clearinghouse.nv.govclearinghouse.nv.gov/public/Notice/2018/E2018-110.pdf · It is the mission of the Bureau of Land Management to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity

Pre – decisional, Deliberative Material

Not for Public Release

U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management

Bald Mountain Mine South Operations Area Vantage Complex Environmental Assessment DOI-BLM-NV-L060-2018-0007-EA

It is the mission of the Bureau of Land Management to sustain the health, diversity, and

productivity of the public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations.

DOI-BLM-NV-L060-2018-0007-EA

Bureau of Land Management

Bristlecone Field Office

702 North Industrial Way

Ely, NV 89301

Bald Mountain Mine SOA Vantage Complex Project Environmental Assessment

ii

Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION ...................................................................................1-1

1.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 1-1

1.2 Background Information ...................................................................................................1-1

1.3 Purpose and Need for Action ...........................................................................................1-2

1.4 Decision to be Made ........................................................................................................1-2

1.5 Conformance, Permits, and Approvals ............................................................................1-2

1.5.1 Permits and Approvals .....................................................................................1-2 1.5.2 BLM Land Use Plan(s) .....................................................................................1-3 1.5.3 Relationship to Statues, Regulations, or Other Plans .....................................1-4

1.6 Scoping, Public Involvement, and Issues ........................................................................1-4

2.0 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES .............................................................................2-1

2.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 2-1

2.2 Description of the Proposed Action..................................................................................2-1

2.2.1 Transportation Utility Corridor..........................................................................2-5 2.2.2 Vantage Complex ............................................................................................2-5 2.2.3 TUC and Vantage Complex Power Lines ......................................................2-13 2.2.4 Production Wells and Piezometers ................................................................2-14

2.3 No Action Alternative......................................................................................................2-15

3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ............................................3-1

3.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 3-1

3.2 Issue Identification ........................................................................................................... 3-1

3.3 General Setting ................................................................................................................ 3-5

3.4 Resources ........................................................................................................................ 3-6

3.4.1 Land Use and Access ......................................................................................3-6 3.4.2 Water Quality and Quantity ..............................................................................3-8 3.4.3 Wildlife and Fisheries Resources ..................................................................3-12 3.4.4 Special Status Species ..................................................................................3-15

4.0 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ............................................................................................................. 4-1

4.1 Resources ........................................................................................................................ 4-1

4.1.1 Land Use and Access ......................................................................................4-2 4.1.2 Water Quality and Quantity ..............................................................................4-3 4.1.3 Wildlife and Fisheries Resources ....................................................................4-3 4.1.4 Special Status Species ....................................................................................4-4 4.1.5 Greater Sage-Grouse ......................................................................................4-4

5.0 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION ...................................................................................5-1

5.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 5-1

5.2 Public Interest and Consultation ......................................................................................5-1

5.3 Organizations and Tribes Consulted................................................................................5-1

5.3.1 Organizations...................................................................................................5-1 5.3.2 Tribes ...............................................................................................................5-1

6.0 LIST OF PREPARERS................................................................................................................. 6-1 7.0 REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................. 7-1


i

Table of Contents

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1-1. Major Permits and Approvals ...........................................................................................1-3 Table 2-1. Summary of Proposed Vantage Complex and TUC Disturbance Changes ....................2-3 Table 2-2. Legal Description of Areas Affected by the Proposed Modifications ...............................2-3 Table 2-3. Summary of Authorized vs Design Pond Volumes ..........................................................2-9 Table 2-4. Summary of Production Wells........................................................................................2-14 Table 3-1. Resources Considered for Detailed Analysis1 .................................................................3-1 Table 3-2. Estimated Average Annual Groundwater Pumping Requirements for the Vantage

Complex Under Currently Authorized (No Action) and Proposed Amendment to the SOA Plan (Proposed Action). ....................................................................................3-9

Table 3-3. Existing Vegetation Communities within the Study Area ...............................................3-12 Table 4-1. Cumulative Effects Study Areas by Resource .................................................................4-1 Table 4-2. Past and Present Actions within CESAs ..........................................................................4-2 Table 4-3. Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions within CESAs ..................................................4-2 Table 5-1. Organizations Consulted during EA Development ..........................................................5-1 Table 5-2. Tribes Consulted During EA Development ......................................................................5-1 Table 6-1. List of BLM Preparers ......................................................................................................6-1 Table 6-2. List of Third-Party Consultant Preparers..........................................................................6-1 Table 6-3. List of KG-BM Reviewers .................................................................................................6-1

LIST OF FIGURES IN APPENDIX A

Figure 1-1. Project Location and Layout

Figure 2-10. Ancillary Area Modifications Figure 2-11. Ancillary Area C Modifications Figure 2-12. TUC Power Line and Corridor Modifications Figure 2-13. Growth Media Stockpiles Modifications

Figure 2-1. South Operations Area Authorized Disturbance Figure 2-2. Vantage Complex and TUC Modifications

TUC Modifications Figure 2-3. Figure 2-4. Vantage Complex Modifications

Luxe Pit Modifications Figure 2-5. Figure 2-6. Vantage Pit Modifications Figure 2-7. Vantage HLF Modifications Figure 2-8. Interpit Modifications Figure 2-9. Process Area Modifications

Figure 3-1. Primary Access Routes and County Roads Figure 3-2. Average Annual Daily Traffic for Primary Study Area Access Routes Figure 3-3. Drawdown Area and Seeps Figure 3-4. Drawdown Area and Water Rights Figure 3-5. Greater Sage-grouse Habitat in the Project Area


ii

Acronyms and Abbreviations

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

AADT average annual daily traffic

ABA Acid Base Accounting

APLIC Avian Power Line Interaction Committee

ARMPA Nevada and Northeastern California Greater Sage- Grouse Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment

BLM Bureau of Land Management

BMM Bald Mountain Mine

CCS Conservation Credit System

CIC carbon-in-column

CESA cumulative effects study area

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

DOI Department of the Interior

DRI Desert Research Institute

EA Environmental Assessment

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

ESA Endangered Species Act

FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement

FLPMA Federal Land Policy and Management Act

GHMA General Habitat Management Area

GMS growth media stockpile

gpm gallons per minute

HLF heap leach facility

KG-BM KG Mining (Bald Mountain) Inc.

kV kilovolt

MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act

MWMP Meteoric Water Mobility Procedure

NAC Nevada Administrative Code

NDEP Nevada Division of Environmental Protection

NDOW Nevada Department of Wildlife

NDWR Nevada Division of Water Resources

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NNP net neutralizing potential

NOA North Operations Area

OHMA Other Habitat Management Area


iii

Acronyms and Abbreviations

PCH Pit Connector Haul

PHMA Priority Habitat Management Area

PMU Population Management Unit

RDA rock disposal area

RFFA reasonably foreseeable future action

RMP Resource Management Plan

ROD Record of Decision

ROW right-of-way

SETT Sagebrush Ecosystem Technical Team

SOA South Operations Area

TUC Transportation Utility Corridor

U.S. United States

WPCP water pollution control permit


iv

Chapter 1 Purpose of and Need for Action

1.0 Purpose of and Need for Action

1.1 Introduction

The United States (U.S.) Department of the Interior (DOI), Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Ely District, Bristlecone Field Office, has prepared this Environmental Assessment [(EA); DOI-BLM-NV-L060-2018-0007-EA)] to analyze potential impacts on the human and natural environment from proposed modifications to the Bald Mountain Mine (BMM) South Operations Area Plan of Operations (SOA Plan; NVN‐090443) and Reclamation Permit Application (No. 0033). KG Mining (Bald Mountain) Inc. (KG-BM), the owner and operator of existing gold mine facilities at BMM, submitted the proposed modifications to the SOA Plan to modify the design and engineering of authorized facilities, including the heap leach facility, process area, ancillary areas, and the Transportation Utility Corridor (TUC). KG-BM’s proposed modifications to the SOA Plan are brought forward as the Proposed Action in this EA. The BLM prepared this EA in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), the Council on Environmental Quality regulations implementing NEPA, the Federal Lands Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA), and other applicable laws and regulations.

The project is located in the Bald Mountain Mining District in White Pine County, Nevada, approximately 65 miles northwest of Ely and 40 miles northeast of Eureka (Figure 1-1).

1.2 Background Information

Barrick Gold U.S. Inc. (Barrick) submitted plans of operations to the BLM and Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP) to expand existing mine facilities and construct new facilities at BMM in October 2011. The North Operations Area Plan of Operations (NOA Plan) proposed to expand and combine the previous BMM NOA Plan (NVN-82888) and the Casino/Winrock Plan (NVN- 068521) into one plan. The SOA Plan proposed to expand and combine the existing Alligator Ridge Mine (NVN-068655) and the Yankee Mine (NVN-068259) into one plan. The BLM analyzed and disclosed potential environmental impacts from these proposed plans in the Bald Mountain Mine North and South Operations Area Projects Environmental Impact Statement (BLM 2016). The BLM issued the Record of Decision (ROD) for the BMM project in August 2016, selecting the Western Redbird Modification Alternative as the BLM’s Preferred Alternative.

Barrick completed the sale of the Bald Mountain Mine to KG-BM in January 2016 prior to completion of the environmental impact statement (EIS) process. KG-BM subsequently assumed ownership of the BMM and implementation of the project. KG-BM submitted the proposal to modify the SOA Plan in September 2017 in order to reconcile differences between the authorized SOA Plan and changes resulting from subsequent detailed design and engineering, primarily of the heap leach facility, process area, ancillary areas, and the TUC (KG-BM 2017a). Section 2.2 describes the Proposed Action in detail. This EA is tiered to the Bald Mountain Mine North and South Operations Area Projects Environmental Impact Statement (BLM 2016) and the information in the FEIS is incorporated by reference throughout the EA.


1-1

Purpose of and Need for Action Chapter 1

1.3 Purpose and Need for Action

The BLM’s purpose is to evaluate KG-BM’s proposal in accordance with all applicable laws and policies and its multiple-use mission to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations. The need for the action is established by the BLM’s responsibility under the FLPMA, the Mining Law of 1872, BLM’s Surface Management Regulations (43 CFR 3809), and its Use and Occupancy Regulations (43 CFR 3715) to respond to KG-BM’s proposal, while preventing unnecessary or undue degradation of public land.

1.4 Decision to be Made

This EA serves to support the BLM in determining whether KG-BM’s Proposed Action, with or without any modifications required by the BLM, would result in significant environmental impacts. If the BLM determines that the Proposed Action would not result in significant impacts, the project may proceed upon issuance of a Finding of No Significant Impact and Decision Record. Alternatively, if significant impacts have the potential to occur, the BLM could determine that an environmental impact statement is required.

The BLM may:

1) approve the plan as submitted (43 CFR 3809.411(d)(1); 2) approve the plan subject to changes or conditions necessary to meet the performance standards at 3809.420 and to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation (3809.411 (d)(2); or 3) disapprove or withhold approval of the plan of operations because the plan: (1) does not meet the applicable content requirements of 43 CFR 3809.401; (2) proposes operations that are in an area segregated or withdrawn from the operation of mining laws, unless the requirements of 43 CFR 3809.1000 are met; or (3) proposes operations that would result in unnecessary or undue degradation of public lands.

BLM has an obligation to authorize mining activities if they would be done without “unnecessary and undue degradation” (43 CFR §3809.5), follow general performance standards (§3809.420), and approve the occupancy if it is “reasonably incident” (§3715. 0–5) to the mining operation.

1.5 Conformance, Permits, and Approvals

This section identifies various permits, approvals, procedures, and conformance requirements applicable to the project.

1.5.1 Permits and Approvals

Table 1-1 identifies major permits and approvals required from federal, state, and local agencies with jurisdiction over certain aspects of the proposed project. KG-BM is responsible for amending and renewing existing permits, and applying for and acquiring additional permits, as needed.


1-2

Chapter 1 Purpose of and Need for Action

Table 1-1. Major Permits and Approvals

Permit/Approval Granting Agency

Environmental Assessment Finding of No Significant Impact and Decision Record; Plan of Operations Approval and Notice to Proceed

BLM

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act Programmatic Agreement

BLM and State of Nevada Historic Preservation Office

Surface Disturbance Permit; Permit to Construct; Permit to Operate

NDEP – Bureau of Air Pollution Control

Water Pollution Control Permit; Reclamation Permit NDEP – Bureau of Mining Regulation and Reclamation

Potable Water System NDEP – Bureau of Safe Drinking Water

Approval to Operate a Sanitary Landfill/Solid Waste System

NDEP – Bureau of Waste Management

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Storm Water General Permit; Septic System

NDEP – Bureau of Water Pollution Control

Industrial Artificial Pond Permit NDOW

Permit to Appropriate Water; Change in Point of Diversion; Change in Place of Use

Nevada Division of Water Resources

Hazardous Materials Permit State of Nevada – Fire Marshal Division

Explosives Permit United States Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms

Hazardous Material Certification of Registration United States Department of Transportation

Identification Number United State Environmental Protection Agency

Road Construction Applications, Road Maintenance Agreement, Building Permits

White Pine County

1.5.2 BLM Land Use Plan(s)

The BLM has the responsibility and authority to manage the surface and subsurface resources on public lands within the jurisdiction of the BLM Ely District, and it has designated lands within the proposed project area as open for mineral exploration and development. Within the Ely District Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan (Ely District RMP) (BLM 2008, as amended), the BLM objective for locatable minerals is “[t]o provide for the responsible development of mineral resources to meet local, regional, and national needs, while providing for the protection of other resources and uses.” The proposed project is consistent with the objectives of and is operating within the parameters of the Ely District RMP.

The proposed project is also consistent with the Nevada and Northeastern California Greater Sage- Grouse Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment (ARMPA) (BLM 2015). The BLM prepared this ARMPA to identify and incorporate appropriate measures in existing land use plans. It is intended to conserve, enhance, and restore greater sage-grouse habitat by avoiding, minimizing, or compensating for unavoidable impacts on greater sage-grouse habitat in the context of the BLM’s multiple use and sustained yield mission under FLPMA. Appendix A of the BMM FEIS (BLM 2016) provided a summary table of the management decisions and required design features from the ARMPA, whether or not the measure was applicable to the project, and whether the proposed project was consistent with the measure. The findings of this consistency review are unchanged by the modifications proposed in this EA.


1-3

Purpose of and Need for Action Chapter 1

1-4 Bald Mountain Mine SOA Vantage Complex Project Environmental Assessment

1.5.3 Relationship to Statues, Regulations, or Other Plans

Section 1.5 (Consistency and Compliance) of the BMM FEIS (BLM 2016) provides a detailed review of the BMM project’s relationship to statutes, regulations, and other plans. The procedural requirements and findings described in that review are also applicable to the proposed modifications to the SOA Plan. In summary, the BLM has prepared this EA in accordance with the following major statutes, implementing regulations and procedures, and plans:

NEPA of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)

Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of NEPA (40 CFR 1500 et seq.)

The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1761 et seq.)

BLM Surface Management Regulations, as amended (43 CFR 3809)

The Mining Law of 1872 (30 U.S.C. 22 et seq.)

Mining and Mineral Policy Act of 1970, as amended (30 U.S.C. 21 et seq.)

The BLM Solid Minerals Reclamation Handbook H-3042-1 (BLM 1992);

The Nevada Cyanide Management Plan (BLM 1991); and

White Pine County Public Lands Policy Plan (White Pine County Public Land Users Advisory Committee 2007).

1.6 Scoping, Public Involvement, and Issues

The BLM Ely District Office held an interdisciplinary team meeting on October 30, 2017 to determine the appropriate level of NEPA analysis and conduct internal scoping. Through subsequent internal coordination, the BLM interdisciplinary team determined that the EA should address the following issues in detail: Land Use and Access, Water Quality and Quantity, Wildlife and Fisheries, and Special Status Species. Other resources were determined to be not present or present, but not affected beyond the level analyzed in the BMM FEIS. Section 3.2 presents the rationale used in determining whether or not various components of the human and natural environment should be considered for detailed analysis this EA.

The BLM invites the public to review and comment on the EA during the 30-day public review period. The BLM will consider all comments received during this period while preparing the Decision Record.

Figure 1-1. Project Location and Layout

Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

Bald Mountain Mine SOA Vantage Complex Project 2-1 Environmental Assessment

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives

2.1 Introduction

The BLM evaluated two alternatives for this EA: the Proposed Action and No Action Alternative. The Proposed Action summarizes the Proposal for the Minor Modification to the South Operations Area Plan of Operations (NVN-090443; SOA Plan) and Reclamation Permit Application (No. 0033) prepared by KG-BM in September 2017. Under the No Action Alternative, activities associated with the proposed action would not occur, all previously authorized disturbance would continue in accordance with the Plan of Operations and plan amendments. The sections below describe the Proposed Action and No Action Alternative in detail.

2.2 Description of the Proposed Action

The Proposed Action was developed to reconcile differences between the authorized SOA Plan and changes resulting from subsequent detailed design and engineering, primarily of the heap leach facility, process area, ancillary areas, and the Transportation Utility Corridor (TUC). No new facilities are proposed that were not previously analyzed in the Bald Mountain Mine North and South Operations Area Projects Environmental Impact Statement (BLM 2016) and all proposed modifications are within the authorized boundaries of the SOA and NOA (North Operations Area) plans.

Current approvals authorize 3,332.4 acres life-of-mine disturbance within the SOA Plan boundary for the development and expansion of pits, rock disposal areas (RDAs), heap leach facilities (HLFs), roads, growth media stockpiles (GMSs), borrow areas, process areas, ancillary and support facilities, and exploration activities. KG-BM is proposing to reclassify 96.0 acres of authorized disturbance, create about 53.5 acres of new disturbance, transfer 11.7 acres and withdraw 15.7 acres of authorized undisturbed ground resulting in 3,381.9 acres of life of mine disturbance resulting in a disturbance change of 49.5 acres. The authorized and Proposed Action disturbances for the Vantage Complex and TUC are shown on Figure 2-1, and details of the proposed modifications to the authorized Plan are shown on Figure 2-2 and Figure 2-3. Table 2-1 summarizes the proposed Vantage Complex and TUC disturbance changes; Table 2-2 presents the legal description of those areas in which the changes would occur.

The primary proposed modifications, which are described in detail in subsequent sections, include:

Widen, realign, extend, and/or reclassify authorized disturbance areas for select segments of the TUC.

Rename the Vantage, Luxe and Gator areas to the Vantage Complex.

Expand the Luxe Pit

Layback the Vantage Pit

Reconfigure and increase the height and design capacity of the Vantage HLF within the authorized footprint.

Reclassify various authorized disturbance areas for the Luxe Pit, Vantage HLF, RDAs, interpit, process area, ancillary and support facilities, haul roads, and power lines.

Modify the Marlboro and Lincoln haul roads.

Phase down the authorized but not yet constructed Lucky Strike power line from 69 kV to 13.8 kV, extend its length and modify its corridor.

Realign segments of the Mt. Wheeler 69-kV power line within the SOA Plan boundary.

Relocate one authorized but not yet constructed water production well and install two new water production wells.

Designate locations of authorized buildings, structures and support features within authorized disturbance

Provide detailed description of spent ore management for Alligator Ridge HLF A-L and MNO locations

Proposed Action and Alternatives Chapter 2

This page intentionally left blank.


2-2


Table 2-1. Summary of Proposed Vantage Complex and TUC Disturbance Changes

Mine Component

Category

SOA Authorized Disturbance

(acres)

NOA Authorized Disturbance

(acres)1

Proposed New

Disturbance (acres)

Mine Component Category Reclassification

(authorized) Withdrawn Authorized Disturbance

(acres)

Total Disturbance

(acres)

Total Change (Proposed New + Reclassified Disturbance

(acres)

Reclassified Category (acres) (+)

Authorized Category (acres) (-)

Pits 454.6 – 3.1 16.2 – – 473.9 19.3

Heap 200.6 – – 14.7 -16.5 – 198.8 -1.8

RDA 663.4 – – – -1.4 – 662.0 -1.4

Process Area 30.4 – – 0.2 -6.9 – 23.7 -6.7

Ancillary 26.0 – 1.2 10.2 -10.8 – 26.6 0.6

GMS 68.8 – – – -32.3 – 36.5 -32.2

Haul Road2 191.4 11.7 44.4 16.1 -10.9 -15.7 237.0 45.5

Interpit 60.2 – 2.1 37.6 -16.1 – 83.8 23.6

Other3 7.5 – 2.7 1.0 -1.1 – 10.1 2.6

Total4 1,702.9 11.7 53.5 96.0 -96.0 -15.7 1,752.4 49.5

1 The TUC is associated with the SOA even though it extends into the NOA. To capture all of the TUC acres in the SOA, those acres in the NOA are included in this table. 2 The TUC that connects the NOA and SOA is identified as a haul road; however, it is used for heavy equipment transport between operations areas. 3 Other includes well access roads, monitoring wells, communication sites, and power line corridor. 4 Totals may vary due to rounding.

Table 2-2. Legal Description of Areas Affected by the Proposed Modifications

Area Legal Description

Transportation Utility Corridor T22N R57E Sections 2, 11, 14, 23 T23N R57E Sections 13, 24 – 26, 35 T23N R57E Sections 6, 7, 18, 19

Vantage Area T22N R57E Sections 22 – 26, 35, 36 T22N R58E Sections 19, 30

Bald Mountain Mine SOA/Vantage Environmental Assessment

2-3




2-4


2.2.1 Transportation Utility Corridor

The TUC is used to transport heavy equipment between the NOA and SOA. Based on site-specific engineering design, KG-BM proposes to widen or realign certain segments of the TUC as shown in Figure 2-3 to avoid the Mt. Wheeler power line and a cultural site. The TUC would maintain the authorized maximum running width of 85 feet; however, the maximum surface disturbance width would increase from the authorized 110 feet to between 100 feet and 140 feet. Areas of realigned TUC would avoid the cultural site and include a 50 meter buffer of the site boundary.

The length of the authorized TUC would also be extended from 9.9 miles to 10.5 miles to different terminal points in the Mooney Area in the north and Vantage Complex in the south. The northern terminus of the TUC would be extended approximately 0.2 miles north to the Saga ancillary area, as shown on Figure 2-3. This extension would incorporate the authorized Saga haul road, creating about 1.9 acres of new disturbance that would be reclassified as TUC disturbance. The southern terminus of the TUC would be relocated to the west to improve access to the Vantage Pit. The southern portion of the TUC would be extended by about 0.4 miles and create about 5.0 acres of new disturbance. This road would intersect with the authorized Pit Connector Haul (PCH) road between the Luxe and Vantage pits, as shown on Figure 2-3.

The TUC is a component associated with the SOA even though it extends into the NOA, where it terminates at the intersection of the Saga haul road and County Road 4 as shown on Figure 2-3. The disturbance acres associated with the segment of the TUC located within the NOA boundary is presently allocated to NOA disturbance as authorized under North Operations Area Project Plan of Operations Amendment #5 (BLM Case Number N-082888/Reclamation Permit 0025). The Proposed Action would allocate the authorized 11.7 acres associated with the NOA segment of the TUC to the SOA disturbance acres. Until the NOA Plan is amended, these 11.7 acres of disturbance would remain in both the NOA and SOA plans.

As shown in Table 2-1, modifications to the TUC would result in approximately 44.4 acres of new disturbance and reclassification of 1.0 acre as a power line corridor. About 15.7 acres of authorized disturbance would be withdrawn, resulting in a net disturbance increase of 27.7 acres.

As authorized, the surface of the TUC would be grubbed and cleared, and salvageable growth media placed along the toe of the TUC disturbance in nearby GMSs, on interpit disturbance, and at the toe of and/or on top of nearby RDAs for use in future reclamation activities. Construction and operations would be managed in accordance with permits issued by the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP) and Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW), the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (Appendix F of SOA Plan), and the Traffic Management Plan (Appendix G of SOA Plan). The TUC would be reclaimed back to its original running width of 12 feet to maintain post-mining public access. Reclamation would be the same as that authorized for haul roads, as described in the SOA Plan.

2.2.2 Vantage Complex

The Vantage, Luxe, and Gator Area is proposed to be renamed as the Vantage Complex and consists of the following list of mine components, as shown on Figure 2-4:

Pits: Luxe Pit, Vantage Pit which incorporates the Saddle Pit, and Gator Pit;

RDAs: Luxe RDA, Vantage RDA, North Gator RDA, and South Gator RDA;

HLFs: Vantage HLF;

Other: Process area, ancillary and support areas, interpit, and haul roads.

Each mine facility within the Vantage Complex would retain its individual name. The County Road 1006 portion of the Lincoln haul road, which is a feature affiliated with the Yankee Area, would be excluded from the Vantage Complex with the exception of the proposed Lincoln haul road located in Ancillary Area C (as explained in Section 2.2.2.6.1). The Vantage Complex would not include the TUC or the Yankee Area, so each would retain their respective area names. Thus, the SOA would be comprised of three


2-5


distinct areas: Vantage Complex, TUC, and the Yankee Area. Proposed modifications to specific features within the Vantage Complex are described below.

2.2.2.1 Luxe Pit

The authorized Luxe Pit would be expanded on its southern end from 77.7 acres to 82.5 acres as shown on Figure 2-5. About 0.02 acres of haul road, 0.2 acres of interpit, 1.2 acres of the Luxe RDA, and 0.3 acres of growth media stockpile would be reclassified to the Luxe Pit. Pit expansion would create 3.1 acres of new disturbance, resulting in a net disturbance increase of 4.8 acres. About 1.5 million tons of ore and 1.9 million tons of waste rock would be mined as part of this expansion—a total of 3.4 million tons. The total tonnage of ore and waste rock associated with the expanded Luxe Pit would not exceed 12.7 million tons, as identified in Table 1 of the Revised Waste Rock Management Plan included as Appendix D in the SOA Plan. Waste rock mined from this expansion is expected to have the same geochemical characteristics with no change to the average net neutralizing potential (NNP) of +415 kilograms per ton as the rock is the same as previously analyzed in the Revised Waste Rock Management Plan. The ten-year mine life would remain the same.

As authorized, the surfaces of the Luxe Pit would be grubbed and cleared, and salvageable growth media would be placed in the Luxe RDA (north), Luxe RDA (south) GMSs, on interpit disturbance, and at the toe of and/or on top of the Luxe RDA. As outlined in Section 3.15 of the SOA Plan, reclamation of the expanded Luxe Pit would include construction of a perimeter berm; the pit slopes and benches prohibit the reclamation practice of growth media replacement and revegetation due to access logistics and safety concerns. The open pit ramps would be barricaded to prevent entrance. The open pit floors and ramps are expected to be competent rock surfaces that would be stable without reclamation. These areas have little or no potential to support vegetation.

2.2.2.2 Vantage Pit

The authorized Vantage Pit would be laid back on its western end from 320.6 acres to 335.1 acres, as shown on Figure 2-6. About 14.5 acres of previously authorized interpit area would be reclassified as pit disturbance to account for the extension of the Vantage Pit footprint. An estimated 11 million tons of waste rock would be mined as part of this layback. The total tonnage of ore and waste rock associated with the expanded Vantage Pit would not exceed 235.2 million tons, as identified in Table 1 of the Revised Waste Rock Management Plan included as Appendix D in the SOA Plan. Waste rock mined from this expansion is projected to have the same geochemical characteristics with no change to the average NNP of +314 kilograms per ton as the rock is the same as previously analyzed in the Revised Waste Rock Management Plan. The ten-year mine life would remain the same.

As authorized, the surfaces for the pit footprint would be grubbed and cleared, and salvageable growth media would be placed in the Vantage RDA (south) GMS, Luxe RDA (south) GMS, on interpit disturbance, and at the toe of and/or on top of the RDAs.

As outlined in Section 3.15 of the SOA Plan, reclamation of the expanded Vantage Pit would include construction of a perimeter berm; the pit slopes and benches prohibit the reclamation practice of growth media replacement and revegetation due to access logistics and safety concerns. The open pit ramps would be barricaded to prevent entrance. The open pit floors and ramps are expected to be competent rock surfaces that would be stable without reclamation. These areas have little or no potential to support vegetation.

2.2.2.3 Heap Leach Facility

This section addresses the proposed design changes to the Vantage HLF and the spent ore management from the released Alligator Ridge HLFs A through L (A-L) and M through O (MNO). As authorized, ore from the Vantage, Luxe, and Gator pits would be placed on the Vantage HLF.

The HLF employs the design principle of 100 percent containment (i.e., zero discharge design under both normal operating and specific emergency conditions). The reconfigured HLF would be constructed as required by Nevada Administrative Code (NAC) 445A.432.


2-6


As authorized, the surfaces for HLFs would be grubbed and cleared, and salvageable growth media would be placed in nearby GMSs, on interpit disturbance, and at the toe of and/or on top of nearby RDAs for use in future reclamation activities. Reclamation would be the same as that authorized for heap leach facilities as described in Reclamation Plan Section 3.8 of the SOA Plan. Construction and operations would be managed in accordance with permits issued by NDEP and NDOW, the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (Appendix F of SOA Plan), and Reclamation Permit Application.

Design Changes

The Vantage HLF would be reconfigured to a more efficient geometry, reducing the authorized HLF disturbance footprint by 1.8 acres from 200.6 acres to 198.8 acres. As part of this reconfiguration, the southern extent of the HLF would be truncated by 5.0 acres in order to provide space for stormwater management. This reconfiguration would maintain authorized boundaries with reclassification of adjacent process (4.5 acres), ancillary (2.3 acres), interpit (1.5 acres), RDA (0.2 acres), and growth media stockpile (6.3 acres) disturbance to HLF disturbance, for a total of 14.7 acres; and reclassifying authorized HLF disturbance to interpit (6.2 acres), process (0.2 acres), ancillary (0.9 acres), and haul road (9.2 acres) disturbance, for a total of 16.5 acres, as shown on Figure 2-7.

The height of the Vantage HLF would be increased from 250 feet to 300 feet, bringing the total design capacity from 65.4 million tons to 77.2 million tons. The Vantage HLF is comprised of two areas: one area for fresh ore and one area that segregates spent ore from the fresh ore. About 70 million tons of fresh run-of-mine ore and 7.2 million tons of spent ore can be accommodated per the design. The total tonnage of ore and waste rock associated with the Vantage Complex would not exceed 260.9 million tons. The Vantage Complex ore tonnage would not exceed 56.9 tons and the waste rock tonnage would not exceed 204.8 tons, as identified in Table 1 of the Revised Waste Rock Management Plan (Appendix D of the SOA Plan).

Growth media salvaged from new disturbance in the HLF footprint would be placed in the Vantage RDA (south) growth media stockpile, on interpit disturbance, and at the toe of and/or on top of the Vantage RDA.

Spent Ore Management

KG-BM is authorized to manage the spent ore and associated liner systems from the released Alligator Ridge HLFs A-L and MNO. This section outlines the spent ore and liner systems management approach. Reclaimed spent heaps A‐L, spent heaps MNO, and the evaporation cell as shown on Figure 2-7, would need to be managed for the authorized expansion of the Vantage Pit and the authorized construction of the Vantage HLF. The following sections provide an in-depth description of how the spent ore and liner systems from these reclaimed heaps would be managed.

Spent Heaps A-L and Liner System About 6.2 million tons of spent ore from heaps A‐L would be placed on the authorized

Vantage HLF;

The remaining 0.8 million tons of the spent ore from heaps A-L would be placed as engineered fill in the deeper fills for the construction of the Vantage HLF and covered (as needed) with common fill and the new composite lining system;

The existing lining system from HLF A‐L would be removed and placed within the Segregated Ore Area on the Vantage HLF;

The existing drain down sump at spent heaps A‐L would be removed and disposed of at an approved landfill or placed at the reconfigured Vantage HLF; and

The pipeline that connects the spent heaps A‐L drain down sump to spent heaps MNO evapotranspiration cell, plus the pipeline from the evapotranspiration cell to the existing reclaimed tailings storage facility located south the Vantage HLF, would be abandoned through a combination of removal of the pipelines and plugging with concrete and capping where appropriate.


2-7


Spent Heaps MNO and Liner System About 0.9 million tons of spent ore from heaps MNO would be graded/distributed as engineered

fill for the construction of the Vantage HLF and would be covered (as needed) with common fill plus overlain with the composite lining system;

The evapotranspiration cell area would be cleared and grubbed of vegetation, and the material would be stockpiled for use as growth media during reclamation;

The existing evapotranspiration cell would be buried with common fill to a depth of at least 10 feet and covered with the Vantage HLF composite liner system; and

The existing geomembrane lining system would be left intact and buried under the Vantage HLF composite lining system.

Spent ore placed on the Vantage HLF would be fully contained on the composite liner. Spent ore used as fill would be covered by the composite lining system that creates an impermeable cap to prevent infiltration of meteoric waters. A monitoring plan that describes the procedures and monitoring conducted on production wells, leachate collection and return systems, groundwater monitoring wells, pregnant and barren solutions, barren solution application rates, waste rock, and ore that would be placed on the heap leach pad at the Vantage Complex is provided in Appendix H and Appendix O of the SOA Plan.

2.2.2.4 Interpit

Due to changes that have resulted from the detailed design and engineering for the Vantage HLF, modifications to authorized interpit areas combined with creating additional interpit areas through category reclassification would occur as shown on Figure 2-8. About 50.0 acres of interpit disturbance would come from reclassification and 2.1 acres of new interpit disturbance would be created.

As authorized, the surfaces for interpit areas would be grubbed and cleared, and salvageable growth media would be placed in nearby GMSs, on interpit disturbance, and at the toe of and/or on top of nearby RDAs for use in future reclamation activities. Construction and operations would be managed in accordance with permits issued by NDEP and NDOW, the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (Appendix F of the SOA Plan), and the Reclamation Permit Application.

During reclamation activities, interpit disturbance would be scarified and have six inches of growth media placed over the entire footprint, as described in Section 6.11 of the SOA Plan. The area would be seeded with the approved seed mix as authorized in Section 3.0 Reclamation Plan of the SOA Plan.

Three interpit areas—A, B, and C—are identified on Figure 2-8 to depict where the interpit modifications are located. Each area is described in detail below.

Interpit Area A Interpit Area A is authorized to disturb about 50.0 acres. The explosives magazine, emulsion silos, Southwest Energy (contractor) building, magnesium chloride storage, and power line would be located on interpit disturbance to the north of the Vantage RDA. About 1.5 acres would be reclassified from interpit to HLF disturbance, and about 1.4 acres of HLF would be reclassified to interpit disturbance. About 1.7 acres would be reclassified from haul road to interpit disturbance, 12.0 acres would be reclassified from GMS to interpit disturbance, 2.1 acres would be reclassified from ancillary to interpit disturbance, 0.2 acres would be reclassified from interpit to Luxe Pit disturbance, and 14.4 acres would be reclassified from interpit to Vantage Pit disturbance. These reclassifications would result in a total disturbance of 51.1 acres for Interpit Area A, as shown on Figure 2-8.

Interpit Area B As shown on Figure 2-8, about 4.8 acres of HLF, 13.0 acres of GMS, and 1.9 acres of ancillary would be reclassified to interpit disturbance, resulting in a total of 19.6 acres of interpit disturbance for Interpit Area B. The fresh water pond and associated piping and power would be located on interpit disturbance south of the Vantage HLF.


2-8


Interpit Area C Interpit Area C, near Gator Pit, includes authorized interpit and GMS disturbance areas shown on Figure 2-8. A small interpit expansion would result in 2.1 acres of new disturbance for the two interpit areas. About 1.9 acres of new interpit disturbance would be created adjacent to the Gator South RDA and 0.2 acres of new disturbance would be created adjacent to the existing interpit disturbance and Gator North RDA. About 0.7 acres of GMS would be reclassified to interpit disturbance. There would be a total of 13.0 acres of interpit disturbance for Interpit Area C. Growth media salvaged from new disturbance would be placed in the Gator Pit GMS, Gator (north) or Gator (south) GMSs, on interpit disturbance, and at the toe of and/or on top of Gator North and/or Gator South RDAs.

2.2.2.5 Process Area

The process area is authorized to have a carbon-in-column (CIC) plant, associated process ponds, and power lines. This section addresses the modifications to the process area footprint, adjustments to the authorized pond design, relocation of the CIC plant, and adjustments to the authorized power line as shown on Figure 2-9.

Construction and operations would be managed in accordance with permits issued by NDEP and NDOW, the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (Appendix F of the SOA Plan), and the Reclamation Permit Application. Reclamation would be the same as that authorized for ponds and buildings and foundations, as described in the Reclamation Plan Sections 3.9 and 3.13 of the SOA Plan.

Due to the modification to the authorized Vantage HLF, the authorized process area footprint has been reduced from 30.4 acres to 23.7 acres. Approximately 4.5 acres were reclassified from process area to HLF disturbance, 2.4 acres were reclassified from process to the Marlboro haul road, and 0.2 acres were reclassified from HLF to process disturbance. As a result of the smaller footprint, the authorized but not yet constructed CIC plant would be relocated within the reconfigured process area footprint. The authorized but not-yet constructed ponds would be realigned within the reconfigured process area footprint, with modified design volumes shown in Table 2-3. As authorized, the ponds would be fenced in accordance with the industrial artificial pond permit.

Table 2-3. Summary of Authorized vs Design Pond Volumes

Pond Name Authorized Volume (million gallons) Design Volume (million gallons)

Pregnant Pond 26.6 16.3

Storm/Event Pond 12.3 9.6

Total 38.9 25.9

Source: Water Pollution Control Permit Application South Operations Area Vantage Complex Project Bald Mountain Mine – Fluid Management Plan (NewFields 2017).

Due to the facility placement and modification to the authorized Vantage HLF, the length and voltage level of the power line distribution system requires modification. The authorized but not-yet constructed 69-kV power line duty would be reduced to 13.8 kV and realigned and increased in length as described in Section 2.2.3. The proposed process area configuration and placement of facilities is shown on Figure 2-9.

2.2.2.6 Ancillary and Support Areas

Due to the detailed design and engineering to the Vantage HLF, authorized areas would be reclassified to ancillary disturbance, and ancillary would be reclassified to other authorized disturbance areas. Authorized ancillary would also be expanded resulting in new disturbance. The Vantage ancillary areas shown on Figure 2-10 are authorized to disturb about 26.0 acres. About 1.2 acres of new ancillary disturbance is proposed and about 10.2 acres would be reclassified to ancillary disturbance and 10.8 acres would be reclassified from ancillary to other disturbance. Ancillary and support facilities include the


2-9


following: GMSs, borrow pits, power lines and substations, communication sites, water line corridors, potable water storage tank and treatment, fresh water storage tank, storage buildings, fences, yards, parking, ponds, diversion ditches and stormwater controls, and buildings.

Construction and operations would be managed in accordance with permits issued by NDEP and NDOW, the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (Appendix F of the SOA Plan), and the Reclamation Permit Application. As authorized, the surfaces for ancillary and support areas would be grubbed and cleared, and salvageable growth media would be placed in nearby GMS’s, on interpit would, and at the toe of and/or on top of nearby RDAs for use in future reclamation activities. Reclamation would be the same as that authorized for ponds and buildings and foundations, as described in sections 3.9 and 3.13 of the SOA Plan.

Reclassification

Ancillary Area A In Ancillary Area A, about 2.3 acres of ancillary disturbance would be reclassified to Vantage HLF (Figure 2-10). As described in Section 2.2.2.4, 2.0 acres would be reclassified to interpit disturbance within the Interpit Area A, and 1.9 acres would be reclassified to interpit disturbance within the Interpit Area B. These reclassifications would result in a total disturbance of 6.1 acres in Ancillary Area A.

Ancillary Area B In Ancillary Area B, about 1.0 acres of ancillary disturbance would be reclassified as haul road, and 0.2 acres would be reclassified to interpit disturbance within Interpit Area A, as described in Section 2.2.2.4 (Figure 2-10). About 5.2 acres of haul road, 0.9 acres of HLF, and 1.1 acres of power line corridor would be reclassified as ancillary disturbance for a total disturbance of 8.4 acres in Ancillary Area B.

Ancillary Area C Minor reclassification changes in Ancillary Area C consist of the realignment of the Marlboro haul road.

About 3.1 acres would be reclassified from ancillary to Marlboro haul road, and 3.0 acres would be reclassified from Marlboro haul road to ancillary disturbance. About 0.4 acres of ancillary would be reclassified to the Lincoln haul road disturbance, as shown on Figure 2-11.

The Lincoln haul road connects the Ancillary Area C to the Yankee Area. The acres associated with the authorized Lincoln haul road are included as part of the Yankee Area, but the portion of the Lincoln haul road located in the Ancillary Area C would be categorized as part of the Vantage Complex Area and is about 347 feet in length as shown in Figure 2-11. The total length of the Lincoln haul road would be extended from 4.9 miles to 5.0 miles. The footprint of the Ancillary Area C would be expanded by about 1.2 acres to accommodate authorized facilities. Ancillary Area C would increase from 17.4 acres to 18.2 acres. The Marlboro and Lincoln haul roads would be constructed, operated, and reclaimed as described in Section 2.2.2.7, Haul Roads.

Facilities Located On Ancillary Disturbance

The ancillary disturbance south of the Vantage HLF, referred to as Ancillary Area C, would be utilized for the following authorized facilities: administration building; truck shop/warehouse; ready line; fuel/lube storage and dispensing; and sanitary waste management. Other miscellaneous support facilities authorized as needed for an active mining operation (i.e., truck wash, truck scale, security building, bulk oil storage, tire shop, hazardous waste storage) would be located within Ancillary Area C. Although these facilities were previously authorized, the locations were not designated. The designated locations of the authorized facilities in the ancillary areas are shown on Figure 2-11. The footprint of the Ancillary Area C would be expanded by about 1.2 acres to accommodate authorized facilities and light vehicle parking.


2-10


Support Facilities

Support facilities include ground disturbance and facilities needed to support a mining operation, as shown on Figure 2-6. Support facilities that would be modified, clarified, or identified for the Proposed Action would result in an increase from 859.9 to 900.0 acres as a result of both reclassification and proposed new disturbance of 50.4 acres. Several support facility component acreages that would be affected by this action are: haul roads, interpit, GMSs, and power line corridors. Other support facilities that would not affect acreages, but for which locations have been designated include buildings, substations, power lines, communication sites, wells and piezometers, water line corridors, potable water storage tank and treatment equipment, fresh water storage tank, fences, yards, parking, ponds, diversion ditches, and stormwater controls.

Power Line Corridors

Due to the facility placement and modification to the authorized Vantage HLF, the 69-kV Mt. Wheeler power line would be realigned and relocated. To accommodate the Mt. Wheeler power line adjustment near the Vantage HLF, the authorized Lucky Strike power line corridor would be modified such that 1.1 acres would be reclassified from power line corridor to ancillary disturbance within Ancillary Area B. As described in Section 2.2.2.6.1, this reclassification would result in 1.1 acres of new disturbance. The authorized Lucky Strike power line corridor length would be shortened from about 5,890 feet to about 3,950 feet. It would range from 25 feet to 90 feet in width, with a total disturbance area of 3.7 acres, as shown in Figure 2-10. Although the Lucky Strike corridor length would be shortened, the length of the 13.8-kV power line would increase due to its location on other authorized disturbance areas such as ancillary, process, and interpit areas.

Due to the TUC modification, portions of the 69-kV Mt. Wheeler power line would be realigned. There would be three TUC power line corridor segments along the TUC for a total length of 2,160 feet. The TUC power line corridors would range from 40 feet to 70 feet in width. There would be about 1.6 acres of new TUC power line corridor disturbance and 1.0 acre of reclassified disturbance adjacent to the TUC, as shown in Figure 2-12.

The TUC and Lucky Strike power line corridors would contain sufficient area for pole placement and temporary use areas for pulling, splicing, and tensioning. Specific pole placement would be defined prior to construction, as described in Section 2.2.3.

As authorized, the surfaces for power line corridor areas would be grubbed and cleared, and salvageable growth media would be placed in nearby GMSs, on interpit disturbance, and at the toe of and/or on top of nearby RDAs and used for future reclamation activities. Reclamation would be the same as that authorized for power lines and corridors, as described in Section 6.14 of the SOA Plan.

Petroleum-Contaminated Soils

The petroleum-contaminated soil plan will be submitted to the NDEP as an engineering design change to the Vantage water pollution control permit (WPCP) application. Until the NDEP approves the petroleum-contaminated soil plan, petroleum-contaminated soil would be placed in an appropriate location prior to being shipped offsite to an approved facility.

Borrow Areas

Designated borrow pit locations have not been identified; however, KG-BM would continue the current practice of developing borrow areas from authorized disturbance areas, where the appropriate material is available. Borrow materials would be used to support mining and processing operations.

Growth Media Stockpiles

About 0.3 acres of the Luxe South GMS, referred to as GMS Area A, would be reclassified to Luxe Pit disturbance and about 31.3 acres of the GMS located between the Vantage HLF and Vantage RDA would be reclassified to interpit and HLF, GMS Area B disturbance, as shown on Figure 2-13. About 0.7 acres of the Gator Pit GMS, GMS Area C, located south of the Gator Pit would be reclassified to


2-11


interpit disturbance as shown on Figure 2-8. The estimated capacities of GMS Area A, GMS Area B, and GMS Area C are 135,000 cubic yards, 1,385,000 cubic yards and 47,000 cubic yards respectively. GMS Area A would be modified to an estimated capacity of 125,500 cubic yards. GMS Area C would be modified to an estimated capacity of 31,300 cubic yards. Total capacities for GMS areas A, B, and C would be modified from an estimated 1,567,000 cubic yards to 156,800 cubic yards.

To account for the reduced capacities of the GMS Area A and C, and as authorized, salvageable growth media would be placed within interpit areas, on top of and at the base of RDAs in a manner that would ensure future access to the growth media.

The Vantage RDA (south) GMS has an estimated capacity of 810,000 cubic yards. Growth media that was going to be placed in GMS Area B would instead be placed in the Vantage RDA (south) GMS, as well as within interpit areas, on top of and at the base of RDAs in a manner that would ensure future access to the growth media.

Reclamation would be the same as that authorized for growth media stockpiles as described in the Reclamation Plan Section 6.11 of the SOA Plan.

Meteorological Stations

The existing Desert Research Institute (DRI), part of the Western Regional Climate Center, operates a meteorological station outside of but in near proximity to the SOA boundary. Previous documents did not locate this station correctly; as such, the correct location is now presented in Figure 2-10. The DRI meteorological station would remain under the control of DRI and would not be reclaimed by KG-BM.

Stormwater Controls

A temporary fresh water pond would be located on ancillary disturbance to provide a ready source of water during construction, as shown on Figure 2-11. KG-BM anticipates that this pond would be lined with a geomembrane liner when it is constructed. After construction is complete, the pond would be repurposed for stormwater control to collect sediment during operations and reclamation. If a geomembrane liner is installed, KG-BM would install four-strand range fence (three-stranded barbed wire and a smooth bottom strand) as described in Section 2.7.10 of the SOA Plan.

Construction and operations would be managed in accordance with the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (Appendix F of the SOA Plan), and the Reclamation Permit Application.

The liner for pond, which is not designated as part of the closure fluid management system, would be cut, folded, and left in the pond bottom prior to backfill and reclamation of the pond. The pond would be returned to a landform that is free-draining and supports post-closure revegetation through placement of an average of 12 inches of growth media.

2.2.2.7 Haul Roads

KG-BM is authorized to construct, operate, and reclaim haul roads within the Vantage Complex. The three authorized haul roads subject to modification are PCH road, Marlboro haul road, and Lincoln haul road. The TUC that connects the NOA and SOA is identified as a haul road; however, it is used for heavy equipment transport between operations areas.

For clarity purposes, due to the length and distribution of the Marlboro haul road, it has been divided into two segments: HLF/process (Segment A) and ancillary (Segment B), as shown on Figure 2-10.

Construction and operations would be managed in accordance with the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (Appendix F of the SOA Plan), and the Reclamation Permit Application. The modified haul roads would include berms, stormwater control best management practices, and road cuts where required by existing topography.

Reclamation would be the same as that authorized for haul roads including the TUC, as described in Section 3.11 of the SOA Plan.


2-12


Marlboro Haul Road – Vantage HLF/Process (Segment A)

The authorized but not yet constructed Marlboro haul road alignment would be widened to the west to accommodate the reconfiguration of the Vantage HLF as shown on Figure 2-10. About 9.2 acres of authorized HLF, 1.0 acre of ancillary, and 2.4 acres of authorized process disturbance would be reclassified to the Marlboro haul road. About 1.7 acres of haul road would be reclassified to interpit disturbance between the HLF and the Vantage Pit. About 5.2 acres of authorized haul road would be classified to ancillary disturbance as shown on Figure 2-11.

The authorized haul road route would not change; however, widening would take place in certain locations, retaining a running width of 110 feet and a disturbance width ranging from 150 to 280 feet. The surface disturbance widths would vary depending on topography. With the reclassification, Segment A of the Marlboro haul road would disturb 29.2 acres.

Marlboro Haul Road – Ancillary (Segment B)

Segment B of the authorized Marlboro haul road, located in the authorized ancillary area, would be realigned to allow better placement of ancillary and support facilities, which are further described in Section 2.2.2.6.3. About 3.0 acres would be reclassified from haul road to ancillary disturbance, and 3.1 acres of ancillary disturbance would be reclassified to the Marlboro haul road. About 0.4 acres of the authorized Marlboro haul road would become part of the Lincoln haul road. With the reclassification, Segment B of the Marlboro haul road would be modified from 39.2 acres to 38.8 acres.

Lincoln Haul Road

The authorized Lincoln haul road (County Road 1006), which connects the Vantage Complex to the Yankee Area, would be extended from 25,299 feet to 26,300 feet. The extended portion of the Lincoln haul road would be located in the authorized ancillary area to intersect with the Marlboro haul road as shown on Figure 2-11. About 0.4 acres would be reclassified from ancillary to Lincoln haul road. The Lincoln haul road is part of the Yankee Area disturbance. However, the acres related to extended portion within the Vantage Ancillary Area C would be included as part of the Vantage Complex disturbance instead of added to the Yankee area acres. With the reclassification, the Lincoln haul road would be modified from 63.9 acres to 64.7 acres, with 63.9 acres captured in the Yankee area and 0.8 acres as part of the Vantage Complex. The acres associated with the portion of the Lincoln haul road captured in the Yankee Area would not change with this action.

Pit Connector Haul Road

The authorized PCH road connects the Luxe and Vantage pits as shown on Figure 2-5. About 0.02 acres would be reclassified to expand the authorized Luxe Pit. With the reclassification, the PCH road would remain at 5.8 acres.

2.2.3 TUC and Vantage Complex Power Lines

Due to the facility placement and modification to the authorized Vantage HLF, the length and voltage level of the power line distribution system requires modification. The 69-kV power line owned by Mt. Wheeler Power Co. would be realigned within the Plan boundary on authorized or proposed surface disturbance as shown on Figure 2-12. A KG-BM-authorized 69-kV power line that is not-yet constructed would be reduced to a 13.8-kV power line. Related power line corridors are presented in Section 2.2.2.6.4.

2.2.3.1 Mt. Wheeler 69-kV Power Line

Due to the HLF reconfiguration and TUC adjustments, KG-BM, in coordination with Mt. Wheeler Power Company, would shift sections of the Mt. Wheeler-owned 69-kV power line from its present location to authorized disturbance at the Vantage Complex and proposed new power line corridor disturbance adjacent to the TUC as described in Section 2.2.2.6.4 and shown on Figure 2-12. About 6,710 feet of this power line would be realigned.


2-13


The realignment of the 69-kV power line associated with the TUC would reconnect to the existing Mt. Wheeler alignment. The 69-kV overhead power lines would be comprised of wooden poles about 60 feet in height. There are pole height exceptions in two locations where the power line crosses the TUC; poles would be approximately 110 feet in height at those locations. The increased height allows for large equipment to pass under the power line with as much as 15 feet of clearance.

A letter from Mt. Wheeler Power Company dated August 21, 2017 regarding the 69-kV power line realignment acknowledges the cooperative effort, power line authorizations for engineering design specifications, and responsibilities regarding costs for design, installation, operations, and maintenance between KG-BM and Mt. Wheeler Power for the 69-kV power line realignment. The Mt. Wheeler 69-kV power line would remain intact as a post-mining feature.

2.2.3.2 13.8-kV Power Line

Electrical power would be supplied to the Vantage Complex from the nearby Mt. Wheeler 69-kV power line. KG-BM is authorized to construct power lines from this source to a substation which steps the power down to 13.8 kV to supply the mine, processing, and ancillary and support facilities. The reduced duty from 69 kV to 13.8 kV would be sufficient to meet mine power needs; a new substation would be installed within the northern portion of the Vantage Complex Ancillary Area C. The power line is referred to as the Lucky Strike power line, and it would be realigned and increased in length from 7,530 feet to 18,300 feet as shown on Figure 2-10.

The HLF reconfiguration and modifications to the ancillary and support facilities necessitate the realignment of the 13.8-kV power lines servicing these areas. The length of the authorized Lucky Strike power line would be modified to service the equipment and facilities located at the Vantage HLF, pits, interpit, process and ancillary areas and along the Lincoln haul road to supply power to the proposed production well, and for realigned segments of the power line to account for the Vantage HLF reconfiguration as shown in Figure 2-10. The power line would be constructed on authorized disturbance.

The 13.8-kV overhead power line would be comprised of wooden poles between 45 and 50 feet in height, and 70 feet in height on spans over haul roads, so that large equipment can pass underneath the power line and have as much as 15 feet of clearance.

The 13.8-kV power lines would be removed at the end of mining when no longer needed as described in Reclamation Section 6.14 of the SOA Plan.

2.2.4 Production Wells and Piezometers

Two production wells (ARW-1 and TBD10) were authorized in the FEIS to supply fresh water for the Vantage HLF, dust control, and potable needs with the location of ARW-1 shown on Figure 2-11. Based on a detailed water balance, KG-BM identified the need for two additional wells to meet the demand and have a backup well to ensure continuous supply. Figure 2-11 presents the locations of proposed production wells ARW-2 and ARW-4. The previously authorized but not yet constructed TBD10 would be renamed ARW-3, and the location would be shifted as shown on Figure 2-11. Table 2-4 presents a summary of the production wells.

Table 2-4. Summary of Production Wells

Well ID Status Placement

ARW-1 Authorized Existing

ARW-2 Proposed Located on authorized disturbance

ARW-3 Authorized Formerly TBD10 and relocated on authorized disturbance

ARW-4 Proposed Located on authorized disturbance


2-14

Figure 2-1. South Operations Area Authorized Disturbance

Figure 2-2. Vantage Complex and TUC Modifications

Figure 2-3. TUC Modifications

Figure 2-4. Vantage Complex Modifications

Figure 2-5. Luxe Pit Modifications

Figure 2-6. Vantage Pit Modifications

Figure 2-7. Vantage HLF Modifications

Figure 2-8. Interpit Modifications

Figure 2-9. Process Area Modifications

Figure 2-10. Ancillary Area Modifications

Figure 2-11. Ancillary Area C Modifications

Figure 2-12. TUC Power Line and Corridor Modifications

Figure 2-13. Growth Media Stockpiles Modifications

2.3


The updated water balance estimated an annualized demand that would range from 21 gallons per minute (gpm) in 2017 during construction to a 639 gpm in 2019 during mining operations. The peak monthly demand is estimated to be about 782 gpm, which would occur in 2019 during mining operations. KG-BM has sufficient water appropriations (1,535 gpm) in Long Valley to meet this demand. The pumping duration, including construction and mining, would last about seven years.

KG-BM may relocate two piezometers in the Vantage and Gator pits. Relocation within the footprints of the Vantage and Gator pits would be based on field confirmation of the hydrogeological conditions.

Reclamation would be in accordance with Section 3.20 the SOA Plan. Production wells subject to Nevada Division of Water Resources regulations would be abandoned in accordance with applicable rules and regulations (NAC 534.425 through 534.428) at such a time when they are no longer required. Boreholes would be sealed to prevent cross contamination between aquifers, and the required shallow seal would be placed to prevent contamination by surface access.

No Action Alternative

Section 1502.14(d) of NEPA’s implementing regulations requires the alternatives analysis to “include the alternative of no action” as a baseline against which to assess impacts of the Proposed Action. Under the No Action Alternative, activities associated with the Proposed Action would not occur, all previously authorized disturbance would continue in accordance with the Plan of Operations and plan amendments. KG-BM’s operation of facilities at the BMM would continue in conformance with existing authorizations and as analyzed under the BMM FEIS.


2-15




2-16

Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Effects

3.1 Introduction

This section identifies and describes the current condition and trend of elements or resources in the human and natural environment that may be affected by the Proposed Action, and the environmental consequences or effects of the Proposed Action compared to the No Action Alternative.

3.2 Issue Identification

Table 3-1 presents the rationale used by the BLM interdisciplinary team in determining whether or not various elements or resources in the human and natural environment should be considered for detailed analysis in this EA. The interdisciplinary team determined that the following resources should be analyzed in detail: Land Use and Access, Water Quality and Quantity, Wildlife and Fisheries, and Special Status Species.

Table 3-1. Resources Considered for Detailed Analysis1

Resource Present

and Affected

Present and Not Affected

Not Present

Rationale/Comments

ACEC, National Monument, Wild and Scenic Rivers

✓ These special designation areas are not present in or near the SOA.

Air Quality ✓ Potential air quality impacts from the proposed modifications are within the parameters of the emission calculations provided in the 2016 FEIS. Air quality emission sources for the SOA are subject to requirements of federal and Nevada air quality regulations. Pollutant emissions are controlled in accordance with the air quality operating permits issued by the NDEP.

Cultural Resources

✓ The proposed modification to the TUC would avoid a known cultural resource site. Prior to ground disturbing activity, the boundary of the site within 50 meters of the proposed modification to the TUC will be flagged to ensure avoidance of the site. Areas of authorized and proposed new disturbance would not affect any historic properties beyond those identified in the 2016 FEIS. Class III surveys were completed for the SOA area for the 2016 FEIS. The visual effects to the settings of the Pony Express Trail, Ruby Valley Pony Express Station, Fort Ruby National Historic Landmark, and the Sunshine Locality National Register District would remain unchanged.

Energy Requirements and Greenhouse Gas Emissions

✓ The surface disturbance activities and 10-year mine life remain substantially the same as those analyzed in the 2016 FEIS. Therefore, greenhouse gas emissions from mobile and stationary sources for fuel, propane, and power emissions would remain about the same.

Environmental Justice

✓ The proposed modifications would not result in any change to the impacts analyzed in the 2016 FEIS, which concluded that no disproportionate, adverse environmental justice effects were likely to occur.

Farmlands (Prime or Unique)

✓ No prime or unique farmlands are present in the SOA, as stated in the 2016 FEIS.


3-1

Affected Environment and Environmental Effects Chapter 3


Resource Present

and Affected


Not Present

Rationale/Comments

Fire and Fuels Management

✓ The BLM has not identified any historical, existing, or proposed fuel treatments or historical wildfires in the SOA (see 2016 FEIS).

Floodplains ✓ No floodplains are present in the SOA, as stated in the 2016 FEIS.

Forests/Woodland Products and Rangelands (Healthy Forest Restoration Act Only)

✓ No forests/woodland products or rangelands are present in or near the proposed SOA, as stated in the 2016 FEIS.

Geology and Mineral Resources

✓ The total volume for processing of ore-bearing and waste rock material from two proposed pit expansions would not exceed amounts analyzed in the 2016 FEIS. Therefore, project related impacts to geology and mineral resources remain substantially the same as analyzed in the FEIS for permanent removal of a mineral resource, permanent disposal of reclaimed rock disposal areas, permanent presence of reclaimed heap leach facilities, and remaining post-mining open pits.

Hazardous Materials and Solid Waste

✓ The proposed modifications designate specific locations within areas previously authorized for waste disposal and landfill facilities. All other aspects of hazardous materials and solid waste management, in both on and off-site facilities, would be in accordance with procedures described in the 2016 FEIS and as required by law.

Land Use and Access

✓ The proposed modifications consist of actions associated with authorized SOA areas. The proposed approximately 6,710 feet of realignment to the existing 69-kilovolt Mt. Wheeler powerline will result in segments being located on 43 CFR 3809 authorized or proposed areas. The KG-BM owned Lucky Strike powerline will be phased down from 69-kV to 13.9 kV and extended in length from 7,530 feet to 18,300 feet.

For access, the proposed modifications are substantially the same as the access categories of traffic, number of workers, highway traffic effects, and transportation safety concerns.

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics

✓ A 2011 update to the wilderness characteristics inventory for the Ely District determined that wilderness units overlapping the Bald Mountain Mine project area did not possess wilderness character.

Livestock Grazing ✓ Impacts to livestock grazing would be substantially similar to those analyzed in the 2016 FEIS. The proposed modifications would not change permitted animal unit months and additional effects on grazing management beyond those analyzed in the FEIS are not anticipated.


3-2



Resource Present

and Affected


Not Present

Rationale/Comments

Migratory Birds ✓ As stated in the 2016 FEIS, land clearing and surface disturbance would be planned and coordinated to prevent destruction of active bird nests or mortality of juvenile birds during the migratory bird nesting/breeding season (March 15 to July 31) to comply with the MBTA. Migratory birds continue to be managed in accordance with the BBCS and ECP. Potential impacts to migratory birds from the proposed modifications would be substantially similar, in both type and magnitude, to those impacts analyzed in the 2016 FEIS.

Native American Traditional Values

✓ The BLM will conduct tribal consultation to evaluate potential impacts; however, no properties of traditional cultural properties or sacred sites have been identified within the SOA (see 2016 FEIS).

Noxious Weeds and Invasive Species

✓ Noxious weeds and invasive species would continue to be managed in accordance with the authorized applicant committed environmental protection measures, Reclamation Plan, and Noxious Weed Control Plan. Potential impacts from the introduction or spread of noxious weeds and invasive species would be substantially similar to those analyzed in the 2016 FEIS.

Outstanding Natural Areas

✓ The proposed modifications are not within an Outstanding Natural Area.

Paleontological Resources

✓ Proposed modifications would affect the same rock units as analyzed in the FEIS, which rank predominantly as Class 2 in the Potential Fossil Yield Classification System. The commitment to notify the BLM Ely District if fossils are encountered while digging remains unchanged, and any loss of fossil materials would likely be offset by the material that is recovered and preserved for future paleontological study and use.

Public Health and Safety

✓ Impacts to human health and safety would be substantially similar to those analyzed in the 2016 FEIS. An Emergency Action Plan developed for the SOA would be applied to isolate exposure to potential hazards.

Recreation ✓ Impacts to recreation would be substantially similar to those analyzed in the 2016 FEIS. The proposed modifications would not change public access or wildlife-related recreation opportunities.

Renewable Energy

✓ Renewable energy development would not occur within the SOA during the life of the mine.

Social and Economic Values

✓ Impacts to social and economic values would be substantially similar to those analyzed in the 2016 FEIS. Workers and contractors will remain at levels ranging from 594 workers and peaking at 782 workers. Hunting economics would remain the same as there are no new proposed facilities, only modifications to existing ones. The mine life remains at 10-years.


3-3



Resource Present

and Affected


Not Present

Rationale/Comments

Soil Resources ✓ Surface disturbance activities from the proposed and Reclamation modifications would result in substantially the same

effects to soil resources, as the dominant soil orders and soil characteristics affected would not change. As described in the 2016 FEIS, growth media volumes may be insufficient for reclamation, and amendment opportunities are available; these amendment options remain unchanged. Reclamation would be conducted in accordance with all applicable federal and state requirements.

Special Status ✓ The proposed action would result in new disturbance to Species greater sage-grouse habitat, including 1.2 acres of new

disturbance in priority habitat management areas and 24.6 acres of new disturbance in other habitat management areas. The SETT has determined that the 1.2 acres of new disturbance had no significant impact on habitat quality or existing credit obligation for the project (See Appendix E, Proposal for Minor Modification of the SOA Plan and Reclamation Permit Application). Greater sage-grouse would continue to be managed in accordance with the BBCS and the greater sage grouse noise mitigation plan. Installation of fencing will continue to be minimized in greater sage grouse habitat, and in those habitat locations where fencing is unavoidable, it will be marked to increase visibility to greater sage grouse. Potential impacts special status species from the proposed modifications would be substantially similar, in both type and magnitude, to those impacts analyzed in the 2016 FEIS.

Travel ✓ The proposed modification is substantially the same as Management the access categories of traffic, number of mine and

contractor workers, highway traffic effects, and transportation safety concerns. The modification to the TUC will not result in a change to its use and maintenance. White Pine County is aware of the proposed TUC modification and has not expressed objections or concerns. All transportation-related activities would be conducted in accordance with the Traffic Management Plan and road maintenance agreement with White Pine County.

Vegetation ✓ Surface disturbance activities from the proposed Resources modifications would result in substantially the same

effects to vegetation resources, as the major vegetation types affected would remain unchanged. Reclamation would be conducted in accordance with all applicable federal and state requirements.

Visual Resources ✓ The proposed 50 foot increase in height of the Vantage heap leach facility and amended facility configurations do not significantly differ from those previously analyzed and approved.


3-4



Resource Present

and Affected


Not Present

Rationale/Comments

Water Quality and ✓ Groundwater withdrawal from four production wells (one Quantity existing authorized well, one authorized but not yet

constructed well, and two proposed production wells [ARW-2 and ARW-4]) would have no anticipated effects on water rights, seeps, and springs based on the findings of Summary of 2017 Vantage Complex Hydrogeological Characterization Report (Geomega 2017). Additionally, seepage could result in shallow accumulation of water in a localized location of the Vantage Pit after the completion of mining.

Wetlands and ✓ The proposed modifications would not result in direct Riparian Zones disturbance of wetland or riparian areas. There is no

change to the status of the ephemeral drainages 130, 132 and 139 associated with the TUC and Vantage Complex. They remain isolated and do not have interstate or foreign commerce connection as shown in the Approved Jurisdictional Determination Form by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (2017). No impacts to mapped seeps and springs are predicted based on the Summary of 2017 Vantage Complex Hydrogeological Characterization Report (Geomega 2017) as the 10-foot drawdown contour does not extend to any seeps or springs.

Wild Horses ✓ Impacts to wild horses would be substantially similar to those analyzed in the 2016 FEIS. Overlap of the Plan of Operations area and Triple B HMA would remain at 3%. No impacts to mapped seeps and springs are predicted based on the Summary of 2017 Vantage Complex Hydrogeological Characterization Report (Geomega 2017) as the 10-foot drawdown contour does not extend to any seeps or springs.

Wilderness and Wilderness Study Areas

✓ Impacts to Wilderness and Wilderness Study Areas would be the same as analyzed in the 2016 FEIS.

Wildlife and ✓ The Proposed Action would result in 49.5 acres of new Fisheries disturbance within mule deer habitat, including 48.9 acres Resources of winter range and 0.6 acres of crucial winter range.

Potential impacts to wildlife and fisheries from the proposed modifications would be substantially similar, in both type and magnitude, to those impacts analyzed in the 2016 FEIS.

1 Resources and issues considered include supplemental authorities listed in Appendix 1 of the BLM National Environmental Policy Act Handbook H-1790-1 (2008).

3.3 General Setting

The project area is within the historic Bald Mountain Mining District. Mining began here in the late 1800s and historically produced gold, silver, copper, antimony, and tungsten ores. Modern day mining operations began in the early 1980s. Existing land use in the project area includes mining, open space, grazing, and dispersed recreation (particularly in the adjacent Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest).

The topography consists of nearly level, aggraded desert basins and valleys between a series of mountain ranges trending north to south. Many of the valleys are closed basins containing sinks or



playas. The project area is located in an arid to semi-arid environment with low annual precipitation and large daily ranges in temperatures. Climate is largely controlled by rugged topography to the west, specifically the Sierra Nevada Mountains and other features of the Basin and Range. The driest months generally extend from June through September, although intense summer thunderstorms may occur during that period.

Two vegetation types occur within the project area: big sagebrush shrublands and pinyon-juniper woodland. Pinyon-juniper dominates the northern portion of the study area in higher elevations, while sagebrush is more common in the southern portion and at lower elevations. Water sources, particularly those that maintain open water and riparian vegetation, do not occur within the study area

3.4 Resources

This section concisely describes the affected environment and environmental effects for each of the resources identified by the interdisciplinary team as present and potentially affected by the Proposed Action, as presented in Section 3.2.

3.4.1 Land Use and Access

The study area for land use is defined as the existing SOA plan boundary and includes the TUC corridor. The study area for access includes the SOA plan boundary and primary access roads from the south such as County Road 1006, White Pine County Road 3 (Long Valley Road), State Highway 892 (Strawberry Road), and U.S. Highway 50. Primary access roads from the north include State Highways 227 and 228, County Roads 1000, 1/73 and 54. Other roads used for access include County Roads 1, 4, 1007 and 1019. Figure 3-1 depicts these primary access routes for the SOA. The CESA for land use and access includes the NOA and SOA plan boundaries (including the TUC) and major roads providing access to these areas: 1) from Elko via State Highway 228 south (73 miles); 2) from Ely via U.S. Highway 50 to White Pine County Road 3 (Long Valley Road) (56 miles); and 3) from Eureka via U.S. Highway 50 to State Highway 892 (Strawberry Road) (45 miles).

3.4.1.1 Affected Environment

The BLM administers all 10,865 acres of land in the study area. The study area is located within the administrative boundaries of the BLM Bristlecone Field Office and is currently managed according to the Ely District ROD and Approved RMP (BLM 2008). Historic and current land use within the study area is dominated by mining activities. Portions of the study area not used for active mining operations consist of open space and wildlife habitat, which may be utilized for grazing and dispersed recreation. Several rights-of-way (ROWs) for roads, power lines, and communication sites exist within the study area. There are no residential communities, prime or unique farmlands, or special designations within the study area.

The study area is currently managed under the same land use plans and zoning designations described in detail in the BMM FEIS (BLM 2016), including the Ely District ROD and Approved RMP (BLM 2008); the Zoning Ordinance of White Pine County, NV (County Code Title 17); and the White Pine County Public Lands Policy Plan (White Pine County Public Land Users Advisory Committee 2007).

The primary access routes to the study area are State Highway 892, White Pine County Road 3, U.S. Highway 50, State Highways 227 and 228, and County Road 1000. U.S. Highway 50 runs generally east to west between Eureka and Ely, approximately 25 miles south of the study area. State Highway 892 is a paved, two-lane highway that originates at U.S. Highway 50, runs north along the western boundary of the study area, and from the south serves as the main access point to the western portion of the study area. White Pine County Roads 1/73, 1000, and 54 (Alligator Ridge/Buck Pass) provide access to the SOA from State Highway 892. These roads have gravel surfaces except for certain paved segments of White Pine County Road 54. White Pine County Road 3 originates at U.S. Highway 50, runs north along the eastern boundary of the study area, and from the south serves as the main access point to the eastern portions of the study area. White Pine County Road 3 is paved for approximately 30 miles north of U.S Highway 50, then turns to gravel. Other roads that tie into the primary access roads from the south and used for access include County Roads 1, 4, 1007 and 1019. State Highways 227 and 228 provide paved road access from the Elko and Spring Creek areas north of the study area to County Road 1000.



County Road 1000 is unpaved from the junction with State Highway 228 to the point of access to the study area.

Figure 3-2 shows trends in average annual daily traffic (AADT) for the three primary access routes to the study area from 2007 to 2016. During this period there was an approximate 13% net increase in AADT on U.S. Highway 50, with the highest traffic volumes occurring in 2015 and 2016. AADT on White Pine County Road and State Highway 892 remained relatively consistent over the same period, with an increase of approximately 10 vehicles per day on State Highway 892 in 2015 and 2016.

Roads within the study area consists of a network of White Pine County roads and haul roads that provide access to mine facilities or adjacent public and private lands. Road surfaces within the study area vary from well-maintained gravel to primitive two-track dirt roads. The county roads used for the Vantage Complex facility access and are located within the Plan of Operations boundaries include White Pine County Road 1006, which runs north-south through the SOA, White Pine County Road 54 which runs east-west, and White Pine County Road 4, located within the TUC.

3.4.1.2 Environmental Effects

This section discusses impacts of the SOA Vantage Complex Project on land use and access resulting from the Proposed Action and No Action Alternative. As explained below, impacts under either alternative are anticipated to be substantially similar to or the same as described in the BMM FEIS (BLM 2016).

Proposed Action

The Proposed Action would result in minor alterations to the location and design of specific mining facilities, including the Vantage heap leach facility, process area, ancillary areas, TUC, haul roads, and power lines, but would not change the types of existing and authorized land uses within the study area. Additionally, an increase in the total authorized disturbance area in the SOA from 1,702.9 acres to 1,752.4 acres under the Proposed Action would not notably alter the distribution of existing land uses. Realignment and widening of TUC, haul roads, and other facilities would not require amendment to existing ROWs because they would occur within the SOA Plan boundary on authorized or proposed disturbance. Reclamation of project components are in accordance with the Reclamation Plan (Section 3.11 of the SOA Plan). BLM and NDEP regulations would make lands available for post-mining land uses consistent with the Ely District ROD and Approved RMP. For reasons stated above, the impacts of minor land use changes under the Proposed Action would be substantially similar those described under the Western Redbird Modification Alternative in the BMM FEIS (BLM 2016) that also is the No Action Alternative for this EA and consistent with all applicable land use plans and zoning designations.

The number of mine and contractor workers, effects on traffic and road conditions, and transportation safety concerns for the Proposed Action are not anticipated to vary notably from conditions described in the BMM FEIS (BLM 2016). As a result, traffic associated with the Proposed Action is not anticipated to notably alter AADT on primary access routes to the study area from levels shown in Figure 3-2. Proposed realignments, widening, and reclassifications of haul roads would not change the function or level of service of access routes with the study area. KG-BM’s Traffic Management Plan (Appendix G of the SOA Plan) provides standard construction, operation, and maintenance practices for light vehicles and mine equipment using public access routes and locations where mine roads intersect public roads. KG-BM has an agreement with White Pine County for maintenance purposes. KG-BM notified White Pine County of the proposed TUC modification; White Pine County has expressed no objections or concerns to date. Adherence to the Traffic Management Plan and maintenance agreement with White Pine County would ensure that access roads are maintained for public and private uses. For reasons stated above, the impacts of the Proposed Action on access would be substantially similar those described under the Western Redbird Modification Alternative in the BMM FEIS (BLM 2016) and consistent with all applicable BLM and County standards for road development and maintenance.


Under the No Action Alternative, the proposed SOA Vantage Complex Project would not be developed and associated impacts to land use and access would not occur. KG-BM would continue its operations,


3-7


closure, and reclamation activities within the SOA and TUC boundaries under the terms and current permits and approvals as authorized by the BLM and State of Nevada. Therefore, under the No Action Alternative, impacts to land use and access would be the same as described for the Western Redbird Modification Alternative in the BMM FEIS (BLM 2016).

3.4.2 Water Quality and Quantity

The project study area for potential direct and indirect impacts to water resources encompasses the area within the South Operations Area (Figure 2-1). The CESA for water quality and quantity encompasses the entirety of four hydrographic basins (Huntington Valley and Central Region, Long Valley, Newark Valley, and Ruby Valley) as shown on Figure 3.3-1 in the Bald Mountain Mine North and South Operations Area Projects Environmental Impact Statement (BLM 2016).


The hydrologic setting for surface water resources and groundwater resources relevant to the Vantage Complex is described in Section 3.2.1 of the Bald Mountain Mine North and South Operations Area Projects Final EIS (BLM 2016). The proposed facilities modifications would be located within the Long Valley Hydrographic Basin that is part of the Central Region as defined by Nevada Division of Water Resources (NDWR). Long Valley is a closed basin (i.e., no surface outflow). Perennial surface water resources are limited in Long Valley, such that the majority of springs and streams in Long Valley are dry by the end of the summer. Surface water runoff in Long Valley drains toward a small playa on the central valley floor, but most flow infiltrates or evaporates before reaching the playa.

Seep and spring surveys have been conducted in the project study area. The location of springs and seeps identified within the vicinity of the project site are shown in Figure 3-3. Selected seeps and springs have been monitored on a quarterly to semiannual basis at most sites since 2005. Available information on these springs and seeps, including data sources, monitoring period, flow range, and acres of associated wetlands, and water quality data are summarized in Table C-1, Appendix C in the 2016 FEIS (BLM 2016).

The study area and CESA occur in hydrographic basins delineated and administered by the NDWR. Table 3.3-4, provided in the 2016 FEIS, summarizes groundwater rights and uses in the study area and adjacent valleys (BLM 2016). Two of the basins, Huntington Valley and Ruby Valley, are designated groundwater basins. A designated basin is one where permitted groundwater rights approach or exceed the estimated average annual recharge, and the water resources are being depleted or require additional administration. The existing BMM has water rights for groundwater pumping in Huntington Valley, Ruby Valley and Long Valley Hydrographic Basins (BLM 2016).

An inventory of active water rights in the region surrounding the proposed project was used to identify the location and status of water rights within potentially affected areas. The inventory was based on water rights records on file with the NDWR (NDWR 2014). The inventory identified all active water rights located within the vicinity of the proposed project. The locations of the points of diversion for the identified water rights in the project vicinity along with the source type (surface water or groundwater) and beneficial use (such as mining/milling, or stock watering) are shown in Figure 3-4. A detailed tabulation of all the water rights in the area including the source type, beneficial use, annual duty and owner of record for each water right is provided in Table C-2, Appendix C in the 2016 FEIS (BLM 2016).

Baseline information regarding groundwater resources, hydrogeologic units, groundwater flow systems and groundwater flow systems and rock geochemical characterization are provided in 3.3.1 in the 2016 FEIS (BLM 2016); and, in the updated groundwater modeling report prepared for the Proposed Action (Geomega 2017b).


The primary issues related to water resources associated with the Proposed Action include: 1) potential reduction in surface and groundwater quantity for current users and water-dependent resources from expanded production well withdrawal, 2) potential shallow water accumulation in the Vantage Pit from limited seepage at the end of mining, and 3) potential impacts to groundwater and surface water quality




associated with the use of spent ore as engineered fill. As explained below, impacts under either alternative are anticipated to be substantially similar to or the same as described in the BMM FEIS (BLM 2016).

Proposed Action

Water Quantity Impacts

Water for the Vantage Complex operation (including water for exploration, construction, operation and potable uses would be supplied by groundwater production wells. Water supply wells that would be used for groundwater production for water supply for the Vantage Complex are described in Section 2.2.4 and listed in Table 2-4.

Two production wells (ARW-1 and TBD10) were authorized in the 2016 FEIS to supply water for the Vantage Complex. ARW-1 is an existing well, and TBD10 (renamed AWR-2) was authorized but not yet constructed. Under the Proposed Action, two additional water production wells (AWR-2 and AWR-4) would be constructed to meet the project requirements. The existing and proposed locations of AWR-1, AWR-2, AWR-3 and AWR-4 water production wells for the Vantage Complex are shown on Figure 3-3.

The estimated total average annual water demands for the Vantage Complex under the No Action and Proposed Action are provided in Table 3-2.

The No Action estimates are based on an earlier pumping requirement estimates for the Vantage Complex that was incorporated into the drawdown analysis provided in the 2016 FEIS (BLM 2016). Groundwater pumping requirements estimates for the Proposed Action are based on an updated projections from KG-BM provided in the Summary of 2017 Vantage Complex Hydrogeologic Characterization Report (Geomega 2017a).

The updated water demand projected for the Proposed Action estimates an average annual groundwater water pumping requirement for the six year project period (2017-2022) ranging from 21 gpm in 2017 to 639 gpm in 2019 (Geomega 2017a). Compared to the No Action scenario, the Proposed Action water demand is higher in years 2019, 2020, and 2012; and lower (than projected for the No Action) in years 2017, 2018 and 2022. Using the average annual water demands to estimate the total groundwater extraction over the six year period indicates that the volume of groundwater withdrawal under the Proposed Action (1.082 billion gallons) is similar to, but slightly less than, the volume of groundwater withdrawal under the No Action scenario (1.097 billion gallons).

Table 3-2. Estimated Average Annual Groundwater Pumping Requirements for the Vantage Complex Under Currently Authorized (No Action) and Proposed Amendment to the SOA Plan (Proposed Action).

Model Year No Action

(gpm) Proposed Action

(gpm)

2017 402 21

2018 402 381

2019 402 639

2020 274 541

2021 233 365

2022 373 114

2023 373 -

2024 373 -

2025 373 -

2026 373 -

2027 373 -

2028 373 -


Model Year No Action

(gpm) Proposed Action

(gpm) 2029 373 -

2030 373 -

2031 373 -

2032 373 -

2033 373 -

2034 373 -

2035 373 -

2036 44 -

2037 44 -

2038 44 -

2039 44 -

2040 44 -

2041 44 -

2042 44 -

Source: Barrick 2015, Geomega 2017a

A calibrated three-dimensional numerical groundwater flow model was developed to estimate effects to groundwater and surface water resources from the pumping scenarios evaluated in the 2016 FEIS (BLM 2016). The previous groundwater model was updated and refined in the Vantage Complex to estimate (1) groundwater pumping requirements; (2) groundwater drawdown from the projected mine water production well pumping; (3) groundwater quality for process requirements and (4) depth to groundwater beneath the Vantage Complex pits and HLF (Geomega 2017a, 2017b).

Impacts to groundwater levels were evaluated using the results of the numerical modeling for the Proposed Action pumping scenario. The projected changes in groundwater levels represent the difference between the model-simulated groundwater elevations and simulated pre-development baseline groundwater elevations for the Vantage Complex and surrounding area. As described in the 2016 FEIS, the area that is predicted to experience a reduction (drawdown) in groundwater elevation of 10 feet or more as a result of mine groundwater pumping activities was selected as the area of potential concern regarding potential impacts to water resources. Based on the updated and refined groundwater modeling, the predicted drawdown area resulting from the total mine pumping requirements under Proposed Action is illustrated Figure 3-3.

The updated groundwater model predicts higher groundwater elevations in the shales along the eastern portion along the Vantage Pit, and there is the possibility that locally perched groundwater from the shales could seep into the pit following the cessation of mining. This potential seepage zone is limited to about the bottom 13 feet of the pit along a fractionally small portion of the southeastern pit wall with estimated flow into the pit at approximately 0.08 gpm. The potential seepage is expected to either evaporate and/or infiltrate into the more permeable underlying carbonate rocks resulting in limited potential for ponded water to occur on the pit floor (Geomega 2017a). If ponding were to occur, KG-BM would partially backfill the pit such that perched groundwater would remain below the ground surface or the seepage would be rerouted via trenches or sumps to the carbonate rocks and allowed to infiltrate. Groundwater chemistry is expected to be similar to the water quality of existing water supply well ARW-1.

Impacts to Surface Water Resources The locations of identified surface water resources in the region surrounding the Vantage Complex are shown Figure 3-4. There are no perennial or intermittent streams, seeps, or springs, or waters of the U.S. located within the proposed facility footprints or SOA boundary. Mud Springs, and Woodchuck Springs are the closest springs located outside the boundary of the SOA boundary. As illustrated on Figure 3-3, these springs are located more than 2-miles outside (west) of the projected maximum extent of drawdown resulting from the Proposed Action. Therefore, drawdown resulting from the revised


3-10


groundwater pumping required under the Proposed Action is not expected to result in flow reductions in any inventoried spring or seep.

Impacts to Water Rights An inventory of active water rights in the region surrounding the proposed project was used to identify the location and status of water rights within potentially affected areas. The inventory was based on water rights records on file with the NDWR provided Table C-2, Appendix C of the 2016 FEIS (BLM 2016).

Water rights located within the predicted drawdown areas are shown in Figure 3-4. For the purpose of this evaluation, all water rights owned or controlled by KG-BM (or their affiliates) were excluded from this evaluation. As shown in Figure 3-4, there are no non KG-BM owned or controlled water rights located within the predicted mine induced drawdown area (or located outside, but within 2-miles of the projected drawdown area). Therefore, the groundwater pumping included under the Proposed Action is not anticipated to impact any non KG-BM owned or controlled surface or groundwater right.

Water Quality Impacts The proposed strategy for the management of spent ore to be relocated from existing HLFs to allow for expansion of the Vantage Pit as described in Section 2.2.2.3.2. Under the Proposed Action, approximately 6.2 million tons of spent ore from heaps A-L will be placed on the Vantage HLF with location shown on Figure 2-7. A small portion of spent ore will be used for engineered fill for the construction of the Vantage HLF consisting of approximately 0.8 million tons of spent ore from heaps A-L, and 0.9 million tons of spent ore from heaps M-O.

Geochemical characterization of the spent ore was conducted to evaluate its potential to release contaminants. Testing included Acid Base Accounting (ABA), Meteoric Water Mobility Procedure (MWMP) testing, and 2015 Updated Modified Procedure testing. The ABA testing indicates that the material is non-acid generating. The MWMP testing indicates that the spent ore has the potential to release solute with concentrations that exceed NDEP-BMRR Profile I reference values for TDS, sulfate, antimony, arsenic, thallium, total nitrogen, and nitrite + nitrite. As a result and as stated in the Water Pollution Control Permit (WPCP) Application, KG-BM plans to manage the spent ore material “…in a manner that prevents meteoric water from passing through the spent ore and contaminating waters of the State” (KG-BM 2017c) and is described as follows:

Spent ore placed on the Vantage HLF will be fully contained on composite liner. Spent ore used as engineered fill would be place beneath the new liner system constructed for the Vantage HLF. Placement of the liner system over the spent ore would provide for an impervious cap to prevent infiltration of meteoric water and heap leachate through the spent ore. Groundwater characterization based on monitored groundwater levels for the area indicates that the estimated depth to groundwater beneath the Vantage HLF is approximately 290 feet below ground surface. Based on the placement of the liner system, and depth to groundwater, placement of spent ore beneath the Vantage HLF is not expected to result in impacts to groundwater (or surface water) quality. To ensure there are no impacts to groundwater, the WPCP includes Fluid Management Plan, Monitoring Plan, Hazardous Materials Spill and Emergency Response Plan, Draft Closure Plan, Engineering Design Report, with Design Drawings & Technical Specifications. Reclamation and closure will be in accordance with the BLM and NDEP regulations. For reasons stated above, the impacts of the Proposed Action on water quality and quantity would be substantially similar to those described under the Western Redbird Modification Alternative in the BMM FEIS (BLM 2016) and consistent with the Ely District Record of Decision and approved RMP.


Under the No Action Alternative, the proposed modifications to currently authorized mining operations within the BMM SOA Plan would not be implemented. Mining, processing, and closure and reclamation activities within the SOA Plan would continue under the terms of current permits and approvals authorized by the BLM and the State of Nevada. Potential impacts to water quantity and quality from construction, operation, and closure and reclamation of the currently permitted and approved facilities are described in the Bald Mountain Mine North and South Operations Areas Project FEIS (BLM 2016).


3-11


3.4.3 Wildlife and Fisheries Resources

The study area for wildlife and fisheries resources is defined as the existing SOA plan boundary. The CESA for wildlife resources includes the NDOW Big Game Management Area 10 which generally extends from the western end of the Ruby Mountains northwest of the study area, south to U.S. Highway 50, east to the Cherry Creek Mountains and northeast to the Nevada/Utah border. The northern boundary of the CESA generally follows the Interstate 80 (I-80) corridor. The wildlife resources CESA was determined based on wildlife use within the project region and important seasonal habitats for common wildlife species.

Wildlife habitat within the study area remains essentially unchanged from those described in the BMM FEIS (BLM 2016) and all Affected Environment information presented in that document is incorporated by reference.


Wildlife habitat within the study area is composed of two vegetation types including pinyon-juniper woodlands and big sagebrush shrublands. Table 3-3 presents the approximate acreages of each vegetation community within the SOA and TUC areas.

Table 3-3. Existing Vegetation Communities within the Study Area

Vegetation Cover Type South Operations Area

Acreage Percentage

Pinyon – Juniper 5,220 48

Big Sagebrush Shrubland 5,645 52

Total 10, 865 100

Source: JBR 2011; SRK 2008.

Wildlife species and habitats found within the study area are typical of the Great Basin region (BLM 2009). Perennial water sources, particularly those that maintain open water and riparian vegetation, do not occur within the study area. Ephemeral drainages, springs, and seeps within and adjacent to the study area are illustrated in Figure 3-3.

Big Game Big game species potentially occurring within the study area include mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), pronghorn (Antilocapra americana), and Rocky Mountain elk (Cervus elaphus nelsoni).

Mule deer seasonal range within the study area includes approximately 9,146 acres of winter range and 1,718 acres of crucial winter range. Pronghorn seasonal range within the study area includes approximately 3,423 acres of year-round range and 163 acres of winter range. Elk seasonal range within the study area includes approximately 10,583 acres of year-round range.

Small Game Species Upland Game

Several upland game bird species have been observed within the study area including greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus), dusky grouse (Dendragapus obscurus), chukar (Alectoris chukar), gray partridge (Perdix perdix), mountain quail (Oreortyx pictus) and mourning dove (Zenaida macorua) (BLM 2009; JBR 2012; NDOW 2011a; SRK 2011). The greater sage-grouse is a BLM sensitive species and is discussed in Section 3.4.4, Special Status Species.


3-12


Furbearing Species

Furbearing species classified under NAC Section 503.025 potentially occurring within the study area include gray fox, kit fox, mountain lion, and bobcat (Wildlife Action Plan Team 2012). Other mammal species that may occur within the study area include coyote, badger, short-tailed weasel, long-tailed weasel, spotted skunk, red fox, cottontails, and black-tailed and white-tailed jackrabbits (BLM 2009, BLM 2016).

Non-game Species A diversity of nongame species (e.g., small mammals, passerines, raptors) occupy the study area. Habitats found within the study area (e.g., big sagebrush, pinyon-juniper woodland) support a variety of resident and seasonal nongame species. Acreages of these existing habitats within the study area are presented in Table 3-3.

Migratory Birds

Nongame birds encompass a variety of passerine and raptor species including migratory bird species that are protected under the MBTA (16 USC 703-711) and EO 13186 (66 FR 3853). Suitable habitat for migratory bird species totaling 10,865 acres occurs across all undisturbed areas of the study area. Migratory bird habitats within the study area remains essentially unchanged from those discussed and analyzed in the BMM FEIS (BLM 2016) and all affected environment information presented in that document regarding migratory birds is incorporated by reference.

Aquatic Species Due to a lack of perennial water sources providing aquatic habitat within the study area (e.g., creeks, streams, lakes, etc.), no fisheries or other aquatic species are found within the study area (SRK 2008).


This section discusses project related impacts to wildlife resources resulting from the Proposed Action and No Action Alternative. Primary issues related to wildlife resources include potential loss or alteration of native habitats, increased habitat fragmentation, animal displacement, and direct loss of wildlife.

Potential impacts on wildlife may include the temporary (short-term and long-term) and permanent reduction or loss of habitat. Short-term impacts arise from habitat removal and disturbance from activities associated with mine operation. Short-term impacts would cease upon completion of successful initial reclamation and closure efforts. Long-term impacts consist of changes to habitats and the wildlife populations that depend on those habitats, irrespective of reclamation success over the life of the mine. Permanent impacts are typically associated with the development and expansion of open pits, which permanently alter the vegetation, soil, and topography of the landscape.

Direct impacts to wildlife populations may include direct mortalities from mine development, habitat loss or alteration, incremental habitat fragmentation, and animal displacement. Indirect impacts could include increased noise, additional human presence, and the potential for increased vehicle-related mortalities due to the increase of acreages disturbed. The degree of the impacts on terrestrial wildlife species and their upland habitats would depend on factors such as the sensitivity of the species, seasonal use patterns, type and timing of project activity, and physical parameters (e.g., topography, cover, forage, and climate). As explained below, impacts under either alternative are anticipated to be substantially similar to or the same as described in the BMM FEIS (BLM 2016).

Proposed Action

Under the Proposed Action, implementation of surface disturbance activities as a result of the proposed project would result in the addition of approximately 49.5 acres of wildlife habitat (23.4 acres of sagebrush shrubland and 26.1 acres of pinyon-juniper woodland) to the acreage of surface disturbance previously authorized. Previously authorized surface disturbance within the study area includes approximately 395.1 acres of big sagebrush shrubland and 1,307.8 acres of pinyon-juniper woodland of which approximately


3-13


15.7 acres (4 acres of sagebrush shrubland and 11.7 acres of pinyon-juniper woodland) would be withdrawn from previously authorized disturbance. The total impact acreages resulting under the Proposed Action and previously authorized disturbance would include approximately 414.5 acres of big sagebrush shrubland and 1,322.2 acres of pinyon-juniper woodlands.

Because open pits are not revegetated, there would be a permanent loss of 473.9 acres of wildlife habitat within the proposed SOA, including 454.6 acres of previously authorized disturbance. The disturbance associated with the proposed project would be reclaimed following completion of mining activities.

Impacts to wildlife from surface disturbance activities would include the temporary reduction or loss of habitat. Habitat loss or alteration would result in direct losses of smaller, less mobile species of wildlife, such as small mammals and reptiles, and the displacement of more mobile species into adjacent habitats. Surface disturbance also would result in an incremental increase in habitat fragmentation in the study area until reclamation has been completed and vegetation has been re-established.

Impacts to big game seasonal range would include the long-term removal of approximately 48.9 acres of mule deer winter range, approximately 0.6 acres of mule deer crucial winter range, and approximately 49.5 acres of elk year-long range. No impacts to pronghorn seasonal ranges within the study area are anticipated under the Proposed Action. Although some areas of proposed surface disturbance would be located within an area used by mule deer during seasonal migrations, it is not a designated mule deer migration corridor or a high use route based on telemetry data, and therefore impacts to the ability of mule deer to migrate through the study area are anticipated to be similar to impacts previously authorized under the No Action Alternative. In cooperation with BLM and NDOW, there is a BMM adaptive mule deer monitoring program that continues to monitor mule deer movement through the Plan boundary. Impacts to small and non-game species would include the long-term removal of a total of approximately 49.5 acres of wildlife habitat within the study area (approximately 23.4 acres of big sagebrush shrubland and 26.1 acres of pinyon-juniper woodland). The NDOW has reviewed the Proposed Action and has indicated that the minor modifications to previously authorized activities within the study area do not represent a significant increase in potential effects to wildlife and that no further mitigation would be required (NDOW 2017).

Impacts to wildlife species within the Ruby Lake NWR from vehicle traffic from construction and mine personnel commuting to the project area along the Ruby Valley Road (County Road 3) over the life of mining operations is anticipated to be similar to those impacts previously authorized under the No Action Alternative.

Water Management Activities Water management activities under the Proposed Action are not anticipated to result in a measureable impacts to wildlife and wildlife habitat within the study area in comparison to those impacts previously authorized under the No Action Alternative. Groundwater modeling results indicate that water withdrawal from the two previously authorized production wells (ARW-1 and ARW-3) and two proposed production wells (ARW-2 and ARW-4) would not impact base flows at nearby seeps or springs (Geomega 2017a) for water-dependent wildlife.

Modification of the currently authorized water storage tank located within the Vantage interpit area to a fresh water pond would result in the introduction of additional surface water within the study area that may attract wildlife species. The proposed pond would be fenced to deter wildlife access and for general safety in accordance with the NDEP WPCP and NDOW artificial pond permit.

Human Presence and Noise Impacts from human presence and noise under the Proposed Action are not anticipated to result in an increase of measureable impacts to wildlife and wildlife habitat within the study area in comparison to those impacts previously authorized under the No Action Alternative.

Reclamation and closure will be in accordance with the BLM and NDEP regulations For reasons stated above, the impacts of the Proposed Action on access would be substantially similar those described


3-14


under the Western Redbird Modification Alternative in the BMM FEIS (BLM 2016) and consistent with the Ely District Record of Decision and approved RMP.


Under the No Action Alternative, the proposed modifications to currently authorized mining operations within the BMM SOA Plan would not be implemented and associated impacts to wildlife and fisheries resources from these modifications would not occur. KG-BM would continue its operations, closure, and reclamation activities within the SOA and TUC boundaries under the terms and current permits and approvals as authorized by the BLM and State of Nevada. Potential impacts to wildlife and wildlife habitat from construction, operation, and closure and reclamation of the currently permitted and approved facilities are described in the Bald Mountain Mine North and South Operations Areas Project FEIS (BLM 2016).

3.4.4 Special Status Species

The study area for special status species is defined as the proposed SOA plan boundaries. The CESA for special status species, excluding greater sage-grouse, encompasses the NDOW Big Game Management Area 10. The CESA for greater sage-grouse includes the Ruby Valley and Butte/Buck/White Pine Population Management Units (PMU).

Special status wildlife and plant species habitat within the study area remains essentially unchanged from those described in the BMM FEIS (BLM 2016) and all Affected Environment information presented in that document is incorporated by reference. Any changes or updates to information presented in the BMM FEIS affected environment sections are presented in the following sections.


Special status species are those species for which state or federal agencies afford an additional level of protection by law, regulation, or policy. Included in this category are federally listed species that are protected under the ESA and species designated as sensitive by the BLM. In addition, there is a Nevada State protected animal list (NAC 503.030) that the BLM has incorporated, in part, into the BLM’s sensitive species list.

In accordance with the ESA, as amended, the lead agency (BLM) in coordination with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service must ensure that any action that they authorize, fund, or carry out would not adversely affect a federally listed threatened or endangered species. In addition, as stated in Special Status Species Management Policy 6840 (6840 Policy) (Rel. 6-125), it also is the BLM’s policy “to conserve and/or recover ESA-listed species and the ecosystems on which they depend so that ESA provisions are no longer needed for these species, and to initiate proactive conservation measures that reduce or eliminate threats to BLM sensitive species to minimize the likelihood of and need for listing of these species under the ESA.”

Mammals No changes to the status of federally listed special status mammals presented in Section 3.8.1.2, Mammals, of the BMM FEIS (BLM 2016) have been identified. Although the 2011 BLM Nevada Sensitive Species analyzed in the 2016 BMM FEIS was revised on November 22, 2017 (BLM 2017), no new mammal species with potential to occur within the study area are included on the current list beyond those previously analyzed in the 2016 BMM FEIS.

Birds No changes to the status of federally special status bird species presented in Section 3.8.1.3, Birds, of the BMM FEIS (BLM 2016) have been identified. Although the 2011 BLM Nevada Sensitive Species analyzed in the 2016 BMM FEIS was revised on November 22, 2017 (BLM 2017), no new bird species with potential to occur within the study area are included on the current list beyond those previously analyzed in the 2016 BMM FEIS.


3-15


Greater Sage-grouse

Surveys conducted in 2016 and 2017 have confirmed that the status of greater sage-grouse habitats and leks analyzed in the 2016 BMM FEIS have remained unchanged from those included in the 2016 FEIS (NDOW 2017). Surveys have also identified and confirmed the active status of a new lek location within the general vicinity of the Bald Mountain Mine. The newly identified West Chrome lek is now listed as an active lek by the NDOW and managed as such. This lek is not located within the study area and is outside of the area of direct effects anticipated under the Proposed Action. Approximately 5,288 acres of Priority Habitat Management Area (PHMA), 1,879 acres of General Habitat Management Area (GHMA), and 2,765 acres of Other Habitat Management Area (OHMA) are located within the study area. Approximately 933 acres of the study area is considered non-habitat for the greater sage-grouse.

Amphibians No changes to the status of federally listed special status amphibian species presented in Section 3.8.1.4, Amphibians, of the BMM FEIS (BLM 2016) have been identified. Although the 2011 BLM Nevada Sensitive Species analyzed in the 2016 BMM FEIS was revised on November 22, 2017 (BLM 2017), no new amphibian species with potential to occur within the study area are included on the current list beyond those previously analyzed in the 2016 BMM FEIS. No areas of perennial waterways or perennial springs or seeps are known to occur within the study area, therefore these species are considered to not occur within the study area and are not addressed further in this EA.

Reptiles

No current federally listed or BLM Sensitive reptile species are known to occur within the study area.

Plants No changes to the status of federally listed special status plant species presented in Section 3.8.1.6, Plants, of the BMM FEIS (BLM 2016) have been identified. Although the 2011 BLM Nevada Sensitive Species analyzed in the 2016 BMM FEIS was revised on November 22, 2017 (BLM 2017), no new plant species with potential to occur within the study area are included on the current list beyond those previously analyzed in the 2016 BMM FEIS.

Nachlinger’s Catchfly (Silene nachlingerae) was the only special status plant species identified as potentially occurring within the study area under the BMM FEIS analysis (BLM 2016). This species was only observed during field surveys in the NOA and observations were limited to areas of curl-leaf mountain mahogany stands in the NOA area (JBR 2012). Survey of the SOA did not identify any of this specific habitat type or observe this species within the SOA (JBR 2012). Therefore this species is considered to not occur within the study area and is not addressed further in this EA.


This section discusses project related impacts to special status species, resulting from the Proposed Action and No Action Alternative.

Proposed Action

Impacts to special status mammal and bird species within the study area would be similar to those impacts discussed in Section 3.4.3, Wildlife and Fisheries Resources. Under the Proposed Action, implementation of surface disturbance activities as a result of proposed project would result in the addition of approximately 49.5 acres of wildlife habitat (23.4 acres of sagebrush shrubland and 26.1 acres of pinyon-juniper woodland) to the acreage of surface disturbance previously authorized. Previously authorized surface disturbance within the study area includes approximately 395.1 acres of big sagebrush shrubland and 1,307.8 acres of pinyon-juniper woodland of which approximately 15.7 acres (4 acres of sagebrush shrubland and 11.7 acres of pinyon-juniper woodland) would be withdrawn from previously authorized disturbance. The total impact acreages resulting under the Proposed Action and previously


3-16


authorized disturbance would include approximately 414.5 acres of big sagebrush shrubland and 1,322.2 acres of pinyon-juniper woodlands.

Because open pits are not revegetated, there would be a permanent loss of 473.9 acres of wildlife habitat within the proposed SOA, including 454.6 acres of previously authorized disturbance. All of the disturbance associated with the proposed project would be reclaimed following completion of mining activities.

The NDOW has reviewed the Proposed Action and has indicated that the minor modifications to previously authorized activities within the study area do not represent a significant increase in potential effects to wildlife and that no further mitigation would be required (NDOW 2017).

Greater Sage-grouse The NDOW has reviewed the Proposed Action and has indicated that the minor modifications to previously authorized activities within the study area do not represent a significant increase in potential effects to greater sage-grouse and that no further mitigation would be required (NDOW 2017). In addition, the Nevada Sagebrush Ecosystem Technical Team (SETT) has reviewed the Proposed Action and analyzed the potential for the proposed modifications to recommend compensatory mitigation for loss of greater sage-grouse PHMA under the Nevada Conservation Credit System (CCS). The SETT determined that due to the significant amount of existing anthropogenic disturbance within the study area, the acres of proposed new disturbance would have no significant impact on the habitat quality or the existing recommended compensatory mitigation for the project (SETT 2017).

Direct Impacts to Habitat Management Areas

Impacts to the greater sage-grouse and its habitat would include approximately 1.2 acres of new surface disturbance to areas designated as PHMA and 20.4 acres of OHMA as shown in Figure 3-5. The 1.2 acres of new disturbance to PHMA would result from the expansion of Ancillary Area C, and the 20.4 acres of new disturbance to OHMA would result from the realignment of section of the TUC. No impacts to GHMA are anticipated under the Proposed Action. These acreages of long-term disturbance would be reclaimed at the completion of mining operations with the exception of approximately 1.3 acres of open pit that would not be backfilled or revegetated.

Noise Impacts

Noise from construction and mining operations is not anticipated to affect any of the greater sage-grouse leks within the vicinity of the study area. There are no identified active leks within 3.1 miles of the proposed facility modifications or the realigned segments of the TUC.

Power Distribution Line Impacts

Under the Proposed Action, approximately 10,770 feet of new 13.8-kV power distribution line would be installed to supply power to the Vantage Complex area. This new segment of distribution line would be constructed according to Avian Power Line Interaction Committee (APLIC) design standards as identified in Section 5.5 of the Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy in Appendix G of the SOA Plan. Constructing the new segment of distribution line to APLIC design standards would minimize the potential for avian collisions and reduce the creation of perching opportunities for raptor and corvid species which are known to prey upon greater sage-grouse (BLM 2016) in areas of existing and authorized surface disturbance (e.g., interpit areas, haul roads, GMS, and the Vantage Pit).The majority of the new powerline segment would be installed adjacent to the existing Mt. Wheeler 69-kV powerline.

Due to the TUC modification, three segments of the 69-kV Mt. Wheeler power line along the TUC totaling 2,160 feet would be realigned. The realigned TUC power line corridors would range from 40 feet to 70 feet in width and would be located outside of designated greater sage-grouse management areas. There would be about 1.6 acres of new TUC power line corridor disturbance and 1.0 acre of reclassified disturbance adjacent to the TUC, as shown in Figure 2-12. All re-aligned segments would be constructed consistent with APLIC design standards.


3-17

Figure 3-1. Primary Access Routes and County Roads

Figure 3-2. Average Annual Daily Traffic for Primary Study Area Access Routes

Figure 3-3. Drawdown Area and Seeps

Figure 3-4. Drawdown Area and Water Rights

Figure 3-5. Greater Sage-grouse Habitat in the Project Area


Pygmy Rabbit A survey of potential pygmy rabbit habitat within the study area was conducted in June 2017 to assess the potential for presence of pygmy rabbits within areas of suitable habitat. The surveys covered all areas of proposed disturbance within the study area and did not observe any pygmy rabbits or other evidence of the species [(i.e., sign or burrows), (Stantec 2017)]. Impacts to pygmy rabbit habitat would include the long-term removal of a total of approximately 25.4 acres of big sagebrush shrubland.

Water Management Activities Water management activities under the Proposed Action are not anticipated to result in measureable impacts to special status species or their habitat within the study area in comparison to those impacts previously authorized under the No Action Alternative. Groundwater modeling results indicate that water withdrawal from the two previously authorized production wells (ARW-1 and ARW-3) and two proposed production wells (ARW-2 and ARW-4) would not impact baseflows at nearby seeps or springs (Geomega 2017a) for water-dependent wildlife.

Modification of the currently authorized water storage tank located within the Vantage interpit area to a fresh water pond would result in the introduction of additional surface water within the study area that may attract wildlife species. The proposed pond would be fenced to deter wildlife access and for general safety in accordance with the NDEP WPCP and NDOW artificial pond permit.

Reclamation and closure will be in accordance with the BLM and NDEP regulations For reasons stated above, the impacts of the Proposed Action on access would be substantially similar those described under the Western Redbird Modification Alternative in the BMM FEIS (BLM 2016) and consistent with the Ely District Record of Decision and approved RMP.


Under the No Action Alternative, the proposed modifications to currently authorized mining operations within the BMM SOA Plan would not be implemented and associated impacts to special status species and habitat from these modifications would not occur. KG-BM would continue its operations, closure, and reclamation activities within the SOA and TUC boundaries under the terms and current permits and approvals as authorized by the BLM and State of Nevada. Potential impacts to special status species and habitat from construction, operation, and closure and reclamation of the currently permitted and approved facilities are described in the Bald Mountain Mine North and South Operations Areas Project FEIS (BLM 2016).


3-18

Chapter 4 Cumulative Effects

4.0 Cumulative Effects

4.1 Resources

The geographic extent of cumulative impacts varies by resource and the extent of the impacts. Impacts for certain resources may extend beyond those related to direct surface disturbance from mining activity and the construction of mining and support facilities, therefore cumulative impacts are assessed beyond the area of direct impacts. The cumulative effect study areas (CESA) for the four resources analyzed in detail in this assessment are the same as those analyzed under the BMM FEIS (BLM 2016). Table 4-1 summarizes each CESA by resource, description, and spatial extent.

Table 4-1. Cumulative Effects Study Areas by Resource

Resource Acres Description1 Explanation

Land Use and Access 41,950

1) from Elko via State Highway 228 south (73 miles); 2) from Ely via U.S. Highway 50 to Long Valley Road (56 miles); and 3) from Eureka via U.S. Highway 50 to State Highway 892 (45 miles)

Includes primary access routes to the study area and all lands that may be affected by implementation of the Proposed Action and No Action Alternative.

Water Quality and Quantity 2,070,999 Huntington Valley, Newark Valley, Long Valley, and Ruby Valley hydrographic basins

Includes the four hydrographic basins potentially affected by the Proposed Action and No Action Alternative.

Wildlife and Fisheries and Special Status Species Resources

4,077,720 NDOW Hunt Area 10 (consisting of Hunt Units 101, 102, 103, 104,105, 106, 107, and 108)

Encompasses the range of key wildlife species potentially affected by the Proposed Action and No Action Alternative.

Greater Sage-grouse 4,202,675 Ruby Valley and Butte/Buck/White Pine PMUs

Encompasses the range of key greater sage-grouse PMUs potentially affected by the Proposed Action and No Action Alternative.

Source: BLM 2016

1 All CESA boundaries include lands within the NOA and SOA boundaries.


4-1

Cumulative Effects Chapter 4

Table 4-2 identifies the acres of surface disturbance for past and present actions within each resource CESA.

Table 4-2. Past and Present Actions within CESAs

Past and Present Actions

CESA

Land Use and Access (acres)

Water Quality and Quantity

(acres)

Wildlife and Fisheries

Resources1

(acres)

Greater Sage-Grouse

(acres)

Mining and Mineral Exploration

16,101 10,561 10,561 15,759

Road2 752 5,682 13,438 14,101

Total 16,853 16,243 23,999 29,860

1 CESA for Wildlife and Fisheries Resources is the same as the CESA for Special Status Species. 2 Assumptions for road calculations: U.S. Highways are 100 feet wide, State routes vary from 30- to 70-foot widths, county routes vary from 30- to 50-foot widths, and roads categorized as “other” are 20 feet wide.

Table 4-3 presents the surface disturbance acreages for RFFAs within each resource CESA.

Table 4-3. Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions within CESAs

Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions

CESA

Land Use and Access (acres)

Water Quality and Quantity

(acres)

Wildlife and Fisheries

Resources1

(acres)

Greater Sage-Grouse (acres)

Mining and Mineral Exploration

6,712 2,433 2,392 4,031

Mineral Materials Site 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000

Vegetation Treatments 10,300 56,572 77,896 78,485

Oil and Gas Development 314 314 0 0

Power Line 0 0 242 2,412

Surface Management Plan2 0 39,926 39,926 39,926

Total 18,326 100,245 121,456 125,854

1 CESA for Wildlife and Fisheries Resources is the same as the CESA for Special Status Species.

2 USFWS Ruby Lake NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan.

Source: BLM 2016.

4.1.1 Land Use and Access

Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions have resulted, or would result, in approximately 35,179 acres of total surface disturbance within the land use and access CESA. The total quantifiable surface disturbances are related to mining, and oil and gas development. Fuels reduction and vegetation treatment RFFAs are not considered in the disturbance calculations as they would not change land use. Past and present actions in the CESA include mining projects totaling approximately 16,853 acres (see Table 4-2). RFFAs proposed within the land use and access CESA (see Table 4-3) include, but are not limited to, Noble Energy’s proposed Huntington Valley oil and gas project (314 acres), various hard rock



mining and exploration projects (6,712 acres), various vegetation treatments and habitat improvement projects (10,300 acres) and the TransCanyon transmission line (unknown acreage).

4.1.1.1 Proposed Action

Incremental impacts of the Proposed Action would include 49.5 acres of new disturbance, resulting in a total cumulative disturbance from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions of 35,229 acres (84% of the total land use and access CESA). Surface disturbance and land use changes from the Proposed Action contribute to conversion of existing land uses, primarily open space and wildlife habitat, to industrial use, as well as surface disturbances that are not revegetated within the open pit areas of the Proposed Action. However, the total cumulative disturbance within the CESA represents a small portion of the overall land area, most of which would remain available for other uses.

There would be few, if any, cumulative effects on access or traffic conditions from the Proposed Action in conjunction with other past and present actions and RFFAs because they are all relatively small traffic generators and most of their access points are widely distributed throughout the land use and access CESA. The upward trend in traffic on U.S. Highway 50 observed from 2007 to 2016 (shown in Figure 3-2) may continue into the future, but for reasons stated above, incremental contributions from the Proposed Action and RFFAs are anticipated to be minimal.

4.1.1.2 No Action Alternative

Cumulative impacts to land use and access would be the same as described for the Western Redbird Modification Alternative in the BMM FEIS (BLM 2016).

4.1.2 Water Quality and Quantity

Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions have resulted, or would result, in approximately 116,488 acres of total surface disturbance within the water resources CESA. The total quantifiable surface disturbances are related to mining, and oil and gas development. Past and present actions in the water resources CESA include mining projects totaling approximately 16,246 acres (see Table 4-2). RFFAs proposed within the water resources CESA (see Table 4-3) include, but are not limited to, Noble Energy’s proposed Huntington Valley oil and gas project (314 acres), various hard rock mining and exploration projects (2,433 acres), various vegetation treatments and habitat improvement projects (56,572 acres) and the TransCanyon transmission line (unknown acreage).


Incremental impacts of the Proposed Action would include 49.5 acres of new disturbance, resulting in a total cumulative disturbance from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions of 116,537 acres (6% of the total water resources CESA). As summarized in Section 3.4.2.2.1, the proposed modifications to the currently authorized operations within the Vantage Complex are not expected to result in substantial direct or indirect effects to water resources relative to the impacts evaluated in the 2016 FEIS (BLM 2016). Therefore, no additional cumulative impacts to water resources would occur as a result of the Proposed Action.


Cumulative impacts to water resources would be the same as described for the Western Redbird Modification Alternative in the BMM FEIS (BLM 2016).

4.1.3 Wildlife and Fisheries Resources

Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions have resulted, or would result, in approximately 145,455 acres of total surface disturbance within the wildlife and fisheries resources CESA. The total quantifiable surface disturbances are related to mining, and oil and gas development. Past and present actions in the wildlife and fisheries resources CESA include mining projects totaling approximately 10,561 acres (see Table 4-2). RFFAs proposed within the wildlife and fisheries resources CESA (see Table 4-3)



include, but are not limited to, various hard rock mining and exploration projects (2,392 acres), various vegetation treatments and habitat improvement projects (77,896 acres) and the TransCanyon transmission line (unknown acreage).


Incremental impacts of the Proposed Action would include 49.5 acres of new disturbance, resulting in a total cumulative disturbance from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions of 140,498 acres (4% of the total wildlife and fisheries resources CESA). Surface disturbance and land use changes from the Proposed Action contribute to conversion of existing land uses, primarily open space and wildlife habitat, to industrial use, as well as surface disturbances that are not revegetated within the open pit areas of the Proposed Action. However, the total cumulative disturbance within the CESA represents a small portion of the overall land area, most of which would remain available as wildlife habitat.

There would be few, if any, cumulative effects on wildlife and wildlife habitat availability from the Proposed Action in conjunction with other past and present actions and RFFAs as the increase in surface disturbance is minor in comparison to previously authorized water use at the BMM.


Cumulative impacts to wildlife and fisheries resources would be the same as described for the Western Redbird Modification Alternative in the BMM FEIS (BLM 2016).

4.1.4 Special Status Species

Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions have resulted, or would result, in approximately 145,455 acres of total surface disturbance within the special status species CESA. The total quantifiable surface disturbances are related to mining, and oil and gas development. Past and present actions in the special status species CESA include mining projects totaling approximately 10,561 acres (see Table 4-2). RFFAs proposed within the special status species CESA (see Table 4-3) include, but are not limited to, various hard rock mining and exploration projects (17 acres), various vegetation treatments and habitat improvement projects (77,896 acres) and the TransCanyon transmission line (unknown acreage).


Incremental impacts of the Proposed Action would include 49.5 acres of new disturbance, resulting in a total cumulative disturbance from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions of 145,504 acres (4% of the total special status species CESA). Surface disturbance and land use changes from the Proposed Action contribute to conversion of existing land uses, primarily open space and wildlife habitat, to industrial use, as well as surface disturbances that are not revegetated within the open pit areas of the Proposed Action. However, the total cumulative disturbance within the CESA represents a small portion of the overall land area, most of which would remain available as wildlife habitat.

There would be few, if any, cumulative effects on special status species and their habitat from the Proposed Action in conjunction with other past and present actions and RFFAs as the increase in surface disturbance is minor in comparison to previously authorized water use at the BMM.


Cumulative impacts to special status species would be the same as described for the Western Redbird Modification Alternative in the BMM FEIS (BLM 2016).

4.1.5 Greater Sage-Grouse

Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions have resulted, or would result, in approximately 155,714 acres of total surface disturbance within the greater sage-grouse CESA. The total quantifiable surface disturbances are related to mining, oil and gas development, and wind energy development. Past and present actions in the greater sage-grouse CESA include mining projects totaling approximately 15,759 acres (see Table 4-2). RFFAs proposed within the greater sage-grouse CESA (see Table 4-3)



include, but are not limited to, various hard rock mining and exploration projects (4,031 acres), various vegetation treatments and habitat improvement projects (78,485 acres) and the TransCanyon transmission line (unknown acreage).


Incremental impacts of the Proposed Action would include 49.5 acres of new disturbance, resulting in a total cumulative disturbance from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions of 155,763 acres (4% of the total greater sage-grouse CESA). Surface disturbance and land use changes from the Proposed Action contribute to conversion of existing land uses, primarily open space and wildlife habitat, to industrial use, as well as surface disturbances that are not revegetated within the open pit areas of the Proposed Action. However, the total cumulative disturbance within the CESA represents a small portion of the overall land area, most of which would remain available for other uses.

There would be few, if any, cumulative effects on greater sage-grouse and their habitat from the Proposed Action in conjunction with other past and present actions and RFFAs as the increase in surface disturbance is minor in comparison to previously authorized water use at the BMM.


Cumulative impacts to special status species would be the same as described for the Western Redbird Modification Alternative in the BMM FEIS (BLM 2016).


4-5




4-6

Chapter 5 Consultation and Coordination

5.0 Consultation and Coordination

5.1 Introduction

This chapter summarizes the agency and public consultation and coordination conducted in support of this EA process.

5.2 Public Interest and Consultation

Public review of the EA will be completed over a 30-day review period during which the EA is posted electronically on the BLM ePlanning website and also available for hardcopy review on file at the BLM Ely District / Bristlecone Field Office in Ely, Nevada. Notice of the EA availability and a link to the ePlanning site is posted on the BLM Nevada website. Public comments on the EA will be accepted by the BLM via standard mail and electronically via the BLM project email address.

5.3 Organizations and Tribes Consulted

5.3.1 Organizations

Table 5-1 presents the organizations that were consulted during the development of this Environmental Assessment.

Table 5-1. Organizations Consulted during EA Development

Organization Representative Title

Nevada Department of Wildlife Lindsey Lesmeister Caleb McAdoo

Habitat Biologist Eastern Region Habitat Supervisor

Sagebrush Ecosystem Technical Team (SETT) Kelly McGowan Program Manager

Mt. Wheeler Power Jesse Murdock Engineering Manager

NDEP-BMRR Todd Suessmith Permit Manager

5.3.2 Tribes

The BLM Ely District, Bristlecone Field Office has consulted with Native American Tribes regarding this project area since 2009 (See Table 5-2). The Tribes have not indicated the presence of sites of religious or cultural importance in the project area. The Ely Shoshone Tribe and Duckwater Shoshone Tribe entered into a PA with the BLM and the SHPO regarding this project and consultation is ongoing. The main concerns consistently identified by tribes are protection of and access to natural, medicinal, and sacred resources, traditional use areas, and sacred sites. Each tribe also maintains a general concern for the welfare of plants, animals, air, landforms, and water.

Table 5-2 presents the Tribal organizations that were consulted during the development of this Environmental Assessment.

Table 5-2. Tribes Consulted During EA Development

Duckwater Shoshone Tribe Confederated Tribes of the Goshute Reservation


5-1

Consultation and Coordination Chapter 5

Te-Moak Tribe of Western Shoshone Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah

Te-Moak Tribe of Western Shoshone – Wells Band Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah – Cedar City Band

Te-Moak Tribe of Western Shoshone – South Fork Band

Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah – Indian Peaks Band

Te-Moak Tribe of Western Shoshone – Battle Mountain Band

Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah – Kaibab

Te-Moak Tribe of Western Shoshone – Elko Band Moapa Band of Paiute Indians

Winnemucca Indian Colony of Nevada Yomba Shoshone Tribe

Lovelock Paiute Tribe Las Vegas Paiute Tribe


5-2

Chapter 5 Consultation and Coordination



5-3

Chapter 6 List of Preparers

6.0 List of Preparers Table 6-1 lists the people responsible for preparing, reviewing, and disseminating this EA.

Table 6-1. List of BLM Preparers

Name Title Responsible for the Following Section(s)

of the Document

Mindy Seal Bristlecone Field Office Manager Authorized Officer

Stephanie Trujillo Assistant Field Manager Minerals Program Lead BFO

Concetta Brown Natural Resource Specialist Planning and Environmental Coordinator

Nancy Herms Wildlife Biologist Wildlife and Special Status Species Resources

Andrew Gault Hydrologist Water Resources

Randy Johnson Resource Specialist Hazardous Materials

John Miller Recreation Specialist Recreation/Wilderness/Visual Resources

Jessica Phelps Archeologist Cultural Resources

Scott Standfill Natural Resource Specialist Human Health and Safety

Nathan Chilcott Natural Resource Specialist Land Use and Public Access

Elizabeth Seymour Native American Coordinator Native American Consultation

Ian Collier Natural Resource Specialist Range Resources

Ruth Thompson Natural Resource Specialist Wild Horse and Burros

Table 6-2 presents the people responsible for assisting with preparation of this EA.

Table 6-2. List of Third-Party Consultant Preparers

Name Title Responsible for the Following Section(s)

of the Document

Scott Duncan Project Manager Senior Review

Andrew Newman Deputy Project Manager/Biologist Chapters 3, 4, 5, and 6; Wildlife and Special Status Species Resources

Dan Nally NEPA Specialist Chapters 1, 2, 3, and 4; Land Use and Access

Patrick Plumley* Hydrologist Chapters 3 and 4; Water Quality and Quantity

Jenna Wheaton NEPA Specialist Administrative Record

Brent Read GIS Analyst Geospatial Analysis

* Subcontractor to ICF.

Table 6-3 lists the KG-BM reviewers of this EA.

Table 6-3. List of KG-BM Reviewers

Name Title

Beth Ericksen Principal Advisor – Permitting (KG-BM)

Jim Butler Legal Counsel (Parsons, Behle, and Latimer)


6-1

List of Preparers Chapter 6



6-2

Chapter 7 References

7.0 References Bald Mountain Mine (BMM). 2016. Bald Mountain Mine Bird and Bat Conservation Strategy.

Barrick Gold U.S., Inc. (Barrick). 2015. Personal communication between B. Ericksen (Barrick) and M. Kreidler (BLM) regarding groundwater pumping estimates. May 22, 2015.

Bradley, P.V., M.J. O’Farrell, J.A. Williams, and J.E. Newmark, Editors. 2006. The Revised Nevada Bat Conservation Plan. Nevada Bat Working Group. Reno, Nevada. 216 pp.

Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 1991. Nevada State Office, Nevada Cyanide Management Plan. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. August 22, 1991.

_______. 1992. Solid Minerals Reclamation Handbook (H-3042-1). April 1992.

_______. 2008. Ely District Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan. BLM/NV/EL/PL-GI08/25+1793. August 2008.

_______. 2009. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Bald Mountain Mine North Operations Area Project. Bureau of Land Management, Ely District Office, Nevada. August 2009.

_______. 2015. Nevada and Northeastern California Greater Sage-Grouse Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Nevada State Office. September 2015.

_______. 2016. Bald Mountain Mine North and South Operations Area Projects Environmental Impact Statement. Final. Casefile NVN-082888 and 090443.

_______. 2017. BLM Instruction Memoranda NV-2018-003. Updated BLM Sensitive Species List for Nevada. November 22, 2017.

Geomega. 2017a. Memorandum: Summary of 2017 Vantage Complex Hydrogeologic Characterization Report, from C. Dacey, G. Nelson (Geomega) to B. Ericksen, August 31, 2017.

_______. 2017b. Vantage Complex Hydrogeologic Characterization. Prepared for Kinross Gold Corporation and Bald Mountain Mine, October 19, 2017.

JBR Environmental Consultants, Inc. (JBR). 2011. Waters of the United States Jurisdictional Determination and Wetland Delineation Survey, Bald Mountain Mine Expansion, White Pine County, Nevada. Prepared for Barrick Gold of North America, Bald Mountain Mine, Elko, Nevada. JBR Report Number 1049 Final, November 8, 2011. JBR Environmental Consultants, Inc., Elko, Nevada.

_______. 2012. 2012 Baseline Survey Report. Barrick Gold U.S., Inc. Bald Mountain Mine Project, White Pine County, Nevada. Prepared for Barrick Gold U.S., Inc. December 5, 2012.

KG Mining (Bald Mountain) Inc (KG-BM). 2017a. Bald Mountain Mine: Proposal for the Minor Modification to the South Operations Area Plan of Operations (NVN-090443) and Reclamation Permit Application (No. 0033). September 2017.

_______. 2017b. Water Pollution Control Permit Application South Operations Area, Bald Mountain Mine, April 2017.

_______. 2017c. Personal communication between B. Ericksen (KG-BM) and A. Newman (ICF) providing groundwater pumping estimates. December 7, 2017.

Mount Wheeler Power Company. 2017. Letter correspondence from Mt. Wheeler Power Company to Kinross Gold Bald Mountain. Dated August 21, 2017.

Nevada Department of Transportation. 2017. Traffic Records Information Access. Available at: https://www.nevadadot.com/doing-business/about-ndot/ndot-divisions/planning/traffic-information.

Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW). 2011. Appendix – Harvest, Survey, and Population Tables. Available at: http://www.ndow.org/about/pubs/reports/2011_bg_status_app.pdf. Accessed November 28, 2017.


7-1

http://www.ndow.org/about/pubs/reports/2011_bg_status_app.pdf

https://www.nevadadot.com/doing-business/about-ndot/ndot-divisions/planning/traffic-information

References Chapter 7

______. 2017. Personal Communication from Lindsey Lesmeister (NDOW) to Stephanie Trujillo (BLM) via email dated September 27, 2017.

NewFields 2017. Water Pollution Control Permit Application South Operations Area Vantage Complex Project Bald Mountain Mine – Fluid Management Plan.

Sagebrush Ecosystem Technical Team (SETT). 2017. Email correspondence from Kelly McGowan (SETT Program Manager) to Beth Ericksen (KG-BM). September 7, 2017.

SRK Consulting (SRK) 2008. Bald Mountain Project Area Biological Baseline Report. Prepared for Barrick Gold U.S., Inc., Bald Mountain Mine. January 2008.

_______. 2011. Bald Mountain Mine Potential Pygmy Rabbit Habitat Report. Prepared for Barrick Gold U.S., Inc. Bald Mountain Mine. August 2011.

Stantec. 2017. Pygmy Rabbit Survey Results Memorandum. June 19, 2017.

White Pine County Public Land Users Advisory Committee (PLUAC). 2007. White Pine County Public Lands Policy Plan. August 2007.

Wildlife Action Plan Team. 2012. Nevada Wildlife Action Plan. Public Review Draft 01/25/2012. Nevada Department of Wildlife, Reno, Nevada.


7-2

A.

SOUTH OPERATIONS AREA VANTAGE COMPLEX

ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

APPENDIX A – FIGURES


Legend White Pine auntyD North Operations Area ·········· Chain Link Fence - lnterpit Area

D South Operations Area - Powerline (BMM) - Landfill Eureka : p~~~i~ns ..,IGI Gate - Powerline (Mt. Wheeler) CJ Open Pit County Area o WaterWell - Access Road CJ Pond

Souto Monitor Well - Waterline - Powerline Corridor Oi er'" (A

Eure

ati Warm ·········· Barbed Wire Fence - Ancillary Area - Process Area rea Springs •

- Growth Media Stockpile CJ Rock Disposal Area (RDA) D Haul Road - Structure ka Steptoe•

Source: Kinross 2017. D Heap Leach Facility (HLF) CJ Yankee Pit Backfill Area

() Figure 1-1 Project Location and Layout N

Vantage RDA

Source: Kinross 2017.

0 0.5 Figure 2-1 ~~~~liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil Miles South Operations Area and TUC Modifications 1 :50,000

Vantage Pit

Vantage RDA

LegendD South Operations Area D Authorized Disturbance - Reclassified Disturbance - Proposed New Disturbance - Removed from Authorized


0 0 5 Figure 2-2 () ~~~~~~·iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii Miles Vantage Complex and TUC Modifications N 1:30.000

0 500 1,000 """"'~~"iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil\ Feet 1:12,000

Saga RDA

Vantage Pit

1,000 Feet

LegendD North Operations Area D South Operations Area D Authorized Disturbance - Reclassified Disturbance - Proposed New Disturbance - Removed from Authorized


() Figure 2-3 TUC Modifications N

Vantage Heap

Vantage RDA

LegendD South Operations Area ·········· Barbed Wire Fence D Heap Leach Facility (HLF)

@J Gate ·········· Chain Link Fence - lnterpit Area G Piezometer - Powerline (BMM) - Landfill fl Water Well - Powerline (Mt. Wheeler) D Open Pit G Monitor Well -- Access Road D Pond •!• Weather Station -- Waterline - Powerline Corridor

Ancillary Area - Process Area - Growth Media Stockpile D Rock Disposal Area (RDA)

Source: Kinross 2017. D Haul Road - Structure()o 0.25 0.5 Figure 2-4 Miles Vantage Complex Modifications N 1:30.000

LegendD South Operations Area ~ Reclassified Disturbance rs;:s:J Proposed New Disturbance B Removed from Authorized


- Growth Media Stockpile D Haul Road - lnterpit Area D Open Pit D Rock Disposal Area (RDA)

Vantage Pit

Figure 2-5 Luxe Pit Modifications

ft O 500 1,000 • , ~~~~~~iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil FeetN 1:?,200

Legend

Luxe Pit

Vantage RDA

D South Operations Area ~ Reclassified Disturbance rs:s:l Proposed New Disturbance B Removed from Authorized

Source: Kinross 2017 .

O Piezometer GI Monitor Well

Barbed Wire Fence - Powerline (BMM) - Powerline (Mt. Wheeler) - Ancillary Area - Growth Media Stockpile

Vantage Pit

D Haul Road D Heap Leach Facility (HLF) - lnterpit Area - Landfill D Open Pit D Rock Disposal Area (RDA)

- Structure

Ao soo 1,000 Figure 2-6 • , ~~iiiiiiiiiiiiiii Feet Vantage Pit Modifications N 1:9,600

Vantage RDA

LegendD South Operations Area ~ Reclassified Disturbance rs:s:l Proposed New Disturbance Existing Facilities - - Drainage Pipeline [I] Heap Leach Facility E:J Evaporation Pond


Vantage Pit

- Ancillary Area D Haul Road

Vantage Heap

D Heap Leach Facility (HLF)

- lnterpit Area - Landfill D Open Pit

Existing Drainage L-Pipeline \ (Approx. Location) \ \ \

:....., -

D Pond

\ \ \

- Powerline Corridor - Process Area D Rock Disposal Area (RDA)

- Structure

()o soo 1,000 Figure 2-7 Feet Vantage HLF Modifications N 1:11 .000

LegendD South Operations Area rzz1 lnterpit Area A [I]] lnterpit Area B ~ lnterpit Area C

Vantage RDA

- Ancillary Area - Growth Media

Stockpile D Haul Road D Heap Leach

Facility (HLF)

- lnterpit Area


Vantage Pit

Vantage Heap

D Open Pit

- Powerline Corridor

- Process Area D Rock Disposal

Area (RDA)

()o 0.25 0.5 Figure 2-8 Miles lnterpit Modifications N 1:30.000

Gator ___. Lime Silo

Vantage Heap

Process Pond

Stor.m/Event Rona

LegendD South Operations Area ••••• Chain Link Fence D Heap Leach Facility (HLF) ~ Reclassified Disturbance - Powerline (BMM) - lnterpit Area IS..'S.1 Proposed New Disturbance - Powerline (Mt. Wheeler) D Pond

fl Water Well -- Waterline - Powerline Corridor ••••• Barbed Wire Fence - Ancillary Area - Process Area

D Haul Road - Structure


ft O 250 500 Figure 2-9 • , ~~~~~~iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil Feet Process Area Modifications N 1:3,600

00

§ ~

0* "' ~ ~ ::, Vantageg RDA. 0

"ii ~ " ! a.:, 0

N 0

0

~ y ~ 0

"' ~ UJ 0

~ !ti @ ~

&: fC

~ 0 ~ 0

! 0

:<i 0 "' <I) -,;;

~ :;a . ~ e 9,

"" LegendD South Operations Area rzzJ Ancillary Area A IIlD Ancillary Area B E:J Ancillary Area C

@J Gate Iii Water Well G Monitor Well -•!• Weather Station -

Source: Kinross 2017. D

()o soo 1,000 Feet

N 1:12.000

Barbed Wire Fence Chain Link Fence Powerline (BMM) Powerline (Mt. Wheeler) Access Road Waterline Ancillary Area Growth Media Stockpile Haul Road

Vantage Heap

D --D D --D -

Heap Leach Facility (HLF) lnterpit Area Landfill Open Pit Pond Powerline Corridor Process Area Rock Disposal Area (RDA)

Structure

Figure 2-10 Ancillary Area Modifications and

Vantage Complex Powerline Corridor

Pnocess P.ond

Legend [Q] Gate Barbed Wire Fence - Ancillary Area \!, Water Well Chain Link Fence D Haul Road •:• Weather Station - Powerline (BMM) D Pond

- Powerline (Mt. Wheeler) - Powerline Corridor Access Road - Process Area Waterline - Structure


ft O 250 500 Figure 2.11 • , ~~~~iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil Feet Ancillary Area C Modifications and Well Locations N 1:4.aoo

1:12,000

/

LegendD North Operations Area D South Operations Area ·········· Barbed Wire Fence ·········· Chain Link Fence - Powerline (BMM) - Powerline (Mt. Wheeler) - Waterline

--D D --

Ancillary Area Growth Media Stockpile Haul Road Heap Leach Facility (HLF)

lnterpit Area Landfill

D D --D -

Open Pit Pond Powerline Corridor Process Area Rock Disposal Area (RDA)

Structure


2 Figure 2-12 () Ol""""'"""""""""""""""~iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil Miles TUC Power Line and Corridor Modifications N 1:92.000

Vantage

LegendD South Operations Area ~ GMSAreaA U1D GMS Area B ~ GMSAreaC


()o 0.25 0.5 Miles

N 1:30.000

Heap Vantage

RDA

·········· Barbed Wire Fence ·········· Chain Link Fence - Powerline (BMM) - Powerline (Mt. Wheeler) -- Access Road -- Waterline

Ancillary Area - Growth Media Stockpile D Haul Road

D Heap Leach Facility (HLF)

- lnterpit Area - Landfill D Open Pit D Pond - Powerline Corridor

Process Area D Rock Disposal Area (RDA)

- Structure Figure 2-13

Growth Media Stockpile Modifications

White Pine auntyD North Operations Area D South Operations Area - Access Road Eureka l p~~~i~ns ..,

County AreaPrimary Access Route So

Oi er'" (A

Eurek

ut ati Warm rea Springs•

a Steptoe•Source: Kinross 2017, NDOT 2017.

Legend

Shafter 0

I

ft ol""'~"'lii5iiiiiiiiiiiiiil10 Figure 3-1 • , MilesN 1:1 .000.000 Primary Access Routes and County Roads

Figure 3-2. Average Annual Daily Traffic for Primary Study Area Access Routes

700

530 560 560 570

520 550 550 550

600 600 600

Ave

rage

Ann

ual D

aily

Tra

ffic

500

400

300

200

100 100 10090 90 90 90 90 90 90 100

40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40

0 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Year

U.S. Highway 50 White Pine County Road 3 (Long Valley State Highway 892 (Strawberry Road) Road)

Source: Nevada Department of Transportation 2017

LegendD G ® 41

South Operations Area Piezometer WaterWell Monitor Well

• Seep or Spring • Baseline Monitoring Site 1

D Hydrographic Basin Boundary

- 1O' Drawdown Area

Sources: BLM 2016 (spring and seep inventory); Geomega 2017a, Geomega 2017b (well locations and drawdown).

2 Figure 3-3 () O~~~~~iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil Miles Drawdown Area and Springs and Seeps N 1:ao.000

LegendD South Operations Area Water Right Water Source D Hydrographic Basin Boundary = Surface Water - 1O' Drawdown Area /\ Groundwater

KG-BM Water Right Water Right Use Type • Mining/Milling • Stock Watering

Source: BLM 2016 (water rights inventory); Geomega 2017a, Geomega 2017b (well locations and drawdown).

2 Figure 3-4 ()0~~~~~--------- Miles Drawdown Area and Water Rights N 1:ao.000

00

0

~

*0 ~

0 ~ M .. ::,

g .,. 0 N

I•'g

I e

1 "'~ ~ 0

~ y ~ 0 <(

~ UJ 0

~ !ti @ ~

&:

" . N

Legend

Vantage RDA

fC

~ 0 ~ 0

! 0

:<i <( 0 "'-,;;

~ :;a

~ e 9,

""

D North Operations Area Greater Sage-grouse South Operations Area Management Categories (2014)

D Authorized Disturbance • Priority Habitat Management Area (PHMA) Eureka j p~~~i~ns • ., County Area

- Reclassified Disturbance • General Habitat Management Area (GHMA) Sout

- Proposed New Disturbance • Other Habitat Management Area (OHMA) Oi era

'" (Ar

Eurek

ti Warm - Removed from Authorized ea Springs•

a Steptoe•Source: Coates et al. 2014.

White Pine aunty

D

0 0.5 Figure 3-5 Greater Sage-grouse Habitat in the Project Area 1 :50,000

Documents

clearinghouse.nv.govclearinghouse.nv.gov/public/Notice/2018/E2018-110.pdf · It is the mission of the Bureau of Land Management to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity