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
------- |