South Pipeline Project : draft environmental impact statement

418 Pages·1999·90.4 MB·English

by  United States. Bureau of Land Management. Battle Mountain Field Office

BLM LIBRARY
United States Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management
Battle Mountain Field Office
Battle Mountain, Nevada August 1999
South Pipeline Project
NV64-93-001P(96-2A)
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
NV063-EIS98-014
COOPERATING AGENCIES:
Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Division of Wildlife
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
MISSION STATEMENT
The Bureau of Land Management is responsible forthe stewardship of our public lands. It is committed to
manage, protect, and improve these lands in a manner to serve the needs of the American people for all
times. Management is based upon the principles of multiple use and sustained yield of our nation's
resources within a framework of environmental responsibility and scientific technology. These resources
include recreation, rangelands, timber, minerals, watershed, fish and wildlife, wilderness, air and scenic,
scientific, and cultural values.
BLM LIBRARY
BLDG50,
ST-150/
DENVER FEDERAL CEr
BOX
P.O. 26047
DENVER, COLORADO
80225
EIS NUMBER: NV063-EIS98-014
PLAN OF OPERATIONS NUMBER: NV64-93-001P(96-2A)
uHf
frMnq
United States Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management
Battle Mountain Field Office
50 Bastian Road
Battle Mountain, Nevada 89820
[phone] Fax[phone]
AUG 1 1999
In Reply Refer to:
NV63-EIS98-14
1790
N63-93-001P
3809
(NV060.3)
Dear Reader:
Enclosed for your review and comment is the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the South Pipeline
Project (Project), prepared by the Bureau ofLand Management, Battle Mountain Field Office (BLM). The
Project is being proposed by the Cortez Gold Mines, Inc. (CGM).
The Draft Environmental Impact Statement is based on the Amendment to the Pipeline Plan of Operations for
the South Pipeline Project submitted to the Bureau ofLand Management under 43 Code of Federal Regulations
Subpart 3809. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement analyzes the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts
associated with the mining and processing ofreserves in the Project Area, located approximately 30 miles
south-east ofBattle Mountain, Nevada. The Project is located adjacent to CGM's Pipeline project.
The BLM requests your review ofand comment on the adequacy and accuracy ofthis document. Written
comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement must be postmarked by October 5, 1999, and should
be sent to: Bureau ofLand Management, Battle Mountain Field Office, South Pipeline EIS Project
Manager, 50 Bastian Road, Battle Mountain, Nevada 89820-1420.
In addition, public meetings to accept verbal and written comments on the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement are scheduled for the following dates, times, and locations:
August 30, 1999, 7:00 p.m., at the Bureau ofLand Management, Battle Mountain Field Office, Battle
Mountain, Nevada
August 31, 1999, 7:00 p.m., at the Crescent Valley Town Hall, Crescent Valley, Nevada
A
Final Environmental Impact Statement will be prepared that will consider the comments received during the
public review and comment period. The Final Environmental Impact Statement may be in an abbreviated
format; therefore, you should retain this Draft Environmental Impact Statement as a reference. Ifyou would
like any additional information, please contact Gary Foulkes, South Pipeline EIS Project Manager at
[phone].
Sincerely,
^A
Gerald M. Smith
Field Manager
This page left intentionally blank.
DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
SOUTH PIPELINE PROJECT
Lead Agency: U.S. Department ofInterior
Bureau ofLand Management
Battle Mountain Field Office
Project Location: Lander County, Nevada
EIS Number: NV063-EIS98-014
Plan ofOperations Number: NV64-93-001P(96-2A)
Correspondence on this EIS
Should be Directed to: Gary Foulkes
Project Manager
Bureau ofLand Management
Battle Mountain Field Office
50 Bastian Road
Battle Mountain, Nevada 89820-1420
[phone]
Date Draft EIS Filed with the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: July 30, 1999
Date by Which Comments Must be
Postmarked to the BLM: October 5, 1999
ABSTRACT
Cortez Gold Mines, Inc. (CGM) proposes to extend gold mining operations at the Pipeline Mine
withintheGoldAcresMiningDistrictinLanderCounty,approximately30milessoutheastofBattle
Mountain, Nevada. The South Pipeline Project (Proposed Action) would include an expansion of
the existingopenpitandwaste rockdisposal sites, andthedevelopmentofheapleach andancillary
facilities. The Proposed Action would require surface disturbance of4,450 acres, all of which is
public land administered by the Bureau ofLand Management. Mining operations are expected to
occur seven-days-a-week, 24-hours-a-day, for an additional 10 years (total life of 18 years).
ThisDraftEnvironmentalImpactStatementanalyzestheenvironmentaleffectsoftheSouthPipeline
Project, the No Action Alternative, and the Pipeline Backfill Alternative.
Responsible Official for the EIS: Gerald M. Smith
Field Office Manager
Battle Mountain Field Office
This page leftintentionally blank.
SOUTH PIPELINE PROJECT
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
iii
LIST OF FIGURES xiii
LIST OF TABLES xv
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES-1
Purpose ofthis Document ES-1
Proposed Action ES-1
Pipeline Backfill Alternative ES-3
No Action Alternative ES-4
Alternatives Eliminated from Detailed Consideration ES-4
Important Issues and Impact Conclusions ES-4
BLM
Preferred Alternative ES-4
1 INTRODUCTION: PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION 1-1
1.1 Introduction and Location 1-1
CGM
1.2 Projects 1-1
CGM
1.2.1 Existing and Previously Approved Facilities and Operations 1-1
1.2.2 Proposed Action 1-5
1.2.3 Relationship ofProposed Action to the Pipeline Project and the Crescent
Pit Project 1-5
1.3 Purpose and Need 1-9
BLM
1.4 Responsibilities and Relationship to Planning 1-9
1.5 Authorizing Actions 1-11
1.6 Environmental Review Process 1-11
1.7 Organization ofthe Environmental Impact Statement 1-13
2 EXISTING FACILITIES 2-1
2.1 Introduction 2-1
2.2 Approved Open Pits 2-1
2.3 Approved Mine Dewatering and Water Disposal Operations 2-1
2.3.1 Dewatering Operations 2-1
2.3.2 Water Disposal Operations 2-15
2.3.2.1 Mine Water Infiltration Site Location, Design, and Operation 2-15
2.3.2.2 Mine Dewatering Monitoring 2-18
2.3.3 Watering Troughs for Livestock 2-19
2.4 Approved Waste Rock Dumps 2-19
2.5 Approved Ore Processing Facilities 2-19
2.5.1 Pipeline Mill Facility 2-20
2.5.1.1 Pipeline Crushing and Grinding 2-20
2.5.1.2 Pipeline Carbon-In-Leach (CIL) Circuit 2-20
2.5.1.3 Pipeline Carbon-In-Column (CIO Circuit 2-20
2.5.1.4 Pipeline Recovery and Refining Circuit 2-20
in
SouthPipelineDraftEnvironmentalImpactStatement
2.5.2 Pipeline Tailings and Heap Leach Facility 2-20
2.5.3 Gold Acres Heap Leach Facility 2-21
2.5.4 Cortez CFB Roaster, CIL Mill, and Tailings Facility 2-22
2.6 Approved Support Activities 2-22
2.6.1 Support Facilities 2-22
2.6.2 Work Force 2-22
2.6.3 Mobile Equipment 2-22
2.6.4 Water Supply and Consumptive Use 2-23
2.6.5 Power Supply and Utilities 2-23
2.6.6 Waste Disposal and Sanitary System 2-23
2.6.7 Chemical Storage and Hazardous Materials Management 2-24
2.6.7.1 Chemical Storage 2-24
2.6.7.2 Hazardous Materials Management 2-24
2.6.8 Roads and Haul Roads 2-24
2.6.9 Cortez Gravel Pit 2-24
2.6.10 Fencing 2-25
2.6.11 Health and Human Safety 2-25
2.6.11.1 Security 2-26
2.6.1 1.2 Fire Protection 2-26
2.7 Exploration 2-26
2.8 Reclamation 2-26
CGM
2.9 Environmental Protection Measures 2-26
DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION
3-1
3.1 Introduction 3-1
3.2 South Pipeline Open Pit 3-7
3.2.1 Mining Methods 3-7
3.2.2 Slope and Slope Stability 3-7
3.2.3 Waste Rock Characterization 3-10
3.3 Dewatering and Water Disposal Operations 3-12
3.3.1 Dewatering Operations 3-12
3.3.2 Water Disposal Operations 3-12
3.3.2.1 Monitoring 3-13
3.3.2.2 Dean Ranch Water Delivery 3-13
3.3.2.3 Injection Wells 3-13
3.4 Waste Rock Disposal 3-13
3.4.1 South Pipeline Waste Rock Dump 3-14
3.4.2 Partial Backfilling Option 3-14
3.5 Ore Processing Facilities 3-14
3.5.1 Heap Leach Facility 3-14
3.5.2 Pipeline Mill and Tailings Facilities 3-16
3.5.3 Cortez CFB Roaster, CIL Mill, and Tailings Facility 3-18
3.6 Support Facilities 3-18
3.6.1 Administrative and Support Facilities 3-18
3.6.2 Work Force 3-18
3.6.3 Mobile Equipment 3-18
3.6.4 Water Supply 3-18
3.6.5 Power Supply and Utilities 3-18
3.6.6 Waste Disposal and Sanitary System 3-19
IV
TableOfContents
3.6.7 Chemical Storage and Hazardous Materials Management 3-19
3.6.7.1 Chemical Storage 3-19
3.6.7.2 Hazardous Materials Management 3-19
3.6.8 Roads and Haul Roads 3-19
3.6.9 Ditches and Surface Flows 3-20
3.6.10 Gravel Pit 3-20
3.6.11 Fencing 3-21
3.6.12 Health and Human Safety 3 21
3.7 Right-of-Wav 3-21
3.8 Exploration 3-21
3.9 Reclamation 3-21
3.9.1 Reclamation Goals 3-21
3.9.2 Reclamation Schedule 3-21
3.9.3 Facilities Closure/Dismantling 3-25
3.9.3.1 Heap Leach Facility 3-25
3.9.3.2 Tailings Facility Closure 3-25
3.9.3.3 Demolition 3-26
3.9.4 Contouring and Shaping 3-26
3.9.4.1 Waste Rock Dump 3-26
3.9.4.2 Open Pit 3-26
3.9.4.3 Haul and Access Roads 3-28
3.9.5 Soil Salvage and Stockpiles 3-28
3.9.6 Seed Bed Preparation 3-28
3.9.7 Seeding/Planting 3-28
3.9.8 Seeding Mixtures and Rates 3-28
3.9.9 Fencing 3-28
3.9.10 Erosion Control 3-29
3.10 Monitoring and Reclamation Success Evaluation 3-29
3.10.1 Erosion Controls 3-29
3.10.2 Revegetation Success Monitoring 3-29
3.11 Concurrent Reclamation 3-30
3.12 Environmental Protection Measures 3-30
3.13 Financial Assurance 3-30
3.14 Alternatives to the Proposed Action 3-31
3.14.1 No Action Alternative 3-31
3.14.2 Pipeline Backfill Alternative 3-31
BLM
3.14.3 Preferred Alternative 3-33
3.14.4 Alternatives Eliminated from Detailed Consideration 3-33
3.14.4.1 Alternatives for Discharge ofthe Pumped Water 3-33
3.14.4.2 Alternatives for Open Pit Backfilling 3-35
3.14.4.3 Project Component Alternatives 3-37
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
4 4-1
4.1 Introduction 4-1
4.2 Geology and Mineral Resources 4-1
4.2.1 Regulatory Framework 4-1
4.2.2 Affected Environment 4-1
4.2.2.1 Study Methods 4-1
4.2.2.2 Existing Conditions 4-1
SouthPipelineDraftEnvironmentalImpactStatement
4.2.3 Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures 4-4
4.2.3.1 Significance Criteria 4-4
4.2.3.2 Assessment Methodology 4-4
4.2.3.3 Proposed Action 4-5
4.2.3.4 Pipeline Backfill Alternative 4-6
4.2.3.5 No Action Alternative 4-6
4.3 Soil Resources 4-6
4.3.1 Regulatory Framework 4-6
4.3.2 Affected Environment 4-7
4.3.2.1 Study Methods 4-7
4.3.2.2 Existing Conditions 4-7
4.3.3 Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures 4-7
4.3.3.1 Significance Criteria 4-7
4.3.3.2 Assessment Methodology 4-7
4.3.3.3 Proposed Action 4-8
4.3.3.4 Pipeline Backfill Alternative 4-9
4.3.3.5 No Action Alternative 4-9
4.4 Water Resources 4-9
4.4.1 Regulatory Framework 4-9
4.4.2 Affected Environment 4-10
4.4.2.1 Study Methods 4-10
4.4.2.2 Existing Conditions 4-10
4.4.3 Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures 4-41
4.4.3.1 Significance Criteria 4-41
4.4.3.2 Assessment Methodology 4-45
4.4.3.3 Proposed Action 4-51
4.4.3.4 Pipeline Backfill Alternative 4-73
4.4.3.5 No Action Alternative 4-73
4.5 Air Resources 4-81
4.5.1 Regulatory Framework 4-81
4.5.1.1 Federal Clean Air Act 4-82
4.5.1.2 Attainment and Non-Attainment Area 4-82
4.5.1.3 Prevention ofSignificant Deterioration 4-82
4.5.1.4 New Source Performance Standards 4-82
4.5.1.5 Federal Operating Permit Program 4-84
4.5.2 Affected Environment 4-84
4.5.2.1 Study Methods 4-84
4.5.2.2 Existing Conditions 4-84
4.5.3 Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures 4-88
4.5.3.1 Significance Criteria 4-88
4.5.3.2 Assessment Methodology 4-89
4.5.3.3 Proposed Action 4-92
4.5.3.4 Pipeline Backfill Alternative 4-101
4.5.3.5 No Action Alternative 4-101
4.6 Range Resources 4-102
4.6.1 Regulatory Framework 4-102
4.6.2 Affected Environment 4-102
4.6.2.1 Study Methods 4-102
4.6.2.2 Existing Conditions 4-109
vi