Big Springs Mine Project Environmental...

United States Department of Agriculture

Forest Service

Big Springs Mine Project Environmental Assessment Mountain City Ranger District, Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest, Elko County, Nevada

November 2016

For More Information Contact:

John Baldwin

District Ranger

Mountain City Ranger District

Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest

2035 Last Chance Rd.

Elko, NV 89801

Office 775-738-5171

Fax: 775-778-6167

Email: [email protected]

Photo of the Big Springs Mine was taken by Lauritz Barnes in October 2014.

USDA NONDISCRIMINATION STATEMENT

In accordance with federal civil rights laws and United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident.

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g. Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English.

To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: 1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410; 2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or 3) email: [email protected].

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer and lender

mailto:[email protected]://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.htmlmailto:[email protected]

Mountain City Ranger District Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest

Big Springs Mine Project Environmental Assessment

Big Springs Mine Project

Environmental Assessment

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page

1 INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................. 1-1

1.1 Project Location and Access....................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Purpose and Need for the Proposal ........................................................................... 1-1 1.3 Public Involvement and Tribal Consultation ........................................................... 1-3 1.4 Land and Resource Management Plan Direction .................................................... 1-3

1.4.1 Goals and Objectives ........................................................................................... 1-4 1.4.2 Standards and Guidelines ................................................................................... 1-4 1.4.3 Greater Sage-grouse Record of Decision ........................................................... 1-5

1.5 Decision Framework ................................................................................................... 1-5 1.6 Public Involvement...................................................................................................... 1-5 1.7 Public or Agency Comments ...................................................................................... 1-6

2 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES............................................................. 2-1 2.1 Proposed Action ........................................................................................................... 2-1

2.1.1 Estimated Disturbance Acreage ......................................................................... 2-3 2.1.2 Operation Time Frame........................................................................................ 2-3 2.1.3 Work Force........................................................................................................... 2-3 2.1.4 Mining Operations ............................................................................................... 2-4 2.1.5 Equipment and Vehicles...................................................................................... 2-7 2.1.6 Structures.............................................................................................................. 2-8 2.1.7 Drilling and Blasting............................................................................................ 2-8 2.1.8 Ore Transport ...................................................................................................... 2-9 2.1.9 Water Supply and Usage ..................................................................................... 2-9 2.1.10 Water Management ........................................................................................... 2-10 2.1.11 Waste Rock Disposal.......................................................................................... 2-13 2.1.12 Mine Operations Facilities ................................................................................ 2-14 2.1.13 Ore Stockpile ...................................................................................................... 2-16 2.1.14 Other Stockpiles ................................................................................................. 2-16 2.1.15 Chemical and Fuel Storage and Use................................................................. 2-19 2.1.16 Waste Disposal Management ............................................................................ 2-20 2.1.17 Explosive Storage Areas .................................................................................... 2-20 2.1.18 Mine Site Infrastructure.................................................................................... 2-21 2.1.19 Snow Removal .................................................................................................... 2-23 2.1.20 Fire Protection .................................................................................................... 2-24 2.1.21 Speed Limits ....................................................................................................... 2-24 2.1.22 Exploration Drilling ........................................................................................... 2-24 2.1.23 Environmental Protection Measures [EPMs] (See 36 CFR 228.8)................ 2-25 2.1.24 Reclamation ........................................................................................................ 2-29 2.1.25 Monitoring .......................................................................................................... 2-38

2.2 No Action Alternative ............................................................................................... 2-39 2.3 Alternatives Considered but Not Analyzed ............................................................ 2-39

3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ....... 3-1 3.1 Geology and Mineral Resources ................................................................................ 3-1

i



3.1.1 Affected Environment ......................................................................................... 3-1 3.1.2 Cumulative Effects............................................................................................... 3-6

3.2 Special Status Aquatic Species ................................................................................... 3-9 3.2.1 Affected Environment ......................................................................................... 3-9 3.2.2 Environmental Consequences........................................................................... 3-13 3.2.3 Cumulative Effects............................................................................................. 3-17

3.3 Special Status Wildlife Species................................................................................. 3-22 3.3.1 Affected Environment ....................................................................................... 3-23 3.3.2 Environmental Consequences........................................................................... 3-33 3.3.3 Cumulative Effects............................................................................................. 3-36

3.4 Water Resources ........................................................................................................ 3-43 3.4.1 Affected Environment ....................................................................................... 3-43 3.4.2 Environmental Consequences........................................................................... 3-58 3.4.3 Cumulative Effects............................................................................................. 3-67

3.5 Wildlife Resources..................................................................................................... 3-70 3.5.1 Affected Environment ....................................................................................... 3-70 3.5.2 Environmental Consequences........................................................................... 3-71 3.5.3 Cumulative Effects............................................................................................. 3-72

4 LIST OF PREPARERS AND AGENCIES CONSULTED ........................................... 4-1 4.1 USFS ............................................................................................................................. 4-1 4.2 Enviroscientists, Inc. ................................................................................................... 4-1 4.3 Alpine Environmental Consultants, LLC ................................................................. 4-1 4.4 MWH Americas........................................................................................................... 4-1

5 REFERENCES................................................................................................................... 5-1

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1.3-1: List of Agencies, Groups, and Individuals................................................... 1-3 Table 2.1-1: Proposed Surface Disturbance within the Project Area ............................ 2-3 Table 2.1-2: Anticipated Mine Staffing Requirements .................................................... 2-4 Table 2.1-3: Open Pit Production Schedule...................................................................... 2-6 Table 2.1-4: Underground Production Schedule.............................................................. 2-7 Table 2.1-5: Combined Production Schedule ................................................................... 2-7 Table 2.1-6: Proposed Mining Operations Equipment Fleet .......................................... 2-7 Table 2.1-7: Estimated Project Non-Potable Water Requirements ............................. 2-10 Table 2.1-8: Growth Media Salvage and Reclamation Volumes .................................. 2-17 Table 2.1-9: Topsoil Salvage and Reclamation Volumes............................................... 2-18 Table 2.1-10: Fuels and Reagents Volumes and Usage.................................................... 2-19 Table 2.1-11: Mine Reclamation Schedule ........................................................................ 2-31 Table 3.2-1: Historic LCT Population Trend in the Upper NFHR .............................. 3-10 Table 3.2-2: MRBU Constituents and Reference Values ............................................... 3-15 Table 3.2-3: Water Quality Parameters Exceeded at Surface Water Quality Monitoring

Sites ............................................................................................................... 3-18 Table 3.3-1: Dominant Vegetation Communities and Percentage Disturbed within the

Big Springs Mine Project Area................................................................... 3-23 Table 3.3-2: Conservation Priority Migratory Bird Species ......................................... 3-32 Table 3.3-3: Mineral Exploration and Mining Disturbance on USFS Land in the

CESAs ........................................................................................................... 3-37

ii



Table 3.3-4: Mineral Exploration and Mining Disturbance on BLM Land in the CESAs

....................................................................................................................... 3-37

Table 3.3-5: Rights-of-Way Disturbance on BLM Land in the CESAs ....................... 3-38 Table 3.4-1: Big Springs Hydrostratigraphic Units ....................................................... 3-43 Table 3.4-2: Current Monitoring Wells at the Big Springs Project ............................. 3-51 Table 3.4-3: Median Elemental Concentrations in Waste Rock in the Project Area . 3-57 Table 3.4-4: Ground Water Quality Data for Big Springs Well #2 .............................. 3-63 Table 3.4-5: Arsenic and Antimony Levels from Monitoring Well BSMW-7s and

Leachate Obtained from Humidity Cells ................................................... 3-66

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1.1.1: Project Area, Land Status, and Access ........................................................ 1-2 Figure 2.1.1: Existing Disturbance and General Facilities Layout within the Project

Area ................................................................................................................. 2-2 Figure 2.1.2: Cross Section of Current Access Road to be Reestablished after

Mining ........................................................................................................... 2-30 Figure 2.1.3: Roads to be Left at End of Mining and Reclamation ............................... 2-34 Figure 3.1.1: Geologic Map of the Project Area ................................................................ 3-2 Figure 3.1.2: Cumulative Effects Study Areas ................................................................... 3-7 Figure 3.3.1: Existing and Proposed Disturbance and Vegetation Communities ........ 3-24 Figure 3.3.2: Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat and Observations ...................................... 3-27 Figure 3.4.1: Project Area Catchments and Surface Water Monitoring Sites ............. 3-44 Figure 3.4.2: Surface Water Monitoring Sites Exceeding MRBU Values, 2010 – 2015

....................................................................................................................... 3-50 Figure 3.4.3: Ground Water Monitoring Sites Exceeding NDEP Profile I Values

2010 - 2015 .................................................................................................... 3-53

iii



ACRONYMS & ABBREVIATIONS

° degrees DHS Department ofʹ minutes Homeland Security ʺ seconds EA Environmental ADE Aquifer Drainage Assessment

Event EIS Environmental ImpactAEC Alpine Environmental Statement

Consultants, LLC EO Executive Order AGANC AngloGold Ashanti EPA United States

(Nevada) Corp Environmental amsl above mean sea level Protection Agency ANFO ammonium nitrate EPMs Environmental

and fuel oil Protection Measures Anova Anova Metals USA ESA Endangered Species

LLC Act of 1973, as AOC Administrative Order amended

of Consent F Fahrenheit ARD Acid Rock Drainage FR Federal Register ATVs all-terrain vehicles FSM Forest ServiceBAPC Bureau of Air Manual

Pollution Control FSR Forest Service Road BATF Bureau of Alcohol, Gateway Gateway Gold (USA)

Tobacco, Firearms, Corp. and Explosives GEI GEI Consultants, Inc.

BE Biological Evaluation GMA Glacial Moraine BLM Bureau of Land Aquifer

Management GMU geographical BMPs best management management unit

practices gpm gallons per minute BMRR Bureau of Mining GRSG ROD Greater Sage-grouse

Regulation and Record of Decision Reclamation for Idaho and

BSA Biological Survey Southwest Montana, Area Nevada and Utah

BSW #2 Big Springs Well #2 GSG Greater Sage-grouse CaCO3 calcium carbonate H horizontal CESA cumulative effects HCT humidity cell test

study area HDPE high density CFR Code of Federal polyethylene

Regulations HTNF Humboldt-Toiyabe Chadwick Chadwick Ecological National Forest

Consultants, Inc. Independence Independence Mining CR County Road Company Inc. DBA Deep Bedrock kW kilowatt

Aquifer LCB Lower CumulativeBasin

iv



LCT Lahontan cutthroat NFHRB North Fork Humboldt trout River Bedrock

LR2000 Land and Mineral NFS National Forest Legacy Rehost 2000 System System NOAA National Oceanic and

LRMP Land and Resource Atmospheric Management Plan Administration

LWC Lower Water Canyon NRV Nevada Reference MB Migratory Bird Value MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty PHMA Priority Habitat

Act Management Area MD Mule Deer PLA Pit Lake Aquifer µg/g micrograms per gram Plan Plan of Operations µg/L micrograms per liter PMUs Population mg/L milligrams per liter Management Units MIS Management ppm parts per million

Indicator Species Project Big Springs Mine MOU Memorandum of Project

Understanding R4 Region 4 mph miles per hour RD Ranger District MRBU Most Restrictive Recovery Plan Lahontan Cutthroat

Beneficial Use Trout Recovery Plan MSHA Mine Safety and RFFAs reasonably

Health Administration foreseeable future Mt million tons actions MWCD Moraine Water ROW right-of-way

Collection Ditch SAD Surface Area MWIB Moraine Water Disturbance

Infiltration Basin SCO Sammy Creek MWMP Meteoric Water Overburden

Mobility Procedure SFAs Sagebrush Focal NAC Nevada Areas

Administrative Code SNOPA Scoping Letter and NDEP Nevada Division of Notice of Proposed

Environmental Action Protection SOPA Schedule of Proposed

NDOW Nevada Department Actions of Wildlife SPCC Spill Prevention,

NDWR Nevada Division of Control, and Water Resources Countermeasure

NEPA National SWMP Storm Water Environmental Policy Management Plan Act of 1969 TAB Truck Access Basin

NFHR North Fork Humboldt TDS total dissolved solids River TNT trinitrotoluene

NFHRA North Fork Humboldt tpd tons per day River Alluvium U.S.C. United States Code

v



USDA United States Department of Agriculture

USFS United States Forest

Service

USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service

UTM Universal Transverse Mercator

V vertical Victoria Victoria Gold Corp. WCB Water Canyon

Bedrock WPCP Water Pollution

Control Permit WRCC Western Regional

Climate Center WRDA Waste Rock Disposal

Area yd3 cubic yards

vi



1 INTRODUCTION

This Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Big Springs Mine Project (Project) has been prepared by the United States Forest Service (USFS) to fulfill agency policy and direction to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Project is the site of a previous mining operation mined between 1988 and 1994, including open pits and reclaimed overburden storage areas, access roads, and a reclaimed crusher and maintenance site. Anova Metals USA LLC (Anova) is proposing to conduct open pit mining on the site of the former Big Springs Mine in the existing 601 Pit and underground mining of ore below both the 601 Pit (once open pit mining has been completed) and the existing 701 Pit, over a period of approximately two years. Anova is proposing up to 68 acres of surface disturbance, located almost entirely over areas that were disturbed during previous mining operations, on approximately 377 acres of National Forest System (NFS) land, located within the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest (HTNF), administered by the Forest Service, Mountain City Ranger District (RD). Anova has submitted a Mine Plan of Operations (Plan) to the USFS for the Project in accordance with Title 36 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Section 228.4 (36 CFR Section 228.4 et seq.). Anova has also submitted a Nevada Reclamation Permit Application to the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP) Bureau of Mining Regulation and Reclamation (BMRR). A Water Pollution Control Permit was granted for this Project on March 31, 2016 (NEV2015103) (NDEP 2016).

1.1 Project Location and Access

The Project is located in portions of Sections 1, 2, and 11, Township 42 North, Range 53 East, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian, Elko County, Nevada (Project Area) (Figure 1.1.1). The Project Area can be accessed from Elko, Nevada, by driving north on Nevada State Route 225 (Mountain City Highway) for approximately 54 miles, turning onto the west-bound Elko County Road (CR) 732 (also known as Jack Creek Summit Road, North Fork Road, or Forest Service Road (FSR) 473), traveling approximately 4.5 miles to the Doheny Ranch, then continuing for approximately 4.5 miles west along FSR 473 to the mine and Ore Stockpile Area entrance gate.

1.2 Purpose and Need for the Proposal

The USFS’s need is to respond to the proponent’s submittal of a Plan and to ensure operations would be conducted to minimize adverse environmental impacts on NFS surface resources (36 CFR Section 228.8) where feasible. The purpose of this Proposed Action is to authorize mining activities consistent with the statutory right of the proponent to explore for and develop mineral resources on federally-administered lands under the General Mining Law of 1872, and with other laws and regulations including the Humboldt National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) of 1986 (USFS 1986), as required by the National Forest Management Act. Applicable LRMP standards, including those identified for “Minerals” (IV-51) and “Soil and Water” (IV-46), were incorporated by the proponent or added by the USFS as mitigation. The decision for the USFS to make is whether to approve the Plan (activities on NFS lands only) as submitted or to approve with additional measures to protect surface resources.

1-1

")!.

USFS

T42N R54E

T43N R54E

T42N R53E

T43N R53E

T42N R55E

T43N R55E

$

ExplanationProject Area

!. Big Springs Well #2") Doheny Ranch - Proposed Site Office

Project Access RoadsCR 732Forest Service Road 473

Land StatusBureau of Land ManagementForest ServicePrivate

!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

ElyReno

Elko

Tonopah

Las Vegas

Winnemucca

Carson CityBattle Mountain

0 1 2Miles

CR732

¬«225

BIG SPRINGS MINE PROJECT

U. S. FOREST SERVICE

Figure 1.1.1

Project Location, Land Status,and Access

NF Road 473Big Springs Well #2

DohenyRanch

09/08/2016



1.3 Public Involvement and Tribal Consultation

The USFS consulted with the following individuals, federal, state, and local agencies during the development of this EA:

Table 1.3-1: List of Agencies, Groups, and Individuals

Western Watershed Project (Katie Fite) Charlene Chambers

Louise Basanez Assemblyman John Ellison

Nevada Wildlife Federation (President) Elko County Manager (Robert Stokes)

Donald J. King Elko Daily Free Press (Editor) Elko County Natural Resources Commission (Randy Brown) Nevada State Clearinghouse

Elko County Conservation Association (Merlin McColm) United States Environmental Protection Agency

Sierra Club Toiyabe Chapter (Chapter Chairperson) Elko County Commissioners

Great Basin Resource Watch Nevada Cattlemen’s Association (President)

Nevada Mining Association (President) Jack Prier

Simplot Livestock Company (Darcy Helmick) Great Basin Ecology, Inc. (Gary Back)

Anglogold (Jonathan Gorman) Ellison Ranching Company Queenstake Resources USA, Inc. (Environmental Coordinator) Mori Ranches (Sam Mori)

Senator Dean Heller Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW) (Rory Lamp)

Center for Biological Diversity (Bob Mrowka) Western Exploration (Carmen Fimiani)

Representative Mark Amodei Senator Harry Reid

NDOW (Alan Jenne) James Wright Ranch, Inc. (Jay Wright)

Marge Sill Anova Metals USA LLC (John Hasleby)

El Tejon Sheep Company (Melchor Gragirena)

1.4 Land and Resource Management Plan Direction

The Forest-wide management direction, standards, and guidelines for minerals are listed in Chapter IV of the LRMP on pages 51 through 57. Applicable forest-wide goals, objectives, standards, and guidelines are discussed below. The proposed Project conforms to the direction and objectives of the LRMP for the area in which the Project is located. The Project is also in conformance with the 2010 Elko County Public Land Use and Natural Resource Management Plan, including, Directive 4-1, which states to “retain existing mining areas and promote the expansion of mining operations in areas not specifically withdrawn” (Elko County 2010).

1-3



1.4.1 Goals and Objectives

The Project Area is covered by the Humboldt National Forest LRMP (USFS 1986). The Proposed Action, as described in Chapter 2, is in conformance with the following goals outlined in the LRMP: Goal #9 – Provide for a pleasing visual landscape in the Humboldt National Forest; Goal #10 – Identify, protect, interpret and manage significant cultural resources; Goal #13 – Improve the quantity and quality of lake and stream habitats through

increased coordination with other land use programs, cooperation with NDOW, and direct habitat improvement;

Goal #14 – Improve the current productive level of wildlife habitat with emphasis on maintaining or improving limiting factors such as big game winter ranges (measured in acres), in cooperation with NDOW;

Goal #15 - Manage classified species bald eagle (E), peregrine falcon (E), Lahontan cutthroat trout (T), Bonneville cutthroat trout (S) habitat to maintain or enhance their status through coordination with other land use programs, agency cooperation, and direct habitat improvements;

Goal #29 – Provide water and soil resource input to other resource activities to protect or improve water quality and soil productivity;

Goal #32 – Design and implement practices on-the-ground that will re-establish acceptable soil, hydrologic, and vegetative conditions which are sufficient to secure and maintain favorable water flow;

Goal #36 – Administer the mineral resources of the Humboldt National Forest to provide for the needs of the American people and to protect and conserve other resources;

Goal #37 – Respond to operating plans within the regulated time frames and provide for environmental protection; and

Goal #40 – Integrate the exploration and development of mineral and energy resources with the use and protection of other resources.

1.4.2 Standards and Guidelines

Forest-wide standards and guidelines are also included in the LRMP. Management requirements necessary for achieving goals and desired future condition are referred to as standards and guidelines. These standards and guidelines state the constraints within which management practices would be performed. Within this document, the terms “standards” and “guidelines” are interchangeable with no difference in meaning. The Forest-wide standards and guidelines described in the following section were developed to address public issues and management concerns, and to direct management practices to accomplish Forest-wide goals and objectives. Some of the applicable standards and guidelines identified in the LRMP include: Provide terrestrial and aquatic habitat analysis input for fuelwood removal, road

construction projects, range allotment planning and development, water rights adjudication, hydropower development, and mineral exploration and development taking place on the National Forest;

Involve the NDOW in programs and activities that affect wildlife and fish habitats and perform joint monitoring of these habitats;

1-4



Protect key sage grouse breeding complexes; i.e, strutting grounds and associated nesting areas;

Incorporate noxious weed control into mineral operating plans and allotment management plans;

Mineral exploration and development will be managed to maintain watershed objectives where possible;

Administer areas with producing sites and known reserves with consideration of ongoing and potential mineral activities;

Coordinate mineral road development with the Forest Transportation Plan for arterial and collector roads. Where possible, use existing or planned local roads;

Install gates or other road closure devices to limit traffic for public safety and control unacceptable resource damage;

Provide erosion control to roads and other areas of surface disturbance at the close of each field season or when operations are temporarily suspended;

Reclaim exploration and mining areas at completion of operations by recontouring when possible, erosion control, and reseeding; and

Reclamation plans will be prepared to mitigate the specific resource impacts generated by the operation.

1.4.3 Greater Sage-grouse Record of Decision

The proposed Project conforms to the Forest Service’s Greater Sage-grouse Record of Decision for Idaho and Southwest Montana, Nevada and Utah (GRSG ROD) (USFS 2015). The entire 377-acre Project Area is located in an area identified by the GRSG ROD as Priority Habitat Management Area (PHMA), defined as having the highest habitat value for maintaining sustainable GRSG populations.

1.5 Decision Framework

Based on the environmental analysis and disclosure documented in the EA, the Responsible Official will decide the following: 1) whether to select the Proposed Action as proposed or modified; or as described in an alternative; 2) what mitigation measures would be needed, and 3) if monitoring would be required.

1.6 Public Involvement

The USFS initiated the public involvement process by posting the Project on the Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA) on April 1, 2014. The scoping process began through a Scoping Letter and Notice of Proposed Action (SNOPA), which was distributed to a mailing list of interested parties on August 26, 2014. The SNOPA requested comments on the Proposed Action. In addition to the SNOPA, a Legal Notice of Opportunity to Comment on the Project was published in the Elko Daily Free Press on August 29, 2014. Three comment letters were received and all comments were considered in determining the scope of analysis associated with the Project and formulation of any considered alternatives. Native American consultation was also initiated on August 26, 2014, with the SNOPA mailed to the following Tribes: Battle Mountain Band; Shoshone-Paiute Tribes of Duck Valley; Te-Moak Tribe of Western Shoshone; Elko Band Council; Wells Band Council; and South Fork Band. No comments have been received.

1-5



The EA will be provided to those who responded to the SNOPA, to those who requested the document, or those who are eligible to file an objection in accordance with 36 CFR Section 218.5(a). Upon distribution of the EA, legal notice of the opportunity to object to a proposed project or activity will be published in the applicable newspaper of record identified as defined in 36 CFR Section 218.2 for the NFS unit (Elko Daily Free Press). This Project is implemented under a land management plan and is not authorized under the Healthy Forests Restoration Act, and is subject to 36 CFR Part 218 Subparts A and B.

1.7 Public or Agency Comments

The following environmental concerns were identified as not requiring further analysis in the EA:

1. Air Resources – Mining and drilling activities, as well as travel on access and haul roads, and construction of surface facilities, would create emissions which would have a potential impact on air quality. Fugitive dust, in the form of particulate matter of aerodynamic diameter less than ten microns and particulate matter of aerodynamic diameter less than 2.5 microns, would be caused by the operation of the equipment listed in Section 2.1.5, as well as through blasting, excavation, hauling, sizing, mine development, reclamation, and general surface disturbing activities. No ore would be processed on site. Vehicle emissions, in the form of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, and volatile organic compounds, would occur anytime the internal combustion engines on the vehicles are operating. Air quality within the Project Area is considered in attainment. Project activities would result in negligible short-term impacts to air quality. Based on the requirements established by the Nevada Bureau of Air Pollution Control (BAPC), the Project would be required to obtain an Air Quality Operating Permit, which includes a Surface Area Disturbance (SAD) Permit and Dust Control Plan, and a Class II Operating Permit for the on-site generators. In addition, speed limits on Project roads would be observed, and dust from road travel and other surface disturbance would be controlled by spraying water from water trucks or other water spray techniques, or the application of other approved dust surfactants during construction and reclamation activities. As a result of the permit requirements and dust abatement measures in the Mine Plan and outlined in Section 2.1.9.1 of this EA, these negligible impacts would be further negated.

2. Climate Change - Greenhouse gas emissions, in the form of carbon dioxide equivalent

concentrations, would be created from emissions associated with the removal or transport of earth material, including blasting, excavation, and combustion emissions from Project vehicles and generators. However, the very short-term nature of the Project (two years for mining) does not allow for adequate analysis of the duration and intensity of Project impacts to a global atmospheric context. The main sediment basin at the base of the hill used to catch the bulk of the mine runoff was oversized to hold more than the 100-year 24-hour storm event in response to variations caused by climate change.

3. Cultural Resources – A new Class III cultural resources survey has not been performed for the Project Area as essentially all proposed activities are located in previously disturbed areas and all areas have been satisfactorily surveyed in the past. Intensive Class III cultural resources surveys have previously been completed across the Project Area in

1-6



1986 and 2005. Although performed just over ten years ago, the most recent previous survey and site evaluations are considered adequate for the present Project. The Nevada State Historic Preservation Office was consulted regarding proposed new disturbance within the general Project Area as per 36 CFR Part 800 in December 2014 with a finding of no adverse effect to historic properties given that eligible or unevaluated sites would be avoided by proposed activities. The operator would avoid all eligible or unevaluated cultural sites within the Project Area through Project design. If previously undiscovered cultural resources (historic or prehistoric objects, artifacts, or sites) are exposed as a result of operations, those operations would not proceed until notification is received from the Authorized Officer that provisions for mitigating unforeseen impacts have been implemented as required and complied with by 36 CFR Section 228.4(e) and 36 CFR Part 800. As a result of this environmental protection measure and design feature, there would be no impacts to cultural resources.

4. Ground Water Quantity – Potential impacts to ground water quantity through removal of water from low volume perched aquifers seeping into the pit during mining activities and pumping of Big Springs Well #2 (BSW #2). The water collected from the 601 Pit sump is expected to be of limited volume and is not expected to have any measurable impact on the North Fork Humboldt River (NFHR) or Water Canyon Creek. Relatively small amounts of water occur within discrete fractures in the vicinity of the 601 Pit and test pumping indicated low transmissivities corresponding with very low hydraulic conductivity. The 601 Pit sump would be located approximately 3,800 feet south and approximately 400 vertical feet above the NFHR. Any effect to the NFHR (from extracting water from the 601 Pit for a short period during mining) would be distributed over a long period of time and be too small to measure due to the very low hydraulic conductivity and low transmissivities observed in the Water Canyon Bedrock and in the vicinity of the 601 Pit. It is therefore concluded that extracting water from the 601 Pit sump would not adversely affect stream flow in the NFHR.

BSW #2 is located four miles downstream of the Project Area. BSW #2 produces water from the Hanson Creek Formation - host to the regional Deep Bedrock Aquifer. During previous mining the well was used as a water source for processing facilities located at Doheny Ranch. During this period, flow data was recorded at surface water monitoring station S-150 located approximately 250 feet northeast of the well. Streamflow at S-150 continued throughout the period of observation. No adverse impacts on water flow have been observed at S-150 as a result of the Aquifer Drainage Event (ADE), pumping during previous mining or hay field irrigation. It is therefore concluded that the operator would be able to extract the volume of water required for dust suppression from the well without adversely affecting stream flow in the NFHR.

Anova would obtain sufficient water rights through the Nevada Division of Water Resources (NDWR) to provide the needed water for the Proposed Action. Water used for mining purposes is considered a beneficial use; therefore, ground water quantity is not analyzed further in this EA.

5. Grazing – The Beadles Creek S&G Grazing Allotment was closed to livestock grazing in 1987 with the development of the former Big Springs Mine. The allotment remains

1-7



closed, although livestock is rarely trailed through the allotment along the main road. There would be negligible impacts to livestock grazing.

6. Invasive, Noxious Species - Potential impacts to vegetation communities from the spread or introduction of invasive, noxious species during Project-related activities, which include road building and other surface clearing activities, as well as the potential import of invasive, noxious species on equipment and other motorized vehicles coming into the Project Area that may have been in weed-infested areas. Although contractors and the operator would be required to clean their heavy equipment prior to arrival at the site, a wash bay to clean the undercarriage of heavy equipment prior to use on the site if the equipment has been used in off-road construction projects since the last cleaning. This procedure would aid in the prevention of or spread of noxious weeds. In addition, the Plan implements a noxious weed monitoring and control plan (Anova 2016a) at the direction of the USFS during construction and would continue throughout operations. The results from annual monitoring during mining, reclamation and reclamation monitoring would be the basis for updating the plan and developing annual treatment programs at the direction of the USFS. The USFS would hold a bond to ensure sufficient funds are available to treat noxious weeds after mining is complete if the operator defaults.

7. Native American Concerns - Potential impacts to identified traditional cultural properties and sacred sites as a result of implementation of the Project. No traditional cultural properties or sacred sites have been identified through scoping or tribal consultation. During consultation with the Shoshone-Paiute Tribes of Duck Valley, concerns were raised about the water quality and the Lahontan cutthroat trout (LCT) habitat. Both water quality and LCT habitat are analyzed in this EA. Native American consultation would be ongoing through the analysis period of this EA.

8. Night Skies – Potential impacts to night skies as a result of mining activities and operations. Fixed lighting would be used at the mobile office area to provide illumination. Portable lighting would be used as needed near working faces, and intersections or areas where loading, unloading, or backing of equipment is required. Lighting would be directed onto the pertinent work site only and away from adjacent areas not in use. The operator would utilize lighting measures designed to reduce the impacts to night skies. As a result of this design feature, impacts to night skies will not be further analyzed in this EA.

9. Recreation Resources – Potential impacts to recreation resources in the vicinity of the Project Area from mining surface disturbance. The Recreation Opportunity Spectrum has already been impacted due to the presence of numerous mine pits, roads and regular use of motorized vehicles and equipment in the Project Area. However, reclamation, as described in Section 2.1.10 at the completion of the Project would minimize and possibly improve the visual disturbance over the existing conditions. The Project Area is not located within, nor is adjacent to any designated Wilderness. The nearest USFS Wilderness is approximately 38 miles away at Jarbidge. The Project Area is also not located within the boundaries of an Inventoried Roadless Area. Therefore, there would be negligible impacts to recreation resources. The North Fork road adjacent to the Project would remain open during mining for recreational access.

1-8



10. Soils – Potential impacts to soils such as water or wind erosion associated with the disturbance of 68 acres. The Project would stockpile topsoil from 68 acres of soils located primarily in areas that were disturbed during previous mining operations. Stockpiled soils would be reused for reclamation growth media. Based on the pre-existing mined condition, there would be negligible impacts to soils.

11. Special Status Plant Species – Potential impacts to special status plants from the removal of habitat by heavy equipment and disturbance of individual species associated with human activity. Systematic plant surveys were conducted in and around the Project Area on July 12 and 13 and August 1, 2013. Habitat considered suitable for special status plant species was intensively searched, which included topographic features such as ridgelines, rock outcrops, and drainages. Special status species were discussed in the Biological Evaluation (BE) prepared for the Project. No special status plant species were found during any of the surveys conducted in the Project Area.

12. Vegetation Resources - Potential impacts related to the disturbance of native plant communities associated with trampling, removing, or covering native plant communities with rock or soil with the use of heavy equipment. Project activities include surface disturbance of approximately 68 acres located primarily over areas that were disturbed during previous mining operations and has been partially revegetated. Three native plant vegetation communities were field-verified in the Project Area: 1) Inter-Mountain Basins Montane Sagebrush Steppe; 2) Inter-Mountain Basins Cliff and Canyon; and 3) Rocky Mountain Aspen Forest and Woodland. Up to two acres of these native plant communities would be disturbed by Project activities.

The following environmental concerns were identified as needing analysis in the EA based on public and agency comments provided during scoping for the Project:

13. Geology and Minerals – Potential impacts associated with the removal of mineralized material, seismic activity, stability of slopes, and bench stability in the open pit.

14. Ground Water Quality – Potential impacts associated with ground water quality where mining activities could alter the current quality of the ground water in the Project Area through mining activities or contamination associated with infiltration of meteoric waters in the Waste Rock Disposal Area (WRDA).

15. Surface Water Resources – Potential impacts to surface water bodies within the vicinity of the Project from run off after precipitation events.

16. Special Status Aquatic Species – Potential impacts to sensitive aquatic species LCT (Oncorhynchus clarkii henshawi) and Columbia spotted frog (Rana luteiventris) and their habitat, associated with impacts to the NFHR from mining activities.

17. Special Status Wildlife Species – Potential impacts to special status wildlife species, including greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus), northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis), Townsend’s (Western) big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii), and mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) from the removal of habitat by heavy equipment and/or disturbance of individual species associated with anthropogenic activity and noise.

1-9



18. Migratory Birds - Potential impacts to migratory birds as a result of Project-related surface disturbance during nesting season, which could cause destruction of nests or nestlings. Anova has committed to avoiding the initiation of new ground disturbing activities during the migratory bird nesting and brood-rearing season of May 1st to July 15th, if possible. If seasonal avoidance is not possible, a nest survey would be conducted by a qualified biologist within migratory bird breeding habitat prior to any surface disturbance associated with mining activities during the avian breeding season (May 1 through July 15). If the survey is conducted by a contractor, a copy of the survey would be provided and any nesting activity would be reported to the USFS prior to any surface disturbance. If active nests are located, a protective buffer (the size depending on the habitat requirements of the species) would be determined by the USFS based on best available science and placed around the nests to prevent destruction or disturbance to nests. No ground disturbance would be allowed within an established buffer zone until the birds were no longer actively breeding or rearing young. The start and end dates of the seasonal restriction may be altered due to site-specific information such as elevation and winter weather patterns, which would affect breeding chronology and the presence of the species.

19. Wildlife Resources - Potential impacts to wildlife species and their habitat from the removal of habitat by heavy equipment and/or disturbance of individual species associated with anthropogenic activity and noise.

1-10



2 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES

2.1 Proposed Action

The Project is located on the site of the former Big Springs Mine that was operated by Independence Mining Company Inc. (Independence) between 1986 and 1993. The Big Springs gold deposits were discovered by Freeport Minerals Company and Bull Run Gold Mines Limited in 1982. The operating entity for the mining joint venture was Independence (acquired by AngloGold Ashanti (Nevada) Corp (AGANC) in 1998). Gold production began in 1987 from the Mac Ridge Pit and progressed through seven other pits until the mine closed in 1993. A portion of the near-surface ore was treated by heap leach, but the majority of the gold was contained in refractory, sulfide-rich ore that was milled and subjected to an oxidizing roast before treatment in a carbon-in-leach plant off site, near the Doheny Ranch on private land. Following mine closure the pits and waste rock dumps were reclaimed according to the Plan of Operations. Independence allowed the Big Springs mining claims to lapse once mining was completed, and the area was subsequently staked by Geological Services Inc., in November 2001. Gateway Gold (USA) Corporation (Gateway) acquired a 100 percent interest in the mining claims in 2002 and conducted extensive exploration programs, including 161,000 feet of reverse circulation and diamond drilling between 2003 and 2006. In 2008 Victoria Gold Corporation (Victoria) acquired Gateway, then in February 2013 Anova acquired the Project mining claims and data from Victoria. Reclamation and closure work, including extensive monitoring, has continued at the site since 1993. The Project consists of mining and transport activities and would be located almost exclusively in areas that were disturbed during previous mining operations. The Project includes the following activities and facilities:

One open pit (601 Pit), including moraine water diversion ditch; Moraine water infiltration basin (MWIB) located downgradient of the 601 Pit; Underground mine beneath the proposed 601 Pit and existing 701 Pit, and associated

infrastructure; Temporary storage of glacial moraine material stripped from the 601 Pit area to be used

as backfill for the 601 Pit and as an evapotranspiration cover for the WRDA; WRDA within the extents of the existing North and Thumb pits; Ore stockpile facility; Trucking of ore off site for processing at an existing third-party facility; Growth media, auxiliary and spoil stockpiles; Mobile mine operations facilities; Explosives magazine; Access and haul roads, including the use and maintenance of CR 732/FSR 473; Water pipelines and associated infrastructure; Storm water and sediment control structures; and Mine office and main water source on private land at the Doheny Ranch.

A layout of the proposed mining activities associated with the Project are shown on Figure 2.1.1.

2-1

!!

!!

!! !!

!!

!!

!!!!

!!!! !! !!

!!

!!

!!

")

")

!(!(

!(!(

!(

"S

")$+"J!(!(

"S

!(!(

!(!(

!(

$+!(!(

!

!

!!

!

! !

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

303 Pit

701 Pit

601 Pit

131 Pit

SWX Pit

SouthSammyPit

NorthSammyPit

401 Pit

North Pit

MW-6

MW-2

BSMW-7s BSMW-7d

BSMW-9

BSMW-8

BSMW-2sBSMW-2d

BSMW-1sBSMW-1d

AWVRC-004AWVDD-003

AWVDD-002

AWVDD-001

BSMW-13

BSPW-12

BSMW-11 BSMW-10

T43N R53ET42N R53E

35 36

2 1

2 1

11 12

Contractor's Mobile

FacilitiesParking

OreStockpile

TemporaryMoraineStockpile

Wash Bay

Mobile Fuel Farm

Water Handling Sediment SettlingPond

Loading and TruckTurnaround Area

AuxiliaryStockpile

NorthFork

Humbold

t River

NF Roa

d 473

INPAD

LWC

701WC

HRL1

HRS

LCB

TAB

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

ElyReno

Elko

Tonopah

Las Vegas

Winnemucca

Carson City

Battle Mountain

$0 200 400Feet

ExplanationProject Area

Historical Pit OutlineHistorical 601 Pit

Existing Disturbance, Partially Reclaimed

! Existing Monitor Well Forest Service Road 473

TrackNorth ForkHumboldt River

") Pit Portal

$+ Air Vent

"J Ventilation Generator

") Magazine

"S Standpipe!( Water Tank

Catchment Basin

Catchment Basin (lined)Catch Basin Spoil Pile

Moraine Infiltration Channel

Moraine Infiltration Channel - Cut and Fill ExtentTemporary Moraine Stockpile

Auxiliary Stockpile Area

Growth Media Stockpile (GMS)

WRDAInfrastructure Pad (Yard)

Liner

Ore Stockpile

Facilities DitchWash Bay

Sediment Basin (lined)

Water TreatmentOil/Water Separator

Mobile Fuel Farm

Mobile Facility

Truck Access RoadHaul Road

601 Pit Design

Water Supply Pipeline!! Infrastructure Pad Pipeline

Catchment Basin Cut and Fill Extents

Moraine Infiltration Basin Cut and Fill ExtentsMoraine Ditch

Storm Water Ditch - Proposed

Culvert

BermHaul Road

Access to 701 Mine Portal

Access from County Road601 Pit Design

U. S. FOREST SERVICEBIG SPRINGS MINE PROJECT

09/08/2016

Existing Disturbance and General Facilities Layout within the Project Area

Figure 2.1.1



2.1.1 Estimated Disturbance Acreage

Table 2.1-1 summarizes the proposed Project surface disturbance, all of which is located on NFS lands within the Project Area. The surface disturbance includes all areas proposed for use during the Project and does not deduct existing disturbance by previous operators (Figure 2.1.1). The disturbance, for permitting purposes, makes sufficient allowance for minor design modifications, engineering refinements to the open pit perimeters, and haul/access road realignments that may be required as a result of actual field conditions. In addition, allowance has also been made for disturbance associated with construction and reclamation activities.

Table 2.1-1: Proposed Surface Disturbance within the Project Area

Component Proposed Surface Disturbance (acres)

601 Pit 10.8 Basins (Unlined)1 3.5 Basins (Lined) 0.4 Infrastructure Pad (Unlined) 2.7 Infrastructure Pad (Lined) 5.8 Foundations2 0.05 Stockpiles3 11.4 Haul Roads4 19.5 Truck Access Road 1.9 Ditches 2.5 WRDA 9.4 Magazine 0.07 Total 68.02

1Includes moraine water infiltrations basin 2Includes facilities constructed with concrete slabs (i.e., wash bay concrete vault, oil-water separator concrete slab, wash down overflow sump, and wash bay concrete perimeter wall) 3Includes spoil, growth media, temporary moraine and auxiliary stockpiles 4Includes integrated storm water ditches

2.1.2 Operation Time Frame

The duration of the proposed mining operation is anticipated to be approximately two years, which includes construction and pre-stripping. Pre-production stripping and construction is anticipated to begin in late 2016. Mining is anticipated to be completed in 2018 or 2019. Reclamation, site closure activities, and post-closure monitoring would continue for an additional three years, or more if required. The exact time frames are subject to adjustment and may be influenced by economic, commercial, regulatory and operational factors.

2.1.3 Work Force

The mine is scheduled to operate on one 12-hour shift per day, 365 days per year for approximately two years. The estimated staffing requirement during active mining operations for the Project is 24 employees for the first year and 22 during the second year of operations, as shown in Table 2.1-2.

The general and administration staff includes administration, technical (three employees) and safety and environmental (one employee). These employees would likely be salaried and work a

2-3



40-hour per week schedule, Monday through Friday. Mine Operations staff would be employed by the mine contractor and consist of operations employees such as excavator operators, jumbo and air-leg rock drill operators, haul truck drivers, dozer and grader drivers, drillers and maintenance crews such as electricians, mechanics, and welders. Operations and maintenance crews would operate one 12-hour shift per day, seven days a week.

Table 2.1-2: Anticipated Mine Staffing Requirements

Category Year 1 (Number of Employees) Year 2 (Number of Employees) General and Administration 4 4 Mine Operations 14 12 Transport Operations 6 6 Total 24 22

The Project workforce would be housed locally outside NFS lands. Vehicle carpooling to the Project is assumed with an average of four people per car, resulting in approximately six round trips per day. The highest volume of trips would be between 6:00 am and 7:00 am and 6:00 pm and 8:00 pm. At all times, workforce traffic would be less than ten trips per hour.

2.1.4 Mining Operations

Anova plans to mine material from the 601 Pit and from new underground operations to be developed beneath the 601 Pit and the existing 701 Pit, to truck ore to a stockpile facility, to haul bedrock waste to the WRDA for permanent storage and to haul glacial moraine overburden from the 601 Pit to a temporary stockpile. The approximately 370 feet deep 601 Pit and two underground mines would be completed above the local water table. No pit lake or saturated underground conditions are expected.

2.1.4.1 601 Open Pit

The 601 Pit was previously pre-stripped by Independence in 1992; however, bedrock mining did not proceed due to unsuccessful engineering design, and the overburden was placed back into the pit. Anova intends to reopen the 601 Pit by conventional open pit mining methods using trucks and excavators to extract ore and waste rock. Drilling and blasting would be used as required to fracture rock prior to excavation.

Waste rock from the open pit would consist of two material types: 1) 0.76 million tons (Mt) of overburden comprised of glacial moraine; and 2) 1.55 Mt of in-pit bedrock. The glacial moraine material would be hauled from the pit and temporarily stockpiled north of the 601 Pit at the temporary moraine stockpile (Figure 2.1.1).

The 601 Pit is expected to be fully mined within the first year of operation. The peak mining rate for ore and waste would be approximately 25,000 tons per day (tpd). A total of approximately 2.55 Mt of rock (ore and waste), which includes approximately 0.23 Mt of ore, would be mined from the 601 Pit.

Ore would be loaded into haul trucks and transported to the ore stockpile located in an area that was utilized for ore crushing operations during previous operations (Figure 2.1.1). The ore would subsequently be trucked off site, using highway-rated covered trucks, for processing at a third party facility.

2-4



At the conclusion of mining, the operator would backfill the pit with approximately 0.57 Mt (341,000 cubic yards [yd3]) of moraine from the temporary moraine stockpile.

A comprehensive geotechnical evaluation has been completed by Practical Mining LLC of Elko, Nevada (Appendix C of the Mine Plan) (Practical Mining LLC 2015). The study utilized all available information including historical core holes, recent geotechnical drilling completed by Anova and pit mapping completed by Practical Mining LLC staff. The study recommends inter-ramp pit slopes of between 45 and 60 degrees for bedrock and 26 degrees for the glacial moraine overburden. Composite bench heights would be up to 60 feet and the width of catch benches would vary between 13 and 25 feet.

2.1.4.2 Underground Mining

Since the orebody is a combination of ore shoots with differing orientations, the underground mine would be developed using a combination of room-and-pillar, and cut-and-fill extraction methods to follow the irregular location of ore bodies. Approximately 105,000 tons of ore would be mined from underground operations.

Access to the 601 and 701 underground orebodies would be from two decline portals, to be established within the 601 and 701 Pits. The declines would serve as access and haul routes and intersect the base of the 601 and 701 orebodies. Declines would measure 15 feet wide, 17 feet high, and 800 and 1,000 feet long, respectively, at a 15 percent decline.

Bedrock waste generated from underground development of the 601 and 701 orebodies would total approximately 30,000 tons. Bedrock waste may be temporarily stockpiled in the completed 601 Pit and/or the historical 701 Pit and used as backfill or ground support during the latter stages of mining. No bedrock waste from underground workings would be placed on the WRDA.

The underground mine portals in the 601 and 701 Pits would be excavated by 30-foot cuts to produce highwalls with a 1 horizontal (H):1 vertical (V) slope. The slope would be stabilized with rock anchors and with chain-link fabric and sealant approved by the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA). Access to the decline portal surface location in the 701 Pit would be on the proposed road shown on Figure 2.1.1. The 601 Pit portal decline is also shown on Figure 2.1.1.

All mine openings, when not in use, would be secured with locked gates or grates to ensure public safety.

All underground ore would be transported to the surface through the main access and haulage declines and placed on the ore stockpile at the infrastructure pad. After mine development is completed and all sections of the underground mine are at full production, the mine’s objective is to achieve maximum ore production of approximately 24,000 tons per month. This would be accomplished with six to nine miners, one mechanic, and one supervisor working one shift per day.

The proposed mine operations would be required to comply with stringent safety and health standards administered by the MSHA through federal regulations at 30 CFR Parts 1 through 199 and, in particular, Part 57. These MSHA regulations include requirements for ground support

2-5



systems, mine ventilation, electrical systems, combustible fluid storage, underground shops, equipment specifications and maintenance, explosives storage and handling, dust control, monitoring and reporting requirements, alarm systems, worker personal safety equipment, and restrictions for public access. To comply with these standards, Anova would be required to obtain the necessary MSHA mine permit and an MSHA-approved miner training plan, escape and evacuation plan, and ventilation plan.

Ventilation fans would be located underground to force fresh air through the mine whenever workers are present. The combination of at least two interconnected openings and underground fans would provide adequate airflow to meet the requirements of the ventilation plan to be submitted to MSHA.

A ventilation raise/secondary escape would be established with its opening in the floor of the previously disturbed existing 701 Pit (Figure 2.1.1). The access road to the vent hole would be across the bottom of the 701 Pit. The vent raise/secondary escape associated with the 601 underground mining area would be established with an opening approximately 70 feet into the decline. Both vent systems would be designed to allow for secondary escape and would be submitted to MSHA for review and approval.

A Batch Plant, if needed, would be placed in the 701 Pit on existing disturbance near the decline portal. Anova would work with the USFS and the BAPC on the placement of the Batch Plant if it is deemed necessary.

2.1.4.3 Production Schedule

Table 2.1-3 through Table 2.1-5 show the proposed potential production schedules for the Project. Peak material handling rates would occur in the first year of production at 25,000 tpd.

Table 2.1-3: Open Pit Production Schedule

Year Ore (tons)

Hard Waste (tons)

Moraine Waste (tons)

Total Volume

(yd3)

Total Tons

1@ 2 months1 91,581 260,797 402,067 399,351 754,445 1@ 4 months2 160,203 672,429 651,646 686,860 1,484,278 1@ 6 months3 234,038 1,553,399 763,865 1,205,271 2,551,301

Total Mined 2,551,301 1Cumulative numbers after 2 months in Year 1 2Cumulative numbers after 4 months in Year 1 3Cumulative numbers after 6 months in Year 1

2-6



Table 2.1-4: Underground Production Schedule

Year Ore (Tons)

Grade (Ounce Per

Ton)

Waste (Tons) Total Tons

Waste to Ore Ratio

1 - - - - -2 105,000 0.156 30,000 135,000 0.3

Total 105,000 0.156 30,000 135,000 0.3

Table 2.1-5: Combined Production Schedule

Year Ore (Tons)

Grade (Ounce Per

Ton)

Waste (Tons) Total Tons

Waste to Ore Ratio

1 234,038 0.126 2,317,264 2,551,301 9.9 2 105,000 0.156 30,000 135,000 0.3

Total/Average 339,038 0.135 2,347,264 2,686,301 6.9

2.1.5 Equipment and Vehicles

The indicative equipment fleet that would be used at the Project for mining operations is shown below in Table 2.1-6. The actual fleet may vary depending on equipment availability and model variations provided by manufacturers.

Table 2.1-6: Proposed Mining Operations Equipment Fleet

Equipment Type Number of Units Size/Capacity

Frequency of Use

Atlas DM25 (Ore & Waste) 1 450 horsepower, 4” to 7” hole diameter, 50-foot hole depth Daily

Cat 385C Excavator 1 530 horsepower, 7 cubic yards Daily Cat 992K Loader 1 801 horsepower, 14.4 cubic yards Daily Cat R1300G Loader 1 165 horsepower, 4 cubic yards Daily Komatsu HD465 Dump Truck 4 551 horsepower, 60 ton Daily Cat AD30 Dump Truck 2 408 horsepower, 33 ton Daily Cat D10T Dozer 1 580 horsepower, 146,500 pounds, U-blade Daily Cat 16H Motor Grader 1 270 horsepower, 16-foot blade Daily Sandvik DD210 Jumbo Drill 1 100 horsepower Daily Atlas Copco DM25 Drill 1 425 horsepower Daily Volvo A25 Water Truck 2 244 horsepower, 8,000-gallon tank Daily

Fuel/Lube Truck 1 33,000-pound 6x4, 1,500-gallon diesel tank with lube and evacuation tanks Daily

Mechanics Truck 1 Ford F750 with crane, welder, and compressor Daily

Caterpillar 236B2 Skid Steer 1 71 horsepower, 68” wide bucket Daily Caterpillar TL1055 Telehandler 1 119 horsepower 10,000-pound lift capacity As needed Pick-up Trucks 10 ¾ ton Daily Fork lift; 5,000 pound 1 63 horsepower, 5,000-pound lift capacity Daily ANFO Loading truck 1 Contractor supplied Weekly

2-7



2.1.6 Structures

Structures and facilities proposed for the Project (Figure 2.1.1) include the following:

Mine operations facilities, as described; Power generators; Magazine; and Water supply conveyance and storage facilities.

2.1.6.1 Mine Operations Facilities

See Section 2.1.12 for details of the mine operations facilities.

2.1.6.2 Power Generators

See Section 2.1.18.2 for details of the proposed power supply.

2.1.6.3 Magazine

See Section 2.1.17 for details of the proposed surface magazine.

2.1.6.4 Water Supply Conveyance and Storage Facilities

See Section 2.1.9 for details of the proposed water supply and Appendix K of the Mine Plan (Engineering Design Report) for storage facilities and conveyance.

2.1.7 Drilling and Blasting

The mining operation would require the use of contractor drilling equipment for drilling, blasting, grade control, ore body extension and development, and hydrology and geotechnical investigations, during the life of the mine.

Surface mining would require drilling using a diesel-powered blast hole drill rig. Drilling for underground mining would require use of a jumbo drill rig. Ammonium nitrate and fuel oil (ANFO) would be the primary explosive used for blasting. ANFO would be delivered to the mine in bulk by the blasting contractor on an as needed basis. If wet drill holes are encountered, emulsions, emulsion slurries, or packaged explosives may be used.

Explosives would be handled by the licensed contractors and stored off site or temporarily on site in blasting magazines in compliance with applicable Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (BATF), and MSHA regulations. Federal, state, and county roads/highways would be used to transport explosives and other mining materials.

Caps, boosters, and explosives would be transported to the drill site as needed. Non-electric caps, delays, and cords would be used to initiate blasts in conjunction with trinitrotoluene (TNT) boosters, as is typical practice in open pit mines. All blast holes would be stemmed with drill cuttings or crushed rock to confine the blasting agent for maximum effectiveness, minimizing fly rock and over-pressure, and therefore surface noise. Blasting operations would be conducted

2-8



weekly and would be limited to daylight hours, typically between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., under the supervision of certified blasters employed by licensed contractors in compliance with the strict safety procedures as required by the MSHA. Ore and waste material would be routinely drilled and blasted on approximate 20-foot mining benches. Other bench heights may be used depending on the blasting requirements, ore distribution characteristics, and geotechnical considerations. The primary drilling pattern for four-inch diameter blast holes would have a hole spacing of ten feet by ten feet. Based on a Powder Factor of eight tons of rock broken per pound of blasting agent, approximately two tons of ANFO would be used per week, or eight tons per month, during the first year of mining. Approximately five tons of ANFO per week, or 20 tons per month, would be used during the second year of mining. Access to blasting areas would be restricted to authorized personnel only, who would follow strict safety and communication procedures.

For underground mining non-electric caps, delays and cords would be used to initiate blasts in conjunction with TNT boosters, as is the typical practice in underground mines. Best blasting practices and timing procedures would be employed to minimize off-site ground vibrations, as measured by peak particle velocity, to prevent damage to surface structures.

Blasting operations for underground mining would be conducted as required, typically between shifts and under supervision of the Mine Supervisor. During decline development, a temporary surface magazine would be installed on Beadles Ridge to store blasting caps and boosters. Once underground mining has suitably progressed, blasting caps and boosters would be stored in secure magazines located in an underground storage area.

2.1.8 Ore Transport

Ore would be transported from the ore stockpile by a loader to trucks with double side-dump trailers totaling 40 tons. Ore would be transferred to an off-site third party ore processing facility via CR 732/FSR 473 to Mountain City Highway. Ore trucks would be covered at all times, except for loading and unloading, using a tarpaulin or other suitable mechanism to reduce the potential for fugitive dust. Trucking would occur between 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., up to seven days a week. There would be up to six trucks operating with each truck completing up to five round trips along CR 732/FSR 473 and Mountain City Highway, for a maximum of 30 round trips per day.

2.1.9 Water Supply and Usage

It is estimated that the Project’s water requirements would be approximately 210 acre-feet per year with a maximum volume of approximately 25 acre-feet per month with a peak delivery flow of 200 gallons per minute (gpm). A water supply system would be established to accommodate both the peak delivery rate and the total monthly supply requirement.

The source of water would be a combination of the BSW #2 (NDWR Permit 82956), and the 601 Pit sump (NDWR Permit 84747 – pending) and would be derived from separate aquifers. During the initial stages of development water would be sourced from BSW #2, while water extracted from the 601 Pit sump would supplement the contribution of water from BSW #2 once mining has sufficiently advanced and the proposed pit sump starts to produce water.

2-9



The location and permitted allocations of water intended for use at the Project are described below. NDWR Permit 82956 is held by AGANC and Anova has an agreement with AGANC to extract water from the well under that permit.

BSW #2 is located at 41 degrees (°) 34 minutes (') 26.08 seconds (") N, 115° 54' 44.93"W, 4.5 miles east of the Project, on private land, near the point where CR 732 (FSR 473) enters the HTNF (Doheny Ranch). This well has an annual allocation of 281.72 acre-feet with a permitted use of Mining and Milling (NDWR Permit 82956).

601 Pit Sump, to be located inside the proposed 601 Pit, to collect any storm water or ground water seepage, at or near 41° 33ʹ 36.93ʺ N, 115° 58ʹ 6.04ʺ W. An Application for Permit to Appropriate Water (NDWR Permit 84747) was filed with NDWR in January 2015.

Water from BSW #2 would be trucked from Doheny Ranch to the Project Area. The volume of water extracted from BSW #2 would gradually be supplemented by water from the 601 Pit sump as mining advances. Water from the 601 Pit sump would be piped to holding tanks and a standpipe to be located immediately north of the 601 Pit.

The pipeline alignment would follow existing roads (Figure 2.1.1). All water pipelines would be buried 36 inches deep where practical to prevent freezing and damage.

Water for the wash bay would be stored in water tanks located next to the wash bay. Water would be delivered to the holding tanks by a water truck.

Potable water would be transported to the site by a local contractor from Elko for use as drinking water on the property. The estimated quantity of required non-potable water generated from BSW #2 and the 601 Pit sump for the various uses on NFS land is shown in Table 2.1-7.

Table 2.1-7: Estimated Project Non-Potable Water Requirements

Water Use Estimated Daily Use in Winter During Peak Development (Gallons) Estimated Daily Use in Summer During

Peak Development (Gallons) Dust Control 83,000 232,000 Infrastructure Pad* 1,000 1,000

*Includes Wash Bay and allocation for portable toilets

2.1.10 Water Management

Best Management Practices (BMPs) including those applicable with the Forest Service National BMP program would be used to limit erosion and reduce sediment in precipitation runoff from Project facilities and disturbed areas during construction, operations, and initial stages of reclamation. BMPs may include, but are not limited to, diversion and routing of storm water using accepted engineering practices, such as diversion ditches, and the placement of erosion control devices, such as sediment traps, and rock and gravel cover. Anova would apply adaptive management techniques as necessary and appropriate and ensure that an engineering consultant and/or trained/certified environmental professional is present during BMP monitoring to respond to environmental issues.

2-10



As described in Section 6.2.2 of the Project Storm Water Management Plan (Anova 2016b), Anova would have a designated Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) Coordinator. The SWMP Coordinator would oversee routine weekly, as well as pre-storm inspections of erosion and sediment control measures along with any other installed protective measures. Prior to a predicted major storm event and within 24 hours after a major storm event (rainfall in excess of one inch falls during a consecutive 24-hour period), all unstabilized areas of the site would be inspected by the SWMP Coordinator or his designate. Inspection areas would include all erosion and sediment control devices, structural and temporary BMPs, material and equipment storage areas, and construction areas where control devices have not yet been installed. An inspection report would be completed after each inspection. Inspection logs would be maintained at the main office on-site as an addition to the SWMP for a period of three years. These inspection logs would be signed by the SWMP Coordinator or his designate.

Visual inspections of the operational area would be performed routinely (approximately on a weekly basis) during all phases of the Project. The inspection would be conducted by the operations department to verify that the site is free of debris and that any temporary storm water BMPs are in good working order. Inspection reports would be completed by operations personnel when storm water control structures, BMPs, or other storm water problems are identified. Should problems be identified, Anova would apply additional BMPs as necessary and appropriate.

Should BMPs related to storm water management outside the Project Area (e.g. along CR 732/FSR 473) be required and result in additional surface disturbance, Anova would consult with the appropriate federal agencies as locations are identified to determine if there is a need for site-specific cultural resource, botanical, and wildlife surveys. Surveys deemed necessary and appropriate would be completed prior to implementing these BMPs related to storm water management.

2.1.10.1 Storm Water Management

Practical Mining LLC of Elko, Nevada, was engaged to design a comprehensive storm water management system capable of containing runoff that may be generated in the Project Area by a 24-hour/100-year storm event as defined by the federal National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in its NOAA Atlas 14 (the 100-year storm) (NOAA 2011). The water management system consists of a series of storm water ditches that have been designed to divert runoff into two unlined water collection basins (the Lower Cumulative Basin [LCB] and the Truck Access Basin [TAB]) located near the northern boundary of the Project and a lined water collection basin and sediment basin located on the infrastructure pad.

Water collected in unlined basins would be infiltrated and evaporated. With the exception of suspended sediment, the quality of surface water discharging to the unlined basins is expected to be of similar quality to other surface waters discharging to the NFHR. Sediment that settles in the unlined basins would be periodically removed from the basins to maintain both storage capacity and infiltration characteristics. The LCB and TAB both have been designed with additional capacity beyond what is required to contain the runoff generated by a 100-year storm. Both basins have been designed with overflow outlets armored with riprap to protect the embankment from erosion in the unlikely event that the basins’ capacity is exceeded.

2-11



Water collected in the lined infrastructure basin would be evaporated and/or trucked off-site for proper disposal as approved by the NDEP BMRR. Monitoring of the lined water collection basin would be conducted in accordance with the Water Pollution Control Permit (WPCP) (NEV2015103) issued by NDEP BMRR. In addition, a hydrocarbon suite analysis would be completed prior to disposal.

Where appropriate, basins may contain an access ramp for a front-end loader to periodically remove sediments, which would be analyzed to determine if they can be used as a growth media, or placed in the WRDA. Alternatively, sediments may be placed in dumpsters and disposed of off site at an approved facility.

Ditches would primarily have trapezoidal profiles with three-foot wide bottoms and side slopes at 1:1.5. All ditches have been designed with rip-rap check dams in reaches that have an average slope of greater than one percent. Check dam spacing would be based on ditch slope and would regulate the maximum water velocity to less than 5.5 feet per second. An existing surface water diversion structure located south and outside of the defined Project Area would be relied upon to continue to divert potential surface water run-on away from areas intended for disturbance under the current proposed Project.

The water management system would be constructed in accordance with BMPs outlined in the Best Management Practices Handbook (Nevada Environmental Commission 1994), BMPs outlined in the National Best Management Practices for Water Quality Management on National Forest System Land (USFS 2012), and Anova’s Storm Water Management Plan (Appendix E of the Mine Plan) and Engineering Design Report (Appendix K of the Mine Plan).

Storm water control structures would routinely be monitored and maintained as specified in Appendix E of the Mine Plan. Anova would monitor the effectiveness of its storm water management system through the collection of water quality data as specified in the WPCP (NEV2015103).

2.1.10.2 Moraine Water Management

Mining of the 601 Pit in 1992 was abandoned due to Independence’s inability to control water in the pit using bedrock dewatering wells. Based on geological modeling and aquifer testing completed by Anova and its hydrological consultant, a new model has been developed to explain the previous operator’s failed pit water management attempts. Anova believes that water flow into the pit encountered by the previous operator was from the glacial moraine aquifer. A detailed discussion of the proposed model and test results supporting this is presented in Appendix D of the Mine Plan.

Practical Mining LLC of Elko, Nevada, was contracted to design a system capable of intercepting, diverting and re-infiltrating the seasonal snow melt that saturates the moraine above the bedrock and flows northward along the bedrock paleo-valley under hydrostatic pressure. The Moraine Water Management System is comprised of two principal components namely the Moraine Water Collection Ditch (MWCD) and the MWIB.

The MWCD has been designed to intercept and divert water from the moraine aquifer to the MWIB located north and downgradient of the pit. The MWCD would be located inside the 601

2-12



Pit in moraine on the northern portion of the pit and in bedrock in the south and eastern portion of the pit. The MWIB would be located approximately 300 feet north of the proposed 601 Pit on the west flank of Beadles Ridge just above the eastern margin of the Lower Water Canyon (LWC) WRDA. The basin would be excavated in native glacial till with cut material to be placed on the western and northern margins of the basin as embankments. A small emergency overflow ditch at the north end of the basin would protect the embankment from erosion in the unlikely event that the basin’s capacity is exceeded. Water from the overflow would be diverted into the site drainage system downgradient from the MWIB. A storm water ditch located upgradient from the 601 Pit would intercept and divert storm water around the margin of the proposed pit and would discharge into the MWIB. The Moraine Water Management System has been designed with sufficient capacity to intercept and divert the entire subsurface glacial moraine flow, as well as potential concurrent runoff and direct precipitation that may be generated as a result of a 100-year storm.

2.1.11 Waste Rock Disposal

Waste rock and overburden from the operation would be stored in three locations:

1. Shallow glacial moraine surficial overburden stripped from 601 Pit would be temporarily stored close to the 601 Pit for later use in reclamation of the pit and WRDA at closure. Oversized fractions would be disposed of in the 601 Pit at closure.

2. Deeper open pit bedrock waste rock would be trucked to the WRDA; 3. Decline development waste rock from the underground mine would be temporarily stored

in the new 601 Pit and/or existing 701 Pit, to be used for backfill and ground support in the underground mine.

Anova plans to establish the WRDA within the existing partially backfilled North Pit and Thumb Pit, which were constructed during previous operations at the Big Springs Mine in the 1980s. The proposed mining activities would result in emplacement of 1.7 Mt of waste rock (including moraine used in reclamation) in the WRDA (Figure 2.1.1). Existing ground water monitoring wells within Thumb Pit would be progressively extended upwards, using lengths of steel casing, as the WRDA increases in height. The protruding casing would be progressively buttressed using waste rock to protect against damage by trucks or earthmoving equipment.

A haul road and associated storm water ditch would be established as a spur from the main 601 Pit haul road. Waste would primarily be end-dumped from the north and buttressed against the walls of the North and Thumb pits. The slope of the advancing face of the WRDA would be at the angle of repose or approximately 35 degrees or 1.4H:1V during construction. As the WRDA advances to the south, the western face of the WRDA would progressively be re-sloped to the final slope angle of 2.5H:1V.

2-13


Big Springs

Big Springs Mine Project Environmental...

Documents

Transcript of Big Springs Mine Project Environmental...