South Pipeline Project : final environmental impact statement

568 Pages·2000·111.1 MB·English

by  United States. Bureau of Land Management. Battle Mountain District

880677 9
United States Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management
Battle Mountain Field Office
Battle Mountain, Nevada February 2000
South Pipeline Project
NV64-93-001P(96-2A)
Final Environmental Impact Statement
NV063-EIS98-014
COOPERATING AGENCIES:
Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Division of Wildlife
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
BLM LIBRARY
BLDG 50, ST-1 50/
DENVER FEDERAL
.-.R
BOX
P.O. 25u-
DENVER, COLORADO S0225
MISSION STATEMENT
The Bureau of Land Management is responsible for the 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.
EIS NUMBER: NV063-EIS98-014
PLAN OF OPERATIONS NUMBER: NV64-93-001P(96-2A)
.
United States Department of the Interior USOfPAHtMfNT TKINIEBICW
KVttAU0»lANDMANA&fMtm
Bureau of Land Management
Battle Mountain Field Office
50 Bastian Road
Battle Mountain, Nevada 89820
775)635-4000 Fax[phone]
(
In Reply Refer to:
790
I
NV63-E1S98-14
3809
N64-93-001P(96-2A)
(NV060.3)
Dear Reader;
Enclosed foryour review and information is the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) prepared hy
the Bureau of Land Management. Battle Mountain Field Office (BLM) for the proposed South Pipeline
Project. The FEIS is a full text document, which also includes all comments received on the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) and responses to those comments.
The FEIS is based on the South Pipeline Project Amendment to the Cortez Gold Mines' Pipeline Plan of
Operations submitted to the BLM under 43 Code of Federal Regulations Subpart 3809. The FEIS includes
minor revisions of the DEIS and analyzes the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts associated witli the
mining and processing of reserves m the Project Area, located approximately 30 miles southeast of Battle
Mountain. Nevada. The South Pipeline Project is located adjacent to. and integrated with, tlie Pipeline Project
Written commentson the FEIS must be postmarked by April 3. 2000, 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.
A Record ofDecision will be issued upon completion ofthe 30-day public review period (or this FEIS. Ifyou
have anyquestions, orwould likeany additional information, pleasecontact Gary Foulkes. South PijX'lmc EIS
Project Manager at [phone].
Sincerely,
yr\
Gerald M. Smith
'ir--
Field Manager
Battle Mountain Field Office
V
. .
1 :'lV»'.'I
. /' " ’ ' . 1.'i, t;*, f/I t ’i/v('' t.iSV
,, .' ' . - '<H G:” 't
''(
* t t ' ’.,n''i }';M ) -K)?".
' ^ t. . ;‘ .! '"] ,:': Mi !''
l,f> (,.. .(. ( ‘‘J^, .’"1
. V'^='ti'' ,(;vG- U t " ( y'tp ti, 'V-'ikJi.',( ,••“;1'. <y«i'|ltJ!(|f
” ‘-| .. Ml Ir i ' ' .1 ;. ' i’ti' 1
•* i' -r'; 11;
t1 *I 1 k’ i'iihi ‘lil’''
'iv,' . VfQ.i ; -1
'
.. , -kc; :‘tf‘\
' '‘ I.j• , •rf'*"
'' r**1 . 1 ' , ( "
rflA., ,iV, •..I \xJ-
' i* ’ ''/f “ I =fkj£i;w' H/'
,;j)^..V;,
''' .'''.’
'''I5(''iVj
Ur
Ci-''
' “
i
o-j
C.-'
-
FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
SOUTH PIPELINE PROJECT
Lead Agency: U.S. Department ofInterior
Bureau ofLand Management
Battle Mountain Field Office
Cooperating Agencies: Nevada Division of Wildlife
U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers
Project Location: Lander County, Nevada
EIS Number: NV063-EIS98-0I4
Plan ofOperations Number: NV64-93-00IP(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 Final EIS Filed with the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: February 25, 2000
ABSTRACT
Cortez Gold Mines, Inc. (CGM) proposes to extend gold mining operations at the Pipeline Mine
within the Gold Acres Mining District in Lander County approximately 30 miles southeast ofBattle
,
Mountain, Nevada. The South Pipeline Project (Proposed Action) would include an expansion of
the existing open pit and waste rock disposal sites, and the development ofheap leach and ancillary
facilities. The Proposed Action would require surface disturbance of4,450 acres, all of which is
public land administered by the Bureau of Land 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). This
Final Environmental Impact Statement analyzes the environmental effects of the South Pipeline
Project Proposed Action, the No Action Alternative, and the Pipeline Backfill Alternative. Written
comments on the Final Environmental Impact Statement must be postmarked by April 3, 2000, and
sent to the address above.
Responsible Official for the EIS: Gerald M. Smith
Field Manager
Battle Mountain Field Office
This page left blank intentionally.
1
SOUTH PIPELINE PROJECT
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES
xiii
LIST OF TABLES xv
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ES-1
Purpose ofthis Document ES-1
Proposed Action ES-1
Pipeline BackEill 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
INTRODUCTION: PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION
1
LI Introduction and Location
CGM
1.2 Projects 1-1
CGM
1.2.1 Existing and Previously Approved Facilities and Operations
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 1-1
1.6 Environmental Review Process 1-1
1
1.7 Organization ofthe Environmental Impact Statement 1-14
2 EXISTING FACILITIES
2.1 Introduction
2.2 Approved Open Pits 2-1
.
2.3 A2.p5p.1roved 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. Mine Water Infiltration Site Location. Design, and Operation 2-15
1
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
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-ln-Coliiinn (CIC) Circuit 2-20
2.5.1.4 Pipeline Recovery and Refining Circuit 2-20
iii
South Pipeline Final Environmental Impact Statement
2.5.2 Pipeline Tailings and Heap Leach Facility 2-20
2.6 22..55..34 Gold Acres Heap Leach Facility 2-21
Cortez CFB Roaster, CIL Mill, and Tailings Facility
Approved Support Activities
2.6.1 Support Facilities
2.6.2 Work Force
2.6.3 Mobile Equipment 2-23
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 Sanitarv System 2-23
2.6.7 Chemical Storage and Hazardous Materials Management 2-23
2.6.7. Chemical Storage 2-23
1
2.6.7.2 Hazardous Materials Management 2-23
2.6.8 Roads and Haul Roads 2-24
2.6.9 Cortez Gravel Pit 2-25
2.6.10 Fencing 2-25
2.6.11 Health and Human Safety 2-25
2.6.11.1 Security 2-26
2.6.11.2 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
3.1 Proposed Action 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. Monitoring 3-13
1
3.3.2.2 Irrigation ofthe Dean Ranch 3-13
3.3.2.3 Injection Wells 3-13
3.4 Waste Rock Disposal 3-14
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 3-18
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 3-19
3.6.6 Waste Disposal and Sanitary System 3-19
IV
Tahlh Or Contents
3.6.7 Chemical Storage and Hazardous Materials Management 3-19
3.6.7. Chemical Storage 3-19
1
3.6.7.2 Hazardous Materials Manaaement 3-19
3.6.8 Roads and Haul Roads 3-20
3.6.9 Ditches and Surface Flows 3-20
3.6.10 Gravel Pit 3-21
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 Noxious Weed Management 3-21
3.10 Reclamation 3-21
3.10.1 Reclamation Goals 3-21
3.10.2 Reclamation Schedule 3-02
3.10.3 Facilities Closure/Dismantling 3-22
3.10.3.1 Heap Leach Facility 3-2'’
3.10.3.2 Tailings Facility Closure
3.10.3.3 Demolition j-2:)
3.10.4 Contouring and Shaping
3.10.4.1 Waste Rock Dump 3-23
3.10.4.2 Open Pit 3-25
3.10.4.3 Haul and Access Roads 3-25
3.10.5 Soil Salvage and Stockpiles 3-25
3.10.6 Seed Bed Preparation 3-25
3.10.7 Seeding/Planting 3-26
3.10.8 Seeding Mixtures and Rates 3-26
3.10.9 Fencing 3-26
3.10.10 Erosion Control 3-26
3.11 Monitoring and Reclamation Success Evaluation 3-26
3.11.1 Erosion Controls 3-26
3.11.2 Revegetation Success Monitoring 3-26
3.12 Concurrent Reclamation 3-26
3.13 Environmental Protection Measures 3-26
3.14 Financial Assurance 3-28
3.15 Alternatives to the Proposed Action 3-28
3.15.1 No Action Alternative 3-29
3.15.2 Pipeline Backfdl Alternative 3-29
BLM
3.15.3 Preferred Alternative 3-29
3.15.4 Alternatives Eliminated from Detailed Consideration 3-32
. . .
3.15.4.1 Alternatives for Discharge ofthe Pumped Water 3-32
. . . .
3.15.4.2 Alternatives for Open Pit Backfilling
3.15.4.3 Project Component Alternatives :)-j4
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. Study Methods 4-1
1
V
South Pipeline Final Environmentai, Impact Statement
4.2.2.2 Existing Conditions 4-1
4.2.3 Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures 4-4
4.2.3. Significance Criteria 4-4
1
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. Study Methods 4-7
1
4.3.2.2 Existing Conditions 4-7
4.3.3 Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures 4-7
4.3.3. Significance Criteria 4-7
1
4.3.3.2 Assessment Methodology 4-7
4.3.3.3 Proposed Action 4-8
4.3.3.4 Pipeline Backfill Alternatiye 4-9
4.3.3.5 No Action Alternatiye 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. Study Methods 4-10
1
4.4.2.2 Existing Conditions 4-10
4.4.3 Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures 4-41
4.4.3. Significance Criteria 4-41
1
4.4.3.2 Assessment Methodology 4-45
4.4.3.3 Proposed Action 4-51
4.4.3.4 Pipeline Backfill Alternatiye 4-73
4.4.3.5 No Action Alternatiye 4-75
4.5 Air Resources 4-82
4.5.1 Regulatory Framework 4-82
4.5. 1.1 Federal Clean Air Act 4-82
4.5.1.2 Attainment and Non-Attainment Area 4-84
4.5.1.3 Preyention ofSignificant Deterioration 4-84
4.5.1.4 New Source Performance Standards 4-84
4.5.1.5 Federal Operating Permit Program 4-84
4.5. 1.6 Neyada Bureau ofAir Quality 4-84
4.5.2 Affected Environment 4-85
4.5.2. Study Methods 4-85
1
4.5.2.2 Existing Conditions 4-85
4.5.3 Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures 4-86
4.5.3. Significance Criteria 4-86
1
4.5.3.2 Assessment Methodology 4-89
4.5.3.3 Proposed Action 4-93
4.5.3.4 Pipeline Backfill Alternatiye 4-102
4.5.3.5 No Action Alternatiye 4-109
4.6 Range Resources 4-109
4.6.1 Regulatory Framework 4-109
4.6.2 Affected Environment 4-110
VI