Vernon-Sheeprock Mtns USFS unita EA

8/14/2019 Vernon-Sheeprock Mtns USFS unita EA

1/107

USDA=-

United StatesDepartment ofAgricultureForestServicen. ,United StatesDepartment of theInteriorOffice of SurfaceMining, Reclamationand Enforcement

EnvironmentalAssessmentVernon Sheeprocks Project

U.S. Forest ServiceSpanish Fork Ranger District, Uinta National ForestSpanish Fork, UtahU.S. Office of Surface Mining, Reclamation and EnforcementDenver Field OfficeDenver, Colorado

Utah Division of Oil, Gas and MiningAbandoned Mine Reclamation ProgramSalt Lake City , Utah


2/107


3/107

Environmental Assessment01131105

Table of ContentsVernon Sheeprocks Project

Summary .... .. .. ........ .. .. .. .. .. ...... .. .. .. .. .. ...... .. .. .. .. .. ... ... .... .... .. .. .. ... .. .... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ...... .. .. ... . iIntroduction ...... ... .... .. .. ..., . .. .. ..... ...... .. .. .. .. .. ...... .... ... ... ...... .. .. .. ... ........ .. .. .. .. ...... .. .. .. .. .. .. 1Document Structure .................................... ...................... ......................... ......... .......................... 1Background ..................... ........... ............. .... ....... .. ....................... .... ....... .. ........... .... ....... .. ............ 2Purpose and Need for Action ...... .. ....................... .. ........... ..... ........................ ....... ......... u .. ..... .. .. . 3Proposed Action ..................................................... .. ........................................................ ............ 4Decision Framework .............................................. .. ........ ........................ ........................ ........ .... 4Public Involvement ............. ....................... ...... ............. ....................................... ........... ........ ... 5h ~ s .. ..... ... ......... .. ................................... ....................... ............................................................. 5Alternatives, including the Proposed Action ... ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .... .. .. .. .. ... ... .. .. .. .. .7Altematives ................................... ............................... ................ .............. .. ........ .... ......" ... .... .. .. . 7Mitigation Common to All Altematives ....................... ................ ....................... .. ........._ . ........ 12Comparison of Altematives ............ ..................... ..... .............................................................. .... 13Altematives Considered Bu t Not Given Detailed Study .......................... .... ........ . .. ......... ........... 14Environmental Consequences ... ... ..... ........ .. ...... ...... .. .. ...... ........ .. ...... ...... .. .. ............. 15Historic & Cultural Resources ....... ................. .............. .... ...... ......................................... .......... 15Fish & Wildlife Resources .. ........... ............ .......... ... ..... ...... .......... ....................... .. ......... u ....... . 17Hydrology ... ......................................................................... ....................................................... 21Vegetation .............................. ................. .... .......... .. .................... .... ........................................... 25Recreational Resource Values ........ ............ ..... ..... .... .... ...... .......... ....................... .... ......... .. ..... .. . 28LandUse .. .. .. .................... ........... ........................ .... ............................... .. ..... ...... .... ....... .. .......... 30Air Quality ............................... ...... .. ......... .. .... ..... ........... . .. ......................... ......... ........... .... ..... .. .31Noise ......... ............................................... .... ........ .... ................................ .... ...............................31Hazardous/Solid Wastes ................... ...... ...... ...................... ............................................ ...... ... 32Social/Economic Issues .. ................ ............. ............. ........... ........... .. ........................ ......... .. ... .... 32Cumulative Effects ........... ............................................................ ................. ............................. 33


4/107

Environmental A$sessrnent01131105

Vernon Sheeprocks Project


5/107

Environmental Assessment01131/05

SUMMARY


TIle Uinta National Forest and the u.s. Office of Surface Mining (acting through theUtah Division ofOil, Gas and Mining, Abandoned Mine Reclamation Program) proposeto abate physical safety hazards and remediate environmental problems at abandonedhardrock metal mines in the Sheeprock Mountains. The project area is located insoutheast Tooele County about 40 miles south of Tooele and directly south ofVernon onthe central spine of the Sheeprock Mountains. It is on the Vernon Division of theWasatch National Forest but is administered by the Spanish Fork Ranger District, UintaNational Forest, Utah. This action is needed because the abandoned mines are hazardousand diminish the quality of the watershed.TIle proposed action may affect cultural and natural resources in several ways : culturalresources, including some propelties eligible for the National Register, may be altered orobliterated; some special status anintal or plant species may be disturbed; vegetation willbe uprooted or trampled; and there may be an increased risk of soil erosion untilvegetation gets reestablished. In all cases the disturbance should be localized and ofshort duration-- only about ten acres of ground distributed over about twenty square mileswill be affected, occupancy time may range from a few hours to a few days at anylocation. Adverse effects have been managed through project design and mitigationmeasures to minimize their severity. On the positive side, water quality (expressed asconcentrations of dissolved metals) should improve and public safety should beenhanced.In addition to the proposed action, the Forest Service also evaluated the followingalternatives: No Action: The Spanish Fork Ranger District and the u.s. Office ofSUIface Mining


6/107

Environmental A$sessrnent01131105



7/107

Environmental Assessmen(01131 /05 Vernon Sheeprocks Project

INTRODUCTIONDocument Structure ______________The Utah Division of Oil, Gas and Mining, Abandoned Mine Reclamation Program(UDOGM/AMRP) and the U.S. Forest Service have prepared this EnvironmentalAssessment in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) andother relevant Federal and State laws and regulations . This Environmental Assessmentdiscloses the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts that would resultfrom the proposed action and alternatives. The document is organized into four parts: Introduction: The section includes information on the history of he project proposal,the purpose of and need for the project, and the agency 's proposal for achieving thatpurpose and need. 1111s section also details how the Forest Service informed the

public ofthe proposal and how the public responded. Comparison ofAlternatives, including the Proposed Action: 111is section provides amore detailed description of the agency 's proposed action as well as alternative

methods for achieving the stated purpose. These alternatives were.developed based onsignificant issues raised by the public and other agencies. Tins discussion alsoincludes possible mitigation measures. Finally, this section provides a summary tableof the environmental consequences assooiated with each alternative.

Environmental Consequences : This section describes the envirolllnental effects ofimplementing the proposed action and other alternatives. This analysis is organizedby resource element. Within each section, the affected environment is described first,followed by the effects of the No Action Alternative that provides a baseline forevaluation lind comparison of the other alternatives that follow. Agencies andPersons Consulted: This section provides a list of pre parers andagencies consulted during the development ofthe environmental assessment.


8/107


Vernon S/'Ieeprocks Project

Background ___________________________________In 1995 the UDOGM /AMRP inventoried abandoned mines in the Vernon Sheeprocksproject area as part of a statewide inventory of abandoned mines on National ForestSystem (NFS) lands for the Forest Service Intermountain Region. TIle inventory locatedthe mines and identified mine-related problems. Since then the UDOGMIAMRP and theForest Service have selected the Vernon Sheeprocks project area as a priority forreclamation.UDOGMIAMRP and the Forest Service have entered into a Participating Agreement(#FS-O1PA-11D46000-006) that makes funds available to UDOGMIAMRP for thepurposes of watershed restoration and enhancement on National Forest system landsaffected by past mining operations. These Forest Service funds for environmentalremediation supplement the UDOGMIAMRP 's traditional primary flUlding sources oftheU.S . Office of Surface Mining and State ofUtah legislative appropriations, which arerestricted to safety hazard abatement for noncoal abandoned mines, and make possible abroader scope of reclamation work. UDOGMIAMRP will use funds from all threesources for different portions ofthe project in accordance with their respective purposes .2003 Uinta National Forest Land and Resources Management Plan (Forest Plan): l1wForest Plan establishes a long-range program for management of natural resources. Itprovides direction, goals, and criteria for management to use in responding to publicissues and management concerns. Direction set forth in the Forest Plan relevant to thisanalysis is summarized below:

Forestwide Goa11: "Soil, air, and water resources provide for watershed health,public health and safety, long-term soil productivity, and ecosystem sustainability,and meet applicable laws and regulations." (2003 Forest Plan, Page 2-1)


9/107

Environmental Assessment01131 /05

Ve rnon Sheeprocks Project

Sub-goal 2-45: "Reclamation activities:a. Stabilize the area,b. Protect the aesthetics of the area,c. Prevent water from off-site sources from impacting the disturbed area,d. Control surface runoff to minimize erosion,e. Trap sediment to enhance establishment of vegetation,f. Restore and stabilize all unnecessary roads,g. Include revegetation seeding or planting of local native species, and,where needed, feltilization and replacement of topsoil on all disturbedareas,h. Provide maintenance of repeat applications where initial treatments donot achieve objectives, andi. Prevent subsequent pollution from the site."(2003 Forest Plan, Page 2-12)

Forestwide Goal 4: "Heritage resources are identified, preserved, and enhanced."(2003 Forest Plan, Page 2-1)

Purpose and Need for ActionTIle purposes of this initiative are twofold: I) to improve public safety and reduce therisk of accidental death or injury by closing the abandoned mines in the project area and2) to enhance the quality of the watershed by isolating mine-related sources of runoffcontaminants, reducing erosion, and establishing vegetation on disturbed areas. Theseactions are needed because the abandoned mine sites in the Vemon Sheeprocks Projectcontain numerous hazards. Access to underground workings is unobstructed at mostopenings. The project area's historic and scenic values and easy road access make it aconvenient recreation destination, particularly for off-highway vehicle COHV) and all


10/107


Vernon S/'Ieeprocks Project

Minerals Description: "Over the last several years the Forest has worked with theState of Utah and private landowners in closing dangerous mine adits and drifts.These features include obscure vertical and deep shafts, which create a hazard to!he general public engaging in recreation opportunities in the area. Old andabandoned tailing piles from excavated mines are being evaluated for high levelsof hazardous minerals and other deleterious materials that may causeenvironmental damage." (2003 Forest Plan, Pllge 5-197)Desired Future Condition: "Abandoned and open mine shafts will continue to beclosed for safety reasons. Evaluation of abandoned tailings piles will continue."(2003 Forest Plan, Page 5-175 and Page 5-197)Water and Watershed Description: "Water quality was sampled extensivelywithin the management area during the summer of 2000. Results indicate that,due to past mining activity and naturally occurring mineralization of parent rockfornuitions, isolated areas exist where metals exceed State ofUtah clean waterstandards. A preliminary assessment of the situation is currentiy being prepared;action will be taken i f t is deternlined tilat a significant risk to the public, wildlife,or the environment eAists." (2003 Forest Plan, Page 5-192)Desired Future Condition: "Waters impacted from past mining activity areimproved where risk to the public and the resource warrants." (2003 Forest Plan ,Page 5-170 and Page 5-193)

Proposed Action _______________TIle actions proposed by the Forest Service and the U.S . Office of Surface Mining tomeet the purpose and need are to authorize the UDOGMIAMRP to expend funds and


11/107

Environmental Assessment01131/05 Vernon Sheeprocks Project

Public Involvement______________TIle proposal was listed in the Spring, Summer, Fall, and Winter 2004 editions oftheUinta N ational Forest Quarterly Schedule o/ProposedActions. The proposed actionwas provided to the public and other agencies for scoping input and comment duringscoping on June 23, 2004. This included a mailing individuals and organizations,publication of a legal notice in the Provo Daily Herald, and publication of a legal noticeon the Uinta National Forest website. In response to these efforts, the Forest Servicereceived two comments, one from the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources and one fromthe U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service.Using the comments from the public and other agencies (see Issues section), theinterdisciplinary team developed a list of issues to address.Issues----------------------The UDOGM/AMRP and Forest Service separated the issues into two groups: significantand non-significant issues. Significant issues were defined as those directly or indirectlycaused by implementing the proposed action. Non-significant issues were identified astllOse: 1) outside the scope of the proposed action; 2) already decided by law, regulation,Forest Plan, or other higher level decision; 3) irrelevant to the decision to be made; or 4)conjecturaJ and not supported by scientific or factual evidence. The Council onEnvironmental Quality (CEQ) NEPAregulations require tins delineation in Sec. 150l.7," . . . dentify and eliminate from detailed study the issues which are not significant orwhich have been covered by prior environmental review (Sec. 1506.3) .. . " No significantor non-significant issues were raised through public scoping. The significant issuesassociated with the project were instead identified by the Interdisciplinary Team.TIlese issues illclude:


12/107


Issue #3: Poteutial Effect of the Project ou Hydrology

Vernon Sfleeprocks Project

Miues cau influence hydrology by bringing subsurface minerals and groundwater to thesurface, where they can react chemically and mobilize metals into the watershed. TI1estatutory purpose of the Forest Service share of the project funding is to restorediminished watersheds. Prefen-ed reclamation methods are those that will reduce thepotential for soil erosion and the leaching ofmetals from mine dumps.[2003 Forest Piau Direction aud Guidance: Sub-goal 1-11, End Objective 1-4]While other lesser concerns exist, these three issues most significantly shaped theProposed Action. Project planning strove to achieve the project objectives whileminimizing adverse effects on history and wildlife. The Proposed Action incorporatesmitigation measures to minin1ize adverse effects and maximize benefits . These includepreconstrnction surveys to identify sensitive resources, careful selection of mine closuremethods for each site, construction scheduling, contract stipulations, etc. Details arepresented elsewhere. in this document.


13/107

Environmental Assessment01131105 Vernon Sheeprocks Project

ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PROPOSEDACTIONTIlis chapter describes and compares the alternatives considered for the VernonSheeprocks project. I t includes a description of each altemative considered. This sectionalso presents the altel1latives in comparative form, sharply defining the differencesbetween each altemative and providing a clear basis for choice among options by thedecision maker and the public. Some ofthe information used to compare the altemativesis based upon the design of the altemative (i .e ., sealing mines by backfilling them versususing masonry seals or steel grates) and some ofthe information is based upon theenvironmental , social and economic effects of implementing each alternative (i .e ., thenumber of bat roosts or cultural sites disturbed by backfilling versus other types ofmineclosures).

Alternatives _________________Alternative 1No ActionUnder the No Action altemative, no mine reclamation construction activities would beinlplemented to accomplish project goals.Under this altemative, the OSM Denver Field Office would deny a federal grant in theamount of approximately $150,000 to implement the abandoned mine land reclanlationproject proposal described above under Altemative 1. The Forest Service would not


14/107

Environmental Assessment01131105 Vernon Sfleeprocks Project

area takes in most ofthe central part of the Sheeprock Mountains and the flats.andfoothills northeast ofthe Sheeprocks. The formal project boundary includes about 160square miles. Mines are not evenly distributed in this area. Nearly all of the mines are inthe mountains in the far southern third ofthe project area. The area containing minestakes up a small fraction (about 10%) of the fOlmal project area; the land area actuallydirectly affected by mining is a fraction of this. The project area includes federal landadministered by the Forest Service and private land. See the list of sites in Appendix Band Map 1 and Maps D1-D12 in Appendix E for more details about the location anddescription of each site.TIle project area contains over 190 identified mine features, including adits, shafts,inclines, and prospects. About half of the inventoried mine features have serious enoughsafety or environmental problems to warrant reclamation. Roughly two-thirds of themine features are on National Forest system land; the rest are on1Jrivate inholdings(patented mining claims) within the. larger tracts of federal land .Vernon Sheeprocks Project mines occur in the following sections :

T9S, R6W, Sections: 20,27T9S, R7W, Sections: IInos, R5W, Sections : 3, l l , 17, 18 , 20,21,22,24,28 , 29nos, R6W, Sections: 2,3 , 4, 7, 9, 10 , 11 , 13 , 14, 15 , 22, 23, 24TIle Vernon Sheeprocks Project is mapped on the following USGS 7'J2' quadrangles:Dutch Peak, Erickson Knoll, Indian Peaks, Indian Springs, Lofgreen, Lookout Pass,Sabie Mountain and Vernon. Mines occur on the Dutch Peak, Erickson Knoll , LookoutPass, and Sabie Mountain quads.TIle mining area terrain is typical ofGreat Basin mountain ranges and is characterized as


15/107



Closure Method Number of Sites Number of SitesEntire Project NFS LandMasonry Wall (Block or Stone) 11 5Rebar Grate 8 4Total: All Closures 73 50No Closure Proposed 121 71Total Number of Sites 194 121

At selected sites, environmental problems (Priority 3 sites under P.L. 95-87) will beaddressed with the objective of enhancing watershed characteristics. More specifically,mine waste rock dumps would be buried or regraded to isolate them from surface runoffand drainage channels and to establish vegetatjon, and mine water discharge would bediverted from waste dumps to prevent contamination. Areas disturbed by constructionactivities, including bOlTOW sites, would be reseeded with a mix of native species usingcertified weed-free seed (including undesirabLe non-native species such as cheat grass).For sites on NFS land, the seed mix would be approved by the Forest Service.

Details of the reclamation work are contained in Appendix A of this environmentalassessment. This appendix contains an excerpt from the draft construction specificationsto be prepared by the UDOGM /AMRP, namely, Section 0300 : Specific SiteRequirements of the UDOGMI AMRP standard construction specification document.TIlis section describes the proposed action in detail. Section 0300 ofthe constructionspecifications references an Appendix A to the specifications that lists the mine closuresin the proposed action. An equivalent table with the same content is included inAppendix B of this environmental assessment. Proposed mine closure methods for eachopening are presented on Map 2 in Appendix E. Proposed watershed remediation sitesare presented on Map 3 in Appendix E. Complete construction specifications are notincluded in this environmental assessment . Omitted sections include boilerpLate bidding


16/107

Environmental Assessment01131105 Vernon Sfleeprocks Project

The recommended closures at each mine opening are based on inventory data. Someclosures methods may be changed from those listed in the contract specifications at thetime of construction based on reanalysis of current site conditions. For instance, rock thatappeared at time of inventory to be competent enough to anchor a bat gate may, onrevisit, be found to be too tractured and the closure at that site might be changed to abackfill. In addition, new mine openings not previously inventoried may be found. Suchchanges in the proposed action cannot be predicted but are expected t o be relativelyminor (5-10% of the total). Any changes in the proposed action will be based on thesame criteria used to develop the proposed action and should not significantly alter theenvironmental analysis ofthe action.Where I?ractical, and where the mines provide habitat and/or are being used by bats,gates/grates would be installed to provide bats access to abandoned workings withoutaffecting air flow patterns or compromising human safety concerns. (While primarilyintended to benefit bats, other wildlife Qan also use the gates.) Where this is not practical.and underground workings used by bats or likely to be used are to be sealed by walls orbackfills, the mines would be cleared and bats excluded prior to closing to prevent themfrom being trapped inside and killed.At selected mine sites on National .Forest System lands, mine dumps will be buried orregraded to improve watershed quality. Mine waste rock will be excavated and movedaway from stream channels, buried, or graded to aid the establishment of vegetation. Theintent is to isolate the barren dump material from surface runoff and groundwater toprevent leaching and discourage erosion. Mines discharging water may have ditches dugto divert the water away from mine dump material.nle mines proposed for remediation earthwork have dumps that range in size fromapproximately 100 to 1500 cubic yards . Typical remediation work would entail strippingand stockpiling topsoil from the burial site, excavating a trench or pit adjacent to ilie


17/107



of up to twelve workers working concurrently in groups of one to four people. A typicalallocation of labor would be : 1 supervisor. 1-2 backhoe/trackhoe operators performingbackfills and earthwork, 2 crews of 3-4 manual laborers performing backfills andlor wallconstmction, 2 welders/laborers building gates or grates, 1 driverlgofer.In order to make the most efficient use of the field crews and equipment, work may beongoing at several different openings at widely separated parts of the project at any giventime.Some workers may choose to camp onsite to reduce commuting time and maintainsecurity over equipment, supplies, and work sites. Campsites and staging areas may beon public land. Camping on public land will be limited to 14 days in anyone place andwill be in a camp trailer with a chemical toilet. Camping will only be allowed inpreviously disturbed areas.Constmction will be performed in a way that minimizes disturbance to the ground andvegetation. Truck, equipment, and ATV access to mine sites will be limited to existingroads and trails where possible . Cross-country traverses, where necessary, will be onroutes that minimize disturbance. Vehicle tracks will be raked and/or seeded as needed.Backfill sources will normally be the mine dump adjacent to the mine opening, the browand slope above the opening, and nearby surface rock. In the extremely rare event thatadditional backfill is required from offsite, it will be obtained from areas that have nocultural resource or wildlife conflicts and in a way that minimizes disturbance.Additional surveys and consultation will be performed if these areas are not covered byexisting environmental analysis . All borrow areas will be shaped to blend with adjacentslopes and contours to avoid leaving a gouged or scarred look.Access routes will need to be improved in localized areas to a degree dependent on thetype of vehicles used and the munber of trips required. Some access road segments are


18/107



Mitigation Common to All Alternatives______In response. o interdisciplinary team consultation and public comments on the proposal,mitigation measures were developed to ease some of the potential Vernon SheeprocksProject impacts the various alternatives may cause. The mitigation measures may beapplied to allYofthe action alternatives.Most ofthe recommended mitigation measures are standard operating procedures onheUDOGM /AMRP . Mitigation measures fall into a few main categories:Wildlife:- scheduling work to avoid raptor and sage-grouse conflicts

- preconstruction surveys for raptor nests and rare plants- using bat compatible closures or using pre-closure exclusion methods to preventbat entombment where bat compatible closures are not installed (Forest PlanGuideline M&E-l , Page 3-4)

Cultural Resources:- selection of closure method to minimize impacts or alteration- avoiding other features not targeted for reclamation

Hydrology:- proper storage of equipment, fuel, and lubricants away from waterways- minimize erosion by minimizing area of disturbance- minimize erosion by leaving disturbed areas roughened- ditches to route mine discharge off ofmine dumps- revegetation to reduce soil erosion

Vegetation/Range Quality:


19/107


Comparison of Alternatives__________111is section provides a summary of the effects of implementing each alternative.Information in the table is focused on activities and effects where different levels ofeffects or outputs can be distinguished quantitatively or qualitatively among alternatives.

Summary Comparison of Alternatives 1and 2ResourceHistoric &CulturalResourcesFish & WildlifeResourcesHydrology

Vegetation

RecreationalResourcesValuesLand Use

Alternative 1(No Action)No change frorncurrent conditions.No change fromcurrent conditions.No change fromcurrent conditions.Continueddegradation.No change fromcurrent conditions.

No change fromcurrent conditions.Continued risk topublic.No change from

Alternative 2(Proposed Action)"No Adverse Effect" at National Register eligibleproperties.Short-term, localized disturbance from constructionactivities, mitigated by scheduling and preconstructionraptor nest surveys. Bat habitat preserved by gating.Long-term improvement in water quality (reduction indissolved metals) , but possible short-term erosion riskuntil vegetation reestablishes.Short term, localized disturbance from earthwork andtravel (trampling). Estimated 10 acres total disturbance.Disturbance w ill be reseeded.Reduced risk of death or injury to recreationists frommine fall and entrapment hazards. Possible temporarydisturba.nce or displacement of recreationists byconstruction in short term.Possible temporary disturbance or displacement of


20/107



Alternatives Considered But Not Given Detailed StudyThe "authorize/do not authorize" alternatives are essentially the only two optionsavailable to the OSM Denver Field Office and the Forest Service for the proposedreclamation project.TIle individual mine closures in the propo sal can be considered as separate independentactions. each with its own "authorize/do no t authorize" option for the federal agency.Accordingly, many alternative project configurations consisting of fewer mine closures(i.e. partial projects) could be analyzed. However, the environmental analysis andimpacts.of any subset of the whole project will generally be the same as those for thewhole.As noted above in Alternative 2, the specific mine closure or site remediation methodselected for each mine in the Proposed Action is the result of weighing several factorsand attempting to select the reclamation action with the fewest conflicts with resourcevalues. There arehundreds of possible permutations of mine closures that could bepresented as alternative project configurations. These have been evaluated in the projectplanning using the criteria presented in this document. The project configuration in theProposed Action represents the elimination of numerous less acceptable alternativesduring early planning and design . TIlerefore no other specific alternative project proposalhas been brought forth for analysis.TIle Forest Service has posted warning signs at some project mines as a temporaryprecaution in anticipation of permanent cloJ;ure of the mines under the Proposed Action.UDOGM/AMRP does not nornlally use signage and fencing to pelmanentiy safeguardmines as a matter of policy. Both signs and fenc'es are temporary and are easilycircumvented. For these reasons UDOGM/AMRP does not consider signage and fencingto be meaningful alternatives and they have not been brought forth for analysis .


21/107



ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCESTI1is section summarizes the physical, biological, social and economic environments ofthe.affected project area ,rnd the potential changes to those environments due toimplementation ofthe alternatives. It also presents the scientific and analytical basis forcomparison of alternatives presented in the chart above.

Historic &Cultural Resources__________DescriptionTIle Vernon Sheeprocks Project area consists of a number of nnderground hardrock metalmines in the. Columbia, Erickson (Black Crook), and Blue Bell mining districts . Silver,lead, zinc, gold, tungsten, iron, and copper were the primary commodities. Mining in thearea dates back to the 1870 's, but significant ore production did not occur until the1890's. Production continued into the twentieth century but mostly ended around thetime of World War II. Since then, the mines have deteriorated or been scavenged, andlittle of the mine surface facilities , mills, or the old townsites remains intact except for afew stmctures.A cultural resources inventOlY was conducted in the proposed Vernon Sheeprocks Projectarea for the UDOGM/AMRP in 2002-3. TIle inventory recorded 50 cultural sites (Sites42T02199 through 42To2248). These sites may contain multiple mine openings andfeatures. The study concluded that sixteen sites (42T02204-2208, 2212, 2214, 2215,. .2220,2224, 2226, 2227, and 2245) were eligible for the National Register based on theirassociation with regional mining hi,story, the integrity of its structures representative.ofthe period, and ilie potential for future data recovery. The study concluded that the 34


22/107

EnvironmentalAssessment01131105

Effect ofAlternative 1 (No Action)

Vernon SfleeprocJfs Project

Under this alternative, conditions will stay as they are. National Register eligibleproperties will not be disturbed .Effect ofAlternative 2 (Proposed Action)Several of the mines in the Vernon Sheep rocks Project area have been found to beeligible for the National Register. The effects on cultural resources will be managedthrough the selection of closure types that minimize damage to stmctural features. Mineclosures will be managed to maintain the historic character of the sites.Many of the mine closures are simple barriers set inside the mine opening that preventhuman entry without modifying the geometry of the opening. Masonry walls, steel gatesand grates, and polyurethane foam shaft plugs fall into this category. TIle closureinstallation requires removal of loose rock from portal brows and ribs, excavation andconstmction of concrete footings in sills, and drilling holes in the host rock for steelanchor pins. In general for barrier-type closures, the mine geometry is not materiallyaltered and the appearance of he mine is unchanged except for the presence of thebarrier. Although intended to be permanent, most ofthe barrier closures could beremoved and the pre-closure appearances of the mines restored, given sufficient interestand effort. Concrete block walls in high visibility situations will be faced with stone orplastered with local soil mixed with mortar for a better color match with theirsurroundings.Backfill closures result in greater alteration of appearance and lo ss of historic informationat a mine. While the location of a backfilled mine opening usually remains evident as amound or divot, the mine opening itself is often completely obliterated and the dump isreshaped. Backfills can sometimes be recessed so that access is blocked but theappearance of he shaft or adit opening is preserved.


23/107

Environmental Assessmen(01131 /05 Vernon Sheeprocks Project

Mine closure work typically leaves a small footprint of disturbance. Backfills seldomaffect more than a 50-foot radius around an opening, except at larger mines, and rarelyexceed the footprint ofthe mine dump. It is generally easy to avoid other culturalfeatures at a mine (e.g. cabins, ore loading bins, etc.) that are not specifically targeted forreclamation. Small portable features and surface artifacts (lumber, timbers, machineryparts) can be avoided or moved out of the way. The proposed watershed remediationwork would necessarily have a larger di sturbed area, but again, it can be minimized andother features avoided.TIle 2003 Forest Plan calls for recording historic sites and trying to maintain historicvalues while protecting public safety. Site recording has been done.Some National Register eligible properties will be altered by the proposed action.However, considering the existing integrity ofthe sites, the nature ofthe disturbance, andthe :information remaining after the proposed work, within the context and terminology ofSection 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, the disturbance does not rise to thethreshold of an adverse effect. UDOGMlAMRP, in consultation with and with theconcurrence ofthe Forest Service, has determined that the proposed action will have "NoAdverse Effect" at the National Register eligible properties and that "No HistoricProperties" will be affected at ineligible.properties . The Utah State Historic PreservationOffice has concurred with these findings (see letter in Appendix D).TIle proposed work would not affect paleontological resources.

Fish &Wildlife Resources ___________Description1. Special Status Animal Species


24/107


Bald Eagle ( Iialiaeetus leucocephalus)Yellow-billed Cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus)Shortceared Owl (Asio flammeus)Burrowing Owl (A thene cunicularia)Ferruginous Hawk (Buteo regalis)Swainson's Hawk (Buteo swainsoni)Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum)Long-billed Curlew (Numenius americanus)Lesser Nighthawk (Chordeiles acutipennis)Greater Sage-gronse (Centrocercus urophasianus)


UDWR knows of no bald eagle nesting locations in the project area, although there arerecords of eagle sightings in the general area. The project area is dozens ofmiles fromany of the four known bald eagle nesting sites in Utah. Bald eagle nests are usually intall trees and commonly near bodies ofwater where fish and waterfowl prey areavailable. These are absent from the project area. Wintering eagles occur as regularvisitors and could forage in the project area. Wintering eagles were observed in 2003near the town of Vernon but outside the project area .UDWR knows.of no western yellow-billed cuckoo nesting locations in the project area.Western yellow-billed cuckoos typical ly nest in dense lowland riparian forests near\vater. Understories are characterized by a dense sub-canopy or shrub layer; overstoriesmay be large gallery-fornling trees or developing trees, usually cottonwoods. Cuckoosrequire large tracts (>25 acres) of contiguous riparian nesting habitat. This type ofhabitat is absent froth the project area. which has patchy shrubby riparian vegetation(willows) and mountain uplands.UDWR has no occurrence records for any of the next seven birds listed above (two owls,two hawks, falcon, curlew, and nighthawk) near any of the project mines, and only the


25/107


At least seven bat species.are known to use abandoned mine workings statewide. TheUDOGM/AMRP has completed warm and cold season underground surveys at 76Vernon Sheeprocks Project mines considered suitable habitat for bat use. Bats or bat signwere found at 19 mine openings. One mine had four bats (all Townsend's big-eared bat,Corynorhinus townsendii, the only special statns bat species observed), one had western.long-eared myotis, Nfyotis evotis, and western pipistrelle bats, Pipestrellus hesperus, butall other mines with bat use had at most a single individuaJ or only sign (guano, insectparts). Townsend 's big-eared bat was the most frequently observed species, but westernlong-eared myotis, western pipistrelles, long-legged myotis (M. volans), and big brownbats (Eptesicusfuscus) were also observed. (Diamond an,d Diamond, 2003)No special status fish species are known to occur in the streams where projectwork isproposed.2. Other Wildlife in the AreaOther wildlife species known to use abandoned mine workings in the state includecottontail and jack rabbits, deer mice, canyon mice, woodrats, rock squilTels, striped andspotted skunks, ringtail cats, coyotes, mountain lions, several species of owls, westernkingbird, rock wren, Say's phoebe, red-spotted toads, a variety oflizard species, and avariety of rattlesnake species . These species often enter mine workings to forage for foodor to seek shelter from adverse environmental extremes found outside. Only VernonCreek and Little Valley Creek have fish present.Several species of neotropical migratory birds inhabit the project area. Breeding birdsurveys have been performed in Harker Canyon and Bennion Creek.Effect ofAlternative 1 (No Action)Under this alternative, conditions will stay as they are for both special status species and


26/107



Wide-foraging bald eagles might occur as fall or winter visitors, in which case they willbe avoided and given opportunity to leave. Since the work consists of numerousindependent units (individual closures), it is usually possible to reschedule work on aparticular site and substitute work elsewhere on short notiee.There are known greater sage-grouse lek sites in the project area but construction at siteswithin the identified strutting area will be scheduled to avoid lek strutting, so there wouldbe no direct interference with lek behavior or disturbance oflek sites. If constructionextends into the spring breeding season, there might be sage-grouse near the work.However, sage-grouse are tolerant of disturbance and the young are precocial and mobile.TIley would most likely temporarily move out ofthe way of work in an area.Some mine closures might eliminate bat habitat by sealing off roost sites. Bat surveydata are being used to protect bat habitat. Wherever geotechnical conditions allow, steelgrates that allow bat use and maintain ventilation will be used as mine closures at minesused by bats . This will preserve habitat while also reducing human disturbance to bats.Where bat-compatible closures are not possible, methods will be used to exclude batsprior to closure to avoid entombing them. TIlis is done by sealing the mine opening withchicken. wire for several days. TIle wire acts as a one-way gate; bats leave but do notreturn. Visual inspection oan be done in shallow mines to ensure that no bats are trappedinside.Management Indicator Species: Five Management Indioator Species (MIS) for the UintaNational Forest have been evaluated: beaver, goshawk, three-toed woodpecker, and twocutthroat trout species (see Appendix C). As noted in Appendix C, UDWR knows of nooccurrences of these species in the project area. The project is entirely out ofthe range ofthe two trout. The preferred habita t is rare to uncommon for either bird. The two MISbirds are covered by the same mitigation measures as the other special status birds. Theproject may have suitable habitat for beaver in some of the perennial streams, but it is


27/107


2. Other Wildlife in theArea


Other wildlife will experience short-term disturbance from human activity and noiseduring construction. Most of the more common and conspicuous species (e.g. mule deer,coyotes, ravens, turkeys) are either transient visitors in any given location and/or have thebehavioral flexibility to adapt to temporary disturbance. Construction activity shouldgenerally be short term and localized (ranging from a few hours to a few days in anyonelocation). The project should not impact the common wildlife in the area.TIle s.ame measures that protect the special statlls bird species (late season construction ,spring nest surveys) will also protect neotropical migrants and other birds . Springconstruction does carry some risk of disturbance, primarily in bmshy or scmbbyvegetation that may have established nests . Vegetation disturbance will be minimized;very few trees are expected to be removed. Cavity trees, if present, will be avoided. Theproject should have only a minor effect on neotropical migratory birds.

HydrologyDescription1. Surface WaterThe Vernon Division of the Uinta National Forest contains approximately 36 miles ofperetnlial and 345 miles ofinternlittent streams. The majority of free-flowing water,which originates in fue Sheeprock Mountains, was divetied for irrigation purposes whenthe area was ftrst settled in the early to mid-1800s . Most of the streams in the VernonManagement Area (north slope canyons) are diverted for irrigation use. Most streams inthe West Sheeprock Management Area (southern canyons) are free flowing.Water from Vernon, Little Valley, and Bennion Creeks is diverted to the approximately40-acre (surface average) Vernon Reservoir for irrigation use, leaving several miles of


28/107



Other watersheds important for providing irrigation water, but with l ower flow rates,include Harker Creek, Cottonwood Canyon (in the spring), Hard-to-Beat Canyon,Sheeprock Canyon (in the spring), and Pole Canyon. Other canyons have water importantfor wildlife and livestock, and provide vegetative diversity by suppOlting riparianvegetation in a desert setting. Some of these minor creeks flow o(fNational ForestSystem lands onto adjacent Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and private lands wherethey dry up. Some creeks tend to dry up as the summer progresses, and flow s never leavethe Forest.Most of the project mines are located high on upland slopes with ephemeral drainage(annual precipitation is about 14-25 inches, mostly from October to April). Only a fewmines directly impinge on a stream channel. Several mines are known to dischargewater. Minewater discharges usually flow across or through the mine dump beforereaching a steam channel or seeping into the ground. Mines in the Vernon SheeprocksProject occur.in the following named drainages : East Government Creek, North OakBmsh Creek, Harker Canyon, Bennion Creek, Little Valley Creek, Vernon Creek, JoesCanyon, Sheeprock Canyon, Hard to Beat Canyon, Cottonwood Canyon, South PineCanyon, South Oak Brush Canyon, Black Crook Creek, Elderberry Creek, plus a singlesi te in an unnamed tr ibutary to Log Canyon.The Vernon Division was sampled intensively for water quality during the 2000 fieldseason. Forty-one sites were set up on the Unit with each site sampled twice (total of 82samples). Twenty-one samples at 15 locations did not meet State of Utah clean waterstandards for arsenic, cadmium, lead, or zinc. The following table lists the levels of theseheavy metals present in the samples that exceeded standards. Those metal concentrationsthat exceeded standards are shaded in gray.Dissolved Metal Concentrations Exceeding State Standards in the Vernon Divi sion


29/107

Environmental Assessment01131105 Vernon Sheeprocks Project

Dissolved Metal Concentrations Exceeding State Standards in the Vernon DivisionSample

LooationDissolved Heavy Metals (ppb)

Date As Cd Pb Zn10 / 16/00 North Oak Brush MainFork at Ad;t < 5.0 4. 6" li3 60210/16/00 North OakBrush. West Tributary 120' Upstream < 5.0 < 1.0 4.2 33.2of Confluence06 /13/00 South Oak Brush , Headwaters Right F ark < 5.0 < 1.0 < 3.0 30.207 / 11100 East Government Creek At Confluence of Upper < 5.0 < 1.0 < 3.0 35.9Tributaries07/07/00 Little Valley Creek 300' Below Mines 6 < 1.0 82 < 30.010 /13 /00 Little Valley Creek 300' Below Mines < 5.0 < 1.0 70.8 30.807106/00 Vernon Creek Below Cattle Guard 6.1 < 1.0 < 3.0 < 30.007 /06 /00 Vernon Creek Above Reserv oir 5 < 1.0 < 3.0 < 30.02. GroundwaterMost mines in the project are dry, but several mines with water underground are knownto occur in the project, as are several mines that are known to discharge water. I f a mineis found to contain water, a closure method other than backfilling with dump materialwill be selected if the size of the mine warrants. This will prevent potential groundwatercontamination caused by placing mine dump material in contact with groundwater.Small mines containing water may be backfilled depending on the depth; fill material willdisplace the water. Closures in mines discharging water will have drain pipes to allowdrainage and prevent the buildup of hydraulic head behind the closure . Mine waterdischarge will be diverted through surface ditches to avoid flowing over mine dumps atsome sites .3. Floodplains


30/107


Effect ofAlternative 1 (No Action)


Under this alternative, conditions will stay as they are. Water quality now degraded bythe mines would continue to be degraded, with continuing potential for downstreameffects on fish, aquatic wildlife, and downstream users . TIlere would be no constmction-related erosion or disturbance of stream chamlels.Effect ofAlternative 2 (Proposed Action)1. Surface WaterTIle proposed mine closure work will have minimal effect on surface hydrology becauseofthe limited scope of surface disturbance plamled. Most of the mine openings arelocated on uplands away from the stream channels . At these sites surface water qualitywill be maintained by minimizing the areal extent of vegetation disturbance to reduceerosion. Practices such as soil roughening will also mininlize erosion. Drain pipes orother measures may be necessary in some closures to accommodate minewater dischargeand maintain slllface flow regimes.No fill will be placed in channels and any riparian vegetation will be avoided. Roadcrossings at ephemeral gullies and roads with erosional gullies and mts may be upgradedto improve their passability by vehicles, resulting in the gullies being fully or partiallyfill ed.At selected sites, waste rock piles (mine dumps) will be regraded or buried and the sitesrevegetated (see Appendix A for a description of he work). The intent is to preventerosion and to isolate materials that could contribute heavy metals to surface waters.TIlis should reduce metal concentrations in the streams and benefit aquatic wildlife anddownstream water users. Due to legal restrictions on funding (QSM funds can only beused for safety hazard mitigation, Forest Service funds can only be used to benefit the,Forest), not every site with a metals problem is eligible for remediation.


31/107

Environmental Assessment01131 /05 Vernon Sheeprocks Project

Vegetation _________________Description1. Vegetation in the Project Area (General)The project area spans a broad range of elevations, aspects, and soils and vegetationvaries accordingly. See the table below. Vegetation is in the Upper Sonoran, Transition,and Canadian Life Zones. Vegetation in the vicinity of project mines includes sagebrushsteppe, pinyon-juniper woodland, mountain brush (scrub oak, maple, chokecherry,snowberry), aspen, and alpine conifer. Most of the mines are in s.agebrush, pinyonjuniper, and mountain brush communities. Several areas of pinyon-juniper woodland(notably Harker Canyon and South Oak Brush Canyon) burned in the last decade and arenow recovenng.Most of the lower elevations area of the Vernon Division have been reseeded with nonnative spec.ies such as crested wheat, Agropyron crlstatum; Russian wildrye, Elymusjunceus; intermediate wheatgrass, Agropyron intermedium; bulbous bluegrass, Poabulbosa; and tall wheatgrass, Agropyron elongatum. Cheatgrass, Bromlls tectorum, anon-native annual grass is a small component in the area, but will rapidly increase withany form of disturbance. There are isolated patches ofnoxious weeds including whitetop, Cardaria draba, and squarrose knapweed, Centallrea virgata.

Vegetation Community Types in the Vernon DivisionVegetation Community Percent oftheVernonUnitAgricultural 0.1Aspen 0.3Black Sage Brush 9.1Mountainbl1lsh 8.4Douolas-Fir (crown density 15-59%)


32/107


2. Special Status Plant Species


TIle project area lies within the historic range of or has potential habitat for a mlmber ofspecies with special management status. Special status species here means thoseprotected by state or federal law or policy and include those listed as threatened orendangered under the Endangered Species Act, those listed on the Forest ServiceIntemlOuntain Region Proposed, Endangered, Threatened, and Sensitive Species list(December 2003), and those listed by the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR)on the State Sensitive Species list. TIle table in Appendix C lists those special statusspecies identified as potentially occurring in the project area or affected by the proposedwork.TIle U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the Utah Division of WildlifeResources (UDWR) have been consulted for special status plant species that may occurin the general project area and for ways to manage the projectto protectthem. Based onassessments of known occurrences ofthe. species, historic ranges, habitat preferences, thefollowing species are considered to have sufficient likelihood of effect to be discussed inthis document:

Ute Ladies'-tresses (Spiranthes diluvialis)Slender and Dainty Moonwort (Botrychium lineare and B. c.renulatum)Pohl's Milkvetch (Astragalus LentiginQsus var. pohlii)Coulter Biscuitroot (Cymopterus coulteri)UDWR knows of no occurrences of Ute ladies' -tresses or either of the moonworts in theproject area. The.only known S. diluvialis occurrence in TooeLe County is near Callao,more than fifty miles from the project area. This orchid is found in streamside meadowsand low elevation wetlands. The two moonworts are also damp soil species. This type ofhabitat is present in the project area, though rarely near the mines . A few minesdischarge water and have small associated wetlands, so there is a possibility of either Ute.


33/107


TIle UDWR occurrence records indicating presence or absence of the above.species inthe project area are corroborated by Forest Service records.Effect ofAlternative 1 (No Action)Under this alternative, conditions will stay as they are for both rare and common plants .TIlere would be no construction-related soil disturbance, plant trampling, or risk ofnoxious weed import. Some mine dumps targeted for reclamation in the Proposed Actionthat are currently barren would continue to be barren.

Effect ofAlternative 2 (Proposed Action)1. Vegetation in the ProjectArea (General)Mine closure work typically has little vegetation impact because of the limited areainvolved and the extensive use ofmanual labor. Vegetation disturbartce would consist ofgrubbing and removal of plants at excavation and borrow sites for backfill closures andtrampling by foot or vehicle traffic along access routes and in the immediate vicinity ofthe openings. Vegetation disturbance :f}-om the proposed mine closure work can generallybe expected to occur in discontinuous patches on the order of a few hundred or a fewthousand square feet each. Mine dwnp regrading and burial can be expected to disturbareas of 0.1 to 2 .0 acres, depending on the size ofthe dwnp and other circumstances. Alldisturbed areas would be reseeded with native species. Seed mixes used on NFS landswould be approved by the Forest Service.TIle project would disturb a minor anlOunt of vegetation, estimated at less than ten acrestotal. This estimate includes ground disturbance directly associated with mine closureconstruction, disturbance from mine dump remediation, and ground disturbance on linearaccess corridors. Because mine dumps (which are often barren) and other pre-existingdisturbed areas are used as the preferred source of backfill material, the area of vegetation


34/107



work is scheduled in such wet areas surveys will be perfonned for Ute ladies ' -tressesorchid.As noted above, the limited scale of vegetation disturbance reduces the chance that otherspecial status plant species will be disturbed. UDOGM /AMRP will perfornl informalsurveys for sensitive plant species at the time of construction, which will afford anadditional level of protection (to the extent that their phenologies allow identification).Project work should not affect any of these species.None of the special status plant species identified as potentially occUlTing is likely tooccur in the project area With the mitigation measures described in this document,UDOGM /AMRP, in consultation with and with the conclllTence ofthe Forest Service,has determined that the proposed work will have no effect on federally listed or candidatethreatened or endangered species at the sites . Mitigation will consist of precol1structionsurveys of saturated soil locations, disturbance minimization, and avoidance. The U.S .Fish and Wildlife Service has concurred with these findings (see letter in Appendix D).

Recreational Resource Values__________Description1. General Recreational ValuesTIle project area is located i.n a rugged, scenic region. The.area is used for generalrecreation purposes (hunting, camping, ATV riding, etc.). The mines attract visitorsinterested in the history, photogenic old buildings, the lure of underground adventure, orthe teclmical challenge of driving on old mine roads. This part of he Sheeprock range isa popular recreational destination, as evidenced by litter, fire rings, and vehicle tracks. Ayouth wilderness therapy program regularly uses the area for primitive camping.Websites for ghost town enthusiasts promote the area as a destination. Vernon Reservoir


35/107



2. Wilderness Valuesnlere are no designated or proposed wilderness areas in or near the proj ect area. Accessto the mines wi ll not require approaching or entering any designated or proposedwilderness area.Effect ofAlternative 1 (No Action)Under this alternative, conditions will stay as they are. Recreationists would continue tobe at risk of injury or death from the fall and entrapment hazards at the mines.Recreationists would not be disturbed by noise or traffic from mine closure constructionactivities.Effect ofAlternative 2 (Proposed Action)1. Genera/-Recreational ValuesTIle proposed work would have no effect on parks, wilderness areas, wilderness studyareas, wild and scenic rivers, or other fornlally designated important natural ecological orscientific areas.TIle information gathered from the engineering and cultural resource. nventories isavailable as a resource for creating interpretive materials to enhance the public'sknowledge and awareness of the history of the area and inlproving the recreationalexperience. The mine closure techniques have been selected to maintain historic valueswherever possible.

TIle mine closures will prevent unauthorized casual recreational exploration of the minesand thus enhance the safety of he recreating public, though the loss ofundergroundaccess is als.o likely to be resented by a certain sector of the public accustomed to that


36/107


Land UseDescription1. Land Use


The project area contains public land managed by the Forest Service and private land,including private patented claims as inholdings within larger public tracts. The primaryland uses occurring within the project area are ranching, recreation, wildlife habitat, openspace, and mining. There are eleven cattle allotments and one sheep allotment on theVernon Division. There are permits for 2043 cow/calf pairs and 2400 ewe/lambspennitted to 20 different permittees. The grazing dates on each allotment vary, howeverthe earliest permitted on date is April 15 and the latest permitted off date is November 10 .All activities are transient; there is no permanent population or residential or commercialpresence in the project area. Recreational activities include canlPing, hiking, ATV andOHV Tiding, hunting, and appreciation ofthe area's history and scenery.The mining land use is primarily historic. There are three nominally "active" mineoperations, but none are producing. Current mineral activity in the project area is limitedto casual use level exploration activity and assessment work. No mineral production hasbeen reported from the area since the 1950's (Harris, 1957).2. Soils and Prime/Unique FarmlandThere is cultivated land inside the formal project boundary (i.e. Vernon Divisionboundary) in the valley near Vernon and at the Bennion Ranch, but none in the mountainsnear any of the proposed work areas. No prime or unique farmland is known in theimmediate vicinity of the project mines. The overall project area is arid, ruggedrangeland. Soils in the proposed work areas are thin and poorly developed. The slopesare steep, rocky, and not suited for agriculture. There are livestock grazing permits in theproject area and grazing in the vicinity of the mines.


37/107

Environmental Assessment01131 /05 Vernon Sheeprocks Project

TIle impact to the mineral resource will be the loss of he opportuuity to use theunderground mines for future exploration. Only one application to explore for, ordevelop, any mineral resources in or adjacent to the affected Forest Service lands hasbeen submitted in the last five years. Without a substantial increase in base and preciousmetals prices, or an increase in the mineral potentia] in the project area, it is unlikely thatsubstantial exploration or development activity will occur in the foreseeable future.Furthermore, many of the mines to be closed are d.eep enough to be hazardous, but notdeep enough to provide a meaningful window into the earth' s interior. Closing them willnot result in. a loss ofmineral information.2. Soils and Prime/Unique FarmlandNo cultivated or prinle or unique farnlland would be affected.TIle proposed proj ect would disturb the soil in both the roads and trails used to access thesites, and any borrow areas used for backfill closures. Typically, backfill closures.use theadjacent mine dump for fill, so the action re-exposes the native pre-mining soils. A totalarea estimated at less than ten acres would be disturbed, mostly in discontinuous patcheson the order of a few hundred or a few thousand square feet each. The disturbanceswould increase the potential for both wind and water erosion in the short term, but thedisturbed sites should stabilize ql1ickly.3. TopographyTIle proposed work should have no effect on regional landforms or physiographicprocesses. The historic mining landscape would be maintained as much as possible byobtaining material from mine dlllllps for backfills in a manner that maintains the outwardappearance ofthe dumps. Backfill closures would have the effect of returning sites totheir approximate pre-mining topography .


38/107


Hazardous/Solid WastesVernon Sfleeprocks Project

No mining-era hazardous materials (solvents, explosives, process chemicals, lubricants,etc.) are known to be present in the historic mining areas . There is some mining-era solidwaste, mostly wood and iron items (mine timbers, track for ore haulage, cabins, machineparts, tin cans). This is not hazardous and is important as a cultural resource. Historicmill tailings may be present in the project area and may contain potentially hazardousmaterials. These are outside the scope ofthe proposed project. No mill tailings will beused for mine backfills. A small amount of non-historic recent solid waste (beveragecontainers, other litter) is present in the area.Mine waste rock dumps may contain potentially hazardous materials that can leach orerode into waterways. One primary goal of the Proposed Action is to remediate minedumps by isolating them from surface runoff.All wastes generated by reclamation construction (e.g. packaging, containers, pallets,etc.) will be contained and disposed of properly at an approved disposal site. Fuel,hydraulic f luid, and lubricants will be propeily stored a safe distance from waterways andwill be properly disposed of at an approved location.

Social/Economic Issues____________TIlere is no permanent resident population in the project area. The nearest populationcenters are the towns ofVernon (population 236) and Eureka (population 766). TIleTooele County economic picture has improved in the past year as. it recovers fromrecession. The April 2004 unemployment rate for Tooele County was 6.7%, compared toa State level of 4.5% and a national level of 5.6%. Tooele County was not classified as aLabor Surplus Area by the u .S. Department of Labor for the period October I , 2001 to


39/107



Cumulative Effects ______________Cumulative impacts are the incremental impacts of an action when added to other past,present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. Individually minor actions can have asignificant collective effect over a period of time.TIle Proposed Action comprehensively addresses the abandoned mine hazards in theentire Vernon Division. No additional mine reclamation projects by UDOGM/AMRP inthe area are foreseen. One unpatented claimholder has indicated a desire to ceaseactivities and reclaim operations. I f his happens, it would complement the ProposedAction's achievement of the goals and objectives. I t would incrementally have the samepotential effects on cultural resources, vegetation, wildlife, and watersheds.At present, the only other public projects scheduled on the Uinta National Forest calendarfor the Vernon Division are pinyon-juniper thinning near North Oak Brush Canyon(scheduled for spring 2005) and Mormon cricket eradication (an ongoing multiyearseasonal effort). The pinyon-juniper thinning, like the Proposed Action, will entail minorshort-tenn vegetation disturbance (there is no geographic overlap in the two actions), butwill ultimately inlprove the vegetation condition. Monnon cricket control may enhancethe projeot 's revegetation success by reducing cricket grazing damage, but otherwise thetwo actions are unrelated and affect different resource values.Private construction projects may be scheduled for the same time and place as theProposed Action, but these are currently nnknown and cannot be analyzed. Any majorprivate action involving NFS land would require notification and NEP A review by theUinta National Forest; none are currently proposed. Private actions are likely to belimited to the ongoing ranohing and recreation aotivities already discussed and evaluatedabove in the Recreation and Land Use sections ofthis environmental assessment.


40/107

EnvironmentalAssessment01131 /05


CONSULTATION AND COORDINATIONTIle UDOGM /AMRP and Forest Service consiJlted the following individuals, Federal,State, and local agencies, tribes and non-Forest Service persons during the developmentofthis environmental assessment:ID TEAM MEMBERS:J. Chris Rohrer, Senior Reclamation Specialist/Project ManagerAbandoned Mine Reclamation ProgramUtah Division ofOil, Gas & Mining1594 West North Temple, Suite 1210P.O. Box 145801Salt Lake City, UT 84114-5801(801 ) 538-5322Bob Da.vidson, On Scene Coordinator/Project 'ManagerUinta National ForestHeber Ranger District2460 South Highway 40P.O. Box 190Heber City, Utall 84032(435) 654-7233Duane Res.are, Resource Assistant (Minerals Manager)/FS ID Team LeaderUinta National Forest


41/107


FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL AGENCIES:

Henry R Maddux, Field SupervisorEJldangered Species OfficeU.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceUtah Field Office145 East 1300 South, Suite 404Salt Lake City, UT 84115(801) 524-5001Ron Sassaman, AML Program SpecialistFoster Kirby, ArcheologistU.S. Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and EnforcementDenver Field Office1999 Broadway, Suite 3320Denver, CO 80202-5733(303) 844-1400lim Dykmann, Compliance CoordinatorUtah Division of State History300 Rio GrandeSalt Lake City, UT(801) 533-3555Atme AxelGeorge OliverUtah Division of Wildlife Resources1594 West North Temple, Suite 2110Salt Lake City, UT 84114-6301



42/107


TRIBES:

Amos MurphyConfederated Tribes of the Goshute ReservationP.O. Box 6104Ibapah, UT 84034(435) 234-1138Leon BearSkull Valley Band of Goslulte Indians3359 South Main Street #808Salt Lake City, UT 84115(801) 831-6126OTHERS:Rich TalbotOffice.of Public ArcheologyBrigham Young UniversityP.O. Box 23600Provo, UT 8602-3600(80 1) 422-0024Gabrielle F. DiamondJoel M. DiamondDepartment of BiologySouthern Utah University.Cedar City, Utah 84720



43/107


REFERENCES


Clements, M.A. et al. 2003. Archaeological Inventory ofAbandoned Mines in theSheeprock Mountains, Tooele County, Utah. October, 2003. BYU Museum ofPeoplesand Cultures Technical Series No. 03-11Diamond, G.F. and 1.M. Diamond. 2003. An evaluation of abandoned undergroundprecious and base metal hard rock mines as bat roosting habitat in the Vernon Sheeprocksabandoned mine project area, Tooele County, Utah. Report prepared for the UtahDivision ofOil, Gas & Mining by the Department of Biology, Southern Utah University.(February 2003).Harris, DeVerle . 1957. The geology of the Dutch Peak Area, Sheeprock Range, TooeleCounty, Utah. Master's Thesis, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah.Hayden, Martha (Utah Geological Survey) . 2002. Letter to 1. Chris Rohrer, UtahDivision ofOil, Gas & Mining dated November 25,2002.Romin, L.A. and J.A. Muck. 1999. Utah Field Office guidelines for raptor protectionfrom human and land use disturbances. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service unpublishedreport.U.S. Department ofAgriculture, Forest Service. 2003. Forest Land and ResourceManagement Plan. USDS-FS IntermOlrntain Region, Uinta National Forest.U.S . Department ofAgriculture, Forest Service. 2003 . Preliminary assessment for theVernon Abandoned Mine Lands Project. USDS-FS Intermountain Region,Uinta


44/107


Electronic Versions of this EA:


TIle infonnation in this environmental assessment is available in several electronicfonnats:MS Word:File : VS EA 013105 text.doc- - -TIlis file contains all of the EA text (body and appendices). I t does not include

the Appendix D copies of the clearance letters or the Appendix E maps.MS Exce l:File : VS_EA_013105_table.xls

This file contains the inventory and proposed mine reclamation informationpresented in Appendix B in spreadsheet fonnat.

Adobe Acrobat:File : VS_EA_013lOS_text.pdf

This file contains all of the EA text (body and appendices) plus the Appendix Dcopies of the SHPO and USFWS clearance letters. It does not include theAppendixE maps.

File: VS_EA_013 105_maps_100k.pdfThis file contains the seven Appendix E project area maps (1 :1 00,000 scale).


45/107



APPENDIX AProposed Reclamation WorkTIle Proposed Action for the Vemon Sheeprocks Project calls for sealing mine openingsto enhance public safety and for site grading and earthwork to enhance the watershedsand improve water quality by burying or isolating mine dumps, removing mine dumpsfrom stream channels, diverting mine water away from mine dumps, and re-establishingdrainage channels.TIle following is an excerpt from the draft construction specifications. It is Section 0300 :Site Specific Requirements in the standard UDOGM/AMRP specification document.Because final design is not completed, there are still gaps in this draft, primarily dates,dimensions, quantities, and formatting references that need to be determined, but thenature of the proposed work is apparent. Incomplete or uncertain items are marked byasterisk or powld sign strings (* ****, #####); these gaps will be fixed before going to.bid. The specifications make references to a mine closure schedule in Appendix A. Anequivalent table to this is included as Appendix B of this environmental assessment. Thespecifications refer to maps in Appendix G. Equivalent maps are included as Appendix Eof this environmental assessment.Besides defining the proposed construction action, the construction specifications alsodefine the project area and explain the.site identification system, map organization, andclosure methods .I I I I I 1++++ I I I I 1++++++++++++++++++++++++ I I I I 1++++++++++++++++++


46/107

Environmental Assessment01131/05 Vernon Sfjeeprocks Project

approximate. CONTRACTOR shall also be aware that minimwn or maximwn dimensions on the.Drawings or given in the Specifications are specific and are to be adhered to unless such changesare approved in writing by the OWNER The quantities presented in the specific site sectionsshould be considered as an estfmate with 'a tolerance of plus or minus 15 per cent CONTRACTORshall visit the site "nd decide for his or her own purposes the quantities and amounts required indoing the WORK as intended in these Specifications and on the Drawings.

1.02 LOCATION AND DESCRIPTIONA The Vernon Sheeprocks Project area is located in Tooele County in the Sheeprock Mountains

directly south of the town of Vernon and about 40 miles south of Tooele. General reclamation areaboundaries of the Vernon Sheeprocks Project are shown on the attached location maps (seeAppendix G, Sheet Gland Plate 1) and are described in this section.

B. The Vernon Sheeprocks Project area consists of approximately 191 abandoned precious and basemetal mine openings or related features, including adits, shafts, inclines, prospects, pits, andtrenches, on the Uinta National Forest in the Sheeprock Mountains. The formal project boundary isdefined by and coincident with the National Forest boundary and includes (ederallands managedby the US. Forest Service (USFS) and private inholdings. The project area takes in most of thenorthern part of the Sheeprock Mountains and the flats and foothills nor theast of the Sheeprocks.The project area contains an estimated 191 inventoried mine feature s. The fonnal project boundaryincludes about 160 square miles. Mines are not evenly distributed in this area. N early all of themines are in the mountains in the far southern third of the project area in an area covering about 20square miles along the main spine of the mountain range. The area actually affected by mining issubstantially smaller than the fornlal projec t boundary.

C. Access: To reach the Vernon Sheeprocks Project area from Tooele, go south on Main Street (HwyU-36) 33 miles to the town of Vernon. From Vernon, a loop of roads runs around the perimeter ofthe Sheeprock Mountains, and from this perimeter loop a nwnber of spur roads lead into the severalcanyons where the mines are l o c a t ~ d . Access to individual mine sites within the project area isdiscussed in Parts 1.05 and 1.06 below.

D. The formal Vernon Sheeprocks Projectboundary takes in the following sections, although minesoccur in only a portion .ofthis area:


47/107


Because the project covers such a large area, the USGS 30')(60' series maps (I c100,000 scale) areespecially useful fot general navigation. The Vernon Sheeprocks Project is mapped on thefollowing 30'x60' quadrangles: Rush Valley, Lynndyl.USGS 30'x60' quad index:

Rush ValleyLynndyl

I 03 MINE OPENING LOCATIONS AND DESCRIPTIONSA The Vernon Sheeprocks Project area consists of approximately 191 identified abandoned mine

bpenings or other mining features. The mine openings consist of adits, inclines, vertic"l shafts,exposed stopes, prospect pits, trenches, and subsidence holes . The openings occur in a wide rangeof sizes, configurations, and conditions.

B. Locations, descriptions, approximate dimensions, UTM coordinates, closure methods, and mapreferences of each mine opening (site) are provided in the table in Appendix A Detailed locationsof he sites are presented on the maps in Appendix G (Maps SI to S6 and DI to DI2 and Plate #If).Note that mine symbols may be plotted on the maps offset slightly from their true locations due toterrain interference with GPS surveys and the way the mapping software treats ailit symbols.

C. Site ID Numbers (Tag Numbers): Each mine opening or feature is identified by a unique siteidentification num ber such as 34 11 308H0002. The ID num ber consists of seven digits, one or twoletters, and one to three digits. The first digit indicates the quadrant around the Salt Lake basel ineand meridian (or the Uinta special meridian). Townships south and east of he SLBM are coded"4." The second and third digits indicate the township, the fourth and fifth digits indicate the range,and the sixth and seventh digits indicate the section. These num bers are followed by lettersindicating the type of mine opening or feature (H horizontal adit, I inclined adit, V verticalshaft, SH subsidence hole, PR prospect, TR trench, PT open pit, TA tailings) and, in th ecase of shafts and adits, letters indicating whether the mine is open (0 ) or closed (C). These letters


48/107



maps are designed to show access routes to the mines from an easily located landmark on a 2-wheel-drive perimeter road.

B. The mine sites are too dense to be clearly mapped and labeled at the scale of the subarea maps.Within five of the six subareas there are clusters ofmines that are mapped on a series of twelve"detail" maps.(Detail Maps DI to DI2). Each detail map corresponds to a particular canyon andhas a single access road. The detail maps are designed to show the location of each mine in thecanyon once one has entered the map area.

C. The following tab le shows the relationship between the six subareas and the twelve detail areas:Subarea DetailMap Scale: Map Scale:1 :48,000 or I inch 4000 feet I: 12,000 or 1 inch 1000 feetSubarea Subarea Detail DelailNumber Name Number NameSI Copper Springs None None

East Gov ' t/No. Dl North Oak BrushS2 Oak BrushlHarker D2 Harker CanyonS3 Bennion D3 Bennion

D4 Little Valley NorthS4 Vernon CklLittle Valley D5 Little Valley SouthD6 Joes CanyonD7 Sheeprock

S5 JoeslHard to Beat D8 Hard to Beat SouthD9 Hard to Beat NorthD10 Cottonwood

So. Pine/So. OakBrush Dli South PineS6 Dl2 South Oak Brush


49/107


Jericho-Callao Road (past Little Sahara). It s generally easier and faster to reach mines on thesouthern flank by taking the Jericho-Callao roadfwm highway US -6.B. The Vernon Sheeprocks project covers a very large area (approximately 160 square miles).A lthough most of the mines are clustered in a 20-square-mile band along the main spine of the

mountain r a n g e access to the mines is complicated. The system of roads serving the area is notvery good and consists of several dead-end spurs leading up the canyons where the mines arelocated. There are no good internal connecting roads. Travel distances are long and the roads areslow. In many cases it will take longer to travel to the mines than it will to actually close them. I tmay take several hours to drive from one mine to another less than a mile away on the opposite sideof a ridge due to the lack of connecting roads in the interior of the project area.

C. Detailed toad directions are not included in these specifications. The project is large and the roadsystem is complex. There are too many potential starting points and too many destinations toprovide a complete se t of written directions. Access routes are best determined by consulting theproject maps . The road system can be thought of as a loop that runs around the perimeter or theSheeprock Mountain range, w ith several dead-end spurs that run from the perimeter loop into theva rious cahyons in the range. The "Key Roads" map (Map *****) shows the location of theperimeter loop roads and their relationship to major highways ahd cities. Use this map and the"Project Overview" map (1vfap *****) to navigate to the landmarks shown on the subarea maps(Maps S1-S6). Use the subarea maps to navigate from the landmark to the canyons shown on thedetail maps (Maps Dl-D12). Use the detail maps to fInd the individual mine openings.

D. OWNER has detailed written access route de$criptions and road logs to all work areas and willprovide them to CO NTRACTOR if needed.E. To simplify navigational directions, some key point locations have been defined. for use aslandmarks. These landmark points are labeled on the project maps. (Most of the se landmarklocation names were made up for this project and will mean nothing to local residents.)

Vernon: junction ofU-36 and Castagno Street (Silver Sage gas station)Benmore: T-intersection located at the common carner 0[T9S, R5W, Sections 20,2 1,28, 29. Itis th"junction ofUSFS Roads #005 and #090 at the USFS Benmore Station. Benmore is twomiles due east of the Harker Road Junction on USFS Road #090 .


50/107



OOS /Cherry Creek Junction: 3-way intersection of USFS Road #005 along Vernon Creek and. he.Cherry Creek Road in I II S, R4W, Section J SWv". Because of comer-cutting' the junction isactually three intersections about 0.1 mile apart with a large triangular island between them.There are routed wood BLM directional signs at each intersection, but the west-facing sign hasfallen down.

F. The following list provides the navigational landmarks and the detail maps found in each subarea.Use the "Key Roads" and "Project Overview" maps to navigate to the landmark Use the subareamaps to navigate from the landmark to the areas mapped on the detail maps. The detail maps cantl1et1 be used to locate each individual mine site.Copper Springs: (Subarea Map S 1) [1 site, 1 closure1Landmark: Erickson Pass Junction (turnoff from the PonyExpress Trall)Details: None.This subarea has a single site, 3080911vooa 1 that is not mapped on a detail map.East Gov'tlNo. Oak BrtL,h/Harker: (Subarea Map S2)Landmark: Harker Road JunctionDetails: North Oak Brush (Dl), Harker Canyon (D2)This subarea has three sites that are not mapped on a detail map: Site 3090620VOOOI on EastGovermnent Creek and Sites 309062710001 and 3090627PROOI on Lion Hill along the road to'North Oak Brush Canyon.Bennion: (Subarea Map S3)Landmarks: Harker Road Junction, BenmoreDetail: Bennion (D3)Vernon CklLittle Valley: (Subarea Map S4)Landmark: BenmoreDetails: Little Valley North (D4), Little VaJley South (DS)This subarea has three sites that are not mapped on a detail map: Site 3100503HCOOl, Site3100511H0001, and Site 3100524HOOOl , all near Vernon Creek along USFS Road #005.Joesffiard to Beat: (Subarea Map SS)Landmark: Ekker Ranch Junction


51/107

Environmental Assessmen(01131/05 Vernon Sheeprocks Project

B. Roads on the maps in Appendix G are symbolized as Paved, 2WD, 4WD, ATY, Foot, orUnclassified. Roads symbolized as Paved or 2WD are maintained and should be passable to alltypes of vehicles in most weather. Roads symbolized as 4WD are wide enough for a standard truckor SUV, butmay have rocks, ruts, gully crossings, mucl, ot other obstacles requiring high clearanceand/or four-wheel-drive. Roads symbolized as ATV are too narroW, too steep, ot too rocky for fullsized vehicles bu t are suitable for ATY's. Some ATV roads may be also suitable for trackedequipment. Roads symbolized as Foot are too steep, narrow, washed out, or boulder strewn forvehicles, although some may be passable to single-track vehicles (dirt bikes). Unclassified roadsmay be any type (most are 4WD) but are not needed to access the mines; they are included asreference lanchnarks.

C. Many of the interior roads in the project area are Forest Service roads with USFS road numberdesignations. These road numbers are marked in the field on Carsonite (fiberglass) posts and arelabeled on the maps. Some of these posts are missing.

D. Roads in Joes, Sheeprock, Hard to Beat, and Cottonwood canyons have locked gates. OWNERwill provide a key for these loCks. Keys are USFS property.

E. The road going up Joes Canyon has two gates with over.head guy wires bracing the gateposts. Themaximum clearance under these wires is 6-8 feet, which is adequate for a pick-up or SUV, but no tfor a larger truck or backhoe.

F. The road going up Hard to Beat Canyon has a gate wi th an overhead crossbeam between thegateposts. The maximum clearance under this beam is 12.5 feet.

G. Vehicle travel on some roads is subject to restrictions (see Part 2.08 below).1.07 LAND STATUS

A The Vernon Sheeprocks Project area contains land owned or controlled by several parties.OWNER is responsible for obtaining the necessary rights of entry to perfonTI the rec1am alion workOWNERwill have maps showing boundaries of property tracts available during construction forconsultation.


52/107


Vernon SfjeeprocJfs Project

D. CONTRACTOR shall not perform WORK on any site until OWNER has obtained landownerconsentfor thilt site.E. At time of project bidding. OWNER has secured *****orallwritten landowner consent for right ofentry for 11]ost of the private land in the project area. OWNER anticipates having all private land

written rights of entry in place by the time the Notice to Proceed is issued.F. CONTRACTOR shall not perform WORK on sites on USFS adl)linistered land 'until OWNER has

obtained authorization from USFS (expected prior to No tice to Proceed).

PART 2 - SPECIAL CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS201 CULTURAL RESOURCE PROTECTION

A. The Vernon Sheeprocks Project area has 69 mine openings determined to be on significanthistorical sites eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (31 of these arescheduled for closure). Natiohal Register eligible sites are indicated in the mine closure table inAppendix A. All rec/qmation activities shall be conducted in a manner senlti/ive to the historicValues and resources found in the area. CONTRACTOR shall ensure that all construction crewmembers are aware of the cultural sensitivity of the area and the cu ltural resource protectionrequirem ents.

B. While features such as c'abins, headframes, and ore chutes are obviously important, many of thehistoricHlly important features present in the project area are not readily apparent. For example, oresorting areas may appear simply as a patch of differently colored rock on a dump. Much of what issignificant might typically be dismissed as "trash" somewhere else. Often, the mine opening itself,or cribbing within an opening, is important and needs to be treated appropriately.

C. Access improvement, excavation, and other ground disturbing activities shall be limited to theminimum necessary to achieve the goals of the '-'YORK. A lteration or removal of structures orstructural elements of mine openings, such as props, lagging, cribbing, retaining walls, fo

Vernon-Sheeprock Mtns USFS unita EA

Documents

Transcript of Vernon-Sheeprock Mtns USFS unita EA