Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Roca Honda Mine

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences In addition, the TMR provided for the prohibition of unrestricted motorized cross-country travel and limited cross-country motorized vehicular use to designated areas. There is only one such area within the Mt. Taylor Ranger District and it is located in the Zuni Mountains, far removed from the vicinity of the Roca Honda Mine site (Baker, 2011b). New Mexico State Lands The current surface land use for State owned Section 16 is grazing (Lease GM-1352). There is also a power line right-of-way (RW-18717) of 5.98 acres in the northern half of the section issued to Continental Divide Electric Coop. Current grazing land use would be able to coexist with the mining operation inasmuch as the commissioner would most likely withdraw the mineral operation acreage from the grazing lease (Norwick, 2012). Tribal Lands Nearby American Indian reservations include lands of the Acoma Pueblo, Laguna Pueblo, Zuni, Navajo, Ramah Navajo, and Hopi Tribes (USNRC, 2010). Historically, Forest Service lands including the project site have been used for traditional cultural and religious activities by these tribes and others (for a more detailed discussion see the “Cultural Resources” section). Mt. Taylor in particular is a sacred place of veneration to all of the tribes in this part of New Mexico and is frequently visited by tribal members. Private and Other Lands Although sparsely populated, the region surrounding the project has three fairly large population centers: Gallup, with more than 21,000 people; Grants, with approximately 9,200 people; and Zuni Pueblo, with about 6,300 people. Smaller communities are scattered along the Interstate 40 corridor. Generally, private, Federal, and tribal lands in this region are rural, mainly undeveloped, sparsely populated, and mostly used for livestock grazing and to a lesser extent for timber and agricultural production. In McKinley County, for example, more than 85 percent of the land is used for agricultural purposes and 83 percent of that land is used for livestock grazing. Only 9 percent and 0.6 percent of the land is used for timber production and for dry and irrigated crop production, respectively. Coal and uranium milling activities use less than 1 percent of the land in McKinley County (USNRC, 2010). Environmental Consequences As described in chapter 2, mining activity at the Roca Honda Mine will include the major phases of mine development, mine operation, and mine reclamation. The following evaluation and discussion of environmental consequences for land use considers the full range of these major phases. In many cases the environmental consequences are the same or similar for all or nearly all of these major phases, but where important differences between phases are present, the discussion will specifically reference these differences between phases. Table 40 shows the resource-specific criteria and definitions for land use that are used as impact criteria for of the three alternatives. The basis for describing the overall significance of the impact to the resource may be seen in the “Methodology” section at the beginning of chapter 3. 250 DEIS for Roca Honda Mine, Cibola National Forest
Table 40. Impact characterization for land use Magnitude Major Moderate Minor Duration Long Term Medium Term (limited or intermittent) Short Term Extent Large Medium (localized) Small (limited) Likelihood Probable Possible Unlikely Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Term Definition In conflict with Federal or State land use plans In conflict with regional or county land use plans In conflict with nearby municipa1 or site specific land use plans Project life is more than 20 years Project life is 5–20 years Project life is less than 5 years Proposed project occupies an area greater than 5 percent of the planning area jurisdiction. ------ Proposed project occupies an area less than 5 percent of the planning area jurisdiction. Occurs under typical operating conditions Occurs under worst-case operating conditions Occurs under upset/malfunction conditions Land use policies on Cibola National Forest lands are derived from a series of land management issues and opportunities that are relevant to land use and that are identified in their forest plan (USFS, 1985) as described above and listed again below: • Range Management • Soil and Water • Recreation • Minerals Management • Transportation • Electronic Site Management • Unauthorized Use The land use policies are, therefore, potentially affected by actions from each alternative that alter the conditions of these issues and opportunities. Environmental consequences of the proposed action and alternatives are evaluated as they impact these established land management issues and opportunities. DEIS for Roca Honda Mine, Cibola National Forest 251
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:
Page 60 and 61:
Page 62 and 63:
Page 64 and 65:
Page 66 and 67:
Page 68 and 69:
Page 70 and 71:
Page 72 and 73:
Page 74 and 75:
Page 76 and 77:
Page 78 and 79:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Land Use Chapter 2. Alternatives, I
Page 85 and 86:
Treated Water Discharge in an Alter
Page 87 and 88:
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 and 108:
Topic Alternative 1 - No Action Leg
Page 109 and 110:
Other Actions and Projects Consider
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Marquez Canyon Exploration Current
Page 115:
Page 118 and 119:
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and
Page 120 and 121:
Page 122 and 123:
Page 124 and 125:
Page 126 and 127:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141:
Figure 33. Permit area watershed an
Page 144 and 145:
Page 146 and 147:
Page 148 and 149:
Page 150 and 151:
Page 152 and 153:
Page 154 and 155:
Page 156 and 157:
Page 158 and 159:
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: Chapter 3. Affected Environment and
Page 231 and 232: State Listed Plant Species Chapter
Page 233 and 234: Species Status Habitat and Distribu
Page 241 and 242: Common Name (Scientific name) Black
Page 245 and 246: Common Name (Scientific Name) Gunni
Page 255 and 256: Table 39. Criteria for rating impac
Page 257 and 258: Wildlife Mortality Chapter 3. Affec
Page 275: Chapter 3. Affected Environment and
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 291 and 292: Minority Populations Chapter 3. Aff
Page 293 and 294: Figure 58. Distribution of minority
Page 307 and 308: High school graduates, percent of p
Page 309 and 310: Earnings Chapter 3. Affected Enviro
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 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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?