f EB i 4 , ..'•.
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Lisbon Valley Copper Project
February, 1997
Prepared by:
U.S. Department of the interior
Bureau of Land Management
Moab District Office
Moab, Utah
-------
ffi
lit
f-1
[ l?:?
^fl
^«
:ar
f 5-i""
iiSt=
• !i i If
•^:
*.4
in i
m I
f!H;
|!|H
^
—- - - -,-^s--, —===- =i.--rpi-- f (=-' -==« -
i I 1H 'tl r« »,*i«
r, il !*£-•'-;
--.n ;* M : a riat;
: ML
i.ii
riit
- " I 1 -i - ii (II
K«
•'•'; *|U
$
«M
«**:;
Ail
t. a
-»B-
ny
SMjftl
iji
•! N1
-™=
=sw
S4
^.rVG, I
Ifi
Nl
^
"•"""-'
1.1
il * sff j I •
i-Il^-E,- ^-Wfciik 5 -M
^^tfiiri i
riL^..L|l
-i!
^Sfc
Ir
!M I'""
=
*
gilj^
Ji
r^^
IB!
9
"-''-- f,s :--.s::*aiw"(.r * i M.jif »ia
• - ;si j >
IWilllt ll
-3 !
«!
_ i «-: K- , : iUJI: I i , ,S ;,;tili I »,,[»,»»
!i-!«! J ! --& H -' - »iir :« t kf, liiSlW !4 , Hf
Hi! : iftf ; ;H
t W
•fi
iM
r: =
«11^,1 -,
m
11ES
-tt ij»j
:-;H
1H1HI
•H! -H
iji --n
Hi
U -i-ji
,! IB;: -V.
.:» ;^:Ni viMi
1 j iVlf
Hi
i =i ifiJ *= i -----: !i i iii';=
i^ffl?- JH» :
I -': 1W f; Jftt , > sss'a
:-i "fa f SIJ ,
lir: i l
H,
-•vis *t'N;r= «
ij= i' 'lit
-k.-?4.--B.
.^iJV;^, j.,; ; ; « j^-
-;/_.tii,;1ti-~- ^ _-^r^^j;(_ -.^^i-i-^jiiir, ,i ;i i
"-I t i L J -VJ - J _s ".j ~. f:: 1 ii -" J;: . : i
ffl ! rtjrl-rt
; ".- ;^: . z -3- '--^:- -- ; i =;:- ii i
j
fki'-: i fr- - -= I !
Sfg
IS ,1!
4^i; ii ; I
I^H^^^Hiii^BHI^HH
« ! i j iii ..I* !!f
ft;
aw
- - """ = 5'f. t" ' itj-j-^a'Jj"1 -i - ="3sj irtl
• ki-W! i";:ii:;|::riVi ,:1|=- II
-------
COVER SHEET
Lisbon Valley Copper Project
Environmental Impact Statement
( ) Draft (X) Final
Lead Agency
U.S. Department of the Interior,
Bureau of Land Management
Moab District Office
Jurisdictions in Utah that could be Affected
State of Utah
Grand County
San Juan County
Abstract
This FEIS 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 FEIS addresses the site-
specific and cumulative impacts of the Proposed
Action and four alternatives, including the No
Action alternative.
Based on issues and concerns identified during
the scoping process and the public comment
period, the FEIS focuses on impacts to Water
Resources, Geochemistry, Soils and Reclamation,
Wildlife, and Socioeconomics.
EIS Contact
Review comments on this FEIS should be
directed to:
Kate Kitchell, Moab District Manager
Bureau of Land Management
82 East Dogwood Avenue
Moab, Utah 84532
Date by which Review Comments on the FEIS
must be Received
March 17,1997
Date EIS made Available to EPA and the
Public
February 14,1997
-------
-------
United States Department of the Interior
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
INREPLYREFERTO:
Moab District Office
82 East Dogwood Avenue
Moab, Utah 84532
*
0 B 199?
1790
UTU-72499
(UT-060)
Dear Reader:
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has prepared this Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS)
for your review. The FEIS has been completed to analyze impacts from a proposed copper mining and
recovery operation in Lisbon Valley, Utah. The project proponent is Summo USA Corporation The FEIS
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.
A Draft EIS (DEIS) was issued on May 24, 1996 analyzing impacts, and identifying alternatives and
mitigative measures. A 45 day public comment period and public meeting were held to receive comments
on the DEIS. A total of 24 written comments were received on the DEIS, and an additional 4 verbal
comments were received at the public hearing. These comments have been analyzed, and appropriate
changes have been made in the Final EIS. The public comments have been printed in the FEIS alone
with BLM's response. » .s
A 30 day review period will be provided on the FEIS, prior to a Record of Decision being issued by
BLM. This 30 day period will commence when the Notice of Availability of the FEIS is printed in the
Federal Register by the Environmental Protection Agency. This date is anticipated to begin on February
IT"» iyy /. '
Additional copies of this document may be obtained by calling (801) 259-6111. If you have any questions
about the FEIS, please fee] free to contact Lynn Jackson, BLM Project Coordinator, at the same phone
number. We appreciate your interest in public land management.
Sincerely,
District Manager
-------
-------
INSTRUCTIONS TO THE READER
ENVIRONMENTALANALYSISPROCESS
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 (BLM) has followed for this project. The figure also shows die 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 hi Section 2.0) has also proceeded with coordination among Summo,
the BLM, and the third-party EIS contractor. . -
This document is the FEIS, which addresses and responds to comments on the DEIS, presents the final
results of impact analysis resulting from Summo's proposed mining operation, and identifies the BLM's
Preferred Alternative. A Record of Decision (ROD), identifying BLM's final decision on the proposal, will
follow no sooner than 30 days after release of the FEIS.
ALTERNATIVES
DEVELOPMENT
(2.0)
DEIS REVIEW
•PUBLIC HEARINGS/
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSEQUENCES
(IMPACT ASSESSMENT)
• METHODOLOGY
• TYPES
• MITIGATION
(4.0)
VERBAL COMMENTS
•AGENCY REVIEW/
COMMENT
PUBLIC REVIEW/
WRITTEN COMMENT
(5.0)
COLLECT
RESOURCES DATA
•ISSUES
• DATA
IDENTIFICATION
AND ADEQUACY
(3-0)
AFFECTED
ENVIRONMENT
(BASELINE OAT
SUMMARY)
(3.0)
FEIS
PREPARATION
ROD
PREPARATION
( ) SECTION OF THIS EIS DOCUMENT WHERE THIS ITEM IS ADDRESSED.
MAJOR PHASES OF THE EIS PROCESS
23996/R4-WP.1 2/5/97(4:10 pm)/RPT/8
-------
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
DEAR READER LETTER
INSTRUCTIONS TO THE READER
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS aii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . / E&_1
1.0 INTRODUCTION . . , l_1
1.1 PURPOSE AND NEED !_!
1.2 AUTHORIZING ACTIONS '.'.'.'.''.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'. i-4
13 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND SCOPING ISSUES '.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'. 1-5
13.1 Alternatives Analyzed in the EIS 1-9
13.2 Alternatives Considered and Eliminated 1-9
1.33 Issues and Concerns Analyzed . 1_12
1.3.4 Issues Considered but Not Analyzed 1-14
2.0 ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION 2-1
2.1 OVERVIEW 2-1
2.2 PROPOSED ACTION ......................... 2-1
2.2.1 General . t 2-1
2.2.2 Mining Activities 2-5
2.23 Crushing Activities . . . . , ; .. 2-9
2.2.4 Processing Activities 2-12
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 2-33
2.2.10 Transportation 2-33
2.2.11 Air Emission Controls . 2-35
2.2.12 Reclamation/Closure 2-35
2.3 ALTERNATIVES '. 2-38
2.3.1 No Action Alternative 2-39
23.2 Open Pit Backfilling Alternative . •....- 2-39
2.33 Facility Layout Alternative 2-40
2.3.4 Waste Rock Selective Handling Alternative 2-41
2.4 BONDING ASSUMPTIONS . 2.41
2.5 FEATURES COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES ..'.'.'.'.'.'.".'. 2-43
2.6 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS FROM
EACH ALTERNATIVE ANALYZED 2-44
23996/R4-WP.TC 2/5/97(11:27 pm)/RPT/8
-1-
-------
TABLEOF CONTENTS (Continued)
2.7 AGENCY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 2-44
3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 3.,!
3.1 GEOLOGY AND GEOTECHNICAL ISSUES 3.1
3.1.1 Study Area o 3_j
3.1.2 Geologic Setting '. !!!! 3-1
3.1.3 Geologic Resources 3_jg
3.1.4 Geotechnical Considerations .". 3.20
3.1.5 Potential for Additional Copper Development 3-20
3.2 HYDROLOGY 3.22
3.2.1 Study Area 3.22
3.2.2 Surface Water Resources 3-22
3.2.3 Groundwater Resources 3_27
3.3 GEOCHEMISTRY 3.43
3.3.1 Study Area 3.43
3.3.2 Geotechnical Background 3.43
3.3.3 Static Acid/Base Accounting Tests 3.43
3.3.4 Synthetic Precipitation Leach Tests (EPA Method 1312) '.', 3.49
3.4 SOILS AND RECLAMATION 3.50
3.4.1 Study Area 3.50
3.4.2 Soils Resources '' 3.^
3.5 VEGETATION 3.57
3.5.1 Study Area 3_57
3.5.2 Vegetation Communities
3.5.3 Special Status Species '''
3.6 WILDLIFE 3_62
3.6.1 Study Area 3^2
3.6.2 Raptors 3_g2
3.6.3 Mule Deer '.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'. 3^3
3.6.4 Special Status Species 3-63
3.7 GRAZING 3 6?
3.7.1 Study Area
23996/R4-WP.TC 2/6/97(11:33 un)/RPT/8 -jj-
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Section
3.8 SOCIOECONOMICS 3.71
3.8.1 Study Area 3_71
3.8.2 Economic Conditions -i 71
3.8.3 Population ' ' - _„
3.8.4 Housing - 7o
3.8.5 Facilities and Services ' 3 01
3.8.6 Social Conditions and Quality of Life 3.03
3.9 TRANSPORTATION ; 3.83
3.9.1 Study Area 3_83
3.9.2 Highways and Local Roads in the Study Area '.','.','.'.'.'.'.'.'. 3-83
3.10 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS .. -, „
"", ' 3'87
3.10.1 Records Review and Agencies Contacted 3.37
3.10.2 Historic Mining Operations and Oil and Gas
Development in Lisbon Valley 3.00
3.10.3 Anticipated Use of Hazardous Materials '.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.' 3-89
3.11 CULTURAL AND PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.39
3.11.1 Study Area 3_g9
3.11.2 Cultural Resources 3.92
3.11.3 Paleontological Resources 3.94
3.12 VISUAL RESOURCES , 3.96
3.12.1 Study Area 3_96
3.12.2 Visual Characteristics 3.95
3.13 LAND USE ,. 3 99
3.13.1 Study Area 3_99
3.13.2 Land Use Resources * 3 qo
3.14 CLIMATE AND AIR QUALITY 3_101
3.14.1 Study Area , im
3.14.2 Climate ""
3.14.3 Air Quality .'.'.' '. ['. '.[ [[ [[ [ [ [ [.] ] ] [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [; ;;
3'15 N°ISE ....:....:............... 3-104
3.15.1 Study Area 3.104
23996/R4-WP.TC 2/5/97(11:27 pm)/RPT/8 . _jjj_
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Section.
3.16
RECREATIONAL RESOURCES 3-106
3.16.1 Study Area • 3-106
3.16.2 Recreational Resources 3-106
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 4-1
4.1 GEOLOGY AND GEOTECHNICAL ISSUES 4-1
4.1.1 Methodology 4-1
4.12 Proposed Action 4-1
4.13 No Action Alternative 4-3
4.1.4 Open Pit Backfilling Alternative 4-3
4.1.5 Facility Layout Alternative 4-4
4.1.6 Waste Rock Selective Handling Alternative 4-4
4.2 HYDROLOGY 4-4
4.2.1 Methodology 4-5
4.2.2 Proposed Action 4-5
4.23 No Action Alternative 4-30
4.2.4 Open Pit Backfilling Alternative 4-31
4.25 Facility Layout Alternative 4-32
42.6 Waste Rock Selective Handling Alternative 4-32
43 GEOCHEMISTRY 4-32
4.3.1 Methodology 4-32
43.2 Proposed Action /...'. 4-32
43.3 No Action Alternative f 4-35
43.4 Open Pit Backfilling Alternative 4-35
435 Facility Layout Alternative , 4-36
43.6 Waste Rock Selective Handling Alternative 4-36
4.4 SOILS AND RECLAMATION 4-37
4.4.1 Methodology 4-37
4.4.2 Proposed Action 4-38
4.4.3 No Action Alternative 4-42
4.4.4 Open Pit Backfilling Alternative ; 4-42
4.45 Facility Layout Alternative 4-43
4.4.6 Waste Rock Selective Handling Alternative 4-43
2399S/R4-WP.TC 2/5/97(11:27 pm)/RFT/8
-IV-
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
4.5
VEGETATION 4_43
4.5.1 Methodology 4.43
4.5.2 Proposed Action '.'.'.'.'.', 4,44
4.5.3 No Action Alternative .'; 4_4g
4.5.4 Open Pit Backfilling Alternative ....'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'. 4-48
4.5.5 Facility Layout Alternative 4,49
4.5.6 Waste Rock Selective Handling Alternative 4.49
4.6 WILDLIFE ;
4.6.1 Methodology 4.49
4.6.2 Proposed Action 4.49
4.6.3 No Action Alternative 4.53
4.6.4 Open Pit Backfilling Alternative ........[... 4-53
4.6.5 Facility Layout Alternative '.'.'.'.'.'.'.•'.'. 4-54
4.6.6 Waste Rock Selective Handling Alternative '.'.'.'.'.'. 4-54
4.7 GRAZING 4.54
4.7.1 Methodology 4.54
4.7.2 Proposed Action '....: 4.54
4.7.3 No Action Alternative * * 4.57
4.7.4 Open Pit Backfilling Alternative 4-57
4.7.5 Facility Layout Alternative !!!!!! 4-59
4.7.6 Waste Rock Selective Handling Alternative 4.59
4.8 SOCIOECONOMICS 4.59
4.8.1 Methodology 4_59
4.8.2 Proposed Action 4_6Q
4.8.3 No Action Alternative ^gg
4.8.4 Open Pit Backfilling Alternative ','.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'" 4-66
4.8.5 Facility Layout Alternative 4^5
4.8.6 Waste Rock Selective Handling Alternative \['/m 4.57
4.9 TRANSPORTATION 4_67
4.9.1 Methodology 4_67
4.9.2 Proposed Action ; 4_g7
4.9.3 No Action Alternative .... 4-70
4.9.4 Open Pit Backfilling Alternative . 4-70
4.9.5 Facility Layout Alternative _ 4_71
4.9.6 Waste Rock Selective Handling Alternative 4-71
23996/R4-WP.TC 2/5/97(11:27 pm)/RPT/8
-V-
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Section
4.10
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 4-71
4.10.1 Methodology 4-71
4.10.2 Proposed Action 4-73
4.10.3 No Action Alternative 4-77
4.10.4 Open Pit Backfilling Alternative 4-77
4.10.5 Facility Layout Alternative 4-78
4.10.6 Waste Rock Selective Handling Alternative 4-78
4.11 CULTURAL AND PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES ~ 4-78
4.11.1 Methodology 4-78
4.11.2 Proposed Action 4-79
4.11.3 No Action Alternative 4-80
4.11.4 Open Pit Backfilling Alternative 4-80
4.11.5 Facility Layout Alternative 4-80
4.11.6 Waste Rock Selective Handling Alternative 4-80
4.12 VISUAL RESOURCES 4-81
4.12.1 Methodology 4-81
4.12.2 Proposed Action 4-81
4.123 No Action Alternative 4-82
4.12.4 Open Pit Backfilling Alternative 4-82
4.12.5 Facility Layout Alternative 4-82
4.12.6 Waste Rock Selective Handling Alternative 4-83
4.13 LAND USE 4-83
4.13.1 Methodology 4-83
4.13.2 Proposed Action 4-83
4.13.3 No Action Alternative 4-84
4.13.4 Open Pit Backfilling Alternative 4-84
4.13.5 Facility Layout Alternative 4-84
4.13.6 Waste Rock Selective Handling Alternative 4-84
4.14 CLIMATE AND AIR QUALITY 4-84
4.14.1 Methodology 4-84
4.12.2 Proposed Action , 4-85
4.143 No Action Alternative 4-89
4.14.4 Open Pit Backfilling Alternative 4-89
4.14.5 Facility Layout Alternative 4-89
4.14.6 Waste Rock Selective Handling Alternative 4-89
ZW96/R4-WP.TC 2/5/97(11:27 pm)/RFT/S
-VI-
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
4.15 NOISE 4.39
4.15.1 Methodology 4.39
4.15.2 Proposed Action 4.39
4.15.3 No Action Alternative 4-90
4.15.4 Open Pit Backfilling Alternative 4-90
4.15.5 Facility Layout Alternative 4.90
4.15.6 Waste Rock Selective Handling Alternative !. 4-91
4.16 RECREATIONAL RESOURCES ." 4.91
4.16.1 Methodology 4.91
4.16.2 Proposed Action „ ... . . 4.91
4.16.3 No Action Alternative 4.92
4.16.4 Open Pit Backfilling Alternative , 4-92
4.16.5 Facility Layout Alternative 4-92
4.16.6 Waste Rock Selective Handling Alternative 4-92
4.17 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 4-92
4.18 UNAVOIDABLE AD\TERSE IMPACTS :'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'. ...... 4-95
4.19 SHORT-TERM USES VS. LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY 4-96
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 Utah Stale Agencies 5-1
5.1.3 Local Governments 5_1
5.1.4 Local Agencies 5_1
5.1.5 Tribal Governments 5_1
5.2 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 5.!
5.3 PUBLIC COMMENT . '.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'. 5-2
5.3.1 Public Scoping Meetings 5-2
5.3.2 Written and Verbal Comments on the Draft Environmental
Impact Statement ; 5_2
5.4 COMMENT LETTERS AND TRANSCRIPTIONS 5-3
5.5 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS '.'.'.'.'.'. 5-27
5.5.1 Executive Summary 5.27
5.5.2 Introduction - Purpose and Need 5_28
23996/R4-WP.TC 2/5/97(11:27 pm)/RPT/8
-VII-
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Section
6.0
7.0
8.0
5.53 Alternatives Including the Proposed Action ., 5-30
5.5.4 Geology and Geotechnical Issues 5-35
555 Hydrology 5-36
5.5.6 Geochemistry 5-41
5.5.7 Soils and Reclamation 5-43
55.8 Vegetation „ 5-46
5.5.9 Wildlife 5-46
55.10 Grazing 5-49
55.11 Socioeconomics 5.49
55.12 Transportation . ' 5-50
55.13 Hazardous Materials 5-51
55.14 Cultural and Paleontological Resources 5-52
55.15 Visual Resources 5-53
55.16 Land Use 5.54
55.17 Visibility, Climate and Air Quality 5-54
55.18 Noise 5-55
55.19 Recreational Resources 5-55
55.20 Short-Term Use vs. Long-Term Productivity 5-55
55.21 Irreversible or Irretrievable Resource Commitments 5-56
55.22 Editorial Corrections 5-56
LIST OF PREPARERS 6-1
GLOSSARY ; 7-1
REFERENCES 8-1
23W/R4-WP.TC 2/5/97(11:27 pm)/RJPT/S
-VU1-
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
APPENDIX B
APPENDIX C
APPENDIX D
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1-1
TABLE 2-1
TABLE 2-2
TABLE 2-3
TABLE 2-4
TABLE 2-5
TABLE 2-6
TABLE 2-7
TABLE 2-8
TABLE 2-9
TABLE 2-10
TABLE 2-11
TABLE 3.2-1
TABLE 3.2-2
TABLE 3.2-3
TABLE 3.2-4
TABLE 3.3-1
TABLE 3.4-1
TABLE 3.4-2
TABLE 3.6-1
TABLE 3.7-1
TABLE 3.7-2
TABLE 3.7-3
TABLE 3.7-4
TABLE 3.7-5
MITIGATION AND MONITORING PLAN
STATIC TEST RESULTS
NOISE IMPACT ANALYSIS
STATE OF UTAH GROUNDWATER DISCHARGE PERMIT
LISBON VALLEY COPPER PROJECT PERMITS/ "
NOTIFICATIONS/APPROVALS 16
PROPOSED DISTURBANCE BY FACILITY AND
SURFACE LAND OWNERSHIP ... 2-4
WASTE ROCK DUMPS " " ' 28
MAJOR MINE EQUIPMENT ' 2 10
POND DESIGN CRITERIA ... " 2-19
CHEMICAL STORAGE AND USE ESTIMATES ".". 2-27
PROJECT MAKE-UP WATER USE BY YEAR . 2 31
ESTIMATED TOTAL OPERATIONS WORK
FORCE (EMPLOYEES) 2 32
ESTIMATED WORK FORCE BY SHIFT (POSITIONS) ".'. 2-32
ESTIMATED DAILY VEHICLE TRIPS 2-34
PRELIMINARY SEED MIXTURE ... 2 37
LISBON VALLEY EIS IMPACT SUMMARY .'.'.'.'." "2^45
SUMMARY OF SURFACE WATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS 3-26
SUMMARY OF WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS FOR
MONITORING WELLS 3.32
SUMMARY OF GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS 3 36
ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR MONITORING
WELLS MW96-7A AND MW96-7B 3 37
COMPOSITION OF ALKALINE LAKES FROM THE
WESTERN UNITED STATES 3 51
PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS
FOR SOILS 3 53
SOIL MATERIAL SUITABILITY CRITERIA FOR
SALVAGE AND REDISTRIBUTION AS COVERSOIL 358
SENSITIVE SPECIES POTENTIALLY OCCURRING IN " "
THE STUDY AREA 3 ^
LOWER LISBON GRAZING ALLOTMENTS 3^8
LISBON GRAZING ALLOTMENTS 3 68
LOWER LISBON GRAZING ALLOTMENT ROTATION 3 70
PROPOSED DISTURBANCE AND SURFACE LAND
OWNERSHIP, LOWER LISBON ALLOTMENT-
PASTURE NO. 1 AREA 3 72
PROPOSED DISTURBANCE AND SURFACE LAND
OWNERSHIP, LISBON ALLOTMENT 3 73
23996/R4-WP.TC 2/5/97(11:27 pm)/RPT/8
-IX-
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
TABLE3.9-1 AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC
TABLE 3.9-2 ACCIDENT HISTORY - HIGHWAYS .... •••• — •
TABLE 3 10-1 GOVERNMENT AGENCIES AND DATA SOURCES
CONSULTED REGARDING POTENTIAL HAZARDOUS
TABLE311-1 NATONALREGISTER ELIGIBLE CULTUR^'RESOURCES SITES
IN THE STUDY AREA 3"y:>
TABLE 313-1 LAND AUTHORIZATIONS AND DESIGNATIONS
1 WITHIN LANDS ENCOMPASSED BY THE PROPOSED
PROJECT BOUNDARY • • • •
TABLE 3.14-1 MONTHLY TEMPERATURE MEANS
TABLE314-2 MONTHLY PRECIPITATION AND SNOWFALL 3-103
TABLE 42-1 PREDICTED FINAL PIT WATER LEVELS *°
TABLE 45-1 DIRECT IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION BY
TABL FACILITY AND VEGETATIVE COMMUNITY TYPE 4-46
TABLE 4.5-2 DIRECT IMPACTS OF THE FACILITY LAYOUT
ALTERNATIVE BY FACILITY AND VEGETATIVE
COMMUNITY TYPE 4'50
TABLE 4 7-1 ACREAGE REQUIREMENTS FOR ONE AUM BY
ECOLOGICAL SITE • • • • •
TABLE 4-7.2 TEMPORARY GRAZING LOSS
TABLE4-73 PERMANENT GRAZING LOSS
TABLE 414-1 MAXIMUM PM10 IMPACTS •.
TABLE 4.14-2 PROPOSED AIR POLLUTANT CONTROL
TECHNOLOGY AND ASSUMED EFFICIENCY 4-88
2395K5/R4-WP.TC 2/5/97(11=27 pm)/RPT/8
-X-
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
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 2-2
FIGURE 2-2 ELECTRICAL POWERLINE CORRIDOR MAP 2-3
FIGURE 2-3 PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM AREA 02 AND 03 CRUSHING
AND SCREENING . t 2-11
FIGURE 2-4 PLANT SITE PLAN ' 2-13
FIGURE 2-5 LEACH PAD DETAILS 2-14
FIGURE 2-6 LINER DETAILS 2-15
FIGURE 2-7 PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM AREA 03 HEAP LEACHING 2-16
FIGURE 2-8 PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM AREA 04 SOLVENT
EXTRACTION 2-22
FIGURE 2-9 PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM AREA 05 ELECTROWINNING 2-23
FIGURE 2-10 PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM AREA 05 CATHODE
HANDLING 2-25
FIGURE 2-11 SIMPLIFIED WATER BALANCE 2-30
FIGURE 3.1-1 GEOLOGICAL MAP FOR THE LISBON VALLEY 3-2
FIGURE 3.1-2 GENERALIZED STRATIGRAPHIC COLUMN 3-5
FIGURE 3.1-3 CROSS SECTION A-A', CENTENNIAL PIT POST-MINING 3-10
FIGURE 3.1-4 CROSS SECTION B-B', CENTENNIAL PIT POST-MINING 3-11
FIGURE 3.1-5 CROSS SECTION C-C, SENTINEL PIT POST-MINING 3-12
FIGURE 3.1-6 CROSS SECTION D-D', SENTINEL PIT POST-MINING 3-13
FIGURE 3.1-7 CROSS SECTION E-E', GTO PIT POST-MINING 3-14
FIGURE 3.1-8 MAJOR STRUCTURAL FEATURES 3-15
FIGURE 3.1-9 SCHEMATIC NORTHEAST TO SOUTHWEST GEOLOGIC
CROSS SECTION . 3-17
FIGURE 3.2-1 MONITORING WELL, BORING, AND SURFACE
WATER SAMPLING LOCATIONS 3-23
FIGURE 3.2-2 SURFACE WATER FEATURES 3-24
FIGURE 3.2-3 WATER BEARING CHARACTERISTICS OF POST-
MISSISSIPPIAN-AGE FORMATIONS 3-28
FIGURE 3.2-4 GROUNDWATER STIFF DIAGRAMS 3-39
FIGURE 3.3-l(a) DRILL HOLE LOCATION MAP SENTINEL DEPOSIT 3-45
FIGURE 3.3-l(b) DRILL HOLE LOCATION MAP CENTENNIAL DEPOSIT 3-46
FIGURE 3.3-l(c) DRILL HOLE LOCATION MAP GTO DEPOSIT 3-47
FIGURE 3.4-1 SOILS MAP . 3-52
FIGURE 3.5-1 VEGETATION MAP 3-59
FIGURE 3.5-2 EXISTING CONDITIONS IN LISBON CANYON (PHOTO) 3-61
FIGURE 3.7-1 LOWER LISBON VALLEY GRAZING ALLOTMENTS 3-69
FIGURE 3.8-1 UNEMPLOYMENT RATE (%) 3-75
FIGURE 3.8-2 INDUSTRY TRENDS IN GRAND COUNTY: 1978-1994 3-76
FIGURE 3.8-3 INDUSTRY TRENDS IN SAN JUAN COUNTY: 1990-1994 3-77
FIGURE 3.8-4 AVERAGE ANNUAL WAGES ($) 3-79
23996/R4-WP.TC 2/5/97(11:27 pm)/RPT/8
-XL-
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
FIGURE 3 8-5 POPULATION TRENDS IN SAN JUAN AND GRAND
COUNTIES: 1980-1994 ; • • • • • •••••• ' ' '
PTrrmF^llla CULTURAL RESOURCES STUDY AREA (MINE AREA) , 3-90
FIGURE" 3.1l"-lb CULTURAL RESOURCES STUDY AREA (POWERLINE
CORRIDOR) ., Q7
HGURE 3.12-1 GTO PIT AREA (PHOTO)
SgS?^
FIGURE3.12-4 TYPICAL LISBON VALLEY SCENE (PHOTO) -3-98
FTHTTRE 3 14-1 WIND FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION ^^
^0^4.21 BURRO CANYON AQUIFER POTENTIOMETRIC SURFACE _
PRE-MINING
HGURE 4.2-2 BURRO CANYON AQUIFER POTENTIOMETRIC SURFACE
POST-MINING, CASE 1 -
FIGURE 4 2-3 BURRO CANYON AQUIFER POTENTIOMETRIC SURFACE
POST-MINING, CASE 2 • • • • •
HGURE 4.2-4 PANORAMIC VIEW OF MOUTH OF LISBON CANYON
FIGURE 4 2-5 PREmCTED DRAwboWN," YEAR 10, CASE 1 AND 2 ... 4-18
SoURE^ ENTRADA/NAVAJO AQUIFER POTENTIOMETRIC SURFACE
PRE-MINING
FIGURE 4 2-7 ENTRADA/NAVAJO AQUIFER POTENTIOMETRIC SURFACE
POST-MINING, CASE 1 • • • • • T±
FIGURE 4 2-8 EXISTING EROSION IN LISBON VALLEY (PHOTO)4-22
FIGURE4.2-9 GTO PIT AREA (PHOTO)
FIGURE 4.8-1 PROJECTED EMPLOYMENT
FIGURE 414-1 24-HOUR MAXIMUM PM10 IMPACTS
23996/R4-WP.TC 2/5/97(11:27 pm)/RPT/8
-Xll-
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
ACEC
ac-ft/yr
AGP
AIRFA
ANFO
AMP
ARD
ARPA
ATV
AUM
bgs
BLM
cfs
CQA/QC
cu. yds
DAQ
DEIS
DEQ
DR/FONSI
DWQ
EIS
EPA
ESA
FEIS
FLPMA
g/1
gpm
gpm/ft2
GL/RL
HDPE
IPs
km
LME
mg/1
MOU
MSHA
msl
NAAQS
NAGPRA
NEPA
NHPA
NNP
NOAA
NOI
NPDES
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
cubic yards
Utah Division of Air Quality
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Department of Environmental Quality
Decision Record and Finding of No Significant Impact
Division of Water Quality
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
National Environmental Policy Act
National Historic Preservation Act
net neutralization potential
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Notice of Intent
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
23996/R4-WP.TC 2/S/97
-------
TABLEOF CONTENTS (Concluded)
NRHP
pCi/1
PJ
PLS
POO
PSD
OSHA
R.O.
RCRA
RMP
ROD
ROM
SB
SCS
SPCC
Summo
SX/EW
TDS
TSS
UDOGM
UDWR
UNHP
USDA
USFWS
VRM
yr
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
23996.TM-WP.TC 2/6/97(10:52 anO/RFT/8
-XIV-
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
This Summary of the Final Environmental Impact
Statement (FEIS), prepared by the U.S.
Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land
Management (BLM), Moab District Office,
Moab, Utah, 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 of 1969, (NEPA).
Since the majority of the project would occur on
public lands, 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).
Additionally, several State of Utah agencies have
played an active part hi review and permit
issuance of Summo's POO, based on state and
private lands interspersed within Summo's project
area, and the overall responsibility of these
agencies for such activity within the boundaries of
the state. For purposes of impact evaluation,
technical expertise was provided by independent
third-party consultants working under the
direction of BLM.
The BLM solicited public and agency comments
on the proposed project during initial scoping
activities. A Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare
an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), was
published by BLM in the Federal Register on
October 5, 1995. The NOI identified two public
scoping meetings, November 1, 1995 in Moab,
Utah and November 2,1995 in Monticello, Utah,
and a scoping comment deadline of November 29,
1995. These meetings were held, and scoping
issues identified. Additionally, receipt of the
POO and intent to prepare the EIS was posted
on the Utah Electronic Notification Board on
November 11,1995.
Additional public comment was received on a
Draft EIS (DEIS) between May 24,1996 and July
8, 1996. A Notice of Availability (NOA) of the
DEIS was published in the Federal Register by
BLM on May 10,1996, and by the Environmental
Protection Agency on May 31,1996. Both NOA's
identified a public meeting to be held in Moab,
Utah on June 12, 1996 to receive verbal
comments. The public meeting was held on that
date and 4 verbal comments were received. An
additional 24 written comments were received on
the DEIS during the public comment period.
Further information on the entire public
participation process, including responses to
comments received OH the DEIS, is provided in
Section 5 of the FEIS.
Comments and issues brought forth during the
initial scoping efforts and the subsequent public
review and comment on the DEIS, are addressed
in this 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), to be issued
no sooner than 30 days after Notification of
Availability of the FEIS in the Federal Register.
This executive summary of the FEIS contains a
brief description of the Proposed Action and
alternatives to the Proposed Action; identifies
BLM's preferred alternative; summarizes existing
environmental conditions, 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 (POO) to the BLM, Moab
District, to develop a copper mine in Lisbon
Valley, Utah. The proposal includes:
development of four open pits to access copper
ore; four waste dumps, crushing facilities; a 266
acre pad to leach the ore; a processing plant and
23996/R4-WP.ES 2/5/97(4:12 pm)/RPT/8
ES-1
-------
ponds to recover the ore; construction of a
10.8 mile powerline to the project site; and
associated support facilities. The total disturbance
area would be 1,103 acres; the project would be
located on a combination of Federal, State, and
private (fee) lands. Mining and processing would
occur for a 10 year period, with reclamation
taking an additional 5 years to complete.
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 currently occur hi the area: wildlife
habitat, livestock grazing, and mineral
development.
Final reclamation activities would include the
removal of all equipment and facilities, 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. The four open pits would be left
open. Post-closure monitoring by the proponent
would be required to ensure successful
reclamation and compliance with permit
standards.
Issues
Issues of concern were identified through public
scoping and agency project review. 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 ground water quality and
quantity, and post-mining surface drainage.
• 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 do not comprise a 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 from the public and
agencies, were considered in the development of
alternatives, and are analyzed hi detail in Section
4 of the EIS.
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
feasibility and effectiveness; while the
environmental evaluation considered potential
impacts on air, water, and soil, cultural resources,
vegetation, wildlife, and the human environment.
Economics were considered as a factor in the
elimination of an alternative, only where it would
likely result hi 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 "unnecessary and undue
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 hi the area would
remain undeveloped. Existing environmental
conditions would remain unchanged, including 85
acres of unreclaimed historic mining disturbance.
Open Pit Backfilling Alternative
This alternative is the same as the Proposed
Action except that the mine pits would 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 cover any potential pools
of water that may develop in the pits. This
23996/R4-WP.ES 2/5/97(4:12 pm)/RPT/8
ES-2
-------
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 pit areas 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, small dumps would
remain after backfilling due to the swell factor of
the waste rock, and to contain the potentially acid
generating waste rock placed hi the dumps during
mining. Backfilling activities would occur
concurrently with operations after each pit is
sequentially mined to its economic limit.
Complete backfilling would substantially reduce
the height and areal 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 Lisbon Valley Road, and directly in the
middle of the drainage system from upper Lisbon
Valley, would be eliminated. The waste rock
from Dump D would instead be redistributed hi
the remaining Waste Dumps A, B and C. The
implementation of this alternative would lessen
impacts to soils and vegetation at the site of
Dump D from disturbance and long-term post-
mining erosion, would lessen impacts to long-term
surface drainage patterns hi Lisbon Valley, and
would lessen visual impacts to die public
travelling along the Lisbon Valley road.
Waste Rock Selective Handling Alternative
This alternative would be the same as the
Proposed Action, except that acid generating
waste material mined from the open pits would
be selectively placed within the dumps.
Approximately ten percent of the waste material
has been determined to have the potential to
generate acid waste, 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 waste rock
mined from the open pits would be selectively
placed and encapsulated within acid neutralizing
waste, hi the central part of the waste dumps
away from the top or sides to inhibit contact with
water and oxygen, and thus inhibit acid generation
and eliminate, to the extent possible, the potential
for long-term acid drainage from the waste dumps
and subsequent adverse impact to the
environment.
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 EIS
stage. The preferred alternative is not a final
agency decision; but rather an indication of the
agency's preliminary preference. The final agency
decision is identified hi the ROD, made available
to the proponent and the public no sooner than
30 days after distribution and availability of the
FEIS.
The BLM preferred alternative for the Lisbon
Valley Copper Project is a combination of die
Facility Layout Alternative and the Waste Rock
Selective Handling Alternative. Under this
combination .of alternatives, the Proposed Action
would be implemented with -the exception of
requiring Waste Dump D to be combined with
the three remaining Waste Dumps in the
proposed action. This alternative would mitigate
adverse impacts from concurrent and post-mining
drainage run-off, and long-term sedimentation
into Lisbon Canyon associated with Waste Dump
D. The selection of die Waste Rock Selective
Handling Alternative would result in the isolation
and encapsulation of potentially acid generating
waste rock placed in the waste dumps. The
selection of this alternative is designed to
eliminate the potential for post-mining generation
of acid waste from die dumps, that would
adversely impact soil, vegetation, and water
resources within and downstream of the project
site. .
In addition to die preferred alternatives selected,
based on a comparison of impacts under die
Proposed Action, identified as Case 1 (Section
23996/R4-WP.ES 2/5/97(4:13 pm)/RPT/8
ES-3
-------
4.2.2), No Post-Mining Diversion of Surface
Flow into Sentinel Pit, versus Case 2, Post-Mining
Diversion of Surface Water into Sentinel Pit, the
preferred alternative would be to select Case 1,
thus not allowing post-mining surface drainage to
be diverted into the Sentinel Pit. This selection is
based on analysis of impacts from these two post-
mining scenarios. Also, the preferred alternative
would prohibit mining across Lisbon Canyon or
disturbance of the stream channel at the mouth of
Lisbon Canyon. This would eliminate the need for
developing and ma'T|ta'I"ng problematic long-term
diversion structures around the north side of the
Sentinel Pit.
All recommended mitigation identified in Section
4, the impact section of the EIS analysis, hi
addition to the committed mitigation identified by
Summo in the POO, and the Mitigation and
Monitoring Plan prepared by Summo and
included as Appendix A to the EIS, would be
incorporated into the ROD. Summo would also
be required to adhere to all stipulations and
mitigation identified in all permits received from
the State of Utah.
Mitigation identifies long-term (25 years) post-
mining monitoring of ground water and any
potential pit lakes. If this monitoring indicated
unacceptable adverse water quality impacts, the
approved plan would require Summo to take
appropriate measures that would result in
maintaining water quality at levels determined by
the State of Utah, Division of Water Quality hi
their Groundwater Discharge Permit. Summo
would be required to post a long-term trust bond
at the end of mining operation to assure that
financial resources were available to , mitigate
potential adverse impacts that could develop.
Analysis of all factors associated with the proposal
and the selection of the preferred alternatives and
identified mitigation indicates the project would
not result in unnecessary or undue degradation to
the environment.
It has been determined that approval of the
Proposed Action and selected alternatives is hi
compliance with both the 1985 Grand Resource
Management Plan (where the mining operation
would occur), and the 1989 San Juan Resource
Management Plan (where the powerline
construction would occur). Further details of the
Resource Management Plan compliance are
presented hi Section 1, Section 1.2.
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
Section 3 of the FEIS 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 hi Lisbon Valley
hi southeast 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 provide
access to the proposed project site.
The proposed project is hi an area characterized
by historical copper and uranium mining activity.
Approximately 85 acres at this site show evidence
of previous mining in the form of roads,
powerlines, abandoned mine pits, waste and ore
stockpiles and overburden dumps that were never
reclaimed. There is currently no indication of
wildlife or safety problems associated with the
remaining open pits, or environmental impacts
associated with acid rock drainage from the
unreclaimed waste dumps.
The affected environment includes the valley floor
of 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. Baseline air
quality is characteristic of natural, rural air quality
conditions.
Most of the soils hi the project area are sandy
loams, with characteristics suitable for
reclamation. Vegetation hi the region is
categorized into three primary vegetation zones:
pinyon-juniper, sagebrush, ' and grassland
23996/R4-WP.ES 2/5/97(4:20 pm)/RPT/8
ES-4
-------
communities. No threatened, endangered or
sensitive plant or wildlife species are known to
occur within the project area. A variety of
wildlife species are found, including mule deer,
rabbits, prairie dogs, 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 recreation.
Surface water hi the vicinity is limited to that
flowing from Lisbon Spring and Huntley Spring
(both outside the impact area within the project
boundary), and water intermittently ponded in
two existing pits, and two cattle ponds. Surface
water drainages in the project area are
characterized by deeply eroded dry washes typical
for this area of Utah. Ephemeral flow occurs
only hi response to heavy snowmelt runoff or high
intensity summer thunderstorms. The cattle
ponds capture surface runoff for livestock and
wildlife use. Wildlife also use the springs.
The distribution of ground water at the project
site is erratic and strongly controlled by geologic
structure. The numerous faults present in the
project area act as barriers to ground water flow
in some cases, and effectively separate the
aquifers, east of the Lisbon Valley Fault, into
three water-bearing units, between 60 and 900
feet below the ground surface (bgs). Due to the
geologic structure present in Lisbon Valley, these
aquifers are effectively isolated from surrounding
regional aquifers. Ground water is also present
intheHermosa Formation approximately 410 feet
bgs, on the west side of the Lisbon Valley Fault,
in Little Valley. Existing surface water and ground
water quality exceeds Utah primary and secondary
drinking water standards for several metals,
radionuclides, and TDS. The shallow ground
water in the project area is non-potable when
compared to Utah drinking water standards, and
has not been used historically for domestic use.
The economy of the surrounding area 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 hi the project 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, within
and adjacent to the project boundary. A total of
178 historic and prehistoric archeological sites
were recorded hi the study area, including 160
prehistoric sites, 14 historic sites, and 4 sites with
both prehistoric and historic materials. The
prehistoric sites are represented by camps,
quarries, lithic procurement localities, lithic
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.
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSEQUENCES
The Proposed Action and the four alternatives
were evaluated for then- potential impact on
various environmental, social, and cultural
resources. A detailed discussion of these impacts,
or environmental consequences, is contained hi
Section 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 hi topography resulting
from construction of the pits, heap leach pad, and
waste rock dump areas (946 acres); and the
covering of lower grade, future mineral resources
under the Open Pit Backfilling Alternative.
Potential geotechnical impacts include failure of
constructed slopes caused by a seismic event hi
the vicinity, solution pond overtopping during a
large precipitation event, or breach of the leach
pad and pond liners due to punctures or
incorrectly welded seams. These potential
23996/R4-WP.ES 2/5/97(4:14 pm)/RPT/8
ES-5
-------
impacts were considered when the facilities were
designed, and measures were taken to reduce
and/or eliminate the probability of such impacts.
Hydrology
Project operations would use a mine-life average
of 907 acre feet of water per year, which would
be supplied from existing wells drilled for data
recovery and analysis, new wells that would be
drilled in the Burro Canyon aquifer for mine pit
dewatering and process water, and in the deeper
Entrada/Navajo aquifer for process water. The
effects of removing this water from the shallow
and deep aquifers would be to reduce the quantity
of groundwater available from the mine vicinity
during operations and for a period of years after
mining ceases.
Results of groundwater modeling indicate there
would be an increase in groundwater levels near
the Sentinel Pits due to post-mining discharge of
ephemeral surface water flow to the Sentinel #1
Pit (as proposed in the POO), and subsequent
groundwater recharge. If surface water were not
allowed to be discharged into the Sentinel #1 Pit
after mining ceases, the groundwater levels would
remain lowered as a result of dewatering.
Lisbon Spring and Huntley Spring would not be
impacted because the source of recharge to these
two springs is not connected to the shallow or
deep aquifers in the project area. Post-mining
surface water diversion into the Sentinel #1 Pit
could result in uncontrolled erosion conditions in
the project vicinity that would occur in the three
drainages that converge upstream of the Sentinel
•#1 Pit. Removal of water from the
Entrada/Navajo aquifer would not impact flows
in the Dolores River since ground water flows
from the Lisbon Valley area make up a small
percentage of the total flows in the Dolores River.
Following operations under the Proposed Action,
the Sentinel #1 Pit would intercept up to 177 ac-
ft/yr of the surface water runoff from Lisbon
Valley that would naturally flow down Lisbon
Canyon. Few impacts to Lisbon Canyon are
expected, because it is an ephemeral drainage.
Complete post-mining pit backfilling and/or
surface water diversion around the Sentinel #1
Pit would maintain the 177-ac-ft/yr of ephemeral
surface flow currently going down Lisbon Canyon
to the Dolores River.
Easting shallow aquifer 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, pit walls, or post-mining
pit lakes. Selective handling of potentially acid
generating material within the waste piles would
address acid drainage issues from the waste
dumps. 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 backfilled pits due
to reactions between the backfill material, the pit
walls, and the groundwater. The host of potential
chemical reactions are too complex for modeling,
but could potentially adversely impact
groundwater occurring downgradient of the pits.
The pits are predicted to contain between 1 - 320
feet of standing water after mining operations
cease. Since the natural quality of shallow aquifer
water exceeds state standards for agricultural uses
no post-mining beneficial use of this water is
expected. In addition, evapoconcentration of pit
lake water could further degrade water quality
with increased concentrations of Total Dissolved
Solids (TDS), sulfate, and metal oxyanions.
Under the Open Pit Backfilling Alternative, pit
lake water would not be available for any
potential future beneficial uses.
Geochemistry
Based on the results of Acid Base Accounting
tests, about 10 percent of the waste rock material
has a potential to generate acid; the rest of the
material is either non-acid generating or acid
neutralizing. Should this material be
indiscriminately placed in the waste rock dumps
such that it is exposed to water and oxygen, there
is a potential for long-term acid drainage which
could affect soils, vegetation, and water quality
near, and downstream of, the waste dumps.
However, encapsulation of this material in the
waste dumps would inhibit the oxidation reactions
23996/R4-WP.ES 2/3/97(6:59 pm)/RPT/8
ES-6
-------
that produce acid 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
sulfate, TDS, and precipitate trace metals over
baseline conditions. This could degrade shallow
and deep aquifer water quality, downgradient of
the pits.
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.
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 additional
measures were developed, which are sufficient to
reduce potential impacts from erosion and
increase the potential for successful reclamation.
Post-mining diversion of ephemeral surface flows
into the Sentinel pit could result in severe
upstream erosion of valley fill soils in Lisbon
Valley. This would result from headcutting due
to gradient differences as water flowed over the
sides of the pit to the bottom. Such erosion could
undermine Waste Dump D, proposed for location
in the bottom of the valley. The Facility Layout
Alternative would eliminate Waste Dump D and
this potential. Requiring long-term post-mining
diversion of ephemeral surface flow around the
Sentinel Pit would eliminate this potential valley
headcutting impact.
Vegetation
Implementation of the Proposed Action or any of
the development alternatives would disturb a total
of 1,103 acres: 422 acres of sagebrush
communities, 296 acres of pinyon-juniper
communities, and 300 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.
No threatened or endangered plant species were
identified in the area during vegetative survey
work for this project.
Wildlife
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. Wildlife studies in
December 1995, and May 1996, have not
identified any threatened or endangered species in
the project area.
Additional impacts to wildlife from project
construction and development include the
permanent loss of a 257 acres 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 causing displacement of
resident fauna, and impacts from mortality losses
related to increased transportation and vehicular
use in the area. Leach solution ponds could
attract birds and waterfowl, and possible
disturbance of raptors could occur during
breeding and nesting season, although active
raptor nesting sites were not identified during
surveys and no data exist, to indicate problems
with avian fauna in other pits or waste water
facilities in the area.
23996/R4-WP.ES 2/3/97(6:59 pm)/KPT/8
ES-7
-------
Impacts would be lessened significantly by
preparation and implementation of an "Off-Site
Habitat Enhancement Plan", to be prepared
within one year of initiation of construction
activities, in consultation with Summo, the State
Division of Wildlife Resources, and BLM.
Based on potential impacts determined through
preparation of the EIS, BLM determined that
endangered fish species downstream of the
project in the Dolores and Colorado Rivers may
be affected by water depletions associated with
the project. As a result of this "may effect"
determination, BLM engaged in formal
Endangered Species Act Section 7 consultation
with the USFWS.
As a result of the consultation process, USFWS
issued a Biological Opinion, determining that such
action could result in a jeopardy situation for the
continued existence of these fish species, and
subsequently required mitigation in the form of a
one time water depletion fee payment by Summo,
based on requirements identified in the "Recovery
Implementation Program for Endangered Fish
Species in the Upper Colorado River Basin".
This depletion payment is made to the USFWS
designated agent, the National Wildlife
Foundation, and is based on the average amount
of water (in acre feet) depleted by the project on
a yearly basis. Ten percent of this fee would be
payable at the time of federal approval of the
project, the balance would be payable at the time
construction commences
Grazing
Project construction and development would
impact two different grazing allotments; 325 acres
in the Lower Lisbon Allotment and 419 acres in
the Lisbon Allotment would be disturbed 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 vicinityof the
open pits unless the complete backfilling
alternative is selected, in which case there would
be no permanent loss of AUM's. Based on the
12,326total AUMS available in these allotments,
the long-term projected loss of AUM's associated
with the proposed decision and alternatives
identified, would be 7.2 AUM's, amounting to
0.05 percent.
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 mining
related jobs over the life of the project, thus
reducing unemployment in the project area, and
providing $54.5 million in payroll over the life of
the project. Additionally, 31 to 54 jobs would be
created in (he trade and supply industries needed
to support the project, providing an additional
$14.2 million in wages during the project life. It
is expected that the majority of jobs would be
filled by residents ofMoab, 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, these new residents could put a
strain on the local housing market in the Moab
area. Communities in San Juan County appear to
be better able to deal with housing demand with
a significantly higher percentage of unoccupied
housing available. The community of La Sal may
experience growth, particularly with any
construction workers moving into the area. La
Sal does not have a high availability of
unoccupied housing and community concern exists
that the project could bring unwanted trailers to
the community. Were this to occur however, it
would likely be only for the duration of
construction operations. Permanent mine
workers would likely build or buy more
conventional housing. La Sal could deal with
their concerns through local zoning restrictions,
possibly identifying areas where trailers could be
temporarily placed and timeframes.
The increased diversity in the economy of the
area and the increase in higher paying jobs
associated with this project, combined with the
23996/R4-WP.ES 2/5/97(4:14 pm)/RPT/8
ES-8
-------
projection that most of the jobs can be filled
locally without adding significant infrastructural
costs to local governments in the area, indicates
a positive social impact for residents within the
area. Additionally, due to the project's location,
it would not be expected to have any impact on
the well established tourism and recreation
industry hi the area, as the area is not currently,
nor has it been historically utilized for those
purposes.
The project is not expected to produce a "boom
or bust" for the local economy when the mine
begins operation and subsequently shuts down 10
years later. The loss of up to 191 jobs and
associated tax revenues would be gradual as the
mine begins decommissioning. However, based
on the overall magnitude and size of the economy
of the area projected at that time, the impacts
resulting from mine closure are not expected to
be significant, resulting only in the loss of a
projected 2 percent of available jobs.
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 hi the area would not exceed the capacity
of the existing road network. It is estimated that
traffic accidents on area roads would increase by
2.44 accidents/ year, or roughly 2 percent above
the current accident rate occurring on a yearly
basis on the major roads accessing the mine site.
Due to increased traffic, road wear and
maintenance costs to county road districts would
increase, but this would 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.
Selection of various alternatives would have no
significant changes from the proposed action.
Hazardous Materials
An estimated 10 truck trips per day would be
needed to haul hazardous materials to the mine
site resulting in an estimated O.Slto 1.6accidents
over the life of the mine. Accidental spills of this
material could contaminate soils and vegetation,
and/or subject human and wildlife populations to
adverse impacts. However, each company
transporting hazardous materials, including
Summo, 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. Summo would also be required,
through permit stipulation, to provide training and
necessary specialized equipment, at then- cost, to
all local community emergency response teams.
Training frequency would be identified by the
local response teams.
Hazardous materials used on-site would be stored
hi 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 hi two ways.
Fust, 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 storm water 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.
Potential exists for adverse impacts to adjacent
off-site vegetation hi the event spray from the
sprinkler systems delivering sulfuric acid to the
heap leach pad, escapes from the pad.
Cultural and Paleontologica! Resources
There are 178 cultural resource sites within the
project area, of which 23 are potentially eligible to
be listed on the National Register of Historic
Places (none are currently listed). None of the 23
23996/R4-WP.ES 2/4/97(1:40 pm)/RPT/8
ES-9
-------
sites would be directly impacted by construction
and development of the proposed project. Project
personnel would be restricted from sites not
directly impacted. Consultation with the State
Historic Preservation Office has resulted in a no
effect determination from the project.
Native American consultation with several tribes
with current and historic affiliation to the area
has been conducted. Several tribal groups were
taken on site tours. The results of the
consultations indicate none of these tribes have
concern with this specific project. The Hopi tribe
has some concern with overall coordination and
consultation efforts between their tribe and
governmental agencies throughout the Four
Corners region. Resolution of their concerns is
beyond the scope of this project.
Consultation has been conducted with the State
Historic Preservation Officer, who has concurred
in the findings presented in the EIS.
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. Due to the project's
topographic location and screening in the bottom
of Lisbon Valley, the pits and facilities would not
be visible from surrounding areas, including vistas
from regional mountains.
Reclamation and revegetation measures would
reduce visual impacts, but the potentially 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. Implementation of the
Facility Layout alternative would increase the
height of Waste Dumps B and C by 70 and 50
feet, respectively. Waste Dump D would be
eliminated.
Land Use
Implementation of the Proposed Action or any of
the development alternatives would temporarily
change the current land uses of grazing and
wildlife habitat to active copper mining and
beneficiation on 256 acres of private (fee) land;
574 acres of BLM land; and 273 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 dispersed
recreation, with die exception of the 231 acres of
abandoned pits under_the Proposed Action. The
complete Open Pit Backfilling Alternative would
return this 231 acres to use.
Climate and Air Quality
Particulate matter dust (PM10) 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
PM10 levels at the project boundary would
increase by 8 to 26 fina/m3 from project
operations, which levels are well within NAAQS
standards.
The primary impact to air quality would be from
dust associated with the operation, decreasing
visibility within and surrounding the project area,
and incrementally adding to overall visibility
degradation in the surrounding region during the
life of the mine. Impacts would be relatively the
same for all alternatives. There would be no
impact to climate.
Noise
Noise levels are not expected to exceed regulatory
standards for workers inside the property
boundaries, nor for potential residents and users
of adjoining property outside property boundaries.
This assessment applies to all operational
alternatives. 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 at a maximum. Residents of a potential
23996/R4-WP.ES 2/3/97(5:33 pm)/RPT/8
ES-10
-------
development several miles south of the project
area may periodically hear blasting noise as part
of background noise levels.
Recreational Resources
As suggested by the low scenic and visual rating
of the area, it has not been used for extensive
recreational uses by locals or out-of-area
recreational visitors. It currently supports some
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 throughout the life of
the project due to road closures and mine traffic.
23996/R4-WP.ES 2/3/97(5:33 pm)/RPT/8
ES-11
-------
-------
1.0
INTRODUCTION
This Final Environmental Impact Statement
(FEIS) addresses the potential impacts of the
proposed Lisbon Valley Copper Project (the
Project) in southeastern Utah. This summary
section includes an introduction to the proposed
project, and its facilities and location; the purpose
and need for the project; authorizing actions;
public involvement, scoping issues and alternatives
considered; and a summation of the
environmental issues and impacts from the
project.
Summo USA Corporation (Summo), a subsidiary
of Summo Minerals Corporation, is proposing to
conduct an open pit mining and heap leach
copper operation at its Lisbon Valley project.
The project is located approximately 18 miles
southeast of La Sal, Utah, hi 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 managed by the
Bureau of Land Management (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 the BLM, Moab Field Office, with offices
about 40 miles to the north of the project site, hi
Moab, Utah.
Current road access and the proposed powerline
route extend outside the project boundary. The
western portion of the power line and the
substation are within the BLM San Juan
Resource Area. Summo proposes to construct an
electric power transmission line connecting the
property facilities with a substation, approximately
three miles east of Highway 191, and
approximately 10.Smiles west of the project area.
This transmission line construction is a connected
action for this particular project, and the potential
environmental impacts from the construction of
this line are also assessed in this Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS).
The proposed project includes the four pits noted
above, associated waste dump areas, a single heap
leach pad 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 from the
pregnant leach solution derived from leach pad
operations. This plant and the other project
facilities and operations are described hi detail hi
Section 2.0.
The project boundary includes 1,103 acres of
disturbance, generally in the central portion of
Lisbon Valley. Lisbon Valley extends for
approximately IS to 20 miles south of La Sal,
Utah, and is described topographically and
geologically hi more detail in the baseline
discussions hi Section 3.0. Study areas for each of
the resources hi Section 3.0will vary to include all
or parts of Lisbon Valley, and sometimes beyond
(such as for socioeconomic effects). Regarding
cumulative effects discussion for each resource,
the study area focuses on Lisbon Valley and the
Four Comers region.
The Lower Lisbon Valley area is generally remote
and isolated at the present tune. It is the site of
historic copper and uranium mining operations
and facilities, with 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,SOOtons of ore per day,
over the approximate ten-year mine life.
1.1 PURPOSE AND NEED
The underlying need for the project is to produce
refined copper for sale from the mineralized
copper bearing zones on the Lisbon Valley
property. Copper is an important base metal, and
is used world-wide hi electric cables and wires,
switches, plumbing and heating; hi roofing and
building construction; hi chemical and
23996/R4-WP.1 2/4/97(1:41 pm)/RPT/8
1-1
-------
MOHTROS E
I • Paradox
Montictllo
ABA JO
MOUNTAINS
Job No. :
23996
Prepared by : G.J.W.
Date :
1/24/95
ADAPTED FROM SUMMO 1995.
LOCATION MAP
LISBON VALLEY AREA
SAN JUAN COUNTY, UTAH
RG. 1-1
-------
(O
o>
O)
LEGEND
— — PROJECT BOUWM8T
• •'•• rEHCE
FEE (PWVATC)
STAtE
KM
SS///A
SOURCE: J.D. WELSH AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 1996a
Job No. : 23996
Prepared by : C.H.P.
Date :
4/8/96
PROJECT BOUNDARIES AND
SURFACE OWNERSHIP
LISBON VALLEY COPPER PROJECT
1-3
FIG. 1-2
-------
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's purpose as an emerging copper
producer, is to develop this project profitably,
under its 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.
BLM's purpose in reviewing and analyzing a Plan
of Operations (POO) for Summo's proposed
project is to respond to the applicant's proposal
as required by the National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969 (NEPA), the Federal Land Policy and
Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA), and the
Code of Federal Regulations at Tide 43, Section
3809. By law and regulation, BLM is required to
prepare an (EIS) for major actions that may
significantly affect the quality of the human
environment, and to prevent unnecessary and
undue degradation of the environment while
allowing Summo to exercise it's rights under the
Mining Law of 1872. Thus, the preparation and
issuance of this EIS.
12 AUTHORIZING ACTIONS
Land status 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 has been determined to be
hi conformance with the terms and conditions of
the Grand Resource Area Resource Management
Plan (RMP) (BLM 1985a, 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 43 CFR 3809
regulations, mining operations exceeding 5 acres
during any calendar year requke the approval of
a plan of operations.
The proposed powerline for the project would be
constructed primarily within the BLM's San Juan
Resource Area (SJRA), located west and south of
the Moab District 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
NEPA documentation. No special management
conditions were identified for this area, and a
powerline right-of-way could be issued in
conformance with the San Juan Resource Area
RMP (BLM 1989).
Based on provisions in NEPA, proposed actions
that could affect public lands must be reviewed
for an assessment of environmental and social
impacts. Based on the potential for significant
surface disturbance associated with Summo's
proposed project, BLM determined that an EIS,
rather than an Environmental Assessment (EA),
would be required to assess the potential impacts
from Summo's POO.
The proposed action is not specifically 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. This EIS prepared for the
Summo POO is tiered to both the Grand and San
Juan Resource Area RMP's/EIS's, which were
approved in July 1985 and May 1989, respectively.
Z3996/R4-WPJ 2/5/97(7:07 pm)/RPT/8
1-4
-------
Tiering to these RMP/EIS's, incorporates by
reference the general analysis of the issues and
impacts in the RMP/EIS's. This site-specific EIS
prepared for the Summo project does not modify
the decisions of the Grand or San Juan Resource
Area RMP's/EIS's.
The proposed Summo project is also consistent
with the San Juan County Master Plan completed
July 8, 1996 (Scherick 1996).
Based on impacts identified from the project,
various mitigation measures are proposed
throughout this EIS that would serve to minimize
or eliminate certain impacts that may otherwise
occur. Section 2.0 and Appendix A list many of
the mitigation measures identified and committed
to by Summo to address impacts. Subsequently,
impacts identified in Section 4.0 are done so with
these committed mitigations in mind. In addition,
the resource-specific discussions in Section 4.0
recommend additional 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 would be
addressed in the Record of Decision (ROD),
prepared by the BLM following the publication
and review of the FEIS.
A number of other federal, stale and local
actions, permits, and approvals would be required
for the Lisbon Valley Copper Project. Table 1-1
presents a list of 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 and 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.
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, and subsequent decisions in the ROD. The
initial opportunity for public involvement occurs
at the beginning of the EIS process, when scoping
is conducted. Scoping allows compilation of
environmental issues related to the Proposed
Action and identifies 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 Moab, 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.
• An informal presentation was made by BLM
and Summo at a San Juan County Planning
Commission meeting at LaSal, Utah, for the
residents of LaSal, on January 9, 1996.
• A. formal public hearing was held on June 12,
1996 hi Moab, Utah, to solicit comments on
the Draft EIS and identify any remaining
issues to be addressed in the FEIS.
A list of commenting agencies and details
regarding the extent of public participation are
presented hi Section 5.0, Consultation and
Coordination.
Agency review of the project proposal, and
comments from the public identified during the
scoping activities noted above, identified a
preliminary set of issues and concerns which
23996/R4-WP.1 2/5/97(7:07 pm)/RPT/8
1-5
-------
TABLE 1-1
SUMMO USA CORPORATION1
LISBON VALLEY COPPER PROJECT
PERMITS/NOTIFICATIONS/APPROVALS
Agency
Item/Permit
Description
Submittal Data
Likely Permit Specifications/Comments
FEDERAL
U.S. Bureau of Land
Management
POO
EIS
Right-of-Way
Environmental report including all aspects of
operation, environmental and socioeconomic
impacts, and mitigation.
Right-of-Way grant required for authorization
of power line.
Submittal 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.
PacifiCorp submitted Right-of-Way
application specifying location and use.
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 Utah Division of Oil, Gas, and Mining
(UDOGM) concerning mine permitting and
bonding.
Avoid cultural resource sites during
construction.
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
National Pollution
Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES)-Water
Quality
Must comply with surface and groundwater
quality standards for discharge and non-
discharging systems. State of Utah Department
of Environmental Quality has EPA primacy for
issuance of these permits.
Application fee and a characterization of
baseline conditions, surface water and
groundwater hydrology.
To control discharge of metals and other
potential effluents. Monitoring of discharge
and reporting would be required.
Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD)-Air
Quality
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. State of Utah
Department of Environmental Quality has EPA
primacy for issuance of these permits.
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.
Permit is issued to control emissions of
hazardous air pollutants, visible emissions,
paniculate emissions, and sulfur emissions.
Monitoring and reporting is required.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service
Threatened and
Endangered Species
Must prepare Biological Opinion based on
projected impacts to threatened and endangered
species in area of project. Comply with Section
7 consultation of ESA.
Preparation of Biological Assessment by BLM
precedes Formal Section 7 consultation
conducted as part of EIS.
A permit is not issued; USFWS and State
wildlife agencies use EIS as resource document
to demonstrate compliance.
U.S. Mine Safety and
Health Administration
Safety Permit
Must address operational safety issues.
Compliance with health and safety
requirements.
Identification number assigned.
U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers
Section 404 Permits -
Dredge and Fill Activities
in Watercourses
Provides protection for wetlands by regulating
dredged or fill disturbance.
Submit water quality and other environmental
data and development data.
Required for stream diversions and wetlands
disturbance; compliance with Nationwide
Permit 26.
2399&R4T.I-I 1/3I»7(5:17PMVRPT/S
-------
TABLE 1-1
SUMMO USA CORPORATION1
LISBON VALLEY COPPER PROJECT
PERMITS/NOTIFICATIONS/APPROVALS
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
Permit
Storm Water Discharge
Permit
Air Quality Approval
Order
Public Water Supply
Permit
Permits 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. Primacy
action for EPA under provisions of CWA.
To satisfy storm water permitting requirements
on the state and federal land. Primacy action
for EPA under provisions of CWA.
Required for the 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.
Construction and operation permit required for
storm water discharges. Application fees
required.
Submit permit dust control plan application
that 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.
BMPs (Best Management Practices) would be
required.
For compliance with Federal and State air
quality point source requirements for both
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 would be a requirement for
annual reporting of volume placed in the
facilities.
23996/R4T.1-I 1/31/97(5:17 PMyRPT/S
-------
TABLE 1-1
SUMMO USA CORPORATION1
LISBON VALLEY COPPER PROJECT
PERMITS/NOTIFICATIONS/APPROVALS
V
OQ,
Department of Natural Resources
Division of Oil, Gas, and
Mining
Division of State Lands
and Forestry2
Division of Water Rights
Division of Wildlife
Resources
Notice of Intent to
Conduct Mining
Operations
Approval of bonding
Lease
Water Right Permit
__»^_
Impoundment Permits
Vegetation and Wildlife
Impacts
A proposed plan of mining operations,
reclamation plan, and environmental impacts.
Must address ill impacts on state lease lands.
This permit requires an appropriation for •
beneficial use, of which mining is considered to
be a primary use.
Approval for any impoundment (dam) or the
storage of water or solution.
Review of mining impacts on Federal and State
listed sensitive species, as well as threatened
and endangered species.
An application fee, environmental description,
a mining plan, and reclamation plan.
Plan of Operations, reclamation plan, proposed
bond to guarantee reclamation, and a schedule.
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 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 throughput and
reclamation activities.
Annual reporting requirements of volume of
water used, and water level monitoring.
Leak detection monthly, quarterly, and annual
reports as well as water level information.
No formal permit required. Recommendations
for mitigation may be incorporated in final
BLM/DOGM approvals.
Utah State Historic
Preservation Office
Local Health Department
Notes and Sources:
Compliance with the
NHPA
Septic Permit
A review of project area for significant
archaeological and historic sites.
Sanitation disposal permit.
A cultural resources report showing the results
of literature review, field surveys, and NRHP
(National Register of Historic Places)
significance evaluations. ___
Construction details with design capacities
must be reviewed and approved by regional
(state) health representative.
Mitigation of any potential adverse effects to
Federal and State significant sites.
Facility must be sized adequately to
successfully treat/handle sanitary wastes.
Notes and Sources: .
' Adapted from mformation provided by Summo (1996). This list may not be all-mclusive; me operator is responsible for securmg all the necessary permtts and
approvals for the project.
'Mining activities that would occur on State lease land, Division of Oil, Gas and Mmmg has primary stote lead on review of mme plan, reclamatton plan and bon^
2399«R4T.I-I 2/4/97(1:43 PMVRFT/S
-------
resulted in the formulation of the alternatives in
the EIS as described below.
1.3.1 Alternatives Analyzed in the EIS
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 POO.
No Action Alternative - An evaluation of the No
Action Alternative is required under 40 CFR
1502.14 (d) of CEQ regulations implementing
NEPA. This alternative evaluates the possibility
that, 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 alternative addresses impacts to
visual resources and the potential for future
copper development as a result of completely or
partially backfilling four open pits following
mining operations. Implementation of this
alternative would require backfilling of the pits
with waste rock.
Facility Layout Alternative - This alternative
addresses concerns identified during the public
scoping process regarding visual impacts to the
public traveling along the Lower Lisbon Valley
Road. In addition, this alternative was developed
to mitigate potential for long-term drainage and
erosion control problems, resulting from
placement of Waste Dump D directly within the
drainage of upper Lisbon Valley. Under this
alternative, Waste Dump D, located adjacent to
the road and within the main drainage in the
Proposed Action, would be eliminated. The
material from Waste Dump D would be
combined in the remaining three waste dumps, A,
B and C.
Waste Rock Selective Handling Alternative - This
alternative was developed to address concerns
about the potential for acid rock drainage and
potential impacts to groundwater, surface water,
soils, vegetation and wildlife, in the event acid
rock drainage occurred. Under this alternative,
waste rock mined during the project that would
have the potential for generating acid drainage,
would be selectively handled by isolating and
encapsulating it within the waste dumps, thereby
significantly reducing or eliminating the potential
for long-term generation of acid drainage from
the dumps.
Alternatives Considered and
Eliminated
Additional alternatives were suggested during the
EIS scoping process. The following five
alternatives were identified and evaluated based
on environmental, engineering, and economic
factors, and were eliminated from further
consideration in this EIS for the reasons
identified.
Mining Alternative - Summo proposes to conduct
mining operations by open pit. An alternative
mining method suggested is underground mining.
Underground mining is technically and
economically infeasible at the Lisbon Valley
Project. The ore body is not conducive to
underground mining because the copper
mineralization is not found in veins that can be
effectively and efficiently mined by underground
mining techniques. Instead, the ore is
disseminated throughout the host rock,
necessitating open pit methodology to
economically recover all of the copper ore.
Additionally, underground mining does not
promote mineral conservation or an economically
viable operation, due to the copper dissemination
throughout the host rock. Underground mining
requires that pillars of unmined material be left in
place to provide roof support. In a disseminated
ore deposit 30-40% of the mineralization would
be left in these pillars, significantly altering the
economic viability of mining this low-grade copper
deposit. 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
23996/R4-WP.1 2/3/97(4:54 pm)/RFT/8
1-9
-------
transport ore from the Sentinel 1 and 2 Pits to
the crushing facilities and waste rock to Waste
Dump C. It was suggested that 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;
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. Livestock 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.
Additionally, the relatively low levels of traffic
utilizing this road, do not appear to warrant such
a massive relocation of the road. 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, rendering the
project uneconomical. 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 could 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 this project 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 Run Of Mine (ROM) material to
accommodate conveyance requirements. These
additional crushing facilities would increase
environmental degradation (e.g., additional air
emissions) and would increase project costs.
Second, conveyors could 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 need to 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 unpractical 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. 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 associated with the leach
pad operations. 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
2399S/R4-WPJ 2/3/97(4:54 pm)/RPT/8
1-10
-------
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 would be 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
filtering systems, storage areas and pipelines and
pumping station.
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
increase the acreage being disturbed at tie Lisbon
Valley Project. In addition, the ponds would need
to be lined to prevent leakage, as outlined in
Section 2.2A2. The development and
maintenance of these ponds also would increase
the costs of the project. Based on the foregoing,
alternative water balance systems have been
eliminated.
Powerline Route Alternatives - Three other
routes for a new powerline are possible from the
south, southeast, and northeast. Another
alternative would be utilization of an existing
powerline route. Additionally, consideration was
given to burial of the line. None of these
alternatives offer any economic or environmental
benefits over the proposed action. All would
either cost more, cross more rugged terrain, be
longer, or require more surface disturbance. Of
the possible new route alternatives, two would
connect with PacifiCorp's system. The third
would connect with San Miguel Power
Association in Colorado.
A new powerline could be built from PacifiCorp's
Pinto substation east of Monticello, or at any
other point between there and the Hatch
Substation (the starting point of the proposed
action). Any tap off the Pinto-Hatch segment is
further away from the project area, and would
cross rougher terrain. There is insufficient
capacity in the existing 69 kV line north of the
Hatch substation for any tap north of that point.
Tapping of the parallel 138 kV would require a
substation and would still require a line to be run
to the project site.
Another new line alternative would be to tap the
PacifiCorp line running east-west through the
Ucolo area along the state line approximately 3
miles north of US-666. This route would be a
minimum of 21 miles in length with a 1000 foot
descent off Three Step Hill.
A San Miguel Power Association 69 kV line
parallels Colorado 90 near Bedrock. The shortest
distance to die mine project area from this
source, would be 20 miles and would cross the
roughest and most mine riddled terrain of all
possible routes.
Use of the existing powerline route was also
considered and rejected. The existing 125 kV
power line right-of-way from the mine site taps
into the LaSal substation and is approximately
13.5 miles long. The 12.5 kV power line provides
power to several mine sites between the LaSal
substation and the Summo mine site. This power
line would not be replaced by the higher voltage
power line for Summo, and this power line would
be available to provide supplemental power (such
as for lights and minimal power) for Summo in
the event of power shutdowns on the proposed 69
kV power line. The rights-of-way for the existing
125 kV power lines were authorized in 1956 and
1958. These existing routes that were authorized
during the 1950's were not inventoried for cultural
resources, and following the routes would not
eliminate further cultural resources inventories or
avoidance measures.
Following the existing power fine route during the
installation of a 69 kV power line would still
require the construction of additional right-of-way
width and of access routes for heavy equipment,
as the existing power lines cross, but do not
parallel, existing county roads and ridges. The
existing power fine route from the LaSal
substation would be approximately 25 miles
longer than the proposed route from the Hatch
substation. Following the existing power line
route from the LaSal substation would cost more
than the proposed route, and there would be no
23996/R4-WP.1 2/3/97(4*1 pm)/RPT/8
1-11
-------
substantial reduction in the anticipated
environmental impacts.
Burial of the line was also considered. This
alternative would triple the cost of the powerline
and would increase impacts to soils, vegetation,
and cultural resources.
The proposed power line route from the Hatch
substation is shorter than the existing power line
route to the LaSal substation. The proposed
route is parallel to existing county roads for the
majority of the route, and the proposed route is
parallel to one of the existing power lines from
the LaSal substation for approximately 4 miles.
Existing county roads are utilized for access
during power line construction to reduce the
construction costs and minimize additional surface
impacts. Although it is feasible to design a power
line to follow the exact curves and route of an
existing road or power line, major power lines are
usually designed to reduce the number of turning
points. Each turning point along a power line
route requires additional poles, guide wires,
anchors, and use of heavy equipment which
increase the surface disturbances during
construction.
1.3.3 Issues and Concerns Analyzed
The following issues and impacts were brought
forth either during the scoping process, or during
the NEPA process of EIS preparation and
revision.
Geology and Geotechnical Resources
Issues regarding geologic resources raised during
the public scoping process involved the alternative
mining method. Additional geologic issues and
impacts identified during scoping include post-
mining topography in the area, resulting from the
development of four open pits and the
construction of four waste rock piles. Also, the
issue of future mineral development of lower
grade copper ore remaining at the cessation of
this operation was identified.
Geotechnical issues identified 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, 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 increased sedimentation in surface
water drainages.
Water supply issues include impacts to
groundwater and the watershed as a result of
water withdrawn from various aquifers for
dewatering of the pits, use in processing
operations, and road watering for dust control;
these activities could result in 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 were identified and are
assessed in Section 4.2.
Potential impacts to the quality of groundwater in
both the shallow and deep aquifers 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 which may be 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.
23996/R4-WP.1 2/3/77(454 pnO/RFT/S
1-12
-------
During the environmental impact analysis, the
potential for increased sedimentation and
accelerated erosion as a result of re-routing storm
water runoff into the Sentinel Pit following mine
closure was brought forward and potential
impacts were assessed.
Geochemistry
Impacts from potential acid generating waste rock
or mobilized dissolved constituents is the primary
geochemistry issue identified. Impacts from acid-
generating material left exposed in the pit walk
are also assessed in Section 43. As a result of
the analysis process, potential impacts from post-
mining, alkaline conditions in potential pit lakes;
or periodic alkaline water runoff from die 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 topsoU, 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 rt»»s
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
45. 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, bun-owing owls, shrikes, and rattlesnakes in
Section 4.6. Potential impacts to threatened,
endangered, and special status species are also
addressed.
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 die mine; as well
as wastes generated during operations, are
assessed in Section 4.10. Potential environmental
23996/R4-W.1 2/3/97(7:06 pm)/RPT/8
1-13
-------
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 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).
In addition, consultation with Native American
groups with current or prehistoric affiliation with
the project area has been undertaken.
Visual Resources
Visual impacts that would result from the amount
of contrast created between the proposed facilities
(and powerline) and the existing landscape
condition, and visibility of the 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 within and outside the
proposed project boundary as a result of dust
concentrations or air contaminants exceeding
background levels, are assessed in Section 4.14.
Noise
Noise level impacts, both within the proposed
project boundary and outside the project area, are
assessed in Section 4.15. Work-place impacts
from noise exposure limits are also assessed.
2896/R4-WF.1 2/3/97(7:06 pm)/RFT/8
Noise impacts to potential area residents and
passersby from operations, blasting, and truck
traffic, are also assessed in this section.
Recreational Resources
Impacts to current recreational resources and
access, impacts on the recreational environment,
and impacts to recreation post-closure are
discussed in Section 4.16.
13.4 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,
because the issues required to be addressed by
these particular policies do not exist for this
project These issues are as follows.
• No direct or indirect effects are expected
from this project to Native American trust
rigftts, per the Secretary of Interior directive
(Babbit 1994).
• 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).
BLM National Environmental Policy Handbook,
H-1790-1 (BLM 1988a), requires certain critical
elements to be addressed in NEPA documents.
Based on review of these elements, the following
criteria are not considered applicable to this
project, because these specific types of
environmental elements do not exist at this
project site:
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern
Prime or Unique Farmlands
Floodplains
Wetlands and Riparian zones
Wild and Scenic rivers
Wilderness
1-14
-------
Critical elements that do apply, and have
subsequently been addressed in this EIS are the
following:
Air Quality
Cultural Resources
Native American Religious Concerns
Threatened or Endangered Species
Hazardous and Solid Waste
Ground Water Drinking Quality
23996/R4-WP.1 2/3/97(7:06 pm)/RFT/8
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 on August 8, 1995. Based
on the size of the proposed mining operation,
environmental impacts were determined to be
significant, and BLM determined that an EIS was
required to comply with NEPA. As noted in
Section 13, 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.
22 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. In addition, Summo's proposed
mitigation and monitoring for the project is
detailed in the Lisbon Valley Mitigation and
Monitoring Plan attached as Appendix A.
The Proposed Action would consist of the
following primary components:
• Four open pits
• Four waste rock dumps
• Ore crushing facilities
• Heap leach pad
• Various stormwater and solution storage
ponds
• Solution processing SX-EW plant
• Water production/dewatering wells with
pipeline's
• Numerous support facilities (e.g.,
administration, warehouse, supply buildings,
etc)
• Runoff diversion structures
• Haul roads
• 10.8 mile 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 graveled road
under jurisdiction of San Juan County, Utah.
Figure 2-1 depicts the overall layout of the
proposed facilities. The powerline corridor is
shown on Figure 2-2.
Mining and heap leaching activities would occur
on a combination of Federal, State, and fee (i.e.,
private) lands. The Federal lands are
administered by BLM and include 258 unpatented
lode mining claims. 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.
23996/R4-WP.2 2/3/97(7:18 pm)/RPT/8
2-1
-------
-------
SCALE IN FEET
— PROJECT BOUNDARY
RECLAMATION SOIL STOCKPILE
DIVERSION CHANNEL
SEDIMENT RETENTION STRUCTURE
PROPOSED FENCE LINE
A' APPROXIMATE CROSS-SECTION
LOCATION
ADAPTED FROM KELSEY ENGINEERING 1995 AND
J.D. WELSH AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 1996a
LOCATIONS OF MINE FACILITIES
AND AREA OF SURFACE CONTROL
Prepared by : (XH.P.
LISBDN VALLEY COPPER PRDJECT
FIG. 2-1
-------
-------
HATCH nRH
SUBSTATION"
LISBON VALLEY
PROJECT BOUNDA
ELECTRICAL POWERLINE mj
SOURCE: GOCHNOUR 1996b.
Job No. : 23996
2500 5000
ELECTRICAL POWERLINE
CORRIDOR MAP
Prepared by :
SCALE IN FEET
-------
TABLE 2-1
PROPOSED DISTURBANCE BY FACILITY
AND SURFACE LAND OWNERSHIP
FacUity
Acreage
Total Federal Land
Open Pits
Sentinel #1
Sentinel #2
Centennial
GTO
Waste Rock Dumps
Dump A
DumpB
DumpC
DumpD
Leach Pad Area
Process Area and Facilities
Miscellaneous
Haul Roads
Plant Growth Medium
Stockpiles
69-kVPowerline
Totals
38
9
116
68
186
90
118
55
266
21
33
39
64
1,103
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
256
Sources: Adapted from Gochnour 1995; PacifiCorp 1995; Summo 1995b.
239WR4-T.2-1 1/31/97(2:57 PMVRPT/6
-------
The Lisbon Valley Project would encompass all
or parts of the following sections:
• Sections 22,23, 24, 25,26,27,34,35, and 36,
T 30 S, R 25 E
• Section 1, T 31 S, R 25 E
• Sections 30 and 31, T 30 S, R 26 E
The powerline is discussed in Section 22.8.
Summo proposes to fence the majority of the
areas 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 2.2.25.
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.
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 are scheduled to
commence 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.
222 Milling 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 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
tracks 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.
23.22 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 pits. Summo's operations would
greatly expand the area! extent of these existing
pits. Summo would begin mining in the two
Sentinel Pits and the Centennial Pit, and would
begin mining in the GTO Pit in approximately
year 7 after depleting the reserves in the Sentinel
Pits.
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 outcrops on or near 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
23996/R4-WP.2 2/3/97(7:18 pm)/KPT/8
2-5
-------
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: up to 9,900,000 tons of ore and
9,200,000 tons of waste rock.
Since the majority of Dining activity associated
with the Sentinel #1 and Sentinel #2 pits would
occur at the Sentinel #1 pit, further reference in
the EIS to the "Sentinel Pit" will refer to both
pits, 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 322:1 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: up to 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! 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
Dining of Phase I and target certain higher
grade ores contained in Phase II.
• Overall, Phase H ore is more oxidized and
has a lower average grade than Phase I ore.
Phase II production would occur from year 2
into year 4.
• Phase 131 ore is less oxidized and underlies a
thick layer of waste rock. Pre-stripping of
the Phase HI waste rock would occur in years
3 and 4 with mining occurring from
approximately year 4 to year 9.
GTO Fit. 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 42^00,000 torns: up to 5,300,000
tons of ore and 37,200,000 tons of waste rock.
Any groundwater that would hinder operations
would be removed by a combination of: (a) pit
water removal (i.e., pumping water that flows into
the pit), and (b) pit dewatering (i.e., establishing
and pumping wells located around the pits.)
Diversion
Sftdiment Collection
Structures
Diversion ditches would intercept runoff from
areas upstream of the open pits and would route
runoff around the open pits and into sediment
collection structures or natural drainages that exit
the project area. Runoff from the areas of the
Sentinel and Centennial Pits would be routed
through the project area (and one sediment
collection structure) and downstream through
Lisbon Canyon. Runoff from the area of the
GTO Pit would be routed into sediment collection
structures located north and east of the GTO Pit,
and then downstream through Lisbon Canyon or
Mdntyre Canyon (see Figure 2-1).
Diversion ditches and sediment collection
structures would be constructed using the best
available technology. Natural channel alignment
and geometry would be maintained in an effort to
erosion and deposition. Diversion
ditches would be designed to pass the peak flow
resulting from the 100-year, 24-hour storm event.
Based on the topography and upstream drainage
areas, the typical ditch cross section 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 (see Figure 2-5).
Sediment collection structures would be
constructed by excavating in-channel sediment
retention ponds with downstream spillway aprons
23W6/R4-WP.2 2/3/97(7:18 pm)/RPT/8
2-6
-------
composed of gravel/straw filters. Runoff water
would collect in the ponds where sediment would
deposit. Runoff that exceeded pond volume would
exit the ponds through the spillways and sediment
filters, and would flow downstream toward Lisbon
Canyon or Mclntyre Canyon. Sediment would be
excavated from the structures prior to each wet
season, and when sediment depths reached the
spillway elevations.
Diversion ditches and sediment collection
structures would be planted with an approved
mixture of grasses and forbs, immediately
following construction. Additional planting would
be done, if necessary, throughout the life of the
project, until sufficient plantcover was established
to prevent erosion. Diversion ditches and
sediment collection structures would be riprapped
in critical areas, such as ditch junctions and
spillways, in an effort to prevent erosion.
During post-mining reclamation of the proposed
project site diversion ditches would be maintained
and seeded, where necessary, and would be left
in-place. Sediment collection structures would be
recontoured to pre-mining conditions, scarified,
and seeded. Post rnjnyng monitoring of the
reclaimed project area would include the
diversion ditches and sediment collection
structures.
2223 Mining Procedures
Summo would use dozers to rip ore and waste
and/or drill and blast to fragment the rock hi 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 in 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 in year 3.
Blasting of waste rock may not be required for
Phase ni 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
97,100,000 tons of waste rock. Prior to placement
of waste at the dump sites, suitable plant growth
medium would be salvaged from the waste dump
sites and stockpiled for future reclamation
purposes. The dumps would then 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^: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.
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 38,800,000 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.
23996/R4-WP.2 2/3/97C7:18 pm)/RFT/8
2-7
-------
TABLE 2-2
WASTE ROCK DUMPS
Approximate Volume1
Waste
Dumps
Dump A
DumpB
DumpC
DumpD
Totals
Acreage
186
90
118
55
449
(Tons)
30,800,000
29,500,000
26,700,000
2,100,000
97,100,000
(Cubic
Yards)2
22,484,000
21,535,000
19,491,000
1,533,000
65,043,000
Location
West of GTO Pit
North of GTO Pit
Norm of Centennial Pit
Northwest of Sentinel Pit #1
Volumes in tons and cubic yards are approximate. Facilities will be properly designed to
accommodate actual volumes mined from respective pits.
Summo identified a material swell factor of 40 percent (i.e., the difference between
naturally occurring rock and broken rock) and a loose density (Le., volume conversion
factor) of 102 pounds per cubic foot or 0.73 cu. yd. per ton.
Source: Adapted from Summo 1995b.
2399&'R4-T.2-2 2/4/97(7:47 PM)/RPT/6
-------
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 faculties.
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 at
approximately a 12% grade.
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.
222.6 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
2.23.1 General
Ore bearing rock that is hauled from open pits,
known as nin-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 a uniform size of
VA to 2 niches.
2.23.2 Crushing Facilities
The crushing facilities would be located west of
the Centennial Pit. 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 the stockpile would be
retrieved by a 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 2-3. 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 fall 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
23996/R4-WP.2 2/3/9707:18 pm)/RPT/8
2-9
-------
TABLE 2-3
MAJOR MINE EQUIPMENT
Number of Pieces Equipment Description1
1 Ingersoll Rand TBS blast hole drill
1 Caterpillar D-9 dozer
1 Tradestar ANFO truck
2 Caterpillar 992 14 cu. yd. front end loader
1 Caterpillar 994 24 cu. yd. front end loader.
7 Caterpillar 785B 150-ton haul trucks
1 Caterpillar 14G grader
1 Caterpillar D-9N dozer
1 15,000 gal. capacity off-road water truck
1 Caterpillar D-7 dozer
3 light plants
4 light duty pick-up trucks
1 maintenance truck
1 fuel and lube truck
1 The specifically listed equipment, or its equivalent, would be used by Summo at the
Lisbon Valley Project.
Source: Summo 1995a.
J399S/R4-T.2-3 1/31/97(3:01 PM)/RPT/6
-------
3996FS01
|§s
II
II
1
o>
CO
p
NJ
\
C4
g
A
o
m
(D
(O
cn
o
-------
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
die 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 VA-inch screen
openings. Oversize from the top and bottom
decks would be diverted to the secondary cone
crusher.
Secondary Crushing Faculty. The secondary cone
crusher would operate with a setting of 1V4 to 2
inches. Throughput from the cone crusher would
join the vibrating screen undersize product and be
conveyed to the heap leach pad.
23.33 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 hi three 36-foot-
high lifts, as more fully described in Section
23A2.
22.4 Processing Activities
2.2.4.1 General
Conventional copper recovery hi 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.
Lower grade copper ore that is uneconomical for
milling now can be processed by rather recently
developed heap 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, hi a pond prior to being processed
through a Solvent Extraction/Electrowmning
(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 hi Figures
2-1,2-4,2-5,2-6, and 2-7 would be constructed to
the west of the Lower Lisbon Valley Road after
removing and stockpiling the suitable plant
growth medium. The facilities would consist of a
heap leach pad (pad), pregnant leach solution
(PLS) pond, pre-raffinate pond, raffinate pond, a
stormwater pond, an emergency overflow 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. All of these facilities would
incorporate liner systems with leak detection
systems. Additionally, the PLS, pre-raffinate and
raffinate ponds would be underlain by leak
collection systems. All liners, and the leak
detection and collection systems, would be
constructed and operated as directed by the State
of Utah Groundwater Quality Discharge Permit.
A conveyor corridor, access road, and diversion
ditch would be constructed along the south side of
the pad. The conveyor corridor would be
23W6/R4-WP.2 2/3/OTp:18pm)/RFT/S
2-12
-------
PLANT SITE PLAN
STAGE 1
Prepared by : C.H.P
SOURCE: J.D. WELSH AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 1996a.
LISBON VALLEY COPPER PROJECT
FIG. 2-4
-------
-------
-POND UIIER
SYSTEM
T\HEAP CROSS SECTION
SCALED F17 SIM
40'
SC*£ X FEET
0 40
rOVERAU. SLOPE
..-COLLECTION BERM.
, ./7\ SOLUTION DITCH,
It .// AND ACCESS ROAD
.S / I (SEE DETAIL®)
^^^^ * f*--
DIVERSION DITCH CROSS-SECTION
OUTER UNER TO
10' Of COVER
DIA. SCHEDULE 80
PEFORATED PVC LEAK
DETECTION PIPE
-TRANSITION TO
f DIA. SCHEDULE 80
NON-PERFORATED PVC
-1? DIA. NON-PERFORATED LEAK DETECTION PIPE
CPE COLLECTION MAINS
j PERIMETER BERM CROSS SECTION
'SCALE: 1" m 5*
SCALE N FEET
SUP-ON CONNECTION
WITH COMPRESSION FITTTING
7.5' WIDE STRIP OF
PN3000 GEONET UNDER
THE SOLUTION TRANSPORT
PIPES
r
ACCESS
ROAD
IS'
ERIMETER BERM AMP COLLECTION
'CHANNEL CROSS SECTION
SCALE: 1- - m 5-
-------
ty
RAFFIMATE
POND
POND UNER-
SYSTEU
Kte PONDS CROSS-SECTION
« 1O'
XHX urea
(2" DIA. SCHEDULE 80 PVC
PERFORATED PIPE » 200' O.C.
t LEACH PAP UNER SYSTEM DETAIL
>2-3/SCALE: 1 = 2'
-PROTECTIVE
COVER
SLOPE _
•p^.-^- ---••---
t X
LEACH PAD
UNER SYSTEM
POUTER PERIMETER
UNER SYSTEM
'EYOR CORRIDOR CROSS SECTION
x 2O*
-ACCESS WAY
KOTC*
OUTER PERIMETER UNER SYSTEM REQUIRED
ONLY ON NORTH, EAST. AND SOUTH PERIMETERS
OF THE STAGE 1 AREA.
TOE OF ORE
PROTECTIVE COVER
EMERGENCY
OVERFLOW
POND
80 MIL HOPE
40 MIL HOPE (FROM 10* OF COVER)
CLAY UNER (COMPACTED SHALE)
SECONDARY UNER (COMPACTED SILT)
OUTER PERIMETER LINER SYSTEM DETAIL
I NOT TO SCALE
•PPNO UN« SYSTEM
HOENCY OVERFLOW POND CROSS-SECTION
SCAt£ H FEET
•80 MIL HOPE
OEONET
•40 MIL HOPE
>ALL PERFORATED SOLUTION COLLELCTION
PIPING SHALL BE INSTALLED WITH THE
ORENTATON SHOWN
-12" DIA. NON-PERFORATED
! COLLECTION MAINS
CLAY UKER
(COMPACTED SHALE)
SECONDARY UNER
(COMPACTED SILT)
COLLECTION CHANNEL UNER SYSTEM
= 2'
t NORTH-SOUTH CELL BERM CROSS-SECTION **"* "
t SCALE: 1" » S' ""
J.D. WELSH AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 1996a.
Job No. :
23996
Prepared by : C.H.P
Date :
11/15/96
LEACH PAD DETAILS
LISBON VALLEY COPPER PROJECT
FIG. 2-5
-------
• Dto. Ptrforoied
i. Schedule
C Perforated
lp« Drains O 200' O.C..
T\LEACH PAD LINER SYSTEM DETAIL
2-5/NOT TO SCALE
80 MIL HOPE-
GEONET
EXTEND TO ANCHOR
TRENCH
MIN. _
40 MIL HOPE-
AY LINER
PLS/PRE-RAFFINATE/RAFF,
WATER POND LINER ANCHJ
<2-5J SCALE: 1" = 2'~
80 MIL HDPE
DRAINAGE LAYER
(GEONET)
40 MIL HDPE
CLAY UNER
PLS/RAFFINATE/STORM WATER
POND LINER ANCHOR DETAIL
2-5/ SCALE: 1
-TT I I1. 'i-i'l * I. . ;l I ITTT! I I. . .•! ' l'.-.".,'LJ li . •
tSll^H
PLS/RAFFINATE/STORM WATER. POJ
Sj SCALE: 1" = 2'
IN FEET
80 MIL HDPE
GEONET
EXTEND INTO
ANCHOR
2* MIN.
COMPACTED
BACKFILL
40 MIL HDPE
LEACH PAD LINER ANCHOR DETAIL
SCALE: 1" = 2'
EMERGENCY OVERFLOW
2-Sj SCALE: 1" - 2'
SOURCE
J'lS
-------
OMPACTED
BACKFILL
0NATE/STORM
1R DETAIL
-80 MIL HOPE
• DRAINAGE UYER
(CEONET)
-40 MIL HOPE
• CUY UNER
80 MIL HOPE
GEONET
EXTEND TO ANCHOR
TRENCH
40 MIL HOPE
COMPACTED
BACKFILL
=11-
m=ii!=F
"-TnT—TTF- "
MIN.
JD LINER SYSTEM DETAIL
-60 MIL HOPE
-DRAINAGE LAYER
(8 oz. GEOTEXTILE)
I- CU.Y UNER
POND LINER SYSTEM DETAIL
FEET
PLS/RAFFINATE/STORM WATER POND LINER ANCHOR DETAIL
2-V SCALE: 1" = 2'
SOLE IN FEET
60 MIL HOPE
8 02. GEOTEXTILE
EXTEND TO ANCHOR
TRENCH
CLAY UNER
COMPACTED
BACKFILL
MIN.
EMERGENCY OVERFLOW POND LINER ANCHOR DETAIL
?-§/ SCALE: 1
21
SCALE IN FEET
J.D. WELSH AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 1996a.
Job No. : 23996
Prepared by : C.H.P
Date :
11/15/96
UNER DETAILS
LISBON VALLEY COPPER PROJECT
FIG. 2-6,
-------
3996FS02
-------
installed directly south of the pad and would be
about 60 feet wide. The conveyor corridor and
leach pad are then bounded by an approximate 6-
foot-wide benn. The diversion ditch would be
constructed south of the perimeter benn 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.
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, (a) one-foot of silt material that is
compacted to obtain a permeability of 5 x 10'7
cm/sec, (b) a leak detection system consisting of
2-inch diameter underdrains covered by a
geotextile, (c) 6-inches of clay material that is
compacted to obtain a permeability of 5 x 10"8
cm/sec, (d) 80-mil thick high density polyethylene
(HDPE) synthetic liner, and (e) a 24-inch thick
kyer of free-draining crushed ore for liner
protection (Welsh 1996a). The day material
would be imported from the Centennial Pit and
an existing waste dump stockpiled from historical
™ining of Centennial Pit. The 80-mil HDPE
sheets would be welded together to form a
continuous impermeable synthetic liner.
The leak detection system would consist of 2-inch
diameter perforated underdrain pipes spaced on
200-foot centers beneath the pad. These pipes
would transfer solution, in the case of a leak, to
inspection manholes for monitoring of leakage.
Solution that collects in these manholes is then
routed to the stormwater pond via a 3-inch
diameter leak detection main.
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
(i.e., head) over the liner. The pipes would be
spaced approximately 20 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) one-foot of compacted silt
material, (b) a 6-inch compacted clay layer, (c) a
40-mil HDPE synthetic liner, 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) a 1-foot
layer of compacted silt material, (b) 6-inches of
compacted clay material, (c) 40-mil HDPE
synthetic liner, (d) geonet for leak detection
purposes, and (e) 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 1996a).
Design cross sections for these various systems
are provided in Figures 2-5 and 2-6.
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 16 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.
2399«/R4-WPi 2/3/97(7:18 pnO/RFT/S
2-17
-------
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. Stage 2
would be about 25 million square feet and
increase the pad capacity to 42 months of
production. Stage 3 would be about 2.5 million
square feet and increase the pad capacity to about
62 months of production. At this point, Stage 4
would be added which would encompass about 4
million square feet and provide the required
capacity for the remainder of the project.
Ore placement on the lined pad during the four
stage construction would be divided into 9
individual cells by internal dikes and drains. The
drain system would be connected by a series of
pipes and valves so that leachate or rinsate may
be directed to the PLS pond for copper recovery
or the raffinate pond for redrculation onto the
heap.
Solution Ponds. The solution ponds would
separately store the two types of leach solutions -
- PLS and raffinate - plus contain runoff from
the lined areas resulting from design storm
events. 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 seasonal
wet cycle of precipitation which is described in
Summo's Design Report and attachments (Welsh
1996a). An emergency overflow pond would be
designed to contain 100 percent of any overflow
from the stormwater pond in the event the
maximum design storm event was exceeded.
A water balance model was constructed to
simulate 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.
An on-site meteorological monitoring station
would be installed to confirm and refine pre-
mining, operations, and post-operations
meteorological and climatic conditions. Based on
data collected from this station, adjustments
would be made to stormwater storage systems if
required. Specifics of the meteorological
monitoring station are identified in Appendix A.
The pond system is laid out such that stormwater
flow is directed to the stormwater pond and the
raffinate pond from the PLS pond. Any overflow
from an event exceeding design criteria would be
directed to an emergency overflow pond. Runoff
and solution is transferred via spillways.
A finer system would be installed underneath the
solution ponds consisting of a 80-mil HDPE liner
over a 40-mil HDPE secondary liner with a leak
detection system between the liners (Welsh
1996a). 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 collection 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 4-inch diameter pipe to
accommodate a sump pump for solution removal
in the event of leakage in the primary liner.
The emergency overflow pond liner system would
consist of a 60-mil HDPE synthetic finer (i.e.,
primary finer) placed over a 2-foot compacted
clay sub-grade with a prepared surface suitable
for liner placement.
23996/R4-WP.2 2/3/97(7:18 pm)/RPT/8
2-18
-------
TABLE 2-4
POND DESIGN CRITERIA
Criteria
Design
Operation
Stonnwater
Freeboard
8-foot operation level
Maximum accumulation of stonnwater from a
seasonal wet cycle with a 100 year recurrence
interval, followed by a 24 hr storm event, as
calculated by a water balance
Minimum of 3 feet above maximum capacity
Source: Welsh 1996a.
23994/R4-T.2-4 2/4/97(1:46 PM)/RPT/6
-------
The solution ponds would not be covered or
netted initially. 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 (Appendix
A). .
During operations, sludges accumulating in the
bottom of the pits would be routinely removed to
keep capacity of the ponds at designed levels.
Prior to removal, sludges would be tested.
Results of these tests would indicate disposal
methods for the sludges. If testing reveals tone
concentrations of constituents, the sludges would
be disposed of in a facility permitted for disposal
of such waste. The same testing would be
conducted prior to disposal of any sludges
remaining at the end of mining, processing and
reclamation operations.
Diversion Ditches. Diversion ditches would
intercept runoff from areas upstream of the heap
leach pad and would route runoff around the
heap leach pad, and facilities, into Lisbon Canyon.
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, through Lisbon Canyon. Runoff from the
west side of the pad would be diverted into a
diversion ditch along the north side of the pad.
This ditch would also intercept runoff from the
north side of Little Valley. No diversion ditch is
required on the east side of the pond (see Figure
2-1).
Diversion ditches in the proposed project area
would be constructed using the best available
technology. Natural channel alignment and
geometry would be maintained in an effort to
minimize erosion and deposition. Diversion
ditches would be designed to pass the peak flow
resulting from the 100-year, 24-hour storm event.
Based on the topography and upstream drainage
areas, the typical ditch cross section 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 (see Figure 2-5).
Diversion ditches would be planted with an
approved mixture of grasses and forbs,
immediately following construction. Additional
planting would be done, where necessary,
throughout the life of the project, until sufficient
plantcover was established to prevent erosion.
Diversion ditches would be riprapped in critical
areas, such as ditch junctions, in an effort to
prevent erosion. . .
During post-mining reclamation of the proposed
project site the diversion ditches would be
maintained and replanted, where necessary, and
would be left in-place. Post-mining monitoring of
the reclaimed project area would include the
diversion ditches.
23.43 Heap Leaching
i
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 spatings. 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 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 may
be 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 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
23996/R4-WP.2 2/3/97(7:18 pm)/RPT/8
'2-20
-------
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 die 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 2-7 provides a
general schematic of the heap leaching process.
2.2.4.4 SolventExtractton/ElectrowinningPlant
(•SX/EW)
The SX/EW Plant would be constructed to the
east of the heap leach pad and west of the 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 2-8.
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 (ie., 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 two minutes before
entering the 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
dictating 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 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 raffinate 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 dosed 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 2-9.
The strong electrolyte solution would be heated in
a pair 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
23996/RMVF.2 2/3/97C7:18pm)/RFT/8
2-21
-------
ELECrBOLYTE BLfEO
8
en
SOURCE: SUMMO 1995a.
Job No. :
23996
Prepared by : CRP
Date :
2/7/96
PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM
AREA 04 SOLVENT EXTRACTION
LISBON VALLEY COPPER PROJECT
SAN JUAN CO., UTAH
FIG. 2-8:
-------
-------
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 puinped 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 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 2-10. 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 2-4.
Administration Building. The administration
building would be a one-story building
constructed north of the SX/EW Plant. The
building 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 hi 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 the 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
23996/R4-WP.2 2/4/97(1:42 pm)/RPT/8
2-24
-------
- 3996FS06
1
11
IP
tjf)
il
JP
§•
DO >
_
cm oc/>
00
rn
m
mo
o
rn
en
o
-------
summarized in Table 2-5. The fuel storage area
would be bermed, 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 minimnmj 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 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 22.43. 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 dosed 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 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 in sacks and stored in 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
23996/R4-WP.2 2/3/97(7:18 pm)/RPT/8
2-26
-------
TABLE 2-5
CHEMICAL STORAGE AND USE ESTIMATES
Material Estimated Annual Quantity
_ ,_ . . .. 60,000tons
SulfuncAcid
Extn-ctan. «*»*•
DSuent (kerosene) S0'000^
c if ta. 3.0 million Ibs.
Ferrous Sulfate
^ i. u c i*x+ 20,000 Ibs.
Cobalt Sulfate
ou, • 9,000 Ibs.
Chlorine
_ .. 250,000 gal.
Gasoline
_. , 2.3 million gal.
Diesel
xr4~t« 2,700 tons
Ammonium Nitrate *_
Source: Adapted from Gochnour 1996a.
23994/R4-T.2-5 1/31/97(3:05 PMVRPT/6
-------
stored in those sacks near the SX/EW plant in 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-lined area to minimize the
migration of spilled material and contamination of
sous.
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 23
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 minimise 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 hi 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 (Le., 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 track and stored in silos or bins in a
bermed area to minimize migration of
accidentally spilled material.
22.6 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 in the project area, east of the Lisbon
Valley fault, which identified aquifers at
approximately 60 to 410 feet, and 900 feet below
ground surface. These aquifers would provide the
process water requirements for the project of up
to 1300 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
23996/R4-WF.2 2/3/97(7:18 pm)/RPT/8
2-28
-------
in the SX/EW Plant. Chloride would pit cathode
mother blanks if it became too concentrated hi
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 S.OOOgpm 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. Water would be consumed by evaporation
and by increasing the moisture content of ore
placed on the leach pad. Figure 2-11 depicts a
simplified water balance for the project.
Approximately 907 acre-feet of make-up water
per year, on average, would be consumed by the
project for the life of the mine (Table 2-6).
Summo's request for additional water rights is
conservative, and includes all possible waters
needed for the project.
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 tune 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 hi
Table 2-7, and by shift hi 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 air
miles west of the Lisbon Valley Project (Figure
2-2). 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 lO.Smiles along a 50-foot right-of-
way from the existing Hatch substation east to the
Lisbon Valley Project.
In addition to crossing portions of the Lisbon
Valley Project Area, the powerline would cross
die following sections:
• Sections 28,31,32, and 33; T30S, R25E
• Sections 5 and 6; T31S, R25E
• Sections 20,21,26,27,28,35, and 36; T30S,
R24E
Construction would commence in 1997 and take
about four months. As pan of construction, an
office trailer would be placed at the existing
Hatch substation, and staging areas,
approximately 9,000 square feet each would be
established adjacent to the right-of-way 1.1 and
7.6 miles east of the Hatch substation. Supplies
(e.g., poles, reels, and insulators) would be
stacked and some assembly would take place at
each staging area. The office trailer would have
its own sewage holding tank, with the contents
hauled to a commercial sewage dump station hi
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 along the
right-of-way route, with neither the access route
nor the right-of-way bladed. Activities associated
with the installation of the 69-kV powerline would
occur hi five phases:
Z399OTW-WP.2 2/4/97(4:44 pm)/RPT/8
2-29
-------
O)
Br - SOX LOSS! S™
8.836,800 GAR
10.800 GPO
3,780.000 CAR
5,400 GPO
1.890.000 GAR
5.400 GPO
1.890.000 GAR
84,000 GPO
29,400.000
2. 627.2 GPM IS AN AVERAGE PEAK
DEMAND OVER LIFE OF MINE.
SOURCE: SUMMO 1995o.
Job No. :
23669
Prepared by : CRP
Date :
2/7/96
SIMPLIFIED WATER BALANCE
(TOTAL PROCESS WATER SYSTEM)
LISBON VALLEY COPPER PROJECT
SAN JUAN CO., UTAH
FIG. 2-1
-------
TABLE 2-6
PROJECT MAKE-UP WATER USE BY YEAR
Year
YearO
Yearl
Year 2
YearS
Year 4
YearS
Year 6
Year?
Year 8
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; pad
rinsing 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
Mming and processing complete;
reclamation only
Required for Operations
(gpm) (ac-ft/yr)
100
570
612
626 '
676
902
833
772
556
538
522
500
100
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 1996a; Gochnour ,19961).
23S96/R4-T.2-4 1/31/97(3:06 PMyRPT/6
-------
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
The estimated total work force positions that would be required by shift, as presented hi
Table 2-8, is higher than the yearly employee totals presented hi Table 2-7 to take into
account employees that would work multiple shifts and similar variables.
SourcerGochnour 1996a.
23996/R4-T27.T28 1/31/97(3:08 PMJ/RPT/S
-------
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
(SPCO Plan. A plan to mitigate spills and
provide notice to the appropriate government
agencies is 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 hi the
administration building for review by
governmental officials. The plan would address,
at a mi"'"1""1, 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 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 tumoff 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
23996/R4-WP.2 2/4/57(5:21 praVRFT/8
2-33
-------
TABLE 2-9
ESTIMATED DAILY VEHICLE TRIPS
Type
Year
Employees (Cars,
Pickups)
1 2 345 6 78 9 10
33 33 38 41 41 731 43 43 43 43
Acid (18-Wheeler Tank 55 56 7 7 "6 5 4 4
Trucks)
Tires and Truck
Components (6-Wheel
Trucks)
2245 5 81 44
Cathodes (18-Wheeler 22222222 2 2
Trucks)
Other Deliveries 11233 41 22 2 2
(Various Size Trucks)
Visitors (Cars, Pickups) 22222222
2 2
45 45 53 59 60 961 59 58 57 57
Daily vehicle trips would be higher in year 6 because a contractor would be hired to
conduct pre-stripping activities in the GTO Pit.
SourcerGochnour 1996a.
23996/R4-T.2-9 1/31/97(3:12 PMyRPT/6
-------
Project. Note that two workers per vehicle are
assumed. Summo would encourage carpooling,
and the remote location may make such estimates
realistic. No buses or vanpools 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 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 GTO Pit
• 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.
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 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. The meteorological monitoring plan
(Appendix A) would aid in planning for air
emission control and revegetation.
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 land uses are wildlife habitat, livestock
grazing, and mineral development.
In addition, reclamation would minimise public
safety hazards and, to the extent practicable,
reclaim impacts from past mining operations.
Summo's reclamation plan approach is further
detailed in Appendix A.
Reclamation at Lisbon Valley Project would fall
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
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 sedimentation of
surface drainages.
• Suitable plant growth medium would be
removed from the areas to be disturbed and
2399MM-WP.2 2/4/97(531 pm)/RPT/8
2-35
-------
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 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) and BLM. This list may
be modified by results from the revegetation test
plots.
Open Pits. The closure plan for the open pits is
directed primarily toward public safety with some
revegetation activities. Pit dewatering activities
would be discontinued. Rock benns 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. Haul roads that
accessed the pit bottom would be scarified,
covered with soil, seeded, and, if necessary,
fertilized to promote vegetation growth.
In addition to berms or fences, the pit perimeter
would be planted with indigenous tree species
(e.g.,pinyon pine and Rocky Mountain juniper).
The vegetative material would act to partially
screen the open pits.
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. 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 percolation. In addition, heap
reclamation would enhance runoff and
evapotranspiration from the heap surface.
The leached ore heap on the pad would be rinsed
sequentially in a two stage process. In stage one,
which would begin hi the last quarter of the 5th
year of operation, the cell that has had all the
commercial copper removed would be rinsed with
23996/R4-WP.2 2/4/97(5:21 pm)/RPT/8
2-36
-------
TABLE 2-10
PRELIMINARY SEED MIXTURE
High Crest Crested Wheatgrass
Intermediate Wheatgrass
Pilot Orchard Grass
Basin Wild Rye
Wild Rye
Indian Ricegrass
Ladac Alfalfa
Lewis Flax
Yellow Sweetclover
Forage Kochia
Mountain Big Sagebrush
Fourwing Saltbush
Bitterbrush
Rate Ibs/ac1
uT
i.o
i.o
i.o
1JO
i.o
1.0
1.0
0.5
0.5
0.1
1.0
1.0
iu
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.
l/31«7(3;14PMyWT/6
-------
fresh water to reduce the chemical characteristic
of the effluent. This rinsate would be recycled
through the raffinate pond and become part of
the active leaching solution on the active portion
of the heap. This process would result in a
savings of water usage beginning in year 6. In
stage two, the cell is rinsed with limed water.
This rinsing would be done with a closed cycle,
i.e.,collected, neutralized, additional lime added
and returned to the cell. The process would
continue until effluent levels have reached
standards acceptable to DEQ identified in the
second 5 year Groundwater Discharge Permit.
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 Stonnwater 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. Any sludges remaining in the
bottom would be tested, and based on test results,
either treated on-site, or hauled off-site to an
appropriate waste disposal facility as indicated by
the test results. Once the ponds are dry, and
sludges treated or removed, 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, UDEQ and UDOGM, as the project nears
its identified end-of-life.
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
23996/R4-WP.2 2«/97<5:21 pm)/RPT/8
2-38
-------
addressed in Section 1.3.2 Four alternatives are
analyzed in detail in 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 impacts that
would occur or remain ongoing hi the event the
POO were not approved. Disapproval of the
POO would occur if the impact analysis hi this
EIS, and the subsequent Record of Decision,
concluded that the proposed action would result
in 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 hi 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 hi a feasible manner without use of
Federal (BLM) lands shown on Figure 1-2.
The environmental conditions, as described hi
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 hi 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 and may pool hi the
pits after cessation of joining. The pits would be
partially backfilled to a depth sufficient to
eliminate the projected pool of water hi the pits.
Partial backfilling of the pits would be
comparable to the Proposed Action with the
followingexceptions. The four waste rock dumps,
addressed hi Section 2.2.2.4would exist; however,
the height and area! extent of the dumps would
be decreased, as the backfill material would likely
come from non-acid generating waste rock hi the
waste dumps. In addition, the tune 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 hi 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
2399fi.'R4-WP.2 2/4/97(5:21 pm)/RFT/8
2-39
-------
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 hi 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 tune, waste rock from the
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 hi 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
Some concerns identified during the public
scoping process were the long-term impacts to
surface drainage resulting from the placement of
Dump D in the bottom of the upper Lisbon
Valley drainage. In addition, other concerns were
identified relating to 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 these
impacts would be to modify the layout of some of
the facilities. To potentially reduce visual impacts
and eliminate potential surface water quality,
erosion, and dump failure concerns, consideration
was given to eliminating Waste Dump D and
placing materials from the eliminated dump in the
other three waste dumps.
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. Under this alternative, Waste Dump D
would be eliminated, and the waste rock from
Sentinel Pit #1 would be transported to Waste
Dumps A, B and C. These waste dumps would
be constructed with additional lifts to
accommodate the additional volume. In this way,
waste disposal activities would be combined into
three, larger dumps, rather than four waste 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 hi 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 hi an area
that minimizes visual impacts to the traveling
public. The pad is proposed to be constructed hi
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 fiat area in close proximity to
the open pits with sufficient area to accommodate
the heap leach pad is hi portions of Sections 25
and 36, T 30 S, R 25 E, and Sections 30 and 31,
T 30 S, R 26 E. This area is southeast of the
/Centennial Pit (see Figure 2-1 for general
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
23996/R4-WP.2 2/4/97(5:21 pm)/RPT/8
2-40
-------
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 the remaining waste
dumps.
2.3.4 Waste Rock Selective Handling
Alternative
A concern exists about the overall acid-generating
potential of the waste rock over time and,
therefore, the potential for acid rock drainage
(ARD) from the waste dumps. Summo
conducted analysis and provided data from static
Acid Base Accounting (ABA) tests that were
performed on 186 rock samples from within the
limits of the pits. Based on these data,
approximately 10 percent of the waste rock has
the potential to be acid-generating. This portion
of the waste rock is associated with coal or coal-
bearing materials. The remainder of the waste
rock is either non acid-generating or has the
ability to neutralize acid.
Additionally, results of EPA Method 1312
(Synthetic Precipitation Leach Procedure), were
conducted on four composite samples of the
waste rock material with the potential to produce
ARD, showing that only dissolved kon 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:
A
• Rock material with a net acid/base balance
that favors the production of acid
• Presence of water
• Presence of oxygen
Attempting to avoid mining the rock types that
have me potential to generate acid is not feasible
at the Lisbon Valley Project because these rock
types are interspersed throughout the pits. Thus,
the goal of a selective handling program would be
to control the presence of oxygen and water by
encapsulating the potential acid generating rock
types within acid neutralizing rock types placed in
the waste dumps. That is, a selective handling
program would place the rock types that have a
potential to produce acid hi 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 mat
would prohibit contact with water and oxygen,
such as covering and encapsulating within non
acid-generating waste rock after placement in the
waste dumps. As noted, 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 hi
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 would Inhibit contact with water and oxygen
and, thus, inhibit acid generation.
2.4 BONDING ASSUMPTIONS
Reclamation Bonding
Bonding would be required for the project,
regardless of which alternative or combination of
alternatives is chosen. The specific amount of
bonding may vary, based on the degree of
potential impacts and subsequent reclamation
requirements associated with each alternative, and
subsequent mitigation measures incorporated into
the final decision.
Since the alternatives were developed to mitigate
impacts from the proposed project, it is likely that
the highest bonding would be required for
approval of the proposed plan of operations as
submitted, since it would present the highest
degree of impacts. As impacts are mitigated
through the identification of alternatives, bonding
could be decreased as the potential impacts
lessened.
23596/R4-WP.2 2M/?7(5:21 pmyRFT/8
2-41
-------
A reclamation bond would be required for this
project by BLM, and UDOGM. The State
typically bonds for performance of reclamation
and rehabilitation requirements on all lands
within the State. These bonds are held for a
period of 5 years after reclamation is completed,
to assure reclamation success. For this project
the State will also require bonding for
performance default of rent, royalty or other lease
obligations. BLM bonds for reclamation and
rehabilitation performance on BLM lands only,
and is typically limited by policy to a Tna*imiin> of
$2,000per acre. In the case of mining operations
that contain potentially acid generating waste
materials, BLM policy, allows reclamation
bonding of 100% of costs for portions of mine
facilities on BLM lands that may generate such
pollutants.
Regulations allow BLM and the State to
coordinate bonding, such that the project
proponent only posts one bond, naming both
BLM and the State as obligees. Summo has
already received tentative approval by the State of
Utah (1-22-97) for a bond totaling $8.6 million
dollars. BLM has informally coordinated with the
State on the review and calculation of the bond,
and is in agreement in principal with the
provisions of the bond, as it incorporates the
majority of items identified hi the FEIS Preferred
Alternative. However, BLM's final concurrence
with this bond amount would not be formalized
until the Record Of Decision (ROD) has been
issued, and a final review indicates it is hi full
compliance with provisions identified in the ROD.
The reclamation bond focuses on features to be
reclaimed. These types of features include:
Project buildings and facilities
Waste dumps
Roads/Pipelines
Water supply wells and lines
Heap leach pad
Open pits
Monitoring wells
Drainage control
This bond provides financial assurance that each
of these types of features would be reclaimed as
directed in the ROD. Such reclamation involves
specific types of actions such as the following;
• Heap leach pad rinsing, neutralization and, if
necessary, placement of a water balance
cover
Waste dump closure
Solution pond closure
Building/equipment/waste removal
Backfilling/final grading
Ripping/reclamation of roads/pipelines
Re-establishment of drainage control
Top soil replacement/mulching/reseeding
Bonding would be reviewed on a scheduled basis,
typically every two to" five years, or on shorter
timeframes if warranted, to assure that bonding
amounts adequately meet requirements based on
actual conditions and situations encountered once
mining and post-mining monitoring were
underway. It may be possible to reduce bonding
amounts if the company devises additional
mitigative measures it can incorporate to reduce
risks of long term environmental impact.
Long Term Monitoring and Reclamation
Bonding
In addition to the reclamation bond, BLM also
has the option to require long-term bonding for
projects that pose potential for long-term
environmental impact which may not become
evident for several years after operations are
complete. Such bonding may be held for several
years after mining ceases, in interest bearing
accounts, and are released upon successful
demonstration of monitoring which shows no
long-term impacts. Based on factors associated
with Summo's proposed operation, the length of
long-term bonding would likely be for a period of
25 years. The initial amount of the long-term
bond would be determined after the final decision
has been issued, such amount also being
dependent on final decisions, approved mitigation,
and remaining potential for long-term impacts.
Long-term bonding for Summo's proposed
operation could be for several million dollars
based on potential impacts to ground water
resources from potential post-mining pit lake
development.
23996/R4-WP.2 2/4/97(5:21 pm)/RPT/8
2-42
-------
The State DEQ Groundwater Discharge Permit
(Appendix D), identifies a program for
groundwater monitoring wells and evaluation
during the first 5 year permit. The second 5 year
permit would incorporate provisions based on
information and evaluation from the first 5 year
permit. This would include an accurate
assessment of all groundwater conditions, and the
classification and establishment of protection
levels for the aquifers at the project site.
BLM would work closely with DEQ to refine
analysis of conditions and projections for
groundwater impacts at the project site during
these permit periods. The final long-term bond
amount would be adjusted at the beginning of the
long-term post-mining monitoring period,
dependent on the groundwater data collected and
analyzed during the monitoring and
characterization phase of DEQ's permits. If this
data indicates potential for adverse groundwater
impact were less than that projected at this time,
the long-term bond amount would be lower. If
data indicates potential for adverse impact is
greater than currently projected, the long-term
bond would be higher.
Projections of final long-term monitoring and
reclamation bond amounts at this time are
speculative. This is primarily because the State
has not been able to classify the deep
Entrada/Navajo aquifer underlying the project
site. If monitoring results of the first five year
Groundwater Discharge Permit indicates the
Entrada/Navajo is a Class I or II aquifer, the
amount of long-term bonding could be expected
to be on the order of millions of dollars.
Examples in other areas of the west where water
treatment for perpetuity is expected, identify bond
amounts on the order of $25 to $30 million
dollars.
The impact analysis in the FEIS indicates a high
probability that any potential post-mining pit lakes
could drain Into the underlying aquifer. This
would necessitate bonding for assuring this pit
lake drainage did not result in pollution beyond
State determined levels. Based on a lack of
reliable data regarding the Entrada/Navajo
aquifer quality at this location, bonding would
have to assume long-term remediation of such
degradation, based on potential methodologies
identified in Section 4.2.2.2, Recommended
Mitigation. This could include long-term pumping
of pit lake water, long-term pumping of
dewatering wells surrounding the pits, long-term
pumping of fresh water into the pits, construction
of water treatment facilities on site, or partially
backfilling the pits with non-reactive material to
a level sufficient to cover the pit lakes. These are
all very expensive, long-term remedies.
If data collected during the DEQ permit periods
indicate the Entrada/Navajo aquifer is a lesser
quality and subsequent classification, such as the
Class ni identified for the Burro Canyon aquifer,
long-term bonding could be significantly lower, as
the lower aquifers would not require the level of
protection indicated for a Class I or II aquifer. In
such a case, bonding could be on the order of
several hundred thousand dollars, sufficient to
cover the costs of yearly analysis and maintenance
of long-term downgradient monitoring wells, and
the eventual cost of plugging and reclaiming these
wells.
The final decision on long-term bond amounts
therefore cannot be determined until monitoring
and testing data required in the initial 5 year
DEQ Groundwater Permit is obtained, and
definitive determinations are made regarding the
quality, classification and protection level
requirements for aquifers beneath the project site.
When that data is obtained, Summo would be
required to meet whatever aquifer protection
standards are developed by DEQ. The long-term
bond amount would then be established to assure
financial resources were available to meet those
requirements.
2.5 FEATURES COMMON TO ALL
ALTERNATIVES
Various features or 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.
23996/R4-WP.2 2M/97<5:21 pm)/R!T/S
2-43
-------
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 pipelines
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
2.6 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.
2.7 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 in the EIS. The preferred alternative
is not a final agency decision, but provides an
indication of the agency's preliminary preference.
This preference may be changed in the ROD,
based on additional information provided and/or
obtained during the 30 day FEIS review period.
Based on comments received on the draft EIS,
and additional data that has been collected and
analyzed for the final EIS, the BLM preferred
alternative for the Lisbon Valley Copper Project
is a combination of Alternative No. 3 - Facility
Layout, and Alternative No. 4 - Waste Rock
Selective Handling.
This is a modification of the preferred alternative
identified in the Draft EIS, which was only the
selection of the Facility Layout Alternative.
Under the alternative identified in the draft EIS,
the proposed action would be implemented with
the exception of requiring Waste Dump D, which
would be combined with Waste Dump C, in the
proposed location of Waste Dump C. This
alternative would have mitigated adverse impacts
from concurrent and post-mining drainage run-
off, and long-term sedimentation into Lisbon
Canyon. At that time it was also thought that this
alternative would require additional mitigation to
cultural resource sites, dependent on final detailed
design and layout of Waste Dump C. It was also
thought that there may also be a requirement to
bring additional topsoil into the site for final
reclamation.
Based on additional analysis for the final EIS, it
has been determined that the material from waste
dump D can be combined into the other three
waste dumps, with no increase In acreage to those
dumps. The waste from dump D can be placed
in the three remaining waste dumps by slightly
increasing the height of those dumps.
Additionally, there would be no requirement for
bringing in additional top soil for reclamation.
For the preferred alternative identified in the final
EIS, BLM has determined to also select the
Waste Rock Selective Handling alternative, to
reduce potential long-term impact from the acid
generating waste rock that would be placed in the
waste dumps. By utilizing the selective waste rock
handling methodology identified by Summo, and
included as Appendix A to the final EIS, the
potential for acid generation can be eliminated.
In addition to the preferred alternatives selected,
based on a comparison of Impacts for Case 1 -
No Post-Mining Diversion of Surface Flow into
Sentinel Pit, versus Case 2 - Post-Mining
Diversion of Surface Water into Sentinel Pit, the
decision would include Case 1 which would not
allow post-mining surface drainage to be diverted
23996/R4-WP.2 2/6/97(10:44 am)/RPT/8
2-44
-------
U\
TABLE 2-11
LISBON VALLEY EIS IMPACT SUMMARY
Impacts by Alternative
Type of Potential Impact by
Issue
Proposed Action
(PA)
No Action
Open Pit Backfilling
Alternative
Facility Layout Alternative
Selective Waste Rock Handling
Alternative
GEOLOGY AND GEOTECHNICAL ISSUES
• Topography
• Mineral Resources
• Constructed Facilities -
Potential Failures
Waste dumps, leach pads, pits
affect 946 ac; 1,103 ac planned
total disturbance.
Ore, waste rock mined; copper
cathodes produced.
Small slope failures easily
remedied; liner breach,
foundation settling, large slope
failures, and pond overtopping
considered in leach pad
engineering and 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. Would re-establish
maximum useable topography.
Future mineral development
improbable due to pit
backfilling.
Slope failure potential reduced
compared to PA due to
significantly diminished size of
waste dumps. Remainder of
issues are no change from PA.
Minor variations from PA;
pits, dumps, pads now affect
886 ac.
No change from PA.
No change from PA.
No change from PA.
No change from PA.
No change from PA.
HYDROLOGY
• Water Supply
• Water Use
Up to 902 gpm peak demand for
project needed Yr S; derived
from shallow and possibly deep
wells, and pit dewatering; proper
engineering of drainage in
project area would eliminate
accelerated channel erosion
downstream of facilities.
Water used in ore processing,
dust control for roads, and for
some washdown uses; total
groundwater use by project
operations ranges from 161-1455
ac-ft/year, and project pits may
intercept up to 177 ac-ft/year of
surface flow.
Groundwater depleted and not
available for other potential
users.
No change from existing
condition; erosion of current
drainages from periodic surface
storm flows would continue.
No impacts. No current use of
water other than occassional
livestock and wildlife use.
No impact to water supply.
Complete pit backfilling and
diversion would preserve 177 ac-
ft/year surface flow going down
Lisbon Canyon.
Less impacts on surface
drainages near Lisbon Canyon
with three dumps instead of
four.
Dump D eliminated from
location in drainage bottom of
Lisbon Valley.
No change from PA.
No change from PA.
No change from PA.
2J996/R4-T.2II 1/31/97(5:18 PM)/RPT/7
-------
TABLE 2-11
LISBON VALLEY EIS IMPACT SUMMARY
Impacts by Alternative
Type of Potential Impact by
Issue
Proposed Action
(PA)
No Action
Open Pit Backfilling
Alternative
Facility Layout Alternative
Selective Waste Rock Handling
Alternative
Water Quality
Existing water quality generally
poor; releases from accidental
leach pad failure could affect
quality; as would minor acid
conditions from waste piles
caused by potential leaching of
coaly waste rock.
Potential for elevated levels of
sulfates, TDS, and precipitate
trace metals due to aging of high
(8.0-9.0) pH waters in post-
mining pit lakes. Likely impact
to adjacent groundwater units
and cross-contamination.
Pits predicted to contain 0-320
feet of standing water post-
closure; following closure,
breaching of surface water
diversion around Sentinel pit
could cause backcutting effects
in 3 ephemeral drainages
converging on Lisbon Canyon.
No impacts.
Backfilling would expose 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, and
eliminating evapoconcentration
effects. Unknown impact from
utilizing waste material on-site
for backfill material. Could
adversely impact adjacent
groundwater units.
Less potential for breeching of
waste piles by surface runoff.
Dump D would no longer be
located in drainage bottom.
Selective layering and covering of
coaly waste rock effectively eliminates
acid drainage concerns.
GEOCHEMISTRY
Acid Generation Potential
Little potential for toxic effects
from Fe and Al noted in 1312
testing; major volume of rock
has neutralization potential.
Randomly placed acid
generating waste rock in dumps
could generate long-term acid
leachates into environment.
No change from current
condition; little or no acid
drainage effects currently
observed on surface from past
shallow open pit mining. '
However, acid leachates could
occur from these abandoned
dumps at some point in the
future.
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 produce pockets of acid or
alkaline water quality,
potentially impacting adjacent
groundwater units.
Consolidation of dumps would
decrease total area of exposed
rock to geochemical processes.
Impacts would still be similar.
to PA.
Selective handling would eliminate
concerns from acid drainage from the
waste dumps.
2399OR4-T.2I! 1/31/97(5:18 PMJ/RPT/7
-------
-fc
TABLE 2-11
LISBON VALLEY EIS IMPACT SUMMARY
Impacts by Alternative
Type of Potential Impact by
Issue
Proposed Action
(PA)
No Action
Open Pit Backfilling
Alternative
Facility Layout Alternative
Alternative
Other Geochemical Issues •
Alkaline Conditions and
Related Effects.
Alkaline effects from aging
waste piles and exposed rock in
water-filled pits could produce
elevated levels of sulfates, TDS,
and precipitate trace metals,
adversely impacting lower and
adjacent groundwater units.
No impacts.
Same as above.
No impacts.
SOI US AND RKCIAMATION
Disturbance
Soil Quantity for
Reclamation
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 cu
yds of soil material stockpiled
and later used for reclamation.
Sufficient quantity to provide
12.6 inches of topsoil to dumps,
leach pads and facilities.
No new disturbance. Impacts to
soils resources would continue at
current levels
No impact.
Initial disturbance same as for
PA but, under the complete
backfilling scenario, all 1,103 ac
of disturbance would be
reclaimed. Under partial
backfilling some dumps would
remain on surface, and 231 acres
of pits would remain
unreclaimed.
Less coversoil material required
for dumps reclamation, but about
402,494 additional cu yds of
material required for pit
reclamation, necessitating
additional disturbance to obtain
this material in project vicinity
or elsewhere.
Same as PA except 55 fewer
acres of disturbance.
Remaining dumps would
increase in height but not in
areal extent.
Loss of approximately 18,800
cu yds of suitable coversoil
material not salvaged in Waste
Dump D vicinity; would
require additional disturbance
to meet quantity of coversoil
material required for PA.
Same as PA.
2399MM-T.2II 1/31/97(5:18 PMVRPT/7
-------
TABLE 2-11
LISBON VALLEY EIS IMPACT SUMMARY
Impacts by Alternative
Type of Potential Impact by
Issue
• Erosion Control and
Reclamation Effectiveness
Proposed Action
(PA)
Most of disturbed soils are
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. Re-
establishment of vegetative
cover should stabilize soils from
long-term erosion.
No Action
Same conditions as present
would continue.
Open Pit Backfilling
Alternative
Pit backfilling would reduce
slope angles and erosion
potential on pit walls and waste
rock piles.
Facility Layout Alternative
Same as PA, with less soil
disturbance due to elimination
of 55 acres in Dump D.
Selective Waste Rock Handling
Alternative
Increased reclamation effectiveness
compared to PA in waste dumps
vicinity due to elimination of localized
acidic soils.
VEGETATION
• Disturbance of Pinyon-
Juniper, Grassland-
Rangeland, and Sagebrush
communities
Total of 1,103 ac disturbed,
including powerline: 422 SB,
296 PJ, 300 GL, (85 acres
previously disturbed).
Reclamation of 872 acres.
Permanent loss of 296 ac PJ to
be replaced with SB and GL
species.
Potential for localized
acidification of cover soil on
waste dumps resulting in
phytotoxic impacts to
vegetation.
No T&E plant species identified
in project area.
No additional impacts to existing
vegetative communities.
Same as PA except 1,103 ac
reclaimed with complete pit
backfilling scenario.
Partial backfilling would result
in no reclamation along pit
walls, backfilled areas could be
re-vegetated.
Same as PA except 55 fewer
acres of SB community would
be impacted as a result of
elimination of Dump D.
Reduced potential for localized
acidification of coversoil resulting in
phytotoxic impacts to vegetation.
2J99MM-T.2II l/31/97(5:!8PM)/RPT/7
-------
TABLE 2-11
LISBON VALLEY EIS IMPACT SUMMARY
Type of Potential Impact by
Issue
Habitat Effects from
Disturbance
Project Construction and
Operations Effects to
Wildlife
Project Closure Effects
• . Threatened and
Endangered Species
Proposed Action
(PA)
io habitat for sensitive species
dentifted in 1,103 ac total
project disturbance; habitat loss
or other common species (e.g.
deer, prairie dogs) would occur.
257-acre prairie dog town would
je covered by leach pad.
Leach pad construction would
eliminate 257 acres of prairie
dog towns, and 2 stock ponds
likely used by wildlife; process
ponds have potential to attract
birds and waterfowl; night
lighting and blasting noise could
displace wildlife from the area.
Wildlife mortality could occur as
a result of vehicle collisions and
toxic exposure to solution ponds
and abandoned pit lakes.
Loss of 231 ac of habitat in pit
areas. Possible exposures to pit
lake waters may be adverse in
long-term.
Colorado River endangered fish
may be affected due to water
depletion.
Impacts by Alternative
Open Pit Backfilling
No Action I Alternative
WILDLIFE
io impacts to faunal community
currently present.
No impacts.
No impacts.
No impacts.
Similar to PA except 1,103 ac
reclaimed with complete
lackfllling scenario.
Same as PA, except long term
exposure to abandoned pit lakes
would not occur.
No net loss of habitat if pits
completely backfilled and
reclaimed.
Same as PA.
Facility Layout Alternative
Same as PA except 55 fewer
acres of disturbance.
Same as PA.
Same as PA.
Same as PA.
Selective Waste Rock Handling
Alternative
lame as PA.
Same as PA.
Same as PA.
Same as PA.
23996/R4-T.2II 1/31/97(5:18 PMVRPT/7
-------
(J\
o
TABLE 2-11
LISBON VALLEY EIS IMPACT SUMMARY
Impacts by Alternative
Type of Potential Impact by
Issue
Proposed Action
(PA)
No Action
Open Pit Backfilling
Alternative
Facility Layout Alternative
Selective Waste Rock Handling
Alternative
GRAZING
Disturbance Of Grazing
Lands-Temporary &
Permanent Acreage Losses
Animal Unit Months
(AUM) effects
Final reclamation
720 new ac disturbed by PA no
longer available for grazing
during mine life.
71.6 AUMs temporarily lost
(minimum 13 yrs); 7.2 AUMs
permanently lost.
Reseeding of waste dumps and
haul roads with plant species'
compatible to grazing would
cause minimal long-term
impacts.
No impacts.
No impacts.
No impacts.
Same as PA.
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, fall reclamation
and no loss of AUMs in long-
term.
Same as above.
5.3 additional AUM's would
be available for grazing during
life of mine.
Same as above.
Same as above.
Same as PA.
Same as PA.
Same as PA.
SOCIOECONOMICS
Economics and
Employment
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.
Loss of associated employment
and economic benefit.
Backfilling of pits could
decrease economic and
employment effects due to the
mine being scaled back as the
backfill costs cut into
profitability.
Also would be loss of
employment and economics of
potential future mining.
Same as PA.
Same as PA.
23996/R4-T.2I! 1/31/97(5:18 PMyRMV7
-------
TABLE 2-11
LISBON VALLEY EIS IMPACT SUMMARY
Type of Potential Impact by
Issue
• Housing
Local Facilities and
Services
Social Setting
Local Mine-Induced
Traffic
Proposed Action
(PA)
Temporary housing options for
construction operations appear
adequate in Moab and
Monticello; during operations,
some strains to housing in these
towns could occur, although
impacts are anticipated to be
minor.
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.
No notable impacts because of
project remoteness; proposed
uses continue historic mining
use of area. Increased
employment and higher paying
jobs would bring enhancement
to quality of life for some
individuals and families.
Impacts by Alternative
No Action
No impacts.
No impacts.
Remoteness of area would
remain in current condition.
Loss of higher paying jobs and
social enhancements they may
bring.
Open Pit Backfilling
Alternative
Similar to PA but with smaller
mine and shorter project life,
demand for housing would also
be smaller and shorter in
duration.
Effects on local infrastructure
could be shortened; schedule and
mine size would be scaled back.
Same as PA.
Facility Layout Alternative
Same as PA.
Same as PA.
Same as PA.
Selective Waste Rock Handling
Alternative
Same as PA.
Same as PA.
Same as PA.
TRANSPORTATION
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.
No impacts on current light use
of area roads.
Impacts similar to PA but
reduced in time to local road
network due to backfilling
activity limiting mine size.
t
•oad
ig
K.
Same as PA.
Same as PA.
23996/R4-T.2II IOI»7(S:l«PM)mPT/7
-------
V
Type of Potential Impact by
Issue
• Mine Operations Traffic
Accidents
Road Maintenance
• Transportation
• Storage and Use
TABLE 2-11
LISBON VALLEY EIS IMPACT SUMMARY
Impacts by Alternative
Proposed Action
(PA)
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 2.44 accidents/yr, a 2%
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 Action
No impacts.
No change to present condition.
No change to present condition.
Open Pit Backfilling
Alternative
Increase in internal mine truck
trips to backfill pits; no increase
in haul trips anticipated across
Lisbon Valley Road intersection.
Similar to PA although with
shortened mine life, duration of
accident risk would be reduced.
Less wear on county roads due
to reduced scale of project,
decreasing road maintenance
costs to County.
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Facility Layout Alternative
10 truck trips estimated per day
to haul hazardous materials to
mine, resulting in likely
maximum of 0.51 to 1.6
accidents over life of mine;
accidental spill could
contaminate soils, plants, and
wildlife.
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
underdrains to contain spills.
No impacts.
No impacts.
Duration may be reduced, due to
reduced scale of project. Acid
material trips reduced
accordingly, fuel trips would
increase due to backfilling by
truck.
Similar to Proposed Action.
Shorter mine life, reduced
duration risk of spills.
Same as PA.
Same as PA.
Same as PA.
Selective Waste Rock Handling
Alternative
Same as PA.
Same as PA.
Same as PA.
Same as PA.
Same as PA.
Same as PA.
Same as PA.
2J996/R4-T.2I1 1/31/97(5:18 PM)/RPT/7
-------
TABLE 2-11
LISBON VALLEY EIS IMPACT SUMMARY
V
Type of Potential Impact by
Issue
• Generated Wastes during
Operations
Labv
sludg
gener
opera
• Impacts to Culturally
Significant Sites Under
NRHP Criteria
• Collection/Vandalism
• Impacts to Significant
Paleontological Resources
No si
inprc
effec
criter
Illegt
may
publi
fence
perso
collet
area
Nok
palec
proje
• Visual Contrasts during
Project Operations
Nota
OCCUl
alon
Road
regie
bem
seen
and
with
land
Impacts by Alternative
Proposed Action
(PA)
Lab waste, SX/EW crud,
sludges, waste oil and solvents
generated during routine
No Action
No impacts.
Open Pit Backfilling
Alternative
Same as above.
Facility Layout Alternative
Same as PA.
Selective Waste
Alte
Same as PA.
No significant cultural resources
in project area; no adverse
effects under 36 CFR 800
Illegal collection and vandalism
may be less for the general
public due to the presence of
fence barriers and project
personnel; increased chance of
collection in some parts of the
No known significant
paleontological resources in
CULTURAL AND PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Same as PA. | Same as PA.
No impacts.
No impacts beyond current
illegal collection activity.
No impacts.
Same as PA.
Same as PA.
Same as PA.
Same as PA.
Same as PA.
Same as PA.
Same as PA.
VISUAL RESOURCES
Notable visual contrasts would
occur in immediate project area
along lower Lisbon Valley
Road; impacts to view from
regional mountain ranges would
be minimal; landscape is of low
scenic quality and sensitivity,
and project activities would be
within guidelines for Class IV
Past, unreclaimed features
(small pits with infrequent
ponded water, waste piles,
structural remnants) would
remain as visible disturbance on
existing landscape to users in the
area.
Same as PA.
Same as PA except elimination
of Waste Dump D would
lessen overall visual impacts.
Same as PA.
2J996/R4-T.2II 1/31/97(5:18 PM)/RPT/7
-------
-CL
TABLE 2-11
LISBON VALLEY EIS IMPACT SUMMARY
Impacts by Alternative
Type of Potential Impact by
Issue
Proposed Action
(PA)
No Action
Open Pit Backfilling
Alternative
Facility Layout Alternative
Selective Waste Rock Handling
Alternative
Residual Visual Effects
after Reclamation and
Revegetation
Some mitigation would occur by
reduction of color and line
contrasts; medium-sized,
partially water-filled pits,
reclaimed waste rock piles and
heaps would remain, intruding
on the visual condition.
Same as above.
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.
Same as above.
Same as PA.
LAND USE
Land Use Changes
JL
Property Ownership
Changes
Project would change current
uses to active copper mining and
benefaction on 256 ac of private
(fee) land; 574 ac of BLM land;
and 273 ac of State land; for a
total of 1,103 acres affected; for
10-yr mining and 5-yr
reclamation periods.
231 acres of abandoned pits
would be unuseable for any
other type uses.
Property ownership secured as
above at this time; no changes
expected.
No change from current grazing
use on historically mined areas.
Use changes shorter in duration
due to reduced mine life.
Complete backfilling would
return 231 acres to potential use.
Same as above.
Same as PA.
Same as PA.
Same as PA.
Same as PA.
AIR QUALITY
Compliance with
Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS)
PM,o (paniculate 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). Project would
incrementally add to regional
reduction in visibility.
No change to current conditions.
Not capable of being modeled
with existing methodology;
additional particulate emissions
would occur from "double-
handling" of waste rock.
Same as PA.
Same as PA.
23996/R4-T.21I 1/31/97(5:18 PMyRPT/7
-------
TABLE 2-11
LISBON VALLEY EIS IMPACT SUMMARY
Impacts by Alternative
lypi
Issue
np»ct by
Proposed Action
(PA)
No Action
Open Pit Backfilling
Alternative
Facility Layout Alternative
Selective Waste Rock Handling
Alternative
Contaminants Exceeding
Background Levels
Background PM)0 levels of 26
ug/m impacted by 7 to 26
ug/m3 from project operations,
within NAAQS requirements of
50-150 ug/m3:
Same as above.
Same as above.
Same as PA.
Same as PA.
NOISE
Po
Immediate Project Vicinity
• Noise Level Impacts to
Potential Area Residents
No exceedances predicted to
workers inside property
boundaries, nor to local residents
and users of adjoining property
outside property boundaries
from mining operations;
nuisance levels from blasting
and traffic periodically an
impact to passersby.
No residents within 1 mi;
potential development is several
miles away, where project may
periodically create blasting noise
heard as part of background.
No change from current levels.
Same as above.
Noise from project operations
same as PA except for a reduced
project life.
Same as above.
Same as PA.
Same as PA.
Same as PA.
Same as PA.
RECREATIONAL RESOURCES
Uisplacementof
Recreational Activities
Property Access
Displacement of big and small
game hunting activities in and
around the project site.
Some potential access
restrictions to dispersed
recreation through life of project
due to road closures and mine
traffic.
No change from current use.
No change from current use.
No different from PA except
impacts occur for a shorter
duration due to a reduced project
life.
Same as above.
Same as PA.
Same as PA.
Same as PA.
Same as PA.
2399MM-T.2I1 1/31/97(5:11 PMJ/RPT/7
-------
into the Sentinel Pit. Also, the agency preferred
alternative would prohibit mining across Lisbon
Canyon or disturbance of the stream channel at
the mouth of Lisbon Canyon. This would
eliminate the need for developing and maintaining
problematic long-term diversion structures around
the north side of the Sentinel Pit.
1
23996/R4-WP.2 2/4/97(5:21 pm)/RPT/8
2-56
-------
-------
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 resources 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 cast 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. The Southern Rocky Mountains and
Basin and Range physiographic provinces flank
this province on the east and west, respectively
(Hunt 1967). The proposed project area is
located within Lisbon Valley, which 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, 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 dram, 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 located 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, 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.
3.1.2.1 Stratigraphy
Stratigraphic units within the proposed project
area consist of late Cenozoic continental deposits,
Mesozoic continental and minor marine strata,
23996/R4-WP.3A 02-05-97(9:38pm)/RPT/8
3-1
-------
-------
V
-•\.
A
V
—X"
':-\-
fe*r
•V
->.,
<-/v_-._,-
ss&r
^•"NS. SENTINEL
V
J*^
'> ^*>
?&.
i-^S
s£.-Ap~:
FT-in:'
I .-'i
-^ T
l1-^.
<~ LISBON VALLEY FAULT*
J4MW4
-^i^-S^
p >ST ^PK'I •'>-
-^,
X^<^^&< -^x,
iv^^^^^ir
;-*2\?:vuv^&:^J
-. — \ ^* 1 \N-i
^:*^ Nvlr-i \v
PROPOSED
PAD
\!-<% f
A /• %A -^r-^.^"
'>"
MW96-7|
f-t^^SLV-S
/
» ^««^ •
( SLV-
fx"
ICENTENNIAL
h7^^*>*^r«ri
rh,M^
$m
ii
»;
^s
.94MW3'
&SEEV&
*s*
s**!;
1
S^i-j^te*
SBi^fe^P^,-:
.^<.
\
9^5
\
:>
^W
~
1. SOURCE: G.W. WEIR, W.P. PUFFETT, AND C.L DODSON
PRELIMINARY GEOLOGIC MAP OF THE MOUNT PEALE 4 NW
QUADRANGLE, SAN JUAN COUNTY, UTAH.
2. MAP LEGEND IS PRESENTED ON THE FOLLOWING PAGE.
3. — — -SCHEMATIC CROSS-SECTION LOCATION.
feTsMi^
^
^i^v^^
'&&W
i<€
J. •c*'-;
Jn
^M1
-------
I—I I-
1/2
SCALE: 1:24,000
0
I
=T7 I -
1 MILE
CONTOUR INTERVAL 40 FEET
DATUM IS MEAN SEA LEVEL
«
™-
6P& Kifc
P?v^
^fiy^ 4^5 i - •
%d^^l^ ^ w^^^eipP^
? ^5^cKT ^ •• ._Jx^^<7 Kd\ r I • ---i^ ^^Sfv^r>>. \w^:tr,S^
GEOLOGIC MAP FOR THE
LISBON VALLEY
COPPER PROJECT AREA
FIG. 3.1-
-------
LEGEND
U
C.
C-
Contact
Long- dashes where approxiraatply Josnted; short dashes where
inferred or indefinite
High-angle fault
Dashed wlioi-u appi-oxJimLuly looatad; JotU-d wh-i-e concealed
U, upthrown side; D, domiUirown side
Syncllne
Showing trace of axial plane and bearing and direction of
plunge of axis
Strike and dip of beds
s
X- JJ
Approximate strike and dip of beds
Structure contours
Structure contours are drawn at the base
of various units across the map area.
o
Eolian and alluvial sand and silt
Light-brow,, red, and grayish-yellow wind-deposited sand and
Silt, In t.Hl n •Vir.Q f T llrr. ,4nn«.»-t + _ __.. J L f
w -. , ^ _.„} Wju £i «*jj.an-jfca.j.uN w-uiu-urpooi tea Sana anc
silt jn thin aheetllke deposits covering tops of mesas and
-..-..i UH-,E vj.j^n.1- ii'-puo± I'D uuvtsl lllg [.OpB Ol Jne£&S I
plateaus; eolian material generally reworked in part by
J 3 •--**—••"»» uu v>;j j,cii. gcuci en i j- lewoiKCQ in Dart DV
water and grades into stream-deposited sand and silt in val
1 PV Hfl t.trttn*
Landslide deposits
Irregular hummooky deposits and thin patchy sheets of mass-
moved material, chiefly made up of blocks of sandstone
derived from the Burro Canyon formation and the Dakota sand-
stone and mudstone from the Brushy Basin shale member of
the Morrison formation. Includes talus below cliffs near
heads of landslides
Jmb, Brushy Basin sin
red bentonitic muds!
stone having conspi
the base
Jms, Salt Wash sandsd
tjcular sandstone
contains thin limesj
deposits north of
base of the Brushy j
Valley, uranium-van
of the Salt Wash sd
Reddish Uiln-bedtlad
midway beij
Grayish-yellow, red
Jcu, the upper part ,.
lenticular sandstor.
with lower part of
and southeasternmosl
with overlying Entrl
indefinite
Jcl, the lower part _.
beddpfl saiidnton* aril
Basal contact mtrk-l
mon chert fragments!
1 inch
UNCONFORMUT
White and grayish-yell
I
•<*•
ro
CM
Hancos shale
Dark-gray to black fissile shale; fossiliferous, contains
marine pelecypods Gryphaea newberryi. Occurs as isolated
patches in Lower Lisbon Valley
Kd.
Dakota sandstone
Light-brown and yellowish-brown sandstone and conglomerate
commonly containing plant impressions, interbeddrd with
gray to black carbonaceous mudstonej basal conglomerate
includes cobbles and boulders from Burro Canyon formation
UN CONFORM! TT
Burro Canyon formation
Grayish-brown and light-brown sandstone and conglomerate
sillcified in part to gray quartzitej thin beds of gray
densp limestone and interbedded green and purplish mud-
stone. Lower contact mapped at base of lowest persistent
sandstone; gradational with top of Morrison formation
Red and purplish-red]
sandstone irregulaj
Upper and lower coil
Grayish-orange to rsJ
Red, light-brown, and
purplish-red, and g
to 50 ft thick, chi
and conglomerate, g
lime-pebble conglorr.
member of Chinls of I
uranium-vanadiar. orJ
-------
lie pwirtjiri conposnd chiefly of gray and
fan* with dark brown conglomeratic sand-
s red wid green chert pebbles near
fcue w*berj eosposcd of light-brown len-
hlerbeddcd wltli reddish raudstone and
[tone beds at Uie basr. Uraidum-vanadlim
jsiaiid H«a» occur In conglomerate at the
itsin aimle wrtjcrj in Lower Lisbon
deposits occur in Uie upper part
hdstono B«
-------
and Paleozoic marine and minor continental
strata. Most of the Paleozoic strata occur only in
the subsurface. Mesozoic strata crop out over
extensive parts of the area (W-C 1982). The
stratigraphic column shown in Figure 3.1-2
illustrates the stratigraphic units present in the
Lisbon Valley area from the Pennsylvanian
Hermosa Group strata to the younger Quaternary
units. The pre-Pennsylvanian Hermosa Group
Paleozoic stratigraphic units listed below from
oldest to youngest occur only in the deep
subsurface:
Cambrian-age
Ignacio Formation (quartzite)
Bright Angel (Shale)
Mauv Limestone
Devonian-age
Elbert Formation
(basal sandstone and overlying dolomite)
Mississippian-age
Leadville Limestone
Pennsvlvanian-age
(Pre-Hermosa Group)
Molas Formation (mudstone, shale, sandstone and
limestone)
The stratigraphic units of most importance to the
EIS are discussed below.
Hermosa Group Deposits (Pennsvlvanian)
The Pennsylvanian Hermosa Group, as defined by
Baars et al. (1967), is comprised of three
formations from oldest to youngest: the Pinkerton
Trail, Paradox, and Honaker Trail Formations.
The Pinkerton Trail Formation is composed
primarily of gray limestone containing
interbedded sandstone and silty shale; it is from
121 to 230 feet thick in the "Lisbon Valley area
(Heylum et al., 1965). These strata were
deposited in a normal marine environment
adjacent to a low land mass to the east that
contributed intermittent clastic sediments (W-C
1982). The Pinkerton Trail Formation is not
exposed at the surface hi the project area.
The Paradox Formation is composed of salt
cyclically interbedded with strata containing black
shale, dolomite, and anhydrite. This formation
was subdivided by Hite (1960) into 29 evapprite
cycles.
The cyclical pattern of sedimentation is believed
by Hite and others to be related to sea level
fluctuation that periodically and abruptly changed
salinity conditions within the basin. The Lisbon
Valley area is located near the center of the basin
and near the western margin of the area of
thicker Paradox Formation deposits.
During the development of the Lisbon Valley
non-diapiric structure, the Paradox Formation was
significantly deformed and thickened by salt
flowage.
The Honaker Trail Formation is the oldest
formation exposed at the surface in the proposed
project area. The upper one-third of the
formation is composed of gray fossiliferous
limestone interbedded with red-brown to brown
sandstone and gray, green, and red shale; the
lower two-thirds of the formation is composed of
gray limestone interbedded with black shale
containing thin anhydrite beds (Hite, 1978),
Based on available data (Heylumn et al., 1965),
the Honaker Trail Formation is from 1,237 to
2,078 feet thick hi the Lisbon Valley area.
Post-Hermosa Group Paleozoic Deposits
Permian
The Cutler Formation overlies the Honaker Trail
Formation and the contact between the two
formations is locally gradational. The formation
is composed of maroon, red, purple, and yellow
conglomerate and conglomeratic sandstone,
interbedded with brown, red, and purple siltstone.
Some thin gray limestone and chert lenses occur
near the base. Small uranium/vanadium deposits
occur in sandstone lenses in the upper part of this
formation (Weir et al., 1961). These strata
represent deposition in a continental environment
(W-C 1982).
23996/R4-WP.3A 02-OS-97(9:38pm)/RPT/8
3-4
-------
cr
a
§
o:
o
—-,.-7 -
Alluvium and Colluvium (Bed 'No. 1)
Mancos Shale (Bed No. 2)
Dakota Sandstone (Beds No. 4 through 13)
(Copper Bearing Strata)
Burro Qanyon Formation (Beds No. 14 and 15)
' (Copper Bearing Strata)
Morrison Formation
Brushy Basin Member
(Bed No. 17)
Morrison Formation
Salt Wash Member
Summerville Formation
Entrada Formation
Slick Rock Member
Entrada Formation
Dewey Bridge Member
Navajo Sandstone
Kayenta Formation
Wingate Sandstone
Chinle Formation
Moss Back Member
Cutler Formation
tn
to
CM
Hermosa Group
Note: Bed Numbering System after Beaty, 1975.
GENERALIZED STRATIGRAPHIC
COLUMN OF EXPOSED UNITS
LISBON VALLEY, UTAH
FIG. 3.1-2 -
-------
Within the upper part of the Cutler Formation, a
distinctive light brown sandstone unit is visible
among the maroon to purple beds. Detailed
mapping has shown that this brown sandstone and
overlying Cutler beds are truncated by an angular
unconformity at the base of the overlying Chinle
Formation (Leaks and Dahl, 1956) (Figure 3.1-2).
Mesozoic Deposits
In outcrops of the Lisbon Valley area, the Triassic
period is represented by the Chinle Formation,
which is composed of red, brown, and gray
sandstone and conglomerate, and red, purple, and
green-gray mudstone. These rocks form a
distinctive green-colored lower unit and a red-
colored upper unit. The lower unit contains
green-gray mudstone and brown and gray
sandstone and conglomerate. This unit, identified
as the Moss Back Member, contains extensive
uranium deposits. The formation is bounded by
an unconformity at the base and a
paraconformable contact with the overlying
Wingate Sandstone. The Chinle Formation is
approximately 450 feet thick in the area. These
strata represent continuing continental deposition
in the Lisbon Valley area during Triassic time,
including fluvial, floodplain, and lacustrine
environments (W-C 1982).
Jurassic
Jurassic strata represent continuing deposition in
continental environments. Massive sandstones
were deposited in eolian conditions, while
interbedded sandstone, shale, and siltstone
formed in fluvial conditions. Local freshwater
limestones were deposited in lacustrine settings.
The Wingate Sandstone is composed of massive
gray-orange to red-brown cross-bedded sandstone
(Figure 3.1-2). This resistant sandstone is the
basal formation of the extensive west-dipping
cuesta that forms the western flank of the Lisbon
Valley anticline. The Wingate Sandstone is
approximately 250 feet thick in the project area.
The Kayenta Formation overlies the Wingate
Sandstone (Figure 3.1-2). This formation is
composed of thin-bedded red and purple cross-
bedded sandstone, irregularly interbedded with
red siltstone. Both upper and lower contacts are
gradational and intertonguing. The formation
forms a broad ledge slope between the Wingate
Sandstone and the overlying Navajo Sandstone.
The Kayenta Formation is approximately 200 feet
thick in the proposed project area.
The Navajo Sandstone is composed of massive
white and yellow cross-bedded sandstone. This
formation is not as 'resistant as the Wingate
Sandstone, and forms low mounds and rolling
topography rising above the slope underlain by
the Kayenta Formation. The Navajo Sandstone is
approximately 250 feet thick in the project area
(W-C 1982).
The Navajo Sandstone is. overlain by the Entrada
Sandstone (Figure 3.1-2). This formation is
divided into three members. The lower is the
thin-bedded Dewey Bridge Member, which is
partially correlative with the Carmel Formation
farther to the west. This member is overlain by
the massive Slick Rock Member, which comprises
the bulk of the formation. The upper member is
the Moab Tongue (Wright et al., 1962).
In the Lisbon Valley area, only the Dewey Bridge
and Slick Rock Members are present. The
Dewey Bridge Member is composed of red
siltstone and sandstone. It has a gradational
contact with the overlying Slick Rock Member
and an uncomfortable contact with the underlying
Navajo Sandstone.
The Slick Rock Member is composed of massive
gray, yellow, red, and brown cross-bedded
sandstone. Together with the underlying Dewey
Bridge Member, the more resistant Slick Rock
Member forms distinctive light-colored* red-
banded cliffs extending along the base of
escarpments in the area and large isolated buttes
and mesas along the extensive west-dipping cuesta
west of the Lisbon Valley Anticline. The Slick
Rock Member is approximately 200 feet thick in
the proposed project area (W-C 1982).
23996/R4-WP.3A 02-05-97(9:38pm)/RPT/8
3-6
-------
The Summerville Formation overlies the Slick
Rock Member of the Entrada Sandstone. It is
composed of red, thin-bedded mudstone and gray
to yellow sandstone. In the proposed project
area, the Summerville Formation is approximately
75 feet thick.
The Morrison Formation overlies the SununerviUe
Formation, and is comprised of two members hi
the Lisbon Valley area. The lower Salt Wash
Member consists of brown lenticular sandstone
interbedded with red mudstone and thin gray
limestone at its base. This member contains
extensive uranium/vanadium deposits in channel
sandstones, particularly in its upper part (W-C
1982).
The upper member, named the Brushy Basin
Member, consists of gray and red-brown
bentonitic mudstone and brown conglomeratic
sandstone near its base. The bentonite
component of this member is derived from large
quantities of volcanic ash carried hi by streams
that flowed north and northwest across the area.
The Brushy Basin Member is commonly
coincident with localized landslides produced from
weathering of and failure of the unstable
bentonitic mudstone beds, beneath overlying
sandstone units.
The Morrison Formation forms alternating cliff
and slope topography beneath the overlying Burro
Canyon Formation in the southern parts of the
proposed project area and is approximately 600
feet thick.
Cretaceous
r
These strata represent a return to marine and
transitional environments of deposition.
Conglomerates, sandstone, some mudstone, and
coal deposits were formed in transitional
environments, while limestone and fossiliferous
shale were formed hi marine environments.
The Burro Canyon Formation is composed of
brown and gray sandstone and conglomerate,
commonly silicified in parts (Figure 3.1-2). Thin
beds of dense gray limestone and green-purple
mudstone are also present. This formation has an
intertonguing relationship with the underlying
Morrison Formation. The upper contact with the
Dakota Sandstone is an unconformity between
Lower Cretaceous and Upper Cretaceous strata
(W-C 1982). The Burro Canyon is one of the
host rocks for copper mineralization in the
proposed Lisbon Valley project area.
The resistant Burro Canyon Formation and the
overlaying Dakota Sandstone form caps on the
top of several mesas in the area. The thickness of
this formation is variable, because of the
unconformity defining the formation top, and
ranges from 150 feet to 300 feet in the proposed
project area (W-C 1982).
The Dakota Sandstone is composed of brown and
yellow sandstone and conglomerate (commonly
containing plant impressions) and interbedded
gray-black carbonaceous mudstone and local coal.
A basal conglomerate contains cobbles and
boulders of the underlying Burro Canyon
Formation. The Dakota Sandstone outcrops are
much less extensive than the Burro Canyon
Formation, and occur as thin sheets and patches
above the formation. This sandstone is
approximately 150 feet thick in the proposed
project area, and also hosts some of the copper
mineralization within the project area.
The Mancos Shale overlying the Dakota
Sandstone is the youngest Cretaceous unit
exposed in the Lisbon Valley area. It is
composed of gray, thin-bedded, fissile shale that
is locally fossiliferous. This formation occurs only
in small fault wedges along the Lisbon Valley
fault zone where it has been preserved by
downfaulting (W-C 1982).
Cenozoic Deposits
Quaternary deposits mapped in the Lisbon Valley
area include eolian and alluvial sand and silt,
landslide and talus deposits, and alluvial fan
deposits. Eolian and alluvial sand and silt occur
as thin sheet-like deposits on tops of mesas and
plateaus, and as relatively thick valley fill.
Landslide deposits form extensive aprons of
23996/R4-WP.3A 02-05-97(?:38pm)/RPT/8
3-7
-------
hummocky topography and partly dissected thin
sheets of mass-movement material that are
usually derived from failure within the Brushy
Basin Member of the Morrison Formation.
Detailed Site Stratigraphy
Detailed stratigraphic studies have been
conducted by Summo and others in the copper
mineralized areas particularly near the Centennial
Pit. D. Beaty (1975) separated the Cenozoic and
Mesozoic strata into beds numbered 1 through 17
(Figure 3.1-2). This numbering system is
currently used by Summo. The numbered beds
and a description of each are provided below
(Beaty 1975):
Bed Number 1
Quaternary Overburden: Unconsolidated sand,
silt; and clay.
Bed Number 2
Mancos Shale (Km): Black fissile shale with trace
amounts of gypsum. The upper 20-30 feet is
usually weathered to a brownish olive -green color.
Bed Number 3
Dakota Sandstone (Kd): Except in a small area
to the north of the Centennial Pit, Bed 3 is a fine
to medium-grained buff sandstone, which is
sometimes separated from Bed 4 by 3 black shale
lithologically similar to the Mancos Shale.
Usually Beds 3, 4, and 5 are identical and
inseparable, forming a 45-60 foot thick well-
sorted, buff sandstone bed. In all locales Bed 3
is barren of ore.
Bed Number 4 and 5
Dakota Sandstone (Kd): Fine to medium-grained
buff sandstone, sometimes with minor gray shale
and carbonaceous material, but usually rather
pure. The thickness is usually 35-40 feet. In
some areas there is good ore (in excess of 1.5%)
at the base of Bed 5. In outcrop Bed 5 shows a
rectangular jointing pattern with a spacing of
about 5 feet.
Bed Number 6
Dakota Sandstone (Kd): This bed is usually a
coal bed, but may grade to a carbonaceous shale
or even to a carbonaceous sandstone. It usually
does not have very much copper, but can be quite
rich (1% copper) along the contact with Bed 5.
Thickness is 5-20 feet, usually about 12 feet.
Bed Number 7
Dakota Sandstone (Kd): Bed 7 is usually a light
gray shale, similar lithologically to Bed 9 with a
thickness of usually about 10 feet. Rarely,
however, it is a fine-grained buff sandstone or a
fine-grained gray sandstone.
Bed Number 8
Dakota Sandstone (Kd): Bed 8 is lithologically
indistinguishable from Bed 6, except that it is
usually a poorer grade coal. It may be either
shaly or sandy, but is usually a slightly shaly coal
about 6-8 feet thick. Large pyrite balls are not
infrequent.
Bed Number 9 and 10
Dakota Sandstone (Kd): Beds 9 and 10 are
usually indistinguishable. They are usually a light
gray shale towards the top, becoming darker
towards Bed 11. The contact between 10 and 11
is sometimes gradational but where present, beds
9 and 10 are usually about 35 feet thick.
Bed Number 11
Dakota Sandstone (Kd): Bed 11 is a fine to
medium-grained sandstone that is either buff or
white. Bed 11 is white about half the time and
buff half the time. Where buff in color, it
frequently has 1-20% black shale. When white,
the rock can be indistinguishable from 13.
Thickness is 2-35 feet and quite variable. There
is frequently ore in Bed 11, especially towards the
23996/R4-WP.3A 02-05-97(9:38pm)/RPT/8
3-8
-------
Lisbon Valley Fault, and the copper tends to be
present in the white variety.
Bed Number 12
Dakota Sandstone (Kd): This bed is a faintly
green shale to very fine-grained sandstone. This
bed can always be identified by its green color.
When Beds 11 and 13 hold ore, so does Bed 12,
but it will not, in general, produce copper. It is,
however, frequently pyritic. Thickness is 5-20
feet, but usually 10 feet.
Bed Number 13
Dakota Sandstone (Kd): Bed 13 is a medium-
grained white or deep buff sandstone. It can be
distinguished from 11 hi that it is coarser and
more of an orange color when buff, and coarser
when white. It almost always has higher copper
assays, too. It can be distinguished from Bed 15
in that it is much softer; the rock itself is probably
quite loosely cemented, whereas bed 15 grades
into a quartzite. Thickness ranges from 20-50
feet and is usually about 30-35 feet.
Bed Number 14
Upper Burro Canyon Formation (Kbc): Bed 14
is usually about 100 feet thick but varies from 70-
120 feet. Lithologically, it is composed of red
shales, green shales, limestones, massive chert
beds, and conglomerates.
Bed Number 15
Lower Burro Canyon Formation (Kbc): Bed 15 is
usually a fine-grained white sandstone frequently
medium-grained and occasionally coarse-grained
(especially near the base), which is usually very
pure (i.e., no feldspars, no magnetite, no chert
only well-sorted, well-rounded quartz grains). In
thickness, it is usually about 120 feet, although
this is variable. Three shale members have been
identified: two are green, and one is red. Bed 15
is the most important copper ore-bearing bed in
the area.
Lithologically, Bed 15 is fine-grained for the first
20 to 30 feet and this zone frequently has copper
ore hi the 0.4% to 0.9% range. Below 30 feet,
Bed 15 becomes medium-grained and usually
darker in color (due to chalcocite) and this zone
frequently has ore in the 0.8% to 2.0% range and
this lasts down to about 45 feet. Below 45 feet
Bed 15 becomes fine-grained again, picks up
some black chert, and is almost invariably barren
of ore.
Bed Number 16
Beaty did not distinguish a Bed 16, as did
Centennial Development Company in their earlier
studies.
Bed Number 17
Morrison Formation, Brushy Basin Member
(Jmb): The Morrison may be recognized at the
base of Bed 15 by: 1) more than 10 feet of red
shale; 2) reddish colored sandstones; 3) complete
absence of copper; 4) no known green shale hi
the Morrison hi this area. Until now, the Brushy
Basin Member has been thought to be a red
shale, but more detailed study indicates that there
can be a fair amount of sandstone in the
Morrison. Sandstone outcrops hi the Morrison
are indistinguishable from some of the Dakota
Sandstone or Burro Canyon Formation beds
(usually looks like Bed 15). This means that hi
places the contact between Bed 15 and the
Morrison Formation may be ambiguous.
Geologic cross-sections (Figures 3.1-3 through
3.1-7) provide stratigraphic and structural
information hi the proposed mining pit areas.
3.1.2.2 Structure
A dominant northwest structural trend exists hi
the Lisbon Valley area (Figure 3.1-8). This trend
is expressed by the Lisbon Valley Anticline, the
East Coyote Wash and Brown's Hole synclines,
the Lisbon Valley fault zone, and most other
faults hi the area (W-C 1982).
23996/R4-WP.3A 02-05-97(9:38pm)/RPT/8
3-9
-------
Centennial fit
FINAL PIT
FLOOR
EL. 6060
aoooaoDaaaoa
ooaaaoaoooa
DDDoaoaaoDo
nnOOaOaOOOO
.v-H FAULTS
HH Qal
Km
Kd 345
Kd
678
M Kbc14
Ioooa
oooo
Kbc
15
F^l TrJn
1EQENQ
QUATERNARY ALLUVIUM
MANCOS FORMATION
UPPER DAKOTA FM. BEDS 3. 4. 5
DAKOTA FORMATION, COALY BEDS
LOWER DAKOTA FORMATION, BEDS 9-13
UPPER BURRO CANYON FORMATION
LOWER BURRO CANYON FORMATION
MORRISON FORMATION
ENTRADA FORMATION
NAVAJO FORMATION
- CASE 1 PREDICTED DEPTH OF PIT WATER
CASE 2 PREDICTED DEPTH OF PIT WATER
CROSS-SECTION LOCATION SHOWN ON FIGURE 2-1
1 FOOT
84 FEET!
150 300
^••.••J1""
SCALE IN FEET
600
SOURCE: GOCHNOUR 1996b.
Job No. :
23996
Prepared by : J.P.T.
Date :
12/3/96
CROSS-SECTION A-A*
CENTENNIAL PIT
POST-MINING
LISBON VALLEY COPPER PROJECT
FIG. 3.1 -3
-------
FINAL PIT
FLOOR
EL. 6060
DODOODDODODOOUUUUUU
OODQQQODOODDQOOOaQ
aaaooQaonaoaaaaaar
QaoaaanDoaaDDaoo1
DDODDDDaaOOODDDDt
aaDDDoaaaaooDPOC
oaaaaDDaaaaaaoa
oaaaDaaaaaaaooo
a o n n n o
n o a n n o o D a a o o 11 n n i) u n n
n a o D o o D n no o u o u n i>
annouuuuuunnnouo
ononniiniiiiiinntin
BoSnnnooucinoooDnonnonnoooooannoaa
gggnoDOOoouucinoooooogggnDGUUgo
Kdg9_13
Kbc
15
MANGOS FORMATION
UPPER DAKOTA FM, BEDS 3, 4, 5
DAKOTA FORMATION, COALY BEDS
LOWER DAKOTA FORMATION, BEDS 9-13
UPPER BURRO CANYON FORMATION
LOWER BURRO CANYON FORMATION
MORRISON FORMATION
CUTLER FORMATION
. .V. . . .
SL —
- CASE 1 PREDICTED DEPTH OF PIT WATER = 1 FOOT
- CASE 2 PREDICTED DEPTH OF PIT WATER » 84 FEET
CROSS-SECTION LOCATION SHOWN ON FIGURE 2-1
0 100 200 400
SOURCE: GOCHNOUR 19965.
Job No. :
23996
Prepared by : J.P.T.
Date :
12/3/96
CROSS-SECTION B-B'
CENTENNIAL PIT
POST-MINING
LISBON VALLEY COPPER PROJECT
-------
Sentinel #2 Pit
ODOO
aoaaoaa
auoaaao
aaaaao
aaooa
DDD
FINAL PIT
6300 FLOOR
EL. 6260
a i ooo yaooooo
o a a o ax__— ^
-------
D
6500-
- Sentinel #1 Pit
D'
I
FINAL PIT
FLOOR
6000 EL 5960
FAULTS
Qol
Km
Kd
Kd
345
678
LEGEND
- QUATERNARY ALLUVIUM
- MANCOS FORMATION
- UPPER DAKOTA FM, BEDS 3, 4, 5
- DAKOTA FORMATION, COALY BEDS
Kdgg_13- LOWER DAKOTA FORMATION, BEDS 9-13
\\N\XI
\\\\\
.\\v\vl
Kbc
Kbc
Jm
14
15
- UPPER BURRO CANYON FORMATION
- LOWER BURRO CANYON FORMATION
- MORRISON FORMATION
- CASE 1 PREDICTED DEPTH OF PIT WATER = 142 FEET
_'_ - CASE 2 PREDICTED DEPTH OF PIT WATER - 320 FEET
CROSS-SECTION LOCATION SHOWN ON FIGURE 2-1
GOCHNOUR 1996b.
Job No.
SCALE IN FEET
•UMmM^H*
23996
Prepared by : J.P.T.
CROSS-SECTION D-D'
SENTINEL PIT
POST-MINING
LISBON VALLEY COPPER PROJECT
-------
I
6600
-6400
-6200
-6000
L5800
HH FAULTS
P^ Km
E*
6600-1
6400-
6200-
/X s *
AJL/S
Xsls s
yy*'
'A\s
AQx
s
X
f
X
X
X
X
/
X
X
/
X
X
X
_x
X
X
x
x / / x x / / / /• x /
//xxx//////*
/xx xxx/ xx/x
XXXXX/XXXXX
XXXXXXXXXX X
///x/xxxxxx
X
^
X
/
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
/
/
>
X
X X
/
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
/
X
X
X
X
XX / XX
xx/xx
XX XXX
xxxxx
XX XXX
xxxxx
v > y v y
X
X
bbflBBB'l
5800 J
FINAL PIT
FLOOR
EL. 5880
Kd
Kd
345
678
=H Kdg9_13-
Kbc
Kbc
Trc
PC
14
;15
LEGEND
QUATERNARY ALLUVIUM
MANCOS FORMATION
UPPER DAKOTA FM, BEDS 3, 4, 5
DAKOTA FORMATION, COALY BEDS
LOWER DAKOTA FORMATION, BEDS 9
UPPER BURRO CANYON FORMATION
LOWER BURRO CANYON FORMATION
CHINLE FORMATION
CUTLER FORMATION
aoaaoDaodaDaaaDDaaaDODoaooaooaDODDaDQDoaaaoaaoaoDOOoa.
o oaaDDaDDoaaaaDaaaaoooaaooaaaDaoaaaaaaaaaaoDaDDaQDOoai
.V - CASE 1 PREDICTED DEPTH OF PIT WATER » 155 FEET
- CASE 2 PREDICTED DEPTH OF PIT WATER - 199 FEET
CROSS-SECTION LOCATION SHOWN ON FIGURE 2-1
-13
100 200
""
SCALE IN FEET
400
SOURCE: GOCHNOUR 1996b.
Job No. :
23996
Prepared by : J.P.T.
Date :
12/3/96
CROSS-SECTION E-E'
GTO PIT
POST-MINING
LISBON VALLEY COPPER PROJECT
FIG. 3.1-'
-------
-------
UTAH
COLORADO
-------
PROJECT LOCATION
-------
The structure of the proposed project area is
dominated by two features: the doubly plunging
Lisbon Valley Anticline and the Lisbon Valley
fault zone shown in Figure 3.1-8. The Lisbon
Valley Anticline is approximately 20 miles long
and includes the Lisbon Valley topographic
feature along its crest at its southeast end.
Folds
The Lisbon Valley Anticline is the principal fold
structure hi the Lisbon Valley area (Figure 3.1-8).
It trends N45°W, parallel to the Lisbon Valley
fault zone. This anticline is doubly plunging and
asymmetric, having a relatively steep eastern flank
where it terminates against the Lisbon Valley
fault zone. Dips on the western flank range from
4 to 19 degrees; dips on the steeper eastern flank
range from 3 to 46 degrees. The mapped trace of
the anticline axis is approximately 6 miles long
(W-C 1982). At the surface, the northeast limb
of the Lisbon Valley Anticline has been
downfaulted approximately 4,000 feet. 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 and occurs hi the structural'
graben formed by faulting.
Faults
The Lisbon Valley fault zone trends along the
crest of the anticline for a distance of
approximately 20 miles hi a northwesterly
direction. Mapped fault traces form a zone of
variable width ranging from a single fault trace
near the northern boundary of the area to a zone
about 2 miles wide near the southern boundary.
A maximum stratigraphic displacement of 4,000
feet (down on the east) was reported by Leaks
and Dahl (1956), while a maximum stratigraphic
displacement of about 5,000 feet was reported by
Weir and Puffett (1960). A dominant single fault
trace within the zone was mapped as the Lisbon
Valley Fault by Weir et al. (1961). Fault
displacement is at least as young as Cretaceous
age, because the Mancos Shale (the youngest unit
present in the area) is cut by the fault zone.
A schematic geologic cross-section for the
proposed project site shown in Figure 3.1-9
illustrates displacement of geologic units across
the Lisbon Valley Fault. Fault splay traces near
the proposed project site extend along the east
side of Lisbon Valley (Figure 3.1-1). The relative
geologic displacement along these faults is down
to the west. The complexity of faulting, fault
width, and number of individual fault traces
decrease southward from the proposed project
site.
An additional zone of faulting near the proposed
project site extends southward along the western
side of Lisbon Valley, starting from a complex
splay zone hi close association with the Lisbon
Valley fault. These additional fault splays consist
of a series of east-dipping normal faults. In the
proposed project area, Lisbon Valley occupies a
structural graben between the east side of valley
and west side fault zones described above.
The structural graben in Lisbon Valley near the
proposed project site contains two synclines
exposing downfaulted Cretaceous Dakota
Sandstone and Mancos Formation (Figure 3.1-1).
This is the only exposure of Mancos Formation hi
the entire area, and as such represents an area of
maximum structural downfaulting.
3.1.23 Mineralization
The mineralization to be mined from Summo's
proposed Lisbon Valley copper project occurs
dominantly as fine disseminations hi the
sandstone beds of the Dakota Sandstone and
Burro Canyon Formation (beds 3, 4, 5, 11, 13,
and 15). Minor amounts of mineralization (less
than 10%) may occur hi the other Dakota and
Burro Canyon beds hi areas of strong
mineralization, however. In the sandstone, copper
minerals partially fill intergranular pore space
between detrital sand grams where copper
minerals appear to have replaced earlier pyrite or
bituminous material. In the other non-sandstone
beds, the mineralization process has been similar
but less extensive. The high porosity of the
sandstone beds compared to the shale and coal
23996/R4-WP.3A 02-05-97(9:38pm)/RPT/8
3-16
-------
-------
SOUTHWEST
.Jn.b
SCALE:
NOTE: SEE GEOLOGIC MAP!
GEOLOGIC FORMAT!
LOCATION.
-------
LISBON VALLEY
LISBON VALLEY FAULT
LISBON VALLEY ANTICLINE
COPPER BEARING STRATA
LISBON CANYON ANTICLINE
NORTHEAST
7000
v^S .i"mbl-^ r
:24,000
LEGEND FIGURE 3.1-1 FOR
)N NOTATIONS AND CROSS-SECTION
Job No. :
23996
Prepared by : J.L.E.
Date :
9/25/96
AFTER WEIR, PUFFETT AND DODSON, 1961
SCHEMATIC NORTHEAST TO
SOUTHWEST GEOLOGIC
CROSS-SECTION
LISBON VALLEY, UTAH
-------
beds, has focused the mineralization through the
sandstone beds.
Copper minerals were deposited in the porous
sandstones by mineralizing fluids which followed
strands of the Lisbon Valley Fault upward into
the Lisbon Valley Anticline. When these rising,
warm, copper-rich fluids intersected the porous
sandstone beds, lateral fluid flow through the
sandstone beds, occurred. Copper mineralization
is generally strongest adjacent to fault strands
which appear to have been feeder structures.
Copper grade generally becomes lower away from
the feeding faults as copper was removed from
the mineralizing fluid by the replacement
reactions. A small amount of mineralization
occurs along the fault feeders hi small veins and
fracture fillings of either oxide or sulfide
mineralization.
There are two general types of mineralization at
Lisbon Valley, oxide ores and sulfide ores. The
sulfide ores, which make up roughly half of the
ore proposed to be mined, are the original
mineralization which was deposited by the fluids
ascending through the fault system and porous
sandstone beds. Copper in these rocks is
dominantly the copper sulfide chalcocite (QijS),
although small amounts of bornite (CujFeS,,), and
covellite (CuS) occur and will also be mined and
leached.
The disseminated chalcocite ores occur in
irregular shaped lenses within the porous
sandstone beds and have been followed by drilling
for up to 2,500 feet parallel to the faults and for
up to about 1,500 feet perpendicular to the faults.
A narrow rind of chalcopyrite (CuFeS2) is
common around the distal edges of the chalcocite
orebodies, but this mineralization is not
considered ore because chalcopyrite leaches very
slowly and because the chalcopyrite minerali-
zation at Lisbon Valley has a high calcite content.
Calcite_(CaCO3) is undesirable hi the heap leach
material because it consumes sulfuric acid.
Beyond the chalcopyrite zone, only barren pyrite
exists in the sandstones, although occasional
traces of sphalerite (ZnS) and galena (PbS) with
pyrite may represent a local intermediate zone
between chalcopyrite and pyrite. The sphalerite
and galena mineralization occurs only hi non-
economic trace amounts and is not amenable to
the heap leach recovery process.
Oxide mineralization occurs near the surface
where the original sulfide mineralization has been
exposed to the effects of the natural weathering
environment. Dominant minerals hi the Lisbon
Valley oxide ores are the copper carbonates,
malachite [Cu2CO3(OH)2] and azurite
[Cu3(CO)2(OH)J. Minor amounts of cuprite
(CUzO) have been reported as well as several
other complex copper oxide minerals.
Thus, the mineralization proposed for mining at
Lisbon Valley is composed of a series of near
surface layers of oxide mineralization which
overlay deeper, unweathered, layers of sulfide
mineralization. Oxide mineralization makes up
roughly 52 percent of the ore tonnage to be
mined, with 48 percent of the ore consisting of
sulfide mineralization. In detail, the oxide/sulfide
ratio is more complex, however. In the
Centennial ore body, which is the largest, past
mining of mostly oxide ore has not greatly
affected the original ratio of oxide to sulfide ores.
The Sentinel ore body, which was largely exposed
at the surface but is essentially unmined, is
dominantly oxide mineralization. The GTO
orebody, on the other hand, was also partially
exposed at the surface, but almost all of the oxide
mineralization was mined by past operations, and
little but sulfide mineralization remains.
Current economics allow Summo to project that
all mineralization which averages greater than
0.1% Cu over a thickness of 20 feet can be mined
and leached, provided that the mineralization is
oxide ore or leachable (non-chalcopyrite) sulfide
ore.
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.
23996/R4-WP.3A 02-05-97(9:38pm)/RPT/8
3-18
-------
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
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 in 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 and Puffett 1981).
As discussed previously in Section 3.1.2.3, the
copper ore to be mined at the proposed Lisbon
Valley Project occurs in rocks of the Cretaceous
Dakota Sandstone and underlying Burro Canyon
Formation.
As seen in Figures 3.1-3 through 3.1-8, copper
ore in the Dakota Sandstone and Burro Canyon
Formation will be mined as shown below for each
pit:
• Sentinel #1 Pit - surficial outcrops and
subsurface beds extending to a planned
maximum depth of approximately 370 feet
• Sentinel #2 Pit - surficial outcrops and
subsurface beds extending to a planned
maximum depth of approximately 160 feet
• Centennial Pit - subsurface beds extending to
a planned maximum depth of approximately
380 feet
• GTO Pit - subsurface beds extending to a
planned maximum depth of 420 feet
Copper ore mineralization in the Burro Canyon
Formation and* Dalcota Sandstone within the
Lisbon Valley area consists predominantly of the
copper oxides, azurite and malachite, with copper
sulfide minerals (mostly chalcocite) at depth. Ore
minerals are found coating sand grains, filling
fractures, and as intergrain matrix.
Copper mineralization also occurs at currently
non-economic grades in other formations in the
Lisbon Valley area including the Cutler, Entrada,
Kayenta, Navajo Sandstone and Morrison
Formations (Thorson 1996a). Future price
increases and/or technological advances in
recovery methods may render these lower-grade
copper resources economically recoverable at
some point in the future.
Uranium and Vanadium
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. Uranium deposits
form an arcuate trend, approximately 24 miles
long and one half mile wide in the subsurface,
along the southwest flank of the Lisbon Valley
Anticline, west of the Lisbon Valley. Active
mining in this trend stopped in 1988 due to
lowered uranium prices (Chenoweth 1990).
Oil and Gas
Oil and gas exploration in southeast Utah began
in the late 1800s. Commercial deposits have been
developed in rocks of Mississippi through
Pennsylvanian age hi the Lisbon Valley Anticline.
Oil and gas development continues in the area,
with a large oil and gas field, utilizing
sophisticated recovery methods, occurring on the
western flank of Lisbon Valley, approximately 5
to 6 miles northwest of Summo's proposed copper
23996/R4-WP.3A 02-05-97(10:09pm)/RPT/8
3-19
-------
project area. There are no active oil and gas field
developments occurring within or adjacent to the
proposed copper mining project area.
Potash
Potash minerals exist in the evaporite deposits of
the Paradox Formation (not exposed hi the
Lisbon Valley area). These minerals were
identified during drilling for oil and gas.
However, potash has not been heavily explored or
developed in the Lisbon Valley area 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.
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 hi 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 proposed 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 0.21g ("g" is the gravitational
constant), which is the highest recorded ground
acceleration at the site (Welsh 1996a). A peak
ground acceleration of 0.21g is indicative of a
seismically active area (Welsh 1996a). 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 hi excess of 0.3 to
0.4g). The 0.21g event used hi the geotechnical
engineering design at the proposed Lisbon Valley
Project has a 90 percent probability of not being
exceeded in excess of 250 years (Welsh 1996a).
Foundation soils in the area of the leach pad are
granular in nature (i.e., sand and 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 proposed Lisbon Valley
Project area 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 1996a). A water balance analysis was
performed and the pond systems were
subsequently designed to accommodate the
resulting runoff from a 100 year, 24 hour storm
event, occurring after a calculated 100 year wet
season event, as described hi 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 hi 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 hi the
valley and have similar geologic and ore body
characteristics. The Blackbird Mine mined high
grade material from the same ore body that is
23996/R4-WP.3A 02-05-97(9:38pm)/RPT/8
3-20
-------
proposed to be developed for the proposed
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 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 1996a). In stark contrast,
the proposed 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 and Puffett 1981). The smaller
prospects may occur in these same formations,
but also occur in the Cutler, Kayenta, Navajo
Sandstone, 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 proposed 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 (i.e., heap leaching).
It is also unlikely that extensive exploration
activities would occur in the area as a result of
the exploitation of the proposed 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 pits. As
Summo develops its proposed mine, it is possible
that additional reserves at the proposed 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
Notices to conduct exploration or mining that the
8LM has received for the Lisbon Valley area.
Notices generally are required before exploration
or mining can be conducted on BLM-
administered lands. Since 1986, only 8 Notices
have been received: five have been for exploration
and three for mining operations, including
Summo's proposed Lisbon Valley Project. The
two most recent Notices were for the proposed
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 nulling 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 Notice involves small mining
operations in the area of the Big Indian Mine.
The operator, William V. Harrison, proposed to
expand his existing surface mining 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 1996a).
Exploration Notices were submitted for limited
drilling and were mostly in the area of Summo's
proposed Lisbon Valley Project (BLM 1993a,
1993b, unLa, unk.b, unk.c).
In summary, because of the somewhat unique
nature of the Summo deposit and the extensive
23996/R4-WP.3A 02-05-97(10:09pm)/RPT/8
3-21
-------
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 EIS 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 two 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 grpundwater and 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;
1996a; 1996c; 1996d).
3.2.2 Surface Water Resources
The proposed Lisbon Valley Copper Project lies
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 region 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 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. _
322.1 Surface Water Occurrence
The drainages hi the proposed project area carry
water only during periods of high snowmelt runoff
or after major precipitation events (i.e.,
thunderstorms), and remain dry for most of the
year. Therefore, surface water flow is ephemeral
in the proposed project area and the term
ephemeral stream is used throughout the
following discussion.
Surface Water Drainages
Surface runoff from areas beyond the rim of the
valley generally flows away from the valley. The
catchment area for surface runoff is primarily the
valley floor (Adrian Brown Consultants 1996a).
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, then joins the Mclntyre Canyon
drainage, which flows into the Dolores River. 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.
23996/R4-WP.3A 02-05-97(9:38pm)/RPT/8
3-22
-------
2000 4000
8000
3-53
LEGEND
SENTINEL CATTLE POND A SURFACE WATER SAMPLING LOCATION
SLV-2 * EXISTING MONITORING OR PRODUCTION WELL
94MW2 • 1994 MONITORING WELL
94UW4 * OPEN BORING
Job No. :
23996
Prepared by : D.K.N.
Date :
1/23/95
MONITORING WELL, BORING, AND
SURFACE WATER SAMPLING LOCATIONS
LISBON VALLEY COPPER PROJECT
-------
11.--
DOLORES RJVER
*-:v
SCALE: 1:250,000
~4r^~^"'
J? ^~u '—s.'' ' ^-w
JT* - •• - ^
SAN MIGUEL RIVER
. - - FJ
^t^^^''^^
' 1 ' •-.
DOLORES RIVER
NOTE: BASE MAP TAKEN FROM USGS r x 2"
MOAB, UTAH, COLORADO TOPOGRAPHIC MAP
SURFACE WATER FEATURES
Prepared by : D.K.N.'
LISBON VALLEY AREA
SAN JUAN COUNTY, UTAH
FIG. 3.2-2
-------
V.
/ d 3; •'•.:
T *^%ii *
'* C1
t>^*+*. ^ *M_ '"
Jatfcion
Hoi*
I wil
«
Ifef
ns !
" im WUSDN
Ifinch"—•*
•*'- tt
1'^. Jimmy Keeir '
&-1-. Fh^ BALD "
{- \( MESA
' ',' ^
HORSE MTN (
--•V
-•- -•>
"Station,
*. ~
MANNS PEAK
.'Cabin
^A~'~ "i MOUNTAIN jdMASAKl_l_
-r;
--\
v-\
i "' i » -2
* ','•->. 4
w ...^m,trf
J^c
r--' jj|^ .„
/ "\ v
>,
w
")C-0
W056 '
t
'SANJUAN|
>i.X,«-: 1
la Sal-Pass ""., i
>:
RalUesnake Mine
WASH
ROCK '^ . , •
6l3naf X\V!
/ No i
••• r-\-J$£±L
' '" ^^^
twi;?'
| , '«533 ^ f
! «• tf- -
•^ ,» _
.' /:
1OOKINO •/ I
Gwssmoy. j , .
',>.- /j'-'-/^
^^ . ^".(- -^,
L
^- "° S ••>'"" _
1 < ^M
f—.
••^i--..
) ,} V / : ,^C >•
INO WHSTtf Vxt ; ? - • V
4 AfcOCK-'r-. ,-, S" " -
v- .•'Aj~' A-' RONf BAILEV
T31S
.^•N
/ sc
;.-=jV
t /'SV
1\
/y
t—-H
¥-
Phofdgro, Aer
T?
^:
»<*.
. ~t?tr^:?' v/4
••' -/". -o '
-/•<>l,v
^/-^
'•^CASA
CO1ORADO
7*OPJ\, •'
1-^;
=:^s
V*1 ' \
The Gap ft ju Ranch \ ,
:'6S7t,
Ogden Cenl
bu^E ROCK "
BI
^PgTEBS^
I J POINT I'
'233
TvS 'Fain ""
iTS-^r—*~*T~
•^0
N
,r N
, 1177
Fia^'V
^ "N
-,j --
^
''V . '.; Rakfc. f1
** '& '" •
\ t
Sft&K:"1
V
/ FLAT (
....FatU.
A
C
.f-.!
...^•Jl^.
I • IRON %
'•?/*/ f« I - . -
/ L—-R24E.J" •
30'
65
15'
-------
The area west of the drainage divide, which
includes the central Lisbon Valley area where the
Sentinel and Centennial pits would be located, is
drained by a network of deeply eroded ephemeral
channels. The channels, which are eroded into
valley alluvium to depths of as much as 15 to 20
feet, trend northeast and job ephemeral channels
from Little Valley and Upper Lisbon Valley at
the mouth of Lisbon Canyon.
The western portion of the project area (Little
Valley), where the heap leach pad would be
located, is drained by an eroded ephemeral
stream channel and several smaller tributaries.
The main ephemeral channel, which is eroded
into valley alluvium to depths of 10 to 15 feet,
flows east then northeast and joins ephemeral
channels from the central Lisbon Valley area and
Upper Lisbon Valley.
Upper Lisbon Valley is drained by an eroded
ephemeral stream channel that trends southeast
and joins the channels from Little Valley and the
central Lisbon Valley area, at the mouth of
Lisbon Canyon. The Upper Lisbon Valley
channel is eroded into valley alluvium to depths of
10 to 15 feet.
Surface runoff from the central Lisbon Valley
area, Little Valley, and Upper Lisbon Valley
(estimated to be 177 ac-ft per year) flows away
from the proposed project site through Lisbon
Canyon, and eventually to the Dolores River.
Drainages in the proposed project area were dry
when observed during a number of site visits
conducted hi 1994 and 1995. The nearest
perennial stream is the Dolores River, located
approximately 20 miles east of the proposed
project site.
Springs and Cattle Pnnds
Surface water in and adjacent to the proposed
project area is limited to Lisbon and Huntley
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,
and water ponded in the Centennial Pit, and
analyzed for baseline characterization (see Table
3.2-1).
In April, 1994, flows of 1.2 gallons per minute
(gpm) and 0.1 gpm Were recorded at Lisbon and
Huntley Springs respectively. These two springs
are the only known springs in the proposed
project area.
Lisbon Spring is located in the SENW, Section 24,
T. 30 S., R. 25 E. Its source is the Dakota
Sandstone/Burro Canyon aquifer and it issues
from a contact between the Burro Canyon and
the Morrison Formations, at an elevation of
approximately 6,340 feet. The spring is located
on the northeast-dipping flank of an anticline
located on the northeast side of Lisbon Valley
(Hackman 1956). Because of the anticline there
is no hydraulic connection between Lisbon Spring
and the Dakota Sandstone/Burro Canyon
Formation in the proposed Lisbon Valley project
area.
Huntley Spring is located in the NWNW, Section
1, T. 31 S., R. 25 E. Its source is the Wingate
Sandstone and it likely issues from a contact
between the Wingate Sandstone and the Chinle
Formation, at an elevation of approximately 6,620
feet. Since its source is the Wingate Sandstone,
located on the topographically isolated, Three
Step Hill, and it issues from an elevation
approximately 200 feet higher than the proposed
project site, Huntley Spring has no hydraulic
connection to the aquifers in the proposed project
area.
Precipitation and Stream Flnw
Utah Climate, 1992, lists information for climate
stations located in Monticello and La Sal, Utah
(Ashcroft et. al. 1992). Since these are the closest
stations to Lisbon Valley expected precipitation
amounts at the proposed project site were
estimated using data from these stations (See
Section 3.14.2 for a complete discussion of
"Climate").
23996/R4-WP.3A 02-05-97(9:38pm)/RPT/8
3-25
-------
TABLE 3.2-1
SUMMARY OF SURFACE WATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS
Lisbon VaOey Copper Project
April 1994 - November 1955
Location
Number of Samples
Dissolved Aluminum
Dissolved Antimony
Dissolved Arsenic
Dissolved Barium
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 NO2-N
NO3-N + NO2-N
Chloride
Sulfate
pH
Conductivity
Hardness as CaCOS
Total Dissolved Solids
Alkalinity as CaCO3
Bicarbonate, total
Carbonate, total
Gross Alpha
Gross Beta
ND = Not detected
Units
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
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
pCi/1
pCi/1
mg/l =
Method Detection limit
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 200.9
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
0.05
0.003-0.005
0.005-0.04
0.01
0001 -001
0.001-0.01
0.2
0.005-0.01
0.01
001
0.003-0.005
0.1
0.01
0.0002
001 -004
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
04-10
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
25
5
1
1
1
2
EPA 900.0 4
milligrams per liter
Utmtley Spring
1
ReiulU
ND
I 0.0062 |
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
GTO Bench
2
Range
1 ND-0.29 |
ND
ND
0.034-0.06
NDO)
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
1 3414-5700
micromhos per centii
LJibon Spring
1
ReiulU
ND
ND
ND
0122
NDO)
ND(I)
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
meter
Pond, LUlIe Valley
1
ReiulU
0.052
ND
ND
0.109
NDO)
NDO)
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
| 9.04
237
99
15
150
114
139
8
3
1 21
Pond, Sentinel
1
ReiutU
| 0.0062 J
ND
0.069
NDO)
NDO)
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
II 9.46 I
178
79
i 19
104
67
82
19
ND
II 14 1
Centennial Pit
1
ReiulU
ND
ND
0.11
ND
ND
323
ND
0.02
ND
ND
26.7
ND
ND
ND
ND
15.7
ND
2.3
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
3
0.7
8.12
1502
883
194
70
86
NA
8.2
1 26
Primary Secondary
0.05-0,2
0.006
0.05
2
0.004
0.10
0.002
0.10
0.05
0.002
10.0
4.0
1000
15pCi/l
1 8pCt/K3)
1.0
0.3
0.05
0.10
5.0
250.0
2.0
6.5-8.5
u,
(1) One or more samples had a detection limit above the State of Utah primary or secondary drinking water standards.
Kr:r£^
(4) Utah Administrative Code R309-103, April 2,1993.
JMW/MTMI XLS mm (» JOPMVOTH
-------
Based on available information, the normal
annual precipitation for Lisbon Valley is
approximately 15 inches. The majority of the
precipitation occurs during July, August,
September, and October, as high intensity, short
duration, convective thunderstorms that can
produce high peak flows in the ephemeral stream
channels that drain Lisbon Valley (Ashcroft et. al.
1992). 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). The majority of the remaining
annual precipitation occurs as winter snows from
December through March. During high snowfall
years snowmelt runoff may contribute a significant
quantity of streamflow to the ephemeral channels
that drain Lisbon Valley.
No historical discharge data exists for the
ephemeral stream channels in the Lisbon Valley
area. Additional information regarding project-
specific precipitation and storm runoff estimates
is presented in the Heap Leach Facility Design
Report developed for the proposed project
(Welsh 1996a).
3222 Surface Water Quality
Surface water samples were colicacd 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 1996a). 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 hi samples from Huntley Spring
and the cattle pond near the Sentinel Pit. Gross
alpha exceeded standards in Lisbon Spring and
gross beta was exceeded hi 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 (5,700 picoCuries per liter [pCi/1]),
gross beta (3,838 pCi/1), and sulfate (3,900
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 alnminin^ and manganese
and the primary standard for total dissolved solids
(TDS).
3.2.3 Groundwater Resources
Regional information regarding groundwater
resources is presented below followed by a
project-specific discussion.
Regional Discussion
Avery (1986), hi his study of bedrock aquifers in
eastern San Juan County (which includes the
project area), grouped the major water bearing
units into five aquifers. In order of decreasing
depth they are: the P and C aquifers of the
Permian Cutler Formation; the N aquifer
consisting of the Jurassic Wingate Sandstone,
Navajo Sandstone and Entrada Formations; the
M aquifer comprised of permeable members of
the Morrison Formation; and the D aquifer
consisting of the Dakota Sandstone and Burro
Canyon Formation. The water bearing
characteristics of the Hermosa Group and
younger rock units, including the five aquifers
described by Avery, are shown hi Figure 3.2-3.
The P and C aquifers of the Cutler Formation
correspond to the Cedar Mesa Sandstone/
undifferentiated arkosic fades and the De Chelly
23996/R4-WP.3A 02-05-97(10:09pm)/RPT/8
3-27
-------
-------
o
Alluvium and Colluvium (Bed No. 1)
CRETACEOUS
Mancos Shale (Bed No. 2)
Dakota Sandstone (Beds No. 4 through 13)
(Copper Bearing Strata)
Burro Canyon Formation (Beds No. 14 and 15)
(Copper Bearing Strata)
o
to
3
a:
D
T>
PERMIAN
Morrison Formation
Brushy Basin Member
(Bed No. 17) .
Morrison Formation
Salt Wash Member
Summerville Formation
Entrada Formation
Slick Rock Member
Entrada Formation
Dewey Bridge Member
Navajo Sandstone
Kayenta Formation
Wingate Sandstone
Chinle Formation
Moss Back Member
Cutler Formation
e
-------
— Woodward-Clyde Consultants —
WATER BEARING CHARACTERISTICS (after Avery 1986)
Low to moderate permeability. Yields water to
wells in river valleys.
Very low permeability. Retards recharge to
underlying units.
Very low to low permeability, generally unconfined,
"D" aquifer system [after Avery (1986)].
Brushy Basin member has very low permeability
and forms confining bed.
Very low to low permeability. "M" aquifer system
[after Avery (1986)]. More permeable members
absent in the project area.
Very low permeability. > It is the confining bed
between the "M" and "N" aquifers.
Very low to low permeability. "N" aquifer system
[after Avery (1986)]
The Kayenta Formation is a partial confining bed
between the Navajo and Wingate sandstones.
Part of "N" aquifer system.
Very low permeability. It is the confining bed
between the "N" and "P" aquifers.
Very low permeability. "P" and "C" aquifer system
[after Avery (1986)].
This and all underlying formations contain saline
to briney water.
ranges of permeability are defined
follows (Avery, 1986):
Permeability, in feet per day
w Less than 0.5
0.5 to 5
te 5 to 50
50 to 500
gh More than 500
Job No. :
Prepared by :
Date :
23896
J.LlE.
10/7/96
WATER BEARING CHARACTERISTICS OF
POST-MISSISSIPPIAN-AGE FORMATIONS
LISBON VALLEY, UTAH ^^
FIG. 3.2-.'
-------
Sandstone members, respectively. Only the
arkosic facies is present beneath the project area
at an estimated depth greater than 2,000 feet
below the proposed mine pits, east of the Lisbon
Valley Fault. West of the Lisbon Valley Fault, in
the area of the proposed leach pad, the Cutler
Formation crops out at the surface. The Cutler
arkosic facies aquifer is of little importance
beneath the Sentinel and Centennial Pit areas
because of its great depth, due to downfaulting,
and is of some importance west of the fault,
beneath the proposed leach pad and adjacent to
the GTO Pit, although the permeability is very
low (i.e., less than 0.5 feet per day) (Avery 1986).
The N aquifer is comprised of three sandstone
members hi the project area; the Slick Rock and
Dewey Bridge Members of the Entrada
Formation, the Wingate Sandstone and the
Navajo Sandstone, while the Kayenta Formation
forms a partial confining bed between the
Wingate and Navajo Sandstones (Figure 3.2-3).
The Entrada Sandstone hi the proposed project
area is present in the subsurface east of the
Lisbon Valley Fault at a depth of approximately
810 feet, and the Navajo Sandstone is present at
a depth of approximately 985 feet, based on
measurements from monitoring well MW96-7B,
installed near the proposed Centennial Pit (Figure
3.2-1). Because of erosion effects, the N aquifer
is not present beneath the proposed leach pad but
the Navajo and Wingate Sandstones crop out at
the surface about one-half mile southwest of the
proposed GTO pit (Figure 3.1-1).
Although the N aquifer is an important
groundwater resource hi the proposed project
area, the overall permeability is very low (less
than 0.5 feet per day) to low (0.5 to 5 feet per
day) (Avery 1986). The combined thickness of
the Entrada, Navajo, and Wingate Sandstones is
estimated to be in excess of 700 feet providing an
overall medium to high transmissivity for the N
aquifer.
The Summerville Formation forms a confining
bed between the N and overlying M aquifer
(Figure 3.2-3) (Avery 1986). The permeable
geologic units comprising the M aquifer, as
defined by Avery, are the Bluff Sandstone and
the Westwater Canyon Member (neither of which
are present in the project area) along with
discontinuous sandstone beds within the Salt
Wash Member. The Brushy Basin Member
found at the top of the M aquifer typically has
very low permeability and forms a confining bed
between the M and overlying D aquifer (Figure
3.2-3). The M aquifer is of little importance hi
the proposed project area because the most
permeable units are not present and the
discontinuous sandstones encountered in the Salt
Wash Member exhibit very low to low
permeability (Avery 1986).
The D aquifer is the shallowest aquifer system hi
the proposed project area and would be the
aquifer dewatered to keep the proposed mine pits
dry during mining operations. The Cretaceous
Burro Canyon Formation and overlying Dakota
Sandstone comprise the D aquifer. The top of
the aquifer generally ranges from about 250 to
300 feet bgs (below ground surface) east of the
Lisbon Valley Fault, hi the area of the proposed
mine pits, and usually the lower portion of the
Burro Canyon Formation is the only portion of
the D aquifer that is water bearing. The D
aquifer is not present beneath the proposed leach
pad west of the Lisbon Valley Fault due to
erosion on the upthrown side of the fault. The
permeability of the D aquifer is very low to low
(Avery 1986).
The regional direction of flow hi the aquifers
described above is generally to the west toward
the Colorado River. However, locally, the
geologic structure hi Lisbon Valley effectively
isolates the Dakota, Burro Canyon, and Entrada/
Navajo aquifers from the surrounding regional
aquifers and the groundwater gradient follows the
northwest to southeast trending Lisbon Valley and
then Mclntyre Canyon, southeast towards the
Dolores River (Avery 1986).
In Lisbon Valley, particularly hi the area of the
proposed mine pits, an isolated flow system
bounded by faults on the southwest and northeast
sides of the valley has developed. Juxtaposition of
23996/R4-WP.3A 02-0$-97(10:10pm)/RPT/8
3-29
-------
permeable water-bearing units with low
permeability units across the Lisbon Valley Fault
and associated fault splays, along with possible
low permeability fault gouge, interrupts regional
as well as local groundwater flow patterns.
Extensive faulting in Lisbon Valley and Mclntyre
Canyon, likely interrupts the local flow pattern
between the project area and the Dolores River.
No springs are documented in Mclntyre Canyon,
from the proposed project area to the Dolores
River, indicating no major local groundwater
occurrence in the Burro Canyon and Morrison
Formations, or in the exposed Entrada/Navajo
Sandstone, in the vicinity of Mclntyre Canyon.
The aquifers described above are generally
recharged from the east and local recharge from
precipitation is very limited (Paiz and Thackston
1987b).
Additional discussions regarding the regional
hydrogeologic setting are contained in Thackston
et al. (1981), Hanshaw and Hill (1969),
Woodward-Clyde (1982), and Avery (1986).
The following sections describe the occurrence of
groundwater beneath the project site (i.e.,
proposed mine pits, leach pad and ancillary
facilities), and the estimated extent of aquifer
systems. Groundwater chemistry, and the quality
of groundwater from samples collected during the
period October 1994 to November 1995 for
shallow monitoring wells are also discussed.
Laboratory results for a sample collected from
monitoring well (MW96-7B) installed in the
Entrada/Navajo Sandstone in September 1996 are
also presented.
323.1 Characteristics of Aquifers in the
Project Area
Groundwater is known to exist hi four water-
bearing units beneath the project site: the
Hermosa Group, the N aquifer (hereafter called
the Entrada/Navajo aquifer), the shallow D
aquifer (hereafter called the Burro Canyon
aquifer) and an alluvial aquifer of limited lateral
extent. Two boreholes and four piezometers were
drilled into the Cutler Formation, which overlies
the Hermosa Group west of the Lisbon Valley
fault, however, no water was found.
Hermosa Group
In April 1994, borehole 94MW4, located in upper
Little Valley adjacent to the west end of the
proposed leach pad, was drilled to a depth of 500
feet bgs. The borehole penetrated 120 feet of
Cutler Formation and 360 feet of the Hermosa
Group. The borehole was dry when drilled,
however, water began to accumulate in the
borehole in the summer of 1995 and has
maintained a depth of approximately 410 bgs
since then. The source of the water in this
borehole is presumed to be a permeable unit that
is locally perched on clay layers within the
Hermosa Group.
Borehole 94MW3, located approximately at the
midpoint between Little Valley and the GTO Pit,
was drilled to a depth of 500 feet bgs into the
Cutier Formation and has been dry since
installation In 1994 (Figure 3.1-1). Information
from this borehole indicates that at least the
upper 500 feet of the Cutier Formation is dry, at
this location, west of the Lisbon Valley Fault.
In November 1995, four piezometers were
installed in the upper portion of the Cutier
Formation (25 to 45 feet bgs) in the area of the
proposed leach pad to assess hydraulic properties
for leach pad design. Groundwater was not
encountered during piezometer installation.
Results of injection slug tests performed in the
piezometers indicated a hydraulic conductivity
range of 8.5 x 10'5 cm/sec to 5.0 x 10"7 cm/sec for
the portion of the Cutler Formation tested.
Entrada/Navaio Aquifer
The top of the Entrada/Navajo aquifer beneath
Lisbon Valley near the Centennial Pit was
encountered at a depth of 810 feet bgs in
monitoring well MW96-7B. Approximately 175
feet of Entrada and 210 feet of the Navajo
Sandstone was penetrated in MW96-7B before
23996/R4-WP.3A 02-05-97(9:38pm)/RPT/8
3-30
-------
the hole was terminated. The Entrada was
described as a brown and grey siltstone and
brown fine-grained sandstone, with minor shale.
The Navajo was described as a grey, fine-grained
to medium-grained sandstone, poorly cemented
with minor brown and grey siltstone. A
significant increase in water produced while
drilling took place in the boring between 1,000
feet bgs and 1,195 feet bgs, the depth at which the
boring was terminated. Over this interval, water
inflow increased from 5 gpm to 40 gpm.
Analysis of drawdown and recovery water levels
from a single well pumping test of MW96-7B
indicated a hydraulic conductivity range for the
lower 37 feet of the Entrada Sandstone and the
upper 14 feet of the Navajo Sandstone of 9.2 x
10'5 cm/sec (recovery phase evaluation) to 2.9 x
10^ cm/sec based on a specific capacity
evaluation (Adrian Brown Consultants 1996b). A
piezometer (MW96-7A) screened in the shallower
Burro Canyon aquifer adjacent to MW96-7B had
a water level of approximately 270 feet bgs
compared to the water level of approximately 906
feet bgs measured in MW96-7B, indicating a
strong downward gradient of 1.02 ft/ft (Adrian
Brown Consultants 1996b). The Entrada/Navajo
aquifer is estimated to be in excess of 500 feet
thick.
Although the Navajo Sandstone was encountered
in an earlier exploration hole drilled by Kennecott
near MW96-7B and another test (95R-1) drilled
by Summo, no other wells or borings are known
to have penetrated this formation in the proposed
mine pits or leach pad facility areas.
Because of erosion on the upthrown side (west)
of the Lisbon Valley Fault, die Entrada/Navajo
aquifer is not present in the proposed leach pad
area (Figures 3.1-1 and 3.1-9) but is present
farther to the west and southwest.
Burro Canyon Aquifer
This shallow bedrock aquifer extends to
approximately 400 feet below ground surface
(bgs) and is comprised of the Burro Canyon
Formation and discontinuous sandstones at the
top of the Brushy Basin Member of the Morrison
Formation, in certain areas. The Burro Canyon
aquifer has relatively high hydraulic conductivity
but the formation is dry in some portions of the
valley. Groundwater flow appears to be highly
segmented, with faults appearing to act as barriers
to groundwater flow across the faults (Adrian
Brown Consultants 1996a). Faults may act as
conduits along the structures in some cases, but
analysis of data 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
proposed project area act as barriers to flow
across the faults. The presence of fault gouge
(altered to day) along the fault structures and
juxtaposition of permeable with low permeability
units across faults are possible mechanisms
producing barriers to groundwater flow across the
faults.
The distribution and occurrence of groundwater
at the proposed project site is erratic and also
strongly controlled by geologic structure. The
numerous faults present hi the proposed project
area effectively separate the shallow aquifer into
separate water-bearing features. 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 SLV-1A and SLV-3) (Table 3.2-2). Depth
to groundwater west of the Lisbon Valley Fault in
the area of the proposed leach pad is
approximately 410 feet bgs as measured in open
borehole 94MW4.
In order to evaluate hydraulic characteristics of
the shallow Burro Canyon aquifer, two single well
pumping tests were conducted at the site
(exploration boring 95R1 and former production
well SLV-3) 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 hi 95R1 and SLV-3. Boring 95R1 was
pumped at a constant rate of 155 gallons per
minute (gpm) for approximately 15 hours with a
23996/R4-WP.3A 02-05-97(9:38pm)/RJT/8
3-31
-------
TABLE 3.2-2
SUMMARY OF WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS FOR
MONITORING WELLS
LISBON VALLEY COPPER PROJECT
Well
Number
SLV-1A
SLV-2
SLV-3
SLV-4
MW-2A
94MW2
94MW6
94MW4P)
95R1P)
MW-96-7A
MW96-7B
Water Level(l)
(Feetbgs)
April
1994
296.54
83.60
277.33
93.95
267.00
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
October
1994
294.74
83.16
278.80
94.71
267.70
259.58
60.03
Dry
NA
NA
NA
March
1995
293.42
82.41
274.77
94.60
26630
261.48
60.08
Dry
NA
NA
NA
May
1995
29726
82.36
275.78
95.79
267.38
257.80
60.18
410.34
261.52
NA
NA
August
1995
29730
8228
30138
94.50
288.06
25723
60.03
4103
NM
NA
NA
Sept
1995
298.00
8229
299.09
93.71
287.97
NM
NM
NM
NM
NA
NA
Nov
1995
298.78
82.38
295.11
9425
28536
257.09
6031
410.54
NM
NA
NA
Sept
1996
301.67
82.08
28730
98.11
278.94
256.16
60.63
410.92
NM
271.93
906.46
Well
Number
Elevation of PVC Well
Casing
(feet above msO
SLV-1A
SLV-2
SLV-3
SLV-4
MW-2A
94MW2
94MW6
94MW4
95R1
MW96-7A
MW96-7B
6483.36
6382.50
6469.05
6396.70
6454.49'
6415.10
6287.5
6521(4)
6475<4)
6495
6495
April
1994
6186.82
6298.90
6191.72
6302.75
(2)6187.49
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
October
1994
6188.62
6299.34
619025
6301.99
6186.79
6155.52
6227.47
Dry
NA
NA
NA
March
1995
6189.94
6300.09
619428
6302.10
6188.19
6153.62
6227.42
Dry
NA
NA
NA
Water Level Elevation
(feet above msl)
May
1995
6186.10
6300.14
619327
6300.91
6187.11
6157.30
622732
6110.66
6213.48
NA
NA
August
1995
6186.06
630022
6167.67
630220
6169.63
6157.87
6227.47
6110.7
NM
NA
NA
Sept
1995
618536
630021
6169.96
6302.99
6169.72
NM
NM
NM
NM
NA
NA
Nov Sept
1995 1996
6184.58 6181.69
6300.12 6300.42
6173.94 6181.75
6302.45 6298.59
617233 6178.75
6158.01 6158.94
6227.19 6226.87
6110.46 6109.08
NM NM
NA 6223.07
NA 5588.54
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) Elevadon of ground surface; new surface casing installed prior to August 1995 is approximately at
elevation 6457.69
(3) open borehole .
(4) Estimated from topo maps
23995/R4-TJ22 01-31-97(5:20PM)/RPT/5
-------
drawdown of 13.7 feet. Well SLV-3 was pumped
at a constant rate of 140 gpm for 24 hours with a
drawdown of 5.7 feet. Using the results of the
constant-rate tests (considering both drawdown
and recovery data) and an approximate aquifer
thickness of 100 feet estimates of hydraulic
conductivity of the Burro Canyon aquifer hi the
vicinity of the Centennial Pit ranged from 2,300
to 7,500 feet/year. The hydraulic conductivity of
the Burro Canyon aquifer was also estimated
from laboratory tests conducted by Exxon
Corporation at 3,000 feet/year (Adrian Brown
Consultants 1996a). These values are consistent
with literature ranges for sandstone aquifers
(Woodward-Clyde 1995e). However, overall
hydraulic conductivity may be an order of
magnitude lower due to faulting and segmentation
of the aquifer (Adrian Brown Consultants 1996a).
Recharge to the aquifer has been estimated at 1.0
inch/year (Woodward-Clyde 1995f).
Alluvial Aquifer
An alluvial aquifer of limited areal extent exists in
the valley fill sediments near the proposed
Sentinel Pits. Groundwater is also locally perched
on clay and shale layers at shallower depths
within the proposed project area. Monitoring
well 94MW6 penetrates one such perched
groundwater zone hi the Mancos Shale in Lower
Lisbon Valley.
Gronndwater Occurrence at Proposed
Mine Pits and Leach Pad
Groundwater beneath the proposed project site is
present as discontinuous water-bearing units and
appears ,to be structurally controlled. The
following sections summarize the occurrence of
groundwater hi the shallow Burrow Canyon
aquifer and alluvial aquifer 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 hi the following discussion come from
water levels measured in the existing monitoring
wells and hi exploration borings drilled by Summo
hi 1993 and 1994.
Three monitoring wells (94MW2, 94MW5, and
94MW6) were installed hi the shallow Burro
Canyon aquifer during October 1994 to
supplement the existing wells SLV-1A, SLV-2,
SLV-3, and MW-2A (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. In October,
1994, borehole 94MW1 was drilled to a depth of
500 feet bgs, into the Burro Canyon Formation,
without encountering water. The borehole has
been dry since it was drilled.
Borehole 94MW4 was drilled to a depth of 500
feet bgs, into the Hermosa Group, hi October,
1994, without encountering water. In May, 1995
water was first observed at 410 feet bgs and has
since been sampled twice. Borehole 94MW3 was
drilled to a depth of 500 feet bgs, into the Cutler
Formation, without encountering water. This
boring has been dry since it was drilled.
Table 3.2-2 provides a summary of water level
measurements from April 1994 to September
1996 for the existing monitoring wells and
piezometer SLV-4, which is located within the
existing Centennial Pit. Water levels hi wells
SLV-3 and MW2A fell by approximately 26 and
21 feet, respectively, following drilling of a test
hole (95R1) to the lower Navajo aquifer during
June 1995. This hole was plugged hi September
1995 and water levels recovered by 4 feet for well
SLV-3 and 2 feet for well MW-2A by November
1995.
Sentinel Pit Area
Water level measurements are available for 30
exploration borings hi the Sentinel Pit area.
Fourteen of the borings were dry at bottom hole
23996/R4-WP.3A 02-05-97(9:38pm)/RPT/8
3-33
-------
elevations ranging from 6,121-6,547 feet above
msl. Water was observed in the remaining
borings at depths of 67-221 feet bgs,
corresponding to elevations of 6,191-6,482 feet
above msl. In the Sentinel Pit area, groundwater
occurs in the valley fill sediments, the Burro
Canyon Formation, and the upper portion of the
underlying Brushy Basin Member of the Morrison
Formation. Water levels generally increase in
elevation from around 6,200 feet in borings drilled
on the valley floor to about 6,500 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 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 SLV-2.
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
aquifer is not continuous across this area and
appears to be fracture and fault controlled.
Monitoring well 94MW5 was installed into the
Brushy Basin Member in Lisbon Canyon, near the
Sentinel Pit. Water was measured in the boring
at an elevation of 6,202 feet 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
Valley Fault are present in the immediate area
and may control or influence the flow of
groundwater.
Centennial Pit Area
Groundwater is present in the basal sandstone
unit of the Burro Canyon Formation and in
sandstone fades at the top of the Brushy Basin
Member of the Morrison Formation in the
Centennial Pit area, based on information from
existing monitoring wells MW-2A, SLV-2, and
SLV-1A, production well SLV-3, piezometer SLV-
4, and several exploration borings. Drill logs
from exploration boreholes in the vicinity of the
Centennial Pit indicate groundwater is first
encountered at depths ranging from 151 to 325
feet bgs, corresponding to elevations ranging from
6,160 to 6,302 feet above msl. Twenty-four of the
mineral exploration borings were dry at bottom
hole elevations ranging from 6,118 to 6,233 feet
above msl.
The apparent saturated thickness of the Burro
Canyon aquifer in the Centennial Pit area, as seen
in monitoring wells MW-2A, SLV-1A, and SLV-3,
ranges from 18-60 feet. Apparent saturated
thicknesses in the exploration borings that
encountered water range 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. Since this
gradient trend is interrupted by several
intervening dry exploration holes, the overall
direction of groundwater flow and the hydraulic
gradient cannot be determined with certainty.
Groundwater in the Centennial Pit area also
appears to be fracture and fault controlled. The
Lisbon Valley 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 hi 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 into the Cutler Formation
239WR4-WP.3A 02-05-97(10:21pm)/RPT/8
3-34
-------
west of the Lisbon Valley Fault and to the south
of the Centennial Pit (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.
Information from monitoring well MW96-7B
installed in the Entrada/Navajo Sandstone east of
the proposed Centennial Pit (Figure 3.2-1)
indicates that, in Lisbon Valley near the proposed
mine pits, approximately 400 feet of shale,
mudstone and minor siltstone in the Morrison
Formation is present beneath the Burro Canyon
aquifer and forms a thick confining bed between
the Burro Canyon aquifer and underlying Navajo
Sandstone. The Navajo Sandstone was
encountered at a depth of 985 feet bgs. However,
a static water level of 906 feet bgs measured in
MW96-7B indicates that the lower 80 feet of the
Entrada Formation is water bearing in addition to
the underlying Navajo Sandstone. The full
saturated thickness of the Entrada/Navajo
aquifer, which is estimated to exceed 700 feet, was
not penetrated by well MW96-7B.
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 6,166 to 6,297 feet above msl. These
borings extended into 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 6,108 to 6,386 feet above msl.
Groundwater was present in the Cutler Formation
in one boring, the Burro Canyon Formation in
one boring, the Dakota Sandstone in one boring,
and the Mancos Shale in the remaining 14
borings. Groundwater is present at an elevation
of 6,155 feet above msl in well 94MW2.
Groundwater elevations generally increase from
6,121 feet in the southwest to 6,385 feet above 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 VaUey
Borehole 94MW4 was drilled to a depth of 500
feet bgs, into the Hermosa Group, in upper Little
Valley adjacent to the upgradient end of the
proposed leach pad (Figure 32-1). The boring
penetrated 120 feet of Cutler Formation and 360
feet of the Pennsylvanian Hermosa Group. 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 6,110 feet above msl). This
water may have been produced from a permeable
unit that is locally perched on clay layers within
the Hermosa Group. Little Valley, the area for
the proposed leach pad, is structurally and
hydrogeologically isolated from Lisbon Valley by
the Lisbon Valley Fault. Due to erosion on the
upthrown (west) side of the Lisbon Valley Fault,
the Burro Canyon aquifer is absent in the Little
Valley area. Monitoring well SLV-2 is located on
the east side of the fault and groundwater occurs
in this well at an elevation of 6,299 feet above
msl. Well SLV-2 is completed in the valley fill.
Boring 94MW4 west of the Lisbon Valley Fault
has water in the Hermosa Group at an elevation
of approximately 6,110 feet above msl.
Lower Lisbon Valley
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 approximately 60 feet bgs (elevation
6,227 feet above msl) in this well. Boring 94MW1
was drilled to a depth of 500 feet bgs at the head
of the valley at the surface water drainage divide
23996/R4-WP.3A 02-05-97aO:21pin)/RPT/8
3-35
-------
between Upper Lisbon and Lower Lisbon valleys.
This boring penetrated 340 feet of Dakota
Sandstone and Burro Canyon Formation and 160
feet of the Brushy Basin Member of the Morrison
Formation, and has been dry since it was drilled.
3233 Groundw&ter Quality
Groundwater samples were collected from
monitoring wells SLV-1A, SLV-2, SLV-3, MW-
2A, 94MW2, and 94MW6, open boring 94MW4,
and exploration boring 95R1, during October 1994
to November 1995, and monitoring wells MW96-
7A and MW96-7B during September, 19%.
Tables 3.2-3 and 3.2-4 summarize the analytical
results for these samples. The complete data are
contained in the Baseline Evaluation (Woodward-
Clyde 1995a) and the letter reports (Woodward-
Clyde 1995b; 1995c; 1995d; and 1996a; 1996c;
1996d). Tables 3.2-3 and 3.2-4 also compare the
analytical results to the State of Utah primary and
secondary drinking water standards (Utah DEQ
1994). The groundwater samples analyzed are
representative of four water-bearing units beneath
the proposed project site: the alluvial valley fill
near the Sentinel Pit (SLV-2); the Burro Canyon
aquifer in the Centennial Pit area (MW2A, SLV-
1A, SLV-3, 95R1, and MW96-7A) and the GTO
Pit area (94MW2); the Mancos Shale in Lower
Lisbon Valley (94MW6); and the Hermosa
Group, adjacent to the west end of the leach pad
area (94MW4).
Two monitoring wells were drilled into the
Entrada/Navajo Sandstone in a location adjacent
to the northeast side of the proposed Centennial
Pit. Monitoring well 95R1 was initially drilled
into the Burro Canyon Formation, where a
groundwater quality sample was taken. The
drillhole was then continued down into the Navajo
Sandstone, however, because of possible
contamination by water from the overlying Burro
Canyon Formation the groundwater quality
sample taken in the Entrada/Navajo Sandstone
may not be representative of the Entrada/Navajo
aquifer. Monitoring well MW96-7B, installed in
the Navajo Sandstone, was sampled in September
1996. Table 3.2-4 provides analytical results for
the September 1996 sampling of this well. Due to
its proximity with monitoring well 95R1 it is
possible that the groundwater quality sample
taken from monitoring well MW96-7B was
affected by contamination from water from the
Burro Canyon Formation. As a result, this
groundwater quality sample may not be
representative of the Entrada/Navajo aquifer.
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 hi Figure 3.2-4.
Averages of the analytical results for the major
cations and anions were used to construct the
diagrams.
Groundwater samples from monitoring wells
SLV-3 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
SLV-3 and MW2A. The similarity of the Stiff
diagrams (Figure 3.2-4) suggests that wells SLV-3
23996/R4-WP.3A 02-05-97(10:21pm)/RPT/8
3-36
-------
TABLE 3.2-3
SUMMARY OF GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS
Lisbon Valley Copper Project
October 1994-June 1996
Well Number
Formation
Number of Samplei
Parameter Units -Method Detection Limit
Dissolved Antimony mg/1 EPA 200.9 0.002-0.006
Dissolved Arsenic mg/1 EPA 200.7 0.005-0.04
Dissolved Barium mg/I EPA 200.7 0.01-0.2
Dissolved Beryllium mg/1 EPA 200.7 0.001-0.01
Dissolved Calcium mg/1 EPA 200.7 0.2
Dissolved Chromium mg/1 EPA 200.7 0.005-0.01
Dissolved Copper mg/I EPA 200.7 0.01-0.1
Dissolved Iron mg/1 EPA 200.7 001-04
Dissolved Lead mg/1 EPA 200.9 0.003 - 0.005
Dissolved Magnesium mg/1 EPA 200.7 0. 1 - 0 2
Dissolved Manganese mg/I EPA 200.7 0.01
Dissolved Mercury mg/1 EPA 200.7 00002
Dissolved Molybdenum mg/1 EPA 200.7 001-01
Dissolved Nickel mg/1 EPA 200.7 0.002 - 0. 1
Dissolved Potassium mg/1 EPA 200.7 O.I
Dissolved Selenium mg/1 EPA 200.9 0.002-0.005
Dissolved Silicon mg/1 EPA 200.7 0.4
Dissolved Silver mg/1 EPA 200.7 0.002-005
Dissolved Thallium mg/I EPA 200.9 0.001-0.005
Dissolved Vanadium mg/1 EPA 200.7 0.01-0.1
Dissolved Zinc mg/1 EPA 200.7 0.05
Ammonia as NH3-N mg/1 SM4500 0.04-08
Nitrate as N03-N mg/1 EPA 353.1 0.02-1.0
Nitrite as NO2-N mg/I EPA 354.1 0.005
N03-N + NO2-N mg/1 EPA 353.1 0.02-0.4
Chloride mg/I EPA 325.3 1.0
Fluoride mg/1 EPA 340.2 0.3-1.0
Sulfate tng/1 EPA 375 4 50
PH units EPA 150.1 0.05
Conductivity umhos/cm EPA 120.1 0.5
Hardness as CaC03 mg/1 EPA 130.2 5.0
Total Suspended Solids mg/1 EPA 160.2 2.5-5.0
Alkalinity as CaC03 mg/1 SM2320B 1.0
Bicarbonate, diss. mg/1 SM2320B 1.0
Gross Alpha pCi/1 EPA 900.0 2
Gross Beta pCi/1 EPA 9000 4
Bolded and boxed results indicate that one or mnrc umnbc for th. „.,.„,
94MW6
Mancos Shale
8
Range
ND
ND- 0.016 (2)
0.019 - 0.07
ND(1)
ND
27.9 - 54.3
ND
ND-OOII
0.021-024
174-276
| ND • 0.0*5
Nl). 00002
ND- 0011(2)
ND • 0 001
94.121
ND-0017
4.9 - 10.9
ND
856-1290
ND(i)
ND-0.01(2)
ND-0.03(2)
0.69-0.9
ND- 0.011
ND- 0.449
110-225
0.86-1.82
7.20-8.39
450-5260
140-235
156-10600
1500-10200
914-1790
2.0-248
pCi/l =
MW2A
Burro Canyon
7
Range
ND- 0.004 (2)
ND- 0.005
ND- 0.029
ND(1)
ND
324 - 442
ND-0007
0125-031
0012-023
Ml). 0011
111-116
| •.!*< • 1 41
Nl) • 0 0001
ND- 001(1)
001 -0014
154-177
ND-0016
4.28 - 9.28
ND • 0.008
73.0-87.6
ND(1)
ND
0.12-8.01
ND-0.6
ND- 0.077 (2)
ND- 0.011
ND- 0.089 (2)
13-28.9
ND-0.35(2)
1070-1290
6.60-7.74
2445-2700
1350-1720
42-17960
516-1726
377-685
89-1240
picocuricsperlitei
SLV1A
Burro Canyon
8
Range
| ND - 0.22
ND
ND(I)
ND- 0.128 (2)
ND(1)
| ND- 0.029(1)
96.5 - 548
ND- 0.0 II (2)
ND
1 ND- 1.13(1) |
Nl). 0011(2)
14 • l&l
1 to*. ii I
1 ••UT '•* 1
ND . 0 0001
ND-OOI*
Nl) - 0 1
921-24
ND-OOII
5.0-9.37
ND - 0.003
73.4 - 178
ND(I)
ND
0.52-5.17
ND
ND- 0.047 (2)
ND-0.02
ND- 0.067 (2)
25-121
0.4-0.64
389-1980
6.5-7.71
1080-3730
420-2240
618 • 6920
740-3490
181-543
208-609
25-283
47-337
umhos/cm =
SLV2
Alluvium
7
Range
0.02-0.26 |
ND
ND
0.05 - 0.065
ND(1)
ND
51.6-119
ND- 0.001
ND-0.07
0,011-0.37
ND- 0.011
111-212
Nl) • 0 W
ND
ND-OOI (2)
Nl)
2)6-27
ND-0004
6.7 - 16.6
ND
36.0-44.1
ND(1)
ND
ND- 0.657
ND
ND- 0.214
ND- 0.014
ND- 0.227
12-33
ND-0.6 (2)
120-244
7.60-8.23 ;
57J-636
23-394
330-12720
400-1280
190-3644
210-508
12-187 1 1
94MW4
Honaker Trail
4
Range
0.07-0.29
0.003-0.013
0.009-0.011
0.01 - 1.3
ND- 0.0037
ND
4.9-7.23
ND
ND - 0.038
0.038-0.17
ND
145-2 19
ND-0002
ND
ND-002(2)
ND • 0.005
20-23
ND- 0.002
1.0-4.5
ND
210-228
ND
ND- 0.008
ND-0.1I3
ND
ND-1.19
1.2-2.6
1.28-2.41
16-29
1.3-2.8
137-286
7.46-8.80
1110-1132
20-235
664-1900
470-826
306-477
262-270
26-56
27-214 1 1 34-74
micromhos per centimeter
94MW2
Burro Canyon
8
Range
ND-0.97
ND- 0.007(1)
SLV3 95R1 Utah Drinking Water Standards (4)
Burro Canyon Burro Canyon
8 I Primary Secondary
Range Results me/1 mo/7
ND-0.03(2)
ND
ND- 0.0 11 (2) ND-0.04
0.006-0.03 ND-0.04
ND- 0.0012 (1,2) NDfl)
ND- 0.018
100-439
ND
ND-O.OI
0.01 - 1.52
ND - 0.069
35.3 - 200
ND- 0.0006
ND - 0.03
I 0.017-0.109
8.8 - 19.3
ND- 0.027
4.29-11.6
ND- 0.012
75.6 - 137
I ND- 0.003 (1)|
ND
0.161 - 1.6
ND-06
ND-1.61
ND- 0.011
ND-1.62
24-108
ND-0.59(2)
358-1740
6.33-7.62
1090-3640
413,- 2100
571-11700
784-3280
186-1517
211-577
77-719
104-630
ND- 0.001
318-384
ND- 0.006
ND-0.01
I 2.35-8.32
ND- 0.006
94.9-124
[ 0.595-0.864
ND- 0.006
ND
0.01-0.022
13.7-17.7
ND- 0.032
2.73-9.4
ND- 0.005
68.4 - 109
ND(1)
ND
ND- 0.545
ND- 1
ND-1.54
ND- 0.009
ND-1.54
23-27
ND- 0.41(2)
1070-1260
6.80-7.51
2250-2580
1140-1570
11-1680
800-2260
399-571
487-533
59-109
51-164
ND
ND
ND
0.011
ND
ND(1)
199
ND
ND
1 08)12
' 1 "-OM
ND
68
I 0.225
ND
0.107
ND
11.3
ND
4.34
ND
56.6
ND(1)
ND
0.164
0.032
ND
0.032
19.8
0.38
593
7.55
1558
884
ND
1180
364
440
21.8
24.5
0.05 - 0.2
0.006
0.05
2
0004
0.005
0.10
1.0
1 ni
1 0.3
0.015
~\ 0.05
0.002
0.10
0.05
0.002
5.0
10.0
10.0
250.0
4.0 2.0
1000
6.5-8.5
2000
15pCi/l
8pCi/l(3)
------------ r ------ — ™ r— ••*"™™» WWM.M.B uu»v wi vuui piuiicujr ui scvuini
(I) 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
-------
TABLE 3.2-4
ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR MONITORING WELLS MW96-7A AND MW96-7B
SAMPLES COLLECTED SEPTEMBER 24 AND 25,1996
Parameter
Bicarbonate as HC03
Bicarbonate as HC03 (D)
Carbonate as CO3
hydroxide as OH
Alkalinity, Total
Chloride (D)
Conductance, Specific
Fluoride
Hardness (D) Titration
Mercury, as Hg(D)
Nitrate, Nitrogen
Nitrate/Nitrite-Nitrogen
)H
Suiiiue
lo til suspended Solids
Kadium 226
Radium 228
Uranium, Total
thorium, 230
Uross Alpha
dross Beta
Aluminum (D) as Al
Barium (D) as Ba
Beryllium (D) as Be
Cadmium (D) as Cd
Calcium (D) as Ca
Copper (D) as Cu
Iron (D) as Fe
Mignesium (D) as Mg
Mtngsnese (D) as Mn
Molybdenum (D) as Mo
Nickel (D) as Ni
i'oisssium (D) as K
Silicon (D) as Si
Silver (D) as Ag
sodium (D) as Na
Vantdiurn (D) as V
itine (D) as Zn
Antimony (D) as Sb
Arsenic (D) as As
Lead(D)asPb
Selenium (D) as Se
rhallium (D) as Tl
'teldpH
Units
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
umhos/cm
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
units
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
pCi/L
mg/1
pCi/L
pCi/L
pCi/L
pCi/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
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
meg/1
°e
MW96-7A
Burro Canyon
9/25/96
474
445
<1
<1
389
<0.5
19
1740
0.4
850
0.0005
0.10
0.025
0.13
6.80
619
1430
482
5.9 ± 1.1
6.5 ±2.0
0.021
3.0 ±1.2
1.1 ±0.6
119 ±133
753 ±5.2
0.05
0.047
<0.0002
O.001
188
0.005
0.010
0.049
65.9
0.268
0.026
0.009
11.7
5.14
0.005
228
<0.002
2.06
<0.003
<0.005
0.009
0.012
0.005
2O7
7A
143
MW96-7B
Navajo
9/24/96
528.00
384.00
<2
<2
433.00
<1.0
31.00
1620.00
1.30 —
100.00
<0.0002
<0.08
0.006
0.09
7.80
443.00
1060.00
2370.00
2 ±0.8
5 ±1.5
0.003
4±1.7
1.5 ±0.8
119 ±25.9
87 ±14.9
<0.05
0.02
<0.001
<0.005
23.40
O.005
<0.01
0.02
10.20
0.03
0.22
<0.01
10.00
0.70
O.005
290.00
<0.01
<0.01
<0.003
<0.005
<0.005
O.002
<0.001
16.50
8.4 1
20.2
Utah Drinking Water Standards®
4.0
0.002
10.0
10.0
- 1000
2000
15.0"'
8.0»"
2.0
0.004
0.005
0.10
0.10
0.006
0.05
0.015
0.05
0.002
Secondary
250
2.0
6.5 - 8.5
0.05 - 0.2
1.0
0.3
0.05
0.10
5.0
Botdcd rwulu indicate that the parameter exceeds State of Utah primary or secondary drinking water standards.
(1) The standard is that activity which will cause a 4 mrem/yr exposure. The standard was converted to pCi/1
attutnlns that the beta activity is due to Strontium-90 and a 2-liter per day intake of water.
(2)UtahAdminijtrativeCodeR309-103,April2, 1993.
Source: Adrian Brown Consultants 1996b.
I/3W7
-------
I-2A
SULFATE TYPE
YON FORMATION
95RI
CALCIUM - SULFATE TYPE
BURRO CANYON FORMATION
SLV-3
CALCIUM - SULFATE TYPE
BURRO CANYON FORMATION
- MAGNESIUM - SULFATE TYPE
BURRO CANYON FORMATION
94MW6
SODIUM - BICARBONATE TYPE
MANGOS SHALE
1500 3000
I F-
SCALE IN FEET
6000
:ND
-2 • MONITORING OR
PRODUCTION WELL
W4 * OPEN BORING
Job No. :
23996
Prepared by : D.K.M.
Date :
1/23/96
GROUNDWATER STIFF DIAGRAMS
LISBON VALLEY COPPER PROJECT
-------
SLV—2
CALCIUM-MAGNESIUM-SODIUM-BICARBONATE TYPE
94MW4
SODIUM - SULFATE TYPE
HERMOSA GROUP
MW96-7B
SODIUM - SULFATE TYPE
NAVAJO SANDSTONE
94MW2
CALCIUM-MAGNESIUM-SODIUM-SULFATE
BURRO CANYON FORMATION
EXPLANATION
-------
and MW2A and exploration boring 95R1 are in
hydraulic communication with each other. The
remaining well in the Centennial Pit area (SLV-
1A) is located across a major fault from wells
SLV-3 and MW2A, and is characterized by very
hard, calcium-magnesium-sulfate type water and
contained higher dissolved solids than water from
wells SLV-3 and MW2A (Table 3.2-3). Sulfate
and TDS also exceeded the Utah primary
drinking water 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 SLV-3 and MW2A
without a corresponding drop in water levels in
well SLV-1A (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 were below the State primary
drinking water 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 3.2-4), suggest that groundwater in the
GTO Pit area may be isolated from that in the
Centennial Pit area.
The water from well SLV-2 is a hard to very
hard, calcium-magnesium-sodium-bicarbonate
type. This well is screened in alluvial 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
3.2-4). 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 hi well SLV-2 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 Group. The major ion chemistry of
samples from this well indicates a soft, sodium-
sulfate type water hi this area, which contrasts
with the waters sampled hi the valley fill and
Burro Canyon aquifers to the east, across the
Lisbon Valley 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 hi
Lower Lisbon Valley. The chemistry of well
94MW6 indicates a moderately hard, sodium-
bicarbonate type water. TDS and sulfate
exceeded the primary drinking water standards hi
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) within the Mancos Shale.
The distinctive odor of hydrogen sulfide was
observed during sampling of this well, which
suggests that the waters hi the Mancos Shale may
be reducing sulfate to sulfide.
Monitoring well MW96-7B, located on the eastern
perimeter of the proposed Centennial Pit is
screened hi the upper portion of the Navajo
Sandstone. Analytical results from one sample
collected in September 1996 are presented in
Table 3.2-4.
The major ion chemistry from the sample
collected from this well indicates that a sodium-
sulfate type of groundwater is present (Figure
3.2-4) not unlike groundwater found hi 94MW4,
an open borehole drilled into the Hermosa Group
west of the proposed leach pad. Groundwater hi
MW96-7B has lower concentrations of calcium,
magnesium, and sulfate than those reported for
the shallower Burro Canyon aquifer. The sulfate
and TDS concentrations hi MW96-7B were 443
mg/1 and 1,060 mg/1, respectively; both below
Utah primary drinking water standards. The
23996/R4-WP.3A 02-05-97(10:21pm)/RPTV8
3-40
-------
chloride concentration (31 mg/1) in MW96-7B
was similar to concentrations found in the Burro
Canyon aquifer.
Minor and Trace Element Chemistry
Well MW-2A
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 drinking
water standard of 5 mg/1 (Table 3.2-3).
Manganese was nigh (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
repeated sampling events which have cleaned the
well of sediment, total suspended solids (TSS)
decreased dramatically during this tune, whereas
TDS 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
3.2-2). 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.
Well SLV-3
Samples from well SLV-3 contained the highest
iron (832 mg/1) and nitrate (1.54 mg/1) of any
wells sampled (Table 3.2-3). Iron and manganese
exceeded the Utah secondary drinking water
standards (03 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 SLV-3 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 drinking water standards (0.3 mg/1 and
0.05 mg/1, respectively, Table 3.2-3).
Well SLV-1A
Samples from well SLV-1A contained the highest
cadmium (0.029 mg/1) and manganese (2.2 mg/1)
for wells in the proposed 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 hi samples from well
SLV-1A.
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 drinking water
standards), and also exceeded Utah primary or
secondary drinking water 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 in cadmium, and decreases
in manganese, molybdenum, sulfate, and TDS.
Lead, molybdenum, silicon, thallium, fluoride,
gross alpha, and gross beta all were at then-
highest concentrations during March 1995, when
TSS was lowest.
Well SLV-2
In samples from well SLV-2, aluminum, iron, and
lead slightly exceeded Utah primary or secondary
drinking water standards (0.2 mg/1,0.3 mg/1, and
23996/R4-WP.3A 02-05-97(10:21pm)/RPT/8
3-41
-------
0.015 mg/1, respectively). 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 Utah secondary
drinking water standard) and also exceeded Utah
primary and secondary drinking water standards
for aluminum, antimony, and iron. Aluminum,
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 Utah secondary drinking water
standard (0.05 mg/1). Aluminum and zinc
showed slight increases, and TSS and alkalinity
decreased during the tune period analyzed. Lead,
molybdenum, selenium, silicon, nitrate, nitrite,
and pH were highest during March 1995.
Well MW96-7B
Analytical results for the sample collected in
September 1996 from MW96-7B, screened hi the
lower Entrada Sandstone and the upper Navajo
Sandstone indicate that, aside from elevated gross
alpha, gross beta, and radium 226 and radium 228
totals, the groundwater is of good quality (Table
3.2-4). None of the other analytical parameters,
except those noted above, exceeded Utah primary
or secondary drinking water standards.
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) (Thereon 1996c). Rocks in the
Cutler Formation, located 2,200 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
1996c). 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 and Table 3.2-4) were
compared to the State of Utah primary and
secondary drinking water standards.
Concentrations in samples from all wells including
MW96-7B installed in the Entrada/Navajo aquifer
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 and in September 1996 for well
MW96-7B. Results ranged from 1.0 to 7.1 pCi/1
for radium-226; < 2 to 9 pCi/1 for radium-228;
and 0.003 to 0.978 mg/1 (25 to 662 pCi/1) for
total uranium. Several agencies were contacted
(Spangler 19%; Moten 1996; Hunt 1996;
Frederickson 19%) 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. For areas where
uranium bearing formations occur, such as the
Morrison and Chinle Formations, it is probably
not unusual to find naturally elevated radionuclide
concentrations in groundwater hi these and
adjacent formations.
Summary
Based on the groundwater samples collected and
analyzed to date (Table 3.2-3 and Table 3.2-4),
shallow groundwater in the project area appears
to be non-potable when compared to State of
Utah primary and secondary drinking water
standards. Additionally, the State of Utah has
classified groundwater hi the Burro Canyon
aquifer in the project area as Class IE, Limited
23996/R4-WP.3A 02-OS-97(10:21pm)/RPT/8
3-42
-------
Use, groundwater because of high TDS and
constituents above 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 drinking
water 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
drinking water standards for aluminum, antimony,
cadmium, iron, lead, manganese, nickel, and
thallium. Groundwater in the Mancos Shale
exceeded Utah primary or secondary drinking
water standards for manganese, sulfate, and TDS.
Groundwater in the Hennosa Group exceeded
Utah primary or secondary drinking water
standards for aluminum, antimony, and fluoride.
Samples from all of these units exceeded the
Utah primary drinking water standards for gross
alpha and gross beta activities. The elevated
radionuclide activities are likely naturally
occurring.
Groundwater in the Entrada/Navajo aquifer
exceeds Utah primary drinking water standards
for radionuclides as indicated from the September
19% sampling of well MW96-7B. None of the
other analytical parameters from this well
exceeded Utah primary or secondary drinking
water standards. Elevated radionuclides in the
Entrada/Navajo aquifer indicate that a Class HI,
limited use, designation would apply. Due to its
proximity with monitoring well 95R1 it is possible
that the groundwater quality sample taken from
monitoring well MW96-7B was affected by
contamination from water from the Burro Canyon
Formation. As a result, this groundwater quality
sample may not be representative of the
Entrada/Navajo aquifer and the Class IE, limited
use, designation may not apply to the
Entrada/Navajo aquifer.
33 GEOCHEMISTRY
3.3.1 Study Area
The study area for geochemistry includes all lands
within the project boundary as shown on Figure
2-1.
3.3.2 Geochemical Background
As discussed in Section 3.1, the copper
mineralization that would be mined at Lisbon
Valley is comprised of oxide ore contained in a
series of layered sedimentary beds which overlie
deeper unweatheredsulfide mineralization. Oxide
mineralization makes up roughly 52 percent of the
ore tonnage to be mined, and 48 percent of the
ore is sulfide. The oxide ore is primarily hosted
within the Burro Canyon Formation and Dakota
Sandstone. The oxide mineralization occurs near
the surface where the original sulfide
mineralization has been exposed to the effects of
natural weathering. Dominant minerals in the
Lisbon Valley oxide ores are copper carbonates
such as, malachite (Cu2CO3(OH)2) and azurite
(Cu3(CO)2(OH)2) with minor amounts of cuprite
(Cu20).
The sulfide ore is primarily chalcocite (CujS) with
small amounts of bornite (CusFeS4) and covellite
(CuS). The chalcocite occurs disseminated in
crystalline form within irregularly shaped lenses in
the Dakota and Burro Canyon sandstone beds.
Chalcopyrite (CuFeS^ is common around the
distal edges of the chalcocite orebodies, but this
mineralization is not considered economical
because the chalcopyrite leaches slowly and is
associated with high calcite. Therefore,
chalcopyrite is not amenable to the heap leaching
process.
The presence of sulfide ores at the site and
sulfide minerals within the waste rock are
considered to be potential sources for Acid Rock
Drainage (ARD). To evaluate the potential for
ARD and mobilization of constituents, a series of
geochemical characterization tests were
23996/R4-WP.3A 02-05-97(10:21pm)/RPT/8
3-43
-------
conducted. These tests consisted of static
acid/base accounting (ABA) tests on samples
from coreholes, and synthetic precipitation leach
tests (EPA Method 1312) on composite rock
samples. Results from the testing are discussed
below.
3.3.3 Static Acid/Base Accounting Tests
ABA tests are used as a screening technique to
determine whether sample material has the
potential to generate or consume acid. The test
defines the balance between acid-generating
minerals and acid-neutralizing minerals in a given
sample by estimating the net acid-generating
potential (AGP) and acid-neutralizing potential
(ANP) of the minerals present. The AGP of the
material involves determining the total amount of
sulfur and sulfur species present in the sample.
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 (SO/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 material. This value can be
conservatively used to estimate the AGP of the
material by assuming that all forms of sulfur are
acid-generating. However, it is important to note
that not all forms of sulfide are acid-generating.
Therefore, the AGP based on total sulfur is a
conservative estimate.
The acid neutralization potential (ANP) is
determined by treating a sample with a known
excess of standardized hydrochloric acid. The
sample material and acid are heated to ensure
that all reactions between acid and any
neutralizing components are completed. The
ANP is measured by quantifying the amount of
unconsumed acid by titrating with standardized
sodium hydroxide.
Both AGP and ANP are expressed in tons of
calcium carbonate (CaCO3) 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 material
which can be expected to generate net acidity at
some point in time; a positive result indicates a
sample which will not generate acid, but will
neutralize acid. ABA test results can also be
evaluated in terms of the ratio of ANP to AGP.
This approach is easier to use, as it allows
comparison of ratios rather than magnitude of
measurement. In general, an ANPrAGP ratio of
less than 1.0 is considered acid-generating, and
ANPiAGP greater than 3.0 is considered non-acid
generating. ANP:AGP values between 1.0 and 3.0
are considered to be uncertain (i.e., the material
may or may not be acid generating).
Static ABA tests were conducted on samples from
lithologic units representing both the waste rock
and exposed pit bottom rock contained within the
proposed limits of the GTO, Centennial, and
Sentinel pits. A total of 186 intervals of waste
rock lithologies from 23 coreholes, and 27
intervals representative of pit bottom rock from 8
coreholes were tested. The results from these
tests are reported in McClelland (1994) and
Rocky Mountain Geochemical Corporation (1995
and 1996), and summarized in Appendix B. A
map showing the location of the sample sites is
shown on Figures 33-la, 3.3-lb and 3.3-lc.
The specific lithologies at the project site that are
represented in the ABA tests included:
• Quaternary alluvium (bed 1),
• Mancos Formation (bed 2),
• Upper Dakota Sandstone (beds 3,4,5),
• Dakota Sandstone, coaly beds (beds 6,7,8),
• Lower Dakota Sandstone and Upper Burro
Canyon Formation (beds 9-13),
• Burro Canyon Formation (bed 14),
• Burro Canyon Formation (bed 15),
• Morisson Formation (bed 17), and
• Cutler Formation.
23996/R4-WP.3A 02-05-97(10:21pm)/RPT/8
3-44
-------
PROPOSED PIT OUTLINES
0 250 500
caiig
SCALE IN FEET
1000
SOURCE: GOCHNOUR 1996b.
Job No. :
23996
Prepared by : J.P.T.
Date :
12/31/96
DRILL HOLE LOCATION MAP
SENTINEL DEPOSIT
LISBON VALLEY COPPER PROJECT
X 3/
-------
PROPOSED ULTIMATE PIT OUTLINE
0 250 500
1000
o
SCALE IN FEET
SOURCE: GOCHNOUR 1996b.
Job No. : 23996
Prepared by : J.P.T.
Date : 12/31/96
DRILL HOLE LOCATION MAP
CENTENNIAL DEPOSIT
LISBON VALLEY COPPER PROJECT
FIG. 3.3-1 b
-------
PROPOSED PIT OUTLINE
o
200 400
—
SCALE IN FEET
800
SOURCE: GOCHNOUR 1996b.
Job No. :
23996
Prepared by : J.P.T.
Date :
12/31/96
DRILL HOLE LOCATION MAP
GTO DEPOSIT
LISBON VALLEY COPPER PROJECT
-------
Some of the lithologies tested included the host
formations for the oxide and sulfide copper ore.
As discussed in Section 3.1.2.3 and shown on
Figure 3.1.2, the primary mineralization to be
mined at the proposed Lisbon Valley copper
project occurs as finely disseminated minerals
within the sandstone beds of the Dakota
Sandstone and Burro Canyon Formations (beds 3
4, 5, 11, 13, and 15).
The results of the ABA tests are summarized in
Table B-l (Appendix B, NOTE: Beds 14 and 15
in the well logs included with Appendix B are
apparently mis-labelled as Dakota. Beds 14 and
15 should be labelled as Burro Canyon, per
Figure 3.1-2). Table B-l presents the sample
I.D., depth of sample, rock type, lithologic bed
identity, percent sulfur, AGP, ANP, NNP, and the
ANP:AGP ratio. Shaded rows in Table B-l
identify those samples and lithologies which are
considered potentially acid generating. In
interpreting the ABA test results, both NNP and
the ANP:AGP ratio were used. This approach is
appropriate since, in some cases, not a single
measurement was definitive in determining
potentially acid generating material. The shaded
rows shown in Table B-l indicate lithologies
where both the NNP is negative and the
ANP:AGP ratio is less than 3.0, thus satisfying the
criteria of potentially acid-generating material,
including uncertain results for some of the
materials. This approach is considered
conservative, because many of the ABA test
results are not completely definitive. For
example, in some cases the NNP may be negative
but the ANP.-AGP is greater than 3,0; or the NNP
is positive, but the ANPrAGP ratio is less than.
3.0. These conditions generally occur on samples
where both the AGP and ANP are very low,
indicating that a material does not generate nor
neutralize acid. As a conservative approach both
criteria were applied in the interpretation of the
ABA test results.
Using the above criteria, the ABA test results
show the following trends:
« The majority (175 of 213 samples tested) of
waste rock and pit bottom rock are not acid-
generating. The ABA test results indicate
that the majority of lithologies have very high
ANP, indicating an excess of acid neutralizing
capacity. The high net ANP of the waste
rock and pit bottom rock can be attributed to
the presence of calcite hi the formation rock.
« A strong trend exists which shows that the
coaly beds (beds 6,7, and 8) of the Dakota
Sandstone are likely acid-generating. The
ABA test results from these beds typically
show a high AGP and a low ANP, resulting
in a negative NNP, and an ANP:AGP ratio
less than zero. The coaly beds are
consistently high in sulfide sulfur which can
be attributed to the presence of iron sulfides
in the beds. Visual inspection indicates iron
sulfides are present in the form of pyrite.
« A minor trend exists which shows that
portions of the material from beds 5 and 9 of
the Dakota Sandstone may also be acid-
generating. Beds 5 and 9 bound the coaly
beds (beds 6 through 8); therefore minor
occurrences of pyrite may also be present in
these beds.
• The ABA tests also show that some acid-
generating materials may be present in beds
14 and 15 of the Burro Canyon Formation.
However, these occurrences are sporadic, and
do not indicate the widespread presence of
acid-generating materials in these beds.
The ABA test results indicate that the primary
lithologic units which are likely acid-generating
are the coaly beds of the Dakota Sandstone (beds
6,7, and 8). The test results also indicate that the
majority of waste rock to be produced from the
GTO, Centennial, and Sentinel pits is acid-
neutralizing. An analysis conducted by Summo of
the waste rock volume to be generated from these
pits indicates that the volume of acid-generating
waste rock (beds 6,7, and 8) is less than 10% of
23996/R4-WP.3A 02-05-97(10:21pm)/RPT/8
3-48
-------
the total waste rock to be generated. Therefore,
the waste rock and exposed pit wall rock are
anticipated to be overall net acid-neutralizing,
The potential environmental impacts from the
waste rock dumps, pit walls and pit bottom rock
are discussed further in Section 4.0.
3.3.4 Synthetic Precipitation Leach
Tests (EPA Method 1312)
Synthetic precipitation leach (SPLP) tests using
EPA Method 1312 were conducted on four
composited samples of coarse reject material
from reverse circulation drill holes located within
the limits of the proposed pits. These tests were
conducted to assess the potential mobilization of
constituents from exposed waste rock and pit wall
rock which may occur from precipitation events
and weathering. These tests are important as
they can be used to identify which constituents (a)
may be leached from the waste rock dumps; or
(b) may be present in precipitation run-off into
the open pits. In the Method 1312 test, a sample
is saturated with deionized water buffered to a
pH 5.0 and bottle-rolled for 18 hours. The
leachate from the sample is then collected,
filtered, and analyzed for dissolved constituents.
The results of the analyses are then used to
evaluate the mobility of constituents and potential
impacts to surface and groundwater resources.
The SPLP tests were conducted on composited
samples of material which would be present in the
waste rock dumps and exposed within the open
pits. Samples were composited from materials
within beds of similar lithologies, which included
the identified acid-generating lithologies present
in beds 6,7, and 8 of the Dakota Sandstone. The
samples were composited as follows:
• Sample #1 - composite of material from
beds 6, 7, and 8 of the Dakota Sandstone,
• Sample #2 - composite of material from
beds 9 and 10 of the Dakota Sandstone,
• Sample #3 - composite of material from bed
14 of the Burro Canyon mudstone, and
• Sample #4 - composite of material from bed
14 of the Burro Canyon limestone.
The results of the SPLP tests are presented in
Table B-2 in Appendix B, and summarized as
follows:
4 . •*';-:-••. -; • - - -
•, In all SPLP tests, the collected leachate had
a pH greater than 7.5, and in some cases
greater than 9.0. These results show that the
sample materials had a net buffering effect,
resulting in an increase in pH. This result
was expected, since the ABA tests show the
majority of materials are net acid-
neutralizing.
• The SPLP results showed that very few
constituents were mobilized Low
concentrations of dissolved aluminum and
iron were mobilized from all samples. The
overall mobility of aluminum in the
environment, however, will be limited
because aluminum is only significantly mobile
at pH values greater than 7.5 or less than 5.5.
Therefore as run-off or leachate encounters
neutral conditions, the aluminum will
precipitate out. The iron concentrations
resulting from the tests are within the range
of variability present in the groundwater, and
are not likely to degrade water quality.
Environmental impacts are discussed further
in Section 4.0.
It should be noted that the Method 1312
procedure may be limited in predictive capability
since the test is performed using pH 5.0 deionized
water. Those constituents that are mobilized hi
alkaline (i.e., high pH) environments, such as
metal anionic complexes, may not be mobilized in
the lixiviant from the Method 1312 analysis.
These test results are presented here to aid in
later impact assessment discussions, primarily for
pit water quality. Some implications for waste
rock water quality issues are relevant, as well.
23996/R4-WP.3A 02-05-97(10:21pm)/RPT/8
3-49
b •."*•••
-------
Professional experience (i.e., open pit gold sites in
Nevada and Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation
Control Act (UMTRCA) geochemistry) suggest
that if pit lakes develop at the site after mining,
the water in the lakes could in time become quite
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.
Table 3.3-1 compiled from published sources
presents chemical constituents found in alkaline
lakes hi the western United States. As indicated
in Table 33-1, a number of metal oxyanions are
present in the alkaline lakes with pH ranging
from 8.9 to 9.6. Additionally, as discussed
previously in Section 3.2.3.3 (Groundwater
Quality) groundwater in the Burro Canyon
aquifer (e.g., monitoring well MW-2A, Table
3.2-3) contains minor concentrations of many of
the constituents listed in Table 3.3-1 suggesting
that the oxyanions would be present in post
mining pit lake water if pit lakes were to develop.
In summary, the tests reported above appear to
adequately characterize AGP in the waste rock,
the exposed pit walls and pit bottoms.
Furthermore, although specific lithologies
(particularly the coaly beds within the Dakota
Sandstone) have acid generating characteristics,
the ABA tests indicate that an overall acid
neutralizing environment is expected for the waste
rock, pit wall rock, and pit bottom rock.
Existing groundwater quality results for the Burro
Canyon aquifer show that oxyanions are currently
present in groundwater at the site. Potential
evapo-concentration of groundwater inflowing to
the post-mining pits over time could ultimately
lead to the development of alkaline pit lakes with
constituents not unlike those shown in Table 3.3-1
for alkaline lakes of the western United States.
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 this 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 (W-C 1994a), 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
23996/R4-WP.3B 02-05-97(10:52pm)/RPT/8
3-50
-------
TABLE 3.3-1
COMPOSITION OF ALKALINE LAKES FROM
THE WESTERN UNITED STATES
Constituents
(mg/L unless
noted)
Arsenic
Cadmium
Calcium
Carbonate Alk
Chloride
Chromium
Copper
Fluoride
Iron (total)
Lead
Magnesium
Mercury
pH (units)
Potassium
Selenium
Sodium
Solids (IDS)
Sulfate
Source
Walker Lake,
Nevada
(1994)
1.11
<0.001
7
1008
3250
<0.005
0.01
0.13
O.005
159
<0.0005
9.51
O.001
4380
13095
2960
Cooper 1995
Pyramid Lake,
Nevada Humboldt Sink
(1989) (1994)
0.039
<0.001
27
24
297
<0.005
0.32
0.008
23
<0.0005
8.9 9.1
O.001
280
5292 955
131
Lebo 1994 Cooper 1995
Soda Lake,
Stillwater
WMA
(1958)
7.9
1360
7570
7.9
134
9.6
39
6610
24700
6220
Clancy and
Katzer 1975
Toulon Lake,
Humboldt
WMA
(1990)
0.046*
26
101
2100
1.4
57
9
73
1800
5420
900
Seller et al.
1993
23994/R4T3.3-1 J/31/97(520 PMXRPT/5
-------
CSV-
PROJECT BOUNDARY
MAP
SYMBOL
SOIL TYPE
MAP
SYMBOL
KEY FOR SOILS MAP
SOIL TYPE
MAP
SYMBOL
SOIL TYPE
4
14
19
22
BARNUM LOAM 0-8% SLOPES
BOND-RIZNO FINE SANDY LOAM
3-15% SLOPES
CAHONA FINE SANDY LOAM
2-8% SLOPES
DUMPS-PITS COMPLEX
41 IGNACIO-LEANTO FINE SANDY
LOAM 2-6% SLOPES
67 REDBANK FINE SANDY LOAM
3-8% SLOPES
70 RIZNO-ROCK OUTCROP COMPLEX
3-15% SLOPES
72 ROCK OUTCROP
74 ROCK OUTCROP-RIZNO COMPLEX
3-15% SLOPES
79 SHALAKO-ANASAZI-ROCK OUT-
CROP COMPLEX 3-15% SLOPES
100 USTIC TORRIORTHENTS-USTOLUC
CACIORTHIDS COMPLEX 10-60%
SLOPES
101 USTIC TORRIORTHENTS-USTOLUC
HAPLARGIDS COMPLEX 10-60%
SLOPES
SOURCE: USDA, SCS 1991
1500 3000
SCALE IN FEET
6000
Job N&.
23996
Prepared by : C.R.P.
Date : ,
2/3/96
SOILS MAP
LISBON VALLEY COPPER PROJECT
3-3.
FIG. 3.4-1
-------
b^
V*
vy
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 Bainum Barnum
14 Bond-Rizno Bond
Rizno
,
19 Cahona Cahona
i
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
B
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
1-15
Erosion
Potential-
Texture Water /Wind
Loam M/S
Loamy fine sand
to clay loam
Fine sandy loam M/H
Very fine sandy
loam, loam,
sandy clay loan
Fine sandy loam M/H
Fine sandy loam
Fine sandy loam M/H
Sandy clay
loam, silty clay
loam, clay loam
Very fine sandy
loam, loam, fine
sandy loam
Waste rock and
pits
Fine sandy loam S/H
Fine sandy loam
Fine sandy loam
Fine sandy loam S/H
Fine sandy loam
PH
7.4-8.4
7.4-9.0
7.4-8.4
7.4-8.4
7.4-8.4
7.9-9.0
7.4-8.4
6.6-8.4
7.9-9.0
-
7.4-7.8
7.4-7.8
7.4-7.8
7.4-8.4
7.4-8.4
Salinity
(mmhos/
cm)
<2
<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
t
0.11-0.13
0.11-0.13
0.11-0.13
0.11-0.13
0.11-0.13
Permeability
in/hr
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
2.0-6.0
Percent
Coarse Percent Covcrsoil
Fragment Organic Matter Suitability2
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
23996flUT3.4-l 02-04-97(3:33PM)/RPT/6
-------
/
o,
\
u>
^
Map
Unit
Symbol
67
70
72
, 74
79
\
TABLE 3.4-1
PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS FOR SOILS OF THE LISBON VALLEY PROJECT AREA
(Continued)
Soil Map Unit Soil Series
Redbank Redbank
Rizno-Rock Rizno
Outcrop
Complex
Rock
Outcrop
Rock Outcrop Rock
Outcrop
Rock Rock
Outcrop- Outcrop
Rizno
Complex
Rizno
Shalako- Shalako
Anasazi Rock
Outcrop
Complex
Anasazi
Percent
Slope
3-8
3-15
3-15
»
3-15
3-15
3-15
3-15
Major
Horizons
A
C
A
C
_
"
_
A
C
A
B
C
A
B
C
Depth
(inches)
0-2
2-60
0-2
2-8
_
-.
0-2
2-8
0-2
2-6
6-13
0-9
9-14
14-26
Erosion
Potential
Texture Water /Wind
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
Gravelly loam,
gravelly fine
sandy loam
pH
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
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
0.11-0.17
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
0.08-0.14
Permeability
in/hr
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
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
-' - ' v , ' ' '
15-35 1-3 Fair
23WWR4T3.4-I 01-JI-97(5:21PMyRPT«
-------
co^
0\
Vn
TABLE 3.4-1
PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS FOR SOILS OF THE LISBON VALLEY PROJECT AREA
(Continued)
Map
Unit Percent Major Depth
Symbol Soil Map Unit Soil Series Slope Horizons (inches)
Rock 3-15
Outcrop
100 Ustic Ustic 10-60 0-3
Torriorthents- Torriorthents
Ustollic
Calciorthids 3-11
11-30
30-45
Ustic 10-60 0-1
Calciorthids
1-8
8-32
32-40
101 Ustic Ustic 10-60 0-3
Torriorthents - Torriorthents
Ustollic
Hfl nl flr0 i rf
-------
TABLE 3.4-1
PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS FOR SOILS OF THE LISBON VALLEY PROJECT AREA
(Continued)
Map
Unit
Symbol
NA =
S
M
N
Soil Map Unit Soil Series
not applicable
not determined
Slight
Moderate
None
Erosion
Potential1 Salinity
Percent Major Depth (mmhos/
Slope Horizons (inches) Texture Water /Wind pH cm)
8-24 Stony sandy clay 7.4-8.4 <2
loam, stony clay ,
loam
24-60 Stony silly clay 7.4-9.0 <2
loam
Water •. • - •':-'": ' • '
Retention Percent
Capacity Permeability Coarse Percent Coversoil
In/in in/hr Fragment Organic Matter Suitability2
0.13-0.16 0.2-20 - „ "
0.12-0.15 0.06-2.0
' •- ' ' -:
Not Applicable for rock outcrop and dumps - pits map units
1 The potential for the loss of soil from water and wind erosion when the vegetation is removed.
1 Coversoil suitability based on criteria in Table 3.4-2.
Coversoil suitability basi
Source: USDA.SCS1991
(In
-I 02-05-97(9:44PM)/RPr/
-------
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.
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 is
moderate. Accelerated erosion is most likely to
occur when the 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 when 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 hi the study area are considered
moderately or highly saline. Only two series, the
Ustic Torriorthents-Ustollic Calciorthids and
Ustic Torriorthents-Ustollic Haplargids, could be
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 use in 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
fan- to good as a source of reclamation material,
with the following exceptions:
• Dumps and pits complex - This series
includes open pits and waste rock piles
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. 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
3.5.1 Study Area
The study area is centered around the four
proposed pits, four waste dumps and the leach
pad, and extends along the Lower Lisbon Valley
in a northwest-southeast direction for approxi-
mately 3.5 miles (Figure 3.5-1). It is limited in
the south by Three Step Hill (elevation 7,000 feet)
and in the north by the mesa between the Lisbon
and the Snyder Canyons (elevation 6,700 feet).
The total study area covers approximately 8
square miles. The elevation varies between 6,400
and 6,500 feet in the bottom of the valley to 6,600
to 7,000 in the surrounding mesas.
23996/R4-WP.3B 02-05-97(10:51pm)/RJT/8
3-57
-------
TABLE 3.4-2
SOIL MATERIAL SUITABILITY CRITERIA FOR
SALVAGE AND REDISTRIBUTION AS COVERSODL*
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
02-0.6
Poor
sand
loamy sand
sandy clay
silty clay
clay(<60%)
20-35
<0.5
4.5-5.0
8.5-9.0
<0.08
<02or>6.0
Unsuitable
clay(>60%)
>35
<4.5
>9.1
Source: USDA Forest Service 1979
* Coversoil is soil material that can support the establishment of vegetation.
Note: Salinity and Sodium Adsorption Ratio (SAR) criteria, common suitability criteria, are not included here
because excessive salinity/alkalinity conditions are not characteristic of area soils.
3-51
23996/R4T3.4-2 01-31-97(5:2IPM)/RPT/6
-------
-------
3-5?
-------
'•'i\»k (\ 1\/HV jJr-Vi/J
Jab No.
1000 2000
SCALE IN FEET
4000
LEGEND
PJ PINYON-JUNIPERI
SB SAGEBRUSH
XXX CLIFFS CONSIDERED POTENTIALLY.?
RAPTOR NESTING AREAS
GL GRASSLAND
RL RANCHLAND
D DISTURBED
SB-GL SAGEBRUSH-GRASSLAND
MM MOUNTAIN MAHOGANY
22996
Prepared by : C.H.P.
Data :
4/1/9S
VEGETATION, MAt>
USBON VALLEY COPPER PROJECT
FIG. 3.5-1
-------
The study area is located in a cold desert region.
This is typified by low annual precipitation and
irregular (unpredictable) distribution of rain.
Most moisture comes at times, or in ways, largely
useless to plants, and the potential to evaporate
soil moisture exceeds precipitation (Trimble
1989).
3.5.2 Vegetation Communities
The vegetation in the project area may be
categorized into three primary vegetation zones
(Figure 3.5-1).
• The pinyon-juniper (PJ) zone occurs on
mountain slopes and at the higher elevations,
including the steeper cliff faces. Big
sagebrush is the most common undercover
shrub. Other common shrubs include
Mormon tea, rabbitbrush, mountain
mahogany, serviceberry, bitterbrush, and
snake-weed. Common forbs include
cryptantha, milk vetch, desert paint-brush,
and bladder pod. The most common grasses
are wheat grass, Indian ricegrass, and
bluegrass. Cacti are also scattered among the
drier slopes.
9 The sagebrush (SB) zone occurs in valley
bottoms and on low, gentle slopes. Floristic
composition varies slightly between the
northern and the southern areas. Sagebrush
dominates with golden rabbitbrush occurring
in areas that have been disturbed. Some
areas have an understory of cheatgrass and
native grass.
• The grassland/rangeland (GL/RL) zone
occurs in open meadows, usually interspersed
with intermittent sagebrush. These areas
were predominantly sagebrush (or in some
cases PJ) 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 arc
also growing in some of the crested
wheatgrass seedings.
Vegetation zones transition from one to the other
depending on the elevation, soil condition, and
precipitation (West 1988). Additionally,
vegetation community composition in the PJ and
SB zones reflects disturbance from previous
mining activity. 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 1994b).
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 GL/RL zone; and 8 percent
disturbed by previous mining operations.
Additionally, all of the grassland/rangeland
acreage located at the western extreme of the
project area is hi an area referred to as Wood's
Pasture, 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.
3.5.3 Special Status Species
Special status species include threatened,
endangered, and sensitive species that are
protected under the Endangered Species Act
(ESA) (50 CFR 17) of 1973, as amended, or
other State or Federal agency regulations. In
general, the protection afforded imperiled species
under the ESA includes prohibition from harming
or trafficking hi endangered species; and, under
Section 7, the Federal government is forbidden to
23996/R4-WP.3B 02-05-97(10:51pm)/RPT/8
3-60
-------
Figure 3.5-2. Existing conditions in Lisbon Canyon. Sagebrush and
rabbitbrush grow to the edges of the normally dry narrow channel.
Z39WW4-3PHO 11/11/96(1:47 PMVRIT/S
-------
take any action that is likely to jeopardize an
endangered or threatened species or to degrade
its critical habitat.
Under the ESA, an endangered species is one in
danger of extinction throughout all or a significant
portion of its range: a threatened species is one
likely to become an endangered species within the
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant
portion of its range. Candidate species (Cl) are
those being considered for listing as threatened or
endangered. Until recently, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service also maintained a list of category
2 (C2) species, those for which listing was
considered possibly appropriate, but for which
more information on biological vulnerability and
threat were needed to support proposed rules.
As of February 28, 1996, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service no longer maintains a list of C2
species, but they are considered to be sensitive by
BLM personnel and other agencies. The only
federally listed or candidate plant species
potentially occurring in the study area is
Pediomelum aromaticum var. tuhyi, which is a
former C2 species (Woodward-Clyde 1994b).
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 zothedna) -
found in seeps, hanging gardens, and moist
stream areas
• Broad-leaved biscuitroot or Canyonland
lomatium (Lomatium 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
Suitable habitat conditions for these four species
do not exist in the study area. No sensitive plants
were encountered during field reconnaissance.
3.6 WILDLIFE
The sparse vegetation that typifies this region
cannot support a high density of ungulates. The
baseline data report (Woodward-Clyde 1994b)
indicates a low number of herbivores; thus, it can
be assumed that a relatively low number of
carnivores use the area. Characteristic of arid
communities, the most common animals observed
in the area during the compilation of the baseline
data were rodents. Gunnison's prairie dog
(Cynomys gunnisoni) is a common inhabitant of
this habitat type, and historically a resident of the
area (Thompson 1995). Surveys on the study site
have confirmed Gunnison's prairie dog in high
densities in the Wood's Pasture area, and in
lesser densities to' the south of the project area.
Other wildlif e observed during biological resource
surveys conducted in December 1995 and May
1996, include a variety of rabbits, mice, and birds,
as well as a badger (Taddea tads) and coyote
(Canis latrans). Raptors and mule deer
(pdocotteus hemonus) were also observed, and
are discussed in detail below. Some predator
species may be occasional visitors to the area,
following deer for prey (Bates 1995).
3.6.1 Study Area
Study areas for all but the raptor and black-
footed ferret surveys include all potential habitat
within the project boundary. The study area for
the raptor surveys includes an area with an
approximate radius of two-and-one-half miles
centered on the four proposed pits (Figure 1-2),
and an area about two miles on each side of the
proposed transmission line (Figure 2-2). Black-
footed ferret surveys were conducted in potential
habitat within the project boundaries, as directed
by the Fish'and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
(Zablan 1996).
3.62 Raptors
The isolation of the area, the abundance of
natural cliffs, and the availability of Gunnison's
prairie dogs and other prey provide habitat for a
23996/R4-WP.3B 02-OS-97(10:Slpm)/RPT/8
3-62
-------
variety of raptors. Raptors and potentially active
raptor nests were observed during the baseline
data collection (Woodward-Clyde 1994b) and
subsequent biological resource surveys
(Woodward-Clyde 1996b). The biological
resource surveys included winter and spring
surveys of areas within a two-and-one-half mile
radius of the project area and about two miles on
each side of the proposed transmission line.
During the winter surveys, two potentially active
raptor nest sites (one golden eagle (Aquila
chrysaeto) and one unidentified hawk) were
identified within the project boundaries.
Additionally, two potentially active golden eagle
nests and one prairie falcon (Falco medcanus)
eyrie were located within a 10-mile radius of the
project. Numerous raptor roosts were also
identified during the surveys. One prairie falcon,
two adult and two juvenile golden eagles were
observed in Lisbon Valley and the adjacent Big
Indian Valley.
During spring surveys, two additional golden eagle
nests were identified on Three Step Hill, and one
raptor roost was identified north of Lisbon
Canyon. West of the project boundary and south
of Big Indian Valley, two roosts and a golden
eagle nest were identified. No active nests were
located or identified; however, observations
indicate that at least one pair of golden eagles is
probably nesting somewhere in the Lisbon Valley
area beyond the project boundaries.
Raptors observed during spring surveys include
two golden eagles, a ferruginous hawk (Buteo
regalis), two red-tailed hawks (Buteo
jamaicensis), two American kestrels (Falco
sparverius'), a merlin (Falco columbarius), and six
turkey vultures (Cathartes aura).
3.6.3 Mule Deer
Discussions with the Utah Division of Wildlife
Resources (UDWR) indicated that a mule deer
herd of an unknown size uses the general area
year-round. Whiter surveys for mule deer were
conducted as part of the biological resource
surveys (Woodward-Clyde 1996b). During these
surveys, a small herd of deer was identified hi 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. The mule deer were primarily observed
hi the PJ/SB or PJ/GL/RL interfaces
(Woodward-Clyde 1996b). Incidental
observations during spring wildlife surveys
indicate that mule deer probably occur hi smaller
numbers in the project area hi the spring and
summer.
3.6.4 Special Status Species
Utah Division of Wildlife Resources draft status
categories include endangered, threatened, SI
(species declining in population, distribution
and/or habitat), S2 (species occurring in limited
areas and/or numbers due to a restricted or
specialized habitat), and S1S2 (both declining and
of limited occurrence). A list of these species was
provided hi the Flora and Fauna Baseline Report
(Woodward-Clyde 1994b). Continued discussions
with the agencies and comments received from
public scoping meetings provided additional
concerns. Special status species potentially
present La the project area, their habitat, and their
status are listed in Table 3.6-1. Field surveys for
species of concern potentially occurring hi the
study area were conducted hi December 1995 and
May 1996. Survey results are reported hi detail hi
the final Biological Resources Reports
(Woodward-Clyde 1996b). Survey results are
summarized below:
• Black-Footed Ferret (Mustela nigripes) -
Black-footed ferret surveys were conducted hi
December 1995 according to USFWS survey
guidelines (USFWS 1989). Surveys for black-
footed ferrets were planned hi close
coordination with the USFWS and the BLM.
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.
• Burrowing Owl (Speotyto cunicularia) - No
burrowing owls or then: sign were observed
during surveys.
23996/R4-WP.3B 02-OS-97(10:51pm)/RPT/8
3-63
-------
TABLE 3.6-1
SENSITIVE SPECIES POTENTIALLY OCCURRING IN THE STUDY AREA
'?"<, Common Name ;
Mammals
Black-footed ferret
Birds
American peregrine falcon
bald eagle
Mexican spotted owl
ferruginous hawk
loggerhead shrike
Swainson's hawk
burrowing owl
Fish
razorback sucker
Colorado squawfish
bonytail chub
humpback chub
Scientific Narae-
Mustela nigripes
Falco peregrinus anatum
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Strix occidentalis lucida
Buteoregalis
Lanius ludovicianus
Buteo swainsoni
Speotyto cunicularia
Xyrauchen texanus
Ptychocheilus lucius
Gila elegans
Gita cypha
Federal
Status
E
E
E
T
C2
C2
C2
E
E
E
E
; UtaDt.
1 *«Kfctu
E
E
E
T
T
S1/S2
SI
*jj <% -
Apical Hifeitait' K :.;
prairie dog towns larger than 80 acres
transient in area, nest on cliffs, usually near rivers or marshes
rivers and large reservoirs
wooded narrow canyons in desert areas. No suitable habitat in
project area.
unbroken terrain with scattered trees and outcrops, larger trees
used for nesting
desert shrubland with scattered shrubs or small trees, open areas
for foraging
migratory, open brushlands
grasslands and semidesert shrublands, usually in or near prairie
dog towns
i
Colorado River Basin
Colorado River Basin
Colorado River Basin
Colorado River Basin
2J996/R4T.361 1/31/97(5:21 PMXRPT/5
-------
TABLE 3.64
SENSITIVE SPECIES POTENTIALLY OCCURRING IN THE STUDY AREA
(Concluded)
C0«Mtt&tt$«nifc
Plants
depauperate daisy
alcove bog-orchid
broad-leaved biscuitroot,
or Canyonlands lomatium
no common name
alcove rock-daisy
; sCieB«f«*?h«*e . ,
Erigeron mancus
Habenaria zothecina
Lomatium latilobum
Pediomelum aromaticum
var. tuhyi
Perityle specuicola
Federal
Status
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
Utah
Status
*
*
*
*
*
\" - j-" - TyplodHabltet , >- ' .*..._.
alpine grass-sedge at 9,150 to 10,500 feet elevation
moist areas, hanging gardens, between 4,360 to 8,690 feet
elevation from desert shrub to the oak-brush communities
pinyon-juniper and desert shrubs, mainly on Entrada Sandstone
formation between 4,800 to 6,855 feet elevation
pinyon-juniper or mesa summit of the Entrada formation
hanging gardens at 3,960 to 4,000 feet elevation
Status codes:
E
t
Cl
C2
SI
S2
S1S2 =
* =
endangered species, in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range
threatened species, likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future
candidate species, considered for listing as threatened or endangered
former Category 2 candidate species for which listing was considered possibly appropriate, but for which more information was needed to
support listing '
declining in population, distribution, and/or habitat
occurring in limited areas and/or numbers due to a restricted or specialized habitat
both declining and limited in occurrence
listed by Utah National Heritage Program
23996/R4T.36I 1/31/97(5:21 PMJ/RPT/5
-------
• Loggerhead Shrike (Lanius ludoricianus) -
Approximately 6.2 linear miles were
identified as potential loggerhead shrike
habitat. No shrikes were identified during
the winter surveys. During the spring
surveys, three loggerhead shrikes were
positively identified; however, no nests were
identified. One shrike was located during a
vehicle drive-by near the northeast corner of
Wood's Pasture (Figure 3.5-1). An attempt
was made to follow the flight path of the
shrike, but it eventually flew off site. The
other two sightings occurred during raptor
surveys of the proposed transmission line
corridor.
• Great Basin Western Rattlesnake (Crotalus
viridus var. lutosus) - The potential for
physical disturbance of rattlesnake dens
resisting from the proposed project is of
concern because dens in the Lisbon Valley
area have been important for research
conducted by the Veteran's Administration
Venom Team (Nohavec 1995). No evidence
of dens was observed during the biological
resources surveys (Woodward-Clyde 1996b).
One great Basin western rattlesnake was
discovered during spring loggerhead shrike
surveys about 100 feet north of the road
through Lisbon Gap (Figure 3.5-1). None of
the den sites used by the Veteran's
Administration Venom Research Team are
located in the project area (Seibert 1996).
As discussed in Section 3.6.2, field surveys were
also conducted for raptors. With the exception of
one ferruginous hawk, none of the sensitive
raptors listed in Table 3.6-1 were observed in the
study area. In addition, no active nests or eyries
were identified.
In summary, no threatened or 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 obtained from
formations contributing water to the Colorado
River system, through the Dolores River basin.
Depletions of water sources from contributing
basins to the Colorado River system could
potentially affect threatened and endangered fish
species in the Colorado River.
Although streams within 20 miles of the project
area are ephemeral and do not support fish, four
endangered Colorado River fish occur
downstream of the project area (see Table 3.6-1
for status). A brief description of the distribution
of these species, as summarized from information
in the Colorado River Endangered Fishes Critical
Habitat Draft Biological Support Document
(USFWS 1993), is provided below:
• razorback sucker (Xyrauchen texanus) -
Once abundant throughout 3,500 miles of the
Colorado River Basin in the Upper Basin of
the Colorado River, razorback suckers
historically occurred in the Colorado, Green,
and San Juan River basins. In the Colorado
River they occurred from Lee's Ferry,
Arizona to near Rifle, Colorado. No records
of razorback suckers exist for the Dolores
River. Currently, in the Upper Basin the
largest concentration of these fish occurs in
the upper Green River from the mouth of
the Duchesne River upstream to the Yampa
River. Additional concentrations of the fish
are found in the Grand Valley area of the
Colorado River, however, the number of
adult captures in this area has declined
dramatically since 1974.
i • Colorado squawfish (Ptychocheilus ludus) -
Once occurring throughout the Colorado
River Basin, the Colorado squawfish was
common in the mainstems of the Colorado
River and have been captured in the Dolores
River. Native populations are currently
restricted to the Upper Colorado River Basin
in Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, and New
Mexico. Colorado squawfish are regularly
collected in the Colorado River between the
Price-Stubb Dam near Palisade, Colorado,
and Lake Powell.
• bonytail chub (GUa elegans) - Formerly
reported as widespread and abundant in
mainstream rivers, the bonytail chub is the
rarest native fish in the Colorado River. In
the Colorado River they were once recorded
from Gunnison, Colorado to the Gulf of
23996/R4-WP.3B 02-05-97(10:51pm)/RPT/8
3-66
-------
California. In the last 20 years in the Upper
Colorado River Basin, only five individuals
have been captured from the Green and the
Colorado rivers, and nowhere has
reproductive success been documented.
• humpback chub (GUa typha) - Historically,
the humpback chub occurred in portions of
the mainstem Colorado River as well as
Green, Yampa, White, and Little Colorado
rivers. Its original distribution throughout the
Colorado River Basin is not fully known.
Today, the Little Colorado and Colorado
rivers in the Grand Canyon and the Black
Rocks area of the Colorado River harbor the
largest populations of humpback chub. Other
populations have been reported in Westwater
and Debeque canyons of the Colorado river,
among other locations. The highest
concentrations of humpback chub in the
Upper Colorado River Basin occur in the
Black Rocks and Westwater Canyon reaches
of the Colorado River near the Colorado/
Utah State line.
The decline in populations of the above-
mentioned fish has been attributed primarily to
various human-initiated physical and biological
changes in the Colorado River. Portions of the
Colorado River downstream of the proposed
project area have been designated as critical
habitat for all four of these endangered fish. The
closest critical habitat area to the project area is
at the confluence of the Dolores and Colorado
rivers.
3.7 GRAZING
3.7.1 Study Area
The area encompassed by Summo's proposed
project is within two different grazing allotments.
The first allotment is the Lower Lisbon
Allotment, which consists of 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 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
temporary impacts from the construction of the
powerline, the Summo project would not affect
the Big Indian Allotment.
Lower Lisbon Allotment
Mr. Mike Wilcox holds a grazing permit that
allows for the grazing of 189 cattle from
December 1 through May 31 of each year. The
total number of animals unit months (AUMs) of
specified livestock grazing amounts to 927 AUMs
plus an exchange of use of 199 AUMs. (An
AUM is the amount of forage consumed by one
adult cow with calf over a one-month period.)
There are three grazing pastures on this allotment
as follows:
• Pasture No. 1 is located in the valley bottom
of Lower Lisbon Valley.
• Pasture No. 2 is located on the second bench
of Three Step Hill.
• Pasture No. 3 is located on the first bench of
Three Step Hill.
The grazing rotation for the three pastures is
summarized in Table 3.7-3.
Portions of Pastures 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
within Summo's boundary solely as a buffer zone
and would not be impacted (Carling, December 4,
1996).
The northern portion of Pasture No. 1 is whhin
Summo's proposed project. This area is in
Sections 35 and 36, T 30 S, R 25 E, and Section
1, T 31S, 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. 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
23996/R4-WP.3B 02-05-97(10:51pm)/RPT/8
3-67
-------
159944
-------
SOURCE: BLM 1988b; SUMMO 1995a.
LOWER LISBON VALLEY
GRAZING ALLOTMENTS
-------
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: BLM 1988b.
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.
2399S/R4-T371.372 1/31/97(3:36 PM)/RPT77
-------
TABLE 3.7-3
LOWER LISBON GRAZING ALLOTMENT ROTATION
Pasture
1
2
3
I1
Dec. 1-
MarchSl
May 1 -
May 31
April 1 -
April 30
2
Dec. 1 -
March 31
April 1-
April 30
May 1 -
May 31
Year
3
Dec. 1-
Marcb.31
May 1 -
May 31
April 1 =
April 30
4
Dec. 1-
March31
April 1-
April 30
May 1 -
May 31
1 Year 1 began on December 1,1987.
Source: BLM 1988b.
23996/R4-T.373 2/5/97(8:52 AMVRPT/7
-------
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.
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, graying use may occur 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).
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 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.
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.
3.8.1 Study Area
This section describes existing conditions and
recent trends in Grand and San Juan counties in
Utah, since 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 site, 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.
3.82.1 Grand County
Grand County's local economy has undergone
significant swings since the late 1970s. Recent
trends can be primarily attributed to the rise (hi
the 1950's) and subsequent decline of the uranium
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 hi 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
23996/R4-WP.3B 02-05-97(l'0:51pm)/RPT/8
3-71
-------
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 1995a,
23W&TM-T.J74 1/31/97(3:38 PMVRMY7
-------
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.
3-73
23996/R4-T.37S 1/31/97(3:39 PMyRPT/7
-------
15.5 percent that same year. With a number of
sectors relatively thriving, Grand County enjoyed
a low unemployment rate.
The study area's economy showed significant signs
of a slow down as the market in uranium 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 the home of Arches
National Park, and provides a gateway to the
northern sections of Canyonlands National Park,
located within San Juan County. In addition, the
Moab Ranger District of the Manti-La Sal
National Forest is primarily located in Grand
County. Dead Horse Point State Park is also
located within Grand County. Visitation to the
National Parks has doubled since 1986. In 1994
alone, 1.2 million tourists visited these two parks.
In addition to the National and State Parks and
Forest, public lands (BLM) within 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 hi 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 hi 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).
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 milling comprised a
significant portion of the employment and
earnings in the county in the 1970s through the
early 1980s. With changes in federal energy
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, one of Utah s
largest uranium mills, located near La Sal in the
study area, significantly curtailed its operations,
resulting hi 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. Canyonlands National
Park is located entirely within San Juan County,
as is the Monticello Ranger District of the Manti-
LaSal National Forest. Additionally, the eastern
portions of Glen Canyon National Recreation
Area are located within San Juan County. An
increased interest in the county's terrain and in
outdoor activities on BLM public lands have also
23996/R4-WP.3B 02-05-97(10:51pm)/RPT/8
3-74
-------
14.0
12.0
10.0
0.0
Figure 3.8-1
Unemployment Rate (%)
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
• •*• • -Grand
County
•• — San
Juan
County
-A—State of
Utah
23996/R4-FIG.S3 2/6/97(10:51 AMJ/RPT/S
-------
2500
Figure 3.8-2
Industry Trends in Grand County: 1978-1994
D Trade
E3 Services
• Mining
Year
-------
Figure 3.8-3
Industry Trends in San Juan County: 1990-1994
03 Trade
B Services
• Mining
23996/R4-F1G.S3 2/4/97(7:55 PM)/RPT/8
3-77
-------
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 373 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%) (SEUAOG
1995).
Given the shift in the Study Area economy from
higher paving 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).
3.83 Population
Grand and San Juan Counties followed different
population patterns (see Figure 3.8-5). Since
1981, Grand County experienced a constant
decline in population. Grand County's population
peaked in 1981 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 fallen 19.7 percent to
6,620. San Juan County, on the other hand,
maintained a fairly even population during that
period. In 1981, San 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 (SEUAOG 1994).
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 (SEUAOG 1995). This
growth is projected due to increased retirement
and "urban flight" 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 County 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
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).
23996/R4-WP.3B 02-05-97(10:51pm)/RPT/8
3-78
-------
Figure 3.8-4
Average Annual Wages ($)
25,000
20,000
• - -Grand
County
— San
Juan
Comity
! State of
Utah
1975
1980
1985
1990
1994 (est)
23996/R4-F1G.S3 2/4/97(7:55 PM)/RPT/8
-------
Figure 3.8-5
Population Trends in San Juan and Grand Counties: 1980-1994
• Grand County
El San Juan County
Year
.•3-
23S96TO4.F1G.S3 2/4/97(7:55 PMVRPT/8
-------
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 (Easter) 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 La 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).
Data are not available for housing availability in
the town of La Sal, but due to the relative
smallness of the community, available housing is
likely in short supply. If a mine construction
contractor is brought in to the area for mine
development, it is likely many would live in La
Sal, due to the nearness of the community to the
mine site. Such workers may be prone to living
in trailers for the relatively short duration of time
required for mine construction. Such workers are
typically mobile, and would be expected to move
out when construction is complete.
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 will 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 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 also provided at the
Allen Memorial Hospital (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 city and county police services 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
23996/R4-WP.3B 02-05-97(10:51pm)/RPT/8
3-81
-------
tourist-related and concentrated during the spring
and summer months. According to interviews
with key personnel hi the city and countywide
offices, permanent residents are well served and
demands on each department are at or 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
Conservancy 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
Conservancy District does not treat water, but
does supply water to those outside of the City 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, primarily to
meet demand created by the increasing tourism
industry. 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 and tourism increases
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 an increase
hi 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
hi MonticeUo employs licensed physicians,
PA/NPs, LPNs, and registered nurses and offers
acute and extended care. Emergency care service
is provided by .the Blanding Birthing
Center/Urgent Care Center hi Blanding, which is
located less than 30 miles from Monticello
(SEUAOG 1995).
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 19%; Ewart 1996).
Fire protection is served by a minimum of 20 paid
and volunteer firefighters year round (Slade
19%). Law enforcement and fire protection
services are 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 modem and have the
capacity to handle additional growth (Rodstrom
19%; Zufelt 19%).
Water Supply and Wastewater Treatment
Monticello and residents within 15 miles of the
city receive water and water treatment from the
City of Monticello. Those businesses and
residents outside of the City's range rely upon
23996/R4-WP.3B 02-05-97(10:51pm)/RPT/8
3-82
-------
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. Lands available for
enjoyment include Arches and Canyonlands
National Parks, the Manti La Sal National Forest,
as well as considerable areas administered by the
BLM. 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 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.
Based on discussions with various leaders within
the affected communities, there is a perception
that 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
within the Navajo Indian Reservation (SEUAOG
1995).
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, have had only limited success,
primarily due to the remoteness of the area and
isolation from main regional travel corridors.
Such continued efforts in the future, if successful,
could improve the quality of life for many
residents, by providing affordable housing that
could be more within reach of service sector
wages, and by providing higher paying jobs in
industries other than recreation and tourism.
Most County and local officials are unanimous in
their position to provide methods to diversify the
economic bases of the two counties.
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.
23996/R4-WP.3B 02-05-97(10:51pm)/RPT/8
3-83
-------
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
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.
23996/R4-WP.3B 02-05-97(10:51pm)/RPT/8
3-84
-------
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 1995.
23996/R4T39-1.XLS 1/31/97(3:39 PM)/RPT/5
Sheet 1 of 1
-------
TABLE 3.9-2
ACCIDENT HISTORY - HIGHWAYS IN THE STUDY AREA
Highway
Accidents Accidents Accidents
1986 1990 1994
U.S. 191 Moab to La Sal Junction
38
36
48
U.S. 191 Monticello to La Sal Junction
31
48
55
State Route 46 east of U.S. 191
U.S. 666 east of Monticello
21
17
Source: Utah Department of Transportation 1995.
UWR4T39-2.XLS I/3I/97039PMVRFT/5
Sheet 1 of 1
-------
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 mining or ranching activities, and dispersed
recreation in the local area. Road maintenance
on county roads in the project area is the
responsibility of San Juan County, which handles
grading, maintenance, 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 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 site 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 hi 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 site.
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 present.
Table 3.10-1 provides a list of all agencies and
related data sources consulted, and results of the
survey.
23996/R4-WP.3B 02-05-97(IO:51pm)/RPT/8
3-87
-------
OO
00
TABLE 3.10-1
GOVERNMENT AGENCIES AND DATA SOURCES CONSULTED REGARDING POTENTIAL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
Agency Data Source
Type of Sites Tracked
Active waste sites being investigated by EPA
Permitted facilities that generate hazardous wastes
EPA Permit Compliance System -
PCS Database
EPA Facility Index System -
(FINDS) Database
UDEQ UST Facilities Database Registered underground storage tanks
UDEQ LUST Facilities Database
UDEQ Closed Landfills List
Leaking underground storage tank facilities
Closed Landfills in Utah
EPA - U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
UDEQ - Utah Department of Environmental Quality
Sites in Lisbon Valley
Distance
from Project Agency Comments
EPA Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and
Liability Information System
(CERCLIS) Database
EPA Resource Conservation and
Recovery Information System
(RCRIS) Database
EPA Toxic Release Inventory System- Data on reported releases of hazardous compounds None
(TRIS) Database
Rio Algom Mine
Keystone Pit
9 miles
Smiles
Hecla Mine 8 miles
Unocal Lisbon Plant #28 6 miles
Facilities with NPDES wastewaste discharge permits None
Master list of all EPA regulated facilities
N/A
N/A
No further remedial action planned
No further remedial action planned
None
None
None
None
Homestake Mines
Hecla Mine
Unocal Storage Tanks
Unocal Lisbon Station
Keystone Pit
Rio Algom Mine
Atlas -Pandora Mine
Rio Algom Mine
UMETCOLaSalMine
Unocal Lisbon Plant #28
Rio Algom Mine
San Juan Co., La Sal, UT
7 miles
8 miles
6 miles
6 miles
Smiles
9 miles
12 miles
9 miles
12 miles
6 miles
9 miles
14 miles
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
23W6/R4TMO-I.XLS l»l»7(5:26PM)/8PT/6
-------
3.103 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 west, 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 sites are located on or within five miles of
the project site.
An oil and gas field has been developed by
UNOCAL in Lisbon Valley to the northwest 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.
3.10.3 Anticipated Use of Hazardous
Materials
The various chemicals that would be used at the
Lisbon Valley Project and the annual quantities
needed are discussed in Section 2.2.5 and
summarized in Table 2-5.
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 hi the
future.
3.11 CULTURAL AND PALEONTO-
LOGICAL RESOURCES
Cultural resource data for the study area, shown
on Figures 3.11-la and 3.11-lb, 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;
O'Neil 1996). A Class HI cultural resources
inventory was conducted for that portion of the
Project Area that was identified as being most
likely to be directly impacted by the project. This
included the proposed powerline corridor and
associated access roads. Information on more
recent Native American and Euro-American use
in the study area was collected from the literature
and knowledgeable individuals (Black et al. 1981;
Black 1996; O Neil 1996; Louthan 1996; Metcalf
1996; Nebecker 1996; Roring 1996).
Paleontological data for the project were
compiled through a review of the literature, and
consultation with and field investigations by the
BLM Moab District 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 (Figures 3.11-la and 3.11-lb) includes:
• Paleoindian/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. 700 B.P.
• Protohistoric/Historic Period 700 B.P. -
present
Paleontological resources in the region consist of
vertebrate fossils that are found hi the Morrison
and the Burro Canyon Formations.
23996/R4-WP.3B 02-05-97(10:51pm)/RPT/8
3-89
-------
•ULJr
PROJECT BOUNDARY
CULTURAL RESOURCES STUDY AREA
SOURCE: GRAHAM 1995a.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
STUDY AREA
(MINE AREA)_
FIG.3.H-1a
Prepared by :
0 1750 3500
••o»^=
SCALE IN FEET
-------
HATCH r
SUBSTATION'
*«i
CUlfURAL RESOURCES STUDY AREA.
FOR POWERUNE AND ACCESS ROADS-
I LISBON VALLEY!
^PROJECT
HEAP LEACH PAD J
W
I
NOTETHECULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEY AREA COVERED
A 100 FT. WIDE CORRIDOR ALONG THE POWERLINE ROUTE gi,
AND ACCESS ROADS
V
^C^W
ADAPTED FROM GOCHNOUR 19966.
2500 5000
10000
SCALE IN FEET
Job No. : 23996
Prepared by :
Dote :
2/15/96
CULTURAL RESOURCES STUDY AREA
(POWERLINE CORRIDOR)
FIG.3.11-1b
-------
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 TO. 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 HI) was
conducted of the proposed mining and processing
area, and the transmission line corridor and
associated new access roads (Figures 3.11-la and
3.11-lb). Approximately 3,640 acres 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 (IPs) 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. In such areas, 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 these areas, IF forms were
completed for tools found alone. 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, 160
are prehistoric, 14 are historic, and 4 contain both
prehistoric and historic materials. 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.
NAGPRA also requires Native American groups
be consulted before a permit for site excavation
under the Archaeological Resources Protection
Act 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 site was initially
identified as being a possible vision quest site.
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
traditional 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. In June 1996,
additional letters were sent to the following
organizations: the Southern Ute Indian Tribe, the
Paiute Consortium, the Zuni Tribe, Acoma
23996/R4-WP.3B 02-OS-97(10:51pm)/RlT/8
3-92
-------
Pueblo, Laguna Pueblo, the Navajo Nation, the
Paiute Tribe of Utah, and the Utah State Office
of Indian Affairs. Followup letters were sent on
October 7, 1996 to the Southern Ute Indian
Tribe, the Paiute Tribe of Utah, the Zuni Tribe,
Acoma Pueblo, and Laguna Pueblo. Followup
phone contacts were made with the Hopi, Ute
Mountain Ute and other tribes also. 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.
Based on consultation efforts undertaken for this
EIS, three separate project site visits have been
conducted with Native American groups: the
Northern Ute Indian Tribe in March 1996; and
the Hopi Tribe and Ute Mountain Tribes in
October 1996. Responses from these tribal
groups to date have not identified any traditional
cultural properties in the proposed project area.
Follow up contacts with the other tribal groups
have either been unsuccessful, or provided no
comments or additional information on traditional
cultural properties 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 was originally recorded as a
vision quest site (42SA22947). Native American
consultation has provided a different
interpretation of this site. The outcome of the
consultation is such that this site is no longer
considered a traditional cultural property.
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
intensively 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 Hill 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 Hill 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 Trail were found during
the cultural resources inventory of the project
area (Metcalf 1996).
Evaluation of Significance
Prehistoric and historic sites are considered
significant if they are listed in or eligible for
listing hi the NRHP. When so determined, they
are termed historic properties. By definition, EFs
are usually not considered for listing. To be
considered for listing, a site must possess integrity
of location, design, setting, materials,
workmanship, feeling, and association and meet
one or more of the following criteria, as found in
36CFR§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 significant and
distinguishable entity whose components may
lack individual distinction; or
23996/R4-WP.3B 02-05-97(10:51pm)/RPT/8
3-93
-------
(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 site 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 location. Guidelines for
determining significance and NRHP eligibility of
traditional cultural properties have been prepared
by the National Park Service (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 ceremonial use is protected
by the American Indian Religious Freedom Act
(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.
No sites in the study area are currently listed on
the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP).
Archaeologists have recommended 23 sites as
being potentially eligible to the NRHP, and the
remaining 155 sites _as being not eligible for
listing. The 186 IPs are not eligible by definition.
All of these 23 sites are recommended eligible for
listing in the NRHP, under criterion (d) of 36
CFR 60.4. The 23 potentially eligible sites are
listed in Table 3.11-1. The BLM and the Utah
State Historic Preservation Officer have consulted
in making final eligibility determinations, and
have concurred on these findings.
3.11.3 Paleontological Resources
To gain an understanding of the nature of the
affected environment regarding paleontological
resources, general data concerning the occurrence
of likely fossiliferous 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. No fossil remains
were found in any of the areas investigated
(Rasmussen 1996).
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 (Kuntz et al. 1989).
23996/R4-WP.3B 02-05-97(10:51pm)/RPT/8
3-94
-------
TABLE 3.11-1
NATURAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE CULTURAL
RESOURCES SITES IN THE STUDY AREA
SITE NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
CULTURAL
PERIOD
INITIAL
RECOMMENDATION
42SA10270
42SA16865
42SA22821
42SA22822
42SA22828
42SA22844
42SA22848
42SA22863
42SA22864
42SA22871
42SA22875
42SA22895
42SA22896
42SA22904
42SA22919
42SA22926
42SA22935
42SA22945
42SA22948
42SA22949
42SA22957
42SA22959
42SA23016
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
rockshelter/lithic scatter
rockshelter/lithic scatter
lithic scatter/pinyon
procurement
lithic scatter
lithic scatter/rockshelter
camp
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
Archaic-Late
Prehistoric
unknown
Paleoindian-Archaic
unknown
Avoidance
Avoidance
Avoidance
Avoidance
Avoidance
Avoidance
Avoidance
Avoidance
Avoidance/Consultation
Avoidance
Avoidance
Avoidance
Avoidance/Consultation
Avoidance
Avoidance
Avoidance
Avoidance
Avoidance
Avoidance
Avoidance/Consultation
Avoidance
Avoidance
Avoidance
SOURCE: Graham 1995a
335
23996/R4-T3.111 2/4/97(7:46 PM)/RPT/7
-------
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.
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.
3.122 Visual Characteristics
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 consequence 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 Wood's 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 from or add noticeably to the scenic
quality. Much of Lisbon Valley was chained 40 or
50 years ago to remove the trees and sagebrush
areas plowed to create the 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 corner 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 BLM public lands, with
a few parcels of State and privately 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.
23996/R4-WP.3B 02-05-97(10:51pm)/RPT/8
3-96
-------
Figure 3.12-1
GTO Pit Area, looking east
Figure 3.12-2
Lisbon Spring area, with rock outcrops
coniferous/deciduous trees
23996/R4-3.PHO ll/ll/96(l:47PMyRPT/5
-------
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
239«/R4-3,PHO 11/11/96(1:47 PMVRPT/5
-------
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, located in northeastern
San Juan County, Utah (Figure 1-1), 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 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 State of Utah School and Institutional Trust
Lands Administration. San Juan County manages
the county road transportation network in and
near the project area, and also has jurisdictional
involvement with all overall land development
proposals within the 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.
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 Grand 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 acres)
open to mining claims for beatable 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 Grand RMP/EIS
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 right-of-way
(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 (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
23996/R4-WP.3B 02-05-97(10:51pm)/RPT/8
3-99
-------
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/WUTU-42733
powerline R/W UTUO-94810
powerline R/W UTU-48443
Public Water
Public Water Reserve
R/W
and reservoir site
12' total width
100' total width
25' total width
40 acres
160 acres
2.24 acres
T. 30 S., R. 26 E.
Section 31
pipeline R/W UTU-42733
12' total width
Source: von Koch 1996.
Z399&U4-T3.131 1/31/97(3:49 PMyRFT/7
-------
for the trust lands, consistent with sound
management practices (Stokes 1996a).
Land management decisions on lands within San
Juan County are guided by county land use plans
and zoning ordinances and regulations. San Juan
County finalized the new County Master Plan on
July 8, 1996 (Scherick 1996). The current plan
supports economic development activities in
Lisbon Valley which is currently zoned for
industrial use.
Transportation and Utility Corridors
Transportation and utility corridors in the Project
Area include several oil and gas pipelines, access
roads, and powerlines (Table 3.13-1). Access to
the Project Area is by an unpaved San Juan
County-maintained road (County Road 113),
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 hi 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 1995a). Details concerning
historical mining, current minerals development,
and planned mining development in the area are
provided in Section 3.1.5.
Residential Use
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 hi 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 mean sea level
(MSL) in the northwest section of the Colorado
Plateau of Utah. The site is hi 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 hi 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.
Site precipitation is expected to be similar to the
record collected at Monticello (Ah- Sciences
1995). Precipitation data from 1951 to 1980 are
presented hi Table 3.14-2 and show an average
annual precipitation of 14.41 inches. The highest
percentage of the annual precipitation occurs
during July, August, September, and October hi
the form of high intensity, short duration,
convective thunderstorms that can produce high
peak flows hi the ephemeral channels that drain
the proposed project area and flow into Lisbon
Canyon and Mclntyre Canyon. As a result, most
of the precipitation runs off and does not
infiltrate the ground. Annual snowfall at
Monticello is over 54 inches and occurs from
December through March. The gradual spring
snowmelt runoff, combined with the low intensity
rainfall that occurs during March, April, and May
likely contributes the greatest quantity of annual
infiltration to the ground.
Site evaporation is represented by regional
information available hi the National Oceanic and
23996/R4-WP.3B 02-05-97(10:51pm)/RPT/8
3-101
-------
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
Data are from 1951-1980 per NOAA1992.
SOURCE: Air Sciences 1995.
23996/R4-T3.I41 1/31/970:51 PMVRPT/7
-------
TABLE 3.14-2
MONTHLY PRECIPITATION AND SNOWFALL
MONTICELLO, UTAH1
Month
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
Total
Precipitation Average (in.)
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
Sno\vfall 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 NOAA1992.
SOURCE: Air Sciences 1995.
23996/R4-T3.I42 1/31/97(1/3 l/97)\RPT/7
-------
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 hi
Grand Junction, Colorado, and used in the permit
application submitted on behalf of Summo to the
Utah Division of Air Quality (DAQ) (Air
Sciences 1996a). 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 Figure
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 percent calms
(no wind) and an average speed of 73 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
little industrial activity or urbanization that could
affect the natural, rural air quality conditions.
The nearest industrial project which would be a
source of particulates, the contaminant of
concern, is the Rio Algom uranium mine. It is
about 12 miles to the north, and is currently
inactive but could restart. Regardless, emissions
from these facilities would not reach the Lisbon
Valley site in sufficient concentrations to be
considered more than negligible. Active projects
emitting particulates in the region also are small
and more distant, and emissions from these
projects would not impact the project site (Air
Sciences 1996a).
Baseline air pollutant concentrations at the
Lisbon Valley Project location were estimated
based on regional information (Air Sciences
1996a). Baseline concentrations of combustion
gases are assumed to be at natural background
levels, or negligible. Particulate 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 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 hi Moab due to the
lack of industrial activity nearby. The annual
average PMi0 concentration hi 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 hi 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 hi 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.
23996/R4-WP.3B 02-05-97(10:Slpm)/RPT/8
3-104
-------
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
Job No. : 23996
Prepared by : CRP
NNE
NE
ENE
20%
ESE
SE
AVERAGE WIND SPEED = 7.3 KNOTS
SOURCE: AIR SCIENCE INC. 1996a.
Date :
2/13/96
WIND FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION
3-/os
FIG. 3.14-1
-------
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 and 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 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 Grand RMP (BLM 1985a) contains no plans
for recreation development hi 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 hi this area; this is the only area in the
region where recreational activities are not
increasing (Van Hemert 1996, Stokes 1996b).
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
site is the Wind Whistle Campground located
approximately 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 hi these areas
include hiking, biking, camping, picnicking,
horseback riding, rock climbing, fishing, boating,
sightseeing, and a variety of others. In the whiter,
these areas are used for cross-country siding and
snowmobiling (Multi-Agency Visitors Center
1995).
23996/R4-WP.3B 02-05-97(10:51pm)/RPT/8
3-106
-------
4.0
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
The baseline conditions discussed in Section 3.0
would be impacted by from the Proposed Action,
or the alternatives, as described in Section 2.0, if
such are approved for implementation. This
section discusses Environmental Consequences
from impacts to each of the resources addressed.
No specific impact assessment methodology
applies to all resources. In general, however, the
context, magnitude, and intensity of the impact is
discussed, in quantitative fashion where possible,
in accordance with NEPA, CEQ and BLM
guidelines. The analysis also compares and
contrasts the impacts among alternatives.
Summo's committed mitigation and monitoring
measures, as detailed in Section 2.0 and Appendix
A, are also used as a framework against which
impacts are assessed.
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.
Sections 4.18-4.20 address other NEPA
requirements related to unavoidable adverse
impacts, short-term vs long-term productivity, and
irreversible or irretrievable resource
commitments.
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 hi 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 of mineral resources from pit
backfilling (i.e., if the Open Pit Backfilling
Alternative is implemented). This section
addresses the potential impacts from a geologic
standpoint from implementing the Proposed
Action or various alternatives.
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.
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 96,141,000 cu yds (139,700,000
tons) of material: 31,098,00 cu yds (42,600,000
tons) of ore and 65,043,000 cu yds (97,100,000
tons) of waste rock. Approximately 124,100 cu
yds (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 715 acres,
respectively.
Four geotechnical impacts are possible under the
Proposed Action: slope failure due to seismic
events, exceedance of the solution pond volume,
leach pad liner breach, and foundation settling.
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
23996/R4-WP.4A 02-04-97<7:36pm)/RPT/8
4-1
-------
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. Large magnitude failure of the heap
leach pad slopes onto surrounding land has the
potential to cause 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. Since lift
slopes on the leach pad would be stacked at the
ore material's angle of repose (when the natural
factor of safety is 1) and benched to a more
stable overall slope, potential exists for small scale
failures on individual lifts. Minor slope failures
usually fail onto the bench below and do not pose
environmental impacts or threaten overall
stability. Regular maintenance is employed to
clear minor slope failures. Similar small-scale
failures may occur on waste dump slopes, which
do not affect overall stability. Regular
maintenance should be employed to minor waste
dump failures as well. Blasting operations in the
pit would have the potential to stabilize slopes
within the pit by subjecting them to acceleration
during blasting, thereby resulting in the slopes
forming an unloaded angle of repose.
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 1996a). These measures reduce the
probability of leach pad failure and contaminant
release.
Additionally, potential slope failures at the waste
rock dumps were also modeled (Welsh 1996b).
Given the relatively flat topography and lack of
continual meteoric water from precipitation
events, slope stability and mass wasting are not
expected to be problems.
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 have been sized to
accommodate precipitation volumes that should
not be exceeded in 100 years (Welsh 1996a). The
pond design also assumed such an event would
occur at the end of a "wet cycle". 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 several 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 6-inch layer of natural fine-
grained clay material underlain by an eight-ounce
geotextile 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
23956/R4-WP.4A 02-04-97(7:36pm)/RIT/8
4-2
-------
environment. To prevent this, a construction
quality assurance/quality control (CQA/QC)
program would be implemented to ensure welding
integrity during construction and a continuous
lining system.
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 and the surrounding grade level, adjacent
flora and fauna would not be directly impacted.
Foundation Settling
Foundation material in a loose (i.e.,
uncompacted) state would settle under a heap
leach pad during and after loading with ore.
Settlement below the pad could potentially
influence the drainage of solution to the ponds,
and in extreme events, may tear geomembrane
components of the lining system. To minimize
the potential for such impacts, compaction of
foundation materials is conducted during
construction, such that large differential
settlement would not occur, and drainage and
geomembrane integrity would be preserved.
For geotechnical impacts that have a chance for
soil and groundwater contamination below the
pad, leak detection and collection system have
been designed for added safety to the
environment.
4.1.2.2 Committed and Recommended
Mitigation
Committed Mitigation
The geotechnical design proposed for the Lisbon
Valley Project incorporates engineering
considerations to the maximum extent possible to
reduce potential for slope failure, solution pond
overfill, liner failure, and foundation settling.
Among other considerations, a leak detection
system would be installed to monitor leaks below
the leach pad, should they occur. A leak
collection system would augment the leak
detection system underneath the solution pond
liners, by collecting and transporting solution
away from the ponds to temporary storage
facilities if leakage occurs. Additionally, to ensure
liner integrity, a CQA/QC program would be
developed and implemented during liner
construction activities.
Recommended Mitigation
The authorized officer for BLM would monitor
construction and installation of the mine facilities.
The operator may be required to provide an
independent registered professional engineer to
review or monitor portions of the CQA/QC
program (such as, but not limited to, the
installation of the liner and leak detection
system).
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 hi the
topography. Project development on private and
State lands only is infeasible. Moreover, this
alternative would leave historic mining
disturbances hi their current condition. 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., heap leach pad) would not be
developed. In addition, existing waste rock dumps
from previous mining activities would remain on
site in then- current angle-of-repose configuration.
4.1.4 Open Pit Backfilling Alternative
Under this alternative, the partial or complete
filling of the pits would have topographic and
future mineral development impacts. The
topographic impact would be the reduction in the
23996/R4-WP.4A 02-04-97(7:36pm)/RPT/8
4-3
-------
height and areal extent of the waste rock dumps,
the degree to which is dependent on either the
partial or complete backfilling scenario. The
future development of the currently identified
uneconomical copper resources at depth would
likely become 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 (i.e., 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).
Complete backfilling of the four pits would re-
establish maximum usable topography, and
significantly reduce visual impacts to the area.
Partial backfilling would have the same impacts
only to a lesser degree.
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.
The project would end up with three reclaimed
dumps sites as opposed to four.
For geotechnical issues, implementation of this
alternative would result in the relocation of the
waste rock from Waste Dump D to the remaining
three waste dumps, primarily 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
areal size of Waste Dump C would involve
approximately the same acreage, but would be
about 70 ft higher on the hill north of the
Centennial Pit than under the Proposed Action.
The additional material placed in Waste Dumps
A and B would have only a minor impact in
increasing the height of those two dumps. As
such, the potential impacts from implementing
this alternative from a geotechnical standpoint are
slightly greater regarding slope stability impacts
than those under the Proposed Action.
4.1.6 Waste Rock Selective Handling
Alternative
From a geologic and geotechnical standpoint,
there would be no change in the impacts or
consequences from the discussion provided under
the Proposed Action. Refer to Section 4.3
concerning geochemistry impacts associated with
this alternative.
Under this alternative, no change of
environmental consequences from those under the
Proposed Action would occur.
HYDROLOGY
The primary goals of the hydrologic 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 quality
• Potential land subsidence from groundwater
extraction
• 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
23996/R4-WP.4A 02-04-97(7:36pm)/RPT/8
4-4
-------
The quality of water potentially ponded in the
pits following operations
Cumulative impacts of the project on future
uses of surface water and groundwater
43.1 Methodology
Potential impacts to water resources have been
estimated using the existing information discussed
in Sections 3.1 - Geology, 3.2 - Hydrology, 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.
In an effort to obtain additional background water
quality and quantity data, groundwater monitoring
wells MW96-7A and MW96-7B were completed
in the Burro Canyon Formation and
Entrada/Navajo Sandstone respectively, during
September, 1996. Data from these wells showed
a strong downward vertical gradient which
indicated that portions of the formations between
the Burro Canyon and Entrada/Navajo aquifers
may be unsaturated (Adrian Brown Consultants,
1996c). This information confirmed data
collected from borehole 95R1, drilled near the
same location in June, 1995, and as a result, the
groundwater modeling parameters used to predict
pre- and post-mining groundwater elevations in
the Burro Canyon and Entrada/Navajo aquifers
were modified from a system dominated by
horizontal flow to a system dominated by vertical
flow. Use of the vertically dominated modeling
parameters were further supported by the highly
compartmentalized nature of the Lisbon Valley
groundwater system. The post-mining pit lake
depths shown in this FEIS (Table 4.2-1) are
different from those presented in the "May, 1996
DEIS (Figure 4.2-4)", and reflect the results of
the revised modeling parameters.
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 to levels exceeding drinking water
standards (other than those parameters which
currently exceed standards); or loss of wildlife
habitat due to contamination or loss of resources.
422 Proposed Action
This section discusses potential direct and indirect
impacts to water resources from the Proposed
Action (Section 2.2), highlights committed,
mitigation, and recommends additional mitigation
measures. Two cases-were considered under the
Proposed Action: Case 1 involves maintenance of
a permanent surface water diversion around the
Sentinel Pit after mining, with no recharge to the
pit. In this case, current surface flow rates would
be maintained in Lisbon Canyon. Case 2 involves
surface water diversion and recharge to the
Sentinel Pit from up-valley runoff after mining
ceases. In this case, all surface runoff from
Lisbon Valley, upstream of the mouth of Lisbon
Canyon, would be permanently diverted into the
Sentinel pit. Approximately 177 acre feet of
surface water would be lost to the Lisbon Canyon
drainage each year. Case 2 provides an additional
recharge source to groundwater via the Sentinel
Pit, while Case 1 does not.
Potential impacts for Case 1 and Case 2 are
discussed below under specific impact topics.
422.1 Impacts
Potential Impacts from Dewatering
Groundwater. Potential impacts common to both
Case 1 and Case 2 are discussed first, followed by
impacts specific to each case.
Under the Proposed Action approximately 6000
and 5250 acre feet of water would be removed
from the shallow (Burro Canyon) and deep
(Entrada/Navajo) aquifers respectively, over the
life of the project (Adrian Brown Consultants
1996c). This represents approximately 22% and
6% of the total available water in the shallow and
deep aquifers respectively (Adrian Brown
Consultants 1996e).
23996/R4-WP.4A 02-04-97C7:36pm)/RPT/8
4-5.
-------
TABLE 4.2-1
PREDICTED FINAL PIT WATER LEVELS
Pit Name
Pre-mining Ground Elevation (ft)
Original water table elevation (ft)
Final pit floor elevation (ft)
Predicted final water level elevation (ft) Case 1
Depth of floor below predicted pool surface (ft) Case 1
Predicted final water level elevation (ft) Case 2
Depth of floor below predicted pool surface (ft) Case 2
GTO
6490
6150
5880
6035
155
6079
199
Centennial
6440
6180
6060
6061
1
6144
84.
Sentinel
6460
6250
5960
6102
142
6280
320
Source: Adapted from Adrian Brown Consultants 1996c.
2399«/R4T,«l 1/31/97(5:24 PMVRPT/S
Sheet 1 of 1
-------
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 lower the water table in the
project area, increasing its depth and the costs of
extraction. It would also reduce availability of
groundwater in the immediate project area
(Adrian Brown Consultants 1996a). The shallow
aquifer would slowly recharge in * the years
following mining, however, groundwater elevations
in the vicinity of the open pits would never regain
pre-mining elevations due to horizontal and
vertical movement of recharge water to deeper
aquifers and the annual evaporation of recharge
water through the exposed pit walls and open pit
lakes.
Effects of dewatering and pit construction would
reduce the quantity of groundwater available from
the shallow aquifer hi the mine vicinity during the
mining operation and after mining ceases (Adrian
Brown Consultants 1996a). However, the
potential impacts are tempered by the following:
1) the shallow aquifer is currently not used for
any beneficial purposes, and 2) 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.
The consolidated nature of the Burro Canyon
aquifer materials indicates that significant land
subsidence due to groundwater extraction would
not occur.
Deep aquifer (Entrada/Navajo) water would also
be utilized for project requirements and dust
control. Depth to groundwater would increase
during the life of the project resulting in reduced
availability and increased costs to extract the
remaining groundwater, in the vicinity of the
project area, for a period of years after mining
ceases. The deep aquifer would slowly recharge
in the years following mining, however, initially,
less water would be available to move
downgradient of the project site, northeast,
toward the Dolores River. It is possible that
flows in the 'Dolores River could be affected,
however, the percentage of total flow La the
Dolores River contributed by the deep aquifer in
the Lisbon Valley area is very small and would
likely be undetectable.
Consumption of shallow and deep aquifer water
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 1996a). The results
of groundwater modeling indicate the long-term
net loss of shallow groundwater associated with
evaporation of post-mining pit lake water from
the Sentinel and GTO Pits following completion
of mining would be about 24 acre-feet/year
(Adrian Brown Consultants 1996a). 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 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 period
1985-1992 is about 115,835 acre-ft/year. As a
percentage of this river discharge, the discharge
potentially lost due to consumption of shallow and
deep aquifer water 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.
The southwest wall of the proposed GTO Pit
would expose approximately 300 to 400 feet of the
undifferentiated Cutler Formation. Well 94MW4,
drilled to a depth of 120 feet into the Cutler
Formation, well 94MW3, drilled to a depth of 500
feet into the Cutler Formation, and four
piezometers drilled 25 to 45 feet into the Cutler
Formation did not encounter water. Since the
Cutler Formation in the Lisbon Valley area is
23996/R4-WP.4A 02-04-97(7:36pm)/RPT/8
4-7
-------
known to have no significant aquifers (W-C 1982)
water would not be expected to be encountered in
the wall of the GTO Pit and therefore no
dewatering of the Cutler Formation would occur.
Springs. Dewatering of the shallow aquifer would
not impact the flow of the two known springs
(Lisbon and Huntley springs) in the area. Lisbon
Spring is located at an approximate elevation of
6,560 feet msl and occurs on the eastern limb of
the Lisbon Valley anticline. As such, the spring
is fault-separated (located on the upthrown side)
from the planned mine pits and the Burro Canyon
aquifer in the proposed pit areas. As discussed
previously, groundwater elevations for the Burro
Canyon aquifer in the proposed pit areas range
from 6,108 feet to 6,482 feet msl which are lower
in elevation than Lisbon Spring, and subsequently
provides no recharge to the spring.
Huntley Spring occurs west of Lisbon Valley fault
approximately 1,200 feet southwest of the GTO
pit. The spring appears to issue from a
permeable bed in the Permian Cutler Formation
at an approximate elevation of 6,700 feet msl.
The spring is fault-separated from the Burro
Canyon and Entrada/Navajo aquifers in the floor
of the Lisbon Valley where the proposed mining
would occur. Therefore, there would be no
impacts to the water quality or quantity of this
spring, which is located topographically higher
than the proposed pits.
Potential Impacts for Case 1
For Case 1 (maintain a permanent surface water
diversion around the Sentinel Pit), results of
groundwater modeling indicate that post-mining
steady-state groundwater elevations in the Burro
Canyon aquifer would be approximately 6,102;
6,061; and 6,035 feet above msl for the Sentinel,
Centennial, and GTO pit areas respectively, or
approximately 60 to 100 feet lower than pre-
mming elevations. Potentiometric surface maps
of the pre-mining and post-mining steady-state
groundwater elevations modeled for the Burro
Canyon aquifer are shown in Figures 42-1 and
42-2 (Adrian Brown Consultants 1996c).
As shown in Table 4.2-1, it is predicted that pit
lakes would develop to depths of approximately
142, 1, and 155 feet in the Sentinel, Centennial,
and GTO Pits respectively. These predicted
depths are approximately 178 feet, 83 feet, and 44
feet less, respectively, than the pit lake depths
predicted for Case 2 (Adrian Brown Consultants
1996c).
Case 1 post-mining steady-state pit lake elevations
are primarily a function of the amount of
groundwater removed during mining operations,
evaporation from the Sentinel, Centennial, and
GTO pits, and the naturally slow recharge of the
Burro Canyon aquifer.
Potential Impacts for Case 2
For Case 2 (maintain a permanent surface water
diversion into the Sentinel pit), results of
groundwater modeling indicate that post-mining
steady-state groundwater elevations in the Burro
Canyon aquifer would be approximately 6,280;
6,144; and 6,079 feet above msl for the Sentinel,
Centennial, and GTO pit areas respectively, or
approximately 20 to 40 feet lower than pre-mining
elevations. Potentiometric surface maps of the
pre-mining and post-mining steady-state
groundwater elevations modeled for the Burro
Canyon aquifer are shown in Figures 4.2-1 and
4.2-3 (Adrian Brown Consultants 1996c).
As shown in Table 4.2-1, it is predicted that pit
lakes would develop to depths of approximately
320, 84, and 199 feet in the Sentinel, Centennial,
and GTO pits respectively. These predicted
depths are approximately 178 feet, 83 feet, and 44
feet greater, respectively, than the pit lake depths
predicted for Case 1 (Adrian Brown Consultants
1996c).
Potential Impacts from Leachinp and Processing
Operations
Potential impacts discussed in this section apply
equally to both Case 1 and Case 2.
Groundwater extracted from the shallow Burro
Canyon aquifer and the deeper Entrada/Navajo
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,
23996/R4-WP.4A 02-04-97(7:36pm)/RPT/8
4-8
-------
C;;;vx<.
:|%^|^5?fji^;;;;
••;-''-r> ,--s.:; •••^£|>?:|'
>•,;••-.-,.: >:VW
*% ^i. " "'•• '
" W VA ^.i-^\l^«l^>1-.<•#.•• ••*':"»W>J V:-'
^V^te^^Ll^^ ^,ij :
^Siwffel^if >;p(r ^ •• •-
$&*
f
&*
u-
a
•.; ,^'(.. • i, •; ••.. • ../// • • ; - .:
pv',.../\S V% i'-."'Jl ^f'i ^N/ '-
V •-\V,:.-5..;-. '• ' •• 1.,..:xr i.. .,
>••..."•..) .; .">) . ' •' .
^ 'V//i'i'::---...x?-"'i ''( i >.'"-.
''Vv-
•7A.7C
i^™^
v-
.
0MUWI
X.
'
~\
•x.»,
^>-'
ifes.,;\ */ x
Ti
v '- •— '' ";• i n ')>'*•• '•'
LV<:V^4?' ^'
..S i-'j-'^'v
•••;:••> -.
--"
%t
,./
...'-'V'1
'".' ' •Canyon V;
Lisbon Valley Copper Project
SUMMO USA Corporation
QTOUNDWATER CONTOUR WTERVAL 20 FEET
amrnrnvat.
BURRO CANYON AQUFER
POTENTIOMETRfC SURFACE
PRE-MINING
-------
l\ . •' ,'• • • • .'&
."" •;;::.}; .-\!-.. ., •, . . .., .,:,^
BURRO CANYON ACHJIFER.
POTENTIOMETRIC SURFACE
POST-MINING, CASE 1
Usbon Valley Copper Project
SUMMO USA Corporation
GKOUNDWATER CONTOUR fJTERWL 20 FEET
-------
*:», IA
•wn-5^
••i\^--^
SOURCE: ADRIAN BROWN 1996c
BURRO CANYON AQUIFER
POTENTIOMETRIC SURFACE
POST-MINING, CASE 2
Lisbon valley Copper Project
SUMMO USA Corporation
GROUNDWOTER CONTOUR WTERVAL 20 FEET
-------
discharge of process waters to the environment
would not 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
2.2.12.2 and Appendix A. 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 4.2-4).
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, SX/EW facility, or conveyance
structures could potentially migrate to surface
water 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
which may be up to 400 feet bgs beneath the
leach pad. 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.
Potential Impacts from the Use of Groundwater
for Dust Control
The groundwater extracted from the shallow
Burro Canyon 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 SLV-3,
MW-2A, SLV-1A, 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
19%). However, according to the staff contacted
in the agencies listed in Section 3.23.3, and
informal communication between the Department
of Energy and BLM (Cornish 1996), no standards
exist for road watering or other industrial uses of
water containing elevated levels of radionuclides.
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 1996d). 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
23996/R4-WP.4A 02-04-97(7:36pm)/RPT/8
4-12
-------
Figure 4.2-4 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/FIG42-4.DOC 2/5/97(8:59 AM)/RPT/8
-------
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 tunes 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. Additionally, another analysis addressed
potential impacts from radon gas generated from
the use of Burro Canyon water for dust
suppression, and concluded that predicted
concentrations would be less than the national
average outdoor concentration for radon (Adrian
Brown Consultants 1996d).
Potential impacts to surface water drainages and
groundwater dust control activities are also
related to naturally elevated concentrations of
radionuclides, hi particular uranium and radon, 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.
Another evaluation addressed potential impacts to
surface water from storm runoff earning uranium
bearing sediments from haul roads watered with
Burro Canyon water. This study concluded that
the maximum concentration of uranium
suspended in stormwater runoff would be 0.058
mg/1, assuming an average suspended load of
1,000 mg/1. The maximum predicted
concentration (i.e., at end of mining in Year 10)
of uranium in stormwater runoff from haul roads
(0.058 mg/1) was significantly less than the
applicable one-day maximum discharge limit of
4.0 mg/1 for uranium under current regulations
(Adrian Brown Consultants 1996d).
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
(Adrian Brown Consultants 1996d).
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 hi transporting
contaminants hi most subsurface 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 would therefore
have little or no effect on vegetation and wildlife
hi that vicinity.
Potential Impacts to Water Uses
Currently, limited beneficial uses exist for water
resources in the project area. Surface runoff hi
the Lower Lisbon Valley area is impounded hi
two ponds, and used by wildlife and for livestock
watering (Sections 4.6 and 4.7). Because of
restricted access and facilities locations, the
Proposed Action would temporarily reduce the
availability of water for wildlife and livestock
purposes hi the immediate area of the mining
operations; however, ephemeral surface water
could be impounded elsewhere hi the valley.
Post-mining uses of Sentinel, Centennial, and
GTO Pit lake water could be limited by poor
water quality. Natural water quality hi the Burro
Canyon aquifer presently exceeds state drinking
water and agricultural use standards for various
constituents, including "gross alpha". In addition,
post-mining evapoconcentration could result hi
high pH and IDS along with high concentrations
of sulfate and several metal oxyanions (i.e.,
aluminum, arsenic, selenium, molybdenum,
manganese, iron, uranium, and zinc).
Potential Impacts for Case 1
For Case 1 (maintain a permanent surface water
diversion around the Sentinel Pit), there would be
no impacts to surface water quantity. Continued
conveyance of ephemeral surface water would
occur through Lisbon Canyon to the Dolores
River. However, the quality of pit lake water
ultimately filling the Sentinel pit via direct
precipitation and groundwater inflow, to a depth
of approximately 142 feet, would be impacted
without periodic surface water replenishment. As
described later under the discussion of pit lake
water quality, without influx of relatively good
quality surface water runoff into the Sentinel pit,
i the pH would likely rise along with increased
concentrations of TDS, sulfate and possibly
23996/R4-WP.4A 02-04-97(7:36pm)/WT/8
4-14
-------
several metal oxyanions, due to the
evapoconcentration process. For example, TDS
would likely reach concentrations of 3,000 to 5,000
mg/1 (i.e., gypsum solubility limit). Under this
case, evaporative concentration of mineral phases
including metal oxyanions, discussed previously in
Section 3.2, would be limited to some degree
because vertical leakage from the pit would
remove chemical mass from the system (Adrian
Brown Consultants 1996c). Because of the
potential geochemical complexity of the pit lake
system, accurate predictive modeling is not
possible and some uncertainty exists. Overall,
Case 1 could lead to poorer water quality in the
Sentinel Pit which would also be recharging the
shallow Burro Canyon aquifer and deeper
formations.
Additionally, strong downward vertical hydraulic
gradients would .allow water of poorer quality,
from pit lake recharge to the Burro Canyon
aquifer, to ultimately provide some recharge to
the deeper Entrada/Navajo aquifer. However,
due to dilution effects, negative impacts to
groundwater quality are likely to be minimal and
probably non-measurable for the deeper, thicker,
Entrada/Navajo aquifer.
Pit lake development of one foot of water is
predicted for the Centennial Pit. Water quality
would be similar to that of the Sentinel Pit.
Although the pit lake level may be only one foot,
there would be some potential to degrade
groundwater quality in the surrounding Burro
Canyon and Entrada/Navajo aquifers. Quality of
water sampled from the Centennial pit for April
1994 through November 1996 is shown in Table
3.2-1.
Potential impacts to pit lake water quality in the
GTO Pit, and ultimately to the Burro Canyon
aquifer and Cutler Formation would be the same
for both Case 1 and Case 2.
In both cases, GTO Pit lake water quality would
be similar to that discussed earlier for the
Sentinel and Centennial Pits. There would be
some potential to degrade groundwater quality in
the Burro Canyon aquifer near the GTO Pit, with
the probability of minimal impact to the Cutler
Formation and the deeper Entrada/Navajo
aquifer.
Potential Impacts for Case 2
The diversion of ephemeral surface water flows
from Lisbon Valley into the Sentinel No. 1 Pit
(following mining activities) would result in the
elimination of most ephemeral surface water flow
from Lisbon Valley into Lisbon Canyon (see
Figure 4.2-3). The quantity of natural ephemeral
surface water flows from lower Lisbon Valley,
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 average 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 (calculated using an annual
probability-weighted runoff approach which
established the annual runoff volume of 0.35
inches applied to a drainage basin area of 9.5
square miles (Adrian Brown Consultants, 1996a).
This annual volume of 177 acre-ft/year represents
about 0.08 percent of the discharge in the Dolores
River.
A district-wide riparian inventory, including the
Lisbon Canyon and East Coyote Wash stream
channels, was conducted in 1990 (Younker et al.,
1990). 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.
23996/R4-WP.4A 02-04-97(7:36pm)/RPT/8
4-15
-------
Without significant surface water or groundwater
recharge, the water quality in the post mining pit
lakes is expected to be potentially alkaline (pH of
8.0 or greater), with elevated sulfate and dissolved
solids concentrations (Adrian Brown Consultants
1996c). Analyses of other natural lakes and pits
from the Colorado Plateau region and the Great
Basin suggest that the post-mining pit lake waters
would undergo evapoconcentration, causing
concentrations of some metal oxyanions to
increase (BLM 1996a, Miller et al. 1996; Hamp et
al. 1995). Such increases may degrade existing
shallow groundwater quality. However, diversion
of ephemeral surface water flow into the Sentinel
Pit would result in better pit lake water quality
for this pit than in Case 1 since
evapoconcentration would not occur. Predictive
modeling indicates that IDS in the Sentinel Pit
would probably not exceed 500 mg/1, pH would
be near neutral, and metaloxyanion concentrations
would be low (Adrian Brown Consultants 1996c).
Post-mining uses of Sentinel Pit lake water would
be limited primarily by the quality of surface
runoff and of the natural shallow aquifer water.
Dilution of pit lake water with 177 ac-ft/yr of
higher quality surface runoff, significantly less
evapoconcentration, and migration of pit lake
water, with its accompanying dissolved
constituents, into the shallow aquifer, would result
in higher quality pit lake water than in Case 1.
Natural Burro Canyon aquifer water quality
presently exceeds State drinking water and
agricultural standards for various constituents,
including "gross alpha". It is possible that the
dilution of the pit lake water could result hi water
quality suitable for irrigation or livestock
watering.
For the GTO and Centennial Pits, predicted
water quality would be the same as that described
for Case 1. Opportunities for post-mining uses of
Centennial and GTO Pit lake water would be
approximately the same as for Case 1.
Potential Impacts to Water Supply Near Summit
Point
Property owners at Summit Point have indicated
an interest in building homes approximately six
miles south of the project site, in Section 20, T 31
S, R 26 E, near Summit Point. These individuals
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 1996a) and would thus separate the
area of the proposed homes from potential water
quality impacts in the mine area.
In addition, the area near the proposed homes is
underlain by the Dakota Sandstone, 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 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/Navajo
Sandstones in this area. Results of uranium
exploration that has occurred hi the Summit Point
area since the 1940's indicate that the base of the
Morrison Formation is approximately 800 feet bgs
(approximately 6,400 feet elevation). Assuming
the Summerville Formation (located between the
Morrison Formation and the Entrada Sandstone,
and typically 65 to 140 feet thick) is 100 feet thick,
the top of the Entrada Sandstone would be at an
elevation of approximately 6,300 feet. The
approximate elevation of the top of the Entrada
Sandstone hi monitoring well MW96-7B, located
at the proposed project site in Lisbon Valley, is
5,685 feet (Adrian Brown Consultants 1996b).
Since the Entrada/Navajo aquifer beneath the
Summit Point area could be approximately 600
feet higher hi elevation than the same aquifer hi
Lisbon Valley (due to faulting) it is unlikely that
water beneath Summit Point would be affected by
water from Lisbon Valley.
23996/R4-WP.4A 02-04-97(7:36pm)/RPT/8
4-16
-------
Data presented in Section 3.2 demonstrate that
the rock layers 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
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 homes. Therefore, no impacts
are expected to the quantity or quality of water
available for domestic uses west of the Lisbon
Valley fault in the area of the proposed homes,
even though steady-state groundwater elevations
for the Entrada/Navajo aquifer are predicted to
be slightly lower after mining in the lower Lisbon
Valley.
For Case 1, results of groundwater modeling
indicate that extracting groundwater from the
Entrada/Navajo aquifer would result in drawdown
of as much as 120 feet at the mine site, (see
Figure 4.2-5) and 20 to 40 feet in lower Lisbon
Valley (see Figures 4.2-6 and 4.2-7). For Case 2,
modeling results indicate that post-mming steady-
state water levels in the Entrada/Navajo aquifer
could be 10 to 20 feet higher than Case 1, due to
recharge from the Sentinel Pit (Adrian Brown
Consultants 1996c).
Potential Impacts from Increases in Erosion and
Sedimentation
For both Case 1 and Case 2, 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 to
mitigate this effect, as discussed in Section 4.2.2.2.
With respect to the Dolores River, the impacts of
increased sedimentation from the Lower Lisbon
Valley following mining are not expected to result
hi adverse impacts, 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 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.
Potential Impacts for Case 1
Following completion of mining and
discontinuance of mitigation measures, an
increase in sedimentation is likely in the lower
Lisbon Valley, Mclntyre Canyon, portions of the
Lisbon Valley in the disturbed area upstream of
the Sentinel Pit, and in Lisbon Canyon and
Coyote Wash, which are downstream of 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. Any increase in
sedimentation is not expected to be of a volume
that would result in channel realignment or
increase cutting in the ephemeral channels
downstream of the project site.
Potential Impacts for Case 2
Sedimentation effects for lower Lisbon Valley,
Mclntyre Canyon, and portions of Lisbon Valley
upstream of the Sentinel Pit would be the same
as described for Case 1. However, there would
be decreased sedimentation in Lisbon Canyon
downstream of the Sentinel Pit due to diversion
of ephemeral surface water flow into the pit.
Because ephemeral surface water flows from the
Lisbon Valley would be diverted into the Sentinel
Pit at the conclusion of mining in Case 2, creating
23996/R4-WP.4A 02-04-97C7:36pm)/RPT/S
4-17
-------
• ;•••-.. -. •••>•.
. - • i /v*5*7*« • t \ ( * ' m i . j
•••-rfrM^v;®
SOURCE: ADRIAN BROWN 1996c
Lisbon valley Copp«r Project
SUMMO USA Corporation
ENTRADA/NAVAJO AQUIFER
PREDICTED DRAWDOWN, YEAR 10
CASE 1 AND CASE 2
DRAWDOWN CONTOUR INTERVAL 20 FEET
-------
: •• $
«>-«*Ssa..riils>..; \JvjiY.i f jKx>:£^ -.'• vt;"..c>. r.fi. •••- i //:',„..../• .v . '•,
^SOURCE: ADRIAN BROWN 1996cfg
ENTRADA/NAVAJO AQUIFER
POTENTIOMETRIC SURFACE
PRE-MINING
Lisbon Valley Copper Project
SUMMO USA Corporation
-------
T";«»4«w4 «':'-"."•'••"•'.,:-... •!'.:'•'•
) SOURCE: ADRIAN BROWN 1996cS
Uabon Valley Copper Project
SUMMO USA Corporation
GROUNDVWreR CONTOUR NTERVAL 20 FEET
9 . tyo , »fo t
ENTRAOA/NAVAJO AQUIFER
POTENTIOMETRIC SURFACE
POST-MtNINQ. CASE 1
-------
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
(Figure 4.2-8).
While the increased sedimentation produced by
this erosion and downcutting would not affect
Lisbon Canyon, Coyote Wash, or the Dolores
River (because nearly 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.
Potential Impacts from Mining Across Lisbon
Canyon
Under the proposed action the Sentinel pit would
extend north, across the mouth of Lisbon Canyon,
cutting off the existing ephemeral stream channel
(See Figure 2-1). The existing channel conveys an
estimated 177 ac-ft of runoff water, from Upper
Lisbon Valley and Little Valley, through Lisbon
Canyon annually.
Approximately 3500 feet of existing deeply eroded
ephemeral stream channel, in the area of the
proposed Sentinel pit, would be rerouted under
the proposed action. Approximately 1000 feet of
the existing channel would be rerouted around the
north side of the Sentinel pit. The rerouted
channel would then rejoin tie existing channel
approximately 500 feet downstream of the mouth
of Lisbon Canyon. A portion of the rerouted
channel would be excavated (Figure 4.2-5).
Impacts would occur to stream channel alignment
by increasing channel length in channels flowing
south to north and decreasing channel lengths in
channels flowing north to south. Natural
adjustment of the rerouted stream channel would
occur as the channel attempted to regain its
former alignment. Streambank cutting and
increased erosion and deposition upstream and
downstream of the mouth of Lisbon Canyon could
occur. Even if the rerouted. channels were
designed using the best available technology long-
term maintenance could be problematic.
Potential Impacts to Surface Water and
Groundwater Quality from Waste Pumps
Existing water quality in the shallow Burro
Canyon aquifer is generally poor, with elevated
concentrations of several metals, sulfate, and
TDS. Potential adverse impacts to groundwater
quality would be expected to be limited because
of the low acid-generating potential of the waste
rock materials.
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 waste
dumps. However, results of Method 1312
Synthetic Precipitation Leaching Procedure tests
(McClelland Laboratories, Inc. 1996), which used
sulfuric acid to simulate geochemical conditions
that can develop in mine wastes exposed to the
environment, indicate that only aluminum and
iron would be teachable 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 to surface water or
groundwater quality.
If alkaline conditions develop in the waste rock
dumps, other metals (i.e., oxyanions) could leach
as discussed in Sections 3.2 and 4.2.2.1. However,
substantial impacts to surface water and
groundwater quality are not expected.
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 could occur as a result of
runoff of water from waste rock piles. The
potential for these impacts to surface water
quality to occur is low because diversions are
designed to minimize the potential for surface
water run-on to or runoff from the waste rock
piles.
23996/R4-WP.4A 02-04-97(7:36pm)/RPT/8
4-21
-------
Figure 4.2-8 Existing erosion and downcutting in vicinity of the proposed leach pad and
facility area, just upstream from the mouth of Lisbon Canyon.
23996/R4.4 11/14/96(12:44 AMyRPT/S
-------
Potential Impacts from Post-Mining Pit Lakes
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 Pit has
not been sampled, but may be of poorer quality
than that in the Centennial Pit. 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 3.2-1) and contains the highest
concentrations of radionuclides and sulfatc 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 this waste rock
and bench from the GTO Pit. eliminating this
source of sulfate and radionuclides to the pit
water (Figure 4.2-9).
Acid-generating lithologies would be exposed in
the Sentinel, Centennial, and GTO Pit walls by
mining (Section 4.3). It is predicted, using
groundwater modeling, that acid-generating
lithologies would be inundated by post-mining pit
lakes in the Sentinel pit (Case 2) and GTO pit
(Cases 1 and 2) (see Figures 3.1-5, -6, and -7).
Although acid-generating lithologies either
exposed to the open air, or inundated by pit lake
water, may produce acid, the majority of the
exposed pit wall rock would have a net acid-
neutralizing capacity, resulting in pit lake water
with a pH of 8 or greater (Adrian Brown
Consultants 1996c). Based on a review of the
groundwater quality and the nature of the
materials exposed in the pit walls, it is expected
that dissolved constituents in the Sentinel,
Centennial, and GTO pit lake water would be
sulfate, chloride, sodium, calcium, and several
metal oxyanions (i.e., aluminum, arsenic,
selenium, molybdenum, manganese, iron,
uranium, and zinc) with a IDS of 3,000 to 5,000
mg/1.
Post-mining evapoconcentration of chemical
constituents (listed above) in pit lake water would
likely occur hi the Sentinel, Centennial, and GTO
pits, for Case 1. The net result of post-mining
evapoconcentration of chemical constituents
would be degradation of pit lake water quality
with time (i.e., increased pH, increased TDS, and
increased concentrations of chemical
constituents). The potential long-term increase hi
pH, TDS, and concentrations of chemical
constituents hi the post-mining pit lakes is not
known.
Evapoconcentration would likely occur in the
Centennial and GTO pits, for Case 2. However,
it is predicted that diverting an estimated 177 ac-
ft/yr of surface runoff from Lisbon Valley into
the Sentinel pit would result in dilution of pit lake
water and, therefore, pit lake water quality that
would be better than that of natural Burro
Canyon aquifer water (Adrian Brown Consultants
1996c).
The post-mining final pit floor, in the Sentinel pit,
would expose the shallow aquifer (Burro Canyon)
and the Morrison Formation (see Figure 3.1-6).
A post-mining pit lake of between 142 and 320
feet deep is predicted to form (Adrian Brown
Consultants 1996c). Water could move into and
out of any aquifers inundated by the pit lake.
The Dakota Sandstone and Burro Canyon
Formation have a "very low to low" permeability
(measured values of 0.98 to 2.7 feet per day) hi
southeastern Utah (Avery 1986). If water from
the Sentinel pit moved into the shallow aquifer
water quality hi .that aquifer could either be
degraded (Case 1, follows this discussion) or
unproved (Case 2, follows this discussion).
A strong downward vertical hydraulic gradient has
been observed hi the proposed project area
(Adrian Brown Consultants 1996c). This strong
vertical gradient could facilitate migration of pit
lake water, with its accompanying dissolved
constituents, downward to deeper formations,
including the Entrada/Navajo Sandstone.
Degradation of Entrada/Navajo aquifer water
23996/R4-WP.4A 02-04-97(7:36pm)/RPT/8
4-23
-------
Figure 4.2-9 Current condition of GTO Pit (the deepest historic pit in the area) with
sediments from flow of bench area shown as lighter-colored material in pit
bottom.
2399&R4.4 11/14/96(]2:44 AM)/RPT/S
-------
could be difficult, however, because of the
thickness of the Morrison Formation. In addition,
the Brushy Basin Member of the Morrison
Formation, (the upper-most member) is known to
have "very low" permeability, (less than 0.5 feet
per day), and forms a confining bed that would
resist downward migration of pit lake water. The
Salt Wash Member of the Morrison Formation,
which underlies the Brushy Basin Member, has a
"low" permeability (0.5 to 5 feet per day) (see
Figure 3.2-3) (Avery 1986).
The post-mining final pit floor, hi the Centennial
pit, would expose the shallow aquifer (Burro
Canyon) and the Entrada Sandstone (see Figures
3.1-3 and 3.1-4). A post-mining pit lake of
between 1 and 84 feet deep is predicted to form.
Pit lake water could move into and out of the
shallow aquifer and the Entrada/Navajo aquifer.
If degraded quality pit lake water moved into the
shallow aquifer water quality hi the shallow
aquifer could be degraded.
Regionally, the Entrada/Navajo Sandstone has a
"very low to low" permeability (measured values
ranging from 0.13 to 0.98 feet per day) (Avery
1986). Figure 3.1-3 shows the Entrada Sandstone
exposed hi the west pit wall of the GTO pit. The
Navajo Sandstone is also very close to the surface
near the west wall of the pit. If degraded quality
pit lake water moved into the Entrada/Navajo
aquifer water quality could be degraded. Since
the Entrada/Navajo aquifer is not confined to the
proposed project area (Lisbon Valley), as the
effected Burro Canyon aquifer appears to be, it is
more likely that any degraded water could
eventually move away from the proposed project
area and downgradient towards the Dolores
River. Distance and geologic discontinuities (i.e.,
faulting) .in the Entrada/Navajo aquifer,
downgradient of the proposed project area, make
contamination of the Dolores River by degraded
Entrada/Navajo aquifer water unlikely.
The post-mining final pit floor, in the GTO pit,
would expose the shallow aquifer (Burro Canyon)
and the Cutler Formation (see Figure 3.1-7). A
post-mining pit lake of between 155 and 199 feet
deep is predicted to form. Pit lake water could
move into and out of the shallow aquifer, and to
a limited degree, the Cutler Formation. If
degraded quality pit lake water moved into the
shallow aquifer water quality hi the shallow
aquifer could be degraded.
The Cutler Formation hi the project area is
mapped as an "undifferentiated arkosic fades"
(see Sections 3.1.2 and 3.23). As such it contains
no important aquifers and the permeability is
rated as "very low" (less than 0.5 feet per day)
(Avery 1986). Injection tests performed hi four
piezometers installed to depths of 25 to 45 feet in
the Cutler Formation hi Little Valley, hi the area
of the proposed leach pad, indicated a hydraulic
conductivity range of 0.0014 to 0.2409 feet per
day (see Section 3.2.3 and Figure 3.2-3). The
thickness of the Cutler Formation has been
measured at approximately 120 feet in well
94MW4, in Little Valley, and at least 500 feet hi
well 94MW3, located near the midpoint between
Little Valley and the proposed GTO pit. No
water was encountered hi the Cutler Formation hi
wells 94MW4 or 94MW3, or hi the four
piezometers. Woodward-Clyde Consultants, 1982
indicates an average TDS of 10,398 mg/1 hi
groundwater samples taken from the
"undifferentiated Cutler Formation" hi the
Paradox Basin.
Post-mining pit lake water in the proposed GTO
pit could be hi direct contact with the Cutler
Formation. Some infiltration into the Cutler
Formation could occur, however; 1) permeability
is "very low", 2) no water has been encountered hi
the Cutler Formation hi the project area, and 3)
regionally, the average natural water quality hi the
undifferentiated Cutler Formation is "very saline"
(i.e., greater than 10,000 mg/1 TDS). It is
unlikely that water quality hi the Cutler
Formation will be degraded by pit lake water hi
the GTO pit.
A review of predicted pit water depths and the pit
geologic cross-sections presented hi Section 3.1
indicates that beds capable of generating ARD
would be inundated hi the Sentinel and GTO pits
(and even more so for Case 2), but not hi the
Centennial Pit.
23996/R4-WP.4A 02-04-97(7:36pm)/RPT/8
4-25
-------
Potential Impacts for Case 1
Under this Case each of the proposed pits would
intercept groundwater in the shallow aquifer
during mining and groundwater modeling
indicates that post-mining pit lakes would develop
to depths of approximately 142,1, and 155 feet in
the Sentinel, Centennial, and GTO pits
respectively (Adrian Brown Consultants 1996c).
The three pit lakes would undergo a net loss of
water to evaporation, resulting in a net inflow of
groundwater to each pit, although pit water
outflow to the shallow aquifer could still occur.
The strong downward vertical hydraulic gradients
dominating the site hydrogeology would likely
limit the lateral migration of dissolved metal
species and sulfate into the surrounding Burro
Canyon aquifer, however, it is possible that the
strong downward vertical hydraulic gradient could
facilitate downward migration of pit lake water,
with accompanying dissolved metal species and
sulfate, into deeper formations, including the
Entrada/Navajo formation.
As discussed earlier under Potential Impacts to
Water Uses, water quality in the Sentinel,
Centennial, and GTO pits would likely be
characterized as high TDS (3,000 to 5.000 nig/1),
an alkaline pH of 8.0 or greater, and possible
elevated concentrations of several metal oxyanions
(i.e., aluminum, arsenic, selenium, molybdenum,
manganese, iron, uranium, and zinc). Evaporative
concentration of metal oxyanions and other
chemical species would be limited to some
degree, since chemical mass would be removed by
vertical leakage out the bottom of the pit.
However, due to the potential geochemical
complexity of the pit lake system, accurate
predictive modeling is not possible and some
uncertainty regarding pit water quality exists. The
use of ANFO for blasting in the pits could also
produce elevated nitrates, ammonia, and dissolved
or total organic carbon as a result of residues
from blasting operations.
Potential Impacts for Case 2
Under this Case groundwater modeling indicates
that post-mining pit lakes would develop to
depths of approximately 320, 84, and 199 feet hi
the Sentinel, Centennial, and GTO pits
respectively (Adrian Brown Consultants 1996c).
The Sentinel Pit No. 1 would receive ephemeral
surface water inflow from Lisbon Valley, which is
predicted to result in a net groundwater recharge
condition, with pit lake water moving into the
surrounding shallow Burro Canyon aquifer. The
deeper pit lake is also expected to inundate ARD
producing formations hi the pit wall that would
not be inundated under Case 1. The quality of
surface water which would enter the pit is
expected to be good (i.e., TDS less than 500
mg/1) based on chemical analyses of water in
stock ponds which collect surface flows hi Lisbon
Valley. Therefore, the water quality hi 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
1996c). As a result; adverse impacts to
groundwater surrounding the Sentinel Pit are not
expected.
Pit lake water quality in the GTO and Centennial
pits is expected to be the same as that described
for Case 1. Impacts to the surrounding shallow
and deep aquifers may be greater, however, as a
result of the deeper pit lake water. The deeper
pit lake water would contact a greater area of the
shallow aquifer/pit interface and the greater
pressures would increase the possibility for
migration of pit lake water, and accompanying
dissolved constituents, into the surrounding
formation, and vertically, into deeper formations.
The use of ANFO for blasting in the pits could
also produce similar effects for Case 2 as Case 1.
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 hi adverse impacts to
groundwater. The great depth to groundwater hi
the Burro Canyon aquifer (i.e., typically 200 to
300 feet) and for the Entrada/Navajo aquifer (up
to 900 feet) would make contamination of
groundwater resources by spills of these materials
23996/R4-WP.4A 02-04-97(7:36pm)/RPT/8
4-26
-------
unlikely. An exception exists in the area of
monitoring well SLV-2, 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 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 Powerline Construction
A 69 kV powerline would be constructed to the
site as discussed in Section 2.2.8. Potential
impacts to water resources from powerline
construction include increased runoff from
disturbed areas and increased sedimentation of
surface water courses. However, there are no
perennial streams along the proposed powerline
corridor.
4.2.2.2 Committed and Recommended
Mitigation
Committed Mitigation
The following are committed mitigation measures
described in Section 2.2.2.2 and Appendix A. All
leaching facilities (pad, conveyance corridors,
diversion ditches, and solution storage ponds)
would be lined to minimize the potential for
leakage to groundwater. Summo would also be
committed to comply with all State permit
requirements for leach pad, conveyance ditch,
conveyance corridor, raffinate and pre-raffinate
ponds, storm water and emergency ponds, and
pond liner systems. 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.
The diversion ditches and pond system would be
engineered to contain the design storm of 3.4
inches of precipitation in 24 hours, occurring at
the end of a wet cycle of weather. 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 Section
2.2.12 and Appendix A. 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 also discussed in Section 2.2.12
and Appendix A. 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.
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 route selected for the power line
right-of way.
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
23996/R4-WP.4A 02-04-97<7:36pm)/RPT/8
4-27
-------
with a waste sump to contain spills of fuels and
solvents used.
Recommended Mitigation
In addition to the committed mitigation measures
discussed above, the following mitigation
measures are recommended.
The recommended mitigation measures common
to both Case 1 and Case 2 are discussed first,
followed by those measures specific to each case.
Through use of Best-Available Technology
(BAT), Summo should annually re-evaluate the
modeled output of the current "Vertical Model"
(Adrian Brown Consultants 1996c). This annual
re-evaluation would be based upon comparison of
BAT-modeled output with cumulative water
quality data obtained from dewatering, supply,
and compliance wells as required by the Utah
Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ),
and upon cumulative geotechnical data obtained
during the operational and closure phases. The
annual report, which would be due each January
30th, should address 1) potential for pit lake
development following cessation of mining, 2)
predicted pit lake water chemistry, and 3)
potential for adverse impact to the Entrada/
Navajo aquifer.
Based on potential impacts to ground water
quality from operation of the leach pad and open
pits, Summo should be required to comply with
all provisions of the State of Utah, Department of
Environmental Quality, Division of Water Quality
(DWQ), Ground Water Quality Discharge Permit
(GWQDP) (See Appendix D). The following
provisions are included in the permit, and are
highlighted here:
• Within 120 days of the issuance of the Permit
one compliance monitoring well would be
installed on the east side of the proposed
leach pad, south of the solution ponds.
• One additional compliance monitoring well
would be installed for each expansion of the
heap leach pad to the west, i.e., stages 2, 3,
and 4. These wells would be installed at least
180 days prior to operation of each additional
leach pad section and would be located as
near as possible to the southeast corner of
each expansion. In the event that water was
not found in the stage 2 well then wells for
stages 3 and 4 would not be required. A
leach pad monitoring well schedule would be
established based on DEQ permit
requirements. If monitoring indicated that
solution from the heap leach pad was
migrating into groundwater then remediation
would be required.
Based on potential impacts to downgradient
ground water from potential pit lakes following
completion of mining operations, Summo should
be required to prepare a Post-Mining Pit Lake
Monitoring and Water Quality Remediation Plan.
The Plan would be based on five years of water
quality data obtained from dewatering, water
supply, and compliance wells as required by Utah
DEQ. This Plan should be submitted at the time
Summo applies to the State for a second 5 year
Ground Water Quality Discharge Permit. Upon
submission, the Plan should include:
• Protection levels for specific analytes
(antimony, arsenic, cadmium, copper,
molybdenum, selenium, uranium, and zinc),
TDS, and sulfates. These protection levels
would be based on the first five years of
water quality data collected according to the
current Utah DEQ GWQDP sampling
analysis plan, and determined through
consultation with Utah DEQ and BLM.
• Potential treatment methods/remediation
actions that would be utilized if protection
levels were exceeded.
• A sampling schedule that monitors water
quality regardless of the amount of water hi
any given pit (i.e., intermittently ponded
water would be sampled monthly until the
pond has evaporated or drained, and
continuous ponding would be sampled twice
yearly for the first 5 years and once yearly for
20 years thereafter). Such a schedule should
be at least yearly, for a period of 25 years
post-mining. If sampling indicates the
presence of problematic concentrations of
TDS or oxyanions, or that high pH levels are
23996/R4-WP.4A 02-04-97(7:36pm)/RPT/8
4-28
-------
beginning to occur, sampling frequency
should be increased in consultation with Utah
DEQ to 2 to 4 tunes per year.
• Water samples should be collected and
analyzed according to the current Utah DEQ
GWQDP sampling and analysis plan.
Prior to expiration of the first 5-year GWQDP,
DEQ would determine if the pits were to be
included as regulated facilities under the
GWQDP. This determination would be based
upon 1) the first five years of water quality data
collected according to the current Utah DEQ
GWQDP sampling and analysis plan, 2) results of
annual BAT pit lake predictive modeling, and
3) consultation between Utah DEQ and BLM.
Two monitoring wells should be installed at a
distance not to exceed 100 feet downgradient of
the Sentinel #1, Centennial, and GTO pits, with
locations to be selected in consultation with Utah
DEQ. Each well should be screened in the
saturated portion of the Navajo aquifer. Each
well should be installed within the first year of
mining activity and should then be sampled
quarterly during the operational phase of the
project. Wells should be monitored for 25 years
post-closure. Each well should be sampled twice
yearly for the first five years, and once yearly for
the following 20 years. If water samples were
found to be out of compliance with the current
DEQ GWQDP (see GWQDP Part IIF.2.a), then
accelerated sampling and analyses should be
required (GWQDP, Part IIF.l). Water samples
should be collected and analyzed according to the
current DEQ GWQDP sampling and analysis
plan.
If results of downgradient monitoring wells
indicate unacceptable impacts to groundwater, as
determined by DEQ established aquifer
protection levels, the following types of
remediation options should be considered.
• Periodic pumping of water from the pits to
remove water with increased TDS, sulfate,
and metal oxyanion concentrations. Pumping
would occur only if the pit lake water quality
met state surface water quality standards.
• A permanent program to pump and treat pit
lake water. Water would be treated to meet
state water quality standards and then could
be used for irrigation, livestock watering,
released to surface water drainages,
reinjected to deeper formations, or returned
to the pits.
• Periodic discharge of fresher, better quality
groundwater into the pits to dilute increased
concentrations of TDS, sulfate, and metal
oxyanions. The water used for dilution could
be pumped from the Entrada/Navajo aquifer.
• Periodic pumping of dewatering wells
installed during mining to prevent pit lakes
from forming. The quality of the pumped
water would be consistent with that currently
found in the Burro Canyon aquifer.
• Partially backfilling the pits with sufficient
material to cover the pit lakes. Backfill
material would likely come from the waste
dumps and should not include any acid
generating waste rock, nor compromise the
structural integrity of the waste dumps in
regard to the encapsulated acid waste rock.
Prior to utilizing waste rock for backfill
material, testing should be conducted to
determine if use of this material would add
further to unacceptable groundwater impacts.
If this would occur, acceptable material may
have to be hauled in from elsewhere.
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.
Mining across Lisbon Canyon should be
prohibited in order to keep the existing natural
drainage through Lisbon Canyon intact. This
would eliminate the need for developing and
maintaining problematic long-term diversion
structures around the north side of the Sentinel
Pit. Diversion channels on the south and west
sides of the Sentinel Pit would still be required.
Diversion channels should be constructed using
the best available technology (See Rosgen and
23996/R4-WP.4A 02-04-97(7:36pm)/IU>T/8
4-29
-------
Silvey, 1996). Channels should be constructed
using natural stream channel slopes and
alignment. Channels should be scarified and
seeded with an approved mixture of grasses and
forbs immediately following construction.
Maintenance and reseeding should continue
throughout the life of the project until sufficient
plant cover has been established to protect the
channels from erosion.
A post-mining monitoring plan should include the
diversion channels. If plant cover is insufficient to
protect the channels from erosion, or if active
erosion is occurring, maintenance and reseeding
should be required.
Sediment collection structures should be left in-
place until the heap leach pad, solution ponds,
waste dumps, roads, and facilities have been
reclaimed. The sediment collection structures
should then be recontoured to the natural contour
of the diversion channel, scarified, and seeded
during project site final reclamation. Post-closure
monitoring and maintenance should include the
sediment collection structures.
Summo would be required to assure project
components involved with placing fill materials in
washes, are in full compliance with appropriate
Army Corps of Engineer permits prior to
initiation of construction operations. This would
include assuring compliance with any
modifications to Army Corps Nationwide Permit
26, as modified February 11, 1997. All sediment
collection structures would be recontoured to pre-
mining conditions and seeded, following mining
and reclamation phases of the proposed project.
Recommended Mitigation for Case 1 (Maintain
a permanent surface water diversion around the
Sentinel Pit)
Recommended mitigation measures for this case
include those measures discussed above, and also
the maintenance of a permanent surface water
diversion structure around the Sentinel Pit.
Constructing and maintaining a permanent
diversion around the Sentinel Pit would minimize
erosion effects expected under Case 2 (described
below) and would maintain pre-mining flow
volumes through Lisbon Canyon. Maintaining a
permanent diversion could be problematic hi the
long-term, with increased channel erosion,
deposition, maintenance, funding, and
responsibility. Full scale engineering design plans
should be required prior to allowing construction
of a permanent surface water diversion.
Alternate mitigation could include not allowing
mining across Lisbon Canyon (discussed above).
Recommended Mitigation for Case 2 (Maintain
a permanent surface water diversion into the
Sentinel Pit)
Recommended mitigation measures for this case
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.
• Partial backfilling of the Sentinel Pit to
reduce the magnitude of long-term down
cutting and erosion.
4.2.3 No Action Alternative
Under the No Action Alternative, mining would
not take place on the property. Existing
groundwater quality would remain as described in
Section 3.2.3. Groundwater would continue to be
available for industrial purposes in its current
volume and quality (although it is currently not
being used for any purpose). 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 La
ephemeral stream courses, and no toxic effects to
wildlife have been observed). Under the No
23996/R4-WP.4A 02-05-97(1 l:29pm)/RPT/8
4-30
-------
Action Alternative, these piles would not be
reclaimed. In addition, the pit lakes would not be
created, leaving current groundwater conditions as
they are. •
4.2.4 Open Pit Backfilling Alternative
Two scenarios have been developed for this
Alternative: 1) partial backfilling and, 2) 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 the Open Pit
Backfilling alternative 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 hi the piles
following mining. (Recall that complete
backfilling would not fully deplete the waste rock
piles due to the swell factor - see Section 2.3.2.)
Backfilling would also cover the potentially acid-
generating materials exposed in the pit walls
(Scenario 2), and cover any water ponded hi the
pits. Covering of the water in the pits would
reduce or eliminate evaporation of the pit water;
therefore, groundwater levels would be higher in
the vicinity of the backfilled pits as compared to
the proposed action, in which the pits are left
open, pit water evaporates, and groundwater
levels in the Burro Canyon are lower. Evapo-
concentration of pit lake water resulting in
elevated concentrations of TDS, sulfate and other
potential metal oxyanions would not occur.
Potential impacts to ground 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. However, results of static testing of
waste rock samples indicate that only
approximately 10 percent of the waste rock would
be capable of producing acidic solutions. Because
the remainder of the waste rock has a net acid-
neutralizing capacity, it is expected that leaching
of aluminum and iron Would be minimal.
On the other hand, as discussed in Section 3.3.2,
Method 1312 testing is performed using slightly
acid pH waters (about pH 5.0), which may be
limited in 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 of 8.0 or
greater with the potential for sulfate and some
oxyanions to leach and migrate into the shallow
aquifer and deeper formations. Periodic and
seasonal fluctuation of groundwater levels in the
backfilled material could also increase the
potential for leaching of sulfate and oxyanions
into groundwater because of re-wetting/oxidation
processes.
4.2.4.2 Recommended Mitigation
Mitigation measures for this alternative would be
the same as those for the Proposed Action, with
the exception of the requirement to place non
acid generating waste rock on benches below acid
generating pit wall lithologies.
If the partial backfill alternative is implemented,
measures should be taken to assure the partial
backfill would be placed hi sufficient quantity to
remain above the projected post-mining water
table, to assure no surface lakes occur.
Backfilled materials should not consist of any of
the acid generating rock types encapsulated in the
waste piles, and the structural integrity of the
encapsulation network in the waste piles should
not be compromised. Backfill material should be
tested for types of geochemical leachates that
would result from interaction with alkaline water.
23996/R4-WP.4A 02-04-97(7:36pm)/RPT/8
4-31
-------
If waste rock backfill material would further
degrade groundwater quality, non-reactive backfill
material from another location should be required
to be brought in and utilized.
42.5 Facility Layout Alternative
This alternative would eliminate waste dump D
and place these materials in expanded waste
dumps A,B, and C.
423.1 Direct and Indirect Impacts
Elimination of waste dump D would lessen the
long-term 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; 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 undermining of the
dump by flowing water from this up-valley portion
of the project area (see Figure 2-1) would be
eliminated.
4.2.5.2 Recommended Mitigation
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 minimi?^, 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 23.4.
42.6.1 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 alkaline impacts on nearby sites,
vegetation, and ephemeral surface water flows.
Recommended Mitigation
Mitigation measures for this alternative would be
the same as for the proposed action.
4.3 GEOCHEMISTRY
4.3.1 Methodology
The potential for waste rock deposited in the
waste dumps to generate acid conditions or to
mobilize dissolved constituents, along with post-
mining pit lake water quality and chemistry, are
the primary issues 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, are addressed below.
4.3.2 Proposed Action
43.2.1 Impacts
Mining to access the ore from the four pits would
produce approximately 65,043,000 cu yds
(97,100,000 tons) of waste rock. These materials
would be disposed in four waste dumps. Potential
impacts associated with the Proposed Action are
generalized below based on the results of static
Acid Base Accounting tests and EPA Method
1312 analyses, as presented in Section 3.3.
However, based on the limited amount of test
data available, specific impacts are difficult to
determine. Also, impacts of potential alkaline
geochemical conditions are identified, as they
relate to post-mining water quality in the pit
lakes. The same problem with data exists for
these generalized predictions.
23996/R4-WP.4A 02-0*-97(7:36pm)/RPT/8
4-32
-------
The results of static tests on the material that
would comprise the waste rock show that about
10 percent by mass of the waste rock are
potentially acid-generating with net neutralization
potentials less than zero (i.e., NNP < 0), based
on the sulfide sulfur concentrations. All of the
potentially acid-generating samples were coal,
coal-bearing, or associated with or adjacent to
coal units. The majority of waste would not be
acid-generating, but would be net acid-
neutralizing.
Waste rock placed in the waste dumps may
produce local areas of acid-generating material,
i.e., hot spots, which could impact surface water
runoff and leach into groundwater resources.
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 hi
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/1. 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. Therefore,
based on the results of the EPA Method 1312
analyses, impacts to groundwater 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 also should be noted that groundwater in the
Burro Canyon aquifer in the project vicinity is
classified as Class III, Limited Use (Utah
Department of Environmental Quality, Division of
Water Quality 1995: R317-6-3). Classification of
lower aquifers has not been resolved and could be
subject to legal and regulatory interpretation at a
later date, and the long-term potential exists for
adversely impacting these aquifers from drainage
from post-mining pit lakes.
Regarding other geochemistry/water quality
issues (see Section 4.2), the majority of pit wall
rock and waste rock is likely to yield alkaline
leachate, based on both the static and 1312 test
results. 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
detectable 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 8.0 and greater.
Impacts from pit lake water were previously
discussed in detail under Section 4.2.2.1, Potential
Impacts to Water Uses. However, the bottom
line, is that we cannot predict specific impacts to
downgradient ground water units, or final pit
water chemistry based on the level of testing to
date.
43.2.2 Committed and Recommended
Mitigation
Committed Mitigation
Summo's Mitigation and Monitoring Plan for the
project (Appendix A) describes a generalized
sampling and ABA testing plan for each pit to
identify potential ARD waste material.
Additionally, the plan calls for isolation of
identified ARD material in the waste rock dumps
by providing encapsulation with NNP waste rock.
Recommended Mitigation
The following recommended mitigation has been
developed primarily to cover details missing in
Summo's plan.
Non-acid generating waste rock should be placed
on post-mining pit benches below the outcrops of
formations determined to be acid generating.
This should reduce impacts to any pit lake waters
by offering material to buffer acid leachates from
23996/R4-WP.4A 02-04-97<7:36pm)/RPT/8
4-33
-------
these formations prior to entering the pit lakes
below.
Since elevated sulfate concentrations typically
precede lowering pH levels associated with acid
drainage, yearly monitoring of soil samples from
selected drainages below the waste dumps should
occur to identify any changes in sulfate
composition above base line conditions. These
tests should be conducted during mining
operations and for the period included for post-
mining monitoring (25 years). Results of samples
should be sent to the BLM Moab Office on a
yearly basis. If sampling identifies elevated
sulfate concentrations, Summo should be required
to take appropriate remedial actions in
consultation with BLM and the State of Utah to
reduce concentrations to pre-mining levels.
Due to potential for acid generation, waste rock
from Dakota beds 6-8 (coal) and Dakota beds 9-
10 (gray-pyritic shale) should not be used for
either general construction or reclamation
material.
In addition to sampling and Acid Base
Accounting (ABA) testing of Acid Generating
Potential (AGP) rock types (Dakota beds 6-8 and
9-10), described in the company Waste Rock
Management Plan, Summo should also perform
quarterly Meteoric Water Mobility Procedure
(MWMP) testing on samples from each of the
AGP rock types.
Summo should create a data base that relates
quarterly ABA and MWMP data (by individual
AGP rock types) to the respective AGP rock type
tonnage mined during that quarter. A copy of the
data base, accompanied by a summary report,
should be submitted yearly (January 30th) to the
Utah DEQ and BLM.
Summo should schedule quarterly ABA and
Meteoric Water Mobility Procedure testing of any
neutralizing waste rock (comprised of company-
identified Acid Neutralizing Potential (ANP) rock
types), planned for use as construction and
reclamation materials. Examples of reclamation
materials include all ANP rock types selected to
construct the engineered cap for the spent heap
and to encapsulate the AGP waste rock.
The company should submit a sampling plan by
ANP rock type for each pit to ensure that
quarterly samples are obtained from all ANP rock
types being mined as overburden or waste rock.
At a minimum, these specific ANP rock types
should be included in the plan:
• Mancos Shale
• Dakota beds 11-13 (sandstone)
• Burro Canyon bed 14 (mudstone)
Summo should sample monthly from each ANP
rock type currently being mined and composite
these monthly samples (by individual ANP rock
type) for quarterly ABA and MWMP testing.
Summo should create a data base that relates
quarterly ABA and MWMP data (by individual
ANP rock type) to the respective ANP rock type
tonnage mined during that quarter. A copy of
this data base, accompanied by a summary report,
should be submitted yearly (January 30th) to the
Utah DEQ and BLM.
The location and extent of quarterly tonnage (by
individual ANP rock type) should be plotted in
the as-built map of the receiving waste dump.
Summo should plot the location of each monthly
ANP rock type sample that comprises the
quarterly composite sample for each different
ANP rock type on the as-built pit bench geologic
map.
Summo should ensure that as part of the
quarterly MWMP testing, each ANP rock type
sample is also analyzed for antimony, arsenic,
cadmium, copper, molybdenum, selenium,
uranium, and zinc. The following procedures
should be utilized to accomplish this: 1) the
MWMP column-leach procedure should be used
by leaching 5 Kg of each ANP rock type sample
with 5 L of leachant comprised of Type II reagent
water, 2) if more than 48 hours are required for
the MWMP column-leach procedure to produce
a leachate with a mass equivalent to 70% of the
dry test-sample weight, a bottle-roll leach
procedure may be substituted (this would most
likely apply to low hydraulic conductivity rock
types such as claystones and bentonitic shales
contained in the Dakota and Burro Canyon
23996/R4-WP.4A 02-04-97C7:36pm)/RPT/S
4-34
-------
formations), 3) the MWMP bottle-roll leach
procedure should leach 3.5 Kg of each ANP rock
type sample with 5.25 L of leachant comprised of
Type II reagent water, 4) leachant pH for either
the column- or bottle-roll-leach procedure should
be adjusted to 8.5 with sodium bicarbonate.
If leachant concentrations exceed maximum
contaminant levels, as identified by Utah DEQ,
then BLM should reserve the option to also
require additional kinetic testing to determine
rates of release for the identified contaminant
chemical species contained in specific rock types.
Based on uncertainty of final pit lake geochemical
impacts, Summo should be required to prepare
and submit a geologic map of the Ultimate Pit
Surface (UPS) for each open pit at the conclusion
of mining in a given pit. The map should clearly
identify: 1) outcrop areas of all rock type units, 2)
all structural elements (faults, folds, etc), 3) net
acid generation potential (NAGP) for all rock
type units exposed in the UPS, 4) final analyte
concentrations (e.g., antimony, arsenic, cadmium,
copper, molybdenum, selenium, uranium, and
zinc), from MWMP tests of the last mined
outcrop of each rock type exposed in the UPS,
and 5) hydraulic conductivities for all rock type
units exposed in the UPS.
Based on review of Summo's Mitigation and
Monitoring Plan (Appendix A), during the last
year of Waste Dump C construction, the AGP
waste rock from the Centennial pit is scheduled
to be placed in the final lift with only 1.5 times
the ANP tonnage. Summo should be required to
modify construction of Waste Dump C so that the
ratio does not exceed a ratio of 3:1 (ANP:AGP)
during this last year of construction.
4.3.3 No Action Alternative
Selection of the No Action Alternative could
result in long-term geochemical impacts from
currently existing abandoned mine wastes on
location. However, testing and visual observation
have revealed no direct evidence that this material
is currently impacting the area, although the long-
term potential for such impacts exists.
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 geochemical impacts to surface or
groundwater resources would occur from any
newly developed mine facilities.
4.3.4 Open Pit Backfilling Alternative
Partial or complete backfilling of the Sentinel,
Centennial, and GTO Pits would cover some or
all of the potentially aeid-generating lithologies in
the pit walls (e.g., the coal and coal-bearing
units). This would reduce or eliminate the
potential geochemical 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 (anticipating both dissolved iron
and aluminum from the 1312 tests, and likely
other metal oxyanions as well, as shown in the
groundwater sampling). The backfilled waste
rock, whatever its 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, especially as water levels fluctuated.
Partial backfilling of the Sentinel and GTO pits to
a level which would prevent permanent pit lakes
from developing would eliminate the potential for
evaporative concentration of chemical species to
occur, particularly the metal oxyanions.
Elimination of pit lakes with potential poor water
quality could be viewed as a positive impact, by
lessening the potential for adverse impacts to
wildlife and waterfowl, both drinking and using
poor quality pit lake water. Additionally,
potential adverse impacts to groundwater quality
23996/R4-WP.4A 02-04-97(7:36pm)/RPT/8
4-35
-------
in both the Burro Canyon and Entrada/Navajo
aquifer adjacent to the pits may be minimized.
43.4.2 Recommended Mitigation
Prior to utilizing on-site waste material for
backfilling, Summo should be required to run an
acceptable testing procedure (kinetic testing) to
allow accurate determinations of geochemical
leachates that could be expected from the
material if placed in a sub-aqueous alkaline
environment. If testing indicates unacceptable
leachates, which could migrate into downgradient
groundwater, additional inert materials may have
to be utilized from outside the project area.
Other recommended mitigation identified under
the Proposed Action should be implemented,
regarding additional testing identified over the
mine life.
4.3.5 Facility Layout Alternative
43.5.1 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 1,533,000 cu yds (2,100,000 tons) of
waste rock planned for this facility would be
placed primarily in Waste Dump C. Waste
Dumps A and B would also receive additional
material. This alternative would decrease the
total surface area of waste material exposed at
the mine facility. This could decrease potential
geochemical impacts to surface and groundwater
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.
43.5.2 Recommended Mitigation
Other recommended mitigation identified under
the Proposed Action should be implemented,
regarding additional testing identified over the
mine life.
4.3.6 Waste Rock Selective Handling
Alternative
43.6.1 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 constituents. Waste rock with MNP <
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,
23SWR4-WP.4A 02-04-97(7:36pm)/RPT/8
4-36
-------
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 and detailed in
Appendix A, 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 would inhibit the
oxidation reactions that produce acid drainage.
The selective placement also would 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 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.
43.6.2 Recommended Mitigation
Other recommended mitigation identified under
the Proposed Action should be implemented,
regarding additional testing identified over the
mine life.
4.4 SOILS AND RECLAMATION
4.4.1 Methodology
Issues and concerns raised for the soils resource
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
would 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 recommended by the
BLM (1992, McClure 1996b) and NRCS
(Anders 1996)
• Reduce soil erosion or 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.
Summo's Plan of Operations (Summo 1995a) and
the Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (Appendix A)
contain mitigation measures and both interim and
final reclamation plans that address the issues
discussed above. Summo's relevant committed
mitigation measures, briefly discussed below, are
23996/R4-WP.4A 02-04-97(7:36pm)/RPT/8
4-37
-------
taken into consideration in determining 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
preparation needed prior to final reclamation
activities
• Test and measure effectiveness of erosion
control measures over the life of the project.
Revise final reclamation plan, if necessary.
• Cover all graded areas with a minimum of 12
inches of coversoil.
• Regrade the waste dumps to a 25:1 slope
with benches every 40-50 feet, rip compacted
material, apply coversoil, reseed the disturbed
area, and fertilize, as necessary.
• Neutralize the leach pad beginning in year six
with either fresh water rinsing and/or the
addition of lime. Following complete
decontamination of the leach pad, reduce
slopes to a 2.5:1 angle with benches every 36
feet, 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 for vegetation. Coversoil would then be
placed over the waste rock and the area
revegetated.
• Dozer basins would be constructed on side
slopes to retain soil moisture, if necessary.
• 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.
4.43 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
power line. Total disturbance would be
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 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 increased difficulty in achieving
23996/R4-WP.4A 02-04-97(7:36pm)/RPT/8
4-38
-------
successful reclamation or 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 lies
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. (Cover soil is
a combination of topsoil and subsoil material
capable of supporting vegetation.)
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.
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.
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 4.2-8.
Additionally, during operations, surface water
flows from three drainages upstream of Sentinel
Pit 1 would be routed around the pit to maintain
natural storm Qows into Lisbon Canyon (Figure
3.5-2) from Lisbon Valley. However, as discussed
in Section 4.2.2, 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
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).
23996/R4-WP.4A 02-04-97(7:36pm)/RPT/8
4-39
-------
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
Based on the proposed Plan Of Operation, 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, (i.e., high PH)
as noted in Section 4.3, localized areas of acid
generating material (i.e., low pH) 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.
In a worst case scenario, if the proposed rinsing
was not successful in reducing the acidity of the
leach pad materials, acidic materials in the
reclaimed leach pad could affect the potential for
establishing vegetation. The potential effects
would be an acidic environment plant roots could
not survive or acidic materials leaching or washing
from the pad and affecting vegetation everywhere
the runoff carried the acidic solutions.
The infiltration of water has been a major
concern when burying materials that have a
potential to be acid generating. Increasing the
infiltration rate of water would potentially
increase the rate of acid generation. Although
the retention of moisture is typically an objective
for establishing vegetation after reclamation,
increased infiltration rates would be detrimental
in achieving the goal of isolating potentially acid
generating materials from moisture. During the
past 10 years, slopes steeper than 3:1 have been
utilized as alternatives for decreasing the surface
area required for waste dumps and for decreasing
the rate of acid generation by reducing the
infiltration of water. Homestake Mining
Company has successfully utilized 2.5:1 slopes
when covering acid generating rock at the
McLaughlin Mine in Lower Lake, California
(Krauss 1993). Slopes of 2:1 and dozer gouging
slopes with lengths greater than 30 feet have been
successful at the Golden Sunlight mines near
Whitehall, Montana (Smith 1996).
The proposed 2.5:1 slopes of the waste rock
dumps and the leach pad would have less
potential for successful re-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. When slope grades
are steepened (increased), the rate of soil erosion
is increased. Typically, a 3:1 slope has been a
criteria utilized for reclamation. It is easier to
operate drill seeding equipment along the contour
of slopes that are 3:1, or less. As slopes are
steepened (i.e., 3:1 to 2.5:1), there is a tendency
to operate heavy equipment up and down the
slopes during reclamation, rather than along the
contour of the slope, to provide greater stability
for the equipment.
Although it would be difficult for the typical
tractors used for fanning and reclamation to pull
equipment for disking and drill seeding while
following the contour on 3:1, or greater, slopes; it
would be feasible to use the ripper teeth of
tracked vehicles to scarify the soils along the
contour of a 2.5:1 slope.
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 in less than 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 above the
post-mining water level. These roads would be
23996/R4-WP.4A 02-05-97(11:24pm)/RPT/8
4-40
-------
recontoured or water barred, scarified, covered
with soil, seeded, and fertilized, if necessary.
4.422 Committed and Recommended
Mitigation
Committed Mitigation
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.
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.
Additional details of the committed reclamation
program are presented in Appendix A, Mitigation
and Monitoring Plan. These additional details
were prepared by Summo in response to public
comment on the DEIS.
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.
• 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
measures (including mulching, netting,
tackifiers, hydromulch, or matting) should be
accomplished on sites in highly erosive soils,
sites where surface runoff would be
channelized, and steep areas. The type of
control measure would 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
« Along linear rights-of-way, such as roads or
other facilities that could provide a channel
for run-off, install water bars on all final
slopes exceeding 25 feet in length 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 feet
wide benches should be constructed at least
every 30 to 40 feet with adequate erosion
control structures constructed along slopes hi
between the benches to intercept runoff.
• All runoff and erosion control structures
should be inspected periodically, cleaned out,
and 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
23996/R4-WP.4A 02-05-97(1 l:29pm)/RPT/8
4-41
-------
reclamation material and cover soil material
should be handled separately from substrate
materials to preclude mixing of the materials
Reclamation of the leach pad and waste
dumps should include covering them with 2-3
feet of subsoils, not overburden rock, that can
be ripped and prepared to support the layer
of 12 inches of coversoil. This would provide
an adequate rooting depth and enhance the
potential for successful reclamation.
Prior to final reclamation activities, the
leachate from the heap leach pad should be
analyzed. In the event that the leachate
significantly exceeds groundwater quality
standards, then the following water balance
cover would need to be placed on the heap
leach pad: 12 inches compacted clay (meeting
permeability specifications as identified by the
Utah DWQ), 24 inches of subsoil (or crushed
waste rock), and 12 inches of coversoil.
Alternate capping procedures could be
considered and approved if they would meet
or exceed permeability specifications
identified by the State.
If a water balance cover is required to isolate
the leachate during final reclamation, the
slope of the heap leach pad would need to be
reduced to 3:1, or less. The synthetic liner
may need to be extended from the heap leach
pad to contain the leachate materials when
reducing the slope of the heap leach pad.
The reduced slope would be necessary in
order for heavy equipment to work along the
contour of the slope while applying, blending,
and stabilizing the clay into the soils during
the construction of the water balance cover.
Alternate slopes could be considered and
approved, if the operator can demonstrate
that a clay cap meeting or exceeding
specifications from the Utah DWQ can be
constructed along steeper slopes without
increasing the potential for erosion of the
water balance cover on the steeper slopes.
Stockpiled soil salvaged for reclamation
purposes should be seeded with a prescribed
seed mixture (Section 45.2.2), and covered
with mulch for protection from wind and
water erosion and to discourage the invasion
of weeds
Revegetation test plots should include both
slope angles of 2.5:1 and 3:1 and final
regrading plans revised, if necessary.
Keep the project area fenced until
reclamation is complete.
4.4.3 No Action Alternative
4.43.1 Impacts
Under this alternative, there would be no new
disturbance and, therefore, no impacts to soils
resources. Existing conditions, as discussed in
Section 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 this alternative would require
slightly less coversoil material for reclamation of
the waste dumps because there would be less side
slopes on the dumps to be reclaimed. However,
the additional 231 acres of pits would have to be
reclaimed, the volume of cover soil material
available for reclamation would only be enough to
cover all disturbed areas 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.
23996/R4-WP.4A 02-CW-97C7:36pm)/RPT/8
4-42
-------
4.4.42 Recommended Mitigation
4.4.62 Recommended Mitigation
Recommended mitigation would be the same as
the Proposed Action.
Recommended mitigation would be the same as
the Proposed Action.
4.4.5 Facility Layout Alternative
4.4.5.1 Impacts
Impacts from construction and operation activities
would be nearly the same as described for the
Proposed Action.
Implementation of this alternative would
eliminate impacts to 55 acres of the Barnum soil
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. The volume of
salvaged material would still 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
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 neutralizing 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.
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
• Bioaccumulation of metals in plants to the
detriment of reclamation
Summo's proposed mitigation measures and
reclamation plan (Section 2.2.12 and Appendix A)
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 are
considered in the final impact analysis (also see
Section 4.4).
Sensitive Species
No sensitive plant species were found, and no
unique vegetative community types were identified
on site during the baseline survey (W-C 1994b).
Additionally, there are no riparian communities
23996/R4-WP.4A 02-0*-97(7:36pm)/RPT/8
4-43
-------
on this site. Therefore, these issues are not dealt
with further hi this impact analysis.
Bio-accumulation of Metals in Plant Tissue
Bio-accumulation of toxic metals by plants from
soil or nutrient solutions depends on many factors
including: (1) the nature of plants, such as
species, growth rate, root size and depth,
transpiration rate, and nutritional requirements;
(2) soil factors such as pH, organic matter
content and nature, nutrient status, and amount of
metal ions and certain anions like phosphate,
sulfate, and sulfides, and clay content and type;
(3) environmental and management variables such
as temperature, moisture, sunlight, and
amendments and fertilization; and (4) the modes
of metal toxicity and plant tolerance (Overcash
and Pal 1979).
Pendias and Pendias (1992) also state that the
fate of metals in soil and the potential uptake of
the metals by plants is dependent on a number of
environmental factors and the physical and
chemical characteristics of the soil, as well as
individual plant species. Numerous studies have
shown a general relationship between
concentrations of metals in soil and
concentrations of trace elements in agricultural
soil; however, there is not enough data to set up
definite values for criteria needed to protect soil
against the long-term effects of trace element
pollution. Mullen (1994) and Lipton et al. (1993)
in studies conducted on Superfund mining sites
also show a strong relationship between metals in
soU and metal concentrations in plants, noting
that most contamination is found in the top two
inches of soil.
Generally, effects of metal accumulation in plants
are stunted growth of roots and tops, browning of
leaves, interveinal chlorosis, wilting of the leaves,
and red or brown spots on the leaves. However,
each case of plant phytotoxicity is different, and,
in fact, some plants may show no visible signs of
injury.
There are three possible scenarios hi which
vegetation at the Lisbon Valley project area could
be exposed to toxic solutions such that
bioaccumulation and plant phytotoxicity could
occur.
• Runoff of acidic water from the waste rock
piles could result in a decreased soil pH, and
could mobilize low levels of aluminum and
iron from the waste material, as noted in
Section 4.2.2.1
• Runoff of alkaline water from the waste rock
piles could elevate soil pH. Additionally,
leachates could have elevated levels of
sulfates, and elevated concentrations of
aluminum, arsenic, selenium, molybdenum,
manganese, iron, uranium, and zinc, as
discussed in Section 4.2.2.1.
• The release of leaching solution from the
leach pad or solution ponds could decrease
soil pH. Also, leachates could contain
elevated levels of sulfates and dissolved
metals, as discussed in Section 4.2.2.1
The potential for adverse impacts to water
quality, and thus soils and vegetation, for each of
these scenarios is fully discussed in Section 4.2.2.1.
Assuming acid generating rock material is isolated
hi the waste rock dumps and the acidic materials
from the leach pad are neutralized or capped,
impacts are not expected to be significant.
Impacts to vegetation, if any, would be localized
hi the area of leachate release.
4.5.2 Proposed Action
433.1 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 power line. The power line corridor was
not included hi the baseline flora and fauna
report (W-C 1994b), 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 422
acres hi the SB zone, 296 acres hi the PJ zone,
23996/R4-WP.4A 02-04-97(7:36pm)/RPT/8
4-44
-------
300 acres in the GL/RL 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 BLM'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 power
line would affect 13.1 acres. The installation of
the power line would result in approximately 14.7
acres of surface disturbance that would require
reclamation. The remainder of disturbance for
construction of the power line is expected to
require minor reclamation efforts.
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 in use; there would be no
perennial vegetation growing on 1,039 acres (64
acres along the power line 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 769 acres) would be
scarified, cover soil reappiied,'and seeded with the
seed mixture shown on Table 2-10 (and modified
if the proposed test plots provide information that
different species or quantities of seed would
improve reclamation results).
Additionally, as discussed in Section 4.4.2.1, based
on the originally submitted POO (prior to
modifications as outlined in Appendix A),
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, ha 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 productivity on the 449 acres of waste dumps
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, resulting hi lower
densities of perennial plants. The potential for
establishing native perennial vegetation would be
progressively reduced as erosion increased. 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. The 231 acres' of open pits (146 acres
of new pits and 85 acres from the existing pits)
would primarily impact the PJ and SB
communities. As overburden sloughs from the pit
walls, annual plant species, such as cheatgrass,
would grow on the slopes. Plants such as Indian
ricegrass, rubber rabbitbrush, 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 it can take centuries before the original
diversity of a site is returned to predisturbance
levels. However, even when diversity is lost,
23996/R4-WP.4A 02-05-97(1 l:25pm)/RPT/8
4-45
-------
TABLE 4.5-1
DIRECT IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
BY FACILITY AND VEGETATIVE COMMUNITY TYPE
Facility
Open Pits
Sentinel #1
Sentinel #2
Centennial
GTO
Waste Dumps
DumpD
DumpC
DumpB
Dump A
Leach Pad Area
Process Area and Facilities
Miscellaneous
Haul Roads
Topsoil Stockpiles
69-kV Power line
Totals
Total
Acreage
38
9
116
68
55
118
90
186
266
21
33
39
64
1,103
Community Tvnes
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
o
32
422
Grassland/ Previously
Rangeland Disturbed
0 7
0 0
\J u
0 48
o o^
U 2.J
0 o
0 0
0 s
0 n
\> \j
266 0
21 n
^.i \j
3 0
10 0
o o
300 85
2399&'R4-T.451 1/31/97(4:06 PMyRPT/7
-------
reclaimed communities can achieve comparable
cover and productivity in 3-5 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 a 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 non-native species, and these species
have not precluded native perennial plants.
4.5JL2 Committed and Recommended
Mitigation
Committed Mitigation
As specified in the POO and in Appendix A,
Summo would establish and monitor revegetation
test plots to determine which species would grow
on plant growth mediums from the Lisbon Valley
mine site. The test plots would also be used to
assess fertilization requirements and the affects of
slope and aspect on revegetation.
Recommended Mitigation
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 cover 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 rate is for drill seeding 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, if shrubs cannot be re-established by
seeding and the test plots indicate that shrub
23996/R4-WP.4A 02-04-97(7:36pm)/RPT/8
4-47,
-------
seedlings would be successful, shrub seedlings
would be planted in conjunction with reseeding
efforts.
Due to the length of time required for re-
establishment of some vegetative species,
reclamation monitoring should occur for 5 years
after completion of mining operations to assure
the success of vegetative reclamation efforts.
The authorized officer of BLM would inspect
public land portions of the power line route after
construction to determine the required
rehabilitation measures. Rehabilitation would
include those measures identified and deemed
necessary by the authorized officer to ensure
successful mitigation of the impacts from the
construction operations. Rehabilitation measures
would 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 a seed
mixture provided by the San Juan Resource
Area for the power line route,
• 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.
Because no significant impacts from bio-
accumulation of metals hi plant tissues are
anticipated, a site-specific study, including an
extensive analysis of physical and chemical
characteristics of the vegetation and soils, is not
warranted at this time. However, vegetation
monitoring should include inspections for signs of
phytotoxicity, and in the unlikely event it occurs,
sampling and analysis of the vegetation would be'
necessary to develop an appropriate mitigation
plan.
4.5.3 No Action Alternative
4.53.1 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. Scenario 1 will not be further
discussed hi 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. The long-term impacts to
vegetation would be reduced, as the 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 in Section 4.4.4.1, additional
coversoil 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.
23996/R4-WP.4A 02-04-97C7:36pm)/RFT/8
4-48
-------
4.5.5 Facility Layout Alternative
4.5.5.1 Impacts
Under this alternative, Waste Dump D would be
eliminated, and additional lifts would be added to
Waste Dumps A, B, and C to handle this
material. Modifications to these dumps would
not result in any additional surface disturbance.
The elimination of Waste Dump D would reduce
the impacts, as compared to the Proposed Action,
by 55 acres. Direct impacts to vegetation
communities are shown on Table 4.5-2.
Recommended Mitigation
Recommended mitigation would be the same as
for the Proposed Action.
4.5.6
4.5.6.1
Waste Rock Selective Handling
Alternative
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 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 identified
hi the POO are incorporated into the analysis of
the potential for impacts to wildlife.
4.6.2 Proposed Action
4.6.2.1 Impacts
Mule Deer. Raptors, and Other Wildlife
As identified in Section 4.5.2, a total of 1,103
acres would be disturbed under the Proposed
Action. Although no habitat for special status
species has been identified, the disturbance of
habitat would impact the small mammal and
avian populations that currently inhabit the area.
The location that is designated to be impacted by
the leach pad (266 acres), is currently occupied by
Gunnison's prairie dogs, as well as small rodents
and passerine birds.
According to BLM records (Thompson 1995), a
drought in 1989/1990 caused the dispersal of
prairie dogs, up and down Lisbon Valley. Winter
surveys early hi 1996 confirmed the presence of
this species in the northern and southern reaches
of the valley. Approximately 767 acres of
occupied prairie dog habitat were located outside
of the project influence (W-C 1996b). During
disturbance due to construction activities, wildlife
would disperse from the area, and settle in
adjacent, undisturbed areas. Regarding
Gunnison's prairie dogs, and the associated faunal
component of the community, sufficient
populations exist hi contiguous habitat adjacent to
the leach pad area, such that the impacts due to
this construction and operation activity are
negligible La 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 small ephemeral stock ponds that
currently provide water for resident fauna. A
23996/R4-WP.4A 02-04-97(7:36pm)/RPT/8
4-49
-------
TABLE 4.5-2
DIRECT IMPACTS OF THE FACILITY LAYOUT ALTERNATIVE
BY FACILITY AND VEGETATIVE COMMUNITY TYPE
Facility
Total
Acreage
Community Tvnes
Pinyon- Sagebrush Grassland/ Previously
Juniper Rangeland Disturbed
Open Pits
Sentinel #1 38
Sentinel #2 9
Centennial 116
GTO 68
Waste Dumps
DumpD 0
DumpC 118
Dump B 90
Dump A 186
Leach Pad Area 266
Process Area and Faculties 21
Miscellaneous
Haul Roads 33
Topsoil Stockpiles 39
69-kV Power line 64
10
7
0
0
0
98
46
54
0
0
15
29
32
21
2
68
43
0
20
39
132
0
0
15
0
32
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
266
21
3
10
0
7
0
48
25
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
Totals 1048
291
372
300
85
2399&IR4-T,4S2 2/4/97(5:05 PM)/RPT/7
-------
small herd of mule deer (minimum size of 30
individuals) was identified in the vicinity of the
ponds during wildlife surveys (W-C 1996b). This
area provides water, forage, and cover in close
proximity to the stock ponds and the grassland/
rangeland community in the Wood's Pasture.
Although no critical mule deer habitat has been
designated hi the project area, it is obvious that a
small herd uses the area during portions of the
year.
Operation of the leach pad may provide access to
process ponds for resident birds or migrating
waterfowl, and other wildlife seeking water in this
semi-arid cold desert region. The process area
would be enclosed by an 8-foot high game fence
to exclude big game. No plans are in place for
deterrents to the avian communities.
Berms and three-strand wire fencing constructed
around open pits would deter but not exclude
wildlife. Potential impacts could occur to avian
fauna from landing in or utilizing potential lakes
that could form in the unreclaimed open pits.
Wildlife falling into pits has not been found to be
problematic for similar projects, and no problems
have been noted in this regard in the existing pits
in the area. Nevertheless, the potential does exist
for wildlife post-mining mortalities in the pit.
Construction of all other facilities would have a
very localized impact on the resident fauna; the
1,103 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. The
impact to resident small mammal and small avian
populations due to the construction of these
facilities would be negligible, given their generally
widespread regional distribution.
As discussed in Section 3.6, no active raptor nests
were identified within the project vicinity,
although several raptors were observed in the
area. Raptors are particularly susceptible to
disturbance during the breeding and nesting
seasons. Provided that project construction is
initiated before the next breeding season, it is
unlikely that the Proposed Action would disturb
breeding raptors. Although the construction of
the leach pad would probably reduce numbers of
prey (such as prairie dogs) in the project area, the
impacts on raptors are expected to be minimal
given the availability of prey in the Lisbon Valley
area.
The presence of a new power line in the area, is
not expected to negatively impact the wildlife
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. Raptors can and have
collided with power ones, and it is feasible that
raptors could collide with the new power line.
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
wildlife, but could cause the displacement of the
resident fauna into adjacent areas outside of the
influence of these disturbances.
As identified in the POO, all major lighting
sources would be shrouded to direct light
downwards toward the area of work. This would
minimize the area of influence of this light source,
minimising the impacts to resident nocturnal
fauna and nightlighting impacts to humans
residing up or down valley.
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 4.9), and the
direct impact to resident fauna populations is
expected to be negligible.
Special Status Species
Under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act
(ESA), Federal agencies are required to evaluate
tie effects of their actions on listed and proposed
endangered and threatened species, and to consult
with the US'FWS if they determine that their
actions may affect any species. In accordance
with ESA regulations, the BLM has prepared a
23996/R4-WP.4A 02-04-97(7:36pm)/RPT/8
4-51
-------
Biological Assessment for the Lisbon Valley
Copper Project. Determination as to whether or
not the Proposed Action is likely to affect
threatened, endangered, or candidate species is
provided by species below:
• Black-footed ferret - As described in section
3.6.4, neither ferrets nor then- sign were
observed within the area of project influence
during agency-approved surveys. No
additional surveys are planned, as approved
by the wildlife agencies (Williams 1996).
Based on survey results, it is anticipated that
the Proposed Action would have no effect on
black-footed ferrets.
• Bald eagle - Although bald eagles could
occur hi the project vicinity, none were
observed during whiter or spring surveys;
thus, it is anticipated that the Proposed
Action would have no effect on bald eagles.
• Peregrine falcon - Although peregrine falcons
could migrate through the area, none were
observed during winter or spring field
surveys. In addition, they are unlikely to nest
within the area of project influence, due to
lack of suitable habitat. Therefore, it is
unlikely that the Proposed Action would
affect peregrine falcons.
• Mexican spotted owl - No Mexican spotted
owls were observed during field surveys. Due
to lack of suitable habitat in or near the
project area, it is anticipated that the
Proposed Action would have no effect on the
Mexican spotted owl.
As discussed in Section 4.2.2.1, the extraction of
groundwater for process requirements and dust
control is not expected to result in direct adverse
impacts to flows hi the Dolores River or
therefore, the Colorado River. Similarly, surface
water diverted into the Sentinel Pit would have
minimal impacts on flows into the Dolores River
and Colorado River. 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.
However, the use of groundwater for the
proposed mining operations would deplete overall
water contributing to the Colorado River (Table
2-6). Such depletion may affect four endangered
fish species: the Colorado River fish: the
razorback sucker, Colorado squawfish, the
bonytail chub, and the humpback chub.
As a result of this potential impact, the BLM-
Moab District re-initiated a Programmatic Section
7 Consultation with the USFWS (based on a
previous BLM District-wide Biological
Assessment and FWS Biological Opinion, dated
May, 1994), regarding this additional depletion
resulting from the Lisbon Valley Copper Project.
The subsequent Biological Opinion issued by the
USFWS (dated November, 1996), indicated that
the water depletion associated with this project
would constitute a jeopardy situation for the
continued existence of these species.
As described hi Section 3.6.4, a total of three
loggerhead shrikes were observed hi the project
area and along the transmission line route during
field surveys. However, no shrike nests were
identified. In addition, one ferruginous hawk was
observed during field surveys, although no active
nests were identified. Potential habitat for these
two species occurring within the project area
represents a small portion of the available habitat
in the Lisbon Valley and surrounding areas.
Thus, although some habitat would be lost as a
result of the Proposed Action, effects on either
loggerhead shrikes or ferruginous hawks would be
minimal. None of the remaining sensitive species
listed hi Table 3.6-1 (including the burrowing owl
or Swainson's hawk) were observed during field
surveys; thus they are unlikely to be adversely
affected by the Proposed Action.
Impacts to rattlesnakes as a result of the
Proposed Action are expected to be negligible.
No dens were identified hi the project area and
none of the den sites used by the Veteran's
Administration Venom Team are located hi the
project area.
23996/R4-WP.4A 02-04-97<7:36pm)/RPT/8
4-52
-------
4.6.2.2 Committed and Recommended
Mitigation Measures
Committed Mitigation
As discussed in Section 2.2.12 and Appendix A,
interim and final reclamation plans have been
developed. The entire area 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.
Additionally, based on the Biological Opinion
issued by the USFWS regarding the water
depletion jeopardy situation to the endangered
fish species hi the Colorado River Basin, Summo
has agreed hi writing to mitigation identified by
USFWS in that opinion. This mitigation would
consist of a contribution of funds to the
Endangered Colorado River Fish Recovery
Program, by Summo. Contributions would be
based on the average annual acre foot depletion
for the project. This fee would be paid on
issuance of the approval of the Plan of Operation.
Recommended Mitigation
In cooperation with UDWR, BLM, and Summo,
a big game habitat enhancement project would be
implemented to mitigate impacts to native
vegetation and watering sources from the mining
operation. The specifics of this project would be
identified and implemented through the
preparation and approval of a Mitigation Plan,
cooperatively agreed to by the identified
participants, which would be developed within one
year of approval of the mining Plan of
Operations. The habitat enhancement could
include but would not be limited to vegetation
manipulation through burning, spraying, biological
control, plowing, chaining, fertilization, or
reseeding. In addition, new wildlife watering
sources could be constructed within the Lisbon
Valley area for compensation of the water sources
lost during mining operations.
Based on monitoring by BLM, UDWR, and
USFWS; if wildlife mortalities occur as a result of
contact with the process ponds during operation,
corrective action would be taken. This would also
apply to long-term monitoring of lakes that could
potentially develop in the post-mining pits.
Specific measures used to mitigate such impacts
would be developed in coordination with the
BLM, USFWS, and UDWR (see Appendix A).
The 8 foot fencing constructed around solution
ponds should include 4 feet of small mesh along
the bottom to prevent small mammals from
entering the pond areas.
If raptors are found nesting within the project
area during construction, BLM and UDWR will
be contacted to verify the species and to
determine if any additional mitigation measures
are necessary.
The use of warning balls or other visual warnings
placed along the power line would reduce the
potential for raptors colliding with power lines
stretched across canyons. The span across Dry
Wash hi section 5, T. 31S., R. 25 E. is a potential
collision hazard for raptors hunting along the
drainage or canyon rims.
4,6.3 No Action Alternative
4.63.1 Impacts
Under this alternative, there would be no impacts
to the faunal 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 hi 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. If the
open pits were completely backfilled, as described
under Scenario 2, long-term surface disturbance
would be significantly reduced. Thus, a big game
habitat enhancement project may not be
necessary. Similarly, any potential hazards to
wildlife being trapped hi pits would be eliminated.
23996/R4-WP.4A 02-04-97(7:36pm)/RPT/8
4-53
-------
4.6.4.2 Recommended Mitigation
Mitigation measures would be the same as those
identified in the Proposed Action.
4.6.5 Facility Layout Alternative
Impacts
The reduction in vegetated acres lost through the
elimination of Waste Dump D, would provide no
significant difference to impacts assessed in the
Proposed Action.
4.6.5.2 Recommended Mitigation
Recommended mitigation would be the same as
that identified in the Proposed Action.
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 would be the same as
that identified under the Proposed Action.
4.7
GRAZING
4.7.1 Methodology
This section addresses the potential impacts to
livestock (i.e., cattle) gracing that could result
from implementation of the Proposed Action.
The power line construction would be a
temporary disruption to livestock grazing
operations, but there would be no long-term
impacts from power line construction affecting
livestock forage production or gracing, ln
addition, potential impacts to cattle grazing
associated with each of the alternatives to the
Proposed Action, as identified in Section 2.3, are
addressed below.
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 hi 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 hi the
Lisbon Allotment 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 744 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 graying would
occur in three ways. First, Summo's proposed
operations would result in the temporary loss of
grazing areas and existing temporary stock ponds
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
23996/R4-WP.4B 02-04-97(7:39pm)/RPT/8
4-54
-------
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
20 to 30
5 to 10
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
Upland Stony Loam
Upland Shallow Loam
Semidesert Stony Loam
Upland Shallow Loam
seeded with crested
wheatgrass
Mine site '
50
30 to 50
50
10 to 15
0
P-J Slopes
P-J Slopes
P-J Slopes
P-J Slopes
Centennial Pit
Source: BLM 1996e
23996/R4-T.471 l/31»7(4:09PM)/RPT/7
y-55
-------
TABLE 4.7-2
TEMPORARY GRAZING LOSS
Average Acreage
Area perAUM1
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
25
25
0
7.5
7.5
7.5
25
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
40
Proposed Disturbed
Acreage2
38
9
116
403
186
90
118
55
56
21
32
39
Loss AUM
1.5
0.4
0
5.3
24.8
12
4.7
7.3
7.5
2.8
4.3
1.0
71.6
Source:
1 Based on values in Table 4.7-1.
2 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.
S399&R4-T.47Z 1/31/97(4:32 FMjyRPT/7
-------
temporary loss of 42.7 AUMs in t£e Lower
Lisbon Allotment would be approximately 4
percent of the allotment's grazing capacity. This
level of change 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.
The 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).
This would result in a permanent loss of 1.9
AUMs in the Lisbon Allotment and 5.3 AUMs in
the Lower Lisbon Allotment. The permanent loss
of these 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 or
resource management objectives for either
allotment. The loss of these AUMs within the
project area would be absorbed by grazing other
portions of these allotments.
Finally, Summo's proposed fencing would block
normal movement of livestock between two
graying 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. As proposed by Summo, both sides of
the county road would be fenced and the cattle
could trail along the roadsides, but pushing the
cattle through the gates located next to the cattle
guards would require more time and labor when
moving cattle.
4.12,2. Committed 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.
Recommended Mitigation
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.
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 AUM's (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
23996/R4-WP.4B 02-04-97(7:39pm)/RPT/8
4-57
-------
TABLE 4.7-3
PERMANENT GRAZING LOSS
Area
Average Acreage
per AUM1
Proposed Disturbed
Acreage2
Loss AUM
Sentinel Pit No. 1
Sentinel Pit No. 2
Centennial Pit
GTO Pit
TOTAL
25
25
0
7.5
38
9
116
403
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.
1 GTO Pit acreage amount reflects proposed purchase by Summo of the Patterson Ranch.
239963W-T.47J 1/31/97(5:31 PMVRFT/7
-------
backfilling scenario would occur only during
Summo's operations. Approximately 71.6 AUM's
would be temporarily lost for about 13 years, as
detailed in Section 4.7.2.1; no AUM's 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).
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 gracing 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.
The permanent loss of grazing capacity would be
the same as under the Proposed Action.
4.732 Recommended Mitigation
No mitigation is recommended.
4.7.6 Waste Rock Selective Handling
Alternative
4.7.6.1 Impacts
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 AUM's 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.
23996/R4-WP.4B 02-04-97C7:39pm)/Rl>T/8
4-59
-------
4.8.2 Proposed Action
4.82.1 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, although some non-technical
construction workers would be local.
After construction is completed, a variety of
salaried and hourly jobs would be created for a
period of ten 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 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, fuel 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
23996/R4-WP.4B 02-04-97(7:39pm)/RPT/8
4-60
-------
Figure 4.8-1
Projected Employment
e
I
O Hourly Mining Personnel
m Hourly Ore Processing, SX/EW
H Salary Mine Personnel
Ei Salary Processing Personnel
Salary Administrative
Year
1
Year
2
Year
3
Year Year Year Year Year Year
S 6 7 8 9 10
Phases
if4l
23W6/R4-F1G.S4 2/5/97(1 l:32PM)/RPT/8
-------
projected to occur, the growth in the labor force
should replace lost service and trade workers.
In addition, the imminent closure of the Energy
Fuels uranium mill 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 would 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 hi Section 3.8.2, the
unemployment rate in 1995 was 63% in Grand
County and 7.7% in San Juan County.
Earnings
The operation of the mine would generate an
estimated $54,555,632 in payroll. Of that total,
the hourly mining labor payroll for the full 10
years contributes $28,933,632 to the mine's total
payroll. Employment for processing employees
would pay an additional $14,842,000 in payroll
wages. Administrative positions would pay
approximately $6,400,000 in wages, and $4,380,000
would be paid for the salaried mining positions
(Gochnour 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, Nucla, Naturita), economic
benefits would be experienced there as well.
Economic benefits would occur as a result of
expenditure of mine-related earnings on 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
unknown where all of the local project 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 indirect jobs would be created
in Monticello and Moab, with the communities of
La Sal and Blanding also experiencing some
indirect job creation as well. The 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
23996/R4-WP.4B 02-04-97(7:39pm)/RPT/8
4-62
-------
that would be created within the study area. 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.
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 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
would increase, despite closure of the mine in
roughly 15 years. Since overall employment
would grow in the future and mine closure would
result in a loss of less than two 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 assumes 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. These type of workers would likely
choose to temporarily live in mobile trailers to the
community nearest the mine site, which would be
La Sal. 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 approximately 457 RV hook up spots
available, the total number of available temporary
housing units 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/R4-WP.4B ,02-04-97<7:39pm)/RPT/8
4-63^
-------
Housing - Operational Phase
Monticello, La Sal and particularly Moab, might
have difficulty absorbing additional non-local
workers and families with the currently low
vacancy rates. New 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 (SEUAOG
1996). Data are not available for La Sal.
However, as the previous analysis suggests, 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 arc currently
finishing work at the local uranium mine would
likely look for the mining opportunities presented
by the proposed copper mine (Myrick 19%).
Tax Revenue
The Proposed Action would contribute a net
revenue increase to San Juan and Grand counties,
as well as the State of Utah 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 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 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 hi 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 hi and around Mexican Hat,
Bluff, 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. Over time, as
production eventually declined and ended,
23996/R4-WP.4B 02-04-97(7:39pm)/RPT/8
4-64
-------
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.
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 hi maintenance costs
borne by San Juan County. In addition, there is
the 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 fire
departments and/or medical response services
(ambulance) in the surrounding communities.
Since it is difficult to predict the extent these
services would be utilized, 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 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. Additionally, there
would be minimal increase in demand on medical
facilities, public utilities, water supply, and
wastewater treatment. The proposed power tine
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 to available infrastructure is
projected.
Since security would be 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 at capacity, so a slight increase in
demand in the study area communities would
have no impact.
Social Impacts and Quality of Life
The Proposed Action could impact the aesthetic
visual and recreational values of Lisbon Valley to
some extent. These impacts are described in
Sections 4.12 and 4.16, respectively. Many
residents hi the surrounding areas, hi addition to
recreational visitors from out of the area, consider
outdoor recreational opportunities and aesthetic
visual values to be an important factor that
contributes to quality of life. However, the
Proposed Action would not significantly impact
these values because the project site is located hi
a remote area far removed from the communities
of Moab and Monticello, and is not considered an
important scenic or recreational use area by
either area residents or out of area recreational
visitors. Residents of Moab and Monticello
would not see the project site from then-
communities and would have plentiful outdoor
recreational opportunities closer to home. Out of
area recreational users would continue to utilize
National Parks and areas of scenic vistas of public
lands that are located hi other areas of the region.
Alternatively, the creation of higher wage mining
jobs would increase the incomes of many
households hi Grand and San Juan counties. To
the extent the increase hi income and economic
opportunity for study area residents reduces
problems associated with high living costs, such as
housing, the project could result hi positive social
impacts.
The study area has a long history of mining and
natural resources extraction and production.
Many residents hi the study area historically
derived their livelihoods from uranium and
vanadium riiining and milling. In general, the fact
that employment hi these industries provides
higher wages and is the economic base of the
23996/R4-WP.4B 02-04-97(7:39pm)/RPT/8
4-65
-------
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 have been 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,
wgges 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 Committed and Recommended
Mitigation
Committed Mitigation
Summo has not identified any committed
mitigation for socioeconomic impact in their
POO.
Recommended Mitigation
In light of the overall assessment of positive
impacts to socioeconomic conditions in the region
surrounding the project site, the only mitigation of
socioeconomic Impacts that could be identified
would consist of encouraging Summo to hire 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 permanent housing and
local government services and community
facilities. Although this mitigation is identified, it
is realized that there is no legal mechanism to
force Summo to comply.
4.8.3 No Action Alternative
4.83.1 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 reduced compared
to those described for the Proposed Action, due
to reduced mining activity and shortened project
life. Since backfilling would make some ore
recovery less economical, the employment,
earnings, tax payments, and related positive
economic impacts would be reduced.
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.
23996/R4-WP.4B 02-04-97(7:39pm)/RPT/8
4-66
-------
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
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, it 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 would not be
shuttled by Summo to the mine by bus or vans.
Typical commuter trips would originate in La Sal,
Monticello, Moab, and possibly Blanding, in
addition to possibly 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 and Blanding, it is likely that
commuters would either take U.S. Highway 191
north to Big Indian Road and proceed east to
Lisbon Valley Road, or 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 Dove Creek, commuters would
likely take U.S. Highway 666 west to Ucolo Road
and proceed north to the mine as described
above. Workers from La Sal would simply take
the Lisbon Valley Road to the mine site.
Based on review of projected project equipment
and supply requirements and copper plate
23996/R4-WP.4B 02-04-97(7:39pm)/RPT/8
4-67
-------
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
seldom use the Ucolo or West Summit Roads to
access the mine site from the south due to rough
road conditions.
With the exception of peak holiday weekends in
Moab, 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 hi traffic could
cause modest traffic delays and inconveniences on
some occasions under certain circumstances.
At various times during the year, such as the
Easter, Memorial Day and Labor Day weekends,
the volume of tourism-related visitation to the
study area can substantially increase traffic on
local area' highways and roads, particularly in the
Moab area. During these high visitation periods,
project-related traffic associated with workers
commuting from Moab to the mine and trucks
hauling various equipment and supplies through
Moab to the mine could aggravate traffic
congestion and delays hi the Moab area.
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 hi 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 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 hi increased traffic).
As described hi Section 2.2.10, 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
23996/R4-WP.4B 02-(M-97(7:39pm)/RPT/8
4-68
-------
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 should
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 17
crossings per hour), the potential for collisions
between public vehicles and mine trucks is low.
Similarly, due the nature of this haul traffic and
low public traffic volumes along the county road,
it is unlikely that 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 study area highways and local roads due to
project-related traffic, the number of potential
future accidents was calculated based on the 1994
accident rate for study area highways applied to
estimated project traffic. This potential accident
calculation requires careful consideration of all of
the potential travel routes to the mine site from
the communities that are likely to house mine
workers. For commuters and truck traffic
approaching the mine from Grand County to the
north, traffic would utilize US 191 south and then
proceed east on Route 46 to Lisbon Valley Road.
For trips originating to the south of the mine in
San Juan County (Monticello, Blanding),
commuters and trucks would most likely utilize
US 191 north to Big Indian Road, and proceed
east to Lisbon Valley Road. A third access route,
which would most likely be used by commuters
residing east of Monticello or in western
Colorado communities such as Dove Creek,
would feature the use of US 666 to Ucolo Road,
proceeding north over Three Step Hill, and down
to the mine site.
The calculation of the potential number of
accidents associated with the project includes the
following traffic estimates and route assumptions:
Traffic:
73 commuter trips, 9 heavy truck
trips, 12 medium truck trips = 94
roundtrips or 188 one-way trips per
day to and from the mine.
• About 94 one-way trips (47 roundtrips per
day), or half of total daily traffic would come
from Grand County to the north, utilizing US
191 south from Moab to La Sal Junction,
then Route 46 to Lisbon Valley Road.
• About 74 one-way trips (37 roundtrips per
day) in San Juan County and would utilize
US 191 north from Monticello to Big Indian
Road.
• The remaining 20 one-way trips (10
roundtrips per day) would utilize US 666
from either Monticello or western Colorado
to Ucolo Road.
Based on these assumptions and the ADT figures
from Table 3.9-1, the potential accident
calculation is as follows:
US 191 - Moab to La Sal Junction: 94 one-way
trips/day x (48 accidents/8,430 ADT in 1994) =
054 accident/year
SR 46 - La Sal Junction to Lisbon Valley Road:
94 one-way trips/day x (5 accidents/1,000 ADT in
1994) = 0.47 accident/year
US 191 - Monticello to Big Indian Road: 74 one-
way trips/day x (55 accidents/3,250 ADT in 1994)
= 1.25 accidents/year
For this portion of the accident calculation, the
number of 1994 accidents includes all accidents
on US 191 from Monticello to La Sal Junction,
rather than just to Big Indian Road. Thus, the
1.25 accidents/year is somewhat larger than may
actually be the case.
US 666 - Monticello, Colorado line to Ucolo
Road: 20 one-way trips x (17 accidents/1,865
ADT in 1994) = 0.18 accident/year
23996/R4-WP.4B 02-04-97(7:39pm)/RPT/8
4-69
-------
Total accident prediction = 0.54 + 0.47 + 1.25 +
0.18 = 2.44 accidents /year.
It is important to note that comparable traffic
volume and accident data were not available for
the county roads that would be used to reach the
mine site from the highways described above.
Thus, the actual accident rate may be somewhat
higher.
In terms of gauging the significance of this
impact, the predicted number of accidents
associated with project-related traffic should be
placed in the context of total accidents
experienced on project area highways. Based on
review of the accident history of the four
highways that serve the project area, an increase
of approximately 2.44 accidents per year would
amount to about a 2 percent increase above the
1994 accident level of 125 for all project area
highways (Table 3.9-2) and would be considered
a low negative impact.
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 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. Such maintenance costs would be offset by
the increased county tax base resulting from the
project. A discussion of these economic and
fiscal impacts associated with the Proposed Action
is presented in Section 4.8.
Committed and Recommended
Mitigation
Committed 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.
Recommended Mitigation
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, and potential accidents.
Summo should be required to coordinate with
local community agencies and leadership
organizations regarding the hauling of hazardous
materials and other supplies during heavy
weekend "event" periods, particularly in the Moab
area. Summo should attempt to secure supplies
sufficient to carry them through these identified
time periods.
4.9.3 No Action Alternative
4.93.1 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 and no added wear on county maintained
roads. 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 similar to
those described for the Proposed Action although
the size and duration of the project would be
reduced. As a result, the duration of commuter
and truck trips would also be reduced due to
shortened mine life.
For heavy equipment operation within the active
mine area, hauling activities across Lisbon Valley
23996/R4-WP.4B 02-04-97(7:39pm)/RPT/8
4-70
-------
Road would be generally the same as described
for the Proposed Action. The backfilling of the
pits using trucks would not result in an increase
in haul trips across Lisbon Valley Road. In
general, the backfilling of pits would involve the
use of waste rock from adjacent facilities. That
is, the backfilling of the Centennial Pit would
involve waste material from the GTO Pit. This
reduces haul distance and associated costs, and
avoids truck trips crossing Lisbon Valley Road.
Overall, the number of internal mine truck trips
would increase due to backfill hauling, but these
additional trips would not impact 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.
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 the
remaining dumps would not change the overall
number or nature of waste rock haul trips. The
majority of material from Dump D would be
placed in Dump C, utilizing internal roads that do
not cross the Lisbon Valley Road. Material that
would have been hauled from the Centennial pit
to Dump C would be placed in Dump A, slightly
reducing the amount of traffic across Lisbon
Valley Road. Importantly, the number of waste
rock haul trips on or across Lisbon Valley Road
would likely not change substantially, as most
trips that would have gone to Dump D would be
routed to the other dumps on internal mine
roads.
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 die 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 burns. Ingestion
23996/R4-WP.4B 02-04-97(7:39pm)/RPT/8
4-71
-------
can cause severe burns to the 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.
Extractants. According to product Material
Safety Data Sheets (MSDS), hazard
characteristics of LDC984N and LIX622N
extractants include severe toxicity 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 material. It is also
possible that it could contaminate soils, and harm
vegetation and wildlife, if exposed, due to spill
during transport.
Kerpsene. 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.
Eeirc-us sulfate. Review of the product MSDS
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, or
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 Sulfafe. Review of the product MSDS 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 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
23996/R4-WP.4B 02-04-97(7:39pm)/RIT/8
4-72
-------
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.
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. 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 arc 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. Antifreeze 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 toxicity, 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, gastro-
intestinal 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.
4.102 Proposed Action
4.10.2.1 Impacts
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 trucks using the highways and
local roads of die study area. Specifically, these
materials would be transported on US 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 over the ten year life of the
project.
23996/R4-WP.4B 02-04-97(7:39pm)/RPT/8
4-73
-------
To place this project-related hazardous material
hauling activity in context, the number of haul
trips should be compared with estimates of
overall hazardous material hauling activity hi the
study area. In January 1996, the San Juan County
Local Emergency Planning Committee performed
a hazardous material transportation survey on
vehicles traveling on US 666 through the
Monticello Point of Entry. Over the course of
the two day survey, 170 trucks hauling about
3,885,000 pounds of hazardous materials were
recorded. This is equivalent to 85 trucks hauling
1.95 million pounds of hazardous materials daily
on US 666. Of the 170 trucks recorded, 40 were
hauling flammable liquids, such as gasoline and
diesel, 47 were hauling compressed gases, such as
propane, 29 were hauling corrosives, such as
acids, and 12 were hauling explosives. The other
trucks were hauling soda ash, poisonous materials,
such as pesticides, radioactive wastes, and other
hazardous materials (San Juan County Emergency
Planning 1996). Given that the survey covered
US 666 exclusively, and did not include US 191 or
SR 46, it is very likely that the overall number of
trucks hauling hazardous materials and quantity
hauled through the study area would be
significantly higher than 85 trucks and 1.95 million
pounds per day. Thus, the addition of 10
hazardous material haul trips per day for the
Proposed Action would represent only a marginal
increase for the overall study area.
The potential number of accidents involving
trucks hauling hazardous materials to the mine
was calculated for the Proposed Action based on
the total number of hazardous material haul trips
anticipated over the entire life of the project
multiplied by national accident rate for hazardous
material haul trips, calculated by the US
Department of Transportation (Abkowitz et al.
1984). The national accident rate was used
because such an accident rate was not available
for either the State of Utah or Grand and San
Juan Counties specifically. Based on an estimated
36,500 hazardous material haul trips over the life
of the project (10 per day, 365 days per year, for
ten years), traveling a loaded distance of 50 miles
(Moab to the mine site), multiplied by the
national hazardous material accident rate of 0.28
accident per million miles traveled, it is estimated
that there would be 0.51 accidents involving trucks
hauling hazardous materials to the mine site over
the life of the project. This calculation is as
follows:
36,500 hazardous material haul trips x 50
miles/loaded trip = 1.825 million trip miles
1.825 million trip miles x 0.28 accident/ million
trip miles = .511 accident predicted
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
accidents is probably higher than would actually
be the case.
An alternative method of predicting potential
hazardous material haul trip accidents would be
to apply the general study area accident rate
described in Section 4.9 to the projected number
of hazardous material haul trips on an annual
basis and over the life of the project. Applying
that accident rate to projected mine-related
hazardous material haul trips yields 0.16 accident
per year or 1.6 accidents over the life of the
project (assuming half of the trips use US 191
from the north, half use US 191 from the south,
and all trips use SR 46 to Lisbon Valley Road).
This approach yields a higher accident prediction
and probably overstates the true risk of hazardous
material hauling accidents because Summo's truck
trips comprise a small percentage of total traffic
hi the study area and the incidence of truck
accidents is smaller than for automobiles. No
data were available on truck accidents actually
involving hazardous materials b the study area.
Thus, using an accident rate that is heavily
influenced by automobile traffic and accidents is
likely to be incorrect. Nevertheless, depending on
which accident prediction methodology is used,
the predicted number of hazardous material
hauling accidents would range from 0.5 to 1.6
accidents over the ten year Me of the project.
The environmental impacts of an accident
involving a truck hauling hazardous materials
would depend on the amount and the type of
23996/R4-WP.4B 02-04-97(7:39pm)/RPT/8
4-74
-------
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, 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, ground water resources
are generally at great depth, and it is unlikely that
a spill event would contaminate groundwater.
Due to the 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
legal 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.
However, local community emergency response
teams and law enforcement would likely be the
first responders to such incidents and would be
involved with any accidents involving hazardous
materials. The current training level of these
teams may or may not be adequate to contend
with such an emergency. Summo should also
have personnel trained and equipped to respond
to and be able to provide clean up support for
such potential spills.
Storage and Use of Hazardous Materials
Accidental spills or uncontrolled releases of
hazardous materials could potentially occur at the
mine site 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
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 hi this
fashion, it is likely that any spills or releases that
could occur 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 incidents, 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 would be lined and would have
ample capacity to contain spilled hazardous
materials. Due to the potential for spills, and in
compliance with various laws and regulations,
Summo would prepare a Spill Prevention Control
and Countermeasure Plan (SPCC) for the
proposed project as described in Section 2.2.9.
As a part of implementing that plan, Summo
would maintain necessary spill containment and
23996/R4-WP.4B 02-04-97(7:39pm)/RPT/8
4-75
-------
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 dram into a sump with a riser
pipe/monitoring well that would be cnecked
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 hi 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. The effects of such contamination would
be limited to the pits.
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 came in contact with the solution
and degrade its suitability as wildlife habitat. This
type of impact would be minimized through
elimination of sprinkler application of raffinate
during high wind events, as identified in Summo's
POO.
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 types 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, 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", a mixture of solids (various
minerals and metals) and organic liquids. The
name would separate 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 We 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
23996/R4-WP.4B 02-04-97(7:39pm)/RPT/8
4-76
-------
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 hi 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
2.2.12.2, 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 hi the ore
mass after rinsing would remain encapsulated
within the pad and would not escape into the
environment as leachate.
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.
4.10.2.2 Committed and Recommended
Mitigation
Committed Mitigation
Summo would have trained personnel and
equipment capable of handling responses to
emergency spills within the general area of the
project site.
Recommended Mitigation
Summo should be required to provide full
emergency response training, at their cost, for all
local community emergency response teams to
assure they are fully trained to respond to any
potential accidents involved with hauling
hazardous materials to the project site. In
addition, Summo should provide any specialized
response equipment to these teams necessary to
respond to emergencies involved with trucks
transporting hazardous materials to the project
site.
4.10.3 No Action Alternative
4.103.1 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
Since backfilling would reduce the size and
duration of the project, the consumption and
transportation of many hazardous materials, such
as acid, would be reduced. However, backfilling
would increase truck trips and fuel consumption,
more haul trips would be required for delivering
diesel fuel to the mine than under the Proposed
Action. There would be no significant change in
predicted accident rates for this alternative.
Other impacts described under the Proposed
Action for hazardous materials transportation and
use would be the same for this alternative.
23996/R4-WP.4B 02-04-97C7:39pm)/RPT/8
4-77
-------
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 for the Proposed Action. Modifications to
the layout of waste rock dumps would not
appreciably change the types and quantities of
hazardous materials used and wastes disposed.
4.10J.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 PALEON-
TOLOGICAL 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 BLM's
consultation with Native American groups,
representatives of the Northern Ute Indian Tribe
conducted a site visit in March 1996. Appropriate
treatment measures were identified by the tribe
and performed during a second site visit
conducted later, followed by a letter stating that
their concerns for the project were concluded.
The Navajo Utah Commission has responded in
writing to the BLM that they are in support of
the project as proposed. Representatives of the
Ute Mountain Ute Tribe and the Hopi Tribe
have also made visits to the project area, in
October 1996, and formal letters finding no
objection to the project are anticipated, but have
not been received to date.
In general, the primary issue concerning cultural
resources would be the potential for impacts to
significant prehistoric and historic sites, including
traditional cultural properties. The primary
concern regarding paleontological resources is the
potential for impacts to geological formations that
might produce significant fossils.
4.11.1.2 Cultural Resources
Direct impacts are defined as complete or partial
destruction of any sites eligible for or listed on
the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP)
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 might also be considered a
direct impact.
Indirect impacts, such as increased artifact
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 1983b).
23994/R4-WP.4B 02-
-------
• Class I areas are those that are known or are
likely to produce abundant significant fossils
that are vulnerable to surface disturbing
activities,
• Class II areas are those that show evidence of
fossils but are unlikely to produce abundant
significant fossils.
• Class III 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
1983b).
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 effects a project might 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 power line and associated access roads, were
subjected to an intensive survey by professional,
permitted archaeologists. All located sites, and
those previously recorded, were evaluated for
their eligibility to the NRHP. The evaluations
and determinations of eligibility are made by the
BLM (hi consultation with the SHPO) based
upon recommendations from the professional
archaeologists who conducted the survey.
It is possible that there could be impacts to
unknown (for example, buried) cultural resources
from construction of the Proposed Action.
Additionally, the location of cultural resource sites
could restrict the normal construction procedures
for the power line serving the proposed mine site.
However, all of the known eligible cultural sites
are located outside of the areas of direct impact,
and with the implementation of an avoidance
plan, there should be no effects, as defined in 36
CFR § 800, to significant cultural resources.
Therefore, the BLM has made a Finding of No
Effect for the Proposed Action, with which the
Utah State Historic Preservation Office has
concurred.
4.11.2.2 Committed and Recommended
Mitigation
Committed Mitigation
Summo's POO indicates that in the event
undiscovered cultural resources are found during
excavation and construction, all disturbance
activity would stop and the appropriate authorities
contacted for direction.
Several treatment measures can be taken to
mitigate impacts. Site avoidance is preferred,
followed by site protection and data recovery and
analysis. It is anticipated that site avoidance
would be the only measure necessary for the
Proposed Action including the proposed power
line.
To assure that the 23 potential historic properties
are avoided, then- boundaries should be
established by a professional archaeologist and
the boundaries of sites in the vicinity of
construction and operations should be marked
and signed permanently so that it is clear that
ground disturbing activities cannot occur hi 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 previously
undiscovered cultural resource.
In addition to the 23 eligible sites, there are non-
eligible sites in the project area. To mitigate the
effect of loss of a large number of individually
23996/R4-WP.4B 02-04-97(7:39pm)/RPT/8
4-79
-------
non-eligible sites, an analytic study of known
cultural data in Lisbon Valley, completed prior to
construction of mine facilities, would synthesize
and preserve the data represented in the non-
eligible sites.
Due to the number of cultural sites identified
along the power line route and the complexity of
developing mitigation for the sites, an
archaeological avoidance plan has been prepared.
Utah SHPO has concurred with the plan, and the
plan would be incorporated into the Right-of-Way
Grant as stipulations. This plan would describe
and require detailed procedures for mitigating
potential impacts to cultural resources during the
construction, operation, and maintenance of the
power line.
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 a 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 hi the
archaeological avoidance plan would be
inspected, and avoidance procedures from the
plan would be discussed.
• If future expansion of the project extends
beyond the area of cultural resource study,
additional cultural resource inventories would
be required.
4.113 No Action Alternative
4.113.1 Impacts
The No Action Alternative would have no impact
on cultural resources.
4.113.2 Recommended Mitigation
Since no impacts have been identified under the
No Action Alternative, there are no
recommended mitigation measures.
4.11.4 Open Pit Backfilling Alternative
4.11.4.1 Impacts
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 from the Facility Layout Alternative
would be the same as those discussed under the
Proposed Action.
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.
23996/R4-WP.4B 02-04-97(7:39pm)/RPT/8
4-80
-------
4.11.6.2 Recommended Mitigation
Recommended mitigation would be the same as
for the Proposed Action.
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 1986b). 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
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
4.122.1 Impacts
Construction and operation of the open pit mines,
surface facilities, waste dumps, heap leach pads,
and power line would introduce visual contrasts
into the existing landscape. Open pits and surface
faculties 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 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 South Mountain
in the La Sal Mountains, located approximately 25
miles north of the project area. At that distance,
it is not expected that the project would draw the
viewer's attention, due to the extremities in
landscape contrast in the region as seen from
South Mountain. The project site would not be
visible from other regional mountains due to the
long distances, or from adjacent areas due to the
low topography and screening provided by
flanking ridges surrounding the project site.
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, to some degree, 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 pad
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 Committed and Recommended
Mitigation
Committed Mitigation
None identified in the POO.
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) minimi/ing disturbance; and
(3) repeating the basic elements of line, form,
23996/R4-WP.4B 02-04-97(7:39pm)/RPT/8
4-81
-------
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 line, where not hi conflict with
requirements to construct slopes breaks and
waterbars necessary to stabilize areas from
erosion. Grading should be done in such a
manner that would minimise, 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 hi 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
4.123.1 Impacts
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 hi 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 Impacts
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 .areal 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 Dumps A, B, and C would
be expanded. Engineering analysis performed by
Summo (Gochnour 1996c) estimate that the
height of Waste Dump C would be increased by
approximately 60 feet, causing the top of the
dump to be about 50 feet higher than the
adjacent natural topography, increasing the visual
dominance of the facility. The height of Waste
Dump B, located on the south side of the county
road, would be increased by approximately 70
feet. The increased mass of the dump would
increase the scale of the facility relative to
surrounding elements in the landscape and attract
more attention. Waste Dump A would not
increase by a noticeable amount. Removing
Waste Dump D would reduce the total number of
facilities associated with the project and reduce
visual impacts to travelers along the Lisbon Valley
Road. Other visual impacts would be the same as
the Proposed Action.
23996/R4-WP.4B 02-04-97(7:39pm)/RPT/8
4-82
-------
4.12.5.2 Recommended Mitigation
Recommended mitigation here is the same as the
Proposed Action.
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.
4.12.62 Recommended Mitigation
Recommended mitigation here is the same as the
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), the San Juan
Resource Area Management Plan (BLM, 1989),
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 State of Utah 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 wildlife, grazing, and recreational
resources are discussed in Sections 4.6, 4.7, and
4.16.
4.132 Proposed Action
4.132.1 Impacts
The Lisbon Valley Copper Project would
potentially affect 256 acres of private (fee) land,
574 acres of BLM land, and 273 acres of State
Land, for a total of 1,103 acres (Table 2-1). The
project is currently projected to have a 10-year
mining life, with final closure and reclamation to
take five additional years.
Most current land uses of the Project Area would
not be affected by the Proposed Action.
However, hunting and dispersed recreation in the
project vicinity would be disrupted for the Me of
the mine. Additionally, current users of the
county road may be inconvenienced by cross
traffic from the mine.
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 2.2.10, some trails
or roadways around the project area would be
closed for public safety reasons. Impacts to
traffic in the study area are discussed in Section
4.9. The existing power line and pipeline
23996/R4-WP.4B 02-04-97<7:39pm)/RPT/8
4-83
-------
corridors shown on Table 3.13-1 would continue
to be used and would not be disturbed by this
project. J
4'13'2-2 Committed and
Mitigation
Committed
None identified.
RecommendBd
No mitigation measures would be required.
4.133 No Action Alternative
4.133.1 Impacts
Existing land uses would remain unchanged under
the No Action Alternative. Copper mining and
heap leach activities associated with this project
would not occur. As stated in Section 23.1 the
opportunity for Summo to develop mineral
resources would be foregone on Federal lands
Mineral development in the Project Area would
not be feasible solely from State and fee lands.
4.13.4 Open Pit Backfilling Alternative
4.13.4.1 Impacts
The impacts of this alternative on existing land
use and access would be similar to those
identified for the Proposed Action except 231
additional acres would be available for wildlife
hab«tat or grazing if complete backfilling of the
pits occurred. It would also restore some visual
characteristics associated with dispersed
recreation in the area. However, the pits would
not be open for future mining activities.
4'13-4-2 Becommended Mitigation
No mitigation measures required.
4.13.5 Facility Layout Alternative
4.13.5.1 Impacts
The impacts of this alternative on existing land
use and access would be similar to those
identified for the Proposed Action. However 55
acres in the area of Dump D would be available
for use by wildlife and livestock. This alternative
would also lessen visual impacts to the
recreational user.
4'13-s-2 Recommended Mitigation
No mitigation measures required.
4.13.6 Waste Rock Selective
Handling Alternative
4.13.6.1 Impacts
The impacts of this alternative on existing land
use and access would be the same as those
identified for the Proposed Action.
4-13.6.2 Recommended Mitigation
No mitigation measures required.
4.14 CLIMATE AND AIR
QUALITY
4.14.1 Methodology
Mining and processing activities at the Lisbon
Valley Project would be sources of participate
matter, quantified in this EIS as PM,0 fie
paniculate matter less than 10 microns h
aerodynamic diameter). One of the primary
sources of process PM10 emissions would be dust
from the crushing circuit. Crushers, screens, and
conveyor transfer points would be process
emission sources of PM10. Combustion in the
solution heater also would emit small quantities
of process PM10.
Non-process sources of participate emissions
would result from extracting materials by drilling
23996/R4-WP.4B Q2-04-97(7:39pm)/RPT/8
4-84
-------
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
4.142.1 Impacts
Under this alternative, all operations would be
required to obtain construction and operating
permits from the Utah Division 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 impact above background
levels are not exceeded. The levels of particulates
(PM10) 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 paniculate 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 PM10 ambient standards. Modeled
impacts are added to the estimated background
PM10 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 PM10 concentrations along the property
boundary reach 30 /tg/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 PM10 incremental standard of 30 /tg/m3
at the property boundary.
The NAAQS ambient PM10 standards are
addressed by adding the modeled impacts and the
baseline concentration. As discussed in Section
3.14, the baseline concentration of 75 /tg/m3 as
recommended by DAP was used in the analysis.
As shown in Table 4.14-1, the maximum 24-hr
and annual impacts at the property boundary are
101 and 35 /tg/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, impacts to air
quality from the Proposed Action would be small.
These impacts would occur on a local level and
result from decreased air quality, primarily
visibility, caused mainly by particulates (dust)
from the Proposed Action. Traffic along the
Lisbon Valley Road is anticipated to contribute to
the overall reduction in local air quality.
Committed and Recommended
Mitigation
Committed 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 PM10 emissions would be
controlled, as these emissions are the only
pollutant which could be emitted in substantial
quantities.
Recommended Mitigation
Requirements as identified by State air quality
permit.
23996/R4-WP.4B 02-04-97(7:39pm)/RPT/8
4-85
-------
TABLE 4.14-1
MAXIMUM PM10 IMPACTS
LISBON VALLEY PROJECT
(CONCENTRATIONS IN ftg/m3)
Location
Southeast
Northwest
Average
Interval
24-hr
annual
24-hr
prmiial
Impact
26
8
24
9
• Incremental
Standard
30
17
30
17
Baseline
Cone.
75
26
75
26
Total
Cone.
101
34
99
35
NAAQS
150
50
150
50
SOURCE: Air Sciences 1996c.
2399««4-T4,141 lO)/97(4;33PMyRPT/7
-------
SURFACE CONTROL
\
ix j*^
t^ c^_y&
rfy
- SOURCE: AIR SCIENCE INC. 1996c.
24-HOUR MAXIMUM
PM10 IMPACTS
FIG. 4.14-1
-------
TABLE 4.14-2
PROPOSED AIR POLLUTANT CONTROL TECHNOLOGY
AND ASSUMED EFFICIENCY
LISBON VALLEY PROJECT
source
Control
Efficiency
Primary crushing
Secondary crushing
Conveyor drops
Drilling1
Haul Roads1
Stockpiles
foggers
baghouse
water sprays
pneumatic flushing/filter
water sprays/chemicals
watering as necessary
95.0%
99.6%
83.5%
85.0%
92.0%
Activities in pit have an additional control associated with wind overshadow that is
not included hi the listed efficiency.
Control not accounted for in the emission inventory.
SOURCE: Ah- Sciences 1996a.
23S94/R4-T4.M2 1/31/97(4:34 PMyRPT/7
-------
4.14.3 No Action Alternative
4.143.1 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 of the pits, either partial or complete,
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.
4.14.4.2 Recommended Mitigation
No mitigation measures were identified.
this alternative are the same as the Proposed
Action. No additional impacts to air quality are
anticipated from this alternative.
4.14.6.2 Recommended Mitigation
No mitigation measures were identified.
4.15 NOISE
4.15.1 Methodology
Noise concerns in industrial areas are generally
focused in an occupational context. Work-place
noise standards are enforced under the Mine
Safety and Health Administration (MSHA), which
set permissible noise exposure limits by time
intervals. Secondary noise concerns from projects
of this nature concern potential impact to
adjacent property owners or residents. The major
sources of noise associated with the Lisbon Valley
Project would be stationary and mobile
equipment used in the mining and processing
activities, blasting, and traffic along the Lower
Lisbon Valley Road.
4.14.5 Facility Layout Alternative
4.14.5.1 Impacts
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.
4.14.5.2 Recommended Mitigation
No mitigation measures were identified.
4.14.6
4.14.6.1
Waste Rock Selective
Handling Alternative
The amount of surface area to be disturbed and
the amount of waste rock to be disposed under
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. The nearest residences in the
23996/R4-WP.4B 02-04-97(7:39pm)/RPT/8
4-89
-------
region are 5 to 6 miles away, in the Summit Point
area, and separated from the project by ridges.
As sound travels through the atmosphere to such
relatively long distances, much of the sound
energy is lost due to molecular absorption. In the
process of molecular absorption, the higher
frequencies are attenuated more readily than the
lower frequencies. In the case of the noise
associated with the Lisbon Valley mining
operation, only the noise hi the 250 Hz range,
which is primarily from the diesel equipment, may
be audible in the Summit Point area. The sound
from the diesel equipment can be compared to
freeway traffic noise at a distance of one or more
miles. This type of noise may be slightly audible
in the Summit Point area occasionally, only at
night, and would fade hi and out with the
constantly changing atmospheric conditions (Air
Sciences 1996b). See Appendix C for more
information on potential impacts from noise.
Much of the noise from a blast, termed "airblast,"
is infrasonic (<20Hz), which means that it is
outside the hearing range of humans.
Furthermore, human hearing is less acute at
lower ranges. As a result, humans are tolerant of
much higher airblast levels than of other noise
levels (Air Sciences 1996b). Therefore, while
noise from blasting may be occasionally audible
(comparable to distant thunder) in the Summit
Point area, it is not expected to pose any
annoyance (Air Sciences 1996b).
Noise associated with increased traffic volume
may be a nuisance along the Lower Lisbon Valley
Road.
4.1522, Committed and Recommended
• Mitigation
Committed Mitigation
The maintenance of equipment to satisfy 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.
Recommended Mitigation
The POO indicates blasting would occur every
other day. However, once mining operations are
underway and in the event circumstances change,
blasting should be limited by stipulation to no
more than once per day, in order to mitigate to
the extent possible, impacts to potential
landowners and residences at Summit Point.
4.15.3 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
4.15.4.1 Impacts
Noise impacts from this alternative would be the
same as those identified for the Proposed Action.
4.15.42 Recommended Mitigation
The same as identified for the Proposed Action.
4.15.5 Facility Layout Alternative
No additional impacts from noise are anticipated
under this alternative. No mitigation is
recommended.
4.15.5.2 Recommended Mitigation
The same as identified for the Proposed Action
23996/R4-WP.4B 02-04-97(7:39pm)/RPT/8
4-90
-------
4.15.6 Waste Rock Selective
Handling Alternative
4.15.6.1 Impacts
No additional impacts from noise are anticipated
under this alternative. No mitigation is
recommended.
4.15.62 Recommended Mitigation
The same as identified for the Proposed Action.
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 of supporting current levels of
recreation activity
In response to this issue and other potential
impacts to recreational resources, the following
impact criteria have been developed. These
include project-related changes that would:
Alter or otherwise physically
recreational use areas or activities
affect
• Decrease accessibility to areas 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
4.16.2 Proposed Action
4.16.2.1 Impacts
Construction activities would result in direct
impacts to recreational resources associated with
hunting due to 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 faculties 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 for public safety. 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
impact 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
23996/R4-WP.4B 02-04-97(7:39pm)/RPT/8
4^91
-------
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 in Section 4.15. The aesthetic quality of
surrounding recreational use areas would be
reduced due to an increase in the amount of
visible land disturbances.
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.
4.16.2.2 Committed and Recommended
Mitigation
Committed Mitigation
None identified, other than signing which would
warn potential recreationists of mining activity
and boundaries.
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.
4.16.3 No Action Alternative
No impacts on existing recreational resources
would occur.
4.16.4 Open Pit Backfilling Alternative
4.16.4.1 Impacts
Impacts would be essentially the same as for the
Proposed Action.
4.16.4.2 Recommended Mitigation
Recommended mitigation would be the same as
for the Proposed Action.
4.16.5 Facility Layout Alternative
4.16.5.1 Impacts
Impacts would be essentially the same as for the
Proposed Action.
4.16.5.2 Recommended Mitigation
Recommended mitigation would be the same as
for the Proposed Action.
4.16.6 Waste Rock Selective
Handling Alternative
4.16.6.1 Impacts
Impacts would be essentially the same as for the
Proposed Action.
4.16.6.2 Recommended Mitigation
Recommended mitigation would be the same as
for the Proposed Action.
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
23996/R4-WP.4B 02-CW-97(7:39pm)/RPT/8
4-92
-------
time. For purposes of this EIS, the assessment
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 generally in the
Four Corners region, 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
permit filings with the BLM or other responsible
agencies for land development approvals.
Regional Background
The region was originally settled approximately
120 years ago by European and Anglo settlers
developing gold and silver resources, and
engaging in agricultural and ranching efforts.
This resulted in the displacement of Native
American populations who had inhabited the area
for thousands of years.
Due to the rugged and remote nature of the
region, this settlement pattern remained stable
until the mid 1900's, when large resources of
uranium, coal, and oil and gas were discovered in
the area, resulting in a boom in mineral
development and in-migrants. This period of
time also resulted in the rest of the country
getting a glimpse of the incredible scenic beauty
of the region. National parks and monuments
were designated, and the movie industry came,
filming "westerns" in the area, both further
advertising these natural wonders. This resulted
hi a new increase in population and development
growth, although this growth occurred on a
relatively "steady" and somewhat predictable basis.
For reasons no one is quite certain of, an
explosion of growth has occurred in the region
over the past 10-15 years, primarily associated
with tourism and recreation, and secondarily
associated with "urban flight" in-migrants. This
explosive growth has increased the cumulative
environmental: and socioeconomic impacts
significantly, and in some cases alarmingly.
The environmental impacts from this rapid
expansion of population are generally tremendous
demands on water and energy resources to fuel
the expanding growth of required goods and
services. With the "urban flight" and seasonal
tourist populations, great demand is placed on
recreational resources and solitude.
Campgrounds, trails, ATV use areas, river trips,
guide services, etc, have developed at phenomenal
rates, pushing large numbers of people into
formerly unused and unimpacted areas.
From a socioeconomic standpoint, cities and
municipalities have been pushed to the brink of
financial ruin to keep up with the demand for
infrastructure services. Historical tax revenue
mechanisms have not provided resources for
infrastructural development required, particularly
related to the large seasonal tourist populations
and the demands they place on all systems.
Other socioeconomic impacts associated with this
type of development are beginning to result in the
polarization of groups in the area, i.e., in-migrants
with "money" and those who live off low paying
service sector jobs, national environmental
preservation groups wanting to protect the natural
wonders of the area and long-time historic
residents trying to make a living "off the land",
long time users of a certain area and incoming
tourists, etc.
Cumulative Impacts from Summo Project
The cumulative impacts of Summo's proposed
copper mine and related facilities in this region
would add to this overall cumulative impact.
However, in relation to the overall explosive
growth in the greater Four Corners region, the
impact from Summo's mine is believed to be
relatively negligible.
In view of the above background information, the
following analyses is made regarding projected
cumulative effects of the Summo project. The
analysis is presented by resource, as in the EIS.
This analysis applies to impacts from the
Proposed Action, as modified by the alternatives
selected and mitigation identified in the proposed
decision.
« Based upon data and projections regarding
geologic resources, the only possibility for
further copper mining and recovery
operations would be if Summo expanded
23996/R4-WP.4B 02-04-97<7:39pm)/KPT/8
4-93
-------
their pits, dumps, pads, and beneficiation
facilities, at this project location. Additional
development of copper resources in the
region is not foreseen at this time.
Regarding hydrology, cumulative impacts
could occur to surface water quality as a
result of increased sedimentation. Historical
uses in Lisbon Valley (i.e., mining, grazing,
and road construction) have resulted in
accelerated erosion that has likely increased
sediment loads in surface runoff. The
proposed project would disturb additional
area and could result in additional
sedimentation downstream of the project
area.
Cumulative impacts could occur to water
quantity in the shallow (Burro Canyon)
aquifer, in the local project area. The
existing pits, left by a previous mining project,
have exposed the shallow aquifer and have
likely reduced the surrounding groundwater
elevation. The proposed project would
dewater a much larger portion of the shallow
aquifer. Due to the depth of the resulting
pits, the surrounding groundwater could not
regain its pre-mining elevation in the
foreseeable future.
Cumulative impacts to groundwater quality
and quantity could occur with respect to
cumulative use of Navajo aquifer water in the
region. Although the Entrada/Navajo aquifer
in Lisbon Valley is isolated from the regional
aquifer the proposed project would consume
approximately 5320 ac-ft of water.
Regionally, impacts to groundwater quality in
the Entrada/Navajo in Lisbon Valley would
be in addition to the degradation that has
recently occurred in the regional Navajo
aquifer in the vicinity of Aneth, Utah.
The cumulative effects related to
geochemistry appear to be the potential for
generation of alkaline conditions in the post-
mining pit lakes. These conditions could
subsequently impact subsurface water quality
in the project area hi the near term, through
the generation of base metal leachates
entering the aquifers. Based on the ,-
hydrologic system at the project site, this
potential degradation of aquifer quality would
have no impact on potential residents in the
Summit Point area.
Potential for long-term degradation to the
Dolores River aquifer recharge system would
be negated by the relatively large dilution
effect of all the other subsurface waters
entering into this system.
With the selection of the Waste Rock
Selective Handling Alternative, there should
be no long-term cumulative impacts to
surface waters from acid rock drainage from
the waste dumps.
Cumulative impacts to soils resulting from
this project are expected to be minimal, with
adequate reclamation plans developed for
Summo's proposed activities. Additionally,
past effects from unreclaimed mining activity
on the proposed Summo mining site would
be partially reclaimed by this new activity,
resulting hi enhancement of the current
conditions.
Cumulative impacts to vegetation are
expected to be minimal due to the adequacy
of reclamation plans developed for the
project. The primary impact would be the
permanent loss of 146 acres of vegetative
cover (231 acres for future unreclaimed pits
minus 85 acres of currently unreclaimed pits).
Cumulative impacts to wildlife are expected
to be minimal due to the Off-Site Habitat
Enhancement Project stipulated in the
mitigation, the fact that the mine would be a
temporary use with vegetation returned when
mining and reclamation are completed, and
payment into the Colorado River Endangered
Fish Recovery Program as required bv the
FWS.
Cumulative impacts to grazing, the loss of 7.2
AUMs, are considered to be negligible in
view of the small percentage of AUMs
represented by this number within the current
allotments.
23996/R4-WP.4B 02-04-97(7:39pm)/RPT/8
4-94
-------
Socioeconomics cumulative impacts are
expected to be minimal. The majority of jobs
can be filled locally, with no increased costs
to local infrastructure. Short-term cumulative
impacts are projected to be positive as a
result of the increased wages and tax base the
mine would offer. With the identified
alternatives and mitigation the project should
present no long-term clean-up costs to the
taxpayer.
Cumulative transportation impacts would be
seen in increased traffic and subsequent
maintenance on local roads, increased traffic
congestion during "holiday" weekends in the
region, and in the increased number of
highway accidents, estimated at 2.44 per year
during the life of the mine. These impacts
are all temporary however, occurring only
during the life of the mine
Cumulative impacts are expected for
hazardous materials and wastes by utilizing
more of these chemicals and adding to
disposal demands in the region. Additionally,
the analysis predicts 0.5 to 1.6 accidents
involving the hauling of hazardous materials
over the life of the mine. Such accidents
could result in fatalities, and/or adverse
impacts to soils, vegetation and wildlife.
Direct cumulative impacts to significant
cultural and paleontological resources are
not anticipated due to the fact that direct
impacts would not occur to any known sites.
To mitigate the effect of loss of a large
number of individually non-eligible sites, a
synthetic study of known cultural data in
Lisbon Valley would be completed. Indirect
impacts could occur from illegal collection
resulting from increased activity in the area.
• Cumulative impacts to visual resources would
be confined to this area, and would not
degrade visual resources in the region. Long-
term impacts would occur in the site area due
to the disruption of topography resulting
from the open pits, waste dumps and heap
leach pad left after mining.
Cumulative effects to land use would include
the permanent loss of 231 acres of
unreclaimed mine pits in the vicinity of the
project site.
Short-term cumulative impacts to air quality
would be the temporary impact to visibility,
caused by dust, in and surrounding the mine
site. This impact could extend further,
combining with other activities decreasing
visibility in the region. However, the
incremental increase resulting from this
mining proposal would be of a temporary
nature, and would be in compliance with
current air quality standards.
Cumulative effects to noise in the region
would be negligible and short-term, confined
to blasting and traffic noises hi the immediate
project vicinity.
Cumulative impacts to recreation are not
expected, due to the low level of dispersed
recreational activity currently occurring in the
area, and the temporary nature of the mining
operation.
4.18 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE
IMPACTS
NEPA and its implementing regulations as
developed by the Council on Environmental
Quality direct that the EIS shall address the
unavoidable adverse impacts which may occur
should a project be implemented. The following
discussion identifies, by resource, the projected
unavoidable adverse impacts resulting from
Summo's proposed mining operation.
• The only unavoidable adverse impact to
geologic resources is the use and ultimate
loss of the copper resource as it is mined and
processed.
• Unavoidable adverse impacts to hydrology
would include dewatering the shallow aquifer
by removing approximately 6000 ac-ft of
water. The groundwater table in the vicinity
of the pits would not regain its pre-mining
elevation in the foreseeable future.
23996/R4-WP.4B 02-05-97(1 l:26pm)/RPT/8
4-95
-------
Water from the shallow aquifer could pond in
the Centennial pit to a depth of
approximately 1 foot. If this water contacted
the Entrada Sandstone, exposed in the west
pit wall, then the Entrada/Navajo aquifer
could be contaminated with lesser quality
water from the Burro Canyon aquifer.
In addition, increased sedimentation
downstream of the project area is likely to
occur during and following the proposed
project life.
Unavoidable adverse impacts to
geochemistry, include the potential
generation of alkaline conditions in post-
mining pit lakes which could effect long-term
water quality in the aquifers in and
downgradient of the project site.
Temporary unavoidable adverse impacts to
soils, particularly erosion, are expected from
the excavation, salvage, stockpiling, and
redistribution of 1,103 acres of native soils.
Temporary unavoidable losses to vegetation
would occur to the pinyon-juniper (296
acres), sagebrush (422 acres), and
grassland/rangeland (300 acres) types from
project development. There would also be a
long-term loss of vegetation on the 231 acres
of open pits.
Loss of existing stock ponds as wildlife water
sources, temporary loss of 1,103 acres of
habitat, and disruption due to night lighting
and blasting are unavoidable short-term
adverse impacts.
Grazing acreage would be temporarily
reduced by fencing, and long-term, by non-
reclamation of the pits, in addition to the
stockpond water issue noted above for
wildlife.
No unavoidable adverse impacts to
socioeconomic issues are foreseen.
Unavoidable adverse impacts to
transportation would be the estimated
increase of 2.44 accidents per year, in
addition to increased traffic congestion and
road maintenance requirements.
• Unavoidable adverse impacts from the use of
hazardous materials would be the temporary
storage and long-term disposal of wastes
generated by the mining operation, and the
potential for 0.5 to 1.6 accidents over the life
of the mine associated with the transportation
of hazardous materials to the mine site.
• Unavoidable adverse impacts to National
Register eligible cultural resources and
paleontology are not anticipated.
• An unavoidable adverse impact would occur
to visual resources through both short-term
and long-term changes to landforms at site
(pits, waste dumps and the leach pad).
• Temporary use of the mine site would be an
unavoidable adverse impacts to land use.
Reclamation would result in minimising long-
term impacts to land use, with the exception
of the post-mining pits leach pad and dumps.
• Temporary unavoidable adverse impacts
would occur to air quality and visibility
caused by PM10 emissions above baseline,
caused primarily by dust.
• The project would result in temporary
unavoidable adverse impacts from noise
increases above baseline conditions, caused
by blasting and truck and machinery
operation.
• The project would result in temporary
unavoidable adverse impacts to the current
limited recreational activities conducted in
the study area, especially hunting and related
activities.
4.19 SHORT-TERM USES VS. LONG-
TERM PRODUCTIVITY
CEQ regulations also specify that the description
of impacts should identify how short-term uses of
the environment would affect long-term
productivity of resources. Short-term uses are
23996/R4-WP.4B 02-04-97(7:39pm)/RPT/8
4-96
-------
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 as the two previous sections, the following
analysis is presented by resource.
• Short-term use of the land would extract the
currently economical geologic resource, long-
term plans to leave the pits open would
preserve the option of extracting additional
lower grade copper ore at a later date should
such become economically or technically
feasible.
• Short-term use of hydrologjc resources
during mining operations could affect long-
term availability of, and cost of producing,
groundwater. Following mining less water
would be available and the depth to
groundwater would be greater in the shallow
and deep aquifers, increasing costs to
produce the remaining water.
The proposed project could degrade existing
groundwater quality.
• Short-term impacts to current geochemical
conditions could adversely affect long-term
geochemical equilibrium in the project area,
and result in long-term degradation of water
quality and productivity.
• Short-term disturbance of soils would not
result in long-term loss of soil productivity.
Salvage and reclamation would mitigate this
loss in the long-term.
• Short-term disturbance of vegetation would
occur on 1,018 acres of previously
undisturbed land. With reclamation, 872
acres would be returned to productive use.
Productivity would return to pre-mining levels
in 3-5 yrs for grasslands and 15-20 yrs for
shrublands. Species diversity would slowly
increase, but it require 50 years before
pinyon and junipers were replaced. There
would be a long-term productivity loss of 231
acres included in the unreclaimed open pits.
• The short-term loss of 1,018 acres of habitat
for wildlife would be re-established in the
long-term on 872 acres. The 231 acres of
open pits would be a long-term loss of
wildlife habitat.
• Livestock grazing would experience a short-
term loss of forage, and grazing would be
displaced during mining operations; livestock
forage productivity would be replaced in the
long-term (except for the open 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
anticipated.
• Short-term impacts would occur to
transportation due to increased traffic
congestion, potential for accidents, and
maintenance requirements. Due to the
temporary nature of the project, there would
be no long-term impacts.
• No long-term impacts effects are anticipated
from the short-term use of hazardous
materials or generation or disposal of
hazardous wastes; mining wastes would be
properly controlled and reclaimed.
• Short-term use of the area would have no
direct long-term negative impacts to cultural
and paleontological resource productivity.
The synthesis of known cultural site data
from the Lisbon Valley area would benefit
future research and provide a basis for
cultural mitigation decisions. Long-term
indirect impacts to productivity could occur
through potential collection of cultural
resources due to increased activity in the
area.
• There would be both short-term and long-
term productivity impacts to visual resources,
resulting from the extreme changes to
topography caused by the remaining open
pits, and reclaimed waste dumps and heap
leach pad.
23996/R4-WP.4B 02-04-97(7:39pm)/RPT/8
4-97
-------
• Short-term loss of use of the land would be
temporary. Long-term uses would be
restored, with the exception of the 231 acres
of open pits. Future mining could occur
within the open pits.
• Short-term use of the land and resultant
impacts to air qualify, would have no long-
term adverse impact to air quality
productivity.
Short-term use of the land for mining would
have noise impacts that would occur during
operations. Long-term productivity of the
area for its current lack of noise would return
when mining has ceased.
The short-term loss of recreational resource
activities would be restored hi the long-term
with successful reclamation, with the
exception of the open pits remaining after
mining ceases.
4.20 IRREVERSIBLE OR
IRRETRIEVABLE
RESOURCE
COMMITMENTS
The following section identifies irreversible or
irretrievable commitments of resources that are
consumed, committed, or lost as a result of the
mining project.
• 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 irreversible and
irretrievable commitment of geologic
resources.
• Hydrologic resources; the shallow
groundwater table in the vicinity of the post-
mining pits would not regain pre-mining
elevations in the foreseeable future.
Groundwater quality hi the vicinity of the
post-mining pits, may be irreversibly and
irretrievably committed.
* TAe Seocnem'stry of water and strata hi the
vicinity of the dumps and pits would likely be
2399fi/R4-WP.4B 02-04-97(7:39pm)/RPT/8
altered hi the long-term, even though some
reversal to move back toward current
conditions could occur over a period of
decades. On a long-term basis this is not
projected to be irreversible.
• Irreversible loss of thousands of years of soils
development hi the natural state would be
replaced hi part during reclamation and begin
the soil development process once again.
• The unreclaimed pits would be an irreversible
and irretrievable loss of vegetation. The
removal of 296 acres of pinyon-juniper
vegetation (and revegetation with grasses and
shrubs) may be irreversible hi some of the
reclaimed areas.
• Loss of 231 vegetated acres in the pits would
be an irretrievable and irreversible
commitment to wildlife resources.
• There would be no irretrievable or
irreversible commitment to livestock grazing.
• No irretrievable or irreversible commitments
are identified for socioeconomics issues.
• No irretrievable or irreversible commitments.
are identified for transportation.
• No irreversible or irretrievable commitments
are identified for hazardous materials.
• No direct irreversible or irretrievable
commitments are identified for significant
cultural and paleontological resources.
There is some potential for irreversible or
irretrievable loss of resources from indirect
impacts associated with illegal collection
resulting from the increased activity in the
area.
• Irreversible and irretrievable commitments of
resources would occur to visual resources,
resulting from the changes hi topography hi
the area of the open pits, waste dump and
heap leach pad.
-------
The remaining 231 acres of open pits would
result in an irreversible or irretrievable
commitment of land use.
No irreversible or irretrievable commitments
would occur to air quality resources.
No irreversible or irretrievable commitments
would be caused by noise impacts from the
mining operation.
Irreversible or irretrievable commitments to
recreation resources would occur through the
231 acres of open pits remaining after mining
ceases. These pits would be unavailable for
recreation.
23996/R4-WP.4B 02-04-97C7:39pm)/RPT/8
4-99
-------
-------
5.0
CONSULTATION 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, Native American
tribal representatives, 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,
National Park Service
Fish and Wildlife Service
Geological Survey
Bureau of Mines
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
5.1.2 Utah State Agencies
Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Wildlife
Division of State History
Office of Indian Affairs
School and Institutional Trust Lands
Division of Water Quality
Division of Oil, Gas, and Mining
Division of Radiation Control
Department of Employment Security Services
Department of Transportation
5.1.3 Local Governments
San Juan County Commission
Grand County Commission
City of Moab
5.1.4 Local Agencies
i
San Juan County Corrections and Sheriff's
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
5.1.5 Tribal Governments
Hopi Tribe, Cultural Preservation Office
Navajo Nation
Navajo Utah Commission
Northern Ute Indian Tribe, Cultural Rights and
Preservation Office
Ute Mountain Ute Tribe
Southern Ute Tribal Council
White Mesa Ute Council
Piute Tribe Consortium
Zuni Tribe
Laguna Pueblo
Acoma Pueblo
52 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Comments, suggestions, and concerns about the
proposed project were gathered during two public
scoping meetings held in November, 1995 and
from comment letters later sent to the BLM. The
first meeting was held in Moab, Utah on
November 1, 1995; 18 individuals attended,
including presenters. The second meeting was
held in Monticello, Utah on November 2,1995; 15
individuals attended; including presenters. A
23996/R4-WP.S 2/4/97(7:39 pm)/RPT/8
5-1
-------
public hearing to collect comments on the DEIS
was similarly held in Moab on June 12, 1996.
Four verbal comments were obtained at that
meeting, and an additional 24 written comments
were received from federal and state agencies,
local governments, and members of the public
including several organized public interest groups.
53 PUBLIC COMMENT
53.1 Public Scoping Meetings
Comments, suggestions, and concerns about the
proposed project were gathered during a public
scoping period from October 11 through
November 29, 1995. Eleven written scoping
comment letters or requests for information were
received. Comments received through the
scoping process are summarized hi Section 1.33.
For the two public scoping meetings noted above,
the following persons attended:
• Jim Franklin, 368 E. 100 N., Moab, UT
• Claudia Akens, PO Box 1387, Moab, UT
• Kay Howe, PO 574, Goodland, FL
• Jim Kelly, PO Box 494, Moab, UT
• William Pierce, San Juan Planning Comm.,
Box 205, Monticello, UT
• Ken Curtis, Job Service, 91 E. Uranium 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.G.M,
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 Turn, 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
• Bill Bates, UDWR, 455 W. RR Ave., Price
UT
• Scott Henry, Topo Services, PO Box 693,
Monticello, UT
5.3.2 Written and Verbal Comments
on the Draft Environmental
Impact Statement
Comment Letters
Written comments on the Draft Environmental
Impact Statement were received from the
following parties, with the letter or commentor
index numbers as designated. The original text of
each comment letter is presented in Section 5.4.
Elected Officials/State/Federal Agencies
1 San Juan County
2 Grand County
3 Utah Department of Environmental Quality,
Division of Water Quality
4 Utah Department of Environmental Quality,
Division of Air Quality
5 Utah Resources Development
Coordinating Committee
- Division of Water Rights
- Utah Geological Society
6 Utah Resources Development
Coordinating Committee
- Division of Wildlife Resources
7 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
8 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
9 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
2TO6/R4.WP.S 2/5/97(11:18 pm)/RPT/8
5-2
-------
10 U.S. National Park Service - Southeast Utah
Group
11 U.S. Geological Survey
12 Hopi Tribe
Environmental Organizations
13 National Wildlife Federation
14 Sierra Club, Utah Chapter
15 Minerals Policy Center
!
Private Citizens
16 Kevin Walker
17 Kay Howe
18 Andrew Root
19 Martha Little
20 Andrea Brand
21 John Savarese
22 Kalen Jones
23 Jane S. Yazzie
Project Applicant
24 Gochnour and Associates (For Summo USA)
Public Hearing Comments
The following parties commented at the DEIS
public hearing held in Moab on June 12, 1996.
These comments are presented in the hearing
transcript in Section 5.4.
25 Paul Kaper
26 Montana Jones
27 Kaye Howe
28 Steve Jones
.5.4 COMMENT LETTERS AND
TRANSCRIPTIONS
The full text of the letters, and abstracts of the
hearing transcripts received on the Lisbon Valley
Copper Project Draft EIS Public Hearing, are
reproduced on the following pages. Some of
letters had attachments to support or clarify their
concerns. These attachments have not been
reproduced for the EIS. Copies of the
attachments are available for review at the Moab
BLM office if so desired.
Each letter has been reduced and organized such
that they read top to bottom on the left side of
the page, then top to bottom on the right side of
the page. A triple-lined break indicates the end
of a letter or transcribed testimony.
Each comment letter received an index number as
identified in Section 5.2.3. The various comments
within each letter are subsequently bracketed, and
to the side of each bracket, the location of the
paraphrased comment and subsequent response in
Section 5.5 is identified. At the end of each
paraphrased comment in Section 5.5, the numbers
appearing in parentheses refer to each of the
indexed comment letters which made that
particular paraphrased comment.
23996/R4-WP.S 2/4/97(7:39 pm)/RPT/8
5-3
-------
County Comm
Jane 1 1. 1996
DJarfet Minifer, Moab District
Bu««a of Laod Management
12 But Dogwood Road
Motb,UoiM532
Re.' U*boa Valley Copper Project
MOMomca
jSK'Tflgwa
-fie*M- bouom has evidence of oWchajnme. oast"
E*BB«:activiiy.powerii>es.andsooa. Wruie we realize thai beauty is mine eye
Soctrt«poaiKS«KajuM«mvenu)riedaiwrecoiimien6ediorwiiderness. The
enure katsis of lac vaifcy has ssroos: evidence 01 mans past existence. We would
otomff you to mace a, aronser case, or perhaps clearer case, inrouaa lie use of
BMce pootaj. of die evioeace oi man past use oi'ihe area.
Weafreevntnyourannamioimiugaiion on hiring iocai workers, irom our I
psoptcttve we would even go a step lunher in askin? thai San Juan Coumy
ittisksafeeaiven. preference m ibemrmsi. This is because San jum County
iwtiidvaameaiidoeauiiaiipbvjneni rate m the suie. about eiahi limes ifae
B*jaiu*k of die 5me nd four limes toe naucnai averaee.
5.5.11(a)
. San Juan Counly has been in discussion with
S JMMG loiporiiioa coDcenooe the mitigation 01 impacts 10 ibe Lisbon Vaiiey
. Weodieveexisunj;n)aanceandoerhaDS
iomes pro-rau share o»'«»iriouuon to SKI UK roaa TO 10 par beiore mininz
enaMMncc$iBdioiMih. I'arasrann J.. tst sentence, even me iwt tnai so mucn mining nas j I
aireauv occurred in the area does u reaiiv mane sense to trv to return the pit to its j 5.5.7(c)|
UJQfElQ&l COCtOUf? I I
i-aae Ei-7. ind coiumn. paracraph ). »'«tnink uwse aouitionai stipulations shomu Sec.
oe presented here to oeip the reader unoersiand wnai these miuRairans are. ana I '•*• *
wheiher or noi thev ate deemed reasonaoic. '
raae£d-«. isi coiunm. paraaraph i. Is it reasonable to mink this wiii reaiiv occur -
with ail 01 ihe activity occurring this seems iike a rat 01 a stretch.
J5.5.1(bl
j-aae t»-». ^no column, paragraph j. rerhaps this wiii cause a siram on the Moab
market, but doubt n wiii cause much 01 a strain on me Monu'ceiio or Biandhm I
markds. Aiso.Laiai has some concern about ihis operation causinE a boom type I 5.5.1 (c) I
economy on their community whereby unaccepiabie vintaae traiiers mav cause I
pnwieinsrniheir community. This shouid u itasi be ideniiiied in the statement.
in conclusion. San Juan Counly would hxe lo (to on record as supporting the
iToposed Acu'on Alternative to aiiow SoivtMO Corporation to mine copper in the
Lisbon Vaiiev area of San Juan County. The proposal is in compliance wiih San
Juan County's Master Man. we believe any soon term extractive impacts to the
area can be reasonably mitigated, and thai the long term benefits to San Juan
County's economy iar outweigh those minor concerns.
Thank you lor the opportunity U> comment on the Droposaii
5.5.3(C)I
BUI Keoo. lommsssoner
San Juan County
KttnlTtfrtyil, Karia Manager
SZEatDogKOOd
Moab. Uah 84532
tool^t^^
Each ^ar. then a
I 5.5.13(a)
5^.12(3)
125 East Center Street • Moab. Utah 84532 • Fax 801-259-2959
-------
ot DUKdoui nuccub mntport b>
|W« faggot flat thaomd other ijjooiniiedc
I brcesht to the mention of as Local Emorgtncy Mmgencot Plaraioc Cgnnittn to BnagMo
I their raft lad opeoSeat transport through the County.
tlM oppoctun^ to COO»M« oa the DEIS and kx^Jbnmm)
I to«OfUngwhhbod>Sum»>Coipof^oa^BIMiBti>od«vdopmcDtoflfaiiBipoRaa
c project If yju need my additional infonnilioc.piei»egvenie«cia /
SW.Sip
y AduwUliJUOT
ec Summo USA Corporation
BsrtLcaviit, Chui man Gnod County Oninril
Grand County Emergency Service!
Lbboo Voltey Copper Project
DWQCcsmeMD-Draft BIS
DMtSoB of Water Quality
IJsboa Valley Coppor Projwl
JoJy 15,1596
552(3)
SSona Water
BPT, oj per 40 OSt 44032, SQscaell. Modi District Mimfer
Boczs of Laod Management
SZEBtDognoodAmce '
Sdjcct: UsbooViDcy Copper Ptejed-
opportm»ry B «taft
mfif
poject
to the BM
Socaely.
Utah WMcr Qoaltty Bond
DoaA.OtOx.PX.
Tony GaUcioc. DOOM (wtoc)
Daw Arioti. Sotffaeaa Axem£&pBecf (w/eac)
Sbben Plexolt. Somo USA Cotpmboo (wtaie)
PttGodnoor. Oocteoor t AaociaiM (»Ao>e>
Ii s i
gifi - 3=
is s 'irn
DWQ.
ravage to B» Saaiad 81 Hi would caow &> eresska of MI addSfemaS sat bSae ia
aJPHwisijaa^jof 106&S. TtoCTOplsrBdibaKfeibaJiSOTnEEttlssapt
is nsxSctod tote haawsaocod a Ito Caused fa sa3 lie cxteise a fcs ScoSBd »I Hi
UasiSa-iE pit jjios may poesajiliy fcai to fie degndaka of potnd wffltr asoiHcas dowa
SASffi
Aette - Csoe 2 - No FoB-Wniag RKJasje of Surface Witer to GromaJ W«K & *s Scoifad
UoEte a» SoaiDel aul Bae Crotescid KB. tbe GTO Kt wffl barez zjgnifeaat poflkoi olCtate
sssssed a DO Bow booBdny bawesa te nmasSicd zoaes oa ef las fea& ssd tfa: Cain
.ma.ifccH.ii late can- »ai«ntaraaags to the Ciater. No (tea exists
; or sianzos of greoEd mtti is tb= Cola taaslKa at eiemticaa bewsea (fcs GTO I*
K &era ilia beta no flow
ws«er ccaM 0=5) iMo ths Cafcr Sonmtka fiom UK pit bte potentially asjasioggloBad
To fi» raa of fcs Lhboa feoit is Us oes of the GTO ph waer occun orimaiiy m tte Moso»
Sbsle wife soffisebolfflD^ccta sad BosDCstByoa&xBiatiGQS. The uaikdyins Mcatisoa
-------
Lbte, Vrffcy Cooper ftojea
Dfrt} Q»»=eM» - Draft BS
VawKajMedwrnrkUKMlonaiaoiM. EMo/AoLbboofiiiliibenoaroftbclikeboaocii
wfll^teltekn?3>-—oCi^fajtodMorriioofcrniJOoeo. ft b tberefore portbfc HIM inter
ftoet tt* Mioeot ^aSi wffi provide rechtfze to fte lowtr Burra Cwvm «H* MMT!oe« fee peaad wttcr ID the Bono CiayoB ud Mctrfioo
BaBew
frrfm«ttl fidm}i fcr fee Ooir of jromd wjtcr ficm iluUow peRtaed 1000 to doaxr
fmnltei.
Wpe. of cooan. w
tie fcrtoe Am* tndku pk
5.5.5(0
W« »|e «• BLM la iadodc lie W«nc Rode Sekctire Hinffinj Atemjtfre in tho Mcocy'j
yrefaarf itasacht lor a» &»1 HS. Ttfa ihenutive ibould preclude tfae poBaffityoffetnre
5S.6(a)
^
^^SS^^^T^«ailJ^^SS^Ilie
DWQ Cwrnan* - Dnft EJS
5.5.3(e)
.
ire lot tbra 5000 pi per diyilocil permit taieqnjxcd. If ibe expected Oows
MB irMer *• SOOO pi par diy * coottractica pcmii moa be oooined fiom the Dmrioo of
**"*°£5£
L££A&£
State of Utah
DETARTMENT OP ENVIRONMENTAL QUALTTY-
MVJSKJN OF AK QUALITY :
DAQI
Km XHOxa. Hub Dterta Vbufcr
»«»««o>Ui»aMaiinmm
Mo*,Uo* MSB
RE: OFEN PIT COWER MINB AND HEAP LEACH OFERATION
IN LOWER LISBON VALLEY. UTAH
5S.17(C
55.17(d
^
Jane 26.1956
Psps2
^'^g±fA'?^gr^'^yfJryco^rf'B<^
K JCT km cgr ojKsfeai 01 DA Better, pfcao cotaa CmJ Nkbca « (S)l) J3«-<073.
S-scoriy.
RBUcfl A. Eobon. Eiaoaiw SeaeOtj
New Sam Review SttSco
-------
State of Utah
(MVERNOKSOFFICE OF PLANNING
July 12.1996
KsteKitchell
DEIS fee SUMMO USA Corporation. Lisbon Valley Open Pit Copper Mine
3
Separate! of thb material into a separate pfle might require additional safeguard*
to coofioo fee acidic water that would develop and prevent escape to las
as or to the groundwater.
The DSK correctly aote> that the partial or c
would make future development of any reser
Bplete backfilling of the pit options
s remaining adjscent or below the
eKitcbell
bfield Office
u of Land Management
I East Dogwood Avenue
,, Utah 84532
DEIS for SUMMO USA Corporatioo. Lisbon Valley Open Pit Copper
Mine
State Idenfifictlion Number. UT960520-010
e Resource Development Coordinating Committee (RJXXX representing the State of Una,
3 reviewed ma proposal. Comments from state agencies are is follows:
a of Water Rights
In the Environmental Impact Statement (HSX the applicant proposes to withdrew sod use
a mtrimum of 1,455 acre-feet water per year (affyr) fiom a number of wells to be drilled
rn me ina and the dewilcriag of (Demise. The applicant filed water right number 05-
2593 for the withdrawal and coosmnption of 2,419.95 aCyr in connection with this
proposal. Thean»maapplicdfoisl66%oftheiraim^3pfflednseasstttedmtbeEIS.
Tbe Division would like to know the reason for mis difference.
Utah Geotogiea] Survey
UGS completed a review of the draft environmental impact statement for the Lisbon
Valley copper project and found it to be very complete and comprehensive documeat
555®
Most of me concerns appear to be idcnjnifJy addressed rod mere is a wealth of
confirming support data for the conclusions.
a be given to installing higher fences with mesh on the
low« put* around the pregnant liquor and laffinatc poods to prevent access by
boa targe and small animils 1
6, A minor point that nffrnt correction u final i&putL i
a. Page 4-53 : Energy Fuels near Blaadmgis a mill not a mine; could provide I
null workea,act mine workers i
The CotzmitteeopjKCJatatbcoppornjniry to review this proposal. Please direct my o&er
written qaeaioig regarding this com sponoVnfetoiae Utah Stale deBinghome at roe above
address or call Carolyn Wright a (SO J) SM-1S3S or John Hans tl (SOI) 538-1559.
Sincerely,
BTB/ar
55S(b)
5522
Brad T. Barber
KatcKitchcll
DEIS for SUMMO USA Corporation. Lisbon Valley Open Pit Copper Mine
2
UGS docs have several questions or comments on me DEIS wmch are listed below.
Most of these concerns are mat the resource is rally developed and utilngd and test the
planned actions win not detrimentally affect any possibility of additional development.
These concerns may not be directly applicable to me DEIS bat do deserve some
1. Tbe DEIS is overly pessimistic about the possibility for additional discoveries
within me surrounding area. Although most of tbe past and recent work has been
concentrated mound the Big Indian or Blackbird (Ontmnial) am. mmorcopper
occurrences are known between tbe two deposits and this area is currently being
explored and a reverse circulation drilling program is planned to test fer buried
mineralization. In addition, drilling southeast of me GTO area had intercepts of
over 4 percent copper in an area of few unfix* copper showings, his probable
tha additional buried copper mineralization will be found by drilmig to the north
and south of the project boundaries even in areas of few sur&ce copper showings.
It is not known if any of tbe possible "new discoveries "would be economic bnt
the possibility should not be completely disrountrrl Most of the above discussion
a academic because most if not all of the probable "new discoveries'* would be
outside of the area encompassed by me DEIS. ,
2. SUMMO Minerals appears to have be very conscientious in siting meg faoKtirt
ao as not to affect any additional development. Tbe known sur&ce copper
occurrences, no matter how insignificant have not been covered by dumps or
other sur&ce facilities and the heap teach oality is situated in an area
geologically unfavorable for copper minrralJTation. Several of the dumps,
particularly damps B and D, occur in areas that sre geologically favorable for
copper mineralization. It is assumed that sufficient condemnation drilling has
in mi done in these areas to deccnnine mat no valuable
Some mention of the condemnation drilling should be included in the Final
Environmental Tynp*^* Statement.
During the course of mining.it is possible thu some noo-lcachable sil£de ore of
modest copper grade will be removed from the pits. Such ore might be
considered as waste ^m-*- the copper could not be recovered by the besp-leach
process. Is there or should mere be some consideration given to pitting this "ore*
ia a separate pile rather than mixing it with true unminerslized waste? Although
not currently economic, future developments in technology may nuke extraction
profitable if the material were separated into a special pile and not diluted.
State of Utah
55.4(a)
July 26.1996
KscKftchsll
MoibFiekl Office
Bur
82 Cast Dogwood Aveane
Mo«b.Uteh 84532
SUBJECT: PETS fa SUMMO USA Corporation. Lisbon Valley Open Pit Copper
Mine
Stateldeam^catiaaNnmbei: UT960520410
DarMlKitthell:
Tbe Resource Development Coordinating Committee (RDCQ, rcproentmg the State of Utah,
bis reviewed this proposal Commfnlt were already submitted to you in i letter dated July 12.
1996.
The proposed mitigation for tost deer habhatb vague. The total amount, place it wifl be
'
55.4{b)
needstobettstedmraefinalEIS. Weask.thttasm^abfeamouttofhaMwbeeahcaced
to replies the hibiat lost This can bo determined by HEP analysis, and usrnlly requires
3 auo of 4UtfnnHf titrj^ fof eftcb acre of culmii i mritt m cuiimOy occupied habitat, and
1:1 iniiiijijAioo for ncofiy CffcTfn habitat.
We are very UHHinnxi about me incrCMed traffic on the road servicing the mine. Not
only will wildlife mortality mcrease in the m, but deer will move out of h&bim ncsr the
road. ReeectstudieihavedxnvnthitnniledeerusebnxiucedwithmlMnKtersfiom
roods. Tbe amount of reduced deer hibhal due to avoidance of rocds needs to be
quantified and added » me planed tmtigaooo, A mitigation plan needs to be developed
for the increased deer end wildlife mortality. We recommend mat this pUn include
habitil development that will help draw animils awty from tbe ro»d.
55S{C)
5-7
-------
DOS lot SUMMO USA Ceipntioa. Lbboo Valley Ojxa Pit Copper Mine
J
e to KcaavoUaoce caused by ei^lli^tinf and bUstiag I
M<^l>Uat>ot>U*!»>tenFtKaimr fern &e mine rite. >
Giialy tow teaew pews UaawOl be mipcor life seeds *> be idded to dxtmil I 553(d)
I
I 55.7(d)
'
bt, ,
Opcamb&pitt CM tenet bfedt aad subatquaiUy tin them drouth exposure to caustic
Afcc&. Al pKt£j|Baldti£c«werecociDjeisdp«ning floctms; plastic balls in the pits to
KQi^\
5SS(D)
> to be colfectcdcanoknaixibtixaica so a more detailed I ...
SO»& of »fcj«tbelrni» win be fiwn this project Mjtixatioa foe I 55S(C)
ca^ccMjJ»be»i!iracd. I
tebiack-foctcd fcntts woe tceadderiof lie 1995-96 Winer survey, we are I
idSvojccccCT^tbuiiemJ^ijtahiaoocbUck-foot^faialabitic Oor coaceral 5.5.9(f )
If fccajtsidiOsi ysT*^ &B project wiQ imp itflrfiaj lt-3 oampocdenee to &c Uah Stale dearingbotise at die above
xaatm ercaa Catolva Wri^t at (Ml) 538-1535 orJotoHaija at (Ml) 53WS59.
BPA't noomModuioia « to bow to combtao scvetal elements of tbo proponed
aberaativet toctodee
1) PK2ky tejcae Wo coacar with BLM rctmfcij the tfeacy pecfomd iltomiivo
ttalWt^ Damp DiheoM be cooflifacd wish WMteDranpC. The LSzboo ViEcy drakage
at tkb toofica «o«M lead lo erodo flic too of Waito Dorap D, or ondnratoe the *n»i)
cmtiat Kcdaadil xrflMot (£jcluisc* daring aonn evoKi. Therefore. »o gicnmmmii Hat
the Wuco Dracp D ba idorattd
A major cocoon w*n fto northern eed of Scadad Hi » 1 U tSo oateHc* of «» pa.
stottcU^xmVtBejiiaioisi. Booli^of tUiKrfiraflc™ tawtlsc«banJaKdpa wouM
cmce Us pooattal ft» eoattaanl aodoa and downcaUat ^anam .iny..u.l ,.-...,. », .• rij- pint, wo
CTMnfji^ct u ttos zs ts& c&aft. ?oftt *Uu^ fiuB pit WA&U iptnly, WBU& ^p»j«iy astaj^osss BI noa
A^j^iwMti^J jg ioO Ifciwygt to icmKzii ever ismi i iSm ^'-^^TBtVuvt of xostaZ unytuBMios.
and safety wMt*tm ^ pc^dnity* Wo H
Lisbon VaDey Copper Project, Dolt
HS, RaadBC-2
T>a S<(iai S OCBcE ef IS» BiviraMBcanI Isoecdoa Agere? bas reviewed tba Dsaft
«t fir die LiibOB VaUey Copper Projca and otGas Die
dmt Ak Act ted |«a eftfe Oeaa Warr Ao, oar review fcaata OB the abOit/ of BLM
to t»*e» Ant taa »oh» B*B aad pot-miac openticia are beta cotuiacol IB law and
ffiy-^a^ ^'^umj)?m« SOCODd. IB
ii lUJUJ^i i *• mnvp dooplaQ to aducvo Coo cou of avotfim lom-ttuij ilckj
By
. »o reqoot Oat BLM oxnbiao elsaeots of tboc Uiteo tlttmtiva fato i
fKtfc4rf tfOKj «ai» tad SKB itqoot Ibat tbe tjiplioac iobmk a CWA 1402 Storm Water
r@tek« 3Prsvsotfc» fla* (SWTOT) » tbe State of Uttii DxvftioB of Bovinosieatal Qoaxky
fsc oat jtopoica acooB* Too appbcaoc Amid xlnt oo s£octnod of tbo bun lor fisaocul
for tack altenigre. Aflet thooactkrn are ccmyVtc, BLM woold ttea be
553(1)
553(9)
en too proooocres BPA cm to Otto tfu nfp*ynry of tbo Dnft jBryifJTW*^^^ I
tbo Draft BE for theLbbon VaOqr Copper Project wffl be Ktcdtatbe I 553(f)
a» Category B&2. Itot raeaas we have oryirooccasl coairca will tie I
We rojrat that ELM hoc a mectinc wSh tbc Stae of TOah KrWoo of
ct your ocnvciiieQcc.
• irtdfrk.m. dcteflad mronn.ti oa the Pnft BIS, flease contact
Wefloo WS»OB of iay saff at (303) 312-6562 if we msy foitber e^aa om cocccros wiih
tbepcoposcd ortiosL •
Carol Canipbdl, Efccsor
Booayatems Ptotecdoo
cc: UDOGM, SLC
Demia Fiedoick, ITOEQ, SLC
EUiac Sumzo, EPA. WatbiDttoa. D.C.
-------
faamnooal Imp** Sttameot TO Jl 17 SI 1|: 52
IfcbosVdJey Copper ftoject D3TOFTOE
Ipiza2-18. 2-19, TiMo 2-4. Tho Boon MM poodt for Use
I are* need to bo «faed Jot ta onto wit season JbBowed by the, nnjar Bonn
A sood le^wdd enmnto wcokS bo
Sommer 1992 - WWalTO.whm wvral 'ao oMaigo' Wih mfan
| overflowed.
AS GCaCXlDGu ID isuao *"*» use UMUU «»•»• —"•» -— —— «- — • • »_«*
tojoitawssen. Jt Aonld be noted tet goMiBy no process «Kar ffisctaBje. 1 5S2(d)
is allowed from copper infect. U*co V«Bey nd mt uaottrics at. asfece a
witen, even tbcofhfte grams rarely Oow.
Tto PBB cicnld bsve a
ds anxmd etch mote rock j* «w qrailisy. t!»
pndeettdpB ofttapooctal ptt w^« to «JW>tly bade Lc.. appradnaseST 8.
doMt pi»*l» «c
bcopooie in tOn tocttig ss a eccamakanjr
55.4(0)
cooperodneofijakaCOOBSBofbofc
SS^^^ccS^Se^c^^^^^^^ 55,3(0)
fiMeBk*ai»=c<«mCo4cdt«aaHSe^tas_d^
proSoakm oa «gtaal gtoona^raler leto
Ked te psataction wdb in
wdlt, ini«» fanjact of soch OBjoocdon on rcjk«al gronnd-
ctocoSa te «B IffllS Bat tins inter be. used fa various a&tetfv
pauyuwuAu ^ T»i«T1 I-J ri«* **M» WR ftnwriAw Sfaa tan
Seak» 3 Ji fta^ 3-32 & 3-33) - S
r ckddy isociBtd wife coal boSss
555{k)
555(d)
55.6(b)
«*ttn tte Datott PomaiDn »ffl OTato e^oBd » d» ^*^^ ™***. ^-.
wn&ce^ Itb«o=nnraded.tWtb.BIS<«to»toe«^c*toeo^'nnt
oo torn pit inner qnsHty «nd peKcntisl mini«tion nasaona to fabfi* a» oaea
cootsctof pndpitslksi wfca tiicso writs. ;
55.6(b)
aiBato E^^&a raodoctd a» takte ntarate od if toot, k
-------
Department of the Interio
AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
. 1996
MWORAJOHJM
TO; Motfe Dijtria Muutcr. Bomof LtDdMimgemcat, Motb.
Aitex Field Supervisor. Uah' Sate Office. Fob md Wildlife Service. SaB
UiiOr,, Uoh
SWBCT: DaftEnvk
sal Impact Satcmca. Lfaboa ViBcjr Copper Project
TV US Ffeli ra4 WtViUJc Scrrkr (SaYJcc) hu reviewed the Dnft Envinwnenal Impect
r review of ttjcprcjaamta now. I hope JOB wffl five
o«r oommMma cotMco&ia wbea prepoiof the find Enviroomnml Impact Statement.
1*e S«f¥k* It eeaccned lecot tbe psuckr of lmgu»te cooccnmj the project knpecetto
erir-rr^ ipceia i« 6e 0E1S. la Motml «ecboa 7 coan&snon. (be Serriee identified
MrailipdMilBl could be iflbacdbrlic project. Tbae iirkidcd the bbck-focied ferret
(UtKi* mbijpa). btid otic (Siivcoa taiaxipteto). perejrine &lcon(FaIa>
, rrrortmrt; j^rrr Ctynmtdkei cennu). folcnrto xjmwfeh
tedka^ tet3a3 c£ai> (GBil derail). l2dbmpb>ckcbBb(<3Iacvph4. Tbe DEB. pp.3-46
Mi J47, itetilki Ait jarvtji were ccodacted fee Nick-fooled fan* snd upton.
tt04fcftc> JnfYcyt foe optocs were iscoDdosivc t^foum jurvtyx vuc ooly conducted & tbc
wjssWii', Mod spciftj wcwjfs VUG seeded to wfttfify T*^^ npcoti within ft» SZCK of
faAtQK* of fe project. Hitiot jattdtliij, die DEIS tether «uei. p.3^7. that no
tteooacd « cadBtotd ipeeiet or crkial labial, tore been ideaiEed in the projecting
ec »4Ktt« poMfc taif, and oa p.441. dm the Sana of the majority of the tpecia of
ocnccnl It «adcw. ibce sic prcjtct tra protides a poentiil for Jprini/sramKr Inbitzt, not
,
wii** Vttof. Tboe two nemeax ire eontndictorr. We mumin k n inpprnprutt to
e a DOS «i«a tddkbsil in/ccmitkia is. ueded to mrnjilrtr the amljrtb of projects
•c* Hie taU e»fk ml pereufee blcoa ut protected ante the Eodtnjered Speciej Act and
cnddtefmadn not witbia the project no. IrfocBttioa as to their pretence or ibsene
takufcil ia Ae DBS 10 Oat the public can comment oo tte fe&ract
. tba Service cmot cocaacnt on the adeqmcy of the imlyiis in fte DEIS, aad
K5J3L IS Rl 2:118
DEMRTHCHT Of THB ARMY
July 11, 1996
Regulatory Branch (KW-26) 199630347
Lynn Jacl»on
Bur*au of Land
Koab District
(2 EMt Dogwood
Ko»b, Utah 84532
Do«r Kr. Jacluon: *
Thi» l«tt«r ia in r««pona« to your raqucut for coxaont on
th« Draft EnvironaMntal Impact Stat4»«nt (DEIS) for the Lisbon
Valley Copper Project.
Your project he« been reviewed in accordance with Section
404 of the Clean Hater Act, under which the D.s. Any Corp* of
Engineers regulates the discharge of dredged and fill auiterial
and excavation in waters of the United States, including
wetlands. Based on the information provided and a site
inspection Bade by Kr. Drasa Kaciunas of this office, it appears
that your project would Involve such discharges. Alterations to
epheBeral washes would be Bade in the area of the proposed heap
leach facility and at the Sentinel Pit.
nationwide Penit Number 26, described on the enclosed
information sheet, authorizes the discharge of dredged or fill
material into headwaters and isolated waters. Your project would
involve work in these waters and is authorized under this
nationwide permit. The only requirement is that the person
responsible for the project must ensure that the work coaplies
vith the conditions listed on the enclosure. Failure to satisfy
these conditions invalidates the authorization and may result in
a violation of the Clean Water Act.
This verification will be valid until the current nationwide
permit is modified, revoked or reissued. All nationwide permits
are scheduled to be modified, revoked, or reissued prior to
January 20, 1997. It is your responsibility to remain informed
of changes to the nationwide permits. Furthermore, if you begin
or are under contract to begin this activity before the date the
nationwide permit is modified or revoked, you will have twelve
months from the date of the modification or revocation to
complete the activity under the present terms and conditions of
this nationwide permit. If you have not completed your project
in two years, you should contact the Corps of Engineers to obtain
information on any changes which may have occurred to the
nationwide permits.
5S2(d
Mow imroe|k whs &e oomuittki
*x >fcck» eccac fa ibs ira ot* fee project.
i. when k be not yet been dctomiocd whether
ftts^cfeM the Cctado River. However, ttae DEB mitet n
smadcei M to wtat tboe bnpaca would be, cr, fee ttmt mmer. dot» ax fet wha fish
,j •< Coioala Rircr Eabc« 6am water *rl^irtg tbould be M>^jfi~< in nbfe 2-11.
ViBcr US tepact Snaumj, as one of &e impecB of the project
Caoxolgf £« Cckoio Km: fisbci, tbe DEIS, p.4-44. attet Hat > propimmiac KCDOO
Mo«i District. ELM. ciits bot ttut « «ep«r«a
55S(g)
If you have any farther questions, please contact Mr.
Kaclunas at our Dtah Kagulmtory office, 1403. South coo West,
suite A, Bountiful, Dtah 14010, telephone (801) 295-8380.
Jr»OH» Imte ESA.
Tie Service hu reccrvrd a request for
c conraladoo to ksJoie the oepJeoora ftom the Li*on V«Iky
tsbcoMbecliiiSedkilhel^iiIEISaislintbefofmilSection?
romtelnf ftom Ac opco lotaion poodi B docraxd on p. 2-19 of fte DEIS.
ton m* epaa pool, tere sbcrid be a aopnliMca ttat the pond win be monitored
md o»tt wftBlfe, aomlidei mi. tf k b food to be > problem, corrective meuans win be
Btan » «wM tbare moraUda.
WkB* BLM *u cbwm tbe ftcflity hjoa abemttive M their preferred ahenarjve, the
al
ovg the loot term. Tbe open pit bictfilliui iltomtive would not
Gcwt. would prcaerve 177 *c/ft/yr of rroundwtfer flows, ud would
fck tte vtaM« k-v* of tae project.
A»y eacxicaf eoaeoak* OJCK commenu tboold be iddrcncd to Jinet Mini at
(KM) Sit-SCOl.
55J9(b)
55.3(a)
lilchacl A. Schwinn
Chief, Dtah Regulatory office
Copy furnished;
Lee Gochnour, Gochnour t Associates, Inc., P.O. Box 3207,
Engelwood, Colorado 801SS
5-1°
-------
.ntenor
ir.i .11 17 (.1 11:
am Ui.'. 'J;- I ril..;
BUREAU Or HMO
I.76I9 (SEUO-RM)
d? 12. !9»
rl.-y:
NATIONAL rAJUl SERVICE
I Moib Dtoto Bot of Ulrf M«u««i««l
I a Eut Dogwood A™»I»
1 Mwb. Uui 84552
I rwrM.Kitetall:
t stUBrt (DEIS) c
likelihood of «r ojajity iaptca oo «n> NFS Oxt I ntaaa*.
ad Wtts Roowccs DMooa WkMrf K>
—•---8«« »d*tioi»il track timffic on pehtK
1sS.12{b)
5CTtf^m* Utth Groop
S^enoteodcot. Aiebt» Nttiooal fa*
IMFA-CPSO
WASO-O10
KsD.K6cSidl.BlM
Coacmial P» a«a are highest to tho coutheaa and lowcjt to the
thea»eredryfeolg9BcutactfcJUuuuBhmtthoar<
bydnaUc gracSeat eao oos be desenaioed.-
P*SC 3-31. t«U sastsste (BasSk»KB*»)
. fa thii pamd »«ar trom tbeae and adltcca Ramaioia.
in ifae DoSote. Ri«r * oo the ncrage. 200.000 to 300 .000 a
ia»!ogic
555(9)
Cujraa ftfjuiftt
SMtiosi M; 41; said Hgore 3 .1-1
y onoMectedsli* deposits.
Copy to: USGSSt^E!5aeseoM»e.W«aRe«OBcesKYtoi,Ut!h
intance
United States Department of the Interior- -.; .^-iVjpv ^ QjJ
In Reply Refer To:
Mai Step 423
U.S.GEOLOGIOU.SUII.VEY
-- -
MEMORAKDUM
17 CH
To: DistriaManagei,U5BnreanoflJDidManagcmem
From: . James F.Derae ,
^Senior Advisor for Science Applications
Subject: Review ot mroca»u'*TiT -.
Project. San Juan Coonty, Utah
.GcolopcdSmT
LS. Bnxean ol Una iw»»sa»a» Vw*-../
; the subject draft environmental impact statono
... •- .— ttCPES).
S«tJoa3^2J;p*s*5r*S** «
\
recharge.
Section 3.13.1
the vdoo for tmmniisivay on pages
Pages 3-23 and 3-24
12 My 1S96
Ms. Katt Sitcbdl. Moab Maria Manager
Boreal of Land Maragcmest
82 East Dogwood Aveme
Moab, Uttb 84532
RE:
Impact
Dear Ms. Kkchell. '
The Cutaral Preservation Office of the Hopi Tribe has received and reviewed the
Draft taboo Valley tipper Project Environmental Impact Statement. The foltowtng are the
amaeeaa of tie Hopi Tribe.
Ctapl^3-^traxtothesect»oeiBa!edT^dk»nalCumjialProp!rlies' it states that
letters were ssat to five tribal organizations, mcludiDg the Hopi Tribe, sedang commestson
the potectial cffoas the proposed project may have co cutatal propertSss. Toe Cultural
Preservatioa Offio: did receive your tear seeidng commeats on the proposed project, but
due
-------
*. W*
JKdK*, «IM
Hi Dnft Ibbo* V«iie» Copper Project EIS
U w*» 19 provide Ac Moio Field OfTxx of tire Bureau of Land Mimrerooa the
McessK? «JifiOfn|&k iafotmuSoa conccrainy Kopi tradition*] cultural properties and
KtoenMt Hie Cwteunl rrcKrvstJoa Office wiQ hive lo cooact all ife appropriate iadividuiU
,fK**tft4 «i* OK lea chat ideatffied above sad apprise tboa of tbe proposed project and
Aft jeeci^e tocadca, la MdC oiyi. k k •eccnary for these knowledgeable iodmduab to
vte ilw am of Ac pKpewI project (or specific tndidceal property idcodnciaoa.
TMs tanl of hvesi{i&» Is sbjotady teoentive to caare Hal tndjaoail cultural
•copsnlss and nacwta of imoonuce lo tkese Hopi clinj are not budvenently adversely
ttToaes1«• (tatters*. AddJdocaJlY. tail Icvd of effort b coaly ia terms of resource
txfav&axt; eft* tJaj tardea faJli uaoecemrily oa tbe Cutainl Pretetvalioo Office.
Tkercfon, *e Cultural rrraomskxi Offke request! of the Bureau of Laad Managemeat tbc
memory rnwrcCT lo koflkmeM aa iovetdptioe of das rumre which will addiboeally aisilt
Ike Bonw of two1 MtMjnBeot « rccojnizijir, their federally minfhirrl respOBirbilipfS.
JUtceM YO» am aay qucnjocj or coocems regarding tbe potkioa of ate Hopi Tribe
MtscsMI ia Hit tew ptcue coatact Kmt Docjcslx. Trtt»l Archaeolons. day Bamitooa.
me st Sfi. -
Kat* SMcBall. l&ab District Manager
8» Eaat Dofwood A
Jury 15,1996 erewt
s en Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Lisbon
VaBcT Copper Project. VS. Department of tbe Interior
D*ar Ms. Kitchen:
Tia National Wildlife Federation (KWF) submits the following comments on
the Draft Errrfroiuatntal Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Plan of Operations for
aaspen pit copper sain* and heap leach operation in Lower Lisbon Valley. KWF
I* » Ma-profit environmental organization with over three million members and
natSoowide. NWF has long been concerned with mining on pubEc
and its affiicta on neighboring communities.
Oar mmnwitt eo this project fbcos primarily on the important issue of
caaniltatito vri& Native Amirkan tribes. We do not have the expertise to
narttad tilt important cultural artifacts or sites win be impacted by this project
So, •artfcultr, Bamrer, Cos project does present the opportunity to examine
S2Js?s aad partacalarly, your district's, procedural approach to consultation with
K5tlv» Amtrkta trib«. It isecsential that all ELM offices strictly adhere to at
ta*t tb» vs«7 «^^^"*^ procedural requirements for consultation as required by
Jaw, rugglitiaa and internal Minnsl gnMinrc Coneirlnring that yonr District
U at tbs> Iwart eteema of the autsi predona cnltnrml rveooroee in the
MMttnr« w« wsnld hop* that yoa (o far beyond the minimum
rs^K&DBjficxiSa and VG£ forth a compmhenslve and »*»«**^»****y cnldanoe to
toniT* thjt eoemttatlon is done effectively for every BLH project that
wi^t affect cultural or historic
As evSdvcwl by the inadequate consultation that was done for this project,
BLM appareotly eooducts consaltation with little regard for adherence to
preodtOM. Although we certainly understand the complexities, time commitment
«n*tv*d and the rued for flexibility in conducting adequate consultation, these
fkcMn sJwild act and legally cannot be used as an excuse to forgo procedural
esuohallm requirements. IdeaDy. as set forth in tbe BLM manual, each office
shMlld be working- with the tribes in the area to:
55.14{b)
Kate KitcfasH. Moab District Manager
Jury IB, 1996
Page2
1) Establish and set up periodic meetings in person to continue a good
long-term working relationship with the tribes; and
2) . reach an agreement with each tribe as to what will constitute
effective coasaltatioo for all future projects. The agreement should be
documented in writing and at a minimim, should coven
a) whom in the tribe will be contacted;
b) the nature of the consultation (person, letter, phone, etc.);
c) tbe information that win be disclosed during consultation;
d) a description of how the tribe's input will be considered in the
projects (including assurance that the tribe's input will be
seriously considered and integrated into the decision-making
process);
e) procedures for dealing with situations where the tribe's interest
~*>iKrj* with the proposed project;
f) tctabnshed tunes for the agency and tribe to periodically n-
asaecs the effectiveness of the procedures.
n. WlthRecpect to fhaUabon Valley Copper Project, Tho BLM Haa Not
Folknrad Its Own Guideline. And BoguUHons To Put Forth A XSood
Faith Effort To Elicit Specific Kinds Of Information From Native
The BLM Manual Handbook: General Procedural Guidance For Native
American Consultation directs and guides BLM managers who coordinate and
consultwith Native American croups. The purpose of these guideline* is to
"assure that tribal yrvTrniirt^nt*, Native A*r**nTyn communities, and individuals
whose internets might be affected have sufficient opportunity for productive
itkn." Manual at M- Whuewerecognixe that they are not legany
unlike the NAGPRA regulationo, it is in the ELM'S best interests to
5&1403)
follow their own poBetas in order to ennm rmi«iitfia™frig tlra reason &r the ffmtff?t: requesting their direct participation and
input in the decision making process; and asking them to identify any traditional
cultural or religious letdare and practitioners who they think should also be
contacted." Manual at HI-8. Then ia no documentation that ELM'S initial
notification included farlftprKm^ contact with the tribes as required by the M«rm«v
BLM apparently reBed only on a letter which itself is inadequate for the following
Kate KitcheH, Moab District Manager
July 15,1996
PageS
The letter sent to tbe Ute, Southern Ute, Navajo, and Hopi tribes:
1. Dots not identify the vision qneetsite,' or stone circle, as a
traditional cultural property as it is in the DEIS - in fact, the
letter ntitfle that there are no traditional cultural properties.
2. Dees not state that 24 out of 178 sites recorded an eKgiblo for
EiSns on the National Register of Historic Places (NBHPX or
under what criteria. As a result, the tribes do not know the
status of the site*. 045. the level of protection potentially
afforded a listed site.
3. State* that onlyl site is to be "significantly impacted" which
impSsa no other tates win be impacted, Furthermore, there is
no definition or clarification of "significant impact." In general
tha latter does not inform the tribea as to the BLM*s plaooed
activity.1
4. Doss not include a proposal for mcmtings or consultations.'
5. Does not seek to identify traditional religious leaders who
6. Does not note that a call or visit from the BLM contact person
wiH follow.'
7. Does not specifically request the kind of Native American input
needed, such as identification of potential cultural concerns '
i at ni-9. Tile initial procedures for notifying tribes that are likely to
be affiliated with the sites are set out in 43 C.F JR. } 10.3(cX "The notice must also
propose a time and place for meetings or consultations to further consider the
activity, the Fadoral agency's proposed treatment of _. objects of cultural
patrimony that may be excavated, and the proposed disposition of any excavated
-. objects of cultural patrimony." 43 CJJR. } 10J(cXl). See otoo 43 C-F.R.
•H.
* Tbe consultation must seek to identify traditional rengious leaders who
should be consulted." 43 C.P.K. 5 10.tXbX3>. The Manual aUo suggests that one
or more of the following: officials of federally recognized tribal government's,
nBDKHOfltBtiiss of nonrecognized communities, traditional cultural or religious
leaden and practitioners, and lineal descendants of deceased Native American
individuals whose remains are in fedora) possession or control, bo contacted for
consultation. Manual at m-4 and ffl-8.
Manual at 1II-9.
5-
-------
Ite Kitcbsll, Moab District Manager
r 15. 1996
B. ConBuitation FolJowiPg Notification
•The Manual states that published notices and letters indicating that
e BLM is contemplating an action and that interested parsons may comment,
iBy vrfU not prove anfficdent to meet consultation requirements. Tribal
il's or Native American's organization's failure to respond to an inquiry lettei
umot be assumed to indicate that the group is not concerned.' Manual at m-2.
« far as we can discern from the DEIS, the only communication, with the
ion of the Uto Indian Tribe, has been the notification letter. BLM must
iime a more proactive rolo in these consultation procedures. As of the DEIS,
F were in the position of waiting for responses to "the request for Native
consultations.' (DEIS section 4.11.1.1)
• Ths Manual elaborates that when a good working relation established,
•something less than face to face contact may be sufficient. For example, where
•phone and mail contacts are demonstrably successful and mutually agreed to be
I mfficient, they satisfy the general requirements. Conversely, where they ore
I found to bo a poor avenue for opening dialogue, more personal contacts are
(necessary Manual at m-3. There is no documentation of an existing working
I relation among the groups. Because the BLM has admitted that follow op
I contacts with other tribal groups have not been successful (section 3.11.2), it must
1 employ more personal attempts at a dialogue.
1. Legally Required Consultation
In several court tests*, attempts at written correspondence have been
considered insufficient demonstration of agency's effort to consult, unless
accompanied by phone and/or direct contact. "While notification can be satisfied
through simple one-way written means, coiaullatim is generally construed to
mean direct, two-way communication." Manual at m-9 {emphasis in original).
The BLM guidelines address the situation at hand, but the DEIS does not
document the form or number of attempts to engage in consultation with the
Native American groups. By including this information in the Final EIS. many
these questions (regarding the intensity and effort of the attempts to consult) ca.
be answered. And most significantly, return receipt by certified mail win certify
noit/tcofion, but by itself win not be adequate to establish a good faith effort to
enter consultation. Manual at m-8 (emphasis in original). This appears to be
exactly the situation here: letters were sent merely to notify interested parties.
2. Documentation of notification and consultation-
Evidence of both notification and consultation is to be included in
environmental documentation before project construction begins. Since adequate
55.14(b)
Kate Kitchall. Moab District Manager
July 16. 1SSS
Page 6
effe
cts, therefore, can not be mitigated by data recovery to order!
' The rocedures of this
(d)" The advoraa ecs, ,
to be fret from e cfctemtostion of adverse effect' The procedures of this
d.toimtosticoareMto^ttoSSC.F.R.ISOO. The Final EIS should account for
this possibility whan it discusoas tba impacts and mitigation for each project
alternative" Furthermore, if the impact is found to be adverse, NHPA rsguiaUcos
require consultation with Native American tribes according to 36 C.FJL
} 800.«oXlXB> and 800.1(cX3Xiii).
IV. CONCLUSION
The BLM has mcttcetad that consultation has not yet been concluded for
this project, and in fact, another sits visit is scheduled with one of the tribes.
NWF fully supports this ongoing consultation, especially considering the fact that
many consultation requirements, as discnsssd above, have not been met.
However it is important to note that the BLM may not escape complying with
notice and coaaultetkm requirements by continuing to say that consultation is
incomplete. At BOB» point, BLM must acknowledgs. that the consultation process
for this project is complete and that acknowledgment must occur before any
coBstroettoa begins. The results should have been included for pubKc notice
and comment in tb* Draft BO. Since it wasnt, at a minimum, coaonStatSon
mmrt bo samjiSoteHi by mmd documented to the Final BIS. •
Thank you for Has opportunity to rmnnwnt.
Bespectfuny submitted,
l Galon
Legal &item
Kimi A.Matsumoto
StaffAttomey
Garth Portfflo, Utah. BLM State Archaeologist
Deldi Beyes & Liz Evans, EPA. Environmental Justice Division
AimeeBoulanger. Mineral Policy Center
* Manual at m-9.
' 36 C.F.R. § 800.9(bXl) provides one example of an adverse effect as
TPjhysical destruction, damage, or alteration of all or part of the property."
Kate KitcheU, Moab District Manager
July 15,1996
PageS
consultation has not been conducted or documented at this stage, it must be done
and documented in the Final EIS.
3. Telephone contact
AH attempts and a' record of an conversations should be documented. These
too should be included to the Final EIS.
4. Meetings and direct consultation
The BLM is obligated to conduct direct, two-way, consultation and the
results of such meetings must be detailed to the Final EIS. The Manual states
that the purpose of consultation is to elicit spedficipformation to be integrated
into body of data submitted to authorized officer fof decision making.
The M««m«1 recommends that after initial contacts, a meeting should be
scheduled and should be narrowly focused on the action with the goal of
developing specific description of places or values at issue and potential
management options to avoid or ™M™i»« any negative consequences.
m. The Traditional Cultural Property Hay Still Be Adversely
Affected As Determined Under The National Historic
Preservation Act Begolattons.
Since this site is eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic ]
Places (NRHP), section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA)
requires agencies to study the potential impact to significant cultural resources.
The DEIS states to section 4.1L2.1 that the stone circle, or traditional cultural
property Site 42Sa22947. is located to an area for which impacts are unavoidable.
If an archaeological site is deemed eligible for the NRHP under criterion (d) of 36
CJ.R. 5 60.4,7 impacts 'otherwise ___ found to be adverse may be considered as
not being adverse." The DEIS acknowledges this to section 4.11.2.1. and further
states that 'this "no adverse effect* determination does not apply to sites that are
listed on the NHBP or determined eligible under criteria (a), (b), and/or (c) of 36
CJFJR. { 60.4. None of these types of sites have been identified to the Study
Area."
However, DEIS section 3.11.2 states, TT)he single traditional cultural
property could bs eligible for listing under criteria (a) and/or (b), in addition to
55.14(b)
BM.8U7 JSH-.5I
953IstAvcsa»
Silt take Cily. Utah 84103
July 14.1996
Ms. Ka8eKhdieS.Moi& District Mmsgsr
US. Bureeu of Lsad Mstsagassnt
82 Eos! Dogwood Avenue
Mosb. Utah 84532
Subject UsbsnVsHeyCopperPiojectDElS
DesrMs.Kitcbdk
On beiaif of tbe ttsawMi members of the Utah Cbapter of flic Sierra Club, I wish to
We urge UK BLM toi
i. We regret that we I
iiiee^^ |
discuss issues pattimng » mis DEIS, we will be piased to pnticipue.
The concern flat drive the Siena Oub/Ufflh's conviction tint u» proposal should
proceed no farther include the following;
Lsckof&ead
Apparent mnsieality of orebody
5.5.14(0)
atal i
tcts of dump teaching's severe biogcochanistiy
cd water to wildlife in a tcacb-domiaated teniscape
Envi
UosvsiMnlity of
Impossibility of sbanms off teaching, once canmcaced
7 36 C J.R. § 60.4(d) criterion for evaluation for eligibility for NRHP applies to
sites "that have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in
prehistory or history."
* 26 CJ.R. 5 800.9CO.
Lack of pit reclamation, sod promise of continued generation of extremely acidic water.
possibly cater bead pressure that may drive contiminnlion into me aquifer
Dubioimim ofreclamitioa measures proposed on dumps, loch ptd end disturbed IsKds
Disturbsaces to lfl"*y»p^ in coosouction of power infrastructure to serve me mine
Direct threats to wildlife
Direct d&m&ge to arcbco&ogical resources in this extremely rich cultural history area
Air quality deteriorarxm in on airshed that is so close to parks aid recreation
usaSapucy of local economic benefits to justify msgnitade of imptcB, especially tboss
thai vnll probably decrease local quality of life by » shocking rictor over the fcog^a-
Leckofnecd: Copper prices have ntumrocted recently. Although one mi£x %vagci ftat
-------
titty wM l» ipwdujvc wnarc, bating jodfEot oa high present prices, but on the wager thai
arta* wiB riK, T»«ftdik>od of conccra lor environmental values or lives m nature b not ray
]l^wi& to tract rccxxd of B^fieuix^ mindset his. therefor^ net at aUcoi&fbitisg to
ftitMlt tbM, U° «BYkw«BCQSai problems tare out to be wone thaa tbe rather rosy picture painted
» ttc DBS, tte oceacafa ef Be remediation of thai tncremcot of "woneness" just anat likely
. Ap«.ltK:?otte Trea and Nature will be fcftholdiag tbe bag. rfal acceptable.
SfeBewtfrccacomaaitzaiat acre ore mug be n'uccuulforeachmitef copper
rtil ca
es be
e people think they can gel away
n the tlxx^ ho^or not, tfMuIldy 10 be rhe effect
BeCKr— »er»Klk*K, wart *«««•— copper ore exists ebewberc. Mine that first Minema
f»n*fE*rtatticr.oraeverKatl. Marginal copper b loaded. proportionally, with other
*QB*mmsaMf, wfekh are aot coosioerod muck, if at all. in tbe DEIS: uranium, selenium.
mx^i^atame^^ml^fyJmtixt^Ctaxaxsse^iaeaiiYKxmaiaa. Getting
tat wppa cot b Dot worth letting the genii cot with it.
552(9)
4. Leach EoiQiBg ts B»e genii. All yoa have to ck> to slut rib break up tbe orebody to expose
iMM turtle* ira. The 77tfoeeeiff:a.£rreari<2ara bacteria wfl] take care of the rest, oxidizing
pyrifc to fcrs acid. Not tte "duute sulfuric acid" refentd to m the DEIS introductioa, but
ae«f(s«asol' Knffi I =cnuKliidciltt>c>
•sesptE^aoiactcetbrywQ!)? How docs the company propose to prevent discharge etthcr to
553(m)
nsdCfM, mA Ifee I^iS doca sot dctl whh suca a severe set of pberjoroena at aD adoqaaaely
The DEIS should be rejected. «
ores that are predicted to be acid aneanat
ftflmtfr9Mgri»»_** nw**rrr*~l3A f**ev*;*»y «*•{« Jrli**^ Mntti TTT~ f.n~if««W
jtwa^^ aavc fc^ -peri OB vBpl'H Kyi, but would pot nnv any subs! miiil impact" is uuuly
K from tbc DOS. sifact,teackbdionofl3millicalonsofsulfidicoretofoRnl
iMM^fr^'>^wawr^v^M~l(t~T;Tr{"mi'vt**'r"~'T*^"i'*"—~r«"*»T
•f gW»eii£rfg)wi8d9Oi»BcckofalctmoiBtlau**stam''aadTiavennt»caonvcg<4jtjon"1'
JMfcfcg wffl kve a tbe eavireemcaB mat win be earned by thb acidity.
VSiifewaibrre BO choice, and wfll die mdroves. Populations of many she-bound
SJ5.6(C)
lgig$ ^I^iliilfcjJ Bin iiitiinl, A'ffi wm^ OB the way iJluupirstvm ann snowmelt occur m t
dw IB ta Bropowd ounc, sod becauK of the tact that the only water mat will be at mrfrcc in
any ^^*^^taC o^jmity wul be ri'mtiiiiiTYilf^T Deadly, aszactzve rflTUiiii'-ci. How is llrli to be
inirfli jEacc, cscjacfty joe visQalixttiOB, and ecological f^ii* t^i^*. for the sake of speculative.
jtt^!!)OTccil}ut'jKCMhstr)JES^l05«iuc3trriiitbacnr»t«for
55.9(i)
55.6(c)
Tbe plants that dpsucceed in trowinj in this kind of mess may well
eselCTiMB, then convert it lo organic fomn that are hundreds or thousands of
times as toxic as tba already devastating selenates. It is hard not to be cynical about this kind of
extraction and water management proposal, because it is headed for a disaster on a par wilh
other water maafement disasters in the West Phosphate mining elsewhere in Utah, tomcnwe
procesjjnt for cement, and numerous imjMioo return systems in arid areas have all been
rMMgniwsl M MyMtatfMI* lMrfMM«nM tpr Jwwl^rJlgTillg ^ffkniffln. a mflftt tftXK. pTtlTtOrt
ekroast Urtoiura can. likewise, occur in forms that can be mobilized in nature and made
bwavailaMe. hence toxic. Ttace o^antfttti are often all it oka of ueKmetab to degrade local
streams and aquifers, but ouch larger quantities are typically present in these oxidized
orebodies. P^pcadntoprmiom point, if you jet out to nwbiUzetbejceloiiaajuod their
compotinih. and totoxjlygnery element offline ecosystem and resources that they touch, you
couldn't do much bctw than a passive, poorly understood, poorly controlled, speculative heap
leach system.
7. Limns syuem anegnty is dubious, at best The gold extraction mdusBythioks it has
soh^tharrobkm,b«kbri^lyamltt£rof"oiflofiighl,o«ofmind"m»Mgcn)rat That.
and inability of dtuem lo (am access to raeaitoring information about the leaks that oV> occur.
And racy dboear. Cyanide is known to have leaked through synthetic linen at cuny locations.
ia very large lyitnrHfrt Cotapoiite linen, with multiple syatetto of very high quality, perhaps
with bum^dVMrfoamerlianiTnn.iBlegratmg very lew permeability clays. Ifwell-fiaced,aad
if coveted with Doflans bBdcr or shiipcr than water uctfer cootrolled flow, they may last for a
while. AdecacXiaaybeatewdecades.
Linen come wish bulfrin hold, usually very smtll. These holes must be found at
imallttion.*) any roofer kaows, or they only get larger. Butadeer'shooCapipewreach.a
sharp bed, and. most likely of all. one sharp rock, can punch a bole that will let a veritable riva
through nader serious bead pressure, by desert standards. The economics of me entire
propoEtioo mint be recalculated based en three realuations: Fira. tbe Kner b going to leak; for
sure; probably a lot Sescod. the linermust be fixed immediately when it leaks, and a violation
notice must be answered to. And tiird, the public boot going to pot up with anything test tta
5.5.6(1
5.5.3(e
much more man tDcbooSogical fantasies mat no one really expects to need to think aboot ever
The emhis act m endlessly resilient sink that absorbs and cares all. For every time ft
win tarn out much worse than the nightmare versioa. SrecodLawofThenBodysurain,
8. Shutting off acid generation hasn't exactiybecome a raging success in the Uteratureof I
applied science, elsewhere. Add gnKratioaocoiiotntteiitnfynxjifa oxygen, moughh may
well need water. But men. water will probably be available to an adecjate degree, just ficm the
passage and condematioa of vapor through neaps, even after closure. B's those dsrodoxidizmg!
bacteria. ntotadlltafcmmidaiB, again. Biocides, phosphates, feno-phosphates, polymers.
ia, injccnofi of orgxsic
oteiuus, tatajsveriiig of sodium and otber salts—the scholarly literature b loaded with
being pursued, and Ac jory b very much "out" on that, because of tbe Berkeley Pit It nay be
At least, the dunces are good enough that we can't be anything but skeptical of the supposition
represented here that there is any control at all over the process. The way to control H boot to
starlit How does tfas developer propose to manage tias case? WhatwillbeooQetopreveQt
(with WOH cotstaty) tab 30-year mine life from being followed by tbousmbofyeanofacid
TMtre* dnzQitgi" KV«* *fe>» {^ seven! tf*qs"*»**yi other T*^"**^ is A? West?
5.5.6(J
The preferred aba
& performs DO, or littte^pitreclimarion. Thb ocasiitii&£3 BD
9.
oofnge. m light of me prabsbte Datore of the water met win drain into the pit, and be
omg^ittJ by evaporation there, why wfflthb water not become the contaminant somce for
gmund water mrMmiminVin. and possibly even for saface water eimglofme
DEB. aad I would be surprised if this rather ban>banes budgeted mining operation would even
consider anythms other than tbe least possible gestize, on the theory that no one will are or will
be looking. Wecare. We're looting.
him'tncccuiriry preferable to backfill each pit Acid generation may be increased by
such a measare, and the retention of acidic waters in tab pcrtially rock-filled basin may worsen
the ground waterthreat IfmiaxlaticndcaiiotretiidacidgenenmwwaKr
degradation to be acceptable, if there ewr can be such a state, men what could possibly be
acceptable about backfilling (recognized not to be the preferred alternatrveX other man surface
redamatioa? Bot gjttmflriaf3rfniirfchighwall» are dangerous eyesores, ponds ate possibly
5S.7(e|
555(yf
there would seem to be no recourse for the public, once an agreement to follow this attemtlivet
made.
10. Reclamitioa proposed for wasle dumps, leach pads and other disturbed lands bootatall
comment. The eeo^gMofbaib of ^especially, seems wanting. Reclamation objectives
should be the reestablishment of something other than a "priscre**, or most primitive vege&tioa
disturbance. Oating the biome back to a second or third serai stage,
vableaatiw trees and shrubs, should be the objective. Urgecomumablegime,ofily,bnota
good cnot^b wildlife community for which to strive. An ecosystem b needed, and the brat way
to have one b not to disturb the one mat's there, in the fan place. Responsible reclimttioii
design costs Booney. more money than this marginal, dirty orcbody can justify. So don't mine it
55.7(d)l
11.
m bringing MgnifieMt pnw* into rttg
-------
t. despite the attempts of the OSS to minimize the
o. So much ongoing dcslh from ongoing ID.P.CB, all conspire to ma :tu Dejec
___ raaccepablctoourKnjibilities. We ran only imigine the terror SK! Ktosss it will
a on wildlife.
eological resources in this general arc* we nigciy unjji «•**•*«•- The DEIS more or.-. I.
p^^^c^cet^^oCiV^^*^^'Sttte A"****^ "d I
rrnist Lands Archeologist.
Air qusli ly a, inevitably. going to be degraded by the geoenttioo, rf dust fhxa >™™*»£
With n«tk»»l«ta and recreati«i areas so very close. toran tJwaNy1*
.
^
5S.17(a)
sigbted fail 10 realize to.
s uslyloaleconorocsiimaredwxitoetmrttn
oosals.
imaredwxi^tobetmforlttn
impKOof to hideous complex of proposals.
the DEIS skirts and nuntafcM sevcnl very serious water-quality
n^em^wm
esenem
. We trust tlat you win nundste more
stfespeciao*^
I «voiee ofttee potentully hideous impacts by denial of to proposal
us if we m«y pitticipHe in the evaluation process.
I CtebUtthoffice»t(801>4S7.9»4.
Sincerely,
Mineral Policy Ceottr Circuit Rider
abortion that, "mining operations could
quality of thaso lands.
5.5.16(3)
etvauPPor^^
«eale eospar sine. Ba stated in other parts of the OBIS, tha
islets of this Reject would be significant, these impacts
shoutd no! bTdownplayed b, suggesting that «» '"nsiuvi**11"
in what on» author considers "scanic quality and sensitivity .
!he fr0g«. l«e" ecosystem in this area is most certainl y a
sensitive one and hunan developnant of it should reflect this.
5.5.16(3)
on page 2-37, the draft claims, "Heclamation also would
theadverse effects of past unreclaimed mining activities. In
sose cases, new aining operations can assume responsibility for
fhTcleanup of past contamination. However, with regard *° «»
proposedLisbon Valley Project, it is incredulous that tho BLM 1
making the statement that this mining operation as currently
Deposed would "altigata the adverse effects " of post aisturb-
.ances in the area. This assertion leads the public to believe
that the iiaaodiate and surrounding environment will ?=*a;"rBL!|
benefit from Susrao's copper Bine. It is misleading for the BLM
to suggest this to the American people.
n the proposed project area is
acres of past mining activity.
sr«sr3Js zssr
operation include:
» a 250 acre heap leach pad with a steep slope of 2.S:i
. fo" walla ?oek dumps/also with 2.5:1 slope,, ="=?thering
more than 300 acres of land that is now vegetated with pinyon,
*
"* more than 230 aeras o£ open pits left unreclaimed and
filled with a potentially toxic brew of 100 to 300 £eet of con-
taminated waters
constitute
tha above-
« consume 900 gallons par minute of southeastern Utah's
precious groundwater resources
5&7(f)
S5S(y)
6 July 1996
Kato Kitcholl, Homb District Manager
82 East Dogwood JWenue
Hoab, Otan 84532
Re: consents on Draft Environmental Inpact Statement for Lisbon
Valloy Copper Mine
Dear Hs. Kitenell:
rm behalf of the Mineral Policy Center, I an subaitting the
SllctlU coasts on the BLM Draft EI8 for a proposed copper
mine in the Lisbon Valler area of Utah.
«ss fftaras SAssrajsj
proposal .
Re have reviewed the DEIS and appreciate the work don. ".rain.
However, we have identified a number of concerns and «"«"°M
relative to Surano Hinerals Corporation's proposal. Be would
appreciate rouTittention, consideration, and response to these
issues.
Land Use. Past Disturbance, and the Proposed Project:
i.PntShrr.niT...nignifiranc.^rdU^Cthenpro;or.dToJect
could actually improve the quality of tho local environment.
In summarising impacts to water quality, P«9=E»T« °f b^-use^f
states: "Those impacts are not expected to be high, because OE
the current degraded water quality and the lack of ="""« ?°a
potential future use of this water." Existing problems »«n
water from an historic activity are not Justification to further
damage that water resource! And on what grounds is it being
asserted that there Is not a "potential future use of this water
other than mining? Perhaps tho writer is basing this claim on
5.5.16(a)
5.5.5(y)
« andsjsgar at least 178 cultural resource situs
a threatan rara surface and groundwater resources with
ith the noise of
accidents »d hazardous
IOEt<>r»*'alsosa"undr*afl of acres of denuded lands to wind erosion
Cand result in Intacta froa the dust created)
lana resu.^j w- ^^^ M ^^ o£ publie llnai> Bitn tna
visual, alectrcaagnatic, and construction impacts of « new
fieM
1000
acres of public land now usad for hunting and recreation
Given the si*e, extent and signifies""?? o£ *£*?? ^Sousllil-
cartainly cannot be orguad as comparable with tho pravio'*' °J»
turbiace of groundwator and 85 acres of land, how is it possible
that the ELM can suggest that this project might benefit the
local environment? It is unclaar to aa how the term "mitigation
is at atl applicable and defendable in the proposed action.
As steward of our federal lands, BLM is charged with protecting
tho integrity and quality of these lands for the benefit o£ tae
gesting — . t -,^-
over current conditions at the site.
Heeds for More Comprehensive Baseline Studies:
The'.DEIS is lacking in background information with regard to
several issues which should be more fully studied and
addrossad before tha proposed project impacts can b« understood.
Hater Quality and Quantity
^r=aSpl«s were taken from natural and undisturbed source.
relative to the water quality studies as « """'fL.,™*fJ °" ,£,*e
be a comprohensive review of water quality, including those areas
not likaly already impacted by praviouo human activities.
Information on the likely hydrological c|^1*j"''°°.,^c|''.^a Masa
(9)
(!)
(k)
(n)
-------
uiwl«r»ta*ilia« at to where likely contamination will travel.
equally significant are connectlena between aquifers mnd other
•rawrihiatvr pathwaya. Currant background data on thia *eems
t* b« neatly conjecture.
The prefect prepoaea to use 100 gallons per minute of grouad-
vat«r. The was acknowledges that thia will ha** some Impact on
tbe leeal ecosystem, but does not quantify what likely impacts
will fc*. Because et tb« above-mentioned holea in background dati
os ereiimlvater reaourcaa, th« public can sot adequately estimate
tbe extent and aigalticanc* ot the withdrawal of nor* thaa 400
•vlllin gallons ot water each year for 10 year* continuously.
immediate
i immediate
tbe impacts of
Xadialogical Impacta
I* tnef * any past uranium mlalng activity in tbe ii
vicinity *f the project area? 1C it la not in tbe
area* how far away la tola disturbance? What are
again disturbing tbl* tyre ot waste?
XVa* it past mining la aot close eaougb to tbe project area to
etxutltute a concern, current water quality data sbovs excoed-
sne** ia gross alpha aad gross beta. Thia fact generates a host
»t e>*»tieffis en tbe impacts of dlstarbiag an area with thia level
at radioactivity. (That la the impact to the local environment?
Wk»t i»»aeta could be transported by surface inters flowing from
artmtt*: the site? What impacts could b* transferred to ground-
vater? Xtut are tbe possible Impacts to worker health and the
ae*lU> ot nearby residents impacted by dust from tbe aite?
tar could these impacts travel via wind and water tranapor
iport?
55.6(1}
»cid Kin. Drain.3.
Mu ta* best available methodology been utilised to analyse the
gtockoKtstry in the project area? Too often Mineral Policy cen-
ter finds that preliminary studies on the acid generating poten-
tial ace inadequate aad the public is left with significant acid
mtc* drainage problems during and following the life of a 55.6(c)
pcfieet. X contingency plan to handle an acid mine drainage
problem sheul* be la place long before this mess actually devel-
op*. Likewise, a plan for problems based oa high alkalinity
sa«al< alae be prepared.
faf* 2-41 and 2-44 of tbe DEIS suggests that problem waxte rock,
with a Bifa acid generating potential, will be encountered. The
pre»6s»d "solution* to this threat is to dispose of this naterial
ia ta* wtste reck pile, however, this facility has neither a
H»«r nor other safeguards to prevent releaaes to tbe environ-
ment. A better plan for dealing with acid mine drainage should
b* e«msld«red.
ion Lines:
Wk» easi't tba proposed aew transmission line be located in an I
•xUtlaf corridor? Th« information on the impacts of \
•omstrnetlas aad maintaining this transmission line are I 553ft))
Ua«a«uat*. What are possible impacts troe> *leetromagnetic I "~^> '
Melds? Wist are possible alternative sources for power? |
Ktfflanatioat
Cmiraat plans for reclamation do not succeed in "reclaiming" tbe
UUtw Valley area for future uses. Oreater consideration should
be ftvaa the merits of backfilling the pits. The cost of thia
type at effort are reduced as this operation involves the use of
multiple pits aad offers opportunities for concurrent reclamation.
L***i«g b*kind huge opsa pita, hundreds of acres ia sise, and
aemawlatla* hundreds of feet of potentially acidic water is a
dattfareo* proposition. The claim that backfilling reduces future
"beneficial uses" of this potentially toxic water is irresponsi-
ble. It is equally irresponsible for BLH to offer future mining
•PtertHBlties as tbe reason for not backfilling such pots of
texle brew. The agency should instesd be planning for pumping
wMek will have to be done in perpetuity. The current plan in-
vite* aa expensive liability for BLH and the American taxpayers.
Tbe heap leaom pad aad waste rock piles should b* graded to a
• l*t* less steep tbaa 2.S:1 in order to encourage revegetation of
tb* »r«», Tbe currant proposal does not even attempt to reach
this awlast goal. A ravegetatioa program should be outlined in
detail and should utilise only locally native .pecies.
raf* 2-40 ot tbe BZIS states that the company will monitor the
ara* for two years following the project. This is insufficient.
At wkese expense will the necessary longterm monitoring of the
prcjeet area b* dona?
A significant bond should be posted to protect the reclamation
feels of this area. It ahould alao be held for several years
ellewiag the closure ot the operation to ensure against the
feMClcaa public paying the bill for problems which may ensue in
" «5* TS*"' Ijtt»ti"9 contamination in the project area de-
lllii * •%'..? *m»11 percentage ol tbe scope of possible future
premems if tfce public ia not adequately prepared.
Ota*f CoBneatsl
I *atire facility .bould be fenced for the protection of
' kaaltb and wildlife. The heap leach pad, proceas ponds.
*?" fi *B°u*a °* netted aa an operational requirement. He
uki-Ii JUij v ""I"9 *« SUOTO to develop a "mitigation plan"
avl*a taunt" **l>lMWBt«d "" Problem, occur with resident and
555(3)
555(0)
5.5.7(g)
5S7(a)
* Baa tbe agency taken into account the full Impacta of increaaed
truck traffic on the windy roads leading to the projeot aite?
What impact will this have to the booming touriat travel in the
area?
* Bow long will It take Hoab or Montleello emergency service, tot
reach the projeot area or the transport corridor in cese ot an I
emergency spill? Are are. emergency responders trained in J55.11(d
hasardous material, spill response? Would they know the best ' '
methods tor responding to a maaaiv* aulfurie acid .pill7
* Very little information ia known on Summo Mineral.. Hhat other I
information can BLH provide to tbe public on Sunmo's paat projected
and tbe company's track record? •
• The analysis on why underground mining waa deeded "economically I _ _ -.1
unfeasible" should be provided. Who made thia determination? 15.5.3(1
* Page ES-4 describe* "numerous faults present in tbe project!
area". What precautions are being taken to reduce possible I 55 If eft
damage and emergenciea resulting from a seismic event? j—— -\v/
* Page 3-60 of the DIIS which suggest that "lower wages and high-
er living costs are at least partly responsible for high rates of
hlghschool dropout s.. .and teenage pregnancy...". The DEIS then
goea on to suggest that higher wage opportunities, like those
offered by thia mine, would reduce these social problems, aa well
as those presented by drug abuse and domestic violence. This is
a gross oversimplification of complex social and family chal-
lenges. In addition, the statement that these problems "may be
due to a higher rat* of families with both parent* working and
associated reduction in child supervision and'discipline," is
offensive. These issues are irrelevant to this project.
55.11(1
* Hill the project need an IIPDXS permit from the EPA? Hhat does
the company propose to do with water pumped from the pit during
and following operation? Hill this water be used in tbe mining
process or to suppress dust on the roads? If so, what are the
impacts of using this potentially contaminated water in this
manner?
Conclusion:
The draft Environmental Impact Statement is replete with irra-
tional justifications for the proposed mine project. Examples
such as those mad* with regard to the nine reducing teenage preg-
nancy and domestic violence are absurd and can only be interpret-
ed »» attempts to rationalise and promote the project. Addition-
ally, suggestions that the construction of a massive new mine
will Improve tbe local ecosystem which has had only limited his-
toric disturbance is equally ludicrous.
These are just a few of our concerns. In general, we feel tbe
5521®
5S500
public deserves a far more complete aad unbiased review of tbe
proposed project and its probable impacts.
Mineral Policy Center appreciates tbe BLH'* consideration of our
concern*. Pleas* keep us Informed of all decisions, meetings,
hearings, etc. related to this project.
iterelj.
jumee X. Boulaager
Southwest Circuit nider"
-------
i5 My 1995 /—**.
348IReddilTRd. (16)
nuratar. with OS rebvwl roads lakes Mo aocoB*. would ba much higher.
I fiaS it dte&&ag that fa the cot am of Os DBS where I Ixstend to check V/ootwn&ay&'s work
Inde&BLktrowicastel&icaloeiGadobvicaswsyB, Ttol»d*^oea my confidence la ran rest of ta
DBS. Did &9 BLM cb9& &m caScelafiam7 Wl« perctsuge of the technical work in the DHSkoj
BLM
-Q Eat Dogwood. Suite M
.Ur 84532
Horcsre my cosnmcna oo UicSUMMO copper mine project.
niMjIlsna The DBS cffeni two reasora for oat bjckfiHiBj die pits: (I) doing to
55,3(a)
the SUMMO mfcc frcn those tmna tt which backfilling would be appropriate.
How mBch copper win Cffl be in Ibe groand wben the prppoaod Buiriiigoona^ceraeTWtetiseSe
tosafeaUOT^ortbiiccflxa-willbBCCcocBiicalSftycMafrOTaoVI How.raijCT-
wBllnd«lmg4ienil»ancclBlDanilw«lerBeirlheaile? HowOIOMthiaiaipscteoapsra> _ ,___. .
msvMd tlKtmnlttjopcnaiiioapnundwalerJ fll't worth pawing outfcal IB other «aw» of *» J5.5.3(a)
fSSItttei. A«4wiH.>B «~V,44*»i. *TTK« *. «U»1M «•««».« «l« t»» W P««»t ««»«), Mt
emchailEBl«uu«r.««dw««iie«lHylt«lre«d)fkm,««l«»aw'«ifto»iMHeuywi. Stalbit;.
" ^ aaioffeeiMsterori.
.
bKB rardcOy chscked by BUS «afJ7
la
nrec»jr.
searatofer
BMS
-Bill a^» B »i aiMlmi,»»".— I • •—»~.»m»—
W3 vB ba to^Kaettui Tto raoKa lisendjJ t» esEapsrail to (to
teJsK.ffiittTOtOTcaafiftsat. Iftt»yarea's,tfcsfeJster
5.5.12(3)
patinam*
a Utflt bit iarraniHrnl)
asttmM<»tam.«Ddcoihould
uire beckflSibi
itucbldi. Tbe p
iirmalto TVDasm»thu^pdhaic«rK)inlher«cjeawo^notre^iUe^t^
5toc7tt«poiDtcnurely. Wehaveaomeof tiKekaiieatairinlhecCTmlrybj^airfwcwotildUlsMto
En^lfaawaTAccc^tttheDElS.tell^c/loiMpdl^
cB
impi»£bteto«eb CM evco the dare* d«j«7 Tbew cjBBaSora assert
addressed in tb= DBS. Qisioc used intte DBS. in ocder lo make OK fua! aswrrnore
iMMta of &! ate to nato ta fl» DBS. ten '6e penoa aijSilatoM
Kratiig to Jot on ease was fie noomKuStd mBsuSoB / pcnait tapobooas en> bateMa8raa&
K^T^BLMfpCOOTttenaScarrft^Jortithisproaem. Abo.(heBLMdsoaklWe IB
^TOT^o^fcipindtaipiteSMlotac^ttotheyOTcs/orcesble. The BLM to been tana!
5S.17(a)
5.5.3(6}
5.5.2(a)
5.5.2(b)
M.
{<-,
Kovin Walker
pilatablf. The
H should b« wed.)
h^3& Ite DHS mrflfjofty thti bUning would be audible milea Troca the miniog Bite, but it malcea no
lacmpttodtlamuebtwrir. I. it 20 miles? SOmilej? Will it be xidible in Cmyooliodj NatsorjJ
Put? talhoUSilMccnlstta? In wiltiy pnpaied wilderacn >rc>>? ll'i Impaitaia to taow. m qia«
U om of tte more pmoou»raoure««o(c»iiyoo county. SimiUity. Ibe DBS tialsi thai Muting u
unlikely to oocor more ttan once a day. bm Ibne u KXhing (n *« "nxooaBendcd "
imurrtSultkiiinfictbappem. Tta
— • - - -
jcoioii to
55.18(3)
tig mistakes io accidept ntecakailalioiB. TV "»*"'t**"?ig fn*** 'M l*Mt n^S regarding ite
.
accidcal ratta for local bigbway acgojenta. Thii to joal plain wroni. Tbe aoiixj resa iould fc:
•— »^< Heto'a a calcoSuico thai cornea doer to bangcotrccl (I've Bade aonw nlmpUrytnj
astmpttcm.soacc»n!ctc9V»bukxiwUlneedlobeaUIIleDxxectioalhatWco)wird<^yde'acakiuationiaR
loolly wroog. plcaae kt iae baow and 111 provide more detail*.}
AMUOX: 73 cixnjmutCTi. 9 heavy tna±+ 12 medium midc = 94 roirad trip per day. Azsmne
fortier that all tufTic goe> through U Sal Junction (naif from lae north, toll toco the aoath).
Tbsa we can 'expect, for highway 46.
<2 X'94 one-way trips/day) x (5 "94 acddenu/yeat) /( 1000 "94 ACT) = a94 eccideoUycBr on
StmUariy.we can expect
(2x94aooe-w«ylripii/o^)x(55'94aocidentVvear)/(3250-94ADn= l-S9aocidenl/ye«roa
highway 191 south
(2 x 94/2 one-way tripnAby) x (48 "94 acodenu/ycar) / (8430 "94 ADT) = 0^4 acckfcnUyear on
highway 191 north.
daimed in die
The t«S «aj oft by 350*.
Since the above calculation doeaa't take into account all roads on which traffic will iocreBae. ilia
certainly too low. A trf thourt tbt «bc^ o^ck calcul»tk)o lt»ve» much lo be desired, it has nxjre
credibility Ih&l the one contained in Ibe DBS.
Theejlcalanonqforllie ctpecled nimiberac/highv^y Brridrnl«invc4vingl>imidc«l»in!ltrTial«areal»o
totally inndcouatc. According lo the material Lynn Jactaco aent me, the DBS oaly eooflUeni
f or the Btr«ehcJ rood Iron. Mc«b to tbe Project lite. What about the other hundreds of miteaof road
on which ralfaic acid. e«c.. will be tramponod? Thia thould be taken into accoaalaiwdL
Atao. even if we (onj«i6TiaMy) reatrict our ancolioo to local roada. tte DEIS'a ctaiino£oolyO.S
hmardouimalmJ&Khwayaccidenti over the life time of the project «=«=!a"»'o°lo«'-A"
the DBS. there will belOoce-way hazardous cargo oipa per day. If
olciUaboea. we come op with 1?>°™
highwayaoddeaBc«er^(10year)lifeumeoflheproje<». And Ihiall for local roKfcooly. The ac
55.12(a)
Atto. Kate KlteluU
Moab BLM Dteteirt OIHco
„„ . ,
''!°-"S F'^'-D OrrlCi-.
Wo .•A. IS M (f IB
CEf-T C." THH i:-.TERICT
BUREAU OF LAKDHSKT
I am opposed to the Lisbon VaHey Copper Project for the
following re&soas:
Tbe proposad procassinff of the copper calls for huge
aroo&nts of water. Some of this water may be groundw&ter, bat
wells win bo driHad into the N&TQ}O Aquifer to supply tho accessary
water ae&ded for proeescbas. No one can provida an answer && to
how tills water consumption will affect the wella oxioting into tba
N&vffijo Aqui&r. P«op!e, fiar from thia site who have no knowledge of
this proposal, may ba afiacted. Drinking quality water is at a
premium oa this planet, and win oontinns to be more so in the
ftiture. Utah's population is and will continue to grow. It has the
highest birth rate in the nation. Wo cannot water our crops with
copper, nor drink it. In that respect. I believe water to be a more
valuable resource th&n copper, and wffl be even more so as the years
pass. San Juan County is experiencing the worst drought in many
years. If this trend continues there wffl bo a need for new weHs. An
aquifer is replenished ovar many, many years of time. We must be
very careful with the use of this most precious resource.
We naed to consider the farther reaching affects of this
project. Where does the copper go from here? To emerging Third
World industrial nations where there are no Clean Air and Water
standards? Wo cannot escape the global pollution that is spiraling at
a deadly rate. We must make wise decisions, starting today, to
change this process. We produce more and more products with a
desiflnad ahcft life igtaBi encouraging massive &Ao*um«*i&.% Our
t&ndfiUd turo everflowtag at»tS 90 We 4ttmt» Into th* mrnnna. Ttie?e IB
enough "stuff on fthe Earth. Corporations must forther recycling
efforts ead produce bettor quality products that last longer or cam be
repaired rather than thrown away. If the Lisbon Valley Copper
Project is OK"«i, we are contributing to th« demlsa of our already
overstrasced pbutefc.
Sumrao claims that it will b* helping the employment problems
of San Juan and Grand Counties. The amount of local people It will
employ is very, vary small. Tbe jobs it offers are short term. Tba
trend in Utah is towards increased tourism which already pumps
millions of dollars into those two counties.
The project win result in tba destruction of virgin
Juniper/piraioa forest. Tbe ago of these trees is undetermined, but
55.11(a)
55.7{b)
s-n
-------
tgntt«« he hundredi »f jr«ar« old. Several hundred historical ili«. I
sow *4 major significance, will b* afTeeUd or d»stroy*d. Th* Uibon 15.5.14(0)
V«B»r C**p«r ProJ*ct Ues approximately flv* to ilxmllM from the
pj«»OM* Colons Klver Wlld*m*i* Aram. Activity at th* min* alt*
wlM afl*et Ui* wlidtlfe lahablttag this ana. Som* of this* an
l|MM)!*a which quickly disappear » their UrrttorUi disapptar. Th*
nuXkr tin aumb«r of a species that «Ist IB nn ana, th* smallir th*
g*M pool, and th* quicker a species will nach extinction.
Kauurdoiu substance* will b* hauled to and from th« mln* alt*. Th*
projection for Increased trade, do* to incnased growth, on Hwy.
1*1, i*»ot gives In thcEXS. There fore, the ri»k of accident* liremlly
much higher than lh« statistics given. GroundwaUr drainage from
th* arta around th* location sit* 1* Into th* Dolons BlT*r, Th*
Dolores Rinr I* presently a propoMd wlldarnei* ana. Millions of
tax doEsjra ar* pr**«ntrjr b*ln( spent in many parts of the country to
eS»U) ap Industrial damafts.
X turf* yow to w*I(h th* short term gains against the possibl*
loos; t*rsa*ff*ctsoTthis project. Th* op*ratioB of th* Summo
Corporilloa LUbom Vall*jr Copper Mln* will turn a pnunt eighty
acns efdlstorbed land Into two hundnd sens of pits alone, not to
auattoa th* «Oicta to th* otter 80Otacre» of MailUre deiert lands.
Th* porpoH eTth* BUI Is to sustain Uu health ofth* land for
pr*s*at aad faron c*m*ratlons. X question wh*th*r torxdasr M. acres
of wasteland Into IOtt-100O+ aens of wasUUnd. "sustaining th*
h**hh ofth* land.* Th* ima(* that comes to my mind when I hear
the word "§«u«mo" Is of able, pushy, fat man. BLM land belongs to
the public. Corporations dxiv* th« government of this countryin
their hit. Pushy, greedy ways. Tie wfldcmeu and th* creatnrcs of It
;e«jtaocsp*ak for themselves and so we most speak £or them. Our
lUsVora chBdna canmot speak for. themselves and so wemust speak
lot them also. For these reasons I urge you to weigh this decision
earsluQy. W* need to be guided by what onr hearts.teH.us is xightto
d«, aad aot by greed.
Hay Howe
(on behalf of many voices
born and unborn]
5.5.9(8)
5.5.12(3)
5.5.9(0)
5.5.7(b)
the an*. Thsra should be a ocflioj on die number of blasts per dsy. md the BBS should
tnslyZB BBiapsia OS tbs suneaodbaeovkonmsaL
•My sseond oncero Is how B» etawmbe ndsimed. BeckfiUiBf the pit. U
ilsie in s«l l«>1 fill «litiili •»•• m In ««lies! ee>hi«*ii«»lil npilnn flmm lenicmr itili
P&A& ^ •;—. 2.'- ; S "2-
toxic JpUfc ea the roadi, • corridor fee tbo noasry power Ik*, sod be bifpictun of the
icittcldoncrpocttlkMlfctSIJMMO.
Pioac conoda prododog a axooi MB, snd let the public grre cruci«l feedback
tothcjecriaoiltaooi.
Sioocrdr.
|5.5.2(b)
5.5.18(3)
5.5.3(a)
5.5.17(a)
5.5.12(3)
5.5.3(bj
.fr=.VtO
•IELD OFFICE
BWJULI5 01*37
oT.
If-
5.5.18(a)
-1"
-------
-70
00 /\)o7-
ur
5.5.3(f)
JiHy M, 1*n>>
P.O. Cox 1171
Kate Ktetel. Uo^> Dbtrid Manager
82 East Dogwood Avenue
MoBb.UT84S32
I am wrttnto comment on the KM Draft ElSferthaSurorno copper mine In Lisbon
VaBey. Ir«eatweono»n»th«tlr»)p»canbaaddre8s*dpnor»|>roj«appnivat
. The aec6ononnw»n1hoD£ISisiBgi» about
g tareh. and I ttnk a mow
dnometwuldbeinciuiid. IthMtAaateniPoitartthat ttw
ao«Snaone»mmbcrolbtetsperday. By basing the noise mpact analysis on an
orforaabb tovgl *e eredi«fy o« this «»elion eoiAl b* grotfy roprerad
Trfe arsa has, or at bast used to taw. asiw of thr deawst air artoi ewrtry. JJf
5.5.18(3)
vjs&Sty n ths turoumfiig areas, induolng the U Sab and nawby proposed
wWerosss.
Hawse toned noaos from «te? Thetinstoo
toriwIarrarbnisprtetosSarQngaprctoct. '
pits.
adeqradereebmaeonbeiidforthepioieet.
savesabun
-------
BJ.JU.I9 BIB-. 37
5S.13(c)
Cu-'-f
55.11(d)
COCHMCHM «, ASSOCIATES, INC.
T^c^I>iKnctMiriitcr
IK ofLaad M2m$tmeot
K& »m«a>o USA Coporadon Commeao - Liboo Valley Project DEIS
EmrgKaata) Impact Soteaca (DEIS). Srnnmo USA Cccporarjon (Summo) feds dot die
DEB, h fneat. cconia a good docripooa of the esvironracnt, and presenaacccaprefaensive
entna&B of *c pneadal efieca of the propoaal action and alternatives on the physical.
M«^M.»ocMae4ccaDcaSeeavanMmeBtofrhearea. Howrrer.scvenJaipecnof tfceDHS
r^^faci^lEiam^a^riirifrif ^before die BL^e»»«fCTin^fevdame conversions used for cubic yards. Became of rhenumerom
»imie^tafK^mteaBfaicn. We are available to asstn
IB cMfyk* "9 axtmHoa dm nay exist. Please refer to our Plan of Operations and our letter
llnfcnns^
5522
r>jtES-C Cilniin 2, faracraphl. The saement dat diere b rcidier industrial activity.. I
. sxkelaxscnegceit&ise. TboekacpifrcdcaiMij^ 6c^ek>pmcra.aMi minini saivitiej I 5.5.22
Bidet H»« b SK are*. '
P«C« ES-5.
Bg»ad»nr6e» frl itr
The depOi lo groundwaier racga from 60 to 300 feet below die
VllVv
v <10 fgq in It* vicinity
ra**ES-5.
5.5.1(1)
5.5.22
PageES-<,CeknBa2,Pincrapk'. The phrase "degraded waw quality* abould be changed to
•poor «« quality' or Tow WIKT quality." Tte lena degraded Implies dltt die wafer was good
and ha> been changed to something leu food. This may be trae relative to die changing
trounhmer chemistry aloof to flow pads over lent to hundreds or thousand! or yean in ice
natural ty«ea. bol a> a Katie condition for die pro-minini environment, we should just lay thst
dx water quality fe not good, relative to drinking water or groundwaler discharge
Page ES.7,Ctla«BBi, Paragraph!. Change sulnocs 10 uil£ue,
Page ES*, Ceboaa 2, Pangnpb 1. Please include Native Americans as pan of the
consultation HM'HH*I
5.5.11
(9)
| 5.5.22
v*$?Tp$JPt Orftmn ?i TPfli'mirj'p*' «-V It is iooportiai to let the reader know that changes to land
we ire temporary tnd mai foUowinf mining ud redinmion all land ues that existed prior to
mining would tedra.
J5.5.1(|
This paragraph references local residents. There are no |
local resideaa in the Utbon Valley area. There are people who owa property. J
Paje 1-1 aid 1-4. The Laton Valley project is not going lo produce copper •concentrates": b« I
directiymarteable copper menL 'Concemmer generally applies to the enriched copper nlfioe !
produaofcccvratjccalmUltoe. not » die product of SX-EW processing. Concentrates have to 1
be smelted and refilled. I suggest eHmmating the word "concentrates' as iMtcafd. I
Parzl-4Cofcn»l, Paragraph 1. As stand earlier, there are no residents. J 5.5. 1(e)
Page 1-5 Catena I, PantncA 2, Sottenoe 4. What about the Plan of Openrkns/EA g
corapleied lor die KctasK leach operation on die properly to the mid-80's? See page 3-13oftbei5.5.2(i|
DEIS tot reference. |
Patel-^CoiianD^Fsnsnpbl. Should read Section JLO not 6.0? j 5.5.22
Page Z-2 Cetamn 1, Panccmph 1. Rgnre 2-1 does not show die powerline. j 5.5.22
Page 2-12. Cobaraa 1, Paragraph 2. '...after tenovir^aniaoinaiiig suitable plant growth
Pcge2-l». Coima 1, Farafrapa 1. The SjnchezMoK referenced OK only beai permtaad. fi
It has not bcsfl c
| 5.5.221
Cohn» 1, PuitlUfh 2. Use of "Pl^' precedes definition of the acronym. Dermej {
*PLS* a Pregaiat T«~* Sohnlon.
Scdkc 2^4.4. Add '(SX/EW)' aflw header.
| 5.5.22
5.5^2
of ite
CchE3n2.1ntncraiTaph. '..^50-300 fiat below pound mrtaee hi the vieintiy
v»|Tfl Ffl " Tus ^wtimLiiiMi needs to be made becsiise die 1 5.5. t (f I
jrottndwatrsyHcm (aid oV^Bwasri)Bitbelracapiid area BdiftercnL
Also, we need to indode a ititrmm here dot the water supply could come from die
deeper systCKO, also. *A «Wwr araitfer *^**« frnm Ml »*rimatf¥l 700 to 1000 ftet below gromMJ
iS.5 S/kl
Page 2-35. Cota» 2, Pn-azrapb 1. Sommo prepared die Table 24 refereaeed ia Ass
paragraph, aad allowed for two workers per vehicle, rather than die state listed here.
Pajt2-». HapLnehlMl Pavatraphl, Bnt4. Seoscnce and content are bo* inoosqifcss
and do sot foQow to die next line/topic.
Page2-». Cototom 1, Panvrapa 3. •...about 289 feet in depth in the Sentiml Pit.' Not
phial; only Sentinel No. 1 imeroeptt die wan table.
Page2-3». Cohzm 1, Paragraph 4. This paragraph is missing a few words, '...would be
planted wih . . .'
Pate 2^59. Paragraph 4, Line 2. Fen sentence h incomplete, ending in *wim.'
5.5.221
. COBBMI, hat paragraph. This paragraph seems to be missing a few words in die
tranjitioa from 'preventing water from entering die heap ...•»'... indigenous species..
.- Ferine* die lead paragraph from die leach padsectioo has been accidentally placed in die pit
nrlsmitina section. This would abo explain die odd transition from the reclamation
into die leach pad reclamation.
PageML. CotaTDBl, Section 2J.J. Fmngra|ih2: no V ate •foregone-
Page2-C- Catena 2, Lass Paragraph. Remove die word'all.* It wouldn't be true that all
waste disposal activities would be confined to a single dump. **yat«tr Dump A and Dump B
would also exist. In addition, die notion that Wan Dump C would increase by 50 acres boot g
necessarily correct. It b possible that die material coold go on an additional lift, which would 15.5.4(h j
have less acreage impact. | '
TABU; r.»i
Page 2-46. Water Use - PA. It is not sue dial water used during mining would limit
. _ _^ ____ _____
ftitwttaes. individaab woukJ tave the nine opportunhiei thii they do today. They may ia fee* I 5.5.3{nl
opportunities if wuer b expoaed ia the pits and more easily acccss&le. I 1
have more opportunities if v
-------
IMS. EroAa <*=«"* •»* a"*"™*"" EUccttroxs. - Setecttre W««e Rock Bantu**!
^say that the effectiveness of Ihb alternative b better, when the reclamation!
rf; grading. re-lopsoUing, specie, for revegetation, and fertilization would bethel
|M7. Water QmfityboBet-PA. Himinatedie word salfalz from 'sulfate releases from I
Utach pad could affect qudity in minor sense...' Just use the word •rekwea.- aiacel
s solution contains much more than sulfate. Also, part of the sulfate would bel
d as gypsum (CaSOJ in the subsurface before the teachale were to reach the waler J
l»«. Project Ctesra Effects -PA. li b probably more correct to say that there sill be I
~c*231acresofhabitatratherlnanalo«s. I
-50. E«!KmteaBdE«r*=7=^-^M-
edy assumes that the economies of thb alternative would remain me same as those
dmthsPA. Backfilling a* pits would render the project uneconomical. Fwargumeats
iheb^
nuneane. TberewouMabo
[less copper produced and less taxes paid over the life of the project.
JB2-S1. HoaSng-Op«iPKBockiaSingAl«erii««Te- Same comment as Page 2-50 above.
. LcedFSdBSesaad Services -C^HtBacBHBaj AKcraattre- Same cosmeat
[page 2-50 above.
c- OpenPHBackfiBiag AtamtlTe- The aateotffl that
!:'**
55.3(0
wou.
a backffflingwouH constitute an increasein me nomber of Inns. .
s in projected fugitive emosions, nonrenewabte resource consmoptioa (fuel and wata).
,e2-S2. RosdMabiteianse- OpeaKJEadfil^AkerMtrfe- Same comment as Page
iabove.
Open PS BaduaBBS ABenaSw - Same comments Page 2-52
Page 2-S3. Storage and UK- Open Pit BacUffir« ArJeraatSre - Same comment as Page 2-52
ibove.
Page2-S3.G«nerefins Waste durfcg OpcraSSoa - Open pa Backfiffing ASeraasSTO - Same
c as Page 2-52 above.
55.3(S)
MsSP.Ip. »'
formates. We should «» -Hermosa Formation- on Figure 3
rmation' on p*e 3-7. a. totaled on the correc
of Weir and Pufeo, 1981. the Homier Tra.1 Formation b a
i»a»SEal»iihBS«h«n *™J*«* ^
«<»''te»l'l^lral- e ..
^7 Wng tbe anamotosy of the Pennsylvan.™ rocfc, ID fee
Bed Kdg-13 should read tower Dakota, not DafeKa.
Hgare 3.1-7. TesSnically. the Jurassi««e Morrison Formation should be listed above the
Ttias3ic*ge Chicle Formation in the legend.
Hg.OT3.2-l. Tab figure shows two location martmeach for 94MW2. WMW4. 94MWS
o4MW6,aadSLV-lA.
!heowssaef6«a«oto8ys«OTaremiMr,asnioacc«curlmeiareoiUysigty Tee
drawdown mss» sfeoaM not any 'Elevations in feet above sea level." as elevations are not given J
here.
Psst3-l.Ct*BB»2,Lte3. Reference (Caw 1995) b not in the references.
j 55.22
w-i- Sso&c 3.1-2 GceSogK Setting. Thb jecobn should provide an overview or survey
oftbegeoiocy aad point the retder to what b iiBpomnt with regard to romeralaanoo and Be
IWher thanjaa descra.iag ftc location of fee LVF. we man mention that
vmsignfficM»dBgroa»r«««Kftow»ystemmthe|m>jectarea.
nave limiad tfce asal esteat of the Burro Canyon and Navajo »*iiferi.
Tni.secSea naab to tehide a description of the geologic iinhs, incJuotagtheNavajoand
-llie DEIS has inconsistent nomeadatore for thetoweageotogaal Jormanfln. It
l
CsfeaJ. Tbassoion seems very dSsjoicel. The first and second paragraph shooM
. Tnenttdpsragrq)hbn«unic«Hces)aregeiiera!lyweik. EltoermoremfonmnoonsKB
to be included, or the reader sbouSd be pointed 6> the applicable bBeliie reporter
refercBce for ftnther review. The section on Aojuifer Oiaracwistka C5A3-1) pn»™<»
very deaflsd dcscr^tiooi of me flow system in the viemiry of the three pia, but negkcts
to descrBw me regiooal hydrogeologic system and to eiphm the overafl flow sysam m
the LBbea VaBey. The concept of a fault bounded system, the limned area! eneascfthe
aaur&rs, tne ks»i pad in a different hydrogeologic setting, strong downward vernal
55.4{f)
5.5-5(8)
Lime or no mention b made of the Navajo and Entrada Formations as pottntial sources I
for water supply. Thb source of waler b dearly pan of our planned mmmg acrnioes. |
TheARD action b potentially conftmngB die reader. Early m me document, me* 1
AGNiANP ration b used as me cutoff for poteisSaBy acid^enerating msseraL fTha
criteria b a commonly-used nue-oMtmnb, but b a very rough approach and a unduly
restrictive.) In me impact section, the criteria changes a AGP>ANP for the pofct at
which the material becomes potentially acid-generating. We need some combteacy.
Abo. tne word •potsntialry' needs to precede 'acid-generating' throughout the document.
ThestatecffceSentindPitatectosurebnotelearlyoewSjed. The water level wfll be
higher than tie original water table, due to surface water diversion in» the ph. Thus.
water Hfllftow from tbepit to me groundwater system. Thb outward flow, rather man
•dilution from mrfsce water' wffl cause the water m the pit to remain good (juiltty.
The post-closure flow system for me Centennial and GTO pits b abo not clear in the
report. Evaporation from the pit lake surfaces will create a cone of depression around
etch of thesenvopSs. and waler wffl flow from me aquifer toward me pit. Tberefore,me
potential for the release of ta» to the aquifer b minimal, as me oontamimiiB would have
to move upgradient (or diffusion would have to overcome «*-ection). Summo »
performing additional modeling efforts to support State of Utah. Groundwater Permm.
Thb information will be made available to the BLM and its contractor when it becomes
available.
5S.6(g)
555(w)
be moved to a orevkws, general section about geology (3.1.2).
Page 3-7. Sscsad catena, tbfed paragraph. Change Parade* Formation to read Sm&a.
•Member of fee Hgmrga Emmirkgu
Ptge3-l7. O88s»al>Parasras^ia2. Tlsere are nanterous references to streams. There
a. Chaose wording or delete.
p™e3-n. C9lBS32,Parasn?)63. The Welsh/Hydro Triad repondoes a mush baser jab of |
essJaiBisz the oritio/oerivatioa of fl« 15.04 inches/year prec^itition. Aswrioen,mbssctK>nl 555(1)
soSfflifthsiaes^itarkwdaaare^astisasbte. Also. UK docmnent would be more elm if I
the avaihste dim or aream flow and for precgiteion were dbcasiaJ sepjrKely. J
3-18.
Thb section faib to deocrSie me
h-^^i,^---»Y»>«Ti m iii^ l My™ Valley Arm. GraDBd, me deep regional flow groaraSarasa
dsectionbfrcarffiBSW.awzyfromBKUoconpigre UpUft. Bm me Iocs! Bow system in the
Lisbon VaBeyivayiHf&sent. The huge dbplaeemeat along faulo a roe margins of the valley
have essentially sofeted me Usboo Valfcy from tab underlying regional system. As ike 1922
WCC report connrms. •grounowaffir flow hi the Lisbon Valley b generally coosolled by
topography Cm Ihe upper hydrosatigranoie unn). and by the Lbbon Valley Fauh asd by the
Lbboo Valley AEOcBae.' Tbe work done by Pair and Thackston in the Davb. Lavender, and
Cataract Canyocs is focused oa the hydrogeoSogy much deeper to the stcatigraphic section
(primargydsSsmdrteateTTraaRjiumiMu). While thb system b of interest regMsally, me
work b not very relevant «o the mine and hydrofeoiogie system at the Summo Copper Project.
Vfe^CBBfy^fettn&^W^mtiC^ttdK^fa^XXtXteb^tt&nTt&GIZ'
synem and the Bow system in Lisbon Valley, which b apparently not described in the HS.
PZSE3-18. Cetemil, Paragraph 1. The Hatch Wash has a much larger catchment area than I
Lisbon Valley. For comparison, the acreage of each ruriimmt should be soled. J
5SS(s)
rage.»»«. uaaKa»,™s5i»i«i*. The ten b difficult» follow, wi* regard a> the different
water-bearisg uais. Change the leading sentence B read: 'Groundwaw fa known to esist in
three water-bearing unte beneam the project she: an alluvial aquifer of very limited OOEM. a
shallow aqaiSer. and a deeper aijuifer.' A dbcusstoo of confining layers (low-permeability rock
betwaa Ihe aquifers) may abo be in order, since gtcundwater flow and contaminant transport are
. soongly influenced by these layers. This discussion could be presented in the section which
Past 3-20. Ceiam, Parcgrapa 2. The presence of fault gouge »nd t
. , .
permeae and l™-mrmnliiliw amia KB fan pojsaie nKhajiism. producteg
graiadweter Oow across the faults.' We believe that the offset which results from Bit feataj
IBM be a key fisOT to segmentation of the acuifer. If d>e authors of tne BS mad an addstiottd
reference for Ihe justtposftion concept (other than A&ian Brown CoMultant. 1996). sec ths 19SZ
555(s)
-------
Woo4nrtQ?& report, paget 2 through 4. T^
. Qitaa* 2, Paragraph 1. Howcan we say that the watrr quality a rho Navajo and
EamiPm.il bear IfcM IB 3= ftiroCmrooFin.? No data have been collected to imply that.
Typfcalty, deep wuer systems have lower quality than saficial systems, doe to higher
mitactteaieliBe. The sentence "Water quaUrymrhese units b llcely better man that of the
shallow KfOa* should be deleted, or documentation should be added.
PattJ-3*. CotaBa 2, Paragraph 2. Add mat the depth to water in the Cutler Formation,
We* to proposed temeh pad faculty, b greater than 410 teet.
Add water levels for weB 94MW-4 to mb table.
, CthBOBl, Paragraph!. We need to make* dear that die local permeability in die
|^C»jwaq«ifabapprox. U101 cm/second, but mat the overall hydraulic conductivity of
At afiiftr it lower (about U10* cm/sec), doe to nuilting and segmentation. The analysb to
w-ort »j soioacat Is Included in Appendix I of tie Adrian Brows OxBultants report. Further.
*c Cwkr Fonoilsosi below tie leach pad b of much tower permeability.
CAM2, Last paragraph, "...water levels recovered by four feet lor weB SLV31
1005.- I
dooiba bow thehlib-pernM!;llicj|
Ahhoughthel 555(s)
njc. |
555(a)
555(S)
5522
555(S)
Fat* 343. Cohan* 1, Paragraph 2. The ANP-.AGP ratio approach b an oversimplified I
7, Nonet AGP h a beoer general test/criteria. |
CtbiiiBl, last paragraph, "...were poogiillx sod-generating..."
Pait 3^4. ZVvt *i*Hrff, first fniKf.ifj'K Yo« may wbh to prcjeat the results of the 012
sating, Thksccd»de>cri!e> me procedure and explains why kb so irrelevant. Either the dm
are food, afid wanaot presentation, or mb section should be omioed entirety. Smce some
•tttstUs wki adAferaeiog potentM exist, the dia should be presented.
Abo. Ae araflux b rais secooa makes a joap from pit lake water quality to the potential
fer Ike wane rock to siobfbe diaorrcd cooninicao,
Pstt$-Q.I%arc3J>-laBdTextoBPa(e3-*3. There b inconsistency between the *xt and
5522
55.6{h)
fift S-«. SedSM 3^ UprfiK raote of Wildlife Urrestiginoii.
l. Delete repealed HaSce pmyjph trom previous page.
5522
F*|t4-14. Cstexl, TxisnqikZ. Tl»mnr/M jbowjDMdxxe will be grounowntrcrtltew
frora dK Ssadrri n, «m e«^)oeooomB»doc) will not occur st the Sentinel, but will oocaslfce
Ctrenmiil and OTO (Adrian Brow» Comultum. 1596). Tbb xction ihould dbctm thU usiaj
audy-derived fafcrnikm. cpedflealry ptcptred for die IJAoo Valley Project mtes J
dua. rather ten feaetal reftreaoe to other litta.
P»S«<-1«. Coloan 1, ranwnpk 2. Whit about wildlife? See earlier commeM on page
of water trod me r&mja/EnBada Pm.. we cannot say that -neither of these formitioni would be I
nnp>rtcd by pst^sct opcraooDi. •
. Celmai 1, Ifengiropti I. Thb b apparcaly the first mention of Wasting.
should be mentioiBd m the stabOiry section, as a ractor which stabilizes slopes by subjecting them j •
Pap 4-18. CoktxB2,Psa*fn|ih2. Our current analysis shows the possibility of gjoirnhwKr
outflow from the CfMrw'*' and GTO pas after mining to be HIGHLY unlikely. However, a
potential impact & groundwaBer downgradient of me pk cannot be ruled out entirely. If
groundwater outflow were to occur, then evaporative concrrnnrion would certainly be less, and
the water oadiry woak! be better than if groundwater did not flow out of the pits, Abo.siace
grotmdwater poaded ia the C««fmii»l Pit b better man the water qua! ity in the shallow aquifer,
the data do lot suggest rras ee movemen of low quality water to me shallow aquifer b likely.
Page 44*. CefaBB 1, Pangrsph 3. '— l»e«iae of ttrnmrfwaltr onflow and dgieina ftsm
surnce water nns-iiQ.
We believe that the ff^™^^« about pit water degrading the shallow aquifer ate incorrect
Consider flat die grosadwater gradients win be toward the pk lakes, as groundwater moves into
replace water lost to evaporation. Groondwater would move toward dte pits, not out ineo the
aquifer, las iacctnafa^eaiaanatgroBncwaterwill move oa of die pits, dius conomimt
the aquifer, b repoad coasbtealy ia mb section and should be removed, or at a minima,
Page4-29. CcSsssaZ. Ibero b a headog introducmg Case 2. Where is die dbomkra on Case
1?
Pa-e«-26. Otem 2, Paragraifc 2. '...deptlis to water in the phs during the pos-miaiug
period would be 2fl feet ia the GTO PS; 2£3 to the Sendnel, and H&faa in die CenMuatf Pit*
Page 4-23. Cetaaal.FaracraibS. This downcutting already exists in the channel (aboct ten
feet). At worn, me stream chancel would be deepened. Sediment from erosicc would be
deposited in the pit. cvemully raising die pit floor. 'Severe* seems like the wrong word &>
10
Tteek ft sbraac chance here that goes from one column tt> the oextnfber than top
ISbOIKCE.
r»jtS-«2- TabJc 33^-1. Source does sot match with re
F»t*3-<3, tlSAt33^i. Source doeiBotmilch wfth reference section.
Scctk>3JOJ. There is no seodoo here thu the project/other projects are in me
UrtKaVaJScrladeXrialArei.
a2t Lboe3. Delete 'reportedly." fT»»Tniny m n«. f»^t ^ »rfi
inbitatwfadcaowleotedbacr tame DEIS). A fly-over reveab the windrows of brash still
t*Se3-T9. Ctimm 2, Pancrapkl. The resident formerly living on Sommo's properly has
awnd.
r*t«4-3. Otem 2, Pantrapti 2, TbcrodcnsbouIdbciradcawircrhlJSnniijosillbe
nqtdrad 19 conmk n a CQA/QC ptaa psnuuit «o sme permitting reonirements.
r»*«44. C«JacM2,Saa!a»4JU2,Par»rr»ph2. As staled earlier, k would not be necesnry
lo cpiad die ansip (Dnp D) by 50 acres. The poniUiry exist to add an atHilirinal lift on
Dintp D nhcr tbta step out and potentially adversely affect a Native American catenJsiK.
P*C«4-«. CUnsl I, Pancnpb 1. If dsere are potential positive impacts (or irrigation and
HveMd:. *a» why BOC iadade wBdlife?
fife 4-4. C*hmsi I« Paragraph 4. Change "Results of groundwaier . . . ". rather than
Pact 44. CtfaBtB 2, acemd Fancxxph 2, Itac 8. Imen roe word not after would.
', ..crrinwsut wccid set occur."
Pitt 442.
2, Paracraph 3. Thb b apparently roe flm mention of rhe Navajo
. This repraeats a significant tmhlim drier
pagt 4-13. rmliiiiiiiiiiiiin 2, Paragraph 2. The axcage Quantity of ephemeral surface water... "
5522
55.13(d)
5522
55.4Sa!S9l,Bg&tI,Panitrapk2: Reconcile thb statement "a high pH of thewjsffi
55.6
the loBa in the an nunrally have a pH of 7.9 to 9.0." with the previous •*»*•»'»««« regarding
concern over potable alkaline iapaca from mine waste rock. Thb seteuent stfpws oar
ptxitiGA tbat nHr*»lt"g! •.'!«'»!'-» aie really a non-issue. •
Fage4-34. Cttean 1 and 2, BoSleta. Summo has a proposed reclamition plan that deals wish
numerous rrfrtmninn ttpfca. The DOB important one b the development of a test
revegesaltaafedanakn prognm to further define final reclamation practices. Many of the
proporad practices K be tested are included in mesebollet hems. However, some such as Bullet
4ivccMn«fenx3!K!reoodifficUta'iK>tin!prE3icaJ. In addition. Bullet 9 would be taporaibfc
to achieve i£d difficult to test. A more appropriate mitigation would be tied to
redaanlknftevegetttion success, since that b rhe measure mat will be utilixsd to determine if
redamtikm bonds are released.
5.5.76
55.71
-------
I >&ze 4-3*- Column I, Bullet 1. Thb bullet needs to be eliminated, or the reader needs to be) 5.5.8(b)
I emmded that there no T £ E or sensitive plant communities were identified.
|p*ge4-3«. Column 2, Paragraph 2. The DEIS needs to inform the reader that Permits West, j 55 g/pj
I me power company contractor, performed an indepenoent environmental analysb. I
r»gt4-37. Cohmm 2, Paragraph 1. The proposed action also includes (opsoil resppliration.| 5522
• nsc*W. Gshmm2,R<*onmmd»JS«slMbL, Summo developed Ihe proposed seed mix inj
I conjunction with the Utah Divbion of Oil. Gas and Mining. The seed mixes conflict. Please! 5.5.7(d)
1 "-!"• an allowance for coordination between the agencies so that Sumroo is not stuck in the)
niddte.
hgx4-41. Cohmm 1, Paragraph 1. As stated earlier in these comments, me dump would not! ,
necessarily have to increase in aerial extent. • 1
Page4-44. Cotemn 2, Paragraph 4. What b me justification for a 12-fL chain link fence?
Summo proposes to construct a three strand BLM approved fence that b properly signed to warn
the public that the area b being or has been mined. A berm could be constructed mat would
prdubit vehicle access. It seems as nV)ugh somebody attempting » climb a 12 ft. fence could just
as easily injure themselves and not have me abOity to get out.
Abo. should wildlife or cattle effier the mine anas along haul rosd routes, meycouldnot
get out along the fence lines. _ ....
The area currently has three pits, which have worse safety precaunons man is being
proposed. There are no fences or safety benches and you don't see came or wildlife jumping ovet
meedges. We feel that a more reasonable mitigation measure bin order.
Paw 4-44. Cotomn 2, Paragraph 3. Loss of what water source? Currently both stock ponds
in me Sentinel/teach pad area are dry. and have been all spring. Mitigation measures shoold take
into account these water sources are ephemeral. It banticipated mat the project water diversions
wfll provide the same amount of water to local wildlife as the current stock poods do (which is
not much).
~Page4J$. Cotamal, Paragraph 3. Again die assumption dm me Lisbon Valley Project would
be as economical by backfilling me pits as die proposed action b tawed. If backfilling were
required, then theproject economics would be adversely effected. It is unlikely mat the project
would move forward, let atone extend an additional year beyond what b currently proposed.
| Page443. Column 1, Paragraph 2. See previous comment.
Page 4-75. Column 2, Paragraph 1. Summo expended considerable resources to daigs etc |
project to have me least amount of impact/disturbance to inventoried potential cultural luuou I g^ 14(f)
sites. I
The reasons sited for the suggested alternative to move Waste Rock Dump D to tec Wsa |
U»te» Valley Is rataer.1 development. By kavmg me pits open, the potential to continue mineral
development fa" still there should economics or technology change.
PMC 4-93. Cohsu 2, BuBst 1. We strongly disagree with the statement • ... the
recchanbtry of soils, water and rock in the vicinity of me dumps and pits would likely be
kreversMy chased ..." First of all. me geochemistry of the rocks would not be changed! Of
so howT) Secosrfly.ajaated previously in the DEIS (page 4-33) and referenced above, feepH
of'meroda and pHof me sous is similar, and not likely to affect one another. Weateoknow
from Table 2. l-l d* mere h» bees no acid generated from me cW Centennial waste rock damp.
Therefore.** geochemistry of me KlU a unlikely to change appreciably. So far we have only
been able to speculate on potuMe changes to me geochemistry of me water based on leachatc
which could be generated from waste rock, and we don't know whether it is going to be add or
alkaline, bora or neither. Therefore we are uncertain whether there will be any change in me
geochtmisaycftegroundwatti. And finally, the last thing we know is whether any changes
which nugbt occur will be momifclfi. Again I would suggest that the buffering capacity of me
racks, tea. and water B probably capable of mitigating any subtle changes in local goochemkal
conditions, as appears to have occurred since initial mine development over 20 years ago.
Pcge54. Cetera LScctlca S.1.1 Please include me Army Corps of Engineers to mis Ho. I ^
55.21(3)
SlIMMAttV
Summo wisbn tt tank me BLM far mek efforts in getting me project to the DEIS staje.
Based upon me level of interest expressed on me project to date (number of commens received
and somber of attendees at scoping and DEIS public meetings), we request mat the BLM not
extend me comment period beyond the scheduled deadline of July 15, 1996.
If yon or other members of your staff, or members of me third patty reviewer have
questions regarding these comments or edits, please contact me at the listed letterhead number.
We hope mat the prcoss of preparing the Find Environmental Impact satement proceeds as
planned in the agreed upon Preparation Plan for me Lisbon Valley Project.
Lee *Pat* Cochnour
Environmental Permitting Consultant to Summo
cc Robert Prescott- Summo USA Corporation
Rock Pump C location are; 1) visibility and 2) stdmvjiniinn/erosion control. Woes a B&vsfenl
traveling down Lisbon Valley gets within eye she of me project, diey wouW so DH* C a
roughly the same time as Dump D, and probably could not ttll which b which. Atao. to dniay
to armor/rip rap a diversion around proposed Dump D b as good as the abihtj - '
diversions elsewhere on me property.
Page 4-77. Cohmm 1, Bouet 1. Thb recommendation b in conflict widi me >
on Page 4-34. Column 1, Bullet 4.
Page 4-79. Section 4.14.1, Paragraph 1. should read: The primary source of pncaa «*o
emissions would be me crushing circuit.' CThe majority of paniculate emmjots are ftraa era-
process sources.)
Page 4-79. Section 4.14.2.1, Last Paragraph should read: 'Based on the modetsg rcrato
55.17(f)
which fadicatttSat the Lisbon Valky Project would stay within state and federal sapoa Ksnora. ecoo
ooajtoWy tow impacts to ah- quality ore anticipated from me Proposed Action.' (Bosses* Here ->-=>Jic
wul be some pzroculate emissions that impact the surrounding area, it b not accuraK so ta&y &af
mere will be no. air quality jmractt from die project.)
Page448. ScctHSJ 4. WJJ! comment: While Table 4.14-2 accurately represents me proposed
controls and erfiaeocies fortbe project, they are included as pan of the Proposed Action. These
controls have been included m die permitting process and have been incorporated into me modeled
impacts presened in me previous section. The mitigation section should simply read: 'UirtgoBon
afar quaSt) impacts a tsmaxaary becaae mofcleo1 mpactt <»luch incorporate die propaxd
controls in Table XX) art below all sou and federal standard. *
Past 4-84. Cohmm 1, Paragraph 3. Please confirm the statement of satisfying OSHA. k " I e c loft})
Summo's undersanding mat MSHA has sole health and safely oversight at mining projects. | **•**• ™» '
P»g« 4«. Comma l,Bauet«. Summo isnot aware of. nor did the DEIS present established I
recreational resources at me project she. If mere are established recreation resources, how b I 55.19(D)
access restricted? I
Pajt 4-92. Cohmm 1, Bullet 2. Why Ibt effect on long term productive uses of surface and I cco(Va\
groundwaler when you state in the next sentence that mere are none? |
Page *S2. Column 2, Cootmoatkn of WDdlife Bullet. The DEIS stales mat powerlines may I ,,'
benefit raptors as perches and food sources. The same can be said for ph highwalls. There are I 553(tJ)
examples in me west where the reclaimed pits arc intended for this very use. |
Psjc4-93. Cotamn 1, Bulfct 1. The sownent that with the exception of unreclaimed pin. land 1
uses would be restored a not correct. It b our understanding that one of the current land uses at \
-------
Bureau of Lane Management
Moib FMd Office
Public Hearing
SUMMO USA USBON VALLEY COPPER PROJECT
Public Comment
on the
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Om»» 12, »SC
Bsrea* of I*** NK
•3 cut Boxwood
Moab, Btah S4S32
TlOO P.X. to >i45 P.M.
10
11
IX
11
14
13
1C
17
IS
19
20
21
22
23
24
23
f*»M4 Hoavtas • fmmf 1
lot the provider or the company itself that's here, bat the
loastreotloa oonpany they hire oftaatimas COIDM la from one
>f state, trad when they do that, they bring a majority of
their people IB froa oat of state, and there's little ox no
real quantitative or qualitative quality la that aa Car as
Che fiscal swaa* goes to the local community. When you get
sut-of-stste people COBS In to work on a project, s»at thelx
•oney goes back haste again. The only thing I mold caution,
ind I think Bob Is going to Bake e Major effort to insure,
the local people bare the opportunity to eriod.
55.3(c)
1
2
3
4
5
C
7
t
IS
12
13
14
IS
1C
1*
30
31
33
33
34
M
c Httrimt - Juiu /% 2996
ind what I'd like you to do is come up because we have a
IcropJwoe. We'll shoot for five minutes, okay. And do liki
he five-mlaa.te thing. Vhen you come up. Just be careful yov
ca't trip aad kill yourself oa all these cords out here.
'11 do a random order so nobody has the advantage of going
Irst or laat. .let's go with Paul Xaper. Paul, what I'll dc
s, you get up there and state your name, and then I'll give
W» live minutes from that point in time. Maybe I said your
• wrong, Paul? ' —
PAOI. XAPER, Xo, that's right. My name is
Peisi Xaper. I represent Utah Pipe Trade and Dtah State
MUdlng Trades. The only comment I have on l-Ms is I
ilieve It's an opportunity — I believe it's an opportunity
i provide employment In an area that definitely needs
•ploynent, both long term and short term.in the construction
>e of the project. The concerns that I would have and
m what I've seen in communities when projects come in to
m built, one, they're oa an environmental basis and also
they're oa a financial basis or physical Impact basis to the
wople of the rieseiiilLj, both short term and long term. The
mly thing I would caution, and what I've heard from Bob hen
Is that they're going to Insure that they do have e fair and
, the levels of sub-pollBUmw
could sore than doable as a result of the project. To vh*e
iztent will this affect visibility in the snrrennding are*?
Dill it becoxe laposaible to see Kavejo Mountain fren <±»
I^Sals even on 'tike clearest days? The questions are not
iddressed la the DBIS. Given the cuaber of scenic vistas is
this area, they should be. The DSIS should do a credible an
totalled snalysls of the Impacts the project will have oa
risibility la the surrounding area.
Agala, noise van kind of talked about already, bat Hy
x>lnt is the reensieejided •itigatioa section shoold isfiaee a
wiling oa the cumber of blasts per day, and the OBIS should
ualyxe cad detail the noise lapccts of this mtxlmm leval r,t
ilastleg ia the mrrooad area.
Toxic spills i The4>KIS states we can expect arooad te:
iddltlonal accident per year as the result of iacreased
.cattle on local highways, it f,j.i, to note that aoch at
:hls increased traffic and so presumably a portion of the
resides involved im the accidents will be tractor trallsns
5S.17(a) !
-------
X '«oa ••»»•« a 'XTT^iKiaV "SZKOr VHViiWH
no< *2« 3Vtm i«o^ pm ezaqn aooq*
= «( < "BO 'TEIUDIIJ tun
•NX tSSOOC VKVSSOK
^But^uJBg so
epos no£ «T 4Bt(* pov "TISHMIX axra
'sauor VHVIHOJI
oq 09 paou
9103 qooa o no Kmonpoxd xaddos jo
207 xaddoa cpTJUUd oa BT t«o6 znoJC asin
xnot ^WIR pasiuvptm I 'POTT
n eeoa 03 aimt ( I •
Boot eaft VI a»T» »3BTP °3
92 M«lTf'
ir
»r
:r .
r:
TE
pr
CT
«T
91
ST
ft
CT
It
OT
C
•
I
9
S
»
C
C
I
totems
(etel'S'9
siaa et(3 30
ooo on 3«H3 PUB '
37 '
APBSZT.B aj
potuxifi uo
31
a»3Bi» pirnozf
<» «uoT3vzadc
SXSQ e ponozfi no 33Bifer
xry ma
it3 03UT
Aauoa ooans BUTAV* nvit3
noT3«3T3T3*i>f
&UT33&I
-BtvoTAqo pm
03UT
*3Td at|3 Btrstsaz 3ou PTI
6urttT3
03
HOT33V
at(3
'T4 •
3.UPT.O
6uT3BTxa Bnota *OTT zanod xau a fiUT33TU3suo:
30 pannr pa3aiu3Buo3 tirjoq 3opT"O3 aurt aattod peoz-33
'B&V3TOA qBTH ABU jo BBtTBi u*3 BT XttM *O3 atqa 3»UBBM 31
'uoTIBanb B-p<3 XBB 03 P*TZ3 X — aaanB x pm 'pemraappn v
z»3zanb BUTT .^BMOd ABO aq3 30 uoT3B«nb ai{3 i
•a^anbapa ST pnoq
BU3 3BIJ3 amaur 03 6uTUTH-pua 'sag 'TTO 3°
•M3 H3T*
pT»>i|a Kia ai(3 VTM3 X OB pua a3anbapan-j
spuoq
-3T3JB03 pa
ua
tt
CT
CT
ST
ET
vt
CT
Ct
TT
OT -
C
8
i
>
S
»
c
E
T
-------
3
9
*
f
t
1
»
t
IB
11
13
13
1*
IS
"*
17
It
1*
39
31
33
' 33
*v
a«
as
OM last weak aad I asked thea, what la the purpoe* of the
tun «*11, th* puxpo** of th* »XX la to auatala th* public
La**! foe present aad future giairatloa*. aow, la th* BIS,
area — aad the oopper alae would be la this ana right
la hare,, aad oa the other aide of thl* little ridge,
area 1* elalaad to b* the loweet olass or Class 4 ia
rlsval lapoct. Soaatiaes I t.n-v that aayb* people la Utah
unr* b**a la Utah too long aad doa't appxeolat* what they
X Eaa't •** where thla Is considered Claaa 4. Maybe
•tat you're right dowa la whan tho** pit* an and you're
dova ia there, you doa't see the visual beauty. Thla
U
th* «il» for aa, but w* tMnfc about th* effects they'n
to aava OB oar cUldrea's children. I have four
and X Imagine aany of you have ehUdrea and
ptaedckildraa. X would hate to see what'a left of land la
&* Ocitad Statu to b* carelessly used, to have water up to
5.5.15(d)
11
13
13
14
13
1C
17"
30
31
33
33
34
33
I agree with Koataaa that these pita should be beak
tilled. The land should be left how it ia. She only raaeca
•re saggeitlag l*arlag the pita opea la *o that Kmtbodr
•1*. can oca* la thare la the future aad do the aaaa taiag.
**T araa't we rccycllag copper? I s*e — X throw tkisgt
iway erary day. Brarybody throws thing* away. There's BO
jood recyoliag prograa. And I'm really Cor poshing that.
So, I think the BLM really aeed* to think carefully
•boat all the possibilities that this project night caese.
Che eaployaaoit that will affect Grand and Saa Jsaa Cooaciea
U less than 1%. la the ond aftar this project is gotta,
iwopl* will, be back to the *aa* Jobs. This doraa't produce
Lceg-tera Jobs. They're short-taxai Job*. I really talak
that w* really need to walgh all these coaalderatloa* aad
ak carerally about it» not for us, not for oar benefit,
but for the benefit of the future generation*. Thank you.
Thaak you, Kay.
UT BONZU.I Bxcuse •*. It's tea tiaoa tha
ilme of that, thank you. Tea tlacs the siae of the Atlas
Ihaaka, Bay. Oar
OOt WLTZRa All right,
lost presenter will be Stare Jones. ——
Sim JOMBSi My naae Is star* Jonas. I'IB a
laalor processing engiaaar with Dalcal Corporation at the
•isbon valley Gas Maat located la the Usboa Valley
55.3^
55.7
55.11(J
.*
11
13
11
14
15
If
»t
1*
If
39
31
33
33
3*
39
in a»o«at of a xlllloa gallon* a day mod for Q...I.ID. i
««K$*r when thla copper go** to. Vhat's It going to b*
toe» tftj- ar*a't M reclaialag and recycling aon. 1
are all laportant qnottions that vo need to **rlously
t*Slr»»s la thla day and ag*, becauae w* an oa th* brisk ef
sarloes probleaa which oar children aod oar childna'e
BhUdraa will be dealing with.
Right BOW at Atlaa w*'r* doling with th* tailings left
:k*te« la XotatfMllo th* goranuMnt li clunlng up tb*
i» people's yards than. I Jnst saw when la
rlMttda the goTuxaaeat 1* spending 400 0111108 dollar* 1x71*4
•A eleta *p th* Ivergladas. I wonder If tha 2LX should act
l* a buffer son* to the national parka that It ha* ben.
»uat because thara'a sot aa arch or a d**p canyon or
g^lUca that. It aar*s tha n«t of your land bacoaa a
a*»« 4. And X thlak that w* really a**d to eonaldar It.
dacfciOB, X think it wu you who told a* tha wait* alona
Era* thl* project, )C ailllon ton*. 1* a hundred tiJMa tha
of taosa of Atla*.
I'm act Mylaj) — I know Otah saad* aon aavloyaant,
mt I tkimk that M xaally aaad to wvlgh all of tha thing*
t*r» axt look far dow* tha road and **• If tha •hort-tan
ar* eolag ta la th* long rum b* of fiat toy tha long-ten
m, that tha O.S. r in ,m,n, with tax dollar* 1* going
'•» hara to go la to olaaa
5.5.7(i)
5.5.15* i* oil aad gaa davelogaoat anc
lining dwralosamt which haa bMn going oa ia thl* area fox
it l*a*t mmwmay or eighty year* and la fairly axtanalra la
latora.
CteUyJng QuMllom & Anmran
NU.TEXI Thank yo», stare. Tali joa
Let'* dot lat«* take tiro airsntaai a* far aa.ox» than an
batMd oa tha ceaaeata bare that wa could
ad thea we'll tan Into the olooe with Kate Xltchsll.
Montana, you aaatlooad daring your prcocatatloa ttust yet
isd a
-------
5.5 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
All letters and testimony were reviewed and
considered in preparation of the FEIS. Each
commentor was assigned an index number.
Commentors and the corresponding index number
are listed in Section 5.3. Commentors 1 through
24 submitted comments in writing; commentors
25 through 28 testified at the public hearing.
Lengthy comments were paraphrased, and the
commentor number (or numbers) are shown
following, the original or paraphrased comments.
Where appropriate, comments of a similar or
identical nature were combined into one
generalized, paraphrased statement.
The response for each comment may either a)
identify that the text of the EIS was changed, b)
provide the rationale for why the comment did
not require a text change, or c) respond directly
with written explanation. A full text FEIS has
been prepared for this project, rather than an
abbreviated final EIS. Comments are provided in
the same general order as sections are presented
in the FEIS. Details on the comment response
process—and the quality control checks used to
assure that each comment was addressed—are
available in BLM files in Moab.
5.5.1 Executive Summary
(a) Comment "Additional" stipulations on
project development should be presented in the
Executive Summary, allowing the reader to
determine if they are reasonable. (1)
Response: The amount of stipulations
identified to mitigate impacts for the resources
analyzed are very lengthy and involved. The
purpose of the Executive Summary is to generally
provide a summary of the proposed project and
projected impacts. Each resource section in
Chapter 4 identifies mitigation developed by the
project proponent in the POO, in addition to
mitigation recommended based on impact
analysis. The forthcoming Record of Decision
will present a concise summary of each
stipulation.
(b) Comment: The Executive Summary of
impacts to birds and waterfowl from ponds
associated with the project seems unlikely to
occur, in view of all the activity that will be
occurring on site. (1)
i
Response: The analysis indicates that in
other areas of the western U.S., once tailings
ponds or other types of water storage ponds are
constructed for mining and other types of
projects, waterfowl are quite often attracted to
those ponds. While there is no definitive
indication that to assume waterfowl would be
attracted to Summo's various ponds, the potential
exists for this to occur. Therefore, a
"contingency" stipulation has been added to the
recommended mitigation in Section 4.6.2.2, to
allow agency monitoring of the ponds, and to
provide a basis for mitigation if this problem
develops.
(c) Comment: The Executive Summary
comment regarding strain on the local housing
market needs clarification. (1)
Response: This section, as well as
relevant housing discussions in Chapters 3 and 4
have been revised to reflect the differences in
housing availability in the different communities.
The Executive Summary briefly identifies options
for the town of La Sal if they do not wish to have
a boom in trailer hookups.
(d) Comment: The effects of numerous faults
in the project area, especially regarding possible
damage to project facilities and emergencies from
a seismic event, should be addressed hi the
Executive Summary section. (15)
Response: The Executive Summary
section is a general overview of the project and
impacts. In addition, analysis indicates active
faulting and seismic events are not a primary
concern for impact at the project site, thus it is
not identified in the impact summary section of
the Executive Summary. Additional details on
faulting and seismic events have been provided in
Sections 3.1 and 4.1, Geology and Geotechnical
Issues.
23996/R4-WP.5 2/4/97(739 pm)/RPT/8
5-27
-------
(e) Comment: The DEIS makes several
references to local residents. There are no
residents near the project area; there are however
people who own property in the Summit Point
area. (24)
Response: References to "local residents"
has been changed to "potential local residents" or
"property owners" throughout the document.
(f) Comment: The Executive Summary and
Section 2 need to clarify differences in the depth
to groundwater in the central valley and the leach
pad area. (24)
Response: Again, the Executive Summary
is intended as a general overview of project and
impact. Based on project components and
projected impacts, these differences are not
considered substantial for a summary discussion.
Section 2 is the project proponents proposed
POO. As such, it would not be appropriate to
change their proposal. The differences in these
groundwater elevations has been added to and
addressed in Section 3.2, Hydrology.
(g) Comment: The phrase "degraded water
quality" should be changed to "poor water
quality" in the Executive Summary. (24)
Response: This correction has been made
in the revised Executive Summary.
(h) Comment: It is important to let the
reader know that changes to land use are
temporary and that following mining and
reclamation all land uses that existed prior to
mining would return. (24)
Response: This correction has been made
in the Land Use section of the Executive
Summary.
5.5.2 Introduction-Purpose and Need
(a) Comment: Recommended mitigation
sections of the EIS need to be refined in several
places, since permit stipulations will closely follow
these recommendations. Permit stipulations
should be written so that any assumptions made
about mining operations prove to be correct.
BLM legal and policy staff should review the
permit stipulations to insure they are enforceable.
(16,26)
Response: Attempts have been made to
refine and clarify the mitigation sections
throughout the FEIS. BLM policy staff have
reviewed the FEIS, and will also review the
Record of Decision regarding mitigation measures
and resulting agency stipulations on the Summo
POO.
(b) Comment: The BLM should produce a
second revised DEIS and allow a second public
comment period. (16,19,22,26)
Response: The Council on Environmental
Quality guidelines, found at 40 CFR 1502.9(c),
require a supplemental DEIS to be issued only if
new alternatives have been developed or
circumstances have changed relative to
environmental concerns. Based on BLM review
of public comments on the DEIS, neither of these
guidelines apply, and a supplemental DEIS is not
required. However, based on public comment,
additional data was obtained, and this data has
subsequently been included in the FEIS.
(c) Comment: Further discuss the end
products or use of the copper produced from this
project. (16,17)
Response: End uses of copper have been
addressed in the FEIS, Section 1.1, Purpose and
Need. This information was obtained from a
National Mining Association pamphlet cited in
that section. Because copper mining/production
from the Lisbon Valley area is allowed by the
1872 Mining Law, and is the underlying need for
the project and the subsequent EIS, the ultimate
uses of copper in our society is beyond the scope
of the EIS.
(d) Comment: Permits and approvals that
would be issued by various agencies for the
project should be clarified, particularly hi regard
to Groundwater and Stormwater Discharge
permits, septic system permits, and NPDES
23996/R4.WP.S 2/4/97(739 pm)/RPT/S
5-28
-------
permits. The NPDES permit would identify
measures to control stormwater pollution and
sedimentation. (3,7,15)
Response: Clarification has been provided
in revised Table 1-1, regarding State of Utah
issued Groundwater Discharge and Stormwater
Discharge Permits, and local health department
permits for septic systems. Although National
Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permits are a legal responsibility of the EPA
under the Clean Water Act (CWA), hi Utah the
State Division of Water Quality has been given
EPA primacy under provisions of the CWA for
the issuance of those permits. In the project
under review, the State has determined that there
would be no discharge of pollutants to ground or
surface waters, and therefore, a NPDES permit is
not required. Additionally, stormwater pollution
prevention and sedimentation that could be
addressed in an NPDES permit, would be
addressed and controlled through the State issued
Stormwater Discharge permit.
(e) Comment: Corps of Engineers
Nationwide Permit 26 authorizes discharge of
dredged and fill materials into waters of the U.S.
This project is currently in compliance with terms
and conditions of that permit, however the permit
is scheduled for modification on January 20,1997,
and it is the responsibility of the operator to
assure the project remains in compliance with any
permit modifications. (9)
Response: Requirements of the current
Nationwide Permit 26 have been reviewed, and it
has been determined that Summo's project is in
compliance with terms and conditions of the
Nationwide authorization. This permit
requirement has been added to Table 1.1,
identifying various permit requirements for the
project. The Corps has also indicated Nationwide
Permit 26 will be modified sometime after
January 27, 1997. It would be the responsibility
of the permit holder to assure operations are in
compliance with any revisions to this modified
permit. A stipulation has been added under
Chapter 4, Section 4.2.2.2., requiring Summo to
assure compliance with any potential
modifications to Nationwide Permit 26 prior to
commencing operations.
(f) Comment: The U.S. EPA rates the Draft
EIS as EC-2, meaning that there are
environmental concerns with the Proposed Action
and additional information is needed in the FEIS.
(7)
Response: The FEIS has provided the
additional information or clarification identified
by this comment letter. The specific areas in the
DEIS identified by this comment letter as
requiring additional information to address
environmental concerns, are addressed in detail
comment responses hi Sections 5.5.3, 5.5.5, and
5.5.6.
(g) Comment: The need for the project is not
justified. This is a marginal orebody, especially
considering the externalized costs of development.
This will guarantee Summo's cost-cutting and,
therefore, sloppy work. (14,16,23)
Response: The EIS process is not required to
justify Summo's project. The EIS looks at
Summo's proposed operational plans, identifies
impacts associated with that plan, and
recommends alternatives and mitigation to lessen
or eliminate those impacts, to the extent possible
based on the degree of rights afforded Summo
under the Mining Law of 1872.
If the EIS analysis of these alternatives and
impacts indicate the project would result in
unnecessary and undue degradation of the land,
then the project would be denied.
The process of economic justification, or
feasibility, for the project is Summo's
responsibility. They likely completed such an
analysis prior to submitting then- POO, to
determine if the project could be profitably
undertaken. It is also likely they would re-
evaluate these economics based on mitigation and
stipulations identified in any final approval, prior
to initiating activities.
Z3996/R4-WP.S 2/4/97(739 pm)/RPT/8
5-29
-------
(h) Comment: Provide additional information
on Summo Mineral's past projects and their track
record. (15)
Response: Such information is beyond the
scope of the EIS, and has no bearing on the
analysis of impacts, development of alternatives,
preparation of mitigation, or determination of
unnecessary or undue degradation required by the
(i) Comment: The DEIS states that the
Proposed Action is not covered by any existing
EAs or EISs. What about the Plan of
Operations/EA completed for the Kelmine leach
operation on the property in the mid-80's? (24)
Response: The EA completed for the
Kelmine POO did not address impacts associated
with Summo's POO. The Kelmine proposal was
of several orders of magnitude less than Summo's
proposal, in regard to potential impacts from
mining and leaching operations. The EA did not
provide for public comment, or provide any data
or analysis applicable to assessing impacts from
Summo's proposal. Subsequently, BLM does not
consider that EA as providing any relevant data
or analysis that would assist hi the preparation of
this EIS.
5.5.3 Alternatives Including the
Proposed Action
(a) Comment: The DEIS does not provide
adequate justification for not backfilling the pits.
The preferred alternative should be changed to
require backfilling of the pits. This alternative is
further supported regarding ground water flow
and visual resources impacts (7,8,15,16,1819
22,26,27) ' '
Response: The EIS does not provide
justification for selection or rejection of an
alternative. .The EIS presents potential impacts
from the proposed action and identified
alternatives, along with recommended mitigation
The ROD, which follows the FEIS, no sooner
than 30 days after publication of availability of the
FEIS, provides justification and rationale for the
final decision. The non-selection of the backfill
Alternative is based on the analysis of impacts as
presented in Chapter 4, Environmental
Consequences, specifically related to hydrology,
geochemistry, and land uses.
The Preferred Alternative does identify that
Summo would provide long-term monitoring of
the pits (10 years after cessation of mining), to
assure that adverse impacts to groundwater or
other resources are not occurring as a result of
possible pit lake development. In the event such
conditions occur, Summo would be required to
mitigate those impacts. Rather than pre-
determining what that mitigation would consist of,
water quality standards would be identified in
consultation with the State of Utah, and Summo
would have to take whatever actions were
necessary to meet those standards. If Summo
were a non-operating entity at that tune, the
financial resources would be available to provide
the necessary mitigation, through the
establishment of a long-term trust bond at the
cessation of mining operations, by Summo.
(b) Comment: The new powerline should be
constructed along existing corridors, or alternative
corridors should be evaluated. Were alternative
power sources considered? What are the effects
of electromagnetic fields from the powerline?
(14,15,16,19,22,26)
Response: Section 1.3.2 has been revised
by adding a discussion of alternative new routes
and use of the existing route, that were
considered and rejected for the powerline
corridor. Use of the existing route would have
required significant upgrade to provide the
electrical capacity required at the proposed
project site. The existing route, starting at the La
Sal substation, would also have been 2.5 miles
longer. In summary, use of the existing route, or
the alternate new routes, would have resulted hi
greater environmental impact than the
construction of the route associated with the
proposed action.
There are no known and universally accepted
analysis of theoretical impacts from
electromagnetic fields, although this subject has
2TO6/R4.WP.S 2/4/97(739 pm)/RPT/S
5-30
-------
been studied in areas where high voltage lines are
adjacent to populated areas. Based on the
theoretical impacts, and the isolation of the
powerline in this area, the analysis has not
included an assessment of such theoretical
impacts.
The amount of energy required to be utilized in
the recovery circuits for this project are
considerable. Alternative sources would be on-
site hydrocarbon powered electrical generation
plants. Based on the amount of additional
impacts from fuel transportation, noise, and air
emissions, this alternative was not considered.
Solar power, wind power and other forms of
nonconventional power were not considered due
to the magnitude of power required by the
operation.
(c) Comment: Selection of the, Proposed
Action is supported; it is in compliance with local
land use plans, and short-term costs (impacts) are
outweighed by long-term benefits. (1,2,25,28)
Response: The comment is
acknowledged.
(d) Comment: Waste Dump D should be
relocated given surface runoff conditions in this
vicinity; support is given for BLM's preferred
alternative which relocates Dump D and
combines it with Dump C. (3,7)
Response: The comment is acknowledged
and BLM has identified the alternative as its
preferred alternative.
(e) Comment: The leakage collection design
for the heap leach pad liner system needs further
discussion, including reporting and corrective
measures for potential leaks, and assurances that
the liner will not leak. (3,7,14)
Response: Based on public comment on
the DEIS, Summo was required to prepare a
Mitigation and Monitoring Plan which further
addresses details of the liner systems and
procedures to be followed if leaks are detected.
The plan includes the preparation of a Quality
Control and Assurance Plan for liner installation,
to be approved by the State DEQ. This plan has
been incorporated as Appendix A in the FEIS.
Additionally, a detailed Heap Leach Design
Report has been provided by Summo to the State
of Utah Division of Water Quality for review and
evaluation in approval of the Groundwater
Discharge Permit. This report, and the State's
preliminary approval of the permit, has been
reviewed by BLM, with requirements for
compliance with State permits incorporated hi the
FEIS.
(0 Comment: The EIS should identify
mitigation, monitoring, and financial assurance
(bonding) for each alternative. (7,20)
Response: Committed mitigation and
monitoring for the Proposed Action is identified
throughout Section 2.0 and in Appendix A. In
addition, at the end of each resource section in
Chapter 4 - Environmental Consequences,
recommended mitigation is identified where that
mitigation was determined to be able to resolve
an identified impact.
A new section has been added to the EIS in
Chapter 2 - Section 2.4, which identifies general
bonding parameters and assumptions for the
proposed action and the identified alternatives.
This discussion does not identify specific bonding
amounts, because the final amount depends on
the final decision, and calculations of exact
amounts of bonding are very complex and
detailed. However, this section does give the
reader an idea of how bonding would be
determined, and how bonding scenarios would be
affected by implementation of the Proposed
Action.
(g) Comment: The EIS should combine
elements of the 3 preferred alternatives (facility
layout, selective handling, and pit backfill) into
one alternative, and request that the applicant
submit a Clean Water Act Section 402 Storm
Water Pollution Prevention Plan to Utah DEQ
for that Proposed Action. (7)
Response: The primary purpose of the
EIS process is to analyze impacts from the
proponents Proposed Action, and develop
23996/R4-WP.S 2/4/97(7:39 pm)/RPT/8
5-31
-------
reasonable and prudent alternatives that reduce
or eliminate potential environmental impacts.
After development and analysis of these impacts
and alternatives, a final decision is rendered as to
which actions or alternatives, if any, would be
approved.
It would be improper if, during the course of the
analysis process and prior to issuance of a formal
decision, the BLM would require the proponent
to combine the Proposed Action with all
alternatives to go to the State for a permit. At
this point in the EIS, there is no final decision on
Summo's proposal. All that has been identified is
a Preferred Alternative, found hi the FEIS in the
Executive Summary and Chapter 2, Section 2.7.
There is still a 30 day review period on the FEIS
prior to a formal Record of Decision (ROD)
being issued.
It should be pointed out that based on the
analysis presented in the FEIS, the Preferred
Alternative identified is a combination of the
Proposed Action and the Facility Layout and
Waste Rock Selective Handling Alternatives.
Only the Open Pit Backfilling Alternative has not
been selected. The final decision in the ROD
could be modified from that found in the FEIS
Preferred Alternative.
In summary, the NEPA process must be adhered
to. If Summo wishes to prepare an application to
the State for a Stormwater Pollution Prevention
Plan, prior to finalization of the FEIS and ROD,
that would be their decision, realizing their
application or permit from the State may require
modifications once the ROD is issued.
(h) Comment: The Facility Layout
Alternative should be selected due to impacts to
Lisbon Canyon from post-mining sedimentation.
If post-mining surface flow is routed into the
Sentinel Pit, impacts could be reduced by
requiring a partial backfill. (7)
Response: The FEIS Preferred
Alternative incorporates the Facility Layout
Alternative, (see Chapter 2, Section 2.7).
Additionally, even though a partial backfill would
help alleviate sedimentation effects in Lisbon
Canyon that would result from diverting post-
mining surface drainage into the abandoned
Sentinel Pit, it would not completely resolve the
problem. There would still be a significant
gradient from the current wash level to the top of
the partially backfilled pit, creating the potential
for headcutting and erosion. In order to resolve
this relatively significant potential, a complete
backfill would have to be done hi the pit. Since
the Preferred Alternative does not select the
Backfill Alternative, the problem has been
resolved in mitigation identified in the Preferred
Alternative (Chapter 2, Section 2.7, which
indicates that Summo would not be allowed to
divert surface drainage into the Sentinel Pit at the
cessation of mining operations.
(i) Comment: The Waste Rock Selective
Handling alternative should address performance
standards, monitoring, mitigation, and bonding
assumptions. This information should be
displayed hi the FEIS. (7)
Response: The suggested elements of this
comment have been incorporated into the FEIS.
Performance standards, monitoring and mitigation
have been identified hi the Mitigation and
Monitoring Plan, prepared by Summo at BLM's
request and included as Appendix A in the FEIS.
Additional performance standards, monitoring
and mitigation have been identified in the
recommended mitigation for Proposed Action, the
Facility Layout and the Waste Rock Selective
Handling alternatives, found hi Chapter 4, Section
4.2.2.2.
The Preferred Alternative hi the FEIS also
includes the selection of the Waste Rock Selective
Handling Alternative (Chapter 2, Section 2.7).
General bonding parameters for the waste dumps
are also identified hi Chapter 2, Section 2.4. As
that discussion indicates, 100% bonding for the
waste dumps, to provide financial assurances in
the event of post-mining acid rock drainage from
the waste dumps, would only be required if the
Waste Rock Selective Handling Alternative were
not selected. With the selection of this
alternative, the potential for impacts resulting
from acid drainage are significantly reduced, if
239J6/R4.WP.S 2/4/97(7:39 pm)/RPT/8
5-32
-------
not eliminated. Subsequently, bonding for the
project would be at a lower rate.
(j) Comment: Considering the potential post-
mining pit lake water quality, wildlife and safety
issues, the partial and selective Backfilling
Alternative, of Sentinel #1 pit at least, should be
considered, with single handling of waste possible.
(7)
Response: Mitigation identified in the
FEIS in Chapter 4, Section 4.2, would provide for
long-term post-mining water quality monitoring of
any potential pit lakes. If results of this
monitoring indicate water degrades below
acceptable standards, as identified by the State of
Utah Division of Water Quality Groundwater
Discharge Permit, Summo would be required to
take corrective measures to return water quality
to acceptable levels. The FEIS identifies various
methods, in addition to partial backfilling, to
correct water quality degradation. Since water
quality would be required to be maintained, there
would be no impact to avian wildlife utilizing
potential pit lakes. Additionally, with the
requkement for post-mining berming, fencing and
signing of the pits, combined with the low use the
area receives and the lack of past identified safety
problems, there would be no anticipated safety
problems associated with the pits remaining open.
(k) Comment: The storm water ponds for the
process area need to be sized for saturated
conditions; i.e., wet year and maximum 24-hr
precipitation event. (7)
Response: Summo has been required to
re-evaluate sizing of all storm water ponds.
These ponds have subsequently been re-sized for
saturated conditions followed by a 24 hr
precipitation event. See revised section 2.2.4.2,
and Table 2-4.
(1) Comment: The No Action alternative is
supported, for various reasons. (14,21)
Response: Based on rights granted to
Summo under the 1872 Mining Law, the No
Action Alternative for this project could only be
selected if it were demonstrated that the project
would result in unnecessary and undue
degradation of the environment. Based on
analysis of impacts of the preferred alternatives,
combined with recommended mitigation, the
project would not result in unnecessary or undue
degradation.
(m) Comment: Heap leaching causes
unacceptable environmental impacts. More detail
is needed in the EIS on site mineralogy and the
mineral breakdown products, to address the
contaminants caused by heap leaching, including
bacteria. How will the company prevent
discharge to surface and groundwater from the
leach pad? (14)
Response: Based on analysis of impacts
and mitigation identified in the EIS,
environmental impacts associated with this heap
leach proposal are not unacceptable. Bacteria
occurring in oxidizing environments (including
Thiobadllius ferroxidians) are natural and occur
throughout the environment. With proper rinsing
and closure of the heap leach pad and waste
dumps, bacteria would present no unusual
situations requiring specific impact analysis or
mitigation. Sections 3.1 and 3.3 regarding
mineralogy and geochemistry have been revised to
provide this information. Analysis of the
Company's proposal to assure no discharge to the
environment are addressed in comment 5.5.3 (e).
(e) Comment: Table 2-11 states that water
used during mining would limit potential future
uses. That is not true; individuals would have the
same opportunities that they do today, maybe
more if pit water is more accessible. (24)
Response: Further analysis in the FEIS, based
on this comment, indicates that post-mining water
use would initially be limited due to use of the
aquifer during mining operations. The result
would be a lowered water table for a number of
years following mining while the aquifer was
being recharged. The analysis also indicates that
any water potentially developed in post-mining pit
lakes may be useable and available for
agricultural or stock watering purposes, and that
in fact if such water were used, it may help
mitigate potential long-term impacts from
23996/R4-WP.S 2/4/97(739 pm)/RPT/8
5-33
-------
concentration of metals in the lakes. The
reference to limitations of future water use has
been eliminated from Table 2-11.
(o) Comment: Table 2-11 indicates erosion
control and reclamation effectiveness is better for
the Selective Waste Rock Handling Alternative
than for the Proposed Action. Reclamation
methods would be the same for both alternatives.
(24)
Response: Sections 4.4.2.1 and 4.4.6.1
explain the difference in the potential for
reclamation success between these two
alternatives. The primary difference is due to the
potential for the development of localized acidic
soil conditions within the waste dumps, resulting
in the loss of vegetative cover and increased
erosion under the Proposed Action.
(p) Comment: Replace "sulfate releases"
with just "releases" under water quality in the
Impact Summary Table. More than just sulfates
would be released in accidental failure of the
leach pad. (24)
Response: This terminology has not been
modified in Table 2-11, because in the event of a
leach pad failure, sulfates would be the
predominant constituent released, with the
potential for the most environmental damage.
(q) Comment: Impacts to wildlife habitat
discussed in Table 2-11 should say that there will
be a "change" rather than a "loss" of 231 acres
of habitat. (24)
Response: This wording change has not
been adopted in Table 2-11 because the analysis
indicates the remaining 231 acres of abandoned
open pits would result in a complete loss of
wildlife habitat.
(r) Comment: The Impact Summary Table
incorrectly states that economic and employment
impacts would be the same for all alternatives.
Under the Backfilling Alternative, the cost of
backfilling would make it uneconomical to mine
some portions of the orebody. Thus, the life of
the mine and associated economic benefits and
impacts could be shortened relative to the
Proposed Action - not extended. (24)
Response: Table 2-11 and Section 4.8.4
have been revised to reflect the shortened mine
life under the Backfill Alternative.
(s) Comment: Similar to the above comment,
impacts to housing, local facilities and services,
operational traffic, road maintenance, land use,
and the storage, use and generation of hazardous
materials would not be the same under the
Backfilling Alternative as for the Proposed
Action, due to a shortened mine life. (24)
Response: Table 2-11 and Sections 4.8,
4.9, and 4.10 have been revised to reflect impacts
from a shortened mine life under the Backfill
Alternative.
(t) Comment: Implementation of the
Backfilling Alternative would result hi increased
fugitive emissions due to increased truck traffic
necessary for backfilling the pits. (24)
Response: Table 2-11 has been revised to
reflect the additional dust emissions from
backfilling the pits. Quantification of this impact
could not be modeled due to double handling of
the material, however the amount of increase is
anticipated to be small relative to the entire
project.
(u) Comment: Summo should use the best
management practices if they want to come to
southeastern Utah and ask residents for then-
public resources, for which Summo is paying a
minimal amount of royalties and no costs for the
land. (26)
Response: Summo's Plan of Operations
includes multiple mitigation measures
incorporating best management practices.
Throughout the NEPA process, these mitigation
measures have been refined or new measures
recommended to minimize impacts to the extent
possible. All mitigation features of the POO, and
those identified through the analysis of impacts
would be incorporated in the Record of Decision.
23996/R4-WP.S 2/4/97(739 pm)/RPT/8
5-34
-------
(v) Comment: Provide further analysis on
why underground mining is infeasible. (15)
Response: Additional discussion has been
added to Section 1.3.2 of the FEIS to further
explain the technical and economic ^feasibility of
underground mining.
(w) Comment: Consideration should be given
to requiring placement of non-acid generating
waste material on benches in the post-mining
open pits located below the acid generating
lithologies in the pit wall to reduce potential for
acid drainage into the lower lying pit lakes. (7)
Response: This suggestions has been
incorporated into the mitigation and can be found
in Chapter 4, Section 4.2.2.2.
5.5.4 Geology and Geotecfamcal Issues
(a) Comment: The analysis is too pessimistic
regarding the possibility for additional copper
discoveries in the surrounding area. Additional
copper mineralization may exist in the area which
could prove economically viable for future mine
expansion. Dumps B and D may cover areas
geologically favorable for copper mineralization.
Has sufficient condemnation drilling been
conducted prior to placing these waste dumps in
these areas? (5)
Response: Additional analysis presented in
Chapter 3, Section 3.1.5 provide further
explanation and information regarding the
conclusion that no additional commercial copper
mineralization would be found in the area
surrounding the Lisbon Valley project site. BLM
has explored the future mining potential issue
thoroughly with Summo, and it appears the only
foreseeable likelihood of additional copper
development in the Lisbon Valley area would be
through expansion of Summo's operation within
the project site. Summo has conducted sufficient
condemnation drilling under proposed waste
dumps B and D to confirm there is no potential
for pit expansion in these areas.
(b) Comment: Selective low-grade sulfide ore
should be placed in separate piles for later
recovery. This would require additional selective
waste rock handling to minimize acidic water
drainage, while maximizing recovery of ore, if
economically and technically viable at some future
time. (5)
Response: The sulfide ore at the project
site consists primarily of chalcocite, with lesser
amounts of bornite and covellite. Summo
believes copper sulfides of this type can be mined
and recovered with their proposed leaching
system. Consequently, all recoverable copper ore
at the site, both sulfides and oxides, would be
mined. See Chapter 3, Section 3.1.2.3 for
discussion of ore mineralization and Summo's
plans for this ore.
(c) Comment: Summo's current mining plans
will cause reduction hi ore grade to "in-situ
leaching levels" of economic viability. Therefore,
backfilling could occur and not preclude future
recovery from in-situ leaching. (7)
Response: Summo analyzed all possible
technology to recover the ore at Lisbon Valley.
They determined that in-situ recovery of copper
ore was not technically feasible at this site, based
on geologic conditions, and the inability to control
sulfuric acid solutions that would be required to
be pumped into the ground, and subsequently the
groundwater, for recovery. Therefore, the
employment of such technology at some point hi
the future would not provide rationale for
backfilling the open pits.
(d) Comment: More mineralogical data are
needed regarding the origins of oxide and sulfide
mineralization, and respective pit depths. (7)
Response: Section 3.1.2.3 has been
revised with the addition of the requested
information.
(e) Comment: The potential for landslide
hazards should be addressed in the waste rock
areas. (11)
23996/R4-WP.S 2/4/97(739 pm)/RPT/8
5-35
-------
Response: Section 4.1 has been revised to
provide analysis of the potential for landslides
from seismic events, and potential impacts if
landslides were to occur at the project site.
(0 Comment: Section 3.1.2 should provide
an overview of the geologic setting, and give a
more definitive description of how the geology is
important to the mineralization and groundwater
system of the area, including the Navajo and
Entrada Formations. (24)
Response: Section 3.1.2 has been revised
by providing the requested information and
clarifications.
(g) Comment: Section 4.1.2.1 should make
it clear that Summo will be required to commit to
a CQA/QC plan pursuant to state permitting
requirements. (24)
Response: The requested clarification has
been added to the text of Section 4.1.2.1.
(h) Comment: It would not be necessary to
expand Dump C by 50 acres under the Facility
Layout Alternative as discussed in Section 4.1.5.
(24)
Response: Summo has provided revised
designs for Waste Dump C indicating material
from Dump D could be placed on additional lifts
in Dumps C and B, rather than expanding the
footprint of Dump C. Section 4.1.5 has been
revised to reflect this redesign. Other relevant
impact sections in Chapter 4, primarily soils and
reclamation, vegetation, wildlife, grazing, and
cultural and paleontological resources, have also
been revised to reflect that there would not be an
additional 50 acres of surface disturbance
associated with the Facility Layout Alternative.
(i) Comment: Blasting should be mentioned
in Section 4.1.2.1, geotechnical issues, as a factor
which stabilizes pit slopes by subjecting them to
acceleration during the blasting process. (24)
Response: This suggestion has been
incorporated in the discussion in Section 4.1.2.1.
5.5.5 Hydrology
(a) Comment: The EIS needs further
discussion of the quantity and quality of water in
the Navajo aquifer that would be used for the
mining operations. What are the impacts from
this use both locally and regionally? (11, 15, 17,
20,24)
Response: Primarily based on these
comments, BLM directed Summo to drill an
additional deep test well at the project site to
more fully ascertain characteristics of the Navajo
aquifer. Prior to the drilling of this well,
(completed in August/September, 1996), only
one well had been drilled to determine
characteristics of this deep aquifer. Data from
this second well indicated the Navajo combined
with the Entrada formation to form one aquifer
at approximately 1,000 feet below ground surface,
and that water quality was very similar to water
quality of the upper, shallower aquifers.
The results of the second well also indicated
characteristics of the overall groundwater
movement at the project site were somewhat
different than earlier assumptions, with a much
greater degree of vertical hydrologic conductivity
than had earlier been assumed. When
groundwater models were re-run with data
interpreted from this additional deep well, the
results indicated significantly less post-mining pit
lake development than earlier models, run
primarily under the assumption of horizontal
movement of the groundwater.
The results of the well also allowed a greater
degree of certainty as to characteristics of this
deeper aquifer, and subsequent impacts to this
aquifer from the project. The results of this data
and interpretations have subsequently been
utilized to revise Sections 3.2.3, and 4.2.2.1 of
the EIS text.
In summary, analysis of the additional data still
indicates that the Navajo is an isolated aquifer in
the vicinity of the project site, such isolation
resulting primarily from faulting and structural
characteristics of Lisbon Valley. Impacts to the
ZJW4/R.J.W.S 3/4/97(7:39 pro)/RPT/S
5-36
-------
Navajo are therefore not predicted beyond the
immediate vicinity of the project site.
(b) Comment: The Lisbon Valley Project
would have no potentially significant impacts on
National Park Service resources, particularly air
quality, water quality, and visitor access. (10)
Response: The comment is
acknowledged.
(c) Comment: Beneficial use of mine water
(e.g., that collected in mine pits), should be
investigated further in terms of water quality and
quantity. (1, 15, 24)
Response: A re-analysis of data, as a
result of these comments has been conducted.
This analysis indicates that water potentially
ponding in the post-mining pits would initially be
of sufficient quality to be utilized for agricultural
use. However, the longer water would be ponded
without such use, the greater the potential for
long-term degradation by evapoconcentration of
metals, possibly to an extent that it would not
meet standards for agricultural use. In fact, one
of the potential mitigation measures identified in
the event post-mine monitoring identifies
unacceptable levels of water quality degradation,
is pumping of the water from the pits. Based on
this assessment, Sections 4.2 and 4.3 have been
revised accordingly.
(d) Comment: Use of pit dewatering water
for dust suppression should be re-examined, given
potential elevated levels of radionuclides in pit
water. (3, 7, 11)
Response: Further analysis conducted on
the issue of radionuclides in the water used for
watering, indicate they pose no threat to the
environment. Sections 4.2 and 4.3 have been
revised to provide an analysis of this issue.
(e) Comment: The southwest portion of
Dump A may be susceptible to run-on from
storm water off the nearby slopes. (3)
Response: Summo has revised the
drainage control and diversion system around
Dump A to alleviate this potential impact. This
revision was included with their Groundwater
Permit application to the State of Utah. The
proposed drainage control and diversion system
layout can be seen in Figure 2-1 of the EIS.
(f) Comment: Due to potential effects on the
creadon of deeper downgradient pit lakes, and the
subsequent potential impacts to groundwater
quality, the Proposed Action, Case 1 - No Post-
Mining Recharge of Surface Water to Ground
Water at the Sentinel Pit, is recommended. (3)
Response: The analysis in the EIS
identifies positive impacts to long-term
groundwater quality from diversion of post-mining
surface water into the abandoned Sentinel Pit, by
allowing fresher surface water to dilute potential
pit lake water. The analysis also identifies
potential adverse impacts to long-term
groundwater quality from not allowing input of
fresh surface water into the groundwater system
from the pit lakes, in addition to potential long-
term erosion problems in the entire Lisbon Valley
drainage from the severe drainage gradient
caused by such surface water diversion.
Case 1 and Case 2 essentially refer to two "sub-
alternatives" within the Proposed Action. Case 1
would result in post-mining diversion of surface
runoff into the Sentinel Pit, Case 2 would result
in surface runoff being routed around the post-
mining pit. The EIS, in the Executive Summary
section and the Preferred Alternative Section 2.7,
indicate BLM's preferred action is to approve
Case 1, which does not allow post-mining surface
diversion into the Sentinel Pit.
(g) Comment: Additional discussion and
mapping is needed of the hydrogeology, lithology,
geochemistry, and related water quality issues in
the vicinity of the four planned pits. Pit lake
geochemistry, and potential cross contamination
of aquifers, primarily shallow to deeper water-
bearing formations, needs further analysis. (3,11,
15)
Response: Results of post-mining
groundwater modeling indicate that there would
be standing water in the Sentinel No. 1,
23996/R4-WP.S 2/4/97(739 pm)/RPT/8
5-37
-------
Centennial, and GTO pits, and that the pit lake
water would be in direct contact with the shallow
aquifer (in the Sentinel, Centennial, and GTO
pits), the Entrada/Navajo aquifer (in the
Centennial pit), and the Cutler Formation (in the
GTO pit). The shallow aquifer and the Entrada/
Navajo aquifer could be effected by degraded
quality pit lake water. It is unlikely that the
Cutler Formation would be effected by pit lake
water because no water has been found in two
wells and four piezometers drilled in the project
area. The undifferentiated Cutler Formation is
known to contain no significant aquifers in the
project area, and regionally, the TDS of
undifferentiated Cutler Formation water exceeds
10,000 mg/1. Prior to construction at the
proposed project site the State of Utah would
issue a "Groundwater Discharge Permit" that
would set groundwater quality standards for the
proposed project area. Summo would be
required to comply with those standards.
See Sections 3.23 ("Groundwater Resources"),
4.2.2.1 ("Potential Impacts to Water Uses" and
"Potential Impacts from Post-Mining Pit Lakes"),
and 4.2.2.2 ("Recommended Mitigation") for a
complete discussion.
(h) Comment: Additional wells and ground
water modeling are needed in the area of the
leach pad (Little Valley). (3)
Response: Prior to any construction at
the proposed project site the State of Utah would
issue a "Groundwater Discharge Permit". The
permit would include a requirement for up to five
additional groundwater monitoring wells in the
area of the proposed leach pad. That
requirement is included in Section 4.2.2.2,
"Recommended Mitigation". See Sections 3.2.3
("Regional Discussion" - P and C aquifers) and
4.2.2.2 ("Recommended Mitigation"), and the
State of Utah "Groundwater Discharge Permit".
(i) Comment: The difference between
anticipated project water use, and the water rights
filings by Summo, needs to be explained. (5)
Response: Summo's request for water
rights identifies appropriations in excess of
projected use for two primary reasons. The first
is to assure adequate appropriation in the event
more water ultimately is required than current
projections indicate, and secondly, to assure no
competing appropriations are made which would
limit Summo's ability to secure such additional
water. Summo's proposed Plan of Operation
identifies no other uses of water, beyond what is
required to run the mining and recovery
operation.
(j) Comment: A water monitoring program
is needed to monitor the performance of specific
mine facilities, especially regarding ground water
quantity and quality effects. (7, 15)
Response: In response to this comment,
BLM required Summo to prepare additional
details of monitoring plans for groundwater.
They subsequently identified well locations and
testing timeframes and methodologies for
monitoring groundwater. Summo's proposed plan
has been included in the FEIS as Appendix A,
Mitigation and Monitoring Plan.
Additionally, Summo would be required to obtain
a "Groundwater Discharge Permit" from the State
of Utah, Division of Water Quality. The State
would analyze Summo's proposed monitoring
program for groundwater, and either accept it or
modify it to meet State requirements for
groundwater monitoring, including protection
levels for various constituents in the groundwater.
The Division has prepared a draft "Groundwater
Discharge Permit" that is currently undergoing
review. Summo's proposed monitoring plan has
been modified considerably to meet State
requirements. Once this permit is finalized,
Summo would be required to comply with all
provisions of the permit. See the State of Utah
"Groundwater Discharge Permit," Appendix D.
. (k) Comment: Additional production wells in
the Navajo formation are likely needed to serve
project water needs. The full impact of project
water supply over the 10-yr mine life needs
further discussion. In general, additional
information on water management, use, and
project water impacts is needed. (7, 15, 20, 24)
23W4/RS-WPJ 2/4/97(739 pm)/RJT/8
5-38
-------
Response: Approximately 6000 and 5320
ac-ft of water would be pumped from the shallow
(Burro Canyon) and deep (Entrada/Navajo)
aquifers respectively, over the life of the project.
The water would be used for process applications
and dust control. The effects of extracting this
volume of groundwater are discussed in Section
4.2.2.1. See Section 2.2.6 for a discussion of
project water uses.
(I) Comment: Discuss the relative duration
of rain and snow events that comprise the 15
inches of annual precipitation in Lisbon Valley,
regarding aquifer recharge. (11)
Response: See Section 3.14.2 - "Climate"
for updated discussion.
(m) Comment: The assumptions used to
arrive at values for transmissivity should be
explained. (11)
Response: See revised Sections 3.2.3.1 -
"Burro Canyon Aquifer".
(n) Comment: The natural springs in the
area and their interconnection (or lack of it) with
areas potentially impacted by the project should
be discussed further, and supplemented with
additional data. (15)
Response: See updated Section 3.2.2.1 -
"Springs and Cattle Ponds".
(o) Comment: Ground water depletions from
the project could affect the Dolores River, in a
proposed wilderness area. (17, 20)
Response: Analysis identified in Section
4.2.2.1, indicates depletion of an average of 907
acre feet of groundwater per year to the Dolores
River during the life of the mine. The hydrologic
impact of this depletion, when compared to
overall water inflows in the entire Dolores River
basin, is not anticipated to be adverse.
Additionally, there are no legal or regulatory
requirements to assure water rights reservation in
rivers within Wilderness Study Areas.
The depletion would potentially have an adverse
impact on endangered fish species inhabiting the
overall Colorado River basin, as identified in
Section 4.6.2.1, Wildlife. Comment response
5.5.9 (a) further addresses this issue.
(p) Comment: Along with drawdown maps,
the document needs to include head maps to
present the results of the impact evaluation. (24)
Response: See updated Section 4.2.2.1 -
"Potential Impacts From Dewatering" and Figures
4.2-2, 4.2-3, and 4.2-7.
(q) Comment: Change the word "evaporites"
to "sediments" on Figure 4.2-6 (updated Figure
4.2-9). Summo's consultants sampled this
material and it is not evaporites. (24)
4.2-9.
Response: See revised text on Figure
(r) Comment: Section 3.2.2.1 in the DEIS
appears to characterize the precipitation data as
questionable. Also, it would be clearer if stream
flow and precipitation were discussed separately.
(24)
Response: See updated Section 3.2.2.1 -
"Precipitation and Streamflow". The discussion in
this Section is intended to correlate precipitation
to streamflow and as such "streamflow" is
appropriately discussed there. Also, see updated
Section 3.14.2 - "Climate" for a complete
discussion of climate in the Lisbon Valley area.
(s) Comment: Section 3.2.3.1, Groundwater
Resources, should further describe the regional
hydrogeologic system, and explain the
groundwater flow system in the Lisbon Valley.
The hydrogeologic system, as it relates to the
proposed project, needs to be clearly defined.
(24)
Response: See revised Section 3.2.3.
(t) Comment: The text should include the
acreage of both the Hatch Wash and Lisbon
Valley catchment areas. (24)
23996/R4-WP.S 2/4/97(7:39 pm)/RPT/8
5-39
-------
Response: The reference to the Hatch
Wash has been deleted and the text revised.
(u) Comment: The discussion under
"Potential Impacts to Water Uses" should show
that due to groundwater outflow,
evapoconcentration will not occur at the Sentinel
pit, but will occur at the Centennial and GTO
pits. (24)
Response: See revised Section 4.2.2.1 -
"Potential Impacts to Water Uses", "Potential
Impacts for Case 2". The Section has been
revised to show that the higher water quality
predicted for the Sentinel pit in Case 2 would be
a function of 1) the "dilution effect" from 177 ac-
ft/yr of surface water inflow, 2) significantly less
evapoconcentration (although in drought years or
in prolonged dry periods during any year
evapoconcentration could occur), and 3)
migration of pit lake water, with accompanying
dissolved constituents, into the shallow aquifer.
(v) Comment: Since current project plans
include the extraction of water from the Navajo
or Entrada Formations, it cannot be stated that
these formations would not be impacted. (24)
Response: See revised Section 4.2.2.1
(w) Comment: Summo's current data and
analysis suggest that the movement of low quality
water from the pits to the shallow aquifer is
highly unlikely. Discussions of pit water
contaminating the aquifer should be removed or
described further. (24)
Response: Results of post-mining
groundwater modeling indicate that there would
be standing .water in the Sentinel No. 1,
Centennial, and GTO pits, and that the pit lake
water would be hi direct contact with the shallow
aquifer. As a result it would be possible for pit
lake water to move into and out of the shallow
aquifer. The shallow aquifer could be effected by
degraded quality pit lake water. Prior to
construction at the proposed project site the State
of Utah would issue a "Groundwater Discharge
Permit" that would set groundwater quality
standards for the proposed project area. Summo
would be required to comply with those
standards.
See Sections 3.23 ("Groundwater Resources"),
4.2.2.1 ("Potential Impacts to Water Uses" and
"Potential Impacts from Post-Mining Pit Lakes"),
and 4.2.2.2 ("Recommended Mitigation").
(x) Comment: The statement in Section
4.2.4.1 regarding "acid leaching conditions"
contradicts Section 3.3.3. Recommend revising
paragraph two. (24)
Response: See revised Section 4.2.4.1 -
"Direct and Indirect Impacts".
(y) Comment: Post closure pit water quality
and quantity, its effects on surrounding
groundwater quality, and mitigation measures,
are not adequately addressed. (7, 14, 15)
Response: Potentially acid-producing
lithologies would be exposed in all pits and
inundated with pit lake water in the Sentinel
No. 1 pit (Case 2), and the GTO pit (Cases 1 and
2) (See Section 4.2.2.1). Complete backfilling of
the pits under the "Open Pit Backfilling
Alternative" - Section 4.2.4, would stop
precipitation from contacting those lithologies,
however degradation of groundwater quality could
occur as a result of leaching the backfilled waste
rock (See Section 4.2.4.1).
Post-mining pit lake water would be in contact
with the shallow aquifer (Burro Canyon) hi the
Sentinel No. 1, Centennial, and GTO pits. Pit
lake water would be in contact with the deep
aquifer (Entrada/Navajo) in the Centennial pit.
Pit lake water, with its accompanying dissolved
constituents, could move into and out of these
aquifers. If pit lake water quality were degraded
by evapoconcentration or leaching of backfilled
waste rock then water quality in these aquifers
could be degraded (See Section 4.2.2.1).
Prior to construction of any facilities at the
proposed project site the State of Utah,
Department of Environmental Quality, would
require a "Ground Water Quality Discharge
Permit". The permit would include groundwater
23W6/R4-WP.S 2/4/97(7:39 pm)/RPT/8
5-40
-------
monitoring requirements, including water quality
compliance standards (See Section 4.2.2.2).
5.5.6 Geochemistry
(a) Comment: Because of potential acid mine
drainage, the Waste Rock Selective Handling
alternative should be preferred by BLM. (3)
Response: Based on further review of
data presented in the FEIS, the Waste Rock
Selective Handling Alternative has been selected
as one of BLM's Preferred Alternatives, identified
in revised Section 2.7. Additionally, based on this
comment, Summo was required to further analyze
methodology and procedures for handling the acid
generating waste rock. The subsequent analysis
was prepared by Summo and has been
incorporated into the FEIS as Appendix A,
Mitigation and Monitoring Plan. This Plan would
become part of the approved operation, along
with additional mitigation measures for testing
and mapping this waste within the waste dumps,
as identified in revised Section 4.3.6.
(b) Comment: The 1312 tests do not predict
the effects of various rock layers in the mine pits
on water quality. Further discussion of water in
contact with the Burro Canyon, Morrison, and
Cutler formations is needed. (7)
Response: Additional analysis indicates
this comment is correct. It is noted that the
Method 1312 procedure may be limited in
predictive capability since the test is performed
using pH 5.0 deionized water. Those constituents
that are mobilized in alkaline (i.e., high pH)
environments, such as metal anionic complexes,
_, may not be mobilized in the lixiviant from the
Method 1312 analysis. Sections 3.2 and 3.3 have
been revised to reflect these limitations. Based
on these limitations, Summo has supplied
additional data from Acid Base Accounting
testing done on waste rock in the project sites.
The analysis of this testing provides more
accurate predictions of geochemical impacts from
potential post-mining pit lakes. Sections 3.2 and
3.3 have been revised to present this information.
(c) Comment: Potential impacts to surface
and ground water quality from acid-generating
wastes needs additional discussion. A contingency
plan is needed. Unlined and unsegregated waste
rock piles are not an adequate safeguard for these
wastes. (14, 15)
Response: The FEIS has added additional
analysis and discussion regarding water quality
impacts from potential acid rock drainage, see
revised Sections 4.2 and 4.3. The analysis
indicates that with selection of the Selective
Waste Rock Handling Alternative, along with
other mitigative measures associated with capping
the dumps, the potential for the generation of
acid leachates can be mitigated without the need
for lining the waste dumps. The potentially acid
generating waste rock would be encapsulated
within the waste dumps with acid neutralizing
waste. Details of the operational plan for
handling the acid generating waste is further
identified in Appendix A of the FEIS, prepared
by Summo at BLM's request based on these
public comments.
(d) Comment: Adverse heavy metals effects,
especially to vegetation, will be evident from the
project unless proper heap leach rinsing and
control of surface runoff from waste piles is
implemented. (14)
Response: An analysis of impacts to
vegetation from bioaccumulation of metals has
been added to Section 4.5.1. This analysis
indicates that these impacts would not occur
unless breaches occur in the dumps or leach pad
allowing leachates into the environment. With
operating plans to control surface drainages and
runoff from the dumps and leach pad, with liners
under the pads and ponds containing heavy
concentrations of sulfate minerals, and with
closure capping of waste rock, topsoil, and
vegetation, impacts from bioaccumulation of
metals in vegetation are not anticipated.
(e) Comment: Control of acid generation
from mining projects is nearly impossible, given
the lack of success reported in the literature and
examples at mining projects throughout the West.
(14) .
Z3996/R4-WP.S 2/4/97(7:39 pm)/RPT/8
5-41
-------
Response: Given the plans for selective
waste rock handling in the waste dumps, water
management systems for the leaching operation,
requirements for rinsing and neutralization of the
leach pad, and final closure, capping and
revegetation of the dumps and pad, the analysis
indicates there would be no long-term generation
of acid leachates from the project area.
Additionally, requirements for monitoring
operational systems during the Me of the
operation would result in immediate knowledge of
potential acid leachate problems, which could be
rectified before they pose long-term threats to the
environment.
(f) Comment: The impacts of utilizing
groundwater containing radionuclides at the
project site should be assessed. (15)
Response: Section 4.2.2.1 has been
revised to provide an analysis of projected impacts
to the environment and workforce from utilizing
radionuclide containing groundwater at the
project site. The results of that analysis indicate
that concentrations are at low enough levels, and
the "life" of the radionuclide particles are short
lived enough, that the use of this water poses no
adverse impact to the environments or the
workers.
(g) Comment: The Geochemistry Section is
confusing to the reader. In Section 3.3, the 3:1
AGP.-ANP ratio is used, in Section 4.3,
AGP > AMP is used to identify potentially acid-
generating material. These sections need to be
consistent. Also, the word "potentially" needs to
precede "acid-generating" throughout the
document. (24)
Response: Sections 3.3 and 43 have been
revised to utilize only the AGP:ANP ratio. The
word "potentially" has been added where
appropriate.
(h) Comment: The results of the 1312 testing
should be added to the document. Also, Section
33.3 text includes an improper transition from
pit lake water quality to the potential for waste
rock to mobilize dissolved constituents. (24)
Response: DEIS.Section 3.3 has been
revised to include a discussion of the results of
the 1312 testing procedures. This discussion is
now included as Section 3.3.3. This discussion
indicates the limited applicability of these tests
due to the pH values used in testing, which are
not indicative of projected actual pH values at the
project site.
The text in DEIS Section 33 that resulted in
confusion between discussion of pit lake water
quality and mobilization of dissolved constituents
from the waste dumps has been clarified and,
since the discussion involves potential
geochemical impacts, has been moved to Section
4.3
(i) Comment: It is unlikely that the pH
would rise as high as 9.0 to 9.5. (24)
Response: Since post-mining pit lake pH
values can only be qualitatively estimated based
on current conditions and experience in other
areas, Section 4.2.2.1 and 4.3.2.1, has been
modified to predict post-mining pit lake pH levels
of 8.0 or greater.
(j) Comment: The DEIS consistently
references the potential of coal-bearing mine
waste to generate acid, yet a mine waste dump
currently on site, which consists largely of coal-
bearing material, has not generated detectable
acid conditions. This should be acknowledged
and discussions on potential acid-generation
modified accordingly. (24)
Response: Section 4.2.3 has been revised
to reflect current conditions associated with the
historic waste dumps. Although there are
currently no visible impacts of acid rock drainage
from the historic dumps, the potential exists that
at some point in the future acid leachates could
be generated from these dumps. Additionally, as
a result of the proposed action, potentially acid
generating waste rock volumes placed on the
surface would be substantially greater in volume
than the current small dumps, and the potential
for acid leachate generation is much greater.
Therefore, discussions in the EIS have not been
23W6/R4-WP.S 2/4/97(739 pm)/RPT/S
5-42
-------
modified in regard to the direction suggested by
this comment.
5.5.7 Soils and Reclamation
(a) Comment: A two year tune frame for
post-mining monitoring is inadequate. The BLM
should work with the Division of Oil, Gas and
Mining to insure that the monitoring and
reclamation bonding for the project is adequate,
regarding amount of bonding and length of time
for monitoring. (15,16,22,26)
Response: The Proposed Action identifies
the 2 year monitoring period for vegetative
reclamation. Based on the difficulty of vegetative
re-establishment in this arid environment, as
indicated by the analysis mitigation has been
included in the Section 4.5.2.2, Vegetation,
recommending post-reclamation monitoring for 5
years to assure success of initial reclamation
operations.
In addition, monitoring for a period of 25 years
after cessation of mining operations, would occur
for long-term groundwater and potential post-
mining pit lake impact monitoring. A "trust" bond
would be required for the project at completion
of mining operations. This trust bond would also
be held for a period of 25 years, and release of
the bond would be based on successful
monitoring programs. If long-term adverse
impacts are detected, the trust bond would be
available for remediation in the event Summo is
no longer a viable company.
BLM has had continual discussions with
UDOGM, in addition to Utah DEQ, throughout
the EIS process, and hosted a site visit with
UDOGM and DEQ staff in October 1996.
UDOGM and DEQ have played substantial roles
in determining monitoring and bonding
requirements for the project. Bonding for the
project would be held jointly by UDOGM and
BLM. The FEIS has added a Section 2.4 which
identifies general bonding parameters, including
the coordination with the State of Utah.
(b) Comment: If this project is approved, the
current 80 acres of wasteland will be turned into
200-1000+ acres of wasteland. ' Further, the
project would destroy virgin, old-growth juniper/
pinyon forest. (17)
Response: The analysis indicates that the
project would disturb 1103 acres, the 80 acres of
historic mining operations would be within this
disturbance. The existing soils, vegetation, range
resources, and wildlife habitat would be altered or
removed in certain locations, as in the case of the
juniper/pinyon forest, which is a common
vegetation type in the area. However,
reclamation followingjsroject closure is designed
to restore and rehabilitate much of the resource
base. The 231 acres of open pits would be
unreclaimed. Although juniper/pinyon stands
take many years to reach maturity, eventually
these species would also become re-established in
the area through natural succession
(c) Comment: Reclamation of the open pits
to original contour is unreasonable, given the
amount of mining disturbance already in the area.
(1)
Response: The section referred to in this
comment identifies a discussion of the Open Pit
Backfilling Alternative. The analysis under the
discussion of this alternative, indicates the pits
would be returned to their "approximate" original
contours, which is feasible under this alternative.
(d) Comment: The reclamation seed mix in
Section 4.5.2.2 should include Nomak or Ladak
alfalfa. (6)
Response: Nomak or Ladak alfalfa would
be good species for deer populations and
livestock. However, the primary goal of
revegetation at this site would be to establish
vegetative cover sufficient to prevent erosion.
Table 2.10 identifies proposed re-seeding species
associated with the Proposed Action. Based on
analysis of environmental factors. Section 4.5.2.2
recommends modification to the proposed species
mixture. Alfalfa and yellow sweet clover were
considered for the revised seed mixture, as both
23996/R4-WP.S 2/4/97(739 pm)/RPT/8
5-43
-------
species have nitrogen fixing properties which
would aid in establishing vegetation. Alfalfa is
considered to be more palatable to livestock
which could increase the grazing along the slopes
of the waste rock dumps and accelerate erosion
after fencing was removed. The proposed Action
and Section 4A2.1 also identify that vegetative
test plots would be constructed during the life of
the mine, to further evaluate species that have the
best chances of success for revegetation efforts at
the project site. The final species utilized for
reclamation at the project would consist of those
species which provide the greatest opportunity for
successful revegetation, based on the initial
proposal.
Opportunities for augmentation of vegetation for
deer populations in the area could be taken with
the off-site habitat enhancement project included
as recommended mitigation is Section 4.6.2.2.
The off-site habitat plans would be developed in
full consultation with UDWR.
(e) Comment: Pit reclamation, including
water treatment or backfilling and other
measures, needs to be addressed further to
control water quality degradation, waterfowl
attraction, and visual effects. (14)
Response: Section 4.2.2.1 has included
additional analysis of potential impacts from pit
lake development. Section 4.2.4.1 contains
additional analysis of impacts to water quality
from backfilling the pits. Based on these
potential impacts, Section 4.2.2.2 identifies
recommended mitigation measures that could be
taken in the event pit lakes develop and in fact
result in water degradation. This would include
pumping of pit water or dewatering wells,
pumping fresh water into the pits, or partially
backfilling to cover the lakes.
The decision not to require the Backfill
Alternative is based on analysis of all factors
related to the open pits, including: potential pit
lake development and potential impacts from
backfilling on groundwater degradation; potential
for impacts to wildlife; impacts to visual
resources; and impacts to economics of the
operation and potential for future recovery of
lower grade copper resources.
With the pits left open, reclamation measures
such as recontouring or revegetation are not
feasible. One potential mitigation measure,
identified hi Section 4.2.2.2 is to place acid
neutralizing waste rock on benches below
formations in the pit walls that contain acid
generating material. The intent would be to limit
drainage of acid leachates from the pit walls into
any lakes which could develop in the bottom of
the pits, and subsequently limit potential
degradation of groundwater.
In light of the potential for long-term degradation
of groundwater from not backfilling the pits, long-
term monitoring of potential pit lakes and
groundwater would be required as indicated in
Section 4.2.2.2. Details of the groundwater
monitoring program would be based on standards
to be developed by the State DEQ. If long-term
monitoring identifies degradation below identified
standards, Summo would be required to
remediate this impact. They could use one of the
methods identified, or perhaps develop additional
methods that would provide the necessary
remediation.
The long-term monitoring would also apply to
wildlife potentially attracted to post-mining pit
lakes, and the requirement to mitigate potential
impacts from such use is identified in Section
4.6.2.2. In the event Summo were no longer an
operational entity, funding for remediation would
be secured by the long-term trust bond Summo
would be required to post prior to abandonment
operations.
(f) Comment: It is not valid for the BLM to
assert that new mining here is beneficial because
it would allow reclamation and cleanup of adverse
effects from historic mining activities. The EIS
should not suggest that the immediate and
surrounding environment will actually benefit
from Summo's copper mine. (15, 22, 26)
Response: Language hi the FEIS has
been modified so as not to give the impression
that new mining operations would benefit the
23996/IU-WP,S 2/4/97(7:39 pm)/RPT/8
5-44
-------
environment. The FEIS indicates that new
impacts would occur at the site by significant
expansion of mining operations, i.e., 231 acres of
open pits would remain unreclaimed, waste
dumps would be greatly increased in size, a heap
leach pad would be added, loss of vegetation
would occur, potential exists for creation of lakes
in the pits following mining, and there would be
visual impacts.
The impact on past mining operations would
however, be beneficial. As the current situation
indicates, there is no current protection against
long-term acid drainage from the unsecured waste
dumps, and drainage diversion and fencing do not
exist around the current pits. With
implementation of the proposed action, as
modified by the alternatives and mitigation
measures, the current impacts from past mining
would be mitigated to a much greater degree, i.e.,
provisions of the Waste Rock Selective Handling
alternative would eliminate potential for long-
term acid drainage from the area, the remaining
open pits would be secured by eliminating surface
drainage into them and placing fencing around
them.
With implementation of provisions of the State
issued Groundwater Discharge Permit, protection
levels would be established for the identified
aquifers in the area. These protection levels
would not allow degradation of these aquifers
beyond their current groundwater classifications.
Summo would be required to comply with those
provisions.
(g) Comment: Slopes should be regraded to
a slope less steep than 2.5:1. (15)
Response: Typically when slopes are
decreased, additional runoff is retained and the
rate of water infiltration would be increased. The
retention of runoff and the infiltration of water
has been a major concern when burying materials
that have a potential to be acid generating.
Increasing the infiltration rate of water would
increase the rate of potential acid generation. In
order to achieve the goal of isolating potentially
acid generating materials from moisture, steeper
slopes have been used to decrease the infiltration
of water.
It is feasible to have successful reclamation of
2.5:1 slopes. Examples of successful reclamation
on steep slopes have been cited in the revisions
for "Reclamation Effectiveness" in Section 4.4.2.1.
In order to reduce the rate of soil erosion on the
2.5:1 slopes of the waste rock dumps; 10-15 feet
wide benches would be constructed perpendicular
to the slopes with the benches constructed
approximately 30-40 feet apart along the slopes.
Grading slopes to 3:1 or less would also result in
a greater area of surface disturbance or an
increased height of" the waste rock dumps.
Monitoring of the revegetation test plots will also
include an assessment of the slope angle.
(h) Comment: Reconcile the statement that
a high pH of the waste rock piles would not affect
reclamation because soils in the project area
naturally have a high pH; with the hydrology and
geochemistry impact analysis of potential alkaline
water quality conditions in the pits. (24)
Response: Impacts to revegetation in high
pH soils are not expected since plant species in
the project area have adapted to naturally
occurring high soil pH. However, elevated pH of
surface or groundwaters raises entirely different
issues related to water quality (see Sections 4.2
and 4.3), which are not directly related to impacts
to vegetation. The water in the post-mining lakes
could be alkaline and have elevated TDS levels
due to the evapo-concentration of the pit lake
water. These impact analyses are, therefore, not
contradictory.
(i) Comment: Installation of water bars on
all slopes exceeding 25 feet in length and 10
percent grade would make reclamation difficult,
if not impractical. In addition, covering the waste
rock piles with 3-4 feet of compacted subsoils
containing at least 65 percent fines would be
impossible to achieve and difficult to test. A
more appropriate mitigation plan would be tied to
revegetation success. (24)
23996/R4-WP.S 2/4/97(739 pm)/RPT/8
5-45
-------
Response: The two mitigation measures
referenced in this comment were revised hi
Section 4.4.2.2 to help clarify then- intent. Along
linear rights-of-way such as roads or other areas
where benches are not constructed to intercept
runoff, water bars would be needed on all final
slopes exceeding 25 feet hi length and 10 percent
gradient. Reclamation of the leach pad and waste
dumps would include covering them with 2-3 feet
of subsoils, not overburden rock, that could be
ripped and prepared to support the layer of 12
inches of coversoil. This would provide an
adequate rooting depth and enhance the potential
for successful vegetation.
(j) Comment: Before proceeding with a
project such as this, the use of recycling and non-
renewable natural resources, and the impacts on
future generations need to be considered. (27)
Response: Alternatives such as recycling
are beyond the scope of the EIS because they do
not meet the underlying need of the project,
which is to produce cooper from the Lisbon
Valley area as allowed by provisions of the
Mining Law of 1872 and regulations at 43 CFR
3809. Long term impacts have been considered
throughout the EIS, specifically in each Chapter
4 resource heading. Additionally, Chapter 4.17
Cumulative Impacts, summarizes these long-term
impacts.
5.5.8 Vegetation
(a) Comment: There is an inconsistency
between the text and map in Section 3.5 regarding
the number of vegetation types. (24)
Response: The map legend has been
corrected to help reflect the types of vegetation
analyzed in the text. This figure was developed
during the baseline studies in 1994, prior to
Summo's refinement of the final project
boundary, and provides a good overview of area-
wide vegetation communities. The text describes
the three primary vegetation communities that
would be directly impacted within the proposed
project boundary. The location of areas disturbed
by previous mining activities and cliffs that could
provide raptor habitat are also shown on the map
for the reader's general information. However,
since these areas are generally void of vegetation,
they are not discussed further in the text.
(b) Comment: The point regarding potential
impacts due to disturbance of threatened,
endangered or sensitive plant species should be
deleted. The reader should be reminded that no
T & E species were identified in baseline surveys
(24)
Response: This information is a
requirement of all NEPA documents, to allow the
reader and the decision maker information that
indicates these concerns were addressed and
considered. Furthermore, the text in Section 3.5.3
notes that no T&E species were found during
field surveys.
(c) Comment: The DEIS needs to inform the
reader that Permits West, the power company
contractor, performed an independent
environmental analysis. (24)
Response: Permits West submitted a Plan
of Development to supplement Pacifcorp's right-
of-way application. The Plan of Development
included information on anticipated
environmental impacts from the construction of
the power line. For purposes of the EIS, the
environmental analysis prepared by Permits West
is irrelevant because it considered only impacts
from the powerline. Portions of the information
submitted by Permits West were utilized during
the preparation of the EIS. The EIS provides all
necessary elements of environmental analysis, and
relates these to all impacts associated with the
overall project.
5.5.9 Wildlife
(a) Comment: Mining activity will affect
sensitive wildlife in the proposed Dolores River
Wilderness area; some species could become
extinct. (17)
Response: Potential effects on sensitive
species are evaluated in Section 4.6 and are based
23994/R4-WP.S 2/4/97(7:39 pm)/RPT/S
5-46
-------
on surveys of the project area. The proposed
Lisbon Valley Copper Project area is
topographically isolated from the Dolores River
Wilderness Study Area, no sensitive wildlife
species in the Dolores River Wilderness Study
Area are expected to be directly or indirectly
affected by the Lisbon Valley Copper Project.
(b) Comment: Consider installation of higher
fencing (12 feet), with mesh (or other measures)
around the PLS and raffinate ponds, and mine
pits, to prevent access by waterfowl, large and
small mammals, and for public safety; and
monitor any wildlife mortalities and prescribe
corrective measures as needed. (5,6, 7, 8,15,26)
Response: Analysis in Section 4.6.2 did
not indicate problems for large wildlife with the
8 foot high game fence proposed around the
solution ponds. Mitigation has been added to
Section 4.6.2.2 to include 4 feet of small mesh
along the bottom of this to prevent entry by small
mammals.
Although the impact analysis indicates the
solution ponds would provide access to avian
fauna, there are no data provided to conclusively
indicate this would occur. A contingency
stipulation in the Recommended Mitigation
section (4.6.2.2) identifies a requirement to
mitigate such impacts if monitoring by BLM
indicates they are occurring.
The DEIS identified recommended stipulations
requiring a 12 foot chain link fence around the
post-mining abandoned pits. This requirement
has been modified in the FEIS to include a
simple 3 wire barb wire fence. A 12 foot chain
link fence would require significant long-term
maintenance. Additionally, the analysis has not
provided any indication that the unsecured open
pits currently on location have presented any
impact to wildlife.
(c) Comment: Mitigation for wildlife needs
to be added in regard to impacts from blasting,
night lighting and loss of water sources. (6)
Response: Recommended mitigation in
Section 4.6.2.2 identifies a requirement for
Summo to work with UDWR and BLM, to
develop an off-site mitigation plan within one year
of initiation of construction activities. This plan
would consider habitat improvements in the form
of development of forage and/or water sources,
designed to pull wildlife away from the project
area. The reason for allowing a year from
initiation of construction activities to development
of the plan are: 1), the level of work necessary to
coordinate and approve such projects, and 2) to
assure the project was actually initiated prior to
expending time and resources necessary to
implement such a plan.
(d) Comment: Details on the "raptor-safe"
powerlines should be included in the FEIS. (6)
Response: The structures specified in the
Plan of Development for the power line are
raptor proof. The spacing between the power
lines is adequate to prevent electrocution of
raptors.
(e) Comment: More detail is needed on
rattlesnakes and potential loss of wintering dens
from project development. (6)
Response: Additional wildlife survey work
conducted in May 1996, mapped about 0.75 linear
miles of potential habitat for Great Basin western
rattlesnakes, but no evidence of dens was
observed. Based on consultation with the VA
Venom Research Team, it was determined that
none of then- research sites are located within the
project area.
(!) Comment: Although ferrets were not
observed during the 1995-1996 whiter survey,
concern remains about potential black-footed
ferret habitat in the project vicinity. (6)
Response: The DEIS did not include
results of an additional survey conducted in May
1996, because results of the survey had not yet
been completed. This additional survey, along
with the winter survey in 1995, looked for ferrets.
Both surveys were conducted according to
guidelines of, and hi consultation with, the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service. No ferrets were
encountered in either survey. Based on these
23996/R4-WP.5 2/4/97(7:39 pm)/RPT/8
5-47
-------
results, no further ferret surveys are required by
BLM or USFWS.
(g) Comment: Based on information
provided by USFWS during informal consultation,
the DEIS analysis is incomplete in analysis of
potential impacts on endangered species such as
black-footed ferrets, bald eagles, peregrine falcons
and endangered fish species in the Colorado
River drainage. Although the DEIS identifies
water depletions to the Colorado River resulting
from the project, there is no indication of what
impacts would occur to the endangered fish
species in the Colorado River. The FEIS should
identify a complete listing of these fish species,
projected impacts from the project, and a
determination of effect to these species.
Summary impacts to these fish should also be
provided in Table 2-11. (8)
Response: The additional analysis and
determinations have been provided in the FEIS in
revised Sections 3.6.4 and 4.6.2.1. A complete
listing of species is provided, along with results of
both whiter 1995 and spring 1996 surveys.
Determinations of project impacts to each species
has been provided, including results of Section 7
consultation with USFWS and project mitigation
for potential impacts to endangered Colorado
River fish species as identified by FWS. Table 2-
11 has been revised to identify impacts to
endangered fish species.
(h) Comment: Raptor surveys are incomplete
because they were only conducted in the winter
and also need to be conducted in the spring. The
EIS is contradictory regarding efforts undertaken
for Section 7 consultation with USFWS. These
matters should be clarified hi the FEIS. (8)
Response: Spring surveys for raptors,
conducted hi May 1996, confirmed results of the
winter surveys conducted hi December 1995. The
results of both surveys are included in the FEIS,
in Section 4.6.2.1, with no impacts identified to
raptors. However, a stipulation has been added
to Section 4.6.2.2 that would require mitigation
in the event raptors begin nesting hi the area
during construction operations.
Clarification on the Section 7 consultation with
USFWS has been added, indicating the
consultation was a revision of the existing
Programmatic Section 7 consultation with Moab
District, and not the initiation of a new
consultation.
(i) Comment: Effects on wildlife numbers
will be adverse and significant; as a result of
drinking from on-site ponds and ephemeral
streams contaminated by the project. (14)
Response: Based on the 1995/1996
wildlife studies, the wildlife species typically found
hi P-J and sagebrush areas inhabit the proposed
mine site. There are currently three open pits at
the proposed mining location, and there are other
ponds hi the Lisbon Valley area that were created
from mining activities. No migratory birds or
resident wildlife mortality has been identified at
these pits associated with previous mining
operations.
During the mining operations the heap leach pad
and processing ponds would be surrounded with
8 foot high fences to exclude large mammals.
The bottom 3 feet would be meshed to prevent
entry by small mammals.
The activity associated with the operation of the
heap leaching facilities would displace some
wildlife species. Fluids used during the mming
operations would not be entering ephemeral
drainages unless there was a spill. Fluids spilled
during mining operations would be cleaned up
and contaminated soils would be hauled away to
an authorized disposal site if they could not be
treated on site.
The EIS provides for monitoring construction,
mining and processing operations. In the event
that there are wildlife mortalities or if wildlife are
attracted to the heap leach pad/ponds, facilities
or mining operations, they would be modified as
needed to correct the problems. As an example,
additional fencing, netting, bird balls, or off site
mitigation (including an off site watering source)
could be utilized to correct problems.
23996/R4.WPJ 2/4/97(7:39 pm)/RPT/8
5-48
-------
(j) Comment: Update the results of the
wildlife investigation. (24)
Response: Section 4.6.2.1 has been
updated with results of the May 1996 survey. The
spring 1996 wildlife surveys were consistent with
the December 1995 survey. No additional
impacts to wildlife were identified. See revised
text in Sections 3.6 and 4.6 for details.
(k) Comment: Provide the justification for a
12-foot chain link fence around the pits following
mine closure. (24)
Response: See revised text in Section
4.6.2.1. The berms and a shorter 8 foot fence are
now prescribed and committed by Summo in
Appendix A. The response to Comment 5.5.9 (b)
provides additional information on fences.
(I) Comment: Stock ponds in the Sentinel pit
and leach pad area are dry and have been during
spring 1996. Further justify these as a lost source
of water; proposed water diversions will provide
the same amount of water to wildlife as the
stockponds. (24)
Response: Although the stockponds are
ephemeral, they provide water and some
vegetation for wildlife during certain seasons.
Sediment traps could provide seasonal water
source for wildlife, but many of the sediment
traps would be located within the areas utilized
for mining operations where vehicle and human
activity may not be conducive to wildlife use.
5.5.10 Grazing
No written or'verbal comments were received on
grazing issues.
5.5.11
Socioeconomics
(a) Comment: Summo will employ a small
number of local people and the jobs will be short-
term compared to the tourism industry. Out of
state contractors would result in wages being sent
out of state. Local hires should be given priority
for jobs. (1, 17, 25, 27)
Response: The analysis indicates up 80
jobs would be created during construction, up to
143 jobs during mining, and up to 54 service
related jobs during mining. While these jobs do
constitute a relatively small percentage of jobs in
Grand and San Juan counties, they are significant
in that they provide higher wages than those
typically associated with tourism related jobs,
along with benefit packages for the miners.
The analysis indicates construction of the mine
facilities would likely require specialized skills
which may not be available in the local job
market. If an out-of-area contractor is brought in
for mine construction, wages would likely be sent
out of the area, during that phase of mine
development. Some non-specialized jobs could
however be filled from the local job market.
Local hires would be given preference by Summo
to the extent possible, but BLM cannot legally
require this as a condition of approval.
(b) Comment: The tax base in San Juan
County has decreased significantly hi recent years.
A diverse mix of economic development, including
extractive mining, is needed to produce a healthy
economy here. (1)
Response: The analysis in the FEIS
supports this comment.
(c) Comment: Since San Juan County
residents would be most affected by the project in
a socioeconomic sense, the DEIS public hearing
should be held in San Juan County. (1)
Response: BLM conducted two public
scoping meetings in November 1995, one hi
Grand County (Moab), the second hi San Juan
County (Monticello). The attendance by the
23996/R4-WP.5 2/4/97(7:39 pm)/RPT/S
5-49
-------
public was significantly higher at the Moab
meeting. Subsequently the decision was made to
conduct only one DEIS public meeting in Moab.
An informal presentation was held in San Juan
County at LaSal, after distribution of the DEIS,
to provide a forum for input from the residents of
LaSal, the closest community to the proposed
mine site. Additionally, the socioeconomic
analysis indicates that the mine would also have
significant impact to Grand County.
(d) Comment: The local economic benefits of
the project are not justified by the environmental
costs. (14,23,27)
Response: The EIS has been prepared to
fulfill obligations under NEPA to analyze
environmental and socioeconomic impacts from a
proposal made by Summo, under rights granted
to them by the Mining Law of 1872. The FEIS
analyzes impacts to and from all aspects of the
proposal. The justification for final decisions,
including impact trade-offs, would be made in the
Record of Decision, scheduled to be released 30
days after the FEIS is made available.
(e) Comment: What are emergency services
response times to the project area from Moab or
Monticello for emergency spill response? Arc
emergency responders prepared for such
responses? (15, 20)
Response: As indicated in the analysis;
travel time to the project site is roughly 45 to 60
minutes from both Moab and Monticello.
Response times for emergency personnel would
be expected to be on this same order. Both
Grand and San Juan counties have local
community volunteer emergency teams. Training
levels and capabilities for these teams is not
anticipated to be at the level of professional
emergency response teams in large metropolitan
areas. Mitigation has been added to Section
4.10.2.2, recommending Summo provide full
training and equipment requirements to local
emergency response teams, at then- cost, to deal
with spills and other emergency response
situations. Additionally, transporters of hazardous
materials are fully trained to handle initial spill
responses. Summo would also have trained mine
site personnel and equipment capable of such
responses.
(0 Comment: The connection made hi the
EIS between higher wages from the project and
reduction of social problems is not valid. (15)
Response: As the discussion at Section
3.8.6 indicates, this information is identified only
as a perception of the local communities, based
on discussions and interviews with local
community leaders. The analysis makes no
supposition that there is a factual, measurable
connection.
(g) Comment: Summo should pay the
maximum royalties possible for extraction of
minerals from the public lands. (20)
Response: As noted in Section 4.8.2.1,
the State of Utah would collect mineral lease
payments for minerals removed from State owned
lands, totaling about $2.5 million over the 10-yr
project life. The 1872 Mining Law, under which
Summo's rights to develop were acquired,
provides no provision for the payment or
collection of royalties from hardrock minerals,
such as copper, from federal lands.
(h) Comment: Summo should have a fair and
adequate wage, with some reasonable benefits for
the employees. (25)
Response: Based on data provided by
Summo, wages and benefit packages that would
be paid to project workers would range from $10
to $16 per hour for hourly equipment operators
and technicians. Salaried positions at the mine
would range from approximately $24,000 to
$66,000 per year. This information was utilized to
provide summary information on yearly earnings
for total mine employment, identified in Section
4.8.2.1.
5.5.12 Transportation
(a) Comment: Traffic accident rates and
hazardous material highway accident calculations
23W/R4.WP.S 2/4/97(739 pm)/RPT/8
5-50
-------
are too low. Accident rates for all affected roads
should be summed rather than averaged for both
worker and truck traffic on roads leading to the
site. (15, 16, 17, 26)
Response: Traffic accident rates have
been re-evaluated and revised to include summing
the average accident rates calculated for the four
principal routes anticipated to be utilized to the
mine. See revised Section 4.9.2.1.
Accident rates for hauling of hazardous materials
have been calculated and added to Section
4.10.2.1. As the analysis indicates, accident
projections were calculated from national rates,
because no data exists for the local region on
accident rates involving hazardous materials.
Based on this analysis the predicted accident rate
for hauling hazardous materials has been
estimated at 0.51 accidents over the life of the
mine. However, the hazardous material haul
accident rate methodology identified in the
comment is also presented in the FEIS as an
alternative to using the federal accident rate, with
the resulting predicted accident rate calculated
from 0.5 to 1.6 accidents.
(b) Comment: BLM should regulate and
restrict truck traffic through Moab, Grand
County, and near national parks in the project
vicinity, so that project deliveries (especially of
hazardous materials) do not conflict with visitor
traffic and do not adversely affect public safety.
(2, 10,15,19)
Response: BLM has no legal authority to
make such restrictions. All of the roads for
project deliveries, worker travel, and mine traffic
use would be under the jurisdiction of other
federal, state, or county highway agencies.
However, recommended mitigation has been
added been added to Section 4.9.2.2 requiring
Summo to coordinate with local communities on
hauling and storage alternatives for supplies over
event weekends to mitigate, to the extent possible,
conflict with mine traffic and tourist related
traffic.
(c) Comment: Summo should share the costs
for upgrading and maintenance of the existing
County road in the mine vicinity. (1)
Response: Summo verbally committed to
share such costs in the public hearing on the
DEIS. Agreements with the San Juan County are
in process on this matter.
5.5.13
Hazardous Materials
(a) Comment: Grand County would like to
be advised as to the development of a sulfuric
acid storage facility near Thompson. (2)
Response: The Proposed Action
submitted by Summo does not present any
indication of a sulfuric storage facility near
Thompson.
(b) Comment: Sulfuric acid fumes and
leaching of dilute sulfuric acid from the leach
dump could affect the surrounding land, and
water supplies. (20)
Response: Operating procedures
identified by Summo in Sections 2.2.4.2, 2.2.4.3,
and 2.2.5 detail how sulfuric acid would be
controlled. This would include impervious liners
under the leach pad and solution ponds, limiting
spray applications on the leach pad during windy
conditions, and support facilities for handling and
containing acid supplies. Impact analysis indicates
these procedures are adequate for eliminating the
potential for sulfuric acid to be released into the
surrounding environment.
(c) Comment: One notable impact not
discussed in the DEIS is the potentially toxic
liquid waste that will result from project
development. (23)
Response: Impacts identified from
various waste associated with the project are
identified in Section 4.10.2.
23996/R4-WP.5 2/4/97(7:39 pm)/RPT/8
5-51
-------
(d) Comment: Section 3.10.2 does not
mention that the proposed project and other
projects are in the Lisbon Valley Industrial Area.
(24)
Response: Information identifying other
uses currently occurring in the Lisbon Valley
area, is presented in Sections 3.13 and 3.13.2.
5.5.14 Cultural and Paleontological
Resources
(a) Comment: Additional consultation is
necessary with the Hopi Tribe regarding
traditional cultural properties and cultural
resources of importance; request BLM to supply
necessary financial and staff resources to
implement visits to the area by knowledgeable
individuals. (12)
Response: This additional consultation
has been conducted. A site visit was completed
with the Hopi tribe in October 1996, with Summo
paying all consultation and travel expenses for
Hopi representatives. The Hopi have not
provided final written documentation of any
concerns they may have had, and repeated,
documented efforts to contact the Hopi have been
unsuccessful.
Based on informal comments provided by tribal
members at the site visit, the Hopi appeared to
have no concern with the impacts from the
proposed mining operation. They had some
concern with the overall regional consultation
process and with the State of Utah regarding
NAGPRA issues. Revised Sections 3.11.2 and
4.11.1.1 identify efforts and results of that
consultation process.
(b) Comment: BLM should go beyond the
minimal cultural resource consultation
requirements, and document such efforts, for
projects in the culturally sensitive Moab District.
Based on information in the DEIS, BLM has
failed to follow applicable guidelines related to
notification, coordination, consultation, and
followup, and has not given a good faith effort.
(13)
Response: Since publication of the DEIS,
BLM has undertaken additional consultation,
coordination, and documentation efforts, in full
compliance with applicable laws, regulations and
manual guidance. The FEIS identifies and
presents results of these efforts in revised Sections
3.11.2 and 4.11.1.1.
(c) Comment: Archeological resources in the
area are largely unprotected. The EIS should
acknowledge potential impacts to traditional
cultural property sites, which are eligible for
listing on the National Register of Historic Places.
Adverse effects to such sites may not be properly
mitigated by data recovery. (13, 14)
Response: Sections 3.11.2 and 4.11.2
present a complete analysis of current inventoried
cultural resources on-site, potential impacts to
these resources, and consultation efforts
undertaken with affected tribal organizations and
the Utah State Historic Preservation Office.
This includes actions and determinations related
to the site identified in the DEIS as a "traditional
cultural property". Based on consultation with the
Native American groups, this site has been
interpreted to be something other than a
traditional cultural property. Therefore,
additional consultation with SHPO has
determined this site not eligible for listing on the
NRHP. Based on analysis of all data, the final
determination presented in the FEIS is a "no
adverse impact" to archeological resources.
(d) Comment: The cultural resources
consultation process needs to be completed
before construction begins; such completion of
consultation must be documented in the FEIS.
(13)
Response: Consultation is now deemed
complete, and the FEIS identifies the process
followed and results. The Navajo Commission of
Utah and the Northern Ute Indian Tribe have
sent formal letters of closure. The Ute Mountain
Utes and the Hopi Tribe have made site visits,
and letters stating their concurrence with the
project are anticipated. The remaining
organizations that were contacted have not
239M/R4-WP.S 2/4/97(7:39 pm)/RPT/8
5-52
-------
responded, either to initial written
correspondence or follow-up attempts at
telephone communication.
(e) Comment: The project will affect or
destroy significant historical sites. (17, 26)
Response: The FEIS at Section 4.11.2
analyzes impacts of the proposed operation on
significant historical and cultural sites. The
analysis indicates no sites potentially eligible for
listing on the NRHP would be impacted by the
proposed operation.
5.5.15 Visual Resources
(a) Comment: Characterization of Lisbon
Valley as having aesthetic beauty and recreational
value is inaccurate; the area shows much evidence
of past human activity from mining, chaining,
powerlines, and other disturbances. There is not
a need to minimize visual impacts as much as is
suggested, with the exception of night lighting.
(1)
Response: The visual analysis at Section
3.12.2 indicates the area has a scenic quality
rating of C, meaning the area is devoid of
interesting landforms. The overall visual
classification is IV, the lowest level identified on
BLM lands, and one which allows activities to
modify the landscape.
Section 4.8.2.1, Social Impacts and Quality of
Life, does indicate the area has aesthetic beauty
and recreational value, and to some individuals
this would be true due to the remoteness of the
area. The project would impact those seeking
this type of experience in the area.
The analysis indicates there would be impacts
from night lighting to wildlife and nighttime visual
resources. Mitigation committed to by the
proponent would provide shielding of the night
lighting to direct it downward.
(b) Comment: The BLM has not shown the
ability to manage resource development given the
present appearance of Lisbon Valley. (23)
Response: The past mineral development
at Lisbon Valley occurred prior to BLM having
regulatory authority to approve and mitigate
mining operations conducted under authority of
the 1872 Mining Laws. However, unlike historical
mining activities, BLM now has authority to
review, approve and mitigate impacts from mining
operation, consistent with rights granted the
claimant under the Mining Law.
The analysis indicates the current proposal for
development at Lisbon Valley is consistent with
management plans for federal, state, and private
lands, as discussed in Section 3.13. This is based
primarily on the historical use of the area for
mineral development. Based on regulations now
hi effect however, Summo would be required to
reclaim and stabilize the site to prevent
unnecessary and undue degradation. In effect, as
the analysis indicates, the area would not be
returned to a natural condition, but mitigation
and reclamation has been identified to prevent
the site from becoming an environmental hazard
at some point in the future. As the analysis of
the No Action Alternative indicates, under the
current situation resulting from unregulated past
mining operations at the site, the area would
remain visually impacted, in addition to
presenting a potential for long-term
environmental degradation and pollution.
(c) Comment: Recommended mitigation for
reducing visual impacts conflicts with
recommended mitigation for soils resources. (24)
Response: Recommended mitigation
measures for visual resources has been modified
to identify that clearing, stockpiling and grading
should be curvilinear "where possible" to blend
with the natural topography. This would allow for
construction of waterbars on steep slopes to
prevent erosion, which would be the primary
concern of earth clearing, grading and stockpiling
operations.
23996/R4-WP.5 2/4/97(739 pm)/RPT/8
5-53
-------
(d) Comment: The visual quality of the
project area is underrated considering the visual
beauty of the surrounding area. People are
moving to Utah for the scenic beauty; not mining
(27)
Response: The BLM standard rating
analysis was used for visual quality description,
combined with data from the current visual
resource inventory of the area, as identified in
Section 3.122. The impact analysis identified in
Section 4.122 indicates the proposed operation
would be in conformance with guidelines
identified for Class IV visual areas.
5.5.16 Land Use
(a) Comment- Past land disturbance,
degradation of water quality, and low visual
quality due to past mining activity is not a
justification for future disturbance. New
environmental impacts are not of less significance
because of this past disturbance. (15)
Response: The current condition of the
landscape in the project area was utilized as
baseline information for comparison of impacts
projected from the proposed mining operation.
The EIS is not intended to provide justification
for the project, but rather, as identification of
impacts. Rationale for the decision would be
provided in the Record of Decision.
5.5.17 Visibility, Climate and Air
Quality
(a) Comment: The EIS needs to address
impacts to visibility in the project area, including
the La Sal Mountains, Navajo Mountain, and
nearby proposed wilderness areas and national
parks. (4, 14, 16, 19, 22, 26)
Response: Analysis in Section 4.12.2.1
indicate visibility impacts would be minimal The
project may be visible from the LaSal Mountains,
but impacts would be limited due to the overall
landscape contrasts of the region from that view
point. The project would not be visible from
other regional mountains due to the long
distances, nor from any wilderness areas in the
region due to the low lying, topographically
screened features of the mine site.
Section 4.14.2.1 indicates dust from the operation
would reduce visibility to residences hi the Three
Step Hill area, about 5 miles south of the project
site. Travelers on the county road past the mine
site would also experience local visibility
reduction from mining project fugitive dust. The
dust plume from mining operations would not rise
such that it would affect vistas from the La Sal
Mountains, Navajo Mountain or the Four Corners
region.
(b) Comment: The Lisbon Valley Copper
Project is not likely to impact ah- quality on any
National Park Service Class 1 resources, namely
Canyonlands National Park and Arches National
Park. (10)
Response: Based on the results of
dispersion modeling, the analysis at Section
4.14.2.1 indicates that the operation would be
within emission guidelines and would not impact
any Class I areas.
(c) Comment: The removal of overburden
from mining operations is regulated by State
Division of Air Quality rules and requires that
fugitive dust emissions be minimized. The
methods that would be utilized for such control
should be identified and formalized hi a dust
control plan, which should be submitted to the
State prior to initiation of activities. (4)
Response: Table 1-1 has been revised to
identify this requirement. Summo would be
responsible for such a plan.
(d) Comment: The control of dust from
powerline construction is a separately regulated
permit requirement of the State Division of Air
Quality. (4)
23996/Rf-WS 2/4/97(739 pm)/RPT/8
5-54
-------
Response: Table 1-1 has been revised to
indicate two separate approval authorities for dust
emissions are required by the State, one for
mining and another for powerline construction
(e) Comment: The overall mining operation
would require an Approval Order (AO) from the
State Division of Air Quality, addressing various
site-specific and regional air quality issues. The
AO is required before installation, construction,
and operation can occur. (4)
Response: Table 1- 1 has been modified
to indicate the requirement for an Approval
Order from the State Division of Air Quality.
(f) Comment: Section 4.14.2.2 should be
clarified to note that mitigation of air quality
impact is unnecessary because modeled impacts
are below all state and federal standards. (24)
Response: Even though modeled impacts
indicate ah- emissions are below federal and state
guidelines, mitigation is still required to mitigate
identified impacts, primarily reduced visibility,
that would occur from dust emissions from the
project.
5.5.18
Noise
(a) Comment: The distance at which blasting
and other mining related noise would be audible
needs to be quantified and the noise impacts
analyzed for the maximum level of blasting.
Effects to residents of La Sal, recreationists, and
wildlife should also be assessed. The mitigation
section should impose a ceiling on the number of
blasts per day. (16, 18, 22, 26)
Response: As a result of these comments,
additional analysis was conducted on noise
impacts from the mining operation. The results
of this analysis have been summarized in Section
4.15.2.1, and a copy of the additional analysis
has been included as Appendix C in the FEIS.
The conclusion of the analysis is that blasting
noise occurs at a sound frequency not readily
audible to the human ear. The sound at a
distance of 5 miles (Summit Point) would be
heard as a short pulse of distant thunder. All
other noise associated with the project would be
below the EPA mandated level of 55 dB at the
property boundary.
Mitigation has been recommended in Section
4.15.2.2 that would limit blasting to no more than
once per day to further minimize this impact.
(b) Comment: Please confirm the statement
that equipment noise levels would have to meet
both OSHA and MSHA regulations. (24)
Response: Text in Section 4.15 has been
revised to indicate noise at a mine site is
regulated by MSHA. OSHA has no regulatory
authority for noise control.
5.5.19 Recreational Resources
(a) Comment: Section 4.16 refers to the need
to analyze impacts to "established" recreation sites
within the project area. Section 3.16 does not
identify any "established" recreation sites. Please
clarify. (24)
Response: Section 4.16 has been revised
to delete reference to "established" recreation
sites, as there clearly are no established recreation
sites within the project area.
5.5.20 Short-term Use vs. Long
Term Productivity
(a) Comment: Clarify why the Hydrology
Section, under Short-Term Use vs Long-Term
Productivity, indicates short-term use of the water
for mining would effect long-term uses, when no
uses currently exist. (24)
Response: This section has been clarified
to acknowledge that there is currently no use of
the groundwater at this site. However, based on
the impact analysis, it is likely the long-term water
quality could be degraded from the potential for
post-mining pit lakes. Subsequently the short-
23996/R4-WP.S 2/4/97(739 pm)/RPT/8
5-55
-------
term use of this water could impact the "potential"
for long-term use.
(b) Comment: Under Land Use Section, in
the Short-Term vs Long-Term Productivity, it
indicates that short-term land use would be
restored with the exception of the unreclaimed
pits. One of the current land uses is mineral
development, which could continue if the pits are
left open. (24)
Response: As indicated by the analysis,
there are currently 85 acres of 'unreclaimed pits.
After the proposed mining operation, there would
be 231 acres of pits which would be a long-term
impact to all land uses with the possible exception
of future mining of residual low grade ore.
5.5.21 Irreversible or Irretrievable
Resource Commitments
(a) Comment: Summo strongly disagrees with
the statement "....the geochemistry of soils, water
and rock in the vicinity of the dumps and pits
would likely be irreversibly changed..." for a
variety of reasons. (24)
Response: The term "irreversible" has
been changed to "altered", based on an analysis of
all impacts from the operation. Newly exposed
pit walls and potential impacts to groundwater
from pit lakes would be altered beyond the
current dynamic situation that occurs at the site.
The term "soils" has been removed.
5.5.22 Editorial Corrections
Comment: Editorial and grammatical errors
(24)
Response: These have been corrected in the
FEIS.
23996/R4-WP.S 2/4/97(739 pm)/RPT/8
5-56
-------
6.0
LIST OF PREPARERS
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-Clyde/Westec Team
Scott Mernitz
Qualifications:
Responsibilities:
Christine R. Paulsen
Qualifications:
Responsibilities:
Peter O'Connor
Qualifications:
Responsibilities:
Robert Moran
Qualifications:
Responsibilities:
Jeff Ehrenzeller
Qualifications:
Responsibility:
John F. Lupo
Qualifications:
BA, Geography and History
MA, 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
15 years experience
Task Leader, Grazing
Project Description and Alternatives
BA Zoology
Ph.D. Geological Sciences
25 years experience
Senior Technical Advisor, Geochemistry
BA Environmental Science
MA Geology
18 years experience
Senior Technical Advisor, Water Resources
BS Geological Engineering
MS Geotechnical Engineering
Ph.D. Geological Engineering
Task Leader, Geochemistry
23996/R4-WP.6 02/04/97(5:14pra)/RPT/8
6-1
-------
Greg L. Eddy
Qualifications:
Responsibilities:
W.Jack Clark
Qualifications:
Responsibilities:
William F. Hill
Qualifications:
Responsibilities:
Christopher P. freeman
Qualifications:
Responsibilities:
D. Richard Black
Qualifications:
Responsibilities:
David K. Jones
Qualifications:
Responsibilities:
Karen Baud
Qualifications:
Responsibilities:
Bob Mutaw
Qualifications:
Responsibilities:
BS Civil Engineering
6 years experience
Project Description and Alternatives
Task Leader, Geotechnical
BS Biology and Chemistry
MS Entomology/Botany
Ph.D. Entomology/Wildlife Management
21 years of experience
Task Leader, Air Resources/Noise
BA Geology
Professional Geologist
13 years of experience
Task Leader, Geology/Minerals
BS Environmental Planning
6 years of experience
Task Leader, Socioeconomics, Transportation, Hazardous Materials
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
BA Biology
MA Biology
6 years of experience
Vegetation, Wildlife, Sensitive Species
BA Anthropology
MA Anthropology
Ph.D. Anthropology
16 years experience
Task Leader, Cultural Resources
2399&TW-WP.6 02/W/97(5:Mpm)«PT/S
6-2
-------
William Killam
Qualifications:
Responsibility:
Daniel J. Davis
Qualifications:
Responsibilities:
BA Anthropology
20 years experience
Senior Technical Advisor, Cultural Resources, NEPA
BS Geosciences
MS Geochemistry
9 years of experience
Task Leader, Geochemistry
David K. Nicholson
Qualifications:
Responsibilities:
BA Geology
MS Geology
6 years of experience
Task Leader Water Resources
U.S. Bureau of Land Management
A. Lynn Jackson
Qualifications:
Responsibilities:
Joe Cresto
Qualifications:
Responsibilities:
Rich McClure
Qualifications:
Responsibilities:
Linda Seibert
Qualifications:
Responsibilities:
Raymon Carling
Qualifications:
Responsibilities:
Mary von Koch
Qualifications:
Responsibilities:
Project Coordinator
BS Geology
18 years of experience
Coordination of project
Wildlife Biologist
BS Range/Wildlife
30 years of experience
WUdlife/T&E Species
Natural Resource Specialist
BS Wildlife Biology
20 years of experience
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
23996/R4-WP.6 02/04/97(5:14pm)/RPT/8
6-3
-------
Alex VanHemert
Qualifications:
Responsibilities:
JimHarte
Qualifications
Responsibilities:
Darryl Trotter
Qualifications:
Responsibilities:
Outdoor Recreation Planner
BS Recreation Management
18 years of experience
Recreation/Visual
Hydrologist
BS Hydrology
15 years of experience
Hydrology/Soils
Environmental Specialist
BS/MS Botany
25 years of experience
T&E Vegetation
Bruce Louthan
Qualifications:
Responsibilities:
Tom Rasmussen
Qualifications:
Responsibilities:
BUI 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
23S9&TW-W.6
6-4
-------
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 on 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.
COLLUVIUM. 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.,
compaction of soil by livestock or vehicular activity. Soil compaction results from particles being
pressed together so that the volume of the soil is reduced. It is influenced by the physical properties
of the soil, moisture 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.
23996/R4-WP.7 02/06/97(10:58am)/RPT/8
7-1
-------
IT*5 10Cati°n °f PSSt hUman "M* occqprtoo, or use identifiable
v Iy> 1USt0riCal documentation. or oral evidence. The term includS
, historic, or architectural sites, structures, or places with important public
™~ T^t defiDite 10Cati0nS (sitCS OT P^) of traditional cU "
importance to specified social and/or cultural groups.
CULTURAL RESOURCES. A term that includes items of historical, archaeological or architectural
significance which are fragile, limited and non-renewable portions of the human environmS
RECREATION, SITE- A site ^eloped primarily to accommodate specific intensive use
" " CampiDg' PiCDiCking' b°ating' SWimminS> winter W etc
i* toaets» - other **- '^ "
DEWATERING. The act of removing water.
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).
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 Sm^L"
or other surface source. Its stream channel is at all times above the water table TheseTtrST
do not flow continuously during periods of as much as one month. mese streams
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^oil^displacement depends on the physical properties of the soil, rainfall intensity ancTsCe
FISCAL CONDITIONS. Fiscal conditions includes payments-in-lieu of taxes and property taxes.
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.
°f consolidated *»« unconsolidated subsurface
HEAP LEACH PAD. A lined area upon which ore is placed and leached with cyanide Leachate
srsi^tr*" -* - - -• - - ™ ~
"**
£?££?* «"— -
Z399S.TW-WP.7 02A»97(IO:SS«tfl/RPT/8
7-2
-------
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 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. For example, 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 whiter snowpack.
PERENNIAL STREAM. A stream or stretch of a stream that flows continuously. Streams are generally
fed in part by springs, and their upper surface generally stands lower than the water table in
localities through which they flow.
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 tune, 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 hi 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, 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.
23996/R4-WP.7 02/06/97(10:58am)/RPT/8
7-3
-------
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. *
REM. Amount of ionizing radiation required to produce the same biological effect as one rad of high-
penetration x-rays. ^
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 a body of water.
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 bv 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 cr
5MREATENED 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
TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS. The dry weight of dissolved material, organic and inorganic, contained in
*
"** * tKfflSmitted
a ^ width of
under a
2399«.'R4.WP.7 02A»97(10:58«m)/RPT/8
7-4
-------
TREATMENT (OR ARCHAEOLOGICAL PROPERTIES). The methods and principles used for dealing
with archaeological properties, under the authority of Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act, Executive Order 11593,and the regulations of the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation (36 CFR 800).
UNNECESSARY OR UNDUE DEGRADATION. Surface disturbance greater than what would normally
result when an activity is being accomplished by a prudent operator hi usual, customary, and
proficient operations of similar character and taking 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 living 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.
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.
23996/R4-WP.7 02/06/97(10-.58am)/RPT/8
7-5
-------
-------
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. 1996a. Lisbon Valley Project Hydrogeologic Investigation. Prepared for Summo
USA Corp. Moab, UT. (Revised) March 15.
_. I996b. Monitoring Well MW96-7 Field Report Prepared for Summo USA Corp. Moab, UT.
Report 1424A/961001. October 1.
. 1996c. Lisbon Valley Project Groundwater Flow Model Analysis Results. Prepared for Gochnour
and Associates, Englewood, CO. Report No. 961108/1424A. November 8.
1996d. Technical Memorandum from S. Wyman to P. Gochnour, regarding Evaluation of
Radionuclide Fate and Transport from Dust Suppression Using Natural Groundwater, Englewood,
CO. 18pp. September 23.
1997a. Fax from Adrian Brown Consultants to the Bureau of Land Management, Moab District,
regarding evaluation of total available water in the Burro Canyon and Entrada/Navajo aquifers.
January 27.
Air Sciences Inc., (Air Sciences). 1995.Memo from Z. Chao to J. Clark, WESTEC concerning baseline air
quality data. Englewood, CO. December 1.
. 1996a. Technical Support Document for the Notice of Intent Lisbon Valley Project. January.
.1996b. Lisbon Valley Project - Noise Impact Analysis. Letter to Mr. Pat Gochnour. Gochnour and
Associates, Englewood, CO. July 25.
. I996c. Fax to J. Clark, Westec. Re: Lisbon Valley Mine Plan. Revised Model. Englewood, CO.
October 24.
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. February 8.
Anonymous. 1995. The Spanish Trail Cut a Roundabout Path Through Utah. The History Blazer. June.
Ashcroft, G. L., Jensen T. J., and Brown J. L. 1992. Utah Climate. Utah Climate Center, Utah State
University, Logan, Utah, p. 127.
Averett, Richard. 1995. Superintendent of Schools, Grand County School District. School Enrollment
Inventory. October 1.
23996/R4-WP.8 02/04/97(5:23pm)/RPT/8
8-1
-------
Avery, Charles. 1986. USGS. Bedrock Aquifers of Eastern San Juan County, Utah. State of Utah
Department of Natural Resources. Technical Publication No. 86.
Baars, D.L.,Parker, J.W.,and Chronic, J. 1967.Revised stratigraphic nomenclature of Pennsylvanian system
Paradox Basin: The American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v.51,no. 3,p. 393-403.
10*
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.
Beaty, D. 1975. Stratigraphy in the Centennial Pit Area. Appendix 2. 5pp. from Summo USA Corp
internal files. '
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 by Sindor, Inc.
- .(date unk.c), Notice of Intention to Conduct Exploration, UTU-69944. Submitted by Sindor, Inc.
- . 1980. Visual Resource Management. Visual Resource Management Program.
- -1983a 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.
- . 1983b. Grand Resource Area - Proposed Resource Management Plan and Final Environmental
Impact Statement. December 6.
™ Resource A"* 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.
Significant rmpact' EA- UT-068-86-29for Kelmine Corp.
. 1986b. Visual Resource Contrast Rating. BLM Manual Handbook 8431-1.
. 1988a. National Environmental Policy Act Handbook. H-1790-1. BLM Manual. Rel. 4-1547.25
vJctoocr.
2399S/R4-WP.S 02/04/»7<5:23pnO/RnY8
8-2
-------
.1988b. 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. Solid Minerals Reclamation Handbook. BLM Manual Handbook H-3042-1. Washington,
" D.C.
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 A.F. 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.
_.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.
. 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.
. 1996e. Table provided by the Moab District Office on Feb. 12,1996.
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.
Cooper, J. 1995. Personal communication, W-C. Nevada Division of Environmental Protection.
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.
23996/R4-WP.8 02/04/97(S:23pm)/RPT/8
8-3
-------
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.
Curtis, Ken. 1996. Utah Department of Employment Security Services, Moab Office. Pers. com with D
Gaglione, W-C. January 24.
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. Contract No. 68-W9-0053.3 December.
.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.
Federal Transit Administration. 1995. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment.
Fenneman, NevinM. 1931. Physiography of the Western United States. McGraw-Hill, N.Y.
Frederickson, D. 1996. Utah Water Quality Division. Pers. com. with D. Nicholson, W-C. February 2.
GIancy,P.A.,and T.L.Katzer. 1975. Water-resources appraisal of the Carson River Basin Western Nevada
Reconnaissance Series Report 59. State of Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural
Resources, Division of Water Resources.
Gochnour & Associates, Inc. (Gochnour). 1995. Letter from P. Gochnour to L. Jackson, BLM providing
responses to identified BLM concerns. Moab, UT. September 19.
.1996a. Letter from P. Gochnour to C. Paulsen. W-C providing additional information on the Lisbon
Valley Project. January 5.
.1996b. Miscellaneous communications to W-C. January-November. Summo internal project files.
-; 19?c:Jtts-com' ^^ S- Me™tz, W-C. Engineering analysis figures showing waste dump heights
for Facility Layout Alternative. Nov. 11.
_. 1996d. Pers. com. with S. Mernitz, W-C. January 31.
Graham Carole L. 1995a. Cultural Resource Inventory of the SUMMO USA Corporation Lisbon Valley
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. withR. Mutaw, W-C. November 22.
02AM/J7(5:23pra)yRPT/S
8-4
-------
Hackman, R. J. 1956.Photogeologic Map of the Mount Peale-10 Quadrangle San Juan County, Utah. U.S.
Geological Survey, Miscellaneous Geologic Investigations Map 1-158.
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.
Heylmun, E.B.,Cohenbur, R.E., and Kayser, R.B. 1965. Drilling records for oil and gas in Utah, January
1,1954 to December 31,1963: Utah Geological and Mineralogical Survey Bulletin 74,518p. In:
W-C 1982.
Hite, R.J. 1960. Stratigraphy of the saline facies of the Paradox member of the Hermosa Formation of
southeastern Utah and southwestern Colorado, m Geology of the Paradox Basin Fold and Fault
Belt, 3rd Field Conference: Four Comers Geological Society, Colorado, p. 86-89. In: W-C 1982.
. 1978. A potential target for potash solution mining in cycle 18, Paradox member of the Hermosa
! Formation, San Juan County, Utah, and Dolores and Montezuma Counties, Colorado: U.S.
Geological Survey Open File Report OF-78-147,3 p. In: W-C 1982.
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.
Krauss, Raymond E. 1993. Pollution Prevention in Mining, in Proceedings of the International Conference
on Pollution Prevention in Mining and Mineral Processing, Colorado School of Mines, Golden, Colorado.
Kuntz, D.W..H.J. Armstrong, and F.J. Athearn (editors). 1989. Faults, 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.
Lebo, M.E.,et al. 1994. Pyramid Lake, Nevada water quality study 1989-1993: final report series for water
quality studies at Pyramid Lake Nevada in conjunction with Pyramid Lake fisheries and the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. Volume 1. University of California at Davis.
Lekas, M.A.,and Dahl, H.M. 1956. The geology and uranium deposits of the Lisbon Valley anticline, San
Juan County, Utah, in Geology and economic deposits of east central Utah: Intermountain
Association of Petroleum Geologists 7th Annual Field Conference, p. 161-168. In: W-C 1982.
23996/R4-WP.8 02/04/97(5:23pm)/RPT/8
8-5
-------
Lipton,J.,H. Galbraith, and K. LeJeune. 1993. Terrestrial Resources Injury Assessment Report. Upper
Clark Fork River Basin. RCG/Hagler, Bailly, Inc. September.
LMI Research. 1995. Labor Market Information, Second Quarter.
Louthan, Bruce, BLM Archaeologist. 1995. Pers. com. with R. Mutaw, W-C. November 22.
Louthan, Bruce, BLM Archaeologist. 1996a. Pers. com. with R. Mutaw, W-C. January 24.
Louthan, Bruce, BLM Archaeologist. 1996b. 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.
• 1996. Results of Synthetic Precipitation Leaching Procedure for Mr. R. Prescott, Summo, USA.
February 14.
McClure, Rich. 1996a. Natural Resource Specialist, Bureau of Land Management. Moab, Utah. Comments
on Summo PDEIS. February 1996 version. March.
McClure, Rich. 1996b. Natural Resource Specialist, Bureau of Land Management. Moab, Utah. Pers. com.
with C. Paulsen, W-C. February 9.
Meiiji Resource Consultants. 1980. Visual Resource Inventory and Analysis of South Central Utah
Regional Area. Prepared for U.S. Dept. of Interior 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. April 3.
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. withD. Gaglione, W-C January
17. *
Moten, L. 1996. Utah Division of Radiation Control. Pers. com. with D. Nicholson, W-C. January 31.
Mullen, G. 1994. Montana Department of Health and Environmental Services (DHES). Pers com with
C. Paulsen, W-C. November 18.
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. '
2M9S.
-------
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, dial. 1996. Pers. com. with R. Mutaw, W-C. April 4.
Nohavec, Bob. Veteran's Administration Venom Research Team. 1995. Personal communication with R.
Black, W-C, December 5.
O'Neil, Brian, Independent Arch. Contractor, Grand Junction. 1996. Pers. com. with R. Mutaw, W-C.
January 27.
l
Overcash, M.R. and D. Pal, 1979. Design of Land Treatment Systems for Industrial Waste - Theory and
Practice. Ann Arbor Science Publishers, Inc. Ann Arbor, MI.
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 Comers Geological Society Guidebook. 10th Field Conference, Cataract
Canyon.
. I987b. Summary of Hydrogeologic Data and Preliminary Potentiometric Maps in the Vicinity of
Davis and Lavender Canyons. Paradox Basin, Utah. In Four Comers Geological Society Guidebook.
10th Field Conference, Cataract Canyon.
Parsons Behle & Latimer. 1996. Letter from Lee Kapaloski to Mark Page, Regional Engineer, Division
of Water Rights, Price, Utah. Letter regarding application no. 05-2593 filed by Summo USA Corp
about the quantity of water proposed for withdrawal. 2pp. September 5.
Pendias, Alina Kabata and Henryk Pendias. 1992. Trace Elements hi Soils and Plants. 2nd Edition. CRC
Press, Inc. Boca Raton, Florida. 365 pp.
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.
2399S/R4-WP.8 02/04/97(5:23pm)/RPT/8
8-7
-------
Rosgen, D.,and H. L. SUvey. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology, 1481 Stevens Lake
Road, Pagosa Springs, Colorado, p 362.
San Juan County Economic Development Plan. 1993. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.
San Juan County Local Emergency Planning Committee. 1996. Hazardous Material Commodity Flow
Study. January.
Schafer, Trent. 1996. Manager, City of Monticello. Pers. com. with D. Gaglione, W-C. January 17.
Scherick, Ed. 1996. San Juan County Commission. Pers. com. with C. Paulsen, W-C. October 2.
Seibert, L., U.S. Bureau of Land Management. 1996. Personal Communication with K. Baud, W-C.
Seller, R.L., G.A. Ekechukwu, and R.J. Hallock. 1993. Reconnaissance investigation of water quality,
bottom sediment, and biota associated with irrigation drainage hi and near Humboldt Wildlife
Management Area, 1990-91. U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 93-
. Slade, Darrell. 1996. Firefighter, City of Monticello Fire Department. Pers. com. with D. Gaglione W-C
January 17. '
Smith, Troy C. 1996. Steep Slope Reclamation At Golden Sunlight Mines, Inc., in Planning, Rehabilitation
and Treatment of Disturbed Lands, Seventh Billings Symposium March 17 - March 23,1996,p. 239-
246.
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). 19%. 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.
Spangler, Larry. 1996. USGS. Pers. com. with D. Nicholson, W-C. Feb. 2.
Squire, Doug. 1996. Grand County Sheriffs Department. Pers. com. with D. Gaglione, W-C. January 17.
Stokes, W. 1996a. School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration represen-tative. Pers. com. with K.
Baud, W-C, regarding state land management plans. February 14.
.1996b. 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 for the Lisbon Valley Project
Prepared for the U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Moab District Grand
Resource Area. August 8. '
G2/06OT(U:34»nO/RFT/8
8-8
-------
.1995b. Letter from R. Prescott to L.Jackson, BLM providing responses to identified BLM concerns.
Moab, UT. September 26.
.1996. Identified list of permits which may be required at the Lisbon Valley Project. Pers. com. from
P. Gochnour to C. Paulsen, W-C. January 8.
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.
. I996b. Letter from J.P. Thorson to P. Gochnour (Gochnour & Associates, Inc.) providing an
estimate of volume and tonnage of coaly waste material. January 10.
. 1996c. 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.
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, SCS). 1991. Soil Survey of Canyonlands
Area, Utah, Parts of Grand and San Juan Counties. January.
U. S 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). 1993. Colorado River Endangered Fishes Critical Habitat, Draft
Biological Support Document. Complied by H.R. Maddux, L.A. Fitzpatrick, and W.R. Noonan.
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). 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 Department of Transportation (UDOT). 1995.Unpublished traffic and accident data for the years 1983
through 1994. December.
23996/R4-WP.8 02/04/97(5:23pra)/RPT/8
8-9
-------
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.
von Koch, Mary. 19%. Bureau of Land Management, Moab, UT. Fax to C. Paulsen, W-C, regarding land
authorizations in Lisbon Valley. February 12.
Walker, Rita. 1996. City of Monticello. Pers. com. with D. Gaglione, W-C. January 24.
Webb, J.D. and Associates, Inc. 1996b. Letter to Gochnour and Associates re: Lisbon Valley Waste Rock
Dump Stability. 25 October.
Weir, Gordon W., and Puffett, Willard, P. 1960. Preliminary geologic map of the Mount Peale 4 SE
quadrangle, San Juan County, Utah and San Miguel County, Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey
Mineral Investigations Field Studies Map MF-149, scale 1:24,000. In: W-C 1982.
. 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.
Weir, G.W., Puffett, W.P.,and Dodson. C.L. 1961. Preliminary geologic map of the Mount Peale 4 NW
quadrangle, San Juan County, Utah: U.S. Geological Survey Mineral Investigations Field Studies
Map MF-151, scale 1:24,000. In: W-C 1982.
Welsh, J.D. and Associates (Welsh), in association with Shepherd Miller Inc. and Hydro Triad Ltd. 1996a.
Lisbon Valley Project Heap Leach Facility Design Report. Prepared for Summo USA Corporation.
February. Revised June 1996.
• 1996b. Letter to P. Gochnour regarding Lisbon Valley waste rock dump stability. Sparks, NV.
1 pp. October 25.
West, N.E. 1988. Intermountain Deserts. Shrub Steppes, and Woodlands. In: North American Terrestrial
Vegetation. Cambridge University Press.
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). 1996a. 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.
.1996b.Biological Resource Report, Lisbon Valley Copper Project. Prepared for BLM. Moab, Utah.
May.
• 1996c. Analytical Results for Groundwater Sampling Conducted During First Quarter, 1996.
Lisbon Valley Copper Project. San Juan County, Utah. Prepared for Summo USA Corporation.
May 30.
2399&>R4-WP.S 02AM/97<5:23pm)/RPT/8
8-10
-------
1996d Analytical Results for Groundwater Sampling Conducted During Second Quarter, 1996.
' Lisbon Valley Copper Project. San Juan County, Utah. Prepared for Summo USA Corporation.
August 26.
1995a. Hydrologic Environmental Baseline Evaluation, Lisbon Valley Copper Project, San Juan
County, Utah. Prepared for Summo USA Corporation. February.
1995b 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.
' i995e. 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.
. 1994a. Baseline Soils Report Lisbon Valley Copper Project, Lisbon Valley Utah. Prepared for St.
Mary Minerals, Inc. August.
1994b. Flora and Fauna Baseline Data for Lisbon Valley, Utah. Prepared for St. Mary Minerals,
Inc., Denver, Colorado. W-C. June.
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.
Wright J C Shawe, D.R.,and Lohman, S.W. 1962. Definition of members of Jurassic Entrada sandstone
' in east-central Utah and west-central Colorado: American Association of Petroleum Geologists
Bulletin, v. 46, no. 11, p. 2057-2070. In: W-C 1982.
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.
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. withD. Gaglione, W-C. January
17. .
23996/R4-WP.8 02/04/97(5:23pm)/RPT/8
8-11
-------
-------
APPENDIX A
MITIGATION AND MONITORING PLAN
23996/R4.TS ll/l!/9«{2:08PMyRPT/6
-------
I III 11 ( 111
. it' V i'l'l'11!!' ,',*!'
"• » , , .HE iilS '
II Hill
111 III ll
II ll
III 1 111
-------
Siimmo USA Corporation
Mitigation & Monitoring
Compliance with proposed activities, regulations and permit conditions at the Lisbon Valley
Project will be the responsibility of Summo USA Corporation (Summo). Compliance with
requirements ensures uninterrupted operations, as we! as maintaining the support of the agencies and
the public This document presents a general discussion of environmental mitigation and monitoring
programs established or conceptually proposed for the project. While it presents proposed details
for the planned monitoring programs, it should be understood that final monitoring programs will be
developed in coordination with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and other applicable state
agencies. Tliis wfll involve certain refinements necessary to measure potential impacts of the selected
final Alternative. Hie final monitoring program wfll involve presentation of ongoing data collection
activities by Summo according to a schedule determined through negotiations with the BLM and
other involved agencies. .
The primary purpose of these programs wfll be to determine if potential environmental
changes result from implementation of the project, and to evaluate the effectiveness of mitigating
measures prescribed in this document, the Plan of Operations and other issued permits. The results
of monitoring programs wfll be reviewed by the regulatory and management agencies on a periodic
basis If environmental changes occur as a result of the mining operations, and are judged to be
significant and adverse, appropriate remedial measures wfll be implemented to reduce or eliminate
project related effects. Details of mitigation measures associated with unforeseen project related
effects will be negotiated between Summo and the appropriate agencies.
ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING
Summo proposes environmental monitoring for the following disciplines:
- Surface Water
- Groundwater
- Geochemical (waste rock)
- Wildlife
- Meteorological
- Process Facilities (Pads & Ponds)
- Reclamation
-------
Conceptual details of the proposed mitigation and monitoring programs to be conducted
during construction and operations are outlined in the following text.
SURFACE WATER
There are no perennial streams located within the Lisbon Valley Project boundaries. Surface
water appears infrequently as the result of extreme storm events as stormwater run-off.
Mitigation - In order to minimize the effects of stormwater run-off in the project area, Summo has
proposed numerous mitigation measures. The first and foremost activity is the proposed collection,
stockpiling and interim reclamation (temporary seeding) of growth, medium from proposed areas of
disturbance. Summo will attempt various alternatives of stabilizing revegetated surfaces. These
alternatives win include variation of slopes, utilization of different mulches, utilization of different
revegetation seed mixtures and rates of application, etc. Down gradient from proposed stockpile
areas, Summo will construct erosion control structures (e.g., sih fences, straw bales, and
sedimentation basins) to collect and settle out sediment. Diversion systems win be constructed to
route stormwater run-on around disturbed areas. la addition, Summo has designed containment
structures for chemicals, fuel, and process solution that are either lined, isolated or bermed to keep
from adversely affecting surface water drainage. Finally, disturbance areas will be kept to the
minimum needed to safely carry out the proposed mine plan.
Monitoring - While there are no flowing streams on the property, Summo will negotiate with the
State of Utah to determine the location of stormwater compliance monitoring points and the
parameters to be monitored. The most likely points of monitoring surface stormwater run-off would
be at the kst sediment retention structure which routes water down Lisbon Canyon and the last
structure on the southeast portion of the property (Lower Lisbon Valley). As an initial parameter Kst,
Summo proposes to monitor the same surface water quality parameters as were developed for
baseline establishment. In addition, the Utah Department of Environmental Quality has requested that
we include four additional parameters to our list. The recommended additional parameters include
thorium, uranium, radium-226, and radhim-228. The parameter fist for surface water will be the same
as the one provided for the groundwater monitoring plan in Attachment 1. The frequency of
monitoring will be dependant upon storm events. Summo's annual report will include a summary
of surface water quality at the project.
GROUNDWATER
Groundwater in the Lisbon Valley project area is generally of poor quality. Availability of
groundwater is difficult to predict due to faulting. Summo is proposing to utilize water from the
Burro Canyon Formation and the Navaho Formation for process water supply and dust suppression
activities.
Mitigation - Even though the water is characterized as being of poor quality, Summo is proposing
-------
that the mine operation and process facilities be designed, constructed and operated as a zero
discharge facility. Mitigation of groundwater quantity impacts include the use of drip irrigation
emiter system which will minimize evaporation loss ©a top of the leach pad, the proposal to use
drought tolerant revegetation species, and the investigation/testing of various mulches during interim
and final reclamation so that water moisture in soil stockpiles is retained for revegetation purposes.
Mitigation of groundwater quality impacts include the utilization of multiple liners with leak
detection and collection incorporfted ia the design. la addition, ponds are designed to contain
solution and stormwater from extreme events without release to the environment.
Groundwater, regardless of its quality, is considered a valuable resource that should not be
wasted. Summo will monitor volumes of water utilized (meter) to insure that they only utilize what
they are allowed by kw. In addition, fees wfll be required from the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service to
mitigate potential impacts of withdrawals of water that may eventually make it to the Colorado River
System.
Monitoring - Summo will be required to monitor groundwater immediately down gradient from the
process facilities on a quarterly basis throughout the life of the operation. Hie proposed monitoring
plan for the project is provided in Attachment 1 of this plan. Summo wffl also be required to regularly
inspect leak detection systems to insure that solution is contained in the secondary system and
pumped out to insure that solution does not escape into the environment. In addition, a monitoring
well in the Navaho Formation win be established to confirm compliance. Parameters to be measured
are depicted in Attachment 1. The location of proposed monitoring sites are also depicted in
Attachment 1. Sampling frequency will be on a calender quarterly basis. Results will be submitted
to the UDEQ. An annual summary report will be prepared and submitted to the BLM and UDEQ.
Results of annual reports win be used to determine whether sites and parameters should be added or
deleted.
GEOCHEMICAL (WASTE ROCK TESTING & MITIGATION)
The majority of the ore and waste rock at the Lisbon Valley Project has been characterized
as being net neutralizing. However, a small portion of the waste rock from each pit (14.79% -
Sentinel, 8% - Centennial, & 7.1% - GTO) has the potential to generate acid. The remaining material
has been tested and characterized as neutraHzmg. The material that has the potential to generate acid
is contained in beds 6, 7, 8 .and parts of beds 9 and 10. These beds represent distinct (visually)
sections of the stratigraphy from each ph. Summo proposes to isolate this material wkhin each of
the waste dumps. The current mine waste dump schedule is presented in Attachment 2 of this plan.
Mitigation - The waste rock/overburden that is initially removed from each pit area has been tested
and characterized as being net neutralizing. As this material will be the first material laid down in the
waste dump storage areas, it will serve as a neutralizing layer of material Neutralizing material will
be end dumped in 40 - to 50 - foot lifts. As the coal like material is encountered, it will be dumped
within the center of each dump. This material will be compacted in place utilizing haul trucks and/or
dozers. As neutralizing waste rock material is encountered, it will be placed (dumped) around and
-------
over the top of the individual isolated areas.
Summo will not place potentially acid generating material within 50 feet from the outer
planned edges of planned waste dumps. In addition, maps and records of the volume of material that
is isolated win be recorded and made available for review by the BLM.
Reclamation activities planned for the waste dump areas call for the construction of the dumps
in approx. 50 - foot lifts, with an overall slope of 2.5:1. The overall reclaimed slope angle of 2.5:1
was chosen because it is the steepest angle for safe operation of equipment for grading and planting.
Slopes of 3:1 were considered. However, these shallower slopes would allow longer time for
infiltration.
Following dump regrading, topsoil/growth medium will be applied. The area will then be
seeded with the species mix approved by the BLM and the Division of CHI, Gas and Mining. It should
be noted that the topsofl material tested at the she is also neutral and has buffering capability. Once
revegetation is established, it will serve as a significant use of precipitation that fells directly on the
area. It should also be pointed out that the area is very arid and the majority of predpitation will
evaporate.
None of the dumps proposed are located in valley fills where run-on could infiltrate into the
piles. Diversion structures are planned to route stormwater around each facility.
MowtQripg - Summo has developed a waste rock sampling plan to confirm testing results (baseline
conditions). This plan incorporates testing of the coal material throughout the life of the project. This
sampling plan is presented in Attachment 2 of this proposed mitigation and monitoring plan.
WILDLIFE
Wildlife populations and diversity within the project area are fimited, due to the relative lack
of forage and surface water. Because of the lack of food and water supply, wildlife that occur in the
project area are, for the most part, migratory in nature. In other words, they pass through the area
on their way to other areas.
Mitigation - Even though populations are limited, Summo proposes to mitigate against potential
adverse effects. Mitigation measures proposed include:
- The fencing (3 Strand) of the accessible perimeter of the project to minimize
wfldlife/equipment conflicts.
- The construction of game fencing (~ 8 ft) around the process area to eliminate wildlife
contact with process solution ponds.
- The construction of sediment/erosion control ponds, which will also serve as potential
drinking water sources.
- The utilization of reclamation species that are palatable to wildlife, which will provide forage
opportunities once mining operations have ceased.
- The construction of raptor proof devices on the powerline to minimize hazards to raptors.
-------
Monitoring - While adverse effects are not anticipated, Summo will observe wildlife activities in the
project area. Increases in population, and increases in observation and contact with the operation will
be reported to the BLM. Mortalities caused by the operation are aot anticipated. However, if this
does occur, it will be reported to the BLM and appropriate mitigation measures win be developed.
State wildlife officials will be included in any coordination and discussions.
METEOROLOGICAL
Meteorological baseline conditions for the project were assembled from other nearby sources.
During operations, Summo will install and conduct their own meteorological monitoring activities
to document site specific conditions. Information gathered wffl be used to assess/project water
management activities at the site. The monitoring activities proposed include: wind speed, wind
direction, temperature, relative humidity, precipitation and evaporation. A copy of the meteorological
monitoring plan is provided in Attachment 3 of this plan.
The information gathered wffl be utilized to confirm design and operating parameters for the
Lisbon Vafley Project. If necessary, changes to the operation will be developed and submitted to the
BLM for review and consideration.
PROCESS FACILITIES
The process facilities are designed to contain all process solutions and extreme stormwater
events during the wet times of the year. The leach pad is designed to ultimately contain up to 45
million tons of ore.
Mitigation - Mitigation and contingency are included in the overall design of the facilities. Multiple
layers of synthetic liners are proposed in pond areas that wffl come in contact with process solution.
Should storm events exceed the capacity of process ponds, then stormwater diluted solution will drain
through lined ditches to the stormwater pond.
Chemical storage areas wil be benned and if necessary fined to contain material if it is spilled
or leaks from their primary containment. Proper training in chemical handling and emergency
response and mitigation will be practiced.
Proper disposal of hazardous wastes (transport to permitted facility) will mitigate adverse
effects on the environment.
Monitoring - The regular monitoring of leak detection, collection and recovery galleries will provide
early warning and mitigation options that would prevent release into the environment. Monitoring
of surface water (when k occurs) and groundwater will confirm compliance and alert management
and agencies of potential discrepancies or problems. Meteorological monitoring will act as a
management tool for water balance at the project.
-------
RECLAMATION
Reclamation of the facilities at the Lisbon Valley Project can be placed in eight categories.
These mchxde: l)testing, 2)neutralization, 3)stracture dismantle and demolition, 4)grading,
5)retopsoffing, 6)revegetation, 7)maintenance and 8)safety.
The majority of the above listed activities wffl occur or be completed at the end of mining and
win be considered final reclamation. Final reclamation wffl be implemented upon the completion of
naming activities in the GTO orebody and the conclusion of leaching activities at the leach pad.
T
-------
constructed on the side slopes to assist in the retention of soil moisture. These facilities (micro
climates) will be relatively small (no deeper than 2 feet) so that excessive water is not held on the
surface, which could create infiltration concerns.
Revegetation - Revegetation of the seed mixture proposed in Summo's Plan of Operations and Notice
of Intent wffl be done by hand broadcasting and drill seeding methods as quickly as possible following
completion of ground preparation activities (grading, topsoflmg, fertilization?, etc.). Rates and
mixtures are subject to change based upon the results of test plots and availability of seed. Summo
will obtain concurrence should species mixtures and rates of application change as a result of test
plots.
Maintenance - Regular inspections and monitoring of reclamation activities will be performed by
Summo personnel Areas requiring erosion control, spot re-seeding, additional mulching, etc. will
be assessed and mitigated. If maintenance practices are not working, Summo will initiate additional
test plots to determine the best option(s) available. Assistance may be requested through agencies,
universities and associations to come up with other options and alternatives.
Safety - Summo is proposing a final reclaimed land use of wildlife habitat and future mineral
development in the pit areas. This combined land use will be accomplished by grading and
revegetation of the haul routes into the pit and leaving the pits open for further development.
In order to maintain pit safety during and following mining, Summo proposes to install berms
around the outer edge of the pits. This wifl be done by dozing back material/overburden
approximately 10 to 15 feet from the outer edge of the pit. This material will be bermed a minimum
of 5 feet in height to eliminate the possibility of vehicles driving into the pit areas. The safety berm
will be revegetated to blend in with the natural vegetation of the surrounding undisturbed area.
On the outer side of the berm, a three-strand fence will be installed. Danger and hazard signs
will be installed along the perimeter to warn and alert the general public.
-------
-------
Attachment 1
Gronndwater Sampling and Analysis Plan
-------
'-'i ' *: ..... !;
•i:1 .'.'; ..... |; ;< •:t>v,i
;;,,;, ii,,,;i / !iiiiiiiiif, iiiii .iii.;11!!. ;; \ "f i i.;,. ::, ,i i'lSf .*».,.. ,;!! 1^,1!M'
ill (III* 'itillilii'''!;!'!: „> ' !'"'i Liillii'-i!, [ill
i"'""!!: ''Hn" '' "
1 I (1
i ill ii sii'iai, ',,!«i'i:,;!"1"1; :t!'iiin ""I, ii' iiiiii," i' l,
''lllll'' ',,"', „! Hill,!! '",;'"„ ;, ,,l: ,r ill' ! 'Bill!'! , :, il'IBT,! nllllllll'!1:,','!!!!'''!,
c ^ ^
111| 311 n' 1 Illia ' '"til i' I""1; Hill i| i ii;|i!||||||||||B 'i it ' - fii!; „,!„ i'i,! "I'TI 'f I SIS!! ""I ,
il S *,;'!' i.
1 .'I i i" i i i
liin!raii!'|i' ;!"!„: I1 "l! ' ,|! li,>i;" -, i,'HIH1: 1' Ml?1 II,,: • TI'1:,,, i..^!''
-------
GROUNDWATER
SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS
PLAN
Prepared for:
Summo USA Corporation
P.O. Box 847
Moab,Utah 84532
Prepared by:
Adrian Brown Consultants, Inc.
155 South Madison Street, Suite 230
Denver, Colorado 80209-3013
(303)-399-9630
October 22,1996
Report 1424A/961022
SUMMO USA Corporation
-------
-------
Sampling and Analysis Plan
Pagei
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION , 1
1.1 Purpose and Scope 1
1.2 Site Hydrogeology 1
1.3 Monitoring Wells 2
2. GROUNDWATER MONITORING PROGRAM 3
2.1 Sampling Frequency 3
2.1.1 Water Level Monitoring .'. 3
2.1.2 Groundwater Quality Sampling 3
2.2 Analytical Suite 4
2.3 Equipment Decontamination 7
2.4 Groundwater Sampling Methods 7
3. CALIBRATION PROCEDURES AND FREQUENCY 7
3.1 Field Instrumentation 7
3.2 Laboratory Instrumentation 8
3.2.1 Inductively Coupled Plasma Emission Spectrometer (ICP) 8
3.2.2 Atomic Adsorption Spectrometer (AAS) 8
3.2.3 Ion Chromatography (1C) 8
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Existing and Proposed Monitoring Wells at the Lisbon Valley Copper Project
Table 2. Proposed Sampling Frequency for Monitoring Wells at the Lisbon Valley Copper
Project
Table 3. Comprehensive Analytical Suite and Laboratory Methods for Groundwater Samples
LISBON VALLEY COPPER PROJECT
1424A/961026
-------
Sampling and Analysis Plan
Pageii
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1. Standard Operating Procedure for Water Level Measurement
Attachment 2. Standard Operating Procedure for Groundwater Sampling
Attachment 3. Standard Operating Procedure for Equipment Decontamination
LISBON VALLEY COPPER PROJECT
1424A/961026
-------
Sampling and Analysis Plan
Pagel
1. INTRODUCTION
Summo USA Corporation (Summo) proposes to conduct open-pit mining and heap-leach copper
operations hi the Lower Lisbon Valley, Utah, approximately 45 miles southeast of Moab in San
Juan County. Summo intends to monitor groundwater during operations for the purpose of
identifying any environmental impacts which might occur and further characterizing the
hydrologic system.
1.1 Purpose and Scope
This Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP) describes in detail the procedures for the collecting and
handling groundwater samples, as well as the procedures for ensuring that precision, accuracy,
representativeness, comparability, and completeness of all of the field and laboratory data are
documented. Specifically, this SAP describes:
® Monitoring wells and sampling frequency
* Field sampling methods, including sample collection, equipment decontamination, and
sample handling and shipping
• Documentation requirements
« Analytical suite, including laboratory method and detection limits for each analyte
» Quality Assurance and Quality Control (QA/QC) procedures.
This SAP is intended to serve as a guide to field personnel and laboratory subcontractors for
sampling, laboratory, and QA/QC activities during the operating phase of this project. These
standards will become an enforceable appendix of the Ground Water Discharge Permit for the
Summo USA Lisbon Valley Project.
1.2 Site Hydrogeology
The hydrologic system has been described hi the Section C-l-3 of the Ground Water Discharge
Permit Application and in the Hydrogeolgic System Evaluation (ABC, 1996). Additional data
can be found in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (BLM, 1996) and the Lisbon Valley
Baseline Hydrologic Evaluation
-------
Sampling and Analysis Plan
Page:
groundwater flow. The aquifer is unsaturated in portions of the valley, and in the
surrounding area.
• An approximately 250-foot thick zone of moderate hydraulic conductivity sedimentary rocks
which include the basal Entrada Formation and the Navajo Formation. The Navajo/Entrada
is separated from the Burro Canyon water-bearing zone by approximately 500 feet of
confining and semi-confining units, including the Morrison Formation. At well MW96-7,
approximately 100 feet of the upper Entrada Formation are unsaturated (810-906 feet bgs),
and the depth to water in the deep aquifer is 906 feet below ground surface.
13 Monitoring Wells
A total of nine wells are currently available for sampling. Seven of these wells have been
sampled quarterly since installation and two additional wells were installed and sampled in
September 1996. An additional well will be installed near the proposed heap leach facility.
These new wells will be placed on an accelerated monthly sampling schedule, as defined by the
Utah Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). The existing and proposed wells are
summarized below:
Table 1. Existing and Proposed Monitoring Wells at the Lisbon Valley Copper Project
MONITORING POINT
MW-2A
94MW2
94MW4
94MW6
MW96-7A
MW96-7B
MW97-8 (proposed)
SLV-1A
SLV-2
SLV-3
GEOLOGIC UNIT
Burro Canyon Fm.
Burro Canyon Fm.
Honaker Trail Fm.
Mancos Shale
Burro Canyon Fm.
Navajo/Entrada Fm.
Cutler Fm.
Burro Canyon Fm.
Alluvium/Fill
Burro Canyon Fm.
The well list will be reviewed on an annual basis to determine which wells should be included or
excluded from the sampling program. These evaluations will be made based on well integrity,
proximity to mine operations, proximity to other wells (to avoid unnecessary duplication), water
level (some wells may go dry), water quality results, and geologic unit screened. In addition,
wells which are installed for water supply and mine dewatering purposes may be sampled
LISBON VALLEY COPPER PROJECT
1424A/961026
-------
Sampling and Analysis Plan
PageS
periodically. Section 2.1.2 lists which of the wells which will be sampled during the first year of
operations.
2. GROUTTOWATER MONITORING PROGRAM
Groundwater samples will be collected and submitted for analysis from the monitoring wells
listed in Table 2. (subject to annual review). The sampling frequency, sampling method, and
analytical suite are described below.
2.1 Sampling Frequency
2.1.1 Water Level Monitoring
Water level elevations will be measured monthly during operations, in all available monitoring
wells. Water level measurements will be conducted in accordance with the procedures given in
Attachment 1.
2.7.2 Groundwater Quality Sampling
The list of wells to be sampled will be reviewed on an annual basis, as described in Section 1.3.
In general, the sampling approach can be divided into a three periods: pre-mining, operation
period, and post-mining. The sampling frequency for each of these periods is discussed below:
Pre-mining Period. Wells have been sampled quarterly since 1994 to establish pre-mining
baseline conditions, with the exception of MW96-7 which was installed in September 1996 and
MW97-8 (proposed). The pre-mining (baseline) sampling was conducted using the
Comprehensive Analytical Suite. However, the earliest samples were not analyzed for radium
and thorium. Radium and thorium were added to the Comprehensive Suite beginning in the
Summer, 1996 sampling round.
Quarterly sampling will continue throughout the pre-mining period. The new wells MW96-7B
and MW97-8 will be sampled on an accelerated schedule (monthly for eight months) as specified
by DEQ.
Operational Period. During operations, wells will be monitored according to the frequency given
in Table 2. Most wells will be sampled quarterly during operations, using the analytical suite
described in Section 2.2. The well sampling list will be reviewed on an annual basis, to
determine which wells are should be included or excluded from the sampling program.
Post-mining Period. The list of wells and the frequency of groundwater sampling during the
post-mining period will be developed prior to the end of mining operations, and will be based on
data collected during operations. At that tune, additional wells may be available for sampling,
and additional information about the hydrogeoiogic system can be factored in to the post-
operation sampling plan. Monitoring will likely take place annually after mining for a period of
time to be determined by Summo and DEQ. If no degradation of water quality is evident during
the monitoring period, the monitoring frequency should be decreased and wells should be
sampled for a limited suite of analytes only, until a finding of "no impact" is established.
9-15
LISBON VALLEY COPPER PROJECT
1424A7961026
-------
Sampling and Analysis Plan
Page 4
Table 2. Proposed Sampling Frequency for Monitoring Wells at the Lisbon Valley Copper
Project "^
MONITORING
POINT
MW-2A
94MW2
94MW4
MW96-7B
MW97-8 (proposed)
SLV-1A
SLV-2
SLV-3
UNIT
Burro Canyon Fm.
Burro Canyon Fm.
Honaker Trail Fm.
Navajo/Entrada Fm.
Cutler Fm.
Burro Canyon Fm.
Alluvium/Fill
Burro Canyon Fm.
OPERATIONAL PERIOD
SAMPLE FREQUENCY
QUARTERLY
QUARTERLY
QUARTERLY
QUARTERLY1
QUARTERLY1
QUARTERLY
QUARTERLY
QUARTERLY
specified by DEQ).
2.2 Analytical Suite
e accelerated sampling schedule (monthly sampling for eight months, as
The list of parameters to be analyzed in groundwater has been developed over the course of two
years. Summo, the BLM subcontractor Woodward-Clyde Consultants, and the Utah DEQ have
collectively identified a Comprehensive Analytical Suite for groundwater monitoring at the
Lisbon Valley Copper Project. This Comprehensive Suite, and the associated laboratory method
for each parameter, is summarized hi Table 3. In summary, the Comprehensive Suite includes
the following parameters:
Major ions:
Dissolved Metals:
Radionuclides:
Other Parameters:
Ca, Mg, Na, K, HCO3-, SO4'2, PO3-2, Cl', F
Al, Sb, As, Ba, Be, Cd, Cr, Cu, Fe, Pb, Mn, Hg, Mo, Ni, Se, Si, Ag, TL U
(total), V, Zn
Ra226, Ra228, Th230, Th232, gross alpha, gross beta
temperature, pH, conductivity, TDS, TSS, total alkalinity, dissolved
alkalinity, hardness, nitrate, nitrite, ammonia
Analytes which are consistently below detection limits will be evaluated and possibly omitted
from quarterly sampling. A limited analytical suite will be developed on a well-specific basis.
Analytes which are not detected will be excluded from the interim quarterly sampling, on a well-
specific basis. Wells will be sampled for the Comprehensive Analytical Suite once each year,
and the Interim/ Limited Suite will be adjusted based on a review of those results. Elements such
as uranium, copper, and nickel which occur hi the orebody will not be eliminated from sampling
LISBON VALLEY COPPER PROJECT
1424A/961026
-------
Sampling and Analysis Plan
PageS
Table 3. Comprehensive Analytical Suite and Laboratory Methods for Groundwater Samples
Parameter
Dissolved Aluminum
Dissolved Antimony
Dissolved Arsenic
Dissolved Barium
Dissolved Berylium
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 NO3-N
Nitrate as NO3-N
Units
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
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
SM 4500
EPA 353.1
EPA 354.1
Utah Primary
Drinking
Standards
0.006
0.05
2
0.004
0.005
-
0.1
0.015
0.002
0.1
0.05
0.002
10
s
Secondary
Dr. Water
Standards
0.5-0.2
1
0.3
0.05
0.1
5
LISBON VALLEY COPPER PROJECT
1424A/961026
-------
Sampling and Analysis Plan
Page 6
N03-N + NO2-N
Chloride
Fluoride
Sulfate
pH
Conductivity
Hardness as CaCOS
TSS
IDS
Alkalinity as CaCOS, diss.
Alkalinity as CaCOS, tot
Thorium-230
Thorium-232
Uranium (total)
Radium-226
Radium-228
Gross Alpha
Gross Beta
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
units
umhos/cm
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
pCi/L
pCi/L
mg/L
pCi/L
pCi/L
pCi/L
pCi/L
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
EPA 904
EPA 904
EPA 908.1
EPA 903
EPA 904
EPA 900.0
EPA 900.0
10
4
1000
2000
'
15pCi/L">
8 pCi/L <2>
250
2
6.50-8.5
(1) Excludes activity due to uranium
(2) Standard of 4 mrem/yr converted to 8 pCi/L assuming all activity due to Sr50.
LISBON VALLEY COPPER PROJECT
1424A/961026
-------
Sampling and Analysis Plan
Page?
2.3 Equipment Decontamination
Clean, decontaminated equipment will be used for all sampling activities. Where possible,
disposable sampling and personal protective equipment will be used. When non-expendable
equipment is used, decontamination will be performed in accordance with the procedures given in
Attachment 3, Standard Operating Procedure for Equipment Decontamination.
2.4 Groundwater Sampling Methods
Groundwater sampling will be performed in accordance with the standard operating procedures
(SOPs) developed for the site, as described in Attachment 2. The SOP for groundwater sampling
includes detailed instructions on the following topics:
« Equipment required
« Instrument calibration
® Well purging
® Sample collection
® Sample filtration
» Field QA/QC procedures
3. CALIBRATION PROCEDURES AND FREQUENCY
All instruments and equipment used during sampling and analysis will be operated, calibrated,
and maintained according to the manufacture's guidelines and recommendations and standard
operating procedures (SOPs), as well as criteria set forth in the applicable analytical
methodology references. Calibration, operation, and maintenance will be performed by
personnel properly trained in these procedures. Documentation of all routine and special
maintenance and calibration will be maintained in an appropriate field log book, and will be
available upon request. A brief description of the field equipment is provided below followed by
a brief description of laboratory instrument calibration.
3.1 Field Instrumentation
Field instrumentation will be calibrated on site at the beginning of each sampling day, or at any
time that instrument readings are questionable. Calibration of the pH, conductivity, and
temperature meters will be performed as outlined in Attachment 2, Standard Operating Procedure
for Groundwater Sampling.
9-
LISBON VALLEY COPPER PROJECT
1424A/961026
-------
Sampling and Analysis Plan
3.2 Laboratory Instrumentation
A discussion of laboratory instrument calibration is included here for
mess.
3.2.7 Inductively Coupled Plasma Emission Spectrometer (ICP)
P16 IC!1S ^^^ <"*• I"11* at least one standard and a blank. The standard is within the
demonstrated linear range of the instrument. Tie linear range is verified quarter^ T^e
calibratton is verified initially using an independent reference standard and a stanLd at two
sTnlfTn ?H f ^ DeteCti°n Llmit (CRDL)- ^ calibration is Vfirified every l7
samples or 2 hours (whichever is greater). The instrument is recalibrated if drift is indicated (if
percent recovery of the standards is outside control limits). (
3.2.2 Atomic Adsorption Spectrometer (AAS)
S^Si!Cfbfe^ly'^gatle^ttoeesto^^^dablank- For mercury analysis at
^ four standards and a blank are used. The correlation coefficient for all analjS^e '
must be greater than or equal to 0.995. The calibration is verified initially using an inde^ndent
referencestandard. The calibration is verified every 1 0 samples or 2 hoi^SSS^T^.
* reC3librated * ** iS "^ ^P~ «^ of the standards
3.2. J 7o« Chromatography (1C)
The 1C is calibrated daily using the external standard method. Three mixed anion standard
futons at a minimum of three concentrations are used for generating the analytical^ A
standard reference solution is analyzed after 10 samples to verify calibration The instant is
recalibrated if drift is indicated (if percent recovery of the standards is outside contr'S
4. DATA REDUCTION, VALIDATION, AND REPORTING
4.1 Data Reduction
Data reduction includes all processes that change the numeric value of the raw data All field
dam are generated by directly reading the instrumentation (no calibration curves a7e geneSed)
Therefore, no reduction of field data will be performed. generate^.
All laboratory data reduction will be performed in accordance with the appropriate CLP or non-
CLP methodology, and presented as analytical results. The laboratory date 4 be reviewed to
venfy mat me appropriate units are assigned to all concentrations. AMtion^,
reduction may include graphing using spreadsheet or database software.
4.2 Data Validation
accuracy- •* compieteness- N°
LISBON VALLEY COPPER PROJECT
1424A/961026
-------
Sampling and Analysis Plan
Page 9
4.3 DATA REPORTING
All analytical data reports will be tabulated within one month of receipt from the lab. Any QC
data will be cross-checked against the QC results. Raw data will be available for inspection and
maintained in a central job file. All records will be maintained for the life of the mine. Types of
records to be maintained for this project include the following:
o Field log books;
« Chain-of Custody records;
e Any discrepancy/deficiency reports;
« Raw laboratory analytical reports; and
* Tabulated analytical results with supporting QC information.
5. INTERNAL QUALITY CONTROL CHECKS
5.1 Quality Control Checks - Field Activities
The quality control samples used to measure accuracy and precision affected by field activities
are described in Attachment 2 and are summarized below:
5.7.7 Field Blanks
Field blanks are samples of de-ionized or distilled water which are submitted to the laboratory
for analysis. Field blanks will be collected as a quality check on sample preparation technique,
external contamination, and the analytical method. One blank per 30 samples will be analyzed,
using the technique described in Attachment 2. Field blanks will be labeled and handled as
regular samples.
5.7.2 Equipment Rinsate Blanks
Equipment rinsate blanks will be collected to ensure that sampling equipment is clean and that
the potential for cross-contamination has been minimized by the equipment decontamination
procedures. Using the technique described in Attachment 2, one equipment rinsate blank will be
collected for every 30 samples which were collected utilizing decontaminated equipment.
5.7.3 Duplicates
Duplicate samples will be collected and submitted for laboratory analysis to allow a
determination of natural sample variance, consistency of field and lab techniques, and analytical
precision. One blind duplicate sample will be collected for every 30 samples, using the
technique described hi Attachment 2. The duplicates will be labeled and handled as regular
samples.
5.2 Quality Control Checks - Laboratory
The analytical laboratory analyzes QA/QC samples internally. Blanks are run at least one in
twenty samples. Matrix spiking is performed by the laboratory to measure recoveries of analytes
LISBON VALLEY COPPER PROJECT
1424A/961026
-------
Sampling and Analysis Plan
Page 10
for comparison to the established accuracy objective. Summo will request a QC report with
every analytical report received.
5.2.1 Matrix Spike Samples
A set of duplicate samples called matrix spike (MS)/matrix spike duplicates (MSD) samples will
be analyzed by the laboratory using a minimum of one in every 20 samples collected as part of
the internal monitoring program, including blanks and duplicates. The analysis of samples
spiked with a known amount of analyte will monitor possible matrix effects specific to the
sample media. Accuracy will be determined from the recovery rates of compounds (the matrix
spike compounds defined in the analytical methods). Precision will be assessed by comparison
of matrix spike recoveries of the duplicates. The addition of known concentrations of
compounds/constituents into the sample also monitors extraction/digestion efficiency. These
QA/QC samples are processed internally by the laboratory, and no additional field samples will
be submitted for this procedure.
5.2.2 Laboratory Blanks
The laboratory processes one blank sample for every 10-20 samples processed. This data will be
provided to Summo in the laboratory QC report, and will be maintained with project records.
6.
PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE
If a procedure calls for the use of any instruments, the SOP will include the procedure for
calibrating the instrument, or will refer to the general SOP which discusses instrument
calibration.
Preventive maintenance requirements will be specified in the SOP for the relevant instrument. In
general, preventative maintenance will follow procedures from the manufacturer and will be
included as appendices to the SOPs and kept with the instrument. A schedule of calibration and
maintenance will be kept with the instrument.
7.
DATA ASSESSMENT PROCEDURES
Data quality will be evaluated based on sampling techniques and analytical quality controls. A
Utah-certified laboratory will be used; therefore formalized audits of laboratory systems by
Summo will not be conducted. Informal audits of field work will be sufficient to ensure that
standard operating procedures are being followed. Performance of both field and laboratory QA
systems will be assessed based on results of laboratory and field quality control samples.
A general evaluation of data quality will consider potential sources of error, including gross
errors, systematic errors, and random errors. The percent difference between duplicate samples
and the analytical results from any blank samples will be evaluated.
LISBON VALLEY COPPER PROJECT
1424A/961026
-------
Sampling and Analysis Plan
Page 11
8. CORRECTIVE ACTIONS
8.1 Invalid Data
Data which is found to be invalid according to procedures discussed in Section 4 may require
corrective action measures depending on the ultimate use of the data. The following corrective
action procedures will take place in the following sequence:
• samples will be reanalyzed;
• samples will be recollected for analysis; or
« data will be rejected.
8.2 Missing Or Destroyed Samples
If the subcontracting laboratory notifies the field team of missing, broken, or lost samples the
following sequential actions will be taken:
* resampling, if possible; or
« elimination of the data.
Corrective action procedures will be determined as necessary.
9-2.3.
LISBON VALLEY COPPER PROJECT
1424A/961026
-------
S?>
V>
Ort».
mi."
' ' ' - * " /•* ,•**"*" • ' f'" "• ''»", it
: 'Lisbon:' . ' ..•.;..•, .' .
;. " Gap .:• !. : ,j' . •. •..'••. •
Lisbon Valley Copper Project
SUMMO USA Corporation
Fault
Fold Axis
iffijffiffi
ju*-t omxiM
«*»"«
GROUNOWATER MONITORING WELL
AND BOREHOLE LOCATIONS
Flfun Numb«n |
1
-------
-------
."M ,i,. i ' '; , „;','!! 'i;1"1' T'l '„ , i 'i111! i'i „ •'" ' C ,,'I:HI „ li".'* ""' 'I1, 'li.!,.'! ,11" ,• ,'" ' II!!!!'1:1:
•',;;, i!",,! j t. •' vi: .I1'.';,•!• „, 111,ii;. ^ •• i •. ,•" i, *v,', *\ •. m ff :,, ^^ v 'niiiiid;;, "< v ;* , ir- \m\, nil
,1,1, ,'l'j'i llfinlBJ..!*.
liiiii'j -eJWi i!4ij
, , j i , " • nw , ..... : ' ,„ " ,ii" * , ....... ; "• / ...... • in.1' -t: •"•" ; „ ,» ' ' „.• „ • is • iln , ' , • ',:: it r, . ; „ ; ..','..," iii; i:ij" |. , ' • l ill i! ' J ' mhiL i,! ,1, tfc i. '"iiii, ' Vi ..... • " • 'M i • i r mil
1 ,,, .......... ,ii,,'ii" , 'is, •" ......... 'i,rii,iiii|, i< 'i 'i1 'i "'<.'" , ",i '"«iiiii"'ii iii "i1 urii J ...... i 'i I1-. ,iih<"i, air 'liij'ii'Mrii'Hlii'i'1,,. w1 .'"''ii1 < < '", r iii
'!'",, ' ...... • ..... J ' , ' il' ,„,: '" ,„ « ill ' • 7
ii"":! ,,i* ip' Mlii," in!!- , ,'•": •!" h" 91,1 '!!:, JliiiVi ..... !i,i:j"l' ...... 1" 3'", , ''ifeiMt J
' i ' iii iii M lit i , • ' , „• ii . ii!:! ipi, j1 ji, 'i, i '.:'•: i ' ''!' ii , i- ^''Pl ' ' , ' •' ""hir"' j i "S • '!ii
i; ill,!-nil .."'tfiiiiii,,,,!'1,,;, "^
il r1 '!,. iiil ..... I, i,|l i i, if i1' 'if ii;1 1 r i1 , Ji,,,;,,! ..... i, „ "• III'1 'I'l'11
iiJRI ..... iift ".il'iif!" III!!! l ..... ,1'llinillll, liyiHil "" i'l ...... i., II if
i: : ir
r, &MOL • \ -• •: !&!"'"• ! »f> -at i; ;•: ^IffliSit lie • WLi,*.1: i -: ' ii/' ilf! C-;, ^' J:?:. " ''i 'IS S-'" ISIil1"' "'IS I
"i'lull" lill|!lll;li;il1: .i,; Jh'"1, iHi, '! ',; 'i'li'vijn,' 1 , , i" '" «<' S'ii^iii^liiiiai;*^^^^^ '.il.lilJ'"'.!!!!1" j"'1 lljjJW^^^ ill ':'" iii 'i' 'ililliii1'"1 I ill il mill111"1 mi'1 Hi' i';' ' ,,r'vf -liii'i, MISli!1' ! li'" ;tt! W "in'i,
"Hi 'hi .ft1"1!,,!!:,', "- I'll!,,,."]!!'1!!!!!!! : i,* Hi IP !'• ""Ill,, i' ', W"1,,1!!!!;!! ''".'"ill1 J "111 nl1!::!" I, "' Hill!'",,,!?!! VKIl ' " rtill I ,,l i "",'i :"l'!!l!iili!l •., ,|l|i"i 'Hi1 ,i •'.',,, ,„' ' Mf'i 'Si'!1'ill!!111! ' ' ' ''till »!"i *' "M'l,1,
:TJ i ''i r
„ ' '"'',,"i !,' iii '' '''Liitii'-'liiiS'liiiilliliiiS'i:,, riy.fcVisifl1
j-i ,:":»:!;," ....... r^ ...... .T11,*!"1- ,: it-;1" -n : . '•• >,<• "j1 1.: • :ni!!i'« ;, "^-.•
1" I ...... "T:"!"':11!!1, .......... '•.' ,;1|ll:1ll!1!;,::! ..... ,i,i!ii '"", a:"!1!-.'"1,*'::! ..... Ii1:-, ''V1 M. 'tfllii! ' ,€',
). :;; i
' {lilllli i)1!1 'it, ..... iS-"',!!;!1!!!, I'SII, I
. ,,
. . ; ...... ' ' Ki" . ' ..... .::•!. mi:; i: ..... '!"!- „ ' ": i)1 '
;;"„ • "i! ...... , " ..... Sivj:" ", it! .Sll iJSi,
;!' , , ,'iiii'iiiil''1 i'Saii'! iii ''ii' ''"ill IK;,;
"iii""',:'•!' IP ill' I i:1!1 'i"i'"!ir a IS1" '''Si!
, , 1;:1?*: !f i^l". " ISi; '::f Si, li^Jt; : ' ';•*! • • :!•! ' ..... ' ...... i" .i ..... ' ::ii ;,, .•••!'' fill ", . *, il'I :]f JS
i' • ,; i tat, ..... iifrJi ...... i?" ; ...... i " i;1: * "" "Bfi1; ..... ' , ' i •& '• wjif'f • l ,.». •• ...... li , • •ill • '. • • t "i« •• ; ........ :, l "'i ..... "t • i i ill <•• • i1* t,iK i • \ f] «"! ,;
::, .f'^. f I ..... :"! f £ &%• : ^ 4~fK1 " " " iS j" ! '"St ; "V; ..... ' ...... ' ,)>; « :!'"> ' If' • ^ , it il jf • i!' ........ it" t "" '"'j;, J i|S " ;]"i 'fm , : illir i| ;; ....... I
, ii '""'/pi i'liiiHit""; ,,', i i,!; i/'iput: siii itiii", "''!":';'i"': '"', i ' Will!:! ' •• i" T is1""1 <•• fum "";,,ii IH' i
"J'l1 pi i 'l"i ,11,,,','" , '"iii, " "i," ,1;,',!' It "i i, lllllUiiil ,' ""iilii.'i '!'•, lillrai, :'"""',„ 'Jllll!!1'!'1'," IP,'::!'!'" i illliil' i?,,, '• 'J 'i:" '!'. Ml"'illi'i: i
','; Ii:1!!!1 i- ?.:•" ii i'-"'*';„!! .ir >; „; , '',!;!„"'li-ii!!!,"'„ ,>*,.> •?. l :,.•-.•,' ||;, ft',,
-si' "!• as i;j '!•'•",? t „:- -sri' ; , :j ,"• iiu* assi! i,,'1
'' ill",,'!', Ill: iiilii1,,1, "liiiji'1: '"ii" Mlli'TI li!i, ,,,,' „", ,,;iliii, 'l':;"|ii|! J ' ' 'i ''''iil'l'iii; I,,, l-'lflilllliri''..^':'!..
li1' ', iilillipiT," ':'"i,,|i|ihlllll|ll' ''!,
i, iaiii,iS' j''1'"!'',!:::':,,,',,,;,'',,i,';:'i ,ii!',,,';,; ,''i;,':iiiiii'f1'1!'! .1 .iiipi n- i- "! .,K:.IIliiiiitii"",''.i, '.,r'.'<• TI •• iw>i< n 'Hi i;jiii;,.'niii, iiMt . i:,,!!, iwrm1 iiiiaiiU"1!!
,,'ili, ' '' 'i ip'i IP 'i'!1, r a li IP'1,..MI !,;::i! l ; M, .s'lii:;1!1,,,, i; „ i ,,"1',1'"r|." „:,' ,-i, ;i i1 »", iiiiihi' "ii,. ,», " i „'! III!!'1'iMlj11,,',,'!,1'!!.'''!! P'lia: !™ ' Wllllliuili' :i:sw :L,!:'i,!li "'i"1!, ill ""I,,. ii,' l
'.'kv'iii'i! Ii "ir!'1 .*tf:i.'iiiif»i''!.r''^v.v:.^,!«.4ifiBiHti»i s •ii>,1t^.';' i i*!'*:1"''. '.."x.' ii?' ''"Si' . A1!. I',: Si ''";!"«! iiiii
• in ii
-------
ATTACHMENT 1.
STANDARD OPERATING
PROCEDURE FOR WATER
LEVEL MEASUREMENT
Lisbon Valley Copper Project
San Juan County, Utah
SUMMO USA Corporation
SO-1
-------
-------
Water Level Measurement - Standard Operating Procedure
Pagel
1. INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this document is to define the standard operating procedure (SOP) for measuring
water levels in wells at the Lisbon Valley Copper Project, San Juan County, Utah. This document
describes the materials and procedures required, and serves as a supplement to the sampling and
analysis plan (SAP).
The objective of measuring ("sounding") water levels is to determine the change, if any, in water
level elevation over time and to provide data needed for the calculation of well purge volumes prior
to water quality sampling. Where possible, electronic water level sounders will be used.
Alternative methods of water level measurement (chalk tape, plopper, and others) are not discussed
here. Water level measurement with an electronic sounder will be conducted as described in this
SOP.
These procedures are for use in wells without floating hydrocarbons.
2. EQUIPMENT
Equipment needed to measure water levels may include:
« Maps with well locations.
» Well completion data.
« Keys to protective well covers.
« Electronic water level sounder
« Engineer's tape
• Decontamination equipment
3. PREPARATION
Summo will take the following actions before going to the field to sound water levels:
* Test equipment prior to departing for field. Are the batteries fresh? Does the sensor
work when probe is immersed in water?
• Examine cable to determine how cable length is measured (ie., is the reference mark
above or below the reference number).
« Record gage model and serial number in field book or on log sheet.
{
4. PROCEDURE
The field team will following these procedures for water level measurement:
* Remove protective well covers.
® Visually determine location of measuring point (MP) and compare to written
description of MP. Typically, the MP will be a notch cut in the inner PVC casing or an
-3-
LISBON VALLEY COPPER PROJECT
1424A/961022
-------
Water Level Measurement - Standard Operating Procedure
Page 2
arrow/mark inscribed on the casing. For consistency, this mark is commonly placed on
the north side of the well, although it could be placed in a manner to afford the best
view during pumping and recovery tests. For a new well, measure the height of the MP
above the top of surface (pad). Record the height of the MP above the ground surface in
a field book.
• Record electric sounder number in field book.
• Turn meter on and depress test button. (A beep should be audible and the light should
be on.)
• Lower sensor (probe) into well, being careful not to unreel the cable too quickly.
• Stop lowering the cable when the water sensor (light and/or sound) signals that the
water table has been encountered.
• Once the signal of water is activated, set the reel on the ground or pad and then gently
raise the sensor until the signal stops. Slowly lower the cable again until the signal
again sounds. Repeat this procedure until the exact point at which the signal startsis
obtained. This point can be marked with a finger or thumb nail which is in contact with
theMP.
• Read the tape from the down-hole end, as depth increases toward the reel For water
level sounders which are pre-marked to the nearest 0.01 feet, read the depth directly If
the sounder is not graduated to 0.01 feet, pull a short portion of the cable out of the well
and using a steel pocket tape measure, measure the length of cable between the closest
depth marker and the mark held by your thumb or finger. Use an engineer's tape and
record the length of cable to the nearest 1/100 ft.
• Record the exact measurement as read from the cable and/or tape. Do not perform anv
calculations or rounding before recording value. If corrections are necessary due to
adjustments (splices) in the sounder cable, perform those calculations AFTER'the raw
data has been recorded.
• After recording the depth, repeat the measurement to confirm the depth.
• Turn the meter off and reel up cable.
• Decontaminate probe and cable according to the Standard Operating Procedures for
equipment Decontamination, if necessary.
• Replace inner and outer protective caps. Be sure to lock outer cover, replacing old lock
ii necessary. Alternatively, proceed with groundwater sampling.
Summo personnel will also follow these additional guidelines for water level sounding:
• Do not drop anything down the well. If any equipment is lost down the well, document
the occurrence. The potential for well integrity must be evaluated.
• Report any damaged, blocked or otherwise deficient wells to the supervisor
(environmental manager) for repair or closure.
LISBON VALLEY COPPER PROJECT
1424A/961022
-------
-------
II I : illsTSI'!':"''I'i'lS"!! i '«K&;iii! III!'•'<> 7;!!!" Wf:jifl».J"iliii'"1"'!'':llillli" >'•!!'5',":!''!!".'it! 'i WifflTJ III"?1 "! 'Sill'I TRW IB:|
11 >; ill,, ;"!":'ii,! • I-,-'::, 1"«<'!," i!; 'I"" "I •:": I * •; :i i<' '!''"!,''" ,i"i;!'', .1,, JlllllH i; '.£»'j ' 'a -:«" (. • L Tlliilf " " . "ft ' 'VM^,,"" 51*
:•„ ,'i v: • ,«• it S'"1 1. S ilv:1 '!!|i!il I1,, l!::,,i,,-iSC V-^.i "'i''1'1 :"'• iliiitirii . ' " .t: .1- ><"];. if Jill! '., jfi ,„• luf ,>l iJIE
S* ' -^ ...... ' !"! ' S; : ' '? "W, i" ' 111!' i '" 'V '"!' ' yWXn IIIIE!' ..... IS »! ..... i'!1!!: '.*. '": ,1 1 HI, -I Ill1 ' - '" ' . iiifilJ1,, i
1' 'III ,' III1 ¥ ...... , ¥ < ........ ii ,, "' »", •!!'"„ ,'illii ..... frlliilPlUli ...... ,il)iiKP! ..... U"M"' ,p, ''ShTMili illllliii ..... W/xV/fc ' V '!' Ililiii « . "" ...... ffii 'ii^l
ill Li/'lHli'ill'Su'lii' ..... " ...... I'11' I1'!1' ....... ;' , IE i i1 ii!!!!i'. 'II1
"Mi!,, I ..... llHIIIIll '.• 'W'lllli,. ...... "illllllllPllllllJi'llllliii'rullE,'
"f""B ' illii
„;"";; i: „;;;„'
•• - , . *»
l ,: i ' ' ii ..... :, i1, " ',i „ " , ''ii , " mill nw ' ini 'in , Ai jn " , , i j i, „ ,,i!! if , n 'ii, i :, i, ,,1;' ...... ..iiriiii",'! ...... ii! ...... ar , , ,j ....... i1 ,'h i1 ' ' ii, ' ii ........ , ....... M f ii ,,,',: : ....... , nil,,1!,:1;1; i!i,iiiii:"i : , "i i ..... 'i i iiiaifl ..... , ........ i!" iii'i jii i JHI : i ,, ..... imiii i: ' f i w, ii, I'lgiiii '", ...... i, '•' mi i .iininiiina i:,:;ii,iiiu ..... mi, "ill i
'ltl. ""ill!" " l'''':,,*!i:ii;!!'!!" ;4"l! If,'!".,: t1,:) "j*1 ' UlE: :„, ,41«] r.^flftUKU' Illlllll . '.V ' *:*i
11 ', ii,:11 ,1, :i ..... i,, jjijii,, , '' ' : 'Liili ,„, iS;1:::1",;, /:, ,«\ 4" viislij, iii Mir ..... * 'ww^
! ..'Ti^/'iiilii''''"''"!,!!!;1' JSFli'1 ''I''11' , ...... liiii*"!1'111;?! I'll till, "'I'lliii1 'iii
i!!"!',1;,!!,;-:.! js',1'11!,!,"!,'-
I
I. ••' MiiHiiv "ft,,; ,'""i ,
'i "inii miiFU'i nii'i ftf, J1,1' "
. " Mi i'i'iiif'J' "'iS"'ii
l'!'iiL'i'':te''.'lv'tii'i'i:
','i'.ii if i, .I'l-iE,1;:'"1":":'
,',!!",,',!!!! ..... !,!l!,li!1 /III,,1, "I1, 1"!,! ...... ..... ,' ,, , : ,', i'1 ,I!P|,||,,',|II '!„ ..... Nil lull,: II ,' ...... ...... Ill I ..... Ill, 'I,, ll.lllllii ....... IIII ...... '1 ....... 1,11,11, 1 ', 1,1 11'1 ..... Illlillllll I,,,, III,, I .......... ill Illillllli, l,"l, II' ..... IIHIIIIilllltUi1! Jllllliilj,,! II!
"j,,/.!!!'1!,! '"'i'1, ,1,1 ' !!!' I'ljl1,,,:! ''liilii11!!;!!!!!!:!!!!,,:!!1:,!,,,,!!,,: ........ " " , 'mrj 'n; ':![;, ,l;i: „;, 1 1 '',,;," ..... II I,,!1 „,:!!;„
" ........ lira!1!1 " ..... il,,;,,,,fii ':" „ , '1,11,1, illllliii, ,IM', ' li|!!,,i,'Si:. ;<;: iiiv SA ""•" :• t'i iii£^^^^^^ \ f i • nj" ,,i '""sSil i !! - XM '>" '••;""
iii t fi,!,,,<::f!i»i'i[„f 'is j'iiip!f"iiin ii'jiSS''/:-, , "s11', i'»''';'i'"•,'iliiii •.?,;i"• ::i;7w-."«"'": iiii\-»*i'n m.v,.',N«,i'ti "FBiifvi:' im'SsSlB't•;'i I
,,,11'i: "iljlF,,,!'
.'"li. : ;|.|fi'ii,l|i,,,'
i •. " •• »! , ,, us ,.11 ii si "1,,'in ; ,i Ji,!",.' li'im liliilJIII' ,|i!,,.j ;.i ,,in , ! ,,' 'Ml ,'iii|, , ,; n" , •,, |;, i yinp ,.1,1111 i|,, i.| iiin:i'l|i,i N I1"
< n, in"'1 "i • '"'iniiift''!'!!!!!1! nil i;: ii"! ii .mi lit i iliiii' ,i>' i1, ,i!", iiH", ii IK h,, in: <, v • i IIIIIIIHIIIII. 111,
'*i:':CT' '^ iii v
lilii'li!!1 i i'lilll'llli v ,*•"'• "''•
iii'Siiill"' ; "", ......... Ii, 'MTtiXXM ,u"::i:fM¥VV-:-''mi,tMl,'K ,'",'!: ill", iii,,,"1":"')! ...... »' ifiilJiln '-i'lliiil! ....... *1UKBT „ IIEI 'III''!''] ..... IL'i ................ II .Hi tit ...... VKBOMV l!,l,."fi,H
: is-,"! ' ..... i *«aii * nri t *M '.••»* i , "wTH ' "' l ,
it f m • " •
-------
ATTACHMENT 2.
STANDARD OPERATING
PROCEDURE FOR
GROUNDWATER SAMPLING
-
Lisbon Valley Copper Project
San Juan County, Utah
SUMMO USA Corporation
-------
-------
Groundwater Sampling - Standard Operating Procedure
Pagei
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION 1
2. EQUIPMENT -1
3. FIELD SAMPLING PROCEDURE 2
3.1 Equipment Decontamination • 2
3.2 Instrument Calibration • 3
3.3 Well Purging 3
3.3.1 Preparation for purging 3
3.3.2 Purge Volume Calculations 3
3.33 Well Purging 4
3.4 Groundwater Sample Collection 4
3.5 Sample Identification/Labeling - 6
3.5.1 Sample Identification Number 6
3.5.2 Sample Labels/Tags 6
3.6 Sample Filtration 7
3.7 Field Quality Assurance/Quality Control Procedures and Samples 7
4. SAMPLE HANDLING, DOCUMENTATION, AND ANALYSIS 8
4.1 Sample Labeling - 8
4.2 Sample Handling 8
4.2.1 Sample Containers 9
4.2.2 Sample Preservation 9
4.2.3 Custody Seals 9
4.2.4 Chain-of-Custody Form 9
4.2.5 Sample Shipment 9
5. DOCUMENTATION 10
//-i
LISBON VALLEY COPPER PROJECT
1424A/961022
-------
Equipment Decontamination - Standard Operating Procedure
Pageii
5.1 Field Sampling Data Sheet 10
5.2 Field Notes 1Q
53 Chain of Custody Form (COC) j j
6. INSTRUMENT CALIBRATION 12
6.1 pH Meter 12
6.2 Conductivity Meter 13
PREFERENCES 13
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Order of sample collection, size of samples, preservation, and filtration
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Groundwater Sampling Data Sheet
Figure 2. Example Chain-of-Custody Sheet
//L3
LISBON VALLEY COPPER PROJECT
1424A/961022
-------
Groundwater Sampling - Standard Operating Procedure
Pagel
1. INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this document is to define the standard operating procedure (SOP) for collecting
groundwater samples from wells at the Lisbon Valley Copper Project, San Juan County, Utah.
This document describes equipment, field procedures, QA/QC, sample identification, labeling,
handling, and chain of custody procedures necessary to collect groundwater samples from wells
and piezometers. Also included is a listing of sample containers, preservatives, and holding
times applicable to samples collected using this SOP.
2. EQUIPMENT
Sample bottles and preservatives will be obtained from the analytical laboratory. Several extra
sample bottles will be obtained for use in the field or for QA/QC purposes. Distilled or de-ionized
water should be obtained from the laboratory or other source.
Equipment used during well evacuation includes:
• Well keys
» Electronic water level probe .
® Assorted tools (knife, screwdriver, etc.)
• PVC and stainless steel bailers (bottom filling)
• Submersible pump
• Thermometer
• pH meter (with automatic temperature compensation)
• Specific conductivity meter
® Plastic squeeze bottle filled with distilled metal-analyte-free water
® Polyethylene or glass container (for field parameter measurements)
• Chemical-free paper towels or Kimwipes
» Calculator
» Field notebook
» Waterproof pen
• 5-gallon buckets (2)
Equipment used during well sampling includes:
• Electronic water level measurement probe
• PVC bailers with bottom-emptying device
» Submersible pump
» Thermometer or temperature probe
LISBON VALLEY COPPER PROJECT
1424A/961022
-------
Groundwater Sampling - Standard Operating Procedure
Page 2
• pH meter (with automatic temperature compensation)
• Specific conductivity meter
• Plastic squeeze bottle filled with distilled or deionized water
• Sample bottles
• Cooler with ice
• Polyethylene, teflon, or glass container for field measurement samples
• Sample labels
• Waterproofpen
• Chain-of-Custody forms
• Clear packing tape
• Large trash bags
• Overnight courier company labels (for coolers)
Samples will be filtered for dissolved metals analysis using either a manual filter unit or an inline
disposable filter unit connected to a sampling tap on the pump discharge- line. Equipmehf used
during manual sample filtration includes:
• Disposable filterware with 0.45-micron filter
• Hand pump or peristaltic pump
• Tygon tubing
Equipment used during decontamination is listed in the accompanying document Standard
Operating Procedures for Equipment Decontamination.
3. FIELD SAMPLING PROCEDURE
This section gives the step-by-step procedures for collecting samples in the field Observations
made during sample collection will be recorded in the field notebook and/or field data sheet as
specified in Section 5 of this SOP.
3.1 Equipment Decontamination
Before any evacuation or sampling begins, all well probes, bailers, and other sampling devices
shall be decontaminated, as specified in the accompanying document Standard Operating
Procedures for Decontamination of Equipment, Groundwater and Surface Water Sampling
LISBON VALLEY COPPER PROJECT
1424A/961022
-------
Groundwater Sampling - Standard Operating Procedure
Page3
3.2 Instrument Calibration
Electronic equipment used during sampling will generally include a pH meter with temperature
scale, a conductivity meter, and a water level measurement probe, although additional equipment
may be used for special studies. Before going into the field, sampling personnel shall verify that
all of the equipment is operating properly. The pH and conductivity meters require calibration
prior to use every day. Calibration times and readings will be recorded hi a notebook to be kept
by the field sampling personnel. Specific instructions for calibrating the instruments are
described in Section 6 and hi the instruction manuals for each instrument.
33 Well Purging
The purpose of well purging is to remove standing water from the well, in order to collect a
representative water sample from the geologic formation being sampled while minimising
disturbance to the collected samples. Before a sample is taken, the well will be purged until three
well casing volumes have been removed, the field parameters (temperature, pH, and conductivity)
have stabilized, or until the well is purged dry. Samples should be collected within 2 hours of
purging. Evacuated well water can be disposed downgradient of well head.
3.3.7 Preparation for purging
Before well purging begins, the following procedures are to be performed at each well:
« Note the condition of the outer well casing, concrete well pad, protective posts (if
present), and any other unusual conditions of the area around the well.
• Open the well.
® Note the condition of the inner well cap and size of outside diameter of casing.
• Measure (to nearest 0.01 foot) and record depth of static water level from the measuring
point on the well casing and indicate time. Record what the measuring point is (i.e.,
notch on north side, top of PVC well casing).
• Measure and record total depth (if possible) of well from the same measuring point on
the casing.
• Calculate volume of water in the well casing in gallons based on feet of water hi well
and casing diameter. (See Section 3.3.2 for calculation of volumes.)
3.3.2 Purge Volume Calculations
The volume of water purged from the well should be adequate to remove all stored water from the
well casing prior to sampling. For moderate to high-yield, wells, three casing volumes should be
purged (TEGD, 1986). A casing volume will be calculated as follows:
Casing Volume = 3.14 X(_
J2X(
Casing Radius (ft.)
; - )X7.48 =
Total Depth of
Casing (ft.)
Depth to Water
gallons
ft.3
gallons per 1 casing volume
LISBON VALLEY COPPER PROJECT
1424A/961022
-------
Groundwater Sampling - Standard Operating Procedure
Page 4
*"
volume of
Two exceptions to this approach may be encountered: wells which are very low-yield or well
3.3.5 Well Purging
Well purging should be conducted as follows-
* r!,^11,;? ^r P,1™"''' ^ dlttin8 evacuad''". » can be assumed that the purpose of
samples may be obtained as soon as sufficient water is available. ^ *
3.4 Groundwater Sample Collection
1424A/961022
-------
Groundwater Sampling - Standard Operating Procedure
PageS
1. Assemble decontaminated sampling equipment. If bailers are used for sampling, clean
cable should be used for each well for each sampling event. Assemble the manual
filtering apparatus.
2. Fill out the sample bottle labels and attach to the appropriate sample bottles. Write in
all information except the sampling time.
3. If a bailer is used, the bailer should be lowered slowly into contact with the water in the
well. Whether using a bailer or submersible pump, collect the sample from the same
depth within the screened interval in the well each time the well is sampled.
4. Field parameters (temperature, pH, and conductivity) have been measured during
purging. Collect a sample via bailer or pump for the final field parameter measurement
Record hi the log book and on the groundwater sampling data sheet
5. Collect samples and fill sample containers in the following suggested order, whether
using a bailer or a submersible pump:
«
Table 1. Order of sample collection, size of samples, preservation, and filtration.
ORDER
1
2
3
4
SIZE
1 quart
1 quart
!/2 gallon
1 pint
FILTERING
unfiltered
unfiltered
unfiltered
filtered 0.45um
PRESERVATION
unpreserved
H2S04
HNOs
HNO3
ANALYTES
major ions
NO2,NO3NH4
radionuclides
dissolved metals
The sample bottle sizes in the preceding table may vary, based on the laboratory used and the
bottles provided. Filtering procedures are described in Section 3.6.
1. Record the time of sampling in the field log book, on the groundwater sampling data
sheets, and on the sample bottle labels.
2. Wipe off sample bottles with a paper towel. Write the time of collection on each label,
initial, and cover with clear tape.
3. Place samples in bags on ice in a cooler
4. Replace and lock the well cap.
5. Complete field documentation.
If a submersible pump is used, water level recovery data may be collected from the pumped well,
for use in hydraulic conductivity analysis. This step is not required.
LISBON VALLEY COPPER PROJECT
1424A/961022
-------
Groundwater Sampling - Standard Operating Procedure
Page 6
3.5 Sample Identification/Labeling
Proper sample identification is critical to data management and data quality. This section
describes the sample identification and documentation, to ensure that the quality of samples is
maintained dunng collection, transportation, storage, and analysis. All sample control and chain-
of-custody (COC) procedures follow the CLP User's Guide (9240.0-1, December 1988).
Documents used to account for sample custody include:
• Sample identification numbers
• Sample tags or labels;
• Custody seals;
• Chain of Custody records;
• Field log books; and
• Analytical records.
3. 5. 1 Sample Identification Number
Unique sample numbers will be assigned to each sample. The alphanumeric will begin with the
station name (e.g. 94MW1), followed by a description of the sample matrix (eg GW =
= ***** ^ f°U°Wed (01 for ** ** °2 for
3.5.2 Sample Labels/Tags
All samples collected in the field will have sample labels/tags attached to or fixed around the
sample containers, or be inscribed by printing using a waterproof black marking pen. The label
will be protected with clear mylar tape. Sample identification will be placed on the containers so
as not to obscure any QA/QC lot numbers. Field identification will be sufficient to enable cross-
reference with the project logbook. All samples will be subject to the same custodial procedures
and documentation. To minimize sample container handling, labels/tags may be partially filled
out prior to sample collection. The sample label/tag will include the following information:
• Sample number;
• Samplers name;
• Date and time of collection;
• Analysis required; and
• Preservation.
LISBON VALLEY COPPER PROJECT
1424A/961022
-------
Groundwater Sampling - Standard Operating Procedure
Page?
3.6 Sample Filtration
Samples for dissolved metals analyses will be filtered during the field sampling event by using a
disposable filter apparatus and peristaltic or hand vacuum pump. (Or, a disposable inline filter may
be connected to a sampling tap on the pump discharge line.)
The following procedure is to be used for filtering samples collected with the peristaltic pump or
hand vacuum pump:
« Assemble filter device according to manufacturer's instructions.
• Filter sample by pouring sample in the top portion of filter unit. Or, if a submersible
pump is used, samples may be collected using a disposable filter unit connected to a
sampling tap on the pump discharge line. Duplicate samples can be collected from the
same filter unit.
® Transfer filtered sample to appropriate preserved (HNO3) sample bottle(s).
« If samples contain a lot of sediment, the use of a second filter unit may be necessary.
• Dispose of used filtration unit appropriately.
3.7 Field Quality Assurance/Quality Control Procedures and Samples
The well sampling order will be determined prior to sampling and may be dependent on expected
levels of analytes in each well, if known. Quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) samples will
be collected during groundwater sampling.
QA/QC samples are designed to help identify potential sources of sample contamination and
evaluate potential error introduced by sample collection, handling, and analysis. All QA/QC
samples are labeled with QA/QC identification numbers and sent to the laboratory with the other
samples for analyses.
Rinsate Samples
An equipment rinsate sample of sampling equipment is intended to check if decontamination
procedures have been effective. For the well sampling operation, a rinsate sample will be collected
from the decontaminated sampling equipment (bailer) before it is used to obtain the sample.
Deionized or distilled water will.be rinsed over the decontaminated sampling equipment and
transferred to the sample bottles. If a submersible (but nondedicated) downhole pump is used, the
rinsate sample may be collected by running distilled or deionized water through the decontaminated
pump. If all wells have dedicated downhole pumps, then a rinsate sample will not be necessary.
The same parameters that are being analyzed in the groundwater samples will be analyzed in the
rinsate samples. Similar sample handling procedures will also be employed (e.g, the rinsate sample
for metals analyses will be filtered prior to preservation). The rinsate sample is assigned a QA/QC
sample identification number, stored in an iced cooler, and shipped to the laboratory with other
water samples.
LISBON VALLEY COPPER PROJECT
1424A/961022
-------
Groundwater Sampling - Standard Operating Procedure
PageS
Duplicate Samples
Duplicate samples are samples collected to check for the natural sample variance and the
consistency of field techniques and laboratory analysis. A duplicate sample will be collected at the
same time as the initial sample. During filtration of the sample collected for metals analysis the
filtered sample is split between the original sample bottle and the duplicate sample bottle until both
bottles are full. For samples requiring general mineral, nitrate/nitrite, or radionuclide analyses, the
sample collected from the bailer is split between the original sample bottle and the duplicate sample
bottle until both bottles are full. The duplicate groundwater samples will be handled in the same
manner as the primary samples. A duplicate sample is assigned a QA/QC identification number,
stored in an iced cooler, and shipped to the laboratory with the other water samples.
Field Blanks
Field blanks check for contamination of samples due to factors at the well site. For a field blank, a
metals sample bottle (with preservative), a general inorganics sample bottle, a nitrate/nitrite sample
bottle, and a radionuclide sample bottle are taken empty to the field and filled at the well site with
deionized or distilled water at the time the well is sampled. Filtering of the field blank for metals
analysis is not necessary. The samples will be assigned a QA/QC identification number, stored in
an iced cooler, and shipped to the laboratory with the other samples.
4. SAMPLE HANDLING, DOCUMENTATION, AND ANALYSIS
4.1 Sample Labeling
Sample labels will be affixed to sample bottles prior to sample collection. The date, time, sampler's
initials, and the sample identification number should be completed at the time of sample collection.
All sample labels shall be filled out using waterproof ink. At a minimi^ each label shall contain
the following information:
• Company name
• Sample description (well location)
• Date and time of sample collection
• Analyses required
• Preservative
• Sampler's initials
4.2 Sample Handling
This section discusses proper sample containers, preservatives, and handling and shipping
procedures. The table in Section 3.4 lists appropriate sample containers for the Comprehensive
Suite of analytes for the Lisbon Valley Copper Project. Subsequent sampling events may use a
modified list of analytes.
LISBON VALLEY COPPER PROJECT
1424A/961022
-------
Groundwater Sampling - Standard Operating Procedure
Page 9
4.2.1 Sample Containers
Certified, commercially clean sample containers shall be obtained from the analytical lab. The
bottles shall be labeled by the lab to indicate the type of sample to be collected. Required
preservatives are typically prepared and placed in the bottles at the laboratory prior to shipment to
the site. Numbers and sizes of containers and recommended preservatives are listed in Section 3.4.
4.2.2 Sample Preservation
Samples will be stored on ice in coolers immediately following collection. Samples should not be
frozen to extend holding limes. Chemical preservatives, as required, shall be added to the sample
containers (typically by the laboratory prior to shipment to the field.)
4.2.3 Custody Seals
Custody seals are preprinted adhesive backed seals with security slots designed to break if the
seals are disturbed. Sample shipping containers (coolers, cardboard boxes, etc.) are sealed with
custody seals in as many places as possible to ensure security. Seals are signed and dated before
use and strapping tape should be placed over the seals to ensure that seals are not broken
accidentally during shipping. Upon receipt at the laboratory, the sample custodian must check
(and certify, by completing the package receipt log) that the seals on coolers, boxes, and bottles
are intact.
4.2.4 Chain-of-Custody Form
The chain-of-custody (COC) record will be completed, placed in a plastic bag, and taped to the
inside lid of the sample cooler. Instructions for filling out the COC are given in Section 5.3.
4.2.5 Sample Shipment
Samples should be shipped every day. Samples will be shipped in iced coolers with a completed
chain of custody form taped to the inside of the cooler lid. Coolers will be sent to the lab by
standard overnight delivery to a Utah-certified laboratory. The choice of laboratory could
change during the course of monitoring program. Currently, samples are sent to the following
address:
Chemtech Analytical Laboratory
8100S. StratlerAve.
Murray, UT 84107
(801) 262-7299
(801) 262-7378 fax
Samples will be shipped such that the holding tunes are not exceeded.
LISBON VALLEY COPPER PROJECT
1424 A/961022
-------
Groundwater Sampling - Standard Operating Procedure
Page 10
5. DOCUMENTATION
5.1 Field Sampling Data Sheet
A field sampling data sheet for groundwater samples (Figure 1) will be completed at each sampling
location. The data sheet will be filled in completely. If items on the sheet do not apply to a specific
location, the item will be labeled as not applicable (NA). The following information is included on
the data sheet:
• Well number
• Date and time of sampling
• Person(s) performing sampling
• Volume of water evacuated before sampling
• Conductivity, temperature, and pH during evacuation- (note number of well
volumes)
• Tune samples are obtained
• Number of samples taken
• Sample identification number
• Preservation of samples
• Record of any QC samples from that location
• Record of any irregularities or problems which may have an impact on sample
quality
5.2 Field Notes
Field notes shall be kept in a bound field book. The daily log will be printed in waterproof ink,
and will contain a detailed signed and dated description of the sampling activities. The
description will be detailed enough to enable participants to accurately and objectively
reconstruct the daily events at a later time. If corrections are necessary, these will be made by
drawing a single line through the original entry (so that the original entry is legible) and writing
the corrected entry alongside. The correction must be initialed and dated and may require a
footnote explaining the correction.
The following information will be recorded:
• Names of all personnel on site
• Dates, weather conditions, and times
• Location and well number
• Condition of the well
• Decontamination information
V Lf.
LISBON VALLEY COPPER PROJECT
1424A/961022
-------
Groundwater Sampling - Standard Operating Procedure
Page 11
• Calibration information
• Tune of occurrence and nature of any malfunctions of field measurement instruments
• Initial static water level and total well depth
« Calculations (e.g., calculation of purge volume)
e Field data (pH, EC meter, thermometer)
• A list of all samples collected which includes sample numbers, times, matrix, analysis
to be performed, sampling location, and COC and sample seal numbers
• A list of all QA samples (blanks, duplicates, etc.)
• Any notes or elaboration required to clarify sample logs, boring logs, or other related
records
• Any unusual circumstances
The field log book will be supplemented by information on field forms for each representative
activity (i.e. borehole logs, COCs, etc.)
5.3 Chain of Custody Form (COC)
A COC form shall be filled out in the field after samples have been collected, and accompany
every shipment of samples to the analytical laboratory. The purpose of the COC form is to
establish the documentation necessary to trace possession from the time of collection to disposal.
The COC will be filled out at least in duplicate by the field technician who has been designated
to handle/ship samples to the analytical laboratory. Information contained on the COC will
contain the same level of detail found on the sample label/tags. An example of the COC form
that may be used for this project is shown in Figure 2. All corrections to the COC record will be
initialed and dated by the person making the corrections. The custody record will include the
following information:
• Samplers name and organization (company);
» Date and time of sample collection;
• Sample identification number, sample matrix, sample preservation, and type of
sample collected (composite/grab);
« Analysis requested; and
» Signature of the person relinquishing samples to be transported, with the time and
date of the transfer noted, and signature of the designated sample custodian at the
receiving facility.
In addition, any special analytical instructions will be noted on the COC.
LISBON VALLEY COPPER PROJECT
1424A/961022
-------
Groundwater Sampling - Standard Operating Procedure
Page 12
The relinquishing individual will record all shipping data (e.g., airbill number, transported, time,
and date) on the original custody form record, which will accompany the samples to the receiving
facility and be retained hi the facility's file. Original and duplicate custody records, together with
the airbill or delivery note, constitute a complete custody record. It is the project manager's
responsibility to ensure that all records are consistent and that they are made a part of the
permanent project file.
The laboratory will enter the following information on the COC:
• Name of person(s) receiving the sample
• Date of sample receipt
• Sample condition
Each COC form will include signatures of the appropriate individuals indicated on the form. The
originals will follow the samples to the laboratory (taped to the inside of the cooler lid) and one
carbon copy wUl be retained by the samplers. Chain of custody will be maintained until final
disposition of the samples by the laboratory.
6. INSTRUMENT CALIBRATION
6.1 pH Meter
The pH meter must be calibrated each day before taking any readings of samples and if erroneous
readings are suspected. Calibration and operation of the pH meter should follow the manufacturer's
specific instructions. In general, calibration is done by adjusting the meter with standard buffers
that bracket the expected pH of the field water. Calibration will consist of the following general
procedures:
Adjust the reading of the pH meter with the electrode placed in the pH 7 buffer by
using the calibration knob. Rinse the electrode with distilled water between buffer
adjustments.
Adjust the reading of the meter with the electrode placed in the pH 4 buffer with the
slope (or temperature) knob.
Repeat steps 1 and 2 until the meter gives acceptable readings (+0.1 pH unit) for all
the buffers used for calibration.
Note: Always use the same electrode for measurements that was used in the calibration.
Recalibrate the meter if the electrode is replaced. Also, the temperature setting on the pH meter
often does not match the sample temperature after calibration. The pH readings will still be
accurate in these cases, provided that the response to the buffers is correct
Record the time and temperature in the field notebook whenever the pH meter is calibrated. When
recording pH values from a sample, check pH meter and recalibrate (as necessary) if sample pH
values are significantly different from previous values.
1.
2.
3.
LISBON VALLEY COPPER PROJECT
1424A/961022
-------
Groundwater Sampling - Standard Operating Procedure
Page 13
6.2 Conductivity Meter
The conductivity meter must be calibrated each day before taking field measurements. Record
time, temperature, and instrument response in the field notebook. Calibration is done by noting the
response of the meter to several standard conductivity solutions which bracket the values expected
to be measured in the field. Standards of 100,1000, and 10,000 should be adequate for the samples
expected. If the instrument has a calibration adjustment, set the response to match the standards.
Otherwise, simply record the instrument response to each standard in the field notebook.
7. REFERENCES
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), 1985. Standard Guide for Sampling
Groundwater Monitoring Wells, ASTM Designation D4448-85a, approved Aug. 23 and
Oct. 25,1985,14pp.
TEGD, EPA, 1986. RCRA Ground-Water Monitoring Technical Enforcement Guidance
'Document (TEGD), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, OSWER-9950.1
LISBON VALLEY COPPER PROJECT
1424A/961022
-------
iJUVMOUS'VCoroofalion
SiteNtmc: LJ|bon VaJiev Project
Project Number
D«*e: Start Time: finish Time:
Sampled By:
MONITORING WELL SAMPLING DATA SHEET
WcllNimto;
Well Type: (i.e. Monitor, Extraction)
W«!I Marts! PARAMETER MEASUREMENT "~ ~|
(umioi/cm
)
T
«c
•F
(nta)
Water Levels/Rate ofReeovery
Tone: bepk
Tto* Dqsdi:
I.My*10* 1 PH. | EC: | Turbidity: | Pump: 1
Wdovaaons uurtag Purging (Well Conditions, Color, Odor): " ™ * — — -
GROUNDWATER SAMPLING
#of
Containers
II-'.
(Comments
-------
8100 SOUTH STRATLER
SALT LAKE CITY UTAH 84107 6905
S01 262 729S PHONE
801 262 7378 FAX
PRESERVED WITH /
5^»
-------
-------
-------
,iiiii'1!1'1 .ill1 ii' 111 .«'i*IP :i '!
"' .:':' Jlliiiinrjiiin," liiliUll ' i Hull
i! ' ,'!!: "'fpi'js 'ii,,,, "''
„ ,I||H" 1.1," , llvlillll It 'II" ll
„:, inn1,,", j niii i: ;,'< "iiiiiiii!imi"|i[ii'':: .impiiiiiiiiiiiipiii1 i m
!> : •:> \ I,; i: i 'I'":,:.' ;'!» •• *!* 3:11 >« "I ''4 If 1 • ifNKlii I)1.; ]"I ! i •«! !' ?!"> >: '^i '<€m I' ':: /I -1 L"! ' 11631116 ', II ' ' 'K .Ill'l'?1!
.1.!1 ,:'YHli I!|IK ,!,!FI"''" i1 I1'1.; ,« 'I,,,!,,!! "Ir1"
n "iJB ,,•« Mil! It1 I,,,
i1!,?1;1' ,;-,!,'' , I't;:!;!"!!;!':: iail •l»:1 J i ^ •» '"I1 ; nil, iii1!1:; Wijiii111 jn,, :'•', ,
iin:1" I:1! ' illlllll 'i1' '''n'iliiiiilN ir ^HB >: :'l '.Mkliiilllllllllli ' ' vt" Sif 'illllli!'1',1'1! <>' «:i:!i
'i', ' i IIII,1 Rill, ,„ , ' !:lil" K1'!1!1 'i'" "UIIP'i" TPP ,:' I'PiP'Plii"' jilii1.!,!!1"'1!'11!;",,!,,, 'C J1 iP'SIIIPPlPJIUPiilP''''!'''!!)''!!'! ,, '„, 'i IPi'J' Jlli, i
,i ' ' ,1 • 'l;lll';!l|lll|lli' lil' " Ji:1'1':1 It'FI': I" "''''::, "Ii " '""ilhiii1 '! '"" ii'J',,""1 •, "ir11,1 liiLliilirill.""!™'!!1! '''iH-rPPIII!1!1'"'!11 Jill!"1:1' "Til :i|i,,
1 !'; ,: In '''!'<:, i'lliiillililllli'ol'o' , biHlllllli'iE1 ' NliL.J'',. ' |ll',lll|l,r I' ,' i IIIlDiil'n/li' ,ii ftiiiKin1 IlililWlif1 I*' al,,'4 "•III :'i
BSf;:!• '::':'S:wiiiii,,
''lillli1 ; , IK Jii ; , '.'!,!nlill
,,
"1 i"! ^W1,'
;:, i:i!!i I!1"; ..... :","', ..... ,
'i'" JH,! Hii1'::1!, ..... :.',,i i " Hm,1 •' .i »!" .
i, iHI',. ..... ":l»4' ;i' „ i il|n i IIBIIIIIII :" ' ' UlnU nlii1 ill. ...... li'lii'l lili
, "• ....... p.,"1" .i%!;::'i:"v:y: •!• !•», "" f\ I.IInl1 biri
,n 'llili'l'T...''!!!!!'"';!1 ;:!i:!;l|ll|i!1""1 ,ll|li#l1i,;iKi!M|lSl'i;!i:^*ll|l;ll|l!ilii! ..... IIP":! ..... .'ii»': , «:;, »'|i : III'!!; H1 ^f'lMl!1':!!'''1 " ', Sif J||1I!I '^n ...... |i,i" jilll
i^i issm ........... Mil! ......... •! » ;: ''''if : j1 1;| "!f> ..... w>- wm "s, ) ..... i«ff t; :: ••" n
,
s... m ........ • ....... m i;sir
,„> "ii , ggipiii I!1, ,n ' ii .Hi.,! iit:,,1:1,!!'!!:1:1:!,:,!!.:!!!! ...... i!iii« "'i
.« ......... mi ..... irr;, » i jiny1!" " '• ,iii ...... mi, jiidBii'"1,;,!
U' '"i!::1!,. "• .I'th. im'i ..... Tiiiiiii
,,,!!, ' ,„ I',1"'"!!!.!11!!1!1.1!!!!!!1, ,,:;..|, ..... H. MiaHIIIH.iii '; iiWHIili.i'iiiT. » Vf i ' lijiiillii'"1 I JWi: h :',"'.' l|l!l?'i:.ii,i' ', f'^f' '• '"Wllti: liil!'1!!""!! ..... »' ii|iliii''!i,'l ..... , •"« ........ !'!:,,.' ,lli'i"!llliR".i lillv. lH"1'1!1' .''iWiiPL jif.i i '^.iliiLfl.!..!
;::;,,,;i; i; ^H ' ^ ;; 'jijijgfiTi'iji ^ , ^^ »? ;-^ 'JBHJS1^ !. :" : ;| 'W'11'!; " iffi ''^l *;!I*SI- ..... iifi? -^HS ; ': !'"; ..... • .Si!"f f i v ' !l!" f!
,„ , , , , ,,„ . ........ HJ; , ..... ;,!;,, „, >„,. } , , ....... | ,„ , .,..., ...... ,:vl ,„ ,,. , ..'|| ...... • ;;, „, . ji,,. „ , |||:,. „„„ , ..... i,,,, ..... | „ ," ' hlhi l'ni'|i|,, , ,1 1 ........ »!!,„ , \ ...... |, ..... Kf 111, ' ....... , ,,' " " ,i: , ' HI , ...... ' \ •' " •!, 'hllih!!, I V ........ , !!|| , ' ' 'HIR, 'IlilHt! ....... IIH' ' i „! ' i, .yi
'' ' 1 ' "1 " " ' " '
.
-'
'i1 i ',""1,11 ; „ w jipi'i";, 1:1 ,„ ,,,,,„< :
,"::
-------
ATTACHMENT 3.
STANDARD OPERATING
PROCEDURE FOR EQUIPMENT
DECONTAMINATION
Lisbon Valley Copper Project
San Juan County, Utah
SUMMQ USA Corporation
-------
-------
Equipment Decontamination - Standard Operating Procedure
Pagei
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION 1
2. EQUIPMENT 1
3. DECONTAMINATION PROCEDURE 2
3.1 Sampling Equipment 2
3.2 Submersible Pumps 2
3.3 Drilling and Heavy Equipment 2
3.4 Monitoring Well and Piezometer Materials 3
4. DOCUMENTATION ........3
5. QUALITY ASSURANCE (QA) REQUIREMENTS 3
LISBON VALLEY COPPER PROJECT
1424A/961022
-------
Equipment Decontamination - Standard Operating Procedure
Pagel
1. INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this document is to define the standard operating procedure (SOP) for equipment
M£ ?°n Valley Copper ****• San Juan Coun*> <**• ™s d^S
aterials and procedures for decontaminating the equipment used in groundwater and
water samphng. This SOP serves as a supplement to the Sampling and AnSys^
The overall objective of the sampling program is to obtain samples which accurately depict the
chemical, physical, and/or biological conditions of groundwater and surface water at the site
Exfraneous materials can be brought onto the sampling location and/or introduced into the sample
medium during the sampling program (e.g., by bailing or pumping of groundwater with eqZJent
ESZ&*r^^
°e
Where possible, expendable sampling and personal protective equipment will be used. When non-
expendable equipment is used, and when that equipment has the potential to contact the sample
decontamination will be performed according to the procedures outlined in this SOP
2. EQUIPMENT
The following is a list of equipment that may be needed to perform decontamination:
• Plastic brushes
• Wash tubs or 5-gallon buckets
• Plastic scrapers
• Steam cleaner or high-pressure sprayer
• Sponges or paper towels
• Laboratory-grade, nonphosphate detergent (low sudsing) (e.g. alconox, liquinox)
• Potable water
• Distilled or deionized water, including laboratory-grade distilled or deionized water
• Spray bottles or garden-type water sprayers
• Clean plastic sheeting and/or trash bags.
LISBON VALLEY COPPER PROJECT
1424 A/961022
-------
Equipment Decontamination - Standard Operating Procedure
Page 2
3. DECONTAMINATION PROCEDURE
This section gives the step-by-step procedures equipment decontamination in the field. Before
any well purging or sampling begins, all well probes, bailers, and other sampling devices shall be
decontaminated, as described below.
3.1 Sampling Equipment
The following steps will be used to decontaminate sampling equipment:
1. Remove gross contaminants with scraper, high-pressure hot water rinse, and wire or plastic
brush, if necessary;
2. Wash equipment with Alconox and potable water, typically in a 5-gallon bucket or tub;
3. Rinse with potable water;
4. Double rinse with deionized water; and
5. Wrap clean equipment in clean plastic bags for transport, if necessary.
Equipment that may be damaged by water will be carefully wiped clean using a sponge and
detergent water and rinsed with laboratory-grade distilled or deionized water. Care will be taken to
prevent any equipment damage.
Rinse and detergent waters will be replaced with new solutions between borings or sample
locations. Wash and rinse water will be disposed either in the plumbing system at the mine, or on
the ground in the field.
3.2 Submersible Pumps
The pump and pump hose will be cleaned prior to use in each well or piezometer. The cleaning
procedure will consist of immersing the pump in a 5-gallon bucket containing a solution of potable
water and laboratory-grade nonphosphate detergent. The pump will be turned on and the solution
circulated through the pump and back into the bucket. The pump will then be immersed in a
second bucket containing potable water only. The pump will be turned on and the potable water
will be allowed to circulate through the pump. This water will not be recirculated. Pumping will
continue until the discharge water is clear. Additional potable water will be added to the bucket as
necessary. The pump exterior and hose will be cleaned by steam-cleaning, washing in a solution of
laboratory-grade nonphosphate detergent and potable water, and rinsing with distilled or deionized
water, including a final rinse with laboratory-grade distilled or deionized water. The pump and
hose will be wrapped in clean plastic bags for transport to the well location.
3.3 Drilling and Heavy Equipment
Drilling and heavy equipment should be cleaned in an area downslope and a minimum of 100 feet
away from sampling locations. The following steps will be used to decontaminate drilling and
heavy equipment:
• Equipment showing gross contamination or having drill cuttings caked on will be
scraped off with a fiat-bladed scraper at the sampling or construction site.
LISBON VALLEY COPPER PROJECT
1424 A/961022
-------
EquipmentDecontaminat^StandardOperating Procedure
PageS
3.4 Monitoring Well and Piezometer Materials
4. DOCUMENTATION
notebook with consecutively
W
Decontamination personnel
Date and start and end times
Decontamination observations
Weather conditions
-»
^^nP^s field
Sdd
5.
QUALITY ASSURANCE (QA) REQUIREMENTS
laboratory-grade distilled or
^amplmg tool (such as a bailer
sample bottles, which will be sent
ft. ^ple number, wiTbe^
decontarninated san,PUng tools w.,1 be collet
*«««»!-«
nmae vata teo
-5
1424 A/961022
-------
-------
1 i,!:' SiCIII illlP I;1 • » , IIP iii 1'J1
II','1 JH'"'1 'liiljillllt
' ;**f •''"K*^ '''!'' '*?" "' !"!'!"'
i,i."(. i! ! Si;1:
I
Hi, II IIHlii 'I'lllC!,,,' ', ,„ I. Hi,111/ 'I'.lljillllli i11;1!1 "iliii'lT ll;,,ili« 'I!'. ;-,fi' li1 ;, "liliniiii '.. I1:!"' II' VI1 |T:!:p;,l|i|i|lllll 'ni' II ',» ''"'
111!!!'Hi'"' IBS llfi!li!!' ill!*:' ;. ''. II ; '-Wi;,'.',•.. ; .ai:(. .*:i!,; •, "it.', ' riftiiaSli:!!!!!"'"' .", i• » i ' VOft I11'."i WW'" i!1 ' 1 :"'ill
I!lil|l!l»l!;|:lni1|l'iji|i|i, ff,;"!1 ' ,!",;,ii!ii!, .''^"I'/ftl' ,ij 'illll'''''^^!,,:, Jl'lilii'1"1'!"
•" 'iiniiiii Jin,,,,! i; rf-i'ri'ii.iPMiiii ; v,ni,i,.M ii^iiiiii1'1' i i1"1,1, fl ,•
^ ^a* ;.ii nt
liil'IILi'liiillll.!,:'!!!! k,'''iiiilT1 !i,H;|
.1 t '4 ":illi,i|i|ii.' Hi.' sii1"'1 'I'i'i11 Ulii"! ' I, HI 'I!'.
-------
.w
652 J
STEP
'Lisbon ^ : •' ••;•' •': '••
Gap •• •• ''. "',!•' .
•" •; :-;,;>::,.. ::--:,::f .,--..•••= r-.. •,
;;'---vtfv::;-^:5i{>;\;'' <;y: . .' ,.--
' : "i '. . 'J -!!j.'- -.}'«'.-'•." '.'."'-.' *!' '
V. '.-.-•' :|jyM^«5v';5'15ltf
•: .• ./. .-,.•••..!i^-^^-'^^f:
^*
<*..
i ••:•;:,•;; :.-;._..,,-.,;••
"•"••"i -j-W;';!••"•,!
! ' \ V • •'.
'•' '*'"' ''.' '. '•'',
;.';. ^v ' ':-'.:|]
'••'• -iv " ' ••• -'.
Lisbon Valley Copper Project
SUMMO USA Corporation
Fault
Fold Axis
I) _ 1000 , 2000 .
RCT
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL
AND BOREHOLE LOCATIONS
-------
-------
Attachment 2
Geochemical (Waste Rock) Sampling Plan
-------
• «!!' "1; * '"
„ , „ 4 ' '.
Ill
Ill
ill
'• i' ! '•• , ;i i ., i ; • ' if« ...... in " i : ........ »; >•: t
i , ...... , > i ''Pirn .
•j ;,*(•:• .' m ";,:-' : ...... " ......... utii :<••»« ;•? ...... Aim w,v, ;tj:i'"»5 an ....... » vi ..... ;. ..... :;»v;i!:fi-ik •« ..... ;;. IIIIIBI ..... KKV. i^^i^
.-ill!11. ..... , in1:;,,:,1 1-.1 mi ...... '••! >,',;!(• i, ~ it.1 ii' : i, ' ; *i,ii"i. JB,:'I!'i ' n-iti :,i <«: . J> lill ...... ' ;3 i'1;>!T'!i: ..... ;:',","W'. nilllU,. t" i ft Si!111: ........ ":„ i ..... u ..... 'Bills i:,i=iH, I
f liiii1 r'S 8" T1, :•{; -1:1;,, '• • ;, • ,:.£, « ;«; •(( :;! ..( ..... i/sli, " ..... :|> , E,'. si1'-*! ..... it JIB! : ...... L ....... L ..... 11, ' i '; ....... '. '"' i, 'i i illlil ..... r t?" " " , n i, v " • . • lift iiii!' , ...... Ik AM ' Illflllili
ill l|l II i l( 111 l|il 111 1 III n lll|illlI
-------
Waste Rock Samlin Plan
The waste rock sampling plan will be one of the primary responsibilities of the staff geologist.
As each pit is developed and mined the mine geologist will generate maps of each bench as the
bench is exposed. These geological maps, will record the bed stratigraphy of the Dakota and
Burro Canyon Formations which has been used in Summo's exploration and development drilling.
Summo has established that the bulk of the waste at Lisbon Valley will be strongly acid
neutralizing, but about 10% of the waste, from beds 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10, is expected to have acid
generation potential. The geological bench maps, which will display each bed, and blast hole
assay maps, will be the preliminary determination of what rock is ore and what is waste, and how
the waste should be handled. Waste rock from Beds 6 through 10 will be handled as having acid
potential and encapsulated within neutralizing material in the dumps.
Before mining, each bench will be drilled with rotary air drill holes in a closely spaced grid
pattern. Cuttings from these holes will be analyzed for copper for grade control, designating
whether the rock at that grid point is ore or waste. These drill holes will be loaded with the
appropriate amount of explosives and detonated to break and loosen the rock for mining. Grid
density will depend on the physical strength rock properties of the beds exposed in each bench.
Thus, Summo will be making, and continuously updating, maps of the bed-by-bed stratigraphy,
and maps of copper grade, for each horizontal slice that is exposed in the deposit. Cuttings from
designated blast holes in waste rock will be used as samples for waste rock monitoring.
The following is the proposed protocol for waste rock sampling:
1 . Summo will designate a number of standard sampling locations within each pit where
geological cross sections show that significant waste rocks with acid generating potential will be
minded.
2. Five standard sampling locations are proposed for the Centennial Pit; three for the GTO Pit;
and two each for the two Sentinel Pits; for a total of twelve locations.
3 . As each of the pits is developed and mined, on each bench designated as "waste" at the
standard preselected location, a sample split will be collected of the cuttings from the blast hole
nearest to the standard location. Through the life of the pit this will produce a series of waste
rock monitor samples which represent a continuous, vertical, series samples through the
stratigraphy.
4. Summo will make determinations of ANP (Acid Neutralization Potential), AGP (Acid
Generation Potential) and NNP (Net Neutralization Potential) for each of these monitor samples
in its laboratory at the mine site in Lisbon Valley, or composited for outside laboratory testing.
The laboratory procedure used will be the procedure presently in use at the Newmont Carlin and
Barrick Goldstrike Mines in Nevada, attached, and already approved by the BLM.
5. Any sample for which Summo determines a negative NNP, indicating potential to generate
-------
acid, wiH be sent to Rocky Mountain Geochenrical Laboratories (West Jordan, Utah) or another
independent laboratory of Summo's choice for confirmation analysis of AGP, ANP, and NNP
6. Data will be checked against the baseKne conditions estabHshed for the project. If results vary
significantly from what was presented in the EIS, Summo win notify the BLM and appropriate
actions win take place. An annual report wffl be prepared and submitted to the BLM summarizing
test results from the previous year.
-------
llU/07/96 14:34
aUl 561 Utt'/U
ItSJ UUJ.- UUU
AVAILABLE NRfTTRATLtZATTOtt POTENTIAL IN MINE vSAMPLES
BY NaOBT BACK TTTRATTON
D VERSTON FOR COMMERrTAT. T AKOtt ATOKYTTSE
MOD
(Authorized)
(Standard Operating Procedure - Measurement Methods)
NPPACTT ANP
(Component Name)
(Customer Test Name)
ALQ242
(Method No.)
SCOPE
This Procedure follows EPA Protocol for detsnnining the available neutralization potential in
mine ores. The sample is acidified with hydrochloric acid and the acid is neutralized with back
titratian -with sodium hydroxide. The acid consumption is expressed as a calcium carbonate
equivalent.
APPARATUS AND EQUIPMENT REQUIRED
Large sample pan
250 mL Erlenmeyer flask
1 liter Nalgene bottles..
Optifix 5-25 mL dispenser
Hot plate under fume hood
Magnet stir plate
Watch slass
Digital buret
Calibrated 5 mL.Finpipet.
0.001 gram balance
Desk top pH meter
Magnet spin bar
50 mL burst (class A)
REAGENTS AND MATERIALS REQUIRED
e Disposable test tubes
• 0.5NHC1 » 0.2NN&OH
• pH buffers 7,10 • 25»/eHCl
PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT REQUIRED
9 Disposable latex gloves • Eye-wash station
• Steel toed shoes • Safety glasses
HAZARDS AND PRECAUTIONS
• Reagents: read MSDS for each chemical used in procedure.
• Skin hazard: Wear disposable latex gloves when handling, dispensing, pipetting, or disposing
of organic solvents, bases or acids.
AL0242
01/19/96
-------
10/07/96
seri
PROCEBXJRE
1 Weigh a pulp into a. test tube between 0.98 and 1.02 grams.
2 Transfer the sample into a 250 mL Erienmeyer flask.
A Dispense 10 mL of 0.5 N HC1 into the test tube to dean the tube and pour into the
labeled flask.
B Add another 10 niL of 0.5 N HC1 into the flask.
3 Swirl the flasks to mix and wet the sample.
4 Place the flasks on the Zetex covered hot plate under the fume hood.
S Swirl the flasks occasionally while heating.
A Heat the pulp nearly to boiling, swirling the flask frequently until reaction is complete, as
indicated when no further gas e%-olution is visible and particles settle evenly over bottom
of the flask.
Do not boil the samples.
6 Remove the flasks from the hot plate and add DI water to brine the flask volume to 125 mL
and boil flask for 1 minute. . .. •
A Cover flask with watch glass and cool until it reaches room temperature.
7 Calibrate a pH meter with a 7 and 10 buffer.
A Always rinse the probe between solutions with DI water.
8 When the flasks have cooled to room temperature, place the pH probe into the flask.
9 Begin titrating with 0.2 N NaOH to a pH of 7.
A Begin titrating without delay using a minimum of stirring on the magnetic stirrer.
B Record the volume of NaOH used for each flask.
Note:
If one drop of titrant causes or sill cause the pHto go above 7.00, the titration should be
good as is. However, if a stream of titrant causes the pH to go above 7.00 you have
over titrated the sample and you must start the procedure over. As the endp'oint is
approached, be certain to allow the pH meter to stabilize between titrant additions.
Note:
Sample flasks must be clean and rinsed with DI. Rinse the probe tip off with 25% HCl
solution every 10 samples to prevent buildup of scale. Excess stirring during titration
will dissolve atmospheric CO; samples, lowering the pH.
AL0242
01/19/96
-------
10/07/98 14:33 FAX 801 581 0670
ROCKY JTEN GEOCHE
U2003--UU8
Reruns:
If less* than 3 mL of NaOH solution is needed to titrate a sample, rerun the sample using
0.50 grams of sample. This wfll be adjusted for in the calculation.
CALCULATIONS
%CaCO, = CmLHCI * NHCH -fmLNaOH
sample weight
x S.0004
AL0242
01/19/96
-------
Summo Minerals Corporation
Lisbon Valley Copper Project
Annual Waste Dumping Schedule
1 Vasr 1
Centennial
Sentinal
GTO
Year 1 Total
Dump Total
Dump Elevation
Year 2
Centennial
Sentinal
GTO
Year 2 Total
CiiVttatal
Dump Total
Dump Etevation
YearS
Centennial
Sentinal
GTO
Year 3 Total
Subtotal
Dump Total
Dump Elevation
Year 4
Centennial
Sentinal
GTO
Year 4 Total
Subtotal
Dump Total
Dump Elevation
Year 5
Centennial
Sentinal
GTO
Year 5 Total
Subtotal
Dump Total
Dump Elevation
Dump A
Tons add g«n.
waste
0
0
130,654
130,654
130.654
818,494
818.494
949.148
460,909
460,909
1,410.057
Tons add
nout waste
0
0
6,600
0
0
0
6,600
5,710,848
5.710.846
5,710,846
5,841,500
6,640
6,404,758
6,404,756
12,115,802
13,064,750
6,680
2,973,092
2,973.092
15,088,693
6,498,750
6,680
'
1 Dump B
Tons add
gan. waste
167.603
187,603
256,483
256,483
424,087
37,330
37.330
461.416
272.831
272,831
734.248
460,909
460,909
1.195,156
Tonsadt
neut waste
1.031,197
1.031,197
11,198,800
6,600
2,131,517
2,131,517
3,162,713
3,586,800
6,600
1,631,670
1,631,670
4,794,384
2,522,800
6,840
2,134,919
2,134,919
6,929,302
7,663,550
6,680
2,973,092
2,973,092
9,902,394
11,097,550
6,680
DumpC
Tons add
g«n. waste
251,405
251,405
128,242
128,242
379,646
18,665
67,645
86.310
465,956
0
94,704
94,704
550,660
0
688,479
688,479
1,249,139
Tons add
nuet waste
1,648,795
385,000
1.931,795
2,183,200
6,600
.1,065,758
892,000
1,757,758
3,689,554
4 069 200
6,600
815,835
1,053,355
1,889,190
558,744
6,024,700
'6,640
0
1,769,296
1,769,296
7,328,040
7,888,700
6,640
0
3,262,521
3,262,521
10,590,561
11,839,700
6,680
i
Total
Tons
2.997,000
385,000
0
3,382,000
—
3,582,000
692.000
0
4,274,000
7,856,000
8,345,000
1,121,000
0
9,466,000
17,122,000
9,631,000
1,864,000
0
11,495,000
28,617,000
6,868,000
3.951,000
0
10,819,000
39,436,000
-------
Sumnno Minerals Corporation
Lisbon Valley Copper Project
Annual Waste Dumping Schedule
i
Year 6
Centennial
Sentinal
GTO
Year 6 Total
Subtotal
Dump Total
Dump Elevation
Year?
Centennial
Sentinal
GTO
Year 7 Total
Subtotal
Dump Total
Dump Elevation
YearS
Centennial
Sentinal
GTO
Year 8 Total
Subtotal
Dump Total
Dump Elevation
Year 9
Centennial
Sentinal
GTO
Year 9 Total
Subtotal
Dump Total
Dump Elevation
Year 10
Centennial
Sentinal
GTO
Year 10 Total
Subtotal
Dump Total
Dump Elevation
Dump A
"cms acid gen.
55,233
.
55,233
1,485,289 -
0
459,718
459,718
1,925,007
0
689,576
689,576
2,614,583
0
646,478
646,478
3,261,062
0
826,385
826.385
3,887,427
Tom acid
neut waste <
774,369
13,558,000
14,330,369
29,419,063
30,884,352
6,720
0
3,732,282
3,732,282
33,151,345
35.076,352
6,720
0
6,363,424
6,362,424
39,513,769
42,128,362
8,760
0
6,287,272
6,287,272
45,801,040
49,062,102
6,800
0
2,499,635
2,499,635
48,300,675
52,188,102
6,800
Dump 3
Tons acid
gen. waste
138,082
138,082
1,333,238
0
0
1,333,238
— H
0
Tonsaeit
neut waste <
DumpC
Tons add
jen. waste
~~~ I
1,935,923
1,935,923
11,838,317 :
13,171,555
359,014
805,085
864,099
2,113.238
8,720 I
2,774,500
2,774,500
14,612,817
15,946,055
6.760
0
0 0
1,333,238 1 14,61 2,817
0
215,493
215,493
1,548,731
0
0
1,548,731
15,946,055
6,760
0
2,095,757
2,095,757
16,708,574
18,257,305
8,810
0
0
18,708,574
18,257,305
6,810
0
0
0
2,113,238
49,519
o
49,519
2,162,757
110,466
0
110,468
2,273,223
«
0
o
0
2,273,223
Tons add
nuet waste
5,033,399
816,915
5,650,314
16,240,875
18,354,113
6,780
2,774,500
35,000
2,809,500
19,050,375
21,163,613
8,760
1,264,481
0
1,264,481
20,314,856
22,477,613
6,760
169,434
0
169,434
20,484,290
22,757,513
6,810
0
0
0
20,484,290
22,757,513
6,810
Total
Tons
8.296,020
1,122,000
13,556,000
22,974,020
62,410,020
—I
5,549,000
35,000
4,192,000
9,776,000
72,186,020
1,314,000
0
7,052,000
8,366,000
80,552,020
1
279,900
o
9,245,000
9,524,900
90,076,920
'
1
0
0
3,126,000
1,326,000
93,202,920
-------
-------
Attachment 3
Meterological Monitoring Plan
14-1
-------
it,"" 1'' i ,'! 1-iiSi ,„ :,n.. . ill1! V iST
I,,
tFv', !1if "" ""'" lif iBrifi ft I
» !":' : I I 'lib I ' jillll "h!l In,'111, !J!!lt ' !' .] ']
lii i <.£•• i rUi' «;Hii, liiffiliyLJiJ I
mill"!!- , ' ,{..« ,i, Alia
I!,1 •••• iMi ii
„ jirf" I1*, "•' in11! jfirffl11 ',' "jtiti "''"ill!,,!'1 „','!; ,,,,11,: »< jiiiii ":rv\ :• Aiam ^ 11 mi
ill I
iiiiiiii ii i iri,
n ii 11 11 in ii I^K^
"" "ii"1!""11*,,"'!: ..... -S' » ...... • ' '"III' ' :i' III''*1111''! ...... "LJi,!'1!!:!': .......
..... ft IPI ........ • :,,n,,, WHIIIII11 '!, ii^!J'i
:;;r«v\|:5f;; f, •, .if"
1 »! 'IMPH* ' ii, u1'1",' '''fill i!i»'l llFl " i|i' ii ; ,1"' 'i!n,,:i , IIIP * "I'!' ! '.
:i'ij, Ililli' " lilnfl ,;, : * 11 Hi,"1 "Iniiiin '"<" fi'M inn in ;• 'V ,r "" ,< ,11,,,.; i .'iniii 'IT! iqi i mi' vllilllnP11 illHirili 'm
!",!,,„'"'":! !',! ,"",„'',,,,''!! „„! !',"'!"""',„ "3!':!„'! !,'',!,!!
illlLLhllllllilll', , '"llllliliniiiilLlllll lilllllliniiliilllilllllniiHIi 91 I
III 11 III II lull III I ill IIII I
-------
METEOROLOGICAL MONITORING PLAN
LISBON VALLEY PROJECT
INTRODUCTION
Summo USA Corporation proposes to monitor the on-site meteorological conditions for the
purposes of documenting the atmospheric water balance and the wind conditions at the Lisbon
Valley Project. The station is to be located in an area with winds and precipitation representative
of the conditions of the leach pad and, more generally, the entire project area. The station will
be located in the valley west of the leach pad approximately central to the flat open area of that
valley.
The location will be approximately 1,000 feet west of the west end of the leach pad so that it will
measure unimpeded winds, even when the leach pad is at its eventual full height of 100 feet.
Winds and temperature will be measured with equipment and by the procedures recommended by
EPA for air quality purposes. The precipitation and evaporation will be measured by methods
acceptable to the National Weather Service. These two government agencies define the minimum
quality of the equipment in terms of its response time, accuracy, and responsiveness to measured
conditions. They also recommend certain minimum calibration frequencies, which will be met
with this program. ,
SYSTEM DESCRIPTION
The station will cost of a 10-meter tower on top of which the wind equipment will be mounted.
Temperature and relative humidity will be mounted at the 2-meter level of the tower. The
precipitation gauge and evaporation pan will be located near ground level at a distance from the
tower that will eliminate any effects of the tower on the readings.
Table 1
System Equipment
Ifrisfmrnentation
wind speed
wind direction
temperature
relative humidity
precipitation (heated)
evaporation
10 meters
10 meters
2 meters
2 meters
ground level
ground level
Data-Collection
Euiment
Campbell Scientific CR10 data logger
Telephone line and data modem
-------
All sensors will electronically report to the digital logger, which will record all information in 15-
minute averages or totals. The logger will store the data internally for downloading either by
portable data module or by phone transmission.
All equipment will be maintained and calibrated on a six-month frequency. It will be visually
checked on a weekly basin for obvious problems. The routine maintenance program will include
the refiling of the evaporation pan as needed.
PROJECT ORGANIZATION
The project will be controlled by the on-site environmental manager. Routine data error checking,
instrument calibration, data downloading, and processing will be performed by individuals with
an expertise in atmospheric data processing. These individuals can be either within the Summo
organization or contracted. Routine visual inspections of the station will be performed by an on-
site technician. The data summaries will be maintained by the on-site environmental manager.
MAINTENANCE AND CALIBRATION
Routine maintenance will consist of weekly visual checking of the condition of the equipment for
obvious damage. The evaporation pan will need to be refilled on this frequency and sometimes
more frequently in the summer. Scheduled maintenance will be on a six-month frequency for the
purpose of changing any worn or damaged parts. All sensors will be recalibrated on this schedule.
A log will be kept of all activities directly affected response of the sensors and the data logger.
DATA PROCESSING
The data logger will be downloaded at a minimum of every two weeks. The data will be reviewed
for suspicious trends or values and a comparison of the instrument responses to observed
conditions (made on a weekly basis) will be performed. Any suspect data will be investigated on
the biweekly basis and issues resolved on a continuing basis.
The data will be summarized in hourly averages (winds, temperature, and relative humidity) or
totals (precipitation and evaporation). The winds will be further summarized in statistical format
as frequencies by speed and direction for the calendar quarter and year. Temperature and relative
humidity will be summarized by month, daily average, daily maximum and minimum.
Precipitation and evaporation will be summarized by monthly totals.
DATA REPORTING
Information will be assembled on a quarterly basis and an annual summary of the data collected
will be prepared. A copy of the report will be sent tp the BLM each year.
-------
APPENDIX B-l
STATIC TEST RESULTS
IS-1
23996/R4.TS 1/31/97(2:46 PMVRPT/6
-------
nun ii nun HI in n i iiinnii i n i
•' vmi:$ tin
•:;" mm iff ^iiii rafflii 'i v MI
|"li i'llllliini Ill' „! .,» !|l'i"v, , '"lilllM,,, fl1' '".'"'lllifi'll'il'
, iifliiln, 'i liliilitiiliiili,!!11!,,,!!111,*'!..:1 n.' "'JL"!!1:;!!!'1"*:1"111/ ' ;„ '. n! ..illiil'.Kf'llil'illI .l,1!"!';,'!!;; in:'!1:!! 9 , 'Ii ,,,,'"!lii!i,,, " ii;
I, try ..... illliWHIlllll ..... Ii aillli'1!" 'I ...... 'J"! iilllllllii: 1 ..... .• ,i, jitl/
, "f iliilillil' I'liiJ'i t, in t .i1!. ii;,,,.,: Ji..»! ..... I/: Wil.1*''1!1'''1'1'-111!!,:;
II ill1, :,, ', j'HIJEI i,',';:I!'!"" • III11'':,: III lIiUlilli., lilllllii'Mlllliiil'lill1!! . ', '.. flSili!"* !"' / '"ill"!!'": Hi,,1, ,!ili.|.,
I ItllllWI'MIIIPI1 i'li 111'III!' I' .III" ' lillKlllli' /I'IH "Mr i"1i|, . i n!:!'l'<|, 'III Ii.tlllilll'l' ',,011, ,' JilJ,,nlllill.in Ha Ii \"n Wnk • 't llllhTli:, ,'iH Hflin, „ • IJ , l|
• ..... "i! ..... ..... i1!1!,;' ..... ........ M
') ..... •*:
ijiiiiiiiiiill11
'!" 'i**1'1!1'1 If
'I11 II ' "I !
Ill N Ill (' 111 I
Iilllllllii
J 111
I (II I II
III 111 I II
(III 111 II
-------
TABLE B-l
STATIC TEST RESULTS
SAMPLE
Number
93-C1
93-C1
93-C1
93-C1
93-C1
93-C1
93-C2
- »A/\|i
*
$«C4*
'tTO1
-•93VCS*'
'•s'J
^3-C5*
$382*
93R2
93R2
t
93R21
93R21
93R21
93R21
DEPTH
(ft)
19
21
30.5
35.5
44.5
46.5
17
';- " jj S
% -f •*
["'" l^ ' ^
' " &», * V ;,
', :^ ""- ^
v V , ' V' "j
^ V'\34 '^ |T, >
** *3 "^D.48- 'NV
V % ' '
40-60
60-80
% '•v •• £••
, ^ ]4$4($v
'! i
160-180
180-200
200-220
220-240
ROCK
TYPE
I.S/MS
MS
MS
I.S/SI.ST
Sl.ST/MS
LS
SLST/SH
- COAi
' \ •••.
l*'W®L^#
; ^.W^M*^ ^,
'" sSS^)";-5,
"" /% ••
^ > stos^j'
: % "0>k ^-"
ss
ss
••v ^'vstuk'xo ''
MS
MS
MS
MS
^»™— ••»— ^™^"
Bed
Number
14
14
14
14
14
14
9-10
-,-; - a ,
^
:' ' %
"\v ;,»4'
''- s"'^ -
" ^s' f'"' 1'
* ' Sil?;'
- "f- ,-- $$
f / \ , <. f
9-13
9-13
& ii
14
14
14
14
TOTAL
0.032
0.028
0016
0016
0.088
0.018
0.018
%M2| '-: ,
^l"; $$§$*"''•<'',,
J/'l v A Jjik' ' %
^MB*^ ^^
\'s f
^^,^1
f$f$ f,'
iifiSjtfv ^S '
^ «*W^,\, ^
\ &t4^
<"• 5 v
0.160
0.120
ffiM$-"' "'
0.030
0.042
0.045
0.051
AGP
ANP
NNP
TONS CaCOj/1000 tons of sample
<0.03
0.06
<0.03
0.06
0.25
0.19
0.06
13.<94,
s"'jy fej,' "}
:"'-™rr''
••4^><
'l^ijt
•• '''^(178'
' ,**
•• 'v^.
6.25
2.19
,%?•• §,78 "v
0.06
0.09
0.13
0.09
392
303
8.7
181
4.4
757
4.4
, ' j.f& A -WV ^ •*
4> F-V "',
V-V0^; :
''{ -fi^'^1 '*
' f''^ *& S " '
;,"'\/l ',"'"-
' ,' ,1 "<^i'
9.3
22.8
'*''',•'•'**&& :s /••-
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
+392
+302.9
+8.7
+180.9
+4.1
+756.8
+4.3
'","v * -i
// *vti| 13,000
5,050
>290
3,017
17.6
3,984
73
' '& ' "v.V'' '*
-*A^t sv"v "*
^v\ f *" ••
c. ^%'^&^^- * -,v
' u ' ip
',' ?^,^ '•> *<
<• % >
?"'^''''' *^f-{ffi '"'•'•'
' V v*w 'v'^ •• ,
1.49
10.4
f '• v
X,. T^fcWT1 ^ N
<8.00
<5.33
<4.00
<5.33
23996/R4.B 1/31/97(12:00 PMJ/RPT/5
B-l
-------
TABLE B-l
STATIC TEST RESULTS (Continued)
SAMPLE
Number
93R4
93R4
93R4
93R4
93R4
f •&$.%&£$ f
** vsJxVV 5f f
't ^ •
i'9m'" '
^ ,_ f
g ** ••
' 9386^ ''v
A' '
j^K^Jf
93R6
93R6
93R6
93R6
93R6
93R6
93R6
93R6
DEPTH
40-60
60-80
80-100
100-120
120-140
i-w, ^
2MQ *
ff
' f
i
f ff f **x>3
? ^ *, * ^
\\ / ^ ,
-. -11 i •> ^
9-13
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
SULFUR (%)
TOTAL
0.021
0.037
0.029
0.025
0.031
,&*& ,/
0,6^
I y
f O8& , '5
- 8.53ft % » N;
0.700
0.330
0.060
0.110
0.052
0.029
0.040
0.042
AGP
ANP NNP
ANP:AGP
(sulfidic sulfur)
SULFIDE SULFATE TONS CaCOj/1000 tons of sample
0.001
0.003
0.001
0.001
0.001
• mn ;
, ft«J
f
M40
0Ji«. •
0.310
0.130
0.001
0.021
0.001
<0.001
0.002
0.002
0.020
0.034
0.028
0.024
0.030
' vm^
>fe'
f
, < f,I4$
\ ^ " «a» -
0.390
0.200
0.059
0.089
0.051
0.029
0.038
0.040
0.03
0.09
0.03
0.03
0.03
^ f $ * v •><•
yiw» * -
^ *"X ^v v
% ' ' t
$7*50
.^'^ft«9j iV> '
9.69
4.06
0.03
0.66
0.03
<0.03
0.06
0.06
160
200
300
315
300
•"«fc*
^
%
%€
L\;l*
20.1
76
87.1
98.7
270
370
345
275
160.0
199.9
300.0
315.0
300.0
f', <^iw'.
/" " »iw
* ?
/' ' ^ "
s \
^-- - 4<5 ^
" ^f.*'4fr , ?
10.4
71.9
87.1
98.0
270.0
370.0
344.9
274.9
5,120
2,133
9,600
10,080
9,600
* >M*' ^
^,^v
^ %
,
* " '
• -v'f ^88 -t"'
>\-v'' '•. ** *
2.07
18.7
2,787
150
8,640
>T2,333
5,520
4,400
23996/R4.B 1/31/97(12:00 PM)/RPT/5
B-2
-------
TABLE B-l
STATIC TEST RESULTS (Continued)
SAMPLE
Number
93R6
n$3&.?\ x
' 58*3* \
ftsk?4 '
\
93R7
^"^ 93R7
C/A 93R7
1 93R7
"^C. 93R7
93R7
93R7
93R7
93R7
93R12
93R12
93R12
93R12
93R12
DEPTH
(ft)
280-300
''/ ' \
/ 5&s - - 1;
r 20*4.0, t
40HSO -\'
60-80
80-100
100-120
120-140
140-160
160-180
180-200
200-220
220-240
5-20
20-40
40-60
60-80
80-100
ROCK
TYPE
MS
*&
..- v J$
-Wtitot
• - C0AUSS
SS
ss
ss
ss
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS/SS
SS
SS
SS
SS/MS
MS
Bed
Number
14
* * % '
,%, - -
;*<:** -
' | ''6-13
9-13
9-13
9-13
9-13
14
14
14
14
14-15
11-13
11-13
11-13
14
14
SULFUR (%)
TOTAL
0.037
'5 'rt ,
- *Q32& - ,>
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
SULFIDE SULFATE
0.001
^ (v,/jA«
'\ *
- mw*\
*" &390
0.080
0.030
0.020
0.002
0.004
0.002
0.004
<0.001
0.050
0.002
0.001
0.002
0.003
0.001
0.036
\ $$4$^ "i
•> \ s s ^ X '^•N''
;^;M^; -,,i^
\-" $$& \*','x'
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
AGP
ANP
NNP
TONS CaCOj/1000 tons of sample
0.03
&2$% *••
V
i
'"V" x. \f
' ' C:
-, *X'
6.0
18.1
149.4
104.9
124.9
124.9
399.9
425.0
243.4
12.5
37.7
11.8
67.5
100.0
ANP:AGP
(sulfidic sulfur)
.^ ^
11,840
\.--<£$®: f(% ,
"-"<16Q- "**'
"**M&>*'
"* % ''''* /
3.40
20.3 «
240
1,680
1,000
2,000
3,200
>14,I67
157
202
1,206
190
721
3,200
23996/R4.B 1/31/97(12:00 PM)/RPT/5
B-3
-------
TABLE B-l
STATIC TEST RESULTS (Continued)
SAMPLE DEPTH
Number (ft)
ROCK
TYPE
Bed
Number
SULFUR (%)
AGP
ANP NNP
ANP:AGP
(sulfidic sulfur)
TOTAL SULFIDE SULFATE TONS CaCOj/1000 tons of sample
93R12
93R12
93R12
93R17
93R17
•— «_
-. 93R17
j 93R17
\J\ 93R17
93R17
93R17
93R23
S3J&3.1''' /%".
,$$823* V
'-^
93R23
93R23
93R23
93R23
93R23
100-120
120-140
140-160
5-20
20-40
40-60
60-80
80-100
100-120
120-140
5-20
;>o^o;- Y
4 ^ ** t'+v* \ ^
0.94
0.62
0.31
0.81
0.06
395
410
305
28.7
2.9
86.3
84.9
400
440
325
4.3
', «&5'*'
,' ' !
V+&
15.2
89.9
75.7
23.2
93.4
395.0
410.0
305.0
28.7
2.9
86.3
84.8
400.0
440.0
324.7
4.0
- - -^?.5V
^••*-- 0 Vs'"
" \*V*T*
14.3
89.3
75.4
22.4
93.3
>13,167
13,120
>10,167
>957
>96.7
>2,877
1,358
>13,333
>14,667
1,040
13.8
r
-------
TABLE B-l
STATIC TEST RESULTS (Continued)
C^
SAMPLE
Number
93R23
93R23
93R23
93R23
93R25
93R25
93R25
93R25
93R25
93R25
93R25
93R25
93R25
93R25
93R29
93R29
93R29
DEPTH
(ft)
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
20-40
40-60
ROCK Bed
TYPE Number
MS
MS
MS
MS
COAL/SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS/MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
SS
SS
SS
14
14
14
14
6-13
9-13
9-13
9-13
9-13
9-13
14
14
14
14
14
3-5
3-5
3-5
TOTAL
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
0.061
0.013
SULFUR (%)
SULFIDE
0.027
0.010
0.001
0.060
0.001
0.020
0.001
0.040
0.001
0.002
O.001
0.014
<0.001
0.010
0.021
0.002
0.007
SULFATE
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
0.059
0.006
AGP ANP NNP
TONS CaCOj/1000 tons of sample
0.84
0.31
0.03
1.88
0.03
0.63
0.03
1.25
0.03
0.06
<0.03
0.44
<0.03
0.31
0.66
0.06
0.22
230
395
415
345
<0.5
3.2
13.6
93.8
11.8
4.3
70.9
245
385
450
32.2
32.2
7.6
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
32.1
. 7.4
ANP:AGP
(sulfidic sulfur)
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
515
34.7
23996/R4.B 1/31/97(12:00 PM)/RPT/5
B-5
-------
TABLE B-l
STATIC TEST RESULTS (Continued)
SAMPLE
Number
93R29
93R29
93R29
93R29
93R29
94R6
94R6
94R6
94R6
94R6
SMfc^
SM&6* o
••
94R6
94R6
94R6
94R7
94R7
94R7
DEPTH
(ft)
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
iOMNaw
' - J2&M4&0,
t$ •»,
140.0-160.0
160.0-180.0
180.0-200.0
220.0-240.0
240.0-260.0
260.0-280.0
ROCK
TYPE
SS/MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
ALLUV
ALLUV/SS
SS
SS
SS/COAL
COM, £*
"-" €OA1/^
•*•*
SS
SS
SS
Bed
Number
3-5,14
14
14
14
14
1
3-5
3-5
3-5
6-8
•.-' &${
*>^S43 ''"
"" *
9-13
9-13
9-13
9-13
14
15
TOTAL
0.032
0.023
0.025
0.036
0.140
0.640
0.300
0.090
0.030
0.036
"-, ^m
?i ti&fc ;
$ "•
0.340
0.400
0.100
0.280
0.220
0.370
SULFUR (%)
SULFIDE
0.002
0.001
0.001
0.003
0.020
O.001
0.001
. O.001
0.001
0.001
4tm *,
" ' &m - "*•- "-
f *••*
0.210
0.260
. O.001
0.180
0.040
0.260
SULFATE
0.030
0.023
0.025
0.033
0.120
0.640
0.300
0.090
0.030
0.036
9ft3» "
''^iS& ' - '
•• ' ^
0.130 '
0.140
0.100
0.100
0.180
0.110
AGP ANP NNP ANP:AGP
(sulfidic sulfur)
TONS CaCOj/1000 tons of sample
0.06
O.03
0.03
0.09
0.63
0.03
O.03
O.03
O.03
O.03
f W*
'"'B.M^ •
\
6.56
8.13
O.03
5.63
1.25
8.13
48.3
130
410
400
285
17.6
47.1
5.9
2.3
3.9
^ji'r5?-
/- '^/'/Cy'5''
' % -w %
24.2
53.6
6.3
35.6
39.1
33.7
48.2
130.0
410.0
399.9
284.4
17.6
47.1
5.9
2.3
3.9
-W'5',, -
"!• f' fff
vj'-'jf JjrfjW'" •»
ef ^
17.6
45.5
6.3
30.0
37.9
25.6
773
>4,333
>13,667
4,267
456
>587
>1,570
>196
>75.7
>130
m\< ; ^
s&&»"^"
3.69
6.60
>209
6.3
31.3
4.1
23996/R4.B 1/31/97(12:00 PM)/RPT/5
B-6
-------
TABLE B-l
STATIC TEST RESULTS (Continued)
SAMPLE
Number
94R7
94R121
94RI21
;_„,.!
-
94RJ21
94R12
94R12
94R12
94R12
94R12
94R12
94R14
94R14
94R14
94R14
94R14
94R14
94R14
DEPTH ROCK
(ft) TYPE
280.0-300.0
0.0-20.0
20»WMQS
80.0-100.0
100.0-120.0
120.0-140.0
140.0-160.0
160.0-180.0
280.0-300.0
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
ALLUV/SS
SS
• €OAl) ' -
* •. S*
COAL/S&,
SS
SS/MS
MS
MS
MS
ALLUV/SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
Bed
Number
17
3-5
' '3*3 '
V %;W '
J
, "'*&*tn
9-13
9-14
14
14
14
17
9-13
9-13
9-13
9-13
9-13
9-13
9-13
TOTAL
0.024
0.170
/
0,180 ,
U&' '
^ -Mm - '% ,
0.540
0.520
0.200
0.200
0.100
0.030
0.340
1.020
0.880
0.580
0.500
0.640
0.360
SULFUR (%)
SULFIDE
<0.001
<0.001
, \
:"i-}^M$
-"$£& - ^'
\s
-r MW y " J
0.370
0.380
0.080
0.060
0.008
O.001
<0.001
0.010
0.260
0.430
0.380
0.450
0.210
AGP
ANP NNP ANP-.AGP
(sulfidic sulfur)
SULFATE TONS CaCOj/1000 tons of sample
0.024
0.170
&t$*
WhSgyf?
t f
ft^Of^" '
0.170
0.140
0.120
0.140
0.092
0.030
0.340
1.010
0.620
0.150
0.120
0.190
0.150
<0.03
<0.03
% f Jx Vk.4, ''f
' -•• •».. v94 '••, f
+ \Z?.i$ % ,
* ' ' ™.; ,
i ' '***??, ' ^'
11.56
11.88
2.50
1.88
0.25
<0.03
<0.03
0.31
8.13
13.44
11.88
14.06
6.56
5.9
<0.5
nfjf
'^3-
IJkls
r'C
" 'ii>9 "
21.4
13.9
169.0
385.0
270.0
8.1
225.0
160.0
39.2
23.6
33.5
66.0
26.7
5.9
0.5
% VV*^ >
'-, " ,"? f
- r 3&X'.
I' ' ': '^ '
. H* - ->
9.8
2.0
166.5
383.1
269.8
8.1
225.0
159.7
31.1
10.2
21.6
51.9
20.1
>188.8
16.7
TjJil JgiJ ^
,"^'
' fc&i ^ ,
', %
./ ^ /
1.85
1.17
67.6
205
1,080
>259.2
>7,500
512
4.82 ,--.
1.76 v
2.82
4.69
4.07
23996/R4.B 1/31/97(12:00 PM)/RPT/5
B-7
-------
TABLE B-l
STATIC TEST RESULTS (ConHnued)
SAMPLE
Number
94R14
94R14
94R14
94R14
94R14
94R14
94R14
94S8
94S8
94S8
94S8
94S8
94S8
94S8
94S8
94S8
94S15
94S15
DEPTH
(ft)
180.0-200.0
200.0-220.0
220.0-240.0
240.0-260.0
340.0-360.0
360.0-380.0
380.0-400.0
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
0.0-20.0
20.0-40.0
ROCK
TYPE
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
Bed
Number
14
14
14
14-15
15
15
17
14
14
14
14
14-15
15
15
15
15-17
14
14
TOTAL
0.200
0.180
0.086
0.078
0.072
0.044
0.072
0.018
0.028
0.028
0.018
0.024
0.084
0.034
0.020
0.074
0.022
0.032
SULFUR (%)
SULFIDE
0.050
0.060
<0.001
<0.00l
0.012
<0.001
0.020
<0.001
0.002
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
0.002
<0.001
<0.001
0.20
<0.001
O.001
SULFATE
0.150
0.120
0.086
0.078
0.060
0.044
0.052
0.018
0.026
0.028
0.018
0.024
0.082
0.034
0.020
0.054
0.022
0.032
AGP
ANP
NNP
ANP.-AGP
(sulfidic sulfur)
TONS CaCOj/1000 tons of sample
1.56
1.88
<0.03
<0.03
0.38
<0.03
0.63
<0.03
0.06
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
0.06
<0.03
<0.03
0.63
<0.03
<0.03
200.0
305.0
305.0
255.0
25.5
21.1
16.4
235.0
400.0
415.0
355.0
245
8.3
5.0
9.6
1.4
395.0
560.0
198.4
303.1
305.0
255.0
25.1
21.1
15.8
235.0
399.9
415.0
355.0
245.0
8.2
5.0
9.6
0.8
395.0
560.0
128
163
>10,167
>8,500
68.0
>675.2
26.2
>7,833
6,400
>13,933
>1 1,833
>7840
132.3
>160
>307.2
2.2
>13,167
>18,667
23996/R4.B 1/31/97(12:00 PMJ/RPT/5
B-8
-------
TABLE B-l
STATIC TEST RESULTS (Continued)
SAMPLE
Number
94S15
94S15
94S15
94S15
94S15
94S15
94S29
$$£20'
^ f •,
"94S29
s .
' "" viK r
-, *
94S29
94S29
94S29
94S29
94S29
94S29
94S29
DEPTH ROCK
(ft) TYPE
40.0-60.0 MS/SS
160.0-180.0
180.0-200.0
200.0-220.0
220.0-240.0
240.0-260.0
0.0-20.0 SS
% ,:r tt&ft&D - ««* c
.. ^ •• *','••"'
%)$*$&$ f $ "358 >' * %
v*5" / v •• V ^ %
?J/ T^/v'i ;'Vs
100.0-120.0 SS/MS
120.0-140.0 MS
140.0-160.0 MS
160.0-180.0 MS
180.0-200.0 MS
200.0-220.0 MS
240.0-260.0 SS
Bed
Number
14-15
15
15
15
15
15
9-13
sv
5- 'v^f-O-'
» ' 'H '- "•
,*% X Y^ % S^l*
o. •* i^
"•l />'•'• "• ti £14
'. * > y°*s3
z.. ^ '• ..
14
14
14
14
14
14
15
SULFUR (%)
TOTAL
0.020
0.160
0.026
0.016
0.012
0.024
0.200
*.
V %
v^ % V ' v
*> s}>§7w
""l- % ' % v 1-5 '
/; n4^A/:
0.380
0.340
0.130
0.210
0.120
0.190
0.230
SULFIDE
<0.001
0.050
<0.001
<0.001
0.002
<0.001
<0.001
*" ** A -i *VA-- ^ > *•
v 'W-iW "
ft?!4ft '- J
'•VwS^S* v
v^ V ^ *!•
^W-^'
0.110
0.190
0.020
0.020
<0.001
0.040
0.070
AGP
ANP
NNP ANP:AGP
(sulfidic sulfur)
SULFATE TONS CaCOj/1000 tons of sample
0.020
0.110
0.026
0.016
0.010
0.024
0.200
"" jf. 'rf.^i $
' ^ \7\«
' ' &2$6
^j.*"**^
"• ^
, ' * "f " '|
^ ^-l^^'
0.270
0.150
0.110
0.190
0.120
0.150
0.160
<0.03
1.56
<0.03
<0.03
0.06
<0.03
<0.03
x « -k.«;
•?"• •••• *?•- " .
% •*?>%? ^ w %
i"n ix " ^ ^ ,
/ ^^ ' '' ' '*••
v^J^I>\4
43.8
78.1
119.4
489.4
530.0
358.8
112.8
•in in '
••^n ooo
>9,833
7.9
1.0
1.0
<8.0
1.0
>301
' ^^5^ $., ^ % % \
'•""17,667 •
288
52.6
2399S/R4.B 1/31/97(12:00 PM)/RPT/5
B-9
-------
TABLE B-l
STATIC TEST RESULTS (Continued)
SAMPLE DEPTH
Number (ft)
ROCK
TYPE
Bed
Number
SULFUR (%)
AGP
ANP NNP ANP:AGP
(sulfidic sulfur)
TOTAL SULFIDE SULFATE TONS CaCOj/1000 tons of sample
#s» rs
94S29
94S36
94S36
[msd v
»] • . . | •• t
jjp'lljj^jl? \ s^
94S36
,$4$$(3f * '-J,
f t
94S36
94S36
94S36
94S36
94S36
94S36
94G1
94G1
94G1
94G1
m&*m.
340.0-350.0
0.0-20.0
20.0-40.0
4JMWOQ?
""• •.
oi/t,y*ov<0' **
80.0-100.0
s, iOfMMJ&Q ""•
<^\ >
120.0-140.0
140.0-160.0
160.0-180.0
180.0-200.0
320.0-340.0
340.0-350.0
15.0-20.0
35.0-40.0
55.0-60.0
75.0-80.0
i
ALLUV
'ALLUV/
COAL
VCOAL
*" CCJjAijpS®
ss
%jt •$§"• s '
'•&*<• f % •
SS
ss
ss
MS
ALLUV
SH
SH
SH
•*•%
17
1
6-8
* r &*§
/\ " *
' ** %'* o* 13
9-13
vX^t> Ȥ'^||| _ -
'^ ^^"!% ^
9-13
9-13
9-13
14
15
17
1
2
2
2
0.72&
0.072
0.028
0.044
'C9J54&
,'•>*?
*« 3 250-
0.330
:^ {Q>4?d#'',i
^ -^ •'^^
0.350
0.260
0.310
0.320
0.043
0.250
0.028
0.370
0.480
1.130
*£***
0.012
<0.001
<0.001
^>;;i49g;
f
s * v f
f f "* Tjtmlfj
0.210
:>vr ^25^
1 *l% v."" ^ i%
0.220
0.168
0.200
0.180
0.280
0.180
<0.001
O.001
0.020
0.700
«IW
0.060
0.028
0.044
V ' M5B p.
* •*
"" '^ ^ '?fe *"**
V ^
0.120
•. f ' ••/^iTtfi^ '
^% ffff t^^^
0.130
0.092
0.110
0.140
0.150
0.074
0.028
0.370
0.460
0.430
v» Jd5^
0.38
<0.03
<0.03
% - ;/mi'
^ * o >'
f •i'i ttjt
6.56
rfe'^c ]ct$4/
v"V^ "* ^-
6.87
5.25
6.25
5.63
8.75
5.63
<0.03
<0.03
0.62
21.88
" M
12.0
145.0
84.5
: t ", ^
!\ ^ J''
<"* "" "i^ *^ %
12.7
•• ffe i^f'' •
^^^" ^ f
13.0
25.6
44.7
315.0
58.7
55.0
64.0
19.2
14.0
77.5
< , .?4|
11.6
145.0
84.5
^ /*t~m:,'\
f it *%"^|'r '
/ ff ~^f^ i ^
6.1
' ' ?'^J.. »JS '/?'"•
/ j%x^ft-. s *** ^
6.1
20.4
38.5
309.4
50.0
49.4
64.0
19.2
13.4
55.6
&5t ^ ^
32.0
>4,833
>2,817
teS' 4 '<
y , , , '-('•
•4- A. ^4 ** *•
fJ&MjMMt %
1.94
-%£?? \ ">"?*
lf*% "^ ^ ^f
1.89
4.88
7.15
56.0
6.7
9.3
>2,133
>640
22.4
3.54
23996/R4.B 1/31/97(12:00 PM)/RPT/5
B-10
-------
TABLE B-l
STATIC TEST RESULTS (Continued)
SAMPLE
Number
DEPTH ROCK Bed
(ft) TYPE Number
SULFUR (%)
TOTAL SULFIDE
94G1
94G1
94G1
94G1
94G1
94G1
94G1
94G1
MOi'1 V
94G1
wca'"s'
94G1
94G1
94G1
94G7
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
' * - ""2^4^8&.0 "
% •.
295.0-300.0
^k^miT
340.0-360.0
380.0-400.0
400.0-420.0
15.0-20.0
SH
SH
SH
SH
SH
SH
SH
SS
^:'\\
SS
"«*> : -'
f <. v-.1"
SS
MS
MS
ALLUV
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3-5
«. %4* s
9-13
\f ® i,
9-13
14
14
1
1.200
1.360
1.510
0.870
0.650
0.660
0.720
0.210
I/1S $'-<
0.880
j ?•** If '
•• i ''4
0.780
0.340
.? 0.780
0.064
0.680
0.790
0.860
0.420
0.300
0.400
0.420
0.130
2lr''
0.640
\mf ' '
0.580
0.220
0.590
0.032
SULFATE
0.520
0.570
0.650
0.450
0.350
0.260
0.300
0.080
®M$f
0.240
'^o)-;,:
0.200
0.120
0.190
0.032
AGP
ANP
NNP
ANP:AGP
(sulfidic sulfur)
TONS CaCOj/1000 tons of sample
21.25
24.69
26.88
13.13
9.38
12.50
13.13
4.06
.„;£* '
20.00
:''^>
^, M'tf^fV '
' ^ \
18.13
6.88
18.44
1.00
135.0
180.0
320.0
650.0
500.0
265.0
92.3
7.7
- /H? - •;
•, y, ^ ^ .. ^
37.0
, ' /•"-, ' ' ''-'
29.3
14.0
185.0
46.4
113.8
155.3
293.1
636.9
490.6
252.5
79.2
3.7
<« -$L£": '
17.0
f/4H^
11.2
7.1
166.6
45.4
6.35
7.29
11.9
49.5
53.3
21.2
7.03
1.90
••K,V,
1.85
*jto* ^
1.62
2.04
10.0
46.4
23996/R4.B 1/31/97(12:00 PM)/RPT/S
B-ll
-------
TABLE B-l
STATIC TEST RESULTS (Continued)
SAMPLE
Number
94G7
94G7
94G7
94G7
94G7
94G7
94G7
94G7
94G7
;.**':.
94G7
94G7
94G7
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
•'.stf.i
240.0-
260.0
260.0-
280.0
280.0-
300.0
ROCK
TYPE
SH
SH
SH
SH
SH
SH
SH
SH
SH/COAL
lw^
Bed
Number
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
6-8
> ;'/ ' ..^
9-14
9-14
TOTAL
0.058
1.160
1.630
1.560
1.500
0.680
0.620
1.080
1.070
1450 '- '
0.450
0.540
0.310
SULFUR (%)
SULF1DE
<0.001
0.380
1.110
0.890
0.890
0.320
0.310
0.680
0.750
* !•
0.280
0.340
0.120
SULFATE
0.058
0.780
0.520
0.670
0.610
0.360
0.310
0.400
0.320
,.< §• % ^ ^
% s *•
0.170
0.200
0.190
AGP ANP NNP
TONS CaCOj/1000 tons of sample
<0.03
11.87
34.69
27.81
27.81
10.00
9.69
21.25
23.44
**v
8.75
10.63
3.75
73.5
92.1
145.0
325.0
475.0
655.0
480.0
215.0
110.0
:*" •
22.7
17.6
82.7
7
80.2
110.3
297.2
447.2
645.0
470.3
193.8
86.6
'" "**
14.0
7.0
79.0
ANP:AGP
(sulfidic sulfur)
>2,450
7.76
4.18
11.7
17.1
65.5
49.5
10.1
4.69
•. "*5 ,
2.6
1.7
22.1
; ',
23996/R4.B 1/31/97(12:00 PMVRPTO
B-12
-------
o,
TABLE B-l
STATIC TEST RESULTS (Continued)
These rock types are acid generating with net neutralization potential less than zero (i.e., NNP < 0), and the ANP:AGP ratio is less than three.
Kev to Rock Types:
LS =
MS =
SLST =
SS =
SH =
limestone
mudstone
siltstone
sandstone
shale
ALLUV = alluvium
Source: McClelland 1994.
AGP = Acid Generation Potential
ANP = Acid Neutralization Potential
NNP = Net Neutralization Potential
ANP: AGP = Ratio of Acid Neutralization Potential to Acid Generation Potential
23996/R4.B 1/31/97(12:00 PM)/RPT/S
B-13
-------
-------
IIIIIII
,1111111
I ihlilihli
litujiijlih!
r.* co
o nc.
~a nj>
c»
in
JL- -*
3"
y*:—^z.
o era
~~ f- CO
O --- 1
.. —
CO
O_
cn
t= {:: f: ^ ^ |= |=
L..felfe.-'felfe-..fei..".
1= M N N N N
O C"3
'^' K^
-r-,S
sa cz:
• co
iT/cr!
rn
S-iS
o -•
23
s.
CO
r—en \_o
o oj
.CD o
CO
c
=3
=3 •'
Ct>
O
O
.O
-------
-------
-.+1Hi-Hi jJHiiHjil H-
! H!MINI! I ! M III..
ifi'fn i'iTl'Tll
iU.l.U.1 i.l..Ui i i....i
m [ 11 i i i i! j 11 j
ijiimioi]
S-9 spae -iij D|0)jDO
ri! K :-,ri -,; tnr.
AOOiOaq A-JDiiJiiinq
I -J U
on
h-in i n 1 1 H IT-I
uo b.uuo +
. i ninn\ i i i nnn
-iJjl IJOd AJ I i
-------
-------
-------
LISBON VALLEY PROJECT: Centennial Deoosit: 93R23
Cudl
0 to 1.0
ry Geoloctt
COftL SEftflS
Oakoto Fa.
1 ' i i
...fH--••••
I I
Dakota Fin.
JCALCAREOOS
r\ ( i r*
IM !
i.i L...I—i.....
um . i
L4....L... ....i....;
! i !
........I..J....J.... ............L...1.
..,..,.»......,.
.4.' L
J... .r... !....j..r
-------
-------
-------
[ISBON VALLET PROM: Centennial Deposit: Hole 91R&-91R7
lCu(I) cdcPpm3pH 8=«) AGP ANP ' NHP &»• 0 f. ,
Log SUMP/ beoloQy
0 to 1.0 0 to 50 4 to 10 0 to 1.5 0 to 300 0 to 300 -100 to 150
! I
..U.U.i U-. - -i.
liilimi
• tttl Hill
WM4IM M i-r
IIIIIUI!! I M. M I'
Dakota Fn. Beds 3-5
coto Fn. Beds &-£
Oakoto Fu. Beds 3-13
. .{1.j
! r ! ! i s i M
TrrrifiifT
...L|i].J!4]Il.i-.!.!|.,
! M Mi i 1 i ! I
! i
11 ; ! i :
•r-l •<••>•. • + •!
C^CUCflREOUS rluOSTONE !
U^^lDakotQ Ffi. Bed in i
bXvXvXvip'
^pu
IOEISH
len^
HDSIQNE !
koto Fa. Bed 15 |
JU F i
•"-V ^ i
rnson FBI. j
-------
LI
Geolony
-------
ISBON VALLEY PROJECT: Centennial Deposit: Hole 91RW
Cdcppm3pH 8=1%) AGP ANP ' NNP c~
0 to 1.0 0 to 50 1 to JO 0 to 1.5 0 to 400
Loq Summary Geology
Dakota FB. Beds H3
......
FT- mtm
\ i i mzzm
"
4-l-f-i H i
! i i
IWD8TOE
Dakota Fa. Bed i4,
! i ! i t . )
I -t- -i r ' f
i I III I il Mi tl I
ri it™ mm
i !!!!!!. i.l.t.Ij..i
-|-t-i--i i-ffi-r! -tttf!
i ! i iUM ii II 111
-M 541 f! 4!i-i-i m
.4_ll4U|.|l.ml44l
•<• i
..... ... -
.. ....... UI
! i i i i i i 1 ! M 1 ;
•-• •i-f-i-^-! !-*-i-i-T-t
-------
-------
SBON VALLEY PROJECT;Sent me I Deposit: H0je 9
c- m AhP
fcl l.GfanmJUfl J~ljOJ 1101
n to 1.0 0 to 50 j
! i .,...l...i ILL!.].!.J.U.11.U.U.I i
I ||| i il!!l|ll|!!l
i : I s i i > i i i i i i
! in
•-1 '•- hi
I :
!lMl illli!
!44-!-t-i •!•!-•!•!•• • ••
•H-l
"1 Till! Till ill
i i liH II I U Ml I I i !
rnrnqniiTfrifniriiTr
-l ft! till It! Itr i,:
i-li H!i t!i-ri---H-iih
I :
h-1lttt nr-i
.I...J l.l.l.U.1 l.ll.J.1.1 l.l.ll.i.l I....I..-1...I....]....! i-
....i
i :
i
!
I ; ,, l(~n
*m
-4-^
I i i !!—~~ri"
I....L...1
-------
LISBON VALLEY PROJECT=Sentine! Deposit: Hole 94S29
Cum Cd.ppm.pH S=m n6P ANP' NNP
to 10 0 to 1.5 0 to 100
0 to 100
-100 to
Log Summary 6eolocn
crrr^|!?.ij *j j^r^s^i^^^^Mi^^^™*"™"^^™^^^™1 "' ^l|(
SANDSTONE
Oako-i-o Fn. Beds 9-13
-------
LISBON VALLEY PROJECT=Sent i ne! Depos i t = Ho Ie 31B3&
Kij^lP Geo.
-10otom Loq Summary Geology
S=«) AGP
0 to 1.0 0 to 5Q 3 to 10 0 to 1.5 0 to 500
AMP
0 to 100
CQfIL SEAI18
Dakoto FB. Beds b-b
CALCAREOUS HUDSTONE
Dakota Fn. Bed i'i
u A
•350'
.......... .|.H..}. .t.. .t., ,. - .|.t1 ,...-
i i !| l|l I! l|! j! i In |
TTit'Ttrni'inri ir i i i
..i...!.,.l UU.1.1 |.i.l.U.I Ul -i. .-.
MlHl M1HM|I| i
1 i f M ! ! i (
i-|-1 -rrf' • rirni ITT TI i""i
' i hi inn i in
i i j i i_j_ * i i ' j i 11 i . '_-•_-. j \ »—-* '.. ..--•
...1...L.I LlLil.! !.l.|.d.| .1.1.1.1! I....1
14-11 4-j-- t-t-l l--|--t-t i -
III I I I ! Ml ! ! I ! I?
i i I ! i I j!
•-1 H ••--
iSAHOSTQNE
IDohta Fs5. Bed it
•trr- -i rrrn-i ITT -fl |--|-f-i--r-i j-
i M MiHI HI ! i !
*. ! '. ', 1 i J i i i . l_.i . i i j !
i i I I Ml M II In HI MM
I...J...J....J |.|.[.j.j.| j4.|.j.j.| .|.].].|.| j....|...|... ....J-..-J
illMniHi I i
•H H-'f r
44-U-l 1-I-4. !!
HrritElifflOLiiTM:
....[...i.j
! ! !
...
It
l.
....j...f4..| *
1 ! I I '-
i i ! l i '-
......
....|.......i..| l"
-------
0
LISBON VALLEY PROJECT: GTO Deoosit: Hole 9<1G1
3pH S=(%) AGP ' ANP NNP
n to
Seo.
-------
[LISBON VALLEY PROJECT: STQ Deposit: Hoie
Cud! c*pp-.pH S=«)
0 to i.u p to 50 5 to 10 0 to 1.5 u to 500
111
COAL SEARS
Dakota Fn. feds b~8
TriTITTTT
... I ...i. J.J.... 1. ...L. J....I i............I... illlSiOSlBff
1 II i! i 11 i;;jJi444.|.|^DatotaFi. feds 9-14
-..-•) t- IT • - --T- ........ i ••••• ~
JJ JlL, ilii IHJJ 0-LLU L4-LJL-, U-4— i jNR
M Illl M\\m\ i I II 1 1 1 1 I TIDttH
rr i j T 11 miii TUT 1 7] ....... pi rr|i ....... i rr 1 1 1 nti
f-MHtHI l-tt ill liifil - f "tl -h'Tri ~ T T **
iti!iiiii!-nii1f!iilti--ii^1-1t
rii-n--^-
. Jtttd ni in tr t n ti i ....... rm rrrrn rhTn m^^i
uUU
-------
-------
APPENDIX B-2
ANALYTICAL RESULTS
SPLP EXTRACT
23996/R4.TS 1/31/97(2:47 PM)/RPT/6
-------
Ill 111 111 III 111 111
ill I I I I II II
i nil hlllii i m i ii
i n i n n ii ii i
*'•:„•' i "''i:!' IIP: I
v:. ii ""in i ;»''
l Illlllllll 1
.«£'';
III II
••liiJjjijijjjilijjiSijiilliijiihjfi 'I!'1:l!l"; ILJ! JNii it1!11!!'Sim iiriiifiilisl1"! ||ll|:ii"" ^3ih>.' 11111 • "!" ifli'|I.'"4l!l!ll'!4!'iji!!!i,iiii!ii ', •. ,•[j;, III1:;i, l!ii!!i^^ ; if1' < IT"1,;",1,,' ,
I y.T.m. "i; i E».;K? i,<":.' ill;,! i,:i': >; :tfcv;" m<:m.„ vviifc*:mm« i ft* v,: fat* a ft
inisi1'jft1;,",!iil"'i:< '. '.";i!l /"1!:! ;jjjtt ;.IIIR |||;f^ T ;.w™ 'Sf*-.'^-! :25 ,,r '^'.fr1',,; ;j;,, • ••"•:;,'I?1-:, v'"i:
j I,, ij f' III,!1, j1 Jii Will | Ijj'; "i' :||,j ||, lljli 11 n i ,|;||!||, ,l||'' 'f,A ;!i: I j Ih.: V 'H it1' f "" I!,;; i,' 'wNill a1', .11, i,', ,| JlljK 4 niM 11111;* I"131 'ijlil Jlj'j' „''". I: il r i. , hi jil| lj~ i \ ..ill if 1: II'! .j,,,,:.,,, ^. „;,, f; j1 * ,. ;, „ I ; |, fj |,ji,'.,,,, r,l,; !*'"!'""''' If:"1",!1'' 'lll'lll'' ';J > j ;,. : | j, ,'.', I1 ,!•:', |: n '' •, „(' i, i1, h ,,"; , "' M|
i ,i, J1. j fll i, i fii ,;•' P'' nliij, :'".' ' ii|| ,,,1111 iiii|i|'«:i;!;,l|li" •;; jf , Illll1 >'! f,;' i i:».:ii',, is* "lui' ff BILBi;11 :||illui,|! w: jjLf ; i , ,y< i",; ^ ; •;' '.< i,3 i;'" Ik, < IIIII.IH <<' <<|ig;| ..iiilji;1',,,;«;«{!; , • < "i;' , j,, ji "i, liifl,,,«,,,,' ,;,,.., ; i m' T, !•: .«< i •: 'li III1: aijnii 'I , ;" ,! ; HI;!' ^ „ ,' . ,:,,'(
1 lil" *'' fF "'liiili!' IE' 'lillllllilllllR 4"; i if''''' i • '"iii '^^IC1'1'!'' i'i'1 Hi I11!' I1' ''li?""i i' "$''""i inl i^^ iiKJ:"' i:' liiiili 'iii1'' '• i-:: I ill1' >" • i": i ^' rt 4IS1™1'1 !'"'^' 'I' '' Jiiiiil"1"1 f' i"'''1'*!l'' 111' •': ?' •!''"! ';'"! > * • '''''
"ME"1,i. HUi: W1 III lit! lliililli;,1' .: litml, .'llnlll: A! iiiiffinli'llil, lllliillllllll'iiliiii:11; Illll ilillllllll,!,; r'li 'iii'niS.'iW'i"1!11'.!. yl1'"! "II li'S'i" I Ji JLi iljlllllll ii r: ''in1 1" ih.. iH1; Hi;! "'I, ' ' '':'l nr 'ill ' '' .' i ,. 'II, 'ii|
.'!•' <>' i'1;;',, <"'i''! I' 'JlibiiF ,„ < I'J lllllli H:: III;,:,.1 V!,, 'IMii: .Ji,"'1"'!'!''!'!,11!'!'!1.! Tl!!1:! M '."i,1" 'I '"Illlii lllkiiiiilllfl'liiiiljl'i'ililliilliiili. H'l" ,,lS,|"l»ill!i ti,;,; '!;| ':»,,,,,i ;
I 11,4 ii"?r. :.:• '""i1"" :; • ,im . ~v . n : Hi1 >iiiii n a ,< 111:1 : i.,; i'lii i.pfn^'n!... •;•,;, ,n,ui ,/•,' > , in:,;, • it*"."!,.,. ., •• vf. *'", ( "
lllllli "ill1
...... ,
-------
TABLE B-2
ANALYTICAL RESULTS
SPLP EXTRACT (mg/1)
ELEMENT
Alkalinity, as mgCaCO3/l
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Bismuth
Boron
Cadmium
Calcium
Chloride
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Fluoride
Gallium
Iron
Lanthanum
Lead
Lithium
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Molybdenum
Nickel
Nitrate as N
pH
Phosphorus
Potassium
Scandium
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Strontium
Sulfate
Thallium
Tin
Titanium
Total Dissolved Solids
Vanadium
WAD Cyanide
Zinc
COMP#1
19
0.038
0.003
<0.005
<0.25
O.002
<0.5
<0.05
O.005
22
<5.0
<0.05
O.5
<0.05
0.33
<0.5
<0.05
<0.5
<0.005
O.5
5.0
<0.03
O.001
<0.25
<0.05
<0.5
7.74
<0.5
<2.5
<0.5
<0.005
<0.02
1.5
0.59
76
<0.001
<0.5
<0.1
130
<0.15
<0.04
<0.05
COMP#2
26
0.21
<0.003
<0.005
0.33
<0.002
<0.5
0.081
<0.005
6.9
<5.0
<0.05
<0.5
<0.05
0.32
<0.5
0.72
<0.5
<0.005
<0.5
2.5
<0.03
<0.001
<0.25
<0.05
<0.5
8.56
<0.5
<2.5
<0.5
<0.005
<0.02
3.0
<0.5
18
0.001
O.5
O.I
52
O.I 5
O.04
O.05
COMP#3
85
1.3
0.003
O.005
0.60
O.002
O.5
0.12
O.005
7.4
<5.0
O.05
O.5
0.05
0.45
O.5
0.39
0.5
O.005
O.5
2.4
O.03
O.001
O.25
O.05
O.5
9.10
0.5
<2.5
0.5
O.005
O.02
4.7
O.5
12
O.001
O.5
O.I
90
O.I 5
O.04
O.05
COMP#4
144
1.5
O.003
O.005
0.47
O.002
O.5
0.081
O.005
8.9
<5.0
0.05
O.5
O.05
0.36
O.5
0.57
O.5
O.005
0.5
2.2
O.03
O.001
O.25
O.05
O.5
9.09
O.5
<2.5
O.5
0.005
O.02
3.3
0.5
19
O.001
0.5
O.I
94
O.I 5
0.04
O.05
23996/R4-T.B2 l/31/97(12:17PM)/RPT/5
Sheet 1 of 1
-------
-------
APPENDIX C
NOISE IMPACT ANALYSIS
23996/R4.TS 1/31/97(11 :S8 AMyRPT/6
-------
I n I
IK
•''•••> I". nil' 'il'l'ii" i! ,i I! HL ): iSL,,,,,i ,1 '„,!"" i';,,, til.. .1', I11!,!! Ill, 'Hi ! .Jl It „,, i!
"la,' 'i'l'i'iiiis •:
;,>, i;'., (jr. I-1:,':';»' „ i s.'j' ii'i Ifl&^KUfKK f li1'ji' • '"'I' f'1- fi>! ''ii!,," 'Iiii' if lAiti ~'?fc*M 'I '1 > 'til1,1'1" \-'t:f<, }$Sjft i IB 'i''1'"; I f *'! tA $* i\^ff ^B "t: 'I'«Wnrnvif nm
, "I i, n| I,11!1,,;! 1,|lll 'I'SIi' BWJiift'^ ;K "K t; =1 >.; HKiW•: If1"!'*,. i/fM*' • U,»:£ •"' i L1*1i'rt.I J Ilk, • '!'i iK,: IliiilliiB!1;! !TSi ••Ill IE, '„ » KJSteflWl
n in i mi in i nut ' i; JB,,, nniiiiPA fl.'iii j j.irinsii-r n «< itiii;11 n m,,",,,!!1 !
"in i i!"1! I [IlinilUllllli'i,' IIII'I ' I1'"I i'1 'llPli'fnlilJ IIIIIIIIIL'"< iS!1 Illlll1 'III, Bllllllllllll llliliiJIIILIIIBILiil/qilf'IMIIIHIIIII
' ;; Lilil 11 illllllllliinli, ",:i .ii '.i*1 , 'i!»" Hi'Jill* :'MIILIIIH Xllliiiplli'li I'l" 'iii|l""ti Illiili'1' ¥ nnill"!!
II Ill i i! "I 1 11 ' 'i, i i iiTOfiia^iji: i 'i il»fs
I I 111 I lllllll Illlllllllllll I I II II II III II I H ll I -':, B 'WIlllllllll i! !"i'1,i,, iijl 111 •>. Wi;,'il,,[lllllll "II!I,'I;.-'Iliinliiiliil I'Mlint1'
I II || I II ' 'ill I'llNII ' I'l ' lllllll III I1 I lllllll I Illlllllllllll ' 1 IIIIWI
ii '"ilii,!:!1 i'liii'ili,," ,, ,|, ill, II ,, liiil, ,i .I'll".'.'!;!'!!!!! I liillllllllliiillllir mill, II ,i'l|l|l|,,ii, "'I'11 lllllll ji ,, I'll liw!!,^^^ il ,i"' ,lilllllllllli;,"|, ' ' I II 111 Illlllllllllll lull
II III III I IB, ,,!IK^ !llp|,Ilii ,'"„,ill " irilll'Sllii't'i''!!'!'!''' iMMCPtVI 1.S i,!"1'" 1>K'. I'Sli, i'll'li) "l|'<: , lllllll!' '"I,:!1:1!1 II Ill III 111 H lllllll 11 111,,111.
,1,":"> ' c ,11 lilliillii''i:,SXM..'^.i'llir-liiQ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ill!.! 1 lilN I'l1::1-,!;! Iii>
-------
July 25, 1996
Project No. 110-2
SCIENCES INC.
Mr. Pat Gochnour
Gochnour & Associates
5990 Greenwood Plaza Blvd., Suite 250
Englewood,CO 80111
Re: Lisbon Vallev Project - Noise Impact Analysts
Dear Mr. Gochnour:
This letter describes the results of a noise impact analysis that was conducted to address
comments received on the Lisbon Valley Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement.
Specifically, owners of land in Section 6 of T3 IS R26H raised the issue of noise reaching
their property which could become & residential site. Noise levels from the loudest mining
activities were predicted at this location and compared to industry-standard impact
criteria.
The location of the subject property in Section 6 of T3 IS R26E is shown in Figure 1
(attached) hi relation to the closest mining area (the GTO pit). The distance between the
two is 4.4 miles (23.250 feet). As shown in Figure 2, the three ridges on the side of Three
Step Hill all break line-of-sight between the property and the pit. The significance of this
is discussed below.
Noise Level Predictions
Noise will be produced by a number of activities at the Lisbon Valley Project. The only
activities which are expected to produce noise that could possibly reach the 4.4 mile
distance to Section 6 of T3 IS R26E are the use of mobile, diesei-powered earth moving
equipment, crushing, and blasting. The use of diesei-powered equipment (dozers, haul
trucks, etc.) and crushing take place on a relatively constant basis. Blasting, however, will
only take place for a few seconds, no more than once per day. For this reason, and
because they produce characteristically different types of noise, these activities were
treated separately in the analysis.
Diesel-Powered Equipment and Crushine
Noise levels from diesei-powered equipment and crushing were predicted by extrapolating
published 50-foot equipment noise levels to a distance of 4.4 miles. Published 50-foot
noise ieveis for earth moving squipment (at fuli throttle) and crushing are 90 dB A and 87
dBA, respectively (Noise Control for Buildings and Manufacturing Plants, L. Miller,
c: '.v c -, r v> •> s x-'.::
'A i' o n C o J '.' i«
•'". ••> j ° o i) ! v \ •' •
-------
Mr. Pat Gochnour
July 25,1996
Page!
AIR SCIENCES INC.
Bolt Beranek and Newman, 1980 ). As outlined in the Plan of Operations, approximately
15 diesd-powered earth moving vehicles will be employed on the project Only a certain
number of these vehicles will be at foil throttle at any one time, and a certain number of
them wdl be behind hillsides, stockpiles, etc. For the purpose of predicting off-site noise
Icvds, it was estimated that 10 of these vehicles would be at full throttle at any one time
and, of those 10, three would be behind some obstruction. Heavy equipment back-up
alarms were also taken into account. It was estimated that three alarms would be
sounding at once.
Noise from seven vehicles at full throttle, three back-up alarms, and one crusher was then
extrapolated to a distance of 4;4 miles, taking into consideration the effects of distance
atmospheric attenuation, and terrain (Miller et. al.). The predicted levels for both upwind
(ather calm winds, or wind blowing from the land owner's location toward the mine) and
downwind (wmd blowing from the mine toward the land owner's location) conditions are
shown in Table 1. The difference between the upwind and downwind levels is the terrain
factor. During calm and upwind conditions, the three ridges of Three Step Hill will likely
provide at least a 15 dB attenuation of noise from the mine. Under downwind conditions
noise will travel from the mine toward the receptors, unaffected by the ridges.
TABLE i
MAXIMUM PREDICTED DIESEL-POWERED EQUIPMENT AND CRUSHING
NOISE LEVELS AT SECTION 6 OF T3 IS R26E
Calm or Upwind
Conditions
(dBA)
19
Downwind
Conditions
CdBA)
34
Blasting
Blasting on the LMOOII Valley Project is expected to occur during daylight hours at most
once per day. The nojse emitted by a blast is termed an "airblast." Because they contain
most of tter energy in the frequency region of 0.5 to 1.5 Hz., airoiasts are measured most
accurately on the dB scaie. The dBA scale used to quantify noise from most other
common sources, such a diesei engines, applies only to noise in the 20 to 20 000 Hz
frequency region. Much of the noise from a blast is infrasonic (<20 Hz.) which means :t
17-3
-------
Mr. Pat Gochnour
July 25, 1996
Page 3
AIR SCIENCES INC.
is outside the hearing range of humans. Furthennore, human hearing is less acute at lower
frequencies. As a result, humans are tolerant of much higher airblast levels than of other
noise levels.
Airblast levels at a distance of 50 feet from the GTO pit were predicted using an equation
derived by the Bureau of Mines (Structural Response and Damage Produced by Airblast
from Surface Mining, Bureau of Mines Report of Investigation 8485, 1980). The
equation is based on airblast data measured at numerous hardrock mines. The 50-foot
airblast level was then extrapolated to a distance of 4.4 miles using a 6 dB per doubling of
distance attenuation rate, which is one of the lowest attenuation rates reported by the
BOM. Predicted blast noise levels are shown in Table 2. The downwind level was
derived by adding 10 dB to the upwind/calm level to account for potential focusing of
airblast noise at this distance.
TABLE 2
MAXIMUM PREDICTED BLASTING NOISE LEVELS
AT SECTION 6 OF T3IS R26E
Calm or Upwind
Conditions
(dB)
106
Downwind
Conditions
(dB)
116
Impact
Diesel-Powered Equipment and Crushing
The 'impact of noise from vehicles and crushing at the land owner's location is dependent
on the existing or background noise levels in Section 6 of T3 IS, R26E. Since no
background noise data was collected in this area as part of this analysis, noise levels are
estimated based on data from typical remote locations where there is no industry, nor
nearby traffic. Background noise levels in these environments range from the low 30's
(dBA) during the nighttime to the low 40s (dBA) during the daytime. These levels arc
produced by sources such as rustling trees, birds, etc.
-------
Mr. Pat Gochnour
July 25, 1996
Page 4
AIR SCIENCES INC.
ng the day and 30
nigh,
of the tune (Lisbon Valley Notice of Intent, January 1996, Figue 3 3)
?rT- "^J* Shghtly audible at thc residential *» occasionally oni
at mght, and would fade rn and out ,vith the constantl chanin
constantly changing atmospheric condions
Blasting
*«
n
TABLE 3
BUREAU OF MINES AJRBLAST CRITERL\
To Minimize the
Potential for:
health risk
annoyance
Limit Airblast
Levels (dB) to:
134
120 f
Neither thc predicted upwind or downwind airblast levels shown in T,W •>
/7-5
-------
Mr. Pat Gochnour
July 25,1996
PageS
AIR SCIENCES INC.
Furthermore, they -will only occur during the daytime. Blast noise will also undergo a loss
of high frequencies while traveling four miles through the atmosphere, due to molecular
absorption. However as blast noise is largely low-frequency noise at the source, the
attenuation over distance is less. The type of noise from the blast traveling more than four
miles can be compared with distant thunder, and like thunder, the noise from the blast will
sound like a low rumble.
We will be happy to respond to any questions you may have on the information presented
above.
Sincerely,
Michael Hankard
Associate
MH:srfa
Attachments
q:\projtctsU 10\02M37Mv-noi»r-doc
-------
ATTACHMENTS
/7-7
-------
j ; : ! '. n^T* '. \ > "S^i'VlV
-------
7*50
Figure 2
7200
7000
6800
6600
6400
-contour of tfw
tend
- « — diitctlinwf.
tfetil
5000
10000 15000
Distance from 6TO Pit (ft) '
20000
2SOOO
-------
Air Sciences inc.
ENGINEERING CALCULATIONS
matter MO:
110-2-7
BY:
FILE:
MMH
PAOB
Notee levci predtetfana
DATE;
REV:
A. Introduction
ThwcitewleUon predicts tr«rw« from Was^
Prejset Preceptors located mS«etioa&T313.R26E. Tr«no^!e
distance. atmospheric absorption. and terrain on sound propagation
8. Distance
Tb« teeattort of the receptor* (Ref. 1) In relation to tha etesest nartRg operation (the GTO PR) is snawn in Figure 1.
Disiance from tend owners to GTO Pft:
232SO
4.40
feet
miies
C. Lino-of-sight
Fgure 2, bete*. ar«w» both Bi» i&eet l&t*«f-8«g|j| srtd ttia «ST«our ef ma tend fesSw^ssn the recepfcr location and
the GTO Pit (takan from Figure 1).
10COO 15008
Otefetma flrem 0TO Pit (a)
0. Blast Noise Prediction
istrere 0=
W •
ta
rr
sJ to rector in f^t
enarge weight per defesy in Its (force)
distance:
charge weight per delay:
Airbiost *
AirtjfeSta
Afabtnt-
Distance term
Airblast (typtoa case)
Air&iast (worst saw)
50 feet
7600 Ibs
0.206 lba/m:
1418 N/tn3
157 dB
-51 dS
108
116
(AirtHast(d81 =
(Ref.
Arbitrary
(Ref. 3)
1 = 6894 Wm2)
(20Log(D/SO)-Z wham D-23250)
(typical case 1-1Q dB. Ref. 2)
-------
Afr Sciences Inc.
ENGWEERWG CALCULATIONS
Usbon Vtftey
110-2-7
2
——•—•«•••««•
DATE ""
1
E. DtanHxtwered Equipment and Crushing
3PLof«Ingte|>.eeeof6
-------
APPENDIX D
STATE OF UTAH GROUND WATER DISCHARGE PERMIT
23996/R4.TS 2/4«'.<7:47PM)/RPT/6
-------
iii ;t;,' ?!|V:" I ': il -i'l-M mi!*' ii: if.'-;: Lit,©i, ili] i', i" "-ia f'' * ii ,1 .1 -liKSSfl *\ ::ill; 111! „:> 3 1:5 ; "; i, \ I -i - f ili .; f ii':3j, -?:
•a. :'i11: 'iv, aiiiis1'1-,:!c;, .<> '(ill).'!;/ i,i,,i,?ii, i",,';as i.lt!hi"ii»;.irtm*wsa.ii»an'irl i: iiiiiiiiK .[<»t«»iB'.i i ,,' i!,1!11:,!1" ''iiJiiiiiiii" , 'ill.it::! ' I.'!.*;!:: "-K i;ii:iiiLii> i,iiim'tmnriitiiri \iuiiiiii:mi»iprtsiiiis ii;i,:/"kmsfif aiii, ';• i;
1 !';/'»iiii!'' linn iii"1111/ .',
^lii:1!1!,,!,;,!1!,,1 in;"!"",!"; ,,i» ir '"I .
.• jl ,, „
I !!!'i.'.', .n'liiii'1;!1 ilS J'M, : .wl ,
•" »'!|i!il',>,, Siiiill1!"' 'Slit'1: ,:
Wii"' '"'Hi'!1 ' ..."ilfli"1 ''""v
..... :fti;!:;
....... iriiriiK ..... IIB ..... I
i|:'l^^^^^^^^^ iijh'i. .1 iU,*; T '- iiisiuaiV^^ ..... IK iisH i:1 ..... iS .IWfcS ISI1!1"! ,i ;1 lilii^^^^^^^^^^^^ ..... it11;'!'! '.WiiS!' "''"(9 Jili1 „ !!' w \
nil ..... iii'iiiiii ^nilNiiiiF ...... m'Tiiri1' iiiiiiiliriilkimi ..... ..... HHII'".'!!"!!! ii11 '"iM nil ilin^ ..... iiiiaHifiiiiiLiniiB^^^^^ /iliiit'iiiiiiiiiiiiw^ ..... iiiiiiliniiil iijiiijiiii . ,. viiii'itriii''!!'" ..... ''iiiiiiiiiliiiiriLriiii , r ,,1 'UFiii
1 1 „;, iiiiill^ ....... : "ami a ..... in inii, "' , J i; HliiMWnH Jl Jli: !i i : - . i iiiu n ..... iiinnii ' " ';: .iiiiiiHiiiii IIIII
: t. fi :J:|K^ •
' liiiit.jCiS^ jiiii i"i;:i>w^ iSiliiin :;:;i£ ,iiait:iii<:ii ;::;:•'li 1 "i* ijiiiiii1'i,/''
' If ' 'j "!",? llil'Vllt ::. 1I1E11M m"1 llfi:' 'llll!'* 1"' •llllllil1!1 / "': IL: 'lilllill'' "I'll: "I'll ..... I' , ........ C"l ...... Illtllllll1 Itr IE .....
iliiui:'' •yi,»'. fiiLliiiiiiniEiiiii'ii "I:IP r •;;."imi ii|iia:iii„ ::„•• v,m»m "iiiviiiiiiiiiuiiii'iii1 :;• niiniiniiiM'•,!''i:? * :f iiiiiiiii „ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii«<
I'l'i,:'!!' i' ,"'H in111'11" i
pl'i "WHiiilli 'J'llllPi 'i
!'.™11 ""• :n ''.^ :'«u >R\\\\,'\M i »'HII iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii^^^^^^
' » ' 'iT/'iniiiniiii ly, '"I'l ,iji»iiiii. r
'';',, ''''''^''i''^!;,^'^^^^ KKW'J iwtaiirfii '.w'.'SIwHf'
ij'Pimii : i' jiiLjiiiiiiiiniiiiii'iii 'iiiiiiii'ii'iiB'111;*!,!,!™ ,,'i'iiiiin I'i'i' i i uiii , ,i M,mini i „ !"'» .iiiiiiiiip'iii'iiiiiiiLi'jiiiiiiiiii!":,,";!,,'!'! • * jii'^iipipjiiiii'iiiii" miiiiiii ,1:1, mm H ," .ii1!11* 11114 'imniih1,,™!!111 i Hiiiippiiiiiiiii!' , "»» nt mi ii'iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiHi ,i, j, iiiiiJiiiiiPiiiiiii'i' ":i< iniii1,,. ,ii ''niiiiiim. miiii/iiuiiiiiJiiiPiiiimmipiiEh.!!'.
i,1 "I, nM'iiiii ''I'.flili,, I",1" "'" I'mll'il' ' 1111',IP" n ,i "„ .'II11 ill1 'i i I'liiliP'",1!, ,n"l"in iilil": "il ! i ,'lr ill Illillillii/lllill'IIWiii mi' Ik p. flu .I'll11! HiiiillETi.ililli ' „ lit" ,iH"l IIPIIUi'iili1 i "" lllllllllilliPllhi'IPllllllllllilillllFIP'i 111 ,i< illlPllillllPiiihlil 'M-LirllilHIlP P1 ' iplil) ''ilrLailllllllll iroil l», ililllllilillliillllilll IliiliPI ilililiii'ill, i"i
fniiifivi!'1 'n,'"ini i,niiii,'iTi: .iiippi''!!!!!!!'! miii'iii imiiiTLiin ,i,,h piibni.^^!.!!!^!!!!!!:'!' "i: iiipiiiiiiiW'Viiiiiiii'i,; i;:i tiijin1111 imiiii' 'i 'iiiiiii''::iiiiiii':,,iii,iiii,;iiiiiiiii;iiiii, fi'liiiiiiiiiini'iii,1"' n ILI:,:," ''ii1,,!,:1!!!!1 iimimiiimipimiii"!';!!, iti n', i1 JILSIH mil uuLi ,p ijiiiimm r,,,":i' iin "is*
"!|' i' '" '" , I, i; i , 'i'1 : ' i ' iii I'iiii
i:i; i ',1111 ;ii';|iiii, < i j» «ii!ii|. i I;I»II»IB „ jgipiiii". i unihui »,\, i"" "m, ii isii," "nnK; • m,; ignn: i, IL.'JIII i " "in, iHiftiii iiiniip i"i' if f' LdijiiPiigpii,' j ir „ T ,' iinitiiii 'viiciiiii1«, J1* iiiiinniiiiii'»' jiiirjiiiii'li'iinni1 ,;,., 11 \ tr '9\.\ tfi., a\\v> i niiiiit iiiiiiiiin' >i •' PIP ; maiKi > iiiinp
'1 ill! ,'"'«'; .til.
rji" mi riiiiiii ..... ipi' •
iH, '• ' ''iiiiiiii:1! ....... ri'iiiiii
'iiinii ..... I'Miiiiiiiiiipiiiiini:,' ;iiiin«iii:;i;; .nnpvTi"1 uiSii'iiiiiiii"11™:::: , ' ,in"i"i ..... NIIP P
• i ,,i: 'iii ', ,:ti i?i»' , iiiiiiii!" i »ini; ••:' ii ^T : r < 'i!1:,!;' < m, iiniiiini: i; im : <„, i" an i HJI, aaa iBi,,f' i • ^ ^ :\, ifismc- I,,IP 4 ,:!, a1' ii1;:: < , „• m' lana aiiiai iiaiaiii P aimi" ''waii,:'' 4 j i •:,,«,:"", • P 11111111111111", i.:
1 :K!,! i,. „ iiiiiii,: M ^i.,\ ..a;. iispii.iffiJui r.':;«•^r.T^iwiMfite^Tjiii ;i ^ awlnFKi ^*» '&&?$*, '\im
m!! i IS1 '":',' ', '.v «,,":::l"; J ; 'i- ":l" ^.., i'::' 4,;' i'": • i:'fiS¥: ^ i ii' ,„* /iru&se 'lj &;: 'S^r J i'i mfm h i»!I <'? iiii "A W^ mmm i • wii, iii'Ii ^jr-iSi, ii1:: i
I niii|iir:i|j|:|i| ;!::: ,n, , , >, ,i i
I I jii;', "i: ', ••: ',„ ' "
li:;,i« ..... ^ii:1;^! ..... E!::;ii,\;K
....... > ........ <;v ...... iiii
[fill!! !!•
II i Ini ill ili|ii|ii|lll nil i i I liiilll il
IPIM i" (iiii ill
111 IIIIIIII 111
-------
GROUND WATER QUALITY DISCHARGE PERMIT
NO. UGW37000S
STATEMENT OF BASIS
SUMMO USA CORPORATION
LISBON VALLEY COPPER PROJECT
APPLICATION DOCUMENTS
The following documents are considered part of the ground water quality discharge application and
will be kept as part of the administrative file.
1- Lisbon Valley Hydrogeologic System Evaluation; Adrian Brown Consultants, Inc.; October
13, 1996.
2- Lisbon Valley Project Utah Groundwater Discharge Permit Application; Adrian Brown
Consultants, Inc.; July 25, 1996.
3- Draft Environmental Impact Statement - Lisbon Valley Copper Project; U.S. Department of
the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Moab District Office; May 1996
4- Monitoring Well MW96-7 Field Report; Adrian Brown Consultants, Inc.; October 1, 1996.
5- Lisbon Valley Project Mitigation & Monitoring Plan, Summo USA Corportation, October
1996.
6- Lisbon Valley Project Hydrogeologic Evaluation; Adrian Brown Consultants, Inc.; May 15,
1996.
7- Lisbon Valley Project Stage 1 Heap Leach Facilities Design Reports; J.D. Welch &
Associates, Inc.; October 1996.
SITE HYDROGEOLOGY
Lisbon Valley - The hydrogeology of the local flow system within Lisbon Valley is dominated by
vertical heads between the shallow (Burro Canyon) aquifer and the deeper (Navajo/Entrada) aquifer.
Geologic structure prevents the horizontal flow of ground water over significant distances within the
Burro Canyon aquifer which consists of largely unconnected zones of water ponded on top of the
Morrison formation. These pockets of water are generally 100-300 feet below ground surface with
average saturated thicknesses of around 40 feet. This water infiltrates along localized faults or high
angle fractures and reaches the Navajo aquifer at considerable depth (800-1000 feet). The Navajo
aquifer is considered the regional aquifer and transmits water to the southeast, with the Dolores
River being the point of regional discharge. Within Lisbon Valley ground water quality concerns
will be focused on the Navajo aquifer because of it's regional significance. The milling facilities,
water supply wells, mine pits and waste rock dumps will all be located within Lisbon Valley, with
the mine pits extending out from the actual fault to the east. The Cretaceous Burro Canyon
formation consist of an upper beds of shale, sandstone, mudstone, limestone and chert and a lower
bed of clean sandstone and conglomerate. This lower bed is the primary host for ore. The Jurassic
aged Navajo/Entrada formation is consists of various sandstones and is disconnected with the larger
-------
Navajo aquifer outside of Lisbon Valley due to the collapsed structure of Lisbon Valley The quality
of water in the Burro Canyon aquifer and the Navajo\Entrada aquifer will be monitored to study
potential water quality impacts related to development of the mine pits.
Little Valley - Little Valley is a small valley to the west of the main Lisbon Valley. It is an eroded
up thrown block that lies to the west of the Lisbon Valley Fault. The heap leach pad and process
water ponds wiU be located within Little Valley. The geology within Little Valley is totally distinct
from that of Lisbon Valley in that all of the water bearing formations (Dakota, Burro Canyon
Morrison and Navajo) within Lisbon Valley have been eroded away. The stratigraphy in Little
Valley consists of 10-35 feet of Quaternary eolian sands and silts, underlain by the Permian Cutler
Formation, a shallow water deposition of arkose, conglomerate and silty mudstone, which outcrops
to north of the valley and is generally around 500 feet in depth. Underlying the Cutler formation is
the Pennsylvamman Honaker Trail Formation, an interbedded limestone/siltstone/shale. Bore hole
94MW4 was initially dry for about 1 year. Thereafter water appeared in the well and is now present
at an elevation of 410 feet below ground surface. It is this potential Honaker Formation aquifer on
the south side of the heap leach that would be impacted if there was significant discharge from the
Heap Leach or Ponds.
GROUND WATER DT TAT TfY
Background - Due to the limited number of samples collected from two of the ambient monitorm*
wells (96MW-7A and 96MW-7B), background cannot be determined, for these wells, at this time
Background will be determined, for these wells, at the end of the accelerated monitoring period
Initial data indicates elevated alpha and beta particle levels are present in these wells 96MW-7A
is completed in the Burro Canyon aquifer and 96MW-7B is completed in the NavajoNEntrada aquifer.
Class -In accordance with UAC R317-6-3 ground water at the existing monitoring wells in the
Burro Canyon aquifer is classified as Class m, based upon levels of alpha and beta activity above
the ground water standards as defined in UAC R317-6-2. Classification of ground water at any
additional well(s) installed as a condition of this permit will occur at the end of the accelerated
monitoring period, see Part n.H.6.
Protection Limits - Protection limits have been established for well 94MW4 and will be established
for future compliance monitoring wells at the end of the their individual accelerated monitorm*
period in accordance with the criteria defined in UAC R317-6-4. °
FACILITY DESCRIPTION rBEST AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY STANDARDS^
Little Valley Heap Leach - The pad liner will be a composite clay/HDPE with a leakage detection
system. The standard design for a heap leach pad consists of a composite clay/HDPE liner below
a leakage detection system (geonet or gravel) and another HDPE liner. The alternative design was
approved for this facility since a combination of site factors and design allow for a less conservative
-------
approach to still be protective of ground water. These factors include: 1) a pad design that will not
allow a hydraulic head in excess of 24 inches on the pad surface; 2) depth to ground water at the site
that is estimated to be at least 500 feet; 3) intervening stratigraphy between the pad bottom and
ground water that has a strong buffering capacity which would neutralize any acidic leakage; 4) the
quality of the ground water beneath the site limits its beneficial use due to the natural radioactivity
present in the area, and; 5) the quantity of ground water (if any) is believed to be very limited. The
liner shall be constructed of the following layers in order from bottom to top: a) 12 inches of
compacted silt with a maximum permeability of 1 x 10'6 cm/sec; b) A leakage detection system
consisting of gravel under drains surrounded by a geotextile with a 2 inch perforated pipe in the
bottom. The pipes shall be placed on 200 foot centers; c) The compacted silt and the leakage
detection system will be covered by a minimum 6 inch layer of compacted clayey soil with a
maximum permeability of 1 x 10'7 cm/sec; d) The primary liner will be a 80-mil HDPE liner with
a minimum two foot protective cover of minus 3/4 inch sedimentary ore. The leakage detection
system for the heap leach pad is designed such that only significant failure of the composite liner will
be detected. Small leaks may go undetected. This is justified by local hydrogeologic considerations
as described above. The allowable leakage rate due to the leakage detection system design is thus
zero gallons per acre per day.
Process and Storm Water Ponds - The standard design was applied to the Raffinate, Pre-Raffmate,
Pregnant Liquor Solution (PLS) and Storm Water Ponds. This consists of a double HDPE liner with
leakage collection systems. The allowable leakage rate for these pond is 200 gallons per acre per
day. An alternative design was approved for the emergency overflow pond which will have a single
composite clay/HDPE liner. The Emergency Over Flow pond is designed for use only under the
most extreme combination of meteorological events and any solutions entering this pond will be
neutralized to a pH of between 6.5 and 8.5. In addition to neutralizing to the ground water quality
standard for pH, the use of this pond will be limited to relatively short periods of time. There is no
allowable detectable leakage from this pond.
Waste Rock Piles - The draft-EIS estimated that only about 10% of the waste rock generated could
be potentially acid producing. The other 90% of the waste rock is predicted to be acid neutralizing.
The potentially acid producing rock will come from the Burro Canyon and Dakota formations and
can be identified by color. Acid generating waste rock from beds 6 through 10 of these formations
will be encapsulated in acid neutralizing material within the waste dumps.
Solvent Extraction/Electrowinning Plant - All processing tanks and chemical storage tanks are
designed with secondary containment. Any spills within the process areas will be cleaned up and/or
conveyed to a lined (Concrete, PVC or HDPE) sump which is then pumped to the Raffinate or Pre-
Raffmate pond.
Mine Pits - During the permitting process and as part of the Environmental Impact Statement
process the potential for the development of pit lakes was studied. The two hydrogeologic models
that were used to predict site conditions following mining offer drastically different outcomes for
the mine pits. The first model is based on classical hydrologic flow in the horizontal direction. The
-------
second model predicts flow at the site to be largely vertical as opposed to horizontal. The permittee
currently believes the vertical flow model more accurately describes the ground water hydrology
The vertical flow model predicts that the pits would be either dry or intermittently dry. By contrast
the horizontal flow model predicted final pit lake water elevations in excess of 100 fee. above the
pit floor for three of the mine pits. The potential pit lake scenario could potentially be of concern
irom a water quality standpoint since ambient water quality could degrade over time due to
evapoconcentration. Since the pits will expose many layers of geologic strata ground water leakin*
into the pit from one formation could infiltrate out of the pit into another. This potential cross
contamination issue has not been satisfactory resolved by the draft-EIS or by the installation of a
single well into the deeper Navajo aquifer. Because the location of the recently installed well is
adjacent to the location of a previous well that was believed to have allowed leakage from the Burro
Canyon formation to enter the Navajo formation. Therefore, initial data that indicates similar levels
of alpha and beta activity in the Navajo aquifer may be unreliable. Additional data will be collected
over the life of the mine to further refine the understanding of the locally complex hydrogeology of
the mine site. This data will be provided in the form of a yearly hydrogeologic report to be prepared
by the permittee. In the event that further hydrogeologic investigation indicates a potential adverse
impact to ground water during the post mining period, mitigation measures will be considered when
the permit is renewed. These measures will reduce any potential impacts to the extent practicable
and feasible.
BASIS FOR PER
TheExecutive Secretary may issue a ground water discharge permit for a new facility provided that-
1) The applicant demonstrates that ground water quality will not be significantly impacted- 2) The
monitoring and sampling requirements of the permit are sufficient to determine compliance with the
permit requirements; 3) The applicant utilizes best available technology to minimize pollution
discharge; 4) there is no impairment of present or future beneficial use of ground water The above
conditions have been met by the permittee in terms of the permit application and their commitment
to abide by the terms of this permit.
POTENTIAL IMPACTS TQ GROUND WATER OTTAT .fry
Potential impacts to ground water have been minimized by the design of process facilities that under
normal operating conditions will not discharge. There is also an economic incentive to prevent
ground water discharge since it is the process fluids that provide revenue for the permittee Poor
construction practices and/or inadequate operation and inspection procedures would result not onlv
in potential discharge to ground water but would also reduce the return on the permittee's
investment. The Division of Water Quality will provide periodic onsite inspections dunn*
construction and operation of the above facilities. The BAT monitoring plan required to be
submitted, to the Executive Secretary, by the permittee will ensure that the facility is operated in
accordance with design specifications and will also ensure that any early indications of facility
problems will be addressed.
-------
BASIS FOR OTHER SPECIFIC PERMIT CONDITIONS
Best Available Technology Monitoring Plan - The permittee shall submit a BAT monitoring plan
to the Executive Secretary for approval prior to the start of construction of the facilities described
in the permit. The plan will include procedures and methods sufficient to ensure compliance with
the BAT performance standards of the permit. The approved document will become an enforceable
Appendix B to the permit. Because the final design specifications were only recently submitted and
because of the permittee's desire to begin construction of mine facilities a BAT monitoring plan was
not required to be submitted prior to the issuance of the permit. Additional time is justified since
operation of the facility will be conditional to the receipt and approval of an appropriate BAT
monitoring plan. An appropriate mechanism for demonstrating compliance with the waste rock
standard for encapsulation of potentially acid generating waste rock must also be included in the
BAT monitoring plan.
Closure Plan- The information provided by the permittee to date is insufficient to determine whether
or not their closure plan would be protective of ground water. The closure plan provided is also
incomplete in that it does not fully address all the design, maintenance and monitoring details
necessary to form a complete and approvable plan. The permittee is currently engaged in a lab scale
study which will form the basis for heap leach neutralization specifications. Because of the
additional time is necessary to complete an environmentally protective closure plan the permittee
has been allowed to delay submittal of an conceptual closure plan. The closure plan must be
approved prior to construction of facilities described in the permit. Based on the agency review of
that plan and the results of any ongoing studies, the permittee will provide a Final Conceptual
Closure Plan at least 180 days prior to the expiration date of the permit. Because heap leach closure
plans take into account local site conditions and may be based on improving neutralization
technologies the closure plan may change over the life of the permit. It is important that the
permittee demonstrate the feasibility of closure during the permit process and provide conceptual
details as to what methods and technologies they will utilize to achieve satisfactory closure.
Although this was not completed during the permitting process the Division has enough experience
in these matters to believe it can help guide the permittee in the development of an appropriate plan.
RLE:WQ\PERMrTS\DFREDERJWP\SUMMO\SUMMO.SOB
-------
Permit No.: UGW370005
STATE OF UTAH
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
P.O. BOX -16690
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84116-0690
Ground Water Quality Discharge Permit
' Utah Code
Summo USA Corporation
Lisbon Valley Cooper Project
P.O. Box 847
Moab,Utah 84532
is granted a Ground Water Quality Discharge Permit for the Lisbon Valley Copper Project located from
* 56" N0rth' 10Dgtade ™ °8' 32" '° 'W ^^
This permit shall become effective on January 16, 1997
This permit and the authorization to operate shall expire at midnight, January 16, 2002.
Signed this 16th day of January, 1997.
XU. £. t/JL
Executive Secretary
Water Quality Board
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
I. CONSTRUCTION PERMIT 1
II. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS 3
A. Ground Water Classification .'. 3
B. Background Ground Water Quality 3
C. Ground Water Protection Levels , 3
1. Protection Levels for Compliance Monitoring Wells 3
2. Compliance Determination Method 3
TABLE 1 -Compliance Monitoring Well Background and Protection Levels 4
TABLE 1 (cont.) -Compliance Monitoring Well Background and Protection Levels ... 5
D. Best Available Technology • 6
1. BAT Construction Standards 6
2. BAT Performance Standards 7
3. Leakage Detection Fluids 7
4. Spill Containment 7
5. Future Construction 7
E. Compliance Monitoring Requirements 8
1. Ground Water Monitoring Requirements 8
2. Best Available Technology Monitoring Requirements 9
3. Hydrogeologic Monitoring Requirements 10
F. Non-Compliance Status 10
1. Probable Out-of-Compliance Based on Exceedance of Ground Water Protection
Limits 10
2. Out-of-Compliance Status Based on Confirmed Exceedance of Permit Ground Water
Protection Limits 11
3. Out-of-Compliance Status Based Upon Failure To Maintain Best Available
Technology • 12
G. Reporting Requirements 12
1. Ground Water Monitoring 12
Table 2 Compliance Monitoring Reporting Schedule 12
2. Best Available Technology Report: 13
3. Hydrogeologic Report: 13
4. Seasonal Construction Notification Report: 13
H. Compliance Schedule ". 13
1. Water Quality Monitoring QAXQC Plan 13
2. Compliance Monitoring Well Requirements 14
3. Best Available Technology (BAT) Monitoring Plan 14
4. Interim Conceptual Closure Plan 14
5. Notice of Phase I Heap Leach Construction and Commencement of Operation . 15
6. Final Conceptual Closure Plan and Duty to Reapply 15
7. Final Closure Plan 15
8. Accelerated Monitoring 15
-------
HI. MONITORING, RECORDING AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS 16\
A. Representative Sampling. 16
B. Analytical Procedures. .- j
C. Penalties for Tampering. '' 16
D- Reporting of Monitoring Results 16
E. Compliance Schedules j
F- Additional Monitoring by the Permittee 16
G. Records Contents jg
H. RetentiorLof Records ig
L TwentV-four Hour Notice of Noncnmpliance Reporting 17
J- Other Noncompliance Reporting !7
K. Inspection and Entry 17
IV. COMPLIANCE RESPONSIBILITIES 18
A. Duty to Comply 10
B- Penalties for Violations of Permit Conditions 18
C- Need to Halt or Reduce Activity not a Defence lg
D. Duty to Mitigate jg
E- Proper Operation and Maintenance 18
F. Affirmative Defense jg
V. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS 19
A. Planned Changes in
B. Anticipated Noncornpliance .....19
C. Spill Reporting jo
D. Permit Actions j9
E. Duty to Reapply jp
F- Duty to Provide Information '.'..'.'.'..... 19
G. Other Information 19
H. Signatory Requirements ^ 19
I- Penalties for Falsification of Reports .20
J- Availability of Reports • '.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.20
K. Property Rights 20
L. Severability 2i
M. Iransffics '.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.21
N. State Laws - --,,
O. ReopenerProvisions '.'.'.'.'.'.'.21
APPENDIX A - WATER QUALITY MONITORING
QUALITY ASSURANCE PROJECT PLAN 22
APPENDIX B - BEST AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY MONITORING
QUALITY ASSURANCE PROJECT PLAN
23
-------
Parti
Permit No. UGW370005
I. CONSTRUCTION PERMIT
The plans and specifications as submitted on August 18, 1996 and revised on September 20, 1996, comply
with the Utah Water Quality Rules, (R317-3, Utah Administrative Code). A Construction Permit is hereby
issued, subject to the following conditions:
1. Any revisions or modifications to the approved plans and specifications must be
submitted to the Division of Water Quality (the Division) for review and approval,
before construction or implementation thereof.
2. The approved facilities must not be placed in service unless the Division has made
a final inspection, and has authorized in writing to place the constructed facilities
in service.
3. A Quality Control/Quality Assurance (QA/QC) plan will be submitted and approved prior
to construction.
This construction permit will expire one year from the date of issuance of this permit unless substantial
progress is made in constructing the approved facilities. Otherwise, the plans and specifications will have
to be resubmitted and the construction permit reissued. Construction of Stage 2, 3 and 4 of the heap leach
pad may each require a review and approval of updated plans and specifications. This permit does not
relieve you in any way of your obligations to comply with other applicable local requirements, or those
stated in permits issued under applicable water quality rules.
Project
The heap leach facility consists of a lined heap leach pad, to be constructed in stages, three double lined
process ponds (pregnant liquor solution - 31.5 acre feet, Pre-rafmate - 4.0 acre feet, rafmate - 24.3 acre feet),
one double lined storm water (18.2 acre feet), one lined emergency overflow pond (45.5 acre feet) and a
process facility. The facility will be operated to recover copper using sulfuric acid solution to leach the
copper from ore hauled from open pits nearby.
The ponds are designed to contain storm water runoff generated from a 100-year, 24-hour storm event or
runoff. Diversion structures are designed accommodate the 100-year, 24 hour storm event.
Raffmate, Pre-Raffmate and Storm Water Ponds - The raffmate, pre-raffinate, and storm water ponds will
be constructed as follows:
The liner will be constructed to a minimum 2.0 percent slope towards drains that lead to a leakage
detection sump and be constructed of the following layers, from bottom to top:
a. 12 inches of compacted clayey soil with a maximum permeability of 1 x 10"7 centimeter per
second,
b. a 40-mil high density polyethylene secondary liner,
c. a geonet for leak collection layer, and,
1
-------
Parti
Permit No. UGW370005
d. a 80-mil high density polyethylene primary liner.
A gravel sump will be installed in each pond and equipped with a 6-inch leak detection riser pipe!
for monitoring and pumping of solution. An extra layer of 80-mil high density polyethylene liner
will cover the 40-mil high density polyethylene liner under the sump.
Emergency Overflow Pond - The liner will be constructed of the following layers, from bottom to top:
a.
12 inches of compacted clayey soil having a maximum permeability of 1 x 10'7 centimeter
per second.
b. a 8-ounce geotextile fabric leakage detection layer, and,
c. a 60-mil high density polyethylene primary liner,
Heap Leach Solution Ditches: - The liner shall be constructed of the following layers, from top to bottom:
12 inches of compacted clayey soil with a maximum permeability of 1 x 10'7 centimeter per
second. r
a 40-mil high density polyethylene secondary liner, and,
a geonet between the primary and secondary liners for leakage detection
a 80-mil high density polyethylene primary liner with geonet below all pipes as protection
against abrasion,
a.
b.
c.
d.
The 40-mil high density polyethylene will extend under the pad for a depth not less than ten feet.
Heap Leach Pad: - The liner system of the heap leach pad will consist of, from bottom to top:
12 inches of compacted superficial soil having a maximum permeability of
1 x 10" centimeter per second.
Leak detection strips spaced at a 200-feet interval, consisting of 2-inch diameter perforated
Schedule 80, polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipe laid in the bottom of gravel bed wrapped with
8-ounce non-woven geo-textile, and,
12 inches of compacted clayey soil having a maximum permeability of 1 x 10'7 centimeter
per second,
A 80-mil high density polyethylene liner,
A 24-inch protective cover of minus 3/4-inch crushed sedimentary ore,
A set of approved plans and specifications is returned herewith bearing an imprint of our construction permit
stamp. The stamped set must be kept available for examination and inspections to be conducted by the
Division, or for resolution of any conflicts or discrepancies that may arise during construction or installation
a.
b.
c,
d.
e.
/HI
-------
Partn
Permit No. UGW370005
II.
SPECIFIC CONDITIONS
A. Ground Water Classification
In accordance with UAC R317-6-3 ground water at the existing monitoring wells is
classified as Class III, based upon levels of alpha and beta activity above the ground water
standards as defined in UAC R317-6-2. Classification of any additional well(s) installed as
a condition of this permit will occur at the end of the accelerated monitoring period, see Part
H.H.8.
B. Background Ground Water Quality
Background ground water quality for wells MW-2A, 94MW2,94MW4, SLV-1A, SLV-2 and
SLV-3 are defined in Table I. The levels described are based on available data submitted
through October, 1996. Background ground water quality for wells MW96-7A and MW96-
7B are not currently defined in Table I. Thess levels will be defined at the conclusion of the
Accelerated Monitoring period as required in Part n.H.8, below.
C. Ground Water Protection Levels
1. Protection Levels for Compliance Monitoring Wells - Ground water quality at
compliance monitoring well MW94-04 shall not exceed the ground water protection
levels defined in Table I. These levels may be modified at the conclusion of the
Accelerated Monitoring period as required in Part n.H.8, below. Additional wells
will be added as data becomes available.
2. Compliance Determination Method - Compliance with ground water protection
levels shall be accomplished with the use of compliance monitoring wells. If future
monitoring data indicate an exceedance of protection levels compliance status will
be determined in accordance with Part H.F, below, and if necessary reference to the
methods described in the EPA Interim Final Guidance Document entitled "Statistical
Analysis of Ground Water Monitoring Data at RCRA Facilities", dated February,
1989. Subsequent updates of this document shall- be utilized as available and
appropriate.
-------
Part II
Permit No. UGW370005
TABLE 1 -Compliance Monitoring Well Background and Protection Levels
Parameter
method
detection
limit
pH (units) n/a
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
.002
.005
.01
.001
.001
.005
.01
.005
Manganese .0]
Mercury
.0002
ground
water
quality
0.006*
0.05
2.0
.004'
0.005
0.1
1.3
0.015
.Q5f
0.002
|( Nickel
I Selenium
Silver
Thallium
1
1 Vanadium
Zinc
1 Fluoride
Nitrate-N
Nilrite-N
! TDS
Thorium
.01
.002
.002
.001
.01
.05
.3
.02
.005
5.0
IpCi/l
0.1' 1
0.05 1
0.1 1
0.002' 1
n/a |
5.0 I
4.0 II
10.0 ||
1.0
10.000 ||
n/a I!
Uranium
Radium-226
.001
.02'
Radium-228
alpha-activity
IpCM
_2pCifl
20pCi/l
20pCi/l
I Monitor
Background
LeveI(mg/L)
mom
-EE
I 'oi *
T^~
II <.ooi
II <.001
II <.005
[1 .011
II <005
1 .004
1 <.OOQ2
I .004
1 .002
II <.002
j| <001
II .009
I .083
| 2.64
1 .69
| 1.59
| 732
ID
ID
ID
ID
uddev
•
35
• — ^— — ™.
.004
.002
._ .577
n/a
n/a
n/a
.015
n/a
.001
n/a
.001
001
n/a
n/a
.006
.036
.90
.52
.59
151
ID
— 1 1 •
ID
ID
ID _
nz Well MW94-04
1
Protection
Level
6.5-8.5
- >»^__KB.^^^^_
.oor
.025'
l.(f
.002'
.003'
.05'
.65"
.008"
.025'
.001'
.05"
A^cb
.05b
.001'
n/a
2.5'
3.96'
5.0*
I.S9<
915'
n/a
.02'
20pCi/]'
20pCi/l'
Compliance
Level*
(mj/L)
J_
1 6.5-9.52
.015
.025
1.42
.002
.003
.05
.65
— >— — ™»^^BO.
.008
.025
.001
.05
.05
.001
n/a
2.5
4.44
5.0
2.77
1032
— «— — — ^—
n/a
.02
20pCi/l
20pCi/l
MW-2A
Back
•MM^NM^M
mean
:===
7.10
<.003
<.(X)5
.017
<.OQ1
<.OQ1
<005
.203
<005
1.09
<.0002
.010
<.002
<.001
<.Q1
.862
.356
.091
.007
2346
ID
ID
ID
-^— — »^^™«i
ID
ground
itiWcv
T=
I .41
n/a
_| .007
.079
.17
n/a
.003
.007
n/a
n/a
.986
.206
.127
.003
123
•^— — «_ H
ID -
ID
ID
ID
94MW2
Background
mean
±=
7.01
.003
.021
.009
<.01
.38
<.0002
.037
.009
.004
<001
.393
904
ID
ID
ID
ID
lUWev
T=
.40
.002
.007
_j/a_
n/a
.51
n/a
.031
.009
.003
.143
138
•II Mil _
ID
ID
ID
ID I
SLJ
Back
Leve
1 mein
I™"
7.07
<003
.009
<.01
1.56
<0002
m.
.011
<.OOI
.584
3030
ID
ID
ID
ID I
/-I A 1
ground 1
(mgrt) 1
inldtvl
1 .44 |
1 n/a
.004
n/a
.68
n/a
.093
1014
ID
d
Tl
ISpCM
61
60
46
15
61'
153
239
139
270
218
132
90
1 :^==a==B;^gJ^-^. — 'f __~"^ I " I otf I 9O i|4 I /
*" und concentration ™« >*<
68
273
1765
176
g'Final MCL
lack of background data. May be updated based upon sufficient data.
-------
PartH
Permit No. UGW370005
TABLE 1 (cont.) -Compliance Monitoring Well Background and Protection Levels
Parameter
pH (units)
Andmoov
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Maneaaese
Mercurv
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
Fluoride
Nitrate-N
Nitrite-N
TDS
Thorium
Uranium
Radium-226
Radium-228
alpha-activitv
beta-activity
method
detection
limit
n/a
.002
.005
.01
.001
.001
.005
.01
.005
.01
.0002
.01
.002
.002
.001
.01
.05
.3
.02
.005
5.0
IpCi/I
.001
IpCi/l
1 pCi/1
2pCi/l
4pG/l
ground
water
quality
^fnnrtnrrt
6.5-8.5
0.006'
0.05
2.0
.004'
0.005
0.1
1.3
0.015
.05'
0.002
O.I8
0.05
0.1
0.002s
n/a
5.0
4.0
10.0
1.0
3000
n/a
.02*
20pCi/l
20pCi/I
ISpCi/l
8pCi/l
SLV-2
Background
Level(mg/L)
mean
7.7S
<003
<005
.054
<.00l
<.001
<.005
<.01
<.OOS
.111
<.0002
<.01
.003
<.002
<.001
<.01
.228
.465
.094
.008
585
ID
ID
ID
ID
77
100
uilciev
.11
n/a
n/a
.007
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
.125
n/a
n/a
.003
n/a
n/a
n/a
.244
.162
.062
.004
318
ID
ID
ID
ID
60
87
SLV-3
Background
Level (mg/L)
mean
7.15
<.003
<005
.017
<.001
<.001
<005
<.01
<.005
.707
<.0002
.017
.009
<002
<.001
<.01
.149
.345
.225
.006
1993
ID
ID,
ID
ID
98
90
iiddev
36
n/a
n/a
.012
n/a
n/a
a/a
n/a
n/a
.099
n/a
.008
.012
n/a
n/a
n/a
.177
.111
.532
.002
162
ID
ID
ID
ID
23
36
MW96-7A
Background
Level (mg/L)
mean
sKldev
MW96-7B
Background
Level(mg/L)
mean
snldev
a election Level established based on l.X times the mean background concentration, where X = 0.50(X=0.25 for TDS).
b_ 'election Level established based on O.X times the Ground Water Quality Standard, where X = 0.50.
c-Protection Level established at mean background concentration since the mean exceeds the standard.
d-Compliance Level greater of protection level or background mean plus 2 standard deviations.
e oposed MCL. f-Secondary MCL
g _nalMCL
h-Protection Level established at standard due to lack of background data. May be updated based upon sufficient data.
ID = Insufficient daia n/a = not applicable
-------
Part II
Permit No. UGW370005
Best Available Technology
1. BAT Construction Standards
a)
b.
c.
d)
e)
a
top a)
. —-wiw. v/i uit luuuwmg layers in order from botto
inches of compacted silt with a maximum permeability of 1 x 10'6 cm/sec;
ns snare af a 200-foot intervals, consisting of 2-inch diameter perforateJ
- - - :(PVQ pipe laid in the bottom of gravel bed wrapped will
becoverZ"^6118e°"t?tile: C) ThC comPacted silt *"d the leakage detection system will
of 1 x m" crn^ "TST T' °f comPacted clay£y so« wifli a maximum permeabilitJ
of 1 x 10 cm/sec; d) The primary liner will be a 80-mil HDPE liner with a minimum two fool
protective cover of minus 3/4 inch sedimentary ore. fl
and St0rm Water Ponds: The liner sha» be constructed to a
constructed of ^ following layers in order from
1C'7 cm/sec;
SyStem and; d> a 80
Emergency Overflow Pond: The liner shall be constructed of the following layers in order '
ofTx rc^'b^ mCheS °f rmrted ^^ S0il having a maximum
primary linef § ' ^ ^^^ deteCti°n 1&yer and; b) a
Heap Leach Solution Ditches: The liner shall be constructed of the following layers in order
1 xm!0°Pcl °M : In' ?S? °f C°mpaCted dayey SOH With a -aximumVLability o
nrL, i ; }, a ! nUl HDPE SCCOndary Iiner; c) a §eonet ^^ the secondary and
pnrnary liners for leakage detection; d) a primary 80 mil HDPE liner with geonet
ernst abrasion- The 4o
Waste Rock Piles: There will be three large waste rock repositories at the site. Potentially acid
generating materials from coally beds within the Burro Canyon and Dakota formal wm
cTosureT f ^ ** ?*?*** material *«* other formations withinTe S A
closure the waste rock repositories will be graded and vegetated in accordance with Division
of Oil Gas and Mining rules. Encapsulation is defined as a minimum of 40 feet of neutral zng
— — The maximum^
-------
Part II
Permit No. UGW370005
2.
3.
4.
BAT Performance Standards
a) Heap Leach Pads: Due to the design of the leakage detection system that allows small leaks
in the primary liner to go undetected the allowable leakage rate from any of the leakage
detection ports is zero gallons per acre per day.
b) Raffmate, Pre-Raffmate, PLS and Storm Water Ponds: The allowable leakage rate for these
ponds is 200 gallons per acre per day.
c) Emergency Overflow Pond: Use of this pond will constitute a BAT failure under this permit.
The permittee is be required to notify the Executive Secretary within 24 hours of the time heap
leach runoff is directed to this pond. Notification shall be in accordance with the conditions
of Part n.E.3, below. In addition to meeting the requirements above the following conditions
must be meet in order for the permittee to demonstrate affirmative defense under Part IV.F:
1) All solutions entering this pond must be neutralized to a pH of 6.5 to 8.5. 2) Because the
geotextile that functions as the leakage detection layer will only conduct water once the clay
beneath it is saturated, the allowable detectable leakage rate may not exceed zero gallons per
acre per day. 3) The permittee must take all appropriate steps to limit use of the emergency
pond to the shortest length of time possible.
d) Heap Leach Solution Ditches: The allowable leakage rate is 200 gallons per acre per day.
e) Waste Rock Piles: Encapsulation of potentially acid generating material within the waste rock
repositories.
Leakage Detection Fluids - any fluid collected in any of the leakage detection systems shall be
contained and pumped to one of the double lined process or storm water ponds. Any fluid collected
shall be monitored in accordance with Part II.E.2, below.
Spill Containment - The permittee shall design, maintain and construct all pipelines, storage tanks,
and milling facilities with a spill containment system that shall:
a) Prevent any spills or leakage from any contact with the ground surface or ground water.
b) Convey all spills or leakage to the double lined process or storm water ponds.
Any spill that does come into contact with the ground surface or ground water that causes pollution
or has the potential to cause pollution to waters of the state shall be reported in accordance with Part
m.i.
Future Construction - New construction of the heap leach pad shall be according to the design and
methods approved in this Permit.
a) Authorized Construction - The heap leach pad is authorized to be constructed in 4 phases for
a total surface area, of 266 acres. Expansion of the pad by more than 10% of the acreage stated
above will require ground water permit modification and may be subject additional ground
-------
Partn
Permit No. UGW370005
water monitoring requirements. I
b) Advance Notification of Seasonal Construction - The permittee shall submit a facilitB
construction plan on an annual basis that outlines the planned construction for the year. ThJ
will enable division staff to appropriately schedule inspections during key activities. The plal
shall be submitted in accordance with Part n.G.4. Expansion of the heap leach pad for stageB
2, 3 and 4 will require a construction permit for each of the pad extensions. Each pal
expansion will meet current Division of Water Quality Best Available TechnologJ
requirements. •
c) Monitoring Well Construction - Monitoring well construction shall conform to A Guide to thl
Selection of Materials for Monitoring Well Construction (19&3) and RCRA Groundwatel
Monitoring Technical Enforcement Guidance Manual (19861 Steel casing nr nthp.r snitahll
material when approved by the Executive Secretary shall be required on all new welll
constructed for the purposes of this permit. 1
E. Compliance Monitoring Requirements I
1. Ground Water Monitoring Requirements I
a) Water Quality Monitoring QA\QC Plan - All water quality monitoring to be conducted under!
this permit shall be conducted in accordance with the general requirements, hereunder, and the!
specific requirements of the Attachments 1, 2 and 3 of the Lisbon Vallev Project Mitigation]
and Monitoring Plan (Appendix A - Final EIS). This plan is attached as Appendix A and is I
hereby incorporated by reference as an enforceable appendix to this permit. I
b) Monitoring Wells - For the purposes of this permit the permittee shall monitor the following
wells at the locations described below.
I. Compliance Monitoring Well MW94-04 - Latitude 38° 08' 56" N, Longitude 109° 10'
15". 1
ii. Ambient Monitoring Wells MW96-07A and MW96-07B - Latitude 38° 08' 45" N,
Longitude 109° 07' 47".
iii. Ambient Monitoring Well MW-2A - Latitude 38° 08' 01" N, Longitude 109° 08' 00".
iv. Ambient Monitoring Well 94MW2 - Latitude 38° 07' 40" N, Longitude 109° 07' 03".
v. Ambient Monitoring Well SLV-1A - Latitude 38° 08' 27" N, Longitude 109° 07' 47".
vi. Ambient Monitoring Well SLV-2 - Latitude 38° 08' 53" N, Longitude 109° 08' 29".
vii. Ambient Monitoring Well SLV-3 - Latitude 38° 08' 38" N, Longitude 109° 07' 37".
c) Protection of Monitoring Well Network - All compliance monitoring wells must be protected
8
-------
Part II
Permit No. UGW37.0005
from damage due to surface vehicular traffic or contamination due to surface spills. They shall
be maintained in full operational condition for the life of this permit. Any well that becomes
damaged beyond repair or is rendered unusable for any reason will be replaced by the
permittee within 90 days or as directed by the Executive Secretary.
d) Ground Water Sampling\Frequency Requirements
I. Ground Water Level Measurements - Ground water level measurements shall be made
quarterly in each monitoring well prior to any collection of ground water samples.
These measurements will be made from a permanent single reference point clearly
demarcated on the top of the well or surface casing. Measurements will be made to
the nearest 0.1 foot.
ii. Ground Water Quality Sampling - grab samples of ground water from all compliance
monitoring wells will be collected for chemical analysis on a quarterly basis, in
conformance with the Water Quality Monitoring QA\QC Plan that has been approved
by the Executive Secretary, Appendix A.
e) Ground Water Analysis Requirements
I. Analysis by Certified Laboratories - analysis of any ground water sample shall be
performed by laboratories certified by the State Health Laboratory.
ii. Ground Water Analytical Methods - methods used to analyze ground water samples
must comply with the following:
A) Are methods cited in UAC R317-6-6.3A( 13), and
B) Have detection limits which are less than or equal to the method detection
limits found in Part I.C, Table 1.
iii. Analysis Parameters - the following analyses will be conducted on all ground .water
samples collected:
A) Field Parameters - pH, temperature, and specific conductance
B) Laboratory Parameters - including:
• Major Anions and Cations: including chloride, sulfate, carbonate,
bicarbonate, sodium, potassium, magnesium and calcium.
• Protection Level Parameters - found in Table 1 of Part IC, above.
2. Best Available Technology Monitoring Requirements - The permittee shall monitor all leakage
detection and collecdon systems and settlement monitoring devices in accordance with the Best
Available Technology Monitoring Plan submitted as required in Part II.H.3 and incorporated by
reference as Appendix B to this permit.
-------
3.
Part II
j Permit No. UGW370005
Hydrogeologic Monitoring Requirements- The permittee will complete an annual update of the Lisbl
Valley Hydrogeologic System Evaluation submitted as part of the ground water permit applicatiol
The report will be submitted according to the schedule and reporting requirements of Part n GI
be ow The purpose of the annual evaluation is to update and refine the original evaluation based
data obtained from the construction, testing and operation of de-watering and water supply wells Tn
evaluation will address whether or not pit lakes will form following mining in any of the minin^ P3
and whether or not ground water quality in the Navajo/Entrada aquifer will be impacted by mininl
activities or by post closure conditions. The evaluation will help determine whether or not the perrrJ
will be expanded during the second permit term to include additional compliance monitoring well
in the Navajo/Entrada aquifer down gradient of the mine pits. In addition to updating the origim
evaluation each annual report will include:
a.
b.
c.
d.
meetl
The evaluation will contain summarized dewatering data for each point of withdrawal.
An annual water quality report with at least 1 complete water quality analysis from each active
?°D t5TTgS>i;nd ^ withdrawal-Ground water sampling will meet the requirements outlinec
in fart ll.b.1, above. Accelerated monitoring requirements do not apply to these wells.
A well construction As-Built report for all wells constructed in the year. The report shall
the conditions of Part n.H.2, below.
Potentiometric Map - The potentiometric map shall illustrate the ground water elevation of the
uppermost aquifers beneath the mining facilities. The map must be superimposed on a I
topographic base map of at least 1:2400 (1"=200') or other scale approved by the Executive
Secretary and must be inclusive of the entire mining and processing site. Known contours
must be distinguished from suspected or inferred contours. Other pertinent geologic
hydrologic, or man made features, including wells, must be displayed '
Non-Compliance Status
1.
a)
Probable Out-of-Compliance Based on Exceedance of Ground Water Protection Limits
The permittee shall evaluate the results of each round of ground water sampling and analysis to
determine any exceedance of the ground water protection levels found in Table 1 Uoon
determination by the permittee that the data indicate a ground water protection level may have been
exceeded at any downgradient compliance monitoring well, the permittee shall:
Immediately resample the monitoring well(s) found to be in probable out-of-compliance for
the protection level parameters that have been exceeded. Submit the analytical results thereof
and notify *e Executive Secretary of the probable out-of-compliance status within 30 days
or the initial detection. J
Immediately implement an accelerated schedule of monthly ground water sampling and
analysis, consistent with the requirements of Part I.E.l, above. This monthly samplino will
continue for at least two months or until the compliance status can be determined by the
Executive Secretary. Reports of the results of this sampling will be submitted to the Executive
10
b)
-------
Part H
Permit No. UGW370005
Secretary as soon as they are available, but not later than 30 days from each date of sampling.
2. Out-of-Compliance Status Based on Confirmed Exceedance of Permit Ground Water Protection
Limits
a) Out of Compliance Status shall be defined as follows:
1) For parameters that have been defined as detectable in the background and for which
protection levels have been established based on 1.5 times the mean background
concentration, out-of- compliance shall be defined as two consecutive samples
exceeding the protection level and the mean background concentration by two standard
deviations.
2) For parameters that have been defined as detectable in the background and for which
protection levels have been established based on 0.5 times the ground water quality
standard out-of-compliance shall be defined as 2 consecutive samples exceeding the
protection level and the mean background concentration by two standard deviations.
3) For parameters that have background data sets between 50-85% non-detectable
analyses, out-of-compliance shall be defined as 2 consecutive samples from a
compliance monitoring point exceeding the established protection level.
4) For parameters that have been defined non-detectable in the background and for which
protection limits have been determined based on 0.5 times the ground water quality
standard or the limit of detection out-of-compliance shall be defined as 2 consecutive
samples from a compliance monitoring point exceeding the established protection
limit.
b) Notification and Accelerated Monitoring - upon determination by the permittee or the
Executive Secretary, in accordance with UAC R317-6-6.17, that an out-of-comphance status
exists, the permittee shall:
1) Verbally notify the Executive Secretary of the out-of-compliance status or
acknowledge Executive Secretary notice that .such a status exists within 24 hours of
receipt of data, and
2) Provide written notice within 5 days of the determination, and
*
3) Continue an accelerated schedule of meDibly. ground water monitoring for at least two
months and continue monthly monitoring until the facility is brought into compliance.
c) Source and Contamination Assessment Study Plan - within 30 days of the written notice to the
Executive Secretary required in Part IF 2(b), above, the permittee shall submit an assessment
study plan and compliance schedule for:
1) Assessment of the source or cause of the contamination, and determination of steps
11
-------
Partn
Permit No. UGW370005
necessary to correct the source.
2)
3)
Assessment of the extent of the ground water contamination and any potentiz
dispersion.
Evaluation of potential remedial actions to restore and maintain ground water quality!
and ensure that the ground water standards will not be exceeded at the compliance
monitoring wells.
3.
Out-of-Compliance Status Based Upon Failure To Maintain Best Available Technology
In the event that BAT monitoring indicates violation of any of the construction or performance
standards outlined in Part H.D, of this permit, the permittee shall submit to the Executive Secretary
a notification and description of the violation in accordance with Part HI. 1 and Part HI.2.
Reporting Requirements
1. Ground Water Monitoring Report:
a) Schedule - The sampling and analysis required in Part H.E.1, above, shall be reported
according to Table 2, below.
Table 2 Compliance Monitoring Reporting Schedule
.Quarter
1st . (Jan., Feb., March)
2nd (April, May, June)
3rd (July, Aug., Sept.)
4th (Oct., Nov., Dec.)
Report Due On
April 30
July 30
October 30
January 30
b). Sampling and Analysis Report - will include:
1)
2)
3).
Field Data Sheets - or copies thereof, including the field measurements, required in
Part I.E.l.e.iii.A, above, and other pertinent field data, such as: well name/number
date and time, names of sampling crew, type of sampling pump or bail, measured
casing volume, volume of water purged before sampling.
Results of Ground Water Analysis - including date sampled, date received ion
balance; and the results of analysis for each parameter, including: value or
concentration, units of measurement, reporting limit (minimum detection limit for the
examination), analytical method, and'the date of the analysis.
Quarterly Ground Water Level Measurements - water level measurements from sround
water monitoring wells will be reported in both measured depth to ground water and
ground water elevation above mean sea level.
12
-------
Part II
Permit No. UGW370005
4) Electronic Filing Requirements - In addition to subriiittal of the hard copy data, above,
the permittee will electronically submit the required ground water monitoring data in
the electronic format specified by the Executive Secretary. The data may be sent by
e-mail, floppy disc, modem or other approved transmittal mechanism.
2.1 Best Available Technology'Report:
a) Routine Schedule - The Best Available Technology (BAT) monitoring, sampling and analysis
required under Part I.E.2 shall be summarized on a monthly basis and reported to the
Executive Secretary in accordance with the Compliance Monitoring Schedule of Table 2.
b) In the event that any of the performance standards of Part II.D.2 are exceeded the permittee
shall notify the Executive Secretary in accordance with Part II.F.3.
c) Electronic Filing Requirements - In addition to submittal of the hard copy data, the permittee
shall electronically submit the required water quality monitoring data in the electronic format
specified by the Executive Secretary. The data may be sent by e-mail, floppy disc, modem or
other approved transmittal mechanism.
3. Hydrogeologic Report:
a) Schedule - The.hydrogeologic report required in Part II.E.3, above, shall be submitted to the
Executive Secretary by January 30 of each year with the exception of 1997. The permittee
shall resubmit the report within 60 days of receipt of written notice, from the Executive
Secretary, detailing any deficiencies or omissions.
b) Electronic Filing Requirements - In addition to submittal of the hard copy data, the permittee
,: i shall electronically submit the required water quality monitoring data in the electronic format
specified by the Executive Secretary. The data may be sent by e-mail, floppy disc, modem or
other approved transmittal mechanism.
.4. Seasonal Construction Notification Report: •
a) Schedule - The advance notification of the seasonal construction activities required in part
II.E.S.b, above, shall be submitted to the Executive Secretary by January 30 of each year
including 1997. The permittee shall resubmit the report within 60 days of receipt of written
notice, from the Executive Secretary, detailing any deficiencies or omissions.
H. Compliance Schedule . •
1.
, Water Quality Monitoring QA\QC Plan - The water quality sampling, handling and analysis plan,
Appendix A of the permit, shall be updated and/or modified as required by the Executive Secretary.
The revised plan will be submitted for Executive Secretary approval, within 60 days following receipt
of notice from the Executive Secretary, that updates or revisions to the plan are required. The revised
13
-------
i' 111;.
2.
* Part II
' Permit No. UGW370005
document will replace the current Appendix A and is hereby incorporated by reference.
Compliance Monitoring Well Requirements
"
b.
i)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
Casing: depth, diameter, type of material
?"? D W*1 depth Imerval> diameter> material ^pe, slot size
Sand Pack: depth interval, material type and grain size
Annular Seals: depth interval, material type
material
measures ~
or
4.
cprnpiiancewift^ BAT ^JSZ."S^S.^ ^£?%*£*Z"™
14
./W3
-------
Part II
Permit No. UGW370005
5. Notice of Phase I Heap Leach Construction and Commencement of Operation - At least 30 days prior
to the final completion of Phase I of the heap leach and associated facilities the permittee shall notify
the Executive Secretary in. writing that construction is nearly complete and provide a proposed date
for initiation of operations. .
6. Final Conceptual Closure Plan and Duty to Reapply - The permittee shall submit a conceptual closure
plan at least 180 days prior to the expiration date of this permit. The conceptual closure plan must
specifically, address neutralization, cover design, fluid disposal and long term fluid management. Also
• - to be submitted at this time will be a reapplication for the ground water discharge permit which will
include an updated operational plan describing the proposed operational and closure activities to occur
' • in the next five year term of the permit. The permittee shall resubmit the plan with 60 days of receipt
of notice from the Executive Secretary and correct any deficiencies noted in the agency review.
7, , Final Closure Plan - In the event that the permittee decides to discontinue its operations at the facility
the permittee shall notify the Executive Secretary of such a decision and submit a Final Closure Plan
within 180 days. The Final Closure Plan shall be submitted no later than 180 days prior to the closure
of the facility. The permittee shall resubmit Final Closure Plans within 60 days of receipt of written
notice of deficiencies therein. Any material changes made to this plan, after it receives Executive
Secretary approval, shall also require approval of the Executive Secretary. Said closure plans will
require a construction permit in addition to approval under this permit.
8. Accelerated Monitoring - Ground water quality samples will be collected and analyzed from all
: designated compliance monitoring wells in compliance with the following requirements:
a) Samples will be collected every other month utilizing the procedures outlined in the Quality
Assurance Project Plan, Appendix A.
b) Each sampling event or episode will include independent grab samples.
c) Sampling parameters will include those required in Table I and Part I.E. 1 .e.iii.B, above.
d) Sampling will continue until at least 8 bi-monthly samples have been collected for a particular
well. After Executive Secretary approval sampling will be relaxed to quarterly grab samples
as per the requirements of Part II.E.l, above.
e) The results of this sampling will be reported to the Executive Secretary as the data becomes
available as per the schedule of Table 2, above. Reporting requirements thereof shall comply
with Part II.G.l.
15
-<* y
-------
Part III
Permit No. UGW370005
MONITORING, RECORDING AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
A- Representative Sampling, Samples taken in compliance with the monitoring requirements established ur
Part I shall be representative of the monitored activity.
B. Analtical Pro
E.
F.
TiArpnm «* A i, W?tersampleanalysismus^^
U AC R317-6.3.A. 13, unless other test procedures have been specified in this permit. '
C Penalties for Tampering. The Act provides that any person who falsifies, tampers with, or knowingly reno
inaccurate any monitoring device or method required to be maintained under this permit shall up
conviction, be punished by a fine of not more than $ 10,000 per violation, or by imprisonment for not me
than six months per violation, or by both.
D- ^Porting of Monitoring Re.snl^. Monitoring results obtained during each reporting period specified in tl
permit, shall be submitted to the Executive Secretary, Utah Division of Water Quality at the followi
address no later than the 30th day of the month following the completed reporting period: 1
State of Utah
Division of Water Quality
Department of Environmental Quality
Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-4810
Attention: Ground Water Protection Section
Compliance Schedules. Reports of compliance or noncompliance with, or any progress reports on intern
and final requirements contained in any Compliance Schedule of this permit shall be submitted no later the
14 days following each schedule date.
Additional Monirorip? fry the Permit. If the permittee monitors any pollutant more frequently than
required by this permit, using approved test procedures as specified in this permit, the results of thi
monitonng shall be included in the calculation and reporting of the data submitted. Such increased frequenc
snail also be indicated.
Records Content^ Records of monitoring information shall include:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
The date, exact place, and time of sampling or measurements:
The individual(s) who performed the sampling or measurements;
The date(s) and time(s) analyses were performed;
The individuals) who performed the analyses;
The analytical techniques or methods used; and,
The results of such analyses.
H.
all
SSm?n °f H The Permi"ee SM1 retain records of a11 monitoring information,
SS^mYrT^T* reC°;dS ?d C°PieS °f "" reP°rtS reqUlred by this Permi'» and re'° ata
used to complete the application for this permit, for a period of at least three years from the date of the sample
16
-------
J.
K.
: . : - • Part III ,
Permit No. UGW370005
measurement, report or application. This period may be, extended by request of the Executive Secretary at
any time. ,
Twenty-four Hour Notice of Noncompliance Reporting. -
1. The permittee shall verbally report any noncompliance with permit conditions or limits as soon as
possible, but no later than twenty-four (24) hours from the time the permittee first became aware of
the circumstances. The report shall be made to the Utah Department of Environmental Quality 24
• . hour number, (801) 538-6333, or to the Division of Water Quality, Ground Water Protection Section
at (801) 538-6146, during normal business hours (8:00 am - 5:00 pm Mountain Time).
2. A written submission of any noncompliance with permit conditions or limits shall be provided to the
Executive Secretary within five days of the time that the permittee becomes aware of the
circumstances. The written submission shall contain:
., a. A description of the noncompliance and its cause;
b. The period of noncompliance, including exact dates and times;
c; The estimated time noncompliance is expected to continue if it has not been corrected; and,
d. Steps taken or planned to reduce, eliminate, and prevent reoccurrence.pf the noncompliance.
; e. • When applicable, either an estimation of the quantity of material discharged or an estimation
of the quantity of material released outside containment structures. .,
3, Written reports shall be submitted to the addresses in Part IH.D, Reporting of Monitoring Results.
Other Noncompliance Reporting. Instances of noncompliance not required to be reported within 24 hours,
shall be reported at the time that monitoring reports for Part III D are submitted.
Inspection etad Entry. The permittee shall allow the Executive Secretary, or an authorized representative,
upon the presentation of credentials and other documents as may be required by law, to:
1. Enter upon the permittee's premises where a regulated facility or activity is located or conducted, or
where records must be kept under the conditions of the permit;
Have access to and copy, at reasonable times,'any records that must be kept under the conditions of
this permit;
3. Inspect at reasonable times any facilities, equipment (including monitoring and control equipment),
' practices, or operations regulated or required under this permit; and,
4. Sample or monitor at reasonable times, for the purpose qf assuring permit compliance or as otherwise
authorized by the Act, any substances or parameters at any location.
• 17
-------
part IV
Permit No. UGW370005
COMPLIANCE RESPONSIBILITIES
B.
D.
DutY to Comply. The permittee must comply with all conditions of this permit Anv
constitutes a violation of the Act and is grounds for enforcement action; fc
reissuance, or modification; or for denial of a permit renewal application
notice to the Executive Secretary of the Utah Water Quality Bo^d of an
facihty or activity which may result in noncompliance with permit requirement
™« ,-
""
Affirmative Defense
The permittee submitted notification according to Part II.F.3 and Part III.1. 1 and 2;
The failure was not intentional or caused by the permittee's negligence, either in acti
action or in failure to
3.
4.
The provisions of 19-5-107 have not been violated.
18
-------
PartV
Permit No. UGW370005
iNERAL REQUIREMENTS
B.
C.
A. Planned Changes. The permittee shall give notice to the Executive Secretary as soon as possible of any I
planned physical alterations or, additions to the permitted facility. Notice is required when the alteration or I
addition could significantly change the nature of the facility or increase the quantity of pollutants discharged.
Anticipated Noncompliance. The permittee shall give advance notice of any planned changes in the permitted
facility or activity which may result in noncompliance with permit requirements. I
Spill Reporting - The Permittee shall immediately report as per UCA 19-5-114 of the Utah Water Quality Act I
any spill or leakage which is not totally contained by a collection system. This report shall be made to the
phone numbers given in Part III.I.l. A written report will be required within 5 days of the occurrence and |
should address the requirements of UCA 19-5-114 and Parts EQ.I.2 and 3 of this permit.
D. Permit Actions. This permit may be modified, revoked and reissued, or terminated for cause. The filing of
a request by the permittee for a permit modification, revocation and reissuance, or termination, or a[
notification of planned changes or anticipated noncompliance, does not stay any permit condition.
E. Duty to Reapply. If the permittee wishes to continue an activity regulated by this permit after the expiration
date of this permit, the permittee must apply for and obtain a permit renewal or extension. The application
should be submitted at least 180 days before the expiration date of this permit.
F. Duty to Provide Information. The permittee shall furnish to the Executive Secretary, within a reasonable time,
any information which the Executive Secretary may request to determine whether cause exists for modifying,
revoking and reissuing, or terminating this permit, or to determine compliance with this permit. The permittee
shall also furnish to the Executive Secretary, upon request, copies of records required to be kept by this
permit.
G. Other Information. When the permittee becomes aware that it failed to submit any relevant facts in a permit
application, or submitted incorrect information in a permit application or any report to the Executive
Secretary, it shall promptly submit such facts or information.
H. Signatory Requirements. All applications, reports or information submitted to the Executive Secretary shall
be signed and certified.
1. All permit applications shall be signed as follows:
a. For a corporation: by a responsible corporate officer;
b. For a partnership or sole proprietorship: by a general partner or the proprietor, respectively.
'_•!''-,• -' ' . , . f .".'••••' ' ' -
c. For a municipality, State, Federal,'or "other public agency: by either a principal executive
officer or ranking elected'Official." '-
19
-------
2.
3.
PartV
Permit No. UGW370005
°ther information re^ted by the Executive Secretary s
^
The authorization specifies either an individual or a position having responsibility for t
overall operation of the regulated facility or activity, such as the poskion'of p ant mante
°r I"'" field> SUPerintendent' P0^tion of equivalent responsibil
05 7 ^ °Verail resPonsibility for environmental
-° HAu*°fation-. If an authorization under Part V.H.2. is no longer accurate because
fm V1, t-°r P,°SlUOn haS rcsP°nsibility for the overall operation of the fiJS
authonzauon satisfymg the requirements of Part V.H.2. must be submitted to the Executive
Wlth ** rcports' information' or applications to be
I.
4. t—emiicanon. Anv n*»rcon ?;<*»*:...« _ j . , . I
this section shall make the following
leSl^Tsu'pe^isfon hf ^ordanc^5 d°CUmem "* ^ a"achments werc P^^ u"der my I
wh>rmLgatheland £ValUate ^information submitted. Based on my inquiry of thTperson or^rs^nl
who manage the system, or those persons directly responsible for gathering the information the
J.
K.
rights, nor any
20
-------
Part V
Permit No. UGW370005
Severability. The provisions of this permit are sevefable, and if any provision of this permit, or the
application of any provision of this penriit*t6" any circumstance, is held invalid, the application of such
provision to other circumstances, and the remainder of this permit, shall not be affected thereby.
... :;..,-,. .^'^n^JMiT;',;,,:-. •' "•• ' '•'
|M. Transfers. This permit may be automatically transferred to a new permittee if:
1. The current permittee notifies the Executive Secretary at least 30 days in advance of the proposed
transfer date;
2. The notice includes a written agreement between the existing and new permittee containing a specific
date for transfer of permit responsibility, coverage, and liability between them; and,
3. The Executive Secretary does not notify the existing permittee and the proposed new permittee of his
or her intent to modify, or revoke and reissue the permit. If this notice is not received, the transfer is
effective on the date specified in the agreement as described in Part V.M.2, above.
N. State Laws. Nothing in this permit shall be construed to preclude the institution of any legal action or relieve
the permittee from any responsibilities, liabilities, penalties established pursuant to any applicable state law
or regulation under authority preserved by Section 19-5-117 of the Act.
O. Reopener Provisions. This permit may be reopened and modified pursuant to R317-6-6.6.B or R317-6-6.10.C
to include the appropriate limitations and compliance schedule, if necessary, if one or more of the following
events occurs:
1. If new ground water standards are adopted by the Board, the permit may be reopened and modified
to extend the terms of the permit or to include pollutants covered by new standards. The permittee
may apply for a variance under the conditions outlined in R317-6-6.4.D.
2. Changes have been determined in background ground water quality.
3. When at the end of the accelerated monitoring period, protection levels for the new wells are
established.
4. When approval of any Compliance Schedule Item, under Part HH, is considered, by the Executive
Secretary, to be a major modification to the permit.
ERMITS\DFREDERI\WP\SUMMO\SUMMO.PER
21
-------
.;PartV
Permit No. UGW370005
APPENDIX A - WATER QUALITY MONITORING
QUALITY ASSURANCE PROJECT PLAN
Dated March ??, 1997
22
-------
PartV
Permit No. UGW370005
APPENDIX B - BEST AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY MONITORING
QUALITY ASSURANCE PROJECT PLAN
»
Dated March ??,1997
23
-------
-------
-------
; ..... SB
ysiaii
"Sim ;
m
i i m
..«.i •••••••••••II
al
•
------- |