   Historic  Preservation
    Department.   1991.  Navajo  Nation
    Policy to Protect Traditional Cultural
    Properties. On file  at Navajo Nation,
    Window Rock, Arizona.

Nebecker, Clial.  1996. Pers. com. with R.
    Mutaw, W-C. April 4.

(Weil,   Brian,    Independent   Arch.
    Contractor,  Grand  Junction.  1996.
    Pers. com.  with  R.  Mutaw, W-C.
    January 27.

PacifiCorp.    1995.   Application    for
    Transportation and Utility Systems and'
    Facilities    on    Federal    Lands.
    November 6.

Paiz, C. D., and J. W.  Thackston. 1987a.
    Hydrogeologic  Units  in   Cataract
    Canyon and Vicinity - Paradox Basin,
    Utah.  In  Four Corners  Geological
    Society    Guidebook.   10th   Field
    Conference, Cataract Canyon.

	.  1987b.   Summary  of  Hydro-
    geologic   Data   and   Preliminary
    Potentiometric Maps in the Vicinity of
    Davis and lavender Canyons, Paradox
    Basin,  Utah.   In   Four   Corners
    Geological Society  Guidebook.  10th
    Field Conference, Cataract Canyon.

Permits West, Inc. 1995. Pacificorp's Plan of
    Development   for  the  Hatch-Summo
    69 kV  Poweriine.   Santa  Fe,  New
    Mexico. November 6.
2399SR3.S 5/15/96(4:43 PM)/RPT/2                     8-6
Powell, Fred.  1996.  Operations Manager,
    Utah Power and Light. Pers. com. with
    D. Gaglione, W-C. January 18.

Rasmussen, Thomas E. 1996. Staff Report:
    Results of the Paleontological Survey
   for the Proposed Lisbon Valley Copper
    Project. United  States Department of
    the Interior, BLM, Moab District, San
    Rafael Resource Area, Price, Utah.

Rodstram, Chuck. 1996. Division Manager,
    Empire  Electric.  Pers. com. with  D.
    Gaglione, W-C. January 17.

Roring, Corine. 1996. Pers. com. with R.
    Mutaw, W-C, April 4.

San Juan County Economic Development
    Plan.  1993.  U.S.   Department  of
    Agriculture, Forest Service.

Schafer,  Trent.  1996. Manager, City of
    Monticello. Pers. com. with D. Gaglione,
    W-C. January 17.

Slade,  Darrell.  1996.  Firefighter, City of
    Monticello  Fire Department.  Pers. com.
    with D. Gaglione, W-C. January 17.

Snyder, Maggie. 1996. Assistant, City of
    Moab Water District. Pers. com. with D.
    Gaglione, W-C. January 17 and 19.

Southeastern Utah  Association  of Local
    Governments (SEUAOG). 1996.  Grand
    and San Juan County Summaries.

	.    1994.    Overall    Economic
   Development Plan. July.

            1995.     Overall  Economic
   Development Plan.  Annual Update.
   Spangler, L.  1996.  U.S.  Geological
   Survey. Pers. com. with D. Nicholson,
   W-C. January 31.

-------
 Squire, Doug. 1996. Grand County Sheriff's
    Department.    Pers. com.    with   D.
    GagEone, W-C. January 17.

 Stokes, W.  1996. School and Institutional
    Trust Lands Administration represen-
    tative. Pers. com. with K. Baud, W-C,
    regarding state land management plans.
    February 14.

 _ .  1996.  School and  Institutional
    Trust Lands Administration. Salt Lake
    City, Utah. Pers. com. with C. Paulsen,
    W-C. February 9.

 Summo   USA  Corporation   (Summo).
    1995a. Proposed Plan of Operations
   far the Lisbon Valley Project. Prepared
    for the U.S. Department of Interior,
    Bureau of Land Management, Moab
    District, Grand Resource Area. August
    8.

_ .  1995b.  Memorandum from   G.
    Hahn   on   Additional    Acid-Base
    Analytical Data From  Lisbon  Valley.
    June 13.

       .  1995c.  Memorandum  from G
   Hahn     on    Acid     Generation/
   Neutralization  Potential   of  Waste
   Rock, Lisbon Valley Copper Project.
   May 22.

_ . 1995d. Letter from R. Prescott to
   L. Jackson, BLM providing responses
   to identified BLM concerns. September
   26.

_ .  1995d. Centennial Pit Geologic
   Cross  Section A-A',  J.P.  Thorson.
   December 20.

Summo USA Corporation. 1996. Identified
   list of permits which may be required at

2399SE3.8 5/15/96(4:43 PM)/KPT/2
    the Lisbon Valley Project.  Pers. com.
    from P. Gochnour to C. Paulsen, W-C.
    Januarys.

 Terres,  John  K.  1980.  The Audubon
    Society   Encyclopedia   of   North
    American   Birds.   Wings   Books.
    Random House Company. New York,
    New York.

 Thackston, J. W.,   B. L. McCulley,   and
    L. M. Preslo.   1981.   Groundwater
    Circulation  in the  Western Paradox
    Basin, Utah.  In   Rocky Mountain
    Association of Geologists - 1981 Field
    Conference.

Thompson, Bill. 1995. Bureau of Land
    Management,      Moab,      Utah.
    Pers.  com. with    R.    Black,   W-C.
    November 27.

Thorson,  J.P.  .   1996a.  Letter  from
    J.P. Thorson    to   P.    Gochnour
    (Gochnour  &    Associates,   Inc.)
    providing an evaluation of the potential
    for      discovering       additional
    mineralization  in  the  area  of  the
    Summo  Minerals   Lisbon   Valley
   Project. January 10.

        1996b.  Letter from JJP. Thorson
   to  P.   Gochnour  (Gochnour  &
   Associates, Inc.) providing an estimate
   of volume and tonnage  of coaly waste
   material. January 10.

         . 1996b. Letter to Gochnour and
                                                Associates regarding Lisbon  Valley,
                                                Utah uranium occurrences. January 29.

                                            Trimble,  Stephen.  1989. The  Sagebrush
                                                Ocean  -  A Natural History  of the
                                                Great  Basin.  University  of Nevada
                                                Press.
                                       8-7

-------
Twitchel, Anne.  1996.  Assistant, City of
   Moab  Police  Department.  Pers. com.
   with D. Gaglione, W-C. January 17.

U.S.  Department  of  Agriculture,   Soil
   Conservation Service (USDA, SCSO.
   1991.   Soil Survey  of Canyonlands
   Area, Utah, Parts of Grand and  San
   Juan Counties. January.

United States  Department of Agriculture
   (USDA) Forest Service.  1979.  User
   Guide   to   Soils.   Mining    and
   Reclamation  in  the West.   General
   Technical Report. INT-68.

U.S. Fish and  Wildlife  Service (USFWS).
   1989.   Black-footed  Ferret  Survey
   Guidelines    for   Compliance   with
   Endangered  Species  Act.  Denver,
   Colorado  and   Albuquerque,   New
   Mexico.

U.S.  Geological Survey.  1992.   USGS
   Water  Supply  Paper.  Volume  2,
   Colorado River Basin.

Utah Department of Environmental Quality
   (DEQ).  1993. (3.2.2.3)

Utah Department of Environmental Quality
   (DEQ). 1994. Standards of Quality for
   Waters    of   the   State,    Utah
   Administrative Code R309-103,  April
   2, 1993.

Utah Department of Environment Quality
   (DEQ),  Division  of Water Quality.
    1995.     Administrative   Rules  for
   Groundwater   Quality    Protection.
   R317-6, Utah  Administrative  Code.
   March 20.

Utah Econ and Demographic Projections.
    1994. (3.8.3)

       S/lS96(4:43I>M)/RPT/2
    Utah   Department   of   Transportation
       (UDOT). 1995. Unpublished traffic and
       accident data  for  the  years   1983
       through 1994. December.

    Utah  Governor's Office of Planning and
       Budget.     1994.    State  of  Utah
       Economic     and      Demographic
       Projections. September.

    Valentine,   John   F.     1980.   Range
       Development   and   Improvements.
       Brigham  Young  University   Press.
       Provo, Utah.

    Van Hemert, Alex. 1996. Bureau of Land
       Management. Moab, Utah. Pers. com.
       with C. Paulsen, W-C. February 9.

    Walker, Rita.  1996.  City  of Monticello.
       Pers.com.  with D.  Gaglione,   W-C.
       January 24.

    Weir, Gordon W., and Puffett, Willard, P.
        1981.   Incomplete   Manuscript  on
        Stratigraphy and Structural Geology
        and Uranium-Vanadium  and Copper
       Deposits of the Lisbon  Valley  Area,
       Utah-Colorado. US Geological Survey,
        Open File Report 81-39.

    Welsh, J.D. and Associates, in Association
        with Shepard Miller Inc. And hydro
        Triad Ltd.  1996 Lisbon Valley Project
        Heap Leach Facility  Design Report.
        Prepared     for     Summo    USA
        Corporation.    February.    Revised
        March 1996.

    West, N.E.  1988.  Intermountam Deserts,
        Shrub Steppes,  and Woodlands.  In:
        North American Terrestrial Vegetation.
        Cambridge University Press.
8-8

-------
 WESTEC, Inc. (WESTEC).  1995a. Letter
    from P. O'Connor to L. Jackson, BLM
    identifying  alternatives for the EIS.
    December 12.

 Williams, R.D.  1996.   Field Supervisor.
    U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Letter
    to L. Siebert, BLM, Moab, re: black-
    footed ferret surveys. February 1.

 Woodward-Clyde   Consultants   (W-C).
    1996. Lisbon  Valley  Draft Interim
    Biological Resource Report. Prepared
    for BLM. Moab, Utah. January.

 	.  1996.  Analytical  Results for
    Groundwater and  Surface   Water
    Sampling Conducted During  Fourth
    Quarter, 1995, Lisbon Valley Copper
    Project,  San Juan  County,   Utah.
    Prepared     for     Summo    USA
    Corporation. January 26.

	- 1995a. Hydrologic Environmental
    Baseline Evaluation, Lisbon  Valley
    Copper Project,  San  Juan County,
    Utah.  Prepared  for  Summo  USA
    Corporation. February.

      _.  l995b. Analytical  Results for
   Groundwater  Sampling  Conducted
   During First Quarter,  1995, Lisbon
   Valley  Copper  Project,  San  Juan
   County, Utah. Prepared  for  Summo
   USA Corporation. July 11.

      _.  1995c.  Analytical  Results for
   Groundwater  Sampling   Conducted
   During Second Quarter, 1995, Lisbon
   Valley Copper  Project,   San  Juan
   County,  Utah. Prepared for  Summo
   USA Corporation. August 22.

      -   1995d.  Analytical Results for
   Groundwater   and  Surface   Water
                                                Sampling  Conducted During  Third
                                                Quarter, 1995, Lisbon Valley Copper
                                                Project,  San  Juan  County,   Utah.
                                                Prepared    for    Summo    USA
                                                Corporation. November 1.

                                                  _. 1995e. Results  of Single Well
                                                Aquifer Pumping Tests, Lisbon Valley
                                                Copper  Project, San Juan County,
                                                Utah. Prepared for  Summo  USA
                                                Corporation. June 21.

                                                  _.  1995f. Preliminary Groundwater
                                                Flow  Modeling   to   Support  Pit
                                                Dewatering   and   Water   Supply
                                                Planning,   Lisbon   Valley  Copper
                                                Project.  Prepared for  Summo USA
                                                Corporation. August.

                                              	. 1994. Flora and Fauna Baseline
                                                Data for Lisbon Valley, Utah - Draft
                                                Report.  Prepared   for   St.   Mary
                                                Minerals,   Inc.,   Denver,   Colorado
                                                W-C. June.

                                              	-  1994.  Baseline  Soils Report
                                                Lisbon Valley Copper Project, Lisbon
                                                Valley  Utah. Prepared for St.  Mary
                                                Minerals, Inc. August.

                                                  _. 1982. Geologic Characterization
                                               Report for the Paradox Basin Study
                                               Region  Utah  Study  Areas,  Vol. IV
                                               Lisbon Valley.  Prepared  for  Battelle
                                               Memorial  Institute Office of  Nuclear
                                               Waste Isolation. January.

                                            Younker, Gordon L., John E.  Swenson,
                                               and Chris Anderson. 1990.  Extensive
                                               Riparian Area Study,  Moab District,
                                               Utah. Prepared by AAA Engineering
                                               and  Drafting,  Inc.   for   BLM  in
                                               fulfillment  of Contract No. YA651-
                                               CT9-340082.
23990R3.8 5/15/96(4:43 PMyRPT/2
                                      8-9

-------
r
                        Zablan, M. 1996. U.S.  Fish and Wildlife
                            Service.  Pers. com.  with  R. Black,
                            W-C. January 11.

                        Zufelt,  Robert.   1996.  Division  Manager,
                            Utah Gas and Service. Pers. com.  with
                            D. Gaglione, W-C. January 17.
                        2399S/R3.S 5/75/96(4:43 PM)/RPT/2
                                                                  8-10
     3J*

-------
                                                                                 9.0
                                                                             INDEX
 Affected Environment: 3-1
 Agency Preferred Alternative: 2-45
 Air Emission Controls: 2-36
. Air Quality: 3-81, 4-79, 4-90, 4-91, 4-93, 4-94
 Alternatives: 2-41
 Alternatives Analyzed in Detail:  1 -9
 Alternatives Considered and Eliminated:  1-10
 Authorizing Actions:  1-4

 Climate: 3-79, 4-79, 4-90, 4-91, 4-93, 4-94
 Copper Development: 3-12
 Crushing Activities: 2-7
 Cultural Resources: 3-66,4-71,4-89,4-91,4-92,4-94
 Cumulative Impacts: 4-87

 Economic Conditions: 3-53
 Electrical Power: 2-29
 Environmental Consequences: 4-1
 EPA Method 1312 - Synthetic Precipitation Leach Test: 3-33

 Facilities and Services: 3-58
 Facility Layout Alternative: 4-4, 4-25, 4-28, 4-35, 4-41, 4-45, 4-50, 4-59, 4-63, 4-71, 4-75,
       4-77, 4-84, 4-85, 4-87
 Facility Layout Alternative (BLM Preferred Alternative):  2-42
 Features Common to All Alternatives: 2-44

 Geochemistry:  3-31,4-26,4-89,4-91,4-90,4-93
 Geologic Resources: 3-2,4-89, 4-90, 4-92,4-93
 Geologic Setting: 3-1
 Geology and Geotechnical Issues : 3-1,4-1
 Geotechnical Considerations: 3-7
 Grazing: 3-48,4-46,4-88,4-89,4-91,4-92,4-93
 Ground-water Resources: 3-18

 Hazardous Materials:  3-65,4-64, 4-89, 4-91, 4-92, 4-93
 Highways and Local Roads: 3-61
 Historic Mining Operations: 3-66
 Housing: 3-57
 Hydrology: 3-14,4-5,4-89,4-91,4-93,4-94
                                        9-1

-------
Irreversible or Irretrievable Resource Commitments: 4-93
Issues and Concerns Analyzed: 1-12
Issues Considered But Not Analyzed:  1-15

Land Use: 3-77, 4-77, 4-90, 4-91, 4-93, 4-94
Land Use Resources: 3-77
Leach Tests: 3-33

Methodology:  4-1, 4-5, 4-26, 4-29,  4-36, 4-41, 4-46, 4-51, 4-59, 4-64, 4-71, 4-75, 4-77,
       4-79, 4-84, 4-85
Mining Activities:  2-2

No Action Alternative:  2-41, 4-3, 4-23, 4-27, 4-34, 4-40, 4-45, 4-49, 4-59, 4-62, 4-71, 4-74,
       4-76, 4-78, 4-82, 4-84, 4-87
Noise: 3-84,4-84

Oil and Gas Development: 3-66
Open Pit Backfilling Alternative:  2-41, 4-4, 4-24, 4-27, 4-35, 4-40, 4-45, 4-49, 4-59, 4-63,
       4-71,4-75, 4-77, 4-78,4-82, 4-85,4-87

Paleontological Resources:  3-73, 4-71, 4-89, 4-91, 4-92, 4-94
Population:  3-56
Processing Activities: 2-10
Proposed  Action:  2-1, 4-1, 4-6, 4-26, 4-30, 4-36, 4-41, 4-46, 4-51, 4-59, 4-67, 4-72, 4-75,
       4-78,4-79, 4-84, 4-86
Public Involvement and Scoping Issues:  1 -9
Purpose and Need:  1-4

Reclamation/Closure: 2-37, 3-34, 3-40, 4-32
Records Review and Agencies Contacted (Hazardous Materials):  3-65
Recreational Resources:  3-84, 4-85

Scoping Issues: 1-9
Short-Term Uses Vs. Long-Term Productivity: 4-92
Social Conditions and Quality of Life:  3-60
Socioeconomics:  3-52, 4-51,4^89, 4-91, 4-93
Soils: 3-34, 4-89, 4-90, 4-92,4-93
Soils and Reclamation: 3-34, 4-29
Special Status Species: 3-45,3-46
Static Test Analyses: 3-32
Summary of Environmental Impacts from Each Alternative Analyzed: 2-45
Support Facilities:  2-24
Surface Water Resources: 3-14
                                        9-2

-------
 Threatened and Endangered Species (see Special Status Species)
 Transportation:  2-35, 3-61, 4-59, 4-89, 4-91, 4-92, 4-93

 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts: 4-90
 Uranium Mining: 3-2, 3-7, 3-30, 4-18

 Vegetation: 3-40, 4-36, 4-89, 4-91, 4-92, 4-94
 Visual Resources: 3-73, 4-75, 4-89, 4-91, 4-92, 4-94

 Waste Management: 2-34
 Waste Rock Selective Handling Alternative: 4-4, 4-25, 4-28, 4-35 4-41  4-46  4-51  4.59
        4-63,4-71,4-75,4-77,4-84,4-85,4-87                   '
 Water Supply: 2-28
 Wildlife: 3-45, 4-41, 4-89, 4-91, 4-92, 4-93
 Work Force: 2-29
2399SK35 #16/96(12:44 PMVRFT/4
9-3

-------

-------
                                                                 APPENDIX A
                               LISBON VALLEY PROJECT UNPATENTED CLAIMS
2399fflR3.TS 5/16/96(1 :S7PM)/EPr/3

-------

  	il	liLl	|;	
  	11	Hi;	!	!"


       ii i i 'Urn iiii ii • 'i
       i ....... i ..... iii ! i  I I
       i^-^m'M'&WB
                                          ^-^m''&WB^iii^ ...... ill: ..... ii

                                     ^^i^i^i^^^i^^i^^^i^i^i^i^^^i^i^i^^^i^i^^i^j^^K^^^^^^^^^^^
                                     JdiA^^^^^^^	iliW
                                           	SM

                                                                       	
                                    J'!!'.'	','" ,;	Jili "| i Mi 'I	'I"1'.',I , i 411.1 f. IIP IP 111 IINM, i ,,,ll|ill i i,,, HI . .U y,1 »|| "!|| ill'in.I ' IN J hi L i1 .Hi' I1'".. .""I'1!1"!'!111,,"" ,.  I 11. '', 11" " I. " "l ...'.'I, I1 "l ! MI ' •'."!"..Nil '' T I '  I' 'III1 ' ' "'I Ii.. J 1 f'l'  	
^^^^^^H^^^^M^^



H*	PW**i
il vi'«Mt	I	il	*	:-!	•	ir	tr ii}!' I	!| ll-iii-iii	iiiljHi	•	|	i

              0ifel	ISi'il	IkWMm	

! ,,, !|"l,f. I'*']


                                                                                             .	



                    	i!£	:::	ill	j	l:i	ii	I!	


                                                     m	-	i	ufcrnHa	'
                                                    'iv-i

                                                                     w
                                           ^


-------
                                                                       APPENDIX A
                                  OSBON VALLEY PROJECT UNPATENTED CLAIMS
                      Unpatented claims situate in San Juan County, Utah
                         Township 30 South, Ranges 25 and 26 East
                          and Township 31 South, Range 26 East
 Claim Name

 Camel
  Amended
 Cat
  Amended
 Colt
  Amended
 Cougar
  Amended
 Cow
  Amended
 Coyote
  Amended
 Cub
  Amended
 Sentinal 1
  Amended
 Sentinal 2
  Amended
 Sentinal 3
  Amended
 Sentinal 4
  Amended
 Sentinal 5
  Amended
 Sentinal 6
  Amended
 Sentinal?
  Amended
 Sentinal 8
  Amended
 Sentinal 9
 Amended
 Sentinal 10
Amended
 Book/Page

  25/453
    231/261
  25/454
    231/262
  25/455
    231/263
  25/455
    231/263
  25/454
    231/262
  25/456
    231/264
 25/456
    231/264
  47/44
    231/256
 47/45
    231/257
 47/45
    231/257
 47/46
    231/258
 47/46
     231/258
 47/47
     231/259
 47/47
     231/259
 47/48
     231/260
 47/48
     231/260
47/4
     231/261
 Twn/Rge/Sec

 30S/25E/25,26

 30S/25E/25,26

 30S/25E/25,26

 30S/25E/25,26,35

 30S/25E/25,26

 30S/25E/35

 30S/25E/35

 30S/25E/25

 30S/25E/25

 30S/25E/25

 30S/25E/25,26

 30S/25E/25

 30S/25E/25,26

 30S/25E/25

30S/25E/25,26

30S/25E/25

30S/25E/25,26
BLM Serial No.
      UMC

   129728

   129729

   129730

   129731

   129732

   129733

   129734

   129718

   129719

   129720

   129721

   129722

   129723

   129724

   129725

   129726

   129727
23996/R3JEXA. 5/16/96(10:35 AMyRPT
                 A-l

-------
Claim Name

Climax 1
 Amended
 Amended
Climax 2
 Amended
 Amended
Alpha 1
Alpha 2
Alphas
Alpha 4
Alphas
Alpha 6
Alpha?
AlphaS
CW1
CW2
CW3
CW4
CW5
CW6
CW7
CW8
CW9
CW10
CW11
CW12
 Amended
CW13
CW14
CW15
CW16
CW19
 Amended
CW22
KWR1
KWR2
KWR3
KWR4
KWR5
KWR6
KWR7
KWR8
Book/Page

 R2/382
    41/229
    487/186
 R2/382
    41/230
    487/186
270/83
270/83
270/84
270/84
270/85
270/85
270/86
270/86
510/62
510/63
 510/64
510/65
510/66
510/67
510/68
510/69
510/70
510/71
510/72
510/73
    521/9
510/74
510/75
511/596
511/597
511/598
    521/8
511/599
487/130
487/131
487/132
487/133
487/134
487/135
487/136
487/137
Twn/Rge/Sec

30S/25E/25


30S/25E/25
30S/25E/25
30S/25E/25
30S/25E/25
30S/25E/25
30S/25E/25
30S/25E/25
30S/25E/25
30S/25E/25
30S/25E/25,26,35
30S/25E/25
30S/25E/25,26
30S/25E/25
30S/25E/25
30S/25E/25,26
30S/25E/25
30S/25E/25
30S/25E/25
30S/25E/25
30S/25E/25
30S/25E/25

30S/25E/25
30S/25E/25,26
30S/25E/25
30S/25E/25
30S/25E/25

30S/25E/24,25
30S/25E/26
30S/25E/26
30S/25E/26
30S/25E/26
30S/25E/26
30S/25E/26
30S/25E/26
30S/25E/26
BOM Serial No.
    T3MC

  129763
  129764
  129765
  129766
  129767
  129768
  129769
  129770
  129771
  129772
  129811
  129812
  129813
  129814
  129815
  129816
  129817
  129818
  129819
  129820
  129821
  129822

  129823
  129824
  129825
  129826
  129827

  129828
  129789
  129790
  129791
  129792
  129793
  129794
  129795
  129796
2399&R3SXA S/16»6(10-35 AM)/KPT
                                     A-2

-------
  Claim Name
Book/Page
KWR 9 Fraction
KWR10
KWR 11 Fraction
KWR 11 Fraction
KWR 12 Fraction
KWR 13 Fraction
G.M. Wallace
Fraction (Amended)
NuZuni45
NuZuni46
NuZuni47
Oxide 1
Oxide 2
Oxide 3
Oxide 4
Oxide5
Oxide 6
Oxide Fraction
CWG Fraction
CWG Fraction 1
CWG Fraction 2
GDI
CD 2 Fraction
CD 3 Fraction
CD 4 Fraction
CD 5 Fraction
CD 6 Fraction.
CD 7 A Amended
CD8A
CD 9 A Amended
CD 10A Amended
Globe 1
Amended
Globe 2
Amended
'Globe 9
Amended
Globe 10
Amended
Security 3
Security 5
501/345
501/346
501/347
521/469
501/348
501/349
484/636
487/129
707/500
707/501
707/502
707/734
707/735
705/119
• 705/120
705/121
705/122
708/345
517/275
517/276
517/277
509/508
509/509
509/510
509/511
509/512
509/550
724/350
722/134
724/352
724/354
486/16
489/392
486/17
489/393
486/24
489/400
486/25
489/401
377/402
377/403
                                               Twn/Rge/Sec

                                               30S/25E/26
                                               30S/25E/23,26
                                               30S/25E/25
                                               30S/25E/25
                                               30S/25E/25
                                               30S/25E/25
                                               30S/25E/25

                                               30S/25E/35
                                               30S/25E/35
                                               30S/25E/35
                                               30S/25E/23,26
                                               30S/25E/23,26
                                               30S/25E/23
                                               30S/25E/23,26
                                               30S/25E/23
                                               30S/25E/23,26
                                               30S/25E/23,26
                                               30S/25E/26
                                               30S/25E/26
                                               30S/25E/26
                                               30S/25E/25,26
                                               30S/25E/25
                                              30S/25E/25,36
                                              30S/25E/25,36
                                              30S/26E/30,31
                                              30S/25E/25

                                              30S/25E/25
                                              30S/25E/25
                                              30S/25E/25
                                              30S/25E/25
                                              30S/25E/26

                                              30S/25E/26

                                              30S/25E/23

                                              30S/25E/23,26

                                              30S/26E/31
                                              30S/26E/31
BLM Serial No.
     UMC

   129797
   129798
   129799
   129802
   129800
   129801
   129829

  330150
  330151
  330152
  327776
  327777   •
  327778
  327779
  327780
  327781
  331632
  129786
  129787
  129788
  129773
  129774
  129775
  129776

  129777
  129737
 349339
 349340
 349341
 349342
 129782

 129783

 129784

 129785

 140827
 140607
23996/R3.EXA 5/16/96(10:48 AMyRPT
                A-3

-------
Palm Name

Security?
Security 9
Security 11
Security 14
Security 15
Security 16
Security 18
Security 19
Security 20
Security 25
Security 26
Security 27
Security 28
Security 29
Security 30
SecuritySl
Security 32
Security 33
Security 34
Security 35
Security 36
Security 37
Security 38
Security 39
Security 40
Security 41
Security 42
Security 43
Security 44
Security 45
Security 46
Security 47
Security 48
Security 49
Security 50
SecuritySl
Security 52
Security 53
Security 54
Security 55
Security 56
Book/Page

 377/404
 377/405
 377/406
 377/407
 377/408
 377/409
 377/410
 377/411
 377/412
 377/413
 377/414
 377/415
 377/416
 377/417
 377/418
 377/419
 377/420
 377/421
 377/422
 377/423
 377/424
 377/425
 377/426
 377/427
 377/428
 377/429
 377/430
 377/431
 377/432
 377/433
 377/434
 377/435
 377/436
 378/341
 378/342
 378/343
 378/344
 378/345
 378/346
 378/347
 378/348
Twn/Rge/Sec

30S/26E/31
30S/26E/31
30S/26E/31
31S/26E/6
31S/26E/6
31S/26E/6
31S/26E/6
31S/26E/6
31S/26E/6
31S/26E/6
31S/26E/5,6
30S/26E/31
30S/26E/31
30S/26E/31
30S/26E/31
30S/26E/31
30S/26E/31
30S/26E/31
30S/26E/31
30S/26E/31
30S/26E/31
30S/26E/31
30S/26E/31
30S/26E/31
30S/26E/31
30S/26E/31
30S/26E/31
30S/26E/31
30S/26E/31
30S/26E/31
30S/26E/31
30S/26E/31
30S/26E/31
30S/26E/31
30S/26E/31
30S/26E/31
30S/26E/31
30S/26E/31
30S/26E/31
30S/26E/31
30S/26E/31
BLM Serial No.
      UMC

   140608
   140609
   140610
   140611
   140612   -
   140613
   140614
   140615
   140616
   140617
   140618
   140619
   140620
   140621
   140622
   140623
   140624
   140625
   140626
   140627
   140628
   140629
   140630
   140631
   140632
   140633
   140634
   140635
   140636
   140637
   140638
   140639
   140640
   140641
   140642
   140643
   140644
   140645
   140646
   140647
   140648
23996SSSCA. 5/16*6(10:35 AMVRFr
                                     A-4

-------
  Claim Name
Book/Page
STEP 1
STEP 2
STEP 4
STEP 5
STEP 6
STEP 7
STEP 8
STEP 9
STEP 10
STEP 11
STEP 12
STEP 13
STEP 14
STEP 15
STEP 16
STEP 17
STEP 18
STEP 19
STEP 20
STEP 21
STEP 22
STEP 23
STEP 24
STEP 25
STEP 26
STEP 27
STEP.28
STEP 29
STEP 30
STEP 31
STEP 32
STEP 33
STEP 34
RP21
RP22
RP23
RP24
RP28
RP29
RP30
RP31
733 470
733 472
733 476
733 478
733 480
733 482
733 484
733 486
733 488
733 490
733 492
733 494
733 496
733 498
733 500
733 502
733 504
733 506
733 508
733 510
733 512
733 514
733 516
733 518
733 520
733 522
733 524
733 526
733 528
733 530
733 532
733 534
733 536
733 305
733 306
733 307
733 308
733 309
733 310
733 311
733 312
                                              Twn/Rge/Sec

                                              30S/25E/27
                                              30S/25E/27
                                              30S/25E/27
                                              30S/25E/27
                                              30S/25E/27
                                              30S/25E/27
                                              30S/25E/27
                                              30S/25E/27
                                              30S/25E/27
                                              30S/25E/27
                                              30S/25E/27
                                              30S/25E/27
                                              30S/25E/27
                                              30S/25E/27
                                              30S/25E/27
                                              30S/25E/27
                                              30S/25E/27
                                              30S/25E/27&34
                                              30S/25E/27&34
                                              30S/2SE/27&34
                                              30S/25E/27&34
                                              30S/2SE/27&34
                                              30S/25E/27&34
                                              30S/25E/27&34
                                              30S/25E/27&34
                                              30S/25E/27,28,
                                                     33&34
                                              30S/25E/35
                                              30S/25E/35
                                              30S/25E/35
                                             30S/25E/35
                                             30S/25E/35
                                             30S/25E/35
                                             30S/25E/35/36
                                             30S/26E/30
                                             30S/26E/30
                                             30S/26E/30
                                             30S/26E/30
                                             30S/26E/30
                                             30S/26E/30
                                             30S/26E/30
                                             30S/26E/30
BIM Serial No.
      UMC

   354577
   354579
   354580
   354581
   354582
   354583
   354584
   354585
   354586
   354587
   354588
   354589
   354590
   354591
   354592
   354593
   354594
   354595
   354596
   354597
   354598
   354599
   354600
   354601
   354602
   354603

   354604
   354605
   354606
   354607
   354608
  354609
  354610
  354543
  354544
  354545
  354546
  354547
  354548
  354549
  354550
23996/R3.EXA 5/16/96(1035 AMXRPT
                A-5

-------
Claim Name
Book/Page
JRP32
RP33
RP36
RP37
RP38
KP39
RP40
RP41
RP42
KP46
RP47
KP48
KP49
RP50
KP51
RP52
RP53
RP54
RP58
KP59
RP60
RP61
RP66
RP67
RP74
KP75
Lady Buffi
Lady Buff 2
Lady Buff 3
Lady Buff 4
Lady Buff 5
Lady Buff 6
Lady Buff 7
Lady Buff 8
733 313
733 314
733 315
733 316
733 317
733 318
733 319
733 320
733 321
733 322
733 323
733 324
733 325
733 326
733 327
733 328
733 329
733 330
733 331
733 332
733 333
733 334
733 335
733 336
733 337
733 338
743 306
743 309
743 312
743 315
743 318
743 321
743 324
743 327
Twn/Rge/Sec

30S/26E/30
30S/26E/30
30S/26E/30
30S/25E/25
30S/26E/30
30S/25E/25
30S/26E/30
30S/25E/25
30S/26E/30
30S/25E/25
30S/26E/30
30S/25E/25
30S/26E/30
30S/25E/25
30S/26E/30
30S/25E/25
30S/25E/24&25
30S/25E/25
30S/25E/25
30S/25E/25
30S/25E/25
30S/25E/2S
30S/25E/25
30S/25E/25
30S/25E/25
30S/25E/24
30S/25E/24&25
30S/25E/25
30S/25E/25
30S/25E/24
30S/25E/24&25
30S/25E/23&24
30S/25E/23,24
    25,26
30S/25E/26
30S/25E/26
30S/25E/23,26
30S/25E/23,26
30S/25E/23
30S/25E/22,23,26
30S/25E/23
30S/25E/22,23
BLM Serial No.
     UMC

  354551
  354552'
  354553

  354554

  354555

  354556

  354557

  354558

  354559

  354560
  354561
  354562
  354563
  354564
  354565
  354566
  354567
  354568
  354569
  354570
  354571
  354572
  354573
  354574
  354575
  354576

  356889
  356890
  356891
  356892
  356893
  356894
  356895
  356896
                                    A-6

-------
 Claim Name

 Lady Buff 9
 Lady Buff 10
 Lady Buff 11
 Lady Buff 12
 Lady Buff 13
 GKS1
 GKS2
 GKS3
 GKS4
 GKS5
 GKS6
 GKS7
 GKS8
 GKS9
 GKS10
 GKS11
 GKS12
 GKS13
 GKS14
 GKS15
 GKS 16
 GKS17
 GKS 18
 GKS 19
 GKS 20
 GKS 21
 GKS 22
 GKS 23
 GKS 24
 GKS 25
 GKS 26
 GKS 27
 GKS 28
 GKS 29
 GKS 30
 GKS 31
 GKS 32
 GKS 33
 GKS 34
 GKS 35
 GKS 36
Book/Page

743   330
743   333
743 336
743 339
743 342
Twn/Rge/Sfec

30S/25E/23
30S/25E/22,23
30S/25E/23
30S/25E/22,23
30S/25E/22,23
BUM Serial No.
    UMC

  356897
  356898
  356899
  356900
  356901
23996/fc.EXA 5/16/96(10:35 AM)/RPT
              A-7

-------
r
                Claim Name

                GKS37
                GKS38
                GKS39
                GKS40
                GKS41
                GKS42
                GKS43
                GKS44
                GKS45
                GKS46
                GKS47
Book/Page
Twn/Rge/Sec
BLM Serial No.
    TJMC
                Source:  Summo(1995)
                2399SR3£XA 5/16/96(10:35 AMyRPT
                                                 A-8
   120

-------
                                                                    APPENDIX B
                                                          STATIC TEST BESULTS
2399fiCR3.TS S/lfi/96(l:57EM)/KI>r/3

-------
1	;	i	:	



                                                                                       iiii	 I
                                               vii:"i ,(>!>. "i;!1;! i;;1
                                                                                                                   msmi	f	i
 i-a
	: I" iflii#iJ  , I'"1:'1' nili1:!1.ft !

  ti:  :   ;.	lll'siri
  's;
                                                                                                     !'"if'	^1t?iirf«^.7*::BTrrH	
                                                                                                 	I




                                                                             ii



-------
           TABLE B-l




STATIC TEST RESULTS BY ROCK TYPE
SAMPLE
93-C1
93-C1
93-C1
93-C1
93-C1
93-CI
93-C2
93-C41
93-C4\
93-C51
93-C51
93-C51
93R21
93R2
93R2
93R21
93R21
93R21
93R21
93R21
93R4
93R4
93R4
93R4 ~
93R4
93R61
93R61
93R61
93R61
93R6
2399&R3J
DEPTH
(ft)
19
21
30.5
35.5
44.5
46.5
17
13
24
22
27
34
20-40
40-60
60-80 '
140-160
160-180
180-200
200-220
220-240
40-60
60-80
80-100
100-120
120-140
5-20
20-40
40-60
60-80
80-100
B 5/lS96(t43PMyR]
ROCK
TYPE
LS/MS
MS
MS
LS/SLST
SLST/MS
LS
SLST/SH
COAL
SS/SH
COAL
SS(?)
SB/MS
COAL
SS
SS
SS/MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
COAL
COAL/SS
SS
SS
SS
PI74

TOTAL
• 0.032
0.028
0.016
0.016
0.088
0.018
0.018
0.600
0.630
0.900
4.150
0.750
0.320
0.360
0.190
0.110
0.032
0.045
0.049
0.054
0.021
0.037
0.029
0.025
0.031
0.540
0.620
0.380
0.530
0.700

SULFUR (%)
SULFEDE
O.001
0.002
O.001
0.002
0.008
0.006
0.002
0.510
0.520
0.620
3.900
0.665
0.180
0.200
0.070
0.025
0.002
0.003
0.004
0.003
0.001
0.003
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.370
0.563
0.240
0.310
0.310
B-l

SULFATE
0.032
0.026
0.016
0.014
0.080
0.012
0.016
0.090
0.110
0.280
0.250
0.085
0.140
0.160
0.120
0.085
0.030
0.042
0.045
0.051
0.020
0.034
0.028
0.024
0.030
0.170
0.057
0.140
0.220
0.390

AGP
TO
O.03
0.06
O.03
0.06
0.25
0.19
0.06
15.94
16.25
19.38
121.88
20.78
5.63
6.25
2.19
0.78
0.06
0.09
0.13
0.09
0.03
0.09
0.03
0.03
0.03
11.56
17.59
7.50
9.69
9.69

ANP
INS CaCO
392
303
8.7
181
4.4
757
4.4
O.5
5.1
O.5
O.5
O.5-
O.5
9.3
22.8
O.5
0.5
O.5
O.5
O.5
160
200
300
315
300
O.5
O.5
6
3.8
20.1

NNP
'sfla2
+392
+302.9
+8.7
+180.9
+4.1
+756.8
+4.3
-15.4
-11.2
-18.9
-121.4
-20.3
-5.6
3.1
20.6
-0.8
-0.1
-0.1
-0.1
-0.1
160.0
199.9
300.0
315.0
300.0
-11.6
-17.6
-1.5
-5.9
10.4

ANP:AGP
(sulfidic
sulfur) )
>13,000
5,050
>290
3,017
17.6
3,984
73
0.03
0.3)
0.03
O.004
O.02
O.09
1.49
10.4
0.64
<8.00
<5.33
<4.00
<5.33
5,120
2,133
9,600
10,080
9,600
O.04
O.03
0.80
0.39
2.07


-------
                TABLE B-l
STATIC TEST RESULTS BY ROCK TYPE (Continued)
SAMPLE
93R6
93R6
93R6
93R6
93R6
93R6
93R6
93R6
93R71
93R71
93R71
93R7
93R7
93R7
93R7
93R7
93R7
93R7
93R7
93R7
93R12
93R12
93R12
93R12
93R12
93R12
93R12
93R12
93R17
DEPTH
(ft)
140-160
160-180
180-200
200-220
220-240
240-260
260-280
280-300
5-20
20-40
40-60
60-80
80-100
100-120
120-140
140-160
160-180
180-200
200-220
220-240
5-20
20-40
40-60
60-80
80-100
100-120
120-140
140-160
5-20
ROCK
TYPE
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
SS
SS/COAL
COAL/SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS/SS
SS
SS
SS
SS/MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
COAL

TOTAL
0.330
0.060
0.110
0.052
0.029
0.040
0.042
0.037
0.048
0.190
0.720
0.250
0.140
0.150
0.074
0.078
0.044
0.100
0.074
0.210
0.030
0.040
0.018
0.018
0.046
0.034
0.082
0.150
0.160
SULFUR (%)
SULEIDE
0.130
0.001
0.021
0.001
<0.001
0.002
0.002
0.001
0.008
0.010
0.390
0.080
0.030
0.020
0.002
0.004
0.002
0.004
O.001
0.050
0.002
0.001
0.002
0.003
0.001
<0.001
0.001
<0.001
O.001

SULFATE
0.200
0.059
0.089
0.051
0.029
0.038
0.040
0.036
0.040
0.180
0.330
0.170
0.110
0.130
0.072
0.074
0.042
0.096
0.074
0.160
0.028
0.039
0.016
0.015
0.045
0.034
0.081
0.150
0.160
AGP
ANP
NNP
ANP:A<
(sulfid
sulfur]
TONS CaCOa/Kt2
4.06
0.03
0.66
0.03
<0.03
0.06
0.06
0.03
0.25
0.31
12.19
2.50
0.94
0.62
0.06
0.13
0.06
0.13
<0.03
1.56 .
0.06
0.03
0.06
0.09
0.03
<0.03
0.03
<0.03
<0.03
76
87.1
98.7
270
370
345
275
370
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
8.5
19
150
105
125
125
400
425
245
12.6
37.7
11.9
67.6
100
395
410
305
28.7
71.9
87.1
98.0
270.0
370.0
344.9
274.9
370.0
-0.2
-0.3
-12.2
6.0
18.1
149.4
104.9
124.9
124.9
399.9
425.0
243.4
12.5
37.7
11.8
67.5
100.0
395.0
410.0
305.0
28.7
18.7
2,787
150
8,640
>12,333
5,520
4,400
11,840
<2.00
<1.60
<0.04
3.40
20.3
240
1,680
1,000
2,000
3,200
>14,167
157
202
1,206
190
721
3,200
>13,167
13,120
>10,167
>957
                   B-2

-------
                                TABLE B-l
             STATIC TEST RESULTS BY ROCK TYPE (Continued)
SAMPUE
93R17
93RI7 .
93R17
93R17
93R17
93R17
93R23
93R231
93R231
93R23
93R23
93R23
93R23
93R23
93R23
93R23
93R23
93R23
93R25
93R25
93R25 •
93R25
93R25
93R25
93R25
93R25
93R25
93R25
93R29
DEPTH
(ft)
20-40
40-60
60-80
80-100
100-120
120-140
5-20
20-40
40-60
60-80
80-100
100-120
120-140
140-160
160-180
180-200
200-220
220-240
5-20
20-40
40-60
60-80
80-100
100-120
120-140
140-160
160-180 .
180-200
5-20
ROCK
TYPE
COAL
COAL
MS
MS
MS
MS
COAL
COAL
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS/MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
COAL/SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS/MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
SS

TOTAL
0.076
0.024
0.026
0.052
0.082
0.160
0.380
0.470
0.350
0.180
0.180
0.120
0.092
0.040
0.120
0.110
0.084
0.180
0.096
0.260
0.086
0.240
0.028
0.059
0.042
0.100
0.140
0.120
0.070
SDLFDR(%)
STJLFTDE
O.001
O.001
0.002
O.001
O.001
0.010
0.010
0.210
0.180
0.030
0.020
0.010
0.026
0.002
0.027
0.010
0.001
0.060
0.001
0.020
0.001
0.040
0.001
0.002
<0.001
0.014
O.001
0.010
0.021

SCLFATE
0.076
0.024
0.024
0.052
0.082
0.150
0.370
0.260
0.170
0.150
0.160
0.110
0.066
0.038
0.093
0.100
0.083
0.120
0.095
0.240
0.085
0.200
0.027
0.057
0.042
0.086
0.140
0.110
0.049
AGP
ANP
NNP
ANP:AGP
(sulfidic
sulfur) )
TONS CaCOs/Kt2
O.03
<0.03
0.06
<0.03
<0.03
0.31
0.31
6.56
5.62
0.94
0.62
0.31
0.81
0.06
0.84
0.31
0.03
1.88
0.03
0.63
0.03
1.25
0.03
0.06
<0.03
0.44
O.03
0.31
0.66
2.9 '
86.3
84.9
.400
440
325
4.3
<0.5
5.2
15.2
89.9
75.7
23.2
93.4
230
395
415
345
<0.5
3.2
13.6
93.8
11.8
4.3
70.9
245
385
450
32.2
2.9
86.3
84.8
400.0
440.0
324.7
4.0
-6.6
-0.4
14.3
89.3
75.4
22.4
93.3
229.2
394.7
415.0
343.1
0.0
2.6
13.6
92.6
11.8
4.2
70.9
244.6
385.0
449.7
31.5
>96.7
>2,877
1,358
>13,333
>14,667
1,040
13.8
<0.08
0.92
16.2
144
242
28.6
1,494
273
1,264
13,280
184
<16.0
5.12
435
75.0
378 •
68.8
>2,363
560
>12,833
1,440
49.1
23990R3.B 315/96(4:43 PM)/RPTO
B-3

-------
r
                                             TABLE B-l
                             STATIC TEST RESULTS BY ROCK TYPE (Continued)
SAMPLE
93R29
93R29
93R29
93R29
93R29
93R29
93R29
94R6
94R6
94R6
94R6
94R6
94R61
94R61
94R6
94R6
94R6
94R121
94R121
94R121
94R121
94R12
94R12
94R12
DEPTH
(ft)
20-40
40-60
60-80
80-100
100-120
120-140
140-160
0.0-20.0
20.0-40.0
40.0-60.0
60.0-80.0
80.0-100.0
100.0-
120.0
120.0-
140.0
140.0-
160.0'
160.0-
180.0
180.0-
200.0
0.0-20.0
20.0-40.0
40.0-60.0
60.0-80.0
80.0-100.0
100.0-
120.0
120.0-
140.0
ROCK
TYPE
SS
SS
SSMS
MS
MS
MS
MS
ALLOT
ALLUV/SS
SS
SS
SS/COAL
COAL
COAL/SS
SS
SS
SS
ALLUV/SS
SS
COAL
COAL/SS
SS
SS/MS
MS

TOTAL
0.061
0.013
0.032
0.023
0.025
0.036
0.140
0.640
0.300
0.090
0.030
0.036
0.940
0.640
0.340
0.400
0.100
0.170
0.180
1.160
0.720
0.540
0.520
0.200
SULFUR (%)
SOLFIDE
0.002
0.007
0.002
O.001
O.001
0.003
0.020
O.001
O.001
<0.001
O.001
O.001
0.690
0.480
0.210
0.260
O.001
O.001
0.030
0.870
0.520
0.370
0.380
0.080

STJLFATE
0.059
0.006
0.030
0.023
0.025
0.033
0.120
0.640
0.300
0.090
0.030
0.036
0.250
0.160
0.130
0.140
0.100
0.170
0.150
0.290
0.200
0.170
0.140
0.120
AGP
ANP
NNP
ANP:A
(sulfic
sulfur
TONS CaCOs/Kt2
0.06
0.22
0.06
<0.03
0.03
0.09
0.63
O.03
O.03
<0.03
<0.03
O.03
21.56
15.00
6.56
8.13
<0.03
<0.03
0.94
27.19
16.25
11.56
11.88
2.50
32.2
7.6
48.3
130
410
400
285
17.6
47.1
5.9
2.3
3.9
4.6
9.9
24.2
53.6
6.3
<0.5
<0.5
1.1
11.9
21.4
13.9
169.0
32.1
7.4
48.2
130.0
410.0
399.9
284.4
17.6
47.1
5.9
2.3
3.9
-17.0
-5.1
17.6
45.5
6.3
-0.5
-1.4
-26.1
-4.4
9.8
2.0
166.5
515
34.7
773
>4,333
>13,667
4,267
456
>587
>1,570
>196
>75.7
>130
0.21
0.66
3.69
6.60
>209
16.7
<0.53
0.04
0.73
1.85
1.17
67.6
                                                B-4

-------
                                TABLE B-l
             STATIC TEST RESULTS BY ROCK TYPE (Continued)
SAMPLE
94R12

94R12

94R14
94R14
94RI4
94R14
94R14
94R14

94R14

94R14

94R14

94R14

94R14

94S8
94S8
94S8
94S8
94S15 •
94S15
94S15
94S29
94S291
94S291
94S291
DEPTH
(ft)
140.0-
160.0
160.0-
180.0
0.0-20.0
20.0-40.0
40.0-60.0
60.0-80.0
80.0-100.0
100.0-
120.0
120.0-
140.0
180.0-
200.0
200.0-
220.0
220.0-
240.Q
240.0-
260.0
0.0-20.0
20.CMO.O
40.0-60.0
60.0-80.0
0.0-20.0
20.0-40.0
40.0-60.0
0.0-20.0
20.0-40.0
40.0-60.0
60.0-80.0
ROCK
TYPE
MS

MS

ALLUV/SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS

SS

MS

MS

MS

MS

MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS/SS
SS
SS
SS
SS

TOTAL
0.200

0.100

0.340
1.020
0.880
0.580
0.500
0.640

0.360

0.200

0.180-

0.086

0.078

0.018
0.028
0.028
0.018
0.022
0.032
0.020
0.200
0.290
0.570
0.190
SULFUR (%)
SBLEEDE
0.060

0.008

O.001
0.010
0.260
0.430
0.380
0.450

0.210

0.050

0.060

<0.001

0.001

O.001
0.002 '
<0.001
O.001
O.001
<0.001
O.001
<0.001
0.100
0.340
0.070

SULFATE
0.140

0.092

0.340
1.010
0.620
0.150
0.120
0.190

0.150

0.150

0.120

0.086

0.078

0.018
0.026
0.028
0.018
0.022
0.032
0.020
0.200
0.190
0.230
0.120
AGP
ANP
NNP
ANP:AGP
(sulfidic
sulfur) )
TONS CaCOs/Kt*
1.88

0.25

<0.03
0.31
8.13
13.44
11.88
14.06

6.56

1.56

1.88

0.03

O.03

O.03
0.06
O.03
O.03
O.03
O.03
O.03
O.03
3.12
10.62
2.19
385.0

270.0

225.0
160.0
39.2
23.6
33.5
66.0

26.7

200.0

305.0

305.0

255.0

235.0
400.0
415.0
355.0
395.0
560.0
295.0
9.0
1.7
1.6
O.5
383.1

269.8

225.0
159.7
31.1
10.2
21.6
51.9

20.1

198.4

303.1

305.0

255.0

235.0
399.9
415.0
355.0
395.0
560.0
295.0
9.0
-1.5
-9.0
-2.7
205

1,080

>7,500
512
, 4.82
1.76
2.82
4.69

4.07

128

163

>10,167

>8,SOO

>7,833 •
6,400
>13,933
>1 1,833
>13,167
>18,667
>9,833
>301
0.53
0.15
O.23
23996/R33 3/12/96(4:43 PMyRPT/4
B-5

-------
                TABLE B-l
STATIC TEST RESULTS BY ROCK TYPE (Continued)
SAMPLE
94S291
94S29
94S29
94S29
94S29
94S29
94S29
94S29
94S36
94S36
94S361
94S361
94S36
94S361
94S36
94S36
94S36
94S36
94G1
94G1
94G1
23M&X1
DEPTH
(ft)
80.0-100.0
100.0-
120.0
120.0-
140.0
140.0-
160.0
160.0-
180.0
180.0-
200.0
200,0-
220.0
240,0-
260.0
0.0-20.0
20.0-40.0
40.0-60.0
60.0-80.0
80.0-100.0
100.0-
120.0
120.0-
140.0
140.0-
160.0
160.0-
180.0
180.0-
200.0
15.0-20.0
35.0-40.0
55.0-60.0
8 Mi«(4.CPMyR
ROCK
TYPE
SS
SS/MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
SS
ALLUV
ALLUV/
COAL
COAL
COAL/SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
MS
ALLUV
SH
SH
PW4

TOTAL
0.240
0.380
0.340
0.130
0.210
0.120
0.190
0.230
0.028
0.044
0.640
1.250
0.330
0.470
0.350
0.260
0310
0320
0.028
0.370
0.480

SDLFCR (%)
SBLETDE
0.030
0.110
0.190
0.020
0.020
O.001
0.040
0.070
O.001
0.001
0.490
1.080
0.210
0.350
0.220
0.168
0.200
0.180
O.001
0.001
0.020
B-6

STJLFATE
0.210
0.270
0.150
0.110
0.190
0.120
0.150
0.160
0.028
0.044
0.150
0.170
0.120
0.120
0.130
0.092
0.110
0.140
0.028
0.370
0.460

AGP
ANP
NNP
ANP:A
(sulfic
sulfur
TONS CaCOs/Kt2
0.94
3.44
5.94
0.63
0.62
O.03
1.25
2.19
0.03
0.03
. 15.31
33.75
6.56
1Q.94
6.87
5.25
6.25
5.63
O.03
O.03
0.62

0.5'
47.2
84.0
120.0
490.0
530.0
360.0
115.0
145.0
84.5
5.1
11.7
12.7
8.6
13.0
25.6
44.7
315.0
64.0
19.2
14.0

-1.4
43.8
78.1
119.4
489.4
530.0
358.8
112.8
145.0
84.5
-10.3
-22.1
6.1
-2.3
6.1
20.4
38.5
309.4
64.0
19.2
13.4
^Ml
O.53
13.7
14.1
192
784
>17,667
288
52.6
>4,833
>2,817
0.33
0.35
1.94
0.79
1.89
4.88
7.15
56.0
>2,133
>640
22.4
^^m

-------
                TABLE B-l




STATIC TEST RESULTS BY ROCK TYPE (Continued)
SAMPLE
94G1
94G1
94G1
94G1
94G1
94G1
94G1
94G1
94G1
94G11
94G11
94G1
94G11
94G11
94G1
94G11
94G1
94G1
94G7
DEPTH
(ft)
75.0-80.0
95.0-100.0
115.0-
120.0
135.0-
140.0
155.0-
160.0
175.0-
180.0
195.0-
200.0
215.0-
220.0
235.0-
240.0
255.0-
260.0
275.0-
280.0
295.0-
300.0
300.0-
320.0
320.0-
340.0
340.0-
360.0
360.0-
380.0
380.0-
400.0
400.0-
420.0
15.0-20.0
ROCK
TYPE
SH
SH
SH
SH
SH
SH
SH
SH
SS
COAL
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
MS
MS
MS
ALLUV

TOTAL
1.130
1.200
1.360
1.510
0.870
0.650
0.660
0.720
0.210
1.830
1.050
0.880
1.290
0.960
0.780
1.320
0.340
0.780
0.064
2399d/R3.B 5/15/96(4:45 PMVRPT/4
SULFUR (%)
SDLFIDE
0.700
0.680
0.790
0.860
0.420
0.300
0.400
0.420
0.130
1.710
0.880
0.640
1.090
0.760
0.580
1.030
0.220
0.590
0.032
B-7

STJLFATE
0.430
0.520
0.570
0.650
0.450
0.350
0.260
0.300
0.080
0.120
0.170
0.240
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.290
0.120
0.190
0.032

AGP
ANP
NNP
ANP:AGP
(sulfidic
sulfur) )
TONS CaCOs/Kt2
21.88
21.25
24.69
26.88
13.13
9.38
12.50
13.13
4.06
53.44
27.50
20.00
34.06
23.75
18.13
32.19
6.88
18.44
1.00

77.5
135.0
180.0
320.0
650.0
500.0
265.0
92.3
7.7
11.7
9.4
37.0
16.7
13.1
29.3
18.1
14.0
185.0
46.4

55.6
113.8
155.3
293.1
636.9
490.6
252.5
79.2
3.7
-41.7
-18.1
17.0
-17.4
-10.7
11.2
-14.1
7.1
166.6
45.4

3.54
6.35
7.29
11.9
49.5
53.3
21.2
7.03
1.90
0.22
0.34
1.85
0.49
0.55
1.62
0.56
2.04
10.0
46.4


-------
                                         TABLE B-l
                 STATIC TEST RESULTS BY ROCK TYPE (Concluded)
SAMPLE
94G7
94G7
94G7
94G7
94G7
94G7
94G7
94G7
94G7
94G71
DEPTH
(ft)
35.0-40.0
55.0-60.0
75.0-80.0
95.0-100.0
115.0-
120.0
135.0-
140.0
155.0-
160.0
175.0-
180.0
180.0-
200.0
200.0-
220.0
ROCK
TYPE
SH
SH
SH
SH
SH
SH
SH
SH
SH/COAL
COAUSS

TOTAL
0.058
1.160
1.630
1.560
1.500
0.680
0.620
1.080
1.070
1.560
SDLFDR (%)
STJLETDE
<0.001
0.380
1.110
0.890
0.890
0.320
0.310
0.680
0.750
1.410

SHLFATE
0.058
0.780
0.520
0.670
0.610
0.360
0.310
0.400
0.320
0.150
AGP
ANP
NNP
ANP:A<
(sulfid
sulfur;
TONS CaCOs/Kt1
<0.03
11.87
34.69
27.81
27.81
10.00
9.69
21.25
23.44
44.06
73.5
92.1
145.0
325.0
475.0
655.0
480.0
215.0
110.0
23.4
73.5
80.2
110.3
297.2
447.2
645.0
470.3
193.8
86.6
-20.7
>2,450
7.76
4.18
11.7
17.1
65.5
49.5
10.1
4.69
0.53
      These rock types are acid-generating with net neutralization potential less than zero (i.e., NNP <
       0), based on the sulfide sulfur concentrations.  All of these acid-generating samples are coal, coal-
       bearing, or associated with or adjacent to coal units.

      Tons of calcium carbonate needed to neutralize 1000 tons of material.

      Tons of calcium carbonate available to neutralize 1000 tons of material.

      Ratios less than i (< 1.00) indicates potential for acid generation ratio greater Than 1 (> 1.00) indicates
      potential to neutralize acid. Ratios greater than 3 (> 3:00) indicates strong potential to neutralize acid.
 Kev to Rock Types:
 LS
.MS
 SLST
 ss
 SH
 ALLUV
=   limestone
=   mudstone
=   siltstone
=   sandstone
=   shale
=   alluvium
AGP =      Acid Generation Potential
ANP =      Acid Neutralization Potential
NNP=      Net Neutralization Potential
ANP: AGP = Ratio of Acid Neutralization Potential to Acid Generation
            Potential
 SOURCE: McClelland 1994.
                                              B-8

-------