Final EA 7 21 06 For BLM Serviceberry Canyon Utah

United States Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management
Environmental Assessment UT-020-2006-029

August 10, 2006
Serviceberry Canyon Project
Location: Township Range Sections

T4S R4W 33, 34, 35, 36
T5S R4W 1-4, 9-16, 23-24
Salt Lake Meridian
Applicant/Address: Abandoned Mine Reclamation Program

Utah Division of Oil, Gas and Mining
U.S. Department of the Interior

Salt Lake Field Office
2370 South 2300 West
Salt Lake City, 84119
Phone: (801) 977-4300
FAX: (801) 977-4397
Serviceberry Canyon Project August 10, 2006
Environmental Assessment page 2
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Utah Abandoned Mine Reclamation Program
AMR/045/911
Tooele County, Utah
Prepared by
Utah Abandoned Mine Reclamation Program

and
Resource Staff
on behalf of the
USDOI Office of Surface Mining and Bureau of Land Management
August 10, 2006


UT-020-2006-029
Contents Page
Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION/PURPOSE AND NEED
Introduction..............................................................................................................4
Background ..............................................................................................................4
Purpose and Need ....................................................................................................5
Conformance with BLM Land Use Plans................................................................5
Relationship to Statutes, Regulations, or other Plans ..............................................5
Identification of Issues.............................................................................................5
Chapter 2 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES
Alternative A- Proposed Action ..............................................................................6
Alternative B – No Action .......................................................................................8
Alternatives Considered, but Eliminated from Further Analysis ............................8
Chapter 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
General Setting ........................................................................................................9
Critical Elements of the Human Environment.........................................................9
Critical Elements Not Impacted by Proposed Action............................................10
Resources Brought Forward for Analysis..............................................................10
Other Important Concerns .....................................................................................13
Chapter 4 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Impacts on Critical Elements of the Human Environment (Alternative A) ..........15
Other Important Concerns .....................................................................................16
Cumulative Impact Analysis..................................................................................19
Monitoring .............................................................................................................19
Impacts on Critical Elements of the Human Environment (Alternative B)...........19
Cumulative Impact Analysis..................................................................................19
Monitoring .............................................................................................................19
Chapter 5 CONSULTATION & COORDINATION
Public Involvement ................................................................................................19
Persons, Groups and Agencies Consulted .............................................................20
Preparers ................................................................................................................21
Chapter 6 REFERENCES & ACRONYMS
References..............................................................................................................22
List of Acronyms Used in this EA.........................................................................23
APPENDICES
Appendix A – Interdisciplinary Team Analysis Record Checklist........................24
Appendix B – Maps ...............................................................................................25
Appendix C – Mine Closure Schedule…………………………………... ...........34
Appendix D – Closure and Construction Methods ................................................39
Appendix E – Section 0300 –
Serviceberry Reclamation Construction Contract Specifications..................44
Appendix F – Seed Mix .........................................................................................54
Appendix G – Standard Operating Procedures and Stipulations...........................56
CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION/PURPOSE AND NEED
Introduction
This environmental assessment (EA) addresses the potential environmental impacts that could be
associated with the Serviceberry Canyon Abandoned Mine Reclamation Project (also called the
Serviceberry Canyon Project) proposed by the Utah Division of Oil, Gas and Mining (DOGM).
The project would be carried out by DOGM’s Abandoned Mine Reclamation Program (AMRP)
under the authority of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (P. L. 95-87)
(SMCRA) and would be conducted in partnership with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
Salt Lake Field Office (SLFO) . The Utah AMRP has primacy in the state to conduct SMCRA
authorized abandoned mine reclamation. The Western Regional Coordinating Center, Denver
Field Office, Office of Surface Mining, U.S. Department of Interior, is the Federal agency which
funds and oversees this program.
The purpose of the AMRP is to abate physical safety hazards associated with abandoned mines
under the authority of Title IV of SMCRA. Only mines that meet the definition of “abandoned”
as defined in SMCRA are eligible for funding. Funding comes from a tax on current coal
production. A percentage of this tax is returned to the state of origin by the U.S. Congress
through the Office of Surface Mining specifically for use in the reclamation of abandoned mines.
Mines within the EA analysis area meet the Priority 1 safety hazard requirement in SMCRA.
The proposed project would address hazardous abandoned mine openings on private and public
lands in the Oquirrh Mountain region of Tooele County, Utah. The project area is southeast of
the town of Tooele within the Ophir Canyon drainage (See Appendix B, Map 1 - Project Area
Location). Access to the project areas is via existing graded roads, unimproved dirt roads, trails,
and footpaths. Reclamation construction could commence in August 2006 and should be
completed by September 2006. If unforeseen problems should occur, project completion could
be as late as September 30, 2007.
Visitors to these mines are exposed to a wide variety of physical safety hazards and potential
health hazards. Old mine access leads directly to the mine sites making them a destination for
hikers and mining history enthusiasts. This current ease of access increases the risk to the
public. This project proposes to close mine portals and eliminate physical hazards in such a way
as to preserve the historic values and provide visitors a safer recreational experience.
Background
According to The Utah History Encyclopedia (2005):
The Oquirrh Mountains lie on the west side of the Salt Lake Valley, extending north and south about
thirty miles. The highest elevation is Lewiston Peak at 10,676 feet. Communities located on the
eastern slope include Magna, Copperton, and Cedar Fort; and on the west slope Tooele, Stockton,
and Ophir. The name Oquirrh (pronounced O-Ker) was taken from the Goshute Indian word
meaning "wooded mountain.” Early visits to these mountains were undertaken by the Indians,
mountain men, government explorers, and Mormon pioneers. They encountered heavily forested
canyons with large maple trees, scrub oak and red pine with trunks as large as three feet in
diameter."
Mining first began in the Oquirrh Mountains in the 1850's with the discovery of valuable ores in
Bingham Canyon on the eastern slopes. In 1864, the Rush Lake Mining District was organized
and prospecting and mining began on the western side of the mountains (Newell, 1998).
Purpose and Need

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

The proposed action and alternative described below are in conformance with the Pony Express
Resource Management Plan, approved January 12, 1990, as amended. Although the proposed
action and alternative are not specifically mentioned in the plan, they are consistent with the
objectives, goals, and decisions of the approved plan. It has been determined that the proposed
action and alternative would not conflict with other decisions throughout the plan.
Relationship to Statutes, Regulations or Other Plans

The proposed action and alternative are consistent with federal, state and local laws, regulations,
and plans to the maximum extent possible. The following activity plans and documents also
direct SLFO’s management in the analysis area, including the selection of an alternate from this
EA: SLDO Weed EA UT-020-96-24, Utah’s Non-Point Source Pollution Management Plan
(2000), and Bonneville Cooperative Weed Management Area Plan (2005).
Identification of Issues
This proposal was posted on the Electronic Notification Bulletin Board (ENBB) and SLFO
public room on 3/6/2006. Public comments were not received by the SLFO. Issues were
considered for any resource that could be affected by implementation of the proposed action,
both through public involvement and input from the SLFO resource specialists. Resources are
either analyzed later in this document or, if not impacted, are listed in the attached
Interdisciplinary Team Analysis Record Checklist (Appendix A).
The project was discussed at public scoping meetings, one held in Tooele in January 2005, and
one held in Salt Lake City in June 2006 and announced in statewide newspapers. The main issue
raised by the public was the potential elimination of unauthorized recreational use of
underground mine workings for exploration and adventure and associated potential impacts on
the historical mine sites. Potential impacts to cultural resources, recreation, visual resources;
invasive species, vegetation, wildlife, soils, and threatened, endangered and special status
species, were identified by the SLFO resource specialists (Appendix A).
CHAPTER 2 - DESCRIPTION OF THE ALTERNATIVES
The Proposed Action and the No Action Alternative are considered the only reasonable
alternatives. No issues were raised during the scoping process that would suggest or identify
other alternatives.
Alternative A: The Proposed Action

The proposed action would consist of closing 75 mine openings and returning the disturbed areas
and access to as close to the pre-project conditions as feasible. Of these, 52 are adits or
horizontal openings and 26 are shafts or inclined vertical openings. Forty-nine mine openings
would be sealed by backfilling, sixteen would be closed by gate, nine would be closed by grate
and one would be sealed by the construction of native rock or masonry block walls. Three
require no action. Two of these mine openings (or 2.67%) are located on public lands managed
by the SLFO. A summary list of the mine openings and the recommended closures for each site
can be found in Appendix C (Mine Closure Schedule). The proposed access to the mine sites
and staging areas are identified in Appendix B - Map 5 and Map 6.
Under this proposal, the Western Regional Coordinating Center, Denver Field Office, OSM
would authorize the expenditure of $197,000 for use on abandoned mine reclamation project
activities by DOGM/AMRP as authorized under Title IV of the Surface Mining Control and
Reclamation Act (SMCRA) of 1977. The SLFO would authorize DOGM/AMRP to enter public
lands for the purpose of implementing abandoned mine land reclamation.
The project would be bid by the State of Utah Division of Purchasing and would be conducted
by a qualified Contractor and managed by the AMRP. Closure designs would utilize methods
that have been used by the Utah AMRP for over twenty years. Specific methods are discussed in
detail in Chapter 4 of this document and in Appendix D (Closure and Construction Methods).
Type of Closure Number proposed

Hand backfill 28
Equipment backfill 21
Wall 1
Gate 15
Grate 9
Corrugated metal pipe/gate 1
TOTAL Mine Closures 75
Backfilling mine openings would be accomplished by placing fill material taken from the mine
waste dumps and placing it inside the mine openings by hand or with the use of equipment. Wall
closures would be accomplished by constructing cement block or native stone walls. Block
walls would have a stucco facing placed on the outer surface to blend the closure with
surrounding rock surfaces. Pits and trenches would be filled with backfill material to a height of
24 inches or more above the collar of the opening in order to direct drainage away from the
backfilled mine
feature and allow the material to settle. Surface disturbance necessary for closure of mine
openings would be limited to the existing area of disturbance caused by previous mining
activities and is estimated to be less than 1/10 acre per feature plus some access related
disturbance for an estimated total of less than 30 acres for closure of all the mine features. Trash
and refuse from the construction would be removed and disposed of in a solid land fill in
accordance with state and local regulations.
Use of polyurethane foam (PUF) is not anticipated in the implementation of the proposed action;
however, unforeseen circumstances may require its use.
Construction would be performed in a way that minimizes disturbance to the ground/soil and
vegetation. Vehicles and equipment would utilize existing access with limited improvements
such as moving large rocks or filling gullies. Two areas that have been previously disturbed
would be used as staging sites. Backfill sources would normally be the mine waste dump
adjacent to the mine opening, the brow and slope above the opening, and nearby surface rock.
All backfill material would be obtained in a manner designed to preserve the visual
appearance/contour of the site. All areas disturbed by construction activities would be seeded by
hand broadcast using a seed mix specified by the BLM (see Appendix F).
The proposed closure method for each mine opening would be determined based on safety,
inventory data (threatened and endangered plant or animal species, bat surveys, cultural surveys,
paleontological surveys, etc.) and the weighing of these resource concerns at each opening to
select the closure method with the fewest resource conflicts. Some closure methods may be
altered from their description in the contract specifications at the actual time of construction due
to re-analysis or changes in conditions since the inventory was completed. Such changes cannot
be predicted, but are expected to be relatively minor (less than 5% of the total). Any changes or
additions would be based on the same criteria used to develop the proposed action.
Closure methods at all sites have been designed to protect all cultural and paleontological
features. Archeological inventories have been conducted at all openings (project U-04-SJ-0826)
and would be conducted at all mechanized access routes at or prior to the time of closure.
Closure methods at sites determined to be eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic
Places have been designed so that there would be no adverse impact on historic resources. A
consultation letter stating that the proposed action, utilizing these design considerations would
have no adverse effect on cultural properties and that the project is in compliance with Section
106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended, was sent to the Utah State Historic
Preservation Officer (SHPO) on July 20, 2006. Records are on file at the DOGM office. The
Utah State Paleontologist determined that there are no paleontological resources of concern in
the proposed project area. If any previously unrecorded prehistoric or historic cultural sites or
paleontological sites are encountered, work would stop and a BLM archaeologist or
paleontologist would be contacted. Newly discovered cultural or paleontological sites would be
recorded, evaluated, and proper treatment determined in compliance with 36 CFR Part 800.11. Deleted: in consultation with the BLM
archaeologist and the SHPO
The mine closure work is estimated to take approximately three months and would be conducted
in August, September and/or October 2006. Unforeseen circumstances and adverse weather Deleted: July,
conditions could force temporary suspension of work causing project completion to be extended
into September 2007. Work at each mine site would take from one to four days to complete
closure and reclamation. The DOGM/AMRP project manager and/or construction inspector
would be onsite during construction for the duration of the project. Details of the proposed
reclamation work are contained in the contract specifications entitled Section 0300 Serviceberry
Project Reclamation Construction Contract Specifications (Appendix E), and Standard
Operating Procedures and Stipulations (Appendix G).
Post Project Monitoring

Monitoring performed by the SLFO would be in accordance with the “Measuring & Monitoring Deleted: would be
Plant Populations.” Revegetation would be considered successful if cover equals or surpasses Deleted: within the first year of
completion of construction to evaluate
90% of the cover found in the surrounding area, invasive plant species account for no more than closure effectiveness, stability,
10% of the total herbaceous cover and no noxious weeds are present. If noxious weeds are revegetation success, and presence of
observed, appropriate control measures would be used as indicated in the SLFO Weed EA 1996 noxious weeds. The BLM would
continue monitoring once a year for the
and the land use plan. Vegetation would have five years to meet success. first five years and then on a five cycle
thereafter. ¶
¶
If reclamation fails for any of the above criteria, an assessment of the reasons for failure would
Deleted: Herbaceous v
be made and appropriate contingency measures taken. Monitoring is further discussed in
Deleted: criteria and woody vegetation
Appendix D (Mine Closure and Construction Methods). would have ten years to meet success
criteria
Alternative B: No Action Deleted: Soils may need to be tested for
Under this Alternative, abandoned mine reclamation construction activities would not be suitability or contamination if rainfall is
adequate but overall germination poor.
undertaken on public lands in the Ophir Mining District and $197,000 of funds issued by the Reseeding would take place in areas that
Office of Surface Mining would not be expended. The existing environment would remain in its fail to meet criteria and the species list
may need to be modified as a result of
current condition and there would be no additional environmental consequences as a result of success observed with the original seed
this alternative. Situations that could cause serious injury or death because of conditions at mix. The BLM would be responsible for
any contingency measures and annual
abandoned mine sites would remain unabated. As a result, current conditions would continue. monitoring of vegetation.
Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further Analysis

The "authorize/do not authorize" alternatives are essentially the only two options available to the
OSM Denver Field Office and BLM for the proposed reclamation project. Therefore, no other
alternatives were considered or eliminated.
The individual mine closures in the proposal can be considered as separate independent actions,
each with its own "authorize/do not authorize" option for the federal agency. Many alternative
project configurations consisting of fewer mine closures (i.e. partial projects) could be analyzed.
The environmental analysis and impacts of any subset of the whole project would generally be
the same as the analysis for the whole project as described in this EA.
Funding restrictions in P.L. 95-87 limit the reclamation to abatement of Priority 1 safety hazards
only. Accordingly, land rehabilitation, restoration of pre-mining conditions, or treatment of
chemical and radiological contamination are not proposed or considered as an alternative in this
environmental assessment.
CHAPTER 3 - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

General Setting
The proposed project area is located in eastern Tooele County in the north central Oquirrh
Mountains in Ophir Canyon. (See Appendix B - Map 1). The elevation ranges from 6,000 to
10,000 feet with the average elevation of the project area being around 8,000 feet above sea
level. The mean annual precipitation in Tooele is 17.48 inches. The mean annual temperature is
51 degrees Fahrenheit. Most of the precipitation falls during the winter/spring months or as
thunderstorm events usually occurring in July and August. The area has been impacted
previously by grazing, the development of roads for mineral exploration development and
mining activity.
Due to the elevation ranges covered in the project area, a wide range of floral communities are Deleted: extremely broad span of
represented. The lower elevation sites in the foothills are characterized by pinyon-juniper Deleted: al
woodlands intermixed with low sagebrush, shadscale, and other Upper Sonoran community
species. The higher elevations of the project area grade into the Transitional and Canadian life
zones, and exhibit species common to those zones, including maple, oak, and other mountain
brush community plants, as well as some spruce, fir and aspen (Cronquist, 1972).
The dominant plants include Douglas fir, white fir, mountain brome, snowberry, quaking aspen,
gambel oak, bluebunch wheatgrass, mountain big sagebrush, bluegrass, mountain big sagebrush,
arrowleaf balsamroot, phlox, low sagebrush and Sandberg bluegrass.
Critical Elements of the Human Environment

Fourteen critical elements of the human environment are considered in this document and are
discussed in the resource management plan (USDOI 1990). These are: Air Quality; Areas of
Critical Environmental Concern; Cultural Resources; Environmental Justice; Farm Lands (prime
or unique); Floodplains; Invasive Non-Native Species; Native American Religious Concerns;
Threatened, Endangered or Candidate Species (plant and animal); Wastes (hazardous or solid);
Water Quality (drinking/ground); Wetlands/riparian zones; Wild and Scenic Rivers and
Wilderness.
Seven of the critical elements of the human environment are either not present in the project area
or would not be impacted by the proposed action or alternative in this EA and are not addressed
further in this document. The 8 elements are: Areas of Critical Environmental Concern;
Environmental Justice; Farm Lands (prime or unique); Floodplains; Wetlands/riparian zones;
Wild and Scenic Rivers; and Wilderness (USDOI BLM 1999).
Five critical elements of the human environment are present in the project area, but would not be
affected by the proposed action or alternative of this EA. They are: Air Quality; Native
American Religious Concerns; Invasive Non-Native Species; Wastes (hazardous or solid); and
Water Quality and are discussed below.
Two critical elements could be impacted by the proposed action and are described and discussed
in detail below. These are Cultural Resources and Threatened, Endangered or Candidate Species
(plant and animal).
Critical Elements Not Impacted by Proposed Action (5)

Air Quality
Reclamation construction could increase fugitive dust above background levels during some
portion of the project. Emissions would be limited in duration and would be below acceptable
State limits. No resident human population would be affected.
Native American Religious Concerns

Tribes of the area and the appropriate bands have been consulted and do not have any concerns
regarding the project. Documentation of consultation is available in the project/case file in the
BLM-SLFO in Salt Lake City, Utah.
Invasive Non-Native Species

All vehicles and equipment used in the proposed project would be power washed before being
brought into the project area. All seed used for revegetation would be required to be certified as
weed and noxious seed free. No Invasive Non-Native Species would be knowingly introduced
as a result of the proposed action. These species could increase in the short term in areas
improved to gain access to mines due to subsequent germination of dormant weed seed in the
seed bank.
Wastes (Hazardous or Solid)

Standard construction practices would be utilized during the project. Spill of petroleum products
are not anticipated. The contractor would be responsible to cleanup and remove any hazardous
or solid waste generated during the project.
Water Quality
Reclamation construction could increase sediment levels during some portion of the proposed
action. Erosion control measures such as berms and water bars would be used as needed.
Reclamation activities would be consistent with Utah’s Non-Point Source Pollution Management
Plan (2000).
Resources Brought Forward for Analysis (2)

Two critical elements could be impacted by the proposed action and are described and discussed
in detail below. The two elements are: Cultural Resources and Threatened and Endangered or
State Sensitive species. Five other important resources that could be affected by the proposed
action are also described. These are Recreation, Visual Resources, Soil, Vegetation and
Wildlife.
Cultural Resources
The cultural resources report for the proposed Serviceberry Project was conducted by Sagebrush
Consultants, LLC in 2005 and titled A Cultural Resource Inventory of the Serviceberry
Abandoned Mine Reclamation Project, Tooele County, Utah by Andrew W. Williamson and
Wendy Simmons Johnson.
The Sagebrush report inventoried 75 mine openings and identified 17 new cultural resource sites
(42TO2670-42TO26860 and 7 isolated finds (IF1 – IF7). Of these, seven (7) sites are
considered eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. The balance of the
project has been found to be not eligible for the National Register. The effects on cultural
resources would be managed through the selection of closure types that minimize damage to
structural features. Mine closures would be managed to maintain the historic character of the
area. Neither of the two sites in the proposed project area on public land managed by the BLM
was determined to be eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. The nine
sites in the Northern Area (see Appendix B, Map 5 – Northern Site Area and Appendix C, Mine
Closure Schedule) would require travel over public lands managed by the BLM, on well used,
existing access roads. No mine openings would require cross country travel by mechanized
equipment.
Many of the proposed mine closures are simple barriers that would be set inside the mine
opening to prevent human entry without modifying the geometry of the opening (see Appendix
C Mine Closure Schedule for opening-specific closure methods). Masonry walls, steel gates and
grates, and polyurethane foam shaft plugs fall into this category. The closure installation would
require the removal of loose rock from portal brows and ribs, excavation and construction of
concrete footings in sills, and drilling holes in the host rock for steel anchor pins. In general for
these closures, the mine geometry would not be materially altered and the appearance of the
mine would be unchanged except for the presence of the barrier. If sufficient funding were
available, the closures could be removed and the pre-closure appearances of the mines restored.
Concrete block walls in high visibility situations would be faced with stone or plastered with
local soil mixed with mortar for a better color match with their surroundings. Backfills result in
greater alteration of appearance and loss of historic information at a mine, but are the most stable
and vandal-proof method of closure. However, the mine opening often would be completely
obliterated. Backfill can sometimes be recessed so that access would be blocked but the
appearance of the shaft or adit opening is preserved. For all types of closures, underground
access for legitimate historical and scientific data recovery would be precluded (as is access for
illegitimate users). However, closures would also protect underground artifacts and features and
other scientific data from vandalism and pilfering until such time as they can be properly studied.
Steel gates and grates would preserve views into underground workings.
Geotechnical conditions at some mines may mandate closures that would result in substantial
alteration or complete obliteration of the mine opening. Mechanized backfill closures proposed
at many sites would substantially alter the historic appearance of those mines. Many of these
mines have already been greatly altered by more recent mining activity and natural erosion
processes.
The Pony Express Resource Management Plan of January 12, 1990 (USDOI BLM 1990) calls
for recording historic sites and maintenance of historic values while protecting public safety.
Site recording has been done. The proposed action is both consistent with and authorized by the
resource management plan.
No known sites of Native American religious significance will be affected. The Paiute, Goshute,
and Ute Indian Tribes have been contacted and have not identified any conflicts.
Threatened and Endangered or Candidate Species

According to the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR), habitat for the following three
federally listed species is found in the project area. The bald eagle has been reported in the
proposed project area, however the last time a known nest was used was before 1967 (UDWR).
See Table 2 below.
Table 2. Tooele County, Utah, Federally Listed Threatened and Endangered Species
Common Name Scientific Name Status
Ute ladies’ tresses Spiranthes diluvialis Threatened
Yellow-billed cuckoo Coccyzus americanus Candidate
Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Threatened
The only federally listed plant species is the Utah Lady's tresses (Spiranthes diluvialis). This
orchid is known to occur along streams, bogs and open seepage areas at elevations lower than
2075 m (Welsh, 1987). The proposed project work would not occur in this habitat. The proposed
project work would not affect this species.
Utah State Sensitive Species

Twenty seven species in Tooele County are listed on the Utah State Sensitive Species list
maintained by the UDWR. Besides the bald eagle discussed previously, the ferrginous hawk and
Townsend's big-eared bat could occur it the area.
Table 3. Tooele County, Utah - State Sensitive Species List reported in/near
project area
Common Name Scientific Name Status
American White Pelican Pelecanus eythrorhynchos spc no
Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus s-esa yes
Bobolink Dolichonyx oryzivorus spc no
Bonneville cuttroat Oncoryhnchus clarki Utah cs no
Burrowing owl Athene cunicularia spc no
California floater Andonta californiensis spc no
Columbia spotted frog Rana luteiventris cs no
Dark kangaroo mouse Microdipodops megacephalus spc no
Eureka Mountainsnail Oreohelix eurekensis spc no
Ferruginus hawk Buteo regalis spc yes
Grasshopper sparrow Ammodramus savannarum spc no
Greater Sage-grouse Centrocercus urophansianus spc no
Kit fox Vulpes macrotis cs no
Least chub Ioichthys phlegethontis spc no
Lewis's woodpecker Melanerpes lewis spc no
Long-billed curlew Numenius americanus spc no
Lyrate mountainsnail Oreohelix haydeni cs no
Northern Goshawk Acipiter gentilis spc no
Northwest Bonneville pyrg Pygrulopsis variegata spc no
Prebles's shrew Sorex preblei spc no

Pygmy rabbit Brachylagus idahoensis spc no
Short-earred owl Asio flammeus spc no
Southern Bonneville springsnail Pyrgulopsis transversa spc no
Table 3. Tooele County, Utah - State Sensitive Species List reported in/near
project area
Souther tightcoil Ogaridiscus subrupicola spc no
Townesend's big-eared bat Corynorhinus townsendii spc yes
Utah physa Physella utahensis spc no
Yellow-billed cuckoo Coccyzus americanus s-esa no
Hawks
The ferruginous hawk is listed as threatened by the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources
(UDWR). The UDWR identified two nests that are 1.4 miles away from two shafts slated for
closure in the lower elevation portion of the proposed project area. Other suitable habitat exists
for nesting raptors within the proposed project area. No site-specific raptor surveys have been
conducted in or around the project area. UDWR knows of no peregrine falcon aeries (or any
other raptor nests) located within one mile of the project area, except for the unused bald eagle
nest previously discussed. No work would be conducted during nesting or fledging season.
Bats
Seventy eight abandoned mines were evaluated for bat use or potential use, (Altenbach, 1998;
Diamond, 2004, Meier, 2001). Internal and external bat surveys were conducted during the
summer peak activity period and during the winter hibernation period at all suitable abandoned
mine workings in the proposed project area. Forty two (42) mine openings were determined to
have little to no potential for usage by bats. Nineteen (19) adits and five (5) shafts were
recommended for bat compatible gates or grates. All mines were designated as roosts due to the
presence of guano, flying insect parts and/or for roosting potential. Ten mines appear to serve as
day roosts. Three mines appear to serve as night roosts. Two mines appear to serve as day and
night roosts. Four mines appear to serve as maternity roosts. Two mines show roosting potential
based on their estimated sizes. Evidence of Townsend's Big-eared bats (Corynorhinus
townsendii), Pallid bats (Antorzous pallidus), and a Myotis species were found (Diamond and
Diamond, 2003).
Other Important Concerns (5)
Recreation
No developed recreation facilities or activities exist within the proposed project area. Dispersed
recreation use in the area includes sightseeing, off-road-vehicle usage, cross country skiing,
hiking, mountain biking, camping, hunting, and exploration of old mine sites. Some members of
the public have expressed concern that the proposed project would eliminate the opportunity for
underground exploration and adventure. Specific visitation numbers for the area are not
available, but residents of eastern Tooele County including Tooele City and Stockton regularly
use the area for recreating.
VRM classes for the project area are documented in the Pony Express RMP (1990). The large
scale project area for the proposed action is on BLM lands classified as either VRM Class II or
Class III, thus mine sites covered by this assessment would need to meet the applicable VRM
objective for the specific mine site location.
The objective for VRM Class II is to retain the existing character of the landscape. The level of
change to the characteristic landscape should be low. Management activities may be seen, but
should not attract the attention of the casual observer. Any changes must repeat the basic
elements of form, line, color and texture found in the predominant natural features of the
characteristic landscape.
The objective for VRM Class III is to partially retain the existing character of the landscape. The
level of change to the characteristic landscape should be moderate. Management activities may
attract attention but should not dominate the view of the casual observer. Any changes should
repeat the basic elements of form, line, color and texture found in the predominant natural
features of the characteristic landscape.
Soil
According to the soil survey (USDA-NRCS 2000), mountainside soils in the area are moderately
deep, well drained and moderately permeable and range from cobbly to gravelly. Bedrock
material is generally reached within 36 inches. The primary soil series area Dateman-Podmor
outcrop association, the Dateman-Podmor moist-Rock outcrop association, the Podmor, moist-
Dateman-Rock outcrop association and Podmor-Onaqui-Rock outcrop association. These are in
land use capability class VII, with very severe limitations that make them unsuitable for
cultivation.
Vegetation
The project area is in the eastern Bonneville basin, more specifically the Oquirrh Mountains, in
the Great Basin Division of the Intermountain Region (Cronquist el al. 1972). Vegetation ranges
from sagebrush shrubland and pinyon-juniper woodland in the foothills to montane in the upper
elevations. Vegetation in the general project area consists of widely spaced pinyon and juniper
trees and scattered shrubs mixed with grasses and forbs. Characteristic species include pinyon,
juniper, shadscale, Mormon tea, rabbitbrush, big sagebrush, and Indian ricegrass. No special
status plant species are known to occur in the proposed project area.
Other Wildlife in the Area
Common wildlife species, (those non threatened or endangered and not on the Utah List of
Sensitive Species) known to utilize abandoned mine workings in the proposed project area
include cottontail and jack rabbits, deer mice, canyon mice, woodrats, rock squirrels, striped and
spotted skunks, coyotes, cougars, owls, western kingbird, rock wren, Say’s phoebe, red-spotted
toads, midget faded rattlesnake, prairie rattlesnake, Pacific rattlesnake and a variety of lizard
species. These species may often enter mine workings to forage for food or to seek shelter from
adverse environmental extremes found outside.
Alternative B: No Action
The description of the affected environment for the no action alternative is the same as the
description for the proposed action.
Chapter 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

Impacts on Critical Elements of the Human Environment
Alternative A: The Proposed Action
Two critical elements of the human environment were identified as requiring further analysis in
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment. These are Cultural Resources and Threatened and
Endangered or Candidate Species.
Cultural Resources
The closure method in the proposed action selected for each mine opening was designed to
incorporate mitigation measures to avoid any adverse impact to cultural resources. Mine closure
activities would be contained to areas previously disturbed by mining usually in the vicinity of
the mine waste dump material associated with that portal. Machine backfill would be the
preferred closure method using material from mine waste dumps. This would minimally alter
the appearance of the mining landscape. There would also be a minor, short-term effects to the
historic mining landscape resulting from the passage of workmen, trucks, and equipment during
closure activities. The proposed action would not result in any adverse effects to the remains of
historic structures, artifacts, equipment, or dwellings.
DOGM has determined that the proposed action would have “No Adverse Effect” on eligible
cultural or historic properties if the closure methods proposed in the proposed action and as
described in Appendix C are used. When cross country travel by heavy machinery would be
required to reach mine openings, and when such travel would be across areas not inventoried for
cultural resources, inventory would be required at or prior to the time of travel. Resources
identified would be avoided during cross country travel. Forty three eligible and thirty two non-
eligible openings, all on private land, are proposed for closure would require short cross country
travel (less than one quarter mile) by heavy machinery. Only two of the seventy five openings
3050410HO002 (Site 1, Appendix C) and3050424HO003 (Site 74, Appendix C) are on public
lands managed by the BLM. Opening number 3050410HO002 is not eligible for listing and
opening number 3050424HO003 was recorded as an Isolated Find.
The State Historic Preservation Officer has been consulted with regarding DOGM's
determination of eligibility and effect. The proposed action would have a minor permanent
impact on cultural resources. The appearance of the features would be slightly altered but the
key features would remain identifiable. The historical integrity of the mine sites would remain.
The National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 compliance work conducted under contract
for the OGM/AMRP by Sagebrush provides a permanent record and places these mines within
the national and local context of metal mining history in Utah. No further mitigation effort is
required under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended.
Threatened and Endangered or Candidate Species

Impacts of the Proposed Action on wildlife would be short term and temporary. Work would be
conducted in the late summer or fall, avoiding nesting or fledging times. No destruction of
suitable habitat for threatened, endangered, or sensitive species would occur except for bats.
DOGM consulted with the USFWS by sending a “no negative effect on federally threatened or
endangered species or other species of concern” determination letter on March 21, 2006.
Correspondence with the USFWS is maintained at the DOGM office and in the SLFO/case file.
In the proposed action, fifteen bat gates and nine grates would be installed during the closure
project. Therefore, closing mine openings could reduce bat habitat. To avoid entombing bats,
the proposed action requires temporary exclusion devices be placed in mine openings for three to
five consecutive days prior to permanent closure. This involves placing chicken wire nets over
the mine opening and securing the edges around the opening. Bats inside the mine exiting to
feed will stop when they encounter the wire net. They will light and negotiate their way through
the wire and continue out to forage. Rather than renegotiate the wire net, bats tend to find
another nearby roost and do not return to the mine. This allows bats to emerge for feeding
purposes but discourages re-entry (Mesch, 2003). To avoid entombing hibernating bats, mines
would not be closed during the winter months. Bat surveys were conducted during the summer
peak activity period and during the winter hibernation period at all suitable abandoned mine
workings in the proposed action. Bats are extremely aware of their environment and often use a
number of different roost sites concurrently. Mines that show no evidence of use at the time of
the surveys likely do not meet the rather specific needs that bats require. Since roost sites are a
limiting factor, it is not likely that mines showing no use at the time of the survey would become
favorable roost sites at a later time, unless some physical change occurred to improve the mines’
internal environment. Seventy eight mines are listed for exclusion in the Mine Closure Schedule
(Appendix C). All mines that could be safely examined internally would be checked prior to
closure.
Other Important Concerns

Five other important concerns were identified in Chapter 3. These are Recreation, Soil, Visual
Resources, Vegetation and Wildlife.
Recreation
The construction work proposed would have a slight impact on recreational activity for a very
limited time period. Construction work would take no longer than four days at any given site.
The public recreating in the area could encounter construction activities at isolated sites but
could easily travel to adjacent areas with no activity. Hazards associated with entering
abandoned mine sites such as rock fall from roof and side collapse would be eliminated by the
proposed work making recreational activities safer. The effect of the actual construction activity
would be short term and negligible. The danger of off-highway vehicles accidentally driving
into open mine shafts would be greatly reduced. Opportunities for exploring old mine workings
would be eliminated; however, this is a type of public recreation which the BLM does not
endorse for numerous safety reasons. Overall, the elimination of physical safety hazards would
provide a social benefit or advantage to recreating public.
Soil
The proposed action would include a slight disturbance of the soil resource. Machinery such as
a backhoe would be utilized. As much as possible, work would be limited to areas previously
disturbed by past mining activity. The soils in the project area are shallow, recent and of igneous
origin. Slight additional erosion could occur because of the proposed work due to disruption of
the soil surface. The elimination of physical safety hazards would have a minor, short term
impact on soil resources. Reseeding and contouring efforts would establish an effective cover.
Erosion would be minimal upon successful rehabilitation.
Visual Resources
The proposed action would have a negligible, temporary, and localized impact on visual
resources during construction. The proposed action calls for using four methods of closure: hand
backfilling, equipment backfilling, placement of bat gates, and constructing masonry walls faced
with stucco. Sites where hand backfilling is used to close the opening would have negligible to
no visual impacts due to the small scale of the individual project locations and the use of native
rock and soil materials on site. Sites where equipment backfilling is used to close the opening
would have negligible impacts to visual resources due to the use of native materials and the
proposed reclamation strategy. Sites closed with masonry block walls, which are larger in scale
than the other closure methods, would have a native material stucco facing applied in such a way
as to blend with the surrounding native rock surfaces and thus, would not cause a visual contrast
to the degree that it would be obvious to the casual observer. These closure methods would
improve a specific site's visual integration into the predominant natural landscape.
Backfill material would be obtained in a manner designed to preserve the visual character and
existing contour of the site. Limited improvements to existing access routes would be reclaimed
after the project work is completed. The impact to visual resources for either of these surface-
disturbing activities would be negligible.
During construction, workers and equipment would be visible for one to four days at each mine
site. Staging areas where equipment and materials would be stored during project
implementation would be visible for a period of less than twelve weeks. Seeing construction
equipment, materials and workers are temporary visual impacts. After construction completion,
the staging areas could exhibit slight visual impacts, but these would lessen to negligible over
time as the area revegetates.
After completion of the project, the overall impact to visual resources can be expected to result
in enhancement of the natural character of the predominant landscape features. This result is in
compliance with the existing VRM classifications for the project area.
Vegetation
All areas disturbed by the proposed work would be seeded with a seed mix approved by the
BLM and listed in “Section 0300 Serviceberry Project Reclamation Construction Contract
Specifications.” The vegetation cover in the proposed project area was severely disturbed by
past mining activity. The replacement of sparsely covered ground by vegetation would increase
cover, water infiltration and retention while reducing runoff and erosion. Increased vegetation
cover would protect soil from wind erosion that is a constant in the semi-arid environment. Each
of the standard vegetation measurements of plant cover, density and diversity should improve as
a result of the proposed action. The elimination of physical safety hazards would have a minor
but long lasting impact on vegetation resources.
Potential impact exists due to disturbance of sites that are in or adjacent to risk areas for weed
invasion. Monitoring would continue after seeding areas to insure that no infestation occurs due
to the disturbance of the site. Making sure equipment is clean and weed free prior to entering a
site is important. This is also applicable upon entering to new sits identified in the proposal
within the project area. Equipment should be clean prior to leaving the site as well, to prevent
spread of noxious weed seed to other areas that the equipment might wind up.
Wildlife
A COR (Certificate of Registration) would be obtained from the State of Utah and would list
numerous sub-permittees to handle and capture for later release any sensitive amphibians,
reptiles, and mammals found on sites proposed for reclamation, and to curate (give to the curator
of University of Utah Museum of Natural History) individuals of any species that are
inadvertently taken throughout the reclamation proceedings.
The proposed action would have a minor, short term and localized impact on wildlife species.
Animals could be disturbed by noise during construction activity. Some animals could be
displaced by the sealing of mines; however they should be able to find suitable alternate natural
habitats nearby. A small number of animals could be entombed. The impact would be minor
and localized. Some Utah bat species are currently classed as "species of special concern" by the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, but have no legal protection under the Endangered Species Act.
Some mine closures might eliminate habitat by sealing off roost sites. Bat survey data are being
used to protect bat habitat. Wherever geotechnical conditions allow, steel grates that allow bat
use and maintain ventilation would be used as mine closures at mines used by bats. This would
preserve habitat while also reducing human disturbance to bats. Where bat-compatible closures
are not possible, methods would be used to exclude bats prior to closure to avoid entombing bats.
DOGM/AMRP would perform surveys around work locations for raptor nests. Surveys would
be performed during the spring territory and nest establishment period and again at the time of
construction. If active nests are found, DOGM/AMRP would follow the time and distance
buffer recommendations in the USFWS raptor protection guidelines (Romin and Muck, 1999)
for that species. Construction work within buffer zones would be rescheduled until after
fledging. If observation of nests shows that young have fledged in advance of the dates in the
guidelines, DOGM/AMRP may request a variance from USFWS to allow earlier work. This
would only be done after discussion with the BLM and then in consultation with UDWR and
USFWS. With these measures, project work should not affect ferruginous hawks or other raptor
species.
Other wildlife would experience short term disturbance from human activity and noise during
construction. Most of the more common and conspicuous species (e.g. mule deer, coyotes,
ravens, turkeys) are either transient visitors and/or have the behavioral flexibility to adapt to
temporary disturbance. Construction activity should generally be short term and localized. The
project should not impact the common wildlife in the area.
Cumulative Impact Analysis

The proposed project area has been previously impacted by hard rock-metal mining activity for
over one hundred years. Mining activity has involved road development, exploration, creation of
open and hazardous mine features, mine waste dumps, structures, buildings, and debris. Mining
activity has decreased dramatically in the last twenty years and future development is unlikely in
the foreseeable future. It is anticipated that several other similar projects would take place over
the next ten years in the Oquirrh Mountains on public lands managed by the BLM to eliminate
the physical safety hazards of abandoned mines; in Settlement Canyon, Southport Canyon, and
Kessler areas north to Interstate Highway 80. Recent similar projects have also taken place at
Fivemile Pass, West Dip, Ophir and Jacob City. Upon completion of these projects, all known
hazards associated with abandoned mines located on public lands managed by the BLM in the
Oquirrh Mountains would be eliminated. These actions would make public lands managed by
the BLM a safer place for the recreating public. Measures designed to minimize impacts,
particularly gating or grating a portion of the openings in all areas, would minimize the overall
effect of systematic treatment. The proposed project would increase the mining history
knowledge base of Tooele County because of the information gathered for the development of
this environmental document.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has listed several tailings sites in the foothills of
the Oquirrh Mountains on the National Priority List (NPL, also known as Superfund) in eastern
Tooele County that could potentially become remediation projects within the next 10 years.
None are in the immediate area of this proposed project.
Monitoring
Monitoring activities described in the proposed action and in Appendix D would be sufficient
for this proposal.
Alternative B: No-Action
There would be no environmental consequences associated with no action alternative.
Conditions would remain the same and would likely worsen over time. No disturbance of any of
the resources values described in Chapter 3 would occur. Open abandoned mines would remain
a hazard to the recreating public's health and safety. No disturbance, displacement, or intentional
mortality of wildlife would occur.
Cumulative Impact Analysis

There would be no cumulative impact associated with Alternative B.
Monitoring
There would be no monitoring required for Alternative B.
Chapter 5 -CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

Public Involvement
The AMRP held an open house/public meeting at the Tooele City Library on January 26, 2005
that primarily discussed the Ophir project, an adjacent area immediately to the south of the
proposed action; however the Serviceberry Project (this proposed action) was also discussed.
The proposed project was posted in the BLM-SLFO Public Room and on the BLM's Electronic
Environmental Notification Bulletin Board on March 6, 2006.
Letters were sent to all land owners during 2005 and 2006 describing the project and requesting
their permission for a right of entry. local governments, grazing permittees, adjacent
landowners, tribes, environmental groups and interested citizens. AMRP staff met with the lead
BLM geologist at the Salt Lake Field Office and initially discussed this proposed project on June
7, 2005. The project was discussed in more detail at a meeting at the SLFO on February 15,
2006. Other BLM resource specialists were consulted. No issues were raised during the public
meeting or in response to a press release January 10, 2005.
Persons, Groups and Agencies Consulted

DOGM sent a determination letter regarding informal Section 7 ESA consultation to the USFWS
on March 21, 2006. Correspondence is on file at the SLFO and DOGM. No response after 30
days means they concur with the determination of no negative effect on threatened and
endangered or other species of concern.
DOGM sent a consultation letter to SHPO dated July 20, 2006 stating that DOGM determined
that the Serviceberry Project would have No Adverse Effect on historic properties.
Correspondence is on file at the DOGM office.
Coordination
Peter Ainsworth, Archaeologist
BLM Salt Lake District Field Office
Joel Diamond, Bat Biologist

Southern Utah University
Wendy Simmons Johnson, Archaeologist

Sagebrush Consultants, Ogden Utah
Lori Hunsaker, Archaeologist

BLM Salt Lake District Field Office
(Now with Utah Public Lands Policy Coordination Office)
Ray Kelsey, Outdoor Recreation Planner

BLM Salt Lake Field Office
Henry Maddux, Field Supervisor

US Fish and Wildlife Service
Mark R. Mesch, AMRP Administrator and Wildlife Biologist

Utah Division of Oil, Gas and Mining
Ron Sassaman, AML Program Specialist

U.S. Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement
Matthew Seddon, Deputy SHPO

Utah Division of State History
Terry Snyder, AML Coordinator

Utah Bureau of Land Management
Lenora Sullivan, Utah Natural Heritage Program

Utah Division of Wildlife Resources
Andrew M. Williamson, Archeologist

Sagebrush Consultants, Ogeden Utah
Preparers
Lucia Malin, Environmental Scientist
Abandoned Mine Reclamation Program
Utah Division of Oil, Gas & Mining
1594 West North Temple, Suite 1210
Box 145801
Salt Lake City, UT 84114-5801
(801) 538-5323
luciamalin@utah.gov
Larry Garahana, Geologist

Salt Lake City, UT 84119
(801) 977-4323
Larry_Garahana@blm.gov
Pam Schuller, Environmental Coordinator

Salt Lake City, UT 84119
(801) 977-4300
Pam_Schuller@blm.gov
Chapter 6 – REFERENCES AND ACRONYMS
References
Altenbach, Scott J. 1998. Abandoned Mines As Bat Habitat. Cultural Resource Management
Magazine, No 7, 1998. National Park Service.
Cronquist, Arthur; Arthur H. Holmgren, Noel H. Holmgren and James L. Reveal. 1972
Intermountain Flora, Vascular Plants of the Intermountain West, U.S.A. by The New York
Botanical Garden, Hafner Publishing Company.
Diamond, Gabrielle F. and Joel M. Diamond, 2004. An Evaluation of Abandoned Underground

Precious Metal Hard Rock Mines as Bat Roosting Habitat in the Serviceberry Abandoned Mine
Project Area, Tooele County, Utah. Internal report written under contract for the Utah Division
of Oil, Gas and Mining.
Meier, Len. 2001. Quality of Mine Reclamation Vital for Bat Conservation,
www.doi.gov/plw/febmar2001/bat.htm
Mesch, Mark R. 2003. Personal communication.
Mine Safety and Health Administration, 2005. http://www.msha.gov/SOSA/fatalstats.htm
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 2003

Newell, Linda King and Vivian Linford Talbot, 1998. A History of Tooele County. Utah State
Historical Society Publication, Salt Lake City, Utah
Snyder, Teresa. 2003. Personal communication.
Romin, L.A. and J.A. Muck. 1999. Utah Field Office guidelines for raptor protection from
human and land use disturbances. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service unpublished report.
United States Department of Agriculture, 2000. Natural Resources Conservation Service, Soil
Survey of Tooele Area, Utah.
United State Department of Agriculture, National Resources Conservation Service, 2000. Soil
Survey of Tooele Area, Utah - Tooele County and Parts of Box Elder, Davis and Juab Counties
and Parts of White Pine and Elko Counties, Nevada.
United States Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, 1999. Utah Wilderness
Inventory 1999, U.S. Department of Interior.
United States Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, 1990. Salt Lake Field
Office Pony Express Resource Management Plan, June 2, 1990
United States Department of Interior, Office of Surface Mining, 1983. Final Environmental
Impact Statement, OSM-EIS-11. Approval of State and Indian Reclamation of Program Grants
Under Title IV of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977. U.S. Department of
Interior
Utah History Encyclopedia 2005. http://www.onlineutah.com/oquirrhmountainshistory.shtml
Weatherbase.com 2005. http://www.weatherbase.com
Welsh, S.L. et al, 1987. A Utah Flora, Great Basin Naturalist Memoir No. 9 1987. BYU Press,
894 pp.
Williamson, Andrew M. and Wendy Simmons Johnson. 2005. A Cultural Resource Inventory
of Serviceberry Canyon Abandoned Mine Reclamation Project, Tooele County Utah. Sagebrush
Consultants, Ogden, Utah.
List of Acronyms Used in this EA
AMRP Abandoned Mine Reclamation Program

BLM Bureau of Land Management
COR Certificate of Registration
DOGM Utah Division of Oil Gas and Mining
DOI Department of Interior
EA Environmental Assessment
ENBB Environmental Notification Bulletin Board
IMP Interim Management Policy for Lands under Wilderness Review
MSHA Mining Health and Safety Administration
OSM Office of Surface Mining
PUF Polyurethane foam
RMP Resource Management Plan
SHPO Utah State Historic Preservation Office
SMCRA Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (Public Law 95-87)
SRMA Special Recreation Management Area
UDWR Utah Division of Wildlife Resources
USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service
SLFO BLM Salt Lake Field Office
APPENDIX A
Interdisciplinary Team Analysis Record Checklist

APPENDIX B - Maps
Location Maps
Map 1 Project Area Location

Map 2 Land Status
Map 3 Ownership/Claim Status
Map 4 Area Detail Map Boundaries
Map 5 Northern Site Area
Map 6 Southern Site Area
Map 7 Section 23 Supplement
Map1 – Project Area Location

Map 2 – Land Status Map

Map 3 – Ownership/Claims
Map 4 – Area Detail Map Boundaries

Map 5 – Northern Site Map Area

Map 6 – Southern Site Area Map

Map 7 – Section 23 Detail - Supplement

APPENDIX C
Mine Closure Schedule

SERVICEBERRY PROJECT
MINE CLOSURE SCHEDULE
Closure type Complete descriptions of work methods

abbreviations are in Appendix D
BFH Backfill - hand 28
BHM Backfill - machine 21
BG Bate gate 15
CMP/BG Metal pipe with bat gate 1
Grate Grate 9
Wall Wall 1
Total 75
Closure Estimated
EA Description of Opening 106
Site ID Number Bats Method & Quantity
ID # (all dimensions in feet) Eligibility
Comments cyd/sq'
1 3050410HO002 opening 7w x 3h, inside 10 BG 21
feet, 12wx10hx40d; timbers
2 3050410HO003 3.5wx5hx30d; pull timbers; Bat Exclu BFM 10
tugger wheel on top of dump
3 3050410VO001 5x8x14d; no dump; clear Bat Exclu BFM 21
timber off old road
4 3050410VO002 6.5x8x18d; no dump Bat Exclu BFM 32
5 3050411HO002 5wx5hx60d; collapsed BG 25
loadout bin, mine rail
6 3050411HO003 3wx4hx+20d Bat Exclu BFM 8
7 3050416HO001 5wx4hx20d; adit spilts Bat Exclu BFH 6
inside; LT 20' and RT 15'; 10
cyd dump
8 3050416HO002 5wx4hx50d; access NR Elig BG 20
improvement; mine rail;
cabin remains
Southern Area
9 3050413HO001 opening 12wx4h; at 10' NR Elig CMP\BG 4
inside 1.5wx1hx+15d; no
trail; cabin remains
10 3050414HO005 5wx6hx75d; no trail; ore rails NR Elig BG 30
and cable
11 3050414HO006 1.5wx.5hx25d NR Elig Bat Exclu BFH 1
12 3050414HO007 16wx9hx30d; no trail; VO15 NR Elig BG 150
blocks adit entrance, close
VO15 first
13 3050414HO008 4.5wx4.5hx40d; no dump; NR Elig Bat Exclu BFH 6
no trail; scale brow down
14 3050414HO009 4wx4hx100'sd; dump over NR Elig BG 16
10,000cyd; ore cable car
15 3050414IO015 6wx6hx60d; no dump, no NR Elig Bat Exclu BFH 27
trail; cable pipe
16 3050414IO016 14wx3.5w; 10' inside NR Elig Bat Exclu BFH 32
4wx4hx50d; dump 130 cyd
no trail
Closure Estimated
Comments cyd/sq'
17 3050414IO017 8.5wx3hx+35d; no trail; NR Elig Bat Exclu BFH 11
partially collapsed
18 3050414IO018 5wx5hx40d; no dump; loose NR Elig BG 25
rock above; needs access
improvement
19 3050414IO15a 5wx5hx40d; no trail; loose NR Elig Bat Exclu BFH 18
rock on hill side 100'
20 3050414VO014 8wx14hx257d; no dump; no NR Elig Grate 100
trail
21 3050414VO015 17wx16hx25d; no dump; no NR Elig Grate 225
trail
22 3050414VO016 3x3x20d; 14 cyd dump; no NR Elig Grate 66
trail; large dead tree
covering entrance
23 3050414VO017 15x20, inside 15' NR Elig Grate 250
15x20x50d; fill material
within 400'; no trail
24 3050423HO001 5wx1.5w; 10' inside 5wx5.5h Bat Exclu BFM 10
x100d; access improvement
needed for equip
25 3050423HO002 4wx4hx35d; dump 12 cyd; BFH 8
no trail
26 3050423HO003 4wx3hx20d; no trail; dump BFH 6
19 cyd
27 3050423HO004 5wx4hx50d; dump 300 cyd; two timbers BG 20
inside; mine rail
28 3050423HO005 4.5wx4hx25d; no dump; NR Elig Bat Exclu BFM 9
VO1 BF first; use dump of
HO6
29 3050423HO006 3wx1h, 10' inside 4wx6h NR Elig Bat Exclu BFM 8
30 3050423HO007 4wx5hx40d; mine door; NR Elig BG 20
access improvement
31 3050423HO008 2wx0.6h, 10' inside 4wx6h NR Elig Bat Exclu BFH 5
x20d; wood props; no trail
32 3050423HO009 5wx4hx50d; no trail; loose NR Elig Bat Exclu BFH 12
rock within 200'
33 3050423HO010 5wx4hx25d; no trail; loose NR Elig Bat Exclu BFH 9
rock above; wood props
34 3050423HO011 7wx3h, 10' inside 7wx6hx40 NR Elig Bat Exclu BFH 15
35 3050423HO012 3wx2h unknown depth; pipe NR Elig Bat Exclu BFM 3
36 3050423HO013 4wx4dx18d NR Elig BFM 10
37 3050423HO014 5wx6hx100d; dump 500 cyd BG 30
38 3050423HO015 5.5wx1.5h, 10' inside 5wx6h Bat Exclu BFM 9
39 3050423HO016 6wx4hx75d; wood props; NR Elig BG 20
adit door
40 3050423HO017 3.5wx1.5hx50d; wood props Bat Exclu BFM 5
41 3050423HO018 6wx4hx30d; machinery Bat Exclu BFM 15
Closure Estimated
Comments cyd/sq'
42 3050423HO019 6wx1h, 15' inside 5wx6xh Bat Exclu BFH 7
x25d; wood props
43 3050423HO020 7wx4h, 15' inside 15wx10h Bat Exclu BFH 17

x20d
44 3050423HO022 6wx1.5hx12d; access NR Elig Bat Exclu BFM 5
improvement; headframe
45 3050423HO023 25wx8hx+35d; access NR Elig Bat Exclu BFM 160
improvement
46 3050423HO024 1wx1hx8.5d; Common dump NR Elig Bat Exclu BFH 2
w/HO25
47 3050423HO025 5wx5hx40d; wood props; NR Elig BG 25
wheel barrow; no trail
48 3050423HO026 5wx2h, 15' inside 4wx6h NR Elig Bat Exclu BFH 12
x70d; no trail
49 3050423HO027 4wx1.5h, 15' inside 6wx5.5h NR Elig Bat Exclu BFH 8
x27d
50 3050423HO028 3.5wx2.5h, 10' inside 7wx5h NR Elig Bat BFH 10
x+35d; mine rail Exclusion
51 3050423HO029 4wx5hx21d; BFH 11
52 3050423HO030 5wx3.5h, 10' inside 7wx6h Bat Exclu BFH 12
x25d
53 3050423HO031 3.5wx5hx27d BFH 10
54 3050423HO032 14wx9.5hx+100d; access BG 133
improvement; wood props
55 3050423HO033 5wx5.5hx22d; no dump Wall-B 28
56 3050423HO035 8wx2hx40d; partially Bat Exclu BFM 11
collapsed
57 3050423HO036 8wx9h58d; access BG 72
improvement; drill steel
58 3050423HO037 10wx6h NR Elig BG 60
59 3050423IO001 4wx3.5hx20d NR Elig BFH 11
60 3050423IO002 4wx3hx20d; access NR Elig Bat Exclu BFM 6
improvement; boiler; wood
props
61 3050423VO001 3x4x30d; dump 200' NR Elig Bat Exclu BFM 20
62 3050423VO002 18 trench, one opening NR Elig Grate 99
3x3x8d other opening
9x10x34d; boiler, two small
pinned grates
63 3050423VO003 20x25x+100d; 5' chain link NR Elig Grate-B 696
fence w/ 4.5in steel posts
64 3050423VO004 7x8x46d; access NR Elig BFM 95
improvement
65 3050423VO005 4x5x42d; no trail NR Elig Bat Exclu BFH 33
66 3050423VO006 4x10x70d; no trail; dump 11 NR Elig Grate 40
cyd
67 3050423VO007 5x29x+100d; no trail, 20 cyd NR Elig Grate 145
dump
Closure Estimated
Comments cyd/sq'
68 3050423VO008 7x8x20d; no trail NR Elig BFH 42
71 3050423VO011 5x8x+175d; 6' fence; access NR Elig Grate-B 1024
improvement
72 3050423VO012 3x3x6d then goes horizontal NR Elig BFM 7
another +21'; old shaft cover
framing
73 3050423VO013 5wx6h NR Elig BFM 240
74 3050424HO003 3wx1.5h, 10' inside BFH 8
5wx6hx25d
75 3050424HO004 3w x 2h, sloughed in, stone Bat Exclu BFM 10
wall in front of opening
All Locations and dimensions are approximate and have not been field verified. Construction quantities are estimated
and will be comfirmed at time of construction. Refer to Section 0300, Part 1.03.C of the Specifications for a
description of the site ID numbering (tag number) system. Dimensions are in feet. h=high/height, w=wide/width,
l=long/length, d=deep/depth, diam=diameter, unk=unknown, w/=with, ~approx=approximately. Compass
directions=N,NW,E,SE,S, etc. Special conditions: Bat excl=bat exclusion required, NR Elig=National Register
eligibility site, Closure Methods: TBD= To Be Determined
APPENDIX D
CLOSURE AND CONSTRUCTION METHODOLOGY

Closure and Construction Methodology
Closure Methods
Access
Minimal improvements to access may be required to allow equipment to reach the mine
openings. Access to some of the sites is impassible and appears not to have been used since the
time of mining. Access improvements would be limited to short distances over previously
impacted areas, and could involve moving boulders, or moving waste dump materials needed to
achieve the access required by the appropriate closure method for the site. All improvements
would be removed when the heavy equipment exits the site. The disturbances would be raked
and seeded if the use were to result in a change from current condition
Equipment and Workers

Based on previous DOGM/AMRP projects of similar scope, the contractor is likely to use all or
part of the following equipment: track hoe (Cat 325 or equivalent), rubber-tired backhoe/loader
(Cat 416 or equivalent), small dozer (Cat D6 or equivalent), 1 or 2-ton flatbed truck, 4WD
pickup truck, water tank truck or trailer, equipment transport trailer, trailer-mounted and/or
hand-carried portable gasoline-powered arc welder/generator, air compressor, ATVs, and hand
tools (shovels, picks, pry bars, rakes, carpentry and masonry tools, etc.). Other equipment may
be added or substituted, as circumstances require. The contractor would likely have two field
crews of one to four people. A typical allocation of labor would be: one supervisor, one
backhoe/track hoe operator performing backfills, one crew of 2-3 manual laborers performing
backfills and/or wall construction, and 2 welders/laborers building gates. In order to make the
most efficient use of the field crews and equipment, the crews may be working at two different
openings in separate parts of the proposed project area at any given time. Workers would not be
allowed to camp on site. Normally, the workers would travel into the site they were working on
in the morning and travel out at the end of the day or completion of construction activities at the
site. Additional trips may be made to bring construction materials to the site.
Construction would be performed in a way that minimizes disturbance to the ground and
vegetation. Truck and equipment access to mine sites would utilize existing access with limited
improvements. Two areas that have been previously disturbed would be used as staging sites as
identified on Map 1, entitled Mine Access and Staging Area Locations. Backfill sources would
normally be the mine waste dump adjacent to the mine opening, the brow and slope above the
opening, and nearby surface rock. The backfill material would be obtained in a manner designed
to preserve the visual appearance/contour of the site. All access improvement would be removed
at the completion of the work.
Many of the mine sites in the project area would be reclaimed by hand. However, if equipment
is used the track hoe is the preferred for backfilling openings/prospects and pits/trenches. Where
waste dump or rock/soil materials are not located close enough to the location, a rubber tire
loader or dozer may be used to transport material to feed the track hoe. The track hoe is also
preferred for regrading waste dump material and mine access roads, but alternatively a rubber
tire loader or dozer could be used. A flat bed truck would be used for haulage of debris and a
pickup truck would be used for the transport of personnel and trash from the site.
Mine Closures
1. Backfill
Backfilling by hand would consist of placing backfill material with shovels into the
opening a distance of two times the portal height which would usually be between 10 and
15 feet. Backfilling with heavy equipment consists of constructing a work pad in front of
the opening in order to place backfill material into the opening. The bucket of the
backhoe would be used to push backfill material into the opening for a distance of at least
2 times the portal height. The material is placed either by hand or machine in such a
manner as to minimize voids and compacted to prevent the reopening of the portal due to
settlement of the fill material used. If the mine opening is not considered historically
important, the final shape of the fill would be mounded over the opening and blended
into the surrounding contours as much as practical. Runoff and snowmelt would be
diverted away from the backfill.
2. Walls
Masonry block or native rock wall closures would be an alternative method of adit,
incline and prospect closure where backfilling is not feasible. This type of closure is a
constructed wall located as far into the adit or incline (maximum of 10 feet) as is safe and
reasonable to reduce visibility of the wall from outside the openings. Any loose rock
above the area in which the wall is to be constructed would be removed. The wall would
be keyed into the rock to provide more strength and integrity to the wall. Large walls,
greater than 12 ft x 15 ft, would require construction of support pilasters. The wall would
be constructed of solid concrete block or native stone. Concrete block walls would be 16
inches thick. Native stone would be constructed to a minimum thickness of 2 feet at the
base and 18 inches at the top.
When necessary, drain pipes would be located near the base of the wall within 15 inches
of the intersection of the floor material in the approximate center of the wall or near a
low spot along the base. The drainpipe would protrude a minimum of 12 inches on either
side of the wall. All of the masonry block walls would be constructed by hand. Mine
closure materials and supplies would be moved to the site by pickup trucks or all terrain
vehicles (ATVs).
3. Bat Adapted Closure

Bat gate construction methods would be as follows: The opening would be prepared by
removing loose rock from the area in which the bat gate closure is to be constructed. A
concrete footer would be poured in a trench excavated into the floor of the opening, and
anchor pins doweled into the adit walls. Perimeter bars would be welded to the anchor
pins to provide a continuous steel lining on the adit ribs. The perimeter bars would be
bent or cut into segments to conform closely to irregular surfaces, with a maximum gap
of 6 inches between the rib and the bar. Vertical supports would extend into the concrete
footer and be positioned as close to the adit ribs as possible, with a maximum gap of 16
inches between the rib and the vertical support. Horizontal crossbars would be spaced on
5-inch centers for a maximum gap between bars of 4 inches. A lock box would be
welded onto the vertical support.
4. Polyurethane Foam (PUF)

PUF closures are not anticipated in the Serviceberry mine closure project. If such closure
methods would be required for unforeseen reasons, installation would be as follows:
PUF closures would consist of constructing a bottom form and placing the PUF on the
form. The PUF would be topped with a layer of concrete and backfill material to the
surface. A ventilation/drainage pipe would be required.
Other Reclamation Methods
Revegetation
Seedbeds would be prepared in areas where surface disturbance has occurred in the
closure process, by roughening the cover material using mechanical equipment.
Seedbeds would be hand raked on sites too small, remote, or steep for the use of
conventional machinery. The roughening process would leave the seed bed in a fluffy
condition.
All disturbed areas would be seeded with native plant species during the Fall months.
The species composition and planting rates of the seed mixtures are found in Appendix
F. Disturbed areas would be seeded by hand broadcast seeding. Broadcast seeding
would be accomplished using hand-operated “cyclone-type” seeders. Two passes would
be made over the seeded area to evenly distribute seed. Broadcast seeding would take
place immediately following the completion of the roughening process. Seeding would
not be conducted under extremely windy conditions.
Determining Revegetative Success

Revegetation would be considered successful if cover equals or surpasses 90% of the
cover found in the surrounding area, invasive plant species account for no more than 10%
of the total herbaceous cover, and no noxious weeds are present. If noxious weeds are
observed, appropriate control measures would be used. Vegetation would have five years Deleted: Herbaceous v
to meet success criteria. Deleted: and woody vegetation would
have ten years to meet success criteria
Revegetation success would be determined by establishing three reference sites in the

Serviceberry area that best represent site potential. Herbaceous vegetation cover would
be measured using modified Daubenmire sample frames (0.5 x 0.25 meters) or a similar
method to measure cover. A minimum of three transects would be placed in the
reclamation area and in the reference area and 20 frames would be read on each transect.
Transect length would be modified to match the impacted area. Woody vegetation cover
would be measured using the line intercept method along the Daubenmire transects. The
line intercept would run for 50 meters. The beginning and end points of the transects
would be permanently marked with rebar covered with PVC pipe, recorded on a GPS and
labeled. Visual surveys would be made for any noxious or weed species in the
reclamation area and any evidence of soil instability would be noted. A species list of all
species present in the reclamation area would be compiled.
If reclamation fails for any of the above criteria, an assessment of the reasons for failure
will be made and appropriate contingency measures taken. Soils may need to be tested
for suitability or contamination if rainfall is adequate but overall germination is poor.
Reseeding would take place in areas that fail to meet criteria and the species list may
need to be modified as a result of success observed with the original seed mix. Deleted: The BLM would be
responsible for any contingency measures
and annual monitoring of vegetation.
APPENDIX E
Section 0300 Serviceberry Project

Reclamation Construction Contract Specifications
Section 0300 Serviceberry Project

Reclamation Construction Contract Specifications
(Appendices referred to in this section are NOT included in the EA due to excessive length)
PART 1 - GENERAL
1.01 WORK INCLUDED
A. This section describes the location, the features present, and the WORK to be performed at the Serviceberry
Canyon Project located in Tooele County, Utah. The items of the WORK shall be performed according to
the appropriate sections of these specifications.
B. It is the intent of these Specifications that the site-specific scope of WORK is as described in this Section.
The General Technical Specifications, Sections 0200 through 0290, outline WORK broadly applicable to all
abandoned mine reclamation situations and that may not be required at each mine site in this project. Where
there is a conflict between Section 0300 and the General Technical Specifications (0200's), Section 0300
shall govern.
C. The access, site description, and specific requirements for each closure method are described in this Section.
Details and dimensions are shown on the drawings in Appendix E. CONTRACTOR shall be aware that the
dimensions on the Drawings are shown as typical. CONTRACTOR shall also be aware that minimum or
maximum dimensions on the Drawings or given in the Specifications are specific and are to be adhered to
unless the OWNER approves changes in writing. The quantities presented in the specific site sections should
be considered an estimate with a tolerance of plus or minus 15 percent. CONTRACTOR shall visit each site
and determine the quantities and amounts required in performing the WORK as intended in these
Specifications and on the Drawings.
1.02 LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
A. The Serviceberry Canyon Project is located in the Oquirrh Mountains approximately 19 highway miles south
of Tooele, Tooele County, Utah. General reclamation area boundaries of the Serviceberry Canyon Project are
shown on the attached location maps (see Appendix F, Sheet 1) and are described in this section.
B. The Serviceberry Canyon Project area consists of approximately 75 identified abandoned mine openings or
other mining features. The mine openings consist of adits, inclines, vertical shafts, exposed stopes, prospect
pits, trenches, and subsidence holes. The openings occur in a wide range of sizes, configurations, and
conditions.
C. Access: To reach the Serviceberry Canyon Project area from Tooele (junction of Main and Vine streets).
Drive south 11.8 miles on Highway 36 (through Stockton, UT), to the junction of Highway 36 with Highway
73. Turn left (east) on Highway 73 and drive 4.6 miles to a paved road named Ophir Town Site Road. Turn
left (east) and proceed toward Ophir Canyon. There are two (2) site groups with the access to each described
from Tooele (junction of Main and Vine streets) in Parts 1.04 and 1.05.
D. The formal project boundary takes in the following sections, although mines occur in only a portion of this
area:
T5S, R4W, Sections: 1, 2, 3, 4, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 23, & 24
T4S, R4W, Sections: 33, 34, 35, 36
E. The Serviceberry Canyon Project is mapped on the Stockton, Lowe Peak, Ophir, and Mercur USGS 7.5
minute quadrangles.
USGS 7.5 minute quad index:
Stockton Lowe Peak

Ophir Mercur
1.03 MINE OPENING LOCATIONS AND DESCRIPTIONS
A. The Serviceberry Canyon Project area consists of approximately 75 identified abandoned mine openings or
other mining features. The mine openings consist of adits, inclines, vertical shafts, exposed stopes, prospect
pits, trenches, and subsidence holes. The openings occur in a wide range of sizes, configurations, and
conditions.
B. Locating Sites: Many of the project sites are very difficult to find, even with maps. There are few good
landmarks in the foothills and the pinyon-juniper woodland and oak scrub limit visibility. Natural talus
slopes that resemble mine dumps are commonplace. Recreational ATV activity has created a complex and
confusing network of unmapped roads and trails that often go nowhere in particular. Flagging tape from
dozens of different users is so widespread in the area as to be useless for navigation. For this reason,
OWNER recommends that CONTRACTOR have access to Global Positioning Satellite (GPS) equipment to
supplement the maps when locating sites. GPS units can use the UTM coordinates in Appendix A to set
courses and reduce unproductive time looking for sites. Locations, descriptions, approximate dimensions,
UTM coordinates, closure methods, and map references of each mine opening (site) are provided in the table
in Appendix A. Detailed locations of the sites are presented on the maps in Appendix F. Note that mine
symbols may be plotted on the maps offset slightly from their true locations due to terrain interference with
GPS surveys and the way the mapping software treats adit symbols.
C. Site ID Numbers (Tag Numbers): Each mine opening or feature is identified by a unique site identification
number such as 3411308HO002. The ID number consists of seven digits, two letters, and three digits. The
first digit indicates the quadrant around the Salt Lake baseline and meridian (or the Uinta special meridian).
Townships south and east of the SLBM are coded "4." The second and third digits indicate the township, the
fourth and fifth digits indicate the range, and the sixth and seventh digits indicate the section. These numbers
are followed by letters indicating the type of mine opening or feature (H = horizontal adit, I = inclined adit, V
= vertical shaft, SH = subsidence hole, PR = prospect, TR = trench, PT = open pit,) and, in the case of shafts
and adits, letters indicating whether the mine is open (O) or closed (C). These letters are followed by
numbers that are sequential numbers assigned as the openings were encountered during the field inventory.
Thus, site number 4060318HO003 is the third horizontal opening (HO) inventoried in Township 6 South,
Range 3 East, Section 18. The leading zeros in the sequential number part of the ID number are frequently
omitted (i.e. HO3 instead of HO003).
D. Identifying Sites: The mine openings are marked in the field with 1”x 2” wood stakes. Tags were
intentionally put in obscure locations to deter vandalism and may not be easy to find. Because of vandalism
or weather, many mine ID markers are missing or not eligible. CONTRACTOR will have to rely on the site
location maps and the descriptions in Appendix A to identify mine sites. OWNER’s Contract Representative
will provide assistance in identifying the mine openings.
1.04 PROJECT SITE GROUPINGS
A. The mine sites in the Serviceberry Canyon Project have been organized into two groups based on
geographical proximity and access considerations. Map 2 of 5 is the Area Detail Map and will serve as a key
on subsequent detail sheets, visually illustrating the position of the current sheet within the entire project area.
These groups are the basis for the area detail maps in Appendix F and the site groupings in the Bid Schedule
and Closure Schedule, Appendix A. The two groups are: Northern Area and Southern Area. The
descriptions that follow have adequate directions to get to the areas mapped on the area detail maps. The
maps can then be used to locate each individual mine site. All of the directions start from the center of
Tooele at the junction of Main and Vine Street.
B. Northern Area: (Map Sheet 3 of 5) [8 sites]

There are 8 open mine sites in the northern group consisting of 2 adits and 2 shafts in Section 10, 2 adits in
Section 11, and 2 adits in Section 16. The Northern Area total is 6 adits and 2 shafts.
General access to all of the northern sites in the Serviceberry Canton Project will be described from the center
of Tooele (at the junction of Main and Vine Streets). Tooele is the county seat for Tooele County and is
about 34 highway miles southwest of Salt Lake City via Interstate 80 unto State Highway 36. From Tooele,
drive south 6.5 miles on Highway 36 to Stockton. At Stockton, take East Silver Avenue or another street to
the east, past the athletic field and head south towards Soldier Canyon. Continue south and the southeast,
passing Soldier Canyon turn-off at 1.6 miles out of Stockton. Continue uphill on the main gravel road a total
of 5.2 miles from Stockton to the saddle of a long ridge in the middle of Section 9.
Six of the 8 northern sites are accessed by going north of Commadore Pass, all within 0.5 miles of each other
in Sections 10 and 11. From above described saddle, continue up the main road 2.6 miles into Jacob City
area. There are several road choices. Take the switch backs uphill another 1.5 miles, leading to the saddle in
Commadore Pass. At the point, the road goes downhill into the ravine heading to the north, which is the
access to Section 10 or climbs the hillside to the northeast into Section 11.
C. Southern Area: (Map Sheet 4 of 5 and 5 of 5) [70 sites] Comment [p1]: We need to include
There are 70 mine sites in the southern group consisting of 1 adit in Section 13 (Map 4); 5 adits, 5 inclines, Map #4.
and 4 shafts in Section 14 (Map 4), 37 adits, 2 inclines, and 13 shafts in Section 23 (Map 5), and 3 adits in
Section 24 (Map 4). The southern area totals 46 adits, 7 inclines, and 17 shafts.
General access to all of the southern sites in the Serviceberry Canyon Project will be described from the
center of Tooele (at the junction of Main and Vine Streets). Tooele is the county seat for Tooele County and
is about 34 highway miles southwest of Salt Lake City via Interstate 80 unto State Highway 36. From
Tooele, drive south 11.8 miles on Highway 36 through Stockton to the junction of Highway 36 with Highway
73. Turn Left (east) on Highway 73 and drive 4.6 miles to a paved road named Ophir Town Road. Turn left
(east) and proceed up Ophir Canyon. Travel 3 miles up this canyon and there will be a major dump covering
the entire south-facing slope on the left hand side of the road, just before entering the town of Ophir.
1.05 PROJECT AREA ACCESS
A. The project area is served with a network of old roads, ATV trails, and foot trails. Paved roads are limited to
Highway 73 and the main roads in Ophir, Mercur and Soldier Canyons. All other roads and dirt or gravel
with varying degrees of passibility and upkeep. The dirt roads are quite-rutted or rough and rocky in good
weather and turn slick and muddy when wet. High clearance and/or 4-wheel drive vehicles are mandatory for
travel in much of the project area. ATV trails lead to many sites often but are too narrow or steep for trucks
or crawler equipment to use. Many of the mine sites are accessible only by foot. CONTRACTOR shall select
from a pre-determined number of staging areas identified in the specifications and secure all necessary
permits, including camping permits, from the applicable land management agency.
B. Roads on the maps in Appendix F are symbolized as Highway, Paved, Unimproved, ATV, and Foot. Roads
symbolized as Paved are maintained and should be passable to all types of vehicles in all weather. Roads
symbolized as Unimproved are wide enough for a standard truck or SUV, but may have ruts, gully crossings,
or other obstacles requiring high clearance and/or four-wheel-drive. Roads symbolized as ATV are either too
narrow, too steep, or too rocky for full sized vehicles but are suitable for ATV's. Some ATV roads may be
also suitable for tracked equipment. Roads symbolized as Foot are too steep, narrow, washed out, or boulder
strewn for vehicles, although some may be passable to single-track vehicles (dirt bikes).
C. Vehicle travel on some roads is subject to restrictions (see Part 2.05 below).
1.06 LAND STATUS
A. The Ophir Canyon Project area contains land owned or controlled by numerous parties. OWNER is
responsible for obtaining the necessary rights of entry to perform the reclamation work. OWNER will have
maps showing boundaries of property tracts available during construction for consultation.
B. Approximately 2 of the 75 sites occur on public land managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM).
These include sites on unpatented mining claims and sites on other public land. For more information,
contact:
Larry Garahana, Geologist

Salt Lake Office
Salt Lake City, Utah 84119
(801) 977-4300
C. Approximately 2 of the 75 sites occur on state land administered by the School and Institutional Trust Lands
Administration (SITLA). These sites are 3050416HO001 and 3050416HO002. Both are scheduled for
closure.
D. The remaining 74 sites scheduled for closure are on private land held by a number of different interests.
E. CONTRACTOR shall not perform WORK on any site until OWNER has obtained landowner consent for that
site.
F. CONTRACTOR shall not perform WORK on sites on BLM administered land until OWNER has obtained
authorization from BLM (expected prior to Notice to Proceed).
PART 2 - SPECIAL CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS
2.01 CULTURAL RESOURCE PROTECTION
A. Portions of the Serviceberry Canyon Project area have been determined to be eligible for listing on the
National Register of Historic Places. All reclamation activities shall be conducted in a manner sensitive to
the historic values and resources found in the area. CONTRACTOR shall ensure that all construction
crewmembers are aware of the cultural sensitivity of the area and the cultural resource protection
requirements.
B. While features such as cabins, head frames, and ore chutes are obviously important, many of the historically
important features present in the project area are not readily apparent. For example, ore sorting areas may
appear simply as a patch of differently colored rock on a dump. Much of what is significant at Serviceberry
Canyon 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, and protected if possible.
C. Access improvement, excavation, and other ground disturbing activities shall be limited to the minimum
necessary to achieve the goals of the WORK. OWNER shall be present if alteration or removal of structures
or structural elements of mine openings, such as props, lagging, cribbing, retaining walls, foundations,
doorways and all such work are required. Work shall be limited to the minimum necessary to safely and
effectively install the closure. Any such alteration shall be planned in advance in consultation with and
executed as directed by the OWNER.
D. One of the key features of the project area that makes the Serviceberry mining area historically important is
its surviving "historic landscape": the overall appearance of the terrain dotted with mine dumps and workings
offering a glimpse of the past. To preserve this historic appearance, mine dumps used, as a source of backfill
shall be excavated in a way that maintains the shape and grades of the dump. This can be done by uniformly
removing material from all surfaces, by removing material from the top down, by slightly "hollowing out" the
dump, or by removing one lobe of a multi-lobed dump. The dump’s overall appearance should not change
except to be reduced in size.
E. Removal of historic or prehistoric artifacts or rock specimens is prohibited by federal law. This includes, but
is not limited to: bottles, bottle fragments, china and glass fragments, tools, tin cans, buckets, pipe, wire,
nails, spikes, bolts, track, machinery, ore cars, vehicles, lumber and other wood, arrowheads and other stone
tools, ore samples, petrified wood, and fossils.
F. CONTRACTOR shall stop work and notify OWNER immediately if human burial remains are discovered.
G. The mine locations that are historic are listed as such under the “Special Conditions” column in the Mine
Closure Schedule in Appendix A.
H. Protection Measures for culturally significant sites are as follows: 1) shafts are to be backfilled flush to the
ground so that after settling, small depressions will allow the shaft’s location to be recognized; and 2) all
features not directly involved in the reclamation activity must not be disturbed in any way. Where walls,
loading platforms, roads, machinery mounts, structures, or other features are present, these shall be flagged
or barricaded to avoid any disturbance. The OWNER will closely monitor the closure activities.
I. In all cases, fill will be removed from spoil piles in such a way that the pile’s shape in not radically altered or
subject to severe erosion. Mine dumps shall be re-contoured after reclamation to maintain their appearance as
mine dumps. Prying and barring down material from the brow of the mine for fill shall be kept to a
minimum.
2.02 BAT CONSERVATION
A. OWNER has performed surveys to determine which mines are used for bat habitat. Where bats are present in
a mine, they will be Excluded from the mine prior to installing airtight closures (see Section 0250, Part
3.01.F). Sites requiring Exclusion prior to closure are indicated in Appendix A (Special Conditions).
B. The length of the Exclusion period may be reduced from one week to three fair weather days with OWNER's
approval. Rainy or cold weather inhibits bat activity and will increase the length of the Exclusion
accordingly, up to the one week maximum.
C. The heavy recreational use of the project area increases the possibility that vandals may damage or remove
the chicken wire seals during the Exclusion period. Should this occur, damaged seals shall be replaced and
the Exclusion period started over.
D. The Exclusion process is effective only in warm seasons when bats are active. To prevent entombing
hibernating bats, sites indicated in Appendix A as requiring Exclusion prior to closure shall not be closed
during the cold season (from October 31 to March 31). Closure of these sites shall be postponed to the
following warm season. Cold season closures may be performed following an internal inspection for
hibernating bats. Internal inspections shall be performed by the OWNER and are subject to the availability of
the OWNER's bat inspection team.
E. Vertical shafts covered with chicken wire for bat Exclusion shall be flagged with warning tape.
2.03 BIRD CONSERVATION
A. During spring nesting and fledging (January 15 to August 31) OWNER will perform line-of-sight visual
surveys for raptor nests in the vicinity of the mine sites. If nests are found, CONTRACTOR shall reschedule
work at those sites until after August 31.
B. Bald eagles are known to roost and forage in Rush Valley and the Oquirrh Mountains in the winter months.
It is expected that any eagles present in the project area will either move or habituate to the construction
activity. CONTRACTOR shall avoid disturbing eagles if they are present. Trees used for roosting shall not
be disturbed.
2.04 RARE PLANT CONSERVATION
One plant species is listed as threatened under the federal Endangered Species Act. It is:
Ute Ladies’-tresses - T
OWNER will survey work areas for this plant prior to construction. Any plants found shall be flagged by
OWNER and avoided by the work crews. It is extremely unlikely that these plants will be present in the
project area.
2.05 BLM TRAVEL RESTRICTION
Certain areas in the Ophir Canyon Project area are designated “on-road-only” by the Bureau of
LandManagement. Vehicles and heavy equipment are restricted to established roads. This designation may
affect access to some sites.
2.06 LAND PROTECTION
A. Trash, containers, wrappings, empty mortar and concrete mix bags, concrete block fragments, rebar cuttings,
welding rod scraps, waste PUF, pallets, water jugs, buckets, broken tools, discarded materials, food wrappers,
beverage containers, paper towels, and other such litter generated by the reclamation activities shall be kept
contained during construction and shall be cleaned up and removed from the site upon completion.
B. CONTRACTOR shall exercise care with open flames when welding or cutting to avoid starting range fires.
CONTRACTOR shall submit a written range fire prevention and fire response plan to OWNER at the start of
construction.
C. CONTRACTOR shall be responsible to reimburse landowners or lease holders for livestock or other property
lost, injured, or damaged by CONTRACTOR’s operations on access roads.
D. CONTRACTOR shall not perform WORK on sites on BLM administered land until OWNER has obtained
authorization from BLM (expected prior to Notice to Proceed).
2.07 WORKER HEALTH AND SAFETY
A. Rodents often nest in abandoned mines and leave accumulations of droppings and nest debris. In theory,
these nests and droppings could host the potentially lethal Hantavirus, although no mine closure work has
ever been linked to a case of Hantavirus. As a precaution, workers should avoid stirring up dust or rodent
droppings in mines and use standard hygiene and sanitation practices (washing before eating, etc.). Workers
are encouraged to learn to recognize the symptoms of Hantavirus infection and seek proper medical attention
if indicated.
B. The heavy reliance on manual labor for this project and the steep, rugged terrain increase the probability of
orthopedic and trauma injuries. Standard safety gear (hard hat, steel-toed shoes) is required for all personnel.
Fatigue, heat stress, and dehydration are inherent medical risks of heavy manual labor in desert environments. Deleted:
Frostbite and hypothermia are risks of winter work. Workers should take appropriate precautions for the site
conditions.
C. CONTRACTOR is required to hold regular safety meetings and is encouraged to have a response plan in
place in the event of accidents, personal injury, animal bites, or other medical emergency.
D. All of Tooele County is covered by 911 emergency telephone service, but the project area has no reliable cell
phone coverage.
PART 3 - EXECUTION
3.01 WORK REQUIRED AT ALL SITES
The WORK at the Serviceberry Canyon Project area shall include closure of approximately 75 mine openings and
revegetation of areas disturbed by reclamation work. Additional mine closures may be added to the WORK as the
project progresses if new mine openings are found or sites are re-evaluated.
A. Mobilization/Demobilization. Mobilize labor, equipment, and supplies to the site in accordance with section
0200: Mobilization/Demobilization, and as follows:
1. Previously disturbed areas should be selected for staging and activity areas as much as possible.
Vegetation grubbing and topsoil stripping and stockpiling shall not be done in the staging areas.
2. There are minimal services available in the project area. Ophir has a small store that is not open very
often. Tooele has all services including motels. Stockton has small market, no fuel. Cell phone
service is spotty and poor.
B. Access Improvement. Improve access to the site along the routes described to the degree required to conduct
the WORK. All access improvement shall be performed in accordance with Section 0230, Access
Improvement. Where access has been created, the access shall be closed following construction in
accordance with Section 0230, Access Improvement. Access grading shall be in accordance with Section
0270, Site Grading/Earthwork.
1. Access to the project area is possible on existing roads and requires little or no additional
improvement. The secondary dirt roads inside the project are subject to washouts, ruts, and rock
falls. Modest access improvements are anticipated to be needed in some localized areas.
2. No new access road construction will be allowed. Improve access to the individual mine openings
by upgrading the existing dirt roads, ATV trails, and footpaths to the minimum degree required to
conduct the WORK. Site access should require minimal or no improvements work in most areas.
CONTRACTOR should generally expect to select the mode of transportation to fit the existing
ground conditions rather the changing the ground to accommodate a vehicle. Access to many sites
will require cross-country traverse. Access routes should be selected to avoid or minimize
disturbance to vegetation and cultural resources. Access routes and improvements are subject to
approval by OWNER. Except on main roads, work should be organized to minimize the number of
repeat trips on a particular route to reduce wear and tear (this applies to foot traffic as well as to
vehicle and equipment). Where possible, “one trip in, one trip out” is the goal.
3. CONTRACTOR shall obliterate footprints, truck and ATV tire tracks, and crawler tracks by raking
or similar means as directed by OWNER in areas where access routes deviate from existing
established open roads. Severe trail wear or compaction may require mechanical scarification and
reseeding.
4. CONTRACTOR shall remove all access improvements and return roads to their pre-construction
condition upon completion of work.
C. Mine Closure. Close all identified mine openings, subsidence holes, and pits in accordance with the technical
specifications in Sections 0250 through 0254, and as follows:
1. Use the closure method as specified for each site in the “Closure Method” column of the table in
Appendix A. Estimated closure dimensions and/or construction quantities (cubic yards of backfill;
square feet of masonry wall, bat gate, or rebar grate) for each closure are provided in Appendix A.
Use the technical specification section and standard drawing referenced in Appendix A for each
closure.
2. Backfill closures specified in Appendix A are noted as either hand work or equipment work. These
designations reflect OWNER’s expectation for the backfill method, but are not binding. Mine
openings scheduled for equipment backfill may be backfilled by hand and mine openings scheduled
for hand backfill may be closed by equipment depending on circumstances on the ground. The
choice of hand or machine backfill methods shall be determined in consultation with OWNER and
is subject to OWNER’s approval. Cost adjustments will be negotiated based on the Variation in
Quantity Unit Prices in the bid schedule for comparable work.
3. Wall closures specified in Appendix A are noted as either stone or concrete block. These
designations reflect OWNER’s expectation for the wall material, but are not binding. The
designations are based on assessments of the onsite availability of suitable stone and the difficulty of
transporting block to remote locations. Mine openings scheduled for stonewalls may be closed with
block walls, or vice versa. The choice of wall material shall be determined in consultation with
OWNER and is subject to OWNER’s approval. Cost adjustments to the Bid Price will not be made
when a wall material is changed.
4. Concrete block walls shall be treated on the outer surface to blend with the adjacent native rock.
Suitable treatments include facing the block wall with a layer of rock or plastering or stuccoing with
mortar mixed with local sand or soil. The intent is to camouflage the wall by matching the color and
texture of the native rock. Camouflage treatments may be omitted at some sites at OWNER’s
direction depending on the visibility of the wall.
5. For sites that are specified to be closed with rebar grates refer to the pinned rebar shaft grate design
(see Section 0253, Part 3.03.G) with the grate installed in a angled plane across the opening. Rebar
adit grates (mild steel rebar, 8”x8” grid) should not be confused with bat gates (Maganal steel,
6”x24” grid).
6. Site-specific variations to the generic closure methods are required at some mine openings. Some of
these special requirements or customized details are noted in Appendix A. Not all such special
requirements are so noted in Appendix A. Sites without notes may still require site-specific
variations to be determined during construction.
7. Where present in a mine, bats will be excluded from the mine prior to installing the closure (see
Section 0250, Part 3.01.F and Section 0300, Part 2.02). Mine sites requiring Exclusion prior to
closure are indicated in the “Special Conditions” column in the table in Appendix A.
C. Revegetation. Revegetate all areas disturbed by reclamation activities in accordance with Section 0290:
Revegetation, and as follows:
1. Disturbed areas include staging areas, access routes, backfill portals, shafts, regarded areas, and
backfill borrow areas. Areas of bare rock, rock ledges, and rocky out slopes of mine dumps do not Deleted:
need to be revegated.
2. Use the Serviceberry Canyon seed mixture (Appendix C). A total area estimated at 8 acres will need
to be revegetated. The actual revegetation area will vary depending on the CONTRACTOR’s
diligence in executing the work and limiting disturbance.
3. Revegetation shall be considered incidental to installation of the mine closure. Revegetation costs
shall be incorporated into the costs for mine closure. Revegetation in not included as a separate bid
or pay item, but is considered subsidiary to the other items of WORK. No separate payment shall be
made for revegetation.
4. Mulch and fertilizer shall not be required.
D. Rights of Entry from the Landowners have been obtained on all the sites contained in the WORK.
3.02 CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULING
A. Notice to proceed with construction is contingent upon OWNER receiving authorizations from the BLM and
from the U.S. Office of Surface Mining. OWNER expects both authorizations to be in place by the July 19
bid date. However, if either is lacking, WORK will be postponed accordingly.
B. Work Priorities: Because the start of construction is mid-summer, it may not be possible to complete all of
the WORK before the onset of adverse winter weather. CONTRACTOR shall prioritize the execution of the
WORK to complete the higher elevation mine closures first.
C. Most of the site reclamation for the Serviceberry Canyon Project is not weather dependent. It is conceivable
that the project work will be suspended for the winter because of the late season start date. The
CONTRACTOR shall account for this potential shutdown within the mobilization/demobilization cost. The
mine closure costs quoted on the bid schedule apply for the duration of the reclamation. The start-up date for
resumption of suspended WORK due to adverse weather or other conditions will be determined by OWNER
in consultation with CONTRACTOR and will depend upon the nature of the uncompleted WORK.
END OF SECTION 0300

APPENDIX F
Seed Mix
APPENDIX F
Revegetation Seed Mix - Serviceberry Project
Type Common Name Scientific Name LB PLS per acre

(actual)
Grasses
Western Wheatgrass Agropyron smithii 2.00
Blue Grama Bouteloua gracilis 4.00

Slender wheatgrass Elymus trachycaulus ssp trachycaulus 2.10
var, San Luis
Sandberg bluegrass Poa secunda 0.50
Galleta grass Pleuraphis jamesii 4.60
Needle and Thread Stipa comata 1.50
Indian ricegrass Stipa hymenoides 2.0
Sand Dropseed Sporobolus cryptandrus 0.50

Forbs
Yellow Beeplant Cleome lutea 0.50
Palmer penstemon Penstemon palmeri 0.50
Shrubs
Louisiana sagebrush Artemesia ludoviciana 0.50
Big sagebrush Artemesia tridentata var. vaseyana 0.50
Fourwing saltbush Atriplex canascens 2.00
Winterfat Ceratoides lanata 0.8
TOTAL 22.00
PLS = Pure Live Seed

The planting rate indicated (pounds PLS/acre) is for broadcast seeding.
Because packaged seed contains nonviable seed, chaff, and other inert materials in addition to live seed, the actual
application rate of total seed material will be greater than 22 pounds per acre.
Seed Mixture Quantity Estimate
*** estimated acres @ 22 lbs per acre = *** PLS mix required
APPENDIX G
Standard Operating Procedures and Stipulations

Standard Operating Procedures and Stipulations
The following standard operating procedures and stipulations would be utilized to minimize the
risk to human health and safety and to minimize the impacts to resources potentially affected by
the project. All items listed in the Division of Oil, Gas and Mining Contract Specifications
under “General Conditions” would be adhered to.
Health and Safety
The mine reclamation work can present short-term risks to workers. The Agencies have
identified a number of work conditions designed to reduce the risk of injury during reclamation.
Some of the applicable work stipulations would include:
1. A Safety Plan and Job Hazard Analysis would be developed and become part of the project
record.
2. No person would be permitted to enter a mine opening without being under direction of the
Certified Person who holds Fire Boss Papers and who is trained in health and safety and
response procedures and only after explosive and toxic gas levels have been checked.
3. Rapid communication procedures would be established for immediate contact with the closest
available medical response facilities. Reclamation supervisors would be trained in emergency
response procedures.
4. Temporary barriers, signs, and security devices would be erected to ensure the safety of
contract personnel, and other persons at the work sites.
5. An adequate water supply system would be in place for dust suppression.
6. Work would occur only during daylight hours.
7. Work would stop and appropriate personnel immediately notified if an accident occurs or a
hazard is discovered that threatens the safety of workers or the public.
Air Quality
1. Operations that would produce dust would be conducted in accordance with a Utah Division
of Air Quality approved dust control plan. This plan at a minimum would require watering of
exposed areas and roads.
2. Low travel speeds would be enforced during operations to limit the amount of particulate
matter that becomes airborne.
3. Workers would be required to use OSHA-approved dust respirators in areas where dust would
be generated by operations.
Cultural Resources
1. Operations would be conducted in accordance with the Construction Specifications which
were developed based on the survey results. Any cultural and/or paleontological resource
(historic or prehistoric site or object) discovered by the holder, or any person working on his
behalf, on public or Federal land shall be immediately reported to the authorized officer. Holder
shall suspend all operations in the immediate area of such discovery until written authorization to
proceed is issued by the authorized officer. An evaluation of the discovery will be made by the
authorized officer to determine appropriate actions to prevent the loss of significant cultural or
scientific values. The holder will be responsible for the cost of evaluation and any decision as to
proper mitigation measures will be made by the authorized officer after consulting with the
holder.
Biological Resources
1. To prevent the spread of noxious weeds, earth-moving equipment would be washed
thoroughly with a high-pressure sprayer prior to entering the project area. Noxious weed
populations that could be the result of mine reclamation activities would be eradicated by BLM
immediately upon discovery.
2. Native plant species would be used in the reclamation and revegetation of disturbed areas.
3. Snags (standing dead trees) would be maintained where possible.
4. Bats will be excluded from mine openings where they are present and it is determined that bat
gates are inappropriate due to geotechnical instability of the opening or radiation levels.
Exclusion is conducted during the warm season by covering the mine opening with chicken wire
for 7 days immediately prior to closure. The wire allows bats to exit the mine but the bats do not
return to the mine through the wire.
5. Species-specific stipulations that may be affected by the proposed action.
Visual Resources
1. Rocks and trees would be retained within reclaimed areas.
2. Native plant species would be utilized in revegetation.
3. The edges of reclaimed areas would be feathered and thinned.
4. Reclaimed slopes would be rounded and/or warped or bent to match existing land forms and
furrowed within limits specified for protecting cultural resources.
5. Recontoured mine waste dumps would be roughened using the extreme roughening technique
if appropriate. If hand backfill is the method of closure, roughening would be accomplished by
hand raking.
6. Brush, rock, and vegetative debris would be scattered by hand or machine over reclaimed
areas where available without additional surface disturbance.
Hazardous Materials and/or waste

1. Equipment, fuels, and other chemicals would be properly stored to minimize the potential for
spills to enter surface waters. Secondary containment would be provided for all containers
stored on site.
Fire
The DOGM or its contractors will notify the BLM of any fires and comply with all rules and
regulations administered by the BLM concerning the use, prevention and suppression of fires on
federal lands, including any fire prevention orders that may be in effect at the time of the
permitted activity. The DOGM or its contractors may be held liable for the cost of fire
suppression, stabilization and rehabilitation. In the event of a fire, personal safety will be the
first priority of the DOGM or its contractors. The DOGM or its contractors will:
1. Operate all internal and external combustion engines on federally managed lands per 36
CFR 261.52, which requires all such engines to be equipped with a qualified spark
arrester that is maintained and not modified.
2. Carry shovels, water, and fire extinguishers that are rated at a minimum as ABC - 10
pound on all equipment and vehicles. If a fire spreads beyond the suppression capability
of workers with these tools, all will cease fire suppression action and leave the area
immediately via pre-identified escape routes.
3. Initiate fire suppression actions in the work area to prevent fire spread to or on federally
administered lands.
4. Notify the Northern Utah Interagency Fire Center (801) 908-1901 (or 911) immediately
of the location and status of any escaped fire.

Final EA 7 21 06 For BLM Serviceberry Canyon Utah

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Final EA 7 21 06 For BLM Serviceberry Canyon Utah

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

United States Department of the Interior

Bureau of Land Management

Environmental Assessment UT-020-2006-029

Serviceberry Canyon Project

Location: Township Range Sections

Applicant/Address: Abandoned Mine Reclamation Program

U.S. Department of the Interior

Serviceberry Canyon Project

Utah Abandoned Mine Reclamation Program

Tooele County, Utah

Utah Abandoned Mine Reclamation Program

USDOI Office of Surface Mining and Bureau of Land Management

August 10, 2006

Serviceberry Canyon Project

CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION/PURPOSE AND NEED

Purpose and Need

Conformance with Land Use Plans

Relationship to Statutes, Regulations or Other Plans

CHAPTER 2 - DESCRIPTION OF THE ALTERNATIVES

Alternative A: The Proposed Action

Type of Closure Number proposed

Post Project Monitoring

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further Analysis

CHAPTER 3 - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

Critical Elements of the Human Environment

Critical Elements Not Impacted by Proposed Action (5)

Native American Religious Concerns

Invasive Non-Native Species

Wastes (Hazardous or Solid)

Resources Brought Forward for Analysis (2)

resource management plan.

Threatened and Endangered or Candidate Species

Utah State Sensitive Species

Prebles's shrew Sorex preblei spc no

Other Important Concerns (5)

objective for the specific mine site location.

Other Wildlife in the Area

Chapter 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

Alternative A: The Proposed Action

Threatened and Endangered or Candidate Species

Other Important Concerns

Cumulative Impact Analysis

Cumulative Impact Analysis

Chapter 5 -CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

Persons, Groups and Agencies Consulted

Joel Diamond, Bat Biologist

Wendy Simmons Johnson, Archaeologist

Lori Hunsaker, Archaeologist

Ray Kelsey, Outdoor Recreation Planner

Henry Maddux, Field Supervisor

Mark R. Mesch, AMRP Administrator and Wildlife Biologist

Ron Sassaman, AML Program Specialist

Matthew Seddon, Deputy SHPO

Terry Snyder, AML Coordinator

Lenora Sullivan, Utah Natural Heritage Program

Andrew M. Williamson, Archeologist

Larry Garahana, Geologist

Pam Schuller, Environmental Coordinator

Chapter 6 – REFERENCES AND ACRONYMS

Diamond, Gabrielle F. and Joel M. Diamond, 2004. An Evaluation of Abandoned Underground

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 2003

Snyder, Teresa. 2003. Personal communication.

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