Table Of Content

Historic, Archive Document Do not assume content reflects current scientific knowledge, policies, or practices. Canyon Mine Expansion Jerritt Draft Environmental Impact Statement United States Department ofAgriculture Humboldt National Forest Elko County, Nevada December 1993 Photo Description: West side ofIndependence Range as seen from Highway 226 (Fall 1992). National Agricultural Library JEKRITT CANYON MINE EXPANSION PROJECT Elko County, Nevada Draft Environmental Impact Statement Lead Agency: activities. Seven alternatives, including the No USDA-Forest Service Action alternative and the proposed Project, are Humboldt National Forest presented and analyzed for their effects on environmental resources in this DEIS. The Coop>erating Agencies: alternatives have been developed in response to USDI-Bureau of Land Management environmental resource issues and concerns Elko, NV identified through the pubhc scoping process and interagency meetings. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Sacramento, CA The U.S. Forest Service’s preferred alternative is Alternative C. Nevada Division ofWildlife Elko, NV Comment Deadline: Comments onthis Draft EIS mustbereceivedby Nevada Division ofMinerals January 18, 1994. Carson City, NV Reviewers should provide the Forest Service with Elko County Commission their comments duringthe reviewperiod ofthedraft NV Elko, environmental impact statement. This will enable the Forest Service to analyze and respond to the Responsible Official: comments at one time and to use information John Inman acquired in the preparation of the final Forest Supervisor environmental imp>act statement, thus avoiding Humboldt National Forest undue delay in the decision making process. 976 Mountain City Highway Reviewers have an obligation to structure then- NV Elko, 89801 participation in the National Environmental Policy Act process so that it is meaningful and alerts the For Further Information Contact: agency to the reviewers’ position and contentions. Don Carpenter Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. u NRDC, 435 Mountain City Ranger District U.S. 519, 553 (1978). Environmental objections that P.O. Box 276 could have been raised at the draft stage may be Mountain City, NV 89831 waived ifnotraiseduntilaftercompletionofthefinal (702) 763-6691 environmental impact statement. City ofAngoon v. Model (9th Circuit, 1986) and Wisconsin Heritages, Abstract: Inc. u. Harris, 490 F. Supp. 1334, 1338 (E.D. Wis. This Draft Environmental Impact Statement 1980). Comments on thedraftenvironmentalimpact (DEIS) is written in response to a proposed Plan of statement should be specific and should address the M Operations submitted by Independence ining adequacy of the statement and the merits of the Company Inc. (IMC) to expand its existing gold alternatives discussed (40 CFR 1503.3). miningoperations at theJerritt Canyon Mineon the Humboldt National Forest in Elko County, Nevada. The proposal includes construction of four open pit mines and associated waste rock dumps, soil stockpiles, ore stockpiles, haul roads and support facilities. Theproposalwould disturb approximately 3,000 acres of land of which about 400 acres have been disturbed by previous and on-going mining JerrittCanyonMineExpansionDEIS Introduction Independence Mining Company Inc. (IMC) has submitted a proposed Plan of Operations (POO) to the U.S. Department ofAgriculture-Forest Service (USFS) to expand its existinggold mining operation at the Jerritt Canyon Mine in Elko County, Nevada. The proposed project would consist offour mine pits, associated waste rock dumps, haul roads, ore stockpiles, mine facilities, soil stockpiles, and drainage and sediment control structures. The proposed mining operation would be situated on private lands and National Forest System lands administered by the Mountain City Ranger District ofthe Humboldt National Forest. IMC has the statutory right, under the 1872 Mining Law as amended, to enter National Forest System lands for the purpose ofconductingmineral exploration and mining activities, subject to the USFS approval of the POO and meeting the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The USFS has determined that implementation ofthe POO would be a major federal action requiring preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The Draft EIS (DEIS) describes components ofreasonable alternatives to and environmental consequences of implementing the Project. This summary briefly reviews the content of the DEIS as follows: Chapter 1: Purpose of and Need for Action. This chapter describes the need for the proposed project and the decisions to be made. The project background, the environmental analysis process, public participation, the major issues and concerns raised during public and agency scoping, and the federal, state, and local permits required for the Project are also discussed. Chapter 2: Alternatives Including the Proposed Action. This chapter describes the processby which alternativeswere developed, describes IMC’s proposed action and the other alternatives considered. It identifies existing operations, the management, mitigation and monitoring measures and compares alternatives on the basis oftheir environmental effects. Chapter 3: Affected Environment. This chapter describes the physical and biological environmental resources and socioeconomic conditions that would be affected by the action alternatives. Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences. This chapter analyzes and describes the potential environmental consequences of all alternatives. JerrittCanyon Mine ExpansionDEIS 8-1 1.0 Purpose of and Need for Action Implementation of the mining activities described in the POO submitted by IMG is necessary for the continued and uninterrupted supply ofgold bearing ore in an economically feasible manner to IMC’s milling operations. The proposed Saval, Steer, New Deep and Burns Basin mining expansion areas would replace gold ore reserves that have been exhausted over the past twelveyears at the existingJerritt Canyon miningoperations. This expansion would enable IMG to maintain current operations. Without implementation of the proposed project, IMG anticipates production and employment at IMC’s mining and mineral processing operations would begin to decline in 1994 and totally cease sometime during 1996, based on current mine economics. Implementation ofthe project would require a decision by the USFS and acquisition of applicable permits and authorizations from other agencies. The Humboldt National Forest Supervisor’s decision to be made is to either approve the mine expansion activities as proposed by IMG or to approve an alternative course of action. A final POO would be developed to conform to the Forest Supervisor’s selected action alternative. In addition to | the Supervisor’s decision and approval of the final POO, implementation of the project would require authorizing actions from other federal, state or local agencies including the US Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), US Department of Interior-Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the Nevada Divisions of Environmental Protection (NDEP), Water Resources, Health, and Historic Preservation, and the Elko County Department of Public , . , Works. I The existing and proposed mining operations are located within the Independence ( i ^ Mountain Range approximately 50 miles northwest of Elko, Nevada. Mining operations j began at the Jerritt Canyon Project after completion ofthe 1980 Jerritt Canyon Gold Mine and Mill FEIS and approval of the POO by the USFS and BLM. The proposed Saval and j Steer mine areas were identified in the 1980 FEIS as areas with future mining potential. The New Deep mine area is essentially the extension ofthe West Generator pit, which was completed in 1993. The Burns Basin mine development began in 1988 and continues at present. The proposed project would provide for continued mine operations through 2005. i j 1 ^ The Project is expected to result in the creation of between 150 and 200 new job opportunities at IMC during mining. During the scoping process, federal and state agencies, private individuals and organizations, and IMC identified issues and concerns regarding the proposed project and op the alternatives to the proposed project. Public meetings were conducted in Elko, Reno, Mountain City and Tuscarora to assist in identifying public issues and agency concerns til pr related to the project. Public and agency scoping identified the issues eind concerns as listed an in Table 1.2. These issues were narrowed to four focus issues to guide the development of alternatives: 1) water quality - potential for acid rock drainage, 2) waste rock dump design alt for stability, 3) reclamation potential - revegetation, and 4) mine economics - economic Ofi viability. piti acr JerrittCanyonMineExpansionDEIS s-u 2.0 Alternatives Including the Proposed Action Theformulation ofalternatives was amultiple-step process guided by the focus issues and post-mining land use objectives. Post-mining land use objectives established for the mine expansion by the USFS include providing for livestock grazing, wildlife habitat, recreational opportunities, public access, visual quality consistent with established classifications, and a stable post-mining watershed. Several alternatives were eliminated from detailed study because they did not respond to the focus issues, had significant environmental disadvantages, or were technically or economically infeasible. The Forest Supervisor approved the development of detailed analysis of seven alternatives, including the No Action alternative. Alternative A No Action - Under the No Action Alternative, the USFS would not authorize the proposed action or any action alternative. Currently approved operations would continue until completion. The No Action Alternative is required by NEPA and serves as a baseline for evaluation of the action alternatives. Existing mining and milling operations are divided into two separate geographic components, one for mining and one for processing. Mining occurs on approximately 3,137 acres ofprivate and USFS-administered land in the Independence Mountains, primarily on the west side ofthe range. Gold ore is currently mined from five pits utilizing conventional open pit mining methods. Waste is hauled to various disposal sites, including waste rock dumps and partial pit backfill areas. Ore is hauled to the processing facilities, located on approximately 1,400 acres ofBLM-managed land on the eastern flanks ofthe Independence Mountains. Existingoperations at theJerritt Canyon Project are estimated to continue at current levels until 1994, at which point operations would begin to decline and completely shut down sometime before or during 1996. Employment, estimated at 600 persons in 1993, would decline accordingly. Alternative B: Proposed Action The Proposed action for the Jerritt Canyon Mine Expansion is the development, operation and reclamation ofthe Saval, Steer, and New Deep mine areas and expansion of the existing Burns Basin mine area. Proposed operations are expected to result in production of gold from 20 million tons ofore. Ore would be processed at the existing mill and the milling waste would be deposited in the existing and approved tailings ponds. This alternative would result in about 2,966 acres ofdisturbance, which includes about 407 acres of existing disturbance. Conventional open pit miningmethods wouldbe the primary means ofdevelopingthe pits. Total area associated with pit development would be about 1,330 acres of which 308 acres havebeen previously disturbed. Underground miningmethods may be utilized within JerrittCanyonMine ExpansionDEIS s-iii the pits during or after open pit mining to increase ore recovery. Active dewatering ofthe pits is not anticipated because the Saval, Steer and Burns Basin pits are located above the regional groundwater table and estimated pit inflow rates for New Deep are low. If active dewatering were necessary, the water would be utilized in mine operations or discharged to the surface or re-injected underground. Approximately 1,084 million tons of waste rock would be deposited in waste rock dumps or in partial pit backfill areas. The majority ofthe waste rock dumps would be built as complete or partial valley-fills with angle ofrepose slopes in portions ofthe Jerritt Creek, Saval Canyon, Steer Canyon, and Burns Basin drainages. Approximately 1,308 acres of disturbance are associated with construction of the waste rock dumps. Under-dump drainage systems would convey surface water through the base ofthe dumps. The under- dump drainage system would consist of large rocks placed by gravity sorting of materials during dumping. The haul road network required to develop the proposed Project would disturb about 184 acres. No changes to alignment or dimensions are anticipated for the haul roads outside of the Project area. Haul roads would range in width and would be constructed using a combination of cut and fill methods. The haul roads would be constructed and maintained to ensure adequate drainage and minimize damage to soil, water and other resources. Mine roads would be closed and reclaimed after miningunless authorized by the USFS to be left open. Growth medium would be salvaged from portions of the pit area and stockpiled at various locations or redistributed directly. Approximately 119 acres would be covered by growth medium stockpiles. Low grade ore stockpiles would disturb an estimated 12 acres. New mine facilities would be constructed to support the New Deep mining operations. Sediment control structures would be constructed to trap sediment and control runoff, and are expected to distimb approximately 11 acres. Sediment ponds and traps would be removed after mining unless they are retained as post-mining water sources. Alternative C Alternative C was developed in responseto concerns aboutwaste rock dump stability, revegetation potential, visual quality, integrity of stream inflow and outflow under dumps, water diversion in Burns Creek, and partial pit backfilling. This alternative would result in about 3,099 acres ofdisturbance, ofwhich approximately 437 acres have been previously disturbed. Stability would be enhanced by adding terraces to waste rock dumps in specific locations and constructing and reclaiming some waste rock dump faces to ratios of 3H:1V (three feet horizontal to one footvertical) and 2H:1V compared to the steeper angle ofrepose slopes proposed in Alternative B. The upstream side of the South Deep dump would be constructed as a single level approximately 130 feet high to promote gravity sortingofwaste rock and reduce potential for material compaction above the stream inflow point. Potential partial pit backfill locations are in the West Generator, Saval, and Burns Basin pits. JerrittCanyon MineExpansionDEIS S-IV