blm star district mine reclamation ea [environmental assessment]

8/14/2019 BLM Star District mine reclamation EA [Environmental Assessment]

1/78

United States Department of the Interior

Bureau of Land Management

Environment Assessment UT-040-04-057

Star District Abandoned Mine Reclamation Project

Location: Township Range SectionsT28S R11W 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 15, 16, 17, 18,

19, 20, 21, 22Salt Lake Meridian

Applicant/Address: Abandoned Mine Reclamation ProgramUtah Division of Oil, Gas and Mining1594 West North TemplePO Box 145801Salt Lake City UT 84114-5801

U.S. Department of the InteriorBureau of Land Management

Cedar City Field Office176 East D.L. Sargent Drive

Cedar City, UT 84720Phone: (435) 586-2401

http://www.ut.blm.gov/cedarcity_fo/


2/78

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

Star District Abandoned Mine Reclamation Project

Utah Abandoned Mine Reclamation Program

AMR/001/902

Beaver County, Utah

Prepared by

Utah Abandoned Mine Reclamation Programand

Bureau of Land Management, Cedar City District

on behalf of the

USDOI Office of Surface Mining

February 9, 2007


3/78

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EA UT-040-04-057

1.0 PURPOSE & NEED .............................................................................. 11.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................... 11.2 Background ................................................................................................................................................ 11.3 Need for the Proposed Action ....................................................................................................... 21.4 Purpose(s) of the Proposed Action............................................................................................ 21.5 Conformance with BLM Land Use Plan(s):.......................................................................... 21.6 Relationship to Statutes, Regulations, or other Plans: ................................................. 31.7 Identification of Issues: ...................................................................................................................... 31.8 Summary ..................................................................................................................................................... 4

2.0 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING PROPOSEDACTION ......................................................................................................... 5

2.1 Introduction: ............................................................................................................................................... 52.2 Alternative A Proposed Action: ................................................................................................ 52.3 Alternative B No Action ................................................................................................................. 82.4 Alternatives Considered, but Eliminated from Further Analysis ...........................8

3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT.............................................................. 93.1 Introduction................................................................................................................................................. 93.2 General Setting ....................................................................................................................................... 93.3 Critical Elements of the Human Environment and Other Resources BroughtForward for Analysis ..................................................................................................................................... 9

3.3.1 Public Safety ................................................................................................................................ 103.3.2 Cultural Resources.................................................................................................................... 10

3.3.3 Sensitive Animal Species ..................................................................................................... 104.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS.......................................................... 13

4.1 Introduction............................................................................................................................................... 134.2 Direct/Indirect Impacts...................................................................................................................... 13

4.2.1 Alternative A Proposed Action ...................................................................................... 134.2.2. Alternative B No Action .................................................................................................... 13

4.3 Cumulative Impacts Analysis....................................................................................................... 134.3.1 Past and Present Actions ..................................................................................................... 134.3.2 Reasonably Foreseeable Action Scenario (RFAS) ............................................ 144.3.3 Cumulative Impacts: ................................................................................................................ 14

5.0 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION: .................................... 15

5.1 Introduction............................................................................................................................................... 155.2 Persons, Groups, and Agencies Consulted....................................................................... 155.3 Summary of Public Participation:.............................................................................................. 155.4 List of Preparers ................................................................................................................................... 16

6.0 REFERENCES, GLOSSARY AND ACRONYMS ......................... 176.1 References Cited:................................................................................................................................ 176.2 Glossary of Terms and Acronyms............................................................................................ 18


4/78

APPENDICESAppendix A. Interdisciplinary Team Analysis Record ChecklistAppendix B. MapsAppendix C. Mine Closure ScheduleAppendix D. Mine Closure and Construction Methods

Appendix E. Reclamation Seed MixAppendix F. Section 0300 Star District Project Reclamation Construction Contract

SpecificationsAppendix G. Standard Operating Procedures and Stipulations


5/78

1

Star District Abandoned Mine Reclamation ProjectEnvironmental Assessment UT-040-04-057

1.0 PURPOSE & NEED

1.1 Introduction

This Environmental Assessment (EA) has been prepared to disclose and analyze theenvironmental consequences of the Star District Abandoned Mine Reclamation Project asproposed by the Utah Division of Oil, Gas and Mining (DOGM). The EA is a site-specific analysis of potential impacts that could result with the implementation of aproposed action or alternatives to the proposed action. The EA assists the BLM and theOffice of Surface Mining (OSM) in project planning and ensuring compliance with theNational Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and in making a determination as to whetherany significant impacts could result from the analyzed actions. Significance isdefined by NEPA and is found in regulation 40 CFR 1508.27. An EA provides evidence

for determining whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or astatement of Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). If the BLM decision makerdetermines that this project has significant impacts following the analysis in the EA,then a Notice of Intent (NOI) to write an EIS would be prepared for the project. If not, aDecision Record may be signed for the EA approving the selected alternative, whetherthe proposed action or another alternative. For the BLM, the Decision Record (DR),including a FONSI statement, documents the reasons why implementation of the selectedalternative would not result in significant environmental impacts (effects) beyond thosealready addressed in the Pinyon Management Framework Plan signed June 10, 1983.OSM will issue either a NOI or a FONSI. If OSM issues a FONSI, it will also issue anAuthorization to Proceed, authorizing the expenditure of federal funds.

1.2 BackgroundThe project would be carried out by the Utah Division of Oil, Gas and Minings (DOGM)Abandoned Mine Reclamation Program (AMRP) under the authority of the SurfaceMining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (P. L. 95-87) (SMCRA) and would beconducted in partnership with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The UtahAMRP has primacy in the state to conduct SMCRA authorized abandoned minereclamation. The Western Regional Coordinating Center, Denver Field Office, OSM,U.S. Department of Interior, is the Federal agency which funds and oversees thisprogram. OSM wrote a programmatic environmental impact statement that discusses theimpacts of abandoned mine reclamation (OSM EIS 11 in 1983 (USDOI-OSM).

The purpose of the AMRP is to abate physical safety hazards associated with abandonedmines under the authority of Title IV of SMCRA. Only mines that meet the definition ofabandoned as defined in SMCRA are eligible for funding. Funding comes from a taxon current coal production. A percentage of this tax is returned to the state of origin bythe U.S. Congress through the Office of Surface Mining specifically for use in thereclamation of abandoned mines. Mines within the EA analysis area meet the Priority 1safety hazard requirement in SMCRA.


6/78

2

The proposed project would address hazardous abandoned mine openings on private andpublic lands in the Star Range area of Beaver County, Utah. The project area issouthwest of the town of Milford and throughout the Star Range mountains (seeAppendix B - Map 1). Access to the project areas is via existing graded roads,

unimproved dirt roads, trails, and footpaths. The proposed construction work isestimated to require approximately 6 months to complete. Reclamation constructioncould commence in early 2007 and end as late as September 2008.

Visitors to these mines are exposed to a wide variety of physical safety hazards andpotential health hazards. Old mine access roads lead directly to the mine sites makingthem a destination for hikers and mining history enthusiasts. This current ease of accessincreases the risk to the public. This project proposes to close mine portals and eliminatehazards in such a way as to preserve the historic values and provide visitors a saferrecreational experience.

Beaver County is located in southwestern Utah about 212 miles south of Salt Lake Cityand 235 miles north of Las Vegas (http://www.beavercountyutahtc.com/2005). Miningfirst began in Beaver County in 1858 and experienced a series of booms and busts as themineral commodity industry went through various cycles of activity related to regional,national and worldwide economic conditions

1.3 Need for the Proposed Action

The DOGM/AMRP proposes, in cooperation with the Bureau of Land Management(BLM), to close hazardous abandoned mine openings in the Star District Mining District,in the northeastern portion of Beaver County, Utah. Two hundred and eighty oneopenings are proposed for closure, of these, 137 are on lands managed by the Cedar City

Field Office (CCFO) of the BLM. The proposed action is needed because these openabandoned mines pose physical safety hazards to the public. Abandoned mines arehazardous because they are no longer maintained, lack ventilation and may collapse.People may become lost or injured inside them. Nationwide an average of thirty deathsoccur a year at abandoned mine sites (MSHA, 2005).

1.4 Purpose(s) of the Proposed Action

The purpose of the proposed action is to assist DOGM in meeting their objectives for safemining and mineral-related activities within the State of Utah. The purpose is also tosupport BLM Utahs abandoned mine reclamation program.

1.5 Conformance with BLM Land Use Plan(s):

The proposed action and alternative described below are in conformance with PinyonManagement Framework Plan (MFP), approved June 10, 1983. Although the proposedaction and alternative are not specifically mentioned in the plan, they are consistent withthe objectives, goals, and decisions of the approved plan. It has been determined that theproposed action and alternative would not conflict with other decisions throughout theplan.


7/78

3

1.6 Relationship to Statutes, Regulations, or other Plans:

The proposed action and alternative are consistent with federal, state and local laws,regulations, and plans to the maximum extent possible, including the following:

Taylor Grazing Act (TGA) of 1934

Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.)Public Rangelands Improvement Act (PRIA) of 1978Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 (as amended)43 CFR 4100 Grazing Administration-Exclusive of AlaskaStandards of Quality for Waters of the State, R317-2-6, Utah Administrative Code,December 1997BLM Utah Riparian Management Policy, UT-93-93, March 1993.Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (as amended).National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (as amended)Executive Order 11988 (floodplains)Executive Order 11990 (wetlands)

Executive Order 12898 (environmental justice)Executive Order 13186 (Migratory Bird Treaty Act)Clean Air Act of 1970 (As Amended)American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1979Archaeological Resource Protection Act of 1980

Rangeland Health Assessments (2002)

1.7 Identification of Issues:

This proposal was posted on the BLMs Electronic Notification Bulletin Board inJanuary, 2006. Public comments have not been received by the CCFO. Issues wereidentified through public involvement and input from the CCFO resource specialists.

Resources are either analyzed later in this document or, if not impacted, are listed in theattached Interdisciplinary Team Analysis Record Checklist (Appendix A).

An open house was held for the public on June 13, 2006 in Milford, Utah. Issues raisedat the open house included landowner rights, cultural/historic values, continued use ofhistoric mine access roads, and the continued viability of the potential economic value ofmineral resources. These issues are addressed briefly below:

Landowner RightsConcern: land owners would not be allowed control over their properties.Response: mine closures and reclamation would not occur on private land without the

claim/landowners permission in the form of a signed Right of Entry (ROE).

Cultural/historic ValuesConcern: the cultural and historic integrity of the mining district would be lost.Response: all closure designs would be designed to have minimal impact on the historic

resource. Potential impacts to cultural resources will be described in moredetail later in this document.


8/78

4

AccessConcern: historic mine access roads would not longer be usable.Response: roads would be left open and in pre-reclamation condition.

Mine Economic Viability

Concern: closing the mine workings would prohibit future exploration or development.Response: the proposed safeguarding of abandoned mine entrances would not affect theeconomic value of mineral resources. All mining and exploration optionswould remain open as long as the operator observes all applicable local, stateand federal rules and regulations that pertain to mineral activity.

In addition, BLM resource specialists identified potential impacts to public safety,cultural resources and special status species during an internal scoping process. Theseissues will be discussed further in chapters 3 and 4 of this EA.

1.8 Summary

This chapter has presented the purpose and need of the proposed project, as well as therelevant issues, i.e., those elements of the human environment that could be affected bythe implementation of the proposed project. In order to meet the purpose and need of theproposed project in a way that resolves the issues, the BLM has developed a range ofaction alternatives. These alternatives, as well as a no action alternative, are presented inChapter 2. The potential environmental impacts or consequences resulting from theimplementation of each alternative are then analyzed in Chapter 4 for each of theidentified issues.


9/78

5

2.0 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING PROPOSED

ACTION

2.1 Introduction:

The proposed action and the No Action Alternative are considered the only reasonable

alternatives. No issues were raised during the scoping process that would suggest oridentify other alternatives. The No Action Alternative is considered and analyzed toprovide a baseline for comparison of the impacts of the proposed action.

2.2 Alternative A Proposed Action:

The proposed action would consist of closing 281 mine openings and returning thedisturbed areas and access to as close to the pre-project conditions as feasible in twophases. Of the 281 mine openings, 128 are adits or horizontal openings and 153 areshafts or vertical openings. Thirty three would be closed by hand placed backfill, 172would be sealed by heavy machinery placed backfill, 7 would be closed by gate, 39would be closed by grate, 14 would be closed using Polyurethane foam (PUF), 6 would

be closed using a combination of methods and 10 would be sealed by the construction ofnative rock or masonry block walls. One hundred and thirty seven (137) of these mineopenings (or 49%) are located on public lands managed by the CCFO, 141 (or 50%) areprivately owned and 3 sites (1%) are on state land. A summary list of the mine openingsand the recommended closures for each site can be found in Appendix C (Mine ClosureSchedule). The proposed access to the mine sites and staging areas are identified on Map8 (See Appendix B).

Under this proposal, the Western Regional Coordinating Center, Denver Field Office,OSM would authorize the expenditure of $400,000 for abandoned mine reclamationproject activities by DOGM/AMRP as authorized under Title IV of the Surface Mining

Control and Reclamation Act of 1977. The BLM would authorize DOGM/AMRP toenter public lands for the purpose of implementing abandoned mine land reclamation.

The project would be bid by the State of Utah Division of Purchasing and would beconducted by a qualified Contractor and managed by the AMRP. Closure designs wouldutilize methods that have been used by the Utah AMRP for over twenty years. Specificmethods are discussed in detail in Part 4 of this document and in Appendix D (Closureand Construction Methods).

Type of Closure Number

proposed

Hand backfill 33

Equipment backfill 172

Wall 10

Gate 7

Grate 39

PUF 14

Combination 6

TOTAL Mine Closures 281


10/78

6

Backfilling mine openings would be accomplished by placing fill material taken from themine waste dumps and placing it inside the mine openings by hand or with the use ofequipment. Blasting may be used to generate backfill material. Wall closures would beaccomplished by constructing cement block or native stone walls. Block walls wouldhave a stucco facing placed on the outer surface to blend the closure with surrounding

rock surfaces. Pits and trenches would be filled with backfill material to a height of 24inches or more above the collar of the opening in order to direct drainage away from thebackfilled mine feature and allow the material to settle. Surface disturbance necessaryfor closure of mine openings would be limited to the existing area of disturbance causedby previous mining activities and is estimated to be less than 1/10 acre per feature plussome access related disturbance for an estimated total of less than 30 acres for closure ofall the mine features. Trash and refuse from the construction would be removed anddisposed of in a solid land fill in accordance with state and local regulations.

Polyurethane foam would be used in cases where no fill is available, no equipment accessexists or where other closure methods are not feasible. The PUF closure of adits consists

of installing a bulkhead form, installing PUF to specifications, and backfilling over thePUF with random fill. In shafts, the closure work consists of installing a bottom form,installing PUF to specifications, installing drainage material, topping the PUF with alayer of concrete, and backfilling over the PUF to the specified level with random fill.For shafts, one ventilation/drainage pipe would be required.

Construction would be performed in a way that minimizes disturbance to the ground andvegetation. Truck and equipment access to mine sites would utilize existing access withlimited improvements. Staging areas would be limited to three previously disturbed areasas identified in Appendix B (Map 8 - Mine Access and Staging Area Locations). Backfillsources would normally be the mine waste dump adjacent to the mine opening, the browand slope above the opening, and nearby surface rock. All backfill material would beobtained in a manner designed to preserve the visual appearance/contour of the site.Access improvement would be removed at the completion of the work. All areasdisturbed by construction activities would be seeded by hand broadcast using a seed mixspecified by the BLM (see Appendix F).

The proposed closure method for each mine opening would be determined based onsafety, inventory data (threatened and endangered plant or animal species, bat surveys,cultural surveys, paleontological surveys, etc.) and the weighing of these resourceconcerns at each opening to select the closure method with the fewest resource conflicts.Some closure methods may be altered from their description in the contract specificationsat the actual time of construction due to re-analysis or changes in conditions since theinventory was completed. Such changes cannot be predicted, but are expected to berelatively minor (less than 5% of the total). Any changes or additions would be based onthe same criteria used to develop the proposed action.

If any previously unrecorded prehistoric or historic cultural sites or paleontological sitesare encountered, work would stop and a BLM archaeologist or paleontologist would becontacted. Newly discovered cultural or paleontological sites would be recorded,


11/78

7

evaluated, and proper treatment determined in compliance with 36 CFR Part 800.11 inconsultation with the BLM archaeologist, the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO)and BLM paleontologist.

To prevent the spread of Invasive, Non-native Species, all equipment used in the

proposed project would be power washed before being brought into the project area. Allseed used for revegetation would be certified as weed and noxious seed free. No InvasiveNon-Native Species would be knowingly introduced in the area.

DOGM/AMRP would perform surveys around work locations for raptor nests. Surveyswould be performed during the spring territory and nest establishment period and again atthe time of construction. If active nests are found, DOGM/AMRP would follow the timeand distance buffer recommendations in the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)raptor protection guidelines (Romin and Muck, 1999) for that species. Construction workwithin buffer zones would be rescheduled until after fledging. If observation of nestsshows that young have fledged in advance of the dates in the guidelines, DOGM/AMRP

may request a variance from USFWS to allow earlier work. This would only be done inconsultation with UDWR and USFWS

Mines with bat use would be sealed with bat-compatible closures or would receivemeasures to prevent entombing bats. Wherever geotechnical conditions allow, steelgrates that allow bat use and maintain ventilation would be used as mine closures atmines used by bats. Where bat-compatible closures are not possible, methods would beused to exclude bats prior to closure to avoid entombing bats

The mine closure work would be completed in 2007 at an estimated total cost ofapproximately $400,000. Work would start in early 2007 with the possibility of workcontinuing in 2008 if weather or other unanticipated events prevented completion fromoccurring in 2007. Work at each mine site would take from one to four days to completeclosure and reclamation. The DOGM/AMRP project manager and/or constructioninspector would be onsite during construction for the duration of the project.

Details of the proposed reclamation work are contained in the contract specificationsentitled Section 0300 Star District Project Reclamation Construction ContractSpecifications (Appendix E), and Standard Operating Procedures and Stipulations(Appendix G).

Post Project MonitoringMonitoring would be performed by the BLM within the first year of completion ofconstruction to evaluate closure effectiveness, stability, revegetation success, andpresence of noxious weeds. The BLM would continue monitoring once a year for thefirst five years and then on a five-year cycle thereafter.

Revegetation would be considered successful if cover equals or surpasses 90% of thecover found in the surrounding area, invasive plant species account for no more than 10%of the total herbaceous cover and no noxious weeds are present. If noxious weeds are


12/78


13/78

9

3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

3.1 Introduction

This chapter presents the potentially affected existing environment (i.e., the physical,

biological, social, and economic values and resources) of the impact area as identified inthe Interdisciplinary Team Analysis Record Checklist found in Appendix A. Thischapter provides the baseline for comparison of impacts/consequences described inChapter 4. The affected environment of the Proposed Action and No Action alternativeswere considered and analyzed by an interdisciplinary team as documented in AppendixA. The checklist indicates which resources of concern are either not present in the projectarea or would not be impacted to a degree that requires detailed analysis, includingCritical Elements. Critical Elements of the Human Environment are those elements thatare subject to specific statute, regulation, or executive order, and must be considered inall EAs (BLM H-1790-1, Appendix 5). Resources, including Critical Elements, whichcould be impacted to a level requiring further analysis, are described in this chapter and

impacts on these resources are analyzed in Chapter 4.

3.2 General Setting

The proposed project area is located in central Beaver County in the Star Range (SeeAppendix B - Map 1). The elevation ranges from 5,000 to 7,000 feet with the averageelevation of the project area being around 6,000 feet above sea level. The mean annualprecipitation in Milford is 9.03 inches. The mean annual maximum temperature is 65.5degrees Fahrenheit and the mean annual minimum temperature is 33.3 degrees Fahrenheit(Western Regional Climate Center). Most of the precipitation falls during thewinter/spring months or as thunderstorm events usually occurring in July and August.The area has been impacted previously by grazing, the development of roads for mineral

exploration development and mining activity. The area occurs in the Upper SonoranCommunity and species such as pinyon-juniper woodlands, intermixed with lowsagebrush, shadscale, characterize the area (Grahame; USGS).

3.3 Critical Elements of the Human Environment and Other Resources Brought

Forward for Analysis

Seven of the fourteen critical elements of the human environment are either not present inthe project area or would not be impacted by the proposed action or alternative: Areas ofCritical Environmental Concern, Environmental Justice, Farm Lands (prime or unique),Floodplains, Wetlands/riparian zones, Wild and Scenic Rivers and Wilderness. Fivecritical elements of the human environment are present in the project area, but would not

be affected by the proposed action or alternative: Air Quality, Native American ReligiousConcerns, Invasive Non-Native Species, Wastes (hazardous or solid), and Water QualityThese resources are addressed in the Interdisciplinary Team Analysis Record Checklist(Appendix A). They will not be addressed further in this document.

Public safety, along with two critical elements, cultural resources and sensitive animalspecies, could be impacted by the proposed action and are described and discussed indetail below.


14/78

10

3.3.1 Public Safety

There are 281 recorded sites proposed for closure. Visitors to these mines are exposed toa wide variety of physical safety hazards and potential health hazards. Old mine accessroads lead directly to the mine sites making them a destination for hikers and mininghistory enthusiasts. This current ease of access increases the risk to the public.

Abandoned mines are hazardous because they are no longer maintained, lack ventilationand may collapse. People may become lost or injured inside them. Nationwide anaverage of thirty deaths occur a year at abandoned mine sites (MSHA, 2005).

3.3.2 Cultural Resources

A cultural survey of the area resulted in the identification of 47 cultural sites, of which 14were identified eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP)under criterion A and D. There were six eligible sites, which include 107 mine openings,found on BLM managed lands which would require less than 1300 feet of cross countrytravel by heavy machinery, (see Appendix B, Maps).

Closure methods at all sites have been designed to protect all cultural and paleontologicalfeatures. Archeological inventories have been conducted at all openings. Closuremethods at sites determined to be eligible for listing on the National Register of HistoricPlaces have been designed so that there would be no adverse impact on historicresources. The Utah State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) did not comment andhence concurred with the AMRPs determination that the proposed action, if these designconsiderations are used, would have no adverse effect on cultural properties and that theproject is in compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.

No known sites of Native American religious significance would be affected. The PaiuteIndian Tribe of Utah has been consulted under the terms of a Memorandum of Agreement

with the CCFO.

Since there has been a no adverse affect determination made for cultural resources, thisresource will not be discussed further in this document.

3.3.3 Sensitive Animal Species

According to the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, four federally protected speciescould occur in Beaver County: bald eagle, California condor, yellow-billed cuckoo andthe Utah prairie dog. None of these species are known to exist in the proposed projectarea.

Five Utah Sensitive Species, the ferruginous hawk, big free-tailed bat, fringed myotis,Townsend's big-eared bat, and kit fox could occur in this area of Beaver Countyaccording to the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources Natural Heritage Program (NHP).Migratory non-game birds also pass through the area.

HawksThe ferruginous hawk is listed as threatened by the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources(UDWR). The NHP identified four nests that are within 0.5 milesof 12 mines slated for


15/78

11

closure in the lower elevation portion of the proposed project area. Other suitable habitatexists for nesting raptors within the proposed project area. No site-specific raptor surveyshave been conducted in or around the project area. The NHP knows of no peregrinefalcon aeries (or any other raptor nests) located within one mile of the project area, exceptfor an unused bald eagle nest. The AMRP is attuned to the possibility of ferruginous

hawk in the area and will be alert for their presence. Prior to start of work during theearly spring territory and nest establishment period, the AMRP would perform nestsurveys. Construction work within buffer zones would be rescheduled until afterfledging if any active nests were discovered. The AMRP would perform line-of-sightsurveys around work locations at the time of construction. If nesting ferruginous hawksare observed, AMRP personnel would notify UDWR and follow the USFWS raptorprotection guidelines (Romin and Muck, 1999) for time and space buffers. Any variancefrom this protocol would only be done in consultation with UDWR, USFWS, and BLM.The proposed project work would be unlikely to have an affect on the ferruginous hawk.If an affect should occur it would be very short term and limited to the immediate area ofthe mine opening.

Bats

The AMRP has completed warm and cold season underground surveys of Star Projectmines to determine which are considered suitable habitat for bat use (Diamond &Diamond, 2004, 2006). One hundred and twenty eight (128) mines were considered aspotentially suitable for bat use and evaluated by survey. Internal and external bat surveyswere conducted during the summer peak activity period and during the winterhibernation. Seventy two (72) mine openings were determined to have little to nopotential for usage by bats. Fifty four (54) mine openings (9 adits, 41 shafts and 4inclines) were recommended for bat compatible gates or grates. The presence of guano,flying insect parts and/or roosting potential were the criteria used to determine likely

roosts. These mines may serve as a combination of day roosts, night roosts or both.Three mines appear to serve as maternity roosts.

Evidence of at least five species of bats was found. These include Big brown bat(Eptesicus fuscus), Townsend's Big-eared bats (Corynorhinus townsendii), Pallid bats(Antorzous pallidus), and a Western small-footed Myotis (Myotis ciliolabrum) and otherMyotis species (Diamond and Diamond, 2003). Of these, only the Townsends big-earedbat is listed as a wildlife species of concern by the UDWRs Natural Heritage Program(Diamond, 2006).

Bat biologists recommended gating or grating 56 mines based on the undergroundsurveys. This recommendation was incorporated into the Mine Closure Specificationdesigns. In the proposed action, 205 backfills, 10 walls, 14 PUFs, 7 gates, 30 grates and6 custom combination type closures would be installed during the closure project.Therefore, closing mine openings could reduce bat habitat. To avoid entombing bats, theproposed action requires temporary exclusion devices be placed in mine openings forthree to five consecutive days prior to permanent closure. This involves placing chickenwire nets over the mine opening and securing the edges around the opening. Bats insidethe mine exiting to feed would stop when they encounter the wire net. Bats would light


16/78

12

and negotiate their way through the wire and continue out to forage. Rather thanrenegotiate the wire net, bats would tend to find another nearby roost and not return to themine. This allows bats to emerge for feeding purposes but discourages re-entry (Mesch,2003). To avoid entombing hibernating bats, mines would not be closed during thewinter months. Bat surveys were conducted during the summer peak activity period and

during the winter hibernation period at all suitable abandoned mine workings in theproposed action. Bats are extremely aware of their environment and often use a numberof different roost sites concurrently. Mines that show no evidence of use at the time of thesurveys likely do not meet the rather specific needs that bats require. Since roost sitesare a limiting factor, it is not likely that mines showing no use at the time of the surveywould become favorable roost sites at a later time, unless some physical change occurredto improve the mines internal environment. All mines that could be safely examinedinternally would be checked prior to closure. Because of these protective measures, theproposed project work would not adversely affect bats.

Kit Fox

Kit foxes could be present in the project area. Pups are born in February or March andemerge from the den after about 1 month. They attain adult weight by July or August.Kit foxes make frequent den changes during the summer. Kit foxes have been known touse artificial dens, such as culverts or well casing pipe (McGrew, 1979). Kit foxes mightbe disturbed by construction activities, but they would be directly affected only if theywere using a mine for a den, which is unlikely, since mines have different characteristicsfrom natural or observed artificial dens. If the animals were disturbed by the proposedwork it is likely that the animals would move to a new den. Any den changes made inresponse to human activity would fit into a pattern of natural den-shifting behavior. Theproposed project work would not likely affect the kit fox.


17/78

13

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

4.1 Introduction

This section describes the changes which could occur to the existing environment if the

proposed action or alternatives are implemented.

4.2 Direct/Indirect Impacts

4.2.1 Alternative A Proposed Action

It is assumed for this analysis that funding would be available for the proposed action andthat the actions would be implemented as proposed.

4.2.1 1 Public Safety

The greatest impact from the proposed action would be to public safety. Injuriesresulting from falling into workings, falling debris with workings, poor ventilation,

getting lost or other hazardous would be prevented. Those who wished to enter themines, however, would be prevented from doing so, which could be frustrating to a fewmine-exploration enthusiasts.

4.2.1.2. Cultural Resources and Sensitive Animal Species

As detailed in Chapter 3, impacts to these resources would be mitigated to the point thatany effects would be negligible. Minor short-term impacts might be noticeable duringclosure and reclamation activities, but would not affect the area for more than a few days.

4.2.1.3 Mitigation Measures

No mitigation measures would be required beyond those included in the proposed action.

4.2.1.4 Monitoring and/or Compliance

Monitoring activities are described in the proposed action and in Appendix D.

4.2.2. Alternative B No Action

There would be no environmental consequences associated with no action alternative,except for the continued public safety hazards. Open abandoned mines would remain ahazard to the recreating public's health and safety. Those wishing to explore the mineswould not be prevented from doing so. No disturbance, displacement, or intentionalmortality of wildlife would occur.

4.3 Cumulative Impacts AnalysisCumulative impacts are those impacts resulting from the incremental impact of an actionwhen added to other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable actions regardless of whatagency or person undertakes such other actions.

4.3.1 Past and Present Actions

The proposed project area has been previously impacted by hard rock-metal miningactivity for over one hundred years. Mining activity has involved road development,


18/78

14

exploration, creation of open and hazardous mine features, mine waste dumps, structures,buildings, and debris. Although exploration activities have continued, mining activityhas decreased dramatically in the last thirty years. The only other frequent land use in thearea has been livestock grazing.

4.3.2 Reasonably Foreseeable Action Scenario (RFAS)

The potential for future mining activity in the Star Range exists. Exploration will likelycontinue, predominately by drilling the subsurface. It is unknown if large scaleoperations would be initiated in the future.

4.3.3 Cumulative Impacts:The proposed action would help to mitigate public safety concerns left from past miningand exploration activities. Since impacts from the proposed action are expected to benegligible to other resources, no cumulative impacts would be anticipated.


19/78

15

5.0 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION:

5.1 IntroductionThe issue identification section of Chapter 1 identifies those issues analyzed in detail inChapter 4. Appendix A provides the rationale for issues that were considered but not

analyzed further. The issues were identified through the public and agency involvementprocess described in sections 5.2 and 5.3 below.

5.2 Persons, Groups, and Agencies Consulted

Table 5-1: List of Persons, Agencies and Organizations Consulted for this EA.

Name

Purpose & Authorities for

Consultation or Coordination Findings & Conclusions

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS)

Information on Consultation, underSection 7 of the EndangeredSpecies Act (16 USC 1531)

DOGM determined that the proposed projectwould have No Effect on species listed asthreatened or endangered by the USFWS.This determination was submitted to theUSFWS on October 6, 2006. The USFWS

does not consult on No Effect determinations.UDWR provided presence and location datafor species they have identified as Sensitive.

Utah State Historic PreservationOffice (SHPO)

Consultation for undertakings, asrequired by the National HistoricPreservation Act (NHPA) (16 USC470)

DOGM determined that the Star DistrictProject would have No Adverse Effect onhistoric properties. The Utah SHPO agreedwith this determination at a meeting onDecember 18, 2006. The SHPO had nocomment to the letter describing DOGMsdeterminations which connotes agreement.Correspondence is on file at the DOGMoffice.

Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah Consultation as required by theAmerican Indian ReligiousFreedom Act of 1978 (42 USC1531) and NHPA (16 USC 1531)

The Tribe has been consulted and does nothave any concerns regarding the project.Documentation of consultation is available inthe project case file in the CCFO office.

Utah Div. of Wildlife Resources Consult with UDWR as the agencywith expertise on impacts on gamespecies.

Data and analysis regarding game speciesincorporated into Chapters 3 and 4.

Utah Public Lands CoordinatingCouncil

Professional archeological support Provided cultural interpretation assistance.

Everett Bassett, Archeologist Professional archeologist, contractarcheologist for DOGM

Provided cultural interpretation assistance.

Joel Diamond, Bat Biologist Contract Biologist for DOGM Provided bat survey.

Office of Surface Mining Federal agency under whichDOGM has Primacy for SMCRATitle IV Program in Utah

Will issue FONSI and issue Authorization toProceed

5.3 Summary of Public Participation:During preparation of the EA, the public was notified of the proposed action by postingon the Utah Internet Homepage in January 2006. No parties have contacted the BLM inresponse to the notice. A 30-day public comment period will be offered to the public andthe responses considered before a Decision Record is signed for this EA.


20/78


21/78

17

6.0 REFERENCES, GLOSSARY AND ACRONYMS

6.1 References Cited:Altenbach, Scott J. 1998. Abandoned Mines As Bat Habitat. Cultural ResourceManagement Magazine, No 7, 1998. National Park Service.

Cronquist, Arthur; Arthur H. Holmgren, Noel H. Holmgren and James L. Reveal. 1972Intermountain Flora, Vascular Plants of the Intermountain West, U.S.A. by The NewYork Botanical Garden, Hafner Publishing Company.

Diamond, Gabrielle F. and Joel M. Diamond, July 2004. An Evaluation of AbandonedUnderground Precious and Base Metal Hard Rock Mines as Bat Roosting Habitat in theStar District Abandoned Mine Project Area, Beaver County, Utah. Internal report, UtahDivision of Oil, Gas and Mining.

Grahame, John D. and Thomas D. Sisk, ed. 2002. Canyons, cultures and environmental

change: An introduction to the land-use history of the Colorado Plateau. 06/12/06http://www.cpluhna.nau.edu/.

Meier, Len. 2001. Quality of Mine Reclamation Vital for Bat Conservation,www.doi.gov/plw/febmar2001/bat.htm

Mesch, Mark R. 2003. Personal communication.

Mine Safety and Health Administration, 2005. http://www.msha.gov/SOSA/fatalstats.htm

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 2003

Newell, Linda King and Vivian Linford Talbot, 1998. A History of Beaver County.Utah State Historical Society Publication, Salt Lake City, Utah

Snyder, Teresa. 2003. Personal communication.

Southworth, Don and LeAnn C. Schuster, Tanya Johnson and Sandy Chynoweth Pagano,2006. A Cultural Resource Inventory of the North Star Mining District, Beaver County,Utah. 59 pp.

Stein, B.A., L.S. Kutner, and J.S. Adams. 2000. Precious Heritage, The Status of

Biodiversity in the United States. The Nature Conservancy and Association forBiodiversity Information. Oxford University Press, New York. 399 pp.

United States Department of Agriculture, 2000. Natural Resources Conservation Service,Soil Survey of Beaver Area, Utah.

United States Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, 2000. Cedar CityField Office; Pinyon Resource Management Plan July, 1983.


22/78


23/78

19

OSM Office of Surface MiningPUF Polyurethane foamSHPO Utah State Historic Preservation OfficeSMCRA Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (Public Law 95-87)SRMA Special Recreation Management Area

UDWR Utah Division of Wildlife ResourcesUSFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service

APPENDICESAppendix A. Interdisciplinary Team Analysis Record ChecklistAppendix B. MapsAppendix C. Mine Closure ScheduleAppendix D. Mine Closure and Construction MethodsAppendix E. Reclamation Seed MixAppendix F. Section 0300 Star District Project Reclamation Construction Contract

Specifications

Appendix G. Standard Operating Procedures and Stipulations


24/78

1

APPENDIX AInterdisciplinary Team Analysis Record Checklist

Project Title: Star Range Abandoned Mined Land Reclamation Project (AMR 001/902)

NEPA Log Number: UT-040-04-057 (EA)

File/Serial Number: UTU-81080

Project Leader: Ginouves

DETERMINATION OF STAFF: (Choose one of the following abbreviated options for the left column)

NP = not present in the area impacted by the proposed or alternative actionsNI = present, but not affected to a degree that detailed analysis is requiredPI = present with potential for significant impact analyzed in detail in the EA; or identified in a DNA as

requiring further analysisNC = (DNAs only) actions and impacts not changed from those disclosed in the existing NEPA documents

cited in Section C of the DNA form.

Determi-

nationResource Rationale for Determination* Signature Date

CRITICAL ELEMENTS

NI Air Quality

Reclamation construction could increase fugitive dust abovebackground levels during some portion of the project. Emissions wouldbe limited in duration and would be below acceptable State limits. Noresident human population would be affected.

C. Egerton 1/30/06

NPAreas of Critical

Environmental ConcernThere are no ACECs present in the management area. W. Judy 2/1/06

NI Cultural Resources

Closure methods at all sites have been designed to protect all culturaland paleontological features. Archeological inventories have beenconducted at all openings. Closure methods at sites determined to beeligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places have beendesigned so that there would be no adverse impact on historicresources. The Utah State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) had nocomment and hence concurred with the AMRPs determination that theproposed action, with these design considerations, would have noadverse effect on cultural properties and that the project is incompliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.Records are on file at the DOGM office. Newly discovered cultural orpaleontological sites would be recorded, evaluated, and propertreatment determined in compliance with 36 CFR Part 800.11 inconsultation with the BLM archaeologist, the State Historic

Preservation Officer (SHPO) and BLM paleontologist.

G. Dalley 1/19/07

NI Environmental JusticeThere are no groups, minority or low income, disproportionallyaffected.

E. Ginouves 2/1/06

NPFarmlands (Prime or

Unique)None present in the project area per soils surveys and land use plans. C. Egerton 1/30/06

NI FloodplainsNone of the alternatives or proposals involves actions that would resultin fills or diversions or placement of permanent facilities in flood plainsand thus comply with Executive Order 11988.

C. Egerton 1/30/06


25/78

2

Determi-


PIInvasive, Non-native

Species

NIifall equipment used in the proposed project would be powerwashed before being brought into the project area. All seed used for

revegetation would be required to be certified as weed and noxious seedfree. No Invasive Non-Native Species would be knowingly introducedas a result of the proposed action. These species could increase in theshort term in areas re-disturbed to gain access to mines due tosubsequent germination of dormant weed seed in the seed bank.

J. Bulloch 7/12/06

NINative American

Religious Concerns

Tribes of the area and the appropriate bands have been consulted and donot have any concerns regarding the project. Documentation ofconsultation is available in the project/case file in the BLM-CCFO inCedar City, Utah.

A. Stanworth

NPThreatened, Endangered

or Candidate PlantSpecies

None present in the project area.S. Hedges

R. Bonebrake2/1/06

18 Jan 200

NIThreatened, Endangered

or Candidate Animal

Species

As discussed in the draft EA, the bald eagle, California condor, yellow-billed cuckoo and Utah prairie dog are not known to occur within the

project area.

R. Bonebrake9 August 20

18 Jan 200

NIWastes (hazardous or

solid)

Standard construction practices would be utilized during the project.Spill of petroleum products are not anticipated. The contractor wouldbe responsible to cleanup and remove any hazardous or solid wastegenerated during the project.

E. Ginouves 2/1/06

NIWater Quality

(drinking/ground)

Reclamation construction could increase sediment levels during someportion of the proposed action. Erosion control measures such as bermsand water bars would be used as needed. Reclamation activities wouldbe consistent with Utahs Non-Point Source Pollution ManagementPlan (2000).

C. Egerton 1/30/06

NPWetlands/Riparian

ZonesNone known within project area; if found need to be addressed. R. Bonebrake

9 August 2018 Jan 200

NP Wild and Scenic Rivers There are no WSRs present in the management area. W. Judy 07/18/06

NP Wilderness The management area does not possess any designated wilderness. W. Judy 07/18/06

OTHER RESOURCES / CONCERNS

NIRangeland Health

Standards andGuidelines

The project as proposed would have no impact on Rangeland HealthStandards and Guidelines.

D. Fletcher 7/26/06

NI Livestock GrazingLittle to no disturbance would be expected to livestock grazing withinthe area.

D. Fletcher 7/26/06

NI Woodland / ForestryLittle to no disturbance of the woodland environment in the project areais expected.

D. Page 7/26/06

NI

Vegetation includingSpecial Status Plant

Species other than FWScandidate or listed

species

There are known special status plants in the project areaS. Hedges

R. Bonebrake2/1/06

18 Jan 200

PI

Fish and WildlifeIncluding

Special Status Speciesother than FWS

candidate or listedspecies

Ferruginous hawks, Townsends big-eared bats, kit fox and migratorynongame birds occur in project area. Protection measures in draft EAare adequate (bat gates/grates, temporary exclusion devices, prereclamation wildlife surveys and adherence to USFWS raptorprotection guidelines). Request copy of raptor survey results for BLMfiles.

R. Bonebrake9 August 20

18 Jan 200


26/78

3

Determi-


e.g. Migratory birds.

NI SoilsSoils on the reclamation sites are already disturbed. Any stockpiledtopsoil would be spread and used for seedbed.

C. Egerton 1/30/06

NI Recreation

All trails would be re-habilitated as part of this proposal. It is possiblethat some of the routes to project area may need to be shared withrecreational users, which may result in increased congestion and/orconflict, but this would be temporary and most likely of little impact.

W. Judy 07/18/06

NI Visual Resources Project as proposed is consistent with current VRM guidelines. W. Judy 07/18/06

NIGeology / MineralResources/Energy

Production

There has been no reported mineral production from any of theopenings proposed for closure in the last 30 years. All closure methods,short of complete backfilling of shafts, would not preclude the re-accessing the underground workings should economic conditionswarrant further exploration and development. The current principalvalue of the openings is that they provide direct physical access to

observe sub-surface geologic structures and mineralization, whichwould lost for the time the closures were in place.

E. Ginouves 2/1/2006

NI Paleontology

The Utah State Paleontologist determined that there are nopaleontological resources of concern in the proposed project area. Ifany previously unrecorded prehistoric or historic cultural sites orpaleontological sites are encountered, work would stop and a BLMarchaeologist or paleontologist would be contacted.

E. Ginouves 2/1/06

NI Lands / Access The project as proposed should not affect any RsOW in the area. E. Robinson 7/25/06

NIFuels / Fire

ManagementThe project as proposed would not impact fire or fuels M. Mendenhall 7/20/06

NI Socio-economics

Minor increases in local service sector revenue could be expected fromthe temporary workforce involved in the project but no lastingsubstantial impacts are anticipated to the socioeconomics of thecommunities in the general project area.

There has been no reported mineral production from any of theopenings proposed for closure in the last 30 years. All closure methods,short of complete backfilling of shafts, would not preclude the re-accessing the underground workings should economic conditionswarrant further exploration and development.

E. Ginouves 2/1/06

NP Wild Horses and BurrosProposed project does not occur within or adjacent to any wild horseHMAs.

C. Hunter 8/01/06

NIWilderness

characteristicsProject as proposed is not within or adjacent to any WSAs. W. Judy 07/18/06

Reviewer Title Signature Date Comments

NEPA / EnvironmentalCoordinator

Authorized Officer


27/78

APPENDIX B - Maps

Location Maps

Map Group Name Scale1 1 Section 4 Mines2 2 Copper King Mine3 3 Rebel Mine4 4 Star Range5 5 Hickory Mountain6 6 Harrington Hickory Mine7 7 Silver Bug Mine8 8 Vicksburg North

9 9 Vicksburg Mine10 10 Estelle Mine11 11 Maud S Mine12 12 Section 20 Mines


28/78

Star District Abandoned Mine Reclamation Project January 12, 2007Environmental Assessment page 2 of 78

2


29/78


3


30/78


4


31/78


5


32/78


6


33/78


7


34/78


8


35/78


9


36/78


10


37/78


11


38/78


12


39/78


13


40/78


14


41/78

APPENDIX C

Mine Closure Schedule

Tag Number Map UTM LocationLand

OwnerOpeningAccess

SpecialConditions

Dimensions ofMine Opening

Description/KeyFeatures

Closure Method &Comments

Est. Qty.

1

3281104HO001 1

316,792 m E

4,252,377 m N

BLM

4WD

History:

Bats:

3.7'w x 4.8'h x 20'd

equip via trench updrainage

BFM fill VO1 first,

collapse/BFM HO1 17 cy

23281104HO002 1

317,100 m E4,252,711 m N

BLMXC

History:Bats:

3.4'w x 5.8'h x 14'd BFHSmall dump 16 cy

33281104VO001 1

316,788 m E4,252,375 m N

BLM4WD

History:Bats:

12.5'w x 13'h x 12'dequip access on oldmine road

BFMfill VO1 before 4HO1 96 cy

43281104VO002 1

316,587 m E4,252,259 m N

BLM4WD

History:Bats: EXCLUDE

3'w x 5'h x 35'dDump visible fromroad

BFM21 cy

53281104VO003 1

317,323 m E4,251,954 m N

BLMXC

History:Bats:

8'w x 6'h x 10'd BFMsmall dump 23 cy

63281104VO004 1

317,290 m E4,251,976 m N

BLMXC

History:Bats:

4'w x 4'h x 25'd BFM16 cy

73281105IO001 2

315,234 m E4,252,386 m N

PrivateFoot

History: ELIGIBLEBats: EXCLUDE

3.5'w x 1'h x 38'd BFH0.5 cy 1 cy

83281105IO002 2

315,226 m E4,252,385 m N

PrivateFoot

History: ELIGIBLEBats: Bat Gate

5'w x 5.5'h x 20'd GRATE-P grate innarrow section 5.5h x5w

28 sf

9

3281105IO003 2

315,178 m E4,252,364 m N

Private

4WD


8.5'w x 6.5'h x 20'dCaution: potentialsubsidence,connects to VO3

BFM equip alongdrainage; approach IOfrom south 124 cy

103281105VO001 2

315,392 m E4,252,381 m N

Private4WD


7'w x 8'h x 100'ddouble handling

BFMreplace wood cover 213 cy

11

3281105VO002 2

315,196 m E4,252,371 m N

Private

4WD

History: ELIGIBLEBats: Grate

6'w x 7'h x 100'dGrate-P might bepossible if wood

removed

GRATE-B removewood cover & stacknearby 156 sf

123281105VO003 2

315,180 m E4,252,364 m N

Private4WD


8.5'w x 11'h x 16'dTimber brace oneast side.

BFM70 cy

133281105VO004 2

315,292 m E4,252,420 m N

Private4WD


5'w x 8'h x 125'dCone-shapedmouth 16' dia

GRATE-Bw/I-beam, 22x22 484 sf

143281105VO008 2

315,290 m E4,252,384 m N

Private4WD

History: ELIGIBLEBats:


15

3281104DH001 2

316,582 m E4,252,250 m N

BLM

XC

History:Bats:

0.67'w x 0.67'h x25'dUTM's: 314582,4252250

BFH Backfill withbentonite; field taggedas 06DH1 1 cy

3281106IO001 2

314,642 m E4,252,241 m N

Private

Foot

History:Bats:

3.5'w x 1'h x 5'd No Action

FALSE

163281106VO001 2

314,616 m E4,252,242 m N

PrivateFoot


19'w x 24'h x 100'd BFMlong XC to opening 578 cy

173281108IO003 2

315,442 m E4,251,629 m N

BLM4WD


8'w x 7'h x 100'd BFMfill will flow down IO 87 cy

183281105HO001 3

316,320 m E4,251,823 m N

BLMXC


6'w x 4'h x 18'dCaution: powdermagazine

COMPOUNDCUSTOMfill 8 ft inside

13 cy


42/78

16


OwnerOpeningAccess

SpecialConditions




Est. Qty.

19

3281105HO002 3

316,427 m E4,251,811 m N

BLM

4WD


5.5'w x 5.5'h x 20'dexcavate toeliminate hazard

WALL-B move fallingtimbers at mouth &replace

29 sf

203281105VO005 3

316,321 m E4,251,805 m N BLM4WD

History: ELIGIBLEBats: 14'w x 6'h x 16'dshaft 50 cy, usechute; leave HO

BFM shaft in front ofadit; wood structure50 cy

3281105VO006 3316,403 m E4,251,809 m N

BLMFoot


9'w x 11'h x 9'd No ActionFALSE

3281105VO007 3316,344 m E4,251,799 m N

BLM4WD



213281108HO001 3

316,222 m E4,251,692 m N

BLM4WD

History:Bats:


22

3281108HO005 3

316,142 m E4,250,993 m N

Private

4WD


7'w x 6.5'h x 20'd BFM double adit fromone portal, removesloughed debris

41 cy

23

3281108HO008 3

316,214 m E4,251,239 m N

BLM

2WD


6'w x 7'h x 20'dLittle May Lilly Mine

BFM remove wooddebris, double-handlefill 41 cy

243281108HO009 3

316,167 m E4,251,516 m N

BLMXC


5'w x 5'h x 25'd BFM XC up drainage,remove wood 17 cy

253281108HO010 3

316,291 m E4,251,400 m N

Private4WD


6'w x 3'h x 30'd BFM excavate face-up to allow BFM 11 cy

263281108HO011 3

316,296 m E4,251,477 m N

BLMXC


9'w x 5'h x 30'dthree openingsinside small pit

WALL-Bshort XC on old mineroad

45 sf

273281108HO012 3

316,296 m E4,251,477 m N

BLMXC


6'w x 6'h x 20'dthree openingsinside small pit

WALL-Bshort XC on old mineroad

36 sf

28

3281108HO013 3

316,296 m E

4,251,477 m N

BLM

XC

History: ELIGIBLE

Bats:

6'w x 3'h x 9'd

three openingsinside small pit

BFH

fill entire 9' 8 cy

293281108IO012 3

316,328 m E4,250,956 m N

BLMXC


9'w x 5.5'h x 21'd PUFXC from road to08VO14

2 cy

303281108IO013 3

316,398 m E4,251,432 m N

PrivateXC


5'w x 4.5'h x 17'dField tag is 09IO6.

BFMminimum 6' inside 5 cy

313281108VO001 3

316,226 m E4,251,660 m N

BLM4WD

History:Bats:


32

3281108VO010 3

316,147 m E4,250,991 m N

Private

XC


6'w x 5'h x 25'dCaution-subsidence aroundopening.

PUFno dump, equip XC100' 12 cy

33

3281108VO020 3

316,303 m E

4,251,200 m N

BLM

XC

History:

Bats:

5'w x 6'h x 35'd PUF depth uncertain,

XC 300' w/equip in PJ 12 cy

34

3281108VO021 3

316,120 m E4,251,530 m N

BLM

Foot

History:Bats:

10'w x 7'h x 15'd BFH

39 cy


43/78


44/78

18


OwnerOpeningAccess

SpecialConditions




Est. Qty.

533281109VO002 3

316,831 m E4,251,578 m N

PrivateXC


5'w x 7'h x 21'dconnects to 09VO1

BFMclear debris 31 cy

54

3281109VO003 3

316,669 m E4,251,526 m N

Private

XC


25'w x 10'h x 32'd BFMXC ~250' up drainage,

flag XC route 466 cy

55

3281109VO004 3

316,681 m E4,251,542 m N

Private

XC


5'w x 5'h x 26'd BFMremove ladder debris,XC from road


45/78

19


OwnerOpeningAccess

SpecialConditions




Est. Qty.

opening

703281108IO001 4

315,110 m E4,250,650 m N

BLM4WD


7'w x 4'h x 20'd BFMclear sloughed debris 13 cy

713281108IO002 4

315,118 m E4,250,660 m N

BLM4WD


5'w x 9'h x 20'dWorkings extendunder road.

BFMfill will flow down IO 33 cy

72

3281108IO005 4

315,391 m E4,250,933 m N

BLM

Foot


5'w x 3'h x 30'daccess along ridgetrail near VO9

BFMfill will flow down IO

8 cy

733281108IO006 4

315,414 m E4,250,925 m N

BLMFoot


9'w x 4'h x 10'dflag XC route

BFMavoid flagged culturalfeatures

20 cy

74

3281108IO007 4

315,370 m E4,250,880 m N

BLM

Foot


9'w x 12'h x 20'daccess along ridgetrail near VO9

BFMfill will flow down IO

12 cy

75

3281108IO009 4

315,442 m E

4,250,983 m N

BLM

4WD

History: ELIGIBLE

Bats:

7'w x 8'h x 11'd BFM fill will flow,

remove timbers 23 cy

763281108IO010 4

315,444 m E4,250,987 m N

BLM4WD


7'w x 7'h x 8'd BFMfill will flow 15 cy

77

3281108VO009 4

315,480 m E4,250,914 m N

BLM

4WD


6'w x 13'h x 85'd PUF preserveheadframe, excludebats,

45 cy

78

3281108VO016 4

315,439 m E4,250,990 m N

BLM

4WD


10'w x 12'h x 70'dCaution-subsidencearound opening.

BFM use soilbulkhead SE ofopening for backfill

299 cy

79

3281107HO002 5

314,738 m E4,251,166 m N

BLM

4WD

History:Bats:

4'w x 2.5'h x 20'dInterior inclinedshaft.

COMPOUNDCUSTOMWALL-B 9' inside infront of IO(36 sf)before BFM HO(16cy)

36 sf

80

3281107IO001 5

314,429 m E4,251,262 m N

BLM

4WD


10'w x 5'h x 20'dIO splits ~12ftinside

BFM backfill mayflow, downhill dump=>double handling

35 cy

813281107IO002 5

314,437 m E4,251,245 m N

BLM4WD


5'w x 4'h x 25'd BFM backfill may flowdown IO 16 cy

82

3281107IO003 5

314,612 m E4,251,017 m N

BLM

4WD

History:Bats:

1.3'w x 0.8'h x 7'd BFM clear slougheddebris & backfill ~2 cy

2 cy

833281107IO004 5

314,597 m E4,250,997 m N

BLMFoot


3'w x 9.5'h x 20'dtwo openings in onetrench

BFM fill upper & lowerIO's to brow 38 cy

843281107IO005 5

314,605 m E4,250,989 m N

BLM4WD

History:Bats:

1.5'w x 0.5'h x 9'd BFMclear sloughed debris 1 cy

853281107IO006 5

314,608 m E4,250,975 m N

BLMFoot

History:Bats:

4.5'w x 4.5'h x 16'd BFM13 cy

863281107IO007 5

314,600 m E4,250,968 m N

BLMFoot

History:Bats:

1.5'w x 0.5'h x 20'd BFMprobe & backfill ~2 cy 2 cy


46/78

20


OwnerOpeningAccess

SpecialConditions




Est. Qty.

873281107IO008 5

314,712 m E4,251,183 m N

BLM4WD

History:Bats:

5'w x 6'h x 12'd BFM fill shaft section& IO 31 cy

88

3281107VO002 5

314,636 m E4,251,000 m N

BLM

4WD


6'w x 6'h x 53'd BFM remove woodcollar, UG room ++vol,

downhill dump=>double-handle

73 cy

89

3281107VO003 5

314,660 m E4,250,998 m N

BLM

4WD


8'w x 5'h x 125'dShaft inside adit.

BFMremove wood, steepequip access,downslope dump=>double handling

258 cy

903281107VO004 5

314,722 m E4,251,166 m N

BLM4WD


6.5'w x 8'h x 23'd BFM HO intersectsVO, BFM both 61 cy

913281107VO005 5

314,476 m E4,251,408 m N

BLM4WD

History:Bats:

6'w x 9'h x 10'dDump visible NW ofold truck.

BFM20 cy

92

3281108HO002 6

316,180 m E

4,250,505 m N

Private

Foot

History: ELIGIBLE

Bats:

5'w x 5'h x 20'd BFH Backfill VO5 first

then HO2 17 cy

933281108HO006 6

316,337 m E4,250,576 m N

Private4WD



94

3281108HO007 6

316,318 m E4,250,561 m N

Private

XC


4'w x 3.75'h x 20'd BFM HO intersectsIO, clear sloughedmaterial

23 cy

953281108IO004 6

316,089 m E4,250,676 m N

PrivateFoot


3'w x 3'h x 15'd BFHfill will flow down IO 5 cy

963281108IO008 6

316,269 m E4,250,754 m N

PrivateFoot


4'w x 4'h x 15'd BFMclear sloughed debris 9 cy

973281108IO011 6

316,386 m E4,250,592 m N

PrivateXC


3'w x 3'h x 12'd BFMXC from VO15 4 cy

98

3281108IO014 6

316,393 m E4,250,764 m N

Private

XC


2.5'w x 3'h x 12'dField tag is 09IO10.

GRATE-Pconnected to complexwith bat use 9 sf

99

3281108IO015 6

316,368 m E4,250,422 m N

Private

XC

History:ELIGIBLEBats: EXCLUDE

5'w x 4'h x 30'dField tag is 09IO11.

BFM leave rock wall,flag XC up from road~120' 22 cy

100

3281108IO016 6

316,411 m E4,250,622 m N

Private

XC

History:ELIGIBLEBats: EXCLUDE

4.5'w x 1.5'h x 6'dField tag is 09IO12.

BFM clear slougheddebris, flag XC route

1 cy

1013281108IO017 6

316,369 m E4,250,387 m N

PrivateXC

History:ELIGIBLEBats:

6'w x 4.5'h x 20'dField tag is 09IO13.

BFMXC from IO15 ~100' 13 cy

102

3281108IO018 6

316,371 m E

4,250,461 m N

Private

XC

History:ELIGIBLE

Bats:

5'w x 6'h x 16'd

Field tag is 09IO14.

BFM wide mouth

added ~5cy, flag XC~150' 23 cy

1033281108IO019 6

316,359 m E4,250,457 m N

PrivateXC



BFM flag XC fromroad ~180' 20 cy

105

3281108IO020 6

316,343 m E4,250,369 m N

Private

XC



BFM fill entire IO, flagXC from road ~250'

18 cy


47/78


48/78

22


OwnerOpeningAccess

SpecialConditions




Est. Qty.

123

3281108VO029 6

316,405 m E4,250,699 m N

Private

XC


6.5'w x 7.5'h x 26'dField tag is09VO23.

GRATE-Preplace wood afterinstallation, XC fromroad to SE ~100

42 sf

1243281108VO030 6

316,382 m E4,250,755 m N PrivateXC

History: ELIGIBLEBats: Grate 6'w x 6'h x 75'dField tag is09VO24.

GRATE-B XC fromSE road ~260, avoidfeatures 144 sf

1253281109VO025 6

316,418 m E4,250,705 m N

PrivateXC


5'w x 12'h x 34'davoid feature 169

GRATE-P XC fromadjacent IO9 ~100' 60 sf

126

3281108VO032 6

316,376 m E4,250,492 m N

Private

XC


8'w x 13'h x 22'dField tag is09VO28.

BFM ug works towardVO34, XC from roadto east ~180' 85 cy

1273281108VO033 6

316,380 m E4,250,396 m N

Private2WD



BFM depth uncertain,adjacent to road 22 cy

1283281108VO034 6

316,362 m E4,250,480 m N

PrivateXC



BFMug room 21 cy

129

3281108VO035 6

316,354 m E4,250,479 m N

Private

XC


5.5'w x 5'h x 14'dField tag is09VO32.

BFHfill may flow into ugroom, XC ~200' fromroad to east

16 cy

1303281108VO036 6

316,399 m E4,250,240 m N

Private4WD



BFM30' XC from 4WD 20 cy

131

3281108VO037 6

316,394 m E4,250,495 m N

Private

XC



BFM 14' IO in bottom,XC ~80' from road toeast

135 cy

132

3281109VO031 6

316,417 m E4,250,280 m N

Private

XC


8'w x 6'h x 46'd BFM UG stope 15'down may add cy, 30'XC from old dozer cut

82 cy

1333281109HO005 6

316,455 m E4,250,806 m N

Private2WD

History: ELIGIBLEBats: Bat Gate

6'w x 6'h x 50'dbat maternity &hibernacula

BG-CMP 4' dia CMP~15' long, friable rock 25 sf

1343281109HO007 6

316,460 m E4,250,756 m N

Private2WD


3.5'w x 2.5'h x 30'd BFMavoid feature 8 30 cy

135

3281109IO009 6

316,425 m E4,250,707 m N

Private

XC



BFM fill will flow, XC20' from road to dump

7 cy

136

3281109VO016 6

316,427 m E4,250,803 m N

Private

XC


5'w x 8'h x 25'davoid features 9,141

GRATE-P connectionto bat maternity &hibernaculum

40 sf

1373281109VO018 6

316,419 m E4,250,784 m N

PrivateXC



GRATE-B XC ~110'from road to east 168 sf

138

3281109VO021 6

316,482 m E4,250,813 m N

Private

2WD


4'w x 6.5'h x 100'dXC ~60 from roadto west

GRATE-Bbatmaternity/hibernac;avoid feature 16

125 sf

139

3281109VO026 6

316,437 m E4,250,626 m N

Private

XC


7.5'w x 6'h x 35'dreplace wood ifmoved

GRATE-Bbat hibernac,connects to8VO15,17&9VO27

162 sf


49/78

23


OwnerOpeningAccess

SpecialConditions




Est. Qty.

140

3281109VO027 6

316,461 m E4,250,628 m N

Private

2WD


10'w x 10'h x 55'dbat hibernacula

GRATE-B 16'x16' w/I-beam; avoid feature198

256 sf

141 3281109VO035 6 316,453 m E4,250,273 m N Private 2WD History: ELIGIBLEBats: 6'w x 4.5'h x 33'davoid feature 50 GRATE-P UG stopevol estimated 60 sf

1423281109VO036 6

316,421 m E4,250,252 m N

PrivateXC



GRATE-PUG stope volestimated

59 sf

1433281109VO037 6

316,477 m E4,250,271 m N

Private2WD


6'w x 7'h x 66'davoid feature 50 &artifacts

BFM103 cy

144

3281109VO038 6

316,438 m E4,250,270 m N

Private

XC


7'w x 5'h x 29'davoid feature 50 &artifacts

BFMequip access downfrom top using dozertrench

35 sf

145

3281109VO039 6

316,593 m E4,250,868 m N

BLM

2WD


6'w x 6'h x 40'dmove loose wood &concrete if needed

GRATE-B12x22 grate w/ I-beam, HarringtonHickory

264 sf

1463281107HO001 7

313,514 m E4,250,253 m N

BLMFoot

History:Bats:

4.5'w x 5.5'h x 20'd BFMclear sloughed debris 14 cy

3281107VO001 7313,210 m E4,250,354 m N

BLM4WD

History:Bats:

5'w x 6.5'h x 7'd No ActionFALSE

1473281117HO001 7

314,783 m E4,248,551 m N

BLM4WD

History:Bats: Bat Gate

5'w x 6'h x 25'dadit doglegs 25' in

BGequip XC 150' up topad

30 sf

148

3281117HO002 7

314,828 m E4,248,541 m N

BLM

Foot

History:Bats: Grate

7'w x 8'h x 45'ddifficult, steep XCaccess up rockslope

GRATE-P pinnedgrate on vertical angle

84 sf

1493281117HO003 7

314,984 m E4,248,931 m N

BLMFoot

History:Bats:

3.5'w x 4'h x 13'd BFMequip access up wash 8 cy

1503281117HO004 7

314,848 m E4,248,879 m N

BLMFoot

History:Bats:

3.5'w x 4'h x 8'd BFHuse sloughed pile 6 cy

1513281117HO005 7

314,984 m E4,249,297 m N

Private4WD

History:Bats:

4'w x 5.5'h x 25'dOpening adjacentto large dump.

BFM17 cy

152

3281117HO006 7

315,017 m E4,249,305 m N

Private

4WD

History:Bats:

4'w x 4'h x 20'dOpening located ina highwall.

BFMbuild a ramp up to HOwith fill, regrade rampfill to original contour

9 cy

1533281117HO007 7

314,875 m E4,249,575 m N

Private4WD


2.5'w x 3'h x 10'dmaintain platformshape

BFMfill 17VO5 first, equipXC

3 cy

154

3281117HO008 7

315,145 m E4,250,138 m N

BLM

Foot


5'w x 5.5'h x 15'dhoneycomb toHO9-13;reshapeplatform

BFM equip XC from17HO14 to HO8roadcut

33 cy

155

3281117HO009 7

315,137 m E4,250,137 m N

BLM

Foot


6'w x 3'h x 10'd BFM equip XC from17HO14 to HO8roadcut, fill all 10'depth

36 cy

156

3281117HO010 7

315,136 m E4,250,137 m N

BLM

Foot


4'w x 6'h x 'dfill VO at mouth first(added 14cyd)

BFM equip accesssame as 17HO9

67 cy


50/78

24


OwnerOpeningAccess

SpecialConditions




Est. Qty.

1573281117HO011

7 315,135 m E4,250,132 m N

BLMFoot


5'w x 2.5'h x 9'd BFM same equipaccess as 17HO9 6 cy

1583281117HO012 7

315,135 m E4,250,133 m N

BLMFoot


5'w x 5.5'h x 15'd BFM same equipaccess as 17HO9 21 cy

1593281117HO013 7

315,134 m E4,250,129 m N

BLMFoot


4'w x 2'h x 4'dbackfill by scaling

BFH exclusion notneeded, 4' deep 2 cy

1603281117HO014 7

315,201 m E4,250,116 m N

BLMFoot


5'w x 4'h x 50'd WALL-B C travelhoriz from old road cut 20 sf

161

3281117IO001 7

314,968 m E4,249,354 m N

Private

4WD


5'w x 4'h x 30'dOpening inside apit, use old mineroad for access

BFM also fill 4x5 VOintersecting IO

58 cy

1623281117IO002 7

315,138 m E4,250,132 m N

BLMFoot


5'w x 3'h x 10'dconnects to HO11

BFMentire vol, fill will flow 4 cy

3281117TR001 7314,780 m E4,249,247 m N

BLM2WD



1633281117VO001 7

314,942 m E4,248,921 m N

BLMFoot

History:Bats: Grate

5'w x 6'h x 60'd GRATE-P30 sf

1643281117VO002 7

314,838 m E4,249,294 m N

Private4WD


6'w x 10'h x 100'd BFM XC 500'upslope from 17TR01 136 cy

1653281117VO003 7

314,908 m E4,249,318 m N

Private4WD

History:Bats:

5'w x 8'h x 8'd BFM XC 500'downslope 12 cy

1663281117VO004 7

314,909 m E4,249,382 m N

Private2WD

History:Bats:

7'w x 10'h x 14'd BFMaccess via old roadcuts

36 cy

1673281117VO005 7

314,871 m E4,249,570 m N

Private4WD


6'w x 10'h x 100'dmaintain platformshape

BFMset wood aside ifneeded

222 cy

1683281117VO006 7

314,865 m E4,249,668 m N

Private4WD


13.5'w x 16'h x12.5'd

avoid features 1 & 2

BFMXC over sagebrush 145 cy

3281117VO007 7315,131 m E4,250,136 m N

0.00XC



1693281118HO001 7

313,977 m E4,248,918 m N

BLM4WD


4'w x 6.5'h x 112'd WALL-Bfill 18VO1 first (in frontof HO)

26 sf

170

3281118HO002 7

313,972 m E4,248,900 m N

BLM

Foot


3.5'w x 13'h x 16'ddump 80' from HO

PUFfoam in overhang &leave trench, difficultaccess

5 cy

3281118HO003 7314,052 m E4,249,133 m N

BLM4WD

History:Bats:

4.5'w x 5'h x 8'd No ActionFALSE

1713281118HO004 7

313,998 m E4,249,164 m N

BLM4WD


4.5'w x 5.5'h x 20'd BFMcollapse bridge &backfill

23 cy

172

3281118HO005 7

313,982 m E4,249,142 m N

BLM

4WD


5.5'w x 6'h x 20'd BFM remove wooddebris, fill split adits &shaft inby(added 5cy)

56 cy

1733281118HO006 7

313,801 m E4,249,401 m N

BLM4WD


2.5'w x 1.5'h x 20'd BFMremove slougheddebris

3 cy

1743281118HO007 7

313,793 m E4,249,393 m N

BLM4WD


2.5'w x 1.5'h x 20'd BFMremove slougheddebris

9 cy


51/78

25


OwnerOpeningAccess

SpecialConditions




Est. Qty.

175

3281118HO008 7

314,527 m E4,249,720 m N

BLM

Foot

History:Bats:

6'w x 2'h x 25'd PUF clear opening,PUF + backfill to brow

3 cy

176 3281118HO009 7 313,620 m E4,249,634 m N BLM Foot History:Bats: EXCLUDE 4'w x 5'h x 20'dLocated belowpinon tree.

BFH 17 cy

1773281118HO010 7

313,568 m E4,249,923 m N

Private4WD


3.5'w x 2'h x 40'd BFM partiallycollapsed entrance 20 cy

178

3281118HO011 7

313,577 m E4,249,899 m N

Private

Foot


6'w x 3'h x 15'd BFM fill each adit, fillwill flow into shaftinside(added 5cy)

20 cy

179

3281118HO012 7

313,550 m E4,249,622 m N

BLM

Foot

History:Bats:

20'w x 30'h x 20'd3 HO'sconnected(bowlingball)5x6,8x3,4x3;no equip access.

COMPOUNDCUSTOMblast+BFH/scale,dificult closure

36 cy

180

3281118HO013 7

314,411 m E

4,249,643 m N

BLM

Foot

History:

Bats: EXCLUDE

4.5'w x 5.5'h x 38'd

active claim?

WALL-B 4WD road

20' from dump toe 25 sf

1813281118IO001 7

314,035 m E4,249,124 m N

BLM4WD


10'w x 3.5'h x 20'd BFMclear sloughedmaterials

22 cy

blm star district mine reclamation ea [environmental assessment]

Documents