Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Roca Honda Mine

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action Topic Alternative 1 – No Action tailings be managed and cleaned up as appropriate; it designated 22 inactive uranium ore processing sites for remediation, including Shiprock and Ambrosia Lake in New Mexico. Alternative 2 – Proposed Action (Two-shaft alternative) Alternative 3 – One-shaft Alternative 82 DEIS for Roca Honda Mine, Cibola National Forest
Other Actions and Projects Considered in Cumulative Effects Analysis Introduction Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action The mile-deep Grand Canyon of the Colorado River in Arizona is a dramatic illustration of cumulative impacts, although in this case from natural forces—erosion occurring over 6 million years—rather than human causes. In the context of NEPA and EISs, the Council on Environmental Quality’s (CEQ) Regulations (40 CFR 1500–1508) implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA, as amended (42 USC 4321 et seq.), define cumulative effects as: …the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other action. (40 CFR 1508.7) Cumulative effects may be adverse, beneficial, or both. Incorporating the principles of cumulative effects analysis into the environmental impact assessment of a proposed action should address the following: • Past, present, and future actions; • Other Federal, non-Federal, and private actions; • Impacts on each affected resource, ecosystem, and human community; and • Truly meaningful effects. In analyzing cumulative impacts, spatial and temporal boundaries should be considered. These form the context of the cumulative analysis. Judgment should be used in choosing the most appropriate boundaries to meaningfully assess the role of the proposed action, secondary actions, and connected actions in comparison with overall effects from all past, present, and future actions. If spatial and temporal boundaries are set too narrow, this will tend to overstate the relative importance of the proposed action compared with others, but perhaps reduce the overall cumulative scale of impacts to a misleadingly small magnitude. In contrast, if spatial and temporal boundaries are set too broad, the contribution of the proposed action to cumulative impacts will be unduly small in comparison with the contributions of all other actions, but the overall scale of cumulative effects may be enormous and exaggerated. Consider the example of a proposed action that in conjunction with all others was predicted to lead cumulatively to the extinction of a given species. If a cumulative impacts analysis considered this phenomenon in the context of a geologic time scale measured in millions of years, during which time a number of species could disappear while new ones evolved, such an analysis would improperly diminish the significance of cumulative impacts leading to the permanent extinction of the species in question. Ideally, natural boundaries should be used, but sometimes institutional or geographic boundaries are relevant as well, especially when certain key impacts weigh as much on the human DEIS for Roca Honda Mine, Cibola National Forest 83
Page 1 and 2:
United States Department of Agricul
Page 3 and 4:
Environmental Impact Statement for
Page 5 and 6:
Summary Roca Honda Resources, LLC (
Page 7 and 8:
• Potential effects on the charac
Page 9 and 10:
Mine Operation Summary Mine operati
Page 11 and 12:
Resource Impacts and Mitigation •
Page 13 and 14:
Resource Impacts and Mitigation num
Page 15 and 16:
Contents Chapter 1. Purpose of and
Page 17 and 18:
Contents Table 29. State of New Mex
Page 19 and 20:
Contents Table 94. Food stamp enrol
Page 21 and 22:
Contents Figure 66. Aerial image of
Page 23 and 24:
H1N1 Influenza A virus, subtype H1N
Page 25:
STD sexually transmitted disease SW
Page 28 and 29:
Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for
Page 30 and 31:
Page 32 and 33:
Page 34 and 35:
Page 36 and 37:
Page 38 and 39:
Page 40 and 41:
Page 42 and 43:
Page 44 and 45:
Page 46 and 47:
Page 48 and 49:
Page 50 and 51:
Page 52 and 53:
Page 54 and 55:
Page 56 and 57:
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including
Page 58 and 59: Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including
Page 83 and 84: Land Use Chapter 2. Alternatives, I
Page 85 and 86: Treated Water Discharge in an Alter
Page 89 and 90: Table 3. Impact comparison matrix T
Page 91 and 92: Topic Alternative 1 - No Action Res
Page 93 and 94: Vegetation Topic Alternative 1 - No
Page 95 and 96: Topic Alternative 1 - No Action Sen
Page 97 and 98: Topic Alternative 1 - No Action Rec
Page 99 and 100: Topic Alternative 1 - No Action Cul
Page 101 and 102: Transportation Topic Alternative 1
Page 103 and 104: Topic Alternative 1 - No Action Hum
Page 105 and 106: Topic Alternative 1 - No Action Alt
Page 107: Topic Alternative 1 - No Action Leg
Page 113 and 114: Marquez Canyon Exploration Current
Page 115: Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including
Page 118 and 119: Chapter 3. Affected Environment and
Page 141: Figure 33. Permit area watershed an
Page 158 and 159:
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and
Page 160 and 161:
Page 162 and 163:
Page 164 and 165:
Page 166 and 167:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Environmental Consequences Surface
Page 175 and 176:
Construction Phase Effects Chapter
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Table 12. Storm water controls for
Page 181 and 182:
Best Management Practices Chapter 3
Page 183 and 184:
Effects on Sediment Transport and D
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196:
Page 197 and 198:
Figure 45. Modeled hydrograph for S
Page 199 and 200:
Figure 47. Modeled hydrograph for C
Page 201 and 202:
Page 203 and 204:
Page 205 and 206:
Page 207 and 208:
Pollutant and Averaging Time Chapte
Page 209 and 210:
Page 211 and 212:
Climate and Greenhouse Gases Chapte
Page 213 and 214:
Page 215 and 216:
Regulatory Review Chapter 3. Affect
Page 217 and 218:
Page 219 and 220:
Page 221 and 222:
Radon-222 Emissions Chapter 3. Affe
Page 223 and 224:
Figure 48. Vegetation communities i
Page 225 and 226:
Page 227 and 228:
Page 229 and 230:
Page 231 and 232:
State Listed Plant Species Chapter
Page 233 and 234:
Species Status Habitat and Distribu
Page 235 and 236:
Page 237 and 238:
Page 239 and 240:
Page 241 and 242:
Common Name (Scientific name) Black
Page 243 and 244:
Page 245 and 246:
Common Name (Scientific Name) Gunni
Page 247 and 248:
Page 249 and 250:
Page 251 and 252:
Page 253 and 254:
Page 255 and 256:
Table 39. Criteria for rating impac
Page 257 and 258:
Wildlife Mortality Chapter 3. Affec
Page 259 and 260:
Page 261 and 262:
Page 263 and 264:
Page 265 and 266:
Page 267 and 268:
Page 269 and 270:
Page 271 and 272:
Page 273 and 274:
Page 275 and 276:
Page 277 and 278:
Table 40. Impact characterization f
Page 279 and 280:
Page 281 and 282:
Page 283 and 284:
Transportation Chapter 3. Affected
Page 285 and 286:
Figure 57. Nearby recreation sites
Page 287 and 288:
Table 41. Impact characterization f
Page 289 and 290:
Page 291 and 292:
Minority Populations Chapter 3. Aff
Page 293 and 294:
Figure 58. Distribution of minority
Page 295 and 296:
Page 297 and 298:
Page 299 and 300:
Page 301 and 302:
Page 303 and 304:
Page 305 and 306:
Page 307 and 308:
High school graduates, percent of p
Page 309 and 310:
Earnings Chapter 3. Affected Enviro
Page 311 and 312:
Page 313 and 314:
Public Finance Chapter 3. Affected
Page 315 and 316:
providing an estimate of the “rip
Page 317 and 318:
Tax Revenue Chapter 3. Affected Env
Page 319 and 320:
Table 61. Household characteristics
Page 321 and 322:
Page 323 and 324:
Page 325 and 326:
Page 327 and 328:
Page 329 and 330:
Page 331 and 332:
Tribal History Chapter 3. Affected
Page 333 and 334:
Page 335 and 336:
Page 337 and 338:
Page 339 and 340:
Page 341 and 342:
Page 343 and 344:
Page 345 and 346:
Natural Resources Chapter 3. Affect
Page 347 and 348:
Physical APE Chapter 3. Affected En
Page 349 and 350:
Page 351 and 352:
Page 353 and 354:
Agricultural Fields Chapter 3. Affe
Page 355 and 356:
Page 357 and 358:
Page 359 and 360:
Page 361 and 362:
Page 363 and 364:
Page 365 and 366:
• Removal of a property from its
Page 367 and 368:
Page 369 and 370:
Page 371 and 372:
Page 373 and 374:
Page 375 and 376:
Page 377 and 378:
Page 379 and 380:
Impacts to Natural Resources with C
Page 381 and 382:
Page 383 and 384:
Site No. Project Section Land Statu
Page 385 and 386:
Page 387 and 388:
Visual Resources Affected Environme
Page 389 and 390:
Figure 64. View looking north from
Page 391 and 392:
Page 393 and 394:
Alternative 1 Chapter 3. Affected E
Page 395 and 396:
Page 397 and 398:
Page 399 and 400:
Environmental Consequences Chapter
Page 401 and 402:
Page 403 and 404:
Page 405 and 406:
Page 407 and 408:
Page 409 and 410:
Page 411 and 412:
Page 413 and 414:
Page 415 and 416:
New Mexico 1.11 (0.98 - 1.25) Cibol
Page 417 and 418:
Page 419 and 420:
Page 421 and 422:
Page 423 and 424:
Page 425 and 426:
Page 427 and 428:
Page 429 and 430:
Magnitude Descriptor Precedence or
Page 431 and 432:
Page 433 and 434:
Noise Chapter 3. Affected Environme
Page 435 and 436:
Page 437 and 438:
Page 439 and 440:
Page 441 and 442:
Page 443 and 444:
Page 445 and 446:
Page 447 and 448:
Page 449 and 450:
Page 451 and 452:
Page 453 and 454:
Page 455 and 456:
Page 457 and 458:
Page 459 and 460:
Page 461 and 462:
Page 463 and 464:
Page 465 and 466:
Page 467 and 468:
Page 469 and 470:
Page 471 and 472:
Resource Area Cultural and Historic
Page 473:
Cumulative Effects Chapter 3. Affec
Page 476 and 477:
Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordin
Page 478 and 479:
Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordin
Page 481 and 482:
Glossary Air-Quality Control Region
Page 483 and 484:
References Cited (ACHP, 2005). Advi
Page 485 and 486:
References Cited (Basin Coordinated
Page 487 and 488:
References Cited (Brugge et al., 20
Page 489 and 490:
References Cited (Census, 2011). U.
Page 491 and 492:
References Cited (DesertUSA, 2011).
Page 493 and 494:
References Cited (Gordon, 1961). Go
Page 495 and 496:
References Cited (Jackson, 2002). J
Page 497 and 498:
References Cited (Lyford et al., 19
Page 499 and 500:
(NatureServe, 2010a). NatureSevere.
Page 501 and 502:
References Cited (NMDH, 2010c) New
Page 503 and 504:
References Cited (NRGNHA, 2011). No
Page 505 and 506:
References Cited (RHR, 2011a). Roca
Page 507 and 508:
References Cited (Stacier and Guzy,
Page 509 and 510:
References Cited (USEPA, 1975). U.S
Page 511 and 512:
References Cited (USFS, 2001). U.S.
Page 513 and 514:
References Cited (USFWS, no date).
Page 515:
References Cited (WildEarth Guardia
Page 518 and 519:
Index E economic impacts - 15, 73,
Page 520 and 521:
Index N National Environmental Poli
Page 522:
Index W waste - 18, 40, 46, 56-57,
show all

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Roca Honda Mine

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?