Final EA 7 21 06 for BLM Serviceberry Canyon Utah

8/14/2019 Final EA 7 21 06 for BLM Serviceberry Canyon Utah

1/60

United States Department of the Interior

Bureau of Land Management

Environmental Assessment UT-020-2006-029

August 10, 2006

Serviceberry Canyon Project

Location: Township Range SectionsT4S R4W 33, 34, 35, 36T5S R4W 1-4, 9-16, 23-24Salt Lake Meridian

Applicant/Address: Abandoned Mine Reclamation ProgramUtah Division of Oil, Gas and Mining

U.S. Department of the InteriorBureau of Land Management

Salt Lake Field Office2370 South 2300 WestSalt Lake City, 84119

Phone: (801) 977-4300

FAX: (801) 977-4397


2/60

Serviceberry Canyon Project August 10, 2006Environmental Assessment page 2

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT


Utah Abandoned Mine Reclamation Program

AMR/045/911

Tooele County, Utah

Prepared by

Utah Abandoned Mine Reclamation Programand

Resource Staff

on behalf of the

USDOI Office of Surface Mining and Bureau of Land Management

August 10, 2006


3/60



UT-020-2006-029

Contents Page

Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION/PURPOSE AND NEED

Introduction..............................................................................................................4Background..............................................................................................................4Purpose and Need ....................................................................................................5Conformance with BLM Land Use Plans................................................................5Relationship to Statutes, Regulations, or other Plans ........... ............ ........... ........... .5Identification of Issues.............................................................................................5

Chapter 2 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES

Alternative A- Proposed Action ..............................................................................6Alternative B No Action ............ ........... ............ ............ ........... ........... ............ ......8Alternatives Considered, but Eliminated from Further Analysis ............ ........... .....8

Chapter 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

General Setting ........................................................................................................9Critical Elements of the Human Environment.........................................................9

Critical Elements Not Impacted by Proposed Action............................................10Resources Brought Forward for Analysis..............................................................10Other Important Concerns .....................................................................................13

Chapter 4 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

Impacts on Critical Elements of the Human Environment (Alternative A) ..........15Other Important Concerns .....................................................................................16Cumulative Impact Analysis..................................................................................19Monitoring .............................................................................................................19Impacts on Critical Elements of the Human Environment (Alternative B)...........19Cumulative Impact Analysis..................................................................................19Monitoring .............................................................................................................19

Chapter 5 CONSULTATION & COORDINATION

Public Involvement ................................................................................................19

Persons, Groups and Agencies Consulted .......... ........... ............ ............ ............ ....20Preparers ................................................................................................................21

Chapter 6 REFERENCES & ACRONYMS

References..............................................................................................................22List of Acronyms Used in this EA.........................................................................23

APPENDICES

Appendix A Interdisciplinary Team Analysis Record Checklist........................24Appendix B Maps ...............................................................................................25Appendix C Mine Closure Schedule... ...........34Appendix D Closure and Construction Methods................................................39Appendix E Section 0300

Serviceberry Reclamation Construction Contract Specifications..................44Appendix F Seed Mix.........................................................................................54Appendix G Standard Operating Procedures and Stipulations...........................56


4/60


CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION/PURPOSE AND NEED

IntroductionThis environmental assessment (EA) addresses the potential environmental impacts that could be

associated with the Serviceberry Canyon Abandoned Mine Reclamation Project (also called theServiceberry Canyon Project) proposed by the Utah Division of Oil, Gas and Mining (DOGM).The project would be carried out by DOGMs Abandoned Mine Reclamation Program (AMRP)under the authority of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (P. L. 95-87)(SMCRA) and would be conducted in partnership with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM)Salt Lake Field Office (SLFO) . The Utah AMRP has primacy in the state to conduct SMCRAauthorized abandoned mine reclamation. The Western Regional Coordinating Center, DenverField Office, Office of Surface Mining, U.S. Department of Interior, is the Federal agency whichfunds and oversees this program.

The purpose of the AMRP is to abate physical safety hazards associated with abandoned minesunder the authority of Title IV of SMCRA. Only mines that meet the definition of abandonedas defined in SMCRA are eligible for funding. Funding comes from a tax on current coal

production. A percentage of this tax is returned to the state of origin by the U.S. Congressthrough the Office of Surface Mining specifically for use in the reclamation of abandoned mines.Mines within the EA analysis area meet the Priority 1 safety hazard requirement in SMCRA.

The proposed project would address hazardous abandoned mine openings on private and publiclands in the Oquirrh Mountain region of Tooele County, Utah. The project area is southeast of

the town of Tooele within the Ophir Canyon drainage (See Appendix B, Map 1 - Project AreaLocation). Access to the project areas is via existing graded roads, unimproved dirt roads, trails,and footpaths. Reclamation construction could commence in August 2006 and should becompleted by September 2006. If unforeseen problems should occur, project completion couldbe as late as September 30, 2007.

Visitors to these mines are exposed to a wide variety of physical safety hazards and potential

health hazards. Old mine access leads directly to the mine sites making them a destination forhikers and mining history enthusiasts. This current ease of access increases the risk to thepublic. This project proposes to close mine portals and eliminate physical hazards in such a wayas to preserve the historic values and provide visitors a safer recreational experience.

Background

According to The Utah History Encyclopedia (2005):

The Oquirrh Mountains lie on the west side of the Salt Lake Valley, extending north and south about

thirty miles. The highest elevation is Lewiston Peak at 10,676 feet. Communities located on the

eastern slope include Magna, Copperton, and Cedar Fort; and on the west slope Tooele, Stockton,

and Ophir. The name Oquirrh (pronounced O-Ker) was taken from the Goshute Indian word

meaning "wooded mountain. Early visits to these mountains were undertaken by the Indians,

mountain men, government explorers, and Mormon pioneers. They encountered heavily forested

canyons with large maple trees, scrub oak and red pine with trunks as large as three feet indiameter."


5/60


Mining first began in the Oquirrh Mountains in the 1850's with the discovery of valuable ores inBingham Canyon on the eastern slopes. In 1864, the Rush Lake Mining District was organizedand prospecting and mining began on the western side of the mountains (Newell, 1998).

Purpose and NeedThe DOGM/AMRP proposes in cooperation with the SLFO, to close hazardous abandoned mineopenings in the Ophir Mining District, in the northeastern portion of Tooele County, Utah.Seventy-eight mine openings are proposed for closure, of these, two are on lands managed by theSLFO. See Appendix B, Map 2 Land Status. These open abandoned mines pose physicalsafety hazards to the public. Abandoned mines are hazardous because they are no longermaintained, lack ventilation and may collapse. People may become lost or injured inside them.Nationwide an average of thirty deaths occur a year at abandoned mine sites [Mine Safety andHealth Administration (MSHA), 2005].

Conformance with Land Use PlansThe proposed action and alternative described below are in conformance with the Pony ExpressResource Management Plan, approved January 12, 1990, as amended. Although the proposed

action and alternative are not specifically mentioned in the plan, they are consistent with theobjectives, goals, and decisions of the approved plan. It has been determined that the proposedaction and alternative would not conflict with other decisions throughout the plan.

Relationship to Statutes, Regulations or Other Plans

The proposed action and alternative are consistent with federal, state and local laws, regulations,and plans to the maximum extent possible. The following activity plans and documents alsodirect SLFOs management in the analysis area, including the selection of an alternate from thisEA: SLDO Weed EA UT-020-96-24, Utahs Non-Point Source Pollution Management Plan(2000), and Bonneville Cooperative Weed Management Area Plan (2005).

Identification of Issues

This proposal was posted on the Electronic Notification Bulletin Board (ENBB) and SLFO

public room on 3/6/2006. Public comments were not received by the SLFO. Issues wereconsidered for any resource that could be affected by implementation of the proposed action,both through public involvement and input from the SLFO resource specialists. Resources areeither analyzed later in this document or, if not impacted, are listed in the attachedInterdisciplinary Team Analysis Record Checklist (Appendix A).

The project was discussed at public scoping meetings, one held in Tooele in January 2005, andone held in Salt Lake City in June 2006 and announced in statewide newspapers. The main issueraised by the public was the potential elimination of unauthorized recreational use ofunderground mine workings for exploration and adventure and associated potential impacts onthe historical mine sites. Potential impacts to cultural resources, recreation, visual resources;invasive species, vegetation, wildlife, soils, and threatened, endangered and special statusspecies, were identified by the SLFO resource specialists (Appendix A).


6/60


CHAPTER 2 - DESCRIPTION OF THE ALTERNATIVES

The Proposed Action and the No Action Alternative are considered the only reasonablealternatives. No issues were raised during the scoping process that would suggest or identify

other alternatives.

Alternative A: The Proposed ActionThe proposed action would consist of closing 75 mine openings and returning the disturbed areasand access to as close to the pre-project conditions as feasible. Of these, 52 are adits orhorizontal openings and 26 are shafts or inclined vertical openings. Forty-nine mine openingswould be sealed by backfilling, sixteen would be closed by gate, nine would be closed by grateand one would be sealed by the construction of native rock or masonry block walls. Threerequire no action. Two of these mine openings (or 2.67%) are located on public lands managedby the SLFO. A summary list of the mine openings and the recommended closures for each sitecan be found in Appendix C (Mine Closure Schedule). The proposed access to the mine sitesand staging areas are identified in Appendix B - Map 5 and Map 6.

Under this proposal, the Western Regional Coordinating Center, Denver Field Office, OSMwould authorize the expenditure of $197,000 for use on abandoned mine reclamation projectactivities by DOGM/AMRP as authorized under Title IV of the Surface Mining Control andReclamation Act (SMCRA) of 1977. The SLFO would authorize DOGM/AMRP to enter publiclands for the purpose of implementing abandoned mine land reclamation.

The project would be bid by the State of Utah Division of Purchasing and would be conductedby a qualified Contractor and managed by the AMRP. Closure designs would utilize methodsthat have been used by the Utah AMRP for over twenty years. Specific methods are discussed in

detail in Chapter 4 of this document and in Appendix D (Closure and Construction Methods).

Type of Closure Number proposed

Hand backfill 28

Equipment backfill 21

Wall 1Gate 15

Grate 9

Corrugated metal pipe/gate 1

TOTAL Mine Closures 75

Backfilling mine openings would be accomplished by placing fill material taken from the minewaste dumps and placing it inside the mine openings by hand or with the use of equipment. Wallclosures would be accomplished by constructing cement block or native stone walls. Blockwalls would have a stucco facing placed on the outer surface to blend the closure withsurrounding rock surfaces. Pits and trenches would be filled with backfill material to a height of24 inches or more above the collar of the opening in order to direct drainage away from thebackfilled mine


7/60


feature and allow the material to settle. Surface disturbance necessary for closure of mineopenings would be limited to the existing area of disturbance caused by previous miningactivities and is estimated to be less than 1/10 acre per feature plus some access related

disturbance for an estimated total of less than 30 acres for closure of all the mine features. Trashand refuse from the construction would be removed and disposed of in a solid land fill inaccordance with state and local regulations.

Use of polyurethane foam (PUF) is not anticipated in the implementation of the proposed action;however, unforeseen circumstances may require its use.

Construction would be performed in a way that minimizes disturbance to the ground/soil andvegetation. Vehicles and equipment would utilize existing access with limited improvementssuch as moving large rocks or filling gullies. Two areas that have been previously disturbedwould be used as staging sites. Backfill sources would normally be the mine waste dumpadjacent to the mine opening, the brow and slope above the opening, and nearby surface rock.All backfill material would be obtained in a manner designed to preserve the visual

appearance/contour of the site. All areas disturbed by construction activities would be seeded byhand broadcast using a seed mix specified by the BLM (see Appendix F).

The proposed closure method for each mine opening would be determined based on safety,inventory data (threatened and endangered plant or animal species, bat surveys, cultural surveys,paleontological surveys, etc.) and the weighing of these resource concerns at each opening toselect the closure method with the fewest resource conflicts. Some closure methods may bealtered from their description in the contract specifications at the actual time of construction dueto re-analysis or changes in conditions since the inventory was completed. Such changes cannotbe predicted, but are expected to be relatively minor (less than 5% of the total). Any changes oradditions would be based on the same criteria used to develop the proposed action.

Closure methods at all sites have been designed to protect all cultural and paleontologicalfeatures. Archeological inventories have been conducted at all openings (project U-04-SJ-0826)and would be conducted at all mechanized access routes at or prior to the time of closure.Closure methods at sites determined to be eligible for listing on the National Register of HistoricPlaces have been designed so that there would be no adverse impact on historic resources. Aconsultation letter stating that the proposed action, utilizing these design considerations wouldhave no adverse effect on cultural properties and that the project is in compliance with Section106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended, was sent to the Utah State HistoricPreservation Officer (SHPO) on July 20, 2006. Records are on file at the DOGM office. TheUtah State Paleontologist determined that there are no paleontological resources of concern inthe proposed project area. If any previously unrecorded prehistoric or historic cultural sites orpaleontological sites are encountered, work would stop and a BLM archaeologist orpaleontologist would be contacted. Newly discovered cultural or paleontological sites would berecorded, evaluated, and proper treatment determined in compliance with 36 CFR Part 800.11. Deleted: in consultation with th

archaeologist and the SHPO


8/60


The mine closure work is estimated to take approximately three months and would be conductedin August, September and/or October 2006. Unforeseen circumstances and adverse weatherconditions could force temporary suspension of work causing project completion to be extended

into September 2007. Work at each mine site would take from one to four days to completeclosure and reclamation. The DOGM/AMRP project manager and/or construction inspectorwould be onsite during construction for the duration of the project. Details of the proposedreclamation work are contained in the contract specifications entitled Section 0300 ServiceberryProject Reclamation Construction Contract Specifications (Appendix E), and StandardOperating Procedures and Stipulations (Appendix G).

Post Project MonitoringMonitoring performed by the SLFO would be in accordance with the Measuring & MonitoringPlant Populations. Revegetation would be considered successful if cover equals or surpasses90% of the cover found in the surrounding area, invasive plant species account for no more than10% of the total herbaceous cover and no noxious weeds are present. If noxious weeds areobserved, appropriate control measures would be used as indicated in the SLFO Weed EA 1996

and the land use plan. Vegetation would have five years to meet success.

If reclamation fails for any of the above criteria, an assessment of the reasons for failure wouldbe made and appropriate contingency measures taken. Monitoring is further discussed inAppendix D (Mine Closure and Construction Methods).

Alternative B: No Action

Under this Alternative, abandoned mine reclamation construction activities would not beundertaken on public lands in the Ophir Mining District and $197,000 of funds issued by theOffice of Surface Mining would not be expended. The existing environment would remain in itscurrent condition and there would be no additional environmental consequences as a result ofthis alternative. Situations that could causeserious injury or death because of conditions atabandoned mine sites would remain unabated. As a result, current conditions would continue.

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further Analysis

The "authorize/do not authorize" alternatives are essentially the only two options available to theOSM Denver Field Office and BLM for the proposed reclamation project. Therefore, no otheralternatives were considered or eliminated.

The individual mine closures in the proposal can be considered as separate independent actions,each with its own "authorize/do not authorize" option for the federal agency. Many alternativeproject configurations consisting of fewer mine closures (i.e. partial projects) could be analyzed.The environmental analysis and impacts of any subset of the whole project would generally bethe same as the analysis for the whole project as described in this EA.

Funding restrictions in P.L. 95-87 limit the reclamation to abatement of Priority 1 safety hazardsonly. Accordingly, land rehabilitation, restoration of pre-mining conditions, or treatment ofchemical and radiological contamination are not proposed or considered as an alternative in this

Deleted: July,

Deleted: would be

Deleted: within the first year ofcompletion of construction to evalclosure effectiveness, stability,revegetation success, and presence

noxious weeds. The BLM wouldcontinue monitoring once a year fo

first five years and then on a five cthereafter.

Deleted: Herbaceous v

Deleted: criteria and woody vegwould have ten years to meet succ

criteria

Deleted: Soils may need to be tesuitability or contamination if rainadequate but overall germination pReseeding would take place in arefail to meet criteria and the specie

may need to be modified as a resusuccess observed with the originalmix. The BLM would be responsany contingency measures and annmonitoring of vegetation.


9/60


environmental assessment.

CHAPTER 3 - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENTGeneral Setting

The proposed project area is located in eastern Tooele County in the north central OquirrhMountains in Ophir Canyon. (See Appendix B - Map 1). The elevation ranges from 6,000 to10,000 feet with the average elevation of the project area being around 8,000 feet above sealevel. The mean annual precipitation in Tooele is 17.48 inches. The mean annual temperature is51 degrees Fahrenheit. Most of the precipitation falls during the winter/spring months or asthunderstorm events usually occurring in July and August. The area has been impactedpreviously by grazing, the development of roads for mineral exploration development andmining activity.

Due to the elevation ranges covered in the project area, a wide range of floral communities arerepresented. The lower elevation sites in the foothills are characterized by pinyon-juniperwoodlands intermixed with low sagebrush, shadscale, and other Upper Sonoran communityspecies. The higher elevations of the project area grade into the Transitional and Canadian life

zones, and exhibit species common to those zones, including maple, oak, and other mountainbrush community plants, as well as some spruce, fir and aspen (Cronquist, 1972).

The dominant plants include Douglas fir, white fir, mountain brome, snowberry, quaking aspen,gambel oak, bluebunch wheatgrass, mountain big sagebrush, bluegrass, mountain big sagebrush,arrowleaf balsamroot, phlox, low sagebrush and Sandberg bluegrass.

Critical Elements of the Human Environment

Fourteen critical elements of the human environment are considered in this document and arediscussed in the resource management plan (USDOI 1990). These are: Air Quality; Areas ofCritical Environmental Concern; Cultural Resources; Environmental Justice; Farm Lands (primeor unique); Floodplains; Invasive Non-Native Species; Native American Religious Concerns;Threatened, Endangered or Candidate Species (plant and animal); Wastes (hazardous or solid);

Water Quality (drinking/ground); Wetlands/riparian zones; Wild and Scenic Rivers andWilderness.

Seven of the critical elements of the human environment are either not present in the project areaor would not be impacted by the proposed action or alternative in this EA and are not addressedfurther in this document. The 8 elements are: Areas of Critical Environmental Concern;Environmental Justice; Farm Lands (prime or unique); Floodplains; Wetlands/riparian zones;Wild and Scenic Rivers; and Wilderness (USDOI BLM 1999).

Five critical elements of the human environment are present in the project area, but would not beaffected by the proposed action or alternative of this EA. They are: Air Quality; NativeAmerican Religious Concerns; Invasive Non-Native Species; Wastes (hazardous or solid); andWater Quality and are discussed below.

Deleted: extremely broad span o

Deleted: al


10/60


Two critical elements could be impacted by the proposed action and are described and discussedin detail below. These are Cultural Resources and Threatened, Endangered or Candidate Species(plant and animal).

Critical Elements Not Impacted by Proposed Action (5)

Air Quality

Reclamation construction could increase fugitive dust above background levels during someportion of the project. Emissions would be limited in duration and would be below acceptableState limits. No resident human population would be affected.

Native American Religious Concerns

Tribes of the area and the appropriate bands have been consulted and do not have any concernsregarding the project. Documentation of consultation is available in the project/case file in theBLM-SLFO in Salt Lake City, Utah.

Invasive Non-Native Species

All vehicles and equipment used in the proposed project would be power washed before beingbrought into the project area. All seed used for revegetation would be required to be certified asweed and noxious seed free. No Invasive Non-Native Species would be knowingly introducedas a result of the proposed action. These species could increase in the short term in areasimproved to gain access to mines due to subsequent germination of dormant weed seed in theseed bank.

Wastes (Hazardous or Solid)

Standard construction practices would be utilized during the project. Spill of petroleum productsare not anticipated. The contractor would be responsible to cleanup and remove any hazardousor solid waste generated during the project.

Water Quality

Reclamation construction could increase sediment levels during some portion of the proposedaction. Erosion control measures such as berms and water bars would be used as needed.Reclamation activities would be consistent with Utahs Non-Point Source Pollution ManagementPlan (2000).

Resources Brought Forward for Analysis (2)

Two critical elements could be impacted by the proposed action and are described and discussedin detail below. The two elements are: Cultural Resources and Threatened and Endangered orState Sensitive species. Five other important resources that could be affected by the proposedaction are also described. These are Recreation, Visual Resources, Soil, Vegetation andWildlife.

Cultural ResourcesThe cultural resources report for the proposed Serviceberry Project was conducted by SagebrushConsultants, LLC in 2005 and titled A Cultural Resource Inventory of the Serviceberry


11/60


12/60


resource management plan.

No known sites of Native American religious significance will be affected. The Paiute, Goshute,and Ute Indian Tribes have been contacted and have not identified any conflicts.

Threatened and Endangered or Candidate Species

According to the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR), habitat for the following threefederally listed species is found in the project area. The bald eagle has been reported in theproposed project area, however the last time a known nest was used was before 1967 (UDWR).See Table 2 below.

Table 2. Tooele County, Utah, Federally Listed Threatened and Endangered Species

Common Name Scientific Name Status

Ute ladies tresses Spiranthes diluvialis Threatened

Yellow-billed cuckoo Coccyzus americanus Candidate

Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Threatened

The only federally listed plant species is the Utah Lady's tresses (Spiranthes diluvialis). This

orchid is known to occur along streams, bogs and open seepage areas at elevations lower than2075 m (Welsh, 1987). The proposed project work would not occur in this habitat. The proposedproject work would not affect this species.

Utah State Sensitive Species

Twenty seven species in Tooele County are listed on the Utah State Sensitive Species listmaintained by the UDWR. Besides the bald eagle discussed previously, the ferrginous hawk andTownsend's big-eared bat could occur it the area.

Table 3. Tooele County, Utah - State Sensitive Species List reported in/nearproject area

Common Name Scientific Name Status

American White Pelican Pelecanus eythrorhynchos spc no

Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus s-esa yes

Bobolink Dolichonyx oryzivorus spc noBonneville cuttroat Oncoryhnchus clarki Utah cs no

Burrowing owl Athene cunicularia spc no

California floater Andonta californiensis spc no

Columbia spotted frog Rana luteiventris cs no

Dark kangaroo mouse Microdipodops megacephalus spc no

Eureka Mountainsnail Oreohelix eurekensis spc no

Ferruginus hawk Buteo regalis spc yes

Grasshopper sparrow Ammodramus savannarum spc no

Greater Sage-grouse Centrocercus urophansianus spc no

Kit fox Vulpes macrotis cs no

Least chub Ioichthys phlegethontis spc no

Lewis's woodpecker Melanerpes lewis spc no

Long-billed curlew Numenius americanus spc no

Lyrate mountainsnail Oreohelix haydeni cs no

Northern Goshawk Acipiter gentilis spc noNorthwest Bonneville pyrg Pygrulopsis variegata spc no


13/60


Prebles's shrew Sorex preblei spc no

Pygmy rabbit Brachylagus idahoensis spc no

Short-earred owl Asio flammeus spc no

Southern Bonneville springsnail Pyrgulopsis transversa spc no

Table 3. Tooele County, Utah - State Sensitive Species List reported in/near

project areaSouther tightcoil Ogaridiscus subrupicola spc no

Townesend's big-eared bat Corynorhinus townsendii spc yes

Utah physa Physella utahensis spc no

Yellow-billed cuckoo Coccyzus americanus s-esa no

HawksThe ferruginous hawk is listed as threatened by the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources(UDWR). The UDWR identified two nests that are 1.4 miles away from two shafts slated forclosure in the lower elevation portion of the proposed project area. Other suitable habitat existsfor nesting raptors within the proposed project area. No site-specific raptor surveys have beenconducted in or around the project area. UDWR knows of no peregrine falcon aeries (or anyother raptor nests) located within one mile of the project area, except for the unused bald eaglenest previously discussed. No work would be conducted during nesting or fledging season.

BatsSeventy eight abandoned mines were evaluated for bat use or potential use, (Altenbach, 1998;Diamond, 2004, Meier, 2001). Internal and external bat surveys were conducted during thesummer peak activity period and during the winter hibernation period at all suitable abandonedmine workings in the proposed project area. Forty two (42) mine openings were determined tohave little to no potential for usage by bats. Nineteen (19) adits and five (5) shafts wererecommended for bat compatible gates or grates. All mines were designated as roosts due to thepresence of guano, flying insect parts and/or for roosting potential. Ten mines appear to serve asday roosts. Three mines appear to serve as night roosts. Two mines appear to serve as day andnight roosts. Four mines appear to serve as maternity roosts. Two mines show roosting potentialbased on their estimated sizes. Evidence of Townsend's Big-eared bats (Corynorhinustownsendii), Pallid bats (Antorzous pallidus), and a Myotis species were found (Diamond and

Diamond, 2003).

Other Important Concerns (5)

Recreation

No developed recreation facilities or activities exist within the proposed project area. Dispersedrecreation use in the area includes sightseeing, off-road-vehicle usage, cross country skiing,hiking, mountain biking, camping, hunting, and exploration of old mine sites. Some members ofthe public have expressed concern that the proposed project would eliminate the opportunity forunderground exploration and adventure. Specific visitation numbers for the area are notavailable, but residents of eastern Tooele County including Tooele City and Stockton regularlyuse the area for recreating.VRM classes for the project area are documented in the Pony Express RMP (1990). The large

scale project area for the proposed action is on BLM lands classified as either VRM Class II orClass III, thus mine sites covered by this assessment would need to meet the applicable VRM


14/60


objective for the specific mine site location.

The objective for VRM Class II is to retain the existing character of the landscape. The level of

change to the characteristic landscape should be low. Management activities may be seen, butshould not attract the attention of the casual observer. Any changes must repeat the basicelements of form, line, color and texture found in the predominant natural features of thecharacteristic landscape.

The objective for VRM Class III is to partially retain the existing character of the landscape. Thelevel of change to the characteristic landscape should be moderate. Management activities mayattract attention but should not dominate the view of the casual observer. Any changes shouldrepeat the basic elements of form, line, color and texture found in the predominant naturalfeatures of the characteristic landscape.

Soil

According to the soil survey (USDA-NRCS 2000), mountainside soils in the area are moderately

deep, well drained and moderately permeable and range from cobbly to gravelly. Bedrockmaterial is generally reached within 36 inches. The primary soil series area Dateman-Podmoroutcrop association, the Dateman-Podmor moist-Rock outcrop association, the Podmor, moist-Dateman-Rock outcrop association and Podmor-Onaqui-Rock outcrop association. These are inland use capability class VII, with very severe limitations that make them unsuitable forcultivation.Vegetation

The project area is in the eastern Bonneville basin, more specifically the Oquirrh Mountains, inthe Great Basin Division of the Intermountain Region (Cronquist el al. 1972). Vegetation rangesfrom sagebrush shrubland and pinyon-juniper woodland in the foothills to montane in the upperelevations. Vegetation in the general project area consists of widely spaced pinyon and junipertrees and scattered shrubs mixed with grasses and forbs. Characteristic species include pinyon,juniper, shadscale, Mormon tea, rabbitbrush, big sagebrush, and Indian ricegrass. No specialstatus plant species are known to occur in the proposed project area.

Other Wildlife in the Area

Common wildlife species, (those non threatened or endangered and not on the Utah List ofSensitive Species) known to utilize abandoned mine workings in the proposed project areainclude cottontail and jack rabbits, deer mice, canyon mice, woodrats, rock squirrels, striped andspotted skunks, coyotes, cougars, owls, western kingbird, rock wren, Says phoebe, red-spottedtoads, midget faded rattlesnake, prairie rattlesnake, Pacific rattlesnake and a variety of lizardspecies. These species may often enter mine workings to forage for food or to seek shelter fromadverse environmental extremes found outside.

Alternative B: No Action

The description of the affected environment for the no action alternative is the same as thedescription for the proposed action.


15/60


Chapter 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

Impacts on Critical Elements of the Human Environment

Alternative A: The Proposed Action

Two critical elements of the human environment were identified as requiring further analysis inChapter 3 - Affected Environment. These are Cultural Resources and Threatened andEndangered or Candidate Species.

Cultural Resources

The closure method in the proposed action selected for each mine opening was designed toincorporate mitigation measures to avoid any adverse impact to cultural resources. Mine closureactivities would be contained to areas previously disturbed by mining usually in the vicinity ofthe mine waste dump material associated with that portal. Machine backfill would be thepreferred closure method using material from mine waste dumps. This would minimally alter

the appearance of the mining landscape. There would also be a minor, short-term effects to thehistoric mining landscape resulting from the passage of workmen, trucks, and equipment duringclosure activities. The proposed action would not result in any adverse effects to the remains ofhistoric structures, artifacts, equipment, or dwellings.

DOGM has determined that the proposed action would have No Adverse Effect on eligiblecultural or historic properties if the closure methods proposed in the proposed action and asdescribed in Appendix C are used. When cross country travel by heavy machinery would berequired to reach mine openings, and when such travel would be across areas not inventoried forcultural resources, inventory would be required at or prior to the time of travel. Resourcesidentified would be avoided during cross country travel. Forty three eligible and thirty two non-eligible openings, all on private land, are proposed for closure would require short cross countrytravel (less than one quarter mile) by heavy machinery. Only two of the seventy five openings

3050410HO002 (Site 1, Appendix C) and3050424HO003 (Site 74, Appendix C) are on publiclands managed by the BLM. Opening number 3050410HO002 is not eligible for listing andopening number 3050424HO003 was recorded as an Isolated Find.

The State Historic Preservation Officer has been consulted with regarding DOGM'sdetermination of eligibility and effect. The proposed action would have a minor permanentimpact on cultural resources. The appearance of the features would be slightly altered but thekey features would remain identifiable. The historical integrity of the mine sites would remain.The National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 compliance work conducted under contractfor the OGM/AMRP by Sagebrush provides a permanent record and places these mines withinthe national and local context of metal mining history in Utah. No further mitigation effort isrequired under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended.

Threatened and Endangered or Candidate Species

Impacts of the Proposed Action on wildlife would be short term and temporary. Work would be


16/60


conducted in the late summer or fall, avoiding nesting or fledging times. No destruction ofsuitable habitat for threatened, endangered, or sensitive species would occur except for bats.DOGM consulted with the USFWS by sending a no negative effect on federally threatened orendangered species or other species of concern determination letter on March 21, 2006.

Correspondence with the USFWS is maintained at the DOGM office and in the SLFO/case file.

In the proposed action, fifteen bat gates and nine grates would be installed during the closureproject. Therefore, closing mine openings could reduce bat habitat. To avoid entombing bats,the proposed action requires temporary exclusion devices be placed in mine openings for three tofive consecutive days prior to permanent closure. This involves placing chicken wire nets overthe mine opening and securing the edges around the opening. Bats inside the mine exiting tofeed will stop when they encounter the wire net. They will light and negotiate their way throughthe wire and continue out to forage. Rather than renegotiate the wire net, bats tend to findanother nearby roost and do not return to the mine. This allows bats to emerge for feedingpurposes but discourages re-entry (Mesch, 2003). To avoid entombing hibernating bats, mineswould not be closed during the winter months. Bat surveys were conducted during the summerpeak activity period and during the winter hibernation period at all suitable abandoned mine

workings in the proposed action. Bats are extremely aware of their environment and often use anumber of different roost sites concurrently. Mines that show no evidence of use at the time ofthe surveys likely do not meet the rather specific needs that bats require. Since roost sites are alimiting factor, it is not likely that mines showing no use at the time of the survey would becomefavorable roost sites at a later time, unless some physical change occurred to improve the minesinternal environment. Seventy eight mines are listed for exclusion in the Mine Closure Schedule(Appendix C). All mines that could be safely examined internally would be checked prior toclosure.

Other Important Concerns

Five other important concerns were identified in Chapter 3. These are Recreation, Soil, VisualResources, Vegetation and Wildlife.

Recreation

The construction work proposed would have a slight impact on recreational activity for a verylimited time period. Construction work would take no longer than four days at any given site.The public recreating in the area could encounter construction activities at isolated sites butcould easily travel to adjacent areas with no activity. Hazards associated with enteringabandoned mine sites such as rock fall from roof and side collapse would be eliminated by theproposed work making recreational activities safer. The effect of the actual construction activitywould be short term and negligible. The danger of off-highway vehicles accidentally drivinginto open mine shafts would be greatly reduced. Opportunities for exploring old mine workingswould be eliminated; however, this is a type of public recreation which the BLM does notendorse for numerous safety reasons. Overall, the elimination of physical safety hazards wouldprovide a social benefit or advantage to recreating public.

SoilThe proposed action would include a slight disturbance of the soil resource. Machinery such as


17/60


a backhoe would be utilized. As much as possible, work would be limited to areas previouslydisturbed by past mining activity. The soils in the project area are shallow, recent and of igneousorigin. Slight additional erosion could occur because of the proposed work due to disruption ofthe soil surface. The elimination of physical safety hazards would have a minor, short term

impact on soil resources. Reseeding and contouring efforts would establish an effective cover.Erosion would be minimal upon successful rehabilitation.

Visual Resources

The proposed action would have a negligible, temporary, and localized impact on visualresources during construction. The proposed action calls for using four methods of closure: handbackfilling, equipment backfilling, placement of bat gates, and constructing masonry walls facedwith stucco. Sites where hand backfilling is used to close the opening would have negligible tono visual impacts due to the small scale of the individual project locations and the use of nativerock and soil materials on site. Sites where equipment backfilling is used to close the openingwould have negligible impacts to visual resources due to the use of native materials and theproposed reclamation strategy. Sites closed with masonry block walls, which are larger in scalethan the other closure methods, would have a native material stucco facing applied in such a way

as to blend with the surrounding native rock surfaces and thus, would not cause a visual contrastto the degree that it would be obvious to the casual observer. These closure methods wouldimprove a specific site's visual integration into the predominant natural landscape.

Backfill material would be obtained in a manner designed to preserve the visual character andexisting contour of the site. Limited improvements to existing access routes would be reclaimedafter the project work is completed. The impact to visual resources for either of these surface-disturbing activities would be negligible.

During construction, workers and equipment would be visible for one to four days at each minesite. Staging areas where equipment and materials would be stored during projectimplementation would be visible for a period of less than twelve weeks. Seeing constructionequipment, materials and workers are temporary visual impacts. After construction completion,the staging areas could exhibit slight visual impacts, but these would lessen to negligible overtime as the area revegetates.

After completion of the project, the overall impact to visual resources can be expected to resultin enhancement of the natural character of the predominant landscape features. This result is incompliance with the existing VRM classifications for the project area.

Vegetation

All areas disturbed by the proposed work would be seeded with a seed mix approved by theBLM and listed in Section 0300 Serviceberry Project Reclamation Construction ContractSpecifications. The vegetation cover in the proposed project area was severely disturbed bypast mining activity. The replacement of sparsely covered ground by vegetation would increasecover, water infiltration and retention while reducing runoff and erosion. Increased vegetationcover would protect soil from wind erosion that is a constant in the semi-arid environment. Eachof the standard vegetation measurements of plant cover, density and diversity should improve as


18/60


a result of the proposed action. The elimination of physical safety hazards would have a minorbut long lasting impact on vegetation resources.Potential impact exists due to disturbance of sites that are in or adjacent to risk areas for weedinvasion. Monitoring would continue after seeding areas to insure that no infestation occurs due

to the disturbance of the site. Making sure equipment is clean and weed free prior to entering asite is important. This is also applicable upon entering to new sits identified in the proposalwithin the project area. Equipment should be clean prior to leaving the site as well, to preventspread of noxious weed seed to other areas that the equipment might wind up.

Wildlife

A COR (Certificate of Registration) would be obtained from the State of Utah and would listnumerous sub-permittees to handle and capture for later release any sensitive amphibians,reptiles, and mammals found on sites proposed for reclamation, and to curate (give to the curatorof University of Utah Museum of Natural History) individuals of any species that areinadvertently taken throughout the reclamation proceedings.

The proposed action would have a minor, short term and localized impact on wildlife species.

Animals could be disturbed by noise during construction activity. Some animals could bedisplaced by the sealing of mines; however they should be able to find suitable alternate naturalhabitats nearby. A small number of animals could be entombed. The impact would be minorand localized. Some Utah bat species are currently classed as "species of special concern" by theU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, but have no legal protection under the Endangered Species Act.Some mine closures might eliminate habitat by sealing off roost sites. Bat survey data are beingused to protect bat habitat. Wherever geotechnical conditions allow, steel grates that allow batuse and maintain ventilation would be used as mine closures at mines used by bats. This wouldpreserve habitat while also reducing human disturbance to bats. Where bat-compatible closuresare not possible, methods would be used to exclude bats prior to closure to avoid entombing bats.

DOGM/AMRP would perform surveys around work locations for raptor nests. Surveys wouldbe performed during the spring territory and nest establishment period and again at the time ofconstruction. If active nests are found, DOGM/AMRP would follow the time and distancebuffer recommendations in the USFWS raptor protection guidelines (Romin and Muck, 1999)for that species. Construction work within buffer zones would be rescheduled until afterfledging. If observation of nests shows that young have fledged in advance of the dates in theguidelines, DOGM/AMRP may request a variance from USFWS to allow earlier work. Thiswould only be done after discussion with the BLM and then in consultation with UDWR andUSFWS. With these measures, project work should not affect ferruginous hawks or other raptorspecies.

Other wildlife would experience short term disturbance from human activity and noise duringconstruction. Most of the more common and conspicuous species (e.g. mule deer, coyotes,ravens, turkeys) are either transient visitors and/or have the behavioral flexibility to adapt totemporary disturbance. Construction activity should generally be short term and localized. Theproject should not impact the common wildlife in the area.


19/60


Cumulative Impact Analysis

The proposed project area has been previously impacted by hard rock-metal mining activity forover one hundred years. Mining activity has involved road development, exploration, creation ofopen and hazardous mine features, mine waste dumps, structures, buildings, and debris. Miningactivity has decreased dramatically in the last twenty years and future development is unlikely inthe foreseeable future. It is anticipated that several other similar projects would take place overthe next ten years in the Oquirrh Mountains on public lands managed by the BLM to eliminatethe physical safety hazards of abandoned mines; in Settlement Canyon, Southport Canyon, andKessler areas north to Interstate Highway 80. Recent similar projects have also taken place atFivemile Pass, West Dip, Ophir and Jacob City. Upon completion of these projects, all knownhazards associated with abandoned mines located on public lands managed by the BLM in theOquirrh Mountains would be eliminated. These actions would make public lands managed bythe BLM a safer place for the recreating public. Measures designed to minimize impacts,particularly gating or grating a portion of the openings in all areas, would minimize the overall

effect of systematic treatment. The proposed project would increase the mining historyknowledge base of Tooele County because of the information gathered for the development ofthis environmental document.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has listed several tailings sites in the foothills ofthe Oquirrh Mountains on the National Priority List (NPL, also known as Superfund) in easternTooele County that could potentially become remediation projects within the next 10 years.None are in the immediate area of this proposed project.

Monitoring

Monitoring activities described in the proposed action and in Appendix D would be sufficientfor this proposal.

Alternative B: No-ActionThere would be no environmental consequences associated with no action alternative.Conditions would remain the same and would likely worsen over time. No disturbance of any ofthe resources values described in Chapter 3 would occur. Open abandoned mines would remaina hazard to the recreating public's health and safety. No disturbance, displacement, or intentionalmortality of wildlife would occur.

Cumulative Impact Analysis

There would be no cumulative impact associated with Alternative B.

Monitoring

There would be no monitoring required for Alternative B.

Chapter 5 -CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION


20/60


Public Involvement

The AMRP held an open house/public meeting at the Tooele City Library on January 26, 2005that primarily discussed the Ophir project, an adjacent area immediately to the south of theproposed action; however the Serviceberry Project (this proposed action) was also discussed.

The proposed project was posted in the BLM-SLFO Public Room and on the BLM's ElectronicEnvironmental Notification Bulletin Board on March 6, 2006.

Letters were sent to all land owners during 2005 and 2006 describing the project and requestingtheir permission for a right of entry. local governments, grazing permittees, adjacentlandowners, tribes, environmental groups and interested citizens. AMRP staff met with the leadBLM geologist at the Salt Lake Field Office and initially discussed this proposed project on June7, 2005. The project was discussed in more detail at a meeting at the SLFO on February 15,2006. Other BLM resource specialists were consulted. No issues were raised during the publicmeeting or in response to a press release January 10, 2005.

Persons, Groups and Agencies ConsultedDOGM sent a determination letter regarding informal Section 7 ESA consultation to the USFWS

on March 21, 2006. Correspondence is on file at the SLFO and DOGM. No response after 30days means they concur with the determination of no negative effect on threatened andendangered or other species of concern.

DOGM sent a consultation letter to SHPO dated July 20, 2006 stating that DOGM determinedthat the Serviceberry Project would have No Adverse Effect on historic properties.Correspondence is on file at the DOGM office.

Coordination

Peter Ainsworth, ArchaeologistBLM Salt Lake District Field Office

Joel Diamond, Bat BiologistSouthern Utah University

Wendy Simmons Johnson, ArchaeologistSagebrush Consultants, Ogden Utah

Lori Hunsaker, ArchaeologistBLM Salt Lake District Field Office(Now with Utah Public Lands Policy Coordination Office)

Ray Kelsey, Outdoor Recreation PlannerBLM Salt Lake Field Office

Henry Maddux, Field SupervisorUS Fish and Wildlife Service


21/60


Mark R. Mesch, AMRP Administrator and Wildlife Biologist

Utah Division of Oil, Gas and Mining

Ron Sassaman, AML Program SpecialistU.S. Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement

Matthew Seddon, Deputy SHPOUtah Division of State History

Terry Snyder, AML CoordinatorUtah Bureau of Land Management

Lenora Sullivan, Utah Natural Heritage ProgramUtah Division of Wildlife Resources

Andrew M. Williamson, ArcheologistSagebrush Consultants, Ogeden Utah

PreparersLucia Malin, Environmental ScientistAbandoned Mine Reclamation ProgramUtah Division of Oil, Gas & Mining1594 West North Temple, Suite 1210Box 145801Salt Lake City, UT 84114-5801(801) [email protected]

Larry Garahana, GeologistBLM Salt Lake Field Office2370 South 2300 WestSalt Lake City, UT 84119(801) [email protected]

Pam Schuller,Environmental CoordinatorBLM Salt Lake Field Office2370 South 2300 WestSalt Lake City, UT 84119(801) [email protected]


22/60



23/60


Chapter 6 REFERENCES AND ACRONYMS

References

Altenbach, Scott J. 1998. Abandoned Mines As Bat Habitat. Cultural Resource ManagementMagazine, No 7, 1998. National Park Service.

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

Diamond, Gabrielle F. and Joel M. Diamond, 2004. An Evaluation of Abandoned UndergroundPrecious Metal Hard Rock Mines as Bat Roosting Habitat in the Serviceberry Abandoned MineProject Area, Tooele County, Utah. Internal report written under contract for the Utah Divisionof Oil, Gas and Mining.

Meier, Len. 2001. Quality of Mine Reclamation Vital for Bat Conservation,

www.doi.gov/plw/febmar2001/bat.htm

Mesch, Mark R. 2003. Personal communication.

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

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 2003

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

Snyder, Teresa. 2003. Personal communication.

Romin, L.A. and J.A. Muck. 1999. Utah Field Office guidelines for raptor protection from

human and land use disturbances. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service unpublished report.United States Department of Agriculture, 2000. Natural Resources Conservation Service, SoilSurvey of Tooele Area, Utah.

United State Department of Agriculture, National Resources Conservation Service, 2000. SoilSurvey of Tooele Area, Utah - Tooele County and Parts of Box Elder, Davis and Juab Countiesand Parts of White Pine and Elko Counties, Nevada.

United States Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, 1999. Utah WildernessInventory 1999, U.S. Department of Interior.

United States Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, 1990. Salt Lake FieldOffice Pony Express Resource Management Plan, June 2, 1990


24/60


United States Department of Interior, Office of Surface Mining, 1983. Final EnvironmentalImpact Statement, OSM-EIS-11. Approval of State and Indian Reclamation of Program GrantsUnder Title IV of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977. U.S. Department ofInterior

Utah History Encyclopedia 2005. http://www.onlineutah.com/oquirrhmountainshistory.shtml

Weatherbase.com 2005. http://www.weatherbase.com

Welsh, S.L. et al, 1987. A Utah Flora, Great Basin Naturalist Memoir No. 9 1987. BYU Press,894 pp.

Williamson, Andrew M. and Wendy Simmons Johnson. 2005. A Cultural Resource Inventoryof Serviceberry Canyon Abandoned Mine Reclamation Project, Tooele County Utah. SagebrushConsultants, Ogden, Utah.

List of Acronyms Used in this EA

AMRP Abandoned Mine Reclamation ProgramBLM Bureau of Land ManagementCOR Certificate of RegistrationDOGM Utah Division of Oil Gas and MiningDOI Department of InteriorEA Environmental AssessmentENBB Environmental Notification Bulletin BoardIMP Interim Management Policy for Lands under Wilderness ReviewMSHA Mining Health and Safety AdministrationOSM Office of Surface MiningPUF Polyurethane foam

RMP Resource Management PlanSHPO Utah State Historic Preservation OfficeSMCRA Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (Public Law 95-87)SRMA Special Recreation Management AreaUDWR Utah Division of Wildlife ResourcesUSFWS United States Fish and Wildlife ServiceSLFO BLM Salt Lake Field Office


25/60


APPENDIX A

Interdisciplinary Team Analysis Record Checklist


26/60


APPENDIX B - Maps

Location Maps

Map 1 Project Area LocationMap 2 Land StatusMap 3 Ownership/Claim Status

Map 4 Area Detail Map BoundariesMap 5 Northern Site AreaMap 6 Southern Site AreaMap 7 Section 23 Supplement


27/60


28/60


Map 2 Land Status Map


29/60


30/60


Map 3 Ownership/Claims


31/60


Map 4 Area Detail Map Boundaries


32/60


Map 5 Northern Site Map Area


33/60


Map 6 Southern Site Area Map


34/60


Map 7 Section 23 Detail - Supplement


35/60


APPENDIX C

Mine Closure Schedule


36/60


SERVICEBERRY PROJECTMINE CLOSURE SCHEDULE

Closure type

abbreviations

Complete descriptions of work methods

are in Appendix D

BFH Backfill - hand 28

BHM Backfill - machine 21

BG Bate gate 15

CMP/BG Metal pipe with bat gate 1

Grate Grate 9

Wall Wall 1

Total 75

EAID #

Site ID NumberDescription of Opening(all dimensions in feet)

106Eligibility

BatsClosure

Method &Comments

EstimatedQuantitycyd/sq'

1 3050410HO002 opening 7w x 3h, inside 10feet, 12wx10hx40d; timbers

BG 21

2 3050410HO003 3.5wx5hx30d; pull timbers;tugger wheel on top of dump

Bat Exclu BFM 10

3 3050410VO001 5x8x14d; no dump; cleartimber off old road

Bat Exclu BFM 21

4 3050410VO002 6.5x8x18d; no dump Bat Exclu BFM 32

5 3050411HO002 5wx5hx60d; collapsedloadout bin, mine rail

BG 25

6 3050411HO003 3wx4hx+20d Bat Exclu BFM 8

7 3050416HO001 5wx4hx20d; adit spiltsinside; LT 20' and RT 15'; 10cyd dump

Bat Exclu BFH 6

8 3050416HO002 5wx4hx50d; accessimprovement; mine rail;cabin remains

NR Elig BG 20

Southern Area

9 3050413HO001 opening 12wx4h; at 10'inside 1.5wx1hx+15d; no

trail; cabin remains

NR Elig CMP\BG 4

10 3050414HO005 5wx6hx75d; no trail; ore railsand cable

NR Elig BG 30

11 3050414HO006 1.5wx.5hx25d NR Elig Bat Exclu BFH 1

12 3050414HO007 16wx9hx30d; no trail; VO15blocks adit entrance, closeVO15 first

NR Elig BG 150

13 3050414HO008 4.5wx4.5hx40d; no dump;no trail; scale brow down

NR Elig Bat Exclu BFH 6

14 3050414HO009 4wx4hx100'sd; dump over10,000cyd; ore cable car

NR Elig BG 16

15 3050414IO015 6wx6hx60d; no dump, notrail; cable pipe


16 3050414IO016 14wx3.5w; 10' inside4wx4hx50d; dump 130 cyd

no trail



37/60


EAID #


106Eligibility

BatsClosure

Method &Comments


17 3050414IO017 8.5wx3hx+35d; no trail;partially collapsed


18 3050414IO018 5wx5hx40d; no dump; looserock above; needs accessimprovement

NR Elig BG 25

19 3050414IO15a 5wx5hx40d; no trail; looserock on hill side 100'


20 3050414VO014 8wx14hx257d; no dump; notrail

NR Elig Grate 100

21 3050414VO015 17wx16hx25d; no dump; notrail

NR Elig Grate 225

22 3050414VO016 3x3x20d; 14 cyd dump; notrail; large dead treecovering entrance

NR Elig Grate 66

23 3050414VO017 15x20, inside 15'15x20x50d; fill materialwithin 400'; no trail

NR Elig Grate 250

24 3050423HO001 5wx1.5w; 10' inside 5wx5.5hx100d; access improvementneeded for equip

Bat Exclu BFM 10

25 3050423HO002 4wx4hx35d; dump 12 cyd;no trail

BFH 8

26 3050423HO003 4wx3hx20d; no trail; dump19 cyd

BFH 6

27 3050423HO004 5wx4hx50d; dump 300 cyd; two timbersinside; mine rail

BG 20

28 3050423HO005 4.5wx4hx25d; no dump;VO1 BF first; use dump ofHO6

NR Elig Bat Exclu BFM 9

29 3050423HO006 3wx1h, 10' inside 4wx6hx35d; access improvement


30 3050423HO007 4wx5hx40d; mine door;access improvement

NR Elig BG 20

31 3050423HO008 2wx0.6h, 10' inside 4wx6hx20d; wood props; no trail


32 3050423HO009 5wx4hx50d; no trail; looserock within 200'


33 3050423HO010 5wx4hx25d; no trail; looserock above; wood props


34 3050423HO011 7wx3h, 10' inside 7wx6hx40 NR Elig Bat Exclu BFH 15

35 3050423HO012 3wx2h unknown depth; pipe NR Elig Bat Exclu BFM 3

36 3050423HO013 4wx4dx18d NR Elig BFM 10

37 3050423HO014 5wx6hx100d; dump 500 cyd BG 30

38 3050423HO015 5.5wx1.5h, 10' inside 5wx6hx25d; access improvement

Bat Exclu BFM 9

39 3050423HO016 6wx4hx75d; wood props;adit door

NR Elig BG 20

40 3050423HO017 3.5wx1.5hx50d; wood props Bat Exclu BFM 541 3050423HO018 6wx4hx30d; machinery Bat Exclu BFM 15


38/60


EAID #


106Eligibility

BatsClosure

Method &Comments


42 3050423HO019 6wx1h, 15' inside 5wx6xhx25d; wood props

Bat Exclu BFH 7

43 3050423HO020 7wx4h, 15' inside 15wx10hx20d

Bat Exclu BFH 17

44 3050423HO022 6wx1.5hx12d; accessimprovement; headframe


45 3050423HO023 25wx8hx+35d; accessimprovement


46 3050423HO024 1wx1hx8.5d; Common dumpw/HO25


47 3050423HO025 5wx5hx40d; wood props;wheel barrow; no trail

NR Elig BG 25

48 3050423HO026 5wx2h, 15' inside 4wx6hx70d; no trail


49 3050423HO027 4wx1.5h, 15' inside 6wx5.5hx27d


50 3050423HO028 3.5wx2.5h, 10' inside 7wx5hx+35d; mine rail

NR Elig BatExclusion

BFH 10

51 3050423HO029 4wx5hx21d; BFH 11

52 3050423HO030 5wx3.5h, 10' inside 7wx6hx25d

Bat Exclu BFH 12

53 3050423HO031 3.5wx5hx27d BFH 10

54 3050423HO032 14wx9.5hx+100d; accessimprovement; wood props

BG 133

55 3050423HO033 5wx5.5hx22d; no dump Wall-B 28

56 3050423HO035 8wx2hx40d; partiallycollapsed

Bat Exclu BFM 11

57 3050423HO036 8wx9h58d; accessimprovement; drill steel

BG 72

58 3050423HO037 10wx6h NR Elig BG 60

59 3050423IO001 4wx3.5hx20d NR Elig BFH 11

60 3050423IO002 4wx3hx20d; access

improvement; boiler; woodprops


61 3050423VO001 3x4x30d; dump 200' NR Elig Bat Exclu BFM 20

62 3050423VO002 18 trench, one opening3x3x8d other opening9x10x34d; boiler, two smallpinned grates

NR Elig Grate 99

63 3050423VO003 20x25x+100d; 5' chain linkfence w/ 4.5in steel posts

NR Elig Grate-B 696

64 3050423VO004 7x8x46d; accessimprovement

NR Elig BFM 95

65 3050423VO005 4x5x42d; no trail NR Elig Bat Exclu BFH 33

66 3050423VO006 4x10x70d; no trail; dump 11cyd

NR Elig Grate 40

67 3050423VO007 5x29x+100d; no trail, 20 cyddump

NR Elig Grate 145


39/60


EAID #


106Eligibility

BatsClosure

Method &Comments


68 3050423VO008 7x8x20d; no trail NR Elig BFH 42



71 3050423VO011 5x8x+175d; 6' fence; accessimprovement

NR Elig Grate-B 1024

72 3050423VO012 3x3x6d then goes horizontalanother +21'; old shaft coverframing

NR Elig BFM 7

73 3050423VO013 5wx6h NR Elig BFM 240

74 3050424HO003 3wx1.5h, 10' inside5wx6hx25d

BFH 8

75 3050424HO004 3w x 2h, sloughed in, stonewall in front of opening

Bat Exclu BFM 10

All Locations and dimensions are approximate and have not been field verified. Construction quantities are estimatedand will be comfirmed at time of construction. Refer to Section 0300, Part 1.03.C of the Specifications for adescription of the site ID numbering (tag number) system. Dimensions are in feet. h=high/height, w=wide/width,l=long/length, d=deep/depth, diam=diameter, unk=unknown, w/=with, ~approx=approximately. Compassdirections=N,NW,E,SE,S, etc. Special conditions: Bat excl=bat exclusion required, NR Elig=National Registereligibility site, Closure Methods: TBD= To Be Determined


40/60


APPENDIX D

CLOSURE AND CONSTRUCTION METHODOLOGY


41/60


42/60


tire loader or dozer could be used. A flat bed truck would be used for haulage of debris and apickup truck would be used for the transport of personnel and trash from the site.

Mine Closures

1. BackfillBackfilling by hand would consist of placing backfill material with shovels into theopening a distance of two times the portal height which would usually be between 10 and15 feet. Backfilling with heavy equipment consists of constructing a work pad in front ofthe opening in order to place backfill material into the opening. The bucket of thebackhoe would be used to push backfill material into the opening for a distance of at least2 times the portal height. The material is placed either by hand or machine in such amanner as to minimize voids and compacted to prevent the reopening of the portal due tosettlement of the fill material used. If the mine opening is not considered historicallyimportant, the final shape of the fill would be mounded over the opening and blendedinto the surrounding contours as much as practical. Runoff and snowmelt would bediverted away from the backfill.

2. WallsMasonry block or native rock wall closures would be an alternative method of adit,incline and prospect closure where backfilling is not feasible. This type of closure is aconstructed wall located as far into the adit or incline (maximum of 10 feet) as is safe andreasonable to reduce visibility of the wall from outside the openings. Any loose rockabove the area in which the wall is to be constructed would be removed. The wall wouldbe keyed into the rock to provide more strength and integrity to the wall. Large walls,greater than 12 ft x 15 ft, would require construction of support pilasters. The wall wouldbe constructed of solid concrete block or native stone. Concrete block walls would be 16inches thick. Native stone would be constructed to a minimum thickness of 2 feet at thebase and 18 inches at the top.

When necessary, drain pipes would be located near the base of the wall within 15 inchesof the intersection of the floor material in the approximate center of the wall or near alow spot along the base. The drainpipe would protrude a minimum of 12 inches on eitherside of the wall. All of the masonry block walls would be constructed by hand. Mineclosure materials and supplies would be moved to the site by pickup trucks or all terrainvehicles (ATVs).

3. Bat Adapted Closure

Bat gate construction methods would be as follows: The opening would be prepared byremoving loose rock from the area in which the bat gate closure is to be constructed. Aconcrete footer would be poured in a trench excavated into the floor of the opening, andanchor pins doweled into the adit walls. Perimeter bars would be welded to the anchorpins to provide a continuous steel lining on the adit ribs. The perimeter bars would bebent or cut into segments to conform closely to irregular surfaces, with a maximum gapof 6 inches between the rib and the bar. Vertical supports would extend into the concretefooter and be positioned as close to the adit ribs as possible, with a maximum gap of 16


43/60


inches between the rib and the vertical support. Horizontal crossbars would be spaced on5-inch centers for a maximum gap between bars of 4 inches. A lock box would bewelded onto the vertical support.

4. Polyurethane Foam (PUF)PUF closures are not anticipated in the Serviceberry mine closure project. If such closuremethods would be required for unforeseen reasons, installation would be as follows:PUF closures would consist of constructing a bottom form and placing the PUF on theform. The PUF would be topped with a layer of concrete and backfill material to thesurface. A ventilation/drainage pipe would be required.

Other Reclamation Methods

Revegetation

Seedbeds would be prepared in areas where surface disturbance has occurred in theclosure process, by roughening the cover material using mechanical equipment.Seedbeds would be hand raked on sites too small, remote, or steep for the use of

conventional machinery. The roughening process would leave the seed bed in a fluffycondition.

All disturbed areas would be seeded with native plant species during the Fall months.The species composition and planting rates of the seed mixtures are found in AppendixF. Disturbed areas would be seeded by hand broadcast seeding. Broadcast seedingwould be accomplished using hand-operated cyclone-type seeders. Two passes wouldbe made over the seeded area to evenly distribute seed. Broadcast seeding would takeplace immediately following the completion of the roughening process. Seeding wouldnot be conducted under extremely windy conditions.

Determining Revegetative Success

Revegetation would be considered successful if cover equals or surpasses 90% of the

cover found in the surrounding area, invasive plant species account for no more than 10%of the total herbaceous cover, and no noxious weeds are present. If noxious weeds areobserved, appropriate control measures would be used. Vegetation would have five yearsto meet success criteria.

Revegetation success would be determined by establishing three reference sites in theServiceberry area that best represent site potential. Herbaceous vegetation cover wouldbe measured using modified Daubenmire sample frames (0.5 x 0.25 meters) or a similarmethod to measure cover. A minimum of three transects would be placed in thereclamation area and in the reference area and 20 frames would be read on each transect.Transect length would be modified to match the impacted area. Woody vegetation coverwould be measured using the line intercept method along the Daubenmire transects. Theline intercept would run for 50 meters. The beginning and end points of the transectswould be permanently marked with rebar covered with PVC pipe, recorded on a GPS and

Deleted: Herbaceous v

Deleted: and woody vegetationhave ten years to meet success crit


44/60


labeled. Visual surveys would be made for any noxious or weed species in thereclamation area and any evidence of soil instability would be noted. A species list of allspecies present in the reclamation area would be compiled.

If reclamation fails for any of the above criteria, an assessment of the reasons for failurewill be made and appropriate contingency measures taken. Soils may need to be testedfor suitability or contamination if rainfall is adequate but overall germination is poor.Reseeding would take place in areas that fail to meet criteria and the species list mayneed to be modified as a result of success observed with the original seed mix. Deleted: The BLM would be

responsible for any contingency mand annual monitoring of vegetati


45/60


APPENDIX E

Section 0300 Serviceberry Project

Reclamation Construction Contract Specifications


46/60


Section 0300 Serviceberry Project

Reclamation Construction Contract Specifications(Appendices referred to in this section are NOT included in the EA due to excessive length)

PART 1 - GENERAL

1.01 WORK INCLUDED

A. This section describes the location, the features present, and the WORK to be performed at the ServiceberryCanyon Project located in Tooele County, Utah. The items of the WORK shall be performed according tothe appropriate sections of these specifications.

B. It is the intent of these Specifications that the site-specific scope of WORK is as described in this Section.The General Technical Specifications, Sections 0200 through 0290, outline WORK broadly applicable to allabandoned mine reclamation situations and that may not be required at each mine site in this project. Wherethere is a conflict between Section 0300 and the General Technical Specifications (0200's), Section 0300shall govern.

C. The access, site description, and specific requirements for each closure method are described in this Section.Details and dimensions are shown on the drawings in Appendix E. CONTRACTOR shall be aware that thedimensions on the Drawings are shown as typical. CONTRACTOR shall also be aware that minimum ormaximum dimensions on the Drawings or given in the Specifications are specific and are to be adhered tounless the OWNER approves changes in writing. The quantities presented in the specific site sections shouldbe considered an estimate with a tolerance of plus or minus 15 percent. CONTRACTOR shall visit each siteand determine the quantities and amounts required in performing the WORK as intended in theseSpecifications and on the Drawings.

1.02 LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION

A. The Serviceberry Canyon Project is located in the Oquirrh Mountains approximately 19 highway miles southof Tooele, Tooele County, Utah. General reclamation area boundaries of the Serviceberry Canyon Project areshown on the attached location maps (see Appendix F, Sheet 1) and are described in this section.

B. The Serviceberry Canyon Project area consists of approximately 75 identified abandoned mine openings orother mining features. The mine openings consist of adits, inclines, vertical shafts, exposed stopes, prospectpits, trenches, and subsidence holes. The openings occur in a wide range of sizes, configurations, and

conditions.

C. Access: To reach the Serviceberry Canyon Project area from Tooele (junction of Main and Vine streets).Drive south 11.8 miles on Highway 36 (through Stockton, UT), to the junction of Highway 36 with Highway73. Turn left (east) on Highway 73 and drive 4.6 miles to a paved road named Ophir Town Site Road. Turnleft (east) and proceed toward Ophir Canyon. There are two (2) site groups with the access to each describedfrom Tooele (junction of Main and Vine streets) in Parts 1.04 and 1.05.

D. The formal project boundary takes in the following sections, although mines occur in only a portion of thisarea:

T5S, R4W, Sections: 1, 2, 3, 4, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 23, & 24

T4S, R4W, Sections: 33, 34, 35, 36

E. The Serviceberry Canyon Project is mapped on the Stockton, Lowe Peak, Ophir, and Mercur USGS 7.5

minute quadrangles.


47/60


USGS 7.5 minute quad index:

Stockton Lowe Peak

Ophir Mercur

1.03 MINE OPENING LOCATIONS AND DESCRIPTIONS

A. The Serviceberry Canyon Project area consists of approximately 75 identified abandoned mine openings orother mining features. The mine openings consist of adits, inclines, vertical shafts, exposed stopes, prospectpits, trenches, and subsidence holes. The openings occur in a wide range of sizes, configurations, andconditions.

B. Locating Sites: Many of the project sites are very difficult to find, even with maps. There are few goodlandmarks in the foothills and the pinyon-juniper woodland and oak scrub limit visibility. Natural talusslopes that resemble mine dumps are commonplace. Recreational ATV activity has created a complex andconfusing network of unmapped roads and trails that often go nowhere in particular. Flagging tape fromdozens of different users is so widespread in the area as to be useless for navigation. For this reason,OWNER recommends that CONTRACTOR have access to Global Positioning Satellite (GPS) equipment to

supplement the maps when locating sites. GPS units can use the UTM coordinates in Appendix A to setcourses and reduce unproductive time looking for sites. Locations, descriptions, approximate dimensions,UTM coordinates, closure methods, and map references of each mine opening (site) are provided in the tablein Appendix A. Detailed locations of the sites are presented on the maps in Appendix F. Note that minesymbols may be plotted on the maps offset slightly from their true locations due to terrain interference withGPS surveys and the way the mapping software treats adit symbols.

C. Site ID Numbers (Tag Numbers): Each mine opening or feature is identified by a unique site identificationnumber such as 3411308HO002. The ID number consists of seven digits, two letters, and three digits. Thefirst digit indicates the quadrant around the Salt Lake baseline and meridian (or the Uinta special meridian).Townships south and east of the SLBM are coded "4." The second and third digits indicate the township, thefourth and fifth digits indicate the range, and the sixth and seventh digits indicate the section. These numbersare followed by letters indicating the type of mine opening or feature (H = horizontal adit, I = inclined adit, V= vertical shaft, SH = subsidence hole, PR = prospect, TR = trench, PT = open pit,) and, in the case of shaftsand adits, letters indicating whether the mine is open (O) or closed (C). These letters are followed bynumbers that are sequential numbers assigned as the openings were encountered during the field inventory.Thus, site number 4060318HO003 is the third horizontal opening (HO) inventoried in Township 6 South,Range 3 East, Section 18. The leading zeros in the sequential number part of the ID number are frequentlyomitted (i.e. HO3 instead of HO003).

D. Identifying Sites: The mine openings are marked in the field with 1x 2 wood stakes. Tags wereintentionally put in obscure locations to deter vandalism and may not be easy to find. Because of vandalismor weather, many mine ID markers are missing or not eligible. CONTRACTOR will have to rely on the sitelocation maps and the descriptions in Appendix A to identify mine sites. OWNERs Contract Representativewill provide assistance in identifying the mine openings.

1.04 PROJECT SITE GROUPINGS

A. The mine sites in the Serviceberry Canyon Project have been organized into two groups based ongeographical proximity and access considerations. Map 2 of 5 is the Area Detail Map and will serve as a keyon subsequent detail sheets, visually illustrating the position of the current sheet within the entire project area.

These groups are the basis for the area detail maps in Appendix F and the site groupings in the Bid Scheduleand Closure Schedule, Appendix A. The two groups are: Northern Area and Southern Area. Thedescriptions that follow have adequate directions to get to the areas mapped on the area detail maps. The


48/60


maps can then be used to locate each individual mine site. All of the directions start from the center ofTooele at the junction of Main and Vine Street.

B. Northern Area: (Map Sheet 3 of 5) [8 sites]There are 8 open mine sites in the northern group consisting of 2 adits and 2 shafts in Section 10, 2 adits in

Section 11, and 2 adits in Section 16. The Northern Area total is 6 adits and 2 shafts.

General access to all of the northern sites in the Serviceberry Canton Project will be described from the centerof Tooele (at the junction of Main and Vine Streets). Tooele is the county seat for Tooele County and isabout 34 highway miles southwest of Salt Lake City via Interstate 80 unto State Highway 36. From Tooele,drive south 6.5 miles on Highway 36 to Stockton. At Stockton, take East Silver Avenue or another street tothe east, past the athletic field and head south towards Soldier Canyon. Continue south and the southeast,passing Soldier Canyon turn-off at 1.6 miles out of Stockton. Continue uphill on the main gravel road a totalof 5.2 miles from Stockton to the saddle of a long ridge in the middle of Section 9.

Six of the 8 northern sites are accessed by going north of Commadore Pass, all within 0.5 miles of each otherin Sections 10 and 11. From above described saddle, continue up the main road 2.6 miles into Jacob Cityarea. There are

Date post:	31-May-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	russell-hartill
View:	212 times
Download:	0 times

Final EA 7 21 06 for BLM Serviceberry Canyon Utah

Documents