Environmental Assessment in support of the : Implementation of remediation activities for selected contaminated mine drainage (CMD) sites at the Big South Fork National River and Recreation Area [Preliminary Draft] PDF
Preview Environmental Assessment in support of the : Implementation of remediation activities for selected contaminated mine drainage (CMD) sites at the Big South Fork National River and Recreation Area [Preliminary Draft]
—PRELIMINARYDRAFT— Environmental Assessment In support ofthe: Implementation ofRemediation Activities for Selected Contaminated Mine Drainage (CMD) Sites at the Big South Fork National River and Recreation Area McCreary County, Kentucky U.S. Department ofthe Interior - National Park Service U.S. Department of Energy - National Energy Technology Laboratory June 15, 2001 amecP AMEC & Earth Environmental, Inc. 6626 Central Avenue Pike Knoxville, Tennessee 37912 NATIONAL PARK SERVICE WATER ,0N H5T XORADO n RESOURCE ROOM PROPERTY •V/V *»fl ill r Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2012 with funding from LYRASIS Members and Sloan Foundation http://archive.org/details/environmentalassOOrose (o'^'-y /<W:- /tcJj t /J^y Ui'C<^\ —PRELIMINARYDRAFT— Environmental Assessment In support ofthe: Implementation ofRemediation Activities for Selected Contaminated Mine Drainage (CMD) Sites at the Big South Fork National River and Recreation Area N=TL McCreary County, Kentucky U.S. Department ofthe Interior - National Park Service U.S. Department of Energy - National Energy Technology Laboratory June 15, 2001 ame AMEC & Earth Environmental, Inc. 6626 Central Avenue Pike Knoxville, Tennessee 37912 [THISSPACEHASBEENINTENTIONALLYLEFTBLANK] —PRELIMINARYDRAFT— ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT SIGNATURE PAGE LEADAGENCY: DEPARTMENTOFTHEINTERIOR,NATIONALPARKSERVICE(NPS) COOPERATINGAGENCIES: None TITLEOFPROPOSEDACTION: ImplementationofRemediationActivitiesforSelectedContaminatedMineDrainage (CMD)SitesattheBig SouthForkNationalRiverandRecreationArea AFFECTEDJURISDICTION: McCrearyCounty,Kentucky POINTOF CONTACT: _,EAProjectOfficer,NPS,Big SouthForkNRRA,4564 LeatherwoodRoad, Oneida,TN37841, Telephone: ( ) PROPONENTS: DepartmentoftheInterior,NationalParkService(NPS)andDepartmentofEnergy, National EnergyTechnologyLaboratory(DOE-NETL) REVIEWEDBY: REVIEWEDBY: REVIEWEDBY: XXXXX-DRAFT-XXXXX XXXXX-DRAFT-XXXXX XXXXX--DRAFT--XXXXX Name Name Name Superintendent Title Title Big SouthForkNRRA REVIEWEDBY: REVIEWEDBY: XXXXX-DRAFT-XXXXX XXXXX-DRAFT-XXXXX Name Name Title Title DOCUMENTDESIGNATION: PreliminaryDraftEnvironmentalAssessment [THISSPACEHASBEENINTENTIONALLYLEFTBLANK] EXECUTIVE SUMMARY It is the intent ofthe National Park Service (NPS) and theU.S. DepartmentofEnergy, National EnergyTechnology Laboratory (DOE-NETL) to perform remediation activities at several contaminated mine drainage (CMD) sites within the Commonwealth ofKentucky portion ofthe Big South Fork National River and Recreation Area (BISO) to help improve the water quality and aquatic habitat in the Big South Fork ofthe CumberlandRiver (BSF) and its tributaries. This Environmental Assessment (EA) has been prepared to fully identify, document, and address the potential physical, environmental, cultural, and socioeconomic impacts associated with implementation of the proposedactions in accordancewith theNational Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA; 42 USC 4321 et seq). CMD The purpose ofthe proposed action is to limit and/or prevent, to the extent possible, from further impacting tributary streams in the project area, and subsequently the BSF. The proposed project would benefit the environment. The NPS proposes to mitigate CMD and/or prevent the production ofCMD at eight sites within the Kentucky portion of the BISO using grading and revegetation, passive treatment systems [i.e., anoxic limestone drains (ALDs), constructedwetlands, polishingponds], and/orwatersourcecontrols(i.e., linedchannels, regrading) to prevent or deter surface water from contacting mine spoils. The project sites proposed for remediation are as follows: Laurel Branch (Stream Spoils and Confluence Area) Laurel Branch Confluence Devils Creek Blue Heron Spoils Blair Creek WorleyMine #88 WorleyMine #86 Slavey Hollow Nancy Graves NEPA, CEQ regulations, and NPS-12 requirethatall reasonablealternativesbe rigorously explored andobjectively evaluated. This EA examines in-depth three alternatives, a Preferred Action Alternative, a Modified Action Alternative, anda No Action Alternative, defined as follows: > Alternative 1: Preferred Action Alternative: Implement a series of environmental improvement actions throughout the affected sites, including the construction ofALDs, constructedwetland treatment systems, and lined channelswithinthe project area. > Alternative 2: Modified Action Alternative: Implement many ofthe same actionsas included in thePreferred Action Alternative with afewvariations. The differencesbetween Alternatives 1 and 2 areprimarily relatedto the methodbywhich remediation isproposedat certain project sites. > Alternative 3: No Action Alternative: Implement no actionsto remediate sites adversely affectedby CMD. Implementation ofthe Preferred Action Alternative (Alternative 1) is anticipated to result in long-term beneficial effects to water and biological resources within the project area. Short-term adverse impacts to the local environment would include increased airemissions fromvehiclesand equipment, noise levels, potential on-site soil erosion and consequent sedimentation oflocal surface waters, limited recreational use oftrails in the project area during construction, and potential impacts to on-site cultural resources. Theseshort-term adverse impacts would be lowered to acceptable levels with implementation ofthe common mitigation measures identified in Section 5.2.2, and the resource area-specific mitigation measures identifiedthroughout Sections 5.3 through 5.13. Implementation ofthe proposed actions would not adversely impact geology, topography, ground water resources, socioeconomic resources, environmentaljustice issues, infrastructure, or hazardous materials andwastes. Implementation ofthe Modified Action Alternative (Alternative 2) wouldbe anticipated to result in similarimpacts to those identified for Alternative 1. The alternative configurations of the proposed remediation measures as ES-l associated with this Modified Action Alternative would notbe expected to result in significantly different effects to water resources, including water quality; the primary differences between Alternatives 1 and 2 are associated with logistical considerations during construction periods. Of these logistical considerations, implementation of Alternative 2 at the Mine #88 areawould involve sealingthe mine entry and directingadditional watertothe Mine #86 adit and treatment system. This would negligibly increase the discharge of Mine #86 and potentially other discharge points, but would result in less disturbance, and perhaps greater effectiveness oftreatment, to the Mine CMD #88 discharge. Alternative 3, the No Action Alternative, was not found to satisfy the purpose and need for the project, as no CMD remedial actions would occur under this alternative. Without implementing the proposed actions, will continuetoadversely affect local streams withintheproject area. Each ofthe three considered alternatives, without implementation ofthe mitigation measures specified in thisEA, wouldpotentiallyresult in significant, orpotentially significant, impactstothecurrentenvironmental settingacross several technical areas. However, through implementation of specific, required mitigation measures, all potential anticipated impactswouldbe reducedbelow levels ofsignificance. The EA examines the potential cumulative effects ofimplementing the proposed projects. This analysis identifies that implementation of either Alternative 1 or 2 would result in long-term positive impacts to water quality and aquatic resources within the project area. The Preferred Action Alternative and the Competing Build Alternative effectivelyprovideforthe remediation ofCMD siteswithin theprojectarea, while theNo Action Alternativewould not satisfythepurposeand needfortheproject. This EA recommends that the NPS elect to implement a combination ofthe Preferred Action Alternative and the ModifiedActionAlternative. Specifically, itisrecommendedthatAlternative 1, thePreferredActionAlternative,be implemented with respect to the following project sites: Laurel Branch Channel, Laurel Branch Confluence, Devils Creek, BlueHeron Spoils, BlairCreek, WorleyMine #86, SlaveyHollow, andNancyGraves. ThisEA recommends that the NPS implement Alternative 2, the Modified Action Alternative, with respect to the WorleyMine # 88 site. Implementation of these activities would serve to fulfill the purpose of and need for the proposed action, while minimizingthe potential forimpact. ES-2 711 amec® —PRELIMINARYDRAFT—EnvironmentalAssessment RemediationofSelectedContaminatedMineDrainages — PRELIMINARYDRAFT— Environmental Assessment Remediation ofSelected Contaminated Mine Drainages TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 Purpose and Need for the Proposed Actions 1 1.1 Introduction 1 1.1.1 Project Overview 1 1.1.2 Location 3 1.1.3 Historical Land Use 3 1.1.4 Current Land Use 3 1.1.5 Management Planning at BISO 4 1.1.5.1 General Management at BISO 4 1.1.5.2 Water Resources Management 5 1.1.6 Rational for Preparing an Environmental Assessment 5 1.1.7 Environmental Assessment Framework 6 1.2 Purpose and Need for the Proposed Actions 6 1.3 Scope ofthe EA 7 1.4 Public Participation 8 1.5 Related NEPA Reviews 8 1.6 Required Permits/Reviews 9 2.0 Description ofthe Proposed Actions 1 2.1 Introduction 11 2.2 Laurel Branch 1 2.2.1 Laurel Branch Stream Spoils 11 2.2.2 Laurel Branch Confluence 12 2.3 Devils Creek 13 2.4 Blue Heron Spoils 13 2.5 Blair Creek 14 2.6 Worley Mine #88 15 2.7 Worley Mine #86 16 2.8 Slavey Hollow 1 2.9 Nancy Graves 17 2.10 Access Routes 18 3.0 Alternatives Considered 19 3.1 Alternative 1: Preferred Action Alternative 19 3.2 Alternative 2: Modified Action Alternative 19 3.2.1 Laurel Branch Stream Spoils 19 3.2.2 Laurel Branch Confluence 19 DepartmentoftheInterior-NationalParkServiceandDepartmentofEnergy-NETL June2001 BigSouthForkNational RiverandRecreationArea TableofContents DraftEnvironmentalAssessment Page i —RePmReEdiLaItiMoInNoAfRSeYlDecRteAdFCTon—taEmnivniartoendmeMnitnaelADsrsaeinsasgmeesnt C*l/j-iltI.^jt?.Cjj-/"^ 3.2.3 Devils Creek 19 3.2.4 Slavey Hollow 21 3.2.5 Nancy Graves 21 3.2.6 Mine #88 21 3.3 Alternative 3: No Action Alternative 21 3.4 Actions/Alternatives Eliminated from Detailed Study 21 3.5 Comparison ofAlternatives 22 4.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 23 4.1 General Overview 23 4.2 Study Area Description 23 4.2.1 Geographic Setting 23 4.2.2 Landscape 23 4.2.3 Area Climate 23 4.3 Land Use 24 4.3.1 Land Cover 24 4.3.2 Aesthetics and Visual Resources 24 4.3.3 Local Communities 25 4.3.4 Site-Specific Land Use 25 4.3.5 Property Status 26 4.4 Air Quality 26 4.4.1 Regulatory Framework 26 4.4.2 Ambient Air Quality 26 4.4.3 Criteria forAttainment/Nonattainment Areas 27 4.4.4 Existing Emission Sources and Air Pollution Permits 27 4.4.5 Proximate Sensitive Receptors 27 4.5 Noise 27 4.5.1 Regulatory Framework 27 4.5.2 Noise Sources 28 4.5.3 Proximate Sensitive Receptors 28 4.6 Geology, Topography and Soils 28 4.6.1 Geology 28 4.6.2 Mineral Resources 28 4.6.3 Topography 28 4.6.4 Soil Types and Characteristics 29 4.6.5 Prime and Unique Farmlands 29 4.7 Ground and Surface Water Resources 30 4.7.1 Regulatory Framework 30 4.7.2 SurfaceWater andWatersheds 30 4.7.3 Water Quality 31 4.7.3.1 Regional Water Quality 31 4.7.3.2 Project AreaWater Quality 32 4.7.4 Special Designations 33 4.7.5 Floodplains 33 4.7.6 Wetlands 33 4.7.7 Groundwater Resources and Withdrawal 33 June2001 DepartmentoftheInterior-NationalParkServiceandDepartmentofEnergy-NETL TableofContents BigSouthForkNationalRiverandRecreationArea Pageii DraftEnvironmentalAssessment
The list of books you might like
