1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. Proposed Action Description and Location
Glamis Imperial Corporation (Glamis Imperial) has proposed the development
of the Imperial Project (Project), an open-pit, heap-leach, precious metal
mine and processing facility located in eastern Imperial County, California.
The Project would utilize conventional heap leach mining methods to extract
gold and silver from the mined ore (see Chapter 10 for a glossary,
list of acronyms, and for definitions of selected terms). The Project would
include: mining gold and silver ore and waste rock; constructing and operating
facilities to administer the operation and maintain all mining and related
equipment; processing the ore and stockpiling the waste rock; developing
and producing ground water for use in processing operations and dust control;
constructing an electric transmission line to provide electrical power for
the operations; conducting geological survey activities; implementing environmental
impact reduction measures; and implementing reclamation measures.
In addition to the Project activities described above, an existing electric
transmission line would be overbuilt to allow the transmission of the electrical
energy necessary for the Project. Together, all of these activities constitute
the "Proposed Action."
Up to 150 million tons of ore would be mined and deposited on the leach
pad where the precious metals would be leached. Up to 300 million tons
of waste rock would be mined and deposited in the waste rock stockpiles
or the mined-out portions of the two (2) of the open pits. Mining activities
would be performed 24 hours per day, seven (7) days per week.
The daily mining rate would typically be 130,000 tons per day, and
range between zero (0) and 200,000 tons per day. Operations would
commence in 1998, after the acquisition of all required approvals, and would
terminate in approximately the year 2017, although reclamation activities
may continue beyond that date.
The Project is located in eastern Imperial County, California, approximately
45 miles northeast of El Centro, California and 20 miles northwest
of Yuma, Arizona (Figure 1.1). The Project area is located within
Sections 31, 32 and 33, Township 13 South, Range 21 East,
and Sections 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8, Township 14 South, Range 21
East, San Bernardino Baseline & Meridian (SBB&M), entirely on public
lands administered by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM).
As discussed throughout this document, the "Project area" consists
of a "Project mine and process area" and a "Project ancillary
area." The "Project mine and process area" would contain
all of the open pits, waste rock stockpiles, soil stockpiles, stream diversion
channels, administration office and maintenance facility area, heap leach
facility, precious metal recovery plant and other facilities, an electric
substation, and internal roads and electrical distribution lines. The boundary
of the Project mine and process area is shown in Figure 1.2.
The "Project ancillary area" would include ground water production
wells and buried water pipeline, a new 92 kV/13.2 kV transmission
line, and relocated portions of Indian Pass Road. The boundary of the Project
ancillary area is also shown on Figure 1.2.
In addition to the "Project area," the "overbuilt 92 kV/34.5 kV
transmission line corridor" would contain all of the activities associated
with the "overbuilding" of the utility-owned 34.5 kV transmission
line into an overbuilt 92 kV/34.5 kV transmission line. Figure 1.2
also shows the location of the overbuilt 92 kV/34.5 kV transmission
line corridor.
Access to the Project area is from Ogilby Road via Interstate Highway 8
from the south, or from State Route 78 to the north (see Figure 1.2).
The Project mine and process area overlaps Imperial County-maintained Indian
Pass Road, and is located approximately five (5) miles northeast of
the Indian Pass Road/Ogilby Road intersection.
The Project mine and process area boundary encompasses approximately 1,571 acres
on a broad, south- and west-facing, alluvial plain south of Indian Pass
in the Chocolate Mountains, between the Cargo Muchacho Mountains, approximately
four (4) miles south, and Peter Kane Mountain, approximately six (6)
miles north. The elevation over the Project mine and process area ranges
from about 760 feet to 925 feet. The Project mine and process
area lies near the center of the mining district formed by the active Picacho
Mine, Mesquite Mine, and American Girl Mine heap leach gold facilities,
each located approximately 10 miles from the Project mine and process
area (see Figure 1.2).
Glamis Imperial Corporation, a Nevada Corporation with a mailing address
of P.O. Box 1177, Winterhaven, California 92283, is a wholly
owned subsidiary of Glamis Gold, Inc., a Nevada Corporation with its corporate
headquarters at 5190 Neil Road, Suite 310, Reno, Nevada 89502.
Glamis Gold, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Glamis Gold Ltd., a corporation
incorporated under the laws of the Province of British Columbia, Canada
with its offices located at 3324 Four Bentall Centre, 1055 Dunsmuir
Street, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada V7X1A1. Glamis Gold Ltd.
is a publicly traded company on the New York and Toronto Stock Exchanges.
Glamis Imperial Corporation has two (2) sister companies operating
gold mines in the United States. They are Chemgold, Inc., which operates
the Picacho Mine in Imperial County, California, and Rand Mining Company,
which operates the Rand Mine in Kern County, California. Glamis Imperial
Corporation was formed specifically to be the operating company for the
Imperial Project, and replaces Chemgold, which originally proposed the Project.
1.2. Intended Uses of this EIS/EIR
This Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report
(Draft EIS/EIR) has been jointly prepared by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management
(BLM), which is the Lead Agency with respect
to compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and its
implementing regulations, and Imperial County, acting through the Imperial
County Planning/Building Department (ICPBD), which is the Lead Agency responsible
for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and
its applicable regulations, to analyze the environmental effects of the
Proposed Action, which consists of the Imperial Project, an open-pit, heap-leach,
precious metal mine proposed by Glamis Imperial Corporation, and the "overbuilding"
of an existing utility electrical transmission line to deliver the necessary
electrical power to the Imperial Project (see Section 2.1.1
for additional information regarding the Proposed Action).
The purpose of this joint EIS/EIR is to inform decision-makers in all agencies
required to approve authorizing actions (see Section 1.8) and
the public generally regarding: the anticipated significant environmental
effects of the Proposed Action; the possible ways to mitigate these significant
effects of the Proposed Action; and reasonable alternatives which could
feasibly reduce those identified significant environmental impacts of the
Proposed Action to below the level of significance. The information in an
EIS or EIR does not control an agency's discretion on a project. However,
under CEQA (Public Resources Code Section 21002.1), the state or local agency
must adopt feasible mitigation measures or alternatives within its jurisdiction
if they would avoid significant environmental effects identified for the
Proposed Action.
This Draft EIS/EIR has been prepared as two (2) separate volumes, which
together comprise the entire document. Volume I contains the Summary,
the Table of Contents, Chapters 1 through 11, and
Appendix A of the Draft EIS/EIR, the Imperial Project Reclamation Plan
(including several attachments to the Reclamation Plan). Volume II
contains Appendices B through O of the Draft EIS/EIR. Both Volumes
of this Draft EIS/EIR are available for public review at the BLM's
El Centro Resource Area Office, the Imperial County Planning/Building Department,
and the libraries listed in the front of this volume of the Draft EIS/EIR.
1.3. Prior EIS/EIR Documentation
The BLM published a Notice of Intent (NOI)
to prepare an EIS for the Imperial Project in the Federal Register on March 24,
1995, and Imperial County distributed a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of an
EIR for the Imperial Project on April 5, 1995. A Draft EIS/EIR, dated
November 1996, was distributed and the comment period, which included two (2)
public hearings, ended on March 24, 1997. After a review of the comments
received, on June 11, 1997 the BLM and ICPBD
jointly announced that a new Draft EIS/EIR for the Imperial Project would
be prepared and circulated. Over 600 copies of the press release of
this announcement were distributed by mail, including one to each party
which received and/or commented on the November, 1996 Draft EIS/EIR. The
announcement stated that the new Draft EIS/EIR would incorporate new information
and address the concerns identified by the comments received during the
public comment period on the November, 1996 Draft EIS/EIR. A copy of this
Press Release is included in Appendix B.
On August 1, 1997, the BLM published in
the Federal Register a Notice of Withdrawal of the November, 1996 Draft
EIS for the Imperial Project and Notice of Intent to Prepare an EIS for
the Imperial Project. This notice stated that although the November, 1996
Draft EIS/EIR was being withdrawn, all comments received on this document
would be treated as scoping comments for the revised Draft EIS. New written
scoping comments were also solicited by this notice, which stated that scoping
comments could be submitted to the BLM through
September 2, 1997. Approximately 600 copies of this notice were
also distributed by mail, including one to each party which either received,
or commented on, the November, 1996 Draft EIS/EIR. A copy of the Notice
of Withdrawal and Notice of Intent to Prepare an EIS, and the letter and
copy of the notice which were distributed by mail, are included in Appendix B.
The ICPBD determined that the Draft EIR would be revised and recirculated
pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21092.1 and Title 14,
Code of California Regulations, Section 15088.5.
1.4. Scoping Using Previous Comments
During the comment period for the November, 1996 Draft EIS/EIR, a total
of over 425 written comment letters were received by either the BLM or ICPBD regarding the Proposed Action and the
November, 1996 Draft EIS/EIR. In addition, 49 people spoke at the two (2)
public hearings. Copies of all of the written comments received, and transcripts
of all of the verbal comments given during the public hearings, on the November,
1996 Draft EIS/EIR are on file with the BLM and
the ICPBD, and may be viewed during normal business hours at the locations
listed below:
| Bureau of Land Management |
Imperial County |
| El Centro Resource Area |
Planning/Building Department |
| 1661 South Fourth Street |
939 Main Street |
| El Centro, California 92243 |
El Centro, California 92243 |
| (760) 337-4400 |
(760) 339-4236 |
| 7:45 am to 4:30 pm |
7:00 am to 12:00 noon - 1:00 pm to 5:00 pm |
A summary of the principal issues of public and agency concern expressed
in these comments, organized by resource or general topical area, are presented
in Table 1.1. In addition, Table 1.1
also summarizes how this Draft EIS/EIR differs from the November 1996 Draft
EIS/EIR in response to each of these primary issues of public and agency
concern.
Table 1.1
Summary of Principal Issues of Concern Identified in Comments
on the November 1996 Draft EIS/EIR |
TOPIC |
| General |
- BLM policy and requirements in relationship
to the 1872 Mining Act (Introduction has been revised and expanded)
|
| Proposed Action |
- Request for pit slope stability analyses (completed by third-party
consultant, and would be reviewed and revised after first year of mining)
|
- Need additional figure to show topographic scale of project in relation
to larger area (requested map, and aerial photograph, added)
|
- Proposed liner system appears inadequate (additional information added
about liners being adequate as designed)
|
| Reclamation |
- Reclamation Plan needs to be more specific and provide more detail
(Reclamation Plan completely revised to provide more details regarding
seed mix, transects and test plots, etc.)
|
- Reclamation bond is insufficient (reclamation bond amounts for both
chemical and physical reclamation recalculated and increased)
|
- Criteria for revegetation success are confusing and too low (Glamis
Imperial has revised to clarify, and revegetation success criteria have
been raised)
|
| Surface Waters |
- Clarify relationship of Project to FEMA flood hazard map (requested
analysis added)
|
- Identify and discuss effects of ground water production on seeps in
the region (requested information and analysis added)
|
- Delineation of "waters of the United States" is incorrect
(a new delineation has been completed)
|
| Ground Waters |
- Clarify relationship of pumped ground waters to the Colorado River
aquifer (substantial clarification added)
|
- Identify and discuss effects of ground water production on shallow
ground water wells in the region (requested information and analysis added)
|
- Reduce estimated quantity of water seeping from All American Canal
to Amos-Ogilby-East Mesa
Basin (estimates changed, with additional analysis added)
|
- Add discussion of Imperial County's Ground Water Management Ordinance
and requirement for permit (requested information added)
|
- Concern that the ground waters flow into the Picacho Wash Basin from
the Project mine and process area (additional information added)
|
| Air Resources |
- Request to recalculate fugitive emissions for travel on unpaved roads
(requested change made, and other revisions to reflect changes in the Proposed
Action)
|
- Additional cumulative analysis for air quality requested (cumulative
analysis extended)
|
| Vegetation |
- Compensation for microphyll woodland should be 3:1, not 1:1 (incorporated
into Proposed Action by Glamis Imperial)
|
- The effects of dust settling on vegetation needs to be added (analysis
conducted and added)
|
| Wildlife/ Habitat |
- Request to conduct a survey for bats ( survey of the Project mine and
process area completed with none found)
|
- Request to compensate for impacts to flat-tailed horned lizards (survey
of the southernmost end of the overbuilt transmission line corridor completed
with none found)
|
- Analysis of bighorn sheep and deer impacts should be expanded (additional
analysis added)
|
- Discussion regarding lighting effects on wildlife needed (discussion
regarding lighting added to Proposed Action and Environmental Consequences
Chapters)
|
| Recreation/Wilderness |
- Analysis of impact to recreation resources and wilderness needs to
be expanded (additional information added to Affected Environment and Environmental
Consequence Chapters)
|
| Cultural/ Native American Issues |
- Consultation with Native Americans must be undertaken and completed
(consultation process has been ongoing and is summarized in EIS/EIR)
|
- Cultural resource assessment and analysis is incomplete and insufficient
(intensive new survey of all potential areas of disturbance conducted with
Native American participation)
|
| Visual |
- Reduce the height of the waste rock stockpile and remove "stair
steps" by rounding edges (incorporated by Glamis Imperial into Proposed
Action)
|
- Better analysis of visual impacts needed, including additional Key
Observation Points (A fourth Key Observation Point is added; visual simulations
revised; and an additional set of simulations completed to show views both
before and after completion of final reclamation)
|
| Emergency Preparedness/ Public Safety |
- Assessment of impacts of transportation of liquid cyanide inadequate
(transportation of liquid cyanide removed from Proposed Action by Glamis
Imperial)
|
1.5. Scoping and Consultation Process
During the current public scoping period, fifteen (15) written
scoping comment letters were received by the BLM.
A summary of the primary issues of public and agency concern expressed in
these scoping comments, organized by resource or general topical area, together
with a count of the number of comments received regarding each general resource
or topical area, are presented in Table 1.2.
Subsequent to the close of the public scoping period, additional were received
by the BLM and the ICPBD. These additional letters
were reviewed and determined to not contain any information not previously
identified in other scoping comments or addressed in the EIS/EIR. A copy
of all of the letters received subsequent to the commencement of the public
scoping period in response to the NOI and public notices are on file with
the BLM and the ICPBD, and may be viewed during
normal business hours at the offices of the BLM
and ICPBD listed above.
Table 1.2
Topic |
Number |
| General Statements |
11 |
- 1872 Mining Act gives public lands away; mining on public lands should
cost as much as mining on private land
|
- The Proposed Action is bad, would lower the quality of life, and disturbs
too much land
|
- Chemgold/Glamis have demonstrated capability in mine operations and
are good stewards of the environment
|
- Use previous comments and ensure that commentor is on the list for
all future mailings
|
- Please hold further hearings on this project
|
- All comment letters and public meeting transcripts on the November
1996 Draft EIS/EIR should be included as an appendix to the new EIS/EIR;
they should also be made available to the public in convenient locations
|
| Reclamation |
2 |
- The land must be returned to pre-mining conditions when mining ceases,
and a qualified third-party should perform monitoring
|
- There is no plan to restore the plant life after mining is done
|
| Ground Water |
5 |
- Ground water production wells would deplete the ground water
table
|
- Ground water quality monitoring must be in place during and after mining
operations
|
- Bonding must be in place for the costs of mitigating any possible ground
water contamination
|
- Sluice water would contaminate ground water, including Yuma potable
water supply
|
- Even if pits are refilled with waste rock, bad things like cyanide
would still be below the ground water table
|
| Air Resources |
1 |
- What would be particulate levels in the air due to open pit mining
|
| Wildlife/ Habitat |
1 |
- The Proposed Action would still disturb 1,409 acres of natural habitat
|
| Cultural/ Native American Issues |
2 |
- It would not be possible for the mine to be built and avoid the many
archaeological and religious features which are protected by law
|
- The Proposed Action would destroy a vital and uninterrupted cultural
district; no mitigation other than preservation would be conscionable
|
| Visual |
3 |
- Complete Visual Contrast Rating Worksheets(VCRWs) must be included
in the EIS/EIR
|
- VCRWs for more than 3 Key Observation Points (KOPs) must be completed
|
- Additional KOPs should be located closer to the Project and in the
adjacent wilderness areas
|
| Land Use |
2 |
- Deserts and open spaces are public lands that should be used for the
public good, not for mining which is not needed
|
|
|
| Socioeconomics |
2 |
- There should be no tax subsidy during or after operations to clean
up or mitigate toxic contamination
|
- Include a detailed analysis of the financial health of Glamis Imperial
to undertake and complete the Proposed Action
|
| Cumulative Effects |
2 |
- Analysis needs to be expanded to include cumulative impacts of a fourth
gold mine in southeastern Imperial County
|
- More emphasis needs to be placed on cumulative air quality impacts
in light of letters of concern from Gold Rock Ranch area residents
|
The scope of the environmental issues addressed in this Draft EIS/EIR
has been identified based on all of the previous public and agency comments
and consultations described above. In addition, after the release of the
November, 1996 Draft EIS/EIR, Glamis Imperial made several revisions to
the Proposed Action, many in response to environmental issues identified
during the comment period on the November, 1996 Draft EIS/EIR. Table 1.3 lists the principal revisions to the Proposed
Action made by Glamis Imperial since the November, 1996 Draft EIS/EIR was
released. Glamis Imperial has also committed to a number of additional environmental
impact reduction or compensation measures which were not contained in the
November, 1996 Draft EIS/EIR; these are listed in Section 2.1.12.
1.6. Principal Agency Policies and Authorizing Actions
The Proposed Action proposes certain land uses to be located on public
lands administered by the BLM. These land uses
are reviewed by the BLM under the applicable
federal land use regulations (43 CFR 3809 and 43 CFR 2800,
etc.), and the entirety of the Proposed Action is reviewed under NEPA through
the preparation of an EIS (or, in this case, a single, joint NEPA EIS/CEQA
EIR), prior to any BLM decision on approval.
Review and possible approval of the Reclamation Plan (under 43 CFR 3809)
is a part of this process, and play a role in the determination of the BLM as to whether the Project would cause "unnecessary
or undue degradation of the federal lands" and whether there has been
sufficient provision for "reasonable reclamation." The EIS is
used by the BLM in making these determinations,
and in issuing a Record of Decision for the project under NEPA. Other federal
agencies issuing authorizations required for the Proposed Action must also
consider the information provided in the EIS in their decision-making processes.
Because the Proposed Action is located on public lands administered by the
BLM, the Project activities which require Imperial
County's approval or authorization (Reclamation Plan; Conditional Use Permit
for water well drilling and production; road abandonment, right-of-way acceptance,
and encroachment, etc.) are not land use authorizations, but approvals of
activities which either directly affect County operations or place environmental
controls on land uses. Under CEQA, the County must make the required findings
under the CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR Section 15091) and issue
any approval in conformance with 14 CCR 15092. Further, as the
lead agency under CEQA, the County is required to prepare an EIR (or, in
this case, a single, joint NEPA EIS/CEQA EIR) which reviews the environmental
effects of the Proposed Action and to certify that the EIR was completed
in compliance with CEQA. The certified EIR is also used by the other local
and state agencies issuing discretionary approvals for the Proposed Action
(as set forth in Section 1.8 and Table 1.4.),
which must still consider the information in the EIR in reaching their own
conclusions on whether or how to approve those portions of the Proposed
Action over which they have jurisdiction.
Table 1.3
| Revisions to Proposed Facilities or Operations: |
- Reduction of the mass of waste rock to be mined to 300 million
tons from 450 million tons as a result of additional geologic information.
|
- Reduction of the number of waste rock stockpiles from three (3)
to two (2).
|
- Reduction of the height of the South Waste Rock stockpile to 300 from
400 feet above ground level.
|
- Reduction of the number of soil stockpiles to two (2) from four (4)
through consolidation, and relocation of the remaining soil stockpiles
to reduce the possibility of stream erosion.
|
- Reconfiguration of the Project mine and process area boundary, heap
leach pad, waste rock stockpiles, and haul roads to avoid direct effects
to some of the prehistoric cultural features within the Project mine and
process area.
|
- Reduction in the total surface disturbance resulting from the Proposed
Action from 1,413 acres to 1,362 acres.
|
- Increasing the thickness of the heap leach pad liner and process pond
liner.
|
- Elimination of the transportation of liquid cyanide.
|
- Increase in the number of ephemeral wash diversion channels from four (4)
to five (5).
|
- Design of all drainage diversions to control the 6-hour, 100-year;
24-hour, 100-year; and 24-hour,500-year storm events.
|
- Clarification that the Singer Pit would be backfilled.
|
- Elimination of the Mineral Potential Area and any mining in this area
under this Proposed Action.
|
- Reduction in the amount of disturbed microphyll woodland within Project
mine and process area from 100 to 87 acres.
|
- Acquisition of off-site private lands with comparable microphyll woodland
habitat to compensate at a 3:1 ratio for all microphyll woodland directly
impacted by the Proposed Action.
|
- Developing an Memorandum of Agreement with the BLM
to reclaim lands disturbed by others at a 1:1 ratio for the 165 acres
of East Pit slopes not reclaimed under the Proposed Action.
|
- Agreement to purchase of off-site tortoise mitigation land within designated
critical habitat at a 1:1 ratio for all lands disturbed or removed from
tortoise habitat by fencing.
|
- Preparation of third-party pit slope stability analyses and agreement
to reanalyze slope stability after first year of mining in the West Pit
and East Pit.
|
- Preparation of third-party hydrologic/hydraulic analyses for the East
Pit and West Pit diversion ditches.
|
- Agreement to purchase and install three (3) wildlife guzzlers
off-site in the general vicinity of the Project Area.
|
| Revisions to the Project Reclamation Plan: |
- Clarification of reclamation goals.
|
- Regrading of all disturbed areas within the Project mine and process
area to round off sharp edges, remove "stair steps," and alter
straight lines to create undulating land forms that blend with the surrounding
topography.
|
- Removal of all below-grade structures and foundations from the Project
mine and process area.
|
- Revegetating all disturbed areas within the Project mine and process
area except the 165 acres of the slopes of the open East Pit.
|
- Higher reclamation revegetation standards.
|
- Higher physical and chemical reclamation bonding amounts.
|
1.6.1. Bureau of Land Management
This EIS/EIR was prepared in conformance with the policy guidance provided
in BLM's National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
Handbook (BLM Handbook H-1790-1). The handbook
provides instructions for compliance with the Council on Environmental Quality's
(CEQ's) regulations (40 CFR 1500-1508) for implementing the procedural
provisions of NEPA (Public Law 91-90, 42 USC 4321 et seq.)
and the Department of Interior's manual guidance on NEPA (516 DM 1-7).
Surface Management Authorizations and Relevant Plans:
Federal policy supports maintaining a viable domestic mining industry, and
encourage private parties to identify and develop economic domestic mineral
resources. The General Mining Law of 1872 (30 USC 22 et seq.)[1872
Mining Act] opened public lands to exploration and development of mineral
resources, granting a person who discovers valuable mineral deposits the
right to extract and sell these minerals. This policy was reaffirmed in
the Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, which stated that an "economically
sound" mining industry was important for both economic and national
security reasons, and in the National Materials and Minerals Policy, Research
and Development Act of 1980, which noted the need to encourage mineral exploration.
Section 302 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA)
and BLM regulations for surface management of
public land being mined under the general mining law (43 CFR 3809)
recognize the statutory right of mineral claim holders such as Glamis Imperial
to explore for, and develop, federal mineral resources, and encourages such
development. These regulations state, in part:
(43 CFR 3809.0-6) "Consistent with section 2 of
the Mining and Mineral Policy Act of 1970 and section 102(a)(7), (8),
and (12) of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, it is the policy
of the Department of the Interior to encourage the development of Federal
mineral resources and reclamation of disturbed lands. Under the mining
laws a person has a statutory right, consistent with Departmental regulations,
to go upon the open (unappropriated and unreserved) Federal lands for the
purpose of mineral prospecting, exploration, development, extraction and
other uses reasonably incident thereto. This statutory right carries with
it the responsibility to assure that operations include adequate and responsible
measures to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation of the Federal lands
and to provide for reasonable reclamation."
The following definitions are also provided in these regulations:
(43 CFR 3809.0-5(h)) "Person means any citizen
of the United States or person who has declared the intention to become
such and includes any individual, partnership, corporation, association,
or other legal entity." (43 CFR 3809.05(j)) "Reclamation
means taking such reasonable measures as will prevent unnecessary or undue
degradation of the Federal lands, including reshaping land disturbed by
operations to an appropriate contour and, where necessary, revegetating
disturbed areas so as to provide a diverse vegetative cover. Reclamation
may not be required where the retention of a stable highwall or other mine
workings is needed to preserve evidence of mineralization." (43 CFR 3809.05(k)
"Unnecessary or undue degradation means surface disturbance
greater than what would normally result when an activity is being accomplished
by a prudent operator in usual, customary, and proficient operations of
similar character and taking into consideration the effects of operations
on other resources and land uses, including those resources used outside
the area of operations. Failure to initiate and complete reasonable mitigation
measures, including reclamation of disturbed areas or creation of a nuisance,
may constitute unnecessary or undue degradation. Failure to comply with
applicable environmental protection statutes and regulations thereunder
will constitute unnecessary or undue degradation. Where specific statutory
authority requires the attainment of a stated level of protection or reclamation,
such as in the California
Desert Conservation Area , Wild and Scenic Rivers, areas designated
as part of the National Wilderness System administered by the Bureau of
Land Management and other such areas, that level of protection shall be
met."
Thus, these federal regulations require the BLM
to review proposed operations to ensure that: (1) adequate provisions
are included to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation of public lands;
(2) measures are included to provide for reasonable reclamation; and
(3) the proposed operations comply with other applicable federal, state
and local laws and regulations. Glamis Imperial, as a corporation formed
under the laws of the state of Nevada, is a "person" qualified
to hold and develop these mining claims under 43 CFR 3908 regulations.
Glamis Imperial has also submitted to the BLM
a proposed Plan of Operations (POO) as required under these regulations.
The Proposed Action would be located within the California Desert Conservation
Area (CDCA), which has been identified by Congress in the Federal Land
Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA) as a unique area in need of special
management by the BLM. Use of the lands and natural
resources within the CDCA are guided by the 1980 CDCA Plan (as amended).
All of the Project facilities would be located within multiple use Class L -
Limited Use, which is the second-most restrictive of the four (4) classifications.
Management of Class L areas is "oriented towards giving priority
protection to sensitive natural, scenic, ecological, and cultural resources
while placing limitations on other uses that may conflict with or degrade
these values" (USDI 1980). The multiple use guidelines adopted for
implementing the CDCA Plan in Class L lands recognize that locatable
mineral operations are non-discretionary, but state that the development
of locatable minerals on Class L lands would be limited to activities
necessary to achieve extraction with minimum environmental impact, using
best available mitigation technology and most effective feasible reclamation
practices. The CDCA Plan further states that, in this class, BLM
would review plans of operation "for potential impacts on sensitive
resources identified on lands in this class;" and that "Mitigation,
subject to technical and economic feasibility, will be required."
Reclamation Requirements:
The Mining and Mineral Policy Act of 1970 (MMPA) mandates that federal agencies
ensure that closure and reclamation of mine operations be completed in an
environmentally responsible manner. The MMPA states that the federal government
should promote the:
"...development of methods for the disposal, control, and reclamation
of mineral waste products, and the reclamation of mined lands, so as to
lessen any adverse impact of mineral extraction and processing upon the
physical environment that may result from mining or mineral activities."
The BLM's long-term reclamation goals are
to shape, stabilize, revegetate, or otherwise treat disturbed areas in order
to provide a self-sustaining, safe, and stable condition that provides a
productive use of the land which conforms to the approved land-use plan
for the area. The short-term reclamation goals are to stabilize disturbed
areas and to protect both disturbed and adjacent undisturbed areas from
unnecessary or undue degradation. Relevant BLM
policy and standards for reclamation are set forth in the BLM
Solid Minerals Reclamation Handbook (BLM Manual
Handbook H-3042-1) which provides consistent reclamation guidelines for
all solid non-coal mineral activities conducted under the authority of the
BLM minerals regulations in Title 43 of the Code
of Federal Regulations (BLM 1992a). The BLM must review the reclamation portions of the Imperial
Mine POO to determine if the Proposed Action would meet BLM's
reclamation standards and goals (see Appendix A).
Cyanide Management Plan Requirements:
The BLM's national cyanide management policy
requires the BLM state offices to prepare a Cyanide
Management Plan. The California State Office of the BLM
prepared and administers the California Cyanide Management Plan (BLM 1992b). The plan is applicable to all public lands
administered by the BLM in California, and it
would be applicable to the proposed Imperial Project cyanide heap leaching
and relevant precious metal recovery processes. The plan provides guidance
on cyanide use in mining activities and lists the following objectives:
- Implement the BLM's national cyanide management
policy;
- Ensure that mining operations using cyanide on BLM
managed lands follow best management practices and do not cause unnecessary
or undue degradation of the federal lands;
- Provide both the mine operator and the BLM
technical staff with standards for development and evaluation of mining
projects that use cyanide; and
- Use State Standards, if established.
The plan is not intended to duplicate requirements of other federal or
state agencies with responsibility for managing the use of cyanide in mining
operations. Where standards are established for mining operations by the
responsible California Regional Water Quality Control Board (CRWQCB
), such standards shall apply when reviewing a notice or a POO. BLM must review the Imperial Project POO to determine
if it is in conformance with the California Cyanide Management Plan.
1.6.2. Imperial County
Imperial County, through the ICPBD, has assumed responsibility as the
Lead Agency with respect to compliance with the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code 21000 et seq.). This
document is being prepared as an EIR in compliance with CEQA, the Guidelines
for the Implementation of CEQA (CEQA Guidelines) (14 CCR 15000
et seq.), and the applicable Imperial County guidelines for the preparation
of an EIR.
The Project is required to comply with the California Surface Mining and
Reclamation Act of 1975 (SMARA) and the applicable California Department
of Conservation regulations in Title 14, California Code of Regulations,
as implemented by the County of Imperial through the Planning/Building Department
with respect to approval of a reclamation plan. The reclamation plan must
be in accordance with SMARA, Imperial County's surface mining ordinance,
and state minimum reclamation standards set forth in 14 CCR 3700-3713
relating to wildlife habitat; geotechnical requirements; erosion and sediment
control; resoiling and revegetation; and other issues. Approval of the Project's
proposed Reclamation Plan must be obtained from Imperial County prior to
the commencement of construction, and the County may adopt conditions for
the approval of the Reclamation Plan.
Imperial County ordinance requires the approval of a Conditional Use Permit
prior to drilling of ground water production well(s). Imperial County's
"Groundwater Management Ordinance" also requires that a permit
be obtained from the Imperial County Public Works Director prior to commencing
the drilling of ground water production wells intended for continued use.
The Director must determine whether sufficient ground water is available
for the proposed use based on the projected use of ground water by the project
in accordance with Section 56614.01(b) of the Ordinance.
1.7. Purpose and Objectives of the Proposed Action
As referenced throughout this EIS/EIR, the Proposed Action consists of
all of the activities which comprise the Imperial Project, as proposed by
Glamis Imperial, and the overbuilding of the existing 34.5 kV electric
transmission line.
In 1989, Glamis Gold, Inc. purchased the mining claims that comprise the
Imperial Project from the previous claim holder. Between 1989 and 1995,
Glamis Gold, Inc. had conducted a drilling program that identified valuable
mineral deposits containing gold and silver on those claims within the areas
outlined as the West Pit, Singer Pit, and East Pit within the Project mine
and process area. The purpose of the Proposed Action is to develop and operate
a mine to recover the gold and silver ore resources from these valuable
mineral deposits identified on mining claims which have been staked or acquired
by Glamis Imperial Corporation under the General Mining Law of 1872.
Glamis Imperial's objectives for the Proposed Action are to:
- profitably recover precious metals (gold and silver) from these staked
mining claims;
- fully exercise its rights under the General Mining Law of 1872;
- reclaim the Project area in a manner that is environmentally responsible
and in compliance with United States mining laws, the California Desert
Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act
(FLPMA), the California Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) and
Imperial County's implementing regulations, and other applicable laws and
regulations;
- continue to provide employment in Imperial County, California and Yuma
County, Arizona for those individuals currently working for Chemgold, Inc.
at its Picacho Mine in Imperial County, California when that mine ceases
mining operations in late 1997; and
- directly increase the employment in the area by approximately 80 jobs.
1.8. Authorizing Actions
Based upon information received during the scoping process and during
subsequent discussions with various agencies, certain authorizing actions
have been identified as required, or probably required, prior to construction
or operation of the Proposed Action. A list of these authorizing actions,
organized by agency, is provided in Table 1.4.
Table 1.4
| AGENCY |
PERMIT NAME |
| Bureau of Land Management |
El Centro Resource Area |
Approve Plan of Operations for mine and process operations, including Reclamation
Plan |
| Approve Right-of-Way for existing and relocated sections of Indian Pass
Road |
| Approve authorizations for any wildlife guzzlers to be installed on public
lands |
| Approve Right-of-Way for new and overbuilt transmission lines and water
wells and pipeline |
| United States Fish and Wildlife Service |
Issue Opinion in Formal Consultation with BLM
under Section 7 of the federal Endangered Species Act |
| United States Army Corps of Engineers |
Approve Individual Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit |
| Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms |
Approve Use of High Explosives Permit |
| California Regional Water Quality Control Board |
Colorado River Basin Region |
Approve Waste Discharge Requirements for discharges of waste to land |
| Approve National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit (NPDES) for
Storm Water Discharge During Construction |
| Approve National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit (NPDES) for
Storm Water Discharge from Industrial Facilities |
| Approve Certification of Compliance with Section 401 of the federal
Clean Water Act |
| California Department of Fish and Game |
Approve California Endangered Species Act (California Fish and Game Code
Section 2081) Management Permit |
| Approve Stream or Lake Alteration Agreement (California Fish and Game Code
Section 1601 or 1603) |
| California State Office of Historic Preservation |
Section 106 Process |
| Imperial County |
Planning and Building Department |
Approve Reclamation Plan and Interim Management Plan for Project mine and
process area facilities |
| Approve Conditional Use Permit for drilling ground water production wells |
| Certify Final Environmental Impact Report in conformance with the California
Environmental Quality Act |
| Approve Building Permits and Certificate of Occupancy |
| Department of Health Services |
Approve Individual Septic Disposal System Permit |
| Approve Water System Permit |
| Approve County Waste Transfer Station Permit |
| Air Pollution Control District |
Approve Authority to Construct to construct for applicable air pollution
emission units |
| Approve Permit to Operate to operate applicable air pollution emission units |
| Department of Public Works |
Approve Encroachment Permit for Project access off, and relocation of, Indian
Pass Road |
| Approve Ground Water Extraction Permit |
| Board of Supervisors |
Approve Revocation of Road for Project relocation of Indian Pass Road |
| Fire Department |
Approve Plan Review for conformance with Uniform Fire Code |
|
