USDA Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the La Jara Mesa Mine Project (TPD1203029)

La Jara Mesa Mine Project

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Cibola County, New Mexico

Lead Agency:                                                 Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture

Cooperating Agencies:                                   New Mexico Environment Department New Mexico Groundwater Quality Bureau Mining and Minerals Division, ENMRD New Mexico Department of Game & Fish

Responsible Official:                                      Nancy Rose, Forest Supervisor Cibola National Forest

2113 Osuna Road, NE Albuquerque, NM 87113

For Information Contact:                              Keith Baker, NEPA Coordinator Cibola National Forest

2113 Osuna Road, NE Albuquerque, NM 87113

(505) 346-3820

Abstract: On April 15, 2008, Laramide Resources (USA) Inc. (the applicant), submitted a plan of operations (plan) for mining uranium at the La Jara Mesa mining claims. The proposed plan contains a general description of the major activities that could occur at the claims area. The plan includes development, operation, and mine reclamation for an overall time period of up to 20 years. The mining claims are located on National Forest System land (Mt. Taylor Ranger District, Cibola National Forest) northeast of the town of Grants in Cibola County, New Mexico (16.4 acres of northeast corner of Section 15, Township 12 North, Range 9 West, and 0.1 acre on Section 11, Township 12 North, Range 9 West). Disturbance on the 16.4 acres includes improvements to existing roads, construction of a new water pipeline and electric distribution line in the road right-of-way, and an escape raise/air vent at the top of La Jara Mesa, all of which are directly associated with the applicant’s plan.

Reviewers should provide the Forest Service with their comments during the review period of the draft environmental impact statement (draft EIS). This will enable the Forest Service to analyze and respond to all of the comments and to use information acquired in the preparation of the final environmental impact statement (final EIS) for its decision. Reviewers have an obligation to structure their participation in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process so that it is meaningful and alerts the agency to the reviewers’ position and contentions (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC, 435 U.S. 519, 553 [1978]). Environmental objections that could have been raised at the draft EIS stage may be waived if not raised until after completion of the final EIS (City of Angoon v. Hodel [9th Circuit, l986] and Wisconsin Heritages, Inc. v. Harris, 490 F. Supp. 1334, 1338 [E.D. Wis. 1980]). Comments on the draft EIS should be specific and

DEIS for the La Jara Mesa Mine Project                                                                                                                         i

should address the adequacy of the statement and the merits of the alternatives discussed (40 CFR 1503.3).

Send Comments to:                                         Nancy Rose, Forest Supervisor

U.S. Forest Service Cibola National Forest 2113 Osuna Road, NE Albuquerque, NM 87113

email: comments-southwestern-cibola@fs.fed.us

Date Comments Must Be Received: Within 60 days after the date that the Environmental Protection Agency publishes the notice of availability of the draft EIS in the Federal Register.

ii                                                                                                                       DEIS for the La Jara Mesa Mine Project

Summary

Introduction

Laramide Resources (USA) Inc. (the applicant), has submitted a plan of operations (plan) for development of underground uranium mining and surface support facilities at the La Jara Mesa property at Mt. Taylor near Grants, New Mexico. This draft environmental impact statement (draft EIS) evaluates the potential environmental impacts of implementing the proposed plan.

Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action

The Federal action associated with the EIS is the Forest Service’s decision on whether or not to approve the applicant’s proposed plan, or decisions on which, if any, mitigation measures will be required to protect other non-mineral surface resources consistent with the forest plan, Federal regulations, and other applicable laws. The applicant has a right to develop and remove mineral resources as set forth by the General Mining Law of 1872 as amended. These laws provide that the public has a statutory right to conduct prospecting, exploration, and development activities (1872 Mining Law and 1897 Organic Act), provided they are reasonably incident (1955 Multiple Use Mining Act and case law) to mining and comply with other Federal laws.

The Forest Service has the responsibility to protect surface resources. Mining regulations state that “operations shall be conducted so as, where feasible, to minimize adverse environmental effects on National Forest System surface resources (36 CFR 228.8)” provided such regulation does not endanger or materially interfere with prospecting, mining, or processing operations or reasonably incidental uses (1955 Multiple Use Mining Act and case law).

Public Involvement

The notice of intent (NOI) to prepare a draft EIS for the proposed action was published in the Federal Register on May 14, 2009. The NOI asked for public comment on the proposal from May 14 until June 22, 2009. Two public open houses were held on May 20 and 21, 2009, in the communities of Grants and Gallup, Cibola and McKinley Counties, New Mexico, respectively. At the open houses, the Forest Service provided information on the proposed action and alternatives, offered opportunity for the public to talk to resource and planning specialists, and encouraged the public to submit comments on the scope of the EIS and on alternatives, to share issues and concerns, and to ask questions. In addition to the NOI and open houses, the initial scoping included online listing in the U.S. Forest Service Quarterly Schedule of proposed actions, letters sent to interested and affected individuals, agencies and organizations, and publication of legal notices. Comments submitted were summarized in a scoping summary report (Golder Associates Inc. 2009) and considered in determining the scope of this draft EIS.

As part of the public involvement process, the Forest Service set up a link on the Southwestern Region’s Web site (http://www.fs.fed.us/nepa/nepa_project_exp.php?

project=25654) to present information and documentation about the project to interested parties. This information is included in the “Cibola National Forest Schedule of Proposed Actions” (SOPA) report. As part of their responsibilities under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), the Forest Service has ongoing consultation with tribes and solicited their input on the project. Using comments from the public, agencies, tribes, and other interested parties, the Forest Service developed a list of issues to address in this draft EIS as identified below.

DEIS for the La Jara Mesa Mine Project                                                                                                                       iii

Summary

Issues Identified During Scoping

The Forest Service separated the issues into two groups: significant and nonsignificant issues. Significant issues were defined as those directly or indirectly caused by implementing the proposed action. Nonsignificant issues were identified as those: (1) outside the scope of the proposed action; (2) already decided by law, regulation, forest plan, or other higher level decision; (3) irrelevant to the decision to be made; or (4) conjectural and not supported by scientific or factual evidence. The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulations explain this delineation in Sec. 1501.7, “…identify and eliminate from detailed study the issues which are not significant or which have been covered by prior environmental review (Sec. 1506.3)….”

The Forest Service identified the following significant issues for discussion in the EIS:

• Project effects on the characteristics that make the Mt. Taylor Traditional Cultural Property eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP).
• Need for reclamation and restoration of disturbed land.
• Potential contamination of ground and surface water, and how such contamination would be avoided.
• Potential impact of uranium mining on the local and state economy based on a statewide study of such impacts.
• Transport of uranium ore up to the state highway system, using other documentation for offsite transport issues. Ore processing analysis to include a discussion of transport to a possible uranium processing site, although the actual site of processing is unknown.
  • Potential health and safety risk of uranium mining.
  • Potential disturbance to wildlife in the vicinity of the mine and escape raise.
  • Protection of recreational resources based on local uses near the site.
  • Compliance with regulations and permitting requirements.
  • Cumulative effects of uranium mining in the area and statewide.

Proposed Action and Alternatives

No Action Alternative

Under the no action alternative, the proposed La Jara Mesa Project (the project) and all associated infrastructure, including the surface facilities, water supply and pipeline, and access road improvements, would not be constructed. The no action alternative assumes that the site would remain undeveloped land, as currently managed by the Forest Service and adjacent private property owners. Recreational opportunities would still occur on the site and use of the roads by the public on the site would continue. Other site vicinity uses would include use and maintenance of Forest Service and private roads, grazing, hunting, 4-wheel drive vehicle use and electric transmission lines. Under the no action alternative, neither the impacts nor benefits of the project would occur.

Under the no action alternative, current Forest Service management plans would continue to guide management of the project area.

iv                                                                                                                      DEIS for the La Jara Mesa Mine Project

Summary

Proposed Action Alternative

The project that is being evaluated under the Forest Service’s proposed action would involve two phases: underground development (phase 1) and mining production (phase 2). Planned activities and facilities include access development, exploration, mining, material storage, transport, and reclamation. Surface facilities and infrastructure would be constructed to support the two phases. They are summarized below.

Phase 1: Underground Development

Detailed underground development work would be conducted to better define the uranium deposit. This phase 1 activity would be conducted to characterize the extent and quality of the ore body. Upon completion of phase 1, the applicant would decide whether or not to proceed with the mine and full production.

During phase 1, the applicant would develop dual and parallel inclines (tunnels) for access. This would include drilling, blasting, and rock removal. Blasting would start at the surface of the opening and would be conducted deeper inside the mine as the tunnels proceed. Surface infrastructure would be constructed sufficient to support the underground development phase.

Once underground in the designated mineralized zone, the applicant would undertake geological mapping, longhole drilling with gamma probing, test mining, and collection of bulk samples for metallurgical and mill compatibility studies.

The underground development would be approximately 700 feet below the top of the mesa overlying the inclines (tunnels), approximately 500 to 800 feet above the water table. No onsite mill or associated tailings facilities are planned for the project. The underground project activities would produce unmineralized (nonradioactive) waste rock during phase 1, that will be placed outside the mine mouth (adit) or in some cases, in completed parts of the mine (in voids left by mining), and will produce uranium-mineralized rock that would be collected for removal and offsite testing. This placement, and the facilities required to support both phases, would cover most of the 16.4 acres required for the project. If testing supports mine development, phase 2 would be implemented.

Phase 2: Underground Mine Production

If the applicant decides to proceed with mining after analysis of the ore samples, they would begin phase 2. Actual mining and tunneling would use an underground technique that is known as room and pillar mining. Targeted ore production would average approximately 500 tons per day, varying on grade and geometry of the deposit. This ore would be trucked out of the mine, deposited on a temporary holding pad, and picked up by truck for delivery to an offsite uranium processing mill. The mill that would be used to process this ore is not known at this time. One possible location being considered for processing is at an existing facility in Utah. This or other facilities may be operating at the time mining operations are underway.

Improvements to the local road system, including turn lanes, would be constructed where the site access road intersects with NM 605, to accommodate the anticipated 12 to 13 daily truckloads of ore hauled from the site. As with phase 1, there are no plans for onsite processing (milling) or mill tailings disposal. All uranium ore would be hauled offsite. Phase 2 also includes a permanent (life of mine) water supply pipeline, electrical transmission line, and support facilities as described in detail in chapter 2.

DEIS for the La Jara Mesa Mine Project                                                                                                                        v

Summary

Reclamation

Upon completion of operation, the site would be reclaimed by implementing an agency approved reclamation plan. This reclamation would remove facilities, close the mine, and restore the site to a condition suitable for its existing uses. A summary of potential impacts is included in table 1.

Summary of Potential Impacts

Table 1. Summary of potential environmental impacts associated with the project

vi                                                                                                                      DEIS for the La Jara Mesa Mine Project

Summary

Decision Framework

The forest supervisor will use the EIS process to develop the necessary information to make an informed decision on whether or not to approve the proposed plan as submitted, or to decide what additional mitigation measures are needed to protect other resources as provided for in 36 CFR

228.8 (Code of Federal Regulations), table 2. The decision would ensure that the project conforms to provisions set forth in the existing 1985 “Cibola National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan” (LRMP).

DEIS for the La Jara Mesa Mine Project                                                                                                                      vii

Summary

Potential Permits and Approvals

Table 2. Potential permits and approvals

viii                                                                                                                    DEIS for the La Jara Mesa Mine Project

Summary

Acronyms and Abbreviations

AADT……………………. annual average daily traffic

AMP……………………… allotment management plan

AMSL……………………. above mean sea level

AOI………………………. annual operating instructions

Applicant……………….. Laramide Resources (USA) Inc.

AQB……………………… Air Quality Bureau

AUM…………………….. animal unit month

AQCR……………………. Southwestern Mountains-Augustine Plains Intrastate Air Quality Control

Region

ARPA…………………………….. Archaeological Resources Protection Act

ANFO……………………. ammonium nitrate and fuel oil

ATV……………………………….. all terrain vehicle

BACT……………………. best available control technology

BBS………………………. breeding bird survey

BLM……………………… Bureau of Land Management

BNSF…………………….. Burlington Northern Santa Fe

BP…………………………. before the present

BMP……………………… best management practice

Bq…………………………. becueral

Bq/g………………………. becuerals per gram

Bq/s………………………. becuerals per second

CDEC……………………. Continental Divide Electric Cooperative Inc.

CEMS……………………. continuous emissions monitoring system

CEQ………………………. Council on Environmental Quality

CERCLA……………….. Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and

Liability Act

CFR………………………. Code of Federal Regulations

CHDB……………………. Consolidated Highway Database

Ci………………………….. Curies

C/MVM…………………. crashes per million vehicle miles

CNF………………………. Cibola National Forest

CO………………………… carbon monoxide

DEIS for the La Jara Mesa Mine Project                                                                                                                       ix

Summary

CO₂……………………….. carbon dioxide

Curie……………………… 37 billion disintegrations per second

CWCS……………………. (New Mexico) Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy

dB…………………………. decibel

dBA………………………. A-weighted decibels

DOT……………………… Department of Transportation

EIA……………………….. Energy Information Administration

EIS………………………… environmental impact statement

EIR……………………….. environmental impact report

EMNRD…………………. New Mexico Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources Department

EMT……………………… emergency medical technician

EO………………………… Executive Order

EPA………………………………… United States Environmental Protection Agency

FCAA……………………. Federal Clean Air Act

FIP………………………… Federal Implementation Plan

FS…………………………. Forest Service, United States Department of Agriculture

FUS………………………. formally used sites

g…………………………… Gravity-An earthquake energy unit equal to the acceleration of gravity

GEIS……………………… generic environmental impact statement

GHG……………………… greenhouse gases

GIS……………………….. geographic information systems

gpd……………………….. gallons per day

gpm………………………. gallons per minute

GWQB…………………… Ground Water Quality Bureau

HAP………………………. hazardous air pollutant

H₂S……………………….. hydrogen sulfide

H₂SO₄……………………. sulfuric acid

HDPE……………………. high-density polyethylene

HUD……………………… Housing and Urban Development

Hz…………………………. hertz

IBA……………………….. important bird area

IO…………………………. isolated occurrence

ISL………………………… in-situ leach

kV………………………… kilovolt

lbs…………………………. pounds

Leq……………………….. sound level equivalent

Ldn……………………….. nighttime weighted sound level

LLC………………………. Limited Liability Corporation

LOS………………………. level of service

LOE…………………………………………………. mean noise level

x                                                                                                                       DEIS for the La Jara Mesa Mine Project

Summary

LRMP……………………. land and resource management plan

MgCl……………………… magnesium chloride

MIS……………………….. management indicator species

mg/l………………………. milligram per liter

MMD…………………….. (New Mexico) Mining and Minerals Division

mph………………………. miles per hour

MOS2………………………………………………. black molybdenum mineral

MSDS……………………. material safety data sheets

MSHA…………………… Mine Safety and Health Administration

MSGP……………………. Multi-Sector General Permit

mrem…………………….. millirem

NAAQS…………………. National Ambient Air Quality Standards

NEPA…………………………….. National Environmental Policy Act

NESHAP………………… National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants

NFSR…………………….. National Forest Service Road

NHPA……………………. National Historic Preservation Act

NHS………………………. national highway system

NMDOT………………… New Mexico Department of Transportation

NMDGF…………………. New Mexico Department of Game and Fish

NMED…………………… New Mexico Environment Department

NMSU…………………… New Mexico State University

NMOSE…………………. New Mexico Office of the State Engineer

NMPM…………………… New Mexico Prime Meridian

NOI………………………. notice of intent

NO₂………………………. nitrogen dioxide

NOx………………………. nitrogen oxide

NPDES………………….. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

NRC……………………… United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

NRCS……………………. Natural Resources Conservation Service

NRHP……………………. National Register of Historic Places

NSPS…………………….. new source performance standards

O₃…………………………. ozone

OHWM………………….. ordinary high water mark

OSHA……………………. Occupational Health and Safety Administration

pCi………………………… pico Curie; one trillionth of a Curie

Pb…………………………. lead

PIF………………………… Partners in Flight

PM………………………… particulate matter

PSD………………………. prevention of significant deterioration

PTOE…………………….. Professional Traffic Operations Engineer

RAP………………………. remedial action program

DEIS for the La Jara Mesa Mine Project                                                                                                                      xi

Summary

rem……………………….. roentgen equivalent man

RO………………………… reverse osmosis

ROG……………………… reactive organic gas

ROW…………………….. right-of-way

SAP………………………. sampling and analysis plan

SARA……………………. Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act

SIP………………………… State Implementation Plan

SGCN……………………. species of greatest conservation need

SHPO…………………….. State Historic Preservation Office(r)

SIR……………………….. standardized incident ratio

SMACRA………………. Surface Mine Control and Reclamation Act

SMR……………………… standardized mortality ratio

SO₂……………………….. sulfur dioxide

SOPA……………………………… schedule of proposed actions

SPCC…………………….. spill prevention, control, and countermeasures

SPL……………………….. sound pressure level

SR…………………………. State Route

STA………………………………… site traffic analysis

SWPPP…………………… stormwater pollution prevention plan

TAP………………………. toxic air pollutant

TCP………………………. traditional cultural property

TDS………………………. total dissolved solids

TES……………………….. terrestrial ecosystem survey

TRS………………………. total reduced sulfur

TSP……………………….. total suspended particulate

UMTRA…………………. Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act

UNM…………………….. University of New Mexico

UNM-DGR…………….. University Of New Mexico Division of Government Research

USDA……………………. United States Department of Agriculture

USDOE………………….. United States Department of Energy

USDOT………………….. United States Department of Transportation

USGS…………………….. United States Geologic Survey

USFWS………………….. United States Fish and Wildlife Service

VOC……………………… volatile organic compound

VPD………………………. vehicles per day

VQO……………………… visual quality objective

WQCC…………………… Water Quality Control Commission

WRAP…………………… Western Regional Air Partnership

xii                                                                                                                     DEIS for the La Jara Mesa Mine Project

Contents

Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action………………………………………………………….. 1

Document Structure…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 1

Background…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 1

Purpose and Need for Action………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 2

Proposed Action………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 2

Decision Framework……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 4

Public Involvement……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 4

Issues Identified During Scoping………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 4

Chapter 2. Alternatives,  Including the Proposed Action……………………………………………… 7

Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 7

Alternatives Considered in Detail……………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 7

No Action……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 8

Proposed Action……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 8

Alternatives Considered But  Eliminated from Detailed Study…………………………………………………………. 38

Open Pit Mining…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 39

In-situ Leach Mining…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 39

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences………………….. 41

Geology and Soils……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 41

Affected Environment………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 41

Environmental Consequences………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 50

Air Quality………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 57

Affected Environment………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 58

Air Quality Standards and Regulations………………………………………………………………………………………… 69

Environmental Consequences………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 72

Water…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 78

Affected Environment………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 78

Environmental Consequences………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 91

Vegetation……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 102

Affected Environment………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 102

Environmental Consequences…………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 104

Wildlife…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 106

Affected Environment………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 106

Environmental Consequences…………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 114

Rangeland Resources………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 120

Affected Environment………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 120

Environmental Consequences…………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 121

Energy and Natural Resources………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 122

Affected Environment………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 122

Environmental Consequences…………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 122

Noise……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 123

Noise Standards and Guidelines…………………………………………………………………………………………………. 123

Affected Environment………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 124

Environmental Consequences…………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 124

Cumulative Effects……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 128

Land Use and Recreation………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 129

Existing Land Use………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 129

Affected Environment………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 129

Environmental Consequences…………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 131

Visual Resources……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 134

Affected Environment………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 134

Environmental Consequences…………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 136

Population and Housing………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 138

DEIS for the La Jara Mesa Mine Project                                                                                                                     xiii

Contents

Affected Environment………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 138

Environmental Consequences…………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 140

Environmental Justice……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 141

CEQ Guidance……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 142

Affected Environment………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 142

Environmental Consequences…………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 144

Public Services and Utilities……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 145

Affected Environment………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 145

Environmental Consequences…………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 147

Economics……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 147

Affected Environment………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 148

Environmental Consequences…………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 150

Heritage Resources………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 152

Affected Environment………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 153

Archaeological Resources………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 158

Environmental Consequences…………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 160

Traffic and Transportation………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 164

Affected Environment………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 164

Environmental Consequences…………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 169

Human Health and Safety……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 175

Affected Environment………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 176

Environmental Consequences…………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 177

Legacy Health Issues –  New Mexico Uranium Mining………………………………………………………………….. 181

Legacy Health Issues………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 181

Current Mine Safety Regulations……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 185

Current Legacy Health Investigations and Activities…………………………………………………………………. 186

Future Uranium Mining Health  Legacy Activities – Grants Mining District…………………………….. 187

Conclusion………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 189

Short-Term Use of Resources  vs. Long-Term Productivity…………………………………………………………… 189

Consequences of Proposed Action……………………………………………………………………………………………… 190

Irreversible and Irretrievable  Commitments of Resources……………………………………………………………… 190

Consequences of the Proposed Action……………………………………………………………………………………….. 190

Unavoidable Adverse Effects………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 191

No Action Alternative………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 191

Proposed Action…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 191

Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination…………………………………………………………. 193

Consultation…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 193

Notice of Intent and Scoping………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 193

Tribal Governments……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 193

State Agencies……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 193

List of Agencies, Organizations and  Persons to Whom Copies of the Draft EIS Were Sent………….. 194

Preparers and Contributors……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 195

Consulting Staff………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 195

References…………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 199

Appendix

1. Ore Transport Policy………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 207
2. Suggested Mitigation………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 217

Index……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 219

xiv                                                                                                                    DEIS for the La Jara Mesa Mine Project

Contents

List of Tables

Table 1.       Summary of potential environmental impacts associated with the project……………………… vi

Table 2.       Potential permits and approvals……………………………………………………………………………………. viii

Table 3.       Surface area disturbance………………………………………………………………………………………………… 10

Table 4.       Projected water use requirements………………………………………………………………………………….. 16

Table 5.       Frequency parameters for stormwater facilities…………………………………………………………….. 17

Table 6.       Estimated volumes of waste rock………………………………………………………………………………….. 22

Table 7.       Mobile equipment………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 26

Table 8.       Materials and supplies…………………………………………………………………………………………………… 26

Table 9.       Seed mixture………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 29

Table 10.     Estimated costs for reclamation…………………………………………………………………………………….. 34

Table 11.     Soil map units and their component soil

properties in the vicinity of the La Jara Mesa Mine Project………………………………………….. 47

Table 12.     Interpretative properties for soils in the vicinity of the La Jara Mesa Project……………….. 48

Table 13.     Projected change in New Mexico statewide emission

inventory from 2002 to 2018 for point and area source emissions………………………………… 65

Table 14.     New Mexico and Federal ambient air quality standards………………………………………………… 71

Table 15.     Potential emissions from ore processing……………………………………………………………………….. 78

Table 16.     Records of wells in the vicinity of the La Jara Mesa Mine Project……………………………….. 84

Table 17.     Summary of water quality data from wells in the vicinity of the La Jara Mesa Project…. 92

Table 18.     Summary of design storm event frequency for proposed project stormwater facilities…. 94

Table 19.     Projected volumes and relative percentages of

underground development waste rock to be placed in the waste rock facility……………….. 96

Table 20.     Radiological summary of exploration borehole data……………………………………………………… 97

Table 21.     USFWS protected plant species with potential to occur in Cibola County, NM…………. 103

Table 22.     Region 3 Forest Service sensitive plant species with

potential to occur in Mt. Taylor Ranger District………………………………………………………….. 103

Table 23.     Noxious weeds with potential to occur in Mt. Taylor Ranger District………………………… 104

Table 24.     Summary of USFWS listed plant species determinations for the project area…………….. 105

Table 25.     Effects determination for Forest Service sensitive plant

species found within Mt. Taylor Ranger District, Cibola County, NM……………………….. 105

Table 26.     USFWS listed species with potential to occur in Cibola County, NM………………………… 108

Table 27.     Region 3 Forest Service sensitive species with

potential to occur in Mt. Taylor Ranger District………………………………………………………….. 108

Table 28.     High priority migratory bird species and associated habitat………………………………………… 110

Table 29.     Summary of Forest Service management indicator

species (MIS) evaluated for the La Jara Mesa Uranium Mining Project……………………… 112

Table 30.     USFWS federally listed species considered in the

analysis area and summary of effects determinations………………………………………………….. 116

Table 31.     Summary of Forest Service sensitive species found within

Mt. Taylor Ranger District, Cibola County, NM, and determination of effects…………… 116

Table 32.     Typical noise levels from common construction equipment at various distances……….. 125

Table 33.     Calculated sound pressure level from vehicle traffic at various distances…………………… 126

Table 34.     Predicted sound pressure levels at 1 mile from the project………………………………………….. 127

Table 35.     Population changes for Grants and Gallup, Cibola

and McKinley Counties, and the State of New Mexico, 2000 to 2008………………………… 139

Table 36.     Housing characteristics for Grants and Gallup, Cibola

and McKinley Counties, and the State of New Mexico in 2000………………………………….. 139

Table 37.     Racial composition and poverty statistics for Census Tracts 9745,

9744, 9742.01 and 9742.02, Cibola County, and the State of New Mexico………………… 143

Table 38.     Archaeological sites determined to be within the project area…………………………………….. 159

Table 39.     Principal access roadway characteristics…………………………………………………………………….. 165

Table 40.     Truck route to White Mesa Mill characteristics………………………………………………………….. 165

DEIS for the La Jara Mesa Mine Project                                                                                                                     xv

Contents

Table 41.     Average annual daily traffic counts for roads

impacted by La Jara Mesa Mine uranium ore hauling…………………………………………………. 166

Table 42.     Average annual daily traffic counts for truck route to White Mesa Mine……………………. 166

Table 43.     Estimated current roadway planning levels of service…………………………………………………. 167

Table 44.     Estimated truck route to White Mesa Mill planning levels of service………………………….. 168

Table 45.     Three-year crash summary………………………………………………………………………………………….. 168

Table 46.     Year 2030 roadway volumes and planning levels of service without project………………. 173

Table 47.     Year 2030 truck route volumes and planning levels of service without traffic……………. 173

Table 48.     Year 2008 and 2030 project level roadway volumes and planning levels of service……. 174

Table 49.     Year 2008 and 2030 truck route volumes and planning levels of service with project… 174

Table 50.     Uranium worker compensation – April 1992 through June 2007…………………………………. 186

Table 51.     Summary of impacts, proposed mitigation measures, and unavoidable adverse effects.191

List of Figures

Figure 1.      Site location…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 6

Figure 2.      Site plan…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 12

Figure 3.      Ancillary facility and site access…………………………………………………………………………………… 13

Figure 4.      Proposed tie-In location for new transmission line……………………………………………………….. 14

Figure 5.      Raise layout…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 23

Figure 6.      Portal and raise closure………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 32

Figure 7.      Post project topography…………………………………………………………………………………………………. 33

Figure 8.      Regional stratigraphy…………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 43

Figure 9.      Distribution of terrestrial ecosystem survey units………………………………………………………….. 45

Figure 10. Wind Speed and Direction 2002-2009 at Grants-Milan Municipal

Airport (wind directions shown are the location the wind is blowing from)………………….. 59

Figure 11.   Residences and incorporated areas………………………………………………………………………………… 60

Figure 12.   Ambient monitoring locations in New Mexico……………………………………………………………… 61

Figure 13.   Emission sources of carbon monoxide in Cibola County………………………………………………. 62

Figure 14.   Emission sources of nitrogen oxides in Cibola County…………………………………………………. 62

Figure 15.   Emission sources of volatile organic compounds in Cibola County……………………………… 63

Figure 16.   Emission sources of PM₁₀ in Cibola County…………………………………………………………………. 63

Figure 17.   Emission sources of PM_2.5 in Cibola County…………………………………………………………………. 64

Figure 18.   Emission sources of SO₂ in Cibola County……………………………………………………………………. 64

Figure 19.   Emission sources of lead in Cibola County…………………………………………………………………… 65

Figure 20.   La Jara Mesa surface water basins and project watershed……………………………………………… 80

Figure 21.   Precipitation summary NWS Station 293234, San Mateo, NM…………………………………….. 81

Figure 22.   NMOSE groundwater basins…………………………………………………………………………………………. 83

Figure 23.   La Jara Mesa geology……………………………………………………………………………………………………. 84

Figure 24.   Hydrogeologic cross section………………………………………………………………………………………….. 85

Figure 25.   Proposed escape raise site and proximity to Forest Road 544……………………………………… 135

Figure 26. Photo of portal facility site at a distance

of 2.5 miles from access road to be improved……………………………………………………………… 136

xvi                                                                                                                    DEIS for the La Jara Mesa Mine Project

Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action

Document Structure

The Forest Service has prepared this draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant Federal and State laws and regulations. This draft EIS discloses the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts that would result from the proposed action and alternatives. The document is organized as follows:

Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action: The chapter includes information on the history of the project proposal, the purpose of and need for the project, and the agency’s needs and proposal for achieving that purpose and need. This chapter also details how the Forest Service informed the public of the proposal and how the public responded.

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action: This chapter provides a more detailed description of the applicant’s proposed action and considers any alternative methods for achieving the stated purpose. No alternatives that meet the need for the proposed action were identified, so none were carried through the draft EIS. Alternatives that were considered but did not meet the need are discussed in chapter 2 and excluded from further consideration. Finally, this section provides a summary table of the environmental consequences associated with each alternative.

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences: This chapter describes the environmental effects of implementing the proposed action and no action alternatives. This analysis is organized by resource area.

Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination: This chapter provides a list of preparers and agencies consulted during development of the draft EIS.

References

Appendix: The appendix consists of multiple parts and provides more detailed information to support the analyses presented in the draft EIS.

Index: The index provides page numbers by document topic.

Additional documentation, including more detailed analyses of project area resources, may be found in the project record located at the Mt. Taylor Ranger District office.

Background

Laramide Resources (USA) Inc. (the applicant), plans to develop and mine the La Jara Mesa property on U.S. Department of Agriculture (Forest Service) land north of Grants, New Mexico. The plan is to extract uranium ore for processing offsite. The applicant has submitted a plan of operations (plan) to the Forest Service for development of a uranium mine at the La Jara Mesa property. The La Jara Mesa Project (the project) is located approximately 10 miles northeast of the town of Grants in Cibola County (the county), New Mexico on the Mt. Taylor Ranger District of the Cibola National Forest (figure 1, “Site Location”) on the southwest flank of Mt. Taylor.

The applicant intends to accomplish this action through a two-phase integrated program consisting of Phase 1 – Underground Development and Phase 2 – Underground Mine Production.

DEIS for the La Jara Mesa Mine Project                                                                                                                       1

Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action

Phase 1 includes the construction of support facilities and two adjacent tunnels into the base of La Jara Mesa to reach the ore. The opening of the tunnels is referred to as a portal. It includes the installation of temporary infrastructure facilities to support the phase 1 workforce. Phase 2 includes the mining of that ore and the construction of an emergency escape tunnel (raise) to meet mining safety regulations. Phase 2 also includes construction of permanent infrastructure to serve the mine and the phase 2 workforce.

Purpose and Need for Action

The Federal action associated with the EIS is the Forest Service’s decision on whether or not to approve the applicant’s proposed plan. The Forest Service need is to respond to the plan of operations submitted by the applicant, and to decide whether to approve it as submitted, or to require mitigation measures needed to protect other nonmineral surface resources consistent with the forest plan, Federal regulations, and other applicable laws. The applicant has the right to exercise their rights under U.S. mining laws to develop and remove the mineral resources as set forth by the General Mining Law of 1872, as amended. These laws provide that the public has a statutory right to conduct prospecting, exploration, development and production activities (1872 Mining Law and 1897 Organic Act), provided they are reasonably incident (1955 Multiple Use Mining Act and case law) to mining and comply with other Federal laws.

The Forest Service has the responsibility to protect surface resources. Mining regulations state that “operations shall be conducted so as, where feasible, to minimize adverse environmental effects on National Forest System surface resources (36 CFR 228.8)” provided such regulation does not endanger or materially interfere with prospecting, mining, or processing operations or reasonably incidental uses (1955 Multiple Use Mining Act and case law). Under 36 CFR 228.4(a) (Code of Federal Regulations) subsection (4), “If the district ranger determines that any operation is causing or will likely cause significant disturbance of surface resources, the district ranger shall notify the operator that the operator must submit a proposed plan of operations for approval and that the operations cannot be conducted until a plan of operations is approved.”

Proposed Action

The proposed Federal action is to approve with required mitigations the plan of operations described as an underground uranium mine consisting of an approximately 16-acre surface area footprint. This footprint would be comprised of a waste rock storage area, temporary ore storage within the waste rock area, a new water line and electrical transmission line following the existing private and Forest Service roads to the site, and to the escape raise portal at the top of the mesa.

The mine would include two adjacent and parallel adits (nearly level tunnels) that extend to the ore deposit where the active mine will be excavated. Both the mine and the adit are similar tunnels, but the terms refer to their function, as the adit tunnel provides access to the mine tunnel. When active mining is initiated, a vertical escape (raise) shaft will be bored to the top of the mesa to provide an escape route in the event of an accident in the mine requiring evacuation. It will also provide additional air circulation. The escape raise opening and supporting power and equipment will lie inside a fenced area of approximately 0.1 acre. Additional facilities at the mine include a locked explosive storage shed, lighting, ventilation fans, one or more stormwater ponds, water storage tank, shower and lunchroom facilities, and a field office.

2                                                                                                                       DEIS for the La Jara Mesa Mine Project

Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action

The applicant purchased the rights to the uranium ore on the La Jara Mesa property in 2005 and controls unpatented¹ mining claims on lands administered by the Forest Service. The extent of these claims is shown on figure 1, “Site Location,” and reflects an underground claim area approximately 2 x 2.5 miles square. The applicant proposes to develop and conduct underground uranium mining operations as described in their plan. The proposed mining facility would be comprised of the portal (mine opening) and escape raise area, associated surface support facilities and infrastructure as described in chapter 2, access roads, and power and water supply. The operations footprint for waste rock and temporary ore storage outside of the portal is approximately 16 acres. The proposed Federal action is to approve the applicant’s plan of operations with mitigation needed to protect other resources consistent with forest plan, regulations, and other laws.

The mine portal facilities would be located on claims controlled by the applicant on National Forest System lands at the base of the La Jara Mesa at an elevation of 7,300 feet in the NE1/4, Section 15, T12N, R9W, New Mexico Prime Meridian (NMPM). The mineralized zones that would be accessed from the portal are located in portions of Sections 1, 2, 11, 12, 13, and 14, T12N, R9W, NMPM. The escape raise would be located on Forest Service administered lands on top of La Jara Mesa in Section 11, T12N, R9W, NMPM.

The applicant would conduct underground exploration investigations at the site and, if the exploration results and uranium production economics remain favorable, the applicant would transition from initial development work into full scale underground mining operation.

Phase 1 of the proposed action is referred to as underground development work. It is intended to attain four objectives:

1. Assess the geological and metallurgical characteristics of the uranium mineralized zones previously identified by surface drilling.
2. Confirm the economic value of the uranium mineralization.
3. Evaluate the technical and economic nature of future underground mining.
4. Clarify the offsite milling process and recoveries anticipated.

Phase 2 of the proposed action is referred to as the mining phase. Should it proceed, it would include the economic recovery of uranium resources from the mine to one or more mills for processing and potential sale to U.S. and world markets. It would also include construction of the facilities needed to support the mine operation workforce, such as water supply, power, and buildings as discussed in detail in chapter 2, under “Proposed Action.”

¹An unpatented mining claim is a particular parcel of Federal land, valuable for a specific mineral deposit or deposits, for which an individual has asserted a right of possession. The right is restricted to the extraction and development of a mineral deposit. The rights granted by a mining claim are valid against a challenge by the United States and other claimants only after the discovery of a valuable mineral deposit.

DEIS for the La Jara Mesa Mine Project                                                                                                                       3

Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action

Decision Framework

The forest supervisor will use the EIS process to develop the necessary information to make an informed decision on whether or not to approve the proposed plan for the La Jara Mesa Project as submitted, or to decide what additional mitigation measures are needed to protect other resources as provided for in 36 CFR 228.8. The decision will ensure that the project conforms to provisions set forth in the existing 1985 “Cibola National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan” (LRMP) as amended.

Public Involvement

Public involvement activities for this EIS included public notices, public meetings, and meetings with members of local tribes. The notice of intent (NOI) to prepare an EIS for the project was published in the Federal Register on May 14, 2009. The NOI asked for public comment on the proposal from May 14 until June 22, 2009. Two public open houses were held on May 20 and 21, 2009, in the communities of Grants and Gallup, Cibola and McKinley Counties, New Mexico, respectively. At the open houses, the Forest Service provided information on the proposed action and alternatives, offered opportunity for the public to talk to resource and planning specialists, and encouraged the public to submit comments on the scope of the EIS and on alternatives, to share issues and concerns, and to ask questions. In addition to the NOI and open houses, the initial scoping included listing in the Quarterly Schedule of Proposed Actions on the Forest Service Web site, letters sent to interested and affected individuals, agencies, and organizations, and provision of legal notices. Comments submitted were summarized in a scoping summary report and considered in determining the scope of this EIS.

As part of the public involvement process, the Forest Service set up a Web page on the Cibola National Forest Web site to present information and documentation about the project to interested parties. As part of their responsibilities under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), the Forest Service has initiated ongoing consultation with tribes and solicited their input on the project as well. Using the comments from the public, agencies, tribes, and other interested parties, the Forest Service developed a list of issues to address in this EIS as identified below.

Issues Identified During Scoping

The Forest Service separated the potential issues for consideration in this EIS into two groups: significant and nonsignificant issues. Significant issues were defined as those directly or indirectly caused by implementing the proposed action. The Forest Service defines nonsignificant in this context as an issue that is outside of the scope of this EIS, has been covered by prior environmental review, or is otherwise not relevant to the impacts and alternatives under consideration for this EIS. The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA regulations explain this delineation in Sec. 1501.7, “…identify and eliminate from detailed study the issues which are not significant or which have been covered by prior environmental review (Sec.

1506.3)….”

The Forest Service identified the following significant issues worthy of discussion in this EIS:

• Project effects on the characteristics of Mt. Taylor that make the Mt. Taylor Traditional Cultural Property eligible for the National Register of Historic Places.

4                                                                                                                       DEIS for the La Jara Mesa Mine Project

Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action

• Need for reclamation and restoration of disturbed land.
• Potential contamination of ground and surface water, and how such contamination will be avoided.
• Potential impact of uranium mining on the local and state economy based on a statewide study of such impacts.
• Transport of uranium ore up to the state highway system, using existing information for farfield transport issues. This definition was modified during the EIS preparation process to include a discussion of transport to a possible uranium processing site, although the actual site of processing is unknown.
• Potential health and safety risk of uranium mining.
• Potential disturbance to wildlife in the vicinity of the mine and escape raise.
• Protection of recreational resources based on local uses near the site.
• Compliance with regulations and permitting requirements.
• Cumulative effects of uranium mining in the area and statewide.

DEIS for the La Jara Mesa Mine Project                                                                                                                       5

Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action

6                                                                                                                 DEIS for the La Jara Mesa Mine Project

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Introduction

This chapter describes alternatives considered to meet the purpose and need for the project, including the proposed action and no action alternatives. Alternatives that were considered that did not meet the project purpose and need and were not brought forward for evaluation in the EIS are also discussed. The Federal action associated with the EIS is the Forest Service’s decision on whether or not to approve Laramide Resources (USA) Inc.’s (the applicant) proposed plan of operations (plan) as submitted, or to require mitigation measures needed to protect other resources consistent with the forest plan, Federal regulations, and other applicable laws, as provided in 36 CFR 228.8.

The La Jara Mesa Project (the project) is located approximately 10 miles northeast of the town of Grants in Cibola County, New Mexico (figure 1, “Site Location”). The project is comprised of three distinct elements: (1) access roads and required infrastructure to support the mine; (2) the mine itself with its portal (opening) at the base of the mesa; and (3) the escape raise at the top of the mesa, the escape raise opening, to provide ventilation and provide an emergency escape route during mining operations.

Access to the site is via NM 605 east of the community of Milan. The site can also be accessed from State Highway 547 that traverses Grants Canyon (northeast of the community of Grants) and Forest Service Road 450 that connects with State Highway 547 near Lobo Creek.

The project includes a portal (mine opening) and support facilities at the base of La Jara Mesa and an escape raise from the mine to the top of the mesa that would be built if mining proceeds. The portal facilities would be located on claims controlled by the applicant on Forest Service administered lands at the base of La Jara Mesa at an elevation of 7,300 feet in the NE1/4, Section 15, T12N, R9W. The mineralized zones that would be accessed via the portal and tunnel (adit) to the mine are located in portions of Sections 1, 2, 11, 12, 13, and 14, T12N, R9W. The escape raise would be located on Forest Service administered lands on top of La Jara Mesa in Section 11, T12N, R9W at an elevation of approximately 8,100 feet.

Alternatives Considered in Detail

The Forest Service reviewed the comments received during the public scoping process to determine the issues of concern and any suggested alternatives related to the project. The Forest Service examined these comments to identify any appropriate alternatives to recommended courses of action which involves unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources (NEPA, Section 102(2)(E) and Forest Service NEPA regulations at 36 CFR 220.5).

Reasonable alternatives are those that meet the purpose and need for the proposed action, as described in chapter 1, and meet them with less environmental impact. Although the Forest Service identified several issues of concern related to uranium mining in their review of the plan and during the scoping process, none lent themselves to the identification of alternative ways to meet the purpose and need, as described in chapter 1. While no new action alternatives were identified during the scoping process, a no action alternative is included in the EIS as required by NEPA regulations.

DEIS for the La Jara Mesa Mine Project                                                                                                                       7

No Action

Under the no action alternative, the project and all associated infrastructure, including the surface facilities, water supply and pipeline, and access road improvements would not be constructed.

The no action alternative assumes that the site would remain undeveloped as currently managed by the Forest Service and applicable private property owners. Recreational opportunities would still occur on the site and current activities and facilities such as roads, grazing, and transmission lines next to the site would remain.

Under the no action alternative, current Forest Service management plans would continue to guide management of Forest Service roads and lands associated with this project.

Proposed Action

The proposed action is approval of the plan of operations for an underground uranium mine comprised of two phases: underground development and mining production. Phase 1, underground development, includes tunneling and rock sampling to determine the feasibility of the mine and to determine whether or not to proceed with mining, as well as development of a final mine design. Phase 2, mine operation, includes construction of permanent infrastructure facilities and mining activities associated with the ongoing operation of the mine as described below. Phase 2 implementation depends on the findings of phase 1. If phase 2 is initiated, it would likely start immediately after the completion of phase 1. The proposed action would require access development, exploration, facilities construction, mining of overburden and ore, material storage, transport, and reclamation. Surface facilities and separate infrastructure would be constructed to support the two phases, as described in more detail below.

Phase 1 Overview: Underground Development

Underground development work refers to the opening of a mine access point at the base of the mesa (portal), and the excavation of a pair of parallel and connected tunnels to the mineralized rock (adits) for the purposes of sampling, analysis, and potential mine design. It would be conducted to better define the uranium deposit, instead of conducting extensive surface drilling and its associated network of closely spaced drill hole pads and interconnecting roads from the top of the mesa. This phase 1 activity is being proposed to characterize the extent and quality of the ore body. Upon completion of phase 1, the applicant would decide whether or not to proceed with the mine and full production (phase 2).

During phase 1, the applicant would develop dual and parallel tunnels (adits) for access to the mineralized rock, approximately 5,000 feet into the mesa. Once underground in the designated mineralized zone, the applicant would undertake geological mapping, longhole drilling with gamma probing, test mining, and collection of bulk samples for metallurgical and mill compatibility studies. The underground development would be approximately 700 feet below the top of the mesa, approximately 500 to 800 feet above the water table, and would proceed approximately 5,000 feet into the mesa. No onsite mill, ore processing, or associated tailings facilities are planned for the project. Phase 1 would remove unmineralized (nonradioactive) waste rock from the mesa to get to the uranium mineralized material approximately 5,000 feet inside the mine. The mineralized material would be collected for removal and offsite testing. In development activities and mining operations, waste rock is synonymous to “nonmineralized” or ordinary rock with no ore or economic value that must be removed to gain access to “mineralized” or “ore” material.

8                                                                                                                       DEIS for the La Jara Mesa Mine Project

Phase 2 Overview: Underground Mine Production

If the applicant decides to proceed with mining after analysis of the ore samples from phase 1 and the technical and economic nature of underground mining is determined, they would begin phase 2, mine operation and uranium ore recovery activities. This could happen immediately upon completion of the first phase in a seamless continuation. Phase 2 mining would use a room and pillar technique that involves excavation of underground rooms supported by pillars of untouched rock that hold up the ceiling. Targeted ore production would average approximately 500 tons per day, varying on grade and geometry of the deposit. This ore would be transported from the mine in diesel powered trucks. Mobile underground mining and support equipment will use diesel fuel. Some surface support vehicles (primarily nonhighway licensed) may use gasoline.

Ore removed from the mine would be deposited on a temporary holding pad on the waste rock storage pile approximately 400 feet by 800 feet in size, and loaded onto trucks for delivery to a uranium processing mill. The eventual mill site is unknown and will depend on the location of operating mills at the time. Improvements to the local road system, including turn lanes if necessary, would be constructed where the site access road intersects with NM 605 to accommodate commuting workers and the anticipated 12 to 13 daily truckloads of ore hauled from the site. There are no plans for onsite processing (milling) or mill tailings disposal. All uranium ore would be hauled offsite.

Construction Overview

The EIS evaluates the effects of construction and operation of the two phases Construction would involve the following activities required to begin the project and initiate phase 1. Some additional construction would be required for phase 2 to install required infrastructure, as follows:

• Improvements to the intersection of NM 605 and the private dirt road accessing the Forest Service road.
• Installation of stormwater ditches along the dirt/access road.
• Diversion of runoff around the site.
• Clearing and blading approximately 6 miles of private and Forest Service road from NM 605 to the mine site to create a single lane road with turnouts for passing.
  • Installation of temporary support facilities such as parking for phase 1 workers, portable chemical toilets, water storage, and other necessary temporary equipment.

Project Components

This section describes the primary components of the proposed action alternative in more detail. Information shown here is based on the applicant’s plan of operations (Laramide Resources 2008). The entire project is described and reference is made to the project phase involved, where appropriate.

Surface Facilities and Infrastructure

The project would require surface infrastructure to support the underground development and mining (figure 2, “Site Plan”). Over the life of the project, 16.4 acres would be disturbed by the construction and operational activities (see table 3) associated with mine facilities, in addition to road access improvements—primarily using existing roads. This disturbance would be located on

DEIS for the La Jara Mesa Mine Project                                                                                                                       9

unpatented mining claims located on Federal lands administered by the Forest Service. Concurrent reclamation would decrease the amount of disturbance after construction is complete.

Table 3. Surface area disturbance

Ancillary and Support Facilities

Surface support facilities included in table 3 include administration, employee change facilities, a staffing and mine safety office, a shop, warehouse, storage area, and space for a lunch room and safety training. Trailers or modular buildings would be used as office space for project employees and contractor personnel, including management, engineering, safety, and environmental personnel. Project administrative offices would be housed in a double-wide trailer or modular building. Separate trailers would be used for the shifters’ and safety manager offices. Mine safety and rescue equipment and gear would be stored in additional storage trailers. Trailers or modular buildings would be installed for use for the change facilities (dry) mentioned above. These facilities would provide lockers, lavatories, and showers. These facilities would be expanded to accommodate additional personnel during phase 2 of the mining operations.

The applicant would install a prefabricated fabric-covered “tent” structure to be used as a maintenance shop during phase 1. It would be approximately 40 feet wide and 70 feet long, with adjoining containers for warehouse storage for small parts and tool storage. A concrete pad would be poured to serve as a floor for the shop. Equipment parking and supply storage would be placed near the maintenance facility. Buildings and materials requiring containment will be placed on concrete slabs; other materials and parking will occur on gravel surfaces. As development transitions to mining, the applicant would expand the maintenance structure or install a more permanent maintenance building. Trailers and other buildings would be painted with nonreflective and earth tone paints to match local natural tones. All ancillary and support facilities would be located within the 16-acre project site.

10                                                                                                                     DEIS for the La Jara Mesa Mine Project

Parking

During phase 1, parking would be provided for the 20 to 25 vehicles expected to transport workers to the site. If the project transitions from development to phase 2 mining operations, parking spaces would be created for 75 to 80 vehicles. Parking would be provided adjacent to the administration and shifter offices for employees, contractors, and visitors, and would be created by grading and clearing a site using crushed rock fill within the development footprint. No concrete or asphalt paving is anticipated, except as the maintenance shop foundation. A truck scale would also be located adjacent to the administration office.

Power Supply

Portable diesel generators would be utilized for the initial portal site and underground development work in phase 1. Continental Divide Electric Cooperative Inc. (CDEC) would supply electric service to the site in phase 2. Electric power would be supplied to the project site by construction of a new distribution line approximately 2.5 miles along the access road between the mine site to an existing CDEC transmission line that lies south of the proposed access road (figure 3, “Ancillary facilities and site access” and figure 4, “Proposed tie-in location for new transmission line”). Wood poles would be installed in the access road right-of-way (ROW) that are similar to existing poles currently on the property. They would be designed to meet raptor protection standards. An onsite transformer would reduce the transmission voltage for distribution to the underground workings, the maintenance shop, office and dry trailers, and other surface facilities. The applicant would maintain diesel generators onsite as backup to the electric power for times of interrupted or reduced power supply.

Communications

The applicant would contract with local utilities to install telephone and Internet communications to the site. Underground mine communications would be provided by phone lines from both the shifter and main administration offices to various points in the underground workings.

Underground mine phones would be strategically located throughout the underground workings in conformance with the U.S. Department of Labor, Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) standards.

First Aid and Safety Related Facilities

First aid supplies would be located strategically around the site, including offices and in the underground locations. A training room would be incorporated into the floor plans for the shifter or administrative office. The applicant would have the capability to conduct MSHA-required, new miner and refresher training onsite. Hospital and ambulance service is available in the city of Grants, approximately 10 miles from the site, in the event of a medical emergency.

DEIS for the La Jara Mesa Mine Project                                                                                                                     11

Figure 4. Proposed tie-in location for new transmission line

14                                                                                                                     DEIS for the La Jara Mesa Mine Project

Ventilation Facilities

The applicant would install ventilation fans to ensure proper airflow to all spaces where underground contractors and employees would be working. The primary ventilation fan would be located at the surface portal facilities at the base of the mesa. To supplement the primary ventilation fan, smaller secondary booster fans would be placed underground, including a booster exhaust fan near the bottom of the escape raise in phase 2; these secondary fans would assist in directing ventilation to and from working areas. Ventilation fans would be sized to comply with MSHA ventilation requirements for air volumes (airflow) for underground uranium operations.

Ventilation is needed to maintain fresh air for employees and to keep radon levels at accepted concentrations. Potential radon emissions are discussed in the “Health and Safety” section.

Compressor Facility

Air compressors would be installed near the portal to supply compressed air for certain underground equipment, such as drills. The compressor would be sheltered from the weather in a structure and enclosed with siding to reduce sound.

Water Supply and Distribution Facilities

The applicant will use an existing water well on the Elkins property for water supply and will purchase or lease the water. The well is currently used seasonally to provide water for cattle and is used intermittently. Additional water will be obtained from a new well on the Elkins property (adjacent to the access road) to provide water to the site from deeper aquifers such as the Chinle Formation or the deeper San Andreas-Glorietta aquifer. The applicant is negotiating easement agreements for these ROWs, along with approval for the well and pump station. A water pipeline would be built to convey water from the well site to the portal site and surface facilities. Water would be pumped to a storage tank to be located above the portal area via the pipeline that would be buried in, or immediately adjacent to, the site access road.

Two 10,000-gallon water tanks would be sited, one adjacent to the well on private land, and a second tank located at the surface portal facilities on Forest Service land. A third 10,000-gallon water storage tank may be added adjacent to the tank at the portal to allow for increased water storage capacity to accommodate additional personnel during mining operations. The tank at the well would also be used to support dust control efforts. The water from the tank at the portal would serve surface facilities (sinks, showers, lavatories) and would be used underground for drilling and dust suppression. The water used for human contact would be disinfected for potable use. Potable bottled water would also be brought into the site by commercial water suppliers for employees to supplement treated water onsite, if needed.

Water Use

Water would be used in administration and personnel buildings, underground operations, and for the control of surface dust. Projected water use requirements are presented in table 4.

DEIS for the La Jara Mesa Mine Project                                                                                                                     15

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Table 4. Projected water use requirements

¹ To accommodate seasonal variations and day-to-day fluctuations.

Water usage projections are based on current understanding of water requirements and would be modified and optimized based on operational experience. Underground usage would mainly be for dust control, removal of drill cuttings, and cooling drill bits. Estimated use for mining and dust control and potable uses for employees is approximately 34,500 gallons per day (gpd) during phase 1, development, and approximately 50,000 gpd during phase 2, mining.

Potable water (7 gallons per minute (gpm)) would also be needed for showers and sanitary use in the change facilities, as well as some water use in office trailers and the shop facility. Water usage in surface facilities is based on a rate of use of up to 100 gallons of water per person per day, assuming that 25 employees would be on the site on a daily basis during the development phase and up to 100 of the 110 personnel onsite over a 24-hour period during mining operations (not all at one time). This would generate a need for approximately 10,000 gallons of water per day for personnel during mining operations, or approximately 7 gpm. A sand filtration system would be employed at the site to remove sediment from the water. Water for human contact use (sinks, showers, and drinking) would be treated to meet drinking water standards, likely under NMED Drinking Water Bureau requirements. Treatment might include a disinfectant system (e.g., chlorine) and/or a reverse osmosis (RO) or equivalent treatment system.

Water usage for dust control is based on using a 3,000-gallon capacity water truck, applying a full water load each hour for 5 to 8 hours per day during the dry periods of the year. In addition, the applicant may use a water solution with magnesium chloride (MgCl) as a dust control suppressant to reduce dust from the access and haul roads. Other synthetic dust control suppressants are also available (e.g., SOILTAC®, Soilworks LLC). Application rates for dust control suppressants vary, but in dryer climates, two or three applications are made per year, greatly reducing the use of water. A water truck is used to make these applications. Water would come from the proposed well(s) and storage tank(s). Total daily water use for the project would be approximately 60,000 gpd for all potable and non-potable uses and the annual use would stay the same over the life of the project.

Stormwater Management and Facilities

The applicant would install and maintain stormwater controls at the project site consistent with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) stormwater management guidance and regulations. These controls would include diversion ditches, culverts, and stormwater collection

16                                                                                                                     DEIS for the La Jara Mesa Mine Project

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

basins. Such controls would apply to access roads, phase 1 and phase 2 parking areas, buildings and other impervious surfaces.

Most runoff within the disturbed surface portal area would be directed toward a stormwater basin, where water would be allowed to evaporate or percolate into the ground or be used for site dust control. Runoff from the ore stockpile area would be routed to a separate stormwater basin where water would also be allowed to evaporate or be returned underground for dust control. Runoff from the ore stockpile area would not enter the offsite stormwater system.

The applicant would line both the ore stockpile and its stormwater pond with compacted clay to minimize infiltration. The applicant has stated in their proposal that the use of any synthetic (i.e., high-density polyethylene (HDPE)) liner for this purpose would be likely to result in ripping or tearing of the liner because placement and removal of stockpiled ore material is done with heavy equipment.

The applicant would prepare and submit a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for the project for construction and operations per EPA requirements in New Mexico (40 CFR 122.26(b)(14)(i) – (xi), under Multi- Sector General Permit (MSGP-2000)).

Table 5 shows the design storm event frequency parameters that would be the basis for design capacity of the various stormwater facilities.

The mine itself is not expected to be a source of water. It lays hundreds of feet above the groundwater table and lays hundreds of feet below the surface of the mesa where most rainfall either evaporates, runs off, is used by local vegetation, or moistens soils and evaporates over time from shallow soils. Additional details on groundwater hydrology are discussed in this EIS.

Table 5. Frequency parameters for stormwater facilities

Sanitary Sewage Disposal Facilities

To support full mining operations (phase 2), the applicant would dispose of sanitary (nonindustrial) sewage waste through a septic tank and leach field system designed to meet Cibola County permit requirements. The State would review such discharge if it was expected to exceed the discharge volumes specified in State discharge requirements, which is likely.

Appropriate percolation tests would be conducted by a qualified New Mexico licensed professional engineer and used to design the septic system. Portable chemical toilets, maintained by the contractor, would be used during initial construction and development work (in phase 1). Such sanitary waste would be transported offsite and disposed of by the contractor.

DEIS for the La Jara Mesa Mine Project                                                                                                                     17

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Solid Waste Disposal

Garbage would be contained onsite in bins and bearproof or bear resistant containers and hauled offsite for disposal at an approved landfill. Petroleum waste products would be stored in approved containers onsite, separate from other garbage products, and then transported offsite for recycling or disposal in an approved waste facility.

Fuel Storage

The applicant plans to use above-ground tanks for storage of gasoline, diesel fuel, and propane. The liquid fuel storage tanks would be of double-walled construction or placed in lined containment meeting NMED requirements. The estimated volumes of gasoline, diesel fuel, and propane to be stored at the project site would be as follows:

• Diesel fuel – 10,000 to 20,000 gallons
• Gasoline – 500 gallons
• Propane – 2,000 to 3,000 gallons

Diesel fuel would be delivered to the site on a periodic basis. Mobile underground mining and surface support equipment would use diesel fuel. The diesel storage tanks would be situated on a synthetically-lined (40- to 60-mile HDPE) floor and surrounded by a compacted soil containment berm. The berm would be designed to contain the full volume of the tanks with a 6-inch freeboard. Piping would extend from the diesel tanks to a fueling station adjacent to the tanks.

The gasoline storage tank would have full containment similar to the diesel storage tanks. Gasoline would be used to power certain mobile (primarily non-highway licensed) vehicles used solely at the operation site and for emergency use for company and contractor vehicles. These vehicles would typically be fueled offsite in Grants or other nearby towns.

Propane would be used to provide heat and hot water for the site facilities, including the change facilities. The diesel fuel, gasoline, and propane tanks would be located near the maintenance shop. The applicant would contract with local suppliers to deliver the required fuel.

Explosives Storage

Surface explosives magazines would be stored at a separate, remote, and fenced (locked) site, away from the main surface facility site. Explosive magazines would be sized and designed to meet the requirements of Title 27 CFR 181, Subpart J, Storage of Explosives. Underground explosives would be handled and stored in accordance with MSHA regulations for underground explosives storage. Explosives would be transported to the site by contract transporters approved by the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT).

Access Roads and Rights-of-Way

The proposed surface portal facilities would be accessible via Forest Service Road 450 from NM 605 via a private access road connecting the two. Currently, access to the site is via Forest Service Road 450 from the east, as shown in figure 3. The existing roadway would be used and maintained in its current location, although graded and improved as discussed below.

The applicant is currently negotiating ROWs for access to the mine site from the west (NM 605). Access from NM 605 would allow use of a gate and signage to restrict public access to the site. A

18                                                                                                                     DEIS for the La Jara Mesa Mine Project

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

portion of the site access road would be located on private property, for which the applicant is negotiating easement agreements for ROWs. These ROWs on private land also would accommodate siting approval for a well and pump station. Existing Forest Service Road 544 would provide access to the proposed escape raise surface area.

Access to the project site would involve improvements to existing roads (figure

3, “Ancillary facilities and site access”). The portal area would be accessed by approximately 6.2 miles of existing roads, including approximately 3.7 miles of road across private property that has not been regularly maintained over the past 25 years. This road would be reestablished and graded. In addition, approximately 2 miles of Forest Service Road 450 from its junction with the aforementioned road across private property to the turn into the planned portal site would be improved. Final access to the surface facility area would require improvement of approximately

0.5 mile of an existing two-track unnamed Forest Service road.

The applicant would improve the existing roads to a single lane meeting Forest Service single lane road standards, 15-feet wide with 12 feet on each side for drainage that would also include construction of periodic (line-of-sight) turnouts, placement of appropriate subbase material and gravel, cattle guards, and new culverts. Total road surface and drainage width would be 39 feet. Improvements would be sufficient to accommodate highway legal trucks used to transport uranium ore from the site. No improvements are planned for Forest Service Road 544.

The applicant would meet New Mexico Department of Transportation (NMDOT) requirements for the intersection of the new access road with NM 605. The DOT would conduct a site threshold assessment for the point of access from the state highway. A “driveway access” permit is likely to be required at this intersection point. Access and egress turning lanes would be installed if required by NMDOT. If required, turning lanes would be designed and constructed to meet NMDOT standards. Road improvements on Forest Service property would be constructed to Forest Service standards for a single lane road.

The applicant would be responsible for ongoing road maintenance, including snow removal, to ensure safe and efficient year-round access to the surface portal facilities area. Snow removal blade type and removal procedures will ensure that the road itself is not damaged during snow removal.

With a projected production rate of approximately 500 tons of uranium ore per day and using 40- ton capacity highway trucks, it is estimated that 12 to 13 truckloads of ore material would be hauled from the site on an average daily basis. Trucks would be kept under the 40 ton gvw weight limits. Phase 1 commuter traffic is likely to be approximately 25 worker vehicles and phase 2 perhaps 100 vehicles. Additional detail on traffic assumptions is found in the “Transportation” section.

Security and Fencing

Three or four-strand barbed wire fencing would be installed along the perimeter of the portal area, depending on state and/or Federal requirements. A gate would be installed on the surface portal access road off Forest Service Road 450. This gate would be locked after normal business hours to prohibit unauthorized entrance. Management, including shift supervisors, would provide access for mine personnel after business hours. “No trespassing” signs would be posted at strategic locations to discourage unauthorized access. Access would be provided to the Forest Service for their land management purposes and as permitted by MSHA.

DEIS for the La Jara Mesa Mine Project                                                                                                                     19

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

The explosives magazines would be secured in locked containers and kept separate from the main surface portal facilities. The explosive storage area would be enclosed by an 8-foot-high chain link security fence topped with angled barbed wire. The access gate would be locked at all times for security purposes.

The surface area for the escape raise would be enclosed by a 6-foot-high chain link security fence with angled barbed wire on top of the 6-foot fence. The access gate for this fence would also be locked at all times except to allow access for authorized employees.

Project Activities

This section describes the primary activities that would be conducted as part of the proposed action alternative.

Portal Face-up and Excavation

The opening of the portal and the incline access tunneled into the mesa to the uranium mineralized zone would be located in nonmineralized (nonore-bearing) sandstone rock. The initial portal openings at the surface would be established by conventional drill and blast methods advanced in short rounds, applicable to ground conditions. The rock would be supported as tunneling proceeds with a combination of rock bolts, wire mesh, and/or shotcrete (sprayed concrete or mortar mixture).

Typical drill and blast operations would include the use of a drill jumbo (underground drilling machine) to drill a series of small diameter horizontal holes in a pattern suitable to break the rock and minimize damage to the perimeter of the incline (tunnel) outline. The holes would be loaded and blasted with explosives. Removal of broken rock would be accomplished using diesel powered rubber-tired loaders.

During the initial portal excavation work, there is a potential for flying rock on the surface from blasting. Safety precautions applicable to surface blasting procedures would be followed such as loud warnings, assigned personnel stations, and rock blast restrictions. Once below ground, subsurface blasting procedures would be followed.

Blasting at the surface and just inside the portal is expected to last less than 1 week before subsurface blasting procedures would be followed. At this time, additional blasting and excavation would be done far enough inside the mine to minimize blasting noise heard outside of the mine.

Two portals would be established to allow parallel inclines into the uranium mineralized zones. The dual inclines would provide required levels of ventilation for underground mining operations. Maintaining parallel inclines into the mineralized zone would allow for proper ventilation underground and for secondary escape should a problem develop.

Incline Excavation

Incline excavation would be based on known geologic conditions and expected rock mechanics behavior of the sandstone into which the inclines would be driven. Two inclines would be constructed, each approximately 5,000 feet in length and between 50 and 75 feet apart. The inclines would be used for access to the mineralized zones by workers, equipment, and supplies

20                                                                                                                     DEIS for the La Jara Mesa Mine Project

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

and for ventilation. The surface portal area would be located as shown on figure 2, “Site plan.” Rock removed during most of this construction would not be ore but would be nonradioactive sandstone or other rock type. Waste rock would be placed at the waste rock disposal site outside of the mine portal.

The following standard underground techniques would advance the inclines:

• Drilling
• Blasting
• Mucking (removal of the rock) and haulage
• Ground support (as necessary)

The drill jumbo would be utilized to drill a pattern of blast holes on the incline face. The cross- sectional size of the inclines would be 12-feet wide by 15-feet high. Drill holes in the incline would be 8- to 12-feet deep. Each 8- to 12-foot advance is known to miners as a “round.” Once the face has been drilled, the holes would be loaded with explosives and blasted. Blasting would be conducted when a round is loaded with explosives and the area is secured. Various types of explosives would be used, with charges being detonated by either fused or nonelectric initiation. Explosive handling and storage are discussed in “Explosives Storage,” above.

Muck bays are used to temporarily store waste rock underground before the material is removed to the surface. Although the term “muck” is used in the industry for such waste rock, and often refers to a wet muddy material, this material would be dry rock. Muck bays would be placed at 500-foot intervals along each incline, and each muck bay would be about 30-feet long. The broken rock would be loaded by underground front-end loaders onto trucks, which would deliver the rock material to the surface for construction of the surface pad.

It is expected that the loaders would have a bucket capacity of approximately 6 cubic yards, while the underground trucks would contain approximately 15 to 20 tons of rock material each. Any mechanical support necessary for rock stability would be installed prior to initiating the next round of drilling activities. At intervals of approximately every 500 feet, cross cuts would be driven between the two parallel inclines to provide proper ventilation and could be used as escape routes should a problem occur in one of the inclines.

Escape Raise Installation

To further enhance underground safety (i.e., both ventilation and secondary escape), the applicant would install an escape raise on the north side of the mineralized zone upon completion of the inclines at the completion of phase 1. The escape raise would be built as part of phase 2 and is a part of mining operations. The escape raise would be vertical, approximately 700 feet in length (from the underground workings to the surface) with a diameter of approximately 8 feet. This raise would be constructed utilizing a raise boring machine. A small diameter drill hole would be drilled from the surface to the selected area underground. Once established, a drilling raise bore would be “pulled” back to the surface, allowing all excavation to occur underground within the mine and underground rock to fall into the underground workings. From there it would be removed, hauled to the portal, and placed in the waste rock dump.

DEIS for the La Jara Mesa Mine Project                                                                                                                     21

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Waste rock volumes in place and after disposal estimates are shown in table 6. There would be sufficient room in the surface waste rock stockpile for rock material excavated from the raise. The volume of the escape raise waste rock is estimated at 1,300 bank yards of material.

The dimensions of the surface area to be used for escape raise facilities on top of the mesa would be approximately 50 by 100 feet, or approximately 0.1 acre. The sole facility at the surface site of the escape raise would be a 10 by 20 foot “generator shed” that would house a diesel generator for emergency electric power for the escape hoist (figure 5, “Raise layout”). This small structure would be constructed of wood and would be painted with a Forest Service approved color to blend with the surrounding forest landscape. It would be surrounded by a security fence.

The generator would be inspected and maintained regularly and would be available in the event of an emergency to power the escape pod as the “life boat” for miner evacuation.

Access to the escape raise collar site would be via an existing road (Forest Service Road 544) (figure 3, “Ancillary facilities and site access”). In the event of an emergency during the winter, the existing forest road may need to be plowed to remove snow and gain access to the escape raise site. The applicant would plan on frequent and regular visits to the site to ensure that the generator is in good working order. During these periodic safety inspection visits, when snow conditions prevent access by pick-up truck, personnel would use all-terrain vehicles (ATVs) or snowmobiles to access the site.

Table 6. Estimated volumes of waste rock

¹ This volume is known as “bank cubic yards,” the inplace volume before it is blasted and removed from the underground mine. A 20 percent swell or bulking factor is assumed for the rock material.

² Once blasted and removed, volume is referred to as “loose cubic yards.”

³ Over-break is common in underground operations. Also, a general contingency to account for the level of current detail is merited. Assume 25 percent to account for these factors.

⁴ Assume 270,000 yd3 to report to the surface waste rock stockpile.

22                                                                                                                     DEIS for the La Jara Mesa Mine Project

DEIS for the La Jara Mesa Mine Project                                                                                                                      23

Chapter 2. Alternatives Including the Proposed Action

Material Extraction

The planned mining at the project site would involve an underground technique known as room and pillar mining. Targeted ore production would average approximately 500 tons per day. Actual ore production would vary depending on the grade and geometry of the deposit. Based on preliminary resource projections, mining can be conducted at the project for an estimated 6 to 8 years; however, underground exploration and development activities would continue at the site with a goal to identify additional ore reserves and a total operation of 20 years is also possible.

Ore material would be transported to the surface in trucks and placed on the clay-lined pad. Mined out areas would be backfilled with waste rock material inside the mine to minimize the amount of waste rock hauled to the surface.

Throughout mine production, development drifts would be constructed beneath the ore zones with ramps driven upward from these drifts to access ore zones. By utilizing this technique of mining, the applicant would be able to extract ore, backfill these mined out areas with waste rock, and then seal the mined out areas from the main flow of ventilation, thus being able to provide targeted ventilation to the areas being mined.

Waste Rock Handling and Storage

In development activities and mining operations, waste rock is synonymous to “nonmineralized” and “valueless” rock that must be removed to gain access to “mineralized” or “ore” material.

Waste rock is distinct from the uranium mineralized material. During phase 1 development work, waste rock would be transported to the surface for use in constructing the portal facility pad area as shown on figure 2, “Site plan.” The pad area would be used for surface facilities and for temporary storage of bulk samples removed as part of the underground development program.

The waste rock stockpile, also shown on figure 2, “Site plan,” has been designed to contain approximately 270,000 cubic yards of material as presented in table 6 above.

During mining, certain amounts of waste rock handled during production would be placed or backfilled directly into mined out areas. This backfilling would limit the amount of waste rock hauled to the surface from the underground workings. However, given the swell factor or “bulking” factor of the underground rock when broken by blasting, it is not possible to completely backfill waste rock back into the underground workings. The applicant has estimated that approximately 66,700 bank cubic yards of waste rock will be excavated from the inclines, and approximately 1,300 additional yards will be excavated from the escape raise. Total volumes would be greater due to the bulking factor. A total of 270,000 yards of rock is estimated to be disposed of in the surface rock stockpiles.

The applicant does not plan to backfill waste rock in the main underground inclines. The future reentry of an adit precludes backfilling of primary accesses into a resource zone should new discoveries or market changes warrant it. However, at permanent closure, the portals would be sealed and the area reclaimed. Following permanent cessation of operations, the applicant would regrade the surface waste rock dump to establish 3H:1V final slopes and drainage. The final graded surface facility pad would be revegetated as needed to blend into the surrounding natural landscape. See further discussion of reclamation activities below.

24                                                                                                                     DEIS for the La Jara Mesa Mine Project

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Underground Exploration

One of the principal objectives of the underground development work would be to collect information about the uranium mineralization from gamma probes that are inserted into longhole drill holes. Underground drilling would be conducted from drill stations located in laterals beneath the expected mineralized zones. The program would be comprised of between 75 and 100 individual underground drill holes/stations located along the development laterals. These are also used as temporary muck stations. Drill stations would be about 30-feet long. The holes would be drilled at various angles and drilled to lengths ranging from 250 to 500 feet. None of the drill holes would breach the topographic surface above.

The applicant would use two drill rigs for the underground longhole drilling. Each rig would be supplied with compressed air, fresh or recycled water, drain line, and electricity. It is anticipated that underground drilling would be performed on two 10-hour shifts per day, following a 10-day on, 4-day off schedule. Drilling is expected to begin shortly after reaching the first drill station, with drilling through the project life.

A drilling contractor would provide the underground drilling equipment and personnel. Holes would be drilled using water for drill hole lubrication and conditioning as necessary. Any used oils, trash, or other residue of the drilling operation would be disposed of in a permitted offsite facility.

Selected cuttings would be removed from underground for geologic logging and laboratory studies. This would include mineralized zone petrography, metallurgical studies, environmental testing, and assaying.

Bulk Sample Program

Bulk samples of mineralized uranium material for testing and study would be collected from cross cuts and laterals into the mineralized zone and moved to the surface. It is estimated that approximately 40,000 to 50,000 tons of uranium mineralized material would be removed for bulk sample testing. This sample size is required to gain an accurate portrayal of milling at an existing mill. Part of this work would be to analyze potential mining methods for future mining. Other work would include surveying, geologic mapping, chip sampling, and geotechnical studies.

The bulk sample would be placed on the surface on a compacted clay liner on the waste rock dump and trucked offsite on a regular basis for metallurgical and milling testing.

Project Equipment and Materials

This section describes the primary equipment, materials, and supplies that would be required as part of the proposed action.

Mobile Equipment

The project would use the same or similar equipment during mining production as used for the underground development work. Some equipment would be added or replaced during the life of the mine as the older equipment reaches its useful life. Equipment may be modified during the mine life depending on site specific conditions and needs.

Table 7 provides the major pieces of mobile equipment to be used at the project site.

DEIS for the La Jara Mesa Mine Project                                                                                                                     25

Chapter 2. Alternatives Including the Proposed Action

Table 7. Mobile equipment

Materials and Supplies

Various consumable materials, primarily fuel and explosives, would be used during operations. Table 8 lists the major consumables that would be used.

Table 8. Materials and supplies

26                                                                                                                     DEIS for the La Jara Mesa Mine Project

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Transport, handling, and storage for these consumables are as follows:

Diesel fuel – Diesel fuel would be delivered to the site via tanker truck and transferred to aboveground storage tanks, which would be placed in secondary containment.

Gasoline – Gasoline would be delivered to the site via tanker truck and transferred to aboveground storage tanks, which would be placed in secondary containment. Certain mobile equipment would use gasoline; many light and supply vehicles would be primarily fueled offsite, unless there is an emergency.

Propane – Propane would be delivered by a vendor and stored in certified tanks located near the surface facilities. Propane would be used to heat water for showers at the change facilities and to heat the facilities.

Oils/lubricants – Various oils/lubricants needed for equipment maintenance would be delivered by vendors and stored in approved containers located within or directly adjacent to the temporary maintenance shop facility. All used petroleum products and solvents would be collected in approved containers, transported offsite, and disposed of through qualified vendors.

Antifreeze – Antifreeze (50/50 premix) required for use in equipment would be delivered by vendors in approved containers that would be stored within or directly adjacent to the temporary maintenance shop facility. Used antifreeze would be collected in approved containers, transported offsite and disposed of through qualified vendors.

Solvents – Various solvents needed for parts cleaning would be delivered by vendors and stored in approved safety cabinets and storage containers within or directly adjacent to the maintenance shop where they would be used. The applicant would maintain appropriate spill kits (with sorbent pads) and granular absorbents onsite in the event of a solvent spill.

Explosives – Explosives would be delivered to the site by vendors and stored in secured and approved magazines. The applicant expects to use bagged ammonium nitrate and fuel oil (ANFO) or an emulsion product, along with detonating cord, cast primers, and blasting caps. Transportation, handling, storage, and use of explosives are regulated by the U.S. Department of Transportation, the U.S. Treasury Department’s Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms, and MSHA.

No chemicals subject to the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) Title III in amounts greater than 10,000 pounds would be used at the project site. No hazardous substances as defined in 40 CFR 355 above threshold planning quantities would be used. The project would meet all conditions set forth for a “conditionally exempt small quantity generator for hazardous wastes,” which is defined as any project generating less than 220 pounds of hazardous wastes per month. On average, the project would generate less than 100 pounds per month of hazardous wastes (spent oil, solvents, antifreeze, etc.). As stated above, these substances would be hauled from the site by a qualified contractor and disposed of in an approved disposal facility. The applicant would maintain material safety data sheets (MSDSs) for chemicals stored onsite.

DEIS for the La Jara Mesa Mine Project                                                                                                                     27

Chapter 2. Alternatives Including the Proposed Action

Project Schedule, Workforce, and Costs

This section describes the project schedule, workforce requirements and reclamation costs associated with the proposed action alternative.

Schedule

The applicant plans to initiate construction of the surface facilities for the project immediately upon receipt of all permits and approvals. Initial site construction and surface facility installation work is estimated to take 2 to 3 months. Underground development work (phase 1) is estimated to take up to 2 years, with full mine production (phase 2) occurring during the following 16 to 18 years, assuming additional resources are found. Final project closure (sealing portals and escape raise) and reclamation work would require approximately 2 to 3 months of activity to complete.

Mine production is estimated to continue for up to 20 years. This estimate is based on current knowledge of the La Jara Mesa Project uranium resource requiring 6 to 8 years to mine, the forecast for the future uranium market, and the potential identification of additional economic resources at the site. Factors such as estimate of mineable reserves, mining rates, market conditions, revenues, costs, expected returns to shareholders and investors, and the associated economic, technical, regulatory, and political risks facing the uranium mining business all contribute to the eventual operation and longevity of the project.

Workforce

Workforce requirements for the underground development activities of the project could reach approximately 60 employees, although not all onsite at the same time; 25 of these would be staffing the day shift. At full mine production, workforce requirements are projected to be approximately 110 employees. Not all would be onsite at the same time because of shifts and other scheduled time off. Approximately 42 of these are expected to work the day shift. A rotating crew schedule would be employed, accommodating two crews per day, 10 hours per shift, 7 days per week. The day shift would generally occur between the hours of 7 a.m. and 5 p.m., and the swing shift would cover the hours from 5 p.m. to 3 a.m. Preventive maintenance mechanics would work a 10-hour shift that would span the 4-hour downtime not covered by a rotating crew. Required personnel includes management, office and technical staff, supervisors, hourly staff, and longhole underground drillers.

Project Reclamation

Reclamation of the project area includes both construction reclamation and final reclamation. Reclamation efforts on lands disturbed during the course of site development would include activities such as growth medium clearing, stockpiling onsite, and stabilization that are a prelude to final reclamation. In addition, stormwater and sediment control structures (such as diversion ditches and sediment traps/detention basins) would be constructed to minimize the potential for erosion and sediment loading during operations, reducing future reclamation needs.

Final reclamation activities would be implemented upon cessation of underground development and mining activities, if such commercial production is commenced. The areas to undergo final reclamation upon project closure would include the mine portals, the escape raise, surface facility areas, and the site access road (that are not needed for long-term land use purposes). The post-

28                                                                                                                     DEIS for the La Jara Mesa Mine Project

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

project land use would be for wildlife use, roads, grazing, transmission lines, and recreation; the same uses that currently exist at the site.

Construction and Early Development Reclamation

Growth medium (suitable soils) would be cleared from areas to be affected by the project surface facilities during clearing and construction. The material would be stockpiled for final reclamation. Stockpiled growth medium material would be stabilized and protected from wind and water to avoid any erosion, and reseeded during the first normal planting season following development of the growth medium stockpile, the stockpile would be seeded with the seed mixture presented in table 9 below.

Table 9. Seed mixture

The applicant would maintain a construction stormwater management plan for the project site consistent with state stormwater NPDES requirements and the SWPPP developed for the site. Drainage from undisturbed areas would be routed around the surface facilities. Stormwater on the site would be controlled by proper grading, ditching, dugout basins, and silt fencing.

Undesirable invasive and noxious weeds can colonize and overrun disturbed areas, both in the short and long term. Necessary control measures including hand pulling, hand digging, and biological control would be used to prevent and restrict the spread of noxious weeds. Certified noxious weed-free mulch and seed mixtures would be used to reclaim disturbed areas and control the spread of invasive and noxious weeds.

Final Reclamation

Upon permanent cessation of mining operations at the project site, the applicant would implement the reclamation efforts described below. Following permanent closure of the operation, salvageable equipment, instrumentation and furniture would be removed from the site. This activity would occur prior to actual removal of structures and facilities.

Decommissioning and Removal of Onsite Structures and Facilities

Project site structures and other facilities would be demolished and/or dismantled and removed from the site at the time of permanent closure. This would include office and maintenance structures, compressor facility, water and fuel storage tanks, power line, and other temporary trailers, ancillary, and storage facilities.

DEIS for the La Jara Mesa Mine Project                                                                                                                     29

Chapter 2. Alternatives Including the Proposed Action

Salvageable equipment and trailers would be moved to another project, sold, or properly disposed of offsite. Unsalvageable portions of any facilities, such as a concrete pad used at the temporary maintenance shop, would be broken up and buried onsite if deemed suitable for disposal by the Forest Service. The chain link security fencing around the explosives storage area would be dismantled and removed from the site once the explosives and storage magazines are removed.

The applicant would comply with the appropriate solid waste regulations administered in the state of New Mexico. The Forest Service would be consulted for approval of any concrete foundation disposal proposed on National Forest System lands.

Portal and Escape Raise Closure and Sealing

The project site portals would be closed and sealed similar to the detail shown on figure 6, “Portal and raise closure.” A concrete, cemented cinder block or similar constructed bulkhead would be installed inside each portal. Each incline would be backfilled with waste rock material, extending from the portal bulkhead to outside the actual portal.

A reinforced concrete slab would be placed over the borehole on firm bedrock and would be anchored into solid bedrock. This concrete would be constructed for permanence and to sustain the expected weight of the rock material that would be placed on top of the structure.

Approximately 4 to 5 feet of rock material would be used to cover the concrete slab structure. An additional 10 to 15 percent volume of material would be placed to allow for possible future settlement. This rock material would then be graded to provide for drainage away from the backfilled opening. Growth medium/material (estimated at 6 inches) would be spread on top of the rock fill, and the site would be seeded with the mixture presented in table 9 above.

The barbed wire fence installed around the perimeter of the surface portal area would remain in place for 3 years after site closure to ensure that revegetation is successful. It would be maintained annually. This fencing would preclude any unwanted livestock or other large mammal grazing or at the site. Unless there is some long-term benefit for this site fencing, the fencing would be removed in the 3rd year after site closure. The chain link security fencing around the escape raise would be removed once the raise is closed and reclaimed and upon approval by the Forest Service.

Alternative Escape Raise Closure Elevation – To further reduce impacts to topography, vegetation, visual resources, recreation, and cultural values, an alternative to complete the raise closure at the exact level of surrounding land could be considered as mitigation. This would involve excavating into the ground around the raise but backfilling to the existing elevation level, rather than filling on top of the closed raise and creating an elevated fill pad. This option would be less visible, but might increase the likelihood of increased water infiltration into the closed shaft. This option is not proposed at this time.

Recontouring and Regrading of Disturbed Surface Area

Areas disturbed by project activities would be contoured and graded as necessary to blend into the surrounding topography and terrain (figure 7, “Post project topography”). Final slopes from the portal pad area would be graded to a 3H:1V slope. Compacted areas such as roads and the top of the portal pad would be ripped or disked to create a roughened condition prior to growth medium material replacement.

30                                                                                                                     DEIS for the La Jara Mesa Mine Project

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Growth Medium Replacement

Depths for growth medium (near surface and subsurface soil) salvage in the project area range from 0 to 12 inches. Where there are isolated pockets of thicker growth medium material within the area proposed for portal and escape raise facilities, such material would be salvaged to ensure an adequate source of growth medium material for reclamation. For reclamation purposes, it is assumed that there would be sufficient growth material available for salvage and replacement on the final regraded areas. Additional growth medium may be brought in from offsite if needed, subject to approval by the Forest Service.

Fertilizing, Mulching, and Seeding

Chemical and physical changes can occur in stockpiled growth medium material. Following its replacement, growth medium samples would be analyzed for pH, nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium to determine its fertility and nutrient status. Approximately one sample per acre would be taken to determine growth medium fertility. For present planning purposes, it is assumed that an inorganic fertilizer (12 percent nitrogen, 15 percent phosphorous, 14 percent potassium) would be applied to the reapplied growth medium material. A fertilizer rate of approximately 200 pounds per acre would be used; this application rate would be revised, as appropriate, after the growth medium nutrient sampling and subsequent fertilization recommendations from a qualified soil scientist and/or soils laboratory.

Straw mulch would be applied to the growth medium material to reduce erosion, promote stabilization, and enhance seed germination. It is anticipated that approximately 2 tons per acre of certified weed-free straw mulch per acre would be applied.

Regraded areas would be broadcast seeded with plant species approved by the Forest Service. The seed mixture to be used as part of the reclamation bond calculation is set forth in table 9 above. The ultimate species selection would be based on a Forest Service listing of reclamation plants, seed availability, and cost. Fertilizing and seeding would be conducted in June to take advantage of the July and August rainy season moisture.

Reclamation Goals, Management, and Monitoring

The reclamation goals at the project site are to:

• Stabilize the site
• Establish a vegetative community for future wildlife use and grazing use

The Minerals Management Division (MMD) of the New Mexico Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources Department (EMNRD) has established Closeout Plan Guidelines (dated April 30, 1996) regarding revegetation monitoring for non-coal mines. The suggested revegetation standards and sampling methods for mining reclamation work are included in attachment 2 to the Closeout Plan Guidelines.

Under 19.10.12.1204 (A) of their non-coal mining rules and regulations, the MMD requires a 12- year period of liability (after mine closure and reclamation) for a reclamation bond for non-coal mining operations within New Mexico. This agency also requires that revegetation monitoring and sampling be undertaken, at a minimum, during the last 2 years of the liability period, to ensure that the project site revegetation meets their required standards.

DEIS for the La Jara Mesa Mine Project                                                                                                                     31

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Reclamation Costs for Financial Assurance/Bonding Purposes

Costs presented in this section for reclamation efforts at the project site are preliminary and would be revised based on requirements put forth by the Forest Service and the EMNRD. They are presented here as a basis for future bonding requirements for the project. The applicant estimates that the reclamation costs (for bonding purposes) for the project would range from approximately $250,000 to $425,000, as presented in table 10.

Table 10. Estimated costs for reclamation

Given the small area surface disturbance, the lack of an onsite mill or tailings facility, and the company’s knowledge of reclamation costs estimated for the surface facility areas for other non- coal underground operations in the U.S. and Canada, the applicant believes that this estimate range is reflective of reclamation costs for other similar operations.

This estimation is not intended for use as the basis for the financial assurance bond to be eventually filed with the Forest Service and the MMD of the New Mexico Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources Department, but rather it is presented for illustrative purposes. The final reclamation cost estimate used for financial assurance bonding purposes would be calculated based upon the final agreed-to site closure and reclamation plans. Sufficient detail would be

34                                                                                                                     DEIS for the La Jara Mesa Mine Project

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

incorporated in the final reclamation cost estimate to satisfy the bonding requirements of both agencies.

The MMD of the New Mexico Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources Department has established Closeout Plan Guidelines (dated April 30, 1996) that set forth the methodology for calculating the reclamation bond amounts for non-coal mines. These cost calculation methods are found in attachment 4, Financial Assurance Calculation Handbook, of the Closeout Plan Guidelines. The applicant would consult these guidelines when calculating the detailed reclamation cost for the project.

Gamma Ray Emission Baseline Monitoring

Prior to any project related disturbance at the site, the applicant would sample the background radiation at the portal site and the surface site of the proposed escape raise. Gamma ray emissions would be used as the basis for establishing the background standard. Readings would be taken approximately 1 meter above the ground and would be taken unshielded, with a Ludlum microR or similar gamma radiation measuring device.

Following the completion of reclamation activities, gamma ray emission readings would again be taken at the closed and sealed portal site, the area of the reclaimed waste rock stockpile, and the area above the closed and sealed escape raise. The goal of these readings would be to verify the level of gamma ray emissions do not exceed the background radiation readings. Additional post- reclamation monitoring is discussed below.

In the event that background radiation levels cannot be replicated, the applicant would work with the Forest Service to revise the reclamation work so compliance can be achieved or determine that alternate closeout radiation levels be met that are not less stringent than established by guidelines or standards of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) or the EPA.

Best Management Practices

The applicant also developed and proposed the following management practices to be used as part of the entire proposed action alternative to reduce potential impacts. These measures are based on Federal, State, and local laws and regulations, current technology, and best management practices (BMPs). The objective of the measures summarized below is to reduce or avoid adverse impacts to the environment and to reclaim disturbed areas.

Erosion and Sediment Control Measures

• Stormwater management controls would be implemented to include construction and maintenance of diversion channels to route precipitation runoff away from facilities at the portal site.
• No dirt moving activities (i.e., improvements of access roads or construction of portal site) would occur when soils are too wet to support heavy equipment. In the event of heavy rains, construction work at the site would be delayed until soil conditions improve.
• Travel across drainages would be restricted to existing roads.
• Off-road vehicle use outside of the 16.4-acre footprint is not permitted.
• The applicant would implement concurrent reclamation activities when practical (proper season, etc.).

DEIS for the La Jara Mesa Mine Project                                                                                                                     35

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

• The pad area at the surface portal site would be graded to control surface water runoff. Upon permanent site closure, the pad would be reclaimed to allow for surface water runoff and minimal infiltration.
• Salvaged growth medium material stockpiles would be located out of drainage areas to prevent their erosion.
• Seeding would be completed on stockpiled material to prevent wind and water erosion.

Air Quality

• Best Available Control Technology (BACT) would be utilized to control vehicle and equipment emissions and meet applicable Federal and State air quality standards.
• Dust emissions from vehicle use of access roads would be limited by water application, inert dust control materials (vegetable oil, calcium chloride), and/or speed limit controls as appropriate.
• The site access road would be maintained regularly by a motor grader to remove any rock, silt, or other debris to reduce fugitive dust.
• Generators would be maintained on a regular basis to ensure proper operation and to minimize emissions.
• No open burning of garbage or refuse would occur onsite.

Vegetation

• Vegetation removal would be limited to those areas necessary for surface facilities.
• The applicant would control undesirable and noxious weeds within disturbed areas, including hand pulling, hand digging, and biological control to prevent and restrict the spread of noxious weeds.
• Interim revegetation would be employed where practicable to stabilize embankments or structures (i.e., growth medium stockpiles and road cuts and fill), which are expected to remain in place until final reclamation.
• Certified noxious weed-free mulch and seed mixtures would be used to reclaim disturbed areas and control the spread of invasive and noxious weeds.

Wildlife

• Vegetation would be cleared only in areas necessary for project activities.
• Three or four-strand barbed wire fencing would be constructed and maintained around surface facilities, based on state (New Mexico Department of Game and Fish (NMDGF) fencing guidelines) and/or Federal requirements, to exclude livestock but would allow deer passage in either direction.
• Trash and other miscellaneous inert (nonhazardous) garbage that may attract wildlife would be contained in bearproof or bear-resistant containers and hauled to an offsite landfill for disposal.
• Chemicals that may harm wildlife, such as used oils, grease, and antifreeze would be handled separately from nonhazardous trash and garbage.

36                                                                                                                     DEIS for the La Jara Mesa Mine Project

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

• A 35-mph-speed limit is proposed for the site access road to minimize the potential for vehicle/wildlife collisions, although slower speeds would be driven at passing pullouts or when conditions require speed reduction.
• No hunting or discharge of firearms would be allowed during construction, development, or mining operations within the fenced boundary of the project site.
• Exterior lighting would be directed downward to avoid impacts to avian species.
• Incorporate “Practices for Avian Protection on Power Lines; The State of the Art in 2006” (Avian Power Line Interaction Committee).

Rangeland Resources

• A noxious weed control plan would be implemented to prevent the spread of such undesirable species into adjacent rangeland.
• Surface facility areas (portal site and escape raise opening) would be fenced to prevent livestock access to the site.
• Reclamation would restore disturbed areas to productive condition following operations.

Noise

• A 35-mph-speed limit would be implemented on the site access road minimizing traffic noise.

Land Use/Recreation

• Only authorized travel (no public access) would be allowed into the project surface facilities area.
• Fencing and signage would be utilized to prohibit unauthorized entry off NM 605 and across private property.
• Firearms would be prohibited on the site, as well as hunting in the surface facility area.

Recreation and Visual Resources

• Trees and other vegetation would be retained wherever practicable to screen facilities and maintain a natural appearance for travelers on NM 605.
• Surface facilities would be sited where they can be screened by topography or vegetation to minimize visual impacts where possible.
• Cuts, fills, and clearings would be placed to blend with the surrounding topography during final reclamation.
• Nonreflective earthtone paints would be used on trailers and other painted surface structures.
• Exterior lighting, directed down and toward the interior of the site, would be kept to the minimum required for safety and security.

Heritage Resources

• The applicant would inform its contractors about relevant Federal and State regulations intended to protect cultural and historic resources and any relevant designated traditional cultural properties in the project vicinity.

DEIS for the La Jara Mesa Mine Project                                                                                                                     37

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

• If any cultural resources are encountered during construction or installation of the surface facilities at the project site, construction activities would cease in the area of discovery, the Forest Service would be notified and appropriate resource protection measures developed and implemented per the Forest Service and the New Mexico Historic Preservation Office.

Human Health and Safety

• The applicant would provide and ensure worker safety training and the maintenance of a ground control plan for underground activities.

Monitoring

In addition to these measures, the applicant would design and implement environmental monitoring programs that meet the requirements of the Forest Service and New Mexico agencies with regulatory oversight of the project. These programs would be implemented and maintained as part of the development and mining activities.

The frequencies, types, and locations of monitoring would be developed with the Forest Service and the State, and would be tied to specific planned activities and potential impacts of concern. Some might be tied to field sampling activities undertaken by the applicant as part of the applicant’s sampling and analysis plan (SAP). Others might focus on specific Forest Service interests. Possible construction monitoring activities might include air quality, cultural resources, gamma ray emissions, SWPPP compliance, avian nesting, or other topics, including baseline monitoring of various parameters. Monitoring would determine the effects of project activities and the efficiency of mitigation measures. Monitoring would also provide input to government agencies regarding project performance. The information gained during monitoring would be used as the basis for designing additional mitigation or altering existing mitigation measures, as necessary.

The applicant would also monitor for reclamation success according to the plans set forth in the Closeout Plan Guidelines (dated April 30, 1996). Areas to be monitored include placement of growth medium, revegetation success, presence of erosion, and noxious weeds.

Additional mitigation measures suggested by agencies during preparation of this draft EIS are listed in appendix B, “Suggested Mitigation.” These measures are not part of the current proposal and were not considered in the effects evaluation, but are currently under consideration by the Forest Service and the project applicant. These and other measures may be incorporated into the project and/or into the final EIS after public review and comment of this draft. A final set of mitigation will be part of the record of decision prepared by the Forest Service upon completion of the final EIS.

Alternatives Considered But Eliminated from Detailed Study

NEPA regulations require that an EIS explore and objectively evaluate reasonable alternatives and to briefly discuss the reasons for eliminating any alternatives that were not developed in detail (40 CFR 1502.14).

38                                                                                                                     DEIS for the La Jara Mesa Mine Project

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

During the scoping process, no alternatives were brought forth for further consideration or evaluation, other than the suggestion to not permit the mining project as proposed. Because the no action alternative is already considered under NEPA, this alternative is included in this DEIS. Two alternative mining techniques to extract uranium ore were considered by the applicant but were rejected as uneconomical and infeasible, as described below.

Open Pit Mining

Open pit mining (surface mining) was considered but rejected from further evaluation because it is economically infeasible and would create extensive environmental impacts compared to hard rock underground tunnel mining at the La Jara Mesa site. Open pit mining is typically used to recover ore material that is at or near the earth’s surface, or in cases where the deposit has a low stripping ratio (depth to mineral deposit compared to thickness of deposit), is preferably large in extent, and is reasonably uniform in value.

Given the depth of 700 feet to access the uranium ore at the La Jara Mesa site, extraction and management of the uranium ore and waste rock would require a significant amount of capital investment and operational costs. In addition, impacts associated with ground disturbance of a large surface area and extraction of uranium ore in an open environment would be substantially greater than using an underground mining method. An open pit mine would require excavation of a hole at the top of the mesa, using a series of benches, or steps, down to a depth of approximately 800 feet and perhaps a half mile across or more. This would require removal and disposal of millions of tons of waste rock overburden and extensive road improvements, drainage control structures, topsoil stockpiles, and infrastructure facilities on top of the mesa.

In addition to considerable surface disturbance, operating an open pit mine would have substantially greater impacts including, but not limited to, impacts to visual resources, heritage resources, soil erosion, rock disposal, air emissions, vegetation and wildlife, noise of operations, and increased use of consumable resources (e.g., water, fuel). For these reasons, open pit mining was rejected as a reasonable alternative and not carried forward through the EIS.

In-situ Leach Mining

In-situ leach mining involves the recovery of mineralized values from an ore deposit by circulating chemical solutions through the ore in its native, essentially undisturbed, geologic state and recovering those solutions for processing. It is a common method of uranium extraction in areas where it is practicable. In-situ leach mining (in-situ recovery) was considered but rejected from further evaluation because it is technically infeasible at the La Jara Mesa site due to the physical condition(s) of the deposit and the surrounding area not being amenable to in-situ leaching. It also creates greater risks of impacts to surface and ground waters than underground mining because of handling and injection of chemicals.

The deposit is located in a nonsaturated environment; therefore, a large amount of water would need to be brought in and pumped into the ground. If poor permeability exists at the mine site, as expected, it would be unlikely that proper hydrostatic pressure to leach (dissolve) and move the uranium material could be established. There would be no practical way to control the leach solutions given the ore zones’ proximity to the edge of the mesa, the existence of multiple historic drill holes that have penetrated the area, and the known faulting in and around the projected ore

DEIS for the La Jara Mesa Mine Project                                                                                                                     39

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

zones. Therefore, this method could create groundwater flow issues at a site where there currently are none.

Additional environmental impacts to the surface of La Jara Mesa from in-situ leach mining would include the construction and installation of numerous wells, roads to each well head, surface or buried water and solution pipelines on the mesa, and a recovery mill, complete with water storage ponds. This would result in hundreds of acres of disturbance on La Jara Mesa compared to the proposed underground mining project. For these reasons, in-situ leaching was rejected as a reasonable alternative and not carried forward through the EIS.

40                                                                                                                     DEIS for the La Jara Mesa Mine Project

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Geology and Soils Affected Environment Geology

Location and Physiography

The project site is located in the south-central portion of the San Juan Basin in the Navajo section of the Colorado Plateau physiographic province, an area that includes broad, volcanic capped mesas and wide valleys. The project site is located on the western side of the Mt. Taylor volcano, which rises to an elevation of 11,389 feet. The volcano is 1.3 to 3 million years old (Perry et al.

1990). The project area is located on the southwestern portion of La Jara Mesa, which is capped by Mt. Taylor volcanic rocks and underlain by Cretaceous and Jurassic sedimentary strata, which are exposed in the slopes of the mesa.

Regional Stratigraphy

The geologic units and regional stratigraphy of the project area are described in Lucas et al. (2003). The geologic section of interest ranges in age from Permian to Quaternary, and is dominated by Jurassic and Cretaceous sedimentary rocks that are exposed in the slopes of the mesa. The top of the mesa is capped by Tertiary volcanic rocks. A generalized stratigraphic section is shown in figure 8.

The lowermost and oldest geologic units are the Permian Glorieta Sandstone and the San Andres Limestone, which are not exposed at the surface in the project area, but are a confined aquifer in the region. The San Andres Limestone and underlying Glorieta Sandstone are located at a depth of about 1,800 feet and have an estimated thickness of about 75 feet at the La Jara Mesa project site.

Overlying the San Andres Limestone is a thick sequence of Middle Triassic marine shales and siltstones of the Moenkopi Formation, and sandstones and shales of the Upper Triassic Chinle Group. The thickness of the Chinle Group is estimated between 1,000 and 1,600 feet (Laramide 2008). The Middle Jurassic Entrada, Wingate Sandstones, and Todilto Limestone overlie the Chinle Group in the project area. The Entrada/Wingate is an eolian sandstone that ranges in thickness from 150 to 185 feet (Laramide 2008). The Todilto Limestone is a thick bedded limestone that overlies the Entrada and is between 25- and 35-feet thick.

Upper Jurassic rocks, from oldest to youngest, include the Summerville Formation, Bluff Sandstone, and Morrison Formation, which hosts the targeted mineralization. The Summerville Formation consists of interbedded mudstones, siltstones, and very fine-grained sandstones with an estimated thickness of 160 to 270 feet in the project site area (Laramide 2008). Overlying the Summerville is the Bluff Sandstone, estimated to range from 235 to 370 feet thick, which consists predominantly of fine to medium grained eolian sandstone.

The Morrison Formation has been delineated in the project area by the applicant as follows (Laramide 2008): the Recapture Shale Member, the Westwater Canyon Member, and the Brushy Basin Member. The Recapture Shale overlies the main body of the Bluff Sandstone and is about 50 feet thick in the area. It is overlain by between 80 and 100 feet of medium and coarse grained sandstone of the Westwater Canyon Member. The Westwater Canyon unit is overlain by the Brushy Basin Member, which consists predominantly of shale with interbedded sandstones, and

DEIS for the La Jara Mesa Mine Project                                                                                                                     41

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

ranges in thickness from 100 to 180 feet. The Brushy Basin includes the Poison Canyon sandstone beds that are host to the targeted uranium mineralization. The Poison Canyon contains from one to four sandstone units and mudstone separated by thin but distinct shale layers and ranges in thickness from 30 to 85 feet (Chapman 1979).

Above the Morrison Formation are the Middle Cretaceous Dakota Sandstone and overlying Mancos Shale. The Dakota, estimated to range from 40 to 90 feet thick, is overlaid by 150 to 200 feet of marine shales that comprise the Mancos. La Jara Mesa is capped by a sequence of Tertiary (Miocene-Pliocene age) volcanic rocks associated with the Mt. Taylor volcanic field. The cap is composed of an extrusive rhyolitic flow with an overlying basalt unit. The thickness of the extrusive rhyolitic flow is estimated to range from 190 to 230 feet, and the basalt from 85 to 110 feet (Laramide 2008).

In the areas west and south of La Jara Mesa and on the slopes of the mesa, Quaternary (Pleistocene age) talus and landslide deposits occur on the mesa slopes, with dune sand deposits along the break in slope near the base of the mesa and alluvial deposits along drainages. Dune and alluvial deposits are extensive west of the project site, with alluvial deposits becoming dominant along San Mateo Creek.

Regional Geological Structure

The project site is located in the south-central portion of the Grants uranium belt, which extends in a west-northwest trend about 15 to 20 miles wide and nearly 100 miles long. It extends from near the Rio Grande on the east to the Gallup area to the west. Structurally, it crosses the northern end of the Zuni uplift and the Chaco slope, which is the southern flank of the San Juan central basin. It also extends beneath Mt. Taylor, where it crosses the Acoma sag.

This area has been subjected to several minor and one major deformation since Morrison time to the present (Kelley 1963). The first deformation occurred shortly following Morrison deposition and created minor folding in the Ambrosia Lake area. The major deformation in the area occurred in the Late Cretaceous-Early Tertiary, and is referred to as the Laramide Orogeny, which gave rise to the Zuni uplift, the San Juan Basin and the Acoma embayment. At this time the principal folds and faults in the Grants and Ambrosia Lake areas were developed and the northerly dips of the sedimentary strata were established.

The next stage of significant structural deformation began in Pliocene time with the development of the Rio Grande Rift. The Mt. Taylor eruptions developed their modern aspect in late Pliocene time. The Mt. Taylor volcanic center is part of a larger, northeast trending volcanic field that includes Mesa Chivato, a broad plateau located northeast of the Mt. Taylor cone. Basalt that caps Mesa Chivato and other mesas surrounding Mt. Taylor (including La Jara Mesa) make up about 80 percent of the volume of the volcanic field (Perry et al. 1990). The Mt. Taylor volcanic field lies on the southern flank of the San Juan Basin on the Colorado Plateau and straddles the extensional transition zone between the Colorado Plateau and the Rio Grande Rift. It also is considered part of the Jemez lineament, a zone of volcanism aligned along a Precambrian suture in the Earth’s crust.

42                                                                                                                     DEIS for the La Jara Mesa Mine Project

Seismicity

The potential seismic hazard in the Grants region is generally low (Petersen et al. 2008). Work by Kuo-wan et al. (1997) was used to estimate seismic hazards in New Mexico between 1962 and 1995. Their estimates were obtained by combining the temporal probability of occurrence with the spatial probability of occurrence and a relation between ground acceleration and magnitude. These workers estimated ground acceleration at 10 percent of exceedances in a 50-year period. In general, seismic hazards in New Mexico were considered moderate to low, with the highest ground acceleration of 0.21 g and the lowest near 0 g. Most of New Mexico’s historical seismicity has been concentrated in the Rio Grande Valley between Socorro and Albuquerque, with about half of the earthquakes of intensity VI or greater (Modified Mercalli intensity) occurring in this region. In the project area, ground acceleration was estimated at 0.10 g. A magnitude 4.1 shock was recorded near Grants on December 24, 1973, which caused minor damage and was felt in the communities of Laguna, Bluewater, and Fort Wingate.

Soils

Topography in the vicinity of the project area varies from nearly level mesa tops and alluvial fans and valleys, to near vertical cliffs with slope gradients ranging from 0 to 120 percent. The area is characterized as dissected pediment that ranges in elevation from about 6,800 to 7,600 feet above mean sea level (AMSL). The road and utility corridor leading to the mine opening at the base of the mesa is comprised of dissected pediment and alluvial fan surfaces that parallel the escarpment and are moderately steep to gently sloping. The area is drained by several small ephemeral drainages that begin along the escarpment and drain south and west toward San Mateo Creek, approximately 4 miles away. These drainages are dry except during periods of measureable precipitation.

The Forest Service completed a terrestrial ecosystem survey (TES) for the Mt. Taylor Ranger District that includes the area around the project site using the Southwestern Region TES approach (USFS 2007). The TES approach classifies terrestrial ecosystem units and associated soils at a landscape or land unit scale for use in natural resource inventory, monitoring, and evaluation; land management planning; and making predictions and interpretations for management of National Forest System lands (USFS 2005). The distribution of TES units in the immediate vicinity of the project area is shown on figure 9.

Soils types in the project area are varied, reflecting the differences and interactions between topography, elevation, parent material, and time. Parent materials are derived from both sedimentary and igneous rocks. The soils are formed in unconsolidated Quaternary alluvium and eolian materials from mixed sources, as well as residuum and colluvium derived primarily from Cretaceous and Jurassic sandstones and shales, and Tertiary basalt and tuffs from Mt. Taylor volcanic activity. Table 11 identifies the taxonomic class and key properties of the dominate soils of the TES map units in the project area. Soils are generally loamy with poor topsoil qualities although ranging from low to high in revegetation potential.

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Soils within Map Unit 105 (MU105) are dominant in the proposed mine portal area. They are moderately deep to deep and excessively well drained, having formed in coarse and moderately coarse textured eolian sand deposits that occur along the base of the La Jara escarpment.

Escarpment soils (MU502) are moderately deep to deep, well drained soils formed in coarse and moderately coarse textured colluvium and residuum from basalt. Rock outcrops and rubble lands consist of barren or nearly barren exposures of basalt and comprise 30 percent of the map unit. The soils in the portal area support a pinyon-juniper woodland plant community.

Soils that would be traversed by the access road and utilities below the project area are derived from eolian, alluvium, and residuum from mixed sources. They range from very shallow to very deep, medium to moderately coarse textured soils on nearly level to moderately steep slopes.

Closer to the escarpment, these soils support an open pinyon-juniper plant community with an understory of mixed shrubs and warm season grasses including gramas (Bouteloua spp.) and dropseeds (Sporobolus spp.). Further downgradient, tree species are replaced by shrubs, including four-winged saltbush, rubber rabbitbrush, winterfat, and snakeweed.

At the escape raise, MU107 soils are very similar to the coarse and moderately coarse textured eolian soils at the base of La Jara Mesa. These soils support a mixed conifer plant community with a ponderosa pine and pinyon-juniper overstory.

Soil interpretations pertinent to mining and reclamation operations are provided for each dominant soil map unit (USFS 2009). Map unit interpretations were based on the morphological properties in combination with other landscape parameters (USFS 1974; NRCS 1998). Ratings or interpretations are made according to the limitations and/or restrictive features of a soil relative to a specific use. Where a soil may have a limitation or is poorly suited for a specific use, management alternatives can be identified and developed to address the limitation. In other words, soil interpretations do not dictate the use or suitability of a soil, but evaluate their relative potential for a specific use and the effectiveness of mitigation measures. Table 12 presents the soil interpretations for the dominant soil map units in the vicinity of the project area. Brief descriptions of the suitability ratings and hazard interpretations are provided below.

Topsoil Suitability – This evaluates the upper 100 cm of soil material in its ability to establish and maintain vegetation. Topsoil suitability is typically evaluated as a function of inherent fertility (which includes soil texture), soil pH, slope gradient, and rock fragment content.

Roadfill – Roadfill material refers to excavated and transported soil for use in road embankments. The interpretation is based upon a soil texture, rock content, slope, depth to bedrock or a water table, and shrink-swell potential. The rating also assesses the amount of material, the ease of excavation, and its performance after placement.

Revegetation Potential – Revegetation potential refers to the probable success and ease in the establishment of native grasses and shrubs as a function of climate, soil characteristics (i.e., inherent soil fertility, onsite erosion, shrink-swell potential, coarse fragment content, and soil pH), and slope.

Cutbank Stability – This evaluates the susceptibility of soil to slumping following the construction and maintenance of exposed vertical cuts particularly along roads. This assessment is similar to the mass wasting hazard.

46                                                                                                                     DEIS for the La Jara Mesa Mine Project

Table 11. Soil map units and their component soil properties in the vicinity of the La Jara Mesa Mine Project

NA = not available

VD = Very Deep (> 60 inches); D = Deep (40-60 inches); MD = Moderately Deep (20-40 inches); VS = Very Shallow (<10 inches) F = Fine; S = Sand or Sandy; L = Loam or Loamy; SI = Silt or Silty; CB = Cobbly

Source: USFS 2007

Table 12. Interpretative properties for soils in the vicinity of the La Jara Mesa Project

¹ too alkaline; ² too sandy; ³ too clayey ; ⁴ slope; ⁵ too thin ; ⁶ low strength ; ⁷ too shallow ; ⁸  too arid;  ⁹  droughty  Source: USFS 2007

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Unsurfaced Roads – This rating pertains to limitations of soils associated with unsurfaced roads of low design, minimal costs, and limited maintenance. It is primarily a function of soil texture, drainage characteristics, slope, depth to bedrock, alkalinity, shrink-swell, and erosion and mass movement potential.

Erosion Hazard – This refers to the relative susceptibility of a soil to water erosion upon removal of all vegetation and litter. The rating assesses sheet and rill erosion hazards remaining after a site has been disturbed that would result in a reduction of site productivity if left unchecked. The rating is primarily a function of soil erodibility (K-factor) and slope.

Mass Wasting Hazard – This assesses the inherent stability of landscapes from surface creep to landslides. It is a function of the presence of saturated soils on steep slopes, historically unstable rock formations, slope gradient, aspect, fine textured materials, evidence of past movement, and coarse fragment content. Map units with slopes less than 50 percent have slight mass movement potential.

K-Factor – The soil erodibility or K-factor quantifies the ease of soil detachment by rainfall as part of the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE). RUSLE primarily predicts soil loss associated with sheet erosion (Renard et al. 1997). The K-factor is a function of soil texture, rock fragments, organic matter, soil structure, and permeability class and typically ranges from 0.01 to 0.64.

In the project portal area, coarse textured eolian soils (MU105) are droughty and can be difficult to revegetate. These sandy soils are also subject to wind erosion, especially when vegetation is removed. The dominant component of MU105 is soil with alkaline subsoils because of pedogenic carbonates that, when exposed at the surface, can make revegetation difficult. Escarpment soils (MU502) have a high mass wasting hazard rating due to steep slopes, but high rock fragment contents make the erosion hazards moderate. Steep slopes make it difficult to salvage these soils, but as a growth media for revegetation, there are no limiting inherent soil properties for their use as a reclamation substrate.

Soils along the road and utility corridor have an overall moderate rating as a roadfill source and as an unsurfaced road. Erosion hazards are also rated moderate for most soils. Their suitability for use in reclamation varies, but generally they have a moderate revegetation potential.

Environmental Consequences

Geology

Impacts to geology would include permanent changes in landforms, foundation and slope stability, and/or ore deposit.

No Action Alternative

Under the no action alternative, the uranium ore would not be disturbed by exploration or mining, and the structural and lithologic integrity of the site would remain in place. The geology of La Jara Mesa at the base and the top would not be affected by the portal and mine tunnel or the escape raise, respectively. The potential to recover the uranium resources or conduct exploratory drilling at some time in the future would remain. Other than continued use of existing private and Forest Service roads, no impact to the geologic and mineral resources would occur.

50                                                                                                                     DEIS for the La Jara Mesa Mine Project

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Proposed Action

Construction

Development of the mine would result in permanent removal of rock and mineral resources from the underground workings and create a disturbed surface area of about 16 acres that would be reclaimed after mining ceased. Rock from the mine would remain near the base of the portal in a raised pile after facilities, buildings, and other structures were removed. Side slopes would meet reclamation requirements and would not exceed a slope of 3:1. Phase 1 construction would be limited to unmineralized rock removal from the adits and placement in the waste rock area outside of the portal. Phase 2 construction would include additional waste rock removal from the escape raise and from nonmineralized rock areas located between mineralized (ore) deposits. It would also include placement in the waste rock area or, in some cases, placement in abandoned mine areas where ore recovery has been completed.

Operation

Mine development would affect existing geologic resources and the landforms adjacent to the mine opening, due to the underground mining and footprint of the disturbed and waste rock area. No such footprint or geologic impact would exist at the raise opening because all waste rock will be excavated from below and would fall into the mine and be removed. Surficial geology outside of the portal area would be covered by waste rock and contoured for slope stability or as foundation material.

Subsidence

There would be no potential for surface expressions of mining subsidence on the top of La Jara Mesa due to the significant depth of and the limited volume of rock removed during development of the mine workings, and the lack of groundwater. Shallow mines (between 50 and 300 feet below the surface) and groundwater depletion have been the cause of most subsidence events.

There would be some potential that mining subsidence features could develop locally within and adjacent to the underground mine workings, particularly in the immediate portal opening area.

Based on existing information and the appropriate design and construction practices, these features would not be expected to cause damage to surface resources or overlying structures, including the face of the mesa immediately above the mine portal. After sealing and closure of the top of the escape raise, the likelihood of future subsidence would be very low. The rocks in and around these localized subsidence features are unsaturated and are separated from underlying saturated rocks by hundreds of feet of sedimentary strata, so they would not adversely affect groundwater resources beneath the site.

Landslide and Rockfall Hazards

A landslide is a geologic hazard characterized by a perceptible sliding or falling of a relatively dry mass of earth, rock, or a mixture of the two. Rockfalls are geologic hazards, as well as characterized by free falling rock masses. The degree of risk posed by landslides or rock falls relative to the proposed project would be moderate along the steeper portion of the project site below La Jara Mesa. The risk of future movement in the mine project area would be reduced by appropriate design and construction practices (engineered excavation and grading) and by active mitigation techniques such as: control of surface and subsurface drainage, rock tieback anchors, and rock scaling and buttressing as necessary, especially in the portal area of the mine.

DEIS for the La Jara Mesa Mine Project                                                                                                                     51

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Seismic Hazards

Earthquake risk in the project area is considered low. No active faults have been identified in the project area that would require consideration of surface movement. The project mine area is believed to be stable for buildings, underground workings, and most other construction/mining activities.

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects to local geology consider other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions in the immediate mine footprint vicinity, at La Jara Mesa and Mt. Taylor as a whole, and in the region.

Past impacts to geology include local road construction and side slope cuts across the face of the mesa in some cases. At the top of the mesa, hundreds of drill holes were bored in the middle to late 1900s to collect rock samples, leaving some waste drilling rock, but minor waste rock disposal. No additional drilling at the top of the mesa over the claim area is envisioned because sampling would be accomplished by the mine itself and no cumulative drilling impacts would occur. Cumulative impacts to geology in the immediate mine area would be minor.

This project is one of many past, present, and future activities on or adjacent to Mt. Taylor itself. There are a number of gravel and quarry mining sites within about 4 miles of the project site, and active uranium exploration occurs in the vicinity of the project site. A new proposed uranium mine is located 8 miles north of the site that, according to the October 2009 application, would disturb approximately 180 acres, include five ventilation holes similar in size to the escape raise, and a rock stockpile of approximately 50 acres. This larger project would contribute to the cumulative geologic impacts of mining on Mt. Taylor. A separate EIS is being prepared for that mine project.

Regionally, the Mining and Minerals Division of the New Mexico Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources Department lists all pending and existing exploration and mining permit applications on their Web site, located at: http://www.emnrd.state.nm.us/MMD/MARP/permits/MARP_Permits.htm.

The Web site shows current minimal impact exploration permits and approved exploration permit applications, in addition to any new mine applications, such as La Jara Mesa and Roca Honda or others posted since this writing, and all existing mine applications in the State.

Because of the small and localized footprint and impacts to geology, the La Jara Mesa Project would contribute minor effects on geology near the mine and would contribute to the cumulative impacts of other mining and gravel extraction activities on Mt. Taylor and in the region. No effects from this mine are cumulative to other historical mines in the area.

Soils

Potential impacts to soils would include changes in physical, chemical, and biological properties, and loss of soils required for revegetation through compaction or from increased erosion. Due to the small surface disturbance of the proposed action, a qualitative analysis is provided.

52                                                                                                                     DEIS for the La Jara Mesa Mine Project

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

No Action Alternative

Under the no action alternative, the mine would not be developed and natural soil processes and properties would not change from present conditions. Soil loss and erosion would be restricted to existing mine exploration and development disturbances in the area including cattle grazing, wildlife grazing, and road use. Erosion and sedimentation would continue to occur at existing rates along Forest Road 450 and other two-track roads in the project area. Soil erosion losses due to rainfall, runoff, and wind would continue at natural rates at other locations.

Proposed Action

Construction

Mine construction and development activities can have unfavorable effects on soils resulting from the removal of vegetation and exposure of the soil to wind and water erosional forces. The direct loss of soil resources is primarily associated with burial, contamination, and accelerated erosion during soil salvage, storage, and redistribution operations. Soil chemical and physical conditions can also be altered by soil salvage and mining, including reductions in fertility, loss of soil structure, increased bulk density through compaction, reduced infiltration and water holding capacity, and changes in the microbial populations.

Approximately 12.9 acres of MU105 and 3.5 acres of MU502 will be impacted by surface facilities in the portal area. Soil depth is described below. At the escape raise approximately ¼ acre of MU107 will be disturbed. Soil loss will occur during the mechanical grubbing of vegetation, excavation soil materials, and transferring materials to the growth media stockpile. These activities expose bare soil surfaces that are susceptible to increased wind and water erosion relative to vegetated conditions. Soil loss due to burial can be mitigated by removing growth media from all areas affected by project surface facilities. The use of silt fences or ditches along the perimeter of the disturbed areas in addition to seeding stockpiles and disturbed areas with native perennial grasses in the first normal planting season will control erosional losses and sedimentation downgradient of the site.

Physical changes in soil structure can also result from the use of heavy machinery to strip, haul, and stockpile soil materials, compacting the materials and thereby increasing bulk density and decreasing porosity and water holding capacity. Compaction can inhibit root penetration, reduce infiltration, increase runoff and erosion, and decrease plant productivity. Handling soils during the rainy season or when soils are wet can be particularly detrimental because compaction is typically more severe. Soil handling activities would be suspended when soil conditions are too wet to support heavy equipment.

Soil salvage activities would blend and homogenize soil resources by mixing topsoil and subsoil materials as well as different soil types. The net effect is that the salvaged materials are physically and chemically more uniform relative to native soils. One result of mixing soil horizons can be the relative reduction in organic matter content and fertility of the salvaged soil. However, the incorporation of slash, roots, and other plant materials during stripping may mitigate the loss of organic matter in the salvaged soils and potential reductions in soil productivity. The incorporation of mulch and organic matter would also improve the quality and fertility of the salvaged soil materials. The establishment of a permanent vegetative cover on stockpiled soil materials can also help retain nutrients.

DEIS for the La Jara Mesa Mine Project                                                                                                                     53

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Site specific soil mapping with chemical and physical characterization will be required for the MMD’s Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP) to identify soils suitable for salvage as a growth medium. The reclamation plan assumes that an average of 6 inches of growth material will be distributed across the 16.4 acres of disturbance. This will require salvaging approximately 13,300 cubic yards of growth media for final reclamation. This is equivalent to removing 12 inches of growth media material off 8.2 acres in the project area. Only soils suitable to support plant growth would be salvaged for use in reclamation. Construction activities include an operation to salvage 0 to 12 inches of surface and near surface soil from areas affected by surface facilities. As needed, subsoil materials would be salvaged when deeper soils are encountered to make sure adequate growth media materials are available for reclamation. The majority of native soils at the project site are deeper than 20 inches (table 11). Salvage of soils to a depth of 20 inches in the 16.4-acre footprint would result in over 44,000 cubic yards of growth media which would exceed the required volume for reclamation purposes. The size of the growth media stockpile depends on the site specific soil characteristics of each identified soil type that would be salvaged including its suitability, thickness, and available volume. This would not be known until quantitative soil sampling is conducted as part of implementing the State’s SAP.

Waste rock from the project would be suitable as a subsoil because it would not be acid generating or radioactive. It might also be suitable as a topsoil substitute. Laboratory testing specified in the State’s SAP will be used to characterize and determine the suitability of the waste rock from the development phase of the project. One benefit of using suitable waste rock as a topsoil substitute is that it typically does not contain the seeds of annual or noxious weeds.

Without the competitive pressure of weeds, the seeded perennial species would more easily become established during the reclamation process.

Soil impacts in the utility corridor/access road are expected to be minor to MU165 and MU34. In general, impacts to soil resources during construction would be moderate to major under the 16.4- acre footprint, but the impacts would be reduced to minor after mitigation through reclamation and monitoring to ensure success. Soil impacts associated with the escape raise are small in aerial extent and are also expected to be minor. Impacts would be successfully mitigated during the construction phase by implementing the reclamation plan, specifically salvaging adequate quantities of suitable growth media, and installing erosion and stormwater controls to retain sediment onsite and reduce downstream impacts. Interim seeding would provide permanent vegetated cover on stockpiled soil resources, control erosion and runoff, and help maintain nutrients. Stormwater diversions, berms, swales, silt fences, and similar BMPs would also help to control erosion and runoff as they provide temporary protection of stockpile soils until vegetation becomes established.

Improvements and frequent maintenance to Forest Road 450 and other access roads would lead to better water management along the roadway relative to the road’s current condition. Soil materials would be salvaged and placed in the soils storage pile. Appropriate grading and placement of subbase, gravel and new culverts would stabilize the roadbed and direct runoff away from the road surface. Any accelerated erosion along the road would be corrected as part of routine maintenance to ensure they are suitable and provide continuous site access for haul trucks and personnel, and that runoff control meets stormwater runoff requirements of the SWPPP. Dust from the road corridor would be suppressed with sprayed water several times a day and minimize wind erosion.

54                                                                                                                     DEIS for the La Jara Mesa Mine Project

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Slope failure and landslides have the potential to occur, especially in areas of shale and other soft sedimentary rock. The deepest cuts and fills associated with the project would be located in the proposed portal area. The rock along the portal entrance is sandstone and should not pose a mass wasting hazard. All water flowing from the slope above the portal area would be redirected away with an upgradient diversion into existing drainage channels. Engineering controls may be necessary with the portal face-up and excavation to minimize the potential hazards of landslides and mass wasting.

Operation

Impacts to soil resources during the operation phase of the proposed action are associated with the storage of growth media and its redistribution on final graded surfaces during the reclamation phase. Project development and operations are projected to last between 8 and 20 years, depending on the ore reserves identified during mine development. During this period, stockpiled soil materials are susceptible to wind and water erosion particularly if they have no standing plant cover, litter, or rock to protect the surface. Wind erosion could remove finer grained materials from the stockpile’s surface; however, from a volumetric perspective, losses associated with wind erosion would be minor.

Soil loss due to water erosion could permanently decrease the volume of soil materials available for reclamation. No growth medium material would be stockpiled inside of any drainage areas. An erosion and sediment control plan, required as part of the plan of operations, would be implemented to protect soil resources and reduce potential impacts on soils during the operational period of the mine. Based on local hydrological conditions, management practices including sediment traps, berms, dispersion ditches, silt fences, and filter fabric would be used during the life of the project to control erosion. Growth medium stockpiles would also be graded and seeded with perennial grass species to reduce the loss of soil resources by erosion.

Over the operational life of the project, stockpiled soils may lose organic matter relative to undisturbed native soils as a result of microbial activity that would continue to decompose the organic matter and potentially impact nutrient levels. Seeding the stockpiled and windrowed soils with native grasses during the interim would help retain nutrients and organic matter. The areal extent of the stockpiled soil pile will depend on height which is affected by slope and amount of suitable material available. As an example, if 1 foot of soil is removed from suitable soil areas that are anticipated to be covered by rocks and facilities (e.g., 8 acres) and placed in a 1-acre pile, it would be 8 feet high. Actual pile coverage would be larger to allow for side slopes.

Stockpiled soils could also become contaminated if unsuitable materials (e.g., radioactive waste rock) are inadvertently mixed with these materials. The excavated soils would be placed in a separate stockpile away from the designated ore stockpile near the mine portal. Stockpiles could also become contaminated by petroleum products from machinery or contaminated surface water. A spill prevention and control plan (SPCC), required as part of the project’s SWPPP, would address spill containment and the equipment to be kept onsite to mitigate a petroleum spill or leaks, and to remove impacted materials. Stormwater from the ore stockpile and waste rock dump would be directed to stormwater basins and away from the growth media stockpile to avoid impacting the soil materials.

During the reclamation phase of the project, regraded areas would be topdressed with 6 inches of growth media and revegetated to restore the land to productive use. The replaced soil would be sampled and analyzed to determine whether nutrient levels are adequate and if a fertilizer

DEIS for the La Jara Mesa Mine Project                                                                                                                     55

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

application would be required to establish vegetation. The reclaimed soils would then be seeded with native perennial grass species and forbs and mulched to protect the surface from excessive erosion. Reclamation of access and portal site roads would involve redistribution of windrowed soils and revegetation to restore the area to productive use.

The proposed reclamation plan does not address surface and subsurface compaction in reclaimed soils that could reduce infiltration rates and increase the potential for runoff and erosion. Surface compaction could be reduced or eliminated during seedbed preparation through the use of standard tillage tools like disks and chisels. Deep compaction below 8 inches may occur in areas with heavy equipment traffic and would require ripping tools such as a “subsoiler” for mitigation. Alleviating soil compaction as mitigation would enhance natural processes that would promote the formation of soil structure (i.e., root penetration, soil microbial activity, and freeze-thaw cycles), improve water infiltration, and roughens the soil surface to provide microsites for seedling establishment, and reduces concentrated overland flow and soil loss during the early phases of vegetation establishment.

Although the reclaimed plant community could not be restored immediately to pre-mining productivity due to the time required for plants to fully establish in the semiarid climate, long- term productivity would be maximized by the proposed action’s reclamation procedures. Creating a suitable root zone would provide the foundation to reestablish an effective, stable, and permanent vegetative cover capable of protecting the site from excessive erosion. Soil chemistry, nutrient levels, and physical conditions would generally be more uniform and would likely result in a plant community that is more uniform. Following site decommissioning, reclaimed areas would be monitored for a minimum of 3 years for the presence of soil erosion and vegetation establishment to ensure successful reclamation. Additional soil and erosion monitoring protocols are expected to be developed as part of the State mine permit requirements that include a 12-year period to monitor and evaluate reclamation success.

Impacts to soil resources during the operation and reclamation phase would be moderate to major, but with the implementation of erosion and sediment controls and the proposed reclamation and monitoring plans prepared for this project described above, successful stabilization and reclamation of the site is expected and soil impacts would be reduced to minor.

Cumulative Effects

The cumulative effect on soils considers the impacts of the proposed project when added to soil disruption impacts from activities at the mine site and at Mt. Taylor, ranging from the mid-1900s to the present.

Past impacts to local soils have occurred from road construction and use, including road cuts between NM 605 and the site from private roads and Forest Service roads and Forest Service and other 4-wheel roads across the mesa escarpment. Additional soil impacts in the vicinity of the project resulted from surface disturbances associated with past uranium exploration activities that included drill holes, trenching, and exploratory mining in the middle to late 1900s. No exploratory drilling would occur as part of the proposed action, as ore sampling would be accomplished in the mine itself and road construction would be limited to existing access roads. Because soil impacts would be mitigated through implementation of the reclamation plan, cumulative impacts to soils in the immediate mine area would be minor.

56                                                                                                                     DEIS for the La Jara Mesa Mine Project

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Although the project area represents approximately 0.003 percent of the Mt. Taylor Ranger District, in combination with past, present, and foreseeable future actions, it would result in the incremental increase in impacts to soils in the Cibola National Forest. Other potential mine exploration and development projects in the vicinity of the proposed action include a proposed uranium mine located 8 miles north of the site. The other proposed mine application describes approximately 180 acres of surface disturbance, and would contribute to the soil impacts from mining on Mt. Taylor. A separate EIS is being prepared for that mine project. There are additional permit applications for existing mining operations, and occasional exploration permit requests filed with the MMD. Active uranium exploration occurs in the vicinity of the project site.

Other past, present, and foreseeable actions that contribute to impacts on soil resources in the Mt. Taylor area and the two-county region include gravel mining, recreational uses, road use and construction, timber harvesting, livestock grazing, and utility line construction. The La Jara Mesa Project would contribute to these soil impacts but the soil losses on the 16.4-acre project are very minor compared to the size of Mt. Taylor or the Grants Uranium Belt, and would be even less after reclamation.

Air Quality

Phases 1 and 2 of the project include construction and operation activities for which there would be air emission sources that would include point and fugitive sources.

Phase 1 – Underground development would generate emissions of air pollutants from the following sources:

• Drilling, blasting, and storage of waste rock (nonmineralized)
• Mobile equipment exhaust (mining and surface construction)
• Backup electric generator exhaust
• Fuel and solvent filling, storage, and use
• Disturbed surface wind erosion
• Paved and unpaved fugitive road dust

Phase 2 – Underground mine production would generate emissions of air pollutants from the following sources:

• Drilling, blasting, and storage of both mineralized ore and waste rock
• Surface handling and transport of mineralized ore
• Mobile equipment exhaust
• Fuel and solvent filling, storage, and use
• Backup electric generator exhaust
• Disturbed surface wind erosion
• Paved and unpaved fugitive dust

For purposes of this EIS, it is assumed that ore from phase 2 mining would be transported by truck to and processed at the Denison Mines ore processing facility located in Blanding, Utah, approximately 190 miles northwest of the mine site. Other processing mill location options may

DEIS for the La Jara Mesa Mine Project                                                                                                                     57

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

be available by the time phase 1 is completed, but they are not known at this time. Radon emissions are discussed separately.

Affected Environment

Location and Terrain

The La Jara Mesa Mine is located within the Southwestern Mountains-Augustine Plains Intrastate Air Quality Control Region 156 (AQCR 156), which covers 20,256 square miles in western New Mexico. The region’s landscape is variable, going from timbered mountain ranges to mesas, plains, and cultivated river valleys. Elevations range from 4,600 feet along the Rio Grande Valley to 11,000 feet in the mountains. The region is drained by the Rio Grande Basin, lower Colorado River Basin, Western Closed Basin, and partially by the Central Closed Basin.

The portal location and support facilities would be located on a southwest-facing slope of the mesa at approximately 7,300 feet above sea level. Terrain to the east rises steeply to a plateau at 8,200 feet and higher, approximately 900 feet above the support facilities. The escape raise portal would be located approximately 700 feet above the mineralized area on the surface of the mesa. The natural resources located within the area of AQCR 156 include a large amount of grazing land and land suitable for farming, timber, and minerals. The nearest residence is approximately 3 miles southeast of the portal location in Lobo Canyon and, therefore, is not considered to be a sensitive receptor. The nearest population center is Grants and Milan, New Mexico (Grants- Milan), located approximately 10 miles southwest of the portal location at an elevation of 6,460 feet above sea level.

Climate and Meteorology

Grants-Milan Municipal Airport is the closest location with reliable meteorological data. Due to its elevation, Grants-Milan has a year-round cool climate. Data provided here are from the New Mexico Climate Center. Average low temperatures in winter and summer are 18 °F and 52 °F. respectively, while average highs are 47 °F and 87 °F. Average rainfall is 10.5 inches; winters have an average snowfall of 12.8 inches. Figure 10 provides a wind rose based on the last 7 years of wind speed and wind direction data from the Grants-Milan Municipal Airport. The abrupt rise of the La Jara Mesa influences local wind direction. While regional wind direction is out of the west-southwest, the mesa results in predominant winds out of the northwest as shown in figure

10. There is virtually no wind downslope from the portal facility location toward Grants-Milan. The nearest residence in the direction of the prevailing wind is approximately 3 miles away (figure 11).

Air Quality Monitoring Data/Regional Emissions Inventory

Criteria pollutants are those pollutants for which there are regulated Federal and State ambient air quality standards. EPA and the State of New Mexico have established ambient air quality standards for criteria pollutants, including carbon monoxide (CO), ozone (O₃), respirable particulate matter (PM₁₀), fine particulate matter (PM_2.5), nitrogen dioxide (NO₂), sulfur dioxide (SO₂), and lead (Pb). Additionally, the State of New Mexico has established ambient air quality standards for total reduced sulfur (TRS), total suspended particulate (TSP), and hydrogen sulfide (H₂S).

58                                                                                                                     DEIS for the La Jara Mesa Mine Project

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Figure 10. Wind Speed and Direction 2002-2009 at Grants-Milan Municipal Airport (wind directions shown are the location the wind is blowing from).

Source: New Mexico Climate Center 2009 http://weather.nmsu.edu/cgi-

hl/cns/wind.pl?station=kgnt&smonth=01&sday=01&syear=02&emonth=01 &eday=01&eyear=09

The airshed in Cibola County is in attainment/unclassified for all ambient air quality standards, both Federal and State. While New Mexico has an ambient air quality monitoring network for ozone, there are no ambient monitoring stations for ozone near the project site (figure 12). Ozone in the troposphere primarily results from the chemical interaction of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) in the presence of sunlight. There are few sources of these compounds upwind of the project site other than vehicle exhaust.

The most recently available (2002) Cibola County results from the National Emission Inventory are shown in figures 13-19. These figures show the relative contribution of the more common criteria pollutants in Cibola County. While these emission inventory results are 8 years old, it is unlikely that the total and relative magnitude of the emissions have changed significantly due to the sparse population in Cibola County, which was less than 26,000 people in 2000.

DEIS for the La Jara Mesa Mine Project                                                                                                                     59

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Figure 12. Ambient monitoring locations in New Mexico

Source: New Mexico Environment Department Website http://www.nmenv.state.nm.us/aqb/modeling/metdata.html

As shown in figure 13, the primary source of carbon monoxide emissions is on-road vehicle exhaust. This is also true for NOx and VOC emissions, shown in figures 14 and 15, respectively. Figures 16 and 17 show the emission levels of PM₁₀ and PM_2.5 in Cibola County as of 2002. Road dust accounts for the vast majority of particulate emissions as the dry climate contributes to unmitigated release of road dust that is suspended by travel on both paved and unpaved roads. As of the 2002 inventory, Cibola County had higher emissions of particulates than any other pollutant due to the fugitive dust emissions of the county and low level of industrial emission sources.

Figures 18 and 19 display the emission levels and sources of SO₂ and Pb emissions for Cibola County. Neither of these pollutants is emitted in substantial quantities due to the lack of industrial and commercial combustion sources in Cibola County.

DEIS for the La Jara Mesa Mine Project                                                                                                                     61

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Figure 13. Emission sources of carbon monoxide in Cibola County

Source: EPA Web site on September 19, 2009 http://www.epa.gov/cgi- bin/broker?_service=data&_debug=0&_program=dataprog.dw_d o_all_emis.sas&pol=225&stfips=35

Figure 14. Emission sources of nitrogen oxides in Cibola County

Source: EPA Web site on September 19, 2009 http://www.epa.gov/cgi- bin/broker?_service=data&_debug=0&_program=dataprog.dw_d o_all_emis.sas&pol=227&stfips=35

62                                                                                                                     DEIS for the La Jara Mesa Mine Project

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Figure 15. Emission sources of volatile organic compounds in Cibola County

Source: EPA Web site on September 19, 2009 http://www.epa.gov/cgi- bin/broker?_service=data&_debug=0&_program=dataprog.dw_d o_all_emis.sas&pol=229&stfips=35

Figure 16. Emission sources of PM₁₀ in Cibola County

Source: EPA Web site on September 19, 2009 http://www.epa.gov/cgi- bin/broker?_service=data&_debug=0&_program=dataprog.dw_do_ all_emis.sas&pol=230&stfips=35

DEIS for the La Jara Mesa Mine Project                                                                                                                     63

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Figure 17. Emission sources of PM_2.5 in Cibola County

Source: EPA Web site on September 19, 2009 http://www.epa.gov/cgi- bin/broker?_service=data&_debug=0&_program=dataprog.dw_do

_all_emis.sas&pol=231&stfips=35

Figure 18. Emission sources of SO₂ in Cibola County

Source: EPA Web site on September 19, 2009 http://www.epa.gov/cgi- bin/broker?_service=data&_debug=0&_program=dataprog.dw_do

_all_emis.sas&pol=228&stfips=35

64                                                                                                                     DEIS for the La Jara Mesa Mine Project

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Figure 19. Emission sources of lead in Cibola County

Source: EPA Web site on September 19, 2009 http://www.epa.gov/cgi- bin/broker?_service=data&_debug=0&_program=dataprog.dw_do_al l_emis.sas&pol=219&stfips=35

The Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) has developed projections for emissions in New Mexico that extrapolate from the 2002 National Emissions Inventory based on projected growth, impacts of regulation, and impacts of changing technologies to the extent that those impacts can be estimated (see table 13). The result is that point source emissions would likely show decreases in emissions of NOx and particulate matter due to regulations and improved technology.

However, particulate matter from area sources, such as roads and storage piles, is projected to increase.

Table 13. Projected change in New Mexico statewide emission inventory from 2002 to 2018 for point and area source emissions

Source: WRAP (Western Regional Air Partnership) Point and Area Source Emissions Projections for the 2018 Base Case Inventory, Version 1, Prepared by Eastern Research Group, Inc., January 25, 2006.

DEIS for the La Jara Mesa Mine Project                                                                                                                     65

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Criteria Air Pollutants

Certain air pollutants have been recognized to cause health problems and damage to the environment, either directly or in reactions with other pollutants due to their presence in elevated concentrations in the atmosphere. Such pollutants have been identified and regulated as part of the overall endeavor to prevent further deterioration and facilitate improvement in regional air quality.

Criteria air pollutants, for which Federal and State ambient air quality standards have been promulgated, include CO, O₃, NO₂, SO₂, TSP, PM₁₀, PM_2.5, TRS, H₂S, and Pb. As discussed further under “Environmental Consequences,” the proposed project is expected to emit or result in the formation of only CO, O₃, NO₂, SO₂, TSP, PM₁₀, and PM_2.5, primarily from dust generation and vehicle/equipment exhaust. In addition, Federal hazardous air pollutants and State listed toxic air pollutants are also of concern in New Mexico. Each of these is briefly described below.

Carbon Monoxide

Carbon monoxide (CO) is an odorless, colorless gas formed by the incomplete combustion of fuels. The single largest source of CO is the motor vehicle. Emissions are highest during cold starts, hard acceleration, stop-and-go driving, and when a vehicle is moving at low speeds—all times of reduced combustion efficiency. New findings indicate that CO emissions per mile are lowest at about 45 mph for the average light duty motor vehicle and begin to increase again at higher speeds. This is tied to engine efficiency which can be lower at very low speeds when engines and transmissions are not operating at optimum design speeds, and again at high speeds, when fuel consumption increases as friction from engine operation, tires, and air resistance reduces efficiencies.

When inhaled at high concentrations, CO combines with hemoglobin in the blood and reduces the oxygen-carrying capacity of the blood. This results in reduced oxygen reaching the brain, heart, and other body tissues. This condition is especially critical for people with cardiovascular diseases, chronic lung disease or anemia, as well as fetuses. Healthy people exposed to high CO concentrations can experience headaches, dizziness, fatigue, unconsciousness, and even death.

Such concentrations occur in enclosed spaces containing combustion products and are not found outdoors during normal conditions.

Ozone

Ozone (O₃) is not emitted directly into the environment, but is formed in the atmosphere by complex chemical reactions between NOx and VOCs in the presence of sunlight. O₃ formation is greatest on warm, windless, sunny days. The main sources of NOx and VOCs, often referred to as ozone precursors, are combustion processes (including motor vehicle engines) and the evaporation of solvents, paints, and fuels. As with CO, automobiles are the single largest source of ozone precursors. Tailpipe emissions of reactive organic gases (ROG) are emitted similarly to CO and are highest during cold starts, hard acceleration, stop-and-go conditions, and slow speeds. Traffic is more of a diffuse source but higher concentrations may be found in cities and near congested freeways. O₃ is also created by lightning, which converts the O₂ in the air (oxygen) to O₃.

Ozone levels usually build up during the day and peak in the afternoon hours. Short-term exposure can irritate the eyes and cause constriction of the airways. Besides causing shortness of

66                                                                                                                     DEIS for the La Jara Mesa Mine Project

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

breath, it can aggravate existing respiratory diseases such as asthma, bronchitis, and emphysema. Chronic exposure to high O₃ levels can permanently damage lung tissue, plants and trees, and materials such as rubber and fabrics.

Nitrogen Dioxide

Nitrogen dioxide (NO₂) is a reddish brown gas that is a byproduct of combustion processes. Automobiles and industrial operations are the main sources of NO₂. Aside from its contribution to ozone formation, NO₂ can increase the risk of acute and chronic respiratory disease and reduce visibility. NO₂ may be visible as a coloring component of a brown cloud on high pollution days, especially in conjunction with high O₃ levels. The only sources of NO₂ for the proposed project are the diesel generators and mobile sources burning gasoline or diesel fuel.

Sulfur Dioxide

Sulfur dioxide (SO₂) is a colorless acid gas with a strong odor that is produced by the combustion of sulfur-containing fuels such as oil, coal, and diesel. It has the potential to damage materials and can have health effects, contributing to respiratory illness particularly in children and the elderly, and aggravating existing heart and lung diseases. SO₂ can irritate lung tissue and increase the risk of acute and chronic respiratory disease.

SO₂ in the presence of a catalyst such as NO₂ can form sulfuric acid (H₂SO₄) in the atmosphere, resulting in acid rain which damages trees, crops, historic buildings, and monuments and makes soils, lakes, and streams acidic. SO₂ also contributes to the formation of atmospheric particles that impair visibility. SO₂ and the pollutants formed from SO₂, such as sulfate particles, can be transported over long distances and deposited far from the point of origin. This means that problems with SO₂ are not confined to areas where it is emitted. The only sources of SO₂ for the proposed project would be diesel generators and mobile sources.

Particulate Matter

Total suspended particulate (TSP) is regulated only by the State of New Mexico. It is regulated because it can contribute to visibility degradation. According to EPA, “A primary pollutant of concern at mining sites is particulate matter. In many of the processes associated with mining activities, a significant portion of the mass of particulate matter is made up of large particles, those with diameters greater than 10 microns. This coarse particulate matter usually settles gravitationally within a few hundred meters of the source (EPA 1994).”

Particulate matter 10 microns or less in aerodynamic diameter and 2.5 microns or less in diameter (PM₁₀ and PM_2.5) refer to a wide range of solid or liquid particles in the atmosphere, including smoke, dust, aerosols, and metallic oxides. Some particulate matter, such as pollen, is naturally occurring. However, most particulate matter is caused by combustion, construction, grading, demolition, agricultural activities, and motor vehicles. Extended exposure to particulate matter can increase the risk of chronic respiratory disease. Inhalable coarse particles, such as those found near roadways and dusty industries, are larger than PM_2.5 and typically smaller than PM₁₀. Fine particles (PM_2.5), as defined by the EPA, include smoke and haze and are a subset of PM₁₀. These particles can be directly emitted from sources such as forest fires, or they can form when gases emitted from combustion equipment, industries, and automobiles react in the air.

DEIS for the La Jara Mesa Mine Project                                                                                                                     67

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

PM₁₀, which includes PM_2.5, is of concern because it bypasses the body’s natural filtration system more easily than larger particles, and can lodge deep in the lungs. PM_2.5 is so small it behaves much like a gas and can bypass all of the human body’s defenses to reach the deepest portions of the lungs where oxygen is absorbed. Thus, EPA revised their particulate matter standards several years ago to apply only to these particle sizes.

As with CO and ozone precursors, motor vehicles constitute the single largest source of PM₁₀ based on the best available data. Motor vehicles produce particulates through direct tailpipe emissions of particulate matter; direct emissions of NOx, which become particulate ammonium nitrate in the atmosphere; and the suspension of road dust by tires. Vehicles also produce PM₁₀ from brake pad and tire wear.

Re-suspended road dust has not been reduced by improvements in motor vehicle air pollution controls. In fact, road dust is expected to continue to increase unless there is a reduction in motor vehicle use and broader adoption of dust control measures. Dust control measures may be needed at construction sites, unpaved roads and parking lots, agricultural, and other area sources that emit dust directly into the ambient air and/or convey mud and dirt to roadways.

High levels of particulates have also been known to exacerbate chronic respiratory ailments, such as bronchitis and asthma, and have been associated with increased emergency room visits and hospital admissions. PM_2.5 is the primary cause of reduced visibility (haze) in parts of the U.S., including many of the national parks and wilderness areas. Particles can be carried over long distances by wind and then settle on ground or water. The effects of this settling include: making lakes and streams acidic; changing the nutrient balance in coastal waters and large river basins; depleting the nutrients in soil and damaging sensitive forests and farm crops; and affecting the diversity of ecosystems. Particle pollution can stain and damage stone and other materials, including culturally important objects such as statues and monuments.

Federal Hazardous Air Pollutants and New Mexico Toxic Air Pollutants

The primary hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) and toxic air pollutants (TAPs) of concern for the proposed project are naturally occurring uranium, radium, and radon. Mineralized ore containing uranium and radium would be mined for offsite processing into potential fuel or other products. Radiation exposure would be possible from these elements.

Radiation refers to energy emitted in the form of waves or particles. There are two main types of radiation which must be considered: nonionizing radiation and ionizing radiation. Nonionizing radiation occurs at the low frequency end of the electromagnetic spectrum. Examples of nonionizing radiation include microwaves, radio waves, radar, infrared, and some ultraviolet radiation. This type of radiation in sufficient concentration can produce undesirable effects on humans through heating. As the frequency increases through the ultraviolet region, the energy from the electromagnetic radiation becomes sufficient to release orbiting electrons from the surrounding matter. This form of radiation is ionizing radiation. Examples of ionizing radiation are x-rays, gamma rays, and cosmic rays. In addition to wave or frequency type radiation emissions, several particles are also included in this form of radiation, referred to as alpha particles and beta particles. The form of radiation of concern at the proposed La Jara Mesa Mine is ionizing radiation.

The negative health effects attributed to this type of radiation depend on many parameters including the amount of radiation received (dose), the rate at which the radiation is delivered

68                                                                                                                     DEIS for the La Jara Mesa Mine Project

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

(dose rate), and the type of ionizing radiation (alpha, beta, x-ray, gamma). The ionizing radiation which would be present at the La Jara Mesa Mine site would include x-rays, gamma rays, alpha particles, and beta particles. These types of radiation are emitted from the radioactive material found in and around the uranium ore. X-rays and gamma radiation have no mass or charge. They may be produced by x-ray machines, by ionization of atoms or molecules, or by the decay of radioactive atoms. Beta particles have a very small mass and a negative charge. Beta particles are electrons which have been released from inside an atom as that atom decays and seeks a more stable configuration. Alpha particles do not travel far and cannot penetrate clothing, skin, or even paper, and are a risk only if inhaled.

The natural radiation environment consists of cosmic radiation and many radioactive elements, including Hydrogen-3, Carbon-14, Potassium-40, Rubidium-87, Uranium-235, Uranium-238, and Thorium-232. Both Uranium-238 and Thorium-232 are ubiquitous in soil with average concentrations of a few parts per million. Each is a parent element of a radioactive decay series. The parents decay to daughters which are also radioactive. Natural uranium is about 99.3 percent U-238.

When ionizing radiation deposits energy in living matter, it produces a physical and biological effect which may be quantified in terms of dose. The dose to a particular receptor of radiation is expressed in radiological units, known as rems (roentgen equivalent man). However, because this unit is so large compared to background and most exposure levels it is often useful to divide the value by 1,000 and call it millirem (mrem). A progeny of U-238 is Radon-222. Radon is a colorless, odorless, and inert gas which diffuses into the atmosphere from rocks, soil, and building materials. It is found in many places in the natural environment and typically in higher concentrations in unventilated spaces such as basements, mines, and other enclosed areas. All the radon progeny are particulates and many decay by emitting alpha particles. It is the alpha particle emitting progeny of Radon-222 that have been linked to negative effects on humans. Radon gas emanates from the earthen materials containing uranium such as natural soil and ore stockpiles. If airborne, the gas would be transported by prevailing winds and would decay to its progeny. A health effects analysis of radon gas emissions is included in the “Health and Safety” section.

Air Quality Standards and Regulations

Air quality within the region is addressed through the efforts of various Federal, State, regional, and local government agencies. These agencies work jointly, as well as individually, to improve air quality through legislation, regulations, planning, policy making, education, and a variety of programs. The air pollutants of concern, pertinent regulations, and agencies primarily responsible for improving air quality are discussed below.

Federal

The Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA) requires the EPA to identify National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs) to protect public health and welfare. National standards have been established for the criteria air pollutants ozone, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, PM₁₀, PM_2.5, and lead. To ensure that ambient air quality standards are met, the EPA has also promulgated a number of New Source Performance Standards (NSPS).

DEIS for the La Jara Mesa Mine Project                                                                                                                     69

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

The FCAA has provisions that require each state to prepare an air quality control plan referred to as the state implementation plan (SIP). The SIP is prepared by individual State, regional, or tribal authorities to describe how they would implement the requirements of the FCAA. States with an approved SIP are authorized by the EPA to act as the regulatory authority for those portions of the SIP that have been approved. The State of New Mexico has an approved SIP.

States containing areas that violate the NAAQS are required to revise their SIP to incorporate additional control measures to reduce air pollution. The SIP is periodically modified to reflect the latest emissions inventories, planning documents, and rules and regulations of air basins as reported by the agencies with jurisdiction over them. The EPA reviews all SIPs to determine if they conform to the mandates of the FCAA and would achieve air quality goals when implemented. If the EPA determines a SIP to be inadequate, it can prepare a federal implementation plan (FIP). Failure to submit an approvable SIP or to implement the plan within mandated timeframes can result in sanctions being applied to transportation funding and stationary air pollution sources in the air basin.

NESHAPs that would apply to construction/operations at the La Jara Mesa Mine include the following:

• Title 40 Part 61 Subpart B of the Code of Federal Regulations – National Emission Standards for Radon Emissions From Underground Uranium Mines (Note: this regulation is still administered by the EPA although the State of New Mexico is delegated to implement the majority of the Federal NESHAPS)
  • Title 40 Part 63 Subpart CCCCCC of the Code of Federal Regulations – National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source Category: Gasoline Dispensing Facilities

Tribal

EPA Region 9 has delegated air permitting authority under Part 71 of the Clean Air Act to the Navajo Tribe, including Title V permitting, but excluding permitting authority over the Four Corners power plant project or the Navajo Generating Station. Such delegation has no effect on the La Jara Mesa Project.

State

The mission of the New Mexico Environment Department’s Air Quality Bureau (AQB) is to protect the inhabitants and environment of New Mexico by preventing the deterioration of air quality through the following:

• Strategic planning to ensure that all air quality standards are met and maintained.
• Issuing air quality construction and operating permits.
• Enforcing air quality regulations and permit conditions.

The AQB has authority over air quality in all New Mexico counties except Bernalillo County, but does not have authority to regulate facilities on tribal lands. The AQB has primary responsibility to enforce Federal regulations and issue construction and operating permits, but may also develop and enforce regulations that are more stringent than Federal standards. For example, the State of

70                                                                                                                     DEIS for the La Jara Mesa Mine Project

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

New Mexico has additional ambient air quality standards that are more restrictive than the NAAQS.

Table 14 shows a comparison of State and Federal AAQS from the New Mexico Air Quality Bureau, NMED, and from the Clean Air Act, 42CFR, 85 respectively.

The State of New Mexico has developed air quality rules and regulations codified in the New Mexico Administrative Code (Title 20) that would apply to the proposed La Jara Mesa Project. Among these regulations are restrictions on visible emissions and the requirement to obtain a construction permit for certain types of sources and emission levels. Sources of uranium emissions and other toxic air contaminants are required to obtain a construction permit.

Additionally, sources for which there are applicable NSPS or NESHAPs are required to obtain a construction permit, and sources with the potential to emit greater than 10 pounds/hour or 25 tons/year of any regulated air contaminant for which there is a New Mexico or National AAQS are required to obtain a construction permit.

Table 14. New Mexico and Federal ambient air quality standards

DEIS for the La Jara Mesa Mine Project                                                                                                                     71

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Source: U.S. EPA and New Mexico DEQ as of November 3, 2010

[1]   Not to be exceeded more than once per year.

[2]   (a) The standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with maximum hourly average concentrations above 0.12 ppm is ≤ 1.

(b) As of June 15, 2005, EPA has revoked the 1-hour ozone standard in all areas except the fourteen 8-hour ozone nonattainment Early Action Compact (EAC) areas. For one of the 14 EAC areas (Denver, CO), the 1-hour standard was revoked on November 20, 2008. For the other 13 EAC areas, the 1-hour standard was revoked on April 15, 2009.

[3]   To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the fourth highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentrations measured at each monitor within an area over each year must not exceed 0.075 ppm (effective May 27, 2008).

[4]   Not to be exceeded more than once per year on average over 3 years.

[5]   To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the 98^th percentile of 24-hour concentrations at each population oriented monitor within an area must not exceed 35 µg/m³ (effective December 17, 2006).

[6]   To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the weighted annual mean PM_2.5 concentrations from single or multiple community oriented monitors must not exceed 15.0 µg/m³.

[7]   To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the 98th percentile of the daily maximum 1-hour average at each monitor within an area must not exceed 100 ppb (effective January 22, 2010).

[8]   Final rule signed June 2, 2010. To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the 99th percentile of the daily maximum 1-hour average at each monitor within an area must not exceed 75 ppb.

[9]   Final rule signed October 15, 2008.

Environmental Consequences

No Action Alternative

Under the no action alternative, the proposed La Jara Mesa Project and all associated infrastructure, including the surface facilities, water supply and pipeline, and access road improvements, would not be constructed. Recreational opportunities would still occur on the site, resulting in fugitive dust emissions from roadways. Recreational vehicle use, hunting, and ranching vehicle use would be less frequent than construction and operational traffic near the mine site, and no dust control measures would be in place.

72                                                                                                                     DEIS for the La Jara Mesa Mine Project

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Proposed Action Alternative

Construction

Phase 1 (underground development) would consist of a number of activities that have the potential to create air emissions. These activities include:

• Drilling and blasting. During incline and escape raise excavation, drilling and blasting would contribute short duration releases of nonmineralized fugitive dust. As needed, water would be used to control underground dust emissions.
• Soil (growth medium) removal and storage. Growth medium would be removed from the surface where waste rock, support, and portal equipment and buildings would be placed. A vegetative cover would be used to prevent surface erosion (windblown fugitive dust emissions) until the growth medium is needed for future reclamation activities.
• Surface disturbance and roadway fugitive dust. Approximately

16.4 acres of surface would be disturbed to create room for support facilities, waste rock placement, ore and growth medium storage, parking, equipment storage, vehicle parking, and an escape raise.

• Mobile equipment exhaust (mining and surface construction). Gasoline and diesel powered mobile equipment would be used for construction. Emissions would be generated from tailpipe exhaust. Vehicle exhaust emitted underground would be released with ventilation air. Emissions from vehicles on the surface would be distributed around the 16.4-acre disturbance area. Construction emissions are expected to have a minor impact on air quality due to the remote nature of the site, the limited number of vehicles, and the temporary nature of construction.
• Backup electric generator exhaust. Portable generators would be used for the initial portal site and underground development work. An emergency generator would be placed at the escape raise upon completion of that feature. Impacts of emissions on the environment and nearest residences are expected to be negligible due to the remote nature of the site relative to residences and the temporary nature of construction. Continental Divide Electric Cooperative, Inc., would supply electric service to the site during phase 2. This would eliminate the need for diesel generators except for backup power. The generators are expected to operate less than 200 hours per year in such a capacity. This would also reduce the number of fuel shipments to the site, which would eliminate the generation of some fugitive road dust and fuel delivery truck emissions.
  • Fuel and solvent filling, storage, and use. Fuels would be stored in above ground storage tanks and would comply with any applicable fuel storage and fuel dispensing air quality regulations. Solvents used for maintenance/parts cleaning would be kept in closed containers when not in use.

Operation

Drilling and blasting would contribute short duration releases of mineralized and nonmineralized fugitive dust. As needed, water would be used to control underground dust emissions. As part of operations, mineralized rock would be brought to the surface and stored for transport to a processing facility. No crushing or processing would be conducted at the mine site. Ore that is transported to the surface is expected to be moist such that fugitive dust emissions from unloading onto the storage pile would be greatly diminished.

DEIS for the La Jara Mesa Mine Project                                                                                                                     73

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

To reduce fugitive emissions generated at the surface, mined out areas below ground would be backfilled with waste rock. However, due to the expansion of the waste rock as it is mined, some waste rock would still be placed at the surface. Water spray would be used to mitigate dust emissions from disturbed areas of the surface where waste rock is placed.

• Mobile equipment exhaust. To the extent possible, electrically powered tools and equipment would be used for mining. Some mobile equipment powered by gasoline or diesel fuel would be used, resulting in some combustion emissions. Additionally, 12 to 13 ore trucks per day would be used to haul ore (500 tons/day) to a testing or processing facility. It is anticipated that mobile equipment exhaust would not have a significant impact due to the remote nature of the facility. The nearest downwind residence is approximately 3 miles away, allowing for emissions from the mine site to disperse.
• Fuel and solvent filling, storage, and use. Fuels would be stored in above ground storage tanks and would comply with any applicable fuel storage and fuel dispensing air quality regulations. Oils and lubricants would be stored in sealed drums and containers. Solvents used for maintenance/parts cleaning would be kept in closed containers when not in use.
• Backup electric generator exhaust. The facility would operate ventilation fans, compressors, and tools using electricity supplied to the site via power line. Diesel generators would only be used to provide backup power in the event of an outage. A diesel generator would be used to supply power to the escape raise pod in the event of an emergency. All generators would be kept in good working condition and would be run periodically to ensure they are functional if not being used. However, the generators would operate less than 200 hours/year individually. As such, these would be temporary emission sources for which there is expected to be no impact.
• Disturbed surface wind erosion, paved and unpaved fugitive road dust. Approximately 16.4 acres of surface would have been disturbed to create room for support facilities, waste rock placement, ore and growth medium storage, parking, equipment storage, vehicle parking, and an escape raise. Approximately 6.2 miles of existing unpaved roads, some of which would require improvement, would be used for access to the site from NM 605. During dry periods, a 3,000-gallon water truck would be used to apply approximately a full water load each hour for 5 to 8 hours per day. A water solution with magnesium chloride (MgCl) as a dust control measure may also be used to suppress dust from the access and haul roads. Other synthetic dust control products are also available (e.g., SOILTAC, Soilworks LLC). Vehicles on access roads would be limited to 35 miles per hour.

The growth medium from disturbed areas would be stockpiled. A vegetative cover would be sown on the surface of the growth medium to preserve it for future reclamation of the site and reduce fugitive dust emissions.

All mineralized ore would be stockpiled and shipped to a testing or processing facility.

• Surface handling and transport of mineralized ore (dumping and loading operations). The ore stockpile would be sprayed with water to minimize the amount of dust generated during loading operations. Water sprays would be applied only to the extent necessary to moisten the ore and ore pad area. A clay liner would be used under the ore stockpile to avoid runoff or seepage of water that has contacted the mineralized ore. Any loose material that drops onto the cab, bumpers, running boards, or other exterior surfaces would be removed and placed back on the ore pad prior to leaving the site. The

74                                                                                                                     DEIS for the La Jara Mesa Mine Project

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

truck tailgate would be closed and a tarpaulin (or other suitable cover) would be placed over the entire load and adequately secured so that fine ore particles cannot be released to the environment during transport. Ore transport trucks would meet Federal and State standards for the transport of uranium ore including covering and labeling.

Reclamation

Reclamation of the project area includes both construction reclamation and final reclamation. Reclamation efforts on lands disturbed during the course of site development would include activities (such as growth medium removal, stockpiling, and stabilization) that are a prelude to final reclamation. Final reclamation activities would be implemented upon cessation of underground development and mining activities, if such commercial production is commenced. The areas to undergo final reclamation upon project closure would include the mine portals, the escape raise, surface facility areas, and the site access road (that are not needed for long-term land use purposes). The goal of reclamation is to return the site to a vegetation covered area consistent with the surrounding area so that the mine site is not an ongoing source of windblown dust emissions. The growth medium removed during mine development would be stockpiled and then reseeded to prevent wind or water caused erosion. Upon cessation of mining activities at the site, salvageable equipment and trailers would be moved to another project, sold, or properly disposed of offsite. Unsalvageable portions of any facilities, such as concrete pads, would be broken up and buried on site, or removed, subject to Forest Service approval. Growth medium would be placed over the disturbed surface and reseeded to mitigate the site as a source of windblown dust. This would also be completed for the escape raise after the opening has been suitably covered to prevent access.

During the course of reclamation activities, diesel powered machinery would be used. This includes graders, scrapers, loaders, and other material placement and stabilization devices. It is expected that exhaust emissions would have no significant impact offsite due to the temporary duration of construction activities and the remote location of the mine site.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions

The Forest Service has not determined that greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are a significant issue for this EIS. However, the effect of GHG emissions on world climate is an important issue that has received increasing national and international attention in recent years. The effects of Federal decisions on GHG emissions has become a factor in NEPA analysis and in agency operations in the last few years, depending on the significance of the issue for any project.

On October 5, 2009, after the scoping process for this EIS, President Obama signed Executive Order (E.O.) 13514 (74 Federal Register 52117) to establish an integrated strategy toward sustainability in the Federal Government and to make reduction of GHG emissions a priority for Federal agencies. Among other provisions, E.O. 13514 requires agencies to “measure, report, and reduce their GHG emissions from direct and indirect activities.” Section 2 of E.O. 13514 establishes a timeline for Federal agencies to establish GHG reduction targets and report inventories. The guidance includes the establishment of a work group to set up reporting protocols and requirements, and is designed to quantify emissions over which the agency has direct and operational control. This order does not obligate the FS to inventory the emissions of projects or activities like the applicant’s proposed La Jara Mesa Mine Project, but is referenced here to document the government’s interest in this issue.

DEIS for the La Jara Mesa Mine Project                                                                                                                     75

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

The CEQ has developed guidance on the treatment of GHGs in NEPA EISs and released a draft guidance document for review and comment on February 19, 2010. The guidance is in draft form and has no direct administrative applicability to the La Jara Mesa Project or to this EIS for the following reasons:

• It is in draft form and in the process of evaluation. Comments received during the 90-day comment period are being evaluated and the guidance is not final and not in effect.
• As proposed, it suggests that a quantitative GHG analysis of agency activities should be done if a proposed Federal action could reasonably be assumed to cause direct emissions of 25,000 metric tons (27,500 short tons) of carbon dioxide annually. This would not apply to the proposed project. This EIS projects operation emissions of approximately 5,000 (short) tons per year of CO₂.
• The guidance states that CEQ does not propose to make this guidance applicable to Federal land and resource management actions.

The guidance emphasizes the importance of scoping and significance in determining the level of appropriate analysis for an EIS, and concludes that “Emissions from many proposed Federal actions would not typically be expected to produce an environmental effect that would trigger or otherwise require a detailed discussion in an EIS.”

The guidance emphasizes the “rule of reason” in NEPA and states that agencies should ensure that they keep in proportion the extent to which they document their assessment of the effects of climate change. Although the Forest Service has not begun to revise its NEPA implementing regulations or otherwise adopt procedures to incorporate the draft CEQ guidance on GHG emissions, the forest supervisor has made the following determination on the level of analysis needed for greenhouse gas emissions for the La Jara Mesa Project:

The Forest Supervisor has concluded that GHG emissions from a mining project such as this are not a significant issue. It is not a manufacturing, processing, or thermal energy generating project requiring the combustion of fossil fuels for energy or processing; it has no industrial point source emissions during operation, and emissions are limited to transportation sources, such as commuting vehicles, uranium ore transport vehicles, and onsite ore handling vehicles. The project does not recover fossil fuels for eventual combustion and GHG release; it recovers uranium, which could potentially be used to generate electricity and displace or avoid such future combustion. For those reasons, a quantitative life cycle GHG analysis has not been done for this project. Instead, an estimate of annual vehicle emissions during mining operation is provided.

To provide some comparison between the relative contribution of CO₂ emissions (the primary GHG pollutant being emitted in the world) from the proposed project from mining activity, to the draft threshold reporting criteria (25,000 metric tons) and recognizing the uncertainty of actual start date, milling location, and operating conditions at the mine, an estimate of annual emissions was developed. Based on an assumption of 13 ore delivery trucks operating 365 days per year, to some potential mill approximately 150 miles away (the Blanding mill is 190 miles away; other potential mill options are much closer), and assuming 100 commuter vehicles travel 100 miles per day each, and an additional 13 local delivery trucks service the site, approximately 5,000 tons of CO₂ equivalent per year would be emitted from the site, or 20 percent of the amount suggested

76                                                                                                                     DEIS for the La Jara Mesa Mine Project

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

for reporting and tracking under local guidelines. If the assumed mill distance were doubled, CO₂ emissions would still remain at less than 40 percent of the draft reportable criteria.

Cumulative Effects

Local Impacts

Existing air quality represents past and present sources and ambient conditions including natural windblown dust that contributes to particulate. The area of effect considered in the cumulative analysis includes the mine site and areas downwind in the prevailing wind direction. It also includes cumulative effects of additional ore processing at a mill, and evaluated impacts at the existing Blanding Utah site as an example.

There are no known major sources of air emissions in the vicinity of the proposed mine site. Another uranium mine is proposed approximately 8 miles north of the site and beyond the influence of any air emissions or impacts noted here except for GHG emissions which are global. Air emissions from the proposed mine may also contribute localized emissions to Mt. Taylor. The nearest known residence is 3 miles southeast of the mine site, with significant topographical features between the residence and the mine site. The nearest towns of Grants and Milan, New Mexico, are located approximately 10 miles southwest of the portal and support facility location. There are significant topographical features (such as Black Mesa) located between the mine portal location and Grants-Milan. There is no wind downslope from the mine portal location toward Grants-Milan (see figure 10).

Because the proposed project would meet applicable Federal and State air quality standards, the mine portal and its impacts would be remotely located, and mine air quality impacts would be mitigated, the proposed project would not contribute to any significant cumulative impacts.

Regional Impacts

For purposes of this EIS, it is assumed that the ore would be transported by truck to a Denison Mines processing facility (mill) located in Blanding, Utah, known as the White Mesa mill. This mill is currently capable of accepting the ore.

The airshed in which the Utah processing facility is located is currently in attainment of all Federal ambient air quality standards. The ore processing facility is not a major stationary source of emissions and, therefore, operates with an approval order rather than a Title V operating permit. Major sources for some criteria pollutants such NOx are defined as those emitting 100 tons per year or more. The facility is also not a major source of HAPs and is, therefore, unaffected by Maximum Achievable Control Technology standards. Potential emissions from the ore processing facility under the maximum operating scenario are shown in table 15.

The ore processing facility operates a number of combustion devices fueled by propane, a relatively clean burning fuel, to support ore drying. The primary pollutant that is emitted during ore processing is particulate matter. Both baghouses and scrubbers are used at the facility to capture and control particulate matter. The facility is currently permitted to handle the volume of ore that would be delivered from La Jara Mesa and has emission limits for PM₁₀ found in Approval Order No. DAQE-AN0112050008-08, which was reviewed to prepare this section of the EIS. The air permit also includes requirements for fugitive dust control from access roads, ore handling, truck operation, and tailings storage areas. All major fuel sources must use propane instead of diesel or other higher emission fuels.

DEIS for the La Jara Mesa Mine Project                                                                                                                     77

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 15. Potential emissions from ore processing

Project related emissions would not increase above the permitted levels shown in table 15 nor would the facility require a new or modified permit to process the La Jara Mesa ore. As a result, there is no significant cumulative air quality impacts anticipated from the project.

Greenhouse gas emissions are not at a reportable level and, although they contribute to worldwide emissions, the use of the product from this mine (uranium) could significantly reduce fossil fuel emissions if it displaced such thermal sources (oil, gas, and coal).

Water

Affected Environment

Surface Water

The proposed La Jara Mesa Mine Project is located within the San Mateo Creek subbasin of the Rio San Jose Basin, in northern Cibola County, New Mexico. The Rio San Jose Basin is a western tributary basin to the Rio Grande Basin in northwestern New Mexico (Williams 1986). The location of the proposed project and its watershed is shown in figure 20. This figure shows the position of the proposed project relative to San Mateo Creek, the Rio San Jose, and the Rio San Jose Basin.

The project is located approximately 4 miles east of San Mateo Creek, which is drainage that originates north of La Jara Mesa. San Mateo Creek is perennial only in its upper headwater reaches, north of La Jara Mesa near the Village of San Mateo. Elevations of the San Mateo Creek watershed range from approximately 8,200 feet AMSL on the north flank of La Jara Mesa to approximately 6,550 feet at the confluence of San Mateo Creek and the Rio San Jose Ditch, about 2 miles north of Milan (USGS 1957 and 1995). At its nearest point to the site, San Mateo Creek is ephemeral (flowing only in response to significant precipitation events in the watershed). San Mateo Creek is not hydraulically connected to and would not be affected by pumping from any of the bedrock aquifers that may be used for water supply for the project.

There are no other perennial drainages on or near the mine site itself. The project is situated within a 2,658-acre catchment of an unnamed ephemeral wash. All surface water features within the proposed project area are ephemeral. The catchment and locations of the proposed mine permit boundary and operational footprint are shown in figure 20. Surface water originating on the project site in response to storm events drains in a westerly direction away from Mt. Taylor. Interpretation of aerial photography and United States Geologic Survey (USGS) 7.5 minute quad

78                                                                                                                     DEIS for the La Jara Mesa Mine Project

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

topography, further supported by field observations, indicates there is no apparent hydraulic connection between the ephemeral drainage below the project site and San Mateo Creek 4 miles to the west. Approximately 2 miles below the project site below a private ranch road, the ephemeral drainage appears to terminate in a dune field immediately west of State Road 605, where numerous small depressions are indicated on the USGS quad (figure 20).

The field inspection of the valley in the vicinity of the ranch road (Golder 2010) confirmed the presence of the dune field west of the road and found no discernable bed and bank structures that would indicate an active channel or ordinary high water mark (OHWM). The OHWM is used to identify the lateral limits of non-wetland waters and is defined as “the line on the shore established by the fluctuations of water and indicated by physical characteristics such as a clear natural line impressed on the bank, shelving, changes in the character of the soil, destruction of terrestrial vegetation, or the presence of litter and debris” (Lichvar and McColley 2008). In ephemeral channels of the arid west, low to moderate discharge events with a 5- to 10-year return intervals are closely associated with the formation of an OHWM. The watercourse conditions in the vicinity of the dune field do not have the physical characteristics of an OHWM, and it is unlikely that stormwater from the project site flows more than a mile from the project site.

Channel-like features above the dune field also appear to be discontinuous both laterally and longitudinally.

Based on the available information described above, there does not appear to be a significant nexus that connects the ephemeral channel to a relatively permanent water body, thus the drainage is probably not a jurisdictional nonwetland Water of the United States. A formal request of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for a jurisdictional determination would be required to confirm whether or not the ephemeral drainage is jurisdictional under the Clean Water Act.

The small ephemeral channels in the proposed project area are steeply sloped and are generally in moderate to poor condition. Roads from early exploration activities are cut into the escarpment above the site and have altered drainage patterns by redirecting stormwater into undersized channels. In several locations, particularly higher in the watershed, the confined channels have become entrenched and cut into exposed bedrock. The incised channels have also cut deeply into the colluvial and eolian deposits at the base of the escarpment.

No data is known to exist on stormwater discharge quantity, quality, or sediment load characteristics of the surface water catchment that encompasses the proposed mine site. However, because the drainage from the operational areas of the project will be managed and prevented from leaving the site, and the drainages in the watershed are ephemeral and terminate prior to reaching San Mateo Creek, there would be little or no impact from the mining activities to the watershed.

Precipitation data for the area is available from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Western Regional Climate Center for the San Mateo weather station, located approximately 7.5 miles north of the project site on the north flank of La Jara Mesa. Based upon the available climatic data for the period of record 1961-2000, the average annual precipitation at the San Mateo station is 9.4 inches; approximately 60 percent of the annual total falls between June and September. Monthly precipitation average data from the San Mateo station is shown in figure 21.

DEIS for the La Jara Mesa Mine Project                                                                                                                     79

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Figure 21. Precipitation summary NWS Station 293234, San Mateo, NM

High intensity, short-duration rains of limited areal extent are considered common in the project area during the summer months. Although infrequent, the magnitude, frequency, and areal extent of these intense rains can be important. The thunderstorm season is concentrated in July, August, and early September. High rainfall rates occur during the summer rainy season with a low chance of occurrence at any specific time and place. The stormwater flow events are expected to be associated with the infrequent storm events during an average year in the project area. Significant amounts of sediment are transported down the ephemeral washes during stormwater flow events. Based upon the sparse vegetation and lithology of bedrock substrates (toldito gypsiferous limestone and marine mudstones and sandstones) in the area, stormwater quality is expected to be impacted by sediment load and to be moderately mineralized. Sediment transport has been somewhat exacerbated by grazing and intermittent vehicle traffic on unimproved dirt roads in the immediate vicinity of the project site. Stormwater from the site does not reach San Mateo Creek.

Groundwater

Water Rights

Groundwater resources in the State of New Mexico are administered by the New Mexico Office of the State Engineer (NMOSE) under the Prior Appropriation Doctrine. The NMOSE delineates underground water basins and estimates groundwater resources available for appropriation in each basin. Groundwater appropriators establish underground water rights by filing claims for water use and perfecting the rights by applying the water to beneficial use. When underground water resources within a basin are fully committed to existing claims, the NMOSE declares the basin fully appropriated and no new water rights (except rights for individual domestic wells) are issued. During times of shortage, groundwater use could potentially be rationed, with those rights having the earliest priority dates (dates of initial documented beneficial use) receiving full portions first and rights having later priority dates sequentially receiving full portions based upon availability. Groundwater rights are defined by owner, purpose, and place of use and well location, but may be moved within a groundwater basin to allow transfer of ownership, well

DEIS for the La Jara Mesa Mine Project                                                                                                                     81

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

location, or type of use. The project site is located in the Bluewater Underground Water Basin, which is a fully appropriated subbasin of the Middle Rio Grande Basin (figure 22).

Groundwater Resources – Hydrogeologic Conditions

Authoritative published investigations of groundwater and hydrogeologic conditions in the region of the project site have been prepared by Gordon (1961), Cooper and John (1968), Stone et al. (1983), and Baldwin and Rankin (1995); additional published papers, technical memoranda, and unpublished file data have also been developed by numerous workers. Thaden, Santos, and Ostling (1967a) mapped the surficial geology of the Dos Lomas 7½-minute quadrangle, which includes the La Jara Mesa Project. A portion of this map showing the locations and producing horizons of water wells in the area is included in figure 23. A hydrogeologic cross section was prepared using geologic map data and water well data developed by Stone et al. (1983), Gordon (1961) and the NMOSE (2009) and is shown in figure 24; the line of section for this cross section is shown on the geologic map in figure 23. Basic data on vicinity water wells developed by Gordon (1961) and from unpublished NMOSE file data (2009) are summarized in table 16.

Water bearing geologic units in the vicinity of the project include shallow Quaternary alluvial deposits, Entrada Sandstone, Sonsela Sandstone, or fractured shale zones of the Triassic Chinle Formation, and limestone and sandstone beds of the Permian San Andres Limestone and Glorieta Sandstone. With the exception of the alluvial deposits, wells in the vicinity of the La Jara Mesa Project produce water from each of these units.

Quaternary Alluvium: Several wells in the vicinity of the project are completed in unconsolidated alluvium; locations of these wells are shown on the geologic map in figure 23. No yield or water quality data is available for these wells; however, depths are 100 feet or less. These units are expected to be generally limited spatially to the drainage areas and have thin saturated thicknesses, which would not provide a reliable supply of water. Water in these deposits is also expected to be ephemeral.

Todilto Limestone: There are no wells in the area that produce water from the Todilto Limestone, which underlies the project site. The Todilto in the area of the project is about 16 feet thick and composed largely of lime mudstone and gypsiferous limestone reef deposits. In some areas this unit hosts uranium mineralization. The unit overlies the Entrada Sandstone.

Entrada Sandstone Aquifer: The shallowest source of potentially reliable groundwater supply is in the Entrada Sandstone west and southwest of the project site. The Elkins well (New Mexico Office of the State Engineer file number B-1272), which is at the proposed project well location, is completed in the Entrada Sandstone aquifer (Well B-1272, table 16 and Shomaker 2009a and 2009b). This well is located approximately 3 miles southwest of the project site in Section 28 of Township 12 North, Range 10 East. The well was pump tested and the yield from the well appeared to be insufficient for project needs (Shomaker 2009a).

82                                                                                                                     DEIS for the La Jara Mesa Mine Project

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Figure 22. NMOSE groundwater basins

DEIS for the La Jara Mesa Mine Project                                                                                                                     83

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 16. Records of wells in the vicinity of the La Jara Mesa Mine Project

Well numbering system based on subdivision of public lands (township, range, and section) to the nearest 10-acre tract (USGS and OSE). Qal = Quaternary Alluvium; TRc = Triassic Chinle sandstone units; Psa = Permian San Andres-Glorieta Aquifer

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

The water produced from the well complies with New Mexico State drinking water standards for noncommunity, nontransient water systems with the exception of arsenic, which was 0.0115 mg/L and some radioactive components. The water was a calcium-sulfate type, with total dissolved solids of 520 mg/L. The uranium content was 0.0186 mg/L, radon 307 pCi/L, radium (226 + 228)

0.337 pCi/L, gross beta 4.51 pCi/L, and gross alpha 23.2 pCi/L (Shomaker 2009). The NMOSE record for this well indicates that the well is completed in gravelly sandstones between 70 and 155 feet below grade and produces 25 gallons per minute or 36,000 gallons per day. Shomaker (2009b) estimated the specific capacity of the well at 0.49 gallon per minute per foot (gpm/ft) and a transmissivity of 51.5 feet squared per day (ft²/day).

Sandstone Beds of the Chinle Formation:  Sandstone beds within the middle and lower portions of the Chinle Formation provide water to wells around the former Homestake Mill site southwest of the project site (Homestake Mining Co. 2010). These beds, if present in the subsurface near the project site, may yield quantities of water to wells, although the yields may be small and not sustainable. The top of the Chinle Formation is projected at a depth of approximately 450 feet below the project site.

Locations of water wells completed in the Chinle Formation in the vicinity of the project site are shown on the geologic map in figure 23. One well located in Section 23 of Township 12 North Range 10 West (Well 12.10.23.233a, figure 23) is apparently completed in a sandstone bed and reportedly had a yield of 300 gallons per minute (table 16). The groundwater in any sandstone beds is expected to be confined by overlying shale units in the vicinity of the project site. Flows would be artesian; for example, Well 12.10.23.233a was completed to a depth of 500 feet and the water level in this well was reported to be 75 feet below grade in 1946 (Stone et al. 1983; table 16).

Several wells in the vicinity of the project site are completed in the upper portion of the Chinle Formation; locations of these wells are shown on the geologic and well location map in figure 23. Depths of these wells range from 91 feet to 200 feet; water levels range from 46 feet to 85 feet below grade (Stone et al., 1983, table 16). No yields for these wells were reported by Stone et al. (1983). The quality of water from upper Chinle wells in the area is variable, with estimated total dissolved solids (TDS) ranging from approximately 16,000 mg/l to 550 mg/l, based upon electrical conductance reported by Stone et al. (1983). Uranium concentrations in wells representing ambient conditions in the former Homestake Mill site area vary spatially and have ranged from <0.0003 to 0.106 mg/L. Radium concentrations have ranged from <1.0 to 7.6 pCi/L (Homestake Mining Co. 2010).

San Andres-Glorieta Aquifer: The principal source of reliable potable groundwater in this region is the San Andres-Glorieta aquifer system (White and Kelly 1989). This unit generally provides adequate water for domestic and stock wells and is locally a prolific producer where karst or structural shearing conditions are present. The San Andres Limestone and underlying Glorieta Sandstone are generally hydraulically connected and behave as a single hydrologic unit. The San Andres-Glorieta Aquifer is present at a depth of about 1,800 feet and has an estimated thickness of approximately 75 feet at the project site. White and Kelly (1989) estimated the thickness of the San Andres Limestone and Glorieta Sandstone at 25 feet and 50 feet, respectively, in the area.

The San Andres-Glorieta Aquifer receives recharge along the northern flank of the Zuni Mountains, where the Zuni uplift has exposed the system in outcrop over a relatively wide area

90                                                                                                                     DEIS for the La Jara Mesa Mine Project

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

approximately 10 miles southwest of the project site. Recharge to the system moves down-dip within the aquifer, generally from south to north. The overlying Chinle shales act as confining beds to water within the aquifer system, and an artesian pressure is developed. The water level in wells completed in this unit rise above the top of the system, sometimes reaching the surface and creating a flowing well. The geometry of the San Andres-Glorieta Aquifer and potentiometric surface in the vicinity of the project site are depicted on the hydrogeologic cross section in figure 24.

Prolific production has been noted in the San Andres-Glorieta Aquifer in the vicinity of the project site. Production exceeding 1,500 gallons per minute was obtained from two wells completed in the San Andres-Glorieta Aquifer located approximately 5 miles west of the project site in Sections 23 (figures 23 and 24; table 16) and 26 of Township 12 North Range 10 West (Well 12.10.23.233 and 12.10.26.242). Quality of water from these wells is somewhat mineralized, having TDS in the range of 1,800 milligrams per liter (mg/l, estimated from electrical conductance, table 17) or 1.8 parts per thousand dissolved solids.

This water is very hard, from a potable water standpoint, and would need some form of treatment if used as drinking water, although it is suitable for many other uses. For reference, water is considered hard if TDS exceeds approximately 500 mg/l. Uranium concentrations in wells in the vicinity of the former Homestake Mill site, which represent ambient conditions, have ranged from

<0.01 to 0.025 mg/L. Radium concentrations in these same wells have ranged from <1.0 to 3.05 pCi/L (Homestake Mining Co. 2010).

Environmental Consequences

No Action Alternative

If the No Action alternative is selected, groundwater and surface water flow rates would remain unchanged from existing conditions. Sediment transport and surface water quality would remain unchanged relative to existing conditions. No new wells would be installed and erosion control measures would not be required.

Proposed Action Construction Surface Water

Construction of the proposed project during both phases could indirectly affect ephemeral surface

water resources by increasing stormwater runoff and sediment loads from the site, although they would not reach other surface water because runoff does not appear to flow as far as San Mateo Creek. Impacts to surface water would be primarily on and near the site and associated with construction activities such as soil salvage operations, road construction, and facilities construction. All of these activities have the potential to impact the quantity and quality of surface water runoff. Site preparation and grading activities will remove vegetation and expose and compact soils, thereby increasing stormwater yield, erosion rates, and sediment loading to the ephemeral drainages.

DEIS for the La Jara Mesa Mine Project                                                                                                                     91

Table 17. Summary of water quality data from wells in the vicinity of the La Jara Mesa Project

1. Well numbering system based on subdivision of public lands (township, range, and section) to the nearest 10-acre tract (USGS and OSE)
2. Date format: year-month-day
3. µmhos = micromhos; mg/L = milligrams per liter
4. Qal = Quaternary Alluvium; TRc = Triassic Chinle sandstone units; Psa = Permian San Andres-Glorieta Aquifer Source: Elkins Well 12.9.28.14, Shomaker 2009a

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

In general, impacts to surface water resources during construction would be minor to moderate for the watershed immediately below the project site. Although increased erosion is expected, no existing surface waters (San Mateo Creek) will be affected. Impacts would be reduced to minor by successfully implementing onsite stormwater controls. All construction activities would be permitted under the NPDES Stormwater SWPPP under a Multi-Sector General Permit. The SWPPP would be developed in consultation with New Mexico MMD and potentially EPA Region 5 representatives to identify design parameters and appropriate best BMPs for stormwater management at the proposed site. The SWPPP would be certified by a New Mexico licensed professional engineer. The basic design storm event frequency parameters for the various facilities of the projects stormwater plan included in the plan of operations are summarized in table 18.

Table 18. Summary of design storm event frequency for proposed project stormwater facilities

Grants Airport Precipitation Frequency Estimates from NOAA. 2006. Precipitation-Frequency Atlas of the United States. NOAA Atlas 14, Volume 1, Version 4 National Weather Service, Silver Spring, Maryland.

Impacts to surface water runoff would also be reduced during the construction phase by employing BMPs identified in the erosion and sediment control plan including: limiting vegetation removal only to areas directly affected by project mine facilities; scheduling growth medium removal activities for dry periods; revegetating disturbed areas and stabilizing with mulch, avoiding off-road vehicle travel; and installing other protective BMPs including sediment traps, dugout ponds, berms, dispersion ditches, and sediment filter fabric based on local hydrologic conditions. Stormwater flowing down the slopes above the proposed site would be diverted away from the active project area and channeled into existing channels south of the site. Access road improvements during the construction phase include widening to 14 feet, with pullouts for passing and installation of appropriately sized culverts. The access road is also sited to minimize the number of drainage crossings to reduce surface water impacts. None of the surface water leaving the project site is expected to reach a permanent or intermittent surface water body because it either percolates quickly into the ground or evaporates before reaching San Mateo Creek.

Groundwater

The advancement of the portals, incline, and underground mining beneath La Jara Mesa would extend from the base of the mesa northeastward along an incline from the portal, and would

94                                                                                                                     DEIS for the La Jara Mesa Mine Project

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

extend to greater depths beneath the land surface of the mesa above, even with the upward incline to the targeted ore body. No perched water zones have been encountered during earlier exploration activities. Hundreds of exploratory wells were drilled to a depth below the proposed elevation of the bottom of the mine shaft. Therefore, the mine workings in the ore zones would be completed in unsaturated rocks and these workings would, therefore, not expect to encounter saturated rocks. Some water would be introduced during construction and drilling activities, but much of this water is expected to be removed with the broken rock that would be placed in the waste rock facilities where the water would evaporate.

The anticipated potable and nonpotable uses of groundwater in the surface buildings (sinks, showers, and lavatory facilities) are expected to be about 2,500-10,000 gallons per day (based on an assumed use of 50-100 gallons per person per day and 25-100 employees at the project during phases 1 and 2). If this volume is discharged to a septic tank and leach field system, it would be permitted with the New Mexico Environment Department in accordance with the New Mexico Water Quality Control Commission (WQCC) regulations and rules. The septic system and leachfield would be located near the project area buildings. The segregation or recycling and beneficial use of the gray water fraction from potable use at this site was not practical given the relatively small volume available and uncertainties with respect to State permitting and building code requirements.

The mining operation will also be subject to a discharge permit application and regulatory consideration with respect to the water quality control regulations and rules. If a permit is required, then monitoring of groundwater and/or surface water would be developed as an element of compliance and the site. Any contamination would be subject to mitigation under these regulations if there were a release from the site.

Groundwater Withdrawal

During development and mining, groundwater for the project is anticipated to be pumped from the Entrada Sandstone aquifer and supplemented by pumping from deeper Chinle Sandstone aquifer or by pumping the entire amount from the deeper San Andres-Glorieta aquifer. During the development phase, the pumping rate would be 34,500 gpd. During the mining phase, it would be 50,000 gpd. If this supply is pumped from the shallower Entrada/Chinle for the anticipated 20 years of mine life, the additional drawdown in the nearest pumping well, which is at a radial distance of 4,700 feet, is estimated to be about 2 feet. If the supply is pumped from the deeper confined San Andres-Gloreta aquifer, the additional drawdown at this same radial distance at the nearest well is less, estimated to be on the order of 0.15 foot (2 inches). There are no surface water bodies in hydraulic connection with these aquifers within 3 miles of the site, therefore, the pumping of groundwater for water supply would not have any measurable effect on surface waters during the life of the mine, including any effect on San Mateo Creek.

Environmental Geochemistry

During the development and mining of the proposed project, underground development waste rock would be transported to the surface for use in the construction of the portal facility pad area. The estimated waste rock facility should contain about 270,000 cubic yards of material. The estimated percentages and volumes of waste rock material by major geologic unit that would be placed in the surface waste rock facility are included in table 19.

DEIS for the La Jara Mesa Mine Project                                                                                                                     95

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 19. Projected volumes and relative percentages of underground development waste rock to be placed in the waste rock facility